THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, From Our LORD's Incarnation, to the Twelfth Year of the Emperour MAURICIUS TIBERIUS, or the Year of CHRIST 594. As it was written in Greek, by EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine; SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS Native of Constantinople; and EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS born at Epiphania in Syria Secunda.

Made English from that Edition of these Historians, which VALESIUS published at Paris in the Years 1659, 1668, and 1673.

Also, The LIFE of CONSTANTINE in Four Books, Written by EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS; with CONSTANTINE'S ORATION to the CONVENTION OF THE SAINTS; and EUSEBIUS's Speech in Praise of CONSTANTINE, Spoken at His TRICENNALIA▪

VALESIUS's Annotations on these Authours, are done into English, and set at their proper places in the Margin; as likewise a Translation of His Account of their Lives and Writings.

With Two Index's; the one, of the Principal Matters that occur in the Text; the other, of those contained in the Notes.

[...].

Socrat. Eccles. Histor. Lib. 1. Cap. 18.
HINC LUCEM ET POCULA SACRA.

CAMBRIDGE, Printed by John Hayes, Printer to the University; For Han. Sawbridge, at the Sign of the Bible on Ludgate Hill, London. 1683.

The Publisher of this ENGLISH Translation to the READER.

VALESIUS has spoken so fully and satisfactorily concerning what He has done in His Edition of these following Ecclesiastick Historians, as to His Amendments of the Greek Text, as to His Latine Version of them, and as to His Explanation of the obscurer passages that occur in them; and besides, has added such com­pleat Accounts concerning the Lives and Histories of these Authours: (all which particulars, because they were judged necessary to be made known to the English Reader, are done into His own language, and prefixed before each Writer whom they concern:) that 'tis needless to give the Reader any farther trouble here, than barely to acquaint Him, for what reason this English-Transla­tion was at first attempted, and by what Helps and Assistances this attempt has at length been finished.

It can't be supposed a thing unknown to any person, though He may have been but meanly conversant amongst Books, that this is not the first time wherein these Church-Historians have appeared in English. For 'tis now almost a Compleat His E­pistle De­dicatory to Robert E. of Leicester bears date December the 15th. 1584. Century, since Meredith Hanmer Doctour of Divinity, first published His Translation of them all; excepting onely Eusebius's Four Books concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine, and the Two Orations subjoyned thereto: which, by a Dedication to Sr John Lambe Knight, Doctour of Laws, and Dean of the Arches of Canterbury, seem to have been made English several years after Doctour He dyed at Dublin, of the plague, an­no 1604. See Fuller's Worthies of Wales. Flintshire▪ pag. 39. Hanmer's death, by one Mr Wye Saltonstall.

After Four Editions of Doctour Hanmer's Translation, a fifth, whereto was added Mr Saltonstall's Version of the Life of Constantine and the Two Orations, was published in the Year 1650. Which Impression being sold off, and the Book become Scarce; the person whose propriety Dr Hanmer's Translation was, some few years since resolved to reprint it. This resolution He communicated to some friends, whom He knew to be able Advisers and Directers in an affair of that Nature. From them He received answer to this effect: that in Doctour Hanmer's Translation they saw many things that wanted Correction, which they supposed were not so much to be attributed to the Doctour, as to the imper­fection and mistakes of the Greek Text and those Latine Translatours, which the Doctour had made use of: that now there was a fair way opened, whereby the errours in the Doctour's Translation might be Corrected, in regard the Original Text of these Historians, after it had been compared with several Ancient Manu­scripts of the best Note, (whereby the imperfections in it were supplied, and the faults committed in other Editions amended;) was, together with an excellent Latine Version thereof, published at Paris by Henricus Valesius, a person of such emi­nent Learning, that by the unanimous consent of the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of [Page] the Gallican Church, He had been pitcht upon and employed as the fittest man to undertake a work of this Nature: and therefore their advise was, that the Doctour's Translation should be compared with that Edition of these Historians which Valesius had published, and that, whereever it differed, it should be made to agree with the Greek Text thereof.

After receipt of this advise, 'twas resolved it should be followed. And accordingly a Reverend and Learned Divine was prevailed with to undertake this Work. Who, after He had done some few Chapters onely of the First Book of Eusebius's History, for reasons best known to Himself desisted. But by this Tryal of His it plainly appeared, that (besides its being an invidious attempt to go about to interpolate what another person had long since put his last hand to;) it was a work of far greater labour to bring Doctor Hanmer's Translation to an agreement with the Greek Text of Valesius's Edition, than to make a New One. On which account this latter was resolv'd upon; and by Divine as­sistance being now finished, is here presented to the Reader's view.

The Reader having been acquainted with the Reason why this New Translation was at first attempted, 'tis fit He should know farther, by what Helps and As­sistances this attempt has at length been finished.

This Version, as has been intimated, was taken immediately from the Greek, according to that Edition which Henricus Valesius set forth at Paris: whence this advantage will accrue, that whatever errours are found in it, will be errours but of one descent. Besides Valesius's Edition, That which Robert Stephens Printed at Paris in the year 1544, was likewise all along consulted. Nor were the Latine Translatours of these Historians refused or neglected: namely these four; Musculus's Version Dedicated to Edward the Sixth, King of England, and Printed at Basil in the year 1549; the Translation of John Christophorson (heretoforeSee God­wi [...] de Pr [...]sulibus Angliae, pag. 561: and Ful­ler's Wor­thies. Lan­cashire. Master of Trinity Colledge in Cambridge, afterwards Bishop of Chichester;) Printed at Coloigne. in the year 1570; John Curterius's Version, or rather his Emendation of Christophorson's, Printed at Paris in the year 1571; and lastly Grinaeus's Translation, set forth at Basil in the year 1591. All which Versions were all along inspected; and in all places that required it, their Disagreements or Consents are (as the Reader will find,) taken notice of; unless the Learned Valesius's diligence had made those Remarks needless.

As for the Notes they are in a manner all Valesius's: nor is any Remark of his left untranslated (though perhaps some times made shorter;) that was judg'd of use to an English Reader, and becoming an English Translation. If the Reader does, as now and then He will, meet with a Note that has not Valesius's name set at the bottome; He may conclude that not to be Valesius's; however, He generally meets with some intimation or other, whereby notice is given him, on what authority such a remark is grounded. But whereas in Valesius's Edition, His Notes on all these Historians are placed together in a Body by them­selves, at the latter end of each Authour whereto they belong: here the Reader has them embodied with the Text, and by the Letters of the Alphabet He is shown the passages in the History, whereof they treat. In which method the Reader's [...]ase was consulted, that He might not have the trouble and inter­ruption given Him, of turning forward and backward, from the Matter to the Notes, and from thence to the Matter.

[Page]How far this Translation is beholding to That done by Doctour Hanmer, will quickly be discovered by any, that shall take the pains to compare them. It need not be dissembled, that the Doctour's Version has been seen; and 'tis as need­less to detain the Reader in shewing Him by tedious instances, that He has not been, nor could have been followed, without a departure from the Original Greek as published by Valesius.

It onely remains, that the Reader be entreated, before He peruses this Translation, to mend those faults in it that are mentioned in The Errata; and to pardon all others He shall meet with. Which that He may the easier be perswaded to, He is desired to be mindful of this excel­lent saying:

[...]
'Tis God's property to mistake in nothing, and to correct all things.

THE CONTENTS Of the Whole WORK.

The Contents of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History in X. Books.

Book I.
  • Chap. 1. THE Subject of this Work. Page 1
  • Chap. 2. A brief summary concerning the Praeexistence and Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Page 2
  • Chap. 3. That the very name of Jesus, and also that of Christ was from the beginning both known and honoured among the Divine Prophets. Page 5
  • Chap. 4. That the Religion by him declared to all Na­tions, is neither new nor strange. Page 6
  • Chap. 5. Of the times of our Saviours manifestation unto men. Page 7
  • Chap. 6. That in his time, according to the predictions of the Prophets, the Princes of the Jewish Nation who before by succession had held the Principality, surceased, and that Herod, the first of the Aliens, became their King. Page 8
  • Chap. 7. Of the disagreement supposed to be among the Gospels about the Genealogy of Christ. Page 9
  • Chap. 8. Of Herods cruelty towards the Infants, and after how miserable a manner he ended his life. Page 10
  • Chap. 9. Of the Times of Pilate. Page 12
  • Chap. 10. Of the High-priests among the Jews, in whose time Christ Preached the Gospel. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. What hath been testified concerning John the Baptist, and concerning Christ. Page 13
  • Chap. 12. Concerning our Saviours disciples. ibid.
  • Chap. 13. The History of the Prince of the Edessens. ibid.
Book II.
  • THE Preface. Page 15
  • Chap. 1. Of those things which were instituted by the Apostles, after the Ascension of Christ. ibid.
  • Chap. 2. How Tiberius was affected at the Relation Pilate sent him of those things concerning Christ. Page 16
  • Chap. 3. How the Doctrine of Christ spread in a short time over the whole world. Page 17
  • Chap. 4. How, after the death of Tiberius, Caius made Agrippa King over the Jews, and punished Herod with perpetual banishment. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. How Philo went on an Embassage to Caius upon the Jews Account. Page 18
  • Chap. 6. How great miseries befell the Jews after their audacious wickedness committed against Christ. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. That Pilate made himself away. Page 19
  • Chap. 8. Of the Dearth that happened in Claudius his time. ibid.
  • Chap. 9. The Martyrdom of James the Apostle. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. How Agrippa, called also Herod, persecuting the Apostles, presently felt the Divine ven­geance. Page 20
  • Chap. 11. Of the Impostour Theudas and his Asso­ciates. ibid.
  • Chap. 12. Of Helena Queen of the Osdroënians. Page 21
  • Chap. 13. Of Simon Magus. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. Of Peter the Apostle's Preaching at Rome. Page 22
  • Chap. 15. Of the Gospel according to Mark. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. That Mark first Preached the knowledge of Christ to the Egyptians. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. What Philo relates of the Ascetae in Egypt. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. What Writings of Philo's have come to our hands. Page 24
  • Chap. 19. What a calamity befell the Jews at Jerusalem on the very day of the Passover. Page 25
  • Chap. 20. What was done at Jerusalem in the Reign of Nero. ibid.
  • Chap. 21. Of that Egyptian who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Page 26
  • Chap. 22. How Paul, being sent bound from Judea to Rome, having made his defence, was wholly ac­quitted. ibid.
  • Chap. 23. How James, called the brother of the Lord, was Martyred. Page 27
  • Chap. 24. How, after Mark, Annianus was constituted the first Bishop of the Church of the Alexan­drians. Page 29
  • Chap. 25. Of the Persecution in the time of Nero, in which Paul and Peter were for Religion graced with Martyrdom at Rome. ibid.
  • Chap. 26. How the Jews were vexed with innumerable mischiefs, and how at last they entred upon a War against the Romans. Page 30
Book III.
  • Chap. 1. IN what parts of the world the Apostles Preached Christ. Page 30
  • Chap. 2. Who first Presided over the Roman Church. Page 31
  • Chap. 3. Concerning the Epistles of the Apostles. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. Of the first Succession of the Apostles. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. Of the last siege of the Jews after Christs death. Page 32
  • Chap. 6. Of the famine that oppressed the Jews. Page 33
  • Chap. 7. Of Christs Predictions. Page 35
  • Chap. 8. Concerning the Prodigies that appeared before the War. ibid.
  • Chap. 9. Of Josephus, and the Writings he left Page 36
  • Chap. 10. How Josephus makes mention of the Holy Bible. Page 37
  • Chap. 11. How, after James, Simeon governed the Church at Jerusalem. Page 38
  • [Page] Chap. 12. How Vespasian commanded that the descendants of David should be sought out▪ ibid.
  • Chap. 13. That Anencletus was the second Bishop of the Roman Church. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. That Avilius was the second Bishop of Alexan­dria. ibid.
  • Chap. 15. That Clemens was the third Bishop of the Roman Church. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. Concerning the Epistle of Clemens. Page 39
  • Chap. 17. Of the Persecution in Domitians time. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. Concerning John the Apostle, and his Revela­tion. ibid.
  • Chap. 19. How Domitian commanded that the descendants of David should be [...]lain. ibid.
  • Chap. 20. Concerning those that were Related to our Sa­viour. ibid.
  • Chap. 21. That Cerdo was the third that presided over the Alexandrian Church. Page 40
  • Chap. 22. That Ignatius was the second that presided over the Alexandrian Church. ibid.
  • Chap. 23. A Relation concerning John the Apostle. ibid.
  • Chap. 24. Concerning the order of the Gospels. Page 41
  • Chap. 25. Concerning those Divine writings, which are with­out coutroversie acknowledged; and of those which are not such. Page 42
  • Chap. 26. Of Menander the Impostour. Page 43
  • Chap. 27. Of the Heresie of the Ebionites. ibid.
  • Chap. 28. Of the Arch-Heretick Cerinthus. Page 44
  • Chap. 29. Of Nicholas, and those Hereticks who bear his name. ibid.
  • Chap. 30. Concerning those Apostles that are found to have been married. Page 45
  • Chap. 31. Of the death of John and Philip. ibid.
  • Chap. 32. How Simeon the Bishop of Jerusalem suffered Martyrdom. Page 46
  • Chap. 33. How Trajan forbad that the Christians should be sought after. ibid.
  • Chap. 34. That Evarestus was the Fourth that governed the Roman Church. Page 47
  • Chap. 35. That Justus was the Third that governed the Church at Jerusalem. ibid.
  • Chap. 36. Concerning Ignatius and his Epistles. ibid.
  • Chap. 37. Concerning those Preachers of the Gospel who at that time were eminent. Page 48
  • Chap. 38. Concerning the Epistle of Clemens, and those other Writings, which are falsly attributed to him. ibid.
  • Chap. 39. Concerning the Books of Papias. Page 49
Book IV.
  • Chap. 1. WHo were the Bishops of the Roman, and Alexandrian Churches in the Reign of Trajane. pag. 50
  • Chap. 2. What the Jews suffered in this Emperours time. ibid.
  • Chap. 3. Who, in the time of Adrian, wrote Apologies in defence of the Faith. Page 51
  • Chap. 4. Who were ennobled with the Title of Bishops over the Roman, and Alexandrian Churches in this Emperours time. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. Who were Bishops of Jerusalem from our Saviour, even to these times. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. The last Siege of the Jews in the time of A­drian. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. Who at that time were the Authours of false Doctrine. Page 52
  • Chap. 8. What Ecclesiastical Writers there were in those times. Page 53
  • Chap. 9. The Rescript of Adrian, that we Christians should not be unjustly prosecuted. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. Who in the Reign of Antoninus were Bishops of the Roman and Alexandrian Sees. Page 54
  • Chap. 11. Concerning those who were Arch-Hereticks in these times. ibid.
  • Chap. 12. Concerning Justin's Apologie to Antoninus. Page 55
  • Chap. 13. The Rescript of Antoninus to the Common Council of Asia, concerning our Religion. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. Some memoirs of Polycarp the Disciple of the Apostles. Page 56
  • Chap. 15. How, in the Reign of Verus, Polycarp, together with others, suffered Martyrdom in the City of Smyrna. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. How Justin the Philosopher, asserting the Chri­stian Religion at the City of Rome, suffered Martyrdom. Page 60
  • Chap. 17. Concerning those Martyrs, whom Justin makes mention of in his Apologie. Page 61
  • Chap. 18. What Books of Justin's are come to our hands. Page 62
  • Chap. 19. Who, in the Reign of Verus, presided over the Churches of Rome, and Alexandria. ibid.
  • Chap. 20. Who then Governed the Church of Antioch. Page 63
  • Chap. 21. Concerning the Ecclesiastical Writers who flourisht in that Age. ibid.
  • Chap. 22. Concerning Hegesippus, and those he makes men­tion of. ibid.
  • Chap. 23. Concerning Dionysius, Bishop of the Corinthians, and the Epistles he wrote. Page 64
  • Chap. 24. Concerning Theophilus, Bishop of the Antio­chians. Page 65
  • Chap. 25. Concerning Philippus and Modestus. ibid.
  • Chap. 26. Concerning Melito, and what he has made men­tion of. ibid.
  • Chap. 27. Concerning Apollinaris, Bishop of the Hierapol [...] ­tane Church. Page 66
  • Chap. 28. Concerning Musanus, and his Writings. Page 67
  • Chap. 29. Concerning Tatianus and his Heresie ibid.
  • Chap. 30. Concerning Bardesanes the Syrian, and those Books of his that are extant. ibid.
Book V.
  • THE Preface. Page 68
  • Chap. 1. How many in the Reign of Verus, underwent most [...]ore Persecution in France for Religion; and after what manner they suffered. ibid.
  • Chap. 2. How the Martyrs beloved of God, kindly receiving such as fell away in the persecution, wrought a cure upon them. Page 74
  • Chap. 3. What a Vision appeared to the Martyr Attalus in his sleep. Page 75
  • Chap. 4. How the Martyrs, by their Epistle, recommended Irenaeus. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. How God, having from heaven heard the prayers of some of our Religion, sent rain to Marcus Aurelius Caesar. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. A Catalogue of those who were Bishops of Rome. Page 76
  • Chap. 7. That, even to those times, Miracles were wrought by the faithfull. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. After what manner Irenaeus makes mention of the Divine Scriptures. Page 77
  • Chap. 9. Who were Bishops in the Reign of Com­modus. Page 78
  • Chap. 10. Concerning Pantaenus the Philosopher. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. Concerning Clemens Alexandrinus. ibid.
  • Chap. 12. Concerning the Bishops of Jerusalem. Page 79
  • Chap. 13. Concerning Rhodon, and the Dissention of the Marcionites, which he has made men­tion of. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. Concerning the false Prophets of the Cataphry­gians. Page 80
  • Chap. 15. Concerning the Schism of Blastus raised at Rome. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. What has been committed to memory concerning Montanus, and his false Prophets. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Concerning Mil [...]des, and the books he com­piled. Page 82
  • [Page] Chap. 18. How Apollonius also confuted the Cataphry­gians, and whom he has made mention of. ibid.
  • Chap. 19. Serapion's Opinion concerning the Heresie of the Cataphrygians. Page 84
  • Chap. 20. What Irenaeus wrote against the Schismaticks at Rome. ibid.
  • Chap. 21. How Apollonius suffered Martyrdom at Rome. Page 85
  • Chap. 22. What Bishops flourisht at that time. Page 86
  • Chap. 23. Concerning the Question then moved about Easter. ibid.
  • Chap. 24. Concerning the Disagreement of the Churches throughout Asia. ibid.
  • Chap. 25. How all with one consent unanimously agreed about Easter. Page 89
  • Chap. 26. How many Monuments of Irenaeus's Polite In­genie have come to our hands. ibid.
  • Chap. 27. How many also of the works of others, who then flourished, are come to our knowledge. ibid.
  • Chap. 28. Concerning those, who from the beginning were defenders of Artemon's Heresie; what man­ner of persons they were as to their Morals, and how that they were so audacious as to cor­rupt the Sacred Scriptures. ibid.
Book. VI.
  • Chap. 1. COncerning the Persecution under Seve­rus. pag. 91
  • Chap. 2. Concerning Origens virtuous course of life from a child. ibid.
  • Chap. 3. How Origen being very young Preacht the word of Christ. Page 92
  • Chap. 4. How many of those who had been instructed by him, became Martyrs. Page 93
  • Chap. 5. Concerning Potamiaena. Page 94
  • Chap. 6. Concerning Clemens Alexandrinus. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. Concerning Judas the Writer. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. Concerning the bold Act of Origen. Page 95
  • Chap. 9. Concerning the Miracles of Narcissus. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. Concerning the Bishops of Jerusalem. Page 96
  • Chap. 11. Concerning Alexander. ibid.
  • Chap. 12. Concerning Serapion, and his Books that are ex­tant. Page 97
  • Chap. 13. Concerning the Writings of Clemens. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. What Writings Clemens has mentioned. Page 98
  • Chap. 15. Concerning Heraclas. Page 99
  • Chap. 16. What pains and study Origen bestowed about the Holy Scriptures. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Concerning Symmachus the Translatour. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. Concerning Ambrosius. Page 100
  • Chap. 19. What things have been recorded concerning Origen, by the Gentiles. ibid.
  • Chap. 20. What Books are now extant of such as wrote in these times. Page 102
  • Chap. 21. What Bishops were eminent in those times. ibid.
  • Chap. 22. How many of Hippoly [...]us's works are come to our hands. Page 103
  • Chap. 23. Concerning Origen's. studiousness, and how he was honoured with the dignity of Priest­hood. ibid.
  • Chap. 24. Concerning the Expositions he made at Alexan­dria. ibid.
  • Chap. 25. After what manner Origen has mentioned the Books of the Old and New Testament. Page 104
  • Chap. 26. How Heraclas succeeded in the Bishoprick of Alexandria. Page 105
  • Chap. 27. How the Bishops had him in admiration. ibid.
  • Chap. 28. Concerning the Persecution under Maximinus. ibid.
  • Chap. 29. Concerning Fabian, how unexpectedly he was E­lected by God Bishop of Rome. Page 106
  • Chap. 30. Who were Origen's Schollars. ibid.
  • Chap. 31. Concerning Africanus. ibid.
  • Chap. 32. What Expositions Origen wrote at Caesarea in Palestine. ibid.
  • Chap. 33. Concerning the Errour of Beryllus. pag. 107
  • Chap. 34. Concerning Philip the Emperour. ibid.
  • Chap. 35. How Dionysius succeeded Heraclas in his Bi­shoprick. ibid.
  • Chap. 36. What other books were written by Origen. ibid.
  • Chap. 37. Concerning the dissention of the Arabians. Page 108
  • Chap. 38. Concerning the Heresie of the Helcesaïts. ibid.
  • Chap. 39. Concerning what happened in the times of De­cius. ibid.
  • Chap. 40. Concerning what things happened to Diony­sius. Page 109
  • Chap. 41. Concerning those who suffer'd Martyrdom at A­lexandria. ibid.
  • Chap. 42. Concerning some other things which Dionysius relates. Page 111
  • Chap. 43. Concerning Novatus, what manner of person he was as to his morals; and concerning his He­resie. Page 112
  • Chap. 44. Dionysius's story concerning Serapion. Page 115
  • Chap. 45. Dionysius's Epistle to Novatus. ibid.
  • Chap. 46. Concerning Dionysius's other Epistles. Page 116
Book VII.
  • THE Preface. pag. 117
  • Chap. 1 Concerning the wickedness of Decius and Gal­lus. ibid.
  • Chap. 2. Who about these times were Bishops of Rome. ibid.
  • Chap. 3. How Cyprian, with some Bishops which were of his mind, was the first that was of the Opinion, that the Converts of any Heretical Sect what­ever, ought to be rebaptized. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. How many Epistles Dionysius wrote concerning this Controversie. Page 118
  • Chap. 5. Concerning the Peace which followed the Perse­cution. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. Concerning the Heresie of Sabellius. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. Concerning the most execrable Errour of the He­reticks, and concerning the Vision sent from God which appeared to Dionysius, and the Ec­clesiastick Canon he received. Page 119
  • Chap. 8. Concerning Novatus's Heresie. Page 120
  • Chap. 9. Concerning the Baptism of Hereticks, that it is impious. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. Concerning Valerian, and the Persecution in his Reign. Page 121
  • Chap. 11. Concerning what then happened to Dionysius, and to those Christians which were in Egypt. Page 122
  • Chap. 12. Concerning the Martyrs which suffered at Cae­sarea in Palestine. Page 124
  • Chap. 13. Concerning the Peace under Gallienus. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. What Bishops flourisht in those times. Page 125
  • Chap. 15. How Marinus was Martyred at Caesarea. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. A Relation concerning Astyrius. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Concerning the mighty Miracles of our Saviour at Paneas. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. Concerning the Statue, which the Woman who had the Flux of bloud, erected. Page 126
  • Chap. 19. Concerning the Chair of James the Apostle. ibid.
  • Chap. 20. Concerning Dionysius's Paschal Epistles, in which he prescribeth a Canon concerning Easter. ibid.
  • Chap. 21. Concerning what things happened at Alexan­dria. Page 127
  • Chap. 22. Concerning the Plague, which then raged. ibid.
  • Chap. 23. Concerning the Reign of Gallienus. Page 129
  • Chap. 24. Concerning Nepos, and his Schism. ibid.
  • Chap. 25. Concerning the Revelation of John. Page 130
  • Chap. 26. Concerning Dionysius's Epistles. Page 132
  • Chap. 27. Concerning Paul of Samosata, and the Heresie founded by him at Antioch. ibid.
  • Chap. 28. Concerning the Eminent Bishops of those Times. ibid.
  • [Page] Chap. 29. How Paul being confuted by M [...]lchion a Presbyter▪ (who formerly had been one of the Soph [...]ae) was deposed. pag. 133
  • Chap. 30. Concerning the Epistle of the Bishops against Paul. ibid.
  • Chap. 31. Concerning the heterodox and corrupt opinion of the Manichees which sprang up at this time. Page 135
  • Chap. 32. Concerning those Ecclesiastick m [...]n who were fa­mous even in our Age, and which of them lived till the demolishing of the Churches. ibid.
Book VIII.
  • THE Preface. pag. 139
  • Chap. 1. Concerning those things which preceded the Per­secution in our days. ibid.
  • Chap. 2. Concerning the Ruine of the Churches. Page 140
  • Chap. 3. Concerning the various sorts of combats which the Martyrs underwent in the time of the Per­secution. Page 141
  • Chap. 4. Concerning God's illustrious Martyrs; how they fill'd the world with their fame, having been adorned with divers crowns of Martyrdom for Religion. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. Concerning what was done at Nicomedia. Page 142
  • Chap. 6. Concerning those who were conversant in the Im­perial Palaces. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. Concerning those Egyptians who suffered in Phoe­nicia. Page 143
  • Chap. 8. Concerning those who suffered in Egypt. Page 144
  • Chap. 9. Concerning those who suffered at Thebais. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. The written informations of Phileas the Martyr, concerning what was done at Alexandria. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. Concerning what was done in Phrygia. Page 146
  • Chap. 12. Concerning many other men and women, who suffered Martyrdom in a various and different manner. ibid.
  • Chap. 13. Concerning those Prelates of the Church who demonstrated the sincerity of the Religion they asserted by the effusion of their own bloud. Page 147
  • Chap. 14. Concerning the Morals of those that were the ene­mies of Religion. Page 149
  • Chap. 15. Concerning what happened to the Gen­tiles. Page 151
  • Chap. 16. Concerning the Change of affairs to a better po­sture. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Concerning the Retractation of the Emperours. ibid.
  • A Supplement to the Eighth Book. pag. 153
    • Chap. 1. Concerning Procopius, Alphaeus, and Zacchaeus, Martyrs. Page 154
    • Chap. 2. Concerning Romanus the Martyr. Page 158
    • Chap. 3. Concerning Timorheus, Agapius, Thecla, and eight other Martyrs. Page 159
    • Chap. 4. Concerning Apphianus the Martyr. ibid.
    • Chap. 5. Concerning Ulpianus and Aedefius Martyrs. Page 161
    • Chap. 6. Concerning the Martyrs Agapius▪ Page 16 [...]
    • Chap. 7. Concerning the Virgin Theodosi [...], and concerning Domninus, and Auxentius, Martyrs. ibid.
    • Chap. 8. Concerning other Confessours, and concerning the Martyrdom of Valentina and Paul. Page 16 [...]
    • Chap. 9. That the Persecution was afresh revewed and con­cerning Antoninus, Z [...], Germanus, and other Martyrs. Page 164
    • Chap. 10. Concerning Peter the Asceta; Aselepius the Mar­cionite, and other Martyrs. Page 166
    • Chap. 11. Concerning Pamphilus, and twelve other Mar­tyrs. ibid.
    • Chap. 12. Concerning the Prelates of the Churches. Page 169
    • Chap. 13. Concerning Silvanus, John, and thirty nine other Martyrs. ibid.
Book IX.
  • Chap. 1. COncerning the Counterfeited Cessation of the Persecution. pag. 171
  • Chap. 2. Concerning the change of affairs which did after­wards ensue. Page 172
  • Chap. 3. Concerning an Image lately made at Antioch. Page 173
  • Chap. 4. Concerning the Decrees of the Cities against the Christians. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. Concerning the forged Acts. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. Concerning them that suffered Martyrdom in those Times. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. Concerning the Edict against us, which was en­graven on Brazen plates and hung up on the Pillars. Page 174
  • Chap. 8. Concerning what afterward hapned, in the time of the Wars, of the Famine, and of the Pesti­lence. Page 175
  • Chap. 9. Concerning the death of the Tyrants, and what expressions they used before their deaths. Page 176
  • Chap. 10. Concerning the Victory obtained by the Pious Em­perours. Page 179
  • Chap. 11. Concerning the final Destruction of the enemies of Religion. Page 181
Book X.
  • Chap. 1. COncerning the Peace, which was procured by God for us. pag. 183
  • Chap. 2. Concerning the Re-edification of the Chur­ches. Page 184
  • Chap. 3. Concerning the Consecration of Churches every where solemniz'd. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. A Panegyrick concerning the splendid posture of our Affairs. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. Copies of the Imperial Laws. Page 192
  • Chap. 6. Concerning the Estates belonging to the Chri­stians. Page 19 [...]
  • Chap. 7. Concerning the Immunity of the Clergy. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. Concerning Licinius's exorbitancies which after­wards ensued, and concerning his death. ibid.
  • Chap. 9. Concerning Constantius's Victory, and concerning the prosperity procured by him to all those that live under the power of the Romans. Page 197

The Contents of the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus in VII. Books.

Book. I.
  • Chap. 1. THE Preface to the whole Book. pag. 209
  • Chap. 2. After what manner Constantine the Emperour was converted to the Christian Religion. ibid.
  • Chap. 3. How whilst Constantine augmented the prosperity of the Christians, Licinius his Collegue perse­cuted them. Page 2 [...]0
  • Chap. 4. That there was a war raised betwixt Constan­tine [Page] and Licinius upon account of the Chri­stians. Page 211
  • Chap. 5. Concerning Arius's contest with Alexander the Bishop. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. How from this contention there arose a division in the Church, and how Alexander Bishop of Alexandria deposed Arius and his Compli­ces. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. How Constantine the Emperour, griev'd at these disturbances in the Church, sent Hosius a Spaniard to Alexandria, to exhort the Bishop and Arius to a reconciliation. Page 214
  • Chap. 8. Concerning the Council held at Nicaea a City of Bithynia, and concerning the Faith there pub­lished. Page 215
  • Chap. 9. The Epistle of the Synod, concerning those mat­ters determined by it, and how Arius was de­graded, together with them that embraced his Sentiments. Page 219
  • Chap. 10. That the Emperour summoned to the Synod Ace­sius also, a Bishop of the Novatian He­resie. Page 225
  • Chap. 11. Concerning Paphnutius the Bishop. ibid.
  • Chap. 12. Concerning Spyridon Bishop of the Cyprians. Page 226
  • Chap. 13. Concerning Eutychianus the Monk. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. That Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis Bishop of Nice (who had been banished be­cause they were abettors of Arius's Opinion) having afterwards sent a Libell of Repentance, and agreed to the exposition of the Faith, were readmitted to their Sees. Page 227
  • Chap. 15. That Alexander dying after the Nicene Synod, Athanasius was consecrated Bishop of the City Alexandria. Page 229
  • Chap. 16. How the Emperour Constantine, having enlarged the City heretofore call'd Byzantium, named it Constantinople. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. How Helena the Emperours Mother, came to Je­rusalem, and having there found Christs Cross, which she had sought for a long time, built a Church. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. How the Emperour Constantine abolished Genti­lism, and erected many Churches in several places. Page 230
  • Chap. 19. After what manner the Innermost Indian Na­tions were in the time of Constantine converted to Christianity. Page 231
  • Chap. 20. After what manner the Iberians were converted to the Christian Religion. Page 232
  • Chap. 21. Concerning Antonius the Monk. Page 233
  • Chap. 22. Concerning Manes the Author of the Heresie of the Manichees, and whence he had his ori­ginal. ibid.
  • Chap. 23. How Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nice, taking courage again, endea­voured to subvert the Nicene Creed, by plot­ting against Athanasius. Page 234
  • Chap. 24. Concerning the Synod convened at Antioch, which deposed Eustathius Bishop of Antioch: upon whose account there was a Sedition raised, by which that City was almost ruined. Page 235
  • Chap. 25. Concerning the Presbyter, who made it his business to get Arius recalled. Page 236
  • Chap. 26. How Arius, being recalled from Exile, and having given up a Libell of Repentance to the Em­perour, did therein hypocritically pretend him­self an asserter of the Nicene Creed. Page 237
  • Chap. 27. How Arius returned to Alexandria by the Em­perours order, and upon Athanasius's refusal to admit him, Eusebius's faction framed di­vers accusations against Athanasius before the Emperour. ibid.
  • Chap. 28. That the Emperour ordered a Synod of Bishops should be convened at Tyre, upon account of the accusations brought against Athanasius. Page 239
  • Chap. 29. Concerning Arsenius, and his hand which was reported to have been cut off. ibid.
  • Chap. 30. That Athanasius being found innocent after his first accusation, his Accusers made their escape by flight. ibid.
  • Chap. 31. That Athanasius fled to the Emperour, upon the Bishops not admitting of his defence at his second accusation. Page 240
  • Chap. 32. That after Athanasius's departure, he was depo­posed by the Vote of the Synod. ibid.
  • Chap. 33. How the Synod, having left Tyre, came to Jeru­salem, and after the celebration of the feast of Dedication of the New Jerusalem, readmitted Arius to communion. ibid.
  • Chap. 34 That the Emperour by his Letter summoned the Synod to attend him, that Athanasius's case might be accurately discussed in his presence. Page 241
  • Chap. 35. That, when the Synod came not to the Emperour, the Eusebians accused Athanasius, as if he had threatned, that he would prohibit the car­riage of that Corn, with which Alexandria furnished Constantinople. Whereupon the Emperour, being incensed, banished Athanasius, confining him to the Gallia's. ibid.
  • Chap. 36. Concerning Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, and A­sterius the Sophista. Page 242
  • Chap. 37. How, after Athanasius was exiled, Arius, being sent for from Alexandria by the Emperour, raised disturbances against Alexander Bishop of Constantinople. ibid.
  • Chap. 38. Concerning Ariu's death. Page 243
  • Chap. 39. How Constantine, falling into a distemper, ended his life. ibid.
  • Chap. 40. Concerning Constantine the Emperours Fu­neral. ibid.
Book II.
  • Chap. 1. THE Preface, wherein he gives an account, why he made a new Edition of his First and Second Book. pag. 245
  • Chap. 2. How Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia with his ac­complices, earnestly endeavouring to introduce Arius's opinion again, made disturbances in the Churches. ibid.
  • Chap. 3. How Athanasius, confiding in the Letter of Con­stantine the Younger, returned to Alexan­dria. Page 246
  • Chap. 4. That upon Eusebius Pamphilus's death, Acacius suc­ceeded in the Bishoprick of Caesarea. Page 247
  • Chap. 5. Concerning the death of Constantine the Youn­ger. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. How Alexander Bishop of Constantinople, at his death, proposed Paulus and Macedonius to be elected into his Bishoprick. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. How the Emperour Constantius ejected Paulus who had been Ordained Bishop: and, ha­ving sent for Eusebius from Nicomedia, en­trusted him with the Bishoprick of Constan­tinople. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. How Eusebius assembled another Synod at An­tioch of Syria, and caused another form of Faith to be published. Page 248
  • Chap. 9. Concerning Eusebius Emisenus. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. That the Bishops convened at Antioch, upon Eu­sebius Emisenus's refusal of the Bishoprick of Alexandria, Ordained Gregorius, and altered the expressions of the Nicene Faith. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. That, upon Gregorius's arrival at Alexandria guarded with a Military force, Athanasius fled. Page 250
  • Chap. 12. How, after Eusebius's death, the people of Con­stantinople restored Paulus to his See again. [Page] And that the Arians made choice of Mace­donius. pag. 250
  • Chap. 13. Concerning the slaughter of Hermogenes the Lieu­tenant-General, and how Paulus was for that reason turned out of the Church again. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. That the Arians, having removed Gregorius from the see of Alexandria, put Georgius into his place. Page 251
  • Chap. 15. How Athanasius and Paulus, going to Rome, and being fortified with Bishop Julius's Let­ters, recovered their own Sees again. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. That the Emperour sent an order by Philippus Praefect of the Pretorium, that Paulus should be ejected and banished, and that Macedonius should be enstalled Bishop in his See. Page 252
  • Chap. 17. That Athanasius, being afraid of the Emperours menaces, returned to Rome again. Page 253
  • Chap. 18. How the Emperour of the Western parts requested of his brother, that such persons might be sent, as could give an account of the deposition of A­thanasius and Paulus. And, that they who were sent published another form of the Creed. Page 254
  • Chap. 19. Concerning the large Explanation of the Faith. ibid.
  • Chap. 20. Concerning the Synod at Serdica. Page 256
  • Chap. 21. An Apology for Eusebius Pamphilus. Page 258
  • Chap. 22. That the Synod of Serdica restored Paulus and Athanasius to their Sees, and that, upon the Eastern Emperours refusal to admit them, the Emperour of the West threatned him with War. Page 259
  • Chap. 23. That Constantius, being afraid of his Brothers Menaces, by his Letters ordered Athanasius to appear, and sent him to Alexandria. Page 260
  • Chap. 24. That Athanasius, passing through Jerusalem in his return to Alexandria, was received into Communion by Maximus, and convened a Sy­nod of Bishops which confirmed the Nicene Faith. Page 262
  • Chap. 25. Concerning the Tyrant Magnentius and Vetra­nio. Page 263
  • Chap. 26. How, after the Death of Constans the Western Emperour, Paulus and Athanasius were E­jected out of their own Sees again. And, that Paulus, after his being carried into banishment, was slain. But Athanasius made his escape by flight. ibid.
  • Chap. 27. That Macedonius, having got possession of the See of Constantinople, did much mischief to those that in opinion dissented from him. Page 264
  • Chap. 28. Concerning what was done at Alexandria by Geor­gius the Arian; from Athanasius's own rela­tion. ibid.
  • Chap. 29. Concerning Photinus the Arch-Heretick. Page 265
  • Chap. 30. Concerning the forms of the Creed published at Sir­mium, in the presence of the Emperour Con­stantius. Page 266
  • Chap. 31. Concerning Hosius Bishop of Corduba. Page 269
  • Chap. 32. Concerning the overthrow of Magnentius the Ty­rant. ibid.
  • Chap. 33. Concerning the Jews inhabiting Dio-Caesarea in Palestine. Page 270
  • Chap. 34. Concerning Gallus Caesar. ibid.
  • Chap. 35. Concerning Aëtius the Syrian, Eunomius's Ma­ster. ibid.
  • Chap. 36. Concerning the Synod at Millaine. Page 271
  • Chap. 37. Concerning the Synod at Ariminum, and con­cerning the Draught of the Creed which was published there. ibid.
  • Chap. 38. Concerning the cruelty of Macedonius, and the Tumults by him raised. Page 275
  • Chap. 39. Concerning the Synod at Seleucia a City of Isau­ria. Page 277
  • Chap. 40. That Acacius Bishop of Caesarea dictated another Draught of the Creed, in the Synod at Se­leucia. Page 278
  • Chap. 41. Tha [...], upon the Emperours return from the Western parts, the Acacians were convened in the City of Constantinople, and firmed the Ariminum Creed, making some additions to it. Page 281
  • Chap. 42. That upon Macedonius's being deposed, Eu­doxius obtained the Bishoprick of Constan­tinople. ibid.
  • Chap. 43. Concerning Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia. Page 282
  • Chap. 44. Concerning Meletius Bishop of Antioch. Page 283
  • Chap. 45. Concerning Macedonius's Heresie. ibid.
  • Chap. 46. Concerning the Apollinaristae, and their He­resie. Page 284
  • Chap. 47. Concerning the death of the Emperour Constan­tius. ibid.
Book III.
  • Chap. 1. COncerning Julianus, his Extract, and Edu­cation. And how, upon his being made Emperour, he revolted to Gentilism. Page 285
  • Chap. 2. Concerning the Sedition which hapned at Alexan­dria, and after what manner Georgius was slain. Page 287
  • Chap. 3. That the Emperour incensed at Georgius's mur­der, sharply rebuked the Alexandrians by his Letter. Page 288
  • Chap. 4. How, upon Georgius's being murdered, Athana­sius returned to Alexandria, and recovered his own Church. Page 289
  • Chap. 5. Concerning Lucifer, and Eusebius. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. How Lucifer arriving at Antioch, Ordained Paulinus. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. How Eusebius and Athanasius accorded together, and assembled a Synod of Bishops at Alexandria, wherein they expresly declared, that the Trinity is Consubstantial. Page 290
  • Chap. 8. Some passages quoted out of Athanasius's Apolo­getick concerning his own flight. Page 291
  • Chap. 9. How (after the Synod at Alexandria, made up of those who asserted the Homoöusian Faith) Euse­bius, returning to Antioch, found the Catholicks disagreeing there upon account of Paulinus's Or­dination; and being unable to bring them to an agreement, he departed from thence. Page 293
  • Chap. 10. Concerning Hilarius Bishop of Poictiers. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. How the Emperour Julianus exacted money from the Christians. Page 294
  • Chap. 12. Concerning Maris Bishop of Chalcedon. ibid.
  • Chap. 13. Concerning the tumult raised by the Heathens a­gainst the Christians. Page 295
  • Chap. 14. Concerning Athanasius's flight. ibid.
  • Chap. 15. Concerning those who in the Reign of Julianus suf­fered Martyrdom at Merus a City of Phry­gia. Page 296
  • Chap. 16. How (when the Emperour prohibited the Chri­stians from being educated in the Grecian Literature,) the two Apollinaris's betook them­selves to writing of Books. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. How the Emperour, making preparations for an ex­pedition against the Persians, arrived at An­tioch: and being derided by the Antiochians, he published an Oration against them, entituled Misop [...]g [...]n. Page 297
  • Chap. 18. How, when the Emperour was desirous to consult the Oracle, the Daemon gave no answer, being afraid of Babilas the Martyr. Page 298
  • Chap. 19. Concerning the Emperours wrath, and concerning Theodorus the Confessour. ibid.
  • Chap. 20. How the Emperour perswaded the Jews to sacrifice, and concerning the utter destruction of Jeru­salem. ibid.
  • [Page] Chap. 21. Concerning the Emperours inroad into Persia, and concerning his death. pag. 299
  • Chap. 22. Concerning Jovianus's being Proclaimed Em­perour. ibid.
  • Chap. 23. A confutation of what Libanius the Sophista has said concerning Julianus. Page 300
  • Chap. 24. That the Bishops flockt from all places to Jovianus, every one of them hoping they should induce him to embrace their own Creed. Page 303
  • Chap. 25. That the Macedonians and Acacians, meeting together at Antioch, confirmed the Nicene Creed. ibid.
  • Chap. 26. Concerning the Death of the Emperour Jovi­anus. Page 304
Book. IV.
  • Chap. 1. THat, after Jovianus's death, Valentinianus is Proclaimed Emperour, who made his brother Valens his Colleague in the Empire. And, that Valentinianus was a Catholick, but Valens an Arian. pag. 305
  • Chap. 2. That Valentinianus went into the Western parts of the Empire, and Valens resided at Constan­tinople, who, upon the Macedonians address to him that a Synod might be convened, granted their request. And that he persecuted the Ho­moöusians Page 306
  • Chap. 3. That, whilst Valens persecuted those who embraced the Homoöusian opinion in the East, there arose a Tyrant at Constantinople, by name Procopius. And that at the same time an Earthquake hapned, and an inundation of the Sea, which ruined many Cities. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. That there being a disturbance in the Secular as well as the Ecclesiastick State of affairs, the Macedonians, having convened a Synod at Lampsacus, did again confirm the Antiochian Creed, and Anathematized that published at Ariminum, and did again ratifie the deposition of Acacius and Eudoxius. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. That, an engagement hapning about a City of Phry­gia between the Emperour Valens, and the Ty­rant Procopius, the Emperour took the Tyrant by the treachery of his Commanders, and put him and them to death, by inflicting new and unusual punishments upon them. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. That, after the death of the Tyrant, the Empe­rour forced those who had been present at the Synod, and all the Christians, to embrace Arius's Opinion. Page 307
  • Chap. 7. That Eunomius, having ejected Eleusius the Ma­cedonian, was made Bishop of Cyzicum. And concerning Eunomius's original, and that ha­ving been Amanuensis to Aëtius sirnamed A­theus, he imitated him. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. Concerning the Oracle, which was found cut upon a stone, when the Wall of Chalcedon was de­molished by reason of the Emperour Valens's an­ger. Page 308
  • Chap. 9. That the Emperour Valens persecuted the No­vatians also, who (in like manner as did the Catholicks) embraced the Homoöusian Faith. Page 309
  • Chap. 10. That the Emperour Valentinianus, begat a son, who bore his Fathers name; to wit, Valentini­anus, he having begat his son Gratianus before his being created Emperour. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. Concerning a hail of an unusual bigness which fell from heaven, and concerning the Earthquakes in Bithynia, and the Hellespont. Page 310
  • Chap. 12. That those who embraced Macedonius's Opinion, being reduced into streights by reason of the Emperours violence towards them, sent an Em­bassage to Liberius Bishop of Rome, and sub­scribed to the Homoöusian Creed. ibid.
  • Chap. 13. How Eunomius separated himself from Eudoxius, because he adhered to his master Aëtius. And that (a disturbance being raised at Alexandria by Eudoxius's means) Athanasius fled again. And that (when the Populace were tumultuous hereupon) the Emperour being afraid, by his Letters pacified▪ the Alexandrians, and ordered that Athanasius should be put into quiet posses­sion of his Church again. Page 313
  • Chap. 14. That after the death of Eudoxius at Constanti­nople, the Arians ordained Demophilus; but the Orthodox, by the assistance of Eustathius of An­tioch, made Evagrius Bishop of Constanti­nople. ibid.
  • Chap. 15. That when the Emperour had banished Evagrius and Eustathius, the Arians sorely oppressed and afflicted the Homo [...]usians. Page 314
  • Chap. 16. Concerning the holy Presbyters who were burnt in a Ship, and concerning the Famine, which by the wrath of God hapned in Phrygia upon that account. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. That the Emperour, arriving at Antioch, did a­gain persecute those that embrace the Homoöu­sian Opinion. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. Concerning what was done at Edessa, and the re­proachfull affront put upon the Prefect, and con­cerning the Faith, couragiousness, and constan­cy of those Citizens; and concerning a pious woman. ibid.
  • Chap. 19. That the Emperour Valens slew many persons, the first letter of whose name was Theta, upon ac­count of a certain Necromantick-divination, whereby that was foretold. Page 315
  • Chap. 20. Concerning Athanasius's Death, and the promotion of Peter to his See. ibid.
  • Chap. 21. That after Athanasius's death, the Arians by the Emperour Valens's Order, delivered up the Churches in Alexandria to Lucius who had been Ordained by them before, and committed Peter to prison. Page 316
  • Chap. 22. That Sabinus the Macedonian Heretick has made no mention of those many mischiefs which hap­pened at Lucius's installment. But they are re­corded in a Letter written by Peter, who made his escape, and fled to Damasus Bishop of Rome. But the Arians and Lucius were the Authours of many mischievous practises and cruelties a­gainst those holy persons who led a Monastick life in the solitudes. ibid.
  • Chap. 23. A Catalogue of the holy Monks who lived in the Desart. ibid.
  • Chap. 24. Concerning those holy Monks who were exiled; how God (by the Miracles they performed) attracted all persons to himself. Page 319
  • Chap. 25. Concerning Didymus, a blind man. Page 320
  • Chap. 26. Concerning Basilius of Caesarea, and Gregorius of Nazianzum. ibid.
  • Chap. 27. Concerning Gregorius Thaumaturgus. Page 322
  • Chap. 28. Concerning Novatus, and those from him termed Novatians. And, that those Novatians who inhabited Phrygia, altered the time of cele­brating the Festival of Easter, and kept it on the same day the Jews did. Page 323
  • Chap. 29. Concerning Damasus Bishop of Rome, and Ursi­nus. How, a disturbance and Sedition hapning in Rome upon their account, there followed a great slaughter of men. Page 324
  • Chap. 30. How (after the death of Auxentius Bishop of Millain) a Sedition hapning on account of the Election of a Prelate to succeed in that See; Ambrosius, President of the Province, going with a Military Force to appease the tumult, [Page] was by a general suffrage (the Emperour Va­lentinianus having given his consent also) pre­ferred before all persons, and Elected Bishop of that Church. ibid.
  • Chap. 31. Concerning Valentinianus's death. pag. 325
  • Chap. 32. Concerning the Philosopher Themistius. And, that Valens, appeased by the Oration he spake to him, did in some measure mitigate his Per­secution against the Christians. ibid.
  • Chap. 33. How the Goths, under the Reign of Valens, em­braced Christianity. Page 326
  • Chap. 34. That the Goths vanquished by other Barbarians, fled into the Territories of the Romans, and were received by the Emperour. Which re­ception of theirs was the occasion, both of the destruction of the Roman Empire, and also of the Emperours own overthrow. ibid.
  • Chap. 35. That the Emperour, by reason of his care and sollicitude about a War with the Goths, remitted something of his Persecution against the Chri­stians. Page 327
  • Chap. 36. That the Saracens also at that time embraced the Faith of Christ, (a woman, by name Mavia, being their Queen,) and took one Moses, a pious and faithfull person that led a monastick life, to be their Bishop. ibid.
  • Chap. 37. That after Valens's departure from Antioch the Orthodox in the East (more especially those at Alexandria) took courage; and having ejected Lucius, restored the Churches again to Peter, who was returned fortified with the Letters of Damasus Bishop of Rome. ibid.
  • Chap. 38. That the Emperour arriving at the City Constan­tinople, and being reproach't by the people upon account of the Goths, marches out of the City against the Barbarians. And coming to an in­gagement with them near Adrianople, a City of Macedonia, is slain by them; after he had lived fifty years, and Reigned six­teen. Page 328
Book V.
  • THE Preface. Pag. 329
  • Chap. 1. How (after the death of Valens) when the Goths laid Siege to Constantinople, the Ci­tizens Sallied out of the City against them, ha­ving those Saracens who were under Mavia's command, to be their Auxiliaries. ibid.
  • Chap. 2. That the Emperour Gratianus, having recalled the Orthodox Bishops from their Exile, drove the Hereticks out of the Churches, and took Theodosius to be his Colleague in the Em­pire. Page 330
  • Chap. 3. What Bishops were in possession of the Presidency over the greater Churches at that time. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. How the Macedoniani, who had sent an Embassy to Damasus Bishop of Rome in defence of the Homoöusian Creed, returned again to their old Heresie. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. Concerning what hapned at that time at Antioch, upon Paulinus's and Melitius's account. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. That Gregorius of Nazianzum was by a general suffrage of the Orthodox constituted Bishop of the Constantinopolitan Church; at which time the Emperour Theodosius (after his Victory over the Barbarians,) fell sick at Thessalo­nica, and was baptized by Ascholius the Bi­shop. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. That when Gregorius was come to Constan­tinople, and some Bishops murmured at his Translation; he refused the Presidency over the Church. And the Emperour orders De­mophilus the Arian Bishop, either to give his Assent to the Homoöusian Faith, or else to go out of the City; which latter he chose ra­ther to do. Page 33 [...]
  • Chap. 8. Concerning the hundred and fifty Bishops Con­vened at Constantinople, and concerning the determinations made by them, after they had Ordained Nectarius in that City. ibid.
  • Chap. 9. That the Emperour Theodosius ordered the body of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople to be ho­nourably translated from the place of his Exile. At which time also Meletius Bishop of Antioch departed this life. Page 334
  • Chap. 10. That the Emperour ordered a Synod of all the Sects to be convened, at which time Ar­eadius his son was proclaimed Augustus; and that the Novatians (who as to their faith embraced the same Sentiments with the Homo­öusians) were the only persons that had per­mission to hold their Assemblies within the City. But the other Hereticks were forced from thence. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. Concerning Maximus the Tyrant, how he slew Gratianus by treachery: at which time also Justina the mother of Valentinianus Junior, desisted, though unwillingly, from her design against Ambrosius Bishop of Millain, for fear of Maximus. Page 336
  • Chap. 12. That the Emperour Theodosius having provided a numerous Army against Maximus, (at which time Flaccilla bore him his son Honorius,) left Arcadius at Constantinople: but went himself to Millain, where he came to an Engagement with the Tyrant. Page 337
  • Chap. 13. Concerning the disturbance raised at Constan­tinople by the Arians. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. Concerning the Emperour Theodosius's Victory, and the Tyrant's overthrow. Page 338
  • Chap. 15. Concerning Flavianus of Antioch. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. Concerning the demolishment of the Idol Temples at Alexandria; and concerning the Fight be­twixt the Pagans and Christians, which hap­ned on that account. Page 339
  • Chap. 17. Concerning the Hieroglyphical Letters found in the Temple of Serapis. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. That the Emperour Theodosius, during his stay in Rome, did a great deal of good to that City, both by demolishing those Receptacles for Thieves in the Bake-houses, and also by pro­hibiting the obscene use of Bells in the Stews. Page 340
  • Chap. 19. Concerning the Penitentiary Presbyters, how these Officers in the Church were at that time put down. Page 341
  • Chap. 20. That there were at that time many Schisms a­mongst the Arians, and other Hereticks. Page 343
  • Chap. 21. That the Novatians also disagreed amongst them­selves. ibid.
  • Chap. 22. This Historian's Sentiment concerning the disa­greements which appear in some places, in rela­tion to the Feast of Easter, Baptisms, Fasts, Marriages, the order of celebrating the Eucha­rist, and other Ecclesiastical Rites and Obser­vances. Page 344
  • Chap. 23. Concerning the Arians at Constantinople, who were also termed the Psathyriani. Page 349
  • Chap. 24. That the Eunomians also raised Factions amongst themselves, which had various denominations given them, derived from the names of their first Founders. ibid.
  • Chap. 25. Concerning Eugenius's Tyranny, and the death of Valentinianus Junior; also, concerning the Emperour Theodosius's Victory over the Ty­rant. Page 350
  • Chap. 26. How the Emperour falling ill after his Victory, [Page] sent for his son Honorius to Millain; and thinking himself somewhat recovered from his distemper, he ordered that Cirque-sports should be exhibited, on which very day he died. Page 351
Book VI.
  • THE Preface. Pag. 351
  • Chap. 1. That after the death of the Emperour Theodo­sius, when his Sons had divided the Empire be­tween them, and Arcadius had met the Army returning from Italy, after some short stay there; Rufinus the Praefectus Praetorio was killed▪ by the Souldiers at the Emperours feet. Page 352
  • Chap. 2. Concerning Nectarius's death, and the Ordination of Johannes. ibid.
  • Chap. 3. Concerning the Descent and Education of Johannes Bishop of Constantinople. Page 353
  • Chap. 4. Concerning Serapion the Deacon, and how by his instigation Johannes became offended with, and an enemy to his Clergy. Page 354
  • Chap. 5. That Johannes differed not only with the Clergy, but with the Magistracy also. And concerning Eutropius the Eunuch. Page 355
  • Chap. 6. Concerning the Tyranny of Gaïna the Goth, and the disturbance he raised at Constantinople; and concerning his death. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. Concerning the Dissention which hapned between Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, and the Mo­nasticks in the Solitude. And how Theophilus Anathematized Origen's Books. Page 357
  • Chap. 8. Concerning the Prayers of the Nocturnal Hymns Sung by the Arians and Homoöusians; and concerning the ingagement which hapned be­tween them: and that the singing of Hymns in parts, wherein one sang one verse, another an­other, had its original from Ignatius Theo­phorus. Page 358
  • Chap. 9. Concerning those termed The long Monks, and how Theophilus having conceived an impla­cable▪ hatred against Johannes upon their ac­count, made it his business to get him deposed from his Bishoprick. Page 359
  • Chap. 10. That Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus being also led away by Theophilus's frauds, convened a Synod of Bishops in Cyprus, to determine against Ori­gen's Writings, and reproved Johannes for reading Origen's Books. Page 360
  • Chap. 11. Concerning the two Syrian Bishops Severianus and Antiochus, how, and for what reasons they disagreed with Johannes. ibid.
  • Chap. 12. That Epiphanius coming to Constantinople, held Assemblies, and performed Ordinations contrary to Johannes's mind; that he might gratifie Theophilus. Page 361
  • Chap. 13. What this Writer can say in defence of Ori­gen. Page 362
  • Chap. 14. How Johannes (having invited Epiphanius to come to his Palace, and he rufusing, and con­tinuing his holding of separate Assemblies in the Church of the Apostles, admonished and reproved him, because he did many things con­trary to the Canons. Whereat Epiphanius was terrified, and returned into his own Coun­try. ibid.
  • Chap. 15. How after Epiphanius's departure, Johannes made an Oration against▪ Women, and upon that ac­count (by the care of the Emperour and Empress) a Synod was convened against him at Chalcedon, and he is ejected out of his Church. Page 363
  • Chap. 16. That the people being tumultuous because of Johan­nes's banishment, Briso the Empress's Eunuch, was sent to bring him back again to Constan­tinople. pag. 364
  • Chap. 17. That upon Theophilus's desiring to discuss Hera­clides's case then absent, and Johannes's refu­sing to permit him; an Engagement hapned between the Constantinopolitans and Alexan­drians, wherein many were slain (on both sides.) At which Theophilus and some other of the Bishops were terrified, and [...]led from the City. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. Concerning Eudoxia's Silver Statue, and how Jo­hannes was ejected out of his Church again on account of that, and conveyed into banish­ment. Page 365
  • Chap. 19 Concerning Arsacius, who was Ordained Johan­nes's successour, and concerning Cyrinus (Bi­shop) of Chalcedon. Page 366
  • Chap. 20. How, after Arsacius Atticus obtained the Con­stantinopolitan See. Page 367
  • Chap. 21. Concerning Johannes's departure to the Lord in Exile. ibid.
  • Chap. 22. Concerning Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatianists, what expressions he is said to have used in his discourses with Johannes. ibid.
  • Chap. 23. Concerning the death of the Emperour Arca­dius. Page 368
Book. VII.
  • Chap. 1. THat after the Emperour Arcadius's death, (who left his Son Theodosius, then eight years old;) Anthemius the Praefect had the chief management of affaires in the Em­pire. pag. 369
  • Chap. 2. Concerning Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, what manner of person he was as to his tem­per and disposition. Page 370
  • Chap. 3. Concerning Theodosius and Agapetus Bishops of Synnada. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. Concerning the Paralyticall Jew, who was cured by Atticus the Bishop in Divine Baptism. Page 371
  • Chap. 5. How Sabbatius, from being a Jew had been made a Presbyter of the Novatianists, deserted those of his own opinion. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. Concerning those who at that time were the Ring­leaders of the Arian Opinion. Page 372
  • Chap. 7. How Cyrillus succeeded Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. Concerning Maruthas Bishop of Mesopotamia, and how the Christian Religion was by him propagated in Persia. ibid.
  • Chap. 9. Who were Bishops of Antioch and Rome at this time. Page 373
  • Chap. 10. That Rome became subject to the Barbarians at that time, and was destroyed by Alari­chus. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. Concerning the Bishops of Rome. Page 374
  • Chap. 12. Concerning Chrysanthus Bishop of the Novatianists at Constantinople. ibid.
  • Chap. 13. Concerning the Fight which hapned at Alexandria between the Christians and Jews, and con­cerning Cyrillus the Bishop's difference with Orestes the Praefect. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. That the Monks of Nitria came down to Alexan­dria in defence of Cyrillus, and raised a Se­dition against Orestes the Praefect. Page 375
  • Chap. 15. Concerning Hypatia the Philosopheress. Page 376
  • Chap. 16. That the Jews entring upon another War against the Christians, were punished. Page 377
  • Chap. 17. Concerning Paulus Bishop of the Novatianists, and concerning the Miracle done by him, when he was about to have baptized a Jewish Impo­stour. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. How, after the death of Isdigerdes the Persian King, the League between the Romans and [Page] Persians was broken; and a bloudy War hapned, wherein the Persians were worst­ed. ib [...]d.
  • Chap. 19. Concerning Palladius the Courier. pag. 378
  • Chap. 20. How the Persians had another severe overthrow given them by the Romans. Page 379
  • Chap. 21. After what manner Acacius Bishop of Ami­da, behaved himself toward the Persian Captives. ibid.
  • Chap. 22. Concerning the excellencies, wherewith the Em­perour Theodosius Junior was endowed. Page 380
  • Chap. 23. Concer [...]ing Johannes, who Tyrannized at Rome, after Honorius the Emperour's death. And how God mollified, by Theodosius's prayers, delivered him into the hands of the Roman Army. Page 381
  • Chap. 24. That, after the slaughter of Johannes the Tyrant, Theodosius the Emperour proclaimed Valen­tinianus (the Son of Constantius, and of his Aunt Placidia,) Emperour of Rome. Page 382
  • Chap. 25. Concerning Atticus's Government of the Churches; and that he ordered Johannes's name to be written into the Dypticks of the Church; and that he foreknew his own death. ibid.
  • Chap. 26. Concerning Sisinnius, Atticus's successour in the Constantinopolitane Bishoprick. Page 383
  • Chap. 27. Concerning Philippus the Presbyter, who was born at Side. Page 384
  • Chap. 28. That Sisindius Ordained Proclus Bishop of Cy­zicum: but the Inhabitants of that City would not admit him to be their Bishop. ibid.
  • Chap. 29. That after Si [...]innius's death, (the Emperours) sent for Nestorius from Antioch, and made him Bishop of Constantinople; who quickly discovered his own temper and disposition. ibid.
  • Chap. 30. After what manner the Burgundions embraced the Christian Religion, in the Reign of Theo­dosius Junior. Page 385
  • Chap. 31. With what miseri [...]s the Macedonians were af­flicted by Nestorius. ibid.
  • Chap. 32. Concerning the Presbyter Anastasius, by whom Nestorius was perverted to Impiety. Page 386
  • Chap. 33. Concerning the horrid wickedness committed upon the Altar of the Great Church by the [...]ugiti [...]e servants. pag. 387
  • Chap. 34. Concerning the former Synod at Ephesus convened against Nestorius. ibid.
  • Chap. 35. How, after Nestorius's Deposition▪ when some were desirous of placing Proclus in the Episcopal Chair, other Bishops elected Maximianus Bi­shop of Constantinople. Page 388
  • Chap. 36. Instances, whereby this Writer does (as he sup­poses) evince, that a Translation from one See to another is not prohibited. ibid.
  • Chap. 37. Concerning Silvanus, who was translated from Philippopolis to Troas. Page 389
  • Chap. 38. Concerning the Jews in Creet, how, many of them turned Christians at that time. Page 390
  • Chap. 39. Concerning the Fire which hapned in the Church of the Novatianists. ibid.
  • Chap. 40. That Proclus succeeded Maximianus the Bi­shop. Page 391
  • Chap. 41. Concerning Proclus the Bishop what manner of man he was. ibid.
  • Chap. 42. That this Writer spends many words in praise of the Emperour Theodosius Junior's pro­bity. Page 392
  • Chap. 43. How great calamities those Barbarians under­went, who had been the Tyrant Johannes's Auxiliaries. ibid.
  • Chap. 44. That the Emperour Valentinianus Junior mar­ried Eudoxia the daughter of Theodosius. ibid.
  • Chap. 45. That Proclus the Bishop perswaded the Emperour to translate the body of Johannes from the place of his Exile (where it had been buried,) to Constantinople, and to deposite it in the Church of The Apostles. Page 393
  • Chap. 46. Concerning the death of Paulus Bishop of the No­vatianists, and concerning Marcianus who was his successour. ibid.
  • Chap. 47. That the Emperour Theodosius sent his Wife Eu­doxia to Jerusalem. Page 394
  • Chap. 48. Concerning Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappa­docia. ibid.

The Contents of the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus Epiphaniensis in VI. Books.

Book I.
  • THE Preface. Pag. 401
  • Chap. 1. That after the destruction of the impious Julian, when the Heresie [...] had been a little quieted, the devil afterwards disturbed the Faith a­gain. ibid.
  • Chap. 2. How Nestorius was detected by his disciple Anasta­sius, who in his Sermon, termed the Holy Mo­ther of God, not Theotocos but Christotocos: for which reason Nestorius was pronounced an Heretick. Page 402
  • Chap. 3. What Cyrillus the Great wrote to Nestorius, and how the third Synod at Ephesus was convened, to which Johannes Bishop of Antioch and The­odoret came late. Page 403
  • Chap. 4. How Nestorius was deposed by the Synod, be­fore the arrival of the Bishop of Antioch. Page 404
  • Chap. 5. That Johannes Bishop of Antioch, coming to Ephesus, after five days, deposes Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria, and Memnon Bishop of Ephesus; whom the Synod pronounced inno­cent soon after, and deposed Johannes and his party. And how by the interposition of the Emperour▪ Theodosius, Cyrillus and Johannes were reconciled▪ and confirmed Nestorius's de­position. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. Concerning Paulus Bishop of Emisa's journey to Alexandria, and Cyrillu's commendation of Johannes on account of his Letter. Page 405
  • Chap. 7. What the impious Nestorius writes concerning his own sufferings; and how, his tongue having at last been eaten out with worms, he ended his life at Oasis. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. How, after Nestorius, Maximianus, and after him Proclus, then Flavianus, were made Bishops of Constantinople. Page 408
  • Chap. 9. Concerning the unfortunate Eutyches, and how he was deposed by Flavianus Bishop of Constan­tinople, and concerning the second▪ to wit, that theevish Synod at Ephesus. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. What was transacted by Dioscorus and Chrysa­phius [Page] at the absurd Synod at Ephesus. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. This Wzitors Apology i [...] defence of the variety of Opinions amongst u [...]Christians, and his deri­sion of the Pagan Trifles. Page 409
  • Chap. 12. In what manner the Emperour Theodosius pro­secuted and expelled the Herefie of Nesto­rius. Page 410
  • Chap. 13. Concerning Saint Symeon the Stylite. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. Concerning the S [...] which appears frequently in the Piazza about the Pillar of Saint Symeon, which this Writer and others have seen: and concerning the same Saint's Head. Page 412
  • Chap. 15. Concerning Saint Isidorus Peleusiots, and Syne­sius Bishop of Cyrenae. Page 413
  • Chap. 16. How the Divine Ignatius, having been removed from Rome, was deposited at Antioch. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Concerning Attila King of the Scythae; and how he destroyed the Provinces of the East and West. And concerning the strange Earth­quake and other dreadfull prodigies which hap­ned in the world. Page 414
  • Chap. 18. Concerning the publick buildings in Antioch, and who they were that erected them. Page 415
  • Chap. 19. Concerning the several Wars, which hapned both in Italy, and Persia, during the Reign of Theo­dosius. ibid.
  • Chap. 20. Concerning the Empress Eudocia, and her daugh­ter Eudoxia; and how Eudocia came to Antioch, and went to Jerusalem. Page 416
  • Chap. 21. That Eudocia did many good actions about Jeru­rusalem; and concerning the different Life and Conversation of the Monks in Pale­stine. Page 417
  • Chap. 22. What Structures the Empress Eudocia built in Palestine, and concerning the Church of the Proto-Martyr Stephen, within which [...] was piously buried: moreover, concerning the death of the Emperour Theodosius. Page 419
Book II.
  • Chap. 1. COncerning the Emperour Marcianus, and what signes preceded, declaring he should be Emperour. Page 420
  • Chap. 2. Concerning the Synod at Chalcedon, and what was the occasion of its being convened. Page 421
  • Chap. 3. A description of the great Martyr Euphemia's Church which is in the City Chalcedon▪ and a Narrative of the miracles performed therein. Page 422
  • Chap. 4. Concerning th [...]se things which were agitated and established in the Synod; and how Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria was deposed; but, Theo­doret, Ibas, and some others were resto­red. Page 423
  • Chap. 5. Concerning the Sedition which hapned at Alex­andria, on account of Proterius's Ordination; likewise concerning what hapned at Jerusa­lem. Page 426
  • Chap. 6. Concerning the Drought which hapned, and the Famine and the Pestilence: and how in some places the earth in a wonderfull manner brought forth fruits of its own accord. Page 428
  • Chap. 7. Concerning the Murder of Valentimianus, and the taking of Rome; and concerning those other Emperours who governed Rome after Valen­tinianus's death. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. Concerning the death of Marcianus; and the Em­pire of Leo. And how the Hereticks of Alex­andria slew Proretius, and gave that Arch-Bishoprick to Timotheus Aelurus. Page 429
  • Chap. 9. Concerning the Emperour Leo's Circular Let­ters. Page 431
  • Chap. 10. Concerning those things which the Bishops and Symeones the Stylite wrote in answer to the Emperour Leo's Circular Letters. Page 432
  • Chap. 11. Concerning the Banishment of Timotheus Aelurus, and the Ordination of Timotheus Salophacio­lus; and concerning Gennadius and Acacius Bishops of Constantinople. Page 433
  • Chap. 12. Concerning the Earthquake which hapned at An­tioch, Three hundred fourty and seven years after that which had hapned in the times of Trajane. ibid.
  • Chap. 13. Concerning the Fire which hapned at Constan­tinople. Page 434
  • Chap. 14. Concerning the universal Calamities. Page 435
  • Chap. 15. Concerning the Marriage of Zeno and Ari­adne. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. Concerning Anthemius Emperour of Rome, and those Emperours who succeeded him. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Concerning the death of Leo, and the Empire of Leo Junior, and also concerning Zeno his Fa­ther. Page 436
  • Chap. 18. An Epitome of the Acts at the Synod of Chalce­don, set at the end of the second Book. Page 437
Book III.
  • Chap. 1. COncerning Zeno's Empire, and concerning his Life. pag. 448
  • Chap. 2. Concerning the Incursions of the Barbarians, both in the East, and in the West. ibid.
  • Chap. 3. Concerning Bafiliscus's Tyranny, and Zeno's Flight Page 449
  • Chap. 4. That Basilis [...]us recalled Timotheus Aelurus, and, induced thereto by him, sent his Circular Let­ters to all places, in order to the abrogating of the Chalcedon-Synod. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. Concerning those persons who consented to Basi­liscus's Circular Letters, and rejected the Synod of Chalcedon. Page 450
  • Chap. 6. That Timotheus Aelurus recovered the Bishoprick of Alexandria, and having restored the privi­ledge of a Pa [...]iar [...]hate to the Church of E­phesus, Anathematized the Chalcedon Sy­nod. Page 452
  • Chap. 7. That the Monks having raised a Sedition by the perswasion of Acacius, Basiliscus was put into a fear, and wrote and promulged Circular Letters contrary to those he had published be­fore. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. Concerning Zeno's return. Page 453
  • Chap. 9. That after Basiliscus's death, the Bishops of A­sia▪ that they might appease Acacins, sent him a Penitentiary-Libell, craving pardon for their offence in rejecting the Synod of Chalce­don. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. Concerning those who governed the Bishoprick of Antioch. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. That the Emperour Zeno took a resolution of persecuting Ae [...]urus: but by reason of his age he had compassion on him and let him alone. And how after Aelurus's death, Petrus Mon­gus was ordained by the Alexandrians. But Timotheus, Proterius's successour, by the order of the Emperour, obtained the Chair of the A­ [...] Page 454
  • Chap. 12. Concerning Johannes who obtained the Presidency [...]ver the Alexandrian Church after Timotheus, and how Zeno outed him in regard he had for­sworn himself, and restored the Chair of Alex­andria to Petrus Mo [...]gus. ibid.
  • Chap. 13. That Petrus Mongus embraced Zeno▪ [...] Heno [...]con, and joyned himself to the P [...]o [...]ians. Page 455
  • Chap. 14. Zeno's H [...]no [...]i [...]on. ibid.
  • Chap. 15. Th [...] Johannes Bishop of Alexandria coming to Rome, perswades Simplicius to write to Zeno [Page] concerning what had hapned; and what Zeno wrote back in answer to him. pag. 456
  • Chap. 16. Concerning Calendion Bishop of Antioch, and that he was condemned to be banished on account of the friendship he was suspected to have held with Illus and Leontius; also, that Petrus Fullo entred into an Union with Mon­gus, and with the Bishops of Constantinople and Jerusalem. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Concerning those things written by Petrus to Aca­cius who had embraced the Chalcedon-Sy­nod. Page 457
  • Chap. 18. In what manner Johannes Bishop of Alexandria perswades Felix Pope of Rome, to send a De­position to Acacius, Bishop of Constanti­nople. Page 459
  • Chap. 19. Concerning Cyrillus Governour of the Mona­stery of the Acoemeti, how he sent some persons to Felix at Rome, inciting him to revenge what had been committed against the Faith. ibid.
  • Chap. 20. Concerning what Felix wrote to Zeno, and Zeno to Felix. Page 460
  • Chap. 21. That Symeones a Monk belonging to the Mona­stery of the Acoemeti went to Rome, and accused those Bishops sent from the Romans to Constan­tinople as having held Communion with He­reticks; and, that these Legates, and those persons who held Communion with Petrus, were deposed by the Romans. ibid.
  • Chap. 22. Concerning the disturbances at Alexandria, and in several other places, on account of the Synod at Chalcedon. Page 461
  • Chap. 23. Concerning Fravita and Euphemius Bishops of Constantinople; and concerning Athanasius and Johannes Bishop of Alexandria; also con­cerning Palladius and Flavianus Prelates of Antioch; and concerning some other per­sons. ibid.
  • Chap. 24. Concerning the slaughter of Armatus, who was kinsman to the Empress Verina. Page 462
  • Chap. 25. Concerning the Rebellion of Theodoricus the Scythian; and concerning the same person's death. Page 463
  • Chap. 26. Concerning Marcianus's Insurrection, and what hapned in relation to him. ibid.
  • Chap. 27. Concerning the Tyranny of Illus and Leon­tius. Page 464
  • Chap. 28. Concerning Mammianus, and the Structures built by him. ibid.
  • Chap. 29. Concerning Zeno's death, and the proclaiming Anastasius Emperour. ibid.
  • Chap. 30. Concerning the Emperour Anastasius; and how, because he would not innovate any thing in re­lation to the Ecclesiastick Constitution, the Churches over the whole world were filled with infinite disturbances: and many of the Bishops for that reason were ejected. Page 465
  • Chap. 31. The Letter of the Monks of Palestine to Alcison concerning Xenaias and some other▪ per­sons. ibid.
  • Chap. 32. Concerning the Expulsion of Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople, and of Flavianus Bishop of Antioch. Page 467
  • Chap. 33. Concerning Severus Bishop of Antioch. ibid.
  • Chap. 34. Concerning the Libell of Deposition sent to the same Severus by Cosmas and Severianus. Page 469
  • Chap. 35. Concerning the destruction of the Isaurian Ty­rants. ibid.
  • Chap. 36. Concerning the Saracens, that they made a Peace with the Romans. Page 470
  • Chap. 37. Concerning the Siege of Amida, and the building of the City Daras. ibid.
  • Chap. 38. Concerning the Long Wall. ibid.
  • Chap. 39. Concerning that Tax termed the Chrysargyrum, and how Anastasius abolished it. ibid.
  • Chap. 40. Concerning what Zosimus, hath written in re­lation to the Chrysargyrum, and about the Emperour Constantine. Page 472
  • Chap. 41. An Invective against Zosimus, on account of the Reproaches and Calumnies he has cast upon Constantine and the Christians. ibid.
  • Chap. 42. Concerning The Chryso elia. Page 474
  • Chap. 43. Concerning the Tyranny of Vitalianus. Page 475
  • Chap. 44. That Anastasius being desirous to add these words, Who hast been crucified on our account, to the Hymn termed The Trisagium, a Sedition and disturbance hapned amongst the people. Which Anastasius fearing, made use of dissi­mulation, and soon altered the minds of the people. And concerning the death of Ana­stasius. Page 476
Book IV.
  • Chap. 1. COncerning the Empire of Justinus Se­nior. Pag. 4 7
  • Chap. 2. Concerning the Eunuch Amantius, and Theocri­tus; and in what manner Justinus put these persons to death. ibid.
  • Chap. 3. In what manner Justinus slew Vitalianus by trea­chery. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. How Justinus having Ejected Severus, put Pau­lus into his place: and, that some little time after, Euphrasius obtained the See of An­tioch. Page 478
  • Chap. 5. Concerning the Fires which hapned at Antioch, and the Earth-quakes; wherein Euphrasius was buried, and ended his life. Page 479
  • Chap. 6. Concerning Ephraemius who succeeded Euphra­sius. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. Concerning Zosimas and Johannes who were Workers of Miracles. Page 480
  • Chap. 8. Concerning the Universal Calamities. Page 481
  • Chap. 9. How Justinus whilst he was yet living took Justi­nianus to be his Colleague in the Empire. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. That Justinianus favoured those who embraced the Chalcedon Synod. But his Wife Theo­dora was a Lover of the contrary party. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. How Severus perverted Anthimus Bishop of Con­stantinople, and Theodosius Bishop of Alexan­dria: which Prelates the Emperour ejected, and put others into their Sees. Page 482
  • Chap. 12. Out of the History of Procopius Caesariensis, con­cerning Cavades King of the Persians, and his Son Chosroes. Page 483
  • Chap. 13. Concerning Alamundarus and Azarethus; and concerning that Sedition at Constantinople, which had the name Nica given it. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. Concerning Hunericus King of the Vandals, and concerning those Christians whose tongues▪ were cut out by him. ibid.
  • Chap. 15. Concerning Cabaones the Moor. Page 484
  • Chap. 16. Concerning Belisarius's Expedition against the Vandals, and their totall overthrow. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Concerning the spoyles which were brought out of Africa. Page 485
  • Chap. 18. Concerning those Phoenicians who fled from the face of Jesus the son of Nave. ibid.
  • Chap. 19. Concerning Theodoricus the Goth and what hap­ned at Rome under him till the times of Justi­nian, and, that Rome was again reduced to a subjection to the Romans after Vitiges had fled out of that City. Page 486
  • Chap. 20. How those people termed the Eruli turned Chri­stians in the times of Justinian. ibid.
  • Chap. 21. That Belisarius recovered the City Rome, which had been again taken by the Goths ibid.
  • [Page] Chap. 22. That the Abasgi turned Christians also in those times. pag. 486
  • Chap. 23. That the Inhabitants of Tanais also at that time embraced the Christian Religion; and con­cerning the Earthquakes which hapned in Greece and Achaia. Page 487
  • Chap. 24. Concerning Narses a Master of the Milice, and his piety. ibid.
  • Chap. 25. That Chosroes, stimulated with envy at the pro­sperous successes of Justinian, broke out into a War against the Romans, and ruined many Ro­man Cities, amongst which he destroyed Antioch the Great also. ibid.
  • Chap. 26. Concerning the Miracle of the pretious and Vivi­fick wood of the Cross, which hapned at A­pamia. Page 488
  • Chap. 27. Concerning Chosroes's expedition against Edes­sa. ibid.
  • Chap. 28. Concerning the Miracle which was performed at Sergiopolis. Page 489
  • Chap. 29. Concerning the Pestilential distemper. Page 490
  • Chap. 30. Concerning Justinian's insatiable Avarice. Page 491
  • Chap. 31. Concerning the great Church of Saint Sophia, and that of The holy Apostles. ibid.
  • Chap. 32. Concerning the Emperour Justinian's madness ra­ther then kindness shown towards the Faction of the Venetiani. Page 492
  • Chap. 33. Concerning Barsanuphius the Asceta. Page 493
  • Chap. 34. Concerning the Monk Symeon, who for Christ's sake feigned himself a Fool. ibid.
  • Chap. 35. Concerning the Monk Thomas, who in like manner feigned himself a Fool. Page 494
  • Chap. 36. Concerning the Patriarch Menas, and concerning the Miracle which hapned then to the Boy of a certain Hebrew. ibid.
  • Chap. 37. Who were Bishops of the Greater Cities at that time. Page 495
  • Chap. 38. Concerning the Fifth Holy Oecumenicall Synod, and on what account it was convened. ibid.
  • Chap. 39. That Justinian having forsaken the right Faith, asserted the Body of our Lord to be incorrupti­ble. Page 497
  • Chap. 40. Concerning Anastasius▪ Arch-Bishop of An­tioch. Page 498
  • Chap. 41. Concerning the death of Justinian. ibid.
Book V.
  • Chap. 1. COncerning the Election of the Emperour Ju­stinus, and concerning his Morals. pag. 499
  • Chap. 2. Concerning the Murder of Justinus Kinsman to the Emperour Justinus. Page 500
  • Chap. 3. Concerning those Miscreants Addaeus and Aethe­rius. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. Concerning the Edict of our Faith, which Justinus wrote to the Christians in all places. Page 501
  • Chap. 5. Concerning the ejection of Anastasius Bishop of Theopolis. Page 502
  • Chap. 6. That, after Anastasius, Gregorius was made Bi­shop, and concerning his deposition. Page 503
  • Chap. 7. How those termed the Persarmenii Surrendred themselves to the Romans: on which account a War broke out between the Romans and Per­sians. Page 504
  • Chap. 8. Concerning Marcianus the Magister Militum, and concerning the Siege of Nisibis. ibid.
  • Chap. 9. How Chosroes (after he had sent his General Adaarmanes against the Romans, who afflicted them with many and those severe losses;) went himself in person to Nisibis. Page 505
  • Chap. 10. Concerning the taking of Apamia and Daras. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. That the Emperour Justinus was seized with a Frensie: but Tiberius took the care of the Re­publick. Page 506
  • Chap. 12. That Trajanus having been sent Embassadour to Chosroes, repaired the affairs of the Ro­mans. ibid.
  • Chap. 13. Concerning the Election of Tiberius to the Em­pire, and concerning his deposition. Page 507
  • Chap. 14. That the Emperour Tiberius raised a vast Army to be imployed against Chosroes; at the head whereof he sent Justinianus the Dux, and drove Chosroes out of the Roman Pale. Page 508
  • Chap. 15. That Chosroes being heavily disquieted at his own overthrow, ended his life: but his Son Hormisda undertook the Government of the Persians. Page 509
  • Chap. 16. Who at that time were Bishops of the Greater Churches. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Concerning the Earthquake which hapned at An­tioch in the times of Tiberius. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. Concerning the Insurrection against the execrable Anatolius. Page 510
  • Chap. 19. Concerning Mauricius's Generalship, and con­cerning his Vertues. Page 511
  • Chap. 20. How Mauricius vanquished Tamchosroes and Adaarmanes Generals of the Persians. Page 512
  • Chap. 21. Concerning those signes which presignified Mauri­tius's being made Emperour. ibid.
  • Chap. 22. Concerning the Proclaiming of Mauricius and Au­gusta. ibid.
  • Chap. 23. A Computation of the Times from Justinus Junior▪ to Mauricius. Page 513
  • Chap. 24. Concerning the Series of History, which is preser­ved till our Times. ibid.
Book VI.
  • Chap. 1. COncerning the Marriage of Mauricius and Augusta. Pag. 515
  • Chap. 2. Concerning Alamundarus the Saracen, and his Son Naamanes. Page 516
  • Chap. 3. Concerning Johannes and Philippicus, Master of the Milice, and the actions done by them. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. Concerning Priscus's Mastership of the Milice, and what he suffered from the Army who rai­sed a Mu [...]iny against him. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. Concerning Germanus's being forced against his will to undertake the Imperial digni­ty. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. How the Emperour sent Philippicus again, but the Army refused to receive him. Page 517
  • Chap. 7. Concerning Gregorius Bishop of Antioch, and the Calumny framed against him; and in what manner he evinced it to be false. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. That Antioch suffered again by Earthquakes. Page 518
  • Chap. 9. That the Barbarians taking courage from the De­fection of the Army from the Emperour, set upon them, and were worsted by Germa­nus. Page 519
  • Chap. 10. Concerning the Emperour's clemency towards the Mutineers. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. That Gregorius Bishop of Antioch was sent to pacifie the Army. ibid.
  • Chap. 12. Gregorius's Speech to the Army. Page 520
  • Chap. 13. That, after Gregorius's Speech, the Souldiers changed their minds, and received their General Philippicus again. Page 521
  • Chap. 14. Concerning the taking of Martyroplis. ibid.
  • Chap. 15. Concerning Comentiolus's Mastership of the Milice, and the taking the Castle Oc­bas. Page 522
  • Chap. 16. Concerning the Murder of Hormisda. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Concerning the Flight of Chosroes Junior to us. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. How the Emperour sent Gregorius and Dome­tianus to meet Chosroes. Page 523
  • Chap. 19. That Chosroes recovered the Empire of the Per­sians, [Page] by that assistance given him by the Ro­mans. pag. 523
  • Chap. 20. That the holy Mother Golanduch lived in those Times. ibid.
  • Chap. 21. Concerning those Sacred Presents, which Chosroes sent to the holy Martyr Sergius. ibid.
  • Chap. 22. Concerning Naamanes the Saracen. Page 524
  • Chap. 23. Concerning the death of Saint Symeon Junior the Stylite. Page 525
  • Chap. 24. Concerning the death of Gregorius Bishop of Antioch, and the Restauration of Anasta­sius. ibid.

The Contents of Eusebius Pamphilus's Four Books concerning the Life of the blessed Emperour Constantine.

Book I.
  • THE Preface, Concerning the Death of Constantine. pag. 529
  • Chap. 2. The Preface yet. Page 530
  • Chap. 3. Concerning God who honoured the Pious Empe­rours and destroyed the Tyrants. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. That God honoured Constantine. Page 531
  • Chap. 5. That he Reigned upwards of Thirty years, and lived above sixty. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. That he was the Servant of God, and a Van­quisher of Nations. Page 532
  • Chap. 7. Constantine compared with Cyrus King of the Persians, and with Alexander the Macedo­nian. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. That he subdued almost the whole world. ibid.
  • Chap. 9. That he was the Son of a pious Emperour, and left his Empire to his Sons who were Empe­rours. Page 533
  • Chap. 10. That this History is necessary, and advantagious to the Souls and minds of men. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. That he will at present relate only the Pious Acti­ons of Constantine. ibid.
  • Chap. 12. That Constantine like Moses, was educated in the Houses of Tyrants. Page 534.
  • Chap. 13. Concerning his Father Constantius, who refused to persecute the Christians, in such manner as Diocletianus, Maximianus, and Maxentius did. Page 535
  • Chap. 14. How Constantius Father to Constantine, being reproacht with poverty by Diocletian, filled his Treasuries, and afterwards restored the money to the owners thereof who had brought it in. ibid.
  • Chap. 15. Concerning the Persecution raised by the other Emperours. Page 536
  • Chap. 16. How Constantius Father to Constantine, preten­ding himself a worshipper of Idols, turned out those who were willing to offer sacrifice; but retained within his own Palace such as chose to profess themselves Christians. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Concerning the same Constantius's love and af­fection towards Christ. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. That after the Resignation of Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius was the first Augu­stus, and was Adorned with a numerous Is­sue. Page 537
  • Chap. 19. Concerning his Son Constantine, who when a young man came into Palestine together with Diocletian. ibid.
  • Chap. 20. The departure of Constantine to his Father, be­cause of Diocletian's treacherous designs a­gainst him. Page 538
  • Chap. 21. The death of Constantius, who left his son Con­stantine Emperour. ibid.
  • Chap. 22. How after the Death of Constantius, the Army saluted Constantine Augustus. ibid.
  • Chap. 23. A brief Rehearsal of the death of the Ty­rants. pag. 539
  • Chap. 24. That Constantine obtained the Empire by the Will of God. ibid.
  • Chap. 25. The Victories of Constantine over the Barbarians and Britanni. ibid.
  • Chap. 26. How he took a resolution of freeing Rome from the Tyr anny of Maxentius. ibid.
  • Chap. 27. That Constantine weighing in his mind the deaths of those who had worshipped Idols, chose rather the profession of Christianity. ibid.
  • Chap. 28. That whilst he was praying to God, He shewed him a Vision; to wit, a Cross of Light in the Heavens, (it being then mid-day) and an Inscription thereon, which admonished him, that by That he should Conquer. Page 540
  • Chap. 29. That God's Christ appeared to him in his sleep, and ordered him to make use of a Standard made in the form of a Cross, in his Wars. Page 541
  • Chap. 30. The making of that Standard framed in the fa­shion of a Cross. ibid.
  • Chap. 31. A Description of the Standard made in fashion of a Cross, which the Romans do now term The Labarum. ibid.
  • Chap. 32. That Constantine becoming a Catechumen, read the Sacred Scriptures. ibid.
  • Chap. 33. Concerning the adulteries committed by Maxentius at Rome. Page 542
  • Chap. 34. How the Praefect's Wife, that she might pre­serve her chastity, laid violent hands on her self. ibid.
  • Chap. 35. The slaughter of the People of Rome by Maxen­tius. ibid.
  • Chap. 36. Maxentius's Magick Arts against Constantine; and the scarcity of Provisions at Rome. Page 543
  • Chap. 37. The overthrow of Maxentius's Armies in Ita­ly. ibid.
  • Chap. 38. Maxentius's Death on the Bridge of the River▪ Tiber. ibid.
  • Chap. 39. Constantine's Entry into Rome. Page 544
  • Chap. 40. Concerning the Statue of Constantine which held a Cross; and concerning its Inscripti­on. ibid.
  • Chap. 41. The rejoycing over the Provinces, and Constan­tine's Acts of Grace. ibid.
  • Chap. 42. The Honours conferred on the Bishops, and the Building of the Churches. ibid.
  • Chap. 43. Concerning Constantine's Beneficence towards the Poor. Page 545
  • Chap. 44. How he was present as the Synods of Bi­shops. ibid.
  • Chap. 45. In what manner he bore with the mad­men. ibid.
  • Chap. 46. His Victories over the Barbarians. Page 546
  • Chap. 47. The Death of Maximin and others, whose Plots Constantine discovered, God making them known to him. ibid.
  • Chap. 48. The celebration of Constantine's Decennalia. ibid.
  • [Page] Chap. 49. In what manner Licinius afflicted the East. Page 547
  • Chap. 50. In what manner Licinius attempted to frame Trea­cheries against Constantine. ibid.
  • Chap. 51. Licinius's Treacheries against the Bishops, and his prohibitions of Synods. ibid.
  • Chap. 52. The Banishments and Proscriptions of the Chri­stians. ibid.
  • Chap. 53. Licinius's Edict, that Women should not meet in the Churches together with the men. Page 548
  • Chap. 54. That he Cashiered from the Militia those who refused to sacrifice; and forbad, that such as were shut up in Prisons should have any nourishment given them. ibid.
  • Chap. 55. Concerning Licinius's Improbity and Avarice. ibid.
  • Chap. 56. That at length he undertook the raising a Per­secution against the Christians. Page 549
  • Chap. 57. That Maximianus having been afflicted with a Fistulous Ulcer that bred worms, wrote a Law in favour of the Christians. ibid.
  • Chap. 58. That Maximinus being a Persecutour of the Chri­stians, fled away in a servile habit and hid himself. ibid.
  • Chap. 59. That Maximine, blinded by the acuteness of his disease, issued out a Law in favour of the Chri­stians. Page 550
Book. II.
  • Chap. 1. LIcinius's clandestine Persecution, and his Murder of the Bishops at Amasia a City of Pontus. pag. 551
  • Chap. 2. The demolishments of the Churches, and Butcheries of the Bishops. ibid.
  • Chap. 3. In what manner Constantine was moved in be­half of the Christians, when Licinius made pre­parations to persecute them. Page 552
  • Chap. 4. That Constantine made provision for the War with prayers; but Licinius, with Divinations and Prophesies. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. What Licinius spake concerning Idols and con­cerning Christ, whilst he was sacrificing in a Grove. Page 553
  • Chap. 6. The Apparition seen in the Cities under Licinius's Government, of Constantine's Souldiers pur­suing the Forces of Licinius. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. That in the Battels, whereever the standard, made in the form of a Cross, was, there a Victory was obtained. Page 554
  • Chap. 8. That fifty persons were made choice of to carry the Cross. ibid.
  • Chap. 9. That one of the Cross-bearers who fled, was killed; but he that by Faith stood his ground, was prefer­ved. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. Various Fights, and the Victories of Constan­tine. Page 555
  • Chap. 11. Licinius's Flight, and Inchantments. ibid.
  • Chap. 12. In what manner Constantine, praying in a Taber­nacle, obtained the Victory. ibid.
  • Chap. 13. His Humanity towards the Souldiers that were taken prisoners. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. Again concerning his Prayers in the Taber­nacle. Page 55 [...]
  • Chap. 15. Licinius's dissembled Friendship, and his Worship of Idols. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. In what manner Licinius commanded his Souldiers, not to make an Attack against the Standard of the Cross. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. Constantine's Victory. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. Licinius's Death, and the Triumphs celebrated over him. Page 557
  • Chap. 19. The Publick rejoycings and Festivities. ibid.
  • Chap. 20. How Constantine made Laws in favour of the Confessours. ibid.
  • Chap. 21. How he made Laws concerning the Martyrs and concerning the Estates of the Churches. Page 558
  • Chap. 22. In what manner he refreshed and cherish't the Peo­ple also. ibid.
  • Chap. 23. That he publickly proclaimed God the Authour of Good; and concerning the Copies of his Laws. ibid.
  • Chap. 24. Constantine's Law concerning Piety towards God, and concerning the Christian Reli­ligion. Page 559
  • Chap. 25. An example from ancient Times. ibid.
  • Chap. 26. Concerning the persecuted, and the persecu­tours. ibid.
  • Chap. 27. That Persecution hath been the Occasion of mis­chief to those who waged War. Page 560
  • Chap. 28. That God chose Constantine to be the Minister of Blessings. ibid.
  • Chap. 29. Constantine's Pious expressions towards God; and his praise of the Confessours. ibid.
  • Chap. 30. A Law setting men free from Banishment, from The Curia, and from Proscription of Goods. Page 561
  • Chap. 31. Those in Islands likewise. ibid.
  • Chap. 32. Also, those who have been Condemned to the Mines and publick Works. ibid.
  • Chap. 33. Concerning the Confessours who have been em­ployed in the Militia. Page 562
  • Chap. 34. The setting at Liberty those free persons in the Gynaecea, or them delivered over to slave­ry. ibid.
  • Chap. 35. Concerning the succession in inheriting the Goods of Martyrs and Confessours, and of such per­sons as had been banished, and of them whose Goods had been brought into the Trea­sury. ibid.
  • Chap. 36. That the Church is to be Heir to those who have no Relations; and that the Legacies given by them shall remain firm. Page 563
  • Chap. 37. That those who possess such places, and Gardens, and Houses, shall restore them; but without the Mean-profits. ibid.
  • Chap. 38. In what manner Supplicatory Libels ought to be presented in reference to these persons ibid.
  • Chap. 39. That the Exchequer shall restore to the Churches, Grounds and Gardens, and Houses. Page 564
  • Chap. 40. The Martyria and Coemiteries are ordered to be yielded up to the Churches. ibid.
  • Chap. 41. That such as have bought things belonging to the Church, or have received them as a gift, must restore them. ibid.
  • Chap. 42. An earnest Exhortation to worship God. ibid.
  • Chap. 43. That those things which Constantine had esta­blished by Laws, were by him really accom­plished and performed. Page 565
  • Chap. 44. That he preferred Christians to the Government of Provinces, but if any of the Governours were Pagans, he forbad them to Sacrifice. ibid.
  • Chap. 45. Concerning the Laws forbidding Sacrifices, and ordering the Churches to be built. ibid.
  • Chap. 46. Constantine's Letter to Eusebius and the rest of the Bishops, concerning the building of Chur­ches; and that the old-ones should be repaired, and built larger by the assistance of the Presi­dents. Page 566
  • Chap. 47. That he wrote against Idolatry. ibid.
  • Chap. 48. Constantine's Edict to the Provinces, concerning the Errour of Polytheism. The Preface, con­cerning Virtue and Vice. Page 567
  • Chap. 49. Concerning the Pious Father of Constantine; and concerning Diocletian and Maximian the Per­secutours. ibid.
  • Chap. 50. That by reason of Apollo's Oracle, who could not give forth Responses because of The just Men, a Persecution was raised. ibid.
  • Chap. 51. That Constantine, when he was a youth, heard [Page] that The just Men were the Christians, from him that had written the Edicts concerning the Persecution. pag. 567
  • Chap. 52. How may soris of Tortures and Punishments were made use of against the Christians. Page 568
  • Chap. 53. What reception was given to the Christians by the Barbarians ibid.
  • Chap. 54. What manner of revenge overtook them, who on account of the Oracle, raised a Perse­cution. ibid.
  • Chap. 55. Constantine's Glorification of God, and his con­fession in reference to the sign of the Cross, and his prayer for the Churches and people. ibid.
  • Chap. 56. How he prayes, that all persons may be Chri­stians; but forces no body. ibid.
  • Chap. 57. He gives glory to God, who by his Son has enlight­ned those that were in Errour. Page 569
  • Chap. 58. Another glorification of God, from his Govern­ment of the world. ibid.
  • Chap. 59. He praises God, in regard he alwaies teaches good things. ibid.
  • Chap. 60. An Exhortation at the close of the Edict, that no person should give trouble or disturbance to an­other. ibid.
  • Chap. 61 How from the City Alexandria controversies were raised on account of Arius. Page 570
  • Chap. 62. Concerning Arius and the Melitians. ibid.
  • Chap. 63. How Constantine sent a Legate with a Letter in order to a Composure. ibid.
  • Chap. 64. Constantine's Letter to Alexander the Bishop and Arius the Presbyter. Page 571
  • Chap. 65. That he was continually sollicitous about Peace. ibid.
  • Chap. 66. In what manner he put a stop to the Controversies raised in Africk. ibid.
  • Chap. 67. That the Beginnings of Religion were from the East. ibid.
  • Chap. 68. That being troubled by reason of the Disturbance, he advises to an Agreement. Page 572
  • Chap. 69. Whence the Controversie between Alexander and Arius arose, and that such matters ought not to be enquired into. ibid.
  • Chap. 70. An Exhortation to an agreement. Page 573
  • Chap. 71. That a pertinacious Contention ought not to have been raised concerning this matter, on account of some light and frivolous Expressions. ibid.
  • Cha. 72. That being highly affected with grief in regard of his Piety, he was necessitated to shed tears; and, that on this account, he put off the Journey he was about to make into the East. Page 574
  • Chap. 73. That after this Letter, the disturbance about the Controversies continued. ibid.
Book. III.
  • Chap. 1. A Comparison of Constantine's Piety with the Improbity of the Persecutors. pag. 575
  • Chap. 2. Again concerning the Piety of Constantine, who made a free and open profession of the Cross of Christ. Page 576
  • Chap. 3. Concerning Constantine's Picture, over which was placed a Cross, and under it a wounded Dragon. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. Again concerning the Controversies raised in E­gypt by Arius. Page 577
  • Chap. 5. Concerning the dissention on account of the Feast of Easter. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. In what manner he gave order, that a Synod should be convened at Nicaea. ibid.
  • Chap. 7. Concerning the Oecumenical Synod, at which were present Bishops out of all Provinces. Page 578
  • Chap. 8. That, like as 'tis said in the Acts of the Apostles, they met together out of various Nations. ibid.
  • Chap. 9. Concerning the Virtue and Age of the two hun­dred and fifty Bishops. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. The Synod was held in the Palace, amongst whom Constantine went in, and sate together with the Bishops. pag. 579
  • Chap. 11. The Silence of the Synod, after Eusebius the Bi­shop had made a short speech. ibid.
  • Chap. 12. Constantine's Speech to the Synod concerning Peace. Page 580
  • Chap. 13. That he reduced those Bishops who were at diffe­rence, to an agreement. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. The Concordant determination of the Synod con­cerning the Faith, and concerning Easter. Page 581
  • Chap. 15. That Constantine entertained the Bishops at a Feast, it being his Vicennalia. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. The gifts bestowed on the Bishops, and the Let­ters written to all. Page 582
  • Chap. 17. Constantine's Letter to the Churches, concerning the Synod convened at Nicaea. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. The same persons words concerning the Agree­ment about the Feast of Easter, and against the Jews. ibid.
  • Chap. 19. An Exhortation, that they would rather follow the greatest part of the world. Page 583
  • Chap. 20. An Exhortation, that all should give their assent to the Decrees of the Synod. ibid.
  • Chap. 21. His advice to the Bishops now ready to go away, that they would preserve Unity. Page 584
  • Chap. 22. In what manner he sent to some, and wrote to others; and concerning the distributions of money. Page 585
  • Chap. 23. How he wrote to the Egyptians, and exhorted them to Peace. ibid.
  • Chap. 24. That he frequently wrote Pious Letters to the Bi­shops and People. ibid.
  • Chap. 25. That he ordered a Church to be built at Jerusa­lem, in the holy place of our Saviour's Resur­rection. ibid.
  • Chap. 26. That the impious had covered our Lord's Sepul­chre with Rubbish and Idols. Page 586
  • Chap. 27. In what manner Constantine gave order, that the materials wherewith the Idol-Temple had been built, and the Rubbish should be removed and thrown at a great distance. ibid.
  • Chap. 28. The discovery of the most Holy Sepulchre. ibid.
  • Chap. 29. In what manner he wrote to the Presidents, and to Macarius the Bishop, concerning the building of a Church. Page 587
  • Chap. 30. Constantine's Letter to Macarius, concerning the building of the Martyrium of our Saviour. ibid.
  • Chap. 31. That he would have this Church built so, as to ex­ceed all the Churches in the world, for beauty of Walls, Columns, and Marbles. ibid.
  • Chap. 32. That Macarius should write to the Presidents concerning the beautifying of the Concha, and concerning Workmen, and Materials. Page 588
  • Chap. 33. How the Church of our Saviour was built, which the Prophets had termed New-Jerusalem. ibid.
  • Chap. 34. A description of the Fabrick of The most Holy Sepulchre. Page 589
  • Chap. 35. A description of the Atrium, and of the Por­ticus's. ibid.
  • Chap. 36. A description of the Walls, Roof, Beauty, and Gilding of the Church it self. ibid.
  • Chap. 37. A description of the double Porticus's on both sides, and of the three Eastern Gates. ibid.
  • Chap. 38. A description of the Hemisphaere, and of the twelve Columns with their Capitals. Page 590
  • Chap. 39. A description of the Area, Exhedrae, and Por­ches. ibid.
  • Chap. 40. Concerning the Number of the Donaria. Page 591
  • Chap. 41. Concerning the Building of the Churches at Beth­lehem; and on the Mount of Olives. ibid.
  • Chap. 42. That Helena Augusta, the Mother of Constantine, going to Bethlehem on account of Prayer, built these Churches. ibid.
  • [Page] Chap. 43. Again concerning the Church at Bethlehem. ibid.
  • Chap. 44. Concerning Helena's greatness of mind, and Be­neficence. pag. 592
  • Chap. 45. In what manner Helena was religiously conver­sant in the Churches. ibid.
  • Chap. 46. How, being eighty years old, and having made her Will, she ended her Life. ibid.
  • Chap. 47. In what manner Constantine deposited his Mo­ther; and how he honoured her whilst she was living. Page 593
  • Chap. 48. In what manner He built Martyria at Constan­tinople, and abolished all manner of Idola­try. ibid.
  • Chap. 49. The Sign of the Cross in the Palace, and the Ef­figies of Daniel in the Conduits. ibid.
  • Chap. 50. That He built Churches at Nicomedia also, and in other Cities. ibid.
  • Chap. 51 That He likewise gave order for the building of a Church in the place called Mamre. Page 594
  • Chap. 52. Constantine's Letter to Eusebius concerning Mam­re. ibid.
  • Chap. 53. That our Saviour appeared there to Abra­ham. Page 595
  • Chap. 54. The demolishment of the Idol-Temples and Images in all places. Page 596
  • Chap. 55. The demolishment of the Idol-Temple at Aphaca in Phoenice, and the disanulling those Acts of uncleanness committed there. Page 597
  • Chap. 56. The demolishment of Aesculapius's Temple at Aegae. ibid.
  • Chap. 57. How the Heathens having rejected their Idols, re­turned to the knowledge of God. Page 598
  • Chap. 58. That having demolished Venus's Temple at Helio­polis, He was the first who built a Church there. ibid.
  • Chap. 59. Concerning the disturbance raised at Antioch on Eustathius's account. Page 599
  • Chap. 60. Constantine's Letter to the Antiochians, that they should not draw away Eusebius from Caesarea; but should seek another Bishop. Page 600
  • Chap. 61. Constantine's Letter to Eusebius, wherein he commends him for his Refusal of the See of Antioch. Page 602
  • Chap. 62. Constantine's Letter to the Synod, that Eusebius should not be drawn away from Caesarea. ibid.
  • Chap. 63. In what manner he endeavoured to destroy Here­sies. Page 603
  • Chap. 64. Constantine's Constitution against the Here­ticks. ibid.
  • Chap. 65. Concerning the taking away the Meeting-places of Hereticks. Page 604
  • Chap. 66. That Impious and prohibited books having been found amongst the Hereticks, very many of them returned to the Catholick Church. ibid.
Book IV.
  • Chap. 1. IN what manner he honoured very many per­sons with gifts and promotions. Page 606
  • Chap. 2. A Remission of the fourth part of the Cen­sus. Page 607
  • Chap. 3. The Peraequation of those Census's that were too heavy and burthensom. ibid.
  • Chap. 4. That on those who were overthrown in Pecuniary Causes, he himself bestowed money out of his own Income. ibid.
  • Chap. 5. The conquest of the Scythae, who were subdued by the Standard of our Saviour's Cross. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. The subduing of the Sarmatae, occasioned by the Rebellion of the Servants against their Ma­sters. Page 608
  • Chap. 7. The Embassies of several Barbarous Nations, and the Gifts bestowed on them by the Empe­rour. ibid.
  • Chap. 8. That He wrote to the Persian Emperour (who had sent an Embassie to him,) in favour of the Christians there. pag. 609
  • Chap. 9. Constantinus Augustus's Letter to Sapor King of the Persians, wherein he makes a most pious Con­fession of God and Christ. ibid.
  • Chap. 10. That He speaks against Idols, and concerning the glorification of God. ibid.
  • Chap. 11. Against Tyrants and Persecutors; and con­cerning Valerian who was taken Prisoner. Page 610
  • Chap. 12. That he saw the fall of the Persecutors, and does now rejoyce because of the Peace of the Chri­stians. ibid.
  • Chap. 13. An Exhortation, that he should love the Christians, who live in his Country. ibid.
  • Chap. 14. How, by the earnestness of Constantine's prayers, Peace was bestowed on the Christians. Page 611
  • Chap. 15. That both on his money, and in his Pictures, he ordered himself to be Stampt and Drawn in a praying posture. ibid.
  • Chap. 16. That He issued forth a Law, forbidding his own Statues to be placed in Idol-Temples. ibid.
  • Chap. 17. His praying in the Palace, and his reading of the Divine Scriptures. ibid.
  • Chap. 18. That by a Law he commanded Sunday and Fry­day to be honoured. ibid.
  • Chap. 19. How He ordered the Ethnick-Souldiers to pray on Sundaies. Page 612
  • Chap. 20. The Form of Prayer which Constantine gave to his Souldiers. ibid.
  • Chap. 21. He orders the Representation of our Saviour's Cross to be drawn upon the Arms of his Soul­diers. ibid.
  • Chap. 22. His Fervency and earnestness in praying, and his Religious observation of the Festival of Easter. Page 613
  • Chap. 23. How He prohibited the worship of Idols; but ho­noured the Feasts of the Martyrs. ibid.
  • Chap. 24. That He affirmed himself to be as 'twere a Bishop of external affairs. Page 614
  • Chap. 25. Concerning his prohibiting of Sacrifices, and Ini­tiations, and concerning His abolishing the Gla­diatours, and the heretofore impure Priests of the Nile. ibid.
  • Chap. 26. The amendment of that Law made against the Childless, as also the alteration of that Law concerning Wills and Testaments. ibid.
  • Chap. 27. That he made a Law, that a Christian should not be Slave to a Jew, and that the Decrees of Sy­nods should be firm and authentick, and so forth. Page 615
  • Chap. 28. His Gifts bestowed on the Churches; and His Distributions of money to Virgins, and to the Poor. ibid.
  • Chap. 29. Speeches and Discourses written by Constan­tine. Page 616.
  • Chap. 30. That He shewed a certain covetous person the mea­sure of a Grave, to the end he might shame him. ibid.
  • Chap. 31. That he was laught at because of his too great clemency. Page 617
  • Chap. 32. Concerning Constantine's Oration, which he wrote to The Convention of the Saints. ibid.
  • Chap. 33. How He heard Eusebius's Panegyrick concerning the Sepulchre of our Saviour, in a standing posture. ibid.
  • Chap. 34. That He wrote to Eusebius concerning Easter, and about the Divine Books. ibid.
  • Chap. 35. Constantine's Letter to Eusebius, wherein he commends His Oration concerning Easter. Page 618
  • Chap. 36. Constantine's Letter to Eusebius, concerning the providing some Copies of the Divine Scri­ptures. ibid.
  • Chap. 37. In what manner the Copies were provided. ibid.
  • [Page] Chap. 38. How the Mart-Town of the Gazaei, by reason of its embracing the Christian Religion, was made a City, and named Constantia. pag. 619
  • Chap. 39. That in Phoenice there was a City made, termed Constantina; and in other Cities the Idols were destroyed, and Churches erected. ibid.
  • Chap. 40. That having created his three Sons Caesars in the three ten years of his Reign, He celebrated the Dedication of the Martyrium at Jerusa­lem. ibid.
  • Chap. 41. That in this interim He ordered a Synod to be convened at Tyre, because of some controversies started in Egypt. ibid.
  • Chap. 42. Constantine's Letter to the Synod at Tyre. Page 620
  • Chap. 43. That at the Feast of Dedication of the Church at Jerusalem, there were Bishops present out of all the Provinces. ibid.
  • Chap. 44. Concerning their Reception by Marianus the No­tary, and concerning the money distributed a­mongst the poor, and the sacred Gifts of the Church. Page 621
  • Chap. 45. Various discourses of the Bishops, in the sacred As­semblies; as also of Eusebius himself the Au­thour of this Work. ibid.
  • Chap. 46. That He afterwards recited his Description of our Saviour's Martyrium, and his Oration upon Constantine's Tricennalia, before the Empe­rour Himself. Page 622
  • Chap. 47. That the Synod at Nicaea hapned on Constantine's Vicennalia; but the Dedication of the Church at Jerusalem was performed on His Tricen­nalia. ibid.
  • Chap. 48. That Constantine was displeased with one, who praised Him too highly. ibid.
  • Chap. 49. The Marriage of Constantius Caesar, His Son. Page 623
  • Chap. 50. The Embassie and Presents sent from the In­dians. ibid.
  • Chap. 51. That Constantine having parted his Empire be­twixt His three Sons, instructed them in the Art of Governing, and Offices of Piety. ibid.
  • Chap. 52. How, when they were arrived at man's estate, He taught them Piety. ibid.
  • Chap. 53. That after He had Reigned abut two and thirty years, and lived above sixty, He had a Body that was sound and healthy. Page 624
  • Chap. 54. Concerning those who abused his eximious huma­nity, to avarice and a pretence of Piety. ibid.
  • Chap. 55. How Constantine wrote Orations to the very last day of his Life. Page 625
  • Chap. 56. How, making an expedition against the Per­sians, He took the Bishops along with him, and provided a Tent made in form of a Church. ibid.
  • Chap. 57. That having received the Embassie of the Per­sians, He watcht all night, together with others, on the Feast of Easter▪ ibid.
  • Chap. 58. Concerning the Building of that termed the Mar­tyrium of the Apostles, at Constantino­ple. Page 626
  • Chap. 59. A further description of the same Marty­rium. ibid.
  • Chap. 60. That in this Church also, He built himself a Se­pulchre. ibid.
  • Chap. 61. The Emperour's indisposition of Body at Heleno­polis, and his Prayers. Also, concerning his Baptism. Page 627
  • Chap. 62. Constantine's request to the Bishops, that they con­fer Baptism upon him. Page 628
  • Chap. 63. In what manner he praised God, after he had re­ceived Baptism. Page 629
  • Chap. 64. The death of Constantine on the Festival of Pen­tecost, about noon. ibid.
  • Chap. 65. The Lamentations of the Milice, and Tri­bunes. Page 630
  • Chap. 66. That His Body was carried from Nicomedia to Constantinople, into the Palace. ibid.
  • Chap. 67. That even after His death, he was honoured by the Comites and the rest, in the same manner as when he was alive. ibid.
  • Chap. 68. In what manner the Army resolved, that his sons should be forthwith Proclaimed Au­gusti. Page 631
  • Chap. 69. The mourning a [...] Rome for Constantine, and the Honour done him by Pictures after his death. ibid.
  • Chap. 70. That his Body was deposited at Constantinople, by his Son Constantius. ibid.
  • Chap. 71. The performance of the solemn prayers in that termed the Martyrium of the Apostles, at the Funeral of Constantine. ibid.
  • Chap. 72. Concerning the Bird termed the Phoenix. Page 632
  • Chap. 73. In what manner they Stampt Constantine on Coyns, ascending up into Heaven as ▪twere. ibid.
  • Chap. 74. That whereas God had been honoured by Him, He was on the other hand deservedly honoured by God. ibid.
  • Chap. 75. That Constantine was more pious than any of the foregoing Roman Emperours. Page 633

The Contents of the Emperour Constantine's Oration, which he Entituled to the Convention of the Saints.

  • Chap. 1. THE Preface makes mention of Easter; and that Christ, having been several waies be­neficial to all men, hath had plots framed a­gainst him by those, on whom he has conferred favours. pag. 635
  • Chap. 2. An Address to the Church, and to his Hear­ers, that they would Pardon and amend his mistakes. Page 636
  • Chap. 3. That God is both the Father of The Logos, and the Framer of the whole Creation; and, that it were impossible for things to consist, if their Causes were diverse. Page 637
  • Chap. 4. Concerning their Errour who worship Images. Page 638
  • Chap. 5. That Christ the Son of God framed all things, and has appointed to every thing the term of its Existence. ibid.
  • Chap. 6. Concerning Fate; that what is discourst of it, is false; and this is demonstrated, both from Humane Laws, and things created; which are moved, not disorderly, but in a regular manner; by which order of theirs, they demonstrate the Command of the Creator. Page 639
  • Chap. 7. That, in things which we can't understand, we ought to glorifie the Creator's wisdom; nor [Page] must we suppose▪ Chance, or any thing else, save God, to be the cause of them. pag. 641
  • Chap. 8. That God does plentifully supply men with those things that are usefull; but, with such as are for delight, He furnishes them in an indifferent manner only; bestowing both sorts, so as may be agreeable to their profit and advantage. ibid.
  • Chap. 9. Concerning the Philosophers, who, because they desired to know all things, erred as to their Opinions; and some of them were exposed to dangers. Also, concerning the Opinions of Plato. Page 642
  • Chap. 10. Concerning those men, who do not only reject the Dogmata of the Sacred Scriptures, but them of the Philosophers also; and, that we either ought to give the Poets credit in all things, or in nothing. Page 643
  • Chap. 11. Concerning our Lord's coming in the flesh, what it was, and for what reasons it has hapened. ibid.
  • Chap. 12. Concerning those who knew not this Mystery; and, that their ignorance is voluntary; and, what great blessings await those who know it, and especially them who have died in Con­fession. Page 647
  • Chap. 13. That a difference of the parts of the Creation is necessary; and that a propensity to Good and Evil, springs from the will of men; and therefore, that the judgment of God is neces­sary, and agreeable to Reason. Page 648
  • Chap. 14. That a created nature is at a vast distance from an Essence which is uncreated: and, that man ap­proaches nearest to God, by a virtuous Life. ibid.
  • Chap. 15. What Precepts our Saviour delivered, and what Miracles he wrought; and how beneficial He hath been to those who own a subjection to Him. Page 649
  • Chap. 16. That the Coming of Christ is foretold by the Prophets; and, that he was appointed for the de­struction of Idols, and Idolatrous Cities. Page 650
  • Chap. 17. Concerning the wisdom of Moses, which was emulated by the Wise men amongst the Hea­thens; also concerning Daniel, and the Three Children. Page 651
  • Chap. 18. Concerning Sibylla Erythraea, who prophesied in an Acrostick of verses, manifesting our Lord and his Passiant. The Acrostick is this; JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, SAVIOUR, CROSS. Page 652
  • Chap. 19. That this Prophesie concerning our Saviour, was not forged by any of the Christians; but was written by Sibylla Erythraea, whose books Ci­cero rendred into Latine Verse, before the coming of Christ. And, that Virgil makes men­tion of this Sibyll, as also of a Virgin delivered of a Child: but He sang of this Mystery, ob­scurely; out of a fear of those then in power. Page 654
  • Chap. 20. Other Verses of Virgilius Maro's concerning Christ, and the interpretation of them; in which 'tis shown, but obscurely, as the usage of Poets is, that The Mystery is disclosed. Page 655
  • Chap. 21. That 'tis impossible for these things to be spoken concerning a meer Man: and, that unbe­lievers, by reason of their ignorance of the Divine worship, know not even whence they have their being. Page 657
  • Chap. 22. The Emperour's Thanksgiving, wherein He a­scribes his Victories, and all his other Blessings, to Christ; also a Reproof of Maximinus the Ty­rant of those times, who by the severity of his Persecution had increased the Glory of the Christian Religion. Page 658
  • Chap. 23. Concerning the Polity of the Christians: and, that the Deity rejoyces in those who lead Virtuous lives: and, that we ought to expect a Judge­ment, and a Retribution. Page 659
  • Chap. 24. Concerning Decius, Valerianus, and Aurelianus, who ended their lives miserably, because of their Persecution of the Church. Page 660
  • Chap. 25. Concerning Diocletian, who with infamy resigned the Empire; and, by reason of his Persecu­ting the Church, was stricken with Thun­der. ibid.
  • Chap. 26. That God is the cause of the Emperour's Piety; and, that we ought to seek prosperous events from God, and to impute them to him; but must ascribe faults to our own sloth and neg­ligence. Page 661

Eusebius Pamphilus's Oration in praise of the Emperour Constantine, spoken at his Tricennalia, is divided into XVIII. Chapters, without Contents.

ANcient Writers were wont, before their Books, to set an Index [or, Contents] of the Chapters; to the end, the Readers might know, at first sight as 'twere, what was treated of in each Book. Now this was usually done by them two ways. For they either prefixt the Contents of all the Books together, before their whole work; as Plinius Secundus has done in his Books of Natural History. Or else their usage was, to set the Contents of the Chapters before each Book; as Our Eusebius has done in His Eccle­siastick History. For 'tis not to be doubted, but Eusebius did Himself make these Contents or Titles of the Chapters, and set them before His Books of History, as they now occur. We may indeed observe, that in these Contents Eusebius does always Speak of Himself in the first person. For instance, after the Contents of the Chapters of the Second Book, these words occur; [...]. That is, Note, that this Book was collected by us, out of the Writings of Clemens, Tertullian, Josephus, and Philo. Besides, in His Seventh Book, these are the Contents of the last Chapter. [...], &c. That is, Concerning those Ecclesiastick persons who were famous in Our Own age, &c. Whence it may plainly be gathered, that Eusebius the Compiler of this History, was the Authour of The Con­tents of the Chapters, also. Besides, Rufinus, who rendred the Books of Ecclesiastick History into Latine, about Six hundred years after Eusebius's death, found the same Contents in His Greek Copy, which now occur in Our Copies. And this is apparent from Rufinus's Manuscript Copies, one of which, written out above Seven hundred years since, I have in my Custody. For in them, the Contents of the Chapters are always set before every Book, in the same order wherein they are now placed in Our Greek Manuscript Copies. And Rufinus calls them Capitula. But Cassiodorus, in His Preface to the Tripartite History, terms them righter Titulos; as does like­wise St Cyprian, in His Exhortation to Martyrdom [written] to Fortunatus. Compendium feci, says He, ut propositis titulis, quos quis noscere debeat & tenere; Capitula Dominica Subnecterem. Where you see that Tituli are distinguished from Capitula. Moreover▪ Suidas, in the word [...], and in the word [...], remarks that Tituli differ from Capitula. For instance, St Matthew [He says] contains Sixty eight Tituli, but Three hundred fifty five Capitula; and so concerning the other Gospels. Capitulum is properly a part of a Book, which contains the entire Narrative of some one thing. But Titulus is an Index set above the Capitulum; and sometimes One Titulus or Title contains many Capita or Chapters, as may be seen in The Pandects of the Civil Law. The same thing was heretofore visible in St Matthew's Gospel, which had more Chapters than Titles, as Suidas does attest. So also in the other Gospels. For, that passage which occurs in Suidas, namely, that St Mark had fourty eight Tituli, and but thirty six Capita, is faulty, and instead of thirty six, it must be mended thus, two hundred thirty three, as may be plainly gathered from The Canons of the Gospels which Our Eusebius composed. But sometimes each Titulus does answer each Capitulum, as tis in these Books of Ecclesiastick History. And in the Mazarine and Medicaean Copies, The Titali or Contents of each▪ Book are prefixed, together with the Numeral Notes, or, Figures. But in The Fuketian Manuscript▪ after the Titulus, [...] is added, together with the Numeral Note. But this term never occurs in those Excellent Copies which I have mentioned. Yea, instead thereof, I found the Word [...] placed in the Beginning of the Fourth Book, over the very Contents of the Chapters; [...]. That is, The Contents of the Fourth Book. Vales.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL H …

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF Eusebius Pamphilus, IN TEN BOOKS.

Made English from that Edition set forth by VALESIUS and Printed at PARIS in the Year 1659.

Together with VALESIUS's Annotations on the said Historian; which are done into ENGLISH, and set at their proper places in the Margin.

Hereto also is annexed an account of the Life and Writings of the foresaid Historian, Collected by VALESIUS, and Rendred into ENGLISH.

HINC LUCEM ET PUCULA SACRA.

CAMBRIDGE, Printed by John Hayes, Printer to the University. 1683.

VALESIUS'S PREFACE, To HIS EDITION of EUSEBIUS'S HISTORY.

HAving performed the Office of a Solemn Valesius Dedicated His first Volume, (which contains Eusebius's Ten Books of History, His Life of Constan­tine, Con­stantine's Oration, and His Own.) to the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and the whole Cler­gy of the Gallican Church. Dedication, 'tis now time, Most Illustrious Prelates! That I should give You a particular Account of my Work. For, whereas this Labour was undertaken by me, on Your account chiefly, and by Your Command; I do both wish, and also hope, that before all others, You will be the Readers and Judges of my Work. There are three things there­fore, which I have endeavoured to perform in this Edition. The first is, an Amendment of the Greek Text: The second, a Latine Version of it. The third is, an Explanation of the obscurer places. As touching the Latine Version, after three Translatours of Eusebius's History, I have made a fourth. But no person before us, had attempted an Amendment and Explanation of the Eusebian Work. But, that I may speak more distinctly concerning each particular in its place and order, I will begin first from the Emendation. Who­ever attempt a new Edition of old Writers, those persons must of necessity begin their Labour from an Emendation. So Origen, after He had undertaken a New Edition of the Seventy Inter­preters, and had found many passages in them that were doubtfull and disagreeable by reason of the diversitie of Copies, in the first place Laboured in an Emendation of them. And having com­pared the Copies of the Seventy Seniors, partly with the Hebrew Text, partly with three other Editions, namely Aquila's, Theodotion's, and Symmachus's; He took out all those Errours which had crept into the Edition of the Seventy Seniors. For this He himself intimates, in His Eighth Tractate on St Matthew, in these words. See Origen's Works, se­cond part, pag. 46. Edit. Paris. 1619. In Exemplaribus quidem Veteris Testamenti, quaecunque fuerunt inconsonantia, Deo praestante coaptare potuimus; utentes judicio caeterarum Editionum. Ea enim quae videbantur apud Septuaginta dubia esse propter Consonantiam Exemplariorum, facientes judicium ex Editionibus reliquis, convenientia Servavimus. Indeed, in the Copies of the Old Testament, whatever [passages] were disagreeable, by God's assistance we have been able to make [...]it; using the judgment of the rest of the Editions. For those [passages] which seemed in the Seventy to be doubtful by reason of the agreement of Copies, making a judgment from the other Editions, we have preserved agreeable.

Origen's Example was afterwards followed by St Jerome, who bestowed a new Edition of the Seventy Translatours mended by Himself, and distinguished by Asterisks and Obelisks, on the men of His own Language, as He Himself attests in several places. And that I may speak also con­cerning profane Writers, Crates and Aristarchus, Grammarians, who set forth most accurate Edi­tions of Homer's Poem, have done nothing else in a manner, but mended and distinguished that Work. In like manner therefore, when I had resolved to publish a New Edition of the Eusebian History, I used my utmost Industry and diligence in its Emendation. Two Editions onely of Eusebius's History have hitherto come forth in Greek. The one is the Paris-Edition, which Robert Stephens▪ Printed; a person who on this very account has deserved highly of Learning, because He was the first that published the Body of Ecclesiastick History in a most Excellent Letter. The other is the Geneva-Edition. But this has in the Greek Text every where exprest that Edition of Robert Stephens: save onely, that it has various Readings and Emendations set at the margin, [taken] out of the Copies of Learned men; and, that out of those Copies it has supplied some imperfections which occur in the Books concerning the Life of Constantine. Therefore, my pains [Page] was to be bestowed upon that one Edition onely of Robert Stephens. Which, with as much diligence as I could, I have compared with Four Manuscript Copies of the best Note, and have restored it in many places. Two of these Four Copies, the King's Library furnisht us with. The former bears the Arms of Francis the first; written on Silken paper, about four hundred years since; and it does sometimes exhibit singular Readings, and very different from the other Copies. This is that, which in my Notes I have named The King's Copy. The other is out of the Medic [...]an Li­brary, which being now removed into the King's, is called by one and the same name of the King's Library. This, to distinguish it from that former Copy, is in Our Notes termed the Medicaean Copy. Which, though it be something less ancient, is nevertheless transcribed from an excellent Copy, and by a Learned hand. Robert Stephens had made use of Both these Copies, in His Edition of the Eusebian History. And in His Printing of the Text it self, He has almost every where followed the King's Copy, and very seldom departs from its footsteps, as I have remark'd in my Notes. But in the distinction of the Chapters, He has exprest the Medicaean Copy, wherein the Contents are set before each Chapter, and are written in Red-Letters, There is, besides those, a third Copy, belonging to the most Eminent Cardinal Julius Mazarinus. Before I speak concerning the goodness and excellency of which Copy, it is requisite, and You (Most illustrious Prelates!) with importunity seem to crave this very thing of me, that a few words should be said concerning the Most Eminent Cardinal, by whom that Copy was lent me. For, whereas this Most Eminent Prince, born to every thing that is Great, does embrace Learning with a singular affection and benevolence; We, who from our infancy have applied our minds to the Studies of Learning, should doubtless be ungrateful, should we not, both in our own, and in the name of all Learned men in general, study to render Him all possible Thanks, as well in words, as in our Writings. Farther, with what favour and how great a benevolence He does honour and respect Learning, His bounteous Li­berality and Munificence towards Learned men does attest; which, to speak nothing con­cerning other persons, He al­lowed Va­lesius a yearly pen­sion of 1500 Li­vers: which sum the Cardinal sent him yearly, as long as he lived; and by his Will continued it till Va­lesius's death: See Valesius's Life, writ­ten by his Brother Hadrian. He was lately willing should be extended even to me also, when I neither hop'd for, nor thought of any such thing. The same thing is declar'd by His most com­pleatly-furnisht Library. Which having stor'd with innumerable Copies of the Best Writers, partly Printed, and partly in Manuscript; He does not keep it perpetually shut like some Sepulchre, as those old Senators of the City Rome did, whom See Amm. Marcelli­nus, Book 14. pag. 14. Edit. Paris. 1636. Ammianus Marcellinus doth sharply reprove on that very account: but opens it, as 'twere some publick House, to all the Learned; and volun­tarily invites each person to it; and freely imparts the use of His Manuscript Books to the Studious, as often as they shall have need. What shall I say concerning His other virtues and eximious Accomplishments of mind? What concerning His wonderful Moderation and Lenity, whereby He hath allayed intestine Commotions and Tumults, without the bloud of any Citizen? But, these things will be spoken by me more fitly at another time, or more rhetorically by others. For at present I have resolved, to pursue those praises of His onely, which do apart belong to the Studies of Literature. Nevertheless, I can't possibly refrain my self▪ but must speak something here concerning that Peace, which the most Eminent Cardinal, with all imaginable earnestness and industry, does now chiefly urge and promote, and which we hope will in a short time be made publick by His Majesties Or▪ Cryers. Proclamation. For, this thing is of great concern to the ad­vantage of Learning; which every one knows to be the child of Peace, and to repose it self under its Umbrage and defence. Whereas therefore the most Eminent Cardinal, when first placed at the Helm of State, had not Himself raised a dismal War with the Spaniards, but had found it already raised: by various Councills (as ['tis requisite] in so Great an affair,) long and accurately weighed at length He hath resolv'd upon this; that the Spaniards are to be broken by a lasting War, and must really be made to know how powerfull the French are in Arms, Riches, Valour, Con­stancy, and the other necessary Provisions and Helps for a War: that the Enemy, made sensible of their own weakness and the power of the French, might be slower in future to provoke Our Nation, either by Arms or injuries. For ['twas His Sentiment,] that a firm and secure Peace could no otherwise be made with the Enemy, than till such time as by their frequent Overthrows and Losses they had perceived, that they were inferiour to the French in waging War. Therefore, when the Spaniards, no otherwise than the Phrygians, had at length understood that; then the most Eminent Cardinal, perceiving a fit opportunity of entring into a Peace presented it self, refus'd not to make it with the Enemy, and to recede something from Our Right, from the chief point of the whole War, lastly from that Hope and Victory which we had now almost in our hands; that there­by He might [promote] the Good of the people, [answer] the wishes of all good men, and gratifie the desire of the whole Christian world. In which affair I can't indeed enough admire His singular prudence, and His wisdom that was so salutary to the State. For the Peace was for no other reason deferred so long, than that in future it might be lastinger and more firm. And let thus much be said by the by, concerning the praises of the most Eminent Cardinal. Who having, during the War, never desisted from cherishing Learning and Learned men in a most gracious man­ner; 'tis much more to be hop'd, that in the time of His Own Peace, He will embrace the same Arts with a choice Affection and Care: and will bring it to effect, that Our French, who for the Glory of Arms have been always eminent above other Nations, may now excell for the praise of [Page] Learning, and in the studies of the best Arts. But, 'tis now time, that we should return thither, whence we have digress'd. That third Copy therefore, which the Library of the Most Eminent Cardinal hath furnished us with, is far the best and ancientest of all those Copies of Eusebius which I have seen. For, whatever Emendations we found in other Copies, are all shown us by that Manuscript: and many other Amendments occur in it, which I found not in other Copies, as the Studious Readers will be able to perceive from my Annotations. It is written in Parch­ment, [transcrib'd] about seven hundred years since, most neatly and also most correctly. It has likewise Scholia. Short Expositions now and then set at the side, sometimes in an ancient, sometimes in a more modern hand; which Expositions we have set down in Our Notes, at their due places. Many other things also are to be taken notice of in that Excellent Manuscript, partly in the Ac­cents, partly in the He means, the distin­guishing the Periods one from another, and the Clauses and Mem­bers of each pe­riod, by poynts. Distinction or Punctation. For, as to the Accents, in that Manuscript words are often acuted, which in other Copies have a Circumflex Accent. For instance, [...] and [...] in that Copy are always acuted. But on the contrary, [...], which in other Manuscripts is mark'd with an acute Accent, is Circumflected in that Copy. And this in my judgment is righter. But, as to the Distinction, which we vulgarly term the Punctation, this Copy is so accurately poynted, that from this very one Manuscript you may understand the whole manner and knowledge of poynting, which is a thing of no small moment. Indeed, before I had procured this Copy, I was not thorowly acquainted with the usefulness and necessity of the Middle distinction; with which, that very one Book diligently inspected and examined, hath at length made me acquainted. But, we shall speak more hereafter, concerning the Distinction. This moreover I have observed in that most ancient Manuscript, as often as a Full poynt. full distinction, or [...] is set in any Line, the first Letter of the following Line appears without the order of the rest, and touches upon the very outward margin. And this is a signe, that a new Chapter, or a new period is begun after that final distinction. I have observed the same in the other Manuscript Copies also. Indeed, in the Old Sheets of the King's Library, which contain Eusebius's Books concerning the Life of Constantine, I have found that 'tis always so, as often as a new Chapter is begun. We had, besides, a fourth Copy out of the Library of that most illustrious personage Nicholas Fuket, who bears the Office of Procuratour General in the Senate of Paris, and at the same time manages the Praefecture of the Royal Treasury, with the highest commendation. And these four Manuscript Copies we have made use of, in order to our amend­ment of the Books of Ecclesiastick History. But, we have compared the Books concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine, with three ancient Copies. The first is that Copy of the King's, con­cerning which I have spoken above, in which Manuscript, before the Books of Ecclesiastick History, occur the four Books concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine, written▪ though not in the same, nevertheless in an ancient hand. The second place belongs to the Old Sheets of the King's Library. So I call certain papers, which are digested into Quaternions; but they are loose, and are not made up into the form of a Book. In these Sheets, besides Eusebius's Books concerning the Life of Constantine, and the Oration of the same Emperour to the Saints, occurs the first Quaternion of the Ecclesiastick History; whereof I have likewise made frequent mention in my Notes. All the rest of it, by what accident I know not, is lost. The Fuketian Library furnished us with the third Copy. Wherein, before the four Books concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine, is prefixt Eusebius's Panegyrick, spoken to the same Constantine, in the thirtieth year of His Empire. This Copy, though of the meanest Antiquity, is nevertheless of the best Note, and in many places more correct and larger than those two former, which Robert Stephens made use of in His Edition. Besides these Manuscript Copies, we were assisted by those various Readings and Emendations, which learned men had with their own hands noted at the margin of Robert Stephens's Edition: Of which sort many Books are now to be found. But we made use more especially of three, which are likewise often mentioned in our Notes. The first was Hadrian Turnebus's, which with great exactness He had compared with The King's, and The Medicaean Copy. But the Books concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine, had been compared with an English Copy, either by the hand of Hadrian Turnebus Himself, or that of Odo Turnebus. The second Copy was Vulcobius's; which, be­cause Renatus Moraeus a Physician of Paris had lent me, I am wont in my Notes to term Moraeus's Copy. This Book contains some few other Emendations, besides those which occur in Turnebus's Copy. The third was Sr Henry Savil's Book, a person of incomparable Learning; it was sent me out of England by James Usher Arch-Bishop of Armagh. For, whereas I had perceived, that in Usher's Notes on the Martyrdom of the B. Polycarp, a Manuscript Copy of Eusebius's History out of Sr Henry Savil's Library was quoted; and had found, that, by some passages produced by Usher, that Copy was of the best Note; I made my request to Him by Letter, that he would transmit to me the Various Readings of that Copy; for I did suppose, that the whole Copy had been compared by him. But he wrote back to me, that the Copy it self, written in silken paper, had been given by Sr Henry Savil to the Oxford-Library. But he presently sent me Robert Stephens's Edition, in the margin whereof Sr Henry Savil had noted the Emendations taken out of that his own Manuscript Copy. Ne­vertheless, as far as I have been able to conjecture, Sr Henry Savil hath not set all the readings of the Manuscript Copy at the side of that Edition; but those onely, which he thought to be good and undoubted. For some readings are produced by Usher out of that Manuscript Copy, which I [Page] afterwards perceived were omitted by Sr Henry Savil. Farther, the same Sr Henry Savil, at the margin of that Edition, hath written many Amendments, out of a Book of John Christophorson's, which Book Christophorson had compared with some Manuscript Copies. These are the Helps from Books, wherewith we were furnished, when we undertook to mend the Books of Eusebius's History. But least any one should perhaps think, that any thing hath been altered by us rashly and at pleasure, we do before all things desire the Readers should know, that we have done nothing with­out the consent and authority of the Best Copies. And so scrupulous were we, of making any alteration in these Books, that when it appeared most evidently, that the place was corrupted, we refused even then to favour and follow our own conjecture. For proof hereof, may be [pro­duced] a place in the close of the tenth Book of the Ecclesiastick History, pag. 399 [of Our Edition;] which runs thus: [...]. We could very easily have restored the true Reading here, and instead of [...], mended it in this man­ner, [...]. For so Gelasius Cyzicenus, in Chap. 1. Pag. 45. Edit. Paris. 1590. His second Book, cites this place of Eusebius; nor is it otherwise written in Eusebius's second Book concerning the Life of Constantine, Chap. 19; where this passage is repeated almost in the very same words. Lastly, no place is mended in this our Edition, concerning which I have not advertised the Reader in my Notes, and have not given an account of mine amendment.

Distinction, or Punctation, is not the last part of Emendation; concerning which I must say some­thing, least peradventure the Readers should be confounded by a new kind of poynting, which was first brought into this Edition by me. Although, if we would speak properly, this is not a new sort of Distinction, but the oldest, and made use of by all the Ancients, as well Greek as Latine Writers: which being wholly disused and lost by the negligence of more modern Authours, I have, at least in part, endeavoured to restore in this Edition. Those Ancients indeed (the figures of Letters being then newly invented,) wrote in one continued form, without any distinction at all. Which thing containing much of difficulty both in reading and pronouncing, the ancient Gram­m [...]rians found out three positures or distinctions, whereby, as 'twere by certain Stations and Inns, the continued journey of speech might be distinguished and divided. The first they termed [...], that is a subdistinction: the second [...], that is a middle distinction: the third [...], that is a final or full distinction. Now, they noted them by three Poynts plac'd in a different Site. For a Poynt set at the bottom of a Letter, denotes a subdistinction: a middle distinction, which the Latines have termed A pause. Moram, is shown by a poynt placed at the middle of a Letter. But that poynt which is set at the head of a Letter, denotes a final distinction. What the import and design of these distinctions is, the Grammarians do inform us; Donatus, and Marius Victorinus, and Diomedes in his Second Book. Which Author last named, at this place shall be to us instead of all. Lectioni, says he, posituras accedere vel distinctiones oportet, &c. To reading must be added the positures or distinctions, by Gr [...]cians termed [...] which, during our▪ reading, give a liberty of recovering breath, least it should fail by a continuation. These are three, a distinction, a sub­distinction, a middle distinction or pause, or, as some will have it, a submiddle: the diversity of which [three,] is shown by three Poynts set in a different place. And after some few words. A distin­ction is a t [...]ken of silence, when, the sense being ended, there is a Liberty of resting longer. The mark hereof, is a Poynt set above the verse, at the Head of the Letter. A subdistinction is a signe of a me [...]e and convenient silence, whereby the Course of pronunciation (the sense remaining) is so stop'd, that what follows, ought to succeed immediately. The note hereof, is a poynt plac'd under the verse. A pause is a small separation, interpos'd in the continuation of senses, and possesses the middle place of a meet distinction and subdistinction, in such manner that it may seem neither perfect in the whole, nor omitted, but by a signification of staying, may want the beginning of another sense. And it attends this office onely, that by the shortest respiration it may recover and nourish the Reader's breath. For, in pronouncing every one ought in such wise to be silent, that, because the breath it self is changed by a kind of decay, it may afterwards be recovered. As thus,

Ut belli signum Laurenti T [...]rn [...]s ab arce
Extulit, & ra [...]co strep [...]erunt corn [...]a Cant [...].
Utq [...]e acres concussit equos, utque imp [...]lis arma.
Extemplo turbati animi.

For, there are many middle clauses of this reading. First, least those be confounded, which are put as double-membred and treble-membred [clauses,] and the like. Then, that the Actu [...] verborum. Emphasis of the words may be more eminently apparent and conspicuous, which may be moved by some affection, either by indignation, or commiseration compared, &c. Such marks therefore of distinctions and punctations as these, all the ancients as well Greeks as Latines, made use of in their Books: which also, as 'tis manifest, were still in use, in the age of Isidorus Hispalensis. For this we learn from His Origines, Book 1. Chap. 19. In Manuscript Copies likewise which are somewhat ancienter, the same way of distinguishing is always observed. But more modern Writers, [Page] whether by unskilfullness or a kind of sloth and negligence, have changed them all. And instead of a subdistinction, they have put Comma's. little rods; for the mark of a middle distinction, two poynts: but they have cast the Note of a final distinction from the head to the feet of a Letter. Which ill way of poynting almost all Printers have followed, except Aldus Manucius. For he in his Edition of Greek Books, whereof he Printed almost an innumerable company, hath always retained that punctation, which he had found in Manuscript Copies. As to the Little Rods, I would not condemn them. For 'tis of very small moment, what mark we should make use of, to denote a subdistinction, provided that mark be placed at the feet of a Letter. Indeed, in that Excellent and most ancient Manuscript belonging to the Mazarine Library, whereof I have made mention before, I found a little rod placed sometimes for a middle, sometimes for a final distinction; that is, sometimes at the middle of a letter, sometimes at the top. And not onely by a little rod, but also by a Sicilicum or [...] turned backwards, a middle distinction was sometimes denoted, as Victorinus informs us in his first Book of the Art of Grammar. But, whereas we now-a-days put a point at the feet of a letter for a final dictinction, in my judgment that can in no wise be born with. For it does not onely contradict Antiquity, but Reason also. For Reason requires, that a mark placed in the same site, should denote the same distinction. A poynt therefore placed in the bottom ought to signifie the same that a little rod does, which is set at the bottom of a Letter. For, not the mark it self, but the site of the mark alters the distinction. Whence 'tis made evident, that a final distinction is not rightly shown by us, by our setting a poynt at the feet of a Letter. Wherefore, 'tis not with­out reason that I have endeavoured to restore the old way of Punctation in this Edition. I have indeed retained the Little Rod it self, in regard in denoting a subdistinction it serves for the same pur­pose with a poynt: but from the authority of the Manuscript Copies, I have, by way of Recovery as 'twere, put the middle distinction into possession of its own places. The advantage and necessity whereof, the studious, I hope, will soon acknowledge. For, that middle distinction does not onely serve for this purpose, that breath may be taken in order to a continuing the beginning of another sense, and that the Emphasis may be more eminently apparent and conspicuous, as Diomedes writes▪ but also, to denote the difference of persons and dignities. So somewhere in these Books, where the reading is [...], the Most Eminent Cardinal's Manuscript, after the word [...], adds a middle distinction. Besides, in many places I have set a poynt at the head of the Letter, to denote a final distinction: and would have done that every where, had not the force of old custom diverted me from my attempt. But, what I have in part onely performed in this Edition, that (I hope) will at length be perfected by others endued with greater Learning and Authority, who shall in future publish the Books of the Ancients. And thus much may suffice to have been spoken briefly concerning Our Emendation and Punctation. Come we now to the Latine Translation.

I doubt not but there will be many who will admire, why, after three Latine Translatour's of Eusebius, and those not meanly vers'd in the Greek Tongue, I should have made a fourth Version. To whom in the first place I answer thus. If after Rufinus, who first turned the Books of Ecclesiastick History into Latine, Musculus might have leave to make a new Translation; if again, after Muscu­lus, Christophorson might have leave to do the same, why should not I also have the like Liberty with others? Amongst the Jews, after the Edition of the Seventy Seniours, confirmed by the Religion of so many oaths, by the authority of so many ages; first Aquila, then Theodotion and Symmachus, did each of them publish new Versions of the Old Testament. Also, some persons are found to be the Authors of a fifth, sixth, and seventh Edition, whose names are unknown: and all these Translations Origen hath plac'd in His Hex [...]pla, that they might be read by Catholicks. That therefore which the Jews were free to do in the Old Testament, why may not I have leave to do in Eusebius? especially, in regard 'tis less dangerous to attempt that in Eusebius, than in the sacred Books of the divine Scriptures. Indeed, many and those cogent reasons enforc'd me even against my will, to undergo the burthen of this new Translation. For, whereas by He means the French Clergy. Your Command and with Your Advice I had undertaken a new Edition of the Ecclesiastick History▪ and perceived, that the Versions of former Translatours, by reason of their frequent mistakes and ill Renditions, did in no wise satisfie the desire of Learned men; as it has been In His E­pistle De­dicatory. already declared by the Testimony of J. Curterius and Peter Halloixius: one of these two things was of necessity to be performed by me, that I should either correct the old Translation, or else make a new one. Farther, to correct the Translation of others, as it is in it self a thing troublesome and difficult, so also it seemed invidious. For, His own praise and His own honour, is from us due to each person. They have done as much as in them lay, and by their own pains have endeavoured to lighten and lessen Our Labour. Therefore, the Work of each Translatour ought to be commended by us, rather than interpolated. Rufinus, although He follows the sense of Eusebius rather than His words, is nevertheless neat and clean, and not unpleasant to the Readers: and even on this very account highly to be commended, because He was the first that bestowed the Ecclesiastick History on men of the Latine Tongue; whose Translation the Western Church has made use of till Our own age. Musculus keeps closer to the words, and in translating is short and clear, and in many places more happy than Christophor­son. [Page] Christophorson, as He is more diligent and learneder than Musculus, so also is more verbose, and has something of the Style of Cicero. Besides, He used Manuscript Copies in the making His Translation: and was the first that published Eusebius's Panegyrick spoken at Constantine's Tricen­nalia, in Latine; which the Geneva-Printers afterwards Printed in Greek. Some body will be ready to say here. What need then was there of a new Version? whenas those Translatours abound with so many and such high commendations. I rehearse their praises, but do not detect their errours: which I had rather should be discovered by the testimony of others, than mine own. But, if any one will read my Notes, o [...] shall have a mind to compare my Translation with their Version, He will doubtless understand, with how many and how gross mistakes their Translations are stuft; and that 'twas not without reason, that You had ordered me to make a new Version of Eusebius. But, because I am faln upon this discourse, not willingly but by a necessity, I will say something briefly concerning the errours of former Translatours. For, should I have a mind to reckon up all their mistakes one by one, my discourse would be stretcht to a vast length. To begin therefore with Rufinus; who knows not, that, at his pleasure, he has added many passages to Eusebius, has taken away many passages from him, has changed many; and in most places is rather a Paraphrast than a Translatour? For instance, in the Seventh Book he has inserted a tedious Narrative concerning the Miracles of Gregory Thaumaturgus, which occurs not in the Copies of Our Eusebius. The same person, in the Ninth Book, rehearses a speech of Lucian the Martyr, spoken before the Judge in defence of our faith; which Speech the Copies of Eusebius do not ac­knowledge. He has omitted almost the whole Tenth Book of the Ecclesiastick History, in his Ver­sion. I say nothing here concerning the Chapters altered by him in the Sixth and Seventh Book, in as much as I have given the Reader notice of this thing, in my Notes. How many places of Eusebius are misunderstood and ill rendred by him? This is he, who of Zacharias the Priest, of whom mention is made in Saint Luke's Gospel, has made us a Martyr of Lyons. This is he who hath confounded Biblias with Blandina. This is he who has made the most noble Martyr Philoromus a Tribune of Souldiers, from his being a Rationalist. To what purpose is it to speak concerning Musculus, whose Versions (for he has translated other Writers also into Latine,) are not extraordinarily approved of by the Learned? I could, if I had a mind, expose his innumerable mistakes: amongst which this is a notorious one. Dionysius Alex­andrinus, in his Epistle to Germanus, which Eusebius records in his Sixth Chap. 40. Book, says that he was taken by the Souldiers [...], and was brought to Taposiris. But Musculus believed Heliodysmas to be a Town. For thus he renders it. Ego namque cùm Heliodysmas unà cum illis qui mecum erant venissem, Taposirim à militibus ductus sum. For I, after I was come to Heliodysmae, together with them that were with me, was brought by the Souldiers to Taposiris. Farther, the same Musculus in his Translation has wholly omitted Eusebius's Book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, which is subjoyn'd to the Eighth Book of his Ecclesiastick History; for what reason I know not. For that Book of Eusebius's, is a most Elegant one. The Translation of John Christophorson re­mains [to be spoken of,] which very Version wants not its Blemishes. For, to omit the Barbarisms which do frequently occur in it, his Translation is too prolix and intricate, whilst he either adds some words to fill up the period, or annexes his own Explanations in order to the clearing of an obscure place. Sometimes also, of two periods he makes but one, and puts two Chapters into one: in so much that, the division of the Latine Chapters in his Translation differs much from the Greek. Which thing, how much trouble and vexation it breeds in citing places out of Eusebius, all the Studious know. The same Translatour was indeed sufficiently well vers'd in Divinity: but he was meanly furnished with the skill of Or, Criti­cal Art. a Critick, and with the knowledge of Roman antiquity. Wherefore, in the proper names of Roman Magistrates, and in those matters which appertain to the Civil Administration, he is always out: for instance, in rendring the words [...], and in other such like terms. Lastly, Christophorson has embodied Eusebius's Book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, (which in Robert's Stephens's Edition, and in the Manuscript Copies, is subjoyned to the Eighth Book of his Ecclesiastick History,) with his Eighth Book, because he believ'd it to be a part thereof. Which mistake of Christophor­son's, the Geneva-Printers having afterwards followed, that they might make the Greek agree with the Latine; of two Books of Eusebius's, have made but one. And let thus much be briefly spoken concerning the Errours of former Translations, not with any design to disparage, or lessen the glory of any Translatour; but, that all the Studious may understand, that we had good reason for our undertaking a new Translation. Which as I dare not warrant to be perfect and every way compleat, (for that would be too much confidence;) so I do boldly affirm, that it wants very many faults, wherewith former Translations do abound. Further, whereas three things are required in a Version; namely that it be faithfull, Elegant, and clear; I have made it my Business, that no one of these should be wanting in our Translation.

The Translation is followed by the Annotations. Wherein I had an eye chiefly to two things: first that I might give an account of my Emendations, and might propose to the Studious the various Readings of Manuscript Copies: Secondly, that I might clear the obscurer passages in Eusebius, and might explain the ancient Usages and Rites of the Church, by producing and [Page] comparing the passages of other Writers. To my Annotations I have subjoyned These four Dis­sertations are publi­shed at the Latter end of Valesius's first Volume of the Ec­clesiastick Historians. four disserta­tions. The first whereof is, Concerning the Beginning and Progress of the Schism of the Don [...]tists. The Second, Concerning the Anastasis and the Jerusalem-Martyrium. This is followed by a dispu­tution about the Version of the Seventy Translatours against James Usher Arch-Bishop of Armagh. The Fourth is, concerning the Roman Martyrologie which Rosweydus published. And these are the things which with care and diligence I have performed in this Edition, in order to the illustration of Eusebius's History. Which if to any one they shall peradventure [...]eem slight and of little worth, let him think, that all things which are published in this kind of Learning, are in a manner of this nature, and are either valued or contemned according to the affection and stomach of the Readers. For, if they find a candid and studious Reader, they are highly esteemed: but if they shall happen to fall into disdainful ears, they are look't upon as nothing. Besides, what but that which is very ordinary and mean can be expected, from me especially, who by reason of my weakness of sight am forc'd both to reade and write by other mens eyes and hands: and who, whilst by reason of the greatness of the Labour I do always hasten forwards, have so hastily dictated this whole work such as it is, that I have scarce had leisure to reade it over again. On which account I am the more to be pardoned, if perhaps in any place of my Notes I have not so fully satisfied the Reader's desire.—

VALESIUS'S ACCOUNT Concerning the LIFE AND WRITINGS OF Eusebius Caesariensis.

COncerning the Life of Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, Acacius His Scholar and Successour in the See of Caesarea had heretofore written a Book, as Eccles. Hist. Book 2. Chap. 4. Socrates does attest. But in regard this Book, together with very many others, is lost by the carelesness of Anti­quity, we, by gathering together from this place and t'other the Testimonies of Ancient Writers who have spoken concerning Eusebius, to the utmost of our ability will endeavour to repair that Loss. Eusebius therefore was born in Palestine, about the Close (as 'tis likely) of Gallienus's Reign. That he was a Native of Palestine is hence prov'd, because by the Ancients he is commonly call'd a Palestinian. So, 'tis certain, Basilius, Theodoret, and others do term him. And although he might have been thus Sur-nam'd from his being Bishop of the City Caesarea, yet it seems to me truer, that he drew that Sur-name from his Country. Indeed, he himself does attest, in his First See Chap. 19. Book con­cerning the Life of Constantine, that during his being a youth he was educated and conversant in Palestine, and that Constantine was first seen by him there, whilst he made a journey thorow Pa­lestine in the Court of Diocletianus Augustus. Be­sides, in the Second Chap. 43. where see Note (a.) Book of the same work (where he records a Law of Constantine's, which he wrote to the Palestinians in favour of the Chri­stians,) he does plainly shew himself to have been a Palestinian. For, after he has recited the Con­tents of that Law transmitted to the Palestinians, he adds these words. [...]. These were the Constitutions con­tained in the Emperour's first Edict sent to Us. But whereas I have plac'd his Birth upon the Lat­ter end of Gallienus's Reign; of this thing I have Eusebius himself for my Authour. For speaking (in his Books of Ecclesiastick History,) con­cerning Dionysius Bishop of the Alexandrians, he does attest that He had lived in his own age, as may be seen in Book 3, Chap. 28. Wherefore, in regard 'tis manifest that Dionysius Alexandrinus departed this life on the twelfth year of Gallienus's Empire, Eusebius must of necessity have been born then, if his age fell on those times wherein Diony­sius lived. The same may likewise be gathered from the Fifth See Chap. 2 [...], at the Be­ginning. Book of his Ecclesiastick History, about the end of it, where speaking concerning Ar­temon's Heresie, he writes that Paul of Samosata had revived that Heresie in Eusebius's his age. Lastly, relating (in his Seventh Book,) those things which hapned during the Reign of Gallienus, before he begins his Discourse concerning the Er­rour and Condemnation of Paul of Samosata, he has these words. Book 7. Chap. 26. [...]. But now, after an historical rela­tion of these things, we will deliver to the know­ledge of posterity an account of our own age. Whom he had for his Parents, is unknown to us, excepting that Nicephorus Callistus, following I know not what Authours, does tell us that he was begotten of the Sister of Pamphilus the Martyr. But in Arius's Which occurs in Theodo­ret's Eccles. Hist. Book 1. Chap. 5. Edit. Vales. Letter to Eusebius Bishop of Ni­comedia, he is termed the Brother of Eusebius Ni­comediensis. And although by reason of his friendship he might be called the Brother, yet it seems truer to me, that he was either the near Kinsman or Cousin-germane of Eusebius Nicomedi­ensis, especially in regard Arius, although many other persons are there mentioned, yet terms onely Eusebius of Caesarea Brother to him of Nicomedia. Be­sides, Eusebius of Nicomedia was a Native of Syria. For he was at first Bishop of Berytus. Nor was it the usage then, that strangers and persons unknown should be preferred to govern Churches. What Masters he had in secular Lear­ning, is in like manner unknown to us. But in sacred Literature he had Dorotheus the Eunuch, a Presbyter of the Antiochian Church, for his Ma­ster: of whom also he makes an honourable men­tion in his Seventh Chap. 32. Book. Although Eusebius at that place says onely, that he had heard Doro­theus, whilst he expounded the Holy Scriptures in the Church not unfitly. Nevertheless, if any one has a mind (with Trithemius) to conclude from those words of Eusebius, that Eusebius was Doro­theus's disciple, truly I shall not very much oppose him. Theotecnus being at that time dead, the Bishoprick of the Church of Caesarea was admi­nistred [Page] by Agapius, a person of eminent piety, and large bounty towards the poor. By him Eusebius was admitted into the Clergy, and entred into the strictest and most intimate friendship with Pamphilus, who at that time was eminent amongst the Presbyters of the Church of Caesarea. Pam­philus was by Nation a Phoenician, born at Bery­tus. Scholar to Pierius a Presbyter of the Alex­andrian Church, as Photius relates. Who (in regard he was inflamed with a singular Love of sacred Learning, and with the greatest diligence imaginable made a Collection of all the Books of Ecclesiastick Writers, and especially of Origen's;) founded a most famous School and Library at Caesarea. Of which School Eusebius seems to have been the first Master. Indeed Eusebius, in his Chap. 4. where see Note ( [...].) Book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, writes in express words, that Apphianus, who compleated his Martyrdom on the third year of the Perse­cution, had been instructed in the Sacred Scriptures by him in the City Caesarea. From that time Eusebius always lived with Pamphilus in the clos [...]st intimacy, and continued his inseparable com­panion till his death: so dear to him, that from his friendship he got the surname of Pamphilus. Nor did Eusebius love him whilst he liv'd, but had a singular affection for him when dead also: in so much that after Pamphilus's death, he always made a most honourable, and likewise a most loving mention of him. This is attested by those Three Books which he wrote concerning the Life of Pamphilus the Martyr, which Books St Jerome terms most elegant ones. The same is likewise gathered from many passages which occur in his Ecclesiastick History, and in his Book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine. Lastly, in his Second Book against Sabellius, which was written by Eusebius after the Nicene Council, he frequently commends Pam­philus the Martyr, although he suppresses his name. For even in the very beginning of his Discourse he says thus. Puto adhuc aures ob­strepi meas à memoria beati illius viri, &c. I think my Ears are as yet struck by the memory of that Blessed man, who frequently made use of that devout word. For even your ears do as yet retain the sound of that word. For I think I hear him saying, The onely-begotten Son of God. For this Religious word was al­ways uttered by his mouth. For it was the re­membrance of the Onely-Begotten, to the Glory of the unborn Father. Now, we have heard the Apostle commanding, that Presbyters ought to be honoured with a double honour, those espe­cially who labour in the Word and Doctrine. And at pag. 29, he speaks of him again in this manner. Haec non nos extollunt, &c. These things do not puff us up, The Re­membrance of, &c. remembring that Blessed man. Now I wish I could so speak, as together with you I did always hear from him. But these words which are now said, seem to have been pleasing to him. For 'tis the Glory of Good Servants, to speak truth concerning the Lord; and 'tis the honour of those Fathers who have taught well, if their Doctrines be repeated. And again in the same Book, pag. 37. Haec au­diebamus semper a beato illo viro. &c. These words we always heard from that Blessed man. For they were often spoken in this manner by him: although some suspected, that he uttered these words with his mouth, but that in his heart he thought otherwise. And indeed I remember with you, that I have heard from him, that he hath satisfied us with an holy oath, that there was not one thing in his tongue, and another in his heart. And a little after. Sed [...] quidem paucis, &c. But now, Let thus much be said by us in short, in memory and honour of that Our Father, so Good, so Laborious, and every where vigilant for the Churches. For we have not made mention of his Stock, nor of his Education, or Learning, or of His other Life. the rest of his Life and Reso­lution. Which passages in Eusebius (that I may not defraud any one of his commendation,) were shown me by the Most Learned Franciscus Oge­rius. Now, from what I have said it may be evi­dently enough gathered, that Eusebius was joyned to Pamphilus by no Or, Right. Tye of kindred, but by the Bond of friendship onely. 'Tis certain, Euseb us, although he names Pamphilus in so many places, and boasts so highly of his friendship, yet never terms him his Kinsman or Relation. Tea, from Eusebius's own Testimony 'tis plainly made out; that Pamphilus the Martyr was not Eusebius's Kinsman. For in the close of his Seventh Chap. 3 [...]. towards the end. Book of Ecclesiastick History, where he makes mention of Agapius Bishop of the Church of Caesarea, his words are these. [...]. In this man's time we knew Pamphilus (a most eloquent man, and a true Philosopher in the practises of his Life) honoured with a Presbytership of that Church. Whereas there­fore Eusebius himself does attest, that Pamphilus was first known by him then, it is sufficiently ap­parent, that they were not joyned together by any kindred or affinity. In these times hapned that most severe Persecution of the Christians▪ which being first begun by Diocletian, was by the fol­lowing Emperours continued to the tenth year. In the time of this Persecution, Eusebius, in regard he was then a Presbyter of the Church of Caesarea, resided almost constantly in that City, and by con­tinual Exhortations instructed many persons in order to Martyrdom. Amongst whom was Ap­phianus, a noble Youth, whose illustrious Com­bat Our Eusebius does relate in his Chap. 4. Book con­cerning the Martyrs of Palestine. In the same Persecution Pamphilus was taken, and cast into Prison, where he spent two whole years in Bonds. During which time Eusebius in no wise deserted his Friend and Companion: but visited him con­tinually, and in the Prison wrote together with him Five Books in defence of Origen: the Sixth and last Book of that Work he at length finished after Pamphilus was dead. That whole work was by Eusebius and Pamphilus dedicated to the Confessours living in the Mines of Palestine, as Photius relates in his Bibliotheca, Chapter 118. In the time of the same Persecution, on account of some urgent Business of the Church, as 'tis pro­bable; Eusebius went to Tyre. During his re­sidence in that City, he attests (Book 8. Chap 7.) that he himself was eye-witness of the Glorious Combats of five Egyptian Martyrs. And in the Ninth Chapter of the same Book▪ he writes that he came into Egypt and Thebais, whilst the fury of the Persecution as yet rag'd; and that there he beheld with his own eyes, the admirable constancy of many Martyrs of both Sexes. There are those who relate, that Eusebius in this Persecution, to free himself from the Troubles of a Prison, sacri­ficed to Idols: and that that was objected against him by the Egyptian Bishops and Confessours in the Synod at Tyre, as we will hereafter relate, But, I doubt not but this is false, and a calu [...]y forged by the Enemies of Eusebius▪ For, had so [Page] great a Crime been really committed by Eusebius, how could he have been afterwards made Bishop of the Church of Caesarea? How is it likely that he should have been invited by the Antiochians, to undertake the Episcopate of that City? And yet Cardinal Baronius has catcht up that as cer­tain and undoubted, which was objected against Eusebius by the way of contention and wrangling, by his Enemies, nor was ever confirm'd by any one's Testimony. At the same time, a Book was written by Eusebius against Hierocles. The oc­casion of writing it was given by Hierocles of Nicomedia, who about the beginning of this Per­secution, when the Churches of the Christians were every where demolished, insulting as 'twere over the disquieted Religion, in the City Nico­media published two Books against the faith of Christ, which he entitled [...] In which Books amongst other things he asserted this, that Apollonius Tyaneus performed far more and greater Miracles than Christ; as Lactantius does attest in his He should have said his fi [...]th Book; where see Chap. 2, and 3. p. 307, &c. Edi [...]. Thys. Seventh Book. But Eusebius con­temning the Man, rested satisfied in confuting him in a very short Book. Agapius Bishop of Cae­sarea being dead during this interval, and the Per­secution being now abated, and peace restored to the Church; by the general consent of all persons. Eusebius is put into his place. Others make Agricola (who was present at, and subscribed to the Synod of Ancyra, on the year of Christ 314,) Successour to Agapius. So Baronius in his Annals, at the year of Christ 314; and Blon­dellus in his. Apology pro sententiá B. Hiero­nymi, Chap. 19. Where he writes, that Euse­bius undertook the Administration of the Church of Caesarea after Agricola's death, about the year of Christ 315. But those Subscriptions of the Bishops which are extant in the Latine Collections of the Canons, in my judgment seem to have little of certainty and validity in them. For they occur not either in the Greek Copies, or in the Latine Version of Dionysius Exiguus. Besides, Eusebius reckoning up (in the Seventh Chap. 32. Book of his Ecclesiastick History,) the Bishops of the chief Sees, under whom the Persecution began and rag'd, ends in Agapius Bishop of Cae­sarea, who (says he) took a great deal of pains in that Persecution for the good of his own Church. He therefore must of necessity have sate Bishop untill the end of the Persecution. But Eusebius was made Bishop immediately after the Persecu­tion was ended. For when Paulinus Bishop of Tyre dedicated a Cathedral, sometime after Peace and repose was restored to the Church; He, together with other Bishops, was invited by Pau­linus to its Dedication, and made a most Eleg [...]nt Oration before him, as we are informed from the Tenth See Chap. 4. where Eusebius has inserted this his Speech. Book of his Ecclesiastick History. Now, this hapned before Licinius rebell'd against Con­stantine, which fell out on the year of Our Lord 315. About these times Eusebius wrote those famous Books concerning Evangelick Demon­stration and Preparation. Which Books, 'tis plain, were written before the Nicene Council, in regard they are by name cited in his Eccle­siastick History, which was written by Eusebius before that Council, as we have shown in Our Annotations. In the interim Licinius, who managed the Government in the Eastern Parts, incited by a sudden rage, began to persecute the Christians: especially those that were Prelates, of whom he had a suspicion that they shewed more of favour to Constantine, and put up prayers for him. But Constantine undertook an Ex­pedition against Licinius, and in a short time com­pell'd him, after he had been vanquished in two fights by Land and Sea, to a Surrendry. And thus Peace was again by Constantine restored to the Christians, who inhabited the East. But a far more vehement disturbance was at that time rais'd amongst the Christians themselves. For Arius a Presbyter of the City Alexandria, in re­gard he would publickly in the Church preach up some new and impious Opinions concerning the Son of God, and having been frequently admonished by Alexander the Bishop, would nevertheless per­sist in those Assertions, was at length condemned together with the Associates of [...]his own Errour, and was expell'd out of the Church. High­ly resenting this his Condemnation, he sent Letters, with a draught of his own Faith, to all the Bi­shops of the neighbouring Cities: wherein he com­plain'd, that he had been undeservedly deposed by Alexander, in regard he asserted the same Points that the rest of the Eastern Prelates maintained. Many Bishops impos'd upon by these Artifices, and powerfully incited by Eusebius of Nicome­dia, who was an open Favourer of Arius's Party, wrote Letters in defence of Arius, to Alexander Bishop of the City Alexandria, entreating him to restore Arius to his former place. Our Eusebius was one of their number, whose Letter writ­ten to Alexander, is extant in the Acts of the Seventh Occumenical Synod, and is by us put a­mongst the Valesius, after this his account of Euse­bius's Life & writings, adds a Col­lection (which he had made himself) of the Te­stimonies of the An­cients, both for and a­gainst Eu­sebius; a translation whereof into En­glish, was lookt upon as needless. Testimonies of the Ancients. Euse­bius Caesariensis's example being presently fol­lowed by Theodotus and Paulinus, the one Bi­shop of Laodicea, the other of Tyre; they inter­ceded with Alexander for Arius's restitution. Whose Letters, as Patronizing his own Opinions, in regard Arius boasted of in all places, and by the authority of such great men drew many per­sons into a Society of his own Errour; on this account Alexander himself also was forc'd to write Letters to the other▪ Bishops of the East, whereby it might be made publickly known, that Arius, together with his Associates, had been justly condemn'd and depos'd. Two Letters of Alex­anders are at this present extant: the one to A­lexander Bishop of Constantinople, in which A­lexander complains of three Bishops of Syria, who agreeing in opinion with Arius had inflamed the quarrel, which they ought rather to have extin­guished, and had rendred it siercer than it was before. These three are Eusebius, Theodotus, and Paulinus, as may be collected from Arius's Letter written to Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia. The other Letter of Alexanders written to all the Bishops throughout the world, Socrates re­cords in his First Chap. 6. Book. To these Letters of A­lexander almost all the Eastern Bishops subscrib [...]d: amongst whom the Prelates of chiefest note were, Philogonius Bishop of Antioch; Eustathius of Be­roea, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Now, those Bishops who feem'd to be of Arius's side, in re­gard they saw themselves severely touch'd in A­lexanders Letters, made it their business to de­fend Arius with far more of fierceness and Ve­hemency: but most especially Eusebius Nicome­diensis. For our Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, to­gether with Patrophilus and Paulinus, and other Bishops of Syria, concluded upon this onely, that Arius the Presbyter should have a Liberty of holding Assemblies in his own Church; never­theless, that he should be subject to Alexander the Bishop, and should earnestly request of him that he might be admitted to Peace and Commu­nion. The Bishops in this manner disagreeing [Page] amongst themselves, and some favouring Alexan­ders, others Arius's side; the Contention was incredibly height'ned. To cure which mischief, Constantine assembled a General Synod of Bi­shops (such a one as no age had ever seen,) from all parts of the Roman World, in Nicaea a City of Eithynia. Of this Greatest and most celebrated Council, Our Eusebius was not the least part. For he had both the first place in the right-hand Or, Wing. Side, and also in the name of the whole Synod made a Speech to the Emperour Constantine, who sate on a Golden Chair in the midst between the two Rows of those who sate together [in the Coun­cil;] as he himself attests in the Preface to his first Chap. 1. where see Note (a.) Book concerning the Life of Constantine, and in his Chap. 11. Third Book of the same work. The same is likewise confirmed by Sozomen, in the First Chap. 19. Book of his Ecclesiastick History. Far­ther, when there was a great contest amongst the Bishops concerning a Or, Form of Faith. Draught of the Creed, Our Eusebius proposed a Draught that was exactly true and plain, and which was commended by the consent of all the Bishops, and of the Emperour Himself. But, in regard something seem'd to be wanting in that Draught, in order to confuting the impiety of the new Opinion; the Fathers of the Nicene Synod judged these words as necessary to be further added, Very God of Very God; begotten not made, being of One Substance with the Father. They likewise annex'd Anathema­tisms, against those who should assert that the Son of God was made of things which are not, and that there was a time when He was not. And at first indeed Our Eusebius refused to admit of the Term Consubstantial. But afterwards, in­formed by the other Bishops what the import and magning of that word was, he at length consented and subscrib'd to this Creed, as he himself relates in his See this Letter in Socrates, Book 1. Chap. 8. pag. 217, &c. of our English Version. Letter to his Diocess of Caesarea. Some affirm, that Eusebius, forc'd by necessity, and out of a fear of the Emperour, rather than from the Sentiment of his own mind, had subscrib'd to the Nicene Creed. I might indeed be easily induc'd to believe that, concerning others who were pre­sent at this Synod. But, I can't think so of Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea. For after the Ni­cene Synod, Eusebius always condemned those who would assert that the Son of God was made of nothing, as 'tis plain from his Books against Marcellus, and expressly from the ninth and tenth Chapter of his First Book De Ecclesiastica Theologia. Athanasius does likewise attest the same concerning him. Who (though he has often related that Eusebius Caesariensis had subscribed to the Nicene Synod, yet) does never declare, that he did that dissemblingly and in pretence onely. Had Eusebius subscrib'd to the Nicene Council, not heartily, but by fraud and under a colour; why did he afterwards send that Letter I have mentioned, to his Diocess of Caesarea, wherein he profess'd ingen [...]ously, that he had embraced that Faith, which had been published in the Nicene Council? After the Nicene Synod, the A­rians out of a fear of the Emperour, were for some little time quiet. Resuming their bold­ness presently, after they had by subtlety crept into the Prince's favour; by all ways and arts they began to Persecute the Catholick Prelates. Their first assault was made against Eustathius Bishop of the City. Antioch, who was Eminent both for the Glory of Confession, and was also accounted the Chief amongst the Assertors of the Nicene Faith. Him therefore they accuse before the Emperour, be­cause he maintained Sabellius's impiety, and be­cause he had reproach't Helena Augusta the Em­perour's Mother. A numerous Assembly of Bi­shops is conven'd in the City Antioch, in which presided Eusebius of Nicomedia, the Chief and Ring-leader of the whole Faction. Eusebius of Caesarea was likewise present at this Synod. Eu­stathius therefore having been accused by Cyrus Bishop of the Beroeans, because he held the im­pious Doctrine of Sabellius, and moreover an accusation of See the Story in Theodoret's Eccles. Hist. Book 1. Chap. 21. Edit. Vales. incontinency having been framed against him, is thrust out of his own See. On which account a most impetuous Tumult is rais'd at Antioch; the people being divided into two Parties, some requesting Eusebius Bishop of Cae­sarea might be put into Eustathius's place; others desiring▪ Eustathius their Bishop might be restored to them. And it had come to blows, had not a fear of the Emperour, and the Judges authority repress'd them. The Sedition being at length quieted, and Eustathius banisht, Our Eusebius (although en­treated both by the people, and by the Bishops also that were present, to undertake the Administration of the Antiochian Church, yet) refused to do that▪ And when the Bishops by Letters written to Constantine, had acquainted Him both with their own [vote,] and with the suffrage of all the people; Eusebius wrote his Letters also to Constantine. Whereto the Emperour Constan­tine gave answer, and highly commended Euse­bius's resolution. Eustathius having in this man­ner been depos'd, which was done on the year of Christ 330, as I have remark'd in: my See Life of Constan­tine, Book 3. Chap. 59. note (c.) Anno­tations; the Arians turn the violence of their fury upon Athanasius. And in the first place they complain of his Ordination, in the Prince's pre­sence: then, that This ca­lumny the Melitians fram'd, in­stigated by Eusebius of Nicome­dia; as A­thanasius tells us in his Apology to Constan­tius: See his Works, Tom. 1. p. 778. Edi [...]. Paris. 1627. he exacted an Impost of a Linen Garment from the Provincials: that he had broken a sacred cup: lastly, that he had murdered one Arsenins a Bishop. Therefore Constantine wearied with their most troublesome complaints, indicted a Council in the City Tyre, and commanded Atha­nasius the Bishop to repair thither, to make his defence. In that Synod, Eusebius Bishop of Cae­sarea, amongst others, sate as Judge▪ whom Con­stantine had a mind should be present at that Coun­cil. Potamo Bishop of Heracleopolis (who had come thither with Athanasius the Bishop, and some Prelates of Egypt;) seeing him sitting in the Council, is said to have accosted him in these words: [Is it fit,] Eusebius, that You should sit, and that the innocent Athanasius should stand to be judg'd by You? Who can bear such things as these? Tell me, were not you in Custody with me during the time of the Persecution? And I lost an eye in defence of the Truth; but you appeared maim'd in no part of your body, nor did you undergo Mariy [...]dome, but are alive and whole. By what means did you escape out of Prison? Unless you promised our persecutors that you would do the That is▪ sacrifice to Idols. detestable thing, and perhaps you have done it. These things are in this manner related by Epi­phanius in the Here [...]i [...] of the Meletians. From which words by the by is appears, that they are mistaken who relate, that our Eusebius had some­time sacrificed to Idols, and that that was openly objected against him in the Tyrian Synod. For Potamo accused not Eusebius, [...]s if he [...]ad sacri­ficed to Idols; but onely, his dismission out of Prison s [...]fe and whole, had given Pota [...]o an oc­casion of suspecting that concerning him. Never­theless 'tis possible, that Eusebius might have been dismist out of Prison by some other way, than that which Potamo has related. Farther, from Epi­phanius's words it may, I think, b [...] gathered, [Page] that Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea presided at this Synod. For he adds, that Eusebius being sorely vex'd at the hearing of these words, dismissed the Council. Yet from other Writers we have it for certain, that not Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, but Eusebius of Nicomedia presided at the Tyrian Synod. After the Council held at Tyre, all the Bishops who had sate together there, by the Em­perour's Order betook themselves to Jerusalem, to celebrate the Consecration of that Great Church, which Constantine had erected in that place, in honour of Christ. There Our Eusebius grac'd the Solemnity, by several Sermons which he made in the Church. And when the Emperour by most sharp Letters had summon'd the Bishops to his own Court, that in his presence they might give an account of those things, which by fraud and out of hatred they had transacted against Atha­nasius; Our Eusebius together with five others came to Constantinople, and certified the Prince concerning all Transactions. Then also he recited his Tricennalian Oration in the Emperour's own presence, in the Palace. Whereto the Emperour hearkened with the greatest joy imaginable, not so much in respect of his own, as God's Praises, whom Eusebius has magnified thorowout that whole Oration. This was the Second Oration that Eusebius spoke in the Palace, as he himself attests in his Fourth Chap. 46. Book concerning the Life of Constantine. For he had before made an Oration in the Palace concerning the Sepulchre of Our Lord: which the Emperour heard standing, nor could he ever be perswaded, though he was once and again entreated by Eusebius, to sit down in the Seat set for him; saying, 'twas fit, that Discourses concerning God should be heard by per­sons standing; as Eusebius relates in the thirty third Chapter of the same Book. Farther, how dear and acceptable Our Eusebius was to Con­stantine, may be known both from these matters I have mentioned, and also from many other circumstances. For he both frequently received Letters from him, which occur inserted in the foresaid Books. Nor was it seldom that he was sent for to the Palace, and entertain'd at Table, and honoured with private discourse. Moreover, Constantine related that Vision of the Cross, which he saw in the Heaven at such time as he was making his Expedition against Maxentius, to Our Euse­bius; and shewed him the Labarum, which he had [ordered to be] made, to express the likeness of that Cross, as Eusebius himself does Life of Constant. Book 1. Chap. 28 & 30. attest. And when he wanted Id. B. 4. Chap. 36. Copies of the Sacred Scri­ptures for the use of those Churches which he had built at Constantinople, he committed the care and over-sight of transcribing them to Eusebius; in regard he well knew him to be most skilfull in these matters. Lastly, when Our Eusebius had Dedicated a Book 4. Chap. 34, 35. Book concerning the Feast of Easter to him, that Present was so acceptable to Constantine, that he ordered that Book to be forthwith translated into Latine, and by a Let­ter written to Eusebius entreated him, that he would as soon as possible communicate the works of this nature which he was upon, to the Studious in sacred matters. About the same time Euse­bius comprized a Description of the Jerusalem-Church, and of the sacred Gifts which had been consecrated there, in a small Book, and Dedi­cated it to the Emperour Constantine. Which Book, together with his Tricennalian Oration, he had plac'd at the close of his Books con­cerning the Life of Constantine. But this Book is not now extant. At the same time also Five Books were written by Eusebius against Mar­cellus: the last three whereof De▪ Ecclesiasticâ Theologiâ, he Dedicated to Flaccillus Bishop of Antioch. Now Flaccillus entred upon that Bi­shoprick a little before the Synod of Tyre, which was conven'd in the Consulate of Constantius and Albinus, on the year of Our Lord's Nativity 335. 'Tis certain, Eusebius (in his First Book against Marcellus De Ecclesiasticâ Theologiâ, Chap. 14,) writes in express words, that Mar­cellus had been deservedly condemned by the Church. Now Marcellus was first condemned in the Constantinopolitan Synod, by those very Bi­shops who had consecrated Constantine's Church at Jerusalem, that is on the year of Christ 335, or else 336, as Baronius will have it. Indeed Eccles. Hist. B. 2. Chap. 20. where see Nese (k.) Socrates acknowledges but Three Books of Eusebius's against Marcellus; those namely which are entituled De Ecclesiasticâ Theo­logiâ: whereas nevertheless, the whole Work a­gainst Marcellus, was by Eusebius comprized in Five Books. Farther, of all Eusebius's Books, the last seem to be those Four concerning the Life of Constantine. For they were written after the death of that Emperour, whom Eusebius did not long survive. For he dyed about the beginning of Constantius Augustus's Reign, a little before the death of Constantine Junior, which hapned when Acindynus and Proculus were Consuls, on the year of Christ 340; as may be gathered from Socrates's Second Chap. 4. & 5. Book. Now, what Scaliger says, in his Animadversions upon Eusebius, pag. 250 of the last Edition, that Eusebius's Books against Prophyrius were written under Constantius Son to Constantine the Great, can't so easily be admitted of by us, in regard 'tis confirmed by the Testimony of no ancient Writer. But what the same Scaliger adds in that very place, that the three last Books of The Evangelick Demonstra­tion, the eighteenth namely, ninteenth, and twen­tieth, were written by Eusebius against Prophy­rius; therein he does manifestly blunder. Saint Jerome In his Preface to his Com­ments on Daniel. writes indeed, that Eusebius answered Porphyrius in three Volumes, that is, in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth; who in the twelfth and thirteenth of those Books which he published against the Christians, had at­tempted to confute the Book of the Prophet Daniel. But Saint Jerome does not mean Eu­sebius's Books concerning Evangelick Demon­stration, as Scaliger thought, but the Books he wrote against Porphyrius; which had this Title, [...] [Books] of Confutation and Apology, as may be gathered from Photius's Bibliotheca. Farther, I am of O­pinion, that these Books were written by Eusebius after his Ecclesiastick History. And this I con­jecture from hence, because Our Eusebius in the Sixth Chap. 19. Book of his Ecclesiastick History, where he produces a famous passage out of Porphyrius's Third Book against the Christians, makes no men­tion of those Books wherein he had answered Porphyrius: whenas nevertheless, he is wont to be a diligent Quoter of his own works, and does frequently referre the Studious to the reading of them. But because a fit opportunity presents it self, I have a mind to make some few Remarks here concerning his Books of Ecclesiastick Hi­story. For on their account chiefly, all this Labour hath been undertaken by us. Indeed, much hath been written by Our Eusebius for the profit and advantage of the Catholick Church, and in confirmation of the truth of the Chri­stian faith; partly against the Jews, and partly [Page] against the Heathens. Nevertheless amongst all his Books, his Ecclesiastick History does deser­vedly bear away the Bell. For, before Eusebius, many persons had written Books in defence of the Christian Faith, and by most cogent Reasons had confuted the Jews Contumacy, and the Errour of the Heathens. But there was no person before Eusebius, who would deliver to posterity an Hi­story of Ecclesiastick Affairs. On which ac­count Our Eusebius is the more to be commended, who was both the first that found out this Subject; and also, after he had attempted it, left it en­tire and perfect in every respect. 'Tis certain, although many have been found after him, who, incited by his example, have undertaken to com­mit to writing Ecclesiastick matters; yet they have all begun their History from those times wherein Our Eusebius had closed his Work: but the History of the foregoing times, which he had set forth in Ten Books, they have left to him entire and untoucht. Wherefore, should any one have a mind to term him the Father and Foun­der of Ecclesiastick History, truly that person would seem to give him this surname not absurdly nor without cause. Now, what way Eusebius applied himself to this Subject, 'tis not hard to conjecture. For, whereas in the last part of his Chronical Canons, he had accurately noted the Time of Our Lords Coming, and of his pas­sion; the names also of the Bishops who had sate in the four chief Churches, and of the famous men who had flourished in the Church; and lastly, in their own time and order had digested the Heresies and Persecutions wherewith the Church had been disquieted; He was led by the hand as 'twere, by little and little to the writing an Ec­clesiastick History; that he might handle those matters more largely and copiously in his Eccle­siastick History, which in his Chronical Canons he had comprized in a Summary as 'twere. In­deed he himself, in the Book 1. Chap. 1. Preface to his Eccle­siastick History, does plainly shew that which I have said. Where also he requests, that Pardon may be granted him by candid Readers, if perad­venture he shall not so largely and copiously pursue and finish this Subject: for [he says,] that he was the first person who applied himself to this sort of writing, and first began to walk in a way which had not before been worn by any one's footsteps. But this may seem to some persons, not so much an excuse and desire of Pardon, as an endeavour to procure praise and glory. Farther, notwithstanding it appears evident from Euse­bius's own Testimony, that he wrote his Eccle­siastick History after his Chronological Ca­nons; yet 'tis strange that Both those Works proceed to one and the same Limit, namely to Constantine's twentieth year, which was the year of Christ 325. That moreover may deservedly be wondred at, that although the Nicene Synod was celebrated on Constantine's Twen­tieth year of His Em­pire. Vicennalia, yet no mention is made of it, either in his Chroni­con, or Ecclesiastick History. For, whereas in his Latine Chronicon, at the Fifteenth year of Constantine, these words occur; Alexandrinae Ecclesiae 19. ordinatur Episcopus Alexander; &c: Alexander is ordained the nineteenth Bishop of the Alexandrian Church; by whom Arius the Presbyter being ejected out of that Church, joyns many to his own impiety. To confute the perfidiousness of which persons, a Synod of 318 Bishops being conven'd at Nicaea a City of Bithynia, ruin'd all the subtil devices of the Hereticks by the opposition of [the term] HOMOOUSIOS▪ 'tis plain enough, that those words were not written by Eusebius, but were added by Saint Jerome, who interpolated Eusebius's Chronicon, by inserting many pas­sages on his own head. For, to [...]m [...]t that, [...]me­ly that the mention of the Nicene Synod is here set in a forreign and disagreeable place; who can ever believe, that Eusebius would have spoken in this manner concerning Ari [...], or would have inserted the Term HOMOOUSIOS into his own Chronicon? Which word always displeased him, as we shall see afterwards. How should Eusebius say, that there were three hun­dred and eighteen Bishops present at the Nicene Synod? when in his Third Chap. 8. Book concerning the Life of Constantine, he writes in most express words, that something more than two hundred and fifty sate in that Synod. Yet I don't doubt, but the Ecclesiastick History was finished by Eu­sebius some years after the Nicene Synod. But, whereas Eusebius had resolved to close his Hi­story, with that Peace which after Diocletian's Persecution shone from heaven upon the Church, as he himself attests in the beginning of his work; he designedly avoided mentioning the Nicene Synod, least he should be compell'd to set forth the strifes and broils of the Bishops quarrelling one with another. For Writers of Histories ought chiefly to take care of and provide for this, that they may conclude their work with an illu­strious and glorious close, as Dionysius Hali­carnassensis has long since told us in his com­parison of Herodotus and Thucydides. Now, what more illustrious Event could be wish'd for by Eusebius, than that Repose which by Constan­tine had been restored to the Christians after a most bloudy Persecution; when, the Persecutour [...] being every where extinct, and last of all Li­cinius taken off, no fear of past mischiefs was now left remaining? With this Peace▪ therefore Eusebius chose to close his History, rather than with the mention of the Nicene Synod. For in that Sy­nod the Divisions seem'd not so much composed, as renewed. And that, not by the fault of the Synod it self; but by their pertinacious obstinacy who refused to acquiesce in the most whole some deter­minations of the Sacred Council. And Let thus much suffice to have been said by us in reference to the Life and Writing [...] of Eusebius.

It remains, that we speak something concerning his Faith and Orthodoxy. And in the first place I would have the Readers know, that they are not to expect here from us a defence of Eulebius. For it belongs not to us to Judge, or give sentence. pronounce concerning matters of this nature, in regard in these things we ought rather to follow the Judgement of the Church, and the Opinion of the Ancient Fathers. Wherefore we will set down some Heads onely here, whereon relying as on some firm foundations, we may be able to determine with more of certainly concerning Eusebius's faith. Whereas therefore the Opinions of the Ancients in reference to our Eusebius are various; and some have thought, that he was a Catholick; others, an Heretick; others Double-Tongue'd. See S [...]crat. Book 1. Chap. 23. [...], that is a person of a doubt­full and wavering faith; we must enquire, to which opinion chiefly we ought to assent. 'Tis a constant Rule of the Law, in doubtfull matters the more favourable and milder opinion ought to be embrac'd. Besides, whereas all the Westerns, Saint Jerome onely excepted, have entertained honourable sentiments concerning our Eusebius; and whereas the Gallican Church hath enroll'd him amongst the number of Saints, as may [Page] be gathered from Victorius Aquitanus, In His Martyro­logy. Usuar­dus, and others; without question 'tis better, that we should subscribe to the Judgment of our Fathers, than to that of the Eastern Schismaticks. Lastly, whose authority ought to be greater in this matter, than that of the Bishops of Rome? But Gelasius in his Book De Duabus Naturis, has recounted Our Eusebius amongst the Catho­lick Writers, and has recited two authorities out of his Books. Moreover, Pope Pelagius In Epist. tertiâ ad Eliam A­queleïen­sem & alios Episcopos Istriae. terms him the most honourable amongst Historians, and pronounces him free from all Spot of Heresie, not­withstanding he had highly commended heretical Origen. But some body will say, that the Judg­ment of the Easterns is rather to be followed, in regard the Easterns were better able to know Eu­sebius, as being a man of their own language. But it may be answered, that there are not wanting some amongst the Easterns, who have thought well of Our Eusebius. Amongst whom is See his defence of him, in Book 2. Chap. 21. Socrates, and Book 2. De Synod. Nicaenâ, Chap. 1. Gelasius Cyzicenus. But, if the judgment of the Seventh Oecumenical Synod be opposed a­gainst us, Our answer is in readiness. For, Eusebius's Faith was not the subject of that Synod's debate, but the worship of Images. In order to the overthrowing whereof, when the Ad­versaries, a little before conven'd in the Imperial City, had produc'd an Evidence out of Eusebius's Letter to Constantia, and laid the greatest stress thereon; the Fathers of the Seventh Synod, that they might lessen the authority of this Evidence, cryed out, that Eusebius was an Arian. But they did this by the by onely, from the occasion and hatred of that Letter; not designedly, or after a cognizance of the Cause. They do indeed produce some passages out of Eusebius, whereby they would prove, that he adher'd to the Arian Opinion. But they make no difference between Eusebius's Books before the Nicene Council, and those he wrote after that Council: which nevertheless ought by all means to be done, to the end a certain and just sentence might be pronounc'd concerning Eusebius's faith▪ For, whatever he wrote before the Nicene Synod, ought not be objected and charg'd as a fault upon Eusebius. Farther, Eusebius's Letter to A­lexander, wherein he intercedes with him for Arius, was doubtless written before the Nicene Synod. Therefore, that Testimony of the Fa­thers of the Seventh Synod against Eusebius, although it has the greatest autority, yet seems to us a rash judgment, before the matter was heard, rather than a Synodal Sentence. But the Greeks may have leave to think thus con­cerning our Eusebius, and to call him a Bor­derer upon the Arian Heresie, or even an Arian. But who can with patience bear Saint Jerome, who not content to term him Heretick and A­rian, does frequently stile him a Ring-leader of the Arians? Can he be justly termed a Ring­leader of the Arians, who after the Nicene Synod always condemned the Opinion of the Arians? Let his Books De Ecclesiasticâ Theo­logiâ be perused, which he wrote against Mar­cellus long after the Nicene Council. We shall find what I have said, that they were condemn'd by him, who would affirm, that the Son of God was made of things which are not, and that there was a time when He was not. Athanasius does likewise attest the same thing concerning Eusebius, in his Letter about the Decrees of the Nicene Synod, in these words. [...], &c. And truly he was unhappy in that: For, to the end he might clear himself, he in future accused the Arians, be­cause, when they would maintain that the Son [of God] existed not before▪ He was be­gotten, by this means they might deny Him to have existed before His incarnation. And this is the Testimony which Athanasius gives Eusebius, who bore Eusebius a private grudge. But St Jerome who had no reasons of hatred against Euse­bius, yea who had profited so much from his writings; who had rendred his Chronical Ca­non, and his Book De Locis Hebraïcis into Latine; yet brands Eusebius with this reproach, which even his most malicious Enemies never sastned on him. The reason of which thing I am not able to find out, unless it be, that Saint Jerome, having conceived an hatred a­gainst Origen, beyond measure persecuted all the defenders of his Opinions, and especially Our Eusebius. It must indeed be confest, that Our Eusebius (although he can't deservedly be termed a Ring-leader of the Arians, yet) after the Nicene Synod was perpetually conversant with the Chiefs of the Arians, and together with them opposed the Catholick Bishops, Eustathius namely and Athanasius, the principal Main­tainers of HOMOOUSIOS. That also seems worthy of reprehension in Eusebius, that although he always asserted the E­ternity of the Son of God against the A­rians, yet never heartily approved of the word HOMOOUSIOS. 'Tis certain, he has never made use of that term, either in his Books against Marcellus, or in his Orations concerning the faith against Sabellius. Yea, in his Second Book against Sabellius, he does plainly intimate, that that word, in regard it occurs not in the Scriptures, is displeasing to him. For thus he says. Sicut ergo de his quae possunt quaeri, inertium est non quaerere: &c. As therefore concerning those matters which may be search'd into, 'tis sluggishness not to enquire: so, in reference to them which there is no neces­sity of searching into, 'tis boldness to en­quire. What things then ought to be search'd into? Those which we find recorded in the Scriptures. But, what we don't find in the Scriptures, let us not search after. For, were it behoveable that they should be known to us, doubtless the Holy Spirit would have plac'd them in the Scriptures. And a little after he has these words. Let us not in such a manner expose our selves to danger, but let us speak safely. But if any thing be written, let it not be blotted out. And in the end of his Oration he expresses himself in this manner. Speak what is written, and the controversie will be ended. In which words Eusebius no doubt touches upon the term HOMOOUSIOS. But now, if you please, let us hear the Testimonies of the Ancients concerning Eusebius. Wherein this is chiefly to be remark'd, although the Judgments of men concerning our Eusebius have been various, in reference to the purity of the Ecclesiastick Opinions; yet all do unanimously give him the commendation of most profound Learning. One onely person, Joseph Scaliger, has lived in our Fathers memory, who, hurried on with a rash boldness and lust of reproaching, has en­deavoured to deprive Eusebius of this Glory of his Learning, which even his Adversaries never envied him. His See Sca­liger's E­lench. Tri­h [...]res. chap. 27: and Book 6. De Emend. Temp. chap. 1. about the end: and his Ani­madversions on Euse­bius's Chro­nicon, pag. 8. words, if any one be desirous of knowing them, we have plac'd amongst the Testimonies of the Ancients; not [Page] that we have any great value for his judg­ment, in this particular especially; but with this design rather, that his unreasonable de­traction might be exposed to publick view. Who having resolved to write Comments on Eusebius's Chronical Canon, in the very en­trance of that work reproves Saint Jerome, because he hath termed Eusebius a most Lear­ned man. And at first I had indeed deter­mined, to have reasoned at large against Scaliger, and to have confuted his Opinion by a more copious answer. But in regard that matter requires a greater Leisure, and would peradventure be tedious to the Readers, it will be more opportunely deferred to another time.

Errata in the Text. p. denotes the Page, c. the Column, l. the Line, r. read.

P. 3. c. 2. l. 51. read, and changed this cursed earth for those heavenly delights and pleasures of old. p. 18. c. 1. l. 47. r. Alabarches. p. 19. c. 2. l. 8. from the Bottome, r. besought. p. 21. c. 2. l. 8. r. second. p. 34. c. 2. l. 51. r. nicer. p. 47. c. 1. l. 8. r. Symbol or Signall. p. 58. c. 1. l. 26. r. assigne me a day, and. p. 60. c. 2. l. 66. r. monuments of his ingeneity. p. 63. c. 2. l. 56. r. Syriac [Gospel,]. p. 72. c. 2. l. 26. r. Tablet. p. 97. c. 1. l. 54. r. Docetae. ibid. c. 2. l. 26. r. concerning fasting. p. 113. c. 2. l. 15. and 16. r. Bishop in a Catholick Church. p. 120. c. 1. l. 14. r. For with sufficient reason we abominate. ibid. l. 17. r. introduced. p. 140. c. 1. l. 3, 4, and 5. r. congregations; and the multitudes of Assemblies throwout every City; and those famous con­courses [of the people] p. 172. c. 1. l. 23. r. devotion. p. 175. c. 2, l. 19. r. devotion. p. 178. c. 2. l. 60. r. devotion. p. 183. c. 2. l. 3, 4, and 5. r. to place here an entire and compleat Panegyrick. p. 189. c. 1. l. 32. r. sides of the whole Church. p. 212. c. 2. l. 34. r. For how. ibid. l. 44 and 45. r. my heart hath sent forth a good word. p. 215. c. 1. l. 67. r. and by the greatest part were with you. p. 230. c. 1. l. 29. r. But the Em­perour's mother. p. 237. c. 1. l. 46. r. God be our Judge. p. 238. c. 1. l. 35. r. which is a Suburb of the. p. 242. c. 2. l. 24. r. Church of Con­stantinople. p. 248. c. 1. l. 32. r. consulate of Marcellinus. p. 251. c. 1. l. 11. r. deferred the constituting. p. 267. c. 1. l. 9. r. For he shall sit. p. 360. c. 2. l. 36. r. Gabala. p. 367. c. 1. l. 59. r. Comana. p. 382. c. 1. l. 29 and 30. r. by Helion the Patricius, he himself. In the Life of Evagrius, p. 3. l. 2. r. the dignity of a Quaestori [...]. p. 405. c. 2. l. 15. r. we glorified God the Saviour. p. 423. c. 1. l. 42. r. the Bishops Paschasinus and. p. 597. c. 1. l. 26. r. Snare of souls lying conceal'd in. ibid. c. 2. l. 9. r. great Emperour also. p. 677. c. 2. l. 27. r. worse. p. 688. c. 1. l. 8. r. Harmonious Universe.

After page 154, the next is by mistake mark'd 157: but that will give the Reader no disturbance, because from the number last nam'd the pages are continued in order, to the end of the work; and the Index's are figured accordingly.

The lines are counted from the top of the page, except where 'tis otherwise exprest in these Errata.

Errata in the Notes.

Page 4. Column 1. Line 80. read, [...]. p. 15. c. 2. l. 30. r. Tiberius. p. 17. c. 1. l. 3. r. Centurion of the Proconsular office. p. 21. c. 2. l. 2. r. not in his first, but in his second Apology. p. 47. c. 1. l. 15. r. Symbol or Signall. p. 78. c. 1. l. 4. from the bottom, read whole story about the Cells. p. 83. c. 2. l. 1. r. the publick Treasure. p. 88. c. 2. l. 43. r. in the name of Eulogia. p. 98. c. 1. l. 41. r. signifies a narration onely. ibid. l. 59. r. which are Printed. p. 120. c. 2. l. 24. r. solemn prayer of the Eucharist. p. 123. c. 2. l. 25. r. in his Libel which. p. 136. c. 1. l. 27. r. [...] p. 172. c. 2. l. 2. from the bottom, read, a son of God. p. 180. c. 1. l. 12. r. Note (o.) p. 183. c. 2. l. 15. r. and we, an entire and compleat. p. 189. c. 1. l. 37. blot out and. p. 215. c. 2. l. 16. r. Orthodoxae. p. 223. c. 1. l. 7. r. chap. 45. p. 258. c. 2. l. 25. r. which is born or begotten. p. 263. c. 1. l. 35. r. we owe. p. 266. c. 2. l. 8. r. at this place. p. 310. c. 1. l. 60. read Safima. p. 324. c. 1. line 4. from the bottom, read, an hundred and thirty seaven. p. 331. c. 1. l. 28. r. Safima. p. 336. c. 2. in the last line, read, in which he terms him Rhutupinu [...] Latro. p. 353. c. 1. l. 6. r. [...]. ibid. l. 9. r. [...]. p. 357. c. 1. l. 13. r. Learn [...] the Letters. p. 434. c. 1. l. 51. r. [...]. p. 451. c. 2. l. 57. r. who imagine [or fancy] p. 470. c. 2. blot out almost an Island. p. 538. c. 2. l. 17. r. chap. 21. p. 559. c. 1. l. 44. r. [...].

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.

CHAP. I. The Subject of this Work.

THE successions of the Holy Apo­stles, together with the series of times continued from our Saviour to our age, and how many and great things are said to have been done, agreeable to the sub­ject of an Ecclesiastical History, and who have eminently governed and presided over the Church, especially in the most famous Sees I cannot approve of Christophor­sons translat on who renders the word [ [...]] Provinces. Neither am I pleased with the amendment of Curterius, or whoever it was that translated it [Churches.] Indeed [...] signifies a Church amongst Christian Writers, and particularly in our Eusebius, not in one place. The original of which signification came from hence, as I judge; because the Church is as it were, [...], a Stranger or Sojourner in the earth; but its Country and freedom is in heaven. Hence we often meet with this phrase in our Eusebius, [...], Book. 4. & B 4. Chap. 23. And Clemens, in His Epist. to the Corinthians, writes thus - [...], &c. But in this place of Eusebius we must not translate this word [ [...]] Churches. For then the same word must be repeated twice in the same clause, thus - Who have governed and presided over the Church especially in the most famous Churches. I should rather translate it [Cities or Sees] or, with Rufinus, in celeberrimis locis, in the most famous places. Sometimes this word is taken for the whole Diocess, as it occurs in Eusebius in very many places; and in several other Authours: sometimes it is taken in a more strict sense, not for the whole Diocess, but for one particular Church: So Apollonius in his book against the Cataphrygians, whose words Eusebius quotes Chap. 18. B. 5. In both these senses the word is used amongst the Latines. See Jac. Sermondus in his notes on the last Epistle of Sidonius. Vales. See J. Gs. Notes on Ridleys view of the Civil Law. p. 152. edit. Oxford, 1634.; also who in every age have set forth the Divine Word, ei­ther by preaching or wri­tings; And also, what men, and how many, and when, through a desire of innova­tion, falling into extream er­rours, have published them­selves authors of knowledge falsly so called, and sparing none, as ravening wolves, have devoured the flock of Christ; and moreover, what evils and calamities befell straightway the whole nati­on of the Jews, because of their conspiracy against our Saviour; and again, by how great and what manner of means, and in what times the Divine Word hath been im­pugned of the Gentiles, and what singular men in every age have undergone the greatest perills in defence thereof, by shedding their bloud, and suffering torments; and besides all this, the Martyrdoms that have happened in our own times, together with the merciful and benign assi­stance of our Saviour graciously exhibited towards every one: These things, I say, I determining to pub­lish in writing, will not take my entrance from any other place, than from the very Whatso­ever our Saviour did on earth in order to the procuring the salvati­on of man­kind, that the antient Greek-fa­thers called [...]. Therefore [ [...]] which is the phrase here used, signi­fies the In­carnation▪ as the last [...] i [...] His passion. For they are mista­ken who think that [...] signifies no­thing else but the In­carnation. For this word is ta­ken in a lar­ger sense, and comprehends the whole Life of Christ among men. Nicephorus therefore (B. 1. Chap. 2.) has rightly used, instead of this phrase here in Eusebius, this [ [...]] i. e. His conversation in the Flesh. In this sense Justin Martyr uses this word, in his disputation adversus Tryphon. p. 331. Clemens in the 6. of his Stromat. And Irencus, Lib. 1. cap. 10. calls the passion of Christ [...]. So Chrysostom in his second Homilie on Matt. and Cyrill, in his 6. B. against Julian, pag. 213. and Origen, in the beginning of his 11 Tome of his commentaries on John. Vales. Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus, who is the Christ of God. But truly even in the beginning we must modestly crave pardon; for we confess ingeni­ously, it is far beyond our strength to finish what we design and promise perfectly and com­pleatly, so as to omit nothing. For we taking this argument in hand first, adventure to tread a solitary and untroden way, praying that God may be our guide, and the power of our Lord our present help and aid; but we can no where find so much as the bare steps of any men who have passed the same path before us: ex­cepting onely some small shews and tokens di­vers here and there have left us, particular decla­rations of the times they lived in, holding forth as it were Torches a far off, and lifting up their voi­ces from one high, and calling as out of a Watch­tower to direct us what way we ought to goe, and how without errour or danger to order our discourse. Whatsoever things therefore we think will be expedient for this present argument, these we carefully chusing, as they are here and there by them mentioned, and culling and gathering the commodious and fit sentences of former Wri­ters, as it were flowers out of Wisdoms Mea­dows, we will endeavour by an Historical narra­tion to compact the same into one body, resting well contented to preserve from oblivion the suc­cessions, although not of all, yet of the most famous Apostles of our Saviour in those Churches which [Page 2] then were eminent, and are still renowned. I sup­pose that I have taken in hand a subject very ne­cessary, because I have not found any Ecclesi­astical Writer which hath hitherto employed any diligence in a work of this nature; I hope also it will appear a most profitable work to those who prize the usefull knowledge of History. And in­deed I heretofore wrote an Epitome of these things, when I compiled my In the Maz. M. S. I found this Scholion written in the Mar­gin [ [...]] that is, Observe that the Chronical Canons were first written by Eusebius. Vales. Chronical Canons; but the more ample declaration hereof I now purpose to undertake. And the beginning of my narration (as I said) will I take from the There being in Christ a twofold nature, the one Divine, the other Humane, which conjoyfied make one person: as often as He is treated of, the discourse must be divided into two parts. And those things which are spoken of His Humanity belong to the [...], as we said before; But those which are spoken of His Divinity are to be referred to the [...] (which are the two terms here used by Eusebius.) Thus Gregor. Nazian. in his 38 Orat. upon Christs birth, distinguishes the Oeconomia from the Theologia in these words, [...]. And Chry­sostome, in his Sermon De sigillis which is in his sixth Tome, says, that the three former Evangelists, being to preach the Gospel of Christ to all Nations, began their discourse from his [...] ▪ but, that John, after them three, ayplyed himself to the explicating of his [...]; and took the beginning of his discourse from the Divinity of Christ. Whence it appears why Eusebius here used these words [ [...].] For when we speak of Christ, we must necessarily understand His two Natures. Vales. Dispensation of our Saviour Christ, and from his The Antients called that Theologicen, which we now commonly Stile Theologiam; Jerom in his 155. Epist. Ad Paulam Urbicam—Aut de Logicâ pro quâ nostri Theologicen sibi Vindicant; so its written in the old M. S. of Henricus Memmius (not as it is now commonly printed, Theoricen, without any sense) which I have heretofore seen. After the same manner Pliny called that Geometricen, and Magicen, which we now call Geometriam and Magiam. In the Books of Jerome you will never find it termed Theologiam, but in Greek [...]. See him on Chap. 40. Ezechiel. Vales. Divinity, the conception whereof far exceeds the reach of hu­mane capacity. For it is requisite for him that would commit to writing an Ecclesiastical History, thence to begin, even from the incarnation of Christ, diviner than it seemeth to many, in as much as from him we are honoured with the name of Christians.

CHAP. II. A brief Summary concerning the Praeexistence and Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. Begin the first Chap. at these words, with this Title [ [...].] The same is ob­served in the Edit. of Robert Stephens, who has, throughout the whole work, fol­lowed the Kings M. S. in the Stile, or Text of the Chapters, but the Medicaean M. S. in the titles of the Chapters. But any one may see that this Title is altogether unmeet for this place. Christophorson therefore rightly set it at the beginning of this Book; and here began the second Chapter; whom we have willingly followed. Vales. WHereas therefore there is in Christ a two­fold Nature, the one resembling the Head of the Body, by which He is understood to be God; the other rightly compared to the feet, by which he hath put on our humane nature, subject to like pas­sions with us, for the sake of our Salvation; the se­ries of our subsequent narration will be perfect and entire, if we begin the declaration of the discourse of the whole History concerning Him, from those Heads which are the chief and principal. Hereby al­so both the Antiquity and divine dignity of Chri­stianity will be manifestly declared, against them which suppose this Religion new, and strange, of yesterday and never before apparent. But to de­clare the Generation, Dignity, Essence, and Na­ture of Christ, no speech can sufficiently serve. Wherefore also the Holy Ghost in the Prophets saith; His Generation who shall be able to declare? Isai. 53. 8. For the Father no man hath known but the Matt. 11. 27. Son; neither at any time hath any fully known the Son but the Father alone which begat him. That Light that shone before the World, that In­tellectual and Essential Wisdom that was before all Ages, the Living God, the Word, who was in the beginning with the Father, who but the Father alone can clearly and perfectly comprehend? Him, who is before every creature and workmanshipIsai. 9. 6. whether visible or invisible, the first and onely be­gotten Son of God, chief Captain of the rational and immortal Host in heaven, the Angel of the great Counsel, the Or, Mini­ster: for some copies read it [ [...];] othe [...]s [ [...]] as we have translated it. Vales. finisher of the secret Will of the Father, maker and worker of all things together with the Father, who after the Father, is Cause and Authour of all things, the true and onely be­gotten Son of God, Lord, God, and King of all Creatures, receiving Dominion and Rule from the Father, together with Divinity, Power, and Ho­nour. For, according to the Mystical and Divine expressions of the Scriptures concerning him, In the John 1. 1, 2, 3. beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made that was made. And the same, great Moses, who is the most ancient of all the Prophets, when he describes by inspiration of the holy Sp [...]rit the Creation and disposition of the Universe, doth shew; to wit, that God the framer of the World and Architect of All, granted to Christ himself, and to none other, that is, to his Divine and onely begotten Word, the making of inferiour Creatures, and that he con­ferred with him about the Creation of Man; for God said, saith he, Let us make Man after our Gen. 1. 26. own Image and likeness. And with this saying a­greeth another Prophet, thus speaking of God in Hymnes, He spake and they were Made, He com­manded Psal. 33. 9. and they were Created. He introduceth the Father and Maker, commanding, as Universal Lord, with his Royal beck; but the Word of God next to him, (not different from him who is Preached by us) in all things In the Med. & Savil. M. SS. There is this Scholion in the Margin at these words, [ [...]] i. e. The Word of the Father, being of the same substance with the Father, is not subject to the Father, but together with him framed the Creation, as being by Nature God, and equal to the Fa­ther in honour. Vales. ministring to his Fathers commands. Therefore from the first original of Mankind, all who are said to have been eminent for righ­teousness and the virtues of Religion, both about the time of Moses that great worshipper, and before him, especially Abraham and his sons, and as many as in the times following were accounted just; and the Pro­phets also who contemplated with the pure eyes of the mind, have acknowledged him, and have attri­buted to him, as to the Son of God, due honour. And he being in no wise slothfull about his Fathers worship, Or, is appointed, or, made. Vales. was appoint­ed a master to teach all men the knowledge of his Father. At these words the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. begin the second Chapter, to which agrees Robert Ste­phens's Edit. But we, fol­lowing Christophorson, have otherwise distinguished the Chapters: for which we gave the reason before. Vales. The Lord God therefore appeared in the likeness of man unto Abraham, as he sat at the Oak of Mamre; but he forthwith falling down upon his face, although with the outward eye he beheld but man, worshipped him as God, and made supplication to him as Lord. And that he was not ignorant who he was, he professeth when he ut­tereth these words, O Lord, which judgest the whole Gen. 18. 25. earth, wilt not thou judge rightly? For if it be contrary to reason that either the unbegotten [Page 3] and immutable Valesius, in his Note on this place, says that [ [...], the Essence of God] is here ta­ken for [hypostasis] i. e. the per­son of God the Father; for so (continues he) the Ecclesiastical writers before the Nicene Coun­cill used to speak; he translates it [Naturam] nature. For confirma­tion of which he quotes Photius's Bibliotheca, Cap. 119. See Photii Biblioth. Cap. 119. pag. 300. Edit. David. Hoescel. 1611. person or nature of God Almighty should transform himself into the likeness of man, and so by an appearance in a bodily shape deceive the eyes of the beholders; or that the Scripture should feign such things falsly; then that God and Lord, who judgeth the whole earth, and executeth judgment, appear­ing in the shape of man, who else can he be cal­led (for it is not law­full to say it of the first Authour of all things) but onely his preexistent Word? Of whom also it is said in the Psalms, He sent forth his Word Psal. 107. 20. and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions. The same, Moses plainly calleth Lord, next after the Father, saying, The Lord Gen. 19. 24. rained brimstone and fire from the Lord out of Heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah. The same doth the Divine Scripture call God, appearing again unto Jacob in the figure of a Man, and saying unto Jacob, Thy name shall be no more Gen. 32. 28. called Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name, because thou hast prevailed with God. At which time Jacob named that place the Vision of God, saying, For I have seen God face to face, and my life is Gen. 32. 30. preserved. Moreover, neither is it lawful once to surmise that the apparitions of God in the Scri­pture may be attributed to the inferiour Angels and Ministers of God: for neither doth the Scri­pture, if at any time any of them appeared unto men, conceal the same; expressly saying, not that God, or the Lord, but that Angels spake; which may easily be confirmed by innumerable testi­monies. This same also doth Jesus the successour of Moses term chief Captain of the great power of the Lord, as Prince of Celestial Angels, and Arch-Angels, and all supernatural powers, and as being the power and wisdom of the Father, and to whom the second place in the rule and govern­ment of all things is committed, when as he be­held him in no other form or figure then of Man. For thus it is written, And it hapned when Jo­shua Josh. 5. 13, 14, 15. was in Jericho, he lifted up his eyes, and be­hold a man standing over against him, having a naked sword in his hand. And Joshua coming un­to him said, art thou on our side, or on our Adver­saries? And he said unto him, As chief Captain of the Host of the Lord I am now come hither. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and said unto him, Lord, what commandest thou thy servant? And the Captain of the Lords Host said unto Jo­shua, Loose thy shoo [...] from off thy foot: for the place where thou standest is an holy place. By these very words thou mayst by an attentive con­sideration perceive, that this person did not differ Eusebius would here prove, that he who ap­peared to Joshua the son of Nun, and called himself the Captain of the Host of the Lord, was the same that appeared to Moses in the Bush. Now he concludes this from hence, because this Captain of the Lords Host used the same words to Joshua, that God did to Moses in the Bush. So, before Eusebius, supposed Justin Martyr, in his Disputat. adversus Tryphon. and others, as Theodoret witnesses, in his questions on the Book of Joshua. But the rest of the Fathers thought this Captain of the Host of the Lord was not the Son of God, but rather Michael the Arch-Angel. In the most antient Maz. M. S. there is at these words, a Scholion put which I thought good here to Translate. But the Church, O holy Eusebius, thinks otherwise concerning this, and not as thou dost. For him that appeared to Moses in the Bush, the Church concludes to be God; but him that appeared to Moses's successour in Jericho, to whom the presidency over the Hebrews was allotted, who had his sword drawn and commanded Joshua to put off his shooe, him, I say, the Church supposes to be Michael the Arch-Angel: and its manifest that it thinks righter than thou. Whence is this gathered? God, that appeared in the Bush in the form of fire, being asked by his servant Moses, who he was, most evidently declared this unto him, That he was God. But he that appeared to Joshua, in no wise stiles himself God, but calls himself Gods chief Captain. But this Dignity being inferiour to the Supream power and Divinity, and being not Re­gal, but belonging to a General, as one would say......... The rest, by reason of the great age of the M. S. could not be read, which indeed is great pitty. For it is both a most elegant Scholion, and also written by the hand of that very Antiquary who wrote out the M. S. that is, by a most learned and antient hand. Vales. from him who delivered his Oracles to Moses: For of him also the Scripture speaketh the same words, When the Lord saw that he came for to Exod. 3. 4, 5, 6. see, God called to him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses; and he answered, what is it? And he said, come not nigh hither; put thy shooes off thy feet, for the place where thou standest is holy ground. And he said unto him, I am the God of thy fathers; The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; Now that there is a certain Essence living and subsisting before the foundations of the world were laid, which ministred unto the Father and the God of all at the Creation of all Creatures, termed The Word, and the Wisdom of God; be­side the before produced demonstrations, Wise­dom her self, in her proper person by Solomon plainly speaking and delivering her Mysteries af­ter this manner, is to be heard: I Wisedome, Prov. 8. 12, 15, 16. have fixed a Tabernacle: Councel, Knowledge, and Understanding I have by calling allured unto me. Through me Kings doe reign, and Princes decree justice. Through me Princes bear Rule on earth. To this she addeth; The Lord himself 22, 23, &c. fashioned me the beginning of his ways, for the ac­complishing of his Works, I have been ordained be­fore the foundations of the World were laid, and from the beginning: Or ever the earth was made, before the well-springs flowed out, before the foun­dations of the mountains were firmly set, and before all hills, begat he me. When he spread and pre­pared the Heavens, I was present with him; and when he bound in due order the depths under Hea­ven I was by, composing all things, I was she in whom he daily delighted; rejoycing continually be­fore his face, when he rejoyced at the perfect finish­ing of the World. That therefore the Word of God subsisted before all things, and that to some he appeared, though not to all men, let thus much suffice at this time to have been by us briefly deli­vered. The Maz. Med. & Fuk. M. SS. begin the third Chapter at these words, to which agrees the Edit. of Robert Stephens. But in that I saw the Title of the third Chapter did not agree with this place, I judged it should be placed lower; which also Christophorson did. Vales. Now for what cause he was not Preached of old unto all men, and unto all Nations as now he is, thus it shall evidently appear. That antient generation of men was not able to receive the most wise and most excellent do­ctrine of Christ. For, immediately in the very beginning, after that primitive happy state of life, the first man, being careless of the commandment of God, fell into this mortal and frail life, and chang­ed this cursed earth for those heavenly delights and pleasures of old. And his posterity, when they had replenished this world, appeared f [...]r worse, one or two excepted; they gave admission to certain savage and bruitish manners, and led a life not worthy to be called life: And moreover they busied not their minds to erect either City or Common-wealth, nor to profit in Arts or Sciences: They had not amongst them so much as the name either of Laws or Statutes, or moreover of Virtue, or Philosophy: But wandring in deserts, they li­ved like wild and fierce Savages: They corrupted their natural understanding, and the seeds of Rea­son and gentleness sown in mans mind with their excessive willfull malice, yielding up themselves wholly to all abominable wickednesses: some­times [Page 4] they defiled one anothers bodies, sometimes they shed one anothers bloud, and sometimes they spared not to devour one anothers flesh, yea they audaciously undertook to wage war with God, and attempted those Giganti [...]k-combats so much talk't of, determining in their minds Its strange, that in the Tran­slation of this place both Musculus and Christophorson erred. [...] (which is the term here used) in Greek signifies, to make a Fortifica­tion, or Bulwarke against a place; See Harpocration, in the word [ [...].] But it's ridiculous to believe, that men arrived to that degree of madness, as by building Rampires to attempt to Scale Heaven, and to turn out God from thence; which yet Eusebius seems by this place to have be­lieved. These are the fictions of the Poets, who by this [...]ansie would set forth the pride of men of that Age, and their contempt of God. Indeed Holy Writ men­tions the Giants, but it says no­thing of this sort concerning them; and it testifies that that Tower was built, not by the Giants, but by the sons and posterity of Noah, after the Flood. Vales. to pile up the earth in manner of a Bulwark and so to Scale Heaven; and, such was their outragious madness, they prepared to give Battel to God himself who is over all. Wherefore, they beha­ving themselves on this man­ner, God the Overseer of all things came upon them with Floods and fiery destructions, as if they had been a wild Thicket overspreading the whole earth: also he cut them off with continual Famines and Pestilences, with Wars, and Thunderbolts from Hea­ven; Repressing with most sharp Punishments that grie­vous and most pernicious ma­lady, as it were, of their souls. Moreover, when this The term in the Original is [ [...]] and it signifies satiety or fullness; it is the same in Ro­bert Stephens Edit. But Valesius says it should be [ [...]] which he Translates (torpor) i. e. a sloth­ful heaviness, for so, says he, it is written in the Fuk. and Savill. M. SS. fullness of wickedness was now come to its height, and had in a manner spread it self over all, shadowing and darkning the minds almost of all men, as it were a certain grievous and dead fit of drunkenness; then that First begotten and I doubt not but Eusebius wrote it thus [ [...], i. e. the Preexistent Wise­dom of God] as it is in our four M. SS. Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil; and not [ [...], i. e. the first produced, &c.] for this term a­grees better with Eusebius's mean­ing, seeing that he had a little a­bove quoted that place out of the Proverbs (Chap. 8. v. 22.) The Lord himself fashioned me, &c. In­deed, the Antient Divines, and especially those who wrote before the times of the Nicene-Council, by the word [ [...]] understood, not onely a Creation which is made of nothing, but, all Pro­duction in general, as well that which was from all eternity, as that which is produced in time. Hence it is, that Melito wrote a Book [ [...]] as we shall see at the fourth Book of this History. But if we should here read. [ [...]] there would be an unmeet repetition, which is called a Tau­tologie, thus [ [...], &c.] Besides, [ [...]] is an unfit term to ex­press the Divine generation. Vales. Preexistent Wisedom of God, and the same Word that was in the beginning with God, out of his super­abundant loving kindness un­to Man, appeared sometimes by Vision of Angels unto the inhabiters on earth, some­times by himself, as the saving power of God, unto some one or two of the Antients that were beloved of God in no other form or figure than that of Man: for otherwise it could not have been. After that by them the seeds of Gods Worship were now sown and scattered amidst the multitude of men, and that whole Nation, which origi­nally descended from the He­brews, had now addicted themselves to the worship of God, He, by the Prophet Moses, delivered unto them, as unto a multitude, yet Nicepho­rus under­stood this place amiss, [...]s if it had been spoken by Eusebius in praise of the Jews: But the words of Eusebius have a clean contrary meaning. For he says, that the Jews being corrupted by the contagion of their former life God thought it sufficient to prescribe them legal Ceremonies, and to deliver them as it were certain Signes and Symbols of more secret Mysteries, as being yet ignorant, and accustomed to the Superstition of the Heathens, Chrysostome, on Matthew, says the same. [...], from whence the participle here used comes, signifies in Greek, to be corrupted, and from a pristine discipline to fall into a luxurious and dissolute course of life. From whence [ [...]] is a remiss and loose life; a phrase taken from intemperate men, who observe no rule in meat and drink, nor in their whole cou [...]se of life. This word occurs often in the writings of Dion Cassius. Vales. corrupted and tainted with old Customs, Figures and Signes of a kind of Mystical Sabbath, and Circumcision, and in­troductions unto other intelligible contempla­tions, but not the perfect and plain initiation into the sacred Doctrines. But when the Law, famous among them, was published abroad, and diffused, like a most sweet Odour amongst all men, and thereby many of the Gentiles then had their Translatours understood not this place, as it appears from their version of it. The meaning of Eusebius here is this. He attributes not so much to the Law-makers and Philosophers of the Gentiles, as if that old Savageness and im­manity of men were by little and little brought to be more tracta­ble and gentle by their Precepts and Institutes. But he imputes the reason hereof to the Law of Moses; which, being known to the whole World, at length re­claimed and civilized the man­ners of all men. For the Law­makers and Philosophers of the Gentiles, having derived all their best precepts from that Law, as from a fountain, infused them afterwards into the minds of their Auditours: whereby men being polished, were rendred sit to receive the knowledge of the Evangelical Law. For the Mo­saical Law was previous and the forerunner to the Evangelical, and prepared the way to Christ's Preaching. This place therefore is to be thus written [ [...]] as it is plainly written in the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. and not, as it is in Robert Stephens Edit. thus [ [...].] Undoubtedly, unless it be thus written, the sentence will be in­coherent. For to what shall the particle [ [...]] be referred, which is put in the beginning of the period? There is also ano­ther difficulty in this place of Eu­sebius, that is, what is meant by these words [ [...].] For Eusebius says [ [...] &c.] as before. Which words, as to me it seems, were put in, that Eusebius might shew, that what­ever was fitly said by the Law­makers and Philosophers of the Gentiles, they borrowed it all from the Hebrews. And thus Rufinus understood this place, a [...] it plainly appears from his Tran­slation. Eusebius discourses large­ly concerning this point in his Book, De preparatione, where he shews that the Grecian Philoso­phers stole many things out of the Books of Moses. Vales. mindes and manners civili­zed by Law-makers and Phi­losophers every where, and their rude and bruitish savage­ness changed into a meek and mild temper and behaviour, so that there ensued perfect Peace and friendship and mu­tual commerce amongst them; then at the last to all men, and to the Gentiles through­out all the world, as it were now prepared and fitted to receive the knowledge of the Father, the same Person a­gain, the School-master of Virtue, his Fathers Minister in all goodness, the Divine and Celestial Word of God manifested himself, about the beginning of the Roman Em­pire, in Humane shape, for bodily substance nothing dif­fering from our Nature, and therein wrought and suffered such things as were consonant with the Oracles of the Pro­phets, who foreshewed there should come into the world such a one as should be both Man and God, a mighty worker of Miracles, an In­structer of the Gentiles in the worship of his Father; and withall they foretold his Miraculous Birth, his New Doctrine, his wonderfull Works, moreover the man­ner also of his Death, his Resurrection from the Dead, and last of all his Glorious and Divine Return into Hea­ven. The Prophet Daniel therefore by the Divine Spi­rit beholding his Kingdom that shall be in the latter Age of the World, having been moved by the power of that Divine Spirit, hath thus more after the manner of Man, and to Mans capacity described the Vision of God; For I beheld, saith he, untill the Thrones were Dan. 7. 9, 10, & 13, 14. placed, and the Antient of days sat thereon: his gar­ments were as the white snow, the hairs of his Head as pure wooll, his Throne a flame of fire, his wheels burning fire. A fiery stream slided before his face. Thousand thousands ministred unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the Books were opened. And afterwards, I beheld, saith he, and beheld, one coming in the clouds like the Son of Man; and he came unto the Antient of days, and he was brought before him: and to him was given Principality, and Honour, and Rule; and all People, Tribes, and Tongues shall serve him; His Power is an everlasting Power which shall not pass, and his [Page 5] Kingdom shall never be destroyed. These things can manifestly be referred to none other than to our Saviour, the Word that was in the Beginning with God, God the Word, termed the Son of Man by reason of his Incarnation in the latter times. But because we have in proper and peculiar He means his Books of Evange­lical De­monstrati­on, of which ten onely are now ex­tant. More­over, this Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius ought to be so much the more esteemed by us, because he wrote it after almost all his other works. Vales. Com­mentaries collected the Oracles of the Prophets touching our Saviour Jesus Christ, and have else­where confirmed by evident demonstrations those things which have been delivered concerning him, at this present we will be content with the pre­misses.

CHAP. III. That the very Name of Jesus, and also that of Christ was from the Beginning both known and honoured among the Divine Prophets.

In the Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. there is no distinction here of a new Cha­pter: for those Copies begin the third Chapter long before, as we noted above. The Med. M. S. begins the fourth Chapter at these words. But its most certain, as I before intimated, that the third Chapter must begin here; which the Title it self does demonstrate. Vales. NOw that the Name both of Jesus, and also of Christ, was of old honoured among the Prophets beloved of God, it is now an opportune time to declare. First of all Moses, knowing the Name of Christ to be most especially Venerable and Glorious, when he de­livered Types and Symbols of heavenly things, and my­stical forms, agreeable to the Divine Oracle that said to him, See thou doe all things after the fashion Exod. 25. 40. that was shewed thee in the mount, the Man whom he entitled (as much as he lawfully might) the High-Priest of God, the same he stiled Christ; and thus to the dignity of High-Priesthood, which excelled in his judgment all other prerogatives a­mong men, he for honour and glory put-to the Name of Christ. So then he deemed Christ to be a certain Divine thing. The same Moses also, when being inspired by the Holy Ghost, he had well foreseen the Name of Jesus, judged again the same worthy of singular prerogative. For this Name of Jesus, which before Moses his time had never been named among men, Moses gave to him first, and to him alone, whom he knew very well by type again and figurative sign was to receive the Universal principality after his death. His Successour therefore, before that time not called Jesus, but by ano­ther Name, to wit, Numb. 13. 16. Where the Sept. Edit. calls him [ [...], i. e. Ause.] But Jerom (on the 1 Chap. Hosh.) notes that this place in the Sept. Edit. is cor­rupted; Hoshea being disguised by Auses; which Name is yet farther essranged by those who call him [ [...], i. e. Nauses] as Eusebius does thrice, in his De­monstrat. Evangel. B. 5. Chap. 17. in Hebrew he is Named [...], i. e. Joshua, Numb. 11. v. 28. Vales. Ause, which his Parents had given him, he called Jesus, giving him this appellation as a sin­gular Title of Honour far passing all Royal Diadems, because that same Jesus, the Son of Nave bore the figure of our Saviour; who alone, after Moses, and the accom­plishment of the figurative service delivered by him, was to succeed in the Government of the true and most pure Religion. Thus to two men who surpassed all people of that Age in virtue and glory, one being then High-priest, the other to be chief Ruler after him, Moses gave the Name of our Saviour Jesus Christ, as an Ensign of the greatest Honour. The Prophets also who came after, Prophesied plainly of Christ by Name, foretelling long before-hand the treacherous practice of the Jewish people a­gainst him, and the calling of the Gentiles by him. Both Jeremie saying thus, Lament. 4. 20. The Spirit before our face, Christ our Lord, is taken in their nets, of whom we spake, under the shadow of his wings we shall be preserved alive among the Heathen: and David also, being very much perplexed, speaking thus, Psal. 2. 1, 2, 7, 8. Why have the Gentiles raged, and the peo­ple imagined vain things? The Kings of the earth stood forth, and the Princes assembled together in the same place against the Lord and against his Christ; whereunto afterwards he addeth in the per­son of Christ, The Lord said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the Heathen for thine in­heritance, and the ends of the earth for thy pos­session. The Name of Christ therefore among the Hebrews hath not onely honoured those that were adorned with the High-priesthood, being a­nointed with figurative and mystical oyl prepared on purpose, but Kings also, whom Prophets by the Divine appointment anointing, made figurative Christs; because they bore in themselves a resem­blance of the regal and Princely power of the onely and true Christ, The Word of God, who governeth all things. And moreover we have learned that certain of the Prophets also by being anointed have typically become Christs. So that all these have a relation unto the true Christ, the Divine and Hea­venly Word, the onely High-Priest of the whole World, therefore onely King of all the Creation, and the onely chief Prophet of the Father among all the Prophets. The proof hereof is demonstra­ble: For none of them that of old were typically anointed, whether Priests, or Kings, or Prophets, ever obtained so great a measure of Divine power and virtue, as the Saviour and our Lord Jesus, the onely and true Christ, hath shewed. Indeed none of them, how famous soever they were among their own followers throughout many Ages, by reason of their dignity and honour have caused by their being typically called Christs, that such as were conform to them should be named Christians. Neither hath the Honour of Adoration been ex­hibited by their subjects unto any of them, neither after the death of any of them have the minds of any been so much affected towards him, as to be ready to die for the maintenance of his Honour: neither hath there been any so great stir and com­motion among all the Nations throughout the whole World for any of them. For the power of the figure and shadow was not of such efficacy in them, as the presence of the truth exhibited by our Saviour. Who though he received not from any the Ensigns and Badges of the High-priesthood, nor indeed Hep. 7. 14. It is e­vident that our Lord sprang out of Judah of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning Priest­hood. lineally descended according unto the flesh from the Priestly Race, nor was advanced by a Guard of Armed men unto his Kingdom, nor was made a Prophet after the manner of the an­tient Prophets, nor obtained any preeminence, or prerogative among the Jews; yet for all this he was adorned Or, by the Spirit. But all the M. SS. Co­pies agree with our translation of it. Vales. by the Father with all these dignities, though not in Types and Symbols, yet in very truth. And although he obtained all these Titles in another manner then those men did, whereof mention hath been made, yet hath he been more truly stiled Christ than they all. And he, as being the onely and true Christ of God, hath by that truly venerable and Sacred Name of his filled the whole World with Christians: Nor doth he de­liver henceforth types and shadows unto his fol­lowers, but naked virtues, and an heavenly life ac­companied with the undoubted Doctrine of verity. [Page 6] And the oyntment He received was not corporal, compounded of spices, but Divine, by the Holy Ghost and by participation of the unbegotten Deity of the Father. The which thing again Esay declareth, when as in the person of Christ he breaketh out into these words, Isai. 61. 1. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, wherefore he hath anointed me to Preach glad tidings unto the poor, he hath sent me to cure the contrite in heart, to Preach deliverance unto the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind. And not onely Esay, but David also, directing his words to his Person, saith, Psal. 45. 6, 7. Thy Throne, O God, lasteth for ever and ever: the Sceptre of thy Kingdom is a right Sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness and ha­ted iniquity: Wherefore God even thy God hath anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows. In which Text the Word of God in the first verse termeth Christ God, the second ho­noureth him with a Royal Sceptre: thence de­scending by degrees, after the mention of his Divine and Royal Power; in the third place he sheweth him to have been Christ, anointed not with oyl of corporeal substance, but of Divine, that is of Glad­ness: whereby he signifieth his Prerogative and surpassing Excellency above them which with cor­poreal and typical oyl had of old been anointed. And in another place the same David speaketh of him thus, saying, Psal. 110. 1, 2, 3. The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand untill I make thine enemies thy footstool. And, Out of my Womb before the Day-star have I begotten thee; The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedec: This Melchisedec in the Sacred Gen. 14. 18. Heb. 7. 1. Scriptures is brought in the Priest of the most High God; but neither was he Consecrated by any oyl prepared of man for that purpose, nor by succession of kindred had he attained unto the Priest-hood a­mong the Hebrews: wherefore our Saviour, ac­cording unto his Order, and not according to them who received signes and shadows, is published, and that with addition of an Oath, Christ and Or, Chief-Priest. For so the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. read it. Vales. Priest. Wherefore also the Sacred History nei­ther mentions him to be corporally anointed a­mong the Jews, nor born of the Priestly Tribe, but of God himself before the Day-star, that is, having His Essence before the structure of the World, immortal, possessing a Priest-hood that never perisheth by reason of Age, but lasteth world without end. But this is a great and an apparent ar­gument of his Incorporeal and Divine Or, An­ [...]inting, for some co­pies have it written [ [...]] Vales. Power, that he alone, of all men that hitherto ever were, is by all men throughout the whole world called Christ; is Preached and confessed by the common consent and testimony of all, and by this Name every where celebrated among the Grecians and Barbarians: and that hitherto among all his fol­lowers throughout the world, He hath been both honoured as King, had in admiration above a Pro­phet, and also glorified as the true and onely High-Priest of God; and above all this, that he is worshipped even as God, in as much as he is the Eternal Word of God, and subsisted before all Worlds, That is, From all e­ternity. Vales. receiving majestical-Honour from the Father: But this moreover is most of all to be marvelled at, that we who are dedicated unto him, honour him not with voices onely and noise of words, but with all entire affection of the mind, so that we prefer the confession of him before our own lives.

CHAP. IV. That the Religion, by him declared to all Nations, is neither New, nor Strange.

At these words the Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. and the Kings M. S. and the Old sheets be­gin the 4th Chapter. LEt these things therefore be necessarily placed by me here in the beginning of this History, least any man should surmise our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ to be a Person newly apparent, by reason of the late time of his being conversant in the flesh. Now also, least any should deem his Doctrine to be New and Strange, as delivered by a new comer, and one who nothing differeth from the rest of men, come on, let us also in short de­bate thereof. It is indeed most certain, when as the coming and presence of our Saviour Jesus Christ shone now fresh unto all men, that a peo­ple new we must confess, yet neither small, nor such as was scituate in some corner of the earth, but of all Nations both the most populous and most religious, and upon this account inexpug­nable and invincible, because aided continually by the assistance of God, at certain seasons prede­termined by the secret providence of God, to us suddenly appeared, being ennobled among all men by the Title and Name of Christ. This, one of the Prophets by the eye of the Divine Spirit foreseeing would come to pass, was astonished, in so much that he cried out, thus, Isai. 66. 8. Who hath heard such things? Or who hath spoken after this manner? Hath the earth travelling brought forth in one day? And hath a Nation sprung up sud­denly and at one time? Also the same Prophet shews the very Name that should be given, saying, Isai. 62. 2▪ And they that serve me shall be called after a New name which shall be blessed upon earth. But although, without controversie we are but of late, and this new name of Christians hath been but lately known unto all Nations; yet, that our life and manner of conversation, together with the rules of Religion, are not newly devised by our selves, but have been (as I may say) even from the original of mankind, instituted and observed by antient godly men from those notions that nature had implanted in their minds, we will thus make evident. That the Nation of the Hebrews is no new Nation, but honoured among all people for their antiquity, is well known to all. They have books and monuments in writing containing the actions of antient men, who were rare indeed, and few in number, yet excelled in piety and righteous­ness, and all other kind of virtues. Whereof some flourisht before the floud, others after; as the sons and off-spring of Noah; Some Translatours (as Mus­culus, and Dr Hanmer as appears by his Version, and marginal Note thereat) supposed that [ [...], i. e. atar, which is the word here used in the Original, and is a Greek adverb] was a proper name, and a corruption of Terah the name of the father of Abraham, of whom mention is made Gen. 11. But this is a great mistake. For Terah, the father of Abraham, was not one of those whom God lo­ved; as it may be plainly col­lected from Sacred Scripture: nei­ther did our Eusebius think so, as appears by his own words, when he says, a little after this, in this Chapter, concerning Abraham, that he left the superstition of his fathers. We have therefore trans­lated these words [ [...]] And moreover. Vales. And moreover A­braham, in whom the chil­dren of the Hebrews doe glory, as their chief Founder, and forefather. Now if any one beginning with Abraham and going upwards to the first man, does affirm that all those men who have so glo­rious Testimonials of their righteousness, were in reality though not by name Christi­ans, he shall not erre far from the truth. For whereas the name of Christian signifieth a man who through the know­ledge and Doctrine of Christ excelleth in modesty and righ­teousness, in patience of life [Page 7] and virtuous fortitude, and in profession of sincere Piety towards the one and the onely God who is above all; they were no less studious about all this than we are. They cared not therefore for corporal Circumcision; no more doe we: nor for the observation of Sabbaths; no more doe we; nor for abstinence from certain meats, and distinction of other things, which Moses first in­stituted and delivered to be typically observed; no more doe Christians regard such matters now. But they of Old evidently knew the very Christ of God. For that he appeared to Abraham, gave answers to Isaac, talked with Jacob, conversed with Moses, and afterwards with the Prophets, we have shewed before. Hence thou maiest find those darlings of God honoured with the name of Christ, according unto that saying of them, Psal. 105. 15. See that ye touch not my Christs, that is, anointed. Christs, neither deal perversly with my Prophets. It is manifest therefore that the ser­vice of God, which was instituted by the godly of Old about the time of Abraham, and published of late unto all the Gentiles by the Doctrine of Christ, ought to be accounted the first, the eldest, and the antientest of all. But if they say that Abra­ham a long time after received the commandment of Circumcision; yet before the receit thereof he is said to have been justified by his faith; the Scripture speaking thus, Gen. 15. 6. Rom. 4. 3. Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. And he being such a one already before Circum­cision, the Oracle from God, who manifested him­self unto him, even Christ himself, the Word of God before-hand hath uttered this unto him in these words, concerning those who in future Ages should be justified after the same manner with him­self, saying thus, Gen. 11. 3. Gen. 18. 18. & 22. 18. And all the Tribes of the earth shall be blessed in thee; And that he should be a great and a populous Nation and all the Nations on the earth should be blessed in him. And we may by consideration easily perceive that this is fulfilled in us. For he, through Faith in Christ the Word of God who appeared unto him was justified, when having left the superstition of his fathers, and the errour of his former life, he con­fessed one onely God who is over all, and wor­shipped him with virtuous works, and not with the ceremonious service of the Law delivered after­wards by Moses. Unto him, being such a one it was said that, In him shall all the Tribes of the earth and all Nations be blessed. The very same manner of Religion which Abraham followed, is found at this present among Christians alone throughout the world, practised by them in works which are far more evident than words. What then hindreth but that we may henceforth confess, that one and the same way of living, and the same kind of Religion is common to us, who have our name from Christ, with them who of Old sincerely served God and were so dear unto him. It plainly appears therefore that that perfect and exact rule of Religion, which hath been delivered unto us by the Doctrine of Christ, is neither New nor Strange, but (if we ought to speak the truth) the first▪ the onely, and the true one. And of these matters let thus much suffice.

CHAP. V. Of the times of our Saviours Manifestation unto Men.

BUt, after this preparation wherein by way of Preface we have laid down such things as are fit to usher-in the Ecclesiastical History we design, it now remaineth that we take the first step as it were of our journey from the appearance of our Saviour in the flesh; calling upon God, the Father of the Word, and upon Jesus Christ him­self, of whom we Treat, our Saviour and Lord, the heavenly Word of God, that he will be our help and fellow-labourer in the declaration of the Truth. It was now therefore The first year of Au­gustus, ac­cording to Eusebius's computati­on, is that wherein Hirtius and Pansa were Consuls. Therefore the fourty second year of Augustus fal [...] on his thirteenth Consulship. Thus much concerning the year wherein Christ was born. Eusebius does no where expresly mention the day. It was the common opinion of the Western Church that he was born on the 7. Kalend. January: but the Eastern Church thought otherwise, that he was born on the 8. Id. January (i. e. on the 6th day Jan.) Vales. The learned have found so great difficulty in assigning the day of our Saviours Birth, that Scaliger said, Uni [...] Dei est non hominis de [...]inire; i. e. God onely, not man, was able expressely to declare it. It had been much better for these men to content themselves with the tradition of the Church, rather than by such an elaborate unfruitful search to entangle the truth. For the celebration of this festival, many testimonies may be produced out of Origen, Cyprian, and Chry­sostom, each of these fathers deducing it from the practise of the first antiquity; and St Augustine makes it a Character of a son of the Church to solemnize the Festivals of it, and this (principally and by name) of the Nativity. To which may be added that of the Author of the Constitutions (Constit. B. 5. c. 13.) [...], i. e. Keep the days of the feasts, and first the day of Christs Birth. So that the Religion of this day, non est nupera, neque novitia, is not modern, nor newly begun, though Scaliger said so. And for the particular day, the 25th of December, whereon this Festival is by us solemnized, (not to mention other testimonies which might be produced to this purpose) In Joseph the Egyptian's Arabick Codex of the Counsels (a M. S. in the Archives of the publick Library of Oxford, of the gift of St Thomas Roe) this day as well as this Feast is affirmed to stand by Apostolical Canon. The words of which, as it is Transcribed by Mr Gregory, are in English these, Also that you consti­tute an anniversary Feast at the Nativity of the Lord Christ, on the Day on which he was Born, and that was the five and twentieth of the first Canon (i. e. of December) For this is the principal of all the Feasts, &c. See Mr Gregories Works, Chap. 34. Dr Hammond on the Festivals of the Church, and the Learned Seldens Tract of Christmas-Day for further satisfaction. the two and for­tieth year of the Reign of Augustus, and the eight and twentieth year after the subduing of Egypt, and the death of Antonius and Cleopatra, in whom the Rule of the Ptolomees in Egypt ceased, when our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ at the time of the first It is by learned men affirmed, particularly by Js. Casaubon in Bar. p. 105. (and is most probable) that this decree of Taxing (or inrolling every Person▪ according to their Families and Estates) was an effect of Augustus his curiosity (and neither of his desire to enrich his Treasure, nor to reform the excesses of those before him) and this over-ruled by Gods special providence, that this Emperour might serve to be instrumental to the conserving the record of the Birth of Christ, whose Name and his mothers, as well as Josephs, were now in­rolled. And this is an evidence of the nature of this [...], that it was not a Tax, for that would not have belonged to women and infants, but to the possessours onely. See Dr Hammond on Luk. 2. v. 1. Taxing, which was when There is a great disagreement amongst the Learned about this enrolment and valuation of mens Persons and Estates, whether it was done once, or twice. Some say there were two, both made by the same Cyrenius, (or Quirinius,) and both mentioned by St Luke▪ the first he speaks of Chap. 2. 2. of his Gospel; which was made a little before our Saviours Birth, about the latter end of the Reign of Herod the great, Sentius Saturninus being then president of Syria; this, say these men, St Luke calls [...] the first Taxing, to difference it from that other mentioned by him, Acts▪ 5. 37. And whereas St Luke says, Cyrenius at that time had the rule over Syria; these words are to be taken in a loofer, not stricter sense; not that Cyrenius was then the standing Governour there [...] the Romans, but was sent by the Emperour particularly on this [...]sion▪ to take an Inventory of this part of the Empire: for [...]iss confest that Sentius Saturninus was then the president of Syria. The other Taxing, men­tioned in the Acts, was made ten years after this, after the banishment of Archelaus, and about the insurrection of Judas of Galilee (or Gau­lanites.) This is the opinion of Scaliger, Petavius, Casaubon, and Ham­mond. On the other hand, Val [...]iu [...] (and with him, as he thinks, agrees our Eusebius in this Chapt.) says there was but one Taxing▪ (which may be supposed to have been begun at the latter end of Herod the great his Reign, about the time of Christs Birth, and was not perhaps finished till ten years after, when Cyrenius was president of Syria, after the banishment of Archelaus;) his reasons are these; Josephus mentions but one: after this Enrolment once made why should it be repeated, and that by the same person? For if he had done it equally and exactly, what need of a new one? if not, another per­son ought rather to be sent who might doe it better: What had a Roman Magistrate to doe with any thing of Government in Judea whilst Herod lived, who in all right was King there, and was so acknow­ledged by the Roman Senate? Lastly, about the time of Christs Birth Saturninus and Varus were procurators in Syria, and not Cyrenius, I shall not take upon me to determine this difference; the Reader has here the sum of the Arguments on both sides, and is left to his liber­ty to be swayed by which party he pleases. Cyrenius was Governour of Syria, was born in Bethlehem of Judea, agreeable to the Prophecies, that went before of him. Which Taxing under Cyrenius, Flavius Josephus, a most famous Historiographer among the Hebrews, maketh mention of; adding there­to another History concerning the Sect of the [Page 8] Galileans, which sprang up about the same time, whereof amongst us also Luke in the Acts of the Apostles maketh mention, saying thus, Act. 5. 37. After this man rose up one This in­surrection of Judas of Galilee we assert to have been after the banishment of Archela­us. Indeed, before his deposition there could be no rea­son why Judas should stir up the peo­ple of the Jews to a defection. For no Va­luation of mens E­states could be made by a Roman Magistrate there, where a King, that was a friend and an Allie of the Ro­mans, Go­verned; neither was Judea in any danger to be brought into Servitude by Strangers, as long as it obeyed a Jew, that is, a King of their own Nation. Vales. Judas of Galilee in the days of the Taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also himself perished, and all even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. The same indeed, Josephus before mentioned in his eigh­teenth Book of Antiquities, doth agree in and confirm thus, word for word, ‘Cyrenius one of the number of the Roman Senatours, a man who had born all Offices, and by all the degrees of Honour had climbed at length to the Consulship, and who was greatly renowned in other re­spects, came with a few men into Syria, being sent on purpose by Caesar, as Judge of the Na­tion, and to take the Valuation of their Estates. And a little after, he saith, Judas Gaulanites, a man of the City named Gamala, having taken unto him one Saddochus a Pharisee, earnestly sollicited the people to Rebellion: Both of them affirming, that the Taxing of this Tribute inferred nothing but manifest Servitude, and ex­horting the whole Nation to maintain their Li­berty.’ And in his Second Book of the Wars of the Jews, he writeth thus of the same Person: ‘At that time a certain Galilean by name Judas, stirred up the people of that Region to defecti­on, upbraiding them for paying Tribute so tame­ly to the Romans, and, having God their Sove­reign, for suffering mortal men to be their ma­sters.’ So far Josephus.

CHAP. VI. That in his time, according to the Predictions of the Prophets, the Princes of the Jewish Nation who before by succession had held the Principa­lity, surceased, and that Herod, the First of the Aliens, became their King.

NOw at that time, when Herod, the First of them who by descent was a Forreigner, had obtained the Rule over the Jewish Nation, the Prophecy written by Moses was fulfilled, which said, Gen. 49. 10. There shall not want a Prince in Juda, nei­ther a Leader fail of his Loyns, untill he come for whom it is reserved. Whom he declares to be the expectation of the Gentiles. Indeed the things of that Prophesie hung unaccomplished all the time that it was lawful for the Jews to live under Prin­ces of their own Nation: who taking their be­ginning as high as Moses himself, continued down their Reign even to the Empire of Augustus: un­der whom Herod the First Joseph Scaliger, in his Animadversions upon Eusebius's Chronicon, has sufficiently made it evident, that Herod was no Forreigner. Josephus, in his 20. B. of An­tiqui [...], Chap. 6. call [...] Herod [...], i. e. a Jew as to his Li [...]eage. Vales. Forreigner had the Government of the Jews granted him by the Ro­mans: who, as Josephus declares, was by his fa­thers side an Idumaean; by his mothers, an Arabi­an: But, as Affricanus, one not of the vulgar sort of Writers, says, they who have been more accurate about his pedegree, say he was the son of Antipater, who was the son of one Herod an Asca­lonite, who was one of the servants which Ministred in the Temple of Apollo. This Antipater be­ing taken by Idumaean theeves while he was yet a child, remained a long time among them, because his father being one of a mean Estate was not able to redeem him. And being brought up after their manner of breeding, became at length very fami­liarly acquainted with Hyrcanus the High-priest of the Jews. This very mans son was that Herod who lived in the time of our Saviour. When therefore the principality of the Jews was come into the hands of this Alien, then was the expecta­tion of the Gentiles even at the doors, according unto that Prophesie: For then the Line of their Native Princes and Governours was broken off, which had been drawn down by a continued Suc­cession from Moses himself untill that time. For before they were taken Captives and carried into Babylon, Kings reigned over them, beginning from Saul who was the first, and from David. Before their Kings Princes bore Rule over them, whom they called Judges, beginning their Government after Moses, and his Successour Jesus otherwise called Jo­shua. Jesus. After their return from Babylon there ceased not amongst them a form of Government, an Aristocracie together with an Oligarchie, the best ruling, and they but few in number. For the High-Priests had held that preeminence untill Pompey the Roman Captain coming upon them by main force, besieged and ran­sacked Jerusalem, polluted the Holy places, by en­tring into the Sanctuaries of the Temple, and sent prisoner to Rome the High-priest whose name was Aristobulus with his sons, who by succession from his Progenitors had continued unto that time both Prince and Priest; and committed the Office of High-priesthood unto his brother Hyrcanus, and from that time [...]orth made the whole Jewish Nation become Tributary to the Romans. And in­deed not long after, Hyrcanus, the last of those to whom the High-priesthood by succession befell, being taken prisoner by the Parthians, Herod the first Forreigner, as I said before, had the Govern­ment of the Jewish nation delivered to him by the Roman Senate and the Emperour Augustus. Un­der whom, whenas the presence of Christ was apparent, the long-lookt-for Salvation of the Gen­tiles was accomplished, and their calling conse­quently followed, according to the predictions of the Prophets. Since which time the Princes and Ru­lers of Juda (those I mean who were of Jewish extraction) ceasing, straightway the series and course of the High-preisthood, which among them by order of succession af [...]er the decrease of the former was always, as it was meet, wont to fall unto the next of bloud, was confounded. Hereof thou hast Josephus a witness worthy of credit, declaring how that Herod, after that he was intrusted with the rule over the Jews by the Romans, assigned them no more High-priests of the antient Priestly Race, but conferred that honour upon certain obscure persons; and how that the same course which Herod had taken in constituting High-priests, was followed by his son Archelaus, and after by the Romans who succeeded him in the Government of Judea. The said Josephus declareth, how that Herod first shut up under his own Privy-Seal the Holy Ro [...]e of the High-priest, not permitting [Page 9] the High-priests to keep it any longer in their own custody; and that after him Archelaus; and after Archelaus the Romans did the same. And let these things be spoken by us to evidence the truth of another Prophesie, which by the coming of our Saviour Christ Jesus was accomplished. For most plainly and expressly of all other, the Holy Scri­pture in Daniel describing the number of certain weeks unto Christ the Ruler (whereof we have in another He means his Books of Evange­lical De­monstrati­on. For in the eighth Book of that work he Treats of Daniels weeks, which he affirms were compleated at our Saviours coming, according to the opinion of Africanus. Vales. place intreated) foretelleth that after the accomplishment of those weeks the Jewish anointing should be abolished. And this is plain­ly proved to have been fulfilled at the time when our Saviour Jesus Christ came in the flesh. And let these things necessarily be fore-observed by us for the proof of the truth of the times.

CHAP. VII. Of the disagreement supposed to be among the Gospels about the Genealogy of Christ.

BUt in as much as Matthew and Luke, commit­ting the Gospel to writing, have differently delivered unto us the Genealogie of Christ, and are thought by many to disagree very much among themselves, so that almost every one of the faithful, through ignorance of the truth, hath ambitiously striven to comment upon those places; come on, let us rehearse a certain History which is come to our hands concerning the premises, the which Afri­canus (whom we mentioned a little before) hath set down in an Epistle written to Aristides about the concordance of the Genealogie of Christ in the Go­spels: and having indeed Or, Ha­ving evi­denced them to be false; for so it is in the Kings M. S. Vales. blamed the Opinions of o­thers, as wrested and false, he delivereth the History that he himself had met withall, in these very words. ‘For seeing that the names of kindred in Israel were numbred either after the line of nature, or af­ter the rule of the Law; after the order of Nature, as by succession of natural seed, after that of the Law, as when any one begetteth a son in the name of his brother who deceased without issue: For because a perspicuous hope of the Resur­rection was not yet granted them, they sha­dowed out in some sort the promise to come with this kind of mortal Resurrection, that the name of the deceased might continue and never be quite blotted out. Because there [...]ore, of them that are reckoned in this Genealogy, some suc­ceeded their fathers as natural sons, but others received their name whence they received not their nature; mention is made of both; as well of them who were truly fathers, as of them who were titular onely and as fathers. Thus neither of the Gospels is found false, the one drawing the Pedegree by the Natural, the other by the Legall line. For the race both of Solomon, and that also of Nathan, are so wrapped and twi­sted together, by reviving of persons deceased without issue, by The chief cause of confusing of Families was, when the woman, having had children by a former hus­band, hastned to remarry, and bore children by her latter also. After which, let us suppose the son, begotten by her first husband, to have married a wife, and afterwards to have died without issue. Then, if his brother by the mother side marry his widow, and beget children of her, in these children there will be a confusedness of families; in so much that by nature they may be called this mans and have one name, but by Law the others, and bear another name. Vales. second marriages, and by raising up of seed, that not without cause the same men are supposed to have had divers fa­thers, whereof some were onely nominative, others fathers indeed. Thus the account in both Gospels is true, and is brought down to Joseph accuratly and exactly, though by a various and different line. And, that what I say may plain­ly appear, I will recite the Or, The successions; So Robert Stephens Edit. and the Kings M. S. Vales. alteration of Fami­lies. If we count the Ge­nerations (as Matth. 1. 15, 16. Matthew doth) from David by Solomon, Matthan will be found the third from the end, who begat Jacob the father of Joseph: but if from Nathan the son of David, according unto Luk. 3. 23, 24. Luke, then the third in like manner from the end will be But Melchi is, in St Luke, the fifth, to wit, Joseph's Great-grand­fathers Father. Therefore either Africanus forgot. himself; or else in that Copie of the Gospel he used, Melchi was written for Mat­that; which is the conjecture of Bede, on the third Chap. of Luke. Vales. Melchi, whose son was Heli the father of Joseph. For Joseph was the son of Heli, the son of Mel­chi. Joseph therefore be­ing, as it were, the mark we shoot at, we must shew how each person is termed his fa­ther, as well Jacob, who deriveth his pedegree from Solomon, as Heli who descended from Nathan; and besides, how, in the first place, these two, Jacob and Heli, were brethren; then, in the next place, how their fathers Matthan and Melchi, born of divers kindreds, may be made appear to be Grand-fathers to Joseph. Now therefore thus it was: Matthan and Melchi marrying, one after the other, the same wife, begat children who were brethren by the mo­ther; the law not forbidding a widow, either dismissed from her husband, or after the death of her husband, to be married unto another man. First therefore Matthan, descending from So­lomon, begat Jacob of Estha: for that is said to be the womans name. After the death of Mat­than, Melchi, who descended from Nathan, being of the same Tribe, but of another race (as we said before) took this widow to his wife, and begat Heli his son. Thus shall we find Jacob and Heli, though of a different race, yet by the same mother to have been bre­thren. One of whom, namely Jacob, after Heli his brother was deceased without issue, married his wife, and begat on her the third, Joseph, by nature indeed and reason his own son; whereupon also it is written, And Jacob begat Joseph; but by the Law he was the son of Heli; for Jacob being his brother raised up seed unto him. Wherefore neither is that Ge­nealogie which concerneth him to lose its au­thority, the which indeed Matth. 1. 16. Matthew the Evan­gelist reciting saith, And Jacob begat Joseph, but Luk. 3. 23, 24. Luke on the other side, Which was the son, as it was supposed (for he addeth this withall) of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Melchi. Nor could he more signi­ficantly and properly have expressed that way of Generation according to the Law. There­fore in his recital of procreations of this sort, he passeth over in silence even to the end, the word of Begetting, carrying the whole series of Families step by step up as high as A­dam, who was the son of God. Neither is this matter destitute of good proof, or rashly and hastily devised. For the kinsmen of our Sa­viour according to the flesh, either out of desire to make known the Nobility of their stock, or simply to tell the story, have very truly delivered even these things unto us; how that Idumaean Theeves invading the City Ascalon in Palaestina, took Captive together with other spoils out of [Page 10] the Temple of Apollo adjoyning unto the walls, This pas­sage is alto­gether fa­bulous. For the name of Antipa­ter's father was not Herod▪ but Antipater an Idumaean; neither was he a minister in the Temple of Apollo. See Josephus B. 14. Chap. 2. This Antipater, Alex­ander King of the Jews made Pre­fect of all Idumaea; and this first Antipater seems to be the founder of all that Greatness, to which his posterity afterwards arrived. For he had the Prefecture of Idumaea during the reign of Alexander and Alexandra; and, having made an Alliance with the A [...]calonites, Gazites, and Arabians gat great riches. Vales. Antipater, son to one Herod, that was Minister in that Temple. But, in that the Priest was not able to pay the ransome for his son, Antipater was brought up after the fashion of the Idumaeans, and at length became very familiar with Hyrcanus the High-priest of Judea. He, being by Hyrcanus sent Embassa­dour unto Pompey, and having recovered him the Kingdom free and entire, which his brother Aristo­bulus had in great part usur­ped, had the good hap him­self to gain the Title and Of­fice of Antipater, the father of Herod, was Procuratour of the whole Kingdom of Judaea under Hyrca­nus, and managed all affairs, both Militarie, and Civil. Therefore Josephus, in his 14. B. calls him [ [...], i. e. Procuratour.] Vales. Procuratour of Pa­laestine, and lived in great prosperity. This Antipa­ter being traiterously slain by some who envied his great felicity, Herod his son succeeded him, whom at last Antonius and Au­gustus, by decree of the Senate, constituted King over the Jews: whose sons were Herod and the other Tetrarchs. These things are common also among the Greek Histories. Now whenas un­to that time the Genealogies not onely of the Hebrews, but of them also who Lineally descen­ded from antient Proselytes, as from Achior the Ammonite, and Ruth the Moabitess, and those who came out of Egypt with the Israelites and mingled with them, were Recorded a­mong the antient monuments; Herod consider­ing that the Israelitical pedegrees would avail him nothing, and being prick't in mind with the consciousness of his base­ness of birth, I judge this passage also to have little of certainty in it. For Josephus, in the book of his own life, mentioning the original and antiquity of his own stock, fetches it from the publick Archives. Therefore those publick tables, which contained the originalls of the Jewish families, were extant in Josephus's time. And so its false to say that Herod burnt them. Vales. burnt their antient recorded Genealo­gies, supposing thereby to make himself to be thought to come of noble paren­tage, when none other, assisted by publick Re­cords, were able to bring their pedegrees from the Patriarchs, or antient Pro­selytes, or such as were cal­led Two sorts of men joyned themselves with the children of Israel when they went up out of Egypt. The one were native Egyptians, whom Moses (Exod. 12. 19.) calls [...], i. e. born in the land: the other sort were a mixt multitude, whom he there calls [...], i. e. strangers. They were extraneous persons a­mongst the Egyptians, who took the land to Till at a certain pension: the Jews were such, before they went up out of Egypt. Both these sorts of men the sacred Scripture comprehends under the name of a mixt multitude (Exod. 12, 38.) Vales. Georae, strangers born, and mingled among the Is­raelites. Yet some few stu­dious in this behalf having either kept in memory the names of their Ancestours, or copied them out of an­tient Rolls, have got unto themselves their proper pe­degrees, and glory much that they have preserved the remembrance of their antient Nobility. Amongst whom were those men I mentioned before, who by reason of their near kindred with our Saviour, were called DESPOSYNI. These travelling from Nazara and Cochaba was a vil­lage neer Decapolis. Vales. Cochaba, towns of the Jews, into other regions, plainly expounded the fore­said genealogie, partly out of the book of their Many of the Jews, studious of preserving their pede­gree, had private copies thereof, taken out of the publick Archives; as we often see Gentlemen doe at this day amongst us. Vales. Ephemerides, and partly out of their memorie, as far as they were able. However then the case stand, whether thus or otherwise, no man in my judgment, and in the judgment of any other in­genious person, can find a plainer exposition. Let us make much of this there­fore, though we have How much this explication of the place in the Gospels is to be valued, appears from these words of Africanus; who confesses it is not confirmed by the testimonie of any antient writer: But he would have us admit of it, because none that is better can be brought. Which if it be so, I wish our Eu­sebius had not mentioned this mat­ter in the entrance of his History. It had undoubtedly been better and more advisedly done, to have passed over in silence this disagree­ment of the Evangelists, least those Readers, who were not believers (many of which there were at that time) might hence take oc­casion to doubt of the truth of the Gospel. Vales. no proof to confirm it, seeing we cannot produce a better, and a truer exposition. The Gospel indeed in all respects uttereth most true things.’ And about the end of the same Epistle he addeth these words; ‘Matthan de­scending from Solomon be­gat Jacob. Matthan de­ceased, Melchi of the stock of Nathan on the same woman begat Heli. In this way of re­conciling this matter, which A­fricanus re­lates, two things oc­cur which seem to have some­thing of difficulty in them, first, I doubt whether it were law­ful for the brother by the mothers side to marry his brothers widow, and to beget children of her, which were to succeed in the name and be accounted of the Familie of his brother. The Law (Deut. 25. 5.) speaks of the bro­ther that dwells in the same house, and that is of the same Stock: But the brother by the mothers side is not of the same House, nor of the same Stock: Seeing that the Stock, especially amongst the Jews, was deduced from the fathers Race. Secondly, it may be deservedly questioned, whether in reckoning up the generations, there be any ac­count had of the adoptive fathers. Obed, who is mentioned in the Genealogie of Christ, is an eminent example hereof. For when Maalon was dead in the land of Moab, and Ruth left a widow with­out children, Booz the kinsman of Maalon (he that was a nearer kinsman than he giving up his right) took Ruth to wi [...]e, whereby he might raise up seed to Maalon. Yet Obed that was begotten of her, is by the Evangelists, and in the Book of Ruth not called the son of Maalon, but the son of Booz. Vales. So Heli and Jacob were brethren by the mo­thers side. Heli dying without issue, Jacob raised unto him seed by begetting of Joseph, his own son by Nature, but Heli his son by Law. Thus was Joseph son to both. So far Africanus.’ Now the Genealogie of Joseph being thus recited, the stock also of Mary, who was of the same Tribe together with him, is in effect made apparent. For by the Law of Moses, mingling of Tribes by marriage was forbidden. For the woman is commanded to be joyned in marriage to one of the same House and of the same Family, that so the inheritance of the kin­dred might not be removed from tribe to tribe. But of these matters let thus much suffice.

CHAP. VIII. Of Herods cruelty towards the Infants, and after how miserable a manner he ended his life.

NOW Christ being born in Bethlehem of Judaea at the time before manifested, according to the predictions of the Prophets, Herod, upon an enquiry made by the Matt. 2. 1, 2, 3. wise men that came from the East, asking where he was that was born King of the Jews? for they said they had seen his Star, and had therefore made such a long journey with diligence, because they most ardently desired to worship him that was born, as God: Herod, I say, being not a little troubled, judging his Govern­ment to be in very imminent danger, demanded of the Doctors of the Law, then in the Nation, where they expected Christ should be born: when he knew of the Prophecy of Micah. 5. 2. Micah, who foretold he was to be born in Bethlehem; by one express Edict he commands all the young children both in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof from two years old and under, according to the time which [Page 11] he had diligently enquired of the wise men, to be slain. For he supposed, as it was very likely, that Jesus would be involved in the same calamity with them that were about his age. But his Parents having had notice of the whole matter by an An­gel that appeared to them, conveyed the young child into Egypt, and so he escaped the Kings bloudy plot. Thus much indeed the sacred writing of the Gospel sets forth. And now moreover it would be worth the while to see what immediate­ly befell Herod upon account of his audacious wickedness acted towards Christ and those of the same age with him; How forthwith, without all delay, the Divine vengeance seized him whilst alive after such a manner, as to foreshew some be­ginnings of those torments which awaited him af­ter this life. And how he clouded the prosperous Successes of his Reign, as he judged them to be, with domestick calamities following one upon ano­ther, with the murthers of his wife and children, and others of his nearest relations and dearest friends, I shall not now be able particularly to re­count, in as much as the rehearsal of this mat­ter would far surpass even all the most savage cruelty of every Tragedy; which Josephus in his History has at large declared▪ But, how after his cruel plot formed against our Sa­viour and the other infants, he was forthwith smitten from heaven with a disease, as with a scourge, whereof he died, it will not be unfit to understand from the Authour himself, who in his Joseph. Antiq. B. 17. c. 8. seventeenth Book of Antiquities relates after how lamentable a manner he ended his life, writing word for word thus; ‘But the disease of Herod grew yet more bitterly violent, God exacting this judgment of his enormities upon him. He had a gentle feaver not expressing it self so much to the outward touch and feeling, as more grievous­ly burning him within. Moreover he had a vehemently strong appetite after meat, but no­thing could suffice him; he had an ulcer of the entrails with sharp conflictations especially of the Colick-gut: a phlegmatick and shining hu­mour appeared about his feet. Moreover the disease had gotten about the lower belly, and more than that, there was a putrefaction of his Genitalls, and it bred worms; besides he had a shortness of breath, which was also unsavory; a troublesome flux of Rheum, which caused a perpetual difficulty of breathing. And, the patient having not strength to resist these things, there followed a convulsion of▪ all the parts. It was said therefore by the Divine▪s, and those who made it their business to give judgement of such things, that the hand of God was upon the King to punish him for his so oft repeated horrible offences.’ Thus much therefore the foresaid Writer relates in the fore-mentioned Book. And in the Second These words of Josephus we meet with now in the 1. B. 21. c. of his Hi­story. But in the M. S. copies of Josephus in the Books were o­therwise divided than now they are. That di­vision Eu­sebius fol­lowed, and therefore no altera­tion is here to be made. Vales. Book of his History he speaks of him after the same manner, in these words: ‘After that he was taken with a disease which seising upon the whole state and habit of his body, tormented him exceedingly with several pains: He had a feaver but not of any acute kind, an insufferable itching over all his body, with continual tortures of the Colon: by the humours about his feet you would judge him to have been Hydropical; besides this, a strange inflammation of the lower belly, and such a putrefaction of the Genitalls as bred worms; moreover a shortness and difficulty of breathing with a convulsion of all the parts. This moved those of that time who pretended to know the mind of God, to term these diseases a punishment inflicted on him from heaven. But although he strugled with so many distempers, yet he hoped to live and recover, and sought for remedy. Passing there­fore over Jordan he made use of the hot-waters that are neer Call [...]rhoe. They fall into the lake Asphaltites, but are so sweet that they are potable. There, when his Physitians thought it good to bathe his whole body in warm oil, being set into a bathing-vessel filled with oil, he was so weakened all over his body that he turned up his eyes as if he had been dead. But at the noise of his attendants outcries he came to himself again. After this, despairing of re­covery, he gave order for the distribution of fifty The word [...] is derived from [...], that is, an hand­full, as containing so many pieces of brass-money as would make an handfull, to wit▪ six. This word from the Greeks came not onely to the Romans, but, after the time of the Se [...]ucidae, to the Jews also; so Ezr. 2. 69. [...], the greek word with a very little alte­ration, rendred by the 72 [...], by us Drachms. Now four Attich Drachms make one ordi­nary Shekel (so I call it to di­stinguish it from that of the San­ctuary which was twice as much) an ordinary shekel is two shil­lings and six pence in our Coin. So that according to this account Herods largess came to six pounds and five shillings a man. Suid. Drachms to every one of his common Soul­diers, but to his Comman­ders and friends he gave great sums of money. From thence he returned to Jericho; and being now grown very melan­choly, he did as it were threaten death it self, and resolved upon the commis­sion of a most horrible and villanous fact. For he commanded all the emi­nent personages that were in every town of Judaea to be summoned together and imprisoned in the Hip­podrome. Then calling for his sister Salome and her husband Alexander, I know, said he, the Jews will rejoyce mightily at my death; but, if you will obey my commands, I can make my self to be lame [...]ted by many, and obtain an honourable Funeral; as soon as breath is out of my body, doe you being guarded with Soul­diers, kill all these men whom I have impriso­ned; so all Judaea, yea every family shall though a­gainst their wills, mourn at my death. And a little after he says, and again when he was tortured partly by want of sustenance, and partly by the Convulsions of his violent Cough, being overcome with continual torments he resolved to hasten his own death. And having taken an apple, he asked for a knife, for his manner was to cut them him­self when ever he eat them; then looking round least there should be any one that might hin­der him, he lifted up his right hand, as about to doe violence to himself. Moreover the same writer relates farther, how that a little before his death he most wickedly commanded Antipater who was beheaded by his fathers command five days before his death. See Monta­gues Acts and Mon. another of his own sons, having slain Aristobulus and Alexander, who were strangled, at Samaria by his special command. I [...]. two of them before, to be put to death, and then soon af­ter died in most exquisite torture.’ And such was the end Herod made, suffering a due punishment for his cruelty towards the infants of Bethle­hem, which he contrived on purpose to destroy our Saviour. After his death an Angel appeared to Joseph then in Egypt, and commanded him to take the young Child and his Mother and return into Judea, telling him they were dead who sought the young Childs Life. To which the Matt. 2. 22. Evan­gelist farther adds, saying, when he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither, not withstanding being warned of God in a dream he turned aside into the parts of Galilee.

CHAP. IX. Of the Times of Pilate.

THe said Historian agrees also concerning the Reign of Archelaus after the death of Herod, declaring the manner of it, how both by his fathers Testament, and also by the decree of Augustus Caesar, he obtained the Kingdom of Judea: And how, when after ten years he was deposed from his Government, his brethren, Philip, and Herod juniour, and St Luke mentions this Lysa­nias. chap. 3. 1. But Josephus mentions him not in his account of this mat­ter. 'Tis certain he was not He­rods son, nor yet his successour. Vales. Lysanias governed their Tetrar­chies. The same Authour, in the eighteenth Book of his Antiquities, makes it plainly appear, that Pontius Pilate was made Procuratour of Judea in the twelfth year of the Reign of Tiberius (who then was Emperour, succeeding Augustus, who had Reigned fifty seven years) and continued so full ten years, almost as long as Tiberius lived. From whence their fiction is manifestly confuted, who of late have published Acts were Books wherein the scribes that belonged to the seve­ral places of judica­ture, recor­ded the sentences pronoun­ced by the Judges. See Calvins Lex. Jurid. the word Acta. These Acts of Pilate were counterfeited by the Enemies of Christianity, in the Persecution under Maximinus, as Eusebius affirms, Lib. 9. c. 5. Acts against our Saviour. In which chiefly the title or note of time, inscribed upon the said Acts, does evidently show the Authours thereof to be liars. For those things which these men have impudently feigned concerning the salutary passion of our Lord, are said to have been done when Tiberius was Consul the fourth time, which fell out to be the seventh year of his Reign. At which time it is certain Pilate was not come as Governour into Judea, if we may believe Josephus; who in his foresaid Book does expresly shew, that Pilate was made Procuratour of Judea by Tiberius, in the twelfth year of his Reign.

CHAP. X. Of the High-Priests among the Jews, in whose time Christ Preached the Gospel.

AT this time therefore, namely in the fifteenth year of the Reign of Tiberius, according to the Luk. 3. 1, 2. Evangelist, and the fourth of Pilate's Procurator-ship of Judea, Herod, I know not why Eusebius put Lysanias in the middle between He­rod and Phillip, the sons of Herod the great. For Luke, whose words Eusebius does here profess that he follows, in that famous place con­cerning the Baptism of Christ, names Lysanias in the third place. Wherefore Eusebius should have observed the same order, especi­ally because Lysanias was neither son, nor successour to Herod. Eu­sebius also seems to be reprove­able here, in that after he had said Pilate was then Procuratour of Judea, he adds, that the rest of Judea was governed by the Tetrarchs, Herod, Phillip, and Ly­sanias. But Lysanias never had any part of Judea. For Abila was not a City of Judea, but of Syria. Yet Eusebius may be excused, if we say, that by Judea he understood the whole do­minion of Herod the great. For its manifest that he had the Tetrarchie of Lysanias given him by Augustus. For the Roman Emperours used to bestow these Tetrarchies on those Kings that were their confederates and friends, that they might thereby the more oblige them. Its strange that there is no mention of this Lysa­nias, of whom St Luke speaks, either in Josephus, Dion, or the rest. Lysanias and Phil­lip being Tetrarchs over the rest of Judea, our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ of God, being about thirty years of Age, was Baptized by John, and then first began to Preach the Gospel. And the Sacred Scripture says, that he finisht the whole time of his Preaching under Annas and Caiphas being In all our copies this word is in the singu­lar number [High­priest] but in St Luke it is in the plu­ral [High­priests] But these words of St Luke doe no way mean what Eusebius perswades himself they doe; to wit, that Christ be­gan to Preach in that year wherein Annas was High­priest, and continued till Caiphas came on. For first, Luke speaks there con­cerning Johns prea­ching, which was before Christs, and not concer­ning our Saviours: Then he says, that that prea­ching of John was begun un­der Annas and Caiphas being High­priests; not that there were two High­priests at the same time, which is absurd and was never heard of, but that Luke means by these words, that in this fifteenth year of Tiberius, Caiphas was High­priest, and Annas was one that had born that Office very lately. (See Dr Hammonds note on Luke chap. 3. v. 2. where he treats of this matter learnedly and largely.) Whosoever had born the High-priests Office, those were called High-priests during their lives, and took Tythes; So Josephus declares B. 20. of Antiq. Vales. High-priests, meaning thereby that all his Preaching was terminated with­in that space of time wherein they executed the High-priests Office. Although therefore he be­gan when Annas was High-priest, and continued till Caiphas came on, yet there are scarce full four years contained within this space of time. For, since from the time now mentioned, the Laws and sanctions about Holy matters were almost abo­lished, the High-preisthood also ceased to be for life and hereditary, neither was the worship of God rightly performed. But the Roman Gover­nours made sometimes one, sometimes another High-priest, none bearing that Office above a year. Joseph. Antiq. B. 18. chap. 4. Eusebius is here very much mistaken; for Josephus does not speak of the same times that St Luke does; Josephus speaks of the first ten years of Tiberius's Reign, in which time Valerius Gratus was Procuratour of Judea; but Luke speaks of Tiberius's second ten years, when Pilate was Governour of Judea. Vales. Josephus indeed in his Book of Antiqui­ties does relate, that from Annas to Caiphas there were in one continued Order four High­priests: his words are these, ‘Valerius Gratus having put out Annas from being High-priest, made Ismael the son of Or Phabi, as some Copies read it. Vales. Baphi High-priest; not long after he removed him, and made Elea­zar, son of the High-priest Annas, High­priest; within a year after he deprived him, and gave Simon the son of Camithus the High­priesthood. He, after he had held that honour not more than a year, had Or Joseppus, or, Josepus, as it is in the old Editions of Rufinus. Vales. Josephus, whose name also was Caiphas,’ for his successour. It is manifest therefore that the whole time of our Saviours Preaching was not compleat four years, within which space of time there were as many High-priests made, reckoning from Annas his bearing that Office, to Caiphas his promotion to it, Eusebius understands Josephus so, as if Josephus had said that those four High-Priests, Annas, (or Ananus,) Ismael, Eleazar, and Simon executed the High-priest hood, each the space of one year. Indeed Josephus says this expresly of the two last; but not so of the two first. For he declares that Ismael▪ indeed was put out a little after he was made High-priest by Valerius: But Josephus is so far from making Ananus to have been High-priest but one year, that from his words it is plainly gathered he held the High-priesthood three years at least. See Josephus's Antiq. B. 20. chap. 8. Vales. every one of which bore the Office one year. The Holy He means John 11▪ 18. but the Evangelist does not say there that he was made High-priest that same year. Gospel therefore is right in noting Caiphas to be the High-priest that same year in which our Lords salutary passion hapned. From which authority of the Gospel also it is evi­dent, that the time of Christs Preaching does not disagree with the account we have laid down. Now our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, not long after his beginning to Preach, called twelve men, whom he named Apostles, giving to them in par­ticular a Title more honourable, and preferring them before the rest of his disciples. Besides, he chose other seventy men, whom he sent two by two before his face, into every of those places and Cities whither he himself would come.

CHAP. XI. What hath been testified concerning John the Baptist, and concerning Christ.

I began the 11 chap. at these words; fol­lowing the autority of the Kings, the Maz. and the Fuk. M. SS. Vales. THe sacred History of the Gospel also mentions the beheading of John the Baptist, by Herod Junior, to have been not long after this. To which also agrees Josephus, who both makes mention particularly of Herodias by name, and also ex­presly declares, how that Herod, having put away his former wife lawfully married to him, took this woman his brothers wife by force from him being yet alive, and married her: she was the daughter of Arethas King of the Arabians: and that upon her account, Herod having slain John, went to war with Arethas, incensed at the disgrace of his daughter. In which war, he relates that Herod and his whole Army were vanquished in a Battel, and that these things befell him upon account of his cruelty towards John. The same Josephus does agree with the Evangelical History in the account it gives of this John, especially as to his confessing him to have been a most righteous man and a Baptist. He says further, that Herod was depri­ved of his Kingdom for the sake of this Herodias, and was▪ together with her banisht to Josephus, in his 18 B. of Antiquit. 9 chap. says he was ba­nisht by Caius Caesar to Lions in France. Vales. Vienna a City of Gallia. All this he relates in his eighteenth Book of Antiquities, where also he writes these very words concerning John: ‘But some of the Jews judged Herods Army to have been over­thrown by God, he avenging justly on him the murther of John called the Baptist. For him Herod had slain, who was a good man, and one that exhorted the Jews to the exercise of virtue, commanding them to deal justly with one ano­ther, and to behave themselves piously towards God, and so to come to be baptized. For Baptism, said he, was then onely well-pleasing to God, when it was used, not for the excusing of some certain offences, but in order to the cleansing of the body, the soul being before purified by righteousness. Now when many flockt to him from every quarter (for they were strangely taken with hearing of such dis­courses) Herod fearing least through the power­full perswasion of the man, his subjects should revolt, (for they seemed ready to doe any thing that he advised) judged it better to cut him off before any innovation hapned by him, than, after it was come to pass, and had greatly endangered his affairs, to repent he did not when it was too late. Upon this very mistrust of He­rods, he being put into bonds, was sent to the foresaid Castle of Machaerous and there slain.’ Thus far he concerning John. The same Authour in the same Book makes mention also of our Sa­viour in these words; ‘About that time there was one Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he wrought wonderfull miracles, and taught all that with delight would embrace the truth. He had many followers, both Jews and Gentiles. This was he that was [...], i. e. called, is to be under­stood, as Valesius supposes. called Christ. Whom though he was accused by the chief men of our Nation, and Pilate condemned him to be crucified, yet those who at first loved him forbore not to worship him. For he ap­peared unto them alive on the third day, as the holy Prophets had predicted, who foretold these and many more wonderfull things concer­ning him. And till this day that Sect continues, which of Him are called Christians.’ Seeing there­fore that this Writer, being a Jew born and bred, has in his works recorded thus much of our Saviour and John the Baptist, what evasion can remain to the Forgers of those Acts against them, that they should not evidently be proved to be the most im­pudent of men? But thus far of these matters.

CHAP. XII. Concerning our Saviours Disciples.

MOreover, the names of our Saviours Apo­stles are to all apparently manifest in the Gospel, but as to the seventy disciples, a particular There is a Catalogue of the 70 Disciples, written by Dorotheus, but it was not extant in Eusebius his time. catalogue of them is no where extant. But Bar­nabas is said to have been one of them, of whom we have frequent mention both in the Acts of the Apostles, and also most especially in Pauls Epistle to the Galatians. Softhenes also, they say, was another of them, he that together with Paul wrote to the Corinthians: for so says Clemens in the fifth Book of his Institutions; where also he af­firms Cephas (that Cephas of whom Paul speaks, Gal. 2. 11. where, in­stead of Cephas we now read Peter. But when Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to the face) a name-sake of Peters, to have been one of the seventy disciples. Matthias also, who was numbred with the Apostles in the room of the Traitor Judas, and the other who had the honour to be proposed in the same lot with him, are reported to be of the number of the Seventy. Thaddaeus likewise; of whom I will by and by adjoyn an History as it came to our hands, is re­ported to have been one of them. But he that shall attentively observe, will find, even from Pauls testimony alone, that our Saviours disci­ples were more in number than Seventy. For he 1 Cor. 15. 5, 6, 7. says, Christ after his Resurrection was seen first of Cephas, then of the twelve, after that he was seen of above five hundred Brethren at once: of whom some were fal'n asleep, but the greatest part, he declares, were alive when he wrote these things. Then, says he, he appeared to James. Many of the antient writers af­firm, that James the brother of our Lord, he that was Ordained the first Bishop of Jerusalem, was not of the number of the 12 Apostles, but of the disciples of the Lord. Indeed Paul, in his 1 Epist, to the Cor. chap. 15. v. 7. seems to favour this opinion, where, reckoning up those to whom Christ ap­peared after his death, after he hath named the 12 Apostles, and five hundred others, he adds After that he was seen of James, &c. Vales. He is said to have been one of the Seventy disciples of our Sa­viour, and also one of the Lords Brethren. Lastly, there being many more besides the twelve, who were called Apostles by way of imitation, of which sort Paul himself was one, he farther adds saying, Then he was seen of all the Apostles. But so much of this. The fore-mentioned History con­cerning Thaddaeus was thus:

CHAP. XIII. The History of the Prince of the Edessens.

THe Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ being every where famous by reason of his wonderfull power by which he wrought mi­racles, drew together an innumerable company even of forreigners, and inhabitants of Coun­treys far remote from Judea, who were sick and troubled with all sorts of pains, hoping to be re­covered. Therefore King Or, Ab­garus; for so he is called in some Copies. Vales. Agbarus, the then [Page 14] worthy Governour of the Abgarus was Ruler over one nation one­ly; for he was Prince of the Ara­bians, but not of them all: For the Arabians were divi­ded in­to many tribes; and each tribe had its di­stinct Pre­fect. This name was common to the Princes of Edessa. It is an Arabick term, and signifies most power­full. Vales. Nations lying beyond Euphrates, being much weakened with a sore disease, incurable by humane skill; as soon as he heard of the great Name of Jesus, and of his wonderfull works attested by all, sent a Letter to him by a Letter-carrier, humbly beseeching him to vouchsafe to cure his distemper. Now though he did not then hearken to his request, yet he vouch­safed to give him answer by his own Letter, where­in he promised to send one of his disciples, who should both cure him, and also bring salvation to him, and his relations and friends. Soon after therefore this promise was exactly fulfilled. For after his Resurrection from the dead, and Ascension into heaven, Thomas, one of the twelve Apostles, moved thereto by Divine impulse, sent Thaddaeus, chosen one of the eventy disciples of Christ, to Edessa, to be a Preacher and Evangelift of the Doctrine of Christ. By whom all that which our Saviour had promised, was fulfilled. The writ­ten evidence of this matter we have taken out of the Office of Records within the princely City of Edessa, in which Agbarus then was Governour. For among the publick Records there, wherein the antiquities of the City and the Acts of Agbarus are contained, are found these things, there preser­ved to our days. Nothing hinders but that we may hear the very words of the Letter, which we have taken out of the antient Rolls, and faithfully tran­slated out of the Syriack Tongue in these words, thus:

A Copy of a Letter written by King Abgarus to Jesus, and sent to him to Jerusalem by Ananias the Courier.

‘Abgarus Prince of Edessa, to Jesus the good Saviour, who hath manifested himself within the confines of Jerusalem, sendeth gree­ting. I have heard of thee, and of the Cures, wrought by thee without Herbs or Medicines, for, as it is reported, thou dost restore sight to the Blind, thou makest the Lame to walk, thou cleansest the Leprous, and thou dost cast out devills and unclean spirits, and thou healest those that are tormented with diseases of a long con­tinuance, and thou dost raise the dead. When I heard all this of thee, I was fully perswaded to believe one of these two things, either that thou art very God, and art come down from heaven to doe such things, or else the Son of God, and so performest them. Wherefore, I have now written to thee, beseeching thee to come to me, and cure my disease. For, I have heard that the Jews murmur against thee, and contrive to doe thee mischief. I have a City, a little one in­deed, but it is beautifull, and capable of recei­ving us both.’ Thus wrote Agbarus, as then but a little enlightned from above. It is also worth while to hear the Answer of Jesus returned to him by the same Courier; short indeed it is, but it has much of power and efficacy in it; It was thus:

The Answer of Jesus to Agbarus the King, sent by Ananias the Courier.

‘Blessed art thou, Agbarus, who hast belie­ved in me whom thou hast not seen. For it is In what part of the Old Testa­ment these words occur I am yet to seek. Indeed, in the Gospel of St John it is written that our Lord said to Thomas after his Resurrection, Job. 20▪ 29. Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. But this Epistle of Christ to King Abgarus, if it be genuine, preceded that re­prehension of the Apostle Thomas some years. Vales. written of me, that they which have seen me should not believe in me, that so they which have not seen me may believe and be saved. But as concerning what thou writest about my coming to thee, Know, that all things for which I am sent must be here by me fulfilled; which being finished, I shall be taken up and return to him that sent me. But after I am ascended, I will send thee one of my disciples, who shall cure thy distemper, and give life to thee, and to them that are with thee.’ To this Letter there is this farther added in the Syriack Language; ‘After Jesus was ascended, Judas, called also Thomas indeed, that was one of the twelve Apostles, was called Didymus; but that the same per­son was surnamed Judas, is not, that I know, any where else to be found. Upon this account there­fore this story is deservedly to be suspected. Vales. Thomas, sent Thaddaeus the Apostle here is to be taken in a large sense; (See Eusebius at the latter end of the foregoing Chapter.) after the same man­ner every Nation and City ter­med them Apostles, from whom they first received the truth of the Gospel. This name was not onely given to the 12; but all their di­sciples, companions, and assistants, were generally called Apostles. Vales. Apostle who was one of the Seventy disciples, to Agbarus. When he was come thither, he abode with Tobias the son of Tobias. As soon as it was heard that he was come, having manifested himself by the miracles he wrought; Ag­barus was told, that the Apostle of Jesus was come thither according to his pro­mise in his Letter. Now Thaddaeus began to cure every disease and distemper by the power of God, to the wonder of all. When Ag­barus heard of the great and wonderfull works wrought by him, and how in the Name and by the power of Jesus Christ he cured diseases, he had some suspicion, that this was the person about whom Jesus wrote to him, saying, when I am taken up, I will send thee one of my disciples, who shall heal thy distemper. Having therefore called for Tobias, with whom Thaddaeus abode, I have heard, said he, that there is a certain powerfull man come from Jerusalem, who lodges at thy house, that performs many Cures in the name of Jesus. There is a stranger, Sir, replied he, come to my house who does many miracles: Bring him, said Abgarus, to me. Tobias went home to Thaddaeus and told him, Agbarus the Governour of this City having sent for me, commands me to bring thee to him, that thou mayest cure his distemper. I will go, replied Thaddaeus, for it is chiefly upon his ac­count that I am with power sent hither. Tobias therefore getting up early next morning, took Thaddaeus along with him, and went to Ag­barus. When he was come, to Agbarus (his Nobles being present and standing round him) there appeared a wonderfull sight in the face of the Apostle Thaddaeus, as he came in to him, and therefore he worshipped him. All that were present wondred at that, for they saw nothing of that sight which appeared onely to Agbarus. Then he asked Thaddaeus, art thou, in truth a disciple of Jesus the Son of God, who wrote thus to me, I will send thee one of my disciples, who shall cure thy distemper and give life to thee, and to all with thee? Thaeddaeus answer­ed, for as much as thou hast firmly believed in the Lord Jesus who sent me, therefore am I sent to thee, and if thy Faith in him does still increase, according to thy Belief thou shalt have the desires of thine heart fulfilled. Agbarus made him an­swer, I did so firmly believe in him, that I would have raised Forces to have destroyed the Jews who crucified him, had I not been inhibited from that purpose by the Roman Empire. Jesus Christ, replied Thaeddaeus, our Lord God fulfilled the will of his Father, and having finished that, was taken up to his Father. Agbarus said unto him, [Page 15] I believed both in Him and in his Father. There­fore, said Thaddaeus, I lay my hand on thee, in the name of the same Lord Jesus Christ: and having done so, he was presently cured of the disease and distemper that he had. Agbarus wondred greatly when he saw that really accom­plished, which he had heard concerning Jesus, by his disciple and Apostle Thaddaeus, who without the help of Herbs or Medicines, re­stored him to his former soundness. And not onely him, but one Abdus also the son of Ab­dus who had the Gout; he coming and falling down at Thaddaeus's feet, received a blessing by prayer and the laying on of his hands, and was healed. Many others also of the same City with them were cured by the Apostle, who wrought wonderfull Miracles, and Preached the Word of God. After all this, Agbarus spake thus, We believe, Thaddaeus, whatever thou dost, thou performest by the power of God, and therefore we greatly admire thee. But, We pray thee moreover, give us some farther account of the Advent of Jesus, How and after what manner it was; of his power also, and by what virtue he wrought those mighty Works we have heard. I shall now be silent, replied Thaddaeus, because I am sent to publish the Word of God: But assemble all the men of thy City together to me to morrow, and I will Preach the Word of God to them, and will disperse the Word of life among them, and ex­pound the Advent of Jesus, after what manner it was, his Commission, and for what reason his Father sent him; the power of his Works, the Mysteries he declared to the world, by what power he wrought so great Miracles, his new Preaching, the slender and mean reputation he made himself of, the despicableness of his out­ward man, how he humbled himself even unto death, how he lessened his Divinity, how many and great things he suffered of the Jews, how he was Crucified, how he descended into Hell, and rent asunder that Inclosure never before se­vered; how he rose again, and together with him­self, raised those from the dead who had layn buried many ages; how he descended from hea­ven alone, but ascended to his Father accom­panied with a great multitude, how with glory he is set down at the right hand of God his Fa­ther in Heaven, and how he will come again with power and glory to judge both quick and dead. Agbarus therefore commanded the men of his City to come together very early and hear Thaddaeus Preach. After this he commanded, that Gold and Silver should be given to Thad­daeus: But he refused it, saying, how shall we, who have left all that was our own, take any thing that is anothers? These things were done in the This Three hun­dredth and fortieth year accor­ding to the account of the Edes­sens, falleth with the first year of the two hundredth and second O­lympiad. For the Edessens numbred their years from the hun­dredth and seventeenth Olympiad, fixing their Aera upon the first year of Seleucus his Reign in Asia (as Eusebius writes in his Chronicon) from which time to the beginning of the two hundredth and second Olympiad, there are just three hundred and forty years. Now the beginning of the two hundredth and second Olympiad falleth with the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar; in which year, as many of the Antients believed, our Blessed Saviour suffered and ascended. So that this account falls right, placing Thaddaeus his coming to Edessa, and his curing King Agbarus on the same year, in which our Blessed Saviour suffered. Note that the Edessens began their year, from the Autumnal Aequinox, according to the custom of the Syrlans, and almost all the Eastern Nations. Vales. Three hundredth and fortieth year.’ All this, being translated word for word out of the Syriack Tongue, and not unprofitable to be read▪ we have thought good to set down opportunely in this place.

THE SECOND BOOK Of the Ecclesiastical History OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.

The PREFACE.

WHatsoever was necessary to be premised by way of Preface to Our Ecclesiastical History, both concerning the Divinity of the comfortable Word, the Antiquity of the points of our doctrine and Evangelical Politie; and also moreover concerning the Manifestation our Saviour lately made of himself, his Passion and the Election of the Apostles, we have Treated of in the foregoing Book, and briefly summed up the proofs thereof. Now therefore in this, we will diligently look into what fol­lowed upon his Ascension; partly from what we find noted in Holy Writt, and partly from other Records, which we will mention in due place.

CHAP. I. Of those things which were instituted by the A­postles, after the Ascension of Christ.

At these words we began the first Cha­pter, fol­lowing the Autority partly of Rufinus, partly of the King's, Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. for, what goes before is a Preface. Vales. FIRST of all therefore, Matthias, who, as before hath been manifested, was one of the Lords disciples, by lot was e­lected into the Apostleship of the Trai­tour Judas. Then, seven approved men were by prayer and imposition of the Apostles hands Ordained Deacons for the publick Admi­nistration of the Churches affairs; of which num­ber Stephen was one: who The year wherein Stephen suf­fered Mar­tyrdom is not agreed on by all: some say it was the third year after Christs passion, which was the last of Claudius, so Syncellus. Others say he was martyred on the 7th of the Calend. of Jan. that same year in which Christ suffered. So Scaliger says in his Excerpt. Chronol [...]g. which he puts out with Euseb. Chronicon. p. 68. and this seems to have been the opinion of Eusebius, as appears from this place. Vales. immediately after his Ordination, as if he had been made Deacon onely for this, was the first that, after the Lord, was slain by those very Jews that had been [Page 16] the Lords murtherers, who stoned him to death: And thus he, being the first of the worthily victo­rious Martyrs of Christ, gained a Crown Stephen, in Greek signifies a Crown. an­swerable to his Name. Then James also, who was termed the That this James was not the Son of the B. Virgin, nor yet of Joseph by one Escha a former wife; but of Mary the wife of Cleophas sister to the B. Virgin, may thus be made appear: we read Jo. 19. 25. that there stood by the Cross of Christ his Mother, and his Mothers sister Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Mag­dalen: in the rest of the Evan­gelists we find at the same place (Matth. 27. 56.) Mary Magda­len, and Mary the mother of James and Joses; and again at the Sepulchre (Matth. 28. 1.) Mary Magdalen and the other Mary. Wherefore that other Ma­ry by the conjunction of these Testimonies, appeareth to be the sister of the B. Virgin, to be the wife of Cleophas, and the mother of James and Joses; and conse­quently James and Joses the bre­thren of the Lord, were not the sons of Mary his mother, nor of Joseph by a former wife, but of the other Mary, and therefore called his brethren, according to the language of the Jews [See Gen. 13. 8. & 12. 5. & 29. 12.] be­cause that other Mary was the sister of his mother. See Bishop Pearson on the Creed. p. 176. Edit. Lond. 1669. brother of the Lord, because he also was called the Son of Jo­seph: for Joseph was the fa­ther of Christ, to whom Mary being Espoused, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost, as the Sacred History of the Gospel doth declare: This same James, I say, who for his eminent virtue the Antients surnamed the Just, was as they relate the first that had the Episcopal seat of the Church at Jerusalem delivered to him. So Clemens affirms in the sixth Book of his Instituti­ons. For he says, That, af­ter our Saviours Ascension, Peter, James, and John, al­though our Lord had prefer­red them before the rest, did not contend for the Dignity, but chose James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem. The same Author, in the seventh Book of the same work, says this farther of him, The Lord after his Resurrection confer­red the gift of Knowledge upon James the Just, John and Peter, which they delivered to the rest of the Apostles, and those to the Seventy Disciples, one of whom was Barnabas. But there were two James's; the one surnamed the Just, who was cast head-long from the Bat­tlement of the Temple, and beaten to death with a Fullers Club: the other was beheaded. Paul makes mention of this James the Just, writing thus: Gal. 1. 19. Other of the Apostles saw I none save James the Lords brother. At this time also all that our Saviour had promised to the King of the Osdroënians was fulfilled. For Thomas, mo­ved thereto by Divine impulse, sent Thaddaeus to Edessa to be a Preacher and Evangelist of the Doctrine of Christ, as from a Record there found we have a little before manifested. He, when he was come thither, did in the Name of Christ both cure Agbarus, and also astonished all the Inhabi­tants of the country with the wonderfulness of his Miracles. And when he had sufficiently prepared them with such Works, and brought them to an adoration of Christs power, he made them disciples of his wholesome Doctrine. From that very time untill now the whole City of the Edessens has con­tinued to be Consecrated to Christs Name, enjoy­ing no trivial evidences of our Saviour's gracious­ness towards them. And these things are said as from the History of the old Records. We will now return again to Holy Writ: After the Mar­tyrdom of Stephen, when the first and sorest per­secution of the Church at Jerusalem by the Jews arose, all the disciples of Christ, except the Twelve onely, being scattered throughout Judea and Sa­maria, some of them travelling as far as Phoenice and Cyprus and Antioch, as Holy Scripture testi­fieth, were not able to be so bold as to communi­cate the Word of Faith to the Gentiles, but Preach't to the Jews onely. At that time Acts 8. 3. Paul also untill then made havock of the Church, en­tring into every house of the faithfull, haling men and women, and committing them to prison. More­over Acts 8. 5. &c. Philip, one of those who was ordained Deacon with Stephen, being one of them that were dispersed, went down to Samaria, and being full of the Divine power, was the first that Preach't the Word to those inhabitants. And the Grace of God did so effectually cooperate with him, that by his Preaching he drew after him Simon Magus with many other men. This Simon, at that time very famous, did so far prevail with those whom he had deceived by his imposture, that they thought him to be the great power of God. Then therefore this very person, being greatly amazed at the Miracles Philip wrought by the power of God, craftily insinuated himself, and so far coun­terfeited a faith in Christ, that he was baptized. The same thing with admiration we see now done by the followers of his most filthy Sect, who creeping into the Church, as their fore-father did, like some pestilent and leprous disease, doe deeply corrupt all those into whom they are any way able to in­stil that pernicious and incurable poyson which lies concealed within them. But many of them were cast out of the Church, as soon as their vi­tiousness was discovered; in like manner Simon himself being at length detected by Peter, was de­servedly punished. Furthermore when the whole­some Preaching of the Gospel daily increased, Divine providence brought out of the land of Ae­thiopia a man of great autority under the Queen of that Countrey, for those Nations are according to their countrey fashion governed by a woman, who being the first of the Gentiles, that by Philip, warned of God by a Vision, was made partaker of the Mysteries of the Divine Word; was also the first fruits of the faithfull throughout the world: Returning into his own country he is reported to have been the first publisher of the Knowledge of the great God, and of the com­fortable Advent of our Saviour in the Flesh: And so by him was really fulfilled that prediction of the Prophet, Psal. 68. 31. Aethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God. At this time, Acts 9. 3 [...] &c. Paul, that chosen ves­sel, was made an Apostle, not of men, neither by men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; being vouchsafed this calling by a Vision, and a voice from heaven which came to him at the Reve­lation thereof.

CHAP. II. How Tiberius was affected at the Relation Pilate sent him of those things concerning Christ.

WHen the wonderfull Resurrection of our Saviour and his Ascension into Heaven was now divulged among all men; because it was of old customary that the Governours of Provinces should communicate to the Emperour every strange and unusual accident that happened within their charge, that so nothing that was done might escape his knowledge; Pilate acquainted the Emperour Tiberius with the Resurrection of our Saviour Jesus Christ now much talk't of over all Palae­stine; giving him an account that he had also heard of many other Miracles of his, and how that rising again after he had been dead, he was now by many believed to be God. And they say that Tiberius referred this matter to the Senate, but the relation was rejected by them; upon pre­tence, that they had not first approved of the [Page 17] matter; there being an old Law amongst the Ro­manes, that no one should be deified but by the suffrage and decree of the Senate; but in reality, that the wholesome Preaching of the divine Do­ctrine might not stand in need of any humane ap­probation or assistance. When therefore the Senate had rejected the Relation concerning our Saviour, Tiberius persisted in his former judgment, attempting nothing prejudicial to the Doctrine of Christ. Thus much Tertullian was by birth a Carthaginian; his father was a Centurion, a Deputy-pro-Consul. He wrote many volumes in Latine, of which his Apologie onely was done into Greek, but by whom, it is uncertain: he flourisht un­der Severus and Antoninus Cara­calla. Vales. Tertul­lian, a man incomparably well skilled in the Roman Laws and every way famous, and most renowned among the Latine Writers, in the A­pologie for the Christians written by him in Latine, but afterwards translated into Greek, does declare in these very words: ‘In our translation of this quo­tation out of Tertullian, we have followed the Original expression of the Authour, according to Ri­galtius his Edition of him: this Greek translation being not fully expressive of the Authours mind, as Valesius thinks. And that we may discourse concerning the Original of these Laws, there was an old Decree, that the Emperour should consecrate no God, before he was approved by the Senate. Marcus Ae­milius knows this concerning his God Albur­nus. And this makes for our advantage, because among you Divinity is weighed by humane ap­probation. If God please not man, he shall not be God. Man now must be propitious to God. Ti­berius therefore, in whose time the Christian Name made its entry into the world, communi­cated to the Senate the account he had received out of Syria Palestine, whereby the Truth of the Divinity of Christ was made apparent; which he confirmed with his own suffrage. But because the Senate had not approved of it, it was rejected: the Emperour persisted in his judgment, threatning the accusers of the Chri­stians with death.’ Which opinion divine pro­vidence, according to his dispensation instilled into the mind of Tiberius Caesar, that the Preaching of the Gospel then in its infancy, might without impediment spread over the whole world.

CHAP. III. How the Doctrine of Christ spread in a short time over the whole World.

ANd thus by the cooperation of Divine power, the comfortable Word of God, like the beams of the Sun, on a sudden enlightned the whole world, and presently, agreeable to the Divine Psal. 19. 4. Scriptures, the sound of the heavenly Evangelists and Apostles went out into all lands, and their words into the ends of the earth. And indeed in a short time there were throughout all Cities and Vil­lages Churches gathered, which like a Threshing­floor filled with Corn, were thronged with in­finite multitudes. And they, who, deriving their ignorance from their Ancestours and their errours of old, were ensnared as to their souls with the superstitious worship of Idols, as in an inveterate disease, being freed as it were from their cruel masters, and loosned from their heavy bonds by the power of Christ, and the Preaching and Miracles of his disciples, did with scorn reject the multitude of gods brought in by devils, and acknowledged there was one onely God the maker of all things: And him they wor­shipped with the Holy Rites of true Religion, by that divine and sober way of worship which our Saviour had spread among mankind. When there­fore the Grace of God diffused it self into the rest of the Nations; and Cornelius of the City It was called Cae­sarea in Pa­lestine to distinguish it from Cae­sarea Phi­lippi, which was in Phoe­nice. Vale [...]. Caesarea in Palestine, in the first place together with his whole household, by a Vision from hea­ven and the Ministery of Peter, embraced the Faith of Christ; and many others of the Gentiles at Antioch did the same, to whom the disciples, dis­persed upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, Preached the word of God; the Church at Antioch now increasing and prospering, in which many were gathered together, both Prophets from Jerusalem, with whom were Paul and Bar­nabas, and besides, also other brethren in number not a few: the appellation of That our Saviours followers were first named Christians in Tiberius his Reign, Tertullian affirms in his Apologie, the place is quoted by Eusebius in the preceding Chapter. Vales. Christians then and there first sprang up, as from a pleasant and fertile soyle: and Agabus also, one of the Prophets there present fore-told the dearth that afterwards happened; and This journey of Pauls to Jerusalem can no way fall upon the times of Tiberius. For Luke writes expresly in the Acts, chap. 11. v. 29, 30. that it happened about that time when Herod Agrippa was smitten by the Angel of the Lord: which it is most certain, happened in Claudius his time. Vales. Paul and Barnabas were sent to relieve the Brethren by their Ministration.

CHAP. IV. How, after the death of Tiberius, Caius made Agrippa King over the Jews, and punished Herod with perpetual Banishment.

BUt Tiberius, having Reigned about two and twenty years, died. Caius succeeding him in the Empire, presently gave Caius Cae­sar about the begin­ning of his reign made Agrippa King, first of Tracho­nitis, which was Phillips Tretrarchy. After that, when He­rod, Te­trarch of Galilee, by the per­swasion of his wife Herodias, went to Rome to get the Re­gal dignity of Caius the Emperour, Caius took from Herod his Tetrarchy of Galilee, and gave it to Agrippa. At length, after the death of Caius, Claudius confirmed the Kingdom to Agrippa which Caius had given him, and gave him also Judea and Samaria, which his Grandfather Herod had. And so the whole Kingdom of Herod the great was possessed by Agrippa. See Philo in Flaccum & in Legat. ad Caium sub sinem; and Joseph. Hist. B. 18. so that Eusebius is mistaken, in that he says, Caius made Agrippa King of Jude [...]. Vales. Agrippa the King­dom of Judea, and made him King over the Te­trarchies both of Phillip and Lysanias. Besides, not long after he gave him Herods Tetrarchy al­so, having condemned Herod to perpetual banish­ment, being together with Herodias his Wife de­servedly punished for divers enormities: (This was the Herod that was present at our Saviours Passion:) Josephus is a witness of these things also. Moreover in this Emperours time Philo flourished, a man highly esteemed of for his Lear­ning by many, not onely among us but also among forreigners. He was indeed by Original extract an Hebrew, inferiour to none of those that were illustrious in dignitie at Alexandria. Moreover what and how great pains he bestowed about di­vine matters, and in the learning of his own Na­tion, it is to all evidently manifest. Besides, how excellent he was at Philosophy and Humane Lear­ning it is needless to relate; for he is said to have excelled all of his own time in the Platonick and Pythagorean Philosophy which he much affected.

CHAP. V. How Philo went on an Embassage to Caius upon the Jews Account.

MOreover this man comprized in There are now extant onely two Books of Philo's con­cerning this Subject, the one entitled in Flac­cum, the other de; Légatione ad Caium; so that either Eusebius Forgot their number, or else they were heretofore divided into five Volumes: Neither can any one suspect the other three to be lost: for in those two, we now have, are contained all that happened to the Jews under Caius his Empire. Vales. five Books the calamities that befell the Jews in Caius his Reign; wherein he sets forth both the madness of Caius Proclaiming himself to be god, and also his insolent carriage in his Government in innumerable instances; likewise the di­stresses the Jews underwent in his Reign; and declares how himself went Embassa­dour to Rome upon the ac­count of his Countrey-men that dwelt at Alexandria; and how that reasoning be­fore Caius for the Laws and customes of his own nation, he obtained nothing besides laughter and reproaches, and narrowly escaped the danger of being put to death. Josephus mentions all this in his eighteenth Book of Antiquities, writing thus much word for word: ‘Moreover, there hap­pening a sedition at Alexandria among the Jews that dwelt there and the Greeks, Philo says there were five Embassadours of the Jews side sent to Rome; See his de Legat. ad Caium sub sinem. These Em­bassadours were sent upon two ac­counts, first, the Jews complain­ed that the Alexandrians defi­led their Proseucha's by bring­ing the Emperours Statues into them; and then, that the Alex­andrians went about to deprive the Jews of their freedom of the City Alexandria. Vales. three of each faction were sent Embassa­dours to Caius. Now A­pion was one of the Alex­andrian's Embassadours, who railed bitterly against the Jews, laying many things to their charge, and amongst the rest that they neglected to worship Cae­sar. For when all the sub­jects of the Roman Empire built Temples and Altars to Caius, and at all points worshipped him as they did their gods, the Jews onely, said he, accounted it a vile thing to errect Sta­tues to him, and to swear by his name. When Apion had urged these and many other vehement accusations against them, whereby he hoped, as it was likely, to incense Caius, Philo chief of the Jewish Embassy, a man every way famous, brother to Alexander So the chief Magistrate a­mong the Jews at Alexandria was called: He held his place as long as he lived; and at his death the Jews chose another into his room. See Philo in Flaccum. Vales. A­labarchus, and not unskil­full in Philosophie, was able and ready with an A­pologie to answer his Ac­cusations. But Caius for­bad him, commanding him to depart immedi­ately from his presence. And the Emperour was so highly incensed, that none doubted but he would most severely punish the Jews. But Philo being much reviled went out, and, as they say, spake to the Jews that were about him to be of good courage, for although Philo's meaning here is, that Caius indeed was angry with the Jews as to appearance, and in words; but that in reality he did arm God, and set him in array against himself. For, in that Caius would have himself called god, he provoked God to take vengeance of him. [...] (whence the word here used is derived) is a military term, and signifies, to set an army in array against an enemy. Vales. Caius was an­gry with them, yet he had now really rendred God his Adversarie.’ Thus much Jo­sephus relates. And Philo him­self, in the account which he wrote of this his Embassy, does exactly relate every particu­lar thing that was then done. Whereof omitting most part, I will hereunto annex onely so much as shall make it evidently plain to the Readers, that these miseries straightway without any delay befell the Jews upon account of their enormous impieties committed against Christ. First of all therefore he relates, that in the Reign of Tiberius one Sejanus of the City of Rome, a per­son who then could doe much with the Emperour, did use his utmost indeavour to destroy that whole Nation: and that in Judea, Pilate, in whose time that horrible wickedness was most audaciously committed against our Saviour, attempting some­thing about the Temple at Jerusalem which yet stood, contrary to the customes and ordinances of the Jews, raised vehement commotions among them.

CHAP. VI. How great miseries befell the Jews after their au­dacious wickedness committed against Christ.

HE relates further how, after the death of Tiberius, Caius assuming the Government, was every way sorely injurious towards many, but above all he most heavily annoyed the whole Jewish Nation, which in short we may understand from Philo's own Philo in Legat. ad Caium a­bout the end. words, writing thus word for word. ‘So great therefore was the extrava­gancy and pride of Caius's carriage towards all, but more especially towards the Jewish Nation, which he bitterly hated, and appropriated to himself all their The Jews had two sorts of places, besides their Temple, (which was for sacrifice) for re­ligious duties; viz. their Pros­cuchae, and Synagogucs; the dif­ference between them was this; the Proseucha was a Plot of ground encompassed with a wall or some other inclosure, and open above; the use of it was properly for prayer; a Synagogue was a cove­red edifice, where the Law and Prophets were read and expoun­ded, and the people instructed in divine matters; besides, the Sy­nagogues were within, the Pros­cuchae without the Cities. They were in use before the Captivity, as may be gathered from Jos. 24. 26. Psal. 74. 7. See Acts 16. 13. Mr Mede. Pros­eucha's in the rest of the Cities, beginning with those at Alexandria, filling them with his own Images and Statues. For in that he suf­fered others to consecrate Statues to him, he seemed in a manner to dedicate them to himself. And he changed and transformed the Temple at Jerusalem, which hitherto had re­mained undefiled and dig­nified with all the privi­ledges of a Sanctuary, and made it into a Tem­ple dedicated to himself, causing it thence forward to be called the Temple of CAIUS So Caligula was called, to distinguish him from Jullus Cae­sar, who was also called Caius, and was deified. Vales. JUNIOR JUPITER [...], Conspicuous. Va­lesius translates it praesens; prae­sentes dii sunt vel qui statim prae­stant, vel qui coluntur & videntur. Donat. in Terent. Phorm. That is, the Propitious or Conspicuous gods were such, as were at hand, or such as were visible to the worshippers. Hence Antiochus King of Syria was called Epiphanes by his flat­terers. CONSPI­CUOUS.’ Moreover the same Authour, in his second Book which he intitled of Valesius thinks that by this Second Book of Virtues must be understood Philo's Book in Flac­cum; and his reason is, because Philo does no where else but in that Book, relate the calamities that befell the Jews of Alexan­dria. Virtues, relates innumera­ble other calamities, such as are grievous beyond all expression, that befell the Jews dwelling at Alex­andria [...], during the Go­vernment of the foresaid Caius. To whom Josephus agrees, who notes that those troubles, with which the whole Jewish▪ Nation was molested, began even from the times of Pilate, and from those enormous facts committed against our Saviour. Let us therefore hear what he also declares in his second Book of the Jewish wars, in these Jos. Bell. Jud. L. 2. c. 8. words, saying, ‘Pilate being by Tiberius sent Procurator into Judea, brought into Jerusalem by night the veiled Images of Caesar, which are called his [Page 19] Statues. As soon as it was day this raised a great commotion among the Jews. For those who were near were astonished at the [...]ight, in that their Laws were violated and trampled on. For they account it a detestable thing to place any graven image in the City.’ These things if thou comparest with the Evangelical writing, thou shalt understand that that voice they uttered before Pilate, crying out Joh. 19. 15. they had no other King but Caesar, was soon In this place Eu­sebius is mistaken, in that he thought that those things, which Jo­sephus re­lates con­cerning the images of Tiberius brought in­to the City of Jerusa­lem by Pi­late, hap­pened after the death of Christ. But Jose­phus attests (in the 2d B. of the Jewish wars, and in his 18 B. Antiq.) that this happened at the be­ginning of Pilates Govern­ment. Now Pilate was sent by Ti­berius into Judea in the twelsth year of his Reign. Its absurd therefore to say, that those mis­chiefs, which befell the Jews long before Christs death, happened to them for no other cause than for their wickedness committed a­gainst Christ. Besides, Eusebius thought, that one and the same Act of Pilate's was mentioned both by Philo and Josephus. But Josephus speaks of the Images of the Emperour; and Philo, of the guilded Bucklers, which had no image, but onely the name of the Emperour to whom they were dedicated, and Pilate's name that made that dedication. Moreover, what Josephus relates, hap­pened in the first year of Pilates Government; but, what Philo re­ports, came to pass when Pilate had been many years Governour. Vales. after revenged upon them. The same Writer relates another following calamity inflicted on them by Divine vengeance in these words: ‘After this Pi­late raised another commotion amongst them; exhausting the stock of the sacred Treasury (it is call'd the Corban comes from [...] which signifies promiscuously to draw nigh, and to offer: the Evangelist renders Corban, a gift (Matth. 15. v. 5.) i. e. that which is presented and consecrated to God in the Temple: it signifies also the place where the Offerings so called were laid up. Dr Hammond. Corban) in making a Conduit; wherein the water that was to be brought was at three hundred furlongs distance. For which there was great indignation amongst the po­pulace: And when Pilate was at Jerusalem, they flockt about the judgment Seat, and be­gan to exclaim. But he (for he foresaw there would be a tumult amongst them) mingled armed Souldiers, clad like the common people, amongst the multitude, and, forbidding them to use their swords, but commanding them to strike those that cried out with clubs, gave them a sign from his Tribunal. So the Jews were bea­ten, and many of them killed, some by the blows they received perished, others being troden to death in the croud by those of their own party that fled. And so the multitude, being astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, were silent.’ Moreover, the same Writer relates in­numerable other commotions raised in Jerusalem; and shews, that even from that time forward both the City and all Judea was distracted with Sedi­tions, Wars, and continual contrivances of mis­chief following one upon another, untill at last the Siege in the Reign of Vespasian by way of re­venge befell them. After this manner therefore hath divine vengeance pursued the Jews for their execrable wickedness committed against Christ.

CHAP. VII. That Pilate made himself away.

IT is also worth knowing, how that this same Pi­late, who condemned our Saviour, in the Reign of Caius, whose times we now Treat of, fell, as it is famed, into so great troubles, that he was That is, by reason of despair. This is confirmed by Eusebius in his Chronicon; In the third year of Caius Caligula, says he, P. Pilate falling into great trou­bles killed himself. King Agrippa (apud Philon. in Legat. ad Caium) gives this description of this Pilate, [...]; That is, he was of an inflexible nature, and withall arrogant and cruel: which testimony is so much the more con­siderable, because it came out of Agrippa's mouth, who was an eye­witness of Pilates detestable acts. A character well befitting him that condemned our Saviour. Vales. forced to be his own Murderer and Revenger, laying violent hands on himself: Divine justice, as it was meet, not long deferring his punishment. This those Grecians do Record, who have written There were a­mongst the Grecians, games instituted for the exercise of their youth, to the honour of Jupiter Olympus, neer unto whose Temple they were performed in the Olympian field. The time was (as onely Pindar has reveal­ed) at the full moon which followed the Summer Solstice. They were celebrated every fifth year: and the interval was called an OLYMPIAD, consisting of four Julian years, and the ódd Bis­sextile day. The restitution of these Games by Iphitus, is so much more taken notice of than the first celebration by Hercules. That this, which was many years after, is yet accounted for the first Olympiad, upon which the Grecian Chronology fixeth it self, as upon the cer­tain term, to which their reckoning does refer, See Mr Jo. Gregory of Oxford, de Aeris & Epoch. Olympiads, giving an account what was done, and in what time performed.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Dearth that happened in Claudius his time.

BUt Caius having held the Empire not full out four years, Claudius the Emperour suc­ceeded him. In whose times a Dearth oppressed the whole world, of which those Historians make mention, who are wholly averse from our Reli­gion. And so the prediction of the Prophet Aga­bus, of whom there is mention in the Acts of the Apostles, concerning this Dearth that should come upon all the world, was compleated. Luke having in the Acts mentioned this Dearth that happened in the time of Claudius, adds this farther, saying, That the brethren which were in Antioch, every Acts 11. 28, 29, 30. one according to his ability, sent to them who were in Judea by the hands of Barnabas and Paul.

CHAP. IX. The Martyrdom of James the Apostle.

NOw about that time, to wit, in the Reign ofActs 12. 1, 2. Claudius, Herod the King stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the Church: and he killed James the brother of John with the sword. Concerning this James, Clemens, in the seventh Book of his Institutions, relates a memorable Hi­story, speaking as he had heard from his prede­cessours. ‘For he says, that he that It was usual for those that were accused, to be brought before the judgment-seat by a Souldier or Apparator: the Greek word ( [...]) will bear that sense, as well as Accuser, but we have translated it Accuser, upon the account of Clemens his following words, saying, that this person asked James forgiveness, which, if he had accused him, he had reason to doe; but had he been onely an Officer or Souldier, and had done no more but brought in James be­fore the judge, he may seem to have done no more then the duty of his place, what he was commanded; and so needed not have asked James forgiveness. Vales. accused him before the Judgment-seat, seeing him openly and willingly te­stifie and declare the faith of Christ, was moved thereat, and professed that he also was a Christian. And so says he, they were both to­gether led away to suffer. And, as they were going, he besough [...] James to par­don him; who, after a short deliberation, said, peace be to thee, and kissed him; and so they were both be­headed together.’ Then al­so, as Holy Acts 12. 3. &c. writ declares, This He­rod, called also Agrippa, was eldest son to Aristobulus by Bernice his Wife, daughter of 'Salome Sister to Herod the great: which Aristobulus was eldest son to Herod the great by his Wife Mariamne the Assamonean. See Montagues Acts, and Mon. chap. 4. Sect. 34. So that this Herod was Grandchild to Herod the great. Joseph. Antiq. B. 18. c. 7. Herod, perceiving that the killing of James very much pleased the [Page 20] Jews, set upon Peter also, and having put him in bonds, would forthwith have put him to death, had he not been miraculously delivered out of pri­son by a divine apparition, to wit, by an Angel coming to him by night; being dismist for the mi­nistration of Preaching. All which happened to Peter by the disposition of divine providence.

CHAP. X. How Agrippa, called also Herod, persecuting the Apostles, presently felt Divine vengeance.

BUt the Kings attempt to do violence to the Apostles remained not long unrevenged; for a chastizing Minister of divine justice pursued him: He therefore, soon after his bloudy plot against the Apostles, going down to Caesarea, as it is related in the Acts of the Apostles, and being there upon the great festival day dressed in a white and Royal garment, made an Oration to the peo­ple from his lofty throne; and when all the mul­titude gave a shout with loud acclamations at his Oration, as at the voice of God and not of Man, Sacred writ declares that he was immediately smit­ten by an Angel, and was eaten up of worms and gave up the ghost. But the consent between Holy writ and the History of Josephus, in the account given of this strange thing is worthy of admiration. In which he, giving evident testimony to the truth in his nineteenth Joseph. Antiq. B. 19. c. 7. Book of Antiquities does plainly declare this wonderfull thing in these words thus, ‘The third year of his reign over all Judea was now compleated; when he went to the City Caesarea, heretofore called the Tower of Straton. There he exhibited shewes in honour of Caesar, knowing that This Festival was instituted first by Herod the great in honour of Augustus, in the 192 Olym­piad, says Josephus, (Antiq. L. 16. c. 9.) at the City Caesarea. Agrip­pa went to Caesarea to celebrate it, in the 4 year of Claudius, at the beginning of the 206 Olympiad. Vales. Festival to have been instituted for the prosperity of him. Hereun­to flockt a great multitude of those who were honoura­ble and excelled in digni­ty, throughout that whole He means Syria, or (which was part of it) Phoenicia; which was called the Province, to distin­guish it from Judea where Agrip­pa then reigned. Indeed Luke says expresly (Acts 12. 20.) that the principal men of Tyre were then present, which Tyre was the chief City of Phoenicia. Vales. Province. On the second day therefore of the shews, being clothed with Robes made all of silver admira­bly wrought, he entred the Theatre early in the mor­ning. When the silver of his Robes, shining by rea­son of the beams the rising Sun cast on them made a wonderfull glistering, striking those who steadfastly looked on him with wonder and amazement, presently his flat­terers, some from one place some from another, cryed out with voices most pernitious to him terming him God; and beseeching him to be propitious to them. Hitherto, said they, we have reverenced thee as a Man, but now we acknow­ledge thee to be above mortal nature. But the King neither rebuked them, nor rejected their impious flattery, presently after looking up he espied an Josephus calls it [...] an owl: See his words in the B. and chap. last cited. angel sitting over his head; whom he forthwith understood to be the cause of mis­chief towards him, having To wit, in the reign of Tiberius: when Agrippa, being in bonds, and leaning against a tree, as he stood before the palace of Tiberius, saw an owl sitting over his head. A German being by, one of his fellow prisoners foretold this to portend great felicity to Agrippa. See the story at large in Joseph. Antiq. B. 18. c. 8. heretofore been the foreteller of his prosperity. A pain that pierced his very heart immediately seized him. He had besides a griping all over his belly, which began with a vehement sharpness, and was continual and without intermission. Looking therefore upon his friends, I your God, says he, am now compelled to end my life; fatal necessity forthwith demonstra­ting the falshood of your boasting acclamations even now uttered concerning me: I, who by you was stiled immortal, am now snatch't away by death. But that destinie is to be born with which God hath decreed. We have in no wise lived ill, and despicably, but in such splendor as was look't upon to be most fortunate. When he had spoken these words, he was spent with the vehemency of his pain. Being therefore presently carried into the Palace, a rumour was immediately spread abroad that the King was in imminent danger of his life; straightway the whole multitude with their wives and chil­dren This was the usual posture of the Hebrew mourners. See Job 2. 3. Esai. 47. 5. Lament. 2. 10. Jonah 3. 6, &c. consonant here­unto, the Reverses of the medalls both of Vespasian and Titus, made for the memory and celebration of the conquest of Judea, were im­printed with a silent woman sit­ting on the ground, and leaning her back to a palm-tree, with this inscription, Judaea Capta, i. e. Ju­dea subdued. Note here that the Reverses made to commit victo­ries to memory were always writ­ten upon with some representation of proper respect to the place con­quered. I know the posture of sit­ting is a ceremony of Roman la­mentation too. But it was first used among the Jews, from whom the Romans learned it. Mr Gregory of Oxford. Chap. 4. pag. 25, &c. sitting upon spread sackcloth, after their coun­try fashion, made supplica­tions to God for the King. Every place was filled with wailings and lamentations. But the King lying in an High-bed-chamber, looked down upon them as they lay prostrate and could not refrain weeping. At length having been for five days space continually tormen­ted with pains of his Belly, he died, in the fifty fourth year of This man had two sons, and three daughters; his sons were, Agrippa the younger mentio­ned Acts 25▪ and Drusus who died young. His daughters were, Bernice, Mariamne, and Drusilla, which last married Felix the Pro­curator of Judea, as we have it in the Acts: Bernice is also men­tioned in the Acts coming in great pomp with her brother Agrippa to hear Paul. Joseph. Antiq. his Age, and the seventh of his Reign. For first he reigned four years under Caius Caesar, having governed the Te­trarchie of Phillip three years; in the fourth he had Herods Tetrarchie an­next: the three last years of his Reign he passed un­der Claudius Caesar.’ Thus far Josephus: wherein, as also in other passages, I much admire him, in that he agrees so exactly with Holy Scripture. But if any one should think that there is some disagreement about the name of the King; both the time and the action doe evidently shew that he was the same per­son; so that either his name was changed by some mistake of the Transcriber, or else this King had, as many others have, two names.

CHAP. XI. Of the Impostour Theudas and his Associates.

BUt because Luke does moreover in the Acts 5. 36. Acts bring in one Gamaliel speaking in the con­sultation the Jews had about the Apostles, of one This Theudas Josephus mentions Antiq. B. 20. c. 5. but that was in Claudius's reign, in the time of Fadus his Prefecture. And so that cannot be the person mentioned in the Acts; for that Theu­das was be­fore Judas Galilaeus (Acts 5. 39.) and he was in the time of Cy­renius's be­ing Gover­nour of Syria. That Theudas in the Acts therefore must needs be some other person, whom the Jews had recorded in their writings, and from thence Gamaliel there recites the story, though we have no other record of it. This is the opinion of Scaliger, in L. 6. de Emendat. Tempor. and of Casaubon in Exercitat. 2. c. 18. and of Dr Hammond in his notes on Acts 5. 36. Valesius, in his annotations, dissents from all these learned men, and says that by those words of St Luke [after this man rose up Judas of Galilec] is meant, that Judas his insurrection was before that of Theudas; which exposition he confirms by saying, that when ever we begin to reckon from the last, as nearest to us, (so he suppo­ses St Luke there does) we must necessarily place the last person first in such a reckoning, and the first last: so that notwithstanding St Luke says (after this man rose up Judas of Galilee) yet Judas his insurrection was long before Theudas's. This he illustrates by two examples of such an expression, one taken out of Tertullian in Apologet. the other out of Clemens Alexandr. Lib. 7. stromat. But then being not able to re­concile the time of Theudas his insurrection with the time Josephus places it in, to wit, in the time of Fadus his Procuratorship, he says Josephus was mistaken, placing it later than he should have done. For he will by no means allow two Theudas's. Another way he has to make up this difference, that is, he thinks St Luke in his expression used a prolepsis, anticipating the insurrection of Theudas ten years, and makes Gamaliel speak that which was agreeable to his present purpose: and thus Eusebius, he thinks, understood St Lukes words. The Reader has here the opinion of both sides, and is left to his liberty to believe which he pleases. Theudas that arose up in those days boasting himself to be some body, who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered: we also will adjoyn the relation of Josephus concer­ning this very person. Who, in the Book before cited expresly declares thus much word for word: ‘When Fadus was Procurator of Judea, a cer­tain Impostour, by name Theudas, perswaded a multitude of people to take their goods with them and follow him to the River of Jordan. For he said that he was a Prophet, and that he would, by his command, part the waters of the [Page 21] river, and afford them an easie passage ovér. By such speeches he deceived many. But Fadus suffered them not to take the benefit of their madness, but sent out a body of horse against them, which, falling on them at unawares, part­ly killed them, and partly took them prisoners. And having taken Theudas alive they beheaded him, and carried his head to Jerusalem.’ After this the same writer makes mention of the Dearth which happened in the reign of Claudius, after this manner.

CHAP. XII. Of Helena Queen of the Osdroënians.

‘Joseph. Antiq. B. 20. c. 3. AT that time, there happened to be a great This fa­mine hap­pened on the 5 and 6 years of Claudius. Vales. Dearth throughout all Ju­dea. When Queen Helena, buying Bread-corn in Egypt at a very deer price, distributed it to them that were in want.’ All which we find a­greeable to what is related in the Acts of Acts 11. 28, 29, 30. the Apostles; Where we have this moreover, that the disciples which dwelt at Antioch, every man according to his ability, determined to send re­lief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul. But of this Helena, which Josephus has mentioned, there is an illustrious There were three Pyramids standing three fur­longs from Jerusalem, where the bones of this Helena were buried, says Joseph. Antiq. B. 20. c. 2. he mentions them again in his 6 B. of the Jews wars. Jerom mentions them in his Oration de Obit. B. Paula, and says they were standing in his time. Pausanias (in Arcadicis) reck­oning up the stately Sepulchers he had seen, admires two above all the rest, to wit, that of Mausolus in Caria, and this of Helena in Judea. This Helena had a Palace in Jerusalem, says Josephus, in the 6 B. of the Jews wars. Vales. Sepulchral-monument yet to be seen, standing in the Suburbs of Jerusalem, which is now called Aelia: And she is said to have been Queen of the Adiabeni.

CHAP. XIII. Of Simon Magus.

BUt the faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ being now every where diffused a­mong all men; that enemy of mans salvation, plot­ting to possess himself of the Royal City, brings thither the forementioned Simon. And, joyning his inchantments to that mans craftiness, he made many that dwelt at Rome his own by inducing them into errour. This Justin evidences; a man very famous amongst the professours of our Reli­gion soon after the Apostles time; whose worth we will give account of in due place. Let us read what he has writ in his This place of Justin is now to be found not in his second but in his first Apologie. Eusebius in citing Justins Apologies follows not the order of our common Edi­tions. For he always calls that the first which our Editions term the second; and that the second which they call the first: of which more hereafter. Vales. se­cond Apologie to Antoninus for our doctrine, where he says thus: ‘And after the Ascension of our Lord in­to heaven, the Devils sent forth certain men who sti­led themselves Gods: whom you were so far from per­secuting that you worshipped them. Amongst them there was one Simon a Samaritane, of the village named Gitton, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, having performed many ma­gical wonders by the assistance and art of De­vils within your City Rome the Metropolis of the Empire, was accounted a God by you, to whom you dedicated an Image, as to a God, in an Island of the river Tiber, between the two Bridges, with this Latine inscription, The Learned have long since observed, that Justin, by reason of his unskilfulness in the Latine tongue, was here mistaken; think­ing that the Image dedicated to Semon Sancus was consecrated to Simon Magus. Tis certain, that image, which Justin had seen in the island of Tiber, was lately dug up, with this inscription up­on it, Semoni Sango Deo Fidio. Sancus was a God among the Sa­bins that had the charge of bar­gains and contracts, whence he had the names of Sangus and Fi­dius. By him the Romans were wont to swear. Some Samaritans, no doubt, deceived Justin, mak­ing him believe this Image was dedicated to their Simon Magus▪ Vales. SIMONI DEO SANCTO, that is, to Simon the Holy God. Him almost all the Samari­tans, and some of other Na­tions, confess to be the great God, and worship him, as also one C. Rufinus calls her Selene. Vales. Helena at that time a constant companion of his, who heretofore was a prostitute in the stews of Tyre a City of Phoenicia; and her they term the prime notion (or first concepti­on) from him.’ Thus far he: with whom agrees Irenae­us in his first Book against Heresies, wherein he sets forth the Life of this man, his impious and most impure doctrine, which it would be superfluous here to relate; since any one that has a desire may fully under­stand from the foresaid Books of Irenaeus, where­in these things are accuratly delivered, the original, the life, the grounds and reasons of the false opi­nions, and the endeavours and purposes not onely of this Simon, but also of all other Arch-hereticks. We have heard that this Simon was indeed the chief Captain, and first Authour of all Heresie. From which time even to our age those who are fol­lowers of his Heresie, although they pretend to have imbraced throughout their whole Lives, the Christian Religion renowned amongst all men for its modesty and sanctity; yet nevertheless they re­lapse to the superstitious worship of Devils, which they seem'd to have abandoned, prostrating them­selves before the Images and Pictures of Simon and his forementioned Helena, whom they wor­ship with sweet persumes, sacrifices, and oblations. And those things which are transacted in secret a­mongst them, which, say they, do forthwith strike terrour into the minds of those that at first hear them, and which (to use the terms of their own written oracle) doe make them tremble and shake by reason of astonishment; are in truth full of ter­rour, amazement of mind, and outragious madness: So that it is impossible not onely to commit them to writing, but even for men of modesty to utter them through their lips, by reason of their excessive [Page 22] obscenity and uncleanness not to be named. For there is not, nor can there be invented, any thing so impure, which their most lewd Sect does not far surpass; deluding silly women laden with all manner of iniquity.

CHAP. XIV. Of Peter the Apostle's Preaching at Rome.

THe devil that hater of all goodness and most trecherous enemy of mans salvation, at this time produced this Simon the authour and contri­ver of so much mischief, that he might be the great Antagonist of the divine Apostles of our Saviour. But the Divine and Celestial grace, which is always assistant to its Ministers, by their appearance and presence soon quenched the flame, enkindled by the devil, humbling and depressing by them all haughtiness and swelling pride that exalted it self against the knowledge of God. Wherefore, nei­ther the devices of Simon, nor of any other which then were hatch't, became any ways prevalent during the age of the Apostles. For the splen­dour of the Truth vanquished and prevailed a­gainst all machinations; and the power of the divine Word, which had newly enlightned mens minds from heaven, did both flourish upon earth, and also was conversant and did effectually coope­rate with the Apostles. Straightway therefore the foresaid Impostour, having the eyes of his mind blinded by a divine and wonderful splendour and light, as soon as he was detected by the Apostle Peter in Judea in what he had wickedly commit­ted, took a great journey over sea, and fled from the Eastern to the Western parts: concluding that he could no other way live freely, and according to his own mind. Arriving at Rome, by the help and assistance of a devill Eusebius speaks of a devil, which had made his residence and fixt his habitation in Rome, being then the me­tropolis of the whole world. Vales. there lying in wait, he in a short time so far perfected his attempt, that the inhabitants of that City set up an Image to him and worship't him as God. But all succeeded not long according to his mind. For soon after, in the reign of Claudius, the benign and most endearing providence of God brought Peter, that valiant and great Apostle, for courage chief of all the rest, to Rome against this mighty destroyer of man­kind, who, as a stout Leader of God, armed with celestial weapons, brought that precious merchan­dise of intelligible light from the East to those that dwelt towards the West: declaring to them that Light and Doctrine comfortable to the soul, to wit, the publication of the Kingdom of heaven.

CHAP. XV. Of the Gospel according to Mark.

WHen therefore he had published to them the divine Word, immediately the power of Simon was extinct, and, together with the man From these words of Eusebius it is conclu­ded that the death of Simon Magus happened at Rome in the time of Claudius: for Eu­sebius writeth that Peter came to Rome in Claudius his reign, and that presently after, Simon's magical arts were by his coming destroyed together with the Authour. Though there be others that say Simon was destroyed in Nero's time. Vales. himself, destroyed. But so great a lustre of Pietie enlightned the minds of them that were the hearers of Peter, that they thought it not suf­ficient barely to hear him once, nor were conten­ted to have received the publication of the doctrine of the celestial Word by word of mouth and unwritten. Therefore they earnestly entreated Mark, Peters follower, whose Gospel is at this day extant, that he would leave with them some written Record of that doctrine they had heard. Neither did they desist till they had prevailed with the man; and thus they gave the occasion of writing that Gospel, which is called the Gospel according to Mark. When the Apostle Peter understood by the Revelation of the holy Spirit what was done, he was much delighted with the ardent de­sire of the men, and confirmed that writing by his Autority, that so thenceforward it should be read in the Churches. This place of Clemens is quoted a­gain by Eusebius in his 6 B. Ec­cles. Hist. at which place more shall be said of it. Vales. Clemens in his sixth Book of Institutions relates this passage. To whom the Bishop of Hierapolis, by name Papias, may be ad­ded as a witness. Furthermore, Peter mentions Mark, in his former Epistle, which, as they say, was written at Rome; Peter himself does inti­mate thus much (calling Rome by Rome was paral­lel to Baby­lon in ma­ny things. Vales. a figure Ba­bylon) in these words, 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son.

CHAP. XVI. That Mark first Preached the knowledge of Christ to the Egyptians.

BUt this Mark Eusebi­us in his Chronic. places Mark's go­ing into E­gypt on the second year of Claudi­us: the Au­thour of the Alexandri­an Chro­nic. and Georg. Syncellus say he went in the third year of C. Caligula: its the opinion of Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria that Mark went thither in the ninth year of Claudius. Vales. going into Egypt is reported to have been the first publisher there of the Gospel he had written, and to have setled Churches in the very City of Alexandria. And further­more, that so great a multitude both of men and women, who there embraced the faith of Christ, professed from the very beginning so severe and so philosophical a course of life, that Philo vouch­safed in his writings to relate their converse, their Assemblies, their eating and drinking together, and their whole manner of living.

CHAP. XVII. What Philo relates of the Ascetae in Egypt.

IT is reported that this Philo in the times of Clau­dius came to be familiarly acquainted with Peter at Rome, who then Preached the Word of God there: neither is this unlikely. For that work of his, of which we speak, being by him elaborated a long time after, does manifestly contain all the Ecclesi­astical Rules which are to this present observed among us. And seeing he describes evidently the lives of the He means not Monks; for they were an or­der of a la­ter date. Valesius says they were Chri­stians, who led a re­tired, and more severe and strict sort of life: so they were called from that Philosophical term [ [...]] which signifies the exercise of virtue and abstinence: and any one that led such a life was called [...], i. e. Asceta.] The Reader may have farther satisfaction in this matter in Bishop Montagues Acts & Mon. Chap. 7. where he will find this business discussed at large. Ascetae amongst us, he does make it sufficiently perspicuous that he did not onely see, but also very much approve of and admire the Aposto­lical men of his time, who being, as it is probable, originally Jews, upon that account did then ob­serve in a great measure the Judaical Rites and customes. First of all therefore, in that Book which he intituled, Of Contemplative life, or, of Suppliants, having professed that he would insert [Page 23] nothing disagreeable to truth, or of his own head, into that account which he was about to give, he says that the men were called That these Therapeutae were not Christians we will shew here­after. Some think they were Es­sens; but that is unlikely: for Philo never terms them so in that Book wherein he describes them, but at the very beginning calls them Therapeutae: Besides, the Es­sens (as Philo himself witnesses in his Apology for the Jews, cited by Euscbius Lib. 8. De preparat.) were onely in Judea and Palae­stine; but these Therapeutae, he says were scattered all over the (then known) world. Lastly Philo attributes many things to these Therapeutae, which the Sect of the Essens by no means al­lowed: as for example, that they had women conversant among them called Therapeutriae: now Philo says expresly that the Essens hated womankind. See Philo de vita Contemplat. and Joseph. Hist. of the Jewish wars. B. 2. Chap. 12. Vales. Therapeutae, and the wo­men that were conversant a­mong them Therapeutriae: And he adjoyns the reason of that appellation, either be­cause like Physitians they healed the mindes of those that resorted to them, curing them of their vitious affecti­ons, or because they worship­ped the Deity with a pure and sincere service and ado­ration. Further, whether Phi­lo himself gave them this name, devising an appellation agreeable to the manners and dispositions of the men; or whether they were really so called from the beginning, the name of Christians ha­ving not yet been every where spread and diffused, it is not necessary positively to affirm or contend about it. But he attests that in the first place they part with their goods; ‘saying that as soon as they betake themselves to this course of Philosophizing they put over their wealth and possessions to their re­lations. Then, casting away all care of wordly matters, they leave the Cities, and make their aboad in gardens and solitary places; well know­ing the conversing with men of a different and disagreeing perswasion to be unprofitable and hurtfull.’ Which thing the Christians of that time seem to me to have instituted out of a generous and most fervent ardour of faith, endeavouring to emulate the Prophetical severe course of life. Therefore in the Acts 4. 34, 35, 36. Acts of the Apostles (which contain nothing but the perfect truth) it is shewed, that all the disciples of the Apostles selling their possessions and goods, divided the price among the brethren according as every one had need, that so there might not be any indigent person among them. For as the Word says, as many as were pos­sessours of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prizes of the things that were sold and laid them down at the Apostles feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. After Philo has attested the very same things with these, of the Therapeutae, he adds thus much far­ther concerning them, word for word saying, ‘This Philo's description of these Therapeutae in these following words can no way agree with the Christian professours in those times. For they were then few in number, neither did they look upon any Country as their own, besides the heavenly Jerusalem. Vales. sort of men indeed is diffused far and wide over the whole world. For it was requisite that both Greeks & Barbarians should be partakers of so excellent a benefit. Egypt especially is full of them, throughout all its divisions, but most of all about Alexan­dria. But from all places the principal of them retire themselves into a most commodious place above the Lake Maria, situate upon a little rising hill, excellently well seated both for whol­someness of air and safe conveniency of abiding, as into the Country of the Therapeutae.’ Then, after he has described their houses, after what man­ner they were built, he speaks thus of the Churches they have in divers places. ‘In every house there is a Chappel called a Semnaeum, and Monaste­rium, in which alone by themselves they perform the mysteries of an holy life. They bring in thither neither meat nor drink, nor any corporal provisions or necessaries; but onely the Law, and the divine Oracles of the Prophets, and Hymns and such like, whereby knowledge and piety are increased and perfected.’ And a little after, he says: ‘All the interval of time from Sun rising to the Evening they spend in medita­tions of Philosophie: For reading the holy Scriptures, they Philosophize after their Country way, and expound allegorically. For they sup­pose that the words are onely notes and marks of some things of a mystical nature, which are to be explained [...] that's the term in the original. So the Ancient Greeks called that which the lat­ter call [...]; that is, an al­legory, as they term it; when one thing is said, another is to be un­derstood. Vales. figura­tively. They have From these words of Philo we may easily perceive that these Therapeutae were not Christians. For the professours of Christianity were then of a very fresh date. Besides, what writings could these be? The Books of the Prophets they were not, for Philo separates them from these, speaking of them a little before: They could not be the Gospels, nor the Epistles of the Apostles, for they were scarce written in Philo's age, however they could not then be called the writings of antient persons, at least by Philo. Vales. wri­tings of some ancient per­sons, who have been here­tofore famous leaders of their Sect, and have left them many Monuments of that learning which con­sists in dark and secret ex­pressions, which they, using as original platforms, doe imitate thereby that course of study.’ These certain­ly seem to be words of such a man as had heard some of our Religion expounding the holy Scriptures. And it is very likely that the writings of those ancient persons, which he says they had, were the Gospels and writings of the Apostles, and cer­tain expositions of the ancient Prophets, of which sort many are contained both in other Epistles of Paul, and also in that written to the Hebrews. Afterwards Philo thus writeth concerning the new Psalms composed by them. ‘They do not onely spend their time in contem­plation, but they The composition of Psalms and Hymns was not in use so ear­ly in the Church, as these words of Philo must suppose, if we un­derstand them to be spoken of the Christians: that came in after the times of Antoninus, when learned men began to embrace the Chri­stian Faith. So that neither can these words of Philo be any ways understood of Christians. The junior Pliny indeed (in his Epistle to Trajan Lib. 10. Epist. 97.) says it was a custome of the Christians in their Coetûs, carmen Christo tan­quam Deo dicere secum invicem, i. e. to say one with another by turns a verse, or Hymn, to Christ as unto God: But there is a dif­ference between saying and com­posing a song or Hymn; and be­sides, this was long after Philo's time. See Dr Hammonds preface to his Exposit▪ on the Psalms; and Mr Gregory's Posthumous works; Discourse 2d. compose Songs and Hymns to the praise of God of all sorts of meeter and musical verse, which they write in grave and seemly rhymes.’ He relates many other things of them in that Book I men­tioned: But I judged these fittest to be selected and pickt out, in which certain marks of Church discipline are pro­posed. But if any one shall think what Philo here says to be in no wise proper to the Evangelical politie, but may be adapted to others be­sides those I have mentioned; he will certainly be convinced by Philo's following words; in which, if he shall duely weigh the matter, he will re­ceive a most undoubted testimony of this thing. Now he writes thus: ‘Having first laid tem­perance as a certain foundation, they build there­upon the other Virtues. For none of them takes either meat or drink before Sun set: for they hold it requisite to spend the day in the study of Philosophy, and the night in making necessary provision for the body. Therefore they allot the whole day to study, but allow a very small portion of the night for bodily provision. Some of them forget to eat for three days together, so great is the desire of knowledge that possesses them. But some others [Page 24] of them are so well pleased with, and feed so richly and deliciously upon the banquets of Wisdom, which sets before them wholsome pre­cepts as a most sumptuous feast, that they are wont scarce to tast any necessary food in twice that space, to wit, in six days time.’ We suppose these words of Philo to be evidently and without all doubt spoken concerning those of our Religion. But if after all this any one shall still persist in a peremptory denyal of these things; he will at length recede from his obstinate difficulty of be­lief, being perswaded to submit to such manifest demonstrations as are no where to be found but in the Christian Religion, composed according to the rule of the Gospel. ‘Philo says further there­fore, that among these men, of whom we speak, there are certain women conversant, many of which continue Virgins being old; not out of necessity, like some of those amongst the Gre­cian Priests, but voluntarily preserving their chastity out of an ardent affection to and desire of wisdom; in the embraces and familiarity whereof they earnestly affect to spend their lives; having despised all bodily pleasures, and desiring earnestly not a mortal issue, but an im­mortal; which that mind onely that loves and is beloved of God can of it self bring forth.’ After many other expressions, he speaks yet more plainly thus, ‘Their Expositions of holy Writ are figurative by way of Allegories. For these men suppose the whole Law to be like a living creature; the bare words whereof are, as it were the Body, and the invisible sense, that lies hid under the words, resembles the soul. Which sence this Sect have and doe make it their Reli­gion earnestly to search into and contemplate, beholding in the words, as in a glass, the admi­rable [...] beauty of the meaning.’ There is no ne­cessity of adding farther here an account of their Assemblies, of the distinct apartments of their men and women, and of their several studies and holy exercises, now in use amongst us, more espe­cially about the feast of our Lords Passion, when we are wont to practise them in fastings, watch­ings, and attentive reading of holy Scriptures. All which the man we have so often mentioned, does relate in his writings accurately, after the same manner in which we onely at this time ob­serve them: Especially he mentions the Eusebius means that whole week which precedes the feast of Easter, which the Greek Fathers call [...] the great week, and we the Passion week. But in Philo's Book there is no mention of this feast of Easter. He speaks indeed [...] of a great solemnity; but by his following words 'tis evident he means the Jewish-feast of weeks, or, our Pentecost. Vales. Vigils of the great Solemnity, the holy exercises therein, and the Hymns we are wont to re­cite. And how, when one has begun to sing a Psalm harmoniously and gravely, the rest, silently hearkening, doe after sing out in Chorus the latter parts onely of the verses. ‘And how throughout those days lying in straw upon the ground, they wholly abstain from wine (as he has said in these express words) and eat nothing that has bloud in it: water is their onely drink, and their food is bread with salt and hyssop.’ Farther he describes the order and degrees of their Governours, to wit, He means the Presbyters; concerning whom, See Philo, in his said Book, De vitâ contemplat. p. 899. Edit. Par. Vales. those who perform the Ecclesiastical Offices, then the Ministrations of the Deacons, and lastly the Epis­copal presidency over all. He that desires to know these things more ac­curately, may be therein informed from the fore-mentioned History of Philo. It is there­fore apparently evident to every one, that Philo writing thus, did mean thereby those first Prea­chers of the Evangelical doctrine, and the disci­pline, at the beginning delivered by the Apostles.

CHAP. XVIII. What writings of Thilo's have come to our hands.

MOreover this Philo being a man of a fluent utterance, and abundant in sentences, also lofty and high in contemplations upon the holy Scrip [...]ures, compiled a divers and variable expo­sition of the sacred Volumes of holy Writ: partly explaining in a fit and agreeable series and order, the subject matter of the things contained in Gene­sis, which he entitled The Allegories of the Holy Laws: and partly making particular and distinct explications of those Chapters in Scripture which contain any thing in them that is dubious, with objections thereupon and solutions thereof; which also he fitly entitled Questions & Solutions upon Genesis and Exodus. There are besides elaborate tracts of his peculiarly written concerning certain Problems; such as are, two Books Of Husbandry, and as many of Drunkenness, and some others ha­ving different and fit Titles: Such is that, This Book of Philo's is not now extant. Vales. Of the things which a sober mind prayeth for, and which it detesteth; and that, Of the confusion of Lan­guages; and that, Of In Suidas this Book is called, [...] ▪ which inscription Suidas took from So­phronius the interpreter of Jerom. But our excellent M. SS. Maz. Med. Fuk and Sr Henry Savills have it thus, [...]. Wherefore I agree with Nicepho­rus, who rightly distinguisht the two Books of Philo: the one of which was entitled [...] Of flight and choice; the other, [...] that is, Of nature and in­v [...]ntion. Whence it appears that that Book of Eusebius's, which Nicephorus made use of, was in this place more correct than our copies. Vales. flight and invention; and that, Of Assemblies upon account of ob­taining Learning: and con­cerning this subject, Who is the Heir of Divine things, or, of division into parts equal and their contraries: and al­so that, Of the three Virtues which with others Moses wrote of. Besides, that, Of them whose names are chang­ed, and for what reason they are changed; in which Book he says, he wrote Of Testa­ments the first and the second. There is also another Book of his, Of Removals in journey, or shifting of pla­ces, and of the life of a wise man perfected ac­cording to righteousness, or, Of unwritten Laws, and also, Of Giants, and, that God is immutable; also, 'Tis manifest that Philo wrote three Books on this Sub­ject, That Dreams are sent from God. The first of which is lost; the second is extant in the Paris Edition of Philo, pag. 465. in the beginning whereof he makes mention of a former Book which he had written on that subject. The third is also extant in the same Edition, pag. 1108. but mispla­ced. Whether he wrote any more than these three, is un­certain. Suidas mentions five Books of Philo's De Somniis. Vales. That Dreams are sent from God, according to the opinion of Moses five Books. And thus many are the Books he wrote on Genesis which have come to our hands. We have also known five Books of his, of Questions and So­lutions upon Exodus; and also that, of the Tabernacle, and that, of the Decalogue, and those four Books, of those Laws which in specie have reference to the chief heads of the Decalogue; and that, of those beasts fit for sacrifice, and, what be the kinds of sacrifices; and that, of the rewards and punishments propounded in the Law as well to the Good as to the Evil; and, of curses. Be­sides all these there are extant of his particular [Page 25] Books, as that, Of In the Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. its written, [...] truer; for there was onely one Book that bore this Title. In a M. S. copy of Philo's works in the Libra­ry of Aus­purg, this Book of Philo's, De Providen­tiâ, is con­founded with ano­ther of his Adversus Flaccum. Indeed this Book, De Providen­tiâ, is lost. But there is an eminent fragment of it in Euse­bius De preparat Libr. 8. cap. Ultim. and in Libr. 7. cap. 21. Vales. Providence, and a discourse compiled by him; I doubt not but it should be written [...], For the Jews, for so this Book is quoted by Eusebius in his 8 B. De Preparat. Evan­gel. chap. 10. where there is a most elegant place produced [...] i. e. out of the Apologie of Philo for the Jews. Rufinus confirms this our emendation; who turns this place thus, de Judaeis Apologeticus Liber. Vales. Of the Jews, and, of the man leading a Civil life; also, Alexander, or, That Brutes are endowed with Reason. Besides, of this, That every wicked man is a slave, to which fol­lows in order this Book, That every man studious of Virtue is free. After these he compiled that Book, Of contemplative life, or, of suppliants, out of which we have cited those things con­cerning the lives of the Apostolical men. Also, The interpretations of the Jerome makes mention of this Book of Philo's, in his interpretation of the Hebrew names. Moreover, Philo having onely interpreted those names that occur in the Law and the Prophets, Origen added afterwards an interpretation of the words and names of the New Te­stament; supplying that which seemed to be wanting in Philo's Book, as Jerome writes in that Book of his now mentioned. Vales. Hebrew names in the Law and in the Prophets, are said to have been done by his diligence. This Philo, coming to Rome in the time of Caius, wrote a Book of Caius's hatred of God, which, by way of Scoff and Ironie, he entituled, Of Virtues; which Book, its said, he rehearsed before the whole Ro­man Senate in the time of Claudius; and the piece was so taking, that his admirable works were thought worthy to be dedicated to the publick Libraries. At the same time, when Paul travelled from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum, Eusebius took this out of the Acts of the Apost. chap. 18. v. 2. And Orosius writes, as he had it out of Josephus, that this was done in the ninth year of Claudius. But that place of Josephus which Orosius quotes is not now extant. Therefore Orosius seems to me to have for­gotten himself. And truely, it is not very likely, that Claudius the Emperour, who had so great a kindness for the Jews, as appears by his many Edicts extant in Josephus, should drive the Jews in particular out of the City. I should rather think, whenas there was a great famine at Rome (which in Eusebius's Chronicon is said to have happened in the tenth year of Claudius) that Claudius expelled all forreiners out of the City, amongst whom were the Jews also. For so Augustus did before; and 'twas frequently practised by the following Emperours, as oft as the City of Rome was in any scarcity of Provision: and so I judge that place of Luke in the Acts is to be understood. But if any one, relying on the Authority of Suetonius (whose words are these, Judaeos impulsore CHRESTO assiduè tumultuantes Româ expulit; in the Life of Claudius. See Dr Hammonds Annot. on Acts 26. v. 31.) does reject this our Opinion, I will not much withstand him. All the Chronologers downwards follow Orosius; as does also Barronius in his Annals. Whom I much wonder at, in that when he had placed this Edict of Claudius on the ninth year of his Reign, he should also cast the Jerusalem Council upon the same year. Which is manifestly re­pugnant to the History of the Acts of the Apostles. For, after the Je­rusalem Council, which is related Acts 15, Paul going back to Antioch, delivered the Epistle of the Apostles to the brethren, and is said to have tarried there some time. After this, being parted from Barnabas, he went into Syria and Cilicia, Preaching the Word of God. Then he travelled into Phrygia, Galatia, and Mysia, where he was warned by the Holy Spirit in a dream to sail into Macedonia, and first Preach't the Faith of Christ at Philippi; after that, at Thessalonica and Berea. Sailing thence to Athens, he staied there a good while expecting Ti­mothy and Sylas; and Preached the Word of God to the Athenians. Then going to Corinth he found Aquila and Priscilla there, who were lately come from Italy thither, upon account of the Edict of Claudius commanding all Jews to depart from Rome, as it is in the 18 chap. Acts. From all this its apparent, that there was a good distance of time between the Council held at Jerusalem, and the Edict of Clau­dius; in which space all this we have related was dispatcht by Paul the Apostle. In Chronico Alexandrino, the Council at Jerusalem is placed on the sixth year of Claudius; he had better have said, the seventh. For so all things agree exactly. For Paul staid at Antioch the remaining months of that year wherein the Council was; then the following year he travelled through Syria, Cilicia, Phrygia, and Galatia. At length in the ninth year of Claudius, he came into Greece. Vales. Clau­dius expelled the Jews from Rome. [...] that is, at which time Aquila, &c. for it may be read in two words, thus [...] as I found it written in the Kings, and the Fuk. M. SS. Vales. At which time Aquila and Priscilla, with other Jews, de­parting from Rome, arived in Asia, where they conversed with Paul the Apostle, then confirming the foundations of those Churches there newly laid by him. Even the Holy book of the Acts teacheth us these things.

CHAP. XIX. What a Calamity befell the Jews at Jerusalem on the very day of the Passover.

BUt Claudius yet ruling the Empire, there happened to be so great a tumult and distur­bance at Jerusalem on the feast of the Passover▪ that there were The same number he sets down in his Chroni­con. But Jo­sephus, in his 2 B. of the Jewish wars says there was some­what more than ten thousand killed. But in his 20th B. of An­tiquities, which work he compiled after his History, he accounts the number of the slain to be twenty thousand. Which number I would rather agree too, because these Books, as I said, were written last by him▪ Vales. thirty thousand Jews slain, being those onely who by force were prest together a­bout the gates of the Temple and troden under foot by one another. So that that Festival was turned into mourning over the whole Nation, and La­mentation throughout every family. Thus much also Josephus relates almost word for word. But Claudius made Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, This Agrippa the younger, to speak properly, was never King of the Jews. For after the death of Agrippa his father, who dyed the fourth year of Claudius, Claudius took him being very young and kept him with him, neither did he permit him to succeed in his fathers Kingdom. After­wards, Herod the King of Chalcis being dead, Claudius gave Agrippa his Uncle's Kingdom; which when he had held four years, Claudius in the twelfth year of his Reign gave him Thraconitis, which was the Te­trarchie of Philip, and also the Kingdom of Lysanias; having first taken Chalcis from him: He transferred to him also the authority over the Temple, and the power of electing the High-priests, which his Uncle Herod had. A little after, Nero added to his Kingdom part of Galilce, as Josephus writes in his twentieth B. of Antiq. Which being thus, its apparent Eusebius was mistaken, who wrote both here and in his Chronicon, that Agrippa the younger succeeded in his fathers Kingdom presently after the death of his father, and was made King of the Jews by Claudius. Although Eusebius says not here expresly that he was by Claudius made King presently after his fathers death. In­deed, out of Josephus it may be evidently shown that the younger Agrippa was not made King immediately after his fathers death. For in his second Book of the Jewish wars, chap. 13▪ he makes the twelfth year of Nero, wherein the Jewish war began, to be the same with the seventeenth of King Agrippa. Therefore the younger Agrippa began to reign in the eighth year of Claudius. Moreover, I will not deny that he was King of the Jews, seeing he was King of Galilce, and is by Justus reckoned among the Kings of the Jews. But I deny that ever he was King of Judea. For after the death of the Seniour Agrippa, which happened in the fourth year of Claudius, Judea was brought into the form of a Province, and every year the Procuratours of Caesar were sent thither, as Josephus relates. Vales. King of the Jews; having sent In the Chronicon of Eusebius, Felix is said to have been sent Procuratour into Judea by Claudius, in the eleventh year of his Reign. But in Scaligers Edition of that work, it is more rightly placed on the tenth year of Claudius. Yet it seems to be truer, that Felix was sent into Judea in the ninth of Claudius. For Tracitus, in his twelfth Book, says, That Felix was lately set over the Jews, (Sulla and Otho being Consuls, which was the tenth year of Claudius:) and in Acts 24. Paul, pleading his cause before this same Felix, which was done on the thirteenth year of Claudius, speaks thus to him: For as much as I know that thou hast been for many years a judge unto this Nation. Moreover Rufinus is mistaken, in that he thinks these are Josephus's words, when as it appears that they indeed are Eusebius's. Vales. Felix Procu­ratour of the whole country of Samaria and Ga­lilee, and also of the Region beyond Jordan. And when he had raigned thirteen years and eight months, he dyed, leaving Nero his successour in the Empire.

CHAP. XX. What was done at Jerusalem in the Reign of Nero.

NOw in Nero's time, Felix being Procu­ratour of Judea, Josephus relateth in the twentieth Book of his Antiquities, that there [Page 26] was again a Sedition of the Priests one against the other, in these words: ‘There arose also a Sedi­tion of the chief Priests, against the Priests and the chief of the people of Jerusalem. And each of them forming for themselves a company of most audacious fellows and such as indeavoured to make innovations, behaved themselves as Ca­ptains; and encountring they railed against each other, and threw stones at one another. There was no body to rebuke them; but, as in a City de­stitute of a Governour, these things were licen­tiously done. And so great impudence and pre­sumptuous boldness possessed the chief Priests, that they dared to send their servants to the thre­shing floors, and take the Tythes due to the Priests. Whence it came to pass that the poorest of the Priests were seen to perish for want of sustenance. In such sort did the violence of the Seditious prevail over all justice and equity.’ And again the same writer relates that at the same time there arose a sort of theeves in Jerusalem, who in the day time, as he says, and in the very midst of the City, killed those they met with; but especially on the Festivals, being mixt among the croud, and hiding little daggers under their garments, they stab'd the most eminent [...]; so it is in Jose­phus. Ge­lenius ren­ders it, ene­mies: which I like not. For Jose­phus by that term means [...]; the most emi­nent Perso­nages. Vales. Perso­nages; and when they fell, these murtherers would dissemble themselves to be of the number of those that grieved. Whereby they were undiscovered, because of the good opinion all men had of them. And first, he says, Jonathan the High Priest was killed by them, and after him many were slain daily, and he says, the fear was more grievous than the calamity, in that every one, as in war, hourly expected death.

CHAP. XXI. Of that Egyptian who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.

AFter these things Josephus adds, having inter­posed some other words; ‘But the Egyptian false prophet annoyed the Jews with a greater mischief than these. For he, coming into the Country, being a Magician, and having gotten himself the repute of a Prophet, gathered toge­ther about thirty thousand men such as he had seduced; and leading them out of the wilder­ness to the mount called the mount of Olives, prepared by force from thence to enter Jerusa­lem; and, having vanquished the Roman guards, to seize the principality over the people, resol­ving to make them his guard who together with him by violence entred the City. But Felix pre­vented his attempt, having met him with the Ro­man Souldiers; and all the people joyned their assistance in repelling his injurious violence. So that, the Assault being made, the Egyptian fled with a few, and most of his party were slain and taken prisoners.’ These matters Josephus relates in the second Book of his History; and its wor­thy our [...], signifies properly, to attend too, or observe. In this sense Eusebius uses the word chap. 18. of this Book, and in B. 3. chap. 24. This word occurs in Athenaeus, Polybius, and others. Vales. observing, together with what is here related of this Egyptian, those things which are declared of him in the Acts of the Apostles: There, in the time of Felix it is said by the chief Captain at Jerusalem unto Paul, when the multitude of the Jews raised a tumult against him; Acts 21. 38. See Jo­sephus Antiq. B. 20. c. 6, & 7. See also Dr Hammond on Acts 21. 38. Art not thou that Egyptian which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest into the wilderness Josephus says there were thirty thousand men: which is so to be understood, as that the number of the whole multitude was 30000, of which 4000 onely were murtherers. And so Josephus will be reconciled to Luke. But I agree not with Eusebius, who writes that this was done in Nero's time. For, in Acts 21, this Egyptian is said to have been overthrown a little before Pauls coming to Jerusalem. Now Paul came thither in the last year of Claudius: which may be gathered from the 24 chap. Acts, where Luke writes that Portius Festus was sent as successour to Felix. Seeing therefore Festus was sent into Judea in the second year of Nero, the overthrow of this Egyptian must necessarily fall on the last year of Claudius. The narration of Josephus, who seems to refer all this to the times of Nero, deceived Eusebius. But Eusebius ought to have considered, that Jo­sephus does in that place relate all the Acts of Felix together, as well what he did under Claudius, as what under Nero. Vales. four thou­sand men that were murtherers? But thus much concerning the times of Felix.

CHAP. XXII. How Paul, being sent bound from Judea to Rome, having made his defence, was wholly acquitted.

BUt Festus is by Nero sent as successour to this Felix: in whose time Paul having plea­ded for himself is carried bound to Rome; Ari­starchus was with him, whom somewhere in his Epistles he deservedly stiles his fellow prisoner: And Luke, who committed to writing the Acts of the Apostles, concluded his History here, having shewed that Paul lived two full years at Rome, en­joying in a great measure his liberty; and, that he Preached the Word of God, no man forbidding him: Then, having made his defence, it is more­over reported that the Apostle travelled again upon account of the ministration of Preaching; and that, coming the second time to the same City, he ended his life by martyrdome in this Emperours Reign. At which time, being in bonds, he wrote the se­cond Epistle to Timothy, signifying therein both his former defence, and also his approaching death. Take his own Testimonie hereof. At my first answer, says he, no man stood with me, but all men forsook me, I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge: notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me, that by me the Preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and I was de­livered out of the mouth of the Lion. By which words he makes it plainly evident, that at the first time, that his Preaching might be fulfilled, he was delivered out of the mouth of the Lion; speaking, as it was likely, of Nero, because of his cruelty. Indeed this place is very ob­scure; and therefore Musculus (as also Dr Hanmer) omitted it. But, having considered upon it long and much, at length I ap­prehended the true sense of this place. Eu­sebius therefore says, that from the second E­pistle of Paul to Ti­mothy this may be ga­thered, to wit, that Paul in his first de­fence was acquitted by the Judges sen­tence; but afterward at his second defence he was condemned. The former part hereof he apparently manifests in these words [At my first defence no man stood with me;] and whenas he says [I was delivered out of the mouth of the Lyon.] which is as much as if he had said, I was snatcht from Nero's jaws. But Paul speaks far otherwise of his second accu­sation. For he does not say [The Lord delivered me out of the mouth of the Lyon] as he had said before. For he foresaw, God revealing it to him, that he should by no means any longer avoid the sword of the persecutour, but should end his life by a glorious martyrdom. There­fore when he had said of his first accusation [I was delivered out of the mouth of the Lyon] concerning his second, with which he was then charged, he adds these words [The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly Kingdom] ap­parently manifesting his death by these words. This is the meaning of this place, which neither the translatours, nor I my self at first un­derstood. Wherefore in the words of Eusebius, it must be read [ [...]] in two distinct words, or else the accent must be changed, thus [...]. Indeed, in the Maz. M. S. it is thus written [ [...]] in two di­stinct words. Moreover Jerome, in his Book De Scriptorib. Ecclesiast. has quoted this place of Eusebius, where he speaks of Paul; but he appre­hended not Eusebius's meaning, as it will be apparent to the Reader. Wherefore Sophronius also, when he translated this place of Jerome, into Greek, omitted some words, which seemed to hinder the meaning. Vales. But afterwards he has not added any thing like unto these words [He shall deliver me out of the mouth of the Lion:] for by the Spirit he saw that his end was now near at hand: wherefore, having said [and I was de­livered out of the mouth of the Lion] he adds this [The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work and will preserve me unto his heavenly Kingdom] evidently signifying that his martyrdom was at hand; which he more plainly foretels in the same Epistle, saying, For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. More­over in this second Epistle to Timothy, he mani­festly declares, that onely Luke was then with him when he wrote it; but, at his first answer, that not so much as he was with him then. Whence 'tis aggreable to reason to think, that Luke con­cluded the Acts of the Apostles at that time, ha­ving continued the History so long as he ac­companied Paul. These things we have spoken, [Page 27] that we may make it manifest that the martyrdom of Paul was not consummated at that first coming of his to Rome; which Luke mentions. For its likely, that Pauls Apology for his opinion was more easily admitted by Nero, he behaving him­self more mildly at the beginning of his Empire; but proceeding afterwards to the commission of most horrid and villanous Acts, those things a­gainst the Apostles together with many other persons, were by him taken in hand.

CHAP. XXIII. How James, called the brother of the Lord, was Martyred.

MOreover Paul having appealed to Caesar, and being by Festus sent to Rome; the Jews, who had plotted a design against him, being now disappointed of their expectation, set upon James the brother of the Lord, to whom the Epi­scopal seat at Jerusalem was given by the Apostles: and of this sort were their villanous practises against him: Leading him forth publickly, they required him to renounce the faith of Christ before all the people. But when he, contrary to the ex­pectation of all, had spoken freely and with a grea­ter boldness than they looked for, before the whole multitude, and had confessed that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was the Son of God; being no longer able to endure the Testimony of the man, they slew him who was believed by all to be a most just person, by reason of that singular eminence he arrived to, in his leading a Philosophical and pious course of life; taking the vacancy of the Govern­ment as a fit oportunity for this their Licentious­ness. For Festus being at that time dead in Judea, that Province was without a President and Procuratour. Now the manner of this James's death, the words of Clemens before quoted by us have manifested; he having declared, that he was cast headlong from the battlement of the Temple, and beaten to death with a club. But moreover, The first succession of the A­postles is extended to the times of M. Aurelius Antoninus. For in his Reign Polycarp the disciple of John the Apostle was crowned with Martyrdom. Hegesippus therefore is rightly said to have lived in the first succession of the Apostles, in that he flourished in the Reign of the sons of Antoninus Pius. And coming to Rome when Anicetas was Bishop, he stayed there to Eleutherus's time. In the Alexandrian Chronicle (which I would more willingly call the Antiochian) He­gesippus is said to have died in the Reign of Commodus. He was there­fore cotemporary with Ireneus: who also was next to the first successi­on of the Apostles, as Eusebius testifies, Book 5. chap. 20. Vales. Hegesippus, being one of those who were of the first succession after the Apostles, does in the fifth Book of his Commentaries most accurately relate these things concerning this James, speaking after this manner: ‘James, the brother of our Lord, un­dertook, together with the Apostles, the Govern­ment of the Church; That James who was sur­named the Just by all even from the times of our Lord untill ours. For many were called by the name of James; but this man was holy from his mothers womb. He drank neither wine, nor strong drink; nor eat any creature wherein there was life. There never came Rasour upon his head; he anointed not himself with oyl, neither did he use a Bath. To Scaliger, in his Animadvers. Eusebian. p. 178. has examined this whole passage of Hegesippus's, and finds fault with many things in it; which are well worth rea­ding. See also Dionysius Petavius in Not. ad He [...]esim 78. Epiphanii, & P. Halloixius, in his Notes on the Life of Hegesippus, chap. 3. Vales. Him onely it was lawfull to enter into the Holiest of Holie's: He wore no woollen, but lin­nen garments; and went into the Temple alone, where he was found upon his knees, making suppli­cation for the forgiveness of the people: in so much that his knees were become hard and brawny, like those of a Camel, by reason of his continual kneeling to worship God, and to make supplication for the remission of the people. Wherefore, upon account of his most eminent righteousness he was called Justus and The learned Nich. Fuller, Book 3. chap. 1. of his Miscellan, has thus corrected this place [...] i. e. He was called Saddick, and Ozleam, which signifies in English, a just man, and the defence of the people. For [...] in Hebrew signifies, a just man. And Ozleam is made up of these two Hebrew words [...]; which signi­fie, the strength, or, defence of the people; the Letter [...] being the sign of the Genitive or Dative case with the Hebrews. The ori­ginal of this appellation is taken from Psalm 28. 9. where we meet with these words in the original, [...] The Lord shall give strength to his peo­ple. Fullers Miscell. B. 3. chap. 1. Oblias, which signifies in English, the de­fence and righteousness of the people, as the Prophets declare concerning him. Therefore certain men of the This place of Hegesippus, wherein, he says, he wrote con­cerning the seven Heresies, we shall meet with in the 4 B. of Eu­sch. Eccles. Hist. where we will speak more concerning them. Vales. seven Heresies among that people of the Jews, which we have before writ­ten of in our Commenta­ries, asked him, which is the By Gate here, is meant no­thing else, but the way of En­trance to Christ; which is, by Faith in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Agreeable hereto its said Psal. 118. 20. This is the gate of the Lord, the righte­ous shall enter into it. Vales. gate of Jesus? And he said, that That Jesus was the Saviour. Some of them believed that Jesus was the Christ: but the foremen­tioned Sects believed nei­ther the The Pharisees, who were one branch of these Sects, believed the Resurrection from the dead. Vales. Resurrection, nor that he was to come to reward every man according to his works. But as many as believed, believed by the means of James. Therefore, many of the chief men be­lieving, there was a com­motion among the Jews, and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that all the people were in danger to think Je­sus to be the Christ. Com­ing altogether therefore unto James they said unto him, we beseech thee restrain the people, for they are in an errour concerning Jesus, supposing him to be the Christ; we entreat thee, perswade all those that come together at the day of the passover, that they may think aright concer­ning Jesus: For we all put our confidence in thee; and we and all the people bear thee witness that thou art just, and respectest not the person of any man: perswade the multitude therefore that they be not deceived about Jesus: for we and all the people put our confidence in thee: stand therefore upon the battlement of the temple, that from on [Page 28] high thou mayest be conspicuous, and thy words readily heard by all the people; for upon ac­count of the passover, all the tribes, together with the Petavius does here deserved­ly reprove Scaliger, who had de­nied, that it was lawfull for any Gentile to be present at the Festi­vals of the Jews. For besides that place which Petavius quotes; John 12. 20. we are supplied with many testimonies out of Joscphus, to evidence this mat­ter. Vitellius the President of Syria went up to Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, and was honourably entertained by the Jews: as we may read chap. 6. B. 18. of Josephus's Antiq. He writes the same concerning Qua­dratus the President of Syria, B. 20▪ of his Antiq. Vales. Nations are come together. Therefore the foresaid Scribes and Phari­sees placed James upon the battlement of the Temple, and cried out to him, and said, O Justus! whom we all ought to put our confidence in; because the people are mislead after Jesus who was crucified, declare to us, which is the gate of Christ who was crucified: and he answe­red with a loud voice, Why do ye question me about Jesus the Son of man? He even sits in heaven at the right hand of great power, and will come in the clouds of hea­ven. Now when many were fully satisfied and confirm­ed and glorified God for this Testimony of James, and cryed, saying, This word Hosanna, is a corruption of the Hebrew word, [...] (which signifies, pre­serve me, or, make me safe.) being the Imperative mood Hiph. with the Assix [...] [...]; derived from the Theme [...]. See the original Text of Jer. 17. 14. And also, see Bishop Pearson on the Creed, in his marginal notes, pag. 70. Edit. Lond. 1669. Hosan­na to the These words, which Hegesip­pus says the Jews then uttered, ought to be understood of Christ, rather than of James. For when James was set upon the battle­ment of the Temple, and had de­clared Jesus to be the Christ and Redeemer of mankind, those that embraced the Faith of Christ be­gan to cry out, Hosanna, to the Son of David, that is, to Jesus Christ. Vales. Son of David, then the same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, we have done ill in exhibiting such a Testi­mony to Jesus; but let us go up and cast him down, that so the people being terrified may not give cre­dit to him. And they cried out, saying, O, O, even Justus himself is also se­duced. And they fulfilled that which was written in Esaiah.’ So the 72 Translate Esai. 3. v. 10. Their words are these, [...] But the Hebrew copy differs much from this Translation, [...] Which our Translation following, renders thus in English, Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him; for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Compare the Sept. Translat. of Isai. 3. 10. with the Hebrew Text of that place. We will destroy the righteous, for he is trou­blesome to us; wherefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings. ‘They went up therefore and cast down Justus, and said amongst themselves, Let us stone James the Just; and they began to stone him, for he was not fully dead after his fall, but turning he kneeled, saying, I intreat thee, O Lord God the Father, forgive them, for they know not what they doe. As they were thus stoning of him, one of the Priests of the sons of Rechab the son of As if he had said, one of the Priests, the son of Rechab, of the family of the Rechabites; which last words [ [...]] are therefore added, that Rechab, the father of this Priest, might be distinguished from other Rechabs. For many were called by the same name of Rechab▪ but this man, of whom Hegesippus speaks, was of the stock of the Rechabites, spoken of by the Prophet Jeremy, chap. 35. Vales. Rechabim, testifyed of by Jeremy the Prophet, cried out, saying, Epiphanius, in Hares [...] 78, writes, that these words were not spoken by the Rechabite Priest, but by Simeon the son of Cleopas. Vales. cease, what doe ye? Justus prays for us. And one of them, being one of the Fullers, took a leaver, with which he used to squeeze gar­ments, and smote Justus on the head; and so he was martyred. [...] so the Kings M. S. reads it; which Stephens followed in his Edit. But our other three M. SS. Maz. Med. and Fuk▪ have it thus [...]; that is, and they buried him in that place, near the Temple; which read­ing Nicephorus and Rufinus doe confirm▪ Vales. And they buried him in that place, and How can it be that the Grave­stone, or Monument of this James should remain after the destruction of the City by the Romans? Nei­ther is that very likely, which He­gefippus says, to wit, that James was buried neer the Temple. For the Jews used to bury their dead without the City; as appears from the Gospel, and from the Sepul­chre of Helena, which before we spoke of, at chap. 12 of this Book. Rufinus therefore leaves out this whole clause, in his Version. In the most antient Maz. M. S. I found (at the Grave-stone) this note written in the margin: [...]; That is, you must know that this Monument was nothing else but a stone not formed into any shape upon which the name of James there bu­ried was cut: from whence even to this time the Christians set up stones on their Sepulchres, and either write Letters thereon▪ or engrave the sign of the Cross. Vales. his Grave-stone as yet remains neer the Temple. This man was a true and substantial witness both to Jews and Gentiles, that Jesus was the Christ: and soon after Ve­spasian beset Judea round about, and took the Jews captive.’ These things He­gesippus having related fully and largely, does therein a­gree with Clemens. But James was a person so admi­rable, and so much cried up amongst all men for his righ­teousness, that the most sober men of the Jews were of o­pinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which immediately followed upon his Martyrdome: and that this siege befell them up­on no other account than that audacious villany committed against this James; Josephus therefore was not afraid to testifie this in writing, decla­ring himself in these words: ‘These things befell the Jews in the way of revenge for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus called Christ; because the Jews had murthered him, being a most righteous per­son.’ And the same Authour in the twentieth Book of his Antiquities, relates his death in these words: ‘Caesar, being certified of Festus his death, sent Albinus Procuratour into Judea: But Ananus the younger, who as we said before had gotten the High-priesthood, was a man as to his disposition rash and excessively bold: he embraced the Sect of the Sadduces, who in mat­ters of judgment are cruell above all the Jews, as we before manifested. Ananus therefore, being such an one as we have described him to be, supposing he had a fit opportunity, in that Fe­stus was dead, and Albinus yet upon his jour­ney, called an Assembly of the Judges; into which he caused the brother of Jesus called Christ (whose name was James) with certain others to be brought, whom he accused as vio­latours of the Law, and so delivered them up to be What can be more different, yea contrary, than this relation of Josephus, and that of Hegesippus, about James's Martyrdome? For Josephus says, he was condemned in a publick council of the Jews; and Hegesippus, that he was murthered in a sedition and tumult of the people: Hegesippus relates, that he was killed with a Fullers club, in the midst of the City: but Josephus declares that he was stoned; which was always done without the gates of the City. Farther Josephus shews us the year, wherein James died, by these two remarques, to wit, that it was when Ananus was High­priest, and when Albinus came first into Judea. Eusebius, in his Chro­nicon, writes that Albinus succeeded Festus in the sixth year of Nero's Empire; and yet the same Authour places the Martyrdome of James on the year following, which manifestly contradicts what Josephus has related: for he expresly says that James was murthered before Albinus came into that Province. Eusebius therefore ought to have included the beginning of Albinus his Procuratourship, and James his Martyr­dom in the same year. But Baronius denies all this, and proves, that the Martyrdom of James happened on the seventh year of Nero; which assertion he confirms both from the consent of all the Antients, and also from Josephus his History of the Jewish wars B. 2. chap. 12. But I judge that the consent of Jerome, Nicephorus, and others, who wrote from, and followed Eusebius's Chronicon (Eusebius's opinion not being discus'd) is not much to be esteemed of: Now the place in Josephus proves nothing else, than that Albinus was Procuratour of Judea in the fourth year before the Jewish war began, and in the seventh before the City was taken. But from that place in Josephus it cannot be concluded that Albinus began his Procuratourship in the seventh year before the taking of Jerusalem. Yea, it seems truer in my judgment, that Albinus came into Judea in the fourth year of Nero. For Porcius. Festus Governed Judea two years, as appears by his Acts, of which Josephus relates but few▪ To him succeeded Albinus in the fourth year of Nero, and continued there to the tenth of that Emperour, as Eusebius has out of Josephus rightly observed. Therefore James was Martyred in the fourth year of Nero. Epiphanius confirms this our conjecture (in Heres. 78.) where he says James presided over the Church at Jeru­salem about twenty four years, from the Lords Ascension. Vales. stoned. But as many as seemed to be the mildest and most modest in the City, and [Page 29] who were the strictest observers of the Law, were very much offended hereat; and sending privately to the King, they intreated him to write to Nicepho­rus (in his second B. chap. 4.) thinks this Ananus to be the same with that Ananias, who com­manded Paul to be smitten; of whom Luke speaks Acts 23. 2. But herein he is much out. For Anani­as the son of Nebe­d [...]us (of whom Luke there speaks) was High-priest in Claudi­us's Em­pire, from his seventh year to the beginning of Nero's reign; a man that was the most potent of all the Jews in his age, as Josephus testifies in his twentieth book of Antiq. But moreover, that catalogue of High-priests, which is there put down by Nicephorus, is to be made up out of Josephus's Books: And after Joseph the son of Cama, Ananias the son of Nebedaeus is to be placed, of whom Josephus speaks in the 3 chap. of his twentieth book. After him was Ishmael the son Phabaeus, made High-priest by Agrippa juniour. After whom succeeded Joseph, surnamed Cabus, the son of Simon; and then Ananus, the son of Ananus, who is here spoken of. Vales. Ananus▪ to warn him that he should not any more attempt any such thing. For that he had not done this first fact regularly and le­gally. And some of them also went to meet Al binus journeying from Alexandria, and in­formed him, that it was not lawfull for Ananus without his consent to assemble the Sanhedrim. Albinus being induced to believe what they said, wrote in great anger to Ananus, threatning that he would punish him. And King Agrippa for this very thing took the High-priesthood from him, which he had held three months, and constituted Jesus the son of In Josephus and Nicephorus it is Damnaeus. Vales. Dammaeus High­priest.’ Thus much concerning James, whose the first of those called the general Epistles is re­ported to be. But you must know it is Rufinus and Christophorson translated this place so, as if this were the opinion of some; which sense we have followed in our version. But, having now considered the matter better, we think other­wise, to wit, that Eusebius did absolutely pronounce this Epistle to be Spurious. Jerom (de Jacobo) says thus, Unam scripsit Epistolam, quae & ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine eius edita asscritur, licet paulatim tempore procedente, obtj [...]uerit autoritatem: that is, He wrote one Epistle, which is affirmed to have been set forth by another, under his name; though by degrees in process of time it hath obtained autority. Vales. suspected to be spurious. Therefore not many of the An­tients have made mention of it, like as neither of that called Jude, being also one of the seven, termed the general Epistles: Yet notwithstanding we know, that these with the rest have been pub­lickly read in most Churches.

CHAP. XXIV. How, after Mark, Annianus was constituted the first Bishop of the Church of the Alexandrians.

BUt Nero being in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus, the first after Mark the In the Kings M. S. it is written, [...] that is, Mark the Apostle and Evangelist; but in the rest of the M. SS. Maz. Med. Fuk and Savil▪ these words [ [...] i. e. Apostle and] are wanting: which neither are in Rufinus's translation. I know indeed, that Mark may deservedly be called an Apostle; in that he was the first that Preacht the faith of Christ to the Alexandri­ans. Athanasius (in Synopsi) indeed calls Mark and Luke Apostles. Idatius also (in Fastis) stiles Luke and Timothy Apostles. See what we noted above at the last chap. of the first Book. But we doe not here enquire what title Mark deserved, but onely what Euscbius wrote. Vales. Apostle and Evangelist, succeeded in the publick charge of the Church at Alexandria; This whole clause is wanting in our three M. SS. copies, Maz. Med. and Fuk. and in the translation of Rufinus. But because it was in the Kings M. S. we have put it in. We have also written the name of Annianus with a double [...]; from the authority, of the Maz. and Med. M. SS. To which agree Rufinus, Jerom, and others. For Annianus is a Roman name, and is derived from Annius. Vales. being a man be­loved of God, and in all respects admirable.

CHAP. XXV. Of the persecution in the time of Nero, in which Paul and Peter were for Religion graced with Marty dome at Rome.

THe Empire being now confirmed to Nero, he, giving his mind to the commission of nefarious facts, armed himself against the very worship of the supream God. Indeed, how wicked a person he was, our present leisure will not permit us to describe. But, in as much as many have related in most ac­curate Treatises those things that were done by him, he that is desirous, may from thence see the cruelty and insolent rage of the man. Whereby having without all consideration destroyed an infinite num­ber of men, he arrived to such an height of mur­dering cruelty, that he forbore not his most fami­liar and most beloved friends; but slew his mother and his wife, with innumerable others that were related to him, as if they had been enemies and adversaries, by sundry kinds of death. This in­deed also ought together with the rest to have been ascribed to him as one of his titles, That he was the first of the Emperours that demonstrated himself to be an Adversary to the worship due to God. Thus much again Tertullian the Roman does record, saying, after this manner: ‘He that translated Tertullian's Apologie into Greek, (were it Eusebius, which I think not to be true, or whoever it was;) he under­stood not Tertullian's words. Nei­ther is this true of this place onely, but of many others also of Ter­tullian, which are produced in Greek by Eusebius in this work. Vales. Tertullian's words are these: Consulite commentarios ve­stros; illic reperietis primum Nero­nem in hanc Sectam, tum maxim [...] Romae orientem Caesariano gladio [...]erocisse. Sed tali dedicatore dam­nationis nostrae etiam gloriamur. Qui enim scit illum, intelligere potest, non nisi grande aliquod bo­num à Nerone damnatum. Tertul. Apolog. p. 6. Edit. Rigal. Consult your Re­cords. There you will find that Nero was the first, who with the Imperial sword raged against this Sect then greatly flourish­ing at Rome. But we even boast of such a beginner of our persecution. For he that knows him, may un­derstand that nothing but some great Good was con­demned by Nero.’ Thus therefore this man, being pro­claimed the first and chiefest enemie of God, set upon slaughtering the Apostles. Wherefore they relate that in his time Paul was beheaded at Rome, and also Peter crucified. And the name of Peter and Paul unto this pre­sent time remaining upon the Burial-places there doth confirm the story. In like manner, even an The term [Ecclesiastical] is used in three senses. Sometimes its taken for a Christian, and op­posed to an Heathen, or Gentile: So Jerome in his preface to his Book, De Scriptor. Ecclefias. Some­times it denotes a Catholick, and is opposed to an Heretick; So Jerome also in his preface to St Matthew, and on Chap. 13. Ezechiel. So Origen also, Tome 16. Explanat▪ on St John's Go­spel. Lastly, sometimes it signi­fies a Clergy-man, and is opposed to a Laick, or Secular person. So Jerome again, in his Epistle to P [...]machius, and in his 46 Epist. to Rusticus. I would rather take this word in the second sense here, both because that signifi­cation of this word is more fre­quent, and also in regard Eusebius▪ speaking here of Caius's Book against Proclus, gives each of them his proper Epithet; he stiles Cains [an Ecclesiastical man] and Proclus he calls [the defender of the opinion of the Cataphrygians,] i. e. an Heretick. The Sect of the Cataphrygians was divided into two parts; the Ringleader of the one party was Proclus; of the other Aeschynes. So Tertullian, in his Book De praescript. H [...]t. Vales. Ecclesiastical man, by name Caius, who flourisht in the time of Zephyrinus Bishop of Rome, and wrote against Proclus a great defender of the opinion of the Cata­phrygians, says these very words concerning the places where the sacred bodies of the aforesaid Apostles were deposited: ‘I am able to shew the Tro­phies of the Apostles: For if you would go to the Peter was buried in the Vatican; Paul in the Vid Ostia. Vales. Vatican, or to the way Ostia, you will find the Trophies of those who founded this Church.’ And [Page 30] that they both suffered Martyrdome at the same time, Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, writing to the Romans, doth thus affirm: ‘So also you, Dionysius here an­swers the Epistle of Sot [...]r and of the Ro­man Cler­gie; who, writing to the Corin­thians, had in a friend­ly way ad­monished them, as Eusebius hereafter declares, B. 4. Chap. 23. The same thing Clemens Romanus in his Epistle had before done. Dionysius therefore says to Sot [...]r; You by this your admonition have again united the Plantation of the Roman and Corinthian Churches heretofore made by Peter and Paul. This I have the more largely explained, because the translatours, and especially Christophorson, have been much mistaken in the Version of this place. Vales. by this your so great an admonition, have joyned together the plantation both of the Romans, and also of the Corinthians, made by Peter and Paul. For both of them coming also to our City of Corinth, and having planted us, did in like manner instruct us. Likewise they went both together into Italy, and, having taught there, suffered Martyrdome at Dionysius does not expresly say that Peter and Paul suffered on the same day, but onely at the same time; which may be so understood, as that there might be an interval of many days between their suf­ferings. Prudentius [ [...]] says they were both Martyred on the same day, but not in the same year: and that there was a years space between their deaths. With Prudentius agrees Augu­stine, in his 28 Sermon, De Sanctis; And Arator. Lib. 2. Hist. Apost. But Simcon Metaphrastes takes these words of Dionysius so, as if he said that Peter and Paul were Martyred on the same day together. His words are to be found in Comment, de percgrinat. Pauli ac Petri, apud Surium, Tome 3. Vales. the same time.’ And thus much I have related, that the History hereof might be yet farther confirmed.

CHAP. XXVI. How the Jews were vexed with innumerable mischiefs, and how at last they entred upon a war against the Romans.

At these words I be­gan the chapter, following the autho­ritie of the Kings M. S. But in the Maz. M. S. we found ano­ther rea­ding, and a different distincti­on. For that begins the cha­pter from these words (which are the conclu­sion of the foregoing chapter) [And [...]hu [...] much I have rela­ted, &c.] and it points the whole place thus, [And thus much I have related that the History here­of might be yet farther confirmed. Moreover, Josephus, discoursing, &c.] and puts the full point after these words [makes it manifest in express words.] The same reading is observed by the Med. and Fuk. M. SS. But the reading and punctation in the Kings M. S. seems to me to be much better; which both Nicephorus and Rufinus followed. I had almost forgot to put you in mind, that these words [ [...]] in the title of this chapter, ought to be taken adverbially; for so Rufinus translates it; Ut innumeris Judaei malis afflicti sint, ac novissimè contra Romanos arma moverint. Vales. MOreover Josephus, discoursing at large about the calamities that happened to the whole Jewish nation, makes it manifest in express words, amongst many other things, that a great number of the most eminent personages amongst the Jews, having been cruelly beaten with scourges, were cru­cified even in Jerusalem by the command of Florus. For it happened that he was Procuratour of Judea, when the war at first broke out, in the twelfth year of Nero's Reign. Afterwards, he says, that ‘after the revolt of the Jews there followed great and grievous disturbances throughout all Syria, those of the Jewish nation being by the inhabitants of every City every where destroyed as enemies, without all commiseration: In so much that a man might see the These are the words of Josephus in his second Book of the Jews wars, pag. 814. Edit. Genev. Cities filled with dead bodies that lay unburied; and the aged together with the in­fants cast forth dead, and women not having so much as any covering upon those parts which na­ture commands to be concealed: and the whole In the original 'tis here [...]; in Josephus and Nice­phorus 'tis written [...]. By the Province we must in this place understand Judea, which after the death of Agrippa the Elder was reduced into the form of a Province, and governed by Procura­tours sent from the Emperour. Vales. Province was full of unspeakable calamities: But the dread of what was threatned was greater and more grievous than the mischiefs every where perpetrated.’ Thus much Josephus relates word for word. And such was the posture of the Jews affairs at that time.

THE THIRD BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.

CHAP. I. In what parts of the world the Apostles Preached Christ.

NOW the affairs of the Jews being in this posture: the holy Apostles and disciples of our Saviour, being dis­persed over the whole world Preach­ed the Gospel. And Thomas, as Tra­dition hath it, had Parthia allotted to him; An­dreas had Scythia; John Asia, where after he had spent much time, he died at Ephesus: Peter, 'tis probable, Preached to the 1 Pet. 1. 1. Jews The Jews were disper­sed at several times, and for several causes. First, when they were carried Captive into Babylon and into Egypt and Syria▪ and also when they were subdued by Pompey. Then, in the times of the Macchabees, they did of their own accord remove out of Judea into Egypt. For the Law for bad not the Jews to remove into other Countreys, as it is ma­nifest from the Book of Ruth. Thirdly, they dispersed themselves upon account of gaining Proselytes, which they admitted of all Na­tions, whence it came to pass that they were scattered over the whole world. Vales. Those Jews that were dispersed in Europe had their chief Assembly at Alexandria; and there the Septuagints translation of the Bible was in use; and thence they were called (John 7. 35.) [...], the dispersion of the H [...]llenist [...] ▪ And of these there were many also in Jerusalem, which used the same translation of the Seventy two, being thus skilled in the Greek tongue; and these living not in Greece are yet called (Acts 6. 1.) [...], because they used the Greek language and the 72 translation, whereas the other are called there (See Acts 6. 1.) [...], Hebrews, who used the Jerusalem Paraphrase. The Asian dispersion is mentioned 1 Pet. 1. 1. they had Babylon for their Metropolis, and used the Targum, or Caldec Paraphrase of Onkelos in their Synagogues. scattered throughout Pontus and Galatia, and Bithynia, [Page 31] Cappadocia and Asia. Who, at last coming to Rome, was crucified with his head downwards; for so he desired to suffer. It is needless to say any thing of Paul; who having fully Preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem unto Illyri­cum, at last suffered Martyrdome at Rome in the time of Nero. Thus much It is very doubtfull where these words of Origens, whom Eusebius here quotes, doe begin; whether it be at those words, And Thomas, &c. or rather at those, Peter 'tis probable, &c. For Eusebius has not shown us where they begin. Vales. Origen declares word for word in the Third Tome of his Expo­sitions on Genesis.

CHAP. II. Who First Presided over the Roman Church.

AFter the Martyrdome of Paul and Peter, Linus was the First that was elected to the Bishoprick of the Roman Church. Paul, wri­ting from Rome to Timothy, makes mention of him in the salutation at the end of the Epistle; saying, 2 Tim. 4. 21. Eubulus gr [...]teth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia.

CHAP. III. Concerning the Epistles of the Apostles.

INdeed, one Epistle of Peter's, called his First, hath by general consent been received as ge­nuine; For that the worthy Antients in former ages quoted in their writings, as being unquestiona­ble and undoubted. But as for that called his That this 2d Epistle of S. Pe­ter was not at first received in the Church of Christ with so univer­sal agreement and consent as the former, may be concluded from this passage in Eusebius. But not­withstanding, there are great and sure evidences of this Epistles be­ing written by the acknowledged Authour of it, as (1.) the Title of Simon Peter with the Addition of An Apostle of Jesus Christ (Chap. 1. v. 1.) (2.) There is a whole passage in this Epistle (Chap. 1. v. 16, 17.) which doth signally belong to Peter, that of having been on the holy mount with Christ, and hearing those words, This is my beloved Son, &c. which certainly belongs to the trans [...]iguration, Matth. 17. where onely Peter and James and John were present with Christ. (3.) This is said to be a 2d Epistle (Chap. 3. v. 1.) written much to the same purpose with the [...]ormer. (4.) St Jude speaking (v. 18.) Of the scof­fers that should come, &c. cites that Prediction from the Apostles of our Lord Jesus (v. 17.) where it is reasonable to believe that this Epistle (Chap. 3. v. 3.) is referred too; for in it those very words are met with (and are not so in any other Apostolick writing) Knowing this first, &c. Compare Jude the 17. & 18. [...]. with 2 Epist. Pet. 3. chap. v. 3. All this in all Copies stands unmoved to secure the authority of this Epistle, and to convince us of the author of it. See Dr Hammonds preface to the 2d Epist. Pet. Second Epistle, we have been informed by the tradition of our Predecessours that it was not acknowledged as part of the New Testament. Yet, because to many it seemed usefull, 'twas diligently read together with the other Scri­ptures. But the Book called his Acts, and the Gospel that goes under his Name, and that Book termed his Prea­ching, and that stiled his Re­velution, we know these have in no wise been accounted genuine writings: because no Ecclesiastical Writer either antient or modern hath quo­ted any authorities or proofs taken out of them. But in the procedure of our History we will make it our chief bu­siness to shew, together with the successions, what Eccle­siastical writers in every Age have used the authority of such writings as are questioned as spurious: likewise what they say of those Scriptures that are Canonical and by gene­ral consent acknowledged as genuine, and also what concerning those that are not such. And thus many are the writings ascribed to Peter, of which I have known onely one Epistle accounted to be genuine, and universally acknowledged as such by the Antients. But of Pauls there are fourteen Epistles manifestly known, and undoubted. Yet it is not fit we should be ignorant, that some have rejected that to the Hebrews, saying, it is by the Roman Church denied to be Pauls. Now what the Antients have said concerning this Epistle, I will in due place propose. But as for those Acts that are called his, we have been informed from our Predecessours, that they are not accounted as unquestionable and undoubted. And whereas the same Apostle, in his Salutations at the end of his Epistle to the Romans, makes mention among others, of one Hermas, who▪ they sa [...] is Authour of that Book entitled Pastor; you must know that that Treatise also has been questioned by some; upon whose account it must not be placed amongst those which by general consent are ac­knowledged as genuine: But by others it has been judged a most usefull Book, especially for such as are to be instructed in the first rudiments of Religion. Whereupon we know it is at this time publickly read in Churches; and I do find that some of the most Antient writers doe quote it. Let thus much be spoken in order to a representation of the Holy Scriptures, to discriminate those Books, whose au­thority is in no wise contradicted, from those that by general consent are not acknowledged as genuine.

CHAP. IV. Of the first Succession of the Apostles.

THat Paul therefore, Preaching to the Gen­tiles, laid the foundations of those Churches from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, is manifest both from his own Rom. 15. 19. words, and also from what Luke has related in the Acts from 14. to [...]1. chap. Acts. Like­wise in what Provinces Peter, Preaching the Gospel of Christ to those of the Circumcision, delivered the doctrine of the New Covenant, is sufficiently apparent from his own 1 Epist. Pet. 1. 1. words out of that Epistle of his, which, we have said, is universally acknow­ledged as genuine; which he wrote to the Jews that were dispersed throughout Pontus and Ga­latia, Cappadocia, and Asia, and Bithynia. Now how many and what sincere followers of them have been approved as sufficient to take the charge of those Churches by them founded, it is not easie to say; except such and so many as may be colle­cted from the words of Paul. For he had very ma­ny fellow labourers, and, as he termed them fellow souldiers; many of which were by him vouchsa­fed an indeleble remembrance, he having in his own Epistles ascribed to them an everlasting commen­dation. But Luke, enumerating, in the Acts, the disciples of Paul, makes mention of them by name. Moreover, Timothy is reported to have been the first that was chosen to the Bishoprick of the Ephesian Church: as also Titus, of the Churches in Or [...]t. Luke, by original extract an Antiochian, by pro­fession a Physitian, for the most part accompa­nied Paul; and being diligently conversant with the rest of the Apostles, has left us, in two Books written by divine inspiration▪ Lessons that are me­dicinable for our souls, which he pr [...]ured of [Page 32] them. The one is the Gospel, which he Luke 1. 1, 2, 3. pro­fesses he wrote even as they delivered it unto him, who from the beginning were eye witnesses and Ministers of the Word, in all which things, he says, he had perfect understanding from the very first. The other is the Acts of the Apostles, which Treatise he composed now not of such passages as he had received by report, but of what he had seen with his own eyes. They say also that Paul was wont to mean the Gospel according to Luke, when, speaking, as it were of his own Gospel, he says, 2 Tim. 2. 8. According to my Gospel. Of the rest of the followers of Paul, Crescens is by the Apostle himself declared to be one; who was sent by him into These words of St Paul occur 2 Tim. 4. 10. where we now read, Cre­scens to Galatia. But the Antients, among whom Eu­sebius, seem to have read Gal­lia: so E­piphanius in Haeres. Alogor▪ and Hieronymus in Catalog. and Sophro­nius and o­thers. But the other reading is the truest, which Clemens confirms in his Constitut. Apost. Theodoret reads Galatia, but says that thereby is meant Gallia. Vales. Gallia. Linus also; whom in his second Epistle to Timothy he mentions to be at Rome with him, who was before manifested to have been the first that was chosen to the Bishoprick of Rome, after Peter. Clemens also, who was likewise constituted the third Bishop of Rome, is attested by Paul himself to have been his fellow labourer, and companion in sufferings. Furthermore, that Areopagite (by name Dionysius, whom Luke in the Acts records to have been the first that believed after the Sermon made by Paul to the Athenians in Areopagus was the Senate or standing Court of Judicature in Athens, by whose Laws and orders any new gods were received among them; and therefore as soon as they perceived that Paul was a pro­mulger of strange Deities, they bring him to the Areopagus to have him examined what Gods they were that he thus Preached. Two Judicatures they had at Athens; one every year changed, made up of 500. chosen men, of whom the Republick consisted; the other perpetual, which judged of Murthers and the like capital Offences; and this was in Areopago; of which and the customs thereof▪ See Bu­daeus on the Pandects. Why it was called Areopagus, see St Aug. de civit Dei L. 18. c. 18. The Judges which sat in this Court were called Areopagitae, who were lookt upon with such reverence, that an Areo­pagite signified proverbially an excellent Persons. Gell. L. 12. c. 7. Dionysius was one of these Areopagites. Areopagus) another Dionysius, one of the Antients, a Pastour of the Corinthian Church relates to have been the first Bishop of the Athenian Church. But as we goe on with this work of ours, we will in due place declare the suc­cessions of the Apostles in their several times. Now we will proceed to that part of our History which follows in order.

CHAP. V. Of the last Siege of the Jews after Christs death.

AFter Nero, who held the Government thir­teen years, Galba and Otho having reigned a year and six months; Vespasian grown fa­mous in the wars against the Jews, was made Em­perour in Judea, being proclaimed by the Army there. He therefore going immediately to Rome, committed the management of the war against the Jews to his son Titus. Moreover, after the Ascension of our Saviour, when the Jews, besides the audacious wickedness committed against him, had now contrived and executed very many cruel designs against his Apostles; (first Stephen being stoned to death by them; then after him James the son of Zebedee and brother of John beheaded, and last of all that James who was first chosen into the Episcopal seat there, after our Saviours Ascension, Murthered according to the fore men­tioned manner;) when the rest of the Apostles, were by innumerable wiles laid wait for to be put to death; and being driven out of Judea, were gone to Preach the doctrine of the Gospel to all nations, assisted by the power of Christ who had said unto them; Matth. 28. 19. Goe and teach all Nations in my Name: And furthermore, when the whole con­gregation of the Church in Jerusalem, according to an Oracle given by revelation to the approved persons amongst them before the war, were com­manded to depart out of the City, and inhabit a certain City (they call it So says Epiphanius (in Haeres. Nazaraeorum cap. 7.) to wit, that the Christians who dwelt in Jeru­salem being forewarned by Christ of the approaching Siege removed to Pella. But in his Book (de ponderibus & mensuris) he writes that the disciples of Christ being warned by an angel removed to Pella: And afterwards when A­drian rebuilt Jerusalem and called it after his own name Aelia Co­lonia, they returned thither▪ Vales. Pella) beyond Jordan; in­to which when those that be­lieved in Christ had remo­ved from Jerusalem; and when the holy men had as it were totally relinquished the Princely Metropolis of the Jews, and the whole Coun­try of Judea: then at length divine vengeance seized them who had dealt so unjustly with Christ and his Apo­stles, and utterly destroyed that wicked and abo­minable generation from among men. But, how great calamities then befell the whole nation in every place, and how they especially who were inhabitants of Judea were driven to the extremity of misery; and how many A Myriad is ten thou­sand. Myriads of men, to­gether with women and children, were destroyed by Sword and Famine, and by infinite other kinds of death; and how many and what Sieges there were of the Jewish Cities; and how great mise­ries and more than miseries they beheld who fled into Jerusalem it self, as into the best fortified Metropolis; and also the manner and order of the whole war, and every particular action therein; and how at length the abomination of desolation predicted by the Prophets was set up in the very Temple of God, heretofore famous, but now about to suffer all manner of pollution, and to un­dergoe its last destruction by fire: He that is de­sirous to know it, may accurately read all this in the History written by Josephus. But, how the same Writer relates, that a multitude of about thirty hundred thousand persons assembled together from all parts of Judea at the time of the passeover feast, were shut up in Jerusalem (as it were, says he, in a prison) I think it requisite to shew in those his own words. Immedi­ately before these words B [...] Christo­phorson (in his Latine translation of Eusehi­us) inserts a passage at length out of Josephus his Hist. of the Jewish wars, B. the 6th, both against the authority of all the M. SS. Copies, and also without any necessity. Neither Rufinus nor Nicephorus hath inserted this passage of Josephus's; and Eusebius did sufficient to intimate it, and to produce some words from it, as are those, [...], i. e. as it were in a prison; which words Eu­sebius does sufficiently shew to be Josephus's, in that he says, [...], &c. In the common Editions of Eusebius these words [...] were wanting, which we have put in, warranted thereto by the old M. SS. copies, Maz. Med. and Fuk. we found those words also in the Kings M. S. which Robert Stephens made use of in his Edition of Eusebius; who too much favoured his own conjecture, by expunging those words here, and putting them in a little after, thus, [...], against the authority of all Copies. Vales. For it was fit, that at that very time (wherein they had killed the Saviour and Benefactour of all, Christ the Son of God,) that in the same days, I say, they should be shut up as it were in a Prison, to receive that destruction from divine vengeance which awaited them. But I will omit the particular relation of those mise­ries which befell them, and their great sufferings by the Sword and otherwaies, and doe think it ne­cessary to propose onely the Calamities of the Famine; that so they who shall read this our work may from that part of their sufferings understand, that the divine punishment for their enormous im­pieties committed against the Christ of God did not long after light upon them.

CHAP. VI. Of the famine that oppressed the Jews.

COme on therefore, Let us again take the fifth Book of Josephus his History into our hands, and rehearse the Tragedy of those things then and there done. Joseph. Hist. of the Jewish wars B. 6. chap. 26. ‘Moreover (says he) for those that were rich to stay it was equally destructive. For they were slain for their wealth, under a pre­tence of their revolting to the enemy. Together also with the famine, the insolent rage of the se­ditious increased, and both those mischiefs daily grew more extreamly sharp and violent. Besides, there was no food any where openly to be seen: but they rushed violently into houses, and made a strict Search: and when they had found any, they beat the masters of the houses after a most cruel manner, because they denied they had any: but if they found none, they tortured them, as if they had most carefully hid it. Moreover, the bodies of the wretches were a certain sign whether they had any food or no: for those who were yet strong and lusty they supposed had plenty of provision; but such as were already lean and macerated, they medled not with. For it seemed irrational to kill those that were ready to die for want of sustenance. Many also privately exchanged their estates, the richer sort for one measure of wheat, the poorer for one of barley: Then locking themselves up in the inmost recesses of their houses, some of them by reason of their excessive want of food, eat the unground corn; others made bread of it after such a manner as necessity and fear advised them. Indeed there was no where any table furnished; but they snatched the meat while it was raw from the fire, and Josephus means that those wret­ched peo­ple tore the meat from one ano­ther; not, that they greedily devoured it, as Chri­stopherson took his meaning to be, he tran­slating it avidè ore abripiebant. That is the meaning of those words [...] Vales. tore it from one an­other. The food was miserable, and the spe­ctacle truly worthy of Lamentation; in that the stronger sort got all, whilest the weaker bewai­led their own condition. Famine doubtless is superiour to all the affections of the mind; but nothing is so utterly destroyed by it, as is a duti­full and observant behaviour. For that which otherwise is worthy of a reverent regard, in this case (to wit, in the necessity of famine) is contemned. Therefore the wives tore the meat from their husbands, the children from their parents; and, which was most exceedingly lamentable, the mothers snatcht it out of the very mouthes of their infants; yea, they spared not to deprive them of those very drops of milk which were their onely sustenance to keep them alive, whilest their most beloved babes langui­shed in their arms. And whilest they eat such food as this, they notwithstanding could not secure themselves from being discovered; be­cause the Seditious were every where at hand, preying upon them; for when they at any time saw a house shut, that was a sign that those with­in were eating victuals; and immediately brea­king open the doors they rushed in, and squee­zing the bits of meat even out of their very jaws, they took them away. The old men, who would not part with their food were beaten; and the women which hid what they had in their hands were drawn about by the hair of the head. No compassion was shown to the hoary-head, or to infants; but lifting up the little children on high, hanging at their morsels of meat, they dashed them against the pavement. Now to those, who prevented their incursion and before­hand devoured what they would by force have taken away, they were more inhumane, as if such had done them an injury. Moreover they in­vented cruel ways of torments for the searching out of provision; for they stopped up the pas­sage of the privities of those miserable men with the pulse called Orobos, and thrust sharp rods up their fundaments; and to force any person to confess he had but one loa [...] of bread, or to extort from him a discovery of his having but one hand­full of meal hidden, he underwent such torments as are most horrible to be heard. Now the tormentours themselves were not oppressed with hunger; for it would have seemed less cruel for them to have done all this out of ne­cessity: but they did it to exercise their out­ragious insolence, and to procure themselves provision for the following days. Those also, who by night crept out as far as the Roman watch to gather wild herbs and grass, they met; and when they supposed they had now escaped the enemy, these men by force took from them what they had gotten. And when they often intreated, and by the most Sacred Name of God beseeched them to communicate some part of that to them which they had brought off with the hazard of their lives, they imparted nothing thereof to them; yea, they were to look upon it to be a kindness, that they were not also killed, as well as robbed of what they had gotten.’ To this, after some other words, he adds, saying, ‘The Jews, after they were hindred from going out of the City, were deprived of all hope of relief. And the famine encreasing extreamly, consumed the people throughout every house and family. The houses were filled with wo­men and infants destroyed by the famine: and the narrow streets with dead old men: The children and young men as pale as ghosts wan­dred up and down the market places, and fell down whereever the distemper seized any of them; neither were the sick able to bury their relations: and those who were strong were loath to undertake it, both upon account of the vast numbers of the dead, and also because of the uncertainty of their own condition. For very many dropt down dead upon those whom they were interring. Many also betook them­selves to their Coffins or Sepulchres before death seized them. Neither was there mour­ning or lamentation in these calamities; but the famine had suppressed every ones affection. And they who struggled with the very pangs of death, with dry eyes beheld those who went to rest before them. A profound silence and dark­ness loaden with death encompassed the City. But the theeves were more pernicious than all this: For they digged through into houses, now turned into burial places, and robbed the dead: and taking away the coverings from off the Corps, went out laughing. They also tried the In Jose­phus it is [...]; but in the M. SS. copies of Eusebi­us it is [...], &c. which is the better reading: for the Greeks call that [...], which the Latines call aciem, and we in En­glish the edge, &c. Vales. edges of their swords upon the dead bodies: and some of those that lay along, and yet alive, they ran through, to make trial of the sharpness of their weapons: But those that beseeched them to make use of their hand and sword upon them, by way of scorn they let alone to be destroyed by the famine. And every one of them that died, leaving the Seditious yet surviving, Observe here the religion of the Jews, who in what parts of the world soever they were, always prayed to God with their eyes turned towards the holy City and the Temple. We have an example of this custom in Dan. 6. 10. and 1 Kings 8. 48. and 1 Esdr. 4. 58. Henc [...] perhaps was derived the custom of the Christians, to pray towards the East. Vales. fixed [Page 34] their eyes stedfastly upon the Temple. At first they gave command that the dead should be bu­ried at the charge of the publick Treasury, not being able to endure the stench of the dead bodies: but afterwards being insufficient to continue so doing, they cast them from the walls into deep pits; which Titus having viewed round, when he beheld them filled full with the dead, and a thick gore issuing from the putrified bodies, he sighed, and stretching forth his hands, called God to witness, that it was not his fact.’ To all this, after the interposition of some words, he adds, saying: ‘I will not be afraid to declare what grief commands me to speak; I think, had the Romans been slack to destroy those flagitious wretches, that either they would have been swal­lowed by the earth opening under them; or that the City would have been drowned by an inun­dation; or that, like Sodom, it would have been destroyed by lightning. For it had brought forth a generation of men by far more abominably impious than those, who had suffered such things. By reason therefore of the desperate outragious­ness of those men, the whole body of the people was together with them destroyed.’ And in his sixth Book he writes thus: ‘Of those who peri­shed being destroyed by the famine through­out the City, the multitude was innumerable; the afflictions that befell them cannot be uttered. For in every house, where there appeared but the least shadow of provision, there was fight­ing; and such as were dearest friends strove one with the other, snatching from one another the miserable provisions of their life. Nei­ther were those that dyed believed to expire for want of sustenance. But the theeves search­ed those that gave up the ghost, least any one having meat in his bosome should feign himself to die. The theeves themselves, empty and hollow for want of sustenance, wandred and hunted up and down like mad dogs, striking against the doors like drunken men; and by rea­son of their stupified condition, breaking into the very same houses twice or thrice in one hour. Necessity made all things to be eaten: and what was unfitting to be given to the most sordid irra­tional creatures, they gathered up, and endured to eat. Therefore at the last they did not forbear to eat girdles and shooes: and pluck't the lea­ther from off their Bucklers and eat it. The stumps of old hay were made food by some; and others gathered the very▪ stalks or small fibers of plants, and sold the least weight of them for four That is, ten shil­lings in our coin. See note on B. the 1. chap. 8. in the margin concerning the word Drachms. Attick drachms. But what need I speak of the sharpness, and extremity of the famine, as to the eating things without life? For I will declare such a fact, the like whereof is no where recorded either amongst the Grecians or Barbarians; which may seem both horrid to be related, and also incredible to be heard. And indeed least I might seem to posterity to feign monstrous stories, I could very willingly leave this sad accident unmentioned; but that I have innumerable witnesses thereof, to wit, men that are cotemporary with me: And besides, I should doe my Country a very frigid and inconsiderable kindness, should I goe about to conceal the re­hearsal of what it really suffered. A woman, of the Region beyond Jordan, by name Mary, the daughter of Eleazar, of the village Bathezar, (which word signifies, The house of Hyssop) for descent and wealth eminent, flying with the rest of the multitude into Jerusalem, was there to­gether with them besieged. All her goods, which she had taken with her out of the region beyond Jordan and brought into the City, the tyrants robbed her of. The remains of what she had, which was of greatest value and price, and what ever provision of food she could any way pro­cure, the spearmen breaking in daily took from her. A most vehement indignation moved the woman; and oftentimes she reviled and cursed those ravenous pillagers, and provoked them against her self. But when none of them could be either instigated by anger, or moved by compassion to kill her; and she being grown weary of finding victuals for That is for the theeves, not for her self: and therefore it is in the original [...]; not [...], as the Geneva Edition of Eusebius adds in the margin. Vales. others; and provision being now no where to be found; the famine also having entred her very bowels and marrow, and her anger being more exceedingly hot than the famine was sharp; she took fury and necessity as her advisers, and in a hostile manner invaded Nature it self. And having snatched up her son, for she had a sucking child, Mise­rable Babe, said she, amidst these Wars, Famine and Sedition, for whom shall I preserve thee? A­mongst the Romans, if they let us live, we shall be slaves; and the famine must precede that ser­vitude; but the Seditious are more mischie­vous than both those evils. Be thou there­fore my food, a The Jews, as well as the Grecians, believed, that the Ghosts of such as had been mur­dered follow those that killed them, to take revenge of them. In this sense those words may be taken, that occur Gen. 4. 10. The voice of thy brothers bloud cryeth unto me from the ground: i. e. thy brother, whom thou hast wickedly slain, requires that I should re­venge him, and punish thee for his murder: Then it follows v. 12. a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth; i. e. thy bro­thers ghost, whom thou hast slain, shall follow thee every where and be always troublesome to thee. Vales. fiend to take revenge upon the Seditious, and a story for men to talk of, which is onely yet wanting to com­pleat the calamities of the Jews. Having said this, she kills her son; then roasting him she eat half of him; the remainder she kept covered. The Sedi­tious came immediately, and having smelt the hor­rible savour, threatned to kill her forthwith, if she would not bring out to them what she had provi­ded: But she, answering that she had reserved a good part for them, uncovered the remains of her son. Horrour and astonishment of mind suddenly seized them; and they stood benum­med, as it were, with amazement at the spe­ctacle. This, said the woman, is the son of mine own womb, and this mine own fact: Eat, for I have eaten of him already; be not you more effeminate than a woman, or more compas­sionate than a mother. But if you are reli­gious and abhor this my sacrifice, I have eaten the one half already, and let the rest also remain with me. After this they went out trem­bling, abashed at this very one thing, and with much adoe yielding to leave this food with the mother. Immediately the whole City was filled with the noyse of this detestable fact; and every one setting before his eyes this unnatural deed was horribly afraid and trembled, as if it had been audaciously perpetrated in That is; all the Ci­tizens were stricken with such an horrour at this fact, as if it had been done in their own houses. Vales. his own house. And now all who were sorely pressed with the famine, earnestly hastned to die, and happy were they accounted, who were taken away by death before they heard and saw so great calamities.’ Such was the punishment the Jews underwent for their iniquity and impiety against the Christ of God.

CHAP. VII. Of Christs predictions.

BUt it is worth while to adjoyn hereunto the most true prediction of our Saviour, where­in he manifestly foretells these very things after this manner: Matt. 24. v. 19, 20, 21. And [...]o unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days. But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath-day: for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the be­ginning of the world to this time, no nor ever shall be. But the same writer adding together the whole number of those that were destroyed, says, that by the famine and by the sword an hun­dred and ten Myriads perished: And that the Sedi­tious and the Theeves that were left, discovering one another, after the City was taken, were put to death: that the tallest and comeliest of the young men were reserved to adorn the Triumph: that of the rest of the multitude, such as were above seven­teen years of age, were sent bound to the Mines in Egypt; and that very many were distributed through the Provinces to be destroyed in the pub­lick Shews by the sword and by wild beasts: that those who were under seventeen years of age were carried captive and sold; and that the number of these onely amounted to Eusebius is here mistaken; for Josephus does not say so; but onely affirms that the number of those that were taken captive, during the whole war, by the Romans, amounted to ninety thousand men. The words of Josephus are to be seen at the latter end of his sixth Book of the Hist. of the Jewish wars. Vales. ninety thousand. These things were done after this manner in the second year of the Reign of Vespasian, agreeable to the presages and predictions of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by his divine power foreseeing these things, as if they had been present, wept and lamented, according to the History of the Holy Evangelists, who have related his very words; one while speaking as it were to Jerusalem it self: If thou hadst known (said he,) even thou Luke 19. 42, 43, 44. at least in this thy day, the things which belong un­to thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine ene­mies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee: Then speaking concerning the peo­ple: For there shall be (said he) great distress Luke 21. 23, 24. in the Land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations, and Jerusa­lem shall be troden down of the Gentiles, untill the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled: And again,Luke 21. 20. When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with Ar­mies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Now whosoever does compare the words of our Saviour with the rest of our Writers relations of the whole war, he cannot but with admiration con­fess the prescience and prediction of our Saviour to have been truly divine, and exceeding wonder­full. Therefore concerning those things which befell the whole Jewish nation after the salutary passion of Christ, and after those words, where­by the multitude of the Jews desired a thief and a murderer should be released from his punishment of death, and that the Prince of life should be de­stroyed, it is needeless to [...]; these are the words of Eusebius; by which he means, not his own History, as Bishop Christopherson thought, but the History of Josephus: in our translation therefore we have expressed his name; but it is not, we consess, in the original of Eusebius. Vales. add any thing to the relation given by Josephus. So much onely is re­quisite furthermore to be annexed, as may repre­sent the endearing goodness of the most excellent providence of God, deferring the destruction of these men full forty years after their most audaci­ous villany committed against Christ. During which space, many of the Apostles and disciples, (and James himself the first Bishop there, he that was called the brother of the Lord) being yet alive and making their abode in the City of Jeru­salem, continued to be a most impregnable fortifi­cation to that place: divine visitation hitherto patiently forbearing them; that, if peradventure they would yet repent of what they had done, they might obtain Remission and Salvation; and to so great patience and forbearance, adding won­derfull signes from heaven foreshewing what was about to befall them unless they repented. Which signes, having been accounted worthy to be re­corded by the foresaid That is Josephus. Writer, nothing hinders but we may here propose to those that shall look upon this our work.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning the Prodigies that appeared before the War.

LEt us then take the sixth Book of his History, and rehearse what is therein related by him in these words; ‘Therefore those Impostours, and such as feigned themselves to be sent of God, by their false perswasions deceived the wretched people at that time: So that they neither gave heed to, nor believed those evident Prodigies which foreshewed their desolation to be at hand. But being like persons thunderstruck, and having nei­ther eyes nor understanding, they contemned and disregarded the forewarnings of God. First, a star in the likeness of a sword stood over the City; and then a We read [...], as it is in Jo­sephus B. 7. pag. 960. But Nice­phorus thought that this Star which appeared in the likeness of a Sword, and the Comet which continued a whole year was all one; which, as we judge, is not right. Vales. Comet continued a whole year. Further also, when, before the revolt and the first be­ginnings of the war, the people were gathered to­gether to the feast of un­leavened bread, on the eighth day of the month A­pril, at the The Jews divided the whole [...], i. e. night and day, or four and twenty hours, into eight parts, each of them containing 3 hours; the 3d the 6th, the 9th, and the 12th hour of the day; and the like again for the several watches of the night: the ninth hour of the night (or third watch) according to their account, was commonly betwixt our hours of twelve and three a clock in the morning. See Buxtorf. Synag. Judaic. Chap. 13. ninth hour of the night, so great a light shined round about the Al­tar and the Temple, that it seemed to be bright day; and so continued for the space of half an hour: And this was judged by those that were unskilfull a good sign; but by the The Scribes a­mongst the Jews were the same with the Doctors of the Law, as Petavius has well observed, in Animadvers. ad Haeres. 15 Epiphanii. Their office it was, to keep the holy Books of the Law, and to read them in the presence of the people, in the Temple and in the Synagogues. But their principal office was to be assessours with the chief Priests and Elders in the great Councel called the S [...]nhedrim. See the 6, and 23 Chapters of the Acts. The name of Scribe therefore was the name of a Magistrate among the Jews as well as among the Grecians. And as the [ [...]] Scribes in Greece were to be present at assemblies and judicatures, and to have the custody of the Laws and Statutes made by the people, and Decrees made by the Senate; so also were the Scribes amongst the Jews the keepers of the Law. That this was no small honour, appears from many places in the Gospel; where our B. Saviour reproves their pride and insolence. After the same manner, amongst the Gre­cians, the Scribes. [ [...]] were in great authority, as appears from that which S. Luke relates Acts 19. 35. [our translation calls him Town-Clerk, how truly, Mr Jo. Gregory of Oxford will tell you in his notes on the Text; chap. 9. p. 43. of his works.] Amongst the Jews the Scribes were so much the more respected by how much that nation above all others esteemed their own Laws: of which the Scribes were not onely the keepers, but the interpreters also. Moreover they were consulted as being taken to be men of great knowledge and skill, and who were best able to interpret Signs and Prodigies; and also who best knew the mysteries of the Law. So we read Matth. 2. 4. Herod there consults the Scribes; and in this place of Josephus here, the Scribes foretell the meaning of the Prodigies. Moreover the Magi­strate of the City of Jerusalem who was called [...], had his Scribe, as Josephus tells us B. 20. But whither this Scribe was among the number of those that were interpreters of the Law, it is hard to say. Farther, the [ [...]] amongst the Egyptians were cer­tain Priests who look't after the Ordinances about things Sacred, and had the keeping of the mystical Learning, and foretold things to come; concerning whom see Joseph. L. 2. c. 5. where he calls them [...] These, after the Cantor and the Horoscopus went in the third place into the Temple, wearing wings on their heads, and carrying before them in their hands, Ink, and a Pen, with a Book. They had also the Hie­roglyphical Books of Mercury, and those of Cosmography, and of the sci­tuation of Countries, and of Egypt, and of the Nile, and of the places consecrated in honour of their Gods, committed to their custody, as Clem. Alexandrinus writes in his 6 B. Lucianus saith that these sort of men had been of long continuance in Egypt. Vales. Scribes that were skilled in the Law, it was im­mediately concluded to portend those calamities which afterwards happened: And at the same [Page 36] Feast, a Cow, led to be sacrificed by the High­priest, brought forth a Lamb in the midst of the Temple. Also the Eastern gate of the inner Temple made all of brass, exceeding massy, and scarcely to be shut in the evening by twenty men, (being made also very strong by vast iron hinges on which it moved, and having bolts that went into the ground a great depth,) was seen to open of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. After these words Eusebius omits some passages that are ex­tant in Josephus, as, of this Pro­digies's being told to the [...] or Magistrate; for an account of whom, and his office see the Learned Hammond in his notes on Luke 22. 52. Not many days after the Feast, upon the one and twentieth of May, was seen a Ghost for Pro­digiousness wholly incredi­ble. But that which I am now about to say would seem an idle story, were it not related by those that saw it, and had not the subsequent calamities been answerable to such Prodigies. For before Sun-set there was seen in the Air over the whole Country, Chariots, and whole companies of Armed men, running up and down in the clouds, and investing Cities. Also at the Feast, called Pentecost, the Priests, as it was their manner, going by night into the Temple to perform their offices, reported that they per­ceived at first indeed a motion and heard a noise; but that afterwards they heard a voice as of a great multitude, saying, Let us depart hence: But, what was more dreadfull than all this; one Jesus, the son of Ananias, a country man of the ordinary rank, four years before the war, (the City being then in perfect peace and in a flourishing condition) coming to the Feast, in which it's customary for all to make taber­nacles to the honour of God near the Temple; on a sudden began to cry out with a loud voice: A voice from the East, a voice from the West, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Je­rusalem and the Temple, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, a voice against all the people. This he went up and down crying, day and night throughout all the narrow streets and cross waies of the City. But some of the chief of the people were very much disturbed at this ominous cry, and, being highly incensed, took the man and beat him with many and also grievous stripes. But he neither spoke any thing for himself, nor said any thing in pri­vate to those that The rea­ding must be, [...] i. e. those that beat him, as it is in Josephus; not [...], i. e. those that were present; although Rufinus followed that reading. Vales. beat him, but persisted cry­ing those very words he did before. Then the That is, the Magi­strate of the Temple, the chief Priests, and the Scribes. Vales. Magistrates, supposing (as indeed it was) that the man was moved by divine impulse, bring him to the Roman That was Albinus, who then was Procuratour of Judea. Vales. President; where being beaten with stripes till his very bones were bare, he neither intreated for himself, nor shed a tear. But to the utmost of his power changing his voice into a dolefull tone, he answer­ed every stripe, Wo, Wo to Jerusalem.’ There is another thing also more wonderfull than this, which the same Writer relates, saying, that a Prophecy was found in the holy Scriptures com­prehending thus much, to wit, that about that time one was to come out of their Country who should rule over the whole world; which this Writer understood to have been fulfilled in Percrebuerat Oriente toto ve­tus & constans opinio; esse in satis, ut eo tempore Judae [...] profecti rerum potirentur. Id de Imperatore Ro­mano quantùm eventu posteà prae­dictum patuit. Judaei ad se trahen­tes, rebellarunt. So Suetonius in the Life of Vespasian. Vespasian. But he did not rule over the whole world, onely obtained the Roman Empire. This therefore may more justly be referred to Christ, to whom it was said by the father: Psal. 2. 8. Desire of me and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance; and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession: And the Psal. 19. 4. sound of whose Holy Apostles at the very same time went out into all Lands, and their words unto the ends of the world.

CHAP. IX. Of Josephus, and the Writings he left.

AFter all this, it is fit that we should not be ignorant of this same Josephus, who has given us so great assistance in the History we now have in hand, from whence, and of what stock he came. And he himself does manifest even this also, saying after this manner: ‘Josephus the son of In the Kings M. S. it is [...] and so also in Josephus, in his Book of his own Life, and in the proeme to his History of the Jewish wars. In Sophronius's Book, De scriptoribus Eccles. it is, [...]. So also So­zomen calls him in the beginning of his first Book. And Rufinus calls the father of Josephus Mat­thias; Joseppus, says he, M [...]thiae fillus, ex Hierosolymis sacerdos. So it is written in the most excel­lent M. S. of the Parisian Church. Vales. Suetonius, in the life of Vespasian, has this passage of Jo­sephus; Unus ex nobilibus capti­vis Josephus, cùm conjiceretur in vincula; constantissime assevera­vit fore, ut ab eo brevi solveretur, verum jam Imperatore. Mattathias, a Priest of Jerusalem, who my self also at first fought against the Romans, and was by necessity forced to be present at what was done afterwards.’ This man was esteemed the most emi­nent person of all the Jews of those times, not onely by his own country men, but also by the Romans: inso­much that he was honoured with a Statue dedicated to him in the City of Rome, and the Books compiled by him were accounted worthy to be placed in the publick Li­brary. He wrote all the Jewish Antiquities in twenty entire Books; and the History of the Jewish war, in his own time, in seven Books; which History he himself testifies, he put forth not onely in Greek, but also in his own Country lan­guage; and He is worthy to be credited both in this, and in other things. There are also two other Books of his extant very worthy to be read, which are about the Ancientness of the Jews: in which he answers Apion Grammaticus who at that time wrote a The words of Eusebius are [...]; but Nicephorus writes [...] which Josephus seems to confirm, who testifies that Apion wrote more Books than one against the Jewish nation. But Jerom, in Catalogo, where he speaks of Josephus's writings, defends the ordinary reading. Vales. Volume against the Jews, and some [Page 37] others who had attempted to calumniate the Josephus in his Books against A­pion, an­swers not onely those who had calumnia­ted the Laws and Institutions of the Jews; but also he more especially writes against those who had forged certain falsities concerning the original and antiquity of the Jews, as appears by his first Book. But about the end of his second Book he answers Apollonius, Molon, and Lysimachus, who had written some lies about the Laws and Institutions of the Jews. The word [...] therefore in this place must mean both these, to wit, the Antiquity, and the Laws of the Jewish Nation. Vales. Antiquity and Laws of the Jewish Nation. In the former of these he sets forth the number of the Canonical Books of that called the Old Testa­ment, which of them are among the Hebrews un­questionable and undoubted, as being received from antient tradition; discoursing of them in these words.

CHAP. X. How Josephus makes mention of the Holy Bible.

‘THere are not therefore amongst us an innu­merable company of Books disagree­ing and contradicting one another; but onely There were so many Books of the Scripture amongst the Jews, as they had letters in their Alpha­bet; So Origen tells us in his ex­position of the first Psalm, and Jerome in proemio galeato; where also he saies that there were a­mong them three ranks of these holy Volumes; the first contained the Law; the second the Prophets; the third the Hagiography. All which agrees very well with Jo­sephus. But in this they differ; Josephus makes thirteen Books to be of the second order; to wit, following the series of the times. But of the third, he reckons onely four, disagreeing from S. Jerom: who in the foresaid preface, and in that of his before the Prophecie of Daniel, reckons up eight Books of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiography. But Josephus seems to have placed the Book of Jo­shua, and Judges, also those of the Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra amongst the Prophetical writings; not that they contain Prophecies, as the Books of the Prophets doe; but because they were written by men that were Prophets. Vales. two and twenty, con­taining an Historical ac­count of all times; which are worthily believed to be divine. And five of these are the works of Moses, which compre­hend both the Laws, and also a continued Series of the generations of men, and what was done by them from their first creation un­till his own death. This space of time wants little of three thousand years. And from the death of Moses untill the Reign of Artaxerxes King of the Persians successour to Xer­xes, the Prophets, who succeeded Moses, wrote what was done in their Ages, in thirteen Books: The remaining four con­tain Hymnes to God, and precepts and admonitions for the well ordering of mens lives. Also from Artaxerxes untill our own times every thing is indeed recorded, but these Books have not been accounted worthy of the like authority with the former, in that the succession of the Prophets was not so ac­curately known. But it is manifestly apparent how highly we revere our own Writings: For in so many ages now passed over, no one has dared either to adde or to diminish from them, or to change any thing therein; but it is im­planted upon all us Jews immediately from our very birth, to think that these are the Precepts of God, and to persevere in them, and, if need so require, willingly to die for them.’ And let these words of this Writer be profitably here in­serted. He compiled also another elaborate work not unworthy of himself, about the Empire of Reason, which some have entitled Maccabees, be­cause it contains the conflicts of those Hebrews, in the writings called the Maccabees so termed from them, who valiantly fought for the worship of God. And, at the end of his twentieth Book of Antiquities he intimates, as if he purposed to write in four Books (according to the opinion of the Jews which they had received from their An­cestours) of God, and of his essence, also of Laws, why according to them some things are lawfull to be done, and others forbidden. Himself also in his own Books mentions other works compiled by his diligence. Moreover it is also consonant to reason to adjoyn those words of his which he has inserted at the To wit, in the book of his own life, pag. 1026 Edit. Genev. which book is the con­clusion of his twen­tieth and last book of his Anti­quities; from which it is sepa­rated un­advisedly in the Greek and Latine E­ditions. Now that it is the conclusion of the 20 B. of Antiqui­ties, Jose­phus him­self tells us at the close of that Book, and at the end of this book, of his own life. Scaliger therefore is mistaken, in his Animadvers▪ on Euseb. p. 188, where he saies, Eusebius forgot himself here; and so is Christopherson, who, supposing this place in Eusebius to be corrupted, altered it. But had they seen the Greek M. SS. Copies of Josephus, or had they consulted the Basil. Edition of him, they might easily have found, that which I have said to be true, to wit, that this book of Josephus's, of his own life, was nothing else but an appendix or conclusion of his 20 book of Antiquities. Vales. conclusion of his Antiquities, for the confirmation of the quotations and Autho­rities, we have taken out of him. He therefore, blaming Our M. SS. Copies, Maz. Med. and Fuk. have it thus written, [...]; corruptly as I judge. For both Stephanus Byzantius doth acknowledge it to be [...]; and also Jerom, in his book De Scriptorib. Ecclesiast. calls him Justus Tiberiensis; whom we have followed. But Scaliger stiles him Tiberiadensis. This Justus wrote an History of the Jewish wars, as Josephus tells us in his book, De vitâ suâ; and Stephanus, in the word [...]. Besides this History he wrote a Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews▪ as Photius testifies, in Bibliothecâ: which work he dedicated to King Agrippa▪ as Scaliger affirms, in Animadvers. Euseb. pag. 176. And he adds these words: Nemo de obitu Regis Ag ippae certiûs pro nuntiare potuit quàm is qui illi opus suum dedicavit i. e. No body could speak more certainly of the death of King Agrippa, than he who dedicated his work to him. Which I in­deed wish, had not dropt from so acute a man. For how can an Hi­storian testifie of the death of him to whom he dedicates his History? unless we say that Justus dedicated his Chronicle to Agrippa, when he was dead, which is absurd. But as Scaliger without all ground asser­ted, that Justus Tiberiandensis dedicated his Chronicle to K. Agrippa; so what he inferrs therefrom is also absurd. But from Photius his testimonie it is manifest, that that work was put forth by Justus after the death of King Agrippa. Josephus relates that the History of the Jewish wars was published by Justus also after the death of Agrip­pa, although it was written twenty years before. A book of this same Justus his, whose title was [...], is quoted by Laërtius, in the life of Socrates; which Photius says was the same with his Chronicle. Vales. Justus Tiberiensis, (who had taken in hand, as well as he, to write an History of those very times,) as having not related the truth, and accusing the man of many other faults, at last adds thus much in these words: ‘But I was not, in that manner as you were, timorous concer­ning my Writings; but gave my Books to the Emperours themselves, when the deeds done were fresh and almost yet to be seen: for I was conscious to my self, that I had all along faith­fully observed the delivery of the truth; upon account whereof, hoping for their evidence, I was not disappointed of my expectation: and moreover I communicated my History to many others, some of whom were actually present in the war; as was King Agrippa, and He means Julius Archelaus and Herod, as Josephus himself de­clares in his first book against Apion. Julius Archelaus was brother in law to King Agrippa; for he had married his Sister Mariamne; so says Josephus at the end of his 19 and 20 books of Antiquit. Vales. several of his Relations: Also Titus the Emperour was so willing that the knowledge of what was done should be delivered to men solely out of them, that he Nicephorus, in his 3 book, chap. 11. interpreting these words of Josephus, says that Titus with his own hand copied out the books of Josephus his History of the Jewish wars. See what Johannes Langus has noted at that place of Nicephorus. But all interpreters who have translated this place of Josephus into Latine, understand thereby that Titus onely subscribed the books of Josephus with his own hand, and did not copy them out himself. But I would rather follow the opi­nion of Nicephorus. Neither do these words of Josephus [ [...]] seem to sound any thing less to me. Thus this place is pointed in all Copies as well M. S. as Printed. But if this place of Josephus were to be understood onely of Titus his Subscribing Josephus his books with his hand, then the distinction or comma ought to be put after the word [...]: but here you see it put after the word [...]. Vales. subscribed my Books with his own hand, and gave command they should be [Page 38] In the most excel­lent M. SS. Maz. Med. Fuk. and in Sr Hen. Sa­vills M. S. it is written [ [...]] which reading all interpreters seem to have followed: but I like Rufinus his Version best, who translates it: To be publickly read; in which sense the same word is used by Eu­sebius in chap. 22. of his second book, where he speaks of the General Epistles of James and Jade; and in chap. 3. of his 3 book. But from these words of Josephus we may gather that the History of the Jewish wars was put out by him in the Reign of Vespasian; but his Antiqui­ties were published by him in the thirteenth year of Domitian, as he himself testifies at the end of his 20 book, and at the close of his book, of his own life. But, that which Scaliger affirms, in Animad. Euseb. p. 187. to wit, that the book of Josephus his own life was by him put out seven years after his Antiquities, seems not probable to me; for that book is as we made it out before, onely the conclusion of his twentieth Book of Antiquities; and at the end of it Josephus reckoning up the Roman Emperours, concludes with Domitian. Vales. publickly read. And King Agrippa wrote Sixty two Epistles, testifying therein, that the truth was delivered by me.’ Two whereof Jo­sephus there adjoyns. But let thus much be thus far manifested concerning him. We will now proceed to what follows.

CHAP. XI. How, after James, Simeon Governed the Church at Jerusalem.

AFter the Martyrdom of James and the taking of Jerusalem, which immediately followed thereupon, report goes that the Apo­stles and disciples of our Lord, who were yet alive met together from all parts in the same place, together also with the kinsmen of our Lord ac­cording to the flesh, (for many of them hitherto survived,) and that all these held a consultation in common who should be adjudged worthy to succeed James: and moreover that all with one consent approved of This ac­count of Eusebius his here agrees not with what he has writ­ten in that work of his called his Chronicon: for there he writes, that presently after the death of James, Simcon was elected; to wit, in the seventh year of Nero. But here he makes it evident, that after the murder of James, the Epis­copal See was vacant for the space of about eight or nine years. Which intervall of time, that the Authour Chronici Alexandrini might fill up, he places the death of James on the first year of Vespasian. Vales. Simeon the son of Cleophas, of whom the History of the Gospel makes men­tion, to be worthy of the Episcopal seat there; which Simeon, as they say, was Cousin German by the Mothers side to our Saviour: for Hegesippus relates that Cleophas was the That is, because (as we conjecture) he married Mary which was Sister to the B. Virgin; upon which account Simeon the son of this Cleophas is here called Cousin-German by the mothers side to our Saviour; for so we translate the word [ [...]] not patruelem, i. e. Cousin-German by the fathers side, as it is in the version of Valesius; but consobrinum, i. e. Sisters son. For Mary the wife of Cleophas, and the B. Virgin were Sisters; see Jo. 19. 25. and so Simeon the son of the former Mary, and our Saviour the son of the latter, were Sisters children. See the Learned B [...] Pearson on the Creed, p. 175, & 176. Edit. Lond. 1669. And Petavius, in hares. 78. Epiphan. cap. 7, & 14. and also St Jerom, in Catalog. brother of Joseph.

CHAP. XII. How Vespasian commanded that the descendants of David should be sought out.

ANd moreover, it is reported, that Vespasian after the taking of Jerusalem, commanded all those that were of the kindred of David to be diligently sought out, least any one of them who were of the Royal Race should be left remaining amongst the Jews: and that a most sore per­secution was thereby again brought upon the Jews.

CHAP. XIII. That Anencletus was the Second Bishop of the Roman Church.

BUt when Vespasian had reigned ten years, his son Titus succeeded him in the Empire: In the second year of whose Reign, Linus Bishop of the Roman Church, having held that publick charge twelve years, delivered it to I know not why R. Stephens read Ana­cletus, see­ing that all our books have it written Anencletus. And so Nicephorus Constan­tinopolitanus, and his Translatour Anastasius Bibliothecarius in Chro­nolog. Tripartit▪ reads it. So also Nicephorus Calistus in Libr. 3. cap. 2. and Georgius Syncellus, and the M. SS. copies of Rufinus. So likewise Irenaeus (in Lib. 3, where he reckons up the Roman Bishops in order) names him Anencletus; and omits the name of Cletus, which to me seems to be made of a piece of the word Anencletus. Nei­ther does Optatus, nor S. Augustine▪ in his 165 Epistle (where he counts up the Romish Bishops) acknowledge Cletus. But on the contrary, in two very antient Catalogues of the Roman Bishops, one whereof is in the Monastery of S. German, and the other in the Jesuits Colledge at Clermont—there is no mention of Anencletus; but onely of Cletus, who succeeded Linus, and sat eleven years, one month, and two daies. From whence its evident that Cletus and Anencletus was the same man. See more of this in P. Halloixius, in notat. ad cap. 7. vitae Irenaei. Vales. Anencletus. And Titus, after he had reigned two years and as many months, was succeeded by his brother Do­mitian.

CHAP. XIV. That Avilius was the Second Bishop of Alexan­dria.

FUrthermore, in the fourth year of Domitian, That is, the First af­ter Mark. So Eusebius said before, concerning Linus Bishop of Rome, at the 2 chap. of this book. For Mark was the Apostle of the Alexandrians as we before have said. But the Apostles were not reckoned amongst the number of the Bishops. There was therefore no need of putting in here [...] as Nicephorus did. See Seldens notes ad Eutychium patriarcham Alex­andr. Vales. Annianus the First Bishop of the Alexan­drian Church, having there spent two and twenty years compleat, died. After whom succeeded Rufinus and the other Translatours call this man Abilius; and also Jerom himself, in Chronico, not so rightly as I judge. For he ought to be called Avilius, which is a Roman name; as well as An­nianus, who was Bishop before Avilius. Besides, the order of the chapters is here disturbed in the common Editions; this chap. of the succession of Avilius being put before that of the succession of Anen­cletus: but we by the direction of the M. SS. copies Maz. and Fuk. have placed them in their true order. This was a very antient mi­stake; for in the Index of the chapters prefixed before the 3 B. of Ru­finus his translation, and in all the Greek copies except in that of Fuk. the same errour is committed. But in the body of the Maz. M. S. (which book has the titles of the chapters exactly placed in their or­der) this errour is corrected. Vales. Avilius, being the second Bishop there.

CHAP. XV. That Clemens was the Third Bishop of the Ro­man Church.

ALso in the twelfth year of this Emperours Reign, Anencletus having been Bishop of the Roman Church twelve years, had to his successour Clemens: whom the Apostle, writing an Epistle to the Philippians, declares to be his fellow-la­bourer, saying: Philip. 4. 3. with Clement also, and with other my fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life.

CHAP. XVI. Concerning the Epistle of Clemens.

MOreover there is extant one Epistle of this Clemens his, which by general consent is acknowledged as genuine, and is singularly excel­lent and admirable; which he wrote in the name of the Roman Church to that of the Corinthians, there being at that time a Faction raised in the Corin­thian Church: which Epistle also we have known to have been publickly read in many Churches be­fore the whole congregation, both in times past, and also in our own memory. Now, that in the time of the aforementioned Clemens there was a Faction raised in the Corinthian Church, Hegesippus is a witness worthy to be credited.

CHAP. XVII. Of the Persecution in Domitians time.

Rufinus thought these words that follow here were the words of Hegesip­pus, whom Eusebius quoted at the end of the forego­ing chapt. whence it appears that Rufinus read as it is in our M. SS. copies, Maz. Med. and Fuk. [...], &c. Moreover in Rufinus the chap. 17. begins at those words, Now that in the time of the forementioned, &c. as I observed it to be also in the Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. But I rather approve of the ordinary writing and distin­ction. Vales. BEsides, Domitian having shown much cruelty towards many, and by unjust sentences put to death no small company of men of Rome that were nobly descended and illustrious, and having punished innumerable other most eminent persons undeservedly with banishment and loss of goods, at length rendred himself the successour of Nero as to his hatred of God, and his fighting against him. For he raised the second persecution against us: Although his father Vespasian had designed nothing injurious towards us.b [...] has the same import with [...], that is, it signifies one that is descended from an illustrious and noble stock. So Gregor. Nazianz. in oration. 40. [...] S. Jerom, in Chronico Anno 8. Domitian. saies, Domitianus plurimos nobilium in exilium mittit, at­que occidit. Vales.

CHAP XVIII. Concerning John the Apostle, and his Revelation.

IN this persecution its reported, that John the Apostle and also Evangelist, who yet lived, was banished into the Isle Patmos upon account of the Testimony he exhibited to the word of God. Indeed, Lib. 5. c. 5. Irenaeus, writing concerning the number of the name of Antichrist mentioned in the Revel. 13. Revelation of John, does in these very words in his fifth book against Heresies thus speak con­cerning John: ‘But if at this present time That is, Antichrists name. his name ought publickly to be preached, it would have been spoken of by him who saw the Revela­tion. For it was seen not a long time since, but almost in our Age, about the latter end of Do­mitian's Reign.’ But so mightily did the do­ctrine of our faith flourish in those forementioned times, that even those Writers who are wholly estranged from our Religion have not thought it troublesome to set forth in their Histories both this Persecution, and also the Martyrdoms suffered therein. And they have also accurately shown the very time: relating, that in the fifteenth year of Domitian, Flavia Domitilla, daughter of the sister of Flavius Clemens at that time one of the Consuls at Rome, was, together with many others also, banished into the Island Pontia, for the Te­stimony of Christ.

CHAP. XIX. How Domitian commanded that the descendants of David should be slain.

WHen the same Domitian gave command that the descendants of David should be slain, there goeth an antient report that some He­reticks accused the posterity of Jude, (who was the brother of our Saviour according to the flesh) as being of the off-spring of David, and bearing affinity to Christ himself. And this Hegesippus manifests word for word saying, thus.

CHAP. XX. Concerning those that were Related to our Sa­viour.

‘THere were yet surviving (who were related to our Lord) the Nephews of that Jude who was called the So he is called Matth. 13. 55. But it was the usual language of the Jews to call the first Cousins brethren. See Bishop Pearson on the Creed, pag. 175, 176. Edit. Lond. 1669. See also Bishop Montagues Acts and Mon. chap. 4. S. 6. concerning the Desposyni. bro­ther of Christ after the flesh, whom they accused as being descended from Da­vid. And these Rob. Stephens, in his Edition of Eusebius calls him [...], and so does the Med. M. S. but in the Kings M. S. I found it written [ [...]] which R. Stephens observed also in his notes added at the latter end of his Edition. Georg. Syncellus, in Chronico, reads it [...]. We from our three M. SS. Copies, to wit, Maz. Fuk. and Sr Henry Savills, have made good the true writing of this place, [...], and these Evocatus brought, &c. This reading Nicephorus and Ru­finus doe confirm; the words of Rufinus are, Hos Revocatus quidam nomine, qui ad hoc missus fuerat, perduxit ad Domitianum. Nicepho­rus, Lib. 3. cap. 10. has it written [...]. These Evocati were Souldiers of an higher degree who having performed their service and being dismist, were upon occasion summoned by the Emperour him­self. There is mention of these in the antient▪ inscriptions, Evox. Aug. i. e. Evocatus Augusti. No man need wonder, that Hegesippus a Greek writer should make use of a Latine word here; for that is usual with him; and in this very relation of his he lias [ [...]] and [ [...]] both Latine words. Vales. Evo­catus brought to Caesar Domitian. For Domitian was afraid of the coming of Christ, as well as He­rod. And he asked them, if they were of the stock of David; and they ac­knowledged it. Then he questioned them how great possessions they had, or what quantity of money they were masters of: and they said, that they both had but nine thousand So we translate the word [ [...]] warranted thereto by the same translation of that word, occurring Matth. 22. 19. The value of that peny there shewed Christ, was, saies▪ Dr Hammond on the place, a whole Attick drachm; but what value these here were of it is hard to say, in regard there were several sorts of these Denarii, which were also of a different value. See Voss. Etymol. pence, a moiety where­of belonged to each of them: and these they said they had not in ready mo­ney, but in land of that va­lue, being onely thirty nine Acres: of which also they paid [...] were Tributes, or Taxes, raised upon Lands, and they were commonly paid in Wheat, Barley, Wine, and the like▪ as it appears from Cod. Theodosian. [...] was the Toll gathered by the Publicans, who farmed it commonly; it was paid in ready mo­ney. The word here is [...]; which we therefore render Tribute. Vales. tribute, and them­selves were maintained by their own labour. And then they shewed their hands; producing, as an evidence of their working, the hardness of their skin, and a brawniness imprinted on their hands by reason of their assiduous labour. Be­ing also asked concerning Christ and his Kingdom, of what sort it was, and when and where it would appear; they returned an­swer, that it was neither worldly nor Terrestrial, but Celestial and Angeli­cal, that it should be at the end of the world, when he would come in Glory to judge the quick and dead, [Page 40] and reward every man according to his deeds. Upon which answer Domitian condemned them not, but scorning them as despicable persons, he dismist them unbound, and by Edict appeased the Persecution raised against the Church. But they, thus released, (as tis said) afterwards pre­sided over Churches, as being both Martyrs, and also allied to our Lord; and, peace ensuing, they lived till the Reign of Trajan.’ So far He­gesippus. But moreover, Tertul­lians words are these, Tentaverat & Domi­tianus, por­tio Neronis d [...] crudeli­tate. Sed quia & ho­mo, facil [...] coeptum re­pressit, re­stitutis eti­am quos re­legaverat: they are in his Apolog. But whoso­ever it was that tran­slated his Apologie into Greek, he has not rendred his words well. For Tertul­lians words are to this effect, that after Nero, who first raged against the Christians, Domitian also, like another Nero, attempted the same; but as men are fickle and mutable, he soon desisted from his enterprize. But Eusebius, or whosoever he was that translated Tertullians Apology, takes the meaning of those words [Quia & homo] to be, as if Ter­tullian had said, that Domitian was something of a man, but Nero was rather a savage beast than a man. Vales. Tertullian also makes mention of Domitian: Domitian also attempted a Persecution, who was a Limb of Nero as to cruelty. ‘But being also but a man he soon desisted from his enterprize, restoring even those whom he had banished.’ But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, Nerva, having succeeded him in the Empire▪ the Roman Senate decreed that Domitians Titles of Honour should be abrogated, and that such as were by him unjustly banished should re­turn to their houses and have their goods re­stored. This they relate who committed to writing the History of those times. Moreover the account of the Antients amongst us declares that then also the Apostle John, was released from his banishment in the Island, and took up his habitation again at Ephesus.

CHAP. XXI. That Cerdo was the third that presided over the Alexandrian Church.

BUt Nerva having reigned something more than a year, Trajan succeeded him. It was his first year, wherein Cerdo succeeded Avilius who had governed the Alexandrian Church thirteen years. This Cerdo was the third, from Annianus, who first presided there. At this time also Clemens yet governed the Roman Church, he being also the third that after Here, and before, we may ob­serve Paul put before Peter by Eusebius. In the Seals of the Roman Church Paul is put on the right hand, and Peter on the left▪ as Baronius observes, in Expositione Concil, Nicen. and Eusebius seems to make them both Bishops of Rome together, Vales. Paul and Peter had the Episcopal dignity there: Linus being the first, and after him Anencletus.

CHAP. XXII. That Ignatius was the Second that presided over the Alexandrian Church.

MOreover, Euodius having been constituted the first Bishop at Antioch, the second was Ignatius, a man famous in those times: Simeon likewise was the second, who, after our Saviours brother, at the same time The Kings M. S. reads according to our translation, [...] But the other four M. SS. i. e. Maz. Med. Fuk. and Sr Henry Savills have it written [...] had the publick charge, &c. Vales. entred upon the pub­lick charge over the Church at Jerusalem.

CHAP. XXIII. A Relation concerning John the Apostle.

AT the same time, the Apostle and also Evan­gelist John, (the same whom Jesus loved) remaining yet alive in Asia, governed the Churches there, being returned from his Exile in the Island after the death of Domitian: For that he was hitherto alive, it is sufficiently confirmed by two, who evidence the matter: and they are very wor­thy of credit, having been constant assertours of Catholick sound Doctrine: I mean these persons Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus. The for­mer of whom, in his second book against Heresie, writes thus word for word: Irenaeus. Lib. 2. cap. 39. ‘And all the Elders, that were conversant in Asia with John the disciple of our Lord, do testifie that John de­livered it to them: for he continued among them untill Trajans time.’ And in the third book of that work he manifests the same thing in these words: ‘Moreover the Church at Ephesus was founded indeed by Paul, but John, conti­nuing among them untill Trajans time, is a most faithfull witness of the Apostolick Tradition.’ And Clemens likewise, having evidently shown the time, adds withall a Relation very necessary for those who delight to hear good and profitable things (in that work of his which he entitled who that rich man is that shall be saved.) Let us there­fore take his book and read the story, which is thus. ‘Hear a Relation, which is not a feigned story, but a real truth, delivered concerning John the Apostle, and kept in remembrance. For after the death of the Tyrant he returned from the Island Patmos to Ephesus, and being thereto requested, he went to the neighbouring Pro­vinces, in some places constituting Bishops, in others setting in order whole Churches, The words of Eusebius in the Edit. of Valesius (which in our translation we follow) are these, [...], &c. In Rob. Stephens Edit. of Euseb. it is thus, [...], &c. Valesius says, he altered the rea­ding here upon account of the Authority of the three M. SS. Maz. Med. and Fuk. rejecting the reading of the Kings M. S. (which Rob. Stephens followed) in that he was not able to make sense of it: And moreover, says Valesius, Rufinus his Version con­firms this our emendation; for he translates this place thus: Roga­batur etiam vicinas lustrare pro­vincias, quò vel Ecclesias [...]undaret, in quibus non erant locis; vel in quibus crant, sacerdotibus ac mini­stris instruerct, secund [...]m quod ei de unoquoque Spiritus Sanctus in­dicasset. Vales. and o­ther where electing into the Clergy some one or other of those who were made known to him by the Spirit. Coming there­fore to one of the Cities not far distant, the The Author of the Chronicon Alexandrinum calls the name of this City Smyrna. Vales. name whereof some mention, and moreover having [...] This verb occurs often in the New Testament, as in 1 Cor. 16. 18. 2 Cor. 7. 13. &c. where our Eng­lish translation generally renders it [to refresh] upon which ac­count we thus translate it here. re­freshed the brethren; at length casting his eyes up­on a youth of a goodly stature of body, comely countenance, and lively dis­position, he lookt upon him whom he had Ordained Bishop, and said, This youth I doe with all ima­ginable care commit to thy charge, in the presence of the Church, and of Christ as a witness. And when he had undertaken this charge, and promised his utmost care thereof, John declared and desired the same again; And afterwards returned to Ephesus. But the See Dr Hammond, concer­ning the use of this word Presby­ter by the Apostles and writers of the New Testament, and by the Fathers in the first Apostolical times, in his notes on Acts 11. 30. Pres­byter, taking home the youth committed to his custody, educated him, kept him within compass, and cherished him; and at length baptized him: but after that, he abated some­thing of his great care and caution over him; be­cause he had fortified him with that most absolute de­fence, to wit, the The Primitive Christians so termed Baptism, as Gregor. Na­zianz. Orat. 40. where he ob­serves that Baptism is called by Christians by divers names; [...], &c. Now the reason why Baptism is called [...], a Seal, is annext by the same Gregory Nazianz▪ because, to wit, Baptism is, as it were, a preservation, or a mark of dominion. Vales. Seal of [Page 41] the Lord. But, having obtained his free­dom a little too early, some idle dissolute young men; that were inured to all manner of vice, [...] the word here in the original is the same, insig­nification, with [...], i. e. accedere ad aliquem, adjungi, to be of the same company, or, to be fami­liarly acquainted: onely it is taken in a bad sense. Vales. keep him com­pany: and first of all they entice him with sumptuous Banquets; then going out by night to rob and strip those they could meet with, they carry him a long with them: afterwards they desire him to be their complice in greater rogueries: So by little and little he was accustomed to lewdness; and be­cause he was high spirited, having once left the right way (like a strong hard mouthed horse holding the bitt between his teeth,) he was so much the more fiercely hurried into destru­ction▪ In fine, despairing of the salvation of God, he spent not his thoughts now upon any trifling designe; but attempted some enormous wickedness, in as much as he was wholly past all hope, he Grut [...]rus reads it, [...]; and so Rufinus and Mus­culus seem to have read; I should ra­ther like [...], he scorned, &c. Vales. scorned to run the hazard of so mean a punishment as other theeves did. Taking therefore those his accomplices, and having for­med them into a Troop of theeves, he was rea­dily made their commander in chief; being the fiercest, the most bloudy, and cruelest person of them all. Sometime after, and there happening some necessity for it, they send again for John; who, after he had set in order those things upon account whereof he came, said, Come on, Bishop, restore us that which was committed to thy cu­stody, which I and Christ delivered to thee to take care of, in the presence of the Church as witness, over which thou dost preside. But he at first was astonished, supposing himself to be falsely accused about money which he had not received; neither could he give credit to John concerning his demand of what he had not, nor yet durst he disbelieve him. But when John had said, I demand the young man and the soul of our brother; the old man fetching a deep sigh and also weeping, said, he is dead. How? and what kind of death? To God, said he, he is dead; for he proved wicked, and extreamly naught, and in conclusion a thief. And now instead of continuing in the Church, he hath taken possession of the mountain with a troop of associates like himself. The Apostle therefore having rent his garment, and with a great out [...]ry smiting his head, I left, said he, an excellent keeper of our brothers soul! But let an horse be presently brought me, and let me have a guide to direct me in the way. He rode (as he was) forthwith from the Church, and com­ing to the place, is taken by the watch which the Theeves had set; he flyes not, nor makes en­treaty, but calls out, For this purpose I came, bring me to your captain: he in the mean time, armed as he was, stood still; but as soon as he knew John approaching, being ashamed, he fled: But he, forgetfull of his Age, with all possible speed pursued him: crying out, Son, why doest thou flee from thy Father, unarmed, and aged? Have compassion on me, my son; fear not; as yet there is hopes of thy salvation; I will intercede with Christ for thee; if need require, I will willingly undergoe death for thee, as the Lord underwent it for us; I will by way of recom­pence give my soul for thine; stand still; be­lieve me, Christ hath sent me. He, having heard this, first stood still looking downward; then he threw away his armour; afterwards trembling, he wept bitterly, and embraced the approaching old man, craving pardon as well as he could for crying, and being as it were baptized the second time with tears; onely he hid his right hand. The Apostle, promising him, and solemnly swearing that he had obtained remission for him of▪ our Saviour, praying, kneeling, and kis­sing the young mans right hand, as being now cleansed by repentance, brought him into the Church again. And partly by abundant prayers making supplication for him, partly with con­tinual fastings striving together with him, and also comforting his mind with divers [...], are sayings or sentences taken out of the holy Bi­ble, with which John comforted the young mans mind. Vales. sentences out of holy Scripture, he departed not, as they say, untill he had There is a difference between being brought in, and restored to the Church: he is brought into the Church, who promises he will repent: but he is restored to the Church, who, having been actually and truely penitent, is received into it again and owned as a member thereof. Vales. restored him to the Church; having hereby shown a great example of true repentance, an illustrious instance of regenera­tion, and a Trophie of a conspicuous Resur­rection.’

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning the Order of the Gospels.

THese words of Clemens's we have here in­serted, upon account both of the story its self, and also of the profit it may yield to the Rea­ders. But, we will now declare and recount the unquestionable writings of this Apostle. And in­deed, the Gospel according to him, well known to all the Churches throughout the world, must in the first place be without controversie acknow­ledg'd and received as undoubted and genuine. Now that it was truely, and upon a good ac­count put in the fourth place after the other three Gospels by the antients, may after this manner be made apparent. Those heavenly and truely divine persons (I speak of the Apostles of Christ) having been as to their lives and conversations perfectly purified, and as to their souls adorned with all manner of virtue, were indeed rude of speech and uneloquent, but they put their confidence in that divine and wonderfull power of working miracles bes [...]wed on them by our Saviour, and neither attempted, nor knew how to be The word in the Original is [...], which we translate, to be Ambassadours of, warranted thereto from the same word oc­curring 1 Cor. 5. 20▪ and there so translated. This word signi­fies the Apostolical office, and that from God to men, offering pardon on his part, and requiring on their part reformation for the future. See Dr Hammond on 2 Cor. 5. 20. Ambassadours of their Masters precepts in wit­tiness of words and artifici­ousness of language. But they solely made use of the demon­stration of the divine spirit cooperating together with them, and the power of Christ with which they were fully endowed, and which by them performed miracles; and so they published the knowledge of the king­dome of heaven to the whole world; making it the least of their care to be diligent about writing books: And this they did, because they were em­ploied about a more excellent and more than hu­mane work. Indeed Paul, who was the most powerfull of them all in the furniture of words, and the most able in weighty expressions, hath left in writing nothing more than some very It is doubtfull whether Eusebius would call Paul's Epistles short or few▪ both may be said of them; to wit, that they are few, being in number not above fourteen; and they are short to them that Piously and Religiously read them over. Origen in Libro 5. Exposition. in Evangeli. Johan. calls them, [...], that is, conteining few verses▪ he that desires to read Origens words, will find them hereafter quoted in the sixth B. of Euseb. chap. 25. Vales. short Epistles; although he could have disclosed innu­merable [Page 42] secrets, because he attained unto a con­templation of those things that are in the third heaven, and being caught up into the divine para­dise, was voutsafed to hear there unspeakable words. Moreover the rest of our Saviours Prea­chers, both the Twelve Apostles, and also the Seventy disciples, together with innumerable others besides them, were not unexperienced in these things. And yet of all the disciples of the Lord, onely Matthew and John have left us writ­ten records; who also, as report says, were necessi­tated to write. For Matthew, having Preached first to the Hebrews, and being about going to other Nations, did in his own Countrey language pen the Gospel according to him; supplying by writing the want of his presence and converse among those, Nicephorus, Libr. 2. chap. 45. reads it [...]; and Rufinus and Musculus translate it as we have done. But Christophorson interprets it other­wise; thus, and what seemed to be wanting to those from whom he de­parted whilst he was present with them, that he fully made up by his se­dulity and labour in writing. In which translation this is to be blamed, to wit, in that he says Matthew wrote his Gospel after his departure from the Hebrews, when as Eusebius says the contrary; For in the Greek it is [...], i. e. from whom he was going. Athanasius in his Tract de Libr. S. Scrip. and Chrysostome write that Matthew first wrote his Gospel at Jerusalem: And Nice­phorus and the Authour Chronic. Alexandr. say he wrote it in the 15th year after Christs Ascension. Christophorson referred those words [...] to the words [...]; whereas they are referred to the word [...]. And in the Kings Maz. and Med. M. SS. after the word [...] and [...], the comma is put. Vales. whom he was now to leave. Now, when soon after Mark and Luke had set forth the Gospels ac­cording to them, John, they say, spent all that time onely in preaching, and at length came to write for this rea­son. The three first writ­ten Gospels having been now delivered into the hands of all, and of John himself, they say, that he approved of them, and confirmed the truth thereof by his own testimonie; onely there was wanting in writing an account of those things done by Christ at the first be­ginning of his Preaching. And the thing is true. For its evi­dently perspicuous, that the other three Evangelists have committed to writing onely those things which were done by our Saviour in one years space, after John the Baptists being shut up in Prison; and that they have expresly evidenced the same at the beginning of their History. For, after the forty days fast and the Temptation that followed there­upon, Matthew does plainly set forth the time of his own writing, saying, Matth. 4. 12. When he had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed out of Judea into Galilee. And in like manner Mark; Mar. 1. 14. Now ofter that John, says he, was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee. And Luke also, before he begins the relation of the Acts of Jesus, does in like manner make this remark, saying, that Herod, adding yet Luk. 3. 19, 20. this to all the evills he had done, shut up John in prison. Therefore they say, that the Apostle John, being for these causes thereto requested, has de­clared in a Gospel according to him the time passed over in silence by the former Evangelists, and what was done by our Saviour therein, (and they were the things that he did before the imprison­ment of the Baptist;) and that he manifests the same thing, partly when he says thus: This begin­ning John 2. 11. of miracles did Jesus; and partly when he makes mention of the Baptist, whilest He is speaking of the Acts of Jesus, as being at that time Joh. 3. 23, 24. Baptizing in A [...]non, neer to In the most anti­ent Maz. M. S. I found it written [...] with a dipthong, i. e. Saleim. Vales. Salem: and this he evidently declares by saying thus; For John, says he, was not yet cast into prison. There­fore John indeed in the penning of the Gospel ac­cording to him declares those things that were done by Christ, the Baptist being as yet not cast into prison; but the other three Evangelists give an account of those things Christ did after the Baptists confinement to prison. And to him that shall at­tentively consider these things it will not appear that the Gospels disagree one with the other; seeing the Gospel according to John contains the first part of the Acts of Christ; but the re­maining three give a relation of what was done by him at the latter end of the time. With good reason therefore has John passed over in silence the Genealogie of our Saviour after the flesh, as having been before written of by Matthew and Luke; and has begun with his Divinity, reserved as it were by the divine Spirit for him, as being the more ex­cellent person. Let thus much therefore be spoken by us concerning the writing of the Gospel ac­cording to John: Now what was the occasion of writing the Gospel according to Mark hath been manifested by us in what we said Book 2. Chap. 15. before. And Luke also himself, in the beginning of his Gospel, hath shewed the cause for which he compiled that History; for he makes it manifest that, because many had rashly taken in hand to make a decla­ration of those things which he himself most cer­tainly knew, he judged it necessary to disengage us from the uncertain conjectures made by others, and therefore hath in his own Gospel delivered a most firm and true account of those things, the evidence whereof himself had sufficiently obtained, having been assisted therein both by the company and converse of Paul, and also by his familiarity with the rest of the Apostles. And thus much now con­cerning these things. But at a more opportune season we will endeavour to manifest, by a quota­tion of the Antient writers, what has been said by others concerning this very matter. Among the writings of John, besides his Gospel, also the former of his Epistles hath without controversie been admitted as genuine both by those men that are modern and also by the Antients: The two other writings of his are questioned. The opinion concerning his Revelation is even at this time on both sides much controverted among many: But this controversie also shall at a seasonable op­portunity be discussed by the authority of the Antients.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning those Divine writings, which are with­out controversie acknowledged; and of those which are not such.

BUt it will in this place be seasonable sum­marily to reckon up those books of the New Testament which have been before mentioned. In the first place therefore is to be ranked the four sacred Gospels: next to which follows the book of the Acts of the Apostles: after that are to be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; after which follows that which is called the first Epistle of John, and in like manner the Epistle of Peter is to be admitted as authentick. Then is to be placed, if you think good, the Revelation of John: the opinions concerning which I will in due place declare. And these are the books that with general consent are acknowledged. Among those which are questioned as doubtfull, which yet are approved and mentioned by many, is that which is called the Epistle of James, and that of Jude, also the second Epistle of Peter, and those called the second and third Epistles of John, whether they were written by the Evangelist, or another of the same name with him. A­mongst [Page 43] the Eusebius does here use this word [ [...]] very im­properly, to wit, to signifie those books whose authority is doubt­full; whereas those books are to be called [...], which are adul­terated and forged by Hereticks, of which sort he makes mention at the end of this chapter, which that it may more manifestly ap­pear, you must understand, there are three sorts of Sacred Books. Some are without controversie true; others without controversie false; a third sort are those, of which the antients doubted. This latter sort can't be called [...], because many accounted them to be genuine: it remains therefore that the second sort onely be cal­led [...], i. e. Spurious books. Of which sort is Pauls Epistle to the Laodiceans, which St Jerom says was with one consent exploded by all. But Eusebius corrects him­self in chap. 31▪ of this Third book, where he manifestly differences the Spurious Books from those which are doubtfull. See his words there. Gregory Naz. in Iambico carmine ad Seleucum, manifestly confirms our opinion. For of the books of Sacred Scripture, some, says he, are genuine and true, which he there reckons up; others are sup­posititious, which he calls [...], Spurious; a third sort he makes those to be, which come nearest to those books that are genuine, which division Gregory had from Origen, out of his 13 Tome of Ex­planat. in Johan. But to speak properly, there are but two sorts of Sacred books, those namely that are true, and those whose autho­rity is asserted by some, and que­stioned by others. For the Spurious books deserve not to be reckoned amongst the Sacred Books. Vales. Spurious works let there be ranked, both the work intituled the Acts of Paul, and the book called Pastor, and the Revelation of Peter; and moreover that which is cal­led the Epistle of Barnabas, and that named the Concerning this book see the Learned Arch-Bishop Usher in his dissertation on Ignatius Epistles, Chap. 7. Edit. Oxon. 1644. Doctrines of the Apostles; and more­over, as I said, the Revela­tion of John (if you think good) which some, as I have said, doe reject, but others allow of and admit among those books that are received as unquestionable and undoubted. And a­mong these some doe now number the Concerning this Gospel, St Jerome, in Catalogo, where he, speaking of James the brother of our Lord, says thus, Evangelium quoque quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos, & à me nuper in Graecum-Latinumque Sermonem translatum est, quo & Origenes saepe utitur, &c. Julianus Pelagianus, Lib. 4. speaks of this Gospel, where he accuses Jerome, because in his dialogue against the Pelagians he made use of an authority of a fifth Gospel, which he himself had translated into Latine. But that which Eu­sebius adds, that the Jews which embraced Christianity are chiefly delighted with this Gospel, makes him seem to mean the Nazareans and Ebionites; for they use to reade that Gospel written in He­brew, as St Jerom shews, in E­saia c. 11. and in Ezech. c. 18. Vales. Gospel ac­cording to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have embraced the faith of Christ are chiefly delight­ed. All these books may be questioned as doubtfull. And I thought it requisite to make a Catalogue of these also, that we may discriminate those Scriptures that ac­cording to Ecclesiastical tra­dition are true, and un­forged, and with general consent received as undoubt­ed, from those other books which are not such, nor in­corporated into the New Testament, but are questioned as doubtfull; which yet have been acknowledged and al­lowed of by many Ecclesiasti­cal persons: and further that we may know these very books, and those other that have been put forth by Here­ticks under the name of the Apostles, containing as well the supposed Gospels of Pe­ter, Thomas, and Matthias, and of some others besides them; as also the supposed Acts of Andrew and John, and other of the Apostles. Of which books no Euse­bius speaks not here of the succes­sours of the Apo­stles, which title be­longs onely to Bishops; but he speaks of the Ecclesiastical writers who in a perpe­tual succession have flourished in the Church. Therefore [...], is the same as [...], i. e. of the Ecclesiastical writers in every Age. For, as heretofore among the Jews there was a succession of Prophets, though sometimes interrupted (as Josephus says in his first book against Apion;) so in the Church there always was a succession of Learned men and Writers which were called Ecclesiasticks. Moreover in the M. SS. Maz▪ Med. & Fuk. it is written [...], with the Article. Vales. Ecclesiasti­cal writer even from the A­postles times hitherto hath in any of his works voutsafed to make the least mention. But moreover also, the man­ner of the phrase and the stile wherein they are written are much different from the Apostolick natural propriety and innate simplicity: and the meaning and drift of those things delivered in these books, being mightily disso­nant from Orthodoxal truth, doth manifestly evince that they are the forgeries of Heretical men. Upon which account they are not to be ranked amongst the Spurious writings, but altogether to be rejected, as wholly absurd, and impious. But we will now proceed to what follows of our History.

CHAP. XXVI. Of Menander the Impostour.

MEnander, succeeding Simon Magus, shew­ed himself to be, as to his disposition and manners, a second I wonder that all In­terpreters have erred in the tran­slation of this word. Rufinus renders it Sc [...]tum, a buckler; Langus and Musculus, armaturam, armour: Christophor son, propug­naculum, a bulwar [...]. But [...] here signi­fies telum, a dart. Therefore [...] is the same with [...], an in­strument of diabolical force. Vales. Dart of Diabolical force no whit inferiour to the former. He also was a In four of our M. SS. copies, to wit, Maz. Med. Fuk. & Sr Hen. Savills I found a far different punctation of this place from that which Christophorson followed, as appears by his version. For in the said M. SS. it is thus pointed, [...] And truly this punctation is [...]a [...] better than the vul­gar. For what can the meaning of these words be [ [...]] I know the Jews hated the Samaritans, as the worst of men; in so much that the name of Samaritan was accounted by the Jews the greatest reproach. But here Menanders countrey is spoken of; his manners Eusebius speaks of hereafter. Moreover he is said to be a Samaritan in the same sense that Justin in Apologet. and Clemens in Libr. Recognit. calls Simon▪ a Samaritan; i. e. he was of the Pro­vince or Countrey of Samaria, [...]e came not out of the very City Sama­ria. For Simon was of the Village Gitton; but Menander of the Vil­lage Caparattae. Vales. Sa­maritan; and, arriving to no less height of im­posture than his master, abounded much more in greater and more monstrous illusions: For he▪ said that he himself was a Saviour, sent from above for the salvation of men from invisible ages; and he taught that no man could otherwise overcome the Angels the makers of this world, unless he were first instituted in the Magical knowledge delivered by him, and initiated in the baptism by him im­parted. Of which baptism those that were ad­judged worthy, they, he affirmed, would be par­takers of a perpetual immortality in this very life; they should be no longer subject to death; but con­tinuing in this present life should be always young and immortal. And indeed its easie to know all this from the books of Ireneus. And Justinus in like manner having made mention of Simon, adds al­so a narration of this man, saying; ‘And we knew one Menander, a Samaritan also of the village Caparattae, a disciple of Simons, who being moved by the fury of devils, and coming to Antioch, seduced many by Magical art; who also perswaded his followers that they should not die; and at this time there are some of his Sect that profess the same.’ Wherefore it was the device of the Diabolical power by such Impostours, going under the name of Christians, to endeavour to calumniate by Magick the great Mystery of God­liness, and by them to expose to reproach the Ec­clesiastical opinions concerning the immortality of the Soul, and the Resurrection of the dead. But those who joyned themselves to such Saviours as fol­lowers of them, were frustrated of the true hope.

CHAP. XXVII. Of the Heresie of the Ebionites.

THe malicious devil being unable to remove others from the love of the Christ of God, finding that they might [...] A new word, made up of a strange kind of com­position: of [...] and [...] to take or catch on some other side, or some other way. Vales. some other way be surprized, he made them his own. These the Antients fitly termed Ebio­nites, in that they had a poor and low opinion of Christ. For they accounted him an ordinary man and nothing more than a man; [Page 44] justified onely for his proficiency in virtue, and begotten by Mary's accompanying with her hus­band: and they asserted that an observance of the Law was altogether necessary for them, supposing they could not be saved onely by faith in Christ and a life agreeable thereto. But others among them being of the same name have eschewed the monstrous absurdity of the forecited opinions, denying not that the Lord was begotten of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost: but notwith­standing, these in like manner also, not con­fessing that he existed before all things as being God the Word, and the Wisdome of the Father, are lead into the same impiety with the former; especially in that they make it their business to maintain and observe the bodily worship of the Law. They also think that all the Epistles of the A­postle Paul ought to be rejected, calling him an A­postate from the Law: They made use of onely the Gospel called the Gospel according to the Hebrews; the rest they made small account of: They ob­served also the Sabbath and all other Judaical rites in like manner as the Jews doe: but on Sun­days they performed the same things with us in remembrance of the Lords Resurrection. From whence, because of such opinion [...] by them held, they got this name, to wit, the appellation of Ebionites, a name that betokens the poverty of their understanding. For by this name a begger is called amongst the [...] signifies E­genus, a begger, in Hebrew; from the theam [...] Voluit, desidera­vit; because a begger desires, or craves supplies for his wants. Buxtorss Lexic. Rab. See Origen. Lib. 4. de Princip. concerning these Hereticks. Hebrews.

CHAP. XXVIII. Of the Arch-Heretick Cerinthus.

WE have heard that at the same time there was one Cerinthus a Founder of another Heresie. Caius, whose words I before quoted, in that disputation of his now extant, writes thus con­cerning him. ‘But Cerinthus also, who by Revelati­ons written by himself as it were by some great A postle, hath feigned monstrous narrations as if they had been shewed him by Angels, and sets them abroach amongst us, saying, that after the Re­surrection the Kingdom of Christ will be ter­restriall, and that men living again in the flesh at Jerusalem shall be subject to desires and plea­sures. He also being an enemy to divine Scri­pture, and [...]. So it is Printed in Rob. Stephens Edition, I know not by what accident. Which errour of the press the Geneva Edition afterwards fol­lowed: But we, from our M. SS. copies, and from Nicephorus his book, have made good the true reading of this place, thus, [...], desirous to induce men in­to errour, &c. Vales. desirous to induce men into errour, says that there shall be the number of a thousand years spent in a nuptial feast.’ And Dionysius also, who in our time was chosen Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, It should be thus written [...], in his second book concerning pro­mises. Dionysius Alexandrinus wrote two books of promises, or rewards which God promised to give to pious men after this Life. The second of these was written against Nepos a Bishop of E­gypt, who from the Revelation of John asserted that Christs Kingdom would be terrestrial, as Eusebius declares in his seventh book. Vales. in his second book concerning promises, speaking something of the Revelation of John, as from antient tradition, mentions this man in these words: ‘But Cerinthus, the Founder of the Heresie called from him the Cerinthian He­resie, was, they say, the authour of that book; This place of Dionysius is to be found whole and entire in the 7th B. of this Hi­story, chap. 25. from thence is to be had the explication of this pas­sage. Some, says Diony­fius there, said that the book of the Revelation was made by Cerin­thus the A [...]ch-He­retick, who published it under the name of John the Apostle, that he might get the greater authority for his own opinions. Vales. being desirous to put a creditable name upon his own Forgery. For this was one of the tenets of his doctrine, that the Kingdom of Christ should be terrestrial: and those things which he, being a lover of his body and altogether carnally minded, earnestly lusted after, in them he dreamt the Kingdome of Christ consisted, to wit, in the satiety of the belly and of those parts beneath the belly; that is in meats, drinks, and marriages, and in those things whereby he thought these might with a Christophorson, in stead of [ [...]] read [ [...]] from B. 7. c. 25. But that place in B. 7. is rather to be corrected by this, than this corrupted from that. Our M. SS. copies Maz. and Med. have it writ­ten [...] in B. 7. So also Nicephorus in his 3d B. c. 14. Under the name of Feasts and Sacrifices Cerinthus hid his Lusts, that he might make a shew of honesty and decency. Vales. greater pretence and shew of piety be procured, that is, in feasts, sacri­fices, and in the [...]laying of offerings.’ Thus far Dionysius. But Ireneus, in his first book against Heresies, does recite some more secret false opi­nions of this mans; and in his third book he de­livers in writing a certain story (unworthy to be forgotten) as from the tradition of Polycarpe, saying, that John the Apostle going on a time to the Bath to bathe himself, and understanding that Cerinthus was within, retired in great hast from that place, and fled out at the door, not en­during to goe under the same roof with him; and that he perswaded those who were with him to doe so also, saying, Let us be gone, least the Bath fall, Cerinthus that enemy of the truth being within it.

CHAP. XXIX. Of Nicholas, and those Hereticks who bear his name.

In the M. SS. Maz. Med. and Sr Henry Savills it is [...], i. e. after him, to wit, Cerinthus. Vales. AT this time the Heresie called the He­resie of the Nicholaites continued for a very short time: of which also the Revelation of John makes mention. These boasted of Nicholas (one of the Deacons who together with Stephen were Ordained by the Apostles to minister to the poor) as the Authour of their Sect. Now Cle­mens Alexandrinus in the third of his Stromatw̄n relates thus much of him word for word; ‘He, they say, having a beautifull wife, being after our Saviours ascension blamed by the Apostles for his jealousie, brought his wife forth, and permitted her to marry whom she had a mind to. For this deed, they report, is agreeable to that saying of his, to wi [...], That we ought to abuse the flesh. Those therefore, who follow his Heresie, These words [ [...], i. e. simply and rashly] ought to be referred to the word, [ [...], i. e. assenting to] and not to the word [ [...], i. e. this saying:] which being not minded by Christophorson, he widely mistook Clemens his mean­ing. For Clemens does not say that that sact, or that saying was do [...]e or said by Nicholas rashly and inconsiderately. Yea he de­clares in the 2d of his Stromatw̄n about the latter end, that this say­ing [ [...]] was one of Nicholas his Apophthegms, or Pithy speeches. Which saying of his, his followers interpreted so, as if Nicholas had commanded every one to abuse his flesh with all manner of voluptuousness and lasciviousness: but Nicholas meant the clean contrary by this his speech, to wit, that the flesh ought not to be indulged too, but to be kept under, and wearied out with continual exercises of virtue. Vales. simply and rashly assenting to this say­ing, and imitating this deed, doe most impudently give themselves over to fornica­tion. But I am given to understand that Nicholas made use of no other wo­man besides her he mar­ried; and that those of his children which were daugh­ters [Page 45] remained virgins when they were old; and his son continued undefiled by women. Which things being thus, his bringing of his wife, (over whom he was said to be jealous) forth before the Apostles, was a sign of his rejecting and bridling his passion; and by those words of his [that we ought to abuse the flesh] These words are spoken by Clemens A­lexandrinus by way of Enallage; for thus they are to be taken, as if he had said [...], i. e. by those words of his [that we ought to abuse the flesh] He taught continencie and an abstaining from pleasures, &c. Vales. he taught continence and an abstaining from those plea­sures which are with so much earnestness de­sired by men. For, I suppose, he would not (according to our Saviours commandment) serve two masters, pleasure and the Lord. Moreover, they say, that Matthias taught the same doctrine; that we should war against the flesh, and abuse it, allowing it nothing of pleasure; but that we should inrich the soul by Faith and Knowledge.’ Let thus much therefore be spoken concerning those who endeavoured about that time to deprave the truth, but on a sudden were wholly extinct.

CHAP. XXX. Concerning those Apostles that are found to have been married.

BUt Clemens, whose words we even now re­cited, after that passage of his before quoted, does reckon up those Apostles that are found to have been married, upon account of such as despise marriage; ‘saying, what will they reprehend even the Apostles also? For Peter and Philip begat children; and Philip matcht his daughters to husbands. Paul also, in one of his Epistles fears not to name his wife, whom he carried not about with him, that he might with more expe­dition perform his Ministration.’ But because we have mentioned these things, it will not be troublesome to produce also another story of his worthily memorable, which he hath set forth in the seventh of his Stromatw̄n after this manner; ‘Now they say that St Peter, seeing his wife led to be put to death, rejoyced because she was called by God, and because she was returning home: and that calling her by her name he exhorted and comforted her, saying, O woman Remember the Lord. Such was the wedlock of the Saints, and such the entire affection of most dear friends.’ And thus much, being pertinent to the subject now in hand, we have here seasonably placed.

CHAP. XXXI. Of the Death of John and Philip.

INdeed, both the time and manner of the death of Paul and Peter, and moreover the place where after their departure out of this life their bodies were deposited, we have before manifested: con­cerning the time of John's death we have already also in some sort spoken: but the place of Se­pulchre is demonstrated by the Epistle of Poly­crates (who was Bishop of the Ephesian Church) which he wrote to Victor Bishop of Rome; where­in he mentions both him and also Philip the Apostle and his daughters after this manner. ‘For also in Asia the great [...]. Je­rome and Musculus translate it Elements, elements, or foundations. Chri­stophorson turns it Seminaria, Seedplotts: but Rufinus▪ best of all, calls it Lumina, Lights. For the Grecians were wont to call the signes of the Zodiack [...]. So Diogen. Laert. in the Life of Menedem [...]s. Now the Heathens called those signes so, because they thought the principles of the lives and fortunes of men were placed in them. See Epiphan, in Heres. Pharisaeor [...]m. Vales. Lights are dead; which shall be raised again at the last day, the day of the Lord's coming, wherein he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall find out all his Saints. I mean Christo­phorson in this place did in no wi [...]e per­form the office of a good tran­slatour, who for Philip one of the Twelve A­postles put in Philip one of the seven Dea­cons. It was an antient mistake, to confound Philip the Deacon and Evan­gelist with Philip the Apostle. And be­cause they read, Acts 21. v. 8, 9. that Philip had four daugh­ters, vir­gins, that Propheci­ed, they as­serted Phi­lip the Apo­stle was married and bego [...] daughters. So, besides Polycrates, Clemens Alexandrinus said in the foregoing chap. and so said Papeas, as we shall see hereafter. But from the Acts of the Apo­stles it may be manifestly gathered, that Philip the Deacon (he th [...] Baptized the Eunuch and that had the four daughters that were Pro­phetesses) was not the same with Philip the Apostle, but another man. See Isidore Pelusiota, in his first book Epist. 447. and so on, where he evidently demonstrates this. Vales. Philip one of the twelve A­postles who died at Hierapolos; and two of his daughters who continued virgins to the end of their lives. Also his other This third daughter of Philip, Polycrates separates from the other two which died virgins; whence it may be collected that she was mar­ried. Neither is this repugnant to the Acts c. 21. For it may be answer­ed that then when these things were done that Luke mentions, Philip's daughters were virgins: but afterwards one of them was given in mar­riage by her father. And Clemens Alexandrinus seems to intimate thus much in those words of his, which Eusebius quotes in the foregoing chap. Moreover Christophorson confounds this third daughter of Philips with the two former. Whose translation did much trouble Baronius as ap­pears from his Annals, ad Annum Christi 58. chap. 113. Eusebius repeats this passage of Polycrates in his fifth book chap. 24. where Christophor­son does rightly distinguish the three daughters of Philip, and amen [...]s his former errour. But it may here be deservedly questioned, why Polycrates mentions onely three daughters of Philips, whereas in the Acts they are counted four. I answer Polycrates mentioned onely those that died and were buried in Asia, as may be seen from his whole Epistle which is recited in the fifth book of Euseb. Hist▪ [...]eeing there­fore one of the four daughters died at C [...]satea, or some where else, upon that account Polycrates mentions her not. Moreover of these daughters of Philip, one was called Hermione, the other Eutychis. For so it is in Men [...]o Graecor [...]m di [...] 4 Sept. See the place. Vales. daughter who having lived by the guidance of the Holy Ghost, died at Ephesus. And moreover John, who leaned on the breast of the Lord, and was a Priest and wore a [...], thats the word in Polycrates here quoted by Eusebius. The 72 use this word Exod. 28. 36. for so they translate [...] the He­brew word there, which properly signifies a flour, but by our transla­tours is in English rendred a plate there, and afterwards. Exod. 39. 30. [...] is called a plate of the Holy crown. It was a long plate of gold, two fingers broad, and reacht from one ear of the Priest to the other, says Maimon. in his Treatise of the Implements of the Sanctuary, Chap. 9. Sect. 1. See Ainsworth on the Pentat. plate of gold, and was a Martyr and a Do­ctor; this John, I say, died at Ephesus.’ And thus much concerning their deaths. And also in the Dialogue of Caius, of which we a little before made mention, Proculus, against whom he insti­tuted the dispute, agreeing with what we have in­forced concerning the death of Philip and his daugh­ters, says thus, ‘After that also, the four Pro­phetesses the daughters of Philip were at Hiera­polis a City of Asia, their Sepulchre is there, and also their fathers.’ Thus he, L [...]k [...] ▪ likewise in the Acts of the Apostles makes mention of the daughters of Philip that lived then at Caesa­rea of Judea with their father, who were en­dowed with the gift of Prophecy, saying word for word thus: ‘We came unto Caesarea and we entred into the house of Philip the Evangelist (which was one of the seven) and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did Prophecie.’ Having thus far therefore treated of those things which came to our knowledge both concerning the In our four M. SS. copies, Maz. Med. Fuk. and Sr Hen. Savills I found it written [...], i. e. concerning the Apostles themselves, the word [...] being in them added. Vales. Apostles and the Apostolick times, and the Sacred Writings they left us, both those that are questioned as doubtfull which yet are publickly read by many in most Churches, and those also that are altogether Spurious and Repugnant to Apostolical sound Do­ctrine, we now proceed to the subsequent part of our History.

CHAP. XXXII. How Simeon the Bishop of Jerusalem suffered Martyrdom.

AFter the persecution of Nero and Domitian, Report goes, that under this Emperour whose times we now recount there was a perse­cution raised against us by piece-meal throughout every City, which proceeded from a popular in­surrection. In which we have by tradition re­ceived that In the Kings M. S. it is [...], Simon, as Rob. Stephens observed. Jerom, in Chronico, te­stifies that the name of this Bishop of Jerusalem was written two ways, to wit, Simeon and Simon. The same Georg. Syncellus observes, and also the Authour Chronici A­lexandrini. Vales. Simeon the son of Cleophas, who we declar­ed was constituted▪ the se­cond Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem, finished his life by Martyrdom. And this the same Writer attesteth, several words of whose we have before quoted, that is Hegesippus. Who, giving a relation of certain Hereticks, adds; that this Simeon, being at that time by them accused and tormented divers ways, and for the space of many days because he was a Christian, struck with a great amazement both the Judge and those about him, and at length died by the same kind of suffering that the Lord did. Nothing hinders but that we may hear the Writer relating these things word for word, thus; ‘Some of those Hereticks accused Simeon the son of Cleophas, as being a descendant from David, and a Christian; and so he suffered Martyrdom when he was an hundred and twen­ty years old, under Trajan the Emperour, and That is, when Atticus was De­puty of Syria. The Syrians used to shew their years, by the name of these their presidents. More­over, of the Emperours Deputies some were of the Consular order; others of the Pretorian. Where­fore Atticus is here called [...], to shew that he was of the Consular order, or had been Con­sul. In the M. S. copies of Ru­finus his translation (that is in the Kings Librarie) it is, Mar­tyr effectus est cum esset annorum centum xxv. i. e. he was Martyred when he was 125. years old. Vales. Atticus of the Consular order then President of Sy­ria.’ And the same Au­thour says that those his ac­cusers, (such as were of the Royal family of the Jews being at that time sought for) happened to be convicted, as belonging to that family. Now, should any one say that this Simeon was one of those who both saw and heard the Lord, he would speak what is in no wise absurd, having as an undoubted evi­dence thereof the great length of his Life, and the mention made in the Gospels of Mary the wife of Cleophas; whose son that he was, Book 3. chap. 11. our former words have manifested. Also the same writer says that others, related to one of those called the bre­thren of our Saviour (whose name was Judas) lived untill this i. e. Tra­jans. Emperour's Reign, after their profession of the Faith of Christ under Domitian, Book 3. chap. 20. before which we mentioned. For thus he writeth, ‘They come therefore and preside over the whole Church, as being Martyrs, and of the Kindred of our Lord. And a profound Peace ensuing over the whole Church, they continued alive till the times of Trajan the Emperour, untill the foresaid Simeon, the son of Cleo­phas (who was That is, because he married Mary sister to the B. Virgin. See note A in chap. 11. of this Book. Unckle to our Lord) being accused by the The Authour Chronici Alex­andrini supposes that the Cerin­thian Hereticks and the Nicho­laïtes are here meant: to whom I doe not assent. Hegefippus means those Sects which at that time were potent at Jerusalem, to wit, the Pharisees, Sadduces, and others, of whom hereafter, at book 4. chap, 22. Vales. Hereticks, was in like manner also impeach [...] for the That is, because he Preacht the Faith of Christ, as he said before, and says again, B. 4. chap. 22. Vales. same thing before Atticus the president. And being cruelly tortured for many days he with con­stancie professed the Faith of Christ; in so much that the President and all those about him wondred greatly, how a man of an hundred and twenty years old as he was, could have endured such torments. And in fine, it was ordered he should be crucified.’ Moreover the same man, relating what was done in those times, adds, that untill then the This He­gesippus spoke of the Church of Jerusalem in particu­lar, to wi [...], that it con­tinued a Virgin un­till the death of Sy­meon, un­to Trajans time. The words of Hegesippus you will meet with hereafter, at chap. 22. B. 4. Euse­bius seems to have attributed that to the whole Church which Hegesippus spake of the Church at Jerusalem in particular. Vales. Church continued a pure and undefiled Virgin; those who endeavoured to cor­rupt the sound Rule of wholesom Doctrine, if any such persons there were, absconding them­selves hitherto in obscure darkness. But after the sacred company of the Apostles was by various kinds of death become extinct, and that generation of those men, who were accounted worthy to hear with their own ears the divine wisdom, was gone, then the conspiracy of impious errour took its rise from the deceit of false Teachers; who, in as much as not one of the Apostles was then surviving, did now at length with a bare face attempt to Preach up—the knowledge falsely so called, in oppo­sition to the doctrine of the Truth. All these words, to the end of the chapter, are wanting in the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. neither doth Rufinus acknowledge them in his translation, as appears therefrom. And this whole clause seems to me to be Spurious and supposititious. For whosoever added it, thought the words that went before were Hegesippus his; whereas they are not his, but Eusebius's, as we may see from chap. 22. B. 4. Vales. And thus much this Authour, treating of these things, has after this manner said. But we will proceed to what in order follows of our History.

CHAP. XXXIII. How Trajan forbad that the Christians should be sought after.

MOreover, so great a persecution raged a­gainst us at that time in many places, that Plinius Secundus the most eminent amongst the Governours of Provinces, being moved at the multitude of Martyrs, gave the Emperour an ac­count of the great numbers of those that were de­stroyed, because of their faith; and together there­with certified him, that he found they did nothing of impiety, nor acted any thing contrary to the Laws; onely that they rose at break of day, and sung Hymns to Christ, as unto God; but that they abhor'd the commission of Adultery and Murder, and such like horrid crimes; and that they did all things consonant to the Laws. Upon account of which Trajan made this Edict, That the Christians should not be sought out; but if by accident they were lighted on, they should be punished. Which being done, the most vehement heat of the persecution that lay heavy upon us was in some measure quenched: But to those who had a mind to doe us mischief there remained pretexts no whit less fair and specious; in some places the people, in others the Rulers of the Provinces, f [...]ming treacheries against us; in so much that even when there was no open and general perse­cution, yet there were particular ones throughout the Provinces, and very many of the Faithfull un­derwent various sorts of Martyrdomes. We have taken this account out of Tertullians Apology, written in Latine (of which we before made men­tion) the translation whereof is thus; ‘But we have found that the inquisition after us has been prohibited. For Plinius Secundus, when he was Governour of the Province, having con­demned some Christians, and deprived other [Page 47] some, being at length troubled at their great number, asked advice of Trajan then the Em­perour, what he should doe with the Residue, say­ing, that, besides their obstinacy in not sacri­ficing, he found nothing of impiety in their re­ligious mysteries, onely that they held early as­semblies in singing Hymns to Christ as unto God, and that they had a He that translated the words of Tertul­lian into Greek has rendred them un­happily. For neither does [...] signifie discipline, nor [...], to agree together. I would therefore rather translate these words of Tertullian thus, [...], i. e. and that they had a cer­tain summary of their polity. Vales. certain summary of their polity; that they forbad Murder, Adultery, Fraud, Perfidiousness, and such like crimes. Then Trajan returned answer, that those sort of men should not indeed be diligently sought out, but if by chance Here also the Greek translatour of Teriullian hath done ill; for Tertullian, or rather Trajan, calls those Oblatos, who were brought in before the Judges; for so the Latines use to speak. The sense there­fore of the Emperour Trajans Rescript against the Christians is this, that the Governours of Provinces should not too diligently hunt after the Christians by sending out Spies and Officers to take them▪ but if any Christians were by chance found out by their Officers, or if they were made appear to be such by their accusers, that then they ought to be punished. Vales. they were lighted on and brought before the Governours, they should be punished.’ And this was then the posture of affairs.

CHAP. XXXIV. That Evarestus was the Fourth that Governed the Roman Church.

CLemens, one of the Roman Bishops, having left his Episcopal Office to Evarestus, finished his life in the third year of the foresaid Emperours Reign; when he had had the charge of the doctrine of the Divine word for full nine years space.

CHAP. XXXV. That Justus was the Third that Governed the Church at Jerusalem.

BUt moreover, Simeon having finished his life after the foresaid manner, a certain Jew, by name Justus, succeeded in the Episcopal Seat at Jerusalem; there being then an innumerable com­pany of the Circumcision (of which he was one) that believed in Christ.

CHAP. XXXVI. Concerning Ignatius and his Epistles.

MOreover, at this time Polycarpe a disciple of the Apostles flourished in Asia, to whom was committed the Bishoprick of the Church at Smyrna, by those that saw and ministred to the Lord. At the same time This whole e­logue of Papias is wanting in our M. SS. copies, Maz. Med. and Fuk. Nei­ther did Rufinus read these words in his copies, as may be gathered from his translation. Wherefore I doubt not but they were inserted by some unskilfull Scholiast, a­gainst the mind and opinion of Eu­sebius. For how can it be▪ that Eusebius should here stile Papias a man most excellently learned, and very skilfull in the Scriptures, whenas himself does at the end of this book expresly affirm, that Pa­pias was a man of an ordinary wit, and altogether ignorant and simple. Vales. Papias was famous, who also was Bishop of the Church at Hierapolis, a man most eminently learned and eloquent, and know­ing in the Scriptures. Ignatius also, renowned a­mongst m [...]y even to this day, who was chosen Bishop of Antioch, being the se­cond in succession there, af­ter Peter. Report goes that this man was sent from Syria to Rome to be made food for wild beasts, upon account of the pro­fession of his faith in Christ. And being led through Asia under the custody of a most watch­full guard, he confirmed the Churches in every City through which he passed, by discourses and exhortations; warning them most especially to take heed of the Heresies, which then first sprung up and increased. And he exhorted them firmly to keep the traditions of the Apostles, which he thought necessary for the more certain knowledge of posterity to be put in writing, having confirmed them by his own testimony. Coming therefore at length to Smyrna, where Polycarpe then was, he wrote one Epistle to the Church at Ephesus, men­tioning Onesimus the Pastour there: and another to the Church at Magnesia standing on the River Meander, wherein again he makes mention of Damas the Bishop. And another to the Church at Trallis, the Governour whereof at that time he declares was Polybius. Besides these Epistles he wrote also to the Church at Rome, wherein he earnestly beseeches them that they would not in­treat him to avoid Martyrdom, least they should defraud him of his desired Hope. Out of which Epistle 'tis worth our quoting some short passages, for the confirmation of what we have said. Thus therefore he writes word for word; ‘From Syria to Rome I fight with beasts, by sea and land, day and night, bound to ten Leopards, that is, to a file of Souldiers, who being kindly treated by me, be­come In the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. 'tis read [...]. A little after I read, with Isaac Vossius, [...], that is, which I heartily wish may be found to be fierce, which amendment Rufinus his translation confirms. For thus he turns it, Quas & ego opto acri­ores parari. Therefore Rufinus read, [...], not [...], which signifies [soon, or straight-ways.] the same errour is amended by us hereafter, in the sixth book; for there [...] was Printed for [...]. Vales. But Bishop U­sher reads [...]; and also, [...]. See his Annot. on this Epistle▪ number 48. worse. But by their injuries I am the more in­structed; but for all that I am not justified. Oh! that I might enjoy the wild beasts that are provided for me▪ which I even heartily wish may be found to be fierce! which I will allure to devour me immediately, that they spare me not, as out of fear they have left some untoucht. But if they be unwilling to doe it, I will compell them by force. Pardon me; I know what is good for me: Now I begin to be a disciple: It is as much as if Ignatius had said, Let nothing envy me the Glory of being a disciple of Christ; Let no man pluck me from his Embraces. The holy Martyr al­ludes, as he uses to doe, to those words of St Paul, who shall sepa­rate us from the Love of Christ? Rom. 8. 35. Vales. See Bishop Usher's notes on Ignatius Epist▪ to the Romans, number 52. Let nothing visible or in­visible divert me from, or envy my happiness of, at­taining Christ Jesus. Let Fire, and the Cross, the as­saults of the wild beasts, the pulling asunder of bones, the cutting off of members, the stamping in pieces of the whole body, the pu­nishment of the Devil come upon me; so I may obtain Christ Jesus.’ And thus much he wrote from the foresaid City to the Churches before named. Being now gone beyond Smyrna, he from Troas again sent Letters to those at Phila­delphia, also to the Church at Smyrna, and pri­vately to Polycarpe the Prelate thereof: to whom, because he well knew him to be an Apostolical man, he entrusted his flock at Antioch, being a very true and good Pastour; requesting him, that he would have a diligent care thereof. The same person writing to those of Smyrna, borrows some words, which whence he had I This pas­sage of Ig­natius his concerning Christ is taken out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews; which was either omitted by Eusebius, or unknown to him. Jerome, in his book de Ecclesias. Scriptor. informs us hereof; as also in his 18 B. of Commentaries on Esaiah. See Ushers Annotat▪ on Ig­natius his Epistles. pag. 48. number 23. know not; [Page 48] speaking thus much concerning Christ; ‘But I both know and believe that after the Resur­rection he was in the Flesh; and that, coming to Peter and those who were about him, he said unto them, take hold of me, handle me, and see, for I am not an incorporeal Spirit: And straight­way they touched him, and believed.’ Irenaeus also speaks of his Martyrdom, and mentions his Epistles, saying thus; ‘As one of our men, con­demned to the wild beasts for his faith in God, said, I am the bread-corn of God, and I must be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found to be pure bread.’ And Polycarpe men­tions the same Epistles in that of his to the Phi­lippians, in these very words; ‘I therefore beseech you all to obey those that are over you, and to ex­ercise all manner of patience, which you have evidently seen not onely in those blessed men Ignatius, Rufus, and Zosimus, but also in others of us; likewise in Paul himself, and in the other Apostles: being fully perswaded that all these ran not in vain, but proceeded in Faith and Righteousness; and that they are in that place due to them from the Lord, together with whom they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but him who died for us, and was by God raised for us again. And a little after he adds; Both you and Ignatius wrote to me, that if any one went into Syria, he should carry your Letters thither. Which I will doe, if I can get a fit opportunity; either I my self, or some other, whom I will send as a messenger on purpose for you. Those Epistles of Ignatius sent by him to us, and all the other we had here with us, we have sent to you, according as you enjoyned us; they are made up with this Letter; from which Epistles you may profit very much; for they contain Faith, Patience, and what ever is conducible to our Edification in the Lord.’ And thus much concerning Ignatius: After whom succeeded Heros in the Bishoprick of Antioch.

CHAP. XXXVII. Concerning those Preachers of the Gospel who at that time were eminent.

AMong those who were illustrious in those times Quadratus was one, who, as Fame says, flourished at the same time with the daugh­ters of Philip, in the gift of prophecy. Many others also besides these were famous at that time, having obtained the first place among the succes­sours of the Apostles. Who, because they were the In our M. SS. Maz. Med. Fuk. and Sr Henry Sa­vills, it is written, [...], i. e. emi­nent, or ex­cellent dis­ciples. Vales. eminent disciples of such men, built up those Churches, the foundations whereof were every where laid by the Apostles; promoting greatly the doctrine of the Gospel, and scattering the salutary seed of the Kingdom of heaven at large over the whole world. For many of the then dis­ciples, whose souls were inflamed by the divine Word with a more ardent desire of Philosophy, first fulfilled our Saviours commandment, by distributing their substance to those that were necessitous; then after that travelling abroad, they performed the work of Evangelists to those who as yet had not at all heard the word of Faith; be­ing very ambitious to Preach Christ, and to de­liver the Books of the divine Gospels. And these persons, having onely laid the foundation of faith in remote and barbarous places, and constituted other Pastours, committed to them the culture of those they had perfectly introduced to the faith, departed again to other Regions and nations, ac­compained with the Grace and cooperation of God. For the divine Spirit as yet wrought many wonderfull works by them; insomuch that at the first hearing, innumerable multitudes of men did with most ready minds altogether admit of and en­gage themselves in the worship of that God who is the Maker of all things. But it being impossi­ble for us to recount by name all those who in the first succession of the Apostles were Pa­stours or Evangelists in the Churches throughout the world, we will here commit to writing the mention of their names onely, whose writings, containing the Apostolical doctrine they deli­vered, are to this day extant amongst us.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Concerning the Epistle of Clemens, and those other Writings, which are falsly attributed to him.

AS for example, the Epistles of Ignatius, which we have reckoned up, and that of Clemens acknowledged by all as undoubted, which he wrote in the name of the Roman to the Corin­thian Church. Wherein, seeing he has inserted many sentences taken out of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and sometimes had made use of the ex­press words of it, it evidently manifests that that work is not new; whence it has seemed agree­able to reason to reckon this Epistle amongst the rest of the Writings of that Apostle. For Paul having written to the Hebrews in his own coun­try Language, some say that Luke the Evangelist, but others that this Clemens, of whom we speak, translated that work. Which latter seems the truest opinion, because the stile both of Clemens his Epistle, and also of that to the Hebrews appeares to be very like; and the sense and expressions in both the works are not much different. You must also know that there is a second Epistle, which is said to be Clemens his: But we know for certain that this is not so generally acknowledged, nor approved of as the former, because we are sure the Antients have not quoted any authorities out of it. Further also, some have of late produced other voluminous and large works, as if they were his, containing the In the tenth book Recognit. of Clemens Romanus there is mention of Appion, who is said to have come to Antioch with Anubion about the same time that the Apostle Peter came thi­ther. But there is nothing said there of Peters dispute with Appion. What shall we say then? that the book of Clemens which contains Peters dispute with Appion is different from his books Recognit? To me indeed they seem not to be two books. For if there had been two books of Clemens's, the one Recognit. the other containing the dispute of Peter with Appion, why should Eusebius mention one onely, and omit the other? There was▪ therefore but one book of Clemens's en­titled [...], or [...]. But 'twas divided into two parts; the former mentioned Matidia and Faustinianus to be acknowledged of their children; in the second part was contained the dialogues of Peter and Appion. Indeed Rufinus, who translated that book of Clemens's into Latine, does testifie, in his Epistle to Gaudentius the Bishop, that there were two parts of this book in the Greek; in the one of which some things occurred which the other had not▪ he writes also that on set purpose he omitted some things, because they disa­greed from sound doctrine. Vales. Dialogues of Peter and This name is written with a double p, in all our M. SS. but that of Mr Fukett, where tis writ with à single p, as it is in Josephus and others. Photius, in Biblioth. chap. 112, agrees with our copies; and Clemens also in B. 10. Recognit. where he says that Appion Plisto­nicensis came to Antioch with Anubion. Lastly Agellius, in his 6 B. says Appion Graecus homo qui plistonices est appellatus. Undoubtedly Appion is a Roman name, wrested into a Greek form, as is [...]; and the like. Appion was a common name amongst the Egyptians; derived from Apis, whom they worshipped; as, Serapion, Anubion, and the like. Ptolcmaeus King of the Cyrenae was called Apion. Where­fore seeing this Grammarian the son of Plistonices was an Egyptian, it seems that he should be called Apion, rather than Appion. For Appion that was Consul in Justinians time, the Latine Annalls calls Appion; but the Chronicon Alexandrinum calls him Apion. Vales. Apion; But Origen, in his 3d B. Explanat. on Genesis, makes mention of these books of Clemens's; and quotes a passage out of them, which is still extant in the books of Clemens's Recognit. This quotation of Origens is in the 22 chap. Philocal. (pag. 81. Edit. Cambr. 1658.) and in the common editions of that piece the▪ place is said to be taken out of his B. 2. against Celsus; but in the books of Origen against Celsus now ex­tant, it is not to be found. This quotation out of Clemens is indeed in his 3d B. Explanat. on Genesis.—But I have observed that Origen does often quote books, whose authority is unknown; wherein he does, like the Bee, gather honey from venomous flowers. Vales. of which there is not the least mention extant amongst the Antients; neither does there appear in them the Photius testifies the same, chap. 112. Biblioth. and before him, Rufinus in his Epistle to Gaudentius the Bishop, to wit, that in those books Recognit. of Clemens's there are some things said concerning the Son of God, which disagree from the true rule of Faith, and make for the opinion of the Arrians. Epiphanius, in Heres. Ebionaeorum chap. 15. doe [...] expresly affirm, that those books of Clemens Romanus, entitled [...], were corrupted and falsified by the Ebionites. Vales. pure form of Apostolical sound do­ctrine. Now therefore 'tis apparent which are the genuine and undoubted writings of Clemens: we have also spoken sufficiently concerning the works of Ignatius and Polycarpe.

CHAP. XXXIX. Concerning the Books of Papias.

THe Books of Papias now extant, are five in number, which he entitled, an explication of the Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus mentions no more than these five to have been written by him, saying thus; ‘And these things Papias, the Au­ditour of John, the companion of Polycarpe, one of the antients, attests in writing, in the fourth of his books; for he compiled five.’ Thus far Ire­naeus. But Papias, in the preface to his books, does not evidence himself to have been a beholder, or an Auditour of the Holy Apostles, but onely, that he received the matters of faith from those who were well known to them; which he declares in these words; ‘But it shall not be tedious to me, to In the Kings M. S. it is, [...] agree­able to our translation. Rufinus reads this place so, as appears by his translation. For he renders it thus, Non pigebit autem nos tibi omnia quae quondam à Presby­teris didicimus, & bene retinemus, recordantes exponere cum interpre­tationibus nostris. But in the o­ther M. SS. Maz. Med. Fuk. and Nicephorus it is, [...]. Vales. set down in or­der together with my in­terpretations, those things which I have well learnt from the Elders, and faith­fully remembred, the truth whereof will be confirmed by me. For I delighted not in those who speak much, as most doe, but in those that teach the truth: nor in those who recite strange and unusual precepts; but in such as faithfully rehearse the command­ments given by the Lord, and which proceed from the truth. Now if at any time I met with a­ny one that had converst with the Elders, I made a diligent enquiry after their sayings, what Andrew, or what Peter said; or what Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the Lords disciples, were wont to say: And what Aristion, and John the Elder (the disciples of our Lord) uttered. For I thought that those things contained in books could not pro­fit me so much, as what I heard from the mouths of men yet surviving.’ In which words its very observable that he recounts the name of John twice; the former of whom he reckons among Peter, James, Matthew, and the rest of the Apostles; manifestly shewing thereby that he speaks of John the Evangelist: but, making a distinction in his words, he places the other John with those who are not of the number of the Apostles; putting Aristion before him; and expresly calls him The Elder. So that hereby is shown the truth of their relation, who have said that there were two in Asia who had that same name; and that there are two Sepulchres at Ephesus, and each of them now called the Sepulchre of John. Now I judged it very requisite to make this observation. For its likely that the second, (unless any one would ra­ther have it to be the first) saw that Revelation which goes under the name of John. Further, this Papias, whom we speak of, professes he re­ceived the sayings of the Apostles from those who had been conversant with them; and was, as he says, the hearer of Aristion and John the Elder. Indeed he mentions them often by name, and has set down in his works those traditions he received from them. And thus much has been said by us, not unprofitably, as we judge. It is also worth our adding to the fore-quoted words of Papias, other relations of the same Authours, wherein he gives an account of some miracles, and other pas­sages, which he received by tradition. Indeed, that Philip the Apostle together with his daugh­ters lived at Hierapolis, has been manifested by what we said Chap. 31▪ of this 3d ▪ book. before. Now we are to shew, that Papias, who lived at the same time, mentions his receiving a wonderfull narration from the daugh­ters of Philip. For he relates, that in his time a dead man was raised to life again: and further, that there came to pass another miracle about Justus who was surnamed In 3 of our M. SS. Maz. Med. and Fuk. it is [...], Bar­sabbas. Vales. Barsabas; how that he drank deadly poyson, and by the grace of the Lord su­steined no harm. That this Justus, after our Sa­viours Ascension, was together with Matthias set forth by the Holy Apostles, and that they prayed that one of them might instead of the Traitour Ju­das be allotted to fill up their number; the Book of the Acts of the Apostles doth after this manner relate—And they appointed two, Joseph called Acts 1. 23, 24. Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Mat­thias. And they prayed and said. Moreover the☜ same writer has set down some other things which came to him barely by word of mouth, to wit, cer­tain strange parables of our Saviours, and Sermons of his, and some other more fabulous relations: Among which he says there shall be a Thousand years after the Resurrection from the dead, where­in the Kingdom of Christ shall be corporally set up here on earth: and, I judge, he had this opinion from his misapprehending the Apostolical dis­courses, in that he did not see through those things they spake mystically by way of similitude. For he seems to have been a man of a very narrow un­derstanding, as it may be conjectured from his Books. Yet he gave occasion to very many Ec­clesiastical persons after him to be of the same er­ronious opinion with him; who had a regard for the antiquity of the man▪ as for example, to Ire­naeus, and to every one also who has declared him­self to be of the same opinion. He relates also in his Books other interpretations of the foresaid Aristion's, of the sayings of the Lord; and the traditions of John the Elder. To which we doe refer the studious Readers, and judge it requisite now onely to adjoyn to his fore mentioned words a passage he relates concerning Mark the Evange­list, in these words; ‘This also the Elder said; Mark, being the Jerom, in Catalogo, calls Mark the interpreter of Peter, from this place of Papias, as I judge. Hence 'tis, that many of the Greeks write, that the Gospel of Mark was dictated by Peter. So Athanasius in his treatise, de Libris Sacra Scri­pturae. Which, how its to be understood, Papias declares in this place. For it is not to be supposed that Mark wrote his Gospel from the mouth of Peter dictating to him; but, when he heard Peter Preaching the Word of God to the Jews in Hebrew, Mark carefully digested those things in the Greek Language, which concerned Christ. Vales. Interpreter of Peter, accu­rately [Page 50] wrote what ever he remembred; but yet not in that order, wherein Christ either spake, or did them: For he was neither an hearer of the Lords, nor yet his Follower; but, as I said, he was after­wards conversant with Peter, who Preacht the doctrine of the Gospel profitably to those that heard him, but not so as if he would compose an History of the Lords sayings. Wherefore Mark committed nothing of errour, in that he wrote some things so as he had remembred them. For he made this one thing his chiefest aime, to wit, to omit none of those things he had heard, nor yet to deliver any thing that was false therein.’ Thus much Papias relates concerning Mark. Con­cerning Matthew, he says this; Moreover Mat­thew wrote his divine Oracles in the Hebrew tongue, and every one interpreted them, as they were able. This Papias also has quoted autho­rities taken out of the First Epistle of John, and likewise out of the former Epistle of Peter. He has set down also another relation about a woman who was accused of many crimes before the Lord; which relation is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. And thus much we have usefully and diligently observed, and added to those things which before we had set down.

THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History of EVSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.

CHAP. I. Who were the Bishops of the Roman, and Alex­andrian Churches in the Reign of Trajane.

ABout the In the Chronicon of Eusebius, the begin­ning of Pri­mus's being Bishop of Alexandria falls upon the tenth year of Trajan. Al­so the beginning of Alexanders being made Bishop of Rome is placed on the tenth year of Trajan. But in the digesting of the years of the Bishops both of Rome, and also of other Cities, I have observed that Eusebius's Chronicon does often dissent from his Ecclesiastical History. Whether it be the fault of the Transcribers, or of Jerome the Tran­slatour, or of Eusebius himself▪ I cannot positively affirm: for in so great a diversity its difficult to assign the cause of the mistake. But, seeing that the Ecclesiastical History was written by Eusebius after his Chronicon wheresoever such a disagreement occurs, that seems rather to be followed, which is asserted in the Ecclesiastical History. Vales. twelfth year of Trajan's Em­pire, Cerdo the Bishop of the Alexan­drian Church, Book 3. chap. 21. whom we a little before mentioned, departed this life: and Pri­mus, the fourth from the Apostles, was elected to the publick charge of that Church. At the same time also, Evarestus having finished his eighth year, Alexander undertook the Bishoprick of Rome, who was the fifth in succession from Peter and Paul.

CHAP. II. What the Jews suffered in this Emperours time.

MOreover, the Doctrine and Church of our Saviour flourishing daily, increased more and more: but the calamities of the Jews were augmented by continual mischiefs following one upon another. For, the Emperour entring now upon the eighteenth year of his Reign, there arose again a commotion of the Jews, which destroyed a very great number of them. For both at Alex­andria and over all the rest of Egypt; and more­over throughout Cyrene, they being stirred up as it were by some violent and contentious spirit, raised Sedition against the The Jews, who dwelt in the Cl­ties and Towns with the Grecians and Gen­tiles, and had equal freedom thereof with them, did fre­quently disagree with them; tumults being u­sually rai­sed by rea­son of their different religions. For the Grecians scorned that the Jews should be fellow-ci­tizens with them and enjoy the same privi­ledges they did; on the other hand, the Jews would not live in a meaner condi­tion, than the rest of the Citizens did. Hence arose frequent con­tentions, both in Egypt, and also in Syria, as Philo, and Josephus doe attest. Therefore in our translation we have inserted both [Grecians and Gentiles] because one word seemed not to suffice. For the Jews did not onely assault the Grecians, but the Natives also of Egypt and Lybia: nor again, the Gentiles onely, but the Christians likewise, of whom there was then no small number in Egypt and Cyrene. Vales. Greeks and Gentiles with whom they dwelt. And they increasing the Faction very much, on the ensuing year enkindled a great War; Lupus was at that time Governour of all Egypt: Moreover it happened that in the first encounter they were too hard for the Greeks; who flying to Alexandria, took the Jews that were in the City alive, and slew them. But those Jews who inhabited Cyrene, being frustrated of assistance in the war from them, persisted to in­fest and destroy the countrey of Egypt and all its This destroying of all Egypt and Lybia by the Jews, besides Dion, Orosius mentions, in his 7 B. Vales. Prefectures, by pillages and robberies, one Lucuas being their Leader. Against whom the Emperour sent Marcius Turbo with horse and foot, and also with Navall forces: he in many ingagements, having made the war against them long and tedious, de­stroyed many Myriads of Jews, not onely of those of Cyrene, but also of those of Egypt, who flockt to­gether to give assistance to their King Lucuas. But the Emperour suspecting that those Jews in Meso­potamia would also set upon the inhabitants there, commanded This man was a Moor, not of the Province of Mauritania, but of the barbarous Moors, who were Allies of the Roman Empire. At first he commanded a Troop of Moors; not long after he was condemned for his lewdness, and in disgrace cashired. But afterwards in the Dacick war▪ when the Army stood in need of the assistance of the Moors, he did a brave piece of service. Upon which account being rewarded and honoured, he did more and braver exploits in the second Dacick war. At length, in the Parthian war, which Trajan waged against the Parthians, he was so valiant and fortunate, that he was chosen into the Pretorian order, bore a Consulship, and Governed the Province of Palestine, which promotion first made him to be envied, then hated, and at last ruined him. Thus much Dion Cassius relates, in Excerpt. Vales. Lusius Quiet us to clear that Province of them. Who ingaging with them, destroyed a very great number of them that dwelt there: for which successfull piece of service he was appointed Deputy of Judea by the Emperour. And thus much those heathens, who committed to writing the trans­actions of those times, doe almost in the very same words relate.

CHAP. III. Who, in the time of Adrian, wrote Apologies in de­fence of the Faith.

WHen Trajan had held the Empire twenty years compleat, excepting six months, Aelius Adrianus succeeded in the Government. To whom Quadratus dedicated and presented a book, wherein he had comprized an Apology for our Religion; because certain malicious men en­deavoured to molest the Christians. This work is still extant amongst many of the brethren, and we also have it. From which book may be seen perspicuous evidences of the man's understanding, and of his truely The phrase in the original is [ [...], i. e. of his A­postolical right divi­sion. This word oc­curs (2 Tim. 2. 15.) In the Old Testament the Greek translatours use of the word be­longs to a way or path to goe in, which was wont to be cut out that it might be fitter for use; thence the Latine phrase, viam secare, i. e. to cut a way, that is, to goe before and direct any in their journey. And with the word [ [...], right] joyned with it, it is to goe before one, and direct him in the straight way to such a place. Hence the Syriack version of the New Testament renders this phrase in Timothy [ [...],] recte praedicare sermonem, i. e. rightly to Preach the word. Fullers Miscellan. B. 3. chap. 16. Apostolical faith and sound doctrine. The same Writer makes his own anti­quity sufficiently evident, by what he relates in these very words; ‘The works of our Saviour were always conspicuous; for they were true. Those that were healed, such as were raised from the dead, did not onely appear after they were healed, and raised; but also were afterwards seen of all: and that not onely whilest our Sa­viour was conversant upon earth, but also after he was gone they continued alive a great while; in so much that some of them survived even to our times.’ Such a person indeed was Quadra­tus. Aristides also, a faithfull man of that Re­ligion profest by us, left in like manner, as Qua­dratus did, an Apologie for the faith, dedicated to Adrian. And this mans book is, to this day, preserved by many persons.

CHAP. IV. Who were ennobled with the Title of Bishops over the Roman, and Alexandrian Churches in this Emperours time.

IN the third year of Adrians Empire, Alexan­der the Bishop of Rome died, having compleat­ed the tenth year of his administration. Xystus was successour to him: and about that time, Pri­mus dying in the twelfth year of his Presidency over the Alexandrian Church, Justus succeeded him.

CHAP. V. Who were Bishops of Jerusalem from our Saviour, even to these times.

MOreover, the space of time which the Bishops of Jerusalem spent in their Presidency over that See I could in no wise find preserved in writing. For, as report says, they were very short lived: But thus much I have been informed of from old records, that unto the Siege of the Jews in Adrian's time, there were in number fifteen successions of Bishops there: all whom, they say, were by birth Hebrews, who had sincerely embraced the knowledge of Christ; in so much that by those, who were then able to give judgment as to such matters, they were approved to be worthy of the Episcopal Office. For that whole Church at Jerusalem was made up of be­lieving Jews, who had continued steadfast in the faith from the Apostles times even to the then Siege: wherein the Jews, revolting again from the Romans, were vanquished and destroyed by no small wars. The Bishops therefore that were of the circumcision then ceasing, it will be now requisite to give a catalogue of them in their order from first to last. The first therefore was James called the brother of the Lord; after him the se­cond was Simeon; the third Justus; the fourth Zaccheus; the fifth Tobias; the sixth Benjamin; the seventh John; the eighth Matthias; the ninth Philip; the tenth Seneca; the eleventh Justus; the twelfth Levi; the thirteenth Ephres; the fourteenth Eusebius, in his Chro­nicon, calls him Joses. So Joseph the bro­ther of the Lord, of whom Mat­thew and Mark speak in their Gospels, is by Jerom and others called Jo­ses. Ephres also is, by Nicephorus, called Ephrem. Vales. Joseph; the fifteenth and last Judas: And thus many were the Bishops of the City of Jerusalem, from the Apostles to this time we are now treating of; all which were of the Circum­cision. But now, Adrian being in the twelfth year of his Empire, Telesphorus the seventh from the Apostles, succeeded Xystus, who had com­pleated the tenth year of his Episcopal Office over the Romans; and within a years space and Or, one month; for so Rufinus seems to have read in his copy. Vales. some months Eumenes, the sixth in order, succeeded in the Presidency over the Alexandrian Church; his immediate predecessour there having sate eleven years.

CHAP. VI. The last Siege of the Jews in the time of Adrian.

BUt when the rebellion of the Jews again in­creased exceedingly, His name was Tinius Rufus. Eu­scbius, in his Chronicon, says this re­bellion hap­pened on the 16 year of Adrian; at which time the said Rufus was Presi­dent of the Province of Judea. Vales. Rufus the president of Judea, having had auxiliary forces sent him from the Emperour, marched out against them; and, making use of their madness and desperation as an occasion of his sparing none, he slew Myriads together both of men women and children; and by the Law of war reduced their country to ser­vitude and subjection to the Romans. The Leader of the Jews at that time was by name Barchochebas, a name indeed that signifies a Star, but otherwise he was a man that was a murderer and a robber: who by reason of his name did monstrously pre­tend to his followers, being He calls the Jews slaves, be­cause of their poverty and base­ness of birth; for most of them were descended of those captives, who were fold under Titus. Vales. slaves, that he was a star come down from heaven to enlighten them who were now oppressed with servitude. But, the war growing sharp in the eighteenth year of Adrian's Empire at the City Or, Biththera; there was a Town called Betthar, which was two and fifty miles distant from Jerusalem; another Village there was called Bethar, which was twelve miles off Jerusalem: both these Jerome calls Bethoron. Vales. Bet­thera, which was the best for­tified place, and not far di­stant from Jerusalem; and the Siege continuing a long time; the innovatours also having been utterly destroyed by famine and thirst; and the authour of this their madness undergone [Page 52] condigne punishment; from that time that whole Nation was The same is attested by Tertul­lian, Apo­loget. c. 16; by Celsus, in the latter end of B. 8 of Origen a­gainst him; and by Gre­gor. Naz. in his 12 Orat. One­ly, on one day (that whereon Jerusalem was taken and destroyed by the Romans) the Jews out of all nations were wont to meet in Palestine, and, having paid a sum of money to the Souldiers, they entred into that part of the City where Solomon's Temple here­tofore stood; and there they bewailed the destruction of the City and Temple. See Scaliger, in Animadvers. Euseb. p. 198. Vales. altogether interdicted to enter into the country about Jerusalem: the Law, Edict, and Sanctions of Adrian having commanded them, that they should not so much as from a far off be­hold their paternal soyle. Ariston of That was a City of Syria, which, after the destruction of Jerusa­lem by Titus, was the seat of the Bishops of Jerusalem; as Eusebius testifies. This Ariston of Pella wrote a book entitled a Dispute of Ja­son and Papiscus; this book Origen makes mention of in his 4 B. against Celsus: but the Preface of it is onely now extant amongst the works of Cyprian. Vales. Pella re­lates this. Thus the City being made destitute of the Jewish Nation, and wholly cleared of its old inhabitants, was possessed by forreigners that dwelt there, and Euscbius is here doubly mistaken; both in that he says Jerusa­lem was wholly destroyed in Adrian's time; and also because he thought that Aelia Capitolina was built by the same Adrian after the Siege of Betthera. As to the first; its evident from Josephus, that Jerusalem was totally destroyed by Titus, in so much that it was ploughed. As to the second, Aelia was so far from being built by Adrian after this Victory obtained over the Jews, that this war was begun by the Jews upon that very account. For when the Jews saw the Soyle of their City occupied by strangers; and perceived that in that very place where the Temple had been, Jupiter Capitolinus was worshiped and sacrificed to; being not able to endure that, they took Arms, and began this war which Eusebius here relates. Which was begun in the 16 year of Adrian, and ended the 18 of his Empire. But Aelia Capitolina was built long before, to wit, in the second year of Adrian. From whose times to those of Constantine the Great it was always called Aelia. But from the time of Constantine the Great it recovered again the name of Jerusalem, both upon the account of the honour of that name, and also because of its prerogative, being the first Episcopal Seat. Vales. afterwards made a Roman City; and, changing its name, was, in honour of the Em­perour Aelius Adrianus, called Aelia. And, when there was a Church there gathered of the Nations that dwelt in it, Mark was the first who, after the Bishops of the circumcision, undertook the publick administration of matters there.

CHAP. VII. Who at that time were the Authours of false doctrine.

NOw, the Churches throughout the whole world shining like most bright stars, and the faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ flourishing among all mankind, the Devil that hater of good, as being always the enemy of truth, and most malicious impugner of mans salvation, using all his arts and stratagems against the Church, at first armed himself against it with outward per­secutions: But then afterwards being excluded from them, he made his assaults by other methods, ma­king use of evil men and Impostours as being the pernitious instruments for destroying of souls, and ministers of perdition: devising all ways, whereby these impostours and deceivers, cloath­ing themselves with the title of our Religion, might both lead into the Pit of destruction, those of the Faithfull whom they had enticed to them­selves, and also divert such as were unskilfull in the Faith from the way that leads to the com­fortable Word, by such means as they attempted to put in practise. From that Menander therefore, whom we a little Book 3. chap. 26. before manifested to have been the successour of Simon, there was hatcht a Ser­pentine breed, double mouthed as it were, and double headed, which constituted the Founders of two different and disagreeing Heresies; Saturninus, by birth an Antiochian, and Basilides, an Alexan­drian; whereof the former in Syria, the other in Egypt, set up Schools of most detestable Heresies. Moreover, Irenaeus makes it manifest that Satur­ninus feigned mostly the same things that Me­nander did; but that Basilides under a pretext of more mystical matters, most mightily enlarged his inventions, forming monstrous and fabulous ficti­ons for the making up of his impious Heresie. There being many Ecclesiastical men therefore, who at that time were defenders of the Truth, and eloquent main­tainers of the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical doctrine, some of them forthwith comprized in writing ex­planatory accounts of the fore-manifested Heresies, which they left as cautions and preventions to po­sterity: of which there is come to our hands a most strenuous confutation of Basilides, of A­grippa Castor's, a most eminent Writer in those times; wherein he discovers the horrible imposture of the man: disclosing therefore his secrets, he says that he made four and twenty books upon the Eusebius says not upon what Gospel Basilides wrote these, books, perhaps Basilides made these books upon his own Go­spel; for he wrote one, and set his own name to it, and called it [the Gospel according to Basili­des] as Origen attests in his 1 Homil, on Luke; and Jerom in his Preface to S. Matthew. These books were called Basilides's Exe­geticks. Clemens (lib. 4. Stromat.) quotes some places out of the 23d of these books. Vales. Gospel, and that he coun­terfeited for himself Prophets named by him Or, Barcabas: upon these Prophets, Barcabbas and Barcoph, Isodore the son of Basilides wrote some books of Expositions, as Cle­mens Alexandr. shews, B. 6. Stro­mat. Vales. Barcabbas and Barcoph, and some Eusebius speaks here of those Prophets whom Basilides seigned for himself. Our Authour is right in his saying that Basilides's Here­sie sprang up in Adrian's Reign. For then the Hereticks began to creep out of their holes: they thought (the Apostles being all dead) that they had then an opportune time to divulge their errours. Vales. o­thers who never were in be­ing; and that he gave them barbarous names to astonish those who were admirers of such things; and that he taught that it was a thing indifferent to taste of meats offered to Idols, and that in times of persecutions those did not imprudently who ab­jured the Faith: and that, after the manner of the Py­thagoreans, he injoyned a five years silence to his followers: the foresaid Authour having recounted these things and o­thers like them concerning this Basilides, hath most di­ligently detected and brought to light the errour of the fore­mentioned Heresie. But Ire­naeus writeth also, that Car­pocrates, the father of another Heresie termed the Gnostick Heresie, was cotemporary with these. These Gnosticks thought that those magical de­lusions of Simon's were not to be exposed covertly as he did, but publickly and openly; boasting of amorous potions accurately and curiously made by them, and of certain spirits that were causes of Dreams, and So they were cal­led, because they were supposed to be assistant to men; and kept them from di­seases, and unfortu­nate acci­dents. Ma­gicians had such spirits as these at their com­mand, by whose help they did miraculous things. Vales. Familiars, and of certain other such like delusions, as if these were the greatest and one­ly excellent things. And agreeable hereunto they taught, that those who would arrive to perfection in their mysteries, or rather detestable wickednesses, must act all things that were most filthy and un­clean; being no other ways able to avoid the Ru­lers of the world (as they call them) unless they distributed to all of them their dues by most filthy and detestable acts of obscenity. The devill there­fore who delights in mischief, making use of these instruments, it came to pass that he both miserably enslaved such as were seduced by them, and so led them into destruction; and also gave those Na­tions that were unbelievers a great occasion of a­bundantly slandring the divine doctrine; a report arising from them being diffused to the reproach­full detraction of the whole Christian Religion. Upon this account therefore chiefly it happened than an impious and most absurd suspition con­cerning us was spread abroad amongst those who [Page 53] then were unbelievers; as if we used detestable carnal copulation with mothers and sisters, and fed upon nefarious meats. But these crafts of the devil's did not long succeed with him; the truth asserted and confirmed its self, and in process of time shone forth most clearly and apparently. For these devices of the adversaries, being repelled by their own force, forthwith became extinct; Heresies of a different sort newly designed and cut out, and succeeding one after the other, the former forthwith melted and fell away, and being dissolved into kinds that were of divers sorts and fashions, were, some one way, some another, de­stroyed. But the brightness of the Catholick and onely true Church, being always the same and so continuing stedfast and like it self, was greatly in­creased and augmented; the gravity, the sincerity, the ingenious freedom, the modesty, and purity of an holy conversation and Philosophical course of life shooting forth a splendour over all Nations both Grecians and Barbarians. That reproachfull detraction therefore wherewith our Religion had been overspread, was instantly suppressed. Where­fore our doctrine continued to be the onely, and the [...] is the term in the original, hence the Christian Religion was by the heathens called [...], i. e. the pre­vailing o­pinion; and the Chri­stians were termed [...] by Porphyrius, in his book de Oraculor. Philosoph. which place Eusebius quotes, in his 9th B. Preparat. Evangel. cap. 10. Vales. prevailing opinion among all men, and was confessed to be most eminently flourishing upon account of its gravity, its prudent modesty, and its divine and wise precepts: in so much that no one hitherto hath been so audacious, as to charge our faith with any foul slander, or any such reproach­full detraction, as those our old adversaries were formerly ready and willing to make use of. But moreover, in these times the truth again produced many that were its defenders, who engaged these impious Heresies, not onely with unwritten argu­ments, but also with penned demonstrations.

CHAP. VIII. What Ecclesiastical Writers there were in those times.

AMongst which flourished In my o­pinion He­gesippus is not rightly placed in the times of Adrian; neither doe his words, here quoted by Euse­bius, evince so much. It's certain, Hegesippus wrote his books when Eleutherus was Bishop of Rome, as he himself attests in the 22 chap. of this book. He was contempo­rary therefore with Irenaeus, who then composed his Elaborate books against the Heresies. In­deed our Eusebius, retracting as it were his former opinion, does, in the 21, and 22 chapt. of this book, place Hegesippus in the times of Marcus Antoninus. Vales. Hegesippus, out of whom we have quoted many words in our foregoing books, when we delivered some passages of those things done in the Apostles times from his relation thereof. He therefore having in five books set forth the certain relation of the Apo­stolick doctrine in a most plain series, evidently shews the time wherein he flouri­shed: writing thus concer­ning those who at first set up images—For whom they made Monuments and Temples, as untill now they doe. Of which number is Antinous the ser­vant of Caesar Adrianus, in honour of whom there is a sacred Which was celebrated every fifth year, at Mantinea in Arcadia, says Pausanias, in Arcad. Vales. game instituted, called Antinoium, which is cele­brated now in our days. For Adrian also built a City, and named it Antinous, and in­stituted Amongst the Egyptians, the chief Priest, who was over the o­ther Priests, and distributed to them the Revenue of the Temple, was called a Prophet. For the first Officer of the temple was the Cant [...]r, then the Horoscopus, after him the Scriba, then the Vestitor: last of all the Propheta took his place, who carried a water-pot in his bosom. See Epiphan. in 3 B. advers. Haeres. &c. Concerning these Prophets of An­tinous instituted by Adrian there is mention made in an old Greek in­scription, quoted by Casaubon in his notes on Spartianus. Wherefore its no wonder that Antinous, deified by Adrian, had his Prophets, seeing he was worshipped chiefly by the Egyptians. Vales. Prophets. At the same time also Justin, a sincere lover of the true Philosophy, as yet spent his time about, and was studious in, the writings of the gentile Philoso­phers: he in like manner declares this very time, in his Apologie to Antoninus, writing thus; We judge it not absurd here to mention Antinous also who lived very lately; whom all men through fear have undertaken to worship as a God, not with­standing they evidently know who he was, and from whence he had his original. The same Authour, mentioning also the war then waged against the Jews, adds thus much; For in the [...], &c. i. e. in the Jewish war which was not long since. For the Greek word [ [...]] is some­times used in such a sense, as to signifie [nuper] i. e. lately. In which sense Justin uses it, when he speaks of Antinous in this chapt. Vales. late Jewish war, Barchochebas, who was the Head of the Jewish Re­bellion, gave command that the Christians onely should be most cruelly tormented, unless they would deny Jesus Christ, and blaspheme. But moreover, de­claring in the same book, his own conversion from the gentile Philosophy to the worship of the true God, that it was not done by him rashly and unad­visedly, but with judgment and consideration, he writes thus; ‘I also my self, being much addicted to and affected with the Platonick Philosophy, hear­ing the Christians calumniated, and seeing them undaunted at death, and at what ever else is ac­counted terrible, thought it impossible that such men should live wickedly and be given to vo­luptuousness. For, what sensual or intemperate person, and one who accounts humane flesh good food, could willingly embrace death, which would deprive him of his desires? and would not rather use his utmost endeavour to live con­tinually in this life, and conceal himself from the Magistrates? much less would he volunta­rily offer himself to be put to death.’ Moreover the same Authour relates, that Adrian (having received letters from that most eminent Gover­nour Or, Se­rennius; he was Pro­consul of Asia, and predeces­sour to Minutius Fundanus in that Go­vernment. Vales. Serenius Granianus concerning the Chri­stians, setting forth how unjust it was they should be slain uncondemned, meerly to gratifie the cla­mours of the people, when no accusation appeared against them) wrote an answer to It may be deservedly questioned, why Adri­an answer­ed not Gra­nianus from whom he received these letters but wrote to Minu­tius Fun­danus his successour: the reason, as I sup­pose, might be this; either Gra­nianus died soon after he wrote to Adrian; or else he left that Go­vernment; For the Proconsuls were annual. Vales. Minucius Fundanus Proconsul of Asia, wherein he com­manded that no one should be put to death with­out a judiciary prosecution, and an accusation lawfull and allowable. And Justin there pro­duceth the copy of the Rescript in Latine, the lan­guage wherein it was originally written. But before it he premiseth these words; ‘Justin, in his second Apologie, as 'tis now commonly written, p. 99. Vales. And al­though from the letter of the most excellent and renowned Caesar Adrianus your father, we might request you would give command, that the judiciary proceedings against us be made ac­cording as we desire; yet we crave this, not so much because it was commanded by Adrian, but, in regard we know and understand our petition to be just: And moreover, that you may per­ceive what we say herein to be true, we have in­serted the copy of Adrian's letter;’ which is thus. To these words Justin hath annexed the Latine copy of the Letter; which we, as well as we could, have done into Greek, after this man­ner.

CHAP. IX. The Rescript of Adrian, that we Christians should not be unjustly prosecuted.

‘TO Minutius Fundanus. I received a letter, written to me, from that eminent person Serennius Granianus, your predeces­sour. [Page 54] Indeed, this business, a I judge, is not to be passed by undiscussed; least both the Chri­stians be molested, and also an occasion of do­ing mischief given to Sycophants. Wherefore if the men of your Province can by a due way of complaint openly charge the Christians with any accusation, and so doe it, as that they ap­pear and answer it before the seat of judicature; let them make it their business onely to take such a course as this against them; but let them not use He means the out­cries, which the people were wont to make in the Thea­tres, - The Christians to the Ly­ons! as Ter­tullian at­tests. Some­times it so happened that the Proconsuls and Governours were forced to yield to these tumultuous clamours, though unwilling to it of themselves. Wherefore the Emperour Adrian admonisheth Fundanus the Proconsul not to suffer himself to be induced by such requests to the persecution and slaughter of the Christians. It was an old custom in the Roman Empire, for the populace both in the City and in the Provinces, as oft as they met at the publick shews, to ask of the Emperour, or Governour what they had a mind to, with loud outcries all at once. Instances hereof are frequent in the Writers of the Roman History. Vales. tumultuous outcries and clamours. For its most requisite, if any person preferr's a com­plaint, that you should have the cognisance of the matter. If therefore any one does accuse them, and make out that they doe any thing con­trary to the Laws, doe you give sentence ac­cording to the nature of the offence. But if it be certain, that any does frame an accusation meerly out of a malicious detraction, doe you determine according to the heinousness of the crime, and take care that due punishment be inflicted on him.’ And thus much concerning the Rescript of Adrian.

CHAP. X. Who in the Reign of Antoninus were Bishops of the Roman and Alexandrian Sees.

BUt, Adrian having paid the dues of nature after he had reigned one and twenty years, Antoninus, surnamed Pius, succeeded in the Ro­man Empire. In whose first year Telesphorus departing this life in the eleventh year of his pre­sidency, Hyginus assumed the Episcopal Govern­ment of the Roman Church. Moreover, Irenaeus relates that Telesphorus ended his life with a glo­rious Martyrdom; manifesting in the same place, that in the times of the aforesaid Hyginus Bishop of the Romans, flourished at Rome both Valentinus the introducer of his own Heresie, and also Cerdo the Founder of the errour of the Marcionites; his words are these.

CHAP. XI. Concerning those who were Arch-Hereticks in these times.

‘FOr Valentinus came to Rome when Hygi­nus was Bishop there: but he flourisht in the times of Pius, and continued to those of Anicetus. Cerdo also, who was master to Marcion, flourisht in the times of Hyginus who was the These words of I­renaeus are extant in his 3 B. chap. 4. where the old translatour seems to have read the eighth: which reading is most agreeable to trenaeus, as ap­pears from the 3 chapt. of the same book; where he, reckoning up the Roman Bishops, counts Hyginus the eighth from the Apostles. But in the 1 B. of Irenaeus chap. 28. its written [the ninth] so also in Epiphan. in Haeres. Cerdon. and in the Epistle of Cyprian to Pomp [...]ius. Vales. ninth Bishop; he went into the Church, and openly confessing his errour, so continued at Rome; sometimes teaching privately, other while a­gain acknowledging his errour; but being now and then reprehended for his impious doctrine, he Irenaeus does not say he was excommunicated; but that he sepa­rated himself from the Church; whence it appears, that Cerdo con­demned himself, in his own judgment, and so prevented the sentence of the Church. Vales. with­drew himself from the as­sembly of of the brethren.’ Thus far Irenaus, in his third book against He­resies. Moreover, in his first book he again says this concerning Cerdo: ‘But one Cerdo, deriving the original of his errours from the Tenets of Simon, came to Rome in the times of Hyginus (who was the ninth that in the Episcopal suc­cession from the Apostles had that See) and taught, that that God, who was Preacht under the Law, and by the Prophets, is not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ: For the one is known, the other unknown; the one is just, the other good: Marcion of Pontus, an impudent blasphe­mer, succeeding him, did mightily propagate that opinion.’ But the same Irenaus, having sounded the bottom of that immense depth of matter, full of various errours, which Valentinus, had put together, does fully discover the secret and occult deceit and wickedness, that like a Serpent lurking in its hole, lies hid within him. More­over, he says there was at the same time another person (by name Mark) who was most expert at Magical delusions: and further, he declares their prophane rites of initiation, and their most de­testable mysteries in these very words; ‘For some of them prepare a nuptial-bed, and perform a secret ceremony by pronouncing some words over such as are to be initiated; and a marriage, they say, thus made by them, is spiritual, and conformable to the celestial nuptials: But others of them bring [those that are to be initiated] to the water, and dipping them, use this form of words, In the name of the unknown Father of all, In the truth the Mother of all, In Him who descended upon Jesus: Another sort of them pronounce Hebrew names, to put those that are to be initiated into the greater consternation.’ But Hyginus dying, Rufinus seems to have readit otherwise; for he tran­slates it thus; Quarto au­tem Episco­patûs sui anno cùm decessisset Hyginus, &c. i. e. Hyginus dying in the fourth year of his being Bishop, &c. Vales. after he had been Bishop four years, Pius undertook the Government of the Roman Church. Moreover, at Alexandria Mark was chosen Pastour, Eumenes having sat there thirteen years compleat. Which Mark dying after he had presided there ten years, Celadion assumed the Government of the Alexandrian Church: and at Rome, Pius departing this life in the fifteenth year of his presidency, Anicetus was preferred to that See. In whose time Hege­sippus relates that he himself came to Rome, and continued there untill Eleutherus was made Bishop. But at that time flourished Justin and was singularly eminent, one that in a Philosophi­cal habit was an assertour of the Divine Word, and earnestly contended for the Faith in his writings: who, in the Our Eusebius forgot himself here, in that he says, that these following words of Justins were taken out of his book against Marcion; they are taken out of Justins second Apologie; pag. 70. Edit. Paris. Vales. book he wrote against Marcion, mentions the man to be alive at that time when he com­piled that work. His words are these; ‘And one Mar­cion of Pontus; who now at this time teacheth his followers, and instructs them [to believe] there is another God grea­ter than him that made the world. This man also, assisted by devils hath perswaded many throughout the world to speak blasphemy, to deny the Maker of the universe These words [to be the Fa­ther of Christ] are wanting in the common Editions of Justin; and they seem to be superfluous. Marcion asserted, there were two Gods, the one the Creatour, by whom this world was made▪ the other superiour to him; who framed the better and more excellent things: this God, he said, we ought to confess, and to deny the other. This is the meaning of Justins words: to whom agrees Epiphan. in Haeres. Marcion. Marcion held, that that most High God was the Father of Christ; and that Christ came down from heaven to repre­hend the other God the maker of this world, whom he called the God of the Jews. Vales▪ to be the Fa­ther of Christ, and to affirm there is another [Page 55] greater than he that made it: And all their followers, as we said, are called Christians, af­ter the same manner as the name of Philosophers, derived from Philosophie, is in common given to all that profess it, though they differ as to their Sects and Opinions.’ To this he adds fur­ther, saying, ‘We have compiled a book against all the Heresies that ever were, which, if you be willing to read it, we will deliver to you.’ The same Justin, having wrote many elaborate works against the Heathens, dedicated also some other books, containing an Apology for our faith, to the Emperour Antoninus, surnamed Pius, and to the Roman Senate: For he dwelt at Rome: But in his Apologie, he makes known himself, who and whence he was, in these words.

CHAP. XII. Concerning Justin's Apologie to Antoninus.

‘TO the Emperour Titus Aelius Hadria­nus Antoninus Pius Caesar Augu­stus, and to Verissimus his son the Philosopher, and to Lucius (By Lucius was by Na­ture the son of Aelius Verus Cae­sar whom Adrian a­dopted. He dying, A­drian ado­pted An­toninus Pi­us▪ upon this condi­tion, that Pius should adopt Mar­cus and Lu­cius; as Spartianus and Capitolinus doe declare. But others say, that Lucius was adopted by Marcus; so Capitolinus in the life of Mar­cus. Wherefore in these words of Justin, can be no other person meant by Caesar the Philosopher, than Aelius Verus, whom Adrian adopted. For Justin says, that Lucius was by nature the son of Caesar the Philosopher, and the adoptive son of Antoninus Pius. Now, its evident, Lucius was Aelius Verus's own son: therefore by Caesar the Philosopher must be meant Aelius Verus. But there are two things which seem to withstand this exposition of this passage. The first is, the surname of Philosopher is no way agreeable to Aelius Verus. In­deed, Aelius Verus (who was adopted by Adrian) was a learned man, and studious, especially in Poetry, as Capitolinus says in his life: but his Moralls were in no wise agreeable to the study and profession of Philosophy. Then further, if Justin would here mean Aelius Verus why does he not mention his name? For the Appellation of Caesar the Philosopher seems not sufficient to evidence him to be meant; in as much as that appellation might be common to Marcus also. We could easily clear our selves of these difficulties by admit­ting the reading of the four M. SS. Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. where this place is thus written [And to Lucius the Philosopher, by nature the son of Caesar] which reading Casaubon approves of, in his notes on Spartianus. But we judge it not to be good. For it follows in Justin [the lover of Learning] where you see, Marcus and Lucius have each their Epithetes: Marcus is termed [the Philosopher] and Lucius [the lover of Learning] Vales. Nature son of Caesar the Philosopher, but by Adoption son to Pius) the lover of Learning: To the sacred Senate also, and people of Rome, I Justin the son of Priscus, the Grandchild of Bacchius, who were of Neapolis, a City of Palestine, is called Flavia, because there was a colony brought thither by Flavius Vespasianus. Before, it was called Sichem. Yet Pliny does not say there was a Colony there. After­wards, the Emperour Severus deprived it of its priviledges, and reduced it to a village, because it favoured Nigers side. Vales. Fla­via Neapolis a City of Syria-Palestine, make my Request and In the Original 'tis [ [...]] Rufinus translates it [postula­tum, i. e. a Petition] The Greek word [ [...]] signifies, to goe to the Emperour, and make a request to him; which was most com­monly done in writing: There is extant a form of such a Petition (presented by Marcellinus the Presbyter to Theodosius Augustus) which Syrmondus published lately: it begins thus; Deprecamur man­suetudinem vestram; i. e. We earnestly intreat your Graciousness, &c. Vales. Petition in behalf of those men (being my self one of them) who are un­justly hated and most injuriously treated by all mankind.’ And the same Emperour, being addrest too by other brethren, Inhabitants of Asia, who were vexed with all manner of mole­stations by the men of their own Province, voutsafed to send this Edict to the See note B. in the following Chapter. Common-Council of Asia.

CHAP. XIII. The Rescript of Antoninus to the Common Coun­cil of Asia, concerning our Religion.

‘THe Emperour Caesar Eusebius is mistaken in attribu­ting this Rescript to Antoninus Pius, whenas it was M. Aurelius's (as appears by the Title) writ­ten in the first year of his Reign, when he was Consul III. See Onuphrii Fast. ad ann. Vrb. 914. The testimony of Melito (which Eusebius produces to confirm his opinion in this point) destroys it. For Melito, in his Apologie, reckons up all the Rescripts of Antoninus Pius in favour of the Christans; to wit, his Epistle to the Lariseans, to the Thessalonians, the Athenians, and to all the Gre­cians: Now if this Rescript to the Common Council of Asia had been Antoninus Pius's, doubtless Melito (being of the Province of Asia) would not have omitted it. For he could not be ignorant of it, since it was publisht at Ephesus: and, when he had reckoned up the other Rescripts of Pius, why should he not make mention of this, which was written to the people of his own Province? Vales. Mareus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus Armenicus, Ponti­fex Maximus, Tribune of the People XV, Con­sul III. to the [...], i. e. Councill, is to be understood. For the Afians had a Common. Councill of the whole Province, to which each City sent its Representatives; as Aristides declares, in the 4. of his Orat. Sacr. And the same Au­thour says there, that this Coun­cill met in the upper Phrygia, that is, at Apamea, or Synnada. Yet, as it seems, they met in other Cities. There were, in the other Roman Provinces, such Councills as these. Vales. Common [Councill] of Asia, sendeth greeting. We know indeed that the Gods doe take care, this sort of men should not continue undis­covered. For it is much more sutable for them to punish such as resuse to pay them Adoration, than for you. You confirm those, whom you molest and dis­quiet, in their opinion which they have embraced, whilest you accuse them of impiety. And it would please them much more to seem to be accused and put to death for their own God, than to live: upon which ac­count they are become con­querours, and doe willingly lose their lives, rather than they will be induced to doe what you command them. But concerning the Earth­quakes, which either have been or yet doe happen, it will not be inconvenient to advertise you (because you despond and are out of heart when such accidents come to pass) to compare It should be [...], i. e. Your: as it is in Ju­stins Apo­logie, at the end. Vales. your [manner of life and behaviour] with theirs. They [at such times] put a greater confidence in God; but you, du­ring the whole time (upon which account you seem to us to err through ignorance) neg­lect the Gods, and are careless both of all other [religious performances,] and also of the wor­ship of the immortal God: And the Christi­ans, who adore him, you are enraged at, and persecute even to death. Concerning these men many Governours of Provinces heretofore wrote to Although this Rescript be not Antoninus Pius's; yet it's here produced in an opportune place. For in it is mention made of that Epistle which Antoninus Pius wrote to the Governours of Pro­vinces, when they enquired of him what they should doe with the Christians. Melito makes mention of this Epistle of Pius's; whose words Eusebius quotes in chap. 26. of this 4 book. Vales. our most divine father. To whom he re­turned answer, that such men should not be mole­sted, unless it appeared they attempted any thing preju­dicial to the State of the Roman Empire: And ma­ny also have given us in­timation concerning these men, whom we answered pursuant to our Fathers decree. If therefore any one shall still persevere to give disturbance to any one of these sort of men, because he is a Christian, the party accused shall be acquitted, although it evidently appears he is a Christian; but the accuser shall be obnoxious to punishment.’ This Edict was To some Laws, in the Codex Theodosian. there is put [P. P.] which mark signifies that that Law of the Emperour was made Publick in such a City. For the Em­perours, as oft as they would have any Edict be taken notice of and known to all, were wont to write with their own hand this word [Pro­ponatur, i. e. Let it be Publisht.] Vales. publisht at Ephesus in the [Page 58] That is, in the room or place where the Councill met. It may also be taken for the Temple which the Province of Asia built in honour of Rome and Augustus. There is extant an old Coin of Clau­dius Augustus, whereon there is a Temple to be seen with this Title [R. & AUG.] and this inscription [COM. ASIAE.] on both sides of the Temple. This Temple, I suppose, was at Ephesus, where­in all the Cities of Asia met to solemnize their Religious Rites for the prosperity of the Emperour and the Roman People: and this Temple was for the use of all Asia in common, being built at the publick charge. Vales. publick assembly of Asia. That these things were thus done, Melito Bishop of the Church at Sardis (who flourisht in the same times) does evidently attest, by what he has said in his most usefull Apologie, which he made to the Emperour Verus, for our Religion.

CHAP. XIV. Some memoires of Polycarp the disciple of the Apostles.

AT this time, Anicetus presiding over the Roman Church, Irenaeus relates that Poly­carp (who till now survived) came to Rome and discourst Anicetus about a question that arose con­cerning Easter-day. And the same Authour de­livers another relation concerning Polycarp, (in his third book against Heresies) which I judged re­quisite to adjoyn to what has been mentioned con­cerning him; it is thus: ‘And Polycarp, who was not onely instructed by the Apostles and conversant with many that saw Christ, but also was by the Apostles ordained Bishop of the Church of Smyrna in Asia (whom we also saw in our younger days; for he lived to a great age, and being very antient, ended his life by a glorious and most renowned Martyrdom) This Polycarp, I say, continually taught what he had learned of the Apostles, such points as the Church now teacheth, and such onely as are true: all the Churches throughout Asia doe attest this, and also all those who to this day have been successours to Polycarp; who doubtless is a witness much more worthy to be credited, and gives a firmer assurance to the truth, than either Valentinus, or Marcion, or any other Au­thours of corrupt opinions. This Polycarp, coming to Rome in the times of Anicetus, con­verted many of the foresaid Hereticks to the Church of God, declaring that he had received the one and onely truth from the Apostles, which was taught by the Church. And there are some yet surviving, who heard him relate, that John the disciple of the Lord going into the Bath at Ephesus to wash himself, and seeing Ce­rinthus in it, leapt out having not bathed him­self, but said, let us make hast away, least the Bath fall, Cerinthus that enemy of the Truth being within it. This same Polycarp also, when Marcion on a time came into his presence and said to him In the Original the term is [ [...]] which in this place is the same almost in signification with the word [Salutare, i. e. to Salute] For therefore would Marcion have had himself taken notice of, that he might be sa­luted. So, antiently in the Church, when the Faithfull approacht the holy Table, the Deacon was wont to cry aloud often [ [...], i. e. acknowledge one another] to wit, least any pro­phane person or Jew should come to the Sacrament. Vales. S. Paul uses this term (1 Cor. 16. 18.) where our translation renders it [acknowledge.] Take acquain­tance of us, returned him answer, I take notice of thee to be the first begot­ten of the devill. So ex­ceedingly cautious were the Apostles and their disci­ples, not so much as by speech to have any con­verse with such as were corrupters of the Truth; as Paul also said, Tit. 3. 10. 11. A man that is an heretick, after the first and second admonition, reject: knowing that he that is such, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. There is extant also of this Polycarp's a most incomparable Epistle, written to the Philippians; from which those who are desirous to be carefull about their own salvation, may learn the character of his Faith, and the publication of the Truth.’ Thus far Irenaeus. But Polycarp, in his said Epistle to the Philippians, which is still extant, quotes some authorities out of the first Epistle of Peter. Moreover Antoninus, surnamed Pius, having compleated the two and twentieth year of his Reign, died; and was succeeded by M▪ Au­relius Verus (who also was named Antoninus, and was his son) and his brother Lucius.

CHAP. XV. How, in the Reign of Verus, Polycarp, together with others, suffered Martyrdom in the City of Smyrna.

AT this time, when most sore persecutions were stirred up in Asia, Polycarp ended his life by Martyrdom: [The account of] whose death (as it is yet extant in writing) we judged most requisite to be inserted into this our History. It is an Epistle, written from the Church over which he presided to the Churches throughout Instead of [ [...], i. e. throughout Pontus, the reading, as I judge, should be [ [...], i. e. Every where: which is confirmed by the inscription of the Epistle, which is thus [...], &c. i. e. every where, &c. Neither is there any mention of the Churches of Pontus in the title of this Epistle. For Philo­melium is not a City of Pon­tus, but of Lycaonia, as Pliny says, or (as others) of Pisidia. For so in the Acts of the Council of Chal­cedon, one Paul, a Philomelian, is named among the Bishops of Pisi­dia. Vales. In Robert Stephens Edit. it is [ [...], i. e. through­out Pontus. Pontus, which sets forth the sufferings of Poly­carp in these words: ‘The Church of God which is at Smyrna, to the Church at Philomelium; and to all the congregations of holy Catholick Church every where, the mercy, peace and love of God the Father, and of our Lord Je­sus Christ be multiplied: we have written unto you, brethren, both concerning others who suffered Mar­tyrdom, and also about the blessed Polycarp; who by his own Martyrdom sealed up, as it were, and put an end to the persecution.’ This whole Epistle, concer­ning the Martyrdom of Polycarp, is put out by the Learned Bishop Usher. Our Eusebius does not in­sert the whole Epistle; the Lear­ned reader may see it entire in that Edit. of Bishop Ushers. Af­ter these words, before their relation concerning Polycarp, they give an account of the other Martyrs; describing their constancy of mind du­ring their torments: ‘For those, they say, who stood round were astonished, when they saw them first lacera­ted with scourges even as deep as their in-most Veins and Arteries; (insomuch that the hidden parts of their bodies, and their bowels were vi­sible;) then laid upon the shells of a sort of Sea­fish, and on some very sharp heads of darts and Javelins strewed on the ground, and undergoing all sorts of punishments and torments; and in fine, thrown to the wild beasts to be devoured.’ But most especially they relate, that Germanicus was most signally couragious, who being In Bishop Ushers Edit. of this Epistle this place is diffe­rent from what tis here. The words there are these [ [...]; i. e. For the most couragious Ger­manicus strengthened the imbe­cillity of others by his great patience in undergoing the Tortures. corroborated by divine grace, overcame that fear of bodily death implanted by nature on the mind of man. For when the Proconsul, de­sirous by perswasion to pre­vail upon him, proposed to [Page] him his youthfullness, and earnestly entreated him that, being young and in the prime of his years, he would have some compassion on himself: he made no delay, but readily and couragiously enticed the wild beast to devour himself, and almost forced and stimulated it, that he might the sooner be dis­mist out of this unrighteous and wicked life. Im­mediately upon his glorious death, the whole mul­titude, greatly admiring the couragiousness of the divine Martyr, and the fortitude of all the other Christians, on a sudden began to cry out, de­stroy the impious: Let Polycarp be sought after. Moreover, there▪ following a great tumult upon these clamours, a man, by name Quintus, by ex­tract a Phrygian, lately come out thence, seeing the wild beasts, and the other tortures they threat­ned to make use of, was daunted and disspirited, and at length gave way to a desire of saving his life. The contents of the foresaid Epistle doe manifest, that this Quintus (together with some others) ran with too much rashness, and without any religious consideration, to the place of judicature; but being forthwith apprehended, he gave all men a signal example, that none should be so audacious, as to precipitate themselves into such dangers with­out a considerate and pious circumspection. But thus far concerning these men. Now the most admirable Polycarp, when he first heard these things, was not at all disturbed, but continued to keep himself in a steadfast, serene, and unmoved temper of mind; and resolved with himself to continue in the City. But his friends and those who were about him, beseeching and entreating him, that he would withdraw himself, he was pre­vailed with, and went out of the City to a coun­trey-house not far distant therefrom; where he abode with a small company, spending the time day and night (being intent upon nothing else) in continued prayers to the Lord; wherein he craved and made humble supplications and requests for the peace of all the Churches throughout the world: For that was his constant and continual usage. Moreover, three days before his appre­hension, being at prayer in the night time, and fal­ling into a sleep, he thought he saw the pillow, whereon his head lay, on a sudden consumed by a flame of fire. Whereupon being awaked out of his sleep, he forthwith expounded the vision to those who were then present, and having little less than predicted what was in future to be, he expresly declared to those that were about him, that he should be burnt to death for [the testimony of] Christ. Further, when those that sought for him used their utmost care and diligence to find him out, he was again constrained through the love and af­fection of the brethren to remove, as they say, to another countrey house. Whither his pursuers soon after came, and catcht up two boys that were there; by the one of which, after they had scourged him, they were conducted to the house where Poly­carp lodged; and coming in the evening, they found him reposing himself in an upper room. Whence he might easily have removed into another house, but he would not, saying, The will of the Lord be done. Moreover, when he understood they were come, as that Epistle relates, he went down, and with a very chearfull and most milde countenance talked with the men: insomuch that they (to whom Polycarp was before unknown) thought they saw a wonder, when they beheld his exceed­ing great age, and his venerable and grave Or, coun­ [...]enance; for in Rob. Stephens Edit. it is [ [...]] But in the Kings M. S. it is [ [...]; i. e. behaviour, or, carriage;] as we translate it. Vales. be­haviour; and they admired so much diligence should be used to apprehend such an old man. But he, making no delay, presently ordered the table to be spread for them: then he invites them to a sumptuous feast, and requested of them one hours space, which he might without disturbance spend in prayer: when they permitted him that, he arose and prayed, being so full of the grace of the Lord, that those who were present and heard him pray were struck with admiration, and many of them altered their minds and were now very sorry that so venerable and divine an old man was forthwith to be put to death. Afterwards, the foresaid E­pistle contains word for word this subsequent re­lation concerning him, ‘But after he had ended his prayer (wherein he made mention of all per­sons who at any time had been In the Maz. and Med. M. SS. in stead of [ [...], i. e. which happened, &c.] the reading is [ [...], i. e. which had been conversant] and so Rufinus read this place, as appears from his Version: and the old Translatour of this Epistle, put forth by Bishop Usher, is found to have read it so likewise. Vales. In Rob. Stephens Edit. it is [ [...], i. e. which had happened to him. conversant with him, both small and great, noble and obscure; and also of the whole Catholick Church throughout the world) the hour of his departure being now come, they set him up­on an Asse, and brought him to the [...]ity on the day of the So it was called whenever the first day of the feast of unleavened bread fell on the Sabbath day. See Jo. 19. 31. & 7. 37. For that which among the Jews is [...] a feast, [...], the day of solemn assembly in any feast, (and such were the first day, and the last of the feast of tabernacles, the first and seventh of the feast of unlea­vened-bread, and the day of Pen­teoost) is by the Jews, writing in Greek, called [...], a great day. So the 72 render it▪ Isa. 1. 13. where we read calling of assemblies. Se [...] Scalig. proleg. de Emend. Temp. p. 6, & 7. Bishop Usher (in his tract De anno Ma­cedon. chap. 3.) says that the great Sabbath, mentioned here, was that which immediately preceded Ea­ster; the Learned reader may see the Authour and his reasons. great Sabbath: He­rod the It was the office of this Magi­strate to apprehend seditious per­sons, and disturbers of the publick peace, and, having before sent their indictments, to bring them to the places of judicature: so says August. in his 140, and 159 Epist. Hence 'tis here said, that Herod, the Irenarch of Smyrna, took up Polycarp into his Chariot, whom he had commanded to be found out and apprehended by his guards. These Irenarchs were made of some of the members of the Court of Judicature, as the 49th Law in the Codex Theodos. does shew. At last Theodosius Ju­nior wholly abolished that office in the East: his constitution is extant in the Codex Theodos. They had under their command horse­men, and the Diogmitae, [i. e. pursuers] a sort of Souldiers that were lightly armed, and so more expedite to pursue and take such as were thieves. Vales. Eirenarch and his father Nicetes met him; who taking him up into their Chariot, as they sate together, endeavoured to perswade him, and said: For what harm is it to say these words, Lord Caesar, and to sacrifice, and so to evade punishment? He at first made them no answer; but, they continuing to be importunate with him, he said, I will never doe what you endeavour to induce me to. They, despairing of perswading him, gave him opprobrious language, and thrust him out of their Chariot so hastily, that in his going down be very much bruised the fore part of his leg. But he, no more concerned than if he had suffered no harm, went on chearfully and made hast, being brought [by a guard] to the That was the place where their sacred games and shews were exhibited. Stadium: but (there being so great a noise made in the Stadium that few could perfectly hear) this voice came from heaven to Polycarp as he entred the Stadium, Be couragious, Polycarp, and behave thy self valiantly: no person indeed saw him that spoke, but many of us Christians heard the voice. When therefore he was brought before the Tribunal, a great shout was made, because the multitude heard Polycarp whas apprehended. After that, when he was come near him, the This Pro­consul's name was Statius▪ Quadratu [...] for so 'tis truly Printed in the old Latine translation of this Epistle, which the most learned Arch B. Usher published. This man, as [...] judge, was the same person with L. Statius Quadratus, who was Consul in the reign of Antoninus, anno ur [...]. condit. 895. Aristi [...] makes mention of this Proconsul of Asia, in the first and fourth of his Sacred Orations: where he also calls him a Rhetorician. I doubt not therefore but he was the same man with Quadratus the Consul, who, as Philostratus says, was the master of Varus Sophista, who was wont to declaim extemp [...]re upon any subject given; and was a great emu­latour of Favorinus Sophista. In what year he bore the office of Pro­consul of Asia, Aristides indeed says not. But that, as it seems to me, may be made out from his relation. For, in the 4 of his Orat. Sacr. Aristides says, that a little after that Plague which raged in Asia, Sc­verus was Proconsul. Eusebius, in his Chronicon, places that Plague on the 8 year of M. Aurelius Antoninus. Therefore Severus was Procon­sul of Asia in the 9 of M. Aurelius. When he was Proconsul, Aristides writes, that he received letters out of Italy from the Emperours; to wit, from the seniour Augustus and his son: where by the name of Augustus he understands Mareus; and the son of the Emperour is Commodus, who was then called Caesar. Next before Scverus, Pollio was Procon­sul, as Aristides attests in the same place; and immediately before Pollio, our Quadratus was the Proconsul of Asia: for so says Aristides in the same Oration. So that Quadratus was Proconsul of Asia in the 7 of Marcus's Empire. On which year also Eusebius, in his Chro­nicon, places the Martyrdome of Polycarp. They are in an errour therefore, who say the Martyrdome of Polycarp happened on the ninth of Marcus. For, whereas tis manifest from the attestation of Aristides, that Quadratus (under whom Polycarp suffered) bore the Procon­sulate of Asia in the seventh year of Marcus, the death of Polycarp is ne­cessarily to be placed on the same year. Vales. Pro­consul asked him whether he were Polycarp; [Page 58] and when he had confessed he was, the Procon­sul endeavoured to perswade him to renounce [Christ] saying, have a reverent regard to thine age (and some other words agreeable hereto, which 'tis usual for them to speak) swear by the fortune of Caesar; change thy mind; say, destroy the impious: But Polycarp, beholding with a grave and severe countenance the multitude that was in the Stadium, stretched forth his hand to­wards them, and sighed, and looking up towards heaven, said, destroy the impious. When the Governour was urgent with him, and said, swear and I will release thee, speak reproachfully of Christ; Polycarp made answer, I have served him these eighty and six years; during all which time he never did me injury; how then can I blaspheme my King, who is my Saviour? But when the Proconsul was again instant with him, and said, swear by the fortune of Caesar; Polycarp said, because you are so vain glo­rious as to be urgent with me to swear by the fortune of Caesar, (as you call it) pretending your self ignorant who I am; hear me plainly and freely making this profession; I am a Chri­stian: now if you are desirous to learn the do­ctrine of Christianity, allow me one days space, and you shall hear it. The Proconsul said, per­swade the people: I have thought good▪ (an­swered Polycarp) to give you an account; for we are taught to attribute due honour (such as is not prejudicial to our profession) to Magistrates and powers which are ordained of God; but I judge them unworthy of having an account given them of our faith. The Proconsul said, I have wild beasts, to them I will cast thee, unless you alter your mind: Command them to be brought forth (said Polycarp) for our minds are not to be altered from better to worse; but we ac­count that change good, which is from vice to virtuous actions. He said again to him, since you contemn the wild beasts, I will give order that you be consumed by fire, unless you change your mind. You threaten me (replied Poly­carp) with a fire that burns for an hour, and soon after becomes extinct; but you are ignorant of that fire of the future judgment and eternal punishment, which is reserved for the impious; but why doe you make delays? Order To wit, either the fire, or the wild beasts. For the reading in the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. is [ [...]] in the plural number; and so we translate it. Vales. which you will to be made use of upon me. When he had spoken these and many other words, he was filled with confidence and joy, and his coun­tenance was replenished with a comely grace­fullness: in so much that he was not onely not overwhelmed with terrour at what was said to him, but (on the contrary) the Proconsul stood astonished; and sent the Cryer to make Proclamation thrice in the midst of the Sta­dium, Polycarp professeth himself to be a Chri­stian: at which words uttered by the Cryer, the whole multitude both of Heathens and Jews who were inhabitants of Smyrna, in a most furious rage and with a great noyse cryed out, This is the Teacher of Asia, The Father of the Chri­stians, The destroyer of our Gods, who gives command to many men not to sacrifice, nor adore the Gods. Having said these words they cryed out and requested Philip the These Asiarchs were the Priests of the community (or whole body of inhabitants) of the Province of Asia: for as the people of Asia had Temples built by common charge, sacred games, sacred feasts in common, and a Common-council; so also they had a Priesthood called Asiarchia, that is, the common priesthood of Asia; and those who executed this sacerdotal office (which consisted in the managing their publick sports or spectacles) were termed Asiarchs. These Asiarchs were elected after this manner: each City of Asia, at the beginning of every year (that is, about the Autumnal equinox) had a publick meeting, wherein they appointed one of their own Citizens to be an Asiarch; then they sent De­puties to the Common-council of the Province, who declared to them his name whom they had made choice of at home: after which the Common-council chose about ten to be Asiarchs, out of the number of all those, whom each City had elected to that of­fice. See Aristides, in Orat. Sacr. 4tâ. Now the difficulty is, whi­ther all these, who were elected, by the Common-council, execu­ted this office altogether, or whi­ther onely one of them was Asiarch; Valesius thinks there was but one Asiarch; his reasons are these; though more than one were elected by the Senate of Asia, yet that per­haps was done that out of them the Roman Proconsul might choose one, as he usually did in the Election of the Irenarchs: again, the Senate might elect more than one, because if the first that was chosen Asiarch should die, before he had ended his year, there might be another to supply his place: lastly, that there was but one Asiarch every year, is apparent from the words at the lat­ter end of this Epistle (which Euse­bius leaves out in his quotation, but the learned reader may see them in Arch B. Ushers's Edit▪ of it) where 'tis said, Polycarp suffered under Philip the Asiarch, and Sta­tius Quadratus Proconsul of Asia. This is the opinion of Valesius, and these are his reasons for it. On the other side, the incomparably learned Usher affirms that there were more Asiarchs than one at the same time; which he collects from Acts 19. 31. with whom agrees the learned Dr Hammond in his Paraphrase and Notes on that Text, and also Mr Jo. Gregory of Oxford, pag. 49. of his works, Edit. Lond. 1665. This office (says Valesius) was very chargeable, therefore the richest persons were elected to it. Hence 'tis that Strabo affirms, that the Asiarchs were commonly chosen out of Trallis, the Citizens whereof were the wealthiest of all Asia. Asiarch to let forth a Lyon upon Poly­carp. But he made answer, that that was not lawfull for him to doe, because the Amphitheatrical shews, or the hunting of the wild beasts were concluded. Then they all cryed out with a joynt consent, that Polycarp should be burnt alive. For it was neces­sary that the vision which appeared to him upon his pillow should be fulfilled; when, being at prayer, he saw that burning, he turned to the brethren that were with him and said Prophe­tically, I must be burnt a­live. These things therefore were with no less celerity done then they had been spoken; the multitude im­mediately brought together wood and dried branches of trees out of their shops, and from the Baths; but the Jews especially most readi­ly (as it was their usage) assisted in this business. Now when the pile of wood for the fire was made ready, Polycarp, having unclothed himself, and unloosed his girdle, endeavoured also to put off his own shoes; a thing which before he ne­ver did, because every one of the faithfull continually strove who should soonest touch his skin: for he was always reverenced for his godly course of life, even before he came to be gray­headed, presently therefore all the That is, the stake, (to which such as were to be burnt were bound) the Nails, the Ropes, and the Tunica molesta (mentioned by Juvenal) which was a Coat, daubed all over with Pitch and Brimstone, and put upon the Person who was to be burnt, Vales. instruments pre­pared [Page 59] for the fiery pile were applied to and put about him; but when they went about to nail him to the stake, he said, Let me be as I am; for he that gives me strength to endure the fire, will also grant that I shall continue within the pile unmoved and undisturbed by reason of my pain, even without your securing me with nails: so they did not make him fast to the stake with nails, but onely bound him to it. He therefore, having put his hands behind him, and being bound, (as it were a select Ram, pickt out of a great flock, to be offered as an acceptable Holocaust to Almighty God) said; Thou Father of thy well be­loved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of thee! Thou God of Angels and powers, and of the whole Crea­tion, and of all the generation of the Just who live in thy presence! I bless thee because thou hast vouchsafed to bring me to this day and this hour, wherein I may take my portion among the number of the Martyrs, and of the cup of Christ in order to the resurrection both of soul and body to eternal life, in the incorruption of the Holy Spirit; among whom let me (I beseech thee) be this day accepted in thy sight, as it were a sa­crifice fat and well pleasing to thee, according as thou hast prepared, foreshewed, and fulfilled, thou God of truth who canst not lie; wherefore also I praise thee for all these things, I bless thee, I glorifie thee, through the eternal Highpriest Jesus Christ thy well beloved son, through whom to thee together with him in the Holy Ghost be glory both now and for ever A­men: From this passage I con­jecture, that Polycarp said this foregoing prayer of his with a low voice; but pronounced A­men aloud. That this of old was the custom of the Christians (that is, loudly to resound the Amen at the end of the prayer) the rite now observed in the Church does de­monstrate, to wit, that after each prayer repeated by the Priest, all the people doe with a loud voice answer Amen. Vales. When with a loud voice he had said Amen, and made an end of pray­ing, the officers who had the charge about the fire, kindled it; and when there arose a great flame, we (who were permitted to see it, and who are hitherto pre­served alive to relate to others what then happened) saw a wonderfull sight. For the fire, composing it self into the form of an arch or half circle (like the fail of a ship swelled with the wind) immured within a hollow space the body of the Martyr; which, being in the middle of it, lookt not like burnt flesh, but like gold, or silver refining in a fur­nace; and forthwith we smelt a most fragrant scent, as if it had been the smell of frankincense, or of some other of the pretious sweet scented spices. In fine therefore, when those impious wretches saw the body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded the This officers charge was (not to fight with the wild beasts, as the Bestiarii did, but) to dis­patch them, if at any time they were enraged, and like to endan­ger the spectatours, as sometimes it happened. They were also cal­led Lancea [...]ii. Vales. Confector to approach it, and sheath his sword in it; which when he had done, there issued forth so great a quantity of bloud, that it extinguisht the fire; and the whole multitude admired, in that there was so great a difference shewed between the infidels and the Elect. Of which number this most admirable person was one, who was the Apostolical and Prophetical doctour of our age, and Bishop of the Catholick Church at Smyrna. For every word, which pro­ceeded out of his mouth, either hath been, or shall be fulfilled. But the envious and malevo­lent devil, that deadly enemy to the generation of the just, understanding the couragiousness of his Martyrdom, and his unblameable conversation even from his youth, and [perceiving] that he was now encircled in a Crown of immorta­lity, and had most undoubtedly obtained the glorious reward of his victory; the devil, I say, used his utmost diligence that his body should not be born away by us Christians, although many of us were desirous to doe it, and to have The phrase in the Original is this [ [...]] [...] (says Hesy­chius) oi [...]. i. e. They are said to communicate, who distribute to one another, and they that par­take and receive from one another, whether friendship, or knowledge. Whence it appears that the word [ [...]] is appliable to friendship or society; which the primitive Christians exprest to the Martyrs, &c. departed, when, meeting yearly at the place where their sacred reliques were inter­red, they celebrated the anni­versary day of their Martyrdom: thus they maintained a friendship or society (as it were) with the departed Martyr. The following words of this Epistle doe declare the resolution of the Church of Smyrna about the celebration of the day of Polycarps Martyrdom, after this manner, and also the reason of that their so doing. been conversant with his sacred dead body. Some therefore suggested to Ni­cetas the father of Herod, but the brother of Or, Alce, for so it is in Bi­shop Ushers Edit. Vales. Dalcis; do address to the Gover­nour, that he would not give us his body; least (as they said) they leave him that was crucified, and begin to worship this person: and this they spoke upon ac­count of the suggestion and importunity of the Jews, who very diligently watcht us when we were about to take his body out of the fire: but they were igno­rant, that we could ne­ver at any time relinquish Christ (who suffered for the salvation of all those throughout the world who were to be saved) nor yet worship any other. For we adore him as being the Son of God; but we have a worthy affection for the Martyrs (as being the disciples and fol­lowers of the Lord) because of their most ex­ceeding great love shown to their own King and Master; whose In the learned Ushers Edit. 'tis [ [...]] that is, compani­ons; from the verb [ [...]] used here in the same sense, as we said (note o.) it is sometimes taken to signifie. companions and fellow disci­ples we wish our selves to be. The Centurion therefore, perceiving the contentious obstinacy of the Jews, caused the body to be brought forth, and (as 'tis customary with them) burnt it: and so we at length gathered up his bones, more highly to be prized than the most pretious gemms, and more refined than the purest gold, and deposited them in a decent place of burial: whereat being assembled together, the Lord grant we may with joy and gladness celebrate the [...] is the origi­nal phrase: so the primitive Christians called the days where­on the Martyrs suffered, because at their deaths they were born sons (as it were) and heirs of the Kingdom of Glory. Birth-day of his Martyrdom, both in memory of those who have heretofore under­gone and been victorious in this glorious conflict, and also for the instruction and preparation of such as here­after shall be exercised therein. Thus much con­cerning the blessed Polycarp, who together with This pas­sage is o­therwise (and truer) in B. Ushers Edit. thus [who together with those of Phila­delphia was the twelfth that suffer­ed Martyrdom in Smyrna.] So that, those Martyrs of Philadelphia were not 12 in number but 11 onely; and Polycarp was the twelfth. Vales. twelve Philadelphians was crowned with Mar­tyrdom at Smyrna: who alone is so eminently famous and memorable a­mongst all men, that e­ven the heathens every­where doe make mention of him:’ Eusebius purposely omitted the conclusion of this letter, as being unserviceable to his present de­signe; and because he had inserted the entire Epistle into another work of his, to wit, into his book concerning the sufferings of the Primi­tive Martyrs: the learned Reader may see this whole Letter (as be­fore we intimated) put forth by Arch B. Usher, from the conclusion whereof he may observe, (1.) that this Epistle was not written im­mediately after Polycarps Martyrdom, but that there was some distance of time between that and the writing thereof: for the Philomelians, hearing a report of the suffering of Polycarp, sent Letters to the Church of Smyrna, desiring an account of all particulars that happened at the suffering of this B. Martyr: which those of Smyrna willingly undertook, and wrote them this Letter, most part whereof Eusebius quotes in this Chapter. (2.) That Polycarps Martyrdom is there called Evangelical; and the reason is given, to wit, because Polycarp fled from those who pursued him, (agreeable to the example of our Saviour.) Lastly, 'tis observable therefrom, that Polycarp was Mar­tyred the 2d day of the month Xanthicus, that is, the 7th of the Calend. of March. Vales. But Arch B▪ Usher dissents (in this particular, that is, concerning the day of Polycarps Martyrdom) from Valesius, as the learned reader may see in his notes on that Epist. and in his tract De Anno Solar, Maced. & Asian. Such was the [Page 60] glorious exit of the admirable and Apostolick Po­lycarp, whose story the brethren of the Church in Smyrna have in the fore-cited Epistle recorded: and to the same writing concerning him are an­nexed other Martyrdomes undergone at the same City of Smyrna, and at the Eusebius is here much mis­taken in that he thought, Pionius, Metrodo­rus, Carpus, and the rest suffered in the Reign of M. An­toninus, at the same time when Polycarp was Mar­tyred; for 'tis mani­fest from the Acts of Pionius, Carpus, and Papulus, that they were Mar­tyred in the Reign of Decius. Vales. See Usher, in his book De Anno Solar. Ma­ced. & A­sian. cap. 3. same period of time wherein Polycarp suffered. Amongst which num­ber Metrodorus, supposed to be a Presbyter of the Sect of the Marcionites, was burnt to death. But the most famous and eminent Martyr of those times was one Pionius. Whose particular professions, boldness and freeness in speaking, Apologies and most learned orations in defence of the faith, made both before the people and in the presence of the Governours; and moreover, his affectionate in­vitations and encouragements to those who in time of persecution fell into temptation, and the conso­latory speeches he used to such brethren as made him visits during his imprisonment; and further than all this, the torments, and besides them the exquisite tortours he endured, his being nailed to the stake, and his fortitude amidst the fiery pile, and lastly his death which was subsequent to all these miraculous sufferings: whosoever are de­sirous to know all these particulars, we remit them to the Epistle (which contains a most am­ple account concerning him) which we have in­serted into that collection we made of the sufferings of the Primitive Martyrs. Moreover there are extant the Acts and Monuments of others who suf­fered Martyrdom at Pergamus, a City of Asia, to wit, of Carpus and Papulus, and of a woman named Agathonica, who after many and most emi­nent confessions of our faith, were made perfect by a glorious death.

CHAP. XVI. How Justin the Philosopher, asserting the Chri­stian Religion at the City of Rome, suffered Martyrdom.

AT the same time also Justin, of whom we made mention a little before, having pre­sented Eusebius mentions this second Apology of Justins in the follow­ing chapter and so does Jerom in his work De Script. Ecclesiast. But in the vulgar E­ditions of Justin's works, his Apologies are prepo­sterously placed: for that which in the Printed Copies is put in the second place▪ should be placed first; and that which in those Editions is set first, and dedicated to the Roman Senate, should be placed last; which we shall more fully manifest hereafter. Vales. a second Apology to the foresaid Empe­rours in defence of our faith, was crowned with divine Martyrdom; Crescens the Philosopher (whose life and manners were answerable to the appellation of a Cynick; of which Philosophical Sect he was a follower) formed and contrived the treacherous plot against him▪ because Justin con­futed him often in several disputes had in the pre­sence of many auditours, at length by his own Martyrdom he obtained the reward of that truth he was an assertour of. Thus much, this most studious follower of the truth (perceiving before hand what was about to befall him) does, in his foresaid Apology, expresly predict in these same words; ‘This passage of Justin's is now extant in his first Apology; pag. 46. Edit. Paris. Graco-Latin. Vales. And I also my self doe expect to be treacherously betraied by some one of those cal­led [Philosophers] and The Maz. Fuk. & Med. M. SS. interpose here the preposition [ [...] i. e. in] which we have followed in our transla­tion. The term [ [...]] we have rendered [stocks;] in which sense this word is frequently used in Eusebius; for example, in the be­ginning of his 5 B. The learned Petavius (in his notes on The­mistius, Orat. 9.) remarques that the word [ [...]] which there occurs, is the same in signification with [nervus, i. e. a kind of stocks] For these sort of fetters were made of wood. Vales. The same word is used Acts 16. 24. where our translatours render it thus [And made their feet fast in the stocks.] put in the stocks▪ and perhaps by Crescens that illiterate fellow, and one who is a lover of vain glorious boasting: for the man is unworthy the name of a Philosopher, be­cause he declares in publick such things as he is alto­gether ignorant of, and affirms the Christians to be impious and irreligious persons, meerly to please and delight the multitude; In the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. the reading is [ [...]; i. e. Cre­scens did very ill, to defame the Christians, (the points of whose religion he was altogether igno­rant of) meerly to win the ap­plause of the multitude. Vales. In Rob. Stephens Edit. it is [ [...] &c. i. e. Crescens did this to please and delight the erroneous multitude. committing herein a great errour: For, in that he in­veighs against us, having never read the doctrine of Christ, he is abominably wicked, and much worse than the vulgar sort of men, who most frequently are cautious in their discourses concerning those things they are ignorant in, and avoid speaking falsely there­of. But if he has read our doctrine, and understands not the majestick sublimity thereof; of if he understands it, and behaves himself thus because he would not be suspected [to be a Christian:] then he is far more base and wicked, in that he makes himself the slave of popular applause and irrational fear. For I would have you to know that when I proposed to, and asked him some such questions as these, I perceived and was convinced he indeed under­stood nothing at all: and that you may know I speak what is true, I am ready (if those our dis­putations have not come to your knowledge) to propose the queries again even in your presence. And this exercise will by no means be misbe­coming your Imperial Majesty. But if both my questions, and also his answers have been made known to you, then it will be apparently manifest to you that he is altogether ignorant of our Religion. But if he understands it, but dares not freely declare himself because of his auditours; he is no Philosopher, (as I said before,) but is manifestly evidenced to be an affector of popular applause, and has no esteem for that most excellent He means that incompa­rable saying of Socrates, that is in Plato's works: which Valesius thought good to insert into his translation; (supposing it was left out by the negligence of the tran­scribers of Eusebius;) and we also have exprest it in our Version; but it is not in this original Edit. of Eusebius, nor in Rob. Stephens Edit. and is therefore Printed in a different Character. saying of Socrates [to wit, that no man is to be preferred before the truth.]’ Thus far therefore Justin▪ And, that he was put to death (according to his own prediction) by a treacherous plot, of which Crescens was the framer▪ Tatianus (a man who in the former part of his life had been a [...] is the term in the original; which though it▪ be some­times taken in that signification Eusebius here uses it in; yet by other Writers (and particularly by Tatianus in his book here quoted by Eusebius, about the end of it) it is used in such a sense, as to com­prehend all the learning of the Grecians, and the Liberal Sciences. Vales. teacher of Rhetorick, was well read in the Grecian learning, and obtained no small repute by his being conversant therein; who also has left in his works many monuments of his Inge­nuity) does relate in the This work of Tatianus's is extant at the latter end of Justin Martyrs works, Edit. Paris. 1636. It is there called Tatiani Assyr [...]i contra Graecos oratio. This passage here quoted by Euseb. occurs p. 157, 158. where the translatour renders these words [ [...]] in Megalopol [...]: but we, following Valesius, have translated it thus [in the great City, i. e. Rome.] book he wrote against the [Page 61] Grecians in these words; ‘And the most ad­mirable Justin said truely, that the foresaid persons were like thieves.’ Then, interposing some words concerning these Philosophers, he ad­joyns thus much; ‘Indeed Crescens, who had made his nest in the great City [Rome,] was most notorious for the sin of buggering boys, and above all men most addicted to covetousness: and he, who exhorted all men to despise death, did so mightily dread it himself, that he made it his business to procure Justin to be put to death, (as judging that to be the worst of evils) because he Preacht the truth, and manifestly proved, that the Philosophers were gluttons, and de­ceivers. And this indeed was the true cause of Justins Martyrdom.’

CHAP. XVII. Concerning those Martyrs, whom Justin makes mention of in his Apology.

THe same Justin, before his own Martyrdom does in his It should be [in his second Apo­logy, &c.] as the lear­ned Peta­vius has conjectured (in his notes on Heres. 46. Epiphan.) For Eusebius does not recount the Apologies of Ju­stin in the same order wherein they are now Printed. For that which in the ordinary Editions is termed the second, and is dedica­ted to Antoninus Pius, Eusebius calls the first, as appears from chapt. 12. B. 2. and from chapt. 12, and 18. B. 4. And that, which in the vulga▪ Editions is said to be his first Apology, and is dedicated to the Senate, Eusebius calls the second, (See chap. 16. of this book.) and says (chap. 16. and 18, of this 4 B.) it was presented to M. Aurelius Antoninus, after the death of Pius. As to the or­der of Justins Apologies I agree with Eusebius, and doe grant that to be the latter which is in the vul­gar Edit. inscribed to the Senate. But whereas Eusebius says, Ju­stins former Apology was presen­ted to M. Aurelius Antoninus; I cannot assent to him. For, in the beginning of that Apology Justin says, that the woman (which was a Christian) being ac­cused by her husband, presented a Petition to the Emperour [and she presented a Libell to these O Emperour:] (see these words in this chapter.) Now if that Apology had been presented to the Successou [...]s of Antoninus Pius, as Eusebius thinks it was, doubtless▪ Justin would have used the plural number, and said [To You, O Emperours:] For Marcus and Verus were both Emperours together. Again, Justin says, that one Lucius, seeing Ptolemeus a Christian led away to be put to death, used these words to the Judge [these judiciary proceedings are misbecoming both Pius the Emperour, and the son of Caesar the Philo­sopher, &c.] (in chap. 12. of this 4th B. the reading is better, thus, [and the Philosopher] which is confirmed by our M. SS.) Who there­fore sees not, that Antoninus Pius is meant in these words? For his surname [Pius] evidently shews so much; and [the Philosopher son of the Emperour] manifestly confirms this our opinion. Lastly, Ur­bicus the Prefect (See note d. in this chap.) whom Justin there mentions, lived in the times of Antoninus Pius. For he was that Lollius Urbicus, who, being the Emperours Deputy, appea [...]ed the Re­bellion of the Brittans, as Capitolinus relates in the life of Antoninus. Apul [...]ius (in the beginning of his Apology) affirms that this Lollius Urbicus was Prefect of the City in the Reign of Pius. These are the reasons by which I am induced to affirm, that the latter Apology of Justin was not presented to M. Aurelius, but to Antoninus Pius: under which Emperour he suffered Martyrdom, and not under Mar­cus Aurelius, as Eusebius here places his Martyrdom: But, in his Chronicon (whom Georg. Syncellus also follows) he seems to place it in the Reign of Antoninus Pius; and so does Mich. Glycas, in Annal. Vales. Mr Tho. Lydiat, in his Emend. Temp. says Justin suffered un­der this Emperour Antoninus Pius. first Apology make mention of some others who suffered as Martyrs before him▪ which words of his, because they are accommodate to our Subject, I will here recite: He writes thus ‘A certain woman had an husband who led a lasci­vious and libidinous course of li [...]e; she her self also had formerly been addi­cted to lightness and a dis­honest behaviour; but af­ter she had been acquain­ted with the doctrine of Christ, she became modest and chast, and made it her business to perswade her husband to live in like man­ner continently and chast­ly; advertizing him of the Christian precepts, and de­claring to him the future punishment in eternal flames prepared for such as lead an obscene and disorderly course of life. But he, per­severing in his wonted la­sciviousness, by such his doings, alienated his wife's affection from him. For the woman at last judged it a wicked thing for her to cohabit with an husband who wholly practised all manner of lustfull courses, contrary to the law of nature, and disagreeable to justice and honesty; and therefore she resolved to be divorced from him. But the woman was obe­dient to the instructions of her friends▪ who ad­vised her to continue married a while longer, in expectation that her husband would in future alter his mind, and ere long lead a more regular course of life; so she constrained her self and continued with him. But after this, her husband, having made a journey to Alexandria, was dis­covered to have committed more notorious acts of lewdness; the woman therefore (fearing▪ that by her continuing married to him▪ and by her being his confort at bed and board, she should▪ be partaker of his wickednesses and impieties) sent him that which we call a bill of divorce, and de­parted▪ from him. But this excellent fellow her husband (who ought to have rejoyced, be­cause his wife (who formerly had committed lewdness with servants and mercenary fellows▪ and took delight in drunkenness and all manner of vice) did now both desist from those wicked doings, and also desired him to leave them off; which because he would not doe she was di­vor [...]'t from him.) drew up an accusation against her, and said she was a Christian. And she pre­sented a That is, a Petition, wherein the woman re­quested of the Empe­rour, that the proceedings a­gainst her might be deferred, which delay was usually granted as well to the accused, as to the Accusor. See Cod. Theod. Tit. 36. ut intra annum, &c. Vales. Libell to thee, O Emperour; where­in she requested liberty might be allowed her first to set in order her domestick affairs; after which settlement she promised to put in an answer to her accusa­tion. And You granted the womans Petitions. But her (heretofore) husband, being within that To wit, which was prefixt by the Emperour; who had granted the womans Petition, in regard it was reasonable and just. Vales. space unable to say any thing a­gainst her, set upon one Ptolemaeus (whom This Urbicus was Prefect of the City; whose sentence, pro­nounced against the two Chri­stians Ptolemaeus and Lucius, was the occasion of Justins writing this Apology. He was called Q. Lollius Urbicus, as an old in­scription at Rome attests. See Apulcius, in desens. su [...]: yet, 'tis strange that in all our Copies he is written Urbicius. In Justin he is now and then rightly called Ur­bicus, to wit, in the beginning of his Apology, and a little after that. Vales. Ur­bicius put to death) who had been the womans in­structour in the Christian Religion, after this man­ner: he perswaded a Cen­turion, who was his friend, to apprehend Ptolemaeus, and having put him in bonds, to ask him this one question, whether he were a Christian? And Ptole­maeus, (being a lover of truth, and no deceitfull per­son, nor falsifier of his own judgment) confessing that he was a Christian, the Centurion caused him to be bound in fetters, and afflicted him with a long imprisonment. At length, when the man was brought before Urbicius, he was again asked this one question, whether he were a Christian? And he▪ assuredly knowing that he should obtain glory and hap­piness by the doctrine of Christ, again made profession of that divine and virtuous institution. For, he that denies himself to be a Christian, declines the confession of that Religion, either because he is a disallower as well as a denier of it, or in regard he knows himself to be unworthy of, and estranged from its Rules and Precepts: neither of which can happen to him that is a true Christian. When therefore Urbicius had given command that Ptolemaeus should be led a­way to be put to death, one Lucius, (who also was a Christian,) considering the injustice of the sen­tence [Page 62] that was pronounc't, spake thus to Urbi­cius; what reason is there that thou shouldst have condemned this man, who is neither adul­terer, nor fornicatour, nor murderer, nor thief, nor robber, and who is not in any wise convi­cted of any other wicked fact, but onely owns and acknowledges the appellation of a Chri­stian? Such judiciary proceedings as these, O Urbicius! are misbecoming both Pius the Emperour, and the son of Caesar the Phi­losopher, and also the sacred Senate. But Ur­bicius made Lucius no other answer, onely said thus to him, you also seem to me to be such an one, and when Lucius had said that he was, Ur­bicius again gave command that he also should be led away to be put to death: Lucius ac­knowledged himself much oblieged to him; for I shall be delivered, said he, from such wicked masters, and goe to a gracious God, who is my Father and King. And a third, stepping forth, was also condemned to undergoe the same pu­nishment.’ After this, Justin does pertinently and agreeably induce those words (which we quoted before) saying, ‘And I also my self doe expect to be treacherously betrayed by some one of those called [Philosophers] and so forth.’

CHAP. XVIII. What books of Justin's are come to our hands.

THis person has left us many monuments of his learned and most accomplisht Or, mind; as it is in the Kings M. S. Vales. In Robert Stephens Edit. tis [ [...], i. e. under­standing. under­standing, and also of his sedulous deligence about divine matters, full of variety of profit: to which we will remit such as are lovers of learning, after we have usefully remark't such of them as are come to our knowledge. The first therefore of his books is his supplication to Antoninus sur­named Pius, and his sons, and to the Roman Senate, in behalf of our Religion: the second con­tains another Apology for our faith, which he presented to Verus (who was successour to, and bore the same name with, the foresaid Emperour Antoninus) whose times we are now giving an account of. There is also another book of his against the Gentiles; wherein he treats at large, both of many questions that are usually dispu­ted both amongst us and the Gentile-Philoso­phers; and also declares his opinion concerning the nature of Spirits; which 'tis of no impor­tance for us here to insert. And further there is another work of his against the Gentiles come to our hands, which he entitled, A confutation: and besides these another, concerning the Monarchy of God; which he confirms not onely by the Authority of the sacred Scriptures, but also from the testimo­nies of the Writers amongst the Gentiles. Moreover he wrote another book, the title whereof is Psal­tes: and another, containing The term in the ori­ginal is [ [...]] in Nicepho­rus, 'tis [...]. The antient Graecians called [Scholia] some short notes; and distinguish't them from Exegeticks: for Exegeticks were long and large exposi­tions, and explained the whole work of a writer: but Scholia were put to explain particular words, or to expound one sentence. Some­times, Scholia are called short expositions of more obscure words and sentences. Such were Cyrill's Scholia concerning the incarnation of the onely begotten son of God, which are now extant, and are nothing else but some short explications of the more obscure questions concerning the Incarnation. And of this sort was Justin's book of the soul; to wit, some questions and opinions, concerning the nature and origin of souls; to which were added Justin's exposition and demonstration thereof. Jerom calls them Excerpta, which Origen termed [...]. Vales. some short notes concerning the soul; wherein he proposes divers questions pertinent to the explication of that Sub­ject, and produces the opinions of the Philosophers among the Gentiles, which he promiseth to con­fute, and to set forth his own opinion thereof in another work of his. He also composed a Dia­logue against the Jews, being a conference which he had at the City of Ephesus with one Trypho the most famous person amongst the Jews at that time. In which book he manifests, after what manner divine grace incited him to embrace the doctrine of the true faith; and with what sedulous earnestness he before that set himself about the study of Philosophy, also with how great an ardency of mind he was laborious in finding out the truth. Moreover, in the same book he relates concerning the Jews, how that they formed trea­cherous plots and contrivances against the doctrine of Christ; and useth these express words to Try­pho; ‘So far were you from a repentance of your impious doings, that you chose out some men fit for such a design, and at that time sent them forth from Jerusalem over the whole world, to publish this, that there was an impious Sect called Christians sprung up; and to divulge the same reproaches, which all those that are ig­norant of our Religion doe now fasten upon us: so that, you are not onely the authours of your own wickedness and errour; but also give the sole occasion thereof to all other men.’ He says also, in the same work, that the gifts of Prophecy even in his time shone forth upon the Church. More­over, he has mentioned the Revelation of John, and says expresly 'twas written by that Apostle. Also he recites severall testimonies of the Prophets, which, in his dispute with Trypho, he evinces were cut out of the Bible by the Jews. Several other works also of his are extant among many of our Christian brethren. Further, the Books of this person were so highly esteemed by the Antients, that Irenaeus quotes some expressions of his; partly in his fourth book against Heresies, where he produces these words of his; And Justin [...]ays well, in his book against Marcion, I would not have credited the Lord himself, if he had Preached any other God than him, who was the Maker of the world: and partly, in his fifth book of the same work, where he quotes these words of his; It was well spoken of Justin, to wit, that before the coming of our Lord, Satan never durst blaspheme God, because till then he did not cer­tainly Epiphae­nius seem [...] to have been of the same opi­nion. In his Panarium (lib. 1. Heres. 39. pag. 289. Edit. Petav.) he proposeth to us, as a certain truth, that the devil, before the coming of Christ,— [...], was in hopes of grace and pardon; and that out of this perswasion of his, he never all that while shewed himself [...]actory towards God: but that having understood by the manifestation of our Saviour, that there was left him no hopes of salvation, he from thenceforth had grown exceedingly enraged▪ doing as much mischief as possibly he could against Christ, and his Church. But this opinion (as the learned Petavius has observed in his note on that passage) vulgò non probatur, i. e. is not generally approved of, as true. know his own condemnation. And let thus much be here necessarily said by us, to incite such as are lovers of learning, to have an high esteem for, and accurately to read over, his books. Thus far concerning Justin.

CHAP. XIX. Who, in the Reign of Verus, presided over the Churches of Rome, and Alexandria.

NOw the foresaid Emperour being in the eighth year of his Reign, Anicetus, having compleated the eleventh year of his Episcopal dignity over the Roman Church, was succeeded by Soter. And moreover, Celadion, having pre­sided fourteen years over the Church at Alexan­dria, Agrippinus was his successour in that See.

CHAP. XX. Who then Governed the Church of Antioch.

AT that time also Theophilus, the sixth from the Apostles, flourisht in his Presidency over the Church at Antioch▪ for Cornelius, suc­cessour to Heros was the fourth that presided there; after whom Eros, in the fifth remove from the Apo­stles, succeeded in that Episcopal See.

CHAP. XXI. Concerning the Ecclesiastical Writers who flourisht in that Age.

IN those times Hegesippus flourisht in the Church, of whom we have made frequent mention in the foregoing book; and Dionysius Bishop of the Corinthians; also one Pinytus Bishop of the Cretians. Moreover, Philippus, Appollinaris, and Melito; Musanus also, and Modestus: and lastly Irenaeus. All which per­sons wrote books that are come to our hands, con­taining the sound doctrine, and true faith, delivered by the Apostles.

CHAP. XXII. Concerning Hegesippus, and those he makes men­tion of.

MOreover, Hegesippus, in his five books of Hi­storicall memorials, which are come to our hands, has le [...]t a most full and compleat account of his own faith and opinion. Wherein he declareth, that travelling as far as Rome, he discourst with many Bishops, and from them all heard one and the same doctrine. You may please to hear him (In stead of [ [...].] as it is in the Kings M. S. and in Rob. Stephens Edit. it should be [ [...], i. e. after some words; as we translate it. Vales. after some words of his concerning the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians) continuing his discourse thus; ‘And the Corinthian Church con­tinued in the true faith untill Primus came to be Bishop there: with whom I had some discourse in my voyage to Rome, and was conversant with the Corinthians a sufficient time; wherein we received mutual refresh­ment from the true faith. But arriving at Rome, I Sr Henry Savil, at the Mar­gin of his M. S. made it [ [...]] that is, I staied there. In Robert Stephens Edit. 'tis [ [...].] Whe­ther the learned Knight cor­rected this passage from his own conjecture, or by the autority of some M. S. copie, is to me uncertain: However this emen­dation is very necessary. Fur­ther, Eusebius quotes this pas­sage of Hegesippus's in chap. 11. of this book; between which place and this here there seems to be some disagreement. For Eusebius writes there, that He­gesippus came to Rome in the times of Anicetus, and staid there till Eleutherius was promoted to that See. But Hegesippus him­self does not say so here, onely, that he staied at Rome untill A­nicetus was Bishop there. There­fore Hegesippus came thither a­bout the latter end of Pius's Reign. Vales. staied there till Anice­tus's time, whose Deacon Eleutherus then was: after Anicetus succeeded Soter, and next to him Eluthe­rus. Now in every suc­cession [of Bishops] and throughout each City the doctrine is conformable to what the Law, the Prophets, and our Lord Preach't.’ And the same Authour sub­joines an account of the He­resies which were broacht in his age, in these words; ‘And after James the Just had suffered Martyrdom (as the Lord had also) for the preaching of his do­ctrine, Simeon the son of Cleophas (which [Cleo­phas] was Uncle by the mothers side to our Sa­viour) was constituted Bishop in his room; whom all preferred to be second Bishop there, because he was the Lords See note (a) on c. 11. book 3. Cousingerman by the mothers side. Upon which account that Church was stiled a Virgin; for it was not hitherto cor­rupted with vain opinions. In the Kings, the Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. his name is [...], i. e. Thebuthis. In Rob. Stephens Edit. he is called [...], i. e. Thebulis. Rufinus, in his Version, calls him Theobutes, and Thobutes. Vales. Thebuthis (be­cause he was not made a Bishop) was the first that began to vitiate it. This man was That is, he was one that ga­thered up his errours from the false opinions of those seven Sects amongst the Jews; as did also Simon, Cleobius, Dositheus, &c. Vales. one of those that took his rise from the seven Sects, which were amongst the [Jewish] peo­ple: of which Simon was another, from whom the Symoni [...]ns; and Cleobius, from whom the Cleobi­ans; Some think that this Dositheus was much antienter than these times he is here mentioned to have lived in: Drusius (in Res­pons. ad Minerval S [...]raii, cap. 10.) asserts he lived in the times of Sennach [...]rib King of Assyria; and Jerom is of that opinion, as ap­pears by what he says in Dialog. Advers. Luciferian. But Scali­g [...]r, (in Elencho tribaeres.) and Origen (book 1. against Celsus) affirm he lived since our Saviours incarnation, and was co-tempora­ry with Simon Magus. See Photii Bibliothec. cap. 230. Vales. and Dositheus, from whom the Dositheans; and Gortheus, from whom the Or, Goratheans: for so these Hereticks are named in the Kings, Maz. Med. Fuk. and Sr Henry Sa­vills M. SS. Vales. Gortheans; and Masbo­theus, from whom the Masbotheans, had their denomination: from these also came the Menandri­ans, and the Marcionists, and the Cartocratians, and the Valentinians▪ and the Basilidians, and the Sa­turnilians; each of which men in particular was an introducer of his own o­pinion. From these came the false Christs, the false-Prophets, and the false-A­postles; who rent asunder the Unity of the Church by their corrupt opinions brought in against God, and his Christ.’ Moreover, the same Writer gives an account of the Heresies which were heretofore amongst the Jews▪ in these words; ‘There were divers Sects and Opinions in▪ the Circumcision among the children of Israel, which were opposite both to the By this passage Hegesippus seems to have thought the tribe of Judah clear of all Sects and Heresies; so that none of that tribe were followers of the Essens, Sadducees, and Pharisees, &c. But this is very improbable. Hege­sippus said it only in favour of that Tribe, from whence Christ sprang. Vales. tribe of Ju­dah, and also to Christ; to wit, the These were the seven Sects amongst the Jews; of which Hege­sippus makes frequent mention, as may be seen from some quota­tions out of him, which occur in the foregoing books. Justin (in disputat. advers. Triphon.) men­tions them, but calls them by other names, to wit, Sadducees, Genists, Merists Galilaeans, Hel­lenians, Pharisees, and Baptists. Epiphanius terms them, Scribes, Pharisces, Sadducees, Essens, Na­zareans, Hemerobaptists, and He­rodians. Vales. Essaeans, the Judas Galilaeus was the ori­ginal authour of this Sect, (says Josephus, Antiq. B. 18. chap. 2.) who▪ having joyned Saddock, a Pharisee, to him, sollicited the people to defection, telling them, that God was to be their onely Prince and Master, and no mortal to be acknowledged as such; that the requiring a Tax from them, if it were by them paid, was a manifest profession of servitude, and that 'twas their duty to vindi­cate their liberty; by which means he raised a great Sedition among the Jews, and was the cause (under pretence of defending the pub­lick liberty) of innumerable mischiefs to the nation. See Joseph. Antiq. B. 18. chap. 2. Galilaeans, the Hemero­baptists, the They are called also Marboneans and Morboneans; they must be distinguisht from those whom Hegesippus mentions a little before; for these here were one of the seven Sects amongst the Jews; but those were propagated from the seven Sects; as were also the Simonians, Dositheans, &c. Vales. Masbothe­ans, the Samarit [...]s, the Sadducees, and the Phari­sees.’ And he writes many other things, of which we have partly made mention be­fore, and inserted his rela­tions in their proper and op­portune places and times. Al­so, he produces several pas­sages out of the Gospel ac­cording to the Hebrews, out of the Syriack, and particu­larly out of the Hebrew tongue; whereby he plainly intimates himself to have been converted from being a Jew to the faith of Christ. He makes mention also of other things as contained in the un­written [Page 64] traditions of the Jews. Now, not onely he, but also Irenaeus, and all the Antients, doe call the Proverbs of Solomon, the book of Wisdom that Indeed, Jerom gives this Epithet to that B. called the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, (in his Preface to the books of Solomon) his words are these: Fertur & panaeretos Jesu filii Sirach liber, & alius pseudepigra­phus, qui sapientia Solomonis inscribitur. Quorum priorem Hebraicum reperi; non Ecclesiasticum, ut apud Latinos, sed parabolas pranota­tum, &c. contains the Precepts of all Virtue: and, trea­ting of those books which are termed The Apocry­pha, he relates that some of them were forged by certain Hereticks in his times. But we must now proceed to another Writer.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning Dionysius, Bishop of the Corinthians, and the Epistles he wrote.

ANd first we are to speak of Dionysius: who had the Episcopal Chair of the Corinthian Church; and liberally and copiously communi­cated his divine labours, not onely to those com­mitted to his charge, but also to such as inhabited Countreys remote and at a great distance: rendring himself most serviceable and usefull to all persons, by those general Epistles he wrote to divers Churches. Of which number one is that to the Lacedaemoni­ans, containing the first rudiments of, and institu­tions in, the true Faith; and moreover an exhorta­tion to Peace and Unity. Another of them is that to the Athenians, which is excitatory to Faith, and to lead a life answerable to the Precepts of the Go­spel: in which point he reproves the negligence of [the Athenians] who had in a manner aposta­tized from the Faith, since the time that Publius their Bishop suffered Martyrdom, during the per­secutions which then happened: he makes men­tion also of This Quadratus, I judge, is not the same person with that Quadratus, the disciple of the Apostles, mentioned by Eusebius (book 3. chap. 37.) For the Quadratus last named was not a Bishop, as it plainly appears from the foresaid place of Eusebius. But, that Quadratus (spoken of by our Authour at the beginning of this fourth book) who pre­sented an Apology to Adrian for our Religion, was the disciple of the Apostles, as Eusebius, in his Chronicon, expresly affirms. Now this Quadratus here spoken of (who was Bishop of the Atheni­ans) must, as I said, be distingui­shed from Quadratus the disciple of the Apostles: for this latter lived not beyond the times of Adrian; but he that was Bishop of the Athe­nians, governed that Church in the times of M. Antoninus, as 'tis evi­dent from Dionysius's Epistle to the Athenians▪ for he speaks of him, as being his co-temporary▪ Now Dionysius Bishop of Corinth flou­risht in the Reign of M. Antoni­nus▪ Vales. Quadratus, who was constituted their Bishop, after the Martyrdom of Publius; and attests, that by his labour and industry, the congregations [of the Christians] were re-assem­bled, and the ardour of their faith revived, and re-kindled. He relates moreover, that Dionysius the Areopagite (who was converted to the Faith by the Apostle Paul, according to the account gi­ven in the Acts of the Apostles,) was made the first Bishop of the Atheni­an Church. There is also extant another Epistle of his to the Nicomedians, wherein he impugneth the Heresie of Marcion, and strenuously asserts and defends the exact Rule of Truth: He wrote likewise to the Church at Gortyna, and to the rest of the Churches in Creet; and commends Philip their Bishop, because the Church under his charge was renowned for many signal acts of fortitude; and admonishes them to use caution against the deceit and perversness of Hereticks: And in the Epistle he wrote to the Church of Amastris, together with the other Churches throughout Pontus, he mentions Bac­chylides and Elpistus, as being the persons that incited him to write: he annexes likewise seve­ral expositions of holy Scripture, and by name mentions Palma their Bishop. He recommends to them many things concerning marriage and chastity, and commands those that recover from any lapse whatsoever, (whether vitiousness, or Heretical errour) to be affectionately received. In the same Volume is contained another Epistle to the Gnossi­ans, wherein he admonishes Pinytus the Bishop of that Church, not to impose the heavy yoak of conti­nency upon the brethren, as if 'twere necessary; but to have a regard to the infirmity of most men. To which Pinytus returning an answer, does greatly admire, and extol Dionysius; but withall exhorts him, that in future he would impart stronger food, and nourish up the people under his charge by sending again to them some letters that contain more perfect and solid doctrine; least, being con­tinually accustomed to such milky expressions, they should grow old in a childish discipline. In which Epistle, both the Orthodox Faith of Pinytus, and his sollicitude for the proficiency of those under his care; his eloquence also, and understanding in di­vine matters, is most accurately and to the life re­presented. Moreover, there is extant an Epistle of Dionysius's to the Romans, superscribed to Soter, at that time the Bishop there: out of which it's not amiss here to insert some words, wherein he much commends the usage and custome of the Ro­mans, observed by them even untill the times of the persecution raised in our own He means the perse­cution in Diocletians Reign. Vales. age; he writes thus; ‘For this hath been your custome even from the beginning [of your conversion to Christianity] to be divers ways beneficial to all the brethren, and to send relief to most Churches throughout every City; sometimes supplying the wants of such as are in necessity; at others, fur­nishing those brethren with necessaries that are condemned to work in the mines. By such charitable gifts, which from the beginning you have been accustomed to transmit to others, being Romans, you retain the custom received from your Roman fore-fathers. Which usage your blessed Bishop Soter has not onely dili­gently observed, but greatly improved; being both instrumental and ready in the conveyance of your bounty designed for the Saints; and al­so comforting with blessed words (as a ten­der and affectionate father does his children) those brethren that come as Dionysius means those bre­thren, who usually came from remote Countreys to Rome, to procure some relief for such as in their own Countrey were in distress, and necessity. Vales. strangers to you.’ In the same Epistle also he makes mention of the Epistle of Cle­mens to the Corinthians, and manifests that 'twas very an­tiently customary to recite it publickly in the presence of the Church: for he says; ‘To this fragment of Dionysius's Epistle to the Roman Clergy is to be joyn­ed that o­ther passage of the same Epist. quo­ted by our Eusebius (chap. 25. B. 2.) Vales. This day therefore, being the holy day of the Lord, we have now passed over, wherein we read over your Epistle; which (as also the former Epistle of Clemens's written to us) we continuing to read henceforward, shall abound with most ex­cellent Precepts and instructions.’ Further, the same Writer speaking of his own Epistles which by some forgers were corrupted, says thus; ‘For I wrote some Epistles, being thereto requested by the brethren: but the emissaries of the devil have filled them with darnell; expunging some passages out of them, and adding other some; for whom a Woe is reserved. Its no wonder therefore, that some attempt to adulterate the holy writings of the Lord, since they have basely falsified such as are of an inferiour authority.’ Besides these, there is extant another Epistle of Dionysius's, written to Chrysophora a most faithfull Sister, to whom he writes what is agreeable, and imparts to her such Spiritual food as is convenient for her. Thus much concerning the writings of Dionysius.

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning Theophilus, Bishop of the Antio­chians.

THere are extant of this Theophilus's (whom we declared to have been Bishop of the An­tiochian Church) three books written to Auto­lycus, containing the first rudiments of the Faith. He has another Tract also extant, entitled, Against the Heresie of Concer­ning this Hermogenes▪ and his He­resie, see Ba­ronius, ad annum Chri­sti 170. But, I cannot give my as­sent to him, as to what he af­firms, viz. that Her­mogenes taught in Asia. Vales. The He­resie of this Hermoge­nes is re­lated by Theodoret (Heret. fab. L. 1. cap. 19.) [...] ( [...]) [...] i. e. This Hermogenes asserted, that the body of the Lord was deposited in the Sun: and that the devil and the civil spirits should be turned into matter. The Seleuciani and Hermiani taught the same; to wit, that the body of Christ ascended no farther than the sun; the occasion of which assertion they took from those words of the Psalmist, Psal. 19. 5. which in S. Jeroms translation is thus rendred, in sole posuit tabernaculum suum: but in the Psalms used in our Liturgy 'tis thus worded, In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun. See Dr Ham­mond on that Text. The same opinion Gregory Nazianzen attributeth to the Ma [...]icheans: Epist. 1. ad Cledonium, and S. August. Tract. 34. in Joh. This opinion is more largely and clearly set down, but without a name, in the Catena patrum on Psal. 18. where 'tis said, that these [Hereticks] assert, that after his resurrection, our Saviour deposited his body in the sphere of the sun, to be preserved there till his se­cond coming. Hermogenes, wherein he quotes authorities out of the Revelation of St John: there are besides some other books of his, wherein are delivered the first principles of our Faith. More­over, whenas in that age the Hereticks (like dar­nell) did nevertheless corrupt the pure seed of the Apostolick doctrine, the Pastours of Churches were every where very earnest and industrious to chase them away (being as it were savage and wild beasts) from the sheep of Christ; partly by admonishing and exhorting the brethren; and partly by encountring valiantly with the Hereticks themselves; whom they either confuted by dint of arguments and unwritten questions propounded face to face; or else disproved their opinions by written Treatises most accurately compiled. That Theophilus therefore did, together with others, engage these Hereticks, 'tis manifestly apparent from that elaborate piece, (not unworthy of him­self) which he wrote against Marcion; which book, together with those other we have re­counted, is at this present time extant. Further, Maximinus, the seventh from the Apostles, suc­ceeded this person in the Bishoprick of the Antio­chian Church.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning Philippus and Modestus.

MOreover, Philippus (who, as we are informed by the words of Dionysius [even now quoted] was Bishop of the Church at Gortyna) compiled also a most elaborate piece against Mar­cion. So likewise did Irenaeus, and Modestus. But this person last named did most excellently (even better than the other Writers) detect the errours and frauds of the man, and exposed them to the view of the world. Several others also wrote, whose Labours are to this day with exquisite care preserved by many of the brethren.

CHAP. XXVI. Concerning Melito, and what he has made men­tion of.

ALso, at that time Melito, Bishop of the Church at Sardis, and Apollinaris Pre­late of the Church at Hierapolis, flourished and were eminently famous. Each of which persons did severally dedicate an Apology written in de­fence of our faith to the foresaid Roman Emperour, who reigned at that time. The Books of each of them, which are come to our knowledge▪ are these that follow. Two books of Melito's concerning Ea­ster; one of his, In all ou [...] M. SS. copies this title [concerning the true way of con­verse and of the Prophets] evi­dently appears to be the title but of one book. Jerom (in his book de Eccles. Scriptor. which is al­most wholly▪ taken out of Euse­bius) entitles this piece of Me­lito's thus [de vitâ Propbetarum▪ i. e. concerning the life of the Pro­phets. Vales. concerning the true way of converse, and of the Prophets: another, con­cerning the Church; and a third, concerning the Lords day: Moreover, one, con­cerning the nature of man, and another, about the frame and composure of man▪ and one, concerning the Melito wrote a book upon this subject, because there were some Hereticks who asserted, that such men as were carnal, believed by the help of their senses; but those who were spiritual believed by reason. So Heraclio expounded that Text in S. Johns Gospel (c. 4. 48.) Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe. Which words Heraclio said, were proper­ly directed to those, who by works and their senses had the nature of obeying, but not of believing through reason. Origen (Tome 13. Enarrat. on S. John's Gospel) men­tions, and confutes this opinion: where he declares, that neither spi­ritual nor carnal men can believe, unless it be by sense. Vales. obe­dience of the senses and their subjection to faith; and moreover, one book, con­cerning the soul, the body and the mind: a book, con­cerning Baptism; one, of Truth; one, concerning the In the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. and in Nicephorus, this book of Melito's is intitled [ [...] &c.] i. e. concerning the Origination, &c. which reading▪ we doubt not but is true. Ru­finus, as appears by his Version, and Robert Stephens, as may be seen in his Edit. read [ [...]] i. e. concerning Faith, &c. The ancient Fathers, who lived before the Nicene Council, meant (by the word [ [...]]) not onely such a creation as is made out of nothing, but also all sort of pro­duction whatsoever, and there­fore the divine origination of the Word. Those words of the Apo­stle (Colos 1. 15.) The first born of every creature, they asserted, were to be understood of the eter­nal generation of the Son. Vales. But as Dr Hammond observes in his notes on that Text, [...], i. e. first born, is used some times for a Lord, or person in power, who hath the priviledge of the first born, dominion over all his brethren▪ and according to this notion (continues he) 'tis used commonly in scripture for a Prince, or principal person. See Psal. 68. 27. Job 18. 13. Or it may peculiarly refer to his resur­rection, in which he was the first born from the dead. See Ham­mond on Colos. 1. 15. Origination and Genera­tion of Christ: his book of Prophecy, another, concern­ing Hospitality; and that entitled, The k [...]y: besides one, concerning the Devil, and, of the Revelation of John; and another, about the incarna­tation of God; and lastly, his Apology to Antoninus. Now, in his books concerning Easter, to wit, in the begin­ning of that work, he de­clares the time when he wrote, in these words, ‘Ser­vilius Paulus being Pro­consul of Asia, at that time when Sagaris suffered Mar­tyrdom, there arose a great controversie at Laodicea concerning Easter, which happened to fall on those days in its due season: at which time I wrote these books.’ Clemens Alex­andrinus makes mention of this book, in his piece con­cerning Easter; which book of Melito's was, as he says, the occasion of his compo­sing that work. Now, in that book dedicated to the Em­perour, he relates what was acted against us Christians in his Reign. ‘For now, says he, that sort of men who are pious and holy are persecuted, (a thing which was never before done) and molested with new Decrees throughout all Asia. For most impudent in­formers, who are desirous to possess themselves of other mens goods, taking an occasion from the Imperial Edicts, doe openly commit robberies, and day and night take away the goods of inno­cent persons.’ And, after some words, he con­tinues, thus; ‘Now if all this be done by Your command, let it pass for an orderly and due way of proceeding. For a just Emperour can never decree or authorize any thing that is unjust: and we willingly undergoe the reward of such a death. This request onely we hum­bly make to you, that you your self would first [Page 66] take cognizance of These words are to be un­derstood of the Christi­ans; which appears from what follows. For Melito desires of the Emperour, that he would first look into and examine the cause of the Chri­stians; and then determine, whe­ther they deserved to be punished, or rather preserved in safety. Vales. them that are sufferers of this vexatious molestation; and then deter­mine impartially, whether they are worthy of punishment and death; or deserve to live in peace and quietness. But if this Decree, and this new Edict (which ought not to have been established against the most barbarous enemies) does not proceed from You, then we more earnestly beseech You, not to be unmindfull of us, nor permit us to be any longer infested with these publick Rapines.’ Then, after the interposition of some words, he adds thus much; ‘For this Sect of Phi­losophy, which we profess, at first flourisht amongst the So he terms the Jews, a­mongst whom the Christian Re­ligion first sprang up. Upon this account Porphyrius (whose words Eusebius quotes book 6. chap. 19. of this work) termed the Chri­stian Religion [ [...]] i. e. an audacious Sect that had its beginning amongst Barba­rians. Vales. Barbarians. But when, in the Reign of the Great Augustus Your Progeni­tour, it began to be eminent and conspicuous in Your Provinces; it brought with it most for­tunate and prosperous success to Your Empire. For from that time the power of the Roman Empire began to be eminently great, and was much augmented. Of which Empire You by succession are the most acceptable Inheritour that could be wish't for, and shall so continue, to­gether with your From this place it is evident, that Melito the Bishop presented his Apology to M. Antoninus after the death of Aurelius Verus. For, if Verus had been then living, when Melito wrote this Apology, he would doubtless have mentioned him here; and in stead of these words [together with your son] would certainly have said [together with your brother.] For L. Verus was the adopted brother of M. Aure­lius. Seeing therefore, Melito does here mention onely the son of M. Antoninus (to wit, Commodus) tis manifest, as I said, that this Apolo­gy was presented to Marcus after the death of L. Verus. And there­fore Eusebius (in his Chronicon) places it on the 10th year of M. Aurelius, to wit, the year after Ver [...]'s death. Vales. Son, if you will be the defender of that Religion which was nursed up together with Your Empire, which took its beginning under the Reign of the Great Au­gustus; and which your Ancestours did together with other Religions both esteem, and reverence: And this is a most certain evi­dence that our Religion (which flourisht together with your happily begun Empire) brought with it publick success and prospe­rity; to wit, that from the time of Augustus's Reign no unsuccessfull accident hath intervened; but on the contrary such splendour and magnificence hath always artended Your Empire, as is agree­able to the desires and prayers of all men. Of all the Emperours, onely The same is asserted by Tertul­lian (Apo­loget. cap. 5.) whose words our Eusebius quotes, partly at chap. 25. B. 2. and partly at chap. 20. B. 3. Nero and Domitian (induced thereto by the perswasion and advice of some malevolent persons) endeavoured to fix a calumny and reproach upon our Religion. From whom that false and malicious detraction happened to be conveyed down to succeeding times, agreeable to the usage of the rude multi­tude, which irrationally gives credit to such groundless rumours. But Your pious An­cestours corrected their ignorance: and by frequent Rescripts reproved such as audaci­ously attempted to be insolent and vexatious to­wards those of our Religion. Amongst whom Your Grandfather Adrian wrote both to Fun­danus Proconsul of Asia, and also to many other [Governours of Provinces;] and The Re­script of Antoninus Pius (who is here meant) in savour of the Christians, is not now extant. 'Tis men­tioned in the Restript of M. Aurelius Antoninus to the Cities of Asia, which Eusebius has set down in chap. 13. of this book. Vales. your Father, even at that time when You were his Colleague in the Empire, wrote to the Cities that they should not raise tumults, nor commit any insolencies against us; namely to the Larisseans, to the Thessalonians, the Athenians and to all the Grecians. But we most confidently per­swade our selves that You (who retain the same opinion concerning us that your Ancestours had; yea, who are enclined to be much more gracious and mild towards us, and to entertain wiser and discreeter thoughts concerning us,) will doe whatsoever we request of you.’ This passage is extant in the fore mentioned Apo­logie of Melito. The same Authour (in that book of Extracts and Collections written by him) does, at the beginning of that work, make a Catalogue of those books of the Old Testament that by general consent are acknowledged as Ca­nonical: which Catalogue I judged necessary to be here inserted: It is word for word thus. ‘Me­lito to Onesimus the brother sendeth greeting. Whereas, because of your love to, and dili­gence bestowed about, the word of God, you have often requested me to make you some short Collections and excerptions both out of the Law and the Prophets about those things that belong to our Saviour, and all the Articles of our Faith; and moreover, you being very de­sirous to have an accurate account of the books of the Old Testament, how many they are in number, and in what order they were written; I have made it my business to doe all this, and to satisfie your desire herein. For I well know with what an ardour of faith you are enflamed, and how earnest your desires are after know­ledge; and that, by reason of your love of God, you greatly prefer these before all other things, striving earnestly to obtain eternal salvation. When therefore I travelled into the East, and came into that Countrey where these things were heretofore Preacht and done, I made an accu­rate inquiry about the books of the Old Testa­ment, a Catalogue whereof I have herewith sent you. Their names are these: The five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomie: Joshua, Judges, Ruth▪ the four books of the Kings, the two books of the Chronicles: the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, which is also called the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the song of Solo­mon, Job, the prophecies of Esaiah, and Jere­miah: one book of the twelve [minor] Pro­phets, Daniel, Ezechiel, Esdras. Out of these I have made some short Collections, which I have divided into six books.’ But thus much con­cerning the writings of Melito.

CHAP. XXVII. Concerning Apollinaris, Bishop of the Hierapoli­tane Church.

In our M. SS. Maz. Med. and Fuk. there is in this place no beginning of a new chapter, but this 27 chapt▪ which treats concerning Apolli­naris, and the following chapt. concerning Musanus, are both annext to chap. 26. the title whereof in our said M. SS. is this [concerning Melito, and what he has made mention of, Apollinaris, and Musanus;] which division Robert Stephen [...] followed in the body of this fourth book. For in the Contents prefixt before this 4th book, he follows the Kings M. S. and makes three chap. here, to wit, one of Melito, another concerning Apollinaris, and a third concerning Musanus: but in the body of that book he follows the Med. M. S. (as he always does in this particular) and has put no distinction of a new chap. here; but hath made all the three chapters into one. We following the autority of the Kings M. S. have divided them into three chap. and the same was done before, in the Geneva impression of Eusebius's History. Vales. ALthough several books written by Apolli­naris are extant among many men, yet these onely of his are come to our knowledge; to wit, His Apology to the foresaid Emperour; his five books against the Gentiles; his two books [Page 67] concerning truth; and his These words [His two books against the Jews] are not in the Maz. Med. nor Fuk. M. SS. nor in that copy Rufinus made use of, as appears from his Version: nor yet in Jeroms B. de Eccles. Scriptor. where he reckons up all Apolli­naris's books. But Nicephorus mentions the [...] [...] his History. Vales. two books against the Jews. Also, those books he wrote afterwards against the Heresie of the Mr Tho. Lydya [...] (in his Em [...]d. Tempor.) says this Heresie began in the times of M. Aurelius and L. Verus; the Authour where­of was Montanus. Cataphrygians; which not long after occasioned great dist [...]bances; but at that time it began to make its first appearance▪ Mon­tanus with his false Prophets then laying the foun­dation of his Errour. And this is what we had to say concerning Apollinaris.

CHAP. XXVIII. Concerning Musanus, and his Writings.

THere is extant of Musanus's (whom we mentioned a little before) a most sharp piece written by him to some brethren, who turned to the Heresie of the Encratitae; which then first sprang up, and introduced [...] new and most perni­cious false opinion into the world. Tatianus, as report says, was the Authour of this Heresie.

CHAP. XXIX. Concerning Tatianus and his Heresie.

VVE mean that Tatianus, whose words we quoted a little before, treating con­cerning the admirable Justin; who, we told you, was a disciple of that Martyr's. Irenaeus evidences this in his first book▪ against Heresies, where he writes thus concerning this Tatianus and his He­resie ‘From The Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. and also Nice­phorus, call him Satur­ninus. Epi­phanius and Theodoret name him Saturni [...]us; and Hege­fippus terms those Here­ticks, which had their name from him, Satur­ [...]ilians. See chap. 22. of this B. 4. Vales. Saturninus and Marcion sprang those Hereticks called Encratitae, who taught that marriage was unlawfull; rejecting that Primitive institution of God, and tacitely accused him, because he created Male and Female for the propagation of Mankind. They were assertours also of an abstinence from the eating those things, that (as they termed them) had life; shewing hereby their ingratitude towards God who Created all things▪ They deny likewise that the first man was saved. And this is a Tenet lately invented amongst them, of which impious assertion one Tatianus was the first broacher. Who having been an Auditour of Justin, as long as he converst with him, disclosed no such false opinions: but after his Martyrdom, he revolted from the Church, and being arrogant and pu [...] up with the conceit of his being an Jerom (in his book de Scri­ptor. Eccles.) takes the word [ [...]] in such a sense as to signifie a master of Eloquence. Such an one Tatianus was before his conversion to the Christian Religion, as may be seen from chap. 16. of this 4th book. But I rather think, that by [ [...]] (which is the term in the original) should be meant [an Ecclesia­stical Doctour] which sense of that term the following words of Irenaus doe confirm; for he says, he was the composer of a new form of Doctrin of his own making. Vales. Ecclesiastical Doctour (as if he were better then any body else) he was the composer of a new form of Doctrine of his own ma­king, inventing stories a­bout invisible ages, in the same manner as Valentinus did: and asserting with Marcion and Saturninus, that Matrimony was no­thing less than corruption and whoredom; and fra­ming some new arguments to disprove the Salvation of Adam.’ Thus far Irenaeus [concerning the Heresie of the Encra­tit [...] which then was broacht.] But not long after, one whose name was Epipha­nius makes this Severus to be ancienter than Tatianus; which is a mistake, as 'tis evi­dent from these words of Eusebius. Iren [...]us makes no mention of this Severus. Theodoret (in his first book Haeret. fabul.) has rightly placed Severus after Tatianus. Vales. Severus did consolidate and strengthen the foresaid Heresie, and so was the occasion that the followers of that Sect were called, by reason of his name, Severiani. They approve indeed of the Law, the Prophets and the Gospels, expounding the sentences of holy Scri­pture according to a peculiar sense and meaning of their own; but they speak reproachfully of the Apostle Paul, and reject his Epistles; neither doe they admit of the Acts of the Apostles. But Tatianus, their first founder, put together a con­fused heap of collections extracted out of the four Gospels, which he entitled a Epiphani­us (in Hae­res. 46.) says, this work of Tatianus's is by some called the Gospel ac­cording to the He­brews. But that Gospel is more an­cient than Tatianus. For Hege­sippus, who flourisht some years before Ta­tianus, makes men­tion of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as Eusebius tells us, chap. 22. of this book: Papias also quotes a passage out of that Gos­pel, as our Authour asserts about the close of the 3d book. Vales. Dia [...]ssarωn, i. e. a Gospel made up of the four Gospels: which book is at this time extant in the hands of some men. They say also, that he was so audacious as to alter some sayings of the Apostle Pauls, and to express them in more elegant terms, undertaking to correct the composition and order of his phrase. He left a very great number of books; among which, his That is, his Oration against the Grecians, which is extant at the latter end of Justin Martyrs works. Edit par. 1636. At pag. 171. he begins the proof of this point, viz. the Antiquity of Moses and t [...] Prophets. book against the Grecians is look't upon to be an excellent piece, and is com­mended by most men: in which work, giving an account of the series of times in the former ages of the world, he has made it evident that Mo­ses and the Prophets amongst the Hebrews, were much more antient, than all the famous men a­mongst the Grecians. Indeed that book of his seems to be the best and most usefull piece of all his writings. But thus far concerning these things▪

CHAP. XXX. Concerning Bardesanes the Syrian, and those books of his that are extant.

FUrther, in the Reign of the same Emperour, when Heresies were numerous in Tatianus who was the Founder of the He­resie of the Encratita, lived in Mesopota­mia, and there pub­lisht his Heresie, as Epipha­nius attests. And the same may be con­cluded from what Theodore [...] write [...], to wit, that he found a­bove 200 copies of the Gospel made by Tatianus in the Churches of Osdro [...]na. Vales. Mesopota­mia, one Bardesanes a most eloquent man in the Syrian tongue, and an excellent disputant, wrote some Dialogues against Marcion and several o­thers, who were Authours and assertors of diffe­rent Opinions, which he publisht in his own coun­try language; as also many other works which his Scholars (for he had very many Auditours, and was a powerful maintainer of our faith) translated out of the Syriack into the Grecian language. A­mongst which is his Dialogue concerning Fate, written to It's doubtfull whether An­toninus the Emperour, or one of that name, who was a follower of Ta­tianus's, be here meant. It is not likely that Bardesanes should dedi­cate his books to the Roman Emperour, which he wrote in the Syriack language. Besides, Eusebius (in his 6 B. de prapara [...].) does de­clare that Bardesanes dedicated his Dialogues to his followers and friends. Vales. Antoninus, an incomparable piece. 'Tis said he wrote several other Tracts, upon occasion of the persecution at that time raised against us. This man was at first a follower of Valentinus's; but having mislik't that Heresie, and confuted ma­ny of the fabulous Tenets of the founder thereof, he was satisfied in himself that he had turned to a truer opinion: but notwithstanding he did not wholly clear himself of the filth of his ancient Heresie. Moreover, at the same time Soter Bishop of the Roman Church departed this life.

The End of the Fourth Book of the ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.

THE FIFTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.

The PREFACE.

MOreover, Soter Bishop of the Roman Church having presided there eight years, ended his life. In whose place succeeded Eleutherus, the twelfth from the Apostles. It was then the The per­secution of the Christi­ans in the Reign of Marcus ra­ged not e­very where at the same time; nor was it en­ded in one years space. In Asia it began first in the se­venth year of M. [...]nto­ninus; and that not by the Edict of the Em­perour, but by a tumul­tuous in­surrection of the populace against them: where it lasted to the end of that Emperours Reign, as 'tis evident from these words in Melito's Apology [For from that time the power of the Roman Empire began to be eminently great, and was much augmented: of which Empire you by succession are the most acceptable inheritour that could be wisht for, and shall so continue together with your son, &c. See chap. 26. B. 4. note (f.)] Now, Commodus was by his father received as his partner in the Empire, when Melito presented this Apology to the Emperour. His being made Colleague in the Empire, 'tis evident, happened about the latter end of M. Antoninus's Reign: wherefore the persecution of the Christians in Asia must necessarily have lasted till that time. But this persecution was more sharp and violent in Asia, in the Gallias, and in other Pro­vinces, in the seventeenth year of the said Antoninus, as Eusebius does here say expresly. See Baronius, ad annum Christi 179. Vales. seventeenth year of the Emperour Antoninus Verus; at which time a more sharp persecution being in some parts of the world raised against us by a popular incursion throughout every City; how vast the number was of such persons as were dignified with Martyrdom over the whole world, may be conjectured from what happened in one Province. Which things were by accident put in writing and transmitted to posterity, as being truely worthy of an indelible remembrance. Now the Acts, which contain a most perfect and compleat account of these things, are set down entire in that Collection we made of the Martyrs; which comprehends not onely an Historical relation of what was done, but also Rules and Precepts of Piety and Holiness: But notwithstanding, we will from thence at present make a selection of such passages as are agreeable to the Subject we no whave in hand, and here insert them. Other Historians indeed have wholly made it their business to record in their works Warlike Victories, and Trophies erected against their conquered Enemies; the valour of Generals, and brave exploits of Souldiers, b [...]smeared with bloud, and polluted with innumerable slaughters, in defence of their Children, Countrey, and Estates: But we, who set forth the History of a Divine society of men, will record upon immortal Monuments, inscribed with indelible Characters, the most pacate Wars, waged for the obtaining of Spiritual peace; and the valiant Acts of those persons who in such encounters contended more for the Truth than their Countrey, and for Religion rather than their dearest Relations: publishing for the perpetual remembrance of posterity, the continued earnestness of those Champions who fought for Piety, their fortitude in undergoing manifold torments, the Trophies erected against the Devils, the victorious conquests obtained over invisible Adversaries, and last of all, their Crowns.

CHAP. I. How many, in the Reign of Verus, underwent most sore Persecution in France for Religion; and after what manner they suffered.

NOw France was the Countrey, wherein the place for performance of the forementi­oned Combats was appointed. The chief Mother-cities whereof, (and which be more emi­nently famous than the other Cities there,) are Ly­ons and Vienna; through both which the river Rhone passes, encompassing with a great and rapid stream that whole Region. The Churches therefore that were most eminent in those parts sent an account in writing concerning their Martyrs to the Churches throughout Asia and Phrygia; relating, after this manner, what was done amongst them: For I will insert their very words: ‘There a­rises here a double question; (1.) Why this Epistle was written joyntly by the two Churches, that of Vienna, and that of Lyon [...]? (2.) Why the French wrote in Greek to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia? As to the first, I suppose it was for this reason done, because the Churches of Vienna and Lyons were joyned together, not onely by vicinity of place, but also by the bonds of mutual love. And seeing they had together been engaged in the same Persecution, they joyntly wrote an Epistle concerning their own Martyrs. Besides, both Pro­vinces seem at that time to have been under the jurisdiction of one President; which may be conjectured from hence, because as well they of Vienna, as those of Lyons, are in this Epistle said to have been by the President apprehended, and condemned for the Faith of Christ. These therefore are the reasons why they wrote joyntly. For that which some have supposed, (to wit, that then there was but one Bishop of Vienna and Lyons) is easily confuted out of this Epistle, which says that Pothinus was Bishop of Lyons, but not of Vienna. Moreover, those of Lyons doe, out of respect, set the name of those of Vienna first, whenas notwithstanding they of Lyons wrote the Epistle concerning the things which were done at their own City. Which re­spect also may seem to be attributed to the antiquity, and nobility, of the Colonie at Vienna. As to the second query, we may understand from this Epistle, that there were many Grecians in the Church of Lyons, as was Attalus, and Alexander the Phrygian, and Alcibiades, who was by original extract a Phrygian also, as I think: also Iren [...]us was born in Asia, and, when he was very young, had, together with Florinus, been an auditour of Polycarps at Smyrna; as he himself evidences. The very name also of Pothinus the Bishop shews him to be originally a Grecian. 'Tis no wonder therefore, that those who came out of Asia into the Gallia's, should write to their brethren that were in Asia con­cerning their affairs; from whom, as 'tis probable, they had before re­ceived that Epistle concerning the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and others. I suppose Irenaeus to have been the Authour of this Epistle, who at that time was a Presbyter of the Church at Lyons. Vales. The servants of Christ [Page 69] which inhabit Vienna and Lyons in France, to the brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia, which have the same Faith and Hope of Redem­ption with us; Peace, Grace, and Glory from God the Father, and from Christ Jesus our Lord.’ Then, having after this by way of pre­face premised some words, they begin their re­lation with these: ‘Now the [...]ore affliction a­mongst us▪ the great rage of the heathens a­gainst the Saints, and what the blessed Martyrs endured; we are neither able accurately to ex­press, nor indeed can it be comprized in writing. For the adversary invaded us with his utmost vi­gour, shewing forth even then his arrival a­mongst us, and some beginnings of his future cruelty. For he left nothing unattempted, whilst by way of practise he prepared, and before hand exercised his ministers against the servants of God. So that we were not onely prohibited to come into The term in the original is [ [...]] which signifies onely pri­vate houses, from which the Chri­stians were then driven, that is, from the houses of their friends, re­lations, &c. For I agree not with Rufinus, who thought that the Christians were prohibited to in­habit their own houses. Vales. private houses, the Baths, and the [...] is the term in the original; which signifies any pro­miscuous or popular assembly; these (setting aside the sacred assemblies, which are otherwise expressed) are principally of two sorts, either (1.) to buy and sell, or (2.) to resort for justice; and the word here used commonly signifies both, or either of these, (1.) a fair or market, (2.) a place of judicature, an hall, or court of judgment. The Ro­mans termed this place Forum; which word they used in the same latitude that the Grecians did [...]. At this place, and here­after, we have made use of the Latine term in our translation; and we therefore put this note in here, that the English Reader might understand the meaning of it. Forum, but it was also by them in­terdicted that no one of us should at all appear in any place whatsoever. But the Grace of God fought for us against the Devil; which both defended such as were weak, and also set in array against him such men as, like pillars, were firm and immovable, who by reason of their patience in en­during sufferings, might have been able to have pulled on themselves the whole force of the De­vil. These persons en­gaged him hand to hand, undergoing all manner of reproach and punishment; and, accounting the greatest sufferings to be small and trivial, they hastned unto Christ; truly demonstra­ting, Rom. 8. 18. that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. First therefore they couragiously underwent whatsoever [a­buses] were cumulated on them by the whole multitude, to wit, the shouts against them, the stripes, the draggings up and down, the taking away of their goods, the casting of stones at them, their being Here in the first place is re­counted the injurious usage, which the Christians suffered from the whole multitude; wherein impri­sonment can have no place. For the Judges, and not the people, had power to imprison those that were guilty. Rufinus therefore translates [ [...]] concludi, i. e. to be shut up. For the hea­thens shut up the Christians with­in their own houses, and would not suffer them to come abroad. Vales. shut up within their own houses; and all things which an exasperated multitude doe usually undertake against their enemies and adversa­ries: Then, being brought into the Forum by the Tri­bune of the Souldiers and the He means the muncipal Ma­gistrates, who were also called the duumviri. Although the term [...] (here used) is usually meant of those judges which have the power of the sword; (See Ulpian. in tit. de Jurisdict.) yet it de­notes the municipal Magistrates also, who, as the Civilians phrase it, have modicam coercitionem. Vales. Magistrates of the City, they were exami­ned in the presence of the whole multitude; and▪ ha­ving made their confession, were shut up in prison un­till the arrival of the [...] (the term that occurs here) has a general signification. For all Governours of Provinces are so called, be they Procuratours, Proconsuls, or Deputies of Caesar. It may therefore be deservedly questioned of which of these three sorts the Governour of the Pro­vince of Lyons was▪ Indeed, I think he was the Deputy of Caesar, Which I am induced to suppose (1.) because there is mention here made of the Tribune of the Souldiers. For that agrees very well with the Deputy of Caesar▪ who lookt after the Military affairs. (2.) In the old inscription, which Gruter speaks of, pag. 427, he is termed Deputy of the Lugdunensian Province. See Gruter. Inscript. p. 427. Lastly, Spartianus (in Severo) attests, that the Province of Lyons was in the Reign of M. Antoninus governed by Deputies of Caesar. And perhaps in this Epistle of those of Lyons, Severus is meant: for he was Deputy of the Lugdunensian Province under Marcus. Junius Blesus also (whom Tacitus in the B. 1. of his History calls Governour of Gallia Lugdunen­sis) was Deputy of this Province; and so was Vitrasius Pollio in the times of Adrjan. Vales. Pre­sident. Afterwards, when they were brought be­fore the Governour, (who exercised all manner of cruelty against us) This Martyrs name should be writ­ten with a double [...], as it is in the Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. For Vettius is a Roman name, and occurs in Cicero, and Juvenal▪ Vales. Vettius Epagathus, one of the brethren, who had arrived to an immense degree of love to God and his neighbour; whose course of life had been so exact and accurate, that although he was a young man, yet he deserved the eloge of Zachariah Seniour; for he had walked in all the Commandments and Ordinances of the Lord, blameless, and was most ready to perform all good Offices towards his neighbour, being full of the zeal of God, and fervent in Spirit: This person, I say, being such an one, was not able to bear those so unjust procee­dings against us, but was greatly moved with in­dignation, and requested that he also might be heard to make a defence in behalf of the bre­thren, [and to manifest] that there was nothing of impiety or irreligion amongst us. But when those about the Tribunal cried out against him, (for he was an eminent personage,) and when the Governour refused the request so justly pro­posed by him, and onely ask't him whether he also were a Christian; he confest it with a most loud voice, and was received into the number of the Martyrs, being termed by the Governour the Advocate of the Christians: But he had with­in himself an Advocate, to wit, the holy Spirit, in a greater degree than They mean Za­chariah the Priest, the father of John the Baptist, whom they call Seniour, comparing Epagathus, a young man, with him. Vales. Zacharias had; which he evidently manifested by his abundant love, in that he was well contented to deposite his own life for the defence of the brethren. For he was, and is, a genuine disciple of Christ, following the Lamb whit hersoever he go­eth. Then others [...] is the term here used. It seems to be a Metaphor taken from Champions, who be­fore they engaged in the com­bat, were wont to be examined and proved, whether they were free men, and of the age that Cham­pions should be. And those that were admitted to the combat, were said [...] ▪ such as were repu­diated [...] ▪ the examina­tion it self was called [...], as I collect from this place. Indeed this Epistle is very full of Athletical terms, as 'tis manifest from this place▪ and as we will shew more plainly hereafter. Vales. were diligently proved and exa­mined; and they were il­lustrious and ready proto-Martyrs, who with all ala­crity of mind accomplished the solemn confession of Martyrdom. Moreover, those who were unpre­pared, unexercised, as yet weak, and unable to under­goe the severity of so great a combat, were then ap­parent: of whom about ten in number fell away, which was the occasion of great grief and im­measurable sorrow to us, and disturbed that alacri­ty of mind in others who were not yet apprehen­ded; who although they suffered all sorts of mi­sery, yet were present with the Martyrs, and de­parted not from them. At that time we were all in a great consternation of mind, because we were dubious about the [perseverance of such as were to] confess [themselves to be Christians;] not that we feared the torments that were to be inflicted, but, revolving in our minds the issue of affairs, we were fearfull least any one should fall [Page 70] off from the faith. Now there were daily taken such as were worthy to fill up their number; so that those, who were most eminent in To wit, in the Church of Vienna and in that of Lyons. But these words are in an especial manner to be taken notice of, be­cause from them it appears mani­festly, that the Church of Vienna, as well as that of Lyons, had at that time its Bishop. For by an­tient writers it is not called a Church unless it be a mother-Church, which we call a Cathedral. Ado Viennensis (in his Chronicon) says Justus was Bishop of Vienna at that time; who having been macerated with a long Exile, was at last Crowned with Mar­tyrdom. Vales. both the Churches, and by whom especially matters here had been settled, were all pickt out and appre­hended. Some Heathens also, our servants, were seized upon; (for the President did in publick give command that we should all be diligently search't out;) which per­sons, by reason of the treachery of Satan, being afraid of the torments which they saw the Saints under­go, the Souldiers inciting them thereto, raised lyes against us, and reported that we used the suppers of The story goes, that this Thyestes eat part of his own son; whom Atreus his brother (to be revenged of him for committing adultery with his wife) made ready, and set before him. Thyestes, and the ince­stuous carnal copulation of He (not knowing her to be so) married his own mother Jo­cast [...], (having before out of igno­rance slain his own father Laius,) of whom he begat four sons. Oedipus, and such other things as 'tis neither lawfull for us to utter, nor to think of, nor to believe, that any such fact was ever commit­ted among men. These stories being spread a­broad, all persons were enraged against us; in so much, that if there were any who before had been moderate to­wards us by reason of affinity or friendship; even these were then greatly displeased with, and mightily incensed against, us. Thus was fulfilled that which our Lord had said, that the time shall come wherein Joh. 16. 2. whosoever killeth you, will think that he doeth God good service. From thenceforth therefore the holy Martyrs under­went such torments as are inexpressible and above all declaration: Satan endeavouring with much earnestness that some slanderous and re­proachfull words might be uttered by The servants of the Chri­stians (before mentioned) being afraid of the tortures they were threatned with, had confest that the Christians killed infants, and committed incest: and here the devill endeavoured, that the Chri­stians themselves, which were ap­prehended, should after the same manner calumniate the Christian Religion. Therefore the Judges tortured them all manner of ways, that they should confess, that they eat children, and committed in­cest. Upon this account Blandina (as hereafter it follows) cried out amidst her tortures—I am a Christian, and there is nothing of wickedness acted amongst us. Vales. them also. But the whole rage both of the multitude, of the President, and of the Souldiers did in a more violent manner fall upon This Sanctus was born at Vienna, but was a Deacon of the Church at Lyons. Vales. Sanctus, of Vienna, a Deacon, and upon Ma­turus, a person indeed who had been lately baptized, but yet proved a coura­gious Champion of Christ; upon Attalus also, by coun­trey a Pergamenian, who al­ways was a pillar and prop of the Churches here; and lastly upon Blandina; by whom Christ demonstra­ted, that those things which among men seem vile, ob­scure, and despicable, are by God accounted worthy of great honour, by reason of the love shown to him, which is actually and powerfully manifested, and not in pretence and shew boasted of. For when we were all afraid, and she that was her mistress after the flesh (who also was one of the Champions of the Martyrs) feared, least, by reason of the imbecillity of her body, she should not be able with boldness and freeness to make her confession: Blandina was supplied with so great strength, that those who by turns tortu­red her all the time from morning till evening, be­came feeble and weak; and confest themselves overcome, having nothing further to doe to her; they admired also that she yet continued to breathe, her whole body having been mangled and pierced through; and they attested, that one sort of torture was sufficient to have bereaved her of life, much more so many and so great tor­ments. But this blessed woman, like a coura­gious Champion, recovered fresh supplies of strength during her confession: and it was a refreshment, and an ease to her, and abated the pain of those torments that were inflicted on her, to pronounce these words, to wit, I am a Christian, and there is nothing of wickedness acted amongst us. But Sanctus, having in an extraordinary, and more than humane, manner, couragiously endured all the torments men could invent, (the impious wretches hoping by rea­son of the continuedness and exquisiteness of his torments to have heard some undecent expres­sions from him,) withstood them with so great a degree of courage, that he declared neither his own name, nor that of his Countrey, nor of the City where he was born, nor yet whether he were a servant or a freeman: but to all the inter­rogatories, he made answer in the Roman tongue, I am a Christian: this he declared time after time successively, instead of [acknowledging] his name, his City, his kindred, or any thing else: neither could the Heathens get any other words out of him. Upon which account the rage both of the President and of the tormentours a­gainst him was exceeding great, and their en­deavours to master him were obstinate and earnest. Insomuch that when they had nothing further to torture him with, at last they clapt plates of brass that were red hot upon the most tender members of his body; which parts of his body were burnt indeed; but he stood up­right without bending of himself at all, was in­vincible, and continued stedfast and constant in his confessions; being bedewed and strengthened with that celestial fountain of living water which flowed out of the See Joh. 7. 38. belly of Christ. His body was a sufficient evidence of what had happened, being all over full of wounds, and prints of stripes, That is, by reason of the greatness of his tortures. For they who were tortured in the Eculeus (the description of which Engine see in Turnebus his Advers. L. 4. c. 39.) were forced to bow their heads very much. Vales. bowed and drawn together, and having lost the external form and shape of a man: in which Christ suffering accom­plished therein great glo­ry, vanquishing the ad­versary and demonstrating for the information of others, that there is nothing formidable where the love of the father is, nor any pain where the glory of Christ is present. For when those im­pious wretches some few days after began again to torture the Martyr, and supposed that if they should make use of the same torments whilst his body was swelled and the [...] is the term in the ori­ginal. Ru­finus (as by his Ver­sion ap­pears) read [...], i. e. wounds; which rea­ding seems to be right. Vales. wounds thereof in­flamed, either they might master him, when he could not indure to be touch't by hands, or that he would die under his torments and so strike a terrour into others: not onely no such thing happened concerning him, but also, contrary to the opinion of all men, his body became erect and was repaired in these latter tortures; and he recovered his former shape, and the use of his limbs. So that his being tormented the second time was not a punishment to him, but by the grace of Christ proved to be his r [...]medy. More­over, the devil caused one Biblias to be brought forth to punishment, (being one of those who had renounced Christ,) whom he supposed to [Page 71] be by him already devoured, but was further desirous to have her condemned of blasphemy, constraining her, being now weak and not coura­gious, to utter some impious expressions con­cerning us. But she came to her self again at the time of her being tortured, and (as we may so speak,) was awaked out of her profound sleep, being by the present punishment reminded of the eternal torments in hell; and she re­turned a contradictory an­swer to [...]; thats the reading of the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. And 'tis bet­ter than [...], i. e. the Tormentours, as 'tis in Robert Stephens Edit. They are meant here, who calumniated the Chri­stian Religion; or at least those, who, by reason of the sharpness of the tortures, renounc't it, and confest that the Christians killed infants, and committed incest. Vales. those that slaun­dred us, saying, how should such persons eat little chil­dren, for whom 'tis un­lawfull to eat the bloud even of irrational creatures. From that instant she con­fest her self to be a Chri­stian, and was added to the number of the Martyrs. But when the punishments of those tyrannous persons were rendred inef­fectual by Christ, through the patient sufferance of the blessed Martyrs, the devil invented other subtil devices, to wit, the imprisonments of them in darkness, and in the most noisome parts of the prison, the stretching of their feet in the [...]; i. e. in the stocks, see chap. 16. B. 4. and the note there, con­cerning this term. The fashion of this Engine for punishment, and the manner how persons were punished in it, seems to have been this. It was a piece of tim­ber, wherein five paire of holes were made, at a certain distance one from the other: into these holes (as it were into boots) they put the feet of offenders, and fastned them therein with cords and fetters. The meaning of [their feet being strained to the fifth hole] is, they forced them to stradle so wide, as to put their feet into the last pair of holes; which posture, (those holes being at the greatest distance one from the other) was the sharpest degree of torture in this Engine. Vales. stocks, which were strained to the fifth hole, and such other sorts of punishment as enraged ministers (and therefore full of the devil) doe usually provide for those that are shut up in prison. So that many were suffocated in prison, whom the Lord, manifesting his own glory, was pleased should after that manner depart out of this life. For some (who had been so cruelly tortured, that in all likelyhood they could not possibly live any lon­ger, although they should have had all methods of cure administred to them,) continued in prison; desti­tute indeed of humane as­sistance, but corroborated by the Lord, and strengthen­ed in body and mind, who also encouraged and com­forted the rest: But others who were young, and newly apprehended, whose bodies had not before been accustomed to en­dure tortures, were not able to bear the bur­then of confinement, but died in prison. Now the blessed Pothinus, who was entrusted with the administration of the Episcopal Office in Lyons, being above the age of ninety years, and very infirm of body, scarce able indeed to draw his breath by reason of his present bodily imbecillity, but corroborated with alacrity of mind through an earnest desire of an approach­ing Martyrdom; He, I say, was also haled to the Tribunal: his body indeed was both by age and also by his distemper decayed and spent, but his life was preserved in him, that Christ might triumph thereby. He, being carried to the Tribunal by the Souldiers, the Magistrates of the City accompanying him, and the whole multitude raising shouts of all sorts against him, (as if he had been Christ,) exhibited a good testimony: but being asked by the President who was the God of the Christians, he replied, if you be worthy, you shall know. After this answer, he was drag'd up and down after a most inhumane manner, and suffered various sorts of blows and stripes; both those who were neer, exercised all manner of injurious usage to­wards him with hands and feet, shewing no reverentiall respect to his age; and such as were at a distance cast at him whatever each person had ready at hand: yea, they all accoun­ted it to be a great offence and an impiety, should any one have been deficient in his inso­lent usage of him. For by this means they thought they should revenge their gods. And when there was scarce any breath left in him, he was cast into prison, where after two days he expited. But here there came to pass a sin­gular dispensation of Gods providence, and the immense mercy of Jesus was demonstrated; [an instance whereof] has indeed rarely hap­pened among the Brotherhood, but which was not at all disagreeable to the skill, and dexterity of Christ. For those who, upon their being first apprehended, renounced the Faith, were themselves also confined to prison, and partook of the same miseries which the Martyrs under­went: for their denial of the Faith was not in any wise beneficiall to them at that juncture of time. But those who confest themselves to be what they really were, were imprisoned as Chri­stians, no other crimination being laid to their charge: but these were kept in custody, as being, besides that, murderers and wicked per­sons, and underwent double the punishment that others did. For the joy of Martyrdom, the hope of the Promises, the Love to Christ, and the Spirit of the Father comforted those: but their conscience did heavily torture these; in so much that [...] is the phrase, i. e. in their passage from their con­finement to the place of judicature. Vales. in their passage from the prison to the Tribunal their countenances might be ma­nifestly known and distinguished from all the rest. For those came forth chearfully, their countenances being intermixt with very much of majesty and pleasantness: in so much that their fetters encompassed them with a beautifull comliness, like a bride bedeck't with fringes of gold Psal. 45. 10. wrought about with divers colours: and moreover they yielded a scent of the sweet savour of Christ; so that some thought they were anointed with terrestrial oyntment. But these had a dejected countenance, look't unplea­santly and illfavoured, and were filled with all manner of deformity: moreover they were re­viled by the very Heathens, as being cowardous and unmanly; having indeed procured them­selves the crimination of murderers, but lost that most honourable, glorious, and vivifick appel­lation [of Christians.] Which things when the rest beheld; they were made stedfast; and such as were apprehended did without any thing of dubiousness confess themselves to be Christians, entertaining not the least thought of diabolical consideration.’ To these, having interposed some words, they again add, saying,—‘Afterwards therefore, their Martyrdoms were divided into all sorts of death: for, having platted one Crown of different colours, and of all sorts of flowers, they offered it to the Father. It was indeed fit, that those couragious Champions, who had under­gone a various combat, and been egregious con­querours, should receive the invaluable Crown of incorruption. Maturus therefore, and Sanctus, and Blandina, and Attalus were brought before the wild-beasts into the [...]. By this term the Amphitheatre seems to be understood▪ For it can't be referred to [ [...]] because the preposition is repeated, thus, [...], &c. This is the reading of the Maz. Med. Fuk. & Savil. M. SS. Vales. Amphitheatre, and into [Page 72] the publick place, where the inhumanity of the Heathens was exhibited; The meaning of this place is, that the President, or Deputy, of the Province of Lyons granted the people an extraordinary shew of fighting with the wild beasts; a day being appointed for that purpose, because of the Chri­stians, who were condemned to the beasts. For the Romans had set days for these Spectacles, which fell on the month of December, as may be seen in the Calender of Heruuartius. Except on these days, i [...] was unlawfull for the be­stowers of these sports, or for the duumviri (on whom the charge of these shews was imposed) to exhibit these spectacles of fight­ing with wild-beasts to the peo­ple. But those judges, who had the power of the sword and of condemning persons to the beasts, exhibited these shews as often as they pleased, that they might de­light the people by destroying of offenders. Vales. a day for fighting with the wild-beasts being granted purposely upon the account of those of our Religion. And Ma­turus, and Sanctus, did a­gain undergoe all sorts of torments in the Amphithe­atre, as if they had before suffered nothing at all: but the rather, because having already subdued the adver­sary in many We noted before, that many Athletical terms were made use of in this Epistle. Amongst which is to be accounted the term [ [...]] which occurs here. For the Champions, who were to con­tend in the games, were wont to be drawn forth by lot, which, af­ter what manner it was done, Lucian (in Hermotimo) tells us. There was a little silver box, dedicated to the God that pre­sided over the Games, into which the Lots were cast. Upon two the Letter A was written; upon other▪ two the Letter B, and so on. Then the Champions drew these Lots out of the box. Those two, who drew [...]orth the Lettter A, engaged one with the other, and sought in the first place: and this was the [ [...].] In like manner, they that drew the Letter B, engaged one another in the second place. So the Lot and the Ur [...] assigned every one his Antagonist. He that vanquished his adversary, was not immediate­ly Crowned, but engaged in ano­ther encounter with those others who had conquered their adver­saries, untill there remained onely one Victour over all. Upon which account they drew Lots several times. Hence 'tis, that in the Farne [...]ian inscription (which Gru­ter speaks of pag. 314.) one Asclepiades is said to have got­ten the victory in many encoun­ters, [...]; i. e. after the first or second casting of Lots ha­ving vanquished the Antagonist [...] the second, or third time. For this was usual for that reason I men­tioned, as often as there were ma­ny couples of Champions. For the conquerours engaged one ano­ther, and there was a second and third drawing of Lots amongst them, untill the victory remained to one. And this is that which, in this Epistle, is called [...] Vales. encounters, and being now to engage in a Combat for the Crown it self, they again under­went such stripes in their passage thither as are custo­marily inflicted; the being torn and drag'd up and down by the wild-beasts; and whatever else the en­raged people, some from one place some from ano­ther, called aloud for, and commanded; and in fine, the Iron chair, upon which their bodies being broyled, filled their noses with the offensive smell of burnt flesh. Neither did they make an end of their cruel­ty thus, but were yet more fiercely enraged, being de­sirous to overcome the pa­tient sufferance of the Mar­tyrs: But they heard no o­ther expression from San­ctus, save that which he had usually uttered all a­long from the beginning of his confession. These two persons therefore, af­ter they had continued a­live a long while under the sufferings of a mighty com­bat, at last were slain; ha­ving been made a spectacle to the world throughout that day, instead of all that variety which is exhibi­ted in the combats of the Gladiatours. But Blan­dina, being hung upon a piece of wood fixt in the ground, was proposed as food for the wild-beasts to prey upon; who also, (in that she seemed to hang in the form of a Cross,) by her strong and earnest prayer, implanted much alacrity upon the minds of those that were combatants; when they saw (whilst they were undergoing their suffer­ings,) even with their out­ward eyes, under the per­son of their sister, Him who was therefore crucified for them, that he might perswade those which be­lieve in him, that whosoever suffers for the glory of Christ hath eternal communion with the living God. Now when none of the wild­beasts would then touch her, she was taken from the stake, and cast again into prison, being reserved for another combat: that so, having been It should be [ [...].] So 'tis in the Med. M. S. and in Nicophorus. See Peter Faber, in his first book Ago­nistici, chap. 24. Note, also, that Blandina, being a servant, was crucified; for that was the pu­nishment of servants. Vales. Ro­bert Stephens reads [ [...].] Conquerour in many incounters, she might render the condemnation of the crooked Serpent inexcusable; also she encouraged the brethren, and though she was a person of small esti­mation, infirm, and despi­cable, yet having clothed herself with the strength of Christ that great and invincible Champion, she vanquished the adversary in many encounters; and, after a glorious combat, was encircled with a Crown of incorruption. Attalus also was by the multitude most earnestly required to be delivered up to punishment, for he was an emi­nent person, and by reason of the clearness of his conscience proceeded forth like a Champion prepared for the combat, in that he had been perfectly and throughly exercised in the Chri­stian discipline, and was always a witness of the truth amongst us: and after he had been The Gladiatours and the Bestiarii, before they began the encounter, were wont to be led about in the presence of the spe­ctatours. See Lucian, in Toxari. This was usually done not onely with those who let themselves out to play prizes, but also with those offenders, which were condemned to the sword, and to the wild­beasts. So Martial, Traducta est gyris, nec cepi [...] arena nocentes. Vales. lead round the Amphi­theatre, (a table being car­ried before him whereon was written in the Roman tongue, This is Attalus the Christian,) and the people had vehemently swell'd with rage and a [...] ­ger against him; the Presi­dent having understood that he was a Roman, comman­ded he should again be com­mitted to custody amongst the rest that were in prison. Concerning whom he wrote to Caesar, and expected an Edict from him. Now, this interval of time was spent neither idly, nor un­fruit [...]ully by them, but by their patient sufferance, the immeasurable mercy of Christ was made apparent: for those members of the Church that were dead, were by the living revived; and the Martyrs conferred That is, by making intercession for them, &c. Vales. kindnesses upon those who were no Martyrs; and there was a great joy begotten in the Virgin Mother [the Church;] she having again received those alive, whom by abortion she had cast forth as dead. For through the means of the holy Martyrs many of those who had renounced the faith, were newly formed in the womb, born again, had their vital heat rekindled in them, and learned to confess themselves to be Christians. And ha­ving now recovered life and strength, they came before the tribunal, (God, who desireth not the death of a sinner but is indulgent and kindly in­vites him to repentance, The term in the o­riginal is [ [...],] which is used as well in an active as passive sense. 'Tis a Metaphor taken from the wild-olive-tree, which being gra [...]ed, grows sweet; of which S. Paul speaks. Vales. in [...]using a sweetness in­to them) that they might again be interrogated by the President. For Caesar had signified by his Re­script, that those [who confest themselves to be Christians,] should be [...]. Lexicogra­phers differ very much in their giving the signification of this term (which here occurs.) Stephens (in his Thesaurus,) renders it, fustibus concidi, i. e. to be beaten with clubs: Varinus, [...], i. e. to be beheaded: The Etymologicon (publisht by Sylbergius) says it signifies, [...] no [...] barely to be put to death, but to be killed with the Tympanum, which is [...] piece of wood called a cudgell: The Reader will find a large and learned account of this term, and of this engine of torture, in D. Hammonds note on Hebr. 11. 35. Where he makes it appear, that this sort of punishment was very painfull, contumelious, and capital. tortured; but if any re­nounced the Faith, they [Page 73] should be dismist from their imprisonment. Now, the publick The pub­lick mee­ting, from all parts of Gallia, up▪ on account of the sports and games, was at Lyons, at the Altar consecrated to Augustus. This Altar was con­secrated when Julius Antonius and Fabius Africanus were Con­suls, on the Calends of August, as Suetonius says, in the life of Claudius. Dio writes, that these games were continued in his time. Hence 'tis collected, that the Martyrs of Lyons suffered in the month of August; but not all in one day, as 'tis evident from this Epistle. Vales. Assembly here (which is frequented by a numerous concourse of people of all nations that meet together at it) being newly begun, [the President] ordered the blessed Martyrs to be brought before the Tribunal, ma­king them a gazing-stock, and, by way of ostenta­tion, producing them as a pompous shew to the multitude. When there­fore he had again interro­gated them, as many as were found to have the priviledge▪ of being free of the City of Rome, he or­dered should be beheaded; the rest were cast to the wild-beasts. But Christ was greatly glorified through those who formerly had renounced the Faith, but then (contrary to the expectation of the Heathens) became to be Confessours: for these persons were interrogated apart, as being, in all probability, forthwith to be set at liberty; but, having confess't themselves to be Chri­stians, they were added to the In the Kings M. S. and, in Rob. Stephens Edit. the reading here is [ [...]] But in the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. it is [ [...]] i. e. number. See note (x) in this chap. Vales. number of the Martyrs. Now, they continued without, who never had the least impression of Faith, nor a sense of the Wedding garment, nor a thought about the fear of God; but by their conversa­tion defamed the way of Truth, that is, were the sons of perdition: But all the rest were added to the Church; during whose examination, one A­lexander, by countrey a Phrygian, by profes­sion a Physitian, a person who had dwelt many years in the Gallia's, and was known almost to all men by reason of his love to God, and his boldness and fearlesness in Preaching his word, (for he wanted not Apostolick grace;) standing near to the Tribunal, and by nods en­couraging them to a confession of the Faith, ap­peared to those who stood round the Tribunal as if he endured the [...] is the phrase in the ori­ginal; tis S. Pauls expression, Galat. 4. 19. pangs of childbirth: now the multitude being in a great sume, because those, who had before renounc't the Faith, did now again make confession of it, cried out against Alexander, as if he were the occasion thereof: and the President (having commanded him to be Rufinus translates this passage thus, qui à Praeside in medium statui Jussus, i. e. who being commanded by the President to be set before him. Which translation pleases me best. For [ [...]] which is the word here used, does properly signifie, to set before the Judge; in which sense also [...] is used. Vales. set before him, and asked him who he was, and he having said that he was a Christian) being in a rage, condemned him to be cast to the wild-beasts. And the day following he entred the Amphitheatre together with Attalus; (for the Pre­sident, to gratifie the multitude, did again deliver Attalus to the wild-beasts:) which two persons, having undergone all the instruments of torment in the Amphitheatre, that were invented to tor­ture them with, and endured a great combat, were at last [...] Rufinus translates it, ju [...]ulat [...] sunt, that is their throats were cut; I would rather have it thus ren­dred, they were run through with a sword. For it was the custom that the Con­fector should [...]ay the bestiarii; as we noted before, in the Martyr­dom of Polycarp, B. 4. chap. 15. Vales. run through with a sword. Alex­ander indeed did neither sigh, nor utter any ex­pression at all; but in his heart spoke to God, and continued praysing of, and praying to him: but Attalus, when he was set in the Iron chair, and scortched all over, (when the favour of his burnt flesh ascended from his body,) said to the multitude in the Roman tongue, behold, this that you doe, is to devour men; but we neither devour men, nor practise any other thing that is evill: being asked also what name God had, he answered, God has not a name, as man has. In fine, after all these persons, on the Hence it's mani­fest that the sports of the Gladiatours were wont to be exhibited for the space of some days, at Lyons, at that famous as­sembly of all Gallia, before the altar of Augustus. Besides these sports of the Gladiatours, there was a day granted by the Presi­dent for fighting with wild-beasts, on account of the Christians, as 'tis expressely said in this Epistle. For I suppose, that these two terms, [...], and [...] are not to be confounded, though the Latines comprehend them both in one word, to wit, Munus. Vales. last day of the Gladiatours combats, Blandina was again brought forth, together with Ponticus a youth about fifteen years old; (who also were e­veryday led in, to see the tortures of the rest) and they constrained them to swear by their Idols: but because they continued firm and constant, and contem­ned their gods, the multi­tude was so enraged against them, that they neither had compassion on the age of the young man, nor shewed any reverential respect towards the Sex of the woman, but exposed them to all manner of cruell tortures, and made them pass through the whole circuit of torments, now and then com­pelling them to swear, but were unable to effect that. For Ponticus, being encouraged by his sister, (insomuch that the Heathens perceived it was [...]he that encouraged and strengthened him) ha­ving couragiously undergone all sorts of tor­tures, gave up the ghost. But the blessed Blan­dina, the last of all, having like a noble and va­liant mother encouraged her children, and sent them before as conquerors to the King; af­ter she had measured over the same course of Combats that her sons had passed through, hastned to them, being glad, and rejoycing at her exit, as if she had been invited to a nuptial supper, and were not to be cast to the wild­beasts. And after she had been scourged, ex­posed to the fury of the wild-beasts, and set in the [...] is the Greek term; which Rufinus translates craticu­lam, i. e. a Grid-iron: it is the same, which before is called the Iron-chair, on which the Martyrs being set, were broyled, as it were on a Gridiron. Thus the Chri­stians were used before they were cast to the wild-beasts. Vales. Iron-chair, at last she was inclosed in a net, and thrown before a Amongst the sports of an Am­phitheatrical shew this was one; a Bull was brought in, to whom (being first enraged) they cast offenders inclosed in a net; whom, like balls, he tossed on high. Mar­tials verse on this subject are well known, Taurus ut impositas jact at ad astra pilas. Vales. Bull: by which beast after she had been very much tossed, (ha­ving been all along wholly insensible of the tortures she underwent, because of her hope and her retaining a firm assent to those things she believed, and also by reason of her familiar con­verse in prayer with Christ,) she also was run through with a sword: and the very Heathens themselves con­fessed, that there never was any woman among them, which suffered so many and so great tor­tures. But their rage and cruelty towards the saints was not thus satiated: for the Savage and Barbarous Nations, having been stirred up by that That is the devill; the Greek word [ [...]] signifies, a wild-beast; but [ [...]] is often ta­ken for the devill. Vales. fierce wild-beast, could not without great difficulty be appeased; but their cruelty was begun afresh, in a new and peculiar manner▪ a­gainst the bodies of the Saints. For they were so far from being ashamed that they had been vanquished by the Martyrs (because they were destitute of humane reason and consideration,) that their rage was more enkindled; both the President and also the people (like a fierce beast) most unjustly demonstrating the same degree of hatred against us: that the Scripture might be fulfilled, Rev. 22. 11. where instead of [ [...]] as the reading in the original is here; we now read [ [...] i. e. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; See the original of the Text. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still, [Page 74] and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still. For those who had been suffocated in pri­son, they cast to the dogs; watching continually night and day, least any of us should interre them; then, having exposed the pieces of the bodies, as well what were left undevoured by the wild­beasts, as what remained unconsumed by the fire, partly torn, and partly burnt, also the heads of the rest together with their trunks, they kept them likewise unburied with a guard of Soul­diers for the space of many days. And some were full of indignation, and gnashed their teeth at the dead, being desirous to take some further revenge of them. Others insulted over and derided them, extolling their Idols, and attri­buting the punishment of the Martyrs to them. But those that were more mild, and who seemed in some measure to sympathize with us, up­braided us very much, saying, where is their God? and what emolument hath this Religion brought them, which they preferred before their own lives? And such variety was there in the Heathens behaviour towards us; but we were affected with a great grief, because we could not hide the bodies in the earth: for neither was the night assistant to us therein, These words [ [...], i. e. neither would mo­ney per­swadethem] are not in our three M. SS. Maz. Med. and Fuk. the Kings M. S. and Robert Stephens E­dit. doe re­tain them. Vales. neither would money perswade them, nor could our prayers induce them to grant our request: but they watched the bodies with all imaginable care and diligence, as if they were to gain some great matter, if they should not be buried.’ After these words, having interposed some other expres­sions, they proceed, saying, ‘The Bodies there­fore of the Martyrs, having undergone all man­ner of ignominious usage, and being exposed in the open air for six days space, were afterwards burnt; and being reduced to ashes, were by those impious wretches The Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil, M. SS. read it thus [ [...], i. e. were swept into the Ri­ver Rhone: but the rea­ding of the Kings M. S. of Stephens Edit. is [ [...], &c. i. e. were strewed, &c. Vales. swept into the River Rhone which runs hard by; that so no remains of them might be any longer visible upon earth. And this they did, as if they were able to have vanquished God, and deprive them of a resurrection; that so (as they said) they might have no hope of rising again; of which being fully perswaded, they introduce a strange and new Religion a­mongst us, and, contemning the most exquisite torments, doe readily, and with alacrity of mind willingly undergoe death. Let us now see whether they shall rise again, and whether their God is able to assist them, and deliver them out of our hands.’

CHAP. II. How the Martyrs beloved of God, kindly recei­ving such as fell away in the persecution, wrought a cure upon them.

SUch were the Calamities which befell the Churches of Christ, in the times of the foresaid Emperour; from which may be conjectured what also was done in the other Provinces. It is worth our adjoyning hereto some other words out of the same Epistle, whereby the meekness and humanity of the forementioned Martyrs is described in these very words; ‘Who also were so far followers and imitatours of Christ, (Philip. 2. 6. who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,) that although they were in such an height of glory, and had suffered as Martyrs not once, nor twice, but often, and had been taken from the wild-beasts and Sr Henry Savil, at the margin of his M. S. copy, has mended this place thus, [...], i. e. and had been cast to the wild-beasts, and taken from them again; Which emendation is put in the margin of the Geneva Edit. Indeed Christo­phorson read this place thus, as appears from his translation; but 'tis uncertain whether he did it by conjecture, or from the authority of some old copies. Our M. SS. alter not the reading here. Moreover▪ [...] (which is the term in the original) signifies in this place, to be cast again into prison; in which sense 'tis twice used in the fore­going chapter. Vales. committed again to prison, although they had the marks of fire, the scars of stripes, and wounds all over their bodies; yet they neither declared themselves to be Martyrs, nor would they suffer us to call them by that name. But if at any time any one of us, either by letter, or in discourse, termed them Martyrs, they reproved us sharply. For they readily allowed the appellation of Martyr to Christ, (who is the faithfull and true witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the life of God;) they commemorated also those Martyrs who were already departed this life, and said, those are now Martyrs, whom Christ vouchsafed to assume whilst they were making their confession, he having sealed their Martyrdom by their death: but we are mean and humble Confessours: and with tears they be­seeched the brethren, entreating them, that ear­nest prayers might be made that they might be perfected: they also in reality demonstrated the power and efficacy of Martyrdom, using much freedom of speech in their answers before all the Heathens, and manifested their excellency by their patient sufferance, fearlesness, and un­daunted courage: but they refused the appella­tion of Martyrs given them by the brethren, having been filled with the fear of God.’ Again, after some few words, they say; ‘They humbled themselves under the mighty hand, by which they are now highly exalted: then also [...]. Muscu­lus translates it truest, thus, omni­bus rationem fidei suae reddebant, i. e. they gave all men an account of their faith: it may be rendred thus, they excused themselves to all: for that's the proper signi­fication of ' [...]. Vales. they excused themselves to all men, but accused none; they loosed all men, and bound none; yea they prayed for those who tortured them, as did Stephen that perfect Mar­tyr, [saying,] Act. 7. 60. Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. Now if he prayed for those who stoned him, how much more [is it credible that he prayed] for the brethren?’ Again also, after some other words, they say; ‘For this was the greatest encounter they had with the devil, to wit, upon account of their genuine and sincere cha­rity; because the Serpent, being strangled, vo­mited up those alive, whom he supposed he had digested. They did not proudly triumph over those that fell; but bestowed, on such as were in­digent, those good things with which they aboun­ded, having motherly bowels of compassion, pou­ring forth many tears for them before [God] the father. They asked life, and he gave it them; which also they imparted to their friends; being Victours The Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. read [ [...], i. e. over all, Vales. over all, they went to God: having always loved peace, and continually exhorted [us] to it, they departed in peace to God; lea­ving no grief to their mother, no faction nor dissention amongst the brethren, but joy, peace, concord, and love.’ Let thus much be here pro­fitably placed, concerning the affection of these blessed persons towards those of the brethren that fell; upon account of the inhumane and merciless disposition of He means the Nova­tians, who afterwards excluded such as fell in time of persecution from all hope of abso­lution. Vales. those, who afterwards behaved themselves most cruelly towards the members of Christ.

CHAP. III. What a Vision appeared to the Martyr Attalus in his sleep.

MOreover, the same Epistle of the foremen­tioned Martyrs, contains also another re­lation worthy to be remembred; which, for the in­formation of the Readers, we will very willingly in­sert: Thus it is: ‘For when Alcibiades, one of the Martyrs, (who led an austere course of life, and in the foregoing part of his life hitherto had fed on nothing at all, but onely made use of bread and water,) attempted to lead the same course of life during his imprisonment; it was revea­led to Attalus (after the first combat which he finished in the Amphitheatre) that Alcibiades did not well, in his not making use of Gods creatures, and leaving an example of scandall to others. But Alcibiades submitted, fed on all meats afterwards promiscuously, and gave God thanks: For they were not destitute of the grace of God, but the holy Spirit was their directour.’ These things were after this manner. Now, when Montanus, This Alcibiades must be di­stinguished from Alcibiades men­tioned a little before in this chapter. He, that is first named in this place, was a companion of the B. Martyrs of Lyons. This person here was (together with Montanus and Theodotus,) a ring­leader of the Sect of the Cataphry­gians. Concerning whom see chap. 16, & 17 of this book. Vales. Alcibiades, and Theodotus, began, then first of all, to be lookt upon in the opinion of most men as Pro­phets; (for very many mi­racles of divine grace, at that time wrought in many Chur­ches, made most men believe, that they also were Pro­phets;) and when there a­rose a dissention concerning these foresaid persons; The brethren that were in Gallia did again sub­joyn their private opinion also concerning these men, (which was Religious and most Orthodox,) and annexed several Epistles of those Martyrs that had ended their lives amongst them, which, being yet in bonds, they wrote to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleuthe­rus Bishop of Rome, was first de­ceived by the Montanists, who craftily hid their errour under the pre­tence of a felgned plety. Moreover, being moved thereto by the let­ters and exhortations of the Martyrs of Lyons, he wrote an Epistle to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia, concerning the receiving of the Montanists into the Church. But being soon after admonished by one Praxeas of Asia, he revoked his pacifick letters which he had sent; and, following the authority of his predecessour Anicetus, refused to admit of a new Prophecy. So Tertullian, in his book, against Praxeas. Vales. Eleutherus then the Bishop of Rome, being That is, the brethren of Asia and Phrygia, as well as Eleutherus, were Embassadours for the peace of the Church, See B. 3. chap. 24. note (a.) Embassadours for the peace of the Church.

CHAP. IV. How the Martyrs, by their Epistle, recommended Irenaeus.

BUt the same Blondell (in his Apo­logy, chap. 8. p. 26.) denies that the Martyrs of Lyons wrote to Eleutherus▪ For he af­firms that the Mar­tyrdom of Pothinus, and the Lugdunen­sians, hap­pened on the seventh year of Marcus the Emperour, on the year of Christ 167; at which time Soter was▪ Bishop of Rome. The Martyrs of Lyons▪ therefore could not write to Eleutherus who then had not succeeded Soter. But our Eusebius does refute Blondell, saying plainly, That the same Martyrs recommended, &c. Vales. Martyrs recommended Valesius, in his note here, will not allow that Irenaeus did actually goe this journey to Rome; the Martyrs indeed, says he, had desired him, and he had promised to undertake it; but the heat of the per­secution coming on, and he being fixt in the presidency over that Church, could not be spared personally to undergoe it. But since Eusebius clearly intimates, and St Jerom (in Catalogo) and Ba­ronius (at the year of Christ 179) doe expresly affirm that the Mar­tyrs sent him upon this errand, 'tis safest to grant his journey thither▪ thought it must be while he was yet Presbyter, for so they particularly say he was in their Epistle to the Bishop of Rome, part of which our Eu­sebius has here inserted. See the learned Dr Cave's Apostolici; in the life of S. Irenaeus; pag. 165. Edit. London, 1677. Ire­naeus (who at that time was a Presbyter of the Church at Lyons) to the forementioned Bishop of Rome, giving the man a very good te­stimony, as their own words doe manifest, which are these; ‘We pray that you may in all things and always rejoyce in God, Father The Kings, Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. read Eleutherus; as doe also Nicephorus and Rufinus. But there are some who call him Eleutherius. Vales. Eleutherus; we have entreated Irenaeus our brother and com­panion to bring you these letters, and we beseech you that you would have him recommended, being a follower of the testament or covenant of Christ. For if we knew that place would pro­cure any man righteousness, we would chiefly have recommended him as being Presbyter of the Church, which degree he is of.’ What need we recount the Catalogue of the Martyrs in the foresaid Epistle; some whereof were perfected by being beheaded, others were cast for food to the wild beasts▪ and others again dyed in prison? Or what need we reckon up the number of the con­fessours which till that time survived? For he that is desirous, may easily and fully know all these things by taking into his hands that Epistle, which, as I said, is inserted entire into our collection of the Martyrs. And such were the things that hap­pened in Antoninus's time.

CHAP. V. How God, having from heaven heard the prayers of some of our Religion, sent rain to Marcus Aurelius Caesar.

REport says, that when Eusebius is here much mistaken, who says, that M. Aurelius was brother to Antoninus the Empe­rour, whenas M. Aurelius Antoninus was one and the same person. His Adoptive brother was not named Marcus, but Lucius Aelius Verus, as all men know. But he, who fought against the Germans and Sarmatians (to whom God gran­ted a sudden shower to allay his Souldiers▪ thirst,) was not L. Aelius Verus, but M. Aurelius Antoninus, as all Historians do attest; which our Eusebius does confirm also in his Chronicon, where he says this was done in the 14th year of Antoninus, that is, four or five years after the death of L. Aelius Verus. Vales. M. Aurelius Caesar, brother to this Emperour, had drawn up his men in Battalia, in order to a fight against the Germans and Sarmatians, his army was brought into so great a streight by reason of thirst, that he knew not what course to take: and that the Soul­diers of the Legion of Melitina is a Countrey of Cappadocia, scituate between Com­magenes and Cata [...]nia, sayes Strabo in his 12 Book; who also relates, that that Country had no Cities. But afterwards Melitina became a famous City, which, upon a new division made of the Provinces, was attributed to Armenia the less; so says Amm. Marcelinus, who al­ways calls it Melitina. Vales. Me­litina, (so it was called, That is, the name of that Legion; he means not the very persons, which then were in it. which Legion, upon account of their faith, has continued from that time hitherto,) kneeling down upon the ground (whilst the Army was setting in aray against the enemy) according to our usual custom in prayer▪ be­took themselves to the ma­king supplications to God. Which sight seeming very strange to their Adversaries, report says, that there soon after followed another thing much more wonderfull; ta wit, both a terrible Light­ning, which put the Enemy to flight and destroyed them; and also a great shower of rain, which fell upon that Army who had prayed to God, and refreshed it, when all the men in it were just ready to perish with thirst. Which story is related both by those Writers, (who are wholly estranged from our Religion,) whose care it was to commit to writing matters done in those times; and 'tis also set forth by our own writers. But the Some of the Hea­then writers, who have mentioned this thing, say the Rain was procu­red by the inchantments of Magicians; others assert it to have been done by the prayers of Marcus the Emperour. So Capitolinus in the life of Marcus, and Claudian in the sixth Consulate of Honorius. More­over, they have set down the very words of the prayer, that Marcus used, which are these, Hanc dextram ad t [...], Jupiter, tendo, quae nullius unquam sanguinem fudi [...]; i. e. I stretch forth ibis right hand to thoe, [...] Jupiter, which never shed the bloud of any man. Vales. Heathen Historians, because they are ali­enated [Page 76] from the Faith, have mentioned the wonder indeed, but confess not that it was done by the prayers of those of our Religion. But our men, in that they are lovers of Truth, have delivered what was done in a plain and ingenuous manner. Amongst which number is Apollinaris; who says, from that time that Legion, which by prayer had wrought that miracle, had a name given it by the Emperour accommodate to what was done, being called in the Roman tongue That is, the Light­ning Le­gion. Scali­ger has long since remark't, (in his A­nimad. Eu­seb.) that the Legion was not named Ful­minea upon account of this mira­cle, for it was so cal­led long before An­toninus's time. Dio Cassius makes this evident, in his 55 B. where he reckons up all the Le­gions. Al­so, the old inscription, produced by Scali­ger, con­firms this. Wherefore, as to the miracle of the rain, ob­tained by the prayers of the Chri­stian soul­diers, we doe readi­ly give cre­dit to the attestation of Apollinaris▪ and Tertullian; but Apollinaris has not yet perswaded me to believe, that the Legion Melitina was named the Lightning Legion upon that account. Some may object, that there was indeed a Legion, called the Lightning Legion, before Antoninus's time, but that he gave the Legion Melitina that name also, because of the benefit he received by their means. But, if it were so, it ought to be called the second Lightning Legion: and yet Dio makes no mention of any such Legion, although he reckons up exactly all the Legions enrolled by the former Emperours. Moreover, Dio says, that the Light­ning Legion had its station in Cappadocia, which agrees very well with the Legion Melitina. In the book called Notitia Imperii Romani, the prefecture of the 12 Legion, termed Fulminea, at Me­litina, is reckoned under the disposition of the Duke of Armenia. Whence tis collected that Melitina was not the name of the Legion, but of the Town, wherein the 12 Legion, called Fulminea, abode. But 'twas not usual to give the Legions their denomination from the places where they were in Garison, but from the Countreys wherein they were inrolled. Therefore, what Eusebius says concerning the Legion Melitina, seems to me scarce probable. Besides, Rufinus purposely omitted this name of the Legion, as I suppose, because he knew that Melitina was the name of a Town in Armenia the less, where­in the 12 Legion, called Fulminea, kept guard in his time. But (that I may freely say what I think) it seems not very probable to me, that a whole Legion of Roman Souldiers should at that time be Christians; which yet Eusebius seems to affirm: who errs in this also, because he has not produced the place of Apollinaris, nor shown the book wherein he wrote these things. But the words, with which Eusebius closes this whole story, doe sufficiently shew, that he himself doubted of the truth of this matter: for thus he says, in this chap. Let every one determine concerning these things according to his own pleasure. Vales. Fulminea. Tertullian also is a witness of this matter worthy to be cre­dited, who dedicated to the Roman Senate an Apo­logie for our faith, (which we have before made mention of;) wherein he confirms this story by a greater and more manifest demonstration. Thus therefore he writes, saying, Tertullians words are these; At nos è contrario èdimus protecto­rem; si litera Marci Aurelii gravissimi Imperatoris requirantur, quibus illam Germanicam sitim Christianorum forte militum precationibus impe­trato imbriodis cussam contestatur. Tertul. Apol. pag. 6. Edit. Regal. Paris 1634. that the Letters of the most intelligent Emperour Marcus were extant in his time, wherein he attests, that his Army in Germany, being ready to perish for want of water, was preserved by the Christians prayers. He says moreover, that this Emperour threatned those with death, who attempted to accuse them of our Religion. To which the forementioned Writer adds these words also. ‘Quales ergo leges istae▪ quas adversus nos soli exequntur impii, injusti, turpes, truces, vani, dementes? Quas Trajanus ex parte fru­stratus est, vetando inquiri Christianos: quas nullus-Hadrianus, quan­quam curiositatum omnium explorator▪ nullus Vespasianus, quanquam Judaeorum debellator; nullus Pius; nullus Verus impressit. Tertul. Apol. pag. 6, and 7. Edit. as before. We have added these words of Tertullian here, that the learned Reader may see how different the translation, Eusebius here quotes, is from the original copies of Ter­tullian, which we now have. What-manner of Laws therefore are these, which the impious, unjust, and cruel persons bring against us? such Laws as Vespasian did not observe, although he had conquered the Jews; which Trajan in part disanulled, forbidding that the Christians should be sought for; which neither Adrian, (although an inquisitive searcher into all things that were curious,) nor he who was surnamed Pius, did make authentick.’ But let every one determine concerning these things according to his own pleasure; we will proceed upon the Series of the subsequent parts of our History. Pothinus therefore having finished his life, (together with those that suffered Martyrdom in Gallia,) when he was ninety years old compleat, Baronius has placed the election of Irenaeus to the See of Lyons on the year of Christ 180. For after the death of Pothinus, which happened in the year 179, he says that See was vacant till the heat of the persecution was over. Vales. Dr Cave, in his Chronological Table, says Pothinus died in the year of Christ 177, to whom succeeded Irenaeus the year following. Irenaeus suc­ceeded in the Bishoprick of Lyons, which See Po­thinus presided over. This Irenaeus was, we un­derstand, an auditour of Polycarps in his younger years. This person setting down (in his third book against Heresies) the succession of the Bishops of Rome, closes his Catalogue with Eleu­therus, (whose times and actions we now make our researches into) because in his time he com­piled that elaborate work; he writes thus.

CHAP. VI. A Catalogue of those who were Bishops of Rome.

‘THe blessed Apostles therefore, having foun­ded and built the Church, delivered the Episcopal Office to Linus; of whom Paul has made mention in his Epistles to 2 Tim. 4. 21. Timotheus. A­nencletus succeeded him; after whom, in the third place from the Apostles, Clemens had the Bishop­rick allotted to him; who had seen the blessed Apostles, and was conversant with them; and as yet he had the preaching of the Apostles sounding in his ears, and their tradition before his eyes: and not he alone; for at that time there were many yet remaining alive, who had been taught by the Apostles.’ In the times of this Clemens, when no small dissension rose among the brethren at Corinth, the Church of Rome sent a most compleat and agreeable Epistle to the Corin­thians, joyning them together in peace, and re­newing their faith, and the tradition they had lately received from the Apostles. And after some few words he says, ‘Evarestus succeeded this Clemens, and Alexander Evarestus; then Xystus was constituted the sixth from the Apostles: after him Telesphorus, who suffered a glorious Mar­tyrdom; after him Hyginus; then Pius; after Pius Anicetus: Soter having succeeded Ani­cetus, Eleutherus is now in possession of the Episcopal Office, in the twelfth place from the Apostles. In this same order and Our M. SS. co­pies read [ [...] I doctrine; I would ra­ther read [ [...]] succession; as Christophorson, Sr Hen. Savill▪ and the old Translatour of Irenaeus read it. Vales. succession, both the tradition of the Apostles in the Church, and also the promulgation of the truth, is de­scended unto us.’

CHAP. VII. That, even to those times, miracles were wrought by the faithfull.

ALl this, being agreeable to what we have de­livered in the foregoing Books of our Hi­story, Irenaeus has given his assent to in those five books of his, which he entitled The Confutation and Overthrow of Knowledge falsly so called; in the second book of which Subject he does in these words manifest, that even in his days there re­mained in some Churches examples of the divine and wonderfull power of God in working mi­racles, saying; ‘So far are they from raising the dead, as the Lord and the Apostles did by prayer. And frequently amongst the brother­hood, (the whole Church of one place having with much fasting and The M [...] ▪ Med. Fuk. and Savill M. SS. read [...], prayer; the Kings M. S. and Robert Stephens, [...] purity. Vales. prayer requested) the [Page 77] soul of the defunct has returned into his body, and the man has had the benefit of life conferred upon him by the prayers of the Saints.’ And again, after the interposition of some words, he says; ‘But if they say, that the Lord wrought such mi­racles as these in appearance only, not really, we will bring them to the oracles of the Prophets, and from thence demonstrate that all things were thus predicted concerning him, and most un­doubtedly done by him, and that he onely is the Son of God. Therefore they which are his true disciples, receiving grace from him, doe in his name perform all things for the benefit of the rest of mankind, according as every one of them hath received the gift from him. For some of them do certainly and truely cast out devils; in so much that those very persons, who were clean­sed from evil spirits, frequently become believers, and continue in the Church. Others have the fore-knowledge of things future, and visions, and utter prophetick predictions. Others by the imposition of their hands heal the sick, and re­store them to their former soundness: and more­over, as we said, the dead also have been raised, who continued with us many years after. What shall we say more? We cannot declare the num­ber of the gifts, which the Church throughout the whole world having received from God, in the name of Jesus Christ who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, does daily perform for the benefit of the Nations; She uses no deceit towards any person, neither does she sell her gifts: for as she has freely received them from God, so she freely ministers them to others.’ And in another place the same Authour writes thus; ‘In like manner as we have heard many brethren in the Church who had prophetick gifts, and by the Spirit spoke all sorts of languages; who also revealed the se­crets of men, in such cases as 'twas profitable and necessary, and explained the mysteries of God. And thus much [concerning this mat­ter, to wit] that diversities of gifts continued with such as were worthy, untill those times be­fore manifested.’

CHAP. VIII. After what manner Irenaeus makes mention of the divine Scriptures.

BUt because in the beginning of this work of ours, we promised, that we would produce in due place the words of the ancient Ecclesiastick Presbyters and Writers, wherein they have deli­vered in writing the traditions concerning the books of the Old and New Testament which came to their hands, (These words [ [...], i. e. of which num­ber Irenaeus was one] seem to be superfluous, and written in the margin onely, by some Scholiast. But they are in the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. Vales. of which number Irenaeus was one;) Come on, we will here ad­joyn his words; and first what he has said of the sa­cred Gospels, after this man­ner; ‘Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews, written in their own Language, whilest Peter and Paul were Preaching the Gospel at Rome, and founding the Church. Irenaeus, in that he affirms here that The Gospel according to Mark was written after the death of Paul and Peter, does contradict what Eusebius related before▪ at the 15th chap. of the second book: where he says Mark's Gospel was publish't at Rome, whilest Peter was alive, and approved of by that Apostle. But 'tis no wonder that the antient fathers disagree amongst themselves in this matter: seeing we have almost nothing of certainty about the writing of the sacred Gospels, save that they are four, and written by four several Authours. But when, or for what reason they were written, and whether the Gospel of S. Matthew were first penned in Hebrew, its not very evident. Vales. After their death, Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in wri­ting what Peter had Preached. Luke also, the follower of Paul, compiled in a book the Go­spel Preach't by him. Afterwards John the disciple of the Lord, he that leaned on his breast, publisht a Gospel, when he lived at Ephesus [a City] of Asia.’ Thus much the foremen­tioned Authour has said in the third book of the foresaid work: And in his fifth book he discourses thus concerning the Revelation of John, and the number of Antichrist's name, ‘These things be­ing thus, and this number being extant in all ac­curate and antient copies, and those very per­sons who saw John face to face, attesting the truth of these things, even reason doth teach us, that the number of the beasts name according to the computation of the Grecians, is made appa­rent by the letters contained in it.’ And after some other passages, he speaks thus concerning the same John, ‘We therefore will not run the ha­zard of affirming any thing too positively con­cerning the name of Antichrist; for if his name were to have been openly declared in this age, it would have been express't by him who saw the Revelation. For it was not seen long since, but almost in our age, about the end of Domi­tian's Reign.’ Thus much is related by the foresaid Authour concerning the Revelation: He mentions also the first Epistle of John, and pro­duces many authorites out of it; as also out of the second Epistle of Peter. He not onely knew, but also approved of the book, called Pastor▪ saying, ‘Truly therefore hath that book said, which con­tains this, Before all things believe that there is one God, who created and set in order all things, and so forth.’ He quotes some words out of the All the ancient Ecclesiastick Writer▪ (as before was noted) call that book the Wisedom of Solomon, which we now call the Proverbi. But that B. entitled now the Wise­dom of Solomon, is Apocryphal. Vales. Wisedom of Solomon, say­ing in a manner thus; ‘The vision of God procures in­corruption, and incorrupti­on makes us neer unto God.’ He makes mention also of the [...] (the term here in the original) does properly signifie, the sayings of wise men, which are repeated by heart. Vales. sayings of an Apostolick Presbyter, (whose name he has concealed,) and annexes his expositions of the divine Scriptures. Moreover, he makes mention of Justin Martyr and Ignatius, quoting also authorities out of their writings. The same person has promised to confute Marcion, in a separate Volume, by argu­ments pickt out of his own writings. And concerning the translation of the divinely inspired Scriptures, hear what he writes word for word, ‘God there­fore was made man, and the Lord himself saved us, having given the sign of the Virgin. But not as some say who are so audacious as to traduce the Scripture thus, Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a Son; as Irenaeus is the ancientest wri­ter that makes mention of Theo­dotion. Wherefore we will see, if from hence we can make out the time when Theodotion lived. Epi­phanius (in his book de ponderib.) says Theodotion flourished under Commodus, and then put forth his translation. The Chronicon of Alexandria follows Epiphanius's opinion, and says he publisht that work in the sixth year of the Em­perour Commodus. I Judge Theo­dotion to be somewhat ancienter. For, seeing Irenaeus has mentioned him in his books against Heresies, (which books, tis manifest, he wrote when Eleutherus was Bishop of Rome, for he says so in the 3d B. of tha [...] work,) we must necessarily grant that Theodotion flourisht before Eleutherus was made Bishop of Rome. Vales. Theodotion the Ephesian has translated it, and A­quila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. Whom the Ebionites having fol­lowed, say that Christ was begotten by Joseph.’ Here­unto, after a few words, he adds, saying; ‘For before the Romans had firmly com­pleated their Empire, (the [Page 78] Macedonians as yet possessing the Government of Asia,) Some of the An­cients doe declare that the Greek translation of the holy Scriptures was per­formed under Ptolemaeus the son of Lagus; others mention it to have been done under Ptolemaeus Philadelphus. Which latter opi­nion in that 'tis confirmed by the authority of the greater number of writers, has at last prevailed. Anatolius says the translation of the 72 was made both in the Reign of Ptolomy the Son of La­gus, and also in that of his suc­cessour Philadelphus: which to me seems very probable. For, seeing Aristobulus, Josephus, and Tertullian doe say in express words, that Demetrius Phalereus put Ptolomy upon this business; and it being manifest that the said Demetrius was in great favour with, and authority under, Ptolomy the son of Lagus, and died soon after him, we must necessarily say that this translation (if it were done by the procurement of Demetrius) was begun in the Reign of Ptolomy the son of La­gus. And, seeing that Philadel­phus reigned about two years to­gether with his father, being made his Colleague in the King­dom, therefore perhaps 'tis re­lated that this translation was made under both the Princes. Vales. The Learned Petavius is of the same opinion with Vale­sius, in this matter; as may be seen from his Annotations on E­piphanius's Book de ponderib. pag. 379. Edit. Paris. 1622. Ptolemaeus the son of Lagus, endea­vouring with much care and industry to adorn the Library he had prepared at Alexandria, with the writings of all men, which were ac­curately compiled, requested those of Jerusalem, that he might have Cle [...]oens Alexandri­nus says the 72 Seniours translated all the books (as well those of the Law, as those of the Pro­phets) of the Scri­pture into Greek. To whom a­grees The­odoret, in his Preface to his com­ment on the Psalms, O­lympiodorus, and almost all other writers. But Aristobulus and Josephus, both Jewish writers, doe intimate that the Law onely was by them turn­ed into Greek. Aristobulus's words may be seen B. 13. of Eusebius de praparat▪ and Josephus's in his Preface to his Antiquities. But to this it may be answered, that the Jews, under the name of the Law, doe sometimes comprehend the Prophets also. See Ma [...]ius's Preface to the Greek Edition of Joshua. Vales. their Scriptures translated into the Greek Language. They (for till that time they were subject to the Ma­cedonians) sent to Ptole­maeus the Seventy Seni­ours, which were the most skilfull persons among them in the Scriptures, and most expert in both the Languages; Valesius reads this passage thus [ [...], i. e. satisfying the Kings desire herein.] He says Christophorson read this place so, and Sr Hen. Savill in his M. S. But the Kings, the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. (as he says) and Robert Stephens, in his Edit. read it thus [ [...], i. e. God having done according to his own will. We follow Valesius; but leave the Reader to his liberty. satis­fying the Kings desire herein. [Ptolemy] de­sirous to make tryal of every one of them, and being fearfull least by com­pact they should agree to conceal the truth of the Scriptures by their tran­slation Justin the Martyr (in his [...] to the Gentiles) says the 72. Seniours were by Ptolomy put into so many cells; the ruines of which he saw at Alexandria: Epiphanius (in his book de ponderib.) says the King placed them two and two in a cell. These words of Irenaeus agree best with Justin's account of this matter. Others there are, who deride this whole story about the cell; because neither Josephus, nor Aristeas, nor Philo make any mention of them. See Petavius's Annotat. on Epi­phanius, pag. 378. Edit Paris; and Mr Gregorie's discourse (of Ox­ford) concerning the 70 Interpreters. separated them one from another, and commanded every one of them to write a transla­tion: and this he did throughout all the books. When they were come all together into the same place in the presence of Ptolemy, and had com­pared together the ver­sion of every particular person amongst them, God was both glorified, and the Scriptures acknowledged to be truely di­vine: For they all from the beginning to the end, set down the same things in the same words and in the same expressions; in so much that the Gentiles which were present, acknowledged the Scriptures were translated by the inspiration of God. Neither need it seem marvellous that God should doe this; seeing that in the capti­vity of the people under Nebuchodonosor, (the Scriptures being then corrupted,) when after Seventy years the Jews returned into their own Country, afterwards in the times of Artaxerxes King of the Persians, He inspired Esdras the Priest of the tribe of Levi to recompose all the books of the former Prophets, and restore to the people the Law delivered by Moses.’ Thus far Ireneus.

CHAP. IX. Who were Bishops in the Reign of Commodus.

MOreover, Antoninus having held the Empire nineteen years, Commodus assumed the Government. In whose first year Julianus un­dertook the Prefecture of the Churches at Alex­andria, Agrippinus having compleated the twelfth year of his Presidency.

CHAP. X. Concerning Pantaenus the Philosopher.

AT that time there was a man, Governour of the School of the Faithfull At Alex­andria. there, who upon ac­count of his learning was most eminent, his name was Pantaenus; for from a very ancient custom there had been an Ecclesiastical School among them, which also continued to our days; and we have been informed that 'tis furnished with men who are very able Scholars, and industrious about di­vine matters: but Fame says that the forementio­ned Pantaenus was at that time the most eminent person among them, because he was bred up in the precepts and institutions of that Philosophical Sect called Stoicks. Moreover, tis said, he shewed so great a willingness of mind and ardency of affecti­on towards the [publication of the] divine Word, that he was declared the Preacher of Christs Go­spel to the Nations of the East, and jorneyed as far as India. For there were many Evangelical Prea­chers of the Word even at that time, who infla­med with a divine zeal, in imitation of the Apostles, contributed their assistance to the enlargement of the divine Word, and the building men up in the faith. Of which number Pantaenus was one, and is reported to have gone to the Indians. Where, as 'tis famed, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, amongst some that had the knowledge of Christ there, before his arrival. To whom Bartholomew one of the Apostles had Preacht, and Rufinus, and Jerome (in catalo­go) doe say, that Pantaenus, returning from India to Alexan­dria, brought with him that Gospel of St Matthew in Hebrew. But Eusebius does not say so. For by that which he adds, [ [...]] he meanes onely thus much, viz. that than Copy of Bartholomew's was preserved untill Pantaenus came into India. So Nicephorus expounds Eusebius's words B. 4. chap. 32; but I assent not to Nicephorus, in that which he says further, to wit, that that Go­spel of St Matthew, which Pantaenus found in India, was dictated there by Bartholomow. I rather believe that Copy was brought thither by Bartholomew, out of Judea. Further, Jerom (in catalog.) says, the Gospel of St Matthew, written in Hebrew, was preserved in the Li­brary of Cafarea (collected by Pamphilus the Martyr.) even in his time. But I doubt 'twas the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which the Nazareans used. For some thought, that this Gospel of the He­brews was the original Copy of St Matthews Gospel▪ but that's a mistake. Vales. left them the Gospel of St Matthew written in Hebrew; which was preserved to the foresaid times. Moreover, this Pantaenus, after many ex­cellent performances, was at last made Governour of the School at Alexandria; where by his Dis­courses and Writings he set forth to publick view the Treasures of the divine points.

CHAP. XI. Concerning Clemens Alexandrinus.

AT the same time flourisht Clemens at Alex­andria, (being laborious together with Pantaenus in the studies of the divine Scriptures,) who had the same name with that ancient Prelate of the Roman Church, that was a disciple of the [Page 79] Apostles. He (in his book These books of Clemens's contained a short and compendi­ous exposi­tion of both Te­staments, says Pho­tius, in his Bibliotheca. But, be­cause of the errours with which they a­bounded, they were disregar­ded, and at length lost. Neither is there any other rea­son, in my opinion, why the books of Papias, He­gesippus, and others of the An­cients, are [...]ost. Yet the Excer­pta out of Theodotus, which are extant after his Stromatewn, seem to be taken out of his Institutions; which I wonder no body has taken no­tice of before. This I conclude to be true, both because in those Excerpta out of Theodotus there are the same things said of Christ, which Photius attests he read in Clemens's books of Institutions; and also because the Authour of those Excerpta does, about the end of them, call Pantaenus Master. Now Pantaenus was Clemens's Master, as Eusebius says in this chapter; whom Clemens in his Institutions, does often quote, as Photius relates. Vales. of Institutions) makes express mention of Pantaenus, as having been his Master. To me he seems to mean the same person also, in the first book of his Stroma­tewn, where recording Or, the most eminent persons of the Apostolick succession. the most eminent succes­sours of the Apostolick doctrine by whom he had been instructed, he says thus; ‘Now this work of mine I have not composed for ostentation▪ but these memoires I have treasured up, as a re­medie against the forgetfulness of mine old age; that they may be a true representation and a [...]um­bration of those lively and powerfull discourses, which I have had the happiness to hear from bles­sed and truely worthy and memorable persons. Of which one was Ionicus, [whom I heard] in Greece; another in It was that part of Italy, which since is called Cal [...]bria. Magna Graecia; the first of them was a Coelo-Syrian▪ the other an Egyptian. Others of them lived in the East: of which one was an Valesius thinks this person was Tatianus, Justin the Martyrs Scholar; Baronius says 'twas Bardesanes, of whom see B. 4. chap. the Iast; but he was no Assyrian; for he was of Edessa, the chief City of O [...]droena. Assyrian; the other in Palestine, by original extract an Baronius says, this was Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea; but I ra­ther think him to have been Theodotus; which I conjecture from hence, because the Epitome of Clemens's institutions is entitled, [ [...], i. e. the Epitome of Theodotus his Oriental Doctrine.] For Clemens calls that the Oriental Doctrine, which he learned from his masters in the East. I have two argu­ments to perswade me, that Clemens does not here mean Theophilus of Caesarea; (1) Theophilus was contemporary with Clemens, for he flourisht in the times of Victor Bishop of Rome, as we are informed by our Eusebius. (2) None of the antients ever said that Theophilus was an Hebrew, or, which is all one, a Jew. Vales. Hebrew.’ The last [Master] I met with, (who yet was the first and chiefest in power and virtue, whom I inquisitively sought out and foundlying hid in Egypt,) I did fully acquiesce in, and searched no further. These therefore preser­ving the sincere tradition of the blessed doctrine, which they had immediately received from the holy Apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul, (like children from the hands of their Parents, al­though few children be like their Parents) are by Gods blessing come down to our time, sowing those Primitive and Apostolic seeds [of Truth.]

CHAP. XII. Concerning the Bishops of Jerusalem.

AT that time Narcissus, Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem, flourished, a man very fa­mous amongst many even at this time: he was the fifteenth in succession from the siege of the Jews un­der Adrian. From which time we have before manifested, that the Church of the Gentiles was first constituted there, after those of the circumci­sion; and also that Mark was the first Bishop of the Gentiles that Presided over them. After whom the The most famous Churches, especially those which were foun­ded by the Apostoles, did with great care keep the successions of their Bishops laid up amongst their Archives, recording their names, and the day of their deaths, in a pair of Writing-tables. These our Eusebius had diligently examined, [...]s appears from this place; and he has digested the Bishops of the principal Sees from the authority of these tables onely. Wherefore, the successions of Bishops which are recounted in the History and Chronicles of Eusebius are highly to be prized, as being the ancientest, and most certain. Vales. successions of the [Bishops] there doe shew that Cassia­nus had the Episcopal Chair: after him Publius; then Maximus; and after these Julianus; then Caius; to whom succeeded Symmachus; then another Caius, and again Julianus the second; more­over Capito, Before this Valens, the names of two Bi­shops are wanting, to wit, Maximus, and Antoninus, which were omitted by the negligence of the Transcribers▪ For seeing Eusebius affirmed Narcissus to have been the fifteenth Bishop of Jerusalem from Mark, and the thirtieth from the Apostles; that can't be unless you add two Bishops here. Eusebius indeed, in his Chronicon, after Capito the twenty sixth from the Apostles, reckons Maximus, and An­toninus; after these Valens, and Dolichianus▪ and then Narcissus. Georg. Syncellus and Nicephorus doe agree with Eusebius; onely be­tween Julianus and Capito they insert one Helias, whom Eusebius does not admit of. Vales. Valens, and Dolichianus; last of all this Narcissus, who in a continued series of succession was the thirtieth from the Apostles.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning Rhodon, and the dissention of the Mar­cionites, which he has made mention of.

ABout the same time also Rhodon, born in Asia, (who, as himself relates, had been instructed at Rome by Tatianus, whom we men­tioned before,) wrote many books, and together with others ingaged against the Heresie of Mar­cion. Which, he relates, was in his time divided into several opinions. He has recorded the Au­thours of this dissention, and with exquisite dili­gence confuted the lies invented by every one of them. Hear therefore what he has written in these words. ‘Wherefore also they disagree amongst themselves, because they are assertours of an opi­nion which is ill put together. For Apelles, one of their gang, (Rufinus does well translate this pas­sage thus, qui absti­nentiae & senectutis praerogati­v [...]usus, &c. who making an advan­tage of his abstinence and old age, &c. For [ [...]] does usual­ly signifie abstinence and a more strict course of life. But I understand not how A­pelles could boast of his continen­cy; who was reject­ed by Marcion, because he was a fornicatour, and afterwards retreated to Alexandria▪ as Tertullian affirms in his book de praescription. Wherefore let us see whether the word [ [...]] does not signifie something else here; it sometimes denotes the Office of a Decurio, or, Captain over ten horsemen; for these Commanders are by the Graecians called [...], of [...], as I have observed in my notes on Amm. Marcellinus. Also, a man may conjecture, that this place should be written thus, [...], i. e. his venerable hoary ha [...]rs and old age. For Apelles was commonly cal­led old man; and so Rhodon terms high in this chapter. Eusebius fa­vours our conjecture, B. 6. chap. 39. where speaking of Alexander the Bishop, he uses this very phrase. Vales. who boasts of his age and pretends to lead a more abstemous and strict course of life,) confesses there is but one prin­ciple; but says the Oracles of the Prophets pro­ceed from an opposite spirit, being induced to be­lieve this by the responses of a Virgin, possessed with a devil, by name Philumena. But others of them, (in like manner as does Marcion himself, the The Kings M. S. and Stephens Edition doe here insert these two words [ [...]; the mariner] but they are wanting in the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. Indeed Tertullian, in his book de praescription, does testifie that Marcion was at first a Mariner▪ ubi [...]unc, says he, Marcion Ponticus nauclerus, Stoica studiosus? Vales. Mariner) assert there are two Principles; of which number are The Kings M. S. and Robert Stephens Edition call this man's name Potimus; the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savill M. SS▪ term him Potitus▪ so does Rufinus, in his Version▪ and Theodoret B. 1. H [...]r [...]t. Fab. Vales. Potitus, and Basilicus; and these followers of that He means Marcion; see B. 4. chap. 11. Wolfe of Pontus, being unable to find out the distinction of things, (which neither could he doe,) have given themselves over to rashness, and have simply and without any thing of demonstration affirmed there are two Principles. Others a­gain [differing] from these, and running them­selves into worse [assertions,] suppose there are not onely two, but also three natures. Of which sort Syneros was the ringleader and first founder, as the defenders of his doctrine doe say.’ The same Authour writes that he discours't with A­pelles; he says thus; ‘For the old man Apelles, ha­ving had a conference with us, was convinc't that [Page 80] he maintained many things that were false; upon which account he said [...]aith should in no wise be too severely inquired into, but, that every one should persist in what he had believed. For he asserted that those who hoped in [Christ] cru­cified should be saved, provided they be found doing of good works. He concluded the [que­stion] concerning God, to be to him (as we said before) the most obscure thing of all. For he affirmed there was but one principle, as our religion [asserts.]’ Then, having set forth his whole opinion, he subjoyns these words; ‘But when I said to him, whence have you this demon­stration, or for what reason can you affirm there is but one principle, tell us? He answered, that the prophecies confuted themselves, because they uttered nothing that was true: For they dis­agree, and are false, and opposite to them­selves; but, how there was but one principle, he profes't he knew not, but was induced onely to think so. After this, when I conjured him to speak the truth, he swore he spoke what was true, to wit, that he knew not how there could be one unbegotten God, but he believed it. I laughed, and reprehended him, because he stiled himself a Doctour, and knew not how to make good what he taught.’ But, in the same book which he dedicated to Callistion, the said Rhodon doth confess that he himself was instructed at Rome by Tatianus. Moreover he says, Tatianus com­piled a book of Questions; wherein Tatianus ha­ving promised to explain the dark and obscure passages of the sacred Scriptures, this Rhodon pro­fesses he would set forth the solutions to his Qu [...] ­stions. There is also extant of this Persons, a Com­ment upon the six days Work of the Creation. In­deed, this Apelles uttered many impious expres­sions against the Law of Moses, in many books speaking irreligiously of the divine Scriptures, and using his utmost diligence to confute, and (as he thought) to overthrow them. But thus much concerning these things.

CHAP. XIV. Concerning the False Prophets of the Cataphry­gians.

MOreover, that adversary of Gods Church, (who hates goodness, and makes mischief his chiefest delight,) omitting in no wi [...]e any ways or methods of Treachery towards men, caused new Heresies again to grow up against the Church: the followers whereof crawl'd, like venemous Serpents, all over Asia and Phrygia; and boasted that Montanus was the That is, the holy Ghost; whom St John, in his Gospel, does, several times call [...], comforter. See Jo. 14. 6. Paraclete, and that the two women Priscilla and Maximilla, his companions, were his prophetesses.

CHAP. XV. Concerning the Schism of Blastus raised at Rome.

OThers also sprang up at Rome, whom Flori­nus, degraded from being a Presbyter of the Church, headed. Blastus was in like manner in­tangled in the same Rufinus, and Cristo­phorson sup­posed the term [ [...]] to signifie er­rour [...] Nicephorus takes it in such a sense as to signifie, a discharging; and thought that Blastus, as well as Florinus, was degraded from being a Presbyter. Vales. errour. Which two persons drew away many from the Church, and inticed them to imbrace their opinion; each of them severally endeavouring to introduce innovations against the Truth.

CHAP. XVI. What has been committed to memory concerning Montanus, and his False Prophets.

MOreover, That power, which is the de­fender of the Truth, raised up Apollinaris [Bishop] of Hierapolis, (whom we made men­tion of before,) and together with him many others, who at that time were eloquent and learned men, as it were a strong and inexpugna­ble defence against the said Heresie of the Cata­phrygians. By which persons we have a copious subject left us for this our History. The opinions of Writers are various and different, concerning this person, whose authority Euse­bius quotes in this chapter. Ru­finus, Nicephorus B. 4. chap. 23. and Baronius thought it was A­pollinaris of Hierapolis, whom Eusebius mentioned a little be­fore. Jerom (in his book de Scriptor▪ Eccles.) supposed him to be Apollonius, and afterwards thinks 'twas Rhodon. Apollinaris of Hierapolis was not the Au­thour of this book, 'tis from hence manifest, because he wrote against the Cataphrygian Heresie when it newly arose, as Eusebius attests at the end of B. 4. But this unknown authour compiled his books after the death of Monta­nus, Maximilla, and Theodotus, as appears by the fragments of them quoted in this chapter. See Hal­loixius in his notes on the life of Apollinaris, chap. 3. Vales. One of the said persons therefore, in the pre­face to his work against the Cataphrygians, does in the first place shew that he as­saulted them with unwritten arguments. For he begins after this manner: ‘Having a sufficient while since been enjoyned by thee, Beloved In the Greek Menology at the 22 of October, mention is made of the holy Averci [...]s, (so Nicepho­rus calls him B. 4.) Bishop of Hierapolis, a worker of Miracles. Halloixius put forth this persons, life in Greek, Tome 2. concer­ning the famous Writers of the Eastern Church. Vales. Avirci [...]s Marcellus, to write a book against the Heresie of Why this Authour without a name calls the Her [...]sie of the Cataphrygians, the Sect of Miltia­des, rather than of Montanus, 'tis hard to be determined. For he means not here that Miltiades, of whom Eusebius speaks in the following chapter. For he wrote for the Catholick Truth against the Cataphrygiant. The Learned Lan­gus, who translated Nicephorus, at this place put in Alcibiades in stead of Miltiades. Indeed Alci­biades is by Eusebius (B. 5. cha. 3 [...]) named amongst the principal A­bettours of the Cataphrygian He­resie. Therefore we must either read Alcibiades here, or Miltiades there. Vales. Miltiades, till now I have in a manner continued doubtfull and un­resolved; not that I wan­ted ability both to confute falsehood, and also to give evidence to the truth; but I was fearfull and cautious, lest to some I should seem by writing to add to, or make a further determina­tion about, the doctrine of the new covenant of the Gospel: to which nothing must be added, nor any thing taken away from it, by him that resolves to lead a life agreeable to the Go­spel it self. But, being lately at Ancyra [a City] of Gala­tia, and finding the Church The Kings M. S. and Nice­phorus (B. 4. chap. 23.) in stead of [ [...], i. e. throughout Pontus] reads it [ [...], i. e. the Church of the place,] to wit, Ancyra. Vales. then [...] ▪ that is, filled with the noise of, &c. For the whole Church of that place [...]ounded with the rumour of this New Prophecy, inasmuch as, by reason of the strangeness of this great matter, all men talk't of it. Hence it appears, that the gift of Pro­phecy was in those times rare and unusual in the Church; seeing that the Prophecy of Montanus which then arose, stirred up at that time such commotions in the Church. Which certainly had not happened, had the gift of Prophecy been then common in the Church. Vales. filled with the noise of this New (not, as they call it, Prophecy, but, as it shall be demonstra­ted,) False Prophecy; as well as I was able, (God assisting me,) I discourst Sr H [...]n. Savill (in the margin of his Copy) made it [...] ▪ i. e. continually, daily: so Christophorson read it. Vales. frequently in the Church many Days both concer­ning these very things, and also about other [points] proposed by them: inso­much that the church did greatly rejoyce, and was confirmed in the Truth; but the adversaries were at that time confuted, and The reading of the Fuk. and Savill M. SS. is [ [...] i. e. the enemies of God. So he calls the Montanists, because they were the introducers of a new Paraclete, or holy Ghost. Vales. the enemies of God made [Page 81] sorrowfull. When therefore the Presbyters of that place requested me to leave some written Record of what had been spoken against those adversaries to the Word of Truth; This Zo­ticus Otre­nus must be distingui­shed from Zoticus of Comanes the Bishop, whom this Authour men­tions hereafter in this chapter. For he of Comanes was the antien­ter of the two. Vales. (Zoticus Otrenus our fellow Presbyter being then present also▪) I did not indeed doe that; but promised, that, (by the assistance of the Lord,) I would write here, and send it quickly and carefully unto them.’ Having said these words and some others after these in the Preface of his book, he proceeds, and sets forth the Authour of the fore­said Heresie after this manner. ‘This their stub­born contention therefore against the Church, and this New Heretical separation [from it] had this original. There is said to be a certain Village in that There were here­tofore two Mysia's, (as also two Phrygia's,) says Strabo, B. 12. The one called the Greater, which Strah [...] calls Olympone; the other the less, which Ptolemy calls Hel­lespon [...]ia. Both of them bordered on Phrygia. Whence arose the Greek proverb [ [...]] concerning which see Erasm. Adag. p. 171. Edit. Wech [...]lian. There was also another Mysia in Europe, which the Latines call Masia, but the Greeks always My­sia. To difference this Mysia therefore from the other, 'tis stiled here [ [...], i. e. that Mysia which borders on Phrygia; or Mysia in Asia. In the Maz. M. S. this Town is cal­led Ardabab. Vales. Mysia [which borders upon] Phrygia, called by the name of Ardaba. There, they say, one of those who had newly embraced the Faith, by name Montanus, (when Gratus was Proconsul of Asia,) by reason of his immoderate desire after, and love for, the chief place, gave the adversary an entrance in­to himself, and was filled with the devil; and being on a suddain possest with a [...]urious and frantick tem­per of mind, became per­fectly mad, and began to utter strange and barba­rous expressions, foretel­ling what was to come; [a thing which is] con­trary to the order and in­stitution of the Church received from antient tradition, and [propagated] by a continued succession. Now, of those who at that time were at the hearing of his counterfeited expres­sions, some with indignation rebuked him, as being moved by, and possest with, a devil and a spirit of errour, and as being a disturber of the multitude; they prohibited him also to speak; [for] they were mindfull of the Lords Or, di­stinction, for the term in the original is [...]. pre­monition and his menaces, [whereby we are com­manded] with vigilancy to beware of the coming of false Prophets. But others, as if they had been inspired by the Holy Ghost and with the gift of Prophecy, conceiving also very high thoughts of themselves, and being unmindfull of the See Mat. 24. 11. Lords premonition, provoked that infatuating, flattering, and seducing spirit [to speak;] and being en­ticed and deceived by it, forbad it should any more be silen [...]'t. By this art, or rather by this method of subtilty and mischief, the devil plot­ted destruction against those who were disobe­dient to [the Lords premonition;] and, being undeservedly honoured by them, he excited and enkindled their minds, which had [...]. 'Tis a Metaphor taken from women, who leaving their husbands bed, go by stealth to that of the Adul­terer. For [ [...]] to sleep, i [...] often used for these adulteries, as it occurs frequently in sacred Writt. Vales. forsaken the true Faith. For he stir­red up two other women, and filled them with a counterfeit spirit: so that they (like the fore-men­tioned person) uttered ex­travagant, foolish and strange expressions; and those who delighted in and boasted of that mat­ter, that spirit pronounced blessed, and puft them up with the greatness of the promises. Sometimes also, making use of conjecturall and credible ar­guments, he condemned them publickly, that so he might also seem a Montanus, or rather the devil who spoke through the mouth of Monta­nus, knew, that 'twas predicted by the Lord, that the spirit of God, at his coming should re­prove the world of [...]in. There­fore, the devil, that he might make his Auditours believe he was the true Spirit of God, did sometimes reprove, and rebuke them. Vales. reproving [Spirit.] Those few, who were deceived, were Phrygians. But this insolent spirit taught them to revile the whole Church under heaven, because this spirit of false Prophecy received neither honour from, nor found any way of entrance into it. For when the faithfull throughout Asia had met often and in many places of Asia upon this account, and had inquired into this new doctrine, and deter­mined it to be prophane, and rejected this He­resie, they were expelled out of the Church, and interdicted communion [with the Faithfull.]’ Having related thus much in the beginning [of his work] and subjoyned, throughout that whole book, a confutation of their errour; in his se­cond book he says these words concerning the death of the forementioned persons. ‘Whereas therefore they have termed us the Murderers of the Prophets, because we have not admitted of their prattling and lying Prophets, (for these, they say, are those whom the Lord promised to send his people,) let them answer us for God's sake, is there any one of those, (most excellent!) who even from Montanus and his women began to speak, that hath been persecuted by the Jews; or slain by the impious? not one: Is there any one of them who has been apprehended and crucified for the name [of Christ?] None at all. Neither hath any of their women been scourged in the Synagogues of the Jews, or stoned: [not one of them] any where or in any wise▪ yea, Montanus and Maximilla are said to have dyed another manner of death. For, tis famed, both these persons, incited there­to by that furious spirit, hanged themselves; not together, but each of them at the time of their death, as tis strongly reported. And so they dyed and put an end to their lives after the same manner that the traitour Judas did. In like manner also common [...]ame says, that that admirable [fellow] Theodotus, who was as it were the first Amongst the Montanists there was a certian Chest, into which those of their party put money, which was for the main­tenance of the Prophets. Theo­dotus was the first that look [...] after this Chest; whom this Authour does therefore call the procuratour of their Prop [...]ecy. Montanus with his Prophetesses was otherways a great co [...]ener, who under a pre­tence of offerings, scraped much money together. He usually gave salaries to the Preachers of his doctrine. 'Twas necessary there­fore he should have his Treasury, and one to oversee and look after it, who also might deliver out the stipends to such as Montanus or­dered should be paid. Vales. Procura­tour of that they stiled their Prophecie, was pos­sest with a [...] signifies, to be seized with a false extasie or trance. For there are true extasies; such was Peter's Act. 10; and Pauls, when he was caught up to the third heaven. There are also false extasies amongst hereticks, which this Authour does elegant­ly call [...] These false extasies di [...]te [...] little from madness, because the devil is the procurer of them: but those which pro­ceed from the divine spirit doe not at all disturb the state of the mind, but are calm and pleasant, as Epiphanius says (in Heres. Ca­taphryg.) Vales. false ec [...]tasie of mind, as if at some time or other he should be lifted up, and assumed [...]nto hea­ven; and that having gi­ven himself wholly up in­to [the power of] that spirit of errour, he was thrown into the air [by him,] and dyed misera­bly. 'Tis said indeed, that this thing was thus done; but in as much as we saw it not, we doe not suppose (O Macarius!) that we certainly know any thing hereof. For peradventure Montanus, Theodotus, and the foresaid woman dyed after this manner, perhaps they did not so die.’ A­gain, in the same book he says the holy Bishops of that time did attempt to confute the spirit which was in Maximilla; but were pro­hibited by others, to wit, those that were favourers of that spirit: He writes thus; ‘And let not the spirit in Maximilla say [Page 82] [to me,] (These words with­in this pa­renthesis seem to me to be a Scholion, which some old Scholiast, or Eu­sebius himself put in the margin of his book at this place. Besides, from hence it may be collected that Asterius Urbanus was the Au­thour of these three books against the Cataphrygians, and not Apol­linaris, as Rufinus and Christo­phorson supposed. Vales. as 'tis related in the same book of Asterius Urbanus,) I am driven as a wolf from the sheep. I am not a wolf. I am the Word, the Spirit, and the Power: but let him evidently manifest and prove that Power in the Spirit; and let him by that Spirit compell those that were then present to con­fess that they tried and conferred with that bab­ling spirit; [I mean] those approved men and Bishops, Zoticus of the Town Co­manes, and Julianus of Apamea: whose mouths This was a great man a­mongst the Montanists, who boa­sted himself to be a Confessour, and a Martyr; and was so auda­cious, as, like an Apostle, to write a general Epistle to the Churches, in recommendation of this New Prophecy. Apollonius speaks much concerning this man in the fol­lowing chapter. Vales. Themison and those of his party having stopped, would not suffer that ly­ing spirit to be reproved by them.’ Again, in the same book, (having interposed some words to confute the false Prophecies of Maxi­milla,) he evidences both the time when he wrote these things, and also mentions her predictions, wherein she had foretold there should be Wars and Commotions; the falsehood of which [predictions] he reprehends in these words, ‘And has not this lie been already made apparently manifest? For to this day 'tis more than thirteen years, since this woman died; and yet there has not been either a particular, or an universal war in the world. Yea rather, by the mercy of God, the Christians have had a firm and lasting peace.’ And thus much out of his second book. Out of the third I will also add some few words, where he says thus to those who boasted, that many even of their [party] had suffered as Martyrs. ‘When therefore they can return no answer, having been confuted in all passages we have mentioned, they endeavour to flee to the Martyrs; saying they have many Martyrs, and that is a certain and undoubted evi­dence of that power by them called the Pro­phetick spirit. But this, in my judgment, is much more untrue. For some [followers] of other Heresies [doe boast] they have many Martyrs, and yet we shall not, I think, upon this account embrace their opinion, nor confess they have the truth amongst them. Those also who first followed the Heresie of Marcion, called Marcionists, say they have very many Martyrs of Christ, and yet they doe not in truth acknowledge Christ himself:’ And after some few words, he subjoyns hereunto, saying, ‘Where­fore also, as often as those of the Church, being called to [undergoe] Martyrdom for the true Faith, have by accident happened into company with some of those of the Phrygian Heresie, who are called Martyrs, they dissent from them, and, having avoided all communion with them, are perfected by a glorious Martyrdom; for they are unwilling to give their assent to the spirit of Montanus and his women: and that this is true, 'tis manifest from what has been done in our times in [the City] Apamea, scituate on [the River] Meander, by Caius and Alexander of Eumonia, who suffered Martyrdom.’

CHAP. XVII. Concerning Miltiades, and the books he compiled.

IN the same book he makes mention of one Miltiades, a writer, who also wrote a book against the foresaid Heresie: having therefore cited some words of those [Hereticks,] he pro­ceeds, saying; ‘Having found all this in a certain book which they wrote in answer to a book of our brother In the foregoing chapter we observed that the name [Miltiades] was put for [Alcibiades.] On the contrary, here [Alcibiades] is crept into the Text of Eusebius, instead of [Miltiades.] In Nice­phorus tis [Miltiades;] but nei­ther he, nor Christophorson, under­stood this place. Vales. Alcibiades's, wherein he proves, that a Prophet ought not to speak in an extasie of mind, I epitomized them.’ A little after this, in the same book, he enumerates the Prophets of the New Testament; amongst whom he recounts one Ammias, and Quadratus, he says thus, ‘Rufinus, and Baronius, were mistaken, in that they supposed these following words were taken out of Miltiades's book. For this nameless Authour quotes nothing out of Miltiades's book, but one­ly out of the Cataphrygians answer to Miltiades's book: which thing translatours understood not. Now the meaning of this place is this▪ there is a great difference between the true Prophets, and the false. For the true Prophets, who were filled with the spirit of God, did foretell things future in a quiet and serene temper of mind. But the false Prophets, as was Monta­nus, uttered what they said in a raging and mad temper of mind. Indeed this was the chief ob­jection of the Ecclesiasticks a­gainst the Montanists, who boa­sted they were inspired with a Prophetick spirit, because they Prophecied in an extasie. But we read that no Prophet either under the Old or New Testament did ever Prophecy in an extasie. Therefore Miltiades wrote a book against them, which was thus entitled [ [...], i. e. a Prophet ought not to speak in an extasie of mind. See Epiphanius, advers. Haeres. Montanist. chap. 2. & 4; and Chrysostom. Homil. 29. on the 1 Epist. Corinth. Vales. but a false Prophet in a false extasie, (whose con­comitants are licentious­ness and audaciousness,) takes his beginning indeed from a voluntary igno­rance, but ends, as I have said in an involuntary mad­ness of mind: they shall not be able to show any of the Prophets, either un­der the Old, or New Te­stament, who was inspired after this manner [by such a spirit.] They shall not boast of Agabus, nor of Judas, nor of Silas, nor of the daughters of Philip, nor of Ammias in Phila­delphia, nor of Quadra­tus, nor of many others which do not at all belong to them.’ Again, after some few words, he says thus, ‘For if, as they say, Montanus's women suc­ceeded in the gift of Pro­phecy after Quadratus and Ammias in Philadel­phia, let them show us, who among them have been the successours of Monta­nus and his women. For the Apostle is of opinion that the gift of Pro­phecy ought to continue in every Church untill the last Advent [of our Lord.] But they are unable to shew [any Prophet,] although this is now the fourteenth year since the death of Maximilla.’ Thus far he. Now that Miltiades, whom he mentions, has left us other monuments of his diligence about the divine Scriptures, both in the books he composed against the Gentiles, and also in those against the Jews; having pro­secuted each subject particularly in two Volumes. Moreover also, he made an Apology for the [Christian] Philosophy, which he profest, [and dedicated it] to the Jerom, Refinus, and other Translatours thought Miltiades dedicated his Apology to the Roman Emperours, called here [ [...]] But because at that time there was onely one Roman Emperour, (to wit, Commodus,) I judge the Governours of Provinces are here rather meant. For the term [ [...]] does commonly signifie the Presidents of Provinces. To these therefore Miltiades dedicated his Apology, as did Tertullian afterwards; who calls this Miltiades, the Rhetorician of the Churches. Vales. Presidents of the Provinces in that Age.

CHAP XVIII. How Apollonius also confuted the Cataphrygians, and whom he has made mention of.

APollonius also, an Ecclesiastick writer, im­ploying himself about a confutation of that called the Cataphrygian Heresie, which in his time [Page 83] was prevalent in Phrygia, composed a peculiar Volume against them; wherein he does both word by word disprove the false Prophecies vented by them, and also laies open the life and manners of the Founders of that Heresie, [shewing] how they behaved themselves. Hear what he says, in these very words, concerning Montanus. ‘But who is this new Doctor? His works and do­ctrine doe demonstrate: this is he who has taught a dissolution of marriages: who has im­posed Montanus instituted three [...]ents every year, and besides them, two weeks of abstinence, wherein nothing but dry meats were to be eaten. So Tertullian, in his book, de jejuniis, and Jerom, in his Epistle to Mercella. Apollo­nius objects here against Monta­nus, his instituting fasts by a Law; not that 'tis a fault to observe fasts; or as if 'twere not lawfull for some in the Church to pro­claim fasts: for the Apostle St John appointed a three days fast [...]t Ephesus, before he betook himself to the writing his Go­spel. But Montanus had no power to proclaim a fast, being an He­retick, an excommunicated per­son, and no Presbyter. Apollo­nius therefore does deservedly blame him, because of his own head, not by Apostolick tradition, he instituted fasts. Vales. Laws of fasting; who has named Pepuza and Tymium (little Cities of Phrygia) Jerusalem; being desirous to gather together their men from all parts; who has con­stituted exactours of mo­ney; who, under the name of oblations, has subtilly mask't his taking of gifts; who gives stipends to those that Preach up his doctrine, that so by stuffing of the paunch the doctrine he professes may thrive and prevail.’ Thus much [he says] concerning Montanus. Concerning his Prophetesses, a little after these words he writes thus; ‘We have de­monstrated therefore, that these principal Pro­phetesses, for the time they were filled with the Spirit, forsook their husbands: how falsly then doe they speak, who term In the Maz. Med. Fuk. M. SS. and in Ni­cephorus, this woman is called Prisca: which is confirmed by Rufinus, Tertullian, and Firmili­anus, Robert Stephens calls her Priscilla. Vales. Prisca a virgin? Then he goes on, saying: Does not the whole Scripture seem to you to prohibit a Prophet to receive gifts & money? When therefore I see a Prophetess receive Gold, and silver, and rich garments, how can I choose but abhor her?’ Again, af­ter some words, he says this concerning one of those whom they call Confessours. ‘Moreover, Themison, who has covered himself with a The Montanists covered their avarice under the pretext of Re­ligion, and specious term of Ob­lations, as Apollonius says a little before in this chapter. Vales. specious pretext of ava­rice, (he who would not bear the Christophorson thought the Cross was meant here: but doubt­less Apollonius means bonds, which Themison could not endure for Christs sake. For that which he calls [the sign of confession] here, in the next words he terms [ [...]] bonds. Vales. sign of confes­sion, but rid himself of his bonds by a great sum of money, when as upon that account he should in future have behaved himself sub­missively,) does [not­withstanding] boast him­self to be a Martyr, and has been so audacious, as, in imitation of the Apostle, to write a general Epistle, for the instruction of those who have behaved themselves more like true believers than he, but does [therein] defend the Tenets of his own vain Doctrine, and speaks impiously of the Lord, his Apostles, and holy Church.’ Again, he writes thus concerning others, who amongst them have been honoured as Martyrs; ‘But that we may speak of no more, let the Prophetess answer us concerning Alexander, who terms himself a Martyr, with whom she feasts, whom many of them pay a reverence to. Whose rob­beries, and his other audacious facts (for which he has been punished) we need not speak of since they may be seen in that place where the publick [...] is the term in the original. At Athens there was an house so called, be­hind the Temple of Minerva Polias, wherein the publick treasury was laid. So says Harpocration, on that word. In all the Temples there was such a place, as Varro asserts, B. 4. But here this term must mean the publick Registry, where the publick Records are kept. Vales. Registers are kept. Which therefore of these two forgives the others sins? Does the Prophet [pardon] the Martyrs robberies, or does the Martyr [forgive] the Prophets ava­rice? For when as the Lord has said, Mat. 10. 9, 10. Provide neither gold, nor silver, neither two coats, these persons, wholly on the contrary, have commit­ted heinous sins in possessing themselves of things that are forbidden. For we will evidence, that those which they call Prophets, and Martyrs, have extorted money not onely from the rich, but also from the indigent, from Orphans, and Widdows. And if they are confident [of their innocency] herein, let them stay, and decide the matter with us concerning these things, that so, if they shall be convinced, for the future they may leave their viciousness. For the fruits [that is, the deeds] of a Prophet must be ap­proved. For a tree is known by its fruit. That therefore those who are desirous may know the truth concerning Alexander, judgment was past upon him at Ephesus by Aemilius Frontinus the Proconsul [of Asia] not for the name [of Christ,] but the robberies he had audaciously committed, being at that time an [...] is the term, which Rufinus translates [an Apo­state.] Vales. Apostate from Christ. Then, after he had counterfeited [a profession of] the name of the Lord, and deceived the faithfull [brethren] there, he was dismist; but his own Church, where he was born, admitted him not, because he was a thief. Those who are desirous to know all matters con­cerning him, may have recourse to the publick Register of Asia [where they will find them.] And yet the He means Montanus. Prophet does pretend himself ig­norant of this man, whom he has converst with for many years. Having evidently shown what this man is, we have also by him declared the im­posture of the prophet. We are able to de­monstrate the like in many other things. But if they have any confidence in themselves, let them undergoe the test.’ Again, in another place of the same work, he adds these words con­cerning those Prophets they boast of: ‘If they deny that their Prophets have received gifts, let them confess this, [to wit] if they be con­vinced that they have taken gifts, they are not Prophets: And then we will produce infinite demonstrations hereof. 'Tis necessary that all the fruits of a Prophet should be approved of: tell me, does a Prophet The Greeks call that [...], which the Latines term, crines tingere seu rutilare, to die, or make the hair red. To doe which they made use of ashes which had been put into lye, as Varro says▪ See Hesychius in the word [...]. Vales. colour [his hair?] does a Prophet paint his eye­brows with That is, a kind of colouring stuff, which is used to make the eye-brows black. Stybium? does a Prophet make it his business to deck and adorn himself? does a Prophet play at tables, and at dice? does a Prophet put money to usury? Let them con­fess ingenuously whether these things are lawfull or no? But I will demonstrate they are done amongst them.’ The same Apollonius does relate in the same work, that at that time of his writing that book, it was I perceive now why Eusebius places Apollonius after the Authour without a name, of whom he spake in the foregoing Chapter. For because that anonymous authour says he wrote his books fourteen years after the death of Montanus and Maximilla; and in regard Apollonius does here say Montanus broacht his new Prophecy 40 years before he wrote; therefore Eusebius sup­posed Apollonius to be a later writer than that anonymous Authour: In which, as I judge, he is much out. For Apollonius wrote his book whilest Montanus, and his mad Prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla, were yet alive, which appears from these passages [Let the Prophe­tess answer us concerning Alexander, who terms himself a Martyr, with whom she feasts, &c] and again [And yet the Prophet does pretend himself ignorant of this man whom he has converst with for many years] Eusebius quotes in this Chapter. Apollonius therefore does not say, 40 years were past from the death of Montanus, when he wrote this book; but onely, that Montanus had set a broach his false Prophecy 40 years before he went about to write this book against him. Let us suppose therefore Montanus to be thirty years old when he set up to be a Prophet; he could not be above 70 years old when Apollonius wrote his book against him. Neither had he Maximilla and Priscilla for his companions, as soon as ever he began his heresie; but, as I judge, they were ensnared by him a long while after. Vales. fourty years since Montanus undertook [to vent] his forged Prophesie. And [Page 84] again, he says, that Zoticus (whom the former Writer made mention of) resolved to oppose Maximilla, who then feigned her self to Pro­phesie at Pepuza, and attempted to reprove the Spirit she was moved by; but that he was for­bidden by those that were her favourers. He makes mention also of one Thraseas, who at that time was a Martyr. Moreover he says, as from tradition, that our Saviour commanded his A­postles, they should not for the space of twelve years depart from Jerusalem: he quotes authori­ties also out of the Revelation of John: and re­lates that John, by the divine power raised a dead man to life at Ephesus. And he says many other things, whereby he sufficiently and fully sets forth the deceit of the foresaid pernicious heresie. Thus much Apollonius.

CHAP. XIX. Serapion's [Opinion] concerning the Heresie of the Cataphrygians.

BUt Serapion, (who, as report says, was a­bout this time Bishop of the Church of An­tioch after Maximinus,) makes mention of the writings of Apollinaris against the foresaid he­resie: he mentions him in that Epistle he wrote to Eusebius (in his 6th B. cha. 12.) calls these men [Pon­tius and Caricus.] Jerom (in Catalogo) calls them Carinus, and Pon­tius. Vales. Caricus and Ponticus; wherein, refuting the same heresie, he subjoyns these words; ‘And that you may see, that the operation of that dis­sembling party called the So the Ancients termed the prophesie of Montanus and his associates; as may be seen from Tertullian, de Jejuniis; Jerom, in Catalogo; Firmilian, in his Epistle to Cyprian; and the old Authour quoted by our Eusebius, chap. 16. of this B. Vales. New-prophesie is abo­minated The reading of the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savill M. SS. agrees with our translation, to wit, [by all the Brotherhood in the world.] The Kings M. S. and Robert Stephens read it thus [by all the Brotherhood in Christ, over the whole world.] Vales. by all the Brotherhood in the world, I have sent you also the Letters of Claudius Apolli­naris of most blessed memory, who was Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia.’ In that same Epistle of Serapion's, are contained the subscriptions of se­veral Bishops. One of whom has subscribed thus, I Aurelius Cyrenius Martyr wish You health: another, after this manner, Aelius Publius Ju­lius Bishop of Debeltum, or Develtum, a Colony in Thracia, is mentioned by Geographers, and in the old Coyns, which John Tristan put forth. Anchialus also, hereafter named, is a City of Thracia, sufficiently known. But why should the subscriptions of the Bishops of Thracia be put to the Epistle of Serapion Bishop of Antioch? If I may make a con­jecture, I suppose the Bishops of Thracia had written an Epistle to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia against Montanus's Prophecy; wherein they gave their opinion thereof, after the same manner that those of Vienna and Lyons did, as our Eusebius related before. That these sub­scriptions were put to the bottom of some Epistle, 'tis apparent from Cyrenus's subscription here mentioned. But 'tis no way likely that those Bishops did subscribe Serapions Epistle; (1) because Eusebius does not say so, but onely that the subscriptions of many Bishops were contained in Serapions Letter, as was also Apollinaris's Epistle to the said Serapion. For Serapion did this with good advisement, that he might confute the heresie of Montanus by the authority of many Bishops. (2) How could the Bishops of Thracia subscribe the letter of a Bishop of Antioch? 'Tis most probable therefore, as I said, that the Bishops of Thracia had with a joynt consent written to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia. Vales. Develtum a Colony of Thracia: As God liveth who is in heaven, Sotas of blessed memory, who That is, Bishop of Anchialus, a City of Thracia, as we said be­fore. This Sotas the Bishop, hearing of this new Prophecy, sailed out of Thracia into Phry­gia, where having seen Priscilla, not filled with the holy Spirit, but actuated by the devill, he undertook to cast him out of her by Exor­cism. Not onely Sotas, but also many other Bishops went at that time into Phrygia, to examine that new Prophecy, says the Anonymous authour, chapt. 16. of this B. Moreover, we may observe, that Sotas, was dead, when Aelius Julius wrote this; which is shown by the word [ [...]] a term which the Greeks use when they speak of a dead person: had Sotas been alive; he would doubtless have con­firmed this thing by his subscription. The same term Serapion uses, when he speaks of Apollinaris, who also was then dead. Vales. was at Anchialus, would have cast out Priscilla's devil, but the Hypocrites would not suffer him. In the said Letters are extant the subscriptions of many other Bishops, written with their own hands, who were of the same o­pinion with these. And of this sort were the mat­ters appertaining to the said [Hereticks.]

CHAP. XX. What Irenaeus wrote against the Schismaticks at Rome.

Here we began the 20 chapter; following therein Rufinus, Mus­culus, and Christophorson. The Kings, the Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. begin the chapter from these words [And of this sort were the matters, &c.] which are the close of the foregoing chapter. Vales. I Renaeus composed several Epistles against those at Rome who adulterated the sound law of the Church: He wrote one to Blastus concerning Schisme; another to Florinus con­cerning The antient Christians did frequently use this term; as often, as they disputed against the Gen­tiles, under which title they put forth many books, to shew that there was one God, the maker and King of all things, which term [to wit, Monarchy] they ascribed to God the father; but [ [...] i. e. the dispensation, and administration] they assigned to the Son and holy Ghost; so Tertullian, (in his book against Praxeas,) and Tatianus, (adver­sus Graecos.) There is a book of Justin the Martyrs, now extant, which has this title. Moreover, from this title of Irenaeus's book we may conclude, that Florinus asserted two principles, and em­braced the opinions of Cerdo and Marcion, affirming one to be the Authour of Good, the other of evil. Vales. Monarchy, or, that God is not the maker of Evil. For Florinus seemed to be a maintainer of that opinion: upon whose ac­count, (being afterwards lead into the errour of Valenti­nus,) Irenaeus compiled that work of his, [entitled,] See Irenaeus, and Epiphanius, concerning a work of Valentinus's, which bears this title. Vales. concerning the number eight. In which piece he intimates himself to have lived in the first succession after the A­postles: there also at the close of that work, we found a most profitable [...] is the term in the original. Those notes which were set at the margin of M. SS. that the reader might understand some­thing remarkable occurred there, were properly so called. There­fore we translate it [adnotationem, i. e. a note.] This note is now to be found in many Greek M. SS. exprest onely by the two first let­ters, thus [ [...].] which doe sig­nifie [ [...], i. e. note.] This adjuration of Irenaeus's did so well please Eusebius, that he put it at the beginning of his Chronicon. Vales. note of his, which we judged usefull to be inserted into this our History; it is thus; ‘I ad­jure thee (who shall tran­scribe this book) by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his glorious coming to judge the quick and dead, that you compare what you shall transcribe, and correct it diligently ac­cording to that copie whence you shall tran­scribe it; and that in like manner you transcribe this adjuration, and annex it to [thy] copy.’ And let thus much have been profi­tably said by him, and re­lated by us, that we may al­ways have [before our eyes] those antient and truely holy men, as the best pattern of a most accurate care and diligence. Moreover, in that Epistle (we spake of) which Irenaeus wrote to Florinus, he makes mention of his being con­versant with Polycarp, saying; ‘These opinions, (O Florinus!) that I may speak sparingly, doe not appertain to sound doctrine;’ these opinions are dissonant from the Church, and drive those [Page 85] ‘who give their assent to them into the greatest impiety; these Sentiments even the Hereticks, who are without the Church, have not dared to publish at any time; these opinions the Presby­ters, who lived before our times, who also were the disciples of the Apostles, did in no wise de­liver unto thee. For I saw thee (when being yet a child I was in the Lower Asia, with Poly­carp,) behaving thy self very well in the Pa­lace, and endeavouring to get thy self well esteemed of by him. For I remember the things then done, better than what has happened of late. For what we learnt being children, increases together with the mind it self, and is closely united to it. In so much that I am able to tell even the place where the Blessed Polycarp sate and discourst; also his All our M. SS. and Nicepho­rus, doe read [ [...], i. e. his goings out] and so we tran­slate it. Vales. goings out and comings in; his manner of life; the shape of his body; the discourses he made to the populace; the familiar converse, which, he said, he had with John, and with the rest who had seen the Lord; and how he rehearsed their sayings, and what they were, which he had heard from them concerning the Lord; concerning his miracles, and his doctrine, according as Polycarp re­ceived them from those, who with their own eyes beheld the Word of life, so he related them, agreeing in all things with the Scriptures. These things, by the mercy of God bestowed upon me, I then heard diligently, and copied them out, not in paper, but in my heart; and by the grace of God I doe continually and sincerely ruminate upon them. And I am able to protest in the presence of God, that if that blessed and Apostolick Presbyter should have heard any such thing, he would presently have cried out, and It was the custom of the primi­tive Chri­stians, (when they heard any impi­ous expres­sion in a fa­miliar dis­course, which was disagree­able to the rule of the Catholick faith,) forthwith to stop their ears, and run away. See Irenaeus (B. 3, Against Heresies, chap. 4;) and Jerom, B. 1. against Rufinus. Vales. stopped his ears, and according to his usual custom would have said; Good God! For what times hast thou reserved me, that I should suffer such things! and he would have run out of the place, where he was either sitting or standing, should he have heard such words as these. And this may be manifested from those Epistles of his, which he wrote either to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to some brethren to admonish and exhort them. Thus far Irenaeus.’

CHAP. XXI. How Apollonius suffered Martyrdom at Rome.

AT the same time of Commodus's Empire, our affairs were converted into a quiet and se­date posture; peace, by the divine grace, encom­passing the Churches throughout the whole world. In which interim the saving Word [of God] al­lured Or, every soul of all sorts of men. For that's the import of the Greek, if it be exactly rendred. Valesius translates it [ex omni­genere hominum quàm plurimos, i. e. very many of all sorts of men. very many of all sorts of men to the religious wor­ship of the universal God. So that now many of those at Rome, who were very eminent both for riches and descent, did, together with their whole housholds and fami­lies, betake themselves to [the attaining of] salvati­on. But this could not be born with by the envious devil, that hater of good, being by nature malicious. Therefore he [...]; i. e. he unclothed himself; 'tis a metaphor taken from champions, who, being to engage, strip't themselves, and studied by various arts and subtilties tò vanquish their Adversaries. Vales. arms himself again, inventing va­rious Stratagems against us. At the City Rome there­fore, he brings before the judgement seat This A­pollonius was not the same person with him, mentioned chap. 16. of this book. Jerom (in Catalogo) calls him a Roman Senatour. Eusebius does not say▪ he was one of the Senate, in this place. But more of this hereafter. Vales. Apollo­nius, a man who was at that time one of the faith­full, and very eminent for his Learning and Philosophy; having stirred up Jerom (in his book de Scri­ptor. Ecclesiast.) Supposes the per­son here spoken of to be Apollo­nius's servant; and calls his name Severus. Vales. one of That is, the devil having stir­red up one of his own instruments, or, ministers, &c. his ministers, who was fit for such a [wicked enter­prize] to accuse this person. Now this wretch, having un­dertaken this accusation in an unseasonable time, (for, according to the He means the Rescript of Mar­cus, mentioned chap. 13. B. 4. See that place, and the notes upon it. Rufinus thought the Edict of Tra­jan, (which Eusebius mentions B. 3. chap. 33,) or the Rescript of Adrian, (see chap. 9. B. 4,) to Minucius Fundanus; was here meant. Vales. Imperial Edict, the informers against those that were [Christians] were to be put to death;) had his legs forthwith bro­ken, and was put to death, Perennis the Judge having pronounc't this sentence a­gainst him: but the Mar­tyr, most beloved by God, (after the Judge had The judges, who interrogated the Christians that were brought before them, were wont to per­swade and entreat them to have a regard for their own safety, by em­bracing the worship of the heathen Gods. There are infinite Exam­ples hereof in Tertullian, Euse­bius, &c. Vales. ear­nestly beseeched him by ma­ny entreaties, and requested him to render an account [of his Faith] From this passage I am in­duced to think that Apollonius was of the Senatorian order, as Jerom has said. Who upon the informa­tion of some desperate fellow (whose name is unknown) was brought before Perennis, the Pre­fect of the praetorium, (i. e. the officer to whom the oversight of the Souldiers was committed) as being a Christian; being ask't by the Judge what order he was of, and making answer that he was of the Senatorian order, Perennis com­manded him to give an account of his faith before the Senate. Which when Apollonius had with much eloquence done, by the sen­tence of the Senate he was put to death. Why may we not there­fore believe Jerom, who (in his book de Ecclesiast. Scriptor, and in his Epistle to Magnus) has said in express terms, that Apollonius was a Senatour? And although Eusebius does not expresly say so here; yet from this relation of his thus much may be collected. Besides, Jerom might have read the Acts of Apollonius's suffering, to which Eusebius does here refer us. In which Acts, tis probable, Apollonius was called a Roman Senatour, and was said to have been betrayed by his servant. These Acts were written at Rome in Greek, by men that were Grecians, after the same manner as the Acts of the Lugdunensian Martyrs were written in Greek. Vales. before the Senate,) having made a most Jerom (in his book de Scriptor. Eccles.) misunderstanding this place of Eusebius, has accounted Apollonius, amongst the Ecclesiastick Writers. But Eusebius onely says, that Apollonius made a most elegant oration before the Judges in defence of the faith he profest, not that he wrote an Apology. Scaliger takes notice of this mistake of Jerom's in his Animadvers. Eusebian. p. 208. But he has there altered the reading of part of this place in Eusebius, thus [But the Martyr, most beloved of God, after he had beseech't the Judge by many intreaties, that he might have leave to give an account of his faith before the Senate.] Which emendation is contradicted by all our M. S. copies, and by reason it self. Vales. elegant defence before them all for the faith he profest, All Translatours have rendred this place without taking any no­tice of the particle [ [...]] in their Versions; supposing it to be use­less. Which as I judge, is not true: first because the Senatours were not Judges, neither had they Jurisdiction. [2] Perennis, who was the Judge in this cause, had remitted Apollonius to the Senate, not that the Senate should give judgment upon him, but that Apollonius should give them an account of his religion: He honoured the Senate so far, that he would not condemn a Senatour, before the Senate had had cognizance of his crime. When therefore the Senate had heard Apollonius, their answer was, that the man should be judged according to the Law. After this Apollonius was punished with death, by the sentence indeed of Perennis himself, but by the decree of the Senate, because the Senate had heard him, and given their consent that he should be condemned. Vales. was, as it were by a decree of the Senate, condemn'd to undergoe a capital punish­ment. For by an ancient He means the Rescript of Trajan, which Eusebius mentions B. 3. chap. 33, at the latter end. See the place and the note upon it. Vales. Law 'twas establisht a­mongst them, that those [Christians] who were once accused before the judgment­seat, should in no wise be dismist, unless they receded from their opinion. More­over, he that is desirous to know Apollonius's speeches before the Judge, and the an­swers he made to the interro­gatories of Perennis, the oration also which he spoke before the Senate in defence of our faith, may see them in our collection of the suf­ferings of the antient Mar­tyrs.

CHAP. XXII. What Bishops flourisht at that time.

MOreover, in the tenth year of Commodus's Reign, Eleutherus, having executed the Episcopal office In his Chronicon Eusebius assigns fif­teen years to Eleu­therus, and continues his Presi­dency to the last year [...] of Commodus. Between which two accounts of his there is a great dis­agreement. Vales. thirteen years, was succeeded by Victor. In the same year also, Julianus having compleated his tenth year, Demetrius undertook the Government of the Churches at Alexandria. At the same time likewise Serapion, (whom we spake of a little before,) flourisht, being the eighth Bishop from the Apostles of the Antiochian Church. At Caesarea in Palestine presided Theo­philus; and in like manner Narcissus (whom we made mention of before) at that time had the pub­lick charge over the Church at Jerusalem. At Corinth in Achaia, Nice pho­rus calls him Bac­chylus. But sometimes diminutive terms, such as this is, are written with [...] double L. Vales. Bacchyllus was then the Bishop, and at the Church of Ephesus, Polycrates. Many others, 'tis likely, besides these were emi­nent at that time; but we, at it was meet, have onely recounted their names, by whose writings the doctrine of the true faith has been derived down to us.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning the Question then moved about Easter.

AT the same time no small controversie be­ing raised, because the Churches of all The rea­ding of the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savill M. SS. is [the Churches of all Asia,] as we have translated it. Asia may be ta­ken in a threefold sense; sometimes 'tis taken for the third part of the world; sometimes for a Province, divided into nine Jurisdictions, which was governed by a Roman Proconsul; at other times 'tis more strictly taken for that region which lies by the River Meander. In these words of Eusebius, 'tis, in my judgment, to be taken in the second sense, to wit, for a Pro­vince which a proconsul gover­ned. Vales. Asia supposed, as from a more antient tradition, that the That is, the fourteenth day after the appearance of the new Moon: for the religious part of the Jewish Calendar was concer­ned in these appearances of the new Moon, the reports whereof were made by the country people. See the whole manner hereof de­scribed particularly, by the Learned Doctor Cudworth, in his excel­lent discourse concerning the true Notion of the Lords Supper, pag. 67. See also Mr Jo. Gregory of Oxford, in his discourse concerning Upper­rooms. p. 14, &c. fourteenth day of the Moon ought to be ob­served as the salutary feast of Easter, [to wit] the same day whereon the Jews were commanded to kill the Lamb, and that they ought always The Learned Arch-Bishop Usher, in his dissertation prefixt before Ignatius's Epistles, thap. 9. says, that the Asiatics, who celebrated Easter, with the Jews, on the first day of unleavened bread, passed over that day with mourning and fasting; after which day was ended, they concluded their Lent-fast. Which opinion Eusebius does here contradict, in that he affirms expresly, that the Asiatics did put an end to their fastings on the 14th day of the first month, although it were not Sunday. Vales. on that day, (what­ever day of the week it should happen to be,) to put an end to their fastings: when as [notwithstanding] 'twas not the usage of the Here Eusebius does plainly declare that the Asiatics onely did at that time celebrate Easter with the Jews; but that all the other Churches observed that festiyal on another day. Wherefore I dis­sent from Halloixius, Arch-Bishop Usher, and others, who suppose that the Syrians, Mesopotamians, and Cilicians, did then keep Easter at the same time with the Asia [...]ics. 'Tis evident that the Syrians and Mesopo­tamians, were then right in their sentiments about this matter, which appears from their councills here mentioned by Ensebius. For O [...]droena is a part of Mesopotamia: But afterwards they fell to the Jewish obser­vation of this Festival, and that before the Nicene Councill, as Athana­sius asserts. On the contrary, the Asiatics forsaking their former errour, embraced the sounder opinion in their observation of Easter; which they did before the Nicene-Councill, as appears from Constantines Epistle, which Eusebius relates B. 3. chap. 18, and 19. of Constantines life. Vales. Churches over the rest of the world to doe after this manner; which usage, being received from Apostolick tra­dition, and still prevalent, they observed, [to wit] that they ought not to It was questioned amongst the An­tients, at what hour the Fast be­fore Easter was to be concluded; some were of opinion, that it was to be con­tinued to the daw­ning of Ea­ster day, after the Cock­crowing, as may be seen in E­piphanius, and Cle­mens: o­thers thought it was to be finished on the Satur­day▪ even­ing before Easter-day; So Cyrill, in Homil. Paschal. Vales. put an end to their fastings on any other day, save that of the resurrection of our Saviour: upon this account Synods and assemblies of Bishops were convened. And all of them with one consent did by their letters inform the [Brethren] every where of the Ecclesiastick decree, [to wit] that the Mystery of our Lords resurrection should never be celebrated on any other day but Sunday, and that on that day onely we should observe to conclude the Fasts before Easter. There is at this time extant the Epistle of those who then were as­sembled in Palestine, over whom The Bishop of Caesarea, (before the Nicene Council, and a long­time after,) had the dignity and honour of a Metropolit [...], and presided in all the Councils of Palestine, as being Bishop of the chief See. Ne­vertheless, the Bishops of Jerusalem had a respect shown them; theirs being the Apostolick Church, which first had a Bishop. Therefore the Bishops of that See were not under the Bishops of Caesarea, but were [...], i. e. were, as to their priviledges, independent of the See of Caesarea. See the seventh Canon of the Nicene-Council. Vales. Theophilus Bishop of the Church in Caesarea, and Narcissus [Bishop] of Jerusalem, presided. In like man­ner, another [Epistle] of those [Assembled] at Rome concerning the same question, having Victor the Bishops name prefixt to it: also [another] of those Bishops in Pontus, over whom He was Bishop of Amastris in Pontus, of whom Dionystus Bishop of Corinth makes mention, in his Epistle to the Church of Amastris, which Epistle our Eusebius speaks of B. 4. chap. 23. There was one, which bore the same name, (to wit, Palmas) of the consular order, whom Adrian commanded to be killed; so says Spartianus. Moreover, Eu­sebius says, this Palmas presided, as being the most antient Bishop, not that he was a Metropolitan. For Heraclea not Amastris, was Me­tropolis of the Cities of Pontus. But in the Ecclesiastick Councils the precedency was different, according to the diversity of times and places. The plainest and most reasonable cause of precedency was, that the antientest Bishop should take place of the rest. Afterwards the Bishops of the Metropolitan Churches had that honour given them▪ Vales. Palmas, as being the most antient, presided. Al­so [an Epistle] of the Churches in Gallia, which Irenaeus had the oversight of. Moreover, of those in Osdroëna and the Cities there; and Jerom (in his book de Scriptor. Ecclesiast.) expounds this place so, as if Bacchylus had convened a Council in Achaia, apart by him­self: for in this sense he takes the term [ [...]] here used by Eu­sebius: But there may another sense be given hereof, to wit, that Bacchylus wrote a private Epistle in his own name concerning Easter, not a Synodicall Letter, as the rest did. Eusebius (Book 6. chap. 11.) calls a private Lettor, [...]. Vales. a private Letter of Bacchyllus's Bishop of the Corinthian Church; of many others also; all which having uttered one and the same opinion and sentiment, proposed the same judgment; and this we have mentioned, was their onely definitive determi­nation.

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning the disagreement [of the Churches] throughout Asia.

OVer those Bishops in Asia, who stifly main­tained they ought to observe the antient usage heretofore delivered to them, presided Poly­crates: Who, in the Epistle he wrote to Victor, and the Roman Church, declares the tradition de­rived down to his own times in these words: [Page 87] ‘We therefore observe the true and genuine He means Ea­ster-day. day; having neither added any thing to, nor taken any thing from, [the uninterrupted usage delivered to us.] Eusebius quotes part of this E­pistle at the 31 chap. of his 3d B. The Lear­ned Reader, upon comparing of the original Greek, here, and at the said 31 chapter, will find some small difference: upon which ac­count our Version of the two pla­ces differs; for we translated them as we found them. For in Asia the great lights are dead, who shall be raised again in the day of the Lords Advent▪ wherein he shall come with glory from heaven, and raise up all his Saints, [I mean] Philip, one of the 12 Apostles, who died at Hie­rapolis, and his two daugh­ters, who continued Virgins to the end of their lives; also his other daughter, having whilest she lived been inspired by the holy Ghost, died at Ephesus. And moreover, John, who leaned on the Lords breast, and was a Priest, wearing a See B. 3. Chap. 31. note (d.) But the Jewish use of this plate of Gold can't be meant here; for John was neither High­priest amongst the Jews, nor yet of the sacerdotal race. Poly­crates mentions 3 things of John; 1. That he was a Priest, 2, a Martyr; 3, a Dr, or Evangelist, Now as he was a Doctor of Christ, and a Martyr for him; so also must he be understood to be a Priest of Christ. 'Tis probable those first Christian Priests, in imitation of the Jewish High­priests, did wear a plate of Gold, as a badge of honour. Epiphanius (in Heres. Nazaraeor.) says James the brother of our Lord, who was ordained the first Bishop of Jeru­salem, wore such a plate of Gold on his forehead. The same is said of Mark the Evangelist in a M. S. concerning his suffering. Vales. plate of Gold, and was a Martyr, and a Doctor: this [John I say] died at Ephesus. More­over also, Polycarp Bishop at Smyrna and Martyr, and This is Thraseas the Martyr, whom Apollonius mentions in his Book against the Cataphrygians; whose words our Eusebius quotes chap. 18. of this book; Rufinus says he suffered Martyrdom at Smyrna. Vales. Thraseas of Eusmema, Bishop and Martyr, who died at Smyrna. What need we mention Melito Bishop of Sardis makes mention of this Martyr, in his Book concerning Easter; in those words which our Eusebius quotes B. 4. chap. 26. This Sagaris was Bi­shop of Laodicea in Asia; in whose times the Question concerning Ea­ster was raised at Laodicea. Vales. Sagaris Bi­shop and Martyr, who died at Laodicea? And more­over In the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. this mans name is thus written, [ [...] Papirus.] Tis a Roman name. Polycrates does not say where this Papirius was Bishop. But I find in Simeon Me­taphrastes, (in the Life of Polycarp) that this Papirius was successour to Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna. Vales. Papirius of Blessed memory, and Polycrates does here stile Melito, an Eunuch, that is, in our Saviours explication, one of those, who make themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of heavens sake; who are content to deny themselves, and to renounce the lawfull plea­sures and comforts of the world, for the service of Religion. Je­rom (de Scriptor. Ecclesiast.) attests that this Melito was by many ac­counted a Prophet. Vales. Melito the Eunuch, who in all things was directed by the sug­gestion of the holy Spirit, who lies at Sardis, ex­pecting the [Lords co­ming to] visit him from heaven, when he shall be raised from the dead? All these kept the day of Ea­ster on the fourteenth day of the Moon, according to the Gospel: in no wise violating, but exactly fol­lowing the rule of faith. And moreover, I Polycra­tes, the meanest of you all, according to the tradition of my kinsmen, some of whom also I have fol­lowed: for Rufinus thought that seven of Polycrates's Ancestours, or Re­lations, were Bishops of Ephesus. But Polycrates does not say they were all Bishops of Ephesus; we may suppose they were Bishops in several Cities of Asia. Vales. seven of my relations were Bishops, and I am the eighth; all which kinsmen of mine did al­waies celebrate the day [of Easter] when the people [of the Jews] In the Kings, and Maz. M. SS. this place is plainly written thus [ [...], i. e. when the people removed the Leaven. So Rufinus read this place, as appears by his Version; viz. Qui omnes ita observarunt hunc diem ut conveniret cum illo quo fermen­tum Judeorum populus ausert; i. e. All which so observed this day, that it might agree with that wherein the people of the Jews removed their Leaven. I wonder why Robert Stephens read it [ [...] when the people prepared, &c?] For on the 14th day of the first month, the people did not prepare, but cast away their Leaven. See Exod. 12. 18. Vales. removed the Leaven. I therefore, brethren, who am Sixty five years old in the Lord, and have been conversant with the bre­thren disperst over the world, and have read the whole Scripture through, am not at all terrified at what I am threatned with. For those, who were greater than I, have said, Acts 5. 29. We ought to obey God rather than men.’ To these words, speaking of all the Bishops who were present with him when he wrote, and were of the same opinion with him, he adjoyns thus much, saying, ‘I could make mention of the Bishops who are present with me, whom you Hence 'tis appa­rent that Victor Bishop of Rome had written to Polycrates to convene the Bishops of Asia; and threatned to excommunicate him, unless he obeyed his deter­mination about▪ Easter. As to his menaces, Polycrates answers I am not at all terrified at what I am threatned with. Vales. requested me to convene, and I have called them together: whose names should I an­nex [to this Epistle,] they would be very nu­merous; all which persons having visited me, (who am a mean man) did by their consent approve of this Epistle; well knowing that I have not born these hoary hairs in vain, but have alwaies lead my life agreeable to the precepts of the Lord Jesus.’ After this, Victor the Bishop of Rome, did immediately attempt to cut off from the com­mon unity the Churches of all Asia, together with the adjoyning Churches, as having given their assent to heterodox opinions; and Valesius (in his note at this place) is of opinion that Victor did not excommunicate the Churches of Asia; but onely en­deavoured, and threatned, to doe it. The reasons he brings for this are these: (1) Euseblus says ex­presly [ [...], i. e. he endeavoured to cut off from the communion, &c.] (2) The E­pistles written to Victor by Irenaeus and other Bishops doe shew that the sentence of excommunication was not then pronounc't by Victor; for thus Eusebius writes concer­ning Irenaeus's Letters [But does in many other words seasonably ad­vise Victor not to cut off whole Churches, &c.] (3) Photius (in Biblioth. chap. 120.) writes that Irenaeus wrote many letters to Victor, perswading him not to ex­communicate any one for their dissent about the observation of Easter; therefore, before Irenaeus wrote, Victor had excommunica­ted no body: now, it cannot be supposed that Victor did it after receipt of Irenaeus's. Letters; for then Eusebius would have made mention of it; but he intimates the contrary to all this, calling I­renaeus [ [...],] i. e. Peace­maker, because his Letters re­stored Peace to the Church. These are Valesius's reasons. On the contrary, Socrates, (B. 5. chap. 22.) Halloixius in his life of Irenaeus, pag. 668; and Dr Cave in the Life of Irenaeus pag. 168; are of opinion, that this sentence of excom­munication was actually pronounc't by Victor. Their main argument for this, is grounded on these words of Eusebius, which here follow [ [...]] which we have thus rendred [And by his Letters be, i. e. Victor, publickly declares, and pronounces all the brethren there to be wholly excommunicate.] Which, whether it does not outweigh all that Valesius has said to the contrary, is left to the determination of the Learned Reader. by his letters he publickly declares, and pro­nounces all the brethren there to be wholly excommunicate: but this pleased not all the Bishops: therefore they per­swade him to the contrary, [advising him] to entertain thoughts of Peace, of Unity and love of Christians among one another. Moreover their Epistles are now extant, wherein they have sharply reproved Victor. Among whom Irenaeus, having writ­ten a Letter in This Epistle therefore of Irenaeus's was a Synodical Epistle▪ because 'twas written in the name of the Churches of France, the chief City whereof then was Lyons. This Epistle is mentioned by Eusebius, in the foregoing chapter: for I judge it to be one and the same Epistle, because 'tis unlikely there should be two Synods convened in so short a time, to determine of one and the same mat­ter. Vales. the name of those brethren in Gallia, whom he presided over, does indeed maintain, that the my­stery of our Lords. Resur­rection ought to be celebra­ted onely on a Sunday; but does in many other words seasonably advise him not to cut off whole Churches of God for observing an an­tient custom derived down to them by tradition: to which words he adjoyns thus much; ‘For the controversie is not onely concerning the day; but also concerning [Page 88] the very Irenaeus says, that at that time there was a two fold dissention in the Church; the first concerning Easter day; the second about the form of the Fast; i. e. how many days were to be kept as a Fast; for so he explains himself in the follow [...]ng words. For all, as well those who celebrated Easter on the Sunday, as those who, with the Jews, kept that festival on the fourteenth day of the Moons appearance, did agree in this, to wit, that they Fasted before Easter. Which Fast, as well as the Feast of Easter, they had received from Apostolick Tradition: See Eusebius, book 2. chap. 17. And the notes there. Vales. form of the Amongst the antient Christians there were three kinds of Fasts: the first was the Fast on Wednesdays, and Frydays, which ended at the 9th hour of the day, (i. e. at three a clock in the afternoon,) after the end of the Station, or Holy communion. The second sort was the Lent-fast, which ended about the evening. The third sort was the strictest of all, and lasted to the cock-crowing; which was there­fore by the Greeks called [ [...],] in Latine Superpositio. E­piphanius (in his Expositio fidei Catholic. at the end of his books, against Heresies) does plainly distinguish these 3 sorts of Fasts. So does Dionysius Alexandrinus, in his Epistle to Basilides. But now, it may be demanded, which of these 3 sorts of Fasts Irenaeus does here speak of? 'Tis manifest, he means not the first sort; for he evidently speaks of a whole days Fast, some suppose, says he, they ought to fast one day, &c. Dionysius Alexandrinus, and Epiphanius, (in the pla­ces before mentioned) seem to be of opinion, that Irenaeus means the 3d sort of Fast. Vales. Fast: for some sup­pose they ought to These words of Irenaeus are variously understood. Bellarmine thinks he speaks of Lent. Cardinal Perron supposes he speaks of the week that precedes Easter: which opinion is confirmed by Dionysius Alexandrinus, and Epiphanius, in the places before cited. Vales. Fast Without doubt Irenaeus means, the Friday of the Great week; (i. e. the week before Easter;) on which day was kept a publick Fast, says Tertullian, in his book De Orat. and in that De Jejunio. Vales. one day, others To wit, on the Preparation day, (which we call Good-Friday,) and on the Great Sabbath (i. e. the Saturday before Easter.) For on these two days all persons, except the sick, were wont to Fast, says Tertullian, in his book De Jejunio. Vales. two, others more; The Kings, Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. doe read and point this place thus [ [...].] And Musculus has faithfully tran­slated it thus [alii quadraginta horas diurnas & nocturnas computan­tes, diem suum statuunt.] whom we follow in our Version of this place; having rendred it thus [others computing forty continued] hours of the day and night make that [space] their day [of Fasting.] This reading is doubtless the truest: For Irenaeus having said that some Fast one day, others two, others more; what need is there of his adding this [others Fast fourty days.] when as in those words of his [others Fast more days] fourty days are comprehended? Besides, if the stop be put at [ [...], fourty,] (as 'tis in the Savil. M. S. and in Rufinus and Christophorsons translations) to what shall the following words [ [...] &c.] be referred? If they be referred to those that Fast fourty days, (as 'tis certain they must) then 'twill necessarily follow, that those who Fast fourty days during that time doe eat nothing at all, seeing that they account their Fast must be con­tinued all the hours of the night, as well as of the day. Having made out the true reading of this place, we come to explain the meaning of it. Irenaeus therefore says, that some Fasted fourty continued hours of the day and night. Some think this Fast of fourty hours was kept by them in memory of that space of time which was between the Death of Christ and his Resurrection: which space of time contained about fourty hours; to wit, from the 6th hour of the preparation day (that is, between 12 and 3 a clock on Good-Friday) to the dawning of Ea­ster-day: But I suppose 'twas kept in honour and memory of Christs fourty days Fast in the wilderness. Three things may be collected from these words of Irenaeus. (1) That the Fast before Easter was usually observed in the Church from the very times of the Apostles. (2) This Fast was celebrated in honour and memory of Christ's Fast: (3) That the space of time, allotted for this Fast, was various and different▪ But we ought always to remember that Irenaeus does here speak of the Fast of Superposition, (See note (m) in this chap.) which the Chri­stians usually observed throughout the Great-week; (i. e. the Pas­sion-week:) the Fast in which week being once admitted, the Fast of Lent must also be admitted: for the week before Easter is part of Lent. Sometimes indeed we see the Fast of this week is distinguisht from the Lent Fast; (as in Epiphanius's Expositio fidei, &c.) but 'tis not so distinguisht, as if it did not really belong to Lent; but 'tis distinguished from it, as the part is from the whole. The reason of this distinction is twofold; (1) it was kept with a more strict Fast, to wit, the Fast of Superposition, as we shewed before, (note m.) (2) this week does pro­perly belong to Easter. For the Feriae (or Days) of it have their denomination from the following Sunday, as shall hereafter be mani­fested. Hence 'tis called the Great-week; the reasons of which term Chrysostom does give in his 30 Homily on Genesis. This Week began from the second Feria, (i. e. Monday,) says Cyrill in Homil. Paschal. and Epiphanius in A [...]rianis. Vales. others computing forty [con­tinued] hours of the day and night make [that space] their In the o­riginal 'tis [ [...], i. e. their Day [of Fasting.] But Irenaeus did doubtless write [ [...], i. e. their Fast.] day [of Fasting:] and this variety in observing [the Fast] has not been begun in our age, but a long while since, in the times of our Ancestours: Irenaeus would shew here whence so great a diversity about the Fast before Easter arose. He says therefore, that it proceeded not from any law given by the A­postles or Christ; but did by de­grees grow in use; and afterwards some Bishops, being too remiss in those things belonging to disci­pline, made that a custom, which was introduced by simplicity and singularity, and left it to be ob­served by their successours. In this sense Socrates took Irenaeus's words here, as appears from what he says B. 5. chap. 22. Vales. who being (as 'tis probable) not so diligent in their Presidencies, pro­posed that as a custom to their successours, which was introduced by sim­plicity and unskilfulness. And yet nevertheless all these maintained mutual peace towards one another, which also we retain. Thus the variety of the Fast com­mends the consent of the faith.’ Hereto he adjoins a relation, which I will suta­bly insert in this place; it is thus: ‘And the Presby­ters, who, before Soter, Presided over that Church which You now go­vern, I mean Anicetus, and Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xystus, these persons [I say] neither observed it themselves, nor did they per­mit those In Turne­bus and Moreus's book, at the margin 'tis mended thus [ [...],] i. e. with them. So Rufinus reads this place, as appears by his Version. Vales. with them [to observe it.] Never­theless, although they themselves observed it not, yet they maintained peace with those that came to them from those Churches wherein it was obser­ved. But the The sense of this place is this; Although the observing, and not observing of any custom are in themselves contrary; yet as often as he that observes the custom is conversant among those who observe it not, this diversity will be much more apparent. Vales. observation of it, amongst those who kept it not, seemed to have much more of contrariety in it. Neither were any persons ever excommuni­cated upon account of this form [of the Fast:] but the Presbyters, your pre­decessours, who observed it not, The Bishops were wont, in the time of the Festivity of Easter, to send the Eucharist to other Bishops, in the name of a bene­diction. This custom was at length forbidden in the Council of Laodi­cea. chap. 14. Vales. sent the Eucharist to the [Presbyters] of those Churches which ob­served it not: and when Though the exact time of Polycarps coming to Rome cannot precisely be defined, yet will it in a great measure depend upon A­nicetus's succession to that See, in whose time he came thither. Now 'tis evident, that almost all the antient Catalogues place him be­fore Soter, and next to Pius, whom he succeeded. This suc­cession Eusebius (in his Chronicon) places on the year of Christ 154; (a computation doubtless much truer than that of Baronius, who places it on the year 167;) and agreeable to this the Chronicle of Alexandria places Polycarp's co­ming to Rome, in the year 158; in the 21 of Antoninus the Empe­rour. See Dr Cave's life of St Po­lycarp. pag. 115. Polycarp of blessed me­mory came to Rome in the times of Anicetus, and there had been a small controversie between them concerning some other things, they did straight­way mutually embrace each other; having not desired to be contentious with one another about this Valesius (in his note on this place) denies that Polycarp came to Rome concerning the difference about the Paschal solemnity; for it was, he says, some other con­troversies, that brought him thi­ther. But Irenaeus's express words are (if our Eusebius has rightly represented them, in B. 4. chap. 14.) that Polycarp came to Rome and discourst Anicetus [ [...],] i. e. upon account of a certain contro­versie concerning the day whereon Easter was to be kept. 'Tis true, Irenaus says (in this chapter) there was a difference between them [ [...], i. e. concerning some other things; but this does not hinder, but that the other was his main errand to Rome. head: For neither could Anicetus perswade Polycarp not to observe it, because he had always kept it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other Apostles with whom he had been conver­sant: nor did Polycarp in­duce Anicetus to observe it, who said he ought to retain the usage of the Presbyters that were his predecessours. These things being thus, they received the communion together. [Page 89] And Anicetus permitted Polycarp, (to wit, out of an honourable respect to him) to That is, Anicetus had so great a re­spect for the vene­rable Poly­carp, that he permitted him, in his own pre­sence to consecrate the Sacra­ment in his own Church. Vales. conse­crate the Sacrament in his own Church; and they parted peaceably one from another; as well those who observed it, as those who obser­ved it not, retaining the Peace and Communion of the whole Church.’ Indeed, Irenaeus, being truly answerable to his own name, was after this manner a Peace-maker, and advised and asserted these things upon the account of the Peace of the Churches: The same person Wrote not onely to Victor, but sent Letters also, agreeable hereunto, to several other Governours of Churches, con­cerning the said controversie which was then raised.

CHAP. XXV. How all with one consent unanimously agreed about Easter.

MOreover, those [Bishops] of Palestine, (whom we mentioned a little before) to wit, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cas­sius Bishop of the Church at Tyre, and Clarus [Bishop] of that at Ptolemais, together with those assembled with them, having treated at large concerning the tradition about Easter, derived down to them by succession from the Apostles, at the end of their Epistle they adjoyn thus much, in these very words: ‘Make it your business to send Copies of this our Epistle throughout the whole Church, that so we may not be blamed by those, who do easily seduce their own souls: we also declare to you, that they celebrate [Easter] at Alexandria on the same day that we doe: The Maz. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. read [ [...] &c. For Letters, &c.] The Letters about Easter are meant here. The Acts of this Synod of Caesarea are extant in Bede, in his book concerning the vernal Equinox; which some look upon to be Spurious; but I think they are in no wise to be despised. Baronius accounted them to be genuine. Vales. for Letters are conveyed from us to them, and from them to us; so that we observe the holy day with one consent and together.’

CHAP. XXVI. How many [Monuments] of Irenaeus's Polite Ingenie have come to our hands.

The cha­pters of this fifth book, were, even in our M. S. Copies, ve­ry much disordered; but we have put them into due order, from the authority of Rufinus; with whom agrees the Kings, and the Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. For those copies begin the chapter at these words, with this Title [How many [Monuments] &c.] but they call it chap. 28. when as 'tis truly the 26; as appears from the Index of the chapters prefixt before the Book. The cause of the mistake was, that the Titles of the former chapters were set down twice in the foresaid Copies, through the negligence of the Transcribers. Vales. BUt, besides the fore-mentioned works and Epistles of Irenaeus's, there is extant a most concise and most necessary book of his against the Gentiles, entituled concerning Knowledge. And another, (which he dedicated to a brother, by name Marcianus,) [containing] a The reading in the original is, [...]. Valesius thinks it should be [ [...], a Demonstration.] Demonstration of the Apostolick Preaching. And a Book of Various Rufinus translates it [dialogos, dialogues] Jerom renders it [Tractatus, Tracts.] It may be taken to signifie Sermons or Discourses to the people: for in that sense our Eusebius takes the word [...] in his 6B. chap. 1 [...]. and in the 36 chap. of that book he calls Origens homilies [ [...]] Vales. Tracts, wherein he makes mention of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that called The wisdom of So­lomon, and quotes some sentences out of them: And thus many are the [writings] of Irenaeus, which came to our knowledge. But Commodus having ended his Government after he had reigned thir­teen years, Severus obtained the Empire, Pertinax having not Governed full out six months after the death of Commodus.

CHAP. XXVII. How many also of [the works of others] who then flourished, [are come to our knowledge.]

INdeed, very many Monuments of the virtuous and laudable diligence of those antient and Ec­clesiastick men which then [flourisht] are to this day preserved amongst many: But [the works] of those, whom we our selves could [...]. (which is the term here) does properly signifie, in­ternoscere, ac distin­guere, i. e. to discern, or distin­guish. The import of Eusebius's words is, that those Writers which by some certain mark be was able to distinguish from here­tical au­thours, were Heraclitus, Maximus, &c. Rufinus and Jerom, instead of Heraclitus, read Heraclius. Our Historian does here relate, first the Ecclesiastick Writers of that time, whose names he knew: afterwards he mentions those, whose books were [...] extant; but their names were unknown. Vales. discern to be such, are, Heraclitus's [Comments] upon the A­postle, and the [Book] of The Title of Maximus's Book was, [...], concern [...]ng matter: it was composed by way of Dialogue. Eusebius quotes a most excellent piece of it in his last chap. of his 7 B. Preparat, Evang. where he gives the Authour this Elogue: [...] i. e. Maximus, a person in no wise obscure for his Christian life and conver­sation, Wrote a seasonable piece entitled, concerning matter. Vales. Maximus con­cerning that question so much talk't of amongst Hereticks, whence evill proceeds: and concer­ning this that matter is made. Also Candi­dus's piece, on the six days work; and that of Apion upon the same Subject. In like manner, S [...]xtus's book Concerning the Resurrection; and another piece of Arabianus's; and of very many more; whose times wherein they lived, because we want assistances from the proof thereof, we can neither commit to writing, nor yet Eusebius does usually quote some passages out of those Au­thours works which he mentions: So he did, as we see, out of Irenaeus, Clemens, Hegesippus, Papias, and others; whenever he knew the time of the Authours Writing. But in these Writers, whom he mentions in this chapter, Eusebius says he could not perform this, because he could not certainly know the times they lived in, but was in want of arguments and proofs thereof. Vales. declare any memorable passages [of their's, in this our Histo­ry.] There are also come to our hands the books of many others, whose very names we are unable to recite: all which were indeed Orthodox and Ec­clesiastick [persons] as the interpretations of the Sacred Scripture [produced] by every one of them doth demonstrate; but yet they are un­known to us, because what they have written has not their name prefixt to it.

CHAP. XXVIII. Concerning those, who from the beginning were de­fenders of Artemon's Heresie; what manner of persons they were as to their moralls, and how that they were so audacious as to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures.

IN an Elaborate piece of one of those Authours, composed against the Heresie of Artemon, (which Heresie Paulus Samosatensis has again at­tempted to revive in our age,) there is extant a certain Relation very accommodate to the Hi­story we now have in hand. For the Nicepho­rus (B. 4. chap. 2 [...].) says, the name of this book (the Au­thour whereof is unknown) was The Little La­byrinth: Photius (in Biblioth. chap. 48.) relates that Caius was the Authour of this book; and makes it not the same book with the Little Labyrinth: But Theodoret (B. 2. Heret. Fabul.) confi [...]ms Nicephorus's opinion, and mentions this very story of Theodotus the Tanner, and Natalis the Bishop, atte [...]ting he had taken it out of the book called Th [...] Little Labyrinth. Vales. Book now cited, evincing that the foresaid Hereste, which as­serts our Saviour to be a meer man, was an inno­vation of a late date; (because the indroducers of it had boasted it was very ancient,) after many [argu­ments] brought to confute their blasphemous lie, has this Relation word for word; ‘For they affirm that all the Ancients and the very Apostles received and taught the same things which they [Page 90] now assert; and that the Preaching of the truth was preserved till the times of Victor, who from Peter was the thirteenth Bishop of Rome; but from the times of his successour Zephyrinus the truth has been adulterated. Peradventure this saying of theirs might seem probable, did not in the first place the Sacred Scriptures con­tradict them, and then the writings of some bre­thren antienter than the times of Victor, which books they wrote in defence of the truth, against the Gentiles, and against the Heresies of their own times. I mean the [writings of] Justin, Miltiades, Tatianus, and Clemens, and of many others: in all which books the Divinity of Christ is maintained. For who is he that is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus, Melito, and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man? The Hence it appears, that 'twas an antient custom in the Church to compose Psalms and Hymns in honour of Christ. Pliny (in his Epistle to Trajan) mentions this usage amongst the Christians; as we have already observed, at B. 2. chap. 17. Psalms also and Hymns of the brethren, written at the beginning by the faithfull, doe set forth the praises of Christ the Word of God, and attribute Divinity to him. Seeing therefore this Eccle­siastical opinion has been manifestly declared for so many years since, how can it be that the [An­tients] should have preacht that doctrine, which these men assert, untill the times of Victor? How can they choose but be ashamed of framing such lies of Victor; when as they know for certain that Victor excommunicated Theodotus the Tanner, the Founder and Father of this Apostacy which denies God, who first asserted Christ to be a meer man? For if Victor were (as they say) of the same opinion with that, which their blasphemie does maintain, why did he proscribe Theodotus the Inventour of this Heresie?’ And such was the face of affairs in the times of Victor: to whom, having presided in his publick charge ten years, Zephyrinus was made successour about the ninth year of Severus's Empire. [Further,] the Person that compiled the foresaid book concerning the Authour of the now-mentioned Heresie, relates another thing which was done in the times of Zephyrinus, in these very words; I will therefore advertize ma­ny of the brethren of a thing done in our Age; which, had it happened in Sodom, would, I sup­pose, have put those inhabitants in mind of [Re­pentance.] ‘There was one Perhaps this person was that Caecilius Natalis, who by a dis­pute of Octavius Januarius's be­fore Minucius Faelix at Rome was converted to the Christian Faith; as Minucius Faelix relates, in his dialogue. Indeed, the name, the time, and the profession of this Person doe all agree to make this probable. Vales. Natalis, a confessour, who lived not a long time a goe, but even in our times; this man had been seduced by Asclepiodotus, and another Theodotus, a Banker; both which Per­sons were disciples of Theo­dotus the Tanner, who before had been excom­municated, as I said, by Victor then Bishop, for this doctrine or rather madness: Natalis was perswaded by them to be The Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savill M. SS. read [ [...], i. e. to be e­lected.] The Kings M. S. and Rob. Ste­phens read [ [...], i. e. to be called.] Vales. Elected a Bishop of this Heresie, upon the consideration of a Salary, whereby he was to receive of them monthly an hundred and fifty pence. Being therefore be­come one of their associates, he was by visions [in his sleep] frequently admonished by the Lord: For our compassionate God and Lord Jesus Christ was unwilling that he, [who had been] a witness of his own sufferings, should perish whilest he was under excommunication. But after he was regardless of the visions [in his sleep,] being beguiled with the bait of pri­macy among those [of that Sect,] and of filthy lucre, (which is the destruction of many men,) at last he was scourged by the holy An­gels, and sorely beaten all night long. In so much that he arose very early, and having put on sackcloth, and besprinkled himself with ashes, in great hast, and with tears in his eyes, he cast himself down before Zephyrinus the Bishop, falling down not onely before the feet of the Clergy, but of the Laity also; and with his tears moved the compassionate Church of the Mercifull Christ: and after he had used much intreaty, and shown the Valesius says those stripes are meant here, which Natalis had undergone for the confession of Christ; Quas, says he, pro Christi confessione per [...]ulerat: Indeed Na­talis is called [...], a con­fessour, at the beginning of this story; and afterwards [...], a Martyr or Witness: but perhaps the Authour might mean here the stripes, which the story says he re­ceived from the holy Angels. prints of the stripes he had received, with much difficulty he was admitted into the communion [of the Church.]’ Hereunto we will also annex some other words of the same Writers concerning these [Hereticks;] they are these: ‘They have impudently a­dulterated the Sacred Scriptures; they have re­jected the Canon of the Primitive faith; and have been ignorant of Christ: they are not in­quisitive after that which the holy Scriptures say, but bestow much labour and industry in finding out such a Scheme of a Syllogism, as may confirm the System of their impiety: And if any one proposes to them a Text of the divine Scriptures, they examine whether a These are Logical terms: [...] is properly such a pro­position, as this [if it be day, there is light.] [...] is such an one as this [either it is day, or it is light.] See Diogen. Laert. in Zenone. Vales. connex, or disjunctive form of a Syllogism may be made of it: leaving the holy Scriptures of God, they studie Geometry; being of the earth they speak of things terrestrial, and are ignorant of him who He speaks of the last advent of our Saviour; which the Antient fathers usually speak of not as future, but present. Vales. comes from above: therefore a­mongst some of them Euclids Geometry is with great diligence stu­died; Aristotle and Theo­phrastus are admired; and in like manner Galen wrote books concer­ning the forms of Syllogisms, and concerning the whole systeme of Philosophy, as appears from the catalogue of his works. From this place 'tis evident that Galen is a very antient Authour, which may be collected not onely from the Testimony of this Writer, but from many others, who have made him contemporary with Aristotle, The­ophrastus, and Plato. See Alex­ander Aphrodis. B. 8. Topic. at the beginning. Vales. Galen is by others of them even adored: what need I say, that these persons, (who make use of the Arts of Infidels for the confirma­tion of their Heretical o­pinion, and by the craft of Atheists adulterate the sin­cere authority of the divine Scriptures,) are most re­mote from the faith? Hence 'tis that they have impudently laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, saying they ought to be corrected; he that is desirous may be in­formed that I speak not this falsely of them. For would any one examine the Copies, which they have gotten together, and compare them one with another, he would find that they disa­greed very much. For the Copies of Some call him Ascle­piades; but Nicephorus and Rufi­nus term [...] him Ascle­piadotus. A little after this instead of [Apol­lonius] we read [Apollonides] as did Rufinus, and Nicepho­rus. Vales. Ascle­piadotus agree not with those of Theodotus. Many such Copies as these may be procured; because their disciples have with much labour and curiosity written the corrections (as they call them, that is, the corruptions) of every one of their [Masters.] Again, the Copies of Hermophilus agree not with these now men­tioned; and those of Apollonides differ one [Page 91] from another. For he that shall compare them will find that those Copies first put forth Sr Henry Savill in the margin of his M. S. had made it [ [...], by him.] Our other M. SS. read it [ [...], by them.] But the former reading is the best: for the Authour speaks onely of Apol­lonides here; affirming that he put forth two Editions of the sa­cred Scriptures▪ the latter of which differ'd very much from the for­mer. Vales. by him doe very much disagree from his other [Copies] which he did afterwards again wrest and deform. How much of audaciousness there is in this wicked fact, 'tis probable they themselves are not ignorant: for ei­ther they doe not believe the divine Scriptures to have been dictated by the holy Spirit, and then they are Infidels: or else they ac­count themselves wiser then the holy Ghost; and what are they then but mad­men? For they cannot deny this audacious fact to have been done by their own selves, because [the Copies] have been written out by their own hands: The fol­lowing words [Neither did they re­ceive such Copies as these from those who were their instructours; nor yet can they shew the Copies out of which they transcribed these things] are wanting in the Kings M. S. I think them not very necessary: but they are in the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. and in Rufinus's version. Vales. Neither did they receive such Copies as these from those who were their in­structours; nor yet can they shew the Copies out of which they transcribed these things. But some of them have not indeed vouchsafed to adulterate the Scriptures, but having wholly rejected both the Law, and the Prophets, [...], or [...], i. e. by, or, by reason of, is here to be understood. These Hereticks, under a pretence of the Grace given by the Gospel, rejected both the Law, and the Prophets: upon which account he calls their doctrine Lawless and Atheistical. Vales. by a Lawless and Atheistical doctrine under a pretext of Grace, they are fallen into the deepest pit of destruction.’ And let thus much be after this manner related, concerning these things.

THE SIXTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.

CHAP. I. Concerning the Persecution under Severus.

MOreover, when Severus stirr'd up Persecution against the Churches in every place throughout all the Churches; noble Martyrdoms were perform'd by the Champions of Religion; but [the number of the Martyrs] at Alexandria far exceeded the rest, the [...], lectis­ [...]imi, i. e. the choi­cest, 'tis the nearest significati­on of the word, but does not fully ex­plain it, for the word imports something more. See Viger. I­diot. pag. 195. choicest of the Cham­pions having been conveyed thither out of all Egypt, and Thebaïs, as to the noblest stadium of God; who in reward of their most patient suffering divers sorts of Torments, and several ways of death, were encircled with crowns from God: amongst whom Leonides, said to be the father of 'Tis a critical dispute whether the Greek word be [...], or [...] with an Aspirate, or a Tenuis: some say 'tis [...] because 'tis derived from [...] maturè and [...] natus, i. e. born in a fit sea­son: and for this reason the Med. Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. always write it with an Aspirate. Vales. Origen, was beheaded, and left his son very young. And here 'twill not be unseasonable briefly to relate what zeal and affection he bore to the [...] Eusebius always uses both for the Gospel, and the Christian Religion, as in▪ Chap. 3, and 5. of this Book, and this Rufinus renders divinae legis studia: Christoph. Sacrarum literarum studium; and Musculus translates it divin [...]m doctri­nam. Vales. Gospel from this time of his childhood, and for this reason especially, because his fame is much celebrated by all men.

CHAP. II. Concerning Origens virtuous course of life from a Child.

NOw should any one undertake accurately and at his leisure to commit to writing this man's life, he must say much, and a strict col­lection of all passages concerning him, would re­quire even a particular Subject; but our aim at present is to abbreviate most things, and in short, and as well as we can we will give an ac­count of some few passages concerning him; re­lating what things have been manifested by some Epistles, or by the discourse of those his Scholars, who were alive till our times. The passages con­cerning Origen (as one would say) even from his Cradle seem to me worth remembrance. Severus therefore being in the tenth year of his Reign, and Laetus being Governour of Alexandria and the rest of Aegypt; Demetrius also having lately taken upon him the Episcopal Office over the Churches there, after Julianus; when the flame of Persecution now raged grievously, and many thousands were Crown'd with Martyrdom, such a desire of Martyrdom possess'd the soul of Origen being yet very young, that he would expose him­self to dangers, and was very ready, and willing to rush forward, and leap into the combate: so that now he was not far from death, had not the Divine and Celestial providence, for the good of many, hindred and restrained his willingness to die, by [Page 92] his mothers meanes. First therefore she intreated him like a Suppliant, and beseech't him to take pitty of her motherly love: but when she saw him more intent upon his purpose, and when he under­stood his father was apprehended and imprison'd, he was wholly possess'd with a desire of Mar­tyrdom: wherefore she hid all his cloathes, and by this meanes necessitated him to abide at home: but he, seeing he had no way left, (the alacrity of his mind surmounting the ripeness of his years,) could not be at rest, but compos'd a most per­swasive Epistle concerning Martyrdom, and sends it to his father, in which he thus exhorts him word for word, saying, [Father,] take heed: let not your care for us make you change your resolution. Let this be noted as the first token of Origen's a­cuteness of wit from his childhood, and of his most sincere zeal for Religion. For he had already got no small stock of knowledge in the doctrine of the faith, continuing whilst he was yet a child, to exercise himself in searching the holy Scriptures; about which he was not a little laborious; his father having taken great care, both in in­structing him in the Liberal [...], are the words in the Ori­ginal: the Greeks, call [...], the Liberal Arts which children learn'd; but Phi­losophy, by the testimonies of several Authours is not included in that phrase, as Diogenes Laer­tius, Clemens Alexan. and Eusebius himself in chap. 18. B. 6. do assert; hence is that Ariston Ceus, a no­ble Philosopher, says, they who place all their studie, in [...], are like Pen [...] ­lopes Woers, who when they were repuls'd by the Mistress, courted the Maid. Oratours also exclude Rhetorick out of this number; but some include both, who mis­take; for the word [...] signifies aliquid in trivi [...] positum, vulgare, i. e. what is trivial and vul­gar; now Philosophy and Rheto­rick are more noble Sciences: hence Demosthenes uses [...] for mean and base Of­fices. Vales. Sciences, and also in these not slightly: where­fore he always perswaded him to exercise himself in the study of holy things, ra­ther than in the Learning of the Greeks, enjoyning it him as a daily task to learn some­thing by heart out of Scri­pture and repeat it: nor was the child unwilling, or slack in the performance, but most cheerfully laboured in these things, so that the simple, and common readings of the sacred Scriptures could not satisfie him, but he would search after something more, and even from that time busi­ly enquired into the more profound meanings thereof: Insomuch that he troubled his father by asking him, what was the true meaning of such a sentence of Scripture inspir'd by God. He seemingly before his face reprov'd him, admonishing him not to search into any thing above the capacity of his years, nor [to enquire] any further then the plain meaning [of Scripture.] But he privately with himself rejoyc'd exceedingly, and gave the greatest thanks to God the Authour of all good, that he youchsaf'd to make him the father of such a child: and 'tis reported, he has often stood by the child as he slept, and laying his breast bare, would kiss it with reverence, as if the sacred Spirit of God had been inshrin'd in it, and accounted himself blessed for his happy off-spring. These, and such like, they record, were the passages concerning Origen in his childhood: But when his father was now crowned with Martyrdom, he is left desolate (together with his mother and younger brothers, six in number,) being no more then seventeen years of age: Moreover his fa­ther's estate having been confiscate, he was brought into extream want of necessary subsistance, toge­ther with his relations, but God thought him worthy of his providence. And he obtains enter­tainment and rest from a woman who was very rich in respect of her estate, and very eminent otherways. Moreover; (who carefully mini­stred to a very famous man, one of that Heretical Sect then at Alexandria, but by birth an Antio­chian.) Him the foresaid woman having adopted for her son, kept him with her and shew'd kind­ness to him in a most especial manner. But Origen, though forc'd to converse with the said [He­retick] yet from that time shew'd powerfull proofs of his sound Opinion concerning the Faith. For when great multitudes of people, not onely Hereticks, but also them of our Religion, flock'd to Paul (for this was the mans name) be­cause he seem'd to be a person of great elo­quence; [Origen] could never be induced to assist him in prayer: always from a child observing the Cannon of the Church, and abo­minating the doctrines of Heresies, (as he himself in express words somewhere says▪) and having been educated in the Greek learning by his father at first, after his death he devoted himself wholly and more earnestly to the study of the Liberal Sciences; so that he was furnished with an The Med. Maz. Fuk. and Savill M. SS. read [ [...] i. e. no indifferent skill.] Vales. indifferent skill in the Art of Grammar; and having profest this Art soon after his father's death, he got plenty of necessaries, considering the age he was then of.

CHAP. III. How Origen being very young Preach't the word of Christ.

Some di­spute there is concer­ning the beginning of this chapter: Valesius (whom we follow) follows the division of Rufinus, but Christo­phorson begins it at these words [when Origen was 17 years old,] the Kings M. S. something lower then Valesius, [when he was 18 years old.] Fuk. M. S. at these words, [his father's estate being consiscate.] WHilest he yet applied himself to his School, (as he in his Writings re­cordeth,) no one residing at Alexandria This word [...] signifies originally, insono, to sound: this preposition [ [...]] makes it, be­ing a verb Neuter, to have an Active signification, and he is pro­perly said [...] who tells us any thing which he would teach us by way of instruction: hence it signifies to teach the rudiments, or first grounds of an Art, but pecu­liarly to teach the principles of Christian Religion which we call Catechising in English, fitly made out of the Greek. Some say Hea­then Authours knew not this use of this word, but they mistake, for Lucian uses it in this sence, to teach the Rudiments of any Art. Stephan. Lexicon. to teach the Principles of Chri­stianity, but all being driven away by the threatning per­secution: some of the Hea­thens resorted to him, to hear the word of God. Of which number he notes Plutarchus to have been the first; who when he [...], i. e. after he had lead a pious secular life: this word [...] is by Christians used to signifie secularem, vitam agere. For [...] is seculum, as Chrysostom uses it in his 23d Homily on the Epistle to the Romans, where he calls [...] them whom we call Laïcks, to distinguish them from the Clergy, in these words; [...]. In this sence must the word here be under­stood; one of Origen's disciples liv'd a pious secular life being a Laick, the other was a Clergy­man. Vales. had lived a virtuous secular life, was crown'd with divine Martyrdom. The se­cond was Heraclas Plutar­chus's brother, who having un­der him shew'd many instances of a Philosophical and severe course of life, was honour'd with the Bishoprick of Alex­andria after Demetrius. He was now in the eighteenth year of his age when he was master of the Catechetical School; in which he made great proficiency in the per­secutions during the time of Aquila's Prefecture over A­lexandria. At which time he purchas'd to himself a famous name amongst all them who were well affected towards the Faith, for the singular friendship and alacrity which he shew'd to all the holy Martyrs known, and un­known. For he convers'd not onely with such as were in bonds, nor with them who [Page 93] had been examined untill their last sentence, but with those blessed Martyrs also who, after that was pronounc't, were led to Execution; making use of great boldness he went to meet dangers: so that the furious multitude of the Heathens standing round, were frequently not far from stoning of him, when he boldly came forth, and with great freeness of speech communed with the Martyrs, and kissed them, had not he once miraculously escap'd, having the Right-hand of God for his assistance. The same divine and heavenly Grace at other times again and again (so that tis impos­sible to say how often,) preserv'd him from them who then lay'd wait for him, because of his ex­ceeding cheerfulness and confidence in Preach­ing the doctrine of Christ: Indeed, so great was the hostility of the Infidells against him, (because such multitudes were instructed by him in the things which appertain to the holy faith,) that having made a [...], i. e. having made a concourse: [...] signifies an Assembly or Tumul­tuous crowd met together to Plot mischief or raise Sedition. Ru­finus and Christophorson will have these words to be referr'd to [...], the Souldiers, which is im­proper and improbable; we must without doubt understand [...] the Infidells, as best agreeing with the propriety of the Greek, and sence of the place: but Nicephorus, worst of all, explains the place thus, as if Origens disciples, fearing the outrages of the tumultuous popu­lace, should get a guard of Sol­diers for their own safety. Vales. concourse, they set Souldiers to watch about the house in which he abode. And the Persecution against him waxed so hot daily, that all the whole City of Alexandria could no lon­ger secure him; he removes indeed from house to house, but is driven from all pla­ces, because of the multitude which through him were made Proselytes to the Di­vine Doctrine. For his com­mon actions contain'd the most admirable Rules of the truest Philosophy: indeed, (as the common say­ing is) such as his doctrine was, such was his manner of life, and such as his manner of life was, such he demonstrated his doctrine to be: by this means especially, together with the Divine power assisting him, he induced many to a zealous imitation of him. But when he saw many Scho­lars now flocking to him, (the exercise of Ca­techising being committed solely to him by De­metrius, who was Bishop of the Church,) sup­posing the teaching of Grammar disagreeable to his studies in divine Learning, he forthwith breaks off his Grammar School, as unprofitable and contrary to the Sacred learning. Then entring into a pru­dent consideration with himself, how he might not stand in need of assistance from others, he sold all the Volumes he had of [...], Rufinus translates, his Li­brary of Heathen Writers; better then Christophorson, who takes this phrase of Eusebius's to signifie onely the books of old Oratours: as if the word [...] were never us'd for Grammar and Philo­sophy, but for Orations onely; or as if Origen parted with his old Oratours onely, and not with his Grammarians, and Philosophick books also. Musculus says they were notes upon Authours ga­ther'd by Origen and compos'd into Volumes; but Rufinus's Version is most natural. Vales. Antient Heathen Wri­ters, which were most elabo­rately compil'd, and was con­tent with four Or, five [...]ce. oboli a day that were brought him by the buyer. For many years he persevered in this Philo­sophical course of life, de­priving himself of all This word [...] primarily sig­nifies any matter of which 4 thing is made; but amongst Divines it peculiarly signifies the filth and dregs of this world, out of which proceed unlawfull lusts, desires, and contempt of God. mat­ter [which might nourish] youthfull lusts; both under­going no small labour of severe exercise in the day­time, and also assigning to himself the greater part of the night for his study in the holy Scriptures, patiently per­severing in the most Philoso­phical life imaginable. Som­times he inur'd himself to the exercises of fasting; at other times to houres measur'd out for his repose; which he would by no means enjoy upon a bed, but made it his business to take it on the bare ground, for he, thought those Evangelical Words of our Saviour ought most especially to be observ'd, which exhort us not to The word [...], to have, is left out in the Greek; but must neces­sarily be added. have two coats nor to wear shoes, nor to be sollicitous about the cares of the time to come. More­over, with a courage far greater then his age, he pa­tiently endur'd both cold and nakedness, and came to that height and extremity of want, that he made those of his acquaintance admire exceeding­ly. And he caus'd grief in many, who entreated him that they might communicate of their estates to him, because they saw him bring such labours on himself for the Gospel's sake, but he remitted no­thing of his patience. 'Tis reported he walk'd upon the ground barefoot many years, in no wise wearing any shoes. And also for many years he abstained from the use of wine, and from all other things, ex­cept necessary sustenance, so that now he fell into a great danger of spoiling and turning his [...] here signifies the stomach; and [...], in Galen and Dioscorides, is us'd as here, for the spoyling, or turning, of the stomach, to wit, when it loaths any thing; in Latine 'tis termed subversio stomachi. Vales. stomach. He deservedly excited most of his Scholars to imitate him, shewing them, who look'd upon him, such examples of a Philosophical life; In­somuch that now, not onely the [...] the vulgar; [...], bo­mines ex trivio. vulgar unbe­lieving Heathens, but also they who were learned Philosophers, were The Med. M. S. leaves out [ [...],] i. e. by his meanes; and reads onely [...], by his doctrine; which is the better reading: for the place seems to be corrupted, this [ [...]] creeping out of the Margin into the Text; or out of the line following into, this place. The Kings, and the Maz. M. SS. alter nothing here, but the Fuk. M. S. reads [...]. Vales. through him brought to submit themselves to his doctrine. And it came to pass that they who receiv'd by him in the bot­tom of their hearts sincerely the faith of the Gospel, were famous in the time of the then Perse­cution: so that some of them after apprehension, finished their lives by Martyrdom.

CHAP. IV. How many of those who had been instructed by him, became Martyrs.

THe first of them was the aforementioned Plutarchus, whom (when he was led to Execution) That is Origen. he of whom the discourse is, ac­companied to the last hour of his life, and again wanted little of being kill'd by the men of his own City, as seeming the cause of Plutarchus's death. But then also the providence of God preserv'd him. Next to Plutarch the second of Origen's disciples, that was a Martyr, was Serenus. Who by fire gave a triall of the faith which he had re­ceiv'd. Heraclides was made the third Martyr of the same School. The fourth after him was Christo­phorson calls him Heronex. Heron. Both which persons were beheaded, the former of them while he was yet learning the Principles of Christianity, the latter when he was newly [...], i. e. newly Ba­ptized. [...] in Gregory and Chrysostom, and many other di­vines is pecullarly us'd in this sence to Baptize, and rendred by the Translatours Baptizare. Baptiz'd. Besides these, another Serenus, dif­ferent from the former, is declared the fifth Champion of Piety [who came out] of this School. Who, 'tis reported, was punish'd with the loss of his head, after a most patient suf­ferance of many Torments. And of women, [Page 94] I long since con­jectured it should be [ [...]] in one word, not [ [...]] two words; which conjecture I found confirmed by the Kings, and Fuk. M. SS. Rufinus agrees hereto, who translates this place thus, Sed & mulicres plurimae, in quibus Hera quaedam Catechumena. 'Tis a proper name derived from Juno, who is called in Greek [...]: whence comes [...], Heraiscus, the name of an Egyptian Philosopher, concerning whom see Suidas. The Greoks celebrate the memory of this Herais on the fourth, or rather the fifth day of March, as 'tis in the Menologie set forth by Canisius. I am not certain whether this person be the same with Irais the Alexandrian Virgin, who in the Roman Martyrologie is said to have suffered Martyrdom (to­gether with some others) at the City Antinoe on September 22. In Cardinal Sirletus's Menologie, at the fifth of September these words occur; Natalis B. Martyris Rhaïdis, quae igne consumpta est; i. e. the birth-day of the B. Martyr Rhaïs, who was burnt. This is the same whom Eusebius mentions here. Therefore there were three Heraïs's; the first is she mentioned in the Menaeum, at the fifth day of March: the second Heraïs is the Catechumen, of whom mention is made in the Me­nologie, on the fifth of September: the third Heraïs the Egyptian Vir­gin, born at a place called Tamma; whose fathers name was Peter, a Presbyter: she suffered Martyrdom when she was twelve years old, as 'tis in the M [...]n [...]um, at the 23d of September: where she is called Hieraïs: in the Roman Martyrologic she is termed, Iraïs. Vales. Heraïs, who as yet was learning the Principles of Christianity, did, as he himself somewhere says, depart this life, having received Baptism by fire.

CHAP. V. Concerning Potamiaena.

LEt Basilides be reckoned the seventh among these, who lead the most renown'd Potamiae­na to Execution, concerning which woman, even yet there is a famous report amongst the inhabi­tants of those Countries, for that she combated many times with her lovers, in defence of the chastity and virginity of her body; for which she was famous: (for besides the vigour of her mind, there flourisht in her a comliness of body:) who, having suffer'd many things for her faith in Christ, at last after grievous Torments and hor­rible to be related, was together with her mother Marcella consumed by fire. Moreover they say that the Judge, (whose name was This Aquila was Gover­nour of Aegypt, as Euscbius be­fore relates in the 3d Chapter: at which time Origen was in the eighteenth year of his age. Vales. Aquila,) after he had inflicted grievous stripes upon every part of her body, threatned at last he would deliver her to the The Gladiators were com­monly noted to be lascivious wicked men; therefore Aquila threatned to deliver her to them, thinking she, who had such spe­cial care of her chastity, would rather revolt from her faith, then hazard the purity of her bo­dy, by being put into their power. Gladiatours to abuse her body. But she (having con­sidered of the matter some short time,) being asked what her determination was, return'd [they say] such an answer, as thereby she seem'd to speak some thing which was accounted impious amongst them. Forthwith therefore she receiv'd the de­finitive sentence [of the Judge,] and Basilides one of the Military Apparitors, took and lead her to Execution: but when the multitude endeavour'd to molest and reproach her with obscene words, he prohibited them, [...] properly signifies to fright birds away, but here, as also in Demosthenes, it signifies to thrust aside out of the way, [...]. Demost. thrust­ing away them who re­proach'd her, shewing much commiseration, and huma­nity towards her. She taking in good part the mans com­miseration shown towards her, exhorts him to be of good courage, for when she was gone hence she would entreat her Lord for him, and within a little while she would make him a requital for what he had done for her. When she had spoken these things, they say she valiantly underwent death, hot scalding pitch being leisurely, and by little and little poured upon all the several mem­bers of her body, from the sole of the foot, to the crown of the head; such was the combat fought by this famous virgin. But not long after▪ Ba­silides upon some occasion being desir'd by his fellow-soldiers to swear, avouch'd twas not law­full for him to swear at all; for he was a Chri­stian, and he openly confess'd it: at first they thought he onely spake in jest; but when he con­stantly maintain'd it, he is brought before the Judge, and after he had made profession of his stedfastness before him, he was put into bonds: And when some of the brethren in the Lord came to him, asking him what was the cause of this sudden, and unexpected change, he is repor­ted to have said, that Potamiaena, three days after her Martyrdom, stood by him in the night, put a crown about his head, and said, she had entreated the Lord for him, and had obtain'd her request: And within a little while the Lord would take him upto himself. After these things the brethren imparted to him the [...], Euse­bius means Baptism. Seal of the Lord, and the day after, being famous for his testimony of the Lord, he was beheaded; they relate, that many more throughout Alexandria came thick at that time to the doctrine of Christ; to▪wit, such as Potamiaena had appear'd to in their sleep, and Rufinus translates this place so as to make Potamiaena Origen's scholar; neither dare we con­tradict him in that. For although Eusebius does not mention it particularly, yet we may gather so much from this his narration; for, reckoning up the Martyrs which were of Origen's School, he adds to them Basilides and Potamiaena; whence 'tis collected these two also were his disciples; and though we cannot for certain say Basilides was, yet 'tis probable Potamiaena might be one of them. Vales. invited them to be converted to the Gospel: But for these things let thus much suffice.

CHAP. VI. Concerning Clemens Alexandrinus.

There is little con­nexion be­twixt this and what he said be­fore. Cle­mens was not then the Cate­chist at A­lexandria; but Origen, Clemens's, Scholar. Moreover concerning Clemens, and his books, Eusebius writes in the foregoing book. And Caius in his little Labyrinth▪ reckons him among the Ecclesiastick Writers which writ in the time of Victor; the words of Caius are at the end of the 5th Book: there­fore Rufinus rightly places this and the following chapter in the 3d Chapter of this book where he speaks of Demetrius the Bishops committing the office of Catechizing to Origen. Vales. CLemens, who succeeded Pantaenus, was Ma­ster of the Catechetick School at Alexan­dria, till this time. So that Origen when he was a boy was one of his Scholars: Moreover, this Clemens, committing to writing the subject of that work of his entitled Stromateis, in his first Volume explains the series of times, and determines his computation at the death of Commodus. So that it is plain those books were elaborated by him in the Reign of Severus, the History of whose times this book of ours contains.

CHAP. VII. Concerning Judas the Writer.

AT this time also liv'd Judas another Writer, who commented upon the Seventy Weeks in Daniel, and puts an end to his computation of the times at the tenth year of Severus's Reign. His Opinion was that even at that time the coming of Antichrist, which was so much talk'd of, drew nigh. So great a disturbance did the raising of the Persecution then against us cause in many mens minds.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning the bold Act of Origen.

AT this time while Origen perform'd the Office of Chatechizing at Alexandria, an act of an unripe and youthfull mind was commit­ted by him, but which withall contain'd a most manifest token of Continence, and true faith; for he taking these words [some Matth. Chap. 19. v. 12. Eunuchs there are which have made themselves Eumuchs for the King­dom of Heaven's sake] in the more simple mea­ning, unadvisedly like one of his juvenile years, thinking it both his duty to fulfill our Saviours words, and also [considering] that during his youthfull years he was to converse not onely with men, but women about the things which appertain to God: that he might exclude the Infidels from all suspition of obscene slanders, his mind was full bent to perform really our Saviour's words, taking great care that it might escape the knowledge of many of his familiars: but 'twas impossible for him al­though he was desirous, to conceal such a fact. But when Demetrius understood it, as being then Governour of the Church there, he both greatly admires him for his boldness, and also, (having commended his alacrity of mind, and sincerity of faith,) forthwith encourages, and excites him to a more diligent imployment about the duty of Catechizing: for such at this time was [Deme­trius's] opinion of this act: but no long time after, when he saw Origen doe well, and that he was famous, and well reported of by all men; being affected with the frailties of Mankind, he endeavoured by letters, sent to all the Bishops in the world, to describe what was done as a most absurd action. Eusebius here laies open the the reason why Demetrius who was formerly so much Origen's friend, should now so persecute him by his letters; which was, because the Bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem had ordain'd him Priest. In which thing no small injury was done to Demetrius, both by the Bishops, and Origen; by Origen because he had yielded to be ordain'd by forreign Bishops; and by the Bishops, because by doing this they had translated the Catechist of Alexandria into their Church. Moreover, there arises a difficulty not to be pass'd by, viz. why two Bishops together should ordain Origen? By this means he had power to sit in two Churches, and to communicate with other Priests. See the 23. and 27. cha­pters following; where this con­jecture is confirm'd. 'Twas the [...]der when either Deacons or Priests were ordain'd, some Bi­shops should be present, that the ordination might be more solemn, (saies Innocentius in his Epistle to Marcianus the Bishop.) Photius, in Biblioth. Chap. 118. says that Theoctistus solemniz'd the ordina­tion, but Alexander gave his ap­probation. Christophorson also says these were the names of the Bishops; Theoctistus was Bishop of Caesarea, and Alexander of Je­rusalem. Vales. For the Bishops of Caesarea and Je­rusalem, the most approved and most famous of all the Prelates in Palestine, judging Origen worthy of dignity and the highest pitch of ho­nours, had by imposition of hands ordain'd him Presby­ter. Therefore when he had ascended to great honour, and had purchas'd a name amongst all men in all pla­ces, and no small fame for his virtue, and wisdom; Demetrius, being furnisht with no other accusation, made a great and malicious complaint against that act which he had done in his youth. Daring also to in­volve the Bishops in his ac­cusations who had promoted him to the Office of a Pres­byter. These things were done a little after. But then Origen [...] (the word here) has several significations; Rufinus explains it thus, when a man has free power to do a thing all impediments being remov'd; which ex­planation seems best; for, before Origen made himself an Eunuch, for fear of a scandalous report he had reason to be cautious of conversing with women, and teaching them; but when he had unman'd himself, as he did, he might do it freely without suspicion. Vales. freely and without any impediment perform'd his Office of teaching the divine doctrine to all that came to him by day or by night: laboriously spending all his time either in divine learning, or upon them who came to him. Rufinus's old book which was in the Church at Paris begins a new Chap­ter here, and so does Christo­phorson. Vales. After Severus had held the Empire eighteen years, his son Antoninus suc­ceeds him. At this time there [lived] one Concer­ning this Alexander, Eusebius, in his Chronicle, in the 12 year, of Severus's Reign, which was the second year of this Persecution, writes thus. Alexander was accounted famous for his confession of the Name of the Lord. Vales. Alexander, one of their number who had be­hav'd themselves manfully in the Persecution, and also by the providence of God had been preserv'd after their combats during their confessions; him we before manifested to have been Bishop of the Church in Jerusalem. Now because he was famous for his confession of Christ in the time of the Per­secution, he is promoted to the afore-mentioned Bishoprick, whilest Narcissus, his predecessour was yet alive.

CHAP. IX. Concerning the Miracles of Narcissus.

THe Inhabitants of this Diocess report ma­ny Miracles of this Narcissus, by tradition derived from a continued succession of the Bre­thren: Amongst which they relate such a like Miracle as this done by him; 'tis reported that on the great vigils of Easter the Ministers oil fail'd them, for which great pensiveness of mind having seized the whole multitude, Narcissus gave command to them who took care of the Lights that they should draw water out of the well which was nearest at hand, and bring it to him, which being forthwith done, he prayed over the water, and commanded them to pour the water into the Lamps with a sincere saith in the Lord. When they had done this also, contrary to all reason and expectation, by a miraculous and divine power, the nature of water was changed in­to the [...], into the nature or quality of oil; we should rather read it [...] the fatness of oil. Rufinus translates it thus, aquae naturâ in olei pinguedinem versâ, and in Moraeus's book 'tis so corrected in the margin; the Fuk. M. S. also reads [...]. Vales. fatness of oil. Some small specimen of this mi­racle then done, has been preserv'd amongst many of the brethren for a long time, even from that to our age. They also relate several o­ther things worth remem­brance cencerning this mans life. Amongst which there is such a [story] as this: Some vile fel­lows who could not endure this persons vigour, and his perseverance in leading of a pious life, fearing least when they were caught they should suffer punishment, because they were conscious to themselves of many evil actions, they [resolve to] prevent him by patching up a plot against him, and utter a grievous calumny against him. Then, that they might perswade the hearers to credit them, they confirm'd their accusations with oaths: one of them swore it was true which he said, or he wish'd he might be consum'd by fire; another, if 'twas not true, that his body might be wasted by some terrible unhappy [...] Ru­finus renders thus, Regio morbo: But Langus calls it morbus sonticus, the falling sickness. Christophorson, morbus scevus & faedus, an un­fortunate, or cruel and filthy disease; which comes nearest to Rufinus's Version: for by this morbus Regius he means the Leprosie, as ap­pears by what follows. For in the 10 Book and 25 chapter he speaks thus of Eunomius; vir corpore & anima Leprosus, & interiùs, exteriús­que morbo Regio corruptus. Gregorius Nyssenus also in his first Book against Eunomius certainly affirms he was a Leper. pag. 307. [...]. He who goes into another mans house not invited, and keeps not the filthiness under his own Roof, considers not what natural abhorrence they who are sound have towards those who are infected. Hieronymus in the Life of Hilario speaks thus, of his Scholar Adrianus, post aliquantum temporis computruit morbo Re­gio. Vales. disease; and the [Page 96] third, that he might be depriv'd of his sight: but none of the faithful gave heed to them although they swore thus, because Narcissus's continency was alwaies resplendent amongst all men, and his course of life most eminently virtuous and pious; but he being in-no-wise able to endure the wicked­ness of what had been said against him; and, be­sides this, for a long time being desirous to em­brace a Philosophical life; retired from the whole Congregation of his Church, and liv'd many years lying hid in solitudes and in obscure fields. But the great Eye of justice could not quietly wink at what was done: But was quickly reven­ged upon these wicked men by those curses with which they had bound them­selves, being [...] The interpreters seem not to have rightly understood this place. Eu­sebius's meaning is this, those perjur'd men did not forswear themselves against Narcissus, but against themselves, alluding with­out doubt to that of the Psalmist, he ly'd mischief to himself; For craft often falls upon the Author's own head, though he intends it for another. Vales. forsworn a­gainst themselves. The first therefore was burnt toge­ther with his whole fami­ly, the house in which he liv'd being burnt in the night by [...]; Nicephorus thinks 'twas the snuff or spark which fell from a candle. Christo­phorson and Musculus render the place, as if fire had fell from hea­ven upon this perjur'd man's house, but Eusebius confutes that, saying it came [...]. Vales. the fall of a little spark of fire upon it, which upon no occasion given came out of it. The second person's body was totally infected from the bottom of his feet to his head with the disease he had punish'd himself with. But the third, seeing the end of the two former and fearing the unavoidable ven­geance of the all-seeing God, [...] makes a publick confession. So the Kings M. S. reads, but the Med. and Fuk. M. SS. read [...] which tense the following word [...] confirms. Vales. publickly confess'd to all what they had plotted together in common amongst themselves, and he pin'd away with so great complaints, repenting of what he had done, and never ceas'd weeping so long, till he lost both his eyes. And these suffer'd such punishments for their lying accusation.

CHAP. X. Concerning the Bishops of Jerusalem.

WHen Narcissus was retired, it being al­together unknown where he was, 'twas the opinion of the Bishops of the bordering Churches that they should proceed to the Ordina­tion of another Bishop. This mans name was Dius. To him having presided no long time Ger­manio was successour. Gordius succeeds him, in his time from some place or other Narcissus a­gain appear'd, as risen from death to life, and is immediately invited by the Brethren to his Bi­shoprick; all men admiring him much more both for his retreat, and also for his Philosophick [course of life:] But above all for the revenge which was vouchsaft him from God [upon his Accusers.]

CHAP. XI. Concerning Alexander.

NArcissus being no longer able to officiate by reason of his very great Age, the provi­dence of God by Revelation made known to him in a vision by night, call'd the fore-mention'd Alexander Bishop of another Church to be coad­jutour in the discharge of his Office. By this Revelation therefore, as if he had been warned by some Oracle from God, Alexander made a jour­ney to Jerusalem from Cappadocia (where he had before been honour'd with a Bishoprick,) upon ac­count both of praying there, and also of seeing the places: The Brethren there receiv'd him most kindly; and would not permit him to return home, because of another Revelation, made known also to them by night, and a [...] Christophor­son, and Musculus alter the rea­ding thus [...]; which also Nicephorus follows▪ but the reading ought not to be alter'd. Rufinus very well cor­rects this story of Eusebius's (which he makes something ob­scure) thus. He sales that that Revelation concerning Alexander was sent by God to Narcissus and other holy men; but the voice was heard by all men; here Ru­finus, like a good interpreter, lightly corrects what the Authour saies amiss. Vales. voice most plainly utter'd to some who were the most eminent for piety amongst them. For it told them if they went out of their gates, they should meet him who was predetermin'd by God to be their Bishop. When they had done this with the Common Nicephorus and Hieronymus write that Narcissus also con­sented; which without doubt he did. Here are two things con­trary to the Canon of the Church committed in the Election of Alexander, first his translation from one Bishoprick to another, secondly that he was joyn'd as an assistant to another Bishop while he was yet alive which was afterwards forbid in the Council of Sardis. Vales. consent of the Bishops who Govern'd the Churches round about, they forc'd him of necessity to continue there. Indeed, Alexander himself, in his own Epistles to the Anti­noites which are preserv'd a­mongst us till this time, makes mention of Narcissus's pre­sidency together with him, writing thus word for word, at the end of that Epi­stle: ‘Narcissus salutes you who before me govern'd this Episcopal See, and he now is my [...] Rufinus and Christo­phorson doe not translate this place well; but Hieronymus renders it truly according to the sense, though not word for word, he translates it thus: Narcissus salutes you who before me govern'd this Bishoprick, and now governs the same in prayers with me. Alex­ander's meaning was undoubtedly this; that, Narcissus onely assisted him in prayers, but in no other part of the Office of Bishop. Which makes him adde that he was an hundred and sixteen years old, signifying thereby that he per­form'd the Office, and Narcis­sus being very old had onely the Title, and name of Bishop. Vales. Associate in prayer, being an hundred and sixteen years old, and exhorts you to be of the same mind with me.’ These things were thus done. Now when Serapion was dead, A­sclepiades succeeded in the Bishoprick of the Church of Antiochia. And he also was famous for his confes­sions in the time of Persecu­tion. Alexander also makes mention of his consecration, writing thus to the Antio­chians: ‘Alexander the servant and prisoner of Je­sus Christ, sendeth greeting in the Lord to the Blessed Church of the Antiochians. The Lord made my bonds easie and light in the time of my Alexan­der wrote this Epistle in the heat of Persecu­tion while he was [...] prison, be­fore he was elected to the Bishop­rick of Je­rusalem, as appears by these words, cal­ling himself the prisoner of Christ. Hence Eusebius does not well by reckoning, in his Chronicon, Asclepiades's Consecration in the first year of Antoninus Caracalla: for Asclepiades was Consecrated when Alexander was in Prison; which Eusebius in his Chronicle saies, hap­pen'd in Severus's Reign. Vales. imprisonment, when I heard that by divine providence Asclepiades (a man most fit by reason of the worthiness of his faith) was intrusted with the care over the holy Church of the Antiochians:’ he signifies that he sent this Epistle by Clemens, writing on this manner, at the End. ‘I have sent these letters to you, (my Lords and Brethren) by Hieronymus (in Catalogo) conjectures this to be Clemens A­lexandrinus. Clemens Alexandrinus certainly liv'd till the times of Severus, and travelled into these Countreys, as he witnesses in the first book of his Stromatewn, he was also a familiar friend of Alexander the Bishop, for to him he dedicates his work concerning the Canon of the Church, as Eusebius writes in the 13 Chapter of this book. Vales. Clemens a bles­sed Presbyter a virtuous and approved person; whom ye have known, and shall know better: who, while he was here, by the providence, and care of God confirmed and increas'd the Church of the Lord.’

CHAP. XII. Concerning Serapion, and his Books that are extant.

'TIs likely that other monuments of The Greeks write this name Se­rapion with an [...], thus, [...]; but the Latines with an e. So the Greeks write [...], but the Latines Serapin. This name is always writ thus in the Med. Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. Vales. Serapion's studiousness and learning are preserv'd a­mongst other men; but those [writings▪] onely came to our hands which he wrote to one Domninus, a man who in the time of Per­secution fell from the faith in Christ to the Jewish su­perstition. And what he wrote to Pontius, and Caricus Ecclesiastical men; and other Epistles to other persons. Another book also was compos'd by him, concerning that Book Intituled The Gospel according to Peter; which Book he wrote to confute the Errours in that, for some mens sakes in the Church of This Rhosse is a City of Cilicia▪ it lyes upon the right hand to them who sail into the Gulf of Issus. Some write this Cities name with a single s, So Stephanus in his tract De Urbibus, and Theodoret in his Religious History, Chap. 10, and 11. The name of this place in Plutark is corrupted; for he calls it [...], Orossus. Vales. Rhosse, who, taking an oc­casion from the foresaid Go­spel, inclin'd to Heterodox doctrines. Out of which Book 'twill not be unfit to set down some few words, in which he sets forth the opinion he had concerning that Book, writing thus; ‘For we, my brethren, doe admit of Peter and the other Apostles, as of Christ himself; but, like wise men we reject those writings which are forg'd in their The Maz. Med Fuk. and Savill's M. SS. read [...], i. e. in his name. So Rufinus seems to have read it. Se­rapion, also a little lower saies [...] Origen in his Commen­taries upon the 13th Chapter of Matthew makes mention of this Gospel of Peter. Vales. names, knowing that we have receiv'd no such [Books.] For I, when I came to you▪ thought all of you had adhered to the Right faith. And when I read not the Gospel which was offer'd me, that bears Peters name, I said, if this be the onely thing which seems to breed this dejected spirit in you, let it be read. But now understanding, from what has been told me, that their minds were covered with some Heresie, I will make haste to come to you again; wherefore, brethren, ex­pect me suddenly: But we, Brethren, have found out what heresie Marcianus was of, for he contradicted himself, not understanding what he said, which you shall understand by some things which have been written to you. For we have been able to Here Se­rapion saies he bor­row'd this Gospel from the successours of some of those He­reticks who were call'd [...] Doceti, of which He­reticks Marcianus was one; the Translatours take no notice in this place of that Hereticall Sect called the Doceti. They held that Christ was not really incarnate, nor did truely suffer, but in opinion onely▪ Clemens Alexandrinus in his 7th book Stromat. and also Theo­dores in his book Divinorum Decretorum mentions them. The Ring­leader of this Sect was one Julius Cassianus, as Clemens tells as in his third book. Vales. borrow this very Gospel of some who have been continually exercised in it, (that is of some of their successours who preceded Marcianus, whom we call Doceti, for many of [Marcianus's] Tenets are derived from their doctrines,) and read it; and we find indeed many things agreeable to the true doctrine of Christ: but some things that are particularly to be excepted against and avoided, which also we have here subjoyned upon your account.’ And thus much concerning Serapion's Books.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning the writings of Clemens.

CLemens his Rufinus very well translates this Title [...] thus, Opus varie con­textum. Plutark calls some books of his, which are part History, and part Poetry, [...] Eu­sebius takes the books to be so call'd from the divers sorts of matter which they treat of, and so says Baronius in his Annals, and Suidas in his History: [...], in Greek signifies Carpets or Hangings which were woven of divers colours: hence these books are metaphorically entitl'd [...], from the mixture of things they treat of: for he inter­mixes Grecian, Barbarian, and Latine Opinions, confutes Here­ticks, and composes a kind of a various History. Photius Bib­lioth. Stromata's, which are in all eight books, are extant amongst us, which books he thus intituled, The variegated contexture of [...] (which is the term here,) are such writings as contain onely the heads, and some particulars of some special things, or as Cicero in Verrem says, sunt scripta quae▪ domi continentur, nec in vulgus efferuntur: but now the word has got a larger signifi­cation. discourses of Titus Flavius Clemens concerning all things which appertain to the know­ledge of the true Philosophy: of the same number with these are his books intitul'd Institutions: in which he by name mentions Pantaenus, as be­ing his Master, and he writes down his Langus renders this word [...] Dictates, Musculus verbal­ly, Excerptions, Rufinus, exposi­tions, and Christophorson Com­mentaries upon the Scriptures, but none of them sufficiently explain the propriety of the word: [...] are the sence and meanings of Scripture. So Origen uses is in his 4th book de principiis Chap. 2. speaking of the double sence of Scripture, that is the literal, and the spiritual sence, and so also does Methodius, Epiphanius and Dionysius. Alexandrinus use the term. Vales. opinions he had receiv'd concerning the scope of Scripture, and explains his traditions: he has also an Hortatory discourse to the Gentiles. And three books In­titl'd the Tutor. And another book of his with this title, What Rich man can be sav'd? And a book concerning Ea­ster. Disputations also con­cerning the Fasting▪ And concerning detraction. And an exhortation to patience to those who were newly baptiz'd. And a book intitl'd the Eccle­siastick Canon, or against those who Judaized, which book he dedicated to Alexander the fore-mention'd Bishop. Moreover, in his Stromata he does not onely compose mis­cellaneous discourses out of the holy Writings, but he also mentions some things out of the Gentile Writers, if any thing seems profitable which was spoken by them: he also explains various o­pinions [which occur] in several books both of the Greeks, and Barbarians. He moreover con­sutes the false opinions of the Arch-hereticks. He laies open much of History, affording us large subject-matter of several sorts of learning▪ A­mongst all these he intermixes the Philosophers Opinions. Hence he fitly made the Title Stro­mata, answerable to the subject of the book. In the same book he produces authorities out of those Scriptures which are not allow'd of [as Canonical;] out of that which is call'd The Wisdom of Solomon, and out of the book of Jesus the son of Sirac. And out of The Epistle to the Hebrews. And out of the [Epistles] of Bar­nabas, Clemens, and Jude. He also makes men­tion of Tatianus's book against the Grecians, and of Cassianus, These words [...], made Rufinus believe, that the preceding person Tatianus wrote a Chrono­graphie as well as Cassianus▪ but we must in no-wise think that true. Vales. who also made a Chronographie. Moreover, he mentions Philo, Some Copies read, [...] but in all our M. SS. and in Ni­cephorus 'tis [...]. This Aristobulus here is that same Aristobulus the Peripatetick who wrote books of the Explications of the Mosaical Law to Ptolomy Philometor, as Eusebius records in his Chronicle, and he produces a fragment of these books, in his 8th book Praeparationis, Origen also mentions something of these books in his 4th book against Celsus, pag. 204. Vales. Aristobulus, Jo­sephus, Demetrius, and Eupolemus, Jewish Wri­ters; who all have prov'd by their writings, that [Page 98] MOSES, and the Originals of the Jewish Na­tion are ancienter then any thing of antiquity amongst the Grecians. And this mans books afore-mention'd are stuff'd with very much excel­lent learning, of several kinds. In the first of these books he saies concerning himself, that he was born next to the first successours of the Apostles. He promises also in them that he would write Com­mentaries upon Genesis. And in his book con­cerning Easter, he confesses he was constrained by his friends to commit to writing [for the bene­fit of] posterity those traditions which he had heard from his Ancestours. In that same book also is mention'd Melito, Irenaeus, and some others, whose explications he sets down.

CHAP. XIV. What Writings Clemens has mentioned.

THat I may speak briefly, in his For the explication of the ti­tle of this book; See the note (a) upon the 11th chap. of the 5th book, where 'tis prov'd by several quotations, that the true ren­dring of this title is In­stitutions, or, Infor­mations. Instituti­ons he makes This phrase [...], Langus translates compendio­sam enume­rationem, Musculus, contractas explicatio­nes. And so Christo­phorson al­so: but Rufinus calls them compendiosas dissertiones. [...] therefore is the same as [...], or [...]; which words Photius uses in that sence, that is explications, interpretations; though [...] signifies narrations onely. Vales. short explications of all the [...], according to Hesychius's interpretation, is rendered the written word, aliquid Scripto constans. Hesych. written word of God, not omitting those Scri­ptures whose authority is [...] are Scriptures, whose authority is que­stion'd, disputed of, and by some contradicted, we must not therefore call them Apocrypha, as Rufinus does, for Apocrypha are those which are certainly false and compos'd by Hereticks; but [...] are those which some approve of, others not: of which here Eusebius gives us a Catalogue, some of which in St Hieromes Catalogue are accounted Apocryphal, as the Revelation of Peter, which is concluded to be undoubtedly false. Vales. questioned by some: I mean the Epistle of Jude, and the other Catholick Epistles are those which were not written to certain persons, particular Cities, or Provinces, but to whole Nations, and the Universal Church. Thus Themison, one of Montanus's disciples, impudently wrote a Catholick Epistle, like an Apostle, to the Univer­sal Church, as Apollonius testifies book 5. chap. 16. Eusebius also mentions Dionysius Bishop of Corinth's Epistles to 4 Cities; which he calls Catholick. The Revelation of Peter which Eusebius mentions here, is quoted in Theodotus's excerptions which is printed at the end of Cle­mens's Stromata: hence 'tis plain that these Collections of Theodotus are nothing else, but f [...]agments of Clemens's Hypotyp [...]seωn. Vales. Catho­lick Epistles, and that of Barnabas, and that which is said to be the Revelation of Peter: And The Epistle to the Hebrews, which he affirms to be Paul's, but was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue; which when Luke had with much care and pains translated, he publisht it for the [use of the] Grecians. Wherefore we may find the stile of the translation of this Epistle, and Of the Acts of the Apostles to be the same. ‘This quotation Clemens has out of Macarius. But 'twas for a very good This reason also St Hierome confirms upon the first chapter of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, where he says that St Paul does not after his accustomed way prefix his name before this Epistle, be­cause he was about to speak of Christ, and thought it not fit to call himself an Apostle where Christ also must be stil'd an Apostle. Vales. reason, that this Title [Paul the Apostle] was not set before it, for he (saies he) writing to the Hebrews who were possest with a prejudice against, and a suspicion of him, very wisely did not prefix his name at the beginning, least he should cause an aversion in them to his Epistle. But a little after, he continues, saying; Now, as a blessed Presbyter said, because the Lord, being the Apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul through modesty, in that he was sent to the Gentiles, does not entitle himself the Apostle of the Hebrews, both in reverence to the Lord, and also because 'twas over and above his duty that he writ to the Hebrews, being the Preacher and Apostle of the Gentiles.’ Again Clemens in the same books writes a tradition con­cerning the order of the Gospels which he re­ceiv'd from the Elders before him, and it is this: ‘Those Gospels, he said, which contain the Genealogies were written first. And this was the occasion of writing Marks Gospel: when Peter Preach'd the word publickly in Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were there present entreated▪ Mark, (who had been his follower Though this word [ [...]] sig­nifies a far off; yet here it must be re [...]dred as [...] for a long time; which word Ni­ceph. Cal. uses in this place, in­stead of [ [...].] Vales. a long time, and remembred what he had said,) that he would write down the things which had been spoken. When he had compos'd the Gospel, he imparted it to those who had intreated it of him. Peter having understood this, All Co­pies read [...]; and so also does Ni­ceph▪ but Christophor­son boldly alter'd the reading, saying, that this passage impugned the autho­rity of the Gospel. Eusebius relates this story in the 2d book at the 14th chapt. o­therwise; saying, that Peter was migh­tily pleas'd with the Gospel which was written by Mark and confirm'd it, appointing it should be read in the Churches. But if we weigh the words of Euscbius and Cle­mens carefully, these places will appear not in the least contradictory, as Christophorson says they are: for although St Peter, as Clemens says, did neither openly prohibit no [...] further him; yet he may be said to have tacitly approv'd of what he had done. Rufinus has very well translated the place, whom we ought to imitate, because by his translation he explains it very well, rendring it thus, licet fieri ip­sum non jusserit tamen factum non prohibuit: by which 'tis very plain that he did not disallow of it. Vales. used no perswasives either to hinder him, or to incite him to it. But John, being the last of all, when he saw how those things which appertain'd to Christs humanity were already manifested in the Gospels, was mov'd [to the enterprise] by his This Hieronymus attests, speaking of John, in his Preface to his Commentaries upon St Matthew. Vales. acquaintance, and being inspir'd by the Spirit, he wrote a Go­spel concerning Christ's Divinity. Thus much Clemens.’ But again, the said Alexander in an E­pistle of his to Origen, mentions Clemens, and Pantaenus also, as men who were his familiars: he writes thus. ‘For this, as you know was the will of God, that the friendship, which was be­gun betwixt us from our Ancestours, should not onely remain inviolable, but also become more fervent and firm. For we know those blessed Fathers who went before us, with whom we, after a short time shall be joyn'd, I mean the truely blessed Pantaenus my Master, and the holy Clemens my Master, who also profited me much; and if there be any others like them, by whom I came to the knowledge of you, my most excellent Lord and Brother:’ And after this manner were these things. Moreover, Adam­antius (for that also was Origen's name,) in these times, when Zephyrinus Presided over the Church of Rome, Baronius places Origen's coming to Rome, on the year of Christ 220; which was the first year of the Reign of Elagahalus the Empe­rour: but we must in no-wise yield to this▪ seeing that Eusebius says he came to Rome in Antoninus Caracalla's Reign. Baronius also affirms that he came again to Rome in the Reign of Philip the Empe­rour, that is in the year of Christ 248: but we must not believe Ba­ronius in this; for Eusebius, who carefully and truely wrote the History of Origen, makes no mention of Origen's second coming to Rome: but rather seems to confute this of Baronius, saying thus, that Origen sent Letters concerning the profession of his faith▪ to Fabi­anus, who was Bishop of Rome, therefore Origen went not to Rome, as Baronius says, onely sent Letters to Fabianus the Bishop of Rome. But hence arises Baronius's mistake; he follows Porphyrius, who, in his life of Plotinus, mentions one Origen, who was Plotinus's and Herennius's School-fellow; but this is not that Origen Adamantius which we mean here; but another Origen, therefore we must carefully make a distinction betwixt these two Origens▪ which we will shew hereafter. Vales. travell'd to Rome, (as he himself some where says) having a desire to see the most antient Church of the Romans: where he made no long stay, but return'd to Alexandria. And with all diligence there perform'd his custo­mary duty of Catechist, Demetrius the then Bi­shop of those Churches exciting him to it, and little less then beseeching him to labour earnestly for the utility of the Brethren.

CHAP. XV. Concerning Heraclas.

BUt when he perceived himself not supplied with sufficient strength both for the more profound study of Divinity, for his researches into, and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, and moreover for the Catechizing of them who came to him; (having scarce time to breathe, so many flocking together to him; One company after another coming from morning to evening to his School;) he divided the multitudes, and electing Heraclas, one of his familiars, made him his assistant in Catechizing; a man who was very studious in Divinity, most eminently skilfull in other Learning; and one who was not unex­perienced in Philosophy. He commits the instru­ction of the New-beginners to him, but reserves to himself the hearing of those who had made some proficiency.

CHAP. XVI. What Pains and Study Origen bestowed about the Holy Scriptures.

ORigen now intended to make such accurate researches into the Holy Scriptures, that he learn't the Hebrew tongue. And bought the [...] Budaeus calls ex­emplaria, Copies, by which we doe any thing or make any thing▪ Valesius translates this Phrase [ [...]] the Au­thentick Scriptures; because, says he, Eusebius's meaning is plainly the same, for he implies thus much, that these were not the very first Copies which were writ by Es­dras; but Authentick in respect of the Septuagint, and other Tran­slatours; and he says this word [...] is commonly rendred in Latine Authenticas: but Christo­phorson translates it the old copies. Authentick Scriptures writ­ten in Hebrew letters, which were extant among the Jews. And he search'd after other Editions of Translatours of the Sacred Scriptures besides the Seventy. And he sought out some other Versions be­sides those [...] signifies proper­ly curru tero, hence [...] via curru trita, the high­way [...], hence Metaphorically (as the Latine word tritum does to which it exactly answers) it sig­nifies aliquid vulgare, that which is trite, or common; 'tis some­times written [...], as here in Eusebius. Common ones of Aquilas, Symmachus and Theodotion, different from them, which he, having searcht out, first brought to light, from I know not whence, nor out of what Corners, having been forgotten for a long time: concerning which, because he was uncertain who were the Authours of them, by reason of their obscurity, he onely Noted this, that one of them was by him found at In the Med. Maz. Fuk. M. SS. we find [...], but 'tis not so well as [...]; for [...] sig­nifies Ludi Actiaci, but Nicopolis had not it's name from those Games; but from the Promontory near which it was scituate, 'twas called Nicopolis near Actium. Vales. Nicopolis near Actium; and another, at some other place. Moreover in his Hex­apla of the Psalms, after those four excellent Editions, he adds Instead of [ [...], a sixth and seventh] I read [ [...], not onely a fifth and sixth, but also a seventh;] and judge this emendation to be altogether neces­sary. For Eusebius, having before spoken of a fifth and sixth Edition found by Origen, here adds this further, that Origen put a seventh into the Copies of his Hexapla of the Psalms. Therefore his Edition of the Psalms was seven-fold. But because this seventh Edition▪ had onely the Psalms, Origen altered not the Title of his Edition, to wit, Hexapla. This amendment and exposition of ours is evidently con­firmed by Johannes Zonaras, in his History of the Emperour Severus. See the Authour's words. But that which Zonaras there adds, to wit, that the seventh Edition was found at Jericho, is not expresly said by Eusebius here. Epiphanius (in his Book De ponderib.) and Athana­sius (in Synopsi,) affirm that the fifth Edition was found at Jericho in an Hogs-head: But Nicephorus thought that both the sixth and seventh were found there. Although the particular Authours of this fifth and sixth Edition are unknown; yet 'tis manifest they were Jews: which is asserted by Hierom, in his B. 2. Advers. Rufinum. Vales. not onely a fifth, and sixth, but also a seventh Version; and upon one of them again he has Noted, that it was found at Jericho in an Hogs-head, in the times of Antoni­nus the son of Severus. When he had thus Col­lected all these Versions into one body, and di­vided them into [...] (the term here) sig­nifies ver­ses, or such parts of the Text as con­tain an en­tire sense. Hierom was the first amongst the Latins, who divided his translation into verses: See his Preface to Isaiah. This he did in imitation of Origen, who had done the same in his Hexapla. Origen herein had a regard to the profit of the Readers. For what is thus distinguisht by verses, is both more easily understood, and also more readily gotten by heart. Besides, this distinction was altogether necessary in order to a comparing of the Greek Editions. Origen's example was after­wards followed by many; who did the same in the New-Testament, which Origen had done in the old. Vales. Verses, This was another of Origen's inventions, to wit, the placing of the translations one against the other; that so▪ if one differed from another, it might be presently discerned by one view. See Hierom, in his Preface to Chromatius, upon the Chronicles. Vales. See a Scheme of Origen's contrivance herein in Dr Cave's life of Origen, pag. 228. having placed them directly one against the other, together with the [...] (the term which occurs here) signifies properly Annotation▪ See B. 5. Chap. 20. note (d.) but Eusebius does here call the Hebrew Text, [...], because 'twas prefixt before the six Greek Translations; in like manner as in Comments the words of the Au­thour are prefixt before the exposition: this term▪ [ [...]] signi­fies not onely the exposition, but the text, at which the exposition is set. Vales. Hebrew Text, he left us those Copies which are call'd From this place 'tis evident, that this work of Origen's was called Hexapla, because there were six Greek translations contained in it, be­sides the Hebrew Text, which was written in two columns two manner of ways, in the one in Hebrew, in the other in Greek Letters. See Epiphan. Haeres. Originist. cap. 3. And the reason why this work was thus termed, is plain; for, as the Tetrapla were so called, be­cause they contained four Greek translations collected into one body; so the Hexapla were thus termed, because they comprehended six Greek Versions, to wit, that of Aquila, Symmachus, the seventy two, Theodotion, and lastly the fifth and sixth translation. But the He­brew Text must not be reckoned amongst the Versions; that being the original. Zonaras (in his History of the Emperour Severus) is of the same opinion with us, and explains this place of Eusebius (though he mentions not his name) as we doe. Vales. Hexapla. He The Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. have it written [ [...];] which is all one as if Eusebius should have said [ [...], i. e. after the Edition of his Hexapla, having prepared, &c.] For when Origen perceived that his Hexapla required too much cost and labour, he composed his Tetrapla, (which were more ready and▪ useful▪) having taken away the two Editions of the Hebrew Text, and the fifth, sixth, and seventh translation. Hi­therto it has been the opinion of the Learned, that Origen made his Tetrapla before his Hexapla: Usher (in Syntag. de Sept. Interpret. cap. 5.) and Salmasins (in his book De Lingud Hellenist.) are of this opinion. But this passage in Eusebius, (as it is corrected by the Authority of our M. SS. Copies) does wholly confute it. Vales. afterwards prepared a­part by themselves, Aquila's, Symmachus's and Theodotion's Edition, together with the Septuagint [and put them out] in his Tetrapla.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning Symmachus the Translatour.

MOreover, We must understand that this Symmachus, one of the Translatours, was an Ebionite. For there is an Heresie called the Heresie of the Ebionites, who say that Christ was born of Joseph, and Mary, and suppose him to have been meer Man, who also stiffly affirm that the Law ought to be strictly observ'd accor­ding as the Jews kept it, as we have before made known somewhere in our History. Symma­chus's Commentaries are even yet extant; in which he seems to confirm the foresaid Heresie, [Page 100] The Ebionites admitted onely St Matthew's Gospel to be genuine: but that Gospel of the Ebionites was not the same Gospel of St Mat­thew which we now have, but a forged one, and which wanted the Genealogie of Christ, as Epiphanius declares (in Heres. Ebion.) For the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which they made use of, (as Eusebius saies B. 3. chap. 25. where see note (c.) they called the Authentick Gospel of St Matthew. These words therefore [ [...]] we have rendred thus [disputing strongly against Matthews Gospel,] to wit, ours, and the true Gospel of St Matthew. From this Symmachus the Ebionites were afterwards termed Symmachians, because he strongly asserted their opinions. Vales. disputing strongly against Matthew's Gospel: Origen tells us that he receiv'd these together with other interpretations of Symmachus's of the Scri­ptures, from one Juliana, upon whom, he saies these books of Symmachus's devolved by right of succession.

CHAP. XVIII. Concerning Ambrosius.

AT this time Ambrosius ( [...] is elegantly us'd for alicujus partibus fa­vere, to be a favourer of such a mans par­ty: So Eu­ripides in Hecuba, when Po­lyxena speaks to her mother saying, ' [...], A­gamemnon is on our side [...] thus much for the Phrase. Now that Ambrosius was of Va­lentinus's Sect, or at least fa­vour'd that opinion, O­rigen testi­fies in the Proaemium of his fifth Tome of Explications on St John's Gospel, where he commends Ambrosius for relinquishing those dangerous principles. But some will have Ambrosius not to have been a Valentinian, but a Marcionist, and Epiphanius is of that opinion. Vales. who favour'd the Valentinian Heresie) being convinc'd by the truth Preach'd by Origen, and having his mind cleared as it were with light, assents to the do­ctrine of the Orthodox faith of the Church. And (Origen's fame being nois'd abroad every where) several men of great learning flock'd to him, in­tending to make tryal of this man's sufficiency in the Scriptures. Also infinite multitudes of Here­ticks, and not a few Philosophers, and them most famous, gave [...] here signifies to give attention to any one, so as to learn something from him, or to come often to any one, to learn as Scholars; and therefore he adds [...], almost like Scholars. Vales. diligent attention to him, almost like Schollars learning from him besides Divinity, those things which appertain to That is, Grecian Philosophy. External Philo­sophy: For he initiated That is, who were his Scholars. Vales. those, whom he per­ceived to have acute parts into Philosophical Lear­ning: Teaching them Geometry, and Arithmetick, and the other previous Sciences. Also guiding them into the knowledge of the various Sects a­mong Philosophers: explaining the writings that are amongst them, and Commenting on and searching into all things. So that even amongst the Gentiles this man was openly declared to be a great Philosopher. He also incited many of meaner capacities to the study of the Liberal Sciences: telling them that from hence would ac­crue to them no small fitness and preparation for the Contemplation of the divine Scriptures: for which reason he esteem'd the study of Secular and Philo­sophical literature most necessary for himself.

CHAP. XIX. What things have been recorded concerning Origen, [by the Gentiles.]

THe Heathen Philosophers who flourish'd in his Age are witnesses of his great proficiency in these studies: in whose writings we have found frequent mention of this man; [some of them] both dedicating their books to him, and also delivering up their private labours to his Censure, as to a Master. But I need not speak of these things, when as Eunapius, in his vitâ Philosopho­rum, saies this Por­phyrius was a Tyrian by birth, and was first call'd Malchus, which in Syriack signifies a King: but afterwards, by his Master Longinus a Platonick, whom he was an Auditour of at Athens, he was call'd Porphyrius, which signi­fies one cloath'd in purple, a king; because Kings onely wore the true [...]. St Hierom saies he was a Jew, born in the City of Batanaea; thence he calls him Bataneotes or Batanaetes: Socrates attests that this man was once a Christian, but could not endure the reproofs of those Christians who reprov'd him, and therefore turn'd an Apostate. Lactantius, who liv'd in his time, saies he wrote his books against the Chri­stians in the same year the Em­perour pull'd down the Churches; but St Hierom affirms he left his Master Plotinus, and Rome, and went to Sicily for his healths sake, and dwelt at Lilybaeum; where he wrote those books: but we ought rather to believe Lactan­tius, who liv'd in his time. St Au­gustine says there were two Porphyrius's; one who liv'd in Sicily a famous man; and ano­ther who wrote against the Christians: but all agree that 'twas one and the same Porphy­rius the Platonick who liv'd in Sicily and wrote against the Christians. Baronius's Annals. Porphyrius, (who liv'd in Sicilie [almost] till our Age, having writ­ten some books against us, and in them endea­voured to cavill at the holy Scriptures, when he had mentioned those men who made expli­cations upon them) was unable in any wise to cast any base aspersion upon their Opinions, and through want of Arguments betakes himself to railing, and reviles the Commentators. Of whom he attempts chiefly to re­proach Origen, saying, that when he was young, he knew him; but he unawares com­mends the man; partly by speaking the truth in some things where he could not do otherwayes; and partly by lying, wherein he thought he should escape being de­tected. Sometimes he ac­cuses him as being a Chri­stian; by and by, he ad­mires, and describes the ac­cession he made to Philo­sophick Literature. Hear therefore what he says word for word: ‘Some men, de­sirous to find out not a de­fection from the pravity of the Jewish Scriptures, but an explication [of the obscurities in them] have betaken themselves to ex­positions, which have no agreement nor coherence with those Scriptures, and which contain the Authour's approbation and praise, rather than a defence of those strange Sectaries. For, having boasted that what things were plainly spoken by Moses were obscure Riddles, allowing them the Authority, and quoting them as divine Oracles full of hidden Mysteries; And having [...]; their own judgment, and understanding being bewitched or misleaden by their pride. So Langus, Rufinus and Christophorson understand these words: but Valesius otherwise. He saies Porphyrius's meaning was this, that the Authours of these expositions through the lof­tiness of their words bewitch'd or inchanted the minds and judge­ments of their hearers, and then impos'd upon them with their ex­positions. Vales. bewitched the judge­ments and minds of men, with their pride, they af­terwards put forth their Expositions.’ Then after some few words he saies; ‘Let an example of this ab­surdity be taken from a man whom I saw, when I was 'Tis probable Origen was seen by Porphyrius in his younger daies, in the City of Tyre, where Origen, having left Alexandria, staid some time. For Porphyrius was a Tyrian; and he was a young man at the same time when Origen made his abode at Tyre. But Porphyrius could by no means see Origen at Alexandria when he was an old man; because when Origen left Alexandria he was not compleat fifty years old. Vales. very young, being a person then of great repute, and yet eminently renowned upon account of his writings which he left behind him, I mean Origen, whose re­nown is very much spread a­broad amongst the teachers of those Doctrines. For this Man, having been an We must believe Porphyrius, whenas he so expresly affirms here, that Origen Adamantius (so he was called) was an Auditour of Ammonius Alexandrinus. But amongst the Auditours of Ammonius there was at that time another Origen, School-fellow to Herennius and Plotinus; mentioned by Porphyrius (in vitâ Plotini,) by Lon­ginus (in his book de fine,) by Eunapius, and Hierocles (in his book De Providentia.) Baronius (in his Annals,) and Lucas Holstenius (in 2 and 6 cap. De vitâ Scriptisque Porphyrii,) supposed this Origen to have been the same person with Origen Adamantius. But I dissent from them, for these two reasons especially. (1.) Longinus the Philo­sopher (in his book De fine) reckons Ammonius and Origen, (Pla­tonick Philosophers) among those, who would not commit to writing their Opinions for the benefit of posterity, but thought it sufficient to deliver them by word of mouth to their Auditours. If any thing be written by any of them, (these are the words of Longinus,) as indeed Origen did wrote one book De Daemonibus, it is very little: for they seemed not to have made it their business to write books. These words cannot be supposed to have been spoken of Origen Adamantius, who, 'tis manifest, was a Voluminous Writer, as the Catalogue of his works recorded by Eusebius does manifest▪ Moreover, Porphyrius (in these words of his here quoted by Eusebius) saies Origen was eminently re­nowned upon account of his writings which he left behind him. (2.) Por­phyrius (in his life of Plotinus, not far from the beginning,) has these words: But when Herennius, Origen, and Plotinus, had agreed amongst themselves, that they would not publish the Opinions of Ammonius, which having heard from him they approved of as most especially pure and refined; Plotinus was as good as his word: but Herennius first broke the compact; and afterwards Origen followed him: But Origen wrote nothing besides a book concerning Daemons, and a piece in Gallienus's time, wherein he proved that the King was the onely Poet. This last book Origen wrote in praise of Gallienus the Emperour, to commend his Po [...]tical faculty. For Gallienus was given to Poetry; and there are some nuptial verses of his extant amongst the fragments of Petronius Arbiter. Now, if it be true, that this Origen, School-fellow to Plotinus, wrote this book un­der Gallienus the Emperour, doubtless he must necessarily be distin­guished from Origen Adamantius. For Origen Adamantius survived not the times of Gallienus, but died when Gallus and Volusianus were Emperours, in the year of Christ 252, having compleated the sixty ninth year of his age. Vales. [Page 101] of that Ammonius, who in our Age made a great proficiency in Philosophy; as for his knowledge in Philosophick Literature he pro­fited much by this Master. But as concerning a right course of life, he undertook a way quite contrary to him: for Ammonius, having been educated a Christian by Christian Parents, when he arriv'd to understanding, and, [the knowledge of] Philosophy, quickly betook himself to a course of life which was agreeable to the Laws. But Origen being a Gentile and brought up in the Learning of the Grecians, diverted to the The Heathens▪ call'd the Christians and Jews Religion barbarous, as Justin, Tatianus and others affirm: So they ter­med every thing which was not Grecian. Porphyrius calls this bar­barous Impudence, to despise the Roman Gods, and the Emperour's Edicts, to be forc'd by no Tor­ments or Persecutions to sa­crifice to those Heathen Gods. Vales. Impu­dence of the Barbarians. Being devoted to this [Re­ligion] he [...] Cauponari, to sell Wine or to keep a Victualling-house. Now because these Cauponae us'd to cheat the buyers by mixing and dashing their Wines, and so enrich themselves; this word is us'd to adulterate or corrupt; as here, and likewise in holy Writ, in the 2d Epistle to the Corin­thians Chap. 2. 17. we find, [...] not cor­rupting the Word of God. Vales. corrupted both himself, and also that proficiency he had made in Philosophick Learning: as to his manner of life he liv'd like a Christian, and contrary to the Laws: but in respect of his Opinions concerning things, and concerning God, he imi­tated the Grecians, [...]; Porphyrius takes this Metaphor from Huck­sters, who, by counterfeiting false wares for true, circumvent the buyers: for [ [...]] signifies to suborn, to lay one thing for an­other: hence [...], a Changling a false child left in the place of one taken away. Thus Porphyrius saies Origen plaies the Huckster. Vales. sub­stituting the sayings of the Heathens in the room of those strange fables. For he was continually con­versant in Plato's [works,] and in those of Origen quotes this Numenius in his books against Celsus: he was a famous Pythagorean, born at Apamea in Syria. Longinus, in his book De Fine, mentions these Philosophers, Numenius, Cronius and Mo­deratus; who, he saies, connected Pythagoras's and Plato's Opinions together. Cronius's book [...] is quoted by Nemesius in his book De Naturâ Hominis Cap. 2. Vales. Numenius and Cronius, and he revol­ved the works of Apollophanes is call'd by Stobaens, in his [...], the son of Aegimius. Vales. Apollo­phanes and This was Cassius Longinus who has onely one book exstant at this day, entitl'd De sublimi Genere dicendi; most men think he was a Grammarian: but he profess'd Philosophy, as Suidas and others testifie: he was Porphyrius's Master in Platonick Philosophy at Athens. He liv'd in Origen's time, and was younger then him, and died a long time after him, 'tis a wonder therefore that Porphyrius should reckon him amongst the antient Philosophers. Vales. Longinus, and This Mo­deratus was born at Gades now call'd Cales, an Island on the South side of Spain without the Straits of Gibraltar: he wrote eleven books [...]. Concerning Nicomachus; See Photius, and Suidas. Vales. Moderatus, and Nicomachus, and the works of all the famous men amongst the Pythagoreans, he also made use of the works of Chaeremon was a Stoick Phi­losopher: Origen, in his books against Celsus quotes Charemon's book De Cometis: he taught Philo­sophy at Alexandria, and Diony­sius Alexandrinus succeeded him in his School. See Suidas in Dio­nysio. Vales. Of this Chae­remon, see Martials Epig. book 11. Epig. 57. Chaeremon the Stoick, and of This Cornutus Aser Leptita­nus taught Philosophy at Rome in the Reign of Claudius Nero: he wrote many things concerning Philosophy, and Eloquence: Per­sius dedicates his fifth Satyr to him, as to his Master: he wrote a book De Graecorum Theologia, which is cited by the Etymologist in the word [...]. But the name is cor­rupted by Aldus Manutius and call'd Phornutus. Vales. Cornutus's books, when he had learn'd from them the Allegorical mode of ex­plaining the Grecian My­steries, he appli'd it to the Jewish Scriptures.’ These are Porphyrius's words in his third book of that piece he wrote against the Christians; who has said the truth con­cerning the mans hard study and great learning; but here­in he has plainly lied, (for what would not he say who wrote against the Christians?) in that he saies, that [Ori­gen] was converted from a Heathen to a Christian, and that Ammonius fell from a pious course of life to the Heathenish way of living. For, (as our History has be­fore manifested) Origen kept the Christian Doctrine re­ceiv'd from his Ancestours: And the precepts of the divine Philosophy re­main'd uncorrupted, and unshaken in Ammonius even till his death; as his works even to this pre­sent doe testifie; he being famous amongst most men for his books which he left behind him: as for example, that book which is thus Intitl'd concerning the concord of Moses, and Jesus, and those other books of his, whatsoever sort they be of, which are found▪ amongst lovers of learning. Let what we have said therefore be an Evidence both of the de­traction of this lying Accuser, and also of Origens great knowledge in the Grecian learning. Con­cerning which, Origen (in an Epistle of his, where­in he makes an Apologie for himself, to some who blam'd him for his too great studiousness about this sort of learning) writes these words: ‘When I imploy'd my self wholly in the Scri­pture, the fame of my progress in Learning spreading it self every where, there resorting to me sometimes Hereticks, at othertimes those who studied the Grecian Learning, and especially such as were skilled in Philosophy, I thought it convenient to make researches into Hereticks Opinions, and into whatsoever things are re­ported to be said by Philosophers concerning the truth: this we did, both in imitation of Pan­taenus, who profited many before us, (who was furnished with no small stock of provisions of this sort:) And also of Heraclas, who at this time sits among the Presbyters of Alexandria; We may from these words gather that Heraclas and Origen had the same Philosophy Master, which Porphyrius affirms was Am­monius the most famous Philoso­pher of that Age. Vales. whom I found with a Philosophy Master, under whom he studied diligently five years before I began to be an Auditour of his do­ctrine. And for this rea­son, he wearing a common habit before, put it off, and put on a The Philosophick habit was the Pallium, or Cloak; which was the usual Badge of the Greek Phi­losophers, different from that which was worn by the ordinary Greeks; which those Christians still kept to, who before their conversion had been professed Phi­losophers: this our Eusebius affirms of Justin the Martyr (B. 4. Chap. 11.) [...], one that in a Philosophick habit was an assertour of the divine Word. Philosophical habit, which he Hence we may conjecture that the Clergie had at that time no peculiar habit; seeing that Heraclas, a Presbyter of Alexandria and afterwards Bishop, always retain'd his Philosophick habit. Vales. retains [Page 102] to this day, neither does he desist from a studious reading of the books of the Learned Grecians.’ This he said in defence of the studious diligence he used about the Grecian [Learning.] At this time while he made his abode at Alexandria there came a Souldier who deliver'd Letters to Deme­trius, the Bishop of that Church, and to the then Prefect of Aegypt, from the Governour of Arabia, that they should send Origen to him with all speed that he might impart to him his doctrine. He was therefore sent by them, and came to Arabia. But in a little time, having finisht those things which were the cause of his coming, he again re­turn'd to Alexandria. Within some interval of time, there being kindled in Alexandria no small war, he withdrew out of Alexandria, and judging there was no safe dwelling for him in Aegypt, he went to Palestine, and made his abode in Caesarea; where the Bishops of those parts intreated him, although he was not yet Ordain'd Priest, to discourse and to expound the holy Scriptures Hence 'tis conjectur'd, that Origen Catechiz'd at Alexandria in a private Auditory, and not publickly in the Church; for had he before taught in the Church, Demetrius could not have brought this as an objection against Alex­ander, and Theoctistus. Where­fore Rufinus mistakes, who sa [...]es Demetrius permitted him to Ca­techize publickly in the Church. Vales. publickly in the Church. This will be evidene't by what Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus Bi­shop of Caesarea wrote con­cerning him to Demetri­us, who thus excuse him. ‘[Your He writes to Demetrius the Bishop in the third person; un­derstanding [...] Your Holiness. And without doubt had we the whole Epistle we should find these words to precede. Vales. Holiness] has added in your Letters that this thing was never heard of nor done till this time [to wit,] that Laicks should Preach in the pre­sence of Bishops. I Alexander Bishop of Jeru­salem was a very eloquent man, and without doubt wrote this E­pistle himself, which makes him use the first person here: but the letter was writ both in his name, and in the Bishop of Caesarea's. Vales. know not how you came so ap­parently to misrepresent the truth: For they are in­vited to Preach to the peo­ple, (when they are found fit to profit the brethren) by the holy Bishops. For example, Euelpis [was in­vited to Preach] by Neon at Laranda: and so was Paulinus by Celsus at Iconium. And Theodorus by Atticus at This Syn­nada is a very noted City of Phrygia, and as Ste­phanus, in his book De Urbibus writes, it ought to be written with a dou­ble (n,) though some write it with a single one, it is deriv'd from [...] c [...] ­habito, to dwell together, because many flock'd from Macedonia to dwell together there, from whence it was first call'd [...] but was corrupted by the interposition of ( [...]) There is also some old pieces of Caracalla's Coin with this inscription [...] Hence it appeares these Synnadenses were Doricks mix'd with Ionians, for they were originally Macedoni­ans, and therefore Doricks, though they liv'd in the midst of Ionia. Vales. Syn­nada, who were our blessed Brethren. And 'tis not incredible that the like was done in other places, though we never knew it.’ On this manner was the above nam'd Origen honour'd▪ though he was yet Origen was about 30 years old when he came into Palestine▪ for according to our Eusebius's account in this place, he went thither about the end of Antoninus Caracalla's Reign. Vales. young, not onely by his fa­miliars, but also by forreign Bishops. But De­metrius again recalling him by Letters, and urging his return to Alexandria by persons that were Deacons of that Church, he return'd thither, and there executed his accustomed Office.

CHAP. XX. What Books are now extant of such as Wrote in these times.

AT this time flourish'd many Learned Eccle­siastick persons, whose Epistles, which they wrote to one another 'tis an easie thing to meet with, being preserv'd till this present. For they have been kept even in our Age in the Library of the City Aelia, which was built by Alexander, who presided over the Church which is there▪ Out of this Library we our selves have gather'd to­gether matter for this subject now in hand▪ Beryllus, Bishop of Bosira in Arabia, being one of them, left, together with his Epistles and Com­mentaries, Christo­phorson translates this phrase [...] libellos ex variis Scriptori­bus excer­ptos, tan­quam flos­culos i. e. books like flowers, selected out of divers Authours. 'Tis true, the Antients call'd [...] things selected, or excerptions out of any Authour, such are Origen's Philocaliae: Such also are Apulcius's libri floridorum. But this signification does not well agree with this place; because Eusebius does not mention that Beryllus selected them out of any books. And likewise he adds [...] Se­veral. And 'tis not likely that Beryllus should compose several books upon so slight an Argument: therefore 'tis better to translate it (as we have done) elegantis ingenii monumenta, i. e. monuments of his Polite Ingenie. He seems to mean Hymins and Poems. And in this sense, P [...]rynicus uses this word in his Epistle to [...] Vales. Several other monuments of his Polite Ingenie. In like manner did Georgius Syncellus, Nicephorus and others affirm that this Hip­polytus was Bishop of Portua: Theodoret who quotes him much, terms him a Martyr, and a Bishop, but does not mention where: Gelasius, in his book, De Duabus Naturis stiles him a Martyr, and calls him Bishop of the Metropolis of Arabia. Vales. Hippollitus, who presided over another Church somewhere; there came also to our hands a disputation attem­pted by one This Sect of the Cataphrygae was divided into two parts; the leader of one part of them was Proclus, and over the other parties Aeschines was their chief, as Tertullian attests. Those which adher'd to Proclus were call'd [...] or Proclus's men; as Tertullian again witnesses. Hence we may safely conclude, that Proclus was a Grecian. Besides, Caius wrote against this Proclus in Greek: where­fore we must not assent to Baronius, who says that this Proclus and Proculus the African, who as Tertullian saies wrote against the Va­lentinians, were one and the same person. Now if these were one and the same, why should Tertulliam call one of them Proculus a Latine name, and the other [...] in Greek: concerning Caius's book against Proclus, see Photius's Biblioth. But Theodoret instead of [...] writes [...], this book of Proclus was a Dialogue in which Proclus was brought in defending Montanus's Prophecie. See the 3d book of this Ecclesiastick History, Chap. 31. Vales. Caius, a most eloquent man, at Rome in the times of Zephyrinus, against Proclus who was a defender of the Cataphrygian Heresie. In which dispute, he silencing the adversaries rashness and boldness in composing new Scri­ptures, mentions onely thirteen Epistles of the divine Apostle [Paul,] not accounting that to the Hebrews amongst the rest: Indeed even till this present 'tis thought by some of the Romans that that Epistle was not written by this Apostle.d Eusebius before in the 3d book, and 3d Chapter disputing about Pauls Epistles, says that some rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews as false, averring that the Church of Rome question'd the Authority of that Epistle. Amongst the Roman Authors, who doubted the Autho­rity of this Epistle, Hippolytus the asore nam'd Bishop of Portu [...] may be reckoned; for he in his book against Heresies, has affirm'd that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not Paul's the Apostles. Vales.

CHAP. XXI. What Bishops were eminent in those times.

BUt now Macrinus succeeded Antoninus after he had Reign'd seven years and six moneths, who having continued [Emperour] about a year, another Antoninus again assumes the Ro­man Empire. In the first year of his Reign Ze­phyrinus Bishop of Rome departed this life, having held that [Episcopal] charge eighteen years compleat. After him Callistus presides in the Bi­shoprick. He having survived five years, leaves the [care of the] Church to Urbanus. After this Alexander the Emperour succeeds in the Ro­man Empire, Antoninus having Reigned onely four years. At this time Philetus succeeded As­clepiades, in the Church of Antioch: Now [A­lexander] the Emperour's mother whose name was Mamaea, being a most pious woman, and Re­ligious [Page 103] in her conversation, (Origen's same be­ing now every where so spread abroad, that it came even to her eares,) was mightily desirous to see the man, and to make tryal of his knowledge in Divine matters, which was so admir'd by all men: She therefore making her abode at An­tioch, sends a military guard for him: when he had spent some time with her, and had demon­strated to her most things which tend to the glory of God, and the power of the divine Doctrine, he hastned to his wonted charge.

CHAP. XXII. How many of Hippolytus's works are come to our hands.

AT this time also Hippolytus, amongst many other works of his, compil'd a book also Hippoly­tus's Ca­non Pascha­lis is ex­tant till this day, which Jo­seph Scali­ger has in­serted into his book De Emen­datione Temporum. And Aegi­dius Bu­cherius translated it into Latine, but neither of them takes notice that this Canon is onely a part of the book which he wrote Concerning Easter. And through his inadvertency Scaliger blames this place of Eusebius, and saies that Hippolytus's Canon does not end at the first year of Alexander's Reign, but begins there: which is really true: but Eusebius does not speak concerning the Canon which Hippolytus annex'd to his books, but concerning the book it self, which ends at the first year of Alexander the Emperours Reign. Vales. concerning Easter. In which having explain'd the Series of Times, and set forth a Cannon of sixteen years, concerning Easter, he determines his computation at the first year of Alexander the Emperour. Now the rest of his works, which came to our hands are these: Upon the six daies Work. Upon those things He means the second Chapter of Genesis, as Scaliger notes. Where also he reproves Hieronymus as if he had been ignorant of it, but unde­servedly: for when Hieronymus says he wrote upon Genesis, he means as well his books on the Hexameron, as those on the Post-Hexameron. Vales. which followed upon the six daies Work. Against Marcion. Theodoret in his book call'd Eranistes quotes this book of Hippo­lytus. Vales. Upon the Canticles. Upon some Chapters of Ezekiel. Concerning Easter. Concerning this book of Hippolytus's, See Photii Biblioth, Chap. 121. This book was written against 32 Heresies; the first of which was the Dosithean, the last the No [...]tian Heresie. Which He­resies Irenaeus having confuted in his Sermons, Hippolytus his Schollar wrote an Epitome thereof. Stephanus Gobarus has often quoted this piece of Hippolytus's, as appears from his 7, 10, and 13. chap. B. 2. Vales. Against all Heresies. And many more which you may find preserv'd amongst many men.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning Origen's Studiousness, and how he was honour'd with the dignity of Priesthood.

Here the Maz. M. S. and that most excel­lent Copie of Rufinus which we have often quoted, begin this chap. 23. But Rufinus's book instead of chap. 23. calls it the 20. Hieranymus takes these words [ [...]] in a bad sence, as if Origen had set himself to write in emulation of Hippolytus; and referrs [...] to Hippolytus▪ which is not so, for we must understand [...] which thing is common, and so the sence is plain, to wit, from this time. Vales. ABout this time was the beginning of Ori­gen's writing Commentaries upon the holy Scriptures: Ambrosius chiefly inciting him to it by innumerable instigations, not with supplications and bare words onely, but also with most plenti­full supplies of all things necessary: For there were alwaies by him when he dictated, more in number then seven Notaries, which at set times chang'd courses with one another. Neither was there a less number of them which wrote books fair, together with Girls who had been instructed to write nearly and handsomely. To all these Ambrosius libe­rally afforded a sufficient supply of all things ne­cessary. And indeed he conveigh'd into Origen an unspeakable alacrity, in his study and labour about the divine Oracles. By which means chiefly he induced him to write Commentaries: whilest these things were in this posture, Pon [...]ianus succeeds Urbanus who had been Bishop of Rome eight years: And Zebinus [succeeds] Phi­letus in the Bishoprick of Antioch. At which time, (the necessitie of the Rufinus's Version may here well serve instead of a Com­ment upon this place, who has rendred it thus, he was intrea­ted by the Churches of Achaia to come thi­ther to con­vince Here­ticks, who grew strong in those parts. So also says Hieronymus in his Ca­talogue. Vales. Churches Affaires constraining him) Origen made a journey through Palestine into Greece; And received the Order of Priesthood at Caesarea, by the imposition of the hands of the Bishops there. But what combustions were hereupon rais'd concerning him, and what Eusebius ought here to have recited the decrees of the Bishops against Origen, as being matter most accommodate to an Ecclesiastick History; and might better have omitted other things concerning him, and have inserted these, as most pertinent: but we ought not to blame Eusebius for this omission here, because it had been super­fluous, having before declared them in his second book De Defen­sione Origenis: which books some men, through their immoderate hatred to Origen, envied us the use of. There is nothing of Eusebius, and Pamphilus the Martyrs Apologia Origenis extant, except some fragments which Photius preserv'd as it were from shipwrack. He, in his Biblioth, chap. 118. says that there were two Synods summon'd against Origen; the first decreed that Origen should be banisht out of the Church of Alexandria, but did not divest him of his Priest­hood: the second, which was assembled by Demetrius, consisting of Aegyptian Bishops, degraded Origen from the Office of a Priest, to which Decree almost all the Bishops of the world subscrib'd, as Hie­ronymus says, whose words Rufinus relates in a Apolog. Hironymus also adds that he was not onely depos'd but also excommunicated by Demetrius. But this Decree of Demetrius's was ineffectual, for two reasons, first, because he issu'd it out against him, in his absence, with­out any legal citation; and secondly, because this sentence was not confirm'd by the Authority of many Bishops, particularly not by the Bishop of Rome. Wherefore Origen still retain'd his Priests-Office, and continued Preaching in the Church, as Eusebius witnesses in this book, and Pamphilus in his first book Apologiae Originis. Vales. Decrees were made by the Prelates of the Churches upon these commotions: And what ever else he, continuing to be of great esteem con­tributed to the Preaching of the divine Word: [these things] requiring a distinct Volume, we have in some measure declared in the second book of our Apologie, which we wrote in defence of him.

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning the Expositions he made at Alexandria.

BUt 'twas necessary for us to have annex'd these He means, he ought to have ad­joyned these things to what he has said in his second book of his Apology. Vales. to the things afore-mention'd; for in his sixth book of his Expositions upon John's [Gospel] he declares he com­pos'd those five first books while he yet liv'd at Alex­andria. But onely There were thirty four books of Origen's Expositions upon John, as Hieronymus says; but onely nine are now remaining, which are still divided into thirty­four. Vales. twenty two books of his works up­on that Gospel are come to our hands. In his ninth book also upon Genesis (for there are twelve in all) he manifests that he did not onely write those first eight books at Alexandria, but also those Com­ments upon the twenty five first Psalms: And moreover▪ those Comments upon the Lamen­tations, five books of which came to our hands. In which books there is some mention of his [Page 104] books upon the Hierony­mus in his Apology makes this short Cata­logue of Origen's Works [...] 13 books upon Genesis, two books of Mystical Homilics: Excerptions upon Exo­dus: Excerptions upon Leviticus: Also Monobiblia: four books De Principiis: two books concerning the Resurrection; and two other Dialogues concerning the Resurrection. Methodius the Bishop wrote an excellent book of the Resurrection, against Origen's books upon the same subject, as Hieronymus in his book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, and Maximus in his Scholia upon Dionysius's Ecclesiastick Hierarchy, do testifie: there are excellent fragments of this Methodius's book of the Resurrection, in Epiphanius against the Origenists, and in Photius's Biblioth. And I think 'tis for no other reason, that Eusebius never mentions this Methodius, (whereas he mentions several Ecclesiastick Writers far inferiour to him,) but this, that he wrote against Ori­gen: Eusebius, being a very great favourer of Origen, could not endure this man's name in his History, because he was not his friend. Vales. Resurrection: those also are two Volumes. Indeed he also wrote his books De Principiis, before his removal from Alexandria. He also compos'd those books intitl'd Hieronymus in his Epistle to Magnus the Roman Oratour, says Origen wrote these ten books in imitation of Clemens; for the Argu­ment of these books and Clemens's afore-mention'd are alike. Hierom also cites a piece of these books in his Apology against Rufinus not far from the beginning. Vales. Stromata, which are ten in Number, in that City in the Reign of Alexander, as his Translatours did not understand what these [...] were: [...] in this place is the same as [...], written with his own hand. The Lawyers call a Will [...] which is written with the Testatour's own hand, and not onely confirm'd by his subscription. So Eusebius here calls those notes [...] ▪ which were written with Origen's own hand, and either prefix'd or annexed to every Tome. For 'twas usuall for Authours to note something with their own hands either at the beginning, or end of their books. Vales. Annotations written with his own hand, and prefixt before those books do manifest.

CHAP. XXV. After what manner Origen has mentioned the Books of the Old and New Testament.

BUt in his Explication of the first Psalm, he has exhibited a Catalogue of the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, writing on this manner word for word. ‘This whole quotation is to be seen in Origen's Philocalia; chap. 3. but that place of the Philocalia must be corrected by this, for there [...] instead of [...] is read. And this is the common mistake of all Editions that they writ [...] when the word fol­lowing begins with a vowel. But in all good Copies [...] is written, although a vowel follow. Vales. We must un­derstand that, as the He­brew Traditions say, there are Victorimus upon the Apoca­lyps says, there are twenty four books of the Old Testament; twen­ty two you may▪ find io Theodotus his Excerptions. Some reckon'd twenty two, some twenty four books of the Old Testament: hence arose this different account saith Hieronymus, because some rec­kon'd the book of Ruth, and that of the Lamentations of Jeremiah in the Catalogue of Scriptures apart by themselves. Others, as Hilarius says, added Tobias, and Judith to make 24 books of the Old Testament; Epiphanius says, that some reckon'd up twenty seven books of the Old Testament. Vales. twenty two bookes of the Old Testament; just so many in number as they have letters.’ A little after he adds, saying; ‘These are the twenty two books ac­cording to the Hebrews. That which we give the Title of Genesis to, is by the Hebrews, from the be­ginning of the book en­titl'd Bresith, that is, in the beginning. Exodus, Velles­moth, that is, these are the names. Leviticus, Vaicra, that is, and he hath called. Numbers the Hebrews call I know not what Copy Ro­bert Stephens follows, who here reads it [...]. for in the Kings, the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. [...], is the reading. Vales. Hammisphecodim. Deu­teronomie, Helle-haddaba­rim, that is, these are the words. Jesus the Son of Nave, [in Hebrew] Je­hosue Ben Nun. Judges, Ruth, are by them compre­hended in one book, and call'd Sophetim. The first and second of Kings, a­mong them one book, termed Samuel, that is, called of God. The third and fourth of Kings, amongst the Hebrews one book, call'd Vammelech David, that is, the Kingdom of David. The first and second book of Chronicles, in one Volume, call'd Dibre Hajamim, that is, The words of Days▪ Esdras the first and second book, by them made one book call'd, Esra, that is, A helper. The book of Psalms, Sepher Tehillim [in Hebrew.] So­lomon's Proverbs, in Hebrew, Mis [...]oth. Eccle­siastes, Coheleth. Some books adde this clause, [...], not as some think the Song of Songs. This we have omitted in our Edition, but 'tis in the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. and also in the King's Copy, and in Rufinus's Translation of this place. Vales. The Song of Songs, Sir▪ H [...]si­rim. In this Catalogue the book of the twelve minor Prophets is left out. Hence it comes to pass that although Origen promises to reckon up twenty two books, we can find but one and twenty. In Rufinus's Version this book is reckon'd immediately after the Canticles. So also Hilarius and Cyrill of Jerusalem doe reckon them. The books of the holy Scripture are recounted here in a different order to Epiphanius, Hieronymus, and Melito's recko­ning of them: but Hilarius in his Prologue to his Commentaries upon the Psalmes, agrees all a­long with Origen; and no won­der, for that Prologue is al­most all of it a Translation of Origen's Comments upon the Psalms. Vales. Esaias, Iesa [...]a, Hie­rimas with his Lamenta­tions, and his Epistle, all in one book, call'd Jermia. Daniel, [The Hebrews also call] Daniel. Eze­chiel, Jeezchel, Job, Job; Ester, Ester also among the Hebrews. Besides these there are (but not of their number) the Maccabees, which are intitl'd Sarbet Surbane-el.’ These Origen has set forth in the afore­said work. But in the first book of his Comments upon Matthew's Gospel, obser­ving the Canon of the Church, he attests there are onely four Gospels, in these words: ‘As I These are Origen's own words, and so Rufinus, Langus and Musculus Translated them: one­ly Christophorson thought they are Eusebius's own words: to whom we cannot consent, although in the Maz. and Med. M. SS. after the word [ [...]] there is a final distinction; but in the King's Copy the whole clause is con­tinned without any distinction. Moreover, besides this place quo­ted by Eusebius, Origen also in another place (that is, in the be­ginning of his Comments upon Luke) says there were four Go­spels onely which were allowed by the Catholick Church. Vales. have un­derstood by Tradition, there are four Gospels, which, and onely which are to be allow'd with­out contradiction by the Church of God under hea­ven. As for the first, 'twas written by one Mat­thew formerly a Publican, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, he publisht it, being written in He­brew, for the sake of those Jews who believ'd. The second is Mark's Gospel; who wrote it as Peter ex­pounded to him; whom also he confesses to be his Son, in his Catholick E­pistle, and in these words, 1 Pet. 5. 13. The Church which is at Babylon elected together with you saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my Son. And the third is the Gospel according to Luke, which is commended by Paul, he wrote it for the sake of the Heathens. Lastly St John's Gospel. And the same Writer in the This place of Origen, which Eusebius here quotes, is in the Preface to the fifth book of his Ex­positions upon John; the greatest part of this Preface is extant in the fifth Chapter of his Philocaliae, Therefore this place here quoted by Eusebius must be joyn'd to that fragment. In that Preface Ori­gen raises this dispute, whether many books are to be written con­cerning Sacred things? And he proves it from Ecclesiastes 11. 12. Also he brings for proof the ex­amples of holy men, Prophets and Apostles, who wrote very little. But these examples the Collector of the Philocaliae on set purpose omitted, as he himself confesses. Vales. fifth book of his Expo­sitions upon John has these words concerning the A­postle's Epistles. Paul be­ing made a fit Minister of the New Testament, not in the Letter, but in the Spirit, he who Rom. 15. 19. fully Preacht the Gospel from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum, wrote not to all those Churches which he taught; But to those to whom he wrote he sent [Epistles that con­tained] but a few verses. But Peter Matthew the 16 Chap. and ver. the 18. See Dr Hammond upon the place. on whom the [Page 105] Church of Christ was builded, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left but one E­pistle which is acknowledg'd to be his. But let us grant that the second is his too, for it is question'd whether it be his or not. But what must we say of John, St John's Gospel c. 13. v. 23, and 25. he who lay in Christ's bosome? He left behind him but one Gospel, [though] he professes he could have written John 21. 25. so many books, as the world could not have contain'd. He also wrote the Revelation: be­ing commanded to be silent, See Apo­caly p. 10. 4. and not to write the voices of the Seven Thunders. He also left to posterity a very short Epistle. But let us grant that the second and third were his: for all men do not allow them to be genuine: both of them doe not contain above an hundred verses.’ Besides, he discourses thus concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews in his Homilies upon that Epistle. ‘For the stile of that Writing en­titled The Epistle to the Hebrews, has nothing of that plain homeliness of the Apostle [Paul,] who confesses himself to be unlearn'd in his speech, that is, in his manner of Expression. But this Epistle as to the composition of the stile favours much of the Grecian eloquence, this every one will confess who knowes how to judge of Stiles, which are different. Again, the sentences of this Epistle are admirable, and no­thing inferiour to those books which are acknow­leg'd to be Apostolick. And this every one will assent to as true, who gives attention to the reading of the Apostles writings.’ After the interposition of some words, Origen addes these, saying: [...], signifies to remember, to repeat a thing by heart, as Schollars do who re­peat their Master's Dictates, [...], signi­fies to illu­strate, or make a thing plain by short Scholia's, or Explications▪ that is to explain obscure words, by other words more common and known. The Translatours, and especially Christophorson, seem by their Versions not to have understood this passage. Origen says, that the sentences of The Epistle to the Hebrews, are the Apostles own; but the words and composition of the whole Epistle are some bodies else, who recorded the sayings of the Apostle, and, like a Scholiast, explained them more elegantly. See Chap. 18. B. 4 note (b.) Vales. ‘This is my Opinion that the sen­tences, are the sentences of an Apostle: but the Phrase and Composition is some ones else, who committed to writing the words of the Apostle, and as it were illustrated with Explications the words of his Master. If any Church therefore accounts this to be Paul's Epistle, let it be com­mended even for so doing: for the Antients did not inconsiderately declare it to be Paul's E­pistle. But God alone truely knows who wrote this Epistle. But of those written records which are come to our hands, some ascribe the writing of this Epistle to Clemens who was Bishop of Rome; others to Luke who wrote the Gospel, and the Acts. But thus far concerning this.’

CHAP. XXVI. How Heraclas succeeded in the Bishoprick of Alexandria.

IT was now the In the Maz. Med. Fuk. & Sa­vil. M. SS. and in Nicephorus, instead of [ [...], the Tenth] it is [ [...], the Twelfth.] In Eusebius's Chronicon this remove of Origen from Alexandria to Caesarea is (in some Copies) placed on the 12 year of Alexander, as Pontacus attests. Eusebius does strangely disagree from himself, who in his Chronicon Records this removal of Origen a year, or two years after the death of Demetrius. But here he says Origen removed from Alexandria a little before Demetrius dyed. This last account I suppose to be truest. For after Demetrius's death, Origen had no reason to leave Alexandria: especially when Heraclas, one of Origen's Schollars succeeded Demetrius. Besides, Eusebius relates in this Chapter, that when Origen departed from Alexandria, he left his Catechetick Office to Heraclas. Whence it appears, that Origen de­parted from Alexandria a little before Demetrius pronounc't the sen­tence of Excommunication agaisnt him. For after that sentence [...] could not hold his Office of Catechist in the Church of Alexandria Baronius therefore has done well in amending Eusebius's Chronicon, in placing Origen's departure from Alexandria on the Tenth year of A­lexander's Reign, and the death of Demetrius on the year following. But he mistakes in saying Demetrius pronounc't the sentence of Ex­communication against Origen a year before he left Alexandria; which we have evidently refuted. For since Origen kept his Office of Catechist till such time as he resigned it to Heraclas at his departure, 'tis plain he departed before the sentence of Excommunication was pronounc't against him. Moreover, when Origen understood he was Excommunicated by Demetrius in the Synod of the Bishops, he wrote a letter to his friends at Alexandria, in which he inveighs against Demetrius and the rest of the Bishops. Jerom (in B. 2. Advers. Rufin.) quotes part of this Letter. Further, Origen had once before retired to Caesarea, in the times of Antoninus Caracalla; but was in a short time honourably recalled by Demetrius to Alexandria, as was before related. But afterwards, when he went into Achaia, pas­sing through Caesarea-Palestine, he was there ordained Presbyter, Vales. Tenth year of the Reign of the afore-mention'd Emperour [Alexander,] in which Origen departed from Alexandria to Cae­sarea, and left the care of his Catechetick School to Heraclas, as 'tis be­fore related Chap. 15. was Ori­gen's As­sistant one­ly: but after his departure, he was Catechist. Vales. Heraclas: and not long after dy'd Demetrius, the Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, having con­tinu'd in that Office fourty three years compleat. Heraclas succeeded him. At this time Firmilianus, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia was very famous.

CHAP. XXVII. How the Bishops had him in admiration.

Firmili­anus. HE had so great an esteem for Origen, that he both invited him into the Countries of his Province for the good of the Churches; and also at another time went into Judaea to visit him, and to stay some time with him, to improve him­self in the knowledge of Divine matters. Besides, Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea, at all times (as one may say,) were attentive to him, as if he had been their Ma­ster, and permitted onely him to expound the holy Scriptures, and to perform all other things apper­taining to Ecclesiastick doctrine.

CHAP. XXVIII. Concerning the Persecution under Maximinus

MOreover, Maximinus Caesar succeeded A­lexander the Roman Emperour, after he had Reign'd thirteen years. He, because of his hatred to Alexander's family, which consisted of many believers, rais'd a Persecution, and gave command that onely the Prelates of the Churches should be slain, as the Authours of the Preaching of the Gospel. And at that time Origen com­pos'd his book concerning Martyrdom, which he Dedicated to Ambrosius, and Protoctetus, a Pres­byter of the Church of Caesarea. Because no tri­vial peril and afflictions seized on them both during the times of this Persecution. Fame Records the illustrious eminenty of these men for their confes­sion [of the Christian faith,] Christo­phorson did not at all understand the mean­ing of this place, for he thinks that Ambrosius, and Protoctetus were afflicted for the Name of Christ about the end of Maximinus's Reign: but Eusebius does not say so; he onely means thus much, that the Persecution continu'd all Maximinus's Reign, but that his days were shortned, as the Scri­pture says of Antichrist. Moreover, this Persecution begun when Maximin was Emperour, (after a long continu'd Peace in the Church,) because of frequent, and most dreadfull Earthquakes, which the Hea­thens, as they usually did, imputed to the Christians. Firmilianus in his Epistle to Cyprian attests this: See Baronius at the year of Christ, 237. Vales. when Maximinus had not Reign'd above three years. Origen re­markes the time of this Persecution, both in the twenty second book of his Expositions upon John, and in several of his Epistles.

CHAP. XXIX. Concerning Fabian, how unexpectedly he was Elected by God Bishop of Rome.

GOrdianus having succeeded Maximinus in the Roman Empire, Anteros succeeds Pontia­nus, who had been Bishop of the Church of Rome six years. And Fabian succeeds him after he had perform'd the Office for a month. They report that after the death of Anteros, Fabian, together with some others of his acquaintance, came out of the Countrey to Rome to sojourn there: where he unexpectedly came to be elected Bishop, through the Divine and Celestial Grace. For when all the Brethren were assembled together in the Church, in order to the Election of one who should succeed in the Bishoprick, and many of them had intentions of [Electing] several emi­nent and worthy men, Fabian being there present, no one so much as thought of him. But on a sud­den, as they report, a Dove came flying from above, and sate upon his head, which seem'd to be a representation of the Descent of the holy Ghost upon our Saviour in the shape of a Dove: upon which all the people, being at the same time moved as it were by the divine Spirit, cry'd out with all imaginable alacrity and one common con­sent, This was the com­mon accla­mation at the Electi­on of Bi­shops, of which we have many examples in Philo­storgius, in his tenth chapter of the 9th book. And in the relation of what things were done at Eradius's Election, (recorded in Augustine's Epistles) these acclamations are read, which were then us'd: they cry'd out twenty times, Dignus, & justus est, he is worthy and just; and five times, bene meritus, bene dignus est, he is very deserving, he is very worthy. Vales. He is worthy: And without any delay they took him, and set him in the Bishops Chaire. At that time also Zebinus the Bishop of Antioch dying, Babylas succeeded in the presidency. He­raclas also takes upon him the [Episcopal] charge of the Church at Alexandria, after De­metrius The Med. Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. adde these words, had executed that Office for fourty three years: but the Kings M. S. and Rufinus own them not. Vales. had executed that Office for fourty three years. And Dionysius succeeds in the Cateche­tick School there, who also was one of Origen's Scholars.

CHAP. XXX. Who were Origen's Schollars.

WHilest Origen executed his accustomed duty at Caesarea, many, not onely Na­tives of that Countrey, but also infinite others, from places most remote, forsaking their own Countries, resorted to him to be his disciples. The most eminent of them, we understand, were Theodorus, (who was also call'd Gregorius, one of the most famous Bishops in our Age,) and his brother Athenodorus. He by perswasion in­duc'd them (being too much addicted to the love of the Eusebius means by the Roman Learning, the Civil Law, which Gregory learn't at the City Berytus, at that time when Origen perswaded him to nobler studies, as he, in his Oration to Origen testifies: The same thing also Origen attests in his Epistle to Gregory, Chap 13. of his Philocal. Vales. Roman and Greek Learning, having infus'd into them a love of Philosophy,) to exchange their former studies, for the study of Divinity: when they had convers'd with him five years com­pleat, they made so great an improvement [of their knowledge] in the divine Scriptures, that while they were both as yet young, they were judg'd worthy of the Government of the Churches in Pontus.

CHAP. XXXI. Concerning Africanus.

AT this time Africanus, I suppose that these words, (viz.) the Authour of the books entitl'd Cesti, ought to be raz'd out, for the clause is neither in Rufinus's Version, nor in Hie­ronymus. Besides, it seems ri­diculous when he here speaks of an Ec­clesiastick Writer, to mention those books first, which contain'd nothing else, but certain Medicines made up of Herbs, Metals, Ma­gick figures, Charms, and the like: for, as Suidas witnesses, these Cesti contain nothing else, and have their Title from Venus's Cestus, or Girdle, because they treat of love affaires. Besides, this Africanus, the Authour of these Cesti; seems to be a distinct person from Afri­canus the Chronologer, whom Eusebius mentions, for as Suidas says, this Authour of the Cesti was a Libyan by birth, and was call'd [...]. But Scaliger in his Animadversions upon Eusebius calls him Sextus Africanus. But perhaps that [...] in Suidas ought to be made [...]. And so he may be call'd Africanus Cestus from the title of his books, even as Clemens was call'd Stromateus. But this Africa­nus the Chronologer was born in Palestine says Eusebius's Chronicle; and in a town call'd Emmaus, and his name was Julius Africanus, this Africanus was a Christian, but the other was a Heathen, as appears by his books. There was also another Julius Africanus who wrote a book De Apparatu Bellico, which book in the M. S. Copy of the King's Library has the title of [...], and under that title it is quoted by Politianus in his Miscellanies. The Grecians indeed were proud in prefixing titles before their books, they seem therefore to call those books Cesti which were fill'd with knowledge of divers kinds, like the Cestus, which amongst the Grecians signifies a Girdle wrought of divers colours: for that same reason were Clemens's books call'd Stromata. Vales. the Author of the books entitled Cesti was very famous; there is exstant an Epistle of his written to Origen, in which he suspects the History of Susanna in Daniel, to be spurious, and fictitious. Origen very fully answers this Epistle. There also came to our hands five books of this same Africanus's Annalls, written with great care and accuracy. In which books he says he took a journey to A­lexandria, because of the great same of Heraclas; who, as we before signifi'd, was intrusted with the care of the Church there for his eminent know­ledge in Philosophie, and other Heathen Lear­ning. There is also exstant another Epistle of this same Africanus's to Aristides, concerning the dis­agreement which is thought to be betwixt Mat­thew and Luke, in the Relation of Christ's Ge­nealogy. In which he manifestly demonstrates the consent of the Evangelists, out of an History which came to his hands; which [Epistle] we also took, and placed it in the first Book 1. Chap. 7. book of this work in hand, being its proper place.

CHAP. XXXII. What Expositions Origen wrote at Caesarea in Pa­lestine.

ABout this time Origen wrote his [Com­ments] upon Esaias, and those upon Eze­kiel at the same time, of which books, there came to our hands thirty five Volumes upon the third part of Esaias, unto the Vision of the four footed beasts in the wilderness: And twenty five Volumes upon Ezekiel, which were all he wrote upon the whole Prophet: making his abode at that time at Athens, he finish'd his Commentaries upon Eze­kiel: He also begun his Comments upon the Canti­cles, and there proceeded in them to the fifth book: [Page 107] but he afterwards return'd to Caesarea, and there finish'd them, being ten books in number. But what necessity is there at present to write an exact Catalogue of this mans works, which requires a work it self; which we have also written in our Eusebius wrote three most ele­gant books concerning Pamphilus the Mar­tyr's Life, as Hierony­mus witnes­seth in his 1. Apology against Ru­finus; where he also quotes a piece of that work, out of the third book; lie also men­tions those books in his Epistle to Marcella; 'twas in Eusebius's third book De Vitâ Pamphili, wherein he wrote a Catalogue of Origen's works. Vales. History of Pamphilus's Life, the blessed The Med. and Fuk. M SS. read it [...], all in one word, not [...]. The Greeks call those [...] who were both Martyrs, and Priests: therfore Pamphilus being a Presbyter, and a Martyr, may well be stil'd [...]. The Greeks in their Me­nologie [...] have three sorts of Martyrs, some they call [...] i. e. great Martyrs: some [...], i. e. holy Martyrs, others [...] that is the Bishops, or sometimes Presbyters who suffer'd Martyrdome: all the rest they call [...], barely Martyrs: there is also another title yet, namely, [...]; but this is onely proper to Stephen, and Th [...]la he being the first of men, and she the first of women which were crown'd with Martyrdom. Here we may see what decency the Greeks use in comparison of the Latines; they give Epithe [...]s to their Saints, with which, as with titles they are honour'd, distinguished from other men. Vales. Mar­tyr of our times. In which, endeavouring to prove how great Pamphilus's care and love towards sacred Learning was, we have publish'd the Cata­logues of Origen's works, and of several other Ecclesiastick Writers which he Collected. From whence, he that is desirous, may have a full infor­mation concerning all the Monuments of Origen's labours which came to our hands. But now we must proceed to the subsequent series of our Hi­story.

CHAP. XXXIII. Concerning the Errour of Beryllus.

BEryllus, who was mention'd a little before, Bishop of Bostra in Arabia, subverting the Ecclesiastick Canon, endeavour'd to induce some new Doctrines alienating from the Faith; daring to affirm that our Lord and Saviour, before his That is, before his incarna­tion. coming amongst men This Phrase [...], is no­thing else but diffe­rence of sub­sistence, which may appear by the words of Gregori­us Nyssenus in his book De Diffe­rentiâ Sub­sistentiae, & Essentiae. Beryllus seems to take [...] to signifie a person, af­ter the manner of his times, which confounded these two terms, [...], and [...] concerning the true signification of them, see Socrates's Ecclesiastick History, book 3 chap. 7. where these terms are largely discus'd. Beryllus erred in that he believed Christ had no proper per­sonality before his incarnation; but he was orthodox in that he holds Christ had not a Godhead proper to himself, onely the Godhead of the Father residing in him; for the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal▪ otherwise there would be three Gods, not one God: therefore if this were Beryllus's opinion he may be excused: but he erred in that he asserted the Son by himself is not properly God, but has onely a derivative divinity from the Father. For if he asserted that the Son subsisted not personally before his incarnation, it follows that he deprived him of his Divinity. Vales. had no proper different sub­sistence: Neither any Godhead of his own, but onely the Deity of the Father residing in him. Many disputes and conferences having been held by the Bishops against this man about that point, amongst the rest Origen was call'd; at first he en­ters into a friendly discourse with the man, that he might discover what his Opinion was, which when he understood by his discourse, he reprehended him being not Orthodox; and having convinc'd him by Arguments and Demonstrations, he took him as it were ▪ [...] here may be best explain'd by the words of Nice­phorus, who says, he regain'd him gently, and calmly. Vales. by the hand, and set him into the way of the true Doctrine, and reinstated him in his former found opinion. There are also written monuments extant to this day both of Beryllus, and also of the Synod which was convened upon his account, which contain Origen's questions pro­posed against him, and the disputes holden in his Church, and all that was done at that time. Infinite other Memoirs the Antients of our times have deliver'd to Posterity concerning Origen: which I intend to omit, as not pertinent to this pre­sent subject; but what things concerning him, are necessary to be known, may be read at large in that Hierony­mus in his Catalogue, and also in his first A­pology a­gainst Rufinus says, Eusebius wrote six books in defence of Origen, Rufinus translated the first of these books, and put it out under the name of Pamphilus the Martyr; for which he is most severely reprov'd by Hieronymus, for that he set forth a book of Eusebius's, (whom Jerome always calls an Heretick) under the name of Pamphilus the Martyr. But R [...]inus may make answer for▪ himself from these words of Eusebius, who says that that Apology was written by both of them. Which also Photius confirms with his Testimony; Photius's Biblioth. Chap. 120. From this book, as well as from Eusebius's own words, we may gather, that Origen had many Enemies and opposers, because of the newness of his opinions. The chiefest of them was Methodius, concerning whom, and the reason why he is not mentioned by Euse­bius in his History, see B. 6. Chap. 24. note (c.) Vales. Apology for him which was written by me, and Pam­philus the holy Martyr of our times: which we, fel­low-labourers, carefully and joyntly compos'd up­on the account of some of his quarrelsome Accusers.

CHAP. XXXIV. Concerning Philip the Emperour.

WHen Gordianus had held the Roman Em­pire six complete years, Philip, together with his son Philip, succeeded him. The report is, that he, being a Christian, upon the day which is the last of the Vigils of Easter, was desirous to be a partaker, together with the congregation, of the prayers of the Church: but could in no wise be permitted to enter into the Church by him who was then Bishop, before he had made a ge­neral confession of his fins, and recounted him­self amongst their number, who were ▪ [...] here sigu [...]fies an­numero [...], I am reckon'd amongst. Vales. reckon'd the Lapsed, and stood in the place of penitents: for had he not done this he would not have been ad­mitted by the Bishop, because of his many offences: and 'tis reported that he willingly This story concerning Philip the Emperour, whom Babylas would not admit into the Church, being then Bishop, is told by the Authour of Chron. Alexand. and also by Chrysostom in his Oration concerning holy Babylas; but he does not name the Emperour. Vales. obey'd, and demonstrated in his deeds, the sincerity and de­voutness of his affection towards the fear of God.

CHAP. XXXV. How Dionysius succeeded Heraclas in his Bi­shoprick.

IT was the third of Philip's Reign in which Heraclas dyed, after he had Govern'd the Church sixteen years, and Dionysius succeeded him in the Bishoprick of Alexandria.

CHAP. XXXVI. What other books were written by Origen.

AT this time therefore, the faith (as it was meet) daily encreasing, and our doctrine being boldly preach'd amongst all men, Origen ('tis said) was now above sixty years old: and because he had now gotten a most excellent habit of speaking through long use and exercise, he permit­ted the Notaries to Pamphi­lus the Martyr in his first book of his Apo­logy attests this of him. Vales. write his discourses which he delivered in publick, but never before this time would he suffer that to be done. About this time [Page 108] he wrote eight books against a book of There were two Celsus's, both Epi­curean Phi­losophers, one of them lived in the Reign of Nero; the other about the times of Antoni­nus, as Ori­gen writes in his first book against Celsus: it was against this latter Celsus that Origen wrote eight most elegant books, which are still extant. This is the same Celsus, to whom Lucian Dedicates his book called, Alexan­der, or, the false Prophet; being intreated by him to write the Life of that Impostor. In the end of that book, Lucian speaking to him, plainly demonstrates him to be an Epicurean. In the same place also he seems to mention Celsus's book intitled, The True Discourse. Vales. Celsus the Epicurean, intitled The word of Truth. He also wrote twenty five Volumes upon Matthew's Go­spel: and those upon the Twelve Prophets, of which books we have found onely twenty five. There is also extant an Epistle of his to Philip the Em­perour, another to his wife Severa: and several others to divers other persons: which being scat­tered here and there, in several mens hands, as many of them as we could find preserved, being above an hundred in number, we have collected and digested into proper books by themselves, that they may not hereafter be again dispers'd. He wrote also to Hieronymus in his 65th Epistle mentions this Epistle of Origen's to Fabian. Vales. Fabian Bishop of Rome, and to several other Prelates of Churches concerning his own Orthodoxie: you have also the declarations of these things in the sixth book of the Apology we wrote in defence of him.

CHAP. XXXVII. Concerning the dissention of the Arabians.

AGain, about the same time there sprang up in Arabia Introducers of another Opinion alienating from the Truth. These affirm'd that mens souls even in this present life expired toge­ther with their bodies, and were turn'd to cor­ruption together with them: but that they should again revive together with the bodies at the time of the Resurrection. No small Synod being call'd together upon this account, Origen is 'Twas said be­fore, Chap. 33. that Origen was sent for in­to Arabia by the Bishops, to dispute against. Beryllus: wherefore this was the second time that Origen was called thither to dispute. Vales. again sent for thither, and having disputed publickly con­cerning this question, he managed the cause so well, that those who before were fallen into errour, changed their sentiments.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Concerning the Heresie of the Helcesaïts.

AT that time also sprang up another perverse Errour, call'd the Heresie of the Helcesaïts, which was stifled in its birth. Origen mentions it in Origen wrote three sorts of books up­on the Scri­pture, Com­mentaries, Scholia, and Homilies. His Comments he wrote for the sake of the Learned, and his Scholia also: but upon those books which did not require long and tedious Comments he made Homilies, adapted to the Peoples capa­city. And this is that which Sedulius aims at in his preface to his Opus Paschale. See Hieronymus in his Prefaces to Isaiah, and Mat­thew, and also in his Preface to his Comments upon The Epistle to the Galatians: where he mentions this threefold work of Origen's; onely instead of the word Homilia he uses Tractatus, i. e. discourses, which is all one: for Tractatus in Latine is the same as [...] in Greek. Concerning this threefold work of Origen, Rufinus speaks in his Epistle to Ursacius, which he prefixes before his translation of Origen's book upon Numbers. Vales. his Homily to the people upon the eighty second Psalm, in these words, ‘Lately there came one, highly conceited of himself for his ability, to defend that Atheistical and most wicked Opinion, call'd the Opinion of the Theodoret in his second book Fabularum Hareticarum, Chap. 7. calls these men [...], and says they were so call'd from one Elcesa [...]. Epiphanius names him Elxaeus, a false Prophet, who joyn'd himself to the Ebionites, and was Authour of a strange, uncertain, and an unfix'd Opinion concerning Christ: which he relates, and which little differs from Theodoret's story in the place quoted. Hence it appears that this Elxaeus, and Elcesai are one and the same man. Epiphanius, in his Haresi Ossenorum, calls him Elxai, and says he lived in Trajan's time. At first, he says, he put forth a book full of Divine wisdom, and a Pro­phesying spirit: But afterwards he affirmed 'twas no sin for a man to sacrifice to Idols, in the time of Persecution, if so be he do it not with his whole heart. The same also Origen here relates of these Elcesaits: but Epiphanius more plainly demonstrates this in his Haresi Samps [...]orum, where he says that these Elcesaei (which we prov'd were the same as Elcesaits.) had one Elxaeus, or Elxai Authour of their sect. Wherefore Scaliger in his Ele [...]chus Chap. 27. err's, where he says that this [...] is the same person with Essaeus; and that these Elcesaei or Elcesaits are the same as Essaei: then which nothing is more absurd Vales. Helce­saïts, which lately was raised in opposition to the Church. I will explain to you what evil things that Opinion asserts, that ye be not drawn away by it. It reject's somethings of every part of the Scripture, but makes use of some Texts both out of the Old, and also out of the Evangelical Scripture: it rejects the A­postle [Paul] wholly. It says 'tis an indif­ferrent thing to deny [the Faith.] It [...]olds also that upon necessity The Transla­tours, Ru­finus, Lan­gus, and Christo­phorson knew not the use and propriety of this Phrase [ [...],] and so misinterpreted it: the word signifies no more then, qui sapit, or sapiens, a wise man: See that old verse of He [...]iod. [...], and to wise men. Vales. a wise man would deny [Christianity] with his mouth, but not with his heart also at the same time. They also carry about with them a book, which they say, fell down from heaven; and every one that hears it, and believes it, shall obtain Remission of sins: a Remission different from that which Jesus Christ bestowed.’ But let thus much suf­fice concerning these things.

CHAP. XXXIX. Concerning what happened in the times of Decius.

BUt in the mean while Decius succeeds Philip, after he had Reigned seven years; who because of his hatred towards Philip, rais'd a Persecution against the Churches. In which Fabian being Martyr'd at Rome, Cornelius succeeds in that Bishoprick. And Alexander the Bishop of Jerusalem in Palestine, is again brought before the Governour's Tribunal for Christ's sake. And was very famous for his second confession at Cae­sarea, where he was imprisoned: being now a­dorned with a venerable old Age, and reverend gray haires. After his noble and famous testi­mony before the Governour's Tribunal, he ex­pired in Prison, and Mazabanes was pronounced his successour in the Bishoprick of Jerusalem. Also Babylas Bishop of Antiochia died (in like man­ner as did Alexander) in prison after his confession, and Fabius is preferred to be Bishop of that Church. Moreover how many, and how great [afflictions] happened to Origen in this Per­secution, and what was the end of these things, (the Devil with all his forces enviously setting himself in opposition to this man, and fighting against him with all subtilty and power, assailing him particularly above all those who were set upon at that time:) how many, and how great things he also suffered for the Doctrine of Christ, as bonds, and bodily torments, the punishment of the Iron Chain in the inmost recesses of the Prison: how he was put upon the [...] signifies (as we before noted) the same as nervm, a paire of stocks, wherein the feet are put: but in this place 'tis used for Eculeus, a Rack: for, Eusebius in this place means, that Origen, being put upon the rack, patiently sustain'd the threats of fire, and other torments. [...] therefore in this place signifies the same as the Latine word Eculaeus, which the word added, (viz.) [...] sufficiently sheweth, for as often as this term signifies Stocks, or Shackles, we read [...] onely; but when it signifies the Rack, [...] or, [...] is commonly added▪ as here we find it to be. Vales. Rack, his feet for [Page 109] several days being stretch'd so wide as to the distance of four holes: how valiantly he sustain'd the menaces of fire, and all other [Tortures] inflicted by his Enemies: what also was the exit of these things: (the Judge with his utmost power earnestly endeavouring That is, the Judge was desi­rous to prolong his life, that so he might undergo the more Tortures. that he might not be slain.) Lastly, what expressions he left behind him, and how comfortable to the [...] are the comfortless, or helpless; which some Translatours did not understand; this transposition in Eusebius is com­mon. Eusebius here says nothing of the Aethiopian, who was suborn'd a­gainst Origen; or concerning his denial of the Faith: Baronius with good reason thought these things were fabulous; But Nemesius, in his book De Naturâ Hominis, Chap. 30. confirms that Narration of Epiphanius's. Vales. comfortless: [All these particulars] many of his Epistles do both truly and accurately comprehend.

CHAP. XL. Concerning what things happened to Dionysius.

I Will also Record some things concerning Dio­nysius, out of his Epistle to Germanus. Where speaking concerning himself, he makes this relation: ‘I speak in the presence of God, and he knows that I lie not. I never made my escape [...], (i. e.) Not by my own counsel, not on my own accord. But the Fuk. M. S. and Georgius Syncellus's Chronicle read [...] Maz. and Med. M. SS. [...]. The Med. M. S. begins this Epistle where we have begun it. Vales. of my self, nor without the Divine appointment. But before, to wit, at the same time when the [...] is here taken for the Decree of the Persecution: and accordingly we have translated the place. Vales. De­cree for the Persecution came out from Decius, Sabi­nus sent out his Erumentarii milites were Soul­diers sent to seek after offenders, and to pick up all rumours and news. Constantine put down this sort of Officers; they were also Deputies under Governours of Pro­vinces, such an one was this Fru­mentarius, whom Dionysius here mentions. Vales. Deputy to make inquisition for me; and I stay'd at home four days, expecting the arrival of the Deputy: But he went about searching all places; both high-ways, Rivers, and fields, where he thought I might be conceal'd, or where he conjectur'd I might have gone: but he was so blinded, that he found not my house. Nei­ther could he imagine that I should stay at home when there was inquisition made for me. And at length after the fourth day, (when God had commanded me to depart thence, and had miraculously [...]opened a way for me) I, and my [...], Muscu­lus and Christoph. translate Liberi, Children, which in­terpreta­tion I doe not ap­prove of. Vales. servants, and many of the Brethren, went out together. Now that that was a special act of God's Providence the sequel declar'd, in which peradventure I was profitable to some.’ Again, after the interposition of some words, he relates what happened to him after his flight, in these words: ‘I my self, (and my companions) be­ing much about the time of Sun-setting appre­hended by some Souldiers, was brought to Ta­posiris. But Timothcus, according to the pro­vidence of God, was not with us, neither was he taken: But when he at last came, he found the house empty, and Souldiers keeping Guard about it, and us reduced to slavery.’ After some other words he saith thus. ‘What now was the order and manner of this miraculous act of provi­dence? (I will tell nothing but truth.) A cer­tain Christo­phor. tran­slates [...] indigena, one born and bred in that Countrey, the Tran­slatour of Georg. Syncell. calls it incola; neither of them rendring it well: for [...] are Country men, Rustick [...]. So in the Greek Councils we find, o [...] [...], in stead of [...], The Countrey Presbyters. The Maz. Med. and Fuk M. SS. instead of [...] read [...], so also does Alexandrinus use [...] for Rusticks. Vales. country man met Timothy as he was flying, and thus disturb'd in mind; and he in­quired of him the reason of this great hast; he told him the real truth. When the man had heard his relation, (he was then a going to a marriage feast, and 'tis customary amongst them to tarry all night at such meetings,) he went his way, and coming into the house, told the story to those that were set at the table: All of them with an unanimous earnestness (as if it had been by a compact amongst them) rose up together, set a running, and with great clamours came speedily upon us. The Souldiers who guarded us being by them forthwith put to flight, they came upon us as we were, and [found] us lying upon Sc [...]mpodia are low beds such as are used in great houses to this day, onely to sit in; call'd Couches. So Libanius in his own Life uses the word: where he saith, pag. 47. that at home he us'd to lye upon a bed, but in the School he lean'd [...], upon a Couch. Hence 'tis plain those Couches were made for the ease of sick people▪ [...] signifies unmade, without any fur­niture upon it. So Martial in his Apophor [...]tis, speaking of sheets, Nudo stramina nè toro pater [...]nt,Junctae nos tibi venimus sor [...]r [...]s. Vales. Couches without any fur­niture on them; I (God knows) at first supposing them to be thieves, who came thither for prey and pillage, continued lying on the Couch, naked as I was, excepting onely a lin­nen garment which I had on; and offered to them my other cloathes, which lay by me: But they bid me arise, and come out immediately. Then under­standing what was the cause of their coming thither, I cry'd out, intreating and beseeching them to depart and let us alone. But if their intent was to do me a kindness, I begg'd of them to behead me, and by that means to prevent those who brought me prisoner thi­ther. While I thus cry'd out (as my com­panions and fellow-sufferers in all my troubles doe know) they compell'd me to rise up: I threw my self on my back upon the ground; but they took me by the hands and feet, and dragg'd me out: There follow'd me those who are my witnesses of these things, Caius, Faustus, Peter, Paul; We must refer this word [...], who took me up, to Caius▪ and the rest of the Presbyters, and not to the Riotous Countrey men, as Christophor▪ does. [...] signifies together with the Bed or Couch on which he lay. Dionysius says nothing here of what hapned to him after the Rusticks forc'd him to leave Taposiris, having beaten the Guard: but in his Epistle to Domitius and Didymus, which is in the 7th book, and 11th Chapter, he saith, that he and Peter, and Caius were separated from the rest of their Company, and abode in a desert and dry place of Libya. Dionysius liv'd an Exile till the death of Decius the Empe­rour, and from that desert place he wrote Letters to Domitius and Didymus. Vales. who took me together with that Couch upon their shoulders, and convey'd me out of the village; and having set me upon an Ass un­saddled, they carried me away.’ These things Dionysius relates concerning himself.

CHAP. XLI. Concerning those who suffer'd Martyrdom at Alex­andria.

THe same man in an Epistle of his to The Med. Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. call this man Fabia­nus, not Fabius▪ so also Ru­finus names this Bishop of Antioch. Vales. Fabius Bishop of Antioch, gives this account of the combats of those Martyrs who suffer'd at Alexan­dria in the times of Decius. ‘The Persecution amongst us did not begin at the time when the Imperial Edict was issued out, but preceded it one whole year. For a Soothsayer, and I have tanslated [ [...]] a Poet: first, because there is great familiarity betwixt Poets, and Pro­phets, for the Diviners or Soothsayers us'd to deliver their Oracles in verse. Besides, the Aegyptians were chiefly delighted with Poetry, which Eunapius takes notice of. Moreover, no people were more ma­licious towards the Christians then these Soothsayers, moving the Peo­ple to Persecute them, and encouraging them by their Oracles. Vales. a Poet [Page 110] (whoever he was who so endamag'd this City,) had stirr'd up, and encouraged the tumults of the Heathens against us, exciting them to their Countrey Superstition. They being prick't forward by him, and having obtained free power of acting all mischief, thought it the most acceptable service These words [ [...], worship of their Gods] ought, as I suppose, to be ex­punged: for they disturb the sense, and were added by some Scholiast, to explain the preceding term [ [...] service. Vales. and worship of their Gods to slaughter us. First of all therefore they lay hands upon an old man named Metrá, and bid him pronounce some Atheistical words, and because he obey'd them not, they beat him with clubs, and prick'd him in the face and eyes with sharp Reeds, and when they had led him into the Suburbs, they ston'd him to death. Af­terwards they dragg'd a believing woman call'd Quinta, to the Temple of their Idol, and com­pell'd her to fall down and worship: but she turning away her face, and abominating it, they bound her feet, and dragg'd her through the City, which is pav'd with sharp stones, and having dash'd her against Millstones, and scourg'd her, they led her to the same place without the City, and ston'd her. Afterwards all with one ac­cord violently broke into the houses of pious men, and every one of them ran to their Neigh­bours, whom they knew, and plunder'd and rob'd them; their goods which were of greater value they [...] to purloin; See Tit. 2. 10. purloin'd, but the lumber, and what was made of wood they cast forth, and burnt in the streets: so that the City seem'd as if it had been taken by an enemy: but the Brethren withdrew themselves thence and privately fled; and (like those St Paul speaks of) Heb. 10. 34. took joy­fully the spoyling of their goods. And not one of them that I know of, except one who somewhere fell into their hand, renounc'd the Lord till this time. Moreover, at that time they took a most admirable Virgin who was antient, call'd Apol­lonia, and buffeting her on the cheeks, they dash'd out all her teeth. And when they had built a pile of wood before the City, they threat­ned to burn her alive, except she would repeat together with them some [...], are the terms here: what the words were, 'tis hard to conje­cture: in his Epistle to Germanus he calls them [ [...] im­pious words;] and in this Epistle [ [...], horrid words.] Vales. profane words. But she, having begged a little re­spite, being let loose, forth­with leapt into the fire, and was consum'd to Ashes. They also apprehended Se­rapion as he was in Here we read [...], i. e. in his own house, but Nicephorus very ill reads [...]. Concerning this Serapion, Bede, and Usuardus speak at the 14th of November. Where they say he suffered in the Reign of Decius; but they might better have said in the Reign of Philip. For Dionysius in this Epistle to Fabius expresly affirms that Sera­pion, and some other Martyrs, suf­fer'd before the death of Philip the Emperour. The same errour is committed in all Martyrologies concerning Apollonia the Virgin, which say she suffer'd in the time of Decius upon the 9 day of Fe­bruary. Vales. his house, and having tortur'd him with grievous tor­ments, and broken all his joints, they cast him down headlong out of an upper room. There was now no way for us, not the common highway, not so much as any narrow street, through which we could securely pass either by day, or by night: Every body proclaiming at all times, and in all places, that who­soever would not repeat those blasphemous words, he should be dragg'd away, and burn't immediately. After this man­ner these things continu'd for a great while: Afterwards followed Sedition, and a Civil war, which [seized▪] these wretches, and re­turned the cruelty they us'd towards us upon themselves. And we had a little breathing time, their fury towards us being some­thing appeas'd. But presently news came of the Here he means the death of Philip the Emperour, who behav'd himself gently and kindly toward the Christians: therefore what pas­sages are here next related, happened in the last year of the Reign of Philip: which thing Dionysius intimates in the be­ginning of this Epistle, where he says, the Persecution began a year before the Emperours E­dict came out: but Christoph. did not understand this place, he rendring [ [...]] the alteration of the Em­perours mind towards us. Baro­nius follows this errour of his, at the year of Christ▪ 253. Chap. 102. Vales. translation of that Empire, which had been more favourable to us: and much fear of a threatning storm appear'd. And now arrived the [Imperial] Edict, almost like that fore­told by our Lord, In the Kings M. S. and Stephanus's Edition, instead of [...] is read, but in the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. [...] is the term, which is a great deal better as I think. For Dio­nysius here means that this De­cree of Decius was so terrible, that it seemed to represent those most dreadfull times of An­tichrist, foretold by our Saviour. Vales. re­presenting those most ter­rible [times] in so much that even the Elect, if it were possible, should be discouraged. Indeed all were put in great fear. Immediately many of them who were more eminent, yielded up themselves [to their Idolatry] through fear: others, who Christophor. mistakes in his translation of this place. I have rendred here [ [...]] as if it had been [ [...]] the Decu­rions or Magistrates: for these always assembled themselves at the reading of the Emperours Edicts in the Courts, and first of all executed his commands; hence they were compell'd to be present at the reading of this decree, and immediately after it was read, to sacrifice to the Gods, according to the injunction of the Decree. Vales. had to doe in the management of the Publick Affairs, were forc'd through the neces­sity of their offices [they held;] and they induced others of their acquain­tance, who, being summon'd by name, repaired to their impure and profane sacri­fices. Some looked pale, and trembled, as if they themselves were about to have been sacrifices and victimes, not sacrificers to their Idols. So that they rendred themselves the sub­ject of laughter to the mul­titude that stood round a­bout them: because they de­monstrated themselves to all, to be fearfull both of death and of sacrificing: But others of them ran to the Altars more willingly, protesting very confident­ly that they never were Christians before. Con­cerning whom the Lords prediction is most true, that they shall hardly be saved. As for the rest, some of them adhered to the one or the other of those parties we have mentioned; some fled away; others were ap­prehended. And of these [though] some pro­ceeded so far as till [they came to] bonds and imprisonment, and others of them had been im­prisoned several days; yet before they were brought to the tribunal, they renounc'd [the Faith.] Some of them after they had persisted some time in suffering torments, yet for fear of what might follow renounc'd [their Religion.] But the stedfast, and blessed Pillars of the Lord, being strengthened by him, and having received power and patience equal and answerable to their strong faith, became admirable witnesses of his kingdom. The first of which was Ju­lianus a Gouty man, who could neither goe nor stand; he, together with two other men who carried him, was brought before the Judge: one of those persons straightway deny'd [Christ.] But the other whose name was Cronion, but was sirnamed Eunus, together with the old man Julianus, having confessed the Lord, rode upon Camels through the whole City (which you know is very large) and were scourged as they sate on high, and at last in the presence of all the multitude standing round, they were consum'd [Page 111] by an This [...] may be rendred vi­vae calcis incendio, a fire of unslaked lime; so also we may translate the same phrase which is us'd a little after this, speaking of Epi­machus and Alexander, where he says, [...] ▪ instead of which phrase Nicepho­rus uses [...] with lime. In Menaeo, on the 30th day of Octo­ber, there is mention of these Mar­tyrs, Julianus, Cronio, and Ma­carius, where the words are, [...]; burning lime being poured upon them. Vales. exceeding hot fire. A Souldier who at­tended on them as they were lead [to the stake,] thrust away all those who abused them, and when the people exclaim'd against him, this most valiant champion of God (by name Besas) was call'd in question, and after he had behav'd himself nobly in a great combat in defence of Piety, he was beheaded. Also another man, a Libyan born, (both according to his name, and also agreeable to the divine benediction truly stil'd Macar is derived from the Greek term [...], which sig­nifies blessed: Dionysius seems here to allude to those words of our Saviour, Matt. 5. 10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righ­teousness sake, &c. Rufinus tran­slates this place thus, Alius qui­dam, vir nominis sui Macarius, gente Lybicus. Vales. Macar,) after much ex­hortation of the Judge to a renunciation, being nothing subdu'd therewith, was burned alive. After these Epimachus, and Alexander, after a tedious imprison­ment, which they endur'd, having suffered infinite sorts of tortures, as [...] is the term in the original: it signifies properly any kind of iron-instrument to make incision: Dionysius does here mean by it, an engine wherewith they scraped the flesh from off the bones of the Christians. iron scrat­chers, scourges, were also burned to death with un­slaked lime: with them al­so four women: Ammo­narium, an holy Virgin (whom the Judge for a long time and with much ear­nestness tortured, because she had before hand said she would utter nothing he should enjoyn her,) when she had verified her promise, she was led to execution. Now the rest were these. Mercuria a most virtuous and venerable Ma­tron: and Dionysia the mother of a numerous issue, but did not love her children more then the Lord: These words [al­so another Ammona­rium.] I have added out of Ru­finus: for Dionysius said there were four women; but we find but three, except, according to Rufinus, we adde these words. Vales. also another Ammonarium. The Judge being now ashamed that he tortured them yet in vain, and that he was thus overcome by women, slew them with the sword, before they under­went the tryall of tortures. For Ammonarium their lea­der had suffered torments for them all. Heron also, and Instead of Ater in Georg. Syncellus, and Niceph. we find Aster▪ in Rufinus 'tis Arsinus; in the old Roman Martyrologie, which is mostly taking out of Rufinus, he is called Arsenius, at the 19th of the Kalends of January. Vales. Ater, and Isidorus, Aegyptians, and with them Dioscorus, a lad of about fifteen years of age, were set before the Judge. Who first of all endeavoured to deceive the youth with words, as thinking him flexible and easie to be perswaded; he endea­voured also to force him by torments, [sup­posing] him to be remiss and inclineable to yield; but Dioscorus was neither mov'd with perswasions, nor yielded he to torments. When [the Judge] had most barbarously torn the rest with stripes, and they persisted, he delivered them also to the fire, but he dismiss'd Diosco­rus, because he was lovely in the eyes of the people, and he also himself admired him for his most prudent answers to his questions: Saying, he allow'd him space for repentance because of his tender age. And now the most excellent Dioscorus continues with us, reserved for a greater and more lasting combat. Also one Nemesion, another Aegyptian, was falsly accu­sed as a companion of theeves: but having before the Centurion cleared himself of this accusation brought against him, as being most absurd, he was impeach'd as being a Christian, and brought bound before the Governour: who, (most unjust man,) having inflicted upon him double as many torments and stripes, as upon the theeves, [commanded] him to be burnt a­mongst theeves: Blessed man! Who was ho­noured after Christ's example. Moreover, a whole [...], Ru­finus ren­ders a Troop of Souldiers; him Chri­stophorson also fol­lowes: but I had ra­ther tran­slate it a file of men. Some may perhaps think that these Soul­diers were the Pre­fects Appa­ritours, and other offi­cers, be­cause they stood be­fore the judgment seat, but I rather think they were legionary Souldiers of that legion which kept Garison at Alexandria, and were under the Command of the Emperours Deputy-Governour of Aegypt; for at that time he who was the Emperour's Prefect in Aegypt, had not onely power in Civil affaires, but also in Military. In the old Roman Martyrologie the birth-day of these Martyrs is set down on the 13th of the Kalends of January. Vales. file of Souldiers, to wit, Ammon, and Zeno, and Ptolomy, and Ingenuus, and with them the old man Theophilus, stood together before the place of judicature. And when a certain man was accused for being a Christian, and in­clined to a renunciation [of his Religion,] they standing by gnashed upon him with their teeth, made grimaces at him with their counte­nances, stretched out their hands, and shewed mimick and antick gestures with their bodies; [in so much that] all mens eyes were turned towards them: before any one came to lay hands on them, they ran to the By this word [...] is meant Subsellium, i. e. the place on which the Criminals while they are examin'd by the Judge sate. It is in some places call'd Ambon, or Pulpitum. Vales. place where the accused usually sate, confessing themselves to be Christians: Upon which, the Governour and the Assessours were surprized with a great fear. The accused seem'd most couragious at what they were about to suffer, but the Judges trembled. So they went out of the place of judicature in a kind of Pomp and State, and rejoyced at the testimony [they were to give to the Faith,] God [...] Rufinus translates thus, God thus trium­phing by his Saints; hence we may suppose he read [...]. Musculus and Christophorson follow this translation of Rufinus: but we must take notice and see whether Dionysius meanes not by [...] ▪ which I think he does, and there­fore have so translated it. Vales. making them to triumph gloriously.’

CHAP. XLII. Concerning some other things which Dionysius relates.

‘SEveral others were torn in pieces by the Heathens, both in the Cities, and in the Countrey Villages: one of them I will hear speak of for examples sake. Ischyrion was a Mer­cenary ' [...] (from whence the term [ [...],] which here occurs, is derived) signifies one that looketh to another mans business, and that has the charge of his affairs committed to his care. Officer under one of the Magistrates. He, whom he served, injoyned him to sacrifice: but when he obeyed him not, he was injurious to him; when he still persisted to be disobe­dient, he basely reproacht him. After he had patiently sustained all this, he took a great stake, and having run it through his guts and bowels, murdered him. What need I to reckon up the multitudes, which wandered in deserts and mountains, and dyed by Pestilence, thirst, and cold, and by diseases, thieves, and savage beasts? such of them as survived are witnesses of their choice and victory: but I will adde one fact for a manifestation of the truth hereof. There was one Chaeremon a very aged man, Bishop of the City called Nile, he together with his wife [Page 112] fled unto the mountain Herodo­tus men­tions a mountain, called Arabius; which Ptolomy and others call Troicus. Christophorson therefore does not well in calling it a mountain in Arabia. 'Tis a little after called Arabicus, from its vicinity to Arabia. Vales. Arabius, but never re­turned; neither could they, or any thing of their bodies ever be found, although the Brethren searched all places careful­ly. Also many about this mountain Arabicus were taken captives and inslaved by the barbarous This place ought to be taken notice of for this one thing: for of all the Writers which came to our hands, there is none (that I know of) who is ancienter then Dionysius Alexandrinus, that men­tions the Saracens. Indeed Am­mianus Marcellinus says in his 14th book, that he mention'd the Saracens amongst the Acts of Prince Marcus. So also says Spar­tianus, (in Nigro) saying they were conquered by the Roman Souldiers. Vales. Sara­cens: some of which were with much difficulty re­deem'd with great sums of money; but others of them are not yet [re­deem'd] even at this time. Now (my Brother) I have not at large related these things to no purpose, but that you may see how great, and how grievous miseries happened to us, which they who have most ex­perienced, do best under­stand.’ Afterwards, after some few words he makes an addition to all this, saying; ‘Therefore those divine Martyrs, (who are now Assessours with Christ, colleagues of his kingdom, and are It was the opini­on of the Ancient Fathers, that Martyrs should be Christs Assessours, and should judge the world together with him. So says Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his 5th book a­gainst the Novatians: but Pho­tius in his Biblioth. reproves this Opinion. (Photius says) that those words of St Paul in the 1 Epistle to the Corinthians 6. 2. Know ye not that the Saints shall judge the world? must not be un­derstood as if the Saints were to be judges with Christ: Paul, says he, onely meaneth thus, that other men who had not lived so piously should by the Saints means he condemned. As it is in the Go­spel, The men of Ninevie, and the Queen of the South shall rise up in judgement against wicked men, and condemn them, Matth. 12. 41. Photius took this Exposition out of Chrysostome; but Eulogius's Opinion seems the truer to me. For if the Martyrs are now col­leagues of Christ in his kingdom, Why may not they be partakers of his judgment? Moreover, Christ expresly promised the Apostles, That they should sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, Matth. 19. 28. Vales. partakers of his judgement, giving sentence together with him,) during their being amongst us, received to themselves some of the brethren who were lapsed, and lay con­vict as having sacrificed to Idols: And when they had seen their conversion and penitence, judging it might be acceptable to God, who in no wise willeth the death of a sinner, but rather that he repent, they admitted them, and This place must be rendred according to our translation; though Langus and Christoph▪ translate it, as if the Martyrs ad­mitted the Penitents into the Church: which they could not doe, being in bonds. Moreover the Bishops onely had power of reconciling Penitents, the Martyrs could onely intercede for them, and write commendatory letters in their behalf; though this word [...] may be rendred passively, as in the 3d Chap. of this 6th book. Vales. brought them together, and received them into their congregation, and Communion in the Church is twofold, of Prayer, and of the Sa­craments, that of the prayers was granted to Penitents after a certain time; but the Communion of the body of Christ was not granted except to them who were reconcil'd after long time of repentance. But Dionysius here means private Communion; now that I call private Communion, which was granted to any one by some private persons and not by the Bishop, whose power and duty it was to grant it. The thing these private persons granted, was this; these Martyrs and Confessours permitted penitents who desired their pitty and inter­cession, to pray to God with them. Vales. communicated with them in prayer, and in eating. Now, therefore (Brethren) how doe you counsel us concerning these things, what must be done by us? Shall we be of like mind, and of the same Opi­nion with the [Martyrs?] Shall we observe their de­termination, and the favour they [shewed such per­sons?] and shall we be in­dulgent towards them, to whom they were merci­full? Or shall we render their sentence unjust, and make our selves examiners and Judges of their Opi­nion? grieve their goodness and clemency? and de­stroy the Order [which is constituted?]’ Dio­nysius very advisedly annex'd these words, dis­coursing concerning them, who in the times of Persecution had lapsed through infirmity of mind.

CHAP. XLIII. Concerning Novatus, what manner of person he was as to his moralls; and concerning his Heresie.

FOr Novatus, a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, being puffed up with pride against these That is, the lapsed. men, as if there were no further hopes of salva­tion left for them, although they perform'd all things appertaining to an unfeigned conversion, and a sincere confession, constituted himself the Ringleader of a peculiar Sect, of those who by reason of their haughty minds stil'd themselves That is, the pure. Cathari. Upon this account a very great Synod was assembled at Rome, consisting of sixty Bishops, but of Presbyters and Deacons [the number] was greater. And when the Pastours of each re­spective place in the rest of the Provinces, had consulted by themselves concerning what was to be done; Rufinus translates this phrase [...], Decre­tus significatur quid facto opus esset, but the other Translatours in my Opinion turn it better, by tran­slating it thus; Decernitur ab omnibus. Vales. This Decree was promulged to all: ‘That Novatus, together with all those who imitated his pride, and who presum­ptuously assented to his un­charitable and most inhu­man Opinion, should be accounted as alienated from the Church: but that the Brethren who were fallen into the calamity [of the lapsed,] should be healed and cured by the remedies of▪ repentance.’ There came to our hands the E­pistles of Cornelius Bishop of Rome, to Fabius Bishop of Antioch: which set forth the Acts of that Synod at Rome, and the Opinions of all those in Italy, and Africa, and the Provinces there. There are also extant other Epistles written in Latine, by Cyprian and those Bishops' assembled with him in Africa: by which it appears that they consented to the relieving of those who were fal­len into Temptation, and that the Authour of this Heresie ought with good reason to be expelled out of the Catholick Church, together with all those who had been seduced by him. There is also annex'd to these Rufinus confounds, and mix­eth this Epistle with that which Eusebius afore mentioned, for he owns but two Epistles of Corne­lius, Hieronymus in his book, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, reckons up four, but Eusebius in this place gives us an account of three onely. The first, and the third seem as if Cornelius had writ them in Greek, which may be proved by several Arguments, for Eusebius quotes several things out of the third Epistle, but does not in the least signifie that it was ever translated out of Latine into Greek, which thing he al­ways does as often as he quotes any Latine Authours. Moreover, in this very Chapter Eusebius sig­nifies that the first Epistle was writ in Greek, for speaking of it, he adds that there was another E­pistle of Cyprian annex'd to it, which was written in Latine. Which clause certainly he had not added, had not Cornelius's Epistle been written in a contrary Language. Vales. another E­pistle of Cornelius's concer­ning the Decrees of that Synod: and also another concerning the mischievous Acts of Novatus. Part of which, nothing hinders but that we may here insert, that so they who read this work, may have a perfect know­ledge in all things concerning Novatus. Cornelius there­fore, informing Fabius what a man this Novatus was as to his course of life, writes these very words: ‘But that you may the better un­derstand how this admi­rable fellow heretofore co­veted a Bishoprick, and concealing this his hot am­bition [Page 113] continued undiscovered, for a cove [...] for his folly, usually from the beginning having the Confessours in his company, I will make this de­claration to you: Concerning this Maximus the Presbyter, Urbanus, and Sidonius Confessours, how they deserted Novatianus, and were converted to the Church, see Cornelius the Pope's Epistle to Cyprian. There was also at the same time another Maximus Presbyter of the Church of Rome, whom Novatianus Im­ploy'd as Embassador to Cyprian into Africk, together with Ma­ch [...]us▪ and others: Afterwards the Schismaticks made this Maximus a Bishop in Africk, as Cyprian in his Epistle to Cornelius tells us, Vales. Maxi­mus a Presbyter of our Church▪ and Urbanus, which men have the se­cond time acquired great renown to themselves for their confessions, Sidonius also, and [...], a man who has most patiently en­dured all sorts of tortures through God's mer [...]y; and having corroborated the weakness of the flesh through the strength of his faith, utterly vanquished the adversary: These men [I say,] when they had made enquiry in­to the man, and [...], sig­nifies to catch a man in the very act of Robbery, whilest the [...] or things which he hath stolen are yet in his hands, hence it signifies to being any plot, robbery or any other wickedness to light, to bewray, or disclose. Vig [...]r. Idi [...]. pag. 27. detected his subtilty and de­ceit, his perjury and lyes, his unsociableness and wolfish friendship, returned to the holy Church; and divulged all his subtile devices, and his vil­lanies (which he had kept conceal'd within himself for a long time, refusing to declare them) in the presence both of a suffi­cient number of Bishops, and also of a great many Presbyters and Laicks; Lamenting, and repenting, because, having been seduced by this subtile and wicked beast, for some small time they had abandoned the Church.’ After some few words, he also adds this (‘Dear Brother) What a wonderfull change and alte­ration we saw made in a short time in him? For this most excellent fellow, (who affirmed with ter­rible protestations and oathes, that he did not in the least cove [...] the Office of a Bishop,) [...] [...] sud­den appears a Bishop, as if he had been [...] (the phrase here in the ori­ginall) has the same import with [ [...]] which is a proverbial speech in Greek, and signifies, ex insperato, improvis [...]; i. [...]. unlooks for, or on a sudden. See Erasm. A­d [...]g. pag. 46. Edit. F [...]ob [...]. thrown into the midst by an Engine. For this brave Doctour, who [pretended himself] to be a Main­tainer of the Church discipline, when he endea­voured by force to acquire to himself, and su [...]re­ptitiously to steal the Bishoprick which was not as­sign'd to him by God, [...]hose for his confidents two men, who despaired of salvation, that he might send them into some little corner, and the most despicable part of Italy, and there delude three Bishops, who were simple and unlearned men, by a certain fraudulent enterprise, affirming and protesting that with all possible speed they must post to Rome, that all the disagreement which had been there, might by their mediation, toge­ther with the other Bishops, be composed. When The [...]dores in his 3• book of his H [...]le. Fabu [...]. Chap. 5. w [...]tes, that Novatus himself went into Italy to fetch th [...]se Bishops, and when he, with the Bishops upon their journey, came into some town or other, he forced them to Ordain him, which those Bi­shops complain'd of when they came to Rome; but this Epistle of Cornelius refutes that story of his. Vales. they arrived, being (as we said before) per­sons unexperienced in the plots and subtilty of these wicked m [...]n, having been shut up close by some per­sons like himself who were assign'd for that purpose, at ten of the clock he com­pell'd them, being drunk and dozed with over much wine, to give him the Bishoprick by Go [...]ius [...] this a [...] imper­fect, and ineffectual Ordination, because it was solemniz'd by Bishops of another Diocess, and not by those Bishops who had the right and power of Ordaining the Bishops of Rome, which were the Bishops of Ostia, T [...]bu [...] and others; 'twas also ineffectual and vain, because it was done by men who were drunk, by force, at the tenth hour of the day, none of the Clergy, or people being present, and lastly, because another Bishop was before regularly Ordain'd. Cornelius both here, and in his Epistle to Cyprian, says Novatianus was Ordain'd by thr [...] Bishops, whereas P [...]ia [...]s says, in his ad Epistle to [...], he was Ordain'd by the letters commendatory of the Confessours: but these differences we may thus reconcile. Novatianus was named to be the Bishop, by the Epistle of the Confessours, but was afterwards Conse­crated by three Bishops. Vales. an imagi­nary and an ineffectual imposition of hands: And he laid claim to that by craft and subtilty, which did in no wise appertain to him. One of those Bishops not long after return'd to the Church, bewailing and confessing his sin, whom, through the mediation of all the people then pre­sent, Hence we may gather that Cornelius degraded the Bishops which assisted in the Consecration of Novatianus, and also excom­municated them all, except one who by the mediation of the peo­ple, obtain'd the Priviledge of the communion which the Laicks have: Which was to kiss the Bishop after they had taken the Eucharist of him, as Hieronymus, and Paulus Diaconus affirm. Vales. we received into the communion of the Laity. We ordain'd successours for the other two Bishops, and sent them away to pos­sess their Sees. This is spoken Ironically of Novatianus, because he himself (as Cyprian in his first Epistle to Cornelius witnesseth) boasted he was a Defender of the Gospel of Christ. Vales. This main­tainer therefore of the Go­spel, knew not that 'twas meet there should be but one The same words [ [...]] are in the Epistle of Corne­lius to Cyprian: where the Con­fessours, who deserted Novatianus, use these words, as a renunciation of their former Principles, by this [...], is here meant the Church of Rome. Vales. Bishop in the Church of Rome. In which he was not ignorant (for how could he be?) that there should be Hence we may gather how many Churches there were then at Rome, for every Presbyter had his particular Church; so that if there were 46 Presbyters, there were also 46 Churches: See Ba­ronius in the year of Christ 57. Vales. 46 Presbyters, seven Deacons, Seven sub-Deacons, Clerks 42; Exor­cists, Readers, together with Janitors, 52. Widows, and Some Editions read [...], others [...]: but with­out doubt the true reading is [...], that is, as Rufinus ren­ders it, indigent persons, or as the Roman Clergy explain it, persons who could not maintain themselves. Chrysostome in his 67th Homilie upon Matthew, saith, that the Church of Antioch in his days, though it had but small revenues, yet reliev'd above 3000 widows and virgins daily, besides strangers, Lepers, and Prisoners: and be­sides Clerks, whom it supplied with meat and cloathing. Vales. indigent persons, which could not maintain themselves, above a thou­sand and five hundred. All these the grace and bounty of the Lord maintain'd. But neither could so great multitude, so necessary in the Church, (a congre­gation which by Gods pro­vidence is both rich, and numerous, together with a great and innumerable mul­titude of people,) make this man ashamed of this so desperate an attempt, or deter him from proceeding in it, or recall him into the Church.’ And again, after some other words, which intervene, he adjoyns these. ‘But come on, let us in our following words declare, in what works of his own, or what good practices he was so confident, as to aspire to a Bishoprick. Was it upon this account, that from the begin­ning he had been conversant in the Church, and had fought many combats in defence of it, and had been in many and great perils upon account of Religion? No; this is nothing so. For the devil who had entered into him, and for a long time dwelt in him, was the occasion of his being a believer. He being relieved [thereof] by the Exorcists, fell into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received Baptism, (This word [...] Ru­finus very well renders p [...]u [...]us, be sprinkled; for people which were sick, and baptiz'd in their beds▪ could not be dipped in water by the Priest, but were sprinkled with water by him: this Baptism was thought imperfect, and not solemn for several reasons. Also they who were thus baptiz'd were called ever afterwards Cli [...]i [...]i, and by the 12th Canon of the Council of Neo [...]s [...]re [...], these Cli [...]i [...]i were pro­hibited Priesthood. Chrysostome describes this sort of Baptism in his 60th Homily Tome the 2• (to the Catechumen [...] ▪) Cyprian, In his 76th Epistle▪ [...]old [...] this Baptism to be lawfull, and perfect. Vales. being besprinkled with water,) on the bed whereon he lay: (if that [Page 114] can be termed Baptism:) Neither, when he had escaped that sickness, did he afterwards receive the other things which the The Ca­non was this, that they who were bapti­zed in their beds, if they recovered again, should afterwards go to the Bishop, that be might supply what was wanting in that Baptism; No­vatianus is here accused by Cor­nelius, because, after his recovery he never [...] to the Bishop for the completion of Baptism, as the Canon of the Church injoyneth: for it is expresly commanded in the 47th Canon of the Council of Lao­dicea, and in Chap. 38. of the Council of Eliberis. Vales. Canon of the Church injoyneth should be received: nor was he Rufinus thinketh that by this phrase [ [...]] is meant the Chrism, but I rather think he means the imposition of hands, by which the Bishops gave the holy Ghost to them who were baptiz'd. Cy­prian, to Jubaianus, confirms our Interpretation. 'Tis true [...] signifies to sign, or mark, it also signifies, to lay hands on, as Innocentius uses it in his 3d and 6th Chap. to Decentius, and Marcus in his life of Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza, and Ambrose (or whosoever it is who is the Au­thour of those books) upon the 4th Chap. of Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. This sealing of the baptized was sometimes per­form'd with the Chrism, (that is) when the Person, in case of approaching death, had been baptiz'd by some of the inferiour Clergy, and not anointed; but if he had been perfectly baptized before, onely imposition of hands by the Bishop was required, as the Canon Arausicanus tells us. Hence I conjecture arose the custom of not using the Chrism in Baptism amongst▪ the Nova­tians, (as Theodoret tells us they did no [...], in his third book Haeret▪ Fabul.) because their Ringlea­der Novatianus received Baptism without the Chrism. Vales. sealed by the Bishops imposition of hands; which if he never received, how did he receive the holy Ghost?’ And again, a little after, he saith; ‘This man in the time of Persecution, through timerousness and a desire of life, deny'd that he was a Presbyter. For being desired and intreated by the Deacons that he would come out of his Chamber, in which he had shut him­self up, and succour the Brethren as far as it was meet and possible for a Presbyter to succour the distressed Brethren, who wanted assistance; he was so far from complying with the Deacons who intreated him, that with great indig­nation he went his way, and departed. For he said he would no longer▪ be a Presbyter; but was a fa­vourer of another kind of Philosophy.’ Having ran over some few passages, he makes this addition hereto in these words: ‘For this ex­cellent fellow has deserted the Church of God, in which▪ after he had re­ceived Baptism, he was Hence we may gather that Novatianus immediately received Priests Orders being never Or­dained Deacon, or Subdeacon: which thing was at that time customary in the Church, as we may see in Origen and others. Vales. vouchsafed the degree of Presbyter by the favour of the Bishop, who by impo­sition of hands Ordain'd him Priest. Who being Formerly Bishops could not Ordain Priests without the con­sent of the Clergy, and People. Now concerning the requiring of the peoples votes in the Election of Presbyters, the Nicene Fathers themselves do evidence that, in their Synodical Epistle to the Bishops of Aegypt. Out of several places of that Epistle we may ga­ther, that the consent of the people was required in the Ordination of Clergy men. The holy Fathers also in that same Epistle deprive those Bishops who adhered to Meletius the Schismatick, of all authority of proposing their names to the people, who were to be admitted into holy Orders, and onely granted it to those Bishops who were pure from all Schism. For, in those days, the Bishops gave up the names of them who were to be Ordain'd to the people, that if they had any thing to object against any of them, they might attest it openly; as we may read in the Sacramentarium of Gregory the great. There is also an excellent passage in St Chrysosto [...] [...]pon this same thing in his 18th Homily upon the 2d Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. We have the whole solemnity excellently describ'd in the Sacramentarium of Gregory the Great, pag. 236▪ upon which place consult the Annotations of that most learned man Hugo Menardus. Vales. denyed [Orders] by all the Clergy, and many of the Laity, (because it was not lawfull for one who had been baptized in his bed by reason of some infirmity, as he was, to be admitted into [...] signifies a Degree or Order of them who have any Office in the Church. So Cornelius calls [...] the Presbytership. Eu­sebius, and [...] very often use [...] for the Dignitie of a Bishop▪ [...] signifies any degree whatsoever. Vales. any sacred Order,) the Bishop in­treated licence might be granted him to Ordain this person onely.’ To these impious acts he afterwards subjoyneth this other, the worst of all his wicked exploits▪ saying thus▪ ‘For he made oblations, and distributed to every one a part thereof, which when he had It was the proper du­ty of the Priest to deliver the Eucharist, and the Cup into the hands of the Receivers. See Chry­sostom's 46 Homily upon Mat­thew: in the 2• Council of Or­leans, Chap. 15. the Deacons are forbid to presume to deliver the body of Christ to the belie­vers, when the Priest is present. Vales. deli­vered; instead of blessing them, he compelled the wretched men to swear, holding the hands of him that received with both his hands, and not letting them go, till the persons had sworn, pro­nouncing these words: (for I will here make use of his own words:) Sweat to me by the body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou wilt never desert me, and revolt to Cornelius▪ So the miserable man was not permitted to taste, before he had Every oath has a curse an­nexed to it, which though it is not al­ways ex­pressed (as in this place) yet may be ta­citly under­stood; which thing the Latine Transla­tours did not take notice of, and hence they make [...] to signifie▪ before he had devoted himself to him, (i. e.) as they supposed to Novati­anus: but I had rather read it [...] with George Syncellus. The meaning of the place then is this, that the unhappy man was not permitted to tast, before he had solemnly cursed himself. Vales. cursed himself. And at the receiving of the bread, instead of saying This phrase [ [...], instead of saying Amen] has the same import with what Cornelius has said a little before, viz. [ [...], instead of blessing him.] For the faithfull (when they received the Eucharist from the hands of the priest) used to answer Amen, after the Priest, delivering the Sacrament, had said, The body of our Lord, &c. See Ambros. in his B. 4. Chap. 5. De Sa­crament: Cyrill of Jerusalem, in his last Catechism: and August. B. 12. Chap. 10. against Faustus. Vales. Amen, he says, I will never return to Cor­nelius.’ Again, after some other words he says thus: ‘Now you must understand he is stript naked of all his followers, and le [...]t de­solate. The Brethren daily deserting him, and returning to the Church: And Concerning this Moses, a Presbyter of Rome, Cyprian in his E­pistles does speak frequently. After the Martyrdom of Fabianus Bishop of Rome (who suffered Anno Christi 250) this Moses was apprehended, (together with Maximus the Presbyter and Nicostra­tus the Deacon,) cast into prison, where after 1 [...] Months, and 11 days, he dyed. See Cyprian's 15th Epistle to Moses and Maximus. Vales. Moses a blessed Martyn, (who lately amongst us suffered a fa­mous and admirable Martyrdom,) taking no­tice in his life time▪ of this man's impudence and folly, Moses being a Presbyter had no authority to excommunicate his fellow-Presbyters: all he could doe was to separate himself from their communion, when they came to visit him in prison. This phrase here [ [...], i. e. he deprived him of communion] the ancient writers frequently used, when they spake of those Pres­byters, who abstained from communion with others. See Paulinus in the Life of St Ambros. Moses's depriving of Novatianus of com­munion was, I suppose, done by him a little before his death. For at first Moses the Confessour had communion with Novatianus: and when the Clergy of Rome wrote that Epistle to Cyprian (which among Cyprian's Epistles is accounted the 31,) Moses then had communion with Novatianus▪ for both of them subscribed that Epistle. More­over, Novatianus himself wrote an Epistle, as Cyprian attests in his E­pistle to Antonianus: from which Epistle we may perceive the wit and eloquence of Novatianus; for that Epistle, we must confess, is a most elegant piece; and it was written when Moses had been a year in pri­son, as may be collected from Cyprian's Epistles to Moses. Vales. deprived him of communion, toge­ther with the five▪ Who these five Presbyters were, who with Novatianus made a Schism, 'tis to me unknown. I can't think that Maximus the Presby­ter and Confessour, who with Urbanus, Sidonius, Nicostratus, and the rest of the Confessours were reduced by Novatianus, adhered to his party any long time▪ For Maximus and the rest of the Confessors went over to Novatianus's party after Moses's death. Indeed Nova­tianus separated himself from the Church before Moses's death, which happened in February, Decius 3, and Etruscus being Consuls: but the confessours did not betake themselves to Novatianus's [...]ide till after Moses's death. So great was the power and authority of Moses. Be­sides, 'tis evident the Confessours were not dismist of their imprison­ment till Moses was dead; for why should they be freed rather than Moses? Therefore they became Novatianus's followers after Moses's death. One Maximus, name-sake to Maximus the Presbyter and Con­fessour, seems to have been one of these five Presbyters; whom No­vatianus sent as his messenger afterwards into Africa. Vales. Presbyters, who with him had voluntarily separated themselves from the Church.’ Now at the end of his Epistle, he makes a catalogue of those Bishops who were present at Rome, and condemn'd the folly of Nova­tus. He also gives an account of their names, and the name of every ones particular Church, in which he Govern'd. He does also expresly men­tion those, who were not then present [at Rome,] but by letters approved of the sentence of the fore­said Bishops, together with their names, and the names of the Cities, from which each of them wrote. Thus much Cornelius has recorded in his Epistle to Fabius Bishop of Antioch.

CHAP. XLIV. Dionysius's story concerning Serapion.

DIonysius Bishop of Alexandria sent Letters to this same Fabius, who was something in­clining to this Schism, and having discours'd seve­rall things concerning repentance in his Letters to him, and also related the combats of some who had undergone Martyrdom a little before at Alex­andria, amongst other stories, he relates a mira­culous thing, which I thought necessary here to insert into this our History, it runs thus: ‘I will here propose to you one example which hap­pened amongst us. There was amongst us one Serapion an old man, a believer: who for a long time had lived blameless: but in the time of per­secution he lapsed; he often petitioned for par­don, He means that none of the Clergy, or Laity, were moved with his entreaties so as to think him worthy of absolution. (For the people's suffrages were requi­red when any one was to be re­ceived into the Church, who for any fault had been excommuni­cated.) And the Bishop himself sometimes asked the Consent of the people. The people also did often intercede for the penitents to the Bishop, as we may see in the preceding Chap. in the Epistle of Pope Cornelius to Fabian Bishop of Antioch. Vales. but no body gave at­tention to him, because he had sacrificed. Being taken with sickness, he remained for the space of three days speechless, and senseless: be­ing a little refreshed on the 4th day, he called his daugh­ters son to him, and said, Child, how long do you de­tain me? I pray make hast, and absolve me quickly, call one of the Some one may perhaps ask why Serapion did not rather send for the Bishop, whose Office it was to reconcile penitents. The Bi­shop had given this authority to the Presbyters for fear least he being absent any one should die without absolution and the Com­munion. See Epiphanius in his Heresic of the Arrians. This cu­stom of committing this authority to the Presbyters was usual in all great Cities. Vales. Presbyters to me: And when he had spoken these words, he was again speechless. The child ran to the Presbyter. It was now night: and the Presbyter also was sick, and not able to come. But (because I had before given command, that those peo­ple who were dying, if they desired it, and This was the Decree of the African Synod about the same time that Dionysius wrote these things. Vales. espe­cially if they had before humbly requested it, should be In the Savil, and Fuk. M. SS. before this word [ [...]] there are some words inserted which also Christophor. inserts in his translation: it may appear from this place that the Sacrament was delivered to such penitents in case of necessity, without the reconcilia­tory imposition of hands. And this communion was called, the via­ticum. See Canon the 77 and 78 of the 4th Council of Carthage, and the 39th Carton of the first Council of Arausica: this Communion was called also dispensatoria, because it was granted to dying peni­tents, before the completion of the full time appointed for Repen­tance, and if the penitent communicant recovered, it was perfected after his recovery by imposition, he compleating his time of repentance. Vales. absolved, that they might depart with a lively hope) he This that Dionysius here says concerning the giving of the Eu­charist to the boy to carry to the sick person, ought not to seem strange, for it was frequently done a long time after; So that St U­dalric thought it necessary expresly to prohibit it, in his Synodical speech which Gretser published together with the Life of Gre­gory the seventh Chap. 20. But that which Gretser takes to be St U­dalric's Oration, I found lately to be the Synodical Epistle of Rathe­rius Bishop of Verona to his Clergy. And so 'tis intitled in the old Laudunensian M. S. Vales. gave to the Child a piece of the Sacrament, bidding him to Rufinus translates this phrase [...] thus, he commanded it should be given him being dip­ped. So the An­tients us'd to dip the Consecra­ted bread in water, as Adaman­nus witnes­seth in his 2d book concerning the Miracles of St Columba, Cap. 6. And Bede also in the life of St Cuthbert, Chap. 31. and in his Poem upon the same man's life; and several other Ecclesiastick Writers. But the Eucha­rists being put into the mouth of sick persons, is mentioned in the 76th Canon of the 4th Council of Carthage; which Canon is, concer­ning sick persons, who desired repentance, but were speechless before the Priest came to them. See the contents of that Canon. Vales. moisten it in water, and put it into the old man's mouth▪ the child [...] with it. And when he approached, before he came in [...] Sera­pion again recovered himself a little, and said, Child thou art come, the Presbyter was not able to come; but doe thou perform quickly what he injoyn'd thee, and let me depart. The boy moistned it in water, and put it into his mouth immediately. And when he had swal­lowed it by little and little, he straightway gave up the Ghost. Is it not plain that he was pre­served, and his life prolonged till he was ab­solv'd, that his sin being quite blotted out, he might for the several good works he performed, be Langus, Wolfius and Musculus render [...] in this place by the Latine word confiteri; which▪ in my opinion, is intolerable. Christoph. renders it, in numerum Confessorum referri, to be reckoned amongst the Confessours: which Translation▪ I like, if it be understood thus▪ referri [...] Christo, to be reckoned by Christ. For Dionysius alludeth to Christ's words in the Gospel. He who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father, &c. Matth. 10. 32. Vales. acknowledged [by Christ.]’ Thus much Dionysius.

CHAP. XLV. Dionysius's Epistle to Novatus.

LEt us now see what the same person wrote to Novatus, who about this time disturbed the fraternity of the Roman Church. Take notice therefore how he writes to him, because he pre­tended that some of the Brethren were the Au­thors of his Apostacy and Schism, and how he yielded to it, being compelled by them. ‘Diony­sius sendeth greeting to our Brother Hieronymus, in his Catalogue▪ where he relates the beginning of this Epistle, instead of Novatus more truly writes Novatianus. And so in George Syncellus's Chronicle we read [...]. Rufinus says that Dio­nysius wrote two Epistles after the same Copy; one to Novatus, an­other to Novatianus; and at the end of Dionysius's Epistle to Nova­tus, which Eusebius here rehears­eth, he addes thus much, and he wrote these same words to Nova­tianus: which words are no where found in the Greek Text. The Greek writers being deceived through the likeness of the names, make a confusion betwixt No­vatus, and Novatianus, using them both to signifie one and the same person. Our Authour Eusebius is also guilty of this mistake. Vales. Novatus. If you (as you say) were seduced unwillingly, you should manifest it by a voluntary return. For bet­ter it were to endure any thing whatever, then that the Church of God should be rent asunder. Nor were Martyrdom less honoura­ble if a man suffer death before he will yield to raise Schism in the Church, then if he undergoe it ra­ther than he will yield to sacrifice to Idols. Yea in my opinion 'tis much more glorious, for in that case man suffers Martyrdom for his own soul's sake onely: but in this he undergoes it for the sake of the whole Church. Wherefore now, if you can per­swade, or compel the Brethren to return to con­cord, your good deed will be greater then your crime; for this will not be imputed to you: but that will be commended. But if you can effect nothing upon the disobedient, save your own soul. I wish you health, and that you may embrace Peace in the Lord.’ These things he wrote to Novatus.

CHAP. XLVI. Concerning Dionysius's other Epistles.

HE also wrote an Epistle concerning Repen­tance to them Hierony­mus in his book, con­cerning the Ecclesiastick Writers, saith, that Dionysius wrote this Epistle about Repentance, and the order, or degree of sins, to the Ar­menians. Vales. in Aegypt: in which he layeth down his Opinions concerning the lapsed, and makes distinctions in the degrees of faults. There is also extant a particular book of his concerning Repentance, to Conon Bishop of the Church of Hermopolis. And another Musculus and Christophor▪ translate [...], an horta­tory Epistle; but not well; Eu­sebius uses the same word in his former books. Vales. objurgatory E­pistle to his flock at Alex­andria. And amongst them there is an Epistle written to Origen concerning Mar­tyrdom. And an Epistle to the Brethren at Lao­dicae, over whom Thelymidres was Bishop: He also writ concerning Repentance to the Brethren in Armenia, over whom In the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. in­stead of [...], 'tis [...] he was Bishop of Armenia the less, as I think. Vales. Meruzanes was Bi­shop. He writes to all these, and also to Cor­nelius Bishop of Rome, after he had received his Epistle concerning Novatus. Where he declares that he was invited by H [...]l [...]nus Bi­shop of Tarsus in Cilicia, and those who were with him: and also by Firmili­anus Bishop of Cappadocia, and by Theoctis [...]us Bishop of Palestine, to meet them at the Synod at Antioch, where some men endeavoured to establish the Novatian Schism. We must understand this News was written in the same Epistle▪ and not in another, as Christo­phorson thinks. Vales. Moreover he sends him word that he had heard Fabius was dead, and that Demetrianus was appointed to be his suc­cessour in the Bishoprick of Antioch. He also writes con­cerning the Bishop of Jerusalem in these very words: ‘Also blessed Alexander being in pri­son, there died a happy death.’ There is extant besides this, another Epistle of his sent by Hippoly­tus to the Brethren at Rome, concerning the Rufinus translates [...] de Mini­steriis, as if the Epistle were so in­titled, be­cause it treated concerning the Mini­sters of the Church. Jacobus G [...]ar, who published Georgius Syncellus, and illustrated him with his Notes, thinks that this [...] was a kind of an Ecclesiastick Epistle, as were the Synodical, the Dimissory Epistles, and the like: but I rather affent to Rufinus, that it was called [...], because i [...] treated concerning the Duty of a Deacon. Vales. Office of a Deacon. He also wrote another to them concerning Peace, and concerning Repentance like­wise. And again he wrote another to the Con­fessours there, who even at that present were fa­vourers of Novatus's Opinion. He also sent to those same men two other Epistles, after their return to the Church. He also compiled many more Epistles written to divers persons, wherein he has left to them, who at this time studiously peruse his Works, variety of profit.

The End of the Sixth Book of the Ecclesiastical History.

THE SEVENTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.

The PREFACE.

DIonysius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, shall again assist us with his words in the Composure of this Seventh Book of the Ecclesiastick History; who particularly relates all the Actions of his own Times, in the Epistles which he left to Posterity: And our Narration shall take its beginning from hence.

CHAP. I. Concerning the wickedness of Decius and Gallus.

GALLUS succeeds Decius, who was slain in a short time, together with his Decius the Empe­rour had 2 sons, the el­der was na­med, Quin­tus Heren­nius Etrus­cus Messius Decius; The youn­ger, Caius Valens Ho­stilianus Messius Quintus. They were both made Caesars by their father, and afterwards Augusti, as may appear by their Coins, and the inscri­ptions upon them. Vales. Children, before he had fully compleated the Eusebius in his Chronicle saith Decius Reigned one year, and three moneths. Aurelius Victor saith he died after he had Reigned two years compleat. But Victor in his Epitomy saith he Reigned 30 moneths. Eusebius in his Chronicle Assigns one year and three moneths to Decius, because he had before said that Philip Reigned seven years, whereas he Reigned but six. After his death Decius proclaimed himself both Emperour, and Consul, which was in the year of Christ 249. And in the year 250. he was again Consul. And also the year after he kept his Government, as we may gather, by a Decree of the Senate which was made in that year, which Pollio in Valerian relates. Wherefore he died the year following, together with his sons (when Gallus, and Volusianus were Consuls,) being all kill'd in the Wa [...]s in Thrace. Vales. Second year of his Reign. Baronius placeth Origen's death at the year of Christ 256, in the third year of Gallus and Volusianus; Eusebius here placeth it in the same year that Decius died▪ and Gallus began to Govern. But Eusebius himself in the 36th chap. of the 6th book of this History confirmeth what Baronius saith: for he says that in the 3d year of Philip the Emperours Reign, Origen was above 60 years old. And from the 3d year of Philip's Reign to the 3d year of Gallus and Volusianus's Consulship, 'tis 9 years. Moreover, if we say Origen liv'd 69 years, and died in the first year of Gallus the Emperour, he must ne­cessarily be born in the 4th year of Commodus the Emperour: but the Chronicon Alexandr▪ assigns his birth to the ninth year of that Em­perour. Vales. About this time died Origen, having lived Seventy years wanting one. But Dionysius in his Epistle to Hermammon, writes thus concerning Gallus. ‘But neither did Gallus understand what was Decius's destruction; neither did he before see what brought his ruine: But he also stumbled upon the same stone, which lay before his eyes. He, (his Kingdom being in a happy state, and all affairs succeeding according to his Some Copies, as the King's M. S. and Stephan. Edit. in­stead of [...] read [...]. And make it a Metaphor taken from them who sail with tide and stream. Vales. desire) persecu­ted the holy men who offered up their prayers to God for his peace and safety, and together with them, drove away those prayers, by which they interceded for him.’ This he writes con­cerning Gallus.

CHAP. II. Who about these times were Bishops of Rome.

COrnelius having possessed the Bishoprick of Rome about three years, Lucius was ap­pointed his successour. He having ministred in the Office not eight whole months, died, and relin­quished the dignity to Stephen. It was this Stephen, to whom Dionysius wrote the first of his Epistles concerning Baptism, there being about that time a great controversie raised, whether it were lawfull for the Converts, of what Sect soever, to be clean­sed by Baptism. At these words we should be­gin the 3d Chapter, for what follows concerning Cyprian, ought to be contained in the same sentence with these last words in this Chapter. And before these words in all books we find a distinction, which shews, here is to begin another Period. But Musculus, and Christoph▪ begin the third Chapter where we doe. Vales. For an old Custom had pre­vailed, that about these Converts onely imposition together with prayer was to be used.

CHAP. III. How Cyprian, with some Bishops which were of his mind, was the first that was of the Opinion, that the Converts of any Heretical Sect whatever, ought to be rebaptized.

CYprian then Bishop of Carthage was the Cyprian was not the first Authour of this O­pinion; but Agrippinus, who was Bishop of Carthage a long time be­fore him, having assembled together the Bishops of Africa and Nu­midia, made a Decree that Hereticks should be rebaptized, as Cyprian saith in his 71 and 73 Epistles. Therefore Cyprian ought here to be excused, who onely endeavoured to maintain his predecessours Opinion, which was established by the Authority of a Synod. But this Custom of rebaptizing Hereticks, had been used in Cappadocia time out of mind, as Firmilianus Bishop of O [...]sare [...] in Cappadocia te­stifieth in his Epistle to Cyprian. Vales. first of all, who thought, that Hereticks should not be admitted unless they were Cleansed [Page 118] from their former errour by Baptism. The E­pistle of Stephen to the Bishops of Africa is in the 74 and 75 Epist. of Cyprian. Firmilianus also, in his Epistle to Cyprian, relates some heads of that Epistle, and confutes them. Vales. But Ste­phen, thinking no innovations ought to be raised in opposition to the Tradition which had pre­vailed of Old, was in no wise well pleased at this.

CHAP. IV. How many Epistles Dionysius wrote concerning this Controversie.

DIonysius therefore having written at large to To Ste­phen. him concerning this business, at last cer­tifieth him, that the Persecution being allayed, the Churches in all places, which detested Novatus's [...] (the term here) his some allusion to Novatus, or Novatianus's name: other Greek Authours call that which the Latines call Novitates haereseon, Novel­ties, innovations, or newness of Doctrine, [...]. Vales. Novelties, had regained a general Peace amongst themselves: thus he writes,

CHAP. V. Concerning the Peace which followed the Per­secution.

‘Baronius from this Epistle of Dionysius's (at the year of Christ 259) ga­thers that the Eastern Bishops had re­nounced their Er­rour, and adhered to Stephen's Opinion, that Here­ticks were not to be re­baptized. But any considerate reader of this Epistle will find it far otherwise. For the subject of this Epistle is twofold. 1. Whether Hereticks were to be rebaptized. 2. Concerning the unanimity of the Oriental Churches, which had abominated the Novatian Heresie, and Decree'd that the lapsed should be received. He therefore tells him, that Demetrianus Bishop of Antioch, Metropolitan of the East, and the rest had subscribed to this Opinion: which he knew would please Stephen, because Fabius, Demetrianus's predecessour, endea­voured to establish the Novatian Heresie, as Dionysius before signified in the end of the 6 book of this History. Vales. BUt know (my Brother,) that all the Churches throughout the East, a­mongst which there were formerly divisions, are now united: These words [ [...], and a little farther] are not in the Fuk▪ and Savil M. SS▪ but Syncellus, Nicephorus, King's Maz. and Med. M. SS. have them, and though some will have these words to signifie [...] the more Remote Churches, yet I think that they are Eusebius's own words, repeating the heads of Dionyfius's Epistle. And this is my reason, because in most of our M. SS. there is a middle distinction at these words; therefore we translate it thus, a little further he writes. Vales. And a little farther he writes; and all the Prelates every where are in perfect Concord, as to their sentiments, and rejoyce exceedingly for this unexpected Peace: [to wit,] Demetrianus Bishop of Antioch; The­octistus of Caesarea, Mazabanes of This City was in Dionysius's days, and also till Constantinus's time called Aelia. It was afterwards called Jerusalem (as I before noted) through the pride of the Bishops of that See, who termed themselves the successours of James the Just: hence is it that Rufinus never calls it Aelia but according to the manner of his times, always Jerusalem. Vales. Aelia, A­lexander being dead; Marinus of Tyre; Helio­dorus of Laodicea, Thelymidres being deceased; Helenus of Tarsus, and all the Churches of Ci­licia; Firmilianus, and all Cappadocia. For I have here onely named the more eminent Bi­shops, that my Epistle might not be too long, nor my relation troublesome: Also all the Pro­vinces of Syria and Arabia, whom you The Church of Rome was wont for­merly to relieve o­ther Chur­ches, and to send money and cloathes to the Bre­thren in▪ captivity, and to those which wrought as slaves in the Mines. So Diony­sius Bishop of Corinth saith in his Epistle to Pope So­ter; which Epistle Eu­sebius quotes in his fourth book chap. 23. Euse­bius also in that same place says that this laudable custom continued in the Church of Rome in his days. And to that purpose Col­lections were made in the Church. ' [...] properly signifies, to supply one with all things necessary for a journey, viaticum praebere, and also it signifies (as it does here) to relieve charitably, as we do beggers, with money, or Alms. So Clemens Alex. in his first book Stromat. and Chry­sost. in his 67 Homily upon Matthew, use the word. Vales. frequent­ly relieve, and to whom you have now written: Mesopotamia also, Pontus, and Bithynia: And in a word, all people every where rejoyce for the concord and Brotherly-love, and praise God.’ These are the words of Dionysius. But Xystus succeeds Stephen after he had executed the Episcopal Office two years. To him Dionysius wrote a second Epistle concerning Baptism, and set forth to him the judgment and opinion of Stephen, and the other Bishops. Concerning Stephen thus he writes; ‘Indeed he before Stephen wrote another Epistle, (besides that we mentioned, before he wrote to the Bishops of Africa,) to the Eastern Bistops, which Fir­milianus mentions in his Epistle to Cyprian, near the end: where Fir­milianus says that he broke off all peace and friendship with the Eastern Bishops, but he did not, onely threatned that he would renounce all communion with them, if they persisted in their old Opinion, as Diony­sius here expresly testifieth. It is certain that Stephen never proceeded in this matter farther then threats; for after Stephen's death, Dionysius wrote to Xystus desiring his judgment in that point. For Dionysius in­clined to the Opinion of the Africans, and the Eastern Bishops, as Hie­ronymus witnesseth. Firmilianus in his foresaid Epistle does strangely aggravate the business, so that some think from his words they may ga­ther that Stephen excommunicated those Bishops: he was indeed much displeased that the African Synod should pretend to di [...]anul so ancient a custom, and make Decrees, that Hereticks should be rebaptized, with­out the knowledge of the Church of Rome: but he never broke peace with them, nor excommunicated them: for he wrote an answer to Cy­prian. And although his letters to Cyprian were something sharp, yet they still remained friends: for Cyprian afterwards in his letters to Pompeius, called Stephen brother. In fine the Africans, notwithstanding Stephen's letters, rebaptized Hereticks till the times of Constantine, as we may see from the Council of Orleans. Vales. wrote letters concerning Helenus and Firmilianus, and all the [Bishops] of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Galatia. And moreover, concerning all the neighbouring Provinces, that he would have no communion with them for this very reason, because (says he) they rebaptize Hereticks. And consider the weightiness of the affaire; for truly I hear, that there have been determinations made in the He meanes by these great Synods, the Synod of Iconium, of which see Firmilianus's Epistle to Cyprian; the Council of Synnada, and the Council of Carthage under Cyprian: in which Council above eighty Bishops gave their opinion, some of which were Martyrs and Confes­sours: in the Council of Iconium fifty Bishops met, as August▪ attests in book 3. and chap. 3. against Cresconius. But the Eastern Churches, espe­cially the Churches of Cappadocia, still retained their old custom of reba­ptizing Hereticks. And that custom remained amongst them even till the first Synod of Constantinople. Vales. greatest Synods of Bishops concerning this business, that Hereticks which were converted, should be first Catechized, and then should be washed and cleansed from the filth of their old and unclean leaven. And I wrote to him, making intercession for all these men. And afterwards he says: also to our well beloved and fellow-Presbyters, Dionysius, and Philemon (who were formerly of Stephen's Opinion, and wrote to me concerning the same things) I before wrote in short, but now I have written more at large.’ But thus much concerning the said controversie.

CHAP. VI. Concerning the Heresie of Sabellius.

Instead of [...] the King's M. S. reads [...], which reading we follow, and understand [...], which word is us'd in Eusebius before. Now [...], signifies, post illud capitulum, after that chapter, or head of his dis­course. Dionysius's Epistle to Xystus consisted of two principall heads, which were the matter and subject of the whole, (viz.) Concerning He­reticks being rebaptized, and concerning Sabellius his Heresie. Vales. AFter this head of discourse, he informs him of the These Hereticks were very ancient, even before Sabellius, though those who maintained these opinions were afterwards all so de­nominated, from Sabellius. For we find this was the opinion of Praxeas, against whom Tertullian wrote. After Praxeas followed No [...]us, (See Epiphan. Heres. 57.) from whom they were called No­ctiani. Suddenly after No [...]tus arose Sabellius, from whom all which held the same opinion were afterwards called Sabellians. This Sa­bellius (the reviver of this Heresie) was a Lybian, born at Ptolemai▪ a City of Pentapolis: He affirmed the Father, Son, and holy Ghost to be but one subsistence, one person under three several names, which in the time of the Old Testament g [...]ve the Law under the notion of the Father: in the New, was made man in the capacity of the Son, and descended afterwards upon the Apostles, in the quality of the holy Ghost. Dionysius undertakes this man; but managing the cause with too much eagerness and fervency of disputation, he bent the stick too much the other way, asserting not onely [...], a distinction of persons, but also [...], a difference of Essence, and an inequality of power and glory. Upon which account he is se­verely censured by St Basil, (Epist. 41. ad Magn. Philosoph.) and others of the ancients, as one of those who in a great measure opened the gap to those Arrian impieties which afterwards broke in upon the world. Sabellian Hereticks, who at that [Page 119] time abounded mightily; and thus he writes, ‘For concerning the opinion which lately sprung up at Ptolemais a City of Pentapolis, which is impious, and full of blasphemies against God Almighty, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and contains much infidelity against his onely begotten Son, the first begotten of every creature, the Word that was conversant amongst men; and is full of stupi­dity and senselessness about the holy Ghost: when letters came to me from both parties, and brethren to discourse with me, I wrote some Dionysius here seems to mean his Epistle to Ammon Bi­shop of Berenice, and that to Telesphorus, and that to Euphranor: all against Sabellius; Eusebius mentions these Epistles, in Chap. 26. of this seventh book. Athanasius in his defence of Dionysius Alexandrinus mentions but one Epistle of Dionysius's to Ammonius and Euphranor. Dionysius was accused by some Bishops of Aegypt, for speaking some things about Christ in that Epistle which were not Orthodox. Vales. Epistles ac­cording to my ability with Gods assistance, ex­plaining those [points] more at large like an In­structour: of which Epistles, I have sent you copies.’

CHAP. VII. Concerning the most execrable Errour of the Here­ticks, and concerning the vision sent from God which appeared to Dionysius, and the Ecclesiastick Canon he received.

THE same Dionysius in his third Epistle, con­cerning Baptism, written to Philemon Pres­byter of the Church of Rome, annexeth these words: ‘I have read over the books and tra­ditions of the Hereticks, defiling my mind for a little while with their most accursed inven­tions: Indeed, I received this advantage from them, that I can the better confute them in my own thoughts, and do grow to a greater de­testation of them. And when one of my bro­ther Presbyters prohibited me, fearing least I should be mixed and disordered with the filth of their wickedness; (for he said my mind would be defiled, and truly I was sensible he said true:) a vision sent from God corroborated me. And a voice came to me, which gave me this express command, saying; Read all things that thou shalt take into thy hands, for thou art able to search into, and to examine every thing, and this was the principal cause of thy becoming a Christian: I gladly received the vision, as being consonant with the These words [...], be ye skilful Tryers or Examiners, are no where [...]ound in the Apostle, indeed we have, in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians chap. 5. ver. 21. these words, prove all things, and hold fast that which is good: which are the same in effect with these, be ye Tryers, &c. But Origen, and Hieronymus say that these words, Estote boni Trapezit [...], are an express command of our Saviour's. And that the place out of the Thessalonians above quoted has relation to these words [...], and exactly agrees with them, wherefore I am of the same mind with the Learned Usher, who in his Proleg. to I [...]nati [...]s's Epist. cap. 8. says, this command of Christ is taken out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These words are also quoted in Cyril Hierosolymit. his 6 Catechism, neer the end. Vales. Words of the A­postle, who speaketh thus to those who are able, Be ye skilful The term in the ori­ginal is [...], which word oc­curs Matth. 25. 27. where our translation renders it Exchan­gers. The Is­raelites be­ing bound by the Law (Exod. 30. 13.) to come up to Jerusalem, how far so­ever they dwelt from it, and there to sacrifice, and offer the half shekel for the use of the Tem­ple, (which by the length of their journey they were sometimes disabled to do) these Trapezitae set up their tables in the very Temple, that so they might traffick with all that had use of them; in like manner as others brought Oxen and Sheep and Doves, to sell there to them which had not brought their sacrifices with them. See Dr Hammond on Matth. 21. v. 12. Examiners.’ Afterwards, having spoken something concerning all the Heresies, he continues saying; ‘I received this Rule and Canon from Heraclas our blessed Pope. For those who were Converts from Heresies, (al­though they were Here we may see the Difference between Apostates, and those which are simply called Hereticks. Apostates were them, who had been baptiz'd in the Catholick Church, but had deserted the Church and revolted to Hereticks: Simple Hereticks were those who had never been admitted into the Church. And this was the custom in the Church that Apostates as well as simple Hereticks should be received (when they returned to the Church) by imposition of hands. St August. in his 48 Epistle to Vincentius saith, the Church dealt more kindly with them who were never received into the Church, (that is with them who were simply Hereticks) then with them who had been received into her and deserted her, (that is Apostates) This is therefore the sence of Dionysius's words here, as we may gather by the afore mentioned words of S August. Dionysius here says, Heraclas his predecessour had this form of admitting Converts, who had been Apostate Hereticks, into the Church. He required a publick confession (which is called Exomologesis) of the Principles of that Heresie which they had fol­lowed; but he did not rebaptize them, because they had been before baptized: immediately after this confession he laid hands upon them (as we may gather from Dionysius's words) this imposition of hands upon an Apostate, and a simple Heretick, was different. The one was ad panitentiam, in order to Repentance: the other was ad tradendum Spi­ritum Sanctum, for the delivery of the Holy Ghost, the first was used at the admission of Apostates, the other at the admission of them whom they called pure Hereticks. See Cyprians Epistle to Stephanus. Vales. Apostates from the Church; or rather not Apostates, but seemingly assembled themselves, and were privately discovered to frequent any of the Heterodox teachers) he excommunicated, and would not again admit them into the Church although they intreated him, before they had made a publick confession of what they had heard from the [...]dverse party. And then he again admitted them to commu­nion, but thought no second Baptism was re­quisite for them, because they had before re­ceived holy In the Med. M. S. and Rob. Stephens's Edit. the reading is [ [...], &c. for they had received the holy Spirit, &c.] In the Kings, Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. the word [ [...], spirit] is wanting: which in my judgment is the truest reading. For Diony­sius gives the reason why Heraclas did not reiterate Baptism in the ad­mission of Hereticks in these words [ [...]] [understand [...], Baptism] [for they had be­fore received holy Baptism from him.] Dionysius calls Baptism holy, to difference it from the Baptism of Hereticks; which Cyprian, Firmilian▪ and others (who at that time defended the opinion of not rebaptizing Hereticks) call profane: Dionysius was a favourer of their party, as appears both from his Epistles here quoted by Eusebius, and also from St Jeroms testimony. Vales. [Baptism] from him.’ Again, after a copious discourse upon this question, he [...]hus concludes. ‘This furthermore I understand, that the Africans of this Age were not the onely introducers of this custom, but this was establisht long before by Bishops, who were before our Age, in their most populous Assem­blies, and in the That these Synods were before Dionysius Alexand, his time, we may easily gather by his own words here: for he expresly affirms that these Synods were [...], long before our time. The same thing Firmilianus witnesseth, in his Epistle to Cyprian concerning the Synod of Iconium. This Synod was a long time before the days of Stephen Bishop of Rome, as we may gather by Firmilianus's words in his said Epistle to Cyprian, where he expresly affirms that this Synod of Iconium had been long since assembled: Also Dionysius Alexand. in his Epistle to Philemon Presbyter of Rome, which he wrote about the beginning of the presidency of Xystus, saith, that this Synod was solemnly assembled by the Bishops which preceded him a long time. Therefore this Synod seems to have been assembled about the end of Alexander Severus's Reign: about which time, as Euscbius in the 6th book of this History recordeth, Firmilianus was newly pro­moted to the dignity of Priest in the Church of Caesarea. Therefore I cannot assent to Baronius, and Binius, who reckon this Synod of Iconium in the year of Christ 258 which was the 2d year of Stephen's presidency. Vales. Synods of the Brethren at Iconium, and at Synnada, and amongst many other persons; whose sentiments and determi­nations I will by no means overthrow, nor ex­cite them to contention and strife. For it is [Page 120] written: thou shall not remove thy neighbour's land-mark, which thy fathers have set in thine inheritance.’ His fourth Epistle concerning Ba­ptism, is written to Dionysius, who was at that time Presbyter of the Church of Rome, and a little while after obtained the Bishoprick there. From which Epistle we may learn what a learned and admirable man this same Dionysius was, by Dionysius Alexandrinus's testimonies of him. Af­ter other things he writes to him in that Epistle concerning Novatus in these words:

CHAP. VIII. Concerning Novatus's Heresie.

‘FOR we may with sufficient reason abomi­nate The Maz. Med. Fuk. M. SS. read [...], and truely, as we afore noted book 6. chap. 45. 'Tis strange that we find the true name of this He­retick only in this place of Eusebius. Vales. Novatianus, who stirr'd up Schism in the Church, and seduced some of the Brethren to blasphemies and impieties, and induced most profane Doctrine concerning God, and calum­niously accused our most gracious Lord Jesus Christ as unmercifull; besides all these things he ' [...]. what may be the true meaning of [...], in this place may be best con­jectured by considering the divers significations of the word, for from the various meanings of the word, arose the different translations of this place. ' [...] sometimes signifies to reject, to scorn, sometimes to dis­grace, or dishonour, as Hesych. saith, [...], not to esteem, or value one, but to despise: so Clemens Alexand. Stromat, book 4. uses the word. ' [...]. Novatianus who did not allow but condemn the Baptism of the Catholick Church, is fitly said here [...]. (i. e.) he rejected, and contemned that Baptism as unprofitable and ineffectual to salvation. Vales. disalloweth of holy Baptism; and utterly abolisheth Faith, and the Twas the custom for the Catechumeni, or Catechized, before the receiving of Baptism to repeat the Creed. And at every Article the Priest asked them whether they believed, to which they answered, yes I believe: wherefore when they said that they believed the Remission of sins, Novatianus who did not allow Remission of sins, but abolished it, must also abolish that confession of faith which the Catechized re­peated before Baptism. See Cyprians 70 and 76th Epistle. Vales. Confession of Faith before Baptism: and he perfectly It is very difficult to understand what Dionysius here means by saying Novatianus banished the holy Spirit from the Brethren: Per­haps by the holy Spirit he means the grace which was given to peni­tents by imposition of hands when they were admitted into communion, after the performance of the duty of Repentance. But then these words are very obscure (although there was some hope that it still rested in them or would return to them again.) 'Tis plain and evident that Dio­nysius here speaks concerning them who had lapsed, but how can the holy Spirit be said to abide in them who had sinned? indeed it may be said to return again to them after their repentance, but can in no wise abide in them, for the Scripture saith, Every soul which sinneth shall likewise perish. We must then understand it of them who had lapsed through weakness and ignorance: who in those days were called libellatici, or sacrificers, (who had purchased libells of security from the Heathen Magistrate, for fear least they should be compelled to sacrifice) for such as sin through weakness or ignorance do no [...] forfeit the grace of the Spirit: but if this explication please not, we will understand it spoken of the faithfull: some of whom retained the holy Spirit which they received in Baptism, some lost it. From them who had lost it, Novatianus utterly expelled and banished the holy Spirit, by denying them Repentance and Peace, by which the grace of the holy Spirit is regained; he drove it away from them who retained it, and kept it, by insinuating into their minds false and sinister opinions of the holy Ghost, as that he was unmerciful, implacable, &c. And so denied them, and utterly deprived them of all hopes of pardon for sin committed. Vales. banisheth the holy Ghost from them, (although there were some hope that it still rested in them, or would return to them again.)’

CHAP. IX. Concerning the Baptism of Hereticks, that it is impious.

DIonysius's fifth Epistle was written to Xystus Bishop of Rome. In which after much discourse against Hereticks, he relates this very accident which happened in his days. ‘For truly (Brother) I want your advice, and desire your judgment. Such a thing as this, coming to my knowledge, I fear least I should err in it. For one of the congregation of the Brethren, who was accounted an antient believer, a person who had been a member of the congregation before my ordination, (yea and as I think) before ever blessed Heraclas was constituted Bishop: this man (I say) being present at the Ba­ptism of some who were lately baptized, and having heard the Questions, and their Answers, came to me weeping, and lamenting his own case. And falling down at my feet he made a confession of, and renounced the Baptism which he had received from the Hereticks, that it was not of this kind, neither had it any likeness at all to this of ours; but was full of impieties, and blasphemies. He also said that he was now most grievously pricked in mind, and had not the confidence to lift up his eyes to God, having been initiated by such impious words and cere­monies. For this reason he prayed that he might partake of the most pure Baptism, [...] is by Chri­stophorson rendred susceptio in Ecclesiam, a receiving into the Church; 'tis by Mus­culus ren­dered sus­ceptio on­ly; which Version I rather ap­prove of. For Ba­ptism is termed [...], because in it God receiveth us as his sons: [...] may also be translated perceptio, for so Baptism is stiled in the M. S. Acts of the Passion of St Genesius Mimus. Vales. Adoption, and Grace. Which thing I durst not perform: but told him that the daily communion with the Church he had so long enjoyed was sufficient for that. For I durst not rebaptize one who had heard the When the Priest had finished the solemn prayers at the Eucharist, all the people with a joynt acclamation used to say aloud Amen, (that is) so be it. We must understand that place of St Paul in the first Epist. to the Corinth. Chap. 14. v. 16. to be spoken in reference to this Custom, in which place St Paul taxeth the Hebrews, who used the Hebrew or Syrian language commonly in their Oblations and Divine Service, when the Grecians were present with them, (as the Commentatour says upon the place.) This word Amen denotes the assent of the people to the prayer made by another before them, and it is an ex­pression of affirmation, which the Church still retaineth. Vales. giving of thanks, and had to­gether with the rest of the congregation said Amen to it, and who had From these words [ [...]] we may gather that the Communicants came to the Altar, and received the body of Christ from the Presbyter, standing up, and not upon their knees, as we do now: had it not been so, Dionysius would not have added [...]; which word we find to be properly used in reference to them who minister at the Altar. Chrysostom in his 41 Homilie, upon the first Epistle to the Corinth. useth [ [...]] for the Priest; but [ [...], or [...]] he useth to signifie the Laity. But in the 44 Canon of the council of Laodicea all Com­municants were prohibited from coming to the Altar, except the Priests. Vales. stood before the holy Table, and In the Primitive Church the faithful Communicants came to the Altar with their hands carefully washed, and when they were about to receive the body of our Lord, they stretched out their right hands bending them and making them hollow, and they put their left hands under them least they should drop any of that holy food. See Chrysost. 3d Homil. upon the Ephesians, and also his 52 Homil. upon Mat­thew. Vales. stretched out his hand to receive the holy food; and who had received it, and for a long time had been partaker of the body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, I bad him be of a good courage, and approach the holy Communion with a stedfast faith, and a good conscience. But he ceaseth not his lamen­tations, and has been afraid to come to the holy [Page 121] Table, and can scarce endure to be present at the prayers, although he be desired.’ There is also extant another Epistle of his, besides those before spoken of, concerning Baptism, which is directed from him and the Church he presided over, to Xystus and the Church at Rome. In which Epistle he enters into a prolix argumentation about, and discourses at large upon the Question proposed. There is also extant another Epistle of his, be­sides these concerning Lucianus, which he wrote to Dionysius the Roman. But thus much concer­ning these things.

CHAP. X. Concerning Valerian, and the Persecution in his Reign.

MOreover, Gallus having not possessed the Empire two compleat years, was slain; Va­lerian and Gallienus his son, succeeded in the Go­vernment. Again therefore what Dionysius re­lateth concerning this [Valerian] we may ga­ther out of his Epistle to Hermammon, in which he makes this Narration; ‘This also is revealed to St John, for saith he, Baronius (at the year of Christ 257. cap. 7.) does excel­lently well explain this passage of Dionysius's; to wit, con­cerning the space of time, du­ring which Valeria­nus's per­secution lasted. For whereas Valerian reigned al­most seven years, as 'tis acknowledged by all; in his former three years he was mild towards the Christians, but in his latter triennium he rai­sed a persecution against the Church. Valerian began to reign in the year of Christ 253. (about the end of the year) Volusianus 2 and Maximus being Coss. This is manifest from the old Coins produced by Occo and Goltzius, wherein Valerian is inscribed TRIBVN. POTESTAT. 3. Consul 3. Also, TRIB. POT. 5. Cos. 4. The same may be gathered from Gallienus's Coins. Vales. And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies, and power was given unto him, [to continue] fourty and two moneths. It is matter of won­der to see how both these things are fulfilled in Valerian, and especially if we consider how he behaved himself before the Persecution, how kind and how loving he was to the servants of God: For no Emperour of all his predeces­sours was so courteously, so lovingly dispos'd to­wards them (no not By these Christian Emperours he means Philip the first Christian Emperour (as many of the ancients doe affirm) of the Romans: but because he speaks in the plural number, we may adde Alexander Se­verus, who in his private Chappel had Christ's Image, and favoured the Christians. But Dionyfius here means those Emperours who were called and thought to be Christians, not that they were really so. Vales. those who are manifestly reported to have been Christians,) as he was, who at the beginning of his Empire seem'd most mer­cifull, most loving towards them. His whole household was filled with pious men, and was [seemingly] a Church of God. This [...], Baronius at the year of Christ 252. saith was the same man that excited the Alexan­drians in the Reign of Decius to persecute the Christians. (see Chap. 41. Book 6. of this History:) but I think it was quite a distinct per­son, namely Macrianus, he that was afterwards Emperour, who stirred up Valerian to persecute the Christians: this Macrianus was Valari­an's Master or Tutor, and by his evil counsel it was that Valerian rai­sed this Persecution; which thing Dionysius's following words do con­firm. Vales. But his Master, and This [...], is a term borrowed from the Jews; for in their Synagogues there were these degrees of Officers; the [...], or Rulers of the Synagogues; also Fathers of the Synagogues; Priests, Presbyters and Deacons of the Synagogues, whom they called Azanites; there were also Apostles, and Patriarchs, who were set over all these: but what this [...] may mean in this place, we are yet to seek: neither know we what these [...] were, except we call them Aruspices or Diviners, who were at Rome: or we may call them the Priests of Isis and Serapis, over whom this Macrianus was Ruler or Chief. Now these Magicians were prohibited by the Jews, but the Roman Emperours, in imitation of Alexander the Great, had these Magicians with them in their Camps and in all their exploits. Dio says, M. Antony, in his expedition into Germany, took Arnuphis an Aegyptian sorcerer along with him; so Valerian here had Magicians in his Army, and the chief or head of them was this Macri­anus, as Dionyniùs attests. Vales. Chief of the Magicians of Aegypt, per­swaded him to change his resolution: bidding him murther and persecute those pure and holy men, as being impugners and obstructers of accursed and abominable sorceries. For there were then, and are yet living, men, who with their very aspects, or This par­ticiple [...], Vales. ren­ders insuf­fiantes, (i. e.) blowing upon. For the Chri­stians used to blow upon the Demons and their delusions, temples, and ima­ges; shew­ing there­by that they abo­minated them: con­cerning this usage amongst the Chri­stians, see Brissonius's Notes in commentar. ad Tit. Cod. Theod. de Feriis. And Heraldus in his Notes on Minucius Felix. blowing upon, or words, are powerful enough utterly to dissipate the cheats of noxious Demons. He advised him to perform impure rites of initiation, abominable inchantments and execrable sacrifices; to cut the throats of miserable Infants, to sacrifice the children of unhappy parents, to rip open the bowels of new-born babes; and to tear in pieces and cut asunder God's own workman­ship, as if by these Acts he should purchase for himself a prosperous felicity.’ He also adds these words. ‘Indeed, This phrase [...], is spoken in reference to the [...], the Demons, and not [...], the Emperours, as some think; which interpretation if we should follow, the sence would be lost; but in our translation, the sence is plain and entire. And also al­though here we find [...], yet the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. read [...]. So likewise the Writers of the Roman History, and the old Coines, name this Tyrant. Vales. Macrianus offered ac­ceptable thank-offerings to the Demons for the Empire which he hoped for, who at first when he was nam'd the Emperours The Greeks call them [...], whom the Latines call Rationales, vel procuratores summae rei; Receivers General, or Stewards of the Emperours Estate. Whose procurator or steward this Macrianus was, we cannot certainly tell; we must not suppose he was Valerian's. Vales. Rationalist, did mind nothing that was reasonable, Dionysius here jesteth upon the word [...], by which he meaneth both the stewards office, and also the Catholick Religion, from which signification some gather our Religion to be called [...], quod sit rationalis, because 'tis rational: but I can scarce think that we can hence gather the Catholick Religion to be so called; for this word [...] does not signifie rationalis, except we understand [...] a steward, or rationalist. We find this title attributed to the Church about the first Age after the Apostles, see B. 4. Chap. 15. pag. 59. and in the Acts of the Martyrdom of Pionius the Martyr, who suffered in the Reign of Decius Augustus, it is so termed: about which time several heresies arose, and endeavoured by their tradi­tions to subvert the true faith of Christ and the Doctrine of the A­postles. At that time, that the true Church might be distinguished from the adulterate Conventicles of Hereticks, this name Catholick was attributed to the congregation of the Orthodox persons. Vales. or for the publick: But he lay under the curse of the Prophet, which saith, This place out of the 13. chap. of Ezek. vers. 3. [...], Hieronym. translates, non omninò vident, sce not at all: but our Authour Dionysius renders it as if it were [...]; accommodating the words of the Prophet, or rather of the Septuagint, to his own purpose. Vales. Wo to them who pro­phesie after their own hearts, and regard not the publick good. For he did not understand that there was a providence which over-ruled all things. Neither had he regard to the judg­ment of him, who was before all, is in all, and above all. Upon this account he was indeed an adversary of his Catholick Church: but he alienated, and banished himself from the mer­cy of God, and fled away from his own Robert Stephens reads [ [...], from his own Church:] but in the Kings, the Maz. Fuk. and Savil M. SS. the rea­ding is [ [...], from his own salvation.] Vales. sal­vation as far as he could; in this thing verifying his own name.’ After some other passages he again saith. ‘For Valerian, who was induced to act these things by his means, was exposed to affronts and reproaches, according to what was spoken to Esaias saying, They have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abo­minations, I also will chuse their delusions, and recompence their sins upon them. Christoph. thought these words [ [...], he was most extraordinarily desirous of the Empire] were spoken concerning Valerian, when as 'tis plain they must be referred to Macrianus. For he could not possibly say of Valerian that he was unfit for the Empire which he coveted, for he was a most eminent man, the very chief of the City: and before he Reigned (as Historians avert) was judged worthy of the Empire by com­mon consent. This translation and mistake of Christoph. has also brought Baronius into an errour. Vales. This Macri­anus was most extraordinarily desirous of the [Page 122] Empire, but being unable to put on the im­perial dignity, because of his feebleness of body, he made his two sons Emperours, who were heirs of their fathers iniquities. The prophecy which God spake is most evidently accom­plished in these two brothers: Visiting the ini­quity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. For he imposed his own [...] we have rendred (which he could not enjoy) And if that rea­ding [ [...]] be true, it must be so rendred: the Kings M. S. and Steph. Edit. read [ [...]] but the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. read [...], which he successfully obtained; and in my opinion 'tis the better reading. For Macrianus did obtain the Empire, which he was so desirous of, but by reason of his debility of body he was un­able to carry the Insignia of the Empire, but raised his two sons to that dignity, wherefore upon the obtaining of all these his desires, Diony­sius might well say of him [...], that he was votorum compos, master of all his wishes. As for this feebleness of body ( [...]) which he attributeth to Macrianus, we find it mentioned in no Historians, except in Zonaras's Annals (who was the onely man that gave us a true relation of the Acts of Macri­anus and his sons) and he says Macrianus was lame. Vales. evil lusts which he could not injoy, upon the heads of his Children, and imprinted on them his own wickedness and hatred against God.’ Thus much Dionysius writeth concerning Valerian.

CHAP. XI. Concerning what then happened to Dionysius, and to those Christians which were in Aegypt.

BUt concerning the Persecution which raged exceedingly against him; what [sufferings] also he and others sustained upon account of the worship of the supream God, his own words will declare, which he wrote in an­swer to The passage which follows, is an eminent fragment of the E­pistle (or rather the book) which Dionysius wrote against Germanus the Bishop; and it is to be joyned to that other fragment of the same book, which you had in Chap. 40. of Book 6. Vales. Germanus a Bishop of those times, who endea­voured out of malice to re­vile him: thus he answers him. ‘This place of Dionysius allu­deth to that of Saint Paul in the 11th Chap. of the 2d Epist. to the Corinthians v. 16; where St Paul useth this same excuse, being a­bout to commend himself: upon which place see Chrysostom's An­notat▪ Vales. I run the hazard of falling into great folly and stupidity, being com­pelled of necessity to re­late the miraculous pro­vidence of God concer­ning us. But because 'tis said; These words we find in the 12th Chap. of Tobit ver. 7. It is good to keep close the secrets of a King, but it is honourable to re­veale the workes of God: therefore I will hand to hand engage in the assault made against me by Germanus. I came to Aemilianus not without company, for there followed me Maximus my fellow Presbyter, and Faustus, Eusebius, and Chaeremon who were Deacons. One of the brethren of Rome also then present went in with us. Neither did Aemilianus say to me at first, do not you hold solemn assemblies: for this was needless for him to have said, and a recursion from the last to the first, or principal thing in hand: for it was not his desire that we should not assemble others, but his principal care was that we our selves should not be Christians: And he com­manded me to leave off that way of worship, for he thought that if I would change my mind, others would follow my example: I replied not impertinently but in short, that These words oc­curr in Chap. 5. of the Acts of the A­postles, ver. 29. they are Saint Peter's answer to the Sanhedrim, when they laid to their charge the preaching the Gospel: but how these words come in in this place I cannot tell, except we read with the Kings M. S. [...]. (i. e.) I answered him not absurdly, and not much unlike that Answer of the Apostle. Vales. we ought to obey God rather than man. But I openly pro­tested that I worshipped him who is the onely true God, and adored no other, and that I would never change my mind nor ever cease being a Chri­stian. After these words he bid us depart thence in­to a Village called Cephro adjoyning to the wilder­ness. But hear what words passed on both sides, as we find them inserted in the Christoph. translates [ [...]] sicut à quibusdam in Commentarios relata sunt; but we have rendred it thus, as they are inserted in the Publick Records. For the Greeks use [...] in the same sence as the Latines use their word Acta, see B. 1. c. 9. note (b.) Those which wrote these [...], the Latines call ab Actis, Registers, Recorders. We find mention of the Registers of Alexandria in several places. Lucianus was once Recorder of Alexandria, and he saith he had a large salary out of the City trea­surie for the performance of this Office; and for the good execu­ton thereof he had the Govern­ment of a Province conferred upon him. Vales. Publick Records This was the form of their publick Acts as Amm. Marc. informs us in his 22 book. Vales., when Dionysius and Faustus and Maximus and Marcellus and Caeremon were brought in, Aemilianus the Go­vernour said: I have also discoursed with you by word of mouth concerning the clemency which our Lords the Emperours have used towards you; for they have given you power to remain in safety if you will but turn to that which is agreeable to nature, and adore the gods which are protectours of their Em­pire, and forget those things which are repug­nant to nature. What say you to these [Proposals?] For I hope you will not shew your selves ungrateful towards their clemency, because they incite you to better things. Dionysius replied, all men do not wor­ship the same gods, but every one worship those whom they think to be gods: but we pay re­verence and adoration to one onely God, the creatour of all things, who gave the Empire into the hands of the most sacred and August Em­perours Valerian and Gallienus. And to him we offer up our prayers incessantly for the perma­nency and stability of their Empire. Aemilianus the Governour said unto them, who hindereth you but you may also worship him (if he be a God) together with them who are by Nature Gods: for you are commanded to worship the Gods, and also those Gods, whom all men own to be such. Dionysius replied; we adore no other. Then said Aemilianus the Governour unto them: I see you are altogether ungrateful and insensible of the Emperours lenity towards you. Where­fore you shall not abide in this City, but shall be sent into the parts of Libya, to a place called Cephro was the most rude and barbarous tract of the Lybian de­sart; and Coluthio (a place here­after mentioned in this chapter, to which Dionysius was in particu­lar designed) was, 'tis like, the most uncomfortable part of that tract. See Nicephor. B. 6. chap. 10. Cephro; for this place I have designed for you ac­cording to our Emperours command; and it shall in no wise be suffered that either you, or any others, keep your meetings, or have recourse to the places cal­led the Those places which Eusebius in Greek here calls [...], the Latines call Areae. Vales▪ They were the places where the Martyrs were usually buried; up­on which account the Christians frequented them. See book 4. chap. 15. note (o.) Coemeteries; but if it appears that any one of you be not gone to the place which I have com­manded you to go to, or shall be found afterwards in any assembly, he will bring imminent danger upon himself, for a necessary observation [thereof] shall not be wanting. Therefore [Page 123] depart hence whither you are commanded: And he compelled me, although I was sick, to depart, and gave not one days respite. Here Di­onysius an­swers Ger­manus's ca­vil, who ac­cused him, because he never called an Assem­bly of the Brethren before the Persecution began; which was a custome in those days, (viz.) That the Bishops, upon the Approach of a Persecution, should gather the people together, and exhort them to a constant Perseverance in Christianity; and Baptize infants, and Catechumens; least they should die unbaptized; and a so distri­bute the Sacrament to believers. Vales. How then could I have any leisure to call or not to call a meeting? After some passages he again saith; But neither were we absent (by God's as­sistance) from a corporal congregation: For with greater diligence I gathered together those in the City, as if I had been present with them, being absent in body (as I Although we read here [ [...]] and have so translated it; yet the Maz. and Med. M. SS. read [ [...]] [as one may say:] the Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. read [...], as the Apostle said: 'Tis certain Dionys. here alludeth to that of the A­postle in the first to the Corinth. Chap. 5. ver. 3. Vales. said;) but present in spirit: in Cephro also there was a great congrega­tion assembled with us, some of whom were the bre­thren who followed us out of the City; others came thither from the rest of Aegypt: And there God opened to us a door [to preach his] Word: at first indeed we were per­secuted, and stoned: but afterwards some of the Heathens, and those not a few, forsook their Idols, and were converted to God; for the word, which they had not before received, was then first sown amongst them by us; as if God had sent us away to them for this end: After we had here fulfilled the Ministry, he again removed us to another place: For Aemilianus resolved to convey us into places more uncom­fortable (as he thought) and more like the Lybian desart: And he gave command that we should altogether repair to Mareotis, having allotted particular villages throughout that Re­gion for every of us. But he ordered us to reside nere the high-road, that we might be the first that should be apprehended. For this was wholly his contrivance and provision, that when­ever he had a mind to apprehend us, he might have all of us easily taken without any trouble. But when I was commanded to depart to Ce­phro, although I knew not where the place lay, (having scarce ever before heard the name of it,) yet I went away willingly, and not at all disturbed. But when they told me I was to depart thence to the In the original the reading is [ [...] ▪] but we must necessarily understand [...] [parts] and so we have translated it. This Colluthio was a part of the Mareo­tic presecture in Aegypt; so cal­led from them who were formerly possessours of it. Colutho is a com­mon name amongst the Aegy­ptians, and hence came [...]; which in Niceph. we find written with a single (L.) There were se­veral Aegyptians called by this name, Colutho. Vales. [parts] of Colluthio, they who were present with me can tell how I was then disposed; for here I will blame my self: At first indeed I was grieved and sorely vexed; for al­though I had a better know­ledge of, and was more ac­quainted with those places, yet they reported it was a Countrey not inhabited by brethren and good men, and exposed to the disturbances of Travellers, and incursions of Thieves. But I received comfort by the bre­thren, when they suggested to me, that it lay nearer to the City; and although Cephro had brought us a great multitude of brethren out of Aegypt, so that we could hold larger as­semblies, yet there, the City lying nearer, we should more frequently enjoy the company of our truly beloved friends and acquaintance, for they would flock thither, and reside with us. And there would be These words, which we here tran­slate parti­cular Con­gregations, are in Greek [...]. Those that dwelt in the re­motest parts of the Suburbs, were not bound to come to the congre­gation of the great Church: but in that part of the Suburbs there were particular assemblies in a Church, or some other place fit for that purpose. Thus much we may gather by this passage of Dio­nysius. Moreover the Greeks did not call those places onely which joyned to the City [...], but also the Villages which were a great way distant from the City. Canopus which was twelve miles from Alexandria, is called by Atha­nasius in his book which he pre­sented to the Council of Chal­cedon, [...]. Further, from this place we may gather, that in Dionysius's days there was but one Church in Alexandria whither all the Christians assembled them­selves to pray: but afterwards, in the days of Athanasius, the number of the Churches being increased by the bounty of the Bishops of Alexandria, the Ci­tizens of Alexandria had particu­lar Congregations in divers Chur­ches; Except in the solemn fe­stivals of Easter and Whitsontide, when all the people assembled themselves in the great Church. Vales. particular congregations, as if it were in the more remote Suburbs. And so it fell out to be.’ After some other discourse he thus again writeth concerning what happened unto him. ‘[But perhaps] Germanus These things concerning Ger­manus are here spoken Ironically. Vales. glori­eth in his many Confessions; and he can enu­merate a great many [af­flictions] which have be­fallen him. But how many sentences of the Judges may he reckon up which were pronounced against us; [how many] confiscations, proscriptions, plundring of goods, By these words, [...], deprivations of dignities; we may conjecture that Dionysius was descended of a good family; for dignitas is that which cometh by nobleness of birth. Thus we find, In Gest. Purgat. Caeciliani, that Victor being asked by Zeno­filus the President, cujus condi­tionis esset, he answered, he was Professor litterarum Romanarum, and when he asked him cujus dig­nitatis esset; he answered he was sprung a Patre Decurione Constanti­niensium, avo milite, qui in Comi­tatu militaverat. Dionysius Alex­andrinus, before he turned Chri­stian, was by profession an Ora­tour, or teacher of Rhetorick. Vales. deprivations of dig­nities, contempts of world­ly glory, despisings of the praises of the Prefects and Augustus commanded the A­lexandrians to govern their City without any Senatours, or Alder­men. But afterward Severus the Emperour granted the Alexandri­ans power of having a Senate, as we may read in book 51. of Dio. And in Athanasius's Epistle Ad Solitarios there is mention of the Senatours of Alexandria. Vales. Senatours: what pati­ent sufferance of publick menaces, of exclamations a­gainst us, and of perils, and of persecutions, and of wandring up and down in Exile, and of anxieties, and of all sort of tribulation: what things happened to me under Decius, and n Sabinus, and what to this present under This Sabinus was Prefect of Aegypt under Decius the Empe­rour; of him Dionysius speaketh in his Epistle to Fabius, which E­pistle is quoted in chap. 41. book 6. of this History: but Aemilianus, who is here mentioned as Gover­nour, afterwards seised the Em­pire, as Pollio writeth in his 30 Ty­rants. Vales. Aemilianus: but where appeared Ger­manus? what report is there concerning him? but I desist from this great imprudence which I am fallen into upon Germa­nus's account. Wherefore I willingly give those bre­thren, who perfectly know these matters, leave to make a narration of every thing which did befall us.’ The same Dionysius, in his Epistle to Domitius and Di­dymus, doth again in these words mention some things concerning this persecution; ‘It is superfluous to recite to you, who knew them not, the names of all our [Martyrs,] which were very many. But under­stand thus much, that both men and women; young and old; young women and antient women; Soul­diers and Rusticks; per­sons of all sorts, and all Ages; some of them ha­ving been victorious in the combate by scourges and fire; and others by the Sword, received crowns of [Martyrdom.] But a long interval of time passed away being insufficient to make some appear accepta­ble to the Lord: in like manner as for me it hath not seemed [sufficient to make me acceptable] who have continued even till this time: Wherefore God hath reserved me for a time which he knows to be opportune, who saith; These words oc­curr in Jsa. c. 49. v. 8. In an ac­ceptable [Page 124] time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee. But because you are inquisitive after our affaires, and desirous to be informed in what condition we live: you have fully heard, how when I, Caius, Faustus, Peter, and Paul were led away Prisoners by the Centurion, and the Tran­slatours ge­nerally mis­take in ren­dring this word [...] in this place, by the La­tine word duces, ca­ptaines: Christoph. saw the ab­surditie it sed to by rendring it duces, and therefore he renders it dux: but neither does he by thus ren­dring it, a­void an absurditie, for it was not the least branch of the Ca­ptaines du­ty to lead Criminals into ba­nishment, but that was rather the Cen­turions or the Guards duty. Wherefore this word [...] must here signifie some other Officer besides a Captain, we will therefore render it the Duumviri, or as we call them, the Sheriffs, or Magistrates of Alexandria; which are in Greek often called [...]. Now it was the duty of these Magistrates to apprehend Criminals, commit them to prison, examine them, &c. still reserving the power of judging to the Roman President. Wherefore 'tis not here absurd, but very reason­able to say, these Duumviri assisted the Governour in leading these men into banishment: the following words also [...] and [...] confirm our opinion: for [...] are the Guards which be­longed to the Prefect; [...] are the Officers belonging to the Duumviri, or Sheriff. Athanas. in his Epistle ad Solitarios, calls this Magistrate, or Duumvir, [...]. Vales. Magistrates [of Alexan­dria] and the Guards and Officers that were with them, These things happened in the first Persecution under Decius, at that time when Dionysius, by the sentence of Sabinus the Governour, was led to Taposiris. See his own Epistle to Fabius in chap. 40. book 6. And whosoever does compare that Epistle with this here, he will conclude them both written concerning the same thing. Wherefore, Eusebius mistakes when he thinks that the subject of this Epistle here to Domitius is that thing which happened in Valerian's Reign: for none of these things which he here mentioneth, happened in Valerian's Reign, but in the Persecution which begun a little before Decius's Reign, as Dionysius himself saith in his Epist. against Germanus, which Eusebius quoteth in the 6th book. But in the Persecution under Valerian, he had onely those companions which he mentions in the beginning of this chapter. Vales. some of them of Mareotis came upon them, and took us away by force, drag­ging us by violence who were unwilling, and would not follow them. But at this present, I, and Caius, and Peter being alone, and depri­ved of the rest of the brethren, are shut up in a desert, and most uncomfortable place of Li­bya, being three days journey distant from Parae­tonium. And a little after these words, he saith; Some have hid themselves secretly in the City that they may visit the brethren, As Maximus, Dioscorus, Demetrius and Lucius, who are Presbyters. (For Faustinus and Aquila being men more eminently known in the world, tra­vel up and down Aegypt.) But the Deacons that are surviving, besides those that died in Rufinus instead of [...] readeth [...], and accordingly he translates the place, some who dyed in the Island: but Dionyfius means the Plague, which in Gallus and Volusianus's time, spread it self quite through the Roman Empire, as Eusebius and others Record. Vales. the Plague, are these: Faustus, Eusebius, Chaere­mon. Eusebius, [I say] one whom God hath impowered from the beginning, and furnished with great vigour to fulfil the Office of Mini­stration to the Confessours in Prison, and to perform the Funeral Christoph. renders this word [...], by a long Periphrasis thus, ad lintea, quibus corpora [...]beatorum Martyrum jam vita defunctorum invol­verentur, conficienda; he all along having relation to the usage in our days, for with us the dead are wrapped in linnen cloth, and so in­tered. But the Antients, I mean the Christians, used to wrap the dead in most costly clothes, and so bury them: but for Christophorson's translation, we have Athanasius's authority, who saith, in his life of S. An­thony, that the Aegyptians used to wrap their dead bodies, especially those of the holy Martyrs in linnen, and did not interr them, but laid them upon beds and kept them within their own private houses. Vales. Rites due to the bodies of the perfected and blessed Martyrs, with great hazard and danger. For to this very present the Governour ceaseth not most cruelly to slay some who are brought before him, (as I be­fore told you) to tear in pieces others with tortures, and to make other-some to pine away in Prisons, and bonds, giving a strict charge that none approach them, and making diligent search whither any one be seen to come neer them. Notwithstanding, God through the chearfulness and fortitude of the brethren, doth incessantly refresh the afflicted.’ These are Dio­nysius's words, and are contained in that Epistle. We must further understand, that this Eusebius whom he before called a Deacon, was a These words [...], are in the Med. Fuk. and Maz. M. SS. and not with­out reason; for it was a great while after that Eusebius was ordained Bishop of Laodicea: for he suc­ceeded Socrates, as Eusebius attests a little lower. Vales. great while after constituted Bishop of the Church of Laodicea in Syria. And Maximus, who he said was then a Presbyter, succeeded Dionysius himself in the Government of the brethren at Alexandria. Faustus also, (who together with Dionysius was at that time famous for his being a Confessour) was reserved even till the Persecution in our days, and being very old, and full of years, he was per­fected by Martyrdom, being beheaded even in our Age. But thus much concerning what happened to Dionysius about that time.

CHAP. XII. Concerning the Martyrs which suffered at Caesarea in Palestine.

IN this Persecution under Valerian, three men of Caesarea in Palestine very eminent for their con­fession of Christ, were crowned with divine Martyr­dom, being made food for the wild beasts. One of them was called Priscus; the other Malshus; the name of the third was Alexander. They report that these men, living in the Countrey, should blame themselves first for being careless and slothful per­sons, because they were negligent of, and did not ea­gerly catch at the crown of Martyrdom, seeing that was a seasonable time of distributing those rewards of victory to them who had the least spark of celestial love in them. Then, when they had consulted about these things amongst themselves, they took a journey to Caesarea, and went imme­diately to the place where the Judge was, and re­ceived the aforementioned sentence of death. Be­sides these, there was a woman of the same City, in the same Persecution, who they report, strove in the same combate: But 'tis famed that she was one of Marcion's Sect.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning the Peace under Gallienus.

Rufinus here alters the course of the Chapters, and placeth these which we place here as the 13th and 14th after the 19 chapter im­mediately; but in his Index before his History he keeps the same method as the Greek copies of Eu­sebius does: why he should here pervert the order, I cannot tell; except it is, because he thinks it is more convenient to subjoyn the sufferings of Marinus, and Astu­rius to the sufferings of the Mar­tyrs of Caesarea. But he ought to observe that those Martyrs of Cae­sarea suffered in Valerian's Perse­cution; but Marinus and Asturius suffered in the Reign of Gallie­nus. This mistake of Rufinus has brought several other Authours into the same Errour. Vales. BUt not long after, Va­lerian being Valerian was taken captive by the King of Persia, in the year of Christ 259. capti­vated and enslaved by the Barbarians, his son Reigned alone, who behaved himself more prudently in his Em­pire. He immediately put­teth a stop to the Persecution against us by his Edicts; and gave command that the Pre­lates of our Religion should securely, and with freedom ex­ecute their usual Offices, by his Rescript which runs thus: EMPEROUR CAESAR PUBLIUS LICINIUS GAL­LIENUS, PIUS FE­LIX AUGUSTUS, To Dionysius, Pinna, De­metrius, and the rest of the Bishops: We have commanded that the Indulgence of our Gracious Bounty be published through the whole World: That all shall quickly depart out of Religious places. And for this cause you are impowered to [Page 125] make use of a Copy of our Rescript, that no body may molest you: And that which is Lawful for you to put in execution was Granted by Us long ago: And upon this account Aurelius Cyrenius, Our For an explication of this per­sons Office, see Vale­sius's notes, Ad Excer­pta ex di­one Coccei­ano, pag. 112. High Steward shall keep the Copy of this Edict Granted by Us. For the more manifest understanding of these things, they were Translated by Us out of Latine into Greek, and here inserted. There is also extant another Rescript sent to other Bishops, in which he permitteth to them the Re­stauration of the places called They were the places where they buried their dead, and often assembled for their Religious solemnities, espe­cially the memorials of the Martyrs; as has before been remark't. Coemeteria.

CHAP. XIV. What Bishops flourisht in those times.

AT this time Xystus was dead long be­fore; for he died a famous Martyr in the Perse­cution un­der Valeri­an, when Tuscus and Bassus were Con­suls, on the 8th of the Ides of Au­gust; as we may see in Cyprians Epistle. Vales. Xystus still continued to pre­side over the Church of Rome; but Deme­trianus succeeded Fabius in the Bishoprick of An­tioch; Firmilianus was Bishop of Caesarea in Cap­padocia: Moreover, Gregorius, and his brother Athenodorus governed the Churches of Pontus; they were both Origen's Schollars: Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine being dead, Dom­nus succeeded in that Bishoprick: he living but a little while, Theotecnus, who lived till our times, was constituted his successour. And this person also was one of Origen's School. But Maza­banes of Jerusalem being dead, Hymenaeus suc­ceeded in that See, who also was very eminent in our days.

CHAP. XV. How Marinus was Martyred at Caesarea.

A General peace being at this time restored to the Churches in Caesarea of Palestine, Ma­rinus, a man honoured with a He means the Cohor­talis Militia, as may be collected from what follows. For mention is made of Achaeus the Judge, of the Forum, &c. Which could not be spoken of the Militia Ca­strensis. Had the Camp-milice been spoken of here, Marinus must have pleaded his cause before the Ca­ptain, or Deputy of Coesar. The ordinary Judges had their Centu­rions and Cornicularii in their Court. Yea, almost all the names of the Officers under them were taken from the Camp-milice, as Asconius Pedianus has remark't. Vales. Military dignity, and eminent for descent and riches, was beheaded for his confession of Christ, upon this account. There is a certain dignity amongst the Romans termed the The phrase in the original is [ [...]] which we have ren­dred [The Vine.] It was enacted by a Law amongst the Ro­mans, that no Citizen should be beaten with rods, but with Vines▪ See Livy, in his 57 Book: upon this account the Souldiers were by the Centurions beaten with Vines; whence at last the Vine came to be the badge of the Centurions Office. Spartianus (in the life of Hadrian) uses it in this sense; and so does Plutarch in Galba. Vine, which those that obtained, are said to be made Centurions; In the Maz. Fuk. and Med. M. SS. there is a stop here; but in the Kings M. S. there is none; which punctation in the three M. SS. first named, Salmasius (in his notes on Spartianus) defends against Ca­saubon, (in his notes on the same Authour,) who thought that the Vine was a badge which denoted those that were to be chosen Centurions, who should bear that Office, when there was a place vacated. And therefore Casaubon read this passage thus [There is a certain dignity amongst the Romans termed the Vine, which those that obtain are said to be made Centurions when there is a place vacant:] which reading agrees with the Kings M. S. But Salmasius makes a stop (as we do) at the word [Centurions,] which doubtless is the truest reading: See note (b) in this chapter. Vales. this place being vacant, Marinus, whose course in order it was, was called to that promoti­on: when he was forthwith to have been invested in that dignity, there came another before the Tribu­nal, and accused him, saying, it was unlawful according to the old Laws, for him to hold any dignity amongst the Romans; for he was a Christian, and did not sacrifice to the Emperours; therefore the Office belonged to him. That was the Judges name; so a famous Captain was called, who here­tofore re­belled a­gainst An­tiochus, as Polybius relates. This A­chaeus was president of Pale­stine, and had his re­sidence at Caesarea, which was the chief City of that whole Pro­vince. Vales. Achaeus, (for that was the name of the Judge) being en­raged at this, first asked Marinus what Opinion he was of: then when he saw that he stedfastly confessed himself to be a Christian, he granted him three hours respit for deliberation. When he was gone out of the place of judicature Theotecnus the Bishop of that City coming to him; taketh him aside to discourse with him; and laying hold of his hand, leads him to the Church; wherein when he had placed him at the very Altar, he put his We read [...], not [...]; which is a common, but an Er­roneous reading. The Chlamys and the Balteus (i. e. the Cloak and the Belt) were military badges, as may be proved from innumerable places in Chrysostom, Libanius, and others. Vales. Cloak a little aside, and shewed him the sword wherewith he was girded, and also brought the Book of the Sacred Gospels and placed it right against him, bidding him on his own accord to take which of those two best pleased him. When Marinus without any delay had put forth his right hand, and taken up the Sacred Book, Theotecnus said unto him, adhere therefore, adhere to God; and being impowered by him thou shalt obtain what thou hast chosen; go in peace. Immediately as he returned from the Church, the Cryer, who stood before the Tribunal, called him; for the time al­lotted him was now accomplished: When he was brought before the place of judicature, and had shewed a greater courage in the confession of the Faith then he did before, immediately he was halled away to Execution, and was The term here is [ [...]] i. e. he was perfected by Mar­tyrdom. For Martyrs were initiated by confession, and perfected by death; as Dionysius phrases it at the end of Chap. 11. in this book. Clemens Alexandrinus (in B. 4. Stromat. pag. 206.) gives another reason, why Martyrdom is called [...], because it demonstrates the perfection of love. Vales. Crowned with Martyrdom.

CHAP. XVI. A Relation concerning Astyrius.

AStyrius also is much fam'd for his Religious boldness and freedom at that time: A man who was a Roman Senatour, a singular favourite of the Emperours: and both for his nobleness of Birth and Estate, known to all persons. He, be­ing present at the death of the foresaid Martyr, took up the Corps, wrapped it in a white and pre­cious garment, laid it upon his shoulders and car­ried it away; and when he had adorned it very richly, he deposited it in a decent Grave. This persons familiars, who lived till our days, relate infinite other things concerning him.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning the mighty Miracles of our Saviour at Paneas.

AMongst which they relate this Miracle. At Caesarea-Philippi, (which the Those whom our Eusebius here calls [...], Phaenicians, are the Grecians which inhabited Phae­nicia. For Paneas is a Greek name, the Syrians, or rather the Syro-Phoenicians, called this City Dan, as S. Jerom, affirms in his Questions on Genesis; his words are these; Dan Phoenices oppidum, quod nunc Paneas dicitur. Dan autem unus è sontibus Jordanis. Nam & alter vocatur Jor, quod interpretatur [...]. Duobus ergo sontibus, qui haud procul a se distant, in unum rivulum foederatis, Jordanis deinceps appella­tur. i. e. Dan is a Town of Phoenicia, which is now called Paneas. Also Dan is the name of one of the Spring-heads of Jordan. For the other is named Jor, the interpretation whereof is [a Stream.] These two Fountains therefore, which are not far distant from each other, are united into one Rivulet, which is afterwards called Jordan. Vales. Phaenicians call Paneas) they report there are springs to be [Page 126] seen at the foot of the Mountain called Panius, out of which the River Jordan hath its original. They say, that on a certain Festival they used to This custom, [...] of casting the sacrifice into the Springs, or Wells, which they worshipped, was used by the Heathens. And hence it is that Publicola asketh Augustine, in his 153. Epistle, whether it were law­ful to drink of that Spring or Well, into which any part of a sacrifice had been cast. Vales. cast a sacrifice into these Springs, and by the power of the Devil it would mira­culously vanish out of sight: And that this was a Miracle much talked of by them who had seen it. Astyrius there­fore being upon a time pre­sent with those that did this, and seeing many struck with admiration at what was done, was sorry for their errour. Then he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and besought the supream God, by Jesus Christ, that he would rebuke this Devil which seduced the people, and command him to cease from deceiving of men. They report that when he had prayed thus the sacrifice floated upon the Waters immediately. Thus perished their Miracle, and never afterwards was there any prodigie done neer that place.

CHAP. XVIII. Concerning the Statue, which the Woman who had the Flux of bloud, erected.

BUt since I have made mention of this City, I think it not at all unsutable to produce a story, which is worthy to be related to posterity. For they say that the woman, This place of Eusebius, con­cerning the woman who had the Issue of bloud, is quoted in the seventh Synod, Action. 4. pag. 508. See also what Philostorgius saith in his seventh book, chap. 3. And what Nicephorus, who borroweth it from him. Vales. who had the Issue of bloud, whom the sacred Gospels in­form us to have been healed by our Saviour, was born in this City: and that her house may be seen there, and that the illustrious Monuments of our Saviour's beneficence shown towards her doe yet remain. For neer the gate of her house ('tis said) stands upon a Pillar of stone, the Effigies of a woman in brass, kneeling on her knees, and stretching forth her hands forward in the form of a suppliant. On the other side op­posite to it stood another Image of a man made of the same mettal standing upright, dressed de­cently in a [...]; it sometimes sign fies a Military Cloak; this term occurs Psal. 109. 29. where 'tis rendred a Mantle. short vesture, and stretching out his hand towards the woman. At whose feet upon the base of the Pillar 'tis said there springs up a strange kind of an herb, which grows up to the Rufinus understands this place [ [...]] so, as if this herb had no healing ver­tue till it was grown up to the skirt of our Saviours vesture: but since Eusebius does not expressely de­termine it that way, every one may interpret the place as pleaseth him best. I think Eusebius mean­eth by the addition of these words that the herb grew up no higher then the skirt of our Saviour's doublet, as if it were in reverence to him. See Nicephor. B. 6. chap. 15. Vales. skirt of his brasen doublet, and is a present remedy to remove all sorts of diseases: They say that this Statue re­presented our Saviour. This remained till our Age, and therefore we our selves went to the City to see it. Nor need it seem a wonder that the Ancient Gentiles, who received benefits from our Saviour, did these things; seeing that we have seen the pictures of his Apostles Peter and Paul, and of Christ himself, drawn in Colours, and preserved till our days. It is probable enough that those Ancients, according to the custom of the Heathens, were wont Rufinus translateth this word [...], indifferenter, indifferently; but I rather think [...] here signifieth inconfiderately, unadvisedly, contrary to the Doctrine of the Ancients, unwisely. Moreover, Sr Henr. Savil in the margin of his M. S. upon these words [...], the custom of the Heathens, bids us take notice that this is here spoken concerning images. Vales. unadvisedly to honour all those after this manner as Saviours, by whom they had been any ways benefited.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning the Chair of James the Apostle.

THe Episcopal Chair of James the first Bi­shop of Jerusalem, who was consecrated by our This was an old tra­dition, that James the Apostle was Or­dained Bi­shop of Je­rusalem by Christ. Be­sides Euse­bius, Saint Chrysost▪ in his 38 Homil▪ upon the Epistle to the Corinthians, on these words, Deinde visus est Jacobo, Then he was seen of James; expresly affirmeth it: the same also Epiphanius, Niceph▪ Callist▪ and others do affirm. They all seem to borrow this opinion from the first book of Clemens's Recognitions: also, in the eighth book of his Constitutions, Chap. 35. we find him speaking of James the Bishop of Jerusalem in these words, [...], Ordained by our Saviour himself, and the Apostles. We must farther advertise the Reader that these words [...] the Apostle are wanting in the Kings Fuk. Maz. M. SS. and in Rufinus: but in our Maz. Med. Fuk. M. SS. in the Contents of this Chapter, we find this word [...] the Apostle: although in the Index of the Chapters which is prefixed, we find it thus written, [...], concerning the Chair of James the Bishop. Vales. Saviour himself, and the Apostles; (who in holy Writ is honoured with the title of the Brother of Christ;) being reserved till this time, the Brethren who have succeeded in that Church do reverence it: Hence they plainly manifest to all what great veneration and respect, both the Antients, and also those of our Age, have, and do pay to holy men for their love to God. But thus much concerning these things.

CHAP. XX. Concerning Dionysius's Paschal Epistles, in which he prescribeth a Canon concerning Easter.

MOreover, besides those his fore-mentioned E­pistles, the same Dionysius at the From this word [...], a [...] the same time, some would con­clude that Dionysius wrote these Epistles in the Perse­cution, rai­sed by Va­lerian: but that is false; for this E­pistle to Domitius and Didymus, was written in the Reign of Decius the Em­perour. Vales. same time wrote these still extant, called Rufinus very well translates this word [...], in this place, Paschales, Paschal Epistles. The Bishops of Alexandria used to write these Paschal Letters every year, and send them to the rest of the Churches of Aegypt; that they might all agree in the time of the celebration of Easter. There are at this day extant Epistles of this sort, written by Theophilus, Cyril, and others: what was the form of these Epistles we may understand from the 30 Paschal Homilies of Cyril▪ first they discoursed some thing concerning Easter: in the end they declared the beginning of Lent, and the day of Easter, whence we may call them Homilies, as well as Epistles. Vales. Paschal Epistles: a­mongst which he interweaves Panegyrick discourses concerning the feast of Easter: one of these Epistles he Dedicateth to Flavius; another to Domitius and Didymus. In which he publisheth a Canon of eight years, having proved that we ought to celebrate the feast of Easter, at no other time, but after the vernal Aequinox. He composed ano­ther Epistle besides these, to his Fellow-Presbyters at Alexandria, and others to divers other persons, and these he wrote whilest the rage of the Persecu­tion still continued.

CHAP. XXI. Concerning what things happened at Alexandria.

DIonysius returned to Alexandria, Peace being as yet scarce throughly setled there. But when Sedition and War joyntly raged again there, so that he could not visit all the Brethren in the City, they being divided into the one or the other party of the faction: Again, even on Easter-day, as if he had been exil'd out of Alex­andria, he conversed with them by letters. And in his other Paschal Letter which a little after this he wrote to Hierax one of the Aegyptian Bishops, he mentioneth the Sedition then at Alexandria, in these words; ‘It is no wonder if it be difficult for me to converse with men far remote even by Letters, whenas it is rendred now no easie matter for me to discourse with my self, and to give advice to my own soul. For I am com­pelled to send Letters even to my own bowels, my Brethren, who live under the same roof, have the same mind, and are members and inha­bitants of the same Church; and it appears to me a great difficulty, how I should convey my Letters to them: For a man may with more ease and less danger travel not onely beyond the bounds of this Province, but even from East to West, then out of Alexandria into Alexan­dria. For the very mid­dle street of this In the Kings M. S. we find, in­stead of [...], this City, [...] these Cities; which reading is not to be rejected: for that great faction had so divided Alexandria that in a manner it became of one City two, as before he seemeth to intimate when he saith, that a man may with more ease travel from East to West, then out of A­lexandria into Alexandria. This great Sedition, I think, happened, when Aemilianus possest himself of the Government of Alexan­dria. Vales. City is more unfrequented and im­passible then that vast and invious wilderness which Israel travelled through in two Ages. There are divers ways of tran­slating this place according as we point it. Most Translatours have erred here, by an Erroneous con­junction of this sentence with what precedeth. But Dionysius's fol­lowing words confirm our puncta­tion and version: the sense of which is that the Havens of A­lexandria, overflowing with the bloud of the slaughtered Citizens, did truly represent the red Sea. Wherefore it is not the Middle Street of the City which is com­pared to the red Sea (although some so interpret it) but the Ports or Havens are said to represent that. Vales. Those calm and still Havens do represent the Sea through which the Israelites had a spatious passage, it being divided, and made like a wall on both hands, Betwixt these words where we use onely a middle distinction or comma, Robert Steph▪ uses a full period, contrary to the Authority of all the M. SS. we ought rather to follow the punctation of the M. SS. and joyn this passage with what precedeth: but here we meet with a Genitive case plural of the Article [ [...],] which we tran­slate in the singular number, and referr it to [...] the Sea, which is a singular put for the plural num­ber. For the Sea was divided into two parts and opened a broad way for the Israelites; so that what was really but one Sea, seemed to be two; but if we translate it according to Stephanus's punctation, we can find no word to which this Genitive plural of the Article can reasonably be referred. Vales. but the Ae­gyptians were drowned in the paths thereof. And through the frequent slaugh­ters perpetrated therein, they were like a red Sea. The River which runneth by the City seemed sometimes more dry and uncomfort­able then the thirsty wil­derness, through which, when the Israelites travel­led, they were so thirsty, that they murmured against Moses, until by the power of God (who onely doth marvellous things) water gushed out of a craggy Rock for them. At o­ther times it overflowed in such abundance, that it laid all the Countrey round a­bout under water, the Highways and the fields, and seemed to threaten a return of that deluge which was in the days of Noah. It runneth by, being continually polluted with bloud, and murthered, and drowned bodies; like that River which by Moses, in the sight of Pharaoh, was turn­ed into bloud, and stank: And what other water can purifie this water which purgeth all things it self? How can that vast and im­mense Ocean which is impassible by men, cleanse this bitter Sea? Or how can that great River which springeth out of Eden, though it gather its four heads, into which it is divided, into that one of G [...]on, wash away this putrified gore? Or how can that The very situation of Alexan­dria did doubtless conduce much to the insalu­brity of the place. For the river Nile, com­ing from the West, was con­veyed into the City under ground by arches made under the houses. The man­ner how this was done, is set down by John Leo, in his de­scription of Africa: his words are these▪ Cuique sert domui civi­tatis ingens cister [...]a concamera­ta, crassisque innitens sornicibus substructa est, in quas [...]xun [...]ans Nilus per aquaeductum in planitie magno artificio constructum extra. Alexandriam deductus, sub ejus manibus demittitur, &c. This artificial conveyance of the River, though it were otherwise acceptable to the inhabitants, yet it could not be without some annoyance to the Ai [...], the com­plexion whereof suffered much alteration by the noysome vapours which rose up out of the waters, which in tract of time putrified in their Cisterns. It is the collection of the foresaid Leo, in his following words, Cisternae porrò temporis successu turbidae ac canosae redditae, plurimis aesti [...]o tempore languoribus occasionem praebent, &c. The same Authour gives us another reason for the unwholsomness of that City; which was caused by certain little gardens planted near the City, the fruits whereof were so unwholsom, that the inhabitants were thereby made subject to very noxious feavers, and many other diseases. See John Leo's descript. Afric. pag. 675, and 676. Edit. Lugd. Batav. 1632. Aire be purified, which on every side is defiled with most noisome exhalations? For such vapours arise from the Earth; such winds from the Sea; such blasts from the Rivers; and such mists from the Havens, that the very dews are nothing else but the Gore of dead Carkasses putrified in all the subjacent Elements. After all this they wonder, and seem to doubt whence these [...], continued plagues without intermission. The plague even from the times of Gallus and Volusianus, over-ran and destroyed almost all the Roman Empire. Eutropius saith that the Reign of Gallus and Valusianus was onely remarkable for the great plague which happened in their days. Aurelius Victor affirms that Gallus and Volusianus were beloved very much on this account, be­cause they took care of every ones, even of the poorest man's funeral. The plague afterwards raged at Rome, and in the Roman Provinces, in the days of Gallienus, as Pollio in Gallienus's Life attests. Vales. continued Plagues; whence these noy­some diseases; these contagions of all kinds; and this various, and numerous destruction of men proceeds. They admire why this great City contains not in it as many inhabitants, (should they be numbred even from infants to the most aged and decrepit) as it formerly maintained persons, who were [...] vivid, lively, lusty old men. So they were called at Alexandria, who were between fourty and seventy years old. Their names were registred in tables that they might partake of the publick distribution of the Corn, as Dionysius attests in his following words. Over these were the Archigerontes, of whom mention is made in the first Law of the Codex Theodosianus, de Alexandrinae plebis primatibus. Hither may be referred that which Gregor. Naz. affirms, in his 21 Ora­tion concerning S. Athanasius, to wit, that the Alexandrians were wont to be distributed into Sexes, Ages, and Trades, as often as, out of respect, they went forth to meet any person. Vales. lively old men, as they called them. But in those days there were so many persons betwixt fourty and seventy years old, that their number could not now be made up, although, all from fourteen to fourscore years of age were registred, and their names enrolled in the Tables, that they might partake of the pub­lick distribution of Corn. And our youngest men now look as if they were of the same age with our old men formerly. And although they see man­kind so much diminished and consumed from off the earth, (their intire destruction being increased and augmented incessantly) yet they tremble not.’

CHAP. XXII. Concerning the Plague which then raged.

AFterwards the Pestilence succeeding the War; when the Feast [of Easter] was at hand, Dionysius again writeth to the Brethren, [Page 128] describing the miseries of that calamity in these words: ‘This Ex­ordium of this Pas­chal Epistle of Diony­sius's is re­ally a most elegant one. Here he saith that this present time, when all things were in so lamentable a posture, would seem to the unbelieving Heathens no fit time to keep a feast in: But neither this time, which (saith he) is really a time of Mourning, nor any other, though never so undisturbed, never so mer­ry, could possibly yield the Hea­thens any true joy. For the wick­ed and unbelievers can never keep a feast, although they daily sacri­fice, because they cannot enjoy any true mirth: onely the pious and virtuous do truely keep a feast, because they perform their duty, and offer prayers, and unbloudy sacrifices to God. Origen, in his eighth book against Celsus, dis­courses at large concerning this Opinion; which passages in him are borrowed from the Stoicks, and they give much light to the understanding of this place of Dio­nysius. Vales. To some men this present may seem not a time to celebrate a Festival; but neither this which we observe, nor any other time (I speak not onely of the mournful, but also of any of those times which they account most joyful) is a time of festi­vity to them. Now indeed all places are full of mour­ning; all persons lament; and the City rings on every side with continual lamen­tations for the multitudes of them who are already dead, and who are daily dying: For as the Scri­pture saith concerning the first born of the Aegyp­tians, so now a great cry is heard: for there is no house, in which there is not one dead; (Here we read onely [...] and I wish▪ but Turnebus in the margin of his book very well cor­recteth and pointeth it thus. [...]; And I wish onely one had died in every house: the Kings M. S. reads thus [...] &c. but Turnebus does very well amend this place of Dionysius, by his foresaid puncta­tion of it. Vales. and I wish there were but one in every house:) Indeed ma­ny, and sore afflictions have befaln us before this cala­mity. Dionysius here makes a com­pendious repetition of all the suf­ferings of the Christians from the time he was first Ordained Bishop of Alexandria: first he recounts the Persecution and expulsion, which began in the last year of Philip the Emperour. Next the Civil War which immediately followed; concerning which Civil War, see Chap. 41. Book 6. of this History. Then he saith, af­ter a little cessation followed the Plague; which raged grievously in the times of Gallus and Volusi­anus; but it began in Decius's Reign: for it is evident by Dio­nysius's Epistle to Domitius and Didymus, that some Deacons died of this Plague in the Reign of De­cius. See Chap. 11. Book 7. Vales. First of all they expelled us out of the City. And when we onely were persecuted and oppressed by all men, yet nevertheless even then we kept the Festi­val days. And every place, where every one of us par­ticularly underwent affli­ction; The Field; the Desert; the Ship; the Inn; the Prison, was a place for holding our so­lemn Assemblies: but the perfected Martyrs, who are satiated in heaven, kept the most joyful feast of all. After these [miseries] succeeded War, and Famine; In which we were fellow­sufferers with the Heathens. We alone suffered what­ever they afflicted us with; but what ever calamities they brought upon them­selves and suffered, we par­ticipated of. And we were again made joyful by the Peace of Christ, which he granted to us alone: But when both we and they had enjoyed a very short time of refresh­ment, this Plague immediately invaded us. A thing most formidable to them, and more cala­mitous than any accident whatsoever. And, as one of their own writers saith, it was the onely thing which surmounted all mens expectation and fear. It was indeed no such thing to us; but rather an exercise, and tryal, nothing inferi­our to our former sufferings: for this Plague did not spare us; but it raged grievously a­mongst the Heathens.’ After these words he con­tinues, saying; ‘Indeed many of our Brethren, through their superabundant love, and brotherly kindness neglecting their own selves, and firmly adhering to one another, without any thing of caution visiting them who were infected, care­fully ministring to them, and healing them in Christ, most willingly died with them; in­fecting themselves with other mens distempers, attracting the disease from their neighbours upon themselves, and voluntarily [...] some tran­slatours render mi­tigantes, easing, and lessening their dis­tempers: but I can­not ap­prove of that ver­sion, for the verb [...] or [...] signifies to squeeze out, or to wipe off. Dionysius's meaning is this, that they who visited the infected Christians, did in a manner force the infection from them, and tran­slate it to, or take it upon them­selves. And that is the true notion of [...] to take up­on himself, and as it were to suck one another's disease and infection. It is no more then what he said in these words, [...], drawing the infection upon themselves. Vales. drawing the infection out of them by translating it into themselves. And many who had cured and restored others to their former health, died themselves, having brought their death upon themselves; And being thus made the ransom and expiation for them all, they died, really ful­filling that common saying, which always hi­therto hath seemed to contain no more than an officious This word [...] we have here rendred friendship, yet the word primarily and properly signifies that which the Latines call comitas, that is, complaisance, courteousness, civility, affability: as for this term [...], which we have translated a Ransom, we find it in the first Epistle to the Corinth. Chap. 4. v. 13. this word seems to have been used by the Alexandrians in their salutations: when they met-together, and promised their sincere love, willingness, and dili­gence in serving one another, they used to say [...], or else we may take the word in this sence; as if the Heathens should call the Christians the very [...] the off-scouring, the filth, the very faece [...] populi, and the purgam [...]n [...]a seculi; which interpretation is not to be rejected here. Vales. friendship. Thus therefore died the best of our brethren; some of whom were Priests, and others Deacons; also those of the Laity which were eminent died voluntarily: So that this kind of death which was suffered upon account of piety, and a stedfast faith, may be esteemed no less honourable then Martyrdom. They took the dead bodies of the Saints up in their open hands, and into their bosoms; they closed their eyes, and shut their mouthes; car­ried them upon their shoulders; and Christoph. in his Latine Version, renders this word [ [...]] decenter ornantes, dressing them up neatly: but he mistakes; for Dionysius speaks of their dress afterwards in these words, [...], decking them in their best cloaths: [...], here we therefore render, componentes (that is) burying them, and so the word is used in profane as well as in sacred Authours: Com­postus prosepulto, in Virgil, and Horace. Vales. buried them: they stuck close to them; embraced them; washed them; and [...] some render, linteo funebri invol­ventes, shrowding them in a winding sheet. But this is contrary to the custom of buryings in those days; for the Heathens used to dress the dead in their best cloaths and so interr them. And the Christians used in like manner so to dress the Saints Corps. See Chap. 16. of this seventh book, concerning Asturius. Vales. adorned them cu­riously in their cloathes: not long after they had the like good offices performed to them­selves: for those who survived did continually tread in the steps of such as went before them. But the Gentiles practice was quite contrary to this. They thrust out of doors those which begun to be infected; they fled away from those who were most dear to them; they deserted them being half dead in the high-ways; and cast forth the dead bodies unburied; being ut­terly averse from a participation and society [with them] in death, which yet was in no wise easie for them to avoid, though they used all arts and devices to decline it.’ After this E­pistle, when affaires in Alexandria were in a peaceable and quiet posture, he again sendeth ano­ther Paschal Epistle to the Brethren throughout Aegypt, he also writ several others besides this. There is also extant an Epistle of his concerning the Sabbath, and another concerning Exercitation. Again, in an Epistle to Hermammon, and the Bre­thren in Aegypt, he has a long discourse concer­ning the improbity of Decius and his successours, where he also makes mention of the peace in the Reign of Gallienus.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning the Reign of Gallienus.

NOthing hinders but we may hear his own words which run thus: ‘[Though we find here bare­ly, [...] he therefore; yet we must understand Macrianus; for by his treachery it was that Valerian was delivered into the hands of the Persians. Other Historians assert that he was delivered to them by his own Captains; so Aurel. Vict. Syncel. and others. These words of Dionysius are to be joyned with those in Chap. 10. of this Book; for they are fragments of one and the same Epistle to Hermammon; we also find a piece of it in Chap. 1. of this seventh Book. Vales. Macrianus] therefore, having treacherously betrayed one of the Emperours which preceded him, and made War upon the other, was immediately extir­pated, and together with his whole family became extinct. Gallienus was now proclaimed, and by com­mon consent received Em­perour: he was both an old Emperour, and a new: for he was before He means Macrianus, and his two sons. See Chap. 1. of this Book; at the close of the Chapter. them, and also survived them: for ac­cording to that which was spoken by the Prophet E­saias, Esai. 42. 9. Behold the former things are come to pass, and new things shall now rise up. For as a cloud rising up be­fore the rays of the fun, overshadoweth it for a while, and appears to be substituted into the place thereof: but when the cloud has gone over it, or is dissolved; the sun, which before was risen, seems then to arise again: so Macrianus, who set himself before, and Dionysius here speaks of Macri­anus's Empire, because he was owned, and received as Emperour by Aegypt, and the Eastern Pro­vinces: Which his Coins de­clare, for on the fore-side there is this inscription, [...]; And on the reverse this, [...]. Vales. approacht the very Empire of Gallienus, now is not, for he never was: but Gallienus as he was Emperour before, so he now continues to be. And the Empire it self, having deposited its old Age as it were, and being cleansed from the dregs of its former improbity, now flourisheth with grea­ter vividness; is seen and heard of at a larger distance, and spreads its fame in all places.’ He afterwards declares the time when he wrote these things, in these words: ‘It now again comes into my mind to contemplate the years of our Emperour: For I see how those most impious persons who had so great a name, are in a short time become most obscure. But our most Pious and Religious Emperour, having passed his seventh, is now in the ninth year of his Empire, in which we are about to solemnize the Festivals.’

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning Nepos, and his Schism.

BEsides, Dionysius wrote two Books concerning the promises. The occasion of his writing these Books was Nepos, an Aegyptian Bishop, who taught that the promises, which were made to the Saints in the sacred Scriptures, should be performed in the That is, that the Promises were to be literally understood. Jewish sence, and affirmed that there was to come a thousand years state upon earth, which should be spent in bodily pleasures. Now he supposing he could confirm his own opinion out of John's Revelation, wrote a Book upon this Question, and intitled it, A Confutation of the Allegorical Expositors; which piece Dio­nysius confutes in his Books concerning the Pro­mises. In the first Book of which he proposeth his own opinion concerning the Question. In the second he discourseth concerning the Reve­lation of John, where in the very beginning he makes mention of this Nepos, and writes thus concerning him: ‘But because they produce a Book of Nepos's, on which they rely very much, as if it did We have here sufficient evi­dence that this Book concerning the Promises was written in an­swer to Nepos: I wonder that Hieronymus in his Preface before the eighteenth Book of his comments upon Esaias, should affirm that this Book was written against Irenaeus Bishop of Lions. Indeed Irenaeus was one of them who believed that Christ should come and Reign on the Earth a 1000 years, which opinion was grounded on Papias's Authority, as Hieronymus himself affirms, and also our Authour Eusebius in the end of the third Book. But as well from this place, as also from Hieronymus himself, in his Book De Script▪ Ecclesiastic. we may gather that this Book was not written against Irenaeus, but against Nepos. Vales. infallibly de­monstrate that the King­dom of Christ should be [set up] on earth: in­deed for several other things I commend and love Nepos, for his faith, his industry and study in the Scriptures, and also for the many [...], we have here translated, the Composition of Psalms and Hymns; according to the custom of the Christians who used to compose Psalms and Hymns in honour of Christ, as Eusebius in the end of the fifth Book attesteth. We also find mention of these Hymns in the Epistle of the Council of Antioch a­gainst Paul of Samosata, and in th [...] last Canon but one of the Council of Laodicea, where there is an ex­press prohibition that▪ no Psalms which in Greek are called [...], that is, composed by private or ignorant persons, should be sang in Churches. Vales. Psalms and Hymns he composed, with which many of the Bre­thren are even at this time much delighted. And I re­verence the man for this reason chiefly, because he is Pliny in his 28 Book Chap. 2. asketh, why we affirm, when we mention any dead persons, that we will not vex or disturb their me­mory. Vales. dead. But I judge truth most to be beloved, and to be the most precious of all things. It is our duty to praise, and freely to commend what-ever is truly said: but we are al­so to examine and correct what-ever unsound opinion appears to have been com­mitted to writing. Now could he be present, and discusse his opinion by word of mouth, then a bare discourse by Questions and Answers, without any wri­ting might suffice to con­vince and reduce the ad­verse party to an agree­ment. But since there is a Book published (and as to some it seems) a most perswasive one; since some Teachers look upon the Law and the Prophets to be of no value; neglect to follow the Gospels; have small esteem for the Epistles of the Apostles; and This word [...] signifies properly to promise a great while before any performance; it is a Metaphor taken from the My­steties of the Grecians, who pro­mised strange and great things to them who are initated, and tor­mented them with a long ex­pectation; that by keeping their thoughts thus in suspence, they might beget in them an opinion, and a fear and reverence. Vales. promise great things concerning the Doctrine of this Book, as containing some great and hid­den▪ Mystery; since they will not suffer the more ig­norant of our brethren to think of any thing that is sublime and great, neither of the glorious and truly divine advent of our Lord, nor of our Resurrection from the dead; our ga­thering together to him, and our being made like him: The true reading of this place in the Greek, we owe to the Maz. M. S. according to which reading we have here translated it. Vales. But perswade them to think that men hope for nothing in the Kingdom of God, but abject and mortal things, such as they now hope for. It is necessary we enter into a dispute against our Brother Nepos, as if he himself were present.’ After some words he continues, saying; ‘When I was in the Province of the This Province was so called from Arsinoe, who was Queen of it, before it was a Roman Pro­vince. Vales. Arsinoitae (where, as you know, this opinion was long since propagated so far, that there were Schisms and revoltings of whole Churches together▪) having convened the Presbyters and [Page 130] Teachers of the Brethren in every particular Vilage, (such Brethren also as had a mind to come being present,) I advised them that there might be researches made into this Doctrine, in the presence of a publick Assembly. And when they produced this Book as a defence, and an impregnable bulwark, sitting with them three whole days together from morning till evening, I endeavoured to discusse the contents thereof. In all which time I did extraordinarily ad­mire the constancy of the Brethren, their love to truth, and the ' [...], is the term in the original; I have rendred it docilitatem, aptness to be taught. For auditours are properly said [...], when they apprehend the sense of words. Vales. great quickness and readiness of their understanding, with so much order, modesty and moderation did we pro­pose Questions, propound doubts, and yield our as­sents. For we took special care never pertina­ciously to defend our former opinions, when once they were found to be erroneous: neither did we shun the objections of others: But to the utmost of our power, we endeavoured to The Greek phrase is [...], which Va­lesius renders, ad ea de quibus in­stituta erat disputatio eniti; and we, to keep close to the points of the Question in hand, or the present question. keep close to the points of the present Question, and confirm them as well as we could: Neither, if we were convinc't, were we ashamed to be perswaded out of our opinion, and consent with others: But with a good con­science, unfeignedly, and with This phrase [...], is truly tran­slated thus, expansis cordibus, & patefactis, with hearts unfoulded, and as it were spread abroad: but some translate it puris & simplicibus cordibus, with pure and single hearts: which sense though the words may bear, yet it is not so good in this place, as the other Version. Vales. hearts displai'd to God, we received what-ever was grounded upon the demonstrations and declarations of the sacred Scripture. In the conclusion, the chief maintainer and champion of this Doctrine, by name Coracio, confessed, and made a protesta­tion to us in the Audience of all the Brethren there Assembled, that he would no longer ad­here to this opinion, nor dispute concerning it, nor mention it, nor preach it, so powerfully was he convinc't by the Arguments which had been brought against it. And the rest of the Brethren, which were present, rejoyced at this conference, and at the [...], is not put in this place for dispensation, but for the same as [...], (i. e.) an union, and reconciliation: and so Dionysius uses the word a little before: St Paul also in his Epist. to the Colossians, Chap. 2. v. 2. & 19. useth [...], and [...], in this sence. Vales. reconciliation and unanimity which was amongst all men.’

CHAP. XXV. Concerning the Revelation of John.

HAving interposed some words, he afterwards says thus concerning the Revelation of John; ‘Indeed some of our Ancestours disowned, and wholly rejected this Book; confuting every Chapter, and demonstrating it to be an un­known and senseless work; and that the Title is forged; for they say it is not John's. Neither is it a Revelation, because it is covered over with so thick and dark a vail of Ignorance. And that not onely no Apostle, but also no holy or Ecclesiastick person could have been the com­piler of this work: but that it was See B. 3. Chap. 28. pag. 44. note c. & d. Cerinthus, the founder of the Heresie, called from him the Cerinthian Heresie, who was desirous to have a creditable name prefixt before his forgery: for this, they say, was Cerinthus's Opinion and Doctrine; that Christ's Kingdom should be ter­restrial: And whatsoever he, being a carnal and voluptuous man most lusted after, in these he dream'd the Kingdom of Christ consisted; as in indulging the belly, and the parts beneath the belly, I mean, in eating, drinking, and mar­rying; and also in festivals, sacrifices, and kil­ling of victims, by which these might with more specious pretences be acquired. I dare not indeed reject this Book, since many of the Brethren have it in great esteem. But this is the Opinion I have of it, I think the sense or subject there of surpasseth my apprehension, and that there is a mysterious and admirable mea­ning covertly contained in every part of it; for though I do not understand it, yet I suppose there is a more profound meaning comprehen­ded in the words. I do not judge of, nor fathom these things by the line of my own reason; but attributing much more to faith, I esteem them more sublime then to be com­prehended by me. I do not condemn those things I could not understand, but I the rather admire them because I cannot see through them.’ After these words, having carefully look't into the whole Book of the Revelation, and demonstrated that it was impossible to be understood according to the obvious sense of the words, he goes on, saying; ‘But having fini­shed his Prophesie, (as I may call it,) the Prophet pronounceth blessing upon all them who keep it, and moreover on himself too; for he saith: Revelat. c. 22. v. 7, 8. Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the Prophesie of this book: And I am John which saw and heard these things. I do not indeed deny that his name was John, and that this was John's Book: [for I grant that it was written by some holy and divinely inspired person:] But I cannot easily be brought to give my consent that this was John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, the Author of the Gospel according to John, and of the Catholick Epistle. For I conjecture by the Genius and Nature of them both, by the form of the stile, and the method and [...], is a term pro­per to the Rhetoricians, as plainly appears by the following word [...]. I think that [...] has the same import with dispo­sitio, or [...]; for [...], in Suidas is the same as [...], to dispose, or handle. Or we may render it the form and manner of writing: for first he proves the Revelation not to be John's the Apostle, by the [...], the Genius or Nature of the wri­ter: Then by the stile and mode of writing, that is, by the Phrase, and the sentences. Vales. disposition (as they call it) of the Book, that it is not the same writer. For the Evangelist does no where insert his name; neither does he make him­self known either in his Epistle, or Gospel.’ After­wards he thus proceeds a­gain: ‘John no where [speaks] either as con­cerning himself, or as con­cerning another. But he that wrote the Revelation prefixeth his name at the very beginning: [where he says,]’ Revelat. c. 1. v. 1, 2. The Revelation of Jesus Christ which he gave unto him to shew to his ser­vants quickly, and he sent and signified it by his Angel unto his servant John, who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony [of Jesus Christ, and] of all things which he saw. Afterwards he writes an Epistle: Vers. 4. John unto the seven Churches in Asia; Grace be unto you, and peace. ‘Now the Evangelist has not pre­fixt his name, no not before his Catholick E­pistle: But, without any circumlocution, has made his beginning from the Mystery of the [Page 131] Divine Revelation. 1 John c. 1. v. 1. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes. For upon account of this kind of Revelation the Lord hath pronounced Peter blessed in these words, Matth. c. 16. v. 17. Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and bloud hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. But neither before the second, nor third Epistle of John which are extant, although they are very short, his John's name expresly prefixt; but he is namelesly intituled the Elder. But the other [John] thought it not enough to name himself once and so to proceed in his re­lation, but he again repeateth his name. Revalat. c. 1. v. 9. I John, even your brother and companion in tribula­tion, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus, was in the Isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. And at the close of this Book he saith. Revelat. c. 22. v. 7, 8. Bles­sed is he that keepeth the sayings of the Prophesie of this book. And I John saw these things and heard them. Therefore that it was John who wrote these things, we ought to believe, because he affirms it. But what John it was 'tis un­certain; for he has not said that he himself was that John, who in several places of the Gospel is called the beloved Disciple of the Lord; or that he was he who lay in the bo­som of the Lord; or that he was the brother of James; or that he was the person who with his own eyes and ears saw and heard the Lord. For certainly he would have mentioned some of these forementioned [descriptions,] if he were de­sirous to have made himself apparently known: But he has recorded none of these passages in his writings, but stiles himself our brother and companion and witness of Jesus, and calls himself blessed, because he saw and heard these Revelations. I suppose there were many of the same name with John the Apostle, who through their love to, admiration and zea­lous emulation of him, and because they were desirous to be beloved of the Lord as he was, had a great love for this name. We ought to take special no­tice of this passage concerning the primitive Christians custom of cal­ling their children, by the names of Peter and Paul, which they did both for the reverence and love they bare to those Saints, and also that their children might be beloved and no less dear in the sight of God then those Saints were. Chrysostom in his Ora­tion concerning St Meletius saith, that the Antiochians had such a reverence and esteem for him, that the parents called their children after his name, that they might have their houses in a manner a­dorned with his presence. The same father also in his 21 Ho­mily upon Genesis, adviseth his Auditours that they should not carelesly call their children by their grandfathers or great Grand­fathers, or some noble Heroes names, but that they should ra­ther give them the names of some men who were famous for virtue and piety; that the children, by their example, might be excited to an imitation of them. Vales. As we see many chil­dren of the faithful cal­led by the name of Paul and Peter. Moreover there is another John mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, Sirnamed Acts 1 [...]. 25. and 1 [...]. 5. Mark, whom Barnabas and Paul took to be their companion. Con­cerning whom it is again said, Acts 1 [...]. 25. and 1 [...]. 5. They had John to be their Minister. Whether it were he that was the Au­thour of this Revelation or not, I dare not affirm. For 'tis no where written that he came with them into A­sia, but 'tis said that when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphi­lia: and John departing from them, returned to Je­rusalem. Therefore I think it was some other John, one of them who lived in Asia. For 'tis said there are two Tombes at Ephesus, and both called by the name of John's Tombe. This is Dionysius's second Ar­gument, by which he proves that the Gospel and Reve­lation were not written by one and the same John, for he had urged his first Argument be­gun at note (a) to this place: now here he begins a second, (viz.) to prove by the words and sentences, and by the placing of the words or method, that they were two distinct persons. For I render this word [...], the placing or modelling of words, ac­cording to Cicero, though [...] in this place may as well com­prehend the ordering and model­ling of Sentences, as well as of words. But here we may take notice what an excellent Critick Dionysius Alexandrinus was. For it is the property of a Critick to judge of the writings of the An­tients, and to discern what is true and genuine, and what spurious and supposititious. Vales. Also from the sentences, the words, and the disposition or placing of them, this John who wrote the Reve­lation, may with good reason be suspected to be a distinct person from the other John; for there is a mutual agreement betwixt the Gospel and the Epistle, and they both begin alike: the Gospel begins thus: In the beginning was the word. The Epistle thus: That which was from the beginning. The Gospel says: And the word was made flesh and dwelt a­mongst us, And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the onely begotten Son of the Father. The Epistle says the same with a ve­ry little variation: That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life; for the life was mani­fested. For these are his preludiums, directing his words (as in the following passages he has declared) against those, who denyed that Christ came in the flesh. Where­fore on set purpose he subjoyneth this, And what we have seen we bear witness to, and shew unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us. That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you. He is constant to himself, and does not in the least wander from his subject proposed, but in the same [...] in this place signi­fies Periods or sentences, by which an entire sense is concluded. Cha­pters also they may be called, the Greeks also call them [...], the Latines Capitula. Vales. Periods and words he does prosecute all points, some of which expressions we will briefly recount. He who does carefully read them, will both in his Gospel and Epistle, very frequently meet with life; very often with light; an avoiding of darkness; very frequently with truth; grace; joy; the flesh and bloud of our Lord; judgment; forgiveness of sins; the love of God towards us; the commandment of mutual love one towards another; and that we ought to keep all the Commandments. There is also contained in them the [...], must I think be rendred here rather the condemnation of the world, then the reproving of the world. In the old Glossary we find [...] to signifie judicium. Vales. condemnation of the World, of the Devil, and of An­tichrist; the promise of the Holy Ghost; the Adoption of the sons of God; a faith Universally required of us; mention of the Father and the Son in every place. In summe, they who note the phrase in all things throughly may easily discern, that the Genius and Stile, both in the Gospel and the Epistle appears to be one and the same. But the Revelation is altogether different from, and unlike to these; it has no alliance to, nor (as I may so say) familiarity with either of these: nor has the Revelation so much as one syllable in it which is common to these: Neither does the Epistle (for I omit the Gospel) make the least mention of the Revelation; nor the Revelation of the Epistle▪ And yet Paul in his Epistles mentions something concerning his Revelations, which he did not digest into a volume by themselves. Furthermore by the phrase, the difference be­twixt the Epistle and Gospel and the Revelation, may be easily conjectured: for those are not [Page 132] onely written most See Jude vers. 24. [...]; without any errour, or mistake. correctly and agreeable to the purity of the Greek tongue, but they are also composed with great elegancy in the words, in the Argumentations and whole contexture of the discourse: So impossible it is for any one to find any Barbarism or Soloecism, or lastly any Idiotism in them. For [the Evan­gelist] ('tis apparent) had By both faculties he means that which the Greeks call [...], and [...] (i. e.) ex­ternus and internus serm [...], which is afterwards mentioned, [...], the gift of knowledge and the gift of speaking; by which subsequent words the preceding are explained. Vales. both faculties; the Lord had endewed him with both, that is, the gift of knowledge, and the gift of speaking. As touching this other John I doe not indeed deny that he saw the Revelation, and that he received the [gift of] knowledge and of pro­phesie. But I take notice that his dialect and stile is not pure Greek, but he makes use of some Barbarous words, yea and in some places he has Soloecismes, which it is not now neces­sary to give a Catalogue of. For I would have no one suppose that I have said these things in a way of derision; but onely on this account, that I might explain the dissimilitude of these books.’

CHAP. XXVI. Concerning Dionysius's Epistles.

THere are extant many more of Dionysius's Epistles Hence we may gather that the 2 books concerning the Promi­ses, out of which Eu­sebius has the frag­ments a­fore quo­ted, were Epistles. We may also con­firm this by a passage in Chap. 22. where Dionysius uses [...] which is an Epi­stolary phrase. But be­cause these Epistles were something prolix, they were therefore called books. Rufinus truly calls Dionysius's Epistles concerning Baptism, Books, and the four Books against Sabellius here mentioned are nothing else but a longer sort of Epistles, which Eusebius testifies: for he saith that all the rest of Dionysius's books were written in an Episto­lary form and style. Vales. besides these. As for example, his Epistles to Ammon Bishop of Berenice against Sabellius; and an Epistle to Telephorus; also one to Euphranor; and again another to Ammon, and Euporus. He also wrote Dionysius Alexand. in his Epistles against Sabellius seemed not to be Orthodox as touching the Divinity of Christ, and he was ac­cused of it before Dionysius Bishop of Rome, by some of the Bishops of Pentapolis, who went to Rome. Dionysius Roman. called a Synod, heard the Accusers, and having examined some select Opinions in Dionys. Epistles, he wrote to Dionys. Alexand. desiring him that he would more distinctly declare his faith and opinion concerning those matters. Upon this account Dionys. Alexand. wrote four Epistles to Dionys. Roman. which he intituled [...] (that is,) concerning the confutation of his Adversaries, and concerning his own Apology or defence of himself. Vales. four more Books upon the same subject, and dedicated them to his namesake Dionysius Bishop of Rome. There are also more of his Epistles besides these extant a­mongst us: and moreover some Books of his, which are something verbose and prolixe, and are written in an Epistolary form: As for exam­ple, his Books concerning Eusebius, in his 14th Book De Praeparat. produces an excellent piece of this Book De Naturâ. It was dedicated, [...]; this word being dubiously taken to signifie either a son, or any other child or servant, 'tis some difficulty to determine who the person was, to whom it was dedicated, some say to his son: I have here rendred it to a child. For I cannot think that Dionys. was ever married. The like difficulty occurs in Book 6. Chap. 40. Vales. Nature, which are de­dicated to Timotheus a child, concerning Tem­ptations, which he dedicated to Euphranor: Be­sides these Books, in his Epistle to Basilides Bishop of Pentapolis, he says he wrote a comment upon the beginning of Ecclesiastes. He has also left us several Epistles which he wrote to this Of these many Epistles written by Dionysius to this Basilides, onely one is now extant, which Theodorus Balsamo has preserved for us. Vales. Basilides. Thus many are Dionysius's works. But now after an Historical relation of those things, we will deli­ver to the knowledge of Posterity an account of our own Age.

CHAP. XXVII. Concerning Paul of Samosata, and the Heresie foun­ded by him at Antioch.

DIonysius, namesake to Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, succeeds Xystus, after he had presided over the Church of Rome Here Eu­sebius is in a gross mis­take, for Xystus was not Bishop of Rome Eleven Years, but onely two Years and Eleven Months, as we may see in the book De Pontifi­cibus Ro­manis, which Cus­pinianus first published, and that book is most exact in its account of the times of the Pope's from Callistus to Liberius: the same also says Xystus suf­fered Martyrdom on the eight of the Ides of August: but our Authour neither here, in his History, nor in his Chronicle mentions any thing of Xystus's Martyrdom, which I really admire, and should more ad­mire, did not I certainly know that Eusebius is not over sollicitous and curious in his History concerning what things were done in the Western parts. Moreover Eusebius in his Chronicle ascribes Eight Years to Xystus, and he says that Dionysius succeeded Xystus in the 12th Year of Gallienus, and that Maximus succeeded Dionys. Alexandrin. in the 11th year of the said Gallienus the Emperour. Which is most absurd, whenas 'tis evident that Dionys. Alexand. dedicated his four Books against Sabellius to Dionys. Roman. as our Authour tells us in Chap. 26. of this 7th Book. Vales. Eleven years. About the same time also died Demetrianus Bishop of Antioch▪ whom Paul of Samosata succeeded in his Bishoprick. This Paul had an abject and low opinion of Christ, contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, as if he had been by nature no more then a meer man; Dionysius Bishop of Alexan­dria was intreated to come to the Synod: He having complained of his Age, and also of his infirmity of body deferred his coming; But he openly declared by letter what was his sense and opinion concerning the matter in debate. But the rest of the Pastors of the Churches from all parts hastned to Antioch, and were convened there as against the corrupter of Christ's flock.

CHAP. XXVIII. Concerning the Eminent Bishops of those times.

THe most eminent of these assembled were Fir­milianus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; Gregory and Athenodorus both brothers, Bishops of the Churches of Pontus: Besides these there were Helenus Bishop of Tarsus, and This name Ni­chomas seems to be abbre­viated, and should ra­ther be Ni­chomedes or Nichoma­chus. In the old M. S. in the Abbey of Corbie which con­tains a col­lection of the Canons; amongst the Bishops which sub­scribed to the Council of Nice, Nicomas Bishop of Bostra is named the first of the Bishops of the Province of Arabia: but the common M. SS. read Ni­comachus, and so we find it in the M. S. of C. Justellus, which is of no less antiquity then the other. Vales. Nichomas Bi­shop of Iconium: Also Hymenaeus Bishop of Je­rusalem, and Theotecnus Bishop of Caesarea upon the Confines of Jerusalem: Besides these, Maxi­mus, who with great commendation governed the Brethren of Bostra. And a great many more may be reckoned; who, together with Pres­byters and Deacons, were convened in the afore­said City at the time aforesaid, and upon the same account. But these were the most eminent of them. All these therefore being assembled in the same place together, We here translate it, divers times, though some Greek Copies read onely [...] ▪ but all our M. SS. read [...]. There were several Synods called against this Paul of Samo­sata; hence follows the word [ [...]] which we must in no wise suppose to be superfluous here. Eusebius says there were many Synods assembled at several times, and in every Synod there were many Sessions or Actions. The first Synod against Paul was at Antioch in the twelfth year of Gallienus; of which Synod Firmilianus was President: con­cerning which see Baronius, Anno Christi 265, and 266. Vales. divers times and often, disputations and Questions were raised in every Synod. On the one side Paul of Samosata en­deavoured to conceale and hide his Heterodox Opinions; on the other, these persons striving with all diligence to denudate and make apparent his Heresie and Blasphemie against Christ. In the [Page 133] interim Dionysius Anno Christi. 265. dies in the twelfth year of Gallienus's Empire, after he had presided in the Bi­shoprick of Alexandria seventeen years. Maxi­mus succeedeth him. But Gallienus, having held the Empire fifteen years compleat, Claudius was constituted his successour. He, having Reigned two years, left the Government to Aurelianus.

CHAP. XXIX. How Paul being confuted by Malchion a Presbyter, (who formerly had been one of the See B. 4. Chap. 16. Note (f.) Sophistae) was deposed.

Hence it may be ga­thered, that the Synod of Antioch was assem­bled in the beginning of Aureli­anus's Reign. But I cannot assent to Baronius▪ who says this Synod was called in the se­cond year of Aureli­anus. The Council of Ephesus, in pag. 228. utterly destroys this Opinion of Barorius's: for it says that Paul of Samosata was excommunicated 160 years before that time; and if we reckon backwards we shall find, that the year of Claudius and Paternus's Consulship, that is, the year of Christ 270. is the 160 year backwards from the time that book was written, which was, Theo­dosius 13th, and Valentinianus 3d being Consuls. Moreover, if Baronius reckon these things done in the 2d year of Aurelianus, he must of ne­cessity make Dionysius to continue Bishop of Rome till that year; but that is contrary to the Authority of the Lib. Pontifical. Farther, in the second year of Aurelianus his Reign, there was a War waged against Zenobia, when Antioch and other Cities were taken, so that 'tis impossible there should be a Synod of Bishops that year there. Vales. IN this Emperours time was the last Synod convened, which consisted of a very great number of Bishops: The Authour of that He­resie at Antioch being now convicted, and by all manifestly condemn'd of false Doctrine, was ex­communicated out of the Catholick Church, which is under heaven. But one Leontius in his first book against Nestorius has a fragment of this disputation. In Theodoret, this Malchion is called Malachion; but falsly: this man gained such honour in this Confutation of Paul, that he was thought worthy to be Cannoniz'd in the Greek Menology at the 28 day of October. Vales. Malchion most espe­cially confuted and convinced him being desirous to keep himself conceal'd: He was a most eloquent man, and Master of the Grecian Philosophy School at Antioch. And moreover for his surpas­sing sincerity in the faith of Christ, he was ho­noured with a Presbytership of the Church there. Now this man having undertaken to dispute a­gainst Paul, (the Notaries having written down all the passages of that disputation, which is at this day extant) was the onely person that was able to detect and convince that crafty and deceit­full fellow.

CHAP. XXX. Concerning the Epistle of the Bishops against Paul.

THe Prelates therefore, being assembled toge­ther, by common consent writ an Epistle to Dionysius Bishop of Rome, and Maximus Bishop of Alexandria: and then sent it over all the Provinces: both manifesting their diligence to all men; the perverse Heterodoxy of Paul, the Confutations and Disputes which were held against them; and also giving in a Narration of the whole Life and Morals of the man, whose words in which Epistle, that Posterity may re­member them, it will be convenient here to relate.

THE EPISTLE.

To Dionysius and Maximus, and to all our fellow-Ministers over the whole world, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons; and to the whole Catholick Church under heaven; Helenus, Hymenaeus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proclus, Nicomas, In the Maz. Fuk. Med. and Sav. M. SS. 'tis writ▪ thus, [...] lianus; but in some printed Edi­tions, 'tis [...] Amilianus. Also Rifinus, and Niceph. call him Aelianus. Athanasius says there were 70 Fathers in this Synod, who devested Paul of Sa­mosata. Vales. Aelianus, Paul, Bolanus, Protogenes, Hierax, Eutychius, Theo­dorus, Malchion, and Lucius; And all the rest of the Bishops of the Neighbouring Cities and Provinces which are with us, the We ought to take notice of the inscription of this Epistle: for we find here not the names of Bishops onely, but also of Presby­ters's, and Deacons, and of the Laity also. The same we may see in the Acts of the Council of Carthage, in which Cyprian was President, and in the Council of Eliberis. Vales. Presbyters, and Deacons; and the Churches of God, To the beloved Brethren in the Lord, health. After some words interpos'd, they adde these following. We have written to, and intrea­ted many of the Bishops far Remote; that they would come and assist in the Curing of this Pestiferous Doctrine: for we wrote to Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, and to Firmili­anus Bishop of Cappadocia, men of blessed Memory. The first of them wrote to Antioch, but did not so much as vouch­safe the Authour of the Heresie a salutation; Hence we may gather the E­pistle of Dionys. Alexand. to Paul of Samosata, which is inserted in the 11th Volume of the Biblio­theca Patrum, is supposititious, to­gether with the 10 Propositions of Paul, and Dionysius's Answers to them. For the Fathers of the Coun­cil of Antioch do here affirm, that Dionys. did not write to Paul, but to the whole Church of An­tioch. In that Epistle which goes under the name of Dionysius, we find that he wrote to Paul twice. But the stile of the Epistle and Answer is not at all like Diony­sius's works. So that I am fully perswaded, although Baronius takes that work to be true and Genuine, it is false, and adul­terate. Vales. neither did he write to him by name, but to the whole Church: a Copy of which Letter we have here inserted. The other, Firmi­lianus, came twice, and con­demned Paul's novelties, as we who were then present do attest, and many others do also know as well as we. But when he promised to recant, Firmi­lianus believing him, and ho­ping that the business might be composed The Greek words [ [...]] must be translated, sine ullâ Reli­gionis nostrae contumeliâ, and we have rendred them in English accordingly: but Christoph. scorn'd to follow that excellent version of Rufinus which agrees with us. Vales. without any re­proach to our Religion, deferred his sentence; being deceived by him who denyed his God and Lord, and who kept not the faith which he formerly professed. But Firmilianus was now about coming to An­tioch: and he came as far as Tarsus; For he had had ex­perience of his malicious wick­edness who denyed his God. But in the interim of our assembling, and whilest we were sending for him, and expecting his coming, he died. After some other passages they describe his Morals, and what course of Life he lead, in these words: But since he turn'd to forged and spurions Opinions, departing from the The Fa­thers cal­led the Rule of faith [...], the true rule. See the fourth book of our Au­thour Eusebius and Chap. 23. where we find the same use of [...] exactly with this here. Vales. true Rule, it is not our concern to examine the Actions of one who is out of the Church: Neither how he, who was formerly poor, and indigent, (having had no Estate from his Parents, nor got any thing by any Trade or Profession) is now become incredibly rich, by his unlawful, and sacrilegious dealings, Extortion is twofold; and is committed either by the terrour of Authority, as when a Souldier, or Magistrate demands any thing; or else by deceit and cunning, when under pretence of favouring, or suc­couring and helping a man we get something from him. And this latter is that which the Fathers of the Council of Antioch here mean: the Greeks call it [...]; so here, [...]; to which the Latine word concussio, and concutere does exactly answer; in which sense they were used among the old Lawyers. We also find the word in the Gospel, where John gives this command to the Souldiers: (viz.) [...] ▪ Luke Chap. 3. 14. And amongst the Grecians, the antient use of the word [...] is in the same sence as calumniari. So Aristophanes and Tel [...]clides, use the word. Vales. by extortion, and vexatiousness used towards the Brethren, and by [...] is by Langus very well translated praemia accipere, to take bribes: St Paul uses that term, Colos. 2. 18. Vales. taking [Page 134] bribes from those that were injured, promising to help them to their right, for a reward; but he deceiv'd them too, Although [...] be joyn'd with [...] in the Greek, and we have so translated it: (viz.) getting money for doing nothing, making it to be referred to Paul; yet it should rather be referred to the Litigants or people in suit, who gave their money to Paul, for his help and favour in their cause, and so lost it: he never helping them. Vales. getting money for doing nothing through their willingness, who were entangled in Suits, to give any thing for a delivery from those troubles: He This is a Scripture phrase, taken out of 1 Timothy chap. 6. v. 6. supposed godliness to be gain. Nei­ther need we declare how proud and insolent he was, being invested with secular Dignities; and desiring to be stiled a These Ducenarii were pro­curatours; called ducenarii, be­cause they were such receivers, or Collectours of the Revenues, as had 200 festerces paid them from the Emperour, as a yearly sallary. See Dio, Lib. 53. p. 506. Vales. Ducenarius, ra­ther then a Bishop: and how he walk't in state through the See Book 5. Chap. 1. note (c.) Forum, reading and dicta­ting Letters as he walked in publick, with a numerous Guard about him, some going before and some following him: in so much that there was an ill opinion and an odium brought upon the faith through his pride and haughtiness. Neither [does it concern us to examine] his vain glorious ambition in the Eccle­siastick conventions, which he greedily pursues, being desirous of glory, and affected with an ima­ginary pomp: with such devices as these terri­fying the minds of the faithful and ignorant. Be­sides, he errected for himself a The Fathers do not here con­demn Paul because he had a throne; for that was customary amongst Bishops, even from the times of the Apostles, as we may see in Chap. 19. Book 7. con­cerning the throne of James the brother of the Lord. But for this they condemn him because he erected a Tribunal for himself in the Church, and buil't a high throne, as Rufinus well translates the place, higher then it was be­fore. Bishops did sit higher then the people; but they had not a Tribunal. Vales. Tribunal, and a lofty throne, not like one of Christ's disciples, but had a place called his This Secretum was onely proper to Magistrates, and the Judices Majores, or Judges of Life and Death. It was the inner part of the Court of Judgment, and was compassed about with Rails, and Curtains were drawn about it; in it the Judges sate, when they heard the Tryals of Criminals. See my notes on Amm. Marcell. p. 87. Vales. Secretum, like as the se­cular Magistrates have. He also used to clap his hand upon his thigh, and stamp't upon the Throne with his feet. And such as did not commend him, and shake their [...], sig­nifies to shake a linnen cloth, or handkerchief in token of applause; as the Spectatours used to doe in the Theater. Vopiscus says that Aurelianus was the first who gave these [...], craria, in English, handkerchiefs, to the people of Rome, that concutiendo, by shaking them, they might signifie their con­sent in Elections. But Aurelianus borrowed this custom from the Eastern People who long before his time used these Oraria after the same manner. Vales. oraria, as they usually did in the Thea­ters, and did not make loud exclamations, nor leapt up and down in the same manner as his favourites (which were a company of silly men and wo­men that during their heark­ning to him used such indecen­cies) did; but were attentive to him with such a seemly reverence and decencie as be­fits the house of God; those persons he rebuked and re­proach't. In his publick dis­courses he reflected upon those Doctours of our Religion that were dead, with all imaginable scorn and petulancy; but he magnified himself not as be­came a Bishop, but rather like a counterfeit, and an Impostour. He abolished the Psalms, which were usually sung in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, as No­vel, and the composures of modern men. On the great feast of Easter, he appointed women to sing Psalms in his commendation in the body of the Church, which whosoever heard might justly trem­ble at: He also privately sent the Eusebius seems here to mean the Chore­piscopi, which some term Vicarios Episcopi, & Vicarios Episcopos, i. e. Depu­tys of the Bishop, and Vicar-Bishops. They here make a distinction be­twixt the Episcopi Civitatum, and Episcopi Pagorum. And these latter, the Fathers here say, sang, or repeated these songs or Hymns in their Ser­mons, and congregations. See Damasi Epist. concerning these. Bishops of the Neighbouring Villages and Towns, and the Pres­byters who were his flatterers to make discourses to the people in commendation of him. For he will not joyn in a confession with us, that the Son of God came down from heaven, that we may now premise some things of what we shall hereafter more at large declare in writing. Neither shall this be affirmed on our bare word, but it is evident in many places up and down his [...] are here Gesta, or Acta, Publick Acts; such are commonly Registred; but some falsly translate them Commenta­ries. Now the Acts of this Synod of Antioch were nothing but the Disputation of Malchion against Paul of Samosata; which were Registred by the Notaries. Vales. Acts which we have sent you: and most especially there where he says that Jesus Christ is of the See Joh. 8. 23. earth; But those who chaunt out his praises, and sing his Encomium's amongst the peo­ple, do say, that this their im­pious master is an angel come down from heaven: nor does that haughty fellow prohibit these expressions, but is himself present when they are spoken. What need we here mention his and his Presbyters and Deacons These Subintro­duced wo­men were neither Wives, nor Concubines, but a third sort of women; which the Presbyters, &c. kept, not to have children by, nor upon ac­count of lust, but as 'twas pre­tended out of a desire of piety. See John Langus's notes on B. 6. Niceph. Eccles. Hist. Chap. 30. These sort of women, Valesius says, were called Sisters; which he was informed of from the third Canon. Concil. Nicen. They were also termed Commanentes. See Je­rom's Epistle to Eustochius, where he inveys against these sort of women. Subintroduced women (as the Antiochians term them?) in whom he con­ceals not onely this, but many other damnable crimes, (which he is conscious of, and of which he has been convict they are guilty) that by this means he may keep them so obnoxious, as not to adventure, through a fear of their own guilt, to ac­cuse him for his impious words and practises. Moreover, he has enriched them. And this is the reason he is beloved and admired by them who covet such things. But why do we write these things? We know (beloved) that it is the duty of a Bishop, and of the whole Clergy, to be examples of good works to the people. Neither are we ig­norant, that by introducing women into their society, some have wholly fell away from goodness, and others have been suspected. Although therefore it be gran­ted he committed nothing that was unchast, yet the very suspicion which arises from such a thing, ought carefully to be avoided, least it should be offensive to any one, and induce others to imitate it: for how can he reprove, or admonish another not to frequent the company of women, and to take heed least he fall, (as it is written,) who has now indeed sent away one, but keeps two that are young and beauti­ful with him? and where-ever he goes, he carries them along with him; and therefore indulges, and Here the Fathers accuse Paul because he kept these fair women with him; and because [ [...]] he glut­ted himself with all sensual de­lights, as, feasts, drinking, and the like, which are the common in­centives of lust. Vales. stuffs himself with delicacies. These are the reasons that all people sigh, and lament private­ly: but they so dread his Ty­rany, and Authority, that they dare not accuse him; now, (as we have before said) any one would call a man, who pro­fesses the Catholick Doctrine, and is reckoned of our Communion, to an account for these things. But from one, who has abjured the Mystery [of our Religion,] and has boasted in that cursed Heresie of Artemas, (for why may we not manifest to you his father:) we judge it needless to require an account of these things. Afterwards in the close of the Epistle they adjoyn these words. Having therefore ex­communicated this contumacious Enemie of God; we were necessitated to ordain another Bishop in his stead over the Catholick Church, (as we are per­swaded, not without the providence of God) [to wit,] Domnus (the son of Demetrianus of bles­sed Memory, who before him was the eminent Go­vernour of that See) a man adorned with all ac­complishments requisite to a Bishop. Which we have therefore signified to you, that you may write [Page 135] to him, and receive from him [...]. The Latines call them, Literas communicatorias, communicatory Letters; the use whereof is very ancient in the Church. They were also cal­led Formatae, as Augustine, in Epist. 163. attests. There were two sorts of these Letters. One sort was given to the Clergy and Laity that were going to travel, that they might be admitted to Commu­nion by forrein Bishops. Another sort were those, which Bishops sent to other Bishops, and received from them mutually, to attest and de­clare their mutual Communion: concerning this latter sort the Synod speaks here. They were usually sent by the new Bishops a little after their Ordination. See August. 162 Epist, and Cyprians Epistle to Cornelius, pag. 92. Vales. Communicatory [...]etters: but as for this [Paul] let him write to Artemas, if he pleases, and let the followers of Artemas, hold Communion with him.

Baronius at the year of Christ 272. (in which year he has pla­ced this Synod of Antioch,) accuses Eu­sebius of fraud, or ra­ther of con­nivence; because he on set pur­pose (as he says) omitted that Creed which the Fathers made in this Coun­cil of An­tioch, which utterly de­stroyed Ar­rianism. But Ba­ronius, as in other pla­ces, so here also, cause­lesly accu­seth Euse­bius. For that Creed which he there pro­duceth out of the Acts of the Synod of Ephesus, was not the Creed which was composed by the Fathers of the Council of Antioch, but by them of the Nicene Council. For the more certain demonstration of this, See the 3d Tome of the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, pag. 378; where this Creed, which Baronius mentions as composed by the Fa­thers of this Council of Antioch, is expresly assign'd to the Fathers of the Council of Nice. Wherefore that Creed which Baronius, and Binius, following his example, have placed in the Acts of this Council of Antioch, must be razed out. There is also extant an Epistle of this 2d Synod of Antioch to Paul of Samosata in the 11th Tome of the Bibliotheca Patrum, which Epistle was written about the beginning of the Session of this 2d Synod, but Baronius ascribes that Epistle to the first Synod, which cannot possibly be, because of the title, and the per­sons mentioned in it, and other circumstances. Vales. And let these things be here by us inserted. * Paul therefore having been devested of his Bi­shoprick, and being also fallen from the orthodox Faith, Domnus (as is aforesaid) succeeded in the Government of the Church of Antioch; But After the sentence of being deposed was passed against Paul, he kept his Church for some years; and would not obey the decree of the Bishops; relying on the power of Zenobia an Eastern Queen. Theodoret says, in his 2d Book Haeretic. Fabul. that Paul did flatter her, and used all means possible to get her favour. When Zenobia was conquered, the Christian Prelates petitioned Auretianus, that this Paul, who had conspired with Zenobia against the Romans, might be removed from the See of Antioch, which was done in the third year of Aure­lianus▪ Vales. Paul being by no means willing to quit the Pos­session of the [...] the import of which words, being lit­terally rendred, is the house of the Church: perhaps they mean the Bi­shops Palace; a little after they call it [...]; which we have rendred the Palace. Valesius renders the first phrase Ecclesiae Domus, and the second Domus. Church; an address was made to Aurelianus the Emperour, who most justly deter­mined concerning this business; giving command that the Pallace should be resigned to whom the Bishops of the Christian Religion in Italy and Rome should assign it by their Letters. Thus therefore the aforementioned Paul, was with the greatest disgrace thrust out of the Church by the secular power. Thus indeed was Aurelian af­fected towards us at that time; But in the fol­lowing part of his Empire his mind towards us being altered, he was induced by the advice of some men to raise a Persecution against us. Much discourse there was every where concerning it: but the divine vengeance assaulted him, (being now ready, and as I may say, almost subscribing the Edicts against us,) [repressing] his design, and binding him (as it were) by the armes; making it evidently apparent to all men that the readiness of the Princes of this world [to per­secute us] can never prevail against the Churches of Christ, unless the invincible hand of God in his divine and celestial judgment, permits it to be done for our chastisement and amendment, at those times in which he judgeth it most seasona­ble. Moreover, Probus succeeds Aurelian, having Reigned six years. And after he had held the Empire the like number of years, Carus toge­ther with his Sons, Carinus and Numerianus, suc­ceed him. Again, these having not lived three full yeares, the Empire falls to Diocletian and those who were adopted with him. In whose times the Persecution against us was accomplished, and at the same time with it was the demolishing of the Churches: but a little before this, died Dionysius, after he had governed the See of Rome nine years, and Felix succeeded him.

CHAP. XXXI. Concerning the heterodox and corrupt opinion of the Manichees which sprang up at this time.

AT the same time that mad-man, (truly cal­led Eusebius, as we here see, derives the name of this He­retick from the Greek word [...], a mad­man: The Learned Bishop Pearson, on the Creed, supposes Manes to be a Title rather than a name, and to be deri­ved from the He­brew [...] or ' [...], signifying, an Here­tick: see his reasons for this derivation, in his marginal notes at pag. 64. of his Exposition on the Creed; Edit▪ Lond. 1669. Manes) who gave denomination to that furious Heresie, was armed with madness; Satan himself that Adversary of God, having pro­duced him for the destruction of many men. This person was barbarous in his whole course of life, in his very discourse and manners, he was as to his disposition devilish and mad: he undertook what was agreeable hereto, and attempted to feign him­self to be Christ. Sometimes he declared him­self to be the See the note on Chap. 14. B 5. Paraclete, and the very holy Spirit, being also besides his madness puft up with pride: at other times, as if he were Christ, he elected twelve disciples to be Colleagues of his new­formed opinion: Moreover, when he had patched up a Collection of false and Atheistical opinions, gathered out of various Heresies which were long since extinct, he poured them, like some deadly poi­son, out of Persia into The phrase in the original is [...]; which Valesius renders in Orbem Romanum, into the Roman Empire. our Countrey. Hence came that impious name of the Manes was not the first Authour of this Heresie, though his fol­lowers were from him called Manicheans. Indeed, Manes disseminated this Heresie in the days of Aurelianus, or Probus the Emperour: but he had a predecessour, though not a master, called first Terebintbus, afterwards Buddas: which Buddas had a former master, by name Scythianus, who was the first Authour of this Heresie, and lived about the Apostolick times. See the pedegree of this Heresie drawn at large by Epiphanius, Advers. Manicheos; pag. 617, &c. Edit. Petav. Manichees, which at this time abounds in many places; such there­fore was the original of this [...], knowledge falsely so called. 1 Tim, 6. 20. forged doctrine, which sprang up in the times before mentioned.

CHAP. XXXII. Concerning those Ecclesiastick men who were famous even in our Age, and which of them lived till the demolishing of the Churches.

AT this time Eutychianus succeeded Felix, who had been Bishop of the Church of Rome five years. And This Eu­tychianus, sate Bishop of Rome 8 years and 11 months as is evi­dent from the old book of the Popes; in which the years of all the Popes from Callistus are very well digested by the Consuls un­der whom they began their Pre­sidencies, and under whom they died. Eusebius here takes away 8 years from Eutychianus and ascribeth them to Xystus. See Chap. 27. note (a.) Vales. he, having not lived full ten months, leaves the dignity to Caius, who lived in our Age: when he had presided there about fifteen years, Mar­cellinus was ordained his successour; whom the Per­secution overtook: At this time Timaeus succeeded Dom­nus in the Government of the Church of Antioch: After him Cyril succeeded in our memory. In his time we knew one This Dorotheus Presbyter of Antioch, Baronius (in his notes on the Roman Martyrology) takes to be the same with that Dorotheus who was a Presbyter of Tyre: but this is a mistake in him; which errour Blondellus undertakes to correct; but in the interim committeth one far worse. For he confounds this Dorotheus Presbyter of Antioch, with Dorotheus, Diocletian's Groom of the Chamber; whose Martyrdom our Authour in the 8 book giveth us an account of: I do not in the least doubt but there were two of this name (viz.) Dorotheus's, one was Presbyter of Antioch, and the other was an Eunuch, Groom of the Chamber to Diocletian. And this may be proved by sufficient argu­ments. (1.) This Dorotheus, the Presbyter, was not a Martyr; for we find no mention of him as such in Eusebius, and cer­tainly had he been so, Eusebius would not have omitted him a­mongst the Ecclesiasticks he reckons up Book 8. chap. 13. who suf­fered Martyrdom, seeing also he was his master. (2.) This Dorotheus the Presbyter was a man nobly descended, and he bore Of­fice before he was a Presbyter; but the other Dorotheus was a man of a servile condition, an Eunuch, and Groom of the Cham­ber to Diocletian. Besides, 'tis impossible that the same man should be a Groom of the Chamber, and a Presbyter; for that was in­consistent with the Ecclesiastick Canon, and with reason; onely youths of great beauty were chosen to serve in the Emperours Bed­chamber. Lastly, we read in Eusebius, and others, that Dorotheus the Groom of the Chamber suffered Martyrdom while he had that Office. Hence arose this confusion; both these Dorotheus's were Eunuchs, and both the Emperour's favourites. Vales. Dorotheus, who then had the dignity of Pres­byter [Page 136] in the Church of Antioch, a very learned man: he was very studious in the sacred Scri­ptures, and used so great sedulity in attaining the Hebrew tongue, that he could read the Scriptures in Hebrew with great skillfullness: he was a person that had been The rea­ding in the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Sa [...]. M. SS. is [...], libe­raliter edu­catus, he was very well educa­ted. Vales. excellently well educated, and was not unexperienced in the Grecian Literature: but he was by nature an Eunuch, having been so from his very birth. The Emperour for this reason, (it being for example a thing which was wonder­ful,) took him into his favour, and advanced him to the Office of overseeing the Purple Dy-house at Tyre: we have heard this person expound the holy Scriptures in the Church indifferently well: But after Cyrillus, Tyrannus succeeded in the Bishoprick of the Church of Antioch; in whose time the de­stroying of the Churches was very violent: After Socrates, Eusebius Governed the See of Laodicea, who was born at the City of Alexandria; the cause of his removal [out of his own Countrey] was the controversie about Paul: Upon which account coming into Syria, he was detained from returning home by those persons who in that place diligently busied themselves about celestial mat­ters; he was in our memory a most amiable or­nament of Religion; as we may easily understand from the words of Dionysius before quoted: This is the same Anatolius (if I mistake not) that Eunapius mentions in the Life of Iambli­chus; where he says that Iam­blichus was at first the Scholar of Anatolius, who at that time was esteemed the best Philosopher next to Prophyrius. This An [...] ­tolius, here spoken of by Eusebius, lived in the same times Prophy­rius did, and according to Euse­bius's Character, he was a man well versed in all sorts of lear­ning. Vales. Anatolius was ordained his successour, a good man (as the saying is) succeeding a good man. He also was an Alexandrian by birth; for eloquence, Gre­cian Literature and Philoso­phy, he was acknowledged the chiefest of the most emi­nent men in our age; for he had arrived to a perfection in Arithmetick, Geometry, Astronomy, Logick, Physical Contemplations, and Rhetorick. Upon which account (as report says) he was intreated by the Citizens of Alex­andria to set up a School there of the The phrase, in the origi­nal is ' [...], Aristotelicae successionis, of the Aristotelick Order. Anatolius being an exellent Philosopher was requested by the Citizens of Alexandria to set up an Aristotelick School, in imitation of the Platonick School long since erected at Athens. The masters of Plato's School were called [...], and were promoted to that place by a publick decree. This School had great annual revenues, raised out of Estates, which learned men left as legacies to this School, which were hence called [...]. In imitation of this School at Athens, there was afterwards founded a Philosophical School at Alexandria, of which that most excellent Philosopher Hierocles was master. See Damascius, in vitâ Isidor. pag. 1058, &c. Vales. Aristo­telick Order [of Philosophers:] They relate indeed many other famous acts of his in the Siege of the This Siege of the Bruchi­um was in Aureli­anus's time, as we find asserted in the end of B. 22. of Amm. Marcell. Eusebius in his Chro­nicle says it happened on the 2d year of Claudius: for which Scali­ger reproves and corrects Eusebius, relying on the authority of Mar­cell. But I had rather follow our Authours opinion here. For that Eusebius mentioned in this chap. and Anatolius were still at Alex­andria, and could not possibly tra­vel to Antioch till the siege was raised. But Eusebius, we see, went to the Synod of Antioch, which, as before we proved, was in the second year of Claudius. And intending to return from Antioch, he was detained by the Laodiceans and made Bishop of that place. But if we say that the Bruchium was not taken till Aurelianus's Reign; how could Eusebius, who was at the siege go towards that Synod, and be made Bishop of Laodicea. Vales. Bruchium at Alexandria: for by an uni­versal consent he was dignified with the chiefe [...] place of preheminence and authority amongst the magistracy of that City: but for instance I will here mention onely this Act of his. There being (as they say) a great scarcity of Corn amongst the besieged, (in so much that the famine was more in­tolerable to them then the enemies without;) this a­fore-mentioned Anatolius be­ing there, made this provi­sion [for their relief:] the one Whilest Claudius warred a­gainst the Barbarians, Zenobia sent Zabda lier Captain, who, by the assistance of Timogenes an Aegyptian seized upon Aegypt, and put a Garrison into Alexan­dria: but Probus the Roman Ge­neral, with some assistance of the Aegyptians, who did not affect the Syrians of Palmyra who kept the Garrison, forced them out thence; as Pollia in the Life of Claudius, and Zosimus record. And this, I think, was the time when the Bruchium was besieged by the Romans. Vales. Martinius thinks that this Bruchium, ▪here mentioned as a part of Alexan­dria, and in the Greek called [...], was that which the Ro­mans call the forum frumentarium, or Corn-market; it being deri­ved from [...], Annonae prae­fectus; and that compounded of [...] and [...], tritici curam ha­ [...]o, to have the charge of the wheat: See Martin. Lexicon. Philolog. in the word Bruchion. part of the City being confederates with the Roman Army, and upon that ac­count not besieged; Anato­lius sendeth to Eusebius (for as yet he was there, this happening before his remo­val into Syria,) who was amongst them that were not besieged, and had gotten great repute, and a famous name even with the Roman General, to inform him of [the number] of those that died by the famine in the siege. Eusebius understan­ding this, petitioned the Ro­man General as for the high­est favour, that safety might be granted to those who would desert the enemy: ha­ving obtained his request, he made it known to Anatolius; who, having forthwith re­ceived the [General's] pro­mise, called together the Se­nate of Alexandria, and at first entreated them all to en­ter into an amicable friend­ship with the Romans. But when he perceived them to be exasperated at that his proposal, but (says he) I suppose you would not con­tradict me in this, should I counsel you to send out of the gates all persons which are superfluous, and of whom we have no use at all, to wit, old women, children, and old men, and let them go whither they will: for why should we to no purpose retain them with us, who are even dying? Why do we destroy them with famine, who are disabled and maimed in their bodies? We ought to feed onely men, and those that are young and strong, and to Christoph. renders the word [...], here used, Congerere, to lay up Corn; but it must here be rendred quite contrary, to give out, or measure out corn sparingly; which was customary in famines, and in sieges. Vales. distribute necessary corn to such as are fit to defend the City: When by such arguments as these he had prevalled with the Se­nate, rising up he gave his vote first: that all those who were not fit for service of what Sex soever, whether men, or wo­men, should quit the City; for should they con­tinue with them, and being wholly useless tarry in the City, there could be no hopes of safety; but they would be destroyed by the famine. All the rest of the Senate having approved of his pro­posal, he saved almost all the besieged. First he provided that those of our Religion, then that others of all Ages throughout the City, (not [Page 137] those onely to whom the Senate had given licence; but a great many others under pretence hereof) should make their escape secretly; who being dis­guised in womens habit, went in the night out of the gates by his procurement, and fled to the Roman Army; where Eusebius▪ receiving them all, like a Father and Physician, refreshed them, who had been afflicted with a Hierony­mus, in his Chronicle, says that this siege of the Bru­chium la­sted seve­ral years. Vales. tedious siege, with all imaginable care, and methods of cure. The Church of Laodicea was honoured with two such Pastours as these by the divine providence, one succeeding the other, [for] after the war aforesaid was ended, they both removed from A­lexandria into [Syria.] Indeed Anatolius did not write many books: but so many [works of his] came to our hand [...], that from them we may perceive both his eloquence and his great lear­ning; especially from those [Canons] of his in which he gives us his opinion concerning Easter: Out of which it may be requisite to make men­tion of these words in this place.

These words ought to be separated from the Text of Eusebius, as we have here done in the Translation. For they are a Title as it were, which noteth that the fragment following is out of another Authour. Vales.
Excerptions out of Anatolius's Canons con­cerning Easter.

‘▪ [...]. These words be­ing imper­fect, and unintel­ligible; there must of necessity be something under­stood. Christoph. conjectures that [...], Easter, is to be un­derstood; but that is absurd, for the feast of Easter does never fall on the New-moon of the first moneth. I rather think we ought to read [...], you have, or [...] in the imperative, reckon the New­moon, &c. Vales. You have therefore in the first year the New-moon of the first moneth, (which is the beginning of the circle of nineteen years;) ac­cording to the Aegyptian account on the 26 day of the moneth Phamenoth; but according to the Macedonian computation of moneths, on the 22 day of the moneth Dystrus; and as the Ro­mans phrase it, before the 11th of the Calends of A­pril: On the aforesaid 26 day of the moneth Phame­noth the Sun is found not onely to have entered the first segment [of the Zo­diack,] but is then going the fourth day in it: They usually call this seg­ment, the first Dodecatemorion, the Aequinox, the beginning of moneths, the head of the Cycle, and the ▪ [...] (the term which oc­curs here) does pro­perly signifie Carceres, the place whence the horse-races were begun. Anatolius therefore calls the first Dodecatemorium, [...], because from that, as it were from the ori­ginal and sourse thereof the course of the Planets should begin. Vales. The translation of this Canon of Anatolius's will be scarce under­stood by the unlearned Reader, because so many terms of Art oc­cur in it. The Learned Reader, that is desirous of farther satis­faction herein, may consult Pe­tavius's notes on Epiphan. p. 188, &c. and Aegydius Bucherius, De Doctrinâ Temporum, pag. 440, Edit. Antv [...]rp. 1634. original of the course of the Planets. The segment next before this they commonly call the end of the moneths, and the twelfth segment, the last Dodecatemorion, and the term of the circuit of the Planets: Wherefore we affirm that they who place the first moneth in this segment, and take the 14th day That is, from that segment: for although the reading in the Greek Text be [...], yet it is to be corrected thus, [...]; understand [...], segment: so Petavius corrected it in his notes upon Epiphanius pag. 190. Vales. from it to be the feast of Easter, are, as it happens, in no small mistake. Neither is this our opinion; but it was known to the antient Jews even before Christ's [com­ing;] and it was also in an especial manner obser­ved by them; which may be understood from the words of Philo, Josephus, and Musaeus. And not from the words of these persons onely, but from them who were antienter then they; to wit, from the two Anatolius here affirms that there were two Agathobulus's, sir­named the Doctours, or Masters. But I fear he mistakes in affirming them to be antienter then Philo and Josephus. For Eusebius in his Chronicle says, that Agathobulus the Philosopher flourished in the times of Hadrianus, Vales. Aga­thobulus's, who were sir­named the Masters: and also from the Rufinus▪ renders ' [...] Aristobulus of Paneas; but he is in a gross errour. I wonder that Scaliger, (in his Animadversions upon Eusebius, pag. 130.) should think, these words of Anatolius ought to be corrected according to Rufinus's translation of them. Bede also follows this corrupt Version of Rufinus, and takes Paniada to be the name of a Jewish writer. Scaliger in the place afore-quoted largely proves that what Anatolius says of Ari­stobulus (viz. he was one of the 72 Translatours) is false. This Aristobulus was also sirnamed the Master, or the Doctor; as we may see 2 Maccabees Chap. 1. because he was Tutour to King Ptolomy. For I cannot assent to Scaliger, who makes a distinction betwixt that Aristobulus mentioned in the History of the Maccabees, and Aristobulus the Peripatetick, who dedicated his Expositions upon Moses's Law to Ptolomy Ph [...]lome­tor. Vales. famous Aristobulus, who was one of the Seventy, that at the request of Ptolom [...]us Philadelphus and his father, translated the Sacred and divine Scriptures of the Hebrews, and Dedicated his Expositions on Moses's Law to the same Kings. These Authours in their solutions of the Questions upon Exodus, say that all ought to sacrifice the Passover together after the vernal Aequinox, in the middle of the first moneth. Now this hap­pens when the Sun goes through the first part of the Solar Circle, or (as some of them terme it) the Zodiack: but Aristo­bulus addeth, that not onely the Sun, but the Moon al­so must of necessity pass through the Aequinoctial segment on the feast of the Passover: for where­as there are two Aequi­noctial segments, the one called the vernal; the other the Autumnal; and they diametrically opposite the one to the other; and whereas the feast of the Pass­over is granted to be on the 14 day at evening, the Moon shall be diametrically opposite to the Sun, as we may see it is in full Moons. Where­fore the Sun will be in the vernal Aequinoctial segment; and the Moon will necessarily be in the Autumnal Aequinoctial segment. I know they have said a great deal more; (part where­of is probable, and part concluded from most certain demonstrations;) by which they en­deavour to make it evident, that the feast of the Passover, and that of unleavened bread must al­ways be celebrated after the Aequinox. But I omit the requiring such abundance of demon­strations from them, off whom the Veil of the Mosaisck Law is taken: and by whom (the face being now uncovered) may be seen as in a glass for the future, both Christ himself, Christ's doctrines, and his sufferings. Now, that the first moneth amongst the Hebrews does be­gin about the Aequinox, the precepts in the This book of Enoch is quo­ted by Jude in his Canonical Epi­stle. It was an Apocryphal book, and not received amongst the Au­thentick Scriptures of the Jewes. But the Apostles, and the antient Fathers in imitation of them, have not been afraid to quote Apocryphal books which seemed to confirm the truth. Georgius Syncel. in his Chronicle, quotes an excellent fragment out of this book of Enoch's. Vales. Book of Enoch are suf­ficient evidences.’ The same Anatolius has left us Institutions of Some Excerptions out of A­natolius's Arithmetick are yet extant. Vales. Arithmetick in ten entire books, as also several other evidences of his diligence about, and great experience in, the holy Scri­ptures; Theotecnus Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine first or­dained him Bishop by impo­sition of hands, providing him to be his successour in his own Church. And in­deed for some small time they both We have the like example in Chap. 11. book 6. Where Alex­ander ruled the Church of Jeru­salem joyntly with Narcissus. These two are the most antient instances of Assistant Bishops (as they are now called.) These sort of Assistants were first instituted for the ease of Aged Bishops; but afterwards they grew custo­mary; and were chosen not out of necessity, but ambition and pride: but the Fathers of the Council of Sardis put a stop here▪ to. Vales. presided over that Church together. But the Synod against Paul be­ing convened at Antioch, [Page 138] Eusebius relates the same thing concerning Eusebius Alexandri­nus in the beginning of this chapter: (viz.) that he went to the Synod of An­tioch, which was called upon Paul's account, and in his return was stopped by the Laodiceans, and made Bishop of that place. Now again we find the same con­cerning Anatolius: which cannot possibly be defended, except we should say that Eusebius died some few days after his Ordina­tion: but in opposition to that we will produce Hieronymus's au­thority, who in the second year of Aurelianus writes thus; Eu­sebius is now famous at Laodicea. Vales. he going through the City of Laodicea [to­wards that Synod] was there detained by the brethren, Eusebius being then dead: After the death of Anatolius, Stephen is ordained Bishop of that Church, being the last before the Persecution. He was indeed admired by many for his eloquence, Philosophy, and his other Grecian learning: but he was not That is, he was not so well affected to the Christian faith, as he was to Philosophy and Gre­cian learning: some will have the Greek phrase [ [...]] to have reference to some thing else, but thus I understand it. Vales. so well affected towards the true faith [of Christ,] as the time of the following Persecution after­wards demonstrated; which manifestly declared him to be a dissembler, fearful and cowardous, rather then a true Philosopher: but after this the affairs of that Church did not forthwith run to de­cay; For Theodotus Musculus and Christophor­son, because of the false puncta­tion of this place, translate it otherwise than we have done. They mistook [...] for a passive, and thus point it, [...], &c. all things were restored to their former state by God the preserver, &c. But after a diligent inspection into this place, I think the words [ [...]] ought to be referred to [...], and then the sence will be agreeable to our tran­slation; to wit, Theodotus, who was elected Bishop by God him­self the preserver of all things, restored the affaires of the Church to their former splen­dour. Vales. Or­dained Bishop of that Church by God himself the preser­ver of all things▪ immediately restored all things to their former splendour: He was a person who in deeds veri­fied his own name, and made a true representation of the Episcopal Office; he was of all men the most eminent for his skill in Physick and in cu­ring of the body. And there was no man his equal for healing of souls; for hu­manity, sincerity of mind, commiseration, and diligence in helping those who wan­ted his assistance: he was also incomparably well exer­cised in divine learning. Such a person was this Theodotus. Agapius succeedeth Theotec­nus, who had governed the Bishoprick of Caesarea in Pa­lestine with great care. Who, we know, was very laborious, and most sincerely sollicitous for the good of the people over whom he presided; and with a liberal hand relieved all, most especially the indigent: In this man's times we knew Pam­philus (a most Eloquent man, and a true Philoso­pher in the practises of his life) honoured with a Presbytership of that Church. To declare what a person this man was, and whence descended, would be a copious subject. But all things rela­ting to his life, the [...] Some translate these words thus, concerning the School in which he was educated: but I understand them spoken of the School which Pamphilus founded at Caesarea: concerning the Library which he erected at Caesarea, see Hierony­mus's Catalogue; where he speaks concerning Matthew; see also his Epistle to Marcella. Vales. School he founded; the conflicts which during the time of Persecution he underwent in several confessions, and lastly the crown of Martyrdom with which he was encircled, we have fully declared in a Christoph▪ takes these words, [...] to signifie one book onely: But Eusebius wrote three books of the Life of Pam­philus. Which Hieronymus attesteth in his book De Scriptoribus Ec­clesiasticis; and in his Apology against Rufinus. Vales. peculiar work. Indeed this Pamphilus was the most ad­mirable person of all that lived here. [...], &c. (that is,) as we have transla­ted it, amongst those men who lived nearest to our times, &c. Some will have [...] to be referred to [...], most eminent m [...]; but that I cannot approve of. Pierius, and Meletius, of whom Eusebius afterwards speaks, lived even till Constantine's time; concerning Pierius, see Photius and Hieronymus. Rufinus does not call him Pierius, but Hierius. So does the old Roman Martyrology, at the fourth day of November. But this Martyrology, I think, is neither the old one, nor the Roman. For had it been the Roman Martyrology, we should have had mention of none but Roman Martyrs. But in it we have a Cata­logue of the Martyrs, of all Countreys. That I think (if any desire to know which it is) is the old Roman Martyrology, which Bucherius published with the Canon of Victorius Aquitanus, although that looks more like a Calender, then a Martyrology. There is indeed none which is properly the Roman Martyrology: for that which Gregory the Great mentions in his Epistle to Eulogius, is St Hierom's Martyrology, which the Western Church then used, as we shall hereafter at another place demonstrate. Vales. Amongst those men who lived nearest to our times, we knew these to be most eminent, Pierius one of the Presbyters of Alexandria; And This is the man, whom A­thanasius in his Speech against the Arrians calls Meletius the great, pag. 291. Where in his Catalogue of the Orthodox Bishops▪ he reckons Meletius Bishop of Pontus for one. Philostorgius in his first book calls him Bishop of Sebasto­polis in Pontus. He says he was at the Council of Nice with Ba­silius Bishop of Amasia, and that he sided with the Arrians: but Athanasius in the place above quoted, proves that to be false. Vales. Meletius Bishop of the Churches in Pontus: Pierius was egregiously esteemed for his [voluntary] po­verty, and his Philosophick literature: he was also a man singularly exercised in Contemplations upon the Scriptures, exposi­tions, and publick discourses in the Church: and Mele­tius (whom the learned cal­led the Therefore the name of Me­letius is derived [...], from honey. Gregory Nazianz▪ in his Iambicks calls Meletius the Bishop of Antioch, [...]. Vales. Honey of Attica) was such a man as one would describe to be most accom­plished with all sorts of learning. The powerfulness of his eloquence cannot wor­thily be admired. But, should any one say that he had this faculty by nature, [we an­swer,] who could excell him in his knowledge in many other Arts and Sci­ences, and in his various sorts of literature? Certainly, should any per­son have made tryal of him, he would have affirmed that he was a man most acute in all Sciences which have a dependence on reason; and also most eloquent: The virtue and piety of his life was also correspondent to these his accom­plishments. In the time of the persecution we knew this man, when he absconded for the space of seven years compleat in the regions of Pale­stine. After Hymenaeus Bishop of Jerusalem, a little before mentioned, Zambdas entred upon the Government of that Church; who dying not long after, Hermon, the last of the Bishops before the Persecution in our Age, succeeded in the Aposto­lick Chair, By these words [ [...]] he means that the throne of James the brother of the Lord, was pre­served at Jerusalem till that time, as 'tis recorded Chap. 19. book 7. So also at Alexandria, the Chair, or Throne of Saint Mark the E­vangelist who first founded the Church of Alexandria, was pre­served there for a long time. Vales. which is pre­served there even to this day. Theonas succeedeth Maxi­mus in the Bishoprick of Alexandria, who had been Bishop there eighteen years, since Dionysius's death. In his days Achillas, who at the same time with Pierius was honoured with a Pres­bytership, was very famous [at Alexandria] who was entrusted with the care of the [...] literally, the School of the di­vine faith. Catechetick School. He in his actions exhibited a most excellent example (in­feriour to none) of a more sublime Philosophy, and a genuine pattern of an Evangelick converse. After Theonas had born the Episcopal Office nineteen years, Peter succeeded in the Episcopate of Alexandria. He also was esteemed a person very eminent in his function, which he bore twelve years compleat. Having presided over the Church almost three of those twelve years, before the Persecution, he past the rest of his time in a more strict and There is nothing more frequent in Eusebius then the use of these words, [...], and [...]; which terms the Christians borrowed from the Philo­sophers, as I noted Chap. 17. book 2. Note (a.) The Philosophers called those [...], who professed a stricter kind of life. Hence it is that Artemidorus in his fourth book chap. 35. calls Alexander the Phi­losopher [...]. Ascetick Philosophy is opposed to Philoso­phy which consists in bare words. When the Christians first made use of this name Ascetae, they bestowed it on the Clergy▪ A long time after that, the Monks laid claim to this name. But at the first it was used as was before shown: see Chap. 17. book 2. note (a.) which may be proved by the instance here of Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, and Pierius the Presbyter▪ both whom Eusebius in this Chapter calls Asceta [...]. Eusebius also Chap. 11. concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, calls Pamphilus the Presbyter, Asceta. Vales. ascetick course of life; but [Page 139] continued to be apparently solicitous for the pub­lick utility of the Churches. Upon which ac­count being beheaded in the ninth year of the Persecution, he was adorned with a crown of Martyrdom. But having here terminated the History of the succession of Bishops from our Saviour's Nativity, to the demolishing of the Churches; which [History] comprehendeth the space of This place ought particular­ly to be taken no­tice of, in regard Eu­sebius here summeth up the time which he hath comprehended in his Ecclefiastick History. He saith that from our Saviour's Birth to the demolishing of the Churches, which was in the nineteenth year of Diocletian, there were 305 years. Also in Eusebius's Chronicle the 305 year of Christ is set opposite to the 19 year of Diocletian. But in Scaliger's Edition, the year in which the Persecution under Diocletian began, is reckoned the 304 year of Christ. Hence arises this difference; Scaliger in his E­dition of Eusebius's Chronicle, reckons not that to be the first year of Christ in which he was born, but the year following. But Eusebius rec­kons that to be the first of Christ in which he was born, as I before no­ted Chap. 5. book 1. note (a.) For Eusebius places his birth on the 8th of the Ides of January. Indeed, in all the M. SS. of Eusebius's Chro­nicle (which have the years of Christ annext, particularly in that of Millaine, which is ancienter then any other) that is noted for the first year of Christ in which he was born in Bethlehem of Judea. Vales. three hundred and five years; in the sub­sequent [Books] we will record the conflicts of those, who in our Age couragiously fought for Religion, how many and how great they were, and leave them for the information of suc­ceeding Ages.

THE EIGHTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.

The PREFACE.

HAving comprized the successions of the Apostles in Seven entire Books, in this Eighth we have thought it requisite to set forth the Affaires of our own Age, (which deserve no trivial descri­ption,) being a matter most necessary to be derived down to the knowledge of posterity. And our relation shall take its beginning from hence.

CHAP. I. Concerning those things which preceded the Perse­cution in our days.

In the most anci­ent Maz. M. S. and in the Editi­ons of Ru­finus, the first chap. is begun at these words, How great, &c. Vales. HOW great and what manner of glory and freedom the doctrine concerning the adoration of the supream God, declared unto man­kind by Christ, was dignified with amongst all men, Graecians as well as Barbarians, before the persecution in our times; 'tis beyond our abi­lities deservedly to declare: but the favours of the Emperours towards those of our Religion may be an evidence hereof; whom they entrusted with the Governments of Provinces, freeing them from their fears of The Maz. and Med. M. SS. retain the true reading of this place; which is [ [...], of sacrificing:] the same reading Gruter found in his copies. The Go­vernours of Provinces were oblieged to sacrifice to the Gods▪ and to the Emperours, and to be present at sacrifices. Upon which account the Christians abstained from the Magistracy, and refused the Government of Provinces, offered them by the Emperours. Vales. The reading in Robert Stephens Edit. is [ [...].] sacrificing, out of the abudant kindness they reserved for our Religion. What need we mention those who were conversant in the Imperial palaces? Or the Emperours themselves? Who permitted their domesticks, together with their Our Authour means not the Empres­ses, as Chri­stophorson supposed; but the wives of the Empe­rours do­mesticks. Vales. wives, children and servants, freely and o­penly to make profession of their Religion by their words and practises, even before their own faces, and in a manner suffered them to boast of their fearles­ness and freedom in professing their faith. Whom al­so they had an high esteem for, and accounted them more acceptable than the rest of their attendants. Such a one was that This Dorotheus was of the Bed-chamber to the Emperour Diocletian, or Galcrius Casar: so Metaphrastes affirms, in the Acts of the Martyrs, Indes, and Domna, Chap. 23. Vales. Doro­theus, a person who of all men declar'd the heartiest affection too and fidelity in their ser­vice, upon which account he was more highly valued by them than the Magistrates and most honourable Governours of the Provinces: to whom we will adde the most renowned Gor­gonius; and as many others as arrived to the same degree of honour with them upon account of the word of God. The same affection, obser­vancy, and eminent favour you might see vout­safed to the Prelates of every Church, as well by all [Page 140] In the Med. Fu [...]. Savil. and Maz. M. SS. the reading here is [ [...], &c.] amongst the procuratours, &c. which M. SS. have not these words [ [...], observancy and eminent fa­vour.] But in the Kings M. S. and R. Stephens Edit. the rea­ding is [ [...], by all private men;] in which copies also we have those words, which we said were wanting in the other M. SS. Vales. private persons as Governours of Provinces. But now, how should any one be able to describe those numerous The term in the original is [ [...].] which word St Paul uses 2 Thessal. 2. 1. where our translatours render it, our ga­thering together. [...] does properly signifie, to collect persons disperst in divers places into one place. In this sense Dionys. A­lexandrin. uses it B. 4. Chap. 23. of this history; where he speaks of Quadratus Bishop of the Athe­nians. Vales. congregations; their multi­tudes, who throughout every City flock't [to embrace the faith of Christ;] and those famous assemblies [of the people] in the Churches? For which reason they were no longer contented with the old Edifices, but erected spa­tious Churches from the very foundations throughout all the Cities. These [prospe­rous successes,] increasing in process of time, and be­ing daily augmented with a growth and greatness, no en­vy could put a stop to; nei­ther was any evil spirit able to bewitch them, nor could the treacheries of men pro­hibit them, as long as the divine and celestial hand [of God] covered and guarded his people, continuing to be worthy of its [protection.] But, after the affairs of our age were through too much liberty changed into looseness and sloth; when some began to envy and revile others, and we were in a manner at wars amongst our selves, [wounding] one another with words as it were with arms and spears; when Prelates dashed against Prelates, and the people raised factions against the people; and when unspeakable hypocrifie and dissimulation had arrived to the height of mischief, then did the divine vengeance, as it takes delight to do, gently begin to visit us (the multitudes [of the faith­ful] as yet meeting in their assemblies) by de­grees and with moderation; the persecution being first begun with those brethren who bore arms. But when we became insensible, and entertained not the least thought of propitiating and appeasing the Deity; but, like some Atheistical persons, sup­posing our affairs to be managed regardlesly and without any inspection, we added impieties to im­pieties: when they, who seemed our pastours, re­jecting the sanctions of Religion, were inflamed with mutual contentions, studying nothing else but the augmenting of strifes, menaces, emulation, envy, and mutual hatred, and That is, whilst the Bishops were at variance amongst them­selves concerning preeminence, or about the bounds of their Dio­cesses. Vales. greedily challenging to themselves the preeminence, as if it were a do­minion: then forthwith (ac­cording to the expression ut­tered by Jeremiah) Lament. 2. 1, 2. the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel, and remem­bred not his footstool in the day of his anger: The Lord hath drowned all the beauty of Israel, and thrown down all his strong holds. And, as it is predicted in the Psalms, Psal. 89. 39, &c. The words of Eusebius in the ori­ginal here, do not a­gree with that Copy of the Septuagint printed ac­cording to the Vatican M. S. at Rome, (which is the com­mon Septu­agint we now use,) nor with the original Hebrew; the Learned reader, upon comparing the Texts, will see the difference; we translated out Au­thours words as we found them in the Greek copy. He hath made void the covenant of his ser­vant, and profaned his sanctity in the earth, to wit, by the destruction of the Churches. He hath broken down all his hedges, he hath made his strong holds fear. All the multitudes of the people that pass by the way spoil him; and further, he is a reproach to his neigh­bours. For he hath exalted the right hand of his en­emies, and hath turned away the edge of his sword, and hath not assisted him in the war. But he hath put an end to his purification, and hath broken his throne by casting it to the ground. The days of his life hath he shortned, and lastly covered him with ignominy.

CHAP. II. Concerning the Ruine of the Churches.

ALL these [predictions] were In the Maz. M. S. the reading is [...], om­nino, wholly or fully. In the Kings M. S. and Robert Stephens's Edit. 'tis [...]. The former is the better reading. At these words Chap. 2. begins in all our M. SS. and in Rufinus's old copy. Vales. fully com­pleated in our times, when with our own eyes we saw both the houses of prayer thrown down to the ground, even to their very founda­tions, and also the divine and sacred Scriptures committed to the fire in the midst of the Forum. [When we beheld] some pastours of the Churches basely hiding themselves, some in one place, some in another; others of them ignominiously apprehended, and exposed to the scorn of their enemies. When also, ac­cording to another prophetick expression Psal. 107. 40. this quotation seems im­pertinent, Vales. con­tempt was poured upon Princes, and he caused them to wander in the wilderness where there was no way. But 'tis not our [design] to describe those sad calamities which in conclusion befell them: for it is unfit for us to record their mutual dissen­tions and folly before the persecution. Wherefore we will relate no more concerning them, than whereby we may justifie the divine vengeance. We will not proceed therefore to mention those who were [...], tryed, ex­perienced: for this term is used instead of [...]. St Paul uses the word, Heb. 4. 15. where our translation renders it tempted. 'Tis a metaphor taken from ships, set upon by Pirates at Sea; as the following words declare: these marine thieves are called Pirates▪ [...]. Vales. tryed by the per­secution, nor those who whol­ly made shipwrack of their salvation, and were volun­tarily precipitated into the gulfs of the deep: but we will in general insert such passages onely into this our History, as may in the first place be profitable to our own selves, and in the next to posterity. From hence then we will begin briefly to describe the sacred combars of those who were Martyrs for the divine Religion. So says our Euse­bius, in his Chronicon; and so also the Alexandrian Chronicle: with whom agrees Idatius (in fastis) whose words are these; Diocletiano VIII. & Maxi­miano VII. his Coss. persecutio Christianorum: i. e. when Diocletian was the eighth time Consul and Maximianus the seventh, the persecution of the Christians began. The same may be concluded from the Acts of Munatius Felix (in Gest. apud Zenophilum Consularem Numidiae.) According to Eusebius's account this was the 305 year from our Blessed Saviours nativity; but, according to the Dionysian Aera▪ which we now make use of, it was the 303. But Baronius (in Annal.) and Petavius (in the second part of his Rationar. Tempor.) affirms that the beginning of this persecution must be placed on the 302 year of Christ; when Constantius IV. and Maximianus IV. Coss. Their opi­nion is grounded on one onely argument, to wit▪ the Acts of the Coun­cil of Cirta (a City in Numidia, afterwards called Constantina.) which Council Augustine (in Breviculo Collat.) affirms was convened the year after the persecution began, and after the passion of the Martyrs. Now the Acts of that Council (which Augustine relates in the B. 3. against Cresconius) doe shew, that it was convened Diocletian VIII, and Maxi­mianus VII, Coss. But this argument is easily answered. For there is a mistake in those Acts of the Council of Cirta; the true reading is, P. C. Diocletiani IX. and Maximiani VIII. This appears evidently ex Bre­viculo Collat Diei 3. cap. 17. where we meet with these words; Nam Gesta Martyrum quibus ostendebatur tempus persecutionis, Coss. gesta sunt Diocletiano IX. & Maximiano VIII. pridie Idus Februarias: Gesta autem Episcopalia decreti Cirtensis, post eorundem consulatum, 3. Non [...] Martias, &c. This passage cannot be supposed to be false. For Au­gustine adds there, that the Officers, being commanded by the Judge to see what distance of time there was between the passion of the Mar­tyrs and the Council of Cirta, were deceived, and through their igno­rance told him what was false. For whereas the Acts▪ of the Martyrs were thus inscribed [Diocletiano IX. and Maximiano VIII. pridie Idus Febr.] and the Acts of the Council of Cirta, thus [post consulatum Dio­cletiani novies, & Maximiani octies, 3. Nonas Martias,] the Officers▪ taking [post consulatus] for [consulatus] made answer, that there was onely one moneth between the Acts, both of the Martyrs, and of the Council. But there really was 13 moneths space between them, as Augustinus truly affirms.—There is another argument to evince, that the Council of Cirta was not convened in the eighth Consolate of Diocletian. For whereas that Council was assembled to Ordain a Bishop over the Church of Cirta, (as Augustinus affirms) I desire to know who was Ordained Bishop of that Church by those Bishops con­vened in that Council? Silvanus was not. For he in this very year was still Sub-deacon to Paul Bishop of Cirta, as 'tis apparent from the Acts of Munatius Felix. Answer perhaps will be made (a [...] Baronius does) that Paul was made Bishop of Cirta. But this cannot be true, for the persecution began under Paul, as 'tis evident from the Acts, apud Zenophilum Consularem Numidiae, which are related in Augustine's third book against Cresconius. See the place; and also Augustine's 165 Epistle. Thus much I have said (and could have said a great deal more) to evince that the Council of Cirta was convened 13 moneths af­ter those Acts of the Martyrs of Africa; and therefore it could not be assembled in the eighth Consulate of Diocletian, and the seventh of Maximian; in which year the persecution began. Vales. It was the nineteenth [Page 141] year of Diocletians Empire, in the moneth The A­lexandrian Chronicle places the beginning of this persecu­tion in the same moneth. But our Eusebius (in his B. concerning the Mar­tyrs of Pa­testine, which is put as an Appendix to this 8th book of his Ecclesiastick History) says it began in the moneth Xan­thicus, which the Romans call April. Vales. Dy­strus, (which the Romans call March,) when (the festival of the salutiferous passion Theodoret (in book. 5. chap. 38. of his Ecclesiastick History) affirms, that the Edict for the demolishing of the Churches was pro­posed on the day of our Lords passion (i. e. Good-friday▪) The Au­thour of the Alexandrian Chronicle says it came forth on Easter-day; which was on the 25 of March: but Easter-day could not fall on the 25 of March in the 19 year of Diocletian, as Scaliger and Petavius have observed. Eusebius in his Chronicon, says it came forth in March, diebus pasch [...]. The Greek phrase here imports onely, that Easter was near at hand, when the Edicts were proposed: [...]; Rufinus renders it, dies solennis pascha imminebat, the solemn day of Easter was at hand. In the year of Christ 303 (according to the Dionysian Aera) Easter fell on the 18 day of April, amongst the Eastern Churches. Vales. ap­proaching) the Imperial Edicts were proposed in all places, giving command that the Churches should be totally destroyed, and the Scriptures consumed by fire; and declaring that those who were elevated to any degree of honour should be rendred infamous; and [...], Rufinus and Nicephorus supposed the servants of the Christians were hereby meant. But that cannot be the meaning of this place. For then the Imperial Edict would have been imperfect, providing onely for the apprehension of those who were honoured with any degree of preferment, and of servants, and leaving out the rusticks and ordinary sort of people. Besides, how can servants be said to be deprived of their liberty? Christophorson translates it privatos, private persons. I think he means the Actores and procuratores, who were ser­vants to the richer sort of men. Zonaras expounds this place very well, thus, [...], persons of a private condition. Vales. those that were private persons, if they persisted in a resolution of re­taining the profession of Christianity, should be deprived of their liberty: such was the first Edict against us. But not long after, other Rescripts arrived; by which command was given, that all the Prelates of the Churches every where should first be put into bonds, and afterwards compelled to sacrifice by all ways imaginable.

CHAP. III. Concerning the various sorts of combats which [the Martyrs] underwent in the time of the Persecution.

FOrthwith therefore many Prelates of Churches, having eudured most severe torments with great alacrity of mind, exhibited spectacles of most illustrious combats. Many others being pre­possessed with a faintness of mind by reason of their fear, were immediately discouraged at the first attack made against them. Every one of the residue had their courses in various kinds of tor­tures. One was scourged all over his body with whips: another was rack't with tortures, and had his flesh scraped off with tormenting irons that were intolerable. Under which [torments] some made a lamentable conclusion of their lives; but others accomplished their combat after another manner. One, being forcibly thrust forward by others, and constrained to approach their impure and most nefarious sacrifices, was let goe as if he had sacrificed, although he really did not. Ano­ther (when he had neither approacht [the Altar,] nor toucht any thing that was execrable, yet be­cause others said he had sacrificed) silently bore that calumny, and went his way. A third was taken up on their shoulders half dead, and cast forth as if he had been really so: a fourth lying upon the ground, was drawn a great way by the feet, and then accounted amongst them who had done sacrifice. One cried out, and with a loud voice attested, that he denyed to sacrifice: another exclaimed that he was a Christian, adorning him­self with the confession of that salutary appella­tion. A third affirmed that he neither had, nor ever would sacrifice. But these being struck on the mouth by the Souldiers with their fists▪ (a great company of whom were placed there as a Guard) filenced, and I suppose he means the plum­batae (i. e. instruments of torture made with lead) with which they beat the Martyrs on the face and cheek. There is frequent mention of this sort of torture in the sufferings of the Martyrs. Our Authour had said before, that the Martyrs were beaten with the fists▪ of the Souldiers. Here therefore he must mean these Plumbatae: otherwise, what he says is a tautology. Vales. beaten on the face and cheeks, were by force thrust out. So highly did these enemies of piety every way esteem their being thought to have perfected what they desired▪ But these [proceedings] against the holy Mar­tyrs did in no wise prove successful to them: whose [admirable courage] should we undertake ac­curately to set forth, what expressions would be sufficient to compose such a Narrative?

CHAP. IV. Concerning God's illustrious Martyrs; how they fill'd the world with their fame, having been adorned with divers crowns [of Martyrdom] for Re­ligion.

FOr who should be able to make a relation of those infinite numbers [of Martyrs] who de­monstrated an admirable alacrity of mind for the worship of the supream God; not onely from that time the persecution was raised against all the [Christians,] but long before, when the times were calm and serene? For some time since, when the [Devil,] He means the Devil, who is said in the Go­spel to be the Princo of this world. Vales. who hath received power over this world, was first rouzed as it were out of a profound sleep, and as yet made his attempts against the Churches in a secret and occult manner, after that interval which followed the perfecution under Decius and Valerian: (for he would not set upon us closely and with an open War; but as yet made tryal onely of those who were en­gaged in the Milice; for he supposed the rest would easily be vanquished, could he first over­come them:) Then [I say] you might have seen very many of those who were Souldiers most willingly embracing a private life, rather than they would renounce the worship of the Creator of all things. For when the [Roman] His name was Veturius; he was Magister Militum, the Master of the Camp, or Lieutenant-Gene­ral of the Army: Concerning whom Eusebius in his Chronicon, at the 17 year of Diocletian says thus, Veturius Master of the Camp persecutes the Christian Souldiers; the persecution against us being from that time begun by degrees. Vales. General (who he was it matters not) first set upon persecuting the Chri­stian Souldiers, and began [...] It Imports his doing of the Office of a Judge amongst his Souldiers, exami­ning the place and order of each of them. The same term occurs book 10. chap. 4. where see note ( [...].) to take a strict view of, and purge those that belonged to the army; permitting [Page 142] them freely to choose, whether by obeying they would enjoy that degree of honour they were arrived to, or on the contrary be deprived of it, if they refused to comply with the [Emperours] commands: innumerable Souldiers of the King­dom of Christ, without all delay or hesitancy, pre­ferred their confession of him, before the apparent glory and prosperity they were possest of. Some few of which (one or two) procured not onely the loss of their preferment, but death also for their pious and resolute stedfastness: He means the Devil, not the Ro­man Gene­ral, as Chri­stophorson supposed. Vales. the framer of the conspiracy [against our Religion] being at that time moderate, and presumed to proceed to shed the bloud but of very few: the multitude of believers ('tis likely) terrified him, and made him afraid as yet to enter into an open War against them all. But when he prepared himself more manifestly for an engagement, it is impossi­ble to relate how many and eminent Martyrs of Christ were visible to the inhabitants of all Cities and Countries.

CHAP. V. Concerning what was done at Nicomedia.

IMmediately therefore, upon the publishing of the Edict at Nicomedia against the Churches, This per­son is cal­led John in the Marty­rology of Usuardus, Ado, Not­ker, and in the old Ro­man Mar­tyrology, at September 7. Vales. one who was no obscure person, but eminently illustrious for secular honour and esteem, moved with a divine zeal, and incited by an ardent faith, took down [the Edict,] which was fixed up in the most open and publick place [of the City,] and The Edicts and Rescripts, of the Em­perours were writ­ten in pa­per. Therefore Nilus, in his 264 Epistle, says it was barely called Charta; but after it had been subscribed by the Emperour, it was called Sacra; which appears also from the Acts of the Council of Chal­cedon, and from Justinians Novells. Vales. tore it, as being impious and most detesta­ble: [which he did] whilest two of the Em­perours made their abode in that▪ City; one of which was seniour to the rest, and the other held the fourth place in the Empire. But this person, who was the first of the inhabitants of that City which appeared thus eminent and zealous, having suffered such punishments, as were thought meet to be inflicted on him for such a bold act, perseve­red in an undisturbedness and tranquility of mind to his very last gasp.

CHAP. VI. Concerning those who were conversant in the Impe­rial Palaces.

BUt that time produced these divine and glo­rious Martyrs, (which excelled all that ever were celebrated as admirable and famous for their courage, both among Grecians and Barba­rians,) Dorotheus, and the other boys that were of the Bed-chamber to the Emperours. Who although they were accounted worthy of the highest station of honour by their masters, and were no less beloved by them than if they had been their own sons; yet they supposed the re­proaches and tortures for Religion, and those various sorts of deaths devised for them, to be really of greater value than the glory and pleasure of this life. We will here relate what an exit one of them made, and leave the Readers to conjecture from him what befell the rest. In the foremen­tioned City, one of them was publickly brought forth before the foresaid Emperours; and com­manded to sacrifice, which when he refused to do, 'twas ordered he should be stript and hoisted up on high, and that his whole body should be lace­rated with stripes, until he should yield, though against his will, to do what he was commanded: but when he continued immoveable after his suffer­ing such tortures as these, they mixed salt and vinegar together, and poured it (his bones being now laid bare) upon the putrified parts of his body. When he had undergone these tortures also, then fire and a gridiron was brought forth▪ and the remains of his body were laid on [and broiled,] like flesh dressed to be eaten; not all at one time, but by little and little, that he might not end his life too soon: neither were those per­sons who laid him on the fire, permitted to leave him, till after so great [tortures,] he should give his consent to perform what he was com­manded. But, having constantly persevered in his resolution, and gotten the victory, he expired un­der his very tortures. Such was the Martyrdom of one of those boys who were of the Bed-cham­ber to the Emperours; being truly worthy of his name: for he was called Concerning this Peter, Do­rotheus, Gorgonius, and the others▪ that were martyred, see the Acts of the suffering of Indes and Domna, at the 26. of December. Vales. Peter. The [Martyrdom] of the rest, although not at all inferiour to this, yet shall be omitted, least our dis­course should be too tedious. Thus much onely we will relate, that Dorotheus and Gorgonius (together with many others that were attendants at the Imperial palace) after va­rious combats, having finished their lives by being strangled, obtained the rewards of a divine victory. At the same time Anthimus, the then Bishop of the Church of Nicomedia, was beheaded for the te­stimony of Christ. With whom was joyned a great multitude of Martyrs. For in those days, by what accident I know not, there happened a There is an illustrious evi­dence of this fire, which happened at Nicomedia in the first year of the persecution, in the 25 chap. of the Emperour Constantine's O­ration, ad Caetum Sanctorum. Vales. fire in the Imperial palace at Nicomedia. Which being laid to our charge as the Au­thours thereof, by a report grounded on a false suspi­cion; all sorts of persons that were the worshippers of God in that [City] were destroyed by heaps, some with the sword, and others by fire. At which time, report says, both men and women, excited by a divine and unspeakable alacrity, leapt into the fiery pile. The executioners also, having bound another great company in Boats, cast them into the abysses of the Sea. Moreover, the bodies of those who were of the Bed-chamber to the Em­perours, having been interred with decent fune­ral obsequies, they who were accounted their ma­sters, supposed it requisite to dig up again, and cast them into the Sea; least some (as they thought) should look upon them as Gods, and worship them [in after ages,] should they be let alone to rest in their graves. Such were the exploits performed at Nicomedia in the beginning of the persecution. But not long after, when some at­tempted to possess themselves of the Empire in the region called See B. 5. chap. 5. note (b.) concerning Melitina. There was a City, and a country called by this name in Armenia the less. But I never met with any thing concerning this tyrant, who seized the Empire in that region. Vales. Melitina, and others in He means Eugenius, who for some little time tyrannized in Syria. Libanius (in his Oration to Theodosius, pag. 411; and in his Antioch. pag. 363.) tells the whole story. Whereto may be annext a pas­sage of the same Libanius's, out of his Oration to Theodosius, concer­ning the Sedition at Antioch, pag. 399. There was a Tribune of Se­leucia, by name, Eugenius, who had the command of 500 Souldiers. These Souldiers were ordered to open the mouth and passage of the Haven. When they had laboured day and night without any inter­mission; being much displeased at their task, they force their com­mander (Eugenius) to take the Empire upon him; threatning him with death unless he would give his assent. The Tribune being after this manner compelled, took the purple off the image of one of the gods, and was saluted Emperour. He goes forthwith to Antioch, (which then had no garrison in it) supposing that if he could possess himself of that City, it would much advance his designs: he makes himself master of that place about Sun-setting. But his Souldiers, agreeable to their usual irregularities, destroyed the Country as they marched, and stuft themselves with wine, and good cheer. Which being perceived by the Antiochians, they▪ despising the paucity and drunkenness of the Souldiers, killed them all with stones and wea­pons of all sorts, (the very women giving their assistance) and their Leader also, as he was going towards the palace: so that about the first watch none of them were left alive. But the Emperour, who ought to have exprest his thankfulness to the Antiochians, ordered the princes of the Antiochensian and Seleucensian. Order should be slain, when as neither of them deserved any punishment. Amongst them the Grandfather of Libanius (a proper comely old man) was killed. All this I met with pag. 411 & 363. Moreover, Libanus (in Orat. ad Theodosium de seditione) tells us, the name of this Tribune of the Seleucensian Souldiers was Eugenius; and the name of the Emperour was Diocletian, whom he calls, by his true name, Diocles. Thus I have given you the name and History of the Tyrant; and the time when this Eugenius made his at­tempts on the Empire, Eusebius here declares, to wit, when Diocletian was the eighth, and Maximian the seventh time Coss. Vales. Syria: [Page 143] an Imperial Edict arrived, [commanding] that all the Governours of Churches every where should be bound and imprisoned. The sight of what was done after that, no expressions are suf­ficient to describe: when infinite multitudes were every where committed to custody; and the pri­sons in all places, which in former times had been provided for murderers and robbers of the dead, were then filled with Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Readers and Exorcists: insomuch that there was now no place left therein for those who had been condemned for their crimes. Again, when This was the third Edict of the Emperours against the Christians. By the first it was or­dered the Churches should be ruined and the Scri­ptures burnt; and those who were honoured with any preserment (if they refused to sacrifice) should be deprived of their dignity; the meaner sort were to loose their liberty; see chap. 2. Another Edict soon followed this, that Bishops, Priests and Deacons should be imprisoned, and by all ways compelled to sacrifice. The third Edict comprehended all sorts of Christians, as well those of the Laity, as the Clergy; which Edict was proposed (says Eusebius in the chap. 3. of his book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine) in the second year of the persecution. But this seems rather to have been the fourth Edict: for the second and third concerned the Presbyters onely; by the second 'twas ordered they should be imprisoned, and by the third it was enjoyned, they should by tortures be compelled to sacrifice. Vales. an­other Edict followed the former, wherein it was commanded that those who were imprisoned, if they would offer sacrifice, should have their liber­ty to goe whither they pleased: but if they re­fused should be cruciated with a thousand tortures: the multitudes of martyrs in every Province can­not possibly be reckoned up, especially those [who suffered] in Africa, Mauritania, Thebais, and Egypt. Out of Egypt some went into other Citys, and Provinces, and were there adorned with glorious Martyrdoms.

CHAP. VII. Concerning those Egyptians [who suffered] in Phoenicia.

SOme of them, we knew, were famous [for their Martyrdoms] in Palestine; and others in Tyre a City of Phoenicia. Whom any one that had seen, could not but have been astonished at their innumerable stripes; at the courage and constancy of those truly [...], is the reading of the Maz. and Med. M. SS. accordingly we have rendered it of those truly admirable champions, &c. Those champions were termed paradoxi, who had gained many victories. See Peter Faber (in Agonistico) B. 3. pag. 603. Vales. ad­mirable champions of piety in suffering them; at their combat with wild beasts, accustomed to devour the bloud of mankind, which immediately followed their tortures with scour­ges; at their encounters in that combat with Leopards, [...]; ur­sorum im­manium; so Valesius▪ renders it; and we have tran­slated it huge, i. e. terrible, outragious wild bears. huge wild bears, fierce wild bores, and bulls, which were incited against them with fire and red hot iron; and lastly at the admirable patience of those couragious [Martyrs] in en­during [the Assaults] of each of those wild beasts. We our selves were present at the per­formance of these things, when we saw the divine power of our Saviour Jesus Christ (whom the Martyrs then bore witness of) present, and evi­dently manifesting it self to the Martyrs: [for▪] those ravenous beasts for a long time dared not to touch or approach the bodies of these [Mar­tyrs] beloved by God. But they turned their fury upon others, to wit, those that were By [ [...]] the term which here occurs, Nicephorus (B. 7. chap. 7.) thought those were meant, who stood without the Aren [...] of the Amphitheatre▪ and incited the wild-beasts by their clamours. But Rufinus sup­posed that the Arenarii were here spoken of, whose business it was to provoke the boasts: thus he ren­ders the place; Verùm bestiae illos ipsos qui ad instegandum mittun­tur, incredibili velocitate discer­punt, But the beasts tare in pieces those with an incredible swiftness, who are sent in to provoke them. Christophorson thought that as well the Infidells, as those who stood without the arena were here meant. The same term occurs again in this chapter; we have rendred it in both places infidels. Vales. infidells, who instigated and provoked them: but the sacred cham­pions onely, who stood na­ked and by the motions of their hands irritated them a­gainst themselves, (for this they were enjoyned to do,) they did not so much as touch. Sometimes indeed they assailed them; but, as it were by some divine power, they were stopt, and retired back again: which hapning for▪ a long time together, gave occasion of no small ad­miration to the spectatours; so that because the first beast performed not its assault, a second and a third was let loose upon one and the same Martyr: you would have admired the in­trepid stedfastness of those sacred persons at the sight of all this, and that firm and immoveable fortitude of mind, which was in young and tender bodies: for you might have seen a youth, who had not yet compleated the twentieth year of his age, standing still without being bound; and (having stretcht forth his hands, in form of a Cross,) in an undisturbed and fearless temper of mind con­tending with the greatest earnestness in prayers to the divine Majesty, in no wise receding, or re­moving from the place he stood on; when the Bears and the Leopards, breathing forth rage and death, almost toucht his very flesh with their jaws. But their mouths were (after what manner I know not) bound fast as it were by a divine and unspeakable power, and they ran backward again. After such a manner as this did this person behave himself. Again, you might have seen others (for they were in all five in number) cast to an enrag'd Bull, who tore some of the Infidels that approacht him, tossing them into the air with his horns, and leaving them to be taken up half dead. But when he should have assailed the sacred Mar­tyrs onely with rage and menaces, he could not approach them; but stamping on the ground with his feet, tossing his horns this way and that way, and breathing forth rage and menaces by reason of his being irritated with red hot irons, he was notwithstanding drawn backward by the assistance of divine providence. When therefore none of them was at all hurt by him, they let loose other wild beasts upon them. In fine, after these various and horrid assaults of the wild [Page 144] beasts; they were all It was the custom, that the confectors (concerning whom see B. 4. chap. 15. note n.) were sent in to slay, or cut the throats of offenders, in the Arena. We must not think these Martyrs were beheaded. Vales. killed with the sword, and, instead of being buried in the earth, were committed to the surges of the Sea.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning those who [suffered] in Egypt.

SUch was the combat of those Egyptians, who gloriously fought for Religion at Tyre: those [Egyptians] also may be deservedly accounted admirable, who suffered Martyrdom in their own country. Where infinite numbers of men (to­gether with women and children) contemning this temporal life in respect of our Saviours doctrine, underwent various sorts of death. Some of whom, after their flesh had been torn off with torturing irons, after they had been rackt, most cruelly scourged, and [undergone] infinite other tortures, of different sorts and horrible to be heard, were committed to the fire: others were drowned in the Sea. Othersome chearfully offered their heads to be cut off by the Executioners: some died under their tortures: others were destroyed by famine. Again, others were crucified; some of them according to the usual manner of cru­cifying malefactours, but others after a more cruel manner, being nailed to the Cross with their heads downwards; and kept alive, until they died by famine on the very Crosses.

CHAP. IX. Concerning those [who suffered] at Thebais.

BUT the pains and tortures, which the Mar­tyrs underwent at Thebais, surmount all re­lation; who were torn all over their bodies, un­till they expired, with [sharp] shells instead of torturing irons. Women were tied by one of their feet, and drawn up on high into the air, with their heads downwards, by certain machines; and their bodies being naked and wholly unco­vered, were made a most detestable, most cruel, and inhumane spectacle to all that lookt upon them. Again, others being bound to trees and boughs, were killed: For by certain engines they drew together the [two] strongest boughs, and having fastned the Martyrs legs to each of them, they suffered the boughs to return into their na­tural site, designing [thereby] to pull asunder their members, against whom they had invented these [ways of death:] And all these things were performed, not for a few days, or during some short time, but continued for the space of whole years: sometimes no more than ten, at other times above twenty in number, were destroyed: sometimes not less then thirty; at others neer sixty; and again, at another time, an hundred men, together with very small children and women, were killed in one day, being condemned to various and interchangeable sorts of punishments. We also our selves, being Hence it may be col­lected that Eusebius lived in Egypt; which is also attested by Theodorus Metochita, (in Collectan.) Where he says, that not onely the Egyptians but also all those who lived in that country, used an intricate and obscure stile in their writing Amongst which he reckons our Eusebius. Vales. conversant in those places, saw very many [destroyed] together in one day; where­of some were beheaded; and others underwent the punishment of fire. Insomuch that the Exe­cutioners sword became blunt, and being rendred unfit for use, was broken; and the Executioners themselves being tired, succeeded one another by turns. At which time also we beheld a most admirable ardour of mind, and a truly divine strength and alacrity in those who believed in the Christ of God. For no sooner was sentence pro­nounced against the first, but others ran hastily from some other place before the Judges tribunal, and confest themselves to be Christians. They re­garded not dangers, nor those various sorts of tortures; but with an undisturbed fearlesness made a bold confession of the worship of the su­pream God; and with joy, laughter and delight received their last sentence of death; in such sort that they sang, and to the very time of their ex­piration shouted forth hymns and thanksgivings in praise of God the maker of all things: such admirable persons were these. But these in a most especial manner deserved the greatest admi­ration, who [although] eminent for riches, no­bility, glory, eloquence and Philosophy; yet preferred the true Religion, and the faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ before all these. Of this sort was Philoromus; a person that bore no ordinary office, was the Emperours That is, the Procu­ratour, or Receiver general of the Empe­rours reve­nues in E­gypt. For that Office is meant by these words [ [...].] Vales. Rationa­list at Alexandria; who together with his dignity and Roman honour, being attended with a guard of Souldiers, did daily exercise a judiciary power. Phileas also, Bishop of the Church of the Thmuitae; a person eminent for his discharge of the publick Offices and places of Magistracy in his own country; and famous for his Philoso­phick studies. These two persons (although they were intreated by very many of their relations and friends, and moreover by The phrase is [ [...], i. e. the honou­rable Ma­gistrates.] But [ [...]] should be expunged: for, as I think, 'tis a Scholion added to explain what went before, [...] does not signifie Magistrates, but personages of honour. Besides, no body was stiled [...], but the judge himself. Vales. See Va­lesius's note on B. 14. of Amm. Marcellinus. personages of ho­nour, yea notwithstanding the In the Acts of the passion of Phileas this president is called Cul­cianus: he was President of Thebais, says Epiphanius. Therefore Phileas suffered at Thebais, not at Alexandria, as some think. That which induced them to be of that mind, was a place in Eusebius's fol­lowing chapter, where he quotes Phileas his Epistle, which he wrote to the Thmuitae from Alexandria, a little before his suffering Martyr­dom. But, being (as I said) condemned by Culcianus President of Thebais, 'tis manifest that he suffered there. Vales. Judge himself besought them to take pitty on themselves, and have compassion on their wives and children, yet) could in no wise be induced by such persons as these, that (out of a desire to preserve their own lives) they should contemn the laws [made] concerning the confession and renunciation of our Saviour. But having stoutly bore up against all the menaces and contumelies of the Judge, with a manly and Philosophick mind, or rather with a pious and religious heart, they were both be­headed.

CHAP. X. In the Med. and Maz. M. SS. the title of this chap. is thus▪ [The written informations concerning what was done at Alexandria.] The title of the foregoing chapter is thus written [Phileas the Martyrs relation concerning those who suffered at Thebais.] I doubt not but those words [Phileas the Martyr] be­long to the title of this chap. 10. For here Eusebius (out of Phileas's Epistle to the Thmuitae) relates the Martyrdoms of the Alexandrians. Vales. The written informations of Phileas the Martyr concerning what was done at Alexandria.

BUT because we have said that Phileas was a person worthy of great esteem for his Grae­cian literature, let him be produced as a witness [Page 145] for himself▪ both to demonstrate what a person he was, and also to relate the Martyrdoms which in his time happened at Alexandria, which he will [declare] more accurately than we can, in these words:

These words should be Printed in Capital Letters. In the Kings M. S. they are disjoyned from the Text: In the Med. M. S. they are plac'd in the Margin: but in the Fuk▪ and Savil. M. SS. they are omitted. Vales. OUT OF PHILEAS'S EPISTLE TO THE THMUITAE.

‘All these Examples, Prescripts, and good Do­cuments being deposited for us in the divine and sacred Scriptures, the blessed Martyrs, who were conversant amongst us, without any delay manifestly fixed the eye of their mind upon the supream God, and willingly embracing death upon account of piety, they steadfastly adhered to their calling: for they found that our Lord Jesus Christ had been incarnate for us, that he might abolish all manner of sin, and provide us with assistances for our entrance into life eternal. For Phil. 2. 7, 8. he thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no repu­tation, and took the form of a servant: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself unto death, even the death of the Cross. Wherefore the Martyrs (who were [...], i. e. Martyrs full of Christ: so Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, was called [...], i. e. full of God. Vales. full of Christ) zealous­ly affecting the best gifts, endured all manner of sor­row, and all sorts of tor­tures that could be invented, not onely once, but some of them a second time also. And when the Souldiers that were of the guard endeavou­red with much earnestness [to strike a terrour] into them, not onely by all manner of menaces in words, but by deeds, they were in no wise discouraged in mind, because 1 John. 4. 18. perfect love casteth out fear. Whose fortitude and courage under each torture what words would be sufficient to relate? For, free leave being granted to all per­sons that would be injurious towards them, some beat them with clubs, others with rods; other­some with scourges: again, some scourged them with thongs of leather; others with ropes: And the spectacle of these tortures was vari­ously enterchanged, and full of malicious cruel­ty. For some [of the Martyrs] having their hands bound behind them, were hung at an [...]. I suppose he means the Eculeus; on which Offenders were hung, and had their sides torn with iron-nailes. Vales. Engin of wood, and e­very member of their bo­dies was distended by cer­tain machines. After that, the Tormentours, by com­mand [of the Judge,] made use of ' [...] (the term here) seems to signifie some thing more than iron-nailes. For Hesychius interprets [...] by [...], a two-edged sword. Note here the cruelty of the Judges; who were not contented with iron-nailes onely, but used knives also, or razours, with which they cut the sides of the Martyrs. Vales. iron-nailes to torture them with all o­ver their bodies, which were applied not onely to their sides, as Murtherers are usu­ally tormented, but also to their bellies, their legs, and to their cheeks. Others, being lifted up, were hung by one hand at a ' [...] signifies, a Porch, Gallery, or walking place under-propped with Pillars; in such Philosophers taught and disputed: the Stoicks had their name from hence: [...]. Gallery, the stretching of whose joynts and members was a sharper pain to them than all sorts of tortures. Others were bound face to face to Pillars, their feet not touching the ground; that so their bonds being strained by the heaviness of their bodies, might with stretching be the clo­ser drawn together: and this they endured not only as long as the Governour talked with them, and was at leisure to hear them; but almost a whole day together: for when he went away [to hear] others, he left He means the Apparitours or Officers, who were under the Praefectus Augustalis; concerning whom Phileas speaks in this Epistle, and calls him [...], the Governour. The name of the Praesectus Augustalis at that time was Hierocles, as Epiphanius says, in Haeres. Melitian. Vales. Officers, that were impowred by him, to be watchfull over the for­mer [Martyrs,] whether any one of them, being overcome by the sharpness of his tortures, would seem to abandon his resolution. He also commanded they should be The phrase in the original is [...]; which to me seems a new and uncouth ex­pression. Vales. strained with bonds without any commisera­tion, and afterwards, when they were dead, that they should be thrown on the ground, and drag'd up and down. For they ought not [he said] to take the least care of us; but that all persons should so think of, and behave themselves towards us, as if we were not men. This That is, the drag­ging of the bodies up and down: the first sort of torture was by stripes and scourges; the second was, that they were laid on the ground▪ drag'd about, and so drawn into prison. Vales. second torture (after they had beaten us with stripes) our Adversaries invented. There were some also, who after they had been scourged, lay in the See B. 4. Chap. 16. note (c.) stocks, both their feet be­ing stretched to the fourth hole; in so much that they were forced to lie in the stocks with their bellies upwards, being unable to stand because of their fresh wounds, caused by the stripes, which they had all over their bodies. Others threw themselves upon the ground, where they lay by reason of the innu­merable wounds made by their tortures; yield­ing a more miserable spectacle to those that lookt on them, than in the very time of their being tortured; and bearing in their bodies the various and different sorts of tortures invented for them. These things being thus performed, some [of the Martyrs] expired under their tortures, having made the adversary ashamed by their persevering constancy. Others, being half dead, were shut up in prison, where having been sorely afflicted with the smart of their wounds, they ended their lives not many days after. The residue having been refreshed with methods of cure, became more stout and con­fident by time, and their abode in prison. There­fore, when afterwards command was given, that they should choose, whether by touching the detestable sacrifices they would free themselves from all molestation, and obtain from them an execrable liberty; or whether, refusing to sacri­fice, they would receive the sentence of death: without any delay they chearfully proceeded forth to death. For they well knew what was before prescribed to us by the sacred Scriptures: for Exod. [...]2. 20. he (says the word of God) that sacri­ficeth to other Gods, shall be utterly destroyed. And again, Exod. 20. 3. Thou shalt have no other Gods, but me.’ Such were the expressions of [Phileas] the Martyr, (a true Philosopher, and also a sincere lover of God,) which he sent to the Brethren of his Church, before his last sentence of condemna­tion, being yet in prison: whereby he informed them both in what condition he was in; and also exhorted them stifly to retain their piety in Christ after his death, which was now approaching. After these words Christophorson has inserted many Chapters, out of that Appendix which Robert Stephens has published at the latter end of this Eighth Book. But that Appendix is an entire Book, and separated from this work, to wit, the Ecclesiastick History; in which Eusebius describes the suf­ferings of the Palestine Martyrs, and especially the passion of his friend Pamphilus. Some studious person added this book to the eighth book of the Ecclesiastick History, because their Subjects were very like; whose Copy the Transcribers afterwards following, placed it in their Copies. In all the M. SS. which I could ever yet see, this book is extant after the end of B. 8. in such manner as Robert Stephens publish't it. Chri­stophorson therefore did ill, and contrary to the authority of all Copies, to put this book in here, as if it had been part of the Eighth book of the Ecclesiastick History. Musculus was more prudent, who (fol­lowing Stephens's Edition in his Version) translated the eighth book as he found it in the Greek, and wholly omitted this Appendix: which neither Ru [...]nus, nor Nicephorus seem to have found in their Copies. Besides, the Titles of the Chapters of Book 8. (which, as usually, are prefixt before it) were sufficient to have put Christophorson in mind, that this Appendix did in no wise belong to the Eighth Book. Vales. But what need we spend many words in relating [Page 146] the conflicts of the divine Martyrs over the whole world (whose new combats were succeeded by other conflicts that were as new;) and especially when as they were assaulted not in an ordinary way, but in an hostile manner?

CHAP. XI. Concerning what was done in Phrygia.

FOr at that time some armed Souldiers invested a whole City of Christians, that was very populous, in Lactan­tius tells the same story, in his book 5. Institut. Divi [...]ar. chap. 11. where he treats con­cerning the injustice of the Judges, or Rulers of Pro­vinces, who puni­shed the Christians: alii (says he) ad oc­cidendum pr [...]cipi [...]es extiterunt, sicut unus in Phrygia, qui univer­sum popu­lum cum ip­so pariter conventiculo concremavit; i. e. others were very hasty to mur­ther [the Christians] as was one in Phrygia, who burnt all the inhabitants, together with the place they dwelt in, at one and the same time. Vales. Phrygia, and, having set it on fire, burnt the men (together with the women and children) whilst they called upon Christ the su­pream God. The reason hereof was this, the whole body of inhabitants of that City, the The Curator of the City was he, who lookt after the Treasure, and what ever else in generall belonged to the revenue of the City; this is manifest from the Pandects of the Law; he is also called Logista (from the Greek word [...], which is the term here in the origi­nal,) in Lege 3. Cod. de modo mulctandi. Hence [ [...]] was used to signifie the performance of the Curators Office, or place. See Valesius's notes on Ammian. Marcellinus, pag. 36. Curator, the [...], is the term in the original; which the Latines called Magistratus, or Duumvir; 'tis taken in this sense throughout the whole title Cod. Theod. de Decurlonibus: & in Optatus, Lib. 1. &c. in which places (and in many others) Magistratus and Duumvir are promiscuously used. The chief Magistrate amongst the Corinthians, Rhodians, Tarsenses, Ephesians, and Philippians, was called [...]; and also amongst the Athenians the [...] got the Precedency and chief place, the name of [...] being suppressed: See Cicero in Book 5. Epist. 11. ad Atticum. Lastly in all Grecian Cities it was at length customary to call the chief Magistrates Strategi; as 'tis mani­fest from the old Coyns and marbles. See Valesius's his notes on Amm. Marcellinus, B. 31. pag. 423, 424. Duumvir, together with all the rest who were of the Magistracy, and all the common peo­ple, professing themselves to be Christians, would in no wise obey those that commanded them to sacrifice to Idols. Another person also, by name In the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savill. M. SS. this person's name is [...] ▪ Adauctus▪ so Rufinus and Cedrenus wrote his name also. This person is mentioned in the Greek Menaeum, on the third of Octo­ber. There was at the same time another Adauctus, who suffered Martyrdom at Rome, and is mentioned at the seventh of February Vales. Adauctus, (a man descended from a noble fa­mily in Italy, that had obtained a Roman dignity, a person that had passed through all degrees of honour in the Palace of the Emperours, in so much that he had faithfully discharged the Office of He means the Procuratour, or Steward of the Revenue. Rufinus renders this place thus; rationes summarum partium administrans; which is truly translated. Vales. Receiver General, which amongst them is called The Concerning these Magistrirei privatae, see Leg. 2 and 4, Cod. Theod. De jure fisci. These Officers are usually joyned with the Ratio [...]alists in the Cod. Theod. See Valesius's notes on Ammian. Marcellin. Book. 15. pag. 78. Master of the private Revenue, and that of Rationalist; besides all this, he was famous for his virtuous performances in Religion, and for his confessions of the Christ of God,) was adorned with the crown of Martyrdom, having undergone the conflict upon account of Religion, whilst he bore the Office of Rationalist.

CHAP. XII. Concerning many other men and women, who suf­fered Martyrdom in a various and different manner.

WHat need is there now of mentioning the rest by name, or of recounting the mul­titude of men, or delineating the various sorts of tortures [endured by] the admirable Martyrs of Christ? Part whereof were beheaded, as it happened to those in Arabia; and part were [killed] by having their legs broken, as it befell those in Cappadocia. Some, being hung up on high by the feet with their heads downwards, (a Such a fire is that, which is made of straw and small sprigs of trees. It is called a slow, or slack fire, to difference it from the [...], the unquench­able fire, which we took notice of before. This fire was kindled at some distance, that so the Mar­tyrs might be choakt with the smoak, rather than burnt. Pio­nius the Martyr seems to have been killed by such a fire, as his Acts do attest. Seneca (in his third book De Irâ) seems to men­tion this sort of punishment, in these words, E [...] circundati defixis corporibus ignes. Vales. slow fire having been kindled under them,) were suffocated with the smoak that ascended from the com­bustible matter set on fire, so it befell those in Mesopota­mia: others had their noses, the tips of their ears, and their hands cut off, and the other members and parts of their bodies were mangled, as it happened at Alexandria. What need is there of re­newing the remembrance of what was done at Antioch? where some were broyled on Rufinus translates [...] which is the term here, grid-irons▪ So also the Old Gloss renders this term. Vales. Grid-irons set over the fire, not till they were kil­led, but that their punish­ment might be prolonged: others were more ready to thrust their right hands into the fire, than to touch the impious sacrifices. Whereof some, avoiding the being put to the test [whether they would sacrifice,] before they would be apprehended and fall into the hands of those that laid wait for them, threw▪ themselves headlong from the tops of high houses, having accounted death to be a gain, because of the malitiousness of the impious. Also, a certain holy woman, (admirable for her virtuous soul, and [her comely] body, eminently famous, beyond all at Antioch, for riches▪ descent, and reputation,) had educated two daughters (virgins that were emi­nent for beauty, and in the flower of their age) in the precepts of Religion: when many, moved thereto by envy, used all manner of industry in inquiring out the place where they absconded; and it being at length understood they lived in a forrein country, they were with ▪much diligence summoned to Antioch: after the woman knew, that she and her daughters were now incompassed with the Souldiers nets, perceiving her self and daughters reduced to an inextricable state of perill, she exhorted the virgins, expresly declaring to them the mischiess that would befall them from the Souldiers, and that of all evils, ravishment was the most intollerable, the meances whereof it was un­lawfull for them to endure even to hear: More­over, having said, that to yield up their souls to the service of devils, was worse than all sorts of death, and all manner of destruction; there was but one way (she declared) to avoid all these evils, which was to flie to the Lord for refuge. Immediately after these words, having all agreed to embrace the same advice, they adorned their [Page 147] bodies with a decent dress: when they had gone There may be a double meaning given of these words. For we may either understand that these women had gone one half of their journey; in which sense Nicephorus took the words: or that they stood on a bank which was in the middle of the high­way. Concerning the Martyr­dom of these sort of Christian women (who drowned them­selves for the preservation of their Chastity and Religion,) see St August. De Civitat. D [...]i, book 1. chap. 26. There is extant an encomium of these women in the first Tome of Chrysostome, where the mother is called Domnina, and the daughters Bernice and Prosdoce. The Antiochians, celebrated their Martyrdom on the 20 day after the Feast of the holy Cross; the Greeks placed their Birth-day on Oct. 4. Vales. half their journey, having intreated their guard for a short recess out of the way, and that being granted them, they threw themselves into a River which ran hard by: thus these persons [drowned] themselves. At the same City of Antioch, another pair of virgins, in all points divine, and truly Sisters, emi­nent for descent, splendid as to estate, in the flower of their age, beautifull in body, chast of mind, pious in their conversations, admirable for their industry, (as if the earth were unable to bear so great [an ornament,]) were, by the command of the wor­shippers of Demons, cast in­to the Sea. These things were done amongst those [at An­tioch.] But 'tis horrid to hear the relation of what o­thers suffered in Pontus: some had sharp reeds thrust up the fingers of both their hands from the very tops of their nailes: others had mel­ted l [...]ad poured upon their backs, even whilst the melted metall boiled, which [ran down and] burnt the most [...]; which Rufinus translates elegantly, us­que ad loca pudenda quibus natu­ralis egestio procurari soles. The Grecians call [ [...]] that part of the body, which modesty for­bids to be named. Vales. necessary parts of their bodies: again, others without any commiseration endured obscene tortures (which are unfit to be related) in their privy members, and bowels; which those Ironically spoken. cou­ragious and just judges in­vented with much earnestness and labour, demonstrating thereby the acuteness of their wit, as if the very power and strength of wisdom [consisted in such cruell inventions:] and striving continually (as if it had been for rewards in a combat) to outdo one another in finding out new sorts of tortures. These calamities therefore were not ended, till such time as [the Judges,] despairing of making any further addition to these miseries, wearied with slaughters, filled and satiated with the effu­sion of bloud, betook themselves to the thoughts of clemency and humanity, that in future they might seem to invent no further cruelty against us. For it was unfit (they said) to pollute the Cities with the bloud of their inhabitants, and to defame the government of the Emperours (which was benign and gentle towards all persons) by so The Med. Maz▪ and Fuk. M. SS. read [ [...],] superlative. Vales. superlative a cruelty: but that rather it was fit, that the humanity and bene­ficence of the Imperial au­thority should be extended to all persons, and that [the Christians] should not any longer be punished with death, in regard those of our Re­ligion were exempted from such punishment by the indulgence of the Emperours. At that time therefore Rufinus says an Edict of the Emperour was set forth, whereby such a sort of punishment was commanded thenceforth to be in­flicted on the Christians: But I think this not to be true. For the Magistrates themselves, being overcome by the constancy of the Christians, at length betook themselves to this sort of punish­ment on their own accord. Vales. command was given to pluck out the eyes [of the Christians] and that they should have one of their legs lamed. For such was their civility towards us, and this seemed to them the most gentle punishment [that could be inflicted] on us. In so much that, upon acount of this lenity used by these impious wretches [to­wards us,] it is impossible to give in any further account of the multitudes (which indeed are al­together innumerable) both of them who had their right eyes first thrust out with a sword, and after they had been thus prickt out, their [eye­holes] were seared with a red-hot iron; and also of those, who had their left legs (as far as the bending of their knees) made useless by being seared with hot irons: after which they were con­demned to the brazen mines which were in the Province, not so much for the service they could do, as upon account of the affliction and misery they should [endure there.] Besides all these, there were many others, who were assaulted with several sorts of combats, which 'tis not possible to give a catalogue of; for their couragious ex­ploits do surpass all relation. Therefore, the noble Martyrs of Christ, having obtained great renown over the whole world in these [You must understand [ [...], combats▪] for he had spoken concer­ning these just be­fore. Chri­stophorson translated these words ill, thus [at this time;] and from them began a new Chapter. Vales. combats,] did both deservedly amaze every where the specta­tours of their courage; and also exhibit in them­selves manifest tokens of the truly divine and The term here is [ [...], secret.] It seems to be used for [ [...], inexplicable;] in which sense Eusebius does frequently use it. But if any one will translate it [secret,] I shall not withstand it. Vales. in­explicable power of our Saviour. Indeed, the mention of every particular person of them by name, would be very tedious, if not a thing im­possible.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning those Prelates of the Church who demon­strated the sincerity of the Religion they asserted by [the effusion] of their own bloud.

NOw, of those Ecclesiastick Prelates, who suf­fered Martyrdom in the most eminent Cities, the first that must be commemorated in the monuments of the pious, may be Anthimus, a witness of Christs kingdom, Bishop of Nicomedia, who was beheaded in that City. But, of the Instead of [ [...], the martyrs at Antioch] in Niccphorus the reading is [ [...], the Martyrs of Antioch,] which doubtless is truest. For Lucianus suffered not at Antioch, but at Nicomedia, as Eusebius attests in this place; to whom agree Jerom [in Catalog.] Rufinus, and Nicephorus. The same is confirmed by Lucianus himself in the Epistle he wrote to the Antiochians, when he was (together with some other Mar­tyrs) in prison at Nicomedia. The last words of this Epistle are ex­tant in the Alexandrian Chronicle, at the first year of the persecution. Vales. Antiochian Martyrs [we will mention] Lucianus a Presbyter of that Church, a person most eminent [for sanctity] throughout his whole life: he at first made a declaration of the celestiall kingdom of Christ in words, and by an Apologetick ora­tion, at Nicomedia, in the presence of the Emperour; and afterwards he [asserted it] in deeds and reall perfor­mances. But the most eminent Martyrs in Phaenice (which were most acceptable to God, and Pastours of Christ's flock) were Ty­rannio Bishop of the Church at Tyre, and Zenobius a Presbyter at Sidon; also Silvanus Bishop of the Churches at Emisa. This [Prelate last named] being, together with some others, cast as food to the wild-beasts at the very City of Emesa, was re­ceived into the number of the Martyrs. Both the other rendred the doctrine of the divine faith famous at Antioch, by their most patient suffering [of tortures] untill their deaths; [Tyrannio] the Bishop was drowned in the depths of the Sea; and Zenobius (a most incomparable Physitian) died couragiously under the tortures, which were applied to his sides. Amongst the Martyrs of Pa­lestine, Silvanus Bishop of the Churches at Gaza, [Page 148] was, together with nine and thirty others, beheaded at the mines of brass, which are in Phaeno. Also Peleus and Nilus, Aegyptian Bishops, together with some others, were burnt to death at the same place. Amongst which number we must in no wise omit the mention of Pamphilus the Presbyter, the most admirable per­son in our age, and the greatest ornament of the Church at Caesarea: whose fortitude and coura­gious exploits we To wit, in the book concerning the Mar­tyrs of Pa­lestine, which is placed af­ter this eighth B. For in that Eusebius at large de­clares the Martyr­dom of Pamphilus, as may there be seen. More­over, from this place it appears, that that book con­cerning the Martyrs of Palestine was writ­ten by Eu­scbius after his Ecclesi­astick Hi­story, and after his books con­cerning the life of Pam­philus the Martyr. Christophorson (who had inserted that whole Appendix before this chapter) was forced to omit these words of Eusebius here, least Eusebius should seem to have forgot himself. I must indeed confess, that in the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. the reading is [ [...], we have declared;] but if that reading be true, Eusebius must mean his books concerning the life of Pam­philus the Martyr; which (as before we observed) he wrote before his Ecclesiastick History. Vales. will declare at a fit and con­venient opportunity. [Moreover,] of those who were perfected by a glorious Martyrdom at Alex­andria, throughout all Egypt, and Thebais, the first to be mentioned is Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a most divine teacher of the Christian Religion; also, Faustus, In the Maz. & Med. M. SS. this person is called Dius; in Robert Stephens he is named Didius. Vales. Dius, and Ammonius (perfect Martyrs of Christ) who were his Presbyters. Besides, Phileas, Hesychius, Pachumius, and The­odorus, Bishops of Churches in Egypt. More­over, there were many other eminent [Martyrs] who have an honourable mention among the Chur­ches that are in those places and Countries. But our [design] is not to commit to writing the conflicts of all those who suffered for the worship of God over the whole world, nor yet to give in an accurate relation of every accident that be­fell them; but of those rather, who with their own eyes beheld what was done. Moreover, those [conflicts] our selves were present at, we will commit to the knowledge of posterity in He means doubtless his book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine. For no other book but that can be found, wherein Eusebius relates the conflicts of the Martyrs which he himself had seen. The opinion of Christophorson is from this passage further disproved, who supposed the book Concerning the Martyrs of Palestine was part of this eighth book: upon which account, after these words [in another work] he omitted some words, and inserted others, against the authority of all Copies. Turnebus was sensible hereof, and therefore at the margin of his copy he put this Greek Scholion at these words, [ [...], i. e. note, that you will meet with this writing immediately after this eighth book. Vales. another work: But in this present book I will annex to what has been declared a revocation of what had been practised against us, and the accidents that happened from the very beginning of the perse­cution, which will be most usefull to the Readers. Therefore, before the war [was denounced] a­gainst us, (during the time that the Emperours were friendly and peaceable towards us,) How great the felicity of the Roman Empire was, in the reign of Diocletian and Maximian, Mamertinus attests in his Genethliacum, about the latter end. Neither did the Romans ever succeed more prosperously in their wars against the Barbarians, than at that time. The Barbarians were in every engagement slain, and the limits of the Roman Empire enlarged. If we read the Histories of those times, we shall find that the affairs of the Empire were never in a better po­sture; when four Princes, to wit, two Augusti, and as many Caesar's, did each of them severally repell the Barbarians. But although Diocletian and Maximian obtained so many victories over the enemies of the Ro­man Empire; yet they triumphed but once, a little before they resigned the Empire, as Eutropius and Zonaras do attest. The words of Eutro­pius are these; uterque una die privato habitu imperii infigne mutavit; Nicomediae Diocletianus, Herculius Mediolani, post triumphum in [...]lytum, quem Romae ex numerosis gentibus egerant, pompa serculorum illustri, &c. Hieronymus (in his Chronicon) has placed this triumph of Diocletian and Maximian on the eighteenth year of Diocletian. At which place Scaliger (in his Animadversions) remarques, that Hieronymus has committed an Anachronism. For he says, this triumph was performed on the twentieth year of Diocletian, some months before he put off his purple. But Scaliger himself is mistaken rather than Hieronymus. For if Diocletian triumphed in the twentieth year of his Empire, that is some few moneths before he resigned it, it must be said he triumpht about January, in the year of Christ 304, and put off his purple on the Kalends of April of the same year; which time of his Resignation, Idatius declares (in Fastis.) Whence it follows, that he triumpht in winter time, and in the depth of winter travelled from Rome to Ni­comedia; neither of which is probable. For neither did the Roman Emperours usually triumph in winter; nor was Diocletian (by reason of his age and infirmity of body) able to endure the trouble of so te­dious a journey Besides, in the nineteenth year of his Empire, in March and April, Diocletian was at Nieomedia; at which time the persecu­tion against the Christians began, as our Eusebius attests in chap. 5. book 8. He was at Nicomedia also, when the Palace there was burnt; (as Constantine witnesseth in his Oration ad sanctorum coetum, chap. 25.) which fire happened some moneths after the persecution was began. Let us therefore suppose, that that happened in May, is it credible that Diocletian could goe from Nicomedia to Rome, triumph there, return from thence to Nicomedia, put off his purple there, and retire in­to Dalmatia to lead the rest of his life in retirement there: is it (I say) credible he could do all this within ten moneths space? Be­sides, the disease, by which Diocletian was for some time put out of his wits, seized him first at Nicomedia, a little after he raised the persecu­tion, as Constantine relates. Wherefore, 'tis very improbable, that Diocletian, troubled with such a distemper, undertook such a long journey. Further, the Authour of the panegyrick spoken to Maximian and Constantine, does expresly affirm, that Diocletian and Maximian triumphed at Rome some years before the twentieth of Diocletian's Em­pire; see his words. Scaliger therefore is much mistaken, in saying Diocletian and Maximian triumphed in the twentieth year of Diocle­tian's Empire: Hieronymus, more truly, placed it on the eighteenth of Diocletian. In which year Idatius (in Fastis) observes, that the Em­perours gave command by their Edict that Corn should be sold cheap; which seems to have been ordered by them after the triumph, to please the people of Rome. But Cedrenus places this triumph on the seven­teenth year of Diocletian. Vales. how great a felicity and plenty of all that is good the Roman Empire was dignified with, what words can be sufficient to declare? At which time, those, in whose hands the supream power was, having compleated the tenth and twentieth year of their Empire, lead their lives in a firm and continued peace, [spending the time] with festivities, pub­lick shews, most splendid banquets, and delights. When their Empire was after this sort enlarged without any manner of impediment, and daily aug­mented with an increase of greatness, on a sudden they revoked the peace with us, and raised a per­fidious war [against us.] The Eusebius had better have said, the first year was scarce com­pleated. For this Resigna­tion of the Empire, made by Diocletian and Maxi­mian, hap­pened a­bout the beginning of the second year of the persecution, on the Kalends of April, in the year of Christ 304. the persecution having been begun in the moneth of March of the foregoing year. Whenas therefore Eusebius says [the second year of this war was not compleated,] his meaning must be this [it was the second year current of the persecution:] in this sense that other place of Eusebius (which occurs in chap. 3. of his B. concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, about the end of the chapter,) is to be taken Vales. second year of this war was not compleated, when a new and un­expected accident subverted the state of affairs al­most throughout the whole [Roman] Empire. For, Christophorson translates these words [ [...]] thus, primus nostrarum aerumnarum auctor, the first authour of our sorrows; which version is not good: but he seems to have followed Nicephorus herein; who (in B. 7 chap. 16.) writes out this passage of Eusebius; and instead of his words here set down, uses these [ [...], the authour of our mischief.] Vales. He that had the precedency amongst the foresaid Emperours, (having been visited by an unfortunate disease, which drave him into a dis­ordered and mad temper of mind,) betook himself to a private and Country life, together with that [Emperour] who was the next in dignity to him. These affaires were no sooner transacted after this manner, but the whole Roman Empire was For Constantius and Galcrius parted the Empire between them­selves: which was the first division of the Empire, as Eusebius here asserts. For although there had been more than one Augustus at the same time, yet they governed the Roman Empire together, without making any division of it; thus it was in the Reign of Marcus and Verus. Neither was there any division made of the Empire in the reign of Diocletianus and Herculius Maximianus; when those two Augusti parted neither the provinces, nor the legions. See Eutropius, B. 10. Oro­sius B. 7. Concerning this division of the Empire (which Rome was much displeased at) Porphyrius (in his Panegyrich to Constantine, written by him in the 15th year of Constantine's reign,) speaks these words, —Laccrata cruentisImperiis pars fessa poli, divisa gemebatSceptra, & Ausoniae marebat perdita jura. Vales. di­vided into two parts; which, as it has been re­corded, [Page 149] was an accident that never happened before. Within some small interval of time, the Emperour Constantius (a person of extraordinary mildness throughout his whole life, most favourable to his subjects, and one that had a singular affection for the divine doctrine [of our Religion,] ended his life according to the common sanction of nature, leaving his own Son Constantine Emperour and Au­gustus in his stead. And he was the The meaning of his passage is not, that Constantius was the first Emperour that had the honour to be deified after his death: (for many Emperours, before Constan­tius, were by the Senate accoun­ted amongst the number of the divi:) But that, of the four Em­perours who governed the Em­pire together (to wit, Diocleti­anus, Maximianus, Constantius, and Galerius) Constantius was the first that obtained this ho­nour; because he was the first of them four, that dyed. Vales. first that was dei­fied amongst the [Romans,] being after his death vouch­safed all honours due to an Emperour. He was the mild­est and most benigne of all the Emperours: and moreover, the onely person of those Princes in our days, that passed over the whole time of his govern­ment sutably to his Imperial Majesty: he behaved himself with the greatest graciousness and candour ima­ginable towards all persons, both in other matters; and also was in no wise a confederate in the war raised against us, but preserved those worshippers of God, that lived under his government, free from harm and injuries: and, having neither demolished the fabricks of the Churches, nor attempted any o­ther new design against us, he obtained an In the Kings M. S. the reading is [ [...], a fertunate end of his life:] but in the Maz Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. the words here are [ [...], an honourable and thrice­happy con­clusion of his life.] Vales. honour­able and thrice-happy conclusion of his life: be­ing the onely person [of all the four Emperours] that ended his life in his Imperial government for­tunately and gloriously, [leaving] his own Son (a most prudent and pious Prince) his successour. Constantinus, Son to this man, being immediately from the very time [of his fathers death] pro­claimed supream Emperour and Augustus by the Souldiers, (but long before that by the supream God) exhibited himself an emulatour of his fa­thers piety towards our Religion. Such a person was he: afterwards Licinius, by the common suf­frage of the Emperours was declared Emperour and Augustus: at which Maximinus was sorely displeased, who untill that time had been honoured onely with the title of Caesar In the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. the reading is [ [...] honoured with the title of Caesar onely, before (or, otherwise than) all the rest:] which reading is truer than [ [...], by all men.] For, four Augusti at that time governed the affairs of the Roman Empire; to wit, Gale­rius, Constantinus, Maxentius, and Licinius. But Maximinus was long before made Caesar by Galerius, and continued in that dignity untill Galerius's death. Wherefore, 'tis most true (what Eusebius here saith) that Maximinus was much displeased, because, there being then so many Augusti, he alone had no other title than that of Caesar, when as notwithstanding he had received that title of Caesar, before the other three Princes now mentioned. Vales. by all men. He therefore, being a person of a most tyrannical disposition, by violence possest himself of that dignity, and was by himself declared Augustus. About that time [Maximianus,] These words [whom we before manifested to have re-assumed the Empire, after his resignation of it] are wanting in the Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. They are in the Kings M. S. And in the Med. M. S. they are writ­ten at the margin here, in the same hand in which that M. S. is written. Moreover, although Eusebius here says, he before related, that Maxi­mianus Herculius re-assumed the Imperial dignity; yet hitherto I can­not find the place where Eusebius has said this. Vales. whom we before manifested to have re-assumed the Empire after his resignation of it, being found to have contrived machinations in order to the death of Constantine, ended his life by a most infamous death: he being the [...] (the expression here) is to be understood in the same sense with that we explained a little before in this chapter, [ [...], the first that was deisied.] See note (i.) in this thirteenth chapter. Vales. first, whose Monuments, Statues, and what ever else of that nature has been usually erected in honour of the Emperours, were abolished, upon account of his being a profane and most impious person.

CHAP. XIV. Concerning the Morals of those that were the ene­mies of Religion.

MAxentius (Son to this To Maxi­mianus. man,) who had possest himself of the government of Rome, at first hypocritically pretended [himself a pro­fessour of] our faith, that he might thereby please and flatter the people of Rome. Upon this account he commanded his subjects to forbear persecuting the Christians, making a shew of piety, and [be­ing desirous] to seem benign, and much more mild than the former Governours. But in his practises he manifested himself not to be such a manner of person, as 'twas hoped he would have proved. But, having applied himself to [the com­mission of] all sorts of impious facts, he omitted no manner of action that was impure and libidinous. He committed adulteries and rapes of all sorts. He parted the husbands [by divorce] from their lawfull wives, whom (when he had by unclean­ness abused) he most dishonourably sent back again to their husbands. Nor did he make it his busi­ness to be thus injurious towards obscure persons, and those of mean quality, but towards them especially, who were advanced to the highest place of honour in the Senate of Rome; insulting over the most eminent personages. All persons there­fore, both the vulgar, and the Magistrates, as well the honourable, as the obscure, standing in great fear of him, were sorely afflicted with his intol­lerable tyranny. And although they were quiet, and patiently bore the austere servitude [they were opprest with;] yet none could so avoid the bloudy cruelty of the Tyrant. For, one time, upon a very trivial pretence, he delivered the people of Rome to be slain by his Aurelius Victor (in the life of Maxentius) says the same; adeo saevus, uti praetorianis caedem vulgi quondam annuerit; he was so cruel, that one time he connived at his Guards for killing the com­mon people. Constantine, having vanquished Maxentius, did quite put down the Praetorian Cohorts, (i. e. those Souldiers, whose office it was to guard the Emperours body,) upon pretence of this slaughter (here mentioned) they made among the common people; but in reality, that they should not attempt any alterations in the government, nor make Emperours, as they had done Maxentius, whom they proclaimed Augustus. Moreover, Zosimus tells the same story, (here mentioned by our Eusebius) but a little otherwise. For he relates, that when the temple of the God Genius at Rome was accidentally fired, and the people flockt together to quench the fire; a Souldier, who derided this God of the Gentiles, was killed by the common peo­ple; upon which there immedi­ately happened so great an up­roar amongst the Souldiers, that the whole City had been destroy­ed, had not Maxentius intervened, Vales. own guards. And so innumera­ble multitudes of the Roman people (not Scythians, nor Barbarians, but his own Ci­tizens) were killed with spears and all sorts of wea­pons in the midst of the City. Moreover, 'tis impossible to enumerate how many slaugh­ters were made of those that were Senatours, to the end their estates might be seized; infinite numbers of them be­ing put to death at several times for various crimes fra­med [against them.] At length, as the complement of his impieties, the Tyrant proceeded to [exercise] the delusions of Magick Art: sometimes ripping up wo­men great with child; o­ther whiles searching into the bowells of new-born infants; he also killed Lyons, and [performed] some other horrible rites, to call forth the Daemons, and repell the approaching war. For he most undoubtedly presumed, that by these perfor­mances he should. obtain the victory. Whilst this person therefore tyrannized at Rome, 'tis im­possible to relate what mischievous acts he per­petrated, and [how miserably] he enslaved his Subjects: insomuch that they were reduced to such extream penury and want of necessary suste­nance, as ('tis recorded by those of our times) [Page 150] never happened at Rome, nor any where else. But Maximinus the Tyrant in the Eastern parts, ha­ving secretly made a league with Maxentius [the Tyrant] at Rome, as being his brother in wicked­ness, endeavoured to keep himself concealed for a long time. But being at last detected, he suffered condign punishment. It was wonderfull [to ob­serve] how near a relation and brother-like affi­nity in wickedness this man exprest towards the Tyrant at Rome; or rather, how far he exceeded and surpassed him in the perpetration of nefarious facts. For Inchanters and Magicians were by him promoted to the chiefest places of honour: he was exceeding timorous and superstitious, and a migh­ty favourer of the impostures about Idols and Dae­mons: without divinations and responses of O­racles he presumed not to move any thing a nails breadth (as the saying is.) Upon which account he imposed a more cruel and sharper persecution upon us, than the former Emperours had done; commanding that Temples [to the Gods] should be erected in every City, and that those places dedicated to their worship, which by length of time were decayed, should with all diligence be repaired. He [constituted] priests for the Idols in every place and City; and over them he ap­pointed a [...]; So our Authour words it in the Greek. They were called S [...]cer­dotes [i. e. chief Priests] by the Gentiles, who had the Temples of a whole Province under their care: but the Flamines [the Priests] were those, who in every Town and City took care of the performance of their Religious Rites. (See Valesius's notes on Amm. Marcellinus, Book 28. pag. 375. Moreover, Maximi­nus must not be supposed to have been the first that instituted these chief Priests of the Provinces: for there were such Priests long be­fore his time. But Maximinus increased their honour, and al­lowed them a guard, i. e. Lictors and Apparitors. th [...]se chief Priests of the Provinces were made out of the body of the Curiales, (i. e. those that were of the Court, or Senate in every City; see Vale­sius's notes on Amm. Marcell. B. 28. p. 374.) who had before born all publick Offices, and dis­charged them worthily. This place [of high Priest of a Pro­vince] was accounted so ho­nourable, that he that bore it took place of the Magistrates, or Duumviri. See the Gesta purgat. Caeciliani, B. 9. chap. 4. These high Priests had the power of entring into the secretum of the Judges, and of being assessours with them, as appears from the Acts of Theodorus the Martyr at November 9. chief Priest of every Province, any one of those who had most wor­thily discharged all the pub­lick Offices in the Court [or Senate] of the City; and appointed him a milita­ry guard [consisting of] a set number of troops. [In fine,] he freely bestow­ed the Governments of Pro­vinces, and chiefest places of preheminence, on all those that were impudent Sooth­sayers, as being Religious persons, and most acceptable to the Gods. After this, he proceeded to vex and op­press, not one City onely, or Country, but all the Pro­vinces in general that were under his government, with exactions of Gold, Silver, and vast sums of money, with most burthensome [...]. Musculus tran­slates it Statutis, Laws: Christo­phorson, manda [...]is, commands: Vale­sius, indictionibus, imposts or taxes. Our Eusebius uses the same term at chap. 8. B. 10. Where, speaking of Licinius, he says, [...], i. e. he invented several sorts of Taxes against his Subjects. See book 10. chap. 8. note (d.) im­posts, and with various sorts of forfeitures succeeding one another. Moreover, depri­ving the rich of their estates laid up for them by their Ancestours, he bestowed a vast treasure and heaps of money on those about him that were his flatterers. Be­sides, he was given to ebriety and drunkenness in such an high degree, that in his cups he would rave, and be out of his wits; and in his drunken­ness he would command such things to be done, as the next day when sober he would repent of. In sottish­ness and luxury no man was his equal, exhibiting himself the master of debauchery both to his Princes and to his [inferiour] Subjects. He permitted his Souldiers to live effeminate lives, in all manner of deliciousness and intemperance: but he perswaded his Presidents and chief Commanders (who in a manner were his Colleagues in his Tyranny,) to break forth into extortion and covetousness to­wards those under their jurisdiction. What need we relate those libidinous courses, in which this man indulged himself? or recount their multi­tudes, which he vitiated by adultery? For he passed through no City [in his journey,] without com­mitting whoredome with women, and ravishing of virgins. Moreover, these [his practises] succee­ded according to his desire against all persons, the Christians onely excepted; who, having con­temned death, despised that his outragious Tyran­ny. See Eusebius's oration concer­ning the praises of Constantine, c. 7. where this passage is repeated al­most in the same words. Vales. For the men (having endured the fire, the sword, the being [...] is the term in the Greek: Valesius renders it Clavorum suffixiones▪ the being fast­ned with nails; perhaps our Au­thour means crucifixion. fastned [to wooden engines] with nails, the wild beasts, the being drowned in the depths of the Sea, the cutting off their members, the [...]earings with hot irons, the pricking and digging out of their eyes, and the being maimed all over their bodies; and, besides all this, famine, the mines, and bonds;) would rather demonstrate their patient suf­ferance under all [these tortures] for religion, than they would forsake the adoration of God, and worship Idols. Again, the women were not less corroborated by the doctrine of the divine word than the men: some of whom underwent the same combats with the men, and obtained rewards of their fortitude equal to them: others, haled away to be rav [...]shed, were more ready to part with their lives, than expose their bodies to be defiled. In­deed, one onely Christian woman, the most emi­ [...]ent and famous of the Alexandrian women, (when the others had been vitiated by the Ty­rant,) vanquished the dissolute and incontinent mind of Maximinus by her most valiant courage of mind. She was a woman eminent for riches, descent, and learning; but she preferred chastity before all these. When [the Tyrant] had often solicited this woman [to commit adultery with him,] he was indeed unable to kill her (who was prepared to die,) because his lust was master of his cruelty: but he punished her with exile, and deprived her of her whole estate. Infinite other women, being unable to endure the hearing of the menaces of ravishment, which the Governours of Provinces threatned them with, underwent all sorts of tortures, torments, and capital punishments. But the most admirable person above all these was that woman at Rome, the most noble and truly chastest woman of all those, whom Maxentius (the Tyrant there, whose practises were like Maximinus's) attempted to vitiate. For, as soon as she understood that the Ministers, which the Tyrant made use of for the performance of such [villanies,] had assaulted her house, (now she also was a Christian,) and that her husband, who was Prefect of the City at Rome, had by reason of his fear permitted them to take her and carry her away with them: [...] is the expression in the Greek. Some words seem to be wanting, which may be thus supplied [ [...], having requested a short space of time for a recess.] Eusebius used the same phrase before, when he spake of the Antiochian woman, who with the two Virgins leapt into the River. Vales. having requested that a short [time] might be allowed her, as if she would have adorned her body, she went into her Chamber; and, being alone, At the margin of the Maz. and Savill M. SS. I found this Scholion written, for the explication of these words: [ [...] i. e. How does this man admire those women, who were the authours of their own deaths? And yes the Judgment of the Church is, not to record them amongst the number of the Martyrs, who have been their own executioners. For 'tis [an argument] of fear, rather than courage, by death to prevent the dread of punishment. But [the Church looks upon those as Martyrs,] who suppose nothing to be dreadfull upon account of the confession of Christ; but with alacrity suffer all [tortures,] that a Tyrannick and devilish subtilty can produce [against them.] The Authour of this Scholion has made a true remark, to wit, that the Church approves not of self­murder; when men, out of a fear of death, or through desperation lay violent hands on themselves. But as often as they are d [...]iven to do that by the instinct of the divine spirit, which [...]arely happens; then the Church approves and admires that act▪ but proposes it not for imitation. See what St Augustine thought concerning this matter, in his first Book. De civitate Dei, chap. 26. Vales. sheathed a sword in her own breast. Expiring immediately here­upon, [Page 151] she left indeed her Co [...]ps to those that came to conduct her [to the Tyrant;] but by this act of hers (which resounds more than any voice) she has manifested to all men that now are, and shall be in future ages, that the courage of the Christians is the onely thing that is inexpugnable, and which cannot be extirpated by death. Such indeed and so great was the fertility of wickedness, produced at one and the same time; the authours of which were two Tyrants, who had divided the East and West between themselves. And now, what man is he, that, making his researches into the cause of these so great [calamities▪] will be du­bious in affirming the persecution [raised against us] to have been [the originall of all these miseries?] Especially, [when he considers] that these migh­ty disturbances [in the Empire] were not termi­nated; before the Christians had the free and open profession of their Religion restored to them.

CHAP. XV. Concerning what happened to the Gentiles.

INdeed, throughout the whole The per­secution began in the year of Christ 303; when Dio­cletian was in his 8th, an Maxi­mian in his 7th, con­sulate. It ended in the year of Christ 312; then, when Constan­tine, ha­ving con­quered Maxentius, sent letters to Maximi­nus Empe­rour of the East, to procure liberty for the Christians; as our Eusebius relates in Book 9. Therefore the persecution lasted ten years, as 'tis here af­firmed. And so the years are noted in the M. S. copies of Eusebius's Chronicon, as Pontacus has observed. Epiphanius therefore is mista­ken; who (in his Book De ponder. & Mensur.) says this persecu­tion lasted twelve years. See the following chapter, where our Au­thour relates, that the persecution ceased on the tenth year. Vales. ten years space of the persecution, there was no intermission of mutual conspiracies and intestine wars amongst them: the Sea was impassible to those that made voyages over it. Neither could any persons arrive at any Haven whatsoever, [...]ut they must indu [...]e all sorts of scourges, be tormented, have their sides torn with nails, and be interrogated, by their un­dergoing all sorts of tortures, whether they came from the Enemies Country: and at last they un­derwent the punishment of crucifixion, or were burnt to death. Furthermore, they provided shields, breast-plates, darts, speares, and other such like military instruments. Also, galleys, and weapons for a Sea-fight were every where prepared Nei­ther did any person expect any thing else but an incursion of the enemy. After all these [cala­mities] followed a famine and a pestilence; of which we will give a relation at an opportune place and time.

CHAP. XVI. Concerning the change of affaires to a better posture.

At these words we began the 16th cha­pter, agre­able to the Maz▪ and Fuk▪ M. SS. But in the Med▪ M. S. (which Rob. Ste­phens fol­lowed, in the distin­ction of the chapters) there is no new cha­pter began here. Vales. SUch were the preparations during the whole time of the persecution; which by the grace of God wholly ceased in the tenth year; begin­ning to be somewhat remiss, after the eighth year. For, after the divine and celestial grace demon­strated [it self] in a benigne and propitious in­spection over us, then the Governours in our times, even those very Princes who had formerly waged wars against those of our Religion, having most miraculously altered their minds, sounded a re­treat: and extinguished the most ardent flame of the persecution by Reseripts favourable towards us, and by most mild Edicts. But, neither was any hu­mane cause, nor (which some one might conjecture) was the clemency or humanity of the Emperours, the occasion hereof; no, 'twas far from that. For, from the beginning of the persecution unto that very time, they daily invented more, and more grievous cruelties against us, renewing the tor­tures [used] towards us by divers machines [made use of] successively, and in a various manner. But the appa [...]ent inspection of the divine providence it self, which was now reconciled to its people, pursued the authour of these miseries, and was an­gry at the He means Maximia­nus Galeri­us, as 'tis apparent from the following words: for he was the Authour of the perse­cution rai­sed against the Chri­stians. Ru­finus in the 1 [...] th cha­pter of this book speaks thus con­cerning; G [...]lerius; Ille verò, qui [...]i se­cundus [...]n honore, post­m [...]dum eti­am in pri­mis succes­sor [...]uit, qui & in cen­tor ac [...]ig­nif [...]r nostra persecuti­onis extiterat, &c. i. e. But he, who was the next in honour to him, after­wards succeeded him in the first and chiefest place; who also was the in­cendiary and first beginner of our persecution, &c. Cedrenus attests the same. Vales. Ring-leader of the wickedness [com­mitted] during the whole persecution. For al though these things ought to have come to pass, agreeable to the judgment of the divine [will,] yet Matth. 18. 7. Woe (says the Scripture) to that man by whom the offence cometh. Therefore, a punishment sent from God seized him; which, having made its be­ginning at his very flesh, proceeded even to his soul. For on a sudden an impostume arose upon him [...]. He means his genitals; which Victor (in his Epitomo) does confirm: Galerius Maximianus (says he) consumptis genitalibus defecit. about the midst of the privy parts of his body; after that, a The phrase in the Greek is, [...], which, being literally rendred, imports thus much, an ulcer in the fundamens full of holes like a spunge. Fi [...]ula in ano; both these diseases spread incurably and did eat into his in­most bowels. From them bred an unspeakable multitude of worms, and a most noysome stench proceeded therefrom; [for,] before this disease, the whole mass of flesh upon his body was (by reason of the abundance of food he devoured) grown to an immense fatness: which being then putrified, became an intollerable and most horrid spectacle to those that approach't him. Wherefore some of his Physitians, being alto­gether unable to endure the exceeding noysome­ness of the stink [that came from him,] were killed: others of them, when they could admi­nister no remedy, (the whole fabrick of his body being swelled, and past all hopes of a reco­very,) were cruelly slain.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning the Retractation of the Emperours.

MOreover, whilest he was strugling with these many and great miseries, he began to be sensible of the villanous acts he had performed towards the worshippers of God: [...]. This expression Musculus renders thus, ad semetipsum reversus, being come to himself: Christophorson thus, mentem igitur recolligens, & tanquam rediens ad se, recollecting therefore his mind, and returning as it were to himself: Valesius thus, totâ mentis aci [...] in semet ipsum con­versâ, the whole sharpness of his mind being turned upon himself. having there­fore seriously recollected himself, first he made his confession to the supream God. Then, having cal­led [Page 152] together the [...], which words Rufinus renders very well, thus. Convocatis his qui in officio publico parc [...]ant; having called together those who served in any publick office. Eusebius usually means, by this phrase, the Grandees of the Palace, whom Amm. Mar­cellinus does commonly term, aulae summates, & Imperatoris proximos, the chief Court officers, and those necrest to the Emperour. Vales. chief Officers of his Palace, he ordered them without any delay to inhibite the persecution of the Christians, and by his decree and Imperial Edict comman­ded that their Churches should with all expedition be built, wherein they might perform their usual [solem­nities,] and make supplica­tions [to God] for the In the original 'tis [...] for the Imperial Palace: But Nicephorus reads [...], for the Emperour. Vales. Emperour. Therefore, what he had given order for in words being immediately followed by an actual per­formance, the Imperial E­dicts were set forth in every City, containing a revoca­tion of the [persecution] against us, according to this form following.

EMPEROUR CAESAR GALERIUS VALERIUS MAXIMIANUS, IN­VICTUS, AUGUSTUS, PONTI­FEX MAXIMUS, GERMANICUS MAXIMUS, AEGYPTIACUS MAXI­MUS, THEBAÏCUS MAXIMUS, SARMATICUS MAXIMUS the Fifth time; We find that the Persians were but once con­quered by Galerius, which was in the year of Christ 297; as 'tis affir­med in Fa­stis Idatii, and in the Alexandri­an Chro­nicle. The same is confirmed by Liba­nius, in his oration in­titled [...]; where he relates that the Per­sians, after that great defeat they received from the Romans under the conduct of Galerius▪ spent fourty years in preparations to make amends for that overthrow; and that, a little before the death of Constantine the Great, they entred upon a war with the Romans. Indeed, from that year of Christ we mentioned (i. e. Anno 297) to the year wherein Constantine dyed, there are fourty years. Therefore, Eusebius's Chronicle must be cor­rected, in which this Persian victory is placed on the seventeenth year of Diocletian; whereas it should be placed on his thirteenth year; as it is in the Edition of Arnaldus Pontacus. Seeing therefore we can find no other victory that Maximianus obtained over the Persians, this place ought to be pointed (as it is in Nicephorus, and as we have done in our translation) after this manner: [...]. Sarmaticus Maximus the Fifth time; Per­sicus Maximus. In Rufinus's old copy, there is at this place no distin­ction by points; but 'tis thus, Sarmaticus quinquies Persicus bis Carpi­cus Sexies Armenicus Medorum & Adiabenorum Victor. PERSICUS MAXIMUS, CARPICUS MAXIMUS the Second time, ARMENICUS MAXIMUS the Sixth time, MEDICUS MAXIMUS, AD [...]AB [...]NICUS MAXIMUS, Rufinus▪ renders this passage thus, Tribuniciae potestatis vicies, having been Tribune of the people twenty times. This is the reading in the M. SS. From this place we may perceive, that Galerius was made Caesar, and Colleague in the Tribunician power (or, Tribune of the people) at the same time; since in this Edict he accounts the years of his Tribunician power from that time when he was proclaimed Caesar. Now, he was made Caesar in the year of Christ 291, on the Calends of March. Moreover, he put forth this Edict in favour of the Christians, in the year of Christ 311, in his eighth Consulate, as the in­scription of the Edict declares: whence it followes, that this Edict was written before the Calends of March. For from that time Galerius began his Tribunician Power. Vales. TRIBUNE OF THE PEOPLE XX. [...]; i. e. Emperour the Nineteenth time: for that's the reading in the most ancient copy of Rufinus. Christophor­son translated this term ill, thus, Dictator. He knew not what was the import of the word Imperator. Imperator signifies one thing in the titles of the Emperours, when 'tis put in the First place like a Pronoun; but it imports another thing, when 'tis subjoyned to the rest of the titles. For the word [Emperour] put in the Second place, denotes the victory of the Emperours, and shews how often they were stiled Emperours by the Army, after they had obtained a victory; so Dio [...]forms us. Vales. EMPEROUR XIX. CONSUL VIII. FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY, PROCONSUL. And, EMPEROUR CAESAR FLAVIUS VALERIUS CONSTANTINUS, PIUS, FELIX, INVICTUS, AUGUSTUS: PON­TIFEX MAXIMUS, In all copies, there is an omission of the number of times that Con­stantine had born the office of Tribune of the people, when this Edict came forth. I have added the figure [V] which denotes the Fifth time of his bearing the Tribune-ship: which addition is grounded upon a most certain conjecture. Vales. TRIBUNE OF THE PEOPLE V. EMPE­ROUR V. CONSUL, FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY, After this word [Proconsul,] (in the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil M. SS. and in Nicephorus) there are these following words [And, Emperour Caesar Valerius Licinianus, Pius▪ Faelix, Invictus, Augastus, Pontifex Maximus; Tribune of the people IV. Emperour III. Consul, Father of his Country, Proconsul: To the Subjects of their own Provinces Greeting.] Which passage, although it occurs not in Ruffinus, yet is of good authority. And first▪ as to Licinius's Tribunician Power, the same must be thought of that which was of Galerius's, to wit, that it is to be begun from the time of his being made Caesar. Now, Licinius was made Caesar in the year of Christ 308, on the third of the Ides of November, as it appears in the Fasti of Idatius. Therefore, the [...]ourth year of Licinius's Tribunician Power began in the year of Christ 311, on the third of the Ides of November. But this disagrees with what we noted before, when we treated concerning the Tribunician Power of Galerius. Wherefore one of these places must necessarily be false. For if it were then the fourth year of Licinius's Tribunician Power, it was the twenty first of Galerius's. On the contrary, if this were the twentieth year of Galerius's being Tribune of the people, it was but the third year of Licinius's bearing that dignity. As to the consulate of Licinius, there is mention thereof in the Fasti of Prosp [...]rus, Cas­siodorus, and Victorius; where he is placed Consul with Maximianus Augustus Cos. VIII. In my notes on Amm. Marcellinus, I had remarked, that Licinius was made Augustus by Galerius, a little before Gale­rius's death; which I collected from hence, because in this Edict, we now speak of, Gallerius had made no mention of Licinius's being his Colleague: but since in our M. SS. and in Nicephorus Licinius is stiled Augustus in this Edict of Galerius, that conjecture of ours is wholly destroyed. Vales. PROCONSUL. And, EMPEROUR CAESAR VALE­RIUS LICINIANUS, PIUS, FE­LIX, INVICTUS, AUGUSTUS; PONTIFEX MAXIMUS; TRIBUNE OF THE PEOPLE IV. EMPE­ROUR III. CONSUL, FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY, PROCONSUL: To the Subjects of their own Provinces, Greeting.

Amongst other things which we have constituted for the profit and utility of the Republick, it was our desire in the first place, that all things should be redressed according to the ancient Laws, and publick Ordinances of the Romans. And we earnestly en­deavoured to effect this, that the Christians, who had relinquished the Rites and Usages of their Pa­rents, should be reduced to a good mind and inten­tion. For, so great an In the Fuk. Savil, Maz. and Med. M. SS. the reading is [ [...], So great an arrogancy and unadvisedness—has possest and in­vaded them.] Vales. [...] (which Valesius here renders arrogantia, arrogancy) is by Democrates (in his [...].) defined to be speaking all, and no [...] enduring to hear any body else. Dr Hammond has given a large account of the significantions of this word, in his note on Rom. 1. v. 29. ar­rogancy and unadvisedness has (by a considerateness as it were) possest and invaded them, that they would not follow those sanctions of their Ancestours, which even their Parents 'tis likely had before Ratified: but according to their own arbitrement, and as each person had a desire, so they would make Laws, and observe them, and assemble various multitudes, of dif­ferent factions and dissenting about their opinions. Therefore, when we had published such an Edict, as should [oblige] them to return to the Rites and Ordinances of their Ancestours; many of them having been exposed to imminent dangers, and many having been terrified [with the menaces of punish­ment,] underwent various sorts of death. But, when many persisted in this madness, and we perceived they did neither exhibite a due worship to the immor­tal Gods, nor yet to the God of the Christians; having a respect to our humanity and that continued usage by which we have been accustomed to bestow Pardon on all sorts of men: we have thought good that our indul­gence should most readily be extended in this matter also; that the Christians should again be [tolerated,] and that they may [have licence] to rebuild the houses wherein they used to assemble themselves, [Page 153] that so [in future they may be forced] to do no­thing contrary to their discipline. In a particular Rescript we will signifie to our Judges what it shall behov [...] them to observe. Wherefore, upon account of this our Indulgence they are obliged to supplicate their God for our safety, that of the Republick, and their own; that so both the Publick State of Affairs may in all respects be continued in an entire and safe posture, and they themselves live undisturbed in their own habitations▪ Th [...]se words (which we have, according to our ability, translated out of the Roman into the Greek Language,) are thus: now therefore it is an opportune time to take a Prospect of what followed hereupon.

The End of the Eighth Book of the Ecclesiastical History.

IN SOME COPIES, THIS OCCURS AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE EIGHTH BOOK.

BUT the Id est Galerius. See the E­dict, chap. 17. book 8. Authour of this Edict, after this Confession, was forthwith Released from his pains, and ended his Life. Re­port says, that this man was the first beginner of that Calamitous Persecution: for, long before the rest of the Emperours were instigated [to it,] he endeavoured by force to withdraw the Christians that bore Armes [from their Religion,] espe­cially those that were his domesticks; some of whom he removed from their Military dignities, most dishonourably abused others; and more­over, punished othersome with death: and at length he moved his Colleagues in the Empire to a General Persecution against the Christians. The manner how these Emperours ended their Lives, we judge unfit to be buried in silence: of the Those four were Diocletia­nus, Maximianus, Constantius, and Galeriu [...]. See Book 8. Chap. 13. note ( [...].) four therefore who had divided the Roman Empire between them, those That is, Diocletianus and Maximianus. See Book 8. Chap. 13. note (e.) two, that had the precedency in Age and Honour, resigned their Empire, before two years were compleated after the beginning of the Persecution, as we have In chap. 13. book 8. be­fore manifested. And, having spent the remai­ning part of their time in a private and retired condition, they concluded their lives after this manner: The Diocle­tianus. one, who in respect of his Age and Honour took place of all the rest, was con­sumed by a lasting and most painfull distemper of body: the Maximi­anus. other, who was the next to him in honour, put an end to his life by hanging of him­self; undergoing this [punishment,] which was agreeable to a certain Diabolical Prediction con­cerning him, upon account of those many villanies he had most audaciously perpetrated. Of the re­maining two, the Galerius. last, (who, as we See Chap. 16. Book. 8. note (b.) have said, was the Authour of the whole Persecution,) un­derwent those [miseries,] which we See Chap. 16. Book 8. have re­lated before. But he who in dignity preceded this man, [I mean] that most favourable and mercifull Emperour Constantius, who during the whole time of his Government behaved himself in such sort as befitted an Emperour▪ who both in other matters represented himself to be most courteous and beneficent, and also was unconcerned in the persecution raised against us, who preserved the worshippers of God living under his Govern­ment from all manner of injuries and molestati­ons, who neither demolished the edifices of the Churches, nor attempted any other new design against us: [this Emperour Constantius I say] ob­tained a These following words are taken out of chap. 13. book 8. V [...]les. fortunate and truly thrice happy conclu­sion of his life: being the onely person that ended his life peaceably and gloriously during his sway­ing the Imperial Scepter, and left his own Son (in all respects a most sober and pious Prince,) his successour in the Empire. Constan­tine the Great. He, being from the very beginning forthwith proclaimed supream Em­perour and Augustus by the Souldiers, declared himself to be an emulatour of his Fathers reve­rend regard towards our Religion. Such was the conclusion of their lives which happened to the forementioned four Emperours, at different times. • [...]; So Rob. Ste­phens: Va­lesius, [...]. Moreover, of them Galerius. he onely (whom we mentioned a little before) Chap. 17. Book 8. made the fore­said confession, and (together with Who were Con­stantinus▪ and Lici­nius or Li­cinianus: See chap. 17. book [...]. those who were afterwards taken in to be Colleagues with him in the Empire) made it publickly known to all men by an Edict proposed in writing.

EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS'S BOOK Concerning the MARTYRS of PALESTINE.
Before I had lookt into any of the M. SS. I thought these words were ad­ded by Rob. Ste­phens, who in some copies had found these two Sup­plements of the 8th Book. But when I had perceived that the same words occurred in all the M. SS. I was easily induced to believe, that all those M. SS. were transcribed from one and the same Copy. Moreover, this 2d Supplement is nothing else but Eusebius's Book concer­ning the Martyrs of Palestine; which appears from the words at the end of this Supplement. For in the Maz▪ and Med. M. SS. these words occur there▪ ' [...]. i. e. the End of Eusebius Pamphilus's [book] concerning tho Martyrs of Palestine. Vales. In one Copy, we also found these following Chapters at the End of the Eighth Book.

IT was the Ninteenth year of Diocletians Em­pire, the moneth Xanthicus, which the Ro­mans call April; (Flavianus being Governour of the Province of Palestine;) in which year, [to wit,] when the Feast of the Salutary Passion was near at hand, the Edicts on a sudden were every where set forth, commanding the Churches to be pulled down to the ground, and the Scriptures to be consumed with fire; and ordering, that such as were promoted to honours should be de­graded, and that the ordinary sort of people, if they persisted in a resolution of retaining the pro­fession of Christianity, should be deprived of their liberty. Such was the vehemency of the first Edict against us. But not long after, other Re­scripts were brought, wherein order was given, that all Prelates of the Churches every where, should first be put in bonds; and afterwards com­pelled by all ways imaginable to offer sacrifice.

CHAP. I. Concerning Procopius, Alphaeus, and Zacchaeus, Martyrs.

The same Relation is in the Acts of the passion of Procopius the Martyr, which be­gin thus, The first of the Martyrs that appeared in Palestine was Pro­copius, &c. From whence 'tis evident, that those Acts were tran­slated out of the Greek Copy of Eusebius into Latine. To make this more manifestly apparent, it will in no wise be unusefull, to insert here the entire Acts. For many things worth our knowledge are contained in them, which neither Baronius nor Molanus happened to have a sight of▪ We have transcribed them from a most ancient M. S. belonging to the Musciacensian Monastery, which is now in the hands of that lear­ned person Claudius Joly Canon of the Church at Paris. Their Con­tents are these; ‘The Passion of S. Procopius the Martyr, who suffered under Fabianus the President, on the fourth of the Nones of August.’ The first of the Martyrs that appeared in Palestine was Procopius: a person [full] of celestial grace, who before his Martyrdom ordered his life so, as that from his very childhood he applied his mind to chastity, and a virtuous converse. He so macerated his body, that 'twas judged to be almost dead. But he comforted his mind with such divine words, that he infused strength and courage into his body, by this refection of his mind. Bread and water was his food and drink: he fed onely on these: which he would forsake for two, or three, sometimes for seven days together, and then return to that his food again. Also, a meditation on divine expressions had bound up his mind so fast, that he continued indefatigable in it night and day. He made himself an high example of courtesie and meekness, looking on himself to be inferiour to others, so great was his studiousness in divine matters: he had also attained to a competency in external accomplishments. His original extract he had at Aelia [i. e. Jerusalem;] but by converse and habitation he was a Scythopolitan. He served in three Offices in that Church; one was that of a Reader, another consisted in his interpretation of the Syrian Tongue; and the third was an im­position of hands, to cast out devils. And when he (together with his companions) was sent from Scythopolis to Caesarea, he was led from the very Gates to the President▪ and before he had experienced the miseries of imprisonment and bonds, he was upon his very first Arrival commanded by Flavianus the President, to offer sacrifice to the Gods. But with a loud voice he attested that there was not a multiplicity of Gods, but one Maker and Framer of all things. The President, smitten with that ex­pression of his, and being wounded in his own conscience, assented to what he said. And, betaking himself to other arguments, [perswaded him] to sacrifice at least but to the Emperours. But the holy Martyr of God, despising what he said, repeated that passage of Homer—It is not good [to have] many Lords, let there be one Lord, one King. Which words being heard, it being supposed that he spoke something that was of ill consequence to the Emperours, by the Presidents command he was led to execution; and being beheaded, had an entrance into a celestial life, or found a compendious way into heaven, on the seventh day of Desius, that is, the moneth July, which amongst the Romans is called the Nones of July, in the first year of the Persecution against us. This was the first Martyrdom that was consummated in Caesarea, our Lord Jesus Christ Reigning, to whom be honour and glory for ever and ever, Amen. These Acts are also extant in two M. SS. belonging to the Library of Saint Germans. Vales. PRocopius therefore, the first of the Martyrs of Palestine, The foregoing Acts of the passion of Saint Procopius render this passage almost word for word, thus; Priusquam carceris vel vinculorum experiretur angustias, before he had experienced the miseries of imprison­ment and bonds. By which words the cruelty of the Judge is signified. For the Roman Presidents were wont first to imprison those offenders that were apprehended and brought before them, and to interrogate them afterwards at their leisure. Vales. before he had experienced a con­finement in prison, was The foregoing Acts word this passage thus; in ipso ingressu suo [...] Judice Flaviano ut Diis sacrificaret impellitur; i. e. he was upon his very first arrival, commanded by Flavianus the President, to offer sacrifice to the Gods. Many things are here omitted in the Greek Text of Euse­bius, which must be made prefect by those Acts in Latine (the tran­slation whereof we have before inserted.) For when Eusebius had here said expresly, that Procopius upon his first arrival was brought before the Judge, he adds nothing concerning the place from whence he came, where he was apprehended, or to what place he was brought: nothing of which ought to have been omitted. Besides, Eusebius does accu­rately relate the descent and country of other Martyrs mentioned in this book; and if any of them had attained any degree of Ecclesiastick honour, he does usually take notice of that also. But of this person (who was the chief, and Leader of all the Palestine Martyrs) we see no such remarks made. This, 'tis probable, was not the fault of Euse­bius, but of his Excribers. For, in the Latine Acts, which, as we be­fore evidenced, were translated out of Eusebius, all these circumstances are manifestly declared. See the translation of the Latine Acts, in note (a.) in this chapter. Vales. immediately upon his very first Arrival brought before the Presidents Seat of Judicature: and being commanded to offer sacrifice to those [by the Gentiles] stiled Gods, he said that he knew but one onely God, to whom sa­crifice was to be offered, according to that manner which he himself had appointed. But when he was bidden to sacrifice to the four Emperours, ha­ving uttered a sentence which was in no wise plea­sing to them (that which he said, was these words of the Poet [Homer;] It is not good [to have] many Lords, let there be one Lord, one King) he [Page 157] was forthwith beheaded, The La­tine Copies of these Acts doe vary a little here: in Claudius Joly's Copy (the translation of which you have in note (a.) in this chapter,) the words are, Defii Septima Julii mensi [...], quae nonas Julias dicitur apud Latinos, i. e. on the seventh day of Desius [that is the] moneth July, which amongst the Romans is called the Nones of July: in the two M. S. Copies belonging to the Library of S. Germans, the reading is thus, Dies erat Septima Julii mensis, quae 7. Idus Julii dicitur apud Latinos, i. e. it was the seventh day of the Month July, which amongst the Ro­mans is called the seventh of the Ides of July. In the greek Text of our Eusebius here, the words are these, [...], on the eighth day of the moneth Desius, that is (as the Romans stile it) before the seventh of the Ides of June. By these words in the Latine Copies of the M. SS. in Saint Germans Library, the title before Claudius Joly's Copy of these Acts is to be amended, where 'tis said Procopius suffered on the fourth of the Nones of August. Notwithstanding, in all the Martyrologies, the Martyrdom of Procopius is set on the eighth of the Ides of July. The Greeks also celebrate the memory of the great Martyr Procopius on the same day, as may be seen in their Menaeum. But that Procopius is a different person from ours, although he was born at Jerusalem, and suffered at the same time almost, and in the same City, that our Pro­copius did. For our Procopius was a Reader, and an-Exorcist, as Eu­sebius attests. But the other was a Captain of Egypt. The first Pro­copius was a Christian from his Childhood, the second was at first a worshipper of Daemons. Our Procopius was beheaded, having suffered no tortures, and so obtained the Crown of Martyrdom by a most com­pendious and easie kind of death. The other Procopius suffered a tedious and most cruel Martyrdom, having undergone most horrid tor­tures under two Presidents of Palestine, Justus and Flavianus. Upon which account he is reckoned by the Greeks amongst the [...] Great Martyrs: See book 6. chap. 32. note (b.) Lastly, our Procopius was taken at Scythopolis, brought to Caesarea in Palestine, and there beheaded. The other was apprehended in Egypt, and Martyred in Caesarea a City of Phoenicia (which was also called Paneas) if we may believe Simcon Metaphrastes. Vales. on the eighth day of the moneth It is, I perceive, taken for granted amongst all men, that the months of the Syro-Macedonians were wholly the same with the Julian months, from that time when Julius Caesar publisht his year. For Scaliger and our Petavius do in many places affirm this; and the only difference (as they say) was, that the Syro-Macedonians began their year from October. But, there are many things which make me dissent from their opinion. For first, Bede (in his Ephemeris, and in his book De ratione Temporum) says, that the months of the Greeks be­gan from Apellaeus, which answers to December. But Marcus (in his Life of Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza) attests, that those of Gaza began their year from the month Dius. For these are his words at pag, 1090. Primo mense qui ab eis vocatur Dios, deinde etiam secundo, qui dicitur Apellaeos; i. e. in the first month which they call Dius, then also in the second which is termed Apellaeus. The Emperour Julianus (in An­tiochico) confirms this, where he expresly says that Lous was the tenth month amongst the Syrians. Now, if they began their year from Octo­ber, then Lous (which answers to August) would not have been the tenth, but the eleventh month. The same is manifested by Julianus (in Misopogone, pag. 70.) in these words, [...] ▪ i. e. The Calends of the Syrians were come, and Caesar goes to the Temple of Ju­piter Philius again. Then came the Calends of January (For, in my notes on book 23. of Ammian. Marcellinus, pag. 252, I have shown that the [...] was the same with the Calends of January.) and Caesar goes to the Temple of the God Genius. (Concerning the Temple of this God Genius at Antioch, See Evagrius's Hist. book 1. chap. 16.) Then passing by the ominous day, he renews his vows in the Temple of Jupiter Philius according to the custome of his Ancestours. Seeing therefore Julianus attests, that the New Moon of the Syrians year did a little precede the Calends of January; it is manifest that the beginning of the Roman and Syrian year was not the same. But, it may be plainly collected from the same place of Julian, that Dius was the first month of the year amongst the Antiochians: For Julian says, that on the Calends of the first month of the Syrians, he went to the Temple of Jupiter, to sacrifice, because their first month was sacred to Jupiter, and received its name from him. For it was called Dius [...], from Jupiter: and the first month was rightly called after his name, who was thought to be the principal cause, and origine of all things. Now, if October were the first month of the Syrian year, that passage in Julian would have been impertinent. For, when the Antiochians would deride Julian, for his assiduity in worship­ing the Gods, they produce this example thereof [The Calends of the Syrians were come, and Caesar goes to the Temple of Jupiter Phi­lius again: then came the Calends of January, and Caesar goes to the Temple of the God Genius.] There must therefore necessarily be some little space of time between the Calends of the Syrians, and the Romans, that so Julian might deservedly be derided by the Antiochians for his too frequent offering of sacrifice. It is therefore necessary, that either Apellaeus must have been the first month amongst the Syrians, (which is Bede's opinion,) or else Dius. Thus far concerning the beginning of the Syro-Macedonian year; which we have demonstrated to be dif­ferent from the beginning of the Julian year. We will now inquire in­to the Syro-Macedonian months, and see whether they began and ended at the same time that the Roman months did. Indeed, this place in Eusebius does plainly shew, that the beginning of the months amongst the Syrians and Romans was not the same: for it makes the eighth day of the month Desius to be the same with the seventh of the month June. Therefore the Syrian month Desius began one day before the Roman month June. Moreover, Marcus (in the life of Porphyrius) affirms, that the months of the inhabitants of Gaza preceded the Roman months five days. His words are these, Pluit autem Domi­nus, &c. Our Lord sent a continued rain from the eighth day of the month Audynaeus to the tenth. Now Audynaeus amongst the Romans is January. For their months precede the Roman months five days. But on the eleventh day we celebrated the Feast of the Epiphany, praising God. From which words 'tis apparent, that the beginning of the months amongst those of Gaza was almost the same with the beginning of them amongst the Egyptians. Further, Epiphanius (in his book De Pon­derib. chap. 20.) makes the sixteenth day of May the same with the twenty third of the Grecian month Artemisius. The form of the months amongst the Tyrians was different from this; they made use of the Macedonian account of the months. For, in the Acts at Tyre (which are related in the ninth Action of the Council of Chalcedon) the tenth day of the month Peritius is confounded with the twenty fifth of February: and in the fifth Action Concil. Constantinop. sub▪ Mena, the twenty eighth day of the Tyrian month Lous is said to have been the sixteenth day of the Roman month September. From all this it may be concluded, that the account of the whole year, and of the months, was not of one and the same form amongst the Syrians. For those of Gaza computed them after one way, those of Tyre after another, and those of Caesarea after a third manner. But, I am fully perswaded, that the Caesareans used months, wholly composed according to the Julian form. For, in all places of this book of Eusebius's, concerning the Martyres of Palestine, wherever mention is made of the Macedonian months amongst the Caesarians, (the mention whereof does frequently occur in it;) the days of those months do always agree with the days of the Roman months; excepting this only place in this first Chapter. Therefore, I think, that the reading in the Text of Eusebius here should be thus, [...], on the seventh day of the month Desius. Vales. Desius, that is (as the Romans stile it) before the seventh of the Ides of June, on the [...]; that is, on the fourth feria, or, (to render it word for word) on the fourth day of the Sabbath, or, of the week. For the ancient Christians having received a set account of the seven days of the week from the Jews, named them as they did. Therefore they called them the first of the Sabbath, the second of the Sabbath, &c. See Tertullian in his Book De jejuniis. Sometimes they called them feriae: Feria is the same with Sabbath. Therefore, as the Jews termed the week-days the first, the second, the third of the Sabbath; and so on to the Seventh­day, which they called the Sabbath: so the antient Christians termed them the first, second, and third feria, &c. making an alteration only in this, that they did not keep the Sabbath-day holy, as did the Jews; but observed their Sabbath [...] the first day of the Sabbath▪ which they also called Sunday, or The Lord's Day. So Isidorus in his Book, De Na­tura Rerum, Chap. 3. Bede (in his Book De Ratione Temporum) says the week-days were called feriae, because the Clergy-men, by the decree of Pope Sylvester, were ordered to keep every day holy. But this opinion cannot be true; for the days of the week were called feriae long before Pope Sylvester's time, as Tertullian informs us. Moreover, not only the Christians, but the Gentiles also received the computation of the week from the Jews, as Josephus informs us, in the close of his se­cond book against Apion. But the Gentiles called the days of the week by the names of the seven Planets; which names continue still in use amongst most Nations, being as it were certain reliques of the ancient errour of the Gentiles. See Tertullian in his Book Ad Nationes. Vales. The Ecclesiastical year of old began at Easter, the first week whereof was all Holyday, the days being distinguished by prima, secunda, tertia, &c. added unto feria. From thence the days of any other week began to be called feria prima, secunda, &c. See Mr Jo. Gregory of Oxford, in his Tract De Aeris & Epochis, Chap. 5. The original of the names, which we in England give to the days of the week, may be seen in Verstegan's Antiquities, pag. 68, &c. Edit. Antwerp. 1605. fourth day of the week. This was the [...], we render primum Martyrium, the first Martyr­dom: so the Latine Acts render it▪ whence it appears, the Transla­tor thereof did read [...]. Vales. first Martyrdom that was consummated at Cae­sarea in Palestine: but after him, very many Pre­lates of Churches in that Province, having at the same City chearfully undergone most grievous tortures, exhibited to the Spectatours a relation of illustrious Combats. But others, dis-spirited by reason of their fear, were immediately discou­raged at the very first attaque made against them. Every one of the rest underwent various and inter­changeable sorts of tortures: one was scourged with innumerable stripes, another was racked, had the flesh of his sides scraped off with iron nails, and was loaded with an insupportable burthen of [Page 158] bonds, by reason of which some happened to have [the sinews] of their hands weakened and made feeble. Nevertheless they all endured whatever befell them agreeable to the secret judgment of God. For one being taken by the hand by some others, who led him to the Altar and thrust the impure and detestable sacrifice into his right hand, was dismissed, as if he had sacrificed. Another, who had not in any wise touched [the sacrifice,] yet when others affirmed that he had sacrificed, went silently away. A third, taken up half dead, was cast forth as if he had been so really, and being loosed from his bonds, was computed amongst their number who had offered sacrifice. A fourth, crying out, and making protestation that he would not perform what he was enjoyned by them to do, was stricken on the mouth, and being silenced by a great company of persons purposely appointed upon that account, was forcibly thrust out, al­though he had not sacrificed. See B. 8. Chap. 3. So highly did they every way esteem their being thought to have perfected what they desired! Of all these there­fore, who were so numerous, onely Alphaeus and He was a Deacon of the Church of Gadara; Concer­ning whom we have this passage in the M [...] ­ [...]ologi [...] at the 18th of Novem­ber: The commemo­ration of the holy Martyrs Michaeus, Zacchaeus, Deacon of Gadara, and Alphaeus. The blessed Zacchaeus was led before the tribunal, having an heavy iron-chain about his neck. Vales. Zacchaeus obtained the crown of holy Martyr­dom. Who, after they were scourged, and had had their flesh scraped off with torturing irons, when they had endured most grievous bonds and cruciating pains therein, after various other tor­tures they were put into the stocks, where for four and twenty hours space their feet were distended to the fourth hole, and having confest that there was but one only God, and one King Jesus Christ, as if they had uttered something that was blasphe­mous and impious, they underwent the same sort of punishment with the first Martyr [Procopius,] and were beheaded on the seventeenth day of the month Dius, which day amongst the Romans is be­fore the fifteenth of the Calends of December.

CHAP. II. Concerning Romanus the Martyr.

MOreover, what was done about The Greeks, in their Me­naeum, make men­tion of two Romanus's, both Martyrs; the one, they say, was condemned by Asclepiades the Praefect at Antioch, in the Reign of Galerius: the other was a Deacon of Caesarea (concerning whom Eusebius here speaks) who, as they affirm, suffered under Diocletian. But, in as much as they confess, that both of them suffered on one and the same day, (for they affirm that both of them had their tongues cut out, that they both spoke after they were cut out, and that both of them were afterwards strangled in pri­son,) 'tis plain, that the Greeks mistake in their making of them two distinct Martyrs. I wonder that this opinion of theirs should please Baronius in his notes on the Martyrologie. If there were two Martyrs called by the same name, to wit, Romanus, and if they both suffered Martyrdom on the same day at Antioch, why does Eusebius mention but one here? It will perhaps be answered, that Eusebius was resolved to speak of the Martyrs of Palestine onely in this book, and therefore that he onely mentioned Romanus the Deacon, because he was a Palesti­nian. But Eusebius has made mention of this Martyr in another place, to wit, in his second Book concerning the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, where he acknowledges but one Romanus who was Martyred at Antioch. Vales. Romanus on the very same day at Antioch, does worthily deserve to be commemorated: for he, being born in Palestine, was a Amongst the Primitive Christians, especially in the smaller Towns, because the Clergy were few in number, one and the same Clergy-man performed two or three Offices. Hence 'tis, that in the Acts of Pro­copius the Martyr, (which we related before) Procopius is said to have born three Offices at the same time in the Church of Scythopolis, to wit, the Office of a Reader, of an Interpreter, and of an Exorcist. After the same manner therefore Romanus was both a Deacon, and also an [...]xorcist in the Church of Caesarea. See Vetus Author Question. Veter. & Novi Testament, ch. 101. Vales. Deacon and There was in for­mer times a twofold use of the Exorcists in the Church. For their business was to cleanse both those possessed with de­vils, and also the Catechu­mens; who were exor­cized more than once. For after every ex­amination in their Catechism, they were brought to the Exor­cist ungirt and with their Shoes off, that they might be purged by him. See Cyril. Hierosoly­mit. in pro­catechesi ad Illuminan­dos; and Chrysostom, in his first Homily ad Illuminan­dos, in his first Tome. Vales. Exorcist in the Church of Caesarea: coming to Antioch at that very time when the Churches were demolished; and having seen many Many of these persons had re­nounced Christ, as Eusebius declares in his second Sermon concerning the Resurrection; where he speaks of the tortures inflicted on Romanus, which he mentions not here. Vales. men, wo­men, and children flocking in crouds to the Tem­ples of the Idolls, and offering sacrifice, he judged the sight thereof to be a thing intollerable, and being incited by a zeal for the divine worship, he drew near; and crying out with a loud voice, [began] to rebuke them. Being forthwith apprehended upon account of this his boldness, he demonstrated himself (if ever any other per­son did) to be a most couragious witness of the Truth. For, when the Judge had condemned him to be burnt to death, having gladly received his sentence of condemnation with a cheerfull countenance and a mind most couragiously dispo­sed, he was led to execution. Then, being bound to the stake, and the combustible matter being laid together, whilst the officers, that were about to kindle the fire, waited for the determination of the I suppose he means Galcrius Caesar: for Diocletian made his abode then at Nicomedia. The Caesars, like Apparitours and Officers, went all over the bounds of their own district. Indeed, in that year when the persecution begun, Diocletian lived (together with Ga­lerius) at Nicomedia, in April, as Eusebius attests in his eighth book. Also, a little after the persecution began, when the Imperial Palace a [...] Nicomedia was burnt by Lightning, Diocletian was at that City, as Constantine informs us in his Oration Ad Caetum Sanctorum. Wherefore he could not be at Antioch, when Romanus was condemned to be burnt; which happened about the beginning of the Persecution. For Ro­manus was strangled on the 15th of the Calends of December, after he had lain in prison some months, as Eusebius here attests. Vales. Emperour who was then present, he cryed out, where is the fire [provided] for me? When he had said this, he was by command brought before the Emperour, in order to his being punished with a new sort of punishment, [to wit,] the cutting out of his tongue. Ha­ving most couragiously endured this punishment, he gave a real demonstration to all men, that the divine power is always present with those who undergo any sort of torture whatsoever for Reli­gion, which does mitigate their pains, and corro­borate them with an alacrity of mind. This couragious person therefore being sensible of the newness of his punishment, was in no wise terri­fied, but willingly put forth his tongue, and with a most ready alacrity produced it to those who cut it out. After which punishment he was put into bonds, and being for a long time afflicted in prison, in conclusion (when the This place is in an especial manner to be taken notice of, because it most evidently declares the year wherein Diocletian's Pesecution be­gan. For Eusebius says, that in the first year of the Persecution the Emperours Vicennalia (i. e. the Festivals for his having arrived to the twentieth year of his Reign) were kept; which can only fall on that year, wherein Diocletian was the eighth time Consul, and Maxi­mian the seventh. For, in this year (which was the year of Christ 303.) Diocletian's twentieth year was begun at the fifteenth of the Calends of October; that being the first of Diocletian's Reign, Carinus II. and Numerianus Coss. in the year of Christ 284; as 'tis set forth in the Alexandrian Chronicle. But, there arises no small difficulty from what Eusebius here says, to wit, that Romanus suffered Martyrdom on the 17th day of November, when Diocletians Vicennnlia were kept. Whence it seemes to follow, that the first day of Diocletian's Reign must have been in the month of November, and not in September, as the Alexandrian Chronicle attests. Wherefore, 'tis necessary, that either in our Eusebius, or else in the Alexandrian Chronicle, the name of the month should be mistaken. Unless we say, that Diocletians Vicennalia were kept at Antioch not on the same day which was the first of his Empire, but a little later. Eusebius indeed says (in his Chronicon) that Constantines Vicennalia were kept at Nicomedia, and in the fol­lowing year celebrated at Rome. twentieth year [Page 159] of the Emperours Reign was come, wherein, It was usual a­mongst the Romans, that, on the fifth and tenth years of their Em­perours Reigns, offenders who were guilty of less noto­rious crimes should be discharged from their imprisonment; the Emperours Edict being set forth for that purpose, which they called an Indulgence. See the Cod. Theodos. tit. de indulgentiis criminum. Vales. according to the usual indulgence, liberty was publickly proclaimed to all persons in all places that were in bonds,) he onely, lying in the stocks, and having both his feet distended to the distance of five holes, was strangled, and (according to his desire) was adorned with [the Crown of] Martyrdom. This person being a Palestinian, although he suffered [Martyrdom] without the limits of his own Country, yet deserves to be reckoned amongst the Martyrs of Palestine. These things were after this manner performed in the first year of the Persecution, when it raged against the Prelates onely of the Church.

CHAP. III. Concerning Timotheus, Agapius, Thecla, and eight other Martyrs.

AFterwards, in the second year, when the rage of the Persecution against us was become more violent and sharp, Urbanus being at that time Governour of the Province, the Imperial Edicts having been then first brought, wherein it was by a general command ordered, that all persons in all places and Cities whatsoever should publickly offer sacrifice and incense to the Idols; Timotheus un­derwent innumerable tortures at Gaza, a City of Palestine: after all which he was consumed by a remiss and slow fire, and having exhibited a most genuine proof of his sincere piety towards God, by a patient sufferance under all his torments, he ob­tained the Crown belonging to the sacred and vi­ctorious Champions of Religion. Agapius also, and that Thecla These words [ [...], who lived in our times] are, not without reason, added by Euse­bius. For by them ▪it was his in­tent to manifest, that this Thecla should be distinguished from the other Thecla who was companion to St Paul the Apostle. In the Menaeum, at the 19th of August, this Thecla is called, [...], Byzietis; the meaning whereof I know not. For this Thecla here spoken of was a Palestinian, not born at Bizua a City of Thrace. Yet, it may be, this Thecla was a Thracian▪ for neither were all those, whose Martyrdoms Eu­sebius here relates, Palestinians; nor does he in this book, treat of the Martyrs of Palestine, but of those who suffered Martyr­dom in Palestine. Vales. who lived in our times, having (together with the foresaid Timotheus) gi­ven a demonstration of their most undaunted courage and stedfastness of mind, were condemned to be devoured by wild beasts. Who is he that would not have wondred at the sight of what followed hereupon, or that would not have been astonished at the hearing a relation thereof? For, when the Heathens cele­brated their publick Festi­vals, and [exhibited] their usual shews; there was a great report, that The reading here is, [...]; our rendition whereof is, together with those others whom they had a great esteem for. Christophorson read [...], but took it in the neuter gender; for thus he has rendred it; inter alia quae magnopere ip [...]is in optatis erant ad contemplandum, amongst other things, which they had a great de­sire to be spectatours of. I suppose it to be spoken in the masculine gender; and that he means those more eminent Bestiarii, who amongst the Grecians were termed [...], i. e. the stoutest and strongest sort of men, who let themselves out to combat with the wild beasts before the people in the Amphitheatre. Such a one was he, whom the people in the Amphitheatre at Constantinople called for, in these words, [...]; which words Cassio­dorus (Histor. Tripart, Lib. 2.) thus renders, crudeli bestiae artifex parabolus componatur. Vales. together with those others whom they had a mighty esteem for, the [Christians] also, lately condemned, were to be ex­posed to a combat with the wild beasts [in the Am­phitheatre.] This report therefore being increased and spread every where, six youths, whereof one was born in Pontus▪ by name Timolaus, another born at Tripolis a City of Phoe­nicia whose name was Dionysius, the third was Sub-deacon of the Diospolitane Church▪ his name Romulus; besides the two Egyptians▪ In the Maz. and Med. M. SS. his name is Päesis. In the Greek Me­n [...]logy, (which Canisius published) at the 15th of March, instead of Päesis, he is called Pub­lius▪ Vales. Pausis and Alexander; and another Alexander, name­sake to the former, born at Gaza: [these six young men, I say,] having first bound their hands together, that they might thereby manifest their great readiness and alacrity to [undergo] Mar­tyrdom, ran in great hast to Urbanus, as he was going to the Amphitheatre, and confest themselves to be Christians: and, by their being prepared to [endure] all sorts of tortures, they demonstra­ted, that those who make their boast in the worship of the supream God, can in no wise be terrified at the furious assaults of the wild beasts. The Pre­sident himself, and those who stood round him, having been forthwith struck with no small amaze­ment, [these Confessours] were [ordered to be] shut up in prison. Not many days after two others being added to their number, (one whereof, by name Agapius, having before them undergone horrid and various sorts of tortures, had formerly [been signallized] for several confessions: the other ministred bodily neces­saries to them, his name Dionysius) all these, being now made up eight in number, were behea­ded on one and the same day at Caesarea, [to wit] on the twenty fourth day of the month Dystrus, which precedes the ninth of the Calends of April. At the same time happened a change of the Em­perours, he that had the precedency of all the rest and the next to him in place, [having left off their Imperial attire] put themselves into a private habit: and the affairs of the Empire be­gan to be in an ill posture. The Roman Empire being soon after divided, there brake out an im­placable war between [the Romans] themselves: neither could the divisions, and (which were the consequences thereof) the tumults be made up and appeased, before the Christians throughout the whole Roman Empire had a peace ratified and fir­med to them. For, as soon as that peace (like light after a cloudy and most darksome night,) darted forth its rays upon all men, the publick affairs of the Roman Empire were again restored to their pristine stability, amity, and peace­ableness; all persons recovering that mutual friendliness which had been derived down to them from their Ancestours. But we will give an ex­acter account of these matters at a more oppor­tune place and time. Now we are to prosecute the subsequent series of our narration.

CHAP. IV. Concerning Apphianus the Martyr.

MAximinus Caesar, Christo­phorson ha [...] rendred this place ill; thus he tran­slates it▪ Maximinus Caesar, who by his own power and strength had possest himself of the Empire: as if [...], which is the Greek term here, signified by his own power and strength. Indeed, Maximinus proclaimed him­self Augustus, as our Eusebius relates in Chap. 13. Book 8. But he was made Caesar by Galerius Maximianus. Moreover, Eusebius speaks here of Maximinus▪ whilst he was only Caesar, and of the time when he had that title first conferred on him, to wit, in the second year current of the perfecution, immediately after the resignation of Diocletianus, and Herculius. The import therefore of Eusebi [...]'s words is this, that Maximinus, as soon as he was made Caesar, shewed a proof of his impiety, by a most cruel persecution of the Christians. Wherefore [ [...]] must be rendred [from the very time.] Now, Maximinus was made Caesar in the year of Christ 304, on the Calends of April, as Idatius (in fastis) declares: which agrees very well with the account here given by our Eusebius. For he re [...]ates that Maximi­nus (after the Resignation of Diocletian) was created Caesar in the second year of the persecution; immediately after which promotion (that he might shew his power) he renewed the persecution against the Christians. But this must not be understood of that very year, wherein Maximinus was made Caesar: for during that year (affairs being then in confusion, and Galerius scarce well setled in the Empire) Maximinus was quiet. Therefore Eusebius mentions no Martyrdoms in Palestine during that year. But in the year following, which was the third of the persecution, Maximinus set forth his Edicts against the Christians, and renewed the persecution, as Eusebius expresly relates in this chapter. Vales. from the very time of his coming to the Empire, (as if he would demonstrate to all men the tokens of his innate hatred against God, and of his own impiety▪) attempted a more violent persecution against those of our Religion, than the preceding Emperours [Page 160] [had done.] When therefore no small inquie­tude was impendent on all persons, and they were dispersed some in one place some in another, every one making it his chief business to avoid the dan­ger, and all the Provinces were involved in a most terrible commotion, what expressions can be suf­ficient for us deservedly to set forth, the divine love, and the bold and free confession of God, made by that blessed and truly innocent Lamb, Apphianus the Martyr, who exhibited an admirable example of piety towards the only God, in the sight of all the inhabitants of Caesarea, It is sufficiently apparent that the Greek Text is here cor­rupted; [...] being put instead of [...]; where­fore we have rendred it before the gates, &c. Eusebius confirms this correction hereafter in this cha­pter, where he says, that the dead body of Apphianus, which had been cast into the Sea, swam to the Caesarian shore, hard by the gates of the City. Vales. before the Gates of that City, when he had not fully completed the twentieth year of his age? Indeed, whilst he resided at Berytus, where he had formerly spent much time upon account of [furnishing himself with] He means the Civill Law, and the Latine tongue, the know­ledge whereof was necessary for those that bore Offices in the Magistracy. At Berytus there was a School for Civil Law as many have taken notice from Gregory Thaumaturgus, Eunapius, Non­nus, and others. Hence 'tis, that Eusebius adds the term [...], that is, secular, or mundane litera­ture. Gregorius Nazianzenus (in carm. Nicobuli ad filium) calls Berytus [...], A famous City of Phoenicia, the seat of the A [...]sonian Laws. In the Menolo­gies of the Greeks, at the second of April, Amphianus, with his brother Aedesius, is mentioned to have been instructed in the Christian Religion by Pamphilus the Martyr, at Berytus. Vales. secular literature, (for he had his descent from very rich parents:) 'tis wonder­full to relate how, during his continuance in that City, he subdued youthfull lusts: and having in no wise been de­bauch't in his moralls, either by the vigour and youthful­ness of his body, or the socie­ty of his young companions, he became a lover of tempe­rance; leading an orderly, chast, and Religious life, ac­cording to the [...]; which we have rendred, according to the prescripts of Christianity: [...] seems to be put for [...], congruous or [...] agreeable: which way of expression is frequently used by Eusebius. Vales. prescripts of Christianity, and framing his converse [agreeable there­to.] If it be [supposed] convenient that we should mention his Country, and commend it, because it pro­duced so couragious a cham­pion of piety; we will most readily do it. If any one therefore knows In the Med. M. S. this City is called Arpagas; in the Maz. M. S. Arapagas; in the Fuk. M. S. Harpagas; but in the margin notice is given that it should be [...], with an asperate. I ne­ver met with any thing concer­ning Aragas, a City of Lycia; A­raxa, a City of Lycia is mentio­ned by P [...]olemaeus and Stephanus. And, in the Constantinopolitan Council, amongst the Bishops of the Province of Lycia, who subscribed to that Synod, the last that is recounted is Theanthinus Araxenus: also in the Synod of Chalcedon there is mention of Leontius Bishop of the Araxi. In the Menaeum of the Greeks, Amphianus is said to have been born in Lydia. Vales. Pagas, a City of no mean note in Lycia; there this young man was born. After his return from his studies at Berytus, (his father being promoted to the chiefest place of ho­nour in his own Country,) he was unable to endure the converse of his father, and those that were his relations, because they refused to live according to the san­ctions of Religion: but having been inspired as it were by a divine spirit, and (by reason of his innate desire after Philosophy, or rather after the divine and true wisedom) making small account of the reputed glory of this life, and contemning the delights of the body, he secretly withdrew himself from his relations: and being not at all sollicitous about a daily provision for his sub­sistance, because of his hope and faith in God, he was led by the hand [as it were] to the City of Caesarea, by the divine spirit, where a crown of Martyrdom for Religion awaited him. Being Symeon Metaphrastes, who professes he transcribed the Mar­tyrdom of Apphianus (or, as he calls him, Amphianus) out of Eusebius, has altered this pas­sage, thus, And having been conver­sant with us in divine studies, and instructed in the sacred Scriptures by the great Martyr Pamphilus, he obtained no mean habit of virtue; by which he opened a passage for himself, whereby he procured the crown of Martyrdom. But Euse­bius attests here, that Apphianus was not instructed in the sacred Scriptures by Pamphilus the Mar­tyr, but by himself: which, as I judge, is the truest account. For our Eusebius was a person much learneder than Pamphilus. But the Menaea of the Greeks, and the Menology set forth by Cani­sius, agree with Symeon Metaphra­stes: excepting only in this, which Metaphrastes relates, that Apphi­anus (after he was returned from his studies at Berytus,) when he came to Caesarea, was there in­structed by Pamphilus. But in the Menaea, and in the Menology, Apphianus (with his brother Ae­desius) is said to have been in­structed by Pamphilus at Berytus; no mention being made of Euse­bius. So carefull were the latter Grecians, that the blessed Martyr should not be said to have been instructed by Eusebius Pamphilus, who, as they perswaded them­selves, was an Heretick. Vales. conversant there with us, having in a short time made a great proficiency by rea­ding the sacred Scriptures, and furnished himself with courage of mind by congru­ous exercises of a strict and severe abstinence; at length he made such a glorious con­clusion of his life, as who­ever saw could not but be astonished thereat; and he that shall hear the bare re­lation of it, cannot but de­servedly admire his confi­dence, his fearlesness, his continued earnestness and constancy of mind, and a­bove all the boldness of his attempt, which The reading I judge, should be [ [...],] which contains most evident signs: for it referrs to the foregoing word [ [...], attempt.] Vales. contains most evident signs of a zeal for Religion, and of a spirit more than humane. For when Maximinus renewed the insolencies practised to­wards us, in the third year of our persecution [under Diocletian,] and when the Tyrants Edicts were first sent abroad over all the Pro­vinces, [ordering] the Go­vernours to make it their chief care and business, that all the inhabitants in every City should publickly offer sacrifice; and when the Cri­ers had made proclamation over all the City Caesarea, that the men, together with the women and children, should by the Gover­nours order go to the Temples of the Idols; and moreover when the Tribunes of the Souldiers had summoned every particular person by name our of a written roll; (all the [Christians] every where being put into confusion by this unspeakable storm of afflictions) this foresaid person, (having com­municated to no body what he was about to do, it being unknown to us who lived in the same house with him, and even to the whole military guard that stood round the Governour,) fearlesly approach't Urbanus, as he was offering sacrifice; and, having with an intrepid mind catch't hold on his right hand, stopt him immediately from sacri­ficing. Then, with a divine gravity and confi­dence of mind he prudently advised and exhorted him to desist from that erroneous way [of wor­ship.] For 'tis absurd [said he] to relinquish [the worship] of the one and only true God, and offer sacrifice to Idols and Daemons. This the young man attempted, induced thereto ('tis very probable) by a divine power, which openly pro­claimed [Page 161] as it were by this fact, that the Christians (to wit, those who are truly such) are so far from being withdrawn from the worship of the supream God, which they have once imbided, that they are not only above menaces and (which are the con­sequences thereof) tortures, but also become more confident and fearless in their confessions, with a couragious and intrepid voice freely set forth the truth, and (if it were possible) perswade their persecutours to relinquish their ignorance, and ac­knowledge him who is the only true God. After this, the young man, of whom we speak, was im­mediately (as it was likely [to happen]) torn by the Presidents guards, in such sort as if they had been savage beasts, because of the audacious fact he had committed; and having most coura­giously indured an infinite number of stripes all over his body, was forthwith committed to prison. Where after he had lain a night and a day with both his feet distended in the stocks, on the day following he was brought before the Judge. Then being compelled to offer sacrifice, he demonstra­ted an invincible constancy of mind in undergoing all sorts of pains and horrid tortures; his sides being not once, nor twice, but many times fur­rowed to his very bones and entrails: and he re­ceived so many blows in his face and neck, that they who before had been very well acquainted with him, did not now know him, because his face was so much swell'd. But, when he yielded not at [the suffering of] so many and great tortures, the tor­mentours by the [Presidents] order wrap't up his feet in flax wetted in oyl, and kindled a fire under them. The pains which the blessed [Mar­tyr] was put to thereby, are in my judgment inexpressible. For the fire, having consumed his flesh, penetrated to his very bones: in so much that the whole moysture of his body being melted like wax, was distilled, and descended by drops. But being not overcome even by these tortures, (al­though the adversaries were vanquished, and in a manner wearied out, because of his miraculous fortitude,) he was again put into bonds. On the third day after he was brought before the Judge, and having professed [that he continued in] the same resolution of mind, although he was already half dead, yet he was drowned in the depths of the Sea. What happened immediately hereupon, if we relate it, will, by those who saw it not, be dis­believed as incredible. But although we know assuredly this will so fall out, yet we can in no wise forbear to deliver a full narration hereof to poste­rity, because all the inhabitants of Caesarea in a man­ner were witnesses of what came to pass. Indeed there was no person [of Caesarea,] of what age soever, that was not present at this stupendious spectacle. After therefore they had cast this truly sacred and thrice blessed person into the most un­fathomable abysses (as they supposed) which were in the midst of the Sea, on a sudden there hap­pened an unusual noise and shaking, which made the Sea and [...] is the phrase in the origi­nal; Me­taphrastes thought the shore was meant by these words; and therefore renders it circumstans littus. But the Greeks by this expression do usually mean the Air that surrounds the Earth. Vales. Air about the earth tremble in such a manner, that the very Earth and City were sha­ken by that motion. And at that very moment wherein this wonderfull and sudden Earth-quake happened, the dead body of the divine Martyr was cast up by the Sea (as being unable to con­taine it) before the gates of the City. Such was the Exit, which the admirable Apphianus made, on Friday the second day of the month Xanthicus, which is before the fourth of the Nones of April.

CHAP. V. Concerning Ulpianus and Aedesius Martyrs.

AT the same time, and almost on the same days, a young man in the City of Tyre, by name Ulpianus, after he had been cruelly scourged and endured most grievous stripes, This was the punishment, which the Romans inflicted on Parricides. In Seneca's age (see his 5th Book, Controver. 4. at the latter end) only Serpents were put into the leathern sack (which they termed Culeus) with the Ma­lefactor; afterwards they sowed up an Ape and a Cock with him, and at last a Dog. The offender was first whip't with rods till the bloud came, then sown up after this manner. See Coel. Rhod. B. 11. Chap. 21. The Grecians had a way of putting Criminals to death, by drowning them in the Sea, which they termed [...]; but they made use of a leaden vessell only, into which they put the Malefactor; as ap­pears from Athenaeus, B 14; his words are these, [...], Patroclus therefore, Ptolemie's Governour in the Isle Caunus, took him, and put him into a Leaden vessell, and carried him to the Sea, and drowned him. Neither was this accounted amongst the heaviest sorts of punishment by the Grecians, as appears from Polybius, B. 2. was sown up in the raw hide of an Oxe, together with a Dog and a venemous Serpent, and cast into the Sea: [...], &c. that is, Although Ulpianus suffered not in Palestine, but in Phoenicia, yet because he suffered Martyrdom at the same time, and died by the same sort of punishment that Apph [...]a­nus had inflicted on him, we judged it not unfit to make mention of him here. It is therefore apparent from these words, that Eusebius in this book designed to give an account of the Martyrs of the Province of Palestine only. Vales. Wherefore we thought it agreeable to make mention of this person at [this place wherein we have related] the Martyrdom of Apphia­nus. Some small time after this, Aedesius, brother (not only in respect of God, but by a bodily affinity also,) by the In the Greek Menaeum, at the second day of April, Aedesius is stiled Apphianus's brother by the mothers side. Vales. fathers side to Apphi­anus, after [he had made] very many confessions, and for a long time had been cru­ciated in bonds; after he had been condemned to the mines in Palestine by the Presidents Sentence; and after he had, under all these [tortures,] led a life continually like a Philosopher, in a Philoso­phick habit; (for he had ac­quired far more learning than his brother, in that he had applied his mind wholly to Philosophick literature.) at length, when, at the City of Alexandria, he saw the Judge (who was then examining the Christians) most extra­vagantly insulting over, and enraged against them; one while putting various and most reproachful abuses up­on grave men; at another, delivering women most emi­nent for their chastity, and [...] Virgins that had devoted [...]mselves to God, to Pan­ [...]rs, that they might be de­filedc In the Med. Fuk. and Maz. M. SS. the term is [...], one entire word; which, in my judgment is the better reading. Eusebius does usually call those Christian Virgins by this name, who spontaneously had devoted their virginity to God. Such per­sons the Latines called devotae. For so Ausonius and others term them. Vales. with all sorts of obsce­nity: he attempted the same fact that his brother had done. For, because what was thus performed seemed to him intolerable, with a valiant boldness he ap­proach't the The explication of this place is to be had from the Menaeum of the Greeks; where Aedesius is said to have struck Hierocles Prefect of Egypt (in the interim of his raging against the Christians) with his fist. The words there are these; [...]; i. e. But Aedesius, who was [condemned] to work in the mines of Brass, having seen (at Alexandria in Egypt) Hierocles the President punishing the Christians, he accounted him a despicable person, and struck the President with own hand. Wherefore, in this place of Eusebius, the term [...] denotes the blows given to the President; and [...] imports the reproachful language which Aedesius gave him. Both which are intimated by Eusebius in these words [...], by his words and deeds. Epiphanius and Lactantius mention this Hierocles, Prefect of Egypt, who was famous for the great slaughter he made amongst the Christians. This was the Hi [...]rocles, against whom our Eusebius wrote a book. Vales. Judge, and ha­ving by his words and deeds surrounded him with shame [Page 162] and ignominy, and after that, most couragiously endured various sorts of tortures, he was thrown into the Sea, and ended his life after the same man­ner that his brother did. These things happened thus to Aedesius, although (as I said before) some small time after.

CHAP. VI. Concerning the Martyr Agapius.

MOreover, in the fourth year of the Perse­cution against us, on the twentieth day of the month Dius, (which is before the twelfth of the Calends of December,) being Friday, such [a Martyrdom] was performed in the same City of Caesarea, as worthily deserves to be recorded in writing, Maximinus the Tyrant being himself pre­sent, and exhibiting publick shews to the people because of his Birth-day. Whereas it was an an­cient custom, that (if at any time) in the pre­sence of the Emperours, splendid shews and such as were more pleasing to the mind should be exhi­bited to the spectatours, (new and strange specta­cles, such as were different from the usuall sights [being at such a time procured, which consisted] partly of beasts brought out of India, Aethiopia, or some other place; and partly of men, who, having before accustomed themselves to certain He means the Pantomimi, Mimicks that used antick, filthy, and obscene gestures; the Pegma­tarii, those that managed the Ma­chines and Images in their Plaies; the Contigeri, Pole-carriers; and Funambuli, Rope-dancers; and such other Artists, which were made use of by those that were at the charge to exhibit shews to the people. See Claudianus in his book, De Consulatu Theodori. Vales. Artificial exercises of their bodies, entertained the spe­ctatours with sights that cre­ated in them a wonderfull delight and pleasure;) then also, because the Emperour himself [was at the charge of] exhibiting those shews, something that was magni­ficent, and more wonderfull than usual, must necessarily be made use of in those sights. What therefore was this? A Martyr of our Religion was brought forth, to combat for the only true worship of God. His name was Agapius, the At first I thought the reading here should be [...], in the second year: for so Eusebius had said above in Chap. 3. But the vulgar reading [to wit [...], the second of that name) is best, for he is called Agapius the Second, to distinguish him from the former Agapius, who had suffered two years before; concerning whom Eusebius speaks in the said third Chapter. Vales. Second of that name: the first (as we manife­sted a little before) was, together with Thecla, con­demned to be devoured [...] the wild-beasts. He there­fore (having before that time been This place is corrupted, and imperfect. Christophorson reads [ [...], brought out of Prison,] which reading is not amiss. But I think there is a whole line omitted here; which I thus make up [...] [ [...],] [Brought] out of Prison [wherein he had been con­fined now three years.] Agapius was cast into Prison at the begin­ning of the second year of the Per­secution. Therefore, this was the third year of his confinement. Vales. thrice [brought] out of Prison, [wherein he had been confined now three years,] and often times Concerning this custom of leading the Criminals about the Stadium, see book. 5. chap. 1. z.) led in pomp about the Stadium with those that were Male­factours; the Judge, after various menaces, putting him off to other combats, either out of compassion to him, or because he had hopes that he would alter his resolu­tion,) was then produced, (the Emperour himself be­ing there present,) being re­served as it were on set pur­pose for that opportunity, that that saying of our Savi­our's (which by his divine knowledge he foretold his disciples) might be accom­plished in him, that they should be brought before Kings for their testimony of him. He is therefore brought into the midst of the Stadium, together with a certain criminal; who was said to be guilty of murthering his master. After this, he who had killed his master, being exposed to the wild-beasts, obtained mercy and compassion [from the Em­perour,] almost after the same manner that Ba­rabbas did in our Saviour's time. At this, the whole Amphitheatre resounded with Shouts and Accla­mations of joy, because the Emperour had out of his compassion saved a bloudy murtherer, and vouchsafed him honour and liberty. But this champion of Religion is first called for by the Tyrant; after which, having, with the promise of liberty, desired him to renounce the profession [of Christianity,] he professed with a loud voice▪ that (not for any crime but) upon account of the worship of the framer of all things, with ala­crity and pleasure, he would couragiously under­goe what [punishments] soever should be in­flicted on him. And, having said thus, he annexed deeds to his words, ran to meet a Bear which was let loose against him, and most willingly of­fered himself to be devoured by that beast. After the beast had torn him, having some breath left in him, he was carried back to Prison; where, af­ter he had lived one day, on that following, stones were hanged at his feet, and he was drowned in the midst of the Sea. Such was the Martyrdom of Agapius.

CHAP. VII. Concerning the Virgin Theodosia, and concerning Domninus, and Auxentius, Martyrs.

MOreover, the fifth year of the persecution being now current, on the second day of the month Xanthicus, which is before the fourth of the Nones of April, In the M. S. Acts of the pas­sion of The­odosia, she is said to have suf­fered not on Easter-day, but only, on a Sunday. Vales. on the very Lords day, the day of our Saviour's Resurrection, and also at Caesarea, Theodosia, a Virgin born at Tyre, one that was a believer and a most modest maid, not eighteen years old compleat, approach't some prisoners, (who were Confessours of the Kingdom of Christ, and sate before the [...]; so the Greek words it. Christophorson renders it, ante tribunal considen­tibus, sate before the tribunal: which version I do not approve of. I have rendred it, before the Praetorium; i. e. before the palace of the President. For those pri­soners stood before his Palace, waiting, until the President (be­fore whom they were to be brought) came forth to the tri­bunal. This rendition is con­firmed by the following words. Vales. Prae­torium,) both to salute them amicably, and also (as 'tis probable) to request them that they would be mindfull of her when they came to the Lord. Having done this, as if she had committed some nefarious and impious fact, the Souldiers lay hold of her, and carry her before the President. He, in re­gard he was a furious per­son and one of a most cruel temper of mind, [ordered] that she should be cruciated with sharp and most horrid tortures, and that her sides and breasts [should be furrowed] to her very bones; [after this] breath being still left in her, having with a pleasant and chearfull countenance undergone all these tortures, by the Presidents command she was drowned in the Sea. After he had done with her, he went upon [the examination of] the other Confessours, all whom he condemned to the Brazen Mines at Phenos in Palestine. Furthermore, on the fifth day of the month Dius, that is (according to the Roman account) on the Nones of November, in the same City, to wit, Caesarea, the said Presi­dent condemned Silvanus (who then was a Pres­byter and a Confessor, but some small time after [Page 163] was honoured with a Bishoprick, and happened to finish his life by Martyrdom) and some others that were his companions (after they had given demonstration of a most resolute courage and con­stancy in behalf of Religion) to labour in the same mines of Brass; having first given order, that the flexures of their [...], flexures of their feet; that's the import of the Greek: Valesius renders it, pedum jun­ctur [...], the joynts of their feet. feet should be seared with a red hot iron, and so rendred infirm and useless. At the same time that this sentence was pronounced against them, he condemned Domninus (a man very famous for innumerable other con­fessions, who for his singular freedom [in speak­ing] was much taken notice of by all persons throughout Palestine) to be burnt alive. After he [had been thus punished,] the same Judge, (a crafty inventour of mischief, and one that stu­died new devices and designes [to extirpate] the doctrine of Christ,) found out such sorts of pu­nishments for the worshippers of God, as were never heard of before. He condemned three [and compelled them] to See the following chapter; from whence we are informed, that those who were condemned to such combats, were delivered to the Procurators of Caesar, who caused them to practise and exer­cise daily, that so at last they might be fit to engage in a combat. Vales. fight with one another in such a sort as the Champions usually did: Auxentius, a ve­nerable and holy old man, was by him condemned to be de­voured by the wild beasts. Again, he [gave order] that some, who were arrived to the compleat age and stature of men, should be cut and made Eunuchs, and then condemned them to the same Mines. He shut up others in Prison, after they had undergone the sharpest tortures. Amongst which number was Pamphilus, my dea­rest companion, a person that was the most emi­nent of all the Martyrs in our age for his singular virtue and piety: Urbanus first made tryall of his skill in Rhetorick and Philosophick literature, after that he compelled him to offer sacrifice; which when the Martyr refused to do, and [Ur­banus] perceived that he despised his menaces, he was exceedingly exasperated, and gave order that he should be tormented with the acutest sorts of torture. Moreover, this most enraged [...]rbanus. man, (being in a manner satiated with the flesh of the Martyrs sides, which he [had caused to be torn off] with torturing irons, whereof he made a con­tinued and reiterated use, pertinaciously desiring thereby to get the victory [over the Martyr] having after all these tortures, procured nothing but shame and ignominy for himself,) at length ordered him to be cast into Prison amongst the other Confessours therein confined. But, what sort of punishment this person (who after so fierce a manner insulted over the Martyrs of Christ,) was to expect, would be inflicted on him at the divine Tribunal, for his cruelty towards the Saints, is easily known from those beginnings [thereof which he underwent] in this life. Immediately after those audacious cruelties which he had practised towards Pamphilus, the divine vengeance forthwith seized him, whilst he was as yet possest of the Government. Which on a sudden, in one nights space, stript him (who but the day before sate as Judge upon a lofty Tribunal, was attended with a Military Guard, governed the whole Pro­vince of Palestine; who also was companion to the Tyrant himself, for he was his chief favourite, and did usually eat at the same table with him) of all these great places and preferments, and re­duced him to a disconsolate and helpless condition; clouded him with ignominy and shame in the sight of those very persons, who had formerly admired him as their Governour; proposed him to the whole Nation, over which he had been Ruler, as a miserable and dis-spirited wretch, pouring forth effeminate intreaties and supplications; and lastly, constituted Maximinus himself (of whose favour he had in former times bragged and boasted, having been dearly beloved by him by reason of the cruelties he practised towards us Christians) his inexorable and most severe Judge in the very City of Caesarea. For, after many reproaches, which he suffered upon account of those crimes, of which he was convict, the Emperour himself pronounc't sentence of death against him. But thus much we have said by the by. There may happen a seasonable opportunity, wherein we shall be more at leisure to relate the exits and calami­tous deaths, by which those impious wretches, (especially Maximinus and those about him who were his advisers,) that were the greatest sticklers in the Persecution against [...], finished their lives.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning other Confessours, and concerning the Martyrdom of Valentina and Paul.

WHen the storm [of persecution] had now without any intermission raged against us untill the sixth year, [there was] a very great number that were Confessours of the divine Re­ligion, who [...], heretofore, must be referred to the verb [...] lived; not to the term [ [...], had its appellation] as Christophorson thought; who ren­ders this place thus; in loco Por­phyrite appellato, qui jam ante [...] ex ven [...] lapidis qu [...] ibi nascitur, nomen d [...]xerat; i. e. in a place called Porphyrites, which had be­fore, gotten its name from a vein of stone, which is there dug out. Vales. heretofore had lived in Thebaïs, at Porphy­rites, a place that had its ap­pellation from the name of the Marble dug out there: of which [company] an hundred men, (wanting three,) together with their wives and very small chil­dren, were sent to the Pre­sident of Palestine. Con­cerning all which persons, after they had made their confession of God [the Framer] of all things, and of Christ, Firmilianus the President (who was sent thither as successour to Urbanus,) gave order, agreeable to the Em­perours command, that they should have those very sinews of their left legs, by which they bent their knees, [...]eared in two with red-hot-irons; and that their right eyes, together with the membranes and balls thereof should be first cut out with swords, and after that [their eye-holes:] [...]eared even to the very bottome with red-hot-irons. Af­ter which, he ordered they should be sent to work in the Mines that were in the Province, that they might be worn out there with labours, and mi­series. Nor did we behold these persons only undergoing such punishments, but those Palesti­nians also; (who, as we manifested a little be­fore, were condemned to practise the Champions exercises, in order to their being made fit to en­gage in the Gladiatours Combats;) because they would not endure, either to receive those Provi­sions which were allowed them out of the Imperial treasury, or to practise such exercises as were ne­cessary to render them accomplish't Combatants. For which reason they were brought not only be­fore the He means, as I judge, the Procuratours of the company of the Gladiatours, and of the morning Ex­ercises; of whom there is frequent mention in▪ the old Inscriptions. For the Gladiatours, that were maintained by stipends paid out of the Imperial Exchequer, were committed to their care, and they gave them their allowances out of the Treasury. Vales. Procuratours, but Maximinus him­self: and, having given a demonstration of their [Page 164] invincible constancy in the confession [of Christ,] and of their couragiousness in enduring famine and scourges, they suffered the same punishments with the forementioned persons; some other Confessours in the City of Caesarea being added to their number. Soon after these, others were taken at the City Gaza, Christophorson supposed these persons to be Priests and Dea­cons, who had convened the peo­ple to hear the sacred Scriptures read: which at that time they were compelled to do in private houses. For, their Churches and Oratories being then demolished, the Christians had only private­houses to Assemble themselves in. Vales. who were Assem­bled to hear the sacred Scri­ptures read, some of whom suffered the same tortures in their feet and eyes with the forementioned persons; but others of them under-went more acute and horrid tor­ments in the sides of their bodies. One of which num­ber, as to her Sex a woman, but a person of a masculine and couragious temper of mind, unable to endure the menaces of ravish­ment; having uttered some expressions against the Tyrant, (because he committed the Govern­ment [of Provinces] to such cruel Judges,) was first scourged: then, being hung up a great heighth on [an Engin of] wood, she was tor­tured in the sides of her body. But when the of­ficers, appointed for that purpose, did, by the Judges order, apply their tortures to her with a most continued and exquisite vehemency, ano­ther woman, who (like the former) had taken upon her the vow of virginity, (as to the com­posure of her body she was indeed no very taking object, and her aspect was despicable, but she was endowed with a couragious temper of mind, and was corroborated with a valour above her Sex, and far excelled those Championesses amongst the Grecians so much famed for their freedom in speaking;) being unable to endure the sight of those merciless, cruel, and inhumane practises, cried out with a loud voice to the Judge, out of the midst of the crowd, How long will you thus unmercifully torture my Sister? The Judge, highly exasperated by that expression, forthwith gave command the woman should be laid hold on. She was then haled forth before him: and That is, having ac­knowled­ged her self to be a Christian. having assu­med to herself our Saviours venerable appellation, first she was sollicited by kind words to offer sa­crifice: which when she refused to do, they drew her by force before the Altar: But she, behaving her self like her self, retained her former alacrity of mind, with an intrepid and undaunted foot trampled upon the Altar, and overturned that, to­gether with He means the Frankin­cense, &c. Vales. what lay upon it. Upon which ac­count the Judge, enraged like a Savage beast, first gave order, that she should suffer more and grea­ter tortures in her sides, than any one had before undergone: [for] he seemed in a manner de­sirous to gorge himself with her raw flesh. But when his rage was satiated, he ordered they should both (namely this last with her whom she called sister) be fastned together, and condemned them to be burnt to death; the This Vir­gins name is wanting here: But we will sup­ply this de­fect, from the Greci­an Menology; where this passage occurs, at the 15th of July: on the same day, the Holy Martyrs, Valentina and Thea, which were Egyptians, being brought to the City Dio Caesarea before Firmilianus the Judge, made confession of Christs Name, who is our God; after which, their left feet being burnt, and their right eyes pulled out, they were killed with a sword, and their bodies burnt. But this account disagrees with our Eu­sebius's relation here. For he says, the one was born at Gaza, the other at Caesarea: and he makes no mention of the burning of their feet, or of the pulling out their right eyes. Vales. former of these per­sons, 'tis said, was born in the Country of the Gazites: you must understand that the other, well known to most men by the name of Valentina, had her original extract at Caesarea. But with what expressions can I deservedly set forth that Martyrdom (which followed immediately here­upon,) wherewith the thrice-blessed Paul was adorned? This person, having had sentence of death pronounced against him at that very interim these Virgins were condemned, when he was to be put to death, entreated the Executioner (who stood ready to cut off his head) to allow him a short space of time. Having obtained his request, with a clear and audible voice he first prayed for all those who were professours of the Christian Religion, beseeching God, that he would be re­conciled to them, and quickly bestow on them liberty and security: then he supplicated for the Jews access to God by [the faith of] Christ: after this, he proceeded in an orderly method, putting up the same petitions even for the Samari­tans; and besought God for the Heathens, that they, now entangled in errour and an ignorance of God, might arrive to an acknowledgment of him, and undertake the [profession of] the true Religion; neither did he [in his petitions] omit to mention the promiscuous crowd that surroun­ded him. After all these (O the great and ineffa­ble patience and mildness of his mind!) he be­sought the supream God for the very Judge by whom he had been condemned to die, for the Emperours, and also for the Executioner (who stood ready to strike off his head,) both in the hearing of him himself, and of all those also that were present, beseeching [God] that the sin they committed [by taking away his life] might not be imputed to them. Having with a loud voice made these petitions, and melted almost all that were present into compassion and tears, because he was unjustly put to death, In the Fuk. & Sa­vil M. SS. instead of [ [...], neverthe­less he made him­self ready] the read­ing is [ [...], &c. as the usual manner was, &c.] which reading, in my judg­ment, is not to be despised. Mention is made of this Paul's Martyr­dom, in the Menology, at the fifteenth of July. Vales. nevertheless he made himself ready, and, yielding his naked neck to be cut asunder by the sword, he was crowned with divine Martyrdom, on the twenty fifth day of the month Panemus, that is, before the eighth of the Calends of August. Such was the exit of these [Martyrs.] Not long after, an hundred and thirty Champions, of the same country, to wit, Egypt, admirable for their confession of Christ, having by Maximinus's order undergone the same calamitous [tortures] in their eyes and feet with those formerly mentioned who suffered in Egypt, were condemned and sent away, part of them to the forementioned Mines in Pale­stine, and part to those in the Province of Cilicia.

CHAP. IX. That the Persecution was afresh renewed: and concerning Antoninus, Zebina, Germanus, and other Martyrs.

NOw, after such Valiant Exploits as these, performed by Christ's noble Martyrs; when the flame of Persecution was somewhat abated, and, as it were, extinguished by their sacred bloud; when those in Thebaïs (condem­ned for [their confession of] Christ to labour in the Mines there,) were permitted to enjoy rest and liberty; and when we hoped to see some few calme and serene days: then did The Devil. He (who had gotten the power of persecuting) reassume his rage against the Christians, upon what account or by what impulse, I know not. For, on a sudden, Maximinus's Edicts against us were sent to all places throughout every [Page 165] Province: and the Presidents and I judge, he means the Praefect of the Prae­torium: for at that time they took care of Military matters. Indeed, Eusebius's fol­lowing words are a sufficient evi­dence, that the Praefect of the Praetorium is meant here: for he speaks of the injunctions, and pub­lick orders given to the Curators, Magistrates, and Tabularii of e­very City: which Orders were issued out by the Praefect of the Praetorium only; as might be made appear from several places. See Book 9. Chap. 1. & 9. where Eusebius speaks of Sabinus Prae­fect of the Praetorium to Maxi­min. Prefect of the Praetorium by injunctions, Letters, and Publick Or­ders excited the See Book. Chap. 11. note (b.) Curators in every City, the Magistrates, and These Officers had in their custody the publick Tables, or Rolls of the Cities, and look't after the accounts of the Tribute. They were first called Numerarii: afterwards Valens made a Law, that they should be called Tabu­larii. See Valesius's notes on Amm. Marcell. Book. 28. pag. 348. Tabularii to put in Execution the Imperial Edict, Instead of [ [...],] as it is in Robert Stephens's Copy; in the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savill: M. SS. the reading is [ [...] which contained an Order that, &c.] which is the better reading: for Eusebius here re­lates the Contents of Maximin's Edict. Vales. which contained an Order, that the decayed Idol-Tem­ples should with all diligence be repaired; that all persons, men, women, servants and young children should be compelled to do sacrifice, and by all means imaginable for­ced to eat part of the flesh which had been offered; that the provisions exposed to sale in the Markets should be de­filed with such things as had been sacrificed; and that some should be ordered to sit and watch before the [Publick] Baths, to the end they might pollute such as came to cleanse themselves therein, with the execrable sacrifices. Whilst these things were after this manner put in execution, the anxieties of the Christians, as it was likely, were renewed and in­creased: yea, the Gentiles that were unbelievers [look't upon] what was done to be intollerable, and condemned these barbarities, as absurd and too outragious: for, e­ven to them such actions seemed abominable and odi­ous. When [therefore] such a fierce storm [of persecution] was impendent on all persons every where, the divine power of our Saviour did again infuse so great a courage and confidence into his Champions, that, when no body induced or urged them to it, they contemned these high menaces of their Adversaries. Wherefore, three believers with a joynt consent rush in upon the President then offering sacrifice to Idols, and call out to him to desist from his errour: for there is [said they] no other God, but He that is the Framer and Maker of all things. Being hereupon ask't who they were, they boldly profest them­selves to be Christians: at which Firmilianus was highly exasperated, and passed sentence of death upon them, Eusebius notes this, as a thing new, and unusual; not that he designed to praise Fir­milianus the Presi­dents cle­mency, be­cause he did not torture the Mar­tyrs; but he would hereby shew the precipitan­cy and rage of the man; in regard he commanded, the Martyrs (who had provoked and confuted him) should be immediately led away to be put to death, without suffer­ring any tortures before their execution; as the common usage was. For the Roman Judges did usually torture the Christian Martyrs before they dispatch't them, to the end those valiant Champions might not finish their lives by too easie a death. Nor was this usually done to the Martyrs only; but generally as often as any hainous offenders were brought to examination, they were first tortured. And although the guilty person confes't the fact, yet did not the Judge presently order him to be releas't from his tortures; but continued to inquire out the consequences: for example, how often he had done the fact, with what weapons, and in what places: then he questioned him about his companions and accomplices. See Tertullian, in his book Ad Na­tiones; and in his Apologetick, chap. 2. Vales. without inflicting on them any previous tortures. One of these was a Presbyter, by name In the Greeks Menology, this man is called Antonius, where (be­sides Zebinas and Germanus) there is a fourth companion of theirs named, to wit, Nicephorus. For the 12th day of November this passage occurs: the birth-day of the holy Martyrs Antonius and his fellows, who were [put to death] in the times of Maximinus. Antonius was an old man; Nicephorus, Zebinas, and Germanus were in the flower of their age. They were taken at Caesarea and after they had boldly con­fessed Christ, were slain. Here you see, the Authour of the Menology has rendred [...] an old man, not a Presbyter. Vales. Antoninus; the name of the second was Zebinas, by Country an Eleutheropolitane; the third was called Germanus. On the thirteenth day of the month Dius, that is, on the Ides of November, all this was done to these persons. On the same day they had a fellow-traveller ad­ded to their number, a woman of Scythopolis, by name In the Greek Menology she is called Manatho▪ Vales. Ennathas, who was adorned with the Eusebius means a little Mitre of purple-coloured-wool; which was the badge of profes't Virgi­nity, as Optatus informs us, in his sixth book. Vales. Badge of Virginity. She had not in­deed done what the former [three] did, but was car­ried by force and set before the Judge. Therefore, af­ter she had been scourged and most grosly abused; (all which injurious usages were audaciously per­petrated, without any order from the superiour Magistracy, by one of the Tribunes in the neigh­bourhood, called Maxys, a man worse than his name, one indeed that was stout and of an undaunted courage, but as to his Morals, in all respects very impious, of a cruel disposition, and odious to all his acquaintance. This fellow stript the blessed virgin stark naked, (in such a manner that she was covered only from her loyns down to her feet, but the rest of her body was bare;) led her round the City Caesarea, and look't upon it as a piece of gallantry to drag her through all the Market­places in the City, and scourge her) after [I say] she had endured so many stripes, having given a demonstration of her most undaunted courage and constancy of mind before the Presidents Tri­bunal, the Judge commanded she should be burnt alive. This The Pre­sident. Man improved his inhumanity and rage, shown towards Gods worshippers, to the heighth, and transgrest even the Laws of Nature, for he was not ashamed of denying burial to the dead bodies of those sacred persons. Upon which account he gave order, that the dead bodies (which were exposed in the open Air, to be devoured by wild-beasts,) should be carefully guarded night and day: and you might have seen for many days together no small number of men, busily obeying this beastly and barbarous order: some of whom (as if this had been a matter of high concern and moment) watched on a Tower, that the dead might not be stolen away. Also, the wild-beasts, dogs, and fowls that preyed on flesh, scattered here and there pieces of mens bodies: and the whole City was strewed all over with mens bowels and bones. So that, nothing did ever seem more cruel and horrid, even to those who before had been our enemies; all persons bewailing not so much their calamitous condition towards whom these things were done, as the abuse that was put upon themselves, and on manking in general. For, even to the very gates [of the City] such a spe­ctacle was proposed to publick view, as surpassed all the bounds of expression, and exceeded any the most tragical relation; [to wit] the flesh of mens bodies, which were devoured not in one place, but lay scattered every where. Yea, some affirmed they saw limbs of men, whole bodies, and pieces of bowels even within the City. After these [horrid butcheries] had been practised for many days together, there happened this miracle. The weather was fair, the air clear, and the whole face of heaven most serene and bright; when, on a sudden, from all the columns, which under prop't the publick Galleries throughout the City, there fell many drops, in the form of tears: and the Market-places and streets, (no moisture having faln from the Air,) were wet and besprinkled with water which came from an unknown place. In so much that a report was immediately spread [Page 166] amongst all people, that the earth, unable to bear the horrid impieties then committed, did shed tears in an inexplicable manner; and that the stones and senseless matter wept at what was done, to reprove the barbarous and unmercifull disposi­tions of men. This thing will, I doubt not, be lookt upon as fabulous and a ridiculous story by succeeding generations: but they did not account it such, who had the certainty thereof confirmed to them by the authority of those times in which it happened.

CHAP. X. Concerning Peter the Asceta, Asclepius the Mar­cionite, and other Martyrs.

ON the fourteenth day of the following month, called Apellaeus, which is before the nineteenth of the Calends of January, some other Egyptians, (going to minister to the Con­fessours in Cilicia) were apprehended by those persons, that were set at the gates [of the City] to examine such as passed by: part of whom re­ceived the same sentence with those they were going to minister to, having their eyes and feet rendred useless. But three of them were put into bonds at the City Ascalon, where after they had given an admirable demonstration of their courage, they finished their lives by a different sort of Mar­tyrdom. One of them, by name Ares, was burnt to death: the other two, whose names were In the Greek this mans name is Promus: but, I sup­pose, it should be Probus. For I ne­ver met with such a proper name as Promus. This mi­stake a­rose from hence; in ancient M. SS. Be­ta is usual­ly written like My. In the Fuk. and Savil M. SS. 'tis Probus. Vales. Probus and Elias, were beheaded. On the ele­venth day of the month Audynaeus, which is before the third of the Ides of January, Mention is made of this person in the Greek Menea, at the 14th of October; although Eusebius says he suffered on the 3d of the Ides of January. In the Meneum he is called Auselamus: But, in the Menology Anselamus is, by a mistake, put for Auselamus, or Abseldmus: the import of the passage there is this: On the same day is the com­memoration of the holy Martyr Petrus Anselamus of Eleutheropolis, who being in the flower of his age, and of a vigorous mind, behaved himself most admirably in the conflicts he underwent for Religion; and, having despised earthly things, was by sire offered up as a victim well pleasing to God, in the sixth year of Diocletian's and Maximian's Empire. In which passage, this is observable, that the sixth year of Diocletian's Empire is put for the sixth year of the persecution. Vales. Peter the Asceta, called also Apselamus, (who came from Aneas a village that lies near to Eleutheropolis,) being refined by fire like the purest gold, exhibited an illustrious proof of his faith in God's Christ, at the City Caesarea. For when the Judge and those about him intreated him earnestly to be compassionate towards himself, and take pity upon his own youthfullness and vigour; he con­temned [their exhortations,] and preferred his confidence in the supream God before all things, yea even life it selfe. Together with this person [suffered] one Asclepius, (reported to have been a Bishop of the Sect of the Marcio­nites, out of a zeal to piety, (as he thought,) but such an one as was not according to know­ledge,) and finished his life in the same fiery pile. These things were performed after this manner.

CHAP. XI. Concerning Pamphilus, and twelve other Mar­tyrs.

Symeon Metaphra­stes has transcribed this whole relation of the Mar­tyrdom of Pamphilus and his com­panions, out of our Eusebius; adding some things, and altering others, as he usually does. But he seems to have been furnished with more perfect copies of Eusebius, than those we now have which will manifestly appear to the Rea­der; who may meet with Meta­phrastes's account hereof in that Latine version of him, which Li­pomanus and Surius put forth▪ Tome the third, a [...] the first of June; pag. 139. Edit. Venet. Anno. 1581. Vales. THe time now calls upon me to Record that great and famous spectacle, which they [ex­hibited] who were perfected by Martyrdom to­gether with Pamphilus, [a person] whose name and memory I have a great ho­nour and high esteem for. They were in all twelve, being vouchsafed a He means the Minor Pro­phets, who were twelve in num­ber: this passage is more clearly exprest in Metaphrastes, thus: It is worth our while to admire the number of the men, which represents a certain Prophetick and Apostolick grace. For, it happened that they were in all twelve; of the same number with the Patriarchs, Pro­phets and Apostles, as we are in­formed. Vales. Prophe­tick, or rather Apostolick, grace, and equall to them in number, Pamphilus was their Principal, the only person a­mongst them that was ador­ned with the honour of a Presbytership in the Church at Caesarea: This passage also is more per­fect in Metaphrastes, after this man­ner: He was Pamphilus, a man tru­ly pious, loving and friendly to­wards all men, really demonstrating the truth of his name; [the import of Pamphilus, is, friend to all men:] the ornament of the Church at Cae­sarea, &c. See Lipomanus and Su­rius's version of Metaphrastes, a [...] the fore-cited place. Vales. A man emi­nent for all manner of vir­tue, even throughout his whole life; [whether we consider] his renunciation and contempt of the world; or the liberal contributions [he made] of his goods to those that were necessitous; or his disregard of worldly preferments and expectati­ons; or lastly, his Philoso­phick, severe, and Ascetick course of life. But, he was most especially eminent, even beyond all men in our times, for his earnest and unweari­ed studies in the sacred Scri­ptures, for his indefatigable assiduity about those things he proposed to himself to do, and for the good offices he did to his relations and all other persons that made their addresses to him. This per­sons other virtues and egregious performances, which require a larger relation, we have already comprized in three books, being a peculiar work which we wrote concerning his Life. If therefore any are desirous of knowing these things more fully, we remit them thither; at present In the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS. 'tis [ [...], let us pro­secute] in the Impara­tive mood. Moreover, hence we may make this mani­fest col­lection, to wit, that this Book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine was Euse­bius's own work, writ­ten by him after his Books con­cerning Pamphilus's Life, and after his Ecclesiastick History. Vales. let us prosecute our subsequent narration concerning the Martyrs. The second person, after Pamphilus, that entred the combat, was Valens, a There may be a double meaning given of these words. For the import of them may be, either that Aelia was Valens's country, or that he was a Deacon of the Church of Aelia. Symeon Metaphrastes followed this latter sence, as appears from his words. The like am­biguity I took notice of before, book 5. chap. 1. note (o) where we spoke concerning Sanctus a Deacon of Vienna. Vales. Deacon of Aelia, honourable for his holy gray hairs, and as to his aspect a venerable old man; better skilled in the sacred Scriptures than any of the rest. For he had imprinted them in his memory so perfectly, 'Tis easily discernable, that the Greek Text is here corrupted; I suppose it may be thus amended; [...] which reading we have followed in our version; and it agrees with Symeon Metaphrastes's interpretation, as 'tis evident from Gentianus Hervetus's translation in Lipomanus's Edition at the month of February; see note (a) in this chapter. But Hervetus has rendred [...], to get by heart; whereas that term signifies, to recite by heart, as we observed before. Vales. that no difference could be discerned between his reading out of a book, and repeating by heart, whole pages of any part of Sacred Writ. The third person, famous amongst them, was Paul, born at the City Jamnia, a man very fervent and zealous in acting, and filled with a warmth and ardour of spirit: before his Martyrdom, he had been en­gaged in the combat of confession, having endured the fearing [of his flesh] with red hot irons. After these persons had spent two years time in prison, the arrival of some other Egyptian bre­thren was the occasion of their Martyrdom, who [Page 167] also suffered with them. These Egyptians had accompanied the Confessours sent into Cilicia, to the Mines there. As they were returning to their own country, at the entrance of the gates of Cae­sarea they were examined (in the same manner with those before mentioned) by the guard (men of a barbarous disposition) who they were, and whence they came; and, having concealed no­thing of the truth, as if they had been Malefactours taken in the very act, they were put into bonds. They were five in number; and when they were brought before the Tyrant, and had spoken boldly and freely in his presence, they were forthwith com­mitted to prison. The next day (which was the 19th of the month Peritius, according to the Roman ac­count before the 14th of the Calends of March,) order was given, that they, together with Pamphilus and his forementioned companions, should be brought before the Judge. In the first place, he made tryal of the Egyptians invincible constancy, by all sorts of tor­ments, and various and new in­vented engines [of torture.] When ' [...] (the term here used) seems to be taken passive­ [...]y, for [...]. For Eusc­bius's meaning is, that Firmili­anus the Judge was well versed in passing such sentences, and in ex­tracting examinations by tortures. But, because the same term is taken in an active sense hereafter in this chapter, it ought also to be taken so here. By the term [ [...]] Eusebius means, the scourges and tortures. Vales. he had made use of these cruelties towards the chief of these persons, first he asked him who he was. After he had heard him give himself the name of some Prophet in­stead of his proper name; (for they made it their business to call themselves by names diffe­rent from those given them by their Parents, which were perhaps the names of Idols; therefore you might have heard them name themselves Elias, Jere­miah, Isaiah, Samuel, or Daniel, representing not only by their actions, but by their proper names also, the true and genuine Israel These words [ [...], of God] are wanting in the Med. M. S. Eu­sebius's meaning is, that those Aegypti­ans who gave themselves the names of Israelites, or Jews, did both by their actions and names represent the true and genuine Israel, and those Jews, who were inwardly such. Vales. of God, which [consists] of those that are Eusebius alludes to that pas­sage in St Paul, (Rom. 2. 28, 29.) where the Apostle makes two sorts of Jews: some that were Jews [...], outwardly; others that were such [...], inwardly: the former, as he af­firms, are not truly Jews, because they observed the bodily ceremo­nies only of the Law: the latter are really Jews; whose Circumci­sion is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the Letter. See Origen, Chap. 1. Philocal. Vales. inwardly Jews.) After [I say] Fir­milianus had heard the Mar­tyr give himself such a name, being wholly unacquainted with the powerfull import thereof, in the second place he enquired, what Country­man he was: the Martyr expressed himself in this his second reply agreeable to his former answer, and said, Je­rusalem was his Country; meaning that Jerusalem, of which Paul speaks—Galat. 4. 26. But Je­rusalem which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all: and [in another place,] Heb. 12. 22. Ye are come to mount Sion, and un­to the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem: the Martyr meant this [Jerusalem.] But the Judge, having his mind depressed with low and terrene thoughts, was extraordinarily inquisitive what City this was, and in what Country it lay. Then he applied tortures, that he might [force him thereby to] confess the truth. But he, having both his hands wrested behind his back, and his feet broken with certain new Engines [of torture,] stifly affirmed, that he spoke true. Again, being after this often asked, what City that he spoke of was, and where it lay, he replied, that that was their Country only, who were Gods worship­pers. For none but they should enter it; and it was scituate Eastward, and towards the rising Sun. After this manner did the Martyr Philo­sophize again, agreeable to his own sentiments, wholly disregarding those that on all sides were tormenting of him: but, as if he had had neither flesh nor body, seemed to be altogether insensible of his tortures. But the Judge, doubtful and per­plexed in his mind, was in a great rage, supposing that the Christians were about erecting a City that would be an enemy, and in an hostile manner op­pose the Romans. Upon which account he was very diligent in his enquiries about it, and in searching out that country in the East spoken of [by the Martyr.] But when he perceived that the young man (after he had torn him with in­numerable stripes, and inflicted on him tortures of all sorts,) was immutable and firmly persisted in what he had said before, he passed sentence of death upon him. Thus were the tragick [cruelties,] used towards this Martyr, concluded: and when he had practised the like Preface of tortures upon the rest, he destroyed them by the same sort of death. Being then wearied out, and perceiving that he did in vain inflict tortures upon these men, Eusebius seems to mean Fir­milianus's desire of knowing from the Egyptian Martyrs, where that Jerusalem was, which they called their Country. Whence we may make this remark by the by, that 'tis sufficiently evident, (as we observed before, Book 4. Chap. 6. note e.) there was no City upon earth at that time called Jerusa­lem. Otherwise Firmillanus Presi­dent of Palestine, would never have been so earnest in his enquiries of the Martyrs, where Jerusalem was scituated. But, the Greek term [ [...]] cannot, I think, be taken in that sense I have menti­oned. Indeed, this place is ob­scure, and (if I mistake not) faulty. Therefore Symeon Meta­phrastes, when he transcribed this passage from Eusebius, on set pur­pose omitted these words. Vales. when his desires were satiated, he passed to Pam­philus and his companions. And [although] he had by experience found, that in de­fence of their faith they had before demonstrated an ala­crity of mind not to be van­quished by tortures; [yet] he again asked them, whe­ther they would now be obe­dient to the Imperial com­mands; and when he could get nothing out of any one of them, besides that last confession which is made in Martyrdom, he condemned them to undergo the same punishment with the fore­mentioned Martyrs. These things being finished, a youth, At this place Symeon Meta­phrastes adds some words, which deserve to be set down here. Nondum autem dictum, &c. [The Judge] had scarce made an end of speaking, when a young man, be­longing to Pamphilus's family, called out at some distance; and, coming out of the midst of the crowd into the presence of those who sate round in the place of Ju­dicature, requested that their bodies might be interred. This was the B. Porphyrius, one of Pamphi­lus's own breeding, not full eigh­teen years old, [a youth] well skilled in the Art of writing; but one that concealed these praises by his modest behaviour, in regard he had been educated under so eminent a person. Vales. one that belonged to Pamphilus's family, (in regard he had been educated under the genuine discipline and converse of so eminent a person;) as soon as he un­derstood that sentence [was pronounc't] against his ma­ster, called aloud out of the midst of the crowd, and re­quested that their dead-bodies might be interred. But [the Judge, (who deserves not to be called a man] but a wild beast, or any creature else [that can be thought] more fierce than a wild beast) shewed no compassion to­wards his youthful years; and, having found, upon his bare asking the young man that he confessed himself a Christian; swelled with rage, as if he had been wounded by some dart, ordered the torturers to make use of their utmost force against him. But after he saw, that he refused to be obedient to his commands in offering sacrifice, he ordered that his flesh (as if it had not been the body of a man, but either stones, or wood, or some such senseless thing) should without any intermission be torn even to his very bones and inmost re­cesses of his bowells. Which being performed for a long time together, the Judge perceived his attempts were vain; [for although] his body was mangled all over with the tortures, [yet] [Page 168] he continued silent, and was as insensible of pain, as if he had in a manner been lifeless. [Never­theless] the Judge, still persevering in his merci­less and inhumane cruelty, immediately condem­ned him to be burnt (in the same habit he was in) by Instead of [ [...], a fire at a distance] Christophorson seemes to have read [ [...] a slow, or remiss fire: see his translation. Hervetus also has rendred it thus, pronuntiat sen­tentiam ut tradatur molli & lento igni, he pronounc't sentence upon him, that he should be set into [and consumed by] a soft and gentle fire. The same is confirmed by Eusebius's following words: for he says, that Porphyrius was [...]ast­ned to a stake, and that the pile, which lay round him, but at some distance, was kindled; that so the Martyr might be consumed by a slack fire. We read of the same sort of punishment in the passion of Pionius, and of other Martyrs. Eusebius uses [ [...]] in the same sense hereafter, where he mentions Julianus. Further, we must take notice that both Porphyrius and Julianus were Ca­techumens; as Metaphrastes in­forms us. Vales. a slow fire. And thus this person (although he was the last that entred the combat, yet) prevented his master after the flesh, in that he obtained his depar­ture out of this life before him; those, who were bu­sied about [vanquishing] the former Martyrs, hitherto making some delays. You might therefore have seen Prophyrius [for that was his name,] in quality like a valorous champion who had been conquerour in all manner of exercises belon­ging to the Sacred games, proceeding forth to his death after he had suffered so great tortures, with a body co­vered all over with dust, but with a chearful countenance, and a mind full of joy and confidence: he was most truly filled with the divine spirit; and, being clad in a See B. 6. Chap. 19. note (p.) n This gar­ment is in the Greek termed ' [...]; see its descri­ption in A. Gellius, Book 7. Chap. 12. Philoso­phick habit, (having only a garment wrapt about him, in fashion like unto a n cloak,) with a calm and sedate mind he gave commands to those of his acquaintance, and dispatcht whatever he had a mind to do; retaining the serenity of his countenance, even when he was at the very stake. Moreover, when the pile, which lay at a sufficient distance, was kindled round about him, with his mouth he attracted the flame on every side of him: and after this one expression, which he uttered when the flame began to touch him, [to wit,] invoaking Jesus the Son of God to be his helper, he most couragiously continued silent even to the very last gasp. Such was Porphyrius's combat: whose consummation Seleucus a Confessour that had formerly been a Souldier, having related to Pamphilus; as being the conveyer of such a mes­sage, he was immediately vouchsafed to be joyned in the same lot with the Martyrs. For he had no sooner related Porphyrius's death, and saluted one of the Martyrs with a kiss, but some of the Soul­diers seize him, and carry him before the Pre­sident. Who, as if he resolved to hasten Seleucus, that he might be Prophyrius's companion in his journey to heaven, forthwith ordered he should un­dergo a capital punishment. This [Seleucus] was born in Cappadocia, but had attained no mean degree of honour amongst the choisest young men that belonged to the Roman Milice. For he far excelled his fellow Souldiers in the [...] is the term in the original, it peculiarly imports that age, which is fit for warfare; which Livy stiles Militarem aet [...] ­t [...]m, the Military age; begin­ning from the seventeenth year of a mans age, says Plutarch (in Graccho.) fitness of his age for Military services, in strength and stature of body, and in valour: in so much that, his aspect was much dis­courst of amongst all men, and the shape of his whole body greatly admired, upon account both of his stature and comeliness. About the beginning of the persecution, he was eminent­ly famous for his enduring stripes in the combat of confession: but after he had left off his Mi­litary course of life, he became a zealous emula­tour of those that were Christo­phorson judged a­miss, in that he supposed by the term [ [...]] Monks were meant. For, at that time there were no Monks; or, if there were any they differed much from the Ascetae. For Monks (as their name, Mo­nachi, denotes) affected soli­tude: but the Ascetae did con­verse publickly in the Cities. Whosoever therefore lived a more strict and severe course of life according to the pre­cepts of the Gospel, and left all they had, upon God's ac­count, were termed Ascetae▪ thus one Peter is called Asceta, and a Virgin is termed Ascetria, before in this book of Eusebius: should any one term these Monks, doubtless he would be much mi­staken. St Jerom says expresly, that there was no Monk in Pale­stine before Hilarion. But Peter, the Asceta, lived in Palestine long before Hilarion's time. Vales. Ascetae in their studies and exercises of piety; and, like a father, and a patron, demonstrated himself to be an Overseer as it were, and an helper of desolate orphans and widows that were destitute of assistance, and of those that were reduced to poverty and sickness. Wherefore, by God (who is more delighted with such [performances] as these, than with the smoak and bloud of sacrifices) he was deservedly accounted worthy of that admirable and high calling, [to wit] Mar­tyrdom. This was the tenth Champion, who, after the others before mentioned, en­ded his life on the very same day; whereon (as it is pro­bable) the great gate of hea­ven was opened by the Mar­tyrdom of Pamphilus, (su­table to the worth of that person,) which gave both him, and his companions, an easie entrance into the Ce­lestial Kingdom. Also, The­odulus (a venerable and pious old man, be­longing to the Presidents own family, for whom Firmilianus had a greater esteem than for all his other domesticks; partly upon account of his age, having seen his children to the third ge­neration; and partly in respect of the singular affection and conscionable fidelity, which he had continually retained towards him;) having fol­lowed Seleucus's steps, and performed the same things that he did, was brought before his master, against whom he was more exasperated than a­gainst any of the former [Martyrs;] and being forthwith put upon a Cross, he underwent the same sort of Martyrdom our Saviour suffered. Moreover, one being yet wanting, who might render the number of the foresaid Martyrs com­pleatly twelve, Julianus intervened to make up their number. At that very interim he was coming from a remote Country, and had not entred the City; but, being informed [of the slaughter] of the Martyrs, ran immediately (in the same habit he had on) out of the road, to see that spectacle. When he saw the dead bodies of those holy persons lying upon the ground, being filled with an extraordinary joy, he em­braced every one of them, and kissed them all. Whilst he was doing this, the [Souldiers] that were the instruments to commit those murders, apprehend him, and bring him to Firmilianus. He, doing herein what was agreeable to his [u­sual cruelty,] ordered that this person also should be consumed by a slow fire. Thus was Julianus also accounted worthy [to receive] the crown of Martyrdom, leaping for joy, and being ex­ceeding glad; and with a loud voice giving great thanks to the Lord, who had vouchsafed him so great an honour. This Julianus was by country a Cappadocian; as to his morals, he was eminent­ly pious and circumspect, and famous for his most genuine and sincere faith: he was very active and diligent in all things, being inspired by the holy Ghost. Such was the file [of Martyrs,] who were vouchsafed to arrive at Martyrdom in com­pany with Pamphilus. The holy, and truly sacred bodies of these persons were, by the impious Pre­sidents order, watched for the space of four days, and as many nights, and exposed to be devoured [Page 169] by beasts that prey on flesh. But when (as it miraculously happened) no wild beast, or fowl, or dog approached them [during that time,] at last (divine providence so ordering the mat­ter,) they were taken away whole and untorn; and, having been allowed such funeral rites as be­fitted them▪ received the usual interment. Whilst the discourse concerning the [Presidents] surious rage against these persons was yet rise in all mens mouthes, Adrianus and Eubulus (arriving, from that Country called Manganaea, at Cae­sarea, to give a visit to the rest of the Confes­sours,) were examined also at the gate of the City, for what reason they came thither. And, having confessed the truth, they were brought before Firmilianus: he (as he had usually done before) was in no wise dilatory in his proceedings towards them also; but, after he had furrowed their sides with many tortures, condemned them to be devoured by wild-beasts. Therefore, after two days space, on the fifth of the month Dystrus, (that is, before the third of the Nones of March,) the day whereon the nativity of the In times past all Ci­ties had their Ge­nius's, in honour of which Temples were e­rected, which they called [...]. Mar­cus (in the life of Por­phyrius) mentions the Tyche­um of Ga­za: and there was a Tycheum at Alexan­dria, men­tioned in [...]od. Theod. and in Li­banius's de­scriptions lately pub­lished by the Lear­ned Leo Allatius. Also the Temple of the Genius at Antiochia is mentioned by Julian in Misopog. which passage we cited before. The Genius of Caesarea in Cappadocia had its Temple; concerning which see Gregor. Naz. in his first Invective against Julian, pag. 91. and in his 19th Oration pag. 309. The Genius was a tutelar God, that (as the Heathens thought) had undertaken the particular protection of any City, or Town. Vales. publick Genius (as the Heathens account it) is cele­brated at Caesarea, Adrianus was cast to a Lion; after which a sword was thrust through his body, and so he ended his life. On the next day after save one, that is, on the very Nones of March, which is the seventh of the month Dystrus, Eu­bulus (after the Judge had entreated him with much earnestness, that by offering sacrifice he would procure for himself that which they ac­count liberty,) preferring a glorious death for his Religion before this transitory life, (when he had been exposed to the wild beasts, and been made a sacrifice after the same manner with the former Martyr,) was the last that closed up the Combats of the Martyrs at Caesarea. Moreover, it will be worthy our recording here, how divine providence soon after punished these impious Pre­sidents, together with the Tyrants themselves. For Firmilianus, who had been so reproachfully out­ragious against Christ's Martyrs, having with some others been adjudged to undergo a capital punishment, was beheaded. And these were the Martyrdoms, accomplished at Caesarea, during the whole time of the persecution.

CHAP. XII. Concerning the Prelates of the Churches.

BUt, what happened to be done in relation to the Prelates of Churches, These words are very ob­scure. Christo­phorson thought they were to be understood concerning the time of the persecution; I am not of his mind. For Eusebius speaks concerning what hap­pened, when the fury of the persecution was in some measure abated. Therefore [ [...]] signifies postea, afterwards; according to Eusebius's usual way of expressing himself, both in other places, and also hereafter in this chapter. The following words [ [...]] denote the whole interval of time from the beginning of the persecution to its seventh year, as Eusebius informs us in the follow­ing chapter. Vales. during this in­terval of time, and afterwards; how, instead of being continued Pastours of Christ's rational flock, which they had not rightly and duly go­verned, divine justice, judging them as it were fit for such Offices, condemned them to be imployed in looking after It was a sort of pu­nishment amongst the Ro­mans, that free-men (i. e. those that were free of Rome) should be condem­ned to look after the Emperours horses and camels, and to such like offices. This em­ployment was called Camelasia, and it is reckoned amongst the person­all offices, in the Pan­dects (Tit. de muner. & Honor.) Although in that place of the Pan­dects, the Emperours Camels are not spoken of, but those Camels are meant belonging to every City, which were used to fetch wood and other burthens; as ap­pears from the 18th Law, in the said Title. But Eusebius does here speak of the Emperours Horses and Camels, to the feeding whereof some Bishops were condemned. Now, there is a great difference between these two Offices. For the former was a civil Office, to which the Decurions of the white Order were promoted, as 'tis said in the fore­quoted Law. But the latter was a penal servitude, to which crimi­nals were condemned, as may be collected from Eusebius's words here. Moreover, these Camelarii (keepers of Camels) were under his care and dispose, that was the Comes rei privatae, (i. e. the Trea­surer of the Privy purse to the Emperour; see Vales. notes on Amm. Marcell. Book 22. pag. 207.) under whom were the Masters of the flocks, and of the stables; as appears from the Notitia Imperii Romani. See the Acts of Marcellus the Pope. Vales. Camels, a brutish sort of crea­tures, whose bodies are naturally crooked and mis-shapen; and how it adjudged them to be keepers of the Emperours horses; also, what and how great injuries, dishonours, and tortures they suffered from such as during those times were the Emperours Procuratours, and Governours of Provinces, upon account of the sacred vessels and treasures belonging to the Church; moreover, the ambitious desires of many, the inconsiderate and illegal ordinations, and the schismes amongst the He means the Schism between Meletius Lycopolitanus and Peter Bishop of Alexandria; concerning which see Athanasius and Epipha­nius. He means also Donatus's Schisme in Africa, against Caecilianus the Bishop. Vales. Confessours themselves; besides, what those modern raisers of disturbances with much earnest­ness attempted against the remaines of the Church, introducing innovations successively one after ano­ther, being without intermission authours of evils even in the midst of the calamities caused by the persecution, and heaping mischiefs upon mischiefs: all this [I say] I think fit to omit, a relation hereof being in my judgment inconvenient, and which (as I said in the The place Eusebius here speaks of is not to be found in this book. Whence 'tis apparent, that this book, concerning the Martyrs of Pale­stine, is imperfect. Any body may perceive that the beginning of it is wanting. But this defect may be made up from chap. 2. book 8. of the Ecclesiastick History, where Eusebius says that, which he men­tions here, as spoken of before by himself. Vales. beginning of this book) I do altogether dislike, and am resolved to avoid. Supposing it therefore to be most accommodate for an history concerning the admirable Martyrs, to speak, write, and instill into the ears of be­lievers what ever is of importance to, and com­mendable in, our Religion, and those passages which are virtuous and praiseworthy, I thought good to adorn the close of this book with [a re­lation of] that peace, which afterwards appeared to us from heaven.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning Silvanus, John, and thirty nine other Martyrs.

THe seventh year of the persecution against us was now compleated; and our affairs, (having by little and little obtained some thing of a tendency towards a quiet posture by an abate­ment of their heats who had been our malicious detractours,) proceeded on to the eighth year, when no small number of Confessours were ga­thered together about the Brass mines in Palestine, and enjoyed their liberty to such a degree, that they erected buildings to make Churches of: [But] the Governour of the Province (a cruel and wicked person, as he manifested himself to be, upon account of what he did against the Martyrs) making a journey thither, and being informed of [Page 170] their way of living in that place, acquainted the Emperour therewith, writing what he judged sutable to calumniate them. Afterwards, the Governour of the Mines came thither, and (as if he had had an Imperial order so to do,) ha­ving separated that company of Confessours, al­lotted Cyprus to be the place of habitation for some of them, and Libanus for others. He dispersed others of them in several places throughout Pale­stine, and gave order they should all be wearied out with various sorts of laborious employments. Then he pick't out four, which seemed to be the most eminent persons amongst them, and sent them to the commander in chief of the Military forces in those parts. Two of these were Aegyptian Bishops, by name Peleus and Nilus; the third was a His name was Helias; who, together with Patermuthius, was burnt to death; as 'tis recorded in the Greek Menaea, at the 17th of September. Photius mentions Patermuthius, in his Bitblioth. chap. 118; where he speaks of the Books written by Pamphilus the Martyr, during his impri­sonment, in defence of Origen. Vales. Presbyter; and the fourth was Patermuthius, a person signally renowned a­monst all men upon account of his sedulity in doing all men good offices. This Commander, having asked these men to renounce their Religion, and not obtain­ing his request, ordered they should be burnt to death. Again, there were others at the same place, (who were allotted a particular country to inhabit in by themselves,) to wit, such of the Confessours, as either by reason of their age, or the mangling of their members, or because of other bodily in­firmities, were freed from doing service in those laborious employments. The principal among these was Silvanus, By these words Eusebius seems to declare, that this Sil­vanus was not Bishop of Gaza: for Eusebius only says that Sil­vanus was born at Gaza, and made Bishop over those Chri­stians that wrought in the Mines in Palestine. The Greeks (in their Menaea, at the 14th of Octo­ber) seem to have taken these words of Eusebius in this sense. For they say that Silvanus was Presbyter of the Church at Gaza; and, after he had suffered most accute tortures at Casarea, was condemned to the Mines, where the Office of a Bishop was conserred on him by the Christians. So the Menaea. But Eusebius (in book 8. chap. 13.) does expresly call him Bishop of Gaza. Vales. a Bi­shop born at Gaza, a per­son that demonstrated him­self to be a truly religious and most genuine example of the Christian profession. This man, after he had been signally eminent in all sorts of conflicts [undergone up­on account] of confession, from the very first day (as I may say) of the perse­cution, and during the whole time it lasted, was reserved for this opportunity, that he might in the last place seal up (as it were) all the Combats [of the Martyrs] in Palestine. Many Egy­ptians were with him; amongst whom there was one This John is mentioned in the Me­naeum, at the twen­tieth of September. Vales. John, who for strength of memory far sur­passed all men of our age. This man had been deprived of his eye-sight before. Nevertheless, in the conflicts of confession (wherein he got great renown) when one of his feet (after the same manner that others were served) was ren­dred useless by being seared with red hot irons, his eyes also (although he could not then see) were burnt out with searing irons: to such an height of cruelty and inhumanity had the merciless and incompassionate Executioners then arrived in their carriage [towards the Christians!] 'Tis needless to extol this man for his morals, and the Philosophick life he lead, especially since he was not so admirable upon that account, as for his strength of memory; [for] he had whole books of the sacred Scriptures written (not on tables of stone, as the divine Apostle says, nor on parch­ments, or paper, which are devoured by moths and time, but) on the fleshly tables of his heart, that is on his bright soul, [which were legible] to the most clear eye of his mind. In so much that, when ever he pleased, he could produce out of his mouth, as it were out of a treasury of Learning, sometimes the books of the Law and those of the Prophets, another while the Histo­rical parts of Scripture, and again at other times the Evangelick and Apostolick writings. I was, I confess, amazed, when I first saw this man standing in the midst of a numerous Ecclesiastick congregation, and repeating some parts of the divine Scripture. For as long as I could only hear his voice, I supposed him to have read what is usually rehearsed in such assemblies. But when I approached very neer, and saw plainly what was done, to wit, all the rest [in the assembly] standing round and having their eye-sight clear and perfect, and him making use of the eyes of his understanding only, in reality delivering oracles like some Prophet, and far surpassing those that were sound and healthy in body; I could not for­bear praising and glorifying of God. And I thought that I really beheld a firm and most evi­dent instance to perswade me to believe, that he is to be accounted truly a man, (not who appears so to be by the external shape of his body, but) who is such in respect of his mind and under­standing. For although this person had a mangled and deformed body, yet he demonstrated the strength of his internal faculties to be great and most powerful. Moreover, God himself vouchsafed to allot these forementioned persons (who, living in a place apart by themselves, spent their time according to the usual manner in prayers, fastings, and in the performance of other severe exercises of Religion,) a blessed and salutary death; reaching out to them his propi­tious right hand. But The De­vil. that malicious enemy of all goodness, unable to endure them any longer, in regard they were carefully armed against him with their continual prayers to God, resolved to have them killed and removed from off the earth, as being troublesome to him. Which God per­mitted him to attempt and perform; both that he should not be hindred from [...]oing mischief, agree­able to his own mind and purpose; and that they might at length receive the rewards of their va­rious combats. Thus therefore nine and thirty persons were beheaded on one and the same day, by an order from the most impious Maximin. These were the Martyrdomes perpetrated in Pa­lestine during the space of ten years, and such was the persecution in our days; which, having been began from those times wherein the Churches were demolished, was much increased in the times succeeding by the Governours insolencies. Amidst which, their various and different combats who were Religious Champions, made an innumerable company of Martyrs throughout every Province; to wit, in Libya, and throughout all Egypt, Syria, and all those Provinces, which reach from the East round to the Country of Illyricum. For those regions scituate beyond these now men­tioned, that is, all Italy, Sicily, France, and those which lie towards the Sun-setting, Spain, Mauri­tania, and Africa, having not indured the rage of the persecution full out the space of the two first years, were vouchsafed a sudden visitation from God, and [obtained] peace: divine Provi­dence taking compassion on the simplicity and faith of those men. Further, an accident (a parallel to which the Records from the very first beginning of the Roman Empire cannot shew) happened now first in these our days, contrary to [Page 171] all expectation. For, during the persecution in our times, the Empire was divided into two parts. Those brethren which were inhabitants of the one part, that just now mentioned, en­joyed peace: but such as dwelt in the other part of the Empire, endured innumerable conflicts [renewed against them] successively. But when divine grace gave some indications of its candid and compassionate visitation of us, then those very Governours of ours (who before had been raisers of the wars waged against us in our days,) having most miraculously altered their minds, sounded a retreat; extinguishing the flame of persecution kindled against us, by Rescripts pub­lished in favour to us, and by mild Edicts. The con­clusion of this book is wanting; to wit, the Retractation, of the Emperours or Galerius Maximianus's Edict, ordering a stop to be put to the persecution. But this defect may be easily made up from the last chapter of the eighth Book of the Ecclesiastick History. Vales. 'Tis requisite, that we Record their retractation.

The End of Eusebius Pamphilus's Book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine.

THE NINTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.

CHAP. I. Concerning the counterfeited Cessation [of the Per­secution.]

THIS Revocation contained in the Imperial Edict [...] (the term here used) must be ta­ken for [...], as is frequent in our Au­thor. We have this revocation of the Em­perour's Decree in the 8th book of this Histo­ry, at the latter end. Vales. mentioned before, was published in all parts of Asia, and By these words [ [...]] Chri­stoph. understands all the Provinces of Asi [...]; but Rufinus thinks Pontus, Bithynia, Galatia and the rest of the Provinces bordering on every side are meant, which were under the Emperour Galcrius's Go­vernment: excepting only the Eastern Provinces, over which Maximinus Caesar was Ruler. Vales. throughout the Adjacent Pro­vinces. After which publications thus made; Maximin, the Eastern Tyrant, (a person as im­pious as ever breathed, and a most deadly enemy to the worship of the supream God;) being in no wise pleased with these Rescripts, instead of the forementioned Edict, issues out a verbal Order only to those Governours within his Jurisdiction, that they should stop the persecution against us. For, in regard he durst not in any wise oppose the Decree of his superiours, [...], we have translated having concealed: the Phrase is borrowed from the Attick Lawyers; [...] with them signifies that Court where matters of small importance were adjusted, to wit, not exceeding one drachm. The Judges of this Court were the Undecemviri; This Court stood in an obscure place of the City, and hence [...] is in Demosthenes, and here also in our Authour, us'd metaphorically, for privily. having concealed the forementioned Edict, and taken such care, as that it should not be publickly proposed in the Pro­vinces under his Jurisdiction; he gives order by word of mouth only to those Governours under him, that they should put a stop to the persecu­tion against us; of which Order they inform one another by Letters. For Sabinus, who was then honoured with the Prefecture of the Prae­torium (the chiefest Office Instead of [ [...], with them] the reading in Nicephorus is [ [...], with him,] shewing, that Sabinus was Prefect of the Praetorium to Maximin. But our Copies do all agree in the former reading, that is [with them,] in the plural number; which is the truest. For, although Sabinus bore the Prefecture of the Praetorium (which we may call the Office of Lord-chief-justice, or of Lieutenant General under the Emperour, to govern Provinces in Civil Causes; See Pancirol. in Notitiam Imper. Orient. c. 5.) under Maximinus Caesar in the East; yet because he was made Praefect by Galerius, therefore he is stiled the Praefect of the Emperours, meaning Galerius and Maximinus. For the Caesars had not the power of crea­ting Praefects; but they were made by the Augusti, as may be shown from many places in Amm. Marcellinus. Hence 'tis, that Sabinus in his Edict (which Eusebius does here insert) always speaks of the Emperours in the plural number, to let the Governours of particular Provinces understand, that that was the command of the Emperours, to wit, Galerius, Constantinus, Licinius, and Maximinus. Also, by these words [ [...]] may be meant the Governours of those Provinces which were under Maximin's jurisdiction: for Eusebius speaks of them in the foregoing sentence. Indeed, this exposition seems most natural to me; but then we must render [ [...] not with, but amongst them; which rendition the Greek will bear. Vales. among them) in a Latine Epistle to the Governours of the Provinces declared the Rufinus translates this place thus; Sed, Sabinus, &c. But Sabinus, who at that time was chief of the Provinces; and inserted the forementioned Imperial Edict, thereby manifesting to all men that which Maximin had attempted to conceal. But Rufinus has not expressed Eusebius's mea­ning in this rendition of his words. For Sabinus did not set Galerius the Emperour's decree before his own order, as it was usual for the Prefects of the Praetorium to do; in regard Maximin had made i [...] his business, that that Imperial constitution should be concealed from those Provinces under his Government. For he was highly displeased at Galerius's Rescript; both in regard the Christians (whom he had hitherto most barbarously persecuted,) were delivered from his butcheries; and also because his name was not prefix't before the foresaid decree. For, after Galcrius's and Constantine's name, Lici­nius's was set before the Rescript: but Maximin's name, (he being as yet but Caesar only) was not there. Therefore, partly for shame, partly out of indignation, Maximin suppressed that Edict. But S [...]binus (in this Epistle of his to the Presidents of the provinces) makes very little mention of this Constitution, because he would not displease Maximin. Further, by the word [Emperour] Christophorson thought Maximin was meant. But I like Rufinus's Version better, who sup­posed Galerius to be understood thereby; and besides, Eusebius usually calls Maximin by the name of Tyrant, not Caesar. Vales. Emperour's pleasure; [Page 172] the contents of which Letter we have thus tran­slated:

The Majesty of our most sacred Lords the Em­perours, by their earnest and most devout care, have long since determined to render the minds of all men conformable to the true and holy Rule of living; that by this means they who seem to have embra­ced usages different from those of the Romanes, might be induced to exhibite due worship to the im­mortal Gods. But the obstinate and most untracta­ble perverseness of some mens minds was arrived at such an height, that neither could the justice of the [Imperial] Decree prevaile with them to recede from their own resolutions, nor the imminent punish­ment annexed strike any terrour into them. Since therefore it might have happened, that upon this account many would have precipitated themselves into danger; the sacred Majesty of our Lords the most puissant Emperours, (according to their in­nate clemency) judging it disagreeable to their own most sacred Intent, that upon this occasion men should be surrounded with such great danger; en­joyned our 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 words in the Greek are [...] which Valesius renders de­votio; and [...] by him translated Solertia. devotedness to write to your Prudence: that if evidence be brought against any Christian for his fol­lowing that way of worship observed amongst those of his own Religion, you should se­cure him and set him free from all danger and molesta­tion, and that you should con­demn▪ none to be punished up­on account of this pretence. For since it has been manifestly evidenced that during so long a tract of time they could by no means be perswaded to desist from their perverse stubborness; your Prudence therefore is enjoyned to write to the Curators, to the Magistrates, and to the Presidents of the Villages [belonging to] every City, that they may under­stand, that for the future they are not to take any further care concerning I doubt not but in­stead of [ [...], this decree] it ought to be [ [...], this affair.] which a­mendment Nicephorus confirms B. 7. Chap. 24. who has exprest this place thus, that they should not trouble themselves any further about the Christians. Vales. this affair.

Hereupon, all the Gover­nours of Provinces, sup­posing that the Letter writ­ten to them [by Sabinus] contained [Maximin's] true and genuine meaning, did by their Letters com­municate the Emperour's pleasure to the Curators, Magistrates, and Pre­sidents of the Villages. Nor did they urge these things to them by Letters only, but much more by such deeds, as that the Princes command might thereby be put in execution; bringing forth, and setting at liberty those prisoners which they had in hold for Confession of the faith of God; and also releasing them who had been ad­judged to the punishment of working in the Mines. For they supposed that this would in reallity be wellpleasing to the To Maximin. Emperour, but herein they were mistaken. These things being thus finished, on a sudden (like some bright shi­ning light which darts forth its rays after a thick darksome night,) you might have seen Churches gathered together throughout every City; full assemblies; and the usual [...] as­semblies, is here used instead of [...] solemn ser­vices. Dio­nysius A­lexandr. used this term in the same sense, as we noted before. There was a twofold Synaxis; one of the Prayers; the other of the Sa­craments. Athanasius mentions the former, in his Apo­logy to Con­stantius. Vales. solemn services per­formed at these meetings. All the Infidels were not a little astonished at these things, wondring at so great and unexpected an alteration of affairs, and crying out, that the God of the Christians was the great and only true God. Also, those of our Religion, who had faithfully and manfully strove in the Combat of Persecution, ob­tained great confidence and freedom amongst all men. But as many as through weakness of faith had made shipwrack of their souls, with much earnestness ran to seek for a remedie; begging and praying for an assisting right hand from them that were strong, and supplicating God to be merciful to them. Moreover, soon after this, the Noble Champions of Religion, released from their servitude in labouring in the Mines returned to their own Countries; and being glad and jocund, travelling through the Cities, were fil­led with an inexpressible joy, and a confidence unutterable. Thus did numerous companies of persons that were Christians perform their jour­nies, lauding God with Hymns and Psalmes in the midst of the High-ways and Market-places. And you might now have seen those, (who but lately had been in bonds, groaning under most severe punishments, and driven from their own Coun­tries) with joyful and pleasant countenances pos­sessing their own habitations again: in so much that they, who formerly▪ [threatned to] mur­ther and destroy us, when they saw this miracle which did so far surpass all mens expectation, re­joyced with us at what had happened.

CHAP. II. Concerning the change of affairs which did after­wards ensue.

BUT the Tyrant (who as we said before, Ruled in the Eastern parts) no longer able to endure these things, (he being a professed E­nemy to goodness, and one who laid wait to in­snare all good men) suffered not this state of affaires to continue Maximi­nus Gale­rius did not live long after he had made that De­cree for the Peace and Liberty of the Chri­stians, but within a few months after, dyed of a wound which had festered. See the Ap­pendix to the eighth book of this History. When Maximinus Caesar heard of his death, he renewed the Persecution against the Christians, and pro­claimed himself Augustus; whereas he was only Caesar before, and was compelled to obey the commands of Galerius Augustus. Vales. the space of six months complete. But, inventing all the ways ima­ginable to subvert the Peace, first he attempted (upon some pretence or other) to hinder us from assembling in the See Book 7. Chap. 11. note (f.) Coemiteria. Afterwards What is meant by this elegant passage [ [...]] neither Christoph▪ nor Musculus understood: the mea­ning of it is this: Maximin sent underhand some cunning men to sollicit the Antiochians, to send Embassadours to his Court, to request of him, that they might have liberty to drive out all Christians from amongst them. Hence Maximin who did underhand procure this Embassy, may well be said to have sent this Embassy to himself, and he himself to have been the Embassadour, this transposition of words is frequent and familiar in Eusebius. Vales. he sends an Embasie to himself against us, ha­ving sollicited the Antiochians, by the means of some impious persons, that they should petition to obtain this from him (under the notion of the greatest favour,) to wit, that he would im­power them to suffer no Christians to dwell a­mongst them: he also excited the Inhabitants of other Cities to do the like. The chief of all these was one Theotecnus, an Antiochian; a turbulent person, an impostor, and a wicked man, (whose nature was not answerable to his The import of Theotecnus in the Greek, is, the Son of God. name;) he was at that time See Book. 8. Chap. 11. note (b.) Curator of Antioch.

CHAP. III. Concerning an Image newly made at Antioch.

WHen this [Theotecnus] therefore had several ways made his attacks against us, and had taken all imaginable care to hunt those of our Religion out of their Coverts, (as if they had been Thieves and Malefactours,) and had invented all the ways and methods of calumniating and accusing us, and had been the occasion of put­ting many men to death: at last he erects an Image of This Temple of Jupiter Philius at Antioch is mentioned by Julia­nus, in Mi­sopogone, and by Li­banius (if I mistake not) in Antiochico. Vales. Jupiter Philius, and The Ce­remonies of the Gentiles, used in the erection and consecration of Images to their Gods, were various. For Jupiter Ctesius was consecrated with one sort of Rites, Herceus with another, and Philius with a third sort. Jupiter Ctesius, whose Image they kept in their store-houses, was con­secrated with a little tub. Anticlides (in [...] that is, in his B. De Ritubus Sacris, apud Athenaeum B. 11. Cap. 6.) relates the Ceremonies of Consecration. Jupiter Herceus was consecrated with Pots: See Aristophanes in Danaidibus. After the same manner were those Images Consecrated, which they erected to Mercury, and other Gods: and this they termed, [...], to Consecrate with Pots. In these Pots they boyled all sorts of purse, of which they offered sacrifice to those Gods they Consecrated, in memory of the food eaten in Old times, and of the frugality of the Ancients. But when they designed to be at greater cost in treating their God, then they killed a sacrifice at the erection of his Image; which they termed [...], to Consecrate with a slain sacrifice. See Aristophanes (in Irene) and his Scholiast, pag. 693. See Suidas also, in the word [...] Besides these Ceremonies, they used sometimes Magical Consecrations; So Theotecnus did here, in the Dedication of an Image to Jupiter Philius. Vales. consecrates it with Magick charmes. And, having invented and instituted, in honour of it, impure ceremo­nies, execrable initiations, and most detestable expiations; he gave the Emperour himself a de­monstration of the imposture of his Oracles, by which he effected what he had undertaken. Moreover, this man to please the Emperour by his flattery, stirreth up the Daemon against the Christians; feigning that God commanded, that the Christians (as being his enemies) should be banished the City, and all the Countries adjoyning to the City.

CHAP. IV. Concerning the Decrees [of the Cities] against the Christians.

WHen Theotocnus, (the first person that acted against us) had had this desired success, all the other Magistrates, inhabiting the Cities under Maximin's Jurisdiction, hastned to establish the same Decree; also, the Governours of Provinces, perceiving that this was acceptable to the Emperour, prompted those that lived within their district, to do the same thing: Moreover, when the Tyrant had by his Rescript most willingly assented to their Ordinances, the flame of Per­secution was again kindled afresh against us. At length, Priests of the Images were constituted in every City; and moreover, such men as had been most eminent in State employments and had acquitted themselves honourably in the publick Offices they had born, were by By [...] are meant Sa­cerdotes Provinciarum. Concerning whom see B. 8. chap. 14. note (b.) A Sacerdos Provinciae was created by the votes of the Decuriones, i. e. the Senators, or Aldermen of the City. Now those men especially were advanced to this dignity, who had with honour acquitted them­selves in the discharge of all Offices belonging to the Court; as we may see in God. Theod. Tit. De Decurionibus. Eusebius here takes notice of it as a thing new and unusual, that Maximinus himself should elect the Sacerdotes Provinciae. Vales. Maximin him­self created chief Priests. These men were very diligent and earnest about the worship of their Gods. For, (that I may speak briefly) the great superstition of this Emperor had such an influence as well upon the Governours, as the private per­sons within the limits of his Government, that it induced them all to act any thing against us in compliance to him: and they thought, that to murther us, and to invent some new mischievous stratagems against us, was the most grateful ac­knowledgement they could pay for the favours they expected to receive from him.

CHAP. V. Concerning the forged Acts

HAving therefore forged some Concer­ning the falseness of these Acts, see what Eusebius has re­markt B. 1. chap. 9. These Acts are men­tioned in Act. Praesi­dial. Tara­chi, probi, & Andro­nici, cap. 9. where Maximus the Presi­dent says these words, Wretch, knowest thou not, that that Christ, whom thou callest upon, was a man committed to custody by Pontius Pilate, and punished by him; the Acts of whose passion are extant? Moreover, these Acta Praefidialia Tarachi, &c. were performed when Diociesian was Consul the fourth time, and Maximian the third, as the inscription of the first interro­gatory sheweth. Whence 'tis plain, that these Acts of Pilate were forged long before the persecution; the contrary to which Eusebius affirms in this place. But, that I may freely speak my sense, the in­scription of these Acta praefidialia is in my judgment false; and it should be corrected thus, when Diocletian was Consul the ninth time, and Maximian the eighth: For (1) there is, in those Acts, mention of the Imperial command, whereby 'twas ordered that all men should sacrifice to the Gods. Now this command was issued out on the nine­teenth year of Diocletian's Empire. (2) In the ninth chapter these words occur. The President said, you curse the Princes, who have secured a lasting and continued Peace. Andronicus said▪ I have cursed the Plague, and the bloud thirsty, which destroy the world. That expression [concerning the securing a lasting and continued Peace] cannot agree with the fourth Consulate of Diocletian; for at that time the Barba­rians attacked the Roman Empire on every side. Besides, I can't see how Diocletian and Maximian can be termed, Blood thirsty, till after the 19th year of Diocletian, when the Persecution began. Lastly, which is another argument, Eusebius affirms, that these Acts of Pilate were forged in the time of this persecution. Vales. Acts of Pilate concerning our Saviour, which were stuffed with all manner of Blasphemie against Christ; by [Maximin] the Emperour's order they send them throughout all his Dominions; commanding by their Letters that these Records should be posted up in all places, both in the Country and in the Cities; and that such as were School-masters should give them to their Scho­lars in stead of their lessons, and make them study them, that so they might have them im­printed on their memories. Whilst these things were done after this manner, the chief Com­mander in the Army at Damascus a City of Phoenicia (whom the Romans call a Captain) having haled some infamous women out of the Market-place, compelled them by threatning them with tortures, to Rufinus has rendred the Greek phrase here (which is [...]) thus, act is profiteri, to attest the truth of the said Acts by signing of them: for an evidence may be given both by word of mouth, and in writing also. Vales. testifie by subscribing the said publick Records, that they were formerly Christians; and that they were conscious to their profane practices; and that in their very Chur­ches they performed obscene and lascivious acti­ons; and what ever else he would have them say that might bring a scandal upon our Religion. The testimonies of these women he inserted into the said Acts, and sent them to the Emperour. By whose order these very Records were published in every City, and in all other places.

CHAP. VI. Concerning them that suffered Martyrdom in those Times.

BUt not long after, this Captain was his own Executioner, suffering a condign punish­ment for his malicious wickedness. And now [Page 174] banishments and most horrid Persecutions were a fresh raised against us; the Presidents in every Pro­vince renewing their cruel insurrections against us: in so much that some of the most eminent asserters of the divine faith were apprehended, and without any commiseration had the sentence of death pro­nounc't against them. Three of them having professed themselves Christians, were cast to the wild beasts and devoured by them at Emesa, a City of Phoenicia: amongst them there was a Bishop, one This Sil­vanus is a different person from that Silvanus which Eu­sebius men­tions in his book con­cerning the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. the last. For this was Bishop of Emesa▪ the other was Bishop of Gaza. The first was beheaded in the Mines at Palestine with 39 other Mar­tyrs; in the eighth year of the Persecution. But this Silvanus was cast to the wild beasts at Emesa, on the ninth year of the Persecution. Concerning this man's Martyrdom Eusebius has said something before, in his eighth book, although not in its proper place; see B. 8. Chap. 13. Vales. Silvanus, a very old man, who had born that Office forty years compleat. At the same time also, Eusebius mentioned this man's Martyrdom before in the eighth book chap. 13. but not in its proper place. For the eighth book does not go beyond the eighth year of the Persecution. But Peter Bishop of Alexandria was Martyr'd in the ninth year of the Persecution (which Eusebius expresly affirmeth in the end of the seventh book) upon the seventh of the Calends of December, as we read in the Excerpta Chrono­logica published by Scaliger. Usuardus says the same; and so does Ado, and the old Roman Martyrology. The Greeks celebrate his birth day on the 14th of November. The Acts of his Passion are extant in a M. S. in Greek, which the Reverend Father Franciscus Combesisius has, and will shortly publish, with many other things. Vales. Peter, that most eminent Prelate of the Alexandrian Church, (the chiefest ornament and glory of the Bishops, both for his virtuous life, and his study and knowledge in the sacred Scriptures) being apprehended for no crime at all, was beheaded (contrary to every bodies expectation) by Maximins order on a sud­den, and without any specious pretence. Like­wise many other Aegyptian Bishops suffered the same death that he did. Eusebius has mentioned this man's Martyrdom at book 8. chap. 13. though not in its due place. But here he remarks the time more distinctly, wherein Peter and Lucianus suffered; to wit, under Maximin; not in the Reign of Galerius Maximianus, as Baro­nius would have us believe, at the year of Christ 311. cap. 3. Also, Baronius is mistaken in placing the Martyrdom of Peter Bishop of Alexandria on the year of Christ 310. for he suffered in the year of our Lord 311, on the ninth year current of the Persecution. Ba­ronius's errour arose from his beginning the Persecution a year too soon; which mistake we have sufficiently confuted before, at book 8. chap. 2. note (c.) Moreover, in regard Lucianus's Martyrdom hap­pened under Maximin, the Martyrdom of Anthimus Bishop of Ni­comedia should, in my judgment, be placed under Maximin also. Indeed, Anthimus suffered a little before Lucianus, as Lucianus in­forms us in his Epistle to the Antiochians▪ which I made mention of in Book 8. chap. 13. note (a.) we may also make the same conclusion from the Acts of Lucianus the Martyr; where, instead of Maximinus, we read Maximianus, which is a common errour in the Greeks. Vales. Lucianus also, Presbyter of the Church at Antioch, a very pious man, much famed for his continency, and his knowledge in the sacred Scriptures, was brought to the City of Nicomedia, When Galerius was dead, Maximinus took possession of Asia and Bithynia; which Provinces (together with Illyricum, and Thracia) were governed by Galerius. For Galerius kept these Provinces for himself, as Eutropius informs us; the same is asserted by the old Au­thour of the Excerptions, which I published at the end of my Amm. Marcelinus. Maximinus therefore made his abode at Nicomedia, which was the chief City of Bithynia; where the Emperours had a pallace ever since Diocletions time. Further, the following words do evidently manifest, that by the term [Emperour] Maximinus must be meant. Wherefore I wonder at Baronius, for asserting that Lucianus suffered under Galerius, not under Maximin; when as Eu­sebius, contemporary with Lucianus, affirms he was killed by Maxi­min. Vales. where the Emperour then kept his Court; and after he had made his Apology, in defence of that Doctrine which he asserted, before the President he was committed to prison and murthered. In fine, Maximin, that professed Enemy of all virtue, did in a short time load us with such burthens of afflictions, that this latter storm of Persecution raised by him seemed to us far more grievous then the former.

CHAP. VII. Concerning the Edict against us, which was [in­graven on Brazen plates and] hung up on the Pillars.

MOreover, in the midst of every City (Any man may justly wonder why Euse­bius should affirm here, that this was never seen before. Were the Decrees of the Cities, or the E­dicts of the Empe­rours, ne­ver publi­shed be­fore now? This can­not be de­nyed: nor is it de­nyed by our Eusebius. But that which he asserts to have never been seen be­fore, is, the ingraving of these Edicts upon plates of Brass. For (as we observed before, Book 8. chap. 5. note b.) the Imperial Edicts were written on paper. Vales. which was never seen before) the Decrees of Cities, and also the Imperial Edicts against us were ingraven on Brazen plates and proposed to open view. And the boyes in the Schooles had nothing in their mouths [...], all day long; so Rufinus and Langus render it: Christophorson and Musculus translate it, quotidie, daily. Vales. all day long but Jesus and Pilate, and the Acts which were forged to disgrace us. I judge it pertinent to insert here this very Rescript of Maximin's, which was ingraven on plates of Brass: both that the proud and arrogant insolency of this mans hatred towards God may be manifested: and also that it may hence be made apparent, that divine justice (which hates the impious, and keeps a continual watch against them) did within a very short time pursue and overtake him: by which Divine justice he was inforced to alter his senti­ments soon after concerning us, and to confirm them by his Edicts in writing. But these are the Contents of his Rescript.

A COPY OF THE TRANSLATION OF MAXIMIN'S RESCRIPT IN ANSWER TO THE DECREES OF THE CITIES AGAINST US, TRANSCRIBED FROM A BRAZEN PLATE AT TYRE.

Now at length the infirm Confidence of mans mind, having shaken off and dispersed the cloud and mist of errour (which heretofore invested the senses of men, not so much wicked as wretched, being involved in the fatal night of ignorance,) may discern, that it is undoubtedly governed and strengthened by the indulgent providence of the im­mortal Gods. It is incredible to express how grate­full, how pleasing and acceptable a thing it was to us, that you gave such a proof of your Pious resolu­tion towards the Gods. Indeed, before this time no person was insensible of the observancy and reli­gious worship you shewed towards the immortal Gods; Christoph. and Muscu­lus thought that this clause ought to be referred to Deos (the Gods:) but we make it to be referred to the Tyri­ans them­selves. Maximin does attempt to blacken the faith of the Christians by these words; he calls it, [...], a faith of bare words: as if the Christian faith had nothing in it but words▪ and were void of all reality. Vales. for your faith is made known to them not in bare and empty words, but by un­interrupted and miraculous eminent Acts, upon which account your City may deser­vedly be stiled the Seat and Mansion of the immortal Gods. For it is manifestly evident by many instances, that She flourisheth by the The antients believed, that on set days the Gods descended into those Cities for which they had a kindness: hence it is that the inhabitants of Delos and Mi­letum solemnized the coming of Apollo: and the Argivi, the ad­vent of Diana. This coming of the Gods we find mentioned up and down in the Poets, as in Virgil. Hence it is, that upon old Coins and in the Calendar, we find writ­ten A [...]ventu [...] Impp. Vales. Arrival and presence▪ of the celestial Deities in Her: But lo! Now your City (care­less of all its own particular concerns, and having no re­gard to the Petitions, which in times past it did usually make [to us] for the welfare of its affairs,) when it was sensible that the Promoters of that accursed [Page 175] vanity did begin to creep again, and [perceived] that (like fire which is carelessely left and raked up,) it brake forth into violent flames, the brands thereof being rekindled, immediately without the least de­lay made its address to our piety, as to the Metro­polis of all Religion, petitioning for a redress and an assistance. 'Tis evident that the Gods have in­stilled into your minds this wholesome advice upon account of your constant and faithful perseverance in your Religion. For the most High and Mighty Jupiter, (who presides over your most famous City, and preserveth your Country Gods▪ your wives and children, your families and houses from all manner of destruction and ruine) hath breathed into your minds this salutary resolution; whence he hath evidenced and plainly demonstrated, what an excel­lent, noble, and comfortable thing it is, to adore him, and to approach the sacred Ceremonies of the immortal Gods with a due observancy and venera­tion. For what man can there be found so foolish and so void of all reason, who perceives not that it comes to pass by the favourable care of the Gods towards us, that neither the Earth does deny to restore the seeds committed to it, frustrating the hopes of the husbandmen with vain expectations, or that the aspect of impious War is not [...]. He aludes to that Aspect of the Planets called [...]; which term is used concerning the Planets, when they seem to move neither backward, nor forward in their Epicycles; but are statio­nary. Vales. immoveably fixed on the earth; or that mens bodies are not hurried away to the grave being tainted by an in­fection in the temperature of the Air: or that the Sea, tossed with the blasts of tempestuous winds does not swell and overflow: or that storms breaking forth on a sudden and unexpectedly do not raise a destructive tempest: or lastly, that the Earth (the nurse and mother of all things,) shaken by an horrid trembling arising from its own inter­nal caverns, In the Greek Text the term is [ [...], parts [not] in sunder] but it should be [ [...], does [not] raise vast hills out of its own bowells.] For two sorts of Earthquakes (contrary to each other) are here spoken of by Maximin; to wit, (1) [...] which (as Amm. Marcellinus describes them book 17. pag. 98. E­dit. Paris. 1636) humum mole­stius suscitantes sursum propellunt immanissimas moles, raise the ground after an horrid manner, and drive forth vast quantities of earth: (2) [...], which (according to Amm. Marcellin. description, loc. citat.) gran­diori motu patefactis subito vora­trinis, terrarum partes absorbent, having on a sudden made vast scissures in the ground by a most violent motion, swallow up parts of the earth. See Valesius's notes on these words of Amm. Marcelli­nus; pag. 142. Maximin means here that earthquake which af­flicted the City of Tyre, in that year before Diocletian's Persecu­tion, as our Eusebius relates in his Chronicon. Vales. does not raise vast hills out of its own bowels; or that the mountains which lie upon it are not swallowed up by its unexpected scissures and rents. There is no man but knowes that all these calamities, (yea far more horrid than these) have happened heretofore. And all these evills fell upon us, because of that pernitious errour and most vain folly of those wicked men, at such time as it a­bounded in their souls, and burthened the whole earth al­most with shame and confu­sion: After the interposition of some words, he continues. Let men now look into the open fields and see the flouri­shing corn, waving its weigh­ty ears; let them view the Medows gloriously bedecked with flowers and grass caused by the seasonable springing showers: Let them consider the constitution of the aire how temperate and calm it is again become. In future let all men rejoyce for that by your Piety, by your sacrifices and Religious worship, the fury of that most Potent and strong God Mars is appeased; and for this reason, let them se­curely solace themselves in the quiet enjoyment of a most prosperous and serene Peace. And, as many as have deserted that blind errour, and wholly relinquished those impertinent wandrings, by returning to a right and sound temper of mind, let them rejoyce the more upon that ac­count; in regard, (being delivered as it were from a storm unforeseen, and from a fatal disease,) they shall in future reap the sweet enjoyments of an happy life. But if any shall willfully persist in that their execrable vanity and errour, let them be ba­nished and driven far from your City and its vi­cinage (according to your request:) that by this means your City, being (agreeable to your com­mendable diligence in this affair) freed from all pollution and impiety, may wholly devote it self (ac­cording to its natural inclination) to attend upon the sacrifices and worship of the immortal Gods with all due veneration. Now, that you may be sensible how acceptable your address in this case was to us, and how ready and forward our mind is voluntarily to comply with and reward good desires even with­out any decrees, or supplication; we permit your devotedness to ask the greatest favour you have a mind to, upon account of this your Religious at­tempt. And now therefore make it your business to ask this and have it granted. For you shall obtain it without any delay. And this great boon granted to your City shall endure throughout all ages, both as a testimony of your most Religious Piety towards the immortal Gods; and shall also be an evidence to your children and descendants, that for this your good course and resolution of life you have received due rewards from our Gracious Goodness.

This Rescript against us was fixed up on the Pillars throughout every Province, and did ut­terly exclude us from all hopes of safety, as far as it lay in humane power to do. In so much that (according to that divine oracle) He al­ludes to Matth. 24. 24. Even the elect themselves, were it possible, would have been of­fended at these things. But now, when all ex­pectation [of assistance from above] was amongst most of us in a manner expired and extinct; while they, who were commissioned to publish the aforesaid Edict against us, were in some Coun­tries yet on their journey; God the Protector of his own Church, (repressing the outragious insolence of the Tyrant against us, by stopping his mouth as it were;) did on a sudden demonstrate his celestial assistance in defence of us.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning what afterward hapned, in the time of the Wars, of the Famine, and of the Pesti­lence.

The most ancient Maz. M. S. begins the chap. 8. at these words; to which a­grees the Fuk. M. S. and Ru­finus. Vales. FOR Showers and Rains which would then have been seasonable (it being Winter) withheld their wonted streams from the Earth: upon which hapned a Famine not so much as thought of or expected, which was followed by a Pestilence. There raged also another violent disease, (it was an Ulcer, which was properly call'd a Carbuncle, upon account of its violent bur­ning.) This Ulcer spread it self over all the parts of the body, and was very fatal and dan­gerous to them that were afflicted with it. And because its chief seat was for the most part longest about the eyes, it blinded a great many men, women, and children. Besides all these (ala­mities, the Tyrant did now ingage in a War a­gainst the Armenians, who had been old friends and Allies of the Romans. This Maximin. person hated by God, endeavoured to compell these men (who were also Christians, very studious and industri­ous about the service of God,) to sacrifice to Idols and Daemons, and so rendred them foes [Page 176] instead of being friends, and bitter enemies in­stead of confederates. All these calamities there­fore, hapning on a sudden at one and the same time, did curb and confute the arrogant boasting of the insolent Tyrant against God; who had impudently bragg'd that in regard of his care in worshipping Idols, and persecuting us, neither War nor Famine, nor Pestilence, had happened in his Reign. Therefore all these Calamities coming to pass together, and at the same instant were as Prologues and forerunners of his immi­nent ruine. Both he and his Armies suffered much in the expedition against the Armeni­ans: And the residue, who inhabited the Cities under his Government, were miserably oppressed with the Plague and Famine: so that one mea­sure of wheat was sold for two thousand five hundred See B. 1. Chap. 8. note (b.) Attick drachms. Innumerable were they that died in the Cities, but more in the Countries and Villages; so that now the See B. 1. Chap. 5. note (b.) Cen­sor's Tables which were formerly filled with the names of Countrey men, wanted but little of one continued blot; allmost all persons being de­stroyed either by the want of sustenance, or the Pestilential disease: some did not refuse to sell to the wealthier sort, even those things which were most dear to them, for a little morsel of food. Others selling their estates by parcels, were reduced to the greatest want and extremity. Other-some chewed in pieces little handfulls of grass which they had plucked up, and making no distinction, but eating poisonous herbs together therewith, which corrupted the healthful consti­tution of their bodies, they perished. Also in every City divers women of good families, being reduced through want to shameless necessity, came forth to begg in the Market-place: their modest countenances and neatness of dress were an evi­dence of their gentile education: some were pined away and dryed up like the Ghosts of per­sons departed, so that they went reeling and tottering this way and that way, and being not able to stand, fell down in the midst of the streets, and lying stretched out upon the ground with their faces downward, they craved that even the least morsel of bread might be given them: and at their very last gasp cried out, that they were hungry; being only strong enough to utter this most doleful expression. But others that seemed to be rich, astonished at the multitude of beg­gars, when they had given away a great deal, af­terwards became uncompassionate and inexor­able, expecting that they themselves should ere­long suffer the same extremities with those that now begged of them. So that now, the dead car­kasses which lay in the midst of the Market­places and by streets naked and unburied for many days, were a most lamentable spectacle to the beholders. Moreover, some were devoured by doggs, upon which account those that survived, betook themselves to killing of doggs; being a­fraid least they should run mad, and devour them who were yet alive. Neither did the Plague more leisurely destroy whole households and fa­milies; but more especially those whom the Fa­mine could not dispatch, because they were fur­nished with great store of provision. Therefore the rich Presidents of Provinces, the Prefects, and a great many that were of the Magistracy, (as if the Famine had purposely reserved them to be devoured by the Pestilential distemper) suffered an accute and sudden death. All places, by-lanes, the Markets, and streets, were full of lamentations. There was nothing to be seen but mournful songs at burials, It was customary amongst the Hea­thens to at­tend their dead to the grave with musick upon pipes, and singing of mournful songs: in this Cere­mony were imployed certain old Women, called prae­ficae and siticine [...]; see our notes upon the 14th book of Amm. Marcell. Wherefore Christoph. mistakes who instead of [ [...], &c.] reads [ [...], &c.] as if this were the sence; there was nothing now to be seen, but mournful cryes, in­stead of their pipes, &c. thus he erroneous­ly tran­slates the place. But all our M. SS. and Nicepho. keep to the com­mon reading. Vales. together with their usuall pipes and other funeral-musick. Thus death fighting with the two forementioned weapons, to wit, the Pestilence, and the Famine, did in a short time destroy whole families; In so much that you might have seen two or three dead bodies carried out of the same house together to the By what is here related concerning the burial of the dead, we may gather that the custom of burning dead bodies was at that time wholly disused amongst the Romans. But, when this custom was first abolish'd 'tis difficult to determine. The Romans seem to have taken up this custom of burying in graves from the Jews, and Chri­stians: concerning which we have a place very observable in Macro­bius: for (says he in his Saturnal. B. 7. Cap. 7.) although in our days the custom of burning the dead is antiquated and disannulled: yet History teacheth us that in those days when they burned the dead, they pay'd great respect and honour to them. Vales. grave. Such were the rewards of Maximin's arrogance, and of the Decrees which the Cities issued out against us. During these sad times all the Heathens had evi­dent demonstrations of the care and piety of the Christians exhibited towards all men: for only they (amidst so many and great calamities on all sides) in reality declared their true compassion, and good nature: some of them imployed them­selves, every day in taking care of and in burying the dead (for vast numbers died whose funerals no body took care of.) Others gathered together into one body all those in the City who lay un­der the pressures of the Famine, and distributed bread to them all. So that, when the fame of this action was divulged amongst all men; they all glorified the God of the Christians, and did ac­knowledge them to be pious, and the only true worshippers of God, being convinced sufficiently by their works. Affaires being in this posture, God the great and celestial defender of the Chri­stians, (having by the aforesaid calamities mani­fested his wrath and indignation against all men, because of their barbarous cruelties shown to­wards us,) did again restore to us the gracious and glorious splendour of his Providence; darting forth upon us (involved in the thick­est darkness) the most miraculous light of his peace: and made it apparent to all men, that God himself was always the Overseer and in­spectour of our affaires; who does sometimes indeed chastise and correct his people with the scourges of affliction: but after sufficient cha­stisement, he does again shew himself gracious and merciful to those that confide in him.

CHAP. IX. In all our M. SS. the Titles of the Cha­pters are transpos'd; that which ought to be the Title of the tenth Chapter is given to the ninth, and on the contrary that which ought to be prefixt to the ninth is set before the tenth. This mistake we had corrected in our translation, but because we would do nothing without the Authority of the M. SS. we did therefore choose rather to follow the mistake, resting satisfied in having advertised the Reader of the mistake. Vales. Concerning the death of the Tyrants, and what expressions they used before their deaths.

CONSTANTINE therefore (who, as we said before, was an Emperour born of an Emperour, the Pious son of a most Religious, sober, and prudent Father After these words, in the most antient Maz. and Med. M. SS. follows this clause [ [...], &c. And Licinius (who was next to him in Autho­rity, both honoured for their wise­dom and piety;) two most pious [Emperours] having been encou­raged by God the supream King and Saviour of all men against two most impious Tyrants, &c.] which we have here inserted, judging it to be genuine and penned by Eu­sebius himself, as 'tis apparent from what follows. For in the end of the period Licinius is men­tioned as well as Constantine: whence 'tis plain, that Eusebius had spoken of both of them at the beginning of the period. But the Transcriber designedly expunged Licinius's name here, upon ac­count of the impieties he com­mitted afterwards. The Fuk. and Savill M. SS. does also agree with the Maz. and Med. M. SS. in in­serting this clause here. Vales.) and Licinius (who was next to him in Authority, both honoured for their Wisdom and Piety;) two most Pious [Emperours] having been encouraged by God the supream King and Saviour of all men, against [Page 177] two most impious Tyrants, and engaging them in a lawful War, (God assisting them;) Maxen­tius was most miraculously vanquished at Rome by Constantine; and Maximin the Eastern Tyrant, not long surviving Maxentius, dyed a most igno­minious death, being conquered by Licinius, who had not yet done any extra­vagant action. Moreover, Constantine the former of these two (who was the chiefest person, both in re­spect of honour, place, and degree in the Empire) took compassion upon those who were oppressed with Tyran­ny at Rome; and having by prayers humbly called upon the God of Heaven, and his Word Jesus Christ the Sa­viour of all men, to be his helper, he marcheth with his whole Army in vindication of the antient Liberties of the Romans. Now Max­entius, confiding more in his Magick devices, than in the love and favour of his Sub­jects, durst not so much as stir out of the City gates; but with an innumerable host of Souldiers, and with Ambushes, he fortified all Places, Towns, and Cities whatsoever about Rome, and within the compass of all Italy, which were under the pressures of his Tyranny: the Emperour [Constantine] depended upon divine assistance, and having attacked the Tyrant's first, second, and third Battalion, and with ease routed them all, he made himself a passage through the greatest part of Italy, and was now come up to the very gates of Rome. But least he should be constrained to assault all the Romans for the Ty­rant's sake only, God himself drew the Tyrant (as it were with cords) a great way out of the Gates: and did effectually confirm the truth of the miracles he wrought in times past against the wicked (recorded in the everlasting monuments of the sacred Scriptures, which though they are accounted fabulous by some and not credited, are nevertheless believed by the faithful) to all in general, Believers as well as Infidels, who saw this miracle we are about to relate. For as God in the days of Moses and the old Reli­gious Nation of the Hebrews, overwhelmed the Chariots and forces of Pharaoh in the Sea; and drowned his These words occur at Exod. 15. 4. The phrase in the Hebrew is [...]; which the Septuagint translation renders [...]; our English translation, his chosen Ca­ptains. Expositours differ in their explications of these words. Va­lesius thinks the Vulgar transla­tion is truest; 'tis there rendred ternos ex curribus pugnantes, that is, The Three fighting out of the Chariots. The true import of the Hebrew is, The valiantest, or (as the Caldeo renders) the fai­rest, Captaines; called The Three or Third, from their being the third sort of Governours in the Kingdom of Egypt. See Ains­worth. Exod. 14. 7. and 15. 4. chosen Ca­ptaines in the Red Sea, and covered them with the waves: after the very same manner Maxentius with the Souldiers and guards that were about him were cast into the deep like a stone; at such time as he fled be­fore the divine power, which did always assist Constan­tine's Armes, and designed to pass a River that was in the way before him: over which he laid a very artifi­cial bridge made of Boats joyned together, and so became instrumental to his own destruction. Upon which account these words may be pertinently spoken concerning him; Psal. 7. 17. 18. He hath graven and digged up a pit, and is fallen himself into the destruction that he hath made. His travel shall come upon his own head, and his wickedness shall fall on his own pate. The joynings therefore of the bridge laid over the River being after this manner separated, the passage began to sink; and the Boats together with the men in them descended on a sudden to the bottom of the River. Thus, this most impious Tyrant in the first place, and after him his Guards (according to what was foretold in the sacred Scriptures) sunk down like lead into the deep waters. So that [Constantine's Souldiers] who at that time by divine assistance obtained the victory, in such sort as the Israelites heretofore did who were lead by Moses that eminent servant of the Lord, I mislike Christophorson's Ver­sion of these words [ [...]] which he translates [canere potuisset, could have sung:] he ought rather to have rendred it [cecinerit, should have sung:] For Eu­sebius says, that Constantine did sing so, though not in exact words, yet really and truly. Vales. ought in all reason to have sung and repeated the same expressions (though not in words exactly the same, yet in reality) that they heretofore did against that impious▪ Tyrant [Pha­raoh,] after this manner: Exod. 15. 1, 2, 11. Let us sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed glori­ously; the horse and the rider hath he thrown into the Sea. The Lord is my helper and defender, In the Maz. and Savil. M. SS. this place is thus written [ [...], The Lord my helper and defender is become my salvation:] which reading is confirmed by Rufinus's Version, who translates it thus [Adjutor & protector meus, & factus est mihi in salutem:] This passage occurs at Exod. 15. 2; where the Roman Edition of the Septua­gint has not these two words [ [...]] which I wonder at: for I am very certain that Eusebius made use of the Septua­gint translation. Vales. he is become my salvation, And again: who i. like unto thee, O Lord, a­mongst the Gods: who is like unto thee? Glorious art thou amongst the Saints, won­derful in glory, working mi­racles. When Constantine had in reality sung these Hymns, and Songs like unto, and of the same sort with, these, in praise of Almighty God Governour of all things, and Authour of victory, he entred Rome with all trium­phant Pomp and Splendour: and immediately the whole Senate, [...]. The Greeks call them [...] whom the Latines call [Perfectissimi, most Perfect] This Title Perfectissimi was appropi­ated to them of the Ordinis E­questris, or Roman Knights; as Clarissimi was a title peculiar to them of the Senatorian Order. The Emperour's Prefects and Treasurers, who were always Knights, had the title of Per­fectissimi given them. This dig­nity or title in antient inscripti­ons is signified by these Cha­racters P. V. (i. e.) Vir. Per­fectissimus: see Gruter, pag. 1098; and my notes on Amm. Marcell. p. 202. Vales. those that were of the Equestrian Order, and all the people of Rome, together with their wives and chil­dren, received him (with a joy in their countenances which proceeded from their very hearts) as a Redeemer, a Saviour, a publick Father, and Benefactour, and with acclamations, and a glad­ness insatiable. But he, pos­sessing a piety towards God that was naturally implanted on him, was not in the least elevated in mind at these po­pular acclamations, nor puffed up with these com­mendations, but being sufficiently sensible of the divine assistance in this his enterprise, he pre­sently gave command, that the Trophy of our Saviour's passion should be put Instead of [...] we chose to Read [...], over, or into the hand: which Rufinus confirms and explains thus, Vexillum Dominicae crucis in dexter [...] suâ jub [...]s depingi. Vales. into the hand of a Statue erected to him. And when they had erected his Statue in the most publick place of all Rome, holding in its right hand the salutary sign of the Cross, he commanded an inscription to be [Page 178] Engraven upon the basis of it in Latine, contai­ning these very words:

BY THIS SAVING SIGN WHICH IS THE COGNIZANCE OF TRUE VALOUR, I HAVE DELIVERED AND FREED YOUR CITY FROM THE SLAVISH YOAK OF THE TYRANT, AND HAVE SET AT LIBERTY THE SENATE AND PEOPLE OF ROME, AND RESTORED THEM TO THEIR ANTIENT SPLENDOUR AND DIGNITY.

After this, Constantine the Emperour and Lici­nius his Collegue, (who was not then faln into that extravagant madness which afterwards de­praved his intellectuals) having both together worshipped and reconciled themselves to God the author of all the good which had hapned to them, did with an unanimous accord and consent enact a most compleat and full Law in behalf of the Christians. And they sent a relation of the miracles which God had done for them, and an account of their victory over the Tyrant, together with this their law, to Maximin who as yet was Emperour in the Eastern parts, and pretended friendship towards them. But he, like a Tyrant, was discontented and dejected at this news: yet being afterwards unwilling to seem to yield to others, and also out of fear to them who had con­firmed the Edict, daring not [...] (though otherwise rendred by some tran­slatours) signifies the same as [...], a phrase before used in the first chapter of this ninth book. The import of it is seponere, occultare; to conceal, or sup­press the Edict, as Maximin did before in the first Chapter of this ninth book, when Galerius's Rescript was sent him. But when Constantine and Licinius, after the overthrow of Maxentius, sent their Decree to him in favour of the Christians; he durst not conceal it metu superio­rum, fearing them, as being his superiours. Vales. to suppress and conceal it, he directs this his first Rescript in be­half of the Christians, to his Ministers, as it were of his own accord and by his own authority, though he was forced to it; Wherein with much artifice he feigneth concerning himself such things as were never done by him.

A Copy of the Translation of Maximin the Tyrant's Rescript.

Diocletian was the first that assumed to himself this sirname, Jovius; as his Col­legue Maximian did that of Her­culius. Aferwards when Constan­tius and Galerius were created Caesar's, Galerius, by marrying Diocletian's daughter, and living with him in the East, came to be called Caesar Jovius; and Con­stantius, by marrying Herculius's daughter in law; and living with him in the Western parts, was called Caesar Herculius. Af­terwards when Galerius died, Maximin, who was by him crea­ted Caesar, assumed to himself the sirname of Jovius; which Eusebius here takes notice of. See the Chronicon Alexandrian. Vales. JOVIUS MAXIMINUS AUGUS­TUS, to SABINUS. I suppose it well known to your Gravity, and to all men, that our Lords and Fathers Diocletian and Maximian (when they perceived that almost all men, deserting the Religious wor­ship of the Gods, joyned and applied themselves to the Sect of the Christians,) did right­ly and duly decree, that all those persons who had Apo­statized from the wor­ship and service of their Gods, should be re-called to the worship of the Gods by a publick punishment and chastisement. But when with an happy Omen I first came into these Under the name of the East, Egypt also is contained. For the Government hereof was committed to Maximinus Caesar. For Maximimus (after he was made Caesar by Galerius) re­ceived the jurisdiction over all those Provinces, which Diocle­tian had reserved to himself. And hence it came to pass, that Egypt was reckoned amongst the Eastern Provinces a long while after. So Amm. Marcellinus (B. 14. where he recounts the Provinces of the East,) reckons Egypt and Mesopotamia amongst them. Further, Egypt was originally under the Comes of the East, as we are informed from an antient inscription; the Contents where­of are these; M. MAECIO MEMMIO FURIO BALBURIO CAECILI­ANO PLACIDO C. V. COMITI ORIENTIS. AEGYPTI. MESOPO­TAMIAE. CONSULI ORDINARIO, &c. Vales. Eastern Pro­vinces, and found that very many men (who might be serviceable to the Republick) were exil'd and confin'd by the Judges, for the reason afore­said, to certain places appoin­ted them; I gave a charge to all the Judges, that none of them should for the future treat the Subjects of their Provinces so barbarously; but that they should rather re­gain them to the service of the Gods by courteous per­swasives and kind exhorta­tions. During the time there­fore that our Commands were, according to our Injunction, strictly observed, it happened that there was not one in all our Eastern Provinces either confin'd, or injured: but, in regard no trouble or disquie­tude happened to them, they were the rather reduc'd to the worship of the Gods. After this, in ' [...], the year past, (i. e.) the year of Christ 311. when Maximian was the eighth time Consul, for in this very year (wherein Galerius died, Maximin seized upon Bi­thynia, which Galerius (together with Illyricum and Thrace) had reserved for himself. Vales. the last year, when I successfully made a journey to Nicomedia, and there abode, the Citizens of that City came to me with the Images of their Gods, beg­ging of me with much earnestness that those sort of men might by no means be permitted to inhabite a­mongst them. But in regard I understood that a great many men of that Religion liv'd in those parts, I gave them this answer: that I was very well plea­sed with, and thankful to them for, their address, but did not perceive that that was the desire of all men in general. If therefore, any do persist in the [Christians] superstition, every one of them may have his free liberty; to choose what pleases him; and if they will embrace the service of the Gods, they also may do that. I thought it requisite to return a kind reply to the Nicomedians, as well as to the other Cities, who with much importunity had presented me with the same Petition, to wit, that no Christian might dwell in their Cities; This place is very intricate and obscure: and first, there is a difficulty in these words [ [...]] which some translated propterea quòd, because, but the ad­verb [ [...]] may be rendred ità, so, and then this is the mea­ning of the place. (viz.) I re­turn'd a kind reply to the Nicome­dians, which the Emperours my pre­decessours always were careful to do. The next difficulty is in these words [ [...], it therefore pleased the Gods, &c.] But we ra­ther read [...], and it now so pleased the Gods, &c. By this means [ [...]] is fitly oppos'd to the preceding words [ [...], the antient Empe­rours. &c.] according to this e­mendation we have translated the place. Vales. for so the preceding Emperours (as I observed) had always done; and it now so plea­sed the Gods, (by whom all men are preserved, and the publick state of affairs con­tinued in a sedate posture,) that I should grant that earnest address of theirs which they presented me with con­cerning the divine worship of their Gods. Wherefore although I have very fre­quently before this time, as well by Rescripts as Maximin does here make a distinction betwixt [...] and [...], Letters and Commands. Letters or Rescripts were sent by the Emperours to the Magistrates or Presidents into their Provinces when they were absent from Court: Mandata or Commands were given them by the Emperour when they were with him, before they went to their Provinces, all which commands were bound up in a short Libel. And this was one of the chief of their charges given them (to wit,) that they should be careful of their health. The Civilians speak much concerning these mandata Principum. Vales. Com­mands, ordered your devo­tedness, that the Presidents of Provinces should not be rigid or severe in their pro­ceedings against those with­in their districts, who are studious about the observa­tion of the Rites and u­sages of the Christian Re­ligion; but that they pa­tiently tollerate and with mo­deration comply with them: [Page 179] yet, least they should suffer any affronts or mo­lestations, from the Those Souldiers were called [...], or Be­neficiarii, that were promoted by the favour of the Tri­bune; they were pri­viledged from seve­ral Duties and Mili­tary hard­ships (as says Ver­getius.) Vales. Beneficiarii, or any others, I thought it agreeable and opportune to remind your Gravity by th [...]se Letters, that you should rather win the Subjects of our Provinces to embrace the wor­ship of the Gods, by flatterings and exhortations. Wherefore if any shall voluntarily take upon him to embrace and acknowledge the worship of the Gods, it is convenient that you should receive and treat such persons with the greatest kindness imaginable. But if any chuse to adhere to their own Religion, you are to permit them to take their Liberty. It is therefore required, that your devotedness observe what you are hereby injoyned; and that no person be impowered to injure, or exercise violence towards any of the Subjects of our Provinces: since it is rather convenient (as we said before) to re-call our Subjects to the worship of the Gods by fair words and kind exhortations. Moreover, that this In­junction of Ours may come to the knowledge of all our Subjects, let it be your care to It was usual that the Prae­sects of the Praetorium should, immediately upon Receipt of the Em­perour's Law, publish it to the Subjects by their Edict. Sometimes they did promulge the Emperours Law before their own Edict; sometimes they Proclaimed their own Edict, and only mentioned in it the Emperour's Law. Thus did Sabinus, in the next chapter of this ninth book. But Rufinus says that he Proclaimed the Emperour's Law before his own Edict. True it is, we must confess, that the Emperours Laws were published before the Edicts of the Presidents most commonly. Of this we have a notable instance in the Con­ference at Carthage, where after the Reading of the Emperour's Letter to Marcellinus the Tribune and the Notarius, Marcellinus's Edict was read. We must suppose the same thing concerning the Emperour's Rescripts: which were always placed before the Edicts of the Magi­strates. So did Himerius Rationalist of Egypt, in his Epistle to the Governour of Marcot [...]; which Athanasius has related in his Apo­logy. Vales. publish this Our Order by an Edict proposed by you.

When Maximin had issued out this Precept (be­ing necessitated to it, and having not done it of his own accord) for all this he was not lookt upon by all men to mean unfeignedly, or worthy to be confided in, because formerly (after the like Indulgence) he had demonstrated himself to be of a mutable and perfidious disposition. None therefore of our Religion durst either By [...] us'd in this place, we must not understand a Council of Bishops, but an Ec­clesiastick Congrega­tion, for [...] is some­times us'd in that sence, and Niceph. in this place uses [ [...] i. e. to meet together in their assemblies] instead of [...] which word I greatly approve of as explaining the place. Vales. meet together in their Ecclesiastick assemblies, or shew themselves in publick; for the Rescript did not in express words allow of this; it only contained an order that we should be preserved secure from violence and abuses: but it permitted us not either to celebrate our assemblies, or to build Churches, or to perform any of those solemnities usual with us: although Constantine and Licinius, the Pa­trons of Peace and Piety, These words [ [...]] Musculus and Christoph. render thus; Maximino, ut ista concederet, scripserant, they had written to Maximin that he should grant it. But I think Eusebius's meaning was otherwise, (to wit,) Constantine and Licinius wrote to Maximin that they had given free liberty to the Christians to exercise their Religion▪ to celebrate their assemblies, and to build Churches, &c. For it seems unlikely and some thing arrogant, that Constantine and Licinius should command Maximin, their Collegue, to grant these Priviledges to the Christians. Vales. had by their Letters acquainted him, that they had both permitted us to doe these things, and also had granted the same to all under their Government by their Rescripts and Decrees. But the most impious Tyrant was resolv'd not to yield thus, till such time as, ha­ving been prosecuted by divine justice, he was at length forced to it, whether he would or no.

CHAP. X. Concerning the Victory [obtained] by the Pious Emperours.

THis was the reason which I won­der Tran­slatours did not under­stand the force of this word. [ [...] i. e. to sur­round] when as the Common Lexicons do sufficiently explain it▪ More­over, the old Maz. M. S. does here begin this chapter, and I am not a little glad that my conjecture is confirm'd by its authority. For before I had procured that M. S. I be­gun this tenth chapter at the next period, The King's and Fuk. M. SS. do agree with the Maz. Vales. did press him on every hand. When he was no longer able to support the weight of the Government, which was unworthily confer'd upon him, but through want of a moderate prudence of mind, such as is required in a Prince, did insolently and unde­cently manage publick concerns; and more­over, was vainly puffed up with haughtiness of spirit, even against his Collegues in the Empire, who were far his superi­ours in Birth, Education, desert, prudence, and (which is the chiefest accomplish­ment of all) in humility and piety towards the only true God. Through confi­dence and insolency he ar­rived to such a degree of audaciousness, as to By these words [ [...]] is meant, to place his name first in all Titles of Laws and Decrees. Also, in all inscri­ptions on publick works, Statues and Images, Maximin plac'd his name before his Collegues, Con­stantine and Licinius: although they were Augusti before him. But Maximin challenged the first place, because he was created Caesar before them. Vales. chal­lenge the Precedency, and placed his name first in all Titles and Honours. Then Niceph. changes these words [ [...]] thus [ [...] exten­ding his pride to utter madness] which rendition is not amiss. For [...] is, in Chrysostome, taken for pride in many places. Vales. his madness breaking forth into utter desparation, ha­ving violated the league which he had made with Licinius, he raised a bloudy and implacable War. Af­terwards in a short time he In all our M. SS. 'tis [...]; and we translate according­ly the term. Vales. put all things into con­fusion, and every City into a strange consterna­tion; and having gathered together all his forces being a very great Army, he marched forth to fight a­gainst Licinius; being ex­traordinarily puffed up in mind with a confidence of the assistance of Daemons which he supposed to be Gods, and with his innumerable Army of men. But when he came to engage in a Battel, he was destitute of divine care and protection; and the victory was by the one, only and su­pream God given to Licinius. First of all his By [ [...]] the term here us'd, Eusebius means Maxi­min's Foot forces. Of all Histo­rians only Zosimus mentions any thing of this Battel between Maximin and Licinius in Illyri­cum; in his second book: he says, that Licinius at first suf­fered some loss; but afterwards, renewing the fight, he put Maxi­min to flight, who fled towards the East, thinking to raise a new Army. This relation does well agree with this of Eusebius here, for he says that Maximin having lost his Army fled into his part of the Empire, that is, into the East. This Battel therefore was fought in Europe; in the year of Christ 313. Constantine and Licinius be­ing the third time Consuls; as Sigonius well observes in his third book De Occidentali Im­perio. Vales. Foot forces were routed, in which he did most con­fide; then his Guards de­serted him, revolting to Li­cinius the Conquerour, and he forthwith, unhappy wretch, threw off his Royal Robes, (which did not become him,) and timerously, ignobly and unmanfully shrowded him­self amongst the crowd [of common Souldiers.] Af­terwards he fled; and (be­ing very sollicitous about making provision for his own safety) hid himself in the fields and villages, hardly escaping the Enemies hands; by which he did truely veri­fie those firm, unerring, and divine▪ Oracles which say; There is no king that can be saved by the multitude Psal. 33. 16. [Page 180] of an host, neither is any mighty man delivered by his great strength. A horse is counted but a vain thing to save a man, neither shall he deliver any man Psal. 33. 17, 18, 19. by his great strength. Behold the eyes of the Lord are upon them that fear him, upon them that put their trust in his mercy; to deliver their souls from death. Thus therefore did the Tyrant re­turn with disgrace into his own Provinces; and first of all in a mad passion he destroyed many Priests and Prophets belonging to those Gods he had formerly admir'd, (by whose Oracles he had been excited to engage himself in this War) as Cheats, Impostor's, and also, betrayers of his own safety. Then, when he had given thanks and praise to the God of the Christians, and had enacted a full, perfect and most compleat Law for their Liberty, he was forthwith struck with a mortal distemper, and (without the least de­lay allowed him) finished his life. Now this was the Law which he published.

[...] i. e. A Copy of the Ver­sion, &c.
A Copy of the Tyrants Decree in behalf of the Christians, translated out of Latine into Greek.

EMPEROUR CAESAR CAÏUS VALERIUS MAXIMINUS GER­MANICUS, SARMATICUS, PIUS, FELIX, INVICTUS AU­GUSTUS. We are confident no man can be ignorant, but that every one does know and is fully satisfied (if he does recollect himself and reflect upon what is done,) that at all times and by all means We do consult the utility of the Subjects of our Provinces, and do willingly grant them such things as may prove most advantagious to them in general, all that may be most condusive to their common good and profit, whatever is agreeable to the advantage of the publick, and is most grate­ful to the minds of every one of them in particular. At such time therefore as it came to Our knowledge, that (upon occasion of a Law made by Our Parents, their most sacred [Majesties] Diocletian and Maximian, whereby it was Decreed that the As­semblies of the Christians should be utterly abo­lished) many Extortions and Rapines were com­mitted by the See the foregoing chapter. note (e.) Beneficiarii, and that these abuses of our Subjects, (whose peace and quiet is our chiefest care) increased exceedingly, their e­states being [upon this pretence] wasted: by Our He means his Rescript to Sabinus Prefect of the Preto­rium; which Eusebius has inser­ted at the foregoing Chap. B. 9. Maximin says 'twas written in the year past, or the last year, i. e. in the year of Christ 312. Constantine and Licinius being both then in their second Consulate. Whence it follows that this last Edict of Maximin was written in the year of Christ 313; Constantine and Licinius being the third time Consuls. Further, these are the prin­cipal differences between the Emperours Rescripts and Edicts. (1.) Their Rescripts had their names annext to whom they were sent; the Edicts spoke to all men in general. (2.) The Edicts were publickly proposed; the Rescripts were given to those to whom they were sent; as may be seen from Gest. Purgat. Cecilian. p. 28 nor was it usual to publish them, unless this word was expresly added in the end of the Rescript, proponatur, Let it be published. Lastly, in their Rescripts the name of the Emperour was prefixt only with some few of his Titles: but in their Edicts, none of their Titles were omitted, but all were carefully and proudly mentioned. Vales. Letters written the last year to Our Presidents of every Province, we Decreed: that if any one had a desire to follow that Sect, or adhere to the Pre­scripts of that Religion, he might without impedi­ment persist in his resolution, and not be hindred or prohibited by any man: and that every one should freely do what pleas'd him best without the least fear or suspition. But it could not now escape our knowledge that some of Our Judges did This word [ [...]] is by Langus rendered malè accepisse, misapprehended, misinterpreted: which Version I approve of: for [...], in its genuin sense signifies malè interpretari. But Musculus (and Christoph. in imitation of him) translates it, neglig [...]re to neglect, pro nihilo habere, not to value: which is not so well. The Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. read [ [...] disregarded] which words seem to have been written in the margin as a Scholion at first; but afterward crept into the Text. Vales. misap­prehend Our Commands, and caused Our Subjects to distrust and doubt of our Decrees, and made them more slow and fearful in their accesses to those Re­ligious performances which they approved of as best: Now therefore that all jealousies, ambiguities, and fears may for the future be removed, we have De­creed that this Our Edict be published; whereby all men may know, that they who desire to follow this Sect and Religion, are allowed by this Our Gracious Indulgence to apply themselves to that Religion which they have usually followed, in such a manner as is acceptable, and pleasing to every one of them. We do also permit them to rebuild their Oratories. Moreover, that this Our Indul­gence may appear the larger and more compre­hensive, it has pleased us to make this Sanction; that if any houses or estates (which formerly be­longed to and were in possession of the Christians) are by the Decree of Our Parents devolved to the Right of the Exchequer, or are seized upon by any City, or sould, or That is by the Em­perours, who us'd to give those E­states which fell to the Exchequer to those that begged them. See the Code, in the Title De petitionibus. Vales. bestowed upon any one as a gra­tuity: We have Decreed that they shall all be restored to the antient tenure and possession of the Christians; that so all men may hereby be sensible of our Piety and providence in this concern.

These are the expressions of the Tyrant, which came from him not a full year after those Edicts he had published against the Christians [en­graven on plates of Brass and] fix't up on the Pillars. And now he, who but a little before looked upon us as impious, Atheistical Persons, and the very pest of mankind, (in so much that we were not permitted to dwell in any City, Coun­trey, or even in the deserts,) this very person [I say] made and published Laws and Decrees in favour of the Christians. And they, who but lately were destroyed by fire and sword, and were devoured and torn by beasts and birds in the very presence of this Tyrant; they, who underwent all sorts of punishments, tortures and death, in a most miserable manner, like Atheists and irreligious persons, even these men are now acknowledged by this very Tyrant to profess Re­ligion, and are permitted to rebuild their Ora­tories; nay further, the Tyrant himself does ac­knowledge and attest that they ought to be par­takers of some Rights and Priviledges. More­over, when he made this publick acknowledg­ment, (as if he had hereby obtained some favour) for this very reason, his sufferings were less cala­mitous than he deserved they should be, [for] being smitten by God with a sudden stroak, he died in the second Engagement [that happened in] that War. But he ended his life not like those Martial Generals, who (after they had often demeaned themselves gallantly in the field in defence of their honour and their friends) happened couragiously to undergo a glorious death. But he (like an impious person, and a Rebel against his Creatour,) whilst his Army stood in the field drawn up in Battalia, staying at home and hiding himself, suffered a condign punishment, being smitten by God with a sud­den blow over his body. For, being tortured with grievous and most acute paines, he fell upon his face on the ground, and was destroyed by [Page 181] want of food, all his flesh being melted away by an invisible fire sent upon him from heaven. In so much that, when his flesh was wholly w [...]sted away, the entire shape and figure of his former beauty quite disappeared; his parched bones (which lookt like a skeleton that had been long dried) being all that was left of him. So that those about him judged his body to be nothing else but the grave of his soul buried in a body already dead and wholly putrified. And when the violent heat of his distemper scorched him with a greater vehemency even to the very mar­row of his bones, Chryso­stome at­tests the same, in his Oration concerning Saint Ba­bylas a­gainst the Gentiles; in these words, [...] The eye-balls of one of them leapt out of his eye holes of their own accord, while he was yet alive; this was Maximin: The other ran mad. Diocletian was the Emperour that was distracted; which is attested by Eusebius, and by Constantine. We have also an account of Maximins blindness, in Epiphanius's piece De Ponderib. Vales. his eyes leaped out of his head, and, having deserted their proper station, left him blind. After all this he yet drew his breath, and having given thanks, and made his Confession to the Lord, he called for Death. At last, acknowledging these his sufferings due for his contempt and presumption against Christ, he gave up the Ghost.

CHAP. XI. Concerning the final Destruction of the Enemies of Religion.

MAximin therefore being thus taken out of the world, (who was the only Enemy of Religion that hitherto surviv'd, and declared himself the worst of them all;) the Churches by the grace of God Almighty were rebuilt and raised from the very foundation, and the Gospel of Christ darting forth its beams of light to the great glory of the all-ruling Deity, enjoyed greater liberty than it formerly had. But the wicked, and the Enemies of Religion were clouded with the highest disgrace and greatest shame im­maginable. For first of all Maximin himself was proclaimed by the Empe­rours a Though in the common E­ditions the term here is [ [...]] yet we read [...]. For Eusebius here means, that Maximin was proclaimed a Common Enemy. This was done very solemnly, by the Decree of the Senate, as the Compilers of the Historia Augusta inform us in many places, and especially where they treat of Maximin. Vales. publick Enemy, and was termed in the pub­lick Edicts which were fixed upon Pillars, a most im­pious, detestable Tyrant, superlatively odious to God. Also the Pictures which were placed in every City in ho­nour of him and his chil­dren, were some of them broke in pieces and thrown down from on high to the very ground; and others were defaced, having their visages black­ned with dark colours. In like manner, all the Statues which had been erected in honour of him were also thrown down, broken in pieces, and exposed as subjects of derision and scorn to all those that would abuse and insult over them. After this the other Enemies of Religion were divested of all their dignities. Moreover, all Maximin's party, more especially those whom he had preferred to places of the greatest power in the Provinces within his Empire (who to flat­ter him had been insolently abusive towards our Religion) were put to death. One of this num­ber was Him whom the Greeks name [...] we have ter­med Pi­centius: that there was a Sy­cophant of this name in the time of Con­stantine, Zosimus at­testeth in the end of his second book. Cer­tain we are that those persons whom the Greeks call [...] the La­tines term Picentes. Vales. Picentius, a person that was a great favourite of his, highly esteemed by him, and his dearest intimado: whom he created Consul a second and a third time, and also made him He seems to mean the Pre­fect of the Praetorium. For the term [ [...]] is never used but to denote either the Prefect of the Praetorium, or the Prefect of the City. Besides, whenas Eusebius affirms that Picentius was advanced to great honour and made Consul twice by Maximin, it would be absurd for him to say, that he was made Rationalist by him, that being a place of small honour in respect of the Prefecture of the Praetorium. But, there are these arguments to con [...]ute this opinion: (1.) by these words [ [...]] Eusebius does always mean the Rationalist, as we have frequently observed before. (2.) Sabinus was Prefect of the Praetorium to Maximin (as we noted before) in the year of Christ, 311, and 312. Neither (3.) is the dignity of the Rationalists Office to be lookt upon as mean and low. For even Macrianus (he that seized on the Empire in the times of Gallienus) bore that Office: and Eusebius himself (book 8. chap. 9.) calls it [...], no mean Office; speaking of Philoromus the Martyr. But that which Eusebius says, to wit, that Picentius was made Consul thrice by Maximin, is very intricate and difficult to be made out. We have observed be­fore, that after Galerius's death, Maximin took upon himself the Title of Augustus, in the year of Christ 311. Therefore, before this time, when he was Caesar only, he could not make Picentius Consul. For the Augusti only had a right of creating the Consuls. Therefore, after Galerius's death, Maximin declared himself and Picentius Consuls in that very year. On the year following Maximin and Picentius bore their second Consulate in the East, when Constantine and Licinius were the second time Consuls in the West. But in Italy and Africa Maxentius was the fourth time Consul alone. Then, on the year after, which was the 313 year of Christ, the same Maximin and Picentius were Consuls the third time in the East, as is evidently collected from this famous passage in Eusebius For 'tis improbable that Maximin should give a third Consulate to another, and not declare himself Consul once. Indeed, in the Alexandrian Chronicle, Galerius Maxi­minus is put Consul with Maximianus being in his eighth Consulate, which is the year of Christ 311. Although in that Chronicle he is called Galerius Maximus. We therefore are the first that have taken notice, that Maximin bore three Consulates. Whence it may be ga­thered that Maximin was Augustus about two years, having before been Caesar seven years, and that he lived till the 313 year of Christ, which we have also demonstrated from his Rescripts. Wherefore I wonder how so notorious a mistake should creep into Eusebius's Chronicon, as to place Maximin's death before Maxentius's: It seems to have been committed by Saint Jerome; for he added many things of his own to Eusebius's Chronicon. Vales. Prefect and Rationalist. Another was one He was President of Thebaïs, as Epiphanius attests in his 68 Heres▪ which is the Heresie of the Mel [...]tiani, where he is called [ [...] Culcïanus;] but it should be Culcianus as 'tis evident from this place in Eusebius. Yet Rufinus translates it Quintianus: in Nicephorus 'tis Lucianus; both names are false. For this President was called Cul­cianus, as (besides Eusebius) the Acts of Phileas the Martyr's pas­sion do affirm. Vales. Culcianus, who had born all Offices of dignity in the Magistracy and in the Government of Pro­vinces; he also was famous for his innumerable Massacres of the Christians in Aegypt. There were a great many more beside these, by whose endeavours most especially the barbarous Tyranny of Maximin was maintained and extended. Fur­ther, Divine vengeance required justice to be exe­cuted upon Eusebius speaks of this Theotecnus before, in this ninth book. Ce­drenus asserts that this Theotecnus perswaded Galerius Maximianus to raise a persecution against the Christians. But he is mistaken, in that [...] takes Galerius Maximianus for Galerius Maximinus, which is a common errour amongst the modern Greek Authours. Vales. Theotecnus, being in no wise for­getful of his practises against the Christians. For he was look's upon as a deserving and successful person upon account of his consecration of the Image at Antioch, and besides, the Emperour Maximin conferred on him the Presidency of a Province. But when Licinius came to Antioch, and was resolved to make inquisition for the Im­postours, [amongst others] he tortured the Priests and Prophets of the New contrived Image, enquiring of them how they palliated and put a mask upon their Imposture: when they could no longer conceal the truth, being by their tortures compelled [to disclose it] they de­clared, that the imposture of the whole Mystery was compos'd by the cunning of Theotecnus: [Page 182] when therefore Licinius had inflicted condign punishment on them all; he gave order that Theotecnus himself should first be executed, and afterwards the rest of his Associates that were conscious to, and accomplices in the Cheat, having first suffered innumerable tortures. To all these were added Maximin's Sons, whom he had now made Colleagues with himself in the Empire, and partakers of the Pictures, and Inscriptions dedicated to his honour. In fine, all the Ty­rants relations, (who but just before had made their proud boasts, and insolently exercised au­thority over all men,) most ignominiously under­went the same sufferings with those persons fore­mentioned, for they received not instruction, nor did they know, or understand this season­able admonition uttered in the holy Scriptures; O put not your trust in Princes, nor in the Psal. 146. 2, 3, children of men, for there is no health in them. The breath of man shall go forth, and he shall re­turn again to his earth: in that day shall all their thoughts perish. Thus therefore the impious be­ing like filth wiped away [from off the earth,] the Empire, which by right belonged only to Constantine and Licinius continued firm, and un­obnoxious to Envy. These persons (after they had first of all cleansed the world from all im­piety) being sensible of those great benefits they had received from God, did sufficiently demon­strate their love of vertue and of the Deity, their piety, and gratitude towards God, by the Laws they made in favour of the Christians.

The End of the Ninth Book of the Ecclesiastical History.

THE TENTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS.

CHAP. I. Concerning the Peace, which was procured by God for us.

THerefore, glory be to God the Al­mighty and supream King, for all things: and manifold thanks to the Saviour and Redeemer of our souls, Jesus Christ, through whom we pray that we may have always preserved to us a firm and inviolable peace, both from outward troubles, and also from all internal molestations of mind. Having (by the assistance of your prayers) added this tenth book of our Ecclesiastick History to those foregoing books at this place finished, we have dedicated it to you (most sacred He means Pau­linus Bishop of Tyre, to whom our Eusebius dedicated his Ecclesiastick History. For by his perswasion he undertook this work, as he does here plainly intimate. Eusebius designedly omitted the dedication of his books to Paulinus at the beginning of this his work, (which is usually done,) upon account of Paulinus's modesty (if I mistake not:) but was contented to make an honourable mention of him at the end of his History. For he supposed it signified not much, whe­ther he dedicated his books to him at the beginning, or at the end of them. Eusebius dedicated to the same Paulinus two books [...], concerning the names of places: the former of these (which contained the division of the 12 Tribes, the description of the City Jerusalem, and the Hebrew appellations of extraneous nations) is now lost. But the latter (which treats of the Hebrew names of places) was above twenty years since put forth in Greek by the Reverend Father Bonsrerius; to which there is prefixt an Epistle to Paulinus. Wherein Eusebius attests, that by Paulinus's perswasion he attempted that work; and he gives him this title [ [...], O Paulinus, thou sacred man of God!] Paulinus there­fore was our Eusebius's [...], Instigator to compile his books, as Ambrosius heretofore was Origen's.—Further, this Paulinus was at first a Presbyter of Antioch. Afterwards, being preferred to the Bishoprick of Tyre, he was much commended for his Presidency over that Church. And at length when Eustathius was divested of the See of Antioch, he was by the Antiochians preferred to the Gover­ment of their Church: so Eusebius info [...] us, in his book against Marcellus, chap. 4. in these words, [...], &c. Afterwards he inveighs against the man of God Paulinus, a most bles­sed person; who was adorned with the dignity of a Presbyter at Antioch: and was so famous for his Government of the Tyrian Church, that the Antiochians challenged him as their own proper goods. Philostorgius (book 3. chap. 15.) says expresly, that Paulinus succeeded Eustathius in the See of Antioch, and that six months after his translation he died.—Paulinus therefore died in the year of Christ 328, after he had born the Episcopate of Antioch six months. Wherefore Gothofredus is much mistaken, who (in his notes on Philo­storgius) supposes Paulinus to have died in the year of Christ 324; and blames Philostorgius for being inconstant to himself. But Philostorgius agrees very well with himself; which Gothofredus does not in asserting that Paulinus Bishop of Tyre died on the year of Christ 324. undoubtedly Paulinus Bishop of Tyre was present at the Nicene Council, and survived that Synod sometime; as Theodoret informs us book 1. chap. 6. and Sozomen book 2. chap. 18.—Baro­nius indeed says that Paulinus died in the year 324, and that Eusta­thius succeeded him. But Baronius affirms not, that that Paulinus, whom he makes Eustathius's predecessour, was Bishop of Tyre▪ Vales. Paulinus!) hereby publishing you to be the seal and closure as it were of this our whole work. Nor will it be incongruous (as we suppose) to place here The phrase in the original is [ [...]] which Valesius, Chistophorson, and Gry­naeus render in perfecto numero; and we, in its due order. in its due order, a com­pleat Panegyrick concer­ning the Re-edification of the Churches: obeying here­in the holy Spirit, which exhorteth us in these words: O sing unto the Lord a new song; for he hath Psal. 98. 1, 2, 3. done marvellous things. With his own right hand, and with his holy arme hath he gotten himself the victory. The Lord hath declared his salvation: his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the Heathen. Therefore, since the Scripture in­joyneth us [to begin] a new song, let us a­greeable thereto sing together; because, after such terrible, black, and horrid spectacles and relations; we are now vouchsafed to see such happy days, and to celebrate such Festivals, as many of our Ancestours, who were truly just and Gods Martyrs, desired to see upon earth, but have not seen them; and to hear, but have not heard them. But these persons, hastning a­way with all possible speed, obtained far more excellent things, being taken up into Hea­ven, and into the Paradise of divine joy and delight: And we, confessing these present en­joyments to be greater than our deserts, stand amazed at the bounty of the Donour of such munificence: We also justly admire and adore him with the utmost vigour of our souls, at­testing the truth of his Predictions by his Pro­phets contain'd in the Scriptures, in which 'tis said: O come hither, and behold the works of the Psal. 46, 8, 9. Lord, what miracles he hath done upon the earth; He maketh warrs to cease in all the world. He shall break the bow, and knap in sunder the spear, and burn the shields with fire. Let us therefore rejoyce [Page 184] at the perfect and effectual completion of these things in our days, and with gladness prosecute the series of our narration. After the same manner therefore that we have related, did the whole race of those enemies of God vanish, and was suddenly taken away out of mens sight; so that that divine Oracle was again compleated, which says; Psal. 37. 35, 36. I have seen the wicked exalted, and lifted up like the Cedars of Libanus, I went by, and lo, he was not: I sought his place but it could not be found. Now therefore a bright and glorious day, no cloud overshadowing it, doth enlighten, with raies of heavenly light, the Chur­ches of Christ over all the earth. Neither were there any of those that were strangers to the community of us Christians, and to our Religion, This place (which neither Musculus nor Chri­stophorson understood) must be thus mended; [...], &c. But (although they did not enjoy them in the same degree that we did, yet at least in some measure) might together with us partake of the streams, &c. Vales. In Stephens Edit. the reading is, [...], &c. but (although they did not enjoy them in the same degree that we did, yet at least in some mea­sure) might together with us partake of the streams and effluxes of those good things, which had been procured us from God.

CHAP. II. Concerning the Re-edification of the Churches.

ALL mankind was now free from the slavery and oppression of Tyrants; and being re­leased from their former miseries, (although se­veral ways, yet) all acknowledged as well as they could, that it was the only true God, who was the Defender of the pious. But more especially a­mongst us (all whose hopes were fixed solely upon God's Christ) there was an inexpressible joy, and a kind of celestial gladness; when we saw all places, which through the irreligion of the Tyrants were a little while ago totally destroyed, restored to life as it were, and recovered from a tedious and fatal ruine; and [when we beheld] the Temples erected again from the ground to a vast height, and in splendour far excelling those which had formerly been destroyed. Moreover, the Emperours themselves, in whose hands the supream power was, by their continual enacting of Laws in favour of the Christians, did enlarge, augment, and confirm the magnificence of the Divine bounty towards us. There were Rescripts also frequently sent from the Emperour parti­cularly to the Bishops, their honours were in­creased, and sums of money were bestowed on them. The Contents of which Rescripts (being translated out of Latine into Greek,) it may not be impertinent to record in this book (as in a sacred Table) at a proper and fit place, that they may be had in continual remembrance by all suc­ceeding generations.

CHAP. III. Concerning the Consecrations of Churches every where [solemniz'd.]

AFter those things, a spectacle earnestly prayed for, and much desired by us all, appeared; [to wit,] the Solemnization of the Festivals of Dedication [of Churches] through­out every City, and the Consecrations of the new builded Oratories; the frequent assemblies of Bishops, the concourse of Strangers from Coun­tries far remote, the mutual love and benevolence of the people; the union of the members of Christs body joyned together in an intire harmony and consent: therefore, (agreeable to that Ezek. 37. v. 7. Pro­phetick prediction, which has mystically fore­signified what is to come,) bone was joyned to bone, and joynt to joynt; and what ever else that Divine Prophecy has aenigmatically but truly de­clared. There was one and the same power of the holy Ghost which passed through all the members: one soul in all: the same alacrity of faith: one common concent in chaunting forth the [...] is here (as 'tis frequently in this Hi­storian) us'd to signifie the praising of God: so also is [...] laudare Deum, to praise God. Vales. praises of God. Indeed, the Ceremonies of the Prelates were most intire, the Presbyters performances of Service exact, the Rites of the Church, decent and majestick; Rufinus's Version of this place may serve in stead of a com­ment; he translates it thus; Jam verò ingens in Sacerdotiis & ministeriis, atque in omnibus quae ad religionis observantiam pertinent, gratia refulgebat. Adstabant hic psallentium chori, juvenes & virgines, senes cum juniori­bus laudabant nomen domini. Hic mystica ministeria ordinatis & dis­positis vicibus agebantur; And now an exceeding great glory and beauty appeared in the performances of the Presbyters, and in the Ecclesiastick Services, and in all things belonging to the observances of Religion. In one place, the company of those that sung Psalms, youths and virgins, old men and young, praised the name of the Lord. In another, the mysti­call services were performed by set courses orderly appointed. The terms [ [...]] therefore denote the people of the congregation, who sang Psalms in the Church, and hearkned to the sacred Lessons: which is confirmed by these words [ [...], auditours of the expressions] which can be understood of the Laicks only. The words [ [...]] point out to us the Presbyters, who performed the my­stical ceremonies. Vales. on the one hand was a place for the singers of Psalms, and for the rest of the Auditors of the expressions sent from God: on the other was a place for those who performed the divine and mystical Services: there were also [delivered] the By these [ [...], the mystical Sym­bols of our Saviour's passion] is meant Baptism; which is a sign of our Saviour's suffering. For, by Baptism we die, and are buried with Christ, and we rise again through the same Christ by faith. See Colos. 2. 12. Vales. mystical Symbols of our Saviour's Passion. And now people of all Ages, and Sexes, men and women, with the utmost vigour of their minds, with joyful hearts and souls, by prayers and thanksgiving, wor­shiped God the author of all good. All the Prelates then present made publick Orations, e­very one (as well as he was able,) endeavour­ing to set forth the praises of those assem­bled.

CHAP. IV. A Panegyrick concerning the splendid posture of our Affaires.

AND a certain person, that had been indif­ferently well educated and was deserving, having made this Oration, came forth into the presence of a great many Bishops, (that were then present as at an [...]lesiastick assembly) who gave him Audience quietly and decently; then turning himself towards one who was the emi­nentest of them all, (a Bishop acceptable to God, by whose care the Church of Tyre, the stateliest Fabrick amongst all the Churches within the Coun­try of Phoenicia, was gloriously erected,) he spake thus.

[Page 185]A Panegyrick upon the building of the Chur­ches, spoken to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre.

You the Friends and Priests of God, who are wrapt in the sacred long Vesture, Crowned with the celestial diadem of glory, anointed with the holy Unction, and clothed in the Sacerdotal Robe of the holy Spirit: and You, the Grace and Ornament of this New-erected and sacred Temple of God, You who are adorned by God with a prudence befitting an hoary head, but have exhibited many glorious evidences of a vigorous and Juvenile Vertue; You to whom God, (who comprehendeth the whole world,) These words [ [...]] which we ren­der [to whom God hath given this special and particular privi­ledge] Christoph. understands as if this were the sense of them. (viz.) That this Church, which was founded by Paulinus, was a special ornament or honour to Christ, and his Church: but Musculus follows the same sense that I do. Vales. hath granted the special prerogative of building and renewing this terrestrial Temple for Christ his only begotten and his first born word, and for his holy and sacred Spouse: [You] whom one may term either a new Beseleel, the Architect of the holy Tabernacle; or another Salomon, King of a new, and far more excellent Jerusalem; or a second Zorobabel, in regard You have added a far greater splendour to the Temple of God, than it had before. Also, You, the Sheep of Christ's sacred flock; the Seat and Mansion of good Doctrines; the School of modesty; and the Re­verend and In the Greek Text, the term is [ [...]] which we have tran­slated Religious; but doubtless Eusebius wrote [ [...], ma­jestick] for it would be a simple way of expressing ones self thus, [...], the Religious Auditory of Reli­gion. Vales. Religious Auditory of piety! We (who have long since heard, by reading the holy Scriptures, the Miraculous works of God, and the loving kindness of the Lord [declared] by his wonders towards mankind,) may now sing Hymns and Psalms to God, being instructed to say, Psal. 44. v. 1. O God, we have heard with our ears; our fathers have told us the work which thou didst in their days, in the times of old. But now, having not barely by hearing and reports only, perceived the exalted Arm, and celestial right hand of our all good and supream God and King; but in reality and (as we may say) with these very eyes seen the truth and verity of those things which were heretofore recorded; we may sing a second triumphant Hymn, and breake forth into these express words, saying, Like as we have heard, so have we seen, in thePsal. 48. v. 8. city of the Lord of hosts; in the city of our God. But in what City, except in this new built, and framed by God? 1 Tim. c. 3. v. 15. Which is the Church of the living God, the Pillar and ground of the truth. Concerning which another divine Oracle speaketh thus: Psal. 87. v. 2. Very excellent things are spoken of thee thou city of God. In which Church since God the giver of all good, by the Grace of his only begotten Son hath convened us, let every one here assembled cry out with a loud voice as it were, and say; Psal. 122. v. 1. I was glad when they said unto me, we will go into the house of the Lord. And again: Psal. 26. v. 8. Lord I have loved the beauty of thine house, and the place where thine honour dwelleth. And not only every particular person, but let us all together re­joyce and shout forth praises with one spirit, and one mind, saying, Psal. 48. v. 1. Great is the Lord and highly to be praised, in the city of our God, even upon his holy hill. For he is truly great, and his house is great, lofty and spacious, and more beautiful than the sons of men. Great is the Lord who only doth marvellous things. Great is he who doth magnificent things, and such as are past finding out, glorious and stupendious, of which there is no number. Great is he who altereth times and seasons; who deposeth and constituteth Kings: who raiseth up the poor from the earth, and exalteth the beggar from the dunghil: He hath thrust down the mighty from their seats; and hath exalted the humble from the earth. He hath filled the hungry with good things, and hath broken in pieces the armes of the proud. Not only amongst the Faithful, but a­mongst the Infidels also he hath confirmed the au­thority of those relations heretofore recorded of him of old. 'Tis he who worketh miracles: 'tis he that doth great things: 'tis he who is Lord of all: he, who is the framer of the whole world: he, who is Almighty: All-good: he that is the one and only God. In obedience to whom let us sing a new song; to him, who only doth wonderful things; for his mercy endureth for eve [...] ▪ Who smote great Kings and slew mighty Kings; for his mercy endureth for ever. For the Lord remembred us when we were in a low condition, and hath re­deemed us from our Enemies. And let us never cease thus to praise God the Father of all. Also him, who is the In the Med. M. S. I found this Scho­lion writ­ten at these words; [...]; i. e. Thou deliverest no good divi­nity here (O Eusebius I ) con­cerning the Son of God, who is coëqual in dominion, coëternal, and con-Creatour of all things [with the Father:] Thou stilest him the second Authour of all good, when as he is the same Authour and Framer of all things with the Father, and of the same substance with him. Also in the Maz. M. S. we met with this Scholion here, in a later hand, wherein Eusebius is also reproved, in regard he subjects the Son to the Father, and attributes to him the second place. [...]. that is: why doest thou utter this divinity (O man!) to thine own destructi­on? detracting from and subjecting him, who in glory, power, and essence is every way like the Father; and attributing to him the second place from the Father. Thy sentiments and writings do herein contradict those holy Fathers, who determined the Son to be coëssential with the Fa­ther. To whose opinion thou didst subscribe, unless they who wrote their Acts do declare a palpable un­truth. Vales. second Au­thor of all good to us; who is our Master in instructing us in the knowledge of God, the Teacher of true piety, the destroyer of the wicked, the slayer of Tyrants, the re­former of our lives; Jesus our Saviour, when we were in despair, him let us extol, ha­ving his name always in our mouth. For he alone, who is the only and Best Son of the Best and greatest Father, in complyance with his Fa­ther's love to mankind, most willingly cloathed himself with our nature who were buried in Corruption; and like a care­ful Physician ( In the Greek, these following lines (the translation whereof is contained within this paren­thesis) seem to be Iambicks taken out of some Tragedian. The words are these; [...] which verses are undoubtedly very elegant, and smel something of Aeschylus, or Sophocles. But I think they ought rather to be blotted out of this place, for they disturb the sence. Vales. who for the healths sake of his Patients looks into the wounds, lightly stroketh the sores, and from other mens calamities attract­eth grievances upon himself;) he himself hath by himself saved us (who were not only diseased and oppressed with foul ulcers and wounds already putrified; but also lay amongst the dead) from the very Jaws of death. For there was no o­ther in heaven that had so much power, as inoffensively to mi­nister health to so many; it was he only therefore who after he had touched our burdensome corruption, he alone, who after he had endur'd our labours, he alone who, after he had taken upon himself the punish­ment of our impieties; raised us (when we were not only half dead, but lay altogether impure and stincking in the Graves and Sepulchers) and both in times past and now [Page 186] through his earnest compassion towards us (even beyond our hopes and expectations) preserveth us, and imparteth to us an exuberancy of his Fathers good things. Tis he who is the Authour of life, the In­troducer of light; our great Physician, King, Lord, and the Anointed of God. Here he first relates what Christ did in the days of old, for the salvation of mankind. After­wards he sets forth what miracles he lately wrought. Vales. But even then, when all mankind (by the wiles of detestable Devils, and the operations of spirits hated by God) lay buried in an obscure night, and thick darkness, he In the Text we read [ [...],] but we should rather read [ [...]] as we find it in the Med. Fuk. and Maz. M. SS. [...] signifies solummodo, only, or alone; which phrase is frequent in Eusebius, and thus he is here to be understood: That Christ only, by his ap­pearance and incarnation in times past▪ delivered men, who were enstav'd by the Devil, from that grievous yoke of servitude. Vales. only by his appearance, with the rayes of his light dissolv'd the manifold chains of our sins, like melting wax. And now, when by reason of his so great love and beneficence [towards us] the [...]; the import whereof, if rendered word for word, is this; Envy the hater of that which is good, and the Devil the lover of mischief. But by the following words in the period he seems to speak of the Devil only: upon which account we render it The envious Devil, &c. agreeable to Valesius's Version. envious Devil, Enemy to all that is good, and the favourer of evil was in a manner burst [with grief,] and mar­shalled all his fatal forces against us; and when at first having (like a mad Dog who with his teeth gnaws the stones that were thrown at him, spending the fury he was put into, against those that pro­voked him, upon the liveless things thrown at him,) turn'd his beastly rage upon the stones of the Oratories, and upon the sensless piles of the buildings, he thought with himself, that he had procur'd the utter desolation of the Churches; also, when afterwards he sent forth terrible hissings, and his serpentine expressions, one while by the menaces of impious Tyrants, at another time by the blasphe­mous Decrees of profane Presidents, and moreover belched forth the virulency of his death, and with his venemous and deadly potions, poisoned those souls that were captivated by him, and had in a manner destroyed them by the pernicious sacrifices of dead Idols; when lastly he had incited against us all those that under the shape of men masked their savage cruelty, persons of a disposition every way barbarous and fierce: Then again the Angel of the great Council, that Upon these words in the Med. M. S. we find this Scholion in the margin. (viz.) this is wicked, Atheistical, and Blasphe­mous, to call the Saviour Christ and God, the great Commander in chief of God's Host. Vales. Chief Com­mander of Gods Hosts (af­ter a sufficient exercise in the Combat, which the most valiant Champions of his kingdom exhibited, by under­going the severest hardships with patience and fortitude,) appearing on a sudden, so utterly destroyed and re­duc'd to nothing, all his Enemies and Adversaries, that they seem as if they had never been named. But his friends and dependants he exalted to the highest pitch of glory, not only amongst all men, but amongst the celestial powers also, the Sun, the Moon the Stars, the whole Heaven, and the World. So that now (which thing never hapned before) the su­pream Emperours, sensible of that honour they have received from God, spit in the faces of the dead Idols, trample under foot the prophane Rites and services of Devils, and deride that antient errour handed down to them by tradition from their An­cestours: they acknowledge one only God, the com­mon Benefactor to all men, and to them in particu­lar; and they profess Christ the Son of God to be the supream Ruler of all things, they proclaim him Sa­viour in their inscriptions upon Pillars, ingraving in Royal Characters his valiant exploits and victories (in order to their indelible Remembrance) over the impious, in the very midst of that City which is Queen of the whole Earth. So that our Saviour Jesus Christ is the only person amongst all those who have been since the world began, that is confessed to be (even by the Emperours themselves, who are supream here upon earth,) not an ordinary King made such by men, but is worshipped as be­ing the genuine Son of the supream God, and is [adored] as being We ought to take special notice of this place; for it is the first wherein Eusebius calls Christ [...]. This one place I think sufficient to consute all their ma­licious calumnies, who believe that our Authour Eusebius was infected with Arianisme. This word [ [...]] is made in imitation of Plato's word [...], which signifies that which in it self is truly good: so [...] is he who is truly originally and in himself God. Vales. truly and in himself God; and that deservedly. For what King had ever such power, as that he could fill the tongues, and ears of all men upon earth By these words [ [...]] may be meant the Christians, who are called [...] after his own name: which name of Christians was spread over all Nations, and known not amongst the Romans only, but also amongst the Bar­barians. But if any would have these words [ [...]] signifie Christ's own name; I will not much contradict it; for a little after our Authour speaks of the Christians: which certainly he would not have done, had he spoken of them be­fore. Vales. with his name? What King ever constituted such pious and prudent Laws, and was able to confirm them in such a manner, that they should be perpetually read in the audience of all men from the one end of the whole earth to the opposite extremities thereof? What King hath ever by his mild and indulgent Laws, melted and softened the savage and barbarous dispositions of the inhumane Heathens? What King opposed by all men du­ring the space of so many whole Ages, ever demon­strated such a more than hu­mane valour and strength, that he flourished dayly, and seem'd to grow young in every succeeding age? who hath planted a Nation (which heretofore was not so much as heard of) not in some secret unknown corner of the earth only, but even throughout the whole world [which lies] under the Sun? Who ever armed his Souldiers with the Arms of godliness in such a manner, that in their conflicts with their Adversaries they made it apparent that their minds were firmer than an Adamant? What King was ever so potent as to lead an Army after his death, and to erect Trophies against his Enemies, and to fill every Place, Countrey, and City, Grecian and Barbarian, with his Royal Palaces, and with the [...] the term here, does not signifie the Consecration of Churches, as Musculus here translates it; but rather the Do­naria, things Offered and Conse­crated to God, and thus the fol­lowing words [ [...], Ornaments and De­dicated (or Consecrated) gifts,] declare. Certainly if Eusebius had here meant Consecration, he would have us'd [...] and not [...] in this place; as he does in the third chapter of this tenth book. Vales. Consecrated fabricks of holy Temples, such as are those splended ornaments and con­secrated gifts belonging to this very Church. Which are in themselves truly august and magnificent, worthy of a­mazement and admiration, in regard they are In the Kings M. S. at the side of this line I found this mark [ [...].] set: which is an ab­breviation of the word [ [...], i. e. polite, elegant.] In an­tient M. SS. 'tis usually found placed at the more elegant pas­sages. Vales. evident representations of our Sa­viour's Kingdom. Psal. 33. v. 9. For he now spake and they were made; he commanded, and they stood fast: for what could withstand the beck and will of the Word, who is the supream King and Governour of all things, and is himself God? But an accurate con­templation, and explication of these things particularly, re­quire a peculiar discourse and leisure. More­over, a peculiar leisure would be requisite to relate what, and how great the alacrity of the workmen was that laboured in this building, and how it [Page 187] was looks upon and esteemed of by that God him­self, whom we extoll, who inspects the living temples of us all, and views the house built of living and I have translated these words [ [...]] firm stones: Musculus translates them crescen­tes lapides, growing stones. Chri­stoph. renders them incedentes in terra lapides, walking stones: but I cannot conceive, how the foundation could be firm, if the stones mov'd. Of these Ver­sions the Reader may take which best pleaseth him; I do not here reject Christoph. version. But where­as Christoph. supposes these words [ [...]] which we translate [that God whom we praise] do signifie Christ; I can­not at all commend him; For our Authour speaks afterward of Christ; saying, that he is the chief corner stone of this Temple. Wherefore by [ [...]] is meant God the Father, the O­verseer of this work. Hieronym. translates [ [...]] in the second chapter of Haggai, lapides viventes qui nunc volvun­tur super terram, living stones which are rolled upon the earth. Vales. firm stones, well and securely placed upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: who was rejected not only by those who were the Framers of that antient building, which en­dures now no longer, but also by those Architects of that Fa­brick which now is, consisting of many persons; who were wicked Framers of evil works. But the Father having tryed [this stone] and approv'd of it, in times past, and now also, layed it as the head of the Corner of this Church which is common to us all. Into this living Temple there­fore of the living God, which is made up of us, (I mean that most stately sacred Fa­brick, truly worthy of God, whose inmost recesses are in­visible to the vulgar, and are truly holy, and the holiest of holies) what man is he that dares look and divulge [what he there beholds?] Yea who is he that can with his eyes penetrate its sacred inclosures, but he alone, the great high Priest of all; whose only right and priviledge it is to make researches into the secrets of every rational soul? And perhaps the same is granted to After these words there is an Asterisk set in the Med. M. S. and in the mar­gin are these words written [ [...]. This also is blasphemous.] The Scho­liast, who set this note here, seems to have thought that in this place Eusebius spake concer­ning Christ: but he speaks of Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, who (says he) has obtained the next place to Christ in the Govern­ment of believers. Now this cannot be stiled an impious ex­pression, seeing that all Prelates do resemble Christ, and are his vicegerents in the Government of the Church. We confess in­deed, that Eusebius attributes too much to Paulinus, in regard he gives him the second place, as if he were Christs Equal and Col­league; and in regard he terms him Melchisedech. Vales. one other person in the next place after him, to wit, to this chief leader of his Host; whom the first and great high Priest himself hath honoured with the second place of the Priesthood in this sacred Temple, and has himself constituted him the shepherd of your holy flock, having this your people committed to his charge by the allotment and determination of the Father, as being his own Mi­nister and Interpreter: a new Aaron, or Melchisedeck, made like to the Son of God, re­maining, and by the publick prayers of you all preserved for ever by him. Unto this person alone therefore be it lawful next after the chief and principal High Priest, if not to have the first, yet at least the second place in looking in­to, and taking care of the very inmost recesses of your souls: for by [the help of] experience and length of time he hath both made accurate inquiries into every particular person amongst you; and also by his care and industry, hath instructed you all in modesty, and in the doctrine which is according to godliness: and he is abler than any one else to give such accounts of those He means as well the spiritual as material Fabrick of the Church at Tyre; of the form and model whereof Pau­linus (says he) can give the best account, in regard by the assistance of divine power he framed that Structure. Vales. works (which by the as­sisting power of God he hath perfected) as are answer­able to the works themselves. Indeed, our first and chief High Priest saith, Jo. 5. 19. What things soever he seeth the Fa­ther do, these also doth the Son likewise. But this person, looking upon the first [High Priest,] as it were upon a Master, attentively with the un­polluted eyes of the mind; whatsoever things he seeth him do, them he maketh use of as his original patterns, and hath wrought the representations there­of into such a form, that they do express (as neer as 'tis possible to be done) an exact likeness thereto. Being nothing inferiour to that See Exod. 35. 31. Beseleel, whom God himself (having filled him with the spirit of Wise­dom and understanding, and of other artificial and skilful knowledge,) made choice of to be the Framer of a Structure of celestial types of a Eusebius▪ here us'd [...] improperly, making it to signifie a Tabernacle; whereas [...] signifies properly, a Temple: we read in Exod. chap. 38. that Beseleel built the Tabernacle of the Lord, not the Temple. Vales. Temple by cer­tain shadowed representati­ons. After the same man­ner therefore, this our [Bi­shop] This word [ [...]] is a Metaphorical term, taken from the Heathen Priests, who carried the Images of their Gods upon their shoulders. Vales. bearing in his mind the perfect, whole, and intire representation of Christ, who is the Word, the Wisedom and the Light; it cannot be expressed with▪ what a great­ness of soul, [...]. So 'tis worded in the original. with what a rich and inexhaustible hand of his understanding, and with what an emulous liberality [proceeding from] you all, (who by your no­bleness in contributing to the charge did most ambitiously contend, that you might in no wise seem to be inferiour to his vast design) he hath erected this magnificent Temple of the most high God which may be seen, naturally resembling (as neer as may be) the Model of that more glorious Structure which is invisible. And this very place, (for it is fit we should speak of this first,) which by the treacheries of our Enemies was overwhelmed with all manner of impure rubbish, he neglected not; nor did he in the least yield to the wickedness of them who had been authors of it; whenas he could have found out another place (whereof there are great numbers in this City) where he might have been eased of much of his labour, and freed himself from many troubles: yet, having first made ready himself to undertake this work; and after­wards corroborated all the people with an alacrity of mind, and gathered them all together into one great Band, he attempted this He al­ludes to the Hercu­lean La­bours, or Combats. Vales. first laborious enterprize: supposing it fitting that this very Church (which had been most battered by the Enemies, which had heretofore undergone great sufferings [upon our account,] which had endured perse­cutions both with and before us, which like a mo­ther was bereaved of her children,) ought to enjoy together with us the magnificent bounty of our most good and gracious God. For, in as much as that great Shepherd hath vouchsafed to gather his children together again into one place, having dri­ven away the wild beasts, Wolves, and all the sa­vage and fierce kind of creatures, and (as the divine Scriptures say,) having broken the jaw­bones of the Lions, with good reason he reedified the Fold for his Flock, Psal. 8. v. 2. That he might put to confusion the enemie and the avenger, and might bring a reproach upon the audacious and re­bellious attempts of the impious against God. The phrase here is [ [...]] which Valesius renders thus▪ [Itaque illi deo invisi, nunc amplius non sunt, quando ne tum quidem erant:] and we thus, [Now therefore these persons, hated by God, are not, nor were they then.] It seems to be an imitation of Dionysius Alexandrinus his expression; who in his Epistle to Harmammon (part whereof is quoted by our Eusebius, at book 7. chap. 23.) speaks thus concerning Macrianus [ [...], now he is not, for he never was.] Vales. Now therefore these persons, hated by God, are not, nor were they then. But after they had for a short space of time raised disturbances, and were [Page 188] themselves also disturbed, they suffered a most just punishment inflicted on them by divine vengeance, and irrecoverably ruin'd themselves, their friends and families. So that those predictions heretofore recorded in the sacred Monuments [of the Scri­ptures] may now be acknowledged to be really cer­tain, in which the word of God does both truly de­clare other things, and also speaks expresly concerning them, thus: Psal. 37. v. 14, 15. The ungodly have drawn out the sword, they have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as are of an upright conversation. Their sword shall go through their own heart, and their bows shall be broken, And again, Psal. 9. 6. Their me­morial is perished [...] with them; in the Se­ptuagint the reading is [...] with a sound. Their memorial perished with a sound, and Psal. 9. 5. thou hast put out their name for ever and ever. See Psal. 18. 41. For when they were in troubles they cryed, and there was none to save them, even unto the Lord did they cry, but he heard them not. Psal. 20. v. 8. They were bound and fell, but we arose and were set upright; This also which was foretold in these words (Psal. 73. v. 19. Lord, thou in thy city shalt bring their image to nought) is manifested in the sight of us all to be most true. These men, who like the Giants rais'd a war a­gainst God, procured for themselves the same fatal end of their lives that they did: But The Church of God. She which was desolate, and whose safety was despaired of by all men, has arived to such a conclusion of her patient sufferance upon God's account as we now behold, so that these words of the Prophecie of Isaiah may seem to have been spoken to Her. Isal. 35. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. Our Authour quotes this Text, as it is in the Version of the 72; according to which we tran­slate. Re­joyce thou thirsty desert; let the solitary place rejoyce, and flourish like a lilly: the deserts shall flourish and be glad: be ye strengthened ye languid hands, and feeble knees: be comforted you faint hearted, be strong, and fear not: Behold our God doth repay judgment, and will repay it: he will come and save us. For (saith he) Wa­ter hath broke out in the desert, and a valley in a thirsty land. The parched ground shall be changed into moorish places, and the fountain of water into a thirsty land. All this was formerly predicted in words, and laid up in the sacred books; but the things themselves, are now no longer deli­vered to us by hear-say, but [are exhibited] by actual performances. This same dry desert, this disconsolate Widow (He al­ludes to Psal. 74. v. 7. whose very gates they have cut down at once with Axes, like wood in the Forrest, having broken Her in peices with the axe and the hammer: whose books they have spoiled, and have burnt the sanctuary of God with fire: they have defiled the dwelling place of his name even unto the ground; See Psal. 80. v. 12, 13. Whose grapes all that go by plucked of, (having first broken down her hedges,) whom the wild bore out of the forrest hath rooted up, and the wild hog devoured;) by the miraculous power of Christ (it having now pleased him so to do) flourisheth again like a lilly. Yea, at such time as She was chastened, that [cha­stizement was inflicted on Her] by his appointment, as it were by a careful and indulgent Father. Heb. 12. v. 6. For whom the Lord loveth he chastiseth, and scourgeth every Son whom he receiveth. When therefore She had been moderately and sufficiently chastized, She is again commanded from Heaven to rejoyce; and She flourisheth as a lilly, and breaths forth upon all men, a divine sweet savour: for saith he, Isai. 35. v. 6. Water gushed out in the deserts, [to wit,] the We read [ [...] the foun­tain] not [ [...].] The Fuk. & Sa­vil. M. SS. confirmour reading. Vales. fountain of that salutary laver of divine regeneration. And now, that land which a little before was desolate, is changed into pools: And the fountain of living water hath gushed out plentifully upon a thirsty land: those hands which were formerly weak, are really strong: And those works [which you behold] are great and power­ful instances of this strength of the hands: more­over, those knees which were formerly enfeebled and weak, having, now recovered their usual firmness and faculty of walking, go straight on in the way of divine knowledge of God, hastning towards the genuine flock of that most good and gracious shep­herd. And if any of them have had their souls benummed and stupified through the menaces of Ty­rants, even these the saving Word doth not dispise as incurable, but heals them carefully and tenderly, and excites them to be partakers of the divine con­solation, saying; Be comforted, ye faint hearted: be strong, fear not. When therefore this our new and excellent Zorobabel (by the accuteness of his understanding) perceived that, according as the divine Word had foretold, She which had been brought to desolation for God's sake, should enjoy these good things, after that bitter Captivity, and abomination of desolation: He dispised not this dead corps, but having in the first place with supplications and prayers (together with the joynt consent of you all) propitiated the Father, and taking for his assistant, and fellow-labourer the only reviver of the dead, He raised up this fallen Church, ha­ving first purified Her, and healed Her of her Maladies. And now he hath put a Robe about Her, not that Old one, but such a one as he had again received instructions about, from the divine Oracles, which expresly testifie thus: See Hag. 2. 9. And the latter glory of this house shall far excell the former. Upon which account, having taken in a far larger com­pass of ground, he fortified the outward circuit with a wall on every side, which might serve for a strong fence to the whole Structure. Then he raised a spacious, lofty, and stately Portico against the rayes of the rising Sun, which, to those who stand at a sufficient distance without the sacred inclosure, does yield a full prospect of this Structure within; and as it were, attracts the eyes of Infidels to look upon the first entrances, that so no person might pass by, who should not feel some pricks in his mind, both at the remembrance of the former desolation, and also at [the sight of] the stupendious miracle of the present Fabrick. Hence he hoped, that he who upon that account felt such a compunction, might peradventure be drawn [towards it,] and at the very sight thereof would be perswaded to enter in. But after you are come within the gates, he has not permitted you to enter immediatly into the holy place, with impure and unwashen feet. But, ha­ving left a large vacancy betwixt the Temple, and the Portico, He beautified this vacant space (Christoph. thought that these words [ [...]] were spo­ken con­cerning the Temple; whereas by them is meant the space be­twixt the Porch and the Temple. This space was inclo­sed (says He) in figure of a Quadrangle, and beautified with four opposite Cloysters by Paulinus. Vales. having inclosed it in the figure of a Qua­drangle) with four opposite Cloysters supported on every side with Pillars. The This [ [...]] very well rendred, [intercolumnia, the space betwixt the Pillars,] was fill'd up with latticed bars of wood, which reached upwards an indifferent height: here also Eusebius useth [ [...]] to signifie [height] which is not taken notice of by Tran­slatours. Vales. intermediate space betwixt these Pillars, he filled up with partitions made of wood, resembling Net-work, which reach up an indifferent height, but the He means that middle space in the open air, which was encom­passed on every side with the four Cloysters; it was of the same figure with those which in the modern Monasteries are called Pratella. For that which the Monks call a Cloyster is nothing else but four covered walks, within which is that vacancy in the open air, by them termed Pratellum. Moreover, in some Monasteries, this vatancy in the open air is fenced in with rails, after the same manner that Eusebius says the Atrium, [the Court, or Yard] was, wherein the Church of Tyre stood; which is done to hinder boys from going into that open place, which is usually planted with flowers. This vacant place is in Latine properly termed Atrium. Vales. middle space [Page 189] he left open, that a view of Heaven might be taken, and that by it might be let in the clear air filled with the rays of Light. Here also he placed the Mysterious Symbols of the sacred Purgations, to wit, fountaines built opposite to the front of the Church; which afforded plenty of water for those who entred the sacred walls to wash in. And this first place of reception to those that entred, yielded both a beautiful and splendid prospect to all men, and also afforded a very commodious Mansion to those who yet wanted instruction in the first principles of Re­ligion: Moreover, [...] after you have seen these things, or after you have entertained your self with be­holding these things. Musculus's version of it is horum conspectu prae­terito, after you have passed seeing these things, which Version of Musculus's is rather to be fol­low'd then that long circumlocu­tion of Christophorson's, by which he translates this place thus, Quinetiam quo istas res ad oculos capiendos magnâ operum varietate concinne illustrarent: which tran­slation agrees not with Eusebius's words. Vales. after a view taken of these [buil­dings,] he made passages opening into the Church [a­dorned] with a great many more inward Porticoes. And again at the rays of the rising Sun he placed three gates in one and the same side. On the middlemost of which he thought fit to bestow much more of magnificence and spa­ciousness than on the other two placed on either side of it; and, having adorned it gloriously with plates of Brass bound on with Iron, and with variety of Sculpture, he adjoyned the other two as the Guards to Her, being as it were a Queen. When he had after the same manner made the number of the Porches equal to the Cloysters on both sides of the Church, over these Porches, he invented other copious con­veyances of Light into the House, and adorned them with various and exceeding fine and small wooden Sculptures: but the Royal House it self he furnished with richer and more costly materials, liberally bestowing thereon most magnificent and vast expences. I think it here superfluous for me to describe the length and breadth of this building, and to treat particularly of the splendour [of the Stru­cture,] of its unspeakable greatness, of the glit­tering show of the Works, of its height which equals heaven, and of the costly Cedars of Libanus that are laid hereupon: the mention of which even the holy Scripture hath not passed over in silence; wherein tis said See Psal. 104. v. 16. The trees of the Lord shall r [...]e, even the Cedars of Libanus which he ha [...] planted. To what end should I make an exact narration here of the most ingenious and artificial composure of the whole Structure, and of the incom­parable beauty of every particular part of it, when as the testimony of the Eyes excludeth all know­ledge which entreth at the Eares? Moreover, after he had thus finished the Temple, and decently adorned it with the highest thrones in honour of the Prelates of Churches, and also with For whom these [...], ben­ches or seats were made, 'tis some difficulty to resolve, (that is,) for what degree of order of men they were intended. Leo Allatius in his second Epist. De Templis Gracor: supposes these benches were made for the common use of the Laity, The same says Clemens, in his Constitut, Apost. B. 2. cap. 57. But Eusebius means another thing. For afterwards, where he explains the whole Fabrick of this Church Allegorically, he says that by the Thrones, the Bishops and Presbyters were meant: but by the Benches, the Deacons, and others that served in the Church. Wherefore these benches were rather designed for those who served in the Church, than for the Laicks. Indeed the Laity were not permitted to sit in the Church. So says Optatus in his fourth book, and which words of his we must so understand, that in a congregation in the Church, during the time of Divine Service, the Laicks were not permitted to sit down; but when the Service was ended, they had liberty to sit. So also says Athanas. in his Epist. Ad Solitar. Vales. benches orderly placed all over the Church, at last he placed the Holy of Holies, the Altar, in the middest, and that the multitude might not come within these [sacred places,] he enclosed them with wooden r [...]ils made like Net-work, which were so cu­riously and artificially framed and carved, that they entertained those that viewed them with a wonderful and surprizing sight. Neither was the very Pavement neglected by him, but after he had beautified it most gloriously with Marble-stone, he proceeded to the out-buildings of the Temple; and with great Art and Skill erected most spacious See note (y.) Exhedrae and Oeci on each side which in an uniform manner were joyned together at the sides of the Cathedral, and united to the Christophorson renders this place thus; atque adeo ad sene­stras inferioris templi affixit, and therefore joyned them to the win­dows of the lower temple: the meaning of which Version I un­derstand not. For I can't ap­prehend how the Exhedra (i. e. the Vestries, or Lower buildings which stood on the sides of the Ca­thedral and were joyned to it) could be fixed to the windows. Christophorson supposed that [...] (the term here used in the Greek) did signifie windows. Indeed, Euscbius, speaking a lit­tle above concerning the win­dows through which the light was conveyed into the Porches, uses this term [ [...]] which Christophorson translates windows. But in this place, where [...] is put by its self, without being joyned to any other word, it can't signifie windows. Either therefore Eusebius means, by this term here used, the doors of the Cathedral, which a little before he calls [ [...]] or else cer­tain walks, through which there was a passage to the Cathedral▪ which Paulinus, in his twelfth Epist. calls Transennae. But 'tis my judgment that the doors of the Cathedral are hereby meant. Fur­ther, by those Oeci, and Exhe­drae, Eusebius means the Baptistery, the consistory, and the place where they saluted one another; which were joyned to the Cathedral. Vales. doors which lead in­to the middle of the Church. These buildings our most peaceful King Solomon (who erected this Temple of God) made for them, who want the Purification, and the sprink­ling by water and the Holy Ghost. So that, that Pro­phesie before quoted is no longer a wordy Prediction, but is really accomplished: For now it is come to pass, that the glory of this latter House is truly greater than the former. For it was re­quisite and agreeable that (since her Pastor and Lord, for her sake once suffered death, and after his Passion changed that vile body, which for her sake he had put on, into brightness and glory; and translated that very corru­ptible flesh from corruption to immortality,) she also should likewise enjoy the We observed before (see Book 1. Chap. 1. note b.) that [...] (the term that oc­curs here) signifies not only Christ's Incarnation; but that, whatever our Saviour did in the flesh in order to the procuring man's salvation, is in general termed [...]. See the au­thorities there quoted. This place also evidently demon­strates the same, where Euse­bius terms not only the Death, but the Resurrection also of Christ, [...], dispensations, in the plural number. Vales. Dis­pensations of her Saviour. For although she (having re­ceived from him a promise of far more excellent things than she doth at present en­joy,) incessantly longeth to be for eternal ages partaker of a far greater glory of a Regeneration, at the Resur­rection of the incorruptible body, with the Quire of the Angels of light, in the Palaces of God above the Heavens, together with Jesus Christ the Donour of all good things, and her Saviour: Yet du­ring the interim of her abode in this present world, she (who was heretofore a widow and desolate,) being by the grace of God surrounded with these flowers, is (as the Prophesie saith) truly become like unto a Lilly. And, having put on her wed­ding Robe, and being encircled with a Crown of beauty, let us hear her Herself relate how she is taught to dance by Esaias, and with pleasant ex­pressions to shout forth thanksgivings to her God and King: Esaias 61. 10, 11, Our Au­thour quotes the words of the Septu­agint; and we tran­slate ac­cordingly. Let my soul rejoyce in the Lord. For he hath cloathed me with the Garment of salvation, and the coat of gladness. He hath encircled my head with a diadem like a bride­groom, and hath bedecked me like a bride with ornaments. And as the earth which multiplieth its flowers, and as a garden that causeth its seeds to spring forth; so the Lord hath caused righteousness to rise up, and joy in the sight of [Page 190] all the Heathen. Thus doth she sing and dance. But in what expressions the Bridegroom, the ce­lestial Word, Jesus Christ Himself answereth her, hear the Lord speaking: Esai. 54. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Fear not because thou hast been ignominiously treated, neither be thou ashamed, because thou hast suffered reproach. For thou shalt forget thine everlasting shame, and thou shalt no longer remember the reproach of thy widowhood: the Lord hath called thee, not as a woman forsaken, and dejected in spirit, nor as a woman hated from thy youth: thy God hath said; For a little while I have forsaken thee, but with great compassion I will have pitty upon thee. I turned my face from thee when I was a little angry; but with everlasting mercy I will have mercy upon thee, saith the Lord who hath redeemed thee. Esai. 51. 17, 18, 22, 23. Arise, arise, thou who hast drunk from the hand of the Lord the cup of his wrath. For thou hast drunk of, and emptied the cup of Destruction, the cup of my [...]ury: and there was none of all thy sons, whom thou hast born to comfort thee: neither was there any to take thee by the hand: Behold I have taken out of thy hand the cup of destruction, the cup of my wrath, and thou shalt no longer drink it. And I will put it into the hands of them who have injured thee, and debased thee. Esai. 52. 1, 2. Arise, arise, put on strength, put on thy glory. Shake off the dust, and arise: sit down: loose the chain of thy neck. Esai. 49. 18, 19, 20, 21. Lift up thine eyes round about, and view thy children gathered together. Behold, they are gathered together, and come to thee. As I live saith the Lord, thou shalt put them all on as an ornament, and thou shalt put them about thee as a bride doth her bravery. For thy de­solate places, and those that were wasted, and ruinous, shall now be too narrow for thy inha­bitants. And they shall be removed far from thee, that devoured thee: for thy sons which thou hadst lost shall say in thine ears: The place is too straight for me: make a place for me that I may dwell. And thou shalt say in thine heart: who hath begotten me these? I am childless and a wi­dow. Who hath nourished these for me? I was left desolate: these where had they been? All this Esaias hath predicted. These things were in times past recorded in the holy Scriptures concerning us. And it was requisite that we should now at length receive the truth of these words really and actually fullfilled. In regard therefore the bride­groom, the Word, hath spoken in this manner to his spouse, the sacred and holy Church, agreeably hereto hath this [...] is here very well rendred by Christoph. Exor­nator spons [...], the Dress [...]r of the Bride. Musculus renders it not amiss Paranymphus, (i. e.) one who is to take care of all things that appertain to the Bride. Vales. Dresser of the Bride, (with the prayers of you all in common, reach­ing out to her your helping hands, by the appointment of God the supream King, and by the appearance and pre­sence of Jesus Christ's power) raised and erected this desolate [Church,] lying like a dead car­cass [on the ground,] and despaired of by all men. And, having lifted her up after this man­ner, hath made her such an one, as he was in­structed to do by the delineation of the sacred Scriptures. This [Fabrick] is indeed a stu­pendious miracle, and doth surpass all the de­grees of admiration, especially to them, who are only intent upon the outward appearance of things. But the original Examples and Primitive forms hereof, the spiritual and truely divine patterns are more admirable then all miracles, I mean, the reparations of that divine and rational building in our souls. Which [Structure] when the Son of God himself had framed according to his own Image, and had freely granted, that in all parts it should bear the resemblance of God, he be­stowed upon it a nature incorruptible, incorporeal, rational, different from all terrene matter, [and gave it] a Eusebius here calls the soul of Man▪ [...] (i. e.) a self intelligent substance, because naturally and of it self it under­standeth. So the Philosophers call spiritual substances, [...], such as we call Intelligen­tias, Intelligences. But Christoph▪ being grosly mistaken, takes [...] in this place to be the same with [...]; and accordingly renders it, Substantia Sol [...] men­tis intelligentiâ cognita, a sub­stance which can only be compre­bended by the understanding of the mind. But there is a difference betwixt [...] (i. e.) intelli­gible, that which may be com­prehended, or, understood, and [...] (i. e.) intellectual, that which does understand, or comprehend▪ For example's sake, Chimara, and all such Fictions of the under­standing are [...], intelligible, but not [...], intellectual or in­telligent. Nebridius in his 71 Epist. to both Augustines, doth very well distinguish betwixt these words. Vales. substance ori­ginally and of its self in­telligent; after he had once thus created it at the begin­ning out of nothing, He made it an holy Spouse, and [fra­med it into] a most sacred Temple for Himself and his Father. This he himself in express words acknowledgeth, saying; Levit. 26. 12. I will dwell in them and walk amongst them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Such indeed is the perfect and purified soul, which was so framed at the be­ginning that it bore the per­fect Image of the celestial Word. But when through the envie and emulation of the malitious Devil, by its own voluntary choice, it be­gan to be a follower of its own passions, and was in­amored with vice, (God having withdrawn himself out of it,) being left de­stitute as it were of a Defender, it was easily captivated, and remained exposed to their trea­cheries who for a long time had been enviers [of its glory,] and being now utterly battered down by the Engines and Machines of its invi­sible Adversaries, and spiritual enemies, it sunk down into such a total ruine, that not one stone of vertue was left standing upon another: all the parts of it lay prostrate on the ground, as dead, utterly deprived of all those notions concerning God, which were naturally imprinted on it. But this ruinated building, which was framed after the Image of God, was not laid waste by that wild bore out of the wood which is visible [...] eyes, but by some destructive Devil, and by [...] ­telligent and spiritual wild beasts. Who, having put it into a flame by wicked passions (as it were with the By [...], Eu­sebius means malleoli, darts be­smeared with wild-fire, and such fire-balls as are flung from the walls, upon Enemies; here he imitates that place of Saint Paul▪ where he makes the Devil to be armed with fiery darts with which he fights against men. See Ephes. 6. 16. Vales. fiery darts of their malice) have burnt with fire the truely divine sanctuary of God, and de­stroyed the tabernacle of his name even to the ground. Afterwards they buried it miserable wretch under a vast hoap of earth which they cast up, and reduced it to an utter despaire of all manner of safety. But its Patron, the Divine and salutary Word (o­beying the love of his most gracious Father shown towards mankind,) restored it again af­ter it had suffered condign punishment for its sins. In the first place therefore, having united to himself the minds of the Emperours, by means of those most pious Princes, he cleansed the whole world from all impious and pernicious men, and also from those cruel and barbarous Tyrants, hated of God. Afterwards, he brought to light men very well known to him, persons [Page 191] that heretofore had been What was here meant by [ [...]] which we render [Priests consecrated to him for ever] Translatours un­derstood not; and have there­fore misinterpreted it. There were two sorts of Priests, some annual; such were those the Jews had, under the Roman Go­vernours; and such were almost all the Gentile Priests. Others were Perpetual, which they call'd [...]. This an old inscription in Gruter, (pag. 313.) does ma­nifest. And also the old Coins of the Perpereni; which Jac. Sir­mondus publish'd; where we met with ▪ [...] Sacerdos perpetuus, a perpetual Priest. Hence 'tis that Eusebius calls the Priests of the Christians, [...] ▪ because their Priesthood was not yearly, but Perpetual: like the Priesthood of Christ: who is a Priest for ever after the order of Meichisedech; as saith the Prophet. The word [ [...]] our Authour uses frequently to signifie Priests: see the third chapter of this book; where we have [...], the sacred Duties or per­formances of the Priests. In our Version of [...] we follow Velleius Paterculus, who calls those Magistrates, Perpetui, which the Athenians call [...]. Mu­natius Felix (in Gestis Purga­tionis Caeciliani) is call'd Flamen Perpetuus. This Dignity for brevities sake was commonly no­ted by these Characters, FL. PP. i. e. Flamen Perpetuus, a Per­petual Priest. These Priests are mentioned in the second Law God. Theod. Vales. consecrated Priests to him for▪ ever, and were secretly concealed, and secur'd by his defence during the storm of Perse­cution, whom agreeable to their deserts he honoured with the magnificent gifts of the spirit: by these men he hath again purified and cleansed (by their poinant and reprehensive Prea­ching of the divine Precepts, as it were with shovels and spades,) those souls which [...] little before were defiled, and totally covered over with all manner of filthiness, and heaps of impious Injunctions. And when he had made the place of all your minds bright and clear, he deli­vered it up to this most pru­dent Prelate, most accepta­ble to God. Who being a man endowed with great judgment and reason in o­ther things, and also, most acute in discerning and Instead of [...] we should rather read [...] as the old Maz. M. S. does (that is,) adjudging or attributing to every one his place. Mark what follows in the Chapter. But should any desire to retain the common reading I would not re­sist it much: for [...] (in Hesychius) is explain'd by [...], dividere, to divide. Vales. di­stinguishing the disposition of the souls allotted to his care; from the very first day (as I may say) even to this present, he hath not ceased to build: cementing together in you all one while glistering gold, at other times purified and tryed silver, and precious and rich stones. So that by his workes towards you he hath a­gain compleated that sacred and mystical Prophesie, the words whereof are these: Esai. c. 54. v. 11, 12, 13, 14. Behold I prepare Carbuncle for thy stone, and Saphire for thy foundations, and for thy Bul­warks Jasper, and for thy gates stones of Christal, and for thy wall choice stones: and all thy children shall be taught of God, and great [shall be] the peace of thy children: and thou shalt be built in righteousness. He therefore building in righ­teousness hath aptly and fitly differenced the strength of all the people. Some he hath inclosed with the outward wall onely, that is, he hath fortified them round with an unerring and strong faith; of this sort there is a great multi­tude, who cannot bear a more excellent structure. To others he committeth [the custody of] the en­trances into the Temple, giving them in command By [...] (to watch at the Gates and con­duct those that come in.) Eu­sebius here meanes the Sub-Deacons, who kept the Gates of the Church, and conducted all that came in to their particular places: (viz.) The Catechumens, Penitents and Possessed with evil spirits, into the Narthex (or Church Porch,) or into the Catechumenium, (or place where they Catechised;) but the believers into the Quire. See the 22 Canon of the Council of Laodicea, and Zonaras's and Balsamo's notes upon it. Vales. to watch at the Gates, and to conduct those in, that come thither; these may fitly be compared to the Porches of the Temple. Other some he hath set to support the chief Pillars, which are without, about the We have before noted in note (u.) of this chapter, that that void open place betwixt the Portico and the Church is call'd by the Latines Atrium the Court. The Greek's (as here) call the same place [...]: this word [ [...]] frequently occurrs in the Gospel, and is always by the old Translatour render'd atrium. Vales. Court quadrangular-wise. Bringing them within the first 'Tis dif­ficult to render this word [ [...]] here used by any Latine word. Muscul [...] renders it Propugnacula▪ Bul­warks. Christoph. Repagula, Bars. I have translated it Obices, Bolts. Vales. Bolts of the literal sense of the four Gospels. Some he hath also placed about the sanctuary The word [ [...]] must be blotted out; for it troubleth the sense; it crept in here out of the upper line. Vales. on both sides, these are such as are See note ( [...] ▪) Catechumens as yet, and do make a good progress and increase in the faith; By these words [ [...] not far removed from that clear in­spection into the Mysteries which the believers enjoy] I say by these words Eusebius means those who amongst the antient Christians were called Competentes. These were certain holy Candidates of Baptism as it were. Eusebius here makes three degrees or ranks of the Catechumeni. The first were those who had learned the Creed: (i. e.) the Principles of Chri­stian Religion. These he com­pares to the out wall of the Church. The second were those to whom a short Exposition of the Gospels was delivered. These he compares to the Pillars which were placed in the Court made like a Quadrangle. The next are the Competentes, who were next to the Perfect Believers. But if any one by the first rank would rather understand▪ the promiscuous multitude of the Laicks, and by the second rank those of the Laity which were the more learned: I will not be much averse to that Explication. Vales. but yet they are not far from inspecting those most secret Mysteries▪ which [pri­viledge] only the perfect be­lievers do enjoy. Out of this number he hath taken those, whose immaculate souls have been purified like gold in the sacred Laver; some of whom he hath set to support Pillars far more noble then those outward ones, even the most intricate and Mysterious sentences of sacred Scripture; others of them he illuminateth to be [as it were] [...], the term used at this place, may be render'd Gates, as well as windows. Vales. windows to transmit light into the Temple. He hath also beau­tified the whole Temple with one most spacious Portico, that is, with the glorious worship of the one and only God, the supream King. He hath represented Christ and the Holy Ghost on each side of the Fathers preeminence and authority, as the At these words we have (in the Maz. M. S.) a long Scholion in the Margin, inveighing against this Authour as being Heretical, and against this passage a [...] being blasphemous, in regard it makes the Son inferiour to the Father, and attributes the [ [...]] first place to the Father, and the [ [...]] second to the Son. In the Med. M. S. we meet with this short Scholio [...] at the Margin here [ [...],] and this also is Blasphemy.] Vales. se­cond rays of light. And he demonstrateth throughout the whole Cathedral a most co­pious and excellent light and evidence of the truth par­ticularly [coucht] in the remaining [Articles of our faith.] Moreover, when he had from all parts selected living, firm, and strong stones of souls, of all them he fra­med a stately and Royal san­ctuary, full of light and splen­dour both within and with­out: This place is eminent for the commendation of the Chastity and Continency of the Clergy: But its excellence lay heretofore undis­covered, because of the erroneous Version of Translatours: The cause of the mistake in them was the false punctation in Steph. Edit. and in the Kings M. S. but the Maz. and Med. M. SS. do with good reason reject that puncta­tion. Vales. in as much as not only in their souls and minds, but their bodie's also, they are beautified with the glo­rious ornaments of Chastity and Modesty. There are also within this Temple, Thrones, a great many Benches, and Seats; which are in all those souls, whereon reside such gifts of the Holy Ghost, as were heretofore seen by the holy Apostles: Acts c. 2. v. 3. To whom ap­peared cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sate upon each of them. But on him that presides over all these, Christ himself ('tis likely) does entirely and wholly re­side: and upon He means the Presbyters, who had the second degree of the Priesthood. Here he com­pares the Bishop and Presbyters to the Thrones of the Church: and the Deacons to the Benches. Vales. those who are next to him in dignity, on every one of them pro­portionably, according as he is capable of receiving the distributions of the power of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. The Benches also are the souls of certain Angels, the instruction and custody of every one whereof is committed to them. But the August, Great, and only Altar, [Page 192] what can it be else but the most pure soul and holy of Holies of the Common Priest of all. On his right hand standeth the great High Priest of all, Jesus himself, the only begotten Son of God, who with a chearful countenance and [...], su­pinis mani­bus; so Valesius: pronis ma­nibus; so Christo­phorson. stretcht­forth hands receiveth from all that sweet smelling incense, and those unbloudy and immaterial sacri­fices of prayers; and transmits them to his hea­venly Father the supream God: whom in the first place he himself worshippeth, and he only exhi­biteth due veneration to the Father; afterwards he beseecheth him for ever to continue favourable and propitious towards all us. Such is that August Temple, which the great Creatour of all things the Word [of God] hath built throughout all that world under the sun; he himself hath again framed upon earth this intellectual representation of those things beyond the Arches of Heaven: that by every creature, and by rational souls upon the earth his Father might be duely honoured and adored. Here Eusebius (having spo­ken largely concerning the double Fabrick of the Church (that is) the material and spiritual; and compared them together,) ele­gantly makes a transition to that heavenly Hierusalem which is the idea and original pattern of this Church on earth. But the tran­slatours through their inadver­tency took no notice of this ele­gant Apostrophe. Vales. But that Region above the Heavens, and the things there, which are the originalls of what we here behold, that Jerusalem which is above, that See Heb. 12. 22, 23. Celestial mount Sion, and that City of the living God, far above the world, in which are in­numerable companies of An­gels, and the Church of the first born which are written in heaven, who with praises unutterable, which we cannot understand, laud their Creatour and supream Prince; [the Blessedness of this Region, I say, and of its inhabitants] Instead of [ [...]] the reading should un­doubtedly be [ [...] or [...], no mortal, &c.] Vales. no mortal is able de­servedly to set forth. For 1 Cor. c. 2. v. 9. eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entred into the heart of man, the things that God hath prepared for them that love him. Of which things since we are now vouchsafed to be partakers in part, let us, both men, women and children, small and great, all together, with one spirit and one soul never cease to give thanks and praise to the Authour of these our so great good things: Psal, 103. 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13. Who hath mercy on all our iniquities, and healeth all our infirmities. Who redeemeth our life from destruction, and crowneth us with mercy, and loving kindness; who filleth our desire with good things. For he hath not dealt with us according to our sins, nei­ther hath he rewarded us according to our ini­quities. For as far as the East is from the West, so far hath he removed our sins from us. As a father pittieth his own children, even so is the Lord merciful to them that fear him. Keeping these things fresh in our memories both now, and throughout all succeeding times, and moreover set­ting before [the eyes of] our mindes God the cause of this present days joyful solemnity, and the Master of this feast, both day and night, every hour, and (as I may say) every moment wherein we fetch our breath; let us love him and wor­ship him, with all the strength of our souls. And let us now rise up, and with the loud voice of our affection beseech him, that he would con­tinually save and defend us within his sheepfold, and that he would afford us his everlasting peace entire and immoveable in Jesus Christ our Saviour, by whom be glory to him throughout all Ages,

Amen.

CHAP. V. Copies of the Imperial Laws.

LEt us therefore now annex the Copies of Con­stantine's and Licinius's Imperial Decrees translated out of Latine.

A Copy of the Imperial Edict translated out of Latine.

Having long since perceived, that a liberty of Religion ought not to be denied, but that licence should be permitted to every ones will and arbi­trement of being careful about their Religious performances according to their own mind and judgment, We have Decreed, that as well all other persons, as those that are Christians should retain the faith [and observances] of their own Sect and Religion. But because in that Rescript wherein this liberty was granted them, Because that first Rescript or Letter, mentioned here by Con­stantine, is lost, we cannot easily resolve what Constantine meanes when he says, that in that Edict were named many and several sorts of [...], Sects; for which reason many desisted from professing Christianity. Christoph. translates [ [...]] doubtful and controverted opinions; as if the sense or meaning of this first Edict had been ambiguous. So also Ba­ronius understands Christoph. his words at the year of Christ 313. Langus and Musculus translate [ [...]] opiniones & haereses, Heresies and opinions; far better then Christoph. For [...] can­not signifie the sense, or [ [...]] meaning of a place: but it signi­fies an Opinion or Sect. When the Emperour Constantine therefore had in that former Edict permit­ted this Liberty of Conscience to all, he added, that that priviledge was not granted to the Christians only, but to all men of every Sect, (that is) to Jews, Samaritans, Marcionists, &c. and to all Sects of all Religions. This the Chri­stians took to be no small injury to their Religion, that it should be reckon'd amongst Schisma­ticks, and unbelieving Jews▪ Constantine being advertised here­of by the Catholicks, corrected it in this latter Edict; that clause, which mention'd all Sects, being taken out: and this is that which is meant by these words a little further, [...]. (i. e.) that all those Sects which were in our former Rescript should be quite left out. Vales. many and different sorts of Sects seemed to be expresly set down, for which reason peradventure some of them not long after desisted from such an observance. Where­fore when We Constantine, and Licinius, Augusti, came fortunately to Mediolanum, and had in debate all matters which might conduce to the good and utility of the publick; amongst other things which to us seem'd several ways profit­able to all in general, (or rather which we judged ought to be decreed before any thing else) we supposed such con­stitutions were to be made, as therein should be contained the worship and veneration of the deity: that is, that we should allow a free choice both to Christians and all o­thers of following what way of worship they please: that so by this meanes that Godhead and heavenly being, what­ever it is, might be propi­tious to us, and to all that live under our Government. We have therefore proclaimed this our will and pleasure, after we had taken a most wholesome and deliberate con­sideration thereupon, that li­cence be denied to none at all of following or choosing the observances or Religion of the Christians: and that free power be granted to every one to apply his mind to that Religion, which he judgeth most congruous and agreeable to himself: that so God may in all things mani­fest his usual care and loving kindness towards us. It was also convenient that we should signifie to you this our pleasure; that all those Sects which were included in our former Rescript to your De­votion concerning the Christians should be quite left out, both that whatever seems hurtful and disagreeable to our clemency should be wholly re­moved, and also that in future all that have re­solved to make choice of, and keep the observances of the Christian Religion, might observe them [Page 193] freely and firmly, without any molestation. These things we therefore determined fully to signifie to your carefullness; that you may be certified, that we have granted to the Christians a free and absolute liberty of being careful about the exercise of their Religion. This was Constantin's second Edict, directed to the Prae­fect of the Praetorium, the same person to whom was sent Con­stantin's first Edict for the Chri­stians. The first Edict was signed or dated at Rome, Constantine [...]. and Licinius II. Coss. and it was immediately sent into the East, to Maximin; see book 9. chap. 9. But this second Edict was dated at Mediolanum on the year fol­lowing. Vales. In as much as we have already freely and absolutely granted them this, your de­votedness does hereby perceive that we have allowed a li­berty to others also, who are desirous of following their own observances and Religion: Which, 'tis apparent, is agree­able to the tranquillity of our times, to wit, that every one should have a liberty and power of choosing and being careful about wor­shiping whatever Deity he has a mind to. And this we therefore did, that we might seem not in the least to have lessened or detracted from any man­ner of▪ divine worship or Religion whatsoever. We have also further Decreed in favour of the Chri­stians; that those their places (wherein they used to convene in times past (concerning which places there was Concerning the Restitu­tion of the publick places and Coemiteria of the Christians, there is extant an Edict of Gallienus's in book 7. chap. 13. of this Hi­story, in which these places are commanded to be restored to the Christians. In the first Decree therefore, which Constantine and Licinius (after Maxentius was con­quered,) published in favour of the Christians; a Copy of which they sent to Maximinus the Em­perour into the East, they only Decreed that all places where the Christians used to assemble themselves, which had been heretofore taken from them, should be restored to them again; but they said nothing expresly concerning the restitution of the price: Neither in the Edict of Maximin, which was published soon after the Decree of Constan­tine and Licinius, was there any caution concerning repaying of the price, as we may see in book 9. chap. 9. of this History. It was necessary therefore that Constantine should Decree some­thing more distinctly concerning that point. That the Christians might recover those places which had been taken from them or sold, or given by the Treasury, without repaying the price. Vales. another Rule or Form appointed in our Re­script formerly sent to your devotedness,) in case it ap­pears that they have been pur­chased by any persons, either of our Exchequer, or of any one else) be immediately and without all hesitancy restored to the Christians themselves, without money, and without a­ny exaction of an [...]. So he terms adjectiones, i. e. the ad­ditions to the prices in sales of Goods or Estates. These adjecti­ones (which Civilians in other words call additamenta pretii, ac­cessions to the price) we in France call encheres. Vales. additional price or value: and if any have received these places by way of gift, that they in like manner forthwith restore them to the Christians. But if those, who have purchased, or had the grants of these places, have a desire to de­mand any thing of our good­ness, let them make their Ad­dress to the Governour that presides as Judge in that Pro­vince, that by our bounty pro­vision may be made for them: all which places it shall behove you to see forthwith restored to the society of Christians by your care and diligence without the least delay. And in as much as the said Chri­stians are known to have had possession not only of those places wherein they usually assembled themselves, but of others also, which did not particularly and apart belong to any private persons amongst them, but were the Right of a Society of them, that is, of the Christians; you shall give order that all these places (according to the [...] (ac­cording [...] the De­cree afore­said) (i. e.) according to that Edict signed at Rome. Constantine II. and Licinius II. Coss. which Edict Constantine mention'd before. That was Constantine's first Decree for the Christians. But Constantine, having in that Law shew'd himself too favourable towards the Chri­stians in that in it he had extolled their Religion, and condemn'd all other Sects and Ceremonies, was forced in this second Edict to ex­plain his mind, for fear, least the Heathens should murmur at the pro­hibiting and abolishing the worship of their Gods. Wherefore Con­stantine saies, that he granted free liberty to every one to worship what Gods, and follow what Sect and Religion he pleased. This se­cond Decree therefore is nothing else but an explication of the first▪ For in the first Edict there were some words with which the Gentiles and also the Schismatical Christians were not a little offended; in that they saw themselves named Hereticks. The Catholick Christians also resented it, because they were joyned in the same Decree with the Gentiles and Hereticks. Wherefore Constantine, that he might shew himself kind to all, desired that those words might be razed out▪ And this is the sense of those former words, [...], &c. That the names of these S [...]its in our former Rescript might be wholly taken out, &c. Vales. afore­said Law) be without all manner of hesitancy restored to the said Christians, that is, to every Society and Assembly of them: The Rule afore­said being observed, (viz.) that such as shall restore those places [to the Christians,] without a restitution of the price they gave for them, as we have said, may expect to be indemnified by our Gracious Liberality. Now it is your du [...]y to act most vigorously in all these things in behalf of the aforesaid body of the Christians; both that our Mandate may with all speed be fulfilled; and also that in this matter provision may be made by our goodness for the common quiet and tranqui­lity of the publick. For by this means, as is afore­said, the divine care and goodness towards us, which we have already experienced in many affairs, will continue firm and lasting for ever. Moreover, to the end that the definitive determination of this our Law, and of our gracious indulgence may come to all mens knowledge, 'tis expedient that this Rescript of ours be proposed to publick view, and made known to all persons, that so no body may be ignorant of the establishment of this our gracious indulgence.

A Copy of another Imperial Edict which the Emmperours published again, to de­clare, that this their Beneficence was granted only to the Catholick Church.

God save You, dearest Anulinus! This is the manner of Our Goodness, We desire, that those things which appertain to anothers right should not only not be infested with inquietude, but should also be restored, dearest Anulinus! Wherefore our plea­sure is, that, as soon as you receive this our Rescript, if any of those [estates] (which did belong to the Catholick Church of the Christians, in all our Cities, or in other places,) are now detained by the Instead of [...], i. e. Citizens▪ in this place we read [...]. The [...] are call'd by the Latines▪ Decuriones; concerning whom see my notes on Amm. Marcellin. B. 22. p. 225. These Decurions in the time of persecution seized upon the places and Farmes which belonged to the Catholick Church, as being vacant. Vales. Decurions, or by any other Persons, you cause them to be forthwith restored to their [respective] Churches: In as much as we have re­solved that those [estates] which the said Churches have formerly possessed, shall re­vert and become their right again. Since therefore your Devotedness understandeth that this is the most evident purport of our Com­mand, take care, that all [estates] which did formerly belong to the right of the said Churches, (whether gardens, houses, or whatever else) be immediately restored to them again: whereby we may be informed that you have with all diligence and accuracy obeyed this our Command. Farewell, dearest, and Our most beloved Anulinus.

A Copy of the Emperour [Constantine's] Rescript, by which he summoneth a Synod of Bishops at Rome, for the uniting and re­conciling of the Churches.

Constantinus Augustus, to Miltiades Bishop of [Page 194] Rome, and to It is much con­troverted amongst the Lear­ned who this Mark is, whom Constantine here joyn­eth with Miltiades Bishop of Rome. Ba­ronius, at the year of Christ 313. Chap. 23. thinks the Text of Fasebius is faulty, and instead of [ [...]] he would read [ [...].] But this e­mendation cannot be admitted of, for whereas Miltiades is before call'd [...], Bishop, tis superfluous to adde [...], sa­cred Magi­strate. Moreover, Titles of honour are common words, but this here is an affected and unusual term Wherefore, rejecting this conjecture of Baronius's, I think this Mark was a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, whom Constantine had a desire should be present at this Synod with Miltiades. This also I think was that Mark who was Bishop of Rome after Silvester. This Epistle of Constantine to Miltiades was extant in the third Con­ference at Carthage; Chap. 319. But the latter part of this third Conference, which in my opinion is the most useful, is lost. Vales. Mark. In regard several such By [...] are meant two Libels, which contained the faults of Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage, which being subscribed by the faction of Majorinus, they gave them to Anulinus the Proconsul at Carthage on the 17th of the Calends of May. Constantine the Empe­rour being the third time, and Licinius the third time Consuls. These Libels Constantine calls [ [...],] because they contained in them many papers, and many publick Acts, to prove the faults of Cecilianus. Christoph. calls these [...]. Epistles but that is an ill term: for there was but one Epistle sent by Anulinus to Constantine the Emperour, but there were several [...], or papers. Constantine also a little further calls them Libelli: so does Augustine also, in his 48 Epistle to Vin­centius, call it Libellus: and saies it was thus superscribed; The Libell of the Catholick Church containing the faults of Cecilianus, put in by the faction of Majorinus. Vales. Libels as these have been sent me from the most Eminent Anulinus, Proconsul of Africa, wherein 'tis declared that Cecilianus Bishop of the City of In our Text it is, [...]; in Niceph. [...]; in the Maz. and Med. M. SS. 'tis written [...] by a trans­position of the aspirate, which the Greeks usually do in turning Latine p [...]oper names into Greek. Vales. Carthage is accused of many things by some of his Collegues ordained [Bishops] throughout Africa: and this matter seeming not a little grievous to us, that in those very Provinces (which the providence of God delivered to our sacredness by a Instead of [ [...]] we should undoubtedly read [ [...]] in this place, thus, [...] (i. e.) (those Countries which Divine Providence gave into our hands by a voluntary surrender.) For when the head of Maxentius was sent into Africa, all Africa at the sight of the Tyrant's head, yielded to Constantine. And also before the over­throw of Maxentius some African Cities yielded themselves volun­tarily to Constantine, when he sent some Sea-forces thither. Vales. voluntary surrender, and where there is a great multitude of people) the populace being in a manner divided, should be found to degenerate and become worse, and differences should be nourished even amongst Bishops: It seemed good to us, that Cecilianus himself (together with ten Bishops his supposed Accusers, and ten other Bishops, whom he shall judge necessary in behalf of his cause,) sail to Rome; that there in your presence, and also in the presence of Reticius, Maternus, and Marinus your Collegues, (whom for this reason we have com­manded to hasten to Rome) he may be heard in such manner as, you know, is most agreeable with the most sacred Law. Moreover, that you may have a most compleat and perfect knowledge of all these things, we have subjoyned to this our Rescript Copies of the Libels which were sent to us by Anulinus, and have transmitted them to your aforesaid Collegues. Which Libels when your Gravity shall have read, you shall deliberate how the aforesaid controversie may with the greatest accuracy be examined, and determined according to equity. For it is not unknown to your Assi­duity that we bear so great a Reve­rence [...]. to the most Legitimate Catholick Church, that we would have you leave no Schisme or dissension at all in any part of it. The Divinity of the supream God pre­serve you (Instead of [ [...]] the reading in Nicephorus is [ [...], dearest] in the plural number. For since the Rescript was writ­ten to Miltiades Bishop of Rome, and to Mark, and since he always speaks to them in the plural number; 'tis reasonable that in the close of the Rescript it should be [ [...].] Further, the Acts of this Synod at Rome are extant in Optatus, B. 1. The Authour of the Synodicon (whom we have often quoted) says this Synod was con­vened by Miltiades and Mark at Rome; he joyns Mark to Miltiades, as soon as he perceived from this Rescript that Constantine mentioned them joyntly. Vales. Dearest) many years.

A Copy of an Imperial Rescript, by which [Constantine] Summons a second Synod, to put an end to all Dissension amongst the Bishops.

Constantinus Augustus, to Chrestus Bishop of Syracuse. When as heretofore some began wickedly and perversly to separate from the holy Religion, the celestial power, and the Catholick Opinion; We desirous that such pertinacious contentions as these should be pared off, took such order that (some Bishops being sent out of France, and also those summoned out of Africa, who being of contrary factions, pertinaciously and continually quarrelled In stead of [ [...], mu­tually, it should be undoubted­ly [ [...], amongst them­selves:] so 'tis cor­rected in the margin of the Ge­neva-Edi­tion: and so also Sir Henry Sa­vill had mended it, in the mar­gin of his copy. Vales. amongst themselves, the Bishop of Rome being also present,) this [dissension] which seemed to be raised after a most careful examination, might in their presence be composed. But in regard (as it commonly happens) some persons, forgetful both of their own salvation, and of the veneration due to the most holy Religion, cease not as yet to im­prove their private grudges and animosities, being unwilling to acquiesce in the sentence already pas­sed, but positively asserting, that they were but a few [Bishops] who gave their Sentiments and Opinions; and that (before they had carefully enquired into all things which ought to have been first inspected) they proceeded with too much hast and precipitancy to pass a definitive sentence. From all this it happens that even they, whose duty it is to preserve a brotherly and unanimous unity of mind, unworthily or rather impiously create Schismes a­mongst one another; and also give an occasion of scorn and derision to those men, whose soules are alienated from the most holy Religion. Wherefore it was our chiefest care, that these [divisions,] (which ought, after sentence already given to have been terminated by a voluntary assent) might now at last be concluded in the presence of many Bishops. Since therefore we have summoned many Bishops out of di­vers and innumerable places, to assemble themselves on the Calends of August, at the City Orleans: we thought good to write to you also, that having re­ceived a publick Chariot from the most eminent La­tronianus The Maz. Fuk. and Med. M. SS. read [...] but without doubt we should read [...] (that is) from Latronia­nus Cor­rector of Sicily, we find men­tion of this Latronia­nus in an old inscri­ption at Panormus, which is attested by Gualtherus, in Tabulis Siculis, number 164. D. N. FL. VALERIO LICINIO AUG. DOMITIUS LATRONIANUS V. C. CORR. P. S. DEVOTUS N. M. QUE EJUS. Gualtherus also in his Annotations upon this inscription, quoteth and correcteth this place of Eusebius. Vales. Corrector of Sicily, and taking into your company two By these words [ [...]] Eusebius meaneth the Presbyters, who were commonly called Sacerdotes secundi ordinis, (Priests of the second order) which may be collected out of several good Authours, as Optatus Milevitanus, and Jacobus Sirmondus in his notes upon Sidonius page 78. Hieronymus, in his Epitaph on the blessed Paula, says, There were present the Bishops of Hierusalem and other Cities, and an innumerable company of Priests [inferioris gradus] of the lower order, &c. So also says Gregor. Nazianz. in Carm. Jamb. de vitâ sua pag. 6. Hence comes this distinction; the Bishops in the Church, sate in more losty thrones, the Presbyters sitting on both hands on lower seats, and the Deacons standing by in white garments, saith the same Greg. Naz. in his dream De Ecclesiae Anastasia pag. 78. Eusebius also, in his description of the Church of Tyre, allotteth the thrones which were in the Church next the Altar, to the Bishop and Presbyters, but the benches to the Deacons, where also he calls the Presbyters, [...], i. e. those which have the second places next the Bishop. See St Augustin's 148th Epistle. Vales. of the second Order, whom you shall think fit to chuse, and also bringing along with you three servants which may minister to you in your journey, you meet on the very day appointed at the place aforesaid, that both by your Gravity, and also by the unanimous and concordant prudence and perspicacity of the rest there assembled, this dissension (which has shamefully been continued hi­therto by certain detestable quarellings, after all things have been heard which shall be said by the now disagreeing parties, whom we have summon'd to appear also,) may now at last be restored to a fit and congruous [observancy of] Religion and faith, and to a Brotherly union. God Almigh­ty preserve you in health many years.

CHAP. VI. This Ti­tle [ [...]. Concerning the Estates of the Christians] is here put in a wrong place: for the Epistle which follows, says not a word concerning the Estates of the Christians. This Title might better have been prefix't before Chap. 5. where we have two several Decrees of Constantin's concerning the Estates of the Christians. Therefore very well do the old Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. make no distinction of a Chapter in this place. Vales. Concerning the Estates belonging to the Chri­stians.

A Copy of the Emperour's Rescript, by which he granteth money to the Churches.

COnstantinus Augustus, to Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage. For as much as it was our plea­sure that through all the Provinces of Africa, Nu­midia, and both Mauritania's, some thing should be allowed for necessary Expences to some Ministers of the most Holy and Legitimate Catholick Religion, who were expresly named, We wrote to the See B. 9. Chap. 9. note (f.) most perfect Ursus Rationalist of Africa, and have in­timated to him that he take care to pay to your Gravity three thousand [...]. Epiphanius mentions these Folles, at the close of his book De Mensur. & Pondcrib. He speaks of two sorts of them; the first he calls the small Talent, con­sisting of 208 denarii. The va­lue of the other, he says, is [...], duo minuta, two minu­tes, or mites. See the Learned Petavius's Diatriba concerning the Follis, at the end of his notes on Epiphan. pag. 431, &c. Edit. Paris. 1622. Fol­les. Therefore when you shall have received the sum afore­said, command that it be distributed to all the foremen­tioned Ministers according to a Breve directed to you from Hosius. But if you shall per­ceive there will be any thing wanting towards the fulfilling of our desire to all in this point, without making any scruples or delays you shall demand of Heraclas the Steward of our Estates whatsoever you shall judge requisite. For we ordered him when he was with us, that if your Gravity demanded any money of him, he should without the least hesitancy take care it should be told out to you. And because we have been informed that some men who are of an unsetled mind, make it their business to pervert the members of the most Holy Catholick Church by a certain impious and clancular falshood and cor­ruption; We would have you understand, that We gave such orders to Anulinus our Proconsul, and also to Patricius Concer­ning these Vicarii prae­fectorum, Deputies of the Pre­fects, we have trea­ted in our notes on the 14th book of Amm. Mar­cellinus; pag. 17. where we shewed that there was a difference between acting for a Prefect, and acting for the Prefects. He may be said to act for a Prefect, whom the Prefect of a City, or Prefect of the Pretorium orders to supply his place in any special business. But he may be said to act for the Prefects, who ex­ercises a Deputies power ordine Codicillorum. See the place now cited in those notes. The title given to these Vicarii at this time was Perfectissimus, ( see book [...]. chap. 9. note f.) not Clarissimus, or Spectabilis. This we are informed of from Constantine the Emperours Rescript to Probianus Procunsul of Africa, which Augustine relates in his 68th Epistle; and in his 3d book against Cresconius, cap. 70. Vales. Deputy of the Prefects, when present, that amongst all other things they take an effectual and sufficient care about this business more especially, and that if any such thing be done, they should by no means suffer it to be neglected. If there­fore you shall see any such men persisting in this madness, without any further doubtings you shall make your Address to the foresaid Judges; and disclose the matter to them, that they may cor­rect them according to our Orders to them when pre­sent. The Deity of the Supream God preserve you many years.

CHAP. VII. In the most anci­ent Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. this is called the Sixth Chatter; which is true, if I mistake not. See the foregoing chap. note (a.) Vales. Concerning the Immunity of the Clergy.

A Copy of the Emperour's Rescript by which he commandeth, that the Prelates of Chur­ches be freed from bearing all Civil Offices.

WE Greet you most Honoured Anulinus. Since it is apparent from several circum­stances, that the contempt of that true Religion, by which is preserved the Highest veneration of the Celestial Majesty, has brought imminent dangers upon the affairs of the publick; but when it was law­fully and rightly admitted and preserved, it con­ferred the greatest prosperity upon the [...], no­mini Ro­mano, upon the Roman name. Roman Empire, and an eminent felicity on all humane affairs; (the divine Beneficence being the Donour hereof:) it seemed good to Us, (In the Med. Maz. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. we read [ [...], most ho­noured and our dearest A­nulinus.] We have the Rela­tion of A­nulinus in answer to this Re­script of Constantine's in Augustin's 68 Epistle. But Eusebius inserts these Rescripts in a preposterous kind of Order. For Constantin's Letter to Cecilianus the Bishop, and his Rescript to Anulinus ought in order to precede Constantin's Letter to Miltiades, Bishop of Rome. For all those Letters have a relation to the Roman Synod which was summoned upon the account of Cecilianus, when Constantine and Licinius were both the third time Consulls; in the year of Christ 313. Vales. Dearest Anu­linus,) that those men, who with a due sanctity and an assiduous observance of this law give them­selves wholly to the ministrations and services of this sacred Religion, should receive the rewards of their labours. Wherefore Our pleasure is that those men within the Province committed to your care, who in the Catholick Church, over which Cecilianus Presides, do service to this sacred Religion; com­monly call'd by the name of Clergy-men, be always preserved exempt from all manner of Civil Offices: left by any errour or sacrilegious misfortune, they should be drawn away from the service due to the Deity; but [our will is] that they should ra­ther serve their own law without any the least in­quietude. For when they performe the highest [acts of] worship to God, the greatest advantage seems to accrue to the publick Affairs. Farewell most Honoured and Dearest Anulinus.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning Licinius's exorbitancies which after­wards ensued, and concerning his death.

SUch [gifts] therefore did the Divine and celestial Grace of our Saviours presence be­stow upon us: and such an exuberance of pro­sperous successes was procured to all men by rea­son of the peace [restored] to us. This was the posture of our affairs, we spent the time in joy and publick festivities. But this spectacle was intollerable to the malice of the Devil, that hater of all goodness, and industrious Patron of mischief. Nor were the calamitous misfor­tunes which befell the forementioned Tyrants sufficient to instill a sober considerateness into Licinius, who being honoured with a prosperous and successfull Government, and with the second place of dignity, that next to Constantine the Great, and innobled with an affinity contracted by marriage, and with a neer relation to a most August family, relinquished the imitation of good men; and became a zealous emulatour of the improbity and wickedness of impious Tyrants. [Page 196] And he made choice of following their Councels, whose calamitous end himself had beheld with his own eyes, rather than to continue in the friendship and affection of the best of Princes. For being stimulated with Envie against his great Benefactour, he raised a most impious and ne­farious war against him, in no wise revering the Laws of nature, forgetful of all oathes, affinity, and leagues. For Constantine, like a most curteous Em­perour, that he might shew him the most convin­cing tokens of his sincere kindness, envied him not his own affinity, nor did he deny him the il­lustrious marriage of his Sister: but vouchsafed to make him partaker of the Here we follow that emen­dation of this place which is set at the Margin of Turnebus's M. S. who instead of [ [...] affi­nity] in this place reads. [ [...] nobility.] For Constantine was extracted from a Royal descent; he derived his pedigree from Claudius the Emperour. Vales. Nobility he derived from his Ancestours, and [com­municated to him] his own antient lineage and Imperial blood; he also allowed him to enjoy an Authority over all the Roman Empire, as being his kinsman and col­league in the Empire; nor had he given him a less portion of the Roman Provinces to Rule over and Govern, [than he reserved to himself.] But on the other hand, [Licinius] acted quite contrary hereto, daily inventing all kinds of stra­tagems against him that was his Better, devising all ways how to insnare him, that with mischiefs he might reward his Benefactour. At first there­fore attempting to conceal his treacheries, he counterfeited a friendship, and having several times assailed [Constantine] by guile and de­ceit, he hoped to have easily obtained what he expected. But God was [Constantin's] Friend, Guardian, and Protectour: he brought to light and detected the intregues which were clancular­ly and secretly contrived against him. So power­full a strength is that great Armour of Godliness [endowed with,] that it is both prevalent to repulse the enemy, and has also a power sufficient for its own preservation. With this Armour our most pious Emperour being fortified, escaped the many intricate snares of that accursed Man. Licinius therefore, perceiving that his secret Plots did not succeed according to his expecta­tion, (because God discovered all his deceit and treachery to his beloved Emperour,) and know­ing that he could lie no longer concealed, raiseth open war. But in that he determined to war against Constantine, he likewise resolved to Mar­shal an army against Almighty God, whom he knew Constantine worshipped. Afterwards he be­gun secretly and by little and little to attack those pious men who lived under his Government, who never intended the least molestation to his Do­minions. And this he did [in regard] he was miserably induced thereto, being blinded by his innate malice. Therefore he did not set before his eyes the Examples of those who had been Persecutors of the Christians before him; nor yet of those whose destroyer and punisher he himself had been appointed, because of the height of those Impieties, to which they were arrived: but, declining from the way of sober and right reason, or rather running perfectly mad, he re­solved upon engaging with God himself (be­cause he was Constantin's Assistant,) instead of [Constantine] who was assisted by him. And first of all he banished all Christians out of his family, leaving himself destitute (miserable wretch!) of their prayers to God for him; it being their commonly receiv'd Doctrine that prayer should be made for all men. He after­wards gave command that all the Officers in the The best Comment upon this place is the 54th chap. of book 1. of Constantin's Life. The Mili­tia amongst the Roman's was two­fold: the Militia Castrensis, or, the Militia imploy'd in all Martial Af­faires; and the Militia civilis (which in Theodosius's Code, is called the Militia Cohortalis, the militia im­ploy'd in Civil Affaires. Those that were listed into this Militia Cohor­talis, were by the Latines common­ly call'd Officiales, or Apparitores: and by the Greeks generally [...]. See Themist. 1. Orat. pag. 38. Chrysost. Homily 1. upon the first Epist. to Corinth. pag. 8. and pag. 10. Moreover [ [...]] by Chrysost. Hom. 1. upon Saint Matthew is us'd for Apparitoris Of­ficio fungi, to execute an Appari­tours Office. But the Greeks (sometimes for distinction's sake of the Militia Castrensis) called these Apparitores, [...], City Apparitours. So Eu­sebius in the place above quoted; and Themistius, in his 17th Orat. pag. 457. makes use of [ [...]] which has the same import with [ [...]] here in Eusebius, (i. e.) the Apparitours of the Presidents and Prefects of the Praetorium, who gathered the Tributes, which be­longed to the Treasury. Vales. Civil Milice should be disbanded and tur­ned out of their military preferments, except they were willing to sacrifice to Devils. But these are but small things, if compared with his greater villanies, which ensued. To what end should we recount all and every par­ticular fact, which this man, hated of God, committed? how he, who was the great­est law breaker invented im­pious laws? For he made an Order, that no one should charitably relieve the poor distressed Prisoners with meat, nor show the least compassion to those, who through hunger pined a­way in their fetters: that is, that there should no good man live, and that they who were led by [the dictates of] nature it self to have compassion on their neigh­bours, should be incapable of doing them any good. And this was clearly the most impudent, and cruel of of all laws, by far surpassing all that mildness and cle­mency implanted by nature: to which Law also there was a penalty annexed, that they who shewed compassion up­on the [criminals] should suffer the like afflictions with those towards whom they shew'd mercy: and that such as charitably ministered to those in bonds and con­fined to prison, should suffer the same punish­ment with them. Such were Licinius's Ordi­nances. What need we reckon up his innovations concerning marriages, or his new laws about This pas­sage [...] is by Christoph. and Langu [...] render'd mortuos, the dead: but I cannot admit of this ver­sion. What Law this of Licinius's was, 'tis difficult to resolve. It seems to have belonged to the Testaments of Dying people: it was abrogated by Con­stantine after Licinius was overcome by him. Vales. dying persons; whereby he presumptuously abrogated the ancient, good and wisely establi­shed Roman Laws, and instead of them intro­duced certain barbarous and inhumane ordinances, truly unjust and illegal? he also invented several sorts of Eusebius uses this terme [ [...]] which occurs here, at book 8. chap. 14. (see note c. there) where he treats concerning Maximinus the Eastern Tyrant: but in his first book De vita Constant: he terms it [...], (i. e.) ways of getting money. The Ancient Greeks us'd [...] and [...] in this sence. There is extant a book of Xenophon's entitled [...]. The modern Latine Authours call these taxes, tituli. Vales. Taxes to the great oppression of the Subjects of his Provinces; and all sorts of ex­actions of Gold and Silver; The phrase here us'd (viz.) [...] is very well rendred by Langus, iteratae agrorum mensiones, the re-measuring of Lands. This Version Rufinus confirm's, who renders it census innovare, to renew the Census, or the prizing of every mans Estate. This Census could not be renewed without the remeasuring of Land. For the Census amongst the Romans consisted of two things, (i. e.) the mea­suring of Lands, and the numbering of the People, as I have elsewhere noted. We have the testimony of Aurel. Vict. and of Victor's Epitome in confirmation of what Eusebius says concerning Licinius's avarice. But what Eusebius says concerning Licinius's exactions, and oppressions of his Subjects, is confuted by the Testimony of two ancient Authors, (viz.) Aurel. Victor and Libanius: Victor says of Licinius that he was, Agraribus plane ac rusticantibus, quia ab eo genere ortus altusque erat, satis utilis, i. e. To the common sort of people and Rusticks, because he was extracted from and maintained by that sort of men, He was useful enough. Libanius in his Oration Pro Templis Gentilium, says [...], that the Cities flourished under him (viz.) Licinius. Vales. surveying of lands; and that cursed way of getting lucre from Coun­trey [Page 197] men which were not alive, but long since dead. Besides these things, why should we reckon up the I doubt not, but instead of [ [...],] we should read [ [...], proscriptions:] for in the first book, De vita Constant. cap. 55. (where Eusebius repeats all these passages almost in the same words) instead of this term, he uses this phrase [ [...], punishments of exile.] Vales. proscriptions of innocent men which he, the Enemy of mankind, was the Inventer of? and the Imprisonments of men Christoph translates the term [...] here used, Patricios, erroneously, as we before signi­fied. They were termed nobiles, who were descended from those that had born any Office in Rome, or in the Towns incorporate. Vales. nobly descended, and of an honourable repute? Whose youthfull wives he forced from them by vio­lence, and delivered them to some of his impure slaves, that they might be most injuriously vitiated? What need we number the married Women, Virgins, and Maids, whom in his But Licinius died in the Sixtieth year of his age, as Vi­ctor affirms in his Epitome. Wherefore Eusebius, like an O­ratour, aggravates the matter here. Vales. decrepid age he abus'd, to the fulfilling of his own soul's insatiable lust? What need is there [I say] of en­larging upon these things, whenas the exorbitant gros­ness of his last actions e­vinceth his first to be trivial and almost nothing? In fine, he arrived to such an heighth of madness, that [he made an at­tempt] upon the Bishops: and looking upon them (in regard they were the servants of Al­mighty God) to be enemies to his practises; (but [daring not] as yet to use open violence, fearing his superiour,) he privily and craftily plotted against them: and by the treacheries of his Presidents destroyed the eminentest of them. The manner how he murthered them is strange, and such as was never before heard of. But his Actions at Amasia and the rest of the Cities of Pontus do far exceed the most superlative cruel­ty. Where some of Gods Churches were again thrown down from their vast height to the very ground, and others were shut up, least any of those that did usually frequent them should meet there, and render a due worship to God. For he did not suppose that prayers were offered up for him, being perswaded to entertain such thoughts as these by a consciousness of his own impieties. But he was of opinion that all we did was in behalf of the Pious Emperour, and to render God favourable to him. Upon which account he resolved to assail us with his utmost rage. Therefore, those Presidents that were his flat­terers, being fully perswaded that this would be grateful to the Tyrant, [inflicted] the same punishment upon some Bishops that they usually imposed upon Malefactours. So that harmless and innocent men were haled away, and without the least pretext punished like murtherers. But others of them underwent a new kind of death, having their bodies cut with a sword (as Butchers do meat) into a great many pieces; and after this barbarous and most horrid spectacle, they were thrown into the depths of the Sea to be made food for the fishes. After this therefore, the worshippers of God betook themselves to flight; and the Fields, the Deserts, the Woods, and Mountains were the receptacles of Christ's servants. When the impious Tyrant had suc­ceeded thus prosperously in these his attempts, he afterwards entertained some thoughts of rai­sing a general Persecution against all the Chri­stians. And he had undoubtedly been master of his desire, nor could there have been any ob­stacle to hinder him from effecting of it, had not God the Protectour of his own servants, (that he might prevent what would immediately have ensued,) caused Constantine his servant sud­denly to appear as a Saviour and a great Light to all that were in a thick darkness and an obscure night, conducting him with a mighty Arm into these parts.

CHAP. IX. Concerning Constantin's Victory, and concerning the prosperity procured by him to all those that live under the power of the Romans.

At these words we began the 9th chap. which con­jecture of ours is confirmed by the old Maz. and Fuk. M. SS. And in those M. SS. this chapter is rightly call'd the eighth chapter as we remark't before. Vales. ON this man therefore did [God] from above bestow Trophies of Victory over the ungodly, as being the worthy fruits of his piety. But the impious Tyrant, together with all his Counsellours and friends, he laid prostrate on their faces before the feet of Constantine. For when Licinius. he was arrived at the high­est degree of Madness, the pious Constantine. Emperour supposing he was not to be longer born with, [...] these are the words in the original; which Valesius ren­ders thus, modestam ac sobriam in se colligens mentem: Grynaeus thus, rem hanc sapienter expendit: and we translate it after this manner, entring into a prudent and sober consideration with himself. 'Tis a phrase usual with our Euschius. For so he expresses himself book 3. De Vita Constant. chap. 5. and 11. entring into a prudent and sober conside­ration with himself, and ha­ving tempered the severity of Justice with [his own na­tural] clemency, resolves upon succouring of those that were oppressed by the Tyrant; and prepares to save a great part of mankind, by cutting off and removing out of the way a few Pestilent and destructive persons. For having before this made use of clemency only, and shewing pity on him who deserved no compassion; he did not profit him at all; for he desisted not from [the practise of his pristine] impieties, but rather increased his fury against the Subjects of his own Provinces. There was no hope of deliverance now remaining to those that were oppressed and afflicted by this cruel Beast. Wherefore [Constantine] the Pro­tector of all good men (having tempered his hatred of impiety with his love of virtue) to­gether with his Son Crispus a most mild and courteous Or Prince; the term in the Greek is [...]. Caesar, marches forwards upon this expedition, reaching out a helping hand to all that were in distress. Both the Father there­fore and the Son, having for their Captain and Assistant the supream King, and the Son of God the Saviour of all men, divided the Armie so, as on every side to encompass God's Enemies, and got an easie Victory; all things in that action having been rendred facil, and successfully expe­dited for them by God according to their wish. Immediately therefore even in the twinkling of an eye, they who yesterday and the day before breathed forth Death and menaces, became whol­ly extinct, the remembrance even of their very names not in the least surviving them. Their pictures also and other monuments [dedicated to their honour] received the deserved [spots of] ignominy; and the same [disgrace] which Li­cinius had with his own eyes beheld the impious Tyrants heretofore involved in, even he himself in like manner suffered. For he himself received not instruction, nor was he amended by his Neighbours stripes: but walking on in the same path of wickedness with them, deservedly wan­dred into the same precipice they did. Thus [Page 198] was this person smitten and prostrated. But Con­stantine the mighty Conquerour, gloriously a­dorned with all the vertues of Religion (together with his Son Crispus, a Prince highly beloved of God, and in all things like his Father,) reco­vered his own East, and reunited the Roman Em­pire into one entire body as it heretofore was: subjecting under By this Phrase here used [ [...], their Peace] is meant the Peace which they re­stored. So Seneca in his book De Clementia brings in Nero speaking thus: Haec tot millia gla­diorum quae pax mea comprimit, ad nutum meum stringentur. Where by [pax mea] he means the Peace he had procured. So also Velleius Paterculus uses this Phrase, and on some Old Coines we find this inscription; Pax Augusti, i. e. the Peace procured by the Empe­rour. But Pax Romana is by the same Seneca (in his book De Cle­mentia, and in that De Providen­tia) used in another sence, to wit, pax ea quâ fruitur imperium Romanum, (i. e.) that Peace which the Roman Empire enjoy­eth. Vales. their Peace the whole world [which rea­ches] from the rising Sun to the utmost Western Re­gions, together with the Pro­vinces that lie round about as well towards the North as the South. Men there­fore were now secure from all fear of them who for­merly had oppressed them, and celebrated splendid and solemn days of Festivity. All things seemed to abound with fulness of light, and they who heretofore beheld each other with dejectedness and sorrow, then lookt upon each other with smiling coun­tenances, and chearful eyes. In This word [ [...] dan­ces] here used, when the discourse is concerning the Christians praising God, did not please Niceph. And therefore instead of [...] he uses [...]. Eusebius, in his second book, De vita Constant. instead of [...] uses [...] which term indeed is more tolerable. But we may easily bear with this word [...]. For the Christians used to dance on their Festivals of the Martyrs, which they kept in honour of them; and thus they celebrated their Conflicts and Victories as Greg, Naz. relates (in Carminibus ad mulieres sese curioflus exornantes, pag. 152.) Basilius Magnus (in his 14th Homily against drunkenness) has a sharp invective against these Choreas, or Dances. Vales. Dances also and Songs, in every City and in the Fields they first of all glorified God the King of Kings, (for thus they were instructed to do) and in the next place the pious Emperour, together with his children which were beloved of God. There was an oblivion of past afflictions, no re­membrance of any impiety, but only an enjoy­ment of the present good things and expecta­tions of more in future. In all places the Edicts of the Victorious Emperour, full of kindness and clemency, and his Laws containing manifest to­kens of his great bounty and true piety, were proclaimed. All Tyranny therefore being thus extirpated, the Empire which did by right be­long to Constantine and his Sons, was preserved firm and secure from envie. Who (after they had cleansed the world from the impiety of their Predecessours) being sensible of those great benefits which had been procured for them by God, The rea­ding in the Kings M. S. (which Stephens almost e­very where follows) is this [ [...], declared by their Law [published] in favour of the Chri­stians.] But in the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS. this place is written far otherwise, thus [ [...], did by a most apparent and convincing te­stimony of their deeds declare to all men:] which reading, being con­firmed by the consent of more, and those ancienter copies, we with good reason supposed ought to be preferred before the other. Vales. did by a most apparent and convincing testimony of their deeds declare to all men their love of vertue and of the Deity, and also their piety and gratitude towards God.

The End (by God's Assistance) of the Tenth Book of Eusebius Pamphilus's Ecclesiastical History.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL H …

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF Socrates Scholasticus, Translated out of the GREEK according to the Edition set forth by VALESIUS, and Printed at PARIS in the Year 1668.

Together with VALESIUS'S Annotations on the said Historian; which are also done into ENGLISH, and set at their proper places in the Margin.

Hereunto also is annexed an account of the Life and Writings of the foresaid Historian, Collected by VALESIUS, and Translated into ENGLISH.

HINC LUCEM ET POCULA SACRA

CAMBRIDGE, Printed by John Hayes, Printer to the University. 1680.

VALESIUS'S PREFACE To the Studious READERS.

AFter Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea (whom we may deservedly Stile the Father of Ecclesiastick History,) many inflamed with a Pious Emulation, undertook to Treat of the same Subject. But Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret are in the Judgment of all Antiquity far more famous than all the other Writers: who beginning from those times wherein Eusebius concluded his Ecclesiastick History, brought their work down to the Times of Theodosius Junior. And at first I was resolved to have published these three Writers together, that as they had prosecuted one and the same Subject in their Writings, so they might have also been comprehended and read in one and the same Volume. But in regard this would hereby have been too large a Volume, therefore I was forced to defer the Edition of Theodoret to another time. To which I will add Evagrius Epiphaniensis's Ecclesiastick History, as also the Excerptions of Philostorgius and Theodorus Lector; that the Studious may in future read over the whole body of Ecclesiastick History, publisht and explained by our Labour. In the interim you have here (Reader) joyned together in this Volume Socrates and Sozomen. Concerning what I have done about the Edition of these Authours, take this account in short.

Above Eight years since, when by the Command and advice of the most Illustrious Prelates belonging to the Gallican Clergy, I publisht the History of Eusebius Caesariensis, I made it my business to perform three things most especially in that Edition. For first, having from all places procured those Manuscript-Copies that were most remarkable and eminent, I amended and differenced those passages which in the former Editions had been corrupted and disguised. Secondly, in regard the former Translatours had, either by reason of their want of Manuscript-Copies, or on some other account, erred in many places, that their Versions might not induce the Readers into mistakes, I my self have Elaborated a new Translation, with which the Studious will, I hope, be in future content. Lastly, I have added Annotations, that I might therein both give an account of mine Amendments, and also explain and illustrate all the more obscure and difficult places. And this Edition, being candidly received by all, is now in the hands of the Learned. Therefore, what I then (by the Divine Assistance) performed in the History of Eusebius Caesariensis, the same I have attempted now to do in the History of Socrates and Sozomen, by the Command and advice of the same Prelates I men­tioned. For (that I may in the first place speak concerning Socrates, who first betook himself to write) I have amended his History by the help and assistance of three Manuscript-Copies, to wit, the Sfortian, the Florentine, and the Allatian. The Sfortian-Manuscript (which is the best and ancientest,) is at this time kept in the Vatican Library. This Copy the Learned Lucas Holstenius had sometime since (in favour to the most illustrious Carolus Monchallus Arch-Bishop of Tolouse) compared with the Geneva Edition; and had transmitted the various readings (together with the Emendations of Philostorgius transcribed from the Scoriacensian M. S.) to the same Prelate, at such time as the Gallican Clergy had committed to him the care of setting forth a new Edition of the Ancient Ecclesiastick History; so the said Holstenius informs us, in his Epistle to Peter Possinus a Divine of the Order of the Jesuites. But afterwards, when by the entreaty of the same Arch-Bishop of Tolouse (who understood, that by reason of his too much other business, he could not be at leisure to take care of this Edition) the Gallican Clergy had injoyned me that Province; the same Holstenius sent me the various readings of the fore mentioned Sfortian-Manuscript, written out with his own hand at the margin of the Geneva Edition, together with those amendments of Philo­storgius; and had sent me more, had a longer life been granted him. For a little before his death he sent me some dissertations concerning certain passages in the Nicene and Chalcedon Councills, and concerning Synesius's Episcopate. Which dissertations shall (God willing) be published by us in the third Tome of our Ecclesiastick History, that the Learned part of the world may be no longer defrauded of that most Accomplished Persons Labours. The Florentine-Manuscript follows, transcribed about five hundred years since, which is now kept at Florence, in Saint Laurence's Library. The discovery and use of this Manuscript I owe to Emericus Bigotius a most skilfull searcher into Old Libraries: by whose diligence it is contrived, that we sitting still and idle here enjoy the riches and treasures of many and most remote Libraries. For at his entreaty, Michael Erminius, a Senatour of Florence, compared that Copy with the Geneva-Edition, and transmitted the various readings thereof to me; upon which account I do profess my self much oblieged to both of them. The third Manuscript belongs to Leo Allatius, a person every way learned, and one that has deserved well of Ecclesiastick antiquity. This Copy contains the Ecclesiastick History of Theodorus Lector, comprized in two books; which Theodorus Lector had gathered out of three Writers of Ecclesiastick affairs, to wit, [Page] Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, after the same manner that Cassiodorus Senator has composed his Tripertite History. But this Tripertite History of Theodorus Lector comprehends only the affairs transacted in the Church during the Reign of Constantine and Constantius: whether the reason be, that Theodorus Lector continued his Collection no further, or that the other books of that work are lost by the negligence of Antiquity. Out of this Copy therefore Leo Allatius had some time since Collected the various readings in the two former books of Socrates, and transmitted them being written out with his own hand to the most Illustrious Prelate Carolus Monchallus. Which I after­wards procured by the assistance of the most Eminent Dionysius Talaeus Advocate General to the Most Christian King in the supream Court at Paris. Besides these three Manuscript Copies, I made use of the Kings M. S. (which is no very ancient one,) which Robert Stephens made use of only in his Edition. Upon which account it is less to be wondred at, that the common Editions of Socrates have hitherto been so faulty, seeing they were all derived from one only Copy, which also is a very modern one. Moreover, this Copy was taken out of the Kings Library, and courteously lent me by the most Illustrious and Reverend Prelate Nicolaus Colbertus Bishop of Lusson, a person endowed with eminent Learning, Virtue, and Dignity. Concerning whose praise I would speak more in this place, did not his singular modesty hinder me, who am very desirous thereof. And these are the assistances of the Manuscript Copies, by the supports whereof I attempted this Edition of Socrates.

But in the Correcting of Sozomen's History I had the benefit of fewer Manuscript Copies. For besides that Copy in the King's Library, which Robert Stephens followed in his Edition, and besides that Copy belonging to Leo Allatius (whereof we made mention before,) which was an assistance to us only in the four first books of Sozomen, and in the beginning of the fifth; I had only the Fuketian Manuscript. This Copy did at first belong to Carolus Monchallus Arch-Bishop of Tolouse, a person very studious of Ecclesiastick History. But afterwards it was put into the Fuketian Library, and lent to me by the most worthy Nicolaus Fuketius. Upon which account in my Annotations I have called this the Fuketian Manuscript. But at length, when our Edition was compleated, this Copy (together with the other Manuscripts belonging to the Fuketian Library) was transferred into the right and possession of the most Illustrious and eminent person, on account both of his own and his fathers deserts, Carolus Mauricius Tellerius, Abbot of Saint Benignus, who at this time is Coadjutor in the Arch-Bishoprick of Rheimes. Indeed this is no very ancient Manuscript, but 'tis of the best note, and is transcribed from a most correct Copy. The Titles of the Chapters, which in the King's Manu­script, and in Robert Stephen's Edition, are prefixt before the History of Sozomen, are wanting in this Copy. Nor is there any distinction of the Chapters throughout all the Books. From whence may be discerned the excellency and antiquity of that Manuscript. For the Titles or Contents of the Chapters were made by Nicephorus Callistus, or rather by some other more modern Authour, and are wholly impertinent, and barbarously expressed. In so much that after I had lookt thereon with a greater accuracy, they seemed to have been composed by some other hand, rather than by Nice­phorus. Moreover, that I may not defraud any person of his due praise, I acknowledge my self in­debted to Samuel Tennulius (a very Learned person, and one that is a great lover of me, at present an eminent Professour of Litterature at Nimmeghen) for the various Readings in the History of Sozomen and Theodoret, Collected out of the fore mentioned Allatian Manuscript, that is, out of the Tripertite History of Theodorus Lector. For whilst he was at Rome, he transcribed them with his own hand from Leo Allatius's Copy, a person never praised enough; who by my entreaty and for my sake had delivered those various Readings to the said Tennulius, that he might write them out. By the help of these Copies therefore I have amended, innumerable places both in Socrates and also in Sozomen, which were very corrupt before, I have supplied many defects, restored many pun­ctations and distinctions, and lastly I have added a new Version. Concerning which I will now speak briefly.

What I have heretofore said concerning Musculus's and Christophorson's Translation in my Preface to the Illustrious Prelates of the Gallican Church, which is prefixt before the Edition of our Eusebius, I need not now repeat. I will only add this; if after those Translatours now named the History of Eusebius Caesariensis wanted a new Interpreter, a new Version of Socrates and Sozomen was much more necessary. For their Histories have come to our hands far more faulty than Eusebius's. And that the judicious Reader will easily discern from Robert Stephens's Edition. For Robert Stephens, in his Edition of Eusebius, had the use of many Manuscript Copies, which were taken out of the King's Library: but in his Impression of Socrates's and Sozomen's History, he had but one Copy of each of them. Therefore at the end of his Edition, he remarkt the various readings in the books of Eusebius taken out (as he says) of most ancient Copies. But at the close of Socrates's and Sozomen's History he put no various readings, because he had gotten but one Copy of each of those Writers. Also, the Copies of Eusebius, which Stephens made use of, were the best and ancientest, as he himself attests. But each Copy, as well that of Socrates's as the other of Sozomen's History, which Robert Stephens followed in his Edition, was, as we perceive, very new, and did also abound with many faults. 'Tis therefore no wonder, that Learned men have been so often mistaken in their Versions of Socrates's and Sozomen's books, since they had such faulty and maimed Copies before them, and were deprived of the assistance of Manuscripts. For Musculus had seen Robert Stephen's Edition only. Christophorson had indeed inspected some Manuscript Copies of Eusebius [Page] and Theodoret. But he had no Manuscripts of Socrates and Sozomen, as I have frequently observed in my Annotations. He had only seen the various readings and conjectures of Learned men set at the margin of Robert Stephens his Edition: of which sort many Copies came to our hands. But those readings were almost of no weight or authority at all, in as much as they had no remark annext of the ancient Copy out of which they were transcribed. But I, having got the best and ancientest Manuscripts, as well of Socrates, as Sozomen; and with great labour and industry compared them with the common Editions; afterwards took an easier and plainer way to their Translation. This Edition of ours therefore will (we hope) equally satisfie all persons, as well those that are skilled in the Greek Tongue, as them that are not. For, both those that are knowing in the Greek Lan­guage will read Socrates and Sozomen amended and throughly purged by our Labour; and such as are less skilled in the Greek will easier understand those Authours done into Latine by us.

Our Annotations follow; wherein, in the same manner as in our Notes on Eusebius, we have attempted to perform two things. The first is, to give an account of our Emendations, and to propose to the Readers judgment the various readings taken out of the Manuscript Copies. Then secondly, to illustrate (according to our ability) the more obscure and difficult places, which seemed to be able to involve the Readers judgment in doubts. Nor am I ignorant, that there are many delicate and fastidious persons, who may think that they have exhibited to them some exquisite observations onely, and common Places (as they are called,) composed for shew and ostentation; and who may suppose that that part of our Annotations, which contains emendations and various readings, is altogether trivial and despicable. To which persons I would make this return: although those Emendations and various Readings (which the Greeks term [...]) may frequently be insipid, and seem troublesome to the Readers, yet they are highly usefull, and altogether neces­sary, especially in these Writers, whose books have come to our hands less correct. Now that Socrates's and Sozomens's Books are such, we have before mentioned And indeed our obser­vations doe bear a greater shew of Learning: but an Emendation in my opinion requires more of wisedom and judiciousness. Neither is it for every man to give his opinion concerning the true and genuine reading of antique Writers: but he only is able to do this, who is furnished with a manifold stock of Learning, and has been long and much exercised in this art of judging.

And these are the particulars I thought necessary to advertize the Readers of in the beginning of this Work, that they might know at first sight what they were chiefly to expect in this Edition of ours, which could not be met with in the former Editions of this History. It remaines now, that we speak something concerning Socrates and Sozomen: who and what manner of persons they were, what course of Life they followed, what Religion they professed, and which of them first wrote his History.

CONCERNING THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF Socrates and Sozomen.

OUR Socrates therefore, for we will begin with him, had Constantinople for his Countrey. In the fifth Book of his History, Chap. 24. he attests that he was born and educated in that City, and that he therefore Recorded those matters chiefly which hapned in that City. When very young he was instructed in the Rules of Grammer, by Helladius and Ammonius, Grammarians, who at that time had left Alexandria, and betook themselves to Constantinople. He that is desirous to know the reason why these Grammarians departed from Alexandria, will find it related by Socrates, in the fifth Book and sixteenth Chapter of his History. For when the Heathen-Temples were demolished at Alexandria, by the care and industry of Theophilus Bishop of that City, Helladius and Ammonius, Grammarians (the one of whom was Jupiter's Priest, and the other Simius's at Alexandria,) displeased at the ignominy their Gods were exposed to, having left the City Alexandria, went to Constantinople, and there took up their habitation. Moreover, the Heathen-Temples at Alexandria were destroyed when Timasius and Promotus were Consuls, (ac­cording to Marcellinus's relation in his Chronicon,) which was the Emperour Theodosius's eleventh year. Whence it is apparent, that our Socrates was born about the beginning of Theodosius's Reign. For boyes were usually sent to be instructed by Grammarians when they were about ten years old. After this Socrates studied Rhetorick under the tuition of Troilus the Sophista, who about that time was an eminent Professour of Eloquence at Constantinople. Our Socrates does not indeed say thus much in express words. But the attentive and diligent Reader will easily collect from his words that which I have affirmed. For he does make such frequent, and so honourable a mention of him, that he may seem to pay a reward to his Master. For he names his Country, Side, a City of Pamphylia. He also mentions not a few of his Schollars, to wit, Eusebius Scholasticus, and Silvanus and Ablabius who were Bishops. Lastly, in his Seventh Book he relates that Anthemius the Prefect of the Praetorium (who, whilst Theodosius Junior was yet a Minor, was the chief Minister of State in the Em­pire) did chiefly make use of the Councels of Troilus the Sophista. Where he also gives him this Elogue: [...] (for that must be the Reading, as we have intimated in our See So­crat. Eccle­siast. Hist. Book. 7. Chap. 1. note (c.) notes) [...]; that is, who besides the Philosophy that was in him, was Anthemius's Equal in Political Knowledge. By these reasons I have been induced to think that our Socrates had Troilus for his Rhetorick-Master. But con­cerning this matter we permit every one to determine according to his own arbitrement. Further, you must know that the Ancients were not so speedy and hasty in [their learning the Rules of] Eloquence, as is now a daies usual, but they applied their minds to those Studies for a long time to­gether. Gregory Nazianzen attests (in his Poem concerning his own Life) that he left Athens in the thirtieth year of his Age, as soon as he had learned the Precepts of the Art of Oratory in that City. After this, Socrates having left Troilus's School, betook himself to the Forum, and pleaded Causes at Constantinople. Whence he got the Surname of Scholasticus. For so the Advocates were at that time called, as it has long since been remarked by others: Non quod in Scholas relati es­sent; so he words it; the expres­sion is am­biguous. not because they were reduced into Schools: but in regard, being young-men that had left the Schools of the Rhetoricians, they pro­fessed this Art. But at length, having left off his practice in the Law, he applied his mind to Writing of his Ecclesiastick History. In which work he has made use of a singular judiciousness and diligence. His judiciousness is manifested by his remarkes and sentiments interwoven every where throughout his Books: than which there is (in my opinion) nothing more excellent. But his diligence is declared by many other instances, chiefly by this, in regard he frequently annexes a note of the [Page] times, that is, the Consulates and Olympiades, especially where he mentions such matters as are more momentous. Nor has he carelesly or negligently written his History, [...] Rufinus Aquileïensis did, who seems to me to have composed his two Books of Ecclesiastick History (which he annexed to Euse­bius's) without looking into any Records. Our Socrates did far otherwise, for having from all places got together the best monuments, that is, the Epistles of Prelates, the Acts of Synods, and the Books of Ecclesiastick Writers, agreeable to their authority he composed his History. And whereas in the first Edition of his Work, having therein followed Rufinus, he had placed the Synod of Tyre, and the banishment of Athanasius into the Gallia's in the Reign of Constantius Augustus, upon reading of Athanasius's Books afterwards, he perceived his Errour. Wherefore he was necessitated to set forth a new Edition of his History, wherein he both mended the mistake I have mentioned, and also made an addition of some other things, which were wanting in the former Edition, as he himself attests at the beginning of his Second Book. Whence it appears how highly we ought to value Socrates's History, to which the Writer himself put his last That is, he himself Revised, and Cor­rected it. hand. In the composure of his Hi­story Socrates has made use of a plain and mean Stile; which was done by him on set purpose, that he might the easier be understood by all persons, as himself attests at the beginning of his First and Third Book. For he lookt upon that Sublime and Eloquent manner of expression to be more agree­able for Panegyrick-Orations, than an History of Ecclesiastick affairs. Moreover, he has dedicated his History to one Theodorus, whom in the beginning of his Second Book he Stiles a sacred man of God, which is the same appellation our Eusebius gives to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre at the beginning of his Tenth Book. But who this Theodorus was, it is to me unknown. For I cannot believe it was Theo­dorus Bishop of Mopsuestia, in regard Socrates wrote his History after the death of Theodorus Mopsu­estenus. But it is now time for us to inquire concerning his Sect and Religion, as we promised at the beginning.

Baronius in his Annalls, and Philippus Labbaeus in his Book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, do af­firm that our Socrates was by Sect a See Eu­sebius's Ec­cles. Hist. Book 6. Chap. 43. Novatian. The same was Nicephorus's opinion before it was theirs, who in the Proeme to his Ecclesiastical History says thus: [...]. That is, That Socrates surnamed That is, Pure. Catharus, but as to his mind he was not pure. Which words are not so to be understood, as if Socrates were Surnamed Catharus, but that it might be shown he was a Novatian. For the Novatians termed themselves Cathari, as we are informed from the Eighth Canon of the Nicene Councill. The same Nicephorus (in his 11th Book and Chap. 14.) writes thus con­cerning Socrates: Socrates (who in this place plainly shews himself not to be a detester of the Novatian Principles) relates that these things were told him by a certain old man, &c. Now, why our Socrates was by many accounted a Novatian, the reasons are not few, nor trivial. For first, he carefully Re­cords the Series of the Novatian-Bishops, who Presided over their Church at Constantinople from the times of Constantine, and also remarks the Consulates wherein every one of them departed out of this life. Secondly, he highly extols them all, especially Agerius, Sisinius, Chrysanthus, and Paulus. By whose prayers, as he relates, a certain miracle was wrought at Constantinople. Lastly, he prosecutes all matters belonging to the Novatian Sect with so great a care and diligence, that he may seem to have been addicted to this Sect. But should any one examine these particulars with a greater accu­racy, he will find nothing in them, that may evince our Socrates to have been a Novatian. For with the like diligence he enumerates the Arian-Bishops, who governed their Church at Constantinople; and yet it is not said he was an Arian. With no less carefulness also has he related all things that hapned to the Arians, Eunomians, and Macedonians at Constantinople, than he has Recorded what befell the Novatians. The reason hereof he himself has given, in Chap. 24. of his Fifth Book. Where he says, it was his design to Record those things most especially which hapned at Constantinople; both because he himself lived in that City, wherein he had been born and educated; and also in regard the affairs transacted there were more eminent, and worthier to be Recorded. But should any one ob­ject, that the Arian-Bishops are not extolled by Socrates at the same rate that the Novatian-Bishops are; the answer hereto is easie. For the Arian-Bishops, who then lived at Constantinople, were far inferiour to the Novatian-Bishops. For the Church of these Hereticks did in those times abound with many and those eminent Prelates: which Sozomen also confirms by his testimony, who Records their Elogues, exactly like those given them by our Socrates. Wherefore, it must either be said that Sozo­men was also a Novatian, or else our Socrates must be discharged from that calumny. But 'tis manifest Sozomen was not a Novatian. For (to omit Theodorus Lector's testimony, who, in his Epistle pre­fixt before his Tripertite-History, Stiles him [...] a most blessed person,) he himself in his 9th book relates, that he was present at a publick procession, celebrated at Constantinople in honour of fourty Martyrs, at such time as Proclus Presided over the Church of that City. Whence 'tis mani­festly concluded, that Sozomen was a person of the Catholick Communion, in regard he was present at the publick prayers together with the Catholicks. I confess indeed, that our Socrates does fre­quently favour the Novatians; for instance, when he recounts the Ringleader of the Novatian-He­resie amongst the number of the Martyrs; when he affirms, that the Novatians were joyned to the Catholicks in the ties of a most intimate friendship and love, and that they prayed together with them in the Church of God; and lastly, when he commends Sisinius's Oration, which he made against this saying of Saint Crysostom, Although thou hast repented a thousand times, approach. But [Page] 'tis one thing to favour the Novatians; another to be a Novatian. Our Socrates might indeed be a favourer of the Novatians, either because he was engaged in a friendship and familiarity with them, or in regard he approved of their discipline and abstinence. For, as far as we can Collect from his Books, he was something severe. But I can hardly perswade my self, that he was a Novatian; especi­ally when as I seem to have found the contrary from some places which occur in his History. For first, in Chap. 38. of his Second Book, he frequently calls the Catholicks [...], those of the Church; and opposes them to the Novatians. Therefore he acknowledges that the Novatians were without the Church. Which he would certainly never have done, had he embraced that He­resie. Besides, in the 20. and 23. Chapters of his Fifth Book he reckons the Novatians amongst the Hereticks, to wit, amongst the Arians, Macedonians, and Eunomians. Lastly, from Chap. 19. of the same Book it may be apparently concluded that Socrates was not a Novatian. For first, he always calls the Church simply and absolutely the Catholick-Church: opposing it to the Churches of other Sects, concerning which he treats in the following Chapters, to wit, of the Arians, Nova­tians, and Eunomians. Then, he does not obscurely reprehend that advice of Nectarius who abro­gated the See So­crates's Ec­cles. Hist. Book. 5. Chap. 19. note (a.) Paenitentiary Presbyter. For he says that hereby Licence was given to Sinners, whenas there was no body that might reprove offenders. Which Opinion could not proceed from a Nova­tian, in regard those Hereticks admitted neither of Repentance [after Baptism,] nor of a Peniten­tiary-Presbyter, as Socrates does there attest. Add hereto the testimony of Theodorus Lector, who, in his Epistle prefixt before his Ecclesiastick History, calls Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret [...], that is, men that were pious and acceptable to God. Moreover, Theodorus Lector lived in the same City, and almost at the same time that Socrates did, to wit, in the Reign of the Emperour Ana­stasius. Lastly, Petrus Halloixius (in his notes on the life of Saint Irenaeus, pag. 664,) is of the same Opinion with us. For, disputing against Baronius, who at the year of Christ 159. had written thus; These things Socrates the Novatian, who with the Jews celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day of the Moon, &c. he utters these words. And whereas Socrates is termed a Novatian, that may be taken in a double sence: The one is, that he sometimes favoured the Novatians; which also Bellarmine affirms (in his Book de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, at the year of our Lord 440.) both concerning him, and like­wise concerning Sozomen. The other is, that he was [a follower] of the Novatian-Heresie. In the now cited Chapter, he neither shews himself to be a Novatian, nor a favourer of them. For he blames them, and detects their dissensions and vices; in so much that he may seem not to have been a friend, but an enemy, or rather neither of the two, but a declarer of the truth, which is the business of an Historian. Thus far concerning Socrates, we must now speak of Sozomen.

Hermias Sozomen was also a practiser in the Law at Constantinople, at the same time with So­crates. His Ancestours were not mean, they were originally Palestinians, Inhabitants of a certain Village neer Gaza called Bethelia. This Village did in times past abound with a numerous company of Inhabitants, and had most stately and ancient Churches. But the most glorious Structure of them all was the Pantheon, Scituated on an artificial Hill, which was the Tower as it were of Bethelia, as So­zomen relates in Chap. 15. of his fifth Book. The Grandfather of Hermias Sozomen was born in that Village, and first converted to the Christian Faith by Hilarion the Monk. For when Alaphion an in­habitant of the same Village was possessed with a devil; and the Jews and Physitians, attempting to cure him, could do him no good by their Inchantments, Hilarion by a bare invocation of the Name of God cast out the Devil. Sozomen's Grandfather, and Alaphion himself, amazed at this miracle, did with their whole families embrace the Christian Religion. The Grandfather of Sozomen was eminent for his expositions of the sacred Scriptures, being a person endowed with a polite wit, and an acute­ness of understanding. Besides, he was indifferently well skilled in Literature. Therefore he was highly esteemed of by the Christians inhabiting Gaza, Ascalon, and the places adjacent, in regard he was usefull and necessary for [the propagating of] Religion, and could easily unloose the knots of the sacred Scriptures. But Alaphion's descendants excelled others for their Sanctity of Life, kindness to the indigent, and for their other Virtues: and they were the first that built Churches and Mona­steries there, as Sozomen attests in the place before cited. Where he also adds, that some holy per­sons of Alaphion's Family were surviving even in his days, with whom he himself, when very young, was conversant, and concerning whom he promises to speak more afterwards. Undoubtedly he means Salamanes, Phusco, Malchio, and Crispio brothers, concerning whom he speaks in Chap. 32. of his Sixth Book. For he says that these brethren, instructed in the Monastick discipline by Hilarion, were during the Empire of Valens eminent in the Monasteries of Palestine: and that they lived neer Bethelia, a Village in the Country of the Gazites. For they were descendants of a Noble Family amongst them. He mentions the same persons in his Eighth Book and Fifteenth Chapter, where he says Crispio was Epiphanius's Arch-Deacon. 'Tis apparent therefore, that those brethren I have mentioned were extracted from Alaphion's Family. Now Alaphion was related to Sozomen's Grand­father. Which I conjecture from hence, First, because the Grandfather of Sozomen is said to have been converted (together with his whole Family) to the Christian Religion upon account of Ala­phion's wonderfull cure, whom Hilarion had healed, by calling on the name of the Omnipotent God. Further, this conjecture is confirmed by what Sozomon relates, to wit, that he, when very young, was familiarly conversant with the aged Monks that were of Alaphion's Family. And lastly, in regard Sozomen took his name from those persons who were either the Sons or Grandchildren of Alaphion. [Page] For he was called Salamanes Hermias Sozomenus (as Photius attests in his Bibliotheca) from the name of that Salamanes, who, as we observed before, was Phusco's, Malchio's, and Crispio's bro­ther. Wherefore that mistake of Nicephorus's, and others, must be amended, who suppose that Sozomen had the surname of Salaminius, because he was born at Salamine a City of Cyprus. But we have before demonstrated from Sozomen's own testimony, that he was not born in Cyprus, but in Palestine. For his Grandfather was not only a Palestinian, as is above said, but Sozomen himself was also educated in Palestine, in the bosome (as I may say) of those Monks that were of Ala­phio's Family. From which education Sozomen seems to me to have imbibed that most ardent love of a monastick life and discipline, which he declares in many places of his History. Hence 'tis, that in his Books he is not content to relate, who were the Fathers and Founders of Monastick Philo­sophy; but he also carefully relates their Successours and disciples, who both in Egypt, Syria, and Palestine, and also in Pontus, Armenia, and Osdroëna, followed this way of Life. Hence also it is, that in the Twelfth Chapter of the First Book of his History, he has proposed to be read (in the beginning as it were) that gorgeous Elogue of Monastick Philosophy. For he supposed, that he should have been ungratefull, had he not after this manner at least made a return of thanks to those, in whose familiarity he had lived, and from whom, when he was a youth, he had received such eminent ex­amples of a good converse. For that he himself intimates, in the Proeme to his First Book. But it is collected that Sozomen was educated at Gaza, not onely from this place which I have mentioned, but also from Chap. 28. of his Seventh Book, where Sozomen says that he himself had seen Zeno Bishop of Majuma. This Majuma is a Sea-Port belonging to the Gazites. Which Bishop, al­though he was almost an hundred years old, yet was never absent from the Morning and Evening Hymns, unless it hapned that he was detained by a disease. After this Sozomen applied himself to the profession of the Law. He was a Student in the Civil Law at Berytus, a City of Phoenicia, not far distant from his own Country, where there was a famous Civil-Law-School. But he practised the Law at Constantinople, as himself attests in his Second Book and third Chapter: And yet he seems not to have been very much employed in pleading of Causes. For at the same time that he was an Advocate in Constantinople, he wrote his Ecclesiastick History; which may be concluded from his own words. For thus he says (Book 2. Chap. 3.) [...]. but what hapned to Aquilinus, a person at this time conversant with me, and one that Pleads Causes in the same Court of judicature, I will necessarily relate, partly as I heard it from him, and partly as I my self saw it. Further, before he wrote his Nine Books of Eccle­siastick History, Sozomen composed a Breviary of Ecclesiastick affairs, from our Saviours ascension to the deposition of Licinius. Which work was comprized in two books, as himself attests in the Proeme to his First Book. But those two Books are lost by length of time. In the composure of his History, Sozomen has made use of a Stile neither too Low, nor too High, but between both: which Stile is most agreeable to a Writer of Ecclesiastick Affairs. Photius (in his Bibliotheca) prefers Sozomen's Stile before Socrates's. With whom we agree. But by how much Sozomen is superiour for the Elegancy of his expression, by so much Socrates exceeds upon account of his judiciousness. For Socrates judges incomparably well, both of men, and also of Ecclesiastick business and affairs. There is nothing in him but what is grave and serious. Nothing that you can expunge as superfluous. But on the contrary, some passages occur in Sozomen that are trivial and childish. Of this sort is his digression in his First Book concerning the building of the City Hemona, and concerning the Argo­nauts, who carried the Ship Argo on their shoulders some furlongs. Also his description of Daphne without the walls of the City Antioch, which occurs at Chap. 19. of his Sixth Book. And that obser­vation of his concerning the beauty of the body, where he Treats of that Virgin, with whom the blessed Athanasius absconded a long while. Lastly, his Ninth Book contains little else besides war­like events, between which and an Ecclesiastick History there is no agreement. Besides, Sozo­men's Stile, which Photius prefers before that of Socrates, wants not its faults. For I have observed, that the Periods are by Sozomen no otherwise joyned together, than by these particles [...] and [...]; than which there is nothing more troublesome. Should any one attentively read that Epistle wherein Sozomen Dedicates his Work to Theodosius Junior, he will find that which I have said to be certainly true, to wit, that Sozomen was no great Oratour.

It remains, that we inquire which of these Socrates and Sozo­men. two Authours Wrote first, and which of them borrowed, or rather stole from the other. Certainly, in regard both of them Wrote almost the same things of the same Transactions, in as much as they both began at the same beginning, and con­cluded their History at the same boundary, (both beginning from the Reign of Constantine, and ending at the Seventeenth Consulate of Theodosius Junior;) it must needs be true, that one of them robbed the others Desk. Which sort of theft (as Porphyrius attests in Eusebius's Tenth Book of Evangelick Preparation) was committed by many of the Grecian Writers. But which was the Pla­giary, Socrates or Sozomen, 'tis hard to say, in regard both of them Lived in the same times, and both Wrote their History in the Empire of Theodosius Junior. Therefore, in the disquisition of this question, we must make use of conjecture. In such a case as this Porphyrius in the before quoted book (when it was uncertain whether Hyperides stole from Demosthenes, or Demosthenes from Hyperides, because both of them Lived at the same time,) openly declared that conjecture was to [Page] be made use of. Let us therefore see upon which of them falls the suspicion of theft. Indeed this is my sentiment, I do suppose that the inferiour does frequently steal from the Superiour, and the Junior from the Seniour. But Sozomen is in my judgment far inferiour to Socrates; and he betook himself to Writing his History when he was younger then Socrates. For he Wrote it whilst he was yet an Advocate, as I observed before. Now, the profession of the Advocates amongst the Romans was not perpetual, but temporary. Lastly, He that adds something to the other, and sometimes amends the other, seems to have Written last. But Sozomen now and then adds some passages to Socrates, and in some places dissents from him, as Photius has observed, and we have hinted in our Annotations. Sozomen therefore seems to have Written last. And this is the Opinion of almost all modern Writers; who place Socrates before Sozomen. So Bellar­mine in his Book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis; who is followed by Miraeus, Labbaeus, and Vossius. Amongst the Ancients, Cassiodorus, Photius and Nicephorus name Socrates in the first place. Al­though Cassiodorus is found to have varied. For in his Preface to the Tripertite History, in a clean contrary order he names Theodoret in the first place, Sozomen in the second, and Socrates last. So also does Theodorus Lector recount them, in his Epistle which he prefixt before the Tripertite History. Thus far concerning Sozomen.

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.

CHAP. I. The Preface to the whole Book.

EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS Having compil'd an Ecclesiastick Hi­story in Ten entire books, concluded it in the Reign of Constantine the Empe­rour: at which time also the In the Kings M. S. and Robert Stephens's Edit. it is [ [...], the war:] but in the Florent. and Sfort. M. SS. we found it written [ [...], persecuti­on.] Vales. Persecution against the Christians ceased, [which had been begun] by Diocletian. The same Authour, in the books he wrote concerning the life of Constantine, has made but a [...] here us'd does not (as usual­ly) signifie singillatim, one by one, apart, but [...], partly: for Eusebius (in his books De vitâ Constantini▪) does indeed but partly touch the history of Arius; he prosecutes it not wholly, and particularly. Vales. slight relation of the matters relating to Arius: for he was more carefull about the praises of the Emperour, and about a panagyrical subli­mity in his expressions, as it is usually done in [the composition of] an Encomium, than about an accurate and exact account of what was done. But we, purposing to commit to writing the Ecclesi­astick affaires from those times to these our own days, will begin our History Musculus renders these words [ [...]] thus, we will begin our History where he left off: Christoph. does translate it almost after the same manner, but more barbarously, as to his Latine. We have rendred these words thus [ab iis rebus quas ille intactas reliquit, operis no­stri sumemus exordium, i. e. we will begin our History from those matters which he has left untouch't] For Socrates's meaning is, that he will begin from the History of Arius, which Eusebius had but partly touch't upon, in his books, concerning the life of Constantine: for Eusebius (says he) made it his business in those books, to enlarge upon the Emperours praises, rather than to give an exact account of the Ecclesiastick Affairs: but he himself, resolving to commit to writing the Affairs transacted in the Church, promises to give a more accurate relation of the Arian-Heresie, and to begin his History from those things which Eusebius had either purposely omitted, or but slightly touch't upon as not conducive to his design in hand. Indeed Socrates has not begun his History, where Eusebius left off. For Eusebius continues that work of his con­cerning Constantines Life to the death of Constantine. But Eusebius has continued the Series of his Ecclesiastick History down to the tu­mults raised by Arius, and to those affairs which preceded the Nicene-Council. If therefore we have a respect onely to Eusebius's Ten Books of his Ecclesiastick History, we may say that Socrates began where Eusebius ended. But if we also add his Books concerning the life of Constantine (as Socrates here does,) then that will not be true. Vales. from those things which he has left untouch't: we shall not be over curious about the grandeur of our stile, but what things soever we have found upon Record, or have heard from such as were present at the transactions thereof, we will particularly relate. And because it is conducive to our designe, to declare after what manner Constantine was converted to the Christian Religion, according to our ability we will speak something of that matter.

CHAP. II. After what manner Constantine the Emperour was converted to the Christian Religion.

Vales. in his Latine translation begins this period not as Musculus and Chri­stoph. do, and we have fol­lowed his judgment, as more a­greeable with the continua­tion, and connexion of the sense. WE will begin from those times, where­in Diocletian and Maximian sirnam'd Herculius, having by a mutual compact resign'd their Empire, embrac'd a private life: and Maxi­mian sirnam'd Galerius, who had been Colleague in the Empire with them, came into Italy, and created two Caesars, Maximin in the Eastern parts [of the Empire,] and Severus in Italy. Socrates seems to have been of opinion, that Con­stantine and Maxentius began their Reign in the same year that Dio­cletian and Maximianus Herculius did Resign the Empire. This also was the opinion of the Authour of the Chronicle of Alexandria, and of others who attribute the years of Constantius's Reign to Constantine his Son. And hence it is that Constantine the Great is reported to have Reigned 32 years, when as really he Reigned but 30 years, and 10 months. Vales. But in Brittaine Constantine was proclaimed Emperour, in the room of Constantius his Father, Socrates does in the end of his Seventh Book (where he concludes his History) repeat this, in which place he says that he began his Hi­story in the first year of the 271 Olympiad, in which year Constantine the Great was proclaimed Emperour. This Olympiad does begin at the Solstice of the CCCV. year, being the year after the resignation of Diocletian. But Constantius died not this year, but in that following, when he was the sixth time Consul with Galerius Augustus, as we may read in Fastis Idatii. And therefore Constantius's death is to be recko­ned on the second year of the aforesaid CCLXXI. Olympiad. Vales. who died in the first year of the two hundredth seventy first Olympiad, on the five and twentieth day of the month July. [Lastly] at Rome, Maxentius the Sun of Maximianus Herculius was by the Preto­rian Souldiers advanced to be a Tyrant rather then an Emperour. Hereupon Herculius passionately desirous of reassuming his Imperiall Authority, endeavoured to destroy his Son Maxentius. But he was hindred from doing that by the Souldiers Afterwards Socrates is here in an error, for Maximianus Herculius, who was otherwise called Maximian the Elder, was by Constantin's command slain in Gallia, in the year of Christ 310. But Maximinus Caesar, being two years after conquered by Licinius, died at Tarsus, as Aurelius Victor relates, and Eusebius in his Chronicle and other Authours. This is the common mistake of the Greek Historians; they make a confusion betwixt Maximianus and Maximinus, using them promiscuously. Vales. he died at Tarsus a City of Cilicia. [Page 210] Severus Caesar being sent to Rome by Although in the Greek it be Galerius Maximinus; yet we must read Maximianus: the Greeks u­sually confound these two names. In the beginning of this chapter (where the words are, Maximianus surnamed Galerius) the Sfort. M. S. has it written Maximinus. Vales. Galerius Maximianus to take Maxentius, was betrayed by his own Souldiers and put to death. Last of all died Galerius Maximianus also, who was now This passage [ [...], Maxi­mianus Galerius, who was now the supream person in the Empire] must be understood favourably, for Galerius was not really chief and sole Arbitratour of all things, whenas there were at the same time two other Augusti, to wit, Constantine in the Gallia's, and Maxentius at Rome. But never­theless he may be said summam imperii administrasse, because he was the seniour Augustus, and was respected by the junior Augusti, as a father. Vales. the supream person in the Empire, ha­ving before his death consti­tuted Licinius Emperour; he was a Native of Dacia, and had for a long time been Galerius's fellow Souldier, and Confident. Maxentius in the mean while treated the Romans severely, behaving himself like a Tyrant rather than an Emperour towards them: impudently debauching the wives of persons gentilely extracted; killing many, and perpetrating such like facts as these. Whereof when Constan­tine the Emperour had notice, he made it his business to de­liver the Romans from that servitude he had pressed them with; and immediately became sollicitously inquisitive how he might destroy the Tyrant: whilst he was in this deep cogitation, he considered with himself what Deity he should invoke to be his assistant and Tutelar God in this Expedition. It came into his mind that the strict worship of the heathen Gods had not in the least availed Diocle­tian; and he found that his Father Constantius having relinquished the superstition of the Grecians, had led a more fortunate and prosperous life. Whilst therefore he was [engaged] in this doubtfull deliberation, and upon the march with his Army some whither, there hapned to appear to him a wonderfull and unexpressible Vision. For about noon, when the day began now to decline some­what towards after noon, he saw in [the face of] the heavens a pillar of light, in figure like unto a Cross, with this inscription on it, By this be thou Conquerour. The Emperour stood amaz'd at this apparition. And, almost disbelieving his own eyes, he asked them that were present, whether they also saw the same sight; which when they all had unanimously agreed in, [the mind of] the Emperour was corroborated by that Divine and wonderfull apparition. The night following Christ appeared to him in his sleep, and said unto him, make a standard in figure like that which ap­peared [to thee] and make use of it, as an in­fallible and ready Trophy, against thine Enemies. In obedience to this [Heavenly] Oracle, he or­ders a Trophy to be made, in figure like a Cross, which is kept in the Pallace to this day. After this he proceeded in the dispatch of affairs with a greater vigour and alacrity of mind, and having engaged the Enemy before the very Gates of Rome, neer the Bridge called Milvius, he got the Victory; Maxentius being drown'd in the River. This was now the Constan­tine got this Victo­ry over Maxentius in the year of Christ 312. when he and Licinius were in their second Consulate, this was the sixth year of Constantin's Reign: for he begun his Reign on the 25th day of July, in the year of Christ 306. But if we say that Maxentius was conquered on the eighth of the Kalends of October in the year 312, (as Onufrius reckons in his Fasti, and Sigonius in his Second Book concerning the Western Empire) then that which Socrates here affirms may be true; that Constantine routed Maxentius in the seventh year of his Reign. But it seems something odd to me, that Maxentius should (in the Panagyrick of Nazarius) be said to be slain in the end of his sixth year, just the day before he began his seventh. Maxentius began his Reign some days after Constantine, therefore if Maxentius died on the eighth of the Kalends of October, he must necessarily begin his Reign on the 7th. And by this computation Constantine came to the Empire two months before Maxentius. Which indeed does not seem probable to me. But Socrates does here accord with his own opinion. For whereas Con­stantine (according to him) began his Reign in the 305▪ year of Christ, he very well reckons this Victory in the seventh year of his Reign. Vales. seventh year of Constantin's Reign, when he got the Victory over Maxentius. After these [Atchievements] whilst Licinius his Collegue (who was also his brother in law, by the marriage of his Sister Constantia) resided in the East, he also having received so many and such great favours from God, offered thanks­givings to him his great benefactor; Which were of this sort, he put a stop to the Persecution against the Christians; he recall'd those that were in exile; he released such as were confined in Prison, and restored their Estates to those that had been pro­scribed; he repaired the Churches, and all these things he did with great alacrity of mind. Diocletian died at Sa­lona the 3d of the nones of Decem­ber, in the year of Christ 316. as Idatius does very well write in his Annals. The same also says the Authour of the Chronic. Alexand. but instead of Diocletian there is crept into the Text, Galerius Maximianus; 'tis also confirm'd by the authority of Zosimus in the second book of his History, where he says that Diocletian died 3 years after the 3d Con­sulship of Constantine and Licinius. For, having said, that from the Consulship of Chilon and Libo (in which the secular Games were celebrated) to the third Consulship of Constantine and Licinius, it was above 110 years, he adds [...] (i. e.) three years after died Diocletian. But Joseph Scaliger in his notes upon Eusebius, understood this passage of Zosimus so, as if Zosimus should say that Diocletian died three years after the resignation of his Empire, or after his ninth Con­sulship. Vales. About this time Diocletian, who had resigned his Im­perial power, died at Salona, a City of Dal­matia.

CHAP. III. How whilst Constantine augmented [the prosperi­ty of] the Christians, Licinius his Collegue per­secuted them.

NOw Constantine the Emperour professing him­self a Christian, did all things beseeming his pro­fession; he erected the Churches and adorn'd them with most magnificent consecrated gifts: Moreover, he shut up and demolished the Temples of the Hea­thens, and [...] made com­mon, or ex­posed the I­mages pla­ced therein▪ that is (as we sup­pose) he caused them to be dese­crated. exposed the images placed therein. But Licinius his Collegue, adhering to the Opinions of the Heathens, hated the Christians: he forbore rai­sing an open persecution against them, because he fear'd the Emperour Constantine: but in a clan­destine manner he ensnared many of them: And at length proceeded to open violence against them. This Persecution was locall: for it raged in those parts only [...] the import where­of rendred word for word, is this, it hapned there only, where Lici­nius was: Valesius renders the words thus, in iis enim duntaxa [...] partibus grassata est, quae subditi­oni erant Licinii, it raged in those parts only, which were under Lici­nius's jurisdiction. where Licinius made his residence. But in regard Constantine was in no wise unacquainted with these, and other such like his Ty­rannous outrages, Licinius being sensible that he highly resented these proceedings, betook himself to the ma­king of his Apology before him; and having appeased him by his obsequi­ousness, he hypocritically made an amicable league with him, binding himself by many oaths, that in future he would never attempt any thing that was Tyrannical. But at the same time that he swore, he was also perjured. For he desisted not from his Tyrannick [conspiracies against Constantine] nor ceased he from persecuting the Christians. For by a Decree he prohibited the Bishops from frequenting the houses of Hea­thens, [Page 211] that there might be no pretence of propa­gating the Christian Religion. This Persecution was at the same time open and secret. It was concealed and disguised in words; but in reality and deeds it was apparent. For those that lay un­der its pressures, endured most deplorable afflicti­ons [and losses] in their bodies, and as to their Estates.

CHAP. IV. That there was a War raised betwixt Constantine and Licinius upon account of the Christians.

THese proceedings rais'd the highest indigna­tion in the Emperour Constantine [against Licinius:] and, the feigned league of friendship which was betwixt them being broken, they be­came enemies to each other. Not long after they entred into an actual War against one another: and having fought several set-bat­tels both by Sea and Land, at length Licinius was vanquished at Chrysopolis of Bithynia, a Port-Town of the Chalcedonensians, and yielded himself. Constantine having taken him alive, treated him kindly: and would in no wise slay him, but com­manded him to reside at Thessalonica peaceably and without making any disturbance. But having liv'd quietly a while, he afterwards gathered in­to a body some of the Barbarians, and attempted to recover his overthrow, and renew the War. Constantine being informed hereof, commanded that he should be put to death, and accordingly he was slain. Constantine having now the sole power and command over the whole [Roman Empire] and being proclaimed In the Kings and Florentine M. SS. the particle [ [...], and] is wanting; which Chri­stoph. in­serted. To me it seems not very necessary. If we do retain it, then [ [...]] must signifie [Au­gustus,] not King, as Christoph. renders it. Socrates alludes to the Souldiers acclamations, who after a signal Victory were wont to stile their Prince Emperour, and Augustus. The Citizens did the same, when the Victorious Prince made his entry into the City. Vales. Emperour and Augustus, endeavoured again to augment the affairs of the Christians: which he effected divers ways: and by his means Christianity enjoyed a profound and secure Peace. But an intestine War amongst the Christians themselves succeeded this so firm a Peace. What manner of War this was, and how it began, in the sequel according to my ability I will relate.

CHAP. V. Concerning Arius's Contest with Alexander the Bishop.

AFter Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, who suf­fer'd Martyrdom in the Reign of Diocletian, Achillas succeeded in that See. After Achillas [succeeded] Alexander, in the time of the fore­mentioned Peace. He living in times that were more calm and secure, adorned and set his Church in order. Discoursing one day in the presence of his Presbyters, and the rest of his Clergy, too curiously concerning the [mystery of] the holy Trinity, he asserted this point of divinity, that there was an Unity in the Trinity. But Arius one of the presbyters placed under Alexander (a man of no mean skill in the faculty of reasoning, supposing that the Bishop design'd to introduce the opinion of See Eu­sebius's Ec­clesiastical History book 7. chap. 6. note (b.) Sabellius the Libyan, desirous to be perverse and contentious, deflected to an opinion that was diametrically opposite to that of Subellius, and as he thought, sharply and nimbly opposed the Bishop's assertions, arguing thus. If the Father begot the Son, he that was begotten hath a beginning of his existence. And from hence it is apparent, that there was a time, when the Son was not. Whence this is a necessary consequence, that he derives his existence from nothing.

CHAP. VI. How from this contention there arose a division in the Church; and how Alexander Bishop of Alex­andria deposed Arius and his Complices.

ARius having drawn this Conclusion from these new assertions, excited many to that que­stion; and from this small spark was kindled a great fire. For the mischief having been begun in the Church of Alexandria overran all Aegypt, Libya and the upper Thebaïs; and at length consumed the rest of the Cities and provinces. Many there were that did patronize Arius's opinion, but more espe­cially Eusebius was a maintainer of it, (not that Eusebius who was Bishop of Caesarea, but another, who formerly had been Bishop of the Church of Berytus; but was then surreptitiously crept into the Bishoprick of Nicomedia in Bithynia.) Alexander hearing and seeing what was done, became highly enraged, and having convened a Council of many Bishops, he degraded Arius and those that embra­ced his Opinion; and wrote to the [Bishops] of every City, as followeth.

The Letter of Alexander [Bishop] of Alexandria.

To Our well Beloved and Dearest Fellow-Mini­sters of the Catholick Church in all places, Alexan­der [wisheth] health in the Lord.
Lucas Hotstenius, a very lear­ned person, heretofore wrote a dis­sertation upon this Epistle of Alexander's, which (to­gether with some other pieces of his) he sent me a little before his death. In that Treatise he re­markes in the first place, that in­terpreters had not well rendred these words of Alexander [ [...],] which they had tran­slated thus [Cum unum sit Catho­licae corpus Ecclesiae, whereas there is one body of the Catholick Church. But he asserts, that the place should rather have been thus rendred [whereas the Catholick Church is one body, &c. or, con­sists of one body. For that learned person is of opinion, that Alex­ander alludes to Saint Paul's E­pistles, wherein the Church is frequently called Christ's body. But (by the favour of that great man and heretofore my dearest friend) this Version cannot be born with. For, if Alexander had thought, as Holstenius means, he would doubtless have expressed himself thus [ [...].] which in regard he has not said, it is apparent, there can be no other sense of the words, than that expressed by Translatours. Besides, if Alexander would have said that the Church is the body of Christ, he would not have worded it thus [ [...], one body] but rather thus [ [...], the body of Christ.] Vales.

Whereas there is one body of the Catholick Church, and 'tis commanded in the holy Scriptures that we keep the bond of Peace and Concord, it is requisite that we should Write, and inform one another of what things are done amongst us, to the end, that if one member suffer, or rejoyce, we may ei­ther joyntly rejoyce, or suffer together. In our Diocess there­fore there are lately started up men that are impious and enemies of Christ, who teach such Apostacy, as any one may judge, and justly term the fore-runner of Antichrist. And this I would most gladly have buried in silence, that the mis­chief might have been consumed by being included amongst the Apostates only, least haply by its further progress into other places it should have infected the ears of the simple. But be­cause Eusebius now Bishop of Nicomedia, supposing that the affairs of the Church are whol­ly at his dispose, (in regard, having deserted the Church of Berytus, he has sordidly coveted that of Nicomedia, and has not been prosecuted by any,) does Patronize even these Apostates, and has boldly attempted to write Letters up and down in commendation of them, that thereby he might seduce some ignorant persons into this worst and most dis­pleasing Heresie to Christ: I thought it therefore necessary, being sensible of what is written in the Law, to be no longer silent, but to [Page 212] give you all notice, that you might know those that are the Apostates, and likewise the detestable expres­sions of their heresie, and that if Eusebius write to you, you should give no heed to him. For he, at this time desirous to renew his Pristine Malevolence which seemed to have been silenced [and forgot] by length of time, pretends indeed to write Letters on their behalf, but in reality he declares, that he uses his utmost diligence to do this upon his own ac­count. Now these are the names of those which are turn'd Apostates; Arius, Achillas, Aithales, Carpones, another Arius, Sarmates, Euzoïus, Lu­cius, Julianus, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius; Secundus also and Theönas, who were some­times stiled Bishops. In the Florence M. S. after these words [ [...], these are] follow these [ [...], the Tenets of the Arians,) which words should ra­ther be placed in the margin. In Gelasius there occur likewise at this place these words, [...], Arius's Opinion. Vales. And these are their Tenets which they have invented and do assert contrary to the autho­rity of Scripture. God, they say, was not always a Fa­ther; but there was a time when God was not a Father. The word of God was not from everlasting, but had his beginning from no­thing. For God, who is, made him, who was not, of nothing. Therefore there was a time when he was not: for the Son is a Creature and a Work: neither is he like to the Father as to his Essence, nor is he by nature the genuine Word of the Father, nor his true Wisdom. After these words [nor his true Wisdom] there was a whole clause wanting, which from our three M. SS. the Florentine, Sfor­tian, and Allatian, and from Gela­sius Cyzicenus we have made good, thus, [ [...]. [But he is one of his Works, and one of his Creatures,] which words Epiph. Scholasticus had found in his Co­py, as it is apparent from his Version. For he has Translated this whole place thus: Creatura est enim, & factura filius, neque similis est patri secundum substan­tiam: neque verus est, neque verae sapientia ejus est, neque verum naturaliter patris verbum est, sed unus quidem creaturarum & fa­cturarum est: For the Son is a Creature and a Work, neither is he like the Father as to his Essence: nor is he genuin, nor his true Wise­dom: nor is he by nature the true Word of the Father, but one of his Creatures and one of his Works. Hence it appears, that that Greek Copy of Socrates, which Epiph. Scholasticus used, differed some­thing from our Manuscripts. And yet Leo Allatius's Copy agrees exactly with that which Epi­phanius followed. For thus it words this passage: [...], &c. So exactly do the Authours of the Greek and Latine Tri­pertite History agree amongst themselves, that they seem to have borrowed from one another. Vales. But he is one of his Works, and one of his Creatures: and▪ is only improperly stiled the Word and the Wisedom: In Leo Allatius's M. S. Copy, the reading of this place is thus, [...] which reading Epiphan. Scholast. has followed; who translates it thus; factus & ipse & existens in proprio Dei verbo, & in Dei sapientid, be himself is made and exists in the proper Word of God, and in the Wisedom of God. But we have rather followed the reading of the Kings, the Florentine, and the Sfortian M. SS. which is also confirmed by Gela­sius. Vales. for he him­self exists by the proper Word of God, and by the Wisedom that is in God, by which God made all things and him also. Wherefore he is by nature mutable and subject to change, as well as all other rational beings. So that the Word is different, disagreeable, and separate from the Essence of God; and the Father can­not be declared or set forth by the Son, and In Leo Allatius's M. S. (which contains the Tripertite History that Theodorus Lector composed in Greek out of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret) these words are added, [...], and is invisible. So Epiph. Scholast. reads it, as appears from his version. Vales. is invi­sible to him. For the Son does not perfectly and ac­curately know the Father, neither can he perfectly be­hold him: for the Son knows not his own Essence, what it is. For our sakes he was made, that God might make use of him, as an instrument, in order to our Creation, nor had he ever existed, had it not pleas'd God to Create us. And when one asked them, if the Word of God could be changed, as the Devil was, they were not afraid to answer, yes certainly he may: for he is of a Nature subject to change, Instead of [...] in the Greek, we with Gelasius chuse to read [...], and accordingly Tran­slate it thus, begotten and created. This passage is thus Translated by Epiph. Factus aiunt, & con­vertibilis est, they say that he is made, and is mutable. Vales. in that he is begotten and created. We therefore with the Bishops of Aegypt, and In Leo Allatius's M. S. the reading is [...] but in Ge­lasius [...] which rea­ding does please me. For there are two Libya's, we may also here take notice of this number (to wit) 100 Bishops in Aegypt. The same number I remember I met with in Athanasius's Second Apology, against the Arians: pag. 788. [...]; there are in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, neer an hundred Bishops. Vales. Libya, neer a hundred in number, being met together, have [...], cur­sed, or ex­communi­cated. See Dr Ham­mond on Rom. 9. v. 3. note b. ana­thematized Arius, for these his Princi­ples, and for his im­pudent assertion of them, together with all his adherents. But Eusebius has given them entertainment, endeavouring to mix falshood with truth, and impiety with piety: but he shall not prevail: For truth getteth the victory: and light has no communion with darkness, nor hath Christ any agreement with [...]elial. For who ever heard the like? or what man if he should now hear them would not be amazed thereat, and stop his ears, least the filth of this Doctrine should penetrate and infect them? What man is he, that when he hears these words of Saint John, In the beginning was the Word, will not condemn those that affirm, there was a time when the Word was not? Or who is he that, when he hears these words of the Gospel, The only be­gotten Son, and by him all things were made: will not abominate these men that say, the Son is one of the Creatures. In Leo Allatius's M. S. and in Gelasius. Cyzicenus, this place is truer written, thus; [...]; which reading we have expressed in our Translation. The reading in the Florentine and Sfortian M. SS. is [...], How can he be equal with those things made by him. Vales. But how can he be one of those things that were made by him? Or how can he be termed the Only begotten, who (accor­ding to their sentiments of him) is reckon'd amongst all the other creatures? How can he be made of nothing, whenas the Father himself saith, Psalm 45. v. 1. My heart hath in­dited a good matter, and Psalm 110. 3. [...]. So the Septuagint words that Text; and we Translate accordingly; the very words of the 72 being here quoted. Before the morning I have begotten thee in the womb? Or how can he be unlike the Father in Essence, whenas he is the Colos. 1. 15.perfect Image, and Hebr. 1. 3.the brightness of the Father, and whenas he himself testifieth, John 14. 9. He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father? Now if the Son be the Word and the Wisedom of the Father, How can there be a time when he was not? For 'tis the same [absurdity,] as if they should say, there was a time when God was both without his Word and his Wisedom. How can he be mutable and subject to change; who says concerning himself, John 14. 10. I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and John 10. 30. I and the Father are one? He [spake also] by the Prophet, See Mal. 3. 6. Behold me, for I am the Lord, and am not changed. And though some one may say, that this was spoken in reference to the Father, yet it will be more accommo­date, to understand it now to be spoken in relation to the Word: because although he became man, yet was he not changed: but, as the Apostle says, Heb. 13. 8. Jesus Christ the same yesterday and to day, and for ever. But what motive could they have to say, that he was made for us, whenas Paul saith, Heb. 2. 10. For him are all things, and by him are all things? But concerning their Blasphemy in affirming, that the Son doth not perfectly know the Father, it ought not to be wondred at. For having once resolved to fight [Page 213] against Christ, they despise even the Words of the Lord himself, who says, John 10. 15. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father. If therefore the Father knoweth the Son only in part, it is mani­fest, that the Son also knoweth the Father in part. But if it be impious to assert this, and if the Father knoweth the Son perfectly, it is perspicuous, that as the Father knoweth his own Word, so doth the Word know his own Father, whose Word he is. By as­serting of these things, and explaining the sacred Scriptures we have frequently confuted them; but they, like Chamaeleons, have again been changed, pertinaciously contending to appropriate to themselves this that is written, Prov. 18. 3. [...] So the Septuagint words this Text; which words occur here in the original. But in our English Version of the Bible (which agrees with the Hebrew) this Text is thus rendred, when the wicked cometh, then cometh also contempt. When the impious is arrived at the very extreams of wicked­ness, he despiseth. There have indeed been many He­resies before these persons, which by their too much au­daciousness have fallen into imprudence and folly: But these men, who by all their discourses The reading in Leo Allatius's M. S. and in Gelasius (which is thus, [...], have attempted the sub­version) pleases me better than this [ [...].] Vales. attempt nothing less than the subversion of the Divinity of the Word, have to the utmost of their power made those [preceding] Heresies to be accounted just, in regard they approach neerer to Antichrist. Wherefore they are expelled out of the Church, and Anathematized. We are really troubled at the destruction of these men, and the rather because they were heretofore instructed in the Doctrine of the Church, but have now renounced it. Yet we do not look upon this as so strange a thing. For the same thing befell 2 Tim. 2. 17, 18. Hymenaeus and Philetus; and, before them, Judas, who though he had been our Saviour's Dis­ciple, yet was afterwards his betrayer, and an Apostate. Neither have we continued unadvis'd of these very persons: for our Lord hath predicted, Mat. 24. 4. Luk. 21. 8. Take heed that no man deceive you: For many shall come in my name saying: I am [Christ,] and the time draweth neer, and they shall deceive many. Go ye not therefore after them. And Paul having learned these things from our Saviour, wrote thus, 1 Tim. 4. 1. That in the latter days, some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to se­ducing spirits and doctrines of devils, who detest the truth. Since therefore our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ hath himself commanded this, and also by his Apostle hath given us intimation concerning these men, we, being ear-witnesses of their impiety, have deservedly anathematized these men, as we said before, and openly declar'd them estranged from the Catholick Church and Faith. Moreover, we have signified thus much to your Piety, (beloved and dearest Fellow-Ministers) that if any of them should have the confidence to come to you, you might not entertain them, and that you should not be per­swaded [to believe] Eusebius, or any one else that shall write to you concerning them. For it is our Duty, as we are Christians, to detest all those that speak or devise any thing against Christ, as the Enemies of God, and the corrupters of Souls, and See 2▪ Epist. Joh. v. 10, 11. not to say to such men so much as God speed, lest we become partakers of their iniquities (as Saint John hath commanded us.) Salute the Brethren that are with you, they that are with us salute you.

Alexander, having Written such Letters as this to all the Bishops in every City, the mischief grew worse; those to whom the Contents thereof were communicated, being hereby inflamed with a pertinacious contention. Some were of the same O­pinion with, and subscrib'd to the Contents of these Letters; but others did the contrary. But Eu­sebius Bishop of Nicomedia was in the highest degree incited to dissent, because Alexander had in his Letters made a reproachfull mention of him in particular. At that time Eusebius was a man of great interest, because the Emperour did then keep his Court at Nicomedia: for Diocletian had not long before built a Pallace there. For this reason therefore many Bishops were very obsequious to Eusebius. And he himself wrote frequently, sometimes to Alexander, [advising him] to suppress Instead of [ [...], the controversic raised] the reading in Leo Allatius's M. S. is [ [...], the question that raised the disturbance.] A little after this, in the same M. S. instead of [con­sent to Alexander] the reading is [consent to those whom Alexander wrote to.] Vales. the con­troversie raised [amongst them] and to readmit Arius and his Adherents into the Church: at other times [he wrote] to the Bishops of every particular City, [per­swading them] that they should not consent to Alex­ander. Hence it came to pass that all places were filled with tumult and distur­bances. For now a man might have seen not only the Prelates of the Churches in words con­tending with one another, but the populace also divided, some inclining to one party, some to ano­ther. And this matter grew to that height of indignity and insolency, that the Christian Reli­gion became a Ridicule even in the publick The­aters. Those that were at Alexandria did [...], chil­dishly. per­tinaciously contend about the chiefest points of the Faith: they also sent Embassies to the Bishops of every particular Province. Likewise, those that were of the other party, were authours of the like stirs and discords. Here, I am confident, Socra­tes mistakes, For the Melitians did not side with the Arians till after the Counsel of Nice: being then solicited, by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia to cast scandalous aspersions upon Athanafius, as he himself does testifie in his second Apology against the Arians. If the Melitians had joyn'd them­selves with the Arians before the Council of Nice, the Fa­thers of that Council undoubted­ly had not treated them so kind­ly as they did. Vales. There were mixed amongst the A­rians the Melitians, who not long before had been separa­ted from [the communion] of the Church. Now who these Melitians are, we must relate: one Melitius a Bishop of one of the Cities in Egypt, had been deposed by Peter Bishop of Alexandria (who suffered Martyrdom under Diocletian,) for several o­ther reasons, but most espe­cially for this, that in the time of Persecution he had denied the Faith and sacrific'd. This per­son being divested [of his Bishoprick,] and having got a great many followers, constituted himself the Ringleader of their Heresie, who in Aegypt are to this day from him called Melitians. Moreover, having no reasonable excuse at all for his separation from the Church, he barely said thus much, that he was injured, he did likewise revile and speak reproachfully of Peter. Peter having suffered Martyrdom in the Persecution, ended his life. But [Melitius] withdraws his reproaches [from Peter] and casts them first upon Achillas, Peter's successour, and afterwards upon Alexander who succeeded Achillas. Du­ring their being engaged in this dissention, Arius's controversie was started; and Melitius and his Complices became favourers of Arius, joyning with him in a conspiracy against the Bishop. Now those who lookt upon Arius's Opinion as absurd, approved of Alexander's condemnation of Arius, and thought the sentence pass'd against all that favour'd that Heresie was just and equitable. But Eusebius of Nicomedia, and as many as embraced [Page 214] Arius's Opinion, wrote to Alexander that he should abrogate the sentence of Excommunica­tion that had been pronounc't, and readmit the persons Excommunicate into the Church: in re­gard they asserted nothing that was perverse or impious. Letters from both the disagreeing par­ties having been after this manner sent to the Bishop of Alexandria, there was a Collection made of these Epistles: Arius Collected those which were written in his own defence, and Alex­ander those that made against him. Hence those Sects, (which do abound so numerously in these our days,) that is, the Arians, Eunomians, and those that derive their denomination from Mace­donius, took an occasion of defending their own Tenets. For each of them quote the Epistles of their own party as a sufficient evidence.

CHAP. VII. How Constantine the Emperour, griev'd at these disturbances in the Church, sent Hosius a Spa­niard to Alexandria, to exhort the Bishop and Arius to a reconciliation.

WHen the Emperour had notice of these things, he was greatly perplexed in mind, and looking upon this as his own calamitous concern, without delay he made it his business to extinguish the mischief newly hatch't, directing his Letters to Alexander and Arius by a person of known fidelity, nam'd Hosius, who was Bi­shop of Corduba a City in Spain; which man the Emperour had a great love and esteem for. Part of this letter, 'tis not unseasonable to in­sert here; the whole Letter In the Greek af­ter these words, [...], is extant in the Books, the Florent. M. S. reads [...], part of the Letter; which words although they may be written in the margin, yet sometimes are put into the Text by Authors; as for instance in Athanasius's Apology against the Arians. Vales. is extant in Eu­sebius's Books concerning the life of Constantine.

VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to ALEXANDER and ARIUS.

We understand that this was the ground of the present controversie. For when You, Alexander, enquired of your Presbyters, what every particular man's After these words in the Greek: (to wit,) [...], Leo Allat. M. S. and Gelas. Cyzicen: add [...]; the import of which we have also made use of in our Translation; though 'tis not exprest in the common Edit. Vales. Opinion was concer­ning a certain Text of Scri­pture, or rather concerning a part of a fruitless contro­versie: and whereas you Arius, inconsiderately vented such sentiments as you ought either not to have conceiv'd at first, or if you had had such conceptions, it had been your duty, to have let them been buried in si­lence: upon this a dissention has been raised between you, communion is refused: and the most Religious populace rent into two factions, is separated from the harmonious unity of the whole body. Where­fore let both of you, mutually pardoning each other, quietly accept of what your fellow-servant doth rea­sonably advise you to. But what is that? it was your duty neither to have asked such questions at first, nor if proposed, to have made any return thereto. For such questions, as no law does necessarily limit or prescribe, but are proposed by the contentiousness of an unprofitable vacancy from business (although they may be framed to exercise and imploy our natural parts about, yet) we ought to confine with­in our own breasts, and not inconsiderately divulge them in publick assemblies, nor unadvisedly com­mit them to the ears of the vulgar. For what person amongst a thousand is sufficiently qualifi'd either accurately to comprehend the full efficacy and nature of things so sublime and profound, or to expli­cate them according to their worth and dignity? Or should any man look upon this to be an easie per­formance, how small a part of the Vulgar will he induce to be fully perswaded hereof? Or what man can without danger of falling into gross errours in­sist upon the accurate discussions of such nice contro­versies? In questions therefore of this nature loqua­city must be bridled and restrained; least either through the frailty of our nature (we being not able to explicate what we proposed,) or through the slowness of our Auditors understanding what they are taught (being unable accuratly to apprehend our discourse,) least [we say] from one of these causes the people be reduced to a necessity of Blas­phemy or Schisme. Wherefore let an unwary que­stion, and an inconsiderate answer with both of you mutually pardon each other. For this contest is not kindled upon an occasion of any principal or chief commandment of our law: neither have you intro­duc'd any new Heresie concerning the worship of God. But you both hold one and the same Opinion; so that [you may easily close in a] consent of commu­nion with each other. For whilst you thus pertinaci­ously contend about trifles and things of no impor­tance, In Leo Allatius's M. S. this place is thus written [ [...]; i. e. 'Tis neither decent, nor is it in any wise to be believed, that so nume­rous a people of God (which ought to be governed by your prayers and prudence) should be at variance.] Epiphan. Scholasticus followed the same reading: for thus he translates this place: [tantum Dei populum, quem vestris ora­tionibus & prudentiâ convenit gu­bernari, discordare nec decet, nec omnino fas esse credibile est.] Vales. tis not convenient that so numerous a people of God should be under your care and government, because of your dis­sention with one another: nor is it only misbecoming, but 'tis also judged to be altogether un­lawfull. Now that I may ad­vertise your prudence by a smaller instance, I will tell you: you know even the Philosophers themselves, how that they are all united in [the profession of] one Sect, whenas notwithstan­ding they frequently disagree in some part of their assertions; but although they do sometimes jarre [...]; in ipsâ scientiae perfectione: So Va­lesius, whom we follow. Mus­culus renders it, in virtute scien­tiae, in the virtue of knowledge: Grynaeus, disciplinae causâ, &c. upon account of their disci­pline, &c. in the very perfection of knowledge, yet because of the agreement and union of their Sect, they do again close in a mutual consent. Now if it be so [amongst them,] it will certainly be much more reasonable that you, who are the Ministers of the most high God, should in like manner be unanimous in the profession of the same Religion. But let us now with more accuracy and greater attention inspect and deliberate upon what has been said: whether it be just and equitable, that because of the trivial, vain, and pertinacious contests between you about words, brethren should be set in array [as it were] against brethren; and that that venerable assembly should upon your account, who contend with one another about things so slight and in no wise necessary, be rent asunder by an impious variance. These [contests] are poor and mean, and do be­come a childish ignorance, rather than agree with [the gravity] of Presbyters, and prudent men. Let us of our own accord depart from the tenta­tions of the Devil. Our great God, the Saviour of all men, hath reached forth a light common to all men. By the assistance of whose providence, give [Page 215] us leave, who are his servant that we may success­fully finish this our endeavour, that by our exhorta­tion, diligence and earnest admonitions, we may reduce you to an unity of assembly. For in regard, as we have already said, you hold the same faith, and have the same sentiments of our Religion; and since the commandment of the law doth in all its parts inclose all in general in one consent and purpose of mind: Let not this thing, which has raised a mutual division between you, (in as much as it appertaineth not to the power and efficacy of Religion in general) by any means make a separation and a faction amongst you. These things we speak, not to necessitate you to be all of one Opinion concerning this foolish idle con­troversie, of what sort soever it be. For the pretious value of the assembly may be preserved entire a­mongst you, and one and the same Communion may be retained, although there be interchangeably a­mongst you a great diversity of sentiments in things of the smallest import. For we do not all [...], will, wish, or desire. mean the same in all things, neither is there one disposi­tion or opinion in all of us. Therefore, concer­ning the Divine Providence, let there be amongst you one faith, one meaning, and one covenant of the Deity. But as for these slender and light questions, which with so much niceness you dispute of and make researches into amongst your selves, although therein you do not all agree in the same opinion, yet 'tis your duty, to confine them to your own thoughts, and keep them within the secret re­positories of your own minds. Let therefore an un­utterable and excellent common friendship, a belief of the truth, the honour of God, and a Religious observance of his Law, remain amongst you firm and immoveable; return ye to a mutual friendship and charity: restore to the whole body of the people their usual embraces. And be you your selves (having as it were purifi'd your own souls,) acquainted again [and renew your familiarity] with one another. For friendship is frequently more sweet and pleasing, after the In my Annotations at the se­cond book of Eusebius's Life of Constantine, instead of [ [...], after the oc­casion of the enmity is laid aside] I have noted that the reading should be [ [...], after the removing of the enmity;] as it is in some Copies. But, in as much as our M. SS. to wit, the Florent. Sfortian, and Allatian change not the reading here, we may bear with the common reading; which is also confirmed by Epiph. Scho­lasticus's Version: for thus he translates this passage; suaviores crebrò sunt amicitiae post inimici­tiarum causas ad concordiam resti­tutae. Vales. occasion of the enmity is laid aside, return to a reconci­liation again. Restore there­fore to us peaceable and serene days, and nights void of sol­licitude, that during the residue of our Life we may have the pleasure of the pure light, and the joy of a quiet life reser­ved for us. Which if [we shall not obtain] we must ne­cessarily groan, and be wholly surrounded with tears: nor shall we finish the residue of our Life without great dis­quietude. For whilst the peo­ple of God, (we mean our fellow servants,) are rent asunder by this pernitious and indiscreet dissention which they are now involved in, how is it possible for us in future to continue in a sedate temper of mind? And that you may be sensible of our excessive sorrow for this thing, be attentive [to what we shall tell you.] When we lately came to the City of Nico­media, we had resolv'd forthwith to have made a journey into the East. But while we were hast­ning towards you, and had performed above half our journey, the news of this affair quite altered our resolution: least we should be necessitated to be a spectator of these things, which we could not endure even to hear. Do you therefore by your unanimity for the time to come, open the way for us into the East, which by your mutual discord you have stopped up. Give us leave with joy speedily to see you, and all the rest of the people, and that with an unani­mous consent of praises we may offer up to God due thanks for the publick agreement and liberty.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning the Council held at Nicaea a City of Bithynia, and concerning the Faith there pub­lished.

SUch admirable and prudent advice did the Emperours Letter give them. But the mis­chievous difference was grown so strong and potent, that neither the Emperours industry, nor the authority of the Person who brought the Let­ters was able to do any good. For neither Alex­ander nor Arius were in the least mollifi'd by the Letter: amongst the populace also there was an irreconcileable discord, and a great disturbance. Moreover, before this broke out, there was another distemper in that place, which had caus'd distur­bance in the Church, (to wit) a disagreement concerning the Feast of Easter; but this was only in the Eastern parts: where some made it their business to celebrate that Festival after the Jewish manner, others [in their solemnization thereof] imitated the rest of the Christians throughout the whole world. But though they differ'd thus concerning the Feast, yet they did not refrain from a mutual Communion. However, they clou­ded the joy of the Feast by this their dissention. The Emperour therefore seeing the Church di­sturbed by these two evils, convened a General Council, by his Letters requesting the Bishops from all parts to meet together at Nice a City of Bithynia. Accordingly the Bishops out of divers Provinces and Cities assembled; concer­ning whom Eusebius Pamphilus, in his third book of Constantin's Life, writeth thus word for word. The most eminent therefore amongst Gods Ministers of all those Churches which filled all Europe, Li­bya and Asia, were conven'd. And one sacred Oratory, enlarged as it were by God himself, in­cluded at the same time within its walls both Sy­rians and Cilicians, Phoenicians and Arabians, Palestinians, and Aegyptians also, Thebaeans, Li­byans, and those that came out of Mesopota­mia. There was also at this Synod a Persian Bishop, neither was the Scythian absent from this Quire. These words of Eusebius occur at the third Book of his Life of Constantine, Chap. 7. Socrates has not quoted them word for word as they are there: we (following herein Valesius, Musculus, and Grynaeus) have rendred them as they are in the forecited place of Euse­bius. Pontus also, and Galatia, Pamphilia and Cap­padocia, Asia, and Phrygia afforded their most select Divines. Moreover, there appeared here Thracians, and Macedonians, Achaians and Epirots, and such as dwelt far beyond these were never­theless present. [Hosius al­so] that most fam'd Spaniard, (together with ma­ny of his Countreymen) was one that sate in this Council. The Gelasius Cyzicenus supposed that by these words the Bishop of Constantinople was meant. With whom agrees Nicetas, (in Thesauro Arthodoxae fidei. book 5. chap. 6.) and Epiphanius Scholasticus in book 2. Histor. Tripart. Musculus (as 'tis apparent from his rendition of these words) thought the Bishop of Rome was hereby meant: for he renders this place thus, Romanae autem civitatis Episcopus propter senium decrat, i. e. The Bishop of Rome by reason of his age, was absent. Valesius is of the same opinion with Musculus. For (in his Annotations on Chap. 7. of the third Book of Eusebius's Life of Constantine) he says, that at such time as this Council was convened, Constantinople was not adorned with the name of The Imperial City. See Sozomen, book 1. chap. 16. and Theodo­ret, book 1. chap. [...]. Prelate of the Imperial City was [Page 216] absent by reason of his age. But his Presbyters were there, and supplied his place. The Emperour Constantine was the only person of all the Princes since the foundation of the world, who (after he had platted such a Crown as this by the Bond of Peace) dedicated it to Christ his Saviour as a divine present and acknowledgment for the Vi­ctories he had obtained over his Enemies and Adversaries, having constituted this Synod con­vened in our days to be a lively representation of that Apostolick Quire. For it is See Acts 2. 5. Written that in the Apostles days there were gathered together devout men out of every nation under heaven, amongst whom were Parthians, Medes, and E­lamites, and the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, of Pontus and of Asia, of Phrygia and Pamphilia; of Aegypt, and of the parts of Libya adjacent to Cyrene: strangers also of Rome, Jews and Proselytes, Cretians and Arabians. This was the only thing wanting, that Meeting [in the Apostles times] did not consist of the Ministers of God only. But in this present assembly the number of the Bishops exceeded The An­cients are not agreed concerning the num­ber of Bi­shops that were at the Ni­cene Coun­cil. Eu­sebius (in his third book, chap. 8. concer­ning the life of Con­stantine) says they were Two hundred and fifty. Eustathius Bishop of Antioch (in his Homily on those words of Solomon, The Lord created me, &c.) affirms they were about 270; but says he had not cast up their number exactly. The more constant account (which is confirmed by the consent of all modern Authours) is, that there sate in that Synod 318 Bishops, which is confirmed by these Ancients. viz. Athanasius, in his Epistle to the African Bishops, neer the beginning; Hilarius, in his book against Constantius; Jerome, in his Chronicon; and Rufinus. See Valesius's notes on Chap. 8. of Book 3. of Euse­bius, de Vitâ Constant. three hundred. And the Presbyters that accompanied them, the Dea­cons, [...], Fol­lowers, or Attendants. Acoluthi, and the many other persons were almost innumerable. Of these Ministers of God, some were emi­nent for their Wisdom and Eloquence; others for their sober and discreet Lives, others for their patient sufferance [of hardships,] and others were adorned with [...]. Many senses may be given of these words. For first [ [...]] may be taken for [mo­desty and a curteous behaviour;] supposing [ [...]] to be put for [ [...]] this sense we have followed in our Version. Secondly, [ [...]] may be meant concerning them, who were not the eminentest persons amongst the Bishops for Learning or Piety of Life; but did not come much behind them. So the Ancients called those medios principes ac duces, middle Princes or Captains, who were neither the best, nor the worst, but between both. Lastly, this phrase may be used con­cerning them, who deserved to be praised on both accounts, to wit, for their learning and sanctity: and thus Sozomen interprets this place of Eusebius, as may be seen from his words in his first book chap. 16. See Valesius's notes on chap. 9. of the third book of Eusebius, de Vitâ Constant. modesty and a courteous behaviour. Some of them were highly respected by reason of their great age, and o­thers were eminent for their youthfull vigour both of body and mind. Some were newly ini­tiated into the Order of the Ministry. To all these the Emperour commanded a plentifull provi­sion of food to be daily allowed. In the Allat. M. S. there are some words added here; in which Copy the reading is [ [...], concerning those there assembled Eusebius Pamphilus has thus at large discoursed:] which reading has a greater Emphasis. Vales. Thus much saies Eusebius concerning those there Assembled.

When the Emperour had ended his triumphal solemnities for his Victory over Licinius, he himself came also to Nice. The most eminent amongst the Bishops were these two, Paphnu­tius Bishop of the upper Thebais, and Spyridion Bishop of Cyprus: but for what reason we have made mention of these two particularly, shall in the sequel be declared. There were also present a great many Laïcks, well skilled in Logick, ready to assist each their own party. Now the Patrons of Arius's Opinion were these. Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, (whom we mentioned before,) Theognis, and Maris: the first was Bishop of Nice, and Maris was Bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia. Against these Athanasius (who was then but a Deacon of the Church of Alexandria) con­tended vigorously. But Alexander the Bishop had an high esteem for him: upon which ac­count he became the subject of envy, as we shall declare in the sequel. A little before the con­vention of the Bishops in one place, the Lo­gicians exercised themselves by engaging in some skirmishing disputes with several persons: and when many had been enticed to take a delight in disputing, a Laick, one that was a Contessour, an honest well meaning man, oppos'd these Disputants, and told them thus: that nei­ther Christ nor his Apostles taught us the art of disputing, nor vain subtileness, or fallacies, but a plain I prefer the reading in the Allat. M. S, in which, instead of [ [...], a plain Opi­nion] it is [ [...], &c. plain knowledge, &c.) Epiph. Scholasticus followed this latter reading, as appears from his Ver­sion of this place. Socrates seems to have had this narration out of Rufinus's tenth book, where he treats concerning the Nicene-Council. But Socrates on set purpose altered some things. Ge­lasius, treating on this Subject, enlarges upon it, relating the questions of each of the Philo­sophers, and the Bishops answers thereto. All which passages of his look more like fables, than an History of what was done, Vales. Opinion which is to be guarded by faith and good works. All that stood by, hearing him speak these words, admired him, and approved of what he said: and the Log [...]cians themselves, having heard this plain and honest declaration of the truth, did in future more patiently acquiesce: and thus was that tumult, which had been raised by disputing, composed. The next day after this all the Bishops were conven'd in one place; after whom came the Emperour. Who when he came in, stood in the midst of them, and would not take his seat till such time as the Bi­shops had by bowing of their heads signified to him, that it was their desire he should sit down: so great a respect and reverence had the Empe­rour for those men. After such a silence was made, as was agreeable to the occasion, the Emperour from his Chair of State began to speak to them in kind perswasive words, exhor­ting them to unanimity and concord. He also advis'd them to pass by all private animosities. For many of them had brought in accusations against one another: and some of them the day before had presented petitionary Libells to the Emperour. But he, advising them to proceed to the business before them for which they were conven'd, gave command that the Libells should be burnt, adding only this [maxim;] Christ com­mands him, who desires to obtain forgiveness, to forgive his brother. Therefore, after he had at large discoursed upon Concord and Peace, he referred it to their power and arbitrement with a greater accuracy to make a further in­spection into the points of our Religion. It will be very opportune to hear Eusebius's relation of these affairs, in his third book of Constantin's Life. His words there are these: Eusebius, concerning the Life of Constan­tine; book 3. chap. 13. and 14. Edit. Vales. Many Que­stions being proposed by both parties, and a great controversie raised even at the first beginning [of their debate,] the Emperour heard them all very patiently, and with an intent mind deliberately received their propositions; by turns he assisted the assertions of both parties, and by degrees re­duced them, who pertinaciously opposed each other, to a more sedate temper of mind; by his gratious speeches to every person, which he spoke in the Greek tongue, (for he was not unskilled in that Lan­guage) he rendred himself most pleasant, accept­able, and delightfull; inducing some to be of his [Page 217] Opinion by the force of his Arguments; wooing others by intreaties; praising those who spoke well, and exciting all to an accommodation; at length he re­duc'd them all to an unanimity and conformity in Opinion concerning all points that were in debate. So that there was not only an universal agreement about [the Articles] of Faith, but also a set time generally acknowledg'd for the cele­bration of the salutary Feast [of Easter.] More­over, the Decrees ratified by a common consent were engrossed and confirm'd by the subscription of every person. These are Eusebius's own words concerning these things, which he has left us in his Writings: we thought it not unseasonable to make use of them; and have inserted them into our History, relying upon the testimony of what has been said by him: that in case any should condemn this Council of Nice as erroneous in the [matters of] Faith, we might take no notice of them, nor credit This Sabinus was Bishop of the Macedonians in Heraclea a City of Thrace; he made a Col­lection of the Synodical Acts; a very usefull work; the testimony whereof Socrates does frequently make use of in this his History. But Socrates reproves him in ma­ny places; both because he was unfaithfull in his Collection of those Acts, (studiously relating what conduced to the strengthen­ing of his own Heresie, and omit­ting the contrary,) and also in regard he always shews himself incensed against the Orthodox Bishops. An instance whereof is this relation of Socrates's here, where he says that Sabinus ter­med the Fathers of the Nicene-Council ignorant and simple fel­lows. But 'tis usual for He­reticks to calumniate the ho­ly Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Vales. Sabinus the Macedonian, who terms all those that were convened in this Coun­cil, idiots and simple per­sons. For Sabinus (Bishop of those Macedonians which dwell at Heraclea a City of Thrace) who made a Col­lection of the Canons which several Synods of Bishops published, reviles the Bi­shops of the Council of Nice as being Idiots, and Ignorant fellows, being in­sensible that he does also at the same time accuse Euse­bius himself as an Idiot, who after a most exquisite search into it made a confession of that Faith. Some things he hath designedly omitted: o­thersome he has depraved and changed: but he has interpreted all passages according to his own sense and design. He does indeed commend Eu­sebius Pamphilus as a witness worthy to be credited: he does also praise the Emperour for his judgment and skill in the Principles of Christianity, but he complains of the Creed published at the Coun­cil of Nice, as being set forth by Idiots and men that understood nothing. And that same mans words, whom he calls a wise and faithfull witness, he voluntarily contemns. For Eusebius testifieth, that of those Ministers of God that were present at the Council of Nice, some were emi­nent for their prudent Eloquence; others for their gravity and solidness of life; and that the Em­perour being present reduced them all to an agree­ment, and made them to be of the same mind and opinion. But of Sabinus (wheresoever necessity requires) we shall hereafter make mention. Now the agreement in [the Articles of] our Faith In the Allat. M. S. the reading here is [ [...], &c. now the agreement in the faith with loud acclamations approved of by the great Synod at Nice, and by Eusebius, &c.] Epiphan. Scholast. followed the same rea­ding. Vales. published with loud acclamations, by the great Council of Nice, was this.

This following Creed is wanting in all our M. SS. viz. the Kings Sfortian: and Flo­rent: but Christophor­son did very well in pla­cing it here: for 'tis plain both from Epi­phanius Scholast, as also by those fol­lowing words, [ [...], &c. this Creed three hundred, &c.] That it was placed here by the Historian himself. But all the M. SS. did omit it in this place because 'tis repeated a little after in Eusebius Pamphilus's E­pistle. Vales. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Fa­ther, the only begotten, that is of the substance of the Father: God of God and Light of Light, very God of very God: begotten not made; of the same substance with the Father: by whom all things were made, that are in heaven and in earth: who for the sake of us men, and for our salvation descended, and was incarnate, and was made man, and he suffered and arose again the third day, ascended into the Heavens, he shall come to Judge the quick and the dead: [We also believe] in the Holy Ghost. But the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church doth anathematize those that aver, that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was made of nothing, Or that say he was made of another sub­stance or essence, or that he is either created, or convertible, or mutable.

This Creed three hundred and eighteen Bishops approved of and embraced: and (as Eusebius testifies) being unanimous in their suffrages and sentiments, they subscribed it. There were only There were only two Bi­shops Secundus and Theonas which refus'd to subscribe to the Ni­cene Creed, as Theodoret does very well testifie in the first book of his Ecclesiastick History, and (before him) Hieronymus in his Dialogue against the Luci­feriani. The Synodical Epistle also of the Council of Nice, which is here related by Socrates does plainly confirm this. Vales. five that refused to allow of it, who misliked the word That is, of the same substance. Homoou­sios: these were Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis Bishop of Nice, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais. For in re­gard they asserted, that that is That is, of the same substance. Consubstantial which is from another either by Partition, or by Derivation, or by Eruption: by Eruption, as the Branch from the Root: by Derivation, as Children from their Parents: by Partition, as two or three pieces of Gold from the whole Mass: but that the Son of God is [from the Father] by none of these three ways. There­fore they said, they could not give their assent to this [draught of] the Creed. Therefore af­ter a tedious cavil about the term That is, of the same substance. Homoöusios, they deny'd to subscribe the degradation of Arius. Upon which account the Synod anathematized Arius and all those that were of his opinion, adding this besides, that he should be prohibited from en­tring into Alexandria. The Emperour also did by his Edict banish Arius, Eusebius, and Theognis. Eusebius and Theognis soon after their banish­ment exhibited their penetentiary Libells, and assented to the belief of Homoöusios, as we shall declare in the procedure of our History. At the same time Eusebius sirnam'd Pamphilus, Bi­shop of Caesarea in Palestine (having made some small Hesitancy in the Synod, and considered with himself whether he might securely admit of this form of Faith,) at length together with all the rest gave his assent, and subscrib'd: he also sent a Copy of the form of Faith to the people with­in his Diocess, and explain'd to them the term Homoöusios, lest any one should have an ill opinion of him, because of his Hesitancy: Thus therefore he wrote word for word.

It is very probable (beloved) that you may have heard what hath been done concerning the Ecclesiastick Faith in the great Council convened at Nice, in regard report doth usually outrun an accurate Narrative of the matters Transacted. But [fea­ring] lest by such a bare report the matter might be represented to you otherwise then really it is, we thought it requisite to send to you; first that form of Faith which we our selves proposed [to the Council,] and likewise that other published [Page 218] [by the Bishops] who made some additions to ours. That form of Faith drawn up by us, (which was read in the presence of our most pious Emperour, and appeared to all to be sound and Orthodox,) runn's thus. As we have receiv'd by tradition from our Predecessours the Bishops, then when we were instructed in the first principles of the Faith, and received Baptism; as we have learnt from the divine Scriptures, and as (during our con­tinuance in the Presbytership, and also since we have been intrusted with a Bishoprick) we have believed and taught, so we also now believe, and do make a publick declaration to you of our Faith: which is this.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only be­gotten Son, the first born of every creature, begotten of God the Father before all worlds; by whom also all things were made: who for our salvation was incarnate, and conversed amongst men: who suffer'd, and rose again the third day, he ascended unto the Father, and shall come again in Glory to Judge the quick and the dead. We also believe in one Holy Ghost: We believe that each of these [Persons] is, and doth subsist: that the Father is truely the Father, the Son really the Son, and the Holy Ghost really the Holy Ghost: as our Lord also, when he sent his Disciples out to Preach, said. Matt. 28. 19. Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning which [Articles] we do aver, that we thus maintain and hold them, that these are our sentiments of them, that this was our Opinion formerly, that this Opinion we will till death retain, that we will persevere in this be­lief, and anathematize every impious Heresie. We call God Almighty, and Jesus Christ our Lord to witness, that these were sincerely and heartily our sentiments, ever since we were capable of knowing our selves, and that we do now think and speak what is most true: and we are ready to demonstrate to you, by most infallible proofs, and to perswade you, that both in times past we thus believ'd, and likewise thus Preached.

When this Creed was propos'd by us, there was no body that could oppose it. Moreover, our most pious Emperour, did himself first attest its truth: he protested that he himself was of the same Opi­nion, and exhorted all to assent to, and subscribe these very Articles, and unanimously to agree [in the profession] of them; Eusebius seems to affirm, that the Empe­rour Con­stantine was the oc­casion of adding the word Ho­moousios to the Creed. But this is very impro­bable. For Constantine was not so learned; being as yet but a Catechumen. Eusebius's relation therefore must be thus understood, that the Bi­shops (after the Creed proposed by Eusebius Caesariensis,) judged that the word Homoöusios ought to be added to it; and that Con­stan [...]ine confirmed their Opinion. But Eusebius, who made it his business to clear and excuse himself to those of his Diocess▪ because he hath subscribed that form of the Creed published by the Council, (as Athanasius, in his book De Decret. Synod. Nicen. and in his book De Synod. Arimini and Seleuciae▪ attests,) does designedly make the business intricate, and ascribes that to the Emperour Constantine, which should rather be ascribed to the Bishops. Vales. this one only word Ho­moöusios being inserted; which term the Em­perour himself thus explained, saying, he suppos'd that the word Homoöusios was not to be taken in such a sense as is agreeable to the affections of the body, and therefore that the Son had not his subsistance from the Father either by Division, or Abscission. For it is impossible [said he] that an immaterial intellectual and incorporeal nature, should be subject to any corporeal affection: but our sentiments of such things must be expressed in divine and mysterious terms. Thus did our most wise and pious Emperour Philosophize. But the Bishops upon the occasion of adding this word Ho­moöusios drew up this form [of the Creed Af­ter these words, before the Nicene Creed, in the Florentine and Sfortian M. SS. are added these words [ [...].] So the Greeks call the Creed, because the Catechumens got it by heart Socrates (in his third book chap. 25.) has these words, [...], We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and the rest of the Articles of the Creed. See Leontius Bisantius, in his book De sectis, pag. 466. Vales..]

The Creed.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only be­gotten of the Father, (that is) of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten not made: of the same substance with the Father; by whom all things were made, that are in heaven and that are in earth. Who for us men, and for our salvation descended, and was incarnate, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day: he ascended into hea­ven. He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. [We also believe] in the Holy Ghost. But those who hold, that there was a time when he was not, or that he was not, before he was begotten, or that he was made of nothing, and those that affirm he is of any other substance or essence, or that the Son of God is created, or con­vertible, or obnoxious to change, [all such] God's Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church doth ana­thematize.

When this form of Faith was appointed by the Bishops, we did not inconsiderately omit making an enquiry, what their meaning was of those terms, of the substance of the Father, and of the same substance with the Father. Hence therefore arose several Questions and Answers; and the true im­port of those words was with great accuracy exa­mined. And it was acknowledged by them, that these words, To be of the substance, did only sig­nifie thus much, that the Son is of the Father, but not as a part of the Father. It seem'd to us altogether reasonable and safe to give our assent to this meaning of this sacred Doctrine, which asser­teth, that the Son is of the Father, but is not a part of his substance. Wherefore we our selves also gave our assent to this import [of those words;] nor do we reject the terme Homoöusios, having peace before our eyes as the marke at which we aime, and [being cautious] lest we should fall from a right apprehension [of the Faith] For the same reasons also we have admitted of these words, be­gotten not made. For made, said they, is a common term attributed to all other creatures which were made by the Son; of whom the Son hath no resem­blance. Wherefore he is no creature, like to those, which were created by him: but he is of a far more excellent substance then any creature▪ which sub­stance, as the sacred Oracles do instruct us, is be­gotten of the Father, but by such a manner of Gene­ration as is ineffable, and inexpressible by any created Being. Thus also this proposition, that the Son is of the same substance with the Father, was discussed, to wit, that this is not [to be un­derstood] according to the manner of bodies, nor [in a sense] agreeable to mortal Creatures. For this [Consubstantiality] cannot [be] either by Division of the Substance, or by Abscision, or Mutation of the Paternal Essence and Power. For all these things are inconsistent with the uncreated nature of the Father. But this [proposition] to be of the same substance with the Father doth [Page 219] expresly represent to us no more than this, viz. that the Son of God hath no community with, or resem­blance to, created Beings; but that in every re­spect he is like to the Father onely, who hath be­gotten him; and that he does exist of no other substance or essence, but of the Father. To this [Opinion] therefore thus explain'd we thought good to give our assent: more especially, because we also knew that some of the Ancient Learned and eminent Bishops, and Writers▪ have made use of this term Homoöusios, in their explications of the Divinity of the Father and of the Son. Thus much therefore we have said concerning the Creed published [at Nice,] to which we all agreed▪ not inconsiderately and without examination, but ac­cording to the senses given, In the Greek Text of So­crates (as it is published by Va­lesius) there is at this place a great errour. For these words [ [...], which were discussed in the presence of our most pious Emperour] are quite omit­ted; and instead thereof, these [ [...], and for the fore­mentioned reasons received with an unanimous consent] are twice prin­ted. We supplied this defect from Robers Stephens's Greek Edit. with which our Translation a­grees; as it likewise doth with Valesius's Latine Version, and with that of Musculus, Christo­phorson, and Grynaeus. which were discussed in the presence of our most pious Em­perour, and for the foremen­tioned reasons, received with an unanimous consent. More­over, as concerning the That is, the Curse. Anathema­tism published by the Fathers after the Creed, we judged it not in the least trou­blesome, in regard it does pro­hibit the use of terms that oc­cur not in the Scriptures, from the use of which terms came almost all the confusion and disturbance that hath been raised in the Church. Since therefore, no part of the Scripture given by divine inspiration hath made use of these terms, to wit, of things which exist not, and there was a time when he was not: it seem'd disa­greeable to reason that these [assertions] should be either mentioned, or taught. To this good and sound Opinion we also have assented, in as much as in former times we have never made use of such ex­pressions. These things (beloved) we thought re­quisite to send to you, that we might most apparently evidence to you the considerateness as well of our examination and researches [into all points,] as of our assent: and [that you might also know] with what good reason we did at first make a resi­stance even to the last houre, as long as some things written in a manner different from what they should have been, offended us: but at length with­out further contention we embraced those points which were not offensive, when after a candid enquiry into the import of the terms we found them to be agree­able with what we our selves had made confession of, in that form of the Creed we at first proposed.

Thus wrote Eusebius Pamphilus to Cesarea in Palestine. Also, by the common consent and appro­bation of the Council, this following Synodicall E­pistle was written to the Church of Alexandria, and to the inhabitants of Aegypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.

CHAP. IX. The Epistle of the Synod, concerning those matters de­termined by it, and how Arius was degraded, to­gether with them that embraced his sentiments.

TO the Holy (by the Grace of God) and great Church of the Alexandrians, and to our be­loved brethren the inhabitants of Aegypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; The Bishops Assembled at Nice, who fill up that great and holy Synod, send Greeting in the Lord.

For as much as by the Grace of God, and [the Summons] of the most pious Emperour Constantine (who hath call'd us together out of diverse Cities and Provinces,) a great and holy Synod has been convened at Nice, it seem'd altogether necessary, that a Letter should be written to you in the name of the sacred Synod; whence you might understand what things were there propos'd, and what taken into examination, as also what were Decreed and established. First of all therefore, the impiety and iniquity of Arius and his complices was inquired into in the presence of the most pious Emperour Con­stantine: and the Councils determination (which was confirmed by the suffrages of all) was, that his impious Opinion, and execrable terms and names should be anathematized, which [terms and names] he blasphemously used, This Epistle is extant in Theo­doret, in chap. 6. of the first book of his Ecclesiastick History; but is in some places different from So­crates's Edition of it here. For Theodoret omits the word [ [...], affirming,] together with the following clause, and joyns all this with the preceding period. In Leo Allatius's M. S. the word [ [...]] is also wanting, and that which follows, to wit, [ [...], calls:] and instead of [ [...]] the reading there is [ [...].] Vales. af­firming that the Son of God had his Being of nothing, and that there was a time when he was not; as also saying, that the Son of God had à freedom of will, [whereby he was] capable either of ver­tue or vice: and calls him a Credture, and a Work. All these [Tenets] the holy Synod hath anathematized, not en­during so much as patiently to hear this impious opinion, or rather madness, and these blasphemous expressions. But what issue the proceedings against him are arrived at, you have either heard already, or will hear; lest we should seem to insult over a man who hath receiv'd a condign recompence for his own wickedness. But his impiety was grown so prevalent, that he drew into the same pit of perdition [with himself] Theonas Bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus Bishop of P [...]olemaïs▪ For the same sentence [that had been given against him] was pronounced against them. But after the Grace of God had delivered us from that mischievous Opi­nion and from impiety and blasphemy, and from those persons who were so audacious as to make divisions and [sow] discord amongst a people heretofore peace­able; there yet remain'd the perverse stubborness of Melitius, and those that had been by him admitted into sacred Orders: and we now relate to you (beloved brethren) the judgment of the Synod concer­ning this particular. It pleas'd therefore the Synod (which dealt more kindly with Melitius; for in the [...] (the phrase that d [...]u [...]s here) imports the rigour or extremity of the Law: to which [...] equity is opposed. The Fathers therefore of the Nicene▪ Council say▪ that the Synod dealt with Melitius, not according to the rigour and extremity of the Law, nor according to the exact rule and discipline▪ but ( [...]) by way of dispensation. For in the strictest sense of the Law Melitius deserved no kindness or pardon, in regard he challenged ordinations which in no wise belong to him, and had made a Schism in Egypt. For that is evidently declared by these words of this Epistle, viz. [...], those that by Gods grace have not been found [engaged] in any Schism. By reason therefore of his rashness and insolency, Melitius deserved to be deposed and excommunicated. But yet the holy Fathers had a mind to treat him kindly, depriving him of all power, and leaving him only the name of a Bishop. Now, why Melitius was thus kindly used▪ many reasons may be alleadged. The first (which the holy Fathers intimate in this Epistle) is, because they had before unsheathed and made use of their sharpest severity and censure against Arius and his followers. Now it was but equal, that after so sad and heavy a sen­tence pronounc't against them, there should be a place afterwards less for clemency; especially, since Melitius had been convicted of no He­resie, but was only accused to have made a Schism. Secondly, there were many persons amongst the Melitians▪ that were good men, and eminent for their plous lives. Of which sort was Paphnutius the Anchoret, and John the Bishop▪ whom Epiphanius mentions, in H [...]res. Melitian. Lastly, they did thus to promote peace, whereby the mem­bers of the Church, which before had been rent in sunder, might cement and unite: therefore the Nicene Fathers received the Meli­tians into communion. And this is a most illustrious example of Ecclesiastick dispensation. Vales. strictest sense and rigour of the law he did not deserve the least favour) that he should continue in his City, but have no jurisdiction, neither to Ordain, [Page 220] or to See note ( [...]) in this chapter. propose the names of those that were to be Ordained, or to appear in any Village, or City upon this pretence: but that he should barely enjoy his appellation and title only. And as for I like not Chri­stophor­sons Ver­sion, who thought these words were meant of the Pres­byters or­dained by Melitius. For Meli­tius or­dained not only Pres­byters and Deacons throughout Egypt, but Bishops also, as Epiphanius attests. Yea, he had or­dained far more Bishops, than Presbyters; as may be Collected from that Catalogue, which Alexander ('tis said) required of him, after the Nicene Synod. Wherein are reckoned twenty eight Bishops of Meli­tius's party; but five Presbyters, and three Deacons. This Catalogue is extant in Athanasius's Second Apology against the Arians. Since therefore Melitius had Ordained so many Bishops, if the Nicene Fa­thers had made no determination concerning the Bishops by him Ordained, their sentence had been imperfect; in regard they would have Decreed, what should be done with the Presbyters made by Melitius, but would have made no mention of the Bishops. Where­fore I think these words must be taken in such a sense, as to include both Bishops, and also Presbyters. Vales. those that had been Ordain'd by him to any function, being confirm'd by a In the first place the Synod Decreed, that the Bishops and Clergy, which had been Ordained by Melitius, should be confirmed by a more holy consecration, that is, should receive imposition of hands from the Bishop of Alexandria. For, in regard they had been Ordained with­out his consent, it was the pleasure of the Synod, that they should be Ordained by the Alexandrian Bishop, according to the ancient usage, by which it was customary, that all the Bishops of the Diocess of Egypt should be Subject to the Prelate of Alexandria. But the Synod required not the re-ordination of Melitius, because he had been rightly Ordained before. Vales. more sacred Ordination, they should afterwards be admitted into Commu­nion, and upon this condition they may continue possest of their preferment and function, but yet they are to acknowledge themselves always inferiour to all those that had been approved of in every Diocess and Church, who had been Instead of [ [...]] it should rather be [ [...], ordained before] as it is in Theodoret, book 1. chap. 6. Eccles. Histor. For [...] signifies another thing, as we shall shew hereafter. (see the following note.) Sozomen (in his first book chap. 24. where he epitomizes this Epistle) supposed these words were meant of the Clergy, not of the Bishops. Vales. Ordained before by our dearest colleague in the sacred Function, Alexan­der. So that besides, they shall have no power In our Annotations on the third book of Eusebius concerning the Life of Constantine, we remarked, that [...], signifies to propose the names of such persons as are to be ordained. So the Synod Decreed above concerning Melitius, [...], that he should neither ordain, nor propose the names of those that were to be ordained. In the same sence Nicetas used this term, in his Life of Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople, where he mentions his Election: his words are these, [...], &c. when therefore the names of many per­sons were proposed to Preside over that Church, &c. Therefore the fol­lowing words [ [...], or to nominate] are only an explication of the foregoing term. In the same sense Sozomen took this word, in his fore-cited 24 chapt. Moreover, we must note, that Melitius was more severely dealt with, (as being the authour of a Schism,) than the Melitiani. For the Nicene Fathers deprived Melitius of all Episcopal jurisdiction, and left him only the name of a Bishop. But they permitted the Melitians to exercise their Functions in the Church. That is, that the Deacons should Minister in the Or­der of Deacons, and that the Presbyters should Consecrate and Ba­ptize, as should also the Bishops. They only took from them their power of Voting in Elections: which was prudently done of the Nicene Fathers, least the Melitians should clandestinely promote some men of their own party to the Ecclesiastick preferments. Vales. to propose, or nominate whom they please, or to act in any thing at all without the knowledge and consent of some Catholick It should rather be [ [...], Bishops,] as it is in Theo­doret, and in the Allat. M. S. Vales. Bishop, who is one of Alexanders suffragans. But those that by the grace of God and your prayers have not been found [en­gaged] in any Schism, but have continued in the Catholick Church blameless; let such have power to nominate and elect those that are worthy of the sacred Function, and act in all things according to the established Law and Sanctions of the Church. And if it shall happen that some of those who now hold Ecclesiastick preferments, die, then let those that are newly admitted and receiv'd [into the Church] be prefer'd to the dignities of the deceased▪ These words do plainly confirm what we said be­fore, to wit, that not only the Pres­byters and Deacons, but the Bishops al­so (who had been Ordained by Meli­tius) are here spo­ken of. For, if they here trea­ted concer­ning the Presbyters only that were to succeed in the places of other Presbyters, why should the Nicene▪ Fathers use so great caution, require so many and great things for this rea­son, that one of the Melitian Presbyters should be put into the place of a de­funct Pres­byter of the Catholick Church? For the holy Fathers expresly prohibit, that any of the Melitians shall succeed in the place and dignity of the defunct▪ unless he seem worthy of that honour, unless the people Elect him, and unless his Election be confirmed by the Bishop of Alexandria. What need of so great caution and diligence in the promotion of a Presbyter? 'Tis therefore apparent, that these words do rather belong to the Bishops. In the Elections of whom most especially, the peo­ples suffrages were necessary; and whose Election must besides be confirmed by the Bishop of Alexandria, in regard he was the Me­tropolitane of all Egypt. Vales. pro­vided that they shall appear worthy, and that the people shall freely elect them, provided also that the Bishop of Alexandria doth by his suffrage ratifie and confirm [the peoples Election.] This same Priviledge is also granted to all. But concerning Melitius in particular we otherwise Decree, that (because of his former irregularity, rashness, and giddiness of disposition,) no jurisdiction or autho­rity shall be allowed him, he being a man able to revive the same disturbances that were before. These things are such as most especially and parti­cularly relate to Aegypt, and [concern] the most holy Church of Alexandria. But if there shall be any other Canon or Decree made; being our Lord, and our most Reverent fellow Minister and Brother Alexander is present, he at his arrival will give you a more particular account, in regard he is the Authour of, and conscious to, what ever is done. We also send you the good news concerning the unanimous consent of all in reference to the cele­bration of the most solemn Feast of Easter; for this difference also hath been made up by the assistance of your prayers; so that all the bre­thren in the East, who formerly celebrated this Festival at the same time the Jews did, will in future conform to the Romans and to us, and to all who have of old observed our manner of cele­brating Easter. Do you therefore (rejoycing at the good success of affairs, and at the unanimous Peace and Concord [amongst all men,] and also because all Heresie is wholly extirpated,) with a greater honour, and more ardent love receive our Fellow Minister (but your Bishop) Alexander, whose presence here hath greatly rejoyced us, and who in this his infirm age hath endured so great labours, that Peace might be restored amongst you. Pray for us all that those good determinations which are made, may remain firm and inviolable, through Almighty God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, together with the holy Ghost; to whom be glory for ever,

Amen.

In this Synodical Epistle 'tis apparent, that the Nicene Fathers did not only anathematize Arius and his followers, but the very terms of his O­pinion also: and that (in regard they had a­mongst themselves agree'd concerning the cele­bration of Easter,) they received into Com­munion Socrates does unde­servedly stile Meli­tius an Arch-He­retick. For neither do the Nicene Fathers, nor Atha­nasius (in his 2 Apology) nor Epiphanius, accuse Melitius of any Heresie; they only affirm, he was the Authour of a Schism. But when the Meli­tians had afterwards joyned themselves to the Arians▪ (which, as I remark [...] before, hapned after the Nicene▪Synod, and Melitius's death,) they turned their Schism into an Heresie, as Augustine writes concer­ning the Donatists. In this sense therefore Melitius may be termed an Arch-Heretick. Vales. the Arch-Heretick Melitius, allowing him indeed the liberty of retaining the dignity of a Bishop; but they deprived him of the power of doing any thing as a Bishop. And upon this account I suppose it is, that the Me­litians in Aegypt are to this day separated from the Church, because the Synod took away all [Episcopal] power from Melitius. Moreover, [Page 221] you must know, that Arius wrote a book con­cerning his own Opinion, which he intitled Thalia. The stile of the book [and the Doctrine contained in it] was loose and dissolute, much resembling the Songs The Sfortian & Florentine, M. SS. add these words [ [...], or Verses;] which Christo­phorson found in his Copy, as appears from his Version. Concerning Arius's Thalia, see Athanasius, in his second Oration against the Arians. When Socrates says, that this book of Arius's was condemned by the Synod, we must not so understand him, as if the Poem it self were particularly con­demned, but the Doctrine only contained in that Poem. Vales. or Verses of He was a Maronite, a most obscene Greek Poet. Sotades. This piece of his also the Synod did at the same time condemn. Nor was the Synod only sollicitous about writing Letters concerning the Peace restored [to the Church:] but the Emperour Constantine also [signified the same] by his own Letters, who wrote to the Church of Alexandria as followeth.

The Emperours Letter.

Constantinus Augustus,
to the Catholick Church of Alexandria. God save you beloved Brethren.

We have receiv'd the greatest blessing from the divine Providence, that being released from all Errrour, We can now embrace and profess one and the same Faith. The Devil hath no longer a dominion over us: for all the Machinations he design'd against us are now totally destroyed. The bright lustre of truth has (according to the com­mandment of God) defeated those dissentions, those Schismes, those Tumults, and (if I may so term them) those fatal poysons of discord. We therefore do all adore one God in Name, and we believe that he is. Moreover, that this might be effected, by the admonition of God we conven'd a great many Bishops at the City of Nice: together with whom we our selves, one of your number, who re­joyce exceedingly in that we are your fellow-servant, undertook the disquisition of the truth. We did therefore enquire into and accurately discuss all things, which seem'd to yield the least occasion of ambiguity, or dissention. And (may the divine Majesty pardon us!) how great and horrid Blas­phemies have some indecently uttered concerning our In the Allat. M. S. the reading is concer­ning our Saviour; which I like better than this, concerning our Great Saviour. Vales. Great Saviour, concerning our Hope and Life, speaking and openly professing that they believe things contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures, and to the sacred Faith? Whenas therefore three hundred Bishops and upwards, admirable both for their moderation and acuteness of understanding, had unanimously confirmed one and the same Faith, (which, according to the verity and ac­curate disquisition of the Divine Law, can only be the Faith) Arius, vanquished by a diabolical force, was found to be the only person, who with an im­pious mind disseminated this mischief, first amongst you, and afterwards amongst others. Let us there­fore embrace that Opinion, which Almighty God hath delivered. Let us return to our beloved brethren, from whom this impudent servant of the Devil hath separated us. Let us with all diligence imaginable hasten to the common body, and to our own natural members. For this doth well become your prudence, Faith, and Sanctity, that since his Error (who has been evidently prov'd to be an Enemy of the Truth) is confuted, you should re­turn to the Divine Grace. For that which was approv'd of by three hundred Bishops, can be [judged] nothing else but the determination of God; especially, since the holy Ghost, residing in the minds of such great and worthy personages, hath disclosed to them the will of God. Where­fore let none of you continue dubious, let none of you make delays: but do you all with great ala­crity return to the right way▪ that when we come to you, which shall be as soon as possible, we may together with you return due thanks to God who inspects all things, because, having revealed the pure Faith, he hath restored you that mutual love which was the subject of all mens prayers. God preserve you, beloved Brethren.

Thus wrote the Emperour to the people of Alexandria, demonstrating to them that the de­termination of the Faith was not imprudently, or unadvisedly made; but that it was dictated with a great deal of disquisition and diligent ex­amination: nor [does he say] that some things were spoken [in that Council,] and others pas­sed over in silence: but that all that was fitting to be said in confirmation of the opinion, was pro­duced and urged: and that the controversie was not inconsiderately determined, but was with great accuracy first discussed. In so much that, all things whatever, which seemed to produce matter of ambiguity or dissention, were wholly removed and destroyed. In short, he terms the determination of all those there assembled, the will of God, and does confidently aver that the unanimity of so many and such eminent Prelates was procured by the holy Ghost. But Sabinus, the Ring-leader of the Macedonian Heresie, does wittingly and on set purpose oppose their [au­thorities:] and Stiles the Fathers there assembled Idiots and men of no knowledge; and he does in all appearance asperse even Eusebius Caesa­riensis with [the imputation of] ignorance: but he does not in the least consider with him­self, that, although those convened in that Synod were Idiots, yet in regard they were illuminated by God, and the Grace of the holy Ghost, they could in no wise err from the Truth. But let us hear, what the Emperour, by another Letter which he sent to all the Bishops every where▪ and to the people, Decreed against Arius▪ and those that embraced his Opinion.

Another Letter of Constantines.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS, AUGUSTUS, to the Bishops and People.

This E­pistle of Constantine the Empe­rour is not rightly pla­ced by our Author. It should ra­ther be placed im­mediately after Con­stantin's Letter to the Chur­ches which is the next in this cha­pter. For certain­ly those Letters which concern the Council of Nice should regularly be placed first. But this Letter does not concern that Council, nor does it in the least mention the Council. Athanasius in his Epistle ad Solitar. alludes to this Letter of Constantin's, where he speaks thus concerning the Emperour, [...], (i. e.) Why does he (to wit, Constantine) endeavour to reduce the Arians into the Church▪ whom he himself calls Porphyrians? Vales. In as much as Arius has followed the Practices of wicked and profane persons, 'tis but just that he should undergo the same ignominy with them. Therefore, as Porphyrius, that Enemy of true Piety, found a just recompence for composing im­pious Volumes against Religion, and such a recom­pence as has rendred him ignominious to posterity, covered him with infamy and many reproaches, and his impious writings have been utterly de­stroyed: so it also now seemes reasonable to term Arius and those that embrace his Opinion Por­phyrians, that they may derive their denomina­tion from him, whose morals they have so exactly imitated. Moreover, if any book written by Arius shall be found extant, we do hereby Order, that it be immediately burnt: that by this means not only his wicked Doctrine may be wholly destroyed, but also that there might not be left to posterity the [Page 222] least monument of him. This also we declare, that if any person shall be found to have concealed a book compiled by Arius, and shall not immediate­ly produce the said book and burn it, his punish­ment shall be death. For immediately upon his being found guilty of this fact, he shall undergo a capital punishment. God preserve you.

Another Letter.
Constantinus Augustus, to the Churches.

Having sufficiently experienced, by the flouri­shing posture of the publick affairs, how great the benignity of the divine power has been towards us; we judged it our chiefest concern and aim [to labour] for the Preservation of one Faith, a sincere charity, and one universally ac­knowledged Religion towards Almighty God a­mongst the most blessed Congregations of the Ca­tholik Church. But since this could not be other­wise firmly constituted and established, unless all, or at least the greatest part of the Bishops were conven'd in one place, and every particular that concerns the most sacred Religion were by them first discussed: upon this account, when as many of the Clergy, as could possibly be got together, were assembled, and we also, as one of you, were present with them (for we will not deny, what we account our greatest glory, that we are your fellow servant) all things were sufficiently dis­cussed so long, untill a determination acceptable to God the Inspector of all things, was published in order to an universal agreement and union: so that there is now no place left for dissention, or controversie about [matters] of Faith. Where also, after a disquisition made concerning the most Holy day of Easter, it was by a general consent concluded to be the best course, for all men in all places to celebrate that Festival upon one and the same day. For what can be more comely and commendable, or what more grave and decent, then that this Festival, from which we have received the hopes of immortality, should be unerringly kept by all men in one and the same order, and in a manner apparently and ex­presly agreeable? And in the first place, all men lookt upon it as an unworthy thing and misbe­coming the dignity of that most sacred Festival, to follow the Jewish usage in the celebration there­of. For the Jews, persons who have defiled them­selves with a most abominable sin, are deservedly impure and blind as to their understandings. Ha­ving therefore rejected their usage, we may by a more certain and infallible order propagate that day to future ages for the completion of this solemnity, which we have kept from the first day of the passion even to this present time. Let us then have nothing in common with that most ho­stile multitude of the Jews. We have received an­other way from our Saviour. For there is pro­posed to us a lawful and decent leading to our most sacred Religion. Let us therefore (dearest Brethren) with one accord constantly persist in this course, and In book 3 chap. 18. of Eusebius's Life of Constantine (where we have this Epistle of the Emperour,) the reading is [ [...]] which Valesius at that place, and here, renders thus [ab illâ turpissimâ societate & conscientiâ, from that most abominable so­ciety and their consciousness.] Of this his Version, he gives this rea­son: they who celebrate Easter with the Jews, seem to be conscious of that wickedness which they committed against our Lord. See his Annotat. at the book and chapter now cited. withdraw our selves from that most adverse Society and their consciousness. For it is really most absurd for them to make their bragges, that we are not capable of our selves, without their instruction to observe these things. But of what are they able to pass a right judg­ment, who after that parricide of theirs, the mur­ther of our Lord, were struck with madness, and are led, not by the conduct of reason, but by an un­governable Violence. impetus, whithersoever their innate rage shall drive them? Hence therefore it is that even in this particular they discern not the Truth, Instead of [ [...]] in the Florent. and Sfortian M. SS. the reading is [ [...], always:] which reading Theodoret con­firms. In book 3. chap. 18. of Eusebius's Life of Constantine, it is [ [...]] whereas the Jewish Paschal Neomenia (or new Moon) began from the fifth day of March, and was concluded at the third of April, hence it some­times hapned, that their Passo­ver began before the Aequinox. So that they celebrated two Pass­overs in one year, (suppossing you mean the Solar and Julian year) that is, accounting from the Vernal Aequinox of this year, to the Vernal Aequinox of the year following. Ambrosius asserts the same in his Epistle to the Bi­shops of Aemilia, where he re­lates, that the Jews sometimes celebrated their Passover in the twelfth month, that is, according to the Latines, and Eastern men. For the Jews never kept their Passover on their own twelfth month, but on the fourteenth day of their first month. More­over, this celebrating of their Pas­over twice in one year, which Con­stantine objects against the Jews, seems to me not at all momen­tous. For the Jews might have returned the objection upon the Christians, to wit, that they cele­brated Easter twice in the same year. For, suppose Easter is this year kept on the tenth of the Calends of May; (that is, on the 22d of April) next year it must necessarily be kept sooner. And so there will occur two Easters amongst the Christians within the space of one year current. But this will not happen, if you reckon the year from the Aequi­noctial Cardo to the Vernal Ae­quinox of the year following. See Epiphan. pag. 824. Edit Petav. and Petav. Animadvers. pag. 294, 295. See also Aegidius Buche­rius de Paschali Judaeorum Cyclo, chap. 3. but always wandring at the greatest distance from a de­cent and agreeable amend­ment, they celebrate Easter twice within the space of one and the same year. What reason have we therefore to follow these men, who, it is acknowledged, are distempered with an abominable Errour? We must never endure the keeping of two Easters in one year. But although what we have said were not sufficient, yet nevertheless, it behooves your prudence to make it your greatest care, and the mat­ter of your constant prayers, that the purity of your souls should not in the likeness of any thing seem to be joyned or mixed with the usages of most wicked men. Besides, this is to be considered, that it is a most impious thing, that there should be any dis­agreement in a matter of so great concern, and in such a solemnity of Religion. For our Saviour left us but one day [to be celebrated in com­memoration] of our Redem­ption, that is the day of his most sacred Passion: and he also desired that his Catholick Church should be one. The members of which Church (al­though they are much disper­sed in divers places, yet ne­vertheless) are cherished by one spirit, that is, by the will of God. Let the prudence of your sanctity consider, how grievous and undecent a thing it is, that on the self same daies some should keep strict Fasts, and others celebrate Feasts: and that on the days after Easter, some should be conversant in feastings and a vacantness from labours, and others devote themselves to set Fasts. Wherefore it pleased divine Providence that these things should be seasonably redressed, and reduced to one and the same form, as we suppose you are all sensible. Since therefore it was expe­dient to make such an emendation in this point, as that we might not seem to hold the least Com­munion with those Parricides, and Murderers of of our Lord, the Jews: and since this is the most decent and becoming order, which all the Churches of the Western, Southern and Northern parts of the world, and also some in the Eastern parts do observe: for these reasons all persons have at present judged it good and expedient; (and we our selves also promised that it would not be ungratefull to your wisdom,) that that which with such an universal unanimity is observed in the City of Rome, and all over Italy and Africa, throughout [Page 223] all Aegypt, Spain, France, Brittain, Libya; over all Greece, and the Provinces of Asia and Pontus, and throughout Cilicia, would also be most willingly received and embraced by you. Let this also be seriously considered, that not only the number of the Churches in the forementioned places is far the greater; but also that it is most just and equal that all mens wills should universally concur in that which strict reason seems to require, and which has no Com­munion with the perjury of the Jews. But, that we may speak more summarily and briefly, it was by a ge­neral consent agreed that the most sacred Festival of Easter should be solemniz'd upon one and the same day. For it is undecent that there should be any diver­sity in so great and holy a solemnity: and it is far bet­ter to adhere to that Opinion, in which there is no mix­ture of strange and absurd errour and impiety. Since therefore these things are thus ordered, do you with joy receive this celestial and truly divine Command­ment. For whatsoever is transacted [and determi­ned] in the sacred assemblies of the Bishops, must be attributed to the Divine will. Wherefore, when you have imparted to all our beloved brethren what has been prescribed, it is your duty to embrace, and establish the forementioned rule and observation of the most holy day: that when we shall come into the presence of your love (which we were long since desirous of,) we may celebrate the sacred Festival with you, on one and the same day: and that we may rejoyce together with you for all things, be­holding the cruelty of the Devil totally removed by the divine power and our endeavours; whilst your Faith, Peace, and Concord does every where flourish. God preserve you, Beloved Brethren.

This Let­ter of the Emperour to Eusebius, and also the two next are misplaced. For they have no relation to the Council of Nice; neither do they make the lest mention of Arius or the Arians. Yea, the first of Con­stantin's Letters to Eusebius was written before the Council of Nice, as Eusebius himself testifies, in his 2d Book of Constantin's Life, Chap. 46. Vales. Another Letter to Eusebius.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS, AUGUSTUS, to Eusebius.

We really believe and are absolutely perswaded (Dearest Brother) that, in regard an impious desire and tyrannick violence hath persecuted the servants of God our Saviour even to this present time, the edifices of all Churches, have either by neglect gone to ruine, or through fear of the immi­nent dangerousness [of the times] have been ador­ned with less of stateliness. But now, since Li­berty is restored, and that Serpent, We meet with this Letter of the Empe­rours to Eusebius at book 2. chap. 46. of Eusebius's Life of Con­stantine; where these three words [that Persecutor Licinius] are wanting; being added here, instead of a Scholion by Socrates, or some other Scholiast. He [...]erms Licinius a serpent by reason of his craftiness, and age. Hence we may conjecture, that this Letter was written soon after Li­cinius's deposition. See Valesius's notes on book 2. chap. 46. of Eu­sebius's Life of Constantine. that Persecutor Licinius, is by Almighty God's Providence and our instrumental endeavours forced out of the Administration of publick Affairs, we suppose that the divine power hath been sufficiently manifested to all men: and that all who either through fear or unbelief have fallen into any sins, Here we made choice of this reading [ [...], &c. ha­ving now acknowledged, &c.] By the term [fear] in the fore­going clause he means the Christians, who through fear of persecution had neglected the Churches, or renounced the faith. The term [Un­belief] belongs to the Heathens, who had demolished the Churches, and divers ways vexed the Christians. See Valesius's notes, at the Book and Chapter before cited. having now acknowledged the only true God, will in future re­turn to the true and right course of life. Do you therefore remind as well all [persons belonging to] the Churches over which you preside, as also all other Bishops presiding in other places, together with the Presbyters and Deacons, whom you know, that they use their utmost diligence about the structures of the Churches; either about repairing those that are still standing, or about inlarging others, or in building new ones, wheresoever it shall be found requisite. And you your self, and the rest by your mediation may ask necessaries [for that work] both from our Presidents of the Pro­vinces, and also from the [...], the term here used, signifies an Office, or company of Apparitours attending on a Ma­gistrate; i. e. a cer­tain num­ber of Soul­diers waiting on the Judges▪ [...] are the Praesects of the Praetorium; so termed, because they were [...], over the Presidents and Rectours of Provinces. Therefore [...] (the phrase here used) imports the Office of the Praetorian Praesecture, concerning which consult the Notitia Imperii Romani. Further, the Office (or Attendants) of the Prefect of the Praetorium was more honourable than the Offices of all the other Magistrates. For as the Prefect of the Prae­torium excelled all the other judges, as well Military as Civil, in dig­nity; so his Officials or attendants, were lookt upon to be more honour­able then the other officials. Hence, in the Chalcedon Council, Action. 3, the Office of the Praefects of the Praetorium is called [...]. See Valesius's notes, at the before cited book and Chapter. Office of the Praetorian Prefecture. For they are already impowred by our Rescripts to be diligently observant about all your Holinesses Orders. God preserve you, Beloved Brother.

Thus wrote the Emperour to the Bishops throughout every particular Province, concerning the building of the Churches: But what he wrote to Eusebius of Palestine about pro­viding [some Copies of] the sacred Scriptures we may easily collect from these his Letters.

VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS, AUGUSTUS, to Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea.

By the assistance of God our Saviours Providence, so great a multitude of men have joyned themselves to the most Holy Church in that City which bears our He means the City of Constanti­nople. Name; that [Christianity seems] to have made its greatest progress and increase there. In Eusebius's Life of Con­stantine, book 4. chap. 36. (where this Letter occurs) this place is far otherwise read and pointed, than it is here; so a [...]so it is in Theodoret, book 1. chap. 16. Vales. It seems therefore very re­quisite that there should be more Churches erected in that City. Wherefore do you with the greatest alacrity ad­mit of what we have De­creed. We thought fit to sig­nifie this to your prudence, that you should order fifty Copies of the sacred Scriptures (the provision and use whereof you know to be most necessary for the instruction of the Church,) to be written on well prepared parchment by artificial Transcribers of Books, most skilfull in the Art of accurate and fair Writing; which [Copies] must be very legible, and easily portable in order to their being used. Moreover, Letters are dispatch't away from our clemency to the Concer­ning the Rationalist and his Of­fice, we have spo­ken before, in our notes on Euse­bius. By [Dioecesis] is meant here the Diocess of the East. The old Romans called a certain number of Provinces (which, taken to­gether, were under a Deputy of the Praeto­rian Prae­fecture) by this name [Dioecesis.] For the Prefect of the Praetorium had under his jurisdiction many Dioeceses; but the Deputies had each but one Dioe­cesis. This term began to be used in this sense about Constantin's time, as appears from his Letters, and from some Laws in the Cod. Theod. See Valesius's Annotations on Eusebius's Life of Constant. B. 4. chap. 36. Rationalist of the Dioecesis to take care for provision of all things necessary towards the preparing of the said Copies. Let it therefore be the imployment of your care to see that the foresaid Copies be pro­vided as soon as may be. You are also impowr'd by this our letter to make use of two publick carriages for their conveyance. For by this meanes those which are fairest Transcribed may be easiest convey'd even to our sight, to wit, if one of the Deacons of your Church be imployed in the performances hereof. Who when he comes to us, shall experience our liberality. God preserve you Dear Brother.

Another Letter to Macarius.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS, AUGUSTUS, to Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem.

So great is our Saviours love and favour that no Rhetorick seems sufficient to set forth a declaration of the present miracle. For, that the He means our Blessed Sa­viours Se­pulchre. Monu­ment of his most holy passion, long since hid under­neath the earth, should lie conceal'd for so many years space, till such time as, by the Constantine here terms Li­cinius the publick enemy, after whose destruction, he says, the sacred Sepulchre of our Lord, which had been before concealed, was discovered. Licinius was slain in the year of Christ 326, as 'tis recorded in Fast. Idat. And on that very year, when Helena came to Jerusalem, the Sepulchre of our Lord was found. By the name of the publick Enemy, the Devil might here be meant, were not this contradicted by the ex­pressions here used. For the De­vil was not then vanquished and overcome, when the Sepulchre of our Lord was cleared from the rubbish that covered it. Besides, the term [ [...], slaughter] is more expressive, being meant of Licinius, than of the Devil. See Valesius's notes on Euscbius's Life of Constant. book 3. chap. 30. slaughter of the com­mon Enemy, it should glo­riously appear to his servants now set at liberty, [is a matter which] does really surmount all admiration. For if all those persons that throughout the whole world are accounted wise should be convened in one and the same place with a design to speak something according to the worthiness of this matter, they would not be able after their utmost endeavours to attain to [an explication of] the least part thereof. For the [...], the faith, autority, or estima­tion of this miracle, &c. autho­rity and greatness of this mi­racle doth as far transcend every nature capable of hu­mane reason, as things that are celestial do exceed those that are humane. Wherefore this is always our chief and only aim, that as the authority of the truth doth daily demonstrate it self by new miracles, so the minds of us all should with all modesty and unanimous alacrity become more careful and diligent about an observation of the divine Law. Which in regard we judge to be manifestly apparent to all men, our desire is you should most especially be perswaded of this, that it is altogether our chiefest care, that that sacred place (which by Gods command we have unburthened of that most detestable He means the Temple built by Adrian the Emperour on Mount Calvary, in honour of Venus; which receptacle of Pa­ganism was demolished by He­lena, Constantines mother, and in the room thereof was built a mag­nificent Temple, at this day cal­led The Temple of the Sepulchre; the description whereof you may see in Sandys Travels, book 3. pag. 125. &c. Edit. Lond. 1673. ac­cession of the Idol, as it were of a ponderous and heavy weight; which [place] was by Gods determination made holy from the beginning, but was afterwards demonstrated to be more holy, out of which he hath brought to light the certainty of our Saviour's passion) should be beautified and adorned with magnificent and stately structures. Wherefore it does well be­come your prudence so to order the matter, and to make such a provision of materials necessary for this work, that not only the Temple it self may in state­liness excel all others in what place soever, but also that the other parts of it be made such, as that all the beautifullest structures in every City, may be ac­knowledged far inferiour to this fabrick. And as concerning the workmanship and exquisite beauty of the walls, we would have you know that we have committed the care thereof to our friend There are two Laws made by Constan­tine extant in the Cod. Theod. (the one in Tit. de usuris, the other in Tit. de Haereticis,) written to this Dracilianus. The former of these Laws bears this Inscription, Imp. Constantinus Aug. ad Dracilianum agentem vices Praefectorum praet. that is, Emperour Constantinus Augustus to Dracilianus Deputy to the Praefects of the Praetorium. This Law was published at Caesarea in Palestine on the 15th of the Calends of May, when Paulinus and Julianus were Consuls. The other is said to have been published on the Calends of September, Constantinus Aug. being the seventh time and Constantius Caesar Coff. that is, in the year of Christ 326. In which year Constantine wrote this Epistle to Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem. Further, we must remarke, that the Praefects of the Praetorium are here stiled clarissimi, most excellent. For as yet they had not received the title of Most Illustrious. Moreover▪ in other of Constantin's Laws, the Praefects of the Praetorium are stiled Most Excellent. Now, as the Praefects of the Praetorium were in Conctantin's time allowed only the title of Most Excellent, so the Deputies of the Praetorian Praefecture had in the said Constantin's times only the title of Most Perfect given them, as the Epistle to Probianus Proconsul of Africa shews, which we meet with in Athanasius's Apology to Constan­tius, pag. 794. See Valesius's notes on book 3. chap. 31. of Eusebius's Life of Constantine. Draci­lianus, Deputy to the most excellent the Prefects of the Praetorium, and to the President of the Province. For our piety has taken order, that artificers and workmen, and whatever else they may be informed from your Prudence to be necessary for the structure, shall by their care be forthwith sent. But con­cerning the Pillars or Marbles, (and whatever you your self on sight of the At this place the term [ [...]] signifies the Model or Delineation of the Fabrick that was to be erected. It is taken in the same sense, in the Epistle of Himerius Rationalist of Alexan­dria to the Praefect of Mareotis; which Athanasius has recorded in his Apology, pag. 803. For after he had said, that Augustus and the Caesars had permitted Ischyras to build a Church in his Town, he orders the Governour of that Town, that he should forthwith draw a Model of the future buil­ding, and transmit it to his Office; [...] (says he) [...]. See Valesius's notes, at the book and chapter before cited. Model [of the building] shall judge to be more rich and useful,) make it your business to inform us by wri­ting: that when we shall un­derstand from your Letter, how many and what manner of materials you stand in need of, they may be convey'd to you from all parts. For it is but reasonable that that most admirable place of the whole world should be beautifi'd ac­cording to its dignity and worth. We desire to know of you, whether you think good to have the inner roof of the Church The inner roofs of Churches were commonly framed two ways. For they were either beautified with arched or embowed roofs, or else painted with Mosaick­work. Concerning the arched (or embowed) roofs, this place of Constantin's Letter is an evi­dence. Procopius evidences the use of the Mosaick-work, in his first book De Fabricis Justiniani, where he describes the Temple of Sancta Sophia. Now the arched roofs were usually adorned two ways. For they were either guil­ded with gold, or painted; which latter way was first invented by Pausias, as Pliny attests, book 35▪ chap. 11. Hist. Natural. See Valesius's notes, at the book and chapter before cited. arched, or made of any other sort of work. For if it be arched, it may also be guilded with gold. It remains therefore, that your holiness inform as soon as may be the forementioned Judges, how many Work­men, and Artificers, and what money for expences you shall want. And be you care­ful to return Us a speedy ac­count, not only concerning the Marbles, and Pillars, but al­so concerning the arched roof (if you shall judge that to be the more beautiful work.) Dearest Brother, God pre­serve you.

The Emperour wrote several other E­pistles in a more florid stile like Orations, against Arius, and those that embraced his Opinion, and caused them to be Instead of [ [...], He added] the reading must necessarily be [ [...], He published.] For the Roman Emperours did usually propose to pub­lick view those Rescripts they wrote to the Cities. Therefore, at the close of the Rescript they added this word [Proponatur, let it be published:] as we have observed in our notes on Eusebius. So Con­stantine, when he had wrote many Letters against Arius and his fol­lowers, commanded they should be proposed to publick view in the Forum. Of this sort was Constantin's Epistle to Arius and the Arians, which Gelasius Cyzicenus has recorded in his 3d book De Gestis Synod Nicaenae: which Epistle Epiphanius mentions in Hares. Arian. It was written by Constantine after the Nicene Synod, and it contains the pu­nishment of those that would not recede from Arius's wicked tenets. For at the close of that Epistle, the Emperour commands, that, if they be persons of the ordinary rank, they shall pay tribute for ten heads, be­sides their own Poll-money. But if they be descendants of the Curi­ales, (or Noble-men,) they shall be delivered to the Court▪ and made liable to bear the publick Offices of the Decurions. This Letter there­fore was like an Edict, and so ought to be publickly read and pro­mulged. Vales. published in every City; in [Page 225] which Epistles he represents [Arius] to be an infamous person, and rebukes him sharply in an Ironical manner. Moreover, He wrote to the The greatest part of this Epistle is extant in the first book of Theodorets Ecclesia­stick Histo­ry, chap. 20. it is entire in Latin, in Baro­nius, at the year of Christ 329; as Justinian the Emperour sent it to Pope Vigi­lius. Vales. Nicomedians, against Eusebius and Theognis: wherein he severely reprehends Eusebius's wicked­ness, not only for his Arianism, but also because, having formerly been a favourer of the Tyrants party, he had been a Traitor against [Him and] his affairs. He therefore advises them to elect another Bishop in his stead. But I thought it su­perfluous to insert his Letters concerning these matters here, because they are long. They that are desirous [to inspect them] may easily find them out, and read them over. Thus much con­cerning these things.

CHAP. X. That the Emperour summoned to the Synod Ace­sius also, a Bishop of the Novatian Heresie.

THis great diligence and industry of the Em­perour moves me to make mention of ano­ther thing, wherein his mind is declared, and how careful and solicitous he was to procure Peace. For, consulting the concord and agreement of the Churches, He Sozomen relates the same story, in his first book chap. 22. but in such a manner, that 'tis sufficiently apparent, he had it out of So­crates's Hi­story. For Socrates tells the whole story more fully and ele­gantly. And after he has told it, says he had it from a credible person, who lived in the times of the Nicene Council. But Sozomen begins this relation thus, [...], &c. Its reported that the Empeour, &c. Nor does he confirm it by any persons authority. Besides Sozomen has in a manner stole the very words of Socrates, making some small alterations and in­terpositions, as Plagiaries usually do. But this story seems to me very improbable upon many accounts. First, because it is founded on the autority of no ancient writer. Secondly, neither Socrates, nor Sozo­men, do say, of what City Acesius was Bishop, which was very neces­sary to confirm the story. Thirdly, it is not at all likely, that an He­retical Bishop should be summoned by Constantine to an Ecclesiastick Synod. For if Constantine had sent for Acesius in order to the resto­ring of Peace and Agreement to the Church, upon the same account he ought to have summoned the Bishops of other Heresies also to the Nicene Council. Lastly, what Socrates says, to wit, that he had this story from a very old man who was at the Synod, seems to me altoge­ther incredible. This persons name was Auxano, a Novatian Presby­ter, who was at the Synod with Acesius, and lived untill the reign of Theodosius Junior, as Socrates says chap. 13. of this book. Now from the Nicene Synod to the beginning of Theodosius's reign, there are 83 years. To which if you adde 20 (for so old Auxano must needs be when he was present at the Council) Auxano must necessarily be above an hundred years old, when he told Socrates this story. Let the Reader judge therefore, at what rate the testimony of a decrepid old Heretick is to be valued. Vales. summoned Acesius, a Bishop of the Novatian Heresie, to appear at the Council. When the Synod had drawn up a form of the Creed, and subscribed it, the Emperour enquir'd of Acesius, whether he would also give his assent to these Articles of the Creed, and also to the determination about the Festival of Easter. He replied, O Emperour, the Synod has determi­ned no new thing: for anciently even from the [Churches] original, and the Apostolick times, I have in this same manner received by tradition both this form of Faith, and also this time [for the observation] of the Feast of Easter. When therefore the Emperour demanded of him again, what then should induce you to be a separatist from the communion [of the Church?] he re­lated what was done under Decius in the time of the Persecution, and recited the strictness of that severe Canon, ['to wit,] that those who after Baptism had committed any such sin, as the sacred Scriptures terms a mortal sin, ought not to be admitted to a participation of the sacred Mysteries: they were indeed to be exhorted to repentance, but ought not to entertain any hopes of remission from the Priests, but from God, who only is able, and has power to forgive sins. When Acesius had spoken thus, the Emperour re­pli'd, O Acesius, set a Ladder, and do you alone climb up to heaven. This story neither Eusebius Pamphilus, nor any other Author has mentioned. But I had it from a person that was in no wise a lier, one who was very aged, and related what he had seen transacted in the Council. Whence I conjecture, that the same accident besell those who have omitted the mention hereof, which hap­pens to many other Writers of History. For they usually pass over many things, either be­cause they are ill affected towards some, or have a desire to gratifie others. Thus much concer­ning Acesius.

CHAP. XI. Concerning Paphnutius the Bishop.

NOw because we have promised before, to make mention of Paphnutius and Spyridon, it will be seasonable to speak of them here. Paph­nutius therefore was Bishop of one of the Cities in the upper Thebaïs: he was a person so pious, that wonderful miracles were wrought by him. In the time of the Persecution one of his eyes had been cut out: The Emperour had an high esteem for the man, and frequently sent for him to the Pallace, and kissed [the place of] that eye which had been dug out. So great a piety and reverence was there in the Emperour Con­stantine. Let this therefore be one thing said by us concerning Paphnutius. This other (which was done by his advice for the utility and ad­vantage of the Church, and the grace and orna­ment of the Clergy,) I will now relate. The Bishops had a design to introduce a new Law into the Church, to wit, that those who were in holy Orders, I mean the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, The Florent. M. S. addes [ [...], and Sub-Deacons:] and so the reading is in Sozomen, book 1. chap. 23; where he tells this story concer­ning Paphnutius. where also what we said before is apparent, to wit, that Sozomen borrowed from So­crates. For he that addes to anothers relation, shews evident­ly that he wrote last. Vales. should abstain from lying with those wives which they had married du­ring the time they were Laïcks. And when a pro­position was made to con­sult hereof, Paphnutius Rufinus (out of whom So­crates had the former story which he tells in this chapter concer­ning Paphnutius) says not a word of this speech of Paphnu­tius; see his first book Eccles. Hist. chap. 4. But he relates that Paphnutius was one of the Bishops in the parts of Egypt, and that he was present at the Nicene Coun­cil. rose up in the midst of the as­sembly of Bishops, and cried out with a great deal of earnestness, that such an hea­vy yoak ought not to be imposed upon those persons that were in sacred Orders, saying, that marriage was honourable, and the bed un­defil'd; [so that they ought to be careful] least they should rather incommode the Church, by their over­much severity. For all men [said he] cannot bear the practise of so strict and severe a conti­nencie, nor is it likely that the chastity of every one of their wives should be preserved. (The husbands keeping company with his lawful wife he termed chastity.) It was sufficient [said he,] that they who had entred themselves into the function of the Clergy before they were married, should afterwards (according to the ancient tradition of the Church) abstain from entring into a state of Matrimony: but that no person ought to be separated from his wife, [Page 226] whom he had heretofore married, [to wit,] whilst he was a Laick. Thus he spake, though he was a man, who had not experienced what marriage was, and (as I may truly aver) never knew a woman, for from his childhood he had been educated in a [...]; that is, in a place, where the Ascetae li­ved; con­cerning whom, and their course of life, see Euseb. Ecclesiast. Hist. book 2. chap. 17. note (a.) book 7. chap. 32. note (c.) in the second Alphabet. Vales. place where the strictest exercises of virtue and abstinence were con­stantly practised, and was eminently famous a­bove all men for his singular continencie. All the whole assembly of the Clergy were perswa­ded to yield their assent, to what Paphnutius said; wherefore they silenc'd all further debate concerning this point, and left it to every mans arbitrement whether he would [or would not] abstain from keeping company with his wife. And thus much concerning Paphnutius.

CHAP. XII. Concerning Spyridon Bishop of the Cyprians.

NOw [we come to speak] of Spyridon: so great a sanctity was in this person whilest yet a Shepherd, that he was thought worthy to be made a Pastor of men. He had obtained the Bi­shoprick of a City in Cyprus call'd▪ Trimithuntis: but by reason of his singular humility he fed sheep during his being a Bishop. There are many things related of this man: but I will only record one or two, that I may not seem to wander from my subject. One time about midnight, theeves en­tred his sheepfold privately, and attempted to take away the sheep. But God who protected the shepherd, preserv'd his sheep also: for the theeves were by an invisible power fast bound to the [...]oulds. The morning being now come, he went to his sheep, where finding the men bound with their hands behind them, he perceiv'd what had happened. And after he had prayed, he loosed the theeves, admonishing and exhorting them earnestly, to endeavour the procuring of a live­lyhood by honest Labours, and not by such un­just rapine: He also gave them a Ram and dis­mist them with this facetious saying, least, says he, you might seem to have watched all night in vain. This is one of Spyridons Miracles. Another was of this sort. He had a daughter, a Virgin, in­dued with her fathers piety, her name Irene. A person well known to her, entrusted her with the keeping of an ornament that was of great value. The maid, that she might with greater safety keep what was deposited with her, hid it in the earth: and within a short time died. Soon after that, he who had committed this thing to her care, came [to demand it.] Not finding the Virgin, he in­volves her Father [in that concern,] sometimes accusing, another while entreating him. The old man, looking upon the persons loss who had en­trusted his daughter as his own misfortune, went to his daughters grave, and did there begg of God, that he would shew him the promised re­surrection before the time. And his hope was not frustrated. For the Virgin immediately re­vives, and appears to her father, and having shew'd him the place where she had hid the ornament, immediately departed. Such persons as these were during the reign of Constantine the Emperour eminent in the Church. These things I both heard from several Cyprians; and also read them in a book of Rufinus a Presbyter, written in Latine, out of which I have not only collected what has here been said, but also some other things which shall a little after this be declared.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning Eutychianus the Monk.

I Have also heard of Eutychianus, a pious man, who flourished at the same time: who al­though he was one of the Novatian Church, yet was admired for works of the same nature with those [we have mentioned.] I will sin­cerely confess who it was that gave me this ac­count of him: nor will I conceal it, though I am sensible some will be offended with me for it. One Auxanon a Presbyter of the Novatian Church, was a person of a very great age: this man, when he was very young, went to the Council of Nice with Acesius, from him I re­ceiv'd what I have said before concerning Ace­sius. He liv'd from those times to the reign of Theodosius the younger, and rehearsed to me, though then very young, these [Memoires] of Eutychianus: he discours'd much to me con­cerning the divine Grace infus'd into him: but one thing he told me concerning him more espe­cially worthy of remembrance, which happened in the reign of Constantine. One of those belon­ging to the Guard, whom the Emperour calls his By [...] he means the Protectores Domestici, or Guards of the Body, which waited on the Emperours person. They were Souldiers of a superiour order▪ who also had greater pay then the others. See Valesius's notes on Amm. Marcellin. book 14. pag. 33. Domesticks, being sus­pected to have attempted some Tyrannick designes, made his escape by flight: The Emperour, highly in­censed thereat, gave order, that he should be put to death, wherever he could be found: being apprehen­ded about the mountain Olympus in Bithynia, he was shut up in prison, and loaded with very hea­vy and painful chaines; neer these parts of Olym­pus Eutychianus then resided, leading a solitary life, where he wrought many cures both upon mens bodies and soules. The long-lived Aux­anon was with him at that time, being then very young, and was by him instructed in the Precepts of a solitary Life. Many did resort to this Eutychianus, beseeching him to release the Prisoner, by interceding for him with the Em­perour. (For the fame of the miracles wrought by Eutychianus was come to the Emperours hearing.) He readily promised to make a jour­ney to the Emperour. But in regard the Pri­soner suffered most acute tortures caused by his chains, those that did sollicit for him, reported, that his death, ha [...]tned by [the tortures of] his fetters, would both prevent the Emperours punish­ment, and Eutychianus's intercession for him. Eu­tychianus therefore sent to the keepers of the Prison, and intreated them to release the man. But when they answered that it would be a very dangerous thing for them to release a criminal, he, taking Auxanon only along with him, went to the Prison: and upon the Keepers refusal to open the Prison, the grace which was in Euty­chianus, did there more illustrate it self: for the Prison doors opened of their own accord, whilst the Keepers of the Prison had the keyes in their custody: and when Eutychianus, together with Auxanon, had entred the Prison, and a great a­mazement had seized those that were present, [Page 227] the chains fell from the Prisoners [members] of their own accord. Afterwards [Eutychi­anus] together with his companion Auxano travelled to the City heretofore named Byzan­tium, but afterwards called Constantinople, and being admitted into the Imperial Pallace, he freed the Prisoner from [the danger of] death. For the Emperour, having a great respect for Euty­chianus, readily granted his request. This was done after [those times which we are now giving an account of.] But then, the Bishops that were present at the Synod, after they had drawn up in writing some things, which they usually term Canons, returned to their respective Cities. More­over, I look upon it as a thing advantagious to such as are studious of History, to insert here those Bishops names (as many of them as we were able to find,) that were convened at Nice, as also [the name of] the Province and City over which every one of them did preside, and likewise the time wherein they were assembled. We per­fected this place by the assistance of the Flo­rentine and Sfortian M. SS. For in the com­mon Edi­tions of So­crates, after these words [ [...], Hosius Bishop of Corduba,] followed these [ [...], Vito and Vincentius.] But those incompa­rable M. SS. exhibited this place entire to us, after this manner: [...], &c. i. e. Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain. I do believe as it is before written. Vito and Vin­centius Presbyters of Rome, &c. This is the series of the Bishops who subscribed the Nicene Council; which Socrates transcribed from Athanasius's Synodicon, as he himself attests hereafter. In the Greek collections of the Canons this series is wanting, nor is it extant in Dionysius Exiguus's Version. But in that ancient collection lately pub­lished at Paris, (which the Western Church heretofore made use of, before Dionysius's Version) and in Isidorus's collection, this series occurs almost in the same words. In that ancient collection the words are these: Et subscripserunt. Osius Episco [...]us civitatis Cordu­bensis, Provinciae Spaniae dixit: ita credo sicut superius scriptum est. Victor & Vincentius Presbyteri urbis Romae. Alexander Alexandriae magna. Alph [...]cration, &c. i. e. And they subscribed. Osius Bishop of the City Corduba, in the Province of Spain said: I believe so, as it is above written. Victor and Vincentius Presbyters of the City of Rome. Alexander of Alexandria the great▪ Alphocration, &c. The words in Isidorus's Collection are almost the same. But in Athana­sius's Synodicon, Eustathius Bishop of Antioch and Macarius Bi­shop of Jerusalem are placed after Alexander Bishop of Alexan­dria. Vales. Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain. I do be­lieve as is before written. Athanasius makes mention of this Vito the Presbyter, in His Apologetick against the Arians, and attests, that a Roman Synod con­sisting of fifty Bishops (by whom he was received into communion) was convened in his Church. Vales. Vito and Vincen­tius Presbyters of Rome. Alexander [Bishop] of Aegypt. Eustathius [Bishop] of Antioch the Great. Macarius [Bishop] of Jerusalem. In the Latine collections of the Canons, Harpocration is stiled Bishop of Naucratis, and next to him is set Adamantius Cyno­polites, or Cynensis, as it is in that forementioned ancient col­lection. Vales. Har­pocration [Bishop] of Cynopolis. And the rest whose names are particularly and fully set forth in the This book of Athanasius's is not now (to my know­ledge) extant. But 'tis probable that the names of the Bi­shops who subscribed the Nicene Council, were translated out of that book. Vales. Synodicon of Athanasius Bishop of A­lexandria. And the time when this Synod was convened was (as we found it in the [...] (the term that occurs here) imports the notation (or express declaration) of the time usually prefixt before publick Acts. In the Greek collection of the Canons (which Joannes Tilius first published) the notation of the time is prefixt, thus: [...] i. e. The Canons of the 318. Holy Fathers, convened at Nice, in the Consulate of the most illustrious Paulinus and Julianus, on the 636th year from Alexander, on the nineteenth day of the month Desius, before the thirteenth of the Calends of July. Vales. Nota­tion of the time prefixt before the Synod) in the consulate of Paulinus and Julianus, on the It is o­therwise in the Greek collection, which Ti­ctius publi­shed, (see the forego­ing note.) For 'tis said that the Synod was convened on the ninteenth day of the month Desius (which the Romans call June) on the thirteenth of the Calends of July. Which is confirmed by the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle, by the Chalcedon Council, and by that Latine collection which Baronius calls Cresconiana, which account I think is the truest. For, should we suppose that the Council of Nice was as­sembled on the twentieth day of May, there would be too narrow a space of time left for the transacting of those affairs which Constan­tine did after his vanquishing of Licinius. Licinius was subdued in the last Engagement at Chalcedon, in the year of Christ 324, on the ▪15th of the Calends of October, as 'tis recorded in Fastis Idatii, and in the Alexandrian Chronicle: on the day following Licinius (who made his escape to Nicomedia) yielded himself to Constantine the conque­rour. After this Constantine made his entry into Nicomedia▪ whilst he continued there, and hastned to make his Progress into the Eastern parts, a messenger arrived, declaring to him the dissention of the Alexandrian Church, and of all Egypt, upon account of Arius's Opinion, and the disturbances of the Melitians, as himself attests in his Epistle to Alexander and Arius. And first he sends Hosius with his Letters to Alexandria, that he might compose those differences by his authority. But Hosius, after he had staied a little while at Alexandria▪ returns to Constantine without effecting his business. All this could in no wise have been done in a shorter space of time than three months. Moreover, Constantine perceiving the mischief to increase daily, resolves upon calling a general Council of Bishops, that he might thereby restore peace to the Church. Upon this account he dispatcht away Couriers throughout all the Provinces, to convene the Bishops at Nice in Bythinia. Suppose therefore, that the Couriers delivered the Emperours Letters to every one of the Bishops in the month of March: it is scarce credible, that the Bishops could come from the remotest regions, as well of the East as of the West, to Bi­thynia, before the month July: especially since they came by land, and not by water, as Eusebius attests, book 3. chap. 6. De Vitâ Constant. See Vales. notes on Euseb. Life of Constant. book 3. chap. 14. twentieth day of the month of May; that was the After these words [the Six hundredth thirty six year from the reign of Alexander the Macedonian] Leo Allat. M. S. adds these [and it was the nineteenth year from the beginning of the reign of Constantine the Emperour,] which is very true. For when Paulinus and Iulianus were Consuls, (which was on the 325th year of Christ,) the Nicen [...] Synod was (according to Socrates's Opinion) assembled in May. it being then the nineteenth year of Constantines reign. His twentieth year began the same year, about the end of July following. Vales. Six hundredth thirty six year from the reign of Alexander the Macedonian. Thus the Synod was concluded. We must also take no­tice, that after [the dissolution of] this Synod, the Emperour took his Progress into the Western parts [of his Empire.]

CHAP. XIV. That Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis Bishop of Nice (who had been banished because they were abettors of Arius's Opinion,) having afterwards sent a Libell of Repentance, and a­greed to the exposition of the Faith, were re­admitted to their Sees.

MOreover, Socrates has obser­ved no or­der here. For he says, that Eusebius and Theognis were recalled from banishment almost be­fore he had told us they were exiled. Sozomen therefore did better, who in this particular corrected Socrates's relation. For, in the first book of his History, chap. 21▪ he relates that Eusebius and Theognis were banisht by the Emperour Constantine a little after the Synod, and that other Bishops were put into their Sees. Then, in his second book chap. 16. he declares how they were recalled from their banishment. From which passage (that I may make this remark by the by) it may be concluded, that Sozomen wrote his History after Socrates, in as much as he corrects and amends Socrates's narration in many places. Further, Eusebius and Theognis were banisht three months after the Nicene Synod, as Philostorgius attests: and returned from their exil [...] (as the said Philostorgius relates) in the third year after that Synod▪ that is, in the year of Christ 328. which account agrees exactly with the History of affaires transacted in that time. For all Historians agree that Eusebius, upon his return from banishment, entertained thoughts of confirming Arius's Opinion, and of thrusting out those that asser­ted the Nicene Faith. And, that his first attack was made against Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, whom he caused to be expell'd [from his See] by seigned calumnies, in the year of Christ 329, or 330. Baronius therefore did ill, to place Eusebius Nicomediensis's return from exile on the year of Christ 330. Vales. Eusebius and Theognis, Baronius (at the year of Christ 325.) reproves Socrates and Sozomen, for saying, that Eusebius and Theognis were banisht a little after the Nicene Synod▪ [...] and that some few years after (having sent a Libell of satisfaction to the most eminent Bishops) they were re­called from their exile. Baronius endeavours to prove, that this Libell was presented by Eusebius to the Bishops in the Nicene Synod. For he asserts, that the rule of Faith was first written; which Eusebius Nicomediensis (with four other Bishops) refused to subscribe: but, that the said Eusebius, having afterwards presented a Libell of satis­faction, did subscribe what had been determined [in the Synod.] But, after this, when the Synod had Anathematized Arius, Eusebius and Theo­gnius (says he) would not subscribe this Anathematism; and for that reason they were condemned and deposed, by the Synod, and Amphion and Chrestus were put into their Sees. But the Emperour Constantine (continues he) interceded that the sentence might not be put in execu­tion, and perswaded the Synod that they should admit of Eusebius and Theognius upon their presenting a Libell of Repentane. This is Baro­nius's opinion. But he is out, first, in saying that there were two Libells presented by Eusebius: for of the former Libell no body has ever made mention. Secondly, he cites no authour for what he says concerning Eusebius's and Theognius's deprivation and condemnation done in the Nicene Council. Constantine (in his Epistle to the Nicomedians, the latter part of which Epistle in Greek the reader may meet in Theo­doret. Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 20; it occurs entire at the close of Gelasius Cyzicenus's 3d book pag. 217.) says not that it was then done, but only says, that Eusebius was afraid it would be done. Lastly, his saying that a Libell of Repentance was presented by Eusebius in the Nicene Synod, is manifestly refuted from the Libell it self. For this Libell was presented by Eusebius, when he was in banishment, as is attested by these words of it, [...], &c. i. e. and by this Libell do fully declare and con­firm our consent; [which we are induced to do] not because we look upon our exile to be tedious, &c. Besides, this Libell was sent, when Arius was recalled from banishment; which is apparent from these words, [...], &c. i. e. But it would be absurd (since he that seemed to be guilty is recalled and has made his defence in reference to, &c. Moreover, Arius was recalled from banishment by Constantine long enough after the Nicene Synod. &c. Vales. having sent a Libell of Repentance to the most emi­nent Bishops, were by an Imperial order recalled from exile, and restored to their own Churches: [Page 228] those who had been Ordained in their places being removed by them; Eusebius [put out] Amphion, and Theognis [removed] Chrestus. This is a Copy of their Libell.

We having been sometime since In as much as Eusebius and Theog­nius do say in the beginning of this Epistle, that they were condemned by the Bishops; it is worth our making an inquiry, when and where they were condemned. Baronius says they were condemned and deposed in the Nicene Synod. But this is contradicted by St Jerom's autority; who, in his Dialogue against the Luciferiani, does in express words attest, that Eusebius and Theognius (with other Bishops of the Arian faction) were admitted of by the Nicene Synod. And this he proves both from the testimony of those that were present at the Synod, and also from the very Acts of the Nicene Synod; in which, amongst the names of those Bishops who subscribed the Synod, Eusebius and the others I have mentioned are reckoned. The same is attested by Philostorgius, who says that Eusebius was banisht about three months after the Nicene Synod. Since therefore Eusebius and Theognius do confess themselves to have been condemned by the Bishops, and since 'tis manifest that was not done in the Nicene Synod; it must necessarily have been done in some other meeting of the Bishops. The reason of their being exiled, Constantine does declare in his Epistle to the Nicomedians, (the latter part whereof see in Therodoret. Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 20.) For he says, that he banished them, because they entertained certain Hereticks, (whom he had com­manded to be sent to his Court from the City Alexandria,) and held communion with them. (Baronius, at the year of Christ 329, thinks these Hereticks were Melitians. But I do rather believe they were Arians: and this is expresly affirmed by the Egyptian Bishops, in their Synodick Epistle, which Athanasius has recorded in his second Apology against the Arians.) For this reason therefore Constantine ordered a Synod of some Bishops to be convened, by whom Eusebius and Theognius were condemned and deposed, after which the Em­perour banished them. This is expresly affirmed by Athanasius (in his book De Synodis,) and by Theodoret (book 1. chap. 19. Eccles. Hist.) Vales. condemned by your Piety, Christophorson and Musculus omitted these words [ [...], without having our cause declared or defended] in their Version. They occur in Sozomen (book 2. chap. 16.) and Epiphan. Scholasticus has rendred them thus: Du [...]um quidem ante judicium condemnati à Reverenti [...] vestrâ, patienter ferr [...] quae decreta sunt a sancto vestro con­cilio debuimus; i. e. Having been sometime since condemned by your Reverence before judgment, we ought patiently to bear what is decreed by your holy Council. By these words Eusebius seems to intimate, that he was condemned without being heard, and by a rash judgment, or prejudice: to wit, because the Emperour had condemned him before, who was angry with Eusebius for several reasons, which you may meet with in Constantine's Epistle to the Nicomedians; see Theo­doret. Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 20. Vales. without having our cause de­clared or defended, ought quietly to bear what has been determined by your holy discretion. But because 'tis absurd, by silence to give an oc­casion of calumny against our selves, for this reason we declare to you, that we have both unanimously agreed to the [determination about the] Faith, and also (after we had made researches into the notion of Homöousios,) with our utmost earnestness laboured for Peace, having never been followers of any Heresie. And when we had suggested whatever came into our minds upon account of the Churches security, and had fully satisfied those that ought to be perswaded by us, we subscribed the Faith, but have not subscribed the Anathematism; not that we had any thing to object against the Faith, but because we did not believe the person accused to be such a one [as he was represented to be;] having been fully satisfied that he was no such person, partly from the private Letters written to us by him, and partly from the discourses he made in our presence. The meaning of these words is this. If we then sa­tisfied your holy Coun­cil (to wit, the Ni­cene) and perswaded it to think, that we had just cause for our be­ing unwil­ling to sub­scribe the Anathe­matism, now we fully com­pleat our consent, and are ready to subscribe as well the A­nathema­tism as the form of the Creed. You see how much the adding of these two words [then and now] would enlighten this place. Vales. But if your holy Council was [then] satisfied, we [now] make no resistance, but agree to what you have determined, and by this Libell do fully declare and confirm our consent; [which we are induced to do] not because we took upon our exile▪ to be tedious and burdensom, but that we might avoid the suspicion of Heresie. For if you shall now vouchsafe to let us return to your presence, you shall find us to be of the same Opinion with you in all points, and quietly to adhere to what you have de­termined: since it hath seemed good to your piety, gently to treat even Arius. him, who is ac­cused for these things, and to That is attributed here to the Bishops, which had been done by the Emperour. For the Emperour, not the Bishops, had recalled Arius from his exile. But writers do usually speak thus; assigning that to the Bishops, which was the Emperours deed; and on the contrary, that to the Emperour which the Bishops did. So Socrates said above, that the Nicene Synod forbad Arius to enter Alexandria; whenas this was the Emperours doing, as appears from his Epistle. Vales. recall him from banishment. But it would be absurd (since he that seemed to be guilty is recalled, and has made his defence in reference to those things laid to his charge,) that we should be silent, and muster up an argument against our selves. Do you therefore vouchsafe (as it befits your piety that loves Christ) to remind our Emperour most dear to God, to offer up our supplications to him, and speedily to determine concerning us as shall be most agreeable to your [prudence.]

This is the Libell of Eusebius and Theognius's recantation. From the words whereof I con­jecture, that they subscribed the Faith which had been publisht [in the Council;] but would not give their consent to the deposing of Arius: and it appears hence, that Arius was recalled [from banishment] before them: but although this seems to be so, yet he was forbid to enter Alexandria. Which is evident from this, [to wit] that he afterwards invented a way for his own return into the Church and the City Alexan­dria, by having made use of a counterfeited repen­tance, as we shall relate in its due place.

CHAP. XV. That Alexander dying after the [Nicene] Synod, Athanasius was consecrated Bishop of the City Alexandria.

Socrates (as also Sozomen) Mistakes here in placing A­lexander's death, and Athansius's Ordination after Eu­sebius's and Theognis's return from exile. For Alexander Bi­shop of Alexandria dyed within five months after the Council of Nice, as Athanasius testifies in his second Apology against the A­rians, where he speaks of Me­litius. The same says Theodoret, in the first book of his History, chap. 26. Alexander therefore dyed in the year of Christ 325. and Athanasius was Consecrated either at the latter end of the same year, or in the beginning of the next. Vales. SOon after, upon the death of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius was pro­moted to the presidency over that Church. Ru­finus relates, that this person, when he was very young, did, together with those that were his equals in age, play at a kind of an holy sport: this play was an imita­tion of the sacerdotal fun­ction, and of those persons order that were Clergy men. In this sport therefore A­thanasius was elected Bishop, and every one of the rest of the children acted either a Presbyter, or a Deacon. This sport the children plaid at on that day, whereon was celebrated the Memory of Peter the Martyr and Bi­shop. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria accidentally passing by at that time, saw all their play. And, having afterwards sent for the children, he enquir'd of them what place had been allotted to every one of them in the play, supposing that from what had been done some thing might be portended [concerning each of them.] And he gave order, that the children should be educated in the Church and instructed in learning; but most especially A­thanasius. Afterwards when he was come to a maturity of age, he ordain'd him Deacon, and took him along with him to Nice, that he might assist him in the disputations there, at such time as that Synod was convened. These things Ru­finus has related concerning Athanasius, in his See Ru­finus's Ec­cles. Hist. book 1. chap. 14. where Ru­finus adds this circumstance to this story; that the boys (upon Alexanders en­quiry) confessed some Catechumens had been Baptized by Athanasius, whom they had chosen Bishop in their sports. Then Alexander, having demanded of those said to be baptized, what questions they had been asked, and what answers they made, and also having ex­amined him who had asked them the questions; found that all things had been done according to the rites of our Religion: and, after a confult with his Clergy, 'tis said, he ordered, that those boys (on whom water had been poured, after they were perfectly questioned, and had returned compleat answers) should not be rebaptized, &c. See Rufinus at the book and chapter now cited. books [of Ecclesiastick History:] nor is it at all unlikely that these things hapned: for many such like acts are frequently found to have been done. Thus much we have hitherto said con­cerning Athanasius.

CHAP. XVI. How the Emperour Constantine, having enlarged the City heretofore call'd Byzantium, named it Constantinople.

THe Emperour, after the [dissolution of the] Council spent his time in delight and plea­sure. As soon therefore as he had finished the publick Festivities of his That is, the Festi­vals for his having ar­rived to the twentieth year of his Empire. Vicennalia, he forth­with imployed himself very diligently about re­edifying and erecting of Churches. This he did as well in other Cities, as in that that bore his own name. Which City, being formerly call'd Byzantium, he very much enlarged; he encom­passed it with magnificent walls, and beautified with several Edifices; and having made it equal to the Imperial City Rome, This place, which was corrupted and obseured by an ill distinction, we have illustrated and restor'd, by blotting out the particle [...]; which particle is not to be found either in the Florent. or Sforti. M. S. our correction is also con­firm'd by Epiphanius Scholasti­cus's Version, who thus translates the passage, Et denominatam Con­stantinopolim, appellari secundam Romam lege firmavit. Vales. he named it Con­stantinople, and did by a Law establish that it should be call'd New Rome. Which Law was engraven on a pillar of stone, and Instead of [ [...] was set, or placed] it should be [ [...], was exposed, or erected. This emendation is confirmed by Epiphan. Scholasticus's Version. Vales. exposed to the publick view, being erected in the The Strategium was a pub­lick edifice wherein the Strategi, (i. e. the Duumviri, the two prin­cipal Magistrates that hereto­fore governed the City Byzan­tium) were wont to sit. It is mentioned in the old description of the City Constantinople, which is prefixt before the Notitia Im­perii Romani. Vales. Strategium, neer to the Emperours Statue on horseback. He also founded two Churches in the same City, the one of which he named Irêne, and the other he called the Apostles: nor did he only improve and enlarge the affaires of the Chri­stians, as I have said, but did also subvert [the super­stition] of the Gentiles. For [he took their] ima­ges [out of their Temples] and set them up in the most publick places, that they might serve to beautifie the City Constantinople: he al­so expos'd the Delphick Tri­pods openly in the Hippo­drome. But it will perhaps seem superfluous to mention these things now. For they are sooner beheld with the eyes, than the relation of them can be heard. But at that time the Christian Religion was mightily propa­gated and increased. For the divine Providence did (amongst other things) reserve that more especially for the times of Constantine: And thus has Eusebius Pamphilus in a magnifick stile re­corded the praises of this Emperour. But yet we judge it not unseasonable for us to speak briefly of them, according to our ability.

CHAP. XVII. How Helena, the Emperours Mother, came to Jeru­salem, and having there found Christs Cross, which she had sought for a long time, built a Church.

HElena the Emperours Mother, (from whose name Drepanum, which was formerly only a Village, but made a City by the Emperour, was call'd Helenopolis) being admonished by God in her dreames, travell'd to Jerusalem. And when she found that place which was formerly Jerusalem, desolate (as the Prophet predicted) See Esa [...]. 1. 8. where the Septua­gint Ver­sion is, [...]; which, in our En­glish tran­slation is thus wor­ded, as a lodge in a Garden of Cucumbers; which ren­dition does exactly a­gree with the origi­nal He­brew. like a lodge [set up] to preserve apples, she searched diligently for Christs Sepulchre wherein he was buried, and whence he arose, and though with great difficulty, yet by God's assistance [...]he found it out. What was the reason of this dif­ficulty, I will in few words explain. Those that embraced Christs Doctrine, did after the time of his Passion pay an high respect to that mo­nument. But the Heathens who abhorred the Christian Religion, having covered the place with an heap of earth, erected thereon a Temple to Venus, and set up her image there, designing wholly to suppress the memory of that place. And this plot of theirs had for a long time succeeded. But the Emperours Mother had notice hereof. Wherefore, having thrown down the image, re­mov'd the earth, and wholly cleared the place, she finds three Crosses in the monument: one of [Page 230] them was that blessed Cross on which our Saviour had hung: the other two were those, on which the two thieves, that were crucified with him, had dyed. There was also found with the Crosses Pilates Title, whereon he had written in divers Languages, and proclaim'd that that Christ who was crucified, was the King of the Jews. But in regard 'twas dubious which of these was the Cross that was searched for, the Emperours Mo­ther was not a little troubled hereat. This trou­ble the Bishop of Jerusalem, by name Macarius, soon eased her of; and by [the power of] his faith cleared the doubt. For he requested a sign of God and obtained it; the sign was this. A certain woman of that vicinage, having been oppressed with a tedious and lasting distemper, was now just at the point of death. The Bishop therefore commanded every one of the Crosses to be appli'd to her now expiring, being perswa­ded in himself that if the woman were toucht by the pretious Cross [of the Lord] she should recover. Nor was his hope frustrated. For the two Crosses which were not our Lords being applied, the woman nevertheless continued in her dying condition; but when the third, the true and genuine Cross was applied, the dying woman immediately recovered and was made whole. After this manner was the Cross found out: the Emperours Mother erected over the place where the Sepulchre was, a most magni­ficent Church, and call'd it Socrates borrow'd this story out of Eusebius's third book of Constantin's Life, chap. 33. But mistakes in saying that the Church which was built over our Saviours Sepulchre by He­lena, or rather by Constantine, was call'd New Jerusalem. For Eusebius says no such thing: but he only alludes to the new Je­rusalem, which is mentioned in Saint John's Revelations. See our notes on Euseb. Life of Con­stant. book 3. chap. 33. Vales. New Jerusalem, buil­ding it opposite to that old deserted Jerusalem, she left there one half of the Cross, inclosed in a silver case, as a relique to be seen by those that should desire it. The other half she sent to the Emperour, which when he had receiv'd, being fully per­swaded that that City would be perfectly secure wherein such a [relique] as this was preserv'd, he hid it with­in his own Statue, Philostorgius does report that the people us'd to come to this Pillar with their Tapers and worship it; which is very strange and almost incredible: but The­odoret does by his authority con­firm it, in the first book of his Ecclesiastick History and the last chapter. Vales. which is erected upon a vast Pil­lar of Porphyrie in Constan­tinople, in the Forum, call'd from him Constantin's Forum. This story I have recorded as it has been related to me; but almost all the inhabitants of Constantinople do affirm it to be true. Constantine having also received the Nailes with which Christs hands were fastned to the Cross; (for his mother, having found them also in the Sepulchre, sent them to him:) he ordered Bri­dles and a Helmet to be made of them, which he made use of in his Military expeditions. More­over, the Emperour gave large supplies of all man­ner of materials towards the building of the Chur­ches: and wrote to Macarius the Bishop to hasten the work. The Emperours Mother, having fini­shed the New Jerusalem, built another Church in no wise inferiour in splendour to the former, in the Cave at Bethlehem, which was the place of Christs Birth according to the flesh: Besides, [she erected another Church] upon the mount, from whence he was taken up into heaven. And she was so religiously and piously affected to­wards these things, that she would pray in the womens company together with others: she also invited, those Virgins that were enroll'd in the catalogue of the Churches to an entertainment. Where she her self waited, and brought the meat to the Tables. Besides she was very liberal both to the Churches, and also to the indigent. [In fine,] having spent her life very piously, she dyed about the eightieth year of her age: and her body was conveyed to the Imperial City New Rome, and deposited amongst the Imperial Mo­numents.

CHAP. XVIII. How the Emperour Constantine abolished Gen­tilism, and erected many Churches in several places.

AFter this, the Emperour, becoming more solicitous about [the propagation of] Christianity, abhorred the superstitions of the Gentiles: and first He abolished the combats of the Gladiators: afterwards he placed his own Statues in the Temples. The Heathens affirming that it was Serapis that caused the inundations of Nile whereby the fields of Egypt were watered, because there was a Cubit usually carried into his Temple, the Emperour Christophorson and Muscul [...] thought that these words were transposed; they read them (as appears from their Version) thus, [...], [the Emperour] or­dered that the Cubit should be re­moved into the Church of the Alexandrians. But, because the word [ [...]] cannot be taken in a passive sense the place must be otherwise mended: which from the Sfortian M. S. we have thus restored: [...]; [the Emperour] ordered Alexander to remove the Cubit into the Church [of the Alexandrians.] Which emendation needs no confirmati­on. See Rufin. Eccles. Hist. book 2▪ chap. 23. This order of Constan­tines lasted not long. For Julian commanded that the same Cu­bit should be carried back again into Serapis's Temple, where it seems to have continued till Theodosius's reign, and the de­molishment of Scrapis's Temple▪ Vales. ordered Alexander, to re­move the Cubit into the Church [of the Alexan­drians,] hereupon 'twas ge­nerally reported, that, be­cause Serapis was disgusted, the Nile would not over­flow; nevertheless, there hapned an inundation on the ensuing year, and after­wards, which also does con­tinue to this day: And thus it was really demonstrated, that the inundation of the Nile hapned not by the meanes of their superstition, but by the decree of Provi­dence. About the same time, those barbarous na­tions, the Sarmatae and the Goths, made inroades into the Roman territories, and yet the Emperours forward­ness in building of Churches was not in the least inter­rupted thereby, but he made a commodious provision for both those affairs. For, having put his confidence in the He means that Standard, or Banner, which the Emperour ordered to be made, in figure like to the Cross that appeared to him in the face of the heavens. See chap. 2▪ of this book. Christian Banner, he totally subdued those his enemies; in so much that he took off the tribute of Gold which had been customarily paid to the Barbarians by those Emperours who were his predecessours; and that was the first time that they (being astonished at their prodigious overthrow) were perswaded to embrace the Christian Religion, by which Constantine had been every where preserv'd. Again, he erected other Churches: one he built at that place called the Oak of Mambre, under which the sacred Scriptures tell us that the Angels were entertained by Abraham. For the Emperour being inform'd that altars were erected under that Oak, and, that Pagan sacrifices were there perform'd; by his Letter he severely reproved Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea: and gave com­mand that the altar should be demolished, and an house of prayer erected neer that Oak. He also gave order for the building of another Church, in Heliopolis, a City of Phaenicia, for [Page 231] this reason. What manner of Law-maker the Citi­zens of Heliopolis originally had, or what person he was as to his morals, I cannot certainly tell. But his disposition is sufficiently demonstrated from that City: For the Law of their country has commanded that the women should be com­mon among them, upon which account the chil­dren amongst them could not be known whose they were. For there was no distinction be­twixt the parents and the children. Their Vir­gins they delivered to strangers that arrived a­mongst them, that they might deflower them. The Emperour made it his business to abolish this custom, which had so long prevailed amongst them. For having abrogated the flagitiousness of those unclean usages by a discreet and chast Law, he brought them to know and distinguish be­twixt families: And when he had built Churches, he took care that a Bishop should be ordained over them, and a sacred Clergy. Thus he re­form'd the impious usages of the Heliopolites, and made them more modest and civil. After the like manner also he demolisht the Temple of Venus at Aphaca neer [the mount] Libanus, and abrogated those impudent and obscene▪ My­steries there celebrated. What need I relate how he expelled that Devil who pretended to utter Prophecies, out of Cilicia, commanding the house in which he lurked, to be demolished even to its very foundations. Moreover, so ardent was the Emperours love for the Christian Religion, that being about to ingage in a war with the Persians, he provided a tabernacle made of linen painted with divers colours, much resembling a Church (even as Moses did in the wilderness) and this he would have carried about with him, that so in the most desert regions he might have an Oratory ready. But this war went no further at that time: for it hapned to be immediately extin­guished through the fear which the Persians had conceiv'd of the Emperour. But I think it un­seasonable to relate here how diligent the Em­perour Constantine was in repairing Cities, and how he turned many Villages into Cities; as for instance, Drepane, which bore his mothers name, and Constantia in Palestine, so called from his Sisters name Constantia. For our design is not to recount all the Emperours actions, but them only which belong to the Christian Religion, and those more particularly which were done about the Churches. Wherefore, the Emperours fa­mous exploits, in regard they are of a subject different [from mine,] and require a peculiar treatise, I leave to others, that are able to com­mit to writing such matters. Indeed, I my self, had the Church continued undisturbed by factions and discord, had been wholly silent. For where the subject affords not matter proper for a narrative, the relators words are superfluous and useless. But in regard a subtile, vain, and insignificant craftiness in disputing hath disturbed, and at the same time also dissipated and distra­cted the Apostolick faith of Christianity, I sup­posed it requisite to commit these things to writing, that so those affaires which have been transacted in the Churches, might not be buried in silence. For the knowledge of these things does both procure great praise and commendation a­mongst most men, and also renders him that is well versed therein much more solid and cau­tious; teaching him not to fluctuate or stag­ger [in his sentiments,] when any [...]; See 1 Tim. 6. 20. vain bab­blings about words and terms shall happen to arise.

CHAP. XIX. After what manner the Innermost Indian Nations were in the times of Constantine converted to Christianity.

NOw therefore we must record, how the Chri­stian Religion was propagated in the times of this Emperour. For the innermost Indians, and the Iberians did then first embrace the Christian Faith. But we will briefly explain, what we mean by the addition of this term, the Innermost. When the Apostles about to take their journey to the Heathens, in order to their preaching to them, had by lot divided them amongst themselves, See book 3. chap. 1. of Eu­sebius's Ecclesiastick History: to which add this place of an anony­mous Author out of the second Homily upon Matthew. Denique cum post resurrectionem Domin [...] Thomas Apostolus isset in Provin­ciam i [...]am, ad [...]ncti sunt [...]i: & baptisati ab eo, sacti sunt adjutores praedicationis illius: meaning the Persian Magi. Vales. Thomas received the Apo­stolate of the Parthians. To Matthew was allotted Ae­thiopia. Bartholomew had that India assign'd to him which lyes upon the con­fines of Aethiopia. But this innermost India which is in­habited by several barbarous Nations, who make use of different languages, was not enlightned with the doctrine of Christianity, before the times of Constantine. What was the cause of their embracing the Christian Religion, I come now to relate. One Meropius, a Philo­sopher, by birth a Tyrian, made it his business to see the Country of the Indians, emulating herein This is Metrodorus the Philo­sopher, whom Je­rome has mentioned in his Chro­nicon; who, returning from his travails in India, presented Con­stantine with many gemms and pea [...]ls, and feigned that many more of greater value were taken from him by Sapor King of the Persians: which lie of his was the occasion of the Persian war, as Am. Marcellinus attests, book 25. pag. 295. Edit. Vales. See Vale­sius's notes on Amm. Mar [...]ll. pag. 304. Metrodorus the Philosopher, who a little before him had travelled over that same Country. Meropius therefore taking along with him two youths that were related to him, who were in no wise unskilled in the Greek language, arrived in this Countrey in a Ship. And having seen what he desired, in order to his procuring▪ necessary provi­sions, he put to land at a place which had a safe com­modious harbour. It hap­ned, that a little before [his arival there] the league betwixt the Romans and Indians had been broken. The Indians therefore took the Philosopher, and those that were in the Ship with him, and put them all to death, except his two young kinsmen. Having saved the lives of the two youths, out of a compassion to their age, they presented them to the King of the In­dians. He, much pleased with the young mens lookes, made the one of them, whose name was Aedesius, the Cup bearer of his Table: to the other, whose name was Fru­mentius, he Rationes suas scriniaque com­mi [...]it; so Rufinus (from whom Socrates translated this story al­most word for word) describes this young mans Office; book 1. chap. 9. Hist. Ecclesiast. committed the custody of his accounts and evidences royal. Not long after this, the King dying (having left behind him a Son to be his successour, who was a minor, and his wife,) gave these two young men their liberty. But the Queen, seeing her Son left in his minority, spoke to these two persons to take care of him, till such time as he should come to maturity of age. The young men, in obedience to the Queen, un­dertake the management of the Kings business. But Frumentius was the chief person in managing the affairs of State. And he was very earnest in [Page 232] enquiring of the Roman Merchants who then came to trade in that country, whether there were any that embraced Christianity to be found a­mongst them. Having found some, and informed them who he was, he exhorted them to make choice of Transla­tours un­derstood not this place. For Muscu­lus renders it thus. Ut separatis lo­cis uteren­tur, that they should make use of separate places. Chri­stophorson thus, ut lo­ca sepera­tim [...]ibi su­merent, that they should take to themselves places seve­rally. In this chapter Socrates has tran­slated Ru­sinus (book 1. chap. 9. Ecclesiast. Hist.) al­most word for word; and calls those [...], which Rufinus had termed Conventicula. Now Conventicula are properly private places wherein Collects, or short prayers are made; and from these places Churches are distinguished, which belong to the right of the publick, and are not in the power of any private person. Vales. some private meeting places for the performance of prayers therein, after the manner of Christians. Afterwards, within some short interval of time he built an oratory▪ and they▪ having instructed some Indians in the principles of Christianity, brought them to prayers with them. But afterwards, when the young King came to a maturity of age, Frumentius resigning to him the administration of the affairs of the Kingdom, which he had well managed, petitioned for leave to return into his own Countrey. And though the King and his mother entreated him to stay, yet they could not perswade him, but being de­sirous to see his own Countrey, he, together with Aedesius, returned home. Aedesius hastened to Tyre to see his Parents and Kindred: but Fru­mentius arriving at Alexandria, related the whole story to Athanasius, Rufinus says the same: Tum vero Athanasius (nam is nuper sacerdotium susceperat,) i. e. But then Athanasius (for he had a little before undertaken the Episcopate, &c.) But if we consider the matter more attentively, these things cannot be. For Meropius the Philoso­pher is said to have travelled into India, in imitation of the Phi­losopher Metrodorus, who had taken a view of that Country before him. But Metrodorus, returned not from his Indian journey before the year of Christ 325. For at his return from India he presented the Emperour Constantine with gifts which he had received from the King of the Indians, as we remarked before in note (b.) in this chapter. Which must necessarily happen after the conquest of Licinius. For then Constantine first received the Empire of the East. Now Licinius was vanquished at the latter end of the year of Christ 324. Meropius therefore, in regard, following Metrodorus's example, he attempted to travell over India, must have undertaken this journey some years after him. Let us then suppose, that Meropius went into India in the year of our Lord 327. On the year following, when he should have returned into his own Country, he was slain by the Barbarians. And Aedesius and Frumentius, being as yet youths, were presented to the Indian King; and one of them was made his Cup-bearer; the other was set over his Acts and evidences Royal. In which Offices both continued to the Kings death. Now, suppose they served the King three years. After this the Indian King dies, leaving his Son very young. But the Queen his mother entreated Aedesius and Frumentius to undertake the Government of the Kingdome, till her Son were of age. Let us also allow that the Kings Son was about eight years old when his father died. In as much as Frumentius returned not to Alexandria till the young King was grown a man, it is wholly requisite that he should have managed the affairs of the Kingdom at least ten years. So Fru­mentius returned to Alexandria about the year of our Lord 341; in which year Athanasius was not newly made Bishop, but had held that Bishopricck above fifteen years. From what we have said 'tis apparent, that this conversion of the Indians by Frumentius hap­ned in the Reign of Constantius, not of Constantine, as Rufinus, and others that follow him, have related. Vales. who was then newly dig­nified with that Bishoprick; informing him of the circumstances of his travells, and that there was good grounds to hope that the Indians would embrace Christianity: [He also desired him] that he would send a Bishop and a Clergy thither, and that he ought in no wise to neglect those tha [...] might be brought unto salvation. Athanasius having taken into consideration what was most expedient to be done, entreated Frumentius him­self to take upon him the Bishoprick, telling him that there was no man better quallified for it than he. Which was done. Athanasius speaks of this Frumentius, in his Apologetick to the Emperour Constantius. And a little after mentions Constantius's Epistle to Aizanas and Sazanas the Kings of Auxumis, wherein he commands them to send Frumentius (whom Athanasius had or­dained Bishop of Auxumis) to Alexandria, to George Bishop of that City, that he might receive from him the doctrine of the true Faith, Whence it appears, that Frumentius was at that time but newly or­dained by Athanasius. Now this Epistle was written in the year of Christ 356. Baronius, (in his Annotations on the Roman Marty­rology.) says that this Frumentius Bishop of Auxumis must be diffe­renced from the other Frumentius Bishop of the Indians. But I do assert, that he that was Bishop of Auxumis, and he that is stiled the Bishop of the Indians, is one and the same Frumentius. For Auxu­mis is the Metropolis of Aethiopia. Now the Aethiopians are by the ancients usually confounded with the Indians. So Philostorgius calls the Homeritae (who were the Auxumites neighbours) Indians. Also, the Aethiopians who are now called Abyssines, call themselves Indians, and do acknowledge Frumentius to have been the Apostle of their Nation; as Lucas Holsteinius attests in his notes on Baronius's Martyrology, which were lately published at Rome. Vales. Frumentius therefore, dignified with an Episcopate, returns again to the Indians Country, and there became a preacher of the Christian Religion; he founded many ora­tories, and being vouchsafed [the assistance of] divine grace, he wrought many miracles, and cured many mens bodies together with their souls. These things Rufinus says he heard from Aedesius's own mouth, who was afterwards dig­nified with a Presbytership in the Church of Tyre.

CHAP. XX. After what manner the Iberians were converted to the Christian Religion.

IT is now a fit opportunity to relate after what manner the Iberians were at the same time converted to Christianity. A woman who led a religious and chast life, was, by the disposal of Divine Providence, taken captive by the Iberians. These Iberians dwell neer the Euxine Sea; they are a colony of the Iberians in Spain. This ca­ptive woman therefore, living amongst the Bar­barians, devoted herself to a Philosophick course of life. For together with the strictest and se­verest exercises of Chastity, she used herself to most tedious and lasting fasts, and to continued prayer. The Barbarians seeing this, were ama­zed at the strangeness and novelty of her actions. It hapned, that See Ru­finus, book 1. chap. 10. Eccles. Hist. Rufinus does not say, that this child was the Kings Son; but, mulier quaedam par [...]ulum suum, &c. a certain wo­man (say [...] he) car­ried about her son, &c. the Kings Son, being a very young child, fell sick. The Queen, according to the custom of that Countrey, sent the child about to other women to be cured: if perchance by long experience they might know of any cure for the distemper. When the young child had been carried about by his nurse, and could find no cure from any of the women, he was at last brought to this captive woman. She in the pre­sence of many women, applyed not any material remedy, for she had no knowledge of any such Medicines. But, having taken the child, she laid him upon her own bed, which was made of hair­cloath, and only spake these words: Christ (said she) who healed many, shall [...]lso cure this child. Having added a prayer to these words, and invoked Gods assistance, the child immediately recovered, and from that time was very well. The report hereof was noised abroad amongst the Barbarian women, it came also to the Queens ear; and the captive woman became more eminent. Not long af­ter the Queen, being fallen into a distemper, sent for the captive woman. She having refused to go by reason of her modesty and bashfull disposition, the Queen herself was conveyed to her. The captive woman does the same that she before had done to the child. And forthwith the sick Queen recovered, and returned her thanks to the woman. But she made her this answer, it is not I that do this, but Christ, who is the Son of that God, who made the world. She therefore exhorted the Queen to call [Page 233] upon him, and to acknowledge the true God. The King of the Iberians, amazed at the sudden­ness of her recovery from the disease, having en­quired who it was that did these cures, presented the captive woman with Gifts. She answered, that she stood not in need of wealth, for piety was her riches. But that she should accept it as the greatest present, if he would acknowledge that God who was set forth and declared by her. With this answer she returned his pre­sents. The King treasured up her words in his breast. The next day this accident befell the King going out a hunting: There fell a mist and a thick darkness upon the tops of the mountains and forrests where he was hunting, so that their sport was grown troublesome, and the way im­passable. The King being in a very great straight, earnestly implored [the assistance of] those Gods whom he worshipped: But finding he was never the better, at last he bethought himself of the captive-womans God, and calls upon him to be his assistant. He had no sooner prayed, but the darkness caused by the mist was dispersed. Admiring at what was done, he returned home with joy, and having told his Queen what had befallen him, he forthwith sent for the captive woman, and enquired of her who that God was, whom she worshipped. When the woman was come into his presence, she made the King of the Iberians to become a Preacher of Christ. For, having been perswaded by this devout woman to believe in Christ, he convened all the Iberians that were his Subjects; and when he had related to them all things concerning the cure of his wife and his child, and also what had befallen him in his hunting, he exhorted them to worship the God of the captive-woman. Thus therefore they both became Preachers of Christ, the King Preached to the men▪ and the Queen to the women. More­over, the King, informed by the captive woman of the fashion of those Churches amongst the Romanes, commanded an Oratory to be built; and ordered a provision of all materials towards the building to be forthwith made. Therefore a Church was erected; and when they went about raising of the Pillars, Divine Providence attempts somewhat that might perswade the in­habitants of that Country [to embrace] the Christian Faith. For one of the Pillars con­tinued immoveable. No engine could be invented, that was able to stir it. But the ropes were broken, and the engines torn in pieces. The work-men therefore, desponding and quite out of heart, went away. Then was the captive womans Faith openly manifested. For she goes by night to the place without any bodies know­ledge, and there stayed all night, spending the time in fervent prayer: and by Gods Providence the Pillar was raised, and stood fixt in the air, higher than its basis, in such a manner that it did not in the least touch its basis. Assoon as it was day, the King, Instead of [ [...], well skilled in Architecture] I had rather read [ [...], being very anxious.] I doubt not but Socrates wrote it thus. For in Ruflnus (book 1. chap. 10. from whom Socrates borrowed this relation) the words are these; cum ecce matutinus & anxius cum suis omnibus ingre­diens Rex, &c. when behold the King, perplexed in his mind, co­ming in the morning with all his attendants, &c. Vales. well skilled in architecture, came to the building, and sees the Pillar hanging in the air above its own basis. Both he himself, and all his atten­dants were amaz'd at what had happened, for a little while after in their sight the Pillar descended upon its own basis, and there stood fixt. Hereupon they all shouted, cried out that the Kings Faith was true, and celebrated the praises of the captive-womans God. After this they believed [in Christ] and raised up the rest of the Pillars with great alacrity of mind: and the whole building was in a short time perfectly finished. Afterwards an Embassie was sent from them to Constantine the Emperour, whereby they requested, that they might both in future be admitted to a confe­deracie with the Romans, and also have a Bishop and an holy Clergy sent to them. For they pro­tested that they did sincerely believe in Christ. This relation Rufinus says he had from The Sfort. Florent. and All at. M. SS. call this persons name Bac­curius. But in Rufinus, and others, his name is, more truly, Ba­curius. Zo­simus says he was born in that Armenia which borders on Iberia, and that he was a man without all malice, or deceit, very expert in Mi­litary affairs. But Rufinus (book 1. chap. 10. and book 2. chap. 33. Eccles. Hist.) affirms he was a Prince of the Iberi; that he was a person of great fidelity, very studious of Religion and Truth: first made a Captain within the limits of Palestine; afterwards Comes of the Do­mesticks; and lastly that he did Theodosius the Emperour great ser­vice in his war with Eugenius. Vales. See Valesius's notes on Amm. Marcell. pag. 430, &c. Bacurius, who had formerly been a Prince of Iberia: but afterwards coming over to the Romans, he was At this place Socrates mistook Rufinus's meaning. For Rufinus says that Bacurius was a Captain; Palestini limitis, of the Palestinian limit; when he told him these things. But Socrates seems to have read in Rufinus, Palestini militis ducem, that Bacurius was a Captain of the Palestinian milice. Vales. made a captain within the limits of Palestine. At length he was advanced to the Office of a General, and did the Emperour Theodosius ex­traordinary good service, in the Here also Socrates is out. For Bacurius served not Theodosius in the war against Maximus, but in that against Eugenius: as Rufinus attests, book 2. chap. 33. Eccles. Hist. and Zosimus, book 4. Vales. war against Maximus the Tyrant. After this manner were the Iberians converted to the Christian Religion in the times of Constantine.

CHAP. XXI. Concerning Antonius the Monk.

IT would be superfluous for us to say any thing concerning Antonius the Monk, who at the same time lived in the Deserts of Aegypt, [or to relate] what a man he was, how he openly strove with Devils, and detected all their stra­tagems and attempts; and how he wrought ma­ny miracles. For Athanasius Bishop of Alexan­dria has prevented us, having written a particular book concerning his Life: such a plenty of eminent men was there, who lived at one and the same time, in the reign of Constantine.

CHAP. XXII. Concerning Manes the Author of the Heresie of the Maniche [...]s, and whence he had his ori­ginal.

BUt it is usuall for cockle to grow up amongst the good corn, for the envy [of the Devil] loves to lay snares for the righteous. Not long before Constantines reign, there sprung up a kind of heathenish Christianity, together with the true Christian Religion, as heretofore false-Prophets arose up together with the Prophets, and Pseudo-Apostles amongst the Apostles. For in those days one Manichaeus attempted clandestinely to intro­duce the opinion of Empedocles the Heathen Philo­sopher, into Christianity. This man Eusebius Pamphilus indeed has mentioned, in the See Eu­sebius Ec­cles. Hist. book 7. chap. 31. seventh book of his Ecclesiastick History, but has not ac­curately [Page 234] explained all things concerning him. Wherefore I judge it requisite to supply what he has omitted. For thereby it will be manifested, who this Manichaeus was, whence he came, and how he arived at so high a degree of audaciousness. One Scythianus a Saracen, married a captive wo­man a native of the Upper Thebaïs. Upon her account he lived in Aegypt, and having been instructed in the Literature of the Aegyptians, he introduced the opinion of Empedocles and Py­thagoras into the Christian Religion: asserting that there were two natures, the one Good, the other Evil; (as Empedocles also did) the evil nature he termed Discord; the good he called Friendship. One Buddas, heretofore named Tere­binthus, was this Scythianus's Schollar. This man travelling into the Countrey of Babylonia, which is inhabited by the Persians, told many strange and prodigious things of himself, saying, that he was born of a Virgin, and educated in the moun­tains. Afterwards he wrote four books, one he entitled [the book] of Mysteries; another, the Gospel; the third he called the Thesaurus, and the fourth Heads. But as he was counter­fiting the performance of some mysterious sacred Rites, he was thrown down headlong by the Devil, and so died. The woman, at whose house he sojourned, buried him. She having possessed her self of his money, bought a boy, about seven years old, by name Cubricus: this boy she made free; and when she had bred him a Schol­lar, she died soon after, and le [...]t him all Terebin­thus's estate, and the books also which he had written, being instructed by Scythianus. Cubricus, now a free-man, takes these goods along with him, and travelling into Persia, changes his name, calling himself Manes. Where he distributed Buddas's, or Terebinthus's books, as his own ge­nuine works, amongst his seduced followers. Now these are the Subjects of those books, in the words they seemingly assert the Christian Religion, but [if] the opinions [contained in them be attentively considered] they are [neer a kin to] Gentilism. For Manichaeus, being an impious person, does incite [his disciples] to worship a plurality of Gods. He also teaches, that the It is most apparent that the Manichaeans adored the Sun. Li­banius relates the same concer­ning them, in book 4. Epist. 140. wherein he commends the Mani­chaeans that were in Palestine (but suppresses their name) to Priscianus the President of Pale­stine: [...], &c. i. e. Those men that worship the Sun without bloud, and honour God with the second appellation, who chastize their belly, and account the day of their death to be gain; are found to be in many places, but are every where few in number. They injure no man, but are mo­lested by some. I doubt not but by these words Libanius means the Manichaeans; for they cannot be agreeably attributed to any other persons besides them. But he designedly omitted the men­tion of their name, because the name of the Manichaeans was odi­ous. Concerning the feigned fasts of the Manichaeans, see Cyrill, in his sixth Cateches. Vales. Sun is to be a­dored. Besides, he intro­duces Fate, and destroys mans free-will. He appa­rently asserts a transmuta­tion of Bodies, following herein the opinions of Em­pedocles, Pythagoras, and the Aegyptians. He denies that Christ existed in the flesh, saying, that he was a meer That is, he had only the form or figure of a man; was ima­ginatily, not really such. Phantasm. He does also reject the Law and the Pro­phets: and calls himself the Paraclete. All which Tenets, tis manifest, are wholly disa­greeable to the orthodox [doctrine of the] Church. Moreover, in his Letters he has been so audacious as to stile himself an Apostle. But he met with a condign pu­nishment for this impudent lie of his, [which befell him] upon this occasion. The son of the King of Per­sia happened to fall sick; his Father, desirous to save the life of his son, left no stone unturn'd, as the common saying is. Having heard of Manichaeus, and supposing the wonders he did to be real and true, he sends for him as if he had been an Apostle, hoping that he might preserve his Sons life. When he was come, in a fictitious and pretended manner he takes in hand to cure the Kings son. But the King, seeing that his son died under his hands, clap't him in Prison, with a designe forthwith to put him to death. He made his escape [out of Prison] into Mesopotamia, and saved himself: But when the King of Persia had intelligence of his abode in those parts, he [caused him] to be brought from thence by force, and flead him alive: and having stuffed his skin with chaff, he hanged it up before the City gates. These things, which we relate, are no forgeries of our own, The rea­ding here must be [ [...], out of Ar­chelaus's Dialogue, or disputa­tion:] which ap­pears from the term [ [...], we read.] This Archelaus, Bishop, of Mesopota­mia, wrote the dis­pute which he main­tained a­gainst Ma­nichaeus, i [...] Syriack: which be­ing after­wards tran­slated into Greek, was in the pos­session of many per­sons, as Jerome at­tests, in his book de scriptor. Ecclesiast. Cyrill of Jerusalem has men­tioned this dispute, in his sixth Catechism. A fragment of this work is in my hands, wherein is contained the History of the impious and perfidious Manichaeus. But his disputation with Archelaus the Bishop, which was annexed to the close of this History, is wanting. In the room whereof is added Archelaus's Epistle to Diodorus the Presbyter. I am beholding to the eminent Emericus Bigotius for this monument▪ as also for many others. Vales. Valesius has published this dis­putation of Archelaus's in Latine, at the close of his Annotations upon Sozomen, pag. 197, &c. but we collected them out of a book we read over, [intitled] the disputation of Archelaus, Bishop of Cascharum, one of the Cities of Mesopotamia. For this Archelaus says, that he disputed with Mani­chaeus face to face, and what we have written above concerning Manichaeus's Life, Archelaus himself does relate. Thus therefore does the envy [of the Devil,] as we said before, delight to entrap good affairs when in their most flourishing posture. But, for what reason the goodness of God should permit this to be done, (whether it be that he is desirous to have the true opinion of the Church brought to the test and examined, and wholly to extirpate arrogancy which usually grows up together with faith, or for what o­ther reason) is a question that cannot be solved without great difficulty and tediousness: nor can it now be opportunely discust by us. For, it is not our design to examin [the truth] of opi­nions, or to make researches into the abstruse ac­counts of providence and the judgment of God; but, according to our ability, to compose a nar­rative of the affairs that have been transacted in the Churches. After what manner therefore the superstition of the Manichaeans In the Allat. M. S. the reading is [ [...] ▪ sprang up;] which is better than [ [...], sprang up before.] After the same man­ner Socrates exp [...]esses himself in the beginning of this chapter. 'Tis a metaphor taken from Cockle, which is wont to grow up with the Corn. Vales. sprang up a little before the times of Constantine, it has been sufficiently declared. Let us now return to [the series of] those times, that are the proper sub­ject of the History we designe.

CHAP. XXIII. How Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nice, taking courage again, endea­voured to subvert the Nicene Creed, by plot­ting against Athanasius.

EUsebius and Theognis, being returned from exile, recovered their own Churches, having (as we said before) extruded those that had been ordained [Bishops] in their places: Moreover, they acquired great interest and fa­vour with the Emperour, who had an high esteem [Page 235] for them, looking upon them as converts from an Heretical to the orthodox Doctrine. But they abused this favour and liberty granted them, and made more disturbance in the world then for­merly they had done; incited thereto by two motives; the one [proceeded] from the Arian Heresie, with which they had been formerly in­fected; the other from their inveterate hatred against Athanasius; because he had so vigorously opposed them in the Synod, when the Articles of faith were discussed. First of all therefore they began to find fault with Athanasius's ordi­nation, as if he were unworthy of a Bishoprick, and I follow this rea­ding [ [...], as if his or­dination, &c. For Eusebius's party found fault with the ordination of Atha­nasius upon two accounts; both because Athanasius was unwor­thy of that honour, and also because his ordination had been performed by persons unfitting. See Philostorgius. Vales. as if his ordination had been performed by unfitting persons. But it was afterwards demon­strated that he was superiour to all manner of ca­lumny: for being seated in the Bishoprick of Alex­andria, he stifly and vigorously contended for the Nicene Creed: then Euse­bius set all his wits at work to lay a plot for Athanasius, and to bring Arius again into Alexandria. For he suppo­sed this to be the only way to eradicate the [...], the [...]aith of Homoou [...]ios; i. e. those words in the Cree [...], wherein it [...]s asserted that Christ is of the same essence or substance with the father. Doctrine of Consubstantiality, and in­troduce Arianism. Eusebius therefore wrote to Athana­sius that he would readmit Arius and his companions [into the Church.] Socrates borrowed these words out of Athanasius's second Apology against the Arians; where Athana­sius gives an account how Eusebius secretly joyned with the Melitians in a conspiracie against him, these are his very words: [...]. Which words of Athanasius, Sozomen makes use of in his second book, chap. 18. Vales. And in his Letter he intreated him, but openly and in pub­lick he threatned him. But when Athanasius could by no means be prevailed with, he attempts to perswade the Emperour to grant Arius leave to come into his pre­sence, and that he would give him a liberty of re­turning to Alexandria. And by what means he prevailed so far, as to ef­fect this, I will relate in its due place. But before these things were done, there was ano­ther commotion raised in the Churches. For her own sons did again disturb the peace of the Church. Eusebius Pamphilus relates, that immedi­ately after the Synod, Aegypt raised mutual facti­ons within it self, but he annexes not the occasion of this division. Whence he is thought by many to have been double-tongued, because, declining to set forth the reasons [of the discords] he had resolved with himself not to assent to what had been determined at Nice. But as we our selves have found from several Letters which the Bishops wrote to one another after the Synod, the term Homoousios disturbed some mens minds. Whilst they were busying themselves about this word, and made too curious inquiries into its import and meaning, they raised an intestine war amongst themselves. And what was done herein was not unlike a fight in the night. For neither side seemed to understand perfectly, why they reviled one another. For they that had an aversion for the term Homoöusios, look'd upon them that approved of it as introducers of It is hard to assign a reason, why Socrates should joyn Montanus with Sabellius. For Montanus himself made no innovations in the doctrine of the Trinity, but followed the faith of the Catholick Church; as Epiph [...]niu [...] attests (in Hares [...] Monta­ [...]ist.) and Theodoret (book. 3. H [...]ret▪ Fabul▪) Yet some of his disciples took away the difference of the persons, as Sabellius did; which Theo­doret attests (at the place now cited) in these words: [...], &c. But some of them have denyed the three persons of the Godhead, in like manner as Sabellius did, saying that the father, Son, and holy Ghost are one and the same person. And hence it is, that in the Synodi­call Epistle of the Arian Bishops at Scrdica, Montanus is joyned to Sabellius. Vales. Sabellius's and Montanus's opinion. And therefore they called them blas­phemers, as being persons that destroyed the existence of the Son of God. On the other hand, they that were maintainers of the term Homoöusios, supposing the other [their adversaries] to be introducers of [the worship of] many Gods, abominated them, as the bringers in of Gen­tilism. Eustathius Bishop of Antioch reviles Eusebius Pamphilus as one that adulterates the Nicene Faith. Eusebius answers, that he does in no wise infringe or Violate the Creed [pub­lished] at Nice: but accuses Eustathius, for being an Assertour of Sabellius's opinion. For these reasons every one [of the Bishops] wrote Volumes, as if it had been against most bitter enemies: And although both sides asserted, that the Son of God had a [...]. The Learned Reader will find these terms incomparably well explained by Dionysius Petavius, in his Dogm. Theolog. Tom. 2. De Trinit. book 4. chap. 8. Sect. 10, &c. pag. 380. Edit. Paris. 1644. proper, real and pecu­liar Person and existence, and confessed that there was one God in three Persons, yet (how it came to pass, I know not) they could in no wise agree amongst themselves; and therefore would by no means endure to be at quiet.

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning the Synod convened at Antioch, which deposed Eustathius Bishop of Antioch: upon whose account there was a sedition raised, by which that City was almost ruined.

THerefore, having convened a Synod at An­tioch, they depose Eustathius, as one who was better affected towards Sabellius's opinion, than towards what the Nicene Synod had deter­mined. But, as some report, [he was deposed] for other reasons less commendable: which yet they have not openly declared. But this is a thing which the Bishops usually do towards all that they depose; they load them wi [...]h re­proaches, and call them impious persons, but annex not the reasons of their impiety. Now that they deposed Eustathius as a favourer of Sa­bellius's opinion (Cyrus Bishop of Beraea being his accuser,) Georgius Bishop of Laodicea in Syria (one of their number who hated the term Homoöusios) has related in that Encomium It is strange to see how notoriously transla­tours have been mista­ken in the version of this place; they per­ceived not that the last word was to be exp [...]nged, as being superfluous. For whenas at first there had been a remarke set in the margin, that in­stead of [ [...], he wrote] it should be otherwise written, thus [ [...], he said:] afterwards this word [ [...], he said] crept out of the Margin, into the Text. Vales. he wrote upon Eusebius Emisenus. Concerning this Eusebius Emisenus we will hereafter speak in its proper place. But Georgius writes [such things as do not very well hang together] concerning Eustathius. For he reports, that Eustathius was accused by Cyrus for an assertour of Sabellius's opinion; again he says, that Cyrus was Whether Cyrus Bishop of Beraea did accuse Eustathius, as being a favourer of Sabellius's opinion, (as Georgius of Laodicea relates,) I know not. But what Georgius writes, to wit, that Cyrus himself was afterwards deposed because he favoured Sabellius's Heresie (i. e. be­cause he defended the doctrine of Consubstantiality; for so these words are to be understood:) is very true. For Athanasius confirms this, in his Epistle ad Solitar. Where he reckon [...] up in order all the Bishops thrust out by the Arians during Constantines reign. And in the first place he names Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, then Eutropius of Adria­nople. Afterwards Euphration of the Balan [...]i, the two Cymatius's, Asclep [...] of Gaza, Cyrus of Berae [...] and others; who were banished by the Emperours Edict, and others put into their places. Vales. condem­ned and deposed for maintaining the same errour. [Page 236] But how can it be, that Cyrus should accuse Eusta­thius, for being a Sabellian, who was himself a fa­vourer of that Heresie. It is probable therefore that Eustathius was deposed for some other reasons. Moreover, at such time as Eustatbius was deposed, there was a very great Sedition raised in Antioch. And afterwards, [at the conferences] about the election of a Bishop, there was frequently kindled so great a flame [of dissention,] that it wanted but little of destroying the whole City, the po­pulace being divided into two factions: one party of them contended vigorously for the translation of Eusebius Pamphilus from Caesarea in Palestine to [the See of] Antioch; the other faction was very earnest to have Eustathius restored. The whole City in general favoured the one or the other party [of the Christians.] The Military forces also were drawn up in battel array [on both sides] as it were against enemies, in so much that they were just about making use of their swords, had not God, and the fear of the Em­perour repressed the violence of the multitude. For the Emperour by his Letters, The meaning of this place is this. The Emperour, by his Let­ters written to Antioch, and Eu­sebius, by his refusing the Bishop­rick of Antioch, appeased that tu­mult. Therefore these words [appeased the tumult and sedi­tion] must in common belong to both the preceding clauses. Vales. and Eusebius by his refusal of the Bishoprick, appeased that Tumult and Sedition. Upon which ac­count the Emperour admired him greatly, and writ a Let­ter to him, in which he com­mends his prudent resolu­tion, calling him happy, be­cause he was judged worthy to be Bishop not of one City, but almost of the whole world. It is recorded therefore that after this the See of An­tioch was What Socrates here says, concerning the vacan­cy of the See of An­tioch eight years, after Eustathlus was depo­sed, is false. For imme­diately af­ter Eusta­thius was ejected; when Eu­sebius of Cesarea had refused that See; Paulinus Bishop of Tyre was translated to that See, in the year of Christ 329: as I before noted in the tenth book of Eusebius's Ecclesiastick History, chap. 1. note (a.) Afterwards Euphronius succeeded Paulinus; or, as some will have it, Eualius. After whom Flaccillus was advanced to the See of Antioch, who (as Athanasius attests in his second Apology against the Arians) was at the Synod of Tyre. Vales. vacant eight years. But at length, by the diligence of those that plotted the sub­version of the Nicene faith, Sozomen says the same; and Theodorus Mopsuestenus (apud Nicaetam in Thesauro Orthodox. fidei.) Which is also confirmed by Georgius of Laodicea, in his encomium of Eusebius Emisenus, Socrates quotes his words, in book 2. chap. 9. Eccles. Hist.) But Theodoret (book 1. chap. 22. Eccles. Hist.) puts Eualius between Eustathius and Euphronius, and says that he presided but a very short time. Phi­lostorgius agrees with Theodoret. Vales. Euphronius is or­dained Bishop. Let thus much be related con­cerning the Synod convened at Antioch upon Eu­stathius's account. Soon after these things, Eu­sebius (who had long before left Berytus, and was now possessed of the Church at Nicomedia,) made it his business, together with his confe­derates, to bring Arius again into Alexandria. But, how they prevailed to effect this their de­sign, and after what manner the Emperour was perswaded to admit Arius and Euzoïus into his presence, we are now to relate.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning the Presbyter, who made it his busi­ness to get Arius recalled.

THe Emperour Constantine had a sister whose name was Constantia. She had been mar­ried to Licinius who was heretofore colleague in the Empire with Constantine, but afterwards he became a Tyrant and was therefore put to death. She had a confident, a Presbyter, one that was a favourer of Arianism, who was reckoned amongst her domesticks. This man, prompted thereto by Eusebius and those of his faction, did in his familiar discourse with Constantia let fall some words concerning Arius, saying, that the Synod had done him wrong, and that his senti­ments were not such as report represented them to be. Constantia having heard this was easily induced to give credit to the Presbyter. But she had not confidence to declare it to the Emperour. It happened that Constantia fell dangerously sick. The Emperour came daily to visit her in her sickness. But when she was brought into so dan­gerous a condition by her distemper, that she expected to die immediately, she recommends the Presbyter to the Emperour, declaring to him his industry, piety, and how well affected he was towards his Government: and immediately after she died. The Presbyter was [after this] made one of the Emperours greatest confidents. And having by degrees got a greater liberty of spea­king, he relates to the Emperour the same things concerning Arius, that he before told his sister; affirming that Arius had no other sentiments than what were agreeable to the Synods determination: and that if [the Emperour] would admit him to his presence, he would give his consent to what the Synod had decreed: Instead of [ [...], and that he was falsely ac­cused not without reason] Sr Henry Sa­vill and Christo­phorson read [ [...], Moreover, that he was falsely accused without the least of reason.] This story concerning the Arian Presbyter (whom Constantia Augusta recommended to her brother Constantine) Socrates borrowed out of Rufinus, book 1. chap. 11. Eccles. Hist. But I suspect the truth of it, for these rea­sons. First, because Athanasius (who does usually detect all the frauds of the Arians) has no where made mention of it. Secondly, in regard the name of this Presbyter is suppressed: for, if this Pres­byter were in so great favour and authority with Constantine, that, (as Rufinus relates in the book and chapter now cited,) when the Em­perour died, he should leave his Will, which he had written, in the hands of this Presbyter; doubtless, he was worthy to have had his name mentioned. But, in my judgment, Rufinus's authority is but small; for he wrote his History very carelesly, not from the Records of affaires transacted, but from fabulous stories, and relations groun­ded barely on report. Moreover, that he was falsely accused without the least of reason. These words of the Presbyters seemed strange to the Emperour. Thus therefore he answered [the Presbyter,] if Arius does consent to the Synods determination, and has the same senti­ments with that, I will both admit him to my presence, and also send him back to Alexandria with repute and honour. Thus he answered, and immediately wrote to Arius after this manner.

VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS, AUGUSTUS, to Arius.

It has been sometime since made known to your Gravity, that you should repair to Our Court, in or­der to your being admitted to the enjoyment of Our presence. But we much admire, that you have not immediately performed this. Wherefore, ascend forthwith a publick Chariot, and come with speed to Our Court: That having experienced Our bene­volence and care, you may return to your own Countrey.

God preserve you, beloved brother.

Dated before the fifth of the Kalends of December.

This was the Emperours Letter to Arius. Here I cannot but admire the Emperours care and zeal for Religion. For 'tis evident by this Letter, that he had before frequently exhorted Arius to a Repen­tance. recantation, in regard he reproves him, that after his frequent writing to him, Arius had not forthwith returned to the truth. Arius therefore having received the Emperours Letters, came soon after to Constantinople. There came [Page 237] along with him Euzoïus; whom Alexander had divested of his Deaconship when he deposed Arius and his associates. The Emperour ad­mits them to his presence, and asked them whe­ther they would agree to the [Nicene] faith. They having readily given their assent, the Em­perour commanded them to deliver in a Libel con­taining [the Articles of] their faith.

CHAP. XXVI. How Arius, being recalled [from exile,] and having given up a Libell of Repentance to the Emperour, did therein hypocritically pre­tend [himself an assertour of] the Nicene Creed.

HAving therefore composed a Libell, they present it to the Emperour, the contents whereof are as followeth.

Arius and Euzoïus, to our most Religious and most pious Lord Constantine the Emperour. Ac­cording to the order of your piety most acceptable to God, (our Lord the Emperour,) we do de­clare our Faith, and in writing profess in the pre­sence of God, that we and all our adherents do believe as followeth. We believe in one God the Father Almighty; and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son, who was made by him before all worlds: God the Word, by whom all things were made, that are in heaven, and that are in earth: who came down from heaven, and was incarnate, and suffered, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens, who also shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. [We also believe] in the Holy Ghost, and in the Resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the world to come, and in the kingdom of heaven, and in one Catholick Church of God [which is spred] from one end of the world to the other. This faith we have received from the holy Gospels, the Lord saying to his dis­ciples: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizingMatth. 28. 19. them in the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. After these words, there was wanting this whole clause [ [...], If we do not thus believe these things, and [if we do not] truly admit of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost] which we have made up from the autho­rity of the Allatian M. S. and from Sozomen, book 2. chap. 27. Vales. If we do not thus believe these things, and [if we do not] truly admit of the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost, in such manner as the whole Catholick Church, and the Scriptures (which we believe in all things) do teach, God is our Judge, both now, and in the Judgment to come. We therefore beseech your pie­ty (O Emperour most acceptable to God!) that we being Ecclesiastical persons, and holding the Faith and sence of the Church and the holy Scri­ptures, may by your pacifick and religious piety be united In the Kings M. S. and in Epiphanius Scholasticus, this place is pointed otherwise, thus [to our mother the Church, to wit, all questions, &c.] which distinction displeases me not. Vales. to our mother, to wit the Church; all questions and superfluous disputations being wholly taken away and suppressed: that so both we and the Church, enjoying a mutual peace and union, may joyntly offer up our usual prayers for the peace­able Reign of your Imperial Majesty, and for your whole Family.

CHAP. XXVII. How Arius returned to Alexandria by the Empe­rours order, and upon Athanasius's refusal to admit him, Eusebius's faction framed divers ac­cusations against Athanasius before the Empe­rour.

ARius having thus perswaded the Emperour, returned to Alexandria. But this specious covert was not prevalent enough to suppress the silenced and hidden truth. For when Athanasius denied him reception upon his arival at Alexan­dria: (in regard he detested the man as an abo­mination:) he attempted to stir up new com­motions in Alexandria, by disseminating his he­resie. Moreover, at that time Eusebius did both himself write Letters, and also induced the Em­perour to write, that Arius and his complices might be received [into the Church.] But A­thanasius did wholly refuse to grant them re­ception: And he acquainted the Emperour by his Letters that it was impossible for those, who had once rejected the faith, and were anathema­tized, to be entirely readmitted again [to their degrees in the Church] at their return. But the Emperour, highly incensed [at this re­turn] thus threatned Athanasius in a Letter After these words, the Florentine M. S. adds these [ [...], part of the Emperours Letter.] Which are altogether necessary, that the Reader may understand, that not the Emperours whole Epistle, but part of it only, is here inserted. Athanasius, in his second Apology a­gainst the Arians, (out of whom Socrates took these passages) pro­ducing this Epistle of Constantines, sets these very words before it; and adds, that this Epistle was brought to Alexandria by Syncletius and Gaudentius, Officers belonging to the Imperial Palace. But, that which Socrates affirms (to wit, that Arius came to Alexandria) is not mentioned by Athanasius, nor doe I think it is true. Vales..

Part of the Emperours Letter.

Having therefore received the knowledge of our will, doe you afford a free ingress to all such as are desirous of entring into the Church. For if we shall receive information that you have prohibited any of those that are desirous [to be united] to the Church, or have hindred their admission, We will immediately send one who shall be impowred by Our order to depose you, and banish you your Countrey. Thus wrote the Emperour, having a regard to the good of the publick, and being unwilling that [the members of] the Church should be rent asun­der. After these words from the Florentine, Sfortian, and Allati­an M. SS. we have added this whole period [ [...], For he laboured to reduce them all to a perfect union.] which was wanting in the common Editions. Sozomen has almost the same words, in his second book at the close of chap. 22; but he has changed their order. Vales. For he laboured to reduce them all to a perfect union. At that time there­fore the Eusebians (who were deadly haters of Atha­nasius,) supposing they had gotten a fair opportunity, made use of the Emperours indignation as instrumental for the execution of their own design. Upon which account they made great disturbances, labouring by that meanes to effect Athanasius's deposition from his Bishoprick: for they hoped that the Arian opinion would become absolutely pre­valent by these means only, [to wit,] by a re­moval of Athanasius. There was therefore by a joynt consent an attack made against him by Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Chalcedon, Ursacius of Singidunum [a City] of the Upper Maesia, and Valens of Mursa in the Upper Pannonia. These persons hire some of the [Page 238] Melitian Hereticks, who bring in several accusa­tions against Athanasius. And first they frame a complaint [against him] by We find these mens names in that cata­logue of the Meliti­an Bishops which Alexander pro­cured from Melitius, This Ision was Bishop in Athribis, Eudaemon in Tanis, and Callinicus in Pelu­sium. See Athanasius's second A­pologetick. Vales. Ision, Eudaemon and Callinicus, who were Melitians, as if Athana­sius had ordered the Aegyptians to pay a linnen garment [under the notion of tribute] to the Church of Alexandria. Athanasius (in his Apologe­tick) calls this man Apis, not Alypius. But names not the place, wherein Constantine took cogni­zance of this matter. Yet Socra­tes affirms it was at Nicomedia. Further, Baronius relates that these affaires were transacted in the year of Christ 329. But I would rather choose to place them on the year following. For these things hapned after Eusta­thius's deposition, when Eusebius and Theognius, (returned from their Exile) had procured a great authority and interest with Con­stantine. But what the same Baronius says (to wit, that Con­stantines Letter, concerning A­rius's readmission into the Church, was written to Athanasius in the year of Christ 327,) is a palpa­ble mistake; and he dissents from Athanasius, whom notwithstan­ding he professes to follow in all things. For Athanasius relates, that soon after Constantines Let­ter, and Arius's repulse, the Me­litians accused him of these crimes before the Emperour. Vales. But Alypius, and Macarius, Pres­byters of the Church of A­lexandria, who were then accidentally at Nicomedia, extinguished this accusation, having informed the Empe­rour, that what they re­ported against Athanasius was false. Wherefore the Emperour by his Letters sharply reproved those that informed against him: but he advised Athanasius in a Letter to repair to him. But the Eusebian faction, be­fore his arival, and in or­der to their preventing of it, tack another accusation to the first, far worse than the former: as if Athana­sius, [...]; which words, Valesius has thus rendred, conspirans ad­versus Principem, conspiring a­gainst the Emperour. entring into a con­spiracy against the Empe­rours affaires, had sent a little chest full of gold to one Philumenus. But the Em­perour, having taken cogni­zance hereof at Psamathia, which is the Suburbs of the City Nicomedia, and finding Athanasius innocent, dis­missed him with honour; and wrote to the Church of A­lexandria, that their Bishop Athanasius had been falsly accused. It would indeed have been comely and decent to have passed over in si­lence those calumnies, which the Eusebians after­wards framed against Athanasius, lest Christs Church should be condemned by those that do not embrace his doctrine. But in regard they have been committed to writing, and exposed to the view of all men, I therefore judged it necessary to treat of these matters as compendiously as may be, which [if particularized] would re­quire a peculiar volume. Wherefore I will give a short account, whence both the subject of the calumny it self, and also the contrivers of the false accusation had their original. This pas­sage of So­crates is very much enlightned by Athana­sius in his second Apo­logetick against the Arians. Whose words, because they are misun­derstood by his translatour, I will here set down. [...]. That is, Mareotes is a region of Alexandria. In that region there never was a Bishop, or De­puty Bishop. But the Churches of that whole region are subject to the Bishop of Alexandria. Each of the Presbyters hath peculiar Villages, (which are very great,) sometimes ten in number, or more. From these words it appears, that every Village of Mareotes had not its particu­lar Presbyter; but that one Presbyter governed ten Villages and sometimes more. That Village, wherein Ischyras was, in regard it was the least of all, undoubtedly had neither its peculiar Church, nor Pres­byter. To that Epistle which all the Presbyters and Deacons of Ma­reotes wrote to the Synod of Tyre (which Letter is recorded by A­thanasius in the book now cited) there subscribed fourteen Presbyters, and fifteen Deacons. Vales. Mareotes is a region of Alexandria. There are in it a great many, and those very populous villages, and in them many and stately Churches. All these Churches are under [the jurisdiction of] the Bishop of Alexandria, and subject to his City like Parishes. In this Country of Mareotes there was a man, by name Ischyras, who had committed a fact worthy of a thousand deaths. For, whenas he had never been admitted into sacred Orders, he [ne­vertheless] took upon himself the name of a Presby­ter, and was so audacious as to perform the office of a Presbyter. This Ischyras therefore, detected in the commission of the foresaid crime, made his escape thence, and arriving at Nicomedia, for re­fuge fled to the Eusebian faction. They, in regard of their hatred towards Athanasius, receive him as a Presbyter; and promise to prefer him to the dignity of a Bishoprick, if he would frame an ac­cusation against Athanasius, they deriving a pre­tence [for this calumny] from those stories which Ischyras had contrived. For he gave out, that he had suffered most miserably by an assault made upon him: and that Macarius running furiously [into the Oratory] as far as the Altar, overtur­ned the Table, broke the mystical Cup, and burnt the sacred books. For this accusation (as I have said) the Eusebians promised him a Bishoprick as his reward, being sensible that this accusation against Macarius, would (together with him that was accused) overthrow Athanasius also who had sent Macarius. This accusation therefore they charged him with afterwards. But before this [calumny they framed] another stuffed with all manner of hatred and maliciousness, which we must now speak of. Having got a mans hand (whence they had it, I know not, whether they had murdered any man and cut off his hand; or whether they had cut it off from some dead body, God only knows, and they that were authours of this fact,) they produced it [pretending] it to be the hand of one This Arsenius was a Bishop of the Melitians in the City Hyp­selis which is in Thebaïs. In his Epistle, which he wrote to Atha­nasius, he assumes to himself this title of honour, [...], i. e. To Athana­sius the blessed Pope, Arsenius Bi­shop of the City Hypselis, one of those sometimes under Melitius. But in the catalogue of Bishops of the Melitian faction, which Me­litius delivered to Alexander, no Arsenius can be found. Vales. Ar­senius, a Melitian Bishop: the hand they exposed to all mens view, but kept Arse­nius concealed. And they re­ported that Athanasius had this hand in his custody, and made use of it in the per­formance of some magical delusions. This therefore was the chiefest and most im­portant point of the accusa­tion which these Sycophants had forged [against Atha­nasius.] But (as it usually happens in such cases) other persons accused him of other matters. For all those who had been his enemies before, did at this time most especially make use of their utmost force against him. The Emperour, having intelligence of these procee­dings, writes to Socrates took this out of A­thanasius, in his se­cond Apolo­getick a­gainst the Arians, his words are these; [...], &c. Constantine wrote to Antioch, to Dalmatius the Censor, [ordering him] to hear the cause concerning the murder. The Censor therefore sent to me, to prepare for my defence. Socrates thought that this Dal­matius was the son of Constantines brother, he that some years after was made Caesar by Constantine. But that is a great mistake. For Dalmatius the Censor was Constantines brother, and the Father of Dal­matius the Caesar. The Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle confirms this, who writes thus concerning Constantine, [...]; i. e. and he created Dalmatius (the son of his brother Dalmatius the Censor) Caesar. Certainly, Dalmatius the son of Dalmatius was (when these things were done which are related by Athanasius) very young, and could not sit as judge in so weighty an affair. Besides, he lived at that time at Narbona, and (together with Hannibalianus his brother) was an Hearer of Exuperius the Rhetorician. For from that City he was sent for by Constantine, and created Caesar when very young (as Ansonius affirms in his book de Professor. Burdigal.) in the year of Christ 335. But that tryal concerning the murder of Arsenius was before Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch, (as Athanasius attests,) in the year of Christ 332, according to Baronius's opinion. Vales. Dalmatius the Censor, his bro­thers son, who then kept his residence at Antioch in Syria; that he should command the persons ac­cused to be brought before him, and (after he had taken cognizance of the case) order them that were convicted to be punished. He also sent Eu­sebius and Theognis, that Athanasius might be tried before them. When Athanasius knew that he was to be summoned to appear before the Censor, he sent into Aegypt to find out Arsenius. He had certain information that the man was con­cealed: but he could not apprehend him because he frequently changed his lurking holes by re­moving from one place to another. In the interim, the Emperour suppressed the tryal which should have been before the Censor, upon this account.

CHAP. XXVIII. That the Emperour ordered a Synod of Bishops should be convened at Tyre, upon account of the accusations brought against Athanasius.

THe Emperour had ordered a Synod of Bi­shops to meet, that they might be present at the consecration of the Church which he had erected at Jerusalem. He therefore issued out an order that those Bishops [before they met there] should first be convened at Tyre, and by the by make researches into Athanasius's case: that so [all occasions of] contention being by this means wholly taken away, they might more peaceably perform the [...]. Con­cerning the import of this word, the learned Reader may con­sult Scali­ger. Po [...]tic. Lib. 3. Cap. 106. Epibate­rion. solemnities of the Churches dedi­cation, and consecrate it unto God. The Sy­nod of Tyre was held in the consu­lates of Constantius and Albi­nus, (as A­thanasius attests,) in the year of Christ 335. This was the 28th year of Constantines Empire. His 29th year began (during the same mens consulates) on the 8th of the Calends of August, on which day Constantine celebrated his Tricennalia (i. e. the festivals for his having arrived to the 30th year of his Empire) as Idatius attests, (in Fast.) anticipating that solem­nity one whole year. This anticipation of his Tricennalia has induced not only Socrates, but several others also, into a mistake. Vales. This was the thirtieth year of Constantines Empire. More­over, there were assembled at Tyre Bishops out of divers places, to the number of sixty, upon the summons of Dionysius, a person that had born the Consulship. Macarius the Presbyter was brought from Alexandria, bound in iron chains, under the custody of a guard of Souldiers. But Atha­nasius would not have come thither (not that he so much dreaded the accusations brought against him: for he was not conscious to himself that he was guilty of those things he was accused for: but he was afraid least they should make any in­novations there in opposition to what had by common consent been approved of at the Synod of Nice.) But yet he dreaded the Emperours menacing letters. For he had written to him that if he would not come voluntarily, he should be brought by force. Therefore Athanasius also was present there, being necessitated to it.

CHAP. XXIX. Concerning Arsenius, and his hand which was re­ported to have been cut off.

MOreover, Divine Providence forced Arse­nius to go to Tyre. For having neg­lected the commands which the Sycophants, whose hireling he was, had given him, he came in a dis­guise, to see what would be done there. It ac­cidentally hapned, that the servants of Rufinus, in book 1. chap. 16. of his Ecclesiastick History, says that this Archelaus was not the Con­sularis (or President) of Phoenicia, but the Comes of the East. Vales. Archelaus (who was the Consularis) heard some persons in an Inn say, that Arsenius (the person reported to have been murthered) was there kept con­cealed in some [Citizens] house. When they had heard this, and had taken good notice of them that spoke these words, they gave their Master an account of what they had heard. He, without the least delay, immediately searched for the man and found him: and when he had found him, ordered he should be secured. And gives notice to Athanasius not to be in the least di­sturbed: for Arsenius was alive and present there. Arsenius being apprehended, denied that he was [Arsenius.] But Paul Bishop of Tyre, who had formerly known him, made it appear that he was the person. Divine Providence having be­fore hand disposed of these things after this man­ner, soon after Athanasius was summoned by the Synod. And when he had made his appearance, the Sycophants produced the hand, and enforced their accusation [against him.] But he [...], ordered the matter pru­dently: this is the import of th [...]se words, if rendred li­terally. de­meaned himself prudently. For he enquired of those that were present, and of his Accusers, whe­ther any of them knew Arsenius. When a great ma­ny answered that they knew him very well, he cau­sed Arsenius to be brought in before them, having his hands hid under his upper long garment: then he asked them again; is this the man that hath lost his hand? Hereupon, they (excepting those that knew whence the hand had been cut off) were astonished at the strangeness of the thing. For all the rest thought that Arsenius had really wanted a hand, and they expected that Athana­sius would make his own defence some other way. But he took Arsenius's garment, and tur­ning it on one side, shews the mans hand. A­gain, when some supposed that his other hand was wanting, he made a short stay, permitting them to continue dubious. Immediately after, without any further delay, he turned aside the other part [of his garment] and shewed Arsenius's other hand: after which he thus addressed himself to the company; Arsenius, as you see, is found to have two hands: as for the third, let my Accusers shew the place whence it was cut off.

CHAP. XXX. That Athanasius being found innocent after his first accusation, his Accusers made their escape by flight.

THese affairs concerning Arsenius having been thus transacted, they who had contrived this fraud, were reduced to a straight. But In Atha­nasius's se­cond Apolo­getick, pag. 783. Edit. Paris▪ the words are [...], Archaph, who is also called John. In the Epistle of Alexander Bishop of Thessalonica to Athanasius, he is also called Archaph. Therefore, this man had two names, he was called Archaph, by the Egyptians, which was his Coun­trey name: John was his Monastick name. He was a Bishop of the Melitian faction at Memphis. Athanasius relates, that he was com­manded by Constantine to agree with his Arch-Bishop. Athanasius means Constantines Letter to John, which he gives an account of, at pag. 787, of his second Apologet. Edit. Paris. Vales. Achab, (who was also called John) Athanasius's Accuser, slipt away out of the Court of judicature, and so made his escape in the tumult. Thus Athanasius cleared himself from this accusation, without ma­king use of any [...]. See Calvin. Lexic. Juridic. [...]n the word para­graphe. exception. For he was confi­dent, that the bare sight of Arsenius being alive would abash the Sycophants.

CHAP. XXXI. That Athanasius fled to the Emperour, upon the Bishops not admitting of his defence at his se­cond accusation.

BUt in his disproof of the false accusations brought against Macarius, he made use of legal exceptions. And first he excepted against Eusebius and his companions, as being enemies, alledging that no man ought to be judged by his adversaries. Afterwards he said, that it must be demonstrated, that Ischyras the Accuser had really procured the dignity of a Presbyter. For so it was written in the Libel of Accusation. But when the Judges would not allow of any of these exceptions, Macarius's cause was brought in. After that the Accusers were almost wearied out and quite faint, the further hearing of the cause was defered till such time as some persons should make a journey into Mareotes, that they might make inquisition upon the place concerning all matters that were doubtful. But when Athana­sius perceived that those very persons were ordered to go, whom he had excepted against; (for The­ognis, Maris, Theodôrus, Macedonius, Valens, and Ursacius were sent:) he cried out that their proceedings were treacherous and fraudulent. For it is unjust [said he] that Macarius the Presbyter should be kept in bonds, and that his Accuser, together with his Adversaries the judges should go; and [that this was done] for this reason, [to wit,] that the memorials of the Acts might be made up [in favour] of one side only. After Athanasius had spoke these words aloud, and made protestation before the whole Synod and Dionysius the president, when he saw that no body took notice of him, he privately with­drew. Those therefore that were sent to Ma­reotes, having registred the Acts in favour of one side only, as if those things had been most cer­tainly true, This place is im­perfect, as any one may perceive. It may be made perfect, if instead of [ [...]] we make this addition [ [...], made their return to Tyre:] which we have followed in our Version. Vales. which the Accuser had deposed; made [their return to Tyre.]

CHAP. XXXII. That after Athanasius's departure, he was deposed by the Vote of the Synod.

AThanasius being gone away, fled imme­diately to the Emperour. The Synod in the first place condemned him in his absence for deserting his cause. But when the Acts, which had been made up in Mareotes arived, they passed the sentence of deposition against him; loading him with reproaches in the Muscu­lus and Christophor­son render these words [ [...]] thus, depositionis causas, the causes of his de­position. But I suppose, that by these words is meant the Libel of his deposition, or the Synodical Epistle concerning the condem­nation and deposition of Athanasius. Socrates uses the same term, in his second book chap. 1. If any one be desirous to peruse a copy of these Epistles, there is extant a Synodical Epistle of the Council of Antioch, concerning the deposition of Paul of Samosata: also, the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Sardis, concerning the deposition of Gregorius Alexandrinus, Valens, Ursacius, and other Arian Pre­lates. Vales. Libel of his deposition, but mentioned not a word how shamefully the Sycophants had been vanquished in the accusation of the murder. Arsenius also, who was reported to have been murdered, was received by them. He had at first been a Bishop of the Melitian Heresie: But he subscribed Athanasius's deposi­tion, as being at that time Bishop of the In Atha­nasius the reading is truer, thus [ [...], of the City of the Hypselites,] as we noted before. Stephanus (de Urbi­bus) says Hypseli [...] is a Town in Egypt; and that the inhabitants thereof are called Hypsclites. Vales. Hypse­lites. And thus (which was very strange) he that was reported to have been murdered by Atha­nasius, being alive, deposed Athanasius.

CHAP. XXXIII. How the Synod, having left Tyre, came to Jeru­salem, and after the celebration of the feast of Dedication of the New Jerusalem, readmitted Arius to communion.

IN the interim the Emperours Letters arrived, commanding the Synod to give their speedy attendance at New Jerusalem. And immediately with all possible expedition they hastned from Tyre to Jerusalem. Where after they had fini­shed the solemnities of the consecration of the places, they In Atha­nasius's se­cond Apolo­gy against the Arians, and in his book de Sy­nodis Ari­mini and Seleuciae, this Sy­nodick E­pistle of the Jerusa­lem Council is recorded; in which Epistle the Bishops, who had been convened there for the dedication of Constantines Church, do attest, that they had received into communion [...], Arius and his followers: which they had done according to the Emperours command, who by his Letters had signified to them, that he himself knew that those mens faith was true and orthodox, both from their own attestation by word of mouth, and also from the Libel of faith which they presented to him. Which Libel Constantine had annexed to his Letters. Now, he means that Libel of faith, which Arius and Euzoïus had presented to Constantine, mentioned by Socrates be­fore, at the 26 chapter of this first book; and by Sozomen, book 2. chap. 27. For when Arius had presented a Libel of his faith to Con­stantine, Constantine, believing his doctrine to be agreeable to the Nicene faith, would not himself give his judgment concerning this matter; but remitted him to the examination of the Jerusalem Coun­cil, as Rufinus and Sozomen do relate. Athanasius also (in his book de Synodis) affirms expresly, that Arius and his associates were re­ceived into communion by the Jerusalem Synod: his words are these, [...], and after the banishment of Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, writing that they should admit to communion Arius and his followers, &c. But I suppose that Arius the Arch-Heretick is not to be meant here, but another Arius, his name sake, who had been condemned by Alexander Bi­shop of Alexandria, together with Arius his Ringleader. For Arius the Arch-Heretick died long before the Jerusalem Synod, as I have evidently proved in my second book of Ecclesiastick observations, chap. 2. [The Learned Reader will find three books of Ecclesiastick observa­tions written by Valesius, and publisht at the latter end of the second Vol. of his Greek Ecclesiastick Historians.] Therefore, that Arius, who together with Euzoïus, presented a Libel of his faith to Con­stantine, is a different person from Arius the Arch-Heretick. Which may be demonstrated by another argument. This Arius who presen­ted a Libel to Constantine together with Euzoïus, was not restored be­fore the Jerusalem Synod, that is, before the year of Christ 33 [...]; nor joyned to the Catholick Church. For he requests of the Em­perour in the foresaid Libel, that all altercations being taken away by his piety, he may be united to the Catholick Church. But Arius the Arch-Heretick was recalled from exile long before, and readmitted to communion, as the penitentiary-Libel of Eusebius and Theognius doth attest. For Eusebius and Theognius do say there expresly, that the authour of the whole controversie (to wit, Arius) having given satisfaction, was entirely restored. Further, Eusebius and Theognius sent that Libel to the Bishops, in the year of Christ 328, as I shewed before. Therefore Arius the Haeresiarch must necessarily have been recalled at the beginning of the same year. Vales. readmitted Arius and his associates into the Church, saying, that they did it in obe­dience to the Emperours Letters, by which he had signified to them that he was fully satisfied as touching Arius and Euzoïus's faith. Moreover, they wrote Letters to the Church of Alexandria, that all envy and hatred was now banished, and that the affaires of the Church were in a peaceable and sedate posture: and that Arius, in regard by his repentance he had acknowledged the truth, was in future to be received by them, and that deser­vedley, [Page 241] as being a member of the Church. This place is im­perfect; it is easier to pick out the mea­ning of it, than to correct the words. Socrates therefore would say, that the Bi­shops, in their Synodical Epistle, do obscurely mean Athanasius, when they say, that all e [...]vy and hatred now was bartished, &c. Vales. [But] they obscurely intimated that Athanasius was de­posed from his Bishoprick [by their saying that all envy and hatred was now banished] More­over, they wrote to the Emperour, informing him of the same affaires. Whilst the Bishops were transacting these things, other Letters came un­lookt for from the Emperour, which signified to them that Athanasius was fled to him for refuge: and that upon his account they must necessarily come to Constantinople. Now the Emperours intervening Letter is as followeth.

CHAP. XXXIV. That the Emperour by his Letter summoned the Synod to attend him, that Athanasius's case might be accurately discussed in his presence.

VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS, AUGUSTUS, to the Bishops Assembled at Tyre.

IT is indeed unknown to Us, what hath tumul­tuously and tempestuously been determined by your Synod. But the truth seemeth in a manner to be perverted by a certain turbulent disorder, to wit, whilst by reason of your mutual contention, which you are desirous should be insuperable, you consider not those things that are well pleasing to God. But it will [We hope] be the work of Divine Pro­vidence, to dissipate the mischiefs of this pertina­cious contentiousness, after they are manifestly de­tected; and to make it perspicuous to Us, how great a care you that have been convened have had of the Truth, and whether you have determined the matters that have been discussed by you without any favour or malice. Therefore, all of you must of necessity with speed attend upon Our piety, that you your selves may render an accurate account of what hath been done by you. Now, for what rea­son we thought it requisite to write these things to you, and to summon you before our selves by this Letter, you shall understand from the sequel. As We were making our entry into Constantinople the City that bears Our name, [scitua [...]e in] Our own most flourishing Countrey; (it hapned that We then rode on Horse-back:) on a sudden Athana­sius the Bishop, together In Athanasius's second Apo­logy against the Arians (where this Epistle of Constantines is re­corded) the reading is [ [...], together with some others.] But the reading we follow, to wit, [ [...], with some Presbyters] is bet­ter; which is confirmed by Epi­phan. Scholasticus. Vales. with some Presbyters whom he had about him, approacht Us in the midst of the high way so unexpectedly, that he put Us into a consternation. For God the Inspectour of all things is our witness, that at first sight We were unable even to dis­cern who he was, had not some of Our [servants] upon Our enquiry told Us (as it was meet) both who he was, and what injuries he had suffered. At that time We nei­ther spoke to, nor had any discourse with him. But when he requested that he might be heard, and We had refused that, and in a manner ordered he should be removed from our presence; with a greater confidence he said, that he desired nothing else but your appearance here, that (being necessi­tated thereto) he might in Our presence make a complaint of his sufferings. Wherefore, in regard this seemed reasonable to Us, and a matter befitting Our times, We willingly gave order for the writing of these things to you: that all you, who made up the Synod convened at Tyre, should without delay hasten to the Court of Our piety, in order to your making a real demonstration of the integrity and unbyassedness of your determination; to wit, in the presence of Us, whom none of you can deny to be a genuine servant of God. For by the worship we ex­hibit to the deity, peace doth every where flourish, and the name of God is sincerely praised even by the Perhaps he means the Iberi­ans, con­cerning whose con­version So­crates has spoken be­fore. Vales. Barbarians themselves, who till this time have been ignorant of the truth. Moreover, it is mani­fest, that he who knows not the truth, acknowledges not God. Nevertheless, as we said before, even the Barbarians have (upon Our account who are Gods genuine servant) acknowledged the Deity, and have learned to pay a Religious worship to him, by whose Providence, as they have been really and truely made sensible, we are every where protected and provided for. Upon which account chiefly they have been brought to the knowledge of God; whom they worship out of a dread towards Us. But In Leo Allatius's M. S. and in Athana­sius, the reading of this place is [ [...], &c. Ye, who seem to have a greater e­st [...]em for—the holy mysteries of his clemen­cy.] Epi­p [...]anius Scholasti­cus read this passage thus also, as appears from his version: where, instead of [We, who seem, &c.] it is [ye, who seem, &c.] which is confirmed by the Fl [...]rent. M. S. Vales. we, who seem to have a greater est [...]em for, (for We will not say, to defend) the holy mysteries of his Church: We say, We do nothing else, but what belongs to discord and hatred, and (to speak plain­ly) what tends to the destruction of mankind. But, as we said before, come all of you to Vs speedily; with a full assurance, that with our utmost vigour we will endeavour the accomplishing of this, [name­ly] that those things [comprehended] in the Law of God may most especially be preserved firm and unshaken (on which no reproach or ill opinion can possibly be fixt,) to wit, by dissipating, breaking to pieces, and utterly destroying the enemies of the Law, who under the covert of [Christs] holy name introduce various and different sorts of Blas­phemies.

CHAP. XXXV. That, when the Synod came not to the Emperour, the Eusebians accused Athanasius, as if he had threatned, that he would prohibit the carriage of that Corn, with which Alexandria furnished Constantinople. Whereupon the Emperour, being incensed, banished Athanasius, confining him to the Gallia's.

THis Letter put those present at the Synod into a great perplexity of mind. Where­fore most of them returned to their own Cities. But Eusebius, Theognis, Maris, Patrophilus, Ur­sacius and Valens, going to Constantinople, would not suffer any further enquiry to be made con­cerning breaking the Cup, overturning the [Communion] Table, and the murthering of Arsenius: but they proceeded to another calum­ny, having informed the Emperour, that Atha­nasius had threatned to prohibit the sending of the Corn, which was usually conveighed from Alexandria to Constantinople: and that these words were said by Athanasius in the hearing of Adamantius, Anubion, In A­thanasius's second Apo­logy, this man i [...] cal­led Arbetion. But it must be read with a diphthong, thus, Arbae­tion. For 'tis a Greek name derived from Arba [...]us; of which name there was a Consul in Constantius's reign, as I have observed in my notes on Amm. Marcellin. Vales. Arbathion and Peter, all Bishops. For a calumny hath a greater force and prevalency, when the false Accuser is a person of repute and credit. The Emperour, thus cir­cumvented [Page 242] and incensed, punisheth Athanasius with banishment, ordering him to inhabit the Gallia's. There are those that say this was done by the Em­perour, with a design thereby to procure a general union in the Church, in regard Athanasius had wholly refused to communicate with Arius and his followers. But he lived [in exile] at Triers a City of Gallia.

CHAP. XXXVI. Concerning Marcellus [Bishop] of Ancyra, and Asterius the Sophista.

THe Bishops that were convened at Constan­tinople did also depose Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia the less, upon this account. There was one Asterius a Professour of Rhetorick in Cappadocia, who left the teaching of that art, and owned himself a Professour of the Christian Religion. He also took in hand to write books (which are extant to this day) wherein he asserted Arius's opinion, saying, that Christ is the Power of God in the same sence that the Locust and Palmer-worm are in Moses said to be the Power of God, and other such like [Blas­phemies] as these. This Asterius was continually in company with the Bishops, and with those Bi­shops most especially that were not disaffected to Arianisme: Moreover, he came frequently to Synods, being very desirous to creep into the Bishoprick of some City. But he got not so much as a Presbytership, because he had sacri­ficed in the time of Persecution. He went up and down to the Cities of Syria, and Athanasius (in his book de Synodis) says that this Aste­rius sate in the Church amongst those that were of the Clergy, and recited his books in publick. Vales. recited in publick the books he had made. When Marcellus understood this, being desirous to In the Allat. M. S. the rea­ding is [ [...], to write against him.] So Epiphan. Scho­last. seems to have read. Vales. oppose him, through an over great earnestness [in his confu­tation of him] he fell into the contrary errour. For he audaciously asserted, that Christ was a meer man, as Paul of Samosata did. Which when the Bishops then convened at Jeru­salem had intelligence of, they took no notice of Asterius, because he was not enrolled in the catalogue of the Presbyters. But they required of Marcellus, as being a Priest, an account of the This book of Marcellus's was inti­tled, de subjectione Christi, con­cerning Christs sub­jection▪ as Hilarius informs us, in the frag­ment of his book. de Sy­nodis. Vales. Book written by him. And when they found that he held Paul of Samosata's principles, they commanded him to alter his opinion. He, ashamed [of what he had done,] promised to burn his Book. But the convention of Bishops being hastily dissolved, upon the Emperours sum­moning of them to Constantinople; when the Eu­sebians came to Constantinople, Marcellus's case was again discussed. And upon Marcellus's refusal to burn his impious and unhappy Book according to his promise, the Bishops there assembled de­posed him, and sent Basilius in his room to Ancyra. Moreover, Eusebius wrote three Books by way of Answer and Confutation of this Book, [of Marcellus's,] in which he manifestly laid open and reproved his false opinion. But Marcellus afterwards recovered his Bishoprick in the Synod of Sardis, saying that his Book was not rightly understood, and therefore he was judged to fa­vour Paul of Samosata's Doctrine. But we will speak of this in its proper place.

CHAP. XXXVII. How, after Athanasius was exiled, Arius, being sent for from Alexandria by the Emperour, raised disturbances against Alexander Bishop of Con­stantinople.

WHile these things were transacted, the thirtieth year of Constantines Reign was compleated. Socrates does here follow Rufinus, who says that Arius (after the Synod at Jerusalem) returned to Alexandria; and a little after that (when his de­vices would doe no good there) was recalled to Constantinople by Eusebius. But all this is false, as we intimated before, in re­gard Arius died long before the Jerusalem Synod. Vales. Arius and his followers being returned to Alexandria, caused a ge­neral disturbance in that City again. For the populace of Alexandria were very much troubled both at Arius and his Complices's return, and also at the exile of their Bi­shop Athanasius. But when the Emperour understood the perversness of Arius's mind, he ordered him to be sent for again to Constantinople, there to give an account of the disturbances he had endea­voured to rekindle. Alexander, who had some time before that succeeded Metrophanes, did then preside over the Church of Alexandria. The conflict this man had with Arius at that time, was a sufficient proof of his piety and accepta­bleness to God. For upon Arius's arrival there, both the people were divided into two factions, and there also arose an universal commotion all the City over: some of them affirming, that the Nicene Creed ought to continue unshaken and without any alteration; and others pertina­ciously asserting that Arius's opinion was con­sonant to reason; Alexander was hereupon re­duced to a great straight. And more especially, because Eusebius of Nicomedia had sorely threat­ned him, saying that he would forthwith cause him to be deposed, unless he would admit Arius and his followers to Communion. But Alex­ander was not so sollicitous about his own depo­sition, as he was fearful of the enervating of the Doctrine of Faith, which they earnestly endea­voured to subvert. For looking upon himself as the keeper and patron of the determinations made by the [Nicene] Synod, he made it wholly his business to prevent the wresting and depravation of those Canons. Being therefore reduced to those extremities, he entirely bad farwell to [the assi­stances of] Logick, and made God his Refuge. He devoted himself to continued fasts, and omit­ted no form or manner of praying. Now, he made this resolution within his own mind, and what he had resolved he secretly performed. Having shut up himself alone in the Church which is called Irene, he went to the Altar, laid himself prostrate on the ground under the Rufinus (book 1. chap. 12. Eccles. Hist.) from whom So­crates bor­rowed this, words this passage thus, sub altari ja­cens, lying under the altar▪ So­zomen tells the same story; book 2. chap. 29. Vales. holy Table, and poured forth his prayers [to God] with tears: he continued doing this for many nights and days together. Moreover, he asked of God, and received [what he had desired.] His petition was this; that if Arius's opinion were true, he might not see the day appointed for the disquisition thereof: but, if that Faith which he professed were true, that Arius (in re­gard he was the Authour of all these mischiefs) might suffer condign punishment for his im­piety.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Concerning Arius's death.

THis was the subject of Alexanders prayer. Now the Emperour, desirous to make tryal of Arius, sends for him to the Pallace, and en­quired of him, whether he would give his assent to the determinations of the Nicene Synod. He, without any delay readily subscribed in the Em­perours presence, making use of evasive shifts to elude and avoid what had been determined con­cerning the Faith. The Emperour, admiring hereat, compelled him to swear. This he also did, by making use of fraud and deceit. More­over, the manner of artifice he made use of in subscribing was, as I have heard, this. Arius, they say▪ wrote that opinion he maintained in a piece of paper, and hid it under his arm-pit: and then swore that he did really think as he had written. What I have written concerning his having done this, is grounded on hear-say only. But I have collected out of the Emperours own Letters, that he swore, besides his bare subscri­bing. Hereupon the Emperour believed him, and gave order to Alexander Bishop of Con­stantinople to admit him to Communion. It was then the Sabbath day, and on the day following he expected that he should be a member of the assembly of believers. But Divine vengeance closely followed Arius's audaciousness. For, when he went out of the Imperial Pallace, he was attended by the Eusebian faction, like guards, through the midst of the City, in so much that the eyes of all people were upon him. And when he came neer that place which is called Constantines Forum, where the pillar of porphyrie, is erected, a terror [proceeding] from a con­sciousness [of his impieties] seiz'd Arius, which terrour was accompanied with a loosness. Here­upon he enquired whether there were an house of office neer, and understanding that there was one behind Constantines Forum, he went thither. A fain­ting fit seized him; In Leo Allatius's M. S. (or in Theodorus Lectors Tripertite History) this place is worded thus, [ [...]; and together with his excrements his funda­ment slid secretly down, and that termed by Physitians the Apeph­ [...]hesma fell immediately through his fundament; which was fol­lowed by a great flux of bloud, and his small guts ran out, toge­ther with his spleen and liver.] Which passage is in my judg­ment incomparably well expres­sed. Nor do I doubt but So­crates wrote thus. 'Tis certain, Epiphanius Scholasticus does in part confirm this reading. Also, in the Ssortian M. S. it is [ [...], slid secretly down] instead of [ [...], fell down.] Vales. and to­gether with his excrements his fundament fell down forthwith, and a great flux of bloud followed, and his small guts. And bloud gushed out, together with his spleen and liver. He died therefore im­mediately. But the house of office is to be seen at this day in Constantinople, as I said, behind Constantines Forum, and behind the Sham­bles in the Piazza: and by every ones pointing with their finger at the jakes as they go by, the manner of Arius's death will never be forgotten by posterity. This accident hapning, a fear and an anxietie seized Eusebius of Nicomedia's faction: and the report hereof quickly spread it self all over the City, nay I may say over the whole world. But the Emperour did more zealously adhere to Christianity, and said that the Nicene Faith was now truly confirmed by God himself. He was also very glad, both at what had hapned, and also upon the account of his three sons, whom he had proclaimed Caesars: each of them was created at every Or, eve­ry tenth year of his Empire. Decennalia of his Reign. The Eldest of them (called Con­stantine after his own name) he created Gover­nour over the Western parts of the Empire, in the first tenth year of his Reign. His second son, Constantius (who bore his Grandfathers name,) he made Caesar in It should not be [ [...]] but [ [...], &c. in the Eastern parts.] And, a little before, it must be [ [...], of the same name with his Grandfather:] as it is in the Allat. M. S. But the vulgar reading is tolerable. For the Greek term [ [...]] is used not only to signifiy him who gives his name to ano­ther; but in respect to him also, who takes his name from another. So Socrates does usually stile Constantinople [...], a City that took its name from Constantine. Vales. the Eastern parts of the Empire, in the twentieth year of his Reign. The youngest, called Constans he crea­ted [Caesar] in the thirtieth year of his Em­pire.

CHAP. XXXIX. How Constantine, falling into a distemper, ended his life.

THe Year after, the Emperour Constantine, having just entred the sixty fifth year of his age, falls sick. He therefore left Constantinople and went by water to Helenopolis, to make use of the medicinal hot springs situate in the vici­nage of that City. But when he was sensible that his distemper increased, he deferred bathing. And removed from Helenopolis to Nicome­dia. He kept his Court there in the Suburbs, and received Christian Baptism. He was here­upon very chearfull, and made his will, wherein he left his three sons heirs of the Empire, allot­ting to every one of them their part, as he had done in his life time. He left many Legacies both to Concer­ning this gift, which Constantine by his will bequeathed to the El­der-Rome, our Euse­bius is a witness; in his 4th book of Constan­tines Life, chap. 63. Vales. Rome and to Constantinople, and he in­trusted his Will with that Socrates borrowed this out of Rufinus, book 1. Eccles. Hist. chap. 11. But this story seems to me very improbable. For who can believe that the Emperour Constantine, who then had many Bishops about him, (for so Eusebius says expresly;) as also Grandees and great Offi­cers, should make choice of one Presbyter, an unknown person, (for his name is always concealed) to whom he might commit the keeping of his Will, when he died. Wherefore, I had rather follow Philo­storgius here, who says, that Constantine delivered his Will to Eu­sebius of Nicomedia, by whom he had been baptized a little be­fore. Vales. Presbyter, by whose intercession Arius was recalled, of whom we spoke something Chap. 25. of this Book. before: injoyning him not to deliver it into any mans hands, except his Son Constantius's, whom he had constituted Governour of the East. After he had made his Will, he lived some few days and then died. Moreover, none of his Sons were with him at his death. Therefore there was one immediately dispatcht into the East, to inform Constantius of his Fa­thers death.

CHAP. XL. Concerning Constantine the Emperours Fune­rall.

THey that were about the Emperour, put his Corps in a Coffin of Gold, conveighed it to Constantinople, and placed it [on a bed of State] on high in the Pallace; and there they paid their honorary respects to it, and set a guard about it, as when he was alive. This course they continued, till one of his Sons came. But when [Page 244] Constantius arrived out of the Eastern parts, he was honoured with an imperial Sepulture, and de­posited in the Church called The Apostles; which he himself had erected for this reason, that the Emperours and Prelates Musculus and Chri­stophorson have ren­dred this place thus; ne Impera­tores & Antistetes reliquiis apostolorum destituerentur, that the Emperours and Prelates might not be deprived of the Apostles reliques. But I can­not approve of this Version. For Constantine had deposited no re­liques of the Apostles in that Church. I would therefore rather translate it thus, that the Emperours and Prelates there to be buried, might not be far inferiour to the Apostles reliques; but might be affected with the same degree of honour with them. Which inter­pretation Eusebius confirms, in book 4. chap. 40. Concerning the Life of Constantine. Vales. might not be far inferiour to the reliques of the Apostles. The Emperour Constantine lived to the age of Sixty five years: he Reigned One and thirty years. And died in the Consulate of Felicianus and Titianus, upon the twenty second day of May: which was the Socrates mistakes here. For in the con­sulate of Felicianus and Titianus (which was the year of Christ 337) on the eleventh of the Calends of June (i. e. on the 22d of May) the fourth year of the 278th Olympiad was current. Which may be demonstrated by most evident reasons. But Socrates seems to have made use of a cor­rupt Copy of Eusebius's Chronicle, wherein the year of the Olympiad was erroniously set. But, at this place of Socrates, we ought rather to read The third year. For Socrates says, that this first book of his History contains the space of One and thirty years. For he begins from the beginning of Constantines Reign, who, as he says, reigned One and thirty years. The beginning of his Reign he places on the first year of the 271 Olympiad, as we saw before. Now from this year to the second year of the 278th Olympiad there are but thirty years, including therein the two terms. Wherefore, there must necessarily be a mistake in this place of Socrates. Vales. second year of the Two hun­dredth seventy eighth Olympiad. Now, this Book contains in it the space of thirty one yeares.

THE SECOND BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.

CHAP. I. The Preface, wherein he gives an account, why he made a new Edition of his First and Second Book.

Rufinus (he that wrote an Ecclesiastick History in the Latine tongue,) has erred concerning [the notation of] the times. For he supposes, that what was done against Athanasius, hapned after the death of Constantine the Emperour. He was also ignorant of his banishment into the Gallia's, and of several other things. We having at first fol­lowed Rufinus [as our authour,] wrote the first and second book of our History according to his authority. But from the third to the seventh Book we have made a collection of some passages, partly out of Rufinus, and partly out of various other authours, and related others from those which do yet survive; and so have compleated our work. But when we had afterwards pro­cured Athanasius's Books, wherein he laments his own calamitous sufferings, and how he was banisht by the calumny of the Eusebian facti­on; we thought it more expedient to credit him (who had suffered these hardships) and those who had been present at the transacting of these matters; rather then such as have fol­lowed conjectures [in their relations] thereof, and for that reason have been mistaken. Besides, having gotten [several] Letters of persons at that time very eminent, to our utmost ability we have diligently traced out the truth. Upon which account we have been necessitated That is, to make a new Edi­tion of, &c. entire­ly to dictate again the first and second Book [of this work,] making use [nevertheless] of those passages, in the relation whereof Ru­finus hath not forsaken the truth. Moreover, no­tice is to be taken, that in our former Edition we had not inserted Arius's Libel of deposition, nor the Emperours Letters; but had onely set forth a bare relation of the affairs transacted, that we might not dull our Readers by a prolixe and tedious narration. But in regard that this also was to be done in favour to you Our Eu­sebius has given the same title to Pauli­nus Bishop of Tyre, at the begin­ning of the tenth book of his Ec­clesiastick Hist. whose Example Socrates here follows. Who this Theodo­rus was, to whom Socrates dedicated his History, is uncertain. For I cannot think that Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia is here meant. Vales. O sacred man of God, Theodorus!) that you might not be ignorant of what the Emperours wrote in their Letters, nor of what the Bishops (chan­ging that faith by little and little) promulged in divers Synods: wherefore, in this latter Edition we have made such alterations and insertions as we judged to be necessary. And, having done this in the first Book, we will also make it our business to do the same in that now under our hands, we mean the second. But we must now begin [the following series of] our History.

CHAP. II. How Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia with his ac­complices, earnestly indeavouring to introduce Arius's opinion again, made disturbances in the Churches.

THe Emperour Constantine being dead, Euse­bius [Bishop] of Nicomedia, and The­ognis Bishop of Nice, supposing they had now gotten a very seasonable opportunity, made use of their utmost diligence and attempts to expell the That is, the faith that pro­fessed Christ to be of the same substance or essence with the Father. Homoüsian faith, and introduce Arianism in its stead. This place is imperfect, and faulty. It may be made good not incommodiously, thus; [...]; but they understood that they could not effect this, if Athanasius should return. Vales. But they [sup­posed] it impossible for them to effect this, if Atha­nasius should return [to A­lexandria.] Moreover, in order to their forming and carrying on of their de­sign in this matter, they made use of that Presbyters assistance, who had a little before been the cause of Arius's being recalled from banishment. But, how this was effected, we must relate. That Presbyter [we have mentioned] presented Con­stantines last will and commands, which he had received from the Emperour at his death, to the Emperours son Constantius. He having found that written in the Will which he was very [Page 246] desirous of; (for by the Will the Empire of the East was committed to him) had an hono­rary respect for the Presbyter, allowed him a great liberty of speaking, and ordered he should freely and with confidence come into the Palace. This liberty therefore being allowed [the Pres­byter,] made him in a short time well known both to the Empress, and also to her Eunuches. The principal person of the Emperours Bed-chamber at that time was an Eunuch, whose name was Eusebius. The Presbyter perswaded this person to embrace Arius's opinion. After which, the rest of the Eunuches were prevailed with to be of the same opinion. Moreover, the Emperours wife also, by the perswasion of the Eunuches and this Presbyter, became a favourer of Arius's Tenets. Not long after, this question came to [the hearing of] the Emperour himself. And by degrees it was spread abroad, first amongst Christophorson rendred these words [ [...]] thus, Imperatoris satellites, the Emperours guards: which is ill translated. For by this term all the Palatini are meant; not only the Protectores, the domestici, and the rest of the Scholares, (see Valesius's notes on Amm. Marcellin. pag. 31. &c.) but the Ministeriani, and Scri­niarii also. For this was termed the Palatine Milice. Vales. those that were of the milice in the Palace; and afterwards it was divulged amongst the multitudes of the [Imperial] City. Those of the Bed-chamber toge­ther with the women dis­coursed concerning this o­pinion in the Imperial Pa­lace: and in the City, throughout every private family, there was a logi­cal war waged. Moreover, the mischief soon spread its self over other Pro­vinces and Cities. And (like a spark) this con­troversie taking its rise from a small beginning, excited the hearers minds to a most pertinacious contention. For every person that enquired the reason of the disturbance, immediately had an occasion of disputing given him; and at the very interim of his making an enquiry, he re­solved upon entring into a wrangling dispute. By this contention all things were subverted. These [alterations] were started in the Ea­stern Cities only. For the Cities of Illyricum, and those [scituated] in the Western parts [of the Empire] were in that interim at quiet: for they would by no means disanull the determina­tions made at the Nicene Synod. When there­fore this mischief, thus kindled, increased and grew daily worse and worse, Eusebius of Nico­media and his faction began then to think the disturbance of the Vulgar to be their gain. For [they were in hopes] of being enabled by this means only, to constitute a Bishop of Alex­andria, that should be of the same opinion with them. But Athanasius's return at that time to Alexandria prevented this their design, who came thither fortified with one of the Augustus's Letters, which Constantinus the younger (who bore the same name with his Father) sent from Triers a City in Gallia to the people of Alex­andria. [A Copy of] which Letter I have here subjoyned.

CHAP. III. How Athanasius, confiding in the Letter of Constantine the Younger, returned to Alex­andria.

CONSTANTINUS CAESAR, to the people of the Catholick Church of the Alexandrians.

IT has not, We suppose, Instead of [ [...]] I read [ [...],] as it is in Athana­sius's second Apologetick against the Arians▪ Caesar Ba­ronius, (in his An­nalls,) Dionysius Petavius, (in his Ra­tionarium Tempo­rum,) Blondellus, (in his book de Primatu Ecclesiae,) and others do relate, that Atha­nasius was recalled from ba­nishment, in the year of Christ 338, to wit, the year after Con­stantines death; who, perceiving the foresaid prelate to be pressed on every side by the calumnies of his adversaries, had for a time banished him into the Gallia's. But I do maintain, that Athanasius was restored in the year of Christ 337, when Felicianus and Titianus were Consuls in that very year, wherein Constantine died: which I can make evident, as I suppose, by a most demonstrable argument. For Athanasius (in his second Apology against the Arians, pag. 805.) relates, that he was released from his banishment and restored to his Country by Constan­tine the younger, who also wrote a Letter in his behalf to the po­pulace and Clergy of the Alexandrian Church. This Letter [as So­crates does here, so] Athanasius there recites: the inscription of it is this; Constantinus Caesar, to the people of the Catholick Church of Alexandria. The subscription of this Letter is thus, dated at Triers the fifteenth of the Calends of July. As well the inscription, as sub­scription of this Letter, does attest what I say, to wit, that Athanasius was released from his exile soon after the death of Constantine the Great, in the year of Christ 337. For if he had been restored on the year following, then Constantine the younger would not have called himself Caesar, but Augustus. Nor would Athanasius have been re­stored by Constantine the younger, but by Constantius, to whom was allotted the Eastern part of the Empire. Wherefore, in regard Con­stantine stiles himself only Caesar in that Letter, and since Athanasius attests, that he was restored by Constantine the younger, 'tis apparent, that that was done, before the sons of Constantine the elder were by the Souldiers proclaimed Augusti. For, upon Constantines death, there was a certain interregnum; and the Roman world continued without an Emperour almost three months; untill the brethren (who under the name of Caesars Governed divers Provinces) had met together, in order to their making a division of the whole Roman Empire. Constantine died on the eleventh of the Calends of June, and on that very year there were three Augusti proclaimed, to wit, Constantinus, Constantius and Constans, on the fifth of the Ides of September; (as it is recorded in the Old Fasti, which Jacobus Sir­mondus published under the false name of Idatius. This is that which Eusebius writes in his fourth book of Constantines Life, chap. 71, to wit, that Constantine retained his Empire after his death, and that all Rescripts and Edicts bore his name, as if he had been yet alive. For this reason therefore Constantine the younger stiles himself Caesar only, in his Letter to the Alexandrians, in regard he was not yet pro­claimed Augustus. For the Letter was dated on the fifteenth of the Calends of July. But he was created Augustus (together with his brethren) on the fifth of the Ides of September. Moreover, at that time (whilst the brothers were stiled Caesars only) Constantinus Ju­nior was the chief in Authority, because he was the eldest brother. See Valesius's first book of Ecclesiastick observations on Socrates and Sozomen. chap. 1. escaped the knowledge of your sacred mind, that Athanasius an inter­preter of the venerable Law, was therefore sent into the Gallia's for a time, lest (in regard the barbarity of his bloud-devouring Enemies and Ad­versaries continually menaced his sacred head with imminent danger,) he should undergo incurable mischiefs through the perverseness of wicked men. In order therefore to his frustrating of this [bar­barity,] he was snatcht out of the Jaws of those persons that designed his ruine; and enjoyned to live under our district, in such a manner that, in that City wherein he was ordered to make his re­sidence, he should abound with all manner of ne­cessaries: although his most eximious virtue, ha­ving put its confidence in the divine assistances, esteems as nothing the troubles of a rougher for­tune. Wherefore, although Our Lord and Father Constantinus Augustus of blessed memory had determined to restore this Bishop to his own Place. See, and [return him] to your most amiable piety: yet in regard, being prevented by humane chance, he died before the accomplish­ment of his desire; We being his successour, thought it agreeable to fulfill the mind of that Emperour of sacred memory. [Moreover,] how great a reverence and respect he has procured from us, you shall know from himself, as soon as he shall come into your presence. Nor is it a wonder that We have done any thing in favour to him: for both the representation of your love, and also the aspect of so great a personage moved and exited Our mind hereto. May the Divine Providence pre­serve you dearest brethren.

[Page 247]Upon the confidence of this Letter Athanasius comes to Alexandria, and the people of Alex­andria most willingly received him. But as many as were followers of Arius's opinion, entred into a combination and conspired against him: hereupon continual Seditions arose, which gave an occasion to the Eusebian faction of accusing him before the Emperour, because upon his own inclination and award (without the determina­tion of a general Council of Bishops) he had re­turned and taken possession of the [Alexan­drian] Church. And they made so great a pro­ficiency in their calumnies, that the Emperour, being incensed, expelled him out of Alexandria But, how that was effected, I will a little after this relate.

CHAP. IV. That upon Eusebius Pamphilus's death; Acacius succeeded in the Bishoprick of Caesarea.

DUring this interval of time, Eusebius (who was Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, and had the sirname of Pamphilus) departed this life, and Acacius his Scholar succeeded him in that Bishoprick. This Acacius published many other books, and also wrote [particularly] con­cerning the Life of his Master [Eusebius.]

CHAP. V. Concerning the death of Constantine the Younger.

NOt long after this, the Emperour Constan­tius's brother, (who bore the same name with his Father,) Constantine the younger, in­vading those parts [of the Empire] that be­longed to his younger brother Constans, and in­gaging with his Souldiers, is slain by them, in the Consulate of Acindynus and Proclus.

CHAP. VI. How Alexander Bishop of Constantinople, at his death, proposed Paulus and Macedonius to be elected into his Bishoprick.

AT the very same time, the City Constan­tinople was involved in another tumult (which followed on the neck of those [distur­bances] we have before related,) raised upon this account. Socrates mistakes here, (and all those that follow him,) in placing the death of Alexander Bishop of Constantinople on the Consulate of Acindynus and Proclus, in the year of Christ 340. In the second book of my Ecclesiastick Ob­servations upon Socrates and Sozomen [The Learned Reader will meet with Valesius's Ecclesiastick Observations on Socrates and Sozomen, at the close of Valesius's second Volume of the Greek Ecclesiastick Histo­rians; he may find this matter discussed at the first chapter of the second book of those Observations.] I have by most evident argu­ments demonstrated, that Alexander Bishop of Constantinople died in the Reign of Constantine the Great, and that Paul succeeded him, during the Reign of the said Constantine. Baronius, who places Alex­anders death on the year of Christ 340, does manifestly contradict him­self. For he says, that the Synod of the Bishops of Egypt (which was summoned to confute the calumnies brought against Athanasius by the Eusebian faction,) was convened in the year of Christ 339. But those Bishops do expresly attest, in their Synodick Epistle, that at that very time Eusebius had left Nicomedia, and had lept into the Constantino­politan See. 'Tis needless to quote the words of that Epistle here, in regard they are produced by Baronius himself, at the year of Christ 340. Now, if Eusebius had gotten the See of Constantinople in the year of Christ 339. Alexander must necessarily be supposed to have been dead before this year. Vales. Alexander, who presided over the Churches in that City, [a Prelate] that had couragiously opposed Arius, departed out of this life, after he had spent twenty three years in that Bishoprick, and had lived ninety eight years compleat, having ordained no body [to suc­ceed] in his place. But he commanded those to whom the power of electing belonged, to make choice of one of those two whom he should name. And if they were desirous of having one that should be both skillfull in teaching, and also of an approved piety and uprightness of life, [he advised them] to make choise of Paulus, one that he had ordained Presbyter; a person that was a young man indeed in respect of his age, but old in understanding and prudence. But if they would rather have one commendable for an ex­ternal shew of piety only, they might elect This person was afterwards promoted to the degree of Pres­byter under Paul Bishop of Con­stantinople, and accused his own Bishop, as Athanasius relates, in his Epistle ad Solitar. Vales. Mace­donius, who had long since been made a Deacon of that Church, and was now grown aged. Hereupon there hap­ned a great contest concer­ning the Ordination of a Bishop, which very much disturbed that Church. For the people were divided into two Parts. factions; the one side adhered to the Arian opinion; the other embraced the de­terminations made at the Nicene Synod. And as long as Alexander continued alive, the That is, those that owned Christ to be of the same sub­stance or essence with the Father. Ho­moöusian party prevailed; the Arians disagreeing, and contending daily amongst themselves con­cerning their own opinion. But after Alexan­ders death, the success of the peoples contest was dubious. Therefore, the Homoöusian party proposed Paulus to be ordained Bishop: but those that embraced Arianism, were very earnest to have Macedonius elected. And in the Church called There were two Churches of this name in Constanti­nople, the one called the Old, the other the New Irene; as it is recorded in the Life of Paul the Constantinopolitan Bishop, which Photius relates in his Bib­liotheca. Moreover, the Old Church called Irene was contiguous to the Great Church, which was afterwards named Sophia: nor had it separate Clergy-men; but the Clergy of the Great Church by turns ministred in that Church. The Emperour Justinian informs us of this, in the third Novell. In the old description of Constantinople, which is pre­fixt before the Notitia Imperii Romani, this is called the Old Church, and 'tis placed in the second ward of the City together with the Great Church. The Church Irene (to wit, The New Irene,) is recounted in the seventh ward of that City. Socrates hath made mention of The Old Irene, in his first Book, chap. 37. It is termed the Church of Saint Irene, after the same manner that the Church Sophia is called Saint Sophia; not that there was a Virgin, or Martyr, called by that name. Vales. Irene (which is near that Church now named The Great Church, and the Church of Sophia,) Paulus is ordained Bishop; in which [election] the suffrage of Alexander, then dead, seemed to have prevailed.

CHAP. VII. How the Emperour Constantius ejected Paulus who had been Ordained Bishop: and, having sent for Eusebius from Nicomedia, entrusted him with the Bishoprick of Constantinople.

BUt the Emperour, arriving not long after at Constantinople, was highly incensed at this Ordination [of Paulus.] And having convened a Council of Bishops that embraced Arius's opi­nion, he vacated Paulus's [Bishoprick.] And he translated Eusebius The Al­latian M. S. inserts some words here, after this man­ner: [...]; i. e. and having through Eusebius's own ambition removed him from Nicomedia, he con­stituted him Bishop of the Great City [Constantinople.] Vales. from Nicomedia, and con­stituted him Bishop of Constantinople. When the Emperour had performed these things, he went to Antioch.

CHAP. VIII. How Eusebius assembled another Synod at Antioch of Syria, and caused another form of Faith to be published.

BUt Eusebius could by no means be at quiet: but (as the common saying is) moved eve­ry stone, that he might effect what he had de­signed. Therefore, he procures a Synod to be assembled at Antioch in Syria, under a pretence of dedicating a Church, which [Constantine] the father of the That is, he means Constan­tiu [...], and Constans, sons to the Emperour Constantine the Great; who had a little before this been proclaimed Augusti. Constan­tine, the other son of Constantine the Great, was now dead. See chap. 5. of this book. Augusti had begun to build: (after whose death, Constantius his son fi­nished it, in the tenth year after its foundation was laid:) but in reality, that he might subvert and destroy the Ho­moöusian Faith. At this Synod there met ninety Bishops, [who came] out of divers Cities. But Maximus Bishop of Je­rusalem, who had succeeded Macarius, was not present at that Synod, The par­ticle [ [...]] must be expunged here; and the whole clause read in this continued form; ha­ving consi­dered with himself how he had been circum ven­ted that he might sub­scribe A­thanasius's deposition. For Maxi­mus Bishop of Jerusa­lem▪ had, together with Paul and the rest, sub­scribed A­thanasius's deposition, in the Council of Tyre. In regard of his sorrow for doing this, he refused afterwards to be present at the Council of Antioch; as Sozomen relates, in his 3d book chap. 6. neer the end. Vales. having considered with himself that he had been before induced by fraud to subscribe Athanasius's deposition. Neither was Julius Bishop of Rome the Great present there: nor did he send any body to supply his place. Although the Ecclesiastick▪ Canon doth order, that the Churches ought not to make Sanctions contrary to the Bishop of Romes opinion. This Synod therefore is convened at Antioch (the Emperour Constantius himself being there pre­sent,) in the Athanasius (in his book de Synodis) set forth the time of this Council by these notes: [...], &c. Those Bi­shops that met at the dedication were ninety in number; [they were con­vened] in the Consulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the tenth Indiction, the most impious Constantius being there present. Vales. Consulate of Marcellus and Pro­binus. This was the In the Consulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, on the eleventh of the Calends of June was compleated the fourth year from Con­stantines death. The Synod of Antioch therefore was convened after this day, if it be true which Socrates here says, to wit, that it was con­vened in the fifth year after Constantines death. Vales. fifth year from the death of Constantine the father of the Augusti. At that time In Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version, this persons name is truer written, thus, Flaccillus. Nor is he otherwise called, in Pope Ju­lius's Epistle to the Bishops convened in this Synod of Antioch. This person had been present before, at the Council of Tyre, and had with the Arians conspired against Athanasius, as the Epistle of the Egypti­an Bishops to Dionysius the Comes doth inform us, which Epistle A­thanasius has recorded, in his second defence against the Arians. Eu­sebius of Caesarea dedicated the books he wrote against Marcellus, to this same Flaccillus. But, instead of Flaccillus, he is almost every where called Placitus: only in the following chapter, the Allatian M. S. terms him Flaccillus. Vales. Placitus, successour to Euphronius presided over the Churches in Antioch. The Eusebians therefore made it their principal busi­ness to calumniate Athanasius, [saying] in the first place, that he had done contrary to that Canon, which they had then constituted, because he had recovered his Episcopal dignity without the consent of a general Synod of Bishops. For, returning from his exile, he had upon his own arbitrement and award rushed into the Church: [secondly,] that a tumult being raised at his entrance, These calumnies of the Eusebians are incomparably well refuted by the Egyptian Bishops, in their Synodick Epistle, which Athanasius records, in his second defence against the Arians. Vales. many had lost their lives in that Sedi­tion; and that some persons had been scourged by Athanasius, and others brought before the seats of Judicature. Moreover, they produced what had been done against Athanasius in the City of Tyre.

CHAP. IX. Concerning Eusebius Emisenus.

AFter the framing of these calumnies, they proposed one to be made Bishop of Alex­andria, and in the first place [they named] Eu­sebius Emisenus. Who this person was, Geor­gius of Laodicaea, one that was present at this Synod, informs us. For he says (in the Book he wrote concerning his Life) that this Eusebius was descended from noble personages of Edessa in Mesopotamia: and that from his childhood he Sozomen (in his third book chap. 6.) explains this passage in Socrates; where he speaks thus concerning Eusebius Emisenus: [...], &c. i. e. from his childhood (according to the custom of his own Country) he learned the sacred Scriptures by heart. Therefore the boys of E­dessa got by heart the books of sacred Scripture, according to the usage of their Ancestours. Indeed, Ecclesiastick Writers do attest, that the Edessens were most ardent lovers of the Chri­stian Religion. Vales. Learned the sacred Scriptures: that he was afterwards instructed in the Grecian literature by a Ma­ster who then lived at E­dessa; and in fine, that he had the sacred Scriptures interpreted to him by Pa­trophilus and Eusebius; the latter of which persons pre­sided over the Church in Caesarea, and the former over that in Scythopolis. After this, when he came to An­tioch, it hapned that Eusta­thius, being accused by Cyrus of Beroea, was deposed, as being an assertor of Sabellius's opinion. Wherefore Eusebius after­wards lived with Euphronius, Eustathius's succes­sour. Afterwards, that he might avoid being made a Bishop, he betook himself to Alexandria, and there studied Philosophy. Returning from thence to Antioch, he conversed with Flaccillus, Euphronius's successour, and was at length pro­moted to the See of Alexandria by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople. But he went thither no more, because Athanasius was so much be­loved by the people of Alexandria. He was therefore sent to Emisa. But when the Inhabi­tants of that City raised a Sedition at his Ordi­nation, (for he was reproacht, as being a per­son studious of, and exercised in the Mathema­ticks,) he fled from thence, and went to Laodi­caea, to Georgius, who hath related so many pas­sages concerning him. When this Georgius had brought him to Antioch, he procured him to be sent back again to Emisa by Flaccillus and Nar­cissus. But he afterwards underwent another ac­cusation, for being an adherent to Sabellius's principles. Georgius writes at large concerning his Or Re­stauration, or, Ele­ction. Ordination. And in fine adds, that the Emperour, in his expedition against the Barba­rians, took him along with him, and that mira­cles were wrought by him. But hitherto we have recorded what Georgius hath related con­cerning Eusebius Emisenus.

CHAP. X. That the Bishops convened at Antioch, upon Eu­sebius Emisenus's refusal [of the Bishoprick] of Alexandria, Ordained Gregorius, and altered the expressions of the Nicene Faith.

BUt when Eusebius, who had been chosen Bishop of Alexandria at Antioch, was a­fraid to go thither, they then proposed Gre­gorius to be Ordained Bishop of Alexandria. And having done this, they altered the Or, the Faith. Creed, [Page 249] finding fault indeed with nothing [that had been determined] at Nice; Instead of these words [but in re­ality their design was to subvert.] the Allat. M. S. has these [but giving the beginning to a pretext by their continual, &c.] and so Epiphan. Schol. read it, as from his Version appears. Vales. but in reality [their design was] to subvert and destroy the Homoöusian Faith, by their continual assem­bling of Synods, and by their publishing some­times one, sometimes another form of the Creed; that so by degrees [all persons] might be In the Allat. M. S. the reading is [fall into.] Vales. per­verted to the Arian opinion. Moreover, how these things were done [by them,] we will mani­fest in the procedure of our History. But the E­pistle they published concerning the Faith runs thus.

We have neither been Arius's followers: (for how should we that are Bishops be the Followers of a Presbyter?) Nor have we embraced any other Faith, than what was from the beginning set forth. But, being made inquirers into, and ex­aminers of, his Faith, we have How these words are to be understood, I have ad­vertized the Rea­der, in the second book of my Ec­clesiastick Observa­tions, chap. 2. for we must not suppose, that the Arch-He­retick A­rius him­self was admitted and enter­tained in the Jerusalem Synod, but his followers only. For Arius himself was dead long before. Should any one maintain, that these words of the Bishops of the Antiochian-Council are to be understood of Arius him­self, then I will answer, that the Jerusalem Synod is not meant here, but some other more ancient Synod, which admitted Arius to commu­nion: for the Eusebian party had done that before the Synod of Jerusalem, as Athanasius attests, in his book de Synodis, not far from the beginning. Vales. admitted and en­tertained, rather than followed, him. And this you will understand from what shall be said. For we have learned from the beginning to believe in one supream God, the maker and preserver of all things as well intelligible as sensible. And in one only begotten Son of God, subsisting before all ages, existing together with the Father that begat him; by whom all things visible and invisible were made: who in the last days, according to the Fathers good pleasure, descended, and assumed flesh from the holy Virgin, and when he had compleatly fulfilled all his Fathers will, he suffered, and arose, and ascen­ded into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father: and he shall come to judge the quick and dead, and continues a King and God for ever. We believe also in the holy Ghost. And (if it be requisite to add this) we also believe the Resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting.

Having written these things in their first E­pistle, they sent them to [the Bishops] throughout every City. But, when they had continued sometime at Antioch, condemning as it were this [their former] Epistle, they a­gain publish another, in these very words.

Another Exposition [of Faith.]

Agreeable to Evangelick and Apostolick tra­dition, We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Framer and Maker of all things. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, God, by whom all things were made: begotten of the Fa­ther before all worlds, God of God, Whole of Whole, Only of Only, Perfect of Perfect, King of King, Lord of Lord: the living Word, the Wise­dom, the Life, the true Light, the way of Truth, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the Gate: im­mutable and inconvertible: the most express image of the Father's Deity, Essence. Substance, Power, Coun­cil, and Glory: the First begotten of every Crea­ture: John 1. 1. Who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, according as 'tis said in the Gospel: and the word was God, by whom all things were made, and in whom all things have subsisted. Who in the last days came down from heaven, and was born of the Virgin according to the Scriptures. And was made man, the medi­atour of God and men, the Apostle of our Faith, and the Prince of life, as he himself says, * For IJoh. 6. 38. came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. Who suf­fered for us, and rose again for us the third day, and ascended into the heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with Glory and Power, to judge the quick and dead. And [we believe] in the holy Ghost, who is given to believers in order to their Consolation, Sanctification, and Perfection: according as our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying, Matt. 28. 19. Go ye, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: to wit, of the Father being truly the Fa­ther, and of the Son being truly the Son, and of the holy Ghost being truly the holy Ghost: which terms are not simply, or insignificantly Placed. made use of, but they do accurately manifest the proper and peculiar Person, Glory, and Order of each of those that are named. So that they are three in Person; but in consent One. After these words [we there­fore holding this faith,] in Athana­sius's book de Synodis (where this form of faith oc­curs) these are added [ [...], and holding it from the be­ginning to the end:] which ought not to have been omitted. Hilarius (in his book de Synodis) has translated this form of the Creed into Latine; in which Version of his these words occur. Vales. We therefore holding this Faith, in the presence of God and of Christ, do anathematize all manner of Heretical and ill opi­nions. And if any one shall teach (contrary to the [...]ound and true Faith of the Scriptures,) saying, that there is, or was, a time, or an age, I corrected this place by the assistance of the Florentine M. S. wherein it is written thus [ [...], before the Son of God.] The Verb [ [...], was begotten] which preceded, is to be understood here. In Athanasius's book de Synodis, the reading is [ [...], before he was begotten.] But our reading pleases us better, because it comes neerer the sense of the Arians: who asser­ted that the Son of God was made. Vales. before the Son of God [was begotten;] let him be Anathe­ma. And if any one says, that the Son is a Crea­ture, as one of the Creatures, or that he is a Or an Off-spring, or, a Foe [...]us. Branch, as one of the Branches; and [shall not hold] every one of the foresaid points according as the sacred Scriptures have set them forth: or if any one Teaches or Preaches any other thing than what we have received, let him be Anathema. For we do truly, and In the Allat. M. S. the reading is [ [...], and with fear:] 'Tis so also in Athanasius, and in Hilarius's Version. Vales. clearly, believe and follow all things delivered by the Prophets and Apostles in the sacred Scriptures.

Such were the Expositions of the Faith, [pub­lished] by those at that time convened at An­tioch: to which also Gregorius (although he had not then made his entry into Alexandria, yet) subscribed as Bishop of that City. The Synod at that time assembled in Antioch, having done these things, and made some other Canons, was dissolved. The state of the publick affairs in the Empire hapned to be disturbed at the very same time also. A nation (they are called The Franci) made an incursion into the Roman territories in Gallia. At the same time also, there were ter­rible earth-quakes in the East: No; An­tioch was by a special priviledge free from this earth-quake. For so 'tis recorded in those incomparable Fasti Consulares, (which Sirmondus has published under the name of Ida­tius;) in these words: Marcellino & Probino Coss. His consulibus pugna facta est [...]um gente Francorum à Constante Augusto in Galliis. Et ipso anno terrae motus fuit ad orientem per totum annum praeter Antio­chiam: i. e. in the consulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, there was a fight between the nation of the Franci and Constans Augustus in the Gallia's. And in the same year there was an earthquake in the East throughout the whole year except at Antioch. Vales. especially at An­tioch, which City was shaken thereby [continually] for the space of one whole year.

CHAP. XI. That, upon Gregorius's arrival at Alexandria [guarded] with a Military force, Atha­nasius fled.

WHen these things were done, In this place So­crates mis­takes, who confounds what was done at Georgius's installation with those things transacted at Grego­rius's ari­val. In­deed Syri­anus brought Georgius to Alex­andria, as Athanasius attests, in his Epistle ad Solitar▪ and in his Apologe­tick to Con­stantius the Emperour; and in his Apology concerning his own E­scape, when Syrianus pursued him. But these things ha­pned a long while after this, to wit, in the year of Christ 356. Gre­gorius, concerning whom Socrates speaks here, was brought to Alexan­dria by Balacius the Captain, and Philagrius Prefect of Egypt, as Atha­nasius relates, in his Epistle Ad Solitar. But Athanasius departed from Alexandria before their arival and went to Rome, whither he had been invited by Pope Julius's Letters. Vales. Syrianus the Captain (with the armed Soul­diers under his command, being in number five thousand,) brought Gregorius to Alexandria. Those in that City who were favourers of Arius's opinion, assisted the Souldiers. Moreover, after what manner Athanasius, being expelled out of the Church, escaped being taken by them, I think fit to relate. It was now Socrates borrowed this out of Athanasius's Apology concerning his own escape, about the close of it. Where Athanasius's words are these: [...], i. e. it was now night, and some of the people lay in the Church all night, a communion being expected. But in his Apologetick to the Empe­rour Constantinus, he shews manifestly that Syrianus made this irruption in the night, and not in the evening, as Socrates here says. Vales. Evening, and the people lodged in the Church all night, a com­munion being expected. The Captain came, and having put his Souldiers into a fighting posture, environed the Church on every side. Athanasius seeing what was done, made it his chiefest care, that the people might in no wise be damnified upon his account. And having commanded the Deacon to give the people notice of going to prayers, after that he gave order for the recitation of a Psalm. And when there was a sweet har­mony made by reason of the peoples singing of the Psalm together, all the congregation went out through one of the Church doors. Whilst this was doing, the Souldiers stood still without striking a stroak: and so Athanasius escaped unhurt in the midst of those that sang the Psalm. Having secretly made his escape after this man­ner, he hastned to Rome: Gregorius was then put into possession of the [Alexandrian] Church. But the people of Alexandria, unable to bear what had been done, burnt that, called Dionysius's Church. Thus far concerning these things. But Eusebius having done what he had a mind to do, Our Socrates does mistake here also. For Eusebius of Nicomedia did not send Embassadours to Pope Julius, to incite him against A­thanasius, after the Council at Antioch, but a long time before. But when the Presbyters sent by Athanasius had confuted Eusebius's Em­bassadours in all points before Julius, at length Eusebius's Messengers referred the decision of the whole matter to Julius. Julius therefore, according to the request of the Embassadours, wrote Letters, both to Athanasius, and also to Eusebius and the rest of Athanasius's adversaries, by which he invited them to an Ecclesiastick judicature at Rome. But this was done before the Council at Antioch, as Athanasius informs us, (in his second Apologetick against the Arians,) and Julius Bishop of Rome (in his Epistle to the Bishops convened in the Council of Antioch.) This E­pistle of Julius's, Athanasius has inserted at the 739th page of his works, Edit. Paris. 1627. Moreover, Socrates's relation here may be refuted also by these arguments. For, if these things had been done after the Council at Antioch, not only Eusebius, but the whole Synod would have sent an Embassy, and Letters, to Julius. Besides, it would have been altogether ridiculous and unseemly, after the matter was determined in a Council, and put in execution, (Athanasius be­ing now expelled, and Gregorius put into his See,) to write to Julius, that he would be judge, and remove the controversie in order to its being discust before him; as if the matter were still wholly un­determined. Sozomen (book 3. chap. 7.) has followed Socrates's mistake in this relation. Vales. sent an Embassage to Julius Bishop of Rome, entreating him to become Judge of those mat­ters relating to Athanasius, and that he would call for a disquisition of the controversie before him­self, in order to his taking cognizance thereof.

CHAP. XII. How, after Eusebius's death, the people of Constan­tinople restored Paulus to his See again. And that the Arians made choice of Macedonius.

BUt Eusebius could never understand what Ju­lius had determined concerning Athanasius. For having survived the Synod some small time, he dyed. Wherefore the people of Constantinople introduce Paulus into the Church again. But at the same time the Arians ordain Macedonius, in the In the old description of Constan­tinople this Church is mentioned; where 'tis called Paul's Church, and 'tis placed in the seventh ward of the City. Vales. Church dedicated to Paul. And this was done by those, who formerly had been assistants to Euse­bius that disturber of all things, but were then his successours in power and authority. These are their names, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Chalce­don, Theodorus of Heraclea in Thracia, Ursacius of Singidunum in the Upper Mysia, Valens of Mursa in the Upper Pannonia. Indeed, Ursacius and Valens changing their opinions afterwards, delivered their penetentiary Libel to Julius the Bishop, and having consented to the Homoöusian opinion, were admitted to communion. But at that time they were hot maintainers of the Arian Religion, and [...], coagulated, or curded, as the run­net doth in the making of cheese. framed no trivial commotions against the Churches. One whereof was that made by Macedonius in the City of Constantinople. For from this intestine war amongst the Chri­stians there hapned continual Seditions in the City, and many persons, oppressed by the violence of what was done, lost their lives.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning the slaughter of Hermogenes the Lieute­nant-General, and how Paulus was for that reason turned out of the Church again.

BUt, what was done came to the hearing of Constantius the Emperour, who then made his residence at Antioch. Therefore he orders Hermogenes the Lieutenant-General, (whom he had sent into the coasts of Thracia,) that he should incidently pass through [Constantinople,] and turn Paulus out of that Church. He arriving at Constantinople, disturbed the whole City, by endeavouring to cast out the Bishop by force. For there immediately followed a Sedition a­mongst the people, and all persons were ready to defend [the Bishop.] But when Hermogenes with much earnestness endeavoured to expell Paulus by his Military forces, the populace be­ing exasperated (as in such like cases it usually happens,) made a more inconsiderate and rash attack against him. In the first place they set his house on fire. Then, having Ammia­nus Marcel­linus had at large described this Sedi­tion of the Constanti­nopolitans, in those books of his History which are lost. But he has by the by mentioned it in his 14th book pag. 23. Edit. Paris. 1636. Libanius means this tumult in his Oration entitled [...], and says it was a most violent Sedition. It hapned in the third Consulate of Constantius, and in Constans's se­cond; which was the year of Christ 342, as it is recorded in Fast. Idat. Vales. See Valesius's Annotas. on Amm. Marcellinus page 47. drawn him about by the heels, they killed him. These things were done in the Consulate of the Two Augusti, Constantius being then the third, and Constans the second time Consul. At the same time, Constans, having vanquished the nation of the Franci, made them enter into a league with the Romans. But the Emperour Constantius being informed of Her­mogenes's [Page 251] murder, rode post on horse-back from Antioch, and arrived at Constantihople: out of which City he expelled Paulus. He also punished that City, taking away more than forty thousand [bushels] of that bread-corn daily d [...]stributed, which was his fathers donation [to those Ci [...]i­zens.] For before that time, neer eighty thou­sand [It is doubtful, whether Socrates meanes here bu­shells of Bread-corn, or loaves of bread. The Author of the Life of Paulus Bi­shop of Con­stantinople (which oc­curs in Photius's Bibliotheca, pag. 1421. Edit. David. Ho [...]s [...]bell. 1611.) supposed, that in this place loaves were meant. For thus he says: [...] i. e. the whole donation was, eighty thousand loaves daily [distributed.] [...] I am rather of opinion, (and so Epiphanius Scholasticus understands it,) that Bushells are meant. For the term [ [...], of wheat] im­ports bushells of wheat, rather then loaves. Besides, how could eighty thousand loaves be sufficient for that multitude of Citizens which inhabited Constantinople? should any one wonder at this vast quan­tity of bread-corn usually distributed every day, let him hear Eu­napius (in the Life of Aedesius, pag. 38 Edit. Comm. 1596. thus: [...], &c. i. e. But in our age, neither the ships loaden with corn which come from Aegypt, nor that vast quantity of wheat, brought out of all Asia, Syria, Phoenicia, and the rest of the Provinces (upon the consideration of tribute) is sufficient to fill and satisfic that drunken multitude of people, which Constantine (by emptying of other Cities) hath transported to Bysantium. Concerning this pre­script about bread corn for the supply of Constantinople, (appointed by Constantine of blessed memory, and afterwards increased by Theo­dosius,) See the second Law in Cod. Theod. de frumento urbis Constan­tinop. Vales. Bushells] of wheat, brought thither from the City of Alexandria, were bestowed [amongst the inhabitants of that City.] More­over, he differed the constituting of Macedonius Bishop of that City. From the Authority of the Allat. M. S. this place is to be amended, thus; [...], &c. For he was incensed against him, not only because he had been or­dained, &c. Thus also the reading is in the Life of Paulus Con­stantinop. Vales. For he was incenfed against him, not only because he had been or­dained contrary to his will, but also in regard, upon account of the Seditions raised betwixt him and Paulus, Hermogenes his Lieutenant, and many other persons had been slain. Having therefore given him permission to gather assemblies of the people in that Church wherein he was ordained, he departed again to Antioch.

CHAP. XIV. That the Arians, having removed Gregorius from [the See of] Alexandria, put Georgius into his place.

AT the same time the Arians Socrates mistakes here also. For Grego­rius (who was created Bishop of A­lexandria in the Synod of Antioch) held that Bishoprick six years, untill the Council of Serdica: in which he was deposed, and excommunicated, as it is related in the Synodical Epistle of that Council. And when he had survived this sentence about six months, he died, as Athanasius attests, in Epistol. ad Soli [...]ar. Theodoret has corrected this mistake of Socrates's and Sozomon's, in book 2. of his Eccles. Hist. Georgius was made Bishop of Alexandria by the Arians long after Gregorius, in the year of Christ 356. Vales. removed Gregorius from [the See of] Alexandria, This place was corrupted by a transposition of the words; which gave translatours an occasion of mistaking here. But the words might have been easily put into their order, after this manner; [...], &c. as being a person odious, both upon account of his burning the Church; and also because, &c. Socrates does here assign two reasons, why the Arians deprived Gregorius of his Bishoprick. The first is, because Gre­gorius was a person hated by all men, upon account of his burning Dionysius's Church; which Socrates has mentioned before; Atha­nasius also takes notice of it, in Epist. ad solitar. The other rea­son is, because he seemed not zealous enough in defending their opinion. The same is confirmed by Sozomen, book 3. chap. 7. Eccles. Hist. Vales. as being a person odious, both upon account of his burning the Church, and also because he was not zealous enough in defending their opinion. Into his See they sent Georgius, a person born in Cappadocia, who had gotten the repu [...]e of being a very skillfull maintainer of their tenets.

CHAP. XV. How Athanasius and Paulus, going to Rome, and being fortified with Bishop Julius's Letters, re­covered their own Sees again.

MOreover, Athanasius with much difficulty at last gat over into Italy. Constans the youngest of Constantin's sons had then the sole power in the Western parts [of the Empire,] his brother Constantine having been killed by the Souldiers, as we have before related. After the murder of Hermoge­nes the Em­perours Lieute­nant-Ge­neral, Con­stantius put Paulus in­to iron chains, and banisht him to Sin­gar a Town of Mesopo­tamia, whence he removed him after­wards to Emisa, as I have re­marked out of Athava­sius, in my second book of Ecclesi­astick ob­servations, chap. 6. Therefore, what So­crates here says is false, to wit, that Paulus was at Rome at the same time that Athanasius was there. Indeed, Marcellus Bishop of Anoy [...] was at Rome to­gether with Athanasius, as we are informed from Julius's Letter to the Eastern Bishops; which is also ascertained from Marcellus's Libel which he presented to Julius. But Julius speaks not a word con­cerning Paulus in his foresaid Epistle; whom he would doubtless have mentioned, had he been then at Rome with Athanasius and Mar­cellus. Vales. At the same time also Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra a City of Galatia the less, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused, one for one thing, another for ano­ther, and driven from their Churches, arrived at the Imperial City Rome. They acquaint there­fore Julius Bishop of Rome with their case. He (in regard the Church of Romes priviledge is such,) fortified them with his Letters wherein he made use of a great deal of liberty, and sent them back into the East, Julius restored not one of the forementioned Bishops, not Atha­nasius himself, to his own See. For, in the Roman Synod, wherein Athanasius's and Marcellus's cause was discust, Athanasius was only pronounced innocent, and admitted to communion by Julius and the rest of the Bishops. But against Athanasius's accusers, who refused to make their personal appearance in judgment, nothing was determined; as I have observed out of Athanasius in my first book of Ecclesiastick Observations. Nor was Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, or Lucius re­stored before the Synod of Serdica. Vales. restoring to each of them his own [...]e, and sharply rebuking those who had inconsiderately deposed them. They, having left Rome, and confiding in Bishop Julius's Letters, possess themselves of their own Churches, and send the Letters to those whom they were written to. These persons having received [Ju­lius's Letters,] lookt upon his reprehension as an injury and reproach to them. And having assem­bled themselves in a After the Roman Synod, wherein Athanasius was pronounced in­nocent, when Julius had sent a Letter by Gabianus the Comes to the Eastern Bishops, who had met in a Synod at Antioch at such time as the Church was dedicated; (see chap. 8. of this book,) the Eastern Bishops, in order to their answering of this Letter, were convened a­gain at Antioch in the year of Christ 343. And they wrote back an elegant and sharp Letter to Julius, the sense whereof Sozomen re­lates, book 3. chap. 8. Vales. Synod called at Antioch, they most severely rebuke Julius in a Letter writ­ten by the joynt consent of them all, making it apparent, that it ought not to be determined by him, if they should have a mind to expell some [Bishops] from their Churches. For [they said] that they did not make any opposition, when Novatus was by The Church of Rome. See Euseb. Ec­cles. Hist. book 6. chap. 43. them ejected out of the Church. Thus wrote the Eastern Bishops in answer to Julius Bishop of Rome. But in regard, upon What Socrates here says, to wit, that Athanasius returned at that time to Alexandria, is false. For Athanasius went not back to that City, till after the Council at Serdica, that is, till after the year of Christ 348. Vales. Athanasius's entry into Alexandria there hapned a disturbance, caused by those who were adherents to Georgius the Arian; upon which disturbance there fol­lowed (as they say) Seditions and slaughters of men: and [because] the Arians ascribe the infamy and blame of all these mischiefs to Atha­nasius, as being the authour thereof; it is requisite [Page 252] that we speak briefly concerning these things. In­deed, God, the Judge of truth it self, only knows the true causes hereof. But, that such accidents do frequently and usually happen, when the multitude is divided into intestine factions, is a thing not unknown to prudent persons. In vain therefore do Athanasius's slanderers attribute the cause hereof to him; and especially Sabinus a Bishop of the Macedonian Heresie. Who (had he considered with himself, how great mischiess Arians have wrought against Atha­nasius and the rest that embrace the Homoöusian Faith; or We fol­low Chri­stophorsons & Sr Henry Savils rea­ding here; which is, [...], &c. or how ma­ny com­plaints the Synods, &c. Vales. how many complaints the Synods con­vened upon Athanasius's account have made there­of, or what Maccdonius himself, In the Allat. M. S. the reading is [ [...], his [that is, Sabinus's] Arch-here­tick▪ Vales. that Arch-here­tick, has practised throughout all the Churches) would either have been wholly silent; or, if he had spoken any thing, The a­mendment of this place we owe to the Allat. M. S. wherein tis thus written [ [...], would instead of these [reproaches,] &c. Vales. would instead of these [reproaches] have highly commended [Atha­nasius.] But now, having [designedly] passed all these things over in silence, he falsly accuses the affairs [done by Athanasius.] Nor has he made the least mention of that Arch-heretick [Macedonius,] being desirous wholly to con­ceal his tragick and audacious villanies. And (which is much more wonderfull,) he has not spoken ill of the Arians, whom notwithstanding he abhorred. But the ordination of Macedonius (whose heresie he was a follower of,) he has silently concealed. For had he mentioned that, he must necessarily have recorded his impieties; which those things done at that ordination do sufficiently demonstrate. But thus much con­cerning this person.

CHAP. XVI. That the Emperour sent an order by Philippus Prae­fect of the Praetorium, that Paulus should be ejected and banished, and that Macedonius should be enstalled Bishop in his See.

MOreover, the Emperour Constantius (re­siding at Antioch) being informed that Paulus had taken possession of his See again, was highly incensed at what was done. He there­fore wrote an order, and sends it to Socrates (as also Sozomen) is mistaken here. For Paulus was by Philip­pus. Prae­fect of the Prae­torium banished not to Thessalonica, but to Cucusus, and was there strangled by the Arians; as Athanasius informs us, in his Epist. ad Solitar. But these things hapned a long while after this, to wit, when Constans Augustus was dead, in the year of our Lord 350, or 351. as Baronius will have it, who long since perceived this errour of So­crates's. Further 'tis easie to confute Socrates out of Athanasius. For Athanasius relates, that Philippus (after he had banished Paulus and caused him to be cruelly murdered by the Arians) was within less than a year deposed from his Prefecture, deprived of his goods, and ended his life miserably. Now, Philippus was Consul in the year of Christ 348: and on the year following he bore the Office of Praefect of the Praetorium, as may be collected from the Laws extant in the Theodosian Code directed to him. The same Philippus was after this sent Embassadour by Constantius to Magnentius, a little before the fight at Mursa, as Zosimus relates in his second book. Which hapned in the year of Christ 351. Let us therefore suppose that Philippus died on the year following, which was the year of Christ 352. Then Paulus might have been banished by him in the year of Our Lord 351; which is Baronius's opinion. And from this year Macedonius's pre­sidency over the Constantinopolitan Church must be begun. Vales. Philippus Praefect of the Praetorium, who had a greater power than the other Governours of Provinces, and was stiled the second person from the Em­perour; that he should eject Paulus out of the Church, and introduce Macedonius into it in his room. Philippus therefore the Praefect being afraid that the multitude would raise a tumult, attempted to circumvent Paulus by subilety. He keeps the Em­perours Order concealed in his own possession: and, pretending to take care of some publick affaires, he goes to the publick Bath, called Zeuxippus. Thither he sends for Paulus with a great shew of respect and honour, [acquainting him] that he must necessa­rily come to him, and he came. After he was come upon his being sent for, the Prefect immediately shews him the Emperours Order. The Bishop patiently bore his being condemned without ha­ving his cause heard. But the Prefect, fearing the rage of the multitude that stood round; (for great numbers of persons had flocked together about the publick Bath, [whose meeting there was caused] by the report of a suspicion) or­ders one of the Bath doors to be opened, At this place there was wan­ting this whole line [ [...], through which [Paulus] was car­ried into the Imperial Palace] which I have made good from the Florentine and Sfortian M. S. In Leo Allatius's M. S. there is some­thing more added here, after this manner: [...], &c. i. e. They had flockt about the publick Bath, being gathered to­gether there by the report of a sus­picion; because the people envi­roned all the passages out, he or­dered one of the Bath doors to be opened, thorough which Paulus was conveyed into the Imperial Palace, &c. Vales. through which Paulus was carried into the Imperial Palace, put into a ship provided for that purpose, and forthwith sent away into banishment. The Prefect commanded him to go to How Philippus could banish Paulus to Thessalonica, I see not. For Socrates relates these things as done whilst Constans was yet living, and before the Council of Serdica. But at that time Thes­salonica was under the Govern­ment of Constans Augustus. How therefore could Philippus (who was Praefect of the Praetorium to Constantius) banish Paulus to Thessalonica, and permit him to live in the Cities of Illyricum; but wholly forbid him entring into the Eastern parts [of the Empire?] Vales. Thessalonica the chief City of Mace­donia, wherein Paulus had had his original extract from his Ancestours: in that City [he ordered him] to re­side, and gave him the li­berty of going to other Cities also, [to wit] those in Illyricum: but he forbad his passage into the Eastern parts [of the Empire.] Pau­lus therefore being (con­trary to expectation) cast out of the Church, and at the same time also [dri­ven] from the City, was immediately carried away. But Philippus the Empe­rour's Prefect went forth­with from the publick Bath into the Church. Mace­donius was with him, being See Euseb. Eccles. History, book. 6. chap. 43. note (e.) pag. 113. thrown into his presence by an engin as it were; he sate with the Prefect in his chariot, and was exposed to the view of all men: they were sur­rounded by a Military guard with their swords drawn. [Upon sight hereof] a dread forthwith seized the multitude: and all of them, as well the Homoöusians as the Arians flockt to the Churches Church; every one earnestly endeavouring to get in thither. When the Prefect together with Macedonius came neer the Church, an irrational fear seized both the multi­tudes, and also the Souldiers themselves. For, be­cause the persons present were so numerous, that there could be no passage made for the Prefect to bring in Macedonius, the Souldiers began to thrust away the crowd of people by violence. But when the multitude wedged together in a crowd, could not possibly retire by reason of the places nar­rowness; the Souldiers, supposing that the mul­titude made a resistance, and designedly stopped the passage, made use of their naked swords, as if they had been engaging an Enemy, and began to cut those that stood in the way. There were destroyed therefore, as report says, about three thousand one hundred and fifty persons: some of whom the Souldiers slew; others were killed [Page 253] by the crowd. After such brave exploits as these, Macedonius, as if he had done no mischief at all, but were clear and guiltless of what had happened, was seated in the Episcopal Chair by the Prefect, rather than by the Ecclesiastick Canon. Thus therefore did Macedonius and the Arians take possession of Chur­ches by so great and numerous slaughters of men. At the same time also, the Emperour built. This Great-Church was consecra­ted by Eu­sebius Bi­shop of Constanti­nople, (he that before had been Bishop of Nicomedia) if we may credit Cedrenus. For at the ninth year of Constantius he writes thus: [...], &c. i. e. And Eusebius conse­crated the Church of God, called the Great Church, which was finished by Constantius, according to the order of Constantine the Great in his Will. And he brought the reliques of the holy Martyr Pamphilus, and those of his companions, Theodulus, Porphyrius, and Paulus, from Antioch and deposited them therein. But Cedrenus mistakes in his notation of the time. For if this consecration were performed by Eusebius▪ of Nico­media, it must be placed on the third or fourth year of Constantius, at which time Eusebius governed the See of Constantinople. The same Cedrenus relates, that this Church, being afterwards ruined, and re­edified by Constantius, was consecrated by Eudoxeus. Vales. The great Church, which is now called Sophia. It was joyned to that Church named Ire [...], which, being before a little one, the Emperours Father had very much beautified and enlarged. And both of them are to be seen at this present time, encompassed within one and the same wall, and called by the name of one Church.

CHAP. XVII. That Athanasius, being afraid of the Emperours menaces, returned to Rome again.

AT the same time, there was another false accusation patcht together against Atha­nasius by the Arians, who invented this occasion for it. The Constan­tine the Great. Father of the Augusti had here­tofore given a yearly allowance of Bread-corn to the Church of Alexandria for the relief of those that were indigent. It was reported by the Arians, that Athanasius had usually sold this Bread-corn for money, and had converted the money to his own gain. The Emperour there­fore, having given credit to this report, threatned Athanasius with death. He, being made sensi­ble of the Emperours menaces, made his escape, and absconded. But when Julius Bishop of Rome understood what the Arians had done against Athanasius, having also received Eusebius's Letter who was now dead, he Socrates does here confound all things, and repeats the same things twice, as if they had been done again. For he says that Athanasius fled to Rome twice. The same is asserted by Baronius (in his Annalls.) by Petavius (in his Rationarium Temporum,) and by Blondellus (in his book de primatu.) But we have sufficiently refuted this mistake, in our first book of Ecclesiastick Observations, chap. 6. Socrates makes the same mistake, in his asserting that Paulus Bishop of Constantinople came twice to Rome. Moreover, Julius received Eusebius of Nicomedia's Letter, before that Council of Antioch, which was held at the con­secration of the New Jerusalem, as we remarked before. And at the same time he invited Athanasius and his adversaries to Rome, in order to the discussion of their cause, as 'tis manifest from Athanasius's relation. Vales. invites Athanasius, to come to him; being informed of the place where he lay concealed. At the same time arrived the The Bishops who had been convened at Antioch at the consecra­tion, having received Julius's Letter written to Eusebius of Nicomedia, (in which he invited him and the rest of the Eusebians to Rome, in order to the having their cause discussed there on a set day, where­on a Council was there to be held:) deteined Julius's messengers (Elpidius and Philoxenus,) beyond the day appointed. Then, after they had held their Synod, they dismissed the messengers, and gave them a Letter to Julius. Upon receipt whereof he wrote back that famous Letter, which Athanasius hath inserted, in his second Apology against the Arians; pag. 739, &c. Edit. Paris. 1627. Vales. Letter, which those [Bishops] that before that had been convened at Antioch, wrote to him. Another He means the Synodical Epistle, which the Bishops of Egypt wrote to all the Bishops every where: which is inserted in the first place by Athanasius in his forecited Apology, pag. 722. Edit. ut prius. Julius speaks concer­ning this Synodical Epistle, in that letter he wrote to the Ea­stern Bishops convened at An­tioch: [...], &c. Moreover, many Bi­shops (says he) wrote from E­gypt and from other Provin­ces, in defence of Athanasius. Vales. Letter also was sent to him by the Bishops in Egypt, informing him, that those things objected against Athanasius were false. These Letters so directly contra­dicting one another having been sent to Julius, he re­turned an answer to those [Bishops] convened at Antioch, wherein he I read [ [...], he bla­med] not [ [...], he sent:] Sr Henry Savil hath mended this place, in the margin of his Copy, and made it agreeable to our reading. In the Allat. M. S. this place is written thus: [...]; i. e. in the first place he found fault with the bitterness of their Epistle. This Letter of Julius's is still extant, preserved for us by Athanasius, in his second A­pology against the Arians: pag. 739, &c. Edit. ut Prius. In that Letter Julius reprehends the insolency and pride, which the Eastern Bishops had used in their Letters to him. But, that which Socrates here adds (to wit, that Julius complained, because they had not invited him to the Synod: and that it was the Ecclesiastick rule, that nothing should be determined in the Church without the Bi­shop of Rome's consent:) is not to be found in that Let­ter. Indeed, Julius complains in that Epistle, because the Ea­stern Bishops (upon their receipt of his Letter, wherein he invi­ted them to the Synod at Rome,) disregarding this his invitation, had ordained Gre­gorius Bishop in Athanasius's See. But he says not one word con­cerning this Ecclesiastick Rule or Canon. And yet Sozomen (chap. 3. book 10. Eccles. Hi­story) says the same that So­crates does here. Vales. bla­med them, first for the bit­terness of their Letter; then [he told them] they had done contrary to the Canons, because they had not called him to the Synod; it being commanded by the Ecclesiastick Rule, that the Churches ought not to make Sanctions contrary to the Bishop of Rome's Senti­ment. [He complained] also, that they had clan­destinely adulterated the faith. And moreover, that what was heretofore done at Tyre, had been fraudu­lently and corruptly trans­acted, in regard the me­morials of the Acts done at Mareotes had been made up of one side only. Fur­ther, that what had been objected concerning Arse­nius's murther, was ap­parently demonstrated to have been a false accusation. These, and such like pas­sages as these, Julius wrote at large to the [Bishops] convened at Antioch. More­over, we had inserted here the Letters to Julius, and his answer also; had not the prolixity thereof hindred that design of ours. But Sabinus, a follower of the Macedonian Heresie, whom we have mentioned before, has not put Julius's Letters into His collection [of the Acts] of Synods. Although, he has not left out that [Epistle] written from those [convened] at Antioch to Julius. But this is usually done by Sabinus. For, such Letters as either make no mention at all of, or reject the term Homoöusios, those [E­pistles, I say,] he carefully inserts. But the contrary hereto he voluntarily and on set purpose omits. Thus much concerning these things. Not long after this, Paulus preten­ding a journey to Corinth, arrived in Ita­ly. Both the [That is, Athanasius & Paulus. Bishops] therefore make their condition known to the Emperour of those parts.

CHAP. XVIII. How the Emperour of the Western parts requested of his brother, that such persons might be sent, as could give an account of [the deposition of] Athanasius and Paulus. And, that they who were sent published another form of the Creed.

BUt the Emperour of the Western parts, being informed of That is, Paulus and Athanasius's sufferings. their sufferings, The rea­ding here, and in Ro­bert Ste­phens Edi­tion, is [ [...].] But I sup­pose it should be thus [ [...], understanding their sufferings, sympathized with them:] for the word [...] has the same import with [...] to suffer with. But the reading may be [ [...] was very much troubled at:] which emendation is the best. Vales. sym­pathized with them. And he sends a Letter to his brother, signifying his desire to have three Bishops sent to him, who might give an account of Paulus's and Athanasius's deposition. Some few months after the Synod at Antioch which was held at the Dedication; the Eastern Bishops made another form of the Creed, and sent it to Constans Augustus, and to the Western Bi­shops, by Narcissus, Theodorus, Maris, and Marcus, as if it had been dictated by the Synod at Antioch. So Athanasius at­tests in his book de Synod. Arimin. and Seleuc. This therefore hapned in the year of Christ 342. Socrates does evidently agree with Athanasius. For he says, that those messengers sent by the Eastern Bishops suppressed that form of the Creed composed by the Antiochian Synod; and instead thereof produced another, which themselves had made. Vales. The persons sent were Narcissus the Cilician, The­odorus the Thracian, Maris the Chalcedonian, and Marcus the Syrian. Who being arrived, would in no wise admit of a congress with Athanasius. But, having suppressed the Creed published at Antioch, and patched up another form, they pre­sented it to the Emperour Constans; the words whereof were these.

Another Exposition of the Faith.]

We believe in one God, the Father Almigh­ty, the Creatour and maker of all things, Ephes. 3. 15. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. And in his only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Fa­ther before all worlds. God of God. Light of Light. By whom all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, were made. Who is the Word, and the Wisdome: and the Power, and the Life, and the true Light. Who in the last days was for our sakes made man, and was born of the holy Virgin. He was crucified, and died: and was buried, and arose from the dead on the third day, and ascended into the heavens, and was seated at the right hand of the Father, and shall come at the end of the world, to judge the quick and dead, and shall render to every person ac­cording to his works; whose Kingdom being per­petual, shall continue unto infinite ages. For He shall sit at the right hand of the Father, not only in this present world, but in that also which is to come. And [we believe] in the holy Ghost, that is, in the Or Com­forter. Paraclete: whom [Christ] having pro­mised to the Apostles, after his assent into the hea­vens, he sent him, See John 14. 26. That he might teach them and bring all things to their remembrance. By whom also those souls who have sincerely believed in him, shall be sanctified. But those who say that the Son [existed] of things which are not, or of another substance, and not of God, and that there was a time when he was not, these persons the Catholick Church hath determined to be Aliens [from it.]

Having delivered these things, and exhibited many other to the Emperour, they departed without doing any thing further. Moreover, whilst there was hitherto an inseparable com­munion between the Western and Eastern [Bi­shops,] another Heresie sprang up at Sirmium, which is a City of Illyricum. For Photinus, (who presided over the Churches there,) a person born in Galatia the Less, a disciple of that See So­crates, book 1. chap. 36. Mar­cellus who had been deposed, following his masters steps, asserted the Son [of God] to be a meer man. But we will speak concerning these things in their due place.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning the large Explanation [of the Faith.]

Athana­sius (in his book de Sy­nodis) says the same: his words are these: [...], &c. i. e. Afterwards, repenting as it were [of what they had done,] they again assemble a Synod of their own party, three years after. And they send Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Mace­donius of Cilicia, and some other persons with them, into the parts of Italy; who carried along with them a prolixe [form of] saith, &c. Baronius. (in his Annals) says, that this second Council of Antioch (wherein that prolixe form of faith was promulged) was convened in the year of Christ 344. And he thinks that he proves this from Athanasius and Socrates. But, in my judgment, he is much mistaken. For first, this expression of Athanasius's [ [...], after three years] signifies the fourth year, not the third. For it denotes, that three years were now past. In this sense also Socrates under­stood the passage in Athanasius; in regard he says [ [...], i. e. the space of three years being com­pleatly passed after these things. Since therefore that Synod of Antioch which had been convened at the Consecration, was held in the year of Christ 341; this second Antiochian Synod ought more truly to be placed on the year of Christ 345. Secondly, Athanasius does not say, that the second Antiochian Synod (wherein the large form of Faith was composed,) was assembled three years after that Synod at the consecration had been convened there: but he says, it was assembled three years after Narcissus, Theodorus, Maris, and Marcus had brought that new form of Faith to Constans Augustus, pretending it to have been composed at Antioch. Now, he says that this was done some few months after the Antiochian Synod held at the Consecration. From whence that which I have said is made apparent; to wit, that that Council (in which the large form of Faith had been composed,) was convened in the year of Christ 345; not in the year 344, as Baronius would have it. Vales. THe space of three years being compleatly passed after these things, the Eastern Bi­shops having again assembled a Synod, and com­posed another [form of] Faith, send it to those in Italy, by Eudoxius at that time Bishop of Germanicia, Martyrius and Macedonius who was Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia. This [form of the] Creed, being written a great deal more at large, and containing many more additions than those forms published before, was set forth in these very words.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and maker of all things, Ephes. 3. 15. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. And in his only begotten Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, begotten of the Father before all ages. God of God. Light of Light. By whom all things in the heavens and in earth, visible and invisible, were made. Who is the Word, the Wisedom▪ the Power, the Life, and the true Light. Who in the last daies was for our sakes made man, and was born of the holy Virgin: He was crucified, and died, and was buried, and rose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father. He shall come at the end of the world to judge the quick and the dead, and shall render to every man according to his works. Whose Kingdom being [Page 255] perpetual, shall continue unto infinite ages. For he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, not only in this present world, but in that also which is [...] come. We believe likewise in the holy Ghost, that is, in the Or Com­forter. Paraclete. Whom [Christ] having promised to the Apostles, after his ascent into hea­ven he sent him, See John 14. 26. That he might teach them and bring all things to their remembrance. By whom also those souls that sincerely believe in him are sanctified. But those who assert that the Son [existed] of things which are not, or of ano­ther substance, and not of God, and that there was a time or age when he was not, the holy Ca­tholick Church hath determined to be aliens [from it.] In like manner also, those that affirm there are three Gods, or that Christ is not God before [all] ages, or that he is not Christ, or the Son of God, or that the same Person is the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, or that the Son is not begotten, or This was the opinion of the Ari­ans. The Easterns explain this sentiment of theirs better hereafter, to wit, that the Father may be understood to have be­gotten the Son wil­lingly, without compul­sion. Vales. that the Father begat not the Son of his own will and pleasure; [these persons] the Holy and Catholick Church Anathematizes. For neither is it safe to assert, that the Son [existed] of things which are not: in regard this is no where declared concerning him in the divinely inspired Scriptures. Nor have we learned, [that he had his essence] from any other pre-existing substance besides the Father, but that he was truly and genuinely be­gotten of the Father only. For the divine Word teacheth, that there is one unbegotten [principle which is] without beginning, [to wit] the Fa­ther of Christ. Nor must they (who without authority of Scripture doe dangerously assert this [proposition,] there was a time when he was not) preconceive in their minds then any foregoing in­terval of time, but God only who begat him with­out time. For both times and ages were made by him. In Robert Stephens's Edition of Socrates (Fol. 197. Edit. Paris. 1594.) these words [ [...], i. e. Nor must it be thought, that the Son is without an original, or un­begotten as the Father is] are wanting. The said Robert Ste­phens's Edition does in the fol­lowing words also differ some­thing from this Copy of the Creed here. Athanasius has inserted this whole Creed, in his book de Synod. Arimin. & Seleuc. pag. 896, &c. Edit. paris. 1627. Athanasius's copy and this in Valesius's Edition of Socrates do agree: whom we have followed in our Version. Nor must it be thought, that the Son is without an o­riginal, or unbegotten as the Father is. For no Father, or Son can properly be said to be co-inoriginate and co­unbegotten. But we have de­termined, that the Father, being alone without an original and incomprehensible hath incom­prehensibly and in a manner to all men imperceptible begotten: but that the Son was begotten before ages, and that he is not unbegotten like the Fa­ther, but hath a beginning, [to wit,] the Father who begat him. 1 Cor. 11. 3. For the head of Christ is God. Nor, although we acknowledge three things and per­sons, [to wit,] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, according to the Scriptures; do we therefore make three Gods. For we know, that there is one only God, perfect of himself, un­begotten, inoriginate, and invisible, [that is,] the God and Father of the only begotten, who of himself only hath his own existence, and who only does abundantly and freely give existence to all other things. But, although we do assert that there is one God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who only is unbegotten; we do not therefore deny Christ to be God before ages, as the Followers of See Eu­seb. Eccles. Hist. book 7 chap. 27. &c. Paul of Samosata do, who affirm that after his incarnation he was by a promotion deified, whereas by nature he was a meer man. For we know that he (although he hath been made subject unto the Father and unto God, yet nevertheless) was be­gotten of God, and is by nature true and perfect God, and was not afterwards made God of [...], of men: but Valesius renders it, ex hominc, of man. man: but was for our sakes made man of God, and that he hath never ceased to be God. Moreover, we abominate and anathematize those who falsely stile him the bare and meer word of God, [and affirm] that he has no real existence, but hath his Essence in another: one while [terming him] as it were that word called by some Instead of [ [...] ▪] it should be [ [...], &c. and [...]] as it is in the Allat. M. S. and in Atha­nasius, in his book de Synodis. By [ [...]] Philoso­phers mean That word which is uttered by the mouth. Hilarius calls it Verbum prolativum. To which is opposed [ [...],] which modern Phi­losophers do term the word of the mind. Vales. The Word outwardly uttered by the mouth; at another, as it were the mental or internal Word: being of opinion, that before ages he was not Christ, nor the Son of God, nor the Mediatour, nor the Image of God: but that By these words the Eastern Bishops mean, the Heresie of Marcellus Ancyranus, who asser­ted that Christs Kingdom began from his nativity, about four hundred years before that time; making use of a certain number for an uncertain. The Synodick Epistle of the Eastern Bishops at Serdica informs us hereof; which Epistle Hilarius has inserted, in his fragments. For these are their words in that Letter: Extiti [...] namque temporibus nostris Mar­cellus, &c. i. e. For there hath risen up in our days one Marcel­lus of Galatia, the most execrable post of all Hereticks, who with a sacrilegious mind, and impious mouth, and a wicked argument, will needs set bounds to the per­petual, eternal, and timeless▪ Kingdom of our Lord Christ, say­ing, that he began his reign 400 years since, and shall end it at the dissolution of this present world. Vales. he was made Christ, and the Son of God, from such time as he took our flesh from the Virgin four hundred years agoe. For from that time they assert Christ to have had the begin­ning of his Kingdom, and that it shall have an end after the consummation and the judgment. Such manner of persons as these are the fol­lowers of Marcellus and Pho­tinus the Ancyro-Galati­ans: who reject the eternal existence and deity of Christ, and his endless Kingdom, (in like manner as do We made good this place, by adding the word [ [...], the Jews:] which is not in Robert Stephens's Edit. but it oc­curs in Athanasius, and in the Allat. M. S. Vales. the Jews,) upon a pretence of seeming to constitute a mo­narchy. For we understand him to be, not barely The word of God outwardly ut­tered by the mouth, or his mental or internal Word, but the Living God the Word, and subsisting of himself; and the Son of God, and Christ: who existed with his Father and was conversant with him before ages, not by fore-know­ledge only, and ministred un­to him at the Creation of all things whether visible or invisible: but is the Word of God really subsisting, and is God of God. For it is he to whom the Father said, Gen. 1. 26. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: who in his own Person appeared to the Fathers, gave the Law, and spake by the Prophets; and being at last made man, he manifested his Father to all men, and reigns unto perpetual ages. For Christ hath attained no new dignity: but we believe him to have been perfect from the beginning, and in all things like unto his Father▪ We also deservedly expel out of the Church those who affirm, that the Father, Son, and holy Ghost are the same Person, impiously supposing the three names to mean one and the same Thing and Person; because by an incar­nation they make the incomprehensible and im­passible Father subject to be comprehended, and to suffer. Of which sort [of Hereticks] are those termed amongst the Romans The He­resie of the Patropassians (or Patripassians) was very ancient, and far diffused. Tertullian (Adv. Prax. cap. 1, and 2.) chargeth this Heresie upon Praxeas. The same was maintained by Hermogenes, whence they were termed Hermogeniani. After whom Noëtus maintained the same, who (says Epiphanius) lived 130 years before his time: (See Epiphan. Heres. 57.) From Noëtus they had the name of Noëtiani; and from Sabellius, Noëtus's disciple, they were called Sabelliani. After whom succeeded Priscillianus in the same Heresie; from him they had the name of Priscillianistae. The sum and substance of this Heresie thus propagated by these succeeding assertours of it, was this: they affirmed there was but one Person in the Deity, to wit, the Father; that he only subsisted, and was the Maker of all things▪ that he came not only into the world, but was incarnate, and did all things which we say were done by the Son. In order to the Exclusion of these Hereticks, the Aquileian Church added these two terms [invisible and impassible] to the first Article of the Creed; shewing by the first▪ that the Father was not incarnate, and by the second, that he was not crucified. Patropassians, but [Page 256] amongst us they are called See Eu­seb. Eccles. Hist. book. 7. chap. 6. note (b.) Sabellians. For we know, that the Father, who sent, continued in the proper nature of his own immutable Deity: but the Son, who was sent, fulfilled the Dispen­sation. Oeconomie of his incarnation. In like manner, we determine those to be persons most impious, and strangers to truth, who irreligiously assert, that Christ was be­gotten not by the will and pleasure [of the Fa­ther,] to wit, attributing to God an unwilling and involuntary necessity, as if he had begotten the Son by constraint: because they have audaciously determined such things as these concerning the Father, which are contrary both to the common notions of God, and also to the sense and meaning of the scripture given by divine inspiration. For we, knowing God to have free and plenary power, and to be Lord of himself, do piously think, that he begat the Son voluntarily and of his own accord. Moreover, although with fear and reverence we do believe this which is spoken concerning him, See Prov. 8. 22. The Ea­stern Bishops have here quoted the very words of the Septuagint: and we render it accordingly. But in the English Version (which followes the Hebrew exactly) the Text is thus rendred; the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, up­on account of his works: yet we suppose not, that the Son was made in the same manner with the rest of the Creatures and works made by him. For it is impious, and repugnant to the Ecclesiastick Faith, to compare the Crea­tour with the works created by him, and to think that he hath the same manner of Generation with the things of a different nature from him. For the sacred Scriptures do teach us, that the one and alone-only-begotten Son was genuinely and truely begotten. But, although we do assert, that the Son is of himself, and that he doth live and subsist in like manner as the Father doth; yet we do not therefore separate him from the Father, ima­gining in our minds in a corporal manner any spaces or intervalls of place between their con­junction. For we believe that they are conjoyned without any intervening Medium, and without any space or distance, and that they cannot be separa­ted one from the other: the Instead of [ [...]] we must necessarily read [ [...], the whole Father;] as it is in Athanasius: from whom the reading is to be made good in the words imme­diately following; thus; [...]. He alone continually resting in his Fathers bosome. Vales. whole Father embracing the Son in his bosome; and the whole Son hanging upon and cleaving close to the Father, in whose bosome he alone con­tinually resteth. Believing therefore the most absolutely perfect and most holy Trinity, and asserting that the Fa­ther is God, and that the Son also is God; notwith­standing this, we do not acknowledge two, but one God, by reason of the Majesty of the Deity, and the one absolutely-entire conjunction of the King­dom: the Father ruling over all things in gene­ral, and over the Son himself also: and the Son being made subject to the Father, but (excepting him) reigning over all things which were made after him and by him, and by his Fathers will liberally bestowing the grace of the holy Spirit upon the Saints. For the sacred Scriptures have in­formed us, that the manner of the Monarchy which is in Christ is thus manifested. We were necessitated to make a perfect explanation of these things at large (after the publication of our shorter form of the Creed,) not upon account of our excessive ambition: but that we might clear our selves from all strange suspicious concerning our sentiments, amongst such as are ignorant of our opinions: and that all persons inhabiting the Western parts might know both the impudent and audacious calumny of those who dissent from us, and also the Eccle­siastick sentiments of the Eastern [Bishops] con­cerning Christ, which is without violence confir­med by the testimony of the divinely inspired Scriptures, Instead of [ [...]] the reading in the Allat. M. S. and in Athanasius's book de Synodis is this [ [...], i. e. amongst those whose minds are not [perverted, corrupted, or] depraved. Vales. amongst those whose minds are not depraved.

CHAP. XX. Concerning the Synod at Serdica.

This con­fession of faith (for so Athanasius calls it) the Embassadours of the Eastern Bishops presented to the Western Prelates assembled at Millaine. For some Bishops together with the Presbyters of the Church of Rome had gone thither, to intreat Constans Augustus, that he would write to his brother Constantius about the assembling of a General Synod, in order to the determining of those dissensions in an Ecclesi­astick Judicature, which had been raised in diverse Churches: thus we are informed by Athanasius in his Apology to Constantius. More­over, when the Easterns had presented this draught of the Creed to those of the West, they requested them to subscribe it. But the Western Bishops made answer, that, as to what belonged to the Articles of Faith, the Nicene Creed was to them sufficient, to which nothing was to be added, nor anything to be taken from it. And as concerning the condemnation of those Hereticks who were disallowed of in that confession, they requested of the Eastern Bishops Embas­sadours that they would in the first place condemn the Arian Heresie. But, upon their refusal to do that, the Eastern Embassadours being angry went away from the Council; as Liberius relates, in his Epistle to the Emperour Constantius, in these words: Quae est pax, Clemen­tissime Imperator, &c. What peace is there, most Gracious Emperour, whenas there are four Bishops of their party, Demofilus, Macedonius, Eudoxius, and Martyrius, who above eight years since, when they would not condemn Arius's Heretical opinion at Millaine, departed from the Council in anger? notwithstanding, the Western Bishops condemned Photinus's Heresie in that Synod. But they pronounced no sentence against Marcellus, because he had before been judged clear from all manner of Heresie in the Roman Synod. In the same Synod vrsacius and Valens (who had lain under a suspicion of being Arians) having presented a Libel wherein they condemned Arius's perfidiousness and Photinus's Heresie, were admitted to communi [...], as the Synodick Epistle of the Ariminum Council informs us. The [...]e is attested by Ursacius and Valens themselves, in another Libel afterwards presented to Julius Bishop of Rome, in these words: Item Anathema dicimus, &c. Also we anathematize those, who deny, that Christ is God and the Son of God from all eternity, according to our former Libel, which we presented at Millaine, &c. We thought good to be more large in these remarks of ours concerning the Millaine Synod, because the memory thereof is very obscure in the Ecclesiastick Annals. Dionyfius Petavius is the first person that hath taken notice of this Synod, who (in his disser­tation de duplici Synodo Sirmiensi) hath made many very learned observations concerning this Synod. But he has mistaken the year whereon it was convened. For he says it was held in the year of Christ 347, a little before the Council of Serdica. Which can in no wise be true. Therefore Jacobus Sirmondus (in his second Diatriba, which he wrote against Petavius) has in this particular deservedly reproved him. Baronius (who affirms that the long draught of the Creed (which Socrates has recorded in the foregoing chapter) was drawn up at the Antiochian Synod in the year of Christ 344,) places this Embassie of the Eastern Bishops and the Millaine Council on the same year also. But Sirmondus (in the forementioned Diatriba) assignes this Council to the year of Christ 346. Which opinion is in my judgment the truer. For, in the first place, Athanasius (in his Apologetick to Constantius,) relates, that on the fourth year after his coming to Rome he was by Constans Augustus summoned to Millaine, whither some Bishops were then gone. Now Athanasius came to Rome in the year of Christ 341. Secondly, Hilarius (in fragmentis) re­lates, that the Millaine Synod (wherein Photinus was condemned) was held two years before Ursacius and Valens offered their Libel of satisfaction to Julius Bishop of Rome. For after he has recorded that Libel, he addes these words, Hac Epistola post biennium missa est, quàm haresis Photini a Romanis damnata est, i. e. this Letter was sent two years after the Romans had condemned Photinus's Heresie. Since therefore Ursacius and Valens wrote that Letter in the year of Christ 349, as Petavius attests; the Millain Council must needs have been celebrated on the third year before that: that is, on the year of Christ 346. For that expression [post biennium▪ two years after] imports thus much, to wit, on the third year after that; which Petavius did not consider. Vales. THe Bishops in the Western parts [of the [Page 257] Empire,] both because Baronius does deservedly blame Socrates here, for his saying that the reason why the Western Bishops rejected this draught of the Creed was, be­cause they understood not the Greek tongue. As if there were not then many in Italy who were well skilled in the Greek lan­guage. Moreover, Theodorus Le­ctor has with good reason found fault with this cause of their re­fusal. For, instead of Socrates's words here, he has substituted these; [...], because of its manifest blasphemy. Vales. they were unskilled in the Greek language, and also in regard they understood not these things, admitted not of them; say­ing, that the Nicene Creed was sufficient, and that there was no necessity of making any further disquisitions But when, upon the He means Constans. Emperours wri­ting again, (orde­ring that Paulus and Athanasius should be resto­red to their own Sees,) no thing could be done further in that affair: (For there was a continued Sedition amongst the Populace:) Paulus and Athanasius reque­sted that another Synod might be convened, that both their cause, and also the matters of faith, might be determined by an General. Oecumenicall Synod: and they made it apparent, that they had been depo­sed for no other reason but this, that the Faith might be subverted. Another Oecumenicall Synod therefore is summoned [to meet] at Serdica (which is a City of Illyricum,) by the determi­nation of the two Emperours; the one of them requesting this by his Letters▪ and the other (to wit, the Emperour of the East) readily com­plying with him. From the consulate of Felici­anus and Titianus, (which was in the year of Christ 337,) to the consu­late of Ru­finus and Eusebius which was in the year of our Lord 347,) there are Ten years compleat. Therefore, if the Council of Serdica was convened in the eleventh year after Constantine's death, it must of necessity have been assembled after the twenty second day of May. Vales. It was then the eleventh year from the death of the Father of the Augusti: Rufinus and Eusebius were Consuls, at such time as the Synod at Serdica was assembled. About three hundred Bishops of the Western parts met there, as Athanasius does not say, that about three hundred Bishops of the Western Churches met at the Council of Serdica. He only says this, that as well those who were present at the Council of Serdica, as those who subscribed the Synodick Epistle afterwards sent to them; also those who before the Council at Serdica had written Synodick E­pistles in his behalf, out of Phrygia, Asia, and Isauria, were in all three hundred and fourty. This passage of Athanasius's occurs in his second defence against the Arians, pag. 768; Edit. Paris. 1627. Moreover, the same Athanasius (in his Epistle ad Solitar. pag. 818.) does ex­presly attest, that the Bishops, who met at the Council of Serdica, as well those out of the Western as the Eastern parts, were no more than 170. His words are these: [...], &c. There met therefore, both from the East, and from the West, at the City of Serdica, 170 Bishops, neither more nor less. In the Mogunt. Edit. after the Canons of the Synod of Serdica, there is this note; & subscripserunt, &c. i. e. and all the Bishops of divers Provinces and Cities subscribed, being in number 121. Vales. Athanasius attests. But from the Eastern parts Sabinus says there came but seventy, a­mongst which number Ischyras, Bishop of Marcotes was recounted, whom they who had deposed Atha­nasius, Ordained Bishop of that Country. Some of them pretended infirmity of body: others In this place Socrates seems to have been mistaken, in referring those things to the Council of Serdica, which belong to the Roman Synod. For when Julius had invited the Eastern Bishops to a Syond at Rome, that Athanasius's case might there be inquired into; the Eastern Bishops refused to come thither, pretending, amongst other reasons, the narrowness of the time set; as Julius informs us in his Epistle to the said Eastern Bishops, recorded by Athanasius, pag. 744. Indeed Socrates's following words, to wit [although there had passed a year and six months, after such time as the Synod had been summoned, and during which space Athanasius made his abode at Rome, &c.] doe manifestly confirm what I have said. For Athanasius, invited by Julius's Letters, came to Rome▪ where he abode a whole year and six months expecting his adversaries, and the Synod which had been summoned at Rome. Julius attests this, in his forequoted Epistle▪ pag. 748. Vales. com­plained of the shortness of the time that was set, lay­ing the blame thereof upon Julius Bishop of Rome: although there had passed a year and six months, after such time as the Synod had been summoned, and during which space Athanasius made his abode at Rome, expecting the meeting of the Synod▪ When therefore they were all convened at Serdica, the Eastern Bishops refused to come into the presence of the Western, saying, that they would not enter into discourse with them, unless they would banish Athanasius and Paulus from the convention. But when Protogenes Bi­shop of Serdica, and Hosius Bishop of Corduba (which is a City in Spain, as we said before) would by no means suffer Paulus Bishop of Constanti­nople was not present at the Sy­nod of Serdica, as Theodoret at­tests, (book 2▪ chap. 5. Eccles. Histor.) which is also confirmed by the Synodick Epistle of the Eastern Bishops at Serdica, which occurs in Hilarius's Fragments, at pag. 434. Edit. Paris. 1631. Vales. Paulus and Athanasius to be absent [from the Synod, the Eastern Bishops] went away immediately. And re­turning to Philippopolis, a City of Thracia, they made up a Synod apart by them­selves. Wherein they o­penly anathematized the term Homoöusios: and ha­ving Instead of [ [...], having written Let­ters] the reading in the Allat. M. S. is truer; which is thus [ [...], having inserted in their Letters.] But what Socrates here says, (to wit, that the Eastern Bishops at Serdica established the opinion of the A­nomoiani (see the following note in this chapter) in their Syno­dick Epistle▪) is altogether false. Their Synodick Epistle is extant in Hilarius's Fragments, at pag. 434. Edit. Paris. 1631; and at the end of it there is a confession of faith added. In which confession▪ there is nothing which in the least sa­vours of the Anomians opinion. The said Hilarius▪ relating (in his book de Synodis) the same draught of the Creed published by the Eastern Bishops at Serdica, owns it as Catholick, and ex­plaines it. And Hilarius is so far from believing that they dissemi­nated the Anomians opinion; that he affirms them to have obstru­cted that opinion on every side. His words are these: Ex omni autem parte, &c. But on all sides, whithersoever sollicitude could turn it self, the passage is stopt up by the wit of the Hereticks, lest it should be Preacht, that there is any di­versity or unlikeliness in the Son [from the Father.] Vales. inserted the The Anomoians were such as asserted, that the Son had a sub­stance or essence different from, or unlike to the Father. Ano­moian opinion into their E­pistles, they sent them a­bout to all places. But the Bishops at Serdica in the first place condemned them for deserting [the Council.] Afterwards they divested Athanasius's Ac­cusers of their dignities. And having confirmed that form of the Creed pub­lished at Nice, and re­jected the term That is, different, or unlike. Anomoios, they made a more ma­nifest publication of [the term] Co-essen­tial, or con­substantial. Homoöusios: concerning which they wrote Let­ters, and (as the others did) sent them about to all places. Moreover, both parties were of opinion, that they had done what was right and true; the Eastern Bishops [thought so,] because the Western [Prelates] had approved of and entertained those per­sons whom they had deposed: and the Western Bishops [were of that opi­nion,] because they who had deposed these persons, fled away before their cause had been discussed, and because The We­stern Bi­shops. they were the preser­vers and defenders of the Nicene Faith, but The Ea­stern Bi­shops. these had been so audacious as to adulterate it. They therefore restored In the Synodick Epistle of the Coun­cil of S [...]r­dica (which occurs in Theodoret B. 2. c. 8. Eccles. Hist.) there is not the least mention of Paulus. Vales. Paulus and Atha­nasius to their Sees; as also Marcellus [Bi­shop] of Ancyra [a City] in Galatia the less. He had been deposed a long time before, as we have made mention in our foregoing See Socrates, book. 1. chap. 36 Eccles. Hist. book▪ [Page 258] but then he used his utmost diligence [...], to renew the combat with the sentence which, &c. to get the sentence revoked which had been pronoun­ced against him; declaring that the expressions of the book written by him were not understood, and that he therefore lay under a suspicion [of maintaining] Paul of Samosata's opinion. But you must take notice that Eusebius Pamphilus confuted Marcellus's book in a discourse against him, comprized in These three books (the Title whereof is De Eccle­siastica The­ologia ad versus Mar­cellum) of Eusebius's are at this day extant. There are prefixt before them two books, entitled [...], that is, Against Marcellus; wherein he reproves his designe, malice, and envy. Eusebius attests (in the close of his second book against Marcellus) that he wrote these books by the order of those Bishops who had condemned Marcellus in the Constantinopolitan Synod. Further, it is uncertain whether or no Socrates had ever seen those two former books against Marcellus, in regard he has made no mention of them. Vales. three entire books which he entitled Against Marcellus. He quotes Mar­cellus's own words [in those books,] and in his discourse against them maintaines, that Mar­cellus does assert (in like manner as Sabellius the Libyan and Paul of Samosata did) that the Lord [Christ] is a meer man.

CHAP. XXI. An Apology for Eusebius Pamphilus.

BUt in regard some have attempted to reproach this person, (I mean Eusebius Pamphilus) as if he were an Assertor of Arius's opinion in the books he hath published; I judge it not unseason­able to say something concerning him. In the first place therefore, he was present at, and consented to, the Nicene Synod, which determined that the Son was coessential with the Father. Moreover, in his third See Eu­seb. concer­ning the Life of Con­stantine, book 3. chap. 13, 14 Edit. Vales. Book concerning the Life of Constantine, he says word for word thus: But the Emperour incited them all to an unity of mind, until he had at that time reduced them all to be of the same mind and to have the same sentiments in relation to all those points, concerning which they had before disagreed. In so much that at Nice they did all perfectly agree in the [points] of Faith. Since therefore Eusebius, making mention of the Nicene Synod, does say, that all things about which they disagreed were com­posed, and that they were all brought to be of one and the same mind and opinion; how can any persons judge him to be a maintainer of Arius's opinion. The Arians also themselves are mistaken, in their supposing him to be a fa­vourer of their Tenets. But some body will perhaps say, that in his writings he seems to That is, to assert Arius's o­pinion. A­rianize, in regard he always says Socrates means those Dox­ologies, that occur at the end of Eusebius's Sermons; which Eusebius doth always put into this form: Glory be to the unborn Father by his only begotten Son, &c. This may plainly be seen in those Tracts of Eusebius's, which Jacobus Sir­mondus hath published. For example, in the end of his first book against Sabellius, these are his words: Gloria uni non nato Deo, &c. i. e. Glory be to the one unborn God, by the one only begotten God the Son of God, in one holy Spirit, both now, and always, and throughout all ages of ages. Amen. And so concerning the rest. Also, in the Oration Eu­sebius made at the Consecration of the Church at Tyre, (which oc­curs at the Tenth book of his Eccles. Histor. chap. 4.) we meet with the same clause, at the close of that Speech; [...], &c. by whom be Glory to him. For so we have worded that place, agreeable to three of our M. SS. Further, 'tis manifestly known, that the Arians attributed this preposition [per quem, by whom] to the Son, upon this design, that they might make him subject to the Father. See The­odoret upon the first chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Vales. By Christ. To whom we answer, that Ecclesiastick Writers have frequently made use of this Expression, and many other such like, which do signifie the dis­pensation of our Saviours Humanity. And before all these [Writers] the Apostle Paul hath made use of these very expressions; and he was never thought to be the Teacher of a perverse opinion. Moreover, in regard Arius has been so audacious, as to stile the Son a Creature like unto one of those other [Creatures made by God;] hear what Eusebius saith (in his first book against Mar­cellus,) concerning this; these are his very words: He only, and no other, hath been declared to be, and is, the only begotten Son of God, upon which account they are deservedly to be repre­hended, who have audaciously stiled him a Creature, made of nothing like the rest of the Creatures. For how should he be a Son? How should he be Gods only begotten, who is entitled to the very same na­ture with the rest of the Creatures, Before these words there is a whole line wanting, (which (from the First Book of Eusebius de Ecclesiastica Theologia, Chap. 9.) is thus to be made up: [...]. i. e. For by this means he would be their brother, rather than the Son of God: and would be one of those common Crea­tures, &c. Vales. and would be one of those common Crea­tures, in regard he (like them) is made a partaker of a Creation from nothing? But the sacred Oracles do not instruct us after this man­ner concerning him. Then, after the interposition of some few words, he con­tinues. Whosoever therefore doth determine that the Son is made of things which are not, and that he is a Instead of [ [...]] the reading should be [ [...], produced as Eusebius words it, at the place be­fore cited. It should also be [ [...]] not [ [...].] For these two words, although they are distinguished but by one Letter▪ yet do very much differ in their significations. For the term [ [...]] signifies that which is born; but [ [...]] imports that which is made. Vales. Crea­ture produced out of nothing, that person hath forgotten, that he bestows upon him a name only, but in reality he denies him to be a Son. For he that is made of nothing, cannot truly be the Son of God, nor can any thing else which is made [be his Son.] But the true Son of God, in regard he is begotten of him as of a Father, ought deservedly to be stiled the only begotten and beloved of the Father. And therefore he must be God. For what can the off­spring of God be else, but most exactly like to him that hath begotten him? A King indeed builds a City, but he begets not a City: but he is said to beget, not to build, a Son. And an Artificer may be said to be the Framer, not the Father, of that which he hath made. But he can in no wise be stiled the Framer of the Son who is begotten by him. So also, the supream God is the Father of his Son: but he is justly to be called the Maker and Framer of the world. And although this saying may be once found See Prov. 8. 22. and what was remarkt concerning that Text, in chap. 19. of this book. note (‖.) somewhere in the Scripture, The Lord created me the beginning of his ways in order to his works, yet we ought duly to inspect the meaning of those words, (which I will explain afterwards;) and not (as Marcellus doth) subvert a principal point [asserted by] the Church upon account of one word. These and many other such like expressions Eusebius Pamphilus utters, in his First Book against Mar­cellus. And in his Third Book [of that work,] the same Authour, declaring in what sense the term Creature is to be taken, says thus. These things therefore having been after this manner proved and confirmed, the consequence is (agree­able to all things explained by us before,) that these words also, The Lord created me the begin­ning of his ways in order to his works, must have been spoken [concerning the same per­son.] But, although he says he was created, yet he must not be so understood as if he should say that he had arrived to what he is from things which are not, and that he also was made [Page 259] of nothing in the same manner with the other creatures; which some have perversely supposed: but [he speaks this] as being a person subsisting; living, preexisting, and being before the founda­tion of the whole world; having been constituted the Ruler of the universe by his Lord and Father: the term Created being in that place used instead of Ordained or Constituted. Indeed, the Apostle hath in express words stiled the Rulers and Governours amongst men a Creature, saying, 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. Where the expression in the original is [...]; which may be rendred thus, to every humane Creature. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as Supream: or unto Governours, as un­to them that are sent by him And the Prophet (where he saith, Amos 4. 12. 13. Euseb. quotes this Text in the words of the Septuagint: but omits the word [ [...], I:] we have rendred them according to his quotation; which is very different from the Hebrew, and from our English Version. Prepare to invoke thy God O Israel. For be­hold he that firmeth the thunder, and createth the Spirit, and declareth his Christ unto men.) hath not taken the word Created in such a sense as to signifie That which hath been made when as before it was not. For God did not then Create his Spirit, when he declared his Christ to all men by him. Eccles. 1. 9. For there is no new thing under the Sun. But [the Spirit] was, and did subsist before. But he was sent at such time as the Apostles were gathered together, when (like thunder) Acts 2. 2, 4. There came a sound from hea­ven, as of a rushing mighty wind: and they were filled with the holy Ghost. And thus they declared Gods Christ amongst all men, agreeable to that Prophesie, which saith. Amos 4. 13. For behold he that firmeth the thunder, and createth the spirit, and declareth his Christ unto men: The term Createth being made use of, instead of Sendeth, or Constituteth: and the word Thunder in ano­ther manner signifying the Preaching of the Gospel. And he that saith, Psal. 51. 10. Create in me a clean heart O God, said not that, as if he had had no heart before: but he prayed, that his mind might be made perfectly pure within him. After the same manner this is spoken, Ephes. 2. 15. For to make in himself of twain one new man, instead of to conjoyn. Consider also, whether or no this saying be of the same sort, Ephes. 4. 24. Put on that new man, which after God is created: and this, 2 Cor. 5. 17. Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new crea­ture: and whatever other [expressions] of this sort may be found by him that diligently searcheth the divinely inspired Scripture. You need not wonder therefore, because in this place Prov. 8. 22. The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, the term Created [is used] metaphorically, instead of Ordained or Constituted. After this manner Eusebius discourses in his Books against Mar­cellus. We have produced his words here, upon their account, who have attempted causelesly to raile at and revile this person. Nor can they demonstrate, that Eusebius doth attribute a be­ginning of Essence to the Son of God, although they may find him frequently making use of the expressions of dispensation: especially, because he was a great Emulator and Admirer of Origens Writings, wherein such as are able to understand Origens Books, will find [this] every where [asserted, to wit,] that the Son is begotten of the Father. Thus much we have said by the by, upon their account who have attempted to re­proach Eusebius.

CHAP. XXII. That the Synod of Serdica restored Paulus and Athanasius to their Sees, and that, upon the Eastern Emperours refusal to admit them, the Emperour of the West threatned him with War.

BUt the [Bishops,] as well those convened at Serdica, as they who made up a particular Synod by themselves at Philippopolis [a City] of Thracia, having performed whatsoever each party thought requisite to be done, returned to their own Cities. [Thence forward] there­fore the Western Church was severed from the Eastern: and the boundary of communion be­tween them, was the mountain called In our Annotations on the twenty first book of Amm. Mar­cellinus, we have long since re­marked, that this mountains name should be Soucis; and that here­by is meant the streights of the Succi, which Amm. Mar­cellinus de­scribes in his twenty first book pag. 189. Edit. Paris. 1635. Philostorgius mentions the same streights, (in book 3. Eccles. Hist.) and calls them [...], i. e. Succi; being scituated between Dacia and Thracia. He de­scribes them thus: [...], &c. i. e. They are streight passages of vast mountains, which are crouded together on each side into one place, in such a manner that they seem to embrace one ano­ther. He means the two mountains, Haemus and Rhodope, which arising from different places, make an angle in that place, and do as it were kiss one another. Which gave the Ancients an occasion of seigning Haemus to be a young man, and Rhodope a maid, and that heretofore they fell in love with one another. You may meet with the story in Ovid. Metamorph. book 6. at the beginning. Busbequius (in 1 Epist Legat. Turci.) says that the Turks do now call this narrow passage Capi deruent, i. e. the Gate of narrownesses. Vales. Soucis, which parts the Illyrians from the Thracians. As far as that mountain there was a promiscuous communion, although their Faith was different. But they These words must have a favourable sense put upon them; and are not so to be understood, as if Socrates should have said, that after the Synod of Serdica the Western Bishops held no communion with the Eastern. For in the Synod of Sirmium (which was convened by the Western Bishops against Photinus two years after the Synod at Serdica) the Western Bishops sent their determinations to the Ea­stern, upon account of preserving a communion. And the Eastern Bishops wrote back to them, as Hilarius informs us, in his Fragments. Thus therefore Socrates's words here must be understood: to wit; after the Synod of Serdica the Western Bishops did (not readily and rashly, but) with a great deal of cautiousness communicate with the Eastern. Vales. communicated not with those who lived beyond it. Such was the confusion of the Churches affaires at that time. Soon after this, the Emperour of the Western parts acquaints his brother Constantius with what had been done at Serdica, and entreats him to restore Paulus and Athanasius to their own Sees. But when Con­stantius made demurrs to what he had writ­ten, the Emperour of the Western parts in another Letter gave him his choice, [to wit,] that he should either admit Paulus and Atha­nasius to their own former dignities, and re­store their Churches to them; or else (if he did not this) he must look upon him to be his Enemy, and expect a War.

The Constans Augustus's Letter to his brother Constantius, which is here recor­ded by So­crates, is in my judg­ment not to be lookt upon as ge­nuine. For Athanasius makes no mention of this Letter: and Paulus's name (which is extant in it) doth upon good grounds render it suspicious. For at that time Paulus enjoyed his Bishoprick: neither was he present at the Synod of Serdica; nor restored by the determination thereof; as we shewed before. Wherefore, if this Letter of Constans's be genuine, it must necessarily have been written before the Council of Serdica. Lastly, Constantius's first Letter to Athanasius (which Socrates has inserted in the following chapter) evidently shews this to be a forged Letter. For Constantius in that Epistle saith, that by a Letter written to his brother he hath requested him to give Athanasius leave to return to his See. Vales. Letter he wrote to his brother was this.

Paulus and Athanasius are indeed here with Us. But, upon enquiry We find that they are Persecuted upon account of their piety. If therefore You will promise to restore them to their Sees, and punish those who have causelesly injured them, We will send the men to You. But if You shall refuse to do as We have said, know for certain, that We Our Self will come thither, and restore them to their own Sees whether You will or no.

CHAP. XXIII. That Constantius, being afraid of his Brothers menaces, by his Letters ordered Athanasius to appear, and sent him to Alexandria.

THe Emperour of the East understanding these things, was reduced to a very great streight. And having forthwith sent for most of the Ea­stern Bishops, he made them acquainted with the option his brother had proposed to him, and en­quired of them what was to be done. They made answer, that it was better [for him] to grant Athanasius the Churches, than to under­take a Civil War. Wherefore the Emperour, being necessitated thereto, summoned Athanasius to appear before him. At that very interim the Western Emperour sends Paulus to Constantinople, accompanied with two Bishops and other hono­rary provisions, having fortified him both with his own Letters, and also with those from the Synod. But whilst Athanasius was yet fearful, and in doubt whether he should go to Constantius or not: (For he was afraid of the treacherous attempts of the Sycophants:) the Eastern Em­perour invited him [to his Court] not only once, but a second and a third time; as it is evident from his Letters, the contents whereof, being translated out of the Latine tongue [into the Greek,] are these.

Constantius's Epistle to Athanasius. CONSTANTIUS VICTOR AUGUSTUS, to Athanasius the Bishop.

This, and the two following Letters, are in A­thanasius's second de­fence, pag. 769. E­dit. Paris. Vales. The humanity of Our clemency hath not per­mitted you to be any longer tossed in and disquieted with the boysterous surges (as it were) of the Sea. Our indefatigable piety hath not neglected you during your being deprived of your native habita­tion, whilst you wanted your goods, and wandred up and down in desert and impassable places. And although We have too long deferred the acquanting you by Letters with the purpose of Our mind, ex­pecting you would of your own accord have come to Us, and requested a remedy for your troubles: yet because peradventure fear hath hindred that purpose of your mind, We have therefore sent to your Gravity, Letters filled with indulgence, that you should hasten to make your sudden appearance in Our presence without fear; whereby you might en­joy your desire, and, having made experiment of Our humanity, be restored to your own habitation. For upon this account we made a request for you to Our Lord and Brother Constans Victor Augustus, that He would grant you the liberty of coming, to the end that being restored to your Country by both Our consents, you should have this pledge and as­surance of Our favour.

Another Epistle to Athanasius. CONSTANTIUS VICTOR AUGUSTUS, to Athanasius the Bishop.

Although We have made it sufficiently known to you by Our former Letter, that you might securely come to Our Court, in regard We are earnestly In Atha­nasius, in­stead of [ [...] deter­mined] the reading is [ [...] desired.] Vales. desirous to send you to your own habitation: yet We have now In Athanasius, it is [ [...] sent] not [ [...] manifested.] Vales. sent this Letter to your Gra­vity. Wherefore We entreat you to take a pub­lick Chariot, and hasten to Us without any mistrust or fear, that you may enjoy what you desire.

Another Letter to the same person.
CONSTANTIUS VICTOR AUGUSTUS, to Athanasius the Bishop.

Whilst we made Our residence at Edessa, (your Presbyters being present there,) We were pleased, by sending a Presbyter to you, to hasten your coming to Our Court, to the end that after you were come into Our Presence, you might go im­mediately to Alexandria. But, in regard a con­siderable space of time is now past, since your re­ceipt of Our Letter, and you have not yet come; We therefore took care to put you in mind by this, that you should now hasten to make your sudden appearance in Our Presence, that so you may be restored to your own Country; and obtain your desire. And that you might be most fully cer­tified hereof, We have sent Achetas the Deacon, from whom you may understand both the purpose of Our mind, and also that you shall readily obtain what you desire.

Athanasius having received these Letters at Aquileia, (for After the Synod of Serdica, Athanasius made his abode first at Naïsis in Dacia. In which City he re­ceived the Letters written to him by Constans Augustus. Afterwards, he left Naïsis, and went to Aquileia, as he himself attests, in his Apologetick to Constantius. pag. 676. Vales. there he abode after his depar­ture from Serdica,) hastned immediately to Athanasius relates the reason of this journey of his to Rome in his Second defence against the Arians; to wit, that he might take his leave of Julius the Bishop, and the Roman Church, by whom he had been so kindly entertained. For that is the meaning of these words of Athanasius: [...]. i. e. But I, upon receipt of these Letters, went to Rome, to bid the Roman Church and the Bishop farwell: For the term [ [...]] signifies valedicere, to take leave of, or to bid farewell: as we have observed and proved in our Annot. on Eusebius's Life of Constantine; book 3. chap. 21. Vales. Rome. And having shown the Letters to Ju­lius the Bishop, he caused great joy in the Roman Church. For they supposed, that the Emperour of the East had now given his assent to their Faith, in regard he invited Athanasius to come to him. But Julius wrote this Epistle to the Clergy and Laity in Alexandria concerning Athanasius.

The Epistle of Julius Bishop of Rome, to those of Alexandria.

Julius to In the Allat. M. S. and in A­thanasius (in his second Apology against the Arians) these words [the Bishops and] are wanting. Instead hereof Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read [Julius the Bishop to the Presbyters, &c.] which reading Christophorson hath followed. Vales. the Bishops and Presbyters, and Deacons, and to the Laity inhabiting Alexandria, his beloved Brethren, health in the Lord.

I also rejoyce with you, beloved Brethren, because you now see before your eyes the fruit of your Faith. For that this is truly so, any one may, see in our brother and fellow Bishop Athanasius: whom God hath restored to you, upon an account both of his purity of life, and also of your prayers. Hence it is apparent, that you have continually offered up to God prayers which were pure and full of cha­rity. For, being mindfull of the Celestial promises, and In Atha­nasius the reading is [ [...].] which I like not. For it must be [ [...], of the course of life t [...]nding to them;] that is, to the pro­mises. Or else the reading may be [ [...], of your mutu­al love:] which rea­ding Epi­phan. Scho­lastic. fol­lowed. Vales. of the course of life tending thereto, which you have been instructed in by the Doctrine of our [Page 261] foresaid Brother; you certainly knew, and (ac­cording to that true Faith which is implanted in you) were apprehensive of this, that your Bishop could not be perpetually seperated from you, whom you carried in your pious minds, as being continually present. Wherefore, I need not make use of many words in this my Letter to you. For your Faith hath prevented whatever could have been said by me: and by the grace of Christ those things have been fulfilled, which you in common prayed for and desired. I rejoyce therefore with you, (for I will say it again,) because you have preserved your souls inexpugnable in [your defending of] the Faith. Nor do I any whit less rejoyce with my Brother Athan sius, because (although he hath undergone many sharp afflictions, yet) he was not one hour unmindfull of your love, and your de­sire. For although he seemed to have been with­drawn from you for a time, yet he was continually conversant with you in spirit. And I am of opinion, Beloved, that all the trialls and troubles which have hapned to him, are not inglorious. For both your, and his Faith hath thereby been made known, and approved amongst all men. For, had not so many and great afflictions befell him, who would have believed, either that you should have had so great a respect and love for so eminent a Bishop, or that he should have been adorned with such excellent virtues, by reason of which he is in no wise to be defrauded of his hope in the hea­vens? He hath therefore obtained a testimony of confession every way glorious, both in this, and in the world to come. For after his many and va­rious sufferings both by Land and Sea, he hath trodden under foot all the treach [...]ries of the Arian Heresie; and after his having been frequently assaulted and brought into danger through envy, he hath despised death, being guarded by Almighty God, and our Lord Jesus Christ: hoping that he should not only avoid his Enemies Plots, but also be restored in order to your consolation, brin­ging back to you greater Trophies by reason of your being conscious [of having done what was just and good.] Upon which account he hath been rendred glorious even as far as the ends of the whole earth, being approved for his [integrity of] life, undauntedly persisting in the defence of his resolution of mind, and Celestial Doctrine, and evidently declared by your constant and perpe­tual judgment to be intirely beloved by you. He returns therefore to you now far more bright and glorious, than when he departed from you. For, if the fire tries and refines pretious metalls, I mean Gold and Silver, what can be said of so eminent a Personage according to his worth, who having van­quished the fire of so great afflictions, and so many perills, is now restored to you, having been Instead of [ [...] re­ceived] in the Alla [...]. M. S. and in Athana­sius, the reading is [ [...] decla­red:] which I account the better reading. Vales. de­clared innocent, not by our determination only, but by that of the whole Synod? Receive there­fore (Beloved Brethren) with all Divine Glory and joy your Bishop Athanasius, In the Allat. M. S. the reading of this place is thus: [...], and together with him as many as have been partakers of so great labours with him. The reading in A­thanasius is almost the same. But our Copies and Epiphanius Scho­lasticus do confirm the common reading. Vales. together with those who have been his fellow sufferers. And re­joyce, in that you enjoy your desires, who have nourished and quenched the thirst of your pa­stour, hungring (if I may so speak,) and thir­sting after your piety, with your comfortable wri­tings. For you were a consolation to him during his abode in strange Countries: and you have cheri­shed him with your most faithfull souls and minds, whilst he was Persecuted, and assaulted with trea­cheries. Indeed, I rejoyce already, whilst I con­sider and foresee in my mind the joy of every one of you at his return, and the most pious meetings [which will be given him] by the populace, and the glorious solomnity of those which will be assem­bled, and what manner of day that will be, wherein our brother shall make his return: when forepast calamities shall have an end; and his pretious and wish't for return shall unite all persons in an alacrity of mind [exprest by] the highest degree of joy. Such a joy as this does, as to the greatest part of it, reach even as far as us, to whom Heaven, ('tis manifest) hath granted this favour, that we should be able to come to the knowledge of so eminent a Personage. It is fit therefore, that we should close this Letter with a prayer. May God Almighty, and his Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ afford you this perpetual grace, rendring you the reward of your admirable Faith, which you have demonstrated towards your Bishop by a glorious testimony: that better things may await you and your posterity both in this, and in the world to come, which 1 Cor. 2. 9. Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nei­ther have entred into the heart of man: the things that God hath prepared for them that love him, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom Glory be to Almighty God for ever and ever, Amen. I wish you good health, beloved Brethren.

Athanasius confiding in these Letters, went into the East. The Emperour Constantius received him not then with an incensed mind. But upon the suggestion of the Arians, he attempted to circum­vent him. And speaks to him thus. You have indeed recovered your See by the Synods deter­mination, and our consent. But, in regard there are some of the people in Alexandria, who do This pas­sage So­crates had from R [...]si­nus. There is no men­tion of it in Athanasius Vales. refuse to hold communion with you, suffer them to have one Church in the City. To which request Athanasius immediately made this return, and says, It is in your power, O Emperour, to command and do what you will. I also ask and request this favour of you, which I desire you would grant me. When the Emperour had rea­dily promised him to grant it, Athanasius forth­with added, that he desired to receive the same favour, that the Emperour had required should be granted him: for he also requested that throughout every City one Church might be al­lowed to those who refused to communicate with the Arians. When the Arians understood that Athanasius's opinion would The rea­ding must be [ [...],; in­commode;] which e­mendation Rufinus confirmes, (book 1. chap. 19. Eccles. Hist.) and so doth E­piphanius, in his Ver­sion. Vales. incommode [their party,] they made answer that that business was to be deferred till another time: but they per­mitted the Emperour to do what pleased him. Wherefore, the Emperour restored Athanasius, Paulus, and Marcellus to their own Sees: as also, Asclepas of Gaza, and Lucius of Adrianople. For they also had been received by the Synod of Ser­dica; Asclepas [was received] upon his ex­hibiting the Acts, whereby it was manifest, that Eusebius Pamphilus (together with many others) having taken cognizance of his cause, had restored him to his dignity, and Lucius, because those that accused him were fled. Therefore, the Em­perours Edicts were sent to their Cities, giving order that they should be readily admitted. Upon Basilius's being turned out of Ancyra, and Mar­cellus's entrance into that City, there was no tri­vial disturbance made, which gave those that were his adversaries an occasion of reproaching him. But the Gazites willingly received Asclepas. In Constantinople, Macedonius did for some small time give place to Paulus, and convened assemblies by himself seperately, in a private Church of that [Page 262] City. But, in behalf of Athanasius, the Emperour wrote to the Bishops, to the Clergy, and to the Lai­ty, that they should willingly receive him. More­over, he gave order by other Letters, that what had been enacted against him in the Courts of Judicature, should be abrogated. The contents of his Letters concerning both these Particulars are these.

Canstantius's Letter, in behalf of Athanasius.
VICTOR CONSTANTIUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to the Bishops and Presbyters of the Catholick Church.

The most Reverend Bishop Athanasius hath not been deserted by the Grace of God. But although he was for a short time subjected to humane tryal, yet he hath received a just sentence from Divine Providence which inspects all things: having been restored, by the will of God, and our determina­tion, both to his own Country, and Church, over which by Divine permission he presided. It was meet, that what is agreeable hereto should be per­formed by our clemency. That so, all things which have heretofore been determined against those who have held communion with him, should now whol­ly be forgotten, and that all suspicion [enter­tained] against him should in future cease, and that the immunity, which those Clergy men that are with him did heretofore enjoy, should (as it is meet) be confirmed to them. Moreover, We thought it equitable to make this addition to Our Indulgence in favour of him, that all persons belonging to the sacred order of the Clergy might understand, that security is granted to all those that have adhered to him, whether they be Bishops, or Clerks: and a firm union with him shall be a sufficient testimony of every ones good resolution of mind. For, what persons soever (making use of a better judgment, and becoming followers of a sounder opinion,) shall embrace his communion. We have ordered, that all such shall enjoy that indulgence (according to the Likeness. Pattern of the preceding providence) which We have now granted agreeable to the will of God.

Another Letter sent to the Alexandrians.
VICTOR CONSTANTIUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to the populace of the Catholike Church in Alexandria.

In regard We make Epiphan. Scholasti­cus reads [ [...], &c. Our good Govern­ment▪ &c.] Vales. your good Government Our aim in all things, and knowing that you have for some time been deprived of an Episcopall Provi­dence, We have thought good to send back to you again Athanasius the Bishop, a person well known to all men for his sanctity of life and moral honesty. When you shall have received this person according to your usual manner, and as it is meet; and shall constitute him your assistant in your prayers to God; make it your business to preserve continually a Concord and Peace, befitting your selves, and gratefull to Us, according to the Sanction of the Church. For it is disagreeable to reason, that there should be any dissention or faction raised amongst you, contrary to the felicity of Our times. Our desires and wishes are, that you may be wholly freed from this mischief. And We exhort you to persist continually in your usual prayers to God, making use of him your Prelate and your assi­stant, as was said before. That so this resolution of yours being conveyed to the I doubt not, but in­stead of [ [...] prayers] it should be [ [...], ears, o [...] hearing▪] and so we have rendred it. Vales. ears of all men, even those▪ Gentiles as yet Or, eminently addicted to. enslaved in the er­roneous worship of Idols, may with the great­est alacrity hasten to the knowledge of the sacred Re­ligion, (most dear Alex­andrians!) We therefore a­gain exhort you to persist in what hath been said before. Do you willingly receive your Bishop, sent to you by Gods Decree and Our determination, and look upon him as worthy to be embraced In the All [...]. M. S. and in [...] ­thana [...]ius, the rea­ding here is [ [...] with your whole souls & minds.] Vales. with your whole souls and minds. For that doth both become you, and is also manifestly agreeable to Our Clemency. And that all manner of Instead of [ [...] all manner of con [...]uta­tion] the reading in the Allat. and Sfor­tian M. SS. is [ [...], all manner of distur­bance.] Vales. disturbance and oc­casion of Sedition may be taken from such as are endowed with malevolent and factious mindes, We have by Our Letters given order to the judges a­mongst you, that they should render all those liable to undergo the penalty of the Laws, whom upon inquiry they shall find to have been Seditions. Taking therefore into your consideration these two things, both Gods and Our determination, and also the care we have taken about your agreement, and the punishment [we have commanded to be in­flicted] upon those that are disordered; make it your chief business to have a diligent regard to whatever doth become and agree with the Sanctions of the sacred Religion, and with all reverence to honour the Athana­sius. foresaid [Prelate,] that so you together with him may offer up prayers to the supream God and Father, both for your Selves, and also for the good Government and Concord of mankind in general.

An Epistle concerning the abrogating what had been enacted against Athanasius.
VICTOR CONSTANTIUS AUGUSTUS, to Nestorius. And in the same Copy, to the Presidents of In the Allat. M. S. it is Augu­stonica: in Athanasius it is called Augustam­nica. The name of this Pro­vince is usually written di­vers ways. For some term it Au­gustamnica, others Au­gustanica: so I found it written in many both Greek and Latine M. SS. Others called it Au­gustonica, to wit, from Augustus's Victory. In the subscriptions of the Bishops, who approved of Acacius's draught of the Creed, (which the Reader will meet with at the fortieth chapter of this second book,) whose names Epiphanius has recorded, (in Heres. Semiarian.) we read amongst others; [...], i. e. Ptolemaeus Bishop of Thmuis [a City] of Augustonica. Vales. Au­gustamnica, Thebaïs, and Lybia.

If any thing be found to have been heretofore done to the detriment and injury of those who communicate with Athanasius the Bishop, Our Will is that that be now wholly abrogated. For Our Pleasure is, that those of his Clergy should again have the same immunity, which they formerly had. And We command, that this Order of Ours be kept: that so (Athanasius the Bishop having been re­stored to his Church,) they who communicate with him may have the same priviledge which they always had, and which the other Clergy-men now have: whereby their affairs being thus setled, they also may rejoyce.

CHAP. XXIV. That Athanasius, passing through Jerusalem in his return to Alexandria, was received into Com­munion by Maximus, and convened a Synod of Bishops which confirmed the Nicene Faith.

AThanasius the Bishop being fortified with these Letters, passed thorow Syria, and came into Palestine. And arriving at Jerusalem, he made known to Maximus the Bishop, both [Page 263] what had been done in the Syond of Serdica, and also that Constantius the Emperour had consen­ted to their determination: and he makes it his business to have a Synod of Bishops convened in that City. Maximus without any delay sent for some of the Bishops in Syria and Palestine: and having constituted a Synod, he also restored to Athanasius communion, and his [former] dig­nity. Moreover, this Synod This Epistle of the Jerusa­lem Synod is extant in Athana­sius's second defence against the Arians▪ together with the names of those Bishops who subscri­bed to that Synod. But we may here by the by take notice of the Bishop of Jerusalems authority, who (although he was no Metropolitane yet) sum­moned the neighbouring Bi­shops to a Synod, without the permission of the▪ Bishop of Cae­sar [...]a. Vales. wrote to the Alexandri­ans, and to all the Bishops in Egypt and Libya, decla­ring to them what had been Determined and Decreed concerning Athanasius. Up­on which account, those who were Athanasius's enemies egregiously derided Maxi­mus, because he had be­fore deposed Athanasius; but then altering his mind again, (as if nothing had been done before,) he gave his suffrage for A­thanasius, and restored to him communion and his dignity. Ursacius and Valens (who had before been hot maintainers of Arianism,) understan­ding these things, having at that time rejected their former industry [in asserting that opi­nion,] went to Rome. And presented a peni­tentiary Libel to Julius the Bishop, after which they embraced the Homoöusian Faith. And having written Letters to Athanasius, they pro­fessed they would in future hold communion with him. Ursacius therefore and Valens were at that time in such a manner vanquished by Atha­nasius's prosperous success, that (as I said) they gave their consent to the Homoöusian Faith. But Athanasius passed through Pelusium in his journey to Alexandria. And he admonished all the Ci­ties through which he passed, to have an aversion for the Arians, and to embrace those that pro­fessed the Homoöusian Faith. He ordained also in some of the Churches. Which gave begin­ning to another accusation against him, Socrates speaks here concerning the Ordi­nations performed by Athanasius in Egypt. For he says that was done after he arrived at Pelusium▪ which is the first City of Egypt to those that come out of Syria. If this be so, that opinion can no ways be maintained, which some now a days assert, to wit, that all Ordinations (as well of Bishops as of Presbyters) throughout Egypt belonged to the Bi­shop of Alexandria: But we have sufficiently refuted this opinion in our Third Book of Ecclesiastick Observations published at the close of our Annotations on Socrates and Sozomen. Vales. because he attempted to ordain in other [Bishops] Di­ocesses. Such was the posture of Athanasius's affaires at that time.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning the Tyrants Magnentius and Vetranio.

BUt in the interim a disturbance in no wise trivial seized the publick affaires of the Em­pire. It is necessary that we should give a sum­mary account only concerning it, by running over the chief heads thereof. When the Constan­tine the Great. Buil­der of the City Constantinople was dead, his three Sons succeeded him in the Empire, as we have mentioned in our First Book. The e­mendation of this place (which is very corrupt in Robert Stephens's Edition) we own to the Allat. M. S. where the reading is [ [...]. i. e. But you must know, that together with them reigned their Cousen-german, whose name was Dalmatius of the same name with his own Father.] See Socrat. book 1. chap. 27. note (g.) The Florent. and Sfortian M. SS. alter not the Vulgar reading here. But the reading of the Allat. M. S. is evidently confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version. Only he calls Dalmatius Constantiu [...]'s Cousin-german by the mother's side. But Dalmatius was Constantiu [...]'s Cousin-german by the Father's side; for he was son to Dalmatius, Constantine the Great's Brother. Vales. But you must know, that together with them reigned their Cousin-german, whose name was Dalmatius of the same name with his own Father. After he had been Colleague with them in the Empire some small time, the Souldiers slew him; Constantius nei­ther Eutropius relates the same: Dalmatius Caesar (says he,) Haud multò post oppressus est factione Militari, Constantio patruele suo si [...]n [...] potius quàm jubente: i. e. Not long after, Dalmatius Caesar was slain by a faction of the Soul­diers, Constantius his Cosin-ger­man by the Father's side suffering, rather than commanding, it. Vales. commanding him to be murdered, nor yet for­bidding it. After what man­ner Constantinus Junior (in­vading those parts of the Empire which belonged to his Brother,) was also slain in an engagement with the Souldiers, we have more than once mentioned See Socrat. book 2. chap. 5. be­fore. After his slaughter, the Persian War was raised against the Romans, wherein Constantius performed no action that was fortunate. For, there hapning an He means the fight by night be­tween the Romans & Persians, at Singar, a sortress of Mesopotamia, wherein the son of Sapor King of Persia was slain: but the Romans had a very great slaughter made amongst them, as Amm. Marcellinus re­lates, book 18. pag. 122. Edit. Paris. 1636. See Our Annota­tions on that passage; pag. 1 [...]6. This Engagement hapned in the year of Christ 348, when Phi­lippus and Salias were Consuls; as Idatius relates, in his [...]st [...]. Vales. Engage­ment by night about the limits of the Romans and Persians, the latter seemed then for some little time to have been Conquerours. At the same time, the po­sture of the Christians af­faires was little less sedate: but upon Athanasius's ac­count, and by reason of the term Homoöusios, there was a War throughout the Chur­ches. During this state of affaires, there arose a Ty­rant in the Western parts [of the Empire,] one Mag­nentius. Who by treachery slew Constans the Emperour of the Western parts, residing at that time in the Gallia's. After which there was a mighty Civil War kindled. For the Tyrant Magnen­tius conquered all Italy, he also reduced Africa and Libya under his own Dominion, and had possession even of the Gallia's. In Illyricum likewise, at the City Sirmium, another Tyrant was Or crept up by the Souldiers means. set up by the Souldiers; his name Vetranio. Moreover, Rome was involved in a disturbance. For In the Greek the reading is [Constan­tius had a Sister's Son, &c.] But it must be [Constantine had▪ &c.] For Nepotianus was Son to Eutropia Con­stantin's Sister; as Victor tells us, in his Epitome: and, as we are informed by Eutropiu [...] ▪ Epiphanius Scholasticus's reading agrees with our emendation; but he mistakes in calling Nepotianus [ [...]ra­tru [...]lem Constant [...]ni▪ i. e. Constantin's Brothers Son,] in regard he was his Sisters Son. Vales. Constantine had a Sisters Son, by name Nepotianus, who being guarded by a party of the Gladiatours, had by violence seized upon the Empire. This Nepotianus was slain by Magnen­tius's Forces. But Magnentius himself invaded the rest of the Western Provinces, and made all places desolate.

CHAP. XXVI. How, after the death of [Constans] the Western Emperour, Paulus and Athanasius were Ejected out of their own Sees again. And, that Paulus, after his being carried into banishment, was slain. But Athanasius made his escape by flight.

AConfluxe of all these mischiefs hapned al­most at one and the same time. For these things were done on the fourth year after the [Page 264] Synod at Serdica in the The same is recor­ded in Ida­tius's Fasti; in these words: Ser­gio & Nigriniano Coss. his Consuli­bus Constans occisus est in Galliis à Magnentio, & levatus est Mag­nentius die 15. Kal. Februar. Et Vetranio apud Sirmium Kal. Martii. Eo anno, & Nepotianus Romae tertio Nonas Junias. [...]t pugna magna suit cum Romanis & Magnentianis: i. e. Sergius and Nigrinianus being Consuls, Con­stans was slain in the Gallia's by Magnentius, and Magnentius was set up on the 15th of the Ka­lends of February. And Vetranio at Sirmium on the Kalends of March. On the same year, Ne­potianus also at Rome on the third of the Nones of June. And there was a great battel between the Romans and Magnentians. The same is recorded in the Alexan­drian Chronicle; but there, these passages are placed on the Con­sulate of Limenius and Catullinus, when as they hapned on the year following. Which was the year of Christ, 350. Vales. Consulate of Sergius and Or Ni­grianus. Nigrinianus. Upon the re­lation hereof, the whole Roman Em­pire seemed to be devolved upon Con­stantius only: who being proclaimed Constantius was long before Emperour of the East. But when Constans was dead, who Governed the Western Empire▪ he was by the Souldiers stiled Emperour of the whole Roman world. Vales. Empe­rour in the Eastern parts, was wholly intent in making preparations against the Tyrants. In the interim, Athanasius's adversaries, sup­posing they had gotten a very seasonable opportunity, did again frame most horrid false accusations against him, he having not yet entred Alexandria: they inform the Emperour Constantius, that he would subvert all E­gypt and Libya. That which made the greatest addition to their calumny was, that Athanasius had Ordained in other [Bishops] Diocesses. Athanasius arriving at A­lexandria during this trou­blesome posture of affaires, assembled a Synod of Bi­shops in Egypt. Who by an unanimous consent made the same determinations with those convened at Serdica, and with that Synod assem­bled at Jerusalem by Maxi­mus. But the Emperour, who had long before em­braced the Arian opinion, wholly altered all things which he had a little before decreed. And in the first place, he gave order, that Paulus the Bishop of Constantinople should be banished, who was strangled by those that carried him into banishment, at In the Florent. M. S. this Towns name is written with a double s, thus Cucus­sus. Vales. Cucusus in Cappadocia. Marcellus also being ejected, Basi­lius was again put into possession of the Church of Ancyra. Lucius of Adrianople was bound in iron chaines, and died in Prison. Moreover, what was reported concerning Athanasius made so prevalent an impression upon the Emperour, that he fell into an unmeasurable rage, and gave order that he should be slain whenever he could be found: and together with him, Olympius was Bishop of Ac­num a City of Thracia: Theodu­lus was Bishop of Trajanople, as Athanasius attests, (in Epist. ad Solitar.) He mentions the same Bishops, in his Apologetick de Fuga Sua, pag. 703. But these passages are preposterously re­lated by Socrates. For they were not done before the Magnentian war, as Socrates says, but when that war was ended, in the year of Christ 356; as Baronius hath truly remarked. Vales. Theodulus and Olym­pius, Prelates of Churches in Thracin. But Athana­sius was not ignorant of what Orders the Emperour had given. But, having been made sensible thereof before hand, he betook himself to flight again, and so avoided the Emperours menaces. The Arians calumniated him for this his escape, especially Narcissus Bishop of Neroniades a City of Cilicia, Georgius of Laodicaea, and This per­son has a great e­logue given him in the Alexan­drian Chro­nicle, at the Consu­late of Ser­giu [...] and Nigrinianus: which commendation was taken out of some Semi-Arian writer. Athanasius doth every where speak sharply con­cerning this Leontius. His crafty disposition is incomparably well described by Theodoret; book 2. chap. 24. Eccles. Histor. Vales. Leontius who then presided over the Church at Antioch. This Le­ontius, when he was a Presbyter, was divested of that dignity, because he lived continually with a woman whose name was Eustolium, and en­deavouring to conceal the suspicion of his un­clean converse with her, he cut off his own geni­talls; after which he was conversant with her, with a greater confidence and liberty, in regard he wanted those things upon account whereof he had fallen into that suspition. But by the Decree and diligence of the Emperour Constan­tius he was promoted to the Bishoprick of the Antiochian Church after Stephanus, who had be­fore succeeded Flaccillus. Thus far concerning this person.

CHAP. XXVII. That Macedonius, having got possession of the See [of Constantinople,] did much mischief to those that in opinion dissented from him.

MOreover, at that time Macedonius was put into possession of the Churches in Con­stantinople, Paulus being dispatcht in the fore­mentioned manner. And having procured a very great interest in the Emperour, he raised a war amongst the Christians, not inferiour to that wa­ged by the Tyrants at the same time. For, having by his perswasions induced the Emperour to countenance him with his assistance in destroying of the Churches, he procured whatever wicked acts he had a mind to doe, to be established by Law. From that time therefore an Edict was publickly proposed throughout every City. And a military force appointed to see the Emperours Decrees put in execution. Those who asserted the Homo [...]usian Faith, were driven not only out of the Churches, but from the Cities also. At first indeed they made it their business to expell them only. But afterwards, the mischief grow­ing worse and worse, they betook, themselves to a forcing of them to communicate with them, being very little sollicitous about the Churches. And this forcible constraint was nothing in­feriour to that heretofore made use of by them, who necessitated the Christians to worship Idolls. For they made use of all manner of scourgings, various tortures, and proscriptions of their goods. Many were punished with exile. Some died un­der their tortures: others were murdered, during their being led away to banishment. These things were done throughout all the Eastern Cities, but more especially at Constantinople. This intestine Persecution therefore, being but small before, was much increased by Macedonius, after he had gotten the Bishoprick. But the Cities of Achaia and Illyricum, and the Western parts of the Em­pire, continued as yet undisturbed, in regard they both mutually agreed, and also retained the Rule of Faith delivered by the Nicene Synod.

CHAP. XXVIII. Concerning what was done at Alexandria by Geor­gius the Arian; from Athanasius's own re­lation.

BUt what [Villanies] Georgius during the same time committed at Alexandria, you may understand from Athanasius's own relation, who was present at, and a sufferer in those [miseries.] For, in his Apologetick concerning his own flight, he speaks word for word thus concerning what had been done there. For they came from thence to Alexandria, making search for me again, that they might murder me. And what hapned then was worse than that they had done before, For on a suddain the Souldiers [Page 265] surrounded the Church, and instead of going to prayers, there hapned a sight. After this, Geor­gius (sent by them out of Cappadocia,) arriving in Lent, increased those mischiefs which he had learn't from them. For after Easter-week, the Virgins were cast into Prison: the Bishops, bound in chaines, were led away by tho Souldiers: the houses of Orphans and Widdows were plundered, and the stock of Bread-corn [was pillaged:] they broke into houses. And the Christians were carried out [to burial] in the night. The houses were sealed up: and the brethren of those that were Clergy-men, were in danger upon their brethrens account. These things were horrid: but those afterwards committed were much more horrid. For the week after the holy Pentecost, the people, after they had fasted, went out to the Coemetery to pray, because they all abominated Georgius's communion. But that Villanous wretch understanding this, instigated Sebastianus the Captain, who was a Manichaean, against them. He with a company of Souldiers, carrying Armour, naked Swords, Bows, and Darts, made a violent attack upon the people on the very Lords day. And finding some few at their prayers (for most of them were gone away by reason of the time of the day;) he did such exploits as became the Arians to have performed amongst them. For having kindled a fire, he set the Virgins close to it, forced them to say, that they professed the Arian Faith. But when he perceived they were not to be vanquished, and that they despised the fire, he afterwards stript them, and beat them on the face in such a manner, that for a time they could scarce be known. And having seized fourty men, he beat them after a new and unusual manner. For he forthwith cut Rods from off Palm-trees, which yet had their pricks on them, and flea'd their backs after such a manner, that some of them by rea­son of the pricks that stuck in their flesh, were for­ced to make frequent use of Chirurgions: others of them, not able to endure [the pain,] died. Imme­diately he took all the rest, that were left, and together with them a Virgin, and In Atbanasius the reading is [ [...] they banished.] But in the Florent▪ and Sfortian M. SS. the reading (which I like better) is [ [...] he banished.] To shew, that this is to be understood of Sebastianus the Captain of Egypt, who then adjudged matters in a detestable course. Moreover, all these things are (as I have said) related in a preposterous manner by Socrates; in regard they were done in the year of Christ, 356. Vales. bani­shed them into Oasis the Great. Moreover, they would not at first suffer the bodies of those that were dead to be given to their relations: but casting them forth unburied, they hid them as they thought good, that they might seem not to know of so barbarous a cruelty. And this these madmen did, having a blindness upon their minds. For, in as much as the Relations of those that were dead, rejoyced upon account of their confes­sion, but mourned because their bodies lay un­buried; their impiety and barbarity was so much the more plainly detected and divulged. Soon after this, they carried away into banishment out of Egypt and both the Libya's these Bishops, Ammonius, Thmuis, Cajus, Philo, Hermes, Plinius, Psenosiris, Nilammon, Agatho, Anagamphus, Ammonius, Marcus, Dracontius, Adelphius, another Ammo­nius, another Marcus, and Athenodorus: and these Presbyters, Hierax, and Dioscorus. And they treated them so cruelly in their conveying them into banishment, that some of them died in the journey, and others in the very place of their exile. They The rea­ding is the same in Athanasius. But in Theodoret (book 2. chap. 14. where this passage of Athanasius's is inserted) the reading is [They mur­dered.] Vales. drove away more then thirty Bishops. For it was their earnest desire, according as Ahab did, whol­ly, if possible, to destroy the truth. Thus much Atha­nasius hath related in his own words concerning the Villanies committed by Georgius at Alexan­dria. But the Emperour marcht his Army into Illyricum. For the necessity of the publick af­faires required his presence there; more espe­cially, because Vetranio was proclaimed Empe­rour there by the Souldiers. Being come to Sirmium, he made a League with Vetranio, after which he discoursed with him, and brought affaires to such a pass, that those Souldiers, who had proclaimed Vetranio, revolted from him to Constantius's side. Having therefore deserted Vetranio, they cried out that only Con­stantius was Augustus, King and Emperour. No mention was made of Vetranio in their acclama­tion. Vetranio, becoming sensible immediately that he was betrayed, laid himself prostrate at the feet of the Emperour. Constantius took his Imperial Crown and Purple from him, and trea­ted him kindly, exhorting him to lead a more sedate and quiet life in the habit of a private per­son. For [he told him] that a life void of dis­quietude was much more sutable for a man of his years, than to have a name full of care and solli­citude. Such was the conclusion of Vetranio's affaires. But the Emperour ordered, that he should be allowed an ample revenue out of the publick tribute. Afterwards he wrote frequently to the Emperour whilst he made his residence at Prusa in Bithynia, declaring to him, that he had been the Authour of the greatest happiness to him, in that he had freed him from cares, and the troubles that accompany a Crown: and said, that he himself did not do well, because he would not enjoy that happiness which he had bestowed upon him. Thus far concerning these things. At the same time, the Emperour Constantius, having created Gallus, his Fathers Brothers Son, Caesar, and given him his own name, sent him to Antioch of Syria, designing that he should guard the Eastern parts. Whilst he was making his entry into Antioch, the The same is recorded in Idatius's Fasti, af­ter the Consulate of Sergius and Nigri­nianus, in these words: His Coss. Levatus est Constantius Caesar Id. Martii, & apparuit in Oriente Signum Salvatoris die 3. Kal. Februar. Lunae 28. i. e. During these mens Consulate Constantius [Gallus] was created Caesar on the Ides of March, and the Sign of our Saviour appeared in the East, on the third of the Kalends of February, on the 28th of the Moon. But the Authour of the Alex­andrian Chronicle says this Sign was seen in the East, on the Nones of May, about the day of Pentecost. To whom agrees Cyrillus, Phi­lostorgius, and Cedrenus. And Socrates seems to confirm the same in this place. For he saith, that this Sign appeared in the East, when Gallus Caesar entred Antioch. Now Gallus was created Caesar on the Ides of March as (besides Idatius) the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle doth affirm. Vales. Sign of our Saviour appeared in the East. For a Pillar in the form of a Cross appearing in the heavens, struck the beholders with a great a­mazement. The rest of his chief commanders he sent against Magnentius, at the head of a very great Army. In the interim, he himself made his residence at Sirmium, expecting the issue of affaires.

CHAP. XXIX. Concerning Photinus the Arch-Heretick.

MOreover, at that time Photinus who pre­sided over the Church in that That is, Sirmium. City, did more openly divulge that opinion which he had invented. Wherefore, when there arose a distur­bance occasioned thereby, the Emperour ordered, [Page 266] that a It is not agreed a­mongst the Learned, in what year the Synod of Sirmium (wherein Photinus was de­prived of his Bi­shoprick) was held. Socrates and Sozo­men affirm it to have been cele­brated af­ter the Consulate of Sergius an Nigri­nianus: in which year, by reason of the distur­bances caused by the Civil War, there were no Consuls in the East; but in the Western parts Magnentius Augustus was Consul with Gaiso. Baronius (in His Ecclesiastick Annalls,) asserts, that that Synod was convened in the year of Christ 357; when Constantius Augustus was the Ninth time Consul, and Julianus Casar the Second time. But Dionysius Petavius (First in his Animadversions on Epiphanius, and Secondly in his dissertation de duplici Synodo Sirmiensi,) doth by most evident arguments demon­strate, that the year of that Synod is truly assigned by Socrates, after the Consulate of Sergius and Nigrinianus, which was the year of Christ 351. I know Jacobus Sirmondus hath written two books, wherein he has endeavoured to maintain Baronius's opinion against Dionysius Petavius. But, in regard he himself did not publish those books, that is an evidence sufficient, that at length he acknowledged his own opinion to be false. Vales. Synod of Bishops should be convened at Sirmium. Therefore, there met together in that City, of the Eastern [Bishops,] The Bishops here named by Socrates, sate not in that Synod of Sir­mium, which was convened against Photinus, after the Consulate of Ser­gius and Nigrinianus, in the year of Christ 351: but in that other Sy­nod, which was convened there when Eusebius and Hypatius were Con­suls, in the year of Christ 359, a little before the Council of Ariminum: which Latter Synod at Sirmium did also set forth that draught of the Creed, which was afterwards recited at Ariminum; before which the Consuls names were perfixt. And this is evidently made out by Germi­nius, in his Epistle to Valens, which is recorded in Hilarius's Fragments; and by Epiphanius, in Heres. Semiarian. In the former Sirmium-Synod, assembled against Photinus, the Eastern Bishops only were present: this is attested by Hilarius, in his book de Synodis, and by Vigilius Bishop of Tapsis in his Fifth Book against Eutyches. Vales. Marcus of Arethusa, Georgius was not at this time (viz. after the Consulate o [...] Sergius and Nigrinianus) Bishop of Alexandria. For he was created Bishop there in the eighth Consulate of Constantius Augustus, and in the First Consulate of Julianus Caesar, which was in the year of Christ 356. Wherefore, he could not sit in the former Sirmium Synod, which deposed Photinus in the year of Christ 351. The same must be said of Hosius also, who at that time lived under Magnentius's jurisdiction: nor was he as yet banished to Sirmium. Vales. Georgius of Alexandria, whom the Arian party (having removed Gregorius, as we said See chap. 14. of this book. before,) put into his See; also Basilius (who presided over the Church at Ancyra, Marcellus having been ejected,) Pancratius [Bishop] of Pelucium, and Theodorus continued to be Bishop of Heraclea in Thracia in the year of Chist 356, as it is manifest from Athanasius's Circular Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, pag. 290: which Epistle Atha­nasius wrote in the year of Christ 356, after Georgius's entrance into the See of Alexandria. Wherefore, Hypatianus must necessarily have been made Bishop of Heraclea after the year 356. Sozomen hath made mention of the same Hypatianus, book 6. chap. 7. Eccles. Hist. Vales. Hypatianus of Heraclea. Of the Western Bishops, [there met there] Valens [Bishop] of Mursa, and Hosius Bishop of Cor­duba in Spain (a person eminently famous at that time) was present against his will. These [Prelates] being convened at Sirmium, after the Consulate of Sergius and Nigrinianus, (in which year, by reason of the tumults caused by the Wars, no Consul published the solemn Socrates here means by [...], the Ludi Circenses, which the Consuls, exhibited at their entrance upon their Consulate: which by the Latines is termed Consulatum dare. Some Consuls, besides the Ludi Circenses, entertained the people with Scenical Plays, and with hunting of wild beasts in the Amphitheatre. Vales. Shews and Playes usually exhibited at their en­trance upon their Consulate,) and having upon examination found, that Photinus asserted the opinion of Sabellius the Libyan and Paul of Sa­mosata; they immediately deposed him. And this determination of theirs was by all men, both then and afterwards, approved of as good and equitable. At this place we follow the Sfortian M. S. in which Copy this passage is more fully exprest, thus: [...]; i. e. But those [Bishops] who staid behind, &c.] Incomparably well in my judgment. Indeed, that draught of the Creed, which was published in the Synod of Sirmium against Photinus, is approved of by Hilarius, (in his book de Synodis,) as being Ca­tholick: but Athanasius (in his book de Synodis Arimini & Seleuciae) condemns and rejects it, in the same manner with the other Creeds composed by the Arians. Nor do Hilarius and Athanasius disagree with one another concerning this one form of the Creed, but about other draughts of it also; for example, about the Antiochian draught. For Hilarius confesseth that the Eastern Bishops had good reason to compose new forms of the Creed, when new Heresies arose against the Church. But Athanasius doth maintain, that those new draughts of the Creed were craftily composed by the Arians, with a design to destroy the Nicene Creed. Further, that this place of Socrates, instead of [ [...], that which was not best for all men] I had rather read [ [...], that which was not gratefull to all men.] And so I have rendred it. Vales. But those [Bishops] who stayed behind [at Sirmium] did that which was not gratefull to all men.

CHAP. XXX. Concerning the [forms of the] Creed published at Sirmium, in the presence of the Emperour Constantius.

FOr, as if they would condemn what they had heretofore determined concerning the Faith, they again composed, ratified, and published other Or, other explana­tions con­cerning the Faith. draughts of the Creed: Socrates (and with him Sozo­men,) is here dou­bly mista­ken. First, because he supposed, that there were three forms of the Creed drawn up in the Sy­nod of Sir­mium against Photinus; whereas there was one form only composed in that Synod; which (besides Socrates) is recorded by Athanasius, pag. 900. and by Hilarius, in his book de Synodis 338. Edit. Paris. 1631. Secondly, in regard he asserts, that that form of the Creed, which was published in the Greek tongue at the Synod of Sirmium against Photinus, was dictated by Marcus of Arethusa. Marcus of Arethusa did not dictate that form I have mentioned, but another; before which the Consuls names were prefixt, and which was afterwards recited at Ariminum, as Nicholaus Faber hath already observed (in the Preface he wrote to Hilarius's Fragments) from Germinius's Epistle. We must therefore distinguish between the three Synods of Sirmium, each of which published their form of the Creed. The first was convened against Photinus, in the year of Christ 351. The second was assembled in the year of our Lord 357: wherein the Blasphemie of Hosius and Potamius was composed. The third was celebrated when Eusebius and Hypatius were Consuls, in the year of Christ 359; wherein that Creed was drawn up, which Marcus of Arethusa dictated. Vales. one whereof was dictated in the Greek tongue by Marcus of Are­thusa: Instead of [ [...] another] the reading must be [ [...], the other two, or two more] as it is in the Allat. M. S. For Socrates here recounts three draughts of the Creed composed at Sirmium; the two latter whereof he saith were written at first in Latine, and after­wards translated into Greek. Which in my judgment is not true. I grant indeed, that that Creed, which by Hilarius is termed Hosius's Blasphemie, was at first published in Latine. But the other, which had the Consuls names prefixt before it, was undoubtedly at first dictated in the Greek tongue. For he that dictated it, (viz. Marcus of Arethusa) and the rest of the Bishops then assembled were almost all Graecians. Lastly, the subscriptions of the Bishops, who subscribed this form, are extant in Greek, in Epiphanius (in Hares. Semiarian.) Vales. two more were drawn up in the Latine tongue, which neither agreed one with the other (either in the expressions, or in the composure,) nor yet with that Greek one, which the Bishop of Arethusa dictated. Moreover, the one of those Creeds drawn up in Latine, I will here subjoyn to that composed by Marcus: the other (which they afterwards recited at Without doubt it must be [Ariminum,] not [Sirmium:] which reading Epiphan. Scholasticus followed, as appears from his Version. See chap. 37. of this second book. Vales. Sirmium,) we will set at it's proper place, where we shall declare what was done at Ariminum. But you must know that they were both translated into the Greek language. The draught of the Creed dictated by Marcus, runs thus.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creatour and Framer of all things: Ephes. 3. 15. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named: and in his only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, by whom all things, which are in the Heavens, and which are upon the Earth, vi­sible and invisible, were made. Who is the Word, and the Wisedom, and the true Light, and the Life. Who in the last days was for our sakes in­carnate, [Page 267] and born of the holy Virgin, and was Crucified and died, and was buried, and arose again from the Dead on the third day, and was taken up into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and shall come at the end of the world to judge the quick and dead, and shall render to every man according to his works. Whose Kingdom being perpetual continueth unto infinite ages. For he is sitting on the right hand of the Father, not only in this present world, but in that also which is to come. And [We believe] in the holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; whom [our Lord,] (having promised he would send him to the Apostles after his ascent into the heavens, that he might teach and put them in mind of all things,) sent. By whom also those souls, which have sincerely believed in him, are sanctified. But those who affirm, that the Son [exists] of things which Are not. were not, or of another substance, and not of God, and that there was a time or an age when he was not, the Holy and Catholick Church hath certainly known to be Aliens [from Her.] We say it therefore again, if any one doth affirm the Father and the Son to be two Gods, let him be Anathema. Hilarius seems to have read otherwise. For in his book de Sy­nodis, where he records this Creed, he renders this passage thus: & fi­quis, &c. and if any one affirming one God, but shall not profess Christ to be God the Son of God before ages, &c. Vales. And if any one, affirming Christ to be God the Son of God before ages, shall not profess him to have ministred to the Fa­ther in order to the framing of all things, let him be A­nathema. If any one be so audacious as to say, that the Unbegotten, or part of him, was born of Mary, let him be Anathema. If any one shall say that the Son was of Mary ac­cording to prescience, and that he was not with God, born of the Father before ages, and that all things were made by him, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm the Essence of God to be Enlarged. di­lated or contracted, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm the dilated Essence of God to make the Son, or shall term the Son the enlargement of his Essence, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm the internal or outwardly-uttered Word to be the Son of God, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm the Son who was [born] of Mary to be man only, let him be Anathema. If any one asserting him that was [born] of Mary to be God and man, shall understand the unbegotten God himself, let him be Anathema. If any one shall understand this Text, Esai. 44. 6. I am the first God, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God, (which is spoken in order to the destruction of Idolls, and those which are not Gods) in the same sense which the Jews take it in, [to wit, as if it were spoken] upon account of the subversion of the only begotten God before ages, let him be Ana­thema. If any one hearing these words, John 1. 14. The word was made flesh, shall suppose that the Word was changed into flesh, or that he assumed flesh by having undergone any change, let him be Anathema. In the Allat. M. S. and in Athanasius's book de Synodis, this Anathema is thus worded: [...], &c. and we have rendred it accordingly: af­ter the same manner Hilarius read this passage, as from his Ver­sion appears. Vales. If any one hearing that the only begotten Son of God was crucified, shall assert that his Deity underwent any corruption, or passion, or mu­tation, or diminution, or de­struction, let him be Ana­thema. If any one shall af­firm, that the Father spake not these words, Gen. 1. 26. Let us make man to the Son, but shall assert that God himself spake to himself, let him be Anathema. If any one shall say, that it was not the Son who ap­peared to Abraham, but the unbegotten God, or part of him, let him be Anathema. This whole Anathematism was omit­ted here: it occurs in Athana­sius's and Hilarius's Copy of this Creed; and therefore we inser­ted it. Vales. The Learned Reader will find it in Robert Ste­phens Edit. also. If any one shall say, that it was not the Son who as a man wrestled with Jacob, but the unbegot­ten God or part of him, let him be Anathema. If any one shall understand these words, Gen. 19. 24. The Lord rained from the Lord, not of the Father and of the Son, but shall say that God rained from himself, let him be Anathema. For the Lord the Son rained from the Lord the Father. This A­nathema­tism is dif­ferently worded in all the Au­thours (we have seen) where­in this Creed occurs. Valesius says, that he has published it ac­cording to the reading of the Florent. and Sfortian M. SS. which Copies we have followed in our English version: where it is thus worded in the Greek: [...]. The reading in Robert Stephens is different from this; and so is that in Athana­sius, pag. 901: where 'tis thus worded: [...], &c. Hilarius has translated otherwise, as appears from his Version, at pag. 339. Edit. Paris▪ 1631. His words are these: Si­quis dominum & dominum patrem & filium▪ quasi dominum a domino intelligat: quia dominum & domi­num duos dicat deos▪ Anathema sit. Thus variously is this Anathema­tism represented. The Learned Reader may take the liberty (as we have done,) to follow which Copy he pleases. If any one hearing [these words] The Lord the Father and The Lord the Son, shall term both the Father Lord, and the Son also Lord, and saying, The Lord from the Lord, shall assert that there are two Gods, let him be Anathema. For we place not the Son in the same degree with the Father, but [understand] him to be in­feriour to the Father. For neither did he come down to We follow the reading in Hi­larius, and in Athanasius; where it is [ [...] to Sodom.] In Robert Stephens the reading is [ [...], For neither did he descend into the body.] Sodom without his Fa­thers will. Nor did he rain from himself, but from the Lord, that is from the Fa­ther, who hath the supream authority. Nor does he sit at his Fathers right hand of himself, but he hears the Father, saying, Psal. 110. 1. Sit thou at my right hand, let him be Ana­thema. If any one shall affirm, that the Father Son and holy Ghost are one Person, let him be Anathema. If any terming the holy Ghost the Paraclete, shall call him the unbegotten God, let him be Anathema. If any one does say that the Para­clete is no other [Person] than the Son, (as the Son himself hath taught us; for he has said, See John 14. 16. The Father, whom I will ask, shall send you another Comforter,) let him be Anathema. If any one shall say, that the Spirit is part of the Father and of the Son, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are three Gods, let him be Anathema. If any one shall say, that the Son of God was made like one of the Creatures, by the will of God, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm, that the Son was begotten against the will of the Father, let him be Anathema. Here we follow the reading in Athanasius, which is thus: [...], &c. For the Father was not forced, &c. which reading is confirmed by Epiphanius Scho­lasticus, and by Hilarius. Vales. For the Father was not forced by a physical necessity, nor did he beget the Son as if he were unwilling: but as soon as he was willing, he has declared that he begat him of himself without time and without passion, let him be Anathema. If any one shall say, that the Son is unborn and without a beginning, affirming as it were that there are two [Principles] without a beginning and unborn, and so making two Gods, let him be Anathema. For the Son is the Head and Beginning of all things. 1 Cor. 11. 3. But the Head of Christ is God. For thus we piously refer all things by the Son to One who is without a begin­ning, [Page 268] the beginning of all things. Furthermore, we, making an accurate explanation of [their] sentiments [who profest] the Christian Religion, do assert, that if any one shall not affirm Christ Jesus to have been the Son of God before ages, and to have ministred to the Father at the framing of all things, but [shall say] that he was called the Son and Christ from such time only as he was born of Mary, and that he then received the beginning of his Deity; let him be Anathema, like [Paul] of Samosata.

Athana­sius has the same words in his book de Synodis Arimini & Seleuciae: where, after he had in­serted this foregoing Creed, he adds these words con­cerning this which follows; [...], &c. Having re­jected all these things, as if they had invented better, they promulge another Creed, which they wrote at Sirmium in Latine, but it was translated into Greek. But Hilarius recording this Creed in his book de Synodis, prefixes this title before it: Exemplum Blasphemiae, &c. A Copy of the Blasphemy composed at Sirmium by Hosius and Potamius. Which title Hilarius made himself, and deservedly calls this Creed Blas­phemy. Who this Potamius, here joyned with Hosius was, Mar­cellinus Presbyter informs us in the Supplicatory Libel which he presented to the Emperour Theodosius. Where, amongst the cor­rupters of the Divine and Apostolick Faith, after Arius, he in the first place names this person: his words are these: Potamius Odyssiponae civitatis Episcopus, &c. i. e. Potamius Bishop of Lisbon was at first a Defender of the Catholick Faith, but afterwards induced by the re­ward of a Farm belonging to the Emperours Revenue (which he was very desirous of,) be corrupted the Faith. Hosius of Corduba a­mongst the Churches in Spain detected this man, and repelled him as being an impious Heretick. But, even Hosius himself, summoned be­fore the Emperour Constantius by the complaint of this Potamius, and terrified with threats, was fearfull (being old and rich) of banishment, or proscription, and so yielded to the impiety. Vales. Another [Draught of the] Creed pub­lished at Sirmium in the Latine tongue, and rendred into Greek

In regard there seemeth to have been some dif­ference concerning the Faith, all things were dili­gently inquired into and discussed at Sirmium, in the presence of Valens, Ursacius, Germinius These three words [ [...], and the rest] occur not in the Latine Copy of this Draught of the Creed. But they are extant in Athanasius, and in all our M. SS. Copies. Hence 'tis manifest that many Bishops were at that time convened at Sirmium. Indeed Phoebadius Bishop of Angolesm [in France,] in the Epistle he wrote against this Draught of the Creed, does expresly affirm that it was published in a Synod of Bishops. The same is sufficiently confirmed by Athanasius, in the forequoted place. Lastly, in regard Hilarius (in his foresaid book) does attest, that this Creed, after it had been dictated at Sirmium, was forthwith sent to all the Eastern and Western Bishops to be approved by them; he evidently shews it to have been dictated in a Synod. Nor can the Draught of a Creed be any where dictated but in a Synod of Bishops. Further, that Germinius here mentioned, was Bishop of Sirmium, put into Photinus's See upon his being ejected, in the year of Christ 351. Nicolaus Faber (in his Preface to Hilarius's Fragments,) says that this Germinius had before been Bishop of Cyzicum; which I do not believe. That place in Athanasius (in his Epist. ad Solitar. pag. 860; where he re­proves the Emperour Constantius because, contrary to the Ecclesiastick Canons, he would send obscure fellows, born in remote countries, to be Bishops in the Cities;) deceived that Learned man: Athanasius's words there are these: [...], &c. So he sent Gregorius from Cappadocia to Alexan­dria. And Germinius was by him sent from the City Cyzicum to Sir­mium. From Laodicea he sent Cecropius to Nicomedia. From these words of Athanasius it cannot be concluded, that Germinius had been Bishop of Cyzicum before. Otherwise, the same must be said con­cerning Gregorius and Cecropius, that the latter had been before Bi­shop of Laodicea, and the former in Cappadocia, which, in regard 'tis evi­dently false in these two, cannot be said of Germinius. This Germi­nius was preferred to the Episcopate of Sirmium by the Arians, be­cause he was a most eager defender of their opinion. This we are informed of by Athanasius, in his circular Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, pag. 290. Vales. and the rest. It is manifest that there is one God the Father Almighty, according as it is decla­red over the whole world: and his one only be­gotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord In the Allat. and Sfortian. M. SS. and in Epiphanius's Version these words [ [...], and God] occur; in Athanasius and Hilarius they are wanting. Vales. and God and Saviour, begotten of his Father before ages. But it must not be asserted that there are two Gods, because the Lord himself hath said, John 20. 17. I go unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God. Therefore he is God even of all, as the Apostle also hath taught, Rom. 3. 29, 30. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God who shall justifie the Cir­cumcision by Faith. Moreover, all other things agree, nor have they any ambiguity. But whereas very many are disturbed about that term which in Latine is called Substance, or Essence. Substantia, and in Greek Ousia (that is, that it may be more accurately un­derstood, the word That is, of the same Substance, or Essence. Homoöusion or That is, of like Sub­stance, or Essence. Homoiöu­sion,) these termes ought in no wise to be mentioned, nor discoursed of publickly in the Church, for this reason, and upon this account, because there is nothing Recorded concerning them in the Divine Scriptures, and in regard these things are above the reach of humane knowledge and mind of man, nor can any one declare the Son's Generation, ac­cording as it is written, Esai. 53. 8. And who shall declare his Generation? For 'tis manifest that only the Father knows how he begat the Son; and again, that the Son [only knows,] how he was begotten of the Father. It cannot be doubtful to any man that the Father is greater in honour, dignity, and divinity, and that he is greater in that very name of a Father: the Son himself attesting, See John 14. 28. The Father who sent me is greater than I. No man is ignorant that this is Catholick [Doctrine,] that there are two Persons of the Father and of the Son, and that the Father is the greater: but that the Son is made subject, together with all other things which the Father hath subjected to himself. That the Father hath no beginning, and is invisible, im­mortal, and impassible: but that the Son was born of the Father, God of God, Light of Light. And that no man knows his Generation, (as was said before,) but only the Father. That the Son him­self our Lord and God, took flesh, or a body, that is [was made] man, according as the Angel E­vangelized. And according as all the Scriptures do teach, and especially the Apostle himself, the Teacher of the Gentiles, Christ received humanity of the Virgin Mary, by which he suffered. This is the Principal Head of the whole Faith, and its confirmation, that the Trinity must be always preser­ved according as we read in the Gospel: Matth. 28. 19. Go ye and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. The number of the Trinity is entire and per­fect. But the Paraclete, the holy Ghost, was sent by the Son, and he came according to promise, that he might Sanctifie and In Atha­nasius it is, [...] that he might teach. Vales. Teach the Apostles and all Believers.

They attempted to perswade Photinus to give his See chap. 29. note (b.) consent to, and subscribe these things, even after his deposition, promising that they would restore him his Bishoprick, in case by altering his mind he would Anathematize the opinion which he had invented, and consent to their sentiments. But he accepted not of that proposition; but chal­lenged them to dispute. A day therefore be­ing set, by the Emperours own appointment, the Bishops there present met, and also not a few of the Epipha­nius (in H [...]r [...]s. Pho­tinian.) relates, that Photinus, after he had been condemned and deposed in the Synod of Sirmium, (for so the reading must be, not, in the Synod of Scrdica.) went to Constantius, and requested that he might dispute concerning the Faith before Judges by him nominated: and that Constantius enjoyned Basilius Bishop of Ancyra to under­take the disputation against Photinus, and gave leave, that Thalassius, Datianus, Cerealis, and Taurus, who were Counts▪ should be Judges or auditours of that disputation. Amongst these Thalassius was the chief person in favour and authority with the Emperour (as Zosimus tells us in his second book.) And was sent Prefect of the Pretorium into the East together with Gallus Caesar, in the year of Christ 351. He died in the year of our Lord 353, in the sixth Consulate of Con­stantius Augustus, and in the second of Gallus Caesar; as Amm. Marcel­linus relates book 14. Therefore the Synod of Sirmium, and the dispu­tation of Basilius against Photinus cannot fall on the year of Christ 357, as Baronius asserts. Besides, Epiphanius says further, that in Basilius's disputation against Photinus, Callicrates was a Notary, who had before been Notary to Rufinus Prefect of the Praetorium. Now, Rufinus was Prefect of the Praetorium in the Gallia's, in the sixth Consulate of Constantius Augustus, and in the second of Gallus Caesar, as Amm. Marcellinus tells us book. 14. But, two years before he had been Praefect of Illyricum. Now, in the year of Christ 357, Anatolius, not Rufinus, bore the Praefecture of the Praetorium in Illyricum. Further, it may be evidently concluded from Germinius's being made Bishop, that the Synod of Sirmium against Photinus (wherein Photinus was ejected out of his Bishoprick,) was not held in the year of Christ 357. For, Germinius was Bishop of Sir­mium, before Georgius intruded himself into the See of Alexandria upon Athanasius's Ejectment, as Athanasius relates in the Circular Letter he wrote to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, at such ▪time as Georgius was in possession of the Alexandrian See. Moreover, Geor­gius entred upon the See of Alexandria in the beginning of the year 356, as it is evident from the protestation of the Alexandrians which is extant at the close of Athanasius's Epistle ad Solitar. Seeing therefore Germinius was Bishop of Sirmium before the year of our Lord 356, Photinus also (whom Germinius succeeded) must neces­sarily have been deposed before this year. Athanasius (in Epist. ad Solitar. pag. 860, where he recounts the ordinations of extraneous persons made by Constantius;) does in the first place mention Gre­gorius's Ordination; then, Germinius's and Cecropius's; afterwards Auxentius's; and at last Georgius's. Amongst these persons, Gre­gorius was made Bishop of Alexandria in the year of Christ 341. Germinius succeeded Photinus in the Episcopate of Sirmium in the year 351: after he had been sent for by Constantius then residing at Sirmium, as Athanasius relates in the fore-quoted place; which the Latine Translatour has rendred ill. On the same year Cecropius was made Bishop of Nicomedia, as it may be concluded from the foresaid passage in Athanasius. Lastly, Auxentius was preferred to the Bishoprick of Millaine in the year of our Lord 355: and on the year following Georgius thrust himself into the See of Alexandria. Vales. Senatorian Order, whom the Em­perour commanded to be present at the dispute. [Page 269] In their presence, Basilius, who at that time pre­sided over the Church at Ancyra, opposed Pho­tinus, the Notaries taking their words in writing. There was a very great contest on both sides during their dispute; wherein Photinus being vanquished, was condemned. Spending the resi­due of his life in exile, he wrote a In the Allat. M. S. it is [ [...], he wrote Books] which rea­ding is con­firmed by Epiphanius Scholasti­cus's ver­sion. Vales. Book in That is, in Greek, and Latine. both Languages, for he was not un­skilled in the Latine tongue. He wrote also against all Heresies, asserting his own opinion only. Let thus much be said concerning Photinus. Moreover, you must know, that the Bishops convened at Sir­mium were afterwards Socrates borrowed this passage out of A­thanasius's book de Sy­nodis A­rimin. & Seleuciae. But herein he mi­stakes; viz. what Athanasius had said concerning the third form of the Creed drawn up at Sirmium, (before which the Consuls names were prefixt,) Socrates attributes to the second, composed by Hosius and Potamius. The place in Athanasius is extant at pag. 904: but in regard of its length we forbear quoting the words here. Petavius (in his Animadversions on Epiphanius, pag. 318.) has followed this mistake of Socrates's. Vales. displeased with that Draught of the Creed published by them in Latine. For it seemed to them, after its pub­lication, to contain many contradictions. Where­fore, they earnestly endeavoured to get it out of their hands who had transcribed it. But, in regard many hid it, the Emperour by his Edicts ordered, that all the Copies of it should be di­ligently searched for and gathered up, threatning to punish those that should be found concealing of it. But his menaces were unable to sup­press it when once published, in regard it had fallen into many mens hands. Thus far concer­ning this.

CHAP. XXXI. Concerning Hosius Bishop of Corduba.

BUt, in regard we have mentioned Hosius the Spaniard, as being against his will present [at Sirmium,] we must say something very briefly concerning him. For a little before, this person had been sent into I noted before, that Hosius's banish­ment to Sirmium, and the form of the Creed drawn up by him, are here preposte­rously re­lated by Socrates. For Ho­sius's lapse hapned in the year of Christ 357. as Baronius has truly observed. Vales. Banishment by the fraudulent practises of the Arians, But then, through the earnest desire of those convened at Sirmium, the Emperour sent for him, being desirous either to perswade, or else by force to compell him to give consent with those [Bi­shops] present there. For if this could be accomplished, an evident testimony would seem to be given to their Faith. For this reason therefore; he was present (as I said,) being necessitated there­to against his will. But when he refused to give his consent, they inflicted stripes and tortures upon the old man. Upon which account he was necessitated both to consent to, and subscribe those expositions of the Faith then published. Such was the conclusion of affaires at that time transacted at Sirmium. Moreover, the Emperour Constantius continued at Sirmium, expecting the event of the War against Magnentius.

CHAP. XXXII. Concerning the overthrow of Magnentius the Tyrant.

IN the interim, Magnentius having possessed himself of the Imperial City Rome, slew many of the Senatorian Order, and destroyed several of the Populace. But as soon as Constantius's Commanders, having got together a body of Romans, marched out against him, he left Rome, and went into the Gallia's. Where there hapned continual engagements; and sometimes one side, sometimes the other got the better. But in fine, Magnentius having been worsted about Mursa, which is a Fort of the Gallia's, was Besieged there. In which Fort such a miraculous accident as this is said to have hapned. Magnentius at­tempting to encourage his Souldiers disheartned at their overthrow, ascended a lofty tribunal. His men, desirous to receive him with the shouts and acclamations usually given to the Emperours, contrary to their intent diverted them to Con­stantius. For by a general consent they all cried out, not Magnentius, but Constantius Augustus. Magnentius looking upon this to be an Sign [...]. Omen of his imminent Ruine, departed immediately out of the Garrison, and fled to the further parts of the Gallia's. Constantius's Commanders followed him with a very close pursuit. Whereupon there hapned another Engagement at a place called In the Allat. M. S. this place is called [ [...], Mon­to seleucus.] Epiphanius Schola­sticus terms it The mountain Se­leucus. We have the site of this place in the Jerusalem Itinerary. Vales. The Mountain Seleucus: wherein Magnentius being totally Routed, fled alone to Lyons a City of Gallia, three days journey distant from the Fort at Mursa. Mag­nentius having got into Ly­ons, in the first place killed his own mother. Then he slew his brother, whom he had created Caesar; and at last laid violent hands upon himself. This was done in the sixth Consulate of Constantius, and in Constantius Gallus's second Consulate, It is something otherwise in Idatius's Fasti: thus: in the sixth Consulate of Constantius and the second of Constantius Gallus, Magnentius killed himself in the Gallia's at Lyons, on the third of the Ides of August; and Decentius, brother to Mag­nentius, hanged himself on the fifteenth of the Kalends of September. In the Alexandr. Chronicle, the year of Magnentius's death is falsely set down; but the day is noted to have been on the fourteenth of the Ides of August. Vales. about the fifteenth of the month August. Not long after, another of Magnentius's brothers, his name Decentius, finished his own life, by hang­ing [Page 270] of himself. Such was Magnentius his exit. But the publick affairs of the Empire returned not to a perfect degree of tranquillity. For soon after this another Tyrant arose, by name Silvanus. But Constantius's Commanders quickly destroyed him, whilst he was making disturbances in the Gallia's.

CHAP. XXXIII. Concerning the Jews inhabiting Dio-Caesarea in Palestine.

AT the same time also that these things hap­ned, there arose another intestine War in the East. For the Jews, who inhabited Dio-Cae­sarea in Palestine, took Arms against the Romans, and overran and destroyed the adjacent places. But Gallus (who was also named Constantius, whom the Emperour, having created him Cae­sar, had sent into the East) sent an Army a­gainst them, and Routed them. And by his order their City Dio-Caesarea was totally de­stroyed.

CHAP. XXXIV. Concerning Gallus Caesar.

GAllus having done this, was unable [with moderation] to bear his prosperous success: but immediately attempted to raise innovations against him by whom he had been created Caesar, and he himself was also resolved to play the Tyrant. [...]ut, whereas his design was soon dis­covered by Constantius: (For Gallus had upon his own authority ordered Domitianus, at that time Praefect of the Praetorium in the East, and Magnus the Quaestor, to be slain, because they had I corrected this place by the assistance of the Allat. M. S. of Sozomen, and Cedrenus. In the Allat. M. S. the reading is [ [...]. He slew them because they had acquainted the Emperour with his de [...]ign.] Sozomen's words (book 4. chap. 7.) are almost the same. But Epiphanius, our M. SS. Copies, and the Alexan­drian Chronicle retain the Vul­gar reading, to wit, [...], He (that is, Gallus) having not acquainted the Empe­rour with his design of slaying Do­mitianus, &c. Vales. acquainted the Em­perour with his design.) Constantius highly incen­sed thereat, sent for Gallus to him. He, being in a very great fear, went unwilling­ly. When he arrived in the Western parts, and was come as far as the Island Flanona, Constantius ordered he should be slain. Not long after, he created Julianus, Gallus's Brother, Caesar, and sent him against the Barbari­ans in Gallia. Moreover, Gal­lus (called also Constantius) was slain in the seventh Consulate of the Emperour Constantius, when he himself was Consul the third time. On the year following, in the Consulate of Arbetion and Lollianus, Julianus was created Caesar, on the sixth of the month November. Concerning Julianus we shall make a further mention in our following book. But Constan­tius having got rid of his present mischiefs and disquietudes, bent his mind again to an Ec­clesiastick War. For going from Sirmium to the Imperial City Rome, he again summoned a Synod of Bishops, and ordered some of the Ea­stern Bishops to hasten into Instead of [ [...] in­to Gallia] the reading in the Allat. M. S. is truer; which is [ [...] into Italy:] which reading we have followed in our Version. Vals. Italy; and at the same time commanded the Western Bishops to meet there also. But in the interim that they were making preparation to go into Italy, this accident hapned: Julius Bishop of Rome died on the twelfth of April, when Constantius Augustus was Consul the fifth time, and Constantius Caesar the first time; which was the year of Christ 352: after he had sat Bishop fifteen years, one month, and eleven days; as it is recorded in the Antient book concerning the Roman Bishops, which is publi­shed together with Victorius Aquitanus's Cycle. Vales. Julius Bishop of Rome died, having Presided over the Church there fifteen years: Liberius succeeded him in his Bishop­rick.

CHAP. XXXV. Concerning Aëtius the Syrian, Eunomius's Ma­ster.

AT Antioch in Syria there arose another Arch Heretick, Aëtius, surnamed Atheus. He had the same sentiments with Arius, and maintained the same opinion. But he separated himself from the Arian party, because they had admitted Arius into communion. For Arius (as I said Book 1. chap. 38. before) espousing one opinion in his mind, made an open profession of another with his mouth, when he hypocritically consen­ted to, and subscribed the form of the Creed [drawn up] at the Synod of Nice, that he might deceive the then Emperour. Upon this account therefore Aëtius separated himself from the Arians. Moreover, Aëtius had formerly been an Hereticall person, and a very zealons de­fender of Arius's opinion. For after he had been a little instructed at Alexandria, he re­turned from thence. And arriving at Antioch in Syria▪ (for there he was born) he was Or­dained Deacon by Leontius, at that time Bishop of Antioch. Immediately therefore he asto­nished those that discoursed him with the no­velty of his speeches. And this he did, trusting in Aristotle's Categories; (that Book is so enti­tled by its Authour,) from the Rules whereof he discoursed, but was insensible of his framing fallacious arguments in order to the deceiving of his own self, nor had he learned the scope of Aristotle from knowing persons. For Aristotle, upon account of the Sophisters who at that time derided Philosophy, wrote that Exercitation for young men, and opposed the Sophisters with the art of discourse by subtile reasonings. Where­fore the Who these Ephecticks were, we may know from Diogenes Laër­tius: [...]. &c. Philosophers (says he) were generally divided into two sorts; some were termed Dogmatici, who discoursed concerning things as they might be comprehended: o­thers were called Ephectici, who de­fine nothing, and dispute of things so as they cannot be comprehended. See Diogen Laërt. in Proëm. de Vit. Philos. pag. 10. Edit. Colon. Allobrog. 1616. of these Ephecticks (whom we may in English call Doubters) the Scepticks were one Species. Ephecticks who expound Plato's and Plo­tinus's works, do find fault with what Aristotle has subtilly and artificially asserted [in that work.] But Aëtius, having never had an Academick Master, stuck close to the Sophismes of the Categories. Upon which account he could nei­ther understand how there could be a generation In the original, the term is [ [...]] unbegotten] which is used instead of [ [...] without a beginning;] where­fore, we have rendred it accord­ingly. Vales. with­out a beginning, nor how he that was begotten could be coëternal with him who begat him. Yea, Aëtius was a man of so little learning, so unskilled in the sacred Scriptures, and so wholly exercised in and addicted to a contentious and disputative humour, (which every Rustick may easily do;) that he was not [Page 271] in the least studious in the perusal of those An­cient writers who have explained the sacred Books of the Christian Religion, but wholly rejected Clemens, Africanus, and Origen, persons expert in all manner of knowledge and litera­ture. But he patcht together Epistles, both to the Emperour Constantius, and to some other persons, knitting together therein trifling and contentious disputes, and inventing subtile and fallacious arguments. Upon which account he was surnamed That is, one that be­lieves there is no God. Atheus. But although his as­sertions were the same with those of the Arians; yet because they were unable to understand his difficult and perplexed Or, me­thods of ar­guing. Syllogismes, he who had the same sentiments with them, was by those of his own party judged to be an Heretick. And for this reason he was driven from their Church; but he himself pretended that he would not com­municate with them. There are at this present some Hereticks propagated from him, [to wit,] those who were heretofore called Aëtians, but now they are termed Eunomians. For Eunomius (who [...]ad been Aëtius's Notary,) having been instructed in that In the Allatian M. S. in­stead of [ [...], that▪ Haeretical opinion] the reading is [ [...], that contentious and verbose way of disputing:] but Epiphanius Scholasticus follows the vulgar reading, and so does Suidas, in the word [ [...]] where he transcribes this passage of our Socrates. Vales. Heretical opinion by him, afterwards Headed that Sect. But we shall speak concerning Eunomius in due place.

CHAP. XXXVI. Concerning the Synod at Millaine.

AT that time the Bishops met in Italy; there came not very many of the Eastern Bi­shops, in regard most of them were hindred from coming either by their great age, or by the length of the journey: but of the We­stern Bishops there met above We meet with the same num­ber in So­zomen, book 4. chap. 9. But 'tis scarce cre­dible that so great a number of Bishops should have been convened at this Council of Millaine: I should rather think that the copies of Socrates and Sozo­men were false; and that instead of [ [...] three hundred] it should be [ [...] thirty.] In the Epistle of the Council of Millaine sent to Eusebius Bishop of Vercellae, there are the names of thirty Bishops only, who consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, Marcellus, and Photinus. Amongst whom some Eastern Bishops are recounted, as you may see in Baronius, at the year of Christ 355. Vales. three hun­dred. For it was the Emperours order, that a Synod should be held at the City of Millaine. Where being met together, the Eastern Bishops requested that in the first place sentence might by a general consent be pronounced against A­thanasius: that so, that having been effected, he might in future be perfectly disabled from re­turning to Alexandria. But when Paulinus Bishop of Triers was not present at the Council of Mil­laine, but at that of Orleance, which had been convened two years be­fore, in the year of Christ 353. See Baronius. Vales. Paulinus Bishop of Triers in Gallia, and Dionysius, and Eusebius, (the former of whom was Bishop of The reading is the same in Sozomen, book 4. chap. 9. But Ba­ronius has long since remarked, that Alba is here put instead of Mil­laine, For Millaine (not Alba) was the Metropolis of Italy. And Dionysius, who then opposed Constantius and the Arians, was not Bi­shop of Alba, but of Millaine, as Athanasius attests in his Epistle a [...] Solitar. Vales. Alba the Metropolis of Italy, and the latter of Vercellae which is a City of Liguria in Italy,) were sensible, that the Eastern Bishops, by a ratification of the sentence against Athanasius, attempted the subversion of the Faith, they arose and with great earnestness cryed out▪ that deceit and fraud was covertly designed against the Christian Religion by what was transacted: for they said, that the accusation against Athanasius was not true, but that these things were invented by them in order to the depravation of the Faith. After they had with loud voices spoken all this, the congress of Bi­shops was for that time dissolved.

CHAP. XXXVII. Concerning the Synod at Ariminum, and concer­ning the [Draught of the] Creed which was published there.

WHen the Emperour understood this, He removed That is, Paulinus, Dionysius, and Euse­bius. them out of the way by banishment. And resolved to convene a Gene­ral Council, that so, by drawing all the Eastern Bishops into the West, he might (if it were possible) reduce them all to an agreement in opinion. But in regard the tediousness of the Journey rendred this design of his difficult, he ordered the Synod should be divided into two parts, permitting those then present to meet at Ariminum [a City] of Italy. But by his Letters he gave the Eastern Bishops order to assemble at Nicomedia [a City] of Bithynia. These words [ [...]. i. [...]. The Emperour is­sued out these orders with a de­signe to unite them in opinion] are wanting in Robert Stephens's Edition: we have inserted them, upon the authority of the Flo­rentine and Sfortian M. SS. Vales. The Emperour issued out these orders with a design to unite them in opinion. But this design of his had not a successful event. For neither of the Synods agreed amongst themselves, but each of them was divided into contrary factions. For neither could they convened at Ariminum be brought to agree in one and the same opinion: and those Eastern Bishops gathered together at Seleucia of Isauria raised another Schism. Moreover, after what manner all these matters were transacted, we will declare in the procedure of our History, having first made mention of some few passages concer­ning Eudoxius. For about that time The death of Leontius Bi­shop of Antioch hapned in the year of Christ 356; Constantius residing then at Rome, as Baro­nius has truly remarked. Vales. Leontius (who had ordained Aëtius the He­retick Deacon) departing this life, Eudoxius Bishop of Germanicia a City of Syria, being then present at Rome, considered with him­self that he was to make haste. And having framed a cunning discourse with the Emperour, as if the City Germanicia stood in need of his consolation and defence, he requested that leave might be granted him to make a sudden return. The Emperour foreseeing nothing [of a de­sign,] sent him away. But he, having pro­cured the chiefest persons of the Bedchamber to, the Emperour to be his assistants, left his own City [Germanicia,] and [...], under­mined, or burrowed into the Bi­shoprick of Antioch. clancularly possest himself of the Episcopate of Antioch: im­mediately after which he attempted to favour Aëtius, and made it his business to assemble a Synod of Bishops, and Leontius Bishop of Antioch, had at first preferred Aëtius to a diaco­nate: but being afterwards reproved by Diodorus and Flavianus, because he had advanced a person to sacred orders who had been bred up in ill studies, and was an assertour of impious Tenets; he divested him of his Deaconship, as Theodoret relates (Eccles. Hist. book 2. chap. 24.) Eudoxius therefore, as soon as he had gotten the Bishoprick of Antioch, attempted to restore Aëtius to his former pre­ferment. Vales. restore him to his dig­nity, [to wit,] his Dea­conship. Diaconate. But he was in no wise able to effect this, be­cause the hatred conceived against Aëtius was more prevalent than Eudoxius's earnestness for him. Thus much concerning these things. But when the Bishops were assembled at Ariminum, [Page 272] the Eastern Prelates affirmed that they were come to the Council with a design wholly to omit the mention of the accusations against Athanasius. This desire and resolution of theirs was assisted by Ursacius and Valens, who at the beginning had been defenders of Arius's opinion: but [af­terwards] they publickly consented to the term Homoöusios, by their Libel given in to the Bishop of Rome, as we said Book 2. chap. 12. before. For these persons always inclined to the strongest side. They were assisted by Germinius, Auxentius, Demophilus, and Caius. When therefore some were ready to pro­pose one thing in the congress of Bishops then present, and some another; Ursacius and Valens said, that all Forms of the Creed heretofore pub­lished were to be accounted null and void; and that that last draught was to be admitted and ap­proved of, which they had a little before published in their convention at Sirmium. Having said this, they caused a paper, which they had in their hands, to be read; [wherein was contained] another Form of the Creed (which they had drawn up before at Sirmium, but concealed it there, as I said Chap. 30. before) which they then made publick at Ariminum. This We re­mark't be­fore, (book 2. chap. 30. note (b.) that this third Exposition of Faith was not translated out of Latine; but was at first dictated in Greek by Marcus Arethusius. Athanasius, who has recorded this Creed in his book de Synodis, does not say it was translated out of Latine; and yet, where-ever he pro­duceth any monument rendred into Greek out of the Latine tongue, his continual usage is to give the Reader warning of it. Further, these words [ [...], i. e. This Creed was translated out of Latine [into Greek,] the contents thereof are these] are wanting in Robert Stephens's Edition; nor are they in Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version. Vales. Creed was tran­slated out of Latine [into Greek;] the con­tents thereof are these.

This Catholick Creed was published in the pre­sence of our Lord Constantius, in the Consulate of the most Eminent Flavius Eusebius and Hypatius, at Sirmium, on the eleventh of the Kalends of June.

We believe in one only and true God, the Father Almighty, Creatour and Framer of all things. And in one only begotten Son of God, who was begotten of God, without passion, before all Ages, and be­fore every beginning, and before all time con­ceivable in the mind, and before every comprehen­sible In Atha­nasius's book de Sy­nodis pag. 875; the reading is [ [...], before every com­prehensible substance.] Vales. notion: by whom the Ages were framed, and all things were made. Who was begotten the only begotten of the Father, the only of the only, God of God, like to the Father who be­gat him, according to the Scriptures. Whose Ge­neration no person knoweth, but only the Father who begat him. We know that this only begotten Son of God, by his Father's appointment, came down from heaven in order to the abolishing of sin: and was born of the Virgin Mary, and con­versed with the Disciples, and fulfilled every dis­pensation according to his Fathers will: and was crucified, and died, and descended into the In­fernal parts, and set in order what was to be done there. At the sight of whom the doorkeepers of hell trembled. He arose again on the third day, and conversed with his Disciples: and after the completion of fourty days, he ascended into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of his Father. And he shall come in the last day in his Fathers Glory, and render to every man according to his works. And [we believe] in the holy Ghost, whom the only begotten Son of God Jesus Christ him­self promised to send as a Comforter to mankind, according as it is written: I go away to my Fa­ther, and I will pray my Father, and he shall send you another Comforter, the spirit of truth. He shall receive of mine, and shall teach you, and bring all things to your remembrance. But▪ for the term Substance. Ousia, in regard it has been used by the Fathers in a more plain and ordinary sense, and, being not understood by the people, gives an offence to many, in as much as it is not contained in the Scriptures, we thought good to have it wholly removed, and in future to make no mention at all of this term Ousia, when God is spoken of, in regard the saecred Scriptures have no where mentioned the substance of the Father and of the Son. But The lat­ter part of this Sirmi­an Creed is set down by Germinius in his Epistle to [...]ufianus, Palladius, and others, in these words: Nam sub bonae memoriae Constantio Imperatore, &c. For under the Emperour Constantius of good memory, when there began to be a dissention amongst some concerning the Faith; in the presence of the said Emperour, there being also present Georgius Bishop of the Alexandrian Church, Pancratius of Pelusium, Basilius at that time Bishop of Anquiri­tum, Valens, Ursacius, and our slenderness; after a dispute had con­cerning the Faith untill night, when it was reduced to a certain Rule, Marcus was chosen by us all to dictate it: in which Creed it is thus written, The Son is in all things like the Father, as the divine Scri­ptures do affirm and teach. To which entire prosession of Faith we all gave our consent, and subscribed it with our hands. Their subscriptions are extant in Epiphanius (in Haeres. Semiarian. cap. 22.) which ought to be annexed to this draught of the Creed. The same form of the Sirmian Creed is mentioned in the Exposition of the Faith at Seleucia, which Epiphanius hath recorded in the foresaid Heresie, chap. 25; in these words: [...], &c. i. e. Moreover, that that Draught of the Creed heretosore published at Sirmium in the presence of the piety of our Emperour [Constantius] does exactly agree with this form of the Creed, is very well known by them who have read that Creed; which was subscribed by them [...]hat were then present, to wit, Basilius, Marcus, Geo [...]gius Bishop of Alexandria, Pancratius, Hypatianus, and most of the Western Bishops. Vales. we do assert, that the Son is in all things like the Father, as the sacred Scriptures do affirm and teach.

After the reading of this paper, those who were displeased with the contents thereof, rose up and said: we came not hither because we wanted a Creed. For we keep that entire, which we have received from our Ancestours. But [we are met,] that if any innovation hath hapned concerning it, we might repress it. If therefore what hath been recited doth contain nothing of novelty in it, do you now openly Anathematize the Arian Heresie, in such sort as the ancient Rule of the Church hath rejected other Heresies, as being blasphemous. For, it has been made manifest to the whole world, that Arius's impious opinion hath been the occasion of those tumults and disturbances, which have hapned in the Church untill this present time. This proposall, being not admitted of by Ur­sacius, Valens, Germinius, Auxentius, Demophilus, and Caius, wholly rent in sunder the Church. For these persons adhered to what had been recited in the Synod of Ariminum. But the others did again confirm the Nicene Creed. Moreover, they derided the inscription prefixt before the Creed which had been read. And especially The pas­sage in A­thanasius here quoted by Socrates, occurs at the beginning of his Epistle de Synod [...] Arimini & Seleuciae. Vales. Athanasius, in the Epistle he sent to his acquaintance, where he writes word for word thus.

For what was wanting to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church as concerning piety, that dis­quisitions should now be made about the Faith, and that they should prefix the Consulate of the present times before that Draught of the Creed (forsooth!) which they have published? For Ur­sacius, Valens, and Germinius, have done that which never was done, or so much as ever heard of amongst Christians. For having composed such a [Page 273] form of the Creed as they were willing to admit of, they prefixt before it the Consulate, the month, and the day of the present year, in order to their making it manifest to all prudent persons, that their Faith had not its beginning before, but now under the Reign of Constantius. For, they have written We read [ [...] all things] as it is in A­thanasius: See the forequoted passage. Vales. all things with a respect had to their own Heresie. Beside [...], pretending to write concerning the Lord, they name another to be their Lord, [to wit,] Constantius. For he it was, who influenced and authorized their impiety. And they who deny the Son to be Eternal, have stiled him For this is the title prefixt before the exposition of Faith at Sirmium [ [...], &c. This Chatho­lick Creed was expounded and pub­lished in the presence of our Lord the most pious and Victorious Em­perour Constantius Augustus, E­ternal Augustus, &c.] as it is extant in Athanasius, at the fore­quoted place. Which words I therefore annext here, because our Socrates, in his recitation of that Draught of the Creed, has omitted these titles. Indeed Con­stantius did so readily give cre­dence to such flatteries as these, that speaking of himself in his Edicts and Letters, he would sometimes assert his own eter­nity. This is attested by Amm. Marcellinus, not far from the be­ginning of his fifteenth book, in these words: Quo ille (speaking of Constantius) studio blandi [...]ia­rum exquisito sublatus▪ immunem (que) se deinde fore ab omni mortalitatis incommodo fidenter existimans, con­festim à justitia declinavit ita in­temperanter, u [...] AETERNITA­TEM MEAM aliquoties subse­reret ipse dictando, &c. Vales. Eternal Em­perour: such bitter enemies are they against Christ, by reason of their impiety! But perhaps, the holy Prophets specifying of the time [where­in they prophesied] gave them an occasion of assigning the Consulate. Now, should they be so audacious as to assert this, they would most egregiously betray their own ignorance. For the prophe­sies of th [...]se holy persons do indeed contain a mention of the times. Isaiah and Hosea lived See Isai. 1. 1. and Hosea 1. 1. in the days of Uzziah, Jo­tham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Jere­miah, Jeremiah 1. 2. in the days of Josiah. Ezekiel and Daniel [flou­rish't] under Cyrus and Da­rius. And others prophesied in other times: but they did not then lay the foundations of Re­ligion. For that was in being before their times, and always was, even before the foun­dation of the world, God ha­ving prepared it for us by Christ. Nor did they thereby manifest the times of their own Faith. For even before those times they themselves were belie­vers. But the times [which they mention] were the times of the Promise [which God made] by them. Now, the chief and principal head of the Promise was concerning our Saviours Advent. And by way of Addition. Appendix those things were added which should in future happen to Israel and to the Gentiles. These were the times manifested [by them, where­by was declared] not the beginning of Faith, as we said before, but the times wherein those Pro­phets themselves lived and foretold these things. But these He speaks [...]ronically. Wise men in our days (whenas they neither compose Histories, nor predict future things, but) having written [these words,] The Catholick Faith was published, immediately add the Consulate, the month, and the day. And, as those holy persons wrote the History of affairs [in their age, and noted] the times of their own ministration; so these men do manifest the time of their own Faith. And would to God they had written concerning their own Faith only; (for now they first began to believe:) and had not attempted [to write] concerning the Catho­lick [Faith!] For they have not written, Thus we believe: but after this manner, The Catho­lick Faith was published. The audaciousness therefore of this design does reprehend their im­piety: but the novelty of the Writing. Expression by them invented is altogether like the Arian Heresie. For by their writing after this manner they have informed [all persons,] when they themselves be­gan first to believe; and from what instant they are desirous their Faith should be Preached. And▪ ac­cording to that saying of Luke the Evangelist, See Luk. 2. 1. A Decree [of Enrolment] was published; (which [Edict] was not before, but it began from those times, and was published by him that wrote it:) so these persons by writing thus, The Faith is now published, have demonstrated, that the Tenets of their Heresie are novitious, and were not in former times. But, in as much as they add the term Catholick, they are insensible of their fal­ling into the In Athanasius the reading is [ [...], into the madness:] which is the better reading: for he means the Mon­tanists, to whom madness is de­servedly attributed. The term here, in Socrates, is [ [...], impious opinion.] Vales. impious opi­nion of the See Eusebius Eccles. Hist. book 4. chap. 27. note (c.) and book 5. chap. 18. Cataphrygae: and as they did, so do these assert, [saying,] the Faith of the Christians was first revealed to us, and took its beginning from us. And, as they stiled Maximilla and Montanus, so these term Con­stantius their Lord and Ma­ster, instead of Christ. But if, according to them, the Faith took its beginning from this Consulate, what will the Fathers, and the blessed Martyrs do? Moreover, what will they themselves do with such persons as were catechized and instructed by them, and died before this Con­sulate? How will they raise them to life again, that they may root out of their minds what they seemed to have taught them, and implant in them those [sentiments,] which, as they write, are newly invented by them? To such a degree of ignorance are they arrived, being only well skilled in framing Pretexts, and they such as are undecent and im­probable, and which may be presently confuted.

Thus wrote Athanasius to those of his ac­quaintance. Such as are Lovers of learning (af­ter they have found out this letter) may under­stand the powerfull expressions therein contained. For we, having an aversion for prolixity, have inserted but part thereof here. Further, you are to take notice, that the Synod deposed Valens, Ursacius, Auxentius, Germinius, Caius, and De­mophilus, because they would not Anathematize the Arian opinion. Wherefore they highly re­senting their deposition, hastned forthwith to the Emperour, carrying along with them that Draught of the Creed which had been read in the Synod. And the Synod acquainted the Em­perour with their determinations, by their let­ter: the purport whereof, being translated out of Latine into Greek, is this.

The Letter of the Ariminum Synod to the Emperour Constantius.

This Letter of the Ariminum Synod is extant in Latine, in Hilarius, amongst the Fragments of his book de Synodis, pag. 451. Edit. Paris. 1631: out of whom we have transc [...]ibed it, and placed it here instead of a Version. It ought not to seem strange to any person, to see so great a disagreement between the Greek Version and the ori­ginal Latine Copy of this Epistle. For this is an usual thing with Greek Translatours, as often as they render Latine into Greek; which may be easily perceived from the Emperours Rescripts, which occur in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History. But, we need not fetch exam­ples hereof from any other place, than from this Letter: in which do occur almost as many mistakes in the Greek translation of it, as there are periods in the Letter. But, the beginning of this Letter is commonly thus worded in Hilarius▪ Lubente Deo ex praecepto pietatis Tuae credimus f [...]isse dispos [...]tum, &c. By Gods pleasure we believe it hath been ordered by the Command of your Piety, &c. But in the M. S. Copy made use of by Jacobus Sirmondus, the reading is thus: Ju­bente Deo, &c. By Gods will, &c. So the Greek Translatour reads it▪ whom we have followed in this place. Any one may with good rea­son conjecture, that [Jubente Deo, By Gods will] is written instead of [Juvante Deo, By Gods assistance.] Vales. By Gods will, and the Command of your Piety, [Page 274] we believe Order has been taken, that we Western Bishops should come out of divers Provinces to the Or, place of the Ari­minensians. City of Ariminum: that the Faith of the Ca­tholick Church might be made apparent to all men, and that Hereticks might be notified. For whilst all of us (who entertain such sentiments as are true) could review and consider matters, our determina­tion was to hold the Faith which hath continued from [all] antiquity, which we have received by the Prophets, Gospels, and Apostles, by God himself and our Lord Jesus Christ, the preserver of your Empire and Doner of your Salva­tion. safety. For we ac­counted it a thing detestable to maim any of those matters which have been rightly and justly deter­mined; and [to take away any thing] from those persons, who were Assessours in the Nicene Or, Con­sult. Treaty, together with Constantine of glorious Memory the Father of your Piety. Which Treaty hath been ma­nifested and insinuated into the minds of the people, and is found to have been then opposed to the Arian heresie, in such manner that not only that, but other he­resies also have thereby been vanquished. From which Treaty should any thing be taken away, a passage would be opened to the poison of Hereticks. These words have no very good coherence with the pre­ceding sentence. I conjecture that this place was transposed in the Latine Copies. There­fore, next these words [a passage would be opened to the poisons of Hereticks,] those, in my judg­ment, are to be placed, which follow a little after; in this man­ner: Constantine being present in this [Consult,] in regard, after a searching disquisition, &c. unto these words [our Lord Jesus Christ.] To which are to be subjoyned these [Therefore Ur­sacius and Valens, &c.] Vales. Therefore Ursa­cius and Valens sometime lay under a suspicion of [being ad­herents to] the same Arian he­resie, and they were suspended from communion. They also begged pardon, as the contents of their Libel do manifest. Which they procured at that time from the At chap. 20 of this book, note (a.) we have remarkt many things concerning this first Synod of Millaine, wherein Ursacius, and Valens having presented a Libel of satisfaction, condemned the A­rian Heresie. The said persons confirm the same in another Libel, which they presented afterwards to Julius Bishop of Rome, at Rome; in these words: Haere­ticum vero Arium &c. sicut per pri­orem nostrum Libellum, quem apud Mediolanum porreximus, & nunc & semper anathematizasse profite­mur. Vales. Council of Millaine, the Embassadours of the Church of Rome al­so assisting. Constantine be­ing present in this [Con­sult,] in regard after a searching disquisition, that [Creed] had been drawn up, (which he believing, and being baptized, departed to Gods rest,) we look upon it as a thing detestable, to make any Maimings. Mutilations therein, or in any thing to set aside so many Saints, Confessours, and successours of the Martyrs, who were composers of that Treaty; in regard they have kept all things [asserted by] the past Writers of the Catholick Church. And it hath continued to these very times, wherein Your Piety hath received the power of Ruling the world from God the Father by God and our Lord Jesus Christ. But [these] wretched men, en­dewed with an unhappy Under­standing. Sense, have again by a temerarious attempt proclaimed themselves the set­ters forth of impious Doctrine: and even now they endeavour to shake what had been founded in rea­son. For when the Letters of Your Piety orde­red that the Faith should be Treated of, there was proposed to us by the forenamed disturbers of the Churches (Germinius, Auxentius, and Caius having joyned themselves to them,) a new [Creed] to be considered of, which contained much perverse Doctrine. But when the Creed they proposed publickly in the Council seemed to dis­please, their sentiments were that it was to be drawn up otherwise. And it is manifest, that they have in a short time often These words are spoken against Ursacius and Valens, and their followers; who daily promulged new forms of the Creed, hereby demonstrating that they had no certain Faith; as Athanasius frequently objects against them. Vales. altered these things. But lest the Churches should be frequently distur­bed, we have determined that the ancient san­ctions ought to be kept ratified and inviolable; and that the forementioned persons should be re­moved from our communion. In order therefore to the informing of Your Clemency, we have di­rected our Legates, who by our Letter will declare the opinion of the Council. To whom we have given this particular only in charge, that they should dis­patch their Embassie no otherwise, than that the an­cient Sanctions may continue firm and inviolable: as also that Your Wisdom might know, that peace cannot be accomplished by this which the forenamed Valens, Ursacius, Germinius, and Caius have pro­mised, if any thing had been Taken away. altered. For how can peace be kept by those who subvert peace? For all Regions, and especially the Roman Church hath been involved in greater disturbances. Upon which account we beseech Your Clemency, that You would hear and look upon all our Legates with favourable ears, and a serene countenance: Here I followed the Greek Translatour of this Epistle; and corrected the Latine Copy. For in Hilarius's Fragments, the com­mon reading of this place is this [Ne vel permittat Clementia tua jura vetera convelli, that Your Clemency would not permit the ancient Laws to be reversed.] In the M. S. Copy, which Sirmon­dus had seen, the reading is [ne vel aliquid permittat clementia tua injuriam veterum convelli.] Whence we smelt out the true reading, which we have exprest in our Version. Vales. and that Your Clemency would not permit any thing to be reversed to the injury of the Ancients, but that all things may continue which we have received from our An­cestours, who (we are con­fident) were prudent persons, and acted not without the holy Spirit of God. Because, not only the believing Populace are disquieted by that novel­ty, but also Infidels are pro­hibited from making their ap­proaches to a Here the Greek translatour was grievously out; for instead of credulity he has rendred it cru­elty. Vales. credulity. We also entreat, that You would give order, that as many Bi­shops as are deteined at Ari­minum (amongst which there are many that are enfeebled with age and poverty,) may return to their Province; lest the Populace of the Churches suffer dammage by being destitute of their Bi­shops. But we do with more earnestness petition for this, that no innovation may be made, nothing may be diminished; but that those things may re­main uncorrupted which have continued in the times of the Father of Your holy Piety, and in Your own Religious days. And, that Your holy Prudence would not suffer us to be wearied out, and ravisht from our Secs: but that the Bishops with their Laity, free from disquietude, may al­ways attend the [putting up their] Petitions, which they Or, have. make for Your health, for Your Em­pire, and for peace, which may the Divinity grant You to be profound and perpetual, according to Your deserts. Our Embassadours will bring both the subscriptions and also the names of the Bishops or Legates; as they will inform Your The Greek Transla­tour of this Letter makes use of the term [...], Divinity, here: but in Athanasius 'tis [...], Sanctity. It is improbable that the Bi­shops should have said, The Divinity of the Emperour. Vales. holy and Religious Prudence by another writing.

Thus wrote the Synod, and sent it by the Bi­shops. But Ursacius and Valens having pre­vented their Arrival, did before-hand calum­niate the Synod, shewing [the Emperour] the Draught of the Creed, which they had brought along with them. The Emperour, whose mind had been long since wholly addicted to the Arian opinion, was highly incensed against the Synod: but had a great esteem and honour for Valens and Ursacius. Wherefore, the persons sent by the Synod staied a long while, being unable to get [Page 275] an answer. But at length the Emperour wrote back to the Synod by those that were present, after this manner.

This Let­ter of Con­stantius's, together with the answer of the Bi­shops at Ariminum, is extant in Athana­sius's book de Synodis, near the close of it. Vales. CONSTANTIUS VICTOR and TRIUMPHATOR AUGUSTUS, to all the Bishops convened at Ariminum.

That our Chiefest care is always employed a­bout the Divine and venerable Law, even your goodness is not ignorant. Notwithstanding, We could not hitherto see the twenty Bishops sent from your Prudence, who undertook the dispatch of the Embassie from you. For we are wholly intent upon an expedition against the Barbarians. And, as you know, 'tis fit that a mind exercised about the Divine Law, should be vacated from all care and sollicitude. Wherefore We have ordered the Bishops to expect Our return to Adrianople, that, after the publick affairs shall be put into a good and settled posture, we may at length hear and deli­berate upon what they shall propose. In the in­terim, let it not seem troublesome to your gravity to wait for their return, in regard, when they shall come back and bring You our answer, you will be enabled to bring to a conclusion such things as appertain to the utility of the Catholick Church. When the Bishops had received this Letter, they returned an answer, after this manner.

We have received Your Clemencies Letter, (Lord Emperour Most dear to God!) wherein is conteined, that by reason of the pressing necessity of publick bu­siness, You could not hitherto see our Embassadours. And You order us to expect their return, till such time as Your Piety shall understand from them what hath been determined by us agreeable to [the tra­dition of] our Ancestours. But we do by this Letter profess and affirm, that we do in no wise recede from our resolution. And this we have given in charge to our Embassadours. We desire therefore, that with a serene countenance You would both order this present Letter of our Meanness to be read; and also gratiously admit of those things which we have given in charge to our Embassa­dours. Undoubtedly, Your mildness, as well as we, doth perceive, how great the grief and sad­ness at present is [every where,] in regard so many Churches are destitute of their Bishops in these most blessed times of Yours. And therefore, we again beseech Your Clemency, (Lord Empe­rour Most dear to God!) that before the sharpness of winter (if it may please Your Piety,) You would command us to return to our Churches, in order to our being enabled to Or, per­form. put up our usual prayers together with the people, to Almighty God, and to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, his only be­gotten Son, in behalf of Your Empire, in such man­ner as we have always done, and now most ear­nestly desire to do.

After they had written this Letter, and con­tinued together some small time; in regard the Emperour would not vouchsafe them an answer, they departed every one to his own City. But the Emperour had long before had a designe of disseminating the Arian opinion throughout the Churches. Which he then earnestly endea­vouring to effect, made their departure a pretext of Contumely, saying that he was despised by them, in regard they had dissolved [the Coun­cil] contrary to his will. Wherefore, he gave Ursacius's party free liberty of doing what they pleased against the Churches. He also com­manded, that that Draught of the Creed which had been read at Ariminum, should be sent to the Churches throughout Italy, giving order that such as would not subscribe it, should be put out of the Churches, and others substituted in their places. And in the first place Socrates is here mi­staken. For Liberius was not ba­nished, and Felix the Deacon put into his See, after the Synod of Ariminum; but long befo [...]e, in the year of Christ, 356. Vales. Liberius Bishop of Rome, having refused to give his consent to that Creed, is banished, the That is, Ursacius's party. Ur­sacians having substituted Fe­lix in his place. This Fe­lix being a Deacon in the Church of Rome, In the Kings M. S. (which co­py Robert Stephens followed,) and in Ro­bert Ste­phens's E­dition, there are several words wan­ting in the text at this place: we have made up this Chasme fr [...] [...]he [...] and Sfor­tian M. SS. after this manner [ [...] i. e. em­braced the Arian opi­nion, and was prefer­red to that Bishoprick. But there are some who affirm, that he was not addicted to the Arian opinion, but was by force.] Moreover, Baronius maintaines, that Felix the Deacon, preser­red by Acacius to Liberius's See, never was an Arian, but was de­filed with the communion only of the Arians. Theodoret affirms the same, in the second book chap. 17. of his Eccles Hist. And so does Sozomon book 4. chap. 11. Vales. embraced the Arian opinion, and was preferred to that Bishoprick. But there are some who affirm, that he was not add [...]cted to the Arian opinion, but was by force necessi­tated to be ordained Bishop. At that time there­fore all places in the West were filled with in­novations and disturbances, some being ejected and banished, and others put into their places. And these things were transacted by force, and the au­thority of the Imperial Edicts, which were also sent into the Eastern parts. Indeed, not long after Li­berius was recalled from banishment and recovered his own See; the people of Rome having raised a Se­dition, and ejected Felix out of that Church: at which time the Emperour gave them his consent thereto against his will. But the Ursacians left Ita­ly, went into the Eastern parts, and arrived at a City of Thracia, the name whereof was Nice. Where­in after they had continued some small time, they made up The Embassadours of the Synod of Ariminum (who were sent to Constantius,) having been corrupted by Ursacius and Valens, held a Council at Nice a Town of Thracia, on the sixth of the Ides of October, in the Consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius. In which Coun­cil they in the first place rescinded the sentence of Excommunication, which the Ariminum Bishops had pronounced against Ursacius, Valens, and the rest: and pronounced them to be, and always to have been Catholicks. Then, they published an Haeretical Form of the Creed. Part of their Acts are extant in Hillarius's Fragments, pag. 452, &c. where are recounted 14 names of those that were Embassadours. Vales. another Synod there. And having translated that form of the Creed, read at Ari­minum, into the Greek tongue, (as it has been before related,) they published and confirmed it, giving out that that Creed, which was made publick by them at Nice, had been dictated by an Oëcumenicall Synod; their design being to im­pose upon the simpler sort of people by the like­ness of the [Cities] name. For such persons were ready to think that it was the Creed pub­lished at Nicaea a City of Bithynia. But this cheat was not at all advantagious to them: for it was soon detected; and they themselves con­tinued to be exposed to the reproach and laughter of all men. Let thus much be said concerning what was transacted in the Western parts. We must now pass to the relation of what was done at the same time in the East. And our Narrative must begin from hence.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Concerning the Cruelty of Macedonius, and the Tumults by him raised.

THe Bishops of the Arian party assumed a greater degree of boldness from the Im­perial Edicts. And upon what account they at­tempted to convene a Synod, we will relate a lit­tle afterwards. But we will first briefly recite [Page 276] those things done by them before the Synod Acacius and Patrophilus having ejected Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem, placed Cyrillus in his See. Macedonius subverted the Provinces and Cities This place is in an especial manner to be taken notice of. For from it we conclude, that the Bishop of Constantinople had even then a right of ordaining throughout Hellespont and Bi­thynia, before the Council of Con­stantinople [was held.] The same is confirmed from the Acts of Eudoxius Bishop of Constanti­nople, who made Eunomius Bi­shop of Cyzicum; Indeed, the Bishops of Byzantium had a very great addition of authority and power, from the time that the Emperour Constantine gave that City his own name, and ordered it should be equal to the Senior Rome. Also, Eusebius of Nico­media, after his translation to that See, brought no small in­crease [of jurisdiction] to it. For he was the most potent Pre­late of his own times. Further, the Reader is to take notice, that the reading should be [ [...], lying near to Constantinople;] so Epiphanius Scholasticus reads it. Unless we should say, that the words are transposed here. (as it frequently happens in these books;) and that the place is thus to be construed [ [...], &c. Ma­cedonius in Constantinople subver­ted the neighbouring Provinces, &c. Vales. lying near to Constantino­ple, preferring those that were embarqued in the same wicked design with him a­gainst the Churches. He or­dained Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum; and Marathonius Bishop of Nicomedia, who had before been a Deacon, placed under Macedonius: he was also very diligent in founding Monasteries of men and women. But after what manner Macedonius subver­ted the Provinces and Cities which lay round Constanti­nople, we are now to declare. This person therefore, ha­ving possest himself of the Bishoprick in such a man­ner as is See chap. 16. of this book. before related, did innu­merable mischiefs to those who would not entertain the same sentiments with him. Nor did he persecute those only who were discerned [to be members] of the Church, but the Novations also, knowing that they al­so embraced the Homoöusian Faith. These therefore were together with the others disquieted, undergoing most deplorable sufferings. That is, the Bishop of the No­vatians. Their Bishop, by name Agelius, made his escape by [...]light: But many of them, eminent for their piety, were taken, and tortured, because they would not com­municate with him. And after their tortures, they forcibly constrained the men to partake of the holy That is, the Bread and Wine in the Eu­charist. mysteries. For they wrested their mouthes open with a piece of wood, and thrust the Sacrament into them. Such persons as un­derwent this usage, looked upon it to be a punish­ment far exceeding all other tortures. Moreover, they snatcht up the women and children, and forced them to be initiated [by Baptism.] And if any one refused, or otherwise spoke against this, stripes im­mediately followed, and after stripes bonds, impri­sonments, and other accute tortures. One or two [instances] whereof I will mention, that I may ren­der the hearers sensible of the apparent barbarity and cruelty of Macedonius and those persons who were then in power. They squeezed the breasts of those women who refused to be communicants with them in the Sacrament, between [the doors of] Or, Chests. Presses, and cut them off with a Saw. They burnt the same members of other women, partly with iron, and partly with eggs exceedingly hea­ted in the fire. This new sort of torture, which even the Heathens never used towards us, was invented by those who professed themselves Chri­stians. These things I heard from the long-liv'd Auxano, of whom I have made mention in the first Book. He was a Presbyter in the Church of the Novatians. And he reported that he himself indured not a few miseries [inflicted up­on him] by the Arians, before he received the dignity of a Presbyter. For he said that he was cast into Prison together with Alexander Paph­lagon, (who with him led a monastick life,) and sustained innumerable stripes. Which tor­tures [as he related] he was enabled to indure: but Alexander died in Prison by reason of his stripes. His Sepulchre is now [to be seen,] on the right hand as you sail into the Byzantine Bay, which is named Polybius says the same, in the fourth book of his History, and Strabo, in his sixth book, to wit, that Ceras is a Bay near By­zantium, so termed from its like­ness to an Harts horn. But Pli­ny calls a promontory by this name, scituated in that Bay. To whom agrees Amm. Marcellinus, book 22. pag. 212. Edit. Paris. 1636. which place (because the common reading of it is very cor­rupt, and is not yet mended in our Edition,) shall be here set down by me, as it ought to be read; thus: & promontorium Ceras, praelucentem navibus vehens constructam celsius turrim: quapro­pter Ceratas appellatur ventus in­de suctus oriri praegelidus: i. e. and the promontory Ceras, on which stands a Tower built very high which gives light to the ships: wherefore, that extream cold winde, which usually arises from thence, is termed Ceratas. Thus I have corrected this place, having followed the footsteps of the written reading: for the com­mon reading, (which is this, & promontorium Ceras pralucentem navibus vehens constructam celsius turrim, quapropter pharos appella­tur: & vetus inde fons Euripu [...] pragelidus.) The Authour where­of was Petrus Castellus, is with­out any sense. It was the usage of the ancients to name the winds from those places whence they blew. Thus, the Athenians called the North-west wind Sci­ronites, because it blew from the promontory Sciron, as Strabo re­lates. After the same manner therefore, that wind was by the Constantinopolitans called Cera­tas, which blew from the pro­montory Ceras. Vales. Ceras, near the Rivers: where there is a Church of the Novati­ans, which bears Alexan­ders name. Moreover, the Arians, by Macedonius's order, demolished many o­ther Churches in divers Ci­ties; as also a Church of the Novatians, scituate in Constantinople near Pelargus. Why I have made particu­lar mention of this Church, I will here declare, as I heard it from the very aged In the Allat. M. S. and in Epiphanius Scholasticus, this old man is called Auxonius. But at the beginning of this chapter, and in Socrates's first book, he is named Auxano. From this Aux­ano Socrates seems to me to have had all the stories throughout his History, which he relates con­cerning the Novatians, of whom he tells very many. Vales. Auxano. The Emperours Edict and Macedonius's vio­lence gave order for the demolishing of their Chur­ches who embraced the Homoöusian opinion. This Edict and Violence Or, bring ruine upon this Church also. threat­ned this Church also with ruine, and they were at hand, to whom the execution hereof was commit­ted. I cannot choose but ad­mire, when I reflect upon the great zeal and earnestness of the Novatians towards their Church, and the kindness which they had for those per­sons, who at that time were ejected out of the Church by the Arians, but do now peace­ably and quietly enjoy their Churches! When therefore they, to whom the execution hereof was enjoyned, were ur­gent to demolish this Church also, a great multitude of peo­ple that were Novatians, and others who embraced the same sentiments with them, flock't together thither. And when they had pulled down their Church, they conveyed it to another place. This place is scituate over against the City [Constantinople;] the name of it is Sycae, and 'tis the thirteenth Ward of the City. Moreover, the removal of the Church was performed in a very short time, it being carried away by a numerous multitude of people with an incredible alacrity of mind. For one carried Tiles; another Stones; a third Timber. Some took up one thing, some another, and carried it to Sycae. Yea, the very women and little children assisted in this business, look­ing upon it as an accomplishment of their desires, and esteeming it as a great gain, that they were vouchsafed to be pure and faithful preservers of the things consecrated to God. In this manner there­fore was the Church of the Novatians at that time removed to Sycae. But afterwards, when Constantius was dead, the Emperour Julian or­dered the place to be restored to them, and per­mitted them to rebuild their Church. At which [Page 277] time the people, in the same manner as before, carried the materialls back again, and built the Church in its former place: and having made it more beautifull and stately, they would have it called That is, the Resur­rection, a fit name; in regard it rose again, as it were, in the same place it stood in before. Anastasia, a name apposite and signifi­cative. This Church therefore was afterwards erected again, as I said, in the Reign of Ju­lian. But then both parties, as well the Catholicks as the Novatians, were after the same manner persecuted. Wherefore the Catholicks ab­horred to Instead of [ [...]] the reading must undoubtedly [...]e [ [...], to pray;] which I wonder Christophorson did not perceive. Further, what Socrates relates here, to wit, that the Catholicks prayed in the Churches of the Novatians, seems to me incredi­ble. Our Socrates was, in my judgment imposed upon by old Auxano, who fixed that upon all the Catholicks, which was per­haps done by some few Chri­stians, who were less cautious. For there is nothing more con­trary to Ecclesiastick, discipline, than to communicate with Here­ticks, either in the sacraments, or in prayer. But in my opini­on they are mistaken, who from this relation do conclude Socrates to have been a Novatian: yea, it is evidently manifest from this place, that he was a Catholics. For in this chapter he frequently terms the Catholicks, [...], those of the Church; and opposes them to the Novatians. Therefore he lookt upon the Novatians to be without the Church. Vales. pray in those Oratories, wherein the Ari­ans assembled themselves. But, in the other three Churches (for so many O­ratories the Novatians had within the Ci [...]y [Constan­tinople]) the Catholicks assembled with them, and prayed together. And there wanted but little of their being entirely united, had not the Novatians, who ob­served their old injunction, refused to do that. But as to other matters, they preser­ved such a singular benevo­lence and kindness mutually, that they Or, they chose. were rea­dy to die for one another. Therefore both parties were at the same time persecuted, not only in the City Constanti­nople, but in other Provinces and Cities also. For in Cy­zicum, Eleusius the Bishop there did the same things against the Christians that were acted by Macedonius, putting them to flight and disquie­ting them every where. He also totally demo­lished the Church of the Novatians at Cyzicum. But Macedonius finished the enormous Villanies he had perpetrated, after this manner. Being in­formed that in the Province of Paphlagonia, and especially at Mantinium, there were very many persons of the Novatian Sect, and perceiving that so great a multitude could not be driven [from their habitations] by Ecclesiastick persons, he procured four [...], numbers. Companies of Souldiers to be by the Emperours order sent into Paphlagonia; that being terrified by those armed men, they might be induced to embrace the Arian opinion. But they who inhabited Mantinium, out of a zeal to [defend] their Sect, made use of despe­ration against the Souldiers. And many of them getting together in one Body, and providing themselves with long Hooks and Hatchets, and whatever weapon they could lay hands on, they Marched out to meet the Souldiers. An En­gagement therefore hapning, many of the Paphla­gonians were therein slain: but all the Souldiers (except a very few) were cut off. This I heard from a Country man of Paphlagonia, who said he was present at that action. But many other Paphlagonians do affirm the same. Of this sort were Macedonius's brave exploits in defence of Christianity, [to wit,] Murders, Fights, Capti­vities, and intestine Wars. But these practises of Macedpnius's raised a deserved Hatred. Odium a­gainst him, not only amongst those he had in­jured, but amongst them also who were his ad­herents. Yea, the Emperour himself was offen­ded at him, both upon this account, and also for another reason, which was this. The Church, wherein lay the Coffin that contained the body of the Emperour Constantine, was threatned with Ruine. The a­mendment of this place is to be acknow­ledged as due to the Allatian M. S. wherein 'tis thus written [ [...], &c. Where­fore for this reason, as well they who had en­tred that Church, as those that continued in it and prayed, &c.] For in the Flo­rent, and and Sfor­tian M. S. this place is enlarged but by one word only, thus [ [...], &c. Wherefore for this rea­son they who pres [...] ­ded over &c.] But this Chasme is made up by the Allat. M. S. to which agrees Epiphan. Scholasticus's Version. But his rendring [ [...], Custodes, Keepers] I like not, I should rather translate the term thus, those that made their abode for some time in the Church, upon account of praying there. Vales. Wherefore for this reason, as well they who had entred that Church, as those that continued in it and prayed, were in a great fear. Macedonius therefore resolved to remove the Emperours bones, that the coffin might not be In the Sfortian M. S. the reading is [ [...], spoiled, which I think to be better than▪ [ [...], comprehended, or contained.] Vales. spoiled by the ruine [of the Church.] The people understanding this, attempted to hinder it, saying that the Emperours bones ought not to be removed; in regard that would be the same, as if they were dug up again. Imme­diately the people were divided into two parties. The one affirmed, that no hurt could be done to the dead body by its being removed: the other side asserted it to be an impious thing. Those of the Homoöusian opinion met together also, and opposed the doing hereof. But Ma­cedonius, disregarding those that resisted him, removes the body of the Emperour into that Church, wherein lies Acacius the Martyr's body. This being done, the multitude, divided into two parties, ran forthwith to that Church: and when the two Factions were drawn up against each other, immediately an engagement followed: Wherein so great a number of men were slain, that that Church-yard was full of bloud; I made good this place from the incomparable Allat. M. S. Our other▪ M. SS. make no alteration here: but when I perceived the vulgar reading (which is this, [...], i. e. and it ran to the adjatent Porch, even to the street) to be wholly un [...]outh, I was not scrupulous of admitting the reading of the Allat. M. S. which is this [ [...], &c. and the Well therein overflowed with bloud, which ran even into, &c.] Socrates says, there was so great a slaughter of men, that the Church-yard of Saint Aca­cius was filled with mans bloud; and the Well therein overflowed with bloud, in such sort that it ran into the neighbouring Porch, and from thence into the Street. Vales. and the Well therein overflowed with bloud, which ran even into the adjacent Portico, and from thence into the very street. The Emperour, informed of this calamitous accident, was incensed against Macedonius, both upon ac­count of those that were slain, and also because he had been so audacious as to remove his Fathers body without his consent. Having therefore lest Julianus the Caesar to take care of the We­stern parts of the Empire, he himself went into the East. But, how Macedonius was soon after this deposed, and underwent a punishment short of his enormous impieties, I will relate a little afterwards.

CHAP. XXXIX. Concerning the Synod at Seleucia [a city] of Isauria.

BUt at present, I must give an account of the other Synod, which by the Emperours Edict was to emulate that at Ariminum in the East. At first it was determined, that the Bi­shops should be convened at Nicomedia in Bi­thynia. But, a great earthquake, whereby the City Nicomedia hapned to be ruined hindred their being convened at that place. This hapned in the [Page 278] Consulate of This per­sons name should not be Tatia­nus, but Dacianus▪ For so he is called in the Fasti Consula­res, and in Ammia­nus Marcellinus. This man was one of Libanius's chiefest friends; to whom Libanius wrote very many of his Epistles, which are extant in the fourth book of his Epistles. In the 71 Epistle of that book he mentions his Consulate, and says he was Schollar to one of the Em­perours, and Master to the other: his words are these: [...], &c. i. e. But your actions are illustrious, and better than that they should be extinguished. For your Consulate, and the honours bestowed upon you by the Emperours, and your having been one of the Emperours Schollars, and the others Master: Moreover, the stateliness, of your houses, and the numerousness, large­ness, and handsomeness of your Bathes: all these things will for ever retain your name, although your body does depart. In the 146 Epistle of the same book, there is extant this Elogue of Datianus: [...], &c. For, to hear such and so many brave exploits of a person, who has erected so many Kingdoms, and has been beneficial to so many men, nor has ever hurt any body, who is eminent for prudence, and has filled the Earth and Sea with the Glory of his name; is, to a man of discretion, greater than all present or future wealth. And, at the close of the same Epistle, he intimates, that the same Datianus had a Seat at Constantinople; and that in Antioch and the suburbs thereof, he had Houses and Palaces beautified with Fountaines and Bathes; to take a view whereof he invites him. Vales. Dacianus and Cerealis, about the eight and twentieth day of the month August. They resolved therefore upon removing the Sy­nod to the City Nicaea which was near to it. But this resolution was again altered: and it seemed [more convenient] to meet at Tarsus a City of Cilicia. When this displeased them also, they were assembled at Seleucia [a City] of Isauria, which is surnamed Aspera. This they did on the At this place occurs no trivial difficulty. For the destruction of the City Nicomedia hapned when Datianus and Cerealis were Consuls, in the year of Christ 358, on the month of August. But the Coun­cill of Seleucia was held on the year following, in the Consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius, in the month of September. These things therefore hapned not in one and the same year. Wherefore it seem­eth, that the reading at this place should be [ [...], on the year following.] Or, if the common reading must be retained, we must understand our Authours meaning to be, that the Councill of Bishops at Seleucia was held on the same year with the Ariminum Councill. Vales. same year [whereon the Ariminum Council was held,] in the Con­sulate of Eusebius and Hypatius. The persons convened were in number an hundred and sixty. There was present with them a personage eminent in the Imperial pallace, his name This Le­onas was Questor of the sacred Palace: and Lauri­cius was Comes of Isauria, as Ammianus Marcelli­nus doth attest. Vales. Leonas; in whose presence, as the Emperour had given order by his Edict, the disquisition about the Faith was to be proposed. Lauricius also the Comman­der in chief of the Souldiers throughout Isauria, was ordered to be there, to provide the Bishops with what necessaries they might stand in need of. At this place therefore [the Bishops] were convened in the presence of these persons, on the twenty seventh of the month September, and began to dispute about making of publick Acts. For there were Notaries present also, who were to take in writing what was spoken by every one of them. A particular account of all matters then transacted, the studious Readers may find in Sabinus's Collection, where they are set forth at large. But we shall only cursorily relate the chief heads thereof. On the first day of their being convened, Leonas ordered every one to propose what they would. But such as were present said, that no dispute ought to be raised, before the persons absent were come. For these Bishops were wanting, Macedonius of Constantinople, Basi­lius of Ancyra, and some others, who suspected they should be accused. Macedonius excused his ab­sence by saying he was sick. Patrophilus affirmed he had a distemper in his eyes, and was therefore necessitated to continue in the Suburbs of Seleucia. All the rest proposed one occasion or other of their being absent. But, in regard Leonas said, that, notwithstanding the absence of these per­sons, the question was to be proposed; those that were present made answer again, that they would in no wise enter into any debate, be­fore the Or lives. Moralls of those accused were in­quired into. For Cyrillus of Jerusalem, Eu­stathius of Sebastia in Armenia, and some others had been accused some time before. Hereupon arose a sharp contest amongst those that were present. For some affirmed, that the Moralls of such as had been accused were in the first place to be lookt into: others were of opinion, that no controversie ought to be discussed be­fore [that concerning] the Faith. This Con­test was raised by the different opinion of the Emperour. For his Letter was produced, in one passage whereof he gave order for the de­bating of this matter in the first place, in another for that. A disagreement therefore hapning con­cerning this matter, a Schism was made amongst the persons present. And this was the original cause of the Seleucian-Synods being divided into two parties. The one faction was headed by A­cacius [Bishop] of Caesarea in Palestine, Geor­gius of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eu­doxius of Antioch: of the same mind with whom there were only two and thirty other [Bishops.] The principal persons of the other faction were Georgius of Laodicea in Syria, So­phronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, and Eleu­sius of Cyzicum; who were followed by the major part. When therefore that side prevailed which was for debating in the first place concerning the Faith, Acacius's party manifestly rejected the Nicene Creed, and intimated the publication of another. But those of the other faction, who were superiour in number, approved of all o­ther matters [determined] in the Nicene Sy­nod; excepting only the term Homoöusios, which they found fault with. Therefore, after a very sharp contest amongst one another untill Evening, at length Silvanus (who presided over the Church at Tarsus) spake a loud, saying, there was no necessity of publishing a new Draught of the Creed, but that they ought rather to confirm that set forth at Antioch, at the consecration of the Church. When he had said this, Acacius's party secretly withdrew [out of the Council:] but the other faction produced the Creed [com­posed] at Antioch, after the reading whereof the Council broke up for that day. On the next day they met in a Church in Seleucia, and having shut the doors, they read that Creed, and con­firmed it by their subscriptions. Instead of some [Bishops] who were absent, the Readers and Deacons there present subscribed, by whom the absent persons had professed, that they would acquiess in that Draught [of the Creed.]

CHAP. XL. That Acacius [Bishop] of Caesarea dictated another Draught of the Creed, in the Synod at Seleucia.

BUt Acacius, and those of his party found fault with what was done, because they had subscribed covertly when the Church-doors were shut. For matters, said he, transacted in secret were naught, and to be suspected. He made these objections, because he was desirous of pub­lishing another Draught of the Creed instead of that [subscribed by them,] which [form] he had about him, ready drawn up, and had before recited it to Lauricius and Leonas the Governours: and he made it his whole business to get that Draught only established and confir­med. These were the transactions of the second day, when nothing else was done. On the third [Page 279] day, Leonas was again very earnest to procu [...]e a meeting of both parties. At which time nei­ther Macedonius of Constantinople, nor Basilius of Ancyra were absent. When therefore both these persons had joyned themselves to one and the same faction, the Acacians were again un­willing to meet, saying, that as well those who had before been deposed, as them at present accused, ought in the first place to be put out of the assembly. After a great contest on both sides, at length this opinion was prevalent, the persons charged with an accusation went out; and the Acacians came in. Then Leonas said, that Acacius had delivered a Libell to him; [Leonas] not discovering it to be a Draught of the Creed, which in some passages secretly, in others openly contradicted the former. When silence was made amongst those that were present, (they sup­posing the Libel to contain any thing else, rather than a form of the Creed;) Acacius's com­posure of the Creed with a Preface thereto was then recited, the Contents whereof are these.

We having met together at Seleucia [a City] of Isauria (according to the Emperours Command) yesterday, which was before the fifth of the Calends of October, used our utmost endeavour with all modesly to preserve the peace of the Church, sted­fastly to determine concerning the Faith (as our Emperour Constantius most dear to God hath or­dered) according to the Prophetick and Evange­lick expressions, and to introduce nothing into the Ecclesiastick Faith contrary to the Divine Scri­ptures. But in regard certain persons in the Synod have injured some of us; have stopt the mouths of others, not permitting them to speak: have ex­cluded othersome against their wills: have brought along with them out of divers Provinces persons deposed; and have in their company such as have been ordained contrary to the Canon [of the Church:] in so much that the Synod is on all sides filled with tumult, The reading of this place is in the Allat. M. S. more full, thus, [ [...]] which we have exprest in our version; it being confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus, (only he puts Leo­nas before Lauricius, which is un­doubtedly truest:) and by Epi­phanius, in Haeres. Semiarian. cap. 25. where this profession of Faith is recorded entire. Vales. See Epiphanius, Edit. Petav. pag. 872, &c. of which the most eminent Lau­ricius president of the Pro­vince, and the most Illustrious Leonas the Comes, have been eye-witnesses: upon this account we interpose these things. Not that we forsake the Authen­tick Faith published at the Consecration at Antioch, but we give that the preference, especially in regard our Fa­thers concurred about the pro­position at that time in con­troversie. But whereas the terms Homoöusion and See this term ex­plained at chap. 30, of this book, note, (h.) Homoiöusion have in times past disturbed very many, and do still dis­quiet them: and moreover, whereas 'tis said that there is an innovation lately coyned by some, who assert a dissimilitude of the Son to the Father. Upon this account we reject Homoöusion and Ho­moiöusion, as being terms not to be met with in the Scriptures; but we anathematize the term See chap. 20. of this book, note (h.) Ano­moion: and do look upon all such, as are asser­tours thereof, to be persons alienated from the Church. But we do manifestly profess the like­ness of the Son to the Father, agreeable to the Apostle, that hath said concerning the Son, Colos. 1. 15. Who is the image of the invisible God.

We acknowledge therefore, and believe in one God, the Father Almighty: the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. More­over, We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, begotten of him without any passion before all ages, God the Word, the only begotten of God, the Light, the Life, the Truth; the Wisedom: by whom all things were made, which are in the hea­vens, and which are on the earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe him to have assumed flesh from the holy Virgin Mary, at the consummation of ages, in order to the abolition of sin: and that he was made man, that he suffered for our sins, and rose again, and was taken up into the Heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and that he shall come again in Glory to judge the quick and dead. We believe also in the holy Ghost, whom our Lord and Saviour hath termed The Paraclete, having promised, after his depar­ture, to send him to his disciples, and he sent him. By whom also he sanctifies [all] Believers in the Church, who are Baptized in the name of the Fa­ther, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. But those who Preach any thing contrary to this Creed, [This word [ [...], we look upon, or account] is wanting in our M. SS. It was first inserted by the publishers of the Geneva Edition, from Christophorson [...] Version. But in regard we found not this reading in any Manuscript Copy, we took the boldness to expunge it. In Epiphanius, (in Haeres. Semi­arian, pag. 872.) and in Atbanasius (in his book de Synod. Arimini & Seleuciae;) the reading of this place is thus [ [...], The Catholick Church hath determined them to be alienated [from it.] I found the same reading in the Allat. M. S. After these words there follow (in Epiphanius) the names of those Bishops, who subscribed this Draught of the Creed; being in num­ber about fourty. But before those subscriptions, something is added there, which deserves to be set down here. The words therefore in Dionysius Petavius's Edition are these: [...] i. e. now, that that Creed lately published at Sirmium, in the presence of the piety of our Emperour, does exactly agree with this Creed, is a thing mani­festly known to those who have read that Creed. Then follows another Chapter, after this manner; [...]; (I doubt not but the reading should be [...], to which subscribed.) i. e. To which they who were present subscribed, Basilius, Marcus, Georgius Bishop of Alexandria, Pancratius, Hypatianus, and most of the Western Bishops. Vales. we look upon] to be alienated from the Catho­lick Church.

This is the Draught of the Creed published by Acacius. The persons who subscribed it were Acacius himself, and such as adhered to his opinion, being as many in number, as we have mentioned a little before. After the recitation here­of, Sophronius [Bishop] of Pompeiopolis in Paphla­gonia spake these words aloud: If to explain our own particular opinion every day be the exposi­tion of the Faith, we shall be destitute of the exact discussion of the truth. These words were spoken by Sophronius. And I do affirm, that if as well those who lived before these men, as they that succeeded them, had at first entertained such sentiments concerning the Nicene Creed; all contentious disputes would have ceased, nor would a violent and irrational disturbance have been prevalent in the Churches. But let such as are prudent pass their judgment concerning the state of these matters. After they had mu­tually spoken and heard many things concerning this business, and concerning the persons accused, the convention was for that time dissolved. On the fourth day they all met again in the same place, and with the same contentiousness began to dispute again. Amongst whom Acacius ex­plained his opinion in these words: in as much as the Nicene Creed hath been once, and after that frequently, altered, nothing hinders, but a new Creed may be now published. Hereto Eleusius [Bishop] of Cyzicum made a return, and said; the Synod is at present convened, not [Page 280] that it should learn In the Florent. and Allat. M. SS. as saies Vales. the reading is [ [...]] which we have exprest in our Ver­sion. But Valesius follows the other rea­ding, which is [ [...], what it had the know­ledge of before.] what it had not the know­ledge of before, nor to receive a Creed which it was not heretofore in possession of: but that, proceeding on in the Creed of the Fathers, it should never recede from it, either during life, or at the time of death. With these words Eleusius opposed Acacius's opinion, terming that Creed published at Antioch the Fathers Creed. But any one might have answered him also, in these words: how is it, that you stile those con­vened at Antioch the Fathers, O Eleusius, where­as you acknowledge not their Fathers? For they who were assembled at Nice, and by their con­sent firmed the Homoöusian Faith, ought more properly to be termed the Fathers, both because they preceded in time, and also in regard those convened at Antioch were by them promoted to the Sacerdotal dignity. Now, if those [assem­bled] at Antioch have rejected their own Fa­thers, they who come after them do not per­ceive themselves to be followers of Parricides. Moreover, how can they have admitted their Ordination to be Legitimate, whose Faith they have rejected as impious? For if those persons had not the holy Ghost, which is infused by Or­dination, these have not received the Priesthood. For how could these have received [it] from them, who had it not to give? These words might have been spoken in opposition to what was said by Eleusius. After this they proceeded to another question. For, in regard the Acacians asserted in that Draught of the Creed which had been recited, that the Son was like the Father, they enquired of one another, in what respect the Son was like the Father. The Acacians as­serted, that the Son was like the Father in respect of his Will only, not as to his Essence. But all the rest maintained, [that he was like the Fa­ther] in respect of his Essence also. They spent the whole day in their altercations about this query; and they confuted Acacius, because in the books by him composed and published, he had asserted that the Son is in all things like the Father. And how can you (said they) now deny the likeness of the Son to the Father as to his Es­sence? Acacius made this answer, no modern or ancient Authour was ever condemned out of his own writings. When they had maintained a tedious, fierce, and subtle dispute against one an­other concerning this question, and could in no wise be brought to an agreement, Leonas arose, and dissolved the Council. And this was the con­clusion, which the Synod held at Seleucia had. For on the day after, Leonas being intreated, re­fused to come any more into the Congress, say­ing that he had been sent by the Emperour, to be present at an unanimous Synod. But in re­gard some of you do disagree, I cannot (said he) be there; go therefore and prate in the Church. The Acacians looking upon what had been done to be a great advantage to them, re­fused to meet also. But those of the other par­ty met together in the Church, and sent for the Acacians, that cognizance might be taken of the Case of Cyrillus Bishop of Jerusalem. For you must know that Cyrillus had been accused before; upon what account, I cannot tell. But he was deposed, because having been frequently sum­moned in order to the examination of his cause, he had not made his appearance during the space of two whole years. Nevertheless when he was deposed, he sent an Appellatory Libel to them who had deposed him, and appealed to an higher Court of Judicature. To which appeal of his the Emperour Constantius gave his assent. In­deed, Cyrillus was the Nay; long before Cy­rill, the Do­natists ap­pealed from the determina­tion of the Council of Orleans. For thus the Empe­rour Con­stantine speaks con­cerning them in his Epistle: ò rabida fu­roris auda­cia! Sicut in causis Gentilium solet, appel­lationem interposue­runt: i. e. O the out­ragious au­daciousness of fury! As 'tis usually done in the cases of the Heathens, they have put in an appeal. Vales. first and only person, who (contrary to the usage of the Ecclesiastick Canon) did this, [to wit,] made use of Ap­peals, as 'tis usually done in the publick [se­cular] Courts of Judicature. He was at that time present at Seleucia, ready to put himself upon his trial: and therefore the Bishops cal­led the Acacians into the assembly, (as we have said a little before,) that These two lines [ [...], by a general consent they might pa [...]s a definitive sentence a­gainst the persons ac­cused. For they had ci­ted some other persons besides, that were accused,] were at this place, wanting in the common Editions; we have inserted them from the Florentine and Sfortian M. SS. To which agrees Epiphanius Scholasti­cus's Version. But Christophorson made up the chasme at this place very unhappily by conjecture: whence it appears, that he had no Manuscript Copies of Socrates, but various readings only, gathered from the Margins of Printed Copies. Vales. by a general consent they might pass a definitive sentence against the persons accused. For they had cited some other persons besides, that were accused, who for refuge had joyned themselves to Acacius's party. But in regard, after their being frequently summoned, they refused to meet, [the Bishops] deposed both Acacius himself, and also Georgius of Alex­andria, This persons name should be Uranius (not Ursacius;) so he is called in Athanafius's book, de Synod. Arimin. & Seleuciae. pag. 880. which name also Epiphanius Scholasticus gives him; as does likewise Epiphanius, (in Haeres. Semiarian.) who names him among the Bi­shops that subscribed the Acacian Creed. Vales. Uranius of Tyre, In the Florentine and Allatian M. SS. this person is named (not Theodorus, but more truly) Theodulus. For that is his name in Atha­nastus, Epiphanius, and Philostorgius. When this Theodulus had been divested of the Bishoprick of Chaeretapi, in the Council held at Seleu­cia, he was afterwards ordained Bishop of Palestina by the Eunomi­ans, as Philostorgius relatet. Concerning Leontius of Tripolis you may meet with many passages in Philostorgius. Vales. Theodulus of Chae­retapi in Phrygia, Theodosius of Philadelphia in Lydia, Evagrius of the Island Mytilene, Leon­tius of Tripolis in Lydia, and Eudoxius who had heretofore been Bishop of Germanicia, but had afterwards crept into the Bishoprick of Antioch in Syria. Moreover, they deposed Into his See they put one Philippus a Presbyter of Scythopolis, as Epiphanius attests, in Haeres. Semiarian. Vales. Patrophi­lus, because being accused by Dorotheus a Pres­byter, and summoned by them to make his de­fence, he was contumacious. These persons they deposed. But they Excommunicated Asterius, Eusebius, Abgarus, Basilicus, Phoebus, Fidelis, Eutychius, Magnus, and Eustathius: determining they should continue Excommunicate, till such time as by Or, by making their de­fence. making satisfaction they had cleared themselves of their ac­cusations. Having done this, and written Letters concerning those Bi­shops they had deposed to each of their Churches, they constitute a Bishop of Antioch, in the room of Eudoxius, whose name was An­nianus. Whom the Acacians [soon after] ap­prehended, and delivered him to Leonas and Lau­ricius, by whom he was banished. Those Bi­shops who had Ordained Annianus [being in­censed] hereat, deposited It should be but one word, thus, [...], So the Greeks term the Libels of protestation, (or, protests,) which were usually deposited with the Acts. We meet a form of one of these Libels, at the close of Athanasius's Epistle ad Solitarios. I suppose, that two Libels of pro­testation were delivered by the Council; one to Leonas the Comes; another to Lauricius President of Isauria. Vales. Contestatory Libels against the Acacians with Leonas and Lauri­cius, by which they openly declared, that the determination of the Synod was injured. And when nothing further could be done, they went to Constantinople, to inform the Emperour con­cerning the matters determined by them.

CHAP. XLI. That, upon the Emperours return from the Western parts, the Acacians were convened in the City of Constantinople, and firmed the Ariminum Creed, making some additions to it.

FOr the Emperour, being returned from the Western parts, resided [in that City:] at which time also he made a person whole name was In the Old Fasti (put forth by Jacobus Sirmondus under the name of I­datius,) there is this Record concerning this thing: Eusebio & Hypatio, his consuli­bus primum processit Constanti­nopoli prae­fectus Vrbis, nomine Ho­noratus, die tertio Idû [...] Decembris: i. e. in the Consulate of Eusebius and Hypa­tius a Prae­fect of Con­stantinople was first made, his name Hono­ratus, on the third of the Ides of December. Vales. Honoratus the first Praefect of Constanti­nople; having Before the Emperour Constantius had made a Praefect of the City at Constantinople, the Province Europa (the chief City whereof was Constantinople) was governed by a Proconsul▪ as Socrates here attests. Athanasius mentions this Proconsul, in his Apologetick de Fugâ suâ, not far from the beginning; where he says that the Emperour Constantius wrote Letters to Donatus the Proconsul▪ against Olympius Bishop of Thracia. In the Emperour Constantius's Epistle also, which he wrote to the Senate and Constantinopolitan-people concerning the praises of Themistius, there is mention of this Proconsul; at the close of that E­pistle. Vales. abolished the Proconsul's Of­fice. But the Acacians prevented and calum­niated them before-hand to the Emperour, having informed him, that the That is, the Greed which had the Consuls names praefixt. Vales. Creed which they had set forth was not admitted by them. Whereupon the Emperour was highly incensed, and resolved to disperse them, having commanded by an Edict [which he published,] that such of them as were subject to publick Offices, should be reduced to their former condition. For several of them were liable to [publick] Offices; some [were sub­ject to the bearing of those Offices belonging] to the City Magistracy; others [to them apper­taining] to the [...] ▪ So this place is worded in the Original. What the [...] were, I have long since explained in my notes on Amm. Marcellinus▪ to wit, the Bodies or Sodalities of Officials or Apparitours who attended upon the Presidents and Governours of Pro­vinces. It was their duty to collect the tribute from the Inhabitants of the Provinces, and to put in execution the Presidents Orders. Fur­ther, as they who had listed themselves in the Camp-milice, stood ob­liged by a Military-oath, and enjoyed not a compleat liberty, but were bound in a servitude as it were, till such time as they were dis­banded, (as Suidas declares, in the word [...]) so those Of­ficials, who followed the City-milice, were bound to this employment as it were, and lyable to the Offices of their Milice; and their Farms, as well as those of the Decurions, were incumbred with these burdens, as 'tis apparent from the Theodofian Code. Vales. Sodalities of Officialls or Appa­ritours in several Provinces. These persons be­ing after this manner disturbed, the Acacians a­bode for some time at Constantinople, and assem­bled another Synod, to which they sent for the Bishops of Bithynia. When therefore they were all met together, being In the Alexandrian Chronicle, seventy two Bishops are said to have been present at the Constantinopolitan-Synod, in the year of Christ, 360. Vales. fifty in number, amongst whom was Maris of Chalcedon, they confirmed the Creed published at Ariminum, which had the Consuls names prefixt. Which Creed it would have been superfluous to have inserted here, had they made no additions to it. But in regard they added some words thereto, we thought it necessary to set it down at this place again. The contents of it are these.

We Believe in one only God, the Father Almighty, of whom are all things. And in the only begotten Son of God, begotten of God before all ages, and before every beginning: by whom all things, visible and invisible, were made. Or, who is the only begotten born, the only of the only Fa­ther, &c. Who is the only begotten born of the Father, the only of the only, God of God, like to the Father (who begat him) according to the Scriptures. Whose generation no person know­eth, but the Father only, who begat him. We know this Person [to be] the only begotten Son of God, who upon his Father's sending of him, came down from the heavens, according as 'tis written, upon account of the destruction of Sin and Death: and was born of the holy Ghost, and of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh, as it is written, and conversed with the disciples; and having fulfilled every dispensation according to his Fathers Will, he was crucified, and died, and was buryed, and descended into the parts beneath the earth. At whom hell it self trembled. Who arose from the dead on the third day, and was conversant with the disciples: and after the completion of fourty days, he was taken up into the Heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; he shall come in the last day of the Resurrection in his Fathers Glory, that he may render to every man according to his works. And [we believe] in the holy Ghost, whom he him­self the only begotten of God, Christ our Lord and God, promised to send as an Advocate to mankind, according as 'tis written, the Spirit of truth; whom he sent unto them, after he was assumed into the Heavens. But we thought good to remove the term Substance. Ousia, (which was used by the Fathers in a more plain and ordinary sense, and being not understood by the people, has given offence,) in regard 'tis not contained in the sacred Scriptures; and that in future not the least mention should be made thereof, for as much as the sacred Scri­ptures have no where mentioned the substance of the Father and of the Son. In Atha­nafius's book de Synodis, pag. 906▪ the reading is [ [...], Nor ought, &c.] to which a­grees the Version of the Latine Translatour. Which is also con­firmed by Athanasius himself, in the same book, pag. 905▪ the place we will quote by and by. Vales. Nor ought the subsistence of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, to be so much as named. But we assert the Son to be like the Father, in such a manner as the sacred Scriptures do affirm and teach. Moreover, let all the Heresies, which have been heretofore condemned, and which may have risen of late, being opposite to this Creed published [by us,] be Anathema.

This Creed was at that time recited at Con­stantinople. Having now at length passed through the labyrinth of the Expositions of Faith, we will reckon up their number. After the Creed [published] at Nice, they set forth two Expo­sitions of the Faith at Antioch, at the Dedication. A third was that delivered to the Emperour Constans in the Gallia's, by Narcissus and those that accompanied him. The fourth was that sent by Eudoxius into Italy. Three [Draughts of the Creed] were published at Sirmium, one whereof was recited at Ariminum, which had the names of the Consuls prefixt. The eighth was that which the Acacians promulged at Se­leucia. The last was set forth at the City Con­stantinople, with an addition. For hereto was annexed, that neither substance, nor subsistence ought to be mentioned in relation to God. More­over, Ulfila Bishop of the Goths did at that time first agree to this Creed. For before this he had embraced the Nicene Creed; being Theophilus's follower, who was Bishop of the Goths, and had been present at, and subscribed the Nicene Synod. Thus far concerning these things.

CHAP. XLII. That upon Macedonius's being deposed, Eudoxius obtained the Bishoprick of Constantinople.

BUt Acacius, Eudoxius, and those that were with them at Constantinople, made it wholly their business, that they also might on the other [Page 282] side depose some persons of the contrary party. Now, you must know, that neither of the factions decreed these depositions upon account of Reli­gion, but for other pretences. For though they dissented about the Faith, yet they found not fault with one anothers Faith in their mutual de­positions of one another. Those therefore of Acacius's party making use of the Emperours indignation, (which he had kept [concealed in his mind,] and earnestly indeavoured to wreak it against others, but most especially against Mace­donius,) do in the first place depose Macedonius, both because he had been the occasion of many murders, and also in regard he had admitted a Deacon taken in Fornication to Communion. Then, [they depose] Eleusius [Bishop] of Cyzicum, because he had baptized one Heraclius Hercules's Priest at Tyre, a person known to be a Conjurer, and ordained him Deacon. [In the next place they depose] Basilius, (or Basilas, for so he was also called,) who had been con­stituted [Bishop] of Ancyra in the room of Marcellus, as having unjustly tortured a certain person, bound him with Iron chains, and confined him to Prison: also, because he had fastned ca­lumnies upon some persons: and moreover, in re­gard by his Letters he had disturbed the Churches in Africa. Dracontius [was deposed by them,] because he had removed from Galatia to Pergamus. Moreover, they deposed Neonas [Bishop] of Seleucia, in which City the Synod had been con­vened, as also Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Pa­phlagonia, Elpidius of Satala was a Town in Armenia; of which there is frequent mention amongst the Antients. But in Macedonia, no mention is made of a City of this name by the Ancients. Where­fore I judge, that instead of Macedonia, it should be Armenia, here in the Greek Text. Vales. Satala in Macedonia, and Cyrillus of Jerusalem; and others were eje­cted by them for other reasons.

CHAP. XLIII. Concerning Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia.

BUT Eustathius [Bishop] of Sebastia in Armenia, was not so much as admitted to make his defence, because he had been long be­fore deposed by Eulalius his own Father, who was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in regard he wore a garment misbecoming the Sacerdotal function. You are to know, that in Eustathius's room Meletius was constituted Bishop, concer­ning whom we will speak hereafter. But Eusta­thius was afterwards condemned in a Synod con­vened upon his account at Gangra [a City] of Paphlagonia; because, after his deposition in the Sy­nod at Sozomen, book 4. chap. 24. says 'twas at Neocae­sarea. Vales. Caesarea, he had done many things repug­nant to the Ecclesiastick Laws. For he had for­bidden marriage, and maintained that meats were to be abstained from: and upon this account he separated many who had contracted marriages, from their wives, and perswaded These words of Socrates [ [...], those who had an aversion for, or, detested the Churches] are not to be un­derstood of all those who declined the Churches: but they must be joyned to the foregoing words, and are to be meant of those persons, who by Eustathius's perswasion had separated themselves from the converse of their wives. Eustathius perswaded these men to avoid the Churches assemblies, and not to communicate with other be­lievers; but that, being as it were pure and perfect, they should participate of the sacred Mysteries by themselves at home. See what Epiphanius has related concerning this Eustathius, in his Hare [...]e of the A [...]riani▪ and Basilius, in his Epistles. Vales. those who had an aversion for the Churches, to communicate at home. He also enticed away servants from their Masters by a pretext of piety. He him­self wore the habit of a Philosopher, and caused his followers to make use of a new and unusual garb, and gave order that women should be shorn.

He [asserted] that set Fasts were to be avoided; but maintained Fasting on Sundays. He forbad Prayers to be made in the houses of those who were married; and taught, that the blessing and communion of a Presbyter who had a wife (whom he had lawfully married during his being a Laick▪) ought to be declined as a thing most detestable. Upon his doing and teaching these and several other such like things as these, a Synod (as I have said) convened at Gangra in Paphlagonia deposed him, and Anathematized his opinions. I am not of Socra­tes's opi­nion, who makes the Synod of Gangra (wherein Eustathius was con­demned) to have been after that assem­bled at Se­leucia, and after the Constanti­nopolitan-Synod. So­zomen (book 4. chap. 24.) makes the Synod of Gangra to be ancien­ter than the Council of Antioch, which was held at the Dedication in the year of Christ 341. In­deed, Ba­ronius (at the year of Christ 361.) places the Synod of Gangra in the reign of Constantine the Great. But he is confuted both by Socrates and Sozomen. For Socrates makes that Synod to be later than the Seleucian and Constantinopolitan Synod. But Sozomen places it after Eustathius's deposition, which was done by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople. Now, Eusebius thrust himself into the Constantinopolitan▪ See in Constan­tius's reign, as 'tis agree'd amongst all men. Lastly, Basilius (in his seventy fourth Epistle, which he wrote to the Western Bishops a­gainst Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia,) makes no mention of the Coun­cil of Gangra. Whence 'tis manifest, that at such time as Basilius wrote that Epistle (which he did in Vaten [...]'s reign,) the Council of Gangra, wherein Eustathius was condemned, had not been held. Some one will peradventure say, (which is objected by Baronius) that that Eustathius condemned in the Synod of Gangra was a dif­ferent person from Eustathius of Sebastia. But this is gratis dictum, no [...] is it founded on the authority of any Authour. Vales. These things were done afterwards. But Ma­cedonius being then ejected, Eudoxius, despising the See of Antioch, is constituted [Bishop] of Constantinople, being consecrated by the Aca­cians. Who forgot themselves, in that they De­cree'd what was contradictory to their former determinations. For they who had deposed Dra­contius because of his translation from Galatia to Pergamus, considered not with themselves, that by Ordaining Eudoxius who then made a second remove [to another Bishoprick] they did what was contrary to their own Sanctions. Having done these things, they sent the Creed which had been read, I have rendered this place so, as to refer these words [to Ari­minum] to these [they sent:] which Version of ours is confirmed by Athanasius, in his book de Synodis, pag. 905▪ his words are these: [...] ▪ &c. Having written these things in Isauria, they departed to Constantinople, and repenting as it were [of what they had done,] according to their usual manner they altered their Draught: and when they had added some words, [to wit] that [the term] subsistence should, not be used in relation to the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, they sent this [form of] the Creed to th [...]se at Ariminum, &c. Which passage in Athanasius, Socrates does seem to transcribe here, Epiphanius Scholasticus and Christophorson have rendred this place to this effect; Having done this, they sent the Creed read at Ariminum together with its supplement, &c. Vales. to Ariminum, together with its Sup­plement, corrected by them; and gave order, that such as would not subscribe it, should be banished, according to the Emperours Edict. [Lastly,] They made known what they had done, both to others in the East who entertained the same sentiments with them, and also to Patro­philus [Bishop] of Scythopolis. For he went from Seleucia forthwith to his own City. Fur­ther, Eudoxius having been constituted [Bi­shop] of the Constan­tinople. Great City, the I perfected and mended this place from the Florentine and Sfortian Copies. Concerning the Consecration of this Church, it is thus recorded in Idarius's Fasti: Constantio decimo, &c. In Constan­tius's Tenth and Julianus's third Consulate, the Great Church at Constan­tinople was consecrated, on the fifteenth of the Kalends of March. Cedre­nus (in his Chronicon) says this was the second Consecration of this Church. For it was first consecrated, says he, by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople. But being afterwards ruined, it was re-edified by Con­stantius Augustus, and consecrated by Eudoxius. See the Chronicon Alexandrinum, where many passages (in no wise trivial) occur concerning this Consecration. Vales. Great Church named Sophia was at that time consecrated, in Constantius's Tenth and Julianus Caesar's third consulate, on the fif­teenth of the month February. As soon as Eu­doxius was seated in that See, he was the first that uttered this sentence which is [still] [Page 283] in every bodies mouth, saying; The Father is Irreligious; the Son is Religious. When a tu­mult and a disturbance arose thereupon, Be not troubled (said he) at what has been spoken by me, for, the Father is irreligious, because he worships no person: but the Son is religious, because he worships the Father. When Eudoxius had spoken these words, the tumult was appea­sed; but instead of the disturbance, there was a great laughter raised in the Church. And this saying of his continues to be a ridicule even to this day. Such cavils the Arch-hereticks made use of, and busied themselves about such expressions as these, rending the Church in sunder [thereby.] This was the conclusion, that the Synod had, which was convened at Constantinople.

CHAP. XLIV. Concerning Meletius Bishop of Antioch.

IT now remaines, that we speak concerning Meletius. For he (as we said a little before) was made Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, after Eustathius's Deposition. He was afterwards tran­slated from Sebastia to I can scarce be­lieve, that Meletius was tran­slated from Sebastia in Armenia to the Episco­pate of Be­roea. For Sozomen and The­odoret, and (before them) Je­rome do af­firm, that he was translated from Seba­stia in Ar­menia to the See of Antioch, making no mention of his being Bishop of Beroea. Theodoret says only thus much, that upon Meletius's being pro­moted to the Bi­shoprick of Sebastia, perceiving a contumacy in those under his charge, he retired from thence to some other place. Then therefore he went to Beroea, as I conjecture; but he presided not over the City of Beroea. This mistake of Socrates's was perceived by Baronius, at the year of Christ 360. Which he corrects so, as to affirm, that Meletius was translated from Beroea to Sebastia, not from Sebastia to Beroea. Which, as I suppose, is not true, in regard neither Theodoret nor Sozomen have affirmed that con­cerning Meletius. Vales. Beroea [a City] of Syria. When he had been present at the Synod in Seleucia, and Subscribed the Creed published there by Acacius, he went directly from thence to Beroea. Upon the convention of the Synod at Constantinople, when the Antiochians under­stood that Eudoxius had despised [the presidency over their Church, and removed to the wealth of the Constantinopolitan See, they sent for This persons name is written sometimes with an [e] thus Meletius; sometimes with an [i] thus Melitius. See Eusebius's Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 32. note (a) pag. 138. Me­letius from Beroea, and install him [Bishop] over the Church of Antioch. At first he superseded making any discourses about points of Faith, and delivered moral Doctrine only to his hearers. But after his continuance there some time, he ex­pounded the Nicene Creed, and asserted the Ho­moöusian opinion. Which when the Emperour understood, he gave order that he should be banished: and caused Euzoïus (who had before been deposed together with Arius,) to be or­dained Bishop of Antioch. But as many as re­served an affection for Meletius, left the Arian congregation, and made assemblies apart by themselves: [although] those who originally embraced the Homoöusian opinion, would not communicate with them, because Meletius had received his Ordination from the suffrages of the Arians, and because his followers had been baptized by them. After this manner was the Antiochian Church affected towards the other party, although they agreed with them in the points of Faith. But the Emperour understanding that the Persians were raising another War a­gainst the Romans, went in great hast to Antioch.

CHAP. XLV. Concerning Macedonius's Heresie.

BUT Macedonius, who had been ejected out of Constantinople, being unable to bear his condemnation, could by no means endure to be at quiet. But joyned himself to those of the other par­ty, who had deposed Acacius and his followers at Seleucia. He therefore sent an Embassy to Sophro­nius and Eleusius, exhorting them to adhere to that Creed which was at first published at Antioch, and afterwards confirmed at Seleucia, and that they should give it an Translatours understood not this place. And yet they might have been informed from Harpo­cration's Lexicon, that [...] (the term here used,) does signifie adulterate, or, counterfeit▪ by a Metaphor taken from money which has a false stamp. Socrates therefore calls Homoiöusios (For so 'tis to be written, agreeable to the Florentine and Sfortian Ma­nuscripts; and the import of the term is, that the Son is of a sub­stance, or Essence like to the Fa­ther:) an adulterate name, be­cause 'tis corrupted, and coun­terfeitly put instead of Homoöusios (i. e. that the Son is of the same substance, or Essence with the Fa­ther:) which is the name of the true and uncorrupted Creed. Further, the Acacians rejected as well the term Homoïousios▪ as Ho­moöusios; and retained only Ho­mo [...]os (i. e. like the Father;) and wholly abhorred the term Ousia (i. e. Substance.) Vales. adul­terate name, [to wit] the Homoiöusian Creed. Where­fore many of his acquain­tance and friends flock't to him, who are now from him called Macedoniani. And as many as dissented from the Acacians at the Synod of Seleucia, from thence for­ward manifestly asserted the term That is, that the Son is of a Sub­stance, or Essence like to the Father. Homoiöusios, This place is corrupted by a transposition of the words; which may easily be rectified thus; [...], from thence forward manifestly asserted the term Homoiousios, whereas before this they had not openly owned it. Nor do I doubt but Socrates wrote thus. Christophorson and Mus­culus apprehended not the mea­ning of this place. But Epipha­nius Scholasticus's rendition of it agrees with our Version: only instead of [ [...], and as ma­ny as▪ the reading in his copy seems to have been [ [...], for as many as] which displeaseth us not. Vales. where­as before this they had not openly owned it. But there is a report, which has been prevalent amongst ma­ny men, that this [term Homoiöusios] was not Ma­cedonius's invention; but Marathonius's rather, whom they had made Bishop of Nicomedia a little before. Upon which account they call the followers of this o­pinion Marathoniani also. In like manner Eustathius (who had been ejected out of Sebastia for that reason which we have mentioned a little before,) joyned him­self to that party. But af­ter Macedonius refused to in­clude the holy Ghost in the Divinity of the Trinity, then Eustathius said, I cannot assent to the terming of the holy Ghost God, nor dare I call him a Creature. Upon which account, those that embrace the Homoöu­sian-opinion, give these per­sons the name of That is, Adversa­ries, or Op­posers of the holy Spirit. Pneumatomachi. The rea­son, why these Macedoniani are so numerous in In the Allatian Manuscript, the reading is [ [...] about Hel­lespont] Vales. Hellespont, I will declare in its due place. Now, the Acacians used their utmost endeavours that they might be convened again at Antioch, in regard they repented their having asserted the Son to be wholly like to the Father. On the year following therefore, wherein Taurus and Floren­tius were Consuls, they met at Antioch in Syria, (over which Church Euzöius presided, in which City the Emperour also resided [at that time]) when some few of them resumed a debate of those points which they had determined before, saying that the termThat is, Like the Father. Homoïos ought to be expunged out of the Creed, which had been published both at Ariminum, and at Constantinople. Nor did they any longer keep their Vizours on, but affirmed bare fac'd, that the Son was in all respects unlike the Father, not only as to his Essence, but in re­lation to his Will also. And they openly as­serted (according as Arius had affirmed) that he was made of nothing. To this opinion those who at that time were followers of Aëtius's Heresie at Antioch, gave their assent. Where­fore, besides their having the appellation of A­rians, they were also called They ter­med them Anomoei, because of their asser­ting the Son to be unlike the Father. Anomoei, and [Page 284] They had this name, in regard they maintained the Son to be made of nothing, or, of things which are not. See Athanasius, pag. 906. Edit. Paris; whence Socrates borrowed these names for these Hereticks. Exucontii, by those at Antioch who embraced the Homoöusian opinion, who [notwithstanding] were at that time divided amongst themselves upon Meletius's account, as has been said before. When therefore they were asked by the Homoöusians, why they were so audacious, as to term the Son to be unlike the Fa­ther, and to affirm that he exists of nothing, whenas in the Creed published by them they had said he was God of God; they attempted to elude this objection by such fallacious artifices as these: the phrase God of God (said they) has the same import with those words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 12. but all things of God. Wherefore, the Son is of God, he being one of those all things. And upon this account, in the Editions of the Creed, these words According to the Scriptures are added. Georgius Bishop of Laodicea was the Authour of this Or, Fal­lacy. Sophism. Who being a person unskilled in such expressions, was ignorant after what manner Origen had in former times discussed and interpreted such peculiar phrases of the A­postle. But, notwithstanding their attempt to cavil after this manner, yet in regard of their in­ability to bear the reproaches and contempt [thrown upon them,] they recited the same Creed, which they had before [published] at Constantinople: and so departed every one to his own City. Georgius therefore returning to Alex­andria, continued his Presidency over the Chur­ches there, (Athanasius as yet absconding▪) and persecuted those in Alexandria who embraced not his Sentiments. He was also cruel and se­vere towards the Populace of that City; to most of whom he was very odious. At Jerusalem, In the Allatian M. S. he is called E­rennius; where this whole pas­sage is thus worded: [...] i. e. At Jerusalem, Cyrillus having been deposed, as has been said, Erennius succeeded in that Church: after whom, E [...] ­racius▪ and after him Hilarius. But Jerome (in his Chronicon) calls him Irenius: for this is the reading in the most correct copies, and in Johannes Miraeus's Edition; Maximus Hieroso [...]ymorum Episco­pus moritur. Post quem, Ecclesiam A [...]iani invadunt, id est Cyrillus, Eutychius, rursum Cyrillus, Irenius, tertiò Cyrillus, Hila [...]ius, quarto Cyrillus: id est, Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem dies; after whom, the A [...]ians invade that Church, that is, Cyrillus, Eutychius, Cyrillus the second, Irenius, Cyrillus the third, Hilarius, Cyrillus the fourth. In Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus's Chronicon, he is very corruptly called Arsenius. Vales. Harrenius was Ordained in Cyrillus his room. You must also know, that after him Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem had at his death ordained Heraclius to be his successour. But Acacius Bishop of Caesarea, together with some other Arian Bishops, slighting his ordination, substituted Cyrillus in the room of Maximus being now dead. This Cyrillus degraded Heraclius from his Episcopal dignity, and reduced him to the degree of a Presbyter; as Jerome relates in his Chronicon. Vales. Heraclius was Constituted [Bishop there,] who was succeeded by Hilarius. But at length Cyrillus returned to Jerusalem, and recovered the Pre­sidency over the Church there. Moreover, at the same time there sprang up another Heresie, upon this account.

CHAP. XLVI. Concerning the Apollinaristae, and their Heresie.

AT Laodicea in Syria, there were two men of the same name, the Father and the Son: For each of their names was Apollinaris. The father was dignified with a Presbyterate in that Church: the son had a Readers place. They were both Teachers of Grecian Literature; the father taught Grammar, the son Rhetorick. The father was by birth an Alexandrian, and having at first taught at Bery [...]us, he removed afterwards to Laodioea, where he married; and bega [...] his son Apollinaris. They both flourished at the same time with Epiphanius the Sophista, and being very intimate friends, they conversed together with him. But Theodotus Bishop of Laodicea, fearing that by their continual converse with that person they should be perverted to Gentilism, forbad their going to him. They regarding the Bi­shops [prohibition] very little, continued their intimacy with Epiphanius. After this, Georgius, successour to Theodotus, endeavoured to reform [and wean] them from conversing with Epi­phanius; but being unable to perswade them by any means, he punished them both with Ex­communication. Apollinaris the son lookt upon what was done to be an injury, and confiding in the fluentness of his Sophistick faculty of speaking, he also framed a new Heresie, which flourisheth at this present, and bears the name of its Inven­tour. But some do report, that they dissented from Georgius, not so much upon account of the forementioned reason, but because they saw he maintained absurdities; sometimes professing the son to be like the father, (according as it had been determined [in the Synod] at Seleucia;) at others inclining to the Arian opinion. Lay­ing hold therefore of this specious pretext, they made a separation [from him.] But when they saw no body adhered to them, they introduce a [new] Scheme of Religion. And at first asserted, that The Ari­ans asser­ted a tenet neer of kin to this of the Apolli­naristae, or Apollinari­uns. [...] &c. Arius (says Athanasius de Adv. Christi,) prosesses the flesh only to be the Cover of the Deity: and asserts the Word to have been in the flesh, in the stead of our inner man, that is, the soul. In this opinion he was followed by Eunomius, as Theodoret informs us, Contr. Haeres. book 5. chap. 11. But the Apollinarians differred from him: for they distinguished (as we may see from this passage in our Socrates) be­tween the soul and mind of man; acknowledging (in the second E­dition of their Heresie) that God the Word assumed an humane Body and a Soul; (which latter Arius and his crew denied) but not the mind, or spirit of man: the place whereof was supplied, said they, by the Word it self. This Phylosophick notion (making Man consist of three parts, a body, a soul, and a mind;) they borrowed from Plo­tinus; so says Nemeseus in his de Nat. Hom. humanity was assumed by God the Word in the Oeconomy of his incarnation, without the soul. But afterward, rectifying their former errour by repentance as it were, they added, that the soul was indeed assumed: but that it had not a mind, but that God the Word was in the place of a mind, in his assumption of Humanity. As to this point only these [Hereticks] do affirm that they dissent [from Catholicks,] who from them are now called Apollinaristae. For they assert that the Trinity is Consubstantial. But we shall mention the two Appollinaris's again in due place.

CHAP. XLVII. Concerning the death of the Emperour Constantius.

MOreover, whilst the Emperour Constantius resided at Antioch, Julianus Caesar engages with a numerous army of Barbarians in the Gallia's. And having obtained a Victory, was for that reason greatly beloved by all the Souldiers, by whom he is proclaimed Emperour. This being told to the Emperour Constantius put him into an agony. He was therefore baptized by Euzoïus, and Or, Pro­ceeded to a War a­gainst, &c. under­takes an expedition against Julianus. But arriving between Cappadocia and Cilicia, he ended his life at Mopsucrenae, (being seized with an Apoplexy by reason of his too great solicitude,) in the Consu­late of Taurus and Florentius, on the third of No­vember. This was the first year of the two hun­dred eighty fifth Olympiad. Constantius lived fourty five years, and reigned thirty eight. He was his Fathers Colleague in the Empire thirteen years: after whose death [he Governed] twenty five: which space of years this Book doth contain.

THE THIRD BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.

CHAP. I. Concerning Julianus, his Extract, and Education. And how, upon his being made Emperour, he revolted to Gentilism.

THE Emperour Constantius ended his life on the confines of Cilicia, about the third of November, in the Con­sulate of Taurus and Florentius. Du­ring the same persons Consulate, Julianus arriving from the Western parts We have the same account in Idatius's Fasti: Tauro & Florentio. his Coss. &c. in the Con­sulate of Taurus and Florentius, Constantius Augustus died at Mop­sucrinae in the confines of Cilicia a Province of Phaenicia, on the third of November. And Julianus made his entry into Constantinople on the eleventh of December. But, what Socrates adds, to wit, that Julian was proclaimed Emperour in that City, must be so understood, not as i [...] that were the first time of his being saluted Emperour. For he had been proclaimed Emperour in the Gallia's a long while before, whilst Constantius was alive. But, upon his entry into Constantinople, he was declared Emperour by the senate and Constantinopolitans, and [...]ook possession of the Em­pire of the East. Vales. about the eleventh of December next ensuing, made his entry into Constantinople, where he was proclaimed Emperour. Now, whereas 'tis our design to say something concerning the Emperour Julianus, a person fam'd for his eloquence; let none of those who were his Inti­mado's, expect we should do it in a pompous and ma­jestick stile, as if it were ne­cessary, that a caracter of so eminent a person should in every particular correspond with his greatness of whom 'tis given. But, the compo­sure of an History of the Christian Religion being our business, we will continue our making use of a low, plain, and mean stile for perspicuities sake. And this we promised [to do] at the beginning. Being therefore to speak concerning him, his Extract, Education, and how he came to the Empire: in order to our performing hereof, we must begin a little higher. Constantinus, he who gave Byzantium his own name, had two brothers begotten by the same father, but not born of the same mother. The name of the one was Dalmatius, the other was called Constantius. Dalmatius had a son who bore his own name. Constantius begat two sons, Gallus and Julianus. After the death of [Con­stantine] the Builder of Constantinople, when the Souldiers had murthered Dalmatius the younger, at that time these That is, Gallus and Julianus. two also being Orphans, wanted but little of falling into the same danger with Dalmatius: had not a distemper which seemed to be mortal delivered Gallus [from their violence:] and the tenderness of Julianus's age (for he was not then eight years old com­pleat) protected him. But, after the Emperours rage against them was mollified, Gallus frequen­ted the Schools at Ephesus in Ionia, in which Coun­try they had large possessions left them by their Ancestours. And Julianus being grown up, was an auditour in the Schools at Constantinople; going into the Pallace (where there were then Schools) in a private habit, and was tutored by Macedonius the Eunuch. There are several Epistles of Libanius's extant, written to this Nicocles; particularly the seventh Epistle of his fourth book, where­in Libanius excuses the insolency of a Citizen of Antioch, who had abused him: amongst other pas­sages he says, that the fault of one Citizen was not to be ascri­bed to the whole City. For in a City containing an hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants, 'tis not to be wondred at, if one bad Citi­zen be [...]ound: wheras; neither in your Sparta (which yet has Ly­curgus for its Law-giver) all are alike good and generous. Vales. Nicocles the Laconian taught him the Grammar; he had for his Rhetorick▪master Ecebolius the Sophista, who was at that time a Christian. For the Emperour Constantius took great care, least by his being an hearer of a Pagan-master, he should revolt to the superstition [of the Gen­tiles:] For Julianus was at first a Christian. Upon his making a great progress in Literature, a rumour [be­gan] to be spread amongst the peop'e, that he was fit to Govern the Roman Empire. Which report being more openly di­vulged, much disturbed the Emperours mind. Wherefore, he removed him from the That is, Constanti­nople. Great City to Nicomedia, ordering him not to frequent [the School] of Libanius the Syrian-Sophista. For at that time Libanius, having been expelled Constantinople by the School-masters, had opened a School at Nicomedia. Wherefore, he vented his gall against the School-masters, in an This O­ration of Libanius's Against the School-ma­sters is not (to my knowledge) now ex­tant. Vales. Oration which he wrote against them. But Julianus was forbidden to go to him, because▪ Libanius was as to his Religion a Pagan. Nevertheless, being a great admirer of Libanius's Orations, He pro­cured them privately, and perused them fre­quently and studiously. When he had made a great proficiency in Rhetorick, there came to Nicomedia, Maximus the Philosopher, not [Page 286] Maximus of Epirus, or the Phi­losopher of Bizantium is mentio­ned by Sui­das: he wrote concerning insoluble Questions, and concerning num­bers; as also a Comment upon A­ristotle, which he dedicated to Julianus the Emperour, his Scho­lar. Now, if this be true, Ju­lianus had two Maximus's his ma­sters in Philosophy, the one an Epirote, or a Byzantine; the o­ther an Ephesian. There is ex­tant an Elogue of Maximus the Ephesian in Libanius's fourty first Epistle of his fifth book, his words are these: [...] i. e. and the Philosophy, which he received from Maximus the Improver of Philosophy whilst be lived, and its Extinguisher when he died. Vales. Maximus of Byzantium, Euclid's Father, but Maximus the Ephesian, whom the Emperour Va­lentinianus ordered to be slain afterwards, as being a practicer of Magick. But this hapned a long while after. At that time, his coming to Nico­media was occasioned by nothing else but Juli­anus's fame, which induced him to go thither. Juli­anus having had a taste of Philosophick Literature from him, began forthwith to imitate his Masters Religi­on, who also instilled into his mind a desire of the Em­pire. When the Emperour was made acquainted with these things, Julianus being betwixt hope and fear, be­came very desirous of avoi­ding suspicion, and he who had before been a sincere Christian, then began to act the hypocrite. Being there­fore shaved to the very skin, he pretended to lead a mo­nastick life. Privately he imployed himself a­bout the study of Philosophy: but in publick, he read the sacred Writings of the Christians. More­over, he was made a Reader in the Church of Nicomedia: and by this specious pretext he a­voided the Emperours fury. All this he did out of fear. But [in the interim] he receded not from his hope, but told many of his friends, that those would be happy times, when he should be possest of the Empire. Whilst his affairs were in this posture, his brother Gallus was created Caesar, and in his journey into the East came to Nicomedia, to give him a visit. Not long after this Gallus was slain, immediately upon which the Emperour grew suspicious of Julianus. Wherefore he ordered a guard should be set upon him. But as soon as he could get an op­portunity of slipping away from his Keepers, he removed from place to place, and by that means made his escape. At length the Emperours wife Eusebia, having found him out during his ab­sconding, perswades the Emperour to do him no harm, but to allow him a liberty of going to Athens, to study Philosophy. From whence (that I may be brief) the Emperour sent for him, and created him Caesar. After which he married him to his sister Helena, and sent him into the Gallia's against the Barbarians. For the Barbarians (whom the Emperour Constantius had a little before hired to be his Auxiliaries a­gainst Magnentius,) having been imployed in no service against the Tyrant, fell to destroying the Roman Cities. And in regard Julianus was as yet but young, he ordered him not to enter upon any thing of action without the advice of the Commanders of the Army. Who having received so large a commission, grew negligent in their management of affairs, upon which ac­count the Barbarians increased in strength; Ju­lianus permitted the Commanders to spend their time in Luxury and drinking: but he made the Souldiers more couragious, by promising a set reward to him who should kill a Barbarian. This was the original cause, whereby both the Barbarians Forces were diminished, and also he himself was rendred more acceptable to the Soul­diers. There is a report, that as he was entring into a Town, a Epipha­nius Scho­lasticus renders [...] (which is the term here) a Crown of Laurel, with which the Cities were usually a­dorned. Indeed, the Provinces of the Roman Empire were wont to be represented in this habit, wearing Crowns like Towers up­on their heads; as may be seen in the Notitia Imperii Romani. Yet any one may conjecture, that this place should be thus worded: [...] with which the Cities adorn the Emperours. Vales. Crown, with which they [usually] adorn the Cities, being hung up by Ropes between two Pillars, fell down upon his head and fitted it exactly, at which all that were present gave a shout. For by this sign [it seemed] to be portended, that he should be Em­perour. There are those who say, that Constantius there­fore sent him against the Barbarians, that he might perish there, in an engage­ment with them. But I know not whether they who re­port this, speak the truth. For should he have framed such a design against him, after he had joyned him in marriage to his own sister, it would have been no other then a conspiracy a­gainst himself. But let every one judge of this matter according to his own pleasure. More­over, upon Julianus's making a complaint to the Emperour of the slothfullness of his Military Officers, there was another Commander sent to him, exactly agreeable to Julianus's courage. Having got such an Assistant, he made a bold attack upon the Barbarians. They dispatcht a­way an Embassadour to him, informing him, that they were ordered by the Emperours Letters to March into the Roman Territories, and the Let­ters were produced to him. But he clapt their Embassadour into prison; and having engaged their forces, routed them totally▪ He also took the King of the Barbarians prisoner, and sent him to Constantius. Upon this fortunate success, he is proclaimed Emperour by the Souldiers. But because they wanted an Imperial Crown, one of his guards took the Chain which he wore a­bout his own neck, and put it upon Julianus's head. After this manner therefore Julianus came to be Emperour. But what he did afterwards, let the hearers judge, whether or no they became a Philosopher. For he neither sent an Embas­sage to Constantius, nor did he shew him that Reverence which was due to him, as being his Benefactour, but managed all affairs according to his own arbitrement. He changed the Go­vernours of Provinces; and reproacht Constan­tius in every City, by reciting in publick his Let­ters sent to the Barbarians. Whereupon [those inhabitants] revolted from Constantius, and came over to him. At that time, he manifestly pull'd off his mask of Christianity. For he went from City to City, opened the Heathen Temples, of­fered sacrifice to Idols, and termed himself the Or, Chief Priest. Pontifex Maximus. And such as professed Gentilism celebrated their heathenish Festivals [after their own manner.] By these proceedings of his he [...] (which is the phrase here in the original) is by Epipha­nius Scholasticus rendred thus; quaesitâ occasione, he took an occasion, &c. But there may be another rendition of these words, thus: By doing hereof, he raised a Civil War against Constantius, having undertaken an expedition against him. Vales. takes an occasion of raising a Civil War against Constantius. And, as far as in him lay, [he took care] that all those calamities should have hapned, which are the consequents of a War. For this Philosophers desire could not have been The term [...] must signifie here, to be fulfilled, compleated, or perfected, Epiphanius Scholasticus therefore renders it thus: non enim fine multo sanguine studium ejus Philosophi poterat adimpleri, i. e. for the desire of this Philosopher could not have been accomplished without much bloud. Musculus's Version (which is declarari, could not have been declared) and also Christophorson's (which is, intetnosci, could not have been discerned) are in my judgment absurd. Vales. fulfilled without much bloud-shed. [Page 287] But God the Arbiter of his own Councils, re­pressed the Or, Force. Impetus of one of these two An­tagonists without any Or, with­out the da­mage of others. damage to the Republick. For when Julianus arrived amongst the Thraci­ans, news was brought him, that Constantius was dead. And thus the Roman Empire at that time escaped a Civil War. But Julianus having made his entry into Constantinople, began immediately to consider with himself, after what manner he might win the favour of the people, and procure their benevolence towards himself. He makes use therefore of this Artifice. He very well un­derstood, that Constantius was odious to all such as embraced the Homoousian opinion, both be­cause he had driven them from their Churches, and also in regard he had proscribed and banished the Bishops belonging to them. He assuredly knew also, that the Heathens were sorely vexed, because they were prohibited sacrificing to their Gods: and that they were very desirous of get­ting an opportunity, wherein their Temples might be opened, and they have a liberty of offering sacrifices to their Idols. He was sensible, that for these reasons both those sorts of people had privately rancoured minds against his predeces­sour [Constantius.] He also found, that all people in general highly resented the violence of the Eunuches, and the ra­pines Translatours perceived not that this place was faulty. I doubt not but Socrates wrote thus: [ [...] and the ra­pines of Eusebius the principal per­son of the Bed chamber to him.] For [...] signifies the Pro­vost, or chief Officer of the sacred Bed-chamber, which Office Euse­bius then bore. Socrates does frequently use this word in this sense; as we may see in his se­cond book chap. 2. Vales. of Eusebius the prin­cipal person of the Bed­chamber to him. He there­fore treated them all with a great deal of craft and sub­tlety. With some he dis­sembled: others he oblieged by kindnesses, being a great affectour of vain glory. But He made it evident to all in general how he was affected towards the superstition [of the Heathens.] And first, that he might make Constantius odious for his cruelty towards his Subjects, and render him infamous amongst the Vulgar, he commanded that the exiled Bishops should be recalled; and restored to them their estates which had been confiscated. Then, he is­sued out an Order to his Confidents, that the Heathen Temples should be forthwith opened. He also ordered, that such persons as had been injured by the Eunuches, should be repossessed of their goods which were unjustly taken from them. He punished Eusebius the principal person of the Imperial Bed-chamber with death, not only because many persons had been wronged by him, but also in regard he was assured that his brother Gallus had been murthered upon account of his calumny [against him.] He took care that Constantius's body should be honoured with an Imperial Funeral. He expelled the Eunuches, Barbers, and Cooks out of his Pallace. The Eunuches, because he had lost his Wife, after whose death he resolved not to marry any other. The Cooks, in regard he fed upon a very slen­der and mean diet. And the Barbers, because, said he, one is sufficient for a great many. For these reasons he put these sorts of men out [of the Pallace.] Most of the Notaries he reduced to their former condition, and ordered that the rest should be allowed a salary befitting a No­tary. He also retrenched the Gregory Nazian­zen, in his former Invective against Julian, does confess also that the publick way, or manner of travelling and conveying of necessaries from place to place, was well rectified by Julian. For Constantius had impaired it much, by allowing the Bishops every where the use there­of, that they might come to the Synods [...] by him. But, what regulations Julianus made in this matter, 'tis hard to determine. And yet we may conjecture from Socrates's words, that the way of travelling by Chariots (which was also called the Cursus Clavularis,) was put down by him, and that travelling on Horse-back (upon Horses provided for publick uses) remained only in use. Johannes Lydus has treated at large de publico Cursu, in his book de Men­sibus. Vales. publick way of conveyance of necessaries for [publick] uses: for example, [the use] of Mules, Oxen, and Asses; and permitted horses only to serve for such pub­lick conveniences. These Acts of his are com­mended by some few persons: but most men dis­commend them, because the grandeur and mag­nificence of the Imperial riches being lost, which creates an admiration in the minds of the Vul­gar, he thereby rendred the dignity of an Em­perour despicable and obnoxious to contempt. Moreover, he sate up all night, composing Ora­tions, which he recited at his going into the Se­nate-house. For he was the first and only Em­perour since Julius Caesar's times, that made Speeches in the Senate-house. He had an high esteem for such as were studious about [any part of] Literature: but more especially for those who professed Philosophy. Wherefore, the report hereof brought such as were preten­ders to this sort of Learning from all parts to the Pallace, who wore their See Eu­sebius's Ec­cles. Hist. book 6. chap. 19. note (p.) Palliums, and were most of them more conspicuous for their garb, than their Learning. But they were all trouble­some to the Christians, being persons that were Impostours, and who always owned the same Religion with the Emperour. He himself also was so excessively vain glorious, that he reviled all his predecessours in the Empire, in a book he composed, which he entitled The Caesars. The same proud temper of mind excited him to write Books against the Christians also. His expul­sion of the Cooks and Barbers was an act [be­fitting] a Philosopher indeed, but not an Em­perour. But in his reproaching and reviling [of others,] he did neither like a Philosopher, nor an Emperour. For both those sorts of persons are to be [of a temper of mind] superiour to all detraction and envy. An Emperour may in­deed be a Philosopher, in what bears a respect to modesty and temperance. But a Philosopher, should he imitate an Emperour in all things, would transgress his Rules. Let thus much be cursorily said concerning the Emperour Julianus, his Extract, Education, and dispo­sition, and after what manner he came to the Empire.

CHAP. II. Concerning the Sedition which hapned at Alex­andria, and after what manner Georgius was slain.

WE come now to mention what was transacted in the Churches at that time. In the great City Alexandria there hapned a disturbance upon this account. There was a place in that City, which had for a long time lain wast and neglected, (being filled with a great deal of filth▪) wherein the Heathens had formerly celebrated their Mysteries [...] The Per­sians sup­pose Mi­thra to be the Sun to whom they offer many sacrifices. No person was initiated into the Mysteries hereof▪ before he had arrived to them by certain degrees of torture, and had declared himself holy, and ap­proved by sufferings. Mithra, and had sacrificed men. This place being vacant [Page 288] and useless, Constantius had sometime before be­stowed upon the Church of the Alexandrians. Georgius, desirous to erect an Oratory therein, gave order that the place should be cleansed. Whilst they were clearing of it, there was an That is, A secret place in the Heathen Temples, to which none but their Priests had access. Adytum discovered, of a vast depth, wherein were hid the Mysteries of the Heathens. Which were the Skulls of many men, young and old, who, as report says, had heretofore been slain, at such time as the Heathens made use of divina­tions by the inspection of entrails, and performed Magick sacrifices in order to the inchantment of mens souls. The Christians therefore, upon their discovery of these things in the Adytum of the Temple of Mithra, made it their business to expose these Heathenish mysteries to the view and derision of all men. And they began forthwith to carry them in triumph as 'twere about the City, show­ing the multitude mens bare Skulls. When the Heathens that were at Alexandria beheld this, being unable to endure this ignominious affront, they became highly enraged: and making use of what came next to hand for a weapon, they fell with great violence upon the Christians, and de­stroyed many of them Or, by all manner of treache­ries▪ for that's the reading in the Sforti­an M. S. Vales. by various sorts of death. Some of them they killed with swords, others with clubs or stones. Others they stran­gled with ropes. Some they crucified, inflicting this sort of death on them designedly, in con­tumely to the Cross [of Christ.] They woun­ded most of them. At which time, as it usually happens in such [riots,] they spared not their neerest friends and relatives. But one Friend slew another, Brother [murdered] Brother, Parents their Children, outragiously embrewing their hands in one anothers blood. For which reason the Christians left off cleansing Mithra's Tem­ple. But the Heathens dragg'd Georgius out of the Church, and having bound him to a Camel, tore him to pieces, after which they burnt him, together with the Camel.

CHAP. III. That the Emperour incensed at Georgius's murder, sharply rebuked the Alexandrians by his Letter.

BUT the Emperour highly resented Geor­gius's murther, and by his Letter severely reprehended the Citizens of Alexandria. There was a report spread abroad, as if they had done this to Georgius, who hated him upon Athana­sius's account. But my opinion is, that such as entertain malice and hatred in their mindes, do usually put themselves into their company who make insurrections against unjust persons. The Emperour's Letter, 'tis certain, lays the blame upon the populace, rather than upon the Chri­stians. But Georgius was then, and had before For an account of the reasons of the A­lexandri­ans hatred towards Georgius, consult Ammianus Marcellinus, book 22. pag. 223, &c. Edit. Paris 1631. See also Epiphanius, in Heres. 76, to wit, that of the Ano­ [...]oe [...]. Vales. appeared, troublesome and offensive to all per­sons. And for this reason the multitude was incensed against him in such an high degree. But, that the Emperour [as I said] does ra­ther blame the people, you may hear from the Letter it self.

EMPEROUR CAESAR JULIA­N [...]S, MAXIMUS, AUGUSTUS, to the Citizens of Alexandria.

Although you have no Reverence for Alexander the Builder of your City, and (which is more) for that Great God the most holy Serapis; yet how is it that you have forgot both that humanity, and Or, good-behaviour. Decorum, due to mankind in general? We will add, [which is due] to Us also, to whom all the Gods, especially the Great Serapis, have assigned the Empire of the World. For whom it was sit you should have reserved the Cognizance of their case who had injured you. But perhaps, you were impo­sed upon by anger and rage, which where it inhabits the mind, does usually perpetrate most enormous facts. In the Florentine and Sfor­tian M. SS. instead of [ [...]] the reading is [ [...]] wherefore, I doubt not but this whole place is to be thus restored: [...]; But when you had repressed your fury, &c. Vales. But when you had repressed your fury, you after­wards added the commission of an unjust act to what had on a sudden been advisedly resolved by you. Nor were you of the Commonalty ashamed of perpetrating those things, for which you deservedly ha­ted them. For, declare to Us, [We adjure you] by Serapis, for what unjust acts were you incensed against Georgius? You will un­doubtedly make answer, because he exasperated Constantius of Blessed memory against us: also, because he brought an Army into the sacred City, and the He means Artemius, Commander in chief of the Forces in Egypt; as he is stiled by The­odore [...], (book 3. chap. 17. Ec­cles. Histor.) who relates, that he was deprived of his estate, and beheaded by Julian; because, being Captain of Egypt in the reign of Constantius, he had bro­ken many images. It was he, who allowed Georgius the Arian a guard of souldiers for his assi­stance, whilst he destroyed the heathen Temples in Alexandria. See our notes on Amm. Marcelli­nus, book 22. pag. 228. The Martyrdom of this Artemius is extant in Simeon Metaphrastes, in which many things are contained that do much illustrate the Hi­story of those times. Vales. King of Egypt possest himself of Gods most holy Temple, and took a­way from thence the images, the consecrated gifts, and the furniture in those sacred pla­ces. At which when (as it was meet) you were highly incensed, and attempted to de­fend God, (or rather his goods and possessions,) from vio­lence; He, contrary to ju­stice, Law, and Piety, auda­ciously sent armed men a­gainst you. [But] perhaps (in regard he was more afraid of Georgius than Constan­tius,) In that Edition of Julianus's works published by Petavius, prin­ted at paris 1630, (where this Letter of Julianus's to the Alex­andrians is reckoned to be his tenth Epistle▪) and in Nicopho­rus (book 10. chap. 7.) the reading and punctation of this passage is thus: [...] The best version of which passage (for no less than four have rendred it into Latine) is Langus's; who his rendred it thus: Qui meliu [...] [...]ibi ipsi consu­luisset, si moderate vobiscum & ci­viliter, nec tam tyrannic [...] ab initio egisset. We have followed the same sense in our [...]endition. But Christophorsons Version is repro­vable, both for his inserting the word [ [...], for] contrary to the authority of all Copies; and al­so, because he excuses Artemius Commander of the Forces in E­gypt, as if he had carried himself civilly and moderately at the be­ginning of his Government. It would certainly have been most absurd should Julian have excused him, whom he had ordered to be executed as a Criminal. If any one therefore has a mind to follow our Version, 'tis b [...]t inserting one particle only, thus: [...] But perhaps, &c. But Petavius (in his notes on this Epistle of Julianus▪ see the sorementioned Edition) has produced another emendation from some M. SS. Copies; after this manner, [...] who had preserved himself. &c. Vales. He had made better provision for his own safety, had he at first behaved him­self more moderately and ci­villy towards you, and not so tyrannically. You being there­fore for these reasons enraged against Georgius the enemy of the Gods, have again polluted your sacred City, whenas you might have brought him to his Trial before the Judges. For by this means neither Murder, nor any other unlawful Fact had been committed: but justice had been equitably and exact­ly done, which would have pre­served you guiltless from all manner of wickedness, and would have punished him who had impiously committed such enormous Crimes, and [lastly] would have curbed all those who contemn the Gods, and disrespect so great Cities and such a flourishing people; ma­king the barbarity they pra­ctised against them the Prae­ludium [as it were] of [Page 289] their power. Compare therefore this Our Letter The rea­ding in the Florent. M. S. and in Nice­phorus is better than that in the vulgar E­ditions: it is thus [ [...], with that we sent, &c.] Vales. with that We sent a while since, and consider the difference between them. How highly did We then commend you? But now, by the [immortal] Gods! When We should praise you, We cannot, by reason of your heinous offence. The people are so audacious as to tare a man piece-meal like dogs. Nor are they afterwards abashed or care­full of preserving their hands pure, that they Or, pro­duce them undefiled with bloud before the Gods. may stretch them out undefiled with bloud in the pre­sence of the Gods. But Georgius deserved to un­dergo these sufferings. We might perhaps grant, [that he deserved] more horrid and acute tor­tures. And should you say, [he deserved them] upon your account, We also assent to that. But should you add, [he deserved to have this inflicted on him] by you; that We can in no wise allow. For you have Laws, which ought to be observed and revered by you all, as well privately as in pub­lick. Now, suppose it happens, that some private persons do violate these Laws, yet the Community must be regulated by good Laws, and you are to pay obedience to those laws, and not transgress what has from the beginning been well and pru­dently constituted. It has hapned very fortunately for you, O ye Alexandrians! that you have perpe­trated such a fact as this in Our Reign; Who, by reason of Our Reverence towards God, and upon account of our In Nice­phorus the reading is truer; where the term [ [...] Grand­father] is left out; and the clause is thus worded [ [...] upon ac­count of our Uncle whose name we bear.] He means Ju­lian Ex­presect of Egypt; concerning whom Amm. Marcellinus relates much. In Julianus's Epistles, both readings are retained thus: [...], upon account of our Grandfather and Uncle whose name we bear. But this reading is not to be endured; for, what rea­son has Julianus to mention his Grandfather here▪ Sozomen does confirm Nicephorus's reading, as we may see, book 5. chap. 7. Eccles. Hist. Vales. Grandfather and Uncle whose name We bear, (who Governed Egypt and your City,) do retain a fraternal affection for you. Certainly, that power which suffers not it self to be disrespected, and such a Government as is severe, entire, and of an healthy constitution, I doubt not but this place should be thus worded; [...]; and we have rendred it accordingly. Vales. could not connive at such an audacious insolence in its Sub­jects, but would diligently purge out that deadly distemper as it were by a more acute Medicine. But We, for the reasons now mentioned, make use of that most mild and gentle Remedy in your case, [to wit] Exhortation and Discourse. To which, We are Consident, We shall find you more readily submissive, because (as We are informed) you are not only Grecians by original extract, The reading should doubtless be [ [...], &c. but do also still, &c. but do also still retain in your minds and endeavours a splendid and generous Character of that your noble Descent. It must be [ [...] Let it be published.] We have spoken concerning this clause (which was usually annext to the Emperours Edicts) in our▪ Annotations on Eusebius, and think it superfluous to re­peat it here. Vales. Let it be published to Our Citizens of Alexandria.

Thus wrote the Emperour.

CHAP. IV. How, upon Georgius's being murdered, Athanasius returned to Alexandria, and recovered his own Church.

NOt long after, Athanasius returning from his Exile, was kindly received by the peo­ple of Alexandria, who at that time expelled the Arians out of the Churches; and gave Atha­nasius possession of the Oratories. But the Ari­ans assembled themselves in some obscure and mean houses, and Ordained Lucius in the place of Georgius. Such was the state of affairs then at Alexandria.

CHAP. V. Concerning Lucifer, and Eusebius.

AT the same time Lucifer and Eusebius were by an Imperial Order recalled from ba­nishment. Lucifer was Bishop of Caralis, a City of Sardinia: Eusebius of Vercellae, which is a City of the Lygurians in Italy▪ as we have said before. Both these persons therefore returning from Exile out of the Upper Thebais, Eusebius and Lucifer were not the only persons who entred into a consult about repairing the decayed state of the Church, and establishing the Canon of Faith; but other Bishops besides them, who by Julianus's Edict were at that time recalled from Exile: to wit, Hilarius, Asterius, and the rest, as Theodores truly remarks, book 3. chap. 4. Eccles. Histor. These Prelates, moved thereto by a zeal to the Catholick Faith, took in hand to reduce Hereticks and Schisma­ticks to the path of Truth, and recall them to their former Concord. Therefore, what Baronius says, to wit, that Eusebius and Lucifer were created Legates of the Apostolick See by Liberius, in order to their repairing the state of the Church, can in no wise be true. For the same must have been said concerning Hilarius and the other Prelates. Besides, Rufinus does expresly disprove this. For he relates, that Eu­sebius and Lucifer were Commissionated with this Legantine power by the Alexandrian Synod. Vales. held a con­sult how they might hinder the impaired Laws of the Church from being violated and de­spised.

CHAP. VI. How Lucifer arriving at Antioch, Ordained Pau­linus.

IT was concluded therefore, that Lucifer should go to Antioch in Syria, and Eusebius to Alex­andria: that, by assembling a Synod together with Athanasius, they might confirm the opi­nions of the Church. Socrates borrowed this out of Rufinus▪ who (in book 1. chap. 27. Eccles. Hi­stor.) has these words: Lucifer au­tem cùm ex­oraretur ab Eusebio, &c. But Lucifer, be­ing entrea­ted by Eu­sebius, that they might go together to see Athanasius at Alexandria, and in a general Consult with those Prelates that were left, determine concerning the state of the Church; refused to be present himself, but sends his Deacon is his Deputy. But from the Synodick Epistle, which Athanasius wrote in the name of the Alexandrian Synod to the Catholick Bishops which were in the City of Antioch, we are informed that Lucifer sent two of his Deacons to the Synod of Alexandria, Herennius and Agapetus; whom he sent after he had Ordained Paulinus Bishop of Antioch. For the Legates of Paulinus himself were present at this Synod, and subscribed Athanasius's Synodick Epistle. For these things were transacted thus. Soon after Eusebius's going to the Alexandrian Synod, Lucifer toge­ther with these two Bishops Cy [...]atius and A [...]a [...]olius (the one whereof was Bishop of Palius, the other of [...],) created Paulinus Bishop of Antioch. Who, immediately after his Ordination, sent his Legates Maximus and Calamerus to the Alexandrian Synod. Also, Apollinaris Bishop of La [...]i [...]ea (who had a peculiar Sect. and a Bishop of his own faction, at Antioch) sent his Legate▪ at the same time. The Bishops of Egypt therefore who were met at Alexandria, when they had heard that Eusebius, Asterius, and Lucifer's Legates were sent by Lucifer, Cymatius, and Anatolius, and when they had admitted the Legates sent by Paulinus and Apollinaris; departed every one to their own Sees, and gave order to Athanasius and some other Bishops who con­tinued at Alexandria, that they should write a Letter to the Bishops convened at Antioch, concerning receiving the Hereticks and Schis­maticks into communion, how they ought to behave themselves in that affair. In obedience to their Order, Athanasius wrote a Letter to the Bishops convened at Antioch, to wit, to Lucifer, Eusebius, and Asterius, (for these were now returned from the Alexandrian Synod:) Cyma­tius, and Anatolius. This Letter is extant in Athanasius's works, which Baronius supposed to be the Synodick Epistle of the Alexandrian Synod. But 'tis manifest from the Contents of that Letter, that it was not written from the Synod it self, but from Athanasius; nor was it sent to all the Bishops, but to those of Antioch in particular. Which may be concluded both from the inscription it self, and also from the Text of the whole Letter. For he treats therein concerning the affairs of the Antiochian Church only, as (besides others) we are informed from this passage: [...]. Which place Athanasius's Tran­slatour has rendred ill: the import of it in English is this; invite therefore to you all those that are desirous of continuing in peace with you, especially those who celebrate their conventions in the Old City, and such as [come] from the Arians. Athanasius means those that adhered to Meletius Bishop of Antioch. For they, being Separatists from the Eustathians, had their Religious meetings in the Palaea (that is, in the Old City,) as Theodoret attests, book 2. chap. 31. and book 3. chap. 4. Eccles. Histor. Athanasius speaks of the same persons after­wards in the said Epistle; and distinguishes those that had their meetings in the Old City, from the followers of Paulinus, that is, the Eustathians. For Paulinus was one of their number. Those there­fore that had their assemblies in the Palaea can be no other than Meletius's favourers, whom Athanasius does most especially com­mend. Vales. Lucifer sent a Deacon as his Substitute, by whom he promised his assent to what should be determined by the Sy­nod. But he himself went to Antioch, and finds that Church in a great disturbance. For the people disagreed amongst themselves. For, not only the Arian Heresie, which had been intro­duced by Euzoius, divided the Church: but (as we have said Book 2. Chap. 44. before) Meletius's fol­lowers also, by reason of their af­fection towards their Master, differed from those who embraced the same Sentiments with them. Lucifer therefore, when he had con­stituted Paulinus Bishop over them, departed from thence again.

CHAP. VII. How Eusebius and Athanasius accorded together, and assembled a Synod of Bishops at Alex­andria, wherein they expensly declared, that the Trinity is Consubstantial.

BUt, as soon as Eusebius arrived at Alexan­dria, he, together with Athanasius, was very diligent about convening a Synod. There assembled Bishops out of several Cities, and con­ferred amongst themselves concerning many and most weighty matters. In this Synod they asserted the Divinity of the holy Ghost, and in­cluded him in the Consubstantial Trinity. They likewise determined that Christ at his incarnation assumed not only Flesh but an humane Soul, which was also the opinion of the primitive Ecclesiasticks. For they introduced not any new Doctrine, invented by them, into the Church, but [confirmed] those points which Ecclesiastick tradition had from the beginning asserted, and which the Learnedest persons amongst the Chri­stians had demonstratively affirmed. For such Sentiments as these all the Antients in their dis­putations concerning this point have left us in their Writings. Irenaeus, Clemens, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Serapion president of the Church in Antioch, do assert this in the Books by them composed, This clause is thus wor­ded in the Greek [ [...];] where the term [ [...]] ought in my judgment to be ex­punged, as being unnecessarily inserted here by some careless Tran­scriber out of the foregoing line, where it occurs. But Nicephorus (book 10. chap. 14. where he writes out this passage of Socrates) makes use of the term [ [...],] instead of [ [...]] either because that was the ▪reading in his Copy; or else in regard he thought [ [...]] was to be so explained. Vales. as an opinion by general consent ac­knowledged, [to wit,] that Christ at his as­sumption of Flesh was endowed with a [hu­mane] Soul. Moreover, the Synod convened upon Nicephorus▪ (at the book and chapter now mentioned) calls this person Cyrillus. But, from the authority of the Florentine and Sfortian M. SS. we have termed him Berillus. Our emendation is confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version. Berillus was not Bi­shop of Philadelphia, as Socrates says here, but of Bostra (or of Bo­stri) in Arabia: he denied Christ to have been God before his in­carnation, as Eusebius informs us, book 6. chap. 33. of his Ecclesiastick History; where see note (a.) That passage of Origens must be un­derstood concerning this Heresie of Berillus's, which occurs in his Comment on the Epistle to Titus: where his words are these: Sed & eos qui hominem dicunt Dominum Jesum, &c. Also those, who affirm the Lord Jesus to be a man fore-known, and predesigned, who before his coming in the flesh had no peculiar existence of his own, but that being born man he had the Deity of the Father only in him; these persons, I say, cannot, without great danger, be accounted members of the Church. This passage occurs also in Pamphilus's Apologetick in defence of Origen. And Gennadius has mentioned it, in his book De Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, cap. 4. Vales. Berillus's account, who was Bishop of Philadelphia in Arabia, in their Letter to the said Berillus hath maintained the same Doctrine. Ori­gen also doth acknowledge every where, in his works which are extant, that Christ at his incar­nation assumed an humane Soul: but more par­ticularly, in the ninth Tome of his COmments upon Genesis, he has explained the Mystery hereof; where he hath copiously proved, that Adam is a type of Christ, and Eve of the Church. Holy Pamphilus, and Eusebius who borrowed his Sir­name from him, persons worthy to be credited, do attest this. For both these persons (who club'd in their drawing up the Life of Origen in writing, and answered such as were prepossest with a prejudice against that person, in those fa­mous Books, wherein they made an Apology in defence of him,) do affirm, that Origen was not the first person engaged in this Subject, but that he interpreted the mystical tradition of the Church. But, those Bishops present at the Synod of Alex­andria, omitted not their researches into this question, to wit, concerning Essence, or Sub­stance. Ousia and Subsi­stence, Ex­istence, or Personality. Hypo­stasis. For Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine, (whom we formerly mentioned) who was sent before by Constantine the Emperour, to compose the disturbance at that time raised by Arius, being desirous to root out the opinion of See Eu­seb. Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 6. note (b.) This was the diffe­rence be­twixt the Sabellian and Arian Heresie▪ Sabellius confounded the persons in the sacred Trinity, Arius divided the substance. Sa­bellius the Libyan, raised a dispute concerning Ousia and Hypostasis, which was the occasion of another dissention. But the Nicene Synod, which was soon after convened, made not the least men­tion of this dispute. Notwithstanding, in regard some persons were afterwards desirous of con­tending about this matter, for that reason these determinations were made in this Synod con­cerning Ousia and Hypostasis. The Acts of the Synod of Alexandria are not now extant; but 'tis sufficiently apparent, both from that Synodick Epistle which Athanasius wrote in the name of that Council, and also from hence, because the Great Atha­nasius was present at that Synod, that what Socrates here says is false. For, as to the Synodick Epistle, there occurs no such passage in that, as this, that the terms Ousia and Hypostasis are not to be used as often as we speak concerning God. Nor, would Athanasius ever have suffered that to have been determined in his Synod, which does manifestly con­tradict the Nicene Creed. For in that Creed the term Ousia does oc­cur. Socrates seems to have been deceived by this passage in the Synodick Epistle: [...], &c. And, by the grace of God, all persons, after such interpretations of those terms, una­nimously agreed, that that Creed, which the Fathers made profession of at Nice, was better and more accurate, and that in future, it was suffi­cient, that the terms thereof should be made use of. In which words, the terms Ousia and Hypostasis are not condemned: but this only is asserted, that it is more safe to use the terms of the Nicene Creed, than these, of three Hypostasis's and of one Hypostasis. For the debate at that time was only concerning these words; some affirming there were three Hypostasis's in the sacred Trinity, as did the followers of Meletius: o­thers, with Paulinus, professing there was but one Hypostasis. But no question was then started concerning the term Ousia. For both sides as­serted that there was one substance in the Trinity. How therefore can that which Socrates here says stand good, to wit, that it was Decreed in the Alexandrian Synod, that these terms Eusia and Hypostasis were not to be used concerning God? Perhaps also Sabinus▪ (whose Collection Socrates had diligently perused) had led him into this mistake. Vales. It was resolved by them, that these terms ought not to be used concerning God. For, [they said that] the [Page 291] term Ousia was not so much as mentioned in the sacred Scriptures: and, that the They mean, I suppose those words of the A­postle at Hebr. 1. 3. [...], the Cha­racter of his Subsistence, or (as our English Version words it) the express image of his person. Some of the Anti­ents were very cau­tious about acknow­ledging three Hypo­stases in the Deity. Par­ticularly Sr Jerome, who thought that the term Hypo­stasis in this Text signified Substantia: and there­fore in his Version 'tis thus ren­dred figura substantiae ejus, the fi­gure of his substance. See Dr O­wens ac­count of this phrase, in his Ex­position on the Hebrews, pag. 55, &c. Edit. London. 1668. Apostle, ob­lieged thereto upon a necessity of [delivering some] opinions, had not rightly used the word Hypostasis. But they Decreed, that these terms were to be admitted of upon another account, to wit, when they refute Sabellius's opinion, least, for want of expressive words, we should suppose [the Trinity to be] one thing called by a triple name; but we must rather believe every one Instead of [ [...], of the names,] which is the common reading▪ the Florentine M. S. words it thus [ [...], of those named.] But Nicephorus maintains the common reading; for he has recorded this passage of Socrates thus: [...] Which his Learned Translatour Langus has thus rendred: Sed tribus usurpatis nominibus, res quaeque in Trinitate tripliciter distin­cta peculiari subsistentiâ suâ intelligatur. But I cannot approve of this rendition, in regard it recedes too far from the Authours words. Langus was puzled with these words [ [...], of the names,] and not without reason. For the bare name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, is neither believed, nor asserted to be God; but the things [or persons] signified by those names. Wherefore, the reading in the Florentine M. S. is, in my judgment, to be pre­ferred before the vulgar reading; and we have rendred it according­ly. Vales. of those named in the Trinity to be truly God in his proper Person. These were the determinations of the Synod at that time. But nothing hinders, but we may briefly declare our knowledge con­cerning [the terms] Ousia and Hypostasis. Such persons amongst the Greeks as were Expositours of their Philosophy, have given various defini­tions of Ousia; but they have not made the least mention of Hypostasis. Irenaeus Grammaticus was an Alexandrian, the Scholar of He­liodorus Metricus, who by a Latine name was called Minucius Pacatus. He wrote many books concerning the propriety of the Attick Language. For he compiled three Books of Attick names, and as many more de Atticâ consuci [...]dine in dictione & in prosodia, which were alphabeti­cally digested: he composed one Book also de Atticismo, as Suidas re­lates in his Lexicon. Vales. Irenaeus Grammaticus, in his Alphabetical Lexicon entitled Atticistes, affirms this word [Hypostasis] to be a bar­barous term: For it is not [says he] used by any of the Antients: but should it be any where found occurring, it is not taken in that sense wherein 'tis now used. For, in Sophocles (in [his Tragedy entitled] Phoenix,) the term Hy­postasis signifies Treachery. In Menander [it imports] Sauces; Nicephorus (book 10. chap. 15.) reads this passage otherwise. For, instead of [ [...], as if any one should term] he words it thus [ [...] And another stiles it the Lees in an Hogshead.] Epiphanius Scholasticus translates this place thus: Apud Menandrum vero veluti faeces quae ex vino colliguntur in dolio, [...] id est, subsistentiam designare dicit. But, I think that there is another sense of these words; to wit, that Menander should term Sauce Hypostasis, because it settles in the bottom of the dish, like Lees, or Sedement, in an Hogshead. Vales. as if any one should term the Lees in an Hogshead of Wine Hypostasis. But, you must know, that although the Antient Philo­sophers did not make use of this term Hypostasis, yet the more modern Philosophick Writers used it frequently instead of That is, Substance. Ousia. More­over, they have given us (as we said) various definitions of Ousia. But if Ousia may be circumscribed by a definition, how can we properly make use of this term in re­ference to God, who is incomprehensible? Eva­grius, in [his piece intitled] Monachicus, dis­swades us from discoursing rashly and inconsi­derately concerning God. But he altogether for­bids the defining of the Divinity, in regard it is a most Unmixt▪ or uncom­pounded. Simple thing. For defini­tions, says he, belong to things that are compounded. The same Authour de­livers these very words. Every pro­position, says he, has either a Genus which is prae­dicated, or a Species, or a Differentià, or a Pro­prium, or an Accidens, or what is compounded of these; but none of these can be supposed to be in the sacred Trinity. Let that therefore which is in­explicable, be adored with silence. Thus [argues] Evagrius, concerning whom we shall speak here­after. But, although we may seem to have made a digression by relating these things; yet we have mentioned them here, in regard they are usefull and pertinent to the subject of our History.

CHAP. VIII. [Some passages quoted] out of Athanasius's Apo­logetick concerning his own Flight.

AT the same time Athanasius recited the Apo­logetick he had formerly made concerning his own Flight, in the audience of those that were present. Some passages whereof, being useful and profitable, I will here insert, and leave the whole Book, in regard 'tis large, to be inquired out and perused by the Studious. Behold [says he] these are the audacious villanies of those im­pious wretches. These are their practises, and yet they blush not at the mischiefs they have for­merly In Athanasius, pag. 705. the reading is [ [...] Tyrannically acted against us:] But I do rather approve of Nicephorus's reading, to wit, [ [...] contrived a­gainst us;] which Epiphanius Scholasticus has followed in his Version. Vales. contrived against us, but do even at this time ac­cuse us, because we were a­ble to escape their murdering hands. Yea rather, they are sorely troubled, because they have not quite dispatcht us. In fine, under a pretence and colour they upbraid us with fear, but are ignorant that whilst they make a noise about this, they retort the crime upon them­selves. For, if it be bad to fly, it is much worse to pursue. For, the one absconds that he may not be murdered: but the other pursues with a design to murder. Yea, the Scripture informs us that we must fly. But he that seeks an occasion to mur­der, violates the Law, and does himself give [o­thers] an occasion of flying. If therefore they upbraid us with our flight, they should rather be ashamed of their own pursuit. Let them leave plot­ting, and those that fly will soon desist from making their escape. But they cease not from acting their own villanies; but do all they can to apprehend: being very sensible, that the flight of such as are pur­sued is a great evidence against them that pursue. For no body flies from a meek and good-natured person, but rather from one that is of a barbarous and malitious disposition. And therefore, 1 Sam. 22. 2. Every one that was discontented and in debt fled from Saul to David. Wherefore, these persons also en­deavour to slay such as conceal themselves, that there may seem to be no evidence to convince them of their wickedness. But in this case also these mistaken persons seem to be blinded. For by how much the more manifest the flight is, by so much will the slaughters caused by their treacheries, and the ba­nishments be more evidently exposed to the view of all men. For, whether they kill, death will make a greater noise against them; or again, whether they banish, they do in every place Or, send forth. erect monu­ments of their own injustice against themselves. Were they therefore sound as to their intellectuals, they might perceive themselves intangled herein, and egregiously mistaken in their own measures. But in regard they are infatuated, for that rea­son they are incited to persecute, and whilst they [Page 292] seek to murder others, perceive not their own im­piety. For, if they reproach such as conceal them­selves from those that seek to murder them, and calumniate such as fly from their pursuers, what will they do when they see Jacob flying from his brother Esau; and Moses retreating into [the Country] of Or Mi­dian; See Exod. 2. 15. Madian for fear of Pharaoh? what answer will these Bablers make to David who fled from Saul, (when he 1 Sam. 19. 11, &c. sent [Messengers] from his own house to murder him,) hid himself in a Cave, and changed his countenance, untill he had passed by See 1 Sam. 21. the Septua­gint (the words of which ver­sion Atha­nasius quotes here) calls this man Abimelech: but in the Hebrew his name is A­bimelech. Abimelech, and avoided the treachery? Or, what will these fellows, who are ready to utter any thing, say, when they see the Great Elias (who called upon God and raised a dead man) hiding himself for fear of Ahab, and flying because of Jezebels Menaces? At which time the Sons of the Prophets also, being sought for [to be slain,] absconded, concealing themselves in Caves with Or, O­badiah. See 1 Kings 18. 13. Abdia. Or have they not read these passages, in regard they are antient? But they have also quite forgot what is related in the Gospel. For the Disciples for fear of the Jews re­treated and hid themselves. And 2 Cor. 11. 32, 33. Paul, when he was sought for at Damascus by the Gover­nour, was let down from the wall in a basket, and escaped the hands of him that sought him. Since therefore the Scripture records these things con­cerning the Saints, what excuse can they invent for their rash precipitancy? For, if they upbraid [them] with timidity, that audacious reproach recoyls upon themselves being madmen as it were. But if they calumniate those [Holy] persons as having done this contrary to the will of God, they [demonstrate themselves] to be altogether un­skilled in the Scriptures. For in the Law there was a command that Numb. 35. 11. Cities of refuge should be appointed, to the intent that such as were sought for to be put to death, might some way or other be enabled to secure themselves. But, in the con­summation of ages, when the Word of the Father (he who spake to Moses,) came himself into the world, he did again give this command, saying, Matt. 10. 23. But when they persecute you, flee from this City to another. And a little after he says: Matt. 24. 15, 16, 17, 18. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of deso­lation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (who so readeth, let him un­derstand:) then let them who be in Judea flee into the mountaines. Let him who is on the house-top, not come down to take any thing out of his house. Let not him who is in the field, return back to take his clothes. When therefore the Saints understood these things they entred up­on such a course of life as was agreeable hereto. For, the same commands which the Lord has now given, he had delivered by the Saints before his coming in the flesh. And this is a rule for [all] men, which leads them to perfection, [that is] To do what ever God hath commanded. Upon this account, the Word himself also, (made man for our sakes,) when he was sought for, vouchsafed to conceal himself, as we do; and being persecuted again, he [was pleased] to fly, and avoid the conspiracy. For, it became Him, that as by hun­gring, thirsting, and undergoing these afflictions, so by this means also he should demonstrate himself to be made man. At the very beginning, as soon as he was made man, he himself, being as yet but a child, gave this command to Joseph by an An­gel, Matt. 2. 13. Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt. For Herod will seek the young childs life. And after the death of Herod, it appears, that (for fear of his Son Archelaus,) he retired to Nazareth. After­wards, when he had demonstrated himself to be God, and had healed the withered hand, the Pharisees went out and entred into a consult against him, See Matt. 12. 14, 15. how they might destroy him. But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence. Moreover, when he had raised La­zarus from the dead, John 11. 53, 54. From that day forth (says the Evangelist) they took counsel for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews: but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness. Further, when our Saviour had said, John 10. 58, 59. Before Abraham was, I am; the Jews took up stones to cast at him: But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. And going thorow the midst of them, went a­way, and so escaped. When therefore they see these things, Instead of [ [...], or rather consider them] we follow the reading in the E­dition of Athanasius, which is thus [ [...], &c. or rather hear them, (for they see them not,) ought they not, according as 'tis written, to be burnt with fire, &c. Which reading Epiphan. Scholasticus fol­lowed, as 'tis apparent from his version. But Musculus and Chri­stophorson joyn these words [ac­cording as 'tis written] with these [for they see not;] as if Atha­nasius had alluded to that saying of the Gospel, Matt. 13. 13; they seeing, see not: which rendition I like not. For the Arians could not then see those things, which had been done long before their age. I am also of the same opinion with Langus, that the term [ [...], burnt with fire] is to be understood of eternal fire, or of fire sent from heaven. Lastly, the word [ [...]] seems to be used here instead of [ [...], shall they not,] or [ [...], ought they not,] and we have rendred it accordingly. Vales. or rather hear them, (for they see them not,) ought they not, ac­cording as 'tis written, to be burnt with fire, in regard they design and speak the con­trary to what our Saviour did and taught. In fine, when John had suffered Mar­tyrdom, and his disciples had buried his body; Matth. 14. 13. When Jesus heard of it, he departed thence by Ship into a desart place apart. These things our Lord did, and thus he taught. But I wish these persons could [be perswaded to] be even in such a man­ner ashamed, that they would confine their rashness to men only, and not proceed to such an heighth of madness, as to charge our Saviour with fear­fulness, All Translatours have ren­dred this place ill; excepting Lan­gus only, Nicephorus's Transla­tour: whose rendition of it is this: Qui semel blasphemare, & maledictis eum incessere consult [...] instituerunt, i. e. who have once already with deliberation underta­ken to blaspheme and assail him with slanderous reproaches. For he means the Arians, who rancked Christ amongst the creatures. Vales. against Whom they have once already designedly invented Blasphemies. But no man will ever tolerate this their madness: but ra­ther by their ignorance in the Gospels they will be confuted by all men. For, there is a rational and true cause for such a retreat and flight as this is: which as the Evan­gelists have recorded, Or, was in our Saviour. was made use of by our Saviour. And from hence we ought to suppose, that the very same [cause of flight] Or, was in the Saints. was made use of by all the Saints. For what ever is recorded concerning our Saviour as man, the same ought to be referred to mankind in general. For he assumed our nature, and demon­strated in himself [...], the passions, or, affections of our infir­mity. such affections and dispositions of mind as are agreeable to our infirmity. Which John has set forth in these words: John 7. 30. Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. Yea, be­fore that hour came, he himself said to his mother, John 2. 4. Mine hour is not yet come. And to those who were called his brethren [he said] John 7. 6. My time is not yet come. Again, when the time was come, he said to his disciples, Matt. 26. 45. Sleep on now, and take your rest: for behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners, Neither therefore permitted he himself [Page 293] to be apprehended before the time came; nor, when the time was come, did he conceal himself: but voluntarily resigned up himself to the Traytors. After the same manner also did the blessed Mar­tyrs consult their own preservation in the Persecu­tions which now and then hapned. When they were Persecuted, they fled, and continued in places of concealment. But when found out, they suffered Martyrdom. Thus has Athanasius discoursed in his Apologetick concerning his own flight.

CHAP. IX. How (after the Synod at Alexandria [made up] of those who asserted the Homoousian Faith,) Euse­bius, returning to Antioch, found the Catholicks disagreeing there upon account of Paulinus's Or­dination; and being unable to bring them to an agreement, he departed from thence.

BUt Eusebius Bishop of Vercellae, immediately after the Synod, went from Alexandria to Antioch. Where finding Paulinus Ordained by Lucifer, and the Populace disagreeing amongst themselves, (For the followers of Meletius had their assemblies apart by themselves:) he was troubled, because all people did not unanimously agree to the Ordination that had been made, and in his own thoughts disapproved of what was done. But, by reason of the reverence and respect he bore to Lucifer, he held his peace, and went a­way, having promised, that he would rectifie what had been done, in a Synod of Bishops. Afterwards, he used his utmost diligence to unite the dissen­ters, but could not effect it. In the interim Me­letius returned from his Exile. And finding his followers celebrating their assemblies apart by themselves, he headed them. But Euzoïus, a Pre­late who embraced the Arian Tenets, was pos­sessed of the Churches. Paulinus had only one of the lesser Churches within the City, out of which Euzoïus had not ejected him, by reason of the reverential respect he had for him. But Meletius had his meetings without the gates of the City. After this manner therefore did Eu­sebius depart from Antioch at that time. But when Lucifer understood that his Ordination was not approved by Eusebius, he lookt upon it as an injury, and was highly incensed. Where­fore he separated himself from Eusebius's com­munion, and out of a pertinacious contentiousness presumed to reprove what had been determined by the Synod. These things being transacted in a time of sadness and discord, caused many persons to separate from the Church. For there sprung up another new Heresie, [the followers whereof were termed] Luciferians. But Luci­fer was not in a capacity of satisfying his anger. For he was bound by his own The term here in the original is [ [...], defences,] which is in no wise agreeable here. Therefore, instead thereof, Nicephorus substituted these words [ [...], by his own nets.] In my judgement, it should be [ [...], by his own promises;] and so Epiphanius read it, as appears by his Version. But Rufinus (book 1. chap. 30. Eccles. Hist.) has this passage only; sed constringeb [...]ur, &c. But he was bound by the bond of his Legate, who by his authority had subscribed in the Council. Afterwards, Rufinus adds these words concerning Lucifer, si vero recepisset Alexandrini decreta concilii, &c. But, [...]ad he admitted of the determinations of the Alexandrian Council, he saw that all his attempts must have been frustrated. But I see no reason why Lucifer should reject the Alexandrian Synod [...] determinations. For that Synod had approved of Paulinus's ordination, as I have remarkt before from Athanasius's Synodick Epistle. And whereas Eusebius subscribed that Epistle, he also may seem to have approved of Lucifers Ordination of Paulinus. Yet, the same Eusebius coming to Antioch after the A­lexandrian Council, and perceiving the disagreement between the Catholicks, would communicate with neither party, as Rufinus attests in the forequoted book and chapter: that is, he abstained as well from Paulinus's as Meletius's communion. Vales. promises, by which (being sent by his Deacon) he had en­gaged that he would assent to the Synods deter­minations. Wherefore, he retained the Ecclesi­astick Faith, and departed into Sardinia to his own See. But such as at first were agrieved to­gether with him, do hitherto continue Separatists from the Church. Further, Eusebius, like a good Physitian, travelled over the Eastern Provinces, where he perfectly recovered those that were weak in the Faith, teaching and instructing them in the doctrines of the Church. Departing from thence, he arrived in Illyricum, and afterwards went into Italy, where he took the same course.

CHAP. X. Concerning Hilarius Bishop of Poictiers.

BUt Hilarius Bishop of Poictiers (which is a City of the second Aquitania) had pre­vented him, having before-hand laid the founda­tions of such points as were agreeable to the Ca­tholick Faith [in the minds] of the Bishops in Italy and Gallia. For he, returning first from banishment, arrived in those Countries before him. Both of them therefore vigorously defen­ded the Faith. But Hilarius, being a person en­dowed with a great stock of Eloquence, asserted the Homoöusian opinion in Books which he wrote in the Latine tongue: wherein he sufficiently con­firmed That is, the Ho­moöusian Faith. that Faith, and powerfully confuted the Arian Tenets. These things hapned a little af­ter the recalling of those who had been banished. But you must know, that at the same time, Ma­cedonius, Eleusius, Eustathius, and Sophronius (and [the rest of that Sect] who were all called by one general name Macedoniani) held fre­quent Concerning these little Sy­nods, or Conventicles, of the Macedoniani, this passage in Ba­silius's 72 Epistle, Ad Ev [...]senos is to be understood; [...], &c. There is not amongst us one saith at Seleucia, another a [...] Constantinople: a third a [...] Zela, a fourth at Lampsacum▪ and a fifth at Rome. Vales. Synods in various places. And having called together those who in Seleu­cia were followers of their opinion, they Anathemati­zed the Prelates of the o­ther party, I mean, the Aca­cians. They also rejected the Ariminum Creed, and confirmed that which had been recited at Seleucia. Which Creed was the same that had before been set forth at Antioch, ac­cording as we have remarked in our foregoing See book. 2. chap. 39. Book. And when by some persons they were asked this question: You who are termed Ma­cedoniani; if you differ in your Sentiments from the Acacians, how comes it to pass, that you have This was with good reason objected against the Macedonians, that whereas they dissented from the Acacians in the Draught of the Creed, and were deposed by them in the Seleucian and Constantinopolitan Synod; yet notwith­standing this, they communicated with them. Basilius, 'tis certain, accuses them upon this account in his 73 Epist [...]e ad suos Monachos. Basilius's words there are to be understood concerning Eustathius and the Macedonians, who blamed Basilius, because he had heretofore communicated with Eudoxius, as 'tis apparent from his 79th Epistle to Eustathius. Vales. communicated with them Nicephorus understood this passage of Socrates otherwise; he words it thus: [...], i. e. Why do you now dis­sent from the Acacians, with whom you have heretofore agreed and com­municated? Nicephorus therefore seems to have taken these words [ [...], untill now] for [ [...], hitherto.] But I like not this exposition, and am of opinion, that [ [...], did communi­cate] is by Socrates used instead of [ [...], do communicate.] Which Basilius does mightily confirm in his forequoted Epistle, and Epiphanius (in Haeres. Semiarian.) Where he says, that although the Semiarians were divided into several factions, yet they dissented in words only, but in reallity agreed in the same opinion: in so much that it would be very difficult to assign the point wherein they disa­greed amongst themselves. But upon a more mature consideration of the matter, I Judge Nicephorus's sense of these words to be truer. For Socrates says, that Eleusins, Eustathius, and the rest of the Ma­cedonians did at this time (that is, in the Reign of Julian) first make up a Body of their own Sect, and, having convened Synods, did confirm the Creed of the Antiochian Synod, and anathematize Acacius with his followers: and that when they were questioned by some, why they had communicated with the Acacians (whose Creed they did reject) so long after the Seleucian Synod; they returned this answer by Sophronius; to wit; the Western Prelates erred, in regard they asserted the Homoöusian Faith: the Easterns, being followers of Aëtius's opinion, professed the Son to be dislike the Father: but we keeping the middle way, do affirm the Son to be like the Father according to his subsistence. This is Sophronius's answer. Which that it may satisfie the question proposed, this must necessarily be understood, to wit; Since therefore the Acacians entertained the same Sentiments, it need not be wondred at, that we have hitherto held communion with them. Acacius, 'tis certain, did profess the Son to be like the Father, in the same manner as the Macedonians did. See Sozomen, book 5. chap. 14. Vales. untill now, as [Page 294] being of the same opinion with you? To this de­mand they returned an answer by Sophronius Bi­shop of Pompeiopolis a City of Paphlagonia, after this manner: The Western Bishops, says he, were infected (as it were with a disease) with the Homoöusian opinion. Aëtius in the East, having adulterated [the doctrine of the Faith,] introduced [an opinion whereby he maintained] a dissimilitude of substance [between the Son and the Father.] Both these opinions were im­pious. For, the Western Bishops did rashly knit together in one the distinct persons of the Father and Son, binding them together with that Cord of iniquity, the term Homoöusios. Aëtius wholly separated that affinity of nature which the Son hath to the Father, by [introducing] this expression, Unlike according to Or, sub­stance. Essence. Since therefore, [the Assertours of] both these opinions fall into the highest extreams of op­position, the middle way between these two asser­tions seemed to us to be more agreeable to truth and piety, whereby 'tis affirmed, that the Son is like to the Father [...]; See chap. 7. of this book. according to Subsistence. This place is ve­ry intri­cate. The answer of the Mace­doniani (which So­crates has related a­bove, out of Sabinus) is obscure enough. But the censure and reprehension of that answer (which Socrates now subjoyns,) seems to be much more obscure. Nor does Nicephorus give us any assistance here; for he has transcribed this passage of So­crates's almost word for word. Notwithstanding, we will endeavour to produce something in order to the illustration of this place. This therefore is our Sentiment. The Macedoniani were asked, why they dissented from Acacius, with whom they had before held communion. In their answer they blamed the Homoöusians and Aëtius. This is no­thing to the purpose, says Socrates. For you were not questioned con­cerning Aëtius, but concerning Acacius; you do meerly sophisticate: for Acacius, as well as you, does condemn Aëtius's opinion. Now, whereas you condemn Aëtius's opinion, you are not for that reason any whit less Hereticks. For by your own words you are convinced of Novelty or Heresie, whilst you assert the Son to be like the Father according to subsistence. Wherein you dissent as well from the Catholick followers of the Nicene Creed, (who profess him to be of the same substance with the Father,) as from the Arians, who asserted him to be a Creature, or dislike in respect of his Substance. 'Tis certain, Theodoret (book 4. Haret. Fabul.) does say, that Macedonius asserted the Son of God to be every way like to the Fa­ther, and that he was the first who invented the term Homoiöusios. He was therefore one of the Semiarians, as well as Acacius. Vales. This is the answer which the Macedoniani retur­ned by Sophronius to that question, as Sabinus says in his Collection of the Acts of Synods. But, where­as they accuse Aëtius as being the Authour of the See book 2. chap. 20. note ( [...].) Anomoian opinion, and not Acacius, 'tis apparent, they do fallaciously cor­rupt the truth, thinking to avoid the Arians on the one side, and the Homo­öusians on the other. For they are confuted by their own words, that through a desire of innovating they have made a separation from them both. But let thus much be said con­cerning these [persons.]

CHAP. XI. How the Emperour Julianus exacted money from the Christians.

BUt, the Emperour Julianus, having at the beginning of his Reign shown himself mild and gratious to all persons, in process of time did not demonstrate himself to be of such a like temper towards every one. For whenever there hapned any occasion of calumniating Constantius, he most readily granted the Christians requests. But when no such [reflections] were to be made, he made all men apparently sensible of that pri­vate hatred which he had conceived against the Christians in general. Forthwith therefore he issues out an Order, that the Church of the No­vatians in Cyzicum, which had been totally de­molished by It must be [ [...], by Euleu [...]ius] as 'tis ap­parent from the following words. So Christophor­son found the reading to be, as is evident from his Version. See Sozomen. Vales. Euzoius, should be rebuilt; impo­sing a most burthensome penalty upon Eleusius Bi­shop of that City, if he did not perfect that buil­ding at his own charge within the space of two months. He also promoted gentilism with his ut­most endeavour. And (as we have said before) he opened the Pagan Temples. Yea, he himself did publickly offer sacrifice to the Genius of the City Constantinople in the He means I suppose, that Basilica [or Cathedral] which was in the fourth Ward of the City Constantinople. For this was simply and absolutely called The Cathedral. The other was termed the Theodosian Cathedral, which stood in the seventh Ward of the City, as we are informed from The old description of that City. In the former Basilica therefore, the Image of the City Constantinople's publick Genius had heretofore been placed. For so these words of Socrates [ [...]] must be rendred. For the Greeks do usually call that [...], which the Latines term Genius; and [...] are the Temples of the publick Genius; see Euseb. book concerning the Martyrs of Pale­stine, chap. 11. note (q.) Vales. Basilica, where the image of the Publick Genius was erected.

CHAP. XII. Concerning Maris Bishop of Chalcedon.

MOreover, at this time, Maris Bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia being led by the hand into the Emperours presence, (for he was very aged, and had that distemper in his eyes termed the Pin and Web:) when he came before him, he reproved him sharply, terming him an impious person, an Apostate, and an Atheist. The Emperour returned him opprobrious lan­guage for his reproaches, calling him blind fel­low. And your Galilaean God (said he) will never cure you. (For Julianus did usually term Christ The Galilaean; and Christians Galilaeans.) But Maris answered the Emperour with a grea­ter confidence: I thank God (said he) for de­priving me of mine eyes, that I might not be­hold your face, who have fal'n into such horrid impieties. The Emperour made no return here­to, In the Florent. and Sfor­tian M. SS. the reading here is [ [...], but re­venged i [...] afterwards [...].] which reading pleases me best. For Julianus was not afterwards in any instance revenged upon Mark in particular; but he persecuted all the Christians in general, with that sort of perse­cution which Socrates relates. Nicephorus met with the same rea­ding in his Copy: for thus he has exprest this passage in Socrates: [...], but he was in a very horrid manner revenged for that thing. Vales. but was severely revenged on him [after­wards.] For when he perceived, that those who suffered Martyrdom in the Reign of Diocletian, were honoured by the Christians; and having observed that many persons were very desirous of being made Martyrs, as if he resolved to be [Page 295] revenged on the Christians upon this very account, he took another course. He declined indeed that extremity of cruelty [practised] in the Reign of Diocletian: nevertheless, he did not wholly abstain from [raising] a Persecution. For I call that a Persecution, when those who live peaceably, are by any means whatever disquieted and molested. Now, he disturbed them after this manner: He made a Law, that the Christians should not be allowed an education in humane Literature: least (said he) when they have sharpned their tongues, they should with a grea­ter readiness answer the Or, Lo­gicians. Disputants amongst the Heathens.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning the tumult raised by the Heathens against the Christians.

HE also issued out an Order, that those who would not relinquish the Christian Reli­gion, and come and offer sacrifice to Idols, should not hold any Military imploy about Court. Nor would he permit the Christians to be Governours of Provinces, saying, that their Law forbad the use of the sword against such delinquents as had deserved a capital punishment. Moreover, he induced many persons, partly by flatteries, and partly by gifts, to sacrifice. Immediately there­fore both those who were true Christians, and also they who pretended [the profession of that Religion, being tryed] in a furnace as it were, were apparently manifested to all men. For such as sincerely and cord [...]ally professed Christi­anity, willingly left their Military Offices, being resolved to suffer any thing, rather then renounce Christ. Amongst whom were Jovianus, Valen­tinianus, and Valens, all which persons after­wards wore the Imperial Crown. But others, who were not found Chri­stians, In stead of [ [...], who preferred riches, &c.] I suppose it should be [ [...], in regard they prefer­red, &c. [Which emendation is confirmed by Epiphan. Scholasti­cus's Version; and by Nicepho­rus's expressing of this passage, in his tenth book, chap. 23. Vales. who preferred riches and Secular Honours before the true felicity, without the least delay submitted and of­fered sacrifice. One of which number was Ecebolius, a Sophista of Constantinople. Who, making himself con­form to the dispositions and humours of the Em­perours, was in Constantius's time pretendedly a very zealous Christian: In Julianus's Reign he seemed a very fierce assertour of Gentilism. Af­ter Julianus's death, he would needs profess Chri­stianity again: For, having prostrated himself before the door of the Oratory, he cried out, Trample upon me who am salt without savour. This is the true Character of Ecebolius, a person, as at first, so afterwards, light and inconstant. At that time the Emperour, desirous to be revenged upon the Persians for the frequent incursions they had made into the Roman Territories in the Reign of Constantius, went in great hast through Asia into the East. But being sensible of the many mischiefs which accompany a War, and that a vast Trea­sure is required [to carry it on,] without which it cannot be commodiously managed; he craftily devised a way to extort money from the Chri­stians. For he imposed a pecuniary mulct upon those that refused to sacrifice: and the exaction was very severe upon such as were sincere Chri­stians. For every one was compelled to pay pro­portionably to his estate. And thus the Empe­rour, by an unjust collection of ill-gotten money, was in a short time mightily enriched. For that Law was put in execution, not only where the Emperour was present, but in those places also to which he came not. At the same time also the Pagans made incursions upon the professours of Christianity: and there was a great conflux of such as termed themselves Philosophers. More­over, they constituted certain detestable Rites; in so much that they sacrificed young children, as well males, as females, inspected their entrails, and tasted of their flesh. And these were their practises, both in other Cities, and also at Athens and Alexandria. At which City likewise they framed a calumnious accusation against Athanasius the Bishop, acquainting the Emperour that he would destroy that City and all Egypt, and there­fore that it was requisite he should be driven from that City. The The name of this Pre­fect of E­gypt [who in the Greek is called Prefect of Alexandria] was Her­mogenes, as we are informed from Julian's 23d Epistle. Vales. Prefect also of Alexandria, according to the Emperours command, made an attempt against him.

CHAP. XIV. Concerning Athanasius's Flight.

BUt Athana­sius. he Fled again, saying these words to his intimate acquaintance, Friends, let us recede a little while; for 'tis a small cloud, which will soon vanish. Having spoken these words, with all possible celerity he went aboard of a ship, and passing over the Nile, fled into Egypt. They who endeavoured to apprehend him, made a close pursuit after him. When he understood that his pursuers were not far behind, those that accompanied him, perswaded him to fly into the wilderness again. But by making use of pru­dent advice, he escaped those that pursued him. For he perswaded his followers to turn back and meet the pursuers, which was done with all possible speed. When therefore they, who a little before fled, approacht the pursuers, In my judgment, this passage should be worded thus [ [...], Those who sought for him, ask't his followers, whether they had seen Atha­nasius:] the term [ [...] no­thing] be­ing expun­ged; which is superflu­ous. Nice­phorus con­firms our emenda­tion; in whom this word [no­thing] occurs not, either because he found it not in his Copy; or else in regard he disliked that expression. Further▪ this whole story is taken out of Rufinus. Vales. the persons who sought [for Athanasius,] ask't his followers nothing [but this,] whether they had seen Athanasius. They gave them notice, that he was not far off, and said, that if they made hast, they would soon apprehend him. Being after this manner imposed upon, they pursued him very hotly, but in vain. Athanasius having made his escape, came privately to Alexandria, and absconded there till such time as the Perse­cution ceased. Such were the miseries which befell the Bishop of Alexandria, after his fre­quent persecutions and troubles occasioned partly by the Christians, and partly by the Heathens. Moreover, the Presidents of Provinces, supposing the Emperours superstition to be a fair opportu­nity of [increasing] their private gain, treated the Christians very ill, beyond [what] the Im­perial Order [commissioned them to do:] one while exacting greater sums of money from them than they ought to have done; at other times in­flicting on them corporal punishments. These things the Emperour was sensible of, but connived at them. And to the Christians, making their ad­dresses to him upon this account, his answer was, 'Tis your duty, when you are afflicted, to bear it patiently: for this is the command of your God.

CHAP. XV. Concerning those who in the Reign of Julianus suf­fered Martyrdom at Merus a City of Phrygia.

AT the City Merus, Amachius President of the Province of Phrygia, gave order for the opening of the Temple there, and commanded it should be cleansed from the filth heapt up there­in by length of time, and that the images in it should be polished and trim'd up. This fact did sorely trouble the Christians. One Macedonius, Thcodulus, and Tatianus, out of their zeal to the Christian Religion, were unable to bear that indignity. But, having acquired a warmth and fervency of affection towards Vertue, they rushed into the Temple by night, and brake the images in pieces. The Governour, highly incensed at what was done, resolved to destroy many in that City who were guiltless; whereupon the au­thours of this Fact rendred themselves on their own accord. And chose rather to die them­selves in defence of the Truth, than to see others put to death in their stead. The Governour having seized these persons, ordered them to ex­piate the crime they had committed, by sacri­ficing. Upon their refusal to do that, he threat­ned them with punishment. But, being persons endowed with a great courage of mind, they dis­regarded his menaces, and shewed themselves prepared to undergoe any sufferings whatever. And chose to die, rather than be polluted by sa­crificing. When therefore he had made these men undergoe all manner of tortures, at last he gave order they should be laid on Grid-irons, under which he commanded fire to be put, and so destroyed them. At which time they gave the highest and most Heroick demonstration of their sortitude, by these words of theirs to the President: Amachius, if you desire to eat broy­led flesh, turn us on the other side, least we should seem half broyled to your tast. After this manner these persons ended their lives.

CHAP. XVI. How (when the Emperour prohibited the Chri­stians from being educated in the Grecian Li­terature,) the two Apollinaris's betook them­selves to writing of Books.

BUt, that Imperial Law, which prohibited the Christians from being educated in the Gre­cian Literature, made the two Book 2. chap. 46. above mentioned Apollinaris's far more eminent than they had been before. For, whereas both of them were persons well skilled in humane Learning, the fa­ther in Grammar, the son in Rhetorick, they shewed themselves very usefull to the Christians at that juncture of time. For the father, being an exquisite Grammarian, [...], compiled an art of Grammar conform to the Chri­stian mode. composed a Gram­mar agreeable to the form of the Christian Re­ligion: he also turned the Books of Moses into that termed Heroick verse: And likewise paraphra­sed upon all the Historical Books of the Old Testa­ment; putting them partly into See Sca­lig. Poct. book 2. chap. 6. Dactylick Verse, and partly reducing them into the form of Or, Tra­gedy that might be represented by Actors. Dra­matick Tragedy. He [designedly] made use of all sorts of Verse, that no mode of expression [peculiar to] the Grecian Language, might be unknown, or un-heard-of amongst the Christians. But the Younger Apollinaris, a person provided with a good stock of Eloquence, explained the Gospels, and Apostolick writings, by way of Dialogue, as Plato amongst the Grecians [had done.] Having rendred themselves usefull after this manner to the Christian Religion, by their own Labours they vanquished the Emperours subtlety. But Divine Providence was more pre­valent and powerfull, than either these persons industry, or the Emperours attempt. For that Law quickly became extinct, together with the Emperour [who made it,] as we will mani­fest in the procedure [of our History.] And these mens Works are reputed no otherwise, than if they had never been written. But some one will perhaps make this formidable objection a­gainst us; How can you affirm these things to have been effected by Divine Providence? For, it is indeed evident, that the Emperours sudden death proved very advantagious to the Christian Religion. But certainly, the rejecting of the Christian writings composed by the two Apol­linaris's, and the Christians beginning again to be cultivated with an education in the Grecian Literature, can in no wise be of advantage to Christianity. For, the Grecian Literature, in re­gard it asserts Or, a multitude of Gods. Polytheism, is very pernicious. To this objection we will (according to our ability) make such a return, as at present comes into our mind. The Grecian Learning was not admitted of, either by Christ, or his disciples, as being di­vinely inspired; nor was wholly rejected, as hurt­full. And this, in my opinion, was not incon­siderately done by them. For, many of the Philosophers amongst the Grecians were not far from the knowledge of God. For, [being furnished] with a discursive knowledge, they strenuously opposed those that denied Gods Pro­vidence, of which sort were the Epicureans, and other contentious [Cavillers;] and con­futed their ignorance. And by these Books they rendred themselves very usefull to the Lovers of piety: but they apprehended not the principal head of Religion, because they were ignorant of the Mystery of Christ, Col. 1. 26. Which hath been hid from generations and ages. And that this is so, the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans does declare, in these words: Rom. 1. 18, 19, 20, 21. For the wrath of God is re­vealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in un­righteousness. Because that which may be known of God, is manifest in them. For God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the Creation of the world, are clearly seen, being un­derstood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, that they may be without excuse: because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God. From these words 'tis appa­rent, that they had the knowledge of the truth, which God manifested unto them. But they were obnoxious, in regard when they knew God, they glorified him not as God. Whereas therefore [the Apostles] prohibited not an education in the Grecian Learning, they left it to the choice of such as were desirous of it. Let this be one argument, in answer to the objection made against us. Another is this, The divinely inspired Scri­ptures do indeed deliver doctrines that are admi­rable and truly divine: they do likewise infuse into [the minds of] those that hear them, both an eminent piety, and exact course of life; and also exhibit to persons that are studious a faith acceptable to God. But they teach not an art of reasoning, whereby we may be enabled to answer those that resolutely oppose the truth. [Page 297] Besides, the Adversaries are then most effectually baffled, when we make use of their own weapons against them. (But, the Christians could not be furnished herewith, from the Books written by the Apollinaris's.) Which when the Emperour Julianus had accurately considered, he by a law prohibited the Christians from being instructed in the Grecian Literature. For he very well knew, that the fables [therein contained] would render the opinion he had imbibed, obnoxious to reproach. Which fabulous stories when Socra­tes (the eminentest of the Philosophers amongst them) contemned; as if he had been a person that attempted to violate their Deities, he was condemned. Further, both At what place this precept of our Saviours [that we should be skilfull mony-changers] does occur, is uncertain. For 'tis not to be met with in the Gospels. But, in as much as Origen and Jerome do agree, that this com­mand was given by our Saviour, and was afterwards inculcated by the Apostle; I am of the same opinion with the Learned Usher, who supposes, that that saying of our Saviour was recorded in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Further, this saying is frequent­ly mentioned amongst the An­tients. Amongst the rest, Palla­dius makes mention of it in the Life of John Chrysostome. See Euseb. Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 7. note (a.) and the following remark. Vales. Christ and also his Apostle do give order, that we should be skilfull Exchangers of mo­ney, 1 Thes. 5. 21. that we should prove all things, holding fast that which is good; and to Colos. 2. 8. beware, least any man spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit. But, we shall never obey this [precept,] unless we can possess our selves of the Adversaries weapons; and whilst we are in possession of them, we are not to entertain the same sen­timents with our Adversaries: but must abominate the evil: and, retaining what is Good and true, examine all things we embrace. For Good, where-ever it is, is the property of truth. But if any one does suppose, that by asserting these things we use violence [to­wards the Scriptures by wresting of them,] let such a one consider, that the Apostle does not only not forbid our being instructed in the Gre­cian Learning; but he himself seems not to have neglected it, in regard he knew many sayings which were spoken by the Grecians. For, whence took he an occasion of using this saying, Titus 1. 12. The Cretians are always lyers, evil beasts, slow-bellies, except it were from his perusal of the Epimeni­des did in­deed pre­dict many things, partly to the Atheni­ans, partly to the Lace­daemonians, and partly to the Cre­tians, as may be seen in Di­ogenes La­ërtius: (See Laërtius in Epimened.) But I never read, that o­racles were written by him. Suidas affirms, that he wrote some mysticall and expiatory Poems, and some other obscure things. These there­fore must be stiled Oracles. Epimenides was a person incomparably well skilled in Lustrations and Consecrations. In his Lustrations or purgations, he made great use of the Sea-Onyon: and therefore one kind of it was from him called the Epimenidian-Sea Onyon. So Theo­phrastus, book 7. chap. 10. Hence it appears, why Socrates termed Epimenides [...], an Initiator. Vales. Oracles of Epimenides the Cretian, a person that was an Ini­tiator? Or whence knew he this, Acts 17. 28. For we are also his off-spring, unless he had been acquainted with the Phoenomena of Aratus the Astronomer. Moreover, this, 1 Cor. 15. 33. Evill communications corrupt good man­ners, is a sufficient evidence that he was not unacquainted with Euripides's Tragedies. But, what need is there of making a large discourse concerning these things? For, 'tis evident, that antiently, by an uninterrupted usage as it were, the Ecclesiastick Doctors studied the Grecian Arts and Sciences, untill they arrived at a very great age: and this [they did,] partly upon account of [gaining] Eloquence, and of Or, exerci­sing. poli­shing the mind; and partly in order to a confutation of those things, concer­ning which [the Heathens] were mis­taken. Let thus much be said by us, according to our capacity, upon account of the two Apolli­naris's.

CHAP. XVII. How the Emperour, making preparations for an expedition against the Persians, arrived at An­tioch: and being derided by the Antiochians, he [published] an Oration [against them] en­titled That is, Beard­hater. Misop [...]g [...]n.

BUt, the Emperour, having extorted a vast treasure from the Christians, and hastning his expedition against the Persians, goes to An­tioch in Syria. When he was come thither, be­ing desirous to demonstrate to the Antiochians how superabundantly he affected glory, he depres­sed the prizes of vendible commodities lower than was fitting: [for] he respected not the pre­sent time, nor considered with himself, that the presence of a numerous Army does necessarily en­dammage the inhabitants of a Province, and cut off plenty [of provisions] from the Cities. Wherefore, the [...]. So the Greeks do in general term all small and minute-Merchants, because they barter'd their Wares for a mean value. For [...] signifies to buy and sell for gain; and [...] imports a Merchandize­ing trade, as Julius Pollux in­forms us, book 3. chap. 25. Hence, he was termed [...], (says Harpocration) who had been frequently sold. These Traders are in Latine termed Cociones, A­rilatores, and Dardanaril. But Nicephorus calls them [...], whom Socrates here terms [...] may in English be termed Retailers, such as the Dardanarii heretofore were. Vales. petty Mer­chants and Provision-sellers, unable to endure the loss they sustained by the Im­perial Edict, at that time left off trading. Whereup­on, [the Markets] were unfurnished with Provisions. The Antiochians could not tolerate this violence [used towards them;] (for they are persons naturally prone to revile:) but presently brake forth [into invectives] against the Emperour, and cried out upon him. They also derided his beard; (for he wore a very large one:) saying, it ought to be shaved, and ropes made of it. [They said] likewise, that he had the stamp of a Bull on his Coyn, [which was an Emblem] that he had turned the world upside down. For the Emperour, ex­treamly addicted to superstition, and continually Hence 'tis that Gregor. Nazianzen (in his first Invective against Ju­lian,) stiles him [...] Bull-bur­ner. And Amm. Mar­cellinus (book 25. pag 294, Edit. Paris. 1636 3) giving a Character of him, says thus: Praesagiorum sciscitationi nimiae deditus, ut aequiparare videretur in hac parte principem Hadrianum: su­perstitiosus magis, quàm sactorum legitimus observator innumeras sine parsimonia pecudes Mactans: ut aestimaretur si reve [...]tisset de Parthis boves jam defutures: Marci illius similis Caesaris, in quem id accepimus dictum, [...]. sacrificing Bulls upon the Altars of his Idols, had commanded, that an Altar and a Bull should be stamp't upon his Coyn. The Emperour, en­raged at these Scoffs, threatned that he would most severely punish the City of Antioch; In the original, the reading here is [ [...]; And returns to Tarsus in Cilicia:] which reading Nicephorus has followed. But in my opinion, it should be thus [ [...] and that he would return to Tarsus in Cilicia [and reside there.] For Julian threatned, that when he returned from Persia, he would go to Tarsus in Cilicia, and would not Winter any more at Antioch. See Amm. Marcellinus, book 23. pag. 239. of our Edition. Vales. and that he would return to Tarsus in Cilicia [and reside there.] And having given order for a provision of necessaries to be made there, he prepared for his departure thence. Upon which account, Li­banius the Sophista took an occasion of writing two Orations; the one he composed by way of address to the Emperour, in behalf of the An­tiochians; the This Oration of Libanius's is in my hands; 'tis transcribed from two M. SS. Copies, the one belonging to Johannes A'tinus, the other to the most eminent Cardinal Francis Barberini. We will (God wil­ling) translate this, and more than twenty other Orations of the same Sophista's into Latine, and publish them within a little while. Vales. other he wrote to the Antiochians [Page 298] concerning the Emperours displeasure. But, 'tis said, this Sophista wrote these Orations only, and did not recite them in publick. Moreover, the Emperour, relinquishing his resolution of reven­ging himself upon those revilers by deeds, dis­charged his rage by reciprocal Taunts and Scoffs. For he compiled a book [against them,] which he entitled Antiochicus or Misop [...]g [...]n, wherein he has left a perpetual brand upon the City of An­tioch. Thus much concerning these things. We must now relate what [mischiefs] the Emperour then did to the Christians in Antioch.

CHAP. XVIII. How, when the Emperour was desirous to consult the Oracle, the Daemon gave no answer, being afraid of Babylas the Martyr.

FOr, having given order, that the Heathen Temples in Antioch should be opened, he was very desirous of receiving an Oracle from Apollo There was a Grove in the sub­urbs of An­tioch, cal­led Daphne, which was consecra­ted to A­pollo; whence he was ter­med Apollo Daphnaeus. Sozomen spends a great many words in describing this Grove, at chap. 19. books 5. of his Eccles. Histor. Daphnaeus. But, in regard the Daemon inhabiting that Temple, feared his neighbour, (I mean He suc­ceeded Zabinus in the Bishoprick of Antioch, says Eusebius, book 6. chap. 2. Eccles. Histor. The same Authour (chap. 39. book. 6.) says that he died in prison (but Chrysostome▪ Lib. de S. Babyl. Tom. 9. pag. 669. tells us he was beheaded,) in Decius's Reign. Where his body was first buried, is not known: but wherever it was, there it rested, till Gallus, Julian's brother, built a Church over against the Temple of Apollo Daphnaeus, (see Sozom. book 5. chap. 19.) into which he caused S. Babylas's body to be translated. After this re­moval of it, mentioned in this chapter, 'twas intombed within the City Antioch, in a Church dedicated to his name and memory. Babylas the Martyr,) he gave no answer. For the Coffin lay hard by, wherein was inclosed the body of that Martyr. When the Emperour understood the reason thereof, he forthwith issued out an order for the immediate translation of the Coffin. The Christians of An­tioch understanding this, [flockt together all of them] as well women, as young children, and carried the Coffin from Daphne into the City, with great rejoycings and singing of Psalms. [The contents of] those Psalms were re­proachfull reflections upon the Heathenish gods, and upon those that confided in them, and in their images.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning the Emperours wrath, and concerning Theodorus the Confessour.

MOreover, the Emperours Genius and dispo­sition, which he had [hitherto] kept concealed, was at that time clearly discovered and manifested. For he who before profest him­self to be a Philosopher, could not moderate himself any longer. But being very easily pro­vokt to anger by those reproachfull Hymns, was ready to inflict the same punishments upon the Christians, which Diocletian heretofore laid on them. But in regard his sollicitude about the Per­sian Expedition afforded him not a convenient opportunity of prosecuting this design, he or­dered Salustius Prefect of the Pretorium, to ap­prehend those persons that had been most zea­lous and busie in singing Psalms, in order to their being punished. The Prefect (although as to his Religion he was an Heathen, yet) did not willingly receive that Order. But, in regard he could not contradict it, he commands many of the Christians to be apprehended, and confines some of them to Prison. Upon one young man (whose name was Theodorus, whom the Hea­thens brought before him,) he inflicted Tortures, and various sorts of punishment, ordering that his body should be lacerated all over; and then, when 'twas supposed he could live no longer, he released him from his tortures. But God pre­served this person. For he survived that confes­sion a long time. Rufinus, who wrote an Eccle­siastick History in Latine, See Ru­finus's Ec­cles. Hist. book 1. chap. 36. says, that he con­verst with this Theodorus a long while after this, and enquired of him, whether, during his being scourged and racked, he felt an acuteness of pain. And that his answer was, that the pain [pro­ceeding] from his tortures was very little: and that there stood by him a certain young man, who both wiped off the sweat caused by his agony, and also corroborated his mind, and that he cau­sed that space of time wherein he was tortured, to be a delight to him, rather than a conflict. Let thus much be said concerning the admirable Theodorus. At the same time arrived Embas­sadours from the Persians, requesting [the Em­perour] to put an end to the War [...], is the phrase in the Ori­ginal; which nei­ther Mus­culus, nor Christophorson understood, as appears from their Versions. Vales. upon cer­tain express articles and conditions. But he dismist them, with these words, You shall ere long see Us in person, and so there will be no need of an Embassy.

CHAP. XX. How the Emperour perswaded the Jews to sacri­fice, and concerning the utter destruction of Jerusalem.

VVHilst the Emperour was very desirous to endammage the Christians some o­ther way besides this, he betrayed his own super­stition. For, being much addicted to sacrificing, he not only delighted in the bloud [of sacri­fices] himself, but thought himself wronged, un­less others would do so too. But, in regard he found but few such men as those, he sent for the Jews and enquired of them, upon what account they abstained from sacrificing, whenas the Law of Moses injoyned it. Upon their answering him, that they could not sacrifice in any other place, but only at Jerusalem, he gave order, that Solo­mon's Temple should be forthwith re-edifyed. [In the interim] he himself proceeds in his ex­pedition against the Persians. But the Jews (who for a long time had been desirous of getting an opportune time, wherein their Temple might be rebuilt, in order to their offering sacrifice,) were then very industrious about that work. They also shewed themselves very formidable to the Christians, and their behaviour towards them was proud and insolent, threatning they would do them as much mischief, as they themselves had formerly suffered from the Romans. In regard therefore the Emperour had given order, that the charge [of that Structure] should be paid out of his Exchequer, all things were soon pro­vided; [to wit,] Timber, Stone, burnt Brick, Clay, Lime, and all other materials necessary for Building. At which time, Cyrillus Bishop of Je­rusalem call'd to mind the Prophesie of Daniel, (which Christ [...] also has confirmed in the holy [Page 299] Gospels,) and That is, Cyrillus predicted in the presence, &c. For the term [ [...]] must not be re­ferred to Christ; though Mus­culus and Christophorson both ren­der it so▪ Nicephorus does evi­dently confirm our Version, at book 10. chap. 33. Eccles. Histor. Vales. predicted in the presence of ma­ny persons, that that time would come very shortly, wherein one stone should not be left upon another in that Tem­ple, but that our Saviours Prophecy should be fulfil­led. These were the Bishops words. And in the night there hapned a great earth­quake, [...], which made the stones of the old foun­dation of the Temple seeth, or, [...]oy [...]e. which tore up the stones of the old foundation of the Temple, and dispersed them all, together with the adjacent edifices. By rea­son of this accident, the Jews were extreamly terrified. And the fame of it brought many persons, who lived at a great distance, to that place. When therefore a nu­merous multitude were gathered together, there hapned another prodigie. For there came down a fire from Heaven, which consumed all the Buil­ders Tools. You might have seen Mallets, Irons to smooth and pollish Stones with, Saws, Hat­chets, Axes; in short, all things the workmen had, which were to be used about that work, de­stroyed by the flames. The fire prey'd upon these things for a whole day together. The Jews, being in the greatest fear imaginable, acknow­ledged (though unwillingly) that Christ was God. But they obeyed not his will; but were prepossessed with an opinion of their own Reli­gion, and continued firm thereto. For neither did a third Miracle, which hapned afterwards, in­duce them to a belief of the truth. For, the night following, the impressions of a Cross, which cast forth beams of brightness, appeared printed upon their garments. Which impressions when they saw the next day, they endeavoured to wash and rub them out, but could not. They were blinded therefore, as the Apostle says, and cast away that good they had in their hands. Thus was the Temple, instead of being rebuilt, at that time totally demolished.

CHAP. XXI. Concerning the Emperours inroad into Persia, and concerning his Death.

MOreover, the Emperour made an irruption into Persia, a little before the Spring, be­ing informed that the Persians were a people that were weakest, and of the least courage in the Winter. For, being unable to endure cold, they abstain from undertaking any Military action at that time. But, according to the proverb, a Mede will not pull so much as his hand from under his Cloak at that time. [On the contrary,] in regard he very well knew, that the Romans were able to endure a Winter Campaigne, he poured his Ar­my into the Persian Territories. When there­fore they had depopulated a large tract of ground, [laid waste] many Villages, and Garrisons, they then [began] to take Cities. And, having in­vested the great City Ctesiphon, he reduced the Persian King to such straights, that he dispatcht frequent Embassies to Julian, entreating him that he might be punished with the loss of some part of his Country only, provided he would depart out of his Territories, and put an end to the War. But Julianus was not in the least affected in his mind, nor shewed any compassion towards these suppliants. Neither did he take into his conside­ration this common saying, to wit, To conquer is famous, but to [...]; the term oc­curs, Rom. 8. 37; where out English Version renders it, more than Conquerour. be more than Conquerour, is odious. But, giving credit to certain divinations, which Maximus the Philosopher (with whom he con­verst continually) suggested to him; and imagi­ning, that he should not only equal, but exceed the glory of Alexander the Macedonian; [for these reasons, I say,] [...]e rejected the humble ad­dresses of the Persians. And he supposed, agree­able to the opinion of Pythagoras and Plato, that by a Transmigration of souls he was possest of A­lexanders soul; or rather, that he himself was A­lexander in another body. This opinion decei­ved him, and was the cause of his not admitting of the Persian Kings humble address at that time. The King of Persia therefore, perceiving his Em­bassie to be ineffectual, was reduced to a ne­cessity [of fighting.] Whereupon, the next day after he had sent his Embassie, he draws out all the forces he had, against the Roman Army, in order to his giving them Battel. The Romans did indeed blame the Emperour, in regard he would not avoid an engagement, when as he might have done it with Advantage. Neverthe­less, they gave the Enemy Battel, and routed them again. The Emperour was in the Engagement in person, on Horse-back, and encouraged his men: but he had no Armour on, in regard he solely confided in his hope of success. But [on a sudden] a Dart is [...]ast at him from an un­known place, which pierced through his Arm, and entred his side. Theodoret (Eccles. Histor. book 3. chap. 25.) has recor­ded this passage of Julian: [...] &c. 'Tis re­ [...]orted, that upon the receipt of his wound, he filled his hand with bloud, and threw it up into the air, and said, O Galilean▪ [so he termed our Saviour, and the Christians he called Galileans] Thou hast over­come, &c. Of which wound he died, the person that killed him being unknown. For some say, [the Dart] was thrown by a certain Persian who fled: others, [that it was cast] by one of his own men, which is the strongest and most common report. But Callistus (who had a Military imploy in this The Greek term [...], signifies in this place Protectores Domesticos, The Emperours Guards; concerning whom we have spoken at large, in our Notes on book 14. of Amm. Marcellinus; pag. 33. In this sense Socrates uses this term, book 4. chap. 1. This is that Callistus (if I mistake not) whom Libanius (Epist. 120. book 4.) calls Callistio, friend to Sallustius Pr [...]fect of the Pratorium. For Libanius attests there (as well as Socrates does here) that he was a Poet. Vales. Emperours Guards, and recorded his Acts in Heroick Verse,) in his Narrative of this War, says, that Julian was wounded by a Daemon, of which he died. This was perhaps a Poetical Fiction of his; peradven­ture 'twas really true. For revengefull Furies have destroyed many persons. But, however that matter was, this is not unknown, that [this Em­perour] was a person, by reason of his too great heat and ardency of mind, unwary; be­cause of his Learning, vain glorious; upon ac­count of his counterfeit mildness, obnoxious to contempt. Julianus therefore ended his life in Persia (as we have said) in his fourth Con­sulate, which he bore with Salustius [his Col­league,] about the twenty sixth of June. This was the third year of his Empire; the seventh from his having been created Caesar by Constantius; and the thirty first year of his age.

CHAP. XXII. Concerning Jovianus's being Proclaimed Empe­rour.

THe Roman Army, reduced to the greatest streight imaginable, without delay, on the day after, Proclaim Jovianus Emperour, a per­son [Page 300] couragious and nobly descended. He being Tribune of the Souldiers, See Chap. 13. when Julianus by pub­lishing of an Edict, gave the Souldiers their choice, whether they would sacrifice, or leave their Military Employments; chose rather to lay down his Commission, then obey the com­mand of the impious Emperour. But Julianus, necessitated thereto by the then imminent War, had continued him in Commission, amongst his chief Commanders. Being at that time Elected to the Empire, he refused it. And when he was forcibly drawn forth by the Souldiers, he cried out, saying, that being himself a Christian, he would not reign over men firmly addicted to Gen­tilisme. But, after all of them with one voice answe­red, professing that they also were Christians, he ac­cepted of the Empire. Moreover, in regard he was on a sudden left in very great streights Or, in the Country of the Per­sians. in an Ene­mies Country, and his men being destroyed by a Famine, upon terms he put an end to the War. The conditions were indeed misbecoming the Roman glory: but they were necessary in that conjuncture. For, being punished with the loss of the In the o­riginal, the reading is [ [...], For, being pu­nished with the loss of the domini­on over the Syrians:] which rea­ding is re­tained in all our co­ples. A­greeable to which is Epiphanius Scholasti­cus's Ver­sion; who renders it thus: A­missâ nam­que Syriâ, & traditâ Persis Ni­sibi, For having lost Syria, and surrendred Nicibis to the Persians: And Niccphorus words this passage thus: [...], &c, Moreover, surrendring some places to the Persians, that were tributary to the Romans, I mean the Government of the Syrians, and Nisibis in Mesopotamia. But, Jo­vianus surrendred not Syria to the Persians. He gave them Nisibis only, and the Countries beyond the Tigris. Wherefore, I doubt not, but instead of [ [...], the Syrians] it should be [ [...], the Borders of the Empire;] and accordingly we have rendred it. Than which emendation, there is nothing more certain. Socrates him­self confirms it, who speaking concerning this matter a little after, in this chapter, says thus, [...], and ascribed the disgrace of the loss of the Borders to him. Vales. Borders of the Empire, and having surrendred Nicibis (a City in Mesopotamia,) to the Persians, he depar­ted out of Persia. At the relation of these things the Christians were encouraged Between these two words [encouraged] and [death,] there was wanting in the printed Copies of Socrates this whole line [ [...], But the Pagans be­wailed Julianus's;] which we have inserted from the Florent, and S [...]or­tian M. SS. Further, from this very one place 'tis evident, that Christo­phorson made use of no M. S. copies, in his translation of Socrates. Vales.: But the Pagans bewailed Julianus's death. Further, the whole Army blamed his imprudent heat and rashness, and ascribed the disgrace of the loss of their Bor­ders to him; because, being imposed upon by a Persian desertour, he had burnt the Ships, which supplied them with provision by water, where­upon the Army was reduced to a great extremity by a Famine. Further, at that time Libanius the Sophista composed a Funeral Oration upon Ju­lian, which he entitled Julianum, or The Epitaph. In which Oration he does at large recite and extol almost all his Actions: he has also mentioned the Books which Julian wrote against the Christians, wherein he says, the Emperour has demonstra­ted the Books of the Christians to be ridiculous, and stuft with trifles. Had it sufficed this Sophista, to have commended the Emperours other Actions only, I should quietly have proceeded to the fol­lowing part of my History. But whenas, being a sharp Oratour, by mentioning Julians Books he does enveigh against the Christian Religion; for this reason we are resolved to speak something concerning this matter: and in the first place we will produce his own words.

CHAP. XXIII. A confutation of what Libanius the Sophista has said concerning Julianus.

THe Winter, says he, having lengthened the nights, the Emperour undertook those Books, which make the man of Palestine God, and the Son of God; and by a long dispute and validitie of arguments he evinced, that those [Records] revered and honoured [by the Christians] are ridiculous and meer trifles: having in this mat­ter demonstrated himself to be more skilfull and wiser, than the Porphy­rius. Tyrian Old man. But, may that Ty­rian be propitious to me, and not be disgusted at what is said, In the Florent. and Sfortian M. SS. the reading is [ [...], in regard he was out-done by his Son.] But in Libanius's Oration, which I have read in Manuscript, it is thus worded [ [...],] which reading pleases me best. This Funeral Oration of Libanius's concerning the praises of Julian the Emperour, is published indeed by Morellus, in the Second Tome of the said Libanius's works; but very corruptly. For, two parts in four of it are transposed; and besides, there are some pages of it wanting. We have some time since found out the transposition of this Oration; and made up its defects from Jobannes Altinus's Manuscript; in which Copy this passage is extant, which Socrates does here quote. Vales. in regard he was but-done by his Son!

These are Libanius the Sophista's words. I am indeed of opinion, that he was a most incompa­rable Sophista: but, I am confident, had he not entertained the same sentiments with the Empe­rour, as to Religion, he would have spoken a­gainst him all that hath been said by Christians, and (as 'tis very likely,) being a Sophista, would have enlarged upon that subject. For, whilst Constantius was living, he wrote Com­menda­tions. Encomiums upon him; but after his death, he loaded him with reproaches and abusive accusations. Where­fore, had Porphyrius been an Emperour, he had undoubtedly preferred his books before Ju­lian's: and, had Julianus been a Sophista, he would have termed him an ill Sophista, as he does Ecebolius, in his Epitaph upon Julian. Since therefore he, as being of the same Religion with the Emperour, as a Sophista, and as the Empe­rour's friend, has related what he thought good; we, according to our ability, will answer what he has written. In the first place therefore, he says, that the Emperour undertook those Books, when Winter had lengthened the nights. This term, to undertake or attempt, imports, that he made it wholly his business to write a discom­mendation, as the Sophistae usually do, when they instruct young men in the rudiments of their Art. For he had been acquainted with those Books long before, but then he made his attempts a­gainst them. And, having spent a great deal of time in a tedious contest, he did not [oppose them] (as Libanius says) with solid arguments: but for want of truth betook himself to Jests and Drollery, (whereof he was a great admirer,) by which means he derided what is firmly esta­blished in those Books. For, whosoever under­takes a Contest against another, does usually be­lie him against whom he manages the dispute, one while by perverting the truth, at another by concealing it. And he that has a Pique a­gainst another, as an adversary endeavours, not only to act, but to speak against him in all things: and delights to turn the The ill [...]. faults that are in himself, upon him with whom he is at vari­ance. That Julianus and Porphyrius (whom Libanius calls The Tyrian Old man) did both of them take great delight in scoffing, is evident from their own Books. For Porphyrius, in the Books he wrote concerning Philosophick History, has made the Life of Socrates a ridicle, who was the eminentest of the Philosophers: and has left such passages upon Record concerning him, as neither Melitus, nor Anytus, Socrates's Accusers, would have attempted to say. Concerning So­crates, I say a person admired amongst the Gre­cians, [Page 301] for his modesty, Justice, and other Vir­tues. Whom Plato the most admirable Philo­sopher among them, Xenophon, and the whole Or, quire. company of Philosophers, not only honour as a person beloved by God, but also repute him to have been endowed with a wisdom more than hu­mane. And Julianus, imitating his Porphy­rius. Father, has discovered the distemper of his own mind in [the Book he entitled] The Caesars, wherein he has dis­commended all the Emperours his predecessours, not sparing even Marcus the Philosopher. That both of them therefore took great delight in Scoffs and Taunts, their own writings do suffi­ciently declare. Nor need I many or solid ar­guments, but this is sufficient to represent the humour and disposition of them both After these words this line [ [...]] was wan­ting in the Printed Copies; which I inserted from the Sfortian M. S. Vales.: This Cha­racter I give of them, groun­ding my conjecture concern­ning their disposition, upon the works of each of them. But, what Gregorius Nazi­anzenus has said concerning Julianus, you may hear [delivered] in his own words. For, in This pas­sage occurs in Nazian­zen's second Invective against Ju­lian, pag. 97. Edit. Eton. 1610. His second Oration against the Gentiles, he says thus. Experience, and his assuming the Imperial Dignity and Authority, evidenced these things to others. But to me they were in a manner appa­rently manifest long before, at such time as I was conversant with him at Athens. For he came thither immediately after the innovations at­tempted by his He means Gallus Cae­sar; See chap. 34. book 2. and chap, 1. book 3. Brother, having requested this of the Emperour. The design of this his journey was twofold; the one was more honourable, [namely,] to see Greece, and the Schools there: the other was kept secret, known but to a very few, [to wit,] that he might consult the Sacrificers and Im­postours there concerning his own affairs: for his impiety was not yet in possession of confidence and liberty. At that time therefore, I well remember, I was no bad Divine concerning this person, al­though I pretend not to be one of their number, who are well versed in the knowledge and use of these predictions. But, the unevenness and inconstancy of his disposition, and the incredible extravagancy of his mind, made me a Prophet, if he be the best Pro­phet, who gives the truest conjecture. For, 'twas my opinion, that no good could be portended by an in­stable neck; by shoulders which sometimes he brandi­shed, at others In Gregory Nazianzens se­cond Invective against Julian (out of which this passage is quoted) the term here is [...] which word Billius renders, at­tollebat, he lifted up. But I had rather it should be rendred Libra­tos, poyzed. Nicephorus retains the vulgar reading, to wit, [...], represt; whose Tran­slatour gives this rendition of these words: Humeri, quos sub­inde jactaret ac reduceret mobiles, i. e. Moveable shoulders which he would sometimes thrust out, at others pluck back. Vales. See Mr Nontagu's account of this term, in his notes on pag. 98. of Nazi­anzens second Invective, Edit. Eton. 1610. represt; by wandring and rowling eyes; a furious countenance; feet un­steady and stumbling; a nose breathing forth reproach and contempt; ridiculous cuttings of faces signifying the same thing; immoderate and exces­sively loud laughter; noddings, and then denials by his coun­tenance, without any reason; a voice represt and cut off by his breath; immethodicall and indiscreet questions; an­swers no whit better then these, crowding one after an­other, inconstant to them­selves, nor yet proceeding in a Learned Order. What need I give a particular description of every thing? Before his Actions I saw he would be the same that I have sinoe found him to be by his Actions. And, were some of those persons here, who were then present and heard me, they would be easily induced to attest this. To whom, when I saw these things, I forthwith spake these words, How great a mischief to its self does the Roman Empire breed up! When I had uttered these words, I prayed to God, that I might be a false Prophet. For that was better, than that the world should be filled with such horrid mischiefs, and that such a monster should appear, the like to which had never been seen before; although many deluges are recorded; many devastations by fire, many earthquakes, and Or, ope­nings of the earth. chasms; This pas­sage is to be made good from Gregorius Nazianzenus, thus: [...] ▪ and we have ren­dred it accordingly. Vales. and moreover, ma­ny monstrous and inhumane men, and beasts that were prodigious and compounded of several kinds, of which Nature produced new forms. Upon this account, he ended his life in a manner answerable to his madness.

This Character Gregorius has given us con­cerning Julianus. Moreover, that in those ma­ny Books (in the compiling whereof they im­ployed themselves,) they have attempted to vio­late the truth, by perverting some passages of the sacred Scriptures, by making insertions in other some, and by explaining all things agreeable to their own design; Many of the Antients have undertaken to refute Porphyrius and Julianus's books against the Christians. Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris wrote books a­gainst Porphyrius. Cyrillus wrote against Julian; which books of Cyrillus's are still extant, but are not extraordinarily acute. Vales. many persons have demonstrated in their answers to them, who have also overturned and con­futed their Fallacies. But, a­bove all other [Ecclesiastick Writers,] In what books Origen has ex­plained such passages in sacred Writ as might trouble the Rea­ders, and has confuted the falla­cious arguments brought against the Christian Religion▪ 'tis hard to assert. For, in his books against Celsus, he has in no wise done this. Nor, was it his design in that work, to explain those passages in the sacred Scripture, which had any difficulty in them, but only to answer Celsus's objections. Per­haps, Socrates does mean Origens [...]. For in those books Ori­gen shewed the congruity of the o­pinions of our Religion with those of the Philosophers, as Jerom in­forms us in his Epistle to Magnus the Oratour. In order to his effe­cting of this, 'twas requisite for O­rigen to expound those places of Scripture, which seemed to con­tradict the sentiments of the Phi­losophers. Vales. Origen, (who lived long before Julianus's times,) by raising objecti­ons against himself from such passages in the sacred Scri­pture as seemed to disturb the Readers, and after that by clearing of them, has put a stop to the fallacious ca­vills and verbose niceties of ill-affected persons. Which works of his had Julianus and Porphyrius perused care­fully, and given them a can­did reception, undoubtedly they would have turned their discourses to some other sub­ject, and would not have applied their minds to the writing of fallacies stuft with impiety and blasphemy. That the Emperour made it his business to cavil in his dis­courses before ignorant and the simpler sort of men, not in their presence who retain a representation of the truth taken from the sacred Scriptures; is evident from hence: For, having pickt out as many expressions as upon ac­count of necessity are by way of dispensation used concerning God in a more humane manner, and put them and many such like phrases all together; at length he subjoynes these very words; Every one of these expressions therefore (unless the phrase contains in it some secret and occult sense and mea­ning, which I suppose,) is stuft with a deal of Blasphemy against God. Thus much he has said in express words, in his Third Book against the Christians. And in that Book of his, to which he gave this title He mean [...] his book against He­raclius the Cynick; the title whereof is, [...], the way of living like a Cynick. For, in the 403 pag. of that book, this passage here quoted occurs. Vales. Concerning the Cynick Phyloso­phy, declaring after what manner sacred Fables [Page 302] ought to be feigned, he says, that in such things as these Truth must be concealed: these are his very words: For Nature loves concealment: and the hidden substance of the Gods cannot endure to be thrown into polluted ears in bare and naked words. From these words 'tis apparent, that the Emperour had this sentiment concerning the di­vine Scriptures, [to wit,] that they were my­stical. Discourses, containing in them an abstruse sense and meaning. Moreover, he is very angry, because all men do not entertain the same opinion concerning them; and inveighs against those per­sons amongst the Christians, who take the sacred Oracles in their plain and obvious sense. But, it was not decent to rail in such a manner against the simplicity of the Vulgar, nor upon their ac­count to use such insolence towards the sacred Scriptures: nor yet, to hate and have an aversion for In the Sfortian M. S. the reading here is [...]. But I am better plea­sed with my former conjecture, which was to read it thus, [...], those things which are rightly understood by o­thers. Although, the reading may be barely thus, [...], those things which are rightly understood. For the word [ [...]] crept in hither, from the following line. Vales. those things which are rightly understood by others, because all persons under­stood them not, as he had a mind they should. But now, the same accident seems to have befal'n him, which hapned to Porphyrius. For he, having been beaten by some Christians at Caesarea in Palestine; and being un­able to master his passion, in a great fury [...] in the Floren­tine M. S. the reading is [...], he deserted. Nicephorus (book 10. chap. 36. Eccles. Hist.) words it thus, [...], abjured. Vales. relinquished the Christian Religion: and out of his hatred towards those that had beaten him, he fell to writing Blasphe­mous Books against the Christians; as Eusebius Pamphilus has manifestly made it out against him, who has clearly confuted his Books. But the Emperour, having uttered disdainfull expressions against the Christians in the presence of unthinking persons, through the same distemper of mind fell into Porphyrius's Blasphemy. Since therefore both these persons voluntarily [deserted the truth and] brake out into impiety, they are punished by the very knowledge and conscious­ness of their own crime. Further, whereas Li­banius the Sophista in derision to the Christians does say, that they make a man of Palestine God and the Son of God; in my opinion he seems to have forgot, that he himself has deified Julianus at the close of his Oration. For they almost stoned to death (says he) the first messenger of his death, as if he had bely'd the God. Then, a little after­wards he adds these words, O Thou darling (says he) of the Daemons, Thou Disciple of the Daemons, Thou Assessor with the Daemons! Although Li­banius himself understood this otherwise; yet, in regard he avoided not the ambiguity of the term [Daemons,] which is [sometimes] taken in an ill sense, he seems to have said the same which the Christians usually do in their reproaches. Where­fore, had it been his design to have commended the Emperour, he ought to have shun'd an am­biguous term; as he did avoid another word; for which being reproacht, he afterwards raz'd it out of his Orations. Moreover, how man in Christ may be said to be God, and how he was apparently man but invisibly God; and after what manner both these assertions are infallibly true, the Divine Books of the Christians do evi­dently shew. But the Heathens, before they be­lieve, cannot understand. For 'tis the Oracle of God which saith, that See Esai. 7. 9. Socra­tes quotes the words of the Se­ptuagint; and we render it according­ly. If ye will not believe, sure­ly you shall not understand. Wherefore, they are not ashamed to deify many men; and I wish at least they had been men good as to their morals, just, and sober; and not rather impure, unjust, and persons addicted to drunkenness: I mean, the Hercules's, Bacchus's, and Aesculapius's, by whom Libanius blushes not to swear frequently in his Orations. Whose Sodomies and Adulteries should I give a particular account of, my discourse there­of would be long and a tedious digression. Those that are desirous of information about these things, will find a satisfactory account thereof in Concer­ning Ari­stotles Pe­plum, see what the Learned Guillelmus Canterus has re­markt. Vales. Ari­stotles Peplum, It should be Diony­sius, not Di­onysus. 'Tis hard to say, who this Diony­sius was, who wrote a book with this title. I am of opinion, it was Dionysius Milesius; who (as Suidas attests) wrote [...], an Hi­storical Circle; For [...] and [...] are the same. Vales. Dionysius's Corona, Suidas relates, that Reginus Grammaticus wrote a book with this title, Polymnemων. Vales. Rheginus's Polymnemωn, and in the crowd of the Poets: who by writing concerning these things, do demon­strate to all men, that the Heathen Theology is trifling and ridiculous. Further, that 'tis the pe­culiar practise of the Heathens and a thing usual amongst them, with great readiness to deifie men, 'twill be sufficient to advertize you by a few in­stances. To the Rhodians (who consulted the Oracle upon their being faln into a calamitous distress,) an answer was given, that they should worship Attis the Phrygian, an Heathen Priest who instituted mad ceremonies in Phrygia. The contents of the Oracle are these.

Appease
That Attis is the same per­son with Bacchus, Clemens Alexandrinus also does inform us (in his Protrepticon) in these words: [...], upon which account some will have Attis, deprived of his Genitals, not unfitly termed Bacchus. Demosthenes, in his Oration pro Coron [...] [...], i. e. and shouting Euoi Saboi [these were the usual acclamations of those celebrating Bacchus's Feasts] and triumphing in words, Hues Attis. Which words of Domosthenes's Harpocration supposed were meant of Attis the Phrygian. But some of the Antients, read not in that place of Demosthenes, Attis, but Ates, which is an Additional name to Bacchus, as is also [...]. See the Au­thour of the Etymologicon in the term [...] and [...]. Vales.
Attis, the great God, chast Adonis,
The Doner of a prosperous Life, and happiness,
The beautifully-hair'd Bacchus.

The Oracle calls Attis (who by reason of his Love-madness castrated himself,) Adonis, and Bacchus. And when Alexander King of the Ma­cedonians passed over into Asia, the Amphicty­ones made him presents, and Pythia uttered this Oracle.

Adore the supream God Jove,
And Minerva Tritogenia,
The King concealed in a mortal Body,
Whom Jove has begotten
Instead of [ [...], of a race most incomparably the best] the reading (as the rule of verse requires) should be [ [...], of a race ineffa­ble.] Vales.
of a race ineffable,
Mortals Defender of Equity, King Alexander.

These are the words of the Oracle which the Daemon uttered at Delphos: He himself, when he would flatter Potentates, Deified them. And this was perhaps done meerly out of flattery. But, what shall we say concerning Cleomedes the Cham­pion, whom they have made a God, and uttered this Oracle concerning him.

The last of the Hero's, Cleomedes Astypalaeus.
Him worship with sacrifices, as being no longer a Mortal.

[Page 303]Upon account of this Oracle, Diogenes the Cynick, and Oenomaus a Cynick Philoso­sopher, ha­ving been deluded by Apol­lo's Ora­cle, resol­ved to re­venge him­self; and wrote a book con­cerning the falseness of Oracles, to which he gave this title, [...], i. e. A dis­covery of Cozeners: this Euse­bius tells us from Porphyrius, in his fifth book De Praeparat. Vales. Oenomaus the Philosopher con­demned Apollo Pythius. The Inhabitants of Cy­zicum have declared Adrianus to be the thir­teenth God. And Adrianus himself has deified Antinous his own That is, his favorite whom he kept to a­buse contra­ry to nature. Catamite. These things Libanus does not term ridicu­lous, and meer trifles; although he very well knew these Oracles, and that single Book, which Musculus and Christophorson took [ [...]] to be a proper name. Langus (in his notes on Niceph. book 10. chap. 36.) was of opinion, that instead of Adrias, it should be Adrianus. Indeed, the word Adrias is not to be endured. For no body was ever called by that name. Therefore Nicephorus, instead of [ [...]] substituted this word [ [...]] very erroneously. In this place Socrates means that book of Lucian's, which has this title, [...], Alex­ander or The false Prophet. In which book Lucian describes the frauds and impostures of one Alexander a Paphlagonian, who had craftily forged an Oracle. Wherefore instead of [...] (or [...], as 'tis in the Florentine M. S.) it must be Lucianus. Unless we should say, that Socrates mistook, and ascribed this book to one Adrianus, or Arrianus. Vales. Adrias wrote concerning the Life of Alexan­der. Before these words I placed a full▪point, following herein Nice­phorus's authority. Moreover, the reading should be [ [...], nor is he himself ashamed.] Vales. Nor is he himself ashamed to Deifie Por­phyrius. For his words are these, May the Ty­rian be propitious to me, whose Books he pre­ferred before the Emperours. Let thus much suffice to have been said by us by way of di­gression, upon account of the Sophista's scof­fing and reproaches. I thought fit to omit the rest, which requires a particular Treatise. We must now subjoyn the remaining part of our Hi­story.

CHAP. XXIV. That the Bishops flockt from all places to Jovianus, every one of them hoping they should induce him to embrace their own Creed.

AFter Jovianus's return out of Persia, the Ec­clesiastick commotions were again renewed. For the Prelates of the Churches made it their business to prevent one another, each of them ex­pecting, that the Emperour would give his assent to their Creed. But he had from the beginning adhered to the Homoöusian Faith; and openly declared, that he preferred that Creed before all others. And by his Letters he encourages A­thanasius Bishop of Alexandria, who immediately after Julianus's death, had recovered the Alex­andrian Church. But, being then made more con­fident and couragious by the Emperours Letters, he was freed from fear on all hands. The Em­perour likewise recalled those Bishops, who had been banished by Constantius, and had not pro­cured their own revocation by Julianus. More­over, all the Heathen Temples were then shut up. And [the Daemon Priests] themselves abscon­ded, some in one place, some in another. The [...], The Pal­lium-wea­rers. Philosopers also laid aside their Palliums, and cloathed themselves in the common and ordinary habit. Likewise, that He seems to mean the Tauro­bolia and Criobolia, after the undertaking whereof, the Pagans be­lieved they were eternally regenerated; as the old inscriptions in­form us. This whole ceremony is incomparably well described at large by Prudentius; in the passion of Romanus the Martyr; pag. 255, &c. Edit. Basil. It was in short thus: The Priest to be consecrated, being habited in his sacerdotal Vestments, (adorned with a Crown of Gold and wrapt about with a silken Gown,) was put into a deep Pit dug into the earth. Over this Pit an Altar [...]ade of planks was erected, through which many holes were boared. upon this Altar a great Bull was laid, adorned with Garlands; and his horns were guilded: his breast they divided with a consecrated Weapon. A stream of recking bloud gushing immediately out of the large wound, flowed upon the boarded Altar, and running through the holes made therein, rained down upon the Priest inclosed under the boards; who catcht the shower of gore by putting his head under the falling drops; wherewith he besmeared his garments, and his whole body. See Prudentius, ut supr [...]. Publick pollution caused by the bloud [of sacrifices,] which they had celebrated in Julianus's Reign even to loath­somness, was then taken away.

CHAP. XXV. That the Macedonians and Acacians, meeting to­gether at Antioch, confirmed the Nicene Creed.

BUt the affairs of the Christians were in no wise in a sedate posture. For the princi­pal heads of every party made their It must be [...], which has the same import with [...], ap­proaches, or addresses. [...] signi­fies another thing, to wit, Pro­gressus, proceedings. Vales. addresses to the Emperour, supposing they should obtain from him power and authority against those by them reputed to be their adversaries. And in the first place, those termed Macedoniani present a Libel to him, requesting that they who asserted the Son to be unlike the Father, might be ejected out of the Churches, and themselves put into their places. The persons who presented this Suppli­catory Libel, were Basilius [Bishop] of Ancyra, Silva­nus of Tarsus, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, Pasinicus of Instead of [ [...], Zeni] it should be [ [...], Zelae] ac­cording as Epiphan. Scholasticus read it. Zelae or Zela is a Town of Cappadocia, as Pliny and others do affirm. Basilius mentions this place in his 72 Epist. ad Evae [...]e­nos; and in Epist. 73. ad Monachos suos. Vales. Zelae, Leontius of Comani, Callicrates of Claudiopolis, and Theophilus of Castabali. The Emperour having re­ceived their Libel, sent them away without an answer. He exprest himself only thus to them: I abominate (said he) Contentiousness: But I Love and Honour those that are [...], those that hasten towards, &c. desirous of Unity and Concord. When these expressions were divulged in the hearing of the other parties, they mollified the stiffness of those who were de­sirous of Contention. And this fell out agreeable to the Emperours intent and design. Moreover, the contentious disposition of the Acacians was then also clearly manifested, and they evidently demonstrated their continual usage of complying with their sentiments who were vested with the supream power. For, meeting together at An­tioch in Syria, they entred into discourse with Melitius, who having separated from them a little before, had embraced the Homoöusian opi­nion. And this they did, in regard they saw Me­litius was highly esteemed by the Emperour, who then resided at Antioch. Having therefore made a profession of the Homoöusian opinion, and con­firmed the Nicene Creed, by a general consent they drew up a Libel, which they presented to the Emperour. The Contents whereof are these.

To the most Pious and most Dear to God, Our Lord JOVIANUS VICTOR AUGUSTUS, The SYNOD of Bishops present at ANTIOCH, Assem­bled out of divers Provinces.

Even we our selves are fully satisfied, most Pious Emperour, that your Piety has in the first place studied to Assert and Constitute the Peace and Unity of the Church. Nor are [...] insensible, that You have rightly judged a Draught of the true and Orthodox Faith to be the Head and Fountain of this Unity. Wherefore, that we may not be reputed [Page 304] of their number who adulterate the Doctrine of truth, we declare to Your Piety, that we do embrace and firmly adhere to the Creed of the holy Synod heretofore convened at Nicaea. Especially, since that term therein, which to some seems The term [ [...], new or unusu­al] was added by Christo­phorson out of Nice­phorus. For, in the Kings M. S. (which Robert Ste­thens fol­lowed,) and in the Florent▪ and Sfor­tian M. SS. this word is wanting. Nor did E­piphanius Scholasti­cus meet with it in his Copy, as 'tis ap­parent from his Version. For thus he renders it: Quando etiam Consubstantialitatis nomen, quod aliter se quibusdam habere videtur, dicimus cautam interpretationem a patribus excepisse. Vales. new and unusual, (we mean the term Homoöusios,) has with Caution been explained by the Fathers; so, as to denote, that the Son was begotten of the Fa­thers substance, and that he is like the Father as to his substance. Not, as if any passion were to be understood in relation to that inexplicable Ge­neration: nor, is the term▪ Ousia taken by the Fa­thers according to any usual signification of it a­mongst the Grecians; but, ['tis made use of] in order to the subversion of what has been impiously and audaciously asserted by Arius concerning Christ, [to wit,] that he existed of things which are not. Which [Tenet] the Anomaeans, who are newly sprung up, do with a far greater boldness and audaciousness impudently assert, to the utter ruine of Ecclesiastick unity. Wherefore, we have annexed to this our Declaration a Copy of that Creed set forth by the Bishops convened at Nicaea, which we also embrace. It is this, We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and We remarked before (Socrat. book 1. chap. 8. note (a.) that the term [...], is by the Greeks used to signifie the Creed, be­cause 'twas commonly learnt by heart. But, the word [...] is useless here. In my judgment, it would be placed better after these words [ [...],] thus, [...], It is this in full. Vales. all the rest of the Creed.

Here fol­low the names of those Bi­shops who presented and con­sented to this Li­bel. I Meletius Bishop of Antioch have presented [this Libel,] and do give my consent to what is above written. [And so do I] Eusebius of Sa­mosata, Evagrius of In the Sfortian M. S. it is [ [...] Siculi,] which reading is truer than [ [...], Sicclus.] It is the name of a City Situate in the East, concerning which I have yet met with nothing. Amongst the Bishops of the Acacian party who subscribed the Seleucian Synod, Evagrius of Mitilene, of the Province of the Islands, is recounted. Vales. Siculi, Uranius of Apamaea, Zoilus of Larissa, Acacius of Caesarea, Antipater of Rhosus, Abramius of Urimi, Aristonicus of Se­leucia upon Belus, This is neither a Greek, nor a Latine name. In the Tripartite-History it is Barbabentus. Vales. Barlamenus of Pergamus, U­ranius of Melitina, Magnus of Chalcedon, Eu­tychius of Eleutheropolis, Epiphanius Scholasticus terms him Isacius. He seems to be the same person with him that is called I [...]saces in Basilius's 69 Epistle, which is the Synodick Epistle of the Antiochian Council under Me­letius. He is recounted between Cosroës and Narses. Vales. Isacoces of Armenia The Great, Titus of Bostra, Petrus of Upon my warrant, make it Hippi. This Petrus was Bishop of Hippi, a Province of Palestine. He subscribed the Seleucian Synod, together with the others of the Acacian party here recounted, to wit, Zoïlus of Larissa, Eutychianus of Eleutheropolis; as you may read in Epiphanius, in Haeres. Semiarian. Hippos was a Town in Palestine, thirty Stadium's distant from Tiberias; Josephus mentions it in his own Life. Vales. Sippi, Pelagius of Laodicaea, In Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version he is called Arabianus Adren­ [...]is, very right. For this is the Arabianus, or Arabion, Bishop of the Adraï, who subscribed the Seleucian Synod, amongst the Bishops of the Acacian party, as Epiphanius relates in Heres. Semiarian. Where he is placed after Exeresius Bishop of Gerast, and next before Charisius Bishop of Azotus. Adra, or Adraon, is a City of Arabia▪ under the Bishoprick of Bostra, as Guillelmus Tyrius informs us. 'Tis certain, Uranius Bishop of Adra is reckoned amongst the Bishops of the Pro­vince of Arabia in the first Constantinopolitan-Synod. But, in the fifth Constantinopolitan-Synod, one Dorymenius is counted Bishop of Adra. Vales. Arabianus of Antros, Piso of Adani, by I should rather write it Lamurio, agreeable to Epipha­nius Scho­lasticus; for 'tis a name formed [...], which signifies Talka­tive. A little after this, instead of A [...]etius, the said Epiphanius reads Aëtius; and so I found it written in the Florentine M. S. Vales. Lamydrion the Presbyter, Sa­binianus of Zeugma, Athanasius of Ancyra, by Orphitus and Aëtius Presbyters, This person is mentioned by Marcus the Deacon, in his Life of Por­phyrius Bishop of Gaza, which you have in Surius. Vales. Irenius of Gaza, Piso of Augusta, Patricius of Paltus, by Lamyrion the Presbyter, Anatolius of Be­roea, Theotimus of Arabi, Lucianus Arcenus. We found this Libel recorded in that work of Sabinus's, entitled A Collection of Synodick Acts. Moreover, the Emperour had taken this reso­lution with himself, that by kind words and per­swasives he would extirpate the contentiousness of the disagreeing parties; and he declared that he would not create trouble to any person of what belief soever he were of: but that he would love and highly value such as should be the prin­cipal promoters of the Churches Unity. That these things were after this manner done by him, Themistius the Philosopher does also attest. For in the Oration he composed upon his Consulate, he admires the Emperour, Instead of [ [...]] it should be [ [...]] and we have rendred it according­ly. Vales. for his allowing every person a free liberty of worshipping the Deity in such a manner as he desired; whereby he repressed the humours of flatterers. Upon whom he made very facetious reflections, saying, 'tis experimentally known, that they worship the Purple, not God; and that such persons differ not from the Euripus, which sometimes throws its Waves this way, at others the quite con­trary.

CHAP. XXVI. Concerning the Death of the Emperour Jovianus.

AFter this manner did the Emperour at that time repress their fury, who made it their business to cavill and contend. Departing im­mediately from Antioch, he went to Tarsus in Cilicia, where he buried Julianus's Body. Having performed all the Solemnities of his Funeral, he is declared Consul. Designing to go directly from thence to Constantinople, he arrived at a place, the name whereof is Dadastana; it is Situate in the Frontiers of Galatia and Bithynia. There The­mistius the Philosopher (with others of the Se­natorian Order,) met him, and recited his Con­sular Oration before him, which he afterwards spoke in the presence of the people at Constan­tinople. Indeed, as well the Civill, as Ecclesi­astick affairs of the Roman Empire, being blest with so good an Emperour, would have been managed fortunately and successfully; had not a sudden death ravish't so eminent a personage from the publick. For, being seized with a distemper [termed] an Obstruction, in Win­ter time, he ended his life at the fore mentioned place, in his own and his Son Varronianus's Con­sulate, upon the seventeenth of February. Having Reigned seaven months, and lived thirty three years. This Book contains the [transactions of affairs during the] space of two years and five months.

THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.

CHAP. I. That, after Jovianus's death, Valentinianus is Pro­claimed Emperour, who made his Brother Valens his Colleague in the Empire. And, that Valen­tinianus was a Catholick, but Valens an A­rian.

THE Emperour Jovianus having en­ded his life (as we have declared) at Dadastana, in his own and his Son Varronianus's Consulate, on the seventeenth of February; the Souldiers departing from Galatia, on the seventh day after came to Nicaa in Bythinia, where by a general suffrage they proclaim Valentinianus Emperour, on the five and twentieth of Febru­ary, I doubt not, but instead of [ [...], in his Con­sulate] Socrates wrote [ [...], in the same Con­sulate;] that is, in the Con­sulate of Jovianus Augustus and Varronianus that noble young Prince, his Son. Vales. in the same Consu­late. By original extract he was a Pannonian, born at the City Cibalis. Having been entrusted with the leading of an Army, he had given a demonstration of his great skill in That is, in Marshalling of an Army. Tacticks▪ He was a personage of a large soul, and always appeared supe­riour Or, to his present for­tune. to that degree of honour he had arrived at. When therefore they had created him Em­perour, He went immediately to Constantinople, and thirty days after his being proclaimed, he makes his Brother Valens his Colleague in the Empire. They were both Christians, but they disagreed about the Faith of the Christian Re­ligion. For Valentinianus had a veneration for the Creed of the Nicene Synod: but Valens, by reason of a prepossession, adhered rather to the Arian opinion. The reason of this his preposses­sion was, because he had been baptized by Eu­doxius [Bishop] of Constantinople, a Prelate of the Arian Religion. Both of them entertained a warmth and ardency for that Religion which each adhered to: and yet after they came to the Empire, they differed one from the other very much, in their dispositions. For formerly, in the Reign of Julianus, (when Valentinianus was Tribune of the Souldiers, and Valens had a Mili­tary employ in the Emperours Guards) each of them gave a demonstration of the zeal they had for their Religion: For being compelled to sa­crifice, they chose to leave their Military em­ployments, rather than relinquish Christianity. But, at that time the Emperour Julianus, know­ing them to be persons usefull to the Publick, re­moved neither of them from their Military pre­ferment; nor yet Jovianus, who was his Suc­cessour in the Empire. But, being afterwards promoted to the Empire, That is, Valentini­anus, and Valens. they were at first like to one another, as to their care about the management of the publick affairs; but they dif­fered (as I have said) about the Christian Re­ligion, and behaved themselves after a disagreeable manner towards the Christians. For Valentini­anus did indeed favour such persons as embraced his own sentiments; but he was not in the least troublesome to the Arians. But Valens, desirous to promote the Arians, did most grievously dis­quiet and disturb those who differed in opinion from them; as the procedure of our History will evidence. At that very time, Liberius presided over the Roman Church: at Alexandria Athanasius [was Bishop] of the Homoöusians; and Lucius of the Arians, whom▪ the Arians had constituted Georgius's successour. Euzoïus presided over the Arians at Antioch. Those of the Homoöusian opinion in that City, were divided into two parties, Paulinus headed the one party, and Me­litius the other. Cyrillus was again put into pos­session of the Church at Jerusalem. The Go­vernment of the Churches at Constantinople was in the hands of Eudoxius, an assertour of the Arian opinion: the Homoöusians kept their as­semblies in a little Oratory within that City. Those of the Macedonian Heresie, who had I am of the same mind with Christo­phorson, who in­stead of [ [...], had declared for the Acacians] read [ [...] had dissented from the Aca­cians.] Which reading I have followed in my Version. The reading may be [ [...] separated from] which is perhaps truest. Nicephorus has altered this passage of Socrates thus, [...], asserting the same things with the Acacians,] which is worst of all. Vales. dis­sented from the Acacians at Seleucia, at that time retained their Churches in every City. In this posture were the affairs of the Church at that time.

CHAP. II. That Valentinianus went into the Western parts [of the Empire,] and Valens resided at Con­stantinople, who, upon the Macedonians ad­dress to him that a Synod might be convened, granted their request. And that he persecu­ted the Homoousians.

BUt, the one of the Emperours, to wit, Valentinianus, went forthwith into the Western parts [of the Empire.] For the care of the publick affairs Or, drew him thither. necessarily required his presence there. But Valens, after he had resided a little while at Constantinople, had an address made to him by most of the Bishops of the Ma­cedonian Heresie, who requested another Synod might be convened, in order to the amendment of the Or, Faith. Greed. The Emperour, supposing they embraced the same sentiments with Acacius and Eudoxius, permitted it to be done. And so these persons made it their business to assemble a Sy­nod in the City Lampsacus. But Valens went with all speed possible towards Antioch in Syria, fea­ring least the Persians should break the League they had entred into for thirty years in the Reign of Jovianus, and invade the Roman Territories. But the Persians were quiet. Which calm Va­lens made an ill use of, and raised an irrecon­cileable War against those who embraced the Ho­moöusian opinion. He did indeed no harm to Paulinus the Bishop▪ by reason of that persons exemplary and eminent Piety. But he punished Melitius with Exile. He drove all others, who refused to communicate with Euzoïus, from the Churches in Antioch, and subjected them to losses and various punishments. 'Tis said, that he drowned many persons in the River Orontes which runs by that City.

CHAP. III. That, whilst Valens Persecuted those who em­braced the Homoöusian opinion in the East, there arose a Tyrant at Constantinople, [by name] Procopius. And that at the same time an Earthquake hapned, and an inundation of the Sea, which ruined many Cities.

WHilst Valens did these things in Syria, there arose a Tyrant at Constantinople, by name Procopius. He got together a great force in a short time, and made preparations for an expedition against the Emperour. This being told to the Emperour, put him into a very great Agony, which for a little while represt the fury of his Persecution against the Catholicks. In the interim that the disquietude of a Civil War was with pangs expected, an Earthquake hapning ruined many Cities. The Sea also altered its own boundaries. For, in some places it overflow­ed so much, that Vessells might Sail, where there was a foot passage before. And it departed from other places in such a manner, that they were found to be dry ground. And this hapned in the first Consulate of the two Emperours.

CHAP. IV. That there being a disturbance in the Secular as well as the Ecclesiastick State of affairs, the Ma­cedonians, having convened a Synod at Lamp­sacus, did again confirm the Antiochian Creed, and Anathematized that [published] at Ari­minum, and did again ratifie the deposition of Acacius and Eudoxius.

THese things hapning to be thus, neither the Civil, nor the Ecclesiastick State of affairs was in a sedate posture. Those therefore who had requested of the Emperour a power of con­vening a Synod, met at Lampsacus in the same Consulate [which I have even now mentioned.] This was the seventh year from the Synod which had been assembled at Seleucia. Having again confirmed the This Creed oc­curs in So­crates's Eccles. Hi­stor. Book. 2. chap. 10. Antiochian Creed there, to which they had subscribed at Seleucia, they Anathema­tize that Creed published at Ariminum by those [Bishops] with whom they had heretofore a­greed in opinion: and again condemned Acacius's and Eudoxius's party, as having been justly de­posed. Eudoxius Bishop of Constantinople could not in any wise contradict these determinations; for the Civil War, which was imminent, per­mitted him not to revenge himself of them. Wherefore, Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum and his Adherents, were at that time for some little while the stronger party, in regard they asserted that termed Macedonius's opinion, Musculus and Chri­stophorson have ren­dred these words [ [...]] Paulo antea, a lit­tle before; as if it had been [ [...].] I am of the opinion; that this place is faulty, and by a small change is thus to be restored: [...], which before had a very mean repute, but was then [...]ndred more con­spicuous and better known in the Synod at Lampsacus. He speaks con­cerning Macedonius's Heresie, which hitherto (says he) had been obscure and unknown: but then, in the Synod of Lampsacus, it be­came most apparently known. I doubt not but Socrates wrote agree­able to my emendation. Concerning this Synod of Lampsacus, see Baronius, at the year of Christ, 365. Vales. which before had a very mean repute, but was then rendred more conspicuous and better known in the Synod at Lampsacus. I suppose this Synod to have been the reason, why those termed the Macedo­niani are so numerous in the Hellespont. For Lampsacus is Scituate in a narrow Bay of the Hellespont. This was the conclusion of the Synod of Lampsacus.

CHAP. V. That, an engagement hapning about a City of Phry­gia between the Emperour [Valens] and the Tyrant Procopius, the Emperour took the Ty­rant by the treachery of his Commanders, and put him and them to death, by insticting new and unusual punishments upon them.

ON the year following, wherein G [...]d [...]ianus and Or, Da­galaïphus. Dagalaïfus were Consul [...], [...]. Epiphanius renders it; bella para­bantur, the War was prepared. Christo­phorson, following the sense, rather than the words, translates it, Bellum gets c [...]ptum est, the War was begun to be waged. But, in order to the expressing the significa­tiveness and propriety of the Greek phrase, it must be rendred, Bel­la incubuerunt, or, belli vis grassata est; the War was with all dili­gence taken in hand, or, the force of the War raged. Vales. the War was in good earnest begun. For when the Ty­rant Procopius, having removed from Constan­tinople, was upon the March with his Army to­wards the Emperour: Valens, informed thereof, hastens from Antioch, and engages Procopius [...]eer a City of Phrygia, the name whereof is Nacolia. In the first encounter he was worsted. But, not long after, he took Procopius alive, Agilo [...] and Gomoarius his Commanders having betrayed him▪ upon [all] whom Valens inflicted new and un­usual punishments. For, disregarding the Oathes [Page 307] he had bound himself in to the Traitours, Ammi­anus Mar­cellinus re­lates no such thing concerning Agilo and Gomoarius Procopius's Captaines. He does indeed affirm, that they revolted to Valens's side, but says not, that they were cut in sunder with Saws. Marcel­linus gives us this narrative only, (See Amm. Marcellinus, book 26. pag. 328, 329, Edit. Paris. 1636.) that the Tribunes Florentius and Barchalba, after the sight at Nacolia, delivered Procopius bound to Valens. And, that Procopius was immediately beheaded; and Flo­rentius and Barchalba soon after underwent the same punishment. Therefore, what Socrates relates here concerning Agilo and Gomoä­rius, and concerning Procopius's being torn in sunder, is false. Phi­lostorgius also, in his ninth book, relates that Procopius was be­headed, and that Florentius, who delivered him to Valens, was burnt. Vales. he put them to death by cutting them in sunder with Saws. And, having bound each of the Tyrants legs to two trees standing neer one another, which were bowed down, This place is corrupted, as 'tis evident. In my judgment, 'tis thus to be restored: [...]; and we have rendred it accordingly. Vales. he afterwards permitted the bended trees to erect themselves. By the rise whereof Procopius was torn in sunder. And thus the Tyrant, rent into two pieces, ended his Life.

CHAP. VI. That, after the death of the Tyrant, the Emperour forced those who had been present at the Synod, and all the Christians, to embrace Arius's Opinion.

THe Emperour, having at that time been fortu­nate and successfull in that action, began im­mediately to disquiet the Christians, being desirous to bring over all persons to Arianism. But he was in a more especial manner incensed against the Synod which had been convened at Lampsacus, not only because it had deposed the Arian Bi­shops, but in regard that Draught of the Creed published at Ariminum, had been Anathematized there. Being therefore come to Nicomedia in Bithynia, he sent for Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum to him. This Prelate had more closely adhered to Macedonius's opinion, as I have said be­fore. Wherefore the Emperour, having con­vened a Synod of Arian Bishops, compelled E­leusius to give his assent to their Faith. At first he denied to do it. But when he was threatned with Banishment and Proscription of his Goods, being terrified he gave his assent to the Arian opinion. He repented immediately that he had consented. And returning to Cyzicum, in the presence of all the people he complained of his being forc't, saying, that he had given his assent by compulsion, not voluntarily: he also advised them to seek out for another Bishop, because he had been compelled to renounce his own opi­nion. But the inhabitants of Cyzicum, by rea­son of that great love and affection they had for him, refused to be subject to another Bishop, nor would they permit any other [to govern] their Church. They continued therefore under his presidency, and would in no wise recede from their own Heresie.

CHAP. VII. That Eunomius, having ejected Eleusius the Ma­cedonian, was made Bishop of Cyzicum. And concerning Eunomius's original, and that ha­ving been Or, No­tary. Amanuensis to Aëtius [sirnamed] Atheus, he imitated him.

WHen the Bishop of Constantinople heard this, he prefers Eunomius to the Bisho­prick of Cyzicum, in regard he was a person able by his eloquence to draw [the minds of] the multitude to his own Lure. Upon his arrival at Cyzicum, an Imperial Edict was published, by which order was given, that Eleusius should be ejected, and Eunomius installed. This being done, those of Eleusius's party, having erected an Ora­tory without the City, celebrated their assem­blies therein. Let thus much be said concerning Eleusius. We must now give an account of Eu­nomius. Eunomius had been Amanitensis to Aë­tius, surnamed Atheus, of whom we have made mention See So­crates, book 2. chap. 35. before. Conversing with him, he imi­tated his Sophistick way of discoursing: addi­cting himself [to the use of] certain insignifi­cant and impertinent terms, and was insensible of his framing fallacious arguments in order to the deceiving of himself. Upon this account he was puf't up with pride, and fell into In the Florentine M. S. the reading is [ [...] into Blasphemies:] which is con­firmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version. Vales. Blasphemy, being in­deed a follower of Arius's opinion, but was various ways an adversary to the doctrines of truth. He had but a very mean skill in the sacred Scriptures, and was unable to understand their meaning. But he was very full of words, always making a re­petition of the same things over and over, but could not arrive at the design he had proposed to himself. His seven books which with a great deal of vain labour he wrote upon the Apostles Epistle to the Romans, are a demonstration hereof. For, although he has spent a great many words in the explanation thereof, yet he could in no wise The common reading is [ [...], apprehend the scope, or designe;] in the Florent. M. S. it is [ [...], compre­hend the designe.] Vales. apprehend the scope and design of that Epistle▪ Of the same sort are those other Books of his that be extant. Of which he that should be desirous to make tryal, would find a great scarcity of sense amidst a multitude of words. This Eu­nomius therefore was by Eudoxius Socrates has done ill, to place Eunomius's promotion to the Epis­copate of Cyzicum, in the Reign of Valens Augustus. For Eune­mius was made Bi­shop of Cyzicum under the Emperour Constantius, in that Synod of Constantinople, which was held immediately after the Synod of Seleucia, as Philostorgius does in express words affirm, book 5. chap. 3 and Theodoret, book. 2. chap. 27 & 29. Eccles. Histor. which two Authours have recorded Eunomius's affairs with a far greater accuracy, than Socrates has related them. 'Tis certain, that in Valens's Reign, Eunomius was banished by Valens; because he was reported to be a favourer of the Tyrant Procopius, as Philostorgius affirms. So un­likely is it, that he should have had the Bishoprick of Cyzicum then bestowed upon him. Sozomen has followed Socrates's mistake, in book 6. chap. 8. Eccles. Histor. Vales. preferred to the Bishoprick of Cyzicum. Instead of [ [...]] it should undoubtedly be [ [...], when he was come thither.] I wonder this was not perceived by Chrystophorson. For Epiphanius might have shown him the true reading, who renders it thus, cum illuc venisset, when he was arrived there. Vales. When he was come thither, by making use of his usual Dia­lectical art, he amazed his Auditours by his un­usual expressions, whereupon there arose a di­sturbance at Cyzicum. [At length] the inha­bitants of Cyzicum, not able to endure his arro­gant and haughty manner of expressing himself, drove him from their City. He went to Constan­tinople, where he made his abode with Eudoxius, and was [reputed a In Civil and Military offices, some persons were actually em­ployed in bearing of them; others were Vacantes, [that is, persons that had the title of such an Office, but were not actually concerned in the management of it; we may term them titular Officers:] who in the Code are said to be proecincti honore otiosi cinguli. So some Tribunos are termed Vacantes in Amm. Marcellinus, as I have remark't in my notes on that Historian. After the same manner those Bishops are termed Vacantes by our Socrates, who had the bare name of a Bishop, without a Church, without a Clergy and people, over whom they might preside. Of the same nature almost are those, who now a days are stiled Bi­shops in Infidel Countries, such a one therefore was Eunomius, when, being driven from Cyzicum, he resided with Eudoxius at Constantinople. Which hapned in Constantius's Empire, not in Valens's Reign, as So­crates here relates. Further, after Eunomius's expulsion, Eleusius ('tis probable) recovered his See again. Vales. Vacant Bishop. But, that [Page 308] we may not seem to have said these things upon account of calumny and reproach, hear Eunomius's own words, after what manner he takes the bold­ness to express himself in his Sophistick and fal­lacious assertions concerning God. For he says word for word thus. God knows no more than we do concerning his own substance. Nor is that more known to him, and less to us. But, what­ever we know concerning the divine substance, that is wholly known to God. And on the contrary, whatever he [knows,] the same you will without any difference find in us. These, and many other such like fallacies, Eunomius framed, being insen­sible [of his own errour.] But how he after­wards became a Separatist from the Arians, we will in due place relate.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning the Oracle, which was found cut upon a stone, when the Wall of Chalcedon was de­molished by reason of the Emperour Valens's an­ger.

BUt, the Emperour gave order, that the Walls of Chalcedon (a City Scituate over against Byzantium,) should be demolished For he had ob­lieged himself by Oath to do this (after he should have vanquished the Tyrant Procopius,) because the Chalcedonians, siding with the Tyrant, had shamefully Amm. Marcellinus relates, that Valens laid siege to Chalce­don, during his War with Pro­copius. At which siege the Inha­bitants of that City reviled him from the Walls, and contem­ptuously stiled him Sabaiarius, Small-bear-drinker. Sabaia (as Marcellinus describes it) was a small sort of Liquour made of Barly, very usually drank in Pannonia. In which Country Valens was born, (see Socrates book 4. chap. 1.) and therefore was, by way of reproach, called Sabaiarius, or Sabia­rius. That this was the Pannonians usual drink, Dio attests Lib. 49. where he says, that the Pannonians fed upon a very mean diet; that they had very little Wine, of Oyle; and that Barly and Millet was their food and drinke. See Amm. Marcellinus, book 26. pag. 325. Edit. Park. 1636; and Valesius's notes thereon, pag. 324. railed at and abused him, and had shut their gates upon him as he Instead of [ [...],] it should in my mind be [ [...],] as I have exprest it in my Version. But the Chalcedonians, because of that Revolt of theirs, were not only punished with the demolishment of their walls; but had this infamous brand also set upon them, viz. that no Chalcedonian should ever be preferred to any Office. Isidorus Pelusiota (book 1. Epist▪ 485;) does attest this, in these words: [...], the Law prohibits the Carthaginians from bearing any Office. On my peril make it [...], Chalcedonians. For the Carthaginians have no con­cern with this place, in regard they were not subjects of the Eastern Empire, concerning which Isidorus here speaks. Vales. passed by their City. The Wall therefore was by the Empe­rours order pulled down. And the stones were conveyed to the publick Baths of Constantinople, which are called Sozomen mentions these Baths, termed Constantianae, in his Eccles. Histor. book 8. chap. 21. They were in the Tenth Ward of the City Constantinople, as we are informed from the old description of that City. Also, Ammianus Marcellinus (book 3.) relates, that Valens built a Bath at Constantinople, of the stones of the walls of Chalcedon. But Cedrenus and Zonaras do affirm, that an Aquaeduct or Conduit, not a Bath, was built of those Stones. Which relations do not contradict one ano­ther. For an Aquaeduct is necessary for a Bath. It was doubtless a very famous work; whereof mention is made by Themistius, (in Oratione decennali ad Valentem,) and by Gregorius Nazianzenus in his 25th Oration; who very elegantly terms this Aquaeduct of Valens's, a Sub­terraneous and Aërial River. So also Themistius, in his Oration en­titled Ama [...]orium, or de Regi [...] pulchritudine ad Gratianum; the passage wherein I will so much the more willingly annex here, because the Ora­tion is not yet Printed: [...] &c. Moreover, in Socrates here, I had rather read Carosi­anae, than Constantianae. For the Baths called Constantianae were built by the Emperour Constantius, as their name does declare. But the Carosian [...] Baths were finished by Valens, and dedicated after Gra­tianus's third and Aequitius's Consulate, Vindalonius Magnus be­ing then Pr [...]sect of Constantinople, as 'tis recorded in Idatius's Fasti, and by the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle. They were named Carosianae from Carosia Valens's daughter, as Sozomen attests, book 6. And they were in the Seventh Ward of the City, as the description of Constantinople declares. Vales. Constantianae. There was a Prophecy found, cut on one of the stones, which had for a long time lain concealed, but was then discovered; signifying, that when the City should be furnished with plenty of water, then the Wall should serve for a Bath: and that nu­merous tribes of Barbarous Nations, having over­run the Provinces of the Roman Empire, and done a great deal of mischief, at length should them­selves also be destroyed. Nothing hinders, but we may here insert the Prophecy it self, in favour to such as are studious.

When Nymphs their mystick daunce with watry-feet
Shall tread through proud Byzantium's stately street;
When Rage the City-wall shall overthrow,
Whose Stones to fence a Bathing place shall go.
Then Savage Lands shall send forth num'rous swarms,
(Shining with Golden locks and burnish't Arms,)
Which having Ister's Silver streames o're past,
Shall Scythian Fields, and Moesia's Meadows wast:
But when, proud with success, they enter Thrace,
They'l meet their fate, and find a burial-place.

This was the Prophecy. But it afterwards hapned, that the Aquaeduct built by Valens, fur­nished the City with plenty of water: and then the Barbarous Nations made an insurrection, as we shall hereafter declare. This prediction, as it fell out, was by some persons taken in another sense. For when that Aquaeduct was brought into the City, This is the Clear­chus, who was after­wards Con­sul with Richome­res, in the Empire of Theodosius. Concerning whom Eunapius makes mention, in the Life of Maximus the Philosopher: and says that he had first been Vicarius of Asia in the Procopian War; and was after­wards made Proconsul of all Asia by Valens, for the eminent service he had done in the War with Procopius. Libanius has very many Epistles written to this Clearchus in his fourth and fifth book; wherein he com­mends him highly, and intimates that he had a Royal command over Asia. He was Prefect of Constantinople in the Consulate of Modestus and Arinthaeus, as we are informed from the Theodosian Code. Vales. Clearchus, being Praefect of the City, built a stately Cedrenus and Z [...]narus call it a Nymphaeum. But the Nymphaea are not the same with Baths, as 'tis apparent from the description of Constan­tinople. For the Nymphaea are the Nymph [...] Temples, w [...]tered with plea­sant Fountains; as I have long since remarkt in my notes on Am. Mar­cellinus, pag. 46. Vales. Bath, in that now called Theodosius's Forum: which Bath was named The plentifull water. Upon which account the City celebrated a Festival with great solemnity.

And this is that, say they, which is spoken of in the Prophecy, in these words,

—Their mystick daunce with watry feet
Shall tread through proud Byzantium's stately street.

But, what belonged to the completion of this Prophecy hapned sometime afterwards. At that time, when the Walls should have been pulled down, the Constantinopolitans entreated the Emperour to desist from demolishing of them. Also, [some of] the Inhabitants of Nicomedia and Nicaea came from Bithynia to Constantinople, and made the same request. The Emperour, being highly incensed, was with great difficulty induced to ad­mit of the suppliants Petition. But, that he might perform his Oath [wherein he had bound him­self,] he gave order, both that the Walls should be pulled down, and also that the breaches made by that demolishment should at the same time be [Page 309] repaired with other small stones. At this pre­sent therefore there is to be seen in some parts of the Wall, patches basely wrought up with very mean materials, laid upon vast and prodigions stones, which [patches] were at that time made. Let thus much be said concerning the Wall of Chalcedon.

CHAP. IX. That the Emperour Valens Persecuted the No­vatians also, who (in like manner as did the Catholicks) embraced the Homoöusian Faith.

BUt the Emperour desisted not from Perse­cuting those that embraced the Homoöusian opinion: but drove them from Constantinople; and together with them the Novatians also, in regard they owned the same sentiments with them: whose Churches he ordered to be shut up. And gave order, that their Bishop also, by name Agelius, should be punished with Banish­ment. He was a person, that had presided over their Churches from the times of Constantine, and had led an Apostolick life. For he always went bare foot, and made use of but one coat, obser­ving the command of the Gospel. But the Em­perours rage against the Novatians was stopt by a pious and also an Eloquent person, by name Marcianus. He had before born a Military employ in the Imperial Pallace, but was at that time a Presbyter of the Novatian Church, and taught Anastasia and Carosa, Valens's daughters, the Grammar; 'Tis false, what So­crates here says, that the Anasta­sian Baths at Constan­tinople had their name from Ana­stasia Va­lens's daughter, and were erected by Valens. They were built by Constantine The Great, and from his Sisters name were called the Anastasian Baths. Amm. Marcellinus tells us thus much, (book 26. pag. 320, Edit. Paris 1636.) Where he describes Procopius's Tyrannick design: his words are these; Idem Procopius diductus in cogitationes varias, Ana­siasianas Balneas Petit, a Sorore Constantini Cognominatas, the same Procopius, divided into various thoughts, went to the Anastasian Baths, which had their name from Constantines Sister. At which place in Amm. Marcellinus I have long since remark't in my notes thereon, that Anastasia, Constantines Sister, was married to Bassianus Caesar. After my publishing of those my notes on Amm. Marcellinus, there was a noble and Learned person in England, who found fault with this Annota­tion of mine, and has stifly denyed, that Bassianus was ever created Caesur. Upon what account therefore I was induced to affirm this, I will in short here declare. When the Emperour Constantine (after his conquest of Maxentius) had given his Sister Constantia in marriage to Licinius; quickly after that he returned into the Gallia's, and sent his Brother Constantius to Licinius, entreating him that Bassianus might be created Caesar; to which Bassianus, Anastasia, Constantines other Sister, was married. Sed Licinio talia frustrante, &c. that is, But when Licinius disappointed him as to those things, Bassianus (by the instigation of Senecio his Brother, who was his bosom-friend) takes up Arms against Constantine. Who being apprehended in the very attempt, was by Constantines order convicted and put to death. When Sinicius the Authour of this treachery, was demanded in order to his being punished; Licinius denying that, the agreement betwixt them was bro­ken. This passage occurs in the excerptione de Vita Constantini, which I heretofore published at the end of Amm. Marcellinus. From which words I draw these conclusions: (1) That Constantine treated with Licinius, in order to Bassianus's being created Caesar. (2) That Bas­sianus being sollicited by Licinius, did not only conspire against Con­stantine, but made War also against him. Bassianus therefore must of necessity [be allowed] to have played the Tyrant, and there­fore, to have by force assumed the Title of Caesar, which Constantine had thoughts of giving him, had Licinius consented. Being moved by these reasons, I have termed Bassianus, Caesar, whom notwithstanding I do acknowledge to have been a Tyrant, and do grant that he never was duely and Lawfully made Caesar. Moreover, in regard the Ana­stasian Baths were at Constantinople before Procopius's insurrection, (as we have shown from Amm. Marcellinus, it may be evidently concluded from thence, that they were not built by Valens, in re­gard at that time he was but newly made Emperour. Further, the reading here in Socrates should be thus [...] the publick Baths.] Vales. by whose names the publick Baths which Valens erected at Constantinople, yet standing, [were called.] Out of veneration therefore to this person, the Novatian Churches, which for some small time had been shut up, were opened again. But the Novatians were not per­fectly free from disturbances caused by the Arians. For they were hated by the Arians, because the Novatians loved and had an extraordinary kind­ness for the Homoöusians, with whom they a­greed in opinion. This was the posture of af­fairs at that time. Further, you are to know, that the war against the Tyrant Procopius was finished in the Consulate of Gratianus and Daga­laïfus, about the latter end of May.

CHAP. X. That the Emperour Valentinianus begat a son, who bore his Fathers name [to wit, Valenti­nianus;] he having begat [his son] Gratia­nus before his being created Emperour.

NOt long after this War, Socrates is grievously mistaken here. For Valentini­anus the Younger, who was born in the Consulate of Gratianus and Dagalaïphus, was not Valen­tinianus's, but Valens Augustus's Son. Idatius does expresly affirm this in his Fasti, in these words: Gratiano Nob. & Dagalaïso Consulibus, &c. In the Consulate of the most noble Gratianus, and Dagalaïsus, Valenti­nianus the Younger, Son to Valens Augustus, was born, on the fifteenth of the Calends of February. I know indeed, that in Jacobus Sirmon­dus's Edition of these Fasti, the common reading is, Filius Augusti Valentiniani, the Son of Valentinianus Augustus. But, in that most antient Manuscript belonging to the Colledge of Clermont, from which Sirmondus published these Fasti, I found it in express words written thus, Filius Augusti Valentis, the Son of Valens Augustus. Besides the testimony of these Fasti, it may be made evident by many other argu­ments, that this Valentinianus the Younger, (who was born in the Consulate of Gratianus and Dagalaïphus, in the year of Our Lord, 366,) was the Son of Valens Augustus. For, this is the very same Valentinianus, as 'tis on all hands agreed, who was afterwards Con­sul with Victor, in the year of Christ 369; and to whom Themi­stius spake his Consular-Oration, which is at this day extant under this title: [...] Now, in this Oration, Themistius frequently calls Valens the Father of this Valentinian, and stiles Gratianus [...], that is, his Cousin German by the Fa­thers side. See pag. 253. in that Oration. Besides. Themistius does affirm (pag. 254,) that the slaughter and overthrow of the Tyrant Procopius was foresignified by God, by the birth of this Valentinian. 'Tis certain, Valentinianus Junior was born when Gratianus and Dagalaïphus were Consuls, on the 15th of the Calends of February; as 'tis recorded in Idatius's Fasti, and in the Alexandrian Chronicle. In which year the Tyrant Pracopius was vanquished by Valens, on the sixth of the Calends of June, as 'tis affirmed in the same Fasti. But, if Valentinianus Junior had been Son to Valentinianus Senior, his birth had signified nothing to Valens. Further, if this Valentinianus had in reality been Son to Valentinianus Senior, why did he make his resi­dence in the East? How could he have been sent so long a journey from his Father, being as yet but an Infant? For he accompanied Valens in the Gothick Expedition, as Themistius attests not far from the beginning of this Oration. Lastly, 'tis evident from Themistius's Quinquennalian Oration [i. e. His Oration upon Valens's having ar­rived at the fifth year of his Empire,] near the close thereof, that Valens had an only Son then when he celebrated his Quinquennalia, that is, in the year of our Lord 368. In regard therefore, the most noble Valentinianus was made Consul in the East on the year fol­lowing, he can be no other person than Valens's Son. And Themistius, in the close of his Quinquennalian Oration (after he had spoken concerning Valens's only Son,) adds these words: [...], whom I would make an Alexander, and Philosophy shall again boast of such an Issue. And in his Ex [...]ortatory Oration, which he spake the year after to Valentinianus Junior, he makes an address to the Child almost in the same words: [...] come [Royal] Babe, sit upon my knees! And a little after: [...], Plato and Aristotle shall together with my self instruct Thee, by whom the Great Alexander was [...]u [...]ored. From whence 'tis apparent, that it is one and the same person concerning whom Themistius speaks in both places; and therefore that Valenti­nianus Junior, whom Themistius speaks to in his Ex [...]ortatory Oration, was the same only Son of Valens. But, this Valentinianus Junior was, by another name, called Galates. For Socrates and Sozomen give him this name. Sozomen (book 6. chap. 16.) does expresly affirm, that Valens had one only Son by [Dominica] his Wife, whose name was Galates. Since therefore, 'tis manifest from what I have just now said, that the most noble Valentinianus was Valens's Son, Valentinianus and Galates must necessarily be one and the same person. I should think▪ that the Child might have the surname of Galates given him, because he was born in Galatia, at such time as Valens was at War with Procopius. Moreover, Socrates's mistake (in which errour he is followed by Sozomen, book 6. chap. 10.) did, in my judgment, proceed from hence; viz. because he confounded the two Junior Valentinians, (one whereof was Son to Valens, the other to Valen­tinianus Senior,) and made but one person of two. For he thought, that the most noble Valentinianus (who was Consul with Victor) was the same person with that Valentinianus Junior, who, after the death of his Father Valentinianus Senior, Governed the Empire with Gra­tianus. But we have long since refuted this errour, in our notes on book 30. of Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 413. Vales. Valesius, at the now quoted pag. of his notes on Amm. Marcellinus, does indeed evident­ly prove that there were two Junior Valentinians; but (contrary to what he affirms here,) he asserts they were both Sons to Valentinianus Senior, whom he there stiles Magnus. See his note. during the same Consulate, a son was born to Valentinianus the Emperour in the Western parts, who had his Fathers name given him. For he had begotten Gratianus long before his [undertaking the Go­vernment of the] Empire.

CHAP. XI. Concerning a hail of an unusual bigness which fell from heaven, and concerning the Earthquakes in Bithynia, and the Hellespont.

ON the following Consulate, which was Lu­picinus's and Or▪ Jo­vinus's. Jovianus's, there fell a hail at Constantinople [...], as big as would fill a mans hand. of a Vast bigness, on the se­cond of July, which was like stones. Many per­sons said, that this hail was sent by reason of Gods anger, because the Emperour had banished several of the Sacerdotal Order, in regard they refused to communicate with Eudoxius. A little after this time, during the same Consulate, the Emperour Valentinianus proclaimed his Son Gra­tianus Emperour. Augustus, on the twenty fourth of Au­gust. On the year after, wherein Valentinianus and Valens were the second time Consuls, there hapned an Earthquake in Bithynia, which ruined the City Nicaea, on the eleventh of October. This was the twelfth year after the ruine of Nicome­dia was de­stroyed by an Earth­quake, in the consu­late of Da­cianus and Cerealis, a­bout the 28th of August. See Socrates, book 2. chap. 39. Nicome­dia. Soon after this Earthquake, most part of Germa, a City in the Hellespont, was destroyed by another Earthquake. Notwithstanding these accidents hapned, yet neither was Eudoxius Bi­shop of the Arians, nor the Emperour Valens, put into any fear. For they desisted not from persecuting those who dissented in opin [...]on from them. [Moreover,] these Earthquakes seemed to denote the disturbance of the Churches. Where­fore, many of the Sacerdotal Order (as I have said) were banished. Only Basilius and Gre­gorius, by a certain dispensation of divine pro­vidence, suffered not banishment, by reason of their eminent piety. Basilius was made Bishop of C [...]sarea in Cappadocia, in the year of Christ 369, as Ba­ronius has rightly observed. But Socrates seems to make Basilius's promotion to that Bishoprick somewhat ancienter. For, in his ac­count at this place of those affairs that were transacted in Valentini­anus's and Valens's second Consulate, which was the year of Christ 368, he does acknowledge that Basilius was then Bishop of Caesarea, and Gre­gorius of Nazianzum. But, as to Gregorius, Socrates is manifestly mistaken. For he was not at that time made Bishop of Nazian­zum by Basilius, but of Sasimi: which Bishoprick he notwithstanding never entred upon, as he himself attests in his Epistles. But in his Verses concerning his own Life, he evidently complaines of Basilius, who (when as he had sixty Bishopricks under him,) had preferred him to the Church of a pittifull little Town, although he himself was nothing inferiour to Basilius. Vales. The first of these per­sons was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; and the second [presided over] Nazianzum, a small City near Caesarea. But we shall mention Basi­lius and Gregorius in the procedure [of our Hi­story.]

CHAP. XII. That those who embraced Macedonius's Opinion, being reduced into streights by reason of the Emperours violence towards them, sent an Em­bassage to Liberius [Bishop] of Rome, and subscribed to the Homoöusian Creed.

WHen those who embraced the Homoöu­sian opinion had at that time been sore­ly disquieted and put to flight, the Persecutors renewed their rage against the Macedonians. Who, being reduced to great streights by fear rather then force, sent Embassies to one another throughout every City; signifying, that they must of necessity fly, both to the Emperours Brother [Valentinianus,] and also to Liberius Bishop of Rome; and that ['twas more eligible for them] to embrace their Faith, than to com­municate with Eudoxius's party. Baronius, at the year of Christ 365, re­proves So­crates, be­cause he places this Embassy of the Mace­doniani to Liberius Bishop of Rome (the chief of which was Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia,) on the year of Christ 368, in which year Valentinianus and Valens were the second time Consuls. Baro­nius thinks 'twas sent in the year of Christ 365, and grounds his opini­on on these two arguments especially. First, Eustathius with his compa­nions, was sent Embassadour by the Synod of Lampsacus. Now, that Sy­nod was convened in the year of Christ 365, seven years after the Seleu­cian Synod, as Socrates attests. 'Tis certain, the Embassadours (in their Libel of Faith which they presented to Liberius,) do expresly profess that they were Legates from the Synod of Lampsacus, and that they brought the Letters of that Synod to Liberius. Secondly, if this Em­bassy of the Macedoniani were sent on the year of Christ 368, it would not have been sent to Liberius, but to Damasus. For Liberius died on the year of Christ 367, in the Consulate of Lupicinus and Jovinus; and on the same year Damasus entred upon that See. But, the Ma­cedonian Embassadours presented a Libel of their Faith to Liberius, and from the same Liberius received Letters to the Prelates of their own party, as Socrates relates in this chapter. This Embassy there­fore was not sent in the year 368. These are Baronius's arguments. But I would rather place this Embassy on the year of Christ 367, and will determine hereof against Baronius, upon this account. Baronius confesses, that Elpidius Presbyter of Rome was sent, together with Eustathius and his companions, to the Illyricum Synod; the Synodick Letter whereof Theodoret has recorded, book 4. chap. 9. Eccles. Histor. But, the Illyricum Synod, at which Elpidius and Eustathius of Sebastia were present, was convened in the year of Christ 367, or 368; as ap­pears from the inscription of that Letter which the Emperour Valen­tinianus wrote to the Bishops of Asia, that he might confirm that Sy­nod. For that Imperial Letter has this title: Valentinianus, Valens and Gratianus, Augusti, to the Bishops, &c. as you may read in Theo­doret, book 4. chap. 8. Now Gratianus was proclaimed Augustus by his Father, in the Consulate of Lupicinus and Jovinus, on the ninth of the Calends of September, as (besides Socrates) Idatius in his Fasti, and the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle, do declare. Therefore, if the Illyricum Synod hapned on the same year whereon the Macedo­nians Embassy was sent; the Macedonians Embassy must necessarily be placed on the year of Christ 367, in which year Liberius died in the beginning of September. Eustathius therefore might go to Liberius in June, and receive Letters from him in August. Now, I am of opi­nion, that the Illyricum Synod was held on the same year, in the month of September, which Synod Valentinianus the Emperour confirmed, after Gratianus was created Augustus. Vales. They sent therefore Eustathius [Bishop] of Sebastia, (who had been many times deposed,) Silvanus of Tarsus in Cilicia, and Theophilus of Castabali, which is also a City of Cilicia: and gave them order, that they should not dissent from Liberius concer­ning the Faith, but should enter into communion with the Roman Church, and confirm the Homo­öusian Creed. These persons, carrying along with them their Letters who had dissented [from Acacius] at Seleucia, arrived at Old Rome. They could not go to the Emperour [Valentinian] himself; for he was engaged in a War with the Socrates should have said The Alamanni, rather than the Sarma [...]. For at this time Valentinian was detained in the Gallia's, by reason of his War against the Alamanni. Towards the end of his Reign, he went into Illyricum, in order to his engaging in a War against the Sar­matae. Vales. Sarmatae in the Gallia's. But they delivered their Letters to Liberius. He [at first] whol­ly refused to admit them: for he said, that they were of the Arian Faction, and could in [Page 311] no wise be received [into communion] by the Church, in regard they had rejected the Nicene Creed. They made answer, that by a Or, Re­pentance. retractation they had acknowledged the Truth, that they had long since renounced the Anomoïan Creed, and had professed that the Son was every way like to the Father; and that the term Homoios differed not in its import from Homoöusios. Having said thus much, Liberius required of them a profession of their opinion in writing. They presented him a Libel, wherein were inserted the Contents of the Nicene Creed. I have not here inserted the Let­ters written from Smyrna in Asia, and from Pisi­dia, Isauria, Pamphilia, and Lycia, (in which places they had held Synods,) because of their length. But the Libel, which the Embassadours, sent with Eustathius, delivered to Liberius, runs thus.

TO OUR LORD, BROTHER, AND FELLOW MINISTER LIBERIUS; EUSTATHIUS, THEOPHILUS, AND SIL­VANUS, GREETING IN THE LORD.

By reason of the mad opinions of Hereticks, who desist not from giving cause of offence to the Ca­tholick Churches; upon this account [we say] we, [desirous] to deprive them of all opportunity [of giving offence] do approve of and assent to the Synod of Orthodox Bishops which has been con­vened at Lampsacus, Smyrna, and at several other places: The studious Reader may ob­serve from this place, that Eusta­thius, Silvanus, and Theophilus (after they had spoken concer­ning many Synods, to wit, of that at Lampsacus, of that at Smyrna, and of others held in Lycia, Pam­phylia, Pisidia, and Isauria,) do now say, that they came as Le­gates from one Synod, and that they brought the Letters of one Synod. For these are their words: [...], From which Synod we being employed as Le­gates, do bring a Letter. The reason why they exprest them­selves thus, is, because the Smyr­na Synod, and those other Synods which were held by the Macedo­nians in Pisidia, Isauria, Pamphy­lia, and Lycia, had been composed according to the pattern and like­ness of the Synod at Lam [...]s [...]us, and had exprest their Faith and Doctrine, as being the original Draught. Upon which account, all these Synods are by the Ma­cedonian Legates taken for one Synod: and the Letters of each of those Synods, which Socrates has a little before told us were brought by those Legates, are ta­ken for one and the same Letter, because they contained one and the same Doctrine of Faith▪ I made this remark, because in Christophorson's Version all things are here confused and altered: E­piphanius Scholasticus has rendred this place much better. Vales. from which Synod We being employed as Le­gates, do bring a Letter to your Benignity, and to all the Italian and Western Bi­shops, to hold and keep the Catholick Faith, which ha­ving been established in the holy Nicene Synod in the Reign of Constantine of Bles­sed Memory, by three hun­dred and eighteen Bishops, hath hitherto always con­tinued intire and unshaken: in which [Creed] the term Homoousios is holily and piously made use of, in op­position to Arius's perverse doctrine: in like manner We also, Instead of [ [...]] the reading should be [ [...].] So E­piphan. Scholast. reads; and accor­dingly we have rendred it. Vales. together with the foresaid persons, do under our own hands profess, that We have held the same Faith, and do hold, and will keep it to our last breath: and We do condemn Arius, and his impious doctrine, together with his disciples, and those that embrace his sentiments; as also, all the Heresie of Sa­bellius, the See So­crates, book 2. chap. 19. note (g.) Pa­tripassians, Mar­cionistae, Photi­nians, Marcelliani, and that of Paul of Samosata, and the doctrine of these Here­ticks, and all those who main­tain the same Tenets with them; in fine, all the Heresies that are opposite to the foresaid holy Creed, which was piously and Catholickly set forth by the holy Fa­thers at Nicaea. But in a more especial manner we Anathematize that Draught of the Creed recited at the Ariminum Synod, as being contrary to the foresaid Creed of the holy Synod [convened] at Nicaea. In my judgment▪ it should be thus worded [ [...], &c.] which we have expressed in our Rendition. For they Anathematize not only that Form of the Creed which had been recited in the Ariminum Coun­cil, but the Acts also at Nice in Thracia, (See Socrates▪ book 2. chap. 37, neer the close of that chapter,) to which, being brought to Constanti­nople, the Bishops, induced thereto by sraud, had subscribed, as if they had been the Acts of the Nicene Synod. Vales. To which (it being brought from Nice [a Town] of Thracia) [the Bishops] subscribed at Constantinople, being over perswaded by fraud and perjury. But, our Creed, and the foresaid persons [confession of Faith] also, from whom we are employed as Legates, is this.

We Believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Framer of all things visible and invisible: and in one only begotten God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; be­gotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were made which are in heaven, and which are on the earth: who, for us men, and for our salvation, descended [from hea­ven,] became incarnate, and was made man; and suffered, and rose again the third day; and ascen­ded into the heavens; and shall come to judge the quick and dead. And [we believe] in the holy Spirit. But, those that affirm there was a time when he was not, and that he was not before he was born, and that he was made of things which are not; or those that assert the Son of God existed of another Hypostasis or Substance, or that he is Changeable or mutable; these persons the Catholick and Apostolick Church of God does Anathema­tize.

I Eustathius Bishop of the City Sebastia, I Theo­philus, and I Silvanus, Legates of the Synod of Lampsacus, of Smyrna, and of other [Synods,] have Voluntarily and willingly written this con­fession [of Faith] with our own hands. And, if any person, after the publication of this Creed by Us, shall be desirous of bringing any accusation, either against Us, or those that have sent Us, let him come with Your Holiness's Letters before such Orthodox Bishops as Your Sanctity spall ap­prove of, and go to Tryal with Us in their pre­sence. And if any crimination shall be made out, let the Authour thereof be punished.

Liberius ha­ving bound up and secured the Legates by this Libel, admitted them to communion, and after­wards dismist them with this Letter.

THE LETTER OF LIBERIUS BISHOP OF ROME, TO THE BISHOPS OF THE MACE­DONIANI.

To Our dearly beloved Brethren and Fellow-Ministers, Evethius, Cyrillus, Hyperechius, Ura­nius, Heron, Elpidius, Maximus, Eusebius, Eu­carpius, Heortasi [...]s, Neon, Eumathius, Faustinus, Proclinus, Pasinicus, Arsenius, Severus, Didymion, Brittannius, Callicrates, Dalmatius, Aedesius, Eu­stochius, Ambrosius, Gelonius, Pardalius, Mace­donius, Paulus, Marcellus, Heraclius, Alexander, Adolius, Marcianus, S [...]henelus, Johannes, Macer, Charisius, Silvanus, Photinus, Antonius, In the Florent. and S [...]or [...]ian M. SS. this persons name is constantly written thus, Autho. So he is also called in Epiphanius Scholasticus. In Christo­ph [...]rson's Version 'tis Aÿtho, with three Syllables▪ Invermet with this name in all my reading. Perhaps it should be A [...]tho. Vales. Any [...]ho, [Page 312] Celsus, Euphranor, Milesius, Patricius, Severianus, Eusebius, Eumolpius, Athanasius, Diophantus, Menodorus, Diocles, Chrysampelus, Neon, Eu­genius, Eustathius, Callicrates, Arsenius, Euge­nius, Martyrius, Hieracius, Leontius, Philagrius, Lucius, and to all the Orthodox Bishops in the East; Liberius Bishop The words [of Italy] must be expunged; Epiphan. Scholasticus acknowledges them not: or else it must be thus worded: Liberius Bishop, and the Bishops of Italy, and those in the West, &c. For thus Liberius distinguishes the Bishops of Italy from the rest of the Western Prelates, in the beginning of this his Letter, in these words; both to our slenderness and also to all [the Bishops] in Italy and in the Western parts. Nor is it other­wise exprest in the Libel of Faith which the Legates presented to Liberius. Vales. of Italy, and the Bishops in the West, [wish] health always in the Lord.

Your Letters (Dearly beloved Brethren,) It must undoubt­edly be [ [...],] that it may be referred to the fore­going word [ [...], Letters.] And thus Epiphanius Scholasticus, and Langus, Nicephorus's Transla­tour, read it. It would doubt­less have been foolish to term antient Bishops [...], persons illu­minated with the light of Faith; as if they had been some Neo­phytes, or late Converts to the Faith. Vales. Re­splendent with the Light of Faith, delivered to Us by Our highly esteemed Brethren, the Bishops, Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus, brought the most wish't-for joy of Peace and Unity to Us: and that most especially upon this account, because they have affirmed and demon­strated, that Your opinion and Your sentiments are consonant and agreeable, both to Our Slenderness, and also to all [the Bishops] in Italy and in the Western parts. And this we acknowledge to be the Catholick and Apostolick Faith, which Instead of [ [...]] it would be better thus [ [...] from the Ni­cene Synod hitherto] So in the Libel of Faith presented to Li­berius by the Legates: [...] &c. Which having been e­stablished in the holy Nicene Sy­nod—hath hitherto always conti­nued intire and unshaken. So Musculus and Christophorson read this place. Vales. from the Ni­cene Synod hitherto has con­tinued entire and unshaken. This Creed It should not be [ [...]] but [ [...],] that is, your Le­gates themselves. For Liberius means the Libel of Faith, which the Macedonian Legates had pre­sented to him. In which Libel the Legates profess, that as well those persons by whom they had been sent did constantly retain that Creed which had heretofore been set forth at Nicaea; as also that they themselves did and al­ways would observe and keep to the same Creed. Masculus and Christophorson supposed that by these words the Nicene Fathers were meant; than which nothing is more absurd. Langus led them into this mistake, who in his Ver­sion of Nicephorus has rendred this passage in relation to the Nicene Fathers. Epiphanius Scholasticus (more truly) supposed, that here­by the Macedonian Legates were meant; which is apparent from his Version. Vales. Your Legates themselves have professed that they do hold and embrace, and being filled with great joy, have wiped out all impressions and [quenched] the remaining sparks of an absurd opinion, and have made a publica­tion of this Creed, not only in words, but under their own hand-writing. The Copy whereof We have judged ne­cessary to be annexed to these Letters, that we might not leave the Hereticks any pretext of framing another conspiracy, whereby they should again ex­cite the Incentives of their own malice, and according to their usage, rekindle the flames of discord. Moreover, Our dearest Brethren, Eustathius, Silvanus, and Theophilus, have professed and acknow­ledged this also, that both they themselves, and also Your Love, have always had this Creed, and will retain it to the last; to wit, the Creed approved of at Nicaea by three hun­dred and eighteen Orthodox Bishops: which does contain the perfect Truth, and stops the mouthes, and vanquishes all the shoals of Hereticks. For, not of their own accord, but by divine appointment so great a Company of Bi­shops was convened against the madness of Arius; as were See Gen. 14. 14. where we find, that the number where with Abraham routed the four Kings forces, was three hundred and eighteen, being all his own servants. equal in number to those, by whose as­sistance Blessed Abraham through faith destroyed so many thousands [of his enemies.] Which faith be­ing comprehended in the Hypostasis, and in the term Homoousios, does (like a strong and impregnable fortress) beat back and repell all the assaults and mischievous machinations of Arius's perverse opi­nion. Wherefore, when all the Western Bishops had met at Ariminum, whither the improbity of the Arians had called them together, that either by some kind perswasives, or (which is truest) [by compulsion] of the Secular power, they might de­stroy, or perversely deny what had with all ima­ginable caution been inserted into the Creed; their subtilty advantaged them not in the least. For, almost all those persons then convened at Arimi­num, who had at that time been either enticed into errour, or imposed upon, are now returned to a right mind, have Anathematized that Draught [of the Creed] published by them convened at Ariminum, and have subscribed to that Catholick and Apostolick Creed ratified and established at Nicaea. And having entred into a communion with Us, they are with a greater warmth incensed against Arius's Opinion, and against his disciples. Of which business when the Legates of Your Love perceived an evident proof, they annexed You Your Selves to their own Subscription; and do Ana­thematize Arius, and what was transacted at Ariminum against the Creed ratified at Nicaea: The erroneous punctation in Rob. Stephen's Edition deceived Christophorson. For, he renders it thus: Cum jurejurando adhibito subscripsistis, to which [Trans­actions] You Your Selves by ta­king an Oath have subscribed. Langus, and (before him) Epi­phanius Scholasticus have rendered it truer, thus, Quibus vos perju­r [...]o capti subscripsistis, to which you, beguiled by perjury, have subscri­bed. In the Macedonians Libel of Faith, 'tis▪ said in express words, that the Bishops, being imposed upon by Fraud and Per­jury, had subscribed the Creed set forth at Nice in Thracia. For the Arians. (see note (e.) in this chapter,) after they had drawn up a Form of the Creed in a Synod held at Nice in Thracia, swore that that was the Creed of the Synod of Nicaea. Vales. to which [transactions] You Your Selves, beguiled by perjury, have subscribed. Wherefore, it seemed agree­able to Us, to write to Your Love, and to give assistance to those, whose requests are just and equitable. More e­specially, because we are as­certained by the profession of Your Legates, that the Ea­stern [Bishops] are come to themselves, and do em­brace the same Sentiments with the Orthodox Western [Prelates.] We make known this to you also, (least you should be ignorant of it,) that the Blasphemies of the Ari­minum Synod are now Ana­thematized, by those who seem to have been damnified at that time by Fraud, and that all persons have unanimously conspired in an agreement to the Nicene Creed. And this ought to be made known to all men by You, that such as have been damnified [in their Faith] [...], by impudency and impro­bity. by force and Fraud, may now at length return from Here­tical darkness to the divine light of Catholick Li­berty. Who (if after this Synod they will not vomit up the poyson of perverse doctrine, Or, de­stroy. renounce all Arius's Blasphemies, and Anathematize them,) may know that they themselves, together with Arius, and his disciples, and the rest of the Serpents, whe­ther Sabellians, or Patropassians, or what ever other Heresie they are [followers] of, are ex­cluded from, and are no members of the Church's Assemblies, which admits not illegitimate Sons. God preserve You in safety, Dearly beloved Bre­thren.

Eustathius and those that accompanied him, having received these Letters, went over into Sicilia: where after they had caused a Synod of Sicilian Bishops to be convened, they made a profession of the Homoöusian Faith in their pre­sence, and confirmed the Nicene Creed; and ha­ving received from▪ them Letters written to the [Page 313] same effect, they returned to the persons by whom they had been sent. Who, upon receipt of Li­berius's Letter, sent Legates from City to City, to the principal Assertours of the Homoöusian Faith, exhorting them to meet together unani­mously at Tarsus [a City] of Cilicia, in order to the confirming of the Nicene Creed, and that they might put an end to all manner of con­tentious disputes, which had since that been rai­sed. And this had perhaps been effected, had not Eudoxius (a Prelate of the Arian Religion, one who at that time was in great favour with the Emperour) hindred it. Who being more ex­asperated because of the Synod summoned to meet [at Tarsus,] framed greater mischiefs a­gainst them. Moreover, that the Macedonians, by sending Legates to Liberius, entred into a Communion with him, and confirmed the Nicene Creed; Sabinus himself has confessed in his Col­lection of Synodick Actions.

CHAP. XIII. How Eunomius separated himself from Eudoxius, because he adhered to [his Master] Aëtius. And that (a disturbance being raised at Alex­andria by Eudoxius's means,) Athanasius fled again. And that (when the Populace were tumultuous hereupon,) the Emperour being a­fraid, by his Letters Or, inter­ceded with. pacified the Alexandrians, and ordered that Athanasius should be put into quiet possession of his Church again.

ABout the same time Eunomius, being separated from Eudoxius, held his assemblies apart by himself, because, after he had several times entreated him to embrace his Master Aëtius's [opinion,] Eudoxius refused to do that. And yet Eudoxius did not this willingly: (For he re­jected not Aëtius's opinion; in regard it was the same with his own:) but because all those who embraced the same Sentiments with Eudoxius, [...] (the term here used) sig­nifies in this place to decline, or have an aversion for: in which sig­nification Lucianus uses it in Hermotimo. Langus and Christo­phorson render it abhorrere, to abhorre. But Epi­phanius, unacquain­ted with this signification of the word, has rendred it thus: Sed quoniam omnes unanimes, illius, eum Sectae alterius [...]atebantur. But because all those of Eudoxius's Opinion confessed him to be of another Sect. Vales. This term [ [...],] occurs 2 Tim. 2. 16. where in our English Version 'tis rendred [to shun.] declined [Aëtius] as being Heterodox. This was the reason why Eunomius made a separation from Eudoxius. After this manner were these matters transacted at Constantinople. But an He means an order of the Prafects of the Praetorium. For 'twas usual, that the Praefect of the Praetorium, as often as he issued out any Edict, should annex the names of the other Praefects of the Praetorium. An instance whereof occurs both in the Gesta purgationis Ceciliani, which are published after the Carthaginian Collation, and also in Theo­dosius and Valentinianus's Novells. There is a famous evidence of this thing in the antient Writer De Quae [...]ion [...]bu [...] veteris ac Novi Testa­ment. Cap. 97. Vales. Edict of the Praefects of the Praetorium sent thither by Eudoxius's care, disturbed the Church at Alexandria. Where­fore, Athanasius, afraid of the irrational and mad violence of the multitude, and fearing least he should Or, bear the blame of, &c. be look't upon as the oc­casioner of those mad absurdities which might be committed; hid himself four whole months in his Fathers Monument. But, when the Populace, [vexed] because of his absence, were tumultuous by reason of their love and affection towards him; the Emperour, un­derstanding that upon this account Alexandria was sorrowfull and sad, signified by his Letters, that Athanasius should securely and without fear continue possest of the Churches. And this was the reason why the Alexandrian Church con­tinued undisturbed untill the death of Athanasius. But how, when he was dead, those of the Arian faction got possession of the Churches again, we will relate a little after this.

CHAP. XIV. That after the death of Eudoxius at Constantino­ple, the Arians Ordained Demophilus; but the Orthodox, by [the assistance of] Eustathius of Antioch, [made] Evagrius [Bishop of Constantinople.]

FUrther, the Emperour Valens departed from Constantinople, and The Em­perour Va­lens had gone to­wards An­tioch be­fore. But, hearing of Procopius's defection—whilst he was in his jour­ney, he was forced to come back▪ as Amm. Marcelli­nus attests, book 26. Baronius therefore finds fault with Socra­tes without cause. For Socrates says not, that Valens came to Antioch before, but that he went to­wards that City; which is certainly most true. But Christophorsons Ver­sion seems to have been the cause of Baronius's mistake; for he ren­ders it thus: Imperator Valens denuo Antiochiam ire ma [...]urans, the Em­perour Valens hastning to go to Antioch again. Vales. hastned towards Antioch again. And being arrived at Nicomedia a City of Bithynia, he made a stop there upon this ac­count. Eudoxius the chief Prelate of the Arian raction ended his life soon after the Emperours departure [from Constantinople,] in Valentini­anus's and Valens's third Consulate, having been in possession of the Chair of the Constantinopo­litane Church Sozomen's account is truer, who makes Eudoxius to have been Bishop but eleven years. 'Tis certain, Eudoxius thrust himself into the Bishoprick of Constantinople when Eusebius and Hypatius were Consuls, which was the year of Christ 359. He died in the third Consulate of Valentinianus and Valens, in the year of our Lord 370. Wherefore▪ at this place of Socrates (in stead of [ [...], nine­teen]) it ought to be [...], eleven,] which is confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus. Wherefore, Baronius does here also unde­servedly reprove Socrates; in regard, not Socrates himself, but the Copies of Socrates's History are here false. Concerning Eudoxius's death, consult Philostorgius, book 9. Vales. Nineteen years. Wherefore, the Arians constituted Demophilus [Bishop] in his room. But the Homoöusians, supposing that a fair opportunity was offered to them, elected one Evagrius, a person that owned the same Creed with them. And Sozomen tells us the same story, in his Eccles. Histor. book 6. chap. 13. But Baronius, at the year of Christ 370, reproves both these Historians. For he maintains, that Eustathius Bishop of Antioch was dead long before, in Constantius's Reign. Indeed, Jerome (in his book de Scriptor. Ecclesiast.) does relate; that Eustathius died in exile, and was buried at Trajanople in Thracia, to which place he had been banished. If this be true, Eustathius must necessarily have died in Constantius's Reign. For Julianus, and after him Jovianus, re­called all the Bishops from exile. It is indeed sca [...]ce credible, that Eustathius Bishop of Antioch could live to these times. For, in re­gard he was at the Nicene Council, which was held in the year of Christ 325; we may suppose him to have been then in the forty fifth year of his age. From this year to the third Consulate of Valenti­nianus and Valens (wherein Eustathius is said to have ordained Eva­grius at Constantinople) there are five and fourty years. So that Eusta­thius must necessarily have been ninety years old, if he ordained Evagrius Bishop in this year. Further, I must not omit, what I have been informed of, from Victor Tununensis's Chronicon; to wit, that Eustathius was not interred at Trajanople, as Jerome relates, but at Philippi. For these are his words: Post Consulatum tertium Longini, &c. After Longinus's third Consulate, C [...]lendio Bishop of Antioch got together the reliques of his predecessour Eustathius, Bishop and Confessour, from Philippi in Macedonia, and with great honour conveyed them to Antioch. Theodorus Lector says the same, in his second book Excerpt. Histor. Eccle­siast. Baronius does ill, to place this translation of Eustathius's reliques on the year of Christ 482, in regard, as 'tis evident from Victor Tununen­sis's Chronicon, 'twas performed in the year of our Lord 490, when Lon­ginus II, and Faustus were Coss. But what Theodorus Lector adds at that place, to wit, that the Eustathians, who before had meetings by them­selves, were then at length united to the Catholicks, an hundred years after Eustathius's death; is in my judgment false. For, this being sup­posed, Eustathius would have lived to the year of Christ 390. Vales. Eustathius (who had sometime before been Bishop of Antioch, and had formerly been recalled from exile in Jovianus's Reign,) Ordained him. This Eustathius was at that time present at Constantinople, [to which City he came] with a designe of setling and strengthening those of the Homoöusian Faith; where he continued, absconding himself.

CHAP. XV. That when the Emperour had banished Evagrius and Eustathius, the Arians sorely oppressed and afflicted the Homoöusians.

UPon the doing hereof, the Arians renewed their persecution against the Homoöusians a­fresh. What had hapned, soon came to the Empe­rours knowledge, who fearing, least a Sedition, cau­sed by a contention of the multitude, should ruine the City, sent some Forces from Nicomedia to Con­stantinople: and gave order, that both persons, as well he that was ordained, as he that had ordained him, should be apprehended, and banished, the one to one place, the other to another. Eustathius therefore was exiled to This ac­count disa­grees both from what we have re­lated be­fore (chap. 14. note c.) out of Je­rome, and also from the relati­on of The­odorus Le­ctor, and Theophanes in his Chro­nicon. For Jerome says, that even in his age Eusta­thius lay buried at Trajanople, whither he had been banished. But Theodorus Lector and Theophanes relate, that he was banished to Philippi, and there buried. That Eustathius therefore, who was banished by Valens to Bizua, must necessarily be a different person from Eustathius Bishop of An­tioch. Bizua is a City of Thracia, heretofore the pallace of the Thra­cian Astor [...]s, as Stephanus attests. Eutropius mentions it in his sixth book, where he speaks of Lucius Lucullus, who subdued the Thracian Bessi. Vales. Bizua a City of Thracia; and Evagrius was conveyed away to another place. These things having been performed after this manner, the Arians, growing more insolent and bold, sorely afflicted the Catholicks: [some­times] they beat them, [at others] they gave them contumelious language; [some] they shut up in prison, [others] they punished with Pecu­niary Mulcts; in fine, they practised all sorts of afflictive and most unsufferable mischiefs against them. Which when they were unable to endure, they went to the Emperour, [with a design] to beseech him, that they might, in some measure at least, be freed from the Violence [of the Arians.] But, [although] they had proposed this design to themselves, [yet] they were wholly frustrated of their hope, because they expected to obtain it from him, who had been the Authour of their injurious usage.

CHAP. XVI. Concerning the holy Presbyters who were burnt in a Ship, and concerning the Famine, which by the wrath of God hapned in Phrygia upon that account.

FOr, when some choice pious persons, who were Ecclesiasticks, being eighty in number, (the principal men amongst whom were Urba­nus, Theodorus, and Menedemus,) were arrived at Nicomedia, and had presented a Supplicatory Libel to the Emperour, informing him of the vio­lence and calamitous sufferings which were inflicted on them [by the Arians:] the Emperour, highly incensed, concealed his anger, till such time as he had given a secret order to Modestus the Prae­fect, for the apprehending of these persons, and putting of them to death. The manner of their death was new and unusual; therefore it shall be recorded. The Praefect being afraid, least if he should murder these men in publick, Or, be might raise an irratio­nal tumult of the mul­titude, &c. he might raise a tumult of the unthinking crowd against himself, pretends to send them away into banishment. [This news] being received by these persons with a couragiousness of mind, the Praefect orders them to be put aboard a Ship, as if [he designed] they should be carried away and banished: but he commanded the Sea men, that when they came to the middle of the Sea, they should set the Vessel on fire: that so, being de­stroyed after this manner, they might be depri­ved of a Burial. Thus therefore it was per­formed. The Mariners sailed out of the Haven, and being arrived at the middle of the Astacum-Bay, do what they were ordered: and having set the Ship on fire, went aboard another small Vessel which followed them, and so came off. But, a very boysterous Easterly wind hapned to blow, whereby the burning Ship was fiercely driven: in so much that it sailed with a great deal of swiftness; and lasted till it came to a Sea-Port, the name whereof is Sozomen (book 6. chap. 14.) tells the same story: where he calls this place Daci­byza, and says 'tis a Maritime-City of Bithynia. Cedrenus also terms it Daci­byza. But Theophanes gives it the name of Dacidiza. Vales. Dacidizus, where it was wholly consumed together with the men in it. Many have reported, that this [horrid Villany] continued not unpunished. For there hapned so sore a Concerning this Famine there is this Record, in the Old Fasti, with Sirmondus has published under the name of Idatius: Valentiniano III, and Valente III, &c. i. e. in the third Con­sulate of Valentinianus and Valens there was a great Famine in the parts of Phrygia. Vales. Famine all over Phrygia immediately af­ter, that many of the Inhabitants were forced to remove out of that Country for some time, and betake themselves, partly to Constantinople, and partly to other Provinces. For Constantinople, although it nourishes a vast multitude of people, yet always abounds with plenty, both because it has all manner of necessaries for provision im­ported into it from all places by Sea, and also in regard the Euxine-Sea, lying near it, furnishes it with plenty of Bread-corn, as often as it wants.

CHAP. XVII. That the Emperour, arriving at Antioch, did again Persecute those that Embraced the Homoöusian Opinion.

BUt the Emperour Valens, little regarding the calamities caused by the Famine, went to Antioch in Syria. During his residence there, he destroyed such as would not profess Arianism. For although he had perfectly ejected the Em­bracers of the Homoöusian Opinion out of the Churches of almost all the Eastern Cities; yet he was not satisfied therewith, but did besides inflict various punishments upon them. And he destroyed many more than formerly [had been murdered by him,] by exposing them to diffe­rent sorts of death; but more especially by drow­ning them in a River.

CHAP. XVIII. Concerning what was done at Edessa, and the re­proachfull affront put upon the Praefect, and con­cerning the Faith, couragiousness, and constancy of those Citizens; and concerning a pious woman.

BUt, we must relate what was done at Edessa [a City] of Mesopotamia. In that City there is a stately and splendid [...]; it sometimes signifies a place where the reliques of some Martyr are deposited▪ 'tis plain from what follows, that by it our Au­thour here means a Church. Church [which bears the name] of Thomas the Apostle, where­in assemblies in order to the performance of the publick duties of Religion are without intermis­sion convened, by reason of that places sancti­ty. The Emperour Valens, desirous to view this Church, and being informed that the whole con­gregation met therein were [followers] of that Heresie which he detested, struck the Praefect with his own hand, (as 'tis said,) because he had not [Page 315] taken care to have them driven from that place. When the Praefect, after this manner abused, made preparations (though unwillingly) to obey the Emperours rage; (for he was not willing to be the instrument of the murder of so many per­sons;) he gave them notice secretly, to the in­tent that no person might be found within that Church. But no body heeded either his advice, or his menaces. For on the day following all persons flock't to the Church. And when the Praefect with a great company of Souldiers hastened to the Oratory, in order to his fulfil­ling the Emperours rage; a poor woman, leading her own little son by the hand, went with great speed towards the Church, and broke through the Rufinus (from whom Socra­tes borrowed this story) book 2. chap. 5. Eccles. Hist. words this passage thus: Infantem quoque parvulum secum trahentem, cur­suque rabido, irrupto etiam officii agmine, festinantem. Leading her little child with her, and making such great bast, that she broke through the Praefects Guards. This memorable fact of the woman of Edessa hapned on the year of Christ 371 or 372; as we shall see by and by. Baronius has done ill to place it on the year of our Lord 370. Vales. ranks of Souldiers which Guarded the Prae­fect. At which the Prae­fect being highly displeased, orders the woman to be brought to him. And speaks to her after this manner, Miserable woman! Whi­ther runnest thou in this [...] Rufinus (in the book and chapter just now quo­ted) says, she made such hast, that she would not stay to shat her door, nor dress herself in the usual garb that women appeared in in publick. undecent manner? She re­plied, To the same place that others run too. Have you not heard, said he, That the Praefect is going to put to death all persons that shall be found there? I have heard so, answered she, and do therefore make hast, that I may be found there After these words, there were wanting in Robert Ste­phens's E­dition these two whole lines [ [...], And whither draggest thou that little child▪ said the Praefect, the woman replied, that he also may be voutsafed the honour of Martyrdom] which I have inserted from the Florentine and Sfortian M. SS. Epi­phanius Scholasticus acknowledges them; and so does Rufinus, from whom Socrates borrowed this story. Moreover, from this place also 'tis evident, that Christophorson had perused no M. S. Copies of So­crates. Vales.: And whither draggest thou that little child, said the Praefect; the woman replied, that he also may be voutsafed the honour of Mar­tyrdom. Upon hearing hereof, the Praefect made a conjecture of the constancy a [...]d resolution of the persons assembled [in the Church.] And he went back immediately to the Emperour, and informed him, that all of them were ready to die for their own faith. And declaring withall, that it would be absurd to destroy so many persons in so short a time, he thereby perswaded the Em­perour, to desist from being enraged. After this manner the Edessens escaped their being de­stroyed by their own Emperour.

CHAP. XIX. That the Emperour Valens slew many persons, the first letter of whose name was Or. Th. Theta, upon ac­count of a certain Necromantick- divination, whereby that was foretold.

This whole scene of that un­happy O­racle, which some Hea­thens had consulted that they might know who should succeed Valens in the Empire, is at large set forth by Ammianus Marcellinus, in his 29th book. But, 'tis difficult to assign the year whereon it hapned. Baronius, in his Annalls places it on the year of Christ 370. I am of opinion, that it was acted in the year of our Lord 371, or at the be­ginning of the year 372. For Valens, in the year of Christ 371, made his entry into Antioch, at the end of Summer, Gratianus II, and Pro­bus being Consuls, as I have demonstrated in my notes on the foresaid book of Marcellinus, partly from the Laws of the Theodosian Code, and partly from Libanius's book concerning his own Life. Now, that Tragedy and Conspiracy of those wicked wretches against Valens, hapned after his entry into the City Antioch, as 'tis manifest from Marcellinus. Therefore, it must necessarily happen at the close of the year 371, or at least at the beginning of 372. 'Tis certain, Theo­phanes and Cedrenus do place Valens's entry into Antioch on his eighth year. But, the same Theophanes does ascribe that conspiracy of those impious wretches, who had consulted the Oracle concerning the future Emperour, to Valens's ninth year. Which agrees exactly with our opinion, if we may compute Valens's first year from the Consulate of Jovianus and Varronianus. Vales. AT the same time, a certain destructive Dae­mon abused the Emperours cruelty. For he perswaded some persons to make a strict and over-busie enquiry by a Necromantick divina­tion, who should succeed Valens in the Empire. To which persons, having made use of a certain Magicall inchantment, the Daemon gave responses, not plain and manifest, but (as he usually does) oblique and ambiguous: by shewing only four Letters, Or, Th, E, O, D. Theta, and Epsilon, and Omicron, and Delta; saying, that his name, who should Reign after Valens, did begin with these Letters; and that his name was compounded. The report of what had been done came to the Emperours ears. But he permitted no [...] God (who manages all things in a due and orderly manner) to have the knowledge of things future, and to do what seemed good to him: but, slighting the sanctions of Christianity, for which he supposed himself to have a zeal and ardency, he put many to death, of whom he had a suspicion that they would seize upon the Empire. Therefore, the Theo­dorus's, the Theodotus's, the Theodosius's and the Theodulus's, and as many as had such like names as these, were deprived of their lives. Amongst whom In the Sfortian M. S. the reading here is [ [...], another Theodo­sius.] Epi­phanius Scholasti­cus also calls him Theodosius. Who this Theodosius [or, Theodo­siolus] should be, 'tis uncertain. For I cannot think, it was that Theodosius, (father to Theodosius the Emperour,) of whom Am­mianus makes frequent mention in his History. For he lived in the West, and was not slain by the fraud and treachery of ma­levolent persons, till after Valentinianus's death. And yet this Character added by Socrates [a personage of great Valour and Cou­rage, a descendant of a Noble Family in Spain,] does exactly fi [...] him. Vales. one Theodosiolus, a person of great Valour and Courage, a descendant of a Noble Family in Spain, was also put to death. And out of a fear of the imminent danger, many per­sons [at that time] changed their names, deny­ing those names their Parents had given them, when they were young, in regard they were liable to danger. But, let thus much be said concer­ning this.

CHAP. XX. Concerning Athanasius's death, and the promotion of Peter [to his See.]

FUrther, you are to know, that as long as Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria lived, the Emperour (upon account of some [over-ru­ling dispensation] of Gods providence) for­bore disquieting Alexandria and Egypt, knowing for certain, that there was a numerous multi­tude of persons there, who favoured Athana­sius; and for this reason he was afraid, least a sedition being raised at Alexandria, the populace, who are naturally hot and violent, should en­dammage the publick state of affairs. [More­over,] Athanasius, after those many Conflicts [He had undergone] upon the Church's ac­count, departed this life in the second ConsulateAthana­sius's death. of Gratianus which he bore with Probus; he governed that Bishoprick amidst many dan­gers fourty and six years, and left Peter, a pious and eloquent person, to succeed him in his See.

CHAP. XXI. That after Athanasius's death, the Arians by the Emperour Valens's Order, delivered up the Churches in Alexandria to Lucius who had been Ordained by them before, and committed Peter to Prison.

THe Arians therefore took courage immedi­ately, being rendred insolent by the Em­perour's Religion; and without delay they give an account hereof to the Emperour, who then resided at Antioch. At the same time also Eu­zoius (who presided over the professours of A­rianism at Antioch,) with greediness catches that opportunity so seasonably offered; and makes it his design to procure himself to be sent to Alexandria, to the intent that he might deliver possession of the Churches there to Lucius the Arian. Which was also approved of by the Emperour. And forthwith he went to Alex­andria, [accompanied] with the Imperial For­ces. For This Magnus is termed [...], Comes of the Court-Largesses, in the Let­ter of Pe­trus Alex­andrinus (the person spoken of in this chapter▪) part of which Letter Theodo­ret has recorded, book 4. chap. 22. Eccles. Histor. Magnus, Lord Treasurer to the Em­perour, went along with him. The Imperial Order was directed to Palladius In the original he is termed Praefect of Alexandria; which title was sometimes given to the Praefects of Egypt; as it has been ob­served before. Praefect of Egypt, and a command was issued forth that the Military Forces there should give their assistance. Wherefore, they apprehended Peter, and con­fined him to Prison. After they had dispersed the other Ecclesiasticks some into one place, some into another, they seated Lucius in the Episcopal Chair.

CHAP. XXII. That Sabinus the Macedonian Heretick has made no mention of those many mischiefs which hap­pened at Lucius's installment. But they are re­corded in a Letter written by Peter; who made his escape, and fled to Damasus [Bishop] of Rome. But the Arians and Lucius were the Authours of many mischievous practises and cruelties against those holy persons who led a Mo­nastick life in the Solitudes.

MOreover, what mischiefs hapned at Lu­cius's induction [into the Sea of Alex­andria,] or what was done against those per­sons that were ejected, as well in, as without the Courts of Judicature, and how some were sub­jected to various Tortures, and others were ba­nished, even after they had been tortured; [of any of these particulars] there is not the least mention made by Sabinus. For, in regard he was a Semi-Arian, he concealed the enormous vil­lanies of his friends. But Peter has manifestly displaied them to the view of all men, in his own Letters, which he sent about to the Churches every where, after his escape Or, out of his bonds. out of Prison. This Peter. person, as soon as he could make an escape out of his imprisonment, fled to Damasus Bishop of Rome. But the Arians, although few in num­ber, notwithstanding were repossessed of the Alex­andrian Churches. Not long after, an Imperial Edict [came forth, wherein] it was ordered, that [all] the Embracers of the Homoöusian Opinion should be ejected out of Alexandria, and [driven] from all parts of Egypt. And the Governour of Egypt was commanded, with a nu­merous Army of Souldiers every where to put to flight and chase away those, whom Lucius should order [to be ejected.] At the same time they molested, disturbed, and in a most cruel and hostile manner assaulted the Monasteries in the Desart. For Armed men rush't in upon per­sons unarmed, who would not stretch forth so much as their hand to strike a stroak; and de­stroyed them with such cruelty and barbarity, that what they perpetrated against them is in­expressible.

CHAP. XXIII. A Catalogue of the holy Monks [who lived] in the Desart.

BUt, in regard we have made mention of the Monasteries in Egypt, nothing hinders but we may give an account in short concerning them. The Monasteries in Egypt had their o­riginal ('tis probable) from very great anti­quity: but they were enlarged and much in­creased by a pious man, whose name was Am­mon. This person, when young, had an aver­sion for marriage. But when some of his nea­rest relatives entreated him not to speak reproach­fully of Matrimony, but that he would mar­ry a wife; he was prevailed upon, and entred into a Matrimonial state of life. And imme­diately after he had taken the Virgin out of the [...], or (which has the same import) [...], signifies a Wedding-cham­ber, Dining-room, or entertaining­room. See Stephens's Thesaur. Graec. Ling. in the word [...] The Seventy two Translatours do use this term (at Jo [...]l 2. 16, and at Psalm 19. 5.) to express the Hebrew word [...] Chuppa; which was a Tabernacle or Ten [...] set up on purpose, for the perfor­mance of the solemnities (usual amongst the Jews) of betrothing between the man and woman. Bride-chamber, and with the usual solemnity lead her into his Lodging-room, at length when his friends and acquaintance were gone a­way, he took the Apostolick Book, read Saint Pauls E­pistle to the Corinthians, and expounded to his wife the A­postles admonitions to mar­ried persons. And making an addition of several par­ticulars from elsewhere, he informed her, how many burdensome inconveniences do accompany mar­riage, how full of grief and disquietude the co­habitation of man and woman is, and what pangs attend a woman great with child; adding with­all the grief and troubles [which arise] from the breeding up of children. [On the other hand] he added the conveniencies of Chastity, how great a freedom attends a pure life, how unpolluted it is, and void of all uncleanness; and that vir­ginity places persons in the nearest alliance to God. Having discourst of these and many other such like particulars to his virgin-wife, he per­swades her, that before they should have any car­nal knowledge of each other, she would together with him renounce a Secular life. When they had made this agreement between themselves, they retired to the mountain called Nitria. There they lived in a Cottage, and for ▪some short time made use of one Ascetick apartment in common, without the knowledge of any dif­ference between the Masculine and Feminine Sex, but being (according to the Apostle) one in Christ. Not long after, the new and unpolluted Bride spake these words to Ammon: it is not decent for you (said she,) who with the greatest strict­ness immaginable do prosess Chastity, to look [Page 317] upon a woman In the o­riginal 'tis thus wor­ded, [...], in so great an house. Chri­stophorson has rendred it, in tan­tillo domicilio, in so small an house. But the Greek term will not ad­mit of this rendition. Where­fore, I had rather it should be thus worded, [...], in your dwelling. Vales. in so narrow an habitation. Wherefore if you please, we will perform our Ascetick exercises apart. With this compact also both parties were well pleased. And being se­parated one from the other, they thus spent the remainder of their lives; abstaining from Wine and Oyle, and seeding upon dry b [...]ead only, which they eat sometimes after one days [fasting,] at others after two, at other times after more. Antonius, who was this Ammon's Cotemporary, saw his soul after his death taken up [into hea­ven] by Angels, as Athanasius Bishop of Alex­andria does declare in See So­crates book 1. chap. 21. his Life of Antonius. Moreover, very many persons imitated this Ammon's Life. And by degrees the mountaines of Nitria and Scetis were filled with multitudes of Monks. To write whose lives, would be the Subject of a particular work. But in regard there were amongst them persons of great prety, who were eminent for their Ascetick discipline, lived Apostolick Lives, and did, and said some things that were usefull and worthy to be recor­ded, I thought it expedient [to select] some few passages out of many, and intermix them with my History, in order to the Readers ad­vantage. 'Tis reported therefore, that this Am­mon never saw himself naked, saying, that it was misbecoming a Monk to behold his own naked body. And, being one time desirous to pass a River, he was Or, a­shamed, or, he refused. loath to uncloath himself; but prayed to God, that he might have a passage over without impeding the resolution he had taken: and an angel conveyed him to the other side of the River. Di­dymus, another Monk, although he lived Ninety years, yet kept company with no man during his whole life. Another, by name Arsenius, would not separate the younger Monks, who had committed an offence, from Communion, but those only that were elderly: for he said, that a young Monk be­ing excommunicated, becomes Or, a contemner. contumacious: but an elderly Monk does quickly become sensible of the grief of Excommunication. Pior eat his meat walking. When one asked him why he fed af­ter that manner; I will not (said he,) go to meat, as to a serious and set work, but as to an incident and by business. To another, que­stioning him concerning the same thing, he an­swered; least (says he,) whilst I am eating, my mind should be affected with any bodily plea­sure. Isidorus said, that it was fourty years since he was sensible of sin in his mind; and that he never consented, either to lust, or anger. Pam­bos, a man illiterate, went to a person, that by him he might be taught a Psalm. And having heard the first verse of the thirty eighth Psalm, which runs thus, See Psal. 39. v. 1. I said I will take heed to my ways that I offend not with my tongue; he refused to hear the second verse, and went away▪ saying, that this one verse was enough for him, in case he could learn it perfectly, and in reality practise and perform it. And when he who had given him the verse to learn, reproved him, because he had not seen him in a whole six months space, he an­swered; I have not yet truly and indeed learnt the verse of the Psalm. Many years after this, to one of his acquaintance enquiring of him whether he had learnt the verse, his answer was, during the space of these Nineteen years I have scarce lear­ned to Or, pra­ctise. fulfill it effectually. The same person (when one gave him Gold [to be bestowed] for the maintenance of the poor, and said to him, tell the sum which I have given,) replyed, there is no need of telling the money, but of a right and sound disposition of mind. The same [...]ambos, upon the entreaty of Athanasius the Bishop, came out of the Desart to Alexandria. And see­ing a woman-player there, he brake forth into tears. When the persons in pres [...]nce asked him, why he wept; two things (said he) trouble me; the one is, this womans destruction: the other, because I do not use so much diligence and industry to please God, as she does to delight obscene men. Another of them said, that a Monk, unless he will work, is to be involved in the same con­demnation with the covetous and rapacious per­son. Petirus was well furnished with a know­ledge in Natural Speculations, and frequently ex­pounded sometimes one thing, at other times an­other, to such as addressed themselves to him. At every one of his Or, The­orems, or, Expositions. Lectures he made a prayer to God. But, amongst the Monks [who lived] at that time, there were two pious persons who bore the same name. For each of them had the appellation of Macarius. The one was born in The Upper Egypt, the other came from the City Alexandria. Both of them were famous upon several accounts, [to wi [...],] for their Ascetick exercises, for their Morals, for their Converse, and for the Miracles wrought by their hands. The Egyptian Macarius wrought so many cures, and drove so numerous a company of devils out of persons possest, that [to relate] what he performed by the grace of God, would require a particular and separate Work. Towards those who came to him, he behaved himself with an austere gravity, tempered with caution and cir­cumspection. But the Alexandrian Macarius, although he was every way like the Egyptian Macarius, yet he differed from him in this, that he shewed himself chearfull and pleasant towards those who came into his company, and by his courteous behaviour and complaizance induced young men to embrace an Ascetick course of life. Evagrius, Scholar to these Macarius's, having before been a Philosopher in words only, learned [from them] that Philosophy [which consists] in deeds and actions. Evagrius. He having been ordained Deacon by Gregorius Nazian­zenus at Constantinople, went afterwards with him into Egypt, where he converst with those forementioned persons, and imitated their course of life. Nor were the Miracles wrought by his hands, fewer in number than those perfor­med by his Masters. The same Evagrius wrote Books of very great use: one whereof has this Title, Instead of [ [...] The Monk] Epiphanius Scholasticus in his copy read [...], The Monastick,] as 'tis apparent from his Version. Notwithstanding, Nicephorus (book 11. chap. 42) confirms the common reading. But as to Evagrius's other book here mentioned he words the title of it thus: [...], The Gnostick, or concerning him who is re­puted worthy of knowledge. It may also be written (as it is here in Socrates) thus, or to him who is reputed worthy of knowledge: which reading we have followed in our Version. Concerning this Evagrius's books, [...]ee Jerome's sentiment, in his Epistle to C [...]esiphonagainst the Pe­lagians▪ where he informs us, that Evagrius was an Origenist. Palla­dius (in Lausia [...]a) says Evagrius wrote three books. The first of these he calls [...], The Saint: the second [...], The Monk; [...]he third [...], The Refutation; which is against the frauds of the Devil. Palladius terms that book of Evagrius's, The Saint, which Socrates here calls The Gnostick. Vales. The Monk, or Concerning Active Virtue: another is entitled, The Gnostick, or to him who is reputed worthy of knowledge. This Book is divided into Fifty Chapters. A third is termed Antirreticus [or The Refutation, being a Col­lection] from the sacred Scriptures, against the tempting evil spirits; it is divided into eight parts, [Page 318] according to the number of the eight thoughts. [He wrote] also six hundred Prognostick Pro­blems: and moreover, two Books in Verse; the one to those Monks [who live] in Monasteries or Covents; the other to the Virgin. How ad­mirable these Books of his are, they that read them will perceive. It is not unseasonable, as I suppose, to annex- to what has been said before, some few passages recorded by him, concerning the Monks. For he says word for word thus. It is also necessary to make an enquiry into the ways of those Monks, who have heretofore walked Or, Rightly. uprightly, and to conform [our selves] to the pattern thereof: For many things have been well said and done by them. Amongst which this was the saying of one of them, that a drier, slender, and not irregular sort of diet, joyned with love, will in a short time bring a Monk to a Port void of all inquietude. The same Monk freed one of his brethren from his being disturbed with apparitions in the night, enjoyning him to minister to the sick, whilst he was fasting. And being asked [why he commanded him to do that,] such troubles as these (said he) are composed and extinguished with nothing so easily, as with mercy and compas­sion. A Philosopher of those times came to An­tonius the Just, and said unto him, O Father, how can you hold out, being destitute of the com­fort of Books? Antonius replied, my Book, O Philosopher, is the nature of things made, and 'tis ready at hand as often as I am desirous of reading the Words of God. That aged person the Egyptian Macarius, that chosen vessel, asked me, why by remembring the injuries we receive from men, we destroy that strength and faculty of memory which is in our minds: but by remem­bring the mischiefs done to us by the devils, we continue unhurt? And when I was doubtfull what answer I should make, and entreated him to ex­plain the reason hereof to me; the first (said he,) is an affection of the mind, which is contrary to nature: the second is agreeable to nature. I went one time to the holy Father Macarius, at noon-day, when it was very hot, and being most extreamly thirsty, requested some water to drink. His answer to me was, Content your self with the shade; for many persons who are at this time travelling by Land, or making a voyage by Sea, do want [the refreshment of] that. Then, I conferred with him about Abstinence, and he said unto me, Be couragious and confident my Son: For these twenty years compleat, I have not taken my fill either of bread, water, or sleep. For I have eaten my bread by weight; I have drank my water by measure: and I have stollen In stead of [ [...]] the reading in the Florentine M. S. and in Nice­phorus is [ [...], a little part of a sleep, or, a nap.] For that sleep, which Macarius took by leaning his head against a wall, was a part of a sleep, rather than a sleep. For he slept but a very little while. Wherefore, he is said to have stollen, rather than to have taken a sleep. Vales. a little part of a sleep, by leaning my self against a wall. One of the Monks had the news of his Fathers death brought to him. His return to him that told him this, was, forbear spea­king impiously; for my Fa­ther is immortal. One of the Brethren was possessour of no­thing else but the Book of the Gospels: when he had sould that Book, he gave [the money he had for it,] to feed the hungry, and uttered this say­ing worthy to be recorded, I have sould that Book which saieth, Matth. 19. 21. Sell that thou hast and give to the poor. There is an Island about A­lexandria, scituate at the Northern part of that City, beyond the Lake called Mareotis. Near that Island dwells a Monk Transla­tours have been noto­riously mis­taken a [...] this place. For Chri­stophorson renders it thus; in [...] Monachus ex Sect â Gnostico­rum [...]ir spe­ctatissimus habitavit, in that [Island] dwelt a Monk, a most emi­nent person of the Sect of the Gno­sticks. Lan­gus, Ni­cephorus's Translatour, has rendred this passage in Evagrius thus: Habitat in eâ Monachus Gnosticorum Ordinis celeberrimus, in that [Island] dwells a most famous Monk of the Order of the Gnosticks. But first, Evagrius does not say, that that Monk dwelt in that Island beyond the Lake Mar [...]otis; but only, that he dwelt near that Island. For that's the import of the word [...]. Secondly, [...] [Parembole] does not signifie a Sect, or an Order: nor are the Gnosticks taken in this place for a Sect of Hereticks; but 'tis a sort of Monks, concer­ning whom Evagrius wrote a book. Parembole therefore is a Village not f [...]r from Alexandria, near the Lake Mareotis. Atbanasius makes mention of it in his second Apologetick against the Arians, where he produces the Catalogue of Clergy-men, whom Meletius had in the City and within the Territory of Alexandria. After his mentioning of the Presbyters and Deacons of Meletius's party, which he had at Alexandria, he adds these words; [...], and Macarius Presbyter of Parembole. Parembole is also mentioned in the Notitia Imperii Romani, wherein were the Quarters of the second Trajan Legion under the command of the Comes of the Military affairs throughout Egypt. Ptolemaeus also (in Ammoniaca) places Alexander's Parembole near the Lake Ma­reotis. Here therefore dwelt that Monk, who was so eminent a­mongst the Gnosticks. Vales. of Parembole, a most approved person amongst the Gnosticks, who has declared, that all things practised by the Monks, are done for five reasons, for the sake of God, of Nature, on the account of Custom, of Neces­sity, and of the work of the hands. It was the usual saying of the same person also, that by nature there was only one virtue, but that in respect of the faculties of the soul it was divided in­to several Species. For the light of the Sun, said he, is without any figure; but it does usually receive its figure from the windows through which it enters. Another of the Monks was wont to say, I do therefore every way eschew pleasures, that I may Or, cut off. prevent the occasions of anger. For I know very well, that anger does always Or, fight or, strive. militate for pleasures, and does disquiet my mind, and expell knowledge. One of the aged Monks said, that Cha­rity knows not how to keep the Or, that which one is entrusted with to keep. De­positum of meat or money. This was another saying of the same person, I do not remember that I was ever twice deceived as to the same thing by the Devil.

These passages are word for word recorded in Evagrius's Book, entitled The Practick. In that Book of his, to which he gave this Title, The Gnostick, he says thus: We have been informed from Gregorius the Just, that the Virtues and their Contemplations are four; Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance, and Justice. And the business of Prudence, he said, was, to contemplate those In­telligent and holy powers Or, with­out words. without any reasons. For his doctrine was, that these were manifested by Wisdom: [the property] of Fortitude [as he affirmed,] was, to persist in what was true, although a resistance were made, and [...], not to in­trude into, &c. See Collos. 2. 18; where this term occurs. not to turn aside towards those things which are not. He made answer, that 'twas the property of Temperance, to receive the Seed from the First [and Great] Husband [...]an, and to repell him who would He al­ludes, I suppose, to the parable of the tares; see Matth. 13. 24, &c. Sow over again. [Lastly, he assigned this work] to Justice, to give an account [of things] agreeable to the worth and dignity of every person; [which virtus] does set forth some things obscurely; it gives the knowledge of others by Riddles; and it plainly manifests other some, for the benefit and advan­tage of the more unskilfull and simple hearers. That Pillar of truth Basilius the Cappadocian said, that that knowledge, which is accidentally pro­cured from men, is improved by a continual me­ditation and exercise: but, that infused by the [Page 319] Grace of God [is increased] by Justice, Or, pla­cability, or, slowness to anger. Pa­tience, and Mercy. And that the former [sort of knowledge,] 'tis possible, may be received by those who are lyable to disquietude and troubles of mind: but that they only are capable of the latter, who are free from all such disquietude and troubles; who also, during the interim of their being at prayer, do contemplate that proper and peculiar light of their mind, which does illuminate them. Athanasius that holy Luminary of the E­gyptians, says, that Moses is ordered See Exod, 26. 35. To place the Table on the North-side. The Gnosticks therefore may know, who it is that blows against them, and let them couragiously endure every temptation; and with a chearfull mind nourish those that come unto them. Concer­ning this Serapion, Jerome (in his book de Scriptor. Eccles.) speaks these words: Scrapio Thmuëos Aegypti Urbis Epis­copus, qui ob eleganti­am ingenii Scholasticus dictus est, &c. Sera­pion Bishop of Thmuis a City of Aegypt, who for the Elegance of his wit was stiled Scholasticus, &c. He died in Constantius's Reign, before the Seleu­cian Synod, that is, before the year of Christ 359. For in the Seleu­cian Synod, amongst the Bishops of Acacius's party, Ptolomaeus is reck­oned Bishop of Thmuis a City of Augustonica, or Augustanica. For Baronius is not to be heeded, who (in his Annotations on the Roman Martyrology,) says, Thmuis was a City in the Province Scethis. Scethis was not the name of a Province, but was it self rather in the Province Augustanica. And yet Marcellinus (book 22.) places Thmuis in (that properly called) Egypt. Vales. Serapion the Angel of the Church of the Thmüitae said, that the mind having drank a full draught of spiritual know­ledge, is [thereby] perfectly cleansed: but, that the parts of the mind inflamed with anger, are cured by Love: and that wicked desires, which flow into [the mind,] are stopt by Abstinence. Exercise your self with a continual meditation upon the Discourses and Reasons which relate to Providence and the Judgment [of God,] (says that great and skilfull Doctor Didymus;) and at­tempt to bear in mind the Subject of those Reasons and Discourses. For, almost all persons do err in these matters. And the Reasons and Discourses which concern a Judgment, you will find in the dif­ference of Bodies, and [...], throughout all parts of the world. in all parts of the world. But the accounts and dis­courses which relate to a Providence, [you will discern] in those ways which lead us from vice and igno­rance, to virtue and knowledge.

Thus much we have taken out of Evagrius's Books and inserted here. There was also another admirable person amongst the Monks, by name Ammonius, who had so little of curiosity in him, that being at Rome with Athanasius, he was de­sirous of viewing none of those magnificent works in that City; but saw only the Cathedral of Peter and Paul. This Ammonius, when he was to have been forced to take a Bishoprick, fled away, and cut off his own right ear, that by a Or, mai­ming. Mutilation of his body he might avoid being ordained a Bishop. Some time afterwards, E­vagrius (who was also to have been forc't to [take] a Bishoprick by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, and had made his escape, without making any mutilation upon his own body;) ac­cidentally met Ammonius, and in a facetious man­ner said unto him, That he had done ill to cut off his own ear, and that upon that account he was culpable before God. To whom Ammonius made this return: But do not you think, Evagrius, that you shall be punished, because you have cut out your own tongue, and out of a love to your self, would not make use of that Grace which was bestowed upon you? Moreover, at that time, there were in the Solitudes many other admirable and pious persons, the men ion of whom in this Work of ours would be too long and tedious. Besides, we must of necessity digress from the design we have proposed to our selves, should we give a particular account of the Lives of every one of these persons, and of the Miracles they performed by that eminent Sanctity wherewith they were endued. If any one be desirous of an accurate ac­count of these men, and would know what actions they performed and did, what sayings they ut­tered conducive to the profit and advantage of the hearers, and how the wild-beasts were obe­dient to them: there is a particular Book, ela­borated☜ by Paladius the Monk, who was Eva­grius's Scholar; wherein all things appertaining to these persons, are with great accuracy dis­courst of at large. In which Book [Palladius] makes mention of women also, who followed a course of life like to the foresaid men. Fur­ther, Evagrius and Palladius flourished a little af­ter the death of Valens [Augustus.] But we will now return to that place, whence we have di­gressed.

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning those holy Monks who were ex­iled; how God (by the Miracles they performed) attracted all persons to him­self.

WHen therefore the Emperour Valens had by his Edict given order, that as well the Orthodox, in Alexandria, as those in the other parts of Egypt, should be forcibly driven from their habitations; depopulation and ruine forthwith defaced and overthrew all things: whilst some persons were drag'd before the seats of ju­dicature; others thrown into Prison; and others tortured by other methods. For they inflicted various sorts of punishment upon persons that were great lovers of peace and quietness. After these things were done at Alexandria, in such a manner as Lucius thought good, and when Eu­zoïus was returned to Antioch, these [two] persons hastned immediately to the Solitudes of Egypt; [I mean] the Commander in chief of the Milice, with a numerous company of Souldiers, and Lucius the Arian. For he himself was not at that time absent, but (without shewing any com­passion in the least towards the assembly of those holy men,) perpetrated worse barbarities than the Souldiers themselves did. When they ar­rived at the place, they apprehended the men performing their usual exercises; [to wit,] praying, curing diseases, and casting out devils. But these [wretches,] little regarding God's Miracles, would not permit so much as the usual and solemn prayers to be performed in the Ora­tories; but drove the holy persons even out of those places. Nor did they acquiess in the do­ing hereof only, but proceeded on further, and Instead of [ [...] made use of the multi­tudes] I read [ [...] made use of weapons.] This reading is confirmed by Rufi [...] ▪ book 2. chap. 3. Which passage in Rufinus Socrates does here take notice of. Vales. made use of weapons against them. These [cruelties] Rufinus says he was Instead of [ [...]] we read [ [...], was present at.] See Rufinus book 2. chap. 4. where his words are these Qua praesens vidi loquor, & corum gesta re [...]ro, quorum in passionibus socius esse promerui. I speak what I was present at, and saw; and I relate their actions, of whose sufferings I had the savour to be a Companion. Vales. present at and saw, and was a fellow-sufferer with these persons. Wherefore, the words of the Apostle were re­newed against them. For, they were mocked, [Page 320] and He al­ludes to that pas­sage, at Hebr. 11. 36. 37, 38, had triall of Scourgings, they were stript naked, were bound, were stoned, were slain with the Sword, [they were] persons that wandred about in the Solitudes, in Sheep-skins, and Goat­skins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented, of whom the world was not worthy, they wandred in Deserts, and in Mountaines, and in Dens, and Caves of the earth: [...], especially when as they recei­ved a Testi­mony, or Commenda­tion, &c. notwithstanding they received a Testimony both from their Faith, and from the Works and Cures, which the Grace of God per­formed by their hands. But (as 'tis probable,) divine Providence permitted these persons to suffer these things, having provided some better thing, that by those miseries which they underwent, others might obtain salvation in God. And this was demonstrated by the Event. When therefore these admirable persons were superiour to all that force and violence used towards them, Lucius, quite out of heart; advices the Commander of the Military Forces, to banish the Fathers of the Monks. These [Fathers of the Monks] were, the Egyptian Macarius, and he of Alex­andria who bore the same name. These per­sons therefore were exiled into an Island, where­in there was no Christian Inhabitant. In that Island there was an [Heathen] Temple, and a Priest in it, whom all the Inhabitants worshipped like a God. But when these pious persons ar­rived in that Island, all the Daemons there were seized with a fear and trembling. At the same time also, this accident hapned. The Priests daughter, possest on a sudden by a Devil, fell into a rage and overturned all things. She was extreamly unruly, and could by no means be quieted: but cried out with a loud voice, and spake to those pious persons, saying, why are you come to cast us out from hence also? These men therefore did in that place give another de­monstration of that Or, Work. power of theirs which they had received from the Grace of God. For they drove the Devil out of the Virgin, and [having restored her] to her right mind, delivered her to her Father; whereby they induced both the Priest, and also all the Inhabitants of that Island, to [em­brace] the Faith of the Christian Religion. Where­fore, Here there was a whole line wanting, which we have made good from the Floren­tine and Sfortian M. SS. af­ter this manner [ [...], they cast away their images [immediately changed] the Fabrick of their Temple into [the form] of a Church.] Epiphan. Scholasticus found this reading in his Copy; as 'tis apparent from his Version. Vales. they cast away their Images immediately; changed the Fabrick of their Temple into the form of a Church; received Baptism, and with cheer­fulness learned all the [Doctrines] of Christiani­ty. Thus these admirable persons, persecuted up­on account of the Homoöusian Faith, rendred them­selves more approved, brought salvation to o­thers, and made the Faith more firm and strong.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning Didymus, a blind man.

ABout the same times, God produced ano­ther person, by whose Testimony he thought fit the Faith should be corroborated and confirmed. For Didymus, a man admira­ble and eloquent, adorned with all sorts of Lear­ning, flourished at that time. This person being very young, when he had but just learned to read; fell into a distemper of his eyes; where­with he was sorely troubled, and lost his eye-sight. But God, instead of corporal eyes, gave him those of the mind. For what he could not be instructed in by seeing, he learnt by hearing. For being of an apt and ingenious disposition from his child­hood, and endued with an excellent wit, he far surpassed even those [The word [ [...]] which we have ren­dred [ripe­witted­children] must be expunged; which seems to have crept in here, out of the fore­going line. Epiphanius Scholasticus acknow­ledges it not. For thus he renders it; Qui cum a puero fuisset ingeniosus, vincebat etiam acutae conspicien­tes, who be­ing from a boy of an ingenious disposition, excelled e­ven those who saw with the greatest a­cuteness. Vales. ripe-witted children] who had the acutest sight. For he became Ma­ster of the Rules of Grammar with much ease, and arrived to the knowledge of those of Rheto­rick with more celerity. Proceeding on from thence to Philosophy, with an admirable facility he learnt Logick, Arithmetick, and Musick; and treasured up within his own mind the other Precepts of the Philosophers, in such a manner, that he could readily dispute against those, who had perfectly learnt those Arts by the benefit of their eyes. Moreover, he was so exactly well­skilled in the divine Oracles of the Old and New Testament, that he published many discour­ses upon them: he dictated Three Books con­cerning the Trinity; and interpreted Origens Books Concerning Principles, setting forth Concer­ning these Comments of Didy­mus's on Origens books [...], Jerome speaks, in his 1st, and 2d book against Rufinus. Vales. Com­ments thereupon, wherein he asserts that those Books were incomparably well written, and that their Cavils are frivolous, who accuse Origen, and make it their business to speak reproach­fully of his Works: for they are not able, says he, to arrive at the knowledge of that Au­thours perspicacity and prudence. If any per­son therefore be desirous of knowing Didymus's great Learning, and the fervency of his mind, he may have an account thereof by a perusal of the Books elaborated by him. It's reported, that Antonius [the Monk] discoursed with this Didymus, Epipha­nius Scho­lasticus, and the o­ther translatours have rendred this place ill; as if Antonius the Monk had come to Alexandria in the times of Valens Augustus. But, 'tis ma­nifest, that Antonius died in the Reign of Constantius. Jerome informs us hereof, in his Chronicon, and in his Life of Hilarion. 'Tis uncertain, in what year of Constantius's Empire Antonius left the Solitudes, and came down to Alexandria; whether it was about the beginning of Constan­tius's Reign, before the ordination of Gregorius the Arian; or rather, after the Synod of Serdica, and Athanasiu [...]'s second restitution. Vales. long before the times of Valens, at such time as he left the desart, and came to Alex­andria upon account of the Arians; and that perceiving the Learning and knowledge of this person, he spake these words to him; O Didy­mus! Let not the loss of your bodily eyes trouble you. For you are deprived of such eyes, Instead of [ [...], as the Flyes and Gnats can see with,] in Cedrenus, at the sixth year of Con­stantius, the reading is [ [...] as the Flyes and Gnats can do harm to. Nor did Epiphanius Schola­sticus find it written otherwise in his Copy, as 'tis apparent from this his Version: quibus & Muscae & Culices nocere possunt, to which the Flyes and Gnats can do harm. And yet Rufinus, (Eccles. Histor. book 2. chap. 7.) out of whom Socrates borrowed this story, defends the common reading, which we have followed in our Version. And Jerome also does confirm this our reading, in his Epistle to Castrutius. Vales. as the Flies and Gnats can see with. But rejoyce, that you have those eyes, wherewith the Angels see, by which even God himself is discerned, and his Light comprehended. This was the saying of the pious Antonius to Didymus, long before these times [we are treating of.] But at that time, Didymus was look't upon to be the greatest Patron and De­fender of the genuine Faith, who disputed against the Arians, unravelled their Sophistick Cavills, and confuted their adulterate and fraudulent discourses.

CHAP. XXVI. Concerning Basilius of Caesarea, and Gregorius of Nazianzum.

DIvine Providence set up Didymus indeed as an opponent to the Arians at Alexandria: but [in order to their Confutation] in other Cities, [Page 321] [it made use of] Basilius Caesariensis, and Gre­gorius Nazianzenus. Concerning whom I judge it now opportune to give a short account. The memory and same of these two persons, which is still preserved amongst all men, and the Learning contained in the Books written by them, might indeed be sufficient to set forth the praises and commendations of each of them. But, in regard they were persons in an eminent man­ner usefull to the Church at that time, and were preserved [by God,] as being the Incentives of the [Orthodox] Faith; the Subject of our Hi­story does of necessity ingage us, in an espe­ciall manner to make mention of these two men. Should any one therefore be desirous of com­paring Basilius and Gregorius with one another, and of giving an account of the Life, Morals, and Virtues that were in them; he would be in a great doubt which of them he should prefer be­fore the other. For they were both equal to one another, whether you respect their [pious and] exact course of Life, or their Learning; I mean as well their Grecian Literature, as their know­ledge in the sacred Scriptures. For, when very young, they went to Athens, and were the hea­rers of Himerius and Prohaeresius, the two most eminent Sophistae of those times; afterwards they frequented [the School of]a What Socrates says here, is in my opinion false; viz. that Basilius and Gregorius, after they had finished the course of their Learned studies at Athens, were hearers of Libanius the Sophista at Antioch. Gregorius himself does refute this, in his Poem concer­ning his own Life; where he says, that he was in the thirtieth year of his age when he left Athens, and that his friends would have detained him at A­thens, that he might be a pro­fessour of eloquence; (the same is attested by Rufinus, book 2. chap. 9. Eccles. Hist.) but that he fled secretly from thence, and went into his own Country. Vales. Libanius at Antioch in Syria, and by their industry arri­ved at the highest accom­plishments of Or, Rhe­torick. e­loquence. And when they were judged worthy to be profes­sours of eloquence, many persons perswaded them to enter upon the teaching and profession thereof. Others advised them to practise the Law, but they despised both these sorts of Life: and dis­continuing their studies of eloquence, embraced a Mo­nastick life. Having there­fore had a taste of the precepts of Philoso­phy from him who at that time taught Phi­losophy at Antioch, not long after they procu­red Origen's Works, and from them got an in­sight into the interpretation of the sacred Scri­ptures. For the great fame of Origen did at that time fill the whole world. When they had with great studiousness exercised themselves in the per­usal of those Books, they powerfully opposed the Assertours of Arianism. And although the Arians Or, quoted. cited Origen's Books, in confirmation (as they supposed) of their own opinion; yet these two persons confuted them, and evidently demonstra­ted, that they understood not the meaning of Origen. Indeed, the Arians, and their then A­bettor Eunomius, although they were at that time accounted persons of great eloquence, yet, as often as they engaged in a discourse with Gre­gorius and Basilius, 'twas made evidently appa­rent that they were men altogether ignorant and unlearned. Basilius was first promoted to a Or, the Office of a Deacon. Diaconate by Meletius Bishop of Antioch; after that, he was preferred to the Baronius says, Ba­silius was prefered to the Bishoprick of Caesarea, in the year of Christ 369: and this he attempts to prove from Gregorius Nyssenus's testimony. Theo­phanes and Cedrenus, in his Chronicon, do place the beginning of Ba­silius's Episcopate, on the ninth year of Valens, which was the year of Christ 371. But the same Authours do affirm, that Basilius was yet but a Presbyter, in the eighth year of Valens. See Theophanes's and Cedrenus's words at the said eighth year of Valens. Gregorius Nazianzenus does confirm the s [...]me in his Oration de Laudibus Basilii. Where he does attest in express words, that Basilius was yet but a Presbyter only of the Church of Caesarea, at such time as Valens, guarded with a part of Heretical Prelates, undertook an expedition against the Churches of the East, which he hastned to deliver up to the Arians. Moreover, Valens undertook this expedition against the Orthodox on his own third Consulate, that is on the year of Christ 370, as our Socrates does affirm: (compare the 14th and 17th chapters of this 4th book.) Gregorius Nyssenus confirms this, in his first book against Eunomius (who had upbraided Basilius with fear­fulness and pusillanimity,) where he describes Valens's preparations and expedition against the Churches, in these words: [...] &c. The Emperour went from Constantinople into the East, p [...]ft up in his mind with the late successfull and fortunate Actions he had performed against the Bar­barians. That is, after the War against the Goths, and the League made with them. Which hapned in the year of Christ 369. as Amm. Marcellinus attests. Wherefore, that expedition of Valens's to de­stroy Gods Churches, hapned in [...]ife year of our Lord 370, as I have now said. Now, that Basilius was then no more than a Presbyter, his Brother Gregorius does in the same place inform us. For, he says, that the Prae [...]ect of the Praetorium, to wit, Modestus, at first made use of flatteries, and promised Basilius a Praesulate and an Ecclesiastick pre­sidency, provided he would obey the Emperour. Nyss [...]n's words are these; [...]. Therefore Basilius was not Bishop of Casarea, at such time as Modestus endeavoured to pervert him. Moreover, Modestus first bore the Praefecture of the Praetorium, when Gratianus [...]I and Prob [...]s were Coss. in the year of Christ 371, as I have remarkt in my notes on the 29th book of Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 380. It may also be proved by another argument, that Basilius was preferred to the Epis­copate of Caesarea after the year of Christ 370. For Nazianzon in the Funeral Oration which he wrote on him, says that Basilius was but a Presbyter, at such time as that Famine (by far the [...]orest of all the Famines that are mentioned to have hapned at any time) hapned in Cappadocia. Now, this is the Famine, which our Socrates mentions in the sixteenth chapter of this book; it hapned in the third Con­sulate of Valentinianus and Valens. Vales. Bishoprick of his own Country, I mean Caesarea in Cappa­docia, and undertook the care of the Churches. For being afraid, least the novelty of the Arian opinion should prey upon and devour the Pro­vinces of Pontus, he went Grego­rius Nazi­anzenus (who is more to be credited in these things) does attest in his Fu­neral Ora­tion concer­ning the praises of Basilius, that Basi­lius, as yet but a Pres­byter, went into those parts, with a design to oppose himself against the perfidiousness of the Arians. Vales. with great hast into those parts. Where he constituted Monasteries, instructed the inhabitants in his own doctrines, and confirmed the minds of those that wavered. Socrates borrowed this out of Rufinus; who (in book 2. chap 9. Eccles. Histor.) writes thus: Gregorius vero apud Nazianzon, &c. But Gregorius, being substituted Bishop in his father's stead, at the Town Nazianzum, faithfully [...]ore the storm of the Hereticks. And yet 'tis manifest, that Gregorius was not made Bishop, but Coadjutor only to his own father Gregorius, in the Episcopate of Nazianzum: and upon this condition too, that he should not succeed his father in that Bi­shoprick; as he himself attests in his Eighth Oration, and in his Poem concerning his own Life. He was first constituted Bishop of Sasimi by Basilius the Great, who had been the first Founder of this Bishoprick, that he might assure that place to his own Church; as Gregorius at­tests in the Poem concerning his own Life. From thence he was tran­slated to the Constantinopolitan See, which he quickly left, betook him­self to Nazianzum, and governed the Bishoptick of that place some while, till such time as, being wearied out with age and diseases, he made choise of his own successour. Jerome's account therefore is true, whose words (in his book De Script. Ecclesiast.) are these: Gregorius primùm Sasimorum, deinde Nazianzenus Episcopus, &c. Gregorius, Bishop first of Sasimi, and afterwards of Nazianzum, &c. And 'tis strange, that although he governed three Bishopricks, yet they were all doubtfull and uncertain. 'Tis plain, that in his Epistles he himself does frequent­ly deny, that he ever presided over the Episcopate of Sasimi, or ever per­formed any sacerdotal office there. Neither Jerome his Scholar, nor Rufinus, do ascribe the Constantinopolitan Bishop [...]ick to him. Lastly, he delivered the Bishoprick of Nazianzum to another, rather than governed it himself. Vales. Gregorius [being constituted] Bishop of Na­zianzum a small City in Cappadocia, over which Church his own father had before presided, took the same course that Basilius did. For he also went up and down to the Cities, and corrobora­ted those that were feeble and dispirited as to the faith. But more especially, he made frequent jour­neys to Constantinople, and confirmed the Or­thodox in that City by his Preaching and Dis­courses. Upon which account, he was soon af­ter [Page 322] constituted Bishop over the people at Con­stantinople, by the suffrage of many Bishops. When therefore what That is, Basilius and Gre­gorius. both these persons did, came to the Emperour Valens's ears, he forth­with ordered This ac­count disa­grees from what the two Gre­gorius's (to wit, Na­zianzenus in his fu­neral ora­tion, and Nyssenus in his first book a­gainst Eu­nomius) do relate con­cerning Basilius. For they do attest, that Basi­lius was not brought before Mo­destus the Praefect of the Praeto­rium at An­tioch, but that this was done in the City Caesarea. Sozomen therefore (Eccles. Hist. book. 6. ch. 16.) has truly corrected Socrates's mistake here; where he relates, that Valens came from Antioch to Caesarea, and ordered Basilius should be brought before the Tribunal of the Praefect of the Praetorium. Further, you must observe, that Va­lens Augustus came to Caesarea twice, and made an attempt to vanquish Basilius: His first journey thither was when Basilius was no more than a Presbyter; which (as we have shown be­fore) was in the year 370. This is evidently confirmed by Sozo­men in his sixth book. When he came the second time thither, 'tis not certain. But I conjecture it was on the year of Christ 371, or 372. Which I collect from Modestus's Praefecture, which falls on those years. Nazianzenus distinguishes these two journeys of Valens's, in his twentieth Oration, pag. 346. of his works. Edit. Paris. 1609. Vales. Basilius to be brought from Caesa­rea to Antioch. Immediately therefore he was conveyed thither, and by the Emperours order was set before the Tribunal of the Praefects: Socrates took this out of Rufinus, book 2. chap. 9. Eccles. Hist. But Gregorius Nyssenus, in his first book against Eunomius, says that Basilius stood before the Tribunal of Modestus the Praefect twice; once when he was Presbyter, and a second time when he was Bishop. But Nazianzen makes no mention of Basilius's former examina­tion. Vales. when the Praefect put this question to him, why he would not embrace the Emperours Faith; Basilius with a great deal of confidence found fault with the Emperours Religion, and com­mended the Homoöusian Faith. But when the Praefect threatned him with death, would to God (said Basilius) it might happen to me, to be de­livered from the bonds of the body upon account of the truth! Then, upon the Praefects admo­nishing him to inspect and consider the matter more seriously with himself, 'tis reported that Ba­silius said, I am the same this day that I shall be to morrow: In Rufinus (Eccles. Hist. book 2. chap. 9.) this passage is thus worded; utinam te non mutares, I wish you would not have changed your self. In which words Basilius reproves Modestus, because from being a Catholick he was become an Arian, that he might please the Emperour. We are indeed told by Gregorius (in his funeral Ora­tion) that Modestus was an Arian. Vales. I wish that you would not have changed your self. After this Basilius continued that day in custody. Not long after, it hapned, that Va­lens's son, a young child, whose name was Here Valentinianus Junior is called by another name, as we have observed before, chap. 10. of this book note (a) He was surnamed Galates, because he was born in Galatia. Further, in regard Socrates does here term him [...], a young child; our opinion (which we have given in before) is very much confirmed; to wit, that these things were done about the year of our Lord 371, or 372. For Valentinianus Junior was born in the year of Christ 366; as we have remarked before: from which year to the year 372, are six years compleat. So Valentinianus Junior, called also Galates, died at six years old. For a child of that age is rightly termed [...]. Vales. Ga­lates, was seized with a sore distemper, in so much that his recovery was despaired of by the Physitians. The Empress Dominica, his mother, did positively affirm to the Emperour, that she had been sorely disquieted with fearfull and hor­rid visions in her dreams; and that the child was visited with sickness, because of the Bishops in­jurious usage. The Emperour, taking these things into consideration, sends for Basilius. And to make tryal of him, expresses himself to him after this manner. If your Opinion be true, pray that my son may not dye. If you will believe, O Emperour! (replied Basilius,) as I doe; and if [you will assent that] the Church shall be united, the child shall live. When the Empe­rour would not consent to that, the will of God therefore be done (said Basilius) concerning the child. After Basilius had spoken these words, [the Emperour] ordered he should be dismist. But the child died not long after. Let thus much be compendiously said concerning these persons. Moreover, each of them wrote and published ma­ny, and those incomparable Books. Some of which Rufinus says were by So Rufi­nus says, book 2. chap. 9. Eccles. Hist. him translated into Latine. Basilius had two brothers, Petrus and Gregorius. Petrus imitated Basilius's monastick course of life: but Gregorius [followed] his eloquent way of teaching. He also finished that Book concerning the Six days-work, (which Ba­silius had taken pains about, and left imperfect) after his Brother's death. And recited a Funeral Oration in [praise of] Meletius Bishop of An­tioch, at Constantinople. There are also several other Orations of his extant.

CHAP. XXVII. Concerning Gregorius Thaumaturgus.

BUt, in regard some are apt to mistake, be­cause of the likeness of the name, and by reason of the Books which in their title are a­scribed to Gregorius, you are to know, that there was another Gregorius of Pontus; who had his original extract at Neocaesarea in Pontus, and was ancienter than these [Gregorius's.] For he was So Euseb. Eccles. Hist. book. 6. chap. 30. Origen's Scholar. This Gregorius's fame is very great at Athens, at Berytus, over the whole At this place I have fol­lowed Ni­cephorus's authority; and instead of [ [...]] I have a­mended it thus [ [...], Pon­tick dioe­cesis;] al­though our M. SS. co­pies make no altera­tion here. See Socrat. book 1. chap. 9. note (s.) Vales. Pontick Dioecesis, and (I had almost said) over the whole world. For having left the Schools at Athens, he went to Berytus, and studied the Civill Law. Where being informed that Origen did interpret the sacred Scriptures at Caesarea, he went in great hast to that City. And having been an hearer of the Magnifick exposi­tion of the sacred Scriptures, he bad far-well to [his study of] the Roman Laws, and in future became wholly addicted [to Origen.] By whom he was instructed in the true Philosophy, and af­ter that, his Parents recalling him, he returned into his own country. Where first of all, whilst he was a Laïck, He did many miracles; some­times healing the diseased; at others driving a­way devills by Or, E­pistles. Letters; [in fine,] he brought over the professours of Gentilism [to the faith,] not only by his words, but much more by the works he did. He is mentioned also by Pamphilus the Martyr, in the Books he wrote Instead of [ [...], con­cerning O­rigen,] it would be better thus [ [...], in de­fence of O­rigen;] for he means Pamphilus's Apologetick in defence of Origen: concerning which con­sult Photius, in his Bibliotheca. Vales. concer­ning Origen. Whereto is annexed In the Greek, 'tis thus worded: [...] which Musculus renders thus; Liber Gregorii quo Origenem commendavit, Gregorius's book wherein he has commended Origen. Chri­stophorson translates it thus: Oratio Gregorii in Crigenis commendati­onem conscripta, Gregorius's Oration written in praise of Origen. But, I cannot approve of this Version: for that Oration was not written by Gregorius Thaumaturgus in commendation of Origen; but to return thanks to his master, when he left his School. Indeed, Commendatory Letters are termed [...] but there were never any Orationes [...], commendatory Orations. Wherefore, I doubt not but it should be [...]; although Nicephorus confirms the vulgar reading. Now, [...] is a Valedictory Oration, as we have remar­ked in our notes on Euseb. Life of Constant. book 3. chap. 21. note (a.) Vales. Grego­rius's Oration, wherein he returned thanks to O­rigen at his departure from him. There were therefore, that I may speak briefly, [many] Gregorius's. The first is this ancient, Origens Scholar; the second, Nazianzenus; the third, Basilius's Brother. There was also another Gre­gorius at Alexandria, whom the Arians consti­tuted Bishop [of that City] during the time of Athanasius's exile. Thus much concerning these persons.

CHAP. XXVIII. Concerning Novatus, and those from him termed Novatians. And, that those Novatians who inhabited Phrygia, altered [the time of cele­brating] the Festival of Easter, and kept it on the same day the Jews did.

ABout this very time, the Novatians, who in­habited Phrygia, altered the day of cele­brating the Feast of Easter. How this was done, I will declare; having first of all told you, upon what account the accurate and exact Canon of their Church does at this present flourish in the Provinces of Phrygia and Pa­phlagonia. The Greeks usually term him Novatus, whose right name was Novatianus. Concerning whose Heresie, you may consult Euse­bius, (Eccles. Hist. book 6. chip. 43,) Epiphanius, the Authour of the questions on the Old and New Testament, and Theodoret. Vales. Novatus, a Pres­byter of the Roman Church, made a separation therefrom, in regard Cornelius the Bi­shop admitted those Belie­vers to communion, who had sacrificed in that Persecution, which the Emperour Decius raised against the Churches. Becoming a Separatist therefore upon this account, and being elected to the Bishoprick [of Rome] by such Prelates as embraced the same sentiments with him, he wrote to the Chur­ches every where, that they should not admit such persons as had sacrificed, to the [sacred] My­steries: but should exhort them to repentance, and leave the pardoning of their offences to God, who is able, and has power to remit sins. The Inhabitants of every Province having received such Letters as these, gave their judgments of the things therein signified, according to their own Or Mo­ralls. dispositions and humours. For whereas No­vatus had given notice, that those were not to be vouchsafed the participation of the He means the Sacra­ment of the Lords Sup­per. Mysteries, who after Baptism had fallen into [any] deadly sin; the promulgation of this Canon seemed se­vere and cruel to some: but others admitted of this Rule, as just and equitable, and [of great use] for the establishing a pious and more re­gular course of life. Instead of [ [...]] it is doubtless to be thus worded [ [...], &c.] Que­stionless, Socrates left it writ­ten thus; and we have ren­dred it ac­cordingly. Vales. In the interim that this great controversie was in debate, arrive the Letters of Cornelius Bishop [of Rome,] promising in­dulgence to those who had sinned after Baptism. Upon these two persons writing thus contrary to one another, and each of them confirming what he asserted by testimony of the sacred Scriptures; The ex­pression in the origi­nal is, [...]; which Musculus renders thus, sicut fieri solet, as it is usually done; and Christophorson thus; ut moris est, as the manner is. But I cannot approve of these Versions. For the Grecian writers make use of (not [...], but) [...], to signifie, as it is usu­ally done, or, as the manner is. Wherefore, I am rather of opi­nion, that it should be [...], every inhabitant of the Provinces: so Epiphanius Scholasticus read it. For he renders it thus; Singuli Provincialium, &c. Every Subject of the Provinces. [...] has the same import with [...] which phrase Socrates has made use of a little before, in this chapter; where his words are, [...], the Inhabitants of every Province having received such Letters as these. Vales. every inhabitant of the Provinces betook him­self to that party, whereto he had before enter­tained a greater propensity and inclination. For, such persons as delighted in sin, laid hold of the Indulgence then granted, and in future abused it to all manner of impiety. [Moreover,] the people of Phrygia seem to be more sober, and persons of better Moralls, than other Nations. For 'tis very rare that the Phrygians do swear. Indeed, the Scythians and Thracians are very rea­dy to be overcome with anger and passion; and those who inhabit that Region [which lyes] towards the rising Sun, are more addicted to the serving of their lusts. But the Paphlagonians and Phrygians are not prone to either of these vices. For, neither Cirque-Sports, nor Theatri­cal-Shews, are at this present Or stu­diously ex­ercised or, followed. esteemed amongst them. On which account, as well these persons, as others who embrace the same Sentiments with them, in my judgment seem to have given their assent to what was then written from Novatus. For, amongst them whoring is reputed a most enormous wickedness. 'Tis apparently known, that the Phrygians and Paphlagonians do live more modestly and temperately, than any other Sect of men what ever. I am of opinion, that it was the very same reason likewise [which prevailed] with those that inhabit the Western parts; who also have followed Novatus's opinion. But, No­vatus (although he was a Separatist upon ac­count of an accurate and more strict course of life, yet) made no alteration in [the celebra­tion of] the Feast of Easter. For he always celebrated that Festival, after the same manner that those in the Western parts did. Now, the Inhabitants of those parts do always keep that Feast after the Aequinox, agreeable to an usage very anciently delivered to them, even from the time that they first embraced Christianity. [Fur­ther,] this Novatus. person suffered The No­vatians did boast, that the Foun­der of their Sect was a Martyr; and they wrote a book, the Title whereof was, The Martyrdom of Novatianus. But this book, which was stuft with Lies and Fables, has long since been confuted by Eulogius Bi­shop of Alexandria, in his sixth book against the Novatians, the Excer­ptions whereof occur in Photius's Bibliotheca, p. 1621. Edit. David Hoeschel. 1610. Moreover, in those Acts of the Martyrdom of No­vatianus, Novatianus was not said to have suffered Martyrdom, but only to have been a Confessour of the Faith of Christ. For, the Authour of the Acts. says, that of the eight Presbyters of the Roman Church who were under Macedonius Bishop of Rome, seven offered sacrifice to Idols together with Macedonius, and that only Novatus underwent an egregious Martyrdom of confession. And that toge­ther with Novatianus three Bishops (almost the only persons of the Western parts) termed it a Martyrdom; to wit, Marcellus and Alexander Bishops of Aquileia, and Agamemnon Bishop of Por­ta, or rather of Tibur. Who lived apart after that confessi­on, held assemblies with Novatianus, and avoided their com­munion who had sacrificed to Idols. A little afterwards they laid their hands on Novatianus, and ordained him Bishop of Rome. Vales. Martyrdom af­terwards, [to wit] in the Reign of the Em-Emperour Valerian, who raised a Persecution a­gainst the Christians. But those in Phrygia who from his name are called Novatians, This place is strangely corrupted. Nor is this fault new; but the copies were faulty even in Epiphanius Scholasticus's time; for thus he renders it: Hi vero qui ex eo nomen habuerunt, ejusque fuere participes, &c. But those who had their name from him, and were partakers thereof, &c. How Nicephorus read this passage in Socrates, 'tis uncer­tain, in regard his Greek Text is at this place defective. But Langus, who had seen a Greek Copy of Nicephorus, renders it thus: Qui vero ejus nomine in Phrygia Censentur, &c. But those who are accounted of his name in Phrygia, when by indulging themselves, they had degenerated from his institutions and communion, at this time altered the Paschal Festival also. I say nothing concerning the other Translatours, in whose Ver­sions you will find nothing of soundness. I am of opinion, that the place, by a small alteration, is thus to be made good: [...] That is, having an aversion even for that communion they were permitted [to hold with the rest of the Catholicks in the celebrating] of this [Festival.] There is nothing more plain than this sense. Before Valens's time, the Novatians in Phrygia kept Easter at the same time the rest of the Catholicks did. After that, they began to shun the communion and society of the Catholicks in this matter also. Further, although I do very much ap­prove of Socrates's judgment, who gives an account why the Phrygians more especially embraced the Novatian Heresie; yet there may ano­ther reason be given hereof. For, Novatus, or rather Novatianus, was (as 'tis said) by Country a Phrygian: so Philostorgius asserts book 8. Wherefore, 'tis no wonder, that he had many followers of his own opinion in that province. Vales. having an aversion even for that communion they were permitted [to hold with the rest of the Catho­licks in the celebrating] of this [Festival.] about this time changed the Feast of Easter also. [Page 324] For, some few (and those in no wise eminent) Bishops of the Novatians in Phrygia, having convened a Synod in the Village Pazum, (at which place are the Or, Fountains. heads of the River San­garius,) promulged a Canon, that it should be observed [yearly on what day] the Jews cele­brated their Feast of unleavened bread, and that together with them the Feast of Easter should be kept. These things were told me by a cer­tain I conje­cture, that this was long-lived Auxano, a Presby­ter of the Novatian Church; whose te­stimony Socrates makes use of, book 1. chap. 10, & 13. But, we must not here omit Nicepho­rus's words concerning our Socrates: he says thus, book 11. chap. 14; Haec sibi renuntiata esse Socrates qui hoc loco non abhorrere se à Novatianorum institutis palàm prae se fert, à sene quodam scribit, &c. Socrates (who in this place plainly shews himself not to be a detester of the Nova­tian principles) relates that these things were told him by a cer­tain old man, &c. Notwithstanding, I am not of Nicephorus's opinion. Vales. old man, who said that he was the son of a Presbyter, and was together with his Fa­ther present at the foresaid Synod. At which Synod, neither Agelius Bishop of the Novatians at Constantinople, was present, nor yet Maximus of Nicaea; neither were the Bishops of Nico­media, or Cotuaeum at it: although these persons were the chief Regulatours of the Novatian Religion. These things were after this manner transacted at that time. But, not long after, the Church of the Novatians was divided into two parties upon account of this Synod, as we will declare in due place. We must now pass from hence, to [a relation of] what hapned at this very time in the Western parts.

CHAP. XXIX. Concerning Damasus Bishop of Rome, and Ursinus. How, a Disturbance and Sedition hapning in Rome upon their account, there followed a great slaughter of men.

WHilst the Emperour Valentinianus lived in peace and tranquillity, and was vexa­tious towards no Sect; Damasus succeeded Li­berius in the Government of the Bishoprick of Rome. Instead of [ [...]] read [ [...], under whom; for that's the reading in the Florent. M. S. and in Nicepho­rus. Vales. Under whom the Church of Rome hap­ned to be disturbed, upon this account. One Ursinus, a Deacon of the same Church had been a competitor, when the Election of a Bishop was made. But, in regard Damasus was pre­ferred [before him,] Ursinus, unable to bear the being frustrated of his expectation, made it his business to [...]. A very ele­gant term, to signifie Scismatical assemblies and con­venticles, who are said to e­rect one Altar con­trary to another. Hence comes the term [...], a sort of Schism, concerning which Basilius speaks, in his Canonicall Epistle to Amphylochius, de Baptismo Haereticorum. Vales. hold assemblies that were Schis­matical and separate from the Church; and per­swades certain mean Bishops to ordain him [clandestinely] in a secret place. And he is ordained, not in a Church, but in an obscure place, in that called Amm. Marcellinus (book 27. pag. 337. Edit. Vales.) calls it Sicininus's Pallace; where, says he, there is a little private assembling place of [the professours of] the Christian Religion; in which [du­ring the conflicts between Damasus's and Ursinus's parties] there was in one day an hundred and thirty dead bodies found, &c. Read the Hi­storians following words; from the whole passage 'tis plain, how dis­orderly the Elections of a Bishop of Rome then were, and at what an height they lived. Sicinius's Pallace. Upon the doing hereof, a dissention was raised amongst the populace. They disagreed amongst themselves, not upon account of the Faith, or [any] He­resie, but about this only, [to wit] who ought to be put in possession of the Episcopal Chair. Hereupon there hapned [frequent] conflicts of the multitudes; in so much that many were kil­led, on account of that variance. For which rea­son, many persons as well Laïcks, as Ecclesiasticks, were punished by Socrates borrowed this out of Rufinus, book 2. chap. 10. Eccles. Hist. In that year, whereon Ursinus raised his Schism, Juventius, not Maximinus, was Praefect of the City, as Amm. Marcellinus attests, book 27. pag. 337. But, in regard this Schism lasted many years, 'tis possible that Maximinus (who was Praefect of the Annona,) might take cognizance of this business, and torture some Ecclesiasticks, as Rufinus relates. This Maximinus was Praefect of the Annona, in the seventh year of Valentinian; as Jerome does assert in his Chronicon. Marcellinus speaks much concerning this Maximinus, in his 28th book. Vales. Maximinus the then Praefect [of the City;] and so both Ursinus at that time ceased from [prosecuting] his attempt, and also those who had a mind to be his followers, were quieted.

CHAP. XXX. How (after the death of Auxentius Bishop of Millain,) a Sedition hapning on account of the Election of a Prelate to succeed in that Sea; Ambrosius, President of the Province, going with a Military Force to appease the tumult, was by a general suffrage (the Emperour Va­len [...]inianus having given his consent also) pre­ferred before all persons, and Elected▪ Bishop of that Church.

ABout the same time, there hapned another thing worthy to be recorded, which came to pass at Millain. For, Socrates has trans­cribed this following passage, al­most word for word out of Rufinus's book 2. chap. 11. Eccles, Hist. For, he observes the same order that Ru­finus does, after Damasus's ordi­nation forthwith subjoyning Am­brosius's promotion. But, although Rufinus and Socrates have conjoy­ned these two Ordinations, as if they had been made at one and the same time; yet there was a great interval of time between each ordination. For Damasus entred upon the Bishoprick of Rome in the Consulate of Lupi­cinus and Jovinus, on the year of Christ 367. But Ambrosius was promoted to the Episcopate of Mil­lain in the year of our Lord 374, in the third Consulate of Gra­tianus which he bore with Equi­tius; as Baronius has observed from Saint Jerom's Chronicon. Vales. Auxentius Bishop of that Church being dead, who had been or­dained by the Arians, the Inhabitants of Millain were again disturbed about the Election of a Bi­shop: and there was a great contention amongst them, some making it their busi­ness to elect one person, o­thers another. When a Se­dition was raised about this matter, the Governour of that Province (a person vested with a Consular dignity, whose name was Ambro­sius,) fearing least some ab­surdity might happen in the City, [caused] by that tu­mult, ran into the Church, in order to his appeasing of the uproar. After that the people upon his coming thi­ther were quieted, and that he had represt the irrational fury of the multitude by a long and very usefull exhortatory Oration; there hapned on a suddain an unanimous agreement amongst all persons; who cried out, that Am­brosius deserved the Bishoprick, and all made it their request, that he might be ordained. For, by that means only ['twas said] the people would be united, and embrace a concordant opi­nion concerning the Faith. In regard therefore, this unanimous consent of the people seemed to the Bishops that were present, to proceed from some divine [order and appointment,] with­out delay they laid hold of Ambrosius: and ha­ving baptized him, (for he was then but a Ca­techumen,) they forthwith went about the pro­moting of him to the dignity of that Bishoprick. But, because Ambrosius (though he received Baptism with much willingness, yet) refused the Episcopal dignity with all imaginable earnest­ness; [the Bishops] acquaint the Emperour Valentinianus with what hapned. The Empe­rour, admiring the unanimous consent of the [Page 325] people, and acknowledging what had come to pass, to be the work of God, declared to the Bishops, that they ought to obey God, who had commanded he should be ordained: for that he was elected by the suffrage of God, rather than of men. Ambrosius being after this manner con­stituted [Bishop,] the Inhabitants of Mil­laine, who had been at variance before, were by his means reduced at that time to unity and concord.

CHAP. XXXI. Concerning Valentinianus's death.

BUt after this, when the Sarmatae made incur­sions into the Roman Territories, the Em­perour undertook an expedition against them, at the head of a vast Army. The Barbarians, informed of these great preparations for a War, and being sensible of their own inability to make a resistance, sent an Embassy to the Em­perour, and requested that they might obtain a Peace upon certain conditions. When the Em­bassadours were introduced into the Emperours presence, and appeared to him to be Or, per­sons un­worthy of praise. vile and despicable fellows, he asked, whether all-the Sar­matae were such sort of persons. The Embassa­dours made answer, that the noblest personages of That is, of the whole na­tion of the Sarmatae. their whole Nation were come to him; where­upon Valentinianus was highly incensed, and cry­ing out with a very loud voice, said; that he was very unfortunate to have the Roman Empire de­volve upon him, when such a Nation of Barba­rians, so vile and contemptible, was not satisfied to continue in safety within its own limits; but would take up Arms, Or, tram­ple upon. depopulate the Roman Territories, and audaciously break out into a War. And he tore himself in such a manner by his crying out, that all his Veines were opened, and every one of his Arteries broken. [A vast quantity of] bloud gushing out after this manner, he died in the Castle called Bergition, after Gratianus's third Consulate [which he bore] with Equitius, a­bout the seventeenth of the month November; when he had lived fifty four years, and reigned thirteen. Valentinianus therefore having ended his life, the Milice in Italy, on the sixth day af­ter his death, proclaimed his Son (who had the same name with his Father,) Valentinianus (a very young child,) Emperour, in We met with a double mi­stake here, the one committed by Socrates's Transcribers, the other by Socrates himself. We have corrected the Transcribers errour (who, in stead of Acincum, had made it Aconcam,) from the Au­thority of the Sfortian and Flo­rent. M. SS. It will be sufficient only to take notice of Socrates's mistake here; who calls Acin­cum a City of Italy, whenas it belonged to Pannonia. Vales. Acincum a City of Italy. The Emperours, informed hereof, were displeased, not because Valentinianus Junior (who was brother to the That is, To Gratianus. one Emperour, and the To wit, Valens's brother's son. others Nephew) was made Emperour: but in regard he had been proclaimed without either of their being acquain­ted with it, whom they them­selves were about to pro­claim. Notwithstanding, both of them gave their consent to his being made Emperour. After this manner was Valentinianus Junior seated on his own Fa­thers Throne. Further, you must know, that this Valentinianus was begotten by Valentinianus Senior, of Justina, which woman That is, Valentinia­nus Senior. he married whilest Severa his former wife was living, on this occasion. Justus, Father to Justina, (who heretofore, to wit, in Constantius's Reign, had been Governour of the Province Picenum;) had a Dream, wherein (to his own thinking) he saw himself delivered of the Imperial purple [which he brought forth] out of his right side, this Dream being divulged, at length came to Constantius's hearing also. He guessing at the meaning of the Dream, to wit, that an Empe­rour should Or, should be born of. descend from Justus, sent one who dispatcht him. His daughter Justina, bereaved of her Father, for a considerable while continued a Virgin. Some time after, she became known to Severa, wife to the Emperour Valentinianus, and was continually conversant with the Empress. And after a firm familiarity was contracted between them, she bathed her self also together with her. When therefore Severa had seen Justina washing her self, she was Or, in love with. wonderfully taken with the Virgins beauteous composure of body, and dis­coursed concerning her in the Emperours pre­sence; [saying] that that Virgin, Justus's daughter, was endowed with so admirable a compleatness of body, that she her self, although a woman, was notwithstanding inamoured with her delicate shape. The Emperour treasured up his Wives discourse in his mind, and consulted about his marriage of Justina; yet so as not to divorce Severa, of whom he had begotten Gra­tianus, and had created him Augustus but a little before. He therefore dictated a There is no mention of this law of Valenti­nianus's, any where. No, not in Amm. Mar­cellinus, who has with great accuracy recorded Valentini­anus's af­faires. In­deed such a law as this (in my judgment) is in no wise agreeable to Valentinian, a serious Prince, and a Christian. Therefore, this whole story of Justina's marriag [...], is in my opinion, of a credit doubtfull and uncertain. Vales. Law, and made it publick throughout every City, that any one that would, might have two Lawfull wives. This Law was promulged. And he married Justina, by whom he had Valentinianus Junior, and three daughters, Justa, Grata, and Galla. The two former of which persisted in their re­solution of continuing Virgins: but Galla was afterwards married to the Emperour Or, The­odosius Se­nior. Theodosius the Great, of whom he begat a daughter, by name Placidia. For he had Arcadius and Honorius by Epiphanius Scholasticus calls her (not Placida, but) Flaccilla; which is truest. For so the ancient Coynes term her. But, 'tis strange that Greek writers should so frequently be mistaken in this name. For we have remark't before, that Placitus is by Socrates often used, instead of Flaccillus, who was Bishop of Antioch. Further, this Flac­cilla was the daughter of that Antonius, who was Consul with Siagrius, as Themistius informs us, in his Gratiarum Actione, to Theodosius, for the peace made with the Goths. Vales. Flaccilla his former wife. But we shall speak in particular concerning Theodosius, and his sons, in due place.

CHAP. XXXII. Concerning the Philosopher Themistius. And, that Valens, appeased by the Oration he spake to him, did in some measure mitigate his Persecution a­gainst the Christians.

VAlens, making his Residence at Antioch, continued in the interim undisturbed by forreign Wars. For the Barbarians did on every side contain themselves within their own Terri­tories. But he Or, war­red against. Persecuted those who embra­ced the Homoöusian opinion, in a most grievous manner, and every day invented greater and more acute punishments [to be inflicted] on them. Till such time as the Philosopher Themistius re­duced his great cruelty to something of a mode­ration, [Page 326] by that This O­ration of Themisti­us's to Va­lens, is at this time extant, published in Latine by Dudi­tius. For, what So­crates says Themistius spoke in that ora­tion con­cerning the difference of Philoso­phick opi­nions, oc­curs in Du­ditius's Version, at pag. 507: the words are these; Artes quidem, quarum magnus in vit [...]usus & delectatio est, &c. Indeed, those Arts, of which there is great use in this life, and which are very delightfull, had never arrived at such an height and elegancy, had there not been a discrepancy of judgments, and a certain strife amongst the Artists themselves. For, has not Philosophy it self (the Mother of all laudable Arts.) raised from mean and small beginnings, increased by the dissent of Learned men in such a manner, that nothing may seem wanting to its absolute perfection? Further, what S [...]crates says was spoken by Themistius in that oration, to wit, that God is desirous of this variety of opinions concerning himself, that men may have a greater reverence for the Majesty of his Deity, because the knowledge of his divinity is [...]n no wise obvious and easily attainable; occurs in Duditius's Version, at pag. 508: where 'tis thus worded: Quocirca quod à cognitione nostrâ se longissimè removit, &c. Wherefore, in regard he has removed himself at the greatest distance from our knowledge, nor does humble himself to the capacity of our wits; 'tis a sufficient argument, that he does not require one and the same Law and Rule of Religion from all persons, but leaves every man a Licence and faculty of thinking con­cerning himself, according to his own, not another mans liberty and choice. Whence it also happens, that a greater admiration of the Deity, and a more Religious veneration of his Eternal Majesty, is ingendred in the minds of men. For, it usually comes to pass, that we loath and dis­regard those things which are readily apparent, and prostrated to every understanding, &c. Vales. Speech he spake to him; where­in the Philosopher advertizes the Emperour, that he ought not to admire at the disagreement of Opinions amongst the Christians. For, that the discrepancy of sentiments amongst them was small, if compared with the multitude and confusion of Opinions amongst the Grecians. For they en­tertained above three hundred Opinions. [Fur­ther,] that as touching Opinion there would of necessity arise a wonderfull dissent [from the va­riety thereof.] And yet, that God is delighted with this difference of Opinion [concerning himself,] to the end that all persons may more highly revere his Majesty, even upon this very account, because 'tis not obvious and easie to have a knowledge of him. The Philosopher having spoken these and such like words as these to the Emperour, he be­came more mild in future. Notwithstanding, his rage was not hereby perfectly and entirely ap­peased; but, instead of death, he imposed Exile as a punishment, upon Ecclesiastick persons; till at length, this fury of his also was represt by this accident.

CHAP. XXXIII. How the Goths, under the Reign of Valens, em­braced Christianity.

THose Barbarians who dwell beyond the Da­nube, having kindled a Civil War amongst themselves, were divided into two parties: the one of which was headed by Fritigernes, the other by Athanarichus. When 'twas apparent that Athanarichus's party was the stronger, Fri­tigernes flies to the Romans, and implored their assistance against his Adversary. This is made known to the Emperour Valens: and he orders those Souldiers, who were engarrisoned all over Thracia for the defence of that Country, to assist the Barbarians being at War against the Barba­rians. And they obtain a Victory over Atha­narichus beyond the Danube, having [...]othē, ha­ving▪ outed the Enemy. routed his Forces. This was the reason, that many of the Barbarians became Christians. For, Friti­gernes, that he might express his thankfulness to the Emperour for the kindness he had done him, embraced the Emperours Religion, and perswaded those under his command to the same. Where­fore, many of the Goths are even till this present addicted to Arianisme, having at that time be­come Adherents to that Heresie upon the Empe­rours account. At the same time also, Ulfila Bishop of the Goths, invented Gothick Letters, and having translated the sacred Scriptures into the Gothick Language, undertook the instruction of the Barbarians in the divine Oracles. But, in regard Ulfila instructed not only those Barbarians under Fritigernes, but them also who pay'd obedience to Athanarichus, in the Christian Religion; Athanarichus, Or, in regard his paternal Religion was adul­terated. as if violence were offered to the Religion of his Ancestours, inflicted punish­ments on many of those who profest Christi­anity: in so much that at that time [several] Arianizing Barbarians were Martyrs. Indeed, Arius, unable to refute the Opinion of Sabellius the Lybian, fell from the true Faith, and asserted Instead of [the Son of God to be new] which is the vulgar reading; in the Sfort. and Florent. M. SS. the reading is [the Son of God to be a new God;] accordingly we have rendred it. Vales. the Son of God to be a new God. But the Barbarians, embracing Christianity with a sim­plicity of mind, despised this present life in re­spect of the faith of Christ. Thus far concer­ning those [Goths] who came over to the Christian Religion.

CHAP. XXXIV. That the Goths vanquished by other Barbarians, fled into the Territories of the Romans, and were received by the Emperour. Which [re­ception of theirs] was the occasion, both of the destruction of the Roman Empire, and also of the Emperours own overthrow.

BUt, not long after, the Barbarians having en­tred into a league of friendship with one ano­ther, were again vanquished by other Barbarians, their neighbours, called the Hunni; and being dri­ven out of their own Country, they flie into the Roman Territories, promising they would serve the Roman Emperour, and do what ever he should command them. This came to Valens's know­ledge; who foreseeing nothing, gave order that the Suppliants should have a kind and mercifull reception, shewing himself in this one instance only, mild and compassionate. He assigns there­fore to them [for their habitation] the parts of Thracia; judging himself to be in a most espe­cial manner fortunate upon this account. For, it was his sentiment, that he should in future be in possession of a ready and well furnished Army against his Enemies: and he hoped, that the Bar­barians would be a more terrible Gaurd [to the limits of his Empire] than the Romans. Upon this account, he in future neglected the increa­sing and filling up of the Roman Milice. He de­spised those old Souldiers, who in former Wars had fought against his Enemies with much cou­rage and gallantry: and he In the Florent. M. S. the reading is [ [...], be reduced into money,] which, if I mistake not, is the truer. Notwithstanding, the common reading (to wit, [...], he put a money-value upon,) is sound, and needs no al­teration. For Chrysostom uses this term in this sense, in his 67 Homily on Matth. 21. The old Glosses expound [...] by Adaerat, he values by money. Further, what Socrates remarks here, (to wit, that Valens, instead of supplies of Souldiers, did afterwards exact Gold of his Provinces,) is also related by Amm. Marcellinus, book. 31. pag. 441. which place, because 'tis corrupt even in our Edition, I will here set down, as it ought to be amended: Eruditi [...] adulatoribus in majus fortunam principis extollentibus: quod ex ultimis terris tot tiro­cinia [not, Thracenses nec opinanti offerrent, But] trahens, ci nec opi­nanti offerret, ut collatis in unum suis & alieniginis viribus, invictum haberet exercitum; & pro militari supplemento quod provinciatim annuum pendebatur, thesauris accederet auri cumulus magnus. Vales. put a money-value upon that Militia, which the Inhabitants of Pro­vinces [Page 327] were wont Village by Village to contri­bute and furnish out, ordering his Tribute Col­lectours to demand eighty [...] they were Gold, and of about a Crown value. Crowns instead of each Souldier, although he had not before in the least lightened or abated their Impositions. This was the original cause of the Roman Empire's being very unfortunate for some small time.

CHAP. XXXV. That the Emperour, by reason of his care and sol­licitude about a War with the Goths, remitted something of his Persecution against the Chri­stians.

FOr, the Barbarians having been put into pos­session of Thracia, and quietly enjoying that Roman Province, could not [with moderation] bear their fortunate success: but enter upon a War against those who had been their Bene­factours, and subverted all places throughout Thracia and the adjoyning Countries. These things falling out after this manner, came to Valens's hearing, and made him desist from ba­nishing those that embraced the Homoöusian Opi­nion. For, being troubled at this news, he left Antioch forthwith, and came to Constantinople. Upon the same account also, the War [he had waged] against the Christians in that City, was finished. Moreover, at the same time Eu­zoïus, Bishop of the Arian faction at An­tioch, departed this life, in the fifth Consulate of Valens, and in Valentinianus Juniors's first. And Dorotheus is constituted [Bishop] in his place.

CHAP. XXXVI. That the Saracens also at that time embraced the Faith of Christ, (a woman, by name Mavia, be­ing their Queen,) and took one Moses, a pious and faithfull person that led a Monastick life, to be their Bishop.

AFter the Emperours departure from An­tioch, the Saracens, who before had been their Allies, revolted from the Romans at that time; they were led by one Mavia a woman, [the King] her Husband being then dead. All places therefore Instead of [ [...], under the East] I read [ [...], to­wards the East.] Vales. towards the East, were at that time destroyed by the Saracens. But an Act of Divine providence repress't their fury by this means. A person whose name was Moses, by extract a Saracen, leading a Monastick life in the Solitudes, became exceedingly eminent for his piety, Faith, and Miracles. Mavia, Queen of the Saracens, requested she might have this per­son to be Bishop over her Nation, [promising] upon this condition to put an end to the War. The Roman Commanders hearing this, supposed it would be gratefull, if a Peace were made upon these terms: and forthwith gave order for the performance hereof with all possible celerity. Moses therefore was seized, and brought from the Solitudes to Alexandria, Instead of [ [...], ha­ving been initiated] we read [ [...], in order to his being ini­tiated, &c.] Further, this story concerning Moses's being made Bi­shop of the Saracens, and concerning the Peace made with them, Socrates has taken out of Rufinus, book 2. chap. 6. Eccles. Hist. but has not observed Rufinus's order. For Rufinus has placed it about the beginning of Lucius's Episcopate, after the persecution of the Edessens, not at the latter end of Valens's Reign. And I had rather follow Rufinus's opinion, than that of Socrates and Sozomen. The motive I have to be of this opinion, is grounded on Socrates's words at the close of this chapter, where he says, that Mavia the Queen, having made a Peace with the Romans, betrothed her daughter to Victor the Roman Lieutenant General. Now, Victor, about the latter end of Valens's Reign, was too old to have any thoughts of marrying a wife. Vales. in order to his being initiated into the Sacerdotal Function. But in regard he was brought before Lucius, who at that time was in possession of the Churches there, he refused Ordination, and exprest himself after this manner to Lucius. Indeed, I account my self unworthy of the Sacerdotal Function; But if this thing be advantagious to the affairs of the pub­lick, Lucius shall not Or, Lay his hand on me. Ordain me, for his right hand has been filled with bloud. When Lucius told him, that he ought not to give reproachfull language, but should rather learn the points of Religion from him; Moses replied; an account of the points [of Religion] is not now required. For the villanous actions you have committed a­gainst the Brethren, do sufficiently demonstrate, how Christian-like sentiments you have: For a Christian strikes not, reviles not, does not fight: for a Servant of the Lord ought not to fight. But your facts do loudly cry out, by those who have been exiled, who have been cast to the wild beasts, and who have been committed to the flames. [Moreover,] things seen by the eyes contain a greater and more con­vincing demonstration, than what is received by hearing. When Moses had said these and such like words as these, his friends carried him to the mountain, that he might receive Ordination from those [Bishops] who lived in Exile there. Moses therefore having been after this manner consecrated at that time, the Saracen War had an end put to it; and for the future Mavia con­tinued so strict an Or, Peace: Alliance with the Romans, that she betrothed her daughter to Victor the Ro­man Lieutenant General. Thus much concerning the Saracens.

CHAP. XXXVII. That after Valens's departure from Antioch the Or­thodox in the East (more especially those at Alexandria) took courage; and having ejected Lucius, restored the Churches again to Peter, [who was returned] fortified with the Letters of Damasus Bishop of Rome.

AT the same time that the Emperour Valens left Antioch, those persons in all places who had been persecuted, were mightily encou­raged, especially the Alexandrians; Instead of [ [...], and Peter being returned,] the reading should be [ [...], Peter at that time returning:] and the full-point, which is (in some copies) placed be­fore these words, must be expunged. Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have followed this reading. Vales. Peter at that time returning from Rome with the Letters of Damasus the Roman Bishop, whereby the Ho­moöusian Faith and Peters Ordination were con­firmed. The populace therefore resuming cou­rage, turn out Lucius, and substitute Peter in his place. Lucius went immediately on board a ship, and sailed to Constantinople. But Peter, having lived but a little while after this, dyed, and left Timotheus his brother to succeed him in his See.

CHAP. XXXVIII. That the Emperour arriving at the City Constan­tinople, and being reproach't by the people upon account of the Goths, marches out of the City against the Barbarians. And coming to an in­gagement with them near Adrianople, a City of Macedonia, is slain by them; after he had lived fifty years, and Reigned sixteen.

[MOreover,] the Emperour Valens coming into Constantinople about the thirtieth of May, in his own sixth and in Valentinianus Junior's second Consulate, finds the people in a ve­ry sad and dejected condition. For the Barbarians, who had already overrun and ruined Thracia, did now plunder and destroy the very Suburbs of Constantinople; there being then no Forces ready that were fit to make a resistance against them. But when the Barbarians attempted to make nearer approaches, even to the very City walls, the Citizens were grievously troubled thereat; and murmured against the Emperour, as if he himself had brought the Enemy thither, and because he did not forthwith march out a­gainst them, but deferred the War against the Barbarians. Moreover, when the Cirque Sports were exhibited, all with one consent exclaimed against the Emperour, because he was negligent of the publick affairs. They cried out therefore with a great deal of earnestness, Give us Arms, and we our selves will fight. The Emperour was highly incensed at the hearing of these Exclama­tions against himself: and about the eleventh of June The rea­ding must be [ [...], marches out;] not [ [...], passes by.] Moreover, the same days [which Socrates here assignes for Valens's entry into, and march out of, Constantinople,] are recorded in Idatius's Fasti, in these words: Valente VI. & Valentiniano Is. &c. In Valens's sixth and Va­lentinianus's second Consulate, Valens Augustus entred Constantinople, from the East, on the third of the Calends of June [that is, the thirtieth of May.] And on the same year Valens Augustus went out of the City to the Fort on the third of the Ides [that is, the eleventh] of June. Vales. marches out of the City, threatning that if he returned, he would punish the Constanti­nopolitans, both for the reproaches they then cast upon him, and also because they had here­tofore been Abettours of Procopius's Tyranny. Having therefore said, that he would totally de­molish the City, and The Ancients made use of a Plough, both at their de­molishing, and also at their rai­sing of a City. See Horace, Carm. Lib. 1. Od. 16. Plough it up, he march't out against the Barbarians. Whom he drove a great way from the City; and pursued them as far as Adrianople a City of Thracia, situate in the Frontiers of Macedonia. Ingaging the Bar­barians at that place, he ended his life on the ninth of August, in the now mentioned Con­sulate. This was the fourth year of the It should be [...], not [...]. It was usu­all with Transcri­bers of books, for brevities sake, to write these words thus. For they wrote [...], and [...], in­stead of [...] and [...]. Vales. two hundreth eighty ninth Olympiad. 'Tis reported by some, that he was destroyed by fire, after he had taken refuge in a certain Village, which the Barbarians assaulted and burnt. But others affirm, that having changed his Imperial habit, he ran into the midst of the main body of Foot: and when the Horse attempted a defection, and refused fighting; the Roman Foot were surroun­ded [by the Barbarians,] and wholly cut off in the ingagement: amongst whom ('tis said) the Emperour lay, but was not known, his Im­perial habit (whereby it might have been mani­fested which was he,) being not upon him. He died after the fiftieth year of his age, having Governed the Empire thirteen years with his Brother, and Reigned three years after him. This Book containes [an account of affairs during] the space of sixteen years.

THE FIFTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.

The PREFACE.

BEfore we begin the History of our Fifth Book, we make a request to those who shall read this Work of ours, that they would not blame us, because, designing to Write an Ecclesiastick History, we in­termix therewith the Wars also which have at several times hapned, so far as we could procure a true Relation thereof. For we do this upon several accounts. First, to bring [the Readers] to a knowledge of what has been Transacted. Secondly, that our Readers may not be cloy'd, Instead of [ [...]] I read [ [...], by being continually detained.] For a repetition of the negative particle is inelegant and nauseous▪ in regard these words [may not be cloy'd] do precede. For, after them, an affirmation ought to fol­low. Vales. by being continually detained with [a perusal of] the contentious disagreements of Bishops, and with the designes they framed against one another. But most especially, that it might be made apparent, that when the Affairs of the State were disturbed, those of the Church also (by a certain sympathy as it were,) be­came distempered and disordered. For, let any man make an observation, and he will find, that the mischiefs of the State, and troubles of the Church, have gathered strength and spread together. For, he will perceive, that they have either had their rise at one and the same time, or else have immediately followed one another. And sometimes [the calamities] of the Church lead the way; then follow the [commotions of the] State: at others, on the contrary. So that, I cannot perswade my self, that the interchangeable course [of these things] does proceed from any fortuitous accident, but that they take their beginnings from our iniquities: and that calamities are sent for the chastizement thereof. For, according to the Apostle, 1 Tim. 5. 24. Some mens sins are open before hand, going before to judgment: and some [men] they follow after. Upon this account therefore, we have interwoven some affairs transacted in the State, with our Ecclesiastick History. What was done in the Wars during the Reign of Constantine, because 'tis so long ago, we could not find an account of. But we make a cursory mention of the Actions done since, according to the relation thereof, which we have received from persons yet living. We do, without intermitting any one of them, include the Emperours in this our History, because from such time as they began to embrace the Christian Religion, the affairs of the Church have depended upon them; and the greatest Synods have been, and at this present are The Rea­der may observe from this passage, in whose power it was in those days, to summon General Synods. convened by their determination and appointment. Moreover, we have made mention of the Arian Heresie, because it has disquieted the Churches. Let this be sufficient to have been said by way of Preface. We will now begin our History.

CHAP. I. How (after the death of Valens,) when the Goths laid Siege to Constantinople, the Citizens sallied out of the City against them, having those Sara­cens who were under Mavia's Command, to be their Auxiliaries.

AFter the Emperour Valens had ended his life by an unknown sort of death, the Barba­rians made their approaches again to the very walls of Constantinople, and ruined the Suburbs on every side of it. The Citizens, sorely vexed there­at, on their own accord sallied out against the Barbarians, every one taking what came next to hand for Arms. Or, Do­mnica. Dominica, the Emperours Wife, gave every one that went out upon this piece of service, such pay out of the Imperial Trea­sury, as was usually allowed to Souldiers. Some few Saracens, their Confederates, assisted them; be­ing sent from Mavia, whom we have mentioned be­fore. When the Citizens had after this manner made a resistance against them at that time, the Bar­barians retreated farther off from the City.

CHAP. II. That the Emperour Gratianus, having recalled the Orthodox Bishops from their Exile, drove the Hereticks out of the Churches, and took Theo­dosius to be his Colleague in the Empire.

GRratianus being together with Valentinianus Junior in possession of the Empire, and detesting his Unkle Valen's cruelty towards the Christians, recalled those who had been Exiled by him. Moreover, he made a Sozomen mentions this Law of Gratia­nus's, book 7. chap. 1. and so does Theodoret, book 5. chap. 2. who says that Sapor, Lieute­nant-Ge­neral, was sent by Gratianus into the Eastern parts of the Empire, to put this Law in Ex­ecution. That hap­ned in the year of Christ 378. This Law of Gratianus's is not now extant. And yet it seems to be mentioned in the fifth Law in the Theodosian Code, de fide Catholicâ. Vales. Law, that per­sons of all Sects might, without any distinction, securely meet together in their Oratories: only the Eunomians, Photinians, and Manichaeans, were extruded out of the Churches. Being also sen­sible of the languishing condition of the Roman Empire, and of the growth of the Barbarians; and [perceiving also] that the State was in want of a valiant and couragious man; he chuses Theodosius (a person descended of a noble fami­ly in Spain, who had performed many a brave piece of service in the Wars, and upon that ac­count had by all men been long since judged worthy of the Empire, even before Gratianus's Election of him,) to be his Colleague in the Em­pire. Having therefore proclaimed him Empe­rour in Sirmium, a City of Illyricum, in the Con­sulate of Ausonius and Olybrius, on the sixteenth of January he divides with him the care of mana­ging the War against the Barbarians.

CHAP. III. What Bishops were in possession of the Presidency over the greater Churches at that time.

AT this time Damasus Presided over the Church at Rome, who had succeeded Li­berius. Cyrillus was as yet in possession of the Church at Jerusalem. The Antiochian Church (as I have said,) was divided into three parts. For Dorotheus the Arian, successour to Euzoius, was possest of the Churches. Of the rest one part paid obedience to Paulinus, the other to Melitius, who was recalled from Banishment. Lucius, although [...]; living in Exile. Lu­cius was not bani­shed; the people of Alexan­dria forced him to leave that City: See Socrates, book 4. chap. 37. living in Exile, Presided over the Arians at Alexandria: the professours of the Homoöusian opinion in that City were headed by Timotheus, successour to Peter. Demophilus was in possession of the Churches at Constanti­nople, who succeeded Eudoxius in the Presidency over the Arian Faction. Those that abomi­nated communion with him, celebrated their as­semblies apart by themselves.

CHAP. IV. How the Macedoniani, who had sent an Embassy to Damasus [Bishop] of Rome in defence of the Homoöusian Creed, returned again to their old Heresie.

THe Macedoniani, after their Embassy sent to Liberius, for some time held a perfect and entire communion with the Churches through­out every City; intermixing themselves with those, who from the beginning had embraced that Draught of the Creed [publish't] at Nicaea, But when the Emperour Gratianus's Law [was promulged, which] allowed a Liberty to [se­veral] Sects, they made it their business Or, to dissent a­gain. to hold separate assemblies again. Being met to­gether at Antioch in Syria, they determined again, that the term Homoöusios was to be abominated, and that a communion was not in any wise to be held with those who embraced the Nicene Creed. [...]ut Or, they reapt no be­nefit, or de­light, from their at­tempt. they proceeded not in their attempt. For many of their own party, finding fault with their [inconstancy,] because sometimes they Decreed one thing, at others another, left them, and in future became firm Adherents to those that embraced the Homoöusian Creed.

CHAP. V. Concerning what hapned at that time at Antioch, upon Paulinus's, and Melitius's account.

MOreover, at the same time arose a great difference at Antioch in Syria, upon Me­letius's account. We have told you Book 4. chap. 2. already, that Paulinus Bishop of Antioch, by reason of his eminent piety, was not banished: and that Me­litius, after he had been restored by Book 3. chap. 9. Julianus, was again banished by Book 4. chap. 2. Valens, and at length recalled in See Book 5. chap. 2. Gratianus's Reign. At his return to Antioch, he found Paulinus very much decayed by reason of his great age. Immediately there­fore all those who were Meletius's favourers, used their utmost endeavours to make Melitius Paulinus's Or, Col­league in the Bishop­rick. Coadjutor. But, upon Paulinus's saying, that it was contrary to the Canons, to ad­mit of a Coadjutor who had been Ordained by the Arians; the people make use of force, and cause him to be Consecrated in one of the Churches without the City. Hereupon a great difference arose; But afterwards the people came to an agreement upon these terms. Having assembled [...]. those persons that were reputed fit to be en­trusted with the Bishoprick, they find them to be in all six; of which number Flavianus was one. They bound these men by an Oath, that none of them should make an interest for the Bishoprick, after the death of one of the That is, Melitius, and Pauli­nus. Prelates; but that they should permit the Surviver to continue pos­sest of the See of the person deceased. Having given them an Oath after this manner, the people came to an agreement, nor was there any further dissention amongst them. But, the See Book 3. chap. 9. Luciferiani made a separation from the rest, for this reason, because Melitius, who had been Ordained by the Arians, was admitted to the Bishoprick. Whilst affairs at Antioch were in this posture, a very ur­gent occasion oblieged Melitius to take a journey to Constantinople.

CHAP. VI. That Gregorius of Nazianzum was by a gene­ral suffrage of the Orthodox constituted Bishop of the Constantinopolitan Church; at which time the Emperour Theodosius (after his Victory over the Barbarians,) fell sick at Thes­salonica, and was Baptized by Ascholius the Bishop.

AT which time, Gregorius was translated from the Bishoprick of Nazianzum to that of Constantinople, by the common suffrage of many [Page 331] Prelates. And this was done in such a man­ner [as I have declared.] About the same time the Emperours, Gratianus and Theodosius, got each of them a Victory over the Barba­rians. Gratianus Or, Marched. returned immediately into the Gallia's, because the Alamanni overran those Provinces. But Theodosius, after [he had e­rected] his Trophies, hastned to Constantinople, and arrives at Thessalonica. There he fell sick, and earnestly desired that he might be vouchsafed Christian Baptism: for by his progenitours he had been bred up in the Christian Religion, and was a professour of the Homoöusian Faith. Being desirous with all possible speed to be baptized, because his distemper increased, and having [for that reason] sent for the Bishop of Thessalonica, he first enquired of him, what Faith he profest. And when the Bishop had made answer, that the opinion of the Arians had not invaded the Provinces of Illyricum, and that the novelty which Arius had given birth too, was not so prevalent as to prey upon the Churches in those Countries; but that they con­tinued to preserve that Faith immoveable and un­shaken, which from the beginning was delivered by the Apostles, and had been confirmed in the Nicene Synod; [upon this answer] the Em­perour was most willingly baptized by Ascholius the Bishop. Not many days after [Theodosius] recovered of his distemper, and came to Constan­tinople about the twenty fourth of November, in Gratianus's fifth and his own first Consulate.

CHAP. VII. That when Gregorius was come to Constantinople, and some Bishops murmured at his Translation; he refused the presidency over the Church. And, the Emperour orders Demophilus the Arian Bishop, either to give his assent to the Homo­öusian Faith, or else to go out of the City; which latter he chose rather to do.

AT that time Gregorius of Nazianzum, be­ing Indeed, Socrates thought that Gre­gorius had been tran­slated from the Bi­shoprick of Nazi­anzum, to that of Constan­tinople: which was the o­pinion of many o­thers also. But Gre­gorius had never been Bishop of Nazianzum; he was only his father Gregorius's Assistant in that Bishoprick, being sent for thither by his father (then very aged,) out of the Solitudes; whither he had retired after he had accepted of and also refused the Bishoprick of Sasimi, in the year of Christ 371; as Baronius has remarked. Vales. translated [to Constantinople,] cele­brated his assemblies within the City, in a small Oratory. Whereto the Emperours afterwards joyned a stately Church, and named it I am not of Socrates's opinion, who says here, that that Church (wherein Gregorius Nazianzenus used to Preach the word of God at Constantinople,) was by the succeeding Emperours named Anastasia. For, in Gregorius's own life time this Church was called Anastasia; which is apparent, both from Gregorius's own Oration, wherein he bids farwell in express words to Anastasia, and The Apostles; and also from his Elegiack concerning the Dream of Anastasia. Consult Baronius, at the year of Christ 378. Vales. Ana­stasia. But Gregorius (a person for eloquence and piety far more eminent than all men of his own time,) perceiving that some murmured [at his translation,] because he was a stranger; after he had exprest his joy for the Emperours arrival, refused to make any longer stay at Con­stantinople. The Emperour finding the Church in this posture, was very sollicitous, how he might make Peace, procure an Union, and en­large the Churches. Immediately therefore he opens his mind to Demophilus, who presided o­ver the Arian Sect, [and makes a proposal to him] whether he would give his assent to the [Creed published at the] Nicene Synod, unite the people, and embrace Peace. Upon Demo­philus's refusing to comply with his proposition; If then (said the Emperour) you eschew Peace and Concord, We order you to quit the Churches. When Demophilus had heard these words, and considered with himself how difficult it was to make a resistance against those in authority and power; he called the multitude together in the Church, and standing up in the midst of them, spake these words on his own account to his fol­lowers. Brethren, 'tis written (said he) in the See Matt. 10. 23. where 'tis thus wor­ded in the Greek: [...], but when they shall perse­cute you in this City. But here in Socrates the words are: [...]; if they shall persecute you out of this City, &c. Gospel; if they shall Persecute you in this City, flee ye into another. In regard therefore the Em­perour We found a far diffe­rent reading in our Florentine and Sfortian M. SS. For, in both those Copies 'tis thus exprest; [...], stands in need of the Chur­ches: this reading Epiphan. Scholasticus has followed, as appears from his Version. For he renders it thus: Quia igitur Imperator Ecclesiis opus habet, In regard therefore the Emperour has an occasion for the Churches. Nicephorus maintains the common reading: for instead of [excludes us from] his words are [drives us out of.] The Manu­script reading is in my judgment the better. Vales. excludes us from the Churches, take notice, that to morrow we will have our Meetings without the City. Having said these words, he went out: not so, as if he apprehended the true meaning contained in this Evangelick Oracle, [the import whereof is,] that such as flee out of the converse of this world, should seek the Jeru­salem which is above. But be [following ano­ther sense of these words, went] out of the City­gates, where for the future he had his Meetings. Together with him went out Lucius of Alexan­dria, who having been ejected, as I said Book 4. chap. 37. before, made his escape to Con­stantinople, in which City he lived. After this manner therefore the Arians (who for the space of fourty years had been in posses­sion of the Churches,) declining the agreement they were invited to by the Emperour Theo­dosius, departed out of the City, in Gratianus's fifth and Theodosius Augustus's first Consulate, on the twenty sixth of November. And the pro­fessours of the Homoöusian Faith, succeeding in their places, recovered possession of the Churches.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning the hundred and fifty Bishops convened at Constantinople, and concerning the deter­minations made by them, after they had Or­dained Nectarius in that City.

[AFter this] the Emperour without any delay, summons a Synod of Bishops [who em­braced] his own Faith; that by them the Ni­cene Faith might be confirmed, and a Bishop of Constantinople ordained. And because he had some hopes of being able to unite the Macedoni­ani to [a profession of] his own Faith; he sum­moned the Prelates of that Heresie also. There met therefore of [the Embracers of] the Ho­moöusian Faith, Timotheus from Alexandria; from Jerusalem Cyrillus, who having made a Re­tractation, at that time assented to the Homoöu­sian Creed: Melitius was come thither from Antioch before, having been sent for to that City on the account of Gregorius's Ordination: also In the Sfortian M. S. both here, and also before, in chap. 6. of this book; this person is called Acholius. The Latins do commonly give him that name. For so he is called by Ambrosius, by Prosper in his Chronicon, and by Jordanes in his book de successione Regnorum. But the Greeks do usually term him Ascholius. This is the Ascholius, concerning whose death, Virtues, and Miracles, Saint Ambrosius writes, in his 59th Epistle to the Clergy of Thessalonica. Where he says, that Anysius his Scholl [...] succeeded him. Vales. Ascholius from Thessalonica, and many others. [Page 332] They were in all an hundred and fifty. The principal persons of the Macedonian party, were Eleusius of Cyzicum, and Marcianus [Bi­shop] of Lampsacus. [Of this Sect] there were thirty six [Bishops,] most of whom came from the Cities about the Hellespont. They met there­fore in the Consulate of Eucharius and Evagrius, in the month of May. The Emperour, and the Bishops that embraced his Creed, did their ut­most, to bring Eleusius and his followers over to their own side; putting them in remembrance of the See Book 4. chap. 12. Embassy, which they had sent by Eu­stathius to Liberius heretofore Bishop of Rome: and See what Socrates has remar­ked concer­ning this matter in chap 4. of this Book▪ Vales. that not long since they themselves had entred into a promiscuous communion [with the Orthodox,] on their own accord: And that they, having once acknowledged and pro­fest an agreement in the [points of] Faith, did not do what was right and honest, now to at­tempt a subversion of what had been well and wisely determined by themselves. But the Ma­cedoniani, little regarding either admonitions, or reproofs, chose rather to profess the Arian opi­nion, than to give their assent to the Homoöusian Creed. Having made this answer, they departed from Constantinople; and wrote to their followers in every City, ordering them in no wise to give their consent to the Creed of the Nicene Synod. But the [Prelates] of the That is, the Ortho­dox. other party staied [at Constantinople,] and entred into a Con­sult about the ordination of a Bishop. For Gre­gorius, as we have told you a little before, refu­sed the Bishoprick, and prepared for his depar­ture to Nazianzum. There was a person by name Nectarius, [a descendant] of a Senato­rian family, a sweet tempered man, admirable for his whole course of life, Instead of [...], &c. although, &c.] I had rather read [ [...], &c. who also at that time bore the Praetor's Office.] Nicephorus confirms our emendation; for he words it thus: [...], &c. and admi­rable, as I may say, for all things; who then bore the Praetors Office. Vales. although he bore the Praetors Office. This person the people seized upon, elected him Bishop, and he was Ordained by the hundred and fifty Prelates then present. Moreover, at the same time [the said Prelates] promulged a sanction, that the Bishop of Constanti­nople should have the [...]. They are the very words of the third Canon of the Constantinopolitan Synod. Whereby the Constantinopo­litan Fathers do confer upon the Bishop of Constantinople a Prece­dency, or Primacy of honour only; but give him nothing of a Metro­political or patriarchical power, or jurisdiction. This is evident, not only from the cautious expression which the Fathers of this Synod make use of; (for they give him, not [...], the priviledges of power or jurisdiction, nor priviledges in general; but they bestow on him only [...], the priviledges of honour:) but also from these very words themselves, compared with the second Canon of this Constantinopolitan Synod. For, in that Canon the Fathers had made a positive sanction, that a Dioecesis should be governed by its Bishops, (or by a Synod of all the Bishops in the same Dioecesis,) and that the said Bishops should exercise their Ecclesiastical power in that Dioecesis only: [...], and that the Bishops of the Thracican Dioecesis should only govern the [Ecclesiastick] affairs of the said Thracican Dioecesis: these are the very words of the Canon. Now, every body knows, that Constantinople is scituate in the Thracican Dioecesis. In regard therefore, that the present Fathers had committed the whole government of the Thracican Dioecesis to a Synod of all the Bishops in the said Dioecesis; there could nothing remain, which they might assign to any other single Bishop in the said Dioecesis▪ before the rest of them, save only the bare priviledge of honour; which alone they do here confer upon the Constantinopolitan See scituate in the same Dioecesis. And thus, by the order of this Canon, Anatolius Bi­shop of Constantinople is placed next after Leo the Bishop of Rome's Legates, in the subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon. See Concil. General. Edit. Bin. Paris 1636. Tom. 3. pag. 452, 453. There oc­curs an eminent instance of this honour due to the Constantinopolitan Bishop by vertue of this Canon, in Synod. Chalced. Act. 1. vid. Concil, General. Edit. Bin. ut prius▪ Tom. 3. pag. 61, 62. See the Learned Dr Be­veredge's Annotat▪ on the third Canon Concil. Constantinop. pag. 95. priviledges of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because that City was New-Rome. They did again confirm the Nicene Creed; and constituted The first mention (if I mistake not,) of Christian Patriarchs (so I term them, because the Jews had Grand Officers amongst them thus termed, long before this time;) in any Authour worthy of credit, is at this place in our So­crates. However, there is no small stir amongst Learned men, about defining the time wherein these Patriarchs were first constituted in the Christian Church. Valesius, in his notes on this chap. and in his third book of Ecclesiastick Observations upon Socrates and Sozomen, does in a great many words assert, that the Patriarchical authority was confirmed by the sixth Canon of the Nicene Synod. This assertion of his is suffi­ciently confuted by Dr Beveredge, in his Annotat. upon that sixth Canon, pag. 52▪ &c. At which place, and in his notes on the second Canon of the Constantinopolitan Council, pag. 93, 94; the said Learned Doctor is of opinion (agreeable to our Socrates here,) that Patri­archs were first constituted by this second Oecumenical Council held at Constantinople. Nevertheless, he grants, that most of those priviledges, which Patriarchs afterwards challenged were given them by other Councils. Lastly, Dr Barrow's sentiment is, that this Dioecesan (or Patriarchical) Form did soon after the Nicene Council creep into the Church, without any solemn appointment, by a spontaneous assumption and submission. See his excellent Treatise of the Pope's supre­macy, pag. 240▪ &c. Patriarchs, having made a The Roman Emperours who preceded Constantine the Great, com­mitted the chief management of affairs in the Civill State of the Em­pire to one, or at most to two Praefects of the Praetorium. But Con­stantine the Great introduced a new partition of the Empire, (as Zosimus tells us, book 2. of his Histor. pag. 439, 440, Edit. Lugd. 1611;) and divided the management thereof amongst four Praefects of the Prae­torium: one whereof was Praefect of the Pretorium in the East, a second of Illyricum, a third of Italy, and a fourth of the Gallia's. Each of these Praefects had several Dioecesis's under them: every single Dioe­cesis was a Combination of divers Provinces together into one Ter­ritory. What Diocesis's every one of these Prefects had under their district, and what and how many Provinces were included in each Dioecesis; the learned Reader may see in Guidus Pancirolus's notitia utraque, dignitatum, cùm Orientis, tùm Occidentis, Edit. Lugd. 1608. From which Author we will Transcribe the five Dioecesis's (for so many he had under him,) of the Praefect of the Praetorium of the East, as they occur at fol. 3, and 4, of his Comment: because they are necessary in order to the clear understanding of what we have to say further here. Sub dispositione virorum Illustrium Praefectorum Pr [...]torio per Orientem, &c. Under the dispose of the Illustrious the Praefects of the Praetorium throughout the East, are these Dioecesis's underwritten, The East, Egypt, the Asian, Pontick, and Thracican Dioecesis's. The Provinces of the East [or Eastern Dioe­cesis] are XV.Palestina, Phaenice, Syria,Cilicia,Cyprus,Arabia. And the Dux (Com­mander) and Comes (Earl) of the Milice.Isauria, Palestina Salutaris, Palestina secunda,Phoenice Libani, Euphratensis,Syria Salutaris,Osrhoena, Mesopotamia, Cilicia secunda. The Provinces of E­gypt [or Aegyptick Dioe­cesis.] are VI.Libya superior, Libya inferior,Thebais, Aegyptus,Arcadia,Augustanica. The Provinces of the Asian Dioecesis X.Pamphylia, Hellespontus,Lydia,Pisidia, Lycaonia, Phrygia Pacatiana,Phrygia Salutaris, Lycia, Caria, Insula. The Provinces of the Pontick dioecesis XI.Galatia, Bithynia,Honorias,Cappadocia prima, Cappadocia secunda, Pa­phlagonia,Pontus Polemaniacus, Hellenopontus,Armenia prima,Armenia secunda,Galatia Salutaris. The Provinces of the Thracican Dioecesis VI.Europa, Thracia,Haemimontis,Rhodope,Moesia secunda,Scythia. In conformity to this model of Government in the Civil State, the Regiment in the Church (which before had been metropolitical, when the Provinces were independent on each other in Ecclesiastical administrations,) was adapted. This Dioecesan form of Governance might, 'tis probable, privately creep into the Church, in that in­terval of time between the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils; which is the opinion of Dr Barrow (See note (e.) in this chapter.) But, 'tis certain, it was confirmed by the Fathers convened in this second Oecumenical Synod; which sanction they made upon this oc­casion. A little before the summoning of this Synod, Melitius Bi­shop of Antioch in the East, took a journey to Constantinople, where he, together with some other Bishops promoted Gregorius of Nazian­zum to the Constantinopolitan See. So Sozomen tells us, book 7. chap. 3 and 7. Soon after Melitius had done this, Peter Bishop of Alexandria sent some Bishops from Egypt to Constantinople, who or­dained Maximus the Cynick Bishop of that City. See Sozomen book 7. chap. 9. Now, in the Political partition of the Roman Em­pire, (as you may see by that Draught we have here given you of the Oriental-Praetorian-Praefecture,) these three places were in three seve­ral Dioeceses. For, Antioch in Syria (whence Melitius came) was in the Oriental Dioecesis: Alexandria (from whence the Bishops we [...] sent by Peter) was in the Egyptick Dioecesis: and Constantinople (where these Bishops had celebrated their Episcopal ordinations) was Sci­tuate in the Thracican Dioecesis. In regard these proceedings had pro­duced a great deal of disorder and confusion in the Church; to re­medy this in future, the Fathers convened in this Synod, make a Sanction, (See Conc. Constantinopol. II. Can. 2. pag. 87, Edit. Bevereg.) that the Ecclesiastick Dioecesis's should have the same Limits with those of the State; and that it should be as unlawfull for Ecclesiastick persons to perform any Office, or do any business be­longing to them, without that Dioecesis wherein they were placed; as it was for the Civil Minister to intermeddle with any affair without the Limits of his Dioecesis. That this had not been duly observed in the Church before this Synod, but that Prelates made frequent Ex­cursions out of one Dioecesis into another, to ordain, is evident, not only from the instances we have mentioned just now; (where we find Melitius who belonged to the Oriental Dioecesis, and other Bishops of the Egyptick Dioecesis, ordaining a Bishop of Constanti­nople, a City in the Thracican Dioecesis ▪) but also from the Testi­mony of our Socrates, a person who lived soon after the convention of this Constantinopolitan Synod; who speaking here concerning its Sanctions, [...] (says he,) [...], &c. And they constituted Patriarchs, having made a division of the Provinces; that so those Bishops [who make their abode] with­out the bounds of their own Dioecesis, should not invade the Churches with­out their Limits. For this had been promiscuously done before by reason of the Persecutions. But, notwithstanding that this Dioecesan form (in imitation of the Civil State of the Empire) was brought into the Church, and thereupon Patriarchical Sees were erected: yet after this, several Provincial Churches had their ancient priviledges con­firmed to them, (which confirmation is grounded on the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council, as Dr Beveredge has fully proved in his notes▪ on that Canon, pag. 58;) and remained Independent from the Patri­archical Sees. For instance, the Cyprian Church was adjudged to be such an one, in the eighth Canon of the third General Council held at Ephesus, in the year of Christ 431. In which Canon, after the Ephesine Fathers had determined the Cyprian Church to be independent from the Bishop of Antioch; they add this clause: [...], &c. The same shall be observed in other Dioeceses, and in the Provinces every where: that so, none of the most Religious Bishops may invade another Province, which has not been for many years before, and from the begin­ning under his, or his predecessours hand. In like manner, Armenia the Great was exempted from dependence on any Patriarchate; as 'tis apparent from That Order of the Presidency of the most holy Patriarchs, which Dr Beveredge has published (at his notes on the 36th Canon Concil. Trullan. pag. 135, &c.) from a very ancient Greek Manu­script in the Bodlcian Library. In which Manuscript, neither England, Scotland, nor Ireland, are reckoned dependents on the Roman Pa­triarchate; as the Learned Reader, on perusall, will find. Though, 'tis as certain, that there was a compleat and absolute Church setled in this Island, long before this Manuscript Order was (or can be sup­posed to have been) drawn up; as that there was one at Antioch, or Rome it self. For (not to mention those unquestionable authorities which might be here produced to prove, that the plantation of the Go­spel in this our Province was as early as the close of Tiberius's Reign;) we have many witnesses of an undoubted authority to attest, that be­fore the times of the Nicene Council, there was a compleat Church set­led in this Island. For first, in the subscriptions to the first Council of Ar­les (convened in France Before the Nicene Council, that is, before the year of Christ 325, as the Acts of the said Council, publisht by Jacobus Sirmondus do attest;) we meet with the names of these persons who went thither from this our Island: (See Concilia Antiqua Gallia, Tom. 1. pag. 9. Edit. Sirmondi Paris. 1629.) Eborius, Episcopus de civitate Eboracensi, &c. Eborius Bishop of the City of York in the Pro­vince of Britania. Restitutus, Bishop of the City London, in the fore­written Province. Adelfius, Bishop of the City Colonia of the Londoners. From the same Province, Sacerdos a Presbyter, Arminius a Deacon. Secondly, Athanasius (in his second Apology against the Arians pag. 720. Edit. Paris.) does attest, that the Bishops of the Britannia's were pre­sent at the Sardican Council; which Synod was convened in the Con­sulate of Rufinus and Eusebius (see our Socrates book 2. chap. 20, note c.) on the year of our Lord 347. Lastly, to mention no more, Hilarius Bishop of Poictiers in France, in the beginning of his Book de Synodis (pag. 318. Edit. Paris. 1631. which book was written about the year of our Lord 350.) sends Greeting Britanniarum Episcopis, to the Bishops of the Britannia's. This is sufficient to prove we had a Church here in those times. And, that this Church was governed by its own Bishops, till about the year of Christ 600, and subject neither to the Roman, not to any other forreign Prelate, is a thing evidently apparent from what Venerable Bede has recorded in his Ecclesiastick History. For when Gregory Bishop of Rome, (supposing the Inhabitants of this Island to be still intangled in the errours of Paganism,) had sent hither Augustine the Monk to convert them to Christianity; he unexpectedly found, not only the Christian Religion disseminated amongst them long be­fore his arrival, but Bishops also rightly and duely constituted: which Prelates could not (in my simple judgment) be supposed the Subjects of the Roman Bishop, because he was so far from having any knowledge of them, that he did not believe there was one single Christian in this Island. But, though Augustine at his arrival found not the British Bishops dependants on the Roman See; yet, he resolves to use his utmost endeavour to make them such. In order to which, by the assistance of [...]thelbert King of Kent (as Bede tells us, book 2. chap. 2. Eccles. Histor.) he summons together the Prelates of the adjacent Province of the Britons, advises them to alter their ancient usages▪ and to accept of him for their Arch-bishop▪ But they, having an Arch-bishop of their own already to wit, the Bishop of Kaerleon, and looking upon it to be a strange and unheard-of thing, that they should become Subjects to a Forreigner; wholly refused him and his monstrous proposal; telling him, that they would not own him for their Arch-bishop; and, as to their ancient customs and usages, that they could not relinquish them without the consent and licence of their own Nation. Whereupon they desired a second Synod might be convened. At which there met seaven Brittish Bishops (whose names you may see in Sir Henry Spelmans Councils, Tom. [...]. pag. 106;) and many other Learned men; who by Dionothus (or, as Bed [...] calls him▪ Dino [...]th) Abbot of Bangor gave Augustine the Monk this answer; (See Sir Henry Spelman, as before, pag. 108, 109:) Be it known to you and without doubt, that we are, and every one of us obedient and subject to the Church of God and Pope of Rome, and to every true and pious Christian, to love every one in his degree with perfect charity, and to help every one of them by word and deed to be the sons of God. As for any other obedience, I do not know that I owe it to him, whom [...]e call the Pope, or that he hath right to challenge or require to be the Father of Fathers. This obedience we are ready to give and pay to him▪ and to every Christian continually. Besides, we are placed under the Government of the Bishop of Kaerleon upon Uske, who is to supervise un­der God over us, to make us keep the spiritual way. What treatment the Brittish Prelates found from Augustines hand, after they had given him this answer; the Reader may see in Bed [...], at the book and chapter now quoted. Where we find this Augustine, their pretended conver­tour, threatning them with a War. Which by his instigation (see Mr Wheelocks notes on Bed. Eccles. Hist. book 2. chap. 2. Ethel [...]ridus King of the Northanhumbrians waged against them: wherein no less than 1200 Brittish Ecclesiasticks were slain at one time. After this, the Romish Bishop, for upwards of nine Centuries exercised a supream Ecclesi­astick power in this Nation; though several of our Kings promulged severe Laws against it. But now at length, his Tyrannick yoak is broken off; and our Church enjoys its ancient priviledges: which may that God continue to it, by the most pretious bloud of whose eternal Son it was purchased! Amen. division of the Provinces; that so [Page 333] [...]. They are the words of the second Canon of the Constan­tinopolitan Synod; which Dionysius Exiguus renders thus: qui sunt super Dioecesim Episcopi, &c. the Bishops who are over a Dioecesis. There may be a twofold sence of these words. For first, They may be termed [...], who are over a dioecesis, or preside over a whole Dioecesis: of which sort is the Bishop of Alexandria, or the Bishop of Antioch, who is constituted not over a Province, but over a Dioecesis. Or se­condly, they may be termed [...], who are without their own Dioecesis: So Zonaras explains these words, in his Comment on this Canon. Lucas Holstenius has embraced the former sense of these words. For, at the Margin of his copy he had made a remark, that this pas­sage in Socrates is to be explained thus: ne Episcopi, &c. Least the Bishops set over their own Dioecesis's, should invade the Churches situate without their limits. But, the latter sense is the truer; which the Canon it self declares in the following words: for the Fathers add, [...], that the uncalled Bishops come not beyond their Dioecesis. Wherefore, [...] are the same with [...], Prelates without their bounds; which title Socrates has given Gregory Nazianzen at chap. 7. of this book; because of his removal from the Bishoprick of Sasimi (which was in the Pontick Dioecesis) to Constantinople. Further, it is to be noted, that Dioecesis in this Canon does not signifie a Diocese (as that word is commonly used,) or a Province, as the Greek Inter­preters Zonaras and Balsamon supposed; but it imports many Pro­vinces joyned together which are subject to one Governour. Whence the title of this Canon is, [...], concerning Dioeceses. For, its express words are, [...], &c. the fore written Canon concerning Dioecesises being observed, 'tis manifest that a Provincial Synod will govern affairs throughout every Province. You see what the title of this Canon is▪ and how it distinguishes a Province from a Dioecesis. For, 'tis not for­bidden by this Canon, that Bishops should goe out of one Province in­to another, to celebrate Ordinations: that being not to be done otherwise. To instance in the Asian Dioecesis, (see note f.) the Fa­thers prohibit not a removal out of Lycia into Pamphilia, nor out of Caria into Lycia, on account of Ecclesiastick business: but they only forbid them to pass out of one Dioecesis into another. Vales. those Bishops [who make their abode] with­out the bounds of their own Dioecesis, should not invade the Churches without their limits. For this had been promiscuously done before, by rea­son of the persecutions. And to Nectarius was allotted the That is, Constanti­nople. Great City and Thracia▪ Helladius successour to Basilius in the Bishoprick of Caesarea in Cappadocia; [Page 334] Gregorius [Bishop] of Nyssa a City also in Cap­padocia, (who was Basilius's brother; and O­treïus [Bishop] of Meletina in Armenia, had the The term [...] is not here used in such a sense, as to signifie a Patri­archate strictly so taken. Nor, must we think, that these Prelates here men­tioned by Socrates, were con­stituted Patriarchs properly so called; because (as Valesius well remarks) there are more than one named here to be superintendents over one Dioecesis; for instance, Helladius, Gregorius, and Otreïus, are assigned for the Pontick Dioecesis. Now, what that power was, which is here given to these Prelates by the Synod (or rather by the Emperour Theodosius himself,) will appear from an inspection into the occasion of their being intrusted with this power. The Emperour Theodosius, perceiving the Churches to be notoriously pestred with Arianisme, took a resolution to extir­pate it. In order whereto, he published an Edict (which is men­tioned by Sozomen, book 7. chap. 9; and is still extant, being the third Law in the Theodosian Code, Tit. de fide Catholicâ:) to this effect; that in all places, the possession of the Churches should be delivered to such persons only, as would acknowledge and profess one and the same Deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in a subsistency of three per­sons equal in honour and power. In order to a more clear manifesta­tion of those persons that owned this acknowledgment and profession; such of them as were in Constantinople and Thracia, were by this Im­perial Law obliged to hold communion with Nectarius Prelate of the Constantinopolitan See; those in the Pontick Dioecesis, with Helladius, Gregorius, and Otreïus, &c. For these Prelates (says Sozomen) the Emperour himself approved of, after he had seen and spoken with them; and also, they had an eminent repute for their pious Government of their Churches. And the Emperour orders further in his Edict, that who­soever dissented from a communion of faith with these Prelates, in their several districts; he should be expelled out of the Church as a mani­fest Heretick. You see then, that the power given to these Prelates here was not properly Patriarchichal; but only this, that their faith was to be the standard as it were, to measure that of others by, and a communion with them the Test for admitting persons to, or expelling them from, Ecclesiastick preferments. But, though we affirm, that the Prelates here mentioned by Socrates, were not constituted Pa­triarchs properly so called: yet we see no reason of making an inference from hence, (as Valesius in his note here does,) that Patriarchs were not constituted by the Constantinopolitan Fathers. For this is plainly repugnant to our Socrates's fore-mentioned words in this chap. viz. [...], they constituted Pa­triarchs, having made a distribution, or division, of the Provinces. On which distribution of the Provinces, the entire constitution of Pa­triarchs has its sole dependence. For, from it arose Dioecesis's, over which Patriarchs were set. See the Learned Dr Beveredge's notes on the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council, pag. 52, and on the second Canon of the Constant. Synod. pag. 94. Patriarchate of the Pontick Dioecesis for their allotment. To Amphilochius of Iconium, and Optimus [Bishop] of Antioch in Pisidia, was assigned the Asian [Dioecesis.] To Timo­theus [Bishop] of Alexandria was given [the superintendency over the Churches] throughout Egypt. The administration of the Churches throughout the East was committed to the Bishops of that Region, [to wit] to Pelagius of Lao­dicea, and Diodorus of Tarsus; but to the Antio­chian Church were reserved the priviledges [of Honour,] which were given to Meletius then present. They likewise decreed, that if need re­quired, a Provincial Synod should determine the Ecclesiastick affairs of every Province. These sanctions were confirmed by the Emperours own consent. Such was the conclusion of this Syond.

CHAP. IX. That the Emperour Theodosius [ordered] the body of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople to be honourably translated from [the place of his] Exile. At which time also Meletius [Bishop] of Antioch departed this life.

AT that time the Emperour translated the body of Paulus the Bishop from the City Ancyra: whom Philippus Praefect of the Prae­torium had banished upon Macedonius's account, and had ordered him to be strangled in Cucusus a Town of Armenia, as I have See So­crates, book 2. chap. 26. & book 2. chap. 16. note (a.) already men­tioned. [Theodosius] therefore, having re­ceived [his body] with much honour and re­verence, deposited it in the Church which now bears his own name; which Church the em­bracers of Macedonius's opinion were heretofore in possession of, at such time as they were sepa­ratists from the Arians: but were then expelled by the Emperour, because they refused embracing of his faith. Moreover, at the same time, Me­litius Bishop of Antioch fell into a distemper, and died: in praise of whom Gregorius, Basilius's brother, spoke a This Fu­neral Ora­tion in praise of Melitius Bishop of Antioch, is now extant amongst the Works of Grego­rius Nysse­nus. Vales. Funeral Oration. Meletius's body was by his friends conveyed to Antioch. Such as were favourers of Meletius, did again refuse to be subject to Paulinus: but caused Fla­vianus to be substituted in the place of Meletius. By reason whereof a new division did again arise amongst the people. Thus the Antiochian Church was afresh divided into two parties, on account of their Bishops, not of their faith.

CHAP. X. That the Emperour ordered a Synod of all the Sects to be convened, at which time Arcadius his son was proclaimed Augustus; and that the Nova­tians (who as to their faith embraced the same sentiments with the Homoöusians) were the only persons that had permission to hold their assemblies within the City. But the other Hereticks were forced from thence.

BUt, there were disturbances in other Cities also, [which hapned] at such time as the Arians were ejected out of the Churches. On account whereof I cannot choose but admire the Emperours judiciousness and prudence. For he suffered not (so far as it was in his power [to prevent them,]) the Cities to be filled with tumultuous disturbances: but with­in a short space of time, ordered a Synod of all the Heresies to be again convened, supposing that by a mutual conference of the Bishops, one con­cordant opinion would prevail amongst all men. I am of opinion, that this design of the Empe­rour's was the cause of that fortunate success he [then] had. For, about the same time, by a particular dispensation of divine providence, the Barbarous Nations were reduced to a subjection to him. And amongst others, Athanarichus King of the Goths made a Surrendry of himself with all his own people unto him, Athanarichus King of the Goths, entred Constantinople in the Consulate of Eucherius and Eva­grius, on the eleventh of January, and died on the twenty fifth of the same month; as 'tis recorded in Idatius's Fasti, and in Mar­cellinus's Chronicon. On the year following, which was the year of Christ 382, when Antonius and Syagrius were Consuls, the whole Gothick Nation surrendred it self to Theodosius, on the 3d of Octob. as says the same Idatius. Vales. who soon after died at Constantinople. Moreover, at that time the Emperour pro­claimed his Son Arcadius, Augustus, in the second Con­sulate of In the Greek he is called Merogaudus here, and hereafter. Merobaudes which he bore with His name in the Greek is Satornilus. Saturninus, on the sixteenth of January. Not long after these things, the Bishops of every Sect ar­rived from all places, in the same Consulate, in the month June. The Emperour therefore having sent for Ne­ctarius the Bishop, consul­ted with him, what project should be made use of that the Christian Religion might be freed from dissentions, and the Church reduced to an Union. And he said, that that Controversie which caused a separation in the Churches, ought to be discussed, that so by a removal of the Discord, an agree­ment might be effected in the Churches. At the hearing of this Nectarius was full of anxiety and sollicitude. And having sent for Agelius [Page 335] then Bishop of the Novatians, (in regard he was a person that embraced the same sentiments with him as to the Faith,) he makes known to him the Emperours intent. He, as to other things, was indeed a very pious person: but be­ing not very able to maintain a dispute, con­cerning the Doctrine [of Faith,] he proposes his Reader under him, by name Sisinnius, as a fit per­son to manage a Conference. But Sisinnius (an eloquent man, and well experienced in affairs, one who had an accurate skill in the expositions of the Sacred Scriptures, and in Philosophick o­pinions,) knew that these Disputations do not only not unite dissentions, but also raise Heresies to an higher degree of contention. Upon which account, he gave Nectarius this advice. In re­gard he very well knew, that the Ancients avoided the attributing a beginning of Existence to the Son of God; (for they apprehended him to be Coeternal with the Father;) he advises him to shun Logical disputes; and to produce for evi­dences the [...]. Christophorson renders these word thus: the forms of the Creed delivered by the Ancients. Epi­phanius Scholasticus thus: the tra­ditions of the Ancients. I like neither Version. For Socrates means the Books of the Ancient Doctors of the Church; and more especially the interpreta­tions of Sacred Scripture put forth by them. 'Tis certain, what he terms [...] [Expositions] here, he does a little after call [...], the Books of the Ancients. Where­fore I have here chosen to ren­der it Expositions, as Musculus does. For, what Socrates here calls [...], a little lower he terms [...], the Expo­sition of the Ancients. Vales. Expositions of the Ancients: and that the Emperour should propose to the Chiefs of each Heresie this question, Whether they would entertain any respect for the Ancients who Instead of [ [...], accommodated,] it must un­doubtedly be [ [...], flourished.] Which emendation is confirmed by Epiphanius Scho­lasticus: for thus he renders it: De Antiquis Ecclesiae Doctoribus, qui ante divisionem floruissent, con­cerning the Ancient Doctors of the Church who flourished before the division. Vales. flou­rished before the dissention in the Church, or whether they would reject them as estranged from the Chri­stian Religion? For if they reject them [said he,] then let them dare to Anathema­tize them. And if they shall be so audacious as to do that, the multitude will forth­with extrude them by vio­lence. Upon the doing where­of, the truth will undoubt­edly obtain a manifest victo­ry. But, if they shall refuse to reject the Ancient Do­ctours, then it will be our business to produce the Books of the Ancients, whereby our opinion will be attested and confirmed. Nectarius ha­ving heard all this from Si­sinnius, goes in great hast to the Pallace; and makes the Emperour acquainted with the advice which had been given him. The Emperour em­braces it with much eagerness, and handled the matter prudently. For, without discovering his design, he asked [the Chiefs of the Hereticks] this one question, Whether they had any respect for, and admitted of those Doctours of the Church [who lived] before [the rise of] the dissention? Upon their non-refusal of them, and their affirming that they highly revered and ho­noured them as being their Masters; the Empe­rour enquired of them again, whether they would Insist, or rely upon. acquiesse in them as witnesses of the Christian Religion worthy to be credited? When the Chiefs of the Sects and their Logicians (for they had amongst them many persons well provided for the combat of dispute;) heard this, they knew not what to do. For every one of them fell into a disagreement of opinion; some affir­ming that the Emperours Proposal was good; others [thinking] it not conducive to their de­sign. For some were one way affected towards the Books of the Ancients, others another. Nor could they any longer agree amongst themselves: and they dissented not only from other Sects, but those of the same Sect differed one from the other. Concordant malice therefore, like the tongue of those ancient Gyants, was divided, and their tower of mischief demolished. After the Emperour perceived their confused Or Dis­persion. Dissention, and [was sensible] that they confided in dis­putation only, and not in the Exposition of the Ancients; he betook himself to a second project. And orders every Sect to Instead of [ [...], to make known their Draught of the Creed] I had rather read, as Nicepho­rus does▪ [ [...], to set forth [and deliver in] to him in writing a Draught.] &c, Vales. set forth [and de­liver in] to him in writing a Draught of that Creed which they owned. Then, those [of every Sect] amongst them that were skilfullest and most eloquent, wrote their own opinion, making use of a great deal of caution and circumspection in their expressions. A day also was pitcht upon, whereon the Bishops of each Sect upon summons met at the Pallace. At which time were present Nectarius and Agelius, Prelates of the Homoöusian Creed; of the Arians, Demophilus; of the This Draught of the Creed, which Eunomius then presented to the Emperour Theodosius▪ I have by me in Manuscript; for which I am oblieged to the most famous and Learned Emericus Bigotius. In the Bavarian Manuscript, and in Livineius's Copy, this Draught of the Creed was placed at the latter end of Gregorius Nyssenus's Books a­gainst Eunomius, as Gretser attests. But, in the Florentine Copy, from which Bigotius transcribed this Creed, it was placed before those Books. Nor, will it be unusefull, to insert it here. For, though it contains Eunomius's whole impiety; yet some things occur in it, in no wise despicable. ‘EUNOMIUS's Creed.’ [...]. Whereas God and our Sa­viour Jesus Christ according to a most just sentence has said, that he will con­fess before God and the Father, those which should confess Him before men, and that he will deny such as should deny Him: and whereas the Apostolick Doctrine does exhort us, to be always ready to [give] an account to every one that asketh it: Whereas [lastly,] the Imperial commands do require this Confession; with all readiness We confess what our Sentiments are, and that We Believe in one only true God, according to his own Doctrine, not honouring Him with a false voice. For He cannot lye. But is by nature and Glory truly one God: without beginning, always, and eternally alone. Not parted or divided into many as to his Substance, according to which he is one: nor existing sometimes one, at others another; no [...] receding from what he is: nor formed from one Substance into three Persons. For he is altogether and wholly one, continuing always alone in one and the same manner. Having no companion of his Divinity, no partaker of his Glory, no Consort of his power, no Assessour of his Kingdom. For he is one and the only Omnipotent God, God of Gods, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. The Highest over all the earth, the Highest in the heavens, the Highest in the Highest, the Heavenly things: true in being what he is, and always continuing so. True in his Works, true in his Words. The beginning of all Subjection, Power, Empire. Above Conversion, and free from change, as being incorrupt. Not dividing his own Substance in begetting, nor being the same begetting and begotten, or existing the same Father and Son. For he is incorrupt. In working in no wise wanting matter, or members, or natural instruments. For he stands in need of nothing. WE BELIEVE also in the Son of God, the only Begotten God, the First begotten of every Creature, Christ the true God, not unbegotten: not (before he was,) named the Son without Generation, be­gotten before every Creature. Not uncreated. The Beginning of the Waies of God [in order to his] Works, and being the Word in the beginning: not without a beginning. The living Wisdom, the operating Truth, the sub­sisting Power, the begotten Life: as being the Son of God giving Life to the living; and restoring Life to the dead: the true Light, enlightning every man that cometh into the world: God, and the Minister of Good things; in regard he is begotten of the Goodness and Power of the Father: who hath not divided with him that has imparted the Dignity, nor with any other, his Fathers Substance, or Kingdom. But by Generation is made Glorious, and the Lord of Glory. Who has received Glory from the Father, but has not partaken of the Fathers Glory. For, the Glory of the Almighty is incommunicable, as he himself has said, I will not give my Glo­ry to another. Who has been glorified by the Father before ages. Who has been glorified by the Father through ages, and throughout the whole rational and created Substance. Whom the whole celestial Milice doth guard. For he is the Lord and King of Glory, as being the Son of God and God: the Framer of things immortal and mortal, the Framer of Spirits and of all flesh. For all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made. The King and Lord of all Life and breath of those [Creatures] that were made by him. For all things were delivered unto him by the Father, according to his holy expression, and the Father hath given all things into his hand. Obedient to the framing and creating of the things which are. Obedient to every Administration. Not receiving his being the Son, or God, from his obedience: but in that he is the Son, and is the only begotten, he is made God. Obedient in Works. Obedient in Words. The Mediatour in Sentences [or Decrees.] The Media­tour in Laws. Him we acknowledge to be the Sun of God, and the only begotten God. Him alone [we acknowledge to be] like to him that begat him upon account of an eminent similitude and a peculiar conception [or sig­nification.] Not as the Father [is] to the Father. For there are not two Fathers. Nor as the Son [is] to the Son, there being not two Sons. Nor as the Unbegotten to the Unbegotten. For there is one only Unbe­gotten, [to wit] the Omnipotent; and one only begotten Son. But [he is like] as the Son to the Father: in regard he is the Image and Seal of every operation and power of the Almighty: the Seal of all the Works, Words, and Councels of the Father. Him we acknowledge to be one of those who covered the earth with [a deluge of] waters. Who burnt the Sodomites with fire. Who inflicted punishment on the Egyptians. Who made Laws according to the Commandment of the Eternal God. Who in the times of the Prophets converst with the Ancients. Who called those that refused to obey. Who has received all power of Judging. For the Father judgeth no man: but hath given all judgment to the Son. Who in the last days was made flesh: made of a woman. Made man in order to the deliverance and Salvation of us men. Who assumed man [or humanity] consisting of a Soul and Body. Who by his tongue and mouth Preached peace to those that were near and such as were remote. Who was made obe­dient unto the Cross and unto death. And who saw not corruption, but rose again the third day. And after his Resurrection he compendiously expounded the mystery to his [disciples.] He sits on the right hand of the Father: and shall come to judge the quick and dead. After this [person,] We Believe in the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth. The Teacher of Piety. Made by the Only begotten, to whom he was once subject. Who is not to be reckoned after the Father, nor together with the Father. For there is one only Father, who is God over all. Nor is he to be equalled with the Son. For he is the Only begotten, and has no Brother begotten at the same time with him. Nor yet is he to be compared with any other thing. For he has transcended all other things that have been made by the Son, in Ge­neration, Nature, Glory, and Knowledge. In regard he is the first and best, the greatest and most beautifull work of the Only begotten. Who also him­self being one, and the first, and the Only, and the most eminent of all the Sons composures, by reason of his substance and natural Dignity; does per­fect every operation and Doctrine according to the Sons arbitrement, by whom he is sent, and of whom he receives. And he makes a relation to those that are instructed▪ teaching the Truth: sanctifying the Saints: leading them who come to the Sacrament: dividing to the Spirit all his free gifts, who gives grace. And he cooperates with the faithfull, in order to their understanding and contemplation of the things commanded. Who groans with them that pray: is the Guide to what is profitable: gives strength in order to Piety: enlightens Souls with the light of knowledge: purges the thoughts: chases away devills: cures the sick: heals the diseased: brings back the wanderers [into the way:] comforts the afflicted: erects those that stumble and fall: refreshes those that labour: encourages with shouts those that strive: emboldens those that are fearfull: is the Guardian and Overseer of all men: takes all imaginable care, and makes provision for the promotion [or access] of the well minded, and for the preservation of the more faithfull. Further, We Believe in that Resurrection▪ which shall be [effected] by our Saviour; [to wit] of those very Bodies which have been dissolved, together with their proper members and particles: when nothing shall be wanting or changed, of those things which composed every mans body in this present life. Moreover, [We Believe] the Judgment which shall be after this, of those things which have been ill-thought or acted; and likewise of all the works, words, actions, practises, conceptions of the mind, and thoughts which have hapned in this present life: so that nothing at all, whether of the greatest matters, or of the least, shall be con­cealed: nothing of those things, which have been legally done, or unjustly perpetrated, shall be neglected or overlookt: but a proportionate and just sentence shall be given [or measured out.] And those that have continued impious and sinners to the end [of their lives,] shall be sent away to an endless punishment. But such as have led Holy and righteous lives, shall be taken up to an eternall life. These are our Sentiments, which we have learned from the Saints, and thus we think and believe. We have omitted nothing of what we have learned, on account of shame, or out of fear. Nor have we by reason of turpitude or contentiousness made any additions thereto, or perverted any thing therein. Neither are we conscious to our selves of any such falsity or detestable impiety as is framed against us by those Syco­phants, or slanderers; Whose damnation is just. That this is the confession of Faith, which was delivered by Euno­mius to Theodosius, in the month June, on the second Consulate of Merobaudes which he bore which Saturninus; is evident from these words which occur at the beginning of this confession; to wit, [...], and whereas the Imperial commands do require this confession. Vales. Eunomi­ans, Eunomius himself; of those that embraced Ma­cedonius's opinion, Eleusius [Bishop] of Cyzicum. [Page 336] The Emperour gave them a very kind reception at their meeting: and having received a Draught of the Creed in writing from every one of them, retired into a private apartment alone, where he prayed with much fervency, that God would give him his assistance, in order to an Election of the Truth. And having read over every one of the written Draughts of the Creed, he tore all the rest, (disapproving of them, in regard they introduced a separation of the Trinity) except the Homoöusian Creed only, which he commended and embraced. This was the rea­son of the Novatians flourishing again, [and of their being permitted] to celebrate their sacred assemblies within the Cities. For the Emperour, admiring their consent as to the Faith, Instead of [ [...], about those of his own opinion,] it must be thus mended [ [...], with, or to those of his own opinion.] The same errour occurs before in this chapter; where he says, [...]; which we have corrected by ren­dring it thus: For some were one way affected towards the Books of the Ancients, others another. Vales. with those of his own opinion, gave com­mand by [the promulga­tion of] a Law, that they should securely enjoy their own Oratories; and that their Churches should have the same priviledges with I read [ [...]. [not [...]] [...], with those [Churches] of his own Faith. For the word [...] Churches is understood. The priviledges of Churches are, a priviledge of sanctuary, a priviledge of re­ceiving Embassies, and the like. Vales. those [Churches] of his own Faith. But, the Pre­lates of the other Sects, by reason of their disagreement amongst themselves, were condemned and despised e­ven by their own disciples. And being reduced to a desperation, and overwhel­med with grief, they made their departure: and wrote Consolatory Letters to those of their own party, perswading them not to be troubled, because many relinquished them, and became adherents to the Homoöusian Creed. For many [they said] were called, but few chosen. Which expression they in no wise made use of, at such time as the greatest part of the people [...], per­haps he means the Imperial power; for Constantius and Valens were great favourers of these Sects. through force and fear became their favourers. But neither were the Professours of the Homoöusian Creed perfectly free from trouble and disquietude. For the affairs of the Antiochian Church caused a divi­sion amongst those that were present at the Synod. For, the Egyptians, Arabians, and Cypriots [...], ma­king a joynt at­tempt a­gain. ga­thering together again, said that Flavianus ought to be expelled out of Antioch. But [the Bi­shops] of Palaestine, Phoenice, and Syria stood up in defence of Flavianus. What conclusion this affair had, I will declare in its due place.

CHAP. XI. Concerning Maximus the Tyrant, how he slew Gratianus by treachery: at which time also Justina the mother of Valentinianus Junior, desisted, though unwillingly, from her design against Ambrosius Bishop of Millain, for fear of Maximus.

ABout the same times wherein these Synods were held at Constantinople, these transacti­ons hapned in the Western parts. Musculus and Christo­phorson seem to have thought (as by their Ver­sions ap­pear,) that this man was born in Brittain; which (though perhaps true, yet) cannot be made out from this passage in our Socrates. Zosimus (Histor. book 4.) says this Maximus was a Spaniard. Our Countrey-man Guil­das calls him Germen Plantationis Britannicae, a branch of the Britan­nick Plantation. Camden mentions him in his Britannia (pag. 240▪ 241, Edit. Lond. 1607.) where he quotes some verses out of Ausonius; in which he is termed Rhutupinum Latronem, the Richborow-Thief. Maximus [coming] out of the Island Britannia, invaded the Roman Empire, and makes a treacherous at­tempt upon Gratianus then ingaged in a War a­gainst the Alamanni. In Italy, during Valenti­nianus's minority, Probus a person that had been Consul, had the chief management of affairs, who at that time bore the Praefecture of the Praetorium. [Page 337] Justina (mother to Valentinianus Augustus,) a woman that was an Arian, during her Husbands life, had no power to be mischievous towards the Embracers of the Homoöusian Creed. But after [her husbands death,] when her Son was very young, she went to Millain, and raised great disturbances against Ambrosius the Bishop, issuing out an Order that he should be banished. And whilest the people made a resistance [against this Order,] out of their excessive love to Am­brosius, and opposed those that endeavoured to hale him away into Exile; in that interim news came, that Gratianus was treacherously slain by the Tyrant Maximus. For Andragathius Maxi­mus's Lieutenant (being hid in a Carriage put into the form of a womans Horse-litter, and car­ried by Mules; and having given the Guards a Command, that they should before-hand spread abroad a report, that the Emperour Gratianus's Wife was in that Litter;) meets the Emperour before Lyons a City in France, passing the Ri­ver. The Emperour supposing it to be his Wife, was not aware of the Treachery: but, as a blind man does into a ditch, fell into the hands of his Enemie. ▪ For Andragathius leapt out of the Litter on a Sudden, and slew Gratianus. Grati­anus therefore ended his life in the Consulate of Or, Me­rogaudus. Merobaudes and Saturninus, after he had Reigned fifteen years, and lived twenty four. This accident cool'd the Emperours Mothers heat against Ambrosius. Moreover, Valentinianus, though against his will, complyed with the ne­cessity of that juncture, and admitted Maximus to be his Colleague in the Empire. At which time Probus, afraid of Maximus's power, resolves upon a retreat into those parts of the Empire nearer to the East. Immediately therefore he departs out of Italy; and arriving in Illyricum, he fixt his Residence I will here pro­pose my doubt to the Reader. I am of opinion therefore, that Thessalonica, which was the chief City of Macedonia, was under Theodosius's Em­pire. My reasons are; (1.) because Theodosius, after he had been Proclaimed Augustus by Gratianus at Sirmium, went to Thessalonica, resided there a long while, and received the Embassies of the Cities of the East: and when he fell sick, he was baptized by Acholius Bi­shop of that City, as Zosimus, Prosper, Socrates, and others do re­late. (2.) During his Residence in that City, he published many Laws, which are extant in the Theodosian Code, in the Titles de fide Catholica, and de Haereticis; which Laws are dated at Thessalonica. (3.) Lastly, in the Constantinopolitan Synod, at which 'tis manifest the Eastern Bishops only were present, Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica is reckoned, as may be seen in the eighth chapter of this book. After Theodosius's times, there is no doubt but Thessalonica was under the Eastern Emperours. For 'twas the chief City of the Oriental Illyricum, which contained Macedonia and Dacia, as we are informed from The Notitia of the Roman Empire. But, whether or no it was under the Eastern Emperours, about the beginning of Theodosius's Reign; may deservedly be doubted. For Aurelius Victor, and Zonaras do expresly affirm, that Gratianus gave Theodosius only the East and the Thracia's. And Zosimus relates, that Valentinlanus Junior (upon his division of the Empire with his Brother,) had Italy, Africk, and Illy­ricum. Neither had Constantius, or Valens (who governed the Eastern Empire before Theodosius) Illyricum under their Dominion. In the times of Valens, 'tis certain, Mamertinus Praefect of the Praetorium, Governed Italy, Africa, and Illyricum at the same time; as Amm. Marcellinus attests. Notwithstanding, Valens (after his Brother Valentinianus's death) seems to have annext Macedonia and Dacia to his own Empire, by the consent of his Brother's Sons, Which Collection I make from the close of Amm. Marcellinus's thirty first book: where he says, that Valens's Souldiers and Palatines, who had been besieged by the Goths at Adrianople, went out after that Siege was broken up, and hastned some into Dacia▪ others into Macedonia, sup­posing that Valens had retired thither. See Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 468. Edit. Par. 1636. Vales. in Thessalonica [a City] of Macedonia.

CHAP. XII. That the Emperour Theodosius having provided a numerous Army against Maximus, (at which time Flaccilla bore him his Son Honorius;) lest Arcadius at Constantinople▪ but went him­self to Millain, where he came to an Engagement with the Tyrant.

BUt the Emperour Theodosius was extreamly full of care and sollicitude; and formed a very powerfull Army against the Tyrant; being afraid lest he should treacherously murder Va­lentinianus Junior also. At the same time ar­rived Embassadours from the Persians, requesting Peace of the Emperour. Moreover, then also a Son was born to the Emperour, named Honorius, of whom his Wife Flaccilla was delivered, in the Consulate of Or, Ri­chomelius. Richomeres and Clearchus, on the ninth of September. In the same Consulate died Agelius Bishop of the Novatians, a little before [Honorius's birth.] On the year following, whereon Arcadius Augustus bore his first Con­sulate with Bauton, Timotheus Bishop of Alex­andria ended his life, who was succeeded in that See by Theophilus. A year after this, Demophilus Bishop of the Arian Heresie, concluded his life. The Arians sent for one Marinus, a Bishop of their own Heresie, out of Thracia, whom they entrusted with the Bishoprick. But Marinus sate [Bishop] not long. For under him the Arian Sect was divided into two parties, as we shall de­clare hereafter. Wherefore they sent for Doro­theus out of Antioch in Syria, and constituted him their Bishop. In the interim, the Emperour proceeded to a War against Maximus, and left his Son Arcadius Augustus at Constantinople. Arriving at Thessalonica, he finds The phrase is [...] which Christo­phorson renders ill, thus, Va­lentinian's Souldiers. For Socra­tes means Valentinian himself who was on this year (when Valentinian himself was the third time Consul, with Eutro­pius,) conquered by Maximus, (as Sulpitius informs us, in his first book concerning the life of Martinus) and together with his mother Justina, his Praesects and Comites, fled to Thessalonica. Vales. Valentinianus and those about him in great sadness and anxiety, because out of necessity they had admitted the Tyrant to be Emperour as it were. But Theo­dosius, in outward appearance, gave no indica­tion of his mind [in favour of either side.] For he neither But Zosimus says, that Maximus's Embassy was received by Theo­dosius; and that he acknowledged him to be Emperour, and admitted of his Statues▪ and ordered Cynegius Praefect of the Praetorium in the East, that Maximus's Statues should be proposed to publick view at Alexandria, and that he should declare to the people that Maximus was Colleague of his Empire. Which thing Sigonius (in his book de Occidentati Imperio) has done ill to place on the year of Christ 384, when Richomeres and Clearchus were Consuls; in regard it was done in Valentinianus's third Consulate, which he bore with Eutropius, on the year of Christ 387. For, on this year Cynegius was Praefect of the Praetorium. Vales. rejected, nor admitted Maxi­mius's Embassy. But he could not endure the sight of a Tyrannical Government over the Ro­mans, covered with the specious pretence of an Imperial name. Having therefore Mustered his Military Forces, he marcht to He should rather have said Aquileia. For thither Maximus went, as Zosimus and the other Chronologers do inform us. Vales. Millain. For thither Maximus was already come.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning▪ the disturbance raised at Constanti­nople by the Arians.

ABout the same time that the Emperour was busied in the War, the Arians in Constan­tinople raised a disturbance, by this Artifice. 'Tis [Page 338] usual with This Cha­racter does well befit too many persons of our own nation at this jun­cture. men to frame stories of things they are ignorant of. And if at any time they have got­ten an occasion, they spread greater Rumours con­cerning the things they have a mind to, being al­ways extreamly desirous of changes and alterati­ons. This was the case of Constantinople at that time. For some framed and divulged one thing con­cerning the War which was waged at that great distance, others another; always presuming upon the worst event of affairs. And when nothing of action had hapned in the War, as if themselves had been Spectatours upon the very Spot, they discour­sed concerning things which they knew not: [to wit,] that the Tyrant had gotten a victory over the Emperours Army, that thus many were slain on this side, and so many on that; and that the Emperour was just upon falling into the Tyrants hands. Then the Arians, at that time highly incensed, (for they were sorely vext, because those that had been persecuted by them hereto­fore, were now in possession of the Churches within the City:) began to enlarge the Re­ports. But afterwards, some of the stories that were told, induced even the Coyners themselves of these false rumours to believe, that the reports they had framed and divulged, were not feigned, but undoubtedly true. For, such persons as had taken them up upon here-say, affirmed to the authours of these lies, that the account of affairs was exactly agreeable to what they had heard from themselves. Whereupon, the Arians became emboldened, brake out into an irrational vio­lence; threw fire into the Pallace of Nectarius the Bishop, and burnt it. This was done in Theodosius's second Consulate, [which he bore] with Cynegius.

CHAP. XIV. Concerning the Emperour Theodosius's Victory, and the Tyrant's overthrow.

BUt whilest the Emperour was upon his March towards the Tyrant, the Forces under Maxi­mus's Command, informed of the great Military preparations, could not so much as resist an assault of the fame thereof; but, being put into a con­sternation, bound the Tyrant, and delivered him to the Emperour. He was slain in the same Consulate, on the Socrates i s mistaken. For Maxi­mus was slain, not on the 27th of August, but on the 28th of July, as I­datius says in his Chro­nicon. The same is recorded in those Fasti, which Jacobus Sirmondus has publi­shed under Idatius's name. For, these are the words there: Theo­dosio Aug. II. & Cynegio Coss. &c. In the second Consulate of Theo­dosius Augustus [which he bore] with Cynegius, on that year, Maxi­mus the Tyrant that publick Enemy, is slain by Theodosius Augustus, three miles from Aquileia, on the fifth of the Calends of August [that is, on the 28th of July] Also, his Son Victor is slain a few days after, in the Gallia's, by Theodosius's Comes. Further, this Victor had been created first Caesar, and then Augustus, by his Father; as we are in­formed from this Old Inscription recorded by Sigonius, in his 9th book, de Occidentali Imperio: DD. NN. MAG. CL. MAXIMO, ET FL. VICTORI PIIS FELI­CIBUS SEMPER AUGUSTIS BONO R. P. NATIS. Where you see Maximus has two Praenomina, to wit, Magnus Clemens. Sulpitius Severus (book 2. Histor. Sacr.) calls him Clemens Maximus. But, by Orosius he is termed Magnus Maximus. Vales. twenty seventh of Au­gust. But Andragathius (he that slew Grati­anus with his own hand,) after he under­stood that Maximus was routed, cast himself in­to the adjacent River, and was drowned. Then, both the Victorious Emperours made their En­try into Rome. Honorius, Theodosius's Son, a child very young, was with them. For after Maximus was vanquished, his Father sent for him from Constantinople. They continued there­fore at Rome, celebrating their triumphal Festivals. At which time Theodosius the Emperour shewed a signal instance of his goodness and clemency, to­wards Here is a mistake, either of Socrates, or of his transcri­bers; in calling Symmachus [...], a person that had born the Consulate. For Symma­chus whose Epistles are extant at this day, had not at that time been Con­sul; but three years after he bore a Consulate with Tati­anus. Vales. Symmachus a person that had been Con­sul. For, this Symmachus was the eminentest person of the Senate at Rome, and was admired for his great skill in the Roman Literature. There are now extant many orations of his written in the Latine tongue. But, in regard he had com­posed an Oration in praise of Maximus whilest he was alive, and had spoken it to him in pub­lick; he was afterwards charged with the crime of high-treason. Upon this account he was afraid of a capital punishment, and took sanctuary in the Church. But the Emperour had so great a Reverence for the Christian Religion, that he not only highly honoured the Prelates of his own Faith; but gave a gratious reception to the No­vatians also, who embraced the Homoöusian Creed. Therefore, that he might gratifie Le­ontius Bishop of the Novatian Church at Rome, he pardoned Symmachus's crime. Symmachus having his pardon granted him, wrote an Apolo­getick to the Emperour Theodosius. Thus this War, which at the beginning seemed to threaten [the Empire] with great calamity, was ter­minated by this sudden conclusion.

CHAP. XV. Concerning Flavianus of Antioch.

AT the same time, these affairs were trans­acted Instead of [ [...], about An­tioch in Syria] I had rather word it thus [ [...], at Antioch in Syria.] Vales. at Antioch in Syria. After the death of Paulinus, the people who had been his followers, had an aversion for Flavianus. Upon which account they caused Evagrius to be ordain­ed Bishop of their own party. He having not long survived his Ordination, no other person was afterwards constituted in his place; which was effected by the diligence and endeavours of Flavianus. Notwithstanding those that had an aversion for Flavianus, in regard he had vio­lated his Compare chap. 5. with chap. 9. of this book. Oath, kept their assemblies apart by themselves. But Flavianus left no stone untur­ned, (as the saying is,) that he might bring these persons also to own a subjection to him. Which he effected soon after, [to wit,] when he had appeased the anger of Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria, by whose intercession Flavianus procured a reconciliation also with Damasus Bishop of Rome. For both these Pre­lates had been incensed against Flavianus, not only on account of his perjury, but also in regard he had given an occasion of a separation amongst that people who had been brought to an See chap. 5. agree­ment. Theophilus therefore being pacified, sent Isidorus a Presbyter, and reconciled Damasus, as yet offended; telling him, 'twas very con­ducive for the effecting an union amongst the people, to pass by the fault which Flavianus had committed. Communion being after this man­ner restored to Flavianus; the people of Antioch were within a small space of time reduced to a reconciliation. Such was the conclusion of this affair at Antioch. For the Arians in that city were ejected out of the Churches, and had their meetings in the Suburbs thereof. More­over, in this interim died Cyrillus Bishop of Je­rusalem, who was succeeded by Johannes.

CHAP. XVI. Concerning the demolishment of the Idol Temples at Alexandria; and concerning the Fight be­twixt the Pagans and Christians, which hap­ned on that account.

AT the very same time, this disturbance also hapned at Alexandria. By the solicitation of Theophilus the Bishop, the Emperour issued forth an Order, for the demolishment of the Hea­then Temples at Alexandria; and gave command, that this Order should be put in execution by Theophilus's care. Theophilus being thus em­powered, used his utmost endeavours in order to the exposing the Heathen Mysteries to ignominy and contempt. He cleansed Mithra's Temple; and destroyed that belonging to Serapis. He also exposed to publick view the bloudy Mysteries of the That is, Mithra's Tem­ple: what these Mysteries were, Socrates has told us, book 3. chap. 2. Mithreum. And shewed how full of ridicu­lousness the Mysteries of Se­rapis, and of the other Gods, were; ordering that the Pieces of wood made in fa­shion of a mans privities. Priapus's should be car­ried through the midst of the Forum. The Heathens at Alexandria, more especially those that profest Philosophy, upon sight of the doing hereof, were unable to repress their discontent: but made an addition to the See book 3. chap. 2. former tragick actions which they had perpetrated. For, upon a sign given which they had agreed on before-hand, they made an unanimous assault upon the Christians, and murthered every one they met: moreover, the Christians defended themselves; and thus mischief was attended with mischief. This Fight was con­tinued so long, till a satiety of slaughter put an end to it. Few of the Heathens were destroyed in this Conflict: but of the Christians [there fell] a great many. The wounded on both sides were innumerable. After the perpetration of this Action, a fear seized the Heathens, who dreaded the Emperours anger. Wherefore, ha­ving done what they pleased, and satiated their minds with slaughters, they absconded, some in one place, others in another. Moreover, many of them fled from Alexandria, and dispersed themselves into several Cities. Amongst which number were the two Grammarians, Some ex­cerptions of this Hel­ladius the Gramma­rian, are extant in Photius's Bibliotheca. Vales. Helladius and Ammonius; whose Scholar I was at Con­stantinople, when very young. Helladius was stiled Jupiters Priest: Ammonius was [...]; that is, The Ape's Priest. For the Egyptians worship an Ape, as Lucian tells us, in his piece, [...]. Si­mius's. This mischief being thus composed, the Sozomen (book 7. chap. 15.) calls this Praefects name Evagrius: and the Commander in chief of the Milice in Egypt, he names Romanus. Eunapius likewise (in the Life of Aedesius,) names both these per­sons; and attests, that they gave a great assistance to Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, in destroying the Temple of Serapis. I will insert Eunapius's own words here, because they want correcting; (See Eunap. in vità Aedes [...]i, pag. 63. Edit. Colon. Allobrog. 1616:) [...]; That is, the Temples about the City Canobus underwent the same thing, Theodosius being at that time Emperour, and Theophilus Presiding over those execrable persons; he was a certain Eurymidon, that reigned over the haughty Gyants. Evetius being then Governour of the Civill affairs: and Romanus intrusted with the Command of the Milice throughout Egypt. On my perill, correct it thus: [...], Evagrius being then Governour of the Civill affairs. In the Theodosian Code, (title, De Paganis,) there is a Law extant of Theodosius's, directed to this Evagrius Praefect of Egypt, and to Romanus Comes of the Milite throughout Egypt; which Law was dated at Aquilcia, in the Con­sulate of. Tatianus and Symmachus. From which Law it may be con­cluded, that Serapi [...]'s Temple was demollished at Alexandria, in the year of Christ 391. But Marcellinus, in his Chronicon, contradicts this; and says this Temple was destroyed when Timasius and Promotus were Consuls; which was the year of Christ 389. And this, in my judg­ment, is the truer. For Cynegius Praefect of the Praetorium, at his being sent into Egypt, had a command from Theodosius, that he should pull down the Heathen Temples; as Zosimus relates in his first book. And he had executed that command, as Idatius attests in his Fasti. Now, Cynegius died in his own Consulate, on the year of Christ 388. Vales. Praefect of Alexandria, and the Com­mander in chief of the Milice in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the Heathen Temples. The Temples therefore were ruined, but the I­mages of their Gods were molten into Caldrons, and into other utensills necessary for the Alex­andrian Church; the Emperour having given [the Images of] the Heathen Gods [to that Church,] for the relief of the poor. Wherefore Theophilus brake in pieces all [the Images of] the Gods, save one, to wit, the Image of the fore-mentioned God, which he ordered to be preserved unmelted, and caused it to be set up in a publick place; least (said he) the Heathens should in ages to come deny, that they had been worshippers of such Gods. At which action [of Theophilus's,] Ammonius the Grammarian was, to my knowledge, highly disgusted: for he was wont to say, that the Religion of the Gentiles had suffered most horrid abuses, Instead of [ [...]] it should be [ [...], because but, &c.] Socrates means the Image of their God Simius, which Theophilus had ordered to be reserved on purpose. And thus Epiphan. Scholasticus has explained this place in Socrates; much better then Christophorson; who under­stood those words of Socrates [ [...]] as spoken concerning a certain (or rather uncertain) God. Vales. because but one Image only was not melted down; but was preserved meerly to render Gentilism ridiculous. But Helladius made his boasts in some persons hearing, that in the Conflict he had slain nine men with his own hand. Such were the doings in A­lexandria at that time.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning the Hieroglyphical Letters found in the Temple of Serapis.

[MOreover,] at such time as Serapis's Tem­ple was rifled and demolished, there were Letters found [in it,] ingraven on stones; Instead­of [ [...] called an Hiero­glyphick;] it ought rather to be thus written [ [...], which [Letters] they call Hieroglyphical:] so Epiphanius Scholasticus seems, to have read. In­deed, Socrates and Sozomen do relate, that these Hieroglyphical Letters were found in the Temple of Serapis, cut upon the walls thereof. But Rufinus does not say they were found there: he tells us rather, that they were kept and expounded at Canopus. At his 2d book, Eccles. Histor. chap. 26; these are his words: Jam vero Canopi quis enumere [...] superstitiosa flagitia? &c. But now, who can enumerate the super­stitious impieties at Canopus? Where, under a praetext of their sacer­dotal Letters, (for so they call the ancient Letters of the Egyptians;) there was in a manner a publick School of Magick Art. Vales. which [Letters] they call Hieroglyphical. These Characters had the forms and resemblances of crosses. When the Christians and Heathens saw these Characters, each party Fitted, or applied. ada­pted them to their own Religion. For the Christians, who affirm that the Cross is the signe of Christs salutary Passion, thought this Character was properly and pecu­liarly theirs. The Heathens alledged it was some thing [that belonged in] common both to Christ, and to Serapis: for, a Character [said they] made in form of a Cross, betokens one thing amongst the Christians, another amongst the Heathens. [Page 340] Whilest these things were controverted amongst them, some of the Heathens (who were conver­ted to the Christian Religion,) having skill in these Hieroglyphical Letters, gave an interpreta­tion of the Character made in form of a Cross, and said it signified Life to come. This the Chri­stians took hold of with much earnestness, as be­ing more advantageous to their Religion in par­ticular; and were not a little proud of it. Socrates borrowed this out of Rufinus's 2d book, Eccles. Hi­stor. chap. 29. He ap­prehended not Rufi­nus's mea­ning. For Rufinus says not, that it was predicted to the Pa­gans by o­ther Sacer­dotal Let­ters, that Serapis's Temple would then be destroy­ed, when that sign of the Cross should ap­pear: he only says, that the E­gyptians received this as a tradition from their Ancestours, to wit, that the Temples wherein they then worshipped, should stand so long, till that sign should come, wherein there was Life. But, because mention is here made of Serapis's worship, and of the Letters found in his Temple; nothing hinders, but we may here explain, (in favour of the studious) an Old Epi­gram concerning Scrapis, which is recorded by Eusebius in his books de Demonstratione Evangelicâ. For it contains both the manner how this God was worshipped by the Egyptians; and besides, Scaliger understood it not, in his Animadversions on Eusebius, Number 1730. The Epigram therefore runs thus: [...] That is, The seven Vowells do my praise resound,Who am the Great, Immortal Deity,Th' unwearied Father of the Universe. You must know, that the Egyptian Priests were wont to praise their God Serapis in no other manner, than by a recitation now and then of the seven Greek Vowells. Therefore, instead of Hymns and Songs, the Pipe and Harp; the sound of the seven Vowells was heard in Serapis's Temple. Dionysius Halicarnassensis does attest this, in his book [...], in the chapter de Collisione Vocalium. Where after he has informed us, that the Collision of the Vowells is not so much to be avoided, in regard it sometimes produces a pleasant noise▪; he adds these words: [...], &c. Moreover, in Egypt the Priests sing praises to the Gods by [repeating] the seven Vowells, sounding them out one after the other. And, instead of the Pipe and Harp, the sound of these Letters is heard. Elias Vinetus (in his notes at Ausonius's eighteenth Epistle,) does declare that he had seen an old inscription, which was found upon a golden plate, fixt on the breast of a dead body. This plate contained the seven Greek Vowells, repeated in seven Verses, in such order as you may see there. But I doubt not, but there were seven other Verses on the reverse of the said plate, in the same order with those on the foreside. To wit, in such a manner that the second Verse of the reverse side began with Omicron, the fourth with Ypsilon, the sixth with Omega. Vinetus could not explain this Riddle. In my judgment Serapis's name is denoted by these Letters; which God (as Hesychius attests) was called [...], not only because there are seven Letters contained in his name, but in regard he was usually praised by the seven Vowells. Now, it was an usage amongst the superstitious Heathens to engrave Serapis's name upon a brazen plate, and wear it hung about their necks in form of a Buck­ler. Artemidorus (book 4.) gives us an account of this usage, in these words: [...] Vales. In what order the seven Greek Vowells were placed on the foreside of this golden plate; the Learned Reader may see in Vinetus's notes on the 18th Epistle of Ausonius, written to Tetradius; Edit. Burdigal. 1590. But after it had been manifested by other Hiero­glyphicall Letters, that Serapis's Temple would have an end, when a Character in form of a Cross should appear; (for thereby was sig­nified Life to come:) then many more came over to the Christian Religion, and after a Confession of their sins were baptized. This is a relation of what hapned upon account of the Character [that was discovered,] made in form of a Cross; which relation I had from report. But, I am not of opinion, that the Egy­ptian Priests foreknew what should happen to Christ, and therefore caused the figure of a Cross to be ingraven on stones. For, if the Mystery of [our Saviours] coming into the world were hid from Ages, and from Generations, as the Apostle Colos. 1. 26. says; and if the Devill himself, the Prince of wickedness, knew nothing of it; 'twas much more unknown to his Ministers, to wit, the Egyptian Priests. But di­vine providence designed the same thing should happen at the enquiry made into this Character, which he had heretofore demonstrated in the Apo­stle Paul's [Preaching.] For he, inspired with wisedom by the divine Spirit, made use of the same method towards the Athenians, and brought many of them over to the Faith [of Christ;] at such time as he read the Acts 17. 22, &c. inscription upon [one of their] altars, and ada­pted it to his own discourse. Un­less any one should perhaps say, that the word of God had the same operation upon the Egy­ptian Priests, that it had on Balaam and Caiaphas. For those See Numb. 24. & John. 11. 51. two persons (though they did it contrary to their will and know­ledge,) uttered prophesies concerning good things. But, let thus much be said concer­ning these things.

CHAP. XVIII. That the Emperour Theodosius, during his stay in Rome, did a great deal of good to that City, both by demolishing those Receptacles for Thieves in the Bake-houses, and also [by prohibiting] the obscene [use] of Bells in the Stews.

MOreover, the Emperour Theodosius, during his short stay in Italy, was in many in­stances highly beneficiall to the City of Rome, partly by his donation of some things, and partly by his abrogating others. For his donations were many and great: and he Or, ren­dred ineffe­ctuall. regulated two villa­nous and most infamous abuses [frequently pra­ctised in] that City. The one whereof was this. There were in the Or, in the Greatest Rome. great City Rome houses of a vast bigness and largness, long since [built,] wherein the bread was made which was distribu­ted amongst the Citizens. The Masters of these houses (whom the Romans in their language term Amongst the Ro­mans, Ba­kers were called Mancipes; because they were [Mancipati] bound to the Colledge of Bakers, and to the Trade of making Bread: and their goods and families were obnoxious to this Function. See the eighteenth Law of the Theodosian Code de Pistoribus. In which Law, they are the Decuriales, (concerning whom I have made several remarks in my notes on Amm. Marcel.) who were of the Decuriae of the City of Rome. These Officers had the custody of all the publick Acts and Monuments; especially the sentences of Judges, Contracts, Adoptions, and the like. On which ac­count (as Cassiodorus tells us, book 5. Epist. 21,) the quiet and se­curity of all men, and the publick Faith was kept in their Desks. There was over all these a Rector of the Decuriae; concerning whose Office see Cassiodorus, book 5. Epist. 21, 22. But, to return to the Man­cipes; it is observable, that in the fore-mentioned Law the Function of the Mancipes or Bakers is termed Mancipatus. So also it is called in that One Law in the Theodosian Code de Mancipibus: which Law was published at Rome by Theodosius, in the Consulate of Timasius and Promotus; at the same time that these things (which Socrates here relates) were done. See Meursius's Glossary in the word [...] It is further to be remarkt, that those Constitutions made at Rome by Theodosius (which Socrates treats of in this chapter, and places after the Emperours Victory over the Tyrant Maximus,) are by Cedrenus placed after Theodosius's Victory over the Tyrant Eugenius. But Cedrenus's words (you will meet with this passage in Cedrenus, at pag. 266, Edit. Basil.) are corrupt, which I mend thus: [...] [in the fore-mentioned Edition of Cedrenus the word [...] against is omitted] [...] [in Cedrenus, instead of [...] strangers, it is [...] living creatures:] [...]; that is, making his Entry into Rome after his Victory over this person [Euge­nius,] he did a great deal of good to that City, and abolished what [had been usually done] in the Bake-houses against strangers that fell in thither, whom they shut up in the Bake-houses till they became aged, and forced them to grind. The Authour of this emendation in Ce­drenus, is Theophanes, who also relates this fact of Theodosius's, after his Victory over Eugenius. Concerning these Mancipes there is an eminent passage extant in the Excerptions of Joannes Lydus de Men­sibus Graecorum, in the month March. Vales. Mancipes,) in process of time turned these Edifices into Receptacles for Thieves. For, in regard the Bake-houses in these buildings were situated under ground; at the side of each of these Structures they built Victualling houses, [Page 341] wherein they prostituted Whores, by which de­vice they Intrap­ped. trapanned many persons; some go­ing in thither to supply themselves with food, others to satisfie their libidinous and filthy de­sires. For, by a certain Engin [purposely made on that account] they were Or, fell from the Vi­ctualling­houses down into, &c. conveyed from the Victualling house down into the Bake­house. This trick was chiefly put upon strangers that sojourned at Rome. Such as were after this manner trapan'd, they forced to work in the Bake-houses. In which places many continued till they were grown old; being not permitted to go out, and their relations taking it for gran­ted that they were dead. One of the Emperour Theodosius's Souldiers fell into this snare. But after the Souldier was shut up in the Bake-house, and not suffered to go out, he drew a Dagger that he had, and killed those that opposed [his escape.] The rest of them, affrighted at what had happened, let the Souldier go out. The Em­perour having had notice hereof, punished the Mancipes, and gave order that those houses, which were Receptacles for Thieves, should be pulled down. This was one of the ignominious pra­ctises, from which the Emperour freed the Im­perial City. Another was of this sort. If a woman were taken in adultery, they punished the delinquent, not with such a sort of punishment as might make her better, but in such a manner rather as should aggravate her offence. For they shut her up in a narrow Brothel-house, and forced her to play the whore in a most impudent man­ner. And, during the time of performing that most unclean act, they caused little I can scarce be­lieve, that the Romans inflicted this sort of punishment upon adul­teresses. For, after Constan­tine's time, they al­ways pu­nisht adul­tery with a capital pu­nishment. We are in­formed hereof from the Emperours Laws ex­tant in Both the Codes, Tit. ad Legem Juliam de Adulteriis. I omit the testimony of Amm. Marcellinus, book 28. Further, any one may conjecture, that those little Bells, mentioned here by Socrates were not found out to punish adulteresses; but were commonly made use of by all whores who prostituting themselves in their Cells, by this sign called Tra­vellers unto them. Concerning which custome Dio Cassius (in the Fragments of his 79th book, which I have some time since published,) speaks these words: [...], &c. In fine, having made a Cell within the Pallace, he acted his lechery therein, standing naked before the door thereof, as whores usual­ly do, shaking his shirs which was hung up with golden rings, and with a soft, delicate, and broken voice, inviting his companions to him. Vales. These words Dion Cassius speaks of Avitus or Heliogabalus, Em­perour of Rome; the Learned Reader will find this passage, at pag. 912. Edit. Hanov. 1606. Bells to be rung, to the end that what was done [within] might not be concealed from those who passed by; but that that ignominious punishment should be made known to all people by the sound of the Bells rung. When the Emperour had informa­tion of this impudent usage, he would by no means tollerate it: but commanded those Sistra (for by that name these Stews were called,) to be pulled down; and gave order that women taken in adultery, should be Or, made liable to punishment. punished by other Laws. From these two most wicked and reproachfull Practises. usages, the Emperour Theodosius freed the City of Rome. Who, after he had well settled all o­ther affairs, left Valentinianus Junior Emperour at Rome. But he himself, together with his Son Honorius, returned to Constantinople, and entred that City in the Consulate of Tatianus and Sym­machus, on the tenth of November.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning the Penitentiary Presbyters, how [these Officers in the Church] were at that time put down.

ABout the same time it was judged requisite to extinguish [the Office of] those Pres­byters in the Churches; whose charge it was to oversee Penitents: [which was done] upon this account. The course of disci­pline in relation to pene­tency, as it was practised by the Fathers during the first and purest times, reformed o­pen Transgressours, by putting them into Offices of open penitence, especially Confession, whereby they declared their own crimes in the hearing of the whole Church, and were not from the time of their first convention capable of the holy Mysteries of Christ, till they had solemnly discharged this duty. During which times, offenders in secret also, knowing themselves altogether as unworthy of admission to the Lords Table, as the other who were withheld; and being per­swaded, that if the Church did direct them in the Offices of their penitency, and assist them with publick prayer, they should more easily attain what they sought, than by trusting wholly to their own endeavours; Lastly, having no impediment to stay them from it but bashfullness, which countervailed not the sore-mentioned induce­ments; and besides, was greatly eased by that good construction, which the charity of those times gave to such actions, (wherein mens piety and voluntary care to be reconciled to God purchased them much more love, than their faults were able to procure dis­grace;) these Offenders in secret, I say, were not nice to use some one of Gods Ministers, by whom the rest might take notice of their faults, prescribe them convenient remedies, and in the end, after pub­lick confession, all joyn in prayer to God for them. But, as professours of Christianity grew more numerous, so they waxed worse; when persecution ceased, the Church immediately became subject to those mischiefs, that are the product of peace and security; to wit, Schisms, Discords, Dissentions, &c: faults were not corrected in charity, but noted with delight, and treasured up for malice to make use of, when the deadliest opportunities should be offered. Whereupon, in regard publick confessions became dangerous and prejudicial to the safety of well minded men, and in diverse respects advantageous to the Ene­mies of God's Church; it seemed first unto some, and afterwards generally requisite, that voluntary penitents should cease from open confession. Instead whereof, private and secret confession was usual­ly practised, as well in the Latine, as in the Greek Church. The cause why the Latins made this change of publick confession into pri­vate, Leo the Great declares, in his Decretall Epistles, Epist, 80, ad Universos Episcopos per Campaniam, &c. pag. 148, 149. Edit Lugd. 1633. This alteration was made in the Greek Church, about such time as the Heresie of the Novatianists had its original, (which is our So­crates's Sentiment here, and is very probable;) upon this occasion. The Church resolving (contrary to the opinion of Novatus, or ra­ther Novatianus, and his followers; concerning which, see Euseb. Eccles. Histor, book 6. chap. 43.) to admit the Lapsed in the Decian persecution to communion, and judging it fit, that before that their admission, they (and all other voluntary penitents in future) should do pennance and make confession in private only; (to the end that the Novatianists might not take occasion at the multitude of publick penitents, of insulting over the discipline of the Church, as they usual­ly had done, and did:) constituted in every Church a Penitentiary Presbyter: whose Office it was, to take the confessions and appoint the pennances of secret offenders. So that, if penitents in secret, being guilty of crimes whereby they knew they had made themselves unfit Guests for the Table of our Lord, did seek direction for their better performance of that which should set them clear; it was in this case the Penitentiarie's duty to take their confessions, to advise them the best way he could for their souls good, to admonish them, to counsell them; but not to lay upon them more than private pennance. As for notorious wicked persons, whose crimes were known; to convict, judge, and punish them, was the Office of the Ecclesiastical Consistory; Penitentiaries had their institution to another end. This Office of the Penitentiary was continued in the Greek Church for the space of above some hundred years; till Nectarius, and the Bishops of Chur­ches under him begun a second alteration, abolishing even that con­fession which their Penitentiaries took in private, upon that occasion which Socrates mentions here in this chapter. See Mr Hooker's Eccles. Politie, book 6. pag. 332. &c. Edit. Lond. 1666; also Dr Cave's Primitive Christianity, Part 3. Chap. 5. From such time as the Nova­tians made a separation of themselves from the Church, because they were unwilling to commu­nicate with those that had Lapsed in the Persecu­tion under Decius; the Bishops added a Presby­ter, who was to have the charge of penitency, to the In Rob. Stephens Edit. the reading is [...], The Bishops added a Presbyter, who was to have the charge of penitency, to the Canon of the Churches. In the Sfortian M. S. the reading is [ [...], to the Ecclesiastick Canon;] which reading Epiphanius Scholasticus and Nicephorus found in their copies, as appears by the Version of the first, and the Greek Text of the second. Which two Authours took Canon to signifie a Rule or Ecclesiastick Decree. Pe­tavius, in his notes on Epiphanius, pag. 242, took these words of Socrates in such a sense, as if the import of them were, that the Bishops, by publishing of a Canon then newly found out, added a Presbyter who should take charge of the penitents; which opinion of his he confirms by these following words of Socrates: [...] &c. this Canon is in force to this day amongst other Heresics; where the term Canon is manifestly taken for a Rule and Decree. But Valesius is not of Pe­tavius's opinion. His reasons are, (1) The propriety of the Greek tongue admits not of this sense. (2) If a new Canon were then made concerning the institution of a Penitentiary Presbyter, he queries, where, and in what Councill it was published. Valesius's Sentiment therefore is, that the term Canon is here to be taken for the Matri­cula, or Roll of Ecclesiastick Officers belonging to the Church. In which sense, he says, tis taken in the 2 Can. Concil. Chalccdon. pag. 112 Edit. Beveredg. where (tis true) it must be taken in a more comprehensive sense, than to signifie the C [...]crus only; that is, those who are ordained by imposition of hands: because the Fathers in that Canon speak of all the Ecclesiastick Officers, such as were the Occo­nomi, the Defensores, the Mansionarii, &c. concerning whom see Dr Beveredge's Notes, pag. 109. But, whether it is to be used in this sense here, I determine not; let the Learned judge. Canon of the Churches; to the intent that [Page 342] such persons as had sinned after Baptism, might make a confession of their crimes What the course of discipline in relation to peniten­cy was, as it was pra­ctised by the Fathers during the first and pu­rest times, before Pe­nitentiaries were insti­tuted; we have decla­red at note (a.) in this chapter, mostly in Mr Hookers own words. Which incomparable Authour, in the forecited book of his Eccles. Politie, has by unexceptionable authorities made it evident, (whatever the Learned Reader may find said to the contrary by Baronius at the year of Christ 56, by Petavius in his Diatriba about this point which occurs at pag. 225, of his notes on Epiphanius, or by Bellarmine:) that the ancient [...], or confession, which the Primitives use to speak of in the exercise of repentance, was made openly in the hearing of the whole both Ecclesiastical Confistory and assembly. After the institution of Penitentiary Presbyters in every Church, this publick confession was abrogated; and such as were guilty of crimes, confessed them not [...], in the presence of the people, but (as Socrates here says) [...], before this Presbyter instituted for that purpose. The same is confirmed by Sozomen, book 7. chap. 16. where he tells us, how a Presbyter Elected to the Office of a Penitentiary, was to be qualified. One of his qualifications was, that he ought to be [...], a per­son that could hold his tongue: by which 'tis plain, that the confessions made to him were private, and to be kept concealed. before this Presbyter instituted for that purpose. This Ca­non is in force to this day amongst other Heresies. Only the Homoöusians, and (who embraced the same Sentiments with them, as to the Faith,) the Novatians, have refused [making use of] the Penitentiary Presbyter. For the Novatians ad­mitted not of this That is, the Office of the Penitentiary. For these Hereticks ad­mitted no person to their communion upon any repentance, who was once known to have sinned after Baptism: see Euseb. Eccles. Hist. book 6. chap. 43. which practise of theirs, how fair soever their pre­tence might seem, made sinners not the fewer, but the closer, and the more obdurate. additional Function at its first institution. But [the Homoöusians] who are at this present in possession of the Churches, after they had retained [the Office of the Penitenti­aries] for a To wit, from the Persecution under the Emperour Decius, till after the Election of Nectarius to the Episcopate of Constantinople. long time, abrogated it in the times of Nectarius the Bishop, on account of this accident which hapned in the [Constantino­politan] Church. There came a Valesius, in his note here, starts this query; whether the con­fession made by this Gentlewoman were publick, or private? In or­der to the answering whereof, he remarks, that she confest twice before the Penitentiary. At her first confession, she made known all her sins; whereupon she is advised to continue in fasting and prayer. At her second, she discovered her having been debaucht by the Deacon. These two confessions (continues Valesius,) were different both in time and manner. The first was of all her faults [...], particu­larly (as Socrates words it;) the second was of one crime only. All which may perhaps be true. After this remark made, Valesius con­cludes both these confessions to have been secret; which (says he) is apparent from these two reasons (1) because publick confession was never in use in the Church: (2) in regard Socrates says, that this woman accused not her self before the people, but before the Peniten­tiary. Valesius's first reason appears evidently false, not only from Mr Hookers words quoted before, and the unquestionable authorities he there produces to prove what he asserts; but from a passage in So­zomen book 7. chap. 16. where that Ecclesiastick Historian, (giving reasons of the alteration which the Grecians made, by abrogating pub­lick confession, and instituting Penitentiaries throughout all Churches to take the confessions and appoint the penances of secret offenders,) assignes this for one: [...], &c. It did from the beginning deservedly seem burthensome to the Priests, that sins should be declared before the whole congregation of the Church as witnesses, in a Theatre as it were; from which words 'tis evident that publick confession was once in fashion in the Church. Valesius's second reason we have before cleared and confirmed by the joynt Testimony of Socrates and Sozomen. See note (c.) Gentlewoman to the Penitentiarie [of the Church of Constan­tinople; to whom] she made particular con­fession of those sins, which she had commit­ted after Baptism. The Presbyter advised the woman to fast, and pray continually, that to­gether with her confession, she might have some Valesius says here, he can't be indu­ced to be­lieve, that this Gen­tlewoman did publick pennance. His rea­sons for this are (1) Wo­men were very rarely compelled to do pub­lick pen­nance, the Church being indulgent towards the modesty of Matrons. (2) No­thing occurs at this passage, which may make us think this Matron's pen­nance was publick. (3) in regard she is injoyned to fast and pray conti­nually; that may be understood of private satisfaction, which she per­formed at home and in secret. To which reasons of Valesius's, a fourth may be added, drawn from the Penitentiaries Office: which was to take the Confessions of secret penitents, to advise them the best way he could for their souls health, to admonish and councel them, but not to lay on them more than private pennance. See note (a) in this chapter. work also worthy of Repentance to shew. In the original, 'tis thus exprest, [...] has the same import here with [...], That is, in process of time, or some time after this. For Socrates's meaning is, that this was the womans second confession. Which is confirmed by Nicephorus, and Sozomen; who (in his Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 16,) words this passage thus; [...], &c. Whilest she made her abode in the Church upon this account, [to wit, of per­forming the pennance injoyned her by the Penitentiary,] she confessed that she had been debaucht by a Deacon. It may also not unfitly be thus: [...], &c. But the woman came to [the Peniten­tiary,] and detected, &c. Vales. Some time after this the woman detected her self of another crime. For she confessed that a Deacon of that Church had lain with her. Upon her discovery hereof, the Deacon was eje­cted out of the Church: and the Here arises a difficulty, to wit, how this fact could come to the peoples knowledge, if the womans confession were secret? How also the Bishop could know this wicked fact, who degraded the Deacon on account thereof? My Sentiment is, that the Penitentiary-Presby­ter, to whom the woman had confessed this impious act, first sent for the Deacon, reproving him before the woman, and forced him to a confession of his crime: then, he made a report of the whole matter to Nectarius the Bishop, by whom he had been set over the penitents: and whose deputy he was in that Office. For the Penitentiary heard confessions only, and enjoyned pennances. But the Bishop himself reconciled penitents. Nor ought any one to make this objection, viz. if we admit what you have said to be true, it follows that the secrets of confession may be discovered. I deny that consequence. For the Penitentiary-Presbyter made known the Deacon's wickedness only to the Bishop; the Matron's name he concealed. Further, the Deacon's degradation does plainly confirm what I have asserted. For Necta­rius the Bishop could not have deposed him, had he not had intima­tion from the Penitentiary, who had detected the Deacon of whore­dom. Vales. people were in a kind of tumult disturbed. For they were not only offended at what was done, but also because that fact had brought an infamy and disgrace up­on the Church. When therefore Ecclesiastick persons were reproacht upon this account, one Eudaemon a Presbyter of that Church, by birth an Alexandrian, advised Nectarius the Bishop, to The Learned Reader must have observed, that there is nothing wherein the Romanists do more disagree amongst themselves, than in their accounts of this fact of Nectarius. Petavius (in his notes on Epi­phanius, pag. 243,) does maintaine, that Nectarius abrogated pub­lick pennance only, but continued confession, that is private confes­sion; for publick, he says, was never in use in the Church. Valesius (in his note at this place) does assert, that neither confession, nor pennance were abolished by Nectarius; but that the Bishop re­moved this particular Penitentiary-Presbyter only, and that but for a time, because of the discontented people's indignation. One John Hasselius, (who is mentioned by Pamelius, in his 98th note on Saint Cyprian's Treatise de Lapsis,) worte a book on purpose to shew that Nectarius did but put the Penitentiary from his Office, and abro­gated not the Office it self. But all these assertions are palpably con­tradicted (1) by the whole advice which Eudaemon gives Nectarius in this chapter, to wit, of leaving the people from that time forward to their own consciences; (2) by the conference between our Socrates and Eudaemon, which follows in this chapter; wherein complaint is made of some inconvenience which the want of this Office would breed: (3) by that which the History declares concerning other Churches, who did as Nectarius had done before them, not in de­posing the same man (for that was impossible) but in removing the same Office out of their Churches, which Nectarius had abrogated in his. All these particulars are evident from this chapter in Socrates; with whom Sozomen (book 7. chap. 16.) agrees, and adds further that in his time (he lived in the reign of the Younger Theodosius,) the same abolition did still continue, and that the Bishops had in a man­ner every where followed the example given them by Nectarius. But, though the Romanists differ (as you see) in their Sentiments about this fact of Nectarius's: yet they all unanimously agree in this; to wit, that Nectarius did not abrogate Auricular Confession. The reason of their consent in this assertion is plain: should it be acknowledged, that Nectarius did abrogate Auricular (or private) Confession, (as 'tis evident he did, from the attestation both of Socrates and Sozomen,) it would enforce them to grant, that the Greek Church at that time held not Confession, as the Latine Church now doth, to be the part of a Sacrament instituted by our Saviour Jesus Christ, which there­fore the Church till the worlds end hath no power to alter. See Mr Hookers Eccles. Politie, pag. 343, &c. Edit. Lond. 1666. abolish the Penitentiary Persbyters [Office;] and to leave every person to his own conscience, for the participation of the [Holy] Mysteries: [Page 343] For this [in his judgment] was the only way of freeing the Church from obloquie and disgrace. I my self having heard these words from Eudae­mon, have taken the boldness to insert them into this my History. For, as I have often said, I have used my utmost care and industry, to pro­cure an account of affairs from those that knew them best, and to make accurate researches into them, lest I should record any passage which is untrue. But my answer to Eudaemon [when he told me hereof] first, was this; From this answer of Socrates's to Euda­mon, 'tis apparent, that Necta­rius's abo­lition of the Peni­tentiary-Presbyter's Office, dis­pleased our Socrates. Whence we may evidently conclude, (what ever Baronius and Petavius have said to the contrary, at the places before quoted) that our Socrates was no Novatianist. For, had he embraced that Heresie, he would doubtless never have sound fault with that Sanction of Nectarius's, whereby he abrogated the Penitentiary: nor would he have doubted to pronounce these words concerning the advice Eudaemon suggested to Nectarius, to wit, whether it were usefull or hurtfull to the Church: for the Novatians never admitted either of penitency, or of the Penitentiary-Presbyter. Besides, Socrates in this place terms the assembly of the Homoöusians barely and simply The Church: which he would questionless never have done, had he been a follower of the Novatian Heresie. Vales. Whether your advice, O Presbyter! hath been for the Churches good, or otherwise, God knoweth. But I see that it has given an occasion, of our not re­prehending one anothers faults any more, nor of our observing that Apostolick Precept, which saith, Ephes. 5. 11. have no fellowship with the unfruitfull works of darkness, but rather reprove them. But, let thus much be sufficient to have been said concerning these things.

CHAP. XX. That there were [at that time] many Schisms amongst the Arians, and other Hereticks.

BUt I think it fit, not to leave unmentioned those things also which hapned amongst others, I mean the Arians, Novatians, and those who had their denominations from Macedonius and Eunomius. For the Church being divided, rested not in that division once made. But tur­ning again, came to an engagement one with ano­ther; and taking hold of a small and frivolous pretence, raised mutual separations and divisions. Now, in what manner, when, and for what rea­sons, each party were the Authours of dissentions amongst themselves, we will manifest in the pro­cedure of our History. But this you must know, that the Emperour Theodosius persecuted none of them, except Eunomius: who holding his meetings in private houses at Constantinople, and reciting the books he had written, was by the Emperours order sent into banishment, in regard he corrupted many persons with his doctrine. But the Emperour molested none of the other [He­reticks,] nor did he force them to a communion with himself. But permitted every one of them to meet at their private Conventicles, and to entertain such Sentiments concerning the Chri­stian Faith, as every of them Or, could comprehend in their opi­nion there­of. could attain to in their conceptions thereof. He gave the other Hereticks a Licence of building themselves Ora­tories without the Cities. But ordered, that the Novatians, (in regard they embraced the same Sentiments with himself, as to the Faith,) should without any fear continue in their Churches within the Cities, as I have said before. Con­cerning whom I judge it opportune to relate some passages, and shall make a short repetition of what has been said before.

CHAP. XXI. That the Novatians also disagreed amongst them­selves.

A Gelius Presided over the Church of the No­vatians at Constantinople during the space of fourty years, from the times of Constantine untill the sixth year of the Emperour Theodosius, as I have See So­crat. book 4. chap. 9. & book 5. chap. 10. somewhere related before. Being near his death, he ordains Sisinnius to succeed him in his Bishoprick. He was a Presbyter of that Church over which Agelius Presided; a person of great eloquence, and had been instructed in Philosophy by Maximus the Philosopher at the same time [that he read to] the Emperour Julian. But when the Novatian Congregation found fault with this Ordination, because [Age­lius] had not rather ordained Marcianus, a per­son of an eminent piety, by See So­crat. book 4. chap. 9. whose interest the Novatians had continued unmolested during Va­lens's Reign; Agelius, desirous to appease the people's discontent, ordained Marcianus also: and being somewhat recovered from his distem­per, he went into the Church, and spake these words to the people on his own account: After my decease, (saies he) take Marcianus [for your Bishop,] and after Marcianus, Sisinnius. Ha­ving survived these words a small time, he ended his life. Marcianus therefore being constituted Bi­shop over the Novatians, there arose a division in their Church also, upon this account. One Sab­batius, (a person that had turned Christian from being a Jew,) being by Marcianus promoted to the dignity of a Presbyter, continued notwith­standing a zealous promoter of Judaism, where­with he had been leavened before. Moreover, he was extreamly ambitious of being made a Bishop. Having therefore procured two Presbyters (The­octistus and Macarius, who were privy to his am­bitious design,) to be his Assistants, he took a resolution of defending that innovation [made by the Novatians] in Valens's Reign, concerning the Festival of Eaester, at Pazum a Village in Phrygia; which I have mentioned Socrat. book 4. chap. 28. before. And first of all, under pretence of [following] an Ascetick and more austere course of life, he secretly withdrew from the Church, saying that he was aggrieved upon the account of some persons; in regard he had a suspicion, that they were unworthy of a participation of the That is, the Eucha­rist. My­steries. But in process of time his design was discovered, to wit, that his desire was to hold private and separate meetings. When Marci­anus understood this, he himself complained of his own mistake in ordaining, to wit, because he had promoted persons so ambitious of vain­glory to the The Office of Presby­ter. Presbyterate. And being grieved, did frequently use to say, that it had been better he had laid his hands on thorns, than when he pre­ferred Sabbatius to the dignity of a Presbyter. [Page 344] Moreover, That is, Marcianus. he procured a Synod of Novatian Bishops to be convened at Instead of [ [...], at An­garum] the rea­ding must doubtless be [ [...], at Sanga­rum:] so Epiphan. Scholasti­cus, and Nicephorus read it; and the same rea­ding occurs in Sozo­men, book 7. chap. 18. Vales. Sangarum; which is a Mart-Town in Bithynia, lying near Heleno­polis. [The Bishops] being convened there, sent for Sabbatius, and ordered him to set forth before the Synod the reasons of his grief. Upon his affirming, that the dissention about [the ob­servation] of the Feast [of Easter] was the cause of his being troubled, (for it ought [as he said] to be kept in the same manner that the Jews observed it, and agreeable to that Sanction which those convened at Pazum promulged:) the Bishops present at the Synod, having a suspi­tion, that Sabbatius pretended all this on account of his being desirous of a Bishoprick, bound him with an oath, that he should never accept of a Bishoprick. When he had sworn to this, they published a Or, Ca­non. Rule concerning the Feast of Easter, to which Canon they gave this Title, That is, Indifferent. Adiaphoros: affirming that a disagreement a­bout the Festival [of Easter] was not a suf­ficient reason for a separation from the Church; and that those convened at Pazum did no pre­judice to the Catholick and universal Rule. For, the Ancients [they said,] and those who lived nearest the Apostles times, although they differed in the observation of this Festival, yet communi­cated one with another, and in no wise raised any dissention [on that account.] Besides, the Novations [they added,] who inhabit the Im­perial City Rome, never followed the Jewish usage; but always kept Easter after the Aequi­nox; and yet they separated not from those of their own Faith, who observed not the Feast of Easter after the same manner that they them­selves did. Upon these and many such like mature considerations, they made that Indifferent Canon (which I have mentioned) concerning Easter: whereby it was left to every ones ar­bitrement, to celebrate Easter according to that usage which by a prejudicate opinion he had embraced: and that there should be no dissen­tion in relation to communion, but that those who celebrated that Festival after a different man­ner, should notwithstanding continue in the unity and agreement of the Church. This Rule there­fore concerning the Feast of Easter: having at that time been constituted and confirmed by them; Sabbatius being bound by his oath, (if at any time there hapned any discrepancy in the celebration of the Feast of Easter,) himself an­ticipated the Fast by keeping it in private by him­self, This place is corrupted; nor is this fault of a short stan­ding. For, even in E­piphanius Scholasti­cus's age, this mistake had crept into the copies of Secrates, as 'tis ap­parent from his Version. For Epi­phanius ren­ders it thus: Cum haec ab els tunc fuissetregular definita, &c. When this determination had at that time been made by them, Sabbatius bound by his oath, (if at any time there hapned any discrepancy in the Paschal solemnity,) fasted by himself, and by night celebrated the solemn day of the Passover on the Sabbath: and again, mes with the whole congre­gation in the Church, and partook of the Mysteries. Christophorson has exprest the same sense in his Version. Nicephorus also (Eccles. Hist. book 12. chap. 31,) has followed the same sense. For he says, that Sabbatius, (as often as the Christians differed from the Jews in the celebration of Easter,) was wont to fast in private by himself, and to celebrate the Passover on the Paschal-Sabbath about evening, after the Jewish manner. Then on the Sunday following, after the Solemn Vigills, his usage was to celebrate Easter with the rest of the Chri­stians, or rather Novatians. But this interpretation does in no wise please me. For thus Sabbatius (as often as the Jewish Passover dif­fered from the Christian-Paschal-Feast,) could not have celebrated the first Paschal-solemnity with the Jews. Then, if Sabbatius always celebrated the first Paschal-solemnity on the Sabbath day at evening after the Jewish manner, how is it possible, that he could celebrate the Solemn Vigills in the Church on the same Sabbath-day? For this is attested in express words by Socrates here, and by Sozomen, book 7. chap. 18. My Sentiment therefore is, that the words in this place of Socrates are transposed, and must be put into their Pristine order after this manner: [...]; that is, Sabbatius being bound by his oath, (if at any time a disagreement hapned in the celebration of the Paschal-Fe­stival,) himself by way of anticipation fasted in private at home, and celebrated the Passover. And watching all night on the solemn day of the Sabbath, again on the next day he went to Church together with the rest of the congregation, and partook of the mysteries. Sozomen does evidently confirm this our emendation, in his seventh book chap. 18; where he sets forth the same thing much more clearly in these words: [...], &c. But from that time Sabbatius following the Jews, (unless it by chance hapned that all persons [as well Christians, as Jews] did celebrate the Feast [of Easter] at one and the same time,) fasted before hand, a [...] the man­ner is, and celebrated the Paschal solemnity in private by himself, ac­cording to the sanctions [of the Mosaick Law.] But on the Sabbath, from the evening to a fit time, be continued watching and making the usuall prayers, and on the day following met in the Church in common with the congregation, and partook of the mysteries. Sabbatius there­fore kept the Paschal solemnity twice in one and the same year; the first time with the Jews, the second with the Christians: unless it by chance hapned, that the Christians agreed with the Jews in the time of celebrating the Paschal Feast. Which could very rarely happen. Vales. Our English-rendition of this passage agrees with the Greek Text in Rob. Stephens's Edition, and that in this Edition of Valesius's. and having watched all night, he celebra­ted the solemn day of the Sabbath of the Passover. And again, on the day following, he came to the Church at such time as the whole congregation were assembled there, and together with them partook of the Mysteries. This he did for many years: and therefore could not avoid being taken notice of by the multitude. Upon which account some of the simpler sort of people, more espe­cially the Phrygians and Galatians, thinking they should be justified by this fact, imitated Sabbatius, and kept the Passover in secret agreeable to his fashion. But some time after this, Sabbatius dis­regarding his oath, held Schismatical Meetings by himself, and was constituted Bishop over those that were his own followers, as we shall manifest in the procedure of our History.

CHAP. XXII. This Historian's Sentiment concerning the disa­greements which appear in some places, in re­lation to the Feast of Easter, Baptisms, Fasts, Marriages, the order of celebrating the Eu­charist, and other Ecclesiastick Rites and Ob­servances.

But, I think it not unseasonable to declare in short what comes into my mind concer­ning Easter. Neither the Ancients, nor the Mo­derns who have studiously followed the Jews, had in my judgment any just or rational cause of contending so much about this Festival. For they considered not with themselves, that when the Jewish Religion was changed into Christi­anity, those accurate [observances] of the Ma­saick Law, and the Types [of things future] wholly ceased. And this carries along with it its own demonstration. For, no one of Christ's Laws has permitted the Christians to observe the Rites of the Jews. Moreover, on the contrary, the Apostle has expresly forbid this, and does not only reject Circumcision, but also advises against contending about Festival days. Where­fore, in his Epistle to the Galatians, his words are these, Galat. 4. 21. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law? And having spent some few words in his discourse hereof, he de­monstrates, that the people of the Jews are ser­vants, but that those who have Or, ap­proached. followed Christ are called to Liberty. Moreover, 'tis his ad­monition, that days and months and years should [Page 345] in no wise be observed. Besides, in his Epistle to the Colossians he does loudly affirm, that [such] observations are a shadow. Where­fore he says, Colos. 2. 16, 17. Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come. And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, this very [Apostle] does con­firm the same things in these words: Hebr. 7. 12. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of neces­sity a change also of the law. The Apostle therefore, and the Gospels have no where im­posed the yoak of servitude on those who have approached the Preaching [of the Faith:] but have left the Feast of Easter, and the other Fe­stivals, to be honoured by their gratitude and be­nevolence, who have had benefits conferred upon them [on those days.] Wherefore, in regard men love Festivals, because thereon they have a cessation from their labours, each person in every place, according to his own pleasure, has by a certain custom celebrated the memory of the saving Passion. For neither our Saviour, nor his Apostles, have enjoyned us by any Law to observe this Festival. Not have the Gospels or the Apostles threatned us with any mulct, pu­nishment, or curse, as the Mosaick Law does the Jews. For, 'tis meerly for the History's sake, in order to [a publishing of] the re­proach of the Jews, (because they polluted themselves with bloud on their very Festivals,) that it has been recorded in the Gospells that our Saviour suffered even on the days of un­leavened bread. Moreover, it was not the A­postles design, to make Laws concerning Festi­val days, but to introduce good life and piety. And it seems to me, that, as many other things in several places have been established by custom, so the Feast of Easter also hath had a peculiar observation amongst all persons from some old usage, in regard none of the Apostles, as I have said, have made any determinate Decree about it. Now, that the observation of this Festival had its original amongst all men in the Primitive times from custom rather than Law, the things themselves do demonstrate. For, in Asia the Less, most people kept the fourteenth day of the Moon, disregarding the Sabbath day. And though this was their practise, yet they never made a separation from those who celebrated the Feast of Easter otherwise: till such time as Victor Bishop of Rome, over-much heated with anger, sent an See Eu­seb. Eccles. Histor. book 5. chap. 24. note (i.) Excommunicatory Libell to the That is, those that kept Easter on the four­teenth day of the moon. Quartodecimani in Asia. For which fact I­renaeus Bishop of Lyons in France severely repro­ved Victor by Letter; blaming him for his im­moderate heat; and informing him, that al­though the Ancients differed in their celebration of the Feast of Easter, yet they did in no wise separate from a mutual communion. Also, that Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, But So­crates is mistaken. For Poly­carp did not suffer Mar­tyrdom in Gordianus's reign, but in that of Marcus Antoninus, as 'tis manifest from Eusebius, and other writers. 'Tis certain, that Irenaeus does relate, (in his third book against Heresies, which piece he wrote during Eleutherius's presidency over the Roman Church, that is, in the times of Marcus Antoninus,) that Polycarp had at that time suffered Martyrdom. Wherefore these words [who afterwards suffered Mar­tyrdom under Gordianus] are rather to be placed a little above, after these [Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France.] For they are more accom­modate to Irenaeus, than to Polycarp. But let the prudent Reader de­termine hereof according to his own arbitrement. I know indeed, that in St Benignus Divionensis's Chronicle, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus Bi­shop of Lyons is placed before Polycarp's. For the Authour of that Chronicle does relate, that Irenaeus, after his Martyrdom, appeared to Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna in his sleep, and commanded him to send Benignus into the Gallia's. But these are meer trifles. Vales. who afterwards suffered Martyrdom under Cordianus, communi­cated with Anicetus Bishop of Rome, and made no separation from him on account of this Fe­stival, although Polycarp himself, according to his own country usage [practised] in [the Church of] Smyrna, kept Easter on the four­teenth day of the Moon, as Eusebius says in the See Eu­seb. Eccles. Hist. book 5. chap. 24. Fifth Book of his Ecclesiastick History. Some therefore in Asia the Less, as I have said, kept the fourteenth day of the Moon. Others in the He seems to mean the Sy­rians, Cilicians, and Mesopotami­ans, who kept Easter with the Jews before the Nicene Council, as Athanasius informs us, in his Epistle to the Africans, in these words: [...], &c. in regard the Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians differ from us, and celebrate [Easter] at the same time that the Jews keep it. Those Eastern people therefore, concerning whom Secrates speaks, followed the Jews indeed, in that they observed the fourteenth day of the Moon of the first month before the Aequinox. But they celebrated not Easter on the same day whereon the Jews kept it, but on the Sunday following. Wherefore, Athanasius says, that they kept Easter at the same time with the Jews, but not on the same day; as his Translatour has ill rendred it. Vales. Eastern parts, celebra­ted that Feast on the In the Greek 'tis on the Sab­bath. Sunday in­deed; but they differed concer­ning the month. Those [first mentioned] were of opinion, that the Jews were to be followed, although they observed not an exact Rule. He means (I think) the Montanistae, and Pepusiani, who kept Easter indeed after the Ae­quinox. But always fixt that Fe­stival on the month Xanthicus or April, before the eight of the Ides (that is, the sixth day) of April; as Sozomen attests, book 7. chap. 18. Vales. These ce­lebrated Easter after the Ae­quinox, refusing to keep that Feast with the Jews. For they affirm that Easter must always be kept when the Sun is in Aries, on that month which the Antiochi­ans term Xanthicus, and the Romans April. And in their practise hereof, they fol­lowed [as they affirmed] not the modern Jews who mistake almost in all things, but the Ancients of that Na­tion, and Josephus; agree­able whereto are the words of that Authour in his Third Book of the Jewish Antiqui­ties. And thus these persons disagreed amongst themselves. But, all other [Christians] in the Western parts as far as the Ocean it self, are found to have celebrated Easter after the Aequi­nox, from a very ancient tradition. For all these persons keep it after this manner, and have never disagreed amongst themselves. Nor did the He means the Nicene Synod. Sy­nod under Constantine alter this Festival, as To wit, the Audiani. For these Hereticks affirmed that the Ni­cene Synod first altered the Pas­chal solemnity; as Epiphanius at­tests, pag. 822. Edit. Petav. Vales. some have noysed it a­broad. For Constantine him­self writing to those persons who differed about this Fe­stival, advised them, in re­gard they were but few, to become followers of those who exceeded them in number. You will find the Emperours Let­ter entire, in the Third Book of Eusebius's Life of Constantine. But that part of it [which treats] concerning the Feast of Easter, runs thus:—See Eu­seb. Life of Constantine, book 3. chap. 19. And since 'tis a decent Order, which all the Churches in the Western, Southern, and Northern parts of the world do observe, and some places also in the East. Upon which ac­count, all persons have at present judged it good and right, (and We Our Self also have enga­ged it will please Your Prudence;) [to wit,] that what is observed with one concordant mind in the City of Rome, throughout Italy, Africa, all Egypt, Spaine, the Gallia's, the Britannia's, the Libya's, all Greece, the Asian and Pontick Dice­cesis, and Cilicia; will willingly be embraced by Your Prudence also: which will attentively consider, not only that the number of Churches in the forenamed places is greater; but also, that 'tis most just and commendable, that all persons should chiefly and in common desire that, [Page 346] which strict reason seems to require; and Instead of [ [...] have,] the reading in the Florent. and Sforti­an M. SS. is [ [...] to have] so it is in Eu­sebius; and so Epiphan. Scholasticus read, as ap­pears by his Ver­sion. Vales. to have no society with the perjury of the Jews. Such is the Emperours Letter. Further, the Quartodecimani do affirm, that the observation of the fourteenth day of the Moon was deli­vered to them by John the Apostle. But the Romans, and those in the Western parts say, that the usage in force with them was delivered by the Apostles Peter and Paul. Notwithstan­ding, neither of these two parties can produce any written testimony in confirmation hereof. Moreover, that the Feast of Easter is kept in all places from some usage and custom, I do from hence conjecture. No Sect of Religion observes the same ceremonies, Instead of [ [...]] in my judg­ment the reading should be [ [...] al­though it embraces one and the same opinion concerning God.] Socrates's mea­ning is this; all Religions and Sects have different Rites and Cere­monies, although they entertain the same Sentiments concerning God. But the following words do plainly confirm our emendation. For Socrates adds, for they that are of the same Faith, &c. Nicephorus also favours this our amendment; for he has exprest this passage in Socrates thus: For though all men are of the same opinion, yet they observe not the same traditions throughout the Churches. Vales. although it embraces one and the same opinion concerning God. For they that are of the same Faith, differ amongst them­selves concerning Rites. Wherefore, it will not be unseasonable to add a few words concerning the different usages of Churches. First there­fore, you may find that the Fasts before Ea­ster are observed one way by some, and in a manner different by others. Baronius, at the year of Christ 57 and 391, accuses Socrates of a double mistake; First, because he says that the Romans fasted three weeks only in Lent before Easter; Secondly, in regard he asserts, that in those three weeks, Saturdays were excepted, on which days the Romans fasted not. As to the first, Socrates's opinion is defended against Baronius, by Halloixius in his notes on the 11th chapter of Ire­neus's Life, pag. 678. That which makes me incline to Socrates's opinion, is the authority of CAssiodorus, who in his Tripertite History has put this passage in Socrates into these words: Romani enim tres ante pascha Septimanas, praeter Sabbatum & dominicam, sub continua­tione jejunant, the Romans fast three weeks before Easter without in­termission, except on Saturday and Sunday. Could Cassiodorus be ignorant of the custom of the Roman Church in the observation of the Lent Fast, who was himself a Senatour, Consul, and Praefectus Prae­torio in the City of Rome? Who can believe he would have put these words of Socrates into his History, if he had known the thing had been otherwise? Doubtless, Cassiodorus, had he known this to have been false, would on purpose have omitted Socrates's words, left he should leade his Reader into a mistake. Which in regard Cassio­dorus has not done, but was resolved to have Socrates's testimony concerning the Romans Lent Fast read in the History which bears his name; from thence 'tis apparent, that what Socrates has said con­cerning the Romans Fast is true. In the Catholick Church, though the Lent Fast was always observed by all persons, yet they fasted not after one and the same manner, as Irenaeus informs us in his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome; a considerable part whereof is quoted by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. book 5. chap. 24. wherefore Baronius is im­pertinent in opposing Socrates with the testimony of Gregorius Mag­nus. For the Romans fasted in Lent after one manner in Socrates's age, after another in the days of Gregory the Great. In the times of Pope Leo, with which Socrates was in a manner equall, the Romans fasted three days of the week only in Lent, to wit, on Munday, Wednes­day, and Friday, as 'tis apparent from that Pope's Sermons concerning Lent. In the Roman Order I have in my judgment found a footstep of that ancient Custom, which Socrates relates here. For, that Sunday of Lent vulgarly termed Dominica de passione Domini, is called Domi­nica Mediana; which name, 'tis said, was given it by command of the Roman See. Now, I see no other reason why it should be so termed, than, that of the three weeks wherein the Romans fasted in Lent, this was the second Sunday. Bede (in his Book concerning the Vernal Aequi­nox) relates, that in Italy some fasted twenty days, others seven▪ But now, what Socrates says concerning Saturday, may be truly defended. For [...]n Pope Leo's age▪ the Romans fasted not on Saturdays in Lent; as 'tis apparent from the close of that Pope's fourth Sermon concerning Lent. Add hereto Bede's testimony, in his book de Officiis; where he relates, that most people fasted not in Lent on Thursdays and Satur­days▪ Vales. For they at Rome fast three continued weeks before Ea­ster, excepting Saturdays and Sundays. The In­habitants of Illyricum, those throughout all A­chaia, and Sozomen attests the same, book 7. chap. 19. Moreover, the Alex­andrians began the Lent Fast, not from the Sunday of the sixth week before Easter, (as Johannes Filesacus supposed, in the 7th chapter of his book concerning Lent,) but from the Munday which followed that Sunday. Therefore, the first Sunday of the Alexandrians Lent was the fifth Sunday before Easter. And this is manifestly asserted by Theo­philus and Cyrillus, in their Homilies or Paschal Epistles. ▪Which I wonder Filesacus perceived not, who produces Theophilus's testimony against himself. Vales. they at Alexandria, observe a Fast of six weeks before Easter, which they term Or Lent. the fourty days Fast. To wit, the Con­stantinopo­litans, and those peo­ple who in­habit the Provinces round that City, as far as Phoenice; so Sozomen attests, B. 7. chap. 19. Vales. Others in a dif­ferent manner from them, begin their fast from the seventh week before Easter, and though they fast three five days only [part of three weeks,] and that by intervalls; yet nevertheless they also call that time the fourty days Fast. And I cannot but wonder, how these persons, (though they disagree about the number of the days, yet) should in common give it the same name, [to wit,] the fourty days fast. Of which appella­tion some assign one reason, other another, ac­cording to their particular fancies and humours. You likewise find several persons disagreeing not only In the Florent▪ and Sfortian M. SS. the reading here is [about the number of the Fasts:] But the other reading, which we have followed, is confirmed by Socrates a little above, where his words are [And I cannot but wonder, how these persons, (though they disagree about the number of the days, yet) should in common give it the same name [to wit,] the fourty days Fast.] Vales. about the number of the days, but differing also in their abstinency from meats. For some abstain wholly from [eating of] living creatures: others, of all living creatures feed on fish only. Othersome, to­gether with fish, eat fowl also; affirming, according to Moses's See Gen. 1. 20. words, that these were made likewise of the waters. Some abstain from all manner of fruits of trees, and from eggs. Others feed up­on dry bread only: othersome eat not even this▪ Others, having fasted till the That is, till our three a clock in the after­noon; see Euseb. Ec­cles. Histor. book 3. chap. 8. note (b.) I am of o­pinion, that few fasted after this manner in Lent. For the Lent Fast lasted till the e­vening. Vales. ninth hour, In the Greek the reading here is [ [...], make use of a different sort of food:] but I am of opinion it should be [ [...], feed upon any sort of food without making any difference.] So Epiphanius Scholasticus read this place; for thus he renders it; alii usque ad nonam jejunantes boram, sine dis­crimine ciborum reficiuntur, others having fasted to the ninth hour, re­fresh themselves without making any difference about the sorts of food. Vales. feed upon any sort of food whatever making no di­stinction. After these words [Again, amongst other nations, there are other usages] Sr Henry Savill in his Manuscript had placed a Subdistinction, (that is, a single point, which Greek writers usually placed at the bot­tom of the Letter; See Valesius's Preface to his Edition of Eusebius:) but I had rather place a middle distinction (that is a Colon) here. Which is confirmed by Nicephorus, who has exprest this passage of Socrates thus: [...] and there are other usages amongst other Nations and Tribes: amongst whom also there are infinite causes of such [customs] as these. Vales. Again, amongst other Nations, there are other usages: for which innumerable reasons are assigned. And in regard no one can pro­duce a command in writing concerning this thing, 'tis manifest that the Apostles left every one to his own will and free choice in this case; to the end that no person might be compelled through fear or necessity, to the performance of what is good. Such is the disagreement through­out the Churches about their fastings. Nor is the variety [amongst them] less, [...]. Synaxis is a word used by Christian Writers in se­veral senses. (1) 'Tis sometimes a general term, and contains all things usually done in the Religious Assemblies of Christians; in which sence we suppose it to be taken here. (2) The celebration of the Lord's Supper is by a peculiar name termed Synaxis. (3) 'Tis used so as to signifie the Christian Conventions or Assemblies, with­out any respect had to the Eucharist. (4) Synaxis is sometimes ex­pressly distinguished from the celebration of the Sacrament: in which sense our Socrates uses it a little lower in this chapter; where his words are these, [...] and all things are performed which belong to the Church-Assembly, except the celebration of the Mysteries [or, the Eucharist.] The Reader will find good authorities assigned for all these significa­tions of this term, by the Learned Casaubon, Exercit. 16. ad Annal. Eccles. Baronii, Num. 42. about their performances in their Religious Assemblies. [Page 347] For, though [almost] all Churches over the whole world do celebrate the Sacred Mysteries on the Sabbath day at the period of every week; yet the Alexandrians and they at Rome, on ac­count of some ancient tradition, refuse to practise this. The Egyptians who are neighbours to the A­lexandrians, and the Inhabitants of Thebaïs, have their Religious Meetings on the Sabbath: notwith­standing, they participate not of the Mysteries, in such a manner as is usual amongst the Christians. For after they have feasted, and filled themselves with all manner of victuals, in the evening they To wit, Alms and oblations. of­fer, and partake of the Mysteries. Again, at Alex­andria, on the That is, on wednes­day in the Passion­week. fourth Feria, and on that termed the Or, Good-Friday. Preparation day, the Scriptures are read, and the Doctours expound them; and all things are performed which belong to the Church Assembly, except the celebration of the Mysteries. And this is an usage of great antiquity at Alexandria. For 'tis manifest that Origen most commonly taught in the Church on these days. Who, being a very Learned Doctor, and perceiving that the secret of the Mosaick Law was not to be expounded literally, reduced his discourse concerning the passover to a Mysticall sense; asserting that there had been one only true Passover, [to wit,] that which our Saviour celebrated, at such time as being fastned to his Cross, he vanquished the adverse powers, making use of this Trophy a­gainst the Devill. In the same City Alexan­dria, as well the Catecumens, as the Faithfull, are without difference or distinction made Readers and [...]. Mus­culus and Christophor­son have rendred this term very ill, thus, interpretes, Expounders. But Epiphanius translates it Psalmi Pronunciatores, Pronouncers [or Setters] of the Psalm; which rendition is good. It seems to have been these per­sons Office, to begin to sing the first words of the Psalm; and then the people sang the rest after them, [...] were heretofore termed Monitores who prompted the Players whilest they were Acting: they put the Actours in as oft as they forgot any passage in the Play, and were out. There were Monitores also in the prayers, of whom mention is made by Tertullian in his Apology; where he says, that the Christians prayed without a Monitour, because they prayed by heart. But Nicephorus at this place reads [...], No­taries; instead of [...], Monitours: which reading displeases me not. For the Bishops had their Notaries, who were Learned young men. Thus Proclus is said to have been Atticus's Notary, as Socrates attests, book 7. chap. 41. And long before that, Athanasius was Notary to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, as Sozomen relates, book 2. chap. 17. In Pope Gelasius's Decrees, cap. 2. amongst the first Ecclesiastick degrees, the Lectores, Notarii, and Defensores are recko­ned. In Caesarius Ar [...]latensis's Life, chap. 22. are these words: Lector aut Notarius coram illo non c [...]ssabat clamare, that is, the Reader or Notary ceased not to cry before him. In the First Action of the Ephesine Synod, Epaphroditus is termed the Reader and Notary of Hellanicus Bishop of the Rhodii. From all which authorities 'tis ap­parent, that the Notarie's and Reader's Office was in a manner the same; to wit, to read the Psalms or other books of the Sacred Scri­pture, either in the Church, or in the Bishops presence. And this Si­meon Metaphrastes confirms, in the Acts of the Notaries Marcianus and Martyrius, which occur in Surius at the twenty fifth day of October. These Notaries registred the Acts which were made in the Church; on which account they seem to have had this name given them. In the Gesta Collationis inter Catholicos ac Donatistas, we meet with this Title: Excipientibus quo (que) Januario & Vitale Notariis Ecclesiae Catho­lic [...], Victore & Cresconio Notariis Ecclesiae Donatistarum, &c. that is, also Januarius and Vitales Notaries of the Catholick Church, Victor and Cresconius Notaries of the Church of the Donatists, registring [the Acts, &c.] There was over these a Primicerius Notariorum, [or the Chief of the Notaries,] who was usually chosen out of the Presbyters, as we are informed from the first Action of the Ephesine Council, wherein Petrus Presbyter of Alexandria, and Primicerius of the Notaries, recites the Emperour Theodosius's Edict to Cyrillus and the other Metropolitanes. But the chief duty of the Notaries was, to carry the Virge or Staff be­fore the Bishop, as 'tis related in the second book concerning the Life and Miracles of Caesarius Ar [...]latensis. Vales. Psalm setters, whereas in all other Churches, the Faithfull only are pro­moted to this dignity. In Rob. Stephens's Edition, this place is pointed thus: [...]. I [...] self knew another custome also in Thessaly, being made a Clergy-man there: If this punctation were true, it would follow, that Socrates was a Clergy-man in Thessaly. But this is in no wise probable, in re­gard Socrates does every where stile himself Scholasticus, that is, an Advocate. Wherefore, I doubt not but this place must be otherwise pointed▪ to wit, after this manner: [...], &c. I my self when I was in Thessaly knew another custom also. A Clergy-man in that Country, &c. Notwithstanding Musculus and Christophorson have followed another punctation here, to wit, this; [...] &c. I my self knew another custom also in Thessaly. One being made a Clergy-man there, &c. Which distinction I can't approve of. For the term [...] would be superfluous, and the word [...] would be too often repeated in the same period. Further, that Socrates had been conversant in Thes­saly, is apparent from his following words. For a little after this he adds, [...] also I have seen [or known) another custom in Thessaly. Although the term [...] is ambiguous, and may be meant as well of an absent, as a present person. Vales. I my self, when I was in Thessaly, knew another custom also. A Cler­gy-man in that Country (if after his taking Or­ders, he does lie with his wife, whom he had legally married before his being Ordained) is [...] In Nicephorus the rea­ding is [...] put out of his orders, or, made no Clergy­man; which displeases me not. Notwith­standing, the term [...] seems to denote something that is hea­vier, to wit, his be­ing excom­municated. Vales. degraded: whereas in the East all [Clergy­men] We owe the amend­ment of this place to the Flo­retine M. S. For, whereas in the com­mon Edi­tions the reading here was [ [...] whereas all the most illustrious persons in the East do abstaine;] in that M. S. the reading is [ [...], whereas in the East all [Clergymen] of their own accord do abstain, &c.) Which emenda­tion is confirmed by Nicephorus. Vales. of their own accord do abstain [from their wives,] even the Bishops themselves; not­withstanding, they do this [voluntarily,] not by force or compulsion of a Law. For many of them, during even the time of their being Bi­shops, have begotten children of a lawfull wife. Moreover, the Authour of this usage in Thessaly was Heliodorus, [Bishop] of Trica in that Country, under whose name there are Love-Books extant, which he Instead of [ [...]] I had rather read [ [...], composed;] in Nicephorus 'tis [ [...]] But what Nicephorus adds, [to wit, that Heliodorus was ordered in a Synod either to burn his Love-Books, or else to relinquish his Bishoprick,] seems to me to be fabu­lous. For there is no sufficient evidence, whether those books con­cerning the Amours of Theagenes and Chariclea, were written by Heliodorus the Bishop, or by some body else. Vales. composed when he was a young man, and entitled them Aethiopici. This same custom is observed in Thessalonica, in Macedonia, and in Achaia. I have also known another custom in Thessaly. They baptize there on the days of Easter only. Upon which ac­count all of them, except a very few, die un­baptized. At that Antioch which is in Syria, the site of the Church is inverted. For the Al­tar Or, looks not. stands not towards the East, but towards the West. In Achaia, at Je­rusalem, and in Thessaly, they go to This Office the Greek Church terms [...], the Latine, Lu­cernarium; as Jacobus Syrmondus has observed in his notes on Enno­dius. See Meursius's Glossary, in the word [...]; and the notes on Cassianus, at the words Luccernaris Hora. Vales. Prayers when the Candles are lighted, in the same manner that the Novatians do at Constantinople. Likewise, at Caesarea, in Cappadocia, and in Cyprus, on Saturdays and Sundays, always in the Even­ing, after the Candles are lighted, the Presbyters and Bishops expound the Scriptures. Those No­vatians in the Hellespont perform not their Prayers wholly after the same manner, with them who live at Constantinople: but they are I doubt not but instead of [ [...]] So­crates wrote [ [...], but they are in most things conform;] and so Nicephorus has worded it. Musculus and Christo­phorson read thus also. For Musculus has rendred it thus: Sed in multis se imperiali conformant Ecclesiae, but in many things they conform themselves to the Imperial Church. Christophorson translates it after this manner: Sed tamen ex multo majore parte, primariae apud illos Ecclesia consuetudinem sequuntur, but yet by much the greater part, they follow the Custom of the Primary Church amongst them. Neither of these Translatours understood what was meant by these words here, to wit, [...]. Socrates usually gives this appellation to the Catholick Church, because at that time it had gotten the chief power and authority. So in chap. 19. of this book, to the Novatians he opposes [...], those who are in possession of the Churches, that is, the Catholicks: [...] (says he,) [...], &c. For the Novatians admitted not of this addi­tional Function at its first institution. But [the Homoöusians] who are at this present in possession of the Churches, &c. Vales. in most things conform to [the usages of] the Catholick Church. [Page 348] In summe, in all places, and amongst all Sects, you will scarcely find two Churches exactly agree­ing about their prayers. At Alexandria, a Presbyter does in no wise Preach. And this [usage] had its beginning from such time as Arius raised a disturbance in that Church. At Rome they fast every Except those Saturdays in Lent, and in the Ember-weeks. For in Lent the Romans fasted not on Saturdays, as we have shown before, at note (g.) in this chapter, from Pope Leo's Sermon concerning Lent. Nor did the Romans fast on Saturdays in the Fast of the Ember-weeks; but only on Wednesdays and Fry­days: on Saturdays they watched at St Peters Church, as the same Leo informs us in his Sermons con­cerning the Fast of the tenth month, concerning the Fast of Pentecost, and concerning the Fast of the se­venth month. Wherefore, Baro­nius, Petavius, and Halloixius do undeservedly reprove our Socra­tes, because he has said that the Romans fasted not on Saturdays in Lent. Vales. Sa­turday. Petavius in his notes on Epi­phanius, at the Heresie of the Quartodecimani, does affirm that Socrates is here mistaken; and says, that the Penitential Canons of Basilius the Great are suffici­ent to confute this errour. But it may be answered, that after Basilius's death, there was per­haps another usage observed in the Church of Caesarea. For So­crates speaks of a Rite then in use, when he wrote this History. Vales. At Caesarea in Cap­padocia they exclude those from Communion who have sinned after Baptism, as the Novatians do. The same is also practised by the Ma­cedoniani in the Hellespont, and by the Quartodecimani in Asia. The Novatians in Phrygia admit not of That is, those who have had two wives successively one after another. Diga­mists. Those No­vatians who inha­bit Constantinople, neither openly ad­mit, nor openly reject them. But in the Western parts they are o­penly Or, ad­mitted, that is, to Com­munion. received. The Bishops, who in their severall times Presided o­ver the Churches, were (in my judgement) the Occasi­oners of this diversity. And those who received these Rites and usages, transmitted them to posterity in manner of a Law as 'twere. To give in a Catalogue of all the Rites and Customs in use throughout all Cities and Countries, is a thing difficult, or ra­ther impossible. But these we have produced, are sufficient to demonstrate, that the Feast of Easter was by reason of some certain usage ce­lebrated in a different manner in every parti­cular Province. Wherefore, they are too pro­fuse in their talke, who have spread abroad a rumour, that [the time of celebrating] Ea­ster was altered in the Nicene Synod. For the Fathers convened in that Synod made it their business to reduce the people, (who at first dis­sented from the far greater part of the Church,) to an agreement. Now, that there hapned many differences upon this account, even in the Apo­stles times, was a thing not unknown even to the Apostles themselves, as the Book of the Acts does attest. For when the Apostles understood, that a disturbance was raised amongst the faithfull, by reason of a dissention of the Gentiles; being all met together, they promulged a Divine Law, drawing it up in form of a Letter: whereby they freed Believers from a most burthensome servitude and vain contention about these things; and taught them a most exact Or, form of good life. way of living well, which would lead them to true piety; mentioning to them only such things as neces­sarily ought to be observed. The Epistle it self is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles: yet nothing hinders but we may insert it here. Acts▪ 15. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren, send Greeting unto the Brethren which are of the Gen­tiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. For as much as we have heard, that certain which went out from us, have troubled you with words, sub­verting your souls, saying, ye must be circumcised, and keep the Law, to whom we gave no such com­mandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our Beloved Barnabas and Paul: Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to Idols, and from bloud, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if you keep your selves, ye shall do well: fare ye well. These things pleased God. For these are the express words of the Letter, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessaries to be observed. Notwithstan­ding there are some, who disregarding these [Precepts,] suppose all Fornication to be a thing indifferent: but contend about Holy days, as if it were for their lives: [these persons] in­vert the commands of God, and make Laws for themselves, not valuing the Decree of the Apo­stles: nor do they consider, that they practise the contrary to those things which seemed good to God. It were indeed possible, to have ex­tended our discourse concerning Easter, much farther, and to have demonstrated, that the Jews observe no exact Rule, either in the time, or man­ner of [celebrating] the Paschal solemnity: and that the Samaritans, who are a Schism of the Jews, do always celebrate this Festivall after the Aequinox. But this Subject requires a parti­cular and more copious Treatise. I only say this, that they who so affectedly imitate the Jews, and are so solicitously accurate about Types and Figures, ought in no wise to dissent from them, [in any particular whatever.] For, if they have taken a resolution of observing all things with an accuracy; they must not only observe days and months, but all other things also, which Christ (constituted under the Law) did after the manner of the Jews, or which he suffered unjustly from the Jews, or [Lastly] which he wrought typically whilest he was doing good to all men. [For instance,] he entred into a Ship and taught: He ordered the passover to be made ready in an upper room: he commanded the Ass that was tied to be loosed: he proposed him, who bore a pitcher of water, as a sign to them for hastning their preparations of the passover: [these things, I say they must ob­serve] and infinite others of this nature which are recorded in the Gospels. And yet they who suppose themselves to be justified by this Festi­val, make it their business to observe none of these things in a bodily manner. For no Do­ctor ever Preach't out of a Ship: no person ever went up to an upper room, and celebrated the passover there: they never tyed, and again un­loosed an Ass that was tyed: [in fine] no person ever enjoyned another to carry a pitcher of water, to the end that the Symbolls might be fulfilled. For they thought that these and such like things as these Or, were rather Jewish. savoured rather of Ju­daism. For the Jews are solicitous about keep­ing [Page 349] their The rea­ding here is [ [...], The acci­dents;] in which, what sense there can be, I see not. I am of opinion it should be [ [...], the Symbolls] which term Socrates makes use of a little a­bove, where he says to the end that the Symbolls might be fulfil­led. By Symbolls, Socrates means the Legal ceremonies and com­mands; for instance, Circumci­sion, which the Jews kept in their bodies, but not in their hearts. Nicephorus has worded this pas­sage in Socrates thus; [...]. Which words Lan­gus renders thus: Siquidem & Judai ea quae sic in corporibus ac­cidunt, majore studio, quàm si ani­mabus eveniant, observare conten­dunt, for the Jews also with a grea­ter industry strive to observe those things which so happen to their bo­dies, than if they hapned to their Souls. You see, that neither Nicephorus, nor his Translatour, apprehended Socrates's meaning. Socrates speaks concerning the Jews, who observed the law of works in their bodies, rather than their hearts; whom the Apostle (Rom. 2. 28.) terms Jews out­wardly. Vales. solemn Rites and Ceremonies in their bodies, rather than in their souls. Upon which account they are obnoxious to the Curse, be­cause they conceive the Law of Moses [to con­sist] in Types and Figures, but [understand it] not according to the truth. But those persons, who are favourers of the Jews, do indeed refer these things to an allegoricall sense and meaning: but they raise an irreconcilable War a­bout days and months; contemning an allegoricall interpretation of them: in so much that, as to this particular, they themselves as well as the Jews, are of necessity condemned, and bring the sentence of Ex­ecration upon themselves. But I think this sufficient to have been said concer­ning these things. Let us now return to our Sub­ject, whereof we have made mention a little See chap. 20; at the be­ginning. be­fore: to wit, that the Church [once divided] rested not in that first di­vision; and that those who were divided, did again engage one another, and taking hold of a small and very frivolous pretence, rai­sed mutuall separations and divisions. The Novatians as I have Chap. 21. said were divided amongst themselves on account of the Feast of Easter: Nor was the division among them concerning this [Festivall] single. For some throughout divers Provinces [observed it] after one manner, others after another; and they disagreed amongst themselves not only a­bout the month, but about the days of the week also, and about other matters of a small impor­tance, part of them holding separate Assem­blies, and part joyning in a promiscuous com­munion.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning the Arians at Constantinople, who were also termed the Psathyriani.

MOreover, there arose dissentions amongst the Arians, upon this occasion. The contentious questions daily [started] amongst them, had reduced their discourses to some ab­surdities. For, whereas it has been always be­lieved in the Church, that God is the Father of the Son the Word; there hapned this Query amongst them, whether or no God could be cal­led Father even before the Son existed? And, in regard they asserted, that the Word of God was not begotten of the Father, but existed of Or, things which are not. nothing; being thus mistaken about the first and chiefest Article of Faith, they deservedly fell into an absurd contentiousness about a bare word. Dorotheus therefore See chap. 12. of this book. who had been sent for from Antioch by them, maintained, that [God] neither was nor could be termed a Father, before the Son existed. But Marinus (whom they had called out of Thracia before Dorotheus) having got a fair opportunity, (for he was vext because Dorotheus had been prefer­red before him:) undertook to desend the con­trary opinion. For this reason there hapned a dissention amongst them: and being divided on account of the foresaid Term, each party held separate Meetings. Those under Dorotheus con­tinued possest of their own Meeting-houses. But Marinus's followers built themselves private O­ratories, wherein they had their Assemblies; and asserted that the Father was always the Father, even when the Son existed not. Moreover, the maintainers of this assertion were termed Theodoret gives an account of these Here­ticks, book 4. Haeret. Fabul. Vales. Psa­thyriani, because one Theoctistus by Country a Syrian, a That is, a Cake­seller. Psathyropola by Trade, was a zea­lous defender of this Opinion. Selenas Bishop of the Goths became a follower of these persons Tenets: Selenas. He was a man of a mixt descent, a Goth by his fathers side, by his mothers a Phry­gian. And upon this account he taught in the Church very readily in both these Languages. Further, this faction soon after quarrelled a­mongst themselves; Marinus disagreeing with Agapius, whom he himself had preferred to the Bishoprick of Ephesus. But these two contended not one with another about [any point of their] Religion, but about Or, Pre­cedency. Prima­cy; the Goths sided with Agapius. Wherefore, many of the Ecclesiasticks under their juris­diction (abominating the contest raised between them two, as being the product of their vain glory,) deserted them, and became adherents to the Homoöusian Faith. When therefore the Arians had continued divided amongst them­selves during the space of It must be twenty five years; and accor­dingly Epi­phanius Scholasti­cus read it. For, from Arcadius's third and Honorius's second Consulate (in which year these things were done, which Socrates does here relate) to the Consulate of Monaxtius and Plinta [or Plintha] there are twenty five years. Vales. thirty five years, afterwards, Instead of [ [...], in the Consulate] it must un­doubtedly be [ [...], under the Reign.] For the word [...] crept into this place from the following line. Vales. under the Reign of Theodosius Junior, in the Consulate of Plintha Master of the Milice, the Heresie of the Psathyriani being perswaded to cease from contending, were again united in one body [with the rest of the A­rians.] And they made a Sanction [amongst themselves] in form of a Law as it were, that that Query, which had caused the separation be­tween them, should in future never be mentio­ned. But they could bring this to effect no where save at Constantinople only. For in other Cities (if any of these two parties chan­ced to be inhabitants therein,) they persisted in their former separation. Thus much concer­ning the division amongst the Arians.

CHAP. XXIV. That the Eunomians also raised Factions amongst themselves, which had various denominations given them derived from the names of their first Founders.

MOreover, neither did the Eunomians con­tinue undivided. For Eunomius himself had long before this made a See book 4. chap. 13. separation from Eudoxius, who See book 4. chap. 7. Ordained him Bishop of Cy­zicum, making this his pretence, to wit, because Eudoxius refused to give reception to his master Aëtius who was Ejected [out of the Church.] But those Hereticks who had their name from him, were after this divided into severall Factions. For first, one Theophronius [Page 350] a Cappadocian (who had been instructed in the Art of disputing by Eunomius, and understood Aristotle's Categories, and his book concerning In­terpretation, but [...], grosly, and rudely. indistinctly and imperfectly;) having wrote Books, to which he gave this Title concerning the exercise of the mind, incurred the displeasure of those of his own Heresie, and was by them Ejected as a desertour of their Sect. This person afterwards held Assem­blies separate from them, and left behind him an Heresie which bore his own name. Then, one Eutychius at Constantinople, upon account of a very [...], absurd, or frigid. slight controversie, made a separa­tion from the Eunomians, and at this present has his Meetings apart. Theophronius's fol­lowers are termed Eunomio-Theophroniani: and the Adherents of Eutychius are called Eunomi-Eutychiani. What those slight and trifling words were, about which they differed, I judge it un­worthy to be recorded in this History, lest I should too far digress from my purpose. [I will mention this] only, to wit, that they have adulterated Baptism. For they baptize not unto the Trinity, but unto the death of Christ. There was also for some time a dissention amongst the Macedoniani, when one Eutropius a Presbyter held Separate Assemblies; and Carterius would in no wise agree in opinion with him. And there may perhaps be some other Sects de­scended from these in other Cities. But, in regard I make my Residence in Constantinople, where I was born and educated, I Or, I am larger. have re­solved to be larger in my Relation of what has been transacted in that City; both because I my self have been an eye-witness of some of those transactions, and also in regard the affairs transacted in that City, have been more eminent, and worthier to be remembred. And these things hapned not at one and the same time, but at different times. Now, if any person be desirous of knowing the names of the various Sects, he may have an account hereof, by rea­ding that Book entitled Ancoratus, which Epi­phanius Bishop of Cyprus composed. Let this be sufficient to have been said concerning these matters. But the affairs of the State were disturbed upon this occasion.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning Eugenius's Tyranny, and the death of Valentinianus Junior; also, concerning the Emperour Theodosius's Victory over the Ty­rant.

IN the Western parts, a Grammarian by name Eugenius, having sometime been a Teacher of the Latine tongue, afterwards left his School, and undertook a Military employment in the Emperours Pallace, where he was made [...]: which I have rendred thus, Magister Scriniorum Imperatoris, Master of the Emperours Desks: for the Greeks call those [...], whom the Latins term Magistros Scriniorum, Masters of the Desks; as Cujacius has truly remark't. But Salmasius, in his notes on Vopiscus pag. 481, affirms that the [...] were the Proximi of the sacred Desks, not the Masters. For his opinion is, that there was only one Master of all the Desks, who had under him four Antigraphei or Proximi [that is, Clerks:] to wit, one in each Desk. But Salmasius is disproved, first by the Theodofian Code, and secondly by the Notitia Imperii Romani. For, in the Notitia Imperii Romani, there are four Masters of the Desks of the Roman Emperours reckoned; to wit, the Master of the Memory, the Master of the Letters, the Master of the Libells, and the Master of the Greek Letters. And, in the Theodosian Code, in the sixth Book, there is a particular Title de Magistris sacrorum Scriniorum, whom the Em­perours will have preferred before the Vicarii. But concerning the Proximi, there follows another Title, at a great distance from this: wherein the Emperours give order only, that the Proximi after two years space should leave the Scrinia, and be followed by the Vicarii. From whence 'tis evident, that the Proximi of the Desks are distin­guished from the Masters: for the Masters were chosen by the Empe­rours Codecill [or Letters Patents,] as were the rest of the Officers of the Pallace. But the Proximi came to that place by degrees and order of promotion: and they were more than one in every Desk; whereas there was but one Master in each Desk. The Proximi therefore are not the [...]; in regard there were only four [...], as we are informed from the Glosses of Julianus Antecessor. See Petrus Patricius in Excerpt. Legationum. Philostorgius relates, that Eugenius was preferred to the dignity of a Master, before he broke out into his Tyranny. Vales. Ma­ster of the Emperours Desks. And in regard he was a person of great eloquence, and upon that account more highly esteemed than others, he could not with moderation bear his prosperous success. But, taking one Arbogastes (born in Instead of [Gallia the Less,] the reading in the Florentine M. S. is truer, thus [Galatia] Although Arbogastes was not born in Gallia, but in Francia, as all Historians agree. Vales. Galatia the Less, who was Master of the Milice, a per­son of a rough temper, cruell and bloudy-minded,) to be his assistant, he resolved to usurp the Imperial Crown. Both these persons therefore determine to mur­ther the Emperour Valentinianus, having Instead of [ [...], introduced] we read [ [...] hi­red.] Vales. hired the Eunuchs that belonged to the Emperours Bed-Chamber, to be partakers in their design. These Eunuchs, having received [from them] promises of greater places than they had at pre­sent, Valentinianus Junior was mur­thered at Vienna, in Arcadius's second Consulate which he bore with Rufinus; as Idatius rightly informs us in his Fasti. But Mar­cellinus says, that fact was perpe­trated in the Consulate of Tatia­nus and Symmachus, on the Ides of March. Notwithstanding, this appears to be false, from the fourth and fifth Law in the Theo­dosian Code de Apostatis. Vales. strangled the Empe­rour in his sleep. Eugenius therefore immediately pos­sest himself of the supream management of affairs in the Western parts of the Em­pire, and did such things as were likely to be acted by a Tyrant. The Emperour Theodosius, informed hereof, was again extreamly distur­bed and disquieted, in regard a way was hereby made for other troubles after [the War waged against] Maximus. Having therefore summoned together his Military Forces, and proclaimed his Son Honorius Augustus in his own third Con­sulate [which he bore] with Abundantius, on the tenth of January he marched again in great hast into the Western parts, Zosimus (in his fourth book) says, that only Arcadius was left by Theodosius at Constantinople; and that Honorius followed his Father in his Expedition against Eugenius. The same is asserted by Marcellinus in his Chronicon. But Philostorgius agrees with So­crates. Vales. leaving both his Sons [now created] Augusti at Constan­tinople. Many of the Bar­barians [inhabitants] be­yond the Danube followed him in this expedition he undertook against Eugenius, coming in voluntarily to give him their assistance against the Tyrant. After some short time, he arrived in the Gallia's with a very numerous Army. For there the Tyrant Or, made pre­parations. had put himself into a posture of receiving him, who also had a vast Army. They came to an Engagement therefore neer the River named Frigidus, which is distant Here there is a defect in the Greek Text; these words [from Aquileia thirty six miles] being wanting. Which Valesius says he perfected from Antoninus's Itine­rary, and from Sigonius in his ninth book de Imperio Occiden­tali. from Aquileia thir­ty six miles. In that part of the Armies where the Ro­mans engaged the Romans, the Fight was doubtfull. But where the Barbarians (who were the Emperour Theodo­sius's Auxiliaries,) engaged, Eugenius's Forces had much the better. When the Emperour saw the great slaughter that was made by the Enemy amongst the Barbarians, being in a great-Agony, he cast himself upon the ground, calling upon [Page 351] God to be his assistant; and was in no wise frustrated of his request. For Bacurius his own Master of the Milice was so far encouraged, as to run with his Van-guard to that part where the Barbarians were Or, rou­ted. hardest prest upon by the Enemy; who broke through their Ranks; and routed those that a little before were on the pur­suit. There hapned another accident also, wor­thy of admiration. For a very violent wind arose on a sudden, which retorted the darts cast by Eugenius's Forces, upon themselves; and moreover, it carried those thrown by Theodosius's Souldiers with a greater force against the Enemy. So prevalent was the Emperours Prayer. The success of the Battell being after this manner tur­ned, the Tyrant cast himself at the Emperours feet, and requested his life might be saved. But the Souldiers beheaded him as he lay prostrate at the Emperours feet. These things were done on the sixth of September, in Arcadius's third and Honorius [...]cond Consulate. But Arbogastes (who had been the Authour of these great mis­chiefs) being on his flight upon the third day after the battell; as soon as he knew there were no hopes of life for him, ran himself through with his own sword.

CHAP. XXVI. How the Emperour falling ill after his Victory, sent for his Son Honorius to Millain; and thinking himself somewhat recovered from his distemper, [he ordered] that Or, run­ning of horses. Cirque-Sports should be exhibited, on which very day he dyed.

BUt, the Emperour Theodosius contracted an ill habit of body, from the troubles and disquietudes he underwent in this War. And supposing that his life would be ended by that distemper which was upon him, he was more sol­licitous about the publick affairs, than [concer­ned] at his own death, considering with him­self, how great calamities do usually befall Sub­jects after the death of their Emperour. Where­fore, he sends forthwith for his Son Honorius from Constantinople, being desirous to settle Or, the Western parts. the State of the Western Empire. After his Sons arrivall at Millain, he seemed to be somewhat revived from his distemper; and gave order for the celebration of Triumphant Cirque-Sports. And before Dinner he was very well, and was a Spectatour at the Cirque-Sports. But after Dinner he was taken very ill on a sudden, and could not come to see Or, the sight. the Games. But, ha­ving given his Son order to Preside at the Cirque-Sports, he died on the night following, in the Consulate of Olybrius and Probinus, on the seventeenth day of January. This was the first year of the two hundredth ninety fourth O­lympiad. The Emperour Theodosius, lived sixty years; and reigned sixteen. This Book contains [an account of affairs transacted] during the space of sixteen years and eight months.

THE SIXTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.

The PREFACE.

WE have finished the task enjoyned by You (most Sacred man of God Theodorus!) in the sive foregoing Books; wherein, according to our best ability, we have com­prized the History of the Church from the times of Constantine. But you must know, that we have not been curious about our Stile; for we considered, that should we have been carefull about an Elegancy of expression, we might peradventure have mist of our design. Besides, could we have accomplished [our design,] yet we were altogether unable to write such things, as are extant in the Composures of Ancient Historians; whereby any one of them might suppose himself able either to amplifie, or disimprove Transactions. Further, such a Stile would in no wise have edified the Many and the Simpler sort of persons; who are desirous of [Page 352] knowing affairs only, not of admiring the Stile for its elegant composure. That therefore our work might not be unusefull to both these sorts of persons; to the Learned, because 'tis unworthy of being compared with the Elegant Stile of Ancient Writers; and to the unlearned, in regard they cannot attain to [the knowledge of] affairs, being concealed by a pride and over-elegancy of Expression: We have designedly made use of such a Stile, Or, as seems in­deed to be plainer and more perspi­cuous, but is notwith­standing lower and more mean. as seems indeed to be lower and more mean, but is notwithstanding plainer and more perspicuous.

But, before we begin our Sixth Book, we must give this premonition: In regard we undertake [the writing a Narrative] of the affairs which have hapned in our own age; we are afraid, lest we should seem to record such things as will displease many persons: This whole clause [ei­ther because (according to the pro­verb,) truth is bitter] is in my judgment to be ex­punged, in regard it disturbs the sense. Or, if it has a place here, it must be put at the close of the period, after these words [extoll not their actions.] If this dis­pleases any one; 'twill be sufficient, to expunge the parcticle [ [...], either,] and put this clause to the head of that fol­lowing. Vales. either because (according to the proverb,) Truth is bitter: or in regard we mention not their names, whom [all men] have a great love for, with an Encomium: or [Lastly] because we extoll not their Actions. The Zeal [...]ts of our Religion will con­demn us, because we do not give the Bishops the Title of Most dear to God, or Most Holy, or such like. Others also will sometimes make curious remarks, because we term not the Emperours Most Divine, and Lords; nor [do give them] those other titles which are usually attributed to them. But, in as much as I am able to prove and demonstrate from the Testimony of Ancient Writers, that a To wit, in the Comoedies of Menander, and others. You may see the same in Plautus's and Terentius's Latine Comoedies; wherein the Servants do usually call their Masters barely by their names. Vales. Servant amongst them did usually call his Master by his proper name, and made no account of his Dignity [or Title,] by reason of the urgency of affairs; and in as much as [my indeavour is] to obey the Laws of History, which do require a sincere, pure, and true Narrative of Transactions, free from all manner of Masks and Covers; I will in future proceed in the same Narration; Recording those things which either I my self saw, or could learn from those who had seen them; and making a judgment of the Truth from their not varying in their Relations, who told me them. But, my La­bour in discovering the Truth hath been great, in regard many, and those different persons gave me an account of affairs; some of whom affirming they were present at the transacting of these things; and others asserting they knew them better than any other persons.

CHAP. I. That after the death of the Emperour Theodosius, when his Sons had divided the Empire [be­tween them,] and Arcadius had met the Army returning from Italy, after some short stay there; Rufinus the Praefectus Praetorio was killed by the Souldiers at the Emperours feet.

THE Emperour Theodosius having ended his life in the Consulate of Olybrius and Probinus, on the seven­teenth of the month January; his Sons succeeded him in the Roman Empire. Ar­cadius had the Government of the Eastern Em­pire, and Honorius of the Western. [The Bi­shops] who Presided over the Churches at that time, were Damasus in the Imperial [Ci­ty] Rome; Theophilus at Alexandria; Johan­nes was in possession of the Churches at Jerusa­lem; and Flavianus of those at Antioch. At Constantinople [termed also] New Rome, Ne­ctarius filled the [Episcopall] Chair, as we have related in the foregoing Book. About the eighth of the month November, in the same Consulate, Theodosius's body was brought [to Constantinople,] and interred by his Son Arca­dius with an honourable and solemn Funeral. Not long after this, on the eight and twentieth of the same month, the Army also arrived, which had been employed in the War against the Tyrant, under the Emperour Theodosius's command. When therefore the Emperour Arcadius (a­greeable to the usuall custom) had met the Ar­my without the City-gates, the Souldiers at that time slew Rufinus the Emperours Praefectus Praetorio. For Rufinus lay under a suspicion of turning Tyrant, and 'twas believed, that he had called the Zozimus (book 5.) relates, that Alari­cus and the Goths, not the Hunni, were solli­cited by Rufinus, to invade the Roman Provinces. The same is assert [...]d by Marcellinus in his Chronicon. But Sozomen (book 8. chap. 1.) agrees with Socrates. Not, is there any disagreement between the forecited Authors. For Ru­finus called in both those Nations against the Romans; the Goths first, under their Chief, Alaricus: after the Goths were routed by Stilichon he excited the Hunni to assist the Goths, as Claudian tells us, in his first book against Rufinus; and in his second book, he sets forth the same more clearly, neer the beginning thereof. But Sigonius, in his tenth book de Occidentali Imperio, where he makes it his business to relate this whole story, speaks not one word concerning this irruption of the Hunni; which negligence of his is inexcusable. Vales. Hunni (a Barbarous Nation) into the Roman Territories. For at that time they destroyed Armenia, and some parts of the East, by making incursions into those Provinces. Moreover, on the same day whereon Rufinus was killed, Marcianus Bishop of the Novatians died. He was succeeded in that Bishoprick by Sisinnius, of whom we have made mention See book 5. chap. 21. above.

CHAP. II. Concerning Nectarius's death, and the Ordination of Johannes.

WIthin a small intervall of time, Nectarius also, Bishop of Constantinople, departed this life, in the Consulate of Caesarius and Atticus, about the twenty seventh of the month Septem­ber. Forthwith therefore, a Or, a trouble, or, earnestness. Contention aros [...] about the Ordination of a Bishop; and some desired one person, others another, When a Consult had been severall times held about this matter, it was at last concluded on▪ that This per­son was termed Chrysostom, that is, Golden­mouth. Jo­hannes a Presbyter of the Antiochian Church, should be sent for from Antioch. For a fame was spread concerning him, for his Or, fit­ness to be a teacher. Learning and Eloquence. Within some small space of time therefore, the Emperour Areadius (with the common consent of all persons, I mean the [Page 353] Clergy, as well as Laity) sends for him. And, to the end that his Ordination might be accom­plished with more of firmness and authority, by the Emperours order many other Prelates were present, as was also Theophilus [Bishop] of Alexandria; who made it his business to Or, de­tract from. blacken Johannes's glory, and to promote Isi­dorus (a Presbyter under himself) to the Bi­shoprick; whom he had a great love for, be­cause Isidorus had undertaken a very dangerous affair upon his account. What that business was, we must now declare. When the Empe­rour Theodosius was actually ingaged in a War against the Tyrant Maximus, Theophilus sent pre­sents by Isidorus to the Emperour, and delivered two Letters to him, ordering him, to present the Gifts and Letters to him that should be Conque­rour. Isidorus, in obedience to these commands, arriving at Rome, stayed there expecting the Or, the Victory. Event of the War. But this business could not lie long concealed; for a Reader who ac­companied him, stole the Letters privately. On which account Isidorus being in a great fear, fled forthwith to Alexandria. This was the oc­casion of Theophilus's being so highly concer­ned for Isidorus. But [the Grandees] of the Imperial Palace, gave Johannes the preference. And in regard many persons raised accusations against Theophilus, and presented Libells (some upon one account, others on another) against him, to the Bishops that were present; Eutropius the Chief person of the Bed-chamber to the Emperour, took the written Accusations, and shewed them to Theophilus, bidding him take his choice, whether he would Ordain Johannes, or be brought to his Tryall and answer the Ac­cusations on foot against him. Theophilus▪ ter­rified herewith, Ordained Johannes. Johannes therefore being Ordained, was seated in the Epi­scopall Chair in order to [his bearing] the Office of a Bishop, on the twenty sixth of February, in the following Consulate, Instead of [ [...]] it must be [ [...], which the Empe­rour, &c.] A small fault, but which (be­ing not perceived by Tran­slatours) led them into a great mistake. For thus they have rendred it: On the following Consulate wherein Honotius the Emperour at Rome, and Eutychianus at Con­stantinople Governed the publick. But, [...] signifies Consulatum dare, that is, to publish or shew the Ludi Circenses, on account of succeeding well in their Office of Consul. Vales. See Socrat. book 5. chap. 29. note (e.) which the Emperour Honorius celebrated at Rome, and Eutychianus (at that time Christophor son has rendered it ill, thus, Praefect of the Emperours; whenas he should have translated it Praefectus Praetorio. For in the Greek it must be [ [...]] The same mistake in the same word I have taken notice of before. Eutychianus therefore was Consul and Praefectus Praetorio on the same year; which was the common usage of those times, as 'tis apparent from the Theodosian Code. Vales. Praefectus praetorio) at Constantinople, with Games and Sports. But in regard this Johannes is famous, both for the Books he left written, and also for the many troubles he fell into, I judge it fit not to pass his affaires over in silence, but relate as compendiously as 'tis possible, what might be decla­red more at large; and to set forth, whence he was, from whom extracted, how he was called to the E­piscopate, after what manner he was deprived of it; and [lastly] upon what account he was more ho­noured after his death, than whilest he was living.

CHAP. III. Concerning the Descent and Education of Johannes Bishop of Constantinople.

JOhannes therefore was born at Antioch [a City] of Syria-Coele, the Son of Secundus, and his mothers name was Anthusa, persons of a noble family in that Country. He was Scho­lar to Libanius the Sophista, and an hearer of Andragathius the Philosopher. Being ready to betake himself to the practise of the Civil Law, and perceiving how laborious and unjust a life they lead, That conjecture displeases me not, which came here­tofore into my mind, to wit, that at this place, in­stead of [ [...]] it should be [ [...].] Further, Socrates and Sozo­men, do in­deed af­firm, that John Chry­sostome did not follow the Practise of the Civil Law. For they say, that he went from Li­banius's School, when it was supposed he would have pleaded causes, and on a sudden betook himself to a quieter sort of life. Notwith­standing, there are those who do affirm, that for some time he did plead Causes. Which seems to be intimated by Libanius's Epistle, which Isidorus Pelusiota records book 2. Epistol. But that Epistle of Libanius's is, I fear, written to some other Johannes, who then pleaded Causes at Constantinople, and spoke a panegyrick there to Theodosius, on account of his assuming his Sons to be his Colleagues in the Em­pire. Now, our Chrysostome (who went from Libanius's School about the beginning of Valens's Reign,) neither left Antioch, that Libanius (who profest Rhetorick at Antioch) might write Letters to him being absent; nor could he praise Theodosius, who at that time was not Emperour. Nor can Libanius's words be understood of any other Emperour, than of Theodosius, who took in his Sons to be partners with him in the Empire. However, that Chrysostome did for some time practise the Civil Law, is apparent from the beginning of his first book de Sacerdotio. Vales. who are conversant in the Or, Courts of Judicature. Forum, he chose rather to follow a quieter sort of life. And this he did, in imitation of What Evagrius this should be, who having left Libanius's Auditory long before Chrysostome, had embraced a pious and Religious course of life, 'tis hard to determine. For I cannot think it was Evagrius of Pontus, who was afterwards a Deacon at Constantinople, under Gre­gorius Nazianzenus, and under Nectarius; and thence removed into the Solitudes of Egypt. Baronius, at the year of Christ 382, calls this Evagrius, Chrysostome's School-fellow, Evagrius Junior, Son of the most noble Evagrius a Citizen of Antioch; and says that he went into the desart before Chrysostome, and lead a monastick life under Diodorus and Carterius. But, I know not what authority Baronius had for this, nor why he should term this person Evagrius Junior▪ Unless perhaps he has called this person Evagrius Junior, to distin­guish him from Evagrius Senior the Antiochian, whom he had made mention of before at the year of Christ 372▪ from Basilius Magnus's E­pistle to Eusebius of Samosata; the words whereof are these: [...] The Presbyter Evagrius, the Son of Pompeianus of Antioch, who sometime went into the West with the Blessed Eusebius. The Latine Translatour has rendred it Evagrius Senior, whereas he should have translated it; Evagrius the Presbyter, concerning whom Hieronymus (in the Chronicon of Eusebius) writes thus: Zenobia apud Immas, haud longe ab An­tiochia Vinci [...]ur, &c. Zenobia is conquered at Immae, not far from Antioch; in which fight Pompeianus the Commander, surnamed Fran­cus, sought most valiantly against her: his family continues at this day at Antioch, from whose race our dearest Evagrius the Presbyter descended. Jerome makes mention of the same person in his book de Scri­ptor. Eccles. And in my judgment, this is the Evagrius, Chryso­stome's School-fellow, whom Socrates mentions here. For, what Baronius writes concerning Evagrius Junior, is founded on no au­thour. Vales. Evagrius; who having been educated under the same Masters, had long before betaken himself to a more sedate and quieter course of life. Changing there­fore forthwith his garb and his gate, he applied his mind to reading the Sacred Scriptures, and fre­quently went in great hast to the Church [on ac­count of praying.] Moreover, he perswades The­odorus and Maximus (who had been his School­fellows under Libanius the Sophista) to leave their profession which had a respect to nothing but gain, and betake themselves to a more simple and meaner course of life. Of these two persons, Theodorus was afterwards Bishop of Mopsuestia a City in Cilicia; and Maximus of Seleucia in Isauria. But being at that time very studious and diligent about virtue, they were instructed in a monastick course of life by Diodorus and Carte­rius, who then presided over the Instead of [ [...]] which is the Dative case, the rules of Grammer do require it should be [ [...], over the monasteries] in the Genitive case; the reading in Sozomen is the same, as was also that in Epiphanius Scholasticus's Copy, as appears from his Ver­sion. Further, Baronius (following indeed the Greek Writers) is of opinion, that these Monasteries of Diodorus, and Carterius, were situated without the City. But a Learned person, who has lately published the Life of John Chrysostome in French, does [...]ffirm they were within the City Antioch: to whom notwithstanding I cannot assent. 'Tis more probable, that these Little Houses were placed in the Suburbs, to the end that pious and Religious persons, who were continually imployed in contemplation and reading of the sacred Books, might be far remote from noyse and disturbance. But what the same Learned person objects out of Theodoret, (to wit, that Dio­dorus was continually conversant in Antioch, and made a couragious resistance against the rage and force of the Arians;) does in no wise weaken our opinion. For Diodorus, as often as he pleased, could easily come out of a Monasterie in the Suburbs, into the City. Vales. Monasteries. [Page 354] Of these two Diodorus, afterwards made Bi­shop of Tarsus, wrote many books, being in­tent upon the bare Letter [and obvious sense] of the Sacred Scriptures; but avoiding the Sozomen says the same of Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus; to wit, that he expoun­ded the Sacred Scriptures, [...], literally; but avoided the more abstruse and mysti­call sense. Jerome says the same concerning him, in his book de Scri­ptor. Eccles. Extant ejus in Apostolum Commentarii, &c. his Comments upon the Apostle are extant, and many other pieces, belonging rather to Eusebius Emisenus's Character: whose sense although he has followed, yet he could not imitate his eloquence, because of his ignorance in Humane [or Secular] Learning. Jerom says, that Diodorus has followed Eu­sebius Emisenus's sense, that is, his method in explaining the Scri­ptures. Let us see therefore, what sense Eusebius Emisenus has fol­lowed. Jerome himself will inform us; whose words concerning Eu­sebius Emisenus are these: Magisque Historiam Secutus, ab iis qui de­clamare volunt, studiosissime legitur, and having rather followed History, he is most studiously read by those, who have a mind to declaim. From whence it appears that Eusebius in his exposition of the Scriptures, has chiefly followed the Historicall and Literal sense; but has not touched the Mystick and Allegoricall. For the term [...] compre­hends these senses. Allegoria therefore differs from Theoria, as a species does from the Genus. Indeed, Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, of whom we now speak, had written a Book with this Title, [...], that is, what may be the difference between Theoria and Allegoria. But I wonder at Jerome, who says that Diodorus was in­structed neither in Eloquence, nor in the knowledge of humane Lear­ning. And yet Theodoret (Histor. book 4.) compares his eloquence to a most limpid River; and Photius in his Bibliotheca does attest, that in his discourses he was clear and perspicuous. Vales. Allego­ricall interpretation thereof. Thus far concerning these persons. Moreover, Johannes, (who That Chrysostome converst familiarly with Basilius, 'tis evident from Chrysostome's books de Sacerdotio. But who that Basilius was, concerning whom Chrysostome speaks in those books, 'tis uncertaine. Socrates does in this place affirm, that it was Basilius Magnus. Photius (in his Bibliotheca) says it was Basilius Bishop of Seleucia. Baronius (at the year of Christ 382,) does deservedly disprove both these opinions. Chrysostome ('tis certain) does attest in the beginning of his book, that himself and that Basilius, concerning whom he there speaks, had always the same masters. Now Basilius Magnus learnt Rhetorick at Athens: but Chysostome was Libanius's hearer at Antioch a long while after that. If that were Basilius the Great, whom Chry­sostome affirms to have obtained the principall place amongst his own companions and friends, doubtless some footsteps of his friendship would at this day be extant in Basilius's Epistles. But, amongst so many of his Epistles which have been preserved to our times, there occurs not one, written to our Johannes. Wherefore I agree with Ba­ronius, who says, that that Basilius who was companion to Chrysostome, was Basilius Bishop of Raphanea, or else Basilius Bishop of Byblus. For both these persons were Chrysostomes contemporaries, in regard they subscribed the Constantinopolitan Council. Vales. converst frequently and familiarly with Basilius Instead of [ [...], sometimes made a Deacon, &c.] In my judgment it should be [ [...], at that time made a Deacon, &c.] For it follows▪ but afterwards constituted Bishop of Cae­sarea in Cappadocia.] Epiphanius Scholasticus confirms our conjecture, as 'tis apparent from his Version; for thus he renders it, qui tunc à Meletio factus erat Diaconus, who was then made Deacon by Meletius. Further, Amphilochius (in his Life of Basilius the Great,) does relate that Basil was made Deacon by Meletius Bishop of Antioch. But that book is stuft with fables and lies. Doubtless, in regard Basil the Great was by lawfull degrees promoted to be Reader and Presbyter at Caesarea, (as Gregorius Nazianzenus does attest, in his Funerall Oration concer­ning the praises of the same Basilius) 'tis scarce credible, that he should have been made Deacon any where else, but at Caesarea. Vales. at that time ordained a Deacon by Meletius, but afterwards constituted Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia) was made Reader of the Antiochian Church, by Nicephorus (what Authour he follows, I know not,) makes this Zeno, Bishop of Gaza or Majuma. But, whereas Zeno was created Bishop of Majuma in the Reign of Theodosius, (as Sozomen relates book 5. chap. 8;) he must necessarily be a different person from that Zeno who ordained Chrysostome Reader; in regard Chrysostome was made a Reader in Valens Augustus's Reign, about the year of our Lord 370. But Baronius (at the year of Christ 382,) says that this Zeno (by whom Chrysostome was ordained a Reader of Antioch) was Bishop of Tyre, the same person who was present at the Constanti­nopolitan Councill; and was then (Meletius being absent) his De­puty in the Church of Antioch. In which thing I do readily assent to Baronius. But whereas he repoves Socrates there, for his saying, that that Zeno was Bishop of Jerusalem; therein the Cardinal is evidently mistaken. For Socrates does not make Zeno Bishop of Jerusalem▪ he only says, that Zeno the Bishop, returning from Jerusalem, Or­dained Chrysostome Reader of Antioch. Now Zeno had made a journey to Jerusalem, either on the account of prayer, (as it was the custom of those times,) or by reason of some Ecclesiastick affair. But here arises a difficulty. For, if Zeno in his return from Jerusalem, ordained Chrysostome Reader of Antioch; the City of which he was Bishop, must necessarily be farther remote from Jerusalem, than Antioch was; or at least it must lie at the side of Antioch. Which cannot be said of the Cities Tyre, and Gaza. For both those are far nearer to Jerusalem, than Antioch is. Therefore, this Zeno, who ordained Chrysostome Reader of Antioch, was Bishop of some other City. In Basil the Great's 69th Epistle, there is mention of one Zeno a Bishop, who was present at the Antiochian-Council under Meletius: but the name of his See is not set down. I know Palladius (in the Life of Chryso­stome) does relate, that Chrysostome was ordained Reader by Me­letius. But this, in my judgment, is so to be understood, that that may be said to have been done by Meletius, which was performed by Zeno supplying his place. Vales. Zeno the Bishop in his return from Jerusalem. Whilest he continued in the degree of a Reader, he wrote a book against the Jews. Having not long after obtained the dignity of a Deacon from Meletius, he wrote his books concerning Priest­hood, and those against Stagirius: Moreover, those concerning the incomprehensible nature of God, and those concerning See Eu­seb. Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 30. note (q.) subintroduced women. Af­ter this, when Meletius was dead at Constanti­nople; (for he had made a journey thither, on account of Gregorius Nazianzenus's ordination:) Johannes made a separation from the That is; Meletius's party. Mele­tianists, nor did he communicate with Paulinus; but lived quietly for the space of three whole years. Afterwards, when Paulinus was dead, he is ordained Presbyter by This is the Eva­grius, of whom we have spo­ken at note (b.) in this chapter. But, what Socrates says, (to wit, that Chrysostome was ordai­ned Pres­byter, by Evagrius,) has but lit­tle of pro­bability. For, if that be true which So­crates says, (I mean, that Chrysostome, after Meletius's death, abstained from Paulinus's communion;) how can it be supposed that Chrysostome should admit of Evagrius's ordination, who was successour to Pan­linus? It is better therefore to follow Palladius, Simeon Metaphrastes, and others, who relate that Chrysostome was promoted to the Pres­byterate by Flavianus the Bishop. Vales. Evagrius, Paulinus's successour. This (to speak compendiously) was Johannes's course of life, before his being made Bishop. He was a person (as 'tis said) sower and morose, by reason of his [over­much] zeal for temperance; and (as one of his intimadoes has reported;) from his younger years more addicted to anger, than bashfullness. Because of his Or, Re­ctitude of Life. Sanctity of Life, he was not cautious and circumspect in▪ relation to things future; and by reason of his Or, sim­plicity, or singleness. plainness, he was open and easie. He used too great a liberty in speaking to those who discoursed him. In his teaching, he made it his chief bu­siness to improve the Moralls of his hearers: and in his conferences, he was supposed by those who knew him not, to be proud and arro­gant.

CHAP. IV. Concerning Serapion the Deacon, and how by his instigation Johannes became offended with, and an enemy to his Clergy.

THis being the humour and disposition of Jo­hannes, after his promotion to the Bishop­rick. Epis­copate, he was more supercilious and severe to­wards his Clergy than was fitting; his design in that being (as he expected,) to rectifie the lives of those under him. Immediately there­fore [Page 355] at his very entry [upon the Bishoprick] he seemed rough and austere to the Ecclesiasticks, and incurred their Hatred. Odium, many of them be­came his enemies, and declined him as an angry person. Serapion his Deacon incited him to Or, dis­please all men. alienate all mens minds from himself. And on a time, when all the Clergy were present, he spake aloud to the Bishop, after this man­ner, You will never be able (O Bishop!) to get the mastery over these persons, unless you drive them all out with one rod. This expression of his excited an Odium against the Bishop. Not long after the Bishop ejected many persons out of the Church, some for one reason, others for another. But they (as it usually happens in such violent proceedings of Governours,) enter into a Combination against him, and calum­niated him to the people. That which induced the hearers to a belief of what was spoken against him, was, that the Bishop would not eat with any body, nor would he upon any invitation go to a Feast. Upon which account most espe­cially, the calumny against him improved, and grew greater. Upon what design Or, he chose to eat with no body. he refused to eat with any person, no one could ever cer­tainly tell. For those who are desirous of de­fending him, say that he had a very weak sto­mack, and could hardly digest meat; for which reason he did eat alone. Others affirm, he did this on account of his Ascetick and most severe course of life. What-ever of truth there was in this matter, it was of no small advantage to his Ac­cusers, in order to their calumniating him. Not­withstanding, the people did highly approve of him upon account of the Sermons he Preach't in the Church, loved the man exceedingly, and dis­regarded those persons who attempted to accuse him. Moreover, what his Sermons were, (as well those published by himself, as them taken by the Notaries from his mouth as he Preach't them,) how elegant, inviting and perswasive; it is needless now to declare, in regard those that are desirous may read them, and reap abundant benefit from them.

CHAP. V. That Johannes differed not only with the Clergy, but with the Magistracy also. And concerning Eutropius the Eunuch.

AS long as Johannes was offensive to the Clergy only, the designes framed against him were weak, and infirm. But after he at­tempted to reprove many of the Magistracy also, beyond the bounds of what was fit, then the envy against him was much more enkindled. Many things were spoken against him; most whereof were in future believed by the hearers. But that which made an addition to the calumny, was the Oration at that time spoken by him against Eutropius. For Eutropius the Eunuch (the chief person of the Bed-chamber to the Em­perour, the Or, the first of the Eunuchs. first Eunuch that was vouchsafed the dignity of a Consul by the Emperour,) de­sirous to be revenged upon some persons who had taken sanctuary in the Church, made it his business to get an Edict published by the Em­perours, prohibiting any person from flying into the Churches for sanctuary, but that such as had fled thither should by force be drawn out thence. But [divine] vengeance followed immediately hereupon. For the Law was promulged, and not long after Eutropius himself, having offen­ded the Emperour, made his escape into the Church. The Bishop therefore (whilest Eu­tropius lay under the Altar, and was terrified with fear,) From this place 'tis apparent, that the Bishops heretofore did not usually Preach to the people out of the Pulpit. For this Socrates takes no­tice of as a thing sin­gular in Chryso­stome, to wit, that being a­bout to make an Oration, he went up into the Pulpit, that he might be the easier heard by the people. Most com­monly the Bishops Preached standing on the steps of the Al­tar. We are informed hereof from King Chil­derbert's Constitu­tion, which Sirmondus has recor­ded, in his first Tome of the Coun­cills of France, pag. 300; but it is there imperfect. We will make good one defect in it, from the most ancient Corbeiensian Manuscript, after this manner: Qualiter in sacrilegos dei injuria vindicetur, no­strum est pertractandum. Et quia fides nostra ut verbo de altario sa­cerdote faciente quaecunque de Evangelio, Prophetis vel Apostolo fuerit adnuntiatum▪ in quantum Deus dat intellectum: ad nos querimonia pro­cessi [...], &c. The sense of these words, which are very corrupt, is this. Because the Priests have complained, whilest they make Sermons to the people, that the Bansatrices [what the import of that word is, I cannot find] walk through the fields and recall the people from the Church; Therefore we command, &c. See Baronius at the year of Christ 407, number 17. Vales. sitting in the Pulpit (out of which it had before been his usage to Preach, in order to his being heard more easily;) made an Oration in reproof of him. Whereupon he seemed to give a greater offence to some persons, because he was not only incompassionate towards an unfor­tunate man, but on the contrary even reproved him. Eutropius therefore at that time bearing the Consulate, was by the Emperours order be­headed, for some crimes [he had committed.] His name also was rased out of the Or, the Catalogue of Consuls. Fasti Consulares, and only Theo­dorus's name, who had been his Col­league in the Consulate, was Hence 'tis, that in the Fasti of Prosperus, Idatius, and Cassiodorus, this year has only Manlius Theodorus Consul, Eutropius's name being expunged. Concerning Eustropius's death, consult Zofimus. Vales. Re­corded therein. 'Tis reported likewise, that Bi­shop Johannes, making use of his usuall freedom and boldness in speaking, did sharply reprove Gaina also, at that time Master of the Milice, because he took the confidence to make a re­quest to the Emperour, that one of the Churches within the City might be assigned to the Arians, who were of the same opinion with himself. He also reproved several other of the Grandees upon various accounts, with much freedom and bold­ness; by reason of which liberty of his, he gai­ned the Ill-will of many persons. Wherefore, Theophilus also Bishop of Alexandria, soon after Johannes's Ordination, began to consider, how he might undermine and ruine him. And with some persons that were present he discoursed privately concerning that affair; but he imparted his own design [by Letters] to many others, who were at a great distance. For he was not only vexed at Johannes's too great boldness; but also be­cause he had not been able to promote Isidorus, a Presbyter under him, to the Bishoprick of Con­stantinople. In this posture were Bishop Johan­nes's affairs; and immediately, at the very be­ginning of his Episcopate, he felt the pangs of mischief and disquietude. But we will declare the matters that concern him, in the procedure of our History.

CHAP. VI. Concerning the Tyranny of Gaïna the Goth, and the disturbance he raised at Constantinople; and concerning his death.

I Will now relate an affair worthy to be re­corded, which hapned at this very time; and will demonstrate, how divine providence freed the City and Roman State from the greatest danger imaginable, by unexpected assistances. What that was, must now be declared. Gaïna was by extract a Barbarian. Having made himself a [Page 356] Subject to the Romans, and ingaged in a Mili­tary Employ, he rose by degrees, and was at length constituted Generall both of the Roman Horse and Foot. When he had gotten so great a power, he knew not himself, nor could he mo­derate his own mind. But (as the saying is) moved every stone, that he might render the Ro­man Empire subject unto himself. He sent for the whole nation of the Goths, out of their own Coun­try. In my judgment this place is thus to be mended: [...] and took care, that such as were his Relations, &c. This our e­mendation is confirmed by Sozo­men, book 8. chap. 4. in these words: [...], and he made his Relations centuri­ons and tribunes. Had Translatours consulted this passage in Sozomen, they would have rendred Socra­tes's words here more happily. Vales. And took care, that such as were his relations should have the Command of the Military Forces. [Moreover,] when Tribi­gildus (one of his kindred, Tribune of those Souldiers lodged in Phrygia,) Or, made an innovation. rai­sed a Rebellion by Gaïna's instigation, and ruined the whole Province of Phrygia; Gaïna orders the matter so, that the care of affairs there should be committed to him­self. To which the Em­perour Arcadius, foreknow­ing nothing [of his design,] readily yielded. Gaïna therefore forthwith made an Expedition, pretendedly indeed against Tribigildus; but in reality, with a resolution to turn Tyrant. He took along with him a vast multitude of the Barbarous Goths. And when he was arrived in Phrygia, laid all places desolate. The Ro­mans were on a sudden mightily disturbed, not only by reason of the vast number of Barbarians who were with Gaïna, but also in regard the [fertilest and] most usefull Provinces of the East were highly endangered. But then the Em­perour, in relation to the present juncture of af­fairs, made use of a prudent and usefull advice, and by subtlety made an attempt upon the That is, Gaïna, Bar­barian. Having therefore sent [Embassadours] to him, he took a resolution of appeasing him as well by words, as deeds. Upon Gaïna's deman­ding two of the eminentest Personages of the Se­natorian Order (who had born the Consulate, to wit, Saturninus and Au­relianus, This passage is thus to be worded; [...], persons whom he look't upon as hinderers of his de­signes; So Nicephorus expresses it. Moreover, of these two per­sons Aurelianus bore the Con­sulate on this very year with Sti­lichon: Saturninus had been con­sul long before with Merobaudes, in the times of Theodosius Senior. Concerning whose praises The­mistius speaks at large in his Gra­tiarum Actio to Theodosius on ac­count of the Peace made with the Goths, and on account of the Con­sulate given to the said Saturni­nus. Vales. persons whom he look't upon as hinderers of his designes;) to be Hosta­ges; the Emperour, in com­pliance with the necessity of that time delivered them, though unwillingly. These two persons, prepared to undergo death for the good of the publick, with a cou­ragious mind obeyed the Emperours Command. And went forth to meet the Bar­barian, some distance from Chalcedon, at a place termed the Hippodrome; being rea­dy to endure whatever he should inflict. How­ever, they suffered no harm. But Gaïna made use of [...], making a feigned, or, disdainfull refusal. dissimulation, and came to Chalcedon. Whither the Emperour Arcadius also went to meet him. The Emperour and the Barbarian going both into that Church where the body of the Martyr Euphemia is deposited, bound them­selves in a mutuall Oath, that they would not frame designes one against the other. The Em­perour, a person that had a pious and religious esteem for an Oath, and was upon that account beloved by God, kept the ingagement he had en­tred into. But Gaïna violated it, and receded not from the design he had proposed to him­self; but was intent upon causing Burnings and Plunderings, both at Constantinople, and also (if he could have effected it) over the whole Roman Empire. The Constan­tinople. City therefore was turned into a Barbary, by reason of the innumerable multi­tudes of Barbarians, and its inhabitants had the treatment of Captives. [Moreover,] so great was the danger which hung over the City, that a vast Comet which reached from heaven even to the earth, the like to which no man ever saw be­fore, gave an indication thereof. Gaïna there­fore in the first place impudently attempted to make plunder of the silver publickly exposed to sale in the shops. But when, by a preceding Rum [...]ur thereof, [the Money-changers] ab­stained from exposing their silver on their Ta­bles; he betook himself to another designe. And in the dead of the night he sends a great number of Barbarians to burn down the Pallace. At which time it was perspicuously manifested, how great a care God had of the City. For a mul­titude of Angels appeared to the Traytors, in the form of armed men of a vast Stature; whom the Barbarians conjecturing to be in reallity a numerous and valiant Army, were astonished thereat, and departed. When this was told to Gaïna, it seemed incredible to him. For he well knew, that the greatest part of the Roman Army was then absent, being engarisoned in the Cities [of the East.] On the next night there­fore, and on many nights afterwards, he sent other persons. But when he had sent Instead of [ [...], in a various manner] we read [ [...] seve­rall men;] and so Musculus seems to have read. Vales. severall men, who still brought him the same news; (for God's Angels always appeared in the same form to the Traytors:) at length he himself went ac­companied with a great multitude, to be a specta­tour of the Miracle. Supposing them really to be an Or, a multitude. Army of Souldiers, which on the day­time lay concealed, and in the night opposed his attempts; he framed a design, prejudiciall (as he thought) to the Romans, but which (as the event demonstrated) was of great advantage to them. For feigning himself to be possest with a devill, upon a pretence of prayer, he goes to the Church of John the Apostle, which is seaven miles distant from the City. The Barbarians went out with him, and carried out their Arms covertly, hiding them partly in Tuns, and partly making use of other devices. But when the Guard that kept the City-gates, having discovered the trick, would not suffer them to carry out their weapons, the Barbarians drew their swords, and slew those that guarded the Gates. Hereupon arose a horrid tumult in the City, and death seemed to be impendent on all persons. Notwithstanding, at that time the City suffered no harm, all its Gates being strongly fortified. But the Empe­rour made a seasonable use of prudent advice, and having proclaimed Gaïna a publick Enemy, he commanded those Barbarians who were left in the City to be slain. One day I doubt not but Socrates wrote [ [...], after the men that guarded the Gates were slain;] not [ [...], after the pulling down of the Gates] For on the foregoing day, those that guarded the Gates had been slain by Gaina's Souldiers, as Socrates has related a little before. Vales. after the men that guar­ded the Gates had been slain, the Souldiers that were pre­sent engage the Barbarians within the City-gates, near the Church of the Goths. For all the Barbarians who were left in the City flock't thi­ther. They burnt the Church, and slew a great many of the Barbarians. Gaïna, informed that those of his party who could not get out of the [Page 357] City were slain, and perceiving that his Artifices were unsuccessfull to himself, left [St John's] Church, and went in great hast into Thra­cia. Being come to Cherronesus, he endeavou­red to pass▪ over from thence, and take Lamp­sacus, that from that place he might make himself Master of the Eastern parts. But upon the Em­perour's sending forces immediately both by Land and Sea, there appeared another admirable effect of divine Providence. For whilest the Barba­rians, wanting Vessells patch't up Ships in great hast and disorder, wherein they might make their passage; on a sudden the Roman Navy appeared in sight, and a West-wind blew hard. The Ro­mans had a safe and easie passage in their Ships. But the Barbarians together with their horses in their Ships were tossed up and down and disper­sed by a Storm, and at length perished in the Sea. Many of them also were destroyed by the Romans. After this manner a numerous multitude of Bar­barians at that time lost their lives in their pas­sage. But Gaïna got away from thence, and flying through Thracia, falls into the hands of another party of the Roman Forces, by whom he is slain together with the Barbarians in his com­pany. Let thus much be sufficient to have been said The true reading seems to be [ [...], cursorily concerning Gaïna. Vales. cursorily concerning Gaïna. If any one be de­sirous of having an accurate account concerning the trans­actions of that War, let him read The Gainëa written by Eusebius Advocates were heretofore stiled Scholastici, as we are infor­med from Justinian's 74th and 76th Novell. The words of Ma­carius in his 15th Homily, are these: [...] &c. He that desires to have a knowledge in Forensian Cases, goes and learns the Abbreviatures. And when he has been the first there, he goes to the School of the Romans, where he is the last of all. Again, when he comes to be the first there, he departs to the School of the Pragmatici [or, Pra­cticants,] where he is again the last of all, and Arcarius [or No­vice.] Then, when he is made a Scholasticus, he is Novice and the last of all the Lawyers. Again, when he becomes the first there, then he is made a President [or Governour of a Province.] And when he is made a Governour, he takes to himself an Assistant or As­sessour. See more in Franciscus Pithoeus's Glossary ad Novellas Ju­liani Antecessoris, and in Meur­sius's Glossary in the term [...]. Vales. Scholasticus, who at that time was an Auditour of Troilus the Sophista: and having been a Spectatour in that War, he related the transactions thereof in four Books written in Heroick Verse. For which Poem he was much admired, whilest the memory of things was fresh. And very lately, Am­monius the Poet his made a Poem upon the same subject, and recited it before the Em­perour Theodosius Junior, in his sixteenth Consulate which he bore with Faustus; on ac­count whereof he has gotten a great repute. Moreover, this War was ended on the Consulate of Stilichon and Aurelianus. And the year following, Fravitus bore a Consulate, a Personage by extract indeed a Goth, but one who had exprest much of kindness and fidelity towards the Ro­mans▪ and had done them excellent service in this very War. On which account he had the dig­nity of a Consulate bestowed upon him; in whose year the Emperour Arcadius had a Son born, Theodosius the Good, on the tenth of In the year of Christ 401▪ See book 6. chap. 11. note (c.) A­pril. Let thus much be said concerning these things▪ [Further,] whilest the affaires of the Roman State were thus tempestuous, those intrusted with the Prelacy, abstained not in the least from framing Designes and Plots one against another, to the reproach and disgrace of the Christian Re­ligion▪ [...]or at this very time the Bishops em­ployed their thoughts about raising tumults and insurrections against one another. Which mis­chief took its beginning▪ from Egypt, upon this account.

CHAP. VII. Concerning the Dissention which hapned be­tween Theophilus [Bishop] of Alexandria, and the Monasticks in the Solitude. And how Theophilus Anathematized Origen's Books.

A Little before this, a question had been star­ted, whether God were a body, and had an humane shape; or whether he were incor­poreall, and forreign, not only to an humane, but to any other bodily shape and figure what­ever. By reason of this question, strifes and con­tentions were raised amongst many persons: some favouring this opinion; others patronizing that. The greatest part of the plainer and simpler sort of Asceticks asserted, that God was corporeall, and had an humane shape. But most [other persons] condemned their opinion, affirming God to be incorporeall, and wholly void of all manner of bodily shape. Whose Sentiment was embraced by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria; in so much that he invieghed publickly in the Church, in the presence of the people, against those who asserted God had an humane shape; and did himself expressly determine, that he was incorporeall. The Egyptian Asceticks under­standing this, left their Monasteries and came down to Alexandria. And raised a tumult a­gainst Theophilus, condemning him of impiety; and were resolved to kill him. Theophilus, ac­quainted herewith, was sorely perplexed, and em­ployed his mind about a device, how he might avoid the death he was threatned with. Being come into the presence of these men, he addrest himself to them in a flattering way, and spoke to them on this wise: Or, I look upon you in the same manner that I do behold the face of God. Whilest I behold you, to my thinking I see God's Countenance. These words mollified the fury of the Monks. Their return to him was: If you speak true, [to wit,] that God's Countenance is like ours, then Anathematize Origen's Works. For some persons have disputed out of those The pas­sage in Origen (wherein he disputes against those who affirmed God was endewed with an humane shape▪) is extant in Theodoret, in his Que­stions upon Genesis cap. 20▪ [quoted] from Ori­gen's Com­ments upon Genesis. Vales. Books, and contradicted our Opi­nion. But, if you refuse to do that expect from us the Treatment due to impious persons and ene­mies to God. I will do whatever seems good to you, (replied Theophilus) and therefore be not incensed against me. For I my self do abominate Origen's Books, and judge those persons worthy of reprehension, who admit of them. Theophilus therefore having after this manner given the Monks a repulse, dismissed them. And perhaps the controversie about this matter, which had come to this height, might have been quieted and appeased; had there not another accident forthwith hapned, of this nature. There presi­ded over the Monasteries in Egypt four pious men, Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius. These persons were own Brothers; and from their [stature of] body were termed The Long▪ They were eminent both for their [Sanctity of] life, and eloquence. And upon that account their fame was very great at Alexandria. Moreover, Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria had an high esteem for these men. For which reason he con­stituted one of them, to wit, Dioscorus, Bishop of Hermopolis; having by force constrained him [to undertake that Ecclesiastick Charge.] Two more of them he intreated to continue with him, and could scarcely perswade them to it: but in regard he was Bishop, at length he forced [Page 358] them [to stay;] and Johannes Launoius (in his book concerning the true interpretation of the sixth Canon of the Nicene-Councill) pro­duces this passage in Socrates, to prove, that the Bishop of Alex­andria ordained all the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, through­out all Egypt. For he remarks, that Theophilus did two things here. First, he made Dioscorus Bishop of Hermopolis; then he ordained his two Brothers Cler­gy-men, and joyned them to the same Dioscorus. 'Twas indeed Launoius's opinion, that Ammo­nius and his brother were by The­ophilus made Clergy-men of the Hermopolitane Church. Which was also the Sentiment (as I see) of the Author of the Sacred Geo­graphy. But in my judgment, both these persons are mistaken. For Theophilus made them not Clergy-men of the Hermopolitane-Church; but kept them with himself, and ordained them Clerks of his own (that is, of the Alex­andrian) Church. This is at­tested by Socrates, in these words: [...] Two more of them be entreated to continue with him. Besides the following words in Socrates do more clearly evince this: for Socrates adds, that being made Stewards of the Church by Theophilus, in the first place they were displeased, be­cause being ravished from the So­litude, they had no further lei­sure to mind the Monastick Philo­sophy. But at length, when they discerned Theophilus's incredible Avarice and desire of riches, and percelved themselves vitiated by conversing with him, they re­quested a dismission from him. From which words the proof is sufficient, that they converst with Theophilus; and being as it were his companions and domesticks, had an insight into his Vices and Rapines: For they were the oeco­nomi, that is, the Stewards of the Revenue of the Church. More­over, these Learned men were im­posed upon by Epiphanius Schola­sticus's Version; who has rendred this passage in Socrates thus: Quamobrem Dioscorum violenter tractum, &c. Wherefore he took Dioscorus by force, and made him Bishop of Hermopolis. Two more of them be intreated to dwell with him, and (although a Bishop) scarce­ly prevailed: having ordained them, he made them Stewards of the Church. Vales. having honoured them with the Dignity of Clergy-men, he committed the disposall of [the Revenue of] the Church to them. They, necestitated thereto, and discharged their office of Ste­wardship very well. Not­withstanding, they were dis­pleased, because they could not Philosophize, as they had a mind to do, nor be intent upon [their studies of] an Ascetick Discipline. But when in process of time, they were of opinion that their souls received harm, in regard they per­ceived the Bishop wholly intent upon Lucre, and making it his chief concern to amass money together, (and upon that account, as 'tis commonly said mo­ving every stone;) Instead of [ [...] and they refused] I read [ [...] then they refused, Vales. then they refused to live a [...]y longer with him, saying they were in love with the Solitude, and preferred that before a City-life. The Bishop, as long as he was ignorant of the true rea­son [why they resolved to be gone,] entreated them to stay. But after he perceived himself con­demned by them, he was filled with rage, and threat­ned to do them all man­ner of mischief. When they, disregarding his me­naces, were departed into the Solitude; Theophilus be­ing (as may be conjectu­red) a person of an hot and hasty temper, raised no small disturbance against these persons: but set all engines on work to create them trouble. He forth­with entertained an hatred for their Brother Dioscorus also, Bishop of Hermopolis. For he was sorely vexed at him, because the Asceticks were his favourers, and had an high veneration for him. He very well knew, that he could no ways damnifie these persons, unless he could make the Monks their ene­mies. He therefore makes use of this method. 'Twas certainly known to him, that those men, in their frequent disputes with him, [had strongly as­serted] that God was incorporeall, and in no wise had an humane shape. For, humane pas­sions do of necessity accompany an humane shape. And this had been diligently inquired into by the Ancients, especially by Origen. Al­though this was Theophilus's own Sentiment con­cern [...]ng God, yet that he might be revenged of his enemies, he was not ashamed of contradicting what he and they had well and truly asserted. But Or, wound in. imposed upon most of the Monks, persons innocent indeed and sincere, but who were un­skillfull in learning, yea most of them illiterate. For he sends Letters to the Monasteries in the Solitudes, giving them advice that they ought not to be perswaded by Dioscorus, nor his Bre­thren, who affirm God to be incorporeall. For God (said he,) according to the [testimony of the] Sacred Scripture, hath eyes, ears, hands, and feet, as men have. But those persons about Dioscorus, being followers of Origen, do attempt to introduce an Or, blas­phemous. impious opinion; to wit, that God has neither eyes, nor ears, nor feet, nor hands. With this imposture he deceives most of the Monks; and there arises a very hot dissention amongst them. Such as had their minds Or, ex­ercised in. cul­tivated with Learning, were in no wise caught with this fraud; but continued their adherence both to Dioscorus and Origen. But the simpler sort, who were the most in number, and had the greatest warmth and zeal, forthwith made an insurrection against the Brethren. A division therefore was made amongst them, and they re­proach't one another as impious persons. Theo­philus's party termed the Brethren Origenists and impious persons. On the contrary, the other Faction stiled those instigated by Theophilus That is, persons that affirmed God had an humane shape. An­thropomorphitae. Whereupon no small contention arose, and an irreconcileable War was kindled between the Monks. As soon as Theophilus un­derstood, that his design succeeded according to his own mind, he went to Nitria (where the Monasteries are,) accompanied with a great mul­titude, and Socrates conceals the true reason, why those Monks ter­med The Long-Bre­thren were driven out of the Mo­nasteries of Nitria by Theophilus. For, they were forced from thence, because they were defenders of Origen, whom, together with his errours, Theophilus had condemned in the Alexandrian Synod. Socrates seems to have been imposed upon by some person that was an Origenist, who favouring Ammonius and his Brethren, had given Socrates a Narrative of that business, otherwise than it really was. Baronius, not content to fix the Novatian Heresie upon our Socrates does openly call him an Origenist. But we only say this, that Socrates had this his relation from some one of Ammonius's friends. I do not in the lest doubt, but Theophilus, out of a grudge and hatred towards Ammonius and his brethren, made the Errours of Origen and the crime of Heresie his pretext only; as he did afterwards frame the same calumny against John Chrystostome. Vales. Arms the Monks against Dioscorus and his Brethren. They having been in great danger of loosing their lives, at length with great difficulty made their escape. Johannes Bishop of Constantinople was in the interim wholly ig­norant of what had been done in Egypt: and he grew famous for his Learning and Eloquence, on account whereof he became eminent [in all pla­ces.] He was also the first person that inlarged the Prayers [usually made] in the Nocturnall Hymns, [which he did] for this reason.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning the Prayers of the Nocturnall Hymns [sung] by the Arians and Homoöusians; and concerning the ingagement which hapned be­tween them: and that the singing of Hymns in parts, wherein one sang one verse, another another, had its originall from Ignatius So the holy Mar­tyr Igna­tius is usually stiled. This term is differently accented in the Greek, which makes its import different also. For if it be written [...], it denotes a Divine person, one whose soul is full of God. If it be [...], its import is passive, and implies one born or carried by God. We are told by many Learned men, that Ignatius had this title from our Saviours taking him up in his arms. For, he was that very child (they say) whom our Saviour (Mar. 9. 36.) took up, and set in the midst of his disciples. Others, on the contrary, affirm this story to be groundless and uncertain. See Dr Cave's Life of Ignatius.The­ophorus.

[Page 359]THe Arians, as we have said, had their Meetings without the City. Every week therefore, as often as the Festivall days occur­red▪ (I mean the Sabbath, and Sunday,) where­on Assemblies were usually held in the Churches; they flock't together within the City, about the publick Covered, or Arched walk [...]. Piazza's, and sang Hymns adapted to the Arian Heresie, answering one another by turns. And this they did for the most part all night long. Early in the morning they sang the same alterna­tive Hymns, passed through the midst of the City, out of its Gates, and so went to the places where they met. But in regard they would not desist from making use of such terms as gave a provocation to the Assertours of the Homoöusian opinion: (For they frequently Sang such words as these, Where are they who affirm Three to be one power?) Johannes being afraid, lest any of the more ignorant sort might be drawn away from the Church by such Hymns, in opposition to them appoints some of his own people, that they also might imploy themselves in singing of Nocturnall Hymns, and by that means both ob­scure the Sedulity of the Arians about these things, and also confirm his own party [the Orthodox] in the profession of their Faith. This design of Johannes's was seemingly good and usefull; but the conclusion of it was di­sturbance and dangers. For, in regard the Hymns of the Homoöusians, in their singing of them in the night, were performed with more of pomp and Show: (for Johannes invented Silver Cros­ses, whereon were carried wax-tapers lighted; the Empress Eudoxia being at the charge here­of:) the Arians, who were very numerous, and possest with an envious emulation, resolved to be revenged, and to make an Attack against them. For, by reason of that power and sway which they had formerly had, they were as yet hot and ready for such conflicts, and likewise they despised their adversaries. Without delay there­fore, on one of those nights they ingaged. Briso, the Empresse's Eunuch, who at that time was the Singers Instructour, received a wound in his fore­head by a stone: and moreover, some persons on both sides were slain. The Emperour incen­sed hereat, prohibited the Arians from singing their▪ Hymns any more in publick. Such, as we have declared, were the transactions then. We are further to relate, whence this usage of singing alternative Hymns in the Church had its original. I cannot imagine whence So­crates had this story. For 'tis manifest, that Flavi­anus and Diodorus were the first per­sons, who in Constan­tius's Reign divided the Quires of Singers at Antioch into two parts, and gave them David's Psalms, to be sung alternatively, or by turns: which usage being first practised at Antioch, afterwards spread over all the Churches of the world. Theodoret attests this in his Hist. lib. 2. cap. 24; as does also Theodorus Mo [...]suestenus (a person ancienter than he) who lived in the same times with Flavianus and Diodorus. Theodorus's words are quoted by Nicetas in Thesauro Orth [...]d [...]xae fidei, lib. 5. cap. 30. Although that way of singing of Psalms seems to have been used by the Syrians, before Flavianus and Diodorus's times. For Theodorus writes, that Flavianus and Diodorus were the first persons, who translated that kind of Psalmodie which they term Antiphonae [That is, when one singeth one verse, another another] out of the Syrian Language into the Grecian; and that those two persons appeared al­most the only Authours of this thing, to all the parts of the world. What therefore the Syrians had done long before Flavianus's time, (to wit, in singing of David's Psalms alternatively in Syriack,) that F [...] ­vianu [...] and Diodorus ordered to be done, by the Grecians of Antioch in their singing the Psalms in Greek. Vales. Ignatius the third Bishop of Antioch in Syria from the Apostle Peter, who also converst with the Apo­stles themselves, saw a Vision of Angells, praising the Holy Trinity by singing of Alternative Hymns, and he delivered that way of singing, which he had seen in his Vision, to the Antiochian Church. Whence the same Tradition was spread over all o­ther Churches. This is the account we have recei­ved concerning Alternative Hymns.

CHAP. IX. Concerning those termed The long Monks, and how Theophilus having conceived an implaca­ble hatred against Johannes upon their ac­count, made it his business to get him deposed [from his Bishoprick]

NOt long after this, the Monks together with Dioscorus and his Brethren, went from the Solitudes to Constantinople. They were accompa­nied by Isidorus, a person for whom Theophilus had heretofore had a great See the second chapter of this book. Love; Besides this reason of Theo­philus's hatred against Isidorus, Sozomen (book 8. chap. 12.) re­lates two other causes. The first was, because Isidorus had refused to give evidence in favour of Theophilus's Sister. The second, because [...]e had reproved Theo­philus for his over much diligence in building Churches, where­by he wasted the money of the Church, which ought rather to have been bestowed on the poor. I am easily induced to believe, that these were the reasons of Theophilus's hatred against Isido­rus; in regard both Socrates and Sozomen do expressly attest it. Notwithstanding, Isidorus was not for these reasons ejected out of the Church; but was condem­ned by the sentence of the Bi­shops, on account of Origen's Errours, which he maintained▪ as Baronius has long since in­formed us from Palladius in Lau­siaca. Vales. but was then become his most deadly Enemy, upon this account. One Peter was So Arsacius, who succeeded Chrysostome in his Bishoprick, is termed [...] Chief-Presbyter, in the Acts of the Synod ad Quercum; and one Martyrius is stiled [...], Chief-Deacon. Sozomen calls this Peter Arch-Presbyter. This is a name of honour, not of ancientness. For the Bishops Elected whom they pleased out of the Colledge of Presbyters to be Arch-Presby­ters, as Liberatus informs us in his Breviarium, chap. 14. Vales. Chief-Presbyter of the Alex­andrian Church. Theophilus had conceived an hatred a­gainst him, and took a resolu­tion of ejecting him out of the Church. He charged him with this accusation, that he had admitted a woman, by Sect a Manichaean, to [a participa­tion of] the Sacred Mysteries, before he had brought her off from the Manichaean Heresie. But in regard Peter said that the woman had renounced her Heresie, and that she had not been admitted [to the Eu­charist] contrary to Theophi­lus's mind, Theophilus was for that reason highly incensed, in regard he was calumnia­ted. For he affirmed himself to be wholly ignorant of what had been done. Peter therefore summoned Isidorus to attest, that the Bishop was not ignorant of what had been done concerning the woman. It hapned that Isidorus was at that very time at the Imperiall City Rome. For he had been sent by Theophilus to Damasus Bishop of Rome, that he might make a reconciliation between him and Flavianus Bishop of Antioch. For Meletius's adherents made a separation from Flavianus, on account of his Oath, as has been declared See book 5. chap. 15. be­fore. Isidorus therefore being returned from Rome, and summoned by Peter to give in his E­vidence, affirmed that the Manichaean woman was admitted [to the Sacrament] agreeable to the Bishop's consent: and that the Bishop himself administred the [Sacred] Mysteries to her, Hereupon Theophilus was highly enraged, and out of anger ejected them both [out of the Church.] This was the occasion of Isidorus's accompanying Dioscorus and his Brethren to Constantinople; that the designs which had frau­dulently been formed against them, might be in­spected and lai [...] open before the Emperour him­self, and Johan [...] the Bishop. Johannes infor­med hereof, gave the men an honourable rece­ption; and excluded them not from communion [Page 360] of the Prayers; but said he would not allow them a communion of the [Sacred] Mysteries, before cognizance had been taken of their Case. Whilest the affair was in this posture, a false report is brought to the hearing of Theophilus, as if Jo­hannes had both admitted them to the Sacred Mysteries, and was also ready to give them as­sistance. Wherefore [Theophilus] made it his whole business, that he might not only be reven­ged upon Dioscorus and Isidorus, but cast Jo­hannes also out of his [Episcopall] Chair. He sends Letters therefore to the Bishops of every City, concealing indeed his own design, and to appearance blaming therein Origen's Books only: [notwithstanding,] Athanasius, (who lived long before him,) in confirmation of his own Faith, has frequently made use of the authority and Testimony of Origen's writings, in his Ora­tions against the Arians.

CHAP. X. That Epiphanius [Bishop] of Cyprus being also led away by Theophilus's frauds, convened a Synod of Bishops in Cyprus, to determine a­gainst Origen's Writings, and reproved Johan­nes for reading Origen's Books.

HE became reconciled also to Epiphanius Bi­shop of Constantia in Cyprus, with whom he had heretofore disagreed. For Theophilus 'Tis false that Epi­phanius was ever so sim­ple, as to be addicted to the Heresie of the Anthropomorphitae: he had indeed once received a check upon that account from John [Bishop] of Jerusalem. But Jerome has re­futed this Calumny, and also E­piphanius himself, in that Sermon he Preach't at Jerusalem in the presence of John himself; as Je­rome (in his book to Pammachius concerning the Errours of John of Jerusalem) and Baronius (at the year of Christ 393) do relate. Wherefore, there was no need of Theophilus's feigning himself an Anthropomorphite, to curry favour with Epiphanius. Both Socrates and Sozomen were imposed upon by some Origenist, a favourer of Ammonius and Dioscorus, who told them these things. For 'twas usuall with the Origenists, (as Baronius has truly remar­ked,) to fix the crime of this Heresie upon the Catholicks, by whom they were condemned. Vales. had been angry with Epiphanius, in regard he entertained abject thoughts of God, and sub­posed him to have an humane shape. Al­though Theophilus embraced these Sentiments concerning God, and reproved those who supposed the Deity had an humane shape; yet by rea­son of the hatred he had con­ceived against some other per­sons, he openly denyed his own thoughts: and at that time entred into a friendship with Epiphanius (with whom he had before been at diffe­rence,) as if he had altered his mind, and entertained now the same Sentiment with him concerning God. He was very earnest with Epi­phanius likewise to convene a Synod of the Bishops in Cyprus, that therein Origen's Writings might be condem­ned. Epiphanius being by reason of his singular piety a person of a plain disposition and unacquainted with subtlety, was soon induced into Errour by Theophilus's Letters. And having assembled a Synod of the Bishops within the Island [Cy­prus,] prohibits the reading of Origen's Books. He sent Letters also to Johannes, intreating him to abstain from reading Origen's Works; and [requesting] that he also would convene a Synod, and make the same determination he had done. Theophilus therefore having wound in Epiphanius, a person famous for his piety, to embrace his own opinion, and perceiving that his design throve according to his wish; became more confident, and he also [...]self Socrates (and So­zomen who has fol­lowed him herein) is mistaken here, in supposing that the A­lexandrian Synod (wherein Theophilus condemned Origen's books, to­gether with Origen himself,) was held after that Synod con­vened at Constantia by Epipha­nius. 'Tis manifest, that Theo­philus did first of all convene a Synod at Alexan­dria, and condemn that Heresie in the year of Christ 399. Which was done after many conferences concerning that matter held by the Bishops who came thither, as Postumianu [...] informs us in Sulpicius's Dialogues de Vitae B. Martini. After this Theophilus sent a Synodick Letter to all the Bishops, and he wrote a particular Letter to Epiphanius, beseeching and intreating him that he would convene all the Bishops of the Island, condemn the same Heresie himself, and subscribe his Synodick Letter. This Letter of Theophilus's is at this day extant, translated by St Jerome. Vales. Assem­bled many Bishops: in which convention (a­greeable to what had been done by Epiphanius) a sentence of condemnation was ponounced a­gainst the Writings of Origen, who had been dead [...]. The particle [...] must be ex­punged. Moreover, Socrates here uses a perfect number for an im­perfect. And for this reason he adds the Term [...], That is, almost, or, thereabout. But if we would speak exactly, above fifty years must be taken from this number. For Origen died on the year of Christ 252, as may be made out from what we have said at note (b.) and (c.) on Euseb. Eccles. Histor. book 7. chap. 1. From which year, to the year of Christ 399, wherein Origen was condem­ned in the Alexandrian Synod, there are 147 years. Vales. almost two hundred years: Not that this was Theophilus's principall design, but [he did it chiefly] to be revenged on Dioscorus and his Brethren. Johannes gave little heed to what he was acquainted with either from Epiphanius, or Theophilus himself; his mind being wholly im­ployed about Preaching in the Churches. And for that indeed he was extraordinarily eminent: but he altogether slighted the plots and designes formed against him. But after it came to be apparently known to most persons, that Theo­philus made it his business to divest Johannes of his Bishoprick, then all those men who had an hatred for Johannes, joyned in their raising ca­lumnious complaints against him. And many, as well of the Clergy, as of the Grandees who had a great interest in the Imperiall Pallace, sup­posing they had a very fair opportunity offered them of being revenged upon Johannes, pro­cured a Grand Synod to be convened at Con­stantinople, sending into divers parts [for the Bishops,] partly by Letters, and partly by Mes­sengers.

CHAP. XI. Concerning the [two] Syrian [Bishops] Seve­rianus and Antiochus, how, and for what rea­sons they disagreed with Johannes.

MOreover, the Odium against Johannes was increased by another accident of this na­ture. There were two Bishops who flourished at one and the same time, by extract they were Syrians, [their names] Severianus and An­tiochus. Severianus Presided over the Church of Gabali, which is a City of Syria; and Antiochus over that of Ptolemaïs scituate in Phoenice. Both of them were famous for their eloquence. Se­verianus, though he seemed to be very Learned, yet did not pronounce the Greek tongue exactly and distinctly: but whilest he spoke Greek, his voice had the sound of Syriack. Antiochus came first to Constantinople from Ptolemaïs; and ha­ving for some time Preached in the Churches [of the Imperiall City] with much Labour and Diligence, and from them procured a great summe of money; at length he returned to his own Church. Afterwards, Severianus being in­formed that Antiochus had gotten a great deal of money at Constantinople, made it his business to follow his example. Having therefore ex­ercised himself very much, and made many Ser­mons, he also comes to Constantinople. Where being curteously received by Johannes, for some [Page 361] time he soothed and [...]attered him, and was not­withstanding beloved and honoured by Johan­nes: in the mean while he grew famous for his Sermons, and on that account came to be taken notice of by Or, ma­ny of the Magistracy. many great personages [of that City,] and moreover, by the Emperour him­self. It hapned that the Bishop of Ephesus died at that time, and Johannes was necessitated to make a journey thither, to ordain a Bishop there. Being come to that City, and finding some en­deavouring to promote one person to the Bi­shoprick, others another, (who also strove very earnestly amongst themselves upon their ac­count, for whom they gave their suffrages;) Johannes perceiving that both parties contended most pertinaciously, and would in no point be obedient to his admonitions; resolved to put an end to their contention Or, With­out labour, or, trouble. without offending either faction. He himself therefore preferred one He­raclides his Deacon, by Nation a Cypriot▪ to the Bishoprick. And so both parties desisted from their mutuall contentiousness, and were at quiet. On this account Johannes was necessitated to stay at Ephesus a long time. In the interim that he resided there, Severianus gained a greater esteem and affection from his Auditors at Constantinople. Nor was this thing unknown to Johannes. For he was with all imaginable speed acquainted with what-ever hapned. When therefore Serapion (of whom we have made mention Book 6. chap. 4. before,) suggested this to him, and told him the Church was disturbed by Severianus, Johannes was pro­voked to an Emulation. And having Or, By the by. incident­ly taken away many Churches from the Nova­tianists and Quartadecimani, he returned to Con­stantinople. Where he renewed the care of the Churches which was incumbent on him. But no body was able to endure Serapion's haughtiness and arrogancy. For in regard he was in posses­sion of a great Or, Li­berty and confidence. interest and favour with Jo­hannes the Bishop, his insolence towards all persons was immeasurable. For which reason the Odium also against the Bishop became more enkindled. Upon a time, when Severianus passed by him, Serapion refused to give him the Honour due to a Bishop: but continued in his seat, demon­strating thereby that he had but a very slight esteem for Severianus's presence. Severianus could not bear this contempt of Serapion's; but spake with a loud voice to those that were present, If Serapion dies a Christian, Christ hath not been In­carnate. Serapion having gotten this occasion, did openly render Severianus odious to Johan­nes: He concealed the first clause of the sentence, [to wit, this] if Serapion dies a Christian; and affirmed that Severianus said these words only, doubtless Christ was not incarnate. He produced a company of his own [faction] who attested that the words were spoken so. Johannes there­fore forthwith expells Severianus out of the City. This coming to the knowledge of the Empress Eudoxia, she reproves Johannes severely; and gave order that Severianus should forthwith be recalled from Chalcedon in Bithynia. He re­turned immediately. But Johannes declined his friendship; nor could he be induced thereto by the intreaty of any one. Instead of [ [...], in so much that the Empress,] in my judgment it should be [ [...], till at length the Empress.] Nor do I doubt but Socrates wrote thus. Nicephorus words it expressly according to our emendation. And in Sozomen the reading is [ [...], untill,] which is the same. Vales. Till at length the Empress Eudoxia, in that Church called The A­postles, cast her Son Theodosius (who now Reigns successfully, but was then a very young child;) before Johannes's knees, and [...]; that is, ha­ving adju­red him by her Son. The Ancients were wont to swear by their Children. So in Virgil, Per caput hoc juro, per spem surgentis Iüli:I swear by this head, by the hopes of growing Iülus. After the same manner, when they would earnestly entreat others, they beseeched them by their own children, and whatever they ac­counted most dear to themselves. In this manner therefore Eudoxi [...] spake to John Chrysostome at that time. By this little child of mine, and your spirituall So [...], whom I brought forth, and whom you received out of the sacred Font; be reconciled with Severianus. 'Tis certain Chry­sostome had received Theodosius Junior out of the sacred Font▪ as Ni­cephorus relates at this place, from Simeon Metaphrastes, as I suppose. Further, Baronius places this reconciliation between Severianus and Chrysostome, on the year of Christ 401, in the Consulate of Vincentius and Fravitus. But I had rather place it on the year following▪ For if it be true that Theodosius was then baptized, as we have before re­lated from Nicephorus: (which is indeed highly probable; for Eudoxia would not have brought her Son into the Church of the Apostles, had he not been baptized:) this reconciliation of the Bishops must neces­sarily happen on the year of Christ 402. For Theodosius Junior was born in the Consulate of Vincentius and Fravi [...]us, (which was the year of Christ 401,) on the tenth of April. For so 'tis recorded in the Alexandrian Chronicle, and in Marcellinus's which was put forth by Onu [...]rius. The reading in Sirmondus's Edition is false, where it is on the eleventh of April. Nor is it credible, that he could be bapti [...]ed, except in the Easter of the year following. If any one notwithstan­ding shall maintain, that he was baptized a few days after his birth, (as Marcus seems to intimate in the life of Porphyrius;) we will al­low this, if he pleases. But who can believe, that Theodosius would have been brought into the Church by his Mother, and placed at Chrysostome's knees, before he was a year, or ten months old? Vales. having adjured him frequently by her Son, with much adoe pre­vailed with him to admit of a friendship wi [...]h Se­verianus. After this manner therefore these two persons were to appearance reconciled: ne­vertheless, they retained a rancoured mind one towards another. Such was the occasion of Jo­hannes's grudge against Severianus.

CHAP. XII. That Epiphanius coming to Constantinople, held Assemblies, and performed Ordinations contra­ry to Johannes's mind; that he might gratifie Theophilus.

NOt long after this, Epiphanius the Bishop comes again out of Cyprus to Constantinople, induced thereto by Theophilus's Or, Ar­guments. perswasives: he brought along with him [...]. a copy of a Sen­tence of a Synod, wherein he had not declared Origen to be Excommunicate, but had condem­ned his Books only. Arriving therefore at Saint John's Church, (which is distant from the City seven miles,) and coming ashoar, he celebrated an Assembly, Baronius does at this place charge So­crates with a mistake, because he has said, that Epi­phanius or­dained a Deacon at Constantinople without the consent of the Bishop of that City. Epiphanius had done that before indeed, in the Diocess of John Bishop of Jerusalem, as 'tis manifest from Jerome's Epistles. S [...]crates therefore, and those that follow him, being deceived by the likeness of the name, thought that was done by Epiphanius in the Church of John Bishop of Constantinople. This device Ba­ronius has invented to excuse Epiphanius. But, who sees not, that there is no reason, why we should charge Socrates with a lie in those things which he himself was able to see? For what had been once done already by Epiphanius in Palaestine, why could it not afterwards be made use of by the same person at Constantinople? For there was not so great a crime in ordaining a Deacon, whom notwithstanding Epi­phanius ordained not, but by the entreaty of the multitude that stood by. Vales. and ordained a Deacon; after which he entred into the City. That he might gratifie Theophilus, he declined Johannes's invi­tation, and lodged in a little private house. And having called together those Bishops who were then at Constantinople, he produced a copy of the Sentence of condemnation against Origen's Books, and recited it to them: Instead of [ [...], I have nothing;] it must doubtless be [ [...], having nothing:] in the next line▪ we read [ [...], were pleased] instead of [ [...], is pleased.] Vales. having nothing to say [Page 362] against those Books, only he and Theophilus were pleased to reject them. Some [of the Bishops] out of that reverential respect they bore Epipha­nius, subscribed [this Decree of the Synod:] but very many of them refused to do it. Amongst which number was Theotimus Bishop of Scythia, who made this answer to Epiphanius. I (said he) will neither be injurious (O Epiphanius!) to a person who has long since ended his life piously; nor dare I attempt so impious a fact, as to condemn what our Predecessours have in no wise rejected; especially when I do not I agree with Chri­stophorson, who in stead of [ [...], saying,] read [ [...], know,] and at the end of this clause pla­ced a full point. Notwithstanding, 'tis my opinion, that there is something▪ more wanting here. And after the word [Origen,] I think the place is to be made perfect thus, [...], ha­ving said these words, and produced a book, &c. Which is confirmed by Sozomen and Nicephorus. And Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read thus, as may be collected from his Version. Vales. know of any ill doctrine in the Books of Origen. After this he produced a Book of Origen's, which he began to read, and shewed the Ecclesiastick expositions [of Scri­pture which occur'd] therein. And then he sub­joyned these words. They who are injurious to­wards these writings, perceive not that they fix a reproach upon those very Books, concerning which these are written. This was the return, which Theotimus (a person eminent for his piety and rectitude of life,) made to Epiphanius.

CHAP. XIII. What this Writer can say in defence of Origen.

BUt in regard such as delight in reproaching, have imposed upon many persons, [and disswaded them] Instead of [ [...];] the reading in the Sfortian M. S. is [ [...], &c.] And so Epiphanius Scholasticus found it written in his copy. For thus he renders it: Sed quoniam detractores, &c. But, in regard Revilers, stealing privily upon ma­ny persons, do reject Origen as be­ing a blasphemous Authour. I reade therefore, [...], from reading Origen, as being a blasphemous Authour. Vales. from reading Origen, as being a blasphemous Authour; I judge it not unseasonable to discourse a little concerning them. Vile and despicable men, who of themselves can­not arrive at an eminency, are desirous of getting a name from discommending those who are better than themselves. The first per­son affected with this di­stemper was Methodius, Bi­shop of a City in Lycia na­med Olympus. Then, Eustathius, who for some small time Presided over the Church in Antioch. After him, Appollinaris, and lastly Theophilus. This Mess of Revilers have calumniated Origen, but proceeded not in one and the same method. For one has broke out into an accusation against him upon one account, another upon another; where­by each of them hath sufficiently demonstrated, that he has fully approved of whatever he has not found fault with. For, whereas one has blamed him in particular for one opinion, another for ano­ther; 'tis manifest that each of them has wholly admitted as true what he hath not cavilled at; his silence approving of that which he has not found fault with. Methodius indeed, when [in his books] he had in many passages severely inveighed against Origen, does notwithstanding afterwards unsay as it were what he had written, and Baronius, at the year of Christ 402, does charge Socrates here with a lie and with calumny, because he has said, that Methodius (when he had before reproach't Origen,) did afterwards unsay what he had written, and set forth his praises, in his Dialogue intitled Xenωn, or, the House of entertain­ment. But Baronius affirms, that Methodius did the contrary. For when he had at the beginning praised Origen, afterwards having de­rected his Errours, he inveighed against him. Baronius confirms this by the testimony of Eusebius, who in the sixth book of his Apologic in de­ [...]ence of Origen, writes thus▪ Quomodo ausus est Methodius nunc contra Origenem scribere, qui haec & haec de Origenis l [...]cutus est dogmatibus, How dares Methodius write against Origen now; who has spoken these and these things, concerning Origen's opinions. Which pa [...]age in Eusebius St Jerome quotes in his Apologie against Rufinus, to shew that he had done the same thing which Methodius did before. But Eusebius, in the place now cited, does not say plainly, that Methodius had here­tofore spoken in defence of Origen. For he does not say [who had▪ spoken these and these things concerning Origen's opinions;] but only▪ [who has spoken, &c.] which may be taken on either side. There­fore Socrates is not to be charged with a lie. Vales. admires the man, in the Metho­dius wrote his books commonly in the way of Dia­logues, as 'tis appa­rent both from his Convivium, which is lately pub­lished by two Lear­ned men; and also from his books con­cerning the Resurre­ction, which he had written a­gainst Ori­gen, out of which books Epi­phanius produces some Ex­cerptions. Of the same sort also was this Dialogue of his, entitled Xenωn, that is, the house of entertainment wherein strangers lodge. For, as [...] is a place for Virgins to dwell in: so [...] is an house for strangers to lodge in. This book is mentioned in Photius's Bibliotheca, in his Ex­cerptions out of Methodius's book [...], where these words occur; [...], &c [...], &c. Which place the Translatour has rendred very ill: it is thus to be translated: That passage in the Gospel [cast not that which is Holy to dogs, nor your Pearls before swine] is thus explained by Xenωn, that by Pearls are meant the more secret Mysteries of the Religion given by God▪ But the hogs, &c. the great Methodius says, &c. In this Dialogue therefore, the title where­of was [...], an Origenist was introduced, by name Xenωn, against whom Methodius disputed, not in his own name, but under another person, as Photius attests in the same Excerptions. Hence 'tis apparent, that that Dialogue of Methodius's, which Socrates calls Xenωn, was the same to which Photius gives the title of [...]; and that Xenωn is not to be taken for a place of entertainment, but rather for a person of the Dialogue. But some one will object that in that Dialogue intitled Xenωn, Origen was highly commended by Me­thodius; but in the Dialogue intitled [...] Methodius terms him a Centaure. For so 'tis extant in two places in Photius's Excerptions. My answer is, 'tis possible that in the beginning of that work Methodius might have been sharp upon Origen; but in the end or procedure of it, he might sound a Retreat as it were, and praise him highly. Not­withstanding, if any one has a mind stifly to maintain, that the Dia­logue Xenωn differed from that intitled [...]; then it must be said, that Xenωn was not the proper name of any man, but that there­by is rather meant the whole School of Origen, wherein the Auditors and Schollars, coming from divers parts of the world, were conver­sant. Which in my judgment is the truest. 'Tis certain, if [...] were a proper name, it would have the accent in the last syllable save one. Vales. Dialogue to which he gave the Title of Xenωn. But, I do affirm, that an addition is made to Origen's commendation from his being accu­sed by these persons. For they who have gotten together whatever they supposed blame-worthy [in Origen,] and notwithstanding have not in the least found fault with him in these their Col­lections for entertaining ill Sentiments concerning the Holy Trinity; [these men, I say] do most evidently demonstrate and bear witness to his true and Orthodox piety. And by their not blaming him in this particular, they commend him by their own testimony. But Athanasius a cou­ragious defender of the Homoöusian Faith, in his Orations against the Arians, does with a loud voice cite this Authour as a witness of his own faith, interweaving his words with his▪ own, after this manner; The most Admirable and Laborious Origen (says he) does by his own testimony confirm our Sentiment concerning the Son of God, affir­ming him to be coëternall to the Father. They therefore who reproach Origen, have forgot themselves [and consider not] that they speak calumniously of Athanasius, Origen's praiser. But, let thus much be said concerning Origen. We will now return to the Sequell of our History.

CHAP. XIV. How Johannes (having invited Epiphanius to come to [his Pallace] and he refusing, and con­tinuing his holding of separate Assemblies in the Church of the▪ Apostles,) admonished and re­proved him, because he did many things contra­ry to the Canons. Wher [...]at Epiphanius was terrified, and returned into his own Country.

[Page 363] This be­ginning is too abrupt, especially in regard that digression concerning Ori­gen went before. Therefore in my judgment [ [...]] should precede here; and the begin­ning of the next period should run thus, [...], &c. But his answer was, &c. Vales. JOhannes was in no wise angry, because Epi­phanius had made an Ordination in his Church, contrary to the Canon: but invited him to come and lodge with him in the Bishops Pallace. But his answer was, that he would neither abide nor pray with him, unless he would expell Dioscorus and his Brethren out of the City, and with his own hand subscribe the con­demnation of Origen's Books. Upon Johannes's deferring to do these things, and saying that no­thing ought rashly to be done Or, be­fore a Ca­tholick, or, general disquisition. before a deter­mination of a Generall Councill; those that ha­ted Johannes put Epiphanius upon another design. For they contrive, that at the next Religious meeting which was to be held in that Church named The Apostles, Epiphanius should come forth publickly, Or, re­proach. condemn Origen's Books in the presence of all the people, Excommunicate Dioscorus with his followers, and reproach Jo­hannes as being their favourer. These things were declared to Johannes: and on the day fol­lowing he sends this message to Epiphanius (who was then come into the Church) by Serapion: Epiphanius, You do many things contrary to the Canons: first, you have made an Ordination in the Churches under my jurisdiction: then, without any order from me, you have made use of your own authority and ministred in the said Churches: Further, when Instead of [ [...], and a­gain] it should in my judge­ment be [ [...], hereto­fore;] (al­though this reading be disagree­able to all our co­pies.) For 'tis oppo­sed to what follows, to wit, [...], and now. Valesius. heretofore I invited you hither, you refused to come, and now you allow your self that liberty. Take heed therefore, least a tumult being raised amongst the people, even you your self incur danger therefrom. Epiphanius having heard this, was fearfull and went from the Church: and after he had very much blamed Johannes, he began his voyage to Cyprus. Some persons report, that at his going a-board, he spake these words to Johannes, I hope you will not die a Bishop. And, that Johannes made him this return, The rea­ding in the Florentine, M. S. plea­ses me best; which is, [...], do not hope, Epiphanius, to arrive in your own Country. Moreover, Ba­ronius does deservedly deride these predictions of Epiphanius and Chrysostome, as fabulous and forged. Socrates relates them not for true and certain; and in my judgment they are altogether mi [...]be­coming Holy men and Bishops. Vales. I hope you will not arrive in your own Country. I cannot positively affirm, whether they who told me these things spake true. Not­withstanding, the event was agreeable to both their wishes. For Epiphanius arrived not at Cyprus: but Baronius does indeed place that contest between Epiphanius and Chrysostome on the year of Christ 402. But concerning Epiphanius's death he dissents from Socrates, Sozomen, and the other writers, who tell us that Epiphanius died soon after, in his return to his own Country. And yet Baronius confesses he knows not what year Epi­phanius died on. Which I cannot wonder at enough. For, whereas Baronius follows Socrates and Sozomen in the fore-going account of that contest which hapned between those two eminent men, what reason had he to dissent from them about the death of Epiphanius? They might indeed have been mistaken in their relating the mutual predictions between Epiphanius and Chrysostome: nor is it sufficiently manifest, whether or no they predicted those accidents to one ano­ther. But the things which hapned to each of them are most certain, nor could Socrates and Sozomen be ignorant hereof; the latter of whom was born at Salamine, over which City Epiphanius had been Bishop; and both of them were almost Epiphanius's contemporaries. It ought therefore to be look't upon as certain from the Testi­mony of these Writers, that Epiphanius died at the close of the year 402▪ or at least on the beginning of the year following, before the Synod ad Quercum. Theophilus informs us hereof in his Epistle to Saint Je­rome, which Epistle Jerome has prefix [...] before The [...]bilus's Paschal E­pistles▪ which he translated into Latine. For in th [...]t Epistle Theophilus speaks these words concerning Chrysostome then condemned: Sed ille ut caetera ejus flagitia taccam, &c. But he, not to mention his other Crimes, admit [...]ed the Origenists to a familiarity with himself, and pre­ferred many of them to the Sacerdotall Office; on account of which fact he [...]dned the hea [...]t of that man of God Epiphanius of Blessed memory, (who shined a bright Star in the world amongst the Bishops▪) and therefore has deserved to hear, Babylon is fallen, i [...] fallen. Where you see Theophilus does speak of Epiphanius, as then dead; for he terms him a man of blessed memory: and he intimates, that he was dead be­fore Chrysostome's condemnation. Vales. after his departure died on Shipboard. And within a small time after­wards Johannes was deposed from his Bi­shoprick, as we shall manifest in the procedure of our History.

CHAP. XV. How after Epiphanius's departure, Johannes made an Oration against women, and upon that ac­count (by the care of the Emperour, and Em­press,) a Synod was convened against him at Chalcedon, and he is ejected out of his Church.

FOr, after Epiphanius's departure, Johannes re­ceived information from some persons, that the Empress Eudoxia had animated Epiphanius against him. And being a person of an hot dis­position, and of a ready expression; without de­lay he made an Oration in the presence of the people, the contents whereof were the discom­mendation of all women in generall. The mul­titude understands that Oration so, as if it had been Darkly. or, obscure­ly. Aenigmatically spoken against the Em­press. This Speech is taken in writing by male­volent persons, and brought to the knowledge of the Emperours. The Empress, informed here­of, complains to the Emperour of the injury done to herself, and tells him that her injury was his. She takes care therefore, that Theophilus should forthwith convene a Synod against Johannes: which was in like manner urged by Severianus: for he still retained his grudge [against Johan­nes.] Within a small intervall of time The­ophilus arrived, accompanied with many Bishops of severall Cities [whom he had summoned to­gether by his Letters.] Instead of [ [...], &c. Moreover, the Em­perour, &c.] I had rather it should be [ [...], &c. For the Emperour, &c.] Moreover, Chrysostome affirms the contrary to what is said here, in his Epistle to Innocentius. For he says that the Emperour commanded The­ophilus to come to Constantinople alone, to plead his cause: but, that he came thither, accompa­nied with many Bishops. Not­withstanding, these things may be reconciled, if we say that the Emperour gave Theophilus this order at the beginning, when the Monks had gone to him. But afterwards, at the instigation of his Wife Eudoxia, who was an­gry with Johannes, the Empe­rour commanded Theophilus to bring the Bishops out of Egyp [...] with him. Vales. For, the Emperour had given him this order by his Rescript. They flock't to­gether most especially, who were displeased with Johan­nes, some upon one account, others on another. They came also, whom Johannes had turned out of their Bi­shopricks. For Johannes had deposed many Bishops in A­sia, when he went to Ephe­sus upon account of ordain­ing Heraclides. All of them therefore by agreement met together at Chalcedon [a City] of Bithynia. One Cyrinus was at that time Bishop of Chalcedon, by country an Egyptian: he prated [against Johannes] before the Bishops, terming him an Impious, arrogant, and [...]. Muscul [...] renders it inflexible. Christophorson, contu­macious. I would rather translate it inexorable; for we fall down at their knees, whom we entreat. Vales. inexorable person. With which words the Bi­shops were mightily pleased. But Maruthas Bishop of Mesopotamia; against his will trod upon Cyrinus's foot. By reason of [Page 364] which [bruise] he was in very great pain, and could not accompany the rest of the Bishops in their passage to Constantinople. He therefore continued at Chalcedon; but the rest failed over to Constantinople. None of the Ecclesiasticks went out to meet Theophilus, nor shewed him the usuall respect and honour: for he was known to be [Johannes's] open enemy: The Alex­andrian Mariners, whose Corn-fleet hapned to be there at that time, went forth to meet him, and received him with acclamations of joy. Theo­philus refused to go into the Church; but took up his lodgings in one of the Emperours houses, named Placidiana. Thence-forward many ac­cusations were raised against Johannes. Nor was there the least mention now made concerning Origen's Books: but they betook themselves to other absurd criminations. Provision being made before hand after this manner, the Bishops met at a place [...]. See Euseb. book 7. chap. 11. note (k.) near the City Chalcedon termed the This was termed Sy­nodus a [...] Quercum, the Synod at the Oake. Oake, whither they cited Johannes imme­diately, that he might make his defence in re­ference to the Crimes he stood charged with. Together with him they summoned in Serapion [his Deacon,] Tygris the Eunuch a Presbyter, and Paulus a Reader. For these persons were accused together with Johannes. But, in regard Johannes made use of an Instead of [ [...]] it must be [ [...]] which is a Civill Law term: and we have ren­dred it ac­cordingly. For [...] sig­nifies an Exception. Now, one kind of an Exception is a refu­sall of the Judges. Vales. Exception, and re­fused those that summoned him in, as being his enemies, and appealed to a generall Councill; without any delays they cited him in four times. And when he refused to appear, but gave them always the same answer, they condemned and deposed him; laying no other crime to his charge but this only, that upon his being sum­moned he would not appear. This business being divulged about Evening, put the multitude into the greatest tumult immaginable: wherefore they watched all night long, and would in no wise suffer him to be taken out of the Church: but cryed out, that cognizance ought to be taken of his case in a greater Synod. But the Emperour issued out an Order, that he should be forthwith ejected, and carried into banishment. Johan­nes understanding this, surrendred himself about John Chryso­stome, in his Epistle to Innocentius, does attest, that he was put on Shipboard late in the Evening, and carried into banishment. Upon which account Ba­ronius (at the year of Christ 403.) charges Socrates with a mistake here. But, if we weigh Socrates's words more attentively, we shall find them in no wise differing from Chrysostome's Narrative. For So­crates says only, that John Chrysostome surrendred himself to the Em­perours Officers about Noon: therefore the Emperours Officers might detain him in custody till the Evening, that he might be conveyed into banishment with more secresie in the night. Vales. Noon on the third day after his deposition, the people not knowing of it. For he was afraid, least a disturbance might have been raised upon his account. So, he was conveyed away [and banished.]

CHAP. XVI. That the people being tumultuous because of Jo­hannes's banishment, Briso the Empresse's Eu­nuch, was sent to bring him back again to Constantinople.

BUt the people were intollerably tumultuous. And (as it usually happens in such cases,) those who had conceived an hatred against him, changed it into a compassion, and affirmed him to be calumniated, whom a little before they de­sired to see deposed. Upon this account there­fore, they were the most numerous, who ex­claimed both against the Emperour, and the Synod of Bishops. But in a more especiall man­ner they fix't the occasion of this calumny up­on Theophilus. For his frauds could no lon­ger continue concealed: but [were discovered] both by many other indications, and also because he communicated with Dioscorus and those ter­med the Long Monks, Yea, he communi­cated with them, be­fore Jo­hannes's case was inquired into: So Sozomen tells us, book 8. chap. 17. Vales. soon after Johannes's deposition. Moreover, at that time Severianus also (in a Sermon he Preach't in the Church,) supposing he had a fair opportunity of re­proaching Johannes, spake these words: Al­though Johannes had been condemned for nothing else, yet his proud and arrogant disposition was crime sufficient [justly to have occasioned] his deposition. For men are forgiven all other sins, but God resisteth the proud, as the Sacred Scri­ptures inform us. These words provoked the populace to an higher degree of obstinacy and contention. Upon which account the Empe­rour gave order he should be recalled imme­diately. Briso therefore the Empresse's Eunuch being sent, found him at This Town's name is written va­riously. Hierocles, Theopha­nes, Cedre­nus, Nice­phorus, and Moschopu­lus, call it Pranetum. Sozomen terms it Pronetum. In Stepha­nus 'tis named Pronectus. In the Pu­tingerian Table it is called Pro­netio. Vales. Praenetum, which is a Mart-Town scituate over against Nicomedia, and ordered him, to return to Constantinople. But in regard Johannes, after he was recalled from Exile, refused to enter the City before he had been declared innocent by a greater Judicature; in the interim therefore he abode in a Man­nours, or Farms in the Coun­try, which were at some di­stance from the City, were ter­med [...], (as we have remark't in our notes on Eusebius, book 7. chap. 11. note (k.) which the Latines do sometimes call Suburbana. Wherefore Ortelius (in his Thesaurus Geographicus) is mistaken, in his supposing Marianae to be the Suburbs of Constantinople; whenas it was a Village, so called from its builder. Sozomen (book 8. chap. 18.) says this Village was then in the Empress Eudoxia's pos­session. Vales. Village at some distance from the City, termed Ma­rianae. Upon his making delays and refusing to enter the City, the multitude was incensed, and forthwith began to cast forth opprobious words against the Emperours. For which reason Jo­hannes was forced to return. The populace there­fore went forth to meet him with [expressions of] the greatest veneration and honour, and bring him directly to the Church: entreating him to place himself in the Episcopall Chair, and (according to his former usage) pray for peace upon the people. Upon his refusing to do that, and saying that that ought to be done by a determination of the Judges, and that it was necessary his condemners should acquit him; the multitude grew more inflamed, they being extreamly desirous to see him sitting in the [Episcopall] Chair, and to hear him Preach again. At length the people prevailed to have these things done. And Johannes, after he had seated himself in the Episcopall Throne, accor­ding to his usage prayed for peace upon the people: and moreover, being constrained there­to, he Preached a Sermon to them. This thing gave Johannes's adversaries an occasion of [raising] another calumnious accusation a­gainst him. But concerning that they spake not one word then.

CHAP. XVII. That upon Theophilus's desiring to discuss He­raclides's case then absent, and Johannes's refusing to permit him; an engagement hap­ned between the Constantinopolitans and A­lexandrians, wherein many were slain [on both sides.] At which Theophilus and some other of the Bishops were terrified, and fled from the City.

[Page 365]BUt in the first place Theophilus made an at­tempt to call in question Heraclides's Instead of [...]] it must undoubtedly be [ [...] &c.] which is the rea­ding in Georgius Alexandrinus's Life of John Chrysostome. Vales. Ordination; that so, if possible, he might make that an occasion of deposing Johannes [a­gain.] Heraclides was not present: but was judged in his absence, as if he had un­justly beaten some persons, bound them with chains, and caused them to be led thorow the midst of the City Ephesus. And when Johannes and his fa­vourers affirmed, that judgment ought not to be Or, made against. passed upon those that were absent; the Alex­andrians on the contrary stifly maintained, that Heraclides's accusers ought to be admitted, al­though they accused him in his absence. A tu­mult therefore and a sharp conflict was forth­with raised between the Constantinopolitans and Alexandrians. And a Fight hapned, wherein many persons received wounds, and some few were slain. Upon sight hereof, Theophilus fled forthwith to Alexandria: the same was done by the other Bishops, excepting a few who were of Johannes's side. And all of them made their escape and went to their own [Sees.] These things hapning thus, Theophilus was condemned in the judgment of all men. Moreover, the O­dium against him was increased, by his being in no wise ashamed of reading Origen's Books constantly after this. Being asked therefore by one, why he would again embrace those Books which he had condemned; his answer was this: Origen's Books are like a Medow adorned with all manner of flowers. If therefore I find any thing that is good amongst them, I gather it. But, if any thing appears thorny to me, that (in regard it pricks) I let alone. This was The­ophilus's answer; but he considered not this saying of wise Solomon: that, † the words of the * The first clause of this saying occurs at Eccles. 12. 11. wise are as goads, and they ought not to kick a­gainst them, who are pricked by the precepts [con­tained therein.] For these reasons Theophilus was condemned in all mens judgments. More­over Dioscorus (one of those termed The Long Monks) Bishop of Hermopolis, Dioscorus Bishop of Hermopolis was dead before the convention of the Sy­nod at the Oak, nor was he bu­ried in the Church at the Oak, but in St Mocius's Church; as Sozomen attests book 8. chap. 17. St Mocius's Church was at Constantinople, as we are informed by Pro­copius and others. Wherefore Socrates is mistaken, who attributes that to Dioscorus, which was rather to have been said concerning his brother Ammonius. For, at such time as the Synod ad Quercum [that is, the Synod at the Oak] was summoned, Ammonius fell into a distemper. And having passed over to The Oak, he died soon after, and was honoured with a splendid funerall, in the Monastery of that place, as Sozomen tells us book 8. chap. 17. Vales. died a little after Theophilus's flight, and was honoured with a splendid Funerall, being buried in the Church at The Oak, wherein the Synod upon Johan­nes's account had been convened. But Johan­nes imployed himself about Preaching. And ordains Serapion (for whose sake the Odium a­gainst him had been raised,) Bishop of Hera­clea in Thracia. Not long after, these things also hapned.

CHAP. XVIII. Concerning Eudoxia's Silver Statue, and how Jo­hannes was ejected out of his Church again on account of that, and conveyed into banishment.

A Marcel­linus (in his Chroni­con) re­ports this Statue to have been made in the Consulate of Theodo­sius Junior and Rumoridus, which was the year of Christ 403: his words are these: Eudoxiae Arcadii uxo­ris super porphyreticam Columnam argentea Statua suxta Ecclesiam posita hactenus fistit, a Silver Statue of Eudoxia, wise to Arca­dius, placed upon a Porphyry-pillar near the Church still stands. The­ophanes relates the same, who says, that that Statue was erected in that place called Pittacia, neer the Church of St Irene; and that at the dedication thereof the Prae­fect of the City (who was a Manichaean and a Semipagan) ex­cited the people to shout and daunce in such a manner, that the divine Service could not quietly be performed in the Church, because of the noyse made by the multitude of Daun­cers. Notwithstanding▪ Baro­nius places the dedication of this Statue on the year of Christ 404, But in regard Marcellinus Comes, in his Chronicon does in express words place it on the Consulate of Theodosius Junior and Rumori­dus, I judge it more safe to fol­low his opinion; provided it be said to have been made after the Synod ad Quercum, and after Chry­sostome's first condemnation, that is about the close of the year 403. And this is confirmed by Socrates. For he adds a little after, that when the Nativity of our Lord drew neer, Arcadius gave Johan­nes notice, that he could not come to the Church. Now, John was deposed a little before Ea­ster, in the year of Christ 404. Vales. Silver Statue of the Empress Eudoxia, clothed in a womans stole, had been e­rected upon a pillar of Porphyry. It stood upon an high Basis, not very near, nor yet at any great distance from that Church named Sophia: but there was the distance of half the breadth of the street between them both. At that Statue publick sports were usually celebrated. Johannes sup­posing what was perfor­med [at those sports] to be done in contempt to the Church, reassumed his usu­all freedom and boldness of speech, and armed his tongue against those who did these things. And whereas he ought to have perswaded the Emperours by an Ex­hortatory Oration, to ab­stain from such sports; he did not doe that: but made use of his sharp tongue, and reproach't those who had ordered these [sports] to be performed. The Empress did again apply these ex­pressions to her self. And supposing Johannes's words [to be spoken] in con­tempt to her, she makes it her business to have another Synod of Bishops convened against him. Johannes, made sensible hereof, Preach't that famous Sermon of his in the Church, the beginning where­of is this: [...], &c. This Homily occurs at Tom. 7. pag. 545. of Sr Hen. Savils E­dition of Chrysostome. Herodias rages again, she is again disturbed, she dances again, she again desires to receive John's head in a Charger. Hereby the Empress was more highly exasperated. And not long after the Bishops arrived, to wit, Leontius Bishop of An­cyra in Galatia the Less: Ammonius of Laodicea which is in Pisidia, This Briso seems to be a dif­ferent person from Briso the Bi­shop, who (as Cedrenus tells us) was one of John Chrysostome's Scholars. And Socrates seems to have put Philippi instead of Philippopolis. For Philippopolis is an eminent City of Thracia. But Philippi is a City of Macedo­nia. Vales. Briso of Phi­lippi in Thracia: Acacius of Beroea in Syria, and some others. After these Pre­lates were come, those who had accused Johannes before, were set up again. Johan­nes was emboldened with a greater degree of confidence before these Judges: and de­sired that the Crimes he was accused of, might be inquired into. [In the interim, the Feast of] Our Saviour's Nativity approached, and the Emperour, as he had usu­ally done before, went not to the Church: but gave Johannes notice, that he would not com­municate with him, till such time as he should clear himself of the Crimes he stood charged with. Farther, in regard Johannes's accusers shewed a despondency and fearfulness of mind, by reason of his great confidence; the Bishops that were present superseded their researches into any thing else, and affirmed that a scru­tiny was to be made concerning this only, to wit, that after his deposition he had thrust himself into his Episcopall Chair, without ha­ving had it adjudged to him by the authority of a Synod. When Johannes made answer, that sixty Bishops who held communion with him, had decreed that; Leontius rejoyned [in [Page 366] these words,] Baronius (at the year of Christ 404,) charges Socrates with a lie here. For, in the Sy­nod at the Oak thirty six Bishops only had condem­ned Johan­nes: of which twenty nine were Egyptians, the rest were of divers Provinces, as Theodorus (in Palladius, in his Dialogue concer­ning the Life of Chrysostome,) relates from the Acts of the Synod at the Oak. But when he was afterwards recalled to Constantinople, he had been admitted to communion by sixty five Bishops. Either there­fore Socrates must necessarily be mistaken, who has said that Chry­sostome was condemned by more Bishops than those by whom he had been admitted to communion and restored; or else it must be said that Palladius is out. Unless any one will reconcile these things by saying thus, viz. That Leontius the Bishop has here reckoned the suffrages of the Bishops together, who had con­demned John Chrysostome in both Synods, as well that held at the Oak, as the other assembled at Constantinople. For although, at such time as Leontius spake these words, the Bishops present in the Constantinopolitane Synod had not pronounced sentence a­gainst Chrysostome, yet Leontius, who knew they were incensed a­gainst Chrysostome, made not the least doubt of their suffrages. Vales. But they were the more in num­ber, O Johannes! who condemned you in the Synod. Again, when Johannes urged, that that was not a Canon of the Catholick Church, Palladius tells us, that this very answer was given by John Chry­sostome's defenders, against the Canon of the Antiochian Synod; to wit, that that Canon was made by the Arian Bishops. But Chry­sostome's adversaries rejected this defence, asserting that Canon to have been made by the Catholick Bishops. And when Elpidius, a Bishop of Chrysostome's party, urged them to subscribe that draught of the Creed then promulged by those Bishops; they answered in presence of the Emperour, that they were ready to subscribe it: but they put off that business to another time. Therefore, what must we determine concerning this question? Athanasius indeed, in his book de Synodis, does wholly reject that Antiochian Synod, toge­ther with its draught of the Creed, as having been held by the Arians with a design to subvert the Nicene Creed. But to Athanasius (who cannot be a sufficient witness in his own case,) we in the first place oppose Hilarius, then Pope Julius, and lastly, all the Eastern and Western Bishops, who have now at length by a generall consent ad­mitted of that Synod. Hilarius, 'tis certain, (in his book de Synodis) does fully admit of it, and commends that form of the Creed drawn up there, as being usefull and necessary, on account of the Heresies which sprang up after the Nicene Councill. Moreover, Pope Julius wrote a Synodick Epistle to all the Bishops who had been convened in that Synod; amongst whom were Eusebius, Narcissus, Theodorus, and Maris. Which Synodick Epistle Athanasius does record intire, at pag. 739. &c. Tom. 1. Edit. Paris. 1626. In the title and body of that Letter, Julius terms them Beloved Brethren; which undoubted­ly he would never have done, had he lookt upon them to have been Arians. Now, what reason had he to look upon them to be Arians, who as yet had not been condemned by the sentence of any Synod; and amongst whom there were very many stiff maintainers of the Ni­cene Creed, which Baronius himself does not deny? Of which sort was Dianius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, whom Julius names in the first place; concerning whose praises Basil the Great has a peculiar Epistle extant. Lastly, all the Easterns have acknowledged that Synod to be Catholick, and inserted its Sanctions into the book of Canons, soon after John Chrysostome's times, as appears from the Chalcedon-Councill. And at▪ length the Western Church has by degrees admitted of those Canons, rendred into Latine by Dionysius Exiguus. Not­withstanding, in John Chrysostome's times they might be rejected, in regard they were not received by a generall consent of the whole Church, nor as yet admitted by the Romish Church. Pope Innocentius, in his Epistle to the Constantinopolitan Church, (which Sozomen has recorded, book 8. chap. 26.) does in no wise admit of these Canons. Vales. but of the Arians making; (For the Bi­shops See So­crat. book 2. chap. 10. heretofore convened at An­tioch in order to the subversion of the Homoöusian Faith, out of their hatred to Athanasius, made that Canon:) [Leontius and his party] rejected his defence, and pronounced sentence against him: not considering, that by making use of that Canon, Christophorson supposed that these words were spoken by Socrates concerning the Bishops convened in the Antiochian-Synod. But I think they are to be understood concerning the Bishops then assembled at Constantinople against John Chrysostome. And in this sense Epipha­nius Scholasticus and Musculus took this place: for Epiphanius has rendred it thus, non intelligentes, quod dum hâc regulâ uterentur, Atha­nasium quoque deponerent, not understanding, that whilest they made use of this Canon, they deposed Athanasius also: and Musculus has translated it happily after this manner: nec cogitantes, non Johannem se modò, sed & ipsum Athanasium hoc Canone utentes deponere, nor thinking, that by using of this Canon, they deposed not only Johannes, but even Athanasius himself. Vales. they depo­sed Athanasius also. These things were trans­acted at the approach of the Feast of Easter. The Emperour therefore gives Johannes notice, that Christo­phorson thought these words were spo­ken con­cerning John, who after this was with­held from entring the Church▪ But I▪ had rather they should be understood of the Em­perour himself; in which sense Epi­phanius and Musculus takes them. Our senti­ment is confirmed by that passage in Socrates which oc­curs a little before in this cha­pter: where he relates, that Arcadius at the approach of Christmas, gave John notice, that he could not come into the Church, unless John (who had been condemned by the sentence of a Synod,) should first clear himself. After the same manner therefore, at the approach of Easter, Arcadius gives John notice, that he could not go to the Church, as long as John, condemned now by two Synods, resided therein. Vales. he could not come to the Church, because two Synods had condemned him. Wherefore Johannes desisted in future, and went not any more to the Church. On which account those of his party left the Church immediately, and celebrated Easter in the publick Baths termed Constantianae. There were with them many Bi­shops, Presbyters, and others of the Ecclesiastick Function; who were termed Johannitae, because from that time they held Meetings in severall places apart by themselves. Johannes appeared not at all in publick, for the space of two months, till such time as the Emperour issued out an Or­der for his being carried away into Exile. By virtue whereof he was drawn out of the Church, and conveyed into banishment. On which very day some of the Johannitae set the Church on fire. Whilest that was burning, an Easterly wind blew, which conveyed the fire to the This Edifice was called the Senate-house. The Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, at the sixth Consulate of Honorius which he bore with Aristaenetus, has these words: [...]. And on a sudden the Great Church was burns together with the Senate-house, [fired] by those who held it, termed the Xylocercetae, on the second day, at the sixth hour. See Chronic. Alexandr. pag. 714. Edit. Monach. 1615. Zosimus describes this Structure about the middle of his fifth book. It was in the Second Ward of the City Constantinople, as we are informed from the Old description of that City, published before the Notitia Imperii Romani. Vales. Senate-house, whereby that was burnt. This hapned on the twentieth of June, in Honorius's sixth Consulate, which he bore with Aristaenetus. Moreover, what mischiefs the Praefect of Constan­tinople (whose name was This (if I mistake not) is the Manichaean and Semipagan Prae­fect of the City, who, at the dedication of Eudoxia's Statue, had mocked the Christians, as we have related before (see note (a.) in this chapter.) from Theophanes. Palladius (in the Life of Chry­sostome) speaks concerning the same Optatus; that when he was Praefect of the City, he compelled the Noble Matrons either to communicate with Arsacius, who had been put into John Chrysostome's Bishoprick, or else to pay two hundred pounds of Gold into the Ex­chequer. Vales. Optatus, an Heathen as to his Religion, and therefore an hater of the Christians) did to Johannes's friends upon ac­count of this fire, and how he destroyed many of them by a capitall punishment, I think fit to omit.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning Arsacius, who was Ordained Johan­nes's successour, and concerning Cyrinus [Bi­shop] of Chalcedon.

SOme few days after, Arsacius is Ordained Bi­shop of Constantinople; he was brother to Ne­ctarius, who had been Johannes's predecessour in that Bishoprick, and had governed it well: but he was very aged. For he was above eighty years old. During his calm and peaceable pre­sidency over that Bishoprick, by reason of his sin­gular mildness, Cyrinus Bishop of Chalcedon, See chap. 15. whose foot Maruthas Bishop of Mesopotamia had unawares trod upon, was in so very ill a con­dition, that his foot putrified, and he was forced to have it cut off. Nor was this abscission perfor­med once only, but it was many times itera­ted. For Or, the destemper. the Gangrene preyed upon his whole [Page 367] body, in so much that it seized his other foot, which he was forced to have cut off also. I have mentioned this thing for this reason, in regard many persons did affirm, that Cyrinus suffered all this on account of the opprobrious words he had spoken against Johannes; for he frequently termed him an inexorable person, as I have said Chap. 15. before. And because [about the same time] there fell an hail, [the stones whereof were] of a vast bigness, at Constantinople and in the Sub­urbs round that City; (which hapned in the See the close of the foregoing chapter. fore-mentioned Consulate▪ about the thirtieth of September:) this was said to have been an act of divine vengeance for Johannes's unjust deposition. These reports had more of credit given to them and were improved by the Em­presse's death, which hapned soon after. For she ended her life on the fourth day after the hail fell. Others affirmed, that Johannes was de­servedly deposed, because, when he was in Asia and Lydia, he had seized upon many Chur­ches belonging to the Novatianists, Quartadeci­mani, and some other [Hereticks, to wit,] at such time as he made a journey to Ephesus on account of Heraclides's Ordination. But, whether Johan­nes's deposition were just, agreeable to their say­ing who were incensed against him; or whether Cyrinus underwent a due punishment for his re­proachfull language; and whether the hail fell, and the Empress died, upon Johannes's account; or whether these things hapned for other rea­sons; or for both; God knows, who is the discerner of things secret, and the just Judge of Truth it self. I have recorded what the com­mon reports of men were at that time.

CHAP. XX. How, after Arsacius, Atticus obtained the Con­stantinopolitan See.

BUt Arsacius did not long survive his taking the Bishoprick. For, on the following Consulate, which was Stilichon's second and Anthemius's first, about the eleventh of No­vember he died. Many persons being excee­dingly desirous of obtaining the Bishoprick, and for that reason much time having been spent, on the following Consulate, which was Arca­dius's sixth and Probus's first, a Religious per­son was promoted to the Bishoprick, his name Atticus. By originall extract he was of Sebastia in Armenia, but had followed an Ascetick course of life from his younger years; and, besides his being furnished with a competency of Learning, he was endowed with a greater degree of natural prudence. But I shall speak concerning this per­son hereafter.

CHAP. XXI. Concerning Johannes's departure to the Lord in exile.

JOhannes being carried into banishment, died at Comani upon the Euxine Sea, on the four­teenth of Instead of [No­vember,] it must be [September,] as it is in the Sfortian M. S. and in Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version. Nor did Nicephorus read other­wise, who adds, that the day whereon John Chrysostome died, was dedicated to the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. For so it was agreeable, that he who had passed his whole life under the Cross, and had gloried in nothing but in the Cross of his Lord, should be loosed from the Frame of his body on that Festivall, as the same Nicephorus does elegantly write. Vales. September, in the following Con­sulate, which was Honorius his seventh and The­odosius's second. He was a person (as I have said chap. 3. before) by reason of his zeal for tem­perance, more addicted to anger than bashfull­ness, and because of his sanctity of life; he al­ways made use of too great a liberty of speech. But it is▪ to me a wonder, how he, who was so zealous a follower of Temperance, should teach in his Sermons, that Temperance was to be con­temned. For, whereas the Synod of Bishops al­lowed repentance but once to those who lapsed after Baptism, he was so bold as to say, [In what Homily this was said by Chryso­stome, I cannot find. And yet we have little reason to question Socrates's authority, because he lived in the same times, and could have heard the Sermons, as well of Chrysostome, as of Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatians. Moreover▪ it may be more certainly concluded from this passage, than from any other, that Socrates was a Novatianist. For he does both put an ill interpretation upon Chry­sostome's saying, and also openly favours Sisinrius Bishop of the Nova­tian party, against John Chrysostome.—You must know further, that this saying was objected to Chrysostome by Bishop Isaacius in the Synod ad Quercum▪ because he gave sinners a liberty, in regard he taught, if you have sinned again, repent again. And, as often as you sin, come to me and I will heal you. Vales. al­though] you have repented a thousand times, ap­proach. For which doctrine many of his ac­quaintance rebuked him; but more especially Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatianists: who wrote a book against this saying [of Chrysostome's,] and reproved him sharply for it. But, these things hapned long before this time.

CHAP. XXII. Concerning Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatianists, what expressions he is said to have used in his discourses with Johannes.

BUt, I judge it not inopportune, to speak some­thing briefly concerning Sisinnius. He was (as I have often said) an eloquent person, and an excellent Philosopher. But in a more espe­ciall manner he had taken pains about Logick, and was incomparably well versed in interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. In so much that Eunomius the Heretick would [out of fear] frequent­ly avoid his judicious and powerfull acuteness in discourse. His diet was not slender. But though he was eminently temperate, yet his Fare was sumptuous and magnificent. His way of living was splendid and delicate, [he was clad] in a white garment, and bathed himself twice a day in the publick Baths. Being on a time asked by one, why he that was a Bishop, would bathe twice a day; his answer was, be­cause I cannot bathe, thrice. At another time, when out of respect he went to give Arsacius the Bishop a visit, he was asked by one of those about Arsacius, why he would wear a garment misbecoming a Bishop? And where it was writ­ten that a Priest should be cloathed in a white garment? His answer was, tell me first where is it written, that a Bishop should wear a black garment? And when he that asked him, was in doubt [how to return answer] to this contrary question, Sisinnius added: You, said he, can never shew that a Priest ought to wear black. But Solomon is my Authour, whose words are, Eccles. 9. 8. Let thy gar­ments be white. And our Saviour in the Luke 9. 29. Gospels, appeared clothed in a white garment. Moreover, he shewed Moses and Elias, wearing white gar­ments, to the Apostles. Having with readiness said these and many other such words as these, he was greatly admired by those that were pre­sent. When Leontius Bishop of Ancyra in Ga­latia [Page 368] the Less, had taken the Church [there] from the Novatianists, and was [at that time] come to Constantinople, Sisinnius went to him, and entreated him to restore the Church. But Leontius in an heat made answer, and said to him, You Novatianists ought not to have Churches, [in regard] you take away Repentance, and ex­clude the loving kindness of God. After Leontius had spoken these and more such ill words against the Novatianists, Sisinnius made answer, But no person repents in such a manner as I do. When Leontius added again, How do you Repent? Sisin­nius, subjoyned, because I have seen you In Suidas, at the word [...], this whole passage in So­crates is transcribed, where the word [ [...], [...]e answered] is wanting. Which word must ei­ther be expunged here as super­fluous, [which we have done in our Version;] or else the word [ [...], subjoyned] which went before, must be blotted out Vales.. One time, Johannes reproved Sisinnius, and said to him, a City can­not have two Bishops; Sisin­nius's answer was, Nor has it. Johannes being angry hereat, and saying, you seem desirous of being the only Bishop; Sisinnius replyed, I do not say that, but that I am not a Bishop in your account only, when as notwithstanding other persons look upon me to be such. Johannes incensed at that answer, I (said he) will make you leave Preaching; for you are an Heretick. To which Sisinnius made this plea­sant return: But I will give you a reward, if you will free me from so great pains. Johannes being mollified with this answer, replied, I will not make you leave off Preaching, if that Office be trou­blesome to you. So facetious was Sisinnius, and so ready at answering. It would be tedious to write and record all his sayings. Wherefore, I have accounted it sufficient, by these few to shew what manner of person he was. I will only add this, that he was very eminent for his Learning; on which account, all the Bishops that were his suc­cessours, loved and honoured him. Moreover, all the eminent personages of the Senatorian or­der had a great affection for, and admired him. He wrote many Books: but Or, he hunts after words, &c. he is too studious about words in them, and intermixes Poetick terms. He was more admired for his speaking, than his writing. For, in his face and voice, in his garb and aspect, and in the whole motion of his body, there was a gracefullness. By reason of which [accomplishments,] He was beloved both by all Sects, and chiefly by Atticus the Bishop. But, I think thus much sufficient [to have been said] concerning Sisinnius.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning the death of the Emperour Arcadius.

NOt long after the death of Johannes, the Emperour Arcadius died; a man of a mild and quiet temper, and who at the close of his life got the repute of a person beloved by God, for this reason. There is at Constantinople a very spacious house, which is termed That is, a nutt-tree. Carya. For, in the Court of this house there is a Nutt-tree, on which ('tis reported) the Martyr Acacius was hanged, and compleated his Martyrdom. On this account a small Church was built near that tree. The Emperour Arcadius desirous to see this Church, went into it [one day:] and when he had said his prayers, came out again. All those persons who dwelt near that Church, ran together to see the Emperour. Some went out of the house, and made it their business to take their standings before hand in the streets, from whence they supposed they might have a plainer view of the Emperour's countenance▪ and of the Guards that were about him. Others followed, untill all persons, together with the women and children, were got out of the Church. After which, all that great house, the buildings whereof enclosed the Church on every side, fell down immediately. Hereupon followed an out­cry, together with an admiration, because the Emperours prayer had delivered so great a mul­titude of persons from destruction. This hapned thus. [Moreover, Arcadius] leaving his Son Theodosius, then but eight years old, ended his life in the Consulate of Bassus and Philippus, on the first of May: this was the second year of the two hundredth ninety seventh Olympiad. He reigned with his Father Theodosius thirteen years: after his Fathers death [he reigned] fourteen; he lived one and thirty years. This book contains the Or, the Space. History of twelve years and six months.

This Ap­pendix is part of the eleventh chapter of this book, worded in a different manner only. Musculus, Grynaeus, and Dr Hanmer have omitted it in their Versions. Christophorson, Curterius, and Valesius have inserted it in their translations. The Greek Text of it occurs in Stephens's Edition, and in Valesius's; from which latter we have rendred it into English. In other Copies this following passage occurs, not as if it were omitted, but worded in a different manner. We judged it therefore meet to annex it. On which account we have added it at this place.

BUt, in regard the Bishop of Ephesus hapned to die in the interim, Johannes was necessi­tated to go to Ephesus, to ordain a Bishop. Be­ing arrived in that City, and some endeavouring to promote one person, others another; he pre­ferred one Heraclides, his own Deacon, by Coun­try a Cypriot, to the Bishoprick. Whereupon a disturbance being raised in Ephesus, because He­raclides was [reputed] unworthy of the Epis­copate; Johannes was forced to stay at Ephesus for some time. During his residence there, Se­verianus grew more beloved and esteemed by his Auditors at Constantinople. Nor was this un­known to Johannes. For he was speedily ac­quainted with what hapned by Serapion, whom he had a singular affection for, and to whom he committed the whole care of his Episcopate, in regard of his piety, his fidelity in all concerns, his prudence in the management of all matters, and his studiousness about defending the Bishops Rights. After some time, Johannes returns to Constantinople, and personally undertook again a becoming care of the Churches. But between Serapion the Deacon, and Severianus the Bishop, there arose a great [...], a narrowness of mind. dissention; Serapion oppo­sing Severianus, because he strove to out-do Jo­hannes in his Preaching; and Severianus en­vying Serapion, because Johannes the Bishop fa­voured him highly, and entrusted him with the whole care of his Episcopate. Being thus af­fected one towards the other, the vehemency of their hatred hapned to be much increased by this reason. To Severianus on a time pas­sing by, Serapion Or, gave not. shewed not that honour which is due to a Bishop: but continued in his feat; whether it was because he saw him not, (as Serapion afterwards affirmed upon oath before the Synod;) or whether it was because he slighted the presence of a Bishop, (as Severianus averred,) [which of these was truest] I cannot say: God only knows. But Severianus could not then bear Serapion's con­tempt; [Page 369] but immediately, even before cognizance had been taken of the cause in a publick Synod, with an He means the oath mentioned before, at the 11th chapter, to wit, if Serapion dies a Christian, Christ hath not been incarnate. Further▪ these words [condemns] and [excommu­nicates] denote Severianus's menaces, rather than the thing it self. For Severianus Bishop of Gabali had no power of condemning or deposing a Deacon of another Diocess; but he only threatned to do this, and committed his complaint to the judgment of the Bishops. Vales. oath condemns Serapion, and not only [divests him] of the dignity of a Deacon; but ex­communicates him also from the Church. Johan­nes hearing this, took it very ill. But afterwards, when the business came under scru­tiny before a Synod, and Serapion excused the fact, and averred that he saw him not, and also produced witnesses [in confirmation thereof;] the whole Synod of Bishops then convened pardoned him, and entrea­ted Severianus to admit of Serapion's excuse. But Jo­hannes the Bishop, that he might fully satisfie Severianus, removes Serapion and suspends him from the Or, the honour. Office of a Deacon for a weeks space: although he used him as his right hand in all businesses, in regard he was a most acute and diligent person about Ecclesiastick Disputes and Answers. Notwithstanding, Se­verianus could not thus be prevailed with: but made it his whole business to get Serapion not only wholly degraded from his Diaconate, but excommunicated also. Johannes was sorely vex­ed hereat, went out of the Synod, and left the Bishops then present to determine the cause, having spoken these words to them: Do you inquire into the cause, and make such a defini­tive determination as you shall think fit. For I refuse to determine the difference between them. After Johannes had spoken these words, and was risen up, the whole Synod arose likewise, and left the cause in the same state it was in, bla­ming Severianus rather, because he Or, was not obedi­ent to what, &c. acquiesced not in what had been said by Johannes the Bi­shop. But Johannes admitted not Severianus to a familiarity any more in future: but ad­vised him to return into his own Country, sig­nifying thus much to him: Severianus, (said he,) 'tis not expedient, that the Diocess you are intrusted with should for so long a time continue unlookt-after▪ and destitute of the presence of its Bishop. Wherefore, hasten your return to your Churches, and neglect not the Gift [which God hath bestowed] upon you. When Severianus had begun his journey, the Empress Eudoxia, informed hereof, reproves Johannes, and causes Severianus to be forthwith recalled from Chal­cedon in Bithynia. He came back immediately. But Johannes declined a friendship with him, and could by no persons entreaty be prevailed upon: till such time as the Empress Eudoxia, in that Church called the Apostles, cast her Son Theodosius Junior, then a very young child, before Johannes's knees, and having con­jured him frequently by her Son, with much a-do perswaded him to admit of a friend­ship with Severianus. After this manner there­fore, See chap. 11, at the latter end of it. &c.

THE SEVENTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS.

CHAP. I. That after the Emperour Arcadius's death, (who left his Son Theodosius, then eight years old;) Anthemius the Praefect had the chief manage­ment of affairs in the Empire.

THE Emperour Arcadius having en­ded his life on the first of May, in the Consulate of Bassus and Philip­pus; Honorius his Brother [still] Governed the Western Empire: the Eastern was under the Government of That is, Arcadius's Son. his Son Theodosius Junior, at that time eight years of age. Anthe­mius the Praefectus Praetorio had the chief manage­ment of the publick affairs. He was Grandchild to that Philippus, See So­crates book 2. chap. 1 [...]. who in Constantius's Reign ejected Paulus the Bishop, and introduced Mace­donius into his See. Nicepho­rus (book 14. chap. 1.) relates that this Anthemius enlarged the Pomoerium, [that is, a space about the walls of a City or Town, as well within as without, which was not to be built upon▪] of the City Con­stantinople, demolished the old walls, and built new on [...] towards the Continent, which (says he) are now standing: and that he finished the work with an incredible swiftness, to wit, within the space of two months. For so I render [...], that is, walls to the Land­ward, and not as Langus does, Brick-walls. But Nicephorus seems to be mistaken, who attributes that to Anthemius, which was done long after by Cyrus Praefect of Constantinople, (as Cedrenus relates in his Chronicon,) on the 26th year of Theodosius Junior. Further, I would very willingly expunge this whole clause in our Socrates. For it disturbs the sense, and seems to have crept from the Margin into the Text. Vales. He encompassed Constan­tinople [Page 370] with a great wall. Of all the men of his own times, he was accounted and in reality was the most prudent person. He never did any thing without advice, but consulted with many of his acquaintance concerning what ought to be done; chiefly, with This Troïlus the Sophista was one of Anthemi­us's chief­est friends, as (besides Socrates) Synesius informs us in his Epistle to Troïlus. Socrates mentions the same Troïlus, at chap. 6. book 6. where he speaks concerning Eusebius Scholasticus, who wrote Gaina's war in verse. Suidas has mentioned the same person, in the word [...], where he affirms that he wrote Politick Orations, and Books of Epistles. Vales. Troïlus the Sophista, who, besides the Instead of [ [...], friendship] the reading in the Floren­tine M. S. is truer, thus, [ [...], wisdom.] Which emendation is confirmed by Nicephorus. Vales. Valesius (in his account of the Life and Writings of Socrates and Sozomen) reads [...], Philo­sophy; which alteration in the reading he makes in his Appendix to his Notes on Socrates and Sozomen. wisdom that was in him, was Anthemius's equall in Politicall knowledge. Wherefore, al­most all things were done with Troïlus's advice.

CHAP. II. Concerning Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, what manner of person he was as to his temper and dis­position.

DUring therefore the Emperours being in the eighth year of his age, Atticus was in the third year of his Episcopate over Constantinople, and was highly eminent. He was a person, (as we have said Book 6. chap. 20. before,) besides his great Lear­ning, pious and prudent. Wherefore, he much augmented the Churches under his jurisdicti­on. For he not only defended those of his own Creed, but caused the Hereticks also to admire his prudence. He was in no wise vexations to them; but when he had attempted to terrifie them, afterwards he shewed himself mild to­wards them. Nor was he careless about his studies. For he bestowed much pains in rea­ding ancient Writers, spending whole nights in perusing them. Wherefore, he was not un­acquainted with the discourses of the Philosophers and Sophistae. Moreover, to those that addrest to him, he was pleasant and delectable: He groaned with such as were sorrowfull: and, that I may speak summarily, according to the Apostle's [example,] 1 Cor. 9. 22. he was made all things to all men. Formerly, during his being a Pres­byter, he made Sermons; gat them by heart, and Preach't them in the Church. But afterwards, by his assiduity, he procured such a readiness of expression, as to be able to speak Or, with­out pr [...]me­ditation. extemporè, and followed a panegyricall way of Preaching. Notwithstanding, his Sermons were not such, as were either received by his Hearers with ap­plause, or committed to writing. But, concer­ning his Temper, Moralls, and Learning, let this suffice. I will now relate those memorable passages which hapned in his times.

CHAP. III. Concerning Theodosius and Agapetus Bishops of Synnada.

IN It would be more truly writ­ten Synna­da, with a double n. For so the name of this City is more frequently inscribed on old Coyns. Jo­hannes Tri­stanus has produced a Coyn of the Emperour Caracalla's, which has this inscri­ption, [...] [Synnade [...]n.] Yet 'tis sometimes written with a single n. So it is in an old Coyn of the Emperour Nerva's; in the reverse whereof Jupiter is engraven with this Inscription, ‘ [...].’ This Coyn was in the Archives of that illustrious personage the Lord Bryennius, concerning the meaning whereof when I was asked by the Learned Franciscus Ogerius▪ (to whom Pati [...]us had communica­ted that Coyn,) my answer was, it was to be read thus, [...]. For the Synnadensians worshipped Jupiter under the name of Pandemos, because having heretofore been gathered together out of ma­ny sorts of people in Greece, by Acamas, Theseus's son, they inhabited the City Synnada. Whence says Stephanus, the City was so named, [...], from their dwelling together. Further, those people out of whom the Colony of the Synnadensians was first collected, were of two sorts; to wit, the Macedonians, and the Athenians, or Ionians, who were in Asia; as the same Stephanus relates. Whence we un­derstand, why (in the Emperour Caracalla's Coyn, which Johannes Tristanus has set forth,) the Synnadensians, are termed Dorienses and Ionians. For, this is the inscription, [...]. For the Macedonians, a Colony whereof Acamas brought thither, were ori­ginally Dorienses. But the Athenians who went thither with Acamas Theseus's son, and the Colonies which Acamas is reported to have gathe­red out of Asia, were Ionians▪ so termed from Iön the Athenian. Vales. Synada a City of Phrygia Pacatiana, one Theodosius was Bishop, who severely perse­cuted the Hereticks in that City, wherein there were many of the Sect of the Macedoniani: he drove them not only out of the City, but from the [adjacent] Villages also. Which practise of his was not It is a famous question, and usually disputed on both sides, whe­ther it be lawfull for Catholicks, especially Bishops, to persecute He­reticks. In the determination whereof, I am of opinion, that a distin­ction is requisite. For 'tis certain, that on account of amassing mo­ney together it is not lawfull for Catholicks to molest and vex Here­ticks; which thing Theodosius Bishop of Synnada at that time did. Also, to persecute them by criminall sentences, and to thirst after their bloud, is in like manner unlawfull; as Idatius and some other Prelates of Spain did in their persecution of the Priscilianists. To whose communion when St Martin had for some time joyned himself, he acknowledged, that great detriment befell him from that thing, as Sulpicius Severus does relate in his Life. Notwithstanding, it is and always was lawfull for Catholicks, to implore the aid of Princes and Ma­gistrates against Hereticks, that they be restrained, and kept within the bounds of duty; least they should behave themselves insolently over the Catholicks, or least they should insult over and scoff at the Ca­tholick Religion. Sr Augustine confesses indeed, that heretofore this was his Sentiment, to wit, that Hereticks were not to be molested and vexed by Catholicks, but that they were to be invited by all instances of mansuetude and mildness. But afterwards he altered his opinion, being most certainly informed, that the Laws of Princes made against Hereticks, are usefull to Hereticks themselves in order to their con­version. And he says this was acknowledged by the Donatists them­selves, who had afterwards returned to the Catholick Church. For they affirmed, that they had never returned to the Church, but had al­ways continued in their errour, had they not been provoked and drawn as it were by those penalties and mulcts [contained in] the Imperial Laws. There is a most elegant passage of Augustine's [a­bout this matter] in his 48th Epistle to Vincentius; to which is to be added another passage of the same Authour, in his first book against Gaudentius, chap. 23. Vales. agreeable to that of the Ortho­dox Church, which does not use to persecute; nor was [He incited hereto] by a zeal for the true Faith: but being a perfect slave to the love of money, he made it his business to amass riches together, [by taking them] from the Hereticks. Wherefore, he made all imaginable attempts a­gainst those that embraced the Sect of the Mace­doniani, putting the Clergy that was under him in Arms; and practised a thousand strata­gems against them: nor did he forbear [...], That is, he drew and bound them as it were to Judges Tribunals. Translatours thought these words were spoken concerning bonds, as if Theodosius the Bishop had brought the Hereticks bound before the Judges. In which sense Nicephorus also took this passage. But Socrates's words will not bear this meaning. Vales. bin­ding them [over] to the Courts of Judicature. [Page 371] More especially, he did severall ways disquiet their Bishop, whose name was Agapetus. But in regard the Governours of Provinces in no wise had (as he supposed) a sufficient power to punish [Hereticks,] he ran to Constantinople, and petitioned for Edicts from the Praefecti Praetorio. In the interim therefore that Theodosius stayed at Constantinople on this ac­count, Agapetus, who as I have told you pre­sided over the Sect of the Macedoniani, betook himself to a [prudent and] good Instead of [ [...], mad­ness] Ni­cephorus and Chri­stophorson read [ [...], Course, device, or purpose:] with which reading I am best pleased. Vales. course. For, having communicated the affair to his whole Clergy, and called together the people under him, he perswades them to embrace the Homoöusian Faith. Having effected this, he went directly into the Church, accompanied with a great multitude, or rather with the whole body of the people in generall. Where Or, when he had cele­brated a prayer. when he had solemnized the prayers, he took possession of the Chair, wherein Theodosius was wont to sit. And having united the people, and professing in future the Homoöusian Creed, he became pos­sest of the Churches belonging to Synada. These things having been after this manner transacted, Theodosius arrives within a short time, and brings along with him a Praefecturian assistance: and being ignorant of what had been done, goes im­mediately to the Church. From whence he was driven by all persons unanimously, and went a­gain to Constantinople. Being arrived there, he made complaint before Atticus the Bishop, of what had been done against him, to wit, that he had been We read [ [...], un­justly▪] a­greeable to the reading in Epiphan. Scholasti­cus, and Nicephorus. The other Reading is [...], contrary to reason, or unexpected­ly. Vales. unjustly ejected out of his Bi­shoprick. Atticus knowing that this accident was advantagious to the Church, gave Theodosius comfortable words, perswading him with pa­tience to embrace a quiet course of life, and in­forming him that he ought to prefer the good of the publick before his own private concern. But he wrote to Agapetus, [ordering him] to con­tinue in possession of the Bishoprick, and [bid­ding] him not to be suspicious of any molestation from Theodosius's displeasure.

CHAP. IV. Concerning the Paralyticall Jew, who was cured by Atticus the Bishop in divine Baptism.

THis was one usefull accident which befell the Church in the times of Atticus. Nor was the state of these times without Miracles, or Cures. For a Jew, who had been a Troubled with the palsy. Paralytick for many years, was confined to his bed. And when all medicinall remedies had been applied to him, and no prayers of the Jews could do him any good; at length he betook himself to Chri­stian Baptism, hoping that this would be his only true and Salutary Physitian. Atticus the Bishop was soon acquainted herewith. Having therefore instructed him in the rudiments of Christianity, and declared to him the hope in Christ, he ordered him to be carried in his bed to the Font. The Paralyticall Jew receiving Baptism with a sincere faith, immediately upon his being taken out of the water in the Font, was freed from his disease, and continued sound and healthy in future. This [admirable] Cure the power of Christ vouchsafed to shew to men even in our times: by reason whereof many Heathens believed and were baptized. But the Jews, although they seek after Signs, notwith­standing could not be induced [to believe,] by present miracles. Such benefits as these were conferred upon men by Christ.

CHAP. V. How Sabbatius, who from being a Jew had been made a Presbyter of the Novatianists, deserted those of his own opinion.

BUt many persons slighting these things, per­sisted in their impiety. For the Jews did not only disbelieve these Miracles which hap­ned; but such persons also as were studious fol­lowers of them, were found to hold the same Sentiments they did. For Sabbatius, of whom we have made mention a little Book 5. chap. 21. before, not willing to continue in the degree of a Presbyter to which he had been promoted, but being from the beginning ambitious of a Bishoprick, in these times separated from the Church of the Nova­tianists, making the observation of the Jewish Pass­over his pretence. Holding therefore assemblies that were Schismaticall and separate from his own Bishop Sisinnius, in a place of the City which is termed Xerolophus, where Arcadius's Forum now is, he attempted an audacious fact [...], wor­thy of many dangers. that deserved many punishments. For, on one of his meeting­days, he read a passage in the Gospell, whereat these words occur, See Luke 22. 1. Now, it was a Feast called the Passover of the Jews; to which he made an addition of his own, that was never written, nor ever heard of before; to wit, these words Cursed (says he) be that person who celebrates the Pass­over [...]. I like not the Version of Langus and Christo­phorson, who have rendred this place thus: ma­ledictus qui abs (que) azimis pascha cele­brat, cur­sed is he who cele­brates the Passover without un­leavened bread. In my judge­ment it must be rendred thus, be­yond [or, not on] the days of unleavened bread. For in the Greek it is not [...] or [...], that is, without: but [...], which imports beyond, out of, or saving on. Vales. not on the days of unleavened bread. These words of his being heard, spread imme­diately. And the simpler sort of the Nova­tian Laity, circumvented by this Artifice, betook themselves to him. But his fraud proved unsuc­cessfull to himself. And his forgery had an un­happy event. For not long after [...]. Which Langus and Christo­phorson render thus: cum ex anticipatâ opinione Festum Paschae cele­braret, when he celebrated the Paschall Festivall by an anticipated opinion. I like Musculus's Version better, who translates it thus: per antici­pationem celebraret, he celebrated [the Festivall] by way of anticipa­tion. For Sabbatius celebrating the Paschall solemnity after the Jewish manner, prevented the Christians, and kept that Festivall before the Sunday. If these words are thus to be understood; it must be writ­ten, [...]. Socrates uses the same term a little lower in this Chapter; where speaking concerning the same thing, his words are: [...], possest with a rude an­ticipate opinion. Where notwithstanding, [...] seems to be taken for an anticipate opinion. Vales. he celebrated the Festivall by way of Anticipation; when many persons flockt to him. And whilst they were keeping the I understand The Vigill of the Paschall Festivall. Nor can [...] be any other then the Vigill of the Paschall Festivall. For Sabbatius (although he anticipated Easter, and celebrated it with the Jews yet) kept the Vigills on the Paschall Sabbath with the rest of the Christians; with whom also he celebrated Easter-day in a dissem­bling and negligent manner, as Socrates has related before, in book 5. chap. 21. And thus this passage in Socrates was understood by Nice­phorus, whose words his Translatour hath not rendred well. Nicephorus's words are these: [...], &c. Which are to be translated thus, But in regard they cele­brated the solemn Vigill with a congruous worship meerly for fashions sake, &c. Moreover, why Sabbatius (although he followed the Jews in the observation of Easter, notwithstanding) would feign a cele­bration of Easter with the Christians, this in my judgement is the rea­son; because he feared the Laws of the Emperours who had made a Sanction that they should be accounted Hereticks, who kept not Ea­ster on one and the same day with all other Christians. This was the command of the Emperour Theodosius, in the ninth Law of the The­odosian Code de Haereticis. Vales. Solemn Vigills by watching all night in the Church, a Daemoniacall terrour seised them; as if Sisinnius their Bishop was come with a great multitude, [to fall] upon them. Hereupon a disturbance was raised, as it usually happens, and they being shut up by night in a streight place, trod upon one another: in so much that above seventy persons of them lost their lives. For this reason many deserted Sab­batius. Notwithstanding, some possest with a Or, Ru­stick, or, clownish. rude anticipate opinion, con­tinued with him. But, how Sabbatius violated his oath, and got into a Bi­shoprick, we will declare by and by.

CHAP. VI. Concerning those who at that time were the Ring­leaders of the Arian Opinion.

DOrotheus Bishop of the Arian Heresie (who had been translated by the Arians from Antioch to Constantinople, as we have related Book. 5. chap. 12. before,) having lived an hundred and nineteen years, died in Honorius's seventh and Theodosius Augustus's second Consulate, on the sixth of No­vember. After this person Barba presided over the Arian Sect. In whose time the Arian He­resie was very happy in having two eloquent men, both whom were dignified with a Presbyterate. The name of the one was Timotheus; the other was called Georgius. Georgius was furnished with more of Grecian Literature: but Timotheus had bestowed greater pains about the Sacred Scri­ptures. Moreover, Georgius had Aristotle's and Plato's books always in his hands: but Timo­theus was Or, de­lighted with. an admirer of Origen: and in his Expositions of the Sacred Scriptures in pub­lick, he [shewed himself] not to be unskilled in the Hebrew Tongue. Timotheus, had former­ly been an adherent to the Sect of the See book 5. chap. 23. Psathy­riani. But Georgius had been ordained by Barba. I my self discoursed with this Timotheus, and evidently perceived how ready and expedite he was in returning answers to those who questioned him, and in explaining the most obscure places which occur in the Sacred Scriptures. He al­ways quoted Origen as a most evident witness of what he asserted. I cannot therefore but won­der, how these two persons should persist [in their adherence] to Arianism; the one of whom had Plato always in his hand; and the other had Origen in his mouth. For neither does Plato assert, that the Second and Third Cause (as he usually terms them,) took a beginning of Ex­istence. And Origen every where acknowledges the Son to be coeternal with the Father. But, though they continued in their own Church, yet the Arian heresie was by them reduced to a bet­ter and more moderate temper. For by their own doctrine they banished many of Arius's blasphemies. But thus far concerning these per­sons. Not long after this, Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatianists dyed, in the same Consulate, and Chrysanthus is ordained, concerning whom we shall speak hereafter.

CHAP. VII. How Cyrillus succeeded Theophilus Bishop of A­lexandria.

SOme little time after this, Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria fell into a Or, a drousie dis­ease. Lethargick distemper, and died in Honorius's ninth and Theodosius's fifth Consulate, on the fifteenth of the month October. And a contention being raised there also about the Bishoprick, some endeavoured to place Timotheus the Arch-deacon in the Episcopal Chair; others Cyrillus, [...]. Musculus renders it, who was Theophi­lus's Ne­phew by his sister. Chri­stophorson translates it, the son of his bro­ther. Ni­cephorus (book 14. chap. 25,) says The­ophilus was Cyrillus's Unckle by the Father's side; his words are [...]: Theodoret terms him only [...], Unckle. Wherefore I rather believe he was Cyrillus's mo­ther's brother. In Sozomen there is mention of Theophilus's Sister. Facundus Hermianensis and Epiphanius Scholasticus term Theophilus Cyrillus's Cousin-german; which is ill done: but from thence 'tis clearly intimated, that Cyrillus was related to Theophilus by his Sister. Vales. who was Theophilus's sister's son. When a Sedition arose hereupon amongst the people, Abundatius Commander of the Milice [in Egypt] favoured Timotheus's party. Wherefore, on the third day after Theophilus's death, Cyrillus was placed in the Chair, and came to the Bi­shoprick with a greater power than Theophilus had done. For from that time, the Or, the Bi­shoprick of Alexandria. Bishops of Alexandria Instead of [ [...], from the Sacerdotal de­gree and order] it must doubtless be [ [...], &c. surpassing [or beyond] the Sacerdotal, &c.] according as Sr Henry Savill had noted at the margin of his Copy from Christophorsons book. Notwithstanding both Translatours have followed the common reading, which is not to be endured. Socrates, 'tis certain, speaking concerning the same thing at chap. 11. of this book, uses the word [...] there: [...] (says he) [...]; that is, The Roman Bishoprick, having (like that of Alexandria) surpassed the Sacerdotal degree and bounds, and degenerated long before into a secular principality Vales. surpassing the Sacerdotall degree and bounds, exercised a principality, and took up­on them the [secular] Government of affairs. Cyrillus therefore forthwith shut up the Churches of the Novatianists at Alexandria; and in the first place he took away all their sacred vessells and ornaments; after which he deprived their Bishop Theopemptus of all he had.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning Maruthas Bishop of Mesopotamia, and how the Christian Religion was by him propaga­ted in Persia.

ABout the very same time, the Christian Re­ligion hapned to be propagated in Persia, upon this account. Between the Romans and Persians frequent Embassies are continually sent. Instead of [ [...], but there are severall] it is bet­ter thus, [...], For there are several, &c. Vales. For there are severall rea­sons, why they should fre­quently send Embassies to one another. There hapned therefore to be a necessity at that time, that Maruthas Bishop of Mesopo­tamia (whom we have mentioned a little Book 6. chap. 15, and 19. be­fore,) should be sent by the Roman Emperour to the King of the Persians. The Persian King having found that this person was endewed with an eminency of piety, honoured him highly, and gave him attention, as being really and truly a friend of God. The Magi, Instead of [ [...], &c. who are numerous, &c.] it must undoubtedly bee [ [...], &c. whose interest is great with the persian King.] Thus Nicephorus read. Vales. whose interest is great with the Persian King, were incensed hereat. For they were afraid least he should perswade the King, to turn Christian. For Maruthas by his prayers had cured the King of a pain in his head wherewith he had been a long while troubled, which the Magi could not cure him of. Wherefore, the Magi betake themselves to the inventing of a fraudulent de­sign. And whereas the Persians worship fire, and the King was wont to adore a fire which was always burning in a certain house; they hid a man under ground, whom (at such time as the [Page 373] King usually Or, pray­ed. worshipped) they ordered to speak [to this effect,] that the King ought to be thrust out of doors: for he had done impiously, because he supposed a Priest of the Christians to be dear to God. Isdigerdes (for that was the Persian King's name,) having heard these words, although he reverenced Maruthas, notwithstan­ding had thoughts of sending him away. But Maruthas, a man truly acceptable to God, was very earnest in putting up▪ his prayers, whereby he detected the fraud which the Magi had fra­med. [He addressed himself] therefore to the King in these words, Be not deluded, O King! But go into [the house,] and when you shall hear the voice, dig up the ground, and you will discover the Fraud. For the fire speaks not, but the in­vention of men does this. The King of the Per­sians is perswaded by Maruthas, and goes into the little house again, Or, where the unquench­able fire was. where fire is kept always burning. And when he had heard the same voice again, he ordered the place to be dug up where he that uttered the words which were supposed to be God's, was found. Therefore, the King was highly incensed, and gave order that the Or, Stock, or▪ Race. Tribe of the Magi should be That is, every tenth man put to death. decimated. After this was done, he spoke to Maruthas, to build Churches wheresoever he pleased. From that time the Christian Religion was propagated amongst the Persians. Moreover, Maruthas ha­ving then left Persia, returned to Constantinople. But, not long after he was sent Embassadour again to the Persians. And the Magi betook themselves to the invention of Plots and in­treagues again, to hinder his being admitted by the King. We read [ [...], for by a device they raised▪ &c.] not [ [...], And by a device, &c.] Other­wise, a re­petition of the same particle would be odious and unpleasant. Many er­rours in these par­ticles are usually committed by Trans­cribers of books, whilest they write too hastily. Vales. For by a device they rai­sed a most horrid stink in that place, Here we read [...], instead of [...]. Vales. into which the King usually came; and they calum­niously accused the Christians, as if they had caused it. But when the King, in regard he al­ready had a suspicion of the Magi, made a more exact scrutiny about the occasioners [of this stink,] the Magi were found again to be the causes of this ill smell. Wherefore he puni­shed many of them again: but he had a greater honour and esteem for Maruthas. And he loved the Romans, with whom he embraced a friendship. Yea, the King himself wanted but little of turning Christian, after Maruthas, to­gether with Epiphanius Scholasticus calls this Bishop of Persian Abla [...]ies. Ni­cephorus terms him Abdas. In the Ssortian M. S. he is stiled An [...]das. Vales. Abdas the Bishop of Persia, had shewed another Tryall, or, Experi­ment. Miracle. For both these persons, when they had fasted long, and been earnest in prayers, cast out a devill that vexed the Kings Son. But Isdigerdes, before he became a perfect Chri­stian, was prevented by death. His Kingdom devolved to his Son Vararanes: in whose time the League between the Romans and Persians was broken, as we shall declare hereafter.

CHAP. IX. Who were Bishops of Antioch and Rome at this time.

ABout the very same times, Flavianus died at Antioch, and was succeeded in that Bishoprick by Porphyrius. After Porphyrius, A­lexander Presided over that Church. At Rome, Damasus having held that Bishoprick eighteen years▪ was succeeded by Siricus. After Siricius had Presided there fifteen years, Anastasius go­verned that Church three years. And after Anastasius, Innocentius. He was the first that began to persecute the Novatianists at Rome, whom he deprived of many Churches.

CHAP. X. That Rome became subject to the Barbarians at that time, and was destroyed by Alarichus.

AT that very time Rome hapned to be taken by the Barbarians. For one Alarichus a Barbarian, (who had been an Allie of the Ro­mans, and had assisted the Emperour Theodosius in the War against the Tyrant Eugenius, on which account he was honoured with Or, Ro­man digni­ty. Zosimus (book 5.) relates, that Alarichus, after the expedition against the Tyrant Eugenius, wherein he had done excellent service, was Com­mander of no Roman Forces, but returned into Thracia, and kept with him those Barbarians only, whom he had commanded. But, a little afterwards, when being sent for by Rufinus, he had ruined Graecia and Epirus, he was created Master of the Milice throughout Illyricum; as Claudian informs us in his second book against Eutropius. —Vastator AchivaeGentis, & Epirum nuper populatus inultam,Praesidet Illyricis. Jam quos obsedit, amicusIngreditur muros, illis responsa daturus,Quorum conjugibus potitur, natosque peremit.Sic hostes pensare solent.— Vales. Roman dignities,) could not bear his fortunate success. He presumed not indeed to seize the Empire: but retired from Constantinople, and went into the Western parts. Being arrived in Illyricum, he laid all places desolate immediately. The Thes­salians resisted him in his march, about the mouthes of the River Peneus, from whence there is a passage Or, thorow. over the mountain Pindus to Ni­copolis [a City] of Epirus. And coming to an engagement, the Thessalians killed about three thousand [of his Forces.] After this the Bar­barians that were with him, burnt and ruined what ever was in their way and in fine took Rome it self. Which City they destroyed, and burnt the great­est part Instead of [ [...], of their admirable works and structures] I think it must be [ [...], of the admirable works and structures therein:] which reading we have expressed in our Version. Vales. of the admirable works and structures there­in: but they made plunder of the money, and divided it [amongst themselves.] They also forced many of the Senatorian Order to un­dergo various punishments, and [afterwards] slew them. [Alarichus] likewise, in contempt to Empire, proclaimed one Attalus Emperour. Whom he ordered to go guarded like an Emperour one day; and the next made him appear in a servile habit. After he had done all this, he fled, being terrified with a Rumour, as if the Emperour Theodosius had sent an Army to fight him. Nor was this Ru­mour false. For an Army did really come. And he was unable to bear the same thereof; but, as I have said, fled away. 'Tis reported, that as he went to Rome, he was met by a pious person that led a monastick life, who advised him not to rejoyce in [perpetrating] so great and no­torious mischiefs, nor to delight in slaughter and bloud. To whom Alarichus made this return, I go not thither of my own accord. But some Or, some body. thing does every day vex and disquiet me, saying, go to Rome, and ruine that City. Thus much con­cerning this person.

CHAP. XI. Concerning the Bishops of Rome.

AFter Innocentius, Zosimus was possest of the Churches at Rome, for the space of two years. After whom, Bonifacius presided over that Church three years, who was succeeded by Ce­lestinus. And this Celestinus deprived the Nova­tianists also at Rome of their Churches, and for­ced their Bishop Rusticula to hold his Meetings in private and obscure houses. For till this time, the Novatianists flourished mightily at Rome, had many Churches, and assembled numerous con­gregations therein. But envy Or, sei­zed, or, de­voured. impaired them also; the Roman Bishoprick, having (like that of Alexandria,) surpassed the Sacerdotall de­gree and bounds, and degenerated long before into a secular principality. And for this reason the [Roman] Bishops would not permit even those who agreed with them in the faith, peace­ably and quietly to celebrate their meetings: but took from them all they had; only they praised them for their agreement in the faith. Notwithstanding, the Constantinopolitan Bishops were not thus affected. For they not only per­mitted [the Novatianists] to have their mee­tings within the City, but had a singular love and affection for them also, as I have sufficiently declared already.

CHAP. XII. Concerning Chrysanthus Bishop of the Novatianists at Constantinople.

AFter Sisinnius's death, Chrysanthus was by force made Bishop. He was the son of that See book 5. chap. 2 [...]. Marcianus, who had been Bishop of the Novati­anists before Sisinnius. From his younger years he had had a Military Employ in the Pallace; after­wards, in the Reign of Theodosius the Great, he was made Consularis of Italy, and after that Vicarius of the Britannick Islands; for his management of both which charges he was much admired. Being grown elderly, he returned to Constantinople; and desiring to be made Praefect of that City, he was against his will compelled to take the Bishoprick. For Sisinnius having mentioned him at the time of his death, as a fit person for the Bishoprick; the Novatian people, with whom Sisinnius's words were a Law, attempted to draw him by force, even against his will. But when Chrysan­thus fled, Sabbatius supposing an opportune sea­son was offered him, wherein he might be made possessour of the Churches, gets himself ordained Bishop by some obscure [Prelates] and slights the oath which he had bound himself in. Amongst those who ordained Sabbatius Bishop, Hermo­genes was one, who had been Excommunicated and cursed by Sabbatius, for his blasphemous books. But Sabbatius's design proved unsuc­cessfull to him. For the people hating Or, his immora­lity. his un­reasonable ambition, (because [...]. This expression is not in my judg­ment good Greek. Nicephorus in regard he liked it not, altered it thus: [...], he moved every rope to get into the Bishoprick. But in my mind, this place in Socrates is to be thus restored: [...], because he did all things with a design of getting into the Bishoprick. Vales. he did all things with a design of getting into the Bishoprick,) made it their whole business to find out Chrysanthus. Whom they found absconding in Bithynia, whence they brought him by force, and preferred him to the Bishoprick. He was a person of as great prudence and modesty, as any man was: and by his means the Church of the Novatianists at Con­stantinople was preserved and increased. He was the first person who distributed Gold ' [...]. Mus­culus ren­ders it per singulas do­mos, from house to house. Gry­naeus and Curterius, de suis ip­sius [...]or [...]u­nis, of his own estate. Valesius, ex propria pe­cunia, of his own money. of his own to the poor. He received nothing from the Churches, save only The Loaves which the Faith­full offered for a sacrifice, were termed the Loaves of Benediction. For so Dionysius Exiguus renders the 59th Canon of the Laodicean Councill. [...], That the Bread of Benediction ought not to be offered in Lent, except on the Sabbath and on Sunday only. Of these Loaves some were taken for the Eucharist: the rest were allotted for the food of the Clergy by the Bishop; who also took some of them himself, as much as he would, as we are informed from this place. You must note further, that Socrates says [...], from the Churches. For the Bishop, according to his own arbitrement, disposed of the oblations of all the Churches, which were under his own jurisdiction. See Gelasius's Decretalls, cap. 27. Vales. two Loaves of the Blessed Bread every Sunday. Moreover, he was so carefull about his Church, that he took ' [...]. Sr Henry Savil from Christophorson's book, at the margin of his own copy, hath mended it thus, [...]. Which reading Christophorson has followed. But in my judgment, it must be thus written, [...], &c. The best Oratour of his own time, &c. The Schollars of the Sophists, who learned Rhetorick were heretofore termed Rhetoricians. Notwithstanding, all the Sophists Schollars had not that appellation, but the eminentest of them only, who being initiated by a certain Rite, wore a Rhetorician's Pallium, which was red or s [...]arl [...]t-coloured. We are informed hereof by Cyril­lus in his Lexicon: [...] ▪ that is, Pallium's were certain Cloaks. Some [were worn] by Rhetoricians: which were red and scarl [...]t-coloured▪ others, by Philosophers, which were of a dark-colour. This was the Badge, worn by them daily. By what Rite Rhetoricians were wont to be made at Athens, Olympiadorus (in excerptis Hi­storiarum apud Photium,) Gregory Nazianzen, and Eunapius do de­clare. Vales. Ablabius the eloquentest Oratour of his own time, from Troïlus the Sophista's School, and or­dained him Presbyter. Whose elegant and acute Sermons are now extant. But Ablabius was afterwards constituted Bishop of the No­vatianists Church at Nicaea, in which City he taught Rhetorick at the same time also.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning the Fight which hapned at Alexandria between the Christians and Jews, and concer­ning Cyrillus the Bishops difference with Orestes the Praefect.

ABout the same time, the Jewish Nation were driven out of Alexandria by Cyrillus the Bi­shop, for this reason. The Alexandrians are more seditious and tumultuous, than any other peo­ple: and if at any time they get an occasion, they [usually] break out into intollerable mischiefs. For their rage is not appeased without bloud. It hapned at that time, that the populace of that City were tumultuous amongst themselves, not upon any weighty or necessary occasion, but by reason of that mischief which abounds in all Cities, I mean an earnest desire of looking upon Dancers. For in regard a Dancer gathered great multitudes together on the Sabbath day, be­cause the Jews work not on that day, nor are busied in hearing their Law, but [spend their time in seeing] Theatricall Shews; that day usually occasioned mutuall factions and divisions among the people. And although this was in some measure regulated and repressed by the Praefect of Alexandria, nevertheless the Jews [Page 375] continued enraged against those of the contrary faction: and besides their being always enemies to the Christians, they were much more incen­sed Instead of [ [...]] Muscul [...]s and Chri­stophorson read [...], a­gainst them.] Which reading I like better. Notwithstanding, Nicephorus retains the common rea­ding. Vales. against them on account of the Dancers. Therefore, when Orestes Praefect of Alexandria [...]. Epiphanius Scholasticus was mistaken in thinking there was a Festivall which the Alexandrians cal­led Politia. Nor was Christophorson less out, in supposing the publick Edicts of the Imperiall Praesects to be so termed by the Alexandrians, which Orestes published then in the Theatre. In which he is doubly mistaken. First, because he thought that all the Imperiall Edicts were by the Alexandrians called Politia; whereas, those Edicts only had that name, which belonged to the quiet and profit of the City. Agreeable whereto, those Orders made in respect to the prizes of Corn and other vendible commodities usually exposed to sale in the Market, at Paris we now term in French a Police, and the Orders of Police. Secondly, Christophorson mistakes in supposing that these Edicts were published by Orestes in the Theatre. For Socrates does not say so▪ but only that Orestes made (that is, dictated, or re­hearsed to his officers) these orders in the Theatre. For the Ro­man Magistrates were wont to sit in judgment and decide matters in the Law, in the Theatre, Circus, or in any other place they had a mind to. So Amm. Marcellinus relates (book 15.) concerning Leontius Praefect of the City. Moreover, the orders then made by Orestes, re­spected the Theatre, and the publick shows▪ Vales. made a Police ( [...]o the Alexandrians do u­sually term publick Orders,) in the Thea­tre; some of Bishop Cyrillus's favourers were present there also, being desirous to know the Orders that were made by the Praefect. A­mongst whom was a person by name Hierax, a teacher of the [...] (which are the terms here used,) do import the first R [...]aiments which children learn. The teachers hereof are by the Greeks termed Grammatistae, and by the Latines Li [...]ratores. Vales. meaner sort of Learning.

He was a zealous hearer of Cyrillus the Bishop, and always mighty diligent about raising the [...], Plausus, clapping of hands; such as is now used at Plays; then belike usu­all at Ser­mons. Clappings at his Sermons. The Jewish mul­titude spying this Hierax in the Theatre, cried out immediately, that he came into the Theatre for nothing else, but to raise a Sedition amongst the people. Moreover, Orestes had long before con­ceived an hatred against the secular Government of Bishops, because it diminished much of their power who had been appointed Governours of Provinces by the Emperour; and also more espe­cially, because Cyrillus was desirous of prying into his Acts and Orders. Having seized Hierax there­fore, he made him undergo tortures publickly in the Theatre. With which Cyrillus being ac­quainted, sends for the chief of the Jews, and threatned them with condign punishment, unless they desisted from being tumultuous against the Christians. Of which menaces after the Jewish multitude were made sensible, they became more pertinacious; and contrived plots to damnifie the Christians. The chiefest of which designs of theirs, and which occasioned their expulsion out of Alexandria, I will relate here. Having Or, given. agreed upon a sign amongst themselves, [which was,] that every one of them should wear a ring on their fingers made of the bark of a Palm­tree-branch, they took a resolution of making an attack upon the Christians by a night-fight. One night therefore they sent some persons pro­vided for that purpose, who cried out in all the Or, in all the Wards of the City. streets of the City, that Alexander's Church was on fire. The Christians hearing this, ran some one way, others another, that they might preserve the Church. Then the Jews set upon them immediately, and slew them: they abstai­ned from killing those of their own party, by shewing their rings; but they murdered all the Christians they hapned to meet with. When it was day, the Authours of this nefarious fact were not concealed. Cyrillus highly incensed hereat, went accompanied with a great multitude to the Jews Synagogues (so they term their houses of prayer,) which he took from them: he also expelled the Jews out of the City, and permitted the multitude to make plunder of their goods. The Jews therefore, who had inhabited that City from the days of Alexander the Macedonian, were all forced to remove naked from thence at that time, and were dispersed some in one place, others in another. Adamantius, [one of them] ▪ [...]. These per­sons the Greeks in one word term [...], that is, profes­sours of Physick. Such a one was Mag­nus Medi­cus, who professed Physick publickly at Alexan­dria; but was a bet­ter Oratour then Phy­sitian; as Eunapius informs us, in his book De Vi [...]is Sophistarum. Such a one also was Ge [...]ius the Physitian in the times of the Emperour Zeno; concerning whom see Stephanus By­zantius, in the word [...]. Damascius (in the Life of Isidorus) spends a great many words about this Gesius; and from him Suidas, in the word [...]. Where he divides Physick into two parts, Theory and Practise. Vales. a professour of Physick, went to Constantinople, and fled to Atticus the Bishop; and having turned a professour of Christianity, returned afterwards to Alexandria again, and fixt his residence there. But Orestes Praefect of A­lexandria was highly incensed at what was, done; being exceedingly troubled, because so great a City was on such a sudden emptied of so nume­rous a company of inhabitants. Wherefore, he acquainted the Emperour with what had been done. Cyrillus himself likewise made known the Jews wickednesses to the Emperour; never­theless, he sent messengers to Orestes, on account of procuring a reconciliation. For the people of Alexandria compelled him to do this. And when Orestes would not admit of any conferences about a reconciliation, Cyrillus Cyrillus therefore held forth the Book of the Gospells, that there­by he might conjure and earnestly beseech Orestes Praefect of Egypt, to be reconciled with him. We have remarked already (see book 6. chap. 11. note b.) that the Antients did usually conjure and earnestly beseech, by those things which they used to swear by. The Christians usage was to swear by the Gospells, laying their hands on those sacred Books, as 'tis evidently known. Vales. held forth the Book of the Gospells to him, thinking he should by that strike a reverence into Orestes. But when he would not be mollified even by this means, but continued an irreconcileable War between himself and Cyrillus; This accident hapned after­wards.

CHAP. XIV. That the Monks of Nitria came down to Alex­andria in defence of Cyrillus, and raised a Sedition against Orestes the Praefect.

SOme of the Monks who inhabited the moun­taines of Nitria, retaining an heat of mind from Theophilus's times, who had armed them unjustly against Dioscorus and his Brethren; were incensed with a zeal then also, and took a resolution of fighting couragiously in defence of Cyrillus. About five hundred persons there­fore of them went out of their Monasteries, came down to the City, and observe the Prae­fect going forth in his Chariot. They came to him, and called him Sacrificer and Pagan, and gave him many other reproachfull terms. The Praefect, having a suspicion that a plot was fra­med against him by Cyrillus, cryed out that he was a Christian, and had been baptized by Atti­cus the Bishop at Constantinople. But when the Monks heeded not what he said, one of them, by name Ammonius, flings a stone and strikes Orestes on the head. By which wound he was all over besmeared with bloud: and his Or, O [...] ­ [...]icers. Appa­ritors [Page 376] that attended him, except a very few, rece­ded, ran some one way, others another, [and hid themselves] in the Crowd, to avoid being killed by the throwing of stones. In the interim the Alexandrians flockt together, with a resolution to be revenged upon the Monks on the Praefect's account. They put all the rest of them to flight; but seized Ammonius, and bring him before the Praefect. He, agreeable to the Laws, That is, tortured him. In­stead of [ [...], under­taking,] it must un­doubtedly be [ [...], put him to, or made him undergo,] as Sr Henry Savil had mended it at the Mar­gin of his Copy. Nor did Muscu­lus read otherwise, who has rendred this place thus: quem ille publice secundum leges torturae subjicit, whom he makes to undergo torture in publick, agreeable to the Laws. Where you see Musculus took the word [...] for an adverb, and is therein followed by Christophorson. For thus he renders it: Praefectus palàm, uti leges postulant, de eo quae­stionem exercere, The Praefect, as the Laws required, put him to the Question openly. Notwithstanding, [...] may be taken adjectively in the same sense. I have observed a little before from Amm. Mar­cellinus, that the Roman Magistrates were wont to take Criminalls openly and in publick, and torture them; in regard they had their Apparitors always about them. Therefore, even whilest they rode in their Chariots, they put offenders to the Question, as Marcellinus relates concerning Leontius, and Socrates at this place concerning Ore­stes. Vales. put him to The Question publickly, and tortu­red him to such a degree, that he died. Not long after, he acquainted the Emperours with what had been done. But Cyrillus gave the Em­perour a Narrative [of the business] contra­dictory [to Oreste's.] And he took Ammo­nius's body, deposited if in one of the Chur­ches, altered his name calling him Thaumasius, ordered he should be stiled a Martyr, and ex­tolled his magnanimity publickly in the Church, as if he had undergone the combat in defence of piety. But the modester and more sober per­sons even of the Christians, approved not of this favour of Cyrillus's shown towards Ammonius. For they certainly knew, that Ammonius had un­dergone the punishment of his rashness, and died not under his tortures, as forced to renounce Christ. Wherefore, Cyrillus himself caused the me­mory of this affair to be by little and little buried in silence. But that fierce contention between Cyrillus and Orestes stopt not here. For it was The Verb, [...], extinguished, is in no wise agreeably used here. I had much rather make it [...], rekindled. For [...] (which Verb Sr Henry Savil and the Geneva Printers have set in the margin from Christophorson's Copy,) is not to be born with, in re­gard it signifies, was kindled, not, was renewed. I found here no al­teration in the M. SS. Copies. Nicephorus has also followed the com­mon reading. For, instead of [...], extinguished, he makes use of [...], was obscured, or, obliterated. Vales. rekindled by another accident not unlike those foregoing.

CHAP. XV. Concerning Hypatla the Philosopheress.

THere was a woman at Alexandria, by name Hypatia. She was daughter to The in­compara­bly Lear­ned Sr Hen­ry Savil, at the mar­gin of his Copy, had made this remark, which we thought good to communicate to the studious Reader. Theo Interpres Ptole­maei, &c. that is, Theon Ptolemie's Interpreter, in the 81st year of the Diocletian Epocha (which was Valens's fifth year, as I suppose,) ob­served two Lunar conjunctions, the one Synodicam the other Panselenon. See pag. 277 and 282. of Theon's Comments upon the Almagestus, Edit. Basil. 1538. Therefore, 'tis very probable, that this Theon was Hypa­tia's Father. For, from those observations to Hypatia's death, there are 47 years. Vales. Theon the Philosopher. She had arrived to so eminent a de­gree of Learning, that she excelled [all] the Philosophers of her own times, and succeeded in At Alexandria there was heretofore a School of Platonick Phi­losophy, over which, amongst others, Hierocles the Philosopher pre­sided; as Damascius (in the Life of Isidorus, pag. 1038,) and Aeneas Gazaeus (in Theophrasto,) do inform us. But the Succession of this School is not to be deduced from Plotinus. For Plotinus never taught Philosophy at Alexandria. Plotinus was indeed instructed in Philo­sophy at Alexandria, by Ammonius; but he himself never kept a School there, but continued teaching at Rome for the space of twenty six years compleat, untill his death; as Porphyrius relates in his Life. Wherefore, instead of Plotinus, I would more willingly put Ammonius here. Unless we should say, that the Alexandrian School had associa­ted Plotinus to themselves, as being the eminent est Master and In­structor of the Platonick Philosophy. By this means our Socrates may be excused. Vales. that Platonick School derived from Plo­tinus, and expounded all the precepts of Philo­sophy to those who would hear her. Where­fore, all persons who were studious about Philosophy, flockt to her from all parts. By rea­son of that eminent [...]; confi­dence and freedome in speaking. Gracefullness and readiness of expression wherewith she had accomplished her self by her Learning, she addressed frequent­ly even to the Magistrates, with a singular mo­desty. Nor was she ashamed of appearing in a publick Assembly of men. For all persons re­vered and admired her, for her eximious mode­sty. Envy armed it self against this woman at that time. For, because she had frequent con­ferences with Orestes, for this reason a calumny was framed against her amongst the Christian populace, as if she hindred Orestes from coming to a reconciliation with the Bishop. Certain per­sons therefore of fierce and over hot minds, who were headed by one Peter a Reader, conspired against the woman, and observe her returning home from some place. And having pulled her out of her Chariot, they drag her to the Church named Athana­sius men­tions this Church, in his Epistle ad Solita­rios, pag. 860. [...]; have not the Arians and [...]gans offered sacrifice in the Great Church, in the Caesareum, and [performed] blasphemies against Christ, by his command as it were? He means the Cow, which the Pagans would have offered in the Great Church, of which he had spoken before, at pag. 848. Epiphanius says a great deal concerning the same Church, in Haeres. Arian. chap. 2. 'Tis called Basilica Caesarea in Liberatus's Breviarium, cap. 18. Vales. Caesareum. Where they stript her, and murdered her with Shells. And when they had torn her piece-meal, they carried all her members to a place called Cinaron, and con­sumed them with fire. This fact Or, wrought no small dis­grace to, &c. brought no small 'Tis certain, that Damascius (in the life of Isidorus the Phi­losopher, which by Gods assistance I will ere long set forth larger by half, than it is) does make Cyrillus the Authour of Hypatia's murder. Damascius's words are these: [...], and so on, which occur in Suidas. 'Tis a most elegant passage, which in favour to the studious Reader, I will render into English, and annex it here, repeating Damascius's words a little higher. The Governours also of the City Alexandria, as soon as they came into that City, visited her in the first place. Which has been usually done at Athens also. For, though the thing it self be lost, yes the name of Philosophy seems as yet magnificent and venerable to persons who hold the principall place in the government of the publick. It hap­ned therefore one time, that Cyrillus a Bishop of the Christian Religion, passing by Hypatia's house, saw a great company before her door, both of men and horses; some of whom came, others went away, and others stayed. And when he had inquired what that multitude moant and why so great a tumult was made, he was answered by his followers, that they then saluted Hypatia the Philosopheress, and that that was her house. Which when Cyrillus had been acquainted with, he was so galled with envy, that he forthwith contrived her murder, and that in the most nefarious man­ner. For when Hypatia went out of her house as she was wont to do, many inhumane Russians, who fear neither the punishment of the Gods, nor the revenge of men, assault and kill her; defiling their own country with a most horrid crime and disgrace. The Emperour was highly in­censed there [...], and had revenged it, had not Aedesius corrupted the Emperours friends. The Emperour pardoned the Assassines. But he drew the revenge upon his own head, and on his own family: For his Nephew underwent the punishment. Thus far Damascius. Where by Nephew he means, as I suppose, Valentinianus the son of Placidia, who was Aunt to Theodosius Junior. Vales. disgrace upon Cyrillus and the Alexandrian Church. For, murthers, fights, and things of that nature, are wholly forreign to the Embracers of Christianity. These things were done on the fourth year of Cyrillus's Episcopate, in Honorius's tenth and Theodosius's [...], and Theodosius's Tenth, &c. Christo­phorson has done ill to mend it thus, Theodosius's seventh Consulate; whose version led Baronius into a mistake, as you may see at the year of Christ 415. From the incomparable Florentine and Sfor­tian M. SS. I have mended this place thus, Theodosius's sixth Con­sulate; which emendation is confirmed by the Fasti Consulares. Vales. sixth Con­sulate, in the month of March, in Lent.

CHAP. XVI. That the Jews entring upon another War against the Christians, were punished.

SOme time after this, the Jews renued their absurd and impious practises against the Christians, and were punished [again for them.] At a place named Inmestar, which is scituate be­tween Chalcis and Antioch of Syria, the Jews (as 'twas their usage) exhibited some sports. Du­ring their sports they performed many mad acti­ons, excited thereto by their drunkenness; and in their recreations reproach't not only the Chri­stians, but even Christ himself. And in derision to the Cross, and to them who put their trust in him that was crucified, they attempted this villanous fact. Having seized a Christian boy, they bound him to a Cross, and hung him up. At first they laughed at and jeered him. But becoming afterwards inraged, they scourged the boy till he died. For this reason there hapned a sharp conflict betwixt them and the Christians. And after the Emperours were acquainted with this fact, an Order was issued out to the Gover­nours of the Province, to find out and punish the Authours thereof. Thus the Jews, who in­habited that place, were punished for the wicked­ness they had committed in their sports.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning Paulus Bishop of the Novatianists, and concerning the Miracle done by him, when he was about to have baptized a Jewish Impostour.

AT the same time, Chrysanthus also Bishop of the Novatianists, having presided sea­ven years over the Churches Or, un­der him. of his own Sect, ended his life in the Consulate of Monaxius and Plintha, on the twenty sixth of August. He was succeeded in the Bishoprick by Paulus: who before had been a Teacher of Roman Eloquence: but afterwards bad adieu to the Roman tongue, and betook himself to an Ascetick course of life. And having gathered together a Mona­stery of Religious men, he followed a way of living not unlike that led by the Monks in the desart. For I found him to be really such a person, as Evagrius says the Monks who live in the Solitudes ought to be. For he imitated them exactly in all things, in continued fasts, in speaking little, and in abstaining from eating creatures that have life. Moreover, for the most part he abstained from oyl and wine. Besides, his care and solicitude about the poor was eminent and extraordinary. He was very diligent in his visits to the imprisoned; he interceded likewise for many persons with the Judges, who readily hearkned to him on account of his eminent piety. What need I be large in my relation concerning him? I will mention one action of his, highly worthy to be recorded in writing. A Jewish Impostour pretending himself converted to the Christian Religion, had been frequently baptized, and by that device had gathered much money. When he had deceived many Sects [of the Christians] by this fraud: (for he had received baptism from the Arians and Macedonians:) having no more persons whom he might put tricks upon, at length he came to Paulus Bi­shop of the Novatianists: and affirming that he earnestly desired Baptism, requested he might obtain it from his hand. He approved of the Jews desire: but said he would not give him Baptism, before he had been instructed in the grounds and principles of the Faith, and had exercised himself with fastings severall days. The Jew therefore having contrary to his own mind, been compelled to fast, was so much the more urgent in his intreaties for Baptism. Where­fore Paulus, because he would not offend him, now grown importunate; by any longer delays, makes provision for his Baptism. And having bought him a white vestment, and ordered the Or, the belly of the Font. Font to be filled with water, he brought the Jew to it with a design to Baptize him. But Or, a cer­tain invi­sible power of God. an invisible act of divine power caused the water to vanish [on a sudden.] In regard the Bishop and those that were present, (having not the least suspicion of any such thing as had hap­ned,) supposed the water to have run out by the passage underneath, whereby it was usually let out; they filled the Font again, having with great accuracy stopt up its passages every where. And when the Jew was brought the second time to the Font, all the water disappeared again. Then Paulus spake these words: either you are an Impostour, O man, or else, being ignorant, you have been baptized already. A great multitude of people therefore running together to see this Miracle, one of them knew the Jew, and was certain that it was the same person who had been baptized before by Atticus the Bishop. This Miracle was performed by the hands of [Pau­lus] Bishop of the Novatianists.

CHAP. XVIII. How, after the death of Isdigerdes the Persian King, the League between the Romans and Persians was broken, and a bloudy War hapned, wherein the Persians were worsted.

AFter the death of Isdigerdes King of Persia, by whom the Christians in that country were not persecuted in the least, his Son by name Vararanes succeeded in that Kingdom; and being induced thereto by the Magi, he vexed the Christians severely, inflicting on them va­rious punishments and Persian tortures. The Christians therefore in Persia, constrained there­to by necessity, flie to the Romans, entreating them not to neglect and see them wholly de­stroyed. Atticus the Bishop receives the sup­pliants kindly; and made it his business to assist them to the utmost of his power. Likewise, he acquainted the Emperour Theodosius with what had hapned. It fell out at the very same time, that the Romans were offended with the Persians upon another account: because the Persians would not restore the Miners of Gold, whom they had hired of the Romans; and in regard they had deprived the Roman Merchants of their Or, Wares, or, Merchan­dizes. effects. To this occasion of difference, the flight of the Christians in Persia to the Romans made an accession. For the Persian King dis­patch't away an Embassie immediately, to de­mand the Fugatives. But the Romans would in [Page 378] no wise deliver up those who had fled to them, not only because they were desirous of preser­ving them as being suppliants, but in regard like­wise of their readiness to do any thing in de­fence of the Christian Religion. Wherefore they chose rather to have a war with the Per­sians, than permit the Christians to be miserably destroyed. Hereupon the League was broken, and a fierce War broke out, concerning which I judge it not inopportune to give a short nar­rative. The Roman Emperour sent part of an Army first, which was commanded by Arda­burius. He made an irruption into Persia through Armenia, and ruined one of the Per­sian Provinces termed Azazene. Narsaeus the Persian King's Generall marched out to oppose him, at the head of a great Persian Army. And coming to an Engagement, was worsted, and fled. [Afterwards] he judged it advanta­gious to make a sudden irruption through Me­sopotamia into the Roman territories being un­guarded, [thinking] by this means to be re­venged on the Romans. But this design of Nar­saeus's was not unknown to the Generall of the Romans. Having therefore in a short time laid Azazene desolate, he likewise marched into Mesopotamia. Wherefore Narsaeus (notwith­standing he was furnished with a numerous army, yet) could not invade the Roman Pro­vinces. But, coming to Nisibis, (which is a City scituate in the confines [of both Em­pires,] and belongs to the Persians,) he sent a message from thence to Ardaburius, desiring they might come to an agreement between them­selves about the management of the War, and that a place and day for an Engagement might be set. Ardaburius, gave the messengers this answer: Tell Narsaeus [thus,] the Roman Em­perours will not fight when you have a mind they should. Moreover, the Theo­dosius. Emperour perceiving that the Persian mustered up the whole force of his Kingdom for the carrying on of this war, placed all his hopes of Victory in God, and be­sides sent vast supplies of Forces. Now, that the Emperour (in regard he put his whole con­fidence in God,) received benefit from him im­mediately, 'twas from hence evident. The Con­stantinopolitans being very anxious, and doubtfull about the event of the war, the Angells of God appeared in Bithynia to some persons going to Constantinople about their private concerns, and bad them tell [the Constantinopolitans,] that they should be of good courage, and pray to God, and be confident that the Romans would be Conquerours. For they said, that they them­selves were sent from God to be the managers of the War. At the hearing hereof, the City was not only encouraged, but the Souldiers also became more bold and valiant. Whereas there­fore (as I have said,) the war had been remo­ved from Armenia into Mesopotamia, the Ro­mans shut up the Persians in the City Nisibis, to which thy laid siege. And having made wooden Towers, which moved upon Engines, they brought them to the walls, wherewith they killed many of those who fought from the walls, and [of them] who ran to their assistance. Vara­ranes King of Persia hearing that his Country Azazene was laid desolate, and his Army be­sieged within the City Nisibis, resolved to go in person with all his forces against the Romans. But, being afraid of the Roman Army, he called the Saracens to his assistance, who were then go­verned by Alamundarus, a valiant and war­like man. He brought a numerous multitude of Saracens with him, and spake to the King of Persia to be confident and couragious, he like­wise promised, that he would quickly make the Romans his prisoners, and deliver Antioch in Syria to him. But the event succeeded not ac­cording to his promise. For God possest the Saracens with a vain and irrationall terrour. Who supposing the Roman Forces to be falling upon them, became terrified, and not finding how they might make their escape, cast them­selves armed as they were into the River Eu­phrates, wherein about an hundred thousand men were drowned. These things fell out after this manner. But the Romans who laid siege to Nisibis, being informed that the King of Persia was bringing many Elephants along with him were terrified, and having burnt all their Engines which they had made use of in the siege, We read [...]. Vales. re­treated into their own Country. But, what engagements hapned afterwards; and how A­reobindus, another Roman Generall, killed the va­liantest person amongst the Persians in a single duell; and how Ardaburius destroyed seven valiant Persian Commanders in an Ambuscade; or after what manner In the Tripartite History which Epi­phanius Scholasticus rendred in­to Latine, this Roman Commander is termed Beatianus. Which name I like best. This Victory of the Romans over the Persians hapned in the Consulate of Eustathius and Agricola, on the year of Christ 401, as Marcellinus informs us in his Chronicon; the Authour of the Alexan­drian Chronicle says the same; who relates, that the Emperour Theo­dosius had news of that Victory, in the month Gorpieus, on the eighth of the Ides of September, on the third Feria. This was the fourteenth year of Theodosius Junior's Reign. Wherefore Theophanes is mistaken in his Chronicle, who places this Victory of the Romans over the Persians on the eighteenth year of Theodosius. Vales. Vitianus another Roman Generall vanquished the Remains of the Sara­cen-forces, I think fit to omit, least I should seem to digress too far from my Subject.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning Palladius the Courier.

MOreover, the Emperour Theodosius was in a very short time acquainted with the Actions [of his Forces.] After what manner the Emperour had so sudden an account of what was done in places at so great a distance, I will relate. It was his good fortune to have a Or, man. servant of a vigorous mind and strong body, his name was Palladius. This person could ride on horse-back at such a rate, that in three days space he could go to those places which are the boundaries of the Roman and Persian Territories, and again in as many days return to Constantinople. The same man passed through all other parts of the world with an incredible swiftness, whither­soever the Emperour sent him. Wherefore, an eloquent person uttered this saying on a time concerning him: This man by his swiftness makes the Roman Empire, which in it self is large, seem to be little. Moreover, the King of the Persians was amazed, when he heard these things of this man. But, let thus much be said concerning Palladius.

CHAP. XX. How the Persians had another severe overthrow given them by the Romans.

THe Roman Emperour residing at Constan­tinople, and being informed of a Victory apparently given him▪ The Flo­rentine M. S. in­serts two words here, altogether necessary▪ after this manner: [...], a victory apparently given him [by God.] Which words (before I had gotten that Manuscript,) I had put in at this place, from Nicephorus, and E­piphanius Scholasticus's Version. Vales. by God, was so good, that although his Forces had managed the War very fortunately, neverthe­less he embraced a Peace. He sends Helion therefore (a person whom he had a mighty esteem for) with Orders to make up a Peace with the Persians. Helion arriving in Mesopotamia, [at that place] where the Ro­mans had made a great Ditch for their own secu­rity, sends one Maximinus (an eloquent person, who was [...]. Christo­phorson has rendred it ill, Ardaburius the Commanders Colleague. Muscu­lus has translated it better, Asses­sour. Epiphanius Scholasticus ren­ders it Councellour, which is the same. Concerning the Councel­lours or Assessours of Judges, as well Civill as Military, I have made many remarks in my notes on Amm. Marcellinus; which 'tis unnecessary to repeat here. Fur­ther, this Maximinus seems to be the same person, who was after­wards sent Embassadour by the Emperour Theodosius to Attalas; as Priscus relates in his Excerpta Legationum: where he attests, that he was nobly descended, and had been very usefull to the Em­perour in many affairs. Vales. Assessour to Ardaburius the Gene­rall,) Embassadour about a Peace. When this person was come to the Persian King, he ac­quaints him with his being sent about a Peace, not from the Roman Emperours, (for he affirmed that the Empe­rour as yet was wholly ig­norant of that War: and when he knew of it, he would look upon it as con­temptible:) but from his chief Commanders. When the Persian King was resol­ved readily to embrace the Embassy: (for his Army was in great distress, by rea­son it wanted provisions;) those Souldiers, who amongst the Persians are termed The Immortalls; (their number is ten thousand [and they are] valiant men,) came to the Emperour, and said, that a Peace was not to be admitted of, before Instead of [ [...]] it must un­doubtedly be [ [...], they,] that is, the Immortalls: So Christo­phorson and Sr Henry Savil read. Vales. they had made an attack upon the Romans, then careless and negligent. The King is perswaded by them; shuts up the Embassadour in prison; and sends The Immortalls to put their design upon the Romans in execution. Being come [to the place appointed,] they divided themselves into two parties, and took a resolution of surroun­ding part of the Roman Army. The Romans seeing but one party of the Persians, made pro­vision to receive their attack. The other party was not seen by them. For they rush't forth to fight on a suddain. But when the Engage­ment was just beginning, the Roman Army un­der the command of Sidonius makes mention of this Procopius, in his Panegyrick of Anthemius Augustus; where he relates, that he was son-in­law to Anthemius heretofore Con­sul and Praefectus Praetorio; who during Theodosius Junior's mino­rity, had had the chief manage­ment of affairs in the Empire. Vales. Pro­copius Master of the Milice (divine providence so or­dering the matter,) ap­pears from an eminence. Procopius seeing his Fellow-Souldiers in danger, attacks the Persians in the Rear; and so they who a little be­fore had surrounded the Romans, were themselves encompassed. After the Romans had in a short time slain every man of these, they set upon those who issued forth upon them from the Ambus­cade, every man of whom likewise they dis­patch with their Darts. Thus, those termed The Immortalls amongst the Persians, were all of them manifestly proved to be Mortalls▪ Christ inflicting this punishment upon the Persians, be­cause they had murdered many pious persons that were his worshippers. The Persian King, in­formed of this overthrow, pretended himself wholly ignorant of the Action: and having given admission to the Embassy, he spake to the Em­bassadour in this manner: We embrace a Peace, not that We yield to the Romans: but We [do it to] gratifie You, because We have found You to be the prudentest person of all the Romans. I doubt not but this place is thus to be resto­red: [...], Thus the war which had been undertaken upon the account of those Christians who lived in Persia, was concluded. Which thing [that is, which conclusion of the war] hapned in the Consulate of the two Augusti. So Epiphanius Scho­lasticus read, as 'tis apparent from his Version. For thus he renders it: Et hoc modo bellum propter Christianos exortum de Parthorum re­gione cessavit. Contigit autem Consulatu Honorii XIII. & Theo­dosii X. 'Tis certain, in this Consulate the Persian war was not waged, but concluded. For it had been begun on the foregoing year▪ when Eustatbius and Agricola were Consuls, as I have remarked before; see chap. 18, note (b.) This is confirmed by Marcellinus Comes in his Chronicon, in these words: Honorio XIII. & Theo­dosio X. Coss. Persaecum Romanis pacem pepigere, in Honorius's thir­teenth and Theodosius's tenth Consulate, the Persians made a Peace with the Romans. Vales. Thus the War which had been undertaken upon the account of those Christians who lived in Per­sia, was concluded. Which thing hapned in the Consulate of the Two Augusti, Honorius being the thirteenth and Theodosius the tenth time Con­sul, on the fourth year of the three hundredth Olympiad. The persecution [which had been raised] against the Christians in Persia, ceased at the same time also.

CHAP. XXI. After what manner Acacius Bishop of Amida, be­haved himself towards the Persian captives.

MOreover, the good action of Acacius Bi­shop of Amida, rendred him much more eminent at that time amongst all men [than he had been before.] For, when the Roman Soul­diers would by no means restore the Persian Captives (whom they had taken when they ruined So he has termed this Province before, at chap. 18. Theophanes in his Chro­nicon, calls it Arxanes, or Arzanes; for so 'tis in some copies. One of the five Pro­vinces be­yond Tigris was called Arzanene, as Amm. Marcellinus attests, book 25. which is sometimes termed Arxanene, and Ara [...]are, and Araxene, as I have remarked at the foresaid book of Amm. Marcellinus. Vales. Azazene,) to the King of Persia; and the Captives, in number about seaven thousand, were in the interim destroyed by famine; (which thing was the occasion of no small grief to the King of Persia) Acacius thought that business was in no wise to be then neglected. Instead of [ [...]. But having called together the Clergymen under himself, he said,] this place would be written more elegantly, thus [ [...], &c. Having [therefore] called together the Clergy under himself: Men [and Brethren] said he, &c.] And so Epiphanius Scholasticus read, as 'tis apparent from his Version. Our emendation is plainly confirmed also by Nicephorus. Vales. Having [therefore] called together the Clergy un­der himself: Men [and Brethren,] said he, Our God stands not in need of Dishes or Cups. For he neither eats, nor drinks, in regard he wants nothing. Whereas therefore the Church is possest of many vessells of gold and silver by the beneficence and liberality of those who be­long to it, 'tis agreeable that by a sale of these vessells we should both [...]. Christophorson ren­ders it ill, to redeem the Captive Souldiers: for those who had been taken prisoners by the Romans in Arzanene, were unarmed▪ most of them being Boo [...]s, who inhabited that Country. Besides, the Ro­mans are termed Souldiers by way of Emphasis, to distinguish them from the Barbarians, as I have noted at Amm. Marcellinus. So our Socrates calls the Romans, Souldiers, almost in the next words after these. Vales. redeem the Captives from the Souldiers, and also provide them food. [Page 380] Having discourst of these and many other such like things as these to them, he ordered the ves­sells to be melted down, and having paid the Souldiers a ransom for the Captives, and fed the Captives [for some time,] he afterwards gave them money to bear their charges, and sent them home to their King. This action of the admirable Acacius highly astonished the King of Persia, because the Romans made it their bu­siness to conquer their Enemies both ways, as well by War, as by Beneficence. And 'tis said, that the Persian King was very desirous that A­cacius should come into his presence, to the end he might enjoy a sight of the man; and that that was effected by the Emperour Theodosius's or­der. When therefore God had given so emi­nent a Victory to the Romans, many persons who excelled for their eloquence, wrote Or, Pa­negyrical Orations. Panegyricks in praise of the Emperour, and recited them in publick. Moreover, the Emperour's Wife wrote a Poem in Heroick Verse: for she was a woman of a great eloquence. For, being the daughter of This is the Leon­tius (if I mistake not,) whom Olympiodo­rus relates by his own care and industry to have been promoted to the So­phistick Chair at Athens; whenas he himself as yet declined it; as Photius declares in his Bibliotheca. Vales. Leontius the Athenian-Sophist, she had been instructed by her Father, and cultivated with all manner of Literature. When the Emperour was about marrying of this woman, Atticus the Bi­shop made her a Christian, and at her Baptism, instead of Athanaïs, named her Eudocia. Ma­ny persons therefore, as I have said, recited Pa­negyricks; some with a design to make them­selves taken notice of by the Emperour; others endeavouring to publish the powerfullness of their own eloquence; being altogether unwilling, that that Learning they had gotten by much labour, should lie concealed.

CHAP. XXII. Concerning the excellencies, wherewith the Em­perour Theodosius Junior was endowed.

BUt I, who am neither studious about being taken notice of by the Emperour, nor de­sirous of making a shew of eloquence, have taken a resolution of setting forth those excellencies wherewith the Emperour is endowed, sincerely and without any Rhetoricall flourishes. For, in regard his virtues are so singularly usefull, my Sentiment is, that to pass them over in silence would be a loss to posterity, which would be defrauded of the knowledge thereof. In the first place therefore, although he was born and educated in the Or, in the Empire. Imperiall Pallace, yet he con­tracted nothing of an effeminacy o [...] stupidity from that education. But was [always] so prudent, as to be reputed by those who addres­sed to him, to have attained a knowledge and experience in most affairs. His patience in un­dergoing hardships was such, that he could en­dure heat and cold couragiously; and would fast frequently, especially on those days termed Wed­nesdaies and Fridaies. And this he did, out of an earnest endeavour of observing the Rites of the Christian Religion with an accuracy. He governed his Pallace so, that it differed not much from a monasterie. Wherefore he, Instead of [ [...]] it must be [ [...], wherefore he, together with his sisters;] as Nicephorus expresses it book 14. chap. 3. The mistake arose from hence, because these particles [...] and [...] are usually confounded one with the other by Transcribers. Vales. together with his sisters, rose early in the morning, and recited alternative Hymns in praise of God. Moreover, he could say the sacred Scriptures by heart. And with the Bishops who confer­red with him, he discoursed out of the Scri­ptures, as if he had been an Ecclesiastick of a long stan­ding. He was much more diligent in making a Col­lection of the sacred Books, and of the Expositions which had been written thereon, than Ptolemaeus Philadel­phus had been heretofore. For clemency and humanity he excelled all men by far. The Emperour Julianus, although he was a profest philosopher, yet could not moderate his rage and anger towards the Antiochians who had See So­crat. book 3. chap. 17. derided him; but inflicted▪ most acute tortures upon Book 3. chap. 19. Theodorus. But Theodosius bad farwell to Aristotle's Syllogismes, and exercised Philosophy in deeds, getting the mastery over Anger, Grief, and Pleasure. He never re­venged himself upon any one who had been injurious to him. Yea, no man ever saw him angry. Being on a time asked by one with whom he was pleased to be familiar, why he never put to death any person who had injured him? his answer was, Would to God it were possible for me to restore to life those that are dead! To ano­ther questioning him about the same thing, Epipha­nius Scho­lasticus has rendred this whole place thus: Non est in­quit, mag­num neque difficile ho­minem mo­ri, quia neque Deo soli, semel mortuum▪ ex poeniten­tiâ susci­tare. It is not, saith he, a great nor difficult thing for a man to die, because neither [is it a great or difficult thing] to God alone, by repentance to raise a man once dead. For you must understand [is it a great or difficult thing] to be used i [...] common to both clauses. Nicephorus Callistus has worded this passage thus: [...]. Which words Langus has rendred thus: Nihil est novi, dixit, fiquis homo quum sit, [...] vit [...] excedat: uni [...] autem Dei esse, eum qui semel mortuus sit, per p [...]nitentiam ad vitam rev [...]care. It is no new thing, said he, that he who is a man should depart out of this life: but 'tis God's property only, by Repentance to recall to life him who is once dead. But I like not Nice­phorus's using [...] instead of [...]. For, the discourse here is not concerning the life of the soul, but that of the body. Where­fore, I approve rather of Museulus's Version▪ who has rendred it thus: ex [...]oenitentiâ verò revocare [...]um qui semel mort [...] est, non est nisi soli Deo possibile. But by repentance to recall him who is once dead, is a thing possible only to God. Notwithstanding this Version pleased not Christophorson, because it may seem to attribute repentance to God. But this expression may be born with, in regard God in the sacred Scriptures is now and then said to repent himself of some fact. Vales. 'Tis no great or difficult thing (said he) for him that is a man, to die: but 'tis Gods property only by repentance to restore to life him that is once dead. Further, his Practise of this Virtue was so con­stant and earnest, that if any person had hap­ned to commit a crime which deserved a ca­pitall punishment, he was never led so far as the City-gates onwards on his way to the place of Execution, before a pardon was gran­ted, whereby he was immediately recalled. When on a time he exhibited a Show of hunting wild beasts in the Amphitheatre at Constanti­nople, the people cried out, Let one of the bold­est Scaliger in his notes on the fourth book of Manilius, and (after him) Salmasius in his notes on Capitolinus, pag. 258, have long since observed, that the Greeks called those [...] (which is the term here used,) who let themselves out to fight with wild beasts. But I ap­prove not of their confounding the Confectores with these [...]. For the Confectores were another sort of persons, as I have remarked on Eusebius, (book 4. chap. 15. note n.) who sought not with the wild beasts, but dispatcht them at a distance. Vales. See Eu­sebius Pamphilius's book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 3. note▪ (b.) Bestiarii encounter the enraged wild beast. [Page 381] To whom he gave this answer, You know not, that We are wont to be spectatours at Shows with clemency and humanity. With which saying he instructed the people, to be in future delighted with Shows wherein there was less of cruelty. Further, his piety was such, that he honoured all God's Priests; but most especially those whom he knew to be more eminent for sanctity of life. 'Tis reported, that when the Bishop of This City, and the name of this Bishop, are equally unknown to me. Vales. Ch [...]bron had ended his life at Constantinople, he desired to have his [...]; all Translatours (whom I have seen) except Valesius, render it his Sack-cloth; the Greek term comprehends both significations. Hair-cloth-Cas­sock, which (although it was very foul and nasty) he wore instead of a Cloak, believing he should there­by partake something of the dead Bishop's sanctity. There hapning tem­pestuous weather one year, he was forced to exhibit the usuall and set Shows in the Cirque, in regard the people were extreamly earnest for them. But when the Cirque was filled with Spectatours, the Storm increased, and there was a vast fall of Snow; at which time the Empe­rour gave an evident demonstration, how he was affected towards God; [for] he made pro­clamation by the Cryer to the people, in these words: 'Tis much better, that we should omit the Show, and all joyn in prayer to God, that we may be preserved unhurt from the imminent Storm. The Cryer had scarce made an end of proclai­ming these words, when all the people began to supplicate God in the Cirque with the greatest joy immaginable, and with a generall consent sang Hymns to him. And the whole City be­came one congregation. The Emperour him­self went in the midst [of the multitude] in a private habit, and began the Hymns: nor was he frustrated of his hope [at that time.] For the air returned to its former serenity; and in­stead of a scarcity of bread-corn, the divine be­nevolence bestowed a plentifull crop upon all persons. If at any time a War was raised, in imitation of David, he fled to God, knowing him to be the disposer of Wars; and by his prayers he managed them successfully. I will here relate therefore, how, a little after the Per­sian War, (when the Emperour Honorius was dead, in the Consulate of Asclepio [...]otus and Ma­rianus, Theopha­nes, in his Chronicon, says the same. But Olympiodo­rus dis­sents; who says Hono­rius died on the twenty se­venth of August. Vales. on the fifteenth of the month August,) by putting his confidence in God, he vanqui­shed the Tyrant Johannes. For, 'tis my Senti­ment, that the Actions which hapned at that time, are worthy to be recorded: because, what befell the Hebrews (who were led by Moses) in their passage over the red Sea, the same [almost] hapned to the Emperour's Commanders, at such time as he sent them against that Tyrant. Which Actions I will relate in short, leaving the am­pleness of them, which does require a peculiar work, [to be set forth at large] by others.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning Johannes who Tyrannized at Rome, af­ter Honorius the Emperour's death. And how God Or, bowed, or, inclined. mollified, by Theodosius's prayers, delive­red him into the hands of the Roman Army.

HOnorius Augustus therefore being dead, the Emperour Theodosius informed thereof, conceals it, and deceives the populace [by feigning] sometimes one thing, at others ano­ther. But he sends his Military Forces secretly to Salonae; which is a City of Dalmatia; to the end that if any Or, In­novation. Rebellion should happen in the Western parts, a force to resist it might not be far off. Having made provision after this man­ner before hand, he then published the death of his That is, Honorius. Uncle. But in the interim, This is the Johannes, Pri­miccrius▪ [or, Chief] of the N [...] ­taries, who when Rome was be­sieged, had been sent Embassa­d [...]ur to Alarichus King of the Goths, whose Friend and Guest he had been, as Zosimus relates, book 5. Vales. Johannes the chief of the Emperour's No­taries, unable to bear the Or, Fortunateness. greatness of his own prefer­ment, seizes the Empire, and sends an Embassage to the Emperour Theodosius, requi­ring to be admitted Col­league in the Empire. Theodo­sius imprisoned his Embassadours; and dispatches away Arda [...]urius, Master of the Milice, who had done excellent service in the Persian War. He be­ing arrived at Salonae, sailed from thence to Aqui­leia; and had ill success as he then thought; (but 'twas afterwards demonstrated to be prospe­rous.) For, an unlucky wind blew, which drove him into the Tyrant's hands. Who having taken Ardaburius, hoped Theodosius would be necessitated to Elect and Proclaim him Emperour, if he were desirous of preserving the life of his Master of the Milice. And the Emperour, when informed hereof, was really in an Agony, as was also the Army which had been sent against the Ty­rant, least Ardaburius should suffer any mischief from the Tyrant. Moreover, Aspar, Ardabu­rius's Son, when he understood that his Father was taken by the Tyrant, and knew that many Myriads of Barbarians were come to the Ty­rant's assistance, knew not what course to take. But, the prayer of the Emperour, beloved by God, at that time prevailed again. For an Angel of God in the habit of a Shepherd, became a guide to Aspar and the forces with him, and leads them through the Lake which lies near to Ra­venna. For in that City the Tyrant resided, where he detained the That is, Ardaburius. Master of the Milice Prisoner. No person was ever known to have passed through this Lake. But God rendred that passable at that time, which before had been impassable. Instead of [ [...], but having pas­sed the wa­ter of the Lake through dry ground] the reading in the Florent. M. S. is [ [...], &c. when there­fore they had passed, &c.] but, in my judg­ment, ano­ther particle is to be added, after this manner, [...], &c. When therefore they had passed the waters of the Lake as i [...] i [...] had been over dry ground. Vales. When therefore they had passed the waters of the Lake [as if it had been] over dry ground, they found the gates of the City open, and seized the Tyrant. At which time the most pious Emperour gave a demonstration of his Religious affection towards God. For whilest he was exhibiting the Cirque-Sports, news was brought him that the Tyrant was destroyed. Whereupon he speaks to the people: Come, said he, if you please, let us rather leave our Recrea­tion, and go into the Church, and put up our thanksgivings to God, in regard his hand hath destroyed the Tyrant. These were his words; and the Shows ceased immediately, and were neglected: and all persons went through the midst of the Cirque, singing praises together with him with one consent of mind and voice, and went into God's Church. And the whole City became one congregation. Being come into the place of prayer, they continued there all day.

CHAP. XXIV. That, after the slaughter of Johannes the Tyrant, Theodosius the Emperour proclaimed Valen­tinianus (the Son of Constantius, and of his Aunt Placidia,) Emperour of Rome.

MOreover, after the Tyrant's death, the Em­perour Theodosius The e­mendation of this place is owing to the Floren­tine M. S. wherein, instead of [ [...], was a prudent person,] 'tis plainly wirtten thus [ [...], became ve­ry solici­tous.] Vales. became very solici­tous, whom he should proclaim Emperour of the Western parts. He had a Cosin-German very young; by name Valentinianus, the Son of his Aunt Placidia. She was daughter to the Emperour Theodosius The Great; and Sister to the two Augusti, Arcadius and Honorius. Valentinianus had a Father, by name Constan­tius, who having been proclaimed Emperour by Honorius, and reigned with him a short time, died soon after. This Consin-German of his he created Caesar, and sent him into the Western parts, committing the chief management of af­fairs to his mother Placidia. Moreover, Theo­dosius himself hastned into Italy, that he might both proclaim his Cosin-German Emperour, and also (by being present there himself) instruct the Italians by his own prudent advice, not easily to yield subjection to Tyrants. Being gone as far as Thessalonica, he was hindred from pro­ceeding on his journey by a sickness. Having therefore sent the Imperiall Diadem to his Co­sin-German, by Helion a person of the Senato­rian Order, he himself returned to the City Con­stantinople. But, I think this Narrative which I have given concerning these transactions, to be sufficient.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning Atticus's Government of the Churches; and that he ordered Johannes's name to be writ­ten into the Dypticks of the Church; and that he foreknew his own death.

[IN the interim] Atticus the Bishop in a wonderfull manner enlarged the affairs of the Church; administring all things with a sin­gular prudence, and by his Sermons inciting the people to Virtue. Perceiving that the Church was divided, in regard the See book 6. chap. 18. Johannitae held Or, as­semblies without the Church. separate Assemblies, he ordered, that mention should be made of Johannes in the prayers, ac­cording as it was usuall for other Bishops, who were dead to be mentioned; on which account he hoped many would return to the Church. Moreover, he was so liberall, that he made pro­vision not only for the poor of his own Chur­ches, but sent money also to the neighbou­ring Cities towards the relief and comfort of the necessitous. For he sent three hundred Crowns to Calliopius a Presbyter of the Church of Ni­caea, to whom he wrote this Letter.

Atticus to Calliopius, health in the Lord.

I understand, that in your City there are an in­finite company of persons oppressed with hunger, who stand in need of the compassion of pious men. By terming them an infinite company, I mean a multi­tude, not an accurate and determinate number. In regard therefore I have received a sum of money from him who with a liberall hand giveth to good Stewards, and [whereas] it happens that some are oppressed with want, to the end that those who have wherewithall might be tried, but do not give to the indigent; take (dear friend!) these three hundred Crowns, and bestow them as you shall think good. But give them to those who are wholly ashamed to beg, not to them that throughout their whole lives have declared their belly to be their trade. Moreover, when you give, have no respect to any Sect or Religion whatever in this particu­lar act; mind this one thing only, to feed the hungry, but not to difference or distinguish those who embrace not our Religion.

After this manner Atticus took care even of the indigent that were at a distance from him After these words, there was a whole line and something more wanting; which we have made up from the incomparable Florent. and Sfortian M. SS. after this manner: [...], Moreover, be made it his business to extirpate the super­stitions of some men. Which words were in that copy also, which E­piphan. Scholasticus made use of, as 'tis apparent from his Version. For thus he renders it; sed & superstitionem quorundam studebat abscindere, moreover be endeavou­red to cut off the superstition of some men. But, that Christophor­son had consulted no M. S. Co­ples of Socrates, 'tis evident both from this place and also from many others. Vales.. Moreover, he made it his business to extirpate the superstitions of some men. For having one time received information, that those who separated from the Novatianists on ac­count of the Jewish pass­over, had translated the body of Sabbatius from Rodes, (for he had been banished into that Island, where he ended his life) and buried it, and did usu­ally pray at his grave: he sent some persons by night, to whom he gave order to [dig up] Sab­batius's body, and Or, Hid it. bury it in some other Sepulchre. But the persons who usually went thither, when they found the grave dug up, in future left off worshipping Or, That Sepulchre. that place. Besides, he was very elegant and happy in imposing names [upon places.] A Or, A Station for Ships. Sea-Port situate in the mouth of the Euxine-Sea (which had antiently been called That is, Venomous, or, full of poyson. Pharmaceus, he named That is, A medicine, or, cure. Therapeia, least at his holding religious assemblies there, he should call that place by an infamous name. Another place near adjacent to Constantinople he named That is, The Silver-City. Argy­ropolis, for this reason. The Gol­den-City. Chrysopolis is an an­cient Sea-Port situate in the head of the Bospho­rus: many of the ancient Writers make men­tion of it, especially Strabo, Nicolaus Dama­scenus, and the admirably eloquent Xenophon in his sixth Book concerning the expedition of Cyrus; and the same Authour in his first Book concerning the Grecian affairs, speaks to this effect concerning this City, [viz.] that Alcibiades, when he had built a wall round it, set up a Toll therein which consisted of a pay­ment of the tenth peny. For those who fail out of Pontus were compelled to pay the tenth peny there. Atticus therefore perceiving this place, which was situate over against Chrysopolis, to be pleasant and delightfull, said it was fit and agree­able it should be termed Argyropolis. Which saying of his Or, Con­firmed that name to the place. put that name upon the place immediately. When some persons spoke to him, that the Novatianists ought not to hold their as­semblies within the Cities; his answer was, you know not how much they suffered together with us when we were persecuted in the Reignes of Constantius and Valens. And besides (said he) they have been Or, Wit­nesses. Assertours of our Faith. For though they made a separation long since from the Church, yet no innovation about the Faith hath been introduced by them. Being ar­rived on a time at Nicaea upon account of an Ordination, and seeing Asclepiades, a very aged [Page 383] person, Bishop of the Novatianists there, he asked him, how many years have you been a Bi­shop? When he made answer [that he had been a Bishop] fifty years, You are happy, O man, (said he) in regard you have been diligent about so good a work for such a long time! He spake these words to the same Asclepiades, I do indeed commend Novatus; but the Novatianists I can in no wise approve of. Asclepiades amazed at this strange expression, replied, how can you say this, O Bishop? To whom Atticus made this answer; I commend Novatus, because he refused to communicate with those persons who had sacri­ficed. For I my self would have done the same. But I do not in any wise praise the Novatianists, in regard they exclude the Laïcks from commu­nion on account of very light and triviall offen­ces. To which Asclepiades made this return; there are, besides sacrificing, many other sins unto death, (as the Scriptures term them,) on account whereof [...]. The preposition [...] must be expun­ged; which neither Ni­cephorus, nor Epiphan▪ Scholasticus, nor the other Translatours do ac­knowledge. Unless, instead of [...], any one has a mind to sub­stitute [...], and read thus; You in a certain manner exclude Ecclesi­asticks. But, this place wants not difficulty. For, it may seem to be concluded from hence, that Ecclesiasticks in the Catholick Church, who had been excommunicated for more enormous crimes, were cut off from the Church without all hope of pardon; but Laïcks not so. Which may be thus explained. Laïcks, who had been separated from communion on account of publick crimes, recovered peace and communion again by the remedy of penitency, at least once. But to Ecclesiasticks who had been excommunicated, the door of peni­tency was shut. For they were not admitted to publick penitency. They continued therefore for ever excommunicated. For which reason Ecclesiasticks were very rarely excommunicated: but were either deposed, or suspended from their Office for some time, or at least reduced to a Laïck-communion. But, the first Canon of the Neo­caesarian Synod does gainsay this; wherein the Ecclesiasticks who had committed Fornication or Adultery, are driven from communion, and brought to penitency. This passage may be explained otherwise also. For, from such time as Nectarius abolished the Penitenti­ary, all Laïcks had a free power of communicating left them; nor was any one removed from communion on account of a deadly crime, except Ecclesiasticks only. Vales. you exclude Ecclesiasticks, but we Laïcks also from communion, leaving to God alone a power of pardoning them. Further, Atticus Atticus did not only foreknow the day of his own death, but long before his death, he built himself a Sepulchre, as I am informed from an old Epigram; which because 'tis not yet extant in Print, I will here annex: [...]. [...]. i. e. Paulus Silentiarius's Composure on the Tomb of one Atticus.Atticus, whilest he was living, (in whose mind a Fortitude not to be daunted (shin'd,)Dug me his Grave, in common hope of Fate untractable and incompassionate. Such were his Virtuous Actions, that Death's fear, and Frightfull Terrours by him slighted were.But, by the Sun, to late posterity his Sun-like wisedom shall recorded be. This Epigram is extant in Constantinus Cephalas's Anthologia, not yet Printed. 'Tis my sentiment, that Atticus Bishop of Constantinople is meant hereby. For I know no other Atticus, to whom this Elogy of Wisdom and Virtue can be agreeable. Notwithstanding, this is contradicted by Paulus Silentiarius's being inscribed the Authour of this Epigram, who (as 'tis manifest from Agathias's testimony,) flourished long after Atticus, in Justinian's times. Wherefore, either the inscription of the Epigram, or our conjecture, must of necessity be false. Vales. foreknew even the time of his own death. For at his departure from Nicaea, he spake these words to Calliopius a Presbyter of that place: Hasten to Constantinople before Autumn, if you are desirous of seeing me agai [...] alive. For, if you delay, you will not find me living. Upon his saying whereof, he mistook not. For in the twenty first year of his Episcopate, on the tenth of October, he died, in Theodosius's eleventh and Valentinianus Caesar's first Consulate. Moreover, the Emperour Theodosius being then in his re­turn from Thessalonica, was not at his Funerall. For Atticus was interred the day before the Em­perour's Entry into Constantinople. Not long after Valentinianus Junior was The Au­thour of the Alexan­drian Chro­nicle understood this passage in Socrates amiss. For he thought, that Va­lentinianus Junior Placidia's Son, had been stiled Augustus on the 23d of October: but Socrates says not so; he relates only, that Va­lentinianus's having been Proclaimed Augustus was published at Con­stantinople on the twenty third of October. Which two things are vastly different. Sigonius (Book 11▪ De Occidentali Imperio) relates that Valentinianus was created Augustus at Ravenna on the Ides (that is, the fifteenth) of October, in Theodosius Augustus's eleventh and Valentinianus's own first Consulate. 'Tis certain, on the eighth of October in the same Consulate, Valentinianus was as yet but Caesar▪ as we are informed from the 47th Law in the Theodosian Code de Episc. Eccles. & Clericis, dated at Aquileia. By which place Sigonius was chiefly induced, to place Valentinianus's being proclaimed Au­gustus on the Ides of October, and to relate it to have been made at Ravenna. For in regard it was published at Constantinople on the twenty fifth of that same month, it could not have been done later. Onufriu [...] (in his Fasti) has followed Sigonius's opinion. Further Marcellinus and Jordaines (in his book De Successione Regnorum) do mention this Declaration to have been made at Ravenna: but Olympiodorus and Idatius (in his Chronicon) say 'twas done at Rome. Vales. Declared Augu­stus, about the twenty third of that same October.

CHAP. XXVI. Concerning Sisinnius, Atticus's successour in the Constantinopolitane Bishoprick.

AFter Atticus's death, a great contest hap­ned about the Ordination of a Bishop, some desiring one person, others another. For, one party ('tis said) were earnest to have Philippus a Presbyter; another, Proclus; who was a Pres­byter also. But the whole body of the people with a generall consent wished Sisinnius might be made [Bishop;] who was a Presbyter also himself: he had not been constituted Or, in any of the Churches, &c. over any of the Churches within the City, but had been promoted to the Presbyterate in a Village be­longing to Constantinople, the name whereof is Elaea; and 'tis situate over against the Imperiall Constan­tinople. City: in which Village the Festivall of our Saviour's Ascension was from [an ancient] usage celebrated by the whole people in gene­rall. All the Laïcks were desirous to have this man [made Bishop,] both because he was a person singularly eminent for his piety, and also more especially in regard his diligence in relieving the indigent was earnest even beyond his power. The desire therefore of the Laïty prevailed: and Sisinnius is ordained on the twen­ty eighth of February, in the following Consu­late, which was Theodosius's twelfth and Valen­tinianus Junior Augustus's second. Afterwards, Philippus the Presbyter (because Sisinnius was preferred before him,) was very bitter and large in his Photius (in his Bib­liotheca, chap. 35.) attests the same▪ where his words concerning Philippus Sideta's Christian History are these: [...], &c. But in his History he is very severe upon Sisinnius, because, when as they were both of the same degree and order, and he himself seemed superiour in eloquence and all sort of literature; yet Sisin­nius (says he) was elected to the Archiepiscopall See. Valesius. invectives against that Ordination, [Page 384] in that [voluminous work termed the] Chri­stian History, which he wrote; wherein he ca­lumniates both the person ordained, and also those who had ordained him; but more especial­ly, the Laity. And his expressions are such, that I am unwilling to record them; for I can in no wise approve of his rashness, in having been so audacious, as to commit such things to writing. But, I judge it not inopportune to say something in short concerning him.

CHAP. XXVII. Concerning Philippus the Presbyter, who was born at Side.

PHilippus was by Country a Sidensian. Side is a City of Pamphylia, at which Troilus the Sophista had his originall extract; of his own relation to whom Philippus boasted. Whilest he was a Deacon, he had had fre­quent converse with That is, Chryso­stome. Bishop Johannes. He was a very laborious and painfull student, and had made a Collection of many books, and those of all sorts. He imitated the Asian Style, and wrote many Books. [For, he confuted the Emperour Julian's Pieces, and compiled a Chri­stian History, which he divided into six and thirty Books. Each Book contained many Tomes, in so much that in all they were near a thousand. The Or, Sub­ject, or Ar­gument. Contents of each Tome equalled the Tome it self in bigness. This work he entitled not an Ecclesiastick, but a Christian History. In it he heaped together variety of Learning, being de­sirous to shew, that he was not unskilled in Phi­losophick Literature. For which reason, he makes frequent mention therein of Geometricall, Astronomicall, Arithmeticall, and Musicall Specula­tions, Pre­cepts, or, Axioms. The­orems. He also describes Islands, Mountains, Trees, and severall other things not very mo­mentous. Upon which account he has made it a loose work: and therefore hath (in my judg­ment) rendred it useless both to the ignorant, and to the Learned also. For, the ignorant are unable to inspect the heighth and grandeur of his Stile. And those that are well versed in Learning nauseate his insipid repetition of words. But, let every one pass a judgment upon those Books according to his own liking. I only say this, that the times wherein affairs have been transacted are confounded by him. For when he has mentioned the times of the Emperour Theodosius, he runs back to those of Athanasius the Bishop. And this he does very frequently. Thus much concerning Philippus. 'Tis requisite that we should now declare what hapned in Si­sinnius's time.

CHAP. XXVIII. That Sisinnius ordained Proclus Bishop of Cyzi­cum: but the Inhabitants of that City would not admit him [to be their Bishop.]

THe Bishop of Cyzicum being dead, Sisin­nius ordained Proclus Bishop of that City. When therefore he was about going thither, the Inhabitants of Cyzicum prevent him, and ordain a person that was an Ascetick, his name Dalma­tius. And this they did in contempt to a What Law this was and by whom made, 'tis uncertain. My Senti­ment▪ is, that 'twas an Imperi­all Law, whereby provision had been made, that the Inha­bitants of Cyzicum should not ordain themselves a Bishop contrary to the con­sent of At­ticus Bi­shop of Constanti­nople. For if this had been a Sanction made in a Councill of Bishops, Socrates would have used the term Canon, rather than have called it a Law. After Atticus's death, the Inhabitants of Cyzicum disregarded this Law. For they said, that that priviledge had in an especiall manner been granted to Atticus, and belonged not to his Successours. But, they were mistaken. For long before At­ticus, the Constantinopolitan Prelates had given Bishops to the Inhabi­tants of Cyzicum. For, in Constantius's time, Eudoxius Bishop of Constantinople ordained Eunomius Bishop of Cyzicum. See Libera­tus's Breviarium chap. 7. Vales. Law by which 'twas established, that the ordination of a Bishop [there] should not be made con­trary to the Constantinopolitane Bishop's mind. But they disregarded this Law, as being [said they] a personall prerogative granted only to Atticus. Proclus therefore continued destitute indeed of the presidency over his own Church, but he flourished and grew famous for his Ser­mons [Preach't] in the Churches of Constan­tinople. But we shall speak concerning this per­son in due place. Sisinnius having survived his being made Bishop not full ou [...] two years, ended his life in the Consulate of Hierius and Ardaburius, on the twenty fourth of the month December. He was a person, for his temperance, good life, and love to the poor, highly eminent. As to his temper, he was a person to whom access might easily be had, and of a disposi­tion plain and without falsehood; therefore no Lover of business. For which reason busie men were offended at him; amongst whom he had the character of a slothfull person.

CHAP. XXIX. That after Sisinnius's death, [the Emperours] sent for Nestorius from Antioch, and made him Bishop of Constantinople; who quickly discovered his own temper and disposition:

AFter Sisinnius's death, the Emperours were pleased not to prefer any person of the Constantinopolitane Church to that See, because they were men studious of vain-glory: although many were very earnest to have Philippus, others not fewer in number [strove to get] Proclus, ordained. But they resolved to send for a For­reigner from Antioch. For there was a man there, by name Nestorius, born at the City Ger­manicia, who had a good voice, and a readi­ness of expression. Wherefore they determined to send for him, as being a fit person to teach the people. After an intervall of three months therefore, Nestorius is brought from Antioch. Who was cried up indeed for his temperance amongst many persons; but what a tempered man he was as to other things, the more prudent discovered from Amongst the An­cients it was wont to be ve­ [...]y care­fully ob­served, what the Bishops (especial­ly the Pre­lates of the greater Churches) said in their first Sermon to the people. For from that Sermon a conjecture was made of the Faith, Doctrine, and Temper, of every Bishop. Wherefore they were wont to take particular notice of, and remember their sayings. A remark of this nature Socrates has made before, at book 2▪ chap. 43. concerning the first Sermon of Eudoxius Bishop of Constantinople. And Theodoret and Epiphanius declare the same concerning Meletius Antiochenus's first Sermon to the people. Vales. his first Sermon. For, being ordained on the tenth of Aprill, in the Consulate of Felix and Taurus; addressing himself to the Emperour he forthwith uttered that famous ex­pression in the presence of all the people. Give me (said he,) O Emperour! the Earth cleared from Hereticks, and in recompence thereof I will give you Heaven. Assist me in destroying Here­ticks; and I will assist you in vanquishing the Persians. Although these words, were extream­ly pleasing to some of the Vulgar, who had con­ceived an hatred against Hereticks; yet to those [Page 385] (who, as I have said, had skill in giving a con­jecture of his Sentiments from his expressions,) neither the levity of his mind, nor his inclination to anger and violence joyned with his vain-glo­riousness, were concealed: in regard he con­teined not himself during the smallest space of time, but broke out into such expressions as these; and (if I may use the proverb) before he had tasted the water of the City, shewed him­self an inraged persecutor. On the fifth day therefore after his ordination, he takes a resolu­tion to demolish the Arians's Oratory, in which they performed their devotions secretly; where­by he drove those Hereticks to a desperation. For when they saw their place of Prayer pul­ling down, they threw fire into it and burnt it. Moreover, the fire spread further, and consumed the adjacent buildings. Whereupon a tumult was raised all over the City, and the Arians made preparations to revenge themselves. But God the keeper of the City, permitted not the mis­chief to gather to an head. However, Nestorius was in future termed an [...]. I chose to ren­der it an Incendiary (as Etiphan. Scholasticus does,) rather than Incendium, a fire, though, 'tis con [...]est, this is the true import of the word, Vales. Incendiary, not only by the Hereticks, but by those also of his own Faith. For he desisted not, but framed intreagues against the He­reticks, and did his utmost to subvert the City. For he attempted to mo­lest the Novatianists also, his envy spurring him on, because Paulus Bishop of the Novatianists was famous in all places for his piety. But the Emperours by their admonitions repressed his fury. Now what mischiefs he did to the Quar­todecimani throughout Asia, Lydia, and Caria, and how numerous the multitudes were that came to their deaths by his means at Miletum and Sardis in a tumult there raised, I think fit not to mention. But, what manner of punishment he underwent, as well for these [wickednesses,] as for his Or, open tongue. unbridled tongue, I will declare here­after.

CHAP. XXX. After what manner the Burgundions embraced the Christian Religion, in the Reign of Theodosius Junior.

I Will now relate a thing worthy to be re­corded, which hapned about this very time. There is a barbarous Nation, which has its ha­bitation beyond the River Rhine, they are called the Burgundions. These persons lead a Or, un­bufied. quiet life. For they are almost all Carpenters; by which [trade] they earn wages, and get a live­lyhood. The Nation of the Hunni by making continuall Inroades upon this people, depopu­lated their Country, and frequently destroyed many of them. The Burgundions therefore, re­duced to a great streight, fly for refuge to no man; but resolved to commit themselves to some God. And having seriously considered with themselves, that the God of the Romans did vigorously assist and defend those that feared him; by a generall consent they all came over to the faith of Christ. Going therefore to one of the Cities of Gallia, they made a request to the Bishop, that they might receive Christian Baptism. The Bishop ordered them to fast sea­ven days, in which intervall he instructed them in the grounds of Faith, and on the eighth day baptized and dismissed them. Being encouraged therefore [hereby,] they marched out Instead of [ [...], against the Tyrants] it must un­doubtedly be [ [...], a­gainst the Hunni:] for the Burgundi­ous were oppressed by them, as Socrates attests. Vales. a­gainst the Hunni, and were not frustrated of their expectation. For the King of the Hunni (whose name was This per­son (as I suppose,) is Octar King of the Hunni; whom Jordanes (in his Hi­story of the Goths, chap. 35,) relates to have been the brother of Ro [...], and Mundiüchus Attila's Father. Vales. Optar,) having burst him­self in the night by eating too much; the Burgun­dions fell upon the Hunni then destitute of a Commander in chief, and á few engaged very many, and conquered them. For the Burgun­dions being in number only three thousand, de­stroyed about ten thousand of the Hunni. And from that time the Nation of the Burgundions be­came zealous professours of Christianity. About the same time, Barba Bishop of the Arians died, in Theodosius's thirteenth and Valentinia­nus's third Consulate, on the twenty fourth of June, and Sabbatius is constituted Bishop in his stead. But, let thus much be said concerning these things.

CHAP. XXXI. With what miseries the Macedoniani were afflicted by Nestorius.

MOreover, Nestorius behaved himself con­trary to the usage of the Church, In my own judg­ment, I have men­ded this▪ place very happily. For, where­as there was no sense in the common reading, (which is this, [...], and otherwise caused himself to be hated in such things;) by a very small change I have men­ded the place thus, [...], and caused o­thers to imitate himself in such things. Nor do I doubt but Socrates left it thus written. Otherwise, what he adds concerning Antonius Bishop of Germa, would in no wise agree with that which goes before. At the very next words, instead of [ [...], as 'tis apparent from what hapned from him,] I read [ [...], as 'tis apparent from what hapned during his being Bishop.] Which emendation seems to me altogether necessary. For, that which follows concerning Antonius the Bishop, was in no wi [...]e done by Nestorius. Vales. and caused others to imitate himself in such things, as 'tis apparent from what hapned during his being Bishop. For, one Antonius Bishop of Germa a City in the Hellespont, imitated Nesto­rius's rage towards the Hereticks, and made it his business to persecute the Macedoniani, taking the Patriarch's order as a pretext for his Apo­logy. The Macedoniani for some time endured his vexatiousness. But after Antonius began to disquiet them more vehemently; being unable to undergo his molestation any longer, they [grew desperate, and] brake out into a cruell madness; and having privately sent some men who preferred what is pleasant before that which is good, they murder him. The Macedoniani having perpetrated this villanous fact, Nestorius took hold of what had been done as an occasion of his own rage. And he perswades the Emperours to deprive them of their Churches. As well those Churches therefore which they had before the old walls of Constantinople, as them [they were possest of] in Cyzicum, were taken from them; as were like­wise many others, which they had in the Villages of the Hellespont. Some of them came over to the [Catholick] Church, and embraced the Homo [...]usian Faith. But, as 'tis proverbially spoken, Drunkards never want wine, nor Conten­tious persons strife. It hapned therefore, that Nestorius, who busied himself in expelling other persons, was himself turned out of the Church, for this reason [following.]

CHAP. XXXII. Concerning the Presbyter Anastasius, by whom Nestorius was perverted to Impiety.

ANastasius the Presbyter, who had come from Antioch with Nestorius, was his in­timate acquaintance▪ Nestorius had an high e­steem for him, and made use of his advice in the management of business. This Anastasius being Preaching one time in the Church, ut­tered these words, Let no man stile Mary That is, The Mother of God, or, the Virgin that bore God: a term that made a great distur­bance in the Christian world, as the Reader will see here­after. Theotocos. For Mary was a woman. But 'tis impossible for God to be born of a woman. The hearing hereof disturbed ma­ny persons, as well of the Clergy as Laity. For they had been heretofore taught, to confess Christ to be God, and in no wise to separate him as man from the Divinity on account of his Incarnation; whereto they were induced by the Apostle's words, who saith; Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh; yet now henceforth know we him no more. Nicephorus, when he wrote out this passage of Socrates, ad­ded the word [again,] shewing thereby, that the following words were taken out of St Paul's E­pistle. Indeed, the words im­mediately preceding occur at 2 Cor. 5. 16; but whence these are quoted, I cannot yet find. Vales. And [a­gain,] wherefore leaving the discourse concerning Christ, let us press forwards to perfection. A disturbance there­fore having been raised in the Church (as I have said,) [about this matter;] Ne­storius endeavoured to con­firm Anastasius's expression; (for he was un­willing, that the man for whom he had so great an esteem, should be reproved as having spoken blasphemy;) and made frequent discourses con­cerning it in the Church, in which he proposed contentious questions concerning this thing, and every where rejected this term Theotocos. This question therefore being entertained in one manner by some, and in another by others; on this account a dissention arose in the Church. And being Engaged in an Encounter by night as it were, sometimes they asserted these things, at others those, affirming and in like man­ner denying one and the same thing. But Ne­storius was supposed by most men, to entertain such Sentiments, as to assert the Lord [Christ] to be a meer man, and to introduce the opi­nion of Paul of Samosata and Photinus into the Church. Now, so great a controversie and di­sturbance was raised about this matter, that 'twas thought necessary a Generall Councill [should be convened.] But I my self, after my reading the Books Sr Henry Savill, had remar­ked at the margin of his Copy, that in his judgment, instead of [ [...], proposed,] it should be [ [...], published.] And a little after, where the reading is [ [...], for being a naturall eloquent man] that Learned Knight had written in the margin fortè [...], perhaps it should be [ [...], naturally;] to which emendation we agree, as by our Version appears. For Nice­phorus, who has extracted this passage out of Socrates, words it thus, Vales. published by Nestorius, found him to be an ignorant person. And I will declare the truth un­feignedly. For, his vices which I have spoken of already, I have not mentioned out of any hatred to him, nor will I, to gratifie any man, les­sen my account of the good which I found in him. Ne­storius seems not to me, to be a follower either of Paul of Samosata's opinion, or of Photinus's, nor in the least to assert the Lord [Christ] to be a meer man. But he was put into a fright by this term [Theo­tocos] only, as if it had been a Bugbear. And this befell him meerly by reason of his great Illi­terateness. For being naturally endowed with eloquence, he was supposed to be a man of lear­ning; but in reality was unlearned and ignorant. He likewise scorned to read the Books of Ancient Instead of [ [...]] it must undoubtedly be [ [...], or [...], Expositours,] though the same errour be in Nicephorus also. But Socrates himself does a little after this, shew it should be [...]. For, his words are [...], The Ancient Exposi­tours. Vales. Expositours. For being puft up with pride by reason of his ability to speak well, he minded not reading the Ancients with any thing of accuracy; but thought him­self better then any man else. To begin therefore from hence, he was wholly ignorant, that in the Catho­lick Epistle of St John (to wit, in the ancient Co­pies thereof,) it was thus written; In the first Epist. of St John, chap. 4. vers. 2, 3; the words in the Greek Copies now extant are these [...]. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God. In the Latine Copies 'tis thus worded: Omnis spiritus qui confitetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse, ex Deo est: & omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum, ex Deo non est, Every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit which separates Jesus, is not of God. In that Greek Copy therefore, which the old Latine Translatour made use of, it was written thus: [...], every spirit which separates Jesus from God is not; as Socrates attests it to have been written in the ancient Copies. Notwithstan­ding, Socrates seems to have read, [...]; which words we have exprest in our Version. For Socrates's following words are, [...], &c. that some persons have depraved [or, corrupted] this Epistle, being desirous to separate the Manhood of Christ from his Deity [or, Man from God.] In the Alexandrian Copy (the various readings whereof the English have given us,) this place in John is thus written; [...], And every spirit which confesses not Jesus, is not of God. Which comes nearer to the vulgar reading. Vales. every spirit which separates Jesus [from God,] is not of God. For, this sentence has been expunged out of the ancient Copies by those, whose desire it is to separate the Divine nature from the Or, Dis­pensation of man. humane Oeconomy. Wherefore, the Ancient Expositours have made this very remark, to wit, that some persons have depraved this Epistle, being desirous Or, To separate man from God. to separate the Manhood of Christ from his Deity. For the Humanity is joyned to the Di­vinity. Socrates mistakes here; and whilest he reproves Nestorius, falls into the Errour of Eutyches, who thought, that after the Union, there was not two, but only one nature in Christ. Unless we should say, that Socrates speaks concerning the persons, not the Natures. By this means Socrates might be excused, if his words would admit of this sense. 'Tis certain, [...], and [...] (concerning which terms these words are spoken) do altogether signifie Natures, not persons. Vales. Nor are they any more two, but one. The Ancients emboldened by this Testimony, scrupled not to stile Mary Theotocos. For Eusebius Pamphilus (in his third Book concerning the Life of Constantine,) has these express words. For That is, God with us. Emanuel endured to be born for us. And the place of his Nativity is amongst the Hebrews termed Bethle­hem. Upon which account the Empress Helena most dear to God, adorned the plaoe, where the [...]. God bearing Virgin was de­livered, with admirable Monuments, and illu­strated that sacred Cave with all manner of orna­ments. And Origen (in the first Tome of his [Comments] upon the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans,) expounding in what manner [Mary] may be termed Theotocos, handles that Question largely. 'Tis apparent therefore, that Nestorius was wholly ignorant in the writings of the An­cients. For which reason, as I have said, he opposes this only term [Theotocos.] For, that [Page 387] he asserts not Christ to be a meer man, as Pho­tinus and Paul of Samosata did, we are evident­ly informed even from his own discourses which he hath published. Wherein he does in no place destroy the Hypostasis of the Word of God; but every where professes him to have a proper, reall and peculiar person and existence: nor does he deprive him of a subsistence, as did Photinus and Paul of Samosata. Which Tenet the Manichaeans and Montanus's followers have been so audacious as to assert. That this was Nestorius's opinion, I my self have found, partly by reading his own works, and partly from the discourses of his Admirers. Further, this fri­gid and empty discourse of Nestorius has raised no small disturbance in the world.

CHAP. XXXIII. Concerning the horrid wickedness commited upon the Altar of the Great Church by the fugitive servants.

THese things having been transacted [after this manner,] there hapned a most de­testable fact, perpetrated in the Church. For, the servants of one of the Great men, fellows that were Barbarians, having by experience found their Master to be cruell, fled to the Church, and with their swords drawn leapt upon the Altar. Being intreated to go out, they could by no means be prevailed upon; but hindred the divine Services. And holding their naked swords in their hands for [the space of] ma­ny days, they stood in a posture to make resi­stance against any one that approached them. Moreover, when they had killed one of the Ec­clesiasticks, and wounded another, at last they slew themselves. Whereupon, one of those then pre­sent said, that the prophanation of the Church was no good sign, [in proof whereof] he added two Iambicks of a certain old Poet:

Nicephorus quotes these two Verses thus:
[...]
But the latter verse would be written better thus: ‘ [...]. Vales.’
For such Prognosticks happen in that while
When horrid Crimes the Churches do defile.

Nor was he who spake these words, mistaken in his Sen­timent. For (as it was con­jectured,) a division amongst the people, and his deposition who had been the Occasioner of this division, was hereby por­tended.

CHAP. XXXIV. Concerning the former Synod at Ephesus convened against Nestorius.

FOr within a small intervall of time, the Bi­shops in all places were by the Emperour's Edict ordered to meet together at Ephesus. Im­mediately after the Feast of Easter therefore, Nestorius went to Ephesus, accompanied with a great and promiscuous multitude, where he finds many Bishops met together. But Cyrillus [Bi­shop] of Alexandria made some delaies, and came not till about Pentecost. On the fifth day after Pentecost, Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem arrived. Whilest Johannes [Bishop] of An­tioch was slow in coming, the [Prelates] that were present began to debate the Question. And Cyrillus of Alexandria made some onse [...]s [of dispute,] being desirous to disturb and terrifie Nestorius; for he had conceived an hatred a­gainst him. Moreover, when many asserted the Deity of Christ, Nestorius exprest himself thus, I cannot term him God, who was two months and three months old. And therefore I am clear from your bloud; nor will I in future come to you any more. Having said this, he afterwards held conventions with the other Bishops, who were followers of his opinion. So that the persons present were divided into two factions. Those of Cyrillus's party Or, Made up the Synod. staid in the Councill, and cited in Ne­storius. But he refused to come in, and deferred his appearance till the arrivall of Johannes [Bi­shop] of Antioch. Whereupon those of Cy­rillus's party, (after they had severall times read over Nestorius's Discourses about this Question, which he had made to the people; and from the reading thereof had given in their judgment, that he had constantly spoken blasphemy against the Son of God) deposed him. When this was done, Socrates mistakes at this place, in attribu­ting that to Nestorius which was done by John Bi­shop of Antioch. Therefore Evagrius and (who has fol­lowed him) Nicephorus do deser­vedly re­prehend our Socra­tes. Now, the busi­ness, as we are in­formed from the Acts of the Ephesine Synod, was transacted in this manner. When Ne­storius had been con­demned and depo­sed by the holy Sy­nod, and the Letters of Deposi­tion had been sent to him, he sent forth­with a rela­tion to the Emperour Theodosius, wherein he complained of his Ad­versaries violence, and that they would not expect the coming of the Eastern Bishops, who, 'twas said, would quickly be there. This re­lation was subscribed by ten Bishops of Nestorius's party. On the fifth day after, comes John Bishop of Antioch, with the Eastern Bishops. Who having understood what had been done▪ assembled together the Bishops (as well the Eastern Prelates whom he had brought with him, as those ten, which (as we have said) had subscribed Nestorius's Relation,) and deposed the Bishops Cyrillus and Memnon. At this Little Councill of Johannes's, Nestorius himself was not persent, be­cause having been condemned by an Episcopall sentence, he had not been restored by the determination of a Synod. But the Bishops of his party, whom the sentence of the Synod had in no wise touched, were present. Wherefore Socrates may be excused, if we say that these words [ [...]] do not denote Nestorius himself, but the Bishops who were of his party, and had subscribed his Relation. But in the other particulars Socrates is not to be excused. Vales. Nestorius's party made up another Synod apart by themselves, and depose Cyrillus, and to­gether with him Memnon Bishop of Ephesus. Not long after these transactions, Johannes Bi­shop of Antioch arrived. And being informed of what had been done, was highly displeased with Cyrillus, as being the occasioner of the di­sturbance which had hapned, in regard he had with so much rashness and precipitancy procee­ded to the deposition of Nestorius. But Cyrillus, and together with him Juvenalis, to revenge themselves upon Johannes, depose him also. These affairs being after this manner confused and disturbed, Nestorius perceiving this contention had arrived to such an height as to ruine com­munion, retracted, and termed Mary Theotocos, saying, Let Mary be styled Theotocos, and let all animosities cease. But though he made this retractation, yet no body admitted of it. For at this present he continues deposed, and lives in exile at Oäsis. And this was the conclusion of the Synod held at that time. These things were done in the Consulate of Bassus and An­tiochus, on the twenty eighth of June. But Jo­hannes after his return to Antioch, assembled ma­ny Bishops, and deposed Cyrillus, who was then gone home to Alexandria. However, they laid aside their enmity soon after, came to a reconci­liation, and restored one another to their Epis­copall Chairs. But after Nestorius's deposition, a most violent disturbance seized the Churches of Constantinople. For the people were divided by reason of his frigid and empty babling, as I have said already. But all the Clergy by a generall consent Anathematized him. (For so we Christians do usually term the sentence a­gainst a blasphemer, when we propose it to pub­lick view on a Pillar as it were, and render it visi­ble to all persons.)

CHAP. XXXV. How, after Nestorius's Deposition, when some were desirous of placing Proclus in the Episcopall Chair, other Bishops elected Maximianus Bi­shop of Constantinople.

[AFter this] there was another debate about the Election of a Bishop. And many were for choosing Philippus, whom we have men­tioned a little See chap. 26, and 27. before; but more Or, E­lected. nominated Proclus. And the opinion of those [who voted] for Proclus had carried it, had not some of the most powerfull persons hindred it, who said 'twas forbidden by the Ecclesiastick Canon, that he who had been nominated Bishop of any City, should be translated to another Or, City. See. This ha­ving been said and believed, compelled the people to be quiet. After an intervall therefore of four months from Nestorius's Deposition, a person by name Maximianus, is Elected to the Bishoprick; as to his course of life he was an Ascetick: but had himself also been made one of the Presby­ters. He had long before gotten the repute of a pious and holy person, because at his own charge he had built Monuments, wherein Reli­gious persons might be buried after their decease. He was a man of mean accomplishments in speak­ing, and desirous of leading a life void of busi­ness.

CHAP. XXXVI. Instances, whereby this Writer does (as he suppo­ses) evince, that a Translation from one See to another is not prohibited.

BUt in regard some persons, by alledging the Ecclesiastick Canon, have hindred Proclus, who had then been nominated Bishop of Cyzi­cum, from being seated [in the Episcopall Chair of Constantinople;] my desire is to say some­thing briefly concerning this matter. Those per­sons who undertook to speak these things at that time, in my judgment spake not true; but ei­ther feigned them out of an Odium [they had conceived] against Proclus, or else were wholly ignorant of the Canons, and of severall other things of great use to, and frequently practised in the Churches. For, Eusebius Pamphilus, in the sixth Chap. 11. Book of his Ecclesiastick History, relates, that Alexander Bishop of one of the Cities in Cappadocia, coming to Jerusalem on account of prayer, was detained by the Inhabitants of that City, and consecrated Bishop in the room of Narcissus, and in future presided over the Churches there as long as he lived. So indifferent a thing it was amongst our Ancestours, for a Bishop to be translated from one City to another, as often as ne­cessity required. And if it be requisite to annex the Canon to this our History, it will be demon­strated in what a manner they have belyed that Canon, [who have quoted it] in order to their hindring Proclus's Ordination. The This is, the eigh­teenth Ca­non of the Synod at Antioch. [Socrates speaks of this Synod at book 2. chap. 8; and this very Ca­non occurs at pag. 447. Tom. 1. Edit. Be­veridge.] But Socrates is mistaken, in thinking that the Bishops re­lled upon this Canon, that they might exclude Proclus from the Con­stantinopolitan See. 'Tis true indeed, that Proclus was one of their number who are meant in the foresaid Canon. For after he had been ordained Bishop of Cyzicum by Sisinnius Patriarch of Constan­tinople, he was not admitted by the Inhabitants of Cyzicum, as So­crates has related before. But the Bishops who were against Proclus's Election, relied not upon this Canon, but quoted the twenty first Canon [which occurs at pag. 450, Tom. 1. Edit. Bever.] of the same Synod in confirmation of their own opinion; the Contents whereof are these: [...], &c. A Bi­shop ought not in any wise to remove from one See to another, neither rushing into it wholly on his own accord, nor forcibly compelled by the people, nor yet necessarily constrained by the Bishops: but let him continue in that Church, which God has at first allotted to him, nor let him remove from thence, agreeable to the Pristine determination made concerning this matter. Our Socrates is therefore mistaken, who has put the eighteenth Canon of the Antiochian Synod, instead of the one and twentieth. He is out in this also, to wit, in supposing, that these words in the close of the eighteenth Canon [ [...], &c.] do favour his own opinion. Those words we have rendred thus: Suscipere autem debet quicquid Provinciae Synodus de ejus negotio judicans constituerit, But he ought to embrace whatever a Synod of the Province, having had Cognizance of his Case, shall think good to determine▪ Socrates thought this to be the consequence of these words, viz, that if a Synod of the Province should think fit to translate the foresaid Bishop to some other See, that Bishop ought to obey that determination. But 'tis plain that he is out, in regard Translations of Bishops are expresly forbidden in the twenty first Canon. Vales. Ca­non therefore runs thus. If any person who has been Ordained Bishop of a Church, goes not to that Church over which he has been Ordained [Bishop,] not by reason of his own fault, but either because of the peoples refusall [of him,] or for any other necessary Cause [not proceeding from himself;] this person shall be partaker of the Honour and Ministration, provided he molests not the affairs of that Church wherein he shall celebrate Assem­blies. But he ought to embrace whatever the Synod of the Province, [...]. Which words Dionysius Exiguus renders thus, Quod visum fuerit judicando Decreverit, shall by judging Decree what shall seem good. The old Translatour also (whose Version was heretofore in Henricus Memmius's Library, and has lately been published at Paris) renders it after this manner: Sed spectare cum oportere, quo usque Provinciae Synodus de eo quae eis videntur ordinet, But he ought to expect, till such time as a Synod of the Province shall determine concerning him what they think good. Where you may remark by the by, that the old Translatour in his Copy, read not the word [ [...], perfect;] as neither did Socrates. The same phrase occurs above in the Appendix to the sixth book, where Johannes speaks to the Bishops thus. [...] ▪ which we have thus rendred into Latine, Causam ad vos delatam perpendentes ipsi ac dijudicantes definite. But 'tis bet­ter to translate it thus, quodcunque vobis visum fuerit, &c. Vales. Our English rendition of that place is this, do you inquire into the Cause, and make such a definitive determination as you shall think fit. having had Cogni­zance of his Case, shall think good to determine.

This is the Canon. Now, to make it evi­dent, that many Bishops have been translated from some Cities to others, by reason of the Churches necessities now and then [inter­vening;] I will [here] annex the names of such [Bishops] as have been translated. Perigenes had been born and baptized at Corinth the Metropolis of Achaia: having after­wards been made a Clergy-man, he continued Presbyter of the same Church a long while with great integrity. Afterwards when he had been promoted to the Bishoprick of Patrae by the Bishop of Corinth, and the In­habitants of Patrae had refused to receive him, he was forced to return to Corinth. The Bishop of which City dying not long after, the Corinthians requested he might be their Bishop; which request of theirs they made known to Bonifatius Bishop of Rome. But Bonifatius would do no­thing in that affair, before he had received the Letters of Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, who was deputed the Vicegerent of the Apostolick See throughout Achaia and Macedonia. He wrote therefore two Letters to him concerning this business, to which was annext the Corinthians Request. These Letters bore date in the Consulate of Monaxius and Plintha. Afterwards, when Bonifatius had received Rufus's Letters, he approved of Perigenes's Election, and wrote a Letter to him and the Corinthians. I have Collected these things from two Letters of Bonifatius to Rufus, which Letters were lately published at Rome by Lucas Holstenius a Learned person, and one that has deserved well of Ecclesiastick Antiquity. Further, this Perigenes was present at the Ephesine Synod convened against Nestorius. For in the First Action thereof occur these words, [...], of Peri­genes [Bishop] of Corinth in Greece. Vales. Perigenes had been ordained Bishop of Patrae. [Page 389] But in regard the Inhabitants of the foresaid City refused to admit him, the Bishop of Rome ordered he should be constituted Bishop in the Metropolitane See of Corinth, the Bishop of that Church being dead. Over which Church Peri­genes presided as long as he lived. Gregorius of Nazianzum was first of all Bishop of Sasimi one of the Cities in Cappadocia: afterwards he was made [Bishop] of Nazianzum. Melitius had formerly presided over the Church in Sebastia, and afterwards he Governed that in Antioch. Alexander Bishop of Antioch translated Dosi­theus Bishop▪ of Seleucia to Tarsus in Cilicia. In the Sfortian M. S. this person is called R [...]n­verentius. But in Ni­cephorus 'tis Reveren­tius, which is truer. Epiphan. Scholasti­cus terms him Reve­rentius al­so. In the fourth book of the Jus Graeco-Ro­manum, chap. De Translati­onibus E­piscoporum, he is cor­ruptly sti­led Reve­nus. Vales. Reverentius [was removed] from Arci [a City] of Phaenice, and afterwards translated to Tyre. Johannes was translated from Nicepho­rus makes Gordum a City of Lycia, not Lydia: but all other [Wri­ters] assign it to Lydia. Further, this Johannes Bishop of Proconnesus was present at the Ephesine Synod, as 'tis recorded in the first Action of that Councill. Vales. Gor­dum [a City] of Lydia to In the Florentine Manuscript 'tis Proconnesus. In Nicephorus, in the Jus Graeco-Romanum, and in the Acts of the Ephesine Councill, 'tis written Proiconnesus. The Author of the Etymologicon (in the word [...]) defends both readings. And deduces the originall of this name (which has the Letter (i) added) from hence, either because this Island furnishes the other Islands with marmour, [...], that is Gratis, freely, or for nothing; or else from the word [...], which signifies Hinnuleum, a little Hind. But Dionysius Atheniensis (in his book [entitled] [...], which he wrote concerning the building of Cities,) says 'twas called Proconesus from the multitude of Harts there, which they term [...]. Others will have its name derived from a vessell which the Greeks call [...], because when the Milesii at first brought a Colony thither, they were met by a Vir­gin carrying such a Vessell. Vales. In Robert Stephens Edit. 'tis termed Preconesus. Proconnesus, and presided over the Church there. Palladius was translated from Helenopolis to Aspuna. Alexan­der was translated from Helenopolis to Adriani. In the fourth book of the Jus Graeco-Romanum, pag. [...]3; he is termed Theosebius. And so he is called in the Tripartite History (which Epiphan. Scholasticus translated;) and in Ivo Carnotensis (in Pro­logo Decreti.) But Nicephorus terms him Philippus, which I won­der at. Vales. Theophilus was translated from Apamea [a City] of Asia, to Eudoxipolis anciently ter­med From the Florentine and Sfortian Manuscripts, and from Nice­phorus and Epiphan. Scholasticus, instead of Salabria, we have made it Salambria. 'Tis a City of Thracia, which the Greeks heretofore ter­med Selymbria, as Strabo and Stephanus do attest: but afterwards 'twas called Salambria. So in the Itinerarium Burdigalense: Mansio Salamembria [is mentioned which was] 44 miles distant from Con­stantinople. Vales. Salambria. Polycarpus was translated from Sexantapristi [a City] of Or, Mysia. Moesia, to Nicopolis of Thracia. Hierophilus was translated from Tra­pezopolis [a City] of Phrygia to Plotinopolis in Thracia. This is the Optimus Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, of whom the Emperour Theodosius makes mention in the third Law of the Theodo­sian Code, de Fide catholicâ; to whom, (together with Amphilochius of Iconium,) the charge and Administration of the Churches of Asia is committed. Vales. Optimus was removed from Ag­damia in Phrygia to Antioch [a City] of Pi­sdia. Silvanus was translated from Philippo­polis in Thracia, to Troas. Let thus many be sufficient to have been named at present, who were removed from their own Cities to other [Sees.] But I judge it usefull to speak something in short concerning Silvanus, who was translated from Philippopolis in Thracia to Troas.

CHAP. XXXVII. Concerning Silvanus, who was translated from Philippopolis to Troas.

SIlvanus had formerly been a Rhetorician [in the School of] Troïlus the Sophista. But in regard he proposed to himself an accuracy in the profession of the Christian Religion as his chief design, and exercised himself in the severities of an Ascetick life, [on account hereof] he refused to [...]. Christophor­son has ren­dred it ill▪ thus, Pal­lium Philo­sophicum, the Philoso­phick Pal­lium, ad­ding a word of his own, to wit, Philo­sophick. But Socrates speaks not concerning the Philo­sophick Pal­lium, but concerning that of the Rhetorici­ans. For he says that Silvanus had before been a Rhetorician, that is, an Advocate out of Troïlus the Sophist's School: but af­terwards left off his Pallium, and imbraced a Monastick life. Con­cerning the Rhetoricians Pallium see what we have remarked before at book 7. chap. 12▪ note (c.) To which may be added this pas­sage out of Theophylactus Simocatta's Menodia, which he spoke in praise of the Emperour Mauricius after Phaucas's death: [...]. Which words Theophylactus himself cites in the eighth book of his History, chap. 12. Whence it may be gathered, that the Rhetori­cians Pallium was white, not red, or Scarlet coloured, as we have noted before from Cyrillus, and Basilius Grammaticus. Gregorius Nazian­zenus speaks also concerning the Rhetoricians Pallium, in his twentieth Oration concerning the praises of Basilius▪ pag. 328. Edit. Paris. 1609▪ where Billius (by the same mistake) has rendred it Pallia Philoso­phica, the Philosophick Palliums. Vales. wear the Rhetoricians Pallium. But afterwards, At­ticus the Bishop I agree not with Christophorson, who has rendred this place so, as if Atticus had sent for Silvanus to come to him. What need was there of sending for him, who was present at Constantinople, to wit, a Rhe­torician in the School of Troïlus the Sophist who taught Rhetorick at Constantinople? The word [...] signifies something more, to wit, to lay hold of, and use force towards any person. By this term therefore Socrates shews, that Silvanus was against his own will, and with a reluctancy made Bishop of Philippopolis by Atticus. Philippo­polis is the Metropolis of that Country strictly and properly called Thracia. You must know further, that the ordination of the Metro­politanes of Thracia belonged then to the Bishop of Constantinople. For the Patriarchs by a certain singular priviledge ordained Metropolitanes, as I have observed at large in my dissertation on the sixth Canon of the Nicene Councill. [The Learned Reader will meet with this dissertation of Valesius's at pag. 188. of his notes on Socrates and Sozomen; Edit. Paris. 1668.] Hence 'tis, that the same Atticus Patriarch of Constan­tinople, ordained the said Silvanus Bishop of Troas, upon the request of the Inhabitants of that City. For Alexandria Troas [or, Alexan­der's Troas,] was the Metropolis of Phrygia. This is in express words established by the twenty eighth Canon of the Chalcedon Councill, [which occurs at Tom. 1. pag. 145, Edit. Beveredg.] which Treats concer­ning the priviledges of the Constantinopolitane See: to wit, that the Metropolitanes only of the Thracican, Pontick, and Asian Dioecesis, should be ordained by the most holy Constantinopolitane See; the De­crees being, (as usually,) first made, by the common consent of the Clergy and Laity, and directed to the Patriarch of Constantinople. For thus the foresaid Canon does determine, [...], The Decrees made as usually, being agreed upon and transmitted to him, The Canon means the Decree of Request, such a one as the Corinthians sent to Bonifatius, desiring they might have Perigenes for their Bishop; as we have ob­served before at chap. 36▪ note (c.) Vales. laid hold of him, and or­dained him Bishop of Philippopolis. After he had lived three years in Thracia, and found himself unable to endure the cold (for he had a very thin, lean, and infirm body;) he entrea­ted Atticus, that he would ordain another in his stead, affirming that he refused to live in Thra­cia upon no other account, than because of the cold. Another person therefore having for this very reason been ordained in his room, Silvanus continued at Constantinople, and with a most ex­quisite diligence followed an Ascetick course of life. He was so great a stranger to delicateness and fineness, that he would frequently appear in publick amongst so numerous a concourse of people as were in that populous City, shod only with Sandalls made of [...]. Christophorson renders it, Sandalils indutus foeno confectis, shod with Sandalls made of hay. Epiphanius Scho­lasticus (who is followed by Langus, Nicephorus's Translatour, book 14. chap. 39.) translates it soleas de sparto, Sandalls of spartum. Spartum is a kind of Shrub like our Broom, of which they made bonds to tie their Vines, ropes for Ships, and (as it seems) Sandalls also. Such Sandalls as these were those termed Carbatinae; concerning which see Julius Pollux Onomast. book 7. chap. 22. Hesychius (in the word [...],) says they were mean shooes worn by the Pesants; and expounds that term thus, [...], a shooe with one sole. Spartum. After some intervall of time the Bishop of the Church [Page 390] of Troas departed this life. On which account the Inhabitants of Troas came [to Constanti­nople] to desire a Bishop. Whilest Atticus was considering whom he should ordain, it hapned that Silvanus came to give him a visit. As soon as Atticus saw him, he Instead of [ [...], laid upon] we read [ [...], he laid aside] agreeable to Chrysto­phorson's and Sr Henry Savil's reading. Vales. laid aside his care [about that affair] immediately, and spoke to Silvanus [on this wise,] You have no further excuse for your avoiding the care and government of [this] Church. For Troas is not a cold place. Behold, God has provided you a convenient place for the infirmness of your body. Delay not therefore, Brother, but go to Troas. Wherefore Sil­vanus removed to that City: where he did a Mi­racle, which I will now relate. A vast Ship for car­rying of burthens, made for the conveyance of great pillars, (such a vessell they term Plate;) had been newly built on the Shore of Troas. This Ves­sell was to be Launched. But though many ropes [were fastned to the Ship,] and a great num­ber of persons [did their utmost] to hale it [Seaward,] yet it was not in any wise to be moved. After this had been done for many days, then they thought that a devil detained the Vessell. Wherefore, they went to Bishop Silvanus, and entreated him to make a prayer in that place. For they believed, that by that means only the Ship was to be drawn into the Sea. But he, entertaining modest thoughts of himself, stiled himself a sin­ner, and said, that was a work to be done by some righteous person, not by him. When they continued their Suit with a greater earnest­ness, he went to the Shore. Where after he had prayed, he Or, touched. took hold of one of the ropes, and bad them set close to the business. And when they had haled the Ship on a little, she ran swiftly into the Sea. This Miracle performed by Silvanus's hands stirred up those of that Pro­vince to piety. But Silvanus was a good man as to other things also. For perceiving that the Ecclesiasticks made a gain of their contentions who were engaged in Suits at Law, he would never make any one of the Clergy a Judge. But received the Libells of the Litigants himself, and called one of the faithfull Laicks to him, whom he knew to be a Lover of justice; to whom he committed the hearing of the cause, [by which means] he In Robert Stephens Edition the reading is [ [...], he drove.] In the Florent. M. S. 'tis [...]. Wherefore, I doubt not but Socrates wrote [ [...], he freed, or released.] For the common reading, in my judg­ment, is not to be born; al­though Nicephorus confirms it. Vales. freed the Li­tigants from contentious­ness. For these reasons Sil­vanus got himself a great name amongst all men. Thus much concerning Silvanus, which although declared by way of digression, yet (in my judgment) the mention hereof Or, Has not been unfruit­full. is not unusefull. But let us return to that place, from whence we have digressed. After Maximianus therefore was ordained Bishop [of Constantinople] in the Consulate of Bassus and Antiochus, about the twenty fifth of Octo­ber, the affairs of the Church were in a sedate and quiet posture.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Concerning the Jews in This Island is now ter­med Can­dia. Creet, how, many of them turned Christians at that time.

ABout the same time, many of the Jews [who dwelt] in Creet, turned Christians, on ac­count of this calamitous accident. A certain Jew, who was an Impostor, feigned himself to be Moses: and affirmed himself to have been sent from heaven, that he might In some Copies the reading is [ [...]] at which word E­piphanius Scholasticus and Nice­phorus with good reason were dis­pleased; and therefore both of them omitted it. in my judg­ment it should be [ [...], might lead out] Vales. lead out the Jews who inhabited that Island, and conduct them through the Sea. For he was (as he said) the same person, who preserved the Israelites heretofore [by leading them] through the Red-Sea. For the space of one whole year there­fore, he travelled about to all the Cities of that Island, and perswaded the Jews who inhabited therein, to believe these things. And he exhor­ted them to leave their money and possessions: for he promised, that he would lead them through a dry Sea into the Land of Promise. They, deceived by such hopes as these, neglected all em­ployments; and moreover despised the things they possessed, permitting any persons they met with to take them. When the day was come which had been set by this Jewish Impostor, he himself went before, and they all followed with their wives and little children. He leads them there­fore to a Promontory which Or, hung over into, &c. ran out into the Sea, and ordered them to cast themselves from thence into the Ocean. They who came first to the Precipice, did so, and lost their lives imme­diately, part of them being dash't [in pieces] against the Rocks, and part drowned in the Wa­ters. And many more of them had perished, had not some Fishermen and Merchants (who were Christians,) by the disposall of divine provi­dence hapned to be present. These persons drew out and saved some of them who were al­most choak'd with the waters; who having been in so imminent danger, were then sensible of their own madness. They kept the others also from casting themselves into the Sea, by telling them that those were destroyed who had thrown themselves in first. The Jews therefore, having at length understood the Imposture, blamed their own indiscretion in believing. But when they endeavoured to [seize] the Or, false-Moses. Pseudo-Moses and kill him, they could not apprehend him. For he disappeared [on a sudden;] and this made most men suspect that he was a de­structive Devil, who had clothed himself with an humane shape, that he might destroy their Na­tion in that Country. By reason of this cala­mitous accident, many of the Jews then in Creet, bade adieu to Judaïsm, and Or, be­took them­selves to. embraced the Faith of the Christian Religion.

CHAP. XXXIX. Concerning the Fire which hapned in the Church of the Novatianists.

NOt long after this time, Paulus Bishop of the Novatianists gat the repute of a per­son truly beloved by God, and indeed rendred [his own reputation] far greater than what it had been before. For, there hapned a most fu­rious [Page 391] fire [at Constantinople,] such a one as had never Or, hap­ned. been known before. For a great part of the City was destroyed by this fire: in so much that the [...]. In Ni­cephorus 'tis [...] with an aspirate. And Langus translates it Barns, or Granaries▪ Musculus renders it Maxi­ma aedificia, the greatest Edifices. Christophorson, fortissima munimenta, the strongest Fortresses. I had rather follow Langus. For [...] is a barbarous Greek word, which signifies a Barn or Granary; as Meur­sius has long since observed in his Glossary. In the Kings Copy I found it written [...] at this place. Further, there were five publick Barns or Granaries at Constantinople; to wit, four in the fifth Ward. Vales. greatest Gra­naries, and that termed the In the Alexandrian Chronicle (pag. 728, Edit. Monach. 1615,) the words are these: On Theodosius Augustus's fourteenth Consulate which he bore with Maximus, there arose a great fire from the Neo [...]ium, which burnt down the Granaries and the Achillean Bath, in the month Loos, &c. Epiphanius Scholasticus renders it, Thermas quae vocantur Achil­leae, that termed the Achillean Bath. Which rendition is confirmed by Marcellinus Comes in his Chronicon, (pag. 26. Edit. Paris. 1619;) at the Consulate of Maximus and Paterius, which was the year of Christ. 443. His Coss. (says he) Thermarum quae Achilleae dicuntur, Encoenia facta, in their Consulate, that termed the Achillean Bath was [after it had been rebuilt,] dedicated. And the Author of the Alexandrian Chronicon affirms the same (pag. 730, Edit. ut prius,) in these words; [...], &c. In the same persons [that is, Maximus's and Paterius's] Consulate, the publick Bath termed Achilles was dedicated, in the month Audunaeus, before the third of the Ides of January. The Achillean Bath therefore (after it had been consumed by fire, in the fourteenth Consulate of Theodosius which he bore with Maximus, on the year of Christ 433,) was rebuilt and dedicated on the tenth year after. Vales. Achillean Bath, were burnt down. At length the fire, con­suming [all things in its way,] approacht the Novatianists Church, which stands neer Pelargus. When therefore Paulus the Bishop saw his Church in danger, he rush't into it [and ran] as far as the Altar, where he Or, com­mitted. commended the pre­servation of the Church and the things therein to God, nor did he omit the pouring forth his prayers both for the City, and for the Church. Or, But God heard the man. And God heard his prayer, as 'twas demon­strated by the event. For though the fire brake into the Church through all the doors and win­dows, yet it did no harm. It wholly consumed many adjacent Edifices on every side of it: but you might have seen the Church it self in the midst of the whole fire, triumphing over its ra­ging Flames. And when this fire had conti­nued two whole days and as many nights, it was wholly extinguished, after it had burnt down a great part of the City. But the Church ap­peared entire and untoucht. And (which is more to be admired) there was not the least Or, token, or footstep. appearance of smoak to be seen on its tim­ber, or walls. This hapned about the sixteenth of August, in Theodosius's fourteenth Consulate which he bore with Maximus. Since which time the Novatianists do celebrate [the me­mory of] their Church its having been preser­ved, every year about the sixteenth of August; on which day they put up their thanksgivings to God. And all persons in a manner, not only Christians but very many Pagans also, since that time honour that place, by reason of the Miracle which hapned therein; and have a ve­neration for it as being truly holy. But thus far concerning these things.

CHAP. XL. That Proclus succeeded Maximianus the Bishop.

MAximianus having quietly governed the Churches two years and five months, died in the Consulate of Areobindus and Aspar, on the twelfth of April. That day hapned to fall on the week of Fasts, [to wit] the week which immediately precedes the Feast of Easter: and it was the That is, Thursday in the Passion week. fifth day of that week. At which time the Emperour Theodosius made a prudent provision for this affair. For least a debate should arise, again about the Election of a Bi­shop, which might raise a disturbance in the Church; he delayed not, but whilest Maximia­nus's body lay as yet unburied, ordered the Bi­shops that were present [in the City] to place Proclus in the Episcopall Chair. For the Let­ters of Celestinus Bishop of Rome, wherein he ap­proved of Instead of [ [...]] I read [ [...],] as did Sr Henry Savill and Christo­phorson. Moreover, I agree with Baro­nius, who (at the year of Christ 434,) has truly remarked, that these Letters of Caelestine Bishop of Rome were not written on this year, but two years before; to wit, when (after Nestorius's deposition,) they were busie about Electing a Bishop of Constantinople. 'Tis certain on this year (when Arcobindus and Aspar were Consuls) Caelestine was dead, and Xystus had succeeded him in the Bishoprick of Rome. Vales. this [Election,] were then come; which Letters he had sent to Cyrillus [Bishop] of Alexandria, to Johannes [Bishop] of An­tioch, and to Valesius has told us before (at note (c.) on chap. 36,) that Rusus Bishop of Thessalonica was deputed the Vice-gerent of the Apostolick See [that is, Rome] throughout Achaia and Macedonia. He adds here, that he had the same Vice-gerency throughout Illyricum, as the Epistles of Innocentius and Bonifacius Bishops of Rome do declare, which are to be seen in Lucas Holstenius's Roman Collection. For (continues Valesius) the Bishops of Thessalonica had that priviledge from the times of Pope Damasus, as we learn from the same Collection. Balsamo (in his comments on the Synod in Trullo, pag. 359, Edit. Paris. 1620.) affirms, that the Bishops of Thessalonica were hereto­fore the Legates of the Roman Bishop; and that the Bishop of Rome has a power of constituting Legates in the Constantinopolitane Patri­archate; but denies that he has a power of ordaining Bishops; wherein Balsamo is much mistaken. For those Provinces, which then when Balsamo wrote, were under the Constantinopolitan Prelate, had here­tofore been under the Bishop of Rome. Further, the Nicene Synod has determined, that the ancient usages should be observed. Thus far Vale­sius. But, as you see, he gives no reason to confute what Balsamo has said, to wit, that the Bishop of Rome has no power to ordain Bishops within the Constantinopolitane Patriarchate. And therefore I will (and so may the Reader too, if he pleases) suspend my belief, till some rea­sons are assigned. This passage in Balsamo (here quoted by Vale­sius) occurs in Dr Beveredge's Synod. Tom. 1. p. 154. See the Learned Doctors notes, pag. 126. Rufus [Bishop] of Thessalo­nica; informing them, that nothing hindred him (who had been nominated and actually was Bi­shop of one City,) from being translated to ano­ther. Therefore after Proclus was placed in the Episcopall Chair, he made a Funerall for the body of Maximianus. But we have now an op­portunity of speaking something in short concer­ning Proclus.

CHAP. XLI. Concerning Proclus the Bishop what manner of man he was.

PRoclus was from his younger years a Reader, he frequented the Schools, and imployed his time in [the study of] Rhetorick. Being come to man's estate, he was for the most part conversant with Atticus the Bishop, and had been his Notary. When he had made a great proficiency, Atticus promoted him to the Dia­conate. Having been preferred to the Presby­terate, Sisinnius (as I have said At chap. 28. before) or­dained him Bishop of Cyzicum. These things had hapned long before this. But, 'twas at this time that he obtained the Chair of the Con­stantinopolitane Church. He was a person en­dowed with as good a disposition and moralls, as was any man whatsoever. For having been educated under Atticus, he studiously imitated [Page 392] all that was good in him. In Robert Stephens's Edition, the reading is, [...], But be exercised a patience far greater than he [Atticus] had. The word [ [...], had] is wanting in the Sfor­tain M. S. Wherefore I doubt not but Socrates left it written thus, [...]. But he exercised a patience far greater than Atticus. Which emendation is confirmed by Epiphan. Scholasticus and Nicephorus, for Ni­cephorus (book 14. chap. 38.) words it thus; [...], moreover, he was far more patient than they, [that is, than John Chrysostome and Atticus.] And Epiphan▪ Scholast. renders it thus: Sed in isto patientia potior apparebat, but in him a better [or more de­sireable] patience appeared. Vales. But he exercised a pa­tience far greater than Atticus. For he, [...], upon occasion. now and then, shewed himself terrible to Hereticks. But Proclus was calm and mild to all persons: We reade [ [...], in regard—by this means;] before which words we have put a Colon. Vales. in regard he foresaw, that they might be brought [to embrace the true faith] by this means, rather than by force. For being resolved to vex and disquiet no Heresie-whatever, he preserved the dignity and honour of his mildness and mansue­tude intire and unviolated, and [as if it had been some pledge] restored it to the Church. In which particular thing he imitated the Emperour Theodosius. For 'twas His fixt and unalterable de­termination, not to make use of his Imperiall power and authority against Criminalls: and Proclus's resolution was, not to value any ones entertaining such sentiments concerning God, as were different from those embraced by him­self.

CHAP. XLII. That this Writer spends many words in praise of the Emperour Theodosius Junior's probity.

ON account hereof therefore, Proclus was highly commended by the Emperour. For That is, Theodosius. He himself also was like to such as were true Prelates; nor did he any wise approve of those, who were desirous of persecuting others. Yea, I can speak it with confidence, that for meekness he excelled all those who were true and genuine Ecclesiasticks. The discourse will be more gracefull and Emphaticall, if we add a particle thus, [...], &c. And what is recorded, &c. and so make this the beginning of a period. Thus Nicephorus reads it. Vales. And what is recorded of Moses in the Book of Numbers, Numb. 12. 3. Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth; the same may be now said of the Empe­rour Theodosius, to wit, that he is very meek, above all the men which are upon the face of the earth. For by reason of this his meekness, God has subdued his enemies under him, with­out military engagements, as hath been demon­strated by his Victory over the Tyrant See book 7. chap. 23. Jo­hannes, and [shall be made evident] from the destruction of the See the following chapter. Barbarians, which succeeded that soon after. For what manner of assistances have been given by God to just men heretofore, such like have even in our times been bestowed on the most pious Emperour, by the God of the Universe. Nor do I write this out of flattery, but I will give a Narrative of affairs (which all men have been throughly acquainted with,) as they truly are.

CHAP. XLIII. How great calamities those Barbarians underwent, who had been the Tyrant Johannes's Auxi­liaries.

FOr after the slaughter of the Tyrant, those Barbarians whom he had called to his as­sistance against the Romans, made preparations to overrun [and ruine] the Roman [...], affairs. Provinces. When the Emperour heard of it, according as his usage was, he committed the care of this af­fair to God: and having been earnest in prayers, not long after obtained what he desired. Fur­ther, it will be advantagious, to hear what [ca­lamities] befell the Barbarians. Their Com­mander in chief, whose name was In Priscus's History of the Goths, the King of the Hunni is termed Rouas, who was succee­ded by Attalas. In Jordanes he is called Roäs, the brother of O [...] ­tar and Mundïuchus, the uncle of Attalas. Langus, Nicephorus's Translator calls him Roïlas, for what reason I know not: for in Nicephorus 'tis Rougas, as well as here in Socrates. Vales. Rougas, is killed by a clap of thunder. Then fol­lowed a plague, which de­stroyed most of the men un­der his command. Nor was this only sufficient; but fire also descended from heaven, and consumed many of those who remained. And this put the Barbarians into the great­est terrour imaginable, not so much because they had dared to take up Arms against the valiant Nation of the Romans; as in regard they found them assisted by a powerfull God. Moreover, Proclus the Bishop Preached a Sermon at that time in the Church, wherein he applied a prophecy [taken] out of Ezechiel to the deliverance ef­fected by God at that juncture; [for which dis­course] he was greatly admired. The pro­phecy runs thus: And thou son of man, prophecy a­gainst See Ezech. 38. vers. 2, 22, & 23. In the Septua­gint Ver­sion, at v. 2. the words are [...] Prince Rhos. But the term [...] is wan­ting in the vulgar Translati­on, instead whereof Hieronymus has rendred it thus, Principem capitis Mosoch, Prince of the chief of Mosoch. Wherefore, what Langus remarks here concerning the Russi, is in my judgment forreign to this place. Vales. In the Hebrew, the words at this text are [...]: which in the margin of our English Version is render'd exactly, thus, Prince of the chief of Meshech. Socrates quotes this whole text out of Ezechiel, in the words of the Septuagin [...] Version, and we have translated them accordingly. The difference between the Greek Version and Originall Hebrew at this text is great. Our English Translatours (as they generally do, so here) follow the Hebrew. Prince Gog, Rhos, Misoch and Thobell. For I will judge him with death, and with bloud, and with an overflowing rain, and with stones of hail. And I will rain fire and Brimstone upon him, and upon all those with him, and upon many Nations [which are] with him. And I will be magnified and glorified, and I will be known in the eyes of many Nations. And they shall know that I am the Lord. On account thereof therefore, as I have said, Pro­clus was much admired. But on the Emperour, because of his meekness, many other [Blessings] were conferred by divine providence. Amongst which this was one, [which I will now re­late.]

CHAP. XLIV. That the Emperour Valentinianus Junior married Eudoxia the daughter of Theodosius.

HE had a daughter by his Wife Eudocia, her name Eudoxia. His See book 7. chap. 24. Cousin Ger­mane Valentinianus, whom he had made Empe­rour of the Western parts, desired he might marry this [Princess.] To which when the [Page 393] Emperour Theodosius had given his consent, and both the Augusti (after they had deliberated a­bout celebrating the marriage at some place on the frontiers of both Empires,) had resolved each to make a journey half way, and do it at Thessalonica: Valentinianus sends Theodosius intimation by Letter, that he should not give him­self that trouble: for, that he would come in per­son to Constantinople. Having therefore secured the Western parts [with a sufficient guard,] he comes to Constantinople on account of the mar­riage. Which having been celebrated in the Consulate of These persons were Con­suls on the year of Christ 436. But Prosper, Marcellinus Comes in his Chronicon, and the Authour of the A­lexandrian Chronicle, disagree from Socrates. For those Authours relate, that this marriage was celebrated on the year following, whereon Aë­tius bore his second Consulate with Sigisvultus, in the month of No­vember. The same is confirmed by Jordanes in his book de Successione Reg­norum; where after he has spoken concerning the whoredom committed by Honoria with her Procurator Eugenius, which was done in the Con­sulate of Areobindus and Aspar on the year of Christ 434; He adds these words; Posthaec tertio anno Valentinianus, &c. On the third year after this the Emperour Valentinianus comes from Rome to Constantinople in order to his marr [...]ing Eudoxia daughter to the Emperour Theodosius: and having given all Illyria as a gratuity to his Father in Law, after the celebration of the marriage, he returned with his Wife to his own King­domes. Cassiodorus Senator attests the same concerning the donation of the Western Illyricum (book 11. Variarum, Epist. 1. pag. 684, Edit. Aurel. Allobrog. 1622.) in these words: Placidiam mundi opi­nione celebratam, avorum [or, principum, or, aliquorum, as 'tis in some Copies,] Prosapia gloriosam, purpurato filio studuisse percepimus; cujus dum remisse administrat Imperium, indecenter cognoscitur imminutum. Nurum denique sibi amissione Illyrici comparavit, factaque est conjunctio reg [...]an [...]is, divisio dole [...]da provinciis. Vales. Isidorus and Senator, he took his Wife, and returned into the Western parts. Such a felicity as this befell the Emperour at that time.

CHAP. XLV. That Proclus the Bishop perswaded the Emperour to translate the Body of Johannes from the place of his Exile [where it had been bu­ried,] to Constantinople, and to deposite it in the Church of The Apostles.

NOt long after this time, Proclus the Bi­shop reduced He means those ter­med the Johannitae. See book 6. chap. 18. those [to the Church] who had made a separation [from it] on ac­count of Bishop Johannes's deposition; having mitigated their disgust by a Or, by prudence. prudent expe­dient. What that was, we must now relate. After he had perswaded the Emperour [to give his consent thereto,] he brought the body of Johannes, which had been buried at Comani, to Constantinople, on the thirty fifth year after his deposition. And when he had carried it through the City, publickly in great pomp and state, he deposited it with much honour and solemnity in that termed the Church of The Apostles. Those persons therefore who had made a separation on Johannes's account, were by this means prevailed upon, and became u­nited to the Church. And this hapned in the sixteenth Consulate of the Emperour Theodo­sius, about the twenty seventh of January. But I cannot forbear wondring here, how [it came to pass,] that Envy should assail and corrode Origen after he was dead, and yet spare Jo­hannes. For Origen was excommunicated by The­ophilus about two hundred years after his death. But Johannes was admitted to commu­nion by Proclus, on the thirty fifth year after he died. So great was the difference between Proclus's disposition, and that of Theophilus. But prudent men are not ignorant, By these words So­crates does plainly discover his opinion. For he would say, that these things are usually done through envy, or out of favour. For be­cause Origen was condemned by Theophilus, so many years after his death; that Socrates ascribes to Theophilus's envy towards Origen himself, or against those termed the Long-Monks. And, whereas John Chrysostome was brought back with honour into his own Country, on the thirty fifth year after his death; that Socrates attributes to the love and benevolence of Proclu [...] and the people of Constantinople. But I am not of Socrates's opinion. For although in affairs of this nature, t [...]e affections of men have some effect. Yet divine Justice and providence, whereby the Church is governed, doth always overrule. Origen therefore was condemned for his Heterodox opinions; and John Chrysostome, being consecrated for his integrity of life and doctrine, continues in the Church to this very day. Valesius. in what manner these things have been, and daily are done.

CHAP. XLVI. Concerning the death of Paulus Bishop of the Novatianists, and concerning Marcianus who was his successour.

SOme little time after the Removall of Johan­nes's body, died Paulus also Bishop of the Novatianists, in the same Consulate, about the twenty first day of July. Who at his own Funerall reduced all the disagreeing Heresies in­to one Church in a manner. For they all ac­companied his body to the Or, Tomb. Grave with sin­ging of Psalmes: because whilest he lived, all [Sects] loved him exceedingly for his Or, Re­ctitude. Sanctity of life. But, because the same Paulus performed a memorable action just before his death, I judge it usefull to insert it into this History, for their advantage who shall peruse this Work. For, that during his sickness he observed his usuall Ascetick [discipline as to his] dyet, and transgressed not in the least [the rules] thereof; and, that he never omit­ted performing the [usuall] prayers with a fervency; [all this] I think fit to leave un­mentioned: least by spending time in giving a narrative hereof, I should obscure that me­morable and most usefull action (as I have said) which he performed. What that is, must now be declared. Being neer dying, he sent for all the Presbyters belonging to the Churches under him, to whom he exprest himself thus: Take care about electing a Bishop [over your selves] whilest I am alive; least afterwards your Churches be disturbed. When they made answer, that the Election of a Bishop was not to be left to them: for in regard [said they,] some of us have one Sentiment, others another, we shall never nominate the same person: but we wish, that you your self would name that man whom you desire [to be your successour.] To which Paulus made this return: deliver me then this profession of yours in writing, [to wit,] that you will Elect him whom I shall ap­point to be chosen. When they had done that, and confirmed it by their subscriptions, [...]. In Nicephorus 'tis [...], he sate upon; in which Author these words are added, [...], and having taken the paper: which seem altogether necessary. Vales. he sate on his bed, and (without dis­covering it to those who were present,) wrote Mar­cianus's name in the paper. This person had been pro­moted to the Presbyterate, and likewise had been instructed in a [...] Asce­tick course of life under Paulus: but was then gone to travell. After this he Sealed up [Page 394] the paper himself, and caused the chief of the Presbyters to Seal it up also, and then delivered it to one Marcus, (who was Bishop of the Novatianists in Scythia, but had at that time made a journey to Constantinople;) to whom he spake these words: If God shall permit me to continue much longer in this life, restore this This pledge, or, Gage. depositum to me [now] committed to your trust to be kept safely. But, if it shall please him to remove me out of this world, in this paper you will find whom I have Elected to be my successour in the Bishop [...]ick. When he had spoken these words, he died. On the third day therefore after his death, when they had unsealed the paper in the presence of a great multitude, and found Marcianus's name there­in, they all cried out that he was a worthy and fit person. And without delay they dis­patcht away some messengers who might seize him. They took him by a pious fraud at his residence in Tiberiopolis [a City] of Phrygia; from whence they brought him along with them, and about the twenty first Although our M. SS. Copies al­ter▪ not the reading here▪ yet I agree with Christophorson and Sr Henry Savill, who have mended it thus [of the month August.] Doubtless, in regard Paulus Bi­shop of the Novatianists died on the twenty first of July, and the paper wherein he had named Marcianus to be his successour, was unsealed three days after his death, as Socrates has told us before; 'tis not to be supposed, that Marcianus could be ordained Bishop on the twenty first of the same month, to wit, July; in regard he ab­sconded in Tiberiopolis a City of Phrygia: from whence he was to be brought to Constantinople, that he might be there constituted Bi­shop of the Novatianists. Vales. of the same month ordained, and placed him in the Epis­copall Chair. But enough concerning these things.

CHAP. XLVII. That the Emperour Theodosius sent his Wife Eu­docia to Jerusalem.

MOreover, the Emperour Theodosius offered up his Thanksgivings to God for the benefits which he had conferred upon him. And this he performed, by honouring Christ with singular and eminent honours. He likewise sent his wife Eudocia to Jerusalem. Instead of [ [...], &c. For he had oblieged himself to a perfor­mance, &c] I doubt not but it should be [ [...], for she had obliged her­self;] that is, Eudocia. Thus Epiphan. Scholasticus read, as appears from his Version; which is thus, Hoc enim & ipsa votum habuerat, si filiam videret nuptam, For she herself also had [made] this vow, if she might see her daughter married. Vales. For she had oblieged herself also to a performance of this vow, if she might see her daughter married. But the Empress herself also Or, ho­noured. beauti­fied the Churches at Jerusalem, and all those in the Eastern Cities, with various ornaments, both when she went thither, and likewise at her return.

CHAP. XLVIII. Concerning Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea in Cap­padocia.

ABout that very time, to wit, in Theodosius's seventeenth Consulate, Proclus the Bishop attempted a wonderfull thing, the like to which has not been performed by any of the Ancient Bishops. For Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cap­padocia being dead, the Caesareans came [to Con­stantinople,] and requ [...]sted they might have a Bishop. And whilest Proclus was considering whom he should preser to that See, it hapned that all the Senatours came to the Church on the Sabbath, to give him a visit, amongst whom was This is the Thalas­sius, or Thalassus, Praefectus Praetorio of Illyricum, to whom The one Law (Tit. 6. Legum Novella­rum Theo­dosii Junio­ris) was directed, which is dated at Constanti­nople, on the third of the Ides of August, in Theodo­sius's se­venteenth Consulate which he bore with Festus. Af­ter this day therefore, on this ve­ry year, Thalassius was made Bishop of Caesarea by Proclus. Which action of Proclus's Socrates does not without cause wonder at, as new, and not practised by former Bishops. Nectarius indeed, when he was Praetor of Constantinople, had been created Bishop of that City. But, the Emperour's consent had been first obtained, as Socrates has told us before. But here Proclus meerly by his own impulse, laid his hands on a Praefectus Praetorio, who by the Emperour had been de­signed to the government of the Orientall Praefecture. Notwith­standing, it is to be understood, that the Emperour's consent was after­wards obtained, who approved of what Proclus had done. But, in promoting inferiour Magistrates to Ecclesiastick degrees, the Prince's consent was in no wife necessary. For the Praefectus Praetorio's ap­probation was sufficient, under whose dispose the Presidents of Pro­vinces were. We have an eminent instance hereof in the Life of St Germanus Altissiodorensis, which was written by Constantius Pres­byter. Which Germanus being President of a Province, and Amator Bishop of Altissiodorum [a City in France, now called Auxerre] ha­ving a mind to appoint him his successour; Amator procured the consent of Julius, Praefectus Praetorio of the Gallia's, before he at­tempted to do that; as 'tis related in book 1, chap. 3, concerning the Life of St Germanus. Further, this Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea was present at the false Synod at Ephesus [convened] against Flavianus; as we are informed from the Acts of the said Synod, which are recorded in the first Action of the Chalcedon Councill. Vales. Thalassius also, a personage who had born a Praefecture over the Provinces and Cities of Illy­ricum. But [though] (as it was reported) he had been the person pitch't upon who was a­bout to have the Government of the Eastern parts committed to his care by the Emperour; [yet] Proclus laid his hands on him, and in­stead of his being constituted a Praefectus Prae­torio, made him Bishop of Caesarea. Thus suc­cessfull and prosperous were the affairs of the Church. But I will here close my History, with my prayers [to God,] that the Churches in all places, the Cites, and Provinces may live in peace. For, as long as peace flourishes, those that are desirous to do it, will have no sub­ject for their writing an History. For we our selves (who have performed what you enjoyned us in Seven Books, O Sacred man of God, Theodorus!) should have wanted matter for this our History, if the lovers of seditions and tu­mults would have been quiet. This Seventh Book contains [an account of affairs transacted during] the space of two and thirty years. The whole History, which i [...]omprized in Se­ven Books, contains the space of an hundred and fourty years. It begins from the first year of the two hundredth seventy first Olympiad, where­in Constantine was proclaimed Emperour; and ends at the second year of the three hundredth and fifth Olympiad, whereon the Emperour Theo­dosius bore his seventeenth Consulate.

The End of Socrates Scholasticus's Ecclesiastick History.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL H …

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF Evagrius Scholasticus EPIPHANIENSIS, (And [One] of the EX-PRAEFECTS,) IN SIX BOOKS, Translated out of the GREEK, according to that Edition set forth by VALESIUS, and Printed at PARIS in the Year 1673.

Together with VALESIUS's Annotations on the said Historian; which are done into ENGLISH, and set at their proper places in the Margin.

Hereunto also is annexed an account of the foresaid Historian's Life, and Ecclesiastick History, Collected by VALESIUS, and Rendred into ENGLISH.

HINC LUCEM ET POCULA SACRA

CAMBRIDGE, Printed by John Hayes, Printer to the University. 1681.

VALESIUS'S ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE, AND Ecclesiastick History, OF EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS Epiphaniensis.

EVagrius Scholasticus was by Nation a Syrian, as was also He was Bishop of Cyrus; and set about writing an Ecclesiastick History (which Va­lesius has published with the o­ther Greek Historians of the Church) towards the latter end of Theodosius Junior's Reign, at the same time that Socrates and Sozomen wrote theirs. He be­gan where they did, (to wit, from those times whereat Euse­bius closed his History;) and ended with them; viz. at the latter end of Theodosius Junior's Empire. 'Tis more than probable, that he wrote after Socrates and Sozomen. For (1) all the Ancients were of this opinion. (2) He that reads his History, will find it nothing else but a supplement of Socrates and Sozomen their Histories. (3) Theodoret himself, in the first chapter of the first Book of his History, says these words: [...], I will attempt to commit to writing the Remaines of Ecclesiastick History. (4) Lastly, he published his History after the year of Christ 448, (as Valesius demonstrates in his Preface before his History;) whereas So­crates and Sozomen had finished their Histories on the seventeenth Consulate of Theodosius Jun. that is, in the year of Christ 439. He is most particular in his acccount of the affairs of the Eastern Church, in regard he lived there. His Books of Ecclesiastick History are but five in number (as he himself intimates at the close of his fifth Book;) wherein he comprehends the affairs transacted in the Church, du­ring the space of 105 years. Theodoret: born at Epiphania (which was a City of Syria Secunda;) as he himself has declared in the Title of his own work. Therefore I wonder at Gerardus Vossius, who (in his Book de Historicis Graecis, pag. 498,) relates that E­vagrius was born at Antioch. But Evagrius himself, (both in the Title of his History, and also in his Third Book, Chap. 34,) does expressly attest that he was born at Epiphania. For, spea­king there concerning Cosmas Bishop of Epiphania, his words are these; [...], &c. Cosmas Bishop of Our Epiphania, in the Vicinage whereof runs the [River] Orontes, &c. Besides, Photius (in his Bibliotheca, chap. 29,) affirms that Evagrius was born in Epiphania a City of Syria Coele [...] ▪ which is strange, Nicephorus Callistus does in two places term our Evag [...] [...]ot Epiphaniensis, but) [...], that is, Illustrious.

For, in Nicephorus's First Book, chap. 1, the words are these; [...], &c. Moreover, Evagrius the Illustrious, &c. And, in Book 16. Chap. 31; Nicephorus quoting a passage of Evagrius, out of his Third Book, Chap. 34, (which passage I have just now mentioned,) expresses himself thus, [...], More­over, in like manner as Evagrius the Illustrious has related concerning Severus. But, my Sen­timent is, that Transcribers have mistook at both those places, and have written [...] [Illustrious,] instead of [...] [Epiphaniensis.] Doubtless, Nicephorus might have been evidently informed, from Evagrius's own words which he there produces, (which we have also quoted above,) that Evagrius had been born at Epiphania. Further, Evagrius was born in the Reign of Justinianus Augustus, on the year of Our Lord 536, or 537, as I have demonstrated from Evagrius's own Testimony, in my See Eva­grius's Ec­clesiastick History, book 4. chap. 29, note (f.) Notes on Book 4. Chap. 29. of his Hi­story. On the year of Christ 540, his Parents committed him to the care of a School-Master, that he might learn the Letters. At which time (when Thomas Bishop of Apamia had given notice to the neighbouring Cities, that on a set day he would show the enlivening wood of the Cross, which was kept at Apamia;) Evagrius was lead to that City by his Parents, and with his own eyes saw that Miracle, which was then performed in the Church; as himself at­tests [Page] in his Fourth Book, Chap. 26. Now, this hapned on the year of Christ▪ 540; when the Persians, having made an irruption into Syria, had burnt Antioch: which was done in Justinus Junior's Consulate, as we are informed by Marcellinus Comes, and Marius in his Chronicon. Two years after this, when The plague in the Groyn. The Lues Inguinaria began to rage in the East, Evagrius was as yet under a School-Master, learning the Letters, and was seized by that Pestilence, as he himself attests, Book 4. chap. 29. Having afterwards left the Schools of the Grammarian [...], he be took himself to the Study of Rhetorick. And when he had made a great proficiency in that Art, he was registred Or, in the number. amongst the company of Advocates. Whence he got the Appellation of Scholasticus: which term signi­fies a Lawyer, as Macarius informs us in his fifteenth Homily, in these words: [...] Valesius quotes this passage out of Macarius, in his notes on So­crates, book 6. chap. 6. note (f.) He that desires to have a knowledge in Forensian Cases, goes and learns the Notes [Letters, or, Abbreviatures.] And when he has been the first there, he goes to the School of the Romans, where he is the last of all. Again, when he comes to be the first there, he goes away to the School of the Pragmatici [or, Practicants] where he is again the last of all, and Arcarius [or, Novice.] Then, when he is made a Scho­lasticus, he is Novice, and the last of all the Lawyers. Again, when he comes to be the first there, then he is made a President [or Governour of a Province.] And when he is made a Governour, He takes to himselfe an Assistant [Councellour] or Assessour. In Macarius's Greek Text, I have mended it thus, [...], he that desires to have a knowledge in Forensian Cases; not as 'tis in the common reading, [...], he that desires to have a knowledge in Letters. Further, in what City Evagrius practised the Law, 'tis uncertain. Notwithstanding, my conjecture is, that he pleaded Causes at Antioch: in which City there were three Fora [that is, Courts of Judicature] or Tribunals; and as many Schools of Advocates, as I have observed from Libanius, in my Notes on Evagrius, Book 1. See Note (b) in that chapter. chap. 18. 'Tis certain, he could not be an Advocate at Epiphania, (which, as we have declared already, was the place of his Nativity;) in regard that City had no Judiciary Forum, but brought its Causes to Apamia, in which City the Consularis of Syria Secunda held a Court of judicature. But, for my believing Evagrius to have been an Advocate at Antioch, rather than at Apamia, this is my chief reason; because he was mostly conversant in that City, where he married a wife also, and begat sons of her. He married a daughter likewise in that City, as himself at­tests in his Fourth Book, chap. 29. And after she, together with her son, had ended her life by the Pesti­lentiall disease, on the tenth year of Mauricius; Evagrius, deprived of his wife and children, remarried, and took to wife a young Virgin in that City, as he relates Book 6. chap. 8. Where he attests also, that the whole City kept holiday on that account, and celebrated a publick Festivity, Tum in Pompa, both in Pomp. both in Pompous Shows, and also about his marriage-bed. Whence 'tis by the way apparent, how great his authority was at Antioch. Moreover, he wrote his History at Antioch, as may be Collected from the twen­tieth See note (b) in that chapter. chapter of his First Book. Where speaking concerning the Empress Eudocia's Jerusalem­journey, he says, she came to Antioch: [...], that is, a long time afterwards, in her journey which she made to the Holy City of Christ our God, she [Eudocia] comes hither, (to wit, to Antioch.) Evagrius therefore lived at Antioch when he wrote this History. Hence 'tis that Evagri [...] [...]diligent in recounting the Works and Publick Edifices of the City Antioch; as may be seen in [...] ▪ Book, chap. 18, and in his Third Book, chap. 28. At which places he does not obscurely intimate▪ that he lived at Antioch, whilest he wrote these things. Hence 'tis also, that he mentions with so much care and diligence, the earth-quakes, wherewith Antioch was now and then shaken: and, that in the Notation of the times he always makes use of the Antiochian years. Lastly, this may be Collected from the seventh chapter of his Sixth Book, where he relates, that Gregorius Patriarch of Antioch (having been accused of Incest, before Johannes, Comes of the East, by a Silver-smith,) appealed to the Em­perour, and to a Synod. And when he went to Constantinople, in order to the prosecution of his Cause before the Emperour and Synod, he took Evagrius along with him, as his Assessour and Counseller, that he might make use of his advice. By which words Evagrius does plain­ly enough declare himself to have been an Advocate and a Lawyer. For Assessours were wont to be taken out of their body, as well by the Civill as Military Magistrates. Nor was Evagrius Councellour to Gregorius in this criminall affair only, but in other causes also. For in regard Gregorius was Patriarch of the Orientall Church, and Or, ought to have, &c. could not but have the examination of many Causes every day, he must necessarily stand in need of some Assessour, who might suggest to him the Forms of Right and of the Laws. Indeed, Evagrius's words do fully declare what I have said. For he saith▪ See Eva­grius book 6. chap. 7. [...], Having me therefore his Assessour and Companion, he went to the Emperour's [City, Constantinople,] in order to the making his defence against these [accusations.] But let the Studious determine concerning this matter, according to their own arbitrement. 'Tis sufficient for me, to have proposed my conjecture to the Readers. Further, the same Gregorius made use of Evagrius's judgment, not only in Judiciary proceedings, but in writing Letters also, and Relations, which he now and then sent to the Emperour; in his Sermons likewise and Orations; as Evagrius attests at the See Eva­grius book. 6. chap. 24. close of his History. Which That is, the volume of relations, Letters, &c. Volume when Evagrius had published, [Page] not without the consent of Gregorius the Patriarch, in the Reign of Tiberius Constantinus, he had the dignity of a Quaestorate bestowed upon him by the same Emperour. And not long after, when he had made an Oration concerning the praises of Mauricius Augustus, on account of the Birth of the most noble child Theodosius, he received the Codicills of a Praefecture from the same Mauricius; as he himself attests at the close of his History. Evagrius's words there are thus translated by Chri­stophorson: Pro quibus duos honoris gradus consecuti sumus: Quaesturam à Tiberio Constantino, & munus Tabularum servandarum, in quibus Praefectorum nomina inscribebantur, à Mauricio Tiberio: For which we have obtained two degrees of honour: a Quaesture of Tiberius Constantinus, and the Office of keeping the Tables, wherein the names of the Praefects were inscribed, of Mauricius Tiberius. Which ill rendition deceived Gerardus Vossius and Philippus Labbaeus. For Vossius (in his Pag. 274. Edit. Lugd. Bat. 1651. Book de Histo­ricis Graecis,) treading in Christophorson's steps, says thus: Pro duobus autem hisce Libris ait ge­mino se honore esse affectum. Nam à Tiberio Constantino Quaesturâ fuisse ornatum: sed a Mauricio consecutum esse, ut Tabulis publicis praeesset: now, for these two Books, he says, he had a double honour conferred on himself. For he was honoured [as he saith] with a Quaesture by Tiberius Constantinus: and, that he obtained of Mauricius, the having the charge of the publick Tables. But Philippus Labbaeus (in his dissertation de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis,) hath Repaired, or, put a new face upon. interpolated Christophorsons Version, after this manner: Seque duos honoris gradus ait consecutum: & primùm à Tiberio Constantino ad Quaestu­ram evectum; tum à Mauricio munus adeptum servandarum Tabularum, in quibus non tàm nomina, quàm ipsa Praefectorum acta inscribebantur: And he says that he himself obtained two degrees of honour: and in the first place, that he was preferred to a Quaesture by Tiberius Constantinus; and secondly, that he procured of Mauricius the office of keeping the publick Tables, wherein not only the names, but the Acts of the Praefects were inscribed. Musculus has done much better, who hath rendred the passage in E­vagrius thus: Quarum etiam Gratiâ duas dignitates sumus consecuti: à Tiberio Constantino Quaesto­ratum largiente, Mauricio verò Tiberio Literas Hyparchicas mittente, On account of which [Volume of Relations, Letters, &c.] we have obtained two dignities: [one] from Tiberius Constantinus, who gave us a Quaestorate; and [another] from Mauricius Tiberius who sent us his Hyparchicall Letters. He would have said, The Codicills of a Praefecture, which the Latines term Or, Let­ters-Pa­tents. Letters also, as I have long since observed in my Notes on Ammianus Marcellinus. Hence 'tis, that in the Title of his Hi­story, Evagrius terms himself [...], [one] of the Ex-Praefects, because he had been rewar­ded with the Codicills of an honorary Praefecture by the Emperour. After this, the same Evagrius pub­lished Six Books of Ecclesiastick History, beginning from those times wherein Theodoret and Socrates had closed their Histories; that is, from the Ephesine Synod, wherein Nestorius was condemned and deposed: to wit, from the year of Christ 431. And he has continued his History to the twelfth year of the Emperour Mauricius, which was the year of our Lord 594. In his Third Book, at chap. 33, speaking concerning Severus Bishop of Antioch, he says that at such time as he wrote these things it was the Six hundredth fourty first year of the Antiochians. In regard therefore the Antiochian-Hera precedes that of our Saviour's Nativity fourty eight years; if from the number 641 we substract 48 years, it will be the year of Christ 594. The same may also be Collected from Book 4, chap. 29. where Evagrius writes, that whilest he penned this History, that Plague in the Groyne which had al­most wholly destroyed the whole world, had already raged two and fifty years. Now, this Plague be­gan to rage two years after Antioch had been taken by the Persians, that is, in the year of Christ 542. To which number of years if you add two and fifty, it will be made the year of Christ 594. Further, Evagrius's diligence is chiefly to be commended, because, undertaking to write an Ecclesiastick Hi­story, he made a Collection of whatever was pertinent to that Subject, out of the best Writers, to wit, Priscus, Johannes, Zacharias, Eustathius, and Procopius [who were all] Rhetoricians. His Style likewise is not to be found fault with. For it has a Beauty and Elegancy; as Photius does also at­test. But the chief thing commendable in Evagrius is, that of all the Greek Writers of Ecclesiastick History, he is the only person, who has kept the Doctrine of the true Faith intire and undefiled; as (after Photius) Baronius has observed in his Annalls. Notwithstanding, he deserves reproof for this, viz. because he has not used so much diligence in searching out the Monuments of Ecclesiastick Antiquity, as in reading Profane Writers. Indeed, almost the whole Sixth Book is spent in a Nar­rative of the Persian War. Besides, his Style in many places is Redundant and Luxuriant, as Photius has truly remarked in his Bibliotheca. An instance of which superfluity of Expression you have in Book 1. Chap. 2; where he speaks concerning Nestorius after this manner: [...], &c. that tongue full of hostility against God, that second Sanhedrim of Caîphas, &c. and, in Book 2. chap. 3; where he describes St Euphemia's Church, which was at Chalcedon: The same redundancy of Style, the Studious Reader will of himself easily observe, in many other places.

Moreover, Rob▪ Stephens was the first person that Printed Evagrius's History in Greek, from one only Manuscript Copy belonging to the Kings Library, which Manuscript is very new, and not extraordinary good. For in many places 'tis defective and imperfect. But we have mended and perfected Evagrius's History in so many places, from two Manuscript Copies of the best note, that it may seem now to have been first published. The first of these Copies was the Florent. Manuscript, [taken] out of St Laurence's Library, which the most famous Michael Erminius compared with the Geneva Edition, and sent me the Various Readings written out with his own hand. On which account I profess my self very much ob­lieged [Page] to him. This Manuscript is the best and ancientest of all the Copies of Evagrius. For 'tis writ­ten in parchment, [and was transcribed] about five hundred years since more or less, as I have been informed by one that saw it, viz. Emericus Bigotius, an excellent Schollar, and a person who has deserved well of Learning: by whose favour and Intervention I received the fore mentioned Various Readings, sent by the most famons Michael Erminius. In the same Florentine Manuscript, some not unlearned Scholia were written in the margin, which we have put into our Annotations, in their due places. But, the Reader is to take notice, that in this Florentine Manuscript is contained So­crates Scholasticus's History also, the various Readings whereof the same Erminius sent me long since, written out with his own hand; as I have attested above four years since, in that Preface I pre­fixt before my Edition of Socrates and Sozomen. The second Manuscript Copy was taken out of the Library of that most Illustrious Prelate Dionysius Tellerius, Arch-Bishop of Rheims: this is no very ancient Copy; but 'tis a good one, and transcribed by the hand of a Learned man. This Copy was of great use to us in many places, as we have now and then shown in our Annotations.

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EVAGRIVS SCHOLASTICVS Epiphaniensis, And [one] of the EX-PRAEFECTS.

The Writers Preface [wherein he declares] on what account he be­took himself to the Writing of this present History.

EUSEBIUS Surnamed PAMPHILUS, a Person both eminently Eloquent as to other things, and so powerfull in his Writings also, that by his perswasives he might be able (if not to render them I like not Christo­phorson's Version, who has rendred [...], Per­fecte Chri­stianos, per­fectly Chri­stians. I would ra­ther render it perfectly Orthodox. For the followers of true o­pinions are properly termed [...]. Photius (in his Bibliotheca) speaks thus concerning Socrates Scholasticus, [...]. Moreover, in his Sentiments he is not very Orthodox. The meaning of this place therefore, is this: Eusebius (although he be very fit to perswade his Readers to embrace the Christian Religion, yet) is not able to make them very accurate in the doctrine of the Christian Faith, in regard he himself seems to have inclined towards the opinion of the Arians. For, this was the sentiment of many persons concerning Eusebius Pamphilus; whom I have sufficiently answered, in the Preface I have written to the same Eusebius's Ecclesiastick History. Vales. perfectly Orthodox, yet) to prevail upon his Readers so far as to em­brace our [Sentiments:] Eusebius surnamed Pamphilus [I say,] Sozomen, Theodoret, and Socrates, in the best and most accurate manner have set forth in Writing, both the Advent of [our] Compassionate God amongst us, and his Ascent into the heavens; and also those things which the divine Apostles, and other Martyrs have couragiously performed in their Combats [in defence of the Faith;] Moreover, whatever else hath been transacted by those of our Religion, whether praise-worthy, or otherwise, till some The word [ [...], part] is wanting in the Kings, in the Florentine, and in the Tellerian M. SS. nor is it in Robert Stephens's Edition. The Geneva-Printers were the first that put in this word from Christophorson's Copy, the Various Readings whereof are extant at the end of the Cologne-Edition. Christophorson has expressed this word in his Version. For thus he renders it: ad ali­quam partem Regni Theodosii, to some part of Theodosius's Reign. But, it seems more elegant to me, to suppress, rather than add this word. If a word must be added, I had rather add [...], time. Vales. part of the Emperour Theodosius's Reign. But, in regard no person has hitherto given an orderly Narrative of the transactions that hapned afterwards, which [notwithstanding] are not much inferiour to them; I have resolved (though I am but little versed in such things,) to undertake this Work, and to compile an History of those affairs; being very confident, that by his assistance, who infused wisdome into Fishermen, and made the tongue of a Brute utter an articulate voice; I shall raise affairs already buried in Oblivion, give life to them by my Discourse, and render them immortall by an [eternall] commemora­tion: to the end that every one of my Readers may know, what [has been done,] when, where, how, against whom, and by whom affairs have been transacted, untill our own times: and [to the end that] nothing wor­thy to be remembred, may lie concealed by a remiss and dissolute Sloth, and (which is its next neighbour,) Oblivion. Divine assistance therefore being my guide, I will begin, where the Authours I have already mentioned, closed their History.

CHAP. I. That, after the destruction of the impious Julian, when the Heresies had been a little quieted, Or, The wicked Devil. the Devil afterwards disturbed the Faith again.

WHen the impiety of Julian had now been drowned in the bloud of the Martyrs, and Arius's madness bound in the Fetters made at Nicaea; and when Eunomius and Macedonius, [...], Chri­stophorson and Sr Henry Savil have mended it thus, [...], com­pelled, or rejected by force. But, that reading is much better, which the Florentine and Tellerian, M. SS. give us, to wit, [...], driven away—as it were by an impetuous wind. 'Tis a Metaphor taken from Shipwrack't persons who are driven away by the violence of a Storm. Evagrius compares the Holy Spirit to a wind, by the force whereof Eunomius and Macedonius being driven away, were at length Shipwrack't at Constantinople, to wit, condemned in the Constantinopo­litan Synod. Vales. driven away by the Holy Spirit [as it were [Page 402] by an impetuous wind,] had been Shipwrack't about the Bosphorus, and at the sacred City Con­stantinople: when the Holy Church, having laid aside her late filth, and Or, being restored to her pristine, &c. recovering her Pristine beauty and gracefullness, was clothed See the Septuagint Version, at Psalm 45. vers. 9. in a Vesture of Gold wrought about with divers colours, and made fit for her Lover and [Celestiall] Bridegroom: the Devil, Virtue's enemie, un­able to bear this, raises a new and Or, mon­strous. unusuall kind of War against us; contemning the wor­ship of Idols which now lay tramplied under foot, and abandoning Arius's Servile madness. He was indeed afraid of making an attack a­gainst [our] Faith, [openly] as an enemy, in regard it was fortified by so many and such eminent Holy Fathers; and [because] he had lost many of his Forces in the Siege thereof. But he attempts this business in such a method [rather] as theeves make use of, by inventing certain Questions and Answers, whereby he in a new manner Or, re­duced. perverted the erroneous to Judaism; the Wretch being insensible, that he should be foiled Or, even from hence. even this way. For, that one He means the Term Homobusios [that is, Coessen­tiall.] For the malig­nant Devill made his chiefest re­sistance a­gainst this word, in regard it was the Beesome as it were of all Here­sies, and the firmest sortress of the true Faith. Vales. Term, which before he had made the sharpest resistance against, he now admires and embraces: rejoycing mighti­ly (though he could not wholly Or, re­move. van­quish us, yet) that he was able to adulterate even but one word. Having therefore▪ many times [...]; a term used to denote the manner how a Serpent moves 3. which is incom­parably well exprest by Virgill, in these words, —Sinuatque immensa volumine terga,And he windes up his vast back in a Roll, or, Volume. wound up himself with­in his own malice, he Instead of [ [...]] I had rather make it [ [...]] as it is in the Tellerian M. S. Further, 'tis very intricate, what word Eva­grius should mean here. The Term Homoiöusios, [that is, of like sub­stance, or, essence] might indeed be meant. But, because in this word there is an addition (rather than a change,) of one Letter, [to wit, of the Letter I;] therefore the praepositions [ [...], and [...],] that is, [of, and in] are rather to be meant: which praepositions raised great stirs and commotions in the Church, on account of the Eutychian Heresie; some affirming that Christ was to be adored, [as subsisting] of two natures, others, [as subsilling] in two natures. Vales. invented the change of one Letter, which might indeed Or, draw. lead to one and the same sense, but not­withstanding would separate the un­derstanding from the tongue; least with both they should confess and glorifie God in a con­cordant and agreeable manner. Further, in what manner each of these things was performed, and what conclusion they had, I will declare in their due places and times. Whereto I will likewise add whatever else I could finde worthy to be rela­ted, although it may seem forreign to my sub­ject; [resolving] This place wants not difficulty. Musculus renders it thus: Ubi absolutam haenc historiam benigno Deo commendavero, Where I shall have commended this compleated History to the benign God. But this rendi­tion is not to be born with. Therefore Christophorson has translated it otherwise, to wit, after this manner: Ibique finem scribendi faciam, ubi Deo clementi ac propitio visum fuerit, and there I will make an end of writing, where it shall seem good to the mild and propitious God. But, neither does this translation fully satisfie me. For, first, Evagrius says not, [...], in the future tense, but [...], in the present tense. Secondly, I do not remember that I ever read this phrase [ [...]] in such a sense as to import, to finish an History. [...] signifies properly recondere, to lay up: whence [...] imports a repository, or, store-cellar for wines. It signifies also to lay on the ground, or, deposite in a monument. Hesychius in his Lexi­con renders [...] by [...], he who lieth. The same Hesy­chius says [...] does signifie [...], to expose, or, set forth. Which signification is contrary to the former. For, to hide, and to set forth or promulge, are contrary the one to the other. I had rather therefore render this passage of Evagrius thus, Historiam editurus, quando clementi placuerit Deo, [and] shall put forth my History, when it shall please the Gracious God. Notwithstanding, if any one shall prefer Christophorson's Version, I will not much resist it. 'Tis cer­tain, Evagrius (in the seventh chapter of his first book) uses these words [...], so as to signifie, be ended his life. Never­theless, in the thirteenth chapter of this book, Evagrius uses this word, in this sense, viz. to relate, or, set forth. For thus he says: [...], &c. Moreover, Theodoret also wrote, and elegantly s [...]t forth, [or, related.] &c. And in the 11th chapter of this book, [...] is used in the same sense, instead of [...], he set forth. Also in the beginning of his second book, Evagrius uses [...], instead of [...], we will set forth. Vales. to close my History where it shall seem good to the compassionate and pro­pitious Deity.

CHAP. II. How Nestorius was detected by his disciple Ana­stasius, who in his Sermon, termed the Holy Mother of God, not That is, the Wo­man who bore God. Theotocos, but That is, the Wo­man who bore Christ. Chri­stotocos: for which reason [Nestorius] was pronounced an Heretick.

FOr as much as Nestorius (that tongue full of Hostility against God, that second Sanhe­drim of Caïphas; that shop of Blasphemy, where­in Christ is again [...]. 'Tis strange that both Tran­slatours have erred in their Versions of this place. For, Mus­culus ren­ders it thus: offi­cina blas­phemiae, in quâ rursus ad judicium voca [...]ir & venditur Christus, that shop of blasphemy, wherein Christ is a­gain called to judg­ment, and sold. Chri­stophorson translates it after this manner: Qui Blas­phemiae offi­cinam, in quâ Christus denuò trucidatur & divenditur, instruxit; who furnished up a shop of Blasphemy, wherein Christ is again killed and sold. Neither of them have rendred it well. For, neither is this expression [to be called to judgment] agreeable to a shop; nor is there any such Greek word as [...]. I wonder at Sr Henry Savill, who set this most ridiculous emendation of Christo­phorson's, at the margin of his Copy. It should have been rendred thus, that shop of Blasphemy, wherein Christ is again bargained for, and sold at a price. For [...] signifies properly I make a bargain, and [...] is a bargain, or, agreement; as it is in the old Glosses. Which term occurs frequently in the books of the Greek Lawyers. Vales. bargained for, and sold; his Natures being divided and torn in sunder, of Whom not one bone had been broken on the very Cross it self, according as it is written; nor had his woven-coat in any wise been rent by the Murderers of God;) has rejected and abando­ned the term Theotocos, ([a word] long since framed by many of the [most] approved Fa­thers by [the inspiration of] the Holy Spirit:) and, instead thereof, has coyned and formed [the term] Christotocos, an adulterate coyn [us it were,] stamped by himself: and has re­filled the Church with innumerable wars, making an inundation of Civill bloud therein: I shall not, I suppose, want matter agreeable and fit for the composure of an History, nor [shall I de­spair] of bringing it to a conclusion, if (by the cooperation of Christ, who is God above all,) I shall begin from the blasphemy of the impious Nestorius. Now the War of the Churches had its originall from hence. [There was] one This Anastasius was Syncellus to Nesterius Bishop of Constan­tinople. Which is attested by Theophanes in his Chronicon, and by Anastasius Bibliothecarius. For the Patriarchs had their Syncelli (that is, those that kept in the same Cell with them, or those that dwelt with them.) whom they chose out of the order of Presbyters. So, in the Epistle of the Constantinopolitan Synod to Hormisda Bishop of Rome, about the Election of Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople, which Epistle Baronius Records at the year of Christ 520; amongst the Legates sent from the Synod, is named Heraclianus Presbyter of The Greater Church, and Cohabitator, [that is, the person who dwelt with him] to Epiphanius the Patriarch. Epiphanius himself also had for­merly been Presbyter and Syncellus to John, Patriarch of Constantinople, as Dioscorus attests in his Epistle to Pope Hormisda. Lastly, John had also been Presbyter and Syncellus to Timothy, Patriarch of Constan­tinople; as Victor Tunonensis informs us in his Chronicon, in these words: Agapeto V. C. Cos. Timotheus C. P. Episcopus, Obtrectator Synodi Chalcedonensis, quinto di [...] Aprilis occubuit▪ & Johannes Cap­padox in cell [...] propriâ atque Presbyter [...] Episcopatum tradidit; [on my perill, mend it thus, & Johanni Cappadoci Syncello proprio atque Presbytero Episcopatum tradidit; there is nothing more certain than this emendation:] that is, in the Consulate of the most famous Agapetus, Timothy Bishop of Constantinople, the Reviler of the Chalcedon Synod, died on the first of Aprill, and delivered the Bishoprick to John the Cap­padocian, his own Syncellus and Presbyter. The Syncelli were chosen also out of the order of Deacons. So, in the third Action of the Chalce­don Synod, one Agorastus a Deacon is termed Syncellus to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria. Lastly, in Eunodius there is a Precept extant, whereby all Bishops are ordered to have their cellulani, [that is, Chamber-fellows, or persons that were to keep in the same Cell with them.] Which Precept runs thus: Nullum ergo sacerdotem antiquis & modernis legibus obsequentem, &c. Our will is, that no Priest who is obedient to the ancient and modern Laws, and none of the Levites shall reside in any place without a person well approved of. And if the slender­ness of any person's estate shall not permit him to have a companion, be himself shall become Cell-fellow to another. The Patriarchs therefore were not the only persons who had their Syncelli. 'Tis certain, Stephanus is recorded to have been Syncellus to Syncleticus Bishop of Tarsus, by Ephremius, in Photius. Vales. See Meursius's Glossary, in the word [...]. Anastasius a Presbyter, (a person of a very unsound opinion, an ardent Lover of Nestorius and his Jewish Sentiments,) who had accompanied Nestorius in the journey he made in order to [his entring upon] the Bishoprick [of Constantinople.] In which journey (having had a conference with Theodorus at Mopsuestia, and heard his opinions,) [Page 403] was perverted from piety, as I have found no mention of this Theodulus any where else. For, whereas Nicephorus names him at book 14. chap. 32, that men­tion of him is borrow­ed from our Eva­grius. Notwith­standing, this person seems to have been that The­odulus a Presbyter in Caele-Syria, who in the reign of Zeno Au­gustus wrote ma­ny things; as 'tis attested by Gennadius Massiliensis, and by Marcellinus Comes in his Chronicon. Vales. Theodulus has re­lated, treating hereof in one of his Epistles. [This Anastasius,] in a Sermon he Preacht to the peo­ple that loved Christ, in the Church of Constan­tinople, was so audacious as openly and plainly to speak [these words;] Let no person term Mary Theotocos: For Mary was a woman: but, 'tis impossible for God to be born of a woman. The people that loved Christ being highly of­fended at the hearing hereof, and [supposing,] not without reason, that this expression opened a way to Blasphemy; Nestorius, the Authour of this Blasphemy, did not only not curb [Anasta­sius,] nor undertake the patronage of such Sen­timents as were Orthodox and true: But also, openly and manifestly added strength to what Anastasius had said, and pertinaciously main­tained disputes about these [points.] And some­times he would insert and intermix his own opi­nions; and by belching forth the poyson of his own mind, attempted to teach such [doctrines] as were far more blasphemous. In so much that, to his own destruction, he uttered these words, I cannot term him God, who was two months and three months old; as 'tis plainly related by So­crates in his account hereof, and [in the Acts] of the Former Ephesine Synod.

CHAP. III. What Cyrillus the Great wrote to Nestorius, and how the third Synod at Ephesus was convened, to which Johannes [Bishop] of Antioch and Theodoret came late.

WHich [assertions] when Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria, [a Prelate] of fa­mous memory, had reproved by his own Let­ters; and Nestorius had defended them in his answers thereto; We have perfected this place from the incompa­rable Flo­rentine M. S. by adding some words, which had been unhappily omitted by Transcribers. For, whereas in Robert Stephens's Edition, this clause is worded thus; [...]: we have altered it after this manner: [...]; nor could be prevailed upon, either by those [Letters] written [to him] by Cyrillus, or them [sent him] by Celestinus Bishop of the Senior Rome. Which I therefore thought good to give an Advertisement of that the Readers might know, that we have neither added nor diminished any thing, except by the autho­rity of that most incomparable Manuscript. Besides, the Tellerian Manu­script agrees with the Florentine Copy. Vales. nor could be prevailed upon, either by those [Letters] written [to him] by Cyrillus, or them [sent him] by Celestinus Bishop of the Senior Rome; but fearlessly vomited forth his own poyson against the whole Church: [Cyrillus,] (for which he had just cause;) made his request to Theodosius Junior who at that time swayed the Sceptre of the Eastern Empire, that by his Order the first Synod at Ephesus might be convened. The There is extant an Epistle of Theodosius Junior's, which they commonly called Sa­cra. For so Theodosius himself terms it, in his Epistle to the Ephe­sine Synod. In the La­tine Version of this E­pistle; the title is worded thus: Sa­cra Impera­toria, missa Alexandri­am ad Cy­rillum E­piscopum & Episcopo [...] Metropoli­tanos ejus Regionis. But the Greek words have a different import; they run thus: [...], that is, the Sacred Letters sent to Alexandria to Cyrillus, and to the Metropolitane Bishops every where: for [...] has the same import with [...], in every Region. and this is confirmed by Theodosius himself in the same Epistle, where he says, that by the same Copy he wrote [...], to the Bishops of Metropolis's every where. But, instead hereof, our Evagrius words it thus: [...], &c. The Im­periall Letters [therefore] were dispatcht away, both to Cyrillus, and also to the [Bishops that] presided over the Holy Churches in all places. Vales. Imperiall Letters [therefore] were dispatcht away, both to Cyrillus, and also to the [Bishops that] presided over the holy Churches in all places. [Theodosius] appoin­ted the day of the Synod's convention to be on the In the year of Christ 431. See Dr Be­veredge's Annot. in Can. Concil. Ephes. pag. 103. day of the Holy Pentecost; where­on the life-giving spirit [of God] descended The term [ [...], upon us] displeased Nicephorus. Therefore, instead thereof he substituted these words [ [...], on the holy Apostles.] But, this emendation was needless. For the term [ [...], upon us] is at this place put for the Church of God, which at, that time resided in the Apostles. Indeed, the Holy Spirit had de­scended on Mary before, at such time as she conceived the Son of God: and afterwards upon Christ, when he had been baptized in Jordan, Which hapned to them by a speciall priviledge. But the Holy Spirit descended first on the day of Pentecost upon the Church of God by the Apostles; for the Apostles delivered the same Spirit (which they then received,) afterwards to their successours, by imposition of Hands. Vales. upon us. Nestorius, in regard Ephesus is not far distant from Constantinople, came thither first. Al­so Cyrillus and the [Bishops] about him arrived before the day appointed. But Johannes Bishop of Antioch, to­gether with the [Bishops] about him, was ab­sent at the set day; not willingly, ( [...]. Nicephorus, instead of the word [ [...] as it seems] uses [ [...], be said.] But Christophorson read thus, [...]. For he renders this place after this man­ner: Johannes Praeful Antiochia, &c. John Bishop of Antioch, together with his [Bishops,] was absent at the day appointed; not willingly indeed, as it seems to many persons, who have a mind to defend this fact of his. Not­withstanding, I cannot approve of this em [...]dation; although Sr Henry Savill hath set it at the margin of his Copy, Musculus renders this place thus: Verùm praeter animi sui sententiam, sicu [...] & multis moram illam ex­cusans, ostendit, But contrary to his own mind, as he has also demonstrated to many persons, in his excusing that delay. But I am of opinion, that no alte­ration is to be made here, and do render the place thus: But Johannes Bishop of Antioch, together with the [Bishops] about him, was absent at the set day; not willingly, (as it seems to many persons from the Apology he made, &c. doubtless, there can be no other sense of these words. Vales. as it seems to many persons, from the Apology he made [in excuse for his not coming at the time appoin­ted;]) but because he could not gather toge­ther the Bishops of his Province sooner. For the Cities [belonging to] the Bishops [under him,] are twelve days journey distant from that City (heretofore called Antioch, but now) termed Theopolis, to a man that is an expedite and nimble Traveller; but, to others [who are not so good at travelling] they are more [than twelve days journey distant.] And Ephesus is at least thirty days journey distant from Antioch. Wherefore [Johannes] affirmed, that he could in no wise meet at the appointed day, [if he should set out] when the Bishops, whom he had about him, had celebrated that termed the The Greeks heretofore termed the first Sunday after Easter, [...], or, [...], The New Sunday. So Gregorius Nazianzenus calls it in his nineteenth Oration which he spake at the Funerall of his own Father Gregorius. There is extant an Oration of the same Gre­gorius's (to wit, his 43 Oration) upon this New Sunday: in which Oration he gives a reason, why this day should be called New Sunday. Further, the Synod in Trullo Can. 66, terms this Sunday (which we now commonly call Dominicam in Albis, the Sunday in the Albs,) [...], New Sunday. Vales. Mr Smith (in his Account of the Greek Church, pag. 32, Edit. Lond. 1680,) tells us, that the Greeks do still term thu Sunday, [...], the New Sunday; and that 'tis also cal­led [...]. Meursius says it should be [...], that is, regenerating, or, renewing Sunday. See Meursius's Glossary, in the word [...]. New Sunday within their own Sees.

CHAP. IV. How Nestorius was deposed by the Synod, before the arrivall of [the Bishop of] Antioch.

VVHen therefore fifteen days were past be­yond the day prefixt, the Bishops who had been called together for that reason (sup­posing that the Eastern [Bishops] would not come at all, or if they did, that much time would be spent before they could be got toge­ther) [meet together in one place] Here, and in Ro­bert Ste­phens's Edit. this passage is worded thus: [...]; The divine Cyril­lus administring, &c. In which clause (as the Learned Dr Barrow remarks, in his Treat. of the Pope's suprem. pag. 289;) a word seemeth to have fallen out. Zonaras (on the 1 Can. Synod. Ephes. Tom. 1. Edit. Bever. pag. 100.) expresses this passage more plainly, in these words: [...], The Holy Cyrill Pope of Alexandria presiding over the Orthodox Fathers, and also holding the place of Celestine. And Photius thus: [...], [Cyril] supplyed the seat and the person of Celestine [Bishop] of Rome. From which Authours 'tis plain, that Cyrillus had the disposall of Celestine's single suffrage, and that Pope's legall concurrence with him in his Actings in that Synod: But Cyrillus had no Authoritative presidency from Celestine, because the Pope could by no delegation impart that, himself having no title thereto, warranted by any Law, or by any Precedent; that depended on the will of the Emperours, who disposed of it according as they saw reason. A notable instance whereof we meet with in the next Ephesine Synod (which in design was a Generall Synod, legally convened, though by some miscarriages it proved abortive;) men­tioned by our Evagrius in the tenth chapter of this Book: where though Julius (or rather Julianus,) Pope Leo's Legate was present; yet by the Emperours Order (see the words of his Letter, Syn. Chalced. Act. 1. P. 59.) Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria presided. Nice­phorus (book 14. chap. 34,) tells us, that in regard Celestine Bishop of Rome could not be present at this Synod, by reason of the dangers of such a voyage, he made Cyrillus his Deputy: and that from this time Cyrillus and the succeeding Bishops of Alexandria challenged the name of Pope, &c. Doubtless Nicephorus is mistaken herein. For, Dionysius Alexandrinus (in his third Epist. to Philemon, part of which is quoted by Eusebius, Eccles. Hist. book 7. c. 7.) mentioning Hera­clas, his predecessour in the Alexandrian See, says these words con­cerning him: [...], I received this Rule and Canon from Heraclas our Blessed Pope. And Athanasius (in his second Apologetick Tom. 1. pag. 786, Edit. Paris. 1627;) has recorded an Epistle writ­ten to him from Ischyras, which has this title, [...], To Athanasius the Blessed Pope. Therefore, these words of Nicephorus's are (as Valesius says truly in his note here) inepta & fal­sissima, foolish and most untrue. And, that other remark of Valesius's here, which he makes from the former part of the now cited passage in Nicephorus (to wit, that [...] well Nicephorus, as those from whom [...]e borrowed this, doubted not but the Bishop of Rome was the Sovereign judge of all the Churches;) is questionless no less foolish and false. 'Tis indeed true, that the Bishops of Rome have some Centuries since claimed an Authority not only of presiding in, but also of indicting and convening Generall Councills. But, how unjust this claim is, as well in respect of Right, as Practise, will be evident to him, who with attention and consideration shall peruse these Ecclesiastick Histo­rians. Look back to what Socrates says in the Proeme to his fifth Book: [...] (says he) [...]. &c. We do continually include the Emperours in this our History, because from such time as they began to embrace the Christian Religion, the affairs of the Church have depended on them; and the greatest Synods have been, and at this present are convened by their determination and appointment. But, for a most full and compleat satisfaction in these points, viz. con­cerning the Bishop of Rome's Sovereign power to indict and preside in Generall Councills; I referr the Reader to the Learned Dr Barrow's Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy, pag. 274. &c. the divine Cyrillus administring, and the place of Caelestinus, who (as it has been said) governed the Bi­shoprick of the Elder Rome: they summon in Nestorius therefore, entreating him that he would give in his answer to [the accusations] brought against him. Who on the day before promised to come, if there should be an occasion for it, but [afterwards] neglected to fullfill his pro­mise; and having been thrice called, after that he appeared not; [whereupon] the Bishops con­vened undertook the examination [of the mat­ter.] And when Memnon Bishop of Ephesus had reckoned up the days which had passed af­ter the set day, (they were in number sixteen days;) and when the Letters of the divine Cyril­lus, which had been written by him to Nestorius, and also Nestorius's [Letters] to Cyrillus, had been read; moreover, when that sacred Letter of the famous Caelestinus, which he sent to the same Nestorius, had been annexed: further, when Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra, and Acacius who presided over the Or, Chair. See of Melitina, had de­clared those blasphemous Expressions, which Nestorius had manifestly and openly belched forth at Ephesus: [lastly,] when many say­ings of the holy and most approved Fathers, who have expounded the right and sincere Faith, had been joyned together; and also, when the various blasphemies foolishly and madly uttered by the impious Nestorius, had been reduced into an Order: [I say, after all these things had been done] the Holy Synod pronounced sentence [against Nestorius] in these express words: Moreover, in regard the most Reverend Nestorius would neither obey our Sum­mons, nor admit the most Holy and most Religious Bishops sent by Us, We have been forced to pro­ceed to an examination of his impious expressions. And having found, both from his Letters and Writings which have been recited, and also from his own words which he hath lately spoken in this Metropolis, [which expressions of his] have been confirmed [by the testimony of many persons,] that his Sentiments and Doctrines are impious; being necessarily induced thereto, both by the [authority of the] Canons, and also by the Letter of our most Holy Father and Fellow-Minister Caelestinus Bi­shop of the Roman Church, after many tears we have proceeded to [the pronunciation of] this sad sentence. Therefore, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has been blasphemed by him, hath determined by this present Holy Synod, that the same Nestorius is Or, re­moved, or, estranged, from. divested of the Episcopall dignity, and [ex­cluded from] all manner of sacerdotall conven­tion.

CHAP. V. That Johannes [Bishop] of Antioch, coming [to Ephesus] after five days, deposes Cy­rillus [Bishop] of Alexandria, and Memnon [Bishop] of Ephesus; whom the Synod pro­nounced innocent soon after, and deposed Jo­hannes and his party. And how, by [the in­terposition of] the Emperour Theodosius, Cy­rillus and Johannes were reconciled, and con­firmed Nestorius's deposition.

AFter this most legall and just Sentence, Jo­hannes [Bishop] of Antioch comes to Ephesus, together with the Prelates about him, arriving [there] five days after [Nestorius's] deposition. And having convened Or, those [Prelates] about him. those [Bi­shops] of his party, deposes Cyrillus and Mem­non. But when Cyrillus and Memnon had pre­sented Libells to that Synod which had been con­vened with them, (although See So­crates book 7. chap. 345 and also note (b.) in that chapter. Socrates, through ignorance, has related [this matter] otherwise,) Johannes is summoned, to give an account of that [Page 405] deposition which he had made. Who not ap­pearing after he had been thrice called, Cyrillus and Memnon are absolved from their deposition; but Johannes and the [Bishops] of his party are separated from holy communion, and from all sacerdotall authority. [Further,] Theodosius at first approved not of Nestorius's deposition; but having afterwards been informed of his Blas­phemy, when he had written very pious Letters to the Bishops, Cyrillus and Johannes, they come to a mutuall agreement, and confirmed Nestorius's deposition:

CHAP. VI. Concerning Paulus [Bishop] of Emisa's▪ jour­ney to Alexandria, and Cyrillus's commen­dation [of Johannes] on account of [his] Letter.

WHen Paulus Bishop of Emisa was arrived at Alexandria, and had made a dis­course, which is still extant, in the Church con­cerning this matter. At which time also Cy­rillus, having highly commended Johannes's Let­ter, wrote word for word thus: This Let­ter of Cy­rillus to Jo­hannes oc­curs entire in Binius, Tom. 2. pag. 594. Edit. Paris. 1636. Let the heavens rejoyce, and the earth be glad. For the partition wall is demolished, that which caused grief and sadness is ceased, and the occasion of all manner of dissention is taken away; in regard Christ the Saviour of us all, has Or, mi­nistred. restored peace to his own Churches; and the most Religious Em­perours and most dear to God, have invited us thereto. Who having been the most incomparable Emulators of their Ancestours piety, do preserve the true Faith firm and unshaken in their own minds: and they take an exquisite care of the Holy Churches, to the end they may obtain both a far-spread and immortall Glory, and also render their Empire most highly renowned. To whom even the Lord of Hosts himself distributes good things with a Or, rich. plentifull hand, gives them [power] to vanquish their adversaries, and freely bestows Victory [on them.] In the incompa­rable Flo­rent. M. S. I found it written [ [...], can­not lie] which is the truer reading. In the Acts of the E­phesine Sy­nod, where this Epistle is recorded (See Binius, as before, p. 595,) it is [ [...] will not lie.] But the reading of the Florent. M. S. is confirmed by Nicephorus and the Tellerian M. S. Vales. In Robert Stephens, the reading here is, [...], hath not lied. For he cannot lie who has said, As I live, saith the Lord, I will glorifie them who Glorifie me. When therefore My Lord and most Religious Brother and Fellow-Mini­ster Paulus was come to Alexandria, we were filled with joy, and that most deservedly, in regard so great a person [was come to be] an Intercessour, and was willing [...]. Christophorson has ten­dred this place very ill, thus, Et graviores quàm vires ferebant, suscepit in concionando Labores, And in Preaching has undertaken far greater pains, than his strength would bear. Musculus translates it thus: Et laboribus vires excedentibus collocutionem suscepisset, And with labours exceeding his strength had undertaken a conference. Neither of them has rendred it well. [...], imports, to endure or undergo labours. So, [...], signifies, to bear the Vicissitudes of fortune. Plutarch (in Marius,) speaking concerning Jugurtha, says these words, [...], that is, so various was that person as to his disposition, [which was fitted] to bear the changes of Fortune. Moreover, these words [ [...], above strength] may be understood two ways. For, we may either understand [...], humane, (which we have done:) or else [...], his own. Musculus and Christophorson have embraced the latter sense; as did he also, who rendred the Acts of the Ephesine Councill into Latine. Vales. to undergo Labours above [humane] strength: that he might vanquish the Envy of the Devil, unite divisions, and by removing offences on both sides, crown both Our and Your Churches with Concord and Peace. And, after the interposition of some words, [he Adds:] Moreover, that this dissention of the Church was altogether frivolous and Here, and in the Acts of the Ephesine Councill▪ the reading is [...], in­excusable, or, inoppor­ture. But, in the Tel­lerian M. S. I found it written, [...], and incongru­ous. Vales. inex­cusable, we have been now fully satisfied, since my Lord the most Religious Bishop Paulus has brought a paper which containes an irreprehensible confes­sion of Faith; and has affirmed, that it was writ­ten by Your Sanctity, and by the most Religious Bishops there. Now, the confession runs thus, and 'tis inserted in the very▪ same words into this our Epistle. But concerning. Theotocos, and so forth. When We had read these In the Acts of the Ephesine Councill, and in Ni­cephorus; instead of [ [...], our] it is [ [...], your;] which doubtless is the truer rea­ding. Vales. Your sacred words, and perceived, that We Our Selves embraced the same Sentiments; (For, there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism;) We glorified the Saviour of all men, rejoycing mutually, because as well your, as our Churches, do profess a Faith which is agree­able, both to the divinely inspired Scriptures, and also to the Tradition of our Holy Fathers. These things may be known by him who is desirous of having an accurate account of those affairs transacted at that time.

CHAP. VII. What the impious Nestorius writes concerning his own sufferings; and how, his tongue having at last been eaten out with worms, he ended his life at Oasis.

BUt, after what manner Nestorius was banished, or what befell him after that, or in what manner he departed out of this life, and what rewards he received on account of his Blas­phemy; [these particulars] have not been re­lated by the Writers of History. All which had been forgotten, and had been wholly lost and swallowed by [length of] time, nor had been so much as heard of; had not I accidentally met with a book of Nestorius's, which contains a Narrative of these things. This Father of Blas­phemy therefore, Nestorius, (who has not raised his building on that foundation which was laid, but hath built [his house] on the sand, and [therefore] it has soon faln down, according to our Lord's parable;) making an Apology (which was his desire,) in defence of his own Blasphemy, [...]. In the incomparable Florent. M. S. I found it written [ [...], against those who had accused him▪] which is doubtless the truer. reading: [...] has the same im­port with [...], him. Vales. against those who had accused him, (be­cause he had introduced some innovation contrary to what was fitting, and had not rightly requested that a Sy­nod should be convened at Ephesus;) amongst other things writes [to this effect:] that he, wholly compelled thereto by necessity, had betaken him­self [...]. to [the defence of] this part, in regard the holy Church was divided, some affirming that Mary was to be termed That is, [the Vir­gin] who bore man. Anthropotocos, others, She who bore God. Theotocos. That therefore (as he says) he might not offend in one of these two, [viz.] The meaning of this place is very ob­scure; it is, in my judgment, thus to be explained. After that Sermon of Ana­stasius the Presbyter, who was Nestorius's Syncellus, (See chap. 2. note b.) there arose a great dissention in the Constantinopolitan Church: in regard some affirmed, that Mary was to be termed Theo­tocos; others Anthropotocos. And when the Sedition increased daily, Nestorius, desirous to appease it, invented a certain middle term; viz. that Mary should in future be termed Christotocos, the Virgin who bore Christ: least, if he should term her Theotocos, he might seem to joyn things mortal with those that are immortal; (which thing he [that is, Nestorius] look't upon to be impious:) or least, if he had em­braced the term Anthropotocos; the other party (to wit, those who defended the term Theotocos,) should have revolted from him, and held their Assemblies apart. This is the meaning of this place; which neither Musculus, nor Christophorson understood. Therefore, instead of [ [...],] it must be [ [...]. In the Tellerian M. S. I sound this reading, [...]. Vales. least he should either joyn things mortall with those that are immortall, or else least (by be­taking himself to the other side) he might be de­prived of that other party [who defended the term Theotocos:] he invented the word Christotocos. [Page 406] He intimates further, that at first the Emperour Theodosius, out of that affection he bore towards him, confirmed not the [sentence of] Or, E­jection. deposi­tion pronounc't against him: but afterwards, that when some Bishops [...]; that is, of both parties, as well Catho­licks, as Nestorians. Musculus has rendred it ill, thus, ultero citro­que, to and fro. Vales. of both parties had been sent from the City Ephesus to Theodo­sius; Instead of [ [...],] the reading in the Florentine and Tellerian M. SS. is [ [...], and when he also himself requested it.] Vales. and when he also himself requested it, he was permitted to return to his own Monastery; which is scituate before the Gates of that City now called That is, Antioch. See chap. 3. Theo­polis, and is not expressly named [there] by Nesto­rius. But, they say, From the Florent. and Tel­lerian M. S. I have mended this place thus: [...], it is now [...]med Eu­prepius's [Monastery:] the rea­ding before was very foolish, thus, [...]. Vales. it is now termed Euprepius's [Monastery,] which, as we assuredly know, stands before the [City] Theo­polis, distant from thence not more than two fur­longs. Moreover, the same Nestorius says, that having resided there during the space of four years, he had all imaginable honour conferred upon him, and enjoyed all manner of reverence and respect: but that afterwards, by the Edict of [the Emperour] Theodosius, he was banished into that place called Oäsis. But he has con­cealed that which is the principall thing. For, during his Residence To wit, in the foresaid Mo­nastery, which was called Eupre­pius's Monastery. Vales. there, he in no wise desisted from his own Blasphemy. In so much that Johannes Bishop of Antioch gave [the Emperour] an account thereof, and Nestorius was condemned to per­petuall Banishment. I like neither Christo­phorson's, nor Muscu­lus's Ver­sion of this place. The latter of whom renders it thus: Scripsit au­tem & alium librum more dialectico, velut ad Egyptium quendam de exilio suo compositum, But he wrote another book also in a Logi­cal manner, to a certain Egyptian as it were, composed concerning his own Exile. And Christophorson translates it thus: Scripsit prae­terea Nestorius alium Libellum acutè & subtiliter, &c. Moreover, Nestorius wrote another little book, acutely and subtilly, &c. What need was there of acuteness and Logicall subtilty in a little book, wherein Nestorius treated concerning his own banishment into Oäsis? Therefore, I judge it better to render these words, [ [...]] thus [composed in the manner of a Dialogue.] And thus Nicephorus expounded these words of Evagrius. For, in­stead thereof, he makes use of the word [...], more by way of Dialogue. Which term Langus renders, disertius, more eloquently: as if Nicephorus had said, [...]. Vales. He wrote also another Book, composed in the manner of a Dia­logue, to a certain Egyptian as it were, con­cerning his banishment into Oäsis; wherein he speaks more at large concerning these things. But, what punishments he underwent on account of the Blasphemies Or, brought forth. coyned by him (not be­ing able to lie concealed from [God's] all­seeing eye,) may be known from other Letters, sent by him to the Governour of Thebäis. For, in those [Letters] you may find, after what manner (in regard he had not yet undergone condign In Ni­cephorus, (book 14. chap. 36.) instead of [...], tor­ture; the reading is truer, thus, [...], punishment. And so I found it written in the Tel­lerian M. S▪ Vales. punishment,) the judgment of God seized him, and involved him in I have mended this place from the incomparable Florentine Manuscript; wherein the reading is thus [ [...], Captivity, a calamity of all [afflictions] the most miserable; than which e­mendation, there is nothing more certain. The reading in Nice­phorus is the same also. Vales. In Robert Stephens's Edition, 'tis thus worded: [...]. Vales. Captivity, a calamity of all [afflictions] the most mise­rable. But, in as much as he was to endure grea­ter punishments, he was let go by the Blemmyae, amongst whom he had been a Captive. And removing from place to place about the utmost borders of The­bäis, by the Edicts of Theo­dosius who had determined that he should return; and being dash't against the earth, he ended his days agreeable to his own fore­past life: [like] a second Arius, declaring and Or, ratifying, or, confirming. fore­shewing by his calamitous death, what rewards are ap­pointed for [those who utter] Blasphemy against Christ. For both those That is, Arius, and Ne­storius. persons blasphemed Christ in a like manner; Arius, by terming him a Creature; and Nestorius, by thinking him to be a man. To That is, to Nesto­rius. whom (because he com­plains, that The Acts at Ephesus were not rightly composed [and made up,] but were framed by fraud and an illegall Artifice of Cyrillus's;) I would willingly say [thus much:] Why (since Theo­dosius was his favourer,) was he banished, and, without obtaining the least commiseration, con­demned to so many Exiles, and concluded his life after such a manner as this? Or why (if the sentence [pronounced] against him by Cyrillus, and the other Prelates about him, were not divine,) both of them being now numbred a­mongst those departed [and dead,] (at which time, as it has been said by one of the Heathen Sages, Transla­tours, in regard they had per­swaded themselves, that the word [...] does al­ways sig­nifie an hindrance; have fallen into various ertours. For Langus renders it thus: Et ambo vos jam ex vitâ hâc excessistis, &c. And both of you have now made your departure out of this life: at which time, as one of the Hea­then sages has said, nothing hinders, but that every person may be honoured by a free benevolence of men, no adversary inter­vening. And Christophorson has translated it after this manner: Quando, ut sapienti inter Gentiles scriptori placet, &c. At which time, as it pleases a prudent Writer amongst the Heathens, every one is usually honoured with a firm and concordant benevolence of all men, provided there be nothing which may lawfully be an impediment. But, the term [...] does not always signifie an Impediment, or Hindrance. For the Ancients, as well Rhetoricians as Philosophers, used [...] in such a sense as to signifie the same with [...] to be in fight, or, appear openly; as Suidas, Harpocration, and the Authour of the Ethymologicon do inform us.▪ But, the Lat­ter Writers, and especially Hierocles the Philosopher, have used that word to signifie an impediment or hindrance. Therefore, Musculus has rendred this passage in Evagrius best of all, thus: Quando, sicut quidam exterorum Philosophorum dixit, quod non est amplius superstes, sine ullius invidiâ & contradictione cum benevolentiâ honoratur; When, as one of the forreign Philosophers has said, that which survives not any longer is honoured with benevolence, without the envy and contradiction of any one. Fur­ther, in the margin of the Tellerian Manuscript, there is set at this place, [...], that is, this sentence is taken out of Thu­cidides. 'Tis extant in Thucidides's second book, pag. 128, Edit. Francosurt. 1594; in the Funeral Oration which Pericles made. Vales. that which appears not any more in sight [or, that which survives not any longer] is honoured with a Benevolence that hath no enemy;) has he himself been condemned as a Blasphemer, and an enemy of God; but Cyrillus is praised and extolled [by all persons,] as having been a loud [and eminent] Preacher, and a great defen­der of Orthodox Sentiments? But least we should be accused for writing what is false, Come on, let us bring forth Nestorius himself into the midst, giving a relation concerning these very things. [Page 407] Recite to me therefore [O Nestorius!] some passages in the express words of your own Letter, which you wrote to the Governour of Thebaïs. Because of some [controversies] lately agitated at Ephesus concerning the most Holy Religion; by an Imperiall Order we inhabit Oäsis otherwise [called] [...]bis. And after the interposition of some words, he adds: But after the foresaid [Oäsis] was totally de­stroyed by Instead of [ [...]] the reading, as it seems should be [ [...], by a Barba­rick Captivity.] In the Floren­tine and Tellerian M. SS. and in Nicephorus, 'tis [...], by Captivity. Vales. a Barbarick Cap­tivity, and by fire, and sword; and we were dismis­sed by the Barbarians, who on a suddain, how I know not, Or, recovered a compassion, &c. were moved with a com­passion towards us, and after they had terrified us with menacing declarations, that we should immediately go out of that Coun­try, in regard the Mazices would suddenly take possession of it after them; we are come to The­baïs together with the remainder of the Captives, whom the Barbarians (out of commiseration) brought to us, for what intent I know not. More­over, they have been every one permitted to go whither they desired: but we by coming publickly to Panopolis, Or, do appear per­sonally. do exhibite our selves. For we were afraid, least any one, Or, by making our captivity [his] mat­ter of en­quiry. by taking an occasion from our Captivity, should either frame an accu­sation of flight against us, or else [form] a forged invention of some other fault. For malice is productive of all manner of calumnies. Where­fore, We beseech Your Or, Greatness. Magnificence, to take care (according to that provision the Laws have made,) of our Captivity, and not to deliver a Captive, who is subject to mischief, to the evil arts of men; least all Generations should from hence forth cry out, that 'tis better to be the Barbarians Captive, than to fly for refuge to the Roman Empire. Then, having added an Oath, he made his request [to the Governour] thus: [that You would please] to give the Emperour an account of our Remove from Oäsis That is, To Pano­polis. hither, which hapned from our being dismissed by the Bar­barians: that so, whatever determination shall be well pleasing to God, may now at length be made concerning us. [Also, out of] the same Ne­storius's second Letter to the said Governour: Whether You will account this present Letter from Us to Your Magnificence, as [written] from a friend, or as an admonition from a Father to a Son, hear, I beseech you, with patience the Narration [contained] therein concer­ning many [matters,] written from us, where­in We have been as brief as possibly could be. Oäsis otherwise [termed] Ibis, having been severall ways ruin'd of late, by an incursion made into it by a multitude of the In that Letter of Nestorius's mentioned before, the people who ruined Oasis are termed Blemmyae. Wherefore, Nomades ought here to be taken for an Ad­jectiv [...]. Notwithstanding, it may be the proper name of a Nation of Barbarians. 'Tis certain, the Nub [...], neighbours to the Blemmy [...], (who made frequent incursions into the Country of Oäsis, as Pro­copius informs us, in book 1. Persic▪) were termed Nomades also, or Numides; which is attested by Stephanus.—But some one will ob­ject, if Nestorius speaks here concerning one and the same Captivity of Oäsis, how can that stand, which he says in ▪the beginning of this Epistle, in these words: [...]. For, the incursion of the Blemmy [...] into Oäsis (in which Nestorius had been taken Captive by the Barbarians, and was pre­sently dismissed,) had hapned but a little while before, as he him­self attests. But, the incursion of the Nomades had hapned long be­fore; as 'tis apparent from Nestorius's words in this last Epistle, which were just now cited. To all this I answer, that these words [...], do not signifie long since, as Langus, Musculus and Christophorson thought. For, the Adverb [...], signifies lately, as every body knows. Doubtless, this incursion had hapned a little be­fore Nestorius wrote these things. Therefore, [...] ought to be referred to the word [...]. So that▪ ' [...] the same as [...] should have said▪ Oäsis having been [...]ev [...]all [...] of la [...] to wit, by fire, slaughters, and a Barbarick Captivity; a [...] Nestorius [...] said above. Vales. Nomades. And after some words. These things having happned thus, (by what impulse, or on what oc­casion Your Magnificence was moved thereto, I know not;) we have been sent by Barbarian Souldiers from Panopolis, to Elephantina, [a Town] situate in the Borders of the Province Thebaïs; towards which we have been drag'd by the forementioned military assistance. And when we had been tired by our travelling more than half that journey, we again met with an Order of Your Magnanimity by word of mouth, [whereby we were commanded] to return to Panopolis. Having therefore been wearied with the miseries The reading here, is, [...], of this your jour­ney▪ and 'tis the same in Nice­phorus. Notwithstanding, I doubt not but it should be, [...], of this so long a jour­ney. And so Christophorson and St Henry Savil read it. Vales. of this so long a journey, our Body being infirm and aged, and our hand and side tired, we came again to Panopolis, in a manner breathing forth our Soul. And whilest we were as yet cruciated with the calamities and mischiefs of [our] pains, ano­ther Order written by Your Magnanimity Or, came flying. came in great hast, whereby we were conveyed again from Panopolis to a place adjoyning thereto. Instead of [ [...], when we supposed these things against us would stop] I think it should be thus: [...], when we supposed we should stop here. Thus Musculus seems to have read, who renders it in this manner: Et cum illic h [...]suros n [...]s arbitraremur, And when we thought we should stop there. Vales. When we supposed, that we should stop here, and were in expectation of the most Victorious Em­perours determination con­cerning us; on a sudden another [Decree] was again drawn up against us, without any commiseration, in order to another [to wit,] a fourth Banish­ment. And after some few words, [he conti­nues.] But, I beseech you, bee what has been done be sufficient, and [may it be enough] Instead of [ [...],] it must be [...] ▪] For, the word [ [...]] which preceded immediately, is understood. In the Tellerian M. S. the particle [ [...]] is wan­ting. Vales. to have De­creed so many banishments against one Body: and, Transla­tours saw nothing at this place▪ who by a small fau [...]e were indu­ced into a great errour. Instead of [ [...]] it must undoubtedly be [ [...] ▪] Presidents of Provinces were heretofore wont to give the Emperour an account of all things which hapned with them. The doing whereof was termed [...], and the Relation it self [...], as I have noted on Amm. Marcellinus. Concerning these Rela­tions of Presidents, Severianus speaks, in his first Oration in Hexa [...]me­ron; the passage whereof I will annex here, because the Translatour understood it not: [...] &c. For, Brethren, as the presidents by [sending] Relations, make known all things [that are transacted with them] to the Emperour: so also the Angels, &c. The Translatour renders it The Masters of the Libells and suggestions; which rendition is ill. For [...] ▪ in Chrysostome and the other writers of that age, are nothing else but Presidents or Gover­nours of Provinces. And [...] imports nothing else but Relation, or Narrative. Wherefore, in Severianus, it must be written thus▪ [...], &c. Vales. after the relations [which have been sent to their Imperial Majesties] by Your Magnificence, permit, I humbly beseech you, that an accurate account [of our condition] may be made known to ou [...] most Victorious Emperours, even by us also, by whom that ought [to be done.] These are our Advices, as to a Son from a Father. But if you be angry now, as you have been here­tofore, do what you think good; since Or, no reason is more power­full than your mind. no reason is powerfull enough to sway your mind. After this manner [Nestorius] in his Let­ters strikes and leaps, with his fists and fee [...], [Page 408] and reviles Or, the Empire. the Emperours and Magistracy; ha­ving not been made prudent by the miseries he suffered. But I have Or, [...]eard. read a certain writer declaring his Latter end [after this manner, to wit,] That his tongue having been eaten out with worms, he departed to greater and immor­t [...]ll punishments [which are to be inflicted on him.]

CHAP. VIII. How, after Nestorius, Maximianus, and after him Proclus, then Flavianus, were made [Bishops of Constagtinople.]

AFter that destructive Pest Nestorius, Maxi­mianus succeeded in the Episcopate of the famous [City] Constantinople; under whom the Church of God enjoyed all imaginable peace and tranquillity. When he was taken from a­mongst men, Proclus enters upon the Govern­ment of that See, who had heretofore been or­dained Bishop of Cyzicum. And after he was gone the common way Or, of men. of mankind, Flavianus succeeded in that Chair.

CHAP. IX. Concerning the unfortunate Eutyches, and how he was deposed by Flavianus [Bishop] of Constantinople; and concerning the second (to wit, that theevish) Synod at E­phesus.

IN That is, Flavia­nus's. his times, the controversie about the im­pious Eutyches was started; a particular Synod having been convened Instead [...] of [ [...]] it must undoubted­ly be [ [...] at Constanti­nople [...] which is the rea­ding in the Tellerian Manu­script, and in Nice­phorus, book 14. chap. 47. where Langus rendets it thus: Flavianus Synodo Pr [...]vinciall apud Constantinopolim coactâ, &c. Flavianus, a Provin­cial Synod having been convened at Constantinople, &c. Whom Chri­stophorson has followed. Notwithstanding. I had rather render it [...] particular Synod, as Musculus does. Indeed, that Synod consisted only of those Bishops, who at that time hapned to make their abode at Constantinople, on account of some Ecclesiastick affairs: which Pre­lates they commonly termed [...], Bishops that made their residence for some time only in the City. The Acts of this Constan­tinopolitane Synod under Flavianus, are related in the First Action of the Chalcedon Councill▪ where these words occur [see Binius Tom. 3. pag. 80.] [...], &c. The Holy and Great Synod having been convened [consisting of such Prelates as] resided for some time in the forenamed Great City, &c. If any one be desirous of know­ing the names of those Bishops then convened; they occur in the first Action of the Chalcedon Synod. Vales. See Binius, Tom. 3. pag. 125. Edit. Paris. 1636. at Constantinople: [to which Synod] Eusebius Bishop of Dory­laeum (who was the first person that had [here­tofore] refuted Nestorius's Blasphemy, being untill then but a Rhetorician,) presented Libells. Therefore, when Eutyches, after he had been summoned [to the Synod,] came not: and at his appearing [afterwards] had been convicted of having said these words: I confess, that our Lord Or, con­sisted of two na­tures. had two natures before the union: but, after the union I confess, but one nature: (he asserted also, that the Body of our Lord was not of the same substance with our bo­dies▪) [After▪ this, I say,] he is deposed.

But when he had presented a supplicatory Li­bell to Theodosius, Or, as if the Acts, &c. pretending that the Acts of those convened [in that Synod] had been falsified by Flavianus; in the first place a Synod of [the Bishops] that were neer neighbours to Constantinople was assembled. In which ( [...]: which words Christo­phorson hath ren­dred ill, thus, Some Prelates of Churches; whereas he should have translated it, some of the Magistrates. Nicephorus therefore (book 14. chap. 47.) has rightly explained these words of Evagrius, after this manner: [...] ▪ in which [Synod] there were present both others of the Prelates, and also some of the Senate. The Actions of this second Constantino­politan Synod under Flavianus are extant, recorded in the first Action of the Chalcedon Councill. See Binius Tom. 3. pag. 129. Edit▪ ut prius. Where Florentius the most magnificent Patricius, Mamas the Comes and Proximus, [that is, Clerk] of the Desk of Libells and Sacred Cognitions, and Macedonius the Tribune and Notary, are said to have been present at this Synod. Vales. some of the Magistrates also being present therein,) Flavianus is judged. And when this Synod had confirmed the Acts, as being true; a second Synod is convened at E­phesus.

CHAP. X. What was transacted by Dioscorus and Chrysa­phius [at] the [...], unexpected, or absurd Synod: Valesius renders it, the illegitimate Synod; Curterius terms it the mad Synod. absurd Synod at Ephesus.

AT this Synod Dioscorus, successour to Cy­rillus in the See of Alexandria, was ap­pointed to preside: In R [...] ­b [...]r [...] Ste­phens's E­dition, the reading was [ [...]] but Christo▪ phorson and Sr Henry Savill, by transposing the words, have men­ded it thus, [...]. I doubt not but Evagrius wrote thus: [...]. Which thing [that is, Dioscorus's Presidency in that Synod] was effected by the artifice of Chrysaphius. Further, Christophorson translates and points this whole passage, in this manner: Hujus concilii Dioscorus, qui in Alexandr [...]ae Episcopatum post Cyrillum successit, quò odium in F [...]avianum incende­retur, prases de [...]ignatus fuit. Chrysaphius enim hanc rem callid [...] molitus fuerat. Of this Councill Dioscorus, who succeeded Cyrillus in the Epis­copate of Alexandria, to the end that the hatred against Flavianus might be inflamed, was appointed president. For Chrysaphius had craftily at­tempted this thing. But Musculus's opinion seems far better to me, who before these words [...], places a subdistinction. For he renders it thus: Praesidebat autem ei Synodo Dioscorus post Cyrillum Alexandrinus Episcopus; id quod ita odio Flaviani instituerat Chrysa­phlus, &c. At that Synod presided Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria after Cyrillus; which thing Chrysaphius had so ordered out of [his] hatred to Flavianus, &c. Instead of these words [ [...] (or [...], as Sr Henry Savill mends it) out of [his] hatred;] Nicephorus has these, [...], by reason of his hatred resisting [or, breaking out against] Flavianus▪ Vales. which thing was effected by the Artifice of At the margin of the Florentine Manuscript, this Scholion is set: [...], That is, Note concerning the Impious Chrysaphius, that the Eunuchs of the Bed-chamber have always done mischief to the Orthodox Arch-Bishops. Of which thing we have an eminent instance in Eusebius, chief [Eunuch] of the Bed-chamber, who in Constantius's Reign persecuted Atbanasius, and the other Ca­tholick Prelates. Vales. Chrysaphius (a person of great interest in the Imperiall Pallace at that time,) out of [his] hatred to Flavianus. There met [at this Synod] at Ephesus, Juvena­lis Bishop of Jerusalem, [...]. Christophorson understood these words amiss; as if Evagrius had said, that Juvenalis had for­merly been Bishop of Ephesus. But Evagrius does no [...] say so; but only, that Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, had been heretofore at Ephesus, to wit, in the former Ephesine Synod, wherein Nestorius had been condemned. Vales. who had been at the former Ephesine Synod, together with many other Priests [whom he had] about him. Together with these met Domnus, Johannes's successour in the Antiochian See: also Bishop The reading in Nicephorus is the same; but 'tis corrup [...], instead of Julianus▪ For so it is truly written in the Acts of the second Ephe­sine Synod, which are recorded in the first Action of the Chalcedon Councill; post consulatum Zenonis & Posthumiani V V▪ C C. Di [...] sex [...]o Idus Augusti, &c. After the Consulate of the most famous Personages Zeno and Posthumianus, on the sixth of the Ides of August, in the third Indiction▪ a Synod is convened in the Metropolis Ephesus, by the command of the most Religious and most Christian Emperours▪ and the most Reve­rend and most Holy Bishops, Dioscorus of Alexandria, and Bishop Julianus (who was the Deputy of the most Holy and most Blessed Leo Bishop of the Roman Church,) sate in the Holy Church, which is called [Saint] Mary's. Baronius, at the year of Christ 449, relates from Marianus's Chronicon, that this Julianus was Bishop of Puteoli. Notwithstanding, as it is now extant in Marianus Scotus's Chronicon, the Bishop of Puteoli is not called Julianus▪ but Julius, who was sent with Hilarus the Deacon by Pope Leo, to the second Ephesine Synod. But, in the Subscriptions of the Bishops who Subscribed to this second Ephesine Synod, (which Subscriptions are Recorded in the first Action of the Chalcedon Coun­cil, pag. 141;) he is termed Julianus the Bishop. For these are the words there: Julianus Episcopus, [...]enens locum sanctissimi Episcopi Romanae Ecclesiae, interpretante se Florentio Episcopo Lydiae, dixit, &c. From which words it seems to be concluded, that this Julianus, who was present at the second Ephesine Synod, was Julianus Bishop of C [...]e, who two years after was present at the Chalcedon Councill, and held there also the place of Leo Bishop of Rome, as it frequently occurs recorded in the Acts of the Chalcedon-Synod.—Observe here Baronius's in­constancy; who▪ when he had written at the year of Christ 449, that that Julianus (who was Legate of the Apostolick See at the second Ephesine Synod,) was Bishop of Puteoli; afterwards (at the year of Christ 451, chap. 78,) makes him Bishop of Cö [...]. Vales. Julius, who filled the place of Leo Bishop of the Seniour Rome. Flavianus likewise was present with them, together with the Bishops about him: [Page 409] The Sa­cred Com­monitory (or, Let­ters Man­datory,) of the Empe­rour Theo­dosius to Elpidius, Comes of the Sacred Consistory, and to Eu­logius the Tribune and Praeto­rian Nota­ry, is ex­tant in the Acts of the Ephesine Conventi­cle [or, little Coun­cill,] which are Recor­ded in the first Action of the Chalcedon Synod, pag. 46, where these words here related by Evagrius, do occur. Vales. Theodosius having given an Order to Elpidius in these express words: Let those [Prelates] who before have been the Judges of Eutyches the most Religious Or, Ab­bot. Archimandrite, be present and silent: but let them in no wise take the place of Judges, but ex­pect the common Or, suf­frage. Sentence of all the most Holy Fathers; in regard those things which have been judged by them, are now under scrutiny. In this Synod Eutyches is restored (his Sentence of Deposition being revok't,) by Dioscorus and those about him; Or, as 'tis contai­ned in the Acts. as the Contents of the Acts thereof do shew. And Flavianus, and Eu­sebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, are con­demned and deposed. At the same Synod, Ibas Bishop of the Edesseni is excommunicated: and A little before the second Ephesine Synod, Ibas [Bishop] of Edessa, and Daniel Bishop of Carrae had been accused before the Emperour Theodosius by their own Clergy. The Emperour gave order, that cog­nizance of their Cause should be taken in a Synod at Berytus, in the presence of Damascius Tribune and Praetorian Notary. The Acts of this Councill [at Berytus] are extant, recorded in the tenth Action of the Chalcedon Synod, (See Binius. Tom. 3. pag. 377.) which begin thus: Post Consulatum Flavii Zenonis & Posthumiani, &c. After the Con­sulate of the most famous personages Flavius Zeno and Posthumianus, on the Calends o [...] September, in the second Indiction, &c. I doubt not but it should be written, Consulatu Zenonis & Posthumiani, In the Consulate of Zeno and Posthumianus. Otherwise, this Synod would have hapned after the Ephesine little Councill, which was convened after the Con­sulate of Zeno and Posthumianus, in the month of August. Now, the Berytian Synod connot be placed after that Ephesine Synod, in regard mention is made therein of Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, and of Domnus of Antioch: both which, 'tis manifest, were deposed in the second Ephesine Synod. Add hereto the testimony of Liberatus the Deacon, who relates in his Breviarium, that this Berytian Synod was convened before Eutyches had framed his Heresie. Vales. Daniel Bishop of Carrae is deposed: as is also Long before the second Ephesine Synod, Irenaeus had been driven from his Bishoprick, by an Edict of the Emperour The odosius; and Photius had been put into his See. 'Tis certain, Photius presided at the Berytian Synod, which had been convened on the year before the second Ephesine Synod. But, because Irenaeus had been ejected by the Emperours Order, not by the determination of a Synod, therefore he was deposed in the second Ephesine Synod. Vales. Irenaeus of Tyre, and Aquilinus of Byblus. Moreover, some things were transacted [there] on the ac­count of 'Tis strange, how much Translatours have erred in the Version of this place. For, Langus, Nicephorus's Translatour, renders it thus: Decrevit haec Synodus quoque de Sophronio quaedam, &c. This Synod also Decreed some things concerning Sophronius, who had come at that time to Constantinople, on account of seeing that City. Christophorson translates it in this manner: Nonnulla ibidem acta [...]uere contra Sophro­nium Episcopum Constantinopolitanum, some things were acted there against Sophronius Bishop of Constantinople. But he ought to have said Bishop of Constantina. For Sophronius was Bishop of Constantina, as 'tis appa­rent from the second Antiochian Synod under Domnus, which is inserted in the 14th Action of the Chalcedon Synod. The same Sophronius was afterwards present at the Chalcedon Synod, as 'tis recorded in the Acts of that Synod. Now, Constantina is a City of Phaenice. Vales. Sophronius Bishop of Constantina. This was he, who wrote the five books of Ecclesi­astick Hi­story. Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus was deposed also by them, as was likewise Domnus [Bishop] of Antioch. In the place of Domnus Bishop of Antioch Maximus was subrogated, as Li­beratus informs us in his Breviarium. Who was afterwards confirmed in his Bishoprick by Pope Leo, as we read in the Tenth Action of the Chalcedon Council. Notwithstanding, the same Maximus appointed Domnus, as long as he lived, a certain allowance out of the Reyenue of his Church, that being content with his maintenance, he might in future be quiet: which thing was approved of by the other Patriarchs in the Chalcedon Council, as may be seen in the forecited Action, Vales. What became of which Prelate af­terwards, I cannot find. When these things had been transacted in this manner, the second Synod at Ephesus was dissolved.

CHAP. XI. This Writers Apology in defence of the variety [of opinions] amongst us [Christians,] and his Derision of the Pagan Tri [...]es.

BUt, let Or, none of those who are mad up­on Idolls. none of the Heathens deride us, because the latter [Bishops] depose the former, and always find out some new thing [which they add] to the faith. For we ma­king researches after the ineffable Love of God [towards men,] which is past finding out, and being desirous to honour and extoll it in the highest manner, doe betake our selves to this, or that [opinion.] Nor was any one of those, who invented Heresies amongst the Christians, so weak, that he would [...] ori­ginally, or▪ primarily. designedly blaspheme; nor has [any such person] fallen into an errour, with a desire to dishonour the Deity: but 'twas rather his supposition, that if he should assert this opinion, he should speak better than Or, him who went before him. those who went before him. Besides, those [points] which are essentiall [...]. In Nicephorus (book 14. chap. 48. where he transcribes this passage of Evagrius,) the reading is [ [...], and opportune] which rea­ding is not so good, as I judge. Yet, I found it expressly [...]o written in the Tellerian M. S. Vales. and fun­damentall, with a generall consent we all confess and acknowledge. For 'tis the Trinity which we adore, and the Unity which we Glo­rifie: and God the Word, begotten before [all] ages, who was incarnate by a se­cond Generation, out of his compassion Or, To the crea­ture. to man. But if innovations have been introduced about some other [points,] they have procee­ded from God our Saviour's giving [us] a free liberty of judging concerning these things; to the end that the Holy Catholick and Aposto­lick Church may Or, C [...] ­private. reduce the things that are said on the one side and on the other, to what is decent and pious, and Or, May meet in one exact, &c. may [make them] fall into one exact and right way. And for this reason the Apostle [Saint Paul] has most per­spicuously and truly said: 1 Cor. 11. 19. There must be also Heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest [among you.] And in this also the unspeakable wisdome of God is to be admired, who has said to the divine [Saint] Paul: 2 Cor. 12. 9. For my strength is made▪ perfect in weak­ness. For, for what reasons the members of the Church have been rent in sunder, for the very same [causes] the true and irreprehensible Doctrines, or, points. Dogmata have been more accurately polished and set forth; and the Catholick and Apostolick Church has increased, and been advanced even to the Hea­vens. But the nourishers of Heathenish errour, who are not desirous of finding out either [the nature of] God, or his providentiall care about men, do mutually overthrow both their own, [Page 410] and their Ancestours opinions. For they invent Gods upon Gods, and choose and name them from their own perturbatiens of mind; to the end that by taking to themselves such Gods, they may procure pardon for their own lusts and de­baucheries. So forsooth, he who amongst them [is accounted] the supream Father of men and Gods, having Metamorphoz'd himself into a bird, lasciviously snach't up the Phrygian Boy; and, as the reward of his uncleanness, gave him his Cup, [...]. He means (I suppose) that Story, which we are told concerning Ganymed Son of Tros King of Troas (which was one part of Phrygia.) This Boy, Ju­piter having turned himself into an Eagle, snatch't up, and ad­mitted him his Cup-bearer, in the room of Hebe, whom he had displaced; and makes him his Catamite. permitting him to begin to drink an inviting Cup to himself, that so both of them might in common swallow down their shame together with the Nectar. The same [Jupiter defiled himself] with infinite other impieties, which have been interdicted even amongst the vilest of men. And having changed himself into all the shapes of irrationall creatures, (he himself being of all the most brutish▪) is made an A person that is both male and female. Androgynus, and The story is this. Se­mele ('tis said) be­ing great with child by Jupiter, (to whom that god had sworn to give whatever she should ask of him,) was by Juno's craft put upon making this request to him; viz. that he would lie one [...]ht with her in the same manner be used to lie with Juno. The God-Lover granted her desire; and Semele is burnt up with Thunder▪ but the Boy was taken out of her womb, and put upon Jove's thigh; of whom he was delivered (in such manner as women are) at the due time. On which account Bacchus (who was the child thus brought forth,) had the name of Bimater, one that had two mo­thers. bears a child not in his belly, but on his thigh, to the end that these things contrary to nature might be done by him. At which Birth Bacchus [is brought forth,] who was himself an Andro­gynus also, and brought a reproach upon both Sexes: he was the Prince of drunk [...]nness, of sot­tishness caused by fulness of wine, of su [...]i [...]s and debauches proceeding from so profuse drin­king, and of all the distempers rising there­from. To this 'Tis an Epith [...]te given to Jupiter, either (1) because he wore the sacred [...]gis, [that is, Brest-plate,] or (2) because he was the raiser of Storms, or rather (3) in regard he wore the skin of the Goat Am [...]thaea, which had been his Nurse. See Servius upon Virgil's 8th Aeneid. Col. 1320, Edit. Basil. 1586. Aegiochus, this Loud Thun­derer▪ they ascribe this In stead of [ [...], and some brave, &c. I doubt not but it should be [ [...], as some brave, &c.] For, in these books of Evagrius, [...] is frequently used instead of [...]. Vales. as some brave and great [Action,] they term him parricide (a Vil­lany judged by all men to be of the greatest mag­nitude,) because he drove Saturn, who had un fortunately begat him, out of his Kingdome.

What should I say of Whoredome, which Or, has had divini­ty attribu­ted to it; or, has been deified. has been consecrated amongst them, over which they have made the Cyprian Venus, begotten of a Shell, to preside; which [Goddess] abominates con­tinency as a most execrable thing and altogether intolerable: but she is delighted with whoredomes and all manner of filthy actions, wherewith 'tis her desire to be appeased. With whom Mars commits an unclean Act, and by the craft of Vulcanus is [taken and] exposed to the view and derision of the other Gods. Any one may also deservedly laugh at their Phalli, their Ithy­phalli, Phallagogia, their vast Priapus, and Pan who is worshipped with an obscene member; and at their mysteries [celebrated] at Eleusine, commendable for this thing only, [to wit,] that the Sun sees them not, but they are condemned to dwell in darkness. But, leaving these things as well to the obscene worshippers as to the worshipped, let us spur on our horse [...], to the Mark, or, Goal. to the end of the Race, and render the remaining [transactions] of Theodosius' [...] Reign, manifest and evident to the eyes of all men.

CHAP. XII. In what manner the Emperour Theodosius [pro­secuted and] expelled the Heresie of Ne­storius.

THe same Emperour wrote a most pious Con­stitution, extant in the First Book of that termed Justinian's Code, which is in number The Third of the First Title. In which [constitu­tion, Theodosius] incited thereto by God, has with all suffrages (as 'tis proverbially said) con­demned Nestorius▪ him, for whom he had heretofore had a singular affection (as Nestorius himself has re­lated;) Or, has surrounded him with an Anathe­nia. and has denounced an Anathema a­gainst him, recorded in these express words: Moreover, We Decree, that those who Or, imi­tate. emulate the impious faith of Nestorius, or follow his de­testable doctrine, (if they be Bishops, or Ecclesi­asticks,) shall be ejected out of the Holy Chur­ches: but, if they be Läicks, they shall be Ana­thematized. The same Emperour made other Laws on account of our Religion, which do suf­ficiently demonstrate the ardency of his zeal.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning Saint Symeon the Or, who dwelt in [or, upon] a pillar. Stylite.

IN these times, Symeones, [a person] of an holy [...]. Sr Henry Savil in his Copy makes it one word, thus, [...]. But I had rather write it [...]. For so Grecians do usually speak; as when they say [...] most eminently laudable, [...] most Holy, and the like. Our Evagrius speaking hereafter concer­ning Gregorius Bishop of Antioch, gives him this Elogy, [...], the most celebrated Gregorius. Vales. and most celebrated memory, flouri­shed and was Or, con­spicuous. eminent: he was the first person that instituted the Station upon a pillar, the circumference of whose Mansion was scarce two Cubits; at which time Domnus presided over the Church of An­tioch. Who when he was come to Symeones, and had admired his station and manner of life, was desirous of some more secret [converse with him.] Both of them therefore met together, Heretofore the Presbyters celebrated the Church-Service to­gether with the Bishop, and received the Eucharist from his hand. So in the tenth Action of the Chalcedon Councill, Bassianus Bishop of Ephesus, in his Supplicatory Libell to Marsianus the Emperour, amongst other things says these words: [...] &c. Having on the day after all of us performed the Publick-Ser­vice together, &c. And, at a great distance from that place, the same Bas­sianus says, pag. 303, [...], &c. Stephanus my Presbyter was with me four years, he performed the Publick-Service with me, communicated with me, and received the Communion from me, as from his Bishop. The same usage also was heretofore practised in the Roman Church, to wit, that the Presbyters should every day celebrate the Publick-Service together with the Bishop of Rome, and receive the Communion from his hand. But on Sundays, when the Presbyters were necessitated to perform the Publick-Service apart in their own Titles, [Parishes, or, Cures.] on account of the people committed to their charge; they received the Lords Body sent by the Acolythi from the Bishop of Rome: that they might not seem to be separated from the communion of their own Bishop, especially on that day; as Pope Innocent informs us in his Epistle to Decentius. Vales. and having consecrated the immaculate Body [of Christ,] they gave one another the Vivi­fick Communion. This person in the flesh emu­lated the converse of the Celestiall powers, with­drew himself from affairs upon-earth, and put­ting a force upon Nature which tends down­ward, pursued things sublime. And having pla­ced himself in the midst, [as it were] between heaven and things upon earth, he conversed with [Page 411] God, and together with the Angels glorified him: offering to God▪from the earth his sup­plications for men, and procuring from heaven the supernall benevolence upon men. This per­sons Or, Pre­dictions. Miracles have been written by one that was an eye-witness of what he did. Theodoret also Bi­shop of Cyrus has See The­odoret's works, Tom. 3. pag. 876, &c. Edit. Paris. 1642. recorded them very elo­quently. [This place has been severall ways corrected by Learned men, to wit, by Christophorson and Cur­terius, or rather by those from whose Copies they transcribed these emendations. For some, after the word [...], add the verb [...]. Others read [...], and understand that concerning Theodoret only. But I suppose this place is to be restored thus: [...]. And so I have ren­dred it: nor do I doubt but Eva­grius wrote it thus. Vales. But] we have found, that they have been most especially defective in this [following passage,] which to this day is pre­served amongst those of the Holy Solitude, and from which very persons, we have received it. When therefore Symeones, that Angel upon earth, that Citizen in the flesh of the Jerusalem which is above, had instituted this new, and [hitherto] un­known way of living to men; the Inhabitants of the Holy Desert send a messen­ger to him, whom they ordered to enquire [of Symeones,] what this new and strange course of life was, and why he left that way which had been trodden and worn by the Saints, and proceeded in another new one, [hitherto] wholly unknown to men? And [they bade the messenger tell him] that they commanded him to come down, and go on in the way of the Elect Fathers. Now, if he should shew him­self In the incomparable Flo­rentine M. S. I found these words, written at the margin: [...]; that is, The judg­ment of the Fathers concerning the Great Symeon [was] truly spirituall in Christ. Vales. ready [and willing] to come down, their order was, that he should be per­mitted to follow his own [way.] For by his obe­dience [they said] it would be manifest, that by the di­rection of God he had un­dertaken this troublesome and afflictive way of living. But if he refused, and would be the servant of his own will, nor would with a readiness forthwith obey their ad­monition, ['twas their order] that he should be pulled down by force. When therefore the messenger was come to him, and had acquain­ted him with the command of the Fathers, and Symeon's had forthwith put down one of his feet, resolving to fulfill the Order of the Fa­thers; [the messenger who had been sent to him] permitted him to proceed on in his own way; and spake these words [to him:] Be strong, and behave thy self like a man: thy sta­tion is of God. This truly memorable action [▪of Symeon's] which I have related here, is omitted by those who have written concer­ning him. [Further,] this person was in so high a manner influenced by the power of di­vine grace, that when the Emperour Theodosius had issued out an Order, that the Synagogues of the Jews inhabiting Antioch (which had been taken from them by the Christians,) should be restored to them again; he wrote to the Em­perour with so much freedome and confidence, and reproved him so smartly, (revering [God] only his own King,) that the Emperour Theo­dosius revoak't his own Orders, fulfilled all things in favour of the Christians, removed the Praefectus Praetorio, who had suggested these things to him, from his Government, and entreated the most Holy and These seem to be the words of the Em­perour The­odosius, ta­ken out of the Letter he wrote to the blessed Symeones. The Emperour therefore had prefixt this title before his Letter; [...], To the most Holy and Aërial Martyr. Where he terms him Martyr; on account of those great seve [...]ities wherewith he afflicted his own body: and he stiles him Aërial, because he stood on high in the air, in a pillar. The words [...] do undoubtedly declare what I have said; to wit, that those now mentioned, or them immediately following, are the words of the Emperour Theodosius. Notwithstanding, Christophorson has pointed this place otherwise, as 'tis apparent from his Version. For he renders it thus: Et sanctissimum ac Aërium oraret Martyrem, uti nominatim pro ipso Deum obs [...]raret, And he besought the most Holy and Aërial Martyr, that he would beseech God expressly for himself. Which punctation of this passage I can in no wise approve of. Vales. Aërial Martyr in [these] ex­press words, that he would put up his supplica­tions and prayers for him, and impart to him his own blessing. Moreover, Symeon spent six and fifty years in this afflictive and au­stere course of life. In the fi [...]st Monastery, wherein he had been imbued with the pre­cepts of a divine life, [he spent] nine years.

And seven and fourty in that place called See the following chapter. note (a.) The Mandra: during ten years [of which time] he performed his combat in a certain narrow place; [he dwelt] seaven years in the shorter pillars, and thirty years upon a pillar of fourty cubits long. His most sacred body, after his departure out of this life, in the succeeding times was brought to Antioch, [to wit,] when Leo swayed the Imperiall Scepter, and Martyrius pre­sided over the Church of Antioch; at which time also Ardaburius Master of the Orientall Milice, came to Symeon's Mandra, accompanied with those Military Forces he had about him, and with other multitudes; and guarded the most pretious dead body of the blessed Symeones, to the end that the neighbouring Cities might not meet together and steal it. His most holy body therefore is conveyed to Antioch, very great miracles having been performed even by the way. The Emperour Leo desired it might be given to him by the Antiochians. But the In­habitants of Antioch presented a supplicatory Li­bell to him, wherein were contained these words: In regard we have no wall to our City, (After this clause, Ni­cephorus adds these words; [...], a great earth­quake ha­ving hap­ned. Vales. For 'tis faln by reason of the wrath [of God:]) we have brought [hither] the most Holy Body that it may be to us instead of a wall and a fortifica­tion. By which words the Emperour Leo was prevailed upon, granted their request, and per­mitted them [to enjoy] the Holy Body. Ma­ny of this persons [Reliques] have been pre­served untill our times. Even I my self have seen his holy head, (severall Ecclesiasticks being then present,) at such time as the most celebrated Gre­gorius was Bishop of Antioch; when Philippicus requested, that the pretious Reliques of the Saints might be sent to him, in order to the guarding and defending the Orientall Milice. And, which is to be wondred at, the hair of his head was not faln off; but is preserved perfect and entire, as if he were yet alive, and conversant amongst men. The skin also of his forehead was wrinkled indeed, and become hard: but 'tis as yet preser­ved whole, as are also most of his teeth, [...]. Chri­stophorson and Sr Hen­ry Savil have men­ded this place thus [ [...], as many as have not by force, &c.] But, the place may be mended by a smaller change, thus: [...], &c. excepting so many of them as, &c. Instead of these words, Nicephorus uses, [...]; which is more elegant. Vales. exce­pting so many of them as have by force been taken away by the hands of faithfull persons. [Which teeth of his] do by their [...], by [their] figure, form, or shape: Valesius ren­ders it by their greatness▪ form declare, what, how great, and eminent a man of God this Symeones was. There lies likewise at his head, a chain made of Iron which he wore about his neck; with which his much-renowned body, worn out by austerities, hath shared the honours [given] by God. [Page 412] For that dear and friendly iron deserted not Symeones, even when dead. I would have given Instead of [ [...]] I had ra­ther it should be [ [...], a particular account of this persons, &c.] Which emendation seems to me to be altogether necessary; although Nicephorus defends the common reading. Christophorson seems to have read according as I have said. Vales. a particular account of this persons perfor­mances, (which would yield no small advantage, both to my self relating them, and also to those who should read them;) were it not, that Theo­doret ( [...]. I am of the same mind with Sr Henry Savil, who in the margin of his Copy has mended it thus, [...], as I have said before. The same fault is corrected before in this chapter, where the Synagogues are spoken of, which the Antiochians had heretofore taken away from the Jews. And so it is plainly writ­ten in the Tellerian. M. S. Vales. as I have said before,) hath declared them more at large.

CHAP. XIV. Concerning the Star which appears frequently in the Piazza about the Pillar of Saint Symeon, which this Writer and others have seen: and concerning the same Saint's Head.

BUt come on, I will insert another thing also into this History, which I my self saw. I had a great desire to see the Church of this holy person. It is about three hundred fur­longs distant from That is, Antioch. Theopolis, scituate on the very top of an hill. Those who live there a­bouts call it Instead of [ [...], The Mandr [...]a,] in the Tel­lerian M. S. and Nice­phorus, it is [...], The Man­dra. For so Evagrius himself terms it twice, in the foregoing chapter. But what Eva­grius adds, to wit, that Saint Symeones gave that name to that place wherein he had exercised himself in the studies of a more austere Philo­sophy, is to be further inquired into. Evagrius's words are these: [...]. Christophorson and Sr Henry Savil mend it thus, [...]; wherein they are greatly mistaken. They perceived not that Evagrius is wont sometimes to transpose words. This place therefore in Evagrius is thus to be construed: [...], The most holy [Sy­meones,] I suppose, le [...]t, &c. So Nicephorus understood this place in Evagrius. For thus he words it: [...], &c. The Inhabitants call the place of his Ascetick exercises The Mandra, as has been said; the Holy [Symeon] having given it that name. Yet, any one may conjecture, that that name was given to that place after Sy­meon's death, when many Monks flock't thither, and had built a Mo­nasterie there. For Mandra signifies a Monasterie, being a Metaphor taken from Hovells wherein Sheep or Goats are foddered; which are called Mandrae. Hence the Abbots of Monasteries are termed Archi­mandritae, as may be seen in the Chalcedon Councill, and in the Novells of the Emperours. Theodorus Lector speaks concerning this Mona­sterie of Symeon's, in book 1. Collectan; where he says, [...], &c. The Admirable Daniel, who came out of Symeon's Man­dra, went up upon the Pillar at Anaplum. Symeon Metaphrastes does likewise mention this Monasterie, in his Life of Daniel the Stylite, chap. 7. at which place Metaphrastes shews that this Monasterie was built whilest Symeon was living. Concerning which, neither Theo­doret, nor Evagrius, speak one word. But, I will not hide this, viz. that in the Tellerian M. S. the reading at this place is [...]. Vales. The Mandra; the most Holy [Sy­meones,] I suppose, left this name to the place of his Ascetick exercises. The rising of the hill extends to the length of twenty furlongs. The fabrick of the Temple represents the form of a Cross, beautified with Portico's of four sides. [...]. Christophorson renders this place thus: Porticibus vero columnae adjunctae sunt, To the Portico's are ad­joyned Pillars. Nor is Musculus's Version much different; who translates it thus: Insunt autem porticibus columnae, There are in the portico's pillars. But the Greek term [...] seems to import something more. Evagrius makes use of the same word in book 4. chap. 31. where he describes the Church of Saint Sophia. The place there is thus worded: [...]. Which passage I have rendred after this manner: In dextro autem ac sinistro latere, ex adverso fornicum posita sunt colum­nae, On the right hand and on the le [...]t, oppos [...] to the Arches are placed Pillars. Doubtless, this word [...] does either signifie that which I have said [to wit, to place over against, or, opposite,] or else juxta ponere, to place near. Langus; Nicephorus's Translatour, renders these words of Evagrius which we have placed at the beginning of this note, after this manner: Juxta porticus has ex saxo polito columnae de­centissim [...] constructae sunt, near these portico's there are pillars of polish' [...] stone most gracefully built. Vales. Opposite to those Portico's are placed Pil­lars, curiously framed of polish't stone, where­on the Roof is gracefully raised to an heighth. Christo­phorson un­derstood this place much a­miss. For thus he has rendred it: versus me­dium Tem­plum, atri­um est sub dio, towards the middle of the Church, there is an open Court. Evagrius does not say so; but, that in the midst of these Portico's there was a Cour [...] or Area. For Courts were usually encompassed with four Portico's, as I have remarked at Eusebius's books concerning the life of Constan­tine. Christophorson was deceived by what Evagrius has said a little before, to wit, that the Church was surrounded with Portico's of four sides. Therefore he thought, that the Church was in the midst be­tween the four Portico's. Wherein he is much mistaken. For the Atrium [or Court] was in the midst of those four Portico's. And that was the first thing which those who went in met with, after they had passed the Porch, or Entry. After the Atrium was the Church, contiguous to one of the Portico's. That this was the figure of this Church, the following words do sufficiently declare. For Evagrius says, that wo­men were forbidden to go into that Church: notwithstanding, that they saw the miracle of that Star, from the gate which was in the Porch. The Atrium therefore occurred immediately after the Porch, nor was the Church in the midst. Otherwise, the walls of the Church it self would have hindred them from seeing the Star. Vales. In the midst, there is an open Court, wrought with a great deal of art: in which [Court] stands the Pillar forty cubits long, wherein that incarnate Angel upon earth led a celestiall life. In the Roof of the said Portico's, there are [...]. Langus and Christophorson have translated it Cancellos, Lattises; which I can by no means approve of. For [...] signifie Cancelli. I would therefore rather render it Clatri. In the Old Glosses, Clatri are thus described: [...], Squares, [that is, cross-bars, or, lattised-bar [...],] or bars that are in windows. But in the other Glosses, Clatrare is expounded [...], claudere, to shut. The originall therefore of the Greek and Latine word is the same. Vales. Clatri, (some term them windows;) I am of the same opinion with Christophorson and Sr Henry Savil, who instead of [...], answering, mended it thus, [...], verging, or, declining. Notwithstanding, Nicephorus defends the common reading, to wit, [...] answering. Moreover, Nicephorus adds some words, which are not at this day extant in our Evagrius. The passage is thus worded in Nicephorus: [...]. Which place in Nicephorus Langus renders thus:—Porticibus ipsis & subdiali quae dicta est aulae respondentes, locumque volentibus dantes, ut ex ipso templo extra, & rursùm ab exte­riori templi parte in templum prospicere possint▪ which [clatri] are answerable both to the Portico's themselves and also to the said open-Court▪ and afford a place to those that are desirous of looking out, from within the Church, and again, of looking into the Church, from its out­ward part. Whence Nicephorus had this, I know not; unless it were from Symeon Metaphrastes, who had written the Life of Symeones the Stylite. Nicephorus does indeed attest, that he himself had read Me­taphrastes's Life of Symeones. And 'tis not likely, that Nicephorus should have added this of his own head. Now, for what reason these words were added, I have as to me it seemeth apprehended. To wit, Metaphrastes (or, if you will, Nicephorus himself,) thought, that the women, who were in no wise suffered to go into that sa­cred Edifice, beheld that Star, here mentioned, from these win­dows. But, he is much mistaken, as we shall declare by and by. Vales. verging both towards the forementioned open Court, and also towards the Portico's. At the left side therefore of the Pillar, I my self Musculus renders this passage thus: Cum universo collecto illic agrestium circa columnam saltantium populo, Together with the whole multitude [or, people] of the Country-men there gathered together dauncing round the Pillar. Whom Christophorson has followed; ha­ving expunged the Comma, which is placed after the word [together.] But this rendition is not to be born with. For the Country-men were not the only persons then in the Church of Saint Symeon, when this Star was seen by Evagrius. But many Citizens were there also at that time, of which number Evagrius was one. Besides▪ the people which Evagrius says were there gathered together at that time, were in the Portico at the le [...]t hand of the Pillar. But, the Rusticks were in the Atrium, [or, Open Court,] dauncing about the Pillar. Vales. together with the whole mul­titude there gathered together, (the Country­men being dauncing about the Pillar,) have seen in the window a Star of a vast magnitude, run­ning all over the window and glistering, not once, nor twice, nor thrice, but often: which [Star] vani­shed frequently, and appeared again on a sudden. [Page 413] But this happens only on those days, observed in memory of that most holy person [Sy­meon.] There are those who say, (nor are we to disbelieve the miracle, both because of their credibility who affirm it, and by reason of other things which we our selves have beheld:) that they have seen even [...]. In Nicephorus the reading is [...]: which I think to be rightest. In the Tel­lerian M. S. I found it written [...], the accent be­ing chan­ged. Vales. his very person flying up and down this way and that way, with his long beard, and his head covered with a A round ornament, worn by Princes and Priests on their heads; it was heretofore the dress of the Persian women. Tiara, as 'twas wont to be. The men who come to this place, have free liberty to enter in, and go round the Pillar many times together with their beasts that carry burdens. But a most exquisite care is taken, (for what reason I cannot say,) that no woman should go into the Church. Therefore, they stand without [the Church,] at the Porch, and behold the Miracle. For, [...]. Instead of the word [ [...], Gates,] Ni­cephorus made it [ [...], Windows,] which was ill done, as I have remarked above, at note (e.) For, the women could not see through the window, in regard they [the women] were in the Porch, but the windows were placed in the very top of the Portico's, into which the women were forbid to come. Johannes Langus therefore, having followed our Evagrius, has upon a good account corrected Nicephorus. For, thus he renders it: Mulieres quoque, sed extra templum ad postes stantes, miraculum hoc spectant. Janua enim una ex adverso stellae ful­gentis locata est. Women also, but they stand without the Church at the gate, do behold this Miracle. For one of the gates is placed over against the shining Star. Vales. one of the [Church] Gates is placed exactly opposite to the glistering Star.

CHAP. XV. Concerning Saint Isidorus Pelusiota, and Synesius Bishop of Cyrenae.

DUring the same [Theodosius's] Reign flourished Isidorus also, [...]. whose glory (to use a poetick expression,] is far spread, a person celebrated amongst all men, both for his Actions and Eloquence. This man Or, mel­ted his flesh. ma­cerated his Body with Labours in such a manner, and fatned his soul with sublime and divine doctrines to so high a degree, that he lived an Angelick life upon earth, and was always the living Or, I­mage. Monument both of a Monastick Life, Nicepho­rus (book 14. chap. 53, where he transcribes this passage of Eva­grius,) words it thus; [...], of a contemplation upon God. The same Reading I found in the Tellerian M. S. It may also be mended thus▪ [...], of a divine contemplation. [In Robert Stephens's Edition, the reading here is, [...].] Fur­ther, there is an illustrious Elogy of this Isidorus Pelusiota, extant in Ephremius Bishop of Antioch, in his Epistle to Zenobius Scholasticu [...], which Photius records in his Bibliotheca. Where he says, that he was by birth an Alexandrian, and venerable amongst the Arch-Bishops them­selves, [...]. Vales. and also of a contemplation upon God. He wrote many other [pieces,] filled [with passages] of manifold utility; he wrote also to the celebrated Cyrillus, from which [Letters] 'tis evidently demonstrated, that he flourished in the same times with the divine [Cyrillus.] But because 'tis my endeavour to adorn Or, these thing [...]. this Hi­story, as much as 'tis possible, come on, let Synesius [Bishop] of Cyrenae come forth, that he may beau­tifie our History Or, with his own me­mory. with the eminency of his own name. This Synesius was accomplished with all other [Arts and Sciences;] but Or, ex­ercised Phi­losophy. excelled in Phi­losophy to so high a degree, that he was the Ad­miration of those Christians, who in passing their judgments upon what they see, are not [ [...]y­assed] either by affection or hatred. They per­swade him therefore, Or, to count him­self worthy of the Salu­tary Rege­neration; that is, Baptisme. As far as may be collected from these and the following words, E­vagrius seems to have thought▪ that Syne­sius was baptized and pro­moted to the Episcopall dignity at one and the same time. And yet, that this is false, Petavius proves by many arguments, in his notes upon Synesius, pag. 2, and 3. Notwithstanding, Evagrius is followed by Photius in his Bibliotheca, and by Nicephorus book 14. chap. 55. Although Nicephorus says not that Synesius had been baptized and ordained at one and the same time: but, that when Theophilus had prevailed with him to receive Christian-baptisme, afterwards he endea­voured to perswade him to enter upon the Episcopall Function. See Nicephorus's words, at the book and chapter now cited. Vales. to be a partaker of the Salutary Regeneration, and to take the Sacerdotall yoak upon him, Many persons, I perceive, have perswaded themselves, that when Synesius was elected Bishop by the Inhabitants of Ptolem [...], he whol­ly disbel [...]eved the Resurrection of Bodies. Notwithstanding, that this is not true, Synesius himself attests in his 105th Epistle, which he wrote to his brother Euoptius, who was then at Alexandria In that Letter, he gives reasons why he could not undertake the Bishopric [...] offered to him.—One of which is, The Resurrection of Bo­dies. His Sentiment concerning which point, he declares in these words: [...], That much­spoken-of Resurrection I account a Sacred and Mysticall thing, and am far from assenting to the opinions of the Vulgar. Synesius therefore did not wholly deny the Resurrection of the dead; but expounded it a­greeable to the Platonicks, and to Origen. Baronius (at the year of Christ 410,) thinks, that whatever is said by Synesius in this Epistle, is not spoken seriously, but feignedly and dissemblingly, that he might decline the burthen of a Bishoprick. But, Petavius has deservedly found fault with this opinion of Baronius. For he says, that 'tis much more likely, that Synesius wrote these things to his brother, in a man­ner agreeable to what he then thought. But, that having been after­wards instructed by Theophilus and other Prelates, before he was made a Bishop, he embraced a true opinion concerning the Resurrection▪ Lucas Holstenius has at large examined this Question, in a peculiar dissertation, which in favour to the Studious, we have set forth at the close of our Annotations. [The Learned Reader will meet with this dissertation, de Synesio & de [...]ug [...] Episcopatûs, at the close of the third Vol. of the Ecclesiastick Historians set forth by Valesius, at pag. 202 of Valesiut's notes.] In the interim, the Reader is to be advertised that there is a mistake in the Contents of this chapter, and in Photius's Bibliotheca, where Synesius is termed Bishop of Cyrenae. Synesius was indeed by Country a Cyrenaean. But he was Bishop of Ptolemais, which is a City in Cyrenaica. Vales. although he had not as yet embraced the doctrine of the Resur­rection, Or, nor would think so. nor would be induced to believe that Article: they having most truly conjectured, that these [Senti­ments] would follow this persons other vir­tues, [in regard] the divine grace would per­mit [him] to have nothing imperfect. Nor was their expectation frustrated. For, what and how great a person he proved, is sufficiently at­tested by the Epistles which he wrote with much Elegancy and Learning after [his undertaking] the Sacerdotall Function, by the He means the Oration de Regno. Which, notwithstanding was not spoken to Theolosius Junior, but to Arcadius▪ in the year of Christ 400, that is, ten years before Synesius had undertaken the Bishoprick▪ as Dionysius Petavius has rightly observed in his notes at that Oration of Synesius. Vales. Oration he spoke to [the Emperour] Theodosius him­self, and by those other usefull Works of his that are extant.

CHAP. XVI. How the Divine Ignatius, having been removed from Rome, was deposited at Antioch.

AT the same time also, as 'tis recorded by Evagriu [...] does fre­quently quote the History of this Johan­nes the Rhetorician in his following books. For instance, in chap. 12▪ of his second book, in chap. 10, and 28, of his third book, and in the 5th chapter of his fourth book. But he is a far different person from that Johannes, of whom Evagrius makes mention at the close of the last chapter of his fifth book. For, this Johannes, last mentioned, had written an History of affairs from the latter end of Justinianus's Reign, unto the Reign of Mauritius, as Evagrius does there attest: (See Evagrius book 5. chap. 24.) But the former Johannes had recorded the affairs transacted in the Reigns of Theodosius Junior, Leo, and Zeno, as may be concluded from those passages which Evagrius has taken out of that Johannes. And he had closed his History at the destruction of Antioch, which hapned on the ninth year of Justinus Senior, as Eva­grius relates. Further, that Johannes which I have mentioned in the second place at the beginning of this note, was born at Epiphania. For Evagrius (in the forecited place, viz. book 5. chap. 24,) terms him his fellow-Citizen and Kinsman. Now, Evagrius was by originall extract an Epiphaniensian, as I have shown in My account of his Life and Ecclesiastick History. But, the Johannes Rhetor, whom, Evagrius mentions in this chapter, (if I may have leave to conjecture,) seems to me to have been an Antiochian. For, whatever passages our Eva­grius cites out of him, belong to the City of Antioch. I have been more large in my Annotation on these things, for this reason, that I might correct the mistake of Johannes Vossius, who in his Comment de Historicis Gracis, has confounded these two Johannes's, one with the other. Vales. Johannes the Rhetorcian and others, the Divine Ignatius (after he had obtained, agreeable to his desire, the bellies of wild-beasts for his Tomb, in the Amphitheatre at Rome; [Page 414] and after his stronger bones which were left [undevoured,] had been conveyed to Antioch, [and deposited] in that place termed the The ob­scurity and ill-puncta­tion of this place, led Nicephorus in the first place, and after him Christophor­son, into a mistake. The obscurity of this passage arose from hence, because our Evagrius, according to his usage, includes too many words in one and the same period, which were to have been divided into more periods. Therefore, after the word [Coemitery] a distinction is to be placed, which neither Nicephorus nor Christophorson saw. Ni­cephorus thought, that the reliques of Ignatius were brought from Rome to Constantinople in the times of Theodosius Junior, and having been carried to Antioch by the same Emperours order, had been de­posited there in the Coemitery. Which is most notoriously false. For, long before Theodosius Junior's Reign, the reliques of the Martyr Ig­natius had been deposited in the Coemitery of the City Antioch, as Saint Jerome does expressly attest in his Book de Scriptor. Ecclesiast. where these are his words concerning Ignatius. Reliquiae corporis ejus Antiochiae jacent extra portam Daphniticam in Coemiterio, The Remaines of his body lie at Antioch, without the Daphnitick-gate in the Coe­mitery. Theodosius Junior therefore translated not the reliques of Ignatius from Rome to Constantinople, and after that to Antioch; but he ordered them to be removed out of the Coemitery which was with­out the City Antioch, and carried into the City. Thus, 'tis certain, Musculus understood this passage in Evagrius, as appears from his Version. For he has rendred it thus: Tunc & divi [...]s Ignatius, postea­quàm sicuti voluerat, &c. Then also the divine Ignatius (after (according as he had desired) he had obtained the bellies of wild-beasts instead of a Sepulchre, in the Roman Amphitheatre, and his bones as being the stronger [parts of him] had been left by the beasts, were car­ried to Antioch, and buried in the Coemitery, a long time after) is re­moved by Theodosius, &c. Musculus seems to have expunged the Article [...], that the whole place might be construed after this man­ner: [...], &c. Which I very much ap­prove of. Vales. Coe­mitery; many years after [all this, I say,]) is removed: the All-good God having instilled it into the mind of Theodosius, to bestow greater honours upon that [...]. This seems to have been the Sur-name of the Blessed Ignatius. Which is concluded from hence, because we read this Title prefixt before all his Epistles, [...], Ignatius who also [is termed] Theophorus. In the Martyrdome of the Blessed Ignatius, which Arch-Bishop Usher has set forth, Ignatius stiles himself Theophorus in the presence of the Emperour Trajan. And, being asked, who Theophorus was, he answers; He who bears Christ in his breast. Vales. See Socrat. Eccles. Histor. book 6. chap. 8. note (a.) Theophorus, and to dedicate a Temple (which the Inhabitants termed The The Heathens attributed to all Cities their Genii, to whom they built Temples, which in Greek were termed [...] ▪ as I have remarked at Eusebius Pamphilus's book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 11. note (q.) The Temple of the publick Genius of the City of Antioch is mentioned by Amm. Marcellinus book 23. pag. 238; which Julian in his Misopog. terms [...]. Vales. Tychaeum,) heretofore consecrated to Dae­mons, to that Valiant Conquerour and Martyr. That therefore which had heretofore been the Temple of the publick Genius, is made a pure Church, and holy Temple [dedicated] to Igna­tius; his sacred Reliques having with great pomp been conveyed into the City on a Chariot, and deposited in that Temple. On which ac­count, a solemn Festivall and a [day of] pub­lick joy is celebrated [yearly] even till our times; which [Festivall] has been rendred more magnificent by Gregorius Bishop [of that place.] These things were done there, [be­cause] from that time God would honour the pious memories of [his] Saints. For, the im­pious and destructive Julian, that Tyrant hatefull to God, (in regard Apollo Daphnaeus, Or, who had Casta­lia, &c. who made use of He means the Castalian Fountaine. Concer­ning which Amm. Mar­cellinus, Gregorius Nazian­zenus, and others have related ma­ny things▪ Gregorius's words in his second Invective a­gainst Ju­lian (Tom. 1. pag. 127. Edit. paris. 1609.) are these: [...], &c. Castalia has been silenced again, and is silent, and it is water, not uttering oracles, but exciting laugh­ter. Apollo [is become] a dumb Statue again. Daphne [is] a tree again, &c. At which words of Gregorius, see (if you please) what the Scholiast Nonnus has remarked, chap. 21. I should not have taken notice of this, had I not perceived that neither of the Translatours had seen it. Vales. Nonnus's Scholion (which Valesius here referres his Reader to,) is this: Castalia fons erat in Antiochia, &c. Castalia was a fountaine in Antioch, at which Apollo is by the antients reported to sit, and to give forth oracles at the water. And when any persons came thither on account of consulting the Oracle, that water (as 'tis re­ported) sent forth gentle blasts and puffs of wind; and then the Priests, who were about the fountain, declared those things which the will of the Daemon had brought forth. Castalia for a voice and Or, Pro­phecy. an Oracle, could not give any an­swer to the Emperour consulting his Oracle, because the holy See So­crat. Ec­cles. Histor. book 3. chap. 18. Babylas, his near-neighbour, had quite stopped up his mouth:) against his will, and forc't thereto by stripes [as it were,] honoured the Saint with a removall▪ (at which time a spacious Church was erected to him before the City, which [structure] con­tinues standing at this day:) to the intent that the Daemons might in future freely perform their own [business,] according as ('tis reported) they had before-hand promised Julian. This affair therefore was by the dispensation of God our Saviour ordered in this manner, to the end that the power of those who had suffered Mar­tyrdome might be made manifest, and that the sacred reliques of the holy Martyr, removed into an undefiled place, might be honoured with a most beautifull Church.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning Attila King of the [...]. Vale­sius ren­ders it The Hunni. Scythae; and how he destroyed the Provinces of the East and West. And concerning the strange Or, won­der. Earth­quake and other dreadfull prodigies which hap­ned in the world.

IN these very times, that much-talk't-of War was raised, by Attila King of the Scythae. Which war Priscus the Rhetorician has written with much accuracy and eloquence, relating [to us] in a singular neatness and elegancy of stile, how Attila. he undertook an Expedition against the Eastern and Western parts [of the Empire,] how many and how great Cities he took and reduced to a subjection to himself, and [lastly] after the performance of what [great Actions] he departed out of this life. Whilest the same Theodosius swayed the [Imperial] Scepter, a most terrible and horrid This Earthquake hapned on the year of Christ 447, in the Con­sulate of Ardabures and Calle­pius▪ as Marcellinus in his Chro­nicon, and the Author of the A­loxandrian Chronicle doe relate. Marcelli­nus's words are these: Ingenti ter­rae motu per loca varia imminente, plurimi ur­bis Augustae muri recenti adhuc reae­dificatione constructi, cum quin­quaginta septem tur­ribus corru­erunt: An exceeding great Earthquake being imminent through severall places, a vast part of the walls [or, most of the walls] of the Imperial City which had been but very lately rebuilt, fell down, together with fifty seven Towers. Which words I have annexed for this reason, that I might shew that Evagrius's words here have been misunderstood by Transla­tours; who rendred these words [ [...]] thus [in Palatio, in the Palace;] when as they ought to have rendred them, in the Im­perial City. By which name Evagrius usually calls Constantinople. Vales. Earthquake, which exceeded all others that had been before, hap­ned almost throughout the whole world. In so much that many Towers belonging to the Im­perial City [Constantinople] fell down flat, and that called the Long-wall of Cherronesus fell likewise; the earth also was rent in sunder, and many Villages sank down into it: Moreover, many and almost innumerable calamitous Acci­dents [Page 415] hapned both at Land and Sea. For, some Fountains were wholly dryed up; and in other places abundance of water gushed forth, where there had been none before. Trees, of them­selves vastly rooted, were thrown up into the air [...]. The Rules of Grammar do require, that we should write [...], together with their roots. In the Tellerian M. S. the reading is [...]. A little before, where the reading is [...], the earth was dissipated; the same Manuscript has it written thus: [...], the earth was separated, or, rent in sunder. Vales. together with their roots. And many heaps of earth were on a sudden made up into moun­tains. The Sea threw forth dead fishes [upon its shore,] and many Islands therein were swal­lowed up. Ships making their Voyages at Sea, were seen upon dry ground, the waters having receded [and left them▪] Many places in Bi­thynia, in the Hellespont, and in both The Phry­gias, were sorely damnified. This calamity ra­ged over the whole earth for some time; not­withstanding, it continued not with that vehe­mency wherewith it began: but abated by small degrees, till such time as it wholly cea­sed.

CHAP. XVIII. Concerning the [publick] Buildings in Antioch, and who they were that erected them.

IN these very times [of Theodosius's Reign,] Memnonius, Zoïlus, and Callistus, Instead of [ [...];] it must, I think, be [ [...], Personages eminent for, &c. For, this reading is required by the Rules of Grammar. Vales. Personages eminent for [their profession of] our Religion▪ were sent by Theodosius to be That is, to be Consulares of Syria. For, the Consularis of Syria governed the City Antioch, and the other Cities of Syria-Coele. Fur­ther, take heed of supposing, that these three men (to wit, Memnonius, Zoïlus, and Callistus) were sent at one and the same time by Theo­dosius, to preside over the Antiochian Jurisdiction. For this was not the usage of the Romans. We ought therefore to understand, that each of them had been sent at severall times, one after the other, by Theo­dosius. You must know further, that 'twas usuall for the Consulares of Syria, that they might ingratiate themselves with the Antiochians, to erect some publick structure. Libanius informs us hereof (in his Antiochi [...]. pag. 370, Tom. 2. Edit. Paris, 1627.) in these words: [...], &c. 'Tis no wonder therefore, if that [City] which excells the rest in other things, which, after she has vanquished other [Cities] in the study and exercise of wisdome, has [out done] even herself, should render those who come to be her Governours, her Lovers. The beginning, middle, and close of each of which persons Government, is this, to make some addition to the City. The same Libanius, a little before in the same page, says there were three Tribunals in the City Antioch, and as many Scholes of Advocates, to wit, equall to the number of the Tribunals, [or Ju­dicatories.] The first Tribunal seems to have belonged to the Prae­fectus Praetorio of the East, whose residence was at Antioch. The se­cond was the Tribunal of the Comes of the East. The third was the Jurisdiction of the Consularis of Syria-Coele. Libanius's words are these: [...]: which passage is to be rendred thus: For, besides the Erudition which is in the Decurions, three Scholes [or, Quires] of Advocates are [there] assembled, equall in number to the Judicatories. Vales. Governours of Antioch. Memnonius with much of beauty and accuracy raises from the very ground that [Ae­difice] which by us also is termed the Psephium, leaving an open Atrium [or, Court] in the middle. Zoïlus [built] the Royâll Pôrticus, which [is placed] The rea­ding in Robert Ste­phens's E­dition, and here is this [ [...], at the Southern part of Ro­phinus's side.] The Geneva-Printers, from Chri­stophorson's Copy, have set it forth thus: [...], [at the Southern] side of Ruphinus's Pallace. Sr Henry Savil also, in his Copy which I have by me, has expunged the word Rufinus, and in stead thereof has substituted these [ [...], the Roof of the Pallace.] And thus Christophorson read, as 'tis apparent from his Version. For he has rendred it thus: Qui ad Australe latus tecti palatii, quod Rufini nomen obtinet, spectat; which looks towards the sou­thern side of the Roof of the Pallace, which bears the name of Rufinus. But, in regard these words [ [...]] or [ [...]] occur not▪ either in the Kings, or in the Florentine, or Tellerian M. SS. in my judg­ment, they ought deservedly to be expunged. Vales. Valesius has rendred this passage thus: quae ad meridianum latus porticus Rufini sita ▪ which we have exprest in our English Version. The import of the Greek, if rendred word for word, is this, at the Southern part of Ro­phinus's side. at the South-side of Rufinus [his Por­ticus;] and retaines his name even to our age, al­though the buildings have [frequently] been altered on account of various calamitous acci­dents. Moreover, Callistus has raised a most magnificent and splendid structure (which as well the Ancients as those of our Age, have termed Callistus's Porticus,) before Or, those buildings which are made, &c. that Pallace which is made the Court of Judicature, directly op­posite to the Forum, in which there is a most beautifull house, the [...] Musculus renders it, Mansionem ducum, the Mansion of the Duces, or, chief Military Commanders. Christophorson's Version is not much different; for he renders it thus: è regione fori in quo pulcherrima domus est quam praefecti praesidiorum incolere solent; Over against the Forum wherein there is a most beautifull house, in which the Praefects of the Milice [or, of the Military Forces,] do usually dwell. But, by [...] in this place, in my judgment, must be un­derstood, (not the Military Commanders in chief, or, Masters of the Milice, but) the Magistrates or Du [...]mviri, who in Greek were ter­med [...], as I have already remarked in my notes on Am▪ Marcel­linus, and Eusebius; [See Euseb. Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 11. note (p.) and book 8. chap. 11. note (c.)] Now, why I suppose this word is rather thus to be taken here, this is the reason, because that house is said to have been in the Forum, over against the Pallace wherein was the Court of Judicature. Moreover, such a house as this seems to be more agreeable to a Municipall Magistrate, than to a Rectour of the Milice. Besides, these houses were in Greek termed [...]. Such a one was the S [...]rategium at Constantinople, as I have noted at the first book of Socrates, [chap. 16. note (d.)] Although the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle, in The transactions of the Em­perour Severus, brings another reason of this word. But now, having examined the business more attentively; by [...] I understand here the Masters of the Milice throughout the East, who had a splendid Prae­torium in the Forum of the City Antioch. Theophanes mentions this Praetorium, in his Chronicon, pag. 147. [...]; For the fire was kindled from the Church of Saint Stephen, and burnt [or, went] as far as the Praetorium of the Master of the Milice. Vales. Prae­torium of the Masters of the Milice. After these persons, Anatolius being sent Master of the Mi­lice into the East, built that termed Anatolius's Porticus, and beautified it with matter of all sorts. These [Remarks] (though they are forreign to our design in hand, yet) [will not seem] unhandsome and contemptible to lo­vers of Learning.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning the severall Wars, which hapned both in Italy, and Persia, during the Reign of Theo­dosius.

Or, du­ring the same times of Theo­dosius. DUring the times of the same Theodosius, fre­quent Rebellions hapned in Europe, whilest Valentinianus was Emperour of Rome. Which Theodosius repressed, by sending great Forces both by Land and Sea, [which made up] [...]. If we would follow the Laws of Grammar; it must be made [...].▪ But because [...] is not used in the plurall number, I would ra­ther make it [...]; as the reading is in the Tellerian M. S. In the incom­parable Florentine M. S. 'tis plainly written [...]. Vales. as well a Foot Army, as a Navall strength. Moreover, he vanquished the Persians (Or, who raged. who were grown insolent, Isdigerdes, Fa­ther to Vararanes, being then their [Page 416] King, or, as See So­crates, book 7. chap. 8, and 18. Socrates's Sentiment is, during the▪ Reign of Vararanes himself:) in such a manner, that on their request to him by their Embas­sadours, he gratified them with a Peace, which Here it must be [...]; not [...]; as it is in Robert Stephens's Edit. Vales. lasted untill the twelfth year of Anasta­sius's Reign. These transactions have been re­lated by other Writers; and are also very hand­somely reduced into an Epitome, by Eustathius the Syrian of Epiphania, who has likewise written The Siege of Amida. At the same time, as 'tis said, the Poets This is the Claudian, whose excellent Verses are at this day extant. But, a twofold difficulty occurs at this place: (1) How a Latine Poet should come to be mentioned here by Evagrius? (2) Why he is placed by the same Evagrius on the times of Theodosius Junior, when as That Claudian, whose verses we now have, flourished in the Reigns of Arcadius and Honorius, as His writings inform us? The an­swer to the first Question is easie. For Claudian wrote not only Latine, but Greek Poems also. On which account, in the Old Epigram which was inscribed on the Basis of his Statue, he is said to have had the soul of Virgil and Homer also, transfused into him. He began to write a Latine Poem first in the year of Christ 395, whereon Olybrius and Probinus were Consuls. He wrote an Elegant Poem on their Consulate, which is still extant. When this attempt had succeeded happily to Claudian, it encouraged him to the writing of Latine verses afterwards; whereas he had published only Greek Poems before, as himself attests in his Elegy to Probinus, in these words: Romanos bibimus primùm Te Consule fontes,Et Latiae cessit Graja Thalia toga. Incipiensque tuis a [...]acibus omina cepi,Fataque debebo posterior [...] Tibi. 'Tis certain, Claudian was by Nation a Grecian, born at the City A­lexandria, as Suidas informs us at the word [...]. Claudian himself also attests the same, in his Poem to Hadrianus Praefectus Prae­torio, (who was himself also an Alexandrian.) For he writes thus concerning Alexander the Macedonian; ‘Conditor hic patriae. Sic hostibus ille pepercit.’ And in the close of the same Poem, he has these words: Saviet in miseros cognata potentia cives.Audiat haec commune solum, longéque carinis Vales.Nota Pharos, &c. Claudianus and The Poet Cyrus was by Nation an Aegyptian, born at the Town Panopolis. Who having on account of his poetick faculty been highly acceptable to Eudocia Augusta, wife to Theodosius Junior, (for this woman was [...], a Great lover of verses:) is promoted by the Emperour Theodosius to the Praefecture of the Pr [...]torium, and to That of the City. He was also Ex-Consul, and Patricius, as Suidas re­lates. But afterwards, when the Empress Eudocia, on account of some unknown reasons, had left the Pallace, and was gone to the City Je­rusalem; Cyrus, deprived of his power, is made Bishop of Cotyaeum a City of Phrygia, or rather of Smyrna, as the Author of the Alexan­drian Chronicle and Theophanes doe inform us. He lived till the times of Leo Augustus, as Suidas attests. Theophilact (in the 8th book of his History, chap. 8,) makes mention of this Cyrus the Consul and Poet; where he says, that the Church of the God-bearing Virgin at Constantinople, was built by him, in the times of Theodosius Au­gustus. Vales. Cyrus flouri­shed. Further, this Cyrus arrived at the highest Chair of the Praefects, which [grand Officer] our Ancestours termed The Praefectus Praetorio [or Praefect of the Court.] He was also Ma­ster of the Western Milice, at which time Car­thage was taken by the Vandalls, those Barbarians being [then] governed by Genserichus.

CHAP. XX. Concerning the Empress Eudocia, and her daughter Eudoxia; and how [Eudocia] came to An­tioch, and [went] to Jerusalem.

[MOreover,] this Theodosius married Eu­docia, (after she had received salu­tary Baptism; by originall extract an Athenian, [a woman] eloquent and beautifull;) by the mediation of Pulcheria Augusta his sister. By her Theodosius had a daughter, [by name] Eu­doxia, whom, when she afterwards came to be marriageable, the Emperour Valentinianus mar­ried, having [on that account] gone from the Elder Rome and arrived at Constantino­ple. [A par­ticle is to be added here, after this manner: [...], But, a long time after this, she;] that is, Eudocia. For, unless you add this pa [...]ticle; what follows will be meant concerning Eudoxia, Eudocia's daughter; of whom Eva­grius has spoken just before. But, the adding of this particle [ [...], But] shews that the discourse is not now concerning Eudoxia, but her Mother Eudocia. Vales. But,] a long time after this, [Eu­docia] in her journey which she made to the Holy City of Christ our God, [...]. Musculus and Christophorson understood this place very erroneously. For, they supposed that by the word [...] the City Jerusalem was meant; when as the City Antioch is to be un­derstood. For Evagrius wrote his History at Antioch, in which City he had fixt the Mansion of his own fortunes, as we have shown in our account of his Life and Ecclesiastick History. Moreover, Nicephorus fell into the same mistake with Musculus and Christophorson. For in his 14th book, chap. 50, where he writes out this passage of Evagrius, he understands the word [ [...]] of the City Jerusalem. But, 'twas easie to have perceived from Evagrius's following words, that these words could not have been meant of the City Jerusalem. For Je­rusalem was not a Colony of Greeks, but rather of Jews, and after that, of Romans. Nor, did Ulpianus, Libanius, and the other wri­ters here mentioned by Evagrius, write concerning the City Je­rusalem. Nor, lastly, could the Empress Eudocia, who by originall extract was an Athenian, speak to the Citizens of Jerusalem in this verse, [...].I boast thai I am of Your Stock and Blood. 'Tis certain, the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle does say, that Eudocia made an Oration to the Antiochians out of a Golden Chariot. Vales. comes hither:

And having made an Oration in publick to the people here, she closed her Speech with this Verse:

I boast that I am of Your Stock and Bloud.

(Intimating thereby the Colonies which had been sent hither out of Greece. If any one be de­sirous of having an exact account of these [Co­lonies,] That place in Strabo, which Eva­grius points to here, is extant in his 16th book; pag. 750. Edit. Paris. Vales. Strabo the Geographer, Phlegon, Dio­dorus Siculus, Arrianus, and There were two Pisanders, Poets. The one a Rhodian, who wrote the Poem Heraclea in two books, which treats concerning Hercules's Acti­ons. Some make this Pisander ancienter than He [...]iod. Others place him on the thirty third Olympiad, as Suidas relates. The other Pisander was a Lyca [...]nian, born at Larindi a Town of Lycaönia, son of the Poet Nestor. Suidas says he flourish't in the Reign of Alexander son of Mamme [...]. He wrote six books in Heroïck Verse, [...], concerning the marriages of the Heroes and Goddesses, which were stuft with all man­ner of History, as Suidas attests. Zosimus mentions this work in his fifth book: where he speaks concerning the building of the City He­mona: [...]: which words of Zosimus, Leunclavius translates in this manner; Sicuti Pisander Poeta memoriae prodidit, qui heroicarum divin [...]umque nuptiarum titulo totam hanc propemodùm historiam complexus est, As Pisander the Poet has recorded, who under the Title of Heroick and Divine marriages, has in a manner comprized this whole History. This is not the meaning of Zosimus's words. For Zosimus says, that Pisander the Poet, in that Poem of his concerning the marriages of the Heroes and Goddesses, has in a manner comprehended all History. Suidas does likewise artest the same; whose words concerning Pisander are these: [...], he wrote a various History in verse; which he intitled, concerning the marriages of the Heroes and Goddesses, in six books. In this work there­fore, Pi [...]ander had written concerning Triptolemus the Argive, and concerning Iö, who were the first that built Antioch a City of Syria. Further, this work seems to have been comprehended in six­teen books, and not in six, as 'tis erroneously extant in Suidas. For Stephanus in his book de Urbibus, cites the tenth, and fourteenth book of Pisander. Vales. Pisander the Poet, have written concerning them with great accu­racy: [Page 417] as have also This is Ulpianus the Antio­chian So­phist, who taught Rhetorick first at E­mesa, and afterwards at Antioch, in the Reign of Constantine, as Suidas attests. Eunapius mentions him, in the Life of Pröoeresius thè Sophist. This per­son therefore, amongst the other Orations which (as Suidas relates,) he wrote, had composed a peculiar Oration in praise of his own Coun­try, wherein he spake concerning the Colonies at severall times brought into it. Vales. Ulpianus, Libanius the Antiochian Sophist wrote an Oration, with this Title, Antiochicus, which is still extant, published in the Second Tome of his Works. Nor is it to be doubted, but Evagrius means this Oration at this place. Further, in the said Oration, Libanius with great accuracy recounts all the Greck Colonies, which at severall times had been brought to Antioch. Amongst these he reckons also those Athenians, whom Seleucus, after the destruction of the City Antigonia, had brought to Antioch. Vales. Libanius; and Who this Julianus the Sophista should be, I have not yet found. There was one Julianus a Cappadocian, the most eminent of all the Sophists of his own time, who taught Rhetorick at Athens. Concerning whom Eunapius relates many passages, in his book de Vitis Sophista­rum. Suidas says he flourisht in the times of Constantine the Great. But whereas he says, that he was Contemporary with Callini­cus the Sophist, therein he contradicts himself; in regard Calli­nicus the Sophist lived in the Reign of Philippus and Gallienus. I am apt to think therefore, that there were two Julianus's Sophists at Athens. The former of whom lived in the same times with Callinicus the Sophist. But the other flourisht in the Reign of Constantine the Great. Julianus, [all] most incomparable Sophist [...].) On which account, the Antiochians at that time honoured her with a Statue artificially made of Brass, which Statue continues standing at this day. By her perswasion, Theodosius made a very great addition to [this] City, extending its wall as far as that Gate which leads to the Sub­urbs of Daphne; as may be seen by those who are desirous of it. For even in this our age [the foundation of] the old wall is visible, its remains leading them by the hand as 'twere, who have a mind to view it. Notwithstan­ding, there are those who affirm, that the El­der Theodosius enlarged the wall; and bestow­ed two hundred pound weight of Gold upon Amm. Marcellinus mentions this Bath in his 31 book, near the beginning: his words are these; Vocesque Praeconum audiebantur assiduè, mandantium congeri ligna ad Valentini Lavacri succensio­nem, studio ipsius principis conditi. And the voices of the Cryers were heard continually, ordering wood to be heaped together in order to the burning of Valens's Bath, built by the endeavour of that Prince. Vales. Valens's Bath, part whereof had been consumed by fire.

CHAP. XXI. That Eudocia did [many] good actions about Jerusalem; and concerning the different Life and Conversation of the Monks in Palestine.

FRom this City therefore, Eudocia The rea­ding in Robert Ste­phens is [ [...], went.] Nicephorus read [ [...], went twice.] For (book 14. chap. 50.) he words it thus: [...], And 'tis reported that she went twice to Jerusalem. Which reading Christophor­son has followed, as 'tis apparent from his Version. For he renders this place thus: Eudocia vero Constantinopoli Hierosolymam [...]is profect a est, But Eudocia went twice from Constantinople to Jerusalem. And thus I found it expressly written in the Tellerian Manuscript. Eudocia's former journey to Jerusalem hapned on the sixteenth Consulate of Theo­dosius which he bore with Faustus, on the year of Christ 438, as Ba­ronius has rightly observed from Socrates and Marcellinus's Chronicon. On the year following, she returned from Jerusalem to Constantinople, carrying along with her the Reliques of Saint Stephen, as Marcellinus relates in his Chronicon. But, Writers are not agreed, on what year her second Jerusalem-journey hapned. Baronius places it in the Reign of Marcianus Augustus. But I do maintain, that this second journey was undertaken by Eudocia Augusta long before Marcianus's Empire, whilest Theodosius survived. For Marcellinus in his Chronicon (at the XVIII, Consulate of Theodosius Augustus which he bore with Al­binus, which was the year of Christ 444▪) writes thus: Severum Presbyterum & Johannem diaconum Eudoclae Regi [...] ▪ &c. Saturnin [...] the Comes of the Domesticks, being sent by the Emperour Theodosius [...] kills Severus the Presbyter and Johannes the Deacon of Eudocia Au­gusta, who were ministring at the City Aelia. Eudocia, by what grudge [or, grief] incited thereto I know not, killed Saturninus forthwith▪ and being immediately deprived of her Royall servants, by the command of the Emperour her Husband, she staid to die at the City Aelia. The same is confirmed by the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle. For he relates, that in the same Consulate Paulinus the Master of the Offices was slain by the Emperour Theodosius's order: and therefore▪ that Eudocia being aggrieved (for she knew that Paulinus had been slain on her account;) requested of the Emperour Theodosius, that a liberty might be allowed her of going to Jerusalem. Notwithstanding Marcellinus in his Chronicon places Paulinus's slaughter on the year of Christ 440, Val [...]rinianus being then the fifth time Consul with Ana­tolius. Therefore, if Eudocia went the second time to Jerusalem on account of Paulinus's slaughter; according to Marcellinus's opinion, that hapned on the year of Christ 440. Further, concerning Saturninus the Comes (whom Eudocia Augusta ordered to be slain at Jerusalem,) there is a passage extant in the History of Priscus Rhetor, pag. 54; which I will annex here: [...]. went twice to Jerusalem. On what account [she did this,] [...]. or what her primary designe (as they say) was, must be left to Histori­ans; who notwithstanding, in my judge­ment, seem not to declare the truth.

But, after her arrivall at Christ's holy City, she performed many things in honour of God [our] Saviour. For she built Or, pure. religious Monasteries, and those they term the A Laur [...] differs from a Monastery, because a Laura consists of many Cells far disjoyned one from another. But a Monastery is inclosed within one wall. And in a Laura the Hermites [or, Anachorites] lived: but in a Monastery the Monks lived together. Cyrillus Scy [...]opolitan [...] informs us hereof, in his Life of Euthymius, in these words; Te autem oportet venire [...]d meam Lauram, &c. But it behoves you to come to my Laura, and to pull down the Cells of the Brethren to the very foundations. But [you must] build a Monastery there, where you have built my Coemitery. For it pleases God, that the place should not be a Laura, but a Monastery ra­ther. The same Cyrillus, in the Life of Saint Saba, does frequently declare the same difference between a Laura and a Monastery. Our Evagrius also at this place observes the same difference between the Phrontisteria [Monasteries] and the Laurae. For in the Phrontister is (says he,) the Monks lived in flocks, [or, companies,] made use of a common table, and performed the diurnall and nocturnall prayers together. But, in the Laura, the Anachorites lived separately, shut up in small Cells. Vales. Laur [...].

In which, the way of living is different: but [their] conversation Or, Ter­minates in one and the same pious design. is directed to one and the same scope of piety. For some live in com­panies, and are desirous of none of those things which depress [the soul of man] to the earth. For they have no Gold. But why do I mention Gold, when as not one of them has either a [...] gar­ment of his own, or any thing of food [properly belonging to himself?] For, that Short cloak. garment or short coat, wherewith one is cloathed now, is by and by put on by another: so that, one's garment seems to belong to all of them, and all of them to have a right in and the use of one's garment. A common table is spread for them, not covered with dainty provisions, nor with any other meats; but furnished only with herbs and pulse, of which they are supplied with such a quantity only, as is sufficient to keep them alive. They pour forth their common prayers to God all day and all night long, afflicting and Or, pres­sing. wearying themselves with labours in such a man­ner, that they seem to look like some dead persons without graves I am of the same mind with Christophor­son, who (instead of [ [...], under the earth]) read [ [...], above the earth;] which latter reading Nicephorus (book 14. chap. 50.) has followed. Besides, the word [ [...], seem] was wanting here; which we have put in from the Florentine M. S. In the Tellerian M. S. I found it written, [...], above the earth. Vales. above the earth. They frequent­ly perform those termed the [...]. Musculus and Christophorson have rendred this place very ill. Nicephorus has explained it well, in this manner: [...]. [...]: that is, these per­sons frequently extend their fasts to the length of two and three days. There are those [of them] who for five days and more, continue with­out tasting of meat. Dionysius Petavius also, in the fifth chapter of his Miscellaneous Exercitations against Salmasius, has rightly expounded this place of our Evagrius; to wit, concerning Superposition, which was the most exquisite sort of fast amongst the Christians. But, where­as Petavius conjectures, that instead of [...], it should be writ­ten here [...]; in this I cannot a [...]ent to him, in regard this emendation recedes too far from the footsteps of the vulgar reading. Indeed, at this place I would rather make it [...]. But, you must understand [ [...], days,] or [ [...], lasts.] The Latines have termed it Superpositionem, Superposition; instead of Jejunium, fast: as may be seen in the Eliberitane Council, and in the Poenitentiall Canons. See what we have remarked at the fifth book of Euseb. Eccles. Histor. chap. 24. note (m.) In the incomparable Tellerian M. S. I found it written [...], as I had conjectured. Vales. Fasts of Superpo­sition, continuing their fasts during the space of two, and three whole days. There are some of them who fast five days, and more, and [af­ter that] with much adoe take necessary food. [Page 418] Again, others enter upon a contrary Course of life, shutting themselves up alone in very small houses which have such a breadth, and such an heighth, as that they cannot stand upright in them, nor yet with conveniency lie down; [thus] they continue with patience Heb. 11. 38. in Dens and Caves of the earth, according to the Apostle's expression. Othersome live together with the Beasts, and make their prayers to God in some Coverts of the Earth which are past finding out. More­over, another way of living has been found out by them, which transcends Or, all manner of &c. all the degrees of fortitude and sufferance. For, penetrating into a Desert scorched [with the Sun,] as well men as women, and covering those parts only which modesty forbids to be named, they expose the rest of their bodies naked to the sharpest and most intense colds and heats of the air, equally despising heats and colds. They wholly reject that food which men usually eat; and feed upon the ground (on which account they are termed [...]; that is, Pa­bulatores, Feeders up­on the ground. So­zomen (book 6. chap. 33.) relates, that some Monks in Mesopota­mia were call [...] by this name, because they were the first who found out this stricter sort of absti­nence. Vales. Bosci,) whence they take no more than suf­ficeth to keep them alive. So that, in time they become like unto beasts, and the shape of their [bodies] is depraved and altered, and the Sen­timents of their mindes in future becomes dis­agreeable to those of other men: whom when they see, they run from; and being pursued, they either [make their escape] by the swiftness of their feet, or Instead of [ [...]] the reading in the Florent. M. S. is truer; which is this, [...] get into. Besides, instead of [...], it must be made [...]. Vales. get into some impassable places in the ground to hide themselves. Moreover, I will relate another thing, which I had almost forgot, although it is the principall thing of all. There are some persons amongst them, though but very few, I have restored this place partly from the Florent. and partly from the Tellerian M. SS. after this manner: [...], who, after they are arrived at a freedome from Perturbations of mind by [a continued exercise of] Virtue. In the Florent. M. S. the reading is [ [...], obnoxious to injuries:] but in the Tellerian M. S. and in Nicephorus 'tis [ [...], free from perturbations of mind.] A little after this, instead of [ [...], turning themselves about,] it must undoubtedly be mended thus [ [...], mad;] which is the reading in Nicephorus. Vales. In Robert Stephens's Edition, this whole passage is thus worded and pointed: [...], &c. Which I can­not make sense of. who, after they are arrived at a freedome from perturbations of mind by [a continued exercise of] virtue, return to the world, and shewing themselves to be mad in the midst of crowds of men, they thus trample up­on vain glory, which Coat (according to wise Plato,) the soul does usually put off last. Further, they have Or, stu­died, or, devised. learned to eat with such un­disturbedness as to their passions and affections, that, Christo­phorson has rendred this place thus: Adeo etiam sine delectatione cibum capi­unt, &c. They also take their meat so much with­out delight, and exer­cise so au­stere a dis­cipline in that thing, that if necessity compells them to go into a Victualling-house, or a Bro­thel-house, they neither avoid the place, &c. Christophorson, no doubt, followed Nicephorus's exposition, who (book 14. chap. 50.) has rendred Evagrius's words thus: [...], &c. They eat without affection and commotion of minde, although [it be] in a Victualling­house, or baudy-house, if there be a necessity of doing this. But I have restored this place from the incomparable Florent. M. S. in this man­ner: [...], if need so requires [they cat] with Victuallers or Retailers of Provision. What a [...] was, and how he differed from a [...], I think every body knows. How much a [...] differed from a Merchant; so much a [...] differed from a [...]. The old Glosses render▪ [...] in Latine dardanarium, one that buys provisions to sell them againe. Vales. if need so requires. [they eat] with Victuallers and Retailers of Provision, without blushing either at the place, or the person, or at any thing else. They often frequent the pub­lick Baths also, and for the most part con­verse with and bath themselves in the company of women; having vanquished their passions to such a degree, that they Or, ty­rannize over. put a force upon nature her self, and are not to be The conjecture of Learned men displeases me not; who instead of [ [...], &c. and will not answer to, &c.] have mended it thus, [...], and are not to be inclined to, &c. Which latter reading Christophorson has followed, as 'tis apparent from his Version. Notwithstanding, Nicephorus has retained the vulgar reading, to wit, that first mentioned. Vales. inclined to [what is pro­per to] their own nature, either by the sight, or touch, or even the very embracing of a woman. But with men, they are men, and with women they are women; it being their de­sire to partake of both Sexes, and not to be of one. To speak briefly therefore, in this incomparable and divine way of living, virtue enacts laws con­trary to nature, having established Sanctions of her own, to wit, not to impart to any of them a satiety of those things [which are] necessary [for life.] But That is, the Mona­stick Law. their Law commands them to be hungry, and thirsty, and to cover the body so far only, as necessity Forceth, or, urgeth. requireth. And, their way of living is so equally and exactly poyzed and ballanced, that when they tend diametrically opposite, they are not in the least sensible of any alteration [of things,] although the distance between them be vast. For, things contrary are in such a man­ner mixed in them, (the divine grace joyning things not to be mixt, and again separating them;) that life and death, (which two are contraries, both in nature, and in the things themselves,) dwell together in them. For where [there occurs] passion or perturbation, it behoves them to be dead and buried. But when 'tis [the time of] prayer to God, then [they must be] Robust in body, Vivid and Vi­gorous, although they are grown decrepid with age. Moreover, Johan­nes Langus expounds these words concerning the present and future life. For he has ren­dred the place of his Nicepho­rus in this manner: Vitam utramque illi▪ &c. They do so complicate and conjoyn both lives, to wit, the future, &c. But, in my judgment, by these words [both sorts of life] the Secular, and Monastick life are to be understood: which is, plainly confirmed by Evagrius's following words. For he says, [...], and performing all other things agreeable to their former life. Vales. both Sorts of life are so com­plicated and conjoyned in them, that although they have indeed wholly put off the flesh, [yet] they live still, and converse with the living, ad­ministring medicines to bodies, offering up the desires of suppliants to God, and [lastly] per­forming all other things agreeably to their former life; The reading of this place i [...] truer in Nicephorus, thus [...], ex­cepting only that they do not want necessaries, nor are limited to any place. Vales. excepting only that they do not want necessaries, nor are limited to any place; but they hear all, and converse with all. [Page 419] There are amongst them frequent and unwearied bendings of the knees, and [after them] Instead of [...], Labo­rious, I think it should be [...], intent, or continued. For I have found, that these two words are frequently confounded in Manu­script copies. Vales. La­borious stations; desire being the only recrea­tion of their age, and of their voluntary in­firmity. They are a kind of Champions without flesh, Wrestlers without bloud; who instead of [...] splendid banquet and delici­ous dainties, have a fast, and, in place of a full furnished table, nothing (as near as 'tis possible) that they may tast of. Whensoever a stranger comes to them, though it be in the morning, yet they receive him with a singular hospitality, and friendly invita­tion to eat and drink; having found out ano­ther sort of fasting, to wit, to eat even against their will. So that this thing strikes [all men] with an astonishment, that (whereas they want Instead of [ [...], &c.] I doubt not but it should be [...]. Vales. so many [necessaries] for sufficient food, yet) they are contented with so very few: being ene­mies to their own wills and nature, but slaves We owe the amend­ment of this place to the Flo­rent. M. S. in which Copy. in­stead of [ [...]] it is plainly written thus, [...], to the desires of their neighbours. Sr Henry Savil had drawn a line under this place, signifying thereby, that there was a fault here. But he saw not how it was to be mended. Nicephorus also retains the vulgar reading. Vales. to the desires of their neighbours; that in all things the sweets of the flesh might be expelled, and the soul might have the Go­vernment, prudently choosing and conserving what is best and most acceptable to God. Blessed persons, in respect of the life they lead here; but much more blessed on account of their translation to that other, after which they pant continually, hastning to see [...]. The reading in the Tellerian M. S. pleases me better; which is [ [...], the thing de­sired by them;] this to me seems more elegant. Vales. him whom they love.

CHAP. XXII. What [structures] the Empress Eudocia built in Palestine, and concerning the Church of the Proto-Martyr Stephen, within which she was piously buried: moreover, concerning the death of the Emperour Theodosius.

WHen therefore the wife of Theodosius had conversed with many such persons as these, and had built many Monasteries, like unto them which I have mentioned; and moreover, had repaired the walls of Jerusalem▪ [and made them] much better; she erected a vast Church, eminent for its Or, Ex­cellence. splendidness and beauty, [in honour] of Stephen the first of the Deacons and Martyrs, about the distance of one furlong from Jerusalem. In which Church she was deposited, after her departure to an immortall life. Fur­ther, Theodosius [having ended his life] some­time after these things, or, as some will have it, be­fore Eudocia; and changed the Empire (which had been Governed by him eight and thirty years,) [for an eternall life:] the most incomparable Marcianus assumes the Roman Empire. The Actions therefore, which were performed by Him during his Ruling the Eastern Empire, shall most plainly be set forth Or. in the follow­ing Histo­ry. in the following Book, provided divine assistance will furnish us with its own favour and benevolence.

THE SECOND BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS Epiphaniensis, And [one] of the EX-PRAEFECTS.

CHAP. I. Concerning the Emperour Marcianus, and what signes preceded, Or, de­claring his Empire. declaring he should be Em­perour.

WHat was transacted during the times of Theodosius [Junior,] we have comprehended in our first Or, dis­course. Book. Come on, we will now bring Marcianus forth, that famous Emperour of the Romans; and in the first place we will relate, who and whence he was, and in what manner Or, he was crow­ned with. he arrived at the Roman Empire: and then we will declare the affairs transacted by him, in their proper places [and times.] Marcianus therefore, as 'tis related by many others, and also by Instead of [Patriscus] it must be Priscus, which is the reading in the Tellerian M. S. and in Nicephorus book 15. This is the Priscus, out of whose books of History we have the Excerptae Legationes, [...] Vales. Priscus the Rhetorician, by originall extract was a Thracian, the son of a Military man. Or, endeavouring. De­siring to follow his father's course of life, he went to Philippopolis, [hoping] he might there be enrolled in the Companies of the Milice. As he was going thither, he sees the body of a man newly slain, which lay thrown upon the ground. Near to which he made a stand, (for he was eminent in respect of his other [endowments,] but most especially, on account of his humanity and compassion:) lamented what had hapned, and for a sufficient while desisted from proceeding on his journey, being desirous to perform what was fitting [to be done to the dead body.] When some persons had seen this, they gave the Magistrates of Philippopolis an account of it. Who having apprehended Marcianus, interro­gated him concerning the murder of the man. When therefore conjectures and probabilities prevailed more than truth it self, and than the tongue of the person accused denying the Mur­der; and when [Marcianus] was about to undergo the punishment of a Murderer; divine assistance on a sudden discovered the person that had committed the murder. Who having been punish't for that fact with the loss of his head, [thereby] Or, par­doned, or, forgave. preserved the head of Marcianus. Being thus unexpectedly saved, he goes to one of the companies of the Milice in that place, [...]. Musculus has ren­dred it well, thus, ut in eo militiae no­men daret, that he might list, [or, enter] himself a Souldier therein. Not that the term [...] does exact­ly import the same with no­men dare, to list, or, enter, or, enroll. For, [...] does pro­perly signi­fie, to desire and to sue for. So Dionys. Halicarnasseus, about the close of his 11th book, uses this phrase, [...], to sue for an office. But, Appian usually words it thus, [...]. And so does the Old Author in Suidas, in the word [...]. Now, Candidates, when they sued for an office, were wont nomen suum profiteri, to tell their name and be inrolled. Johannes Langus renders it, Militare Sacramentum di­cere, to say the Military Oath. Which Version I disprove of. For [...] is the album militare, the Muster-Roll, wherein the names of all the Souldiers were registred. Vegetius, book 2. chap. 5. terms it Matriculam, the List of Souldiers. Evagrius uses [...] in this sense, hereafter in this chapter; [...], they registred Marcianus (who was likewise cal­led Augustus) in the Muster-Roll. Further, the names of the Souldiers were inserted into the Muster-Roll, before they had said the Oath; as Vegetius attests in the forequoted place. Candidus Isaurus makes use of the same term, in his first book Histor▪ where his words concer­ning Leo are these: [...], who was of that Dacia in Illyricum; having been registred in a Military Company. Vales. it being his desire to enter himself a Souldier therein. They admired the man, and conjectu­ring upon good grounds that he would in future become a great person and one of extraordinary worth, they received him most willingly, and enrolled him amongst themselves, not last of all, as the Military Law directs; but, in the place of a Souldier newly dead, whose name was Au­gustus, they registred Marcianus (who was like­wise called Augustus,) in the Muster-Roll. Thus [Marcianus by] his own name was before­hand in possession of the denomination of our Emperours, who at such time as they put on their purple [assume] the Appellation of Au­gusti. As if the name had refused to abide with him without the dignity; and again, as if the dignity could have required no other name for its being majestically adorned. So that, his Pro­per, and his Appellative name was the same; both his Dignity, and likewise his Appellation, being declared by one and the same denomination. Moreover, another accident hapned, from which it might be conjectured, that Marcianus would come to be Emperour. For, having had a Mili­tary [Page 421] Command under Aspar [in the War] a­gainst the Vandalls, it hapned that Marcianus, together with many others, was taken prisoner, (Aspar having been very much worsted by the Vandalls;) and brought into a field with the other Cap [...]ives; it being Geiserichus's desire to see the Prisoners. After they were gathered to­gether, Geiserichus being seated in an high room, pleased himself with viewing the multitude of those taken Prisoners. And in regard much time was spent [there, the Prisoners] did what each of them had a mind to: (For Geiserichus had given order, that those who guarded the Captives, should loose them from their bonds.) Some of them therefore did one thing, others another. But Marcianus laid himself down on the ground, and slept in the Sun, which was hot and more scorching than usuall at that season of the year. [In which very interim] an Eagle came down from on high in the air, and raising herself by a flight with her face perpendicularly opposite to the Sun, made a shadow like a cloud over Marcianus, whereby she refreshed and cooled him. Geiserichus wondring hereat, with great foresight conjectured at what would happen; and when he had sent for Marcianus, he caused him to be dismissed from his Captivity, having first bound him in great Oaths, that after his coming to the Empire, he should inviolably keep his faith to the Vandalls, and not [...]ove his Arms against them. Which in­gagement, as The words of Procopius, which Evagrius points to here, were heretofore extant in the first book of his Vandalicks. But now they are wanting in the Augustane E­dition, at pag. 96. For there is a defect in the Greek Text there, after these words [...]. Vales. Procopius re­lates, Marcianus did in rea­lity keep and perform. But leaving this digression, let us return to our Subject. Marcianus was pious to­wards God, just as to what related to his Subjects: ac­counting those true riches (not which were hoarded up, or brought together from the Col­lections of Tribute; but them only) which might supply the wants of the indigent, and render their estates who possest much, secure and safe. He was formidable, not for his pu­nishing, but because ['twas feared] he was a­bout to punish. On these accounts therefore he obtained the Empire, [which fell to him] not by an hereditary Right, but [was] the re­ward of his vertue; as well the Senate, as all other persons of what degrees and orders soever, con­ferring the Imperiall dignity upon him by a ge­nerall suffrage, to which they were perswaded by Pulcheria. Whom, in regard she was Au­gusta, Marcianus married; but knew her not as a wife, she continuing a Virgin till her death. And these things were done, before Valentinianus Em­perour of Rome had confirmed this Election by his own consent. Notwithstanding, by reason of [Marcianus's] virtue, he afterwards made it authentick. Further, it was Marcianus's de­sire, that [one] worship might in common be exhibited to God by all persons, (those tongues, which had been confused through im­piety, being again piously united;) and that the Deity might be praised with one and the same Or, Glo­rification. Doxologie.

CHAP. II. Concerning the Synod at Chalcedon, and what was the Occasion of its being convened.

WHilest therefore the Emperours mind was taken up with these desires, there came to him, both the [...], those per­sons that were em­ployed in the an­swers, &c. Responsales of Leo Bi­shop of the Elder Rome, affirming that Dioscorus in the second Ephesine Synod, had not admitted of Leo's Letter, wherein was contained Or, the determina­tion of Or­thodoxy. the doctrine of the true Faith: and also those per­sons who had been injured by the same Dio­scorus, intreating that their Cause might be judged in a Synod of Bishops. But above all Eusebius, who had been Bishop of Dorylaeum, was most importunately urgent, saying, that by the trea­cherous contrivances of Chrysaphius Theodosius's [...], that is, The de­fender of the Empe­rours per­son, or, his Protectour. Chrysaphius is thus ter­med by Priscus Rhetor, in his Excerpt. Legationum. The Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle calls him Spatharius, which we may render Esquire of the Emperours body. He is termed Spatharius also in Gestis de nomine Acacii, which Jacobus Sirmondus hath set forth. Vales. Protector, he and Flavianus had been deposed, because, to Chrysaphius demanding Gold for Fla­vianus's own ordination, Flavianus (to shame him) Theophanes in his Chronicon relates that Theodosius Junior, who then made his Residence at Chalcedon, by the impulse of Chrysaphius commanded Flavianus, (newly ordained Bishop of Constantinople,) that for his ordination he should send him the Eulogiae, [that is, the Loaves of Benediction, or, pieces of the Blessed bread, See Socrat. book 7. chap. 12. note (b;) and also Meur [...]ius's Glossary, at the word [...].] And when Flavianus had sent white loaves, in the name of a Benediction, Chrysaphius made answer, that the Emperour demanded golden Eulogiae. In answer to which Flavianus wrote back, that he had no money which he could send, unless instead of money he should present him with the sacred Vessels of the Church. And this thing, as Theophanes says, raised a deadly grudge between Chry­saphius and Flavianus. Vales. had sent the sacred Vessels; and be­cause Chrysaphius agreed with Eutyches in his erroneous and false opinions. Eusebius said more­over, that Flavianus had been beaten, and kick't, and in a miserable manner murdered by Dioscorus. For these reasons, a Synod is convened at Chalce­don, Couriers and Expresses being sent, and the Bishops in all places called together Or, by pious Let­ters. by the most pious Emperours Letters, first at Nicaea: (in so much that, Leo Bishop of Rome, writing to them concerning those persons he had sent to supply his own place, to wit, Paschasimus, Lu­centius, and the rest, inscribed [his Letters thus,] To those convened at Nicaea:) but af­terwards at Chalcedon in the Country of the Bi­thynians. Zacharias Rhetor wrote an Ecclesia­stick Hi­story from the begin­ning of the Emperour Marcia­nus's Reign (as it may be con­jectured from this place,) un­till the Reign of Anastasius. But, he wrote not with since­rity and modera­tion (as an History ought to be written,) but was corrupted with favour and hatred, that is, [...] with affection and partiality, as Evagrius says. Evagrius attests the same concerning him, in book 3. chap. 7. And in chap. 18. of his third book, he accuses the same Zacharias of negligence. Vales. Zacharias Rhetor, in favour to Nestorius, does indeed In the Florentine M. S. the reading of this place is more entire, thus, [...]. And we have rendred it accordingly. Vales. In Robert Stephens Edition, the words [ [...], out of Exile] are wanting. affirm that he was sent for out of Exile [to this Councill.] But, that this was not so, may be conjectured from hence, that the Synod does every where Ana­thematize Nestorius. The same is also ex­pressly attested by Eustathius Bishop of Bery­tus (in his Letter to Johannes a Bishop, and to another Johannes a Presbyter, concerning the matters agitated in the Synod,) in these very words: Those persons meeting again, who de­manded Nestorius's Reliques, cryed out against the Synod, [in this sort:] for what reason are Holy men Anathematized? In so much that the Emperour, being highly incensed, commanded his Guards by force to drive them a far off. How therefore Nestorius could have been called [to this Council,] who was dead long before, I cannot tell.

CHAP. III. A description of the Great Martyr Euphemia's Church, which is in [the City] Chalcedon: and a Narrative of the Miracles performed therein.

[THe Fathers] therefore are assembled in the sacred Church of the Martyr Eu­phemia. This Church stands in Chalcedon, a City belonging to the Province of the Bithyni­ans. It is distant from the Bosphorus not more than two furlongs, [scituate] in a most plea­sant place, on an Or, hill. eminence which rises easily and by degrees: in so much that, those who go up into the Church of the Martyr, are insen­sible of Labour in their walk, but being got within the Temple, on a sudden they appear at a vast height. Whence casting down their eyes as 'twere from a Watch Tower, they have a pro­spect of all the fields beneath, extended into a levell and even plain, clothed in green with grass, waving with standing corn, and beautified with the sight of all sorts of trees: [they see] woody mountains also, [the trees whereon] bend and then raise [their tops] finely to an heighth. Moreover, [they have a prospect of] severall Seas, some of which [seem] [...]; which words Va­lesius ren­ders thus: serenitate renidentia, shining, or, glistering by reason of their calm­ness. purple coloured by reason of their serenity, and do sweetly and mildly play with the Shoares; to wit, where the places are calm: but others are rough and boysterous with surges, by the very reciprocall motion of their waves forcing a shoar [...]; it sig­nifies shells, or, sand full of little stones. sand mixt with little stones, Sea-weed, and the lightest sort of shell-fish, and then drawing them back again. Moreover, the Church it self stands right over against Constantinople. So that, the Temple is [not a little] adorned with the prospect of so great a City. The Church consists of three most spacious structures. The first is an Open Court, beautified with a large Court, or, Courtyard. Atrium, and with Pillars on every side. After this there is another Structure, for breadth, and length, and pillars, I have mended this place from the Florentine M. S. after this man­ner; [...], almost a­like. Ne­vertheless, Nicephorus has followed the vulgar reading, which is [...]. In the Tellerian M. S. I found it written [...]. Vales. almost alike; differing only in this, that it has a Roof laid over it. In the Northen side where­of at the rising Sun, there is a round Edifice built in form of a [...], that is, inform of a Cupolo. or Cuppolo; as the Italians now term it. Harpocration (in the word [...]) tells us, that the place where the Prytanes (who were a sort of Magistrates amongst the Athenians) eat, was termed Tholus; [...] (continues he) [...], but by some 'tis termed [...], (that is, an Arbour) because 'tis built round, in that form, like an hat with an high round crown. Tholus, set round with­in with pillars most artificially framed, which are alike as to their matter, and equall in big­ness. 'Tis strange that Translatours should not have perceived the fault of this place: for what can the sense be of these words; Sub his columnis tabulatum est sublime, &c. vnder these pillars there is an high chamber, &c, according as Christophorson has rendred it? Instead of [ [...], under these] it must undoubtedly be [...], over these; which is the reading in Nicephorus; his words are these: [...], &c. which Langus renders thus: Super quibus porticus (ublimis eâdem sub Testudine constructa est, [...]ver which [pillars] there is an high Gallery built under the same Roof. Vales. Over these [pillars,] there is an Or, upper-Room. Hy­per [...]on raised to a vast heighth, under the same Roof: so that, even in this Room also, they that desire it, may both supplicate the Mar­tyr, and also be present at the sacred Mysteries. But, within the Tholus, towards the East, [...]. Langus and Christophor­son render it Sacra­rium, a Ve­stry, or lit­tle Chap­pell. Mus­culus tran­slates it adytum, a secret place in a Church to which few have access. Which I approve not of. I have ra­ther ren­dred it tu­mulum, a Tomb, or Monument. For that is the import of the term [...], as Hesychius and Suidas do attest. But, by a Tomb, or Monument, I mean a place fen­ced in with Barrs made lattise▪wise, in the midst whereof was that silver-chest where­in the Reliques of the holy Martyr Euphemia were deposited. For, that it was so, is apparent from Evagrius's following words. Vales. there is a magnificent Tomb, where lie the most holy Reliques of the Martyr, deposited in an oblong Chest (some term it Instead of [...] Macra, I think it should be [...] The Arke. Truly, I do not see what sense there can be in the vul [...]r reading; in regard [...] and [...] signifie the same; nor is it a proper name, but an adjective. 'Tis better therefore to read [...] The Arke. Some persons, says Evagrius, term the Martyrs Che [...], Arcam, the Arke. For so the Latines term it. The Old Glosses render [...], arca [...]unebris, an arke, or chest, for the dead. Vales. The Macra,) most curiously made of silver. The Miracles which are at cer­tain times performed by the holy Martyr, are manifestly known to all Christians. For, fre­quently in their sleep she appears, either to the Bishops during their severall times of presidency over that City, or else to some persons (other­wise eminent for [piety of] life,) who come to her [Church,] and orders them [...]. Translatours understood not this place. Musculus and Christophorson made it [...]. For Musculus renders it thus: Ut circa templum ad honorem ejus jucundentur prae­cipit, and orders them that in honour of her they should be merry about the Temple. And Christophorson translates it thus: Jubet ut in ipso templo festum deliciis, & opiparis epulis celebrent, she order [...] that in the very Church they should celebrate a feast with dainties and sumptuous banquets. But, Evagrius's following words do altogether refute this emendation. For, he adds not one word at this place, which may in any wise belong to luxury or delicious food. Nicephorus has indeed retained the vulgar reading: but has explained it ill, thus: [...]: that is, as Langus has ren­dred it, ut miraculorum talium fructum perciperent, est cohortata, she exhorteth them, that they should freely partake of the fruit of such mi­racles. But Nicephorus added these words of his own head; nor has he comprehended Evagrius's meaning; in regard Evagrius speaks not here of more miracles, but of one only miracle, to wit, the bloud flowing out of the Tomb of the holy Martyr. I have followed the ordinary reading, and have explained this place in the simple and obvious sense concerning the making of a Vintage. Which agrees exactly with Evagrius's following words. For the bloud, which in a most plentifull manner was press't out of the blessed Martyrs reliques, was not unlike wine, which is squeezed out of prest grapes. Besides, the Festivall day of the holy Euphemia sell on the time of Vintage, to wit, on the sixteenth of September, as we are informed from the Greek Menologie. Vales. to make their Vintage in the Temple. After this hath been made known, both to the Emperours, to the Patriarch, and also to the City; as well those who sway the Imperiall Scepter, as the Pontif's, Magistrates, and the rest of the whole multitude of the people, go immediately to the Church, with a desire to partake of the Mysteries. In the sight of all these persons therefore, the Bi­shop of Constantinople, together with the P [...]e [...]s about him, goes into the sacred Edifice, where the holy Body I have mentioned is deposited. I am of the same opinion with Learned men, who instead of [ [...], But moreover] have long since altered the reading, and made it [...] There is, &c. Which emendation is confirmed by the Tel­lerian Manuscript, and by Nicephorus. Further, Langus renders [...] (which is the term here used,) fenestellam, a little win­dow: Christophorson translates it transennam, a Loup, or, Casement. I (as Musculus has done,) had rather render it foramen, an hole. For Sozomen terms it thus, book. 9. chap. 2. where I have made more remarkes concerning such little windows as these, which were made in the Capsae [chests wherein were laid the Re­liques] of the Martyrs. Vales. There is a little hole in the Chest, on its left side, which is shut up and made fast by small doors. Through this hole they let down a long iron rod, after they have fastned a sponge to it, as far as the most holy Reliques; and when they have turn [...]d the sponge about, they draw the iron-rod up to them, [the sponge at the end whereof is] full of bloud, and bloudy clotters. Which when the people behold, immediately they adore and glorifie God. [Page 423] [Further,] so great a plenty [of bloud] is extracted out thence, that both the pious Em­perours, and also all the Priests [there] con­vened, moreover the whole multitude which flock together at that place, in a most plentifull man­ner do partake of it, and likewise send it over the whole world, to the Faithfull that are desirous of it. And the congealed bloud lasts [so as it is] forever, nor is the most holy bloud in any wise changed into any other colour. Or, which things are magnifi­cently cele­brated. These miracles are performed, not at any determinate period of time, but according as the Life of the Bishop, and the gravity of his Moralls shall Or, re­quire. de­serve. For, 'tis reported, that when ever a per­son of probity, and one eminent for his vir­tues, does govern [that Church,] this miracle is performed, and that most frequently: but when there is no such Prelate, such divine signes as these do rarely happen. But I will relate ano­ther [miracle,] which no time or season Or, cuts in sunder. in­terrupts: nor does it make any diff [...]ence be­tween the Faithfull and the [...]nfidells; but 'tis alike Or, ex­posed, or, obvious. shown to all persons. When any per­son comes into that place, wherein the pretious Chest is, which contains the most holy Reliques, Or, he is filled with. he smells a fragrant scent, which transcends all the usuall savours [smelt] by men. For, this scent is neither like that Or, which is gathered. which arises from Meadows, nor like that sent forth by any the most fragrant things, nor is it such a one as is made by Perfumers: but 'tis a certain strange and most excellent scent, The term [ [...], Re­liques] is wanting in the Kings, the Florentine, and Tellerian Manuscripts, and likewise in Robert Stephens's Edition. Nor have the Geneva-Printers done well, who from Christophorson's books put this word in here, whereas it is in no wise necessary at this place, nor is it confirmed by the testimony of any written copy. For, those various readings which are pro­duced from Christophorson's books, are for the most part nothing else but the conjectures of learned men. This whole passage therefore ought to be written as 'tis read in the Tellerian and Florentine Manu­scripts; to wit thus: [...], which of it self demonstrates the [virtue and] power of those things that produce it. And so Nicephorus read: for he has exprest this place of Evagrius thus: [...], which gives an indication of the power of that thing which pro­duceth it. which of it self demon­strates the [virtue and] power of those things that produce it.

CHAP. IV. Concerning those things which were agitated and established in the Synod; and how Dioscorus [Bishop] of Alexandria was deposed; but, Theodoret, Ibas, and some others were re­stored.

IN this place, the Synod I have mentioned is convened, the Bishops Paschatius and Lucen­tius, and Bonifacius the Presbyter, administring (as I have said,) the place of Leo Pontif of the Elder Rome: Anatolius presiding over the Con­stantinopolitane [Church;] and Dioscorus be­ing Bishop of [the Church of] the Alexan­drians. Maximus [Bishop] of Antioch, and Juv [...]lis of Jerusalem [were there also.] To­gether with whom were present those Prelates whom they had about them; and also those personages who held the principall places in the eminent Senate [of Constantinople.] To whom they, who filled Leo's place, said, that Dioscorus ought not to sit together with them in the Coun­cill. For this [they affirmed] was given them in charge by their Bishop Leo, and unless it were observed, they would remove out of the Church. And when [those] of the Senate asked, what were the matters objected against Dioscorus; they returned answer, that he ought to render an account of his own judgment, who, contrary to what was fitting and just, had ac­cepted the person of the Judge. After which words, when Dioscorus by the Senates Decree had come forth into a place in the midst; Eu­sebius made his request, that the Supplicatory Libell, which he had presented to the Empe­rour, might be recited; which request he wor­ded thus: I have been injured by Dioscorus; the Faith hath been injured; Flavianus the Bi­shop has been murdered, and together with me unjustly deposed by him: do you give order, that my supplicatory Libell may be read. Which thing when [the Judges] had discoursed of, the Libell was permitted to be read, the con­tents whereof were these.

This whole Pre­face, as far as these words al­ways Au­gusti, is wanting in the Kings, and Flo­rentine, and Tellerian Manu­scripts. Christophorson was the first that put in these words, from the Acts of the Chalced [...] Councill; notwithstanding, they seem not at all necessary at this place. Vales. The said Pre­face is wanting in Stephens's, Edition; where also, instead of [...], by Eusebius, the rea­ding is [ [...], concer­ning Eusebius.] To the Lovers of Christ, our most Religious and most pious Emperours, Flavius Valentinianus, and Marcianus, always Augusti; From Eusebius the meanest Bishop of Dorylaeum, who speakes in defence of himself, of the Orthodox Faith, and of Flavianus of Blessed me­mory who was Bishop of Constantinople. [It is] the designe of your power, to make provision for all your Subjects, and to stretch forth an hand to all those who are injured: especially Instead of [ [...], to those who perform the Priesthood,] it must without doubt be written [ [...], to those who are reckoned amongst the Ecclesiasticks;] as the reading is in the first Action of the Chalcedon Councill, where this supplicatory Libell of Bishop▪ Eusebius to the Emperour Mar­cianus is recorded. Vales. to them who are reckoned amongst the Ecclesiasticks. For hereby Instead of [ [...], is worshipped▪] I doubt not but E­vagrius wrote, [...], you worship. 'Tis certain in the first Action of the Chalcedon Coun­cill, the reading is [...], worshipping. Which though it be corrupt, nevertheless confirms our emendation. Vales. you worship the Deity, by whom a power hath been given you to Rule and Govern Or, the things un­der the Sun. the world. In regard therefore the Faith of Christ and we have suffered many and grie­vous things, contrary to all reason and equity, from Dio­scorus the most reverend Bi­shop of the great City Alexan­dria; we address to Your piety, entreating we may have Right done Us. Now, the business is this. At a Sy­nod lately held in the Metro­polis of the Ephesians, (would to God that Synod had never been held, that it might not have filled the world with mischiefes and disturbance!) that 'Tis Iro­nically spoken. Good man Dioscorus, disregarding the consideration of what is just, and [not respecting] the fear of God, (for he was of the same opinion, and enter­tained the same Sentiments with the vain-minded and Hereticall Eutyches; but concealed it from many persons, as 'twas afterwards plainly evi­denced from his own declaration:) Or, found. took an oc­casion from that accusation which I had brought against Eutyches, a person of the same opinion with himself▪ and from that sentence pronounc't against the same Eutyches by Bishop Flavianus [...], of an holy character, or, name. of Holy memory; [whereby] he assembled a multitude of disorderly and tumultuous persons: and having possest himself of power by money, as much as in him lay he has weakened the pious Religion of the Orthodox, and has confirmed the ill opinion of the Monk Eutyches, which long since, even from the beginning, hath been condemned by the Holy Fathers. Whereas therefore, the matters are not [Page 424] small and triviall, which he hath audaciously at­tempted, both against the Faith of Christ, and a­gainst Us, We fall at the feet of Your [Imperial] Majesty, and humbly beseech You, to order the said most Religious Bishop Dioscorus, to give in his answer to what is objected against him by us: to wit, by having the Monuments of the Acts, which he has made against us, read before an Holy Synod. From which [Acts] we are able to demonstrate, that he is estranged from the Or­thodox Faith, hath confirmed an Heresie full of impiety, has unjustly deposed us, and in a most grievous and injurious manner oppressed us: You sending your divine and adorable Mandates to the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod of Bishops most dear to God, to the end that it may hear the cause between us and the forementioned Dio­scorus, and bring to the knowledge of Your Piety all that is transacted, [...]. See Socrat. book. 7. chap. 36. note (b.) according to that which shall please Your Immortall height. And if we shall obtain this, we will pour forth incessant prayers for your eternall Empire, most divine Em­perours! After this, by the joynt desire of Dio­scorus and Eusebius, the Acts of the second Ephe­sine Synod were publickly recited. The parti­cular declaration whereof, (it being Or, for­med, or, made up in­to, &c. compre­hended in many words, and contained Or, with­in those things agi­tated at Chalcedon. within the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill;) least I should seem verbose to those who hasten to­wards [a knowledge of] the conclusion of Transactions, I have subjoyned to this Second Book of my History; giving those persons who are desirous of an exact and particular know­ledge of all matters, a liberty of reading these things, and of having an accurate account of all transactions imprinted on their mindes. [In the interim] I will cursorily mention the more prin­cipall and momentous matters: to wit, that Dio­scorus was Or, de­tected. convicted, because he had not ad­mitted of the Letter of Leo Bishop of the El­der Rome; and because he had effected the de­position of Flavianus Bishop of New Rome, with­in the space of one day; and because he had got­ten the Bishops who were convened, to subscribe [their names] in a paper not written on, as if therein had been contained Flavianus's depo­sition. Whereupon, those persons who were of the Senate, made this Decree. This is the sen­tence, which the most mag­nificent Judges who were present at the Chalcedon Councill, pronounc't af­ter an hearing of the Cause: which sentence is recorded in the very same words, in the first Action of the Chalcedon Councill. pag. 152. Edit. Bin. Notwithstanding, 'tis a wonder to me, that Christophorson had not seen this, who has confused and disturbed all things at this place in such a manner, that you can extract nothing of sound sense from his version. That which disturbed him, was his seeing the Secular Magistrates in a Councill of Bishops and their pronouncing sentence as Judges. But Christophorson ought to have considered, that those Magistrates concerned not themselves in the Cause of the Faith, but le [...]t the Bishops a free right and power of determining concerning that matter. Indeed, at such time as the Rule of Faith was drawn up by the Bishops convened at Chalcedon, these very Magistrates, who before had often moved the Councill that the might be done, would not be present at the Session of Bishops. But in the business between Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum and Dioscorus of Alexandria, in which affair nothing was treated of concerning the Faith, but con­cerning violence, fraud, and other crimes: in this business, I say, the Secular Magistrates had a right to pronounce sentence. Which nevertheless was not a definitive sentence, but an Interlocution only, as 'tis apparent from the Acts of the Councill. Vales. We perceive, that a more exact scrutiny concerning the Ortho­dox and Catholick Faith ought to be made to mor­row, when [...]. In the first Action of the Chal­cedon Councill, the reading is [...], more perfect and compleat. In the compen [...]ium of the Acts of this Synod, which Evagrius has sub­joyned at the close of this book, it is [...]. The reading in the Florent. and Tellerian Manuscripts at this place is [...]. Vales. In Robert Stephens, the reading is the same with that at the beginning of this note. the Synod will be more compleat and full. But, in regard Flavianus of Pious Memory [...] and the most Religious Bishop Eusebius (from a search made into the Acts and Decrees, and also from their testimony by word of mouth who presi­ded in the Synod then convened; who have con­fessed that they have erred, and deposed them with­out cause, when they had in no wise erred in the Faith:) have, as 'tis evidently known, been un­justly deposed: it appears to us (agreeable to that which is acceptable to God,) to be just, (pro­vided it shall please our most Divine and most Pious Lord,) that Dioscorus the most Religious Bishop of Alexandria, Juvenalis the most Reli­gious Bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius the most Re­ligious Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Euse­bius the most Religious Bishop of [...], Bishop of Armonia▪ The same fault occurs in the Compendium of the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill, which is extant at the end of this book. Notwith­standing, 'tis manifest, that it must be, [...], of Ancyra, agreeable to the reading in the first Action of the Chalcedon Councill. Vales. In Robert Stephens the reading is [of Armenia.] Ancyra, Eustathius the most Religious Bishop of Be­rytus, and Basilius the most Religious Bishop of Seleucia in lsau [...], which [Pre­lates] had power, and pre­sided over the then Synod, should lye under the very same punishment, being by [the sentence of] the sacred Synod according to the Canons Or, made strangers to. removed from the Episcopall dig­nity: all things which have been consequently done being made known [...], to the divine [...]eight [...]. to his most sacred Im­perial Majesty. After this, Libells having been given in on the second day against Dioscorus, on account of [various] crimes, and concerning mo­ney [forcibly by him taken,] when Dioscorus, being twice and thrice called, appeared not, by reason of [severall] excuses which he al­ledged; they who filled the place of Leo Bi­shop of the Elder Rome, Or, pro­nounced sentence. made this declaration in these express words. This sentence pronounc't by the Deputies of the Apostolick See, is extant in the third Action of the Chalcedon Councill, pag. 192. Vales. What Dioscorus who hath been Bishop of the Great City Alexandria has audaciously attempted against the Order of the Canons, and the Ecclesi­astick Constitution; hath been made manifest, both by those things which have already been inquired into at the First Session, and also from what hath been done this day. For this person, (to omit many other things,) making use of his own authority, uncanonically admitted to communion Eutyches, (a man that embraces the same Sentiments with himself, who had been canonically deposed by his own Bishop of Holy Memory, we mean our Fa­ther and Bishop Flavianus;) before Diosco­rus's. his sit­ting [in the Synod] at Ephesus together with the Bishops beloved by God. Now, the Apo­stolick See has granted a pardon to those [Pre­lates,] for what hath been involuntarily done there by them. Who also to this present continue of the same opinion with the most Holy Arch-Bi­shop Leo, and with all the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod. On which account, he hath received them to his own communion, as being asserters of the same faith with himself. But Dioscorus. this man till this very time hath not desisted from boasting of these things, on account whereof he ought rather to mourn, and lay himself prostrate on the earth. Besides, he permitted not the Letter of the Blessed Pope Leo, to be read, (which had been written by him to Flavianus of Holy Memory;) and this [he did,] notwithstanding he was severall times en­treated by those persons who had brought the Letter, to suffer it to be read; and notwithstanding he had promised with an Oath that it should be read. [Page 425] The not reading of which Letter In the third Action of the Chal­cedon-Coun­cill, this place is o­therwise read, to wit, thus: [...], the most Holy Churches over the whole world have been tempted, or tryed. Vales. has filled the most Holy Churches over the whole world with scandalls and detriment. Nevertheless, although such things as these have been audaciously attempted by him, yet it was our design, to have voutsafed him something of compassion Instead of [ [...], &c] in the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill, the reading is [ [...], &c.] Vales. in relation to his former impious Fact, as also to the rest of the Bishops beloved by God, although they had not the same authority These words [ [...], of judging, or, of judgment,] are wan­ting in the Kings, in the Tellerian, and in the Florentine Manuscripts; and they are put into the Geneva Edition, from Christophorson's books. They occur indeed in the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill; but to me they seem not very necessary. Vales. In Rob. Stephens's Edition, they are wanting. of judging that he was invested with. But in regard he has out-done his former iniquity by his Or, se­cond. latter facts, (for he has au­daciously pronounced an Excommunicaton against the most Holy and most Pious Leo Arch-Bishop of Rome the Great; and moreover, (when Libells stuft with Crimes were presented to the Holy and Great Synod against him,) having been ca­nonically called once, twice, and thrice, by the Bishops beloved of God, he obeyed not, to wit, being prick't by his own conscience; [Lastly,] he has illegally received [to Communion] those, who had justly been deposed by severall Synods: [on these various accounts we say]) he himself hath pronounced sentence against himself, having many ways trampled under foot the Ecclesiastick Rules. Wherefore, the most Holy and most Blessed Leo Arch-Bishop of the Great and the Elder Rome, by Us and the present Synod, together with the thrice Blessed and most eminent Apostle Peter, who is the See chap. 18. note (x.) Rock and Basis of the Catho­lick Church, and the foundation of the Orthodox Faith, hath divested him of the Episcopall dig­nity, and Or, hath estranged him. hath removed him from [the per­formance of] every Sacerdotall Office. There­fore, the Holy and Great Synod it self will In the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill, the reading is [...], will Decree. Which in my judgment is right. For the future tense is in this place put for the Imperative mood. For, whereas the Legates of the Apostolick See do here speak to the Synod, they would not use the Imperative; because it seems more arrogant. They made use therefore of the future tense, as being the softer and more modest mode of expression. Notwith­standing, The old Translatour of the Chalcedon Council has rendred it in the Imperative mood. In Nic [...]phorus, book 15. chap. 30. the reading is [...]; Vales. In Robert Stephens's Edition, and in the Greek Text here, the reading is [...], doth Decree; which perhaps is the [...]ruer reading. De­cree those things concerning the forementioned Dio­scorus, which shall seem agreeable to the Canons.

These things having been confirmed by the Synod, and some other business done, those [Prelates] who had been deposed with Dio­scorus; by the entreaty of the Synod and the Emperours assent, obtained their Restoration. And some other things having been added to what was done before, they promulged a definition of the Faith, contained in these express words. This definition of the Faith is contained in the Fifth Action of the Chalcedon-Synod. 'Tis ex­tant also in Nicephorus, book 15. chap. 6. Vales. Our Lord and Saviour Je­sus Christ, when he confirmed the knowledge of the Faith to his disciples, said; Jo. 14. 27. my peace I give unto you, my peace I leave with you: to the end that no person should differ from his neighbour in the Or, opi­nions. Dogmata of Pie­ty, but that the Preaching of the Truth might be equally demonstrated to all. After these words, when they had recited the Nicene Creed, and also [that That is, the Con­stantino­politane Creed▪ at the drawing up whereof there were 150 Fathers. See Socrat▪ book 5. c. 9. Creed] of the hundred and fifty Holy Fathers, they have added these words. That wise and salutary Creed of the divine Grace, was indeed sufficient for the knowledge and confirma­tion of piety. For, it delivers a perfect and en­tire Doctrine, Concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and it expresses and con­firms the Incarnation of our Lord to those who receive it with faith. But, in regard the The word [ [...], ene­mies] is wanting in the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill: and the reading of this whole place is thus: [...], &c. Those who attempt to reject and abrogate the Preaching of the Truth by their, &c. Which rea­ding seems to me far better. Vales. enemies of Truth attempt to reject and abrogate the Preaching [thereof] by their own He­resies; and have Or, bred, or, brought forth. coyned vain and new Terms; (some daring to corrupt the Myste­ry of our Lords Dispensation which [was made]▪ upon our account, and denying the Term Theotocos [which is attributed] to the Virgin: and others intro­ducing a confusion and mixture, foolishly imagi­ning the nature of the flesh and of the Deity to be one, and monstrously feigning the Divine Na­ture of the only begotten to be by confusion pas­sible:) therefore, this present, Holy, Great, and Oecumenicall Synod, being desirous to Or, stop up. preclude all their [ways of] fraud invented against the Truth, and to vindicate that Or, Preaching. Doctrine which from the beginning [has continued] unshaken; hath determined, that in the first place, the That is, the Nicen [...] Creed. Faith of the three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers ought to remain and be preserved unattempted and inviolate: and upon their account who Or, fight against. im­pugne the Holy Spirit, [this Synod] confirms that Doctrine concerning the substance of the Holy Spirit, which was afterwards delive­red by the hundred and fifty Fathers convened in the Imperiall City [Constantinople:] which Doctrine they promulged to all persons, not as if they added any thing which had been wanting before, but that they might declare their own Sentiment concerning the Holy Spirit, against those who attempted to abrogate and abolish his dominion and power: but, upon their account who dare corrupt the mysterie of the Oeconomy, and Instead of [ [...], do reproach [so] im­pudently] it must doubtless be [ [...], do rave [so] impudently;] agreeable to the reading in the Florentine M. S. and in the Acts of the Chalcedon▪ Synod. Vales. do rave [so] impudently [as to as­sert] him who was born of the Holy Virgin Mary to be a meer man; [this Synod] has admitted and approved of the Synodicall Letters of the Blessed Cyrillus who was Pastour of the Church of the Alexandrians; [which Letters Cyrillus sent] to Nestorius, and to the Eastern [Bishops,] and they are sufficient, both to confute Nestorius's madness, and also to explain the salutary Creed, in favour to such persons as out of a pious zeal are desirous of attaining a true notion thereof. To which Letters, in confirmation of such Sentiments as are right and true, [this Synod] has deservedly annext the Epistle of the most Blessed and most Holy Arch-Bishop Leo, President of the Great and Elder Rome, which he wrote to Arch-Bishop Fla­vianus of Holy Memory, in order to the subversion of Eutyches's madness; The rea­ding here▪ and in Ni­cephorus is [...], &c. Which Letter agrees with the confession of the Great Pe­ter, &c. But, the contexture of the words does necessarily require, that we should read thus, [...], &c. in regard it agrees &c. and so 'tis written in the Acts of the Chalcedon-Synod. Vales. which Letter agrees with the Confession of Great Peter, and is a cer­tain common pillar against those who embrace ill Sentiments. For, it makes a resistance against them, who attempt to divide the Mystery of the Oe­conomy [Page 426] into two Sons; and it likewise expells those from the convention of sacred persons, who auda­ciously assert the Deity of the Only Begotten to be passible: it Or, re­sists. confutes them also who main­tain a Mixture or Confusion in the two Natures of Christ: and it expells those who foolishly assert, that the form of a servant, which Christ took from us [men,] is of a Celestial, or of some other substance: Lastly, it Anathematizes such persons, as fabulously prate of two Natures of [our] Lord before the Union, but after the union feign [them to have been] one. Fol­lowing therefore [the steps of] the Holy Fathers, [...]. In the Acts of the Chalcedon Synod, this place is worded otherwise, to wit, in this manner: [...], To confess our Lord Je­sus Christ [to be] one and the same Son, with one consent we do all teach and declare. Which reading seems to me to be far the truer. Vales. We confess our Lord Jesus Christ [to be] one and the same Son, and with one con­sent We do all teach and de­clare, that the same person is perfect in the Deity, and that the same person is perfect in the Humanity, truly God, and truly man, that the same per­son [subsists] of a rational soul and body, that he is Con­substantial to the Father as touching his Deity, and that he is of the same substance with us according to his Humanity, in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; that, according to his Deity he was begotten of the Father before Ages; but that, in the last days, the same per­son, on our account and for our salvation, ac­cording to his Humanity, was born of Mary the Virgin and Theotocos: that, one and the same Jesus Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only Be­gotten, is inconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, and inseparably Or, known. manifested in two Natures: that the difference of the Natures is in no wise extinguished by the Union: but rather, that the propriety of each Nature is preserved, and Or, runs together in­to one, &c. meets in one person, and in one Hypostasis: not as if [he] were parted and divided into two per­sons: but [he is] one and the same Only Be­gotten Son, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, according as the Prophets of old, and Christ him­self hath taught us concerning himself, and [ac­cording as] the Creed of the Fathers hath de­livered [it] to us. These things therefore ha­ving with all imaginable accuracy and concinnity been constituted by us, the Holy and Oecumenical Synod has determined, that it shall not be lawfull for any person, to produce, or write, or compose, or think, or teach others, another Faith. But, whoever shall dare, either to compose, or to produce, or to teach any other Faith, or to deliver another Creed, to those who have a mind to turn from Gentilism, or Judaism, or from any other Heresie whatever, to the knowledge of the Truth; those persons, if they be Bishops, shall be Or, e­stranged from. divested of the Episco­pall Dignity; if Clergymen, they shall be Or, ali­enated from the Clergy. degra­ded. But if they be Monks, or Laïcks, they shall be Anathematized. When therefore this de­termination had been read, the Emperour Mar­cianus also [came to] Chalcedon, and was pre­sent at the Synod; and having made a speech [to the Bishops,] he returned. Juvenalis al­so and Maximus on certain conditions Removed, or, put to flight. de­termined those [differences] which were be­tween them about [some] Provinces; and Theodoret and Ibas were Or, re­called. restored; and some other matters were agitated, which, as I have said, [the Reader] will find recorded at the end of this Book. [Lastly,] it was decreed, that the Chair of Constan­tinople. [...] New Rome, Or, in re­gard it was the second after the el­der Rome. in regard it was the next See to the Elder Rome, should have pre­cedency before all other [Sees.]

CHAP. V. Concerning the Sedition which hapned at Alexan­dria, on account of Proterius's Ordination; like­wise, [concerning what hapned] at Jerusalem.

AFter these things, Dioscorus Or, was condemned to dwell at, &c. was banished to Gangra [a City] in Paphlagonia; and by the common Vote of the Synod, Pro­terius obtaines the Bishoprick of Alexandria. After he had taken possession of his own See, a great and most insufferable Tumult arose, the populace fluctuating [and being divided] into different opinions. For some demanded Dio­scorus, as it usually happens in such cases; O­thers adhered pertinaciously to Proterius. So that, thence arose many and those deplorable calamities. 'Tis certain, Priscus the Rhetorician does relate [in his History,] that at that time he came I have restored this place from the Florentine Manu­script; to which a­grees Ni­cephorus, book 15. chap. 8. Christo­phorson had mended it very ill, thus; [...], that the Praefect of Thebaïs came at that time to Alexandria. But, the Province of Thebaïs was not governed by a Praefect; but by a President, as we are informed from the Notitia Imperii Romani. Besides, Priscus Rhetor says not, that the Governour of the Province of Thebaïs, but that he himself came then to Alexandria. Priscus had indeed been long conver­sant in the Province Thebaïs, with Maximinus the Commander, whose Councellour and Assessour he was, when he waged war against the Nubae and Blemmyae, as himself informs us in his Excerpt, Legationum. In the Tellerian Manuscript, I found this place written thus: [...], came by Alexandria from the Province of Thebaïs. But I should rather write it thus, [...], &c. came to Alexandria out of the Province of Thebais. Vales. In Robert Stephens the reading here is, [...]. out of the Province of Thebaïs to Alexandria, and saw the people making an At­tack against the Magistrates. And, that when the Souldiers would have put a stop to the Tu­mult, the people threw stones at them, and made them run; that after this the Souldiers took re­fuge in that which heretofore had been Nicephorus has added some passages here concerning Serapis's Temple, which are sufficiently profound, and which I remember not to have read any where else. Therefore I conjecture, that Nicephorus wrote these passages out of Priscus Rhetor's History, which then was extant entire. Vales. See Nicephorus's Eccles. Histor. book 15. chap. 8. Se­rapis's Temple, where the people besieged them, and burnt them alive. That, the Emperour having notice hereof, sent two thousand new raised Souldiers thither: who having the oppor­tunity of a fair wind, made so prosperous a Voy­age, that they arrived at the great City Alex­andria on the sixth day [after they had been ship't.] That after this, when the Souldiers most filthily abused the wives and daughters of the Alexandrians, facts far more horrid and nefarious than the former, were perpetrated. And at last, that the people meeting together in the Circus, entreated Of this Florus (who was Praefectus Augustalis and also Dux of Egypt,) Jordanes has made mention in his book De Successione Regnorum, where he writes thus concerning the Emperour Marcianus: Nobades Blemmyesque Aethiopia pr [...]olapsos, &c. He appeased the No­bades and the Blemmyes, (who had fallen down from Aethiopia,) by Florus Procurator of the City Alexandria, and drove them from the Territories of the Romans. This Florus had succeeded Theodorus the Augustalis, as we are informed from Liberatus's Breviarium, chap. 14. Under whom Proterius is ordained Bishop, and that Sedition (which Evagrius describes here,) was raised at Alexandria, in the year of Christ 452. On account of which Sedition▪ whenas the publick [al­lowance of] bread-corn, (which was wont to be delivered out to the Alexandrians,) the Baths also, and Shows, by the Emperour's order had been taken from the Inhabitants of Alexandria; the multitude mer to­gether in the Cirque, and entreated Florus the Praefectus Augustalis, who was come to Alexandria a little before this, that these things might be restored to them. Therefore, this hapned on the year of Christ 453. Vales. Florus, who was then Commander of the Milice [throughout Egypt,] [Page 427] and also Praefect of Alexandria, that he would restore to them the [...]. To the Ci­tizens of A­lexandria, as well as to those of Rome and Constanti­nople, Loaves of bread were every day delivered out; as we are infor­med from the four­teenth book of the The­odosian Code, Tit. De Fru­mento A­lexandrino. But who had been the Begin­ner of this thing, 'tis uncertain. Diocletian was the first [Em­perour] who bestowed the Pa [...]is Castrensis [the Camp-bread] upon the Alexandrians, as the Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle relates at Constantius Caesar's and Maximianus Jovius Caesar's fourth Cousu­late; [...] (says he) [...], on this year the Panis Castrensis was given at Alexandria by Diocletian. Which passage occurs in the very same words in the Chronologicall Excerptions set forth by Scaliger at the end of Eusebius's Chronicon. Procopius (in his Anecdot. pag. 119.) says this Bread-corn was allowed by Diocletian to the poor only of the City Alexandria. Which when the Citizens of that City had in after times divided amongst themselves, they then transmitted it to their posterity. Procopius's words are these: [...]; Diocletian having been made Emperour of the Romans, Decreed, that a vast quantity of Bread-corn should every year be given by the people to the indigent Alexandrians. The people having at that time quarrelled amongst their own selves about this [Bread-corn,] transmitted it to their descendants even to this day. In which words of Procopius's there is a very great fault, which Nicolaus Alemannus (a person otherwise of incomparable Learning) perceived not. For instead of these words [ [...], by the people,] it must undoubtedly be [ [...], out of the publick stock of Corn laid up for the Emperours use.] And, a little after, instead of these words, [...], the people having at that time quarrelled amongst themselves about this Bread-corn;] it must be thus [ [...], the people having at that time privately given this [Bread-corn] amongst their own selves.] Than which emendation there is nothing more certain. Further, long before Diocletian, to wit, in the times of Dionysius Alexandrinus, the Omogerontes of the City Alexandria received Bread-corn out of the publick stock, as Dionysius Alexandrinus informs us in his Epistle to Hierax the Bishop; which Letter Eusebius records, Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 21; where see note (e.) There­fore Diocletianus augmented, rather than began, this distribution of Bread-corn at Alexandria. Vales. allowance of Bread-corn (which he had taken from them,) and the Baths and the Shows, and whatever else they were deprived of on account of the Sedi­tion which had been raised amongst them. And that Florus, by Translatours understood not this place, as 'tis apparent from their Versions. For they thought that the word [ [...], his] was to be referred to Florus; when as it ought to be referred to Priscus Rhetor, out of whose History Evagrius has transcribed all these pas­sages. For, Priscus Rhetor, in regard he was then conversant at Alexandria, gave Florus this advice, that he should go to the Cirque; in which place the Alexandrian populace were gathered together, and with great out▪ cries required Florus to come thither. Vales. his perswasion, went into the Assembly of the people, and promised to per­form all this, and so the Sedition was ap­peased and vanished by little and little. Nor, were affairs at the Solitude near Jerusalem, in a sedate posture. For some of the Monks, who had been present at the Synod, and had imbibed Sentiments contrary to those Constitutions there established, came into Palestine: and com­plaining that the Faith was betrayed, made it their business to inflame and disturb [...], the whole society of Monks. all the Monks. And in regard Ju­venalis had recovered his own See, and, being by the Seditious compelled to retract and Anathematize his own opinion, had made a journey to the Imperial City; those who embraced Sentiments contrary to the Chalcedon Synod, (as I have said a­bove,) met together, Christophorson has rendred this place ill, after this manner: in sancto die festo Resurrectionis, Theodosium designant Episcopum, on the Holy Festival day of the Resurrection, they choose Theodosius Bishop. Musculus renders it righter, thus, ordinarunt in Ecclesiâ Sanctae Resur­rectionis, Theodosium illum, &c. in the Church of the Holy Resurrection, they ordained that Theodosius, &c. Concerning this Church of the Holy Resurrection I have made several remarks in my Notes on En­sebius's Life of Constantine. [See Valesius's Letter to a friend, De Anastasi & Martyrio Hierosolymitano, which Letter he has published at pag. 304. of his notes on Eusebius.] But, concerning this Theodosius, who invaded the See of Jerusalem, consult Baronius at the year of Christ 452. Vales. and in the [Church of the] Holy Resurrection ordained Theodosius Bishop, the same person who had raised great disturban­ces in the Synod at Chalcedon, and who had given them the first account of that Synod. Con­cerning which Theodosius, the Monks in Palestine, when they afterwads wrote to Instead of Aclison, it must without doubt be Alcison▪ a [...] the reading is in Nice­phorus. These Let­ters of the Monks of Palestine to Alcison, are recor­ded by E­vagrius, book 3. chap. 31. At which place we will say more con­cerning Alcison. Vales. Alcison, gave this account: viz. that having [...]. Sr Henry Sa­vil had made this remark at the side of his Copy, fortè [...], perhaps it should be [...], that is, by. So, 'tis certain, Christo. phorson and Musculus read; and so we have rendred it. I am very confident also, that Evagrius wrote it thus. But, Transcribers of books are wont frequent­ly to mistake in these two praepositions, as 'tis known to those persons who have read over Manuscript copies. Vales. by his own Bishop been detected of [the commission of] impious Facts, he had been expelled out of his own Monastery; that going afterwards to Alex­andria, [...], he had received Dioscorus. Sr Henry Savil had made a remark at the margin of his Copy, that perhaps the reading should be [ [...], he had laid hands upon,] which reading displeases me not. Nevertheless, I had rather write it thus, [...]. Which reading I have followed in my Ver­sion. Nor does Nicephorus (book 15. chap. 9.) seem to have read otherwise, who has exprest this passage in Evagrius thus, [...], and had been an enemy to Dio­scorus at Alexandria. But Musculus and Christophorson saw nothing in the rendition of this place. Vales. he had made an attempt upon Dio­scorus, and that, after he had been lacerated with many stripes as a Seditious person, he was set upon a Camell, in such manner as Malefactours [are u­sually served,] and carried all over the City. [...]. I have corrected this place by the Florentine Manuscript, in which Copy 'tis read thus: [...], To this person came [the Inhabitants of] many Cities in the Palestines. It had been so agreed between the Bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem in the Synod of Chalcedon, that the Three Pale­stines should be under the disposition of the Bishop of Jerusalem. Vales. To this person came [the Inhabitants of] many Cities in the Palestines, and procured Bishops to be or­dained over themselves by him. Amongst which number was one Petrus, by birth an Hiberian, who was entrusted with the government of the Bishop­rick of that Town called Majuma, which is hard by the City of the Gazites. When Marcianus had re­ceived information of these things, in the first place he commands Theodosius to be brought to Court to him. Then he sends Juvenalis, to rectifie what had been done; whom he ordered to turn out all those who had been ordained by The­odosius. After the arrival of Juvenalis therefore, many wicked and horrid Facts were perpetrated; as well the one Faction as the other proceeding to the commission of whatever their fury sug­gested to them. For the envious Devil, hated by God, had so mischievously contrived and mis­interpreted the Evagrius means the Praepositions [...] and [...], [that is, in and of,] which differ one from the other in one Letter. The Catholicks confest Christ in two Natures. The Hereticks asserted, that he consisted of two Natures, but, which had grown together and were become one Nature. For, after the Union of the Word, they affirmed, that the Nature of Christ was one. Vales. change of one Letter, that not­withstanding the I am of the same opinion with the Learned, who instead of [ [...],] have mended it thus, [...], the pronoun­cing; which is the same with the reading in Nicephorus. And so Christophorson read; who notwithstanding, in the rendition of this place, has in no wise exprest Evagrius's meaning. In the Telle­rian Manuscript, I found it written, [...], the pronouncing▪ Vales. pronouncing of the one of these [Letters] doth therewithall wholly in­fer the other, yet 'tis thought by most persons, that there is a vast difference between them, that the meanings of both are diametrically opposite each to the other, and that they do mu­tually destroy one another. For, he that con­fesses Christ IN TWO Natures, does plain­ly affirm him [to subsist] OF TWO Na­tures; because, whilest he confesses Christ both in the Deity and in the Humanity, he asserts him to consist [...]. The term [...], [confessing] is to be expunged, in regard 'tis superfluous. It occurs not in Nicephorus, and Sr Henry Savil, in his Copy, had drawn a line under it. Vales. of the Deity and of the Humanity. [Page 428] Again, he that affirms [Christ to subsist] of two Natures, the same person by a necessary con­sequence does confess [him] in two Natures; because, by his affirming Christ [to subsist] of the Deity and of the Humanity, he acknow­ledges him to consist in the Deity and in the Hu­manity: the flesh being neither converted into the Deity, nor the Deity Or, pas­sing into. changed into the flesh, of which [two Natures there is] an ineffable Union. So that, by this expression OF TWO, may at the same time commodiously be under­stood this also IN TWO, and by this ex­pression IN TWO [may also be meant] OF TWO, the one [expression] being Or, not relinquish't by the other. not different from the o­ther. For as much as, [...]; which may also be rendred, according to a peculiar mode of expression: but 'tis an uncouth phrase, not often to be met with, especial­ly in such a sense as 'tis here used. ac­cording to a copious use of speaking, the Whole is known not only [to con­sist] of, but in its parts. Yet nevertheless, men think these [expressions] to be in such a manner separated and disjoyned the one from the other, ([which Sentiments they are induced to give entertain­ment too] either from a certain usage Or, about their opi­nion of God. about their thinking concerning God, or else from their being prepossessed [with a perswasion of mind] to have it so;) that they contemn [the un­dergoing of] all sorts of death, rather than they will give their assent to the truth. And from hence arose those [mischiefs] which I have mentioned. In this posture were these matters.

CHAP. VI. Concerning the Drought which hapned, and the Famine and the Pestilence: and how in some places the Earth in a wonder­full manner brought forth fruits of its own accord.

ABout the same times, there hapned Or, a scarcity of showers of rain. a great Drought in both the Phrygia's, in both the Galatia's, in Cappadocia, and in Cilicia; in so much that a scarcity of necessaries [followed,] and men made use of unwholesome and de­structive food. Whence hapned a Pestilence also. For, because of their change of dyet, they fell sick, and their bodies swelling by reason of the excessive inflammation, they lost their eyes: they were troubled with a Cough at the same time also, and [usually] dyed on the third day. For the Pestilence, no cure could then be found out. But divine providence, the preserver of all things, bestowed on them that were left alive, a remedy against the Famine. For in that bar­ren year, food was showered down out of the air, which they termed Manna, in the same man­ner as ['twas heretofore showered down] on the Israelites. But, on the year following, the good-natured [Earth] brought forth ripe fruits on its own accord. Moreover, [this ca­lamity] destroyed the Country of the Palesti­nians, and innumerable other Provinces; [these The Fa­mine and the Pesti­lence. two] mischiefs spreading themselves over the whole earth.

CHAP. VII. Concerning the Murder of Valentinianus, and the taking of Rome; and concerning those other Emperours who governed Rome [after Valen­tinianus's death.]

WHilest these things Or, pro­ceeded on. were transacted in the Eastern parts, Aëtius Or, in a miserable manner re­moves from amongst men. is in a mi­serable manner murdered at the Elder Rome. Valentinianus also Emperour of the Western parts, and together with him Heraclius, [is slain] by some of Aëtius's Guards; the Plot against them being framed by Maximus (who afterwards possest himself of the Empire,) be­cause Valentinianus had abused Maximus's wife, having by force debauch't her. Further, this Maximus, by making use of all manner of violence, compelled Eudoxia (who had been Valentinianus's wife,) to be married to him­self. She, deservedly accounting this fact to be contumelious, and the highest indignity, took a resolution to cast every Dye (as the saying is,) [to the end she might be revenged] both for what had been done in relation to [the assassination of] her husband, and also for the reproach which had been brought upon her own Liberty. For, a woman is fierce, and of an anger Or, in­exorable. implacable, if (when she uses her utmost endeavour to preserve it inviolate,) her chastity be forcibly taken from her, and espe­cially by him who hath been her husband's Assassine. She sends therefore into Or, Li­bya. Africa, to Gizerichus, and having forthwith presented him with many Gifts, and by her Declaration put him into a good hope of what was behind, she prevails with him to make a sudden and un­expected Invasion upon the Roman Empire, pro­mising she would betray all to him. Which ha­ving in this manner been performed, Rome is taken. But Gizerichus, in regard he was a Bar­barian and of a disposition inconstant and mu­table, kept not Or, his saith. his promise even with her: but having burnt the City, and made plunder of all [its riches,] he took Eudoxia together with her two daughters, marched back, went away, and returned into Africa. The elder of Eu­doxia's daughters, by name Eudocia, he mar­ried to his own son Or, On [...] ­richus. Hunericus. But the youn­ger, (her name was Placidia,) together with her mother Eudoxia, he sent some time after to Constan­tinople. Byzantium, attended with an Imperial Train and a Guard, to the end he might pacifie Mar­cianus. For he had highly incensed him, both because Rome had been burnt, and also in regard the Imperial Princesses had been so contume­liously used. Moreover, Placidia is match't by Marcianus's order, Olybrius having married her; who was look't upon to be the eminent­est personage amongst the [Roman] Senatours, and after the taking of Rome had betaken him­self to Constantinople. Further, after Maximus, After Va­lentinianus Placidus's death, and after the murder of Maximus, Avitus was pro­claimed Emperour, first at Tolouse, and then at Orlcance, in Valen­tinianus's eighth Consulate [which he bore] with Anthemius, in the year of Christ 455, on the sixth of the Ides of July; as 'tis re­corded in the Old Chronicon, which Cuspinianus first published in his Fasti. On the year following, the same Avitus was Consul, as 'tis related in the Fasti which Jacobus Sirmondus has publish't under the name of Idatius: and on the same year he was deposed at Placentia, as Marius and Cassiodorus inform us in their Fasti, as likewise that Old Chronographer put forth by Cuspinianus. But, on what day, and in what month Avitus resigned the Empire, I do not find declared by the Ancients. Indeed, Sigonius (in his fourteenth book de Occi­dentali Imperio,) writes, that Avitus resigned the Empire on the sixteenth of the Calends of June. But Sigonius quotes no Author of this thing. The words of Cuspinianus's Old Chronographer are these: Joanne & Varane Coss. captus est Imp. Avitus, &c. In the Consulate of Joannes and Varanes, the Emperour Avitus is taken at Placentia by Ricimeres master of the Milice. And his Patritius Messianus is slain, on the sixteenth of the Calends of June. From this place therefore Sigonius, induced thereto by conjectures, thought that Avitus had put off his purple, and that Messianus had been slain, on one and the same day; although the Old Chronographer affirms not that. For, that sixteenth of the Calends of June is referred to the murder of Messianus, not to Avitus's deposition. 'Tis certain, if what Evagrius relates here be true, (viz. that Avitus reigned eight months,) his deposition must necessarily fall on the month of March in the year 456. Idatius, in his Chronicon, seems to attribute three years Reign to Avitus. For, his words are these: Avitus tertio anno posteaquam à Gallis & à Got­this factus suerat Imperator, caret Imperio, Gotthorum promisso destitu­tus auxilio, caret & vitâ, Avitus on the third year after he had been made Emperour by the Galli and the Gotthi, wants his Empire, being disappointed of the promised assistance of the Gotthi, is deprived of his life also. But, in the Manuscript Copy, which Jacobus Sirmondus made use of, this place is read thus: Tertio anno, Avitus septimo mense posteaquam à Gallis & à Gotthis factus fuerat Imperator, &c. On the third year, Avitus on the seventh month after he had been made Emperour by the Galli and Gotthi, &c. Jacobus Sirmondus, perceiving that these two were inconsistent, omitted these two words [septimo mense, on the seventh month] in his Edition; but he had done better, if he had expunged these two [tertio anno, on the third year.] For Avitus did not reign three years, but seven or eight months only, which months were part of two Consulates. For which reason 'tis affirmed by some Writers, that he reigned two years. Cedrenus, 'tis certain, writes thus in his Chronicon. Vales. Avitus reigned over the Romans eight months. [Page 429] He having ended his life by the Musculus and Chri­stophorson read [...], by the Pestilence. Which rea­ding is in my judgment truer than the other, to wit, [...], by Famine. For, 'tis not probable, that Avitus (who after he had resigned the Empire, was made Bishop of Placentia, as Victor Tunonensis, and Marius in his Chronicon, do relate;) should have dyed by Famine. Notwithstanding, Nicephorus has retained the Vulgar reading. Vales. In Robert Stephens the reading is [ [...], Famine.] Pestilence, Majorianus [or Majourinus] governed the Roman Empire four years and as many months, as the Old Chronographer publisht by Cus­pinianus informs us▪ to whom agree Idatius and Marcellinus in his Chronicon. Severus, who succeeded him, reigned almost the same space of years, as the same writers relate. But these things hapned after the death of the Emperour Marcianus, during Leo Augustus's government of the Eastern Empire. Vales. Majorianus held the Empire two years. Af­ter Majorianus had been traecherously slain by Ricimeres, Master of the Milice, Severus possest the Empire three years.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning the doath of Marcianus, and the Em­pire of Leo. And how, the Hereticks of Alex­andria slew Proterius, and gave that Arch-Bi­shoprick to Timotheus Aelurus.

MOreover, Evagrius is out. Marcianus Augustus dyed in the Consulate of Constantinus and Rusus, on the year of Christ 457, in the month Fe­bruary. Majorianus was proclaimed Emperour at Ravenna in the same year, on the Calends of Aprill, that is, almost two months after Mar­cianus's death. To whom succeeded Severus, on the year of Christ 461, in the Consulate of Severinus and Dagalaï [...]us, almost five years after the Emperour Marcianus's death. Further, this Severus was by ano­ther name termed Serpentius, as Theophanes informs us in his Chronicon, pag. 97, in these words, [...]. And Se­verus, called also Serpentius, was Proclaimed. For so it must be read, as the most Learned Franciscus Combesisius has rightly conjectured. 'Tis certain, in the Alexandrian Chronicle he is so termed. For, on the fifteenth Indiction, Leo Augustus is put Consul the second time with Serpentinus. Now, 'tis manifestly known, that on this year Severus Augustus was Consul with Leo. For so Cassiodorus relates in his Fasti, and also the Old Authour publish't by Cuspini­anus. Vales. during Severus's Governing the Romans, Marcianus changed his King­dom, and departed to a better Inheritance, when he had Governed the Empire Marcianus reigned six years and as many months, as Marcellinus relates, and Victor Tunonensis in his Chronicon. He began his Reign in the year of Christ 450, on the eighth of the Calends of September, on the fifth Feria, as 'tis recorded in the Alexandrian Chronicle. And he dyed on the year of Christ 457. about the close of the month January, as Theodorus Lector informs us, with whom agrees the Au­thor of the Alexandrian Chronicle. For this Authour says, that Leo, who succeeded Marcianus, was proclaimed in the month Peritius, on the seventh of the Ides of February. So Marcianus reigned six years five months and some few days. Vales. seven years only, having left amongst all men a Nicepho­rus has in­terlined this place after this manner: [...], and having left his Em­pire a mo­nument to all men. Christo­phorson followed the same sense, as 'tis appa­rent from his rendi­tion. For he tran­slates it thus: Ex­emplari ve­rè Regio omnibus ad intuendum relicto, A truly Royall Exemplar being left [by him] to the view of all persons. Musculus has rendred it in this manner; Et memoriam sui verè Imperialem apud cunctos mortales reliquisset, And had left a truly Imperial memory of his own self amongst all mortalls. But Evagrius does not say this, but that a monument manifestly Royall was left by Marcianus amongst all men. Now, that monument can be nothing else, than either his own life religiously spent, or rather the Chalcedon Synod, which he had ordered to be convened, to take away the dissentions of the Church, and whereat he himself, agreeable to the Example of Constantine the Great, would be present. In regard there­fore, that Synod had been convened and perfected by his labour and diligence, it may deservedly be stiled the Work and Monument of the Emperour Marcianus. Vales. truely royall Monument. The Alexandrians, informed of his death, with much more animosity and a greater heat of mind, renewed their rage against Prote­rius. For, the multitude is a thing with the greatest ease imaginable blown up into a rage, and which snatches hold of the most triviall oc­casions as fuell for Tumults. But above all others, the [populace] of Alexandria [are of this humour, which City] abounds with a nume­rous multitude made up mostly of an obscure and [...]. In the Florentine M. S. the reading is, [...]. Notwithstanding, the Rules of Grammar require that we should write [...], as Sr Henry Savil had remarked at the margin of his Copy. Suidas in his Lexicon explains [...] by these terms, [...], promiscuous, extraneous per­sons, such as are brought in unawares.—Nicophorus has explained this word elegantly thus▪ [...], a numerous multitude, and which comes from any place whatever. Vales. promiscuous company of Foreigners, which by an unexpected and unaccountable boldness and precipitancy, [...]. Something seems to be wanting here, which may perhaps be supplyed, by adding a Praeposition, thus, [...], breaks out into violence and rage. Vales. breaks out into violence and rage. 'Tis therefore for certain reported, that any one there who [makes complaint] In the incomparable Florentine and Tellerian M. SS. this place is written thus: [...]. Nicephorus has explained this place excellently well, in this manner: [...], And they say, that every one who will make use of an obvious [light, or triviall] occasion, may quickly enrage the people [and incite them] to a Sedition. Christophorson read [...]. For he renders it thus: Aiunt plebtium quemque modò ipse voluerit principium dare, &c. They say that every ordinary fellow, provided he be willing to give the Onset, may inflame that City [and excite it] to a popular and civil Sedition. But I approve not of this emendation. For, what shall become of these words, [...]? I embrace therefore the reading in the Florent. aud Tellerian M. SS. viz. [...]; and render the whole passage thus: 'Tis there­fore for certain reported, that any one there who [makes complaint] of the breaking any thing of small value [to wit, a glass vessel, pot, or any such like thing, which he carries,] may incite the City to a po­pular Tumult. Pollio (in Emilianus) confirms the same, where he speaks thus concerning the Egyptians in general: Et hoc familiare est populo Aegyptiorum, &c. And this is usual with the Egyptians, that, like furious and madmen, upon any triviall occasions they may be induced [to involve] the Publick in the greatest dangers. On account of their being past by unsaluted, by reason of their not having a place allowed them in the Baths, because their flesh and pot-herbs may have been taken from them, on account of their servile shooes, and other such like occasions as these, they have by Sedition often arrived at the highest peril of the Republick. Vales. of the break­ing any thing of small value [which he carries,] may incite the City to a popular Tumult, and may lead and carry [the multitude] whither, and against whom he pleases. For the most part also they are delighted with jests and sports, as The passage in Herodotus, which Evagrius points at here, occurs in B. 2. of his History, pag. 157, Edit. Paul. Stephens, 1618. Vales. Herodotus relates concerning Amasis. And this is the humour of the Alexandrians. Never­theless, as to other things, they are not such a fort of persons, as that any one may despise them. [Page 430] The Alexandrians therefore observing the time, when Dionysius Commander of the Milice made his Residence in the Upper Egypt, make choice of one Timotheus, surnamed Aelurus, to ascend the Archi-Episcopal-Chair; a person who here­tofore had followed a Monastick Life, but after­wards was enrolled amongst the number of the Presbyters of the Alexandrian Church. When they had led this person to the Great Church, called The Great Church of the City Alexandria, was termed Cae­saria, as Epiphanius informs us, in Hares. Arian, and Liberatus, in his Breviarium, cap. 18. But So­crates (Book 7. chap. 15.) says the name of that Church was Cae­sarium. Athanasius declares the reason of this Appellation (in his Epist. ad Solitar.) to wit, be­cause that Church had been built in a place which heretofore was called the Caesarium, that is, the Temple of the Caesars. There had been a School in the same place also, and a pallace of the Emperour Adrian's, which in suc­ceeding times was termed Lici­nius's Pallace, as Epiphanius at­tests. Vales. Caesar's, they ordain him their Bishop, whilest Proterius was as yet living, and personally officiating in his Episcopal Function. Eu­sebius Bishop of Pelusium, and Peter of Iberia [Bi­shop] of the little Town Majuma, were present at the Ordination; as he who wrote Peter's Life, has told us, in his account of these transactions. Which writer affirms that Proterius was not murdered by the people, but by one of the Souldiers. Further, after Dionysius had made his return to the City [Alexandria] with the greatest celerity ima­ginable, (to which he had been urged by the nefarious facts there perpetrated,) and was using his endeavours to extinguish the kindled fire of the Sedition; some of the Alexandrians, in­cited thereto by Timotheus, (as the Contents of the Letter written to Leo [the Emperour] do declare,) murder Proterius by running their swords through his bowells, when he attempted to get away, and had fled as far as the most Holy Baptistery. And after they had tied a rope about him, [they hung him up] at that place termed The Tetrapylum, and shewed him to all persons, jeering and crying out aloud, that that was Proterius who had been killed. After this, they drag'd the body all over the City, and then burnt it. Nor did they abhor tasting of his very bowells, according to the usage of Savage-beasts; as the Supplicatory Libell (wherein all these pas­sages are contained,) sent by all the Bishops of Egypt, and by the whole Clergy of Alexandria, to Leo, who after Marcianus's death, as hath been said, was invested with the Empire of the Romans, [doth evidence;] the Contents where­of are conceived in these express words.

To the Pious, Christ-Lover, and by-God-de­signed Leo, Victor, Triumphator, and Au­gustus; The humble Address presented by all the Bishops of Your Aegyptick Dioecesis, and by the Ecclesiasticks in Your Greatest and Most Holy Church of the Alexan­drians.

Whereas by Celestiall Grace You have been be­stowed as a most Eximious Gift upon the World, 'tis no wonder if You cease not (Most Sacred Em­perour!) daily, after God, from making Provision for the Publick. And after some other words. And whilest there was an uninterrupted peace a­mongst the Orthodox Laïty, both with us, and also at the City Alexandria, [disturbances were raised] again by Timotheus, who made a sepa­ration of himself from the Catholick Church and Faith, and cut himself off [therefrom,] soon after the holy Synod at Chalcedon, (at which time he was but a Presbyter,) together with four or five persons only, heretofore Bishops, and some few Monks, who together with him, were distem­pered with the Hereticall errour of Apollinaris and [...] they mean Eutyches; and so Va­lesius ren­ders it. that person. On which account ha­ving then been canonically deposed by Proterius of divine memory, and by a Synod of [the Bi­shops of] all Egypt, they deservedly experienced the Imperial displeasure [...], with exile. by Exile. And after some words interposed. And Or, ha­ving obser­ved the time. having taken his advantage of that opportunity, when the Emperour Marcianus of Sacred Or, rest. Memory made his departure hence to God; with impious Ex­pressions (as if he had been subject to no Laws,) he in a most shameless manner raged against [and reproach't] the said Emperour: and im­pudently Anathematizing the Holy and Oecume­nicall Synod at Chalcedon, he draws after him a multitude of Or, fel­lows that may be bought. Mercenary and disorderly fellows, with whom he has made war, contrary to the Divine Canons, and to the Ecclesiastick Constitution, [in op­position] to the Republick, and to the Laws; and [...]; the true import of which words is (if our English tongue would bear such an ex­pression,) has swell'd himself in­to. has violently thrust himself into the Holy Church of God, which at that time had its Pastour and Teacher, Our most Holy Father and Arch-Bishop Proterius, who then Celebrated the usuall Religious and solemn Assemblies, and poured forth his prayers to Christ the Saviour of us all, for Your Religious Empire, and for Your Christ-loving Palace. And, after the interposition of a few words. Then, after the space of one day, when (as 'twas customary) the most pious Proterius continued in the Bishops Pallace, Timotheus taking with him two Bishops who had been legally deposed, and [some] Ec­clesiasticks, who, as we have said, had in like manner been condemned to dwell in Exile; ( I have mended this place from the Florentine M. S. in which Copy (instead of [...], and moreover, receiving ordination from two;) the reading is, [...], &c. as if he could have received ordination from two [Bishops.] In the fourth Canon of the Nicene Councill, 'tis in express words established, that a Bishop is to be ordained by at least three Bishops of his own Province. The old Translatour of this Letter read as we do: whose version is extant in The third part of the Chalcedon Synod. Where his Rendition is this, tan­quam manus impositionem susceptu­rus a duobus, as if about to re­ceive imposition of hands▪ from two. Vales. as if he could have re­ceived Ordination from two [Bishops;] not so much as one of the Orthodox Bi­shops throughout the Egy­ptick-Dioecesis being there, who are always wont to be present at such Ordinations of the Bishop of the Alexan­drians:) takes possession, as he supposed, of the Archi­episcopal Chair; audaci­ously attempting manifestly to commit adultery upon that Church, which had its own Bridegroome, who performed the divine [offices] therein, and canonically administred his own See. And after some other words. That Bles­sed person [Proterius] could do nothing else, than (as 'tis written,) Rom. 12. 19. Give place unto wrath, and make his escape to the adorable Baptistery, that he might avoid their incursion, who ran in upon him to murder him: in which Viz. the Baptistery. place most especially, a dread and terrour is usually infused into the minds even of Barbarians, and all other Savage and cruell persons, who are ignorant of the adorableness of that place, and of the Grace flowing therefrom. Nevertheless, these [Ruf­fians,] who used their utmost endeavour to bring that designe to effect, which from the beginning [they had laid with] Timotheus; [these But­chers] who would not suffer Proterius to be pre­served even within those immaculate Where­with the Baptistery was en­compassed. Rails; who revered neither the Or, re­verence. sanctity of the place, nor the time it self; (for Liberatus (in his Bre­viarium, chap. 15.) relates, that Pro­terius was not mur­dered on the Festi­val of Ea­ster, but three days before. For these are his words: Et ante triduum Paschae, &c. And on the third day before Ea­ster, where­on the Lords Sup­per is cele­brated, Pro­terius of holy memo­ry is by the multitudes themselves shut up in the Church, whither out of fear he had be taken him­self. And there on the same day in the Baptistery, he is slain, torn in pieces, cast out, and his Corps is burnt, and his ashes are strewed into the winds. All which Liberatus has almost word for word written out of the Gesta de nomine Acacii, which we owe to Jacobus Sirmondus. Vales. it was the Festival-day of the Salutary Easter;) who dreaded not [the dignity of] the Sacerdotall Function, to [Page 431] which it appertains to mediate between God and men; kill that guiltless person, and together with him commit a barbarous murder upon six others. And, after they had carried about his Body which was wounds all over, and likewise barbarously drag'd it almost throughout every place of the City, and [further] in a most lamentable man­ner insulted over it; without any thing of com­passion they Scourged the Corps, insensible of its stripes, Instead of [ [...]] it must undoubtedly be written thus: [...], cutting it in pieces, or, limb from limb. Instead of [...], the reading in the Florent. M. S. is [...]; which is a very small difference. Nicephorus confirms our Emen­dation, at book 15. chap. 17; who has it expresly written as I had conjectured. Further, this Supplicatory-Libell of the Bishops of the Egyptick Dioecesis to the Emperour Leo, if any one has a mind to read it entire, occurs in Latine, in the third part of the Chalcedon Synod, chap. 11. Vales. cutting it limb from limb. Nor did they abstain, according to the usage of Savage beasts, from tasting of his Entrails, whom a little before they were supposed to have as an Intercessour between God and men. [In fine,] having cast the remains of his Body into a fire, they threw the ashes thereof into the winds; [by the com­mission of these Barbarities] far exceeding the utmost Savageness of wild-beasts: the Occasioner and crafty Contriver of all which Nefarious facts, was Timotheus.

Moreover, Zacharias giving a Narrative of these matters [in his History,] is of opinion, that most of these things were done [in such a manner as I have related them;] but says they were occasioned by Proterius's fault, who had raised most grievous Seditions at Alexandria: [he affirms likewise,] that these Facts were au­daciously perpetrated (not by the people, but) by some of the Souldiers; which affirmation he grounds on the Letter written by Timotheus to [the Emperour] Leo. Further, in order to the punishing these enormities, Stilas is sent by the Emperour Leo.

CHAP. IX. Concerning the Emperour Leo's Circular Letters.

ALso, Leo wrote Circular Letters to the Bi­shops throughout the whole Roman Em­pire, and to those persons eminent for their lea­ding a Monastick life; asking their opinion, both concerning the Synod at Chalcedon, and also a­bout Timotheus surnamed Aelurus's Ordination: he sent to them likewise Copies of the Supplica­tory-Libells presented to him, as well by Pro­terius's Party, as by that of Timotheus Aelurus. The Contents of the Circular Letters [of Leo] are these.

A Copy of the most Pious Emperour Leo's Sacred Letter, sent to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and to the Metropoli­tanes, and other Bishops over the whole world.

Emperour Caesar, Leo, Pius, Victor, Tri­umphator, Maximus, always Augustus; to A­natolius the Bishop. It was the desire and Prayer of Our Piety, that the most Holy Orthodox Churches, and also [all] the Cities Or, un­der the Go­vernment of the Ro­mans. of the Roman Empire, should enjoy the greatest Peace imaginable, nor that any thing should happen, which might disturb their Constitution and Tran­quillity. But, what [disturbances] have late­ly hapned at Alexandria, are (we are fully per­swaded,) already made known to Your Sanctity. Nevertheless, that you may have a more perfect account concerning all things, what the Causes were of so great a Tumult and Confusion; We have transmitted to Your Piety the Copies of the Sup­plicatory-Libells, which the most Pious Bishops and Ecclesiasticks, coming from the foresaid City [Alexandria] and from the Aegyptick Dioecesis, to the Imperial City Constantinople, have brought to Our Piety against Timotheus: and moreover, the Copies of the Supplicatory-Libells, which [some persons,] coming from Alexandria to Our Divine Court on Timotheus's account, have presented to Our Serenity: so that, Your Sanctity may ap­parently know what hath been done by the fore­said Timotheus, whom the populacy of Alexandria, the [...] Who th [...]se [...], and who were termed [...], I have already shown in­my Notes on Amm. Marcelli­nus, pag. 14. and pag. 22 [...]. [the [...], whom we render the Honorati, were those persons who bore the Civill dig­nities us well in the Cities, as in the Pro­vinces; the [...] were the Decuriones.] Gregorius Nazianzenus joyns them both together, in his 49th Epistle to Olympius, where his words are these: [...]. That is, all the Citizens, the Decuriones, and the Honorati. The same Gre­gorius, in his 22d Epistle to the Casarienses, joyns the same persons both together, in these words; [...]; that is, all those who are of the Order of the Honorati, and of the Decuriones. The old Translatour therefore of this Letter, renders this passage truly, thus, Honorati & Curiales & Naucleri, the Honorati, the Curiales, and the Naucleri. The Naucleri were the Masters of the Vessells in the River Nyle, who conveyed the Corn and publick Pro­visions from Egypt to Constantinople. Aurelianus seems to have in­stituted their Body, as he himself shews in his Epistle to Arabianus, which is cited by Vopiscus. These Naucleri, or Navicularii were a so­ciety of Sea-faring men, ordained for Transportation of Corn and pub­lick Provisions in severall quarters of the Empire; (for there was a Body of them in the East, another in Africk, and a third at Alexandria;) they were a set number, and transported the said provisions at their own expence, succeeding by turns in the charge and burthen; to which their sons and heirs were lyable, as were also those who possest their estates after them, according to that proportion which they pos­sessed. To this Function they were always obnoxious, so that scarcely could they be excused by any great honour obtained. They were forced to build Ships and Vessells of certain burthens; but the ma­terialls for them were supplied by the Country. Their charge was great, and so were their priviledges, as may be seen by Various laws extant concerning them in the Theodofian Code. Vales. Honorati, the Decuriones, and the Navi­cularii, desire to have for their Bishop; [and that you may have an account] concerning other matters I am of the same opinion with Sr Henry Savill, who at the margin of his Copy had remarkt, that in his judgment the reading should be [...], contained: so Christophorson read; and 'tis so in Nice­phorus, book 15. chap. 18. Vales. In Robert Stephens the rea­ding is [...], given, or, exhibited. contained in The Text of the Suppli­catory-Libells; and moreover, concerning the Chalcedon Synod, to which [the forementioned persons] do in no wise agree, as their Suppli­catory-Libells, here underplaced, do demonstrate. Let therefore Your Piety cause all the Orthodox and Holy Bishops, who at present are resident in this Imperial City, as likewise the most Pious Ec­clesiasticks, forthwith to come together unto You. And having with great care [...]; a speciall Greek term. treated of, and enquired into all things; (for as much as the City Alexandria hath already been disturbed, the State and repose whereof is our greatest care;) acquaint us with Your Sentiment concerning the foresaid Timotheus, and concerning the Chalce­don Synod, without any humane fear, and with­out affection or hatred, placing before your eyes the only fear of the Omnipotent God, in regard you well know, that you shall give an account con­cerning this affair to the incorrupt Deity. That so, We having been perfectly informed of all things by Your Letters, may be enabled to Or, give a fit form. promulge an accommodate Edict.

[Page 432]This was the Letter sent to Anatolius. [The Emperour] wrote Letters like this, to other Bishops also, and to those eminent persons, who (as I have said, at that time Or, lead an unfurni­sh's and im­materiall life: he means the Monks. lead a life void of the furniture [of living] and remote from matter. Of which number was Symeones, the first Inventer of the Station Or, upon. in a pillar, whom we have mentioned in the First [Book of our] History: amongst whom also were Baradatus and Nicepho­rus Callistus terms this Jacobus, Nisibenus, and adds, that mention is made, as well of him, as of Varadatus [or, Baradatus,] by Theodoret in his Historia Religiosa. Notwithstanding, Theodoret, in chap. 21. of his Historia Religiosa does not say, that Jacobus was a Nisibene; which thing Theodoret would not in any wise have omitted, if Jacobus had indeed been a Nisibene. For, whereas he notes, that this Lat­ter Jacobus was like the former Jacobus Nisibenus, not only in name, but in manners, and dignity, (for both of them were Priests;) if he had been a Nisibene also, Theodoret would in no wise have omitted that at that place. Neither, does Theodorus▪ Lector (Collectan▪ book 1.) make this Latter Jacobus, who answered Leo Augustus's Circular Letters, a Nisibene; nor y [...] Theophanes in his Chronicon, pag. 96. There is also extant an Epistle of Theodoret's, written to this Jacobus, in which he terms him a Presbyter and a Monk. Instead of Baradatus, Theophanes stiles him Bardas, corruptly as I think. In the Third part of the Chalcedon Synod, pag. 375. amongst the Monks, to whom the Emperour Leo wrote Letters, the first named is the Monk Jacobus Nisibenus, then Symeones and Baradatus. Ephremius Bishop of Antioch makes mention of them also, in his Epistle ad Monachos [...], that is, Severianos; and in his third Oration, which he wrote to the Monks Domnus and Johannes, as it occurs in Photius. Vales. Jacobus the Syrians.

CHAP. X. Concerning those things which the Bishops and Symeones the Stylite wrote in answer [to the Emperour Leo's Circular Letters.]

IN the first place therefore, Leo Bishop of the Elder Rome wrote in defence of the Chalce­don Synod, and disallowed of Timotheus's Ordi­nation, I am of the same mind with Christo­phorson and Sr Henry Savil; who instead of [ [...], and having been illegally] have mended it thus [ [...], as having been illegally performed.] 'Tis certain, in these books of Evagrius, [...] was most frequently put instead of [...] which we, following the authority of the M. S. Copies, have mended. But at this place, in regard the Manuscript Copies differed not from the printed ones, we scrupled the altering of any thing. Vales. as having been illegally performed. Which Letter of Leo's, the Emperour Leo sent to Timotheus Prelate of the Alexandrian Church, by The name of this Silentiarius was wanting in the ordinary Edi­tions, and in Nicephorus. We have put it in, from the incomparable [...]orentine Manuscript; wherein 'tis plainly and expressly written thus; [...], by Diomedes the Silentiarius. Con­cerning the Silentiarii I have heretofore observed something in my Notes on Amm. Marcellinus. Vales. Diomedes the Nicolaus Alemannus (in his Historicall Notes on Procopius's Hi­storia Arcana, pag. 103, Edit. Lugd. 1623,) tells us, that the Silen­tiarii, whom Procopius▪ (as he remarks,) sometimes terms Dome­stici and Protectores, were Officers of the greatest honour about the Em­perour, in regard they were of the Emperour's inmost Chamber; on which account they were also termed Cubicularii. He says further, that the out­ward Chamber (out of which there was an immediate passage into the very Chamber of the Emperour, by reason of the silence there kept in Reverence to the Emperour,) was termed Silentium, the Silence; which the Greeks by a corrupt name called [...]: whence these Cu­bicularii had the name of Silentiarii. Meursius (in the word [...]) makes two Orders of these Officers: the first was a meaner sort of Office, their business was to command the people to be silent and quies. The other Order of the Silentiarii was far more honourable; they were, says Meursius, over the Secrets of the Emperour, and are reckoned amongst the Clarissimi. See Dr Howell's account of these Officers, Part II▪ of his Hist. chap. 1. pag. 51. Silentiarius, who was im­ployed in carrying the Imperiall Mandates. To whom Timotheus returned answer, where­in he blamed the Chalcedon Synod, and [found fault with] Leo's Letter. The Copies of these Epistles are extant [...]. Christo­phorson un­derstood this place very ill, as it appears from his Version: for he ren­ders it thus: ista­rum Epi­stotarum Exempla­ria extant in litteris Leonis Im­peratoris generatim ad omnes scriptis, &c. The Copies of these Epistles are extant in the Empe­perour Leo's Letters, which he wrote in general to all persons, &c. But Liberatus Diaconus, in his Breviarium, chap. 15. does incomparably well de­clare, what these Encyclica [that is, Circular Letters] were, in these words. Imperator scripsit singularum civitatum Episcopis de utroque negotio, &c. The Emperour wrote to the Bishops of every City, con­cerning each affair, consulting what ought to be done, &c. Who return answer, that the Chalcedon Synod is to be vindicated even unto bloud: but, that Timotheus was not only not to be reckoned amongst the Bishops, but to be deprived even of the Christian Appellation. And these Epistles or Relations of all the Bishops, in one body of a book, are termed Ency­clicae▪ Further, these Encyclicae, translated almost all into Latine, are extant in the third part of the Chalcedon Synod, pag. 372, &c. of the Cologne Edition; an eximious piece of Ecclesiastick Antiquity, which I heartily wish were extant in Greek. There is mention made of these Encyclicae in Victor Tunonenfis's Chronicon. Vales. in that Collection of Letters termed the Encyclicae. But I have de­signedly omitted the inserting them, because I Or, I would not bring a greatness upon this present work. would not have this present Work swell to a Greatness of bulk. The Bishops of other Cities likewise stedfastly adhered to the Sanctions [of the Synod] at Chalcedon, and Or, with all suf­frages. unani­mously condemned Timotheus's Ordi­nation. Excepting only There is mention of this Amphilochius Bishop of Side, in Pho­tius's Bibliotheca, chap. 52. Where the Letters of Atticu [...] and Sisin­nius Bishops of Constantinople, written to him, are recorded. The same Amphilochius was present at the Ephesine and Chalcedon Synods, as 'tis apparent from the Synodick Acts. Further, Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria, book 9, does attest, that this Amphilochius Bishop of Side, although at the beginning he had affirmed in his Letters to the Emperour Leo, that he could in no wise give his assent to the Chal­cedon Synod, yet some little time after consented and subscri­bed to that same Synod. Eulogius's words are related by Pho­tius in his Bibliotheca, pag. 879; Edit. David. Hoeschel. 1611. Vales. Amphilochius [Bishop] of Side; who wrote a Let­ter to the Emperour, wherein he cryed out indeed against Timotheus's Or­dination; but admitted not of the Synod at Chal­cedon. Zacharias the Rhetorician has written concerning these very affairs, and has inserted this very Letter of Amphilochius's into his Hi­story. Moreover, Symeones of Holy Memory, wrote two Letters concerning these matters, one to the Emperour Leo, another to Basilius Bishop of Antioch. Of which two Letters, I will insert into this my History that which he wrote to Basi­lius, in regard 'tis very short; the Contents whereof are these.

To my most Pious and most Holy Lord, the Religious Basilius Arch-Bishop; the Sinner and mean Symeones [wisheth] health in the Lord.

It is now, My Lord, opportune to say, Blessed be God, who hath not turned away our Prayer, nor [removed] his mercy from us sinners. For, on receipt of the Letters of Your Dignity, I ad­mired the Zeal and Piety of our Emperour most dear to God, which he hath shown, and [now] does demonstrate towards the Holy Fathers, and their most firm Faith. Nor is this Gift from us, according as the Holy Apostle saith; but from God, who through our Prayers hath given The Em­perour. Him this propensity and singular earnest­ness of mind. And, after some few words. Wherefore, I my self, a mean person and of slen­der account, [...]; See 1 Cor. 15. 8. the untimely birth of the Monks, have made known my Sentiment to his Impe­rial Majesty concerning the Faith of the six hundred and thirty Holy Fathers convened at Chalcedon; who do persist in, and am grounded [Page 433] upon that Faith which has been revealed by the Holy Spirit. For, if our Saviour is present a­mongst two or three who are gathered together in his Name, Or, how could he [our Sa­viour] have [...]ad a place a­mongst so many, so great, and such Holy Fathers, unless the Holy Spirit had been with them from the beginning? how could it possibly be amongst so many, so great, and such Holy Fathers, that the Holy Spirit should not have been with them from the beginning? And, after the interposition of some words. Wherefore be strong, and behave your self valiantly in the defence of true plety; in such manner as Jesus the Son of Nave, the Servant of the Lord, [behaved himself] in de­fence of the Israelitish people. Give, I beseech you, my Salutes to all the Pious Clergy under Your Sanctity, and to the blessed and most faithfull Or, people. Laïty.

CHAP. XI. Concerning the Banishment of Timotheus Aelurus, and the Ordination of Timotheus Salophacio­lus; and concerning Gennadius and Acacius [Bishops] of Constantinople.

AFter these things, Timotheus is condemned to be banished, he also [as well as See chap. 5. Dio­scorus] being ordered to dwell at Gangra. The Alexandrians therefore Or, elect Timotheus another Bi­shop succes­sour to Pro­terius. elect another Timo­theus to succeed Proterius in that Bishoprick: this [Timotheus] some persons termed [...]. So also Nicepho­rus writes it. But in Liberatus's Breviarium, chap. 16, this surname of Timotheus is writ­ten far otherwise. For Liberatus's words are these: Et exilio re­legatur Timotheus Aelurus Chersonam arctâ custodiâ, & fit pro Proterio Timotheus c [...]gnomento Salophaciolus sive Asbus, And Timotheus Aelurus is conveyed into banishment to Chersona under a close guard, and in Proterius's stead Timotheus, surnamed Salophaciolus, or Asbus, is made [Bishop.] But in Liberatus it must be written Albus; as Theophanes informs us in these words (See his Chronicon, pag. 96,) [...], But another Timothy surnamed Albus, called also Salophaciolus, was ordained. Cedr [...]nus relates the same. What must we say therefore? Shall we affirm that in Evagrius it must be written Albus, instead of Basilicus? Or, does Salophaciolus import something that is royall? Indeed, [...] in Greek signifies [...]ascia, which may be taken for a royall Diadem. But, nothing of certainty can be gotten out of this Surname, in regard 'tis variously written in ancient wri­ters. Vales. Ba­silicus, others [called him] Salophaciolus. A­natolius dying [in this interim,] Gennadius succeeds in the Chair of the Imperial [City Constantinople.] And after him Acacius, who had presided over The Orphans Hospital at the Imperial City.

CHAP. XII. Concerning the Earthquake which hapned at An­tioch, Three hundred fourty and seven years after that [which had hapned] in the times of Trajane.

[FUrther,] on the second year of Leo's Em­pire, there hapned a great and vehement motion and shaking of the earth at Antioch; some [Facts] perpetrated with the utmost rage and fury imaginable, and which far ex­ceeded the most superlative Ferity of Beasts, ha­ving before-hand been committed by the popu­lacy of that City; which [facts] were the prelude as 'twere to such mischiefs as these. Now, this most calamitous accident hapned on the five hundredth and sixth year [...] ▪ When P [...] ­vince▪ sub­mitted themselves to the R [...] ­m [...]n Em­pire, 'twas usual for the Empe­rour to cause [...] Edict to be drawn up, and pro­claimed [...] ­penly up­on the place. The Tenour whereof was, first to entitle the Emperour himself to all respects of do­minion and supremacy over that people, and then secondly to abo [...] from this by a popular insinuation of all possible sacredness and Liber­ty of the Provincialls. A particular instance hereof, as it relates to this very City Antioch▪ is produced by Mr Jo. Gregory of Oxford (see his works pag. 156, Edit. London, 1665,) from Johannes Antiochenus's M. S. Geograph. book 9 [...] in these words; [...]. And when the City Antioch had yielded it self up to the subjection of the Roman Empire, an Edict of the Liberties thereof was sent by Jullus Caesar, and publickly proclaimed at Antioch upon the twentieth of M [...]y [...] the Contents where of were these, AT ANTIOCH THE HOLY, SACRED AND FREE CITY, THE METROPOLITAN QUEEN, AND PRESIDENT OF THE EAST, CAIUS JULIUS CAESAR, &c. The Provinces usually returned the honour of these priviledges back upon the Emperour, by this way of acknowledgement. That they might keep the Em­perour's Grace in perpetuall memory, they reckoned all their publick affairs ever after from that time; [...] (continues the same Johannes Antiochenus) [...], &c. Therefore An­tioch the Great, in honour of the Emperour, fixed its Aera in Caius Julius Caesar, and made this year of Grace the first. On which account, this Aera of theirs, which precedes that of our Lords Nativity fourty eight years, was peculiarly called [...], be­cause at the fixing hereof, the Emperour did [...], publickly name himself to all the title of dominion; and also [...], publickly entitle them to all priviledges a [...]d im­munities. of Antioch's being entitled to all the priviledges and immuni­ties of a free City, about the fourth hour of the night that Or, l [...]d [...]o▪ preceded the fourteenth day of the month Gorpiaeus, (which month the Romans term September,) the Lords day approaching, [...], &c. Musculus has rendred this place very ill. But Christophorson, in regard he could not understand the meaning of these words, omit­ted them in his version. Indeed, this place tortured me a long while and very much. Notwithstanding, at length I found the meaning of it to be this. ▪After Evagrius has set forth the time wherein the Earthquake hapned at Antioch, in the Reign of Leo Augustus, by certain Notes, to wit, of the year, month, week, day, and Indiction: in the last place he adds these words, [...]. That is, that that Earth­quake had hapned without any turning of the Cycles, three hundred fourty seven years compleat after that Earthquake which had hapned in Trajan's times. For this note of time hath no Cycle. But the former notes of time assigned by Evagrius, are [notes] of the Cycles or Periods. For, an Indiction is a Cycle of fifteen years, and a week, a month, and a year, are Circles and Periods always recurring. This therefore is my Sentiment concerning the explication of this place: Nevertheless, if any one shall produce a more certain account of this passage, I will not refuse to alter my opinion. See Evagriu [...], book 3. chap. 33; and note (b) there. This place may also be taken otherwise, by changing only the accent, in this manner, [...]. That so the sense may be this. This is said to be the sixth Earthquake which shaked Antioch. No [...], do I now doubt▪ but this is the true interpretation of this plate. In the Tellerian Manu­script, I found it plainly written [ [...], the sixth] with an asperate, and the accent in the first syllable. Vales. The reading in Robert Stephens is the same with that set at the beginning of this note. In the Greek Text of Valesius's Edition, this place is pointed and accen­ted thus: [...], &c. which reading and punctation we have followed in our version. on the eleventh Or, in­dicti [...]. partition of the Cycle; this is related to have been the sixth [Earthquake which shaked Anioch,] three hundred I have restored this place from the incomparable Florentine M. S. wherein 'tis plainly written thus: [...]; that is, fourty and seaven. The reading in Nicephorus, at book 15. chap. 20. is altogether the same, Vales. And so 'tis in Robert Stephen's Edition also; notwith­standing Valesius's saying that he restored this place. fourty and seven years having passed, from the time that that [Earthquake] had hapned [which came to pass] in Tra­jan's Empire. For that [Earthquake in Tra­jan's time] hapned on the hundredth Baronius in his Eccelesiastick Annals, at the year of Christ 111, says that Evagrius is mistaken, in affirming, that that Earthquake which came to pass at Antioch in Trajan's Reign, hapned on the year (according to the Antiochians account) 159. For, that Earthquake hapned in the Consulate of Messala and Pedo, as 'tis manifest from Dion, who asserts that the Consul Pedo perished in that Earth­quake. Further, the Consulate of Messala and P [...]do fell on the year of Christ 115, as 'tis agreed amongst all Chronolo­gers. It was then, according to the Antiochians account, the hundredth sixty third year, not the hundredth fifty ninth year, as Eva­grius says. For, the years of the Antiochians precede Christ's Nativity fourty eight years. Moreover, concerning these years of the Antiochians, amongst the Ancients the Authour of the Alex­andrian Chronicle has spoken best of all, in the affairs of Julius Cae­sar [...] but, amongst the Moderns, Dionysius Petavius [gives us the best account hereof] in his books de Doctrina Temporum, and in the second part of his Rationarium, chap. 14. To which Authour nevertheless I can't give my assent in this which he affirms, viz. that the beginning of these years is deduced from the month Octo­ber, which was the popular [or, ordinary] beginning of the year amongst the Antiochians. In my Annotations on Eusebius [See Euseb. book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 1. note (e.)] I have, in my judgment, sufficiently demonstrated, that the Antiochians began their year from the month Dius, or Novem­ber. Nor, is that true which Petavius writes at the same place, viz. that the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle seems to de­duce the beginning of these years from the month May. For the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle does not say that; he affi [...]ms only, that the Decree of the Senate, whereby Antioch was pronounced a free City, was received by the Antiochians on the month May, and then also publickly proposed. Vales. fifty ninth year of Antioch's being entitled to the priviledges and Immunities of a free City. [Page 434] But this [Earthquake] in the times of Leo [hapned] on the five hundredth and sixth year, as 'tis declared by the most accurate and dili­gent Writers. Further, this Earthquake ruined almost all the houses of the New City, the In­habitants whereof were very numerous, nor was there any part of it empty, or wholly neglected; but 'twas extraordinary beautified and adorned by the [preceding] Emperours magnificence, who strove to out-doe one another [in that thing.] Likewise, the first and second fabrick of the Pallace fell down; but the other buil­dings continued standing, together with the ad­joyning Bath; which having been useless before, at such time as this calamitous accident hapned, was of necessity [made use of] for the bathing of Or, the City. the Citizens, the other Baths having been ruined. Moreover, the Porticus's before the Pallace fell down, and the Tetrapylum [which stood] behind them. Besides, the Towers of the Hippodrome which [were] near the Gates, and In the incompa­rable Flo­rentine Ma­nuscript this whole place is written thus: [...], Besides, the Towers of the Hip­podrome [or Cirque] which [were] near the gates, and some of the Porticus's which lead to those [Towers, fell.] Which doubtless is the better reading. The Gates of the Cirque were fortified with two Towers on each side. There were also some Porticus's, which led to those Towers, from the gates of the Cirque, as I suppose. In the Tellerian M. S. I found it written, [...], some of the Porticus's [which led] to those [Gates.] Vales. In Robert Stephens, this whole clause is worded thus: [...], and the Towers of the Hippodrome from the Gate, and some of the Por­ticus's [leading] from them. some of the Porticus's which led to these [Towers fell.] In the old City the Porticus's and houses were wholly untouch't by the Ruine: but some small part of Trajan's, Severus's, and Adrianus's Baths, was shaken, and overturned. This Earth­quake also ruined some [parts] of the Geitonia of [that Region] termed the Instead of [Ostracinia,] the reading in the Florentine and Tellerian M. SS. and in Nicephorus, is truer; which is thus, Ostra­cine. Our Evagrius mentions this place again, at chap. 8. book 6. But what the Ostracine was, 'tis hard to say.—Geitonia is a continua­tion of houses which received [or stood behind] the publick Por­ticus's. Which Libanius also confirms in his Antiochicus, pag. 372. Edit. Park 1627. It was termed Ostracine, because the Potters-work­houses were there. The Old Glosses render [...], fictile, a thing made of Potters-earth. Vales. Ostracine, together with the Porticus's, as likewise that termed the So the Greeks termed the Temple of the Nymphs; which Libanius describes in his Antiochicus, pag. 372. Edit. ut prius. Vales. Nym­phaeum. Every of which particulars Johannes the Rhetorician has related with a singular accuracy. This Writer therefore affirms, that a thousand Talents of Gold were by the Emperour remitted to the City out of the Tributary Function; and that, to the Citizens [were abated] the In the version of this place, both Tran­slatours have erred. For Mus­culus ren­ders it thus: Dicit etiam mille auri Talenta Civitat [...] illi ab Imperatore de tributis esse remissa▪ & ex Tributis quoque constitutum esse, ut ci­vibus illis qui eâ calamitate ad [...]ecti erant, aedes ipsorum simulque publica aedificia restaurarentur; He says also, that a thousand Talents of Gold were by the Emperour remitted to that City of the Tributes; and that 'twas constituted out of the Tributes also, that to those Citizens who had been affected with that calamity, their houses together with the publick Edifices should be repaired. But Christophorson translates it in this manner: Ait porro, tum Civitati de Tributis mille auri Talenta ab Im­peratore esse condona [...]a, tum Civibus etiam Vectigalia qui eâ clade afflicti erant; he says further, that both to the City a thousand Talents of Gold of the Tributes were remitted by the Emperour, and also the Taxes [or, Customs] to those Citizens, who had been afflicted with that calamity. Where you see, that both Translatours referred these words [ [...]] to the Citizens; which is in no wise to be born with. For Evagrius would not have said [...], but rather [...] Nicephorus therefore understood these words righter, to wit, concerning the houses of private men, the Taxes whereof the Emperour remitted to the Citizens of Antioch. Nevertheless, Nicephorus has not fully apprehended Evagrius's meaning. For thus he expresses this place of Evagrius: [...]. That is, as Langus renders it; Terrae motus istius grati [...], &c. And because of this Earthquake, and on account of the houses ruined, the Emperour, 'tis reported, forgave the City a thousand Talents of Gold, the Tributes of the Annuall payments. But Evagrius, or rather Johannes the Rhetorician, says more. For he affirms, that the Emperour remitted to the Antiochians a thousand Talents of Gold of the Tributary Function; but forgave to each Citizen the Tri­butes of those houses which had been ruined by the Earthquake. Now these Tributes may be understood in a twofold sence; Either (1.) con­cerning the annuall Pension which by Hirers was paid to the Owners [or Lords▪] of the houses; Or (2.) concerning the money which was paid to the Fiscus [Exchequer,] because those houses had been built upon the publick Soyle. In such manner as amongst us, an annuall rent is wont to be paid by possessours of houses, as well in the City as Country, to the Lords of the Soyle. And in this latter sense I had rather take [...] [the Tributes] here. For this word is more frequently used to signifie Tributes, Tolls, or Cu­stomes, which are paid to the publick. But if this term should be so taken here, as to signifie the price of houses which is usually paid by the Hirer, there would have been no liberality of the Em­perour's in that. For he would have given nothing of his own to the Citizens, but that which was another's. Vales. year­ly Tolls paid to the publick Treasury for those houses which had been destroyed by that cala­mity: and moreover, that the Instead of [ [...]] the reading undoubtedly must be [...], the same; adde the words [...], Emperour. And thus Christophorson seems to have read. Further, concerning this Earthquake, Isaac Syrus had written an Elegie, as Marcellinus attests in his Chronicon, in these words: Patricio & Ricimere Coss. &c. In the Consulate of Patriclus and Ricimeres, Isaac a Presbyter of the An­tiochian Church wrote many things in the Syrian Language, and espe­cially against the Nestorians and Eutychians. He likewise bewailed the ruine of Antioch in an Elegie, in such manner as Ephren Diaconus did the fall of Nicomedia. Vales. same [Empe­rour] took care of the publick [works and] buildings.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning the Fire which [hapned] at Con­stantinople.

'Tis not amongst▪ Authours agreed con­cerning the year whereon this fire hapned at Constantinople. For Theophanes and Cedrenus place it on the fifth year of Leo, in the fifteenth Indiction, Leo Augustus being the second time Consul with Severas which was the year of Christ 462. But Marcellinus Comes and the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle place this fire of Constantinople in the Consulate of Basiliscus and Hermenericus, that is on the year of Christ 465. Our Evagrius seems to have followed the former opinion. For the verb [ [...], hapned together,] which he uses at this place, gives an indication of what I have said; to wit, that that Conflagration of Constantinople hapned no long time after the An­tiochian Earthquake. Further, concerning that fire wherewith the City Constantinople was consumed in the times of Leo Augustus, Candidus Isaurus does also write, in the first book of his History, and relates that many things were usefully ordered therein by Aspar the Patritius. Vales. THere hapned together with these [mischiefs] a like, or rather a far more grievous [ca­lamity] at Constantinople; this mischievous ac­cident [Page 435] began in that part of the City that lay towards the Sea, which they term the He means the Portus Phosphorianus▪ which was in the fifth Region of the City, as the old description of Constanti­no [...]le informs us. The Greeks te [...]med it [...] and [...]; as Constantinus Porphyro­gennetus tells us in his second book de Thema [...]ibus about the end, and Georgius Codinus in his book de Originibus Constantinopolitan. 57. Vales. Ox-Street. 'Tis reported, that about such time as Candles are usually lighted, a cer­tain mischievous and exe­crable Devill having clo [...]hed himself in the shape of a woman, or rather in reali­ty a poor woman instiga­ted by the Devill, (for 'tis reported both ways;) car­ried a Candle into the Market, being about to buy some Or, Salt­meat. Salt-fish; and that the woman set down the Candle there, and went away. And, that the fire having taken hold of some Flax, raised a vast flame, and in a moment burnt Or, the houses. the Market-house. After which, that it easily consumed the adjoyning buildings, the fire preying all about, not only upon such [houses] as might with ease be fired, but upon Stone-buildings also; and that it conti­nued till the fourth day; and that, having ex­ceeded all possibility of being extinguished, all the middle of the City, from the Northern to the Southern Quarter, five furlongs in length, and fourteen in breadth, was in such a manner con­sumed; that nothing, either of the publick or private buildings, was left [standing] within this compass, not the Pillars, nor Arches of Stone: but, that all the most hardned matter was burnt, as if it [had been straw, o [...]] any such combustible stuff. Further, this calami­tous mischief raged in the Northern part, Or, wherein are the Havens of the City. where­in is the Haven of the City, from that termed the Or, Ox­street. Bosporos, unto the Old Temple of Apollo. In the Southern part, from Julianus's Haven to those houses which stand not far off from that Oratory termed the Church of The Church of Homonoea [or Con­cord, [was in the ninth Region of the City Constanti­nople, as the Old de­scription of that City informs us. Why this Church had this name, we are told by Theodorus Lector in book 4. of his Eccles. History; whose words are cited by Johannes Dama [...]cenus in his [...] d book de Imaginibus. For, it was called [...] [Concord,] because the hundred and fifty Fathers of the Constantinopolitane Synod in the Reign of Theodosius the Great [See Socrates's Eccles. Hist. book 5. chap. 8.] meeting therein, agreed in one opinion concerning the Consubstantiall Trinity. Vales. Concordia. And in the middle part of the City, from that termed Constantine's Forum, to that called Tau­rus's Forum, [it left] a miserable and most deformed spectacle to [the view of] all men. For, whatever Edifices] had stood stately to behold in the City, or had been brought to a Magnificence and incomparableness of Beauty, or Or, called. accommodated to publick or pri­vate uses, were every one on a sudden transformed into mountains and hills, inaccessible and impassible, made up with all man­ner of Rubbish, which deformed the Pristine Beauty and sight [of the City.] In so much that even the possessours themselves of the places could not discern, what any one of those for­mer [Edifices] had been, and in what place [it had stood.]

CHAP. XIV. Concerning the universall Calamities.

Instead of [ [...],] it would be better written thus, [...], about the same times.] Vales. ABout the same times, when the Evagrius means the War which the Hunni waged against the Eastern Romans, under the command of Dengizich Son of Attila [...], in the Consulate of Zeno and Marcianus, on the year of Christ 469▪ as Marcellinus Comes relates in his Chronicon. Nevertheless the Au­thour of the Alexandrian Chronicle places that War on the fore­go [...]g year, whereon Anthemius Augustus was Consul. [...] &c. under the same Consul Ginzi [...]ichus Son to A [...]t [...]as was s [...]ain by Anagastus Magister Militum [Master of the Milice] of Thracia: I reade Dengizichus, from Priscus R [...]etor, who describes this War, pag. 44, 45, of the King's Edition. Further, this Ana­gastus Magister Militum throughout the Thracia's, who flew Dengizi­chus King of the Hunn [...] in Battle, had succeeded Arnegisclus Magister Militum. Vales. Scythian War was raised against the Eastern-Ro­mans, the Country of Thracia, and the Helespont were shaken with an Earthquake; as was Io­nia, and likewise those Islands called the Cycla­dès: in so much that in the Islands Cnidus and Coos very many [buildings] were overturned. Further, Priscus relates, that at Constantinople and in the Country of the Bithynians, there hapned most violent storms of rain, the waters descen­ding from heaven in the manner of Rivers, for the space of three or four days. And, that mountains were levelled into Plains, and Vil­lages, overwhelmed with waters, perished. Moreover, that Islands arose in the Lake Boäne, (which is not far distant from Nicomedia,) from the vast quantity of dirt and filth con­veyed into it. But these things came to pass sometime afterwards.

CHAP. XV. Concerning the Marriage of Zeno and Ariadne.

[MOreover,] Leo takes Zeno to be his Son in Law, by [giving him] his daughter Ariadne in Marriage. This person having from his Cradle been called In the most excel­lent Flo­rentine Manuscript, and in Ni­cephorus, instead of [ [...] Aric­mesus,] 'tis [...], Aricmesius. Further, Ariadne married Zeno on the third year of Leo Augustus's Reign, as Theophanes relates in his Chronicon. Vales. Aricmesius, after his Marriage assumed the name of Zeno from a certain He means Flavius Zeno, who was Consul in the Reign of Theo­dosius Augustus, on the year of Christ 448, and Magister Militum throughout the East. Concerning whose singular power, see what I have written in my Annotations at Priscus Rhetor's Excerpta Leg [...] ­tionum, pag. 207, of the Kings Edition. Vales. person so named, who had ar­rived at great glory amongst the Isauri. But, by what means this Zeno arrived at this heighth of Honour, and on what account he was by Leo preferred before all persons, Eustathius the Syrian has declared.

CHAP. XVI. Concerning Anthemius Emperour of Rome, and those Emperours who succeeded him.

BY reason of an Embassie of the Western Ro­mans [to Leo,] Anthemius [by him] is sent [and created] Emperour of Rome, to whom Marcianus the preceding Emperour had married his own daughter. [Not long after,] Basiliscus brother of Verina the wife of Leo [Augustus,] is sent Master of the Milice against Concer­ning that vast Army, which the Emperour Leo sent against the Vandals into Africk, Theophanes, Cedrenus, and Idatius in his Chronicon, are to be consulted. Concerning the preparations of the same war Candidus Isaurus writes also, in the first book of his History; the passage where­of, because 'tis not yet extant, I will annex here: [...] ▪ that is, Candidus the Historiogra­pher says, that Leo, termed also Macelles, who reigned after Marcianus, spent an innumerable sum of money in an Expedition against the Vandalls. For, as those have attested who furnished that money, fourty seven thou­sand pounds of Gold were di [...]bursed by the Praefecti Praetorio▪ by the Comes Largitionum were spent seventeen thousand pounds of Gold, and of Silver seven hundred thousand pounds: in regard this charge was abundantly supplyed, partly by the Goods of persons proscribed, and partly by the Emperour Anthemius. This eminent passage is extant in Suidas, in the word [...], but the Authours name is corrupted. In the same place of Suidas, [...]nstead of [ [...],] it must be made [ [...], &c.] Further this Van­dalick Expedition hapned on the year of Christ 468, as Baronius has rightly observed▪ which is confirmed by Cedrenus, Idatius and Mar­cellinus. Two years after this, another Expedition against the Van­dalls was undertaken by the Commander (dux) Heraclius, and Marsus, as Theophanes relates in h [...]hronicon, who is the only person that I know of, who has made mention of this Expedition. For Pro­copius, in his Vandalicks, has confounded this second Expedition with the former. Further, this second Expedition had an event fortunate enough. For Gizerichus▪ being put into a fear, was compelled to make a Peace with the Orientall Romans. Vales. Gizerichus, with a choice Army of Souldiers. [Page 436] All which have with great accuracy been recor­ded by Priscus had at large de­scribed this Vandalick War in the last book of his Histo­ries, as (besides Evagrius) Theophanes informs us in his Chro­nicon pag. 100. But the place is corrupted, which I will annex here: [...], But having at last been whe [...]led and allured by gifts and many riches, by Gizeri­chus, he yielded, and was voluntarily vanquished, as Persicus the Thra­cian has related. It must undoubtedly be written thus, [...], as Priscus the Thracian has related. For Priscus the Historian has described that war, as Evagrius attests. Now, Pris­cus was a Thracian, born at Panium a Town of Thrace, which Town is mentioned by Hicrocles. Provincia Europa sub Consulariurbes quatuor­deci [...]. Eudoxia, Heraclia, Arcadiopolis, Bisue, Panion, Orni, &c. The Province Europa under a Consularis [contains] fourteen Cities. Eudoxia, Heraclia, Arcadiopolis, Bisue, Panium, Orni, &c. Besides, Sui­das doés also affirm, that Priscus the Writer of the Histories was a Panite. Vales. Priscus the Rhetorician: as likewise in what manner the same [Emperour] Leo kil­led Aspar (who had invested him with the Em­pire, whom he circumvented by Treachery, ren­dring him this reward, as 'twere, of his own pro­motion;) and his Sons Ardaburius and Patri­cius, whom some time before he had created Cae­sar, that he might possess himself of Aspar's As to my self it seemeth, I have restored this place not unhappily, after this manner: [...], that he might possess himself of Aspars favour and benevolence. Cedrenus confirms our emendation, at the twelfth year of Leo Augustus, in these words: [...]; on the same year also Patricius, Aspars son, is created Caesar by Leo, and is sent to Alexandria to draw off Aspar from the Arian opinion, and to make him faithfull and kind to the Emperour. And Theophanes ex­presses it thus: [...], &c. On the same year Patricius the son of Aspar, whom the Emperour Leo had made C [...]sar, went to Alexan­dria, with a design to draw off Aspar from Arianisme, and to render him faithfull and friendly to the Emperour. Vales. In Robert Ste­phens, the reading is, [...], that he might possess himself of Aspars madness. fa­vour and benevolence. But, after the murder of Anthemius, who had Reigned five years at Rome, Olybrius is proclaimed Emperour by Recimeres; and after him Glycerius is made Emperour. Whom The preposition [...] is to be expunged, which led Translatours into a mistake. For Nepos was not made Emperour on the fifth year after Glycerius's deposition, but on the same year whereon Glycerius had been rejected, (as 'tis related in the Old Fasti which Cuspini­anus set forth;) that is, on the year of Christ 474. After this, Nepos held the Empire five years. For he was slain when Basilius was Con­sul alone, on the year of Christ 480; as Marcellinus attests in his Chronicon, and as 'tis affirmed by the Old Authour of the Fasti, whom Cuspinianus published. From which Authour we are infor­med, that Julius Nepos retained the name of Emperour untill his death. Vales. Nepos having expelled, during the space of five years holds the Empire, and or­dains Glycerius 'Tis false, that Glycerius from being Emperour was made Bi­shop of Rome. Nor is it true, that he was constituted Bishop of Por­tue, which some have affirmed, following Marcellinus as their Authour. Notwithstanding, Marcellinus does not say so. For his words are these: Leone solo Cos. Glycerius Casar Romae Imperium tenen▪ &c. Leo being Consul alone, Glycerius Caesar holding the Empire of Rome, is driven from the Empire by Nepos, son of the sister of Marcellinus heretofore Patricius; and of a Caesar is ordained a Bishop in the Port of the City Rome. But in Marcellinus the punctation is to be altered thus: Imperio expulsus Portu Urbis Romae, ex Caesare Episcopus ordina­tus est, being driven from the Empire in the Port of the City Rome, of a Caesar is ordained a Bishop. Our emendation is confirmed by the Old Authour of the Fasti, whom I have quoted above; [whose words are these;] Domino Leone Juniore August Cos. dejectus de Imperio Glycerius in Portu Urbis Rom [...], dominus Leo Junior Augustus being Consul, Glycerius is cast from his Empire in the Port of the City Rome. 'Tis certain, Jordanes, in his book de Successione Regnorum, affirms that Glycerius was made Bishop at Salona. Jordanes's words are these: Occisoque Romae Anthemio Nepotem [...]i [...]ium Nepotiani, &c. And having killed Anthemius at Rome, he created Nepos son of Ne­potianus (to whom he married his Neece,) Caesar at Ravenna, by Do­mitianus his Client. Which Nepos having legally obtained the Empire, expelled Glycerius, (who had given the Kingdom to himself in a Tyran­nick manner,) from the Empire, and made him Bishop in Salona of Dalma­tia. At this place therefore in the Greek Te [...]t, the word [ [...], of the Romans] must be expunged, or rather transposed after this man­ner; [...], &c. holds the Empire of the Romanes, and ordains Glycerius, Bi­shop, &c. Vales. Bishop of the Romans at Salo­nae a City of Dalmatia. Afterwards Nepos is dri­ven from the Empire by Orestes, and after him his Son Romulus, surnamed Augustulus, is made the last Emperour of Rome, Marcel­linus Co­mes's com­putation is truer, who in his Chronicon writes thus concerning this Romulus: Basilisco & Armato Coss. &c. In the Con­sulate of Basiliscus and Armatus, the Western Empire of the Roman Nation (which Octavianus Augustus the first of the Augusti began to hold on the seven hundreth and ninth year from the building of the City,) perished with this Augustulus, on the year of the Reign of the Emperours his predecessours DXXII. Jordanes has the same words in his book de Successione Regnorum. Now, this sum makes one thousand two hundred thirty and one years. Therefore Cedrenus must be corrected, who from Romulus the Builder of the City, to this Romulus Augu­stulus, reckons but one thousand and eighty years. Vales. one thousand three hundred and three years after the Reign of Romulus. After this [Augustulus,] Odöacer, rejecting the name of Emperour, and styling him­self King, The reading in Robert Stephens is [ [...], attempts;] without doubt it should be [ [...], takes in hand,] as Ni­cephorus words it, book 15. chap. 11. In the Tellerian M. S. I found it written [ [...], administred,] which reading pleases me best. Vales. administred the affairs of the Ro­mans.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning the Death of Leo, and the Empire of Leo Junior, and also concerning Zeno his Fa­ther.

AT the same time the Emperour Leo ended his Reign at Byzantium, after he had Go­verned the Empire seventeen years, having de­clared Leo (the son of his own daughter Ariadne and Zeno) a very young child, Emperour▪ After To wit, the death of Leo the Elder. his death, his Father Zeno Or, In­vests him­self with the Purple-Robe. assumes the Purple, Verina the wife of Leo giving him her assistance, as being her son in Law. The child [Leo Ju­nior] dying not long after, Zeno continued sole possessour of the Empire. But, what was transacted by him or against him, and whatever else hapned [in his times▪] the following Book, by God's assistance, shall declare.

Before the follo­wing (to wit, the eighteenth) chapter, in the incomparable Floren­tine Manuscript these words were written, [...], The end of the Second Book. Then, after the [seventeenth] chapter▪ these words occur: [...], The matters agitated at the Synod convened at Chalcedon, being reduced into an Epitome, are these. Vales. The End of the Second Book,

The matters agitated at the Synod convened at Chalcedon, being reduced into an Epitome, are these.

CHAP. XVIII. An Epitome of the Acts at the Synod of Chal­cedon, set at the end of the Second Book.

PAschasinus and Lucentius, Bishops, and Boni­phatius, a Presbyter, filled the place of Leo Pontif of the Elder Rome. Anatolius being Pre­late of Constantinople, and Dioscorus Bishop of the Alexandrians; Maximus also of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem, and those Bishops about them [were there.] Together with whom were present those personages who held the principall places in the eximious Senate [of Constanti­nople.] To whom they who filled the place of Leo said, that Dioscorus ought not to sit toge­ther with them in the Councill. For this [they said] was given them in charge by Leo. And, unless it were done, that they would go [forth­with] out of the Church. And when [those] of the Senate asked, what were the matters ob­jected against Dioscorus; they made answer, that Dioscorus ought to give an account of his own judgment, who, contrary to what was fitting and just, had accepted the person of the Judge, In the fourth chapter of this book (where we have this same pas­sage) these words [ [...], without the permission of him who governeth the Bishop­rick of Rome,] occur no [...], neither in the Greek Text of Valesius's Edition, nor in that of Robert Stephens's; though Valesius takes notice of them in his version there. At this place they are inserted into both the now mentioned Greek Editions; and therefore we have ren­dred them here, but (with good reason) have omitted them at the said fourth chapter. This latter answer of the Roman Legates to the Senatours, seems obscure and unintelligible. with­out the permission of him who governeth the Bi­shoprick of Rome. After which words, when Dioscorus, by the Senate's decree, was standing in a place in the midst; Eusebius Bishop of Dory­laeum made a request, that the Supplicatory Li­bell, which had by him been presented to the Em­perour might be recited; which request he made in these express words: I have been injured by Dioscorus; the Faith hath been injured: Fla­vianus▪ the Bishop has been murdered; and toge­ther with me unjustly deposed by him. Do you give order, that my Supplicatory Libell may be read. Which thing therefore having been deba­ted, the Libell was permitted to be read, the Con­tents whereof were these.

From Eusebius the meanest Bishop of Dory­laeum, who speakes in defence of himself, of the Orthodox Faith, and of Flavianus of Blessed memory who was Bishop of Constantinople. [It is] the designe of your power, to make provision for all your Subjects, and to stretch forth an hand to all those who are injured: especially to them who are recounted amongst the Ecclesiasticks. And here­by you worship the Deity, by whom a power hath been given you to Rule and Govern Or, the things un­der the Sun. the world. In regard therefore the Faith of Christ and we have suffered many and grievous things, contrary to all reason and equity, from Dioscorus the most reve­rend Bishop of the great City Alexandria; we address to Your piety, entreating we may have Right done Us. Now, the business is this. At the Synod lately held in the Metropolis of the E­phesians, (would to God that Synod had never been held, that it might not have filled the world with mischiefs and disturbance [...]) that Spoken by way of Irony. Good man Dioscorus, disregarding the consideration of what is just, and [not respecting] the fear of God, (for he was of the same opinion, and enter­tained the same Sentiments with the vain-minded and Hereticall Eutyches; but concealed it from many persons, as 'twas afterwards plainly evi­denced by his own declaration:) Or, found▪ took an oc­casion from that accusation which I had brought against Eutyches a person of the same opinion with himself, and from that sentence pronounc't against the same Eutyches by Bishop Flavianus of Holy memory; [whereby] he assembled a multitude of disorderly and tumultuous persons: and having possest himself of power by money, as much as in him lay he hath weakened the pious Religion of the Orthodox, and has confirmed the ill opinion of the Monk Eutyches, which long since, even from the beginning, hath been condemned by the Holy Fathers. Whereas therefore, the matters are not small and triviall, which he has audaciously at­tempted, both against the Faith of Christ, and a­gainst Us, We fall at the feet of Your [Imperial] Majesty, and humbly beseech You, to order the said most Religious Bishop Dioscorus, to give in his answer to what is objected against him by us: to wit, by having the Monuments of the Acts, which he has made against us, read before the Holy Synod. From which [Acts] we are able to demonstrate, that even he himself is estranged from the Or­thodox Faith, hath confirmed an Heresie full of impiety, has unjustly deposed us, and in a most grievous and injurious manner oppressed us: You sending your divine and adorable Mandates to the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod of Bishops most dear to God, In the incompa­rable Flo­rentine M. S. this place is read thus: [...], to the end that it may hear both us, &c. The reading in the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill is the same. Christo­phorson, and Sr Henry Savill at the margin of his copy, have men­ded it thus, [...] &c. to the end that it may hear our cause, and that of the forementioned Dioscorus. But I had rather write it [...], &c. Vales. In Robert Ste­phens the reading is [...], &c. where also the word [ [...]] is wanting. to the end that it may hear both us and the forementioned Diosco­rus, and bring to the knowledge of Your Piety all that is transacted, according to that which shall please Your Immortall height. And if we shall obtain this, we will pour forth incessant prayers for your eternall Empire, most divine Em­perours!

By the joynt request therefore of Dioscorus and Eusebius, the Acts of the Second Ephesine Synod were publickly recited: by which 'twas manifestly demonstrated, that Leo's Letter had not been read, and that, notwithstanding there had been an Interlocution once and twice concerning that matter. Wherefore, when Dioscorus was asked to declare the Cause hereof, his answer was, that he himself by an Interlocution [had given order] once and twice that that should be done; and he requested, that Juvenalis Bishop of Jeru­salem, and Thalassius [Bishop] of the First Cae­sarea in Cappadocia, might give a more manifest declaration of this matter. For [he said] that they had received an Authority [of presiding in the Synod] together with him. Juvenalis did indeed affirm, that when the [Emperours] Di­vine Letter Or, had lead the way. had been read in the first place, he made an Interlocution, [ordering] that Instead of [ [...], to him] doubtless the reading must be [ [...], that,] under­stand [ [...], the divine Letter.] Which emendation is confirmed by the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill, pag. 52, and 53. Edit. Bin. where these words occur. Gloriosissimi Judices & Am­plissimus Senatus dixerunt, &c. The most Glorious Judges and the most noble Senate said: Let the most Blessed Bishop Juvenalis declare, why▪ when the most Reverend Bishop Dioscorus made an Interlocution for the reciting of the Letter of the most holy Romish Arch-Bishop, that Letter was not read. Juvenalis the most Reverend Bishop of Jeru­salem said: Johannes the Presbyter and Primicerius [chief] of the Notaries said, that he had in his hands the sacred Letters of the most Religious and most pious Emperours, and I answered that the Imperial Letters must be read. Further, the very words which Juvenalis had made use of in that second Ephesine Synod, occur in the abovesaid 52. pag. where the Acts of the second Ephesine Synod are recorded. More­over, Nicephorus confirms our Emendation, in the last chapter of his 15th book, where he gives us a summary of the Acts of the Chal­cedon Councill, mostly transcribed from Evagrius. I have been larger in my remarks upon these things, because Christophorson, in the Rendition of this place, hath wandred far from the truth. By the way, you may observe the fraud committed in that second Ephe­sine Synod. For, when Hilarius the Deacon, the Legate of the Apo­stolick See, had openly declared to the Bishops who were present, that he had Pope Leo's Letter, and had required that it might be read in the Councill: Johannes the Presbyter and Primicerius of the No­taries, arose and said, that he had in his hands other Letters written from the Emperour to Dioscorus. Then Juvenalis commanded, that those Letters of the Emperour should be read, no mention being made of Leo's Letter. You see therefore, that the reading of Leo's Letter was designedly impeded, by the fraud of Dioscorus, who, instead of Leo's Epistle, caused the Emperour Theodosius's Letter to be read in the Synod. Further, the Tellerian M. S. does confirm our E­mendation; in which copy I found it written as I had conjectu­red. Vales. that [Letter] should be recited; but, that [Page 438] afterwards no mention was made of that That is, of the Let­ter of Leo Bishop of Rome. Epistle. But Thalassius said, that he hindred not the reading of that Letter; and that he had not so much Liberty, or, free­dome. Authority, as that he alone could Decree, that it should Or, come to a rea­ding. be read. When therefore a fur­ther progress was made in the reading of the Acts, and some of the Bishops found fault with some words as being false and forged; Stephanus Bi­shop of the Ephesians was asked, what Notaries of his at that time had taken [those words] in writing; his answer was, that Julianus (after­wards made Bishop of Lebedus,) and Crispinus were his Notaries: but, that Dioscorus's No­taries would not permit That is, would not permit Ste­phanus's Notaries to take the Acts in writing. that to be done, but took hold of their fingers whilst they were writing; in so much that they were in danger of undergoing most foul abuses. Further, the same Stephanus Or, at­tested. deposed, that [himself and the other Bishops] had subscribed to Flavianus's deposition in one and the same day. Hereto added Acacius Bishop of Ariarathia, that all [of them] had subscribed in a paper not written on, [and that they were compelled to it] by force and necessity, having been surrounded with innumerable mischiefs, in regard Souldiers [Armed] with murdering Or, In­struments. weapons had encompassed them. Further, when another sentence was read, Theodorus Bishop of Claudiopolis said, that no body uttered those words. Moreover, upon a procedure in reading [the Acts, in this manner,] when [they came] to a certain This place, which E­vagrius points at here, is ex­tant in the First Acti­on of the Chalcedon Synod, pag. 58. Vales. place wherein Eutyches had said, [that he Anathematized] those who should af­firm that the Flesh of God and our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had descended from Hea­ven: the Acts declared, that against these words Eusebius had said, that those were indeed con­demned by Eutyches who should say that Christ's flesh had descended from Heaven, but that it was not added by him, whence the flesh was. The same Acts added also, that Diogenes Bishop of Cyzicum subjoyned [these words:] Instead of [ [...], he said, from whence therefore?] the reading in the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill is better, (see pag. 58;) in the Impe­rative-mood, to wit, thus, [...], declare therefore, from whence? Vales. de­clare therefore, from whence? and, that notwith­standing they were not permitted to make any fur­ther inquiry into these things. Further, the same Acts do manifest, that Basilius Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, spake [these words:] I adore our one Lord Jesus Christ, In Binius, pag. 58, the reading is, [...], the only begotten Son of God, God the Word. the Son of God, the only God the Word, who after the Incarnation and Union, is known in two natures. And, that against these words the Egyptians cryed out: Let no man divide Him who is not to be parted, he ought not to call one Son two. But, that the Easterns exclaimed, Anathema to him who parts, Anathema to him who divides. 'Tis contained in the same Acts, that Euty­ches was asked, whether he would affirm two Natures in Christ. And, that he answered, that he as­serted Christ [to consist] of two Natures before the Union: but after the Union, [he acknow­ledged but] one [Nature in him.] And, that Basilius said [these words;] unless you affirm two undivided and inconfused Natures after the Union, you assert a confusion and a commixture. But if you add Incarnate and Inhumanate, and do understand Incarnation and Inhumanation in such manner as Cyrillus doth, you affirm the same that we do. For, the divinity which [is] from [his] Father, is one thing; the humanity which is from [his] Mother, is another. When In the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill, only Basilius is said to have been questioned by the Judges and Senatours; and what answer he returned to their que­stion, is added there also. Notwith­standing, Nicephorus confirms the vulgar reading, which is [ [...], when they were in­terrogated:] which if we will re­tain, it must be said, that Basi­lius and those who were with him, were interrogated by the Judges. Vales. they were interrogated, upon what ac­count they had subscribed to Flavianus's deposition; the Acts declare that the Ea­sterns cryed out, we have all sinned, we do all crave pardon. Again further, the same Acts being read on, do manifest, that the Bishops were que­stioned, for what reason they would not permit Eusebius to come in, when he desired it. To which Dio­scorus made answer, that Elpidius brought the Commonitory; and, that he affirmed, that the Emperour Theodosius had given order, that Eu­sebius should not be suffered to come in. The Acts do manifest, that Juvenalis also said the same words. But Thalassius said, that he himself In the Rendition of this place both Transla­tours have erred. For Musculus renders it thus: Tha­lassius verò dixit, non habere au­toritatem ca quae à principibus in hujusmo­di causis judicantur, But Tha­lassius said, that those things which are judged [or, determi­ned] by the Princes in such causes as these, have not authority. Christophorson has followed the same sense also. Likewise Langus, Nicephorus's Translatour, hath fallen into the same mistake. But, from the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill, it is easie to confute this Rendition. For Thalassius being questioned by the Judges, makes this answer only, [...], that is, all power and authority was not in me. For, although Juvenalis and Thalassius were ordered by the Emperour Theodosius to preside at the second Ephesine Synod together with Dioscorus, notwithstanding in real­lity all the power was in Dioscorus's hands. Further, the Judges con­demned the Answer of Dioscorus, Juvenalis, and Thalassius in these words, In a matter of [...]aith this defence is not to be admitted. Vales. had not authority. Which answers were disallowed of by the Judges. For [they said,] that this A­pology was invalid [where a matter] of Faith is the subject of the Conference. After these things, the same Acts do declare, that Dioscorus I agree with Christophorson and Sr Henry Savill; who instead of [ [...], was sent for,] mended it thus [ [...], made a complaint.] Which fault I found to have been frequently committed in the Manuscript copies. Vales. made a complaint in these words: what Canons are now observed, whenas Theodoret is [suffered to] come in; And, that the Senatours made answer, that Theodoret was come in as an Accuser. And when Dioscorus subjoyned, that Theodoret sate amongst the Bishops; the Senatours said again, that Eusebius and Theodoret should take the place of the Accusers, in like manner as Dioscorus had the place of the Accused allotted to him. When therefore all [the Acts] of the second Ephesine Synod had been read, and the sentence [of de­position pronounc't] against Flavianus and Eu­sebius, had been likewise recited, as far as that Or, ex­pression. place, where This place must be corrected from the first Action of the Chalcedon Synod, pag. 142. Where, after the Sentence of condemnation pro­nounc't by Dioscorus against Flavianus and Eusebius, when Flavianus had said, [...], that is, I refuse you: Hilarius Deacon of the Church of Rome said, [...], 'tis contradicted. Which words are written out from the Acts of the second Ephesine Synod. Vales. Hilarius the Deacon had said, 'Tis contradicted: the Bi­shops of the East and those with them [Page 439] exclaimed, Anathema to Dioscorus: in this very hour [...]. So 'tis also writ­ten in Ni­cephorus. But in the Acts of the Chalcedon Synod 'tis written far otherwise, to wit, after this manner: [...]. That is, in this very hour [Dioscours] hath deposed: in this very hour let him be deposed. Which reading I ap­prove of as being the better. But, as this place of Evagrius is to be corrected from the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill, so on the other hand, the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill are to be amended from our Evagrius. For, instead of these words which follow, [...], Holy Lord do Thou revenge him; it must [in the Chalcedon-Acts] be written thus [...], &c. Flavianus hath been deposed by Dioscorus: Holy Lord, do Thou revenge him, Orthodox Emperour &c. as it is in Evagrius and Nicephorus: and [...]o the old Translatour of the Chalcedon-Councill seems to have read: for he renders it thus: Sancte domine, tu illum vindica: Catholice Imperator, Tu illum vindica, Holy Lord, do Thou revenge him: Catholick Emperour, do you revenge him. From which Version we conclude, that these words [Flavianus hath been deposed by Dioscorus] ought necessarily to precede. Otherwise, whither should these words [do Thou revenge him] be referred? Vales. Christ hath deposed Dioscorus: Flavianus hath been deposed by Dioscorus: Holy Lord, do Thou revenge him, Orthodox Emperour, do you revenge Him! Many years to Leo: many years to the Some body may make a query here, what Patriarch is to be understood at this place. My affirmation is that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople is meant. Further, two things are remarkable here. The first is, that the orientall Bishops wish many years not to their own Patriarch, but to another. Secondly, that they term the Bi­shop of Constantinople simple and absolutely, The Patriarch, to wit, giving him this honour on account of the prerogative of his See. For, in the Constantinopolitane Synod, the second place was assigned to the See of Constantinople. Vales. Patriarch. Then, when the following words were read, which manifested, that all the then convened Bishops had agreed to the deposition of Flavianus and Eusebius; the most Glorious Judges made an Interlocution in these express words.

We perceive, that a more exact scrutiny concerning the Orthodox and Catholick Faith ought to be made to morrow, when the Synod will be more compleat and full. But, in regard Flavianus of Pious Memory, and Eusebius the most Religious Bishop of Dorylaeum (from a search made into the Acts and Decrees, and also from their testimony by word of mouth who presi­ded in the Synod then convened; who have con­fessed that they have erred, and have deposed them without cause, when they had in no wise erred in re­lation to the Faith:) have, as 'tis evidently known, been unjustly deposed: it appears to us (agreeable to that which is acceptable unto God,) to be just, (provided it shall please our most Divine and most Pious Lord,) that Dioscorus the most Religious Bishop of Alexandria, Juvenalis the most Religious Bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius the most Religious Bishop of Caesarea, Euse­bius the most Religious Bishop of From the Act [...] of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 152. (where this Interlocu­tion of the Judges is recorded;) Instead of Armenia, it must be made An­cyra. Vales. Ancyra, Eu­stathius the most Religious Bishop of Berytus, and Basilius the most Religious Bishop of Seleu­cia in Isauria, which [Prelates] had power, and presided over the then Synod, should Instead of [ [...], fall from,] in the First Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 152, it is truer writ­ten thus [...], lie under.] For 'tis referred to what went be­fore, to wit, [...], the very same punishment; and the same herewith is the reading in the fourth chapter of this book, where this Interlocution of the Judges occurs entire. In the fourth Action of the Chalcedon▪ Synod, pag. 217, the reading indeed is [...]: but there is a word added in the foregoing [clause,] in this man­ner, [...], subjected to the same punishment. If we should retain the word [...], then these words [ [...], being estranged from] which follow, would be superfluous. Indeed, these two last mentioned words are wanting in the Tellerian and Florentine M. SS. and in Nicephorus. Vales. lye under the very same punishment, being by [the sentence of] this sacred Synod according to the Canons estranged from the Episcopall dignity: all things which have been consequently done being made known to his most sacred Imperial Ma­jesty.

After these words, the Easterns cryed out this [is] a just judgment: but the Bishops of Illy­ricum exclaimed, we have all sinned, let us all be vouchsafed pardon. And again; when the Ea­sterns acclaimed, this is a just sentence: Christ hath deposed a Murderer, Christ hath reven­ged the Martyrs: the Senators made an Inter­locution, that every one of the Bishops conve­ned, should by himself Or, set forth. declare his own Faith; knowing for certain, that the most Divine Em­perour did believe, according to that Exposition of the Faith of the three hundred and eighteen [Fathers, assembled] at Nice, and of the hun­dred and fifty Fathers [convened] In the excellent Florent. M. S. these words [at Constanti­nople] are wanting; nor do they occur in the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill, as may be seen at pag. 152; Edit. Bin▪ Vales. at Con­stantinople; also according to the Epistles of the Holy Fathers, Gregorius, Basilius, Hilarius Athanasius, Ambrosius; and according to Cy­rill's two Letters, which were recited at the First Synod at Ephesus: for, that the most Pious Leo Bishop of the Elder Rome, had deposed Eu­tyches according to the same Faith.

The First Session therefore having after this manner been ended, when the most Holy Bishops had come together In the third Action of the Chalcedon-Synod, only the Bi­shops met, nor were there any of the Secular Judges, or Sena­tors, present in the Councill. For, in that Session the Faith was to be treated of: which that they should declare and set forth▪ the Bishops had before been in­vited by the most glorious Judges. But the Bishops for a long while refused to do that, saying that the Draught of the Nicene Creed was sufficient, which had been confirmed by the Constantinopo­litane, and first Ephesine Synod. Nevertheless, at length they had yielded to the Judges request, and promised they would do it. Fur­ther, where the Faith is trea­ted of the Secular Judges have nothing to do. In the Third Action therefore, wherein the Faith was to be treated of, no Secular Judges were present. It is further to be remarked, that at this place Eva­grius hath omitted the transacti­ons of the Second Action. Eva­grius therefore seems to have taken the Third Action for the Second. Which is confirmed by the Acts of this very Synod, pag. 177; where that seems to be the Second Meeting, or Action, which now is the Third. Vales. alone in order to another [Action,] Eusebius Bishop of Dory­laeum presented Libells in de­fence of himself and Flavia­nus; wherein he accused Di­oscorus as entertaining the same Sentiments with Euty­ches, and because he had divested them of the Sacer­dotall Function. He added also, that Dioscorus had in­serted some words, which had not been spoken at the then convened Synod, into the Acts thereof; and moreover, that Dioscorus had procured that they should subscribe in blank papers. He requested fur­ther, that all the Acts of the second Ephesine Synod might be made null by the vote of [the Prelates who] were convened, that themselves might be restored to the Sa­cerdotall dignity, and that that nefarious opinion might be Anathematized. He re­quested also after the reading [of his Libell,] that his Ad­versary might be present. When this was by an Interlocution ordered to be done; Aëtius Arch-Deacon and Primicerius of the Notaries said, that he had gone to Dioscorus, as also to the others; and that Dioscorus had answered, that he was not permitted by his keepers to come to the Councill. By making another Interlocution it was ordered, that Dioscorus should be sought for before [the doors of] the Councill. And when he was not found, Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople made an Interlocution, that he ought to be sent for, and to be present in the Synod. Which having been done, the messengers sent to Dioscorus returned and said that he told them, I am under custody: let [my keepers] say, whether or no they will permit me to go [to the Councill.] And upon the mes­sengers saying to him, that they▪ had been sent to him, not to the Magistriani; they brought word, [Page 440] that Dioscorus had said, I am ready to come to the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod; but I am hindred. Whereto Himerius added, that in their return from Dioscorus, the [...]. Langus and Christo­phorson have ren­dred it Boethus, as if that were a proper name. But [...] is the name of an Office. For the Princeps officii magistri offi­ciorum was so termed, who was of the Schole [or, Body] of The A­gente [...] in Rebus; as we are informed from the Notitia Imperii Romani. Farther, this Assistant of the Master of the Offices, was by his proper name called Eleusinius, as 'tis recorded in the Third Action of the Chal­cedon Synod. Vales. Assistant to the Master of the sacred Offices met them, and that in company with him the Bishops had gone again to Dioscorus, and that he had some things concerning these matters which he had taken in [...]. In the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill, instead of these words, 'tis written, [...]; which the old Translatour hath rendred thus: Et c [...]rta locuti sunt, quae in exceptis habeo, And they have spoken some words, which I have in my Excepta [that is, in my account taken thereof in writing.] 'Tis certain, Himerius was a Notary and a Reader, sent by the Councill (together with the Bi­shops) to Dioscorus, that he might take those things in writing, which should be said on both sides; for that was the Office of No­taries. The Bishops, as often as they went to a Synod, were wont to carry each, his Notary along with them, who were to take the matters transacted in the Synod in writing: to the end that, after the ending of the Synod, each Bishop might carry a copy of the Acts into his own Country. Further, I approve highly of the old Translatour's rendring [...] excepta. Whence I am of opinion, that Origen's [...] ought in Latine to be termed Excepta. I know indeed, that Origen's [...] are by Rufinus and Jerome commonly termed Excerpta, Excerptions; but my Sentiment is, that 'tis corruptly written, in regard they ought rather to be termed Ex­cepta. Vales. Notes. Which having been read, 'twas manifested that Dioscorus had spoken these ex­press words. Having recollected my self, and con­sidered what is expedient [for me,] I answer thus.

In regard the most magnificent Judges who sate in the Session before this, have Decreed severall things after many Interlocutions made by every one; and I am now cited to a Second Session, to the end that the soresaid [Decrees] may be voided and made null; 'tis my request, that the most magnificent Judges and Sacred Senate, who were at the Former Session, may be present now also, in order to a re-examination of the same matters. To whom Acacius, as 'tis mani­festly related in the said Acts, gave answer in these very words. The Holy and Great Synod have not commanded Your Sanctity therefore to be present, that those things which have been transacted before the most Magnificent Judges and the Sacred Senate might be voided and made null: but [the Synod] hath sent us, [with a command] that You should come to the Session, and that Your Sanctity should not be absent therefrom. To whom Dioscorus re­turned this answer, (as the Acts declare;) You have told me even now, that Eusebius hath pre­sented Libells: I make a request again, that my Cause may be examined before the Judges and Senate. Then, after other things of this nature, which are put into the Acts; those were again sent, who might perswade Dioscorus to be pre­sent at what was transacted. Which having been done, those who had been sent returned, and said, that they had taken Dioscorus's answer in Notes, which [Notes] do manifest, that he said these words. I have already signified to Your p [...]ety, that I am afflicted with a distemper, and that 'tis my request, that the most Magnificent Judges also and the Sacred Senate may now likewise be present at the Judgment of those things which shall be inquired into: but in regard my distem­per hath increased, upon that account I have made a delay. And the Acts do manifest that Cecro­pius said unto Dioscoru [...] ▪ that a little before he had not made the least mention concerning his sickness; and that therefore he ought to satisfie the Canons. To whom Dioscorus made this re­turn, I have said once, that the Judges ought to be present. Then, that Ruffinus Bishop of Samo­sata said unto Dioscorus, that the [...]. Valesius renders it thus; Canonicum constitutum esse judi­cium, that a Canonicall Judica­tory was constituted. Agitations and Debates [in the Councill] were Canonicall, and that Dioscorus, if he were pre­sent, might freely speak what he should have a mind to. And when Dio­scorus enquired, whether Juvenalis and Tha­lassius and Eustathius were come [to the Sy­nod,] [...], He answered: in Robert Stephens's Edition, the reading is, Eustathius answered: In Valesius's Versi [...]n 'tis, respon­dit Pergamius, Pergamius an­swered. he answered, that that was nothing pertinent to the business. To which words the Acts doe set forth, that Dioscorus subjoyned these, that he had requested the Christ-loving Emperour, [that he would give order] that the Judges also might be present [in the Councill,] as likewise those [Prelates] who together with him Or, had judged. had been Judges. And, that hereto the [Synod's] Mes­sengers said, that Eusebius had accused him only, and that all the rest ought not to be present. And, that to these words Dioscorus replied, that those other persons ought also to be present who had been judged together with him: for, that Eusebius had no private Or, busi­ness. Cause against him, but [a common one, to wit,] concerning those things on account of which all of them had been judged. And again, when the [Synod's] Messengers persisted Or, con­cerning the same mat­ter. in the same things, Dioscorus made answer, what I have said, I have said once; nor have I any thing further to say. To which words [when declared to the Synod,] Eusebius [Bishop] of Dorylaeum said, that he had [matter of accu­sation] against Dioscorus only, and against no person else: and he desired that Dioscorus might be cited in by a third Summons. [After this] Aëtius gave information, that some persons who stiled themselves Ecclesiasticks, together with some others who were Laïcks, coming from the City Alex­andria, had lately presented Libells against Dio­scorus, and that those men were now standing before [the doors of] the Councill, and Or, made use of out­cries. crying out. When therefore Theodorus, a Deacon of the Holy Church of Alexandria, had in the first place presented [Libells;] and then Ischyrio, who was a Deacon likewise; and after him Atha­nasius a Presbyter and Cyrillus's sisters son; and lastly Sophronius; in which [Libells] they ac­cused Dioscorus partly for Blasphemies, and partly on account of bodily [dama­ges] and I am of the same opinion with Learned men, who instead of [ [...]] had mended it thus, [...] lent exaction; by conjecture, as I think. For our Copies have no alteration here. Yet the Telle­rian Manuscript (which I pro­cured opportunely, whilest our Edition was in the press,) has it plainly written, [...]. Vales. violent exaction of moneys: a third Citation is issued out, wherein Dio­scorus is admonished to come [to the Synod.] The Mes­sengers therefore appointed for this business, being re­turned, made report that Dioscorus had said [these words:] I have sufficiently informed Your Piety; nor can I add any thing else thereto. Again, when the per­sons sent upon this account had continued to be very urgent in their perswasives to Dioscorus [that he would come,] and he having always given the same answer; Paschasinus the Bishop said [these words.] Dioscorus having now been thrice Summoned, hath not appeared, being prick't [Page 441] in Conscience: and he Nice­phorus has inserted some words here, thus, [...], And he asked the Bishops. Vales. asked what [punishment] he deserved. Whereto when the Bishops had re­turned answer, that he had Or, made himself obnoxious to. offended against the Canons, and when Proterius Bishop of Smyrna had said, at such time as the Holy Flavianus was murdered, nothing had been agreeably and orderly done against him: they who supplied the place of Leo Bishop of the Elder Rome, Or, pronounced Sentence. made this De­claration in these express words.

What Dioscorus who hath been Bishop of the Great City Alexandria has audaciously attempted against the Order of the Canons, and the Ecclesi­astick Constitution; hath been made manifest, both by those things which have already been enquired into at the First Session, and also from what hath been done this day. For this person, (to omit many other things,) making use of his own authority, uncanonically admitted to communion Eutyches, (a man that embraces the same Sentiments with himself, who had been deposed canonically by his own Bishop of Holy Memory, we mean our Fa­ther and Arch-Bishop Flavianus;) before Diosco­rus's. his sitting [in the Synod] at Ephesus together with the Bishops beloved by God. But the Apo­stolick See has granted a pardon to those [Pre­lates,] for what hath been involuntarily done there by them. Who also to this present continue of the same opinion with the most Holy Arch-Bi­shop Leo, and with all the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod. On which account, he hath received them to his own communion, as being asserters of the same faith with himself. But Diosco­rus. this man till this very time hath not desisted from boasting of these things, on account whereof he ought rather to mourn, and lay himself prostrate on the earth. Besides, he permitted not the Letter of the most Blessed Pope Leo, to be read, (which had been written by him to Flavianus of Holy Memory;) and his [he did,] notwithstanding he was severall times en­treated by those persons who brought the Letter, to suffer it to be read; and notwithstanding he had promised with an Oath that it should be read. The not reading of which Letter has filled the most Holy Churches over the whole world with scandalls and detriment. Nevertheless, although such things as these have been audaciously at­tempted by him, [...]. The same is the rea­ding also in Nice­phorus. But, in the Chalcedon▪ Acts, and in the fourth chapter of this book, (where this sentence of condemnation occurs,) it is more truly written [...], it was our design. But, by transposing the preposi­tions, I had rather write it thus, [...], &c. we had considered in relation to, &c. which writing is far more ele­gant. Vales. yet we had some thoughts concerning the vouchsafing to him something of compassion in relation to his former impious Fact, as also to the rest of the Bishops beloved by God, although they had not the same au­thority of judging that he was invested with.

But in regard he has out-done his former ini­quity by his Or, se­cond. latter facts, (for he has audacious­ly pronounced an Excommunication against the most Holy and most Pious Leo Arch-Bishop of Rome the Great; and moreover, (when Libells stuft with Crimes were preferred to the Holy and Great Synod against him,) having been ca­nonically called once, twice, and thrice, by the Bishops beloved of God, he obeyed not, to wit, being prick't by his own conscience; [Lastly,] he has illegally received [to Communion] those, who have been justly deposed by severall Synods: [on these various accounts we say]) he himself hath pronounced sentence against himself, having many ways trampled under foot the Ecclesiastick Rules. Wherefore, the most Holy and most Blessed Leo Arch-Bishop of the Greatest and the Elder Rome▪ by Us and the present Synod, together with the thrice Blessed and most eminent Apostle Peter, who is the These▪ Legates of the Romish-See (I sup­pose) point at that ex­pression u­sed by our Saviour to Peter, re­corded Matth. 16. 18. As a Comment on which Text take these words of Saint Cyprian, in his book de Unitate Ecclesiae, termed also Tractatus de Simplicitate Prelatorum, pag. 113. Edit. Bafil. 1558. Loquitur dominus ad Petrum, Ego tibi dico, inquit, quia tu es Petrus, & Super istam Petram aedifica­bo Ecclesiam meam, &c. The Lord speaketh to Peter, I say unto thee, says he, that Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, &c.—And after his Resurrection he says to the same per­son, Feed my sheep. And although he gives an equall power to all the Apostles after his Resurrection, and says, As the Father hath sent me, so also I send you, &c.—Yet that he might manifest the Unity, by his own authority he hath disposed the originall of the same Unity as beginning from One. For the rest of the Apostles were the same also, that Peter was, endowed with an equall fellowship, both of honour and power; but the originall proceeds from Unity, that the Church may be shown to be one. Rock and Basis of the Catho­lick Church, and the foundation of the Orthodox Faith, hath divested him of the Episcopall dig­nity, and hath Or, e­stranged. removed him from [the performance of] every Sacer­dotall Office. Therefore, the Holy and Great Synod it self will Decree those things concerning the forementioned Dioscorus, which shall seem agreeable to the Canons.

When therefore these things had been confirmed by Anatolius, Maximus, and the rest of the Bishops, excepting those [Prelates] who together with Dioscorus had been deposed by the Councill; a Relation concerning these [Transactions] was by the Synod written to [the Emperour] Mar­cianus, and by the same Synod a deposition was sent to Dioscorus, the Contents whereof were these.

Know, that by reason of Your contemning the Divine Canons, and on account of Your contu­macy [Shown] towards this Holy and Oecu­menicall Synod, because (besides other Crimes whereof You have been convicted,) having been the third time called by this Holy and great Synod, according to the Divine Canons to answer to those Accusations brought against You, You have not appeared; on the thirteenth day of this instant month October, You are deposed from your Bishoprick by this Holy and Oecumenicall Synod, and are Or, removed. estranged from every Eccle­siastick [...] This word [ [...]] is variously rendred by Translatours. For Langus renders it Consuetudinem, Custome. Musculus and Chri­stophorson have translated it thus; & ab omni Ecclesiastico Jure esse abalienatum, and are alienated from all Ecclesiastick Right. The Old Translatour of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 214, renders it Functionem, Function; which, in my judgment, is the truer Version. In the Li­bell of Deposition of the same Dioscorus, which the Chalcedon-Synod sent, almost in the very same words, to the Clergy men of the Alex­andrian Church who were then at Chalcedon, instead of [...], it is [...], Degree. In the sentence of condemnation pronounced a­gainst the same Dioscorus by the Legates of the Romish See, instead of this word, [...], Office, is made use of. Now, these words are therefore added by the Synod, that they might shew, that Dioscorus was reduced to a Laïck-communion. For he is not only said to be divested of the Episcopall dignity, but is also removed from every Ecclesiastick Office: least any one should think him to be removed from the Episcopall Act: [or, acting as a Bishop,] and thrust down into the degree of the Presbyterate. For to do that, is sacriledge, as 'tis said in the fourth Action of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 247. Vales. duty.

[Page 442] Then, having written concerning these things to the pious [...]. It should (as it seems,) be written [...], Clergy of the most Holy, &c. For Dioscorus's Libell of Deposition was sent to the Clergy-men of the Alexandrian Church, who were then at Chal­cedon, as may be seen in the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 214. Due order did require indeed, that Dioscorus's Deposition should be declared by the Synod to the Bishops of Egypt also. But the Bishops of the Chalcedon-Councill were to perform that afterwards, in their Synodick Letter. At that time they had done sufficient, in declaring Dioscorus's Deposition to the Alexandrian Ecclesiasticks who were then at Chalcedon, to wit, to El [...]mosynus the Presbyter and Oeconomus [or, Steward,] and to Euthalius Arch-Deacon, and to the rest of the Clergy. 'Tis certain, Evagrius's words do sufficiently declare, that there is no mention here concerning the Bishops of Egypt. For he calls them Bishops of the Alexandrian Church: which appellation agrees not with the Bishops of Egypt. Vales. Bishops of the most Holy Church at Alexandria, and when the In Nicephorus 'tis [...]. But in the Acts of the Chalce­don-Councill, the reading is [...]. In the Tellerian M. S. I found it written [...]. Vales. And so 'tis in Robert Stephens's Edition. Edict against Dio­scorus had been proposed, this Sessions was ended.

The foregoing Or, con­vention. Session having been thus en­ded, after this [the Bishops] being again con­vened, returned answer to the Interrogation of the Judges (who had requested that the [...], the true Reli­gion. true Faith might be expounded,) [in this manner,] [...]. Doubtless the particle [...] must be expun­ged; in regard 'tis altogether su­perfluous at this place. Further, the place here meant by Eva­grius, is extant in the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 159, Edit. Bin. But 'tis to be remarked, of which I have given an Advertisement before, that the Copies of the Chalcedon-Synod which Evagrius made use of, were different from those we now have. For that which is to us the Third Action, to Eva­grius is the Second, as we have seen already. But, that which in our copies is inscribed the Second Action, is the Third to E­vagrius; as it will be made ma­nifest from this place, and those following. Vales. that no­thing further ought to be esta­blished, the matters against Eutyches having been fully finished, and determined by the Bishop of Rome, to which [determinations] they had all given their assent. A­gain, when all the Bishops cried out, that they all said the same things, and when the Judges by making an In­terlocution had pronounced, that each Patriarch, having chosen one or two persons of his own Dioecesis, should come forth into the midst, to the end that the opinion of every one might be made manifest: Florentius Bishop of Sardis required a [...], a Pr [...]lude, or, Cessation. Truce, to the end c The place which Evagrius means here, occurs in the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 159. Also, the words of Cecro­pius Bishop of Sebastopolis occur in the same page. Vales. that with consideration they might arrive at the Truth. And Cecropius Bishop of Se­bastopolis spoke these words. The Faith hath been well expounded by the Three hun­dred and eighteen Holy Fathers, and hath been confirmed by the Holy Fathers, Athanasius, Cy­rillus, Celestinus, Hilarius, Basilius, Gregorius, and now again by the most Holy Leo. And our re­quest is, that the [words] of the Three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers, as also those of the most Holy Leo, may be recited. Which having been read, the whole Synod cried out, in these words; this is the Faith of the Orthodox: Thus we all believe, Pope Leo believes thus, Cyrillus believed thus, the Pope hath expounded it thus. And when there had been another Interlocution, that the Exposition of the Faith [set forth] by the Hundred and fifty Holy Fathers might be re­cited also, that was likewise read. To which the Synod again cried out, and said: This is the Faith of [us] all: This is the Faith of the Orthodox: Thus we all believe. This place is al­so extant in the Se­cond Action of the Chal­cedon-Sy­nod, pag. 160. Vales. After whom Aetius the Arch-Deacon said, that he had at hand the Epistle of the Divine Cyrillus to Ne­storius, which all [the Fathers] convened at Ephesus had confirmed by their own Subscriptions; and that he had likewise another Letter of the same Cyrillus's, which had been written to Jo­hannes [Bishop] of Antioch, and which had likewise been confirmed: and his request was, that both these Letters might be read. And after an Interlocution had been made concerning these [Letters,] they were both recited. Part of the Contents of the former Epistle run word for word thus.

Cyrillus,
to the most Pious Nestorius, [my] Fellow-Minister.

Some persons, as I understand, Or, prate against. reproach my Reputation in the presence of Your Piety, and that frequently, taking an occasion [to do thus] most especially, at such time as those of the Ma­gistracy are met together; and peradventure they suppose, that Your ears are even delighted [with such discourses as these.] And after some words. The Holy and Great Synod therefore hath said, Or, that he hath been begotten the only be­gotten Son of God, &c. that He the only begotten Son hath been begotten of God and the Father according to Nature, very God of very God, the Light of the Light; that He, by whom the Father hath made all things, de­scended, was Incarnate, made man, suffered, rose again the third day, ascended into the Heavens. These Expressions and Forms we also ought to follow, considering with our selves, what is meant by this [proposition,] God the Word was incarnate and was made man. For we do not affirm, that the Nature of The Word having been changed, was made Flesh: nor that it was converted into whole man, who [consists] of Soul and Body. But [We say] that rather, that when The Word had personally united to himself the Flesh enli­vened with a rationall soul, he was ineffably and incomprehensibly made man, and he hath been stiled the Son of man, not according to will only, or good pleasure; nor yet as it were in the As­sumption of the person only. And, that the Na­tures [are] diverse, For the divine and humane Nature being joyned together, have constituted to us one Christ and Lord. And so that is true which Cyrillus says, viz. that two Natures diverse amongst them­selves, have come together into a true unity: which, neverthe­less, Christophorson understood not. Not that of two Natures one is made, in such manner as Euty­ches asserted: But, that of two Natures one Christ hath existed. And thus Cyrillus has explained his own opinion a little after these words; whereas he saith, [...], by an inef­fable mysticall and secret concourse to an unity. From hence it ap­pears, that Johannes Langus, o­therwise the Learned Translatour of Nicephorus, hath mistook here, who has rendred [...] (not unity, but) union. Vales. which have come together into a true Unity: but, that of both [Na­tures there is] one Christ and [one] Son; not as if the diversity of the Natures were destroyed by the Union: but rather, Or, that by the divinity and humanity they [the Natures] have perfected, &c. that the Di­vinity and Humanity have perfected to us one Lord, and Christ, and Son, by an inef­fable mysticall and secret con­course to an Unity. And af­ter some few words. But, in regard having personally united the humanity to him­self on our account and for our salvation, he proceeded from a woman, for this rea­son he is said to have been born according to the Flesh. For he was not at first born a common [and ordinary] man of the Holy Virgin, and after that The Word Or, came. descended upon him: but having been Or, made one. united from the very womb, he is said to have under­gone a Carnall Nativity, that he might procure [to himself] the Nativity of his own Flesh. After the same manner we say he suffered, and rose again; not as if God The Word, as to his own Nature, suffered either the Stripes, or [Page 443] the Or, piercings. Transfixions of the Nails, or any other of the wounds: for the Deity is Impassible, because 'tis also Incorporeall. But, in regard that which had been made his own Body suffered, on this ac­count he is again said to have suffered for us. For there was the Impassible [Deity] in a passible Body.

Most part of [Cyrillus's] other Letter hath been recorded in our foregoing Chap. 6. Book. But there is a passage in it, which Johannes [Bishop] of the Antiochians had written [in his Letter, to which passage] Cyrillus hath Or, with­all suf­frages. fully agreed: this passage runs thus. We confess the Holy Virgin to be Theotocos, because God The Word took Flesh from Her and was made man, and from that very Conception united to himself a Temple taken from Her. But we know, that those divine men do take the Evangelick and Apostolick Expressions [ut­tered] concerning the Lord, Or, part­ly. sometimes in a common sense, as [spoken] of one person: Or, part­ly. at oth [...]r whiles [they] divide them, as [uttered] concerning two Natures. And, [that they have] delivered these [Expressions as] be­coming God, according to the divinity of Christ: but those other [as] humble and mean, agree­able to the same persons humanity. To which words [Cyrillus] has subjoyned these. Ha­ving read these your sacred Expressions, We find that We our selves embrace the same Sentiments. For, there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. We have therefore glorified God the Saviour of all [men,] rejoycing mutually, that as well the Churches amongst us, as those with you, do profess a Faith that is agreeable, both to the divinely inspired Scriptures, and also to the Tradition of our Holy Fathers.

After the Reading hereof, those of this Synod cried out in these words: We do all believe thus; Pope Leo believes thus. Anathema to him that divides, and to him who confounds. This is the Faith of Leo the Arch-Bishop. Leo be­lieves thus; Leo and Anatolius believe thus. We all believe thus. As Cyrillus, so we believe. The eternall memory of Cyrillus. As Cyrillus's Letters In the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 161▪ in­stead of [ [...], are] it is writ­ten [ [...], contain.] Vales. are, so are our Senti­ments. Thus we have be­lieved, thus we do believe: Leo the Arch-Bishop thinks thus, thus he believes, thus he hath written. Then, an Interlocution having been made, that Leo's Letter might also be read; being rendred [into Greek,] it was recited: which [Letter] is extant in the Acts [of the Councill.] After therefore the reading thereof, the Bishops exclaimed, This is the Faith of the Fathers, This is the Faith of the Apostles. We all believe thus, [...], We that are Orthodox do be­lieve thus. In the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, p. 169, it is [...], The Orthodox do believe thus; which reading I like bet­ter, although Nicephorus confirms the common reading. Vales. we that are Orthodox do believe thus. Anathema to him who be­lieves not thus. Peter by Leo hath uttered these words: The Apostles have taught thus: Leo hath taught pi­ously and truly, Cyrillus has taught thus, Leo and Cyrillus have taught alike: Anathema to him who believes not thus: This is the true Faith, the Orthodox think thus, this is the Faith of the Fathers. Why were not these [words] read at Ephesus? Dioscorus hath con­cealed these [Expressions.] It is recorded in the same Acts, that when part of the [fore-mentioned] Letter of Leo was read, the Contents whereof were these, And in order to the Or, lay­ing down. paying that due debt of our Nature, the divine Nature was united to a Nature passible, to the end that (for this was agree­able to our Remedies,) He being one and the same Mediatour of God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus; might be able to die by one, and might not be able to die by the other: the Illyrician and Pa­lestine Bishops being in doubt as to this Expression; Aetius Arch-deacon of the most Holy Church of Constantinople, produced a passage of Cyrillus's, the Contents whereof are these: Again, in re­gard his own Body See Heb. 2. 9. by the grace of God, ac­cording as the Apostle Paul saith, hath tasted death I agree with Learned men, who (instead of [...], by all) have mended it thus, [...], for, or, instead of every man; so the reading is in Nice­phorus, and in the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 170. Vales. for every man, he himself is [therefore] said to have suffered death for us: not as if he had ex­perienced death, as to what belongs to his own Nature; (For 'tis stupidity and ex­tream madness, either to af­firm, or think this:) but because (as I have even now said,) his Flesh tasted death. And again, as to an expression of Leo's Letter, which runs thus: For each Form acts with a com­munion of the other, that which is proper: to wit, The Word operates that which is The Word's; and the The bo­dy. Flesh performs that which is of the Or, body. Flesh: and the one of these shines with Miracles; but the other hath lain under injuries: the Illyrician and Palestine Bishops being in doubt, the same Aetius read a Or, Head. Chapter of Cyrillus, the Contents whereof were these. Of the expressions [used concerning Christ,] some are most especially agree­able to God; again, others are agreeable to man. But a third sort possess a certain middle place, evidencing the Son of God, to be God and also at the same time Man. After this, when the foresaid Bishops doubted at another place of Leo's Epistle, which runs thus: For, although in our Lord Jesus Christ, [there is] one person of God and of man, nevertheless that is one thing whence there is in both a Community of Contume­ly, and that is another whence there is a Commu­nity of Glory. For from us he [has] humanity, which is less than the Father. But from the Fa­ther he has the divinity which is equall with his Father. Theodoret, after he had well considered this matter, said, that the Blessed Cyrillus had expresly spoken thus, in these words: And being made man, and loosing nothing that was his own, In the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, this place of Cyrillus is written otherwise, thus: [...], For he continued what he was: but 'tis altogether to be understood, that the one dwells in the other, that is the divine Na­ture in the humane. Vales. he continued what he was, and the one dwelt in the other, that is, the divine Na­ture Or, with men. in man. After this, when the Illustrious Judges enquired whether there were any person who as yet doub­ted, all answered, that no person made any further doubt. After whom, Atticus Bishop of Nicopolis requested, that a Or, an Intervall. Truce of some few days might be allowed them, to the end that with a sedate mind and undisturbed understanding such things might be decreed as were pleasing to God, and to the Holy Fathers. He desired also, that Cyrillus's Letter, written to Nestorius, might be delivered [to them,] in which Cyrillus intreats Nestorius, that he would give his assent to his twelve Heads, There is an ambi­guity in these words. For they may as well be referred to Cyrillus's twelve heads, of which he speaks just before, as to the requests of Atticus Bishop of Nicopolis; to which all the rest of the Bishops agreed, as we are informed in the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, about the end of it. Johannes Langus has followed the former sense. But the latter explication pleases me best. Vales. whereto all agreed. And when the Judges by making an In­terlocution [Page 444] [had given order,] that an inter­vall of five days might be allowed them, wherein they might have a meeting [and confer] I as­sent to the Learned, who (instead of [...] about Anatolius,) before us had mended it thus, [...], with Anatolius. In Nicephorus the preposition is wanting, which nevertheless seems to me altoge­ther necessary. Vales. with Anatolius Prelate of Costantinople: all the Bi­shops cryed out, and said; We do believe thus: We all believe thus: as Leo, so we believe: no one of us doubts: We have all subscribed. To which [exclamations the Judges] made an Interlo­cution in these express words. There is no ne­cessity that you should all meet. But, in regard 'tis agreeable, that those who doubt should be con­firmed, let the most pious Bishop Anatolius choose out of their number who have subscribed, such persons as he shall think fit to teach and inform those that doubt. Whereto those of the Synod subjoyned these Acclamations: We entreat In the excellent Florentine M. S. the reading is [...], for, or, concer­ning the Fathers; which is better than [...], &c. from the, &c. And the same with that first mentioned, is the reading in the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill. Further, who these Fathers should be, for whom the Bishops entreat, that they may be restored to the Synod, 'tis not difficult to guess. For they are these, Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius, Eustathius, and Basilius; who had been deposed in the First Action together with Dioscorus, by an Interlocution of the Judges and Senatours. On account therefore of this deposition which the Bishops had ap­proved of by their suffrages, these five Bishops, were present neither at the Second nor Third Action, as 'tis apparent from the Catalogue of the Bishops which is prefixt before those Actions. Besides, in the Third Action, when the Legates of the Apostolick See had pronounced a sentence of deposition against Dioscorus, the rest of the Bishops con­firmed it by their own subscriptions: excepting these five, as Evagrius has truly observed above. In the Common Editions of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 212, the names even of these five Bishops occur written also: but, out of order, and after all the other Bishops. Whence it appears, that they had not subscribed at such time as the sentence was pronounc't, but a long while after, when they had been restored, and had recovered their former dignity. Moreover, it may be ma­nifestly concluded from what is said above, that that is most true which I have already remark't, viz. that the Second Action of the Chalcedon Synod is by Evagrius taken for The Third, and The Third for The Se­cond. But, which Copies are worthiest to be believed, whether those which Evagrius made use of, or them which we have now extant, 'tis not easie to pronounce. To me, the Copies made use of by Eva­grius seem more certain. First, on account of their Antiquity; for doubtless they were older than those we now use. Secondly, by rea­son of their legitimate and true order of matters transacted. For, after an accurate Examination of Dioscorus's Cause, and after the In­terlocution of the Judges, who had pronounced him to have offended against the Canons, and that he was to be deposed; all which was done in the First Action: it remained, that Dioscorus by a Canonicall Judgment of the Bishops should be condemned. Wherefore, that Action, wherein Dioscorus was deposed by the Bishops by a Synodick Sentence, ought immediately to follow The First Action. Therefore Evagrius and Nicephorus have rightly placed it in the second place. A third reason is drawn from the Third Action it self, pag. 177. where Dioscorus is said to have answered the Legates sent to him from the Holy Synod, in this manner: Quoniam ante haec in congregatione, &c. In regard before this the most magnificent Judges sitting in the Con­vention, have determined some things, after a large Interlocution of every one of them, but now a second meeting calls me out, in order to the nulling of what has been said before. Nevertheless, that is in the way, which occurs at the close of the Second Action, viz that the Bishops of Illyricum cried out thus, Dioscorus to the Synod, Dioscorus to the Chur­ches. Which doubtless they would not have dared to say after Dio­scorus's deposition to which themselves had subscribed. Therefore, the Second Action, where this Acclamation occurs, ought necessarily to precede The Third Action; in which Dioscorus was Canonically de­posed. And this I think to be truer. Vales. for the Fathers: [Let] the Fathers, who are of the same Sentiment with Leo, [be restored] to the Synod; The Fathers to the Synod: These words to the Emperour: These Supplications to The Orthodox, These Supplications to Augusta: We have all sinned: Let us all be pardoned. But the Clergy of the Constantinopolitane Church exclaimed [in these words,] They are but few who cry out: The Synod says not this. After whom, the Eastern Bishops cried out, The Egy­gyptian to Banishment. But the Illyricians ex­claimed: We entreat [you,] have mercy upon all. After whom the Eastern Bishops cried out, The Egyptian to Banishment. And when the Illy­ricians had made the same request which they had made before, the Clergy of Constantinople cried out: Dioscorus to Banishment: The Egyptian to Exile: The Heretick to Banishment. Christ hath deposed Dioscorus. After whom, the Illyricians and those Bishops of their partie [exclaimed,] We have all sinned; pardon all: Dioscorus to the Synod, Dioscorus to the Churches. And when such like words as these had preceded, this Session was ended. At the Session after this, when the Senate had made an Interlocution, that the De­crees which had already been Instead of [ [...], the due De­crees;] it must undoubtedly be [...], the Decrees which had been given forth; which is the reading in Nicephorus. And this rea­ding is confirmed by the fourth Action of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 218, &c. Vales. given forth should be recited, Constantinus the Secretary read these express words out of a Or, Pa­per. Sche­dule.

We perceive, that a more exact scrutiny concerning the Orthodox and Catholick Faith ought to be made to morrow, when the Synod will be more compleat and full. But, in regard Flavianus of Pious Memory, and the most Religious Bishop Eusebius (from a search made into the Acts and Decrees, and also from their testimony by word of mouth who presi­ded in the Synod then convened; who have con­fessed that they have erred, and have deposed them without cause, when they had in no wise erred in the Faith:) have, as 'tis evidently known, been unjustly deposed: it appears to us (agreeable to that which is acceptable unto God,) to be just, (provided it shall please our most Divine and most Pious Lord,) that Dioscorus the most Religious Bishop of Alexandria, Juvenalis the most Religious Bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius the most Religious Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius the most Religious Bishop of Ancyra, Eu­stathius the most Religious Bishop of Berytus, and Basilius the most Religious Bishop of Seleu­cia in Isauria, which [Prelates] had power, and presided over the then Synod, should lye under the very same punishment, [and] accor­ding to the Canons Or, made strangers to. be removed from the Episco­pall dignity: all things which have been conse­quently done being made known Or, to the Divine heighth. to his most sa­cred Imperial Majesty.

Then, after the reading of some other things, the Bishops assembled were asked, whether Leo's Letter agreed with the Faith of the Three hun­dred and eighteen Holy Fathers convened at Nice, and with that of the Hundred and fifty [Holy Fathers assembled] in the Imperiall City [Constantinople;] whereto Anatolius Pre­late of Constantinople and all the Bishops present returned answer, that Leo's Letter agreed with the foresaid Holy Fathers: and Christophorson read it in the plurall number [...], they subscribed; and so the rea­ding is in Nicephorus: which is confirmed by the Acts of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 218, &c. Vales. he subscribed to the forementioned Letter of Leo. These things having procee­ded thus, those of the Synod cried out, We all consent, We do all approve, We all be­lieve a like, We all think the same things, We all believe thus. [Let] the Fathers [be re­stored] to the Synod, [Let] those who have sub­scribed [be restored] to the Synod: Many years Or, of the Emperour. to the Emperour: Many years Or, of Augusta; that is, Pulcheria; see chap. 1. to Augusta. The Fathers to the Synod, those of the same Faith to the Synod: many years to the Emperour: those of the same Sentiments to the Synod: many years to the Emperour. We have all subscribed to the [Page 445] Faith: as Leo, so we think After this an In­terlocution was made [by the Judges,] in these express words: We have given a Relation con­cerning these things to our most divine and most pious Lord, and we expect the answer of his piety. But your Reverence shall render an account to God, as well concerning Dioscorus who hath been deposed by You, (his Imperiall Majesty and we being ignorant thereof,) as Instead of [ [...] ▪ concerning all those other things,] the reading in the Flo­rentine and Tellerian M. SS. is truer, thus, [...], concerning those [other] five per­sons; in the Fourth Action of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 232▪ the reading is the same with this last mentioned; as likewise that in Nicephorus. Vales. concerning those [other] five persons for whom you have entreated, and concer­ning all other matters which have been transacted in the Synod. [Hereupon they all] cried out, saying, God hath de­posed Dioscorus: Dioscorus hath been justly deposed, Christ hath deposed Dioscorus. Then after these things, an answer being brought from Marcianus, which gave the Bishops permission to de­termine according to their own discretion concerning the persons who had been deposed, in such manner as the Judges have declared by an Interlocution; [the Bishops] made their request, saying these express words: We entreat that they may come in. [Let] those of the same opinion [be re­stored] to the Synod: those of the same Senti­ments, to the Synod: those who have subscribed to Leo's Letter, to the Synod. Which persons, after an Interlocution, were admitted into the number of the Synod. And after this, the Sup­plicatory Libells, which had been presented by the Bishops of the Aegyptick Dioecesis to the Em­perour Marcianus, were read; wherein, besides other matters these things were contained: Our Sentiments are the same with those expositions which the Three hundred and eighteen [Holy Fathers] set forth at Nicaea, and [with those embraced by] the blessed Athanasius, and Cy­rillus of Holy Memory: We Anathematize every Heresie, that of Arius, that of Eunomius, of Manes, of Nestorius, and that of those who assert, that the Flesh of our Lord is from heaven, and not from the Holy Theotocos, and Ever-Virgin Mary; That is, Christ. whom [we affirm] to be like to us all, [but] without sin. Then, all [the Bishops] present in the Synod cried out, saying: Why do they not Anathematize Eutyches's opinion? Let them subscribe to Leo's Letter, and Anathe­matize Eutyches and his Opinions: Let them give their assent to Leo's Letter: they are de­sirous to impose upon us and be gone. Here­to the Bishops of Egypt returned answer, that there were many Bishops in Egypt, and that 'twas impossible [for them] to represent the Or, per­son. per­sons of those who were absent: and they requested, that the Synod would expect their Arch-Bishop, to the end that (according as Custome requi­red,) they might follow his Opinion. For [they said,] that if they should do any thing before the Or, no­mination. Election of their Arch-Bishop, all persons of the whole Egyptick Dioecesis would fall up­on them. And when they had made many en­treaties concerning these things, and those of the Synod had vigorously resisted them; by an Inter­locution 'twas ordered, that an Or, delay. intervall should be granted to the Bishops of Egypt, till such time as an Arch-Bishop could be ordained over them. And after this, were presented Sup­plicatory Libells of some Monks, the sum of which was this, that they might in no wise be forced to subscribe Or, in certain pa­pers. to certain Papers, There is extant a Supplica­tory Libell, presented to the Em­perour Marcianus by the Monks, in the Fourth Action of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 237. In this Libell the Monks request of the Emperour, that an Oecumenicall Synod might be convened, (which the Emperour had before given order to be as­sembled;) which might consult the safety of all persons, and that the Monks might not be compel­led by violence to subscribe. Those Monks, belike, did not be­lieve that Synod to be Oecumeni­call, at which Dioscorus and the other Bishops of Egypt were not present. They requested there­fore, that Dioscorus might be wholly restored, as may be seen in another Libell which is reci­ted afterwards. Vales. till such time as the Synod (which the Empe­rour had ordained to be convened,) should meet, and take cognizance of those things which had been Decreed. After the recitall of these [Li­bells,] Diogenes Bishop of Cyz [...]cus declared that [...]arsumas, one of those persons who were come into the Councill, had murdered Flavianus: for, that he had cried out kill him. And that, although he was not named in the Libells, yet (contrary to what was right and fitting,) he had gotten entrance [into the Councill.] Whereat all the Bishops exclaimed, Bar­sumas hath ruined all Syria, he hath brought a thousand Monks against us. And when an Interlocution had been made, that the [Monks] who were come together should expect the Synod's determi­nation; the Monks requested, that the Libells composed by them might be read: part whereof was this, that Dioscorus and those Bishops with him might be present at the Synod. At the hearing whereof, all the Bishops ex­claimed. Anathema to Dioscorus: Christ hath deposed Dioscorus: thrust these persons out of doors: take away the injury of the Synod: re­move the Force of the Synod: [Relate] these words to the Emperour: remove the Injury of the Synod: take away the disgrace of the Synod. In opposition to whom the Monks cried out, re­move the injury of the Monasteries. And when the same exclamations had been made again by the Synod, 'twas ordered by an Interlocution, that the rest of the Libells should be recited. In which 'twas affirmed, that Dioscorus's deposi­tion had not been duely and orderly made, and that, the Faith being proposed, Or, he ought to partake of the Synod. he ought to be admitted to the Session of the Synod. And un­less this were done, they would shake their gar­ments, [and recede] from the Communion of those Bishops who were convened. After the Recitall of these words, Aetius the Arch-Deacon read the Canon concerning those who separated themselves [from Communion.] And again, when the Monks were divided at the questions [put to them] by the most Holy Bishops, and afterwards, at the interrogatory of Aetius the Arch-Deacon made as from the Synod; and when some of them Anathematized Nestorius and Eu­tyches, and others refused to do that: an Inter­locution was made by the Judges [who decla­red,] that the Supplicatory Libells of Faustus and the other Monks should be read; wherein they requested of the Emperour, that those Monks should not have any further Countenance shown them, who had lately appeared in opposition to Or­thodox Sentiments: amongst whom, one Doro­theus [...] Monk had termed Eutyches Orthodox. Against him diverse questions concerning Euty­ches's Doctrine were proposed by the Judges. After this, when the Fifth Session was begun, the Judges by an Interlocution declared, that what had been determined concerning the Faith, should be promulged. Then Asclepiades a Deacon of Constantinople, read the Determination, which they were pleased not to have inserted into the Acts. Against which [Determination] some made opposition; but more consented to it. And when Exclamations had been made on the one [Page 446] side and on the other, the Judges said, that Dio­scorus affirmed he had therefore deposed Flavia­nus, because he asserted there were two Natures: but, that the Determination ran thus, of two Natures. To which Anatolius made answer, that Dioscorus had not been deposed on account of the Faith; but because he had Or, brought an Excommuni­cation upon Leo. excommunicated Leo, and having been thrice summoned, had not appeared. Then As to my self it seemeth, I have restored this place very hap­pily. For, of these three words [ [...], from this instant] I have made one, in this man­ner, [...], &c. the Judges desired, &c. But Nicepho­rus, perceiving this place to be cor­rupted, by adding a word made it good in this manner; [...], &c. From this instant the Judges or­dered, &c. Which emendation is contradicted by the Authority of the Acts, and contrary to E­vagrius's mind. For the S [...]cu­lar Judges, who by the Empe­rour's order were present at the Synod, never Commanded that Leo's Letter should be in­serted into the definition of the Faith; but only desired that of the Bishops: which nevertheless was denied them by the Bishops, as 'tis apparent from the Fifth Action, pag. 250. Vales. the Judges desired, that the words in Leo's Letter might be inserted into the definition [of the Faith:] which having been denied by the Bishops (who said that another definition [of the Faith] could not be made, for that was compleat and perfect;) these things were related to the Emperour. And he ordered six of the Eastern Bishops, and three of the Pontick [Di­oecesis,] and three of A­sia, and three of Thracia, and three of Illyricum, (A­natolius and the Deputies of the Romish See being al­so present,) to meet in the Church [of Euphemia,] and there rightly to deter­mine matters in relation to the Faith; or at least, that every one of them should set forth his own Faith; which if they did not, they were to know, that a Synod should be convened in the West. And being asked to declare, whether they would follow Dioscorus who asserted [Christ to consist] OF TWO [Natures,] or Leo [who affirmed] TWO [Natures] IN Christ, they cried out that they [...]. The word [ [...], a­greeable to] must be under­stood. For the Bishops did not make an­swer that they be­lieved Leo, according as Christophorson renders it; but, that they believed with Leo [or, as Leo did believe,] as Langus and Musculus have rightly rendred it. For thus they had acclaimed, as Leo does, so we believe; as it occurs in the fifth Action. Vales. believed [agreeable to] Leo: but, that those who made opposition were Eu­tychianists. And when the Judges had said, that [...]. Nicephorus has mended it thus, [...] ▪ according to Leo. But, I doubt not but Evagrius wrote [...], according to Leo's opinion. For so the Judges speak in the Fifth Action of this Councill, pag. 250. Further, before the word [...], the verb [ [...], there ought] seems necessary to be added. Vales. according to Leo's Opinion [there ought] to be added [in the definition of the Faith, these words] two natures united, In the Fifth Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, 'tis written adver­bially, thus, [...], inconvertibly, and indivisibly, and inconfusealy. Vales. inconvertible, and undivided, and inconfused in Christ; [the Bi­shops entreated them to go into the Oratory of the Holy Euphemia's Church.] Before these▪ some words seem to be wanting in the Greek-Text, which from, the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill may be supplied after this manner: [...], the Bishops intreated them to go into the Oratory [of the Holy Euphemia's Church.] Further▪ the mistake of Langus and Christophor­son is to be taken notice of here; who have rendred [...], the Church of the Holy Martyr Euphemia. The Synod of Chalcedon was in­deed assembled in the Temple, or Church of Saint Euphemia. But, the Treaty, or Conference, concerning the Faith was held in the Oratory of the said Church, according as the Emperour had given order in the Allocution which is recited in the Councill, pag. 250. [...], to meet in the Oratory [or Quire] of the most Holy Church. For [...] [Martyrium] is taken for the Church, as it appears from the Third Action of the Chal­cedon-Synod, where the Bishops are said to have met in the Martyrium of the most Holy and Victorious Martyr Euphemia, And in the other Actions of that Councill, the same Bishops are said to have come to­gether into the most holy church of the same Martyr. In regard therefore 'tis manifest, that the Oratory (wherein some few of the Bishops met only, to treat concerning the Faith, together with Ana­tolius and the Deputies of the Romish See,) was part of Saint Euphe­mia's Church, it remains to be inquired, what part of the Church that was. Saint Euphemia's Church consisted of three spacious Edifices; the first whereof was an Atrium, or, Court. The second, the Basilico, [or, the Church it self;] the third, the Altar built in form of a Cuppolo, as Evagrius tells us in the third chapter of this book. The Oratory therefore is the same with the Altar, which now a days we term the Choire, or, Quire. Nor has our Evagrius done right, in making use of [...] to signifie the Oratory; for the Emperour had not ordered the Bishops to meet in the Martyrium, but in the Oratory of the Martyr, as we have now said. Vales. And when the Judges had entred into the foresaid Oratory, together with Anatolius and the Deputies of Leo, with Maximus also of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem, and Thalassius of Caesarea in Cap­padocia, and with the other [Bishops;] and when [some little time after] they had gone out from thence, the definition [of the Faith] was read, the Contents whereof were these: Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and so forth, which we have inserted See chap. 4. above into our History. And when they had all cried out; This is the Faith of the Fathers, Let the Metropolitans now sub­scribe; This is the Faith of the Apostles; We all follow this Faith; We all think thus: the [...]udges made an Interlocution in these words: Those matters which have been defined by the Fathers, and which please all persons, shall be Re­lated Or, to the Divine heighth. to his Imperial Majesty. But, at the Sixth Session, the Emperour [Marcianus] came [to the Councill,] and made a Speech to the Bi­shops concerning Concord. And Or, by the Empe­rour's or­der. after an Inter­locution of the Emperour's, the definition [of the Faith] was read by Aetius Arch-Deacon of Con­stantinople, and all subscribed to the definition. Then the Emperour asked, whether the definition were composed by the unanimous consent of them all: and they all confirmed it with joyfull accla­mations. Again, the Emperour made two Speeches [to the Bishops,] which were followed with the joy­full acclamations of them all. After this by the Em­perour's perswasion the Canons were Ordained, or, Consti­tuted. written, and Not a Metropoli­ticall Right or Priviledge, but the name of a Metropolis only, was given to the City of Chalcedon: for these are the words of the Emperour Marcianus's Law; [...]; that is, We have Decreed, that the City of the Chalcedonensians, wherein the Synod of the most Holy Faith was con­vened, should have the priviledges of a Metropolis, honouring it with the name only, to wit, its proper dignity being preserved to the Metropolis of the Nicomedians. But although the Emperour in these words seems to adorn only the City it self of the Chalcedonensians, with the Title of a Metropolis, yet that priviledge belongs even to the Church of the Chalcedonensians also. From that time therefore the Bishop of Chalcedon had the honour of a Metropolitane: but, had no Metropoliti­call Right or Priviledge, because the Emperour by this Law would have nothing diminished from the dignity of the Bishop of Nicomedia. The Bishops of this very Councill have determined [or judged] the same thing in the Cause of the Bishops of Nicomedia and Nicaea. For, whereas Nicaea by the Emperour's Rescript had obtained the honour of a Metropolis, the Judges and Bishops who were in the Councill made answer, that this honour had been given only to the City by the Emperours; nor could the Bishop of Nicaea by this Law arrogate to himself a Metropoliticall Right or Priviledge; but was only preferred before the other Bishops of the Province Bythinia: so that, he was accounted in the second place after the Metropolitane, as may be seen in the Thirteenth Action. Further, what the Metropoli­ticall Rights and Priviledges were, we are informed from the Canons of the Nicene Councill; to wit, that the Ordinations of Provinciall Bi­shops should not be made without the Metropolitan's consent: and that the Metropolitane Bishop should have a power of calling out the Provin­ciall Bishops to a Councill of his own. Moreover, in the Florentine Manuscript I found it written [...], although in the Chalcedon-Councill it is always written [...]. Regularly it should be written [...]. But the Ancients seem to have said [...], as 'tis apparent from many places in the Chalcedon-Councill. Vales. to [the City of] the Chalcedonensians were given Metropoliticall Rights and Priviledges. [Page 447] And the Emperour commanded the Bishops to stay three or four days, and that every one should propose [questions] concerning what he had a mind to, in the presence of the Judges; and Or, what was fitting should be done. that all things should be ended by a convenient and fit determination▪ Thus this Convention was finished. There was In Nicephorus, instead of [ [...], other things,] it is righter thus, [...], with the accent in the last syllable save one; understand, [...], Session, or Conven­tion. I wonder, that neither Musculus nor Christophorson per­ceived this. Vales. another [Session] also, wherein other Canons were made. And again, at ano­ther Session, Juvenalis and Maximus made an agreement, and it seemed good, that the [Bishop] of Antioch should have the two Phoenicia's, and Arabia; and the [Bishop] of Jerusalem the three Palestines [Sub­ject to his See.] And after an Interlocution of the Judges and▪ Bishops, they confirmed [this agreement.] And at the Yes, in the Ninth Action, the Cause of Theodoret the Bishop was judged, as Our Copies show us. But the Copies of the Chal­cedon Synod, which Evagrius made use of, seem to have been different from ours. For, as we have seen a little before, Eva­grius reckons a Seventh Action, wherein other Canons were pro­mulged. Which Action is at this day wanting in our Copies. Vales. ninth Session Theo­doret's Cause was discussed. Who had Anathe­matized Nestorius, in these words; Anathema to Nesto­rius, and to him who denies the Holy Virgin Mary to be Theotocos, and to him who divides the one Only-begotten Son into two Sons: moreover, I have subscribed to the defi­nition of the Faith, and to Leo's Epistle. After an In­terlocution therefore made by them all, he recovered his own See. In another Session, Ibas's Cause was examined, and those things were read which had been transacted and pronounced against him; the Judges whereof were Photius Bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius Bishop of Berytus. And Sentence was deferred to the following [Session.] At the Eleventh Con­vention, when many of the Bishops had voted Ibas to [...]. In the Tenth Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, and in Nicephorus, the Praepo­sition is wanting. But in the Florentine Manuscript, I found it written [...]; which is the same as if he should have said [...], among, or, of the number of the Bishops▪ Vales. The reading in Robert Stephens is [...]. be restored to his Bishoprick, some Bishops opposed it, and said, that his Accusers were without, and they requested that they might be ordered to come in. Those things therefore were read which had been transacted against Ibas. And when the Judges by an Interiocu­tion had given order, that the Acts at Ephesus against Ibas should be read; the Bishops said, that all things which had been done, at the Second Ephesine Synod, were void and null; except only the ordination of Maximus [Bishop] of An­tioch. And they made a request to the Empe­rour concerning this matter, that by a Law he would decree, that nothing of those things [which had been done] at Ephesus after the First Synod (over which Cyrillus of Blessed memory, Pre­late of Alexandria, had presided;) should be valid. And Ibas had his Bishoprick adjudged to him. At another Action, the Cause of Bassi­anus Bishop of Ephesus was discussed; and 'twas Decreed, The Bi­shops De­creed, that as well Bas­sianus, as Stephanus, should be removed from the Bishoprick of Ephesus, and that in their place another Bishop should be made; as may be seen in the Eleventh and Twelfth Action. This place of E­vagrius therefore is to be made good thus: [...], that as well he as Stephanus should be ejected, or, deposed, and another Substituted in their room. Vales. that as well he, as Stephanus, should be deposed, and another Substituted in their room. And at another Session, the same thing was put to the Vote and confirmed. In the Thirteenth Action, the Cause between Eunomius [Bishop] of Ni­comedia, and Anastasius Bishop of Nicaea was in­quired into, who were at strife amongst themselves concerning their own Cities. Moreover, there was a Fourteenth Action, wherein the Cause of Instead of Basianus, it must be made Sabinianus, from the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill. Of this Sabinianus Bishop of the Perrenses (which is a City in the Euphratensian Province) Liberatus makes mention, in the twelfth Chapter of his Breviarium. Also, there is an Epistle of Theodoret's extant, written to this Sabinianus, which is reckoned the 126th amongst his Epistles. Vales. Sabinianus [the Bishop] was examined. And in fine, it was determined, that the Constantino­politane-See should have Or, should be placed. precedency immediately after that of Rome.

The End.

THE THIRD BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS Epiphaniensis, And [one] of the EX-PRAEFECTS.

CHAP. I. Concerning Zeno's Empire, and concerning his Life.

BUT Zeno, after the death of his own Viz. Leo the Second; See book 2. chap. 17. Son, was invested with the sole Ad­ministration of the Empire; suppo­sing as it were that he could not be possest of the Dominion of the whole world, unless with [an uncontroulable] Li­berty he might prosecute all manner of plea­sures which occurred: at his first entrance he yielded himself so wholly up to the attempts and allurements of Lusts, In the most excellent Flo­rentine M. S. at this place some Learned Scholiast had set these words; [...] Oh, the likeness to what it is now▪ Vales. that no filthy or flagi­tious Fact could put a re­straint upon him: but in such a manner he Or, was conversant. wal­lowed in the commission thereof, that he thought it vile and mean to commit these things in darkness and obscurity: but [to perpetrate them] openly and in the sight of all [was in his judgment] Royall and be­coming only an Emperour. But, his Senti­ments [in this matter] were ill and Or, like those of slaves. abso­lutely servile. [...] In the Kings, Tellerian, and Flo­rentine M. SS. and in Stephens's Edit. the adverb [...] is wanting, which Learned men had put in by conjecture, unhappily enough. But, I doubt not but it should be written, [...], &c. and have rendred it ac­cordingly. Vales. For an Emperour is not taken notice of for this, because he Rules over others, but on this account, in regard in the first place he governeth and moderateth himself, permitting nothing that is extravagant or ill Instead of [ [...], entrance,] in my judgment it ought to be made [...] to creep into: and this reading is confirmed by Nicephorus, book 16. chap. 1. Vales. to creep into himself: But continues [...]; I assent to the Learned, who have long since ménded it thus, [...], &c. But continues so im­pregnable, &c. although the Manuscript Copies vary not here. But Nicephorus, when he perceived this place to be corrupted, interpolated it after this manner: [...], whence he continues so impregnable, &c. Vales. so impregnable against intemperance, that [he may seem to be] a living Image of Virtues, instructing his Subjects to an imitation [of Himself.] But he who has prostituted himself to Pleasures, by de­grees is imprudently made the vilest of Servants, and becomes a Captive not redeemable, Or, chan­ging his frequent slaveries. fre­quently changing his Masters, like the unuse­fullest sort of Slaves. For innumerable plea­sures are made his Mistresses, which can never have an end of their Train and Coherence, and of their succeeding one another: the pleasure which is at hand never stopping, but becomes the Incentive and Preface of another; till such time as any person, [...], any person thus made an Emperour: doubtless it should be [...], really and truly made, and so the rea­ding is in Nicephorus. Vales. really and truly made an Emperour [over himself,] can expell that tur­bulent and tumultuous Government of pleasures, reigning in future, and not opprest with Ty­ranny: otherwise, continuing a Slave to his last breath, he must possess the infernall pit.

CHAP. II. Concerning the Incursions of the Barbarians, both in the East, and in the West.

SUch a person was Zeno at the beginning [of his Government,] [...]. Christophorson understood not this phrase, as 'tis apparent from his Version. For he has rendred it thus: Ad hunc modum Zeno in initio imperii sui vitam instituit, After this manner Zeno at the beginning of his Empire ordered his life. Graecians take [...] for a dissolute and intemperate life. Which word does frequently occur in this sense in Dion Cocceianus and others. Hence [...] is taken for Luxury and Delights, as Suidas attests. Further, the Greeks do term Dissolute and Luxurious persons thus, because they are wont to observe no rule of living. So Dionysius Halicarnacensis, in his fifth book, speaking of a just King. says these words, [...], not at all receding from the Institutions of his Ancestours. Nicephorus therefore has rightly expounded this place of Evagrius thus, [...], an incomposed and disorderly person, and most extravagantly dissolute in his life. Vales. a man of an intemperate and dissolute life. But those who were his Sub­jects, [Page 449] as Or, as well at the rising as setting Sun. well in the Eastern as Western parts▪ underwent most severe mischiefs and afflictions: on this side the Or, the Barbarians inhabiting Tents. Saracens ruined all things: on that, a multitude of the Hunni, heretofore ter­med the Massagetae, made incursions into Thra­cia, and passed the Danube, no body making a resistance against them; Zeno himself also in a Barbarick manner 'Tis strange that nei­ther Tran­slatour hath hit the sence of this place. For Musculus renders it thus▪ Zenone deinceps ad Barbaricum morem violenter abrepto, Zeno being from thenceforth violently hurried away to a Barbarick disposition. But Christophorson Translates it in this manner; Zeno vero reliquis etiam Imperii partibus per vim barbaro quodam more ac modo spoliatus est, But Zeno in the other parts of the Empire also by force committed spoils in a certain barbarous fashion and manner. But had they consulted Nicephorus, they might have had a right understanding of this place from him. For Nicephorus has explained these words of Evagrius thus: [...], that is, But whatever had been left by them [the Barbarians,] was forcibly taken away by Zeno, who insested [the Provinces] at no less rate than the Barbarians. Fur­ther, in the Florentine and Tellerian M. SS. instead of [...], the reading is [...], in the Plurall number, which seems to me more elegant. Vales. by force took away [from the Provincialls] what [the Barbarians] had left.

CHAP. III. Concerning Basiliscus's Tyranny, and Zeno's Flight.

BUT When Basiliscus Verina's Brother made an Insurrection against him, (For even his own Relations were enemies to Zeno, all per­sons equally abominating his debauch't life;) he had not so much as a thought in him that was manly and couragious: (For wickedness is a cowardly thing, which breeds desperation and despondency, and gives a sufficient indica­tion of an unmanliness of mind, from its being vanquished by pleasures:) but flies with all the hast imaginable, and without a Battell yields so great an Empire to Basiliscus. He endured also a tedious Zeno ha­ving heard of Basilis­cus's de­fection, struck with fear, fled with his wi [...]e Ari­adne in­to Isauria, and betook himself to a most strong Castle, the name whereof was Ubara: but after­wards, when Basiliscus had sent Hillus and Trocondus with vast forces against him, he went to Tessaedes, or rather as Nicephorus says, to the City Seleucia, which was the Head City of all Isauria. There he was a long while Besieged by Hillus and Trocondus, as Theophanes relates in his Chronicon pag. 104. Cedrenus also and Nicephorus do affirm the same. But in Theophanes, the name Trocondus is corrupted. For the common Editions have it, [...], Hillus and Secundus, whereas it should be [...], Trocondus, as it is rightly written in Nice­phorus. Indeed the same Theophanes, pag. 106▪ terms him Procundus; which comes nearer to the true reading. This person was Brother to Hillus, and bore the Consulate in the year of Christ 482, as it occurs in Marcellinus's Chronicon: but at length, when Hillus had set up for a Tyrant, Trocondus, who had been sent by his Brother to get Forces, was taken by Johannes a Master of the Milice, and be­headed; as Theophanes, informs us pag. 112. Notwithstanding, at that place of Theophanes the name Trocondus is likewise corrupted. Vales. Siege [...]. The words are transposed; and are to be restored to their Pristine order in this manner: [...], in the Country of the Isaurians where he himself had been born: which words of Evagrius, Nicephorus has exprest thus: [...] And having gathered an Army fit for an Engagement, he sent it to besiege Zeno at Seleucia in Isauria. Which Country had given Zeno Birth, and at that time [...]id the Fugitive. Vales. in the Country of the Isau­rians where he himself had been born, having his wise Ariadne with him, (who after [her hus­bands flight] had left her mother,) and as many of his friends as had continued faithfull to him. Basiliscus therefore having thus encircled himself with the Crown of the Romans, and pro­claimed his Son Marcus Caesar, took a contrary course, both to Zeno, and to those who had been Emperours before [Zeno.]

CHAP. IV. That Basiliscus recalled Timotheus Aelurus, and▪ induced thereto by him, sent his Circular Let­ters to all places, in order to the Rejecting, or, aboli­shing. abrogating of the Chalcedon-Synod.

[INduced thereto] [...]. Without doubt it must be written thus, [...], by an Embassy therefore. Which though it may seem a small and triviall emendation, is yet altogether necessary. In Nice­phorus, 'tis [...], to wit, or, therefore. Vales. by an Embassy therefore of some persons [sent to him] from A­lexandria, he recalls Timotheus from Exile, (who had been banished eighteen years;) Acacius [at that time] administring the Bishoprick▪ of Constantinople. When therefore Timotheus was arrived at the Imperiall City, he perswades Basi­liscus Or, To make use of his circular Syllables. to send his Circular Letters to the Prelates in all places, and to Anathematize what had been done at Chalcedon, and Leo's Book. The Or, Composure of which Letters say these words. Con­tents of the Circular Letters run thus.

Emperour Caesar Basiliscus, Pius, Victor▪ Triumphator, Maximus, always Ado­rable, Augustus: and Marcus the most Noble Caesar, to Timotheus the most Re­verend and Or, God­loving. most Pious Arch-Bishop of the Great City Alexandria.

Whatever Laws the most Pious Emperours our Predecessours have made in defence of the true and Orthodox Faith, whosoever [of them] have persisted truly to worship the Blessed, Immortall, and Vivifick Trinity; Our Will is, that those Laws, in regard they have always been Salutary to the whole world, should at no time be abro­gated and made void: but rather, We promulge those Laws as our own. But We, who give Piety and a Zeal for God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath made Us and advanced Us to Glory, a preference before [all care and sollicitude] a­bout Humane affairs; and moreover, who believe, that the Or, Con­junction, or, binding together. Concord of Christ's Flocks is the Or, Sal­vation. safe­ty of the Flocks themselves, and of every Subject, and is the firm and solid Foundation, and immo­vable Wall of our Empire; being Or, From hence. on this account deservedly moved with a divine zeal of mind, and offering to God and our Saviour Jesus Christ the uniting together of the Holy Church as the First­fruits of our Empire, do Enact, that the Or, Ground and Firma­ment. Basis and Foundation of Humane felicity▪ that is the Creed of the Three hundred and eighteen Ho­ly Fathers heretofore convened at Nicea Or, To­gether with the Holy Spirit. by the instinct of the Holy Ghost (unto which [Creed] We and all our Ancestours, after our belief thereof, have been baptized,) shall only be made use of, and Or, Hold [obliege, bind,] the Orthodox people in all God's most Holy Churches. obtain in all God's most Holy Churches [and in the Assemblies of] the Orthodox people; in regard that only is the definition of the true and sincere Faith, and is sufficient both for the destruction of any Heresie of what sort soever, and also for the compleat and perfect uniting of God's Holy Chur­ches. Yet so, that those things also shall retain [Page 450] their own Strength and Validity, which have been done in this Imperial City by the Hundred and fifty Holy Fathers, in confirmation of the same divine Creed, against them who have ut­tered. Blasphemies against the Holy Ghost: and moreover, all those things which have been done in the Metropolis of the Ephesians, against the Impious Nestorius, and those who Or, Af­terwards. since that have embraced his Sentiments. But We Decree, that those things which have broke the Concord and good order of God's Holy Churches, and the Peace of the whole world, to wit, that termed Leo's Tome, and all things which in the definition of the Faith at Chalcedon, or in the Exposition of the Creeds, have been spoken or done, on account either of Interpretation, or Doctrine, or Disputation, in order to the Innovation of the forementioned Holy Creed of the Three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers, shall be Anathematized both here, and every where else, throughout every Church, by the most Holy Bishops in all places, and shall be com­mitted to the flames by whomsoever they shall be found. For thus the Emperours of Pious and Blessed Memory [who lived] before Us, to wit, There is indeed ex­tant a Con­stitution of the Emperour Constantine's, wherein the Dogmaticall Books of Arius are ordered to be burnt; which Constitution occurs at pag. 221. of our Socrates. Nevertheless, the Emperour Basiliscus seems here to mean another Law, which had been promulged by Con­stantine against all Hereticks in generall. But that Law hath perished by the injury of time. Yet part of it is still remaining in Eusebius, in the Third Book of his Life of Constantine, Chap. 64, and 66. But, there are two Constitutions extant of Theodosius Junior's, concerning the burning of Nestorius's books. The former of which makes men­tion of the Law of Constantine of Blessed Memory against Arius's im­pious books. Further, these Constitutions of Theodosius occur in the third part of the Ephesine Councill. Basiliscus had subjoyned these Laws of Theodosius to his own Circular Edict, as 'tis hereafter at­tested, Vales. Constantine and Theodosius Junior, have Decreed concerning all Hereticall Opinions. Be­ing therefore after this manner abrogated, let them be wholly cast out of the one and only Catholick and Apostolick Orthodox Church; in regard they alter the eternall and salutary Or, Limits. Terms of the 318 Holy Fathers, and those of the [150] Blessed Fathers who Or, Have made San­ctions [concerning] the, &c. have published express Declarations [concerning] the Holy Ghost, [...]. At this place Nicephorus has rightly ad­ded two words, in this manner; [...]. But I affirm that a third word is to be added, thus; [...]. For the word [ [...], terms] is understood; which occurs in the foregoing Clauses. Vales. as likewise the [Terms] of those at Ephesus. It shall therefore be lawfull for no person whatever, whether Priest or Laïck, in any wise to transgress that most Di­vine Constitution of the Holy Creed. [Further,] toge­ther with all those Innova­tions made at Chalcedon, against the Divine Creed, [We Decree] that their Heresie shall be Anathematized, who deny that the only-begotten Son of God was really and truly incarnate and made man by the Holy Ghost, and of the Holy and ever-Virgin Mary the Theotocos, but in a false and monstrous manner assert [that he took flesh] either Or, Out of. from Heaven, or imaginarily and in shew only and appearance; in fine, every Heresie, and if there hath been any other Innovation made, at what time soever, in whatever manner, or place of the whole world, either in sense and meaning, or in words, [framed] in order to a transgres­sing the said Divine Creed. But in regard 'tis the property of an Imperial providence, by a fore­seeing consideration and inspection liberally to dis­tribute security to its Subjects, not only at the pre­sent, but for the future also; We Decree that the most Holy Bishops in all places shall subscribe to this Our Divine Circular Letter when Or, Shown, or, declared. exhibited to them, and shall plainly declare, that they adhere solely to the Divine Creed of the Three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers, which the Hundred and fifty Holy Fathers have since confirmed; in such manner as those most Holy Fathers afterwards convened at the Metropolis of the Ephesians have definitively Decreed, to wit, [...], &c In Ni­cephorus 'tis truer written thus, [...], &c. that we ought only to follow, &c. which reading Christophorson and Sr Henry Savil have embraced. A little after this, where the reading before was, [...], as the Boun­dary and Limit of the Faith; from the Florent. and Tellerian M. SS. I have made it, [...], in regard it is, &c. as 'tis in Nicephorus. Vales. that we ought only to follow the Divine Creed of the Three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers, in regard it is the Boundary and Limit of the Faith: Anathematizing what ever hath at Chalcedon been made the stumbling-block of the Orthodox Laity, and wholly ejecting it out of the Churches, as being become the impediment of the [...]. In the Tellerian M. S. and in Nicephorus, I found it writ­ten, [...], of the univer­sall, &c. Vales. uni­versall and our own [pri­vate] felicity. But whoso­ever after these our Divine Syllables (which, we believe, are promulged agreeable to [the mind of] God, in regard they procure an Union to God's Holy Churches, wisht-for and desired by all men;) shall at any time attempt to produce, or so much as to name, either by way of dispute, or in their tea­ching, or writings, at what time, in what man­ner or place soever, the Innovation which hath been made at Chalcedon against the Faith; our command is, that such persons as these (in regard they are the Occasioners of Disquietude and Tu­mult to all God's Holy Churches and to every one of our Subjects, and are enemies to God and to our safety, according to those Laws promulged long before our time by Theodosius of Blessed and Divine Memory, against this manner of Or, Ma­levolence. impro­bity, which [Laws] we have subjoyned to this Our Divine Circular Letter;) if they be Bishops or Clergymen, shall be deposed: but if Monks, or Laicks they Or, Shall fall under Banish­ment, &c. shall be lyable to Banishment, to a Confiscation of all their Goods, and to the ex­treamest punishments. For thus the Holy and Consubstantiall Trinity (at all times adored by Our Piety,) the Framer and Enlivener of all things, being by Us now also worshipped, by an abolition of the forementioned Or, Tares. Darnell, and a confirmation of the true and Apostolick Traditions of the Holy Creed, and rendred propitious and candid, both to Our Souls, and to every of Our Subjects; will ever in future together with Us Govern Humane Affairs, and render them com­posed and peaceable.

CHAP. V. Concerning those persons who consented to Basi­liscus's Circular Letters, and rejected the Sy­nod [of Chalcedon.]

AS therefore 'tis related by Zacharias the Rhetorician, Timotheus, newly returned from Exile (as I have said,) gave his consent to these Circular Letters: as did likewise Peter Bishop of Antioch, surnamed Or, The Fuller. Fullo, who toge­ther with Timotheus was present at the Impe­rial [City Constantinople.] These things ha­ving been performed in this manner, See chap. 6. note (a.) they Vote that Paulus also should recover the Archiepisco­pall Chair of Ephesus. Further, [the same Za­charias] affirms, that Anastasius, who had suc­ceeded [Page 451] Juvenalis [in the See] of Jerusalem, subscribed the same Circular Letters, as likewise very many others: insomuch that they were in number about Five hundred, who condemned Leo's Or, Tome. Letter, and the Chalcedon Synod. [The same Authour] [...]. Doubtless it must be made [...], does record; which I admire Translatours perceived not. Zacharias is understood, who in his Ecclesiasticall History had recorded this Libell entire, which the Bishops of Asia, convened at Ephesus, had sent to the Emperour Basilisous. Vales. does also some where record the Supplicatory Libell presented by the Bishops of Asia Concerning this Ephesine Councill, which was held in the times of the Emperour Basiliscus, Baronius in his Annalls, at the year of Christ 476, writes very slightly and negligently: remarking this only, that it was celebrated by the Eutychians. But he mentions neither upon what account it was assembled, nor what was transacted therein: it is our office therefore, by our care and diligence to supply what he has omitted. After the Circular Letters sent forth by the Emperour Basiliscus against the Chalcedon-Councill, Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, the only person of the Patriarchs subject to the Eastern Empire, refused subscribing to these Letters, nor would ever endure to expunge the Chalcedon Synod out of the Ecclesiasticall Tables. More­over, the Monks of Constantinople resolutely opposed Basiliscus. Last­ly, the Constantinopolitane populacy began to be most grievously tumultuous, threatning to fire the City and the Pallace, if the Em­perour should persist to put a force upon Acacius and the Catholicks. Basiliscus, terrified hereat, flies from the Imperial City; took from the Constantinopolitane Church their Rights and Priviledges, and forbad the Senators to speak to [or salute] Acacius. But after­wards, when he heard that Zeno was on his return out of Isauria; being stricken with fear, he came into the Church together with his wife and children; and excusing himself to Acacius and the Clergy of the Imperiall City, restored their Rights to the Constantinopolitan Church, and set forth his Anti-Circular [that is, Letters contrary to his Circular] Letters: thus Theodorus Lector informs us, Book 1. The Eutychians therefore, (when they saw Acacius contend with so much fierceness for the confirmation of the Chalcedon Synod; and that not only the Monasteries, but the people also of the Imperial City, and other Priests every where, were excited by Acacius against Basiliscus;) convened a Councill of Bishops of their own party in the City Ephe­sus: in which Councill they condemned and deposed both Acacius, and some other Bishops who embraced the same Sentiments with him: and then they entreated the Emperour Basiliscus, that he would persist in his former opinion, and would not promulge a Constitution Con­trary to his own Circular Letters. In the same Synod, Paulus is or­dained Bishop of Ephesus by the Bishops of the same Province, and the Patriarchicall priviledge is restored to the Ephesine See, as our Evagrius relates in the sixth chapter of this book. Further, this Ephe­sine Councill was held on the year of Christ 477, after the Consulate of Basiliscus and Armatus. Which I gather from hence, because this Synod was assembled a little before Basiliscus promulged his Anti-Circular Letters. Now Basiliscus published those Letters on that year I have mentioned; when he understood that Zeno was returning out of Isauria with an Army; as I have observed above out of Theo­dorus Lector. Indeed, the Asian Bishops seem to intimate this in their Letter to Basiliscus, in these words: [...], Be pleased therefore to pub­lish nothing contrary to your Divine Circular Letters. Moreover, Ti­motheus Aelurus seems to have presided at this Councill. For he came to Ephesus in the Reign of Basiliscus, and seated Paulus in his Episcopal Chair, as Evagrius relates from Zacharias. Nor is it likely, that Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople should have been deposed by any other person than the Alexandrian Bishop, who held the dig­nity of a Patriarch equall to Acacius. For who can believe that the Constantinopolitan Bishop was deposed by the Bishops of Asia, who long before this, from the times of John Chrysostome, were subject to the Bishops of Constantinople? Vales. convened at Ephesus, to Basiliscus; part of the Contents of which [Libell] run thus.

To the most Pious in all things, and the Lovers of Christ, our Lords Basiliscus and Marcus, per­petual Victors, Marcus was first created Caesar by his Father Basiliscus, as Marcellinus relates in his Chronicon, Theophanes, and others. 'Tis certain, in Basiliscus's Circular Letters he is only termed the most noble Caesar. But afterwards he was styled Augustus by his Father, as this Letter of the Bishops of the Ephesine Councill doth inform us. Also, in the Anti-Circular Letter of Basiliscus, the same Marcus is named Emperour with his Father. The Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle is mistaken therefore, who relates that Basiliscus, as soon as he was proclaimed Emperour, crowned his Son Marcus Emperour. Candidus says truer, in the second book of his History, in Photius. Vales. Augusti. And after some words. You have always seemed (Most pious and Christ-Loving Emperours!) to be divers ways assaulted, together with the Faith which is hated and opposed. And after other words.

A certain terrible expectation of Judgment, and an [...], a fervency, or, a p [...]r­ching heat. Ardour of Divine Fire, and the Just Incita­tion, or, commotion. Resentment of Your Serenity, will in a short time Or, engage. Seize the Adversaries, who [...], with a proud revenge: the reading in Nicephorus is the same. Where Johannes Langus renders [...], revenge. But I am of opi­nion, that by a small change this place is thus to be restored; [...], with a cer­tain arrogant folly. Vales. with a cer­tain arrogant folly, as it were with Darts, at­tempt to make an attack against the powerfull God and your Empire forti­fied by the [true] Faith; nor do they in any manner spare our Tenuity: but con­tinually assault us with re­proaches and lies, as if by a necessity and a force we had subscribed to your Di­vine and Apostolick Circu­lar Letters; whereas we have set our hands thereto with all imaginable joy and alacrity of mind. And after some other words. Be pleased therefore to publish nothing contrary to your Divine Circular Letters; knowing for certain what we have already said, that the whole world will be overturned again, and that the mischiefs done by the Synod at Chalcedon will be found small and triviall, which [yet] have effected these innumerable murders, and have unjustly and illegally poured forth the bloud of the Orthodox. And after other words. We protest before our Saviour Jesus Christ, [...], &c. Chri­stophorson read [...], our piety; con­trary to the Faith and Authority of all Copies, and without any sense. Besides, he has rendred the following words very badly. Whence it hapned, that Baronius, who every where follows Christophorson's Version, could in no wise understand the transactions of this Ephesine Councill. So great a hindrance is an ill Rendition. Nor has Johan­nes Langus translated this Clause more happily. For he hath rendred it thus: Attestamur coram Salvatore Nostro Jesu Christo, &c. We attest before our Saviour Jesus Christ, that Your piety is free and inno­cent. From which we request, that a Just and Canonical and Eccle­siastick Sentence of Condemnation and Deposition may be pronounc's against them, and especially against him who hath been many ways found out to have administred the Bishoprick in the Imperial City impiously. But the Bishops of Asia do not say this: but request of the Empe­rours Basiliscus and Marcus, that they would not communicate any more with Acacius and the other Bishops whom they themselves had condemned and deposed by an Ecclesiastick Sentence: For this is the import of these words, [...], which are to be written in one entire Clause, without any distinction. But Translatours, following Nice­phorus, and the Edition of Robert Stephens, have placed a distinction after the word [...], which led them into a mistake. Vales. We entreat Your piety to be free from that just Canonicall and Ecclesi­astick In this Edition of Valesius's, 'tis [...], abuse: it is, I suppose, an errour of the Press; put instead of [...], con­demnation; which is the reading in Stephens's Edition. condemnation and deposition inflicted on them, and especially [from that inflicted] on him, who by many [evidences] has been de­tected not to have governed the Bishoprick of the Imperial [City] holily.

[Further,] the same Zacharias writes word for word thus. As soon as the Circular and Im­perial Letters were published, those persons in the Imperial [City] [...]. Translatours understood not these words of Zacharias Rhe­tor. Nor does Nicephorus seem to have understood them. For in­stead of them, he has substituted these; [...], those who imagine [or, conceive] Eutyches Tenets.] By [...] [Phantasie,] or, [Imagination,] Zacharias means the opinion of Eu­tyches, who asserted, that the flesh of Christ was not true nor consub­stantiall with us, but Phantasticall or imaginary; as may be seen in the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill. Hence the Epistles of Avitus Bishop of Vienna, wherein he confutes Eutyches's Errour, have this Title, Contra phantasma, against the Phantasme; as Sirmondus attests. Fur­ther, from this place it may be gathered, that Zacharias Rhetor was not an Eutychian, as Baronius thought at the year of Christ 476. For he would never have exprest himself thus, had he been a follower of Eu­tyches's Sect. It must therefore either be said, that these are not the words of Zacharias Rhetor, (which notwithstanding Evagrius af­firms;) or else, that he was not an Eutychianist. See chap. 14. Vales. who were distempered with Eutyches's Opinion and followed a Monastick life, [Page 452] supposing they had met with Timotheus as with some unexpected gain, and hoping to reap a great advantage to themselves from the Circular Let­ters; in great hast betook themselves to Timo­theus. And when they had been convinced by him, that the Word of God was of the same sub­stance with us according to the flesh, but Consub­stantiall to the Father in relation to the Deity, they went back [to their own homes.]

CHAP. VI. That Timotheus Aelurus recovered the [Bi­shoprick] of Alexandria, and having resto­red the priviledge of a Patriarchate to the [Church] of Ephesus, Anathematized the Chalcedon-Synod.

THE same [Zacharias] says, that Timo­theus leaving the Imperial [City Constan­tinople,] arrived at Ephesus, and [there] Or, Sea­ted Arch-Bishop Paulus in the [Chair] of the Ephe­sians. placed Timo­theus Ae­lurus and Petrus Fullo, to­gether with other Bishops, being a little be­fore this assembled at Constan­tinople, had Decreed that this Paulus should be restored to the See of Ephesus, out of which he had been ejected. For these are Evagrius's words at the fifth chapter of this book, [...], they Vote that Paulus also should recover the Archiepiscopall Chair of Ephesus. Which place Christophorson has not rendred truly, in this manner; His rebus ita constitutis Paulus ad sedem Archiepisco­patûs Ephesiani capessendam deligitur, These things having been thus constituted, Paulus is chosen to take the Archiepiscopall See of Ephesus. For Paulus was not elected by Aelurus and Petrus Fullo at Constan­tinople, that he should take the Ephesine-See: but having been ex­pelled out of the See of Ephesus, he came to Constantinople: where a Councill of Eutychianists being convened, it was Decreed that he should recover the Archiepiscopate of the City Ephesus. In the fifth chapter of this book, the reading in the vulgar Editions was, [...], Come into the Chair. But from the Florentine and Tellerian M. SS. I have mended it, [...], enter upon. Yet I had rather add a preposition, and write it thus, [...] return to, recover, or, re-enter upon. Vales. Paulus in the Archi-Episcopall See of the Ephesians. This [Paulus] had long be­fore this been ordained by the Bishops of that Province, [...]. I had rather make it [...], &c. agreeable to, &c. Further, what Zacharias says here is most true, to wit, that it was the ancienter usage, that the Bishop of E­phesus should be ordained by the Bishops of his own Province. For, from St Timothy who was the first Bishop of the Ephesians, untill Castinus, and Heraclides, whom John Chrysostome ordained, all the Bishops of the Ephesians were ordained in the same City by the Bi­shops of that Province, as 'tis apparent from the Eleventh Action of the Chalcedon-Councill. Vales. agreeable to the more ancient usage: but had been ejected out of his See. Timotheus also restored to the Ephesine Church the Zacharias does here call the Patriarchicall priviledge the Right of Primacy; or the priviledge of Ordaining Metropolitanes. For in this the Patriarchicall priviledge did properly consist, as I have observed in my Little Book concerning the interpretation of the Sixth Canon of the Nicene Councill, which is published at the close of Our Socrates. Now whereas Zacharias, or rather Evagrius, adds, that this priviledge had been taken away from the See of Ephesus by the Chalcedon Synod; he means' the Sixteenth Action of the Chalcedon-Synod; wherein it was Decreed, that the Constantinopolitane Bishops should Ordain Metro­politanes in the Asian Dioecesis. Vales. Pa­triarchicall priviledge, which the Synod of Chal­cedon had deprived it of, as I have said. Re­moving from thence, he comes to Alexandria, and persisted to request those who came to him, to Anathematize the Synod of Chalcedon. Ne­vertheless, many others of his own Faction re­ceded from him (as 'tis related by the same Zacharias,) as did likewise Theodotus one of those that had been ordained at Joppa by See book 4. chap. 5. Theodosius, who was made Bi­shop of Jerusalem by some persons, at such time as Juvenalis went to Constanti­nople.

CHAP. VII. That the Monks having raised a Sedition by the perswasion of Acacius, Basiliscus was put in­to a fear, and wrote and promulged Cir­cular Letters contrary to those he had publi­shed before.

[THE same Zacharias] relates likewise, that Acacius Bishop of Constantinople [...]. I had conjectured long since, that it should be [...], was extreamly troubled. The Telleri­an M. S. has at length confirmed this my conjecture; wherein I found it written [...]. Vales. was extreamly troubled at these things, and that he incited the Monks and Populacy of the Im­perial [City] against Ba­siliscus, as being an Here­tick. And, that Basiliscus, at length Or, Denyed; that is, repea­led, or revoak't. renounced his Circular Letters, and wrote a Constitution, that what had been surreptitiously [and rashly] done, should be wholly vacated and made null; and, that he sent abroad Letters con­trary to his former Circular Letters, wherein he confirmed the Synod at Chalcedon. And these Anti-Circular-Letters (as he terms them,) Zacharias has omitted, who hath written his whole History with partiality and in favour to his own party. But the Contents of them run word for word thus.

Basiliscus's Anti-Circular-Letter.

Emperours Caesars, Basiliscus and Marcus. We Decree, that the Apostolick and Orthodox Faith (which originally and from the beginning hath flourished in the Catholick Churches, which hath obtained even untill our Empire, which doth now obtain under our Empire, and which ought for­ever to obtain, into which we have been bapti­zed, and which we believe;) shall only continue inviolate and unshaken, and shall for ever be pre­valent in all the Catholick and Apostolick Chur­ches of the Orthodox; and, that nothing else shall be required. For this reason therefore We command, that all things which have been done on account of the Faith or Ecclesiastick Or, Con­stitution, Disci­pline under our Empire, whether they be Circular Letters, or other [Letters,] or what ever else, shall be void and null: Nestorius and Eutyches, and every other Heresie, and all those who em­brace the same Sentiments with them, being Ana­thematized. And ['tis our will,] that concer­ning this Subject, neither any Synod should be con­vened, nor any other question [started:] but, that these things should continue firm and unshaken. Moreover, [We command,] When by the Empe­rour Basi­liscus's Cir­cular Let­ters, the Chalcedon-Synod had been whol­ly abroga­ted, the priviledges of the Con­stantinopo­litan See which had been esta­blished in that Councill, seemed to have been taken away by that same San­ction. By which thing Acacius was chiefly moved, and used his utmost endeavour, that the Emperour Basiliscus should revoak his own Con­stitution. Besides, in the Ephesine Synod, the Patriarchicall priviledge had been restored to the See of Ephesus by Timotheus Aelurus, as we have seen before. Which having been done, the Asian Dioecesis, the ordi­nations whereof had been given to the Bishop of Constantinople by the Decree of the Chaltedon-Synod, was taken away from that See. There was therefore need of a new Constitution, whereby its Rights and Priviledges might be restored to the Constantinopolitane See. This therefore the Emperour Basiliscus now performs, by the publica­tion of these his Anti-Circular-Letters. Theodorus Lector does like­wise attest the same, in his first Book Collectan, about the close there­of. Vales. that those Provinces (the Ordination whereof the Chair of this Impe­riall and Glorious City hath had,) shall be restored to the most pious and most Holy Patriarch and Arch-Bishop Acacius: to wit, the most pious Bishops that now are, continuing in their own Sees; [yet so] that after their deaths no prejudice from this business may arise to the Right of Ordination [be­longing to] the Holy Chair of this Imperial and famous City. Now, Or, It has been du­bious. it is dubious to no person, that this our Divine Decree has the force of a Divine Constitu­tion. And these things proceeded in this manner.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning Zeno's Return.

BUT Zeno having (as 'tis reported) [seen in his sleep] the Holy The Greeks who de­light much in Epithets, are wont to grace each Saint with proper and pecu­liar Titles. Thus they com­monly term Thecla the Apostle and Proto-Martyr. They call her an Apostle, because, like an A­postle, she had preacht the Faith of Christ in many places: and they style her Proto-Martyr, in regard as Stephen was the first Martyr of Christ amongst men, so was she the first amongst wo­men; as Basilius Seleuciensis does attest in his first book con­cerning the Life and Miracles of the blessed Thecla. She is called Thecla by way of contraction, in­stead of Theoclia. For thus the same Basilius does frequently term her. Vales. Proto-Martyr Thecla, famous for her many Conflicts, who incited him, and made him a promise that his Empire should be restored to him; marched his Army towards Byzantium. And having with gifts, corrupt­ed those who besieged him, he drives out Basiliscus who had held the Empire two years; and delivers him to the enemy after he had made his escape to the Holy Rails [of the Altar.] On this account Zeno dedicated a spa­tious Church, eminent for its Or, Excellency. splendidness and beauty, to the Proto-Martyr Thecla, at Seleucia scituate in the Coun­try of Isauria, and beautified it with many and Imperial Sacred gifts, which are preserved till these our times. Further, Basiliscus is sent into the Re­gion of the Cappadocians, Or, being about to die. in order to his being put to death: but he is [...]. With Eva­grius a­grees Mal­chus in the first book of his By­zantine History, and Candidus Isaurus in the second book of his Histories; both which Authours relate, that Basiliscus was killed by the sword. But the other Historians tell us, that he dyed by hunger and cold, together with his wife and children. This disagreement of Writers in reference to Basiliscus's death, is taken notice of by Theophanes in his Chronicon, pag. 107. Vales. slain in that Station named [...]. So also the name of this Station is written in Ni­cephorus. But Cedrenus and Theophanes term it Cucusus. Marcel­linus and the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle call it Leminis and Limnae, a Castrum [or, Castle] of Cappadocia, into which Basi­liscus was thrust together with his wife and children; and the gate of one of the Towers, wherein he was inclosed, being stop't up, he perished there by hunger and cold. Vales. Acusus, together with his wife and children. And Zeno makes a Law, which abro­gates what had been constituted by the Tyrant Basiliscus in his Circular Letters. Then also Petrus surnamed Fullo is driven from the Church of the Antiochians; and Paulus from that of the Ephesians.

CHAP. IX. That after Basiliscus's death, the Bishops of Asia, that they might appease Acacius, sent him a Peni­tentiary-Libell, [craving pardon] for their offence in rejecting the Synod of Chalcedon.

[IN the Interim,] the Bishops of Asia, in order to their appeasing Acacius, excused themselves, and craved pardon, sending a Peni­tentiary-Libell [to him,] wherein they af­firmed, that they had subscribed to the Circu­lar-Letters by force and constraint, not volun­tarily; and they swore, that the thing was so, and that they had not believed, nor did believe otherwise than agreeable to the Synod at Chal­cedon. The Or, force. purport of their Letters is this The Epistle, or Petition, sent to Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, from the Bishops of Asia. To Acacius the most Holy and most Pious Patriarch of the most Holy Church at the Imperial [City] Constantinople New Rome. And after other words. [...]. Christo­phorson and Sr Henry Savil have mended it thus [...], a­mongst you, without a­ny thing of sense. Ni­cephorus, 'tis certain, confirms, the vulgar reading, viz. a­mongst us. But in the next words which fol­low, it ought to be made [...], your place, instead of [...], our place. Johannes Langus perceived this before us, who has rendred this passage transcribed out of Evagrius thus, Rectè sanè ad nos venit▪ qui locum etiam vestrum obtinebit, He hath indeed come rightly unto us▪ who shall also possess your place. By which words the Bishops of Asia mean the Legate, which Acacius Bishop of Constantinople had sent to them, to wit a Presbyter or a Deacon of the Constantinopolitane Church. But if any one had rather, with Christophorson, read [...], amongst you; we must understand it of the Legate which the Bishops of Asia had sent to Acacius, that he might present the Libell of satisfaction to him. And this I think is truer. Vales. He hath arrived amongst us and does what is right and fitting; who also shall fill your place. And after a few words. By these Li­bells we signifie to you, that we have subscribed, not according to the intent of our minds, but by force and constraint, giving our consent thereto in words and Letters, but not in heart. For by [the assistance of] Instead of [ [...], our] doubtless it must be [ [...], your,] as the reading is in Nicephorus. From whom an amendment must be made a little after this, thus, [...], by dividing the words, which were erroneously made one word. Each emendation is con­firmed by the Tellerian Manuscript. Vales. your acceptable intercessions, together with the assent of the Deity, we believe in such manner as we have received from those. Three hundred and eighteen Luminaries of the world, and from the Hundred and fifty Holy Fathers. Besides, [we believe] those matters also, which have been piously and rightly determined at Chal­cedon by the Holy Fathers convened there. Fur­ther, whether Zacharias the Rhetorician has ca­lumniated these [Bishops of Asia,] or whe­ther they themselves have lyed, in averring that they subscribed involuntarily, I cannot af­firm.

CHAP. X. Concerning those who governed the Bishoprick of Antioch.

After Peirus Fullo, Jo­hannes A­pamenus was Bishop of Antioch. He being e­jected after 3 months, Stephanus was put into his place, as Theophanes relates in his Cronicon, page 107: to which Writer agrees Gelasius in Gestis de nomine Acacii, and Liberatus in his Breviary, chap. 18. Pope Felix has mentioned the same Johannes, in the Sentence of Condemnation which he dictated against Acacius, and in the Epistle which in the name of the Roman Synod he wrote to all the Presbyters and Archimandrites in Constantinople and Bithynia. Vales. AFter therefore Peter [was ejected,] Ste­phanus assumes the Chair of Antioch: whom the children of the Antiochians slew with reeds, which were made sharp like to Darts, as Johannes the Rhetorician has related. But after Stephanus, the Government of that same See was committed to Calendion, who exci­ted those that came to him to Anathematize Timotheus, together with Basiliscus's Circular Letters.

CHAP. XI. That the Emperour Zeno took a resolution of per­secuting Aelurus: but by reason of his age he had compassion on him and let him alone. And how after Aelurus's death, Petrus Mongus was ordained by the Alexandrians. But Timo­theus, Proterius's successour, by the order of the Emperour, obtained the Chair of the A­lexandrians.

MOreover, Zeno was resolved to have ex­pelled Timotheus out of Alexandria: but understanding from some persons that he was now very aged, and would soon Or, enter the Inn, or, house of all men. go the way of all men, he Or, for­bad. altered his resolution. And not long after [Timotheus] paid the common debt [of Nature:] whereupon [...], &c. the Bishops of Alexan­dria elect, &c. I had rather write [...], and so reade the whole clause thus, [...]; where­upon those of Alexandria by their own authority elect Petrus sur­named Mongus Bishop: and I am of opinion that Evagrius wrote thus. 'Tis certain, these words o [...] [...] can­not be spoken of the Suffragan Bishops. Besides, Petrus Mongus was ordained but by one Bishop, as 'tis related in Gestis de nomine Acacii, and in Acacius's Epistle to Pope Simplicius. Vales. those of A­lexandria by their own authority elect Petrus, surnamed Mongus, Bishop. Which, when it came to Zeno's hearing, disturbed him extream­ly. Wherefore Zeno [...]. I doubt not but it should be written [...], punished. For [...] signifies mulctare, to punish. Whence [...] imports Punishment, as Suidas attests. But [...] (which is the reading in Robert Stephen's Edition) signifies quite another thing. Nicephorus having found this fault in his Copy, ex­punged the Preposition, and worded this place of Evagrius thus, [...], that is, He punished those who had elected [Petrus Mongus Bishop] with a capitall punishment. And yet Evagrius does not say so. For the relates, that Mongus himself was condemned by Zeno, not the Bishops who had chosen Mongus. 'Tis apparent therefore that Nicephorus had read thus in our Evagrius; [...], wherefore Zeno punished those with death; and that he understood it as spoken of the Hereticall Bishops who had elected Mongus. Doubtless, the Bishops who had chosen Mongus deserved a sorer punishment than Mongus himself, who was elected by them. For they had done that on their own authority, without the Emperours advice and direction: whenas it had been customary, by reason of the largness of the City Alex­andria, that the Bishop thereof should not be elected, unless the Em­perour's mind were first known. Besides, they had presumed to elect another Bishop when the See was not void, but whilst Timotheus Salophaciolus as yet survived. Whereupon the Seditions and Divi­sions, which seemed to have been extinguished by the death of Timo­theus Aelurus, were rekindled. For these reasons, those Bishops were to be punished with a capitall punishment, rather than Mongus. Nevertheless, in my judgment neither is true. For Mongus was pu­nished only with banishment. But the Bishops who had ordained him, are ordered to be punished by Anthemius the Augustalis; as Li­beratus affirms in his Breviary, chap. 16. Vales. punished Petrus with death: but he recalled Timotheus [Salophacio­lus,] Proterius's successour, who then lived at Canopus on account of a Sedition raised by the people. Timotheus therefore by the Emperour's order recovered his own See.

CHAP. XII. Concerning Johannes who obtained the Presidency over the Alexandrian Church after Timotheus, and how Zeno outed him in regard he had forsworn himself, and restored the Chair of A­lexandria to Petrus Mongus.

I am, of the same mind with Christophorson and Sr Henry Savil, who instead of [ [...]] have mended it thus, [...], but by the advice of some persons: which amendment is confirmed by Nicephorus and the Tel­lerian Manuscript. Moreover, Liberatus in his Breviarium chap. 16▪ affirms that Johannes the Occonomus [or, Steward] was sent to Con­stantinople on a far different account. For he says, that Timotheus Salophaciolus, after he had recovered his Episcopall Chair by the De­cree of Zeno Augustus, sent some Ecclesiasticks to Constantinople, amongst whom was Johannes the Occonomus, who might give the Em­perour thanks for his own restitution. They also made a request to the Emperour at the same time, that if any thing should happen to Timotheus otherwise than well, no other person but a Catholick might be put into his See by the Clergy and people of Alexandria; as we are informed in Gestis de nomine Acacii. Which thing Zeno in his answer to Salophaciolus's advices, ordered to be done by a Letter written to the Alexandrian Clergy; as Felix attesteth in his first Epistle to Aca­cius, and Gelasius in Gestis de nomine Acacii. Further, in the Flo­rentine Manuscript, at the Margin here, these words occur, [...] concerning Johannes Tabennesiota. 'Tis certain, this Johannes is termed Tabennesiota by Theophanes also in his Chroni­con, because he had been a Monk in the Monastery of the Tabennen­ses at Canopus, where Timotheus Salophaciolus had likewise former­ly followed a Monastick life and discipline; as Theophanes relates, Vales. BUT by the advice of some persons, Johan­nes a Presbyter, [...]. Victor Thunonensis in his Chro­nicon, and Liberatus in his Bre­viary term this Johan­nes barely and simply Oeconomus. But in the Gesta de no­mine Aca­cii he is sty­led the Oe­conomus of Timotheus Catholi­cus. Why therefore does Evagrius (or rather Zacharias, out of whom Evagrius took it,) say here, that Johannes was Oeconomus of Saint John's Church? For he was not Steward of this Church only; but he lookt after the revenues and money of all the Churches which were under the Bi­shop of Alexandria, as Liberatus informs us in his sixteenth chapter, in these words: Porro Johannes ex Oeconomo amicus factus est Hillo Magistro; qui cum reliquis descendit Alexandriam. Factusque est ite­rum Oeconomus, habens causas omnium Ecclesiarum. Further Johannes of an Oeconomus is made a friend to Hillus the Magister; who to­gether with the rest went down to Alexandria. And he is made Steward again [or, the second time,] having all the Causes of the Churches. Instead of [habent causes omnium Ecclesiarum,] I think it should be habens gazas omnium Ecclesiarum, having the treasure or riches of all the Churches. This emendation, Liberatus's following words do confirm, which run thus: Qui mul [...]a & pretiosa xenia direxit Hillo Magistro, &c. Who directed [or sent] many and those pretious presents to Hillus the Magister, &c. Or must it be said that the Church of Saint John Baptist was then the Greatest Church of Alexandria? Indeed, heretofore the Greater Church of Alexandria was termed the Caesarea, as I have observed at Socrates. But 'tis possible, that the Church of Saint John, which had been built there by Theodosius after the demolishment of the Serapium, might become the Greater Church, the Episcopall Chair being removed thither. Concerning this Church of Saint John Baptist, Rufinus speaks in chap. 27. of his second Book Eccles. Histor. And in the following chapter he adds concerning the Reliques of Saint John Baptist, that in the time of Athanasius they were brought to Alexandria. To which afterwards, the Serapium [or, Serapis's Temple] being demolished, Golden houses (that I may use Rufinus's words, which are Aurea Tecta,) were erected in the reign of Theodosius. 'Tis certain in this Church of Saint John, the Patriarch of Alexandria performed the Religious assembles, as Theophanes informs us concerning Dioscorus, pag. 139. Vales. appointed to be the Steward of the venerable Church of the Holy Forerunner and Baptist John, makes a journey to the Imperial City [Constantinople,] being sent on an Em­bassage [to make an address to the Emperour,] that if it should happen that their Bishop should die, the Inhabitants of Alexandria might have a The power therefore of Electing their Bishops had been taken from the Clergy and people of the City Alexandria, and the Emperour had removed the priviledge of nominating the Bishop of Alexandria to himself, as 'tis apparent from this place. Which, we deny not, was done by force and against the Ecclesiastick Laws. Neverthe­less, the Roman Emperours not without reason challenged that power to themselves after the murder of Proterius the Alexandrian Bishop, in regard the City of Alexandria, by its own inclination prone to Seditions, had severall times raised vehement disturbances in the Election of Bishops. Vales. liberty of Electing one to preside over their Church whom they should have a mind to. This person, as Zacharias affirms, was by the Empe­rour discovered to have a design of procuring the Bishoprick for himself. And when he had oblieged himself by oaths, that he would never seek to get the Alexandrian Chair, he returned into his own Country. But the Emperour pro­mulged a Law, that after Timotheus's death, that person should be Bishop whom the Clergy and Or, Com­monalty. people [of Alexandria] should Elect. Timotheus having ended his life not long after, this Johannes (as [Page 455] the same Zacharias has related,) gave money [...]. In the excellent Florentine. M. S. I found it written thus; [...], and we have rendred it accordingly. Further, concerning this oath, wherein Jo­hannes Tabennesiota had formerly bound himself in the Emperours presence, that he would never climb up into the Alexandrian See, Pope Simplicius speaks in his 17th Epistle to Acacius. Liberatus also attests the same, in his Breviary, chap. 17. Vales. and disregarding the oathes wherein [he had bound himself] to the Emperour, is constituted Bishop of Alexandria. Which when the Em­perour understood, he ordered him to be E­jected. And by the perswasion of some persons, the Emperour wrote an Exhortatory Edict to the Alexandrians, which he termed his Or, u­niting Re­script. Henoticon; and ordered, that the Chair of Alexandria should be resto­red to Petrus, provided he would sub­scribe to His Henoticon, and receive those of Pro­terius's party to communion.

CHAP. XIII. That Petrus Mongus embraced Zeno's Henoticon, and joyned himself to the Or, Those of Prote­rius's party. Proterians.

[...]. To wit, Zeno's uniting E­dict, which a little be­fore Eva­grius has termed a [...]. And 'tis there­fore called a [...] here and here­after by E­vagrius, be­cause the Emperour in that E­dict speaks to all the Clergy and Laity, and by Preaching as it were, exhorts them, like a Priest, to embrace unity. But, 'tis termed an [...] for this reason, because by a wholesome Dispensation (as at the first blush it appears,) it invites all Catholicks to one and the same Communion, the mention of the Chalcedon Synod being suppressed. Further, this Edict of Zeno bore date on the year of Christ 482; Trocondus and Severinus being Consuls, as Baronius writes. Which is evidently confirmed by Victor Tunonensis in his Chronicon. Vales. THis Disposition, which had been made by the advice of Acacius Bishop of the Im­perial City, Liberatus in his Breviary, chap. 17, relates that Pergamius was not Praefect of Egypt, but Dux [or Commander of the Milice:] his words are these; Acacius persuasit Zenoni, &c. Acacius perswaded Zeno, that he should write to Apollonius the Augustalis, and to Perga­mius the Dux, that they should drive Johannes out of the Alexandrian See, as having seized it contrary to his own oath which he had given in the Imperial City; and that they should give their assistance to Petrus Mongus, that he might continue in that See. Vales. Pergamius, who was constituted Praefect of Egypt carries along with him. He being arrived at Alexandria, and finding Johan­nes fled, held a conference with Petrus, and per­swades him to admit of▪ Zeno's Exhortatory Edict, and moreover [to receive] those who had dissented from him. He admits therefore of the forementioned Exhortatory Edict, and subscribes to it. He promises also that he would receive those who were of the contrary party. Wherefore not long after this when a publick Festivity was celebrated at Alexandria, and all persons by a generall consent agreed to that termed Zeno's Henoticon, Petrus likewise ad­mitted [to communion] those of Proterius's party. And having made an Exhortatory Ora­tion to the people in the Church, he recited Zeno's Exhortatory Edict also, the Contents whereof were these.

CHAP. XIV. Zeno's Henoticon.

EMperour Caesar Zeno, Pius, Victor, Trium­phator, Maximus, always Adorable, Augu­stus; to the Facundus Hermianen­sis citing this Edict of Zeno's in his twelfth book, reads [...], to the Orthodox Bi­shops. For the words are these: Flavius Zeno Pius, Victor, Trium­phator, Maximus, always Augustus, to the Orthodox Bishops, &c. Then Facundus finds fault with that term Orthodox, and expresses his an­ger against it in many words; that the Emperour should not be afraid of giving the title of Orthodox to a company of Hereticks who had no head. Further, this Edict of Zeno was promulged in the year of Christ 482, as Baronius has recorded. Vales. most Reverend Bishops, Clergy, Monks, and Laicks, in Alexandria, and through­out Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.

Knowing the only right and true Faith (which the Three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers convened at Nicaea by a Divine influence have set forth, and which the Hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers in like manner assembled at Con­stantinople have confirmed;) to be the Begin­ning and Or, Con­firmation. Consistency, and the power and in­expugnable Or, Ar­mour. Defence of Our Empire: We have Or, Have night and day made use of all imaginable &c. made it Our business night and day, [...] ▪ by all imaginable prayer and dili­gence. The same likewise is the reading in Nicephorus. Nor had the old Translatour of this Edict read otherwise, in Liberatus chap. 18: for he renders it thus: no­ctibus ac diebus, oratione, & stu­dio & Legibus, &c. night and day, by prayer and diligence, and by our Laws, We endeavour, that the Ho­ly Catholick and Apostolick Church may be multiplyed by that Faith. Notwithstanding in my judgment, it ought rather to be written thus, [...], by all ima­ginable attention. What the im­port of [...] is, we are infor­med from Suidas, who produces a passage of an old Writer. Indeed, this emendation pleases me migh­tily. Vales. by all imaginable Attention and Diligence, and by Our Laws; that God's Ho­ly Catholick and Apostolick Church, which is the incor­ruptible and immortall Mo­ther of Our Scepters, should every where be multiplied and enlarged by that [Faith:] and that the Pious people continuing in Peace and that Concord [which bears a re­lation] to God, together with the Bishops most dear to God, and with the most Religious Clergy, Archimandrites, and Monks, might offer up their acceptable prayers for Our Empire. For whilest the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who was incarnate and born of the Holy Virgin and Theotocos Mary, approves of and readily accepts our Concordant Glorification and Worship, all sorts of enemies shall be consumed and extinguished: and all Nations will submit their necks to Our Power which is Or, Next to God. according to God: [in fine,] Peace, and those Goods that are the Product thereof, temperateness of the air, plenty of fruits, and all other things which are usefull and advantageous, shall be conferred upon men. Whereas therefore the irreprehensible Faith doth in this manner Or, Be­girt. preserve Us and the Roman Af­fairs, Addresses have been presented to us by the most Religious Archimandrites, Hermits, and other Reverend persons, who with tears made supplica­tion, that an Unity might be made in the most Holy Churches, and that the Members might be joyned to the Members, which that Enemy of Good hath long since been very solicitous to disjoyn: as­suredly knowing, that [...], waging war against the [entire] Body. Doubtless it must be [...], should he make war▪ &c. as it is in Nicephorus, and in the Tellerian M. S. Sr Henry Savil also, at the Margin of his Copy, had remarked, fortè [...], perhaps is should be [...]. Vales. should he make war against the entire Body of the Church, he might with ease be vanquished. For from hence it happens, that there are innumerable Or, Generations. mul­titudes of men, which Time hath taken out of this life in the space of so many years, To this place of Zeno's Edict Pope Felix alludes, in his Epistle to Zeno Augustus; where his words are these▪ Dolet certè pietas Tuae, quòd per diuturnos partis alter [...]ae gravesque conflictus, multi ex hoc saeculo videantur ablati, aut Baptis­matis aut Communionis expertes ▪ Your piety doubtless i [...] grieved, that by reason of the long and sore con­flicts of each party, many may seem to have been taken out of this world, without being partakers of Baptism or the Communion. Vales. part whereof have departed hence deprived of the Laver of Regeneration, and part have gone the inevitable way of mankind without a parti­cipation of the Divine Com­munion: and, that innume­rable murders have been au­daciously committed, and that not only the Earth, but the Air it self also hath been de­filed by an abundant effusion of bloud. What man is he, who will not pray, that these things may be changed into a better State [Page 456] and Condition? On this account therefore, We have made it Our business to certifie You, that neither We, nor the Churches in all places, either have had, or have, or in future will have, nor do We know any persons that have, any other Sym­bol, or Creed, or definition of the Faith, or Faith, save the forementioned Holy Creed of the Three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers, which the foresaid Hundred and fifty Holy Fathers con­firmed. Moreover, if any one has [any other Creed,] we account him a person estranged [from the Church.] For by this Creed only (as we have said,) we are confident our Empire is Or, Be­girt. preser­ved. And all persons vouchsaft the Salutary Or, Ba­ptism. Il­lumination, receiving this only [Creed] are Baptized. The same [Creed] hath been fol­lowed by all the Holy Fathers convened at Ephe­sus; who likewise deposed the impious Nestorius, and also those that afterwards embraced his Senti­ments. Which Nestorius together with Eutyches, in regard they held opinions contrary to the fore­said [Fathers,] we do Anathematize, and do also admit of the Twelve Or, Chapters. Heads which were dictated by Cyrillus of holy Memory, who was heretofore Arch-Bishop of the holy Catholick Church of the Alexandrians. But we confess the only Begotten Son of God and God, (who was truly and really made man, our Lord Jesus Christ, Consubstantiall to the Father according to the Deity, and of the same substance with us as to his humanity, who descended and was incarnate by the holy Ghost, of Mary the Virgin and The­otocos,) to be one, and not two. For we af­firm, that the Miracles, and sufferings which he voluntarily underwent in the flesh, are of one. But we in no wise admit of those who divide, or confound, or introduce a See Chap. 5. note (f.) Phantasie. In regard the Unsin­ning, or, without sin. impeccable and true Incarnation from the Theotocos hath not made an accession of [ano­ther] Son. For the Trinity hath ever continued the Trinity, although one of the Trinity, [to wit,] God the Word, hath been incarnate. As­suredly knowing therefore, that neither the holy Orthodox Churches of God in all places, nor the Prelates most beloved by God who preside over them, nor yet our Empire, hath received, or doth admit of any other Creed, or definition of the Faith, save the foresaid holy Creed; without ma­king doubts or delays, [...]. So 'tis also written in Nicephorus. But Facundus and Liberatus seem to have read otherwise. For Fa­cundus (pag. 551.) renders this place thus: adunate ergo vos in nullo dubitantes, &c. Unite your selves therefore, being doubtfull in nothing. For we have written these things to you, not to innovate the Faith, but that we might satis­fie you. &c. And Liberatus translates it in this manner: Unite vosmet­ipsos, nihil dubitantes, &c. Unite your selves, doubting nothing, &c. Whence it appears, that they read [...], &c. But the reading in our Copies is better; For soon after it follows, [...], we Anathematize. Vales. We have united our selves. Now, we have written these things [to you,] not that we might innovate the Faith, but in order to the giving you full satisfaction. But we Ana­thematize every person, who has thought, or thinks other­wise, either now, or at any other time, whether at Chal­cedon, or in any other Synod whatever: but more especially the foresaid persons Nesto­rius and Eutyches, and such as embrace their Sentiments. Be yee joyned therefore to [Your] Spirituall Mother the Church, and together with Us enjoy that same divine Communion therein, according to the fore­mentioned one and only definition of the Faith of the Three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers. For your most Holy Mother the Church expects to em­brace You [...]. That which fre­quently happens in these books of Eva­grius, oc­curs here also, to wit, that [...] is put instead of [...]. 'Tis certain Liberatus reads [...] here, as 'tis apparent from his Version. For thus he renders it: Sanctissima nam­que Mater Nostra Ecclesia, &c. For our most Holy Mother the Church, as being the person who hath begotten you, from a long time expects to embrace Her Sons, and earnestly desires to hear your sweet voice. Nor did Facundus read otherwise, in his twelfth book. For thus his Ver­sion runs: Sancta enim Mater Nostra Ecclesia, &c. For our Holy Mother the Church receives you as Her own Sons. Embrace her. For She desires after a long time to hear Your sweet Voice. Moreover, Nicephorus has it written, [...]. Further, from the forecited passages 'tis apparent, that Facundus and Liberatus in Zeno's Edict had read [...], Our Mother; which reading I am most pleased with. Besides, Facundus read [...], Embrace Ye Her; not as 'tis com­monly read, [...], to embrace. Which reading nevertheless is intolerable. Lastly, Liberatus seems to have read [...], from a long time; not [...], and after a long time. Vales. as Her genuine Sons, and after a long time earnestly desires to hear Your sweet Voice. Make all imaginable haste therefore. For by doing hereof, you will procure to your selves both the Benevolence of our Master and Saviour and God Jesus Christ, and shall also be praised by our Im­perial Majesty. After the reading hereof, all the Inhabitants of Alexandria were united to the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church.

CHAP. XV. That Johannes [Bishop] of Alexandria coming to Rome, perswades Simplicius to write to Zeno concerning what had hapned; [and what] Zeno [wrote back in answer to him.]

BUT Johannes, of whom we have made men­tion Chap. 12. before, after he had fled from Alexan­dria, Liberatus in his Bre­viary, chap. 18, says, that Jo­hannes be­ing driven from the See of A­lexandria, came first to Antioch: and after he had got­ten Letters of Interces­sion from Calendion Patriarch of Antioch, came to Rome, and ap­pealed to Simplicius Bishop of Rome, as the Blessed Athanasius had also done before. But in the Gesta de Nomine Acacii, which in my judgment were written by Pope Gelasius, he is said to have requested the Refuge only of the Roman Church, in such manner as his predeces­sours had done. Which I think is truer. For Johannes appealed not from any Ecclesiastick Judicature to Simplicius, in regard he had not been expelled out of his own See by the sentence of a Synod, but by force: nor did he present a Libell to Pope Simplicius, but to Felix his Successour, as we shall see afterwards. Vales. arrives at the Senior Rome: and there raised disturbances, affirming that he had been ejected out of his own Chair, on account of his defending Leo's Opinions, or, Decrees. Dogmata, and the Chalcedon Synod: and, that another was substituted in his Room, who was an enemy to those Dogmata. Hereat Simplicius Bishop of the Elder Rome was troubled, and wrote to Zeno; whereto Zeno returned answer, ac­cusing Johannes of Perjury, and [affirming] that on that account, and for no other reason▪ he had been Ejected out of his Bishoprick.

CHAP. XVI. Concerning Calendion [Bishop] of Antioch, and that he was condemned to be banished on account of the friendship he was suspected [to have held] with Illus and Leontius; also, that Petrus Fullo entred into an Union with Mongus, and with the [Bishops] of Con­stantinople and Jerusalem.

MOreover, Calendion Bishop of Antioch wrote [Letters] to the Emperour Ze­no, and to Acacius Prelate of Constantinople, wherein he termed Petrus an So also Pope Sim­plicius, in his Epistle to Acacius, terms Petrus Moggus; as Liberatus attests in his Breviary, chap. 18. To wit, because he had invaded the Alexandrian Church, whilest Timotheus Salophaciolus, who had been legally ordained, was alive. Vales. Adulterer; affirming that when he was at Alexandria, he had Anathematized the Chalcedon Synod. [Page 457] Some time afterwards, Calendion is condemned to be banished into Oäsis, being supposed to have That this was the pretext of condem­ning Ca­lendion, is attested by Liberatus in his Bre­viary, chap. 18. But the true cause of his being condemned and deposed, was this, because he would defend the Chalcedon Synod, nor would acquiesce in Zeno's Edict. Liberatus's words are these: Interea Calendion Archiepiscopus Antiochenus deponitur, &c. In the interim Calendion Arch-Bishop of Antioch is deposed. Being accused in publick as having been undutifull [indevotus, without de­votion] to his Prince, drawing in the people into a Rebellion with Illus: but secretly, because he would not keep himself from the Communion both of Pope Felix and Johannes. Gelasius also in his thirteenth Epistle to the Dardani, says, that Calendion was therefore Ejected by Zeno, be­cause he had razed His name out of the Dypticks, and instead thereof put in Leontius's. Vales. favoured [...]. In the Florentine and Tellerian M. SS. I found it written [...]. This is the Hillus, by Country an Isaurian, in dignity Magister Officiorum [Master of the Offices,] as Marcellinus tells us in his Chroni­con: who after he had been in great favour with the Emperour, at length was incensed against him, for what reason I know not, and together with Leontius ingaged himself in a Tyranny in the East, on the year of Christ 484, as Marcellinus records; or rather 483, as Baronius has rightly observed. Further, this Hillus is by Candidus Isaurus and by Damascius in the Life of Isidorus the Philosopher, always called [...], with the accent in the last Syllable. So 'tis also written in Suidas: [...], says he, [...]. So that place of Suidas is to be read. Vales. Illus, Leontius, and Pamprepius, in relation to a Tyranny raised by them against Ze­no. But Petrus Fullo, who [had been Bishop of Antioch,] before Petrus Fullo was Ejected out of the See of Antioch a little after the return of Zeno Augustus, on the year after the Consulate of Basi­liscus and Armatus. One Johannes, whom Petrus had ordained [Bi­shop] of Apamia, invaded his See, as I observed before at chap. 10, note (a.) He having been Ejected, an Oriental Synod ordained Ste­phanus, as Theophanes tells us in his Chronicon. This Stephanus, when he had governed the See of Antioch about a years space, was most bar­barously murdered by Hereticks in the Church, on the year of Christ 479, after the Consulate of the most famous Illus; as Baronius has rightly observed from Pope Simplicius's Epistles. Zeno being highly incensed on account of this murther, sent some persons to Antioch, who might revenge this Fact and punish the Authours of the Sedition. Moreover, to avoid Tumults, he commanded Acacius Bishop of Constan­tinople, to ordain a Bishop of Antioch in the Imperial City. And this thing, done on account of preserving the Ecclesiastick Peace, as well the Emperour as Acacius excused to Pope Simplicius, promising that in future the ordination of the Prelate of Antioch should be made by the Comprovinciall Bishops, according to the Prescripts of the Canons. Stephanus Junior therefore is ordained by Acacius, and after he had sate three years, Calendion is created Bishop in his stead by an Ori­entall Synod, in the Consulate of Trocundus and Severinus, on the year of Christ 482; as Baronius has learnedly observed from Pope Simplicius's Epistle. Theophanes does indeed affirm, that Calendion was ordained by Acacius at Constantinople, by the Emperour Zeno's order. Theophanes's opinion seems to be confirmed by Candidus in the third book of his History; whose words are these: [...], in like manner as the Emperour Zeno, when the impious Petrus disturbed the Churches of the East, sent Calendion to be Consecrated [Bishop] of Antioch. Besides, in the Gesta de nomine Acacii, 'tis in express words written, that Calendion was ordained by Acacius Bishop of Constantinople. Sim­plicius also affirms the same in the cited Epistle, if we weigh his words more attentively. For, what else is the meaning of these words: Antiocheni exordium Sacerdotis quâ ratione serius fuerit. Indicatum, quamvis minimè nos latere potuerit, tamen & ipse vel Synodus ejus indi­cavit. Quod sicut non optavimus fieri, ita faciles excusationi quam necessitas fecit extitimus; quia quod voluntarium non est, non potest vo­cari in reatum, &c. For what guilt, what necessity was to be excused before Simplicius, unless Acacius had ordained Calendion at Constan­tinople contrary to the Ecclesiastick Laws? But now, what the same Theophanes adds concerning Johannes Codonatus, who was ordained Bishop by the Antiochians knowing nothing of the Ordination made at Constantinople, and whom Calendion afterwards removed to the See of Tyre: I fear Theophanes is mistaken herein. For, not Calendion, but Acacius removed Johannes to the See of Tyre; as 'tis attested by Pope Felix in the Libell of Condemnation of Acacius, and by Gelasius, and Liberatus. Vales. Calendion and Stephanus, as I have said, recovered his own [Chair.] Who both subscribed to Zeno's Henoticon, [...]. Doubtless it must be written, [...], and also sent Sy­nodical Letters to Petrus [Bishop] of Alexandria. Thus Nicephorus read, and yet Christophorson, and Sr Henry Savil at the Margin of his Copy, mend it very simply, thus, [...], to Proterius. For Proterius was dead long before this. 'Tis manifest from Pope Gelasius's Epistles, that Petrus Fullo held communion with Petrus Mongus. Vales. and also sent Sy­nodicall Letters to Petrus [Bishop] of Alexandria. Acacius also Bishop of Constantinople entred in­to a Communion with the To wit, with Pe­trus Mon­gus. For with him, after the Ejection of Johannes Tabennesio­ta, Acacius held com­munion, and recei­ved from, and sent to him Synodicall Letters, as Liberatus informs us. But Aca­cius never held communion with Petrus Fullo: yea, he was wont to boast, that he had never been joyned in communion with him: whereas yet, by this that he communicated with Petrus Mongus who maintained a commu­nion with Petrus Fullo, Acacius himself also might hold communion with Fullo; as Pope Gelasius says in his Epistle to the Orientalls, which was first published by Jacobus Syrmondus. Vales. same [Petrus Bi­shop of Alexandria:] as did likewise Marty­rius Bishop of Jerusalem, who sent his Synodi­call Letters to the same Petrus. After this, Evagrius gives no reason, why these men separated themselves from the communion of Petrus Mongus. Besides, Liberatus in his Bre­viary chap. 18, does relate this matter very obscurely▪ in these words: Igitur Petrus Mongus ab Abbote Ammone & Johanne Episcopo Magi­leos, &c. Therefore Petrus Mongus having undergone Wars from the Abbot Ammon and Johannes the Bishop of Magilis, and from the Abbots of the Monks of the Lower Egypt, and a Sedition having been raised against him in the Cathedral Caesarea as 'tis called, [or, as 'tis repor­ted;] anathematized the Chalcedon Synod, and Pope Leo's Tome. And these things he did, after he had written to Acacius and Simplicius that he held communion with them and with the Holy Synod. And these mat­ters having been in this manner performed, some persons departed from Petrus's communion, and declared [them] to the Roman Bishop at Rome. Which words, in themselves obscure enough, are in my judgment to be explained thus. Petrus Mongus, after he had been restored to the Alexandrian See upon Johannes's Ejection, at first used dissimulation, and sent Synodicall Letters to Acacius and Simplicius, wherein he affir­med that he held communion with the Synod of Chalcedon. He also ad­mitted those to communion who were of Timotheus Salophaciolus's par­ty, as Liberatus attests. But afterwards, when he had been vexed by the Eutyohian Monks on account of this dissimulation, he anathemati­zed the Chalcedon-Synod publickly in the Church. Vales. some persons separated themselves from Pe­trus's communion: so that from that time Pe­trus Anathematized the Synod of Chalcedon publickly. Which news coming to the hearing of Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, troubled him [not a little.] Acacius therefore caused some persons to be sent, who might enquire into the truth hereof. Whom Petrus being desirous fully to satisfie, that no such thing had been done by him, Or, wrote. framed Acts, wherein some persons affirmed, that to their know­ledge no such thing [...], had been written: in my judgment it should be [...] had been done. And so Nicephorus read, book 16. chap. 13. Vales. had been done by Petrus.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning those things written by Petrus to A­cacius who had embraced the Chalcedon-Synod.

[FOR] This Petrus, [...]. I have men­ded this place thus [ [...], in re­gard he was a person that could cloath him­self in a­ny dress,] partly from Nicephorus, and partly by the authority of the Florentine and Tellerian M. SS. Further, concerning this wavering and fraudu­lent humour of Petrus's, we have the attestation of Liberatus in these words: Sed permansit Petrus in Episcopatu, &c. But Peter continued in his Bishoprick, and wrote to Acaci [...]s, that he was a Communicator of [or, held Communion with] the Sinod, and deceived the Alexan­drians, because he would not communicate with the Synod: so that some Ecclesiasticks who were his Communicators, some Monks and Laicks, perceiving his Fallaciousness, separated themselves from his communion. And holding separate assemblies, would not endure to communicate with his name. Vales. in regard he was a person that could cloath himself in any dress, of a mind mutable and crafty, and one that could conform to the times; persisted not in the least in one and the same opinion. But some­times he Anathematized the Chalcedon-Synod; at others retracted, and embraced that Coun­cill with all Suffrages. He wrote a Letter therefore to Acacius Bishop of Constantino­ple, the Contents whereof run word for word thus:

[Page 458] The most high God will reward your Holiness, ▪ [...]. It must doubtless be [...], for those great Labours. Instead of [...], it must be [...], as it is in the Telle­rian Manu­script, and in Nicepho­rus. Vales. for those great Labours and Troubles, which for so many years space you [have undergone,] con­serving and defending the Faith of the Holy Fathers, which by uninterrupted Preaching you have confirmed. In which Faith we have found the Creed also of the Three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers rightly and orderly placed, in which Creed we were heretofore Baptized, and which we have and do believe: which Creed the Hun­dred and fifty holy Fathers assembled at Constan­tinople have confirmed. You therefore without intermission leading all men the way, have united the holy Church of God, and by the weightiest and most convincing instances and arguments have perswaded us, that nothing contrary hereto hath been done in the most holy and Oecumenicall Synod convened at Chalcedon, which agrees with, and hath confirmed the determinations of the holy Fa­thers at Nicaea. For, having found nothing of any Innovation therein, we have given our abso­lute and perfect assent thereto, and believed it. But we understand, that certain Monks, envying our Fraternity, have conveyed some Calumnies to your holy ears; which could not readily induce your Holiness to be incensed [against us.] And in the first place [they affirm,] Mongus says, this Crime was objected a­gainst him, that he had removed the Re­liques of Timotheus Salophacio­lus into an­other place. But he nei­ther excu­ses that Fact, nor denies it▪ resting sa­tisfied only in saying this, that that Fact was impious in the presence of God and men. For humane Laws do severely punish the disturbers of Sepulchers. 'Tis certain, Victor Tunonensis in his Chro­nicon writes thus concerning Mongus: Post Consulatum Zenonis ter­tium &c. After Zeno's third Consulate,—He condemns the Chal­cedon Synod out of the Pulpit before the people. He takes the names of Proterius and Timotheus Salophaciolus out of the Ecclesiastick Dypticks, and writes therein those of Dioscorus and Aelurus, who had murdered Proterius: and having cast Timotheus Salophaciolus's body out of the Church, he threw it into a desert place without the City. Li­beratus also attests the same in his Breviary, chap. 18, in these words:—Sed & Petrum Alexandrinum, &c.—Moreover Petrus Alexandri­nus anathematizing the Chalcedon Synod and Pope Leo's Tome, who having expunged the names of Proterius and Timotheus Catholicus out of the Dypticks, inserted those of Dioscorus and Aelurus: who took the body of the same Timotheus Catholicus out of the earth, and cast it forth, who had been buried amongst the Catholick Bishops, Acacius has in a strange manner praised him, concerning whom he had remembred before, that himself had related so great crimes. Lastly, Pope Felix in the Sentence of condemnation against Acacius, does expresly confirm this very thing. So that now there can be no further doubt of the truth of this fact. Vales. that we have removed the Reliques of our Father of holy Memory the blessed Arch-Bishop Timotheus, to some other place. Which Fact is neither acceptable to God, nor agreeable to the Laws. Then they pass to another [crime,] which is inconsistent with it self, and much worse than the former. For, how could we Anathema­tize the holy Synod held at Chalcedon, which we have believed and confirmed? But you are not ignorant, nor is it concealed from Your piety, how great the Heat and Levity of the people a­mongst us is, as also [that] of the Monks who are desirous of change and Innovation. Who having en­tred into a Consult together with some malevo­lent persons that have severed themselves from the Church, attempt to draw the people after them. But, by the assistance of Your prayers, ▪ [...]. Translatours have rendred this place vari­ously. For Musculus translates it thus; Libellum consideratè concin­navimus, we have with consideration composed a Libell. Christophorson, in this manner▪ Literas hasce excogitavimus, quae huic malo remedio sint, We have found out these Letters, which may be a remedy for this mischief. But Johannes Langus, Nicephorus's Translatour, has ren­dred it thus: Re deliberatâ, rationem quae mederi malo imminenti posset, invenimus; having considered the business, we found out a way, which might cure the imminent evill. Of these three Renditions, the second is wholly to be rejected; but the first and third are tolerable. Never­theless, it seems to me more fit, to render [...] the Oration, or, Speech to the people, which Petrus made in the Church at such time as he ordered the Ecclesiastick Acts to be made up before Acacius's Legates; concerning which Acts Evagrius has spoken before, at the close of the foregoing chapter. Vales. we have found a way how to cure [this mischief,] without doing any prejudice to the holy Synod of Chalcedon; for we have been certainly infor­med, that nothing new hath been done there. And in order to the perswasion and Or, De­fence. satisfaction of the more simple, we have taken care that the same thing should be said by [...]. Johannes Langus renders this place thus: Fe­cimus ut ab iis qui nobiscum conventus agunt, ista dicerentur, We have caused, that these things should be said by those, who hold Assem­blies with us. Muscu­lus inter­prets it in this man­ner: Eos qui ad nos venerunt, hoc ipsum dicere feci­mus; We have made those, who have come to us, say the same thing. Christophorson's Translation runs thus: Tum ut illi qui nobiscum unà accersebantur, pro defensione idem ipsum dicerent, effecimus, And also we have procured, that they who were sent for together with us, should for a defence say the very same thing. They thought therefore, that the word [...] signified no other thing, than [...]. But by the term [...], 'tis my judgment that the Ecclesiasticks and Laicks of Timotheus Salopha­ciolus's party are understood, who by the order of Zeno Augustus were associated and joyned to Petrus Mongus. For the Emperour Zeno, by the perswasion and advice of Acacius, had written to Apollonius the Augustalis, and Pergamius the Dux, that they should Eject Johan­nes Talaia, and install Petrus, Provided he would admit of the He­noticon, and receive [to Communion] the Clergy of Timotheus Ca­tholicus; as Liberatus relates in his Breviarie, chap. 18. Zeno had likewise written Letters to Petrus Mongus, wherein he ordered him, that he should give reception to the Clergy of Timotheus's party, who were of the same opinion with himself; as the same Liberatus affirms in these words: Et quidem Petrus inthronizatur ab omni­bus, &c, And Petrus is Installed by all persons. 'Tis written from the Emperour, that he should receive those that agreed with him who had been of Timotheus Catholicus's party. That is, as well the Clergy, as Laity, who were willing to agree to Zeno's Edict. When there­fore Petrus Mongus made up his Ecclesiastick Acts, wherewith he would prove to Acacius that he had never condemned the Chalcedon-Synod; he made use of these persons as witnesses, and caused them to confirm this with their own Testimony, that the Chalcedon-Synod had never been condemned by Peirus. Further, their Testimony seemed worthy to be credited, because they had been of Timotheus Catholicus's party, who had always defended the Chalcedon-Synod. See the close of the sixteenth Chapter. Pope Felix speaks concerning these very persons in the Sentence of Condemnation against Acacius; where his words are these: Quid enim sunt aliud, qui post obitum sanctae memoriae Timothei, ad Ecclesiam sub Petro redeunt, &c. For what are they else, who after the death of Timotheus of holy memory, return to the Church under Petrus, &c. Vales. those who hold As­semblies together with us. And to That is, that Crime which by some ill-minded persons was ob­jected against me: to wit, that the Chalcedon-Synod is rejected and condemned by me. Vales. this business, after I had been wholly intent upon it, I soon put a stop. Further, I do signifie to your Sanctity, that even at this very instant the Monks cease not, who sow Or, Dar­nell. Tares, intermixing some persons amongst themselves, who never dwelt in [...]. The Learned have long since made it [...]; which is the reading in Nicephorus. Vales. Monasteries, [as] instruments [of Sedition;] and run up and down scat­tering various Rumours against Us, and Or, A­gainst the Ecclesia­stick Peace of Christ. against the Peace of Christ's Church, and permitting us to perform nothing Canonically and in a manner befitting God's Holy Catholick Church: making it their business, that the people committed to our care should rule over, rather than obey us; [in fine,] Or, They desire to do. they attempt the doing of whatever [actions] are unseemly [in the sight] of God. But we are con­fident, that Your Sanctity will give the Most divine Lord of the world an account of all things, and will take care, that [such an] Order shall be issued forth to them from His Serenity, as may be necessary in relation to the Ecclesiastick Peace, and befitting God and the Emperour: so that all persons may acquiesce in what [shall be established.]

CHAP. XVIII. In what manner Johannes [Bishop] of Alexan­dria perswades Felix Pope of Rome, to send a Deposition to Acacius [Bishop] of Constan­tinople.

[IN the interim] Johannes having fled to Rome, [desisted not from] troubling Felix, who had succeeded Simplicius in the Bishoprick of Rome, about those things done by Petrus; and [at length] prevails [so far,] as Zacha­rias affirms, that a Deposition was sent from Fe­lix himself to Acacius, on account of his holding a Communion with Petrus. Which Deposition, in regard it was a thing done In the Condem­nation and Deposition of Acacius, the Greeks found fault chiefly with two things. First, because he had not been condemned and deposed in a Synod; but only Pope Felix had prefixt his own name before the sentence of Deposition. The other thing was, because Acacius having been neither convicted nor examined according to the Ecclesiastick Canons, had received a Sentence of Condemnation▪ To the former Ob­jection those of the Church of Rome returned this answer: that there was no need of a new Synod for the condemning of Acacius. For all Followers and Communicators [that is, those that held Communion] with Hereticks, who had heretofore been condemned by a special sentence, are to be understood as condemned together with the same Hereticks. So says Pope Gelasius in his Epistle to the Orientalls (which was first published by Jacobus Syrmondus,) in the Gesta de nomine Acacii. I know what answer is given by Baronius at the year of Christ 484, chap. 21: to wit, that Gelasius speaks concerning an Oecumenicall Synod. But by Baronius's favour, this answer is not satisfactory. For the Greeks in this affair made no difference between a Generall and a particular Councill. But in generall they affirmed, that Acacius had been condemned in no Synod particularly convened upon his account. For thus Pope Gelasius writes in the forementioned Epistle, speaking to the Orientalls in these words: An de uno dolet Acacio, quod speciall Synodo non fuerit confutatus, &c. Are you troubled about one Acacius, because he has not been confuted in a speciall Synod; whenas he himself in his own Letters hath detected his own Crime; nor having al­ready voluntarily confessed, ought he to be heard; and are you not troubled about so great Catholick Prelates without any examinatian secluded? Pope Gelasius confesses ingenuously, that Acacius had been convicted and heard in no speciall Synod. 'Tis certain, neither of those two Roman Synods, wherein Acacius was condemned, were convened upon his account. For the former was Assembled on the account of Vitalis and Misenus the Legates of the Apostolick See: wherein Vitalis and Misenus were indeed condemned: but Petrus Bishop of Alexandria and Acacius, were only reprehended and by the by reproved, as Eva­grius tells us a little after this. But the Latter Synod was assembled on the account of the Antiochian Church, on the same year, as Pope Felix informs us in his Synodick Letter to all the Presbyters and Archi­mandrites at Constantinople and throughout Bithynia. In which Synod Petrus Bishop of Antioch was indeed chiefly and most especially con­demned; who having Ejected Calendion, had invaded the Antiochian See. But Petrus Bishop of Alexandria and Acacius Bishop of Constan­tinople, were only condemned as the Associates and Communicators of the same Petrus; as the subscription annext to the same Letter doth declare [in these words:] Candidus Tiburtinae Civitatis Episco­pus, &c. I Candidus Bishop of the Tiburtine City, following the au­thority of the Apostolick Se [...], Set forth by the Catholick deliberation of us all, according to the State of the Church; pronouncing an Anathema to Petrus the Invader of the Alexandrian Church, and to Acacius some­time of the Constantinopolitane Church, also to Petrus [Bishop] of Antioch, who have heretofore been rightly and deservedly separated from the Episcopall [dignity] and number of Christians, and to all their followers, have subscribed, &c. But whereas the Greeks complained that Pope Felix had prefixt his own name only before that sentence; Felix, in the forecited Letter, answers this Objection thus, in these words: Unde nunc causâ Antiochenae Ecclesiae apud B. Petrum Aposto­lum collecti, &c. Whence being at this present convened before the Bles­sed Apostle Peter on account of the Antiochian Church, we have again hastned to shew your love the usage which has always obtained amongst us. As often as the Lords the Prelates are convened within Italy on account of Ecclesiastick Causes, especially of Faith, an usage is retained, that the Successour of the Prelates of the Apostolick See, in the name [or, person] of all the Prelates of all Italy▪ agreeable to the Care of all the Churches appertaining to them, should constitute all things. Pope Julius had said the same long before Felix, in his Letter to the Orientalls, which Athanasius records in his Apologetick. But now, as to the Se­cond Objection of the Easterns, concerning Acacius's being condem­ned without any examination; that is sufficiently answered by Pope Gelasius in his Epistle to the Orientalls, the words whereof we have pro­duced above. Vales. contrary to the Prescript of the Canons, as the same Zacharias has related; (for some of those persons who lead a Monastick life in that termed the Mo­nastery of the That is▪ the Monks▪ who did not sleep. Acoemeti, delivered it;) Aca­cius would not admit of, nor acknowledge. And these things have indeed [in this man­ner] been written by Zacharias: but he seems to me, to have had no exact knowledge of the matters at that time transacted; but, to have given us a very lame, maimed, and imperfect account; to wit, those things only which he had from report and Hear-say. I my self there­fore will give an accurate Narrative of that whole Transaction. Some time be­fore this, Johannes Tabennesio­ta (after he had been Eje­cted out of his See,) had come to Rome, and had made his case known to Pope Simplicius. But he had not presented a Libell to him; but had only perswaded him, that he would write to Acacius in defence of his Cause. Which thing Pope Simplicius performed with a ready and willing mind. But Acacius, having received Simplicius's Letters, returned answer, that he in no wise acknow'edged Johannes Bishop of Alexandria: but, had received Petrus Mongus to communion by order of the Emperour Zeno. At which Letters Simplicius being highly incensed, wrote back, that Acacius had not done what was regular and orderly, in that he had received Petrus to Communion, who stood condemned by the common sentence of them both. And when Johannes was preparing to offer a Libell to the Pope, containing various Crimes against Aca­cius; in the interim Simplicius was prevented by death, before Aca­cius had given answer to his last Letters▪ as Liberatus tells us in his Breviarium. But after Felix had been put into Simplicius's place, Jo­hannes presented that Libell to Pope Felix, which he had before made ready to offer to Simplicius. Who forthwith sent a Libell of Ci­tation to Acacius by the Bishops Vitalis and Misenus, ordering him to come to Rome immediately, and give in his answer before the Aposto­lick See, to the Libell of Johannes the Bishop; as 'tis recorded in the Gesta de nomine Acacii, and in the Libell of Citation transmitted to Acacius.—Vales. Libells having been pre­sented to Felix by Johannes against Acacius, be­cause he illegally held Communion with Petrus, and on account of other things done by him con­trary to the Canons; the Bishops Vitalis and Misenus are sent [...]. The words are transposed, which I restore thus; [...] are sent from Felix to [the Emperour] Zeno. Vales. from Felix to [the Empe­rour] Zeno, [with these requests,] that the Synod at Chalcedon might be confirmed, that Pe­trus might be expelled [from his See] as being an Heretick, and that Acacius should be sent to Felix, to give an account of those matters, where­of Johannes (of whom we have made frequent mention) might accuse him.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning Cyrillus Governour of the Monastery of the Acoemeti, how he sent some persons to Felix at Rome, inciting him to revenge what had been committed against the Faith.

[...]. Nicephorus has excel­lently well explained this place of Eva­grius, in these words: [...], &c. But before Vitalis and Misenus, coming from Rome, had arrived at the Imperial City, &c. In Evagrius therefore it must be written thus; [...]. For so Evagrius does usually call Constantinople; as hereafter, at chap. 25. Vales. BUT before their arrivall at the Impe­rial City, Cyrillus Governour of those [Monks] termed the There were two Monasteries at Constantinople which were termed [the Monasteries] of the Acoemeti, to wit, [the Monastery] of Bassianus, and that of Dius. They had taken the name of Bassianus and of Dius from their Founders. But they had the appellation of Acoemeti [or, Ac [...]mita,] given them, because they celebrated the Divine praises night and day, succeeding one another by turns: in so much that they seemed not to sleep. So heretofore in the Gallia's, a continuall praising of God is said to have been kept up in some Monasteries. Vales. Acoemeti, sends [some persons] to Felix, complaining of his slackness, in regard so great offences were committed a­gainst the true Faith. Felix therefore writes to Misenus and those who accompanied him, [or­dering them] to do nothing before they should have had a conference with Cyrillus, and might be informed from him what was to be done.

CHAP. XX. Concerning what Felix wrote to Zeno, and Zeno to Felix.

THere were dispatcht to them other [...]. Ni­cephorus supposed that these Commonitoria (for so the Latines term them, which the Greeks call [...],) were written to the Emperour Zeno. But Evagrius says they were writ­ten to Vitalis and Misenus the Legates of the Apostolick See. 'Tis certain, Commonitories were wont to be sent to Embassadours and such like persons, but not to the Roman Emperour. For they were as it were Orders and In­structions which publick Ministers ought studiously to observe. Vales. Com­monitories also from Felix; who likewise wrote Letters to Zeno, both concerning the Chal­cedon Synod, and also about the Persecution in Africa [which had been raised] by Onorichus. Besides, he wrote to Acacius. The Em­perour Zeno returned an answer to Felix, [where­in he told him] that Jo­hannes had given him trou­ble in vain, because That is, Johannes. he had sworn that he would in no wise at any time sue for Admission to the See of Alexandria; but, that after­wards he had disregarded his oath, and com­mitted all manner of sacriledge: and, that Pe­trus had not been ordained rashly and without an exquisite tryall and examination, but with his own hand had subscribed, that he embraced the Faith of the Three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers heretofore convened at Nicaea; which Faith the Holy Synod at Chalcedon also had [approved of, and] followed. The ex­press words [of Zeno's Letter] are these: You ought to be most undoubtedly assured, that both Our Piety, and the forementioned most Holy Petrus, and all the most Holy Churches, do Embrace and Revere the most Holy Synod of the [...]. In the excel­lent Florent. M. S. I found it written [...]: and so also the same Manuscript Copy has it written in other places, as I have remarked before. Indeed, the ancient Coyns do confirm this writing of this word, as does likewise the Authour of the Etymologicon in the word [...]. Vales. Chalcedonians, which hath fully agreed with the Faith in the Synod of the Nicaeans. [...]. I a­gree with Sr Henry Savil, who in his Copy hath men­ded it thus, [...], There are also extant in the same Acts. But I can in no wise ap­prove of Christophorson's Version, who has rendred this place thus: Extant Praeterea in Actis ejusdem Concilii, &c. There are moreover extant in the Acts of the same Councill, &c. For Evagrius makes no mention here of any Councill, only takes a view of the Collection of Letters, which belonged to Acacius's Cause. Christophorson thought, (because be saw mention was made of Acts by Evagrius,) that it followed immediately, that these things were transacted in a Councill. But the matter is not always so. For whatever things were done in any affair, may simply be called Acts, although no Coun­cill or judiciary proceedings intervened. Vales. There are also extant in the same Acts the Letters, both from the forementioned Cyrillus, and from other Archimandrites of the Impe­periall City; and also [those] from the Bishops and Clergy of the Egyptick Dioecesis, [written] to Felix, against Petrus as being an Heretick, and against those who communicated with him. Further, when the [Monks] belonging to the Monastery of the Acoemeti were come to Felix, [...]. The Article [...] ▪ is to be expunged; which is not acknowledged by Nicephorus. Vales. they accused Misenus and those that accom­panied him, because till their arrivall at Byzan­tium, [the name of] Petrus had in secret been recited in the Sacred Diptycks; but, that from that time till now it was recited publickly; and therefore, that Misenus and those who accom­panied him had held communion [with Petrus.] The Letter likewise of the Egyptians affirmed the same things [with what I have related] concerning Petrus; and further also, that Johan­nes being a person Orthodox, had been legally Ordained; but, that Petrus was Ordained only by All other Authours relate, that Mongus was or­dained by one Bishop, and he an Heretick. So says A­cacius in his Letter to Pope Simplicius, and Felix in his Synodick Epistle to all the Monks and Archimandrites at Constantinople and in Bythinia. The same is likewise attested by Theophanes in his Chronicon, pag. 107; and by Gelasius in the Gesta de nomine Acacii. Yet Libera­tus affirms Petrus was ordained by more Bishops than one, although he expresses not their number. Vales. two Bishops, who maintained the same ill o­pinion with himself: and, that immediately after Johannes's flight, all manner of punishments had been inflicted on the Orthodox. And, that Acacius had had information of all these things by some persons who had made a journey to him [from A­lexandria] to the Imperiall City; and [lastly,] that Acacius was found to be Petrus's favourer and Assistant in all things.

CHAP. XXI. That Symeones a Monk belonging to the Mona­stery of the Aoemeti went to Rome, and ac­cused those Bishops sent from the Romans to Constantinople as having held Communion with Hereticks; and, that these Legates, and those persons who held Communion with Petrus, were deposed by the Romans.

THese [accusations] were much increased by Symeones one of those Monks termed the Acoemeti, who was sent [to Rome] from Cyrillus. For this person accused Misenus and Vi­talis for having communicated with Hereticks; [he averred] that the name of Petrus was pub­lickly recited in the Sacred Diptycks, and that by this means many of the simpler sort were im­posed upon by Hereticks, who affirmed that Pe­trus was received [to communion] even by the See of Rome. Symeones added likewise, that when severall questions [were proposed,] Misenus and his companions would not allow of a conference with any person that was Orthodox, or make a delivery of Letters to them, or take an exact scrutiny of any thing that was audaciously at­tempted against the true Faith. Silvanus a Pres­byter (one that had conversed with Misenus and Vitalis at Constantinople,) was likewise brought in, who confirmed what had been said by the Monks. Moreover, Acacius's This Letter of Acacius's is extant, set forth in Latine a­mongst the Epistles of Pope Simplicius. The same Letter is mentioned in Pope Felix's E­pistle, which contains Acacius's Sentence of Deposition. Vales. Letter to Sim­plicius was read, [wherein Acacius] affirmed, that Pe­trus had been long since De­posed, and that he was a Son of Night. And on these accounts Misenus and Vitalis were removed from the Sacerdotall Function, and separated from the undefiled Communion; the whole Synod having given their Vote in these express words. The Church of the Romans doth not receive [to Commu­nion] the Heretick Petrus, who hath long since been both condemned by the Vote of the Sacred Chair, and also Excommunicated and Anathematized. Against whom (though nothing else were obje­cted, yet) even this would be sufficient, that having been ordained by Hereticks, he could not preside over the Orthodox. This also was contained [in the said Sentence:] [...]. We have added the particle [...] But, from the Florentine Manu­script; which particle casts a great light upon this place. In the same Florentine Manuscript at the side of these words, this Scholion was written: [...]. That is, This Authour does not say here expresly, that Acacius was deposed by the [Bishop] of Rome: but Theodorus and Basilius Cilix do manifestly affirm this. Nicephorus (book 16. chap. 17.) attests the same concerning Basilius Cilix. Further, Our Evagrius is undeservedly reproved by that Scholiast, because at this place he speaks nothing of Acacius's deposition. Evagrius does here relate all things that were transacted in the Roman Synod, which was convened in the year of Christ 484 against Vitalis and Misenus Legates of the Apostolick See. In that Synod Vitalis and Misenus were indeed deprived of the honour of the Priesthood. But Acacius was only reprehended and rebuked, as 'tis apparent from the Decree of the Synod, here recorded by Evagrius. After this, Felix sent his Synodick Letters to Acacius; wherein these words occurred; Peccasti, ne adjicias, & de prioribus supplica, You have offended, make no addition, and supplicate for [your] former [fai­lings.] After receipt of which Letters, when Acacius still stood out, and committed Facts worse than the former; Pope Felix (the Bi­shops being a second time convened,) promulged a sentence of de­position against Acacius, and directed it to Acacius, by Tutus Defensor of the Roman Church; which [sentence] begins thus: Multarum transgressionum reperiris obnoxius, You are found guilty of many transgressions. That these things were transacted in this manner, Pope Felix informs us in his Synodick Letter to the Presbyters and Archimandrites at Constantinople and throughout Bythinia. For, after he had written concerning Vitalis and Misenus, and concerning Acacius, who were condemned in the Roman Synod; he adds these words: Post illam sententiam quae in Acacium perturbatorem totius Orientis Ecclesiae dicta est, &c. After that sentence which hath been pronounced against Acacius the disturber of the whole Eastern Church, being now also convened, we have added to these Letters, &c. And a little after: Unde nunc causâ Antiochenae Ecclesiae, &c. Wherefore being at this present convened in the presence of the blessed Apostle Peter on ac­count of the Antiochian Church, we do again hasten to declare to Your love the Custom which hath always obtained amongst us. From which words it appears, that this Letter was written by Felix, in the name of the third Roman Synod, which had been assembled on account of the Antio­chian Church; which, after Calendion was ejected, Petrus Fullo had invaded. In this Synod therefore Felix had dictated the sentence against Acacius, (which begins thus; Multarum transgressionum reperiris obnoxius, You are found guilty of many Transgressions;) and had transmitted it to Acacius, by Tutus the Defensor. Nor can any one say, that that sentence was pronounc't before in the Second Roman Synod, at such time as Vitalis and Misenus were condemned; but was sent a little afterwards by Felix, by the Order of the Third Roman Synod. For Evagrius refutes this, who does not say, that the sentence of deposition was pronounc't against Acacius in that Roman Synod wherein Vitalis and Misenus were condemned. Besides, Libera­tus in his Breviarium (chap. 18.) does manifestly declare, that that Sentence of Deposition against Acacius was pronounced long after the Condemnation of Vitalis and Misenus. For hear what Liberatus says: Redeunt aliquando Legati. Sed praecesserant Monachi, &c. At length the Legates return. But the Monks had gone before, who in a grievous manner accused them of Treachery. Having been forthwith heard and convicted from those Letters which they had brought, they are removed from their own places. And after some few words: Ubi ergo ad plenum detectus est Acacius Haereticus, &c. When therefore the Heretick Acacius was fully detected, Pope Felix put these words in his Synodick Letters: you have offended, make no addition, and supplicate for [your] former [failings.] Acacius having re­ceived these Letters, persists in the same mind, neither receding from Petrus's Communion, nor yet perswading him openly to embrace the Chalcedon Synod and the Tome of Pope Leo. Pope Felix understanding this, sent a writing of Condemnation to Acacius by Tutus the Defen­sor; the beginning whereof is this. You are found guilty of many Transgressions. Vales. But, that Acacius [Bishop] of Constantinople deserves a severe reproof, the thing it self has demonstrated; be­cause in his Letter to Simplicius he has termed Petrus an Heretick, but at this present hath not [Page 461] detected it to the Emperour: for he ought, if he had loved Zeno, to have done this: but he loves the Emperour with a greater ardency of affection, [...]. In the Florentine and Tellerian M. SS. and in Nicephorus, the reading is, [...], Loves not the Faith. But it would be better written thus; [...]. Thus Christophorson seems to have read, and so we have rendred it. At the Clause immediately foregoing, instead of [ [...]. For he ought, if he had loved Zeno, to have done this;] I would rather read thus: [...], &c. Whereas, if he had loved the Faith rather than Zeno, he ought to have done this. Vales. than he has for the Faith. But let us reduce our Relation to the After the Roman Synod which was convened on the account of Vitalis and Misenus, and wherein Vitalis and Misenus had been con­demned; but Petrus and Acacius were only reproved and rebuked; it was consequent that Evagrius should have spoken concerning the Sentence of Deposition pronounced against Acacius and sent to Con­stantinople by Tutus the Defensor. And yet Evagrius has not done this here. Whereof two reasons may be assigned. For, either this was done by Evagrius in reverence to the Constantinopolitan See: or else, because Evagrius had related that before from Zacha­rias Rhetor; as may be seen in the eighteenth Chapter. What there­fore he had declared there, he look't upon as superfluous to repeat at this place. Vales. following Series of affairs. There is extant an Epistle of Acacius's, [writ­ten] to the Bishops in Egypt, and to the Eccle­siasticks and Monks; and to the whole body of the Laity; wherein he has attempted to re­pair and make up the Schism which had hapned. Concerning which affair he wrote also to Petrus Bishop of Alexandria.

CHAP. XXII. Concerning the disturbances at Alexandria, and in severall [other] places, on account of the Synod at Chalcedon.

THE Schism therefore increasing at Alex­andria, Petrus (after he had I have made good this place from the Florentine M. S. in this manner, [...], after he had again Ana­thematized, &c. For Petrus Mon­gus condemned not the Chalcedon Synod together with Leo's Epistle, once, but oftner. Vales. again A­nathematized Leo's Epistle, and the Acts of the Chalcedon Synod, and those persons who would not em­brace the writings of Dio­scorus and Timotheus;) per­swaded some of the Bishops and Archimandrites to com­municate with himself. And because he could not induce others [to do the same,] he drove most of them from their own Monasteries. For which reasons Libera­tus makes mention of this Abbot Nephalius, in his Bre­viarium, chap. 18. Vales. Nephalius made a journey to the Imperial City, and gave Ze­no an account of these matters. Whereat Zeno was sorely troubled, and sends Cosmas, one of his own Protectors, [to Alexandria;] who gave forth many and great Menaces against Petrus on account of [procuring an] Unity, in regard by his own roughness he had raised a great dissen­tion. But Cosmas, when nothing succeeded ac­cording to his wish and design, returned to the Imperial City, having only restored the Ejected Monks to their own Monasteries. Again there­fore the Emperour sends Arsenius, whom he had preferred to be Prefect of Egypt and Dux of the Companies of the Militia. He being arrived at Alexandria in company with Nephalius, made a speech concerning Unity. But when he could not perswade [them to it,] he sent some of them to the Imperial City. Moreover, many disputes were held before Zeno concerning the Synod at Chalcedon: but nothing was brought to effect, because Zeno did not Or, Fully. wholly assent to the Synod at Chalcedon.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning Fravita and Euphemius [Bishops] of Constantinople; and concerning Athanasius and Johannes [Bishops] of Alexandria: also concerning Palladius and Flavianus [Pre­lates] of Antioch; and concerning some other persons.

BUT Acacius [Bishop] of Constantinople ha­ving [...] I had rather make it, [...], in this interim. Further, 'tis to be observed, that Evagrius does in the first place relate Acacius's death. For, of those three Schif­maticks who rent in sunder the Orientall Church, (to wit, Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, Petrus of Alexandria, and Petrus of Antioch;) the first that departed out of this life (says Evagrius,) was Acacius; then Petrus [Bishop] of Alexandria, who was termed Mongus; and last of all died Petrus Fullo. But Victor Thunonensis in his Chronicon relates, that the first that died of those three I have mentioned, was Petrus [Bishop] of Antioch. For his words are these: Post Con­suletum secundum Longini, &c. After Longinus's second Consulate, Petrus [Bishop] of Antioch dies under condemnation, and in his place Calendion is ordained. But the Eastern Bishops, as persons ignorant, con­secrate Johannes surnamed Codonatus Bishop over the said Antiochian Church, to whom succeeded Petrus the Heretick. This was the year of Christ 488; Dynamius and Sifidius being Consuls. But on the year following, wherein Probinus and Eusebius were Consuls, the same Victor Thunonensis records Acacius's death in these words: Eusebio V. C. Cos. Acacius Constantinopolitanus Episcopus sub damnatione mo­ritur, &c. The most famous personage Eusebius being Consul, Aca­cius Bishop of Constantinople dies under Condemnation, and in his room Flavita is ordained Bishop; to whom (he dying in the third month of his Promotion,) Euphemius Keeper of the Decrees of the Chalcedon Synod was successour in the Bishoprick. And on the next year, Lon­ginus and Faustus being the second time Consuls, the same Victor re­lates, that Petrus [Bishop] of Alexandria died under Condemnation. But Baronius, in his Ecclefiastick Annalls, relates indeed the death of these three Schismaticks in the same Order with Victor Thunonensis, but not on the same year. For he says, that Petrus Fullo died on the year of our Lord's Nativity 486. And, that Acacius died two years after, that is, on the year of Christ 488: But in Mongus's death he agrees exactly with Victor. But I had rather follow Victor's opinion, who places Fullo's death on the year of Christ 488. For Calendion was created Bishop of Antioch on the year of our Lord's Nativity 482, as 'tis manifest from Pope Simplicius's Epistle; and in regard he held that Bishoprick four years, as Theophanes does at­test; it must necessarily be said that Petrus Fullo, who on Calendion's being ejected was put into his place, had possession of the See of An­tioch on the year of Christ 486. But who can believe that Petrus Fullo, who committed so many and such notorious Facts during the time of his Episcopate, should have died a few months after his pro­motion? Petrus Fullo therefore died not on the year of Christ 486, as Baronius thought. But this argument is with ease refuted; for 'tis grounded barely on Theophanes's authority, who attributes four years to Calendion's sitting Bishop. But Calendion sate Bishop during the space of one year only. For he was ejected by the treachery of his Ordainer Acacius, a little after the Roman Synod, on the year of Christ 483; as we are informed from Pope Felix's Letter to all the Presbyters and Archimandrites at Constantinople and throughout Bi­thynia, and from the Authour of the Gesta de nomine Acacii. But Theophanes and Cedrenus are notoriously mistaken, who relate that Petrus Fullo departed this life after Petrus Mongus. Whom Pope Gelasius has refuted, in his Epistle to the Orientalls, who does attest that of those two, Petrus Fullo died first. Vales. in this interim gone the common way [of mankind,] Fravita succeeded him in his Bi­shoprick. [Page 462] And when this Pravita Theopha­nes relates, that Fra­vita wrote Synodick Letters to Petrus [Bi­shop] of Alexandria, wherein he denyed that he communicated with Felix Bishop of Rome. And on the other hand, that he sent Synodick Letters to Felix, where­in he declared to him, that he had no society of communion with Petrus [Bishop] of Alex­andria. Theophanes assignes on­ly three months continuance in his Bishoprick to the same Fra­vita; as does likewise Victor Thu­nonensis; and not four, as Eva­grius affirms in this chapter. Vales. had sent Synodick Letters to Petrus [Bishop] of Alex­andria, Petrus on his part returned him answer in the like Letters wherein he affirmed the same things [with what I have mentioned] concer­ing the Acts at Chalcedon. Moreover, after Fravita's departure out of this life, (for he sate Bishop four months only;) Euphemius was ordained Bishop in his room. He receives the Sy­nodick Letters, which Pe­trus had written to Fravita: and having found therein an Anathema against the Acts at Chalcedon, was mightily disturbed, and severed him­self from Petrus's Commu­nion. Both these [Prelates] Letters are ex­tant, as well that from Fravita to Petrus, as that from Petrus to Fravita; which, by reason of their prolixity, I have omitted. When there­fore Euphemius and Petrus were about to con­tend one with another, and to convene Synods one against the other; Petrus is prevented by death, and Athanasius succeeds him in his Chair. He attempted to unite the dissenting persons; but could not effect it, the disagree­ing parties being divided into There were at A­lexandria two sorts of Hereticks; to wit, the Dioscoritae, and the E­saiani: concerning whom Liberatus speaks in his Breviary. The Dio­scoritae wholly condemned and anathematized the Chalcedon Synod. But the Esaiani, following Zeno's Edict [that is, His Henoticon,] did not indeed in any wise admit that Synod; yet they pronounc't not an Anathema against it. Vales. various opinions. This Athanasius having after this sent Synodick Letters to Palladius Successour to Evagrius says not expresly, on what year Petrus Bishop of Antioch died; nor can it be gathered from his words, that he died af­ter Petrus Bishop of Alexan­dria. Yea, rather the contrary may be ex­tracted from Eva­grius's words. For, if Petrus Bishop of Antioch had survi­ved Petrus Alexandrinus, doubtless Athanasius, who succeeded Petrus Bishop of Alexandria, would have sent his Synodick Letters to Petrus Bishop of Antioch. For these Synodick Letters were wont to be sent by the Patriarchs at the very beginning of their Patriarchate. In regard there­fore Athanasius sent his Synodick Letters to Palladius Bishop of An­tioch, it appears from thence, that Petrus Antiochenus died long before Petrus Alexandrinus. Further, concerning Athanasius's Synodick Let­ters, Liberatus in his Breviarium says these words: Non post multum tempus, &c. No long time after dies also Petrus Mongus at Alexandria, and after him Athanasius is ordained in that See: who himself also com­municated with the Constantinopolitan, Antiochian, and Hierosolymi­tane Church in the Edict. Vales. Petrus in the Bishoprick of Antioch, did the same [that Pe­trus had done] in relation to the Synod at Chalcedon. The very same was likewise per­formed by Johannes, who after Athanasius suc­ceeded in the Alexandrian Chair. And after the death of Palladius Prelate of the Church at Antioch, when Flavianus had succeeded him in his Chair, Solomon a Presbyter of Antioch is sent by him to Alexandria, who carried Flavi­anus's. his Synodick Letters, and requested Johannes's Letters in answer to Flavianus. But after this Johannes, another Johannes succeeds in the Chair of Alexandria. And these things proceeded in the same manner [I have mentioned] Or, Till some times of Anasta­sius. till the begin­ning of [the Emperour] Anasta­sius's Reign. For he ejected Euphe­mius [out of his Bishoprick.] Which [transactions] I was necessitated to joyn together in one continued Series, both for perspicuitie's sake, and also that they might with more celerity be understood.

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning the slaughter of Armatus, who was kinsman to the Empress Verina.

BUT Zeno, by the perswasion of Illus, slew Armatus also, who was the Empress Ve­rina's kinsman, whom, when sent [against him] by Basiliscus, Zeno had Zeno brought o­ver Arma­tus to his own side, not only by gifts and pre­sents, but by promi­ses also. For he pro­mised, that as soon as he had recovered the Empire, he would make Armatus perpetuall Magister [or, Master,] of the present Militia; and his Son Basiliscus, Caesar, and his own Assessour; as Theophanes tells us in his Chronicon. pag 107. Whose words, because they are corrupted, nor could be understood by the Translatour, I will annex here. [...]. That is, But he also (as it frequently [hap­pens,]) being blinded with gifts [sent] from Zeno, and with a promise of the perpetuall Mastership of the Milice, and that Zeno would make his Son Basiliscus, Gaesar, and his Assessour; returned with Zeno against Basiliscus. I write therefore, [...], and with a promise of the perpotuall Mastership of the Milice. Theophanes terms the perpetuall power of Master of the Milice [...]. The Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle does fully confirm our Emendation. For he writes, that Zeno had made a promise to Armatus, that be would grant to him the Magisteriall power of the present Milice as long as he should live. Suidas relates much concerning this Armatus, in the word [...]; which seem to have been taken out of Damascius in the Life of Hisydorus the Philosopher. Vales. ensnared with gifts, and, instead of being an Enemy, had made him a Friend and an Auxiliary. He also creates his Son Basiliscus, Caesar, at the City Nicaea. But when he was come to Byzantium, he slays Ar­matus by Treachery. But he makes his Son Ba­siliscus, instead of being a Caesar, a Presbyter. Who was afterwards promoted to the Episco­pall dignity.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning the Rebellion of Or, Theu­dericus. Theodoricus the Scythian; and concerning the same person's death.

THendoricus; by Nation a Scythian; made an insurrection also against Zeno: and ha­ving gathered together his own Forces in the [Country] of the Thracians, undertakes an Expedition against Zeno. him. And when he had ruined all the Countries before him, as far as the mouth of Pontus, he wanted but little of taking the Imperial City it self; [and had seized it,] had not some of his Grea est Con­fidents, induced thereto [by gifts,] entred in­to a Consult Or, To kill him. about taking him off. Being in­formed therefore of this ill design of his own friends against him, he marched back; and not long after this is numbred amongst those de­parted this life. Moreover, I will declare the manner of his death, which hapned thus. [...]. In the exposi­tion of this word Transla­tours have been mi­staken. Langus renders it Hastam ex­peditam, a Javelin fitted up and in rea­diness. Musculus, according to his own usage, ha­ving not a Latine word rea­dy at hand, retained the Greek one. But Christophorson has rendred it worst of all, thus, Hastam cuspide bisidâ, a Javelin with a double point. I have tran­slated it Hastam amentatam, a Javelinsitted with a loop of leather to caest it with. For [...] is the same with Amenium; to wit, the thong wherewith Darts or Javelins were bound about, that they might be cast against the Enemy. The Old Glosses out of the Library of Petrus Daniel quoted by Turnebus, explain it thus: Amentum, corrigia lan­ceae, quae etiam ansula est ad jactum, that is, Amentum, the Latehets of a Launce, which is also a little handle to cast it. Where ansula is the same with [...]. to wit, that whereby a Dart is held that it may be thrown. Hesychius expounds [...] thus, [...], to sit [or clasp together] the fingers about the leather-latchet of a missile weapon. 'Tis likewise used to signifie, to be ready. So Aeschylus made use of this phrase, [...], sounds made by the lashings of lea­ther-thongs, [See Hesychius, in the word [...]:] a Metaphor taken [...], from those Javelins, which they termed amenta [...] [that is, fitted with loops of leather to fliag them with;] as Eustathius tells us, at the Second Book of the I [...]ads. Now, there was a double use of the Amen­tum. For, it conduced both to the holding of the Dart, and also that it might be thrown against the Enemy with a greater force. Vales. A Javelin fitted with a loop of leather to cast it with, was hung up before his Tent, agreeable to the mode of the Barbarians. Having there­fore a mind to exercise his body, he ordered his horse to be brought to him. And it being not customary with him to make use of a [...]. In the incomparable Florentine M. S. I found it plainly written [...], as Learned men had con­jectured the reading should be. Now [...] is the same with him whom the Latines term a Strator who is wont to li [...]t his Master on horse­back; as Suidas attests: in which Author there is a passage extant of an ancient Writer, who says these words concerning King Massanissa, [...], But this Massanissa when he was old mounted his horse without a Strator. Where Suidas seems to have taken the word [...] for a Scale which we vulgarly term a Stirrop. Vales. Strator, he mounted his horse without any help. But the horse, being a beast unmanaged and fiery, before Theodoricus had bestridden him and setled him­self, rises with his fore-feet, and began to go for­wards upright on his hinder feet only. So that Theodoricus striving with his horse, and not da­ring to [...]. I think it must be made [...], as 'tis in the Tellerian M. S. For so the Analogy requires it should; as from [...] is derived [...] Suidas expounds [...] thus, [...], to pull back, to curb. But Nicephorus, instead of this word, made use of [...], to repress, or, to draw back. Further, the death of Theodoricus hapned on the year of Christ 481, as Marcellinus in his Chronicon attests, in these words: Placidio solo Coss. Theodoricus Triarii filius Rex Gothorum, &c. Pla­cidius being Consul alone Theodoricus Triarius's Son King of the Goths, taking his Forces [along with him] as far as Anaplum, arrives at the distance of four miles from the City; but having done no harm to any of the Romans, returned forthwith. Further, hastning into Illyricum, whilest he was going between the moving Carriages of his own Army, he is wounded and striken thorow with the point of a dert lying upon one of the Wagons, [occasioned] by the motion of his own horse who started; and dies. Vales. curb him with the Bridle, least he should fall backwards upon him, nor yet being firmly seated in his Saddle, was tossed this way and that way, and thrown upon the point [of his Javelin.] Which ran obliquely into him, and wounded his side. Being conveyed from thence therefore to his bed, and having con­tinued alive some few days, he died of that wound.

CHAP. XXVI. Concerning Marcianus's Insurrection, and what hapned in Relation to him.

Theopha­nes relates this com­motion of Marcianus's (in like manner as our Evagrius does,) soon after the death of Theodoricus the Son of Triarius. But Malchus dis­sents, in his Byzantine History. For he tells us, that Theodoricus Triarius having heard of Marci­anus's Sedition, forthwith drew together vast Forces, and mar­ched towards Constantinople; pre­tending to give the Emperour as­sistance; but in reality, that he might make himself master of the Imperial City. Malchus's words, if any one be desirous of reading them, occur at pag. 86 of the King's Edition. Further, Proco­pius Marcianus's brother, after Marcianus was taken, and his Tyranny supprest, fled into Grae­cia to Theodoricus. And when Zeno sent an Embassy requiring him to be delivered up to him­self, he could never prevail to get that done by Theodoricus; as Candidus says, in his Second Book, and Malchus, in the book now cited. Vales. AFter these things, Marcianus (the Son of Anthemius who had been Emperour of Rome, a kinsman by mariage to Leo Zeno's pre­decessour in the Empire; for he had married Leon­tia Leo's younger daugh­ter;) having disagreed with Zeno, made an attempt to set up for a Tyrant. And a sharp engagement hap­ning about the Pallace, wherein many fell on either side; Marcianus routs his opposers. And [by that attack] had possest him­self of the Pallace, had he not let that opportunity slip, by deferring that a­ction till the morrow. For, Opportunity is a swift­wing'd Bird, and, whilst she flies at your feet, may per­adventure be taken. But after she has avoided your hands, on a sudden she mounts on high, and de­rides those who pursue her, not suffering her self to be catcht by them in future. On which account therefore Or, I­mage-ma­kers. Statuaries and Painters make her hair long before, but shave the hinder part of her head to the very skin: with great prudence intimating thereby, that as long as Opportunity is behind, she may be perhaps laid hold on by her long hair: but being got before, she makes a perfect escape, not ha­ving any thing whereby she may be taken hold of by the Pursuer. Which very thing at that time befell Marcianus, who lost that opportunity which was seasonably offered him, and was not in future able to recover it. For, on the mor­row he was betrayed by his own party; and having been wholly deserted, fled to the Church of the Divine Apostles. Whence he was drawn out by force, and banisht to Caesarea a City of the Cappadocians. Where keeping company with some Monks, he was afterwards found out to design a private escape. On which account he was by the Emperour sent to Tarsus of Cilicia, and having had his hair shorn, is or­dained a Presbyter. These Transactions are with great elegancy written by Eustathius the Syrian.

CHAP. XXVII. Concerning the Tyranny of Illus and Leontius.

THE same Eustathius relates, that Zeno fra­med innumerable designes and intreagues, even against Verina his own mother in Law; and, that after these things, he banisht her into the Country of the Cilicians: but, that afterwards, when Illus's Tyranny broke out, Verina removed to that termed the Castle of Papirius, and there ended her life. Moreover, the same Eusta­thius hath written the Affairs of Illus with much Eloquence; how, having been trea­cherously laid wait for by Zeno, he made his escape; and, in what manner Zeno deli­vered up that person [to Illus] to be put to death, whom he had ordered to murder Illus; [paying him with] the loss of his head, which reward Zeno gave him for his unsuccessfullness in that attempt. Illus also was declared Master of the Oriental Milice by Zeno, who made it his business to conceal [those treacherous designes he had framed against Illus.] But Illus, ha­ving taken into an association with himself Le­ontius, and one Marsus a person eminent and skilfull, and Pamprepius; went into the Eastern parts. Then [the said Eustathius relates] Le­ontius's being proclaimed Emperour, which was done at Tarsus of Cilicia; and also, what these persons got by their Tyranny; Theodoricus (a person by original extract a Goth, and who was a man of eminency amongst the Romans,) being sent against them, with an Army con­sisting partly of Romans and partly of Bar­barians. The same Eustathius does very in­geniously describe the slaughter of these persons, which in a cruell manner was effected by Ze­no's order, [he repaying them with this re­ward] for their Benevolence [they had shown] to himself: and, that Theodoricus, [...], made sen­sible of Ze­no's intent. In the Flo­rent. M. S. 'tis t [...]uer written, thus, [...], &c. made sensible of Zeno's treacherous de­signes, &c. Vales. made sen­sible of Zeno's treacherous designes [against himself,] departed to the Seniour Rome: (But others affirm, [...]. Translatours saw not the meaning of this place; they were deceived by an ill punctation. But, by placing a middle distinction after these words, I have cast a light upon this passage. For Evagrius says, two reasons were brought, which had moved Theodoricus to go into Italy. The first was because Zeno plotted against him. The second is assigned in these words, But others affirm that, &c. Indeed, in the Excerpta of that old Author, which I published long since at the end of Amm. Marcellinus, Theodoricus is said to have gone into Italy with the consent of Zeno. For these are the words there, at pag. 479; Zeno recompensans beneficiis Theodoricum, &c. Zeno recompensing Theodoricus with gifts, whom he made Patricius and Consul, giving him much; and sending him into Italy, made an a­greement with him, that if Odöachar should be vanquished, for the merit of his own labours, he should only reign before, in his room whilest he should live. [Loco ejus dum adviveret, in his room whilest he should live; so 'tis worded in this note of Valesius's here: but in the fore­mentioned Excerpta of the old Authour, the reading is, loco ejus dum adveniret, in his room whilest he should come.] Jordanes does also attest the same in his Geticks, and in his Book de Successione Regnorum. Vales. that [Theodoricus made this journey into Italy] by Zeno's perswasion:) and having vanquished Odoacer in an Engagement, made himself Master of Rome, and assumed to himself the name [only] of King.

CHAP. XXVIII. Concerning Mammianus, and the Or, Works. Structures [built by] him.

JOhannes the Rhetorician relates, that during the Reign of Zeno, one Mammianus, from being a Sedentary Mechanick, became an emi­nent person, and arrived at the Senatorian Or­der; and, that this Mammianus built that Edi­fice termed The So a certain Building seems to be termed, which served in­stead of a Forum. Evagrius says, this Edifice was in the Daphnen­sian Suburb, over against [or, opposite to] the publick Bath. For that is the import of these words, [...]. Musculus renders [...], rectà ad publicum Balneum, straight forth to the publick Bath. Which I approve not of: for [...] is the same with [...], opposite; as Suidas attests. Now, in the Antiforum (says Evagrius,) Mammianus's Statue was erected. Whence it is apparent, that The Antiforum was the same with what I have said above. For Statues were wont to be erected in the Forum. Vales. Antipho­rum in the Suburb Daphne, (which place had before had Vines in it, and was fit for Tillage;) opposite to the publick Bath; where­in is erected a Brazen Statue, [with this Inscription,] MAMMIANUS A LOVER OF THE CITY. [The same Jo­hannes adds,] that he rai­sed two Royall Porticus's in the City, for building ve­ry magnificent, and beauti­fied with the splendour and brightness of Stones. And▪ that between the two Roy­all Porticus's, The Tetrapy­lum a middle Edifice was erected by him, most exquisitely adorned with Columns and Or, mat­ter of brass. Brass. I my self have seen the Royall Porticus's, which, together with their name, do still retain the Re­mains of their former Beauty; their flour being paved with Proconnesian Marble. But, the [rest of the] Building has nothing of excellency. For, by reason of those Calamities which have befaln them, they have of late been repair'd, I agree with Chri­stophorson and Sr Henry Sa­vil; who instead of [ [...]] have mended it [...], &c. Vales. nothing being added that might beautifie them. But, of The Tetrapylum erected by Mammianus we have not found so much as the very Or, Footstep. Foundation.

CHAP. XXIX. Concerning Zeno's Death, and the Proclaiming Anastasius Emperour.

FUrther, Zeno dying Childless, of a disease [termed] an Epilepsie, after the seventeenth year of his Empire; his brother Longinus, who had arrived at great power, entertained an hope, that he should invest himself with the Empire. But he proved unsuccesfull in his desires. For Ariadne encircled Anastasius with the [Im­perial] Crown, who had not yet arrived at the Senatorian Order, but was inrolled in that termed See Dr Howell's History se­cond part; pag. 51. The Schole of the Silentiarii. More­over, Eustathius relates, that from the beginning of Diocletian's Empire to Zeno's death and the Proclaiming of Anastasius, there passed Two hundred and seven years: from the Or, Mo­narchy. Empire of Augustus, Five hundred thirty two years and seven months: from the Reign of Alexander the Macedonian Eight hundred thirty two years, and likewise seven months: from the Reign of the Romans and Romulus, One thousand fifty two years, and moreover seven months: from the destruction of Troy, One thousand six hundred eighty and six years, with seven months. This [Page 465] Anastasius had his originall extract at the City Epidamnus, which is now termed Dyrrachium: and [succeeded] Zeno in his Empire, and married Zēno's. his Wife Ariadne. And in the first place he sends away Longinus (Zeno's bro­ther, who bore the dignity of a Magister, which Officer the Ancients termed The Prefect of the Offices in the Pallace;) into his own Country. Then, [he gave] many other Isaurians [a like liberty of returning into their own Coun­try,] who requested the same thing of him.

CHAP. XXX. Concerning the Emperour Anastasius; and how, because he would not innovate any thing in relation to the Ecclesiastick Constitution, the Churches over the whole world were filled with infinite disturbances: and many of the Bishops for that reason were ejected.

[FUrther,] This Anastasius, being a person very How A­nastasius was af­fected to­wards Ecclesiastick affairs, and in what manner he behaved him­self in the administration thereof, Liberatus, in his Breviary chap. 18. informs us in these words: Ascen­derunt quidam & adversantium, &c. Some persons both of those who were against him, and of them who communicated with him, went up to Anastasius. And whilst they had a debate before the Em­perour, some proposing that the Sy­nod should he Anathematized, and so they would communicate; but others, being more calm, were for adding those things in the Uniting Edict, which might satisfie these who had communicated with Petrus: The Emperour considering that if he should make an addition to the Edict, he might raise a disturbance in the Church, and that, to Ana­thematize the Synod was impossi­ble; perswaded them that the Uni­ting Edict was sufficient that they might communicate mutually with one another, as the rest of the Bi­shops of the Churches did. And when they would not obey to per­form these things, he dismissed them without their having obtained any thing. From which words you see, that the Emperour Anasta­sius wholly followed Zeno's Edict, nor would besides innovate any thi [...]g▪ Vales. studious to promote Peace, would permit no innovation whatever to be made, especially in relation to the Ecclesiastick Constitution: and took all imaginable Courses, both that the most Holy Churches might con­tinue undisturbed, and al­so that every person subject to his Government might en­joy a profound Peace; all Animosity and Contention being far removed both from the Ecclesiastick, and from the Civill State of affairs. The Synod therefore at Chal­cedon was in these times, neither publickly asserted in the most Holy Churches, nor yet wholly rejected: but e­very one of the Prelates acted according to that Sen­timent they had embraced. [...], although some: It must be, [...], And some. Vales. And some of them coura­giously defended what had been expounded in that Sy­nod, nor would they recede even from one syllable of it's determinations, or ad­mit of the alteration of one Letter: but with much con­fidence Or, Leapt from. separated from, and would in no wise endure to communicate with those, who admitted not of that Synod's Decrees. But others, not only embraced not the Synod at Chalcedon and the determinations made by it; but also Or, Sur­rounded it with an A­nathema. Anathematized it, together with Leo's E­pistle. Othersome stifly adhered to Zeno's He­noticon; [which they did] notwithstanding their disagreement amongst themselves concer­ning the one or the two Natures: these being imposed upon by the [...]. Jo­hannes Langus seems to understand the Empe­rour Zeno's Letters con­cerning the uniting of the Chur­ches. For thus he renders it: ii quidem Litteris in­sidiosè com­positis per fraudem de­cep [...]i, those being through fraud de­ceived by the Letters craftily composed. Which sense Chri­stophorson has like­wise fol­lowed. Indeed, this place of Evagrius can't be otherwise explained. For he brings two reasons, why some persons would not acquiesce in Zeno's Edict. He says therefore, that some were deceived by that flattering Oration of the Emperour, which was composed to perswade. But, that others, allured with a desire of the peace and repose of the Churches, had acquiesced in this Edict. Vales. composure of the Let­ters; and those having a greater inclination to Peace and Unity. In so much that the Churches of the whole world were divided into private Factions, nor would the Prelates hold Com­munion one with another. Hence hapned many Or, Sections. Dissentions both in the East, and in the Western parts, and throughout Africa; neither the Eastern Bi­shops keeping up a Society and Amity with the Western or those of Africa, nor yet on the other hand these with the Eastern Prelates. More­over, the matter proceeded to an higher Degree of absurdity. For, neither did the Eastern Pre­lates hold a Communion amongst their own selves; nor [would] those who governed the [Episcopall] Chairs of Europe or Africa [cherish a communion one with another,] much less with Strangers and Forreiners. Which when the Emperour Anastasius perceived; he ejected those Bishops who made any Innovation, out of the Church; where-ever he found any such person, either crying up the Synod of Chal­cedon contrary to the usage in those places, or else Anathematizing it. He ejected therefore out of the Imperial City, in the first place Eu­phemius, as we have related Chap. 23. before, and then Macedonius; after whom Timotheus was made [Bishop.] Flavianus also [was by him ejected] out of Antioch.

CHAP. XXXI. The Letter of the Monks of Palestine to Al­cison concerning Xenaias and some other per­sons.

NOw, concerning Macedonius and Flavi­anus, the Monks in Palestine, in their Let­ter to This Al­cison was Bishop of Nicopolis, (which is the Metro­polis of Old Epirus;) one of the chief de­fenders of the Chalce­don Synod. He died in the year of Christ 516, Petrus be­ing Consul alone. Marcellinus mentions him in his Chronicon, who terms him Alcissus. See Baronius at the year of Christ 516. Vales. Alcison, say word for word thus: But, In regard there were two Petrus's at one and the same time, the one Bishop of Alexandria, the other of Antioch; 'tis uncertain which of these two is here meant. But it seems more probable▪ that Petrus of Alexandria should be meant here; because the Monks of Palestine do immediately speak of Alexandria, of Egypt, and of Libya. Yet, this meaning is hindred by what is objected by the same Monks; to wit, that after Petrus's death Egypt held a separate communion, and that the Orientals were disjoyned from their communion. For Petrus Alexandrinus was succeeded by Athanasius, who wrote Syno­dick Letters to Palladius Bishop of Antioch, and was joyned in a communion with him as I have observed above from Evagrius and Liberatus. But again, if we should say that Petrus of Antioch were meant at this place, there would be the same difficulty. But, answer may be made, that the Monks do speak here, not of the Patri­archs themselves, but of a whole Dioecesis, and of the greatest part of the Bishops. 'Tis certain, after Petrus Alexandrinus's death, the Eastern Bishops desired the communion of the Church of Rome; as 'tis apparent from Pope Gelasius's Letter to the Orien­talls. Vales. Petrus being dead, they were again divided a­mongst themselves; and Alexandria and Egypt and Libya continued within their own Commu­nion. The rest of the East likewise held a Com­munion separate from others, [...]. A negative particle is doubtless to be added, in this manner, [...], in regard the Westerns refused; which is the reading in Nicephorus and in the Tellerian M. S. Vales. in regard the Westerns refused communicating with them on any terms, unless to their Anathematizing of Nesto­rius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, they would add Petrus Mongus also, and Acacius. The Churches therefore over the whole world being in this posture, the genuine [followers] of Dioscorus and Eutyches were reduced to the smallest number imaginable. And when they were now just a­bout [Page 466] vanishing in such a manner as not to ap­pear any more in the world, One They derive Xe­naias's name from the Greek word [...], which signifies a stranger, or, an ex­traneous [...]erson. This Xe­naias was Bishop of Hicrapolis, ordained by Petrus Fullo; he was by another name cal­led Phi­loxenus. Concer­ning this pestiferous person, Theopha­nes, Ce­drenus, Ni­cephorus, and others, have rela­ted much. Vales. Xenaias, [a person agreeable to his name] truly a stranger from God, (on what design we know not, nor what the grudge was which he would revenge upon Flavianus, but) under a pretext of the Faith, as most do say, begins to move against Flavianus, and to calumniate him as a Nestorian. But when Flavianus had Anathematized Nestorius to­gether with his opinion, Xenaias passes from Ne­storius I doubt not but the name of Dioscorus is by mi­stake put here in­stead of the name Diodorus. For Xenaias, an Enemy of the Chalcedon Synod, would not have Anathematized Dioscorus, but Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, and the rest. So, 'tis certain, Victor Tunonensis [tells us] in his Chronicon. Johanne Gibbo (says he) Coss. Anastasius Imp. Flaviano, &c. When Johannes Gibbus was Consul, the Emperour Anastasius, Flavianus being Prelate of Antioch, and Philoxenus Bishop of Hierapolis, con­venes a Synod at Constantinople; and perswades them to pronounce an Anathema against Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia together with their writings, [also, against] Theodoret of Cyrus, Ibas of Edessa, Andreas, Eucherius, Quirus and Johannes, Bishops, and against all others who asserted two Natures in Christ, and two Forms, and who confessed not one of the Trinity to have been Crucified, together with Leo Bishop of Rome and his Tome, and together with the Chalcedon Sy­nod. Theophanes confirms the same in his Chronicon, pag. 131. Vales. to Dioscorus, and to Theodorus, and Theodoret, Ibas, [...]. Victor Tunonensis in his Chronicon terms them Quirus and Eucherius, as we saw in the foregoing note; where Quirus is put for Cyrus, in such manner as in St Ambrosius's Epistles, Quinegius is put for Cinegius. Further, Nicephorus has at this place substituted the name Eleutherius, instead of Eutherius. Vales. and Cyrus, and Eutherius, and Johannes, and we know not to what persons else, nor whence he had gathered them. Some of whom had in reality been Asserters of Nesto­rius's Sentiments: but others of them, suspected to have been [Nestorius's followers,] had Ana­thematized him, and had ended their lives in the Communion of the Church. Unless (says [Xe­naïas to Flavianus]) you will Anathematize all these persons who are distempered with Nestorius's Tenets, you are an Embracer of Nestorius's Sen­timents, although you should Anathematize him a thousand times, together with his Opinion. By Letters also he excites the Favourers of Diosco­rus and Eutyches, perswading them to assist him­self against Flavianus, and to require him not to Anathematize the Synod, but the forementioned persons [only.] When Flavianus the Bishop had made a long and stout resistance against these men, and against others who together with Xe­naias combined against him, to wit, one This Eleusinus [or, Eleusinius] is mentioned by Liberatus in his Breviary chap. 19, in these words, speaking of Severus: Ita ut ob hoc scriberet, &c. So that on this account he would write, even to Flavianus himself, as 'tis signified in his own Epistles, and to Maronas Lector, and to Eleusinus and Euthrecius Bishops, and to Oecumenius Scholasticus of Isauria. The same person is mentioned by Theophanes in his Chroni­con, pag. 128 of the King's Edition; whose words Anastasius Biblio­thecarius has rendred thus: Anastasius quiete potitus à proeliis, Macedo­nium Patriarcham avertcre ab orthodoxâ side satagebat. Multi autem Episcoporum Anastasio gratiam praestantes, Chalcedonensi resistebant Con­cilio, quorum primus erat Eleusius Sasimensis. Theophanes's words in Greek are these; [...]. But it must be written, [...], which is the reading in the Vatican Copy. Indeed, the Monks of Palestine do affirm▪ that this Eleusinius was Bishop of the Second Cappadocia. Now, Sasima is a City of Cappa­docia Secunda, (whereof Gregorius Nazianzenus was heretofore Bishop;) as the Old Natitiae do inform us, and especially Hierocles. Vales. Elusinus Bishop of the Second Cappadocia, Nicias [Bi­shop] of Laodicea in Syria, and others from other places; (to relate the Causes of which per­sons Or, narrow­ress of mind. hatred against Flavianus, be­longs not to us, but to others:) at length [Plavianus] supposing [...]. It should, as I think, be written [...]; or rather, a Negative particle is to be added, in this man­ner; [...]; and we have rendred it accordingly. Nor do I doubt but Evagrius wrote it thus. But Antiquaries [that is, Transcribers of Books,] writing hastily, omitted the Negative particle at this place. Further, by [...], these persons, he means Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Theo­doret, and the rest mentioned above. See Theophanes pag. 131. Vales. they would not be quiet in behalfe of these persons, yielded to their contentious humour: and having in writing Ana­thematized the foresaid persons, sent [his Li­bell] to the Emperour: For they had incensed him against Flavianus, as being an Assertour of Nestorius's Opinion. But Xenaias not satisfied even herewith, required again of Flavianus, that he should Anathematize the Synod it self, and those who asserted two natures in the Lord [Christ,] one of the Flesh, another of the Deity. Which when Flavianus had refused to do, Xenaias accused him again, as being a Nestorian. After many debates in reference to this matter, when the Flavia­nus Bishop of Antioch is meant. Which I should not have re­marked, had there not been a fault in Christophor­son's Ver­sion. Vales. Patriarch had drawn up an Exposition of the Faith, wherein he profest that he embraced the Synod as to what related to the Deposition of Nestorius and Eutyches, but not as to its defi­nition and doctrine of the Faith; they renewed their Accusations against him, as if he were a secret favourer of Nestorius's Sentiments, unless he would add an Anathematism against the Synod it self also, and against those who asserted two Natures in our Lord, one of the Flesh, another of the Deity. Moreover, by their many fraudu­lent words' and expressions, they induced the [...]. In Nice­phorus 'tis righter, thus, [...], the Isauri. Vales. Isauri also to embrace their own Opinion. And having drawn up a Writing concerning the Faith, wherein they Anathematized the Synod together with those who affirmed two Natures, or Pro­prieties [in Christ;] they withdrew themselves from a Communion with Flavianus and Macedo­nius; and enter into society with others, who had subscribed to their Writing. During this inte­rim, they entreated the Bishop of Jerusalem also, that he would draw up in writing the Form of his own Faith. Which he having set forth, sent it to the Emperour by the followers of Dioscorus. [...]. A con­junction seems ne­cessary to be added here, in this man­ner; [...], &c. And that [Copy of it] which they pro­duce. Vales. And that [Copy of it] which they produce, does indeed contain an Anathematism of those who assert two Natures. But, the Bishop of Je­rusalem himself affirms, that it has been adul­terated by them, and produces another without any such Anathematism. Nor, need this seem a wonder. For they have frequently corrupted the Books of the Fathers. And by [false] Titles have ascribed many of Apollinaris's Books, to Athanasius, to Gregorius Thaumaturgus, and to See Le­ontius de Sectis, in the eighth Action. [...] Where he tells us, that the Acephali attributed some Epistles to Julius Bishop of Rome, which in reality were Apolli­naris's. Vales. Julius. By which [Books] especially, they have induced many persons to [embrace] their own impiety. Further, they requested of Mace­donius a Writing concerning his own Faith. Who set forth an Exposition thereof, affirming that he knew no other Faith save that of the Three hun­dred and eighteen, and hundred and fifty [Holy Fathers;] and he Anathematizes Nestorius and Eutyches, and those who assert two Sons, or two Christs, or who divide the Natures: So indeed Macedonius behaved himself in the beginning of his Episcopate, whilest he was willing to gratifie the Emperour Anastasius, by whom he had been promoted to the Patriarchate. Therefore, many of the Antient Writers have related, that Macedonius at the be­ginning had subscribed to Zeno's Henoticon. So, 'tis certain, Theo­dorus Lector affirms, whom Baronius has causelessly reproved on that account. For Liberatus relates the same in his Breviary chap. 18; where he speaks concerning Johannes Hemula Bishop of Alexandria;—and a little after that, where he mentions Johannes Nicaeota, Hemula's suc­cessour. Victor Tunonensis in his Chronicon writes thus concerning Macedonius: Anastasio Aug. Cos. &c. In the Consulate of Anastasius Augustus, Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople, a Synod being con­vened, condemns those who embraced the Decrees of the Chalcedon Sy­nod, and such as desend [the Sentiments] of Nestorius and Eutyches. Lastly, Theophanes in his Chronicon, pag. 120, does wholly agree with Theodorus Lector. Vales. but has made no mention of the Ephesine Synod which deposed Nestorius, nor of that at Chalcedon [Page 467] wherein Eutiches had been deposed. Whereat the He means the Monaste­ries of Dius, and Bassianus, and of the Acoe­meti [or, sleepless Monks,] and of Matrona; who had separated themselves from the communion of Macedonius, and [the Monasteries] of those who had subscribed Zeno's Henoticon, as Theophanes tells us in his Chroni­con pag. 122. Vales. Monasteries about Constantinople were high­ly offended, and separated from the Communion of Macedonius the Bishop. In the mean while, Xenaias and This, as I think, is Dioscorus Junior, who succeeded Johannes Nicaeota in the Bishoprick of Alexandria. Baronius places his ordi­nation on the year of Christ 516, five years after Macedonius's banish­ment. To whom agrees Theophanes in his Chronicon. But Liberatus contradicts it, who relates Dioscorus's ordination before the deposi­tion of Macedonius. And this Evagrius confirms here. But, after a more accurate examination of the matter, Dioscorus Junior can't be meant here. For Macedonius was ejected out of his Bishoprick on the year of Christ 511, as 'tis manifest from Marcellinus; and in his room was substituted Timotheus, who forthwith wrote Synodick Let­ters to Johannes Nicaeota Bishop of Alexandria; as Liberatus and Theophanes do attest. Whereas therefore Dioscorus Junior suc­ceeded Nicaeota, he must necessarily begin his Presidency after Macedonius's deposition. Wherefore, another Dioscorus is meant here. And perhaps, in stead of Dioscorus, it must be written So­terichus. Vales. Dioscorus having brought over many of the Bishops to their own party, became intollerable; and raised Tumults against those who refused to Anathematize [the Synod.] And a­gainst such as would not in the end yield to them, they framed many stratagems, and caused them to be cast into Exile. In this manner therefore, they banish Macedonius, and Concerning this Johannes, Victor Tunonensis in his Chronicon writes thus: Theodoro Viro C. Cos. Julianus Bostrenus, &c. The most famous Theodorus being Consul, Julianus of Bost [...]l, and Johannes of Paltum voluntarily left their own Churches, and others are put into their places. But Marcellinus in his Chronicon relates that in the Consulate of Paulus and Mussianus, on the year of Christ 512. Vales. Johannes Bishop of Paltum, and Flavianus. These are the Contents of the foresaid Letter.

CHAP. XXXII. Concerning the Expulsion of Macedonius [Bi­shop] of Constantinople, and of Flavianus [Bishop] of Antioch.

BUt, there were other things which secretly [...]. There is a fault in the word [...]. Nice­phorus (book 16. chap. 26.) writing out this passage of Eva­grius, makes use of the word [...], smote, or, wounded. But I am for treading in the foot­steps of the ordinary reading; and therefore think it is to be restored thus, [...], wrung, or, choak't; after which manner Christophorson seems to have read. In the Tellerian M. S. the reading is, [...]. Vales. wrung Anastasius. For when Ariadne had taken a resolution to cloath Anastasius with the Imperial purple; Euphemius, who presided over the Archi-Episcopal Chair [of Constantinople,] would on no terms give his consent, till such time as A­nastasius had delivered to him a Caution [or, Con­tract,] in writing, writ­ten with his own hand, and [confirmed] with great Oaths, that he would preserve the Faith entire, and introduce no Innova­tion into Gods Holy Church, if he should ob­tain the Imperial Scepter. Which paper Eu­phemius delivered to Macedonius who was intru­sted with the custody of the Sacred Vessells. Eu­phemius had done these things on this account, because Anastasius was by many persons thougt to be addicted to the Manichaean Heresie. After Macedonius therefore had ascended the Episco­pal Throne, Anastasius was desirous of having his own Caution restored to him, saying it would be a reproach to the Empire, if the foremen­tioned Obligatory-Instrument should be kept [laid up in the Church.] Against which when Macedonius made a resolute opposition, and affir­med that he would not betray the Faith; the Em­perour [Anastasius] framed all imaginable de­signes against him, resolving to eject him out of his [Episcopal] Chair. Certain Boyes therefore who were slanderers, were produced, who falsly accused both themselves, and Macedonius of a filthy and unclean act. But, when it was found, that Macedonius was deprived of his Genitalls, they betook themselves to other Arts and De­signes; till at length, by the advices and per­swasions of Celer Master of the Offices at Court, Macedonius withdrew privately from his [E­piscopal] Chair. But in the Expulsion of Flavianus, they have added other things. For we have received information from some ve­ry aged persons, who perfectly remembred what ever had hapned during Flavianus's being Bishop; which persons do affirm, that those Monks [who dwelt] in that Country termed Nicephorus (book 16. chap. 27,) thought there was a Mona­stery so named from one Cyne­gius its Founder. But it seems likelier to me, that a Country of Syria was so termed, wherein there were many Monasteries. Vales. Cynegica, and whatever o­ther [Monks] inhabited the first Provinces of the Sy­rians, perswaded thereto by [...]. The last word must be expunged, being superfluous; how it crept into this place, I know not. If we have a mind to retain this word, the reading must be thus, [...], a man by extract a Persian. For 'tis referred to the Participle [...], perswa­ded. Xenaias was indeed by Na­tion a Persian, as Theophanes, Nicephorus, and others do attest. Vales. Xenaias, a man [by Ex­tract a Persian;] (Which Xenaias was Bishop of Hic­rapolis a City near to [An­tioch,] and by a Greek name he was termed Phi­loxenus:) flock't together, and in a tumultuous and very disorderly manner made an irruption into the City [An­tioch,] where they would compell Flavianus to Anathe­matize the Chalcedon Synod and Leo's Epistle. Whereat Flavianus being extreamly troubled, and the Monks pressing on with great violence; the populacy of the City made an Insurrection, and slew a great many of the Monks; in so much that a vast number of them had the [River] Orontes for their Tomb, their bodies being buried in its waves. There hap­ned another thing also, not much inferiour to this. For, the Monks of Syria Coele (which is now termed Syria Secunda,) having a mighty affection for Flavianus, because he had lead a Monastick life in a certain Monastery which was situate in a Field, or, Village. Country named Tilmognus; came to Antioch, with a resolution to defend Flavianus: so that at that time also some, and those no small [mischievous accidents] hap­ned. Whether therefore on account of the for­mer [Tumult,] or by reason of [that dis­order we have mentioned] in the second place, or for both, Flavianus is ejected and banished to Petrae, [a Town] situate in the utmost con­fines of The Palestines.

CHAP. XXXIII. Concerning Severus Bishop of Antioch.

FLavianus therefore having been ejected, Se­verus is preferred to the Episcopal Throne of Antioch, on the This was the year of Christ 513. For the first year of the Antiochians precedes the vulgar Aera of our Lords Nativity 48. years. Severns therefore entred upon the Bishoprick of Antioch on the year of Christ 513, in the month No­vember, in the sixth Indiction. So Marcellinus Comes in his Chronicon: Indict. 6. Clementino & Probo Coss. &c. In the sixth Indiction, Cle­mentinus and Probus being Consuls, Severus a worshipper of Eutyches's perfidiousness, by the desire of Anastasius Caesar, possessed the See of the Prelate Flavianus, and of a Monk was made a Bishop. Vales. five Hundredth fifty first [Page 468] year of Antioch's being See book 2. chap. 12. note (a.) styled a free City, in the month Dius, it being the Sixth Indiction of the [...]. Chri­stophorson omitted these words in his Ver­sion. The meaning of them is this; on the sixth year of the Indictional Circle which then was. For, an Indi­ction is a Circle of fifteen years, after the ending whereof, another Circle beings of as many years. Evagrius terms the partition of the Circle of fifteen years, [...], which the Latines call Indiction [...]m, an Indiction. But, whereas Evagrius says, that Se­verus was ordained on the month Dius, that is, November; that must necessarily have been done in the s [...]aventh Indiction. For a new Indi­ction was begun on the month September. Evagrius has expressed him­self in the same manner before, at book 2. chap. 12; where he says these words concerning the Earthquake, which hapned at An­tioch in the times of Leo Augustus; [...], on the eleventh partition of the Cycle, that is, on the eleventh year of the partition of the Circle. So, in the thirteenth Edict of Ju­stinian; [...], untill the second partition of the past Cycle. Vales. Cycle then [current;] but at this pre­sent time wherein we write, it is the Six hun­dredth fourty first year. This Severus had So­zopolis for the place of his Nativity, which is one of the Cities of the Province Pisidia. He had formerly imployed himself in the study of the Law at Berytus. But, having afterwards soon left Or, The Exercise of the Laws. those studies, when he had re­ceived holy Baptism in the sacred Temple of the divine Martyr Leon­tius who is honoured at Tripolis a City of the There was a twofold Phoenice; the one termed Maritima [be­cause it lay by the Sea-coast;] in Greek called [...], or, [...]: the Metropolis whereof was Tyre. The other named Libanen [...]is, the head City whereof was Em [...]sa; as the Old Notitiae do inform us. In the Maritime Phoenice was the most famous City Tripolis. In that City, as Evagrius does here attest, the Martyr Leontius was honoured. This is the Leontius, of whom mention is made in the Menologie, at the eighteenth day of the month July. The Monks, in their Libell presented to the Patriarch Menas, (which Libell is recorded in the fifth Action of the Constantinop. Synod sub Mena,) do attest, that Severus was baptized in this Martyrs Church. Vales. Maritime Phoenice, he betook himself to a Monastick life in a Liberatus in his Breviary chap. 19, writes thus concerning Se­verus: Is enim Severus cum sed [...]ret prius in Monasterio, &c. For this Severus, when he formerly lived [or, sate] in the Monasterie, ad­mitted not of Zeno's Edict, nor [received to communion] Petrus Mon­gus. After this, living in the Monastery of the Abbot Romanus, and of Mamas who presided after him, he was from thence sent to reside as Apo­crisarius [that is, Legate] at Constantinople: and becomes one of their number, who were of Petrus Mongus's [party.] This Relation of Liberatus's is far different from that of Evagrius. For, Evagrius says, that at [...]irst Severus was a Monk in a Monastery which was be­tween Majuma and Gaza. And this is confirmed by Theophanes also. But, that afterwards he resided [or, sate] in the Monastery of the Abbot Nephalius; which was in Egypt, as Evagrius tells us in the two and twentieth chapter of this book. Out of which Monastery Severus being driven, came (says he) to Constantinople. But, Li­beratus relates, that Severus sate indeed in two Monasteries: but at­tests, that he was not ejected out of any Monastery, but, was made Apocrisarius. But, whose Apocrisarius he was, he says not. I am of opinion, that he was the Apocrisarius of the Monks of the East, who were of the same Sect with himself. So Theonas is termed the Apo­crisarius of the Monasteries in Palestine, in the first Action of the Con­stantinopolitane Synod under Menas. And that Evagrius confirms here. Vales. certain Mo­nasterie situate in the mid way between the small City Gaza and that little Town termed Majuma.

In which place Concer­ning this Petrus Ibe­rus, Evagrius has spoken already, at chap. 8, book 2. There is mention made of the same Pe­trus, in The Libell of the Monks to the Patriarch Menas, which is recorded in the fifth Action of the Constantinopolitane Synod under Menas. Vales. Petrus the Iberian also, who had been Bishop of the same Gaza, and was banished together with Ti­motheus Aelurus, [...], had passed through the same exercises; [to wit, of a Mona­stick life.] had ex­ercised a Monastick life, and had left himself a famous name. Further, Severus [on a time] ingages in a dis­pute with Nephalius, who formerly had been of the same Or, party. Sentiment with him concer­ning the one Nature [of Christ;] but had afterwards united himself to to the Defenders of the Chalcedon Synod, and to those who asserted two Natures in our Lord Jesus Christ. By this Nephalius therefore, and those who were of his party, [Severus] is driven out of his own Monastery, together with severall others who held the same opinion with himself. From whence he went to the Impe­rial City, under the notion of an Embassadour, in defence both of himself, and those who had been ejected with him. And there he becomes known to the Emperour Anastasius, as He hath related at large who wrote Severus's Life. Moreover, the same Severus, in the He means the Synodick Letters which Severus wrote to Timotheus Bishop of Constanti­nople, and to Johannes Nicaeota Bishop of Alexan­dria. For Liberatus (in his Breviary, chap. 19,) informs us, that Severus held com­munion with these Prelates. Indeed, Theophanes (in his Chronicon, pag 135,) relates, that Timotheus, when he would have inserted Se­verus's name into the Dyptichs, was hindred by the people of Con­stantinople. Vales. Synodick Letters which he wrote, has in express words Anathematized the Chalcedon Synod. Concer­ning which matter, [the Monks of Palestine] in their Letter to Alcison, say these words. Theophanes casts a great light upon this place. He writes (pag. 135,) that Timotheus sent his Synodick Letters, and the depo­sition of Macedonius, to all the Bishops, that they might subscribe to them: and, that the weaker persons amongst them, afraid of the Emperour, subscribed to each Libell, But, that those who were of a mind more stout and couragious, would subscribe to neither. Further, that some, taking a middle way, subscribed to Timotheus's Synodick Letters, but would in no wise subscribe to the deposition of Macedonius. Amongst these persons therefore who took the middle way, were the Bishops of Palestine, as the Monks do attest here in their Letter to Alcison. Vales. The Synodick Letters of Timotheus now [Bi­shop] of Constantinople, have indeed been ap­proved and admitted of here in Palestine: but the deposition of Macedonius and Flavianus, hath not been allowed of; nor yet Severus's Synodick Letters. [...]. Without doubt the reading must be, [...], those persons who brought them; as it is in Nicephorus. In which Author also, the reading is fuller by one word; thus, [...], Those persons who brought them hither. Besides, in the Tellerian Manuscript I found it plainly written, [...], &c. Vales. But, those persons who brought them hither, were disgracefully and contumeliously used, agreeable to their deserts, and betook themselves to their heels; In Nicephorus, this place is otherwise distinguished, to wit, in this manner: [...], Fled out of the City: the populacy and Monks having made an Insurrection against them. Which distinction I like best. Vales. the populacy of the City and the Monks having made an Insurrection against them. In this posture was Palestine. [...]. Nicephorus words it thus, [...], in Antioch; which I like not. For the Monks of Palestine do not speak of Antioch here, but of the Bishops who were subject to the See of Antioch. For, having before spoken concerning the affairs of Pa­lestine, which were subject to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, they now pass to the Bishops of the East, who were under the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch; and in the first place they name Marinus Bishop of Berytus, which was a City of Phoenice. Now, Phoenice was under the dispose of the Antiochian Patriarch, according as it had been agreed in the Chalcedon Synod between Maximus Bishop of Antioch, and Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem. Vales. But, of those who were subject to [the See of] Antioch, some, induced thereto by fraud, were prevailed upon; of which number is Marinus Bishop of Berytus. But others, by force and Or, Ne­cessity. compulsion gave their assent to Severus's Synodick Letters, wherein was contained an Anathematism, both of the Synod, and of the rest who had asserted two Natures or [...]roprieties in our Lord, one of the Flesh, another of the Deity. Some, when through necessity they had given their assent, afterwards altered their minds, and revoak's [it:] of which number are the Bishops subject to Apamia. Others wholly refused to assent; of which number are Julianus [Bishop] of Bostri, and Epiphanius of Tyre, and some others, as they say, Bishops. But, the Isaurians, now come to themselves, condemn them­selves for their former mistake: Moreover, they [Page 469] Anathematize Severus together with his followers. Yea, some of the Bishops and Ecclesiasticks under Severus, having relinquish't their own Churches, are fled away: of which number is Julianus [Bi­shop] of Bostri, and Petrus of Dama [...]cus, who reside here with us. Libera­tus makes mention of this Ma­mas, in his Breviary, chap. 19: whose words we have quo­ted at note (d,) in this chapter, therefore the two Ring-leaders of the Dioscorites [or, Dioscorians,] by whom Severus had been instructed, are Romanus and Mamas, Abbots of that Mona­stery which was between Majuma and Gaza. Indeed, Theophanes, in his Chronicon, terms that a Monastery [...], of Schisma­ticall Monks. Vales. Mamas also: which person seemed to have been one of the two Ring­leaders of the Dioscorians, [...], by whom Severus himself had been [...]odged. I had rather write [...], had been catechized, or, instructed. For the Abbots Mamas and Romanus had instructed Severus; as we have said before, out of Liberatus. Vales. by whom Severus himself had been instructed, who has condemned their arogancy. And after the interposition of other words. But, the Monasteries here, and Jerusalem it self, also most other Cities together with their Bishops, by Gods assistance are of one and the same mind in relation to the true Faith. For all which persons, and for us, pray (most Holy Lord and our most Honoured Father!) that we enter not into temptation.

CHAP. XXXIV. Concerning the [Libell of] Deposition sent to the same Severus by Cosmas and Severianus.

BUt, in regard the forecited Letters do at­test, that [...]pa [...]ia was the Metropolis of Syria Coele, or Syria Secunda, to which Epiphania and Ar [...]thusa were subject, as the Old Notitiae inform us. Vales. those Prelates under [the Ju­risdiction of the Church of] Apamia receded from [the Communion] of Severus; come on, let us add a certain passage, Or, Which hath passed to us from our Fathers. which we have been told by our Fathers, although it be not as yet recorded in any Hi­story. Cosmas Bishop of our Epiphania, Or, Which has Orontes its neighbour. in the Vicinage whereof runs the [River] Orontes, and Severianus [Bishop] of Arethusa a neigh­bouring City, being disturbed at Severus's Sy­nodick Letters, severed themselves from his Com­munion, and sent a Libell of Deposition to him whilst he sate Bishop of the City Antioch. They deliver the Libell to one Aurelianus Or, The first of the Deacons. Arch-Deacon of the Church of Epiphania. who, in regard he feared Severus, and [dreaded] the Grandeur of so great a Bishoprick, after his ar­rivall at Antioch, cloathed himself in the habit of a woman, and comes to Severus, [...]. Vulesius renders these words thus: [...]ocans ac lascivicus, [...]e [...]ing [or, drolling,] and play­ing the wanton. The primary signification of the term [...] is, feignedly to refuse; it im­ports also to dissemble, or, to play the fool, to behave ones self as that most petulant woman Acco did; from whose carriage this word had its originall. jesting and play­ing the wanton, and by all ways imaginable seigning himself to be a woman. [In fine,] having let down the Vail wherewith his head was covered, as far as his breasts he lamented, and by fetching deep sighs besought assistance; and under the pretence of a Supplicatory Libell, delivers a Deposition to Severus then going forth. And without being taken notice of by any person, withdraws out of the croud which followed [Severus;] and by flying pur­chases his own safety, before Severus knew what the Contents of the Libell were. But Severus, notwithstanding he had received the Libe [...], and understood what was contained there­in, nevertheless continued possest of his own See, untill the death of Anastasius. Further; when Anastasius was informed of what had hapned to Severus, (for, we must not omit the men­tioning of an Act of Anastasius's, which was wholly made up of Clemency and Humanity:) he orders Asiaticus [...]. We have restored this place from the excellent Florcntine and Tellerian M. SS; wherein 'tis thus written. [...], the Command of the Militia in Phoenice Liba­nensis. There were two Phoe­nice's, as I have remarked a­bove; the one termed Maritima, the other Libanensis. Over this province was set the Du [...] of Phoe­nice, concerning whom see the Notitia Imp. Rom.. Vales. who bore the command of the Militia in Phoenice Libanen­sis, to eject Cosmas and Se­verianus out of their own Sees, because they had sent a Libell of Deposition to Se­verus. After Asiaticus was ar­rived in the Eastern parts, and found many persons defen­ding the opinions of Cosmas and Severianus, and that their Cities made a stout resistance in favour of their own Bishops; He gave Ana­stasius an account, that those Bishops were not to be driven out of their own Sees without bloudshed. So much of Clemency and Humanity therefore was there in Anastasius, that he wrote expresly to Asiaticus, that he would in no wise Instead of [...], at­tempt; it would, if I mistake not▪ be better written thus, [...], ef­fect. Vales. effect any thing, though never so great and splendid, if but a drop of bloud were to be spilt. In this posture therefore were the affairs of the Churches over the whole world, Or, Un­till. during the Empire of Anastasius. Whom some persons judged to be an Enemy to the Chal­cedon Synod, and have expunged his name out of the Sacred Tables. But at Jerusalem▪ even whilst living, he was Anathematized.

CHAP. XXXV. Concerning the destruction of the Jsaurian Tyrants.

BUt, it will not be disagreeable to the promise we have made At book 1. chap. 1. before, if to this History we annex some other [Transactions] worthy to be recorded, [...]. I agree with Sr Henry Savil, who at the margin of his copy hath mended it thus. [...], which hapned. The same person corrects the be­ginning of this ch [...]pter thus, [...], &c. But 'twill not be inconvenient, &c. it may also be made, [...], But it will not be disagreeable, or mis [...]l [...]c't; and perhaps 'tis bet­ter so. For 'tis the same, as if you should say, [...], 'twill not be absurd. Instead of [...], hapned, the Tellcrian Ma­nuscript has it written [...], have hapned. Vales. which have hapned during the times of Anastasius. Longinus Ze­no's kinsman, being arrived in that [Country] where­in he had been born, as hath been shown Chap. 29. be­fore, Or, ▪Puts on. ingages in an open War against the Em­perour. And great Forces having been raised on the one side and on the other, amongst which was Conon, heretofore Bishop at Apa­mia [a City] of the Province of the Syrians, who, in regard he was an Isaurian, bore Arms under the Isaurians; at length the War was terminated [in this manner.] The Isaurians who fought under Longinus were all cut off to one man. But the heads of Longinus and Marcel­linus Comes in his Chro­nicon (at Anasta­ [...]in [...]'s being Consul a­lone; calls this person Athenodo­rus and so does Theo­phanes in his Chroni­con. pag. 118. Vales. The­odorus were sent to the Imperiall City by Jo­hannes Scytha. Which heads the Emperour [ordered to be] fixt upon Poles, [carried a­bout,] and hung up in that [Suburb] termed Sycae situate over against Constantinople: a grate­full spectacle to the Byzantines, because of those mischiefes they had suffered from Zeno and the Isaurians. Moreover, the other Longinus, sur­named Selinuntius, the chief supporter of that Tyrannick Faction, and together with him In­des, are [taken and] sent alive to Anastasius, by Johannes surnamed Gibbus. Wherewith the [Page 470] Emperour and the Byzantines were highly plea­sed, in regard Longinus and Indes were in the manner of a Triumph lead through the streets of the City, and thorow the Cirque, [carrying] Chains made of Iron, which were put round their necks and about their hands. From that time those [Donatives] heretofore termed He means The Donative, which the Tyrant Hillus had allowed to the Isaurians, and which the Emperour Zeno, though against his will, had bestowed upon them to procure a Reconciliation. Which Dona­tive the Emperour Anastasius having refused to pay to the Isaurians, they made War against the Romans, as Jordanes relates in his book de successione Regnorum. Vales. The Isaurica began to be paid into the Imperial Trea­sury. Now, that was [a sum] of Gold, paid every year to the Barbarians, amounting to the weight of Fifty thousand pounds.

CHAP. XXXVI. Concerning the Or, Barbarians termed Sce­nitae; that is, who dwelt in Tents. Saracens, that they made a Peace with the Romans.

THose Barbarians also [termed] Scenitae, not without damage to themselves, became petulant, and insulted over the Roman Empire; and ruined the Or, The affairs of Mesopota­mia, &c. Province Mesopotamia, [...]. It must be [...]; as the reading is in Nicephorus, book 17, chap. 35. Further, we have remarked already, that there were two Phoenice's; the one termed Libanensis, the other Maritima. Nor must this be omitted, that, that Province is by the Latines sometimes termed Phoenicem, from the Nominative Case Phoenix. 'Tis certain, in the Itinerary Table of the Putingeri, it is called Syria Phoenix; as also in the Noti­tia Imperii Romani. In the Manuscript Copies, 'tis written Dux Phoenicis. Nor found I it written otherwise in Aegesippus, book 3. chap. 20. Vales. both the Phoenice's, and Palestine. But, having re­ceived a severe overthrow from the Military Commanders in each Province, at last they were quiet, and by a generall consent that whole Na­tion made a Peace with the Romans.

CHAP. XXXVII. Concerning the Siege of Amida, and the building of [the City] Daras.

MOreover, the Persians, then subject to their King Cavades, broke the League [with the Romans;] and having left their na­tive soyle, in the first place invaded Armenia, and took the small Town named Theodosiopolis; after which they marched to Marcellinus Comes, in his Chronicon, says this City was taken by the Persians on the tenth Indiction, in the Consulate of Probus and Avienus; that is, on the year of Christ 502, and on the eleventh year of Anasta­sius's Empire. See Procopius in Book 1. Persic. Vales. Amida a well-forti­fied City of Mesopotamia; which they laid Siege to and took. But the Roman Emperour by vast Labour rebuilt it. But, if any one be desirous of having a par­ticular knowledge of these matters, and would read an Accurate Narrative of all these Transactions; [let him consult] Eustathius, who with much acuteness, great La­bour, and a singular Elegancy, hath written an History [of these affairs.] Which Historian having brought down his History to these very times, departed this life, and left off writing at the twelfth year of Anastasius's Empire. After this war was ended, Anastasius makes Daras (a place of Mesopotamia, situate in the utmost confines of the Roman Or, Em­pire. pale, and being The Boundarie as it were of the Roman and Persian Empire;) a City, from its being a Field: which he fortified with a strong wall, and adorned with various and those splended Buildings, to wit, Churches and other sacred Houses, and with Royall Porticus's, publick Baths, and other [Works,] of which the most eminent Cities do [usually] boast. 'Tis said by some per­sons, that this place got the name of Daras, be­cause Alexander the Macedonian son to Phillip, had totally vanquished Darius there.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Concerning the Long Wall.

THe same Emperour perfected a vast Work, worthy to be recorded, [...]. The par­ticle [...] must be ex­punged, be­ing useless and super­fluous. Further, this Wall was from its Builders name cal­led Ana­stasianus: it was built in Anastasius Augustus's third Con­sulate, on the year of Christ 507; as the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle Writes. Concerning this Wall Suidas gives this Relation, in the word [...], &c. The Emperour Anastasius builds the Long Wall, Sixty miles from the City Constan­tinople. It is extended from the Sea at the North, to that at the South. Its length contains fourty miles, and its breadth is twenty foot. See more in Petrus Gillius's first book de Topographia Urbis Constantinopol. Cap. 21. Vales. which is usually termed The Long Wall, situate in a very conve­nient place of Thracia. This Wall is distant from Constantinople about Two hundred and eighty furlongs: it embraces both the Seas, [and runs out] like a Streight to the length of Four hundred and twenty furlongs: it makes the [Imperiall] City from being a Almost an Island. Peninsula, almost an Island, and af­fords a most convenient and safe pas­sage to those who have a mind to sail from that place termed Pontus to Propontis and the Thracian Sea. It repells also those Barbarians, who make Excursions out of that termed the Euxine Sea, out of Colchis, from the Lake Maeötis, and from the places about Caucasus; and likewise them, who are usually poured in, out of Europe.

CHAP. XXXIX. Concerning that [Tax] termed the Chrysargy­rum, and how Anastasius abolished it.

MOreover, the same Emperour performed an eximious and plainly divine Action, to wit, the Perfect and intire Or, In­hibition. Abolition of that [Tax] termed That is, A Tax of Gold and Silver. The Chrysargyrum. Con­cerning which thing we are now to speak, al­though it wants the Tongue of a Thucydides, or rather one of more Eminency and Eloquence, [to give a Narrative of it.] However, I will declare the matter, not induced thereto by my eloquence, but confiding in [the great­ness of] that Action. Upon the Dominions of the Romans, which were so great and so far diffused, was imposed a miserable Tax, detesta­ble to God, and misbecoming even the Barba­rians themselves, much less [agreeable] to the most Christian Empire of the Romans. This Tax, on what account neglected and tolerated I know not, continued till the times of Anastasius, who by his Imperial magnificence abolish't it. It was imposed both upon many others who got their maintenance from a Charitable Contribution, and also upon those women who sold the beauty of their Bodies, upon [...]. Whores that made no distin­ction in their ad­mission of customers. common Whores like­wise who prostituted themselves in Baudy-houses [Page 471] which stood in the hidden and obscure places of the City; moreover, upon Such as hired out themselves to be abu­sed contra­ry to Na­ture. Catamites, who affe­cted not only Nature it self, but the Republick also, with Ignominy. In so much that, this Tax, instead of a Law, made loud proclamation, that those who had a mind, might securely and with impunity commit such abominable Leachery. Fur­ther, that impious and detestable Or, Gain. profit arising from this Tax, was every fourth year paid in to the [...]. By these words E­vagrius seems to mean the Pretorian Praefecture. For that (to use Amm. Marcellinus's Expression) Vertex erat omnium dignitatum, was the Crown [or Top] of all dignities. To this Pre­fecture therefore the Tribute Chrysargyrum was every fourth year brought in. Indeed, the Tributes were wont to be brought in to the Chest of the Praetorian Proefecture. Hence 'tis, that in the thirteenth book of the Theodosian Code, in the Title de Lustrali Collatione, the greatest part of the Laws are directed to the Praefecti Praetorio. For the Lustralis Collatio was nothing else but the Chry­sargyrum: to wit, Gold and Silver imposed upon Merchants, or the Lustralis auri Collatio, and the Auraria Functio. For so 'tis called in the same Title. Further, whether it ought to be called a Tribute, or rather a Toll [or Tax,] 'tis uncertain. Evagrius terms it [...], which is Vectigal, a Toll, or Tax. 'Tis termed also Vectigal in the last Law save one de Lustrali Collatione. The old Authour of the Quae­stions on the Old and New Testament tells us, this was usually termed Aurum poenosum, the punishing Gold; see him, in Quaest. 75. There is an Elegant passage concerning this Tribute, in Libanius's Oration a­gainst Florentius, pag. 427. which I will transcribe here. [...]. Which words I render thus. Let us also now relate that [Mischief] which has far surpassed all the rest. This is that intol­lerable Tribute, The Chrysargyrum, which renders the approaching Lustra [or, every fifth year,] dreadfull and horrid. The name [imposed] upon this Tribute is in indeed specious, [taken] from Merchants. But whilst they make use of the Sea in order to the vending their Wares, those whose hands do scarce afford them bread, are utterly ruined. Not so much as a Cobler escapes [paying this Tribute.] Whom I my self have frequently seen lifting their knife wherewith they cut their Leather, up to heaven, and swearing that in that knife their All was placed. Nevertheless, this frees them not from [the vexation of] those who are urgent and pressing upon them, and who bark, and do only not bite. This time (O Emperour!) increases the number of servants; depriving of Liberty those who are sold by their Parents, not that their own Coffer may receive the price [for which their children are sold,] but that they [the Parents] may see it coming into the hand of the Exactor. In the Greek Text of Libanius, instead of [...], I have mended it thus, [...] and in place of the word [...], I have substituted [...]. Vales. First and Chiefest of the Praefectures, by the Col­lectours who gathered it in all places; so that, it was not the smallest part of this Praefecture, to have both its Amongst the Officials of the Praefectus Praetorio, four Numerarii are reckoned in the Notitia Imperii Romani; the first of whom was the Numerarius of the Gold, that is, of the Aurum Lustrate, or Chry­sargyrum. There was also amongst the Officials of the Comes Sacra­rum Largitionum, a Primicerius of the Scrinium of the Golden Masse, and a Primicerius of the Scrinium of Gold; on this account perhaps, because a certain part of this Tax was brought in to the Chest of the Sacred Largisses. Indeed in the Title de Lustrali Collatione, there is extant a Law of Valentinianus's, directed to Florentius the Comes Sacrarum Largitionum [that is, of the Sacred Largisses.] Whence it appears, that some part of this Golden Function belonged to the Largitional Titles. Vales. Proper Offices, Cabinets, or Rooms. Scrinia (as they term them,) and also [...]. He means the Numerarii [that is, Officers who managed the Accounts] of the Aurum Lustrale, who were in the Office of the Praefecti Praetorio, as I have said in the fore­going note. For [...] are the Numerarii, (as I have long since remarked at Amm. Marcellinus,) who by another name were termed also Rationarii. Vales. such Officers as managed the Accounts of this Na­ture; [and these were] not per­sons mean and obscure, who lookt upon this employ to be a See Euseb. Eccles. Hist. book 10. chap. 8. note (b.) Militia as well as the rest. Which when Ana­stasius understood, and had [...]. At my pe­rill write [...]. For [...] has the same import with Referre, proponere, to referre, to propose. The Tellerian Manuscript con­firms our Emendation, wherein I found it plainly written [...], as I had conjectuted. Vales. referred it to the Senate, and had likewise deservedly pronounced this thing to be a detestable impiety and a wickedness new and unheard-of; he made a Law wherein 'twas declared that it should be wholly abolished, and he burnt those papers Or, Which set forth this Ex­action. which contained a Summary of this Exaction. And, be­ing resolved to make a perfect Holocaust [as it were] of This Tax to God, to the end that no one of his Successours in the Empire might in future a­gain renew the old Infamy [of this Ex­action;] he feignes himself grieved and vex­ed▪ [...]. I had rather write, [...], and accused himself of impru­dence. Some few words af­ter this, instead of [ [...], and had rashly, inconsiderately suspended;] it must be written thus, [...], and had rashly and inconsiderately aboli­shed. Vales. and accused himself of imprudence, and of the highest degree of madness, saying, that by attributing too much to Vain-glory, he had neglected the utility of the Republick, and had rashly and inconsiderately abolished so great a Tax, which had been found out by his Ance­stours, and confirmed by so long a duration of Time; before he had duely weighed in his mind the imminent dangers, or the expence of the Milice, (which is the living Wall of the Govern­ment,) or [Lastly] those [charges which are neces­sary] to the Service of God. Without declaring therefore any of the thoughts of his mind, he signifies, that it was his intent to restore the forementioned Tax. And having sent for those Officers who had been employed in Col­lecting that Tax, he confest that he repented in­deed of what he had done; but knew not what course he could now take, or how he might cor­rect his own mistake, in regard all the papers were burnt, which could have set forth a Or, Summary, or, Ratio­nary, con­taining an accoun [...] how this Tax was to be Assessed and Colle­cted. Noti­tia of this Tax. These persons having, not feignedly, but in reality, lamented [the Abo­lition of] this Tax on account of that unjust gain which accrued to themselves therefrom, and pretending the like difficulty [that the Em­perour did, in getting it restored:] Anastasius perswaded and entreated them, that they would proceed in all imaginable methods of making a search, whether or no the way of Assessing and Collecting this whole Tax might be found out from those Tables which lay in every place; And having assigned a Salary to each of them, he dis­patcht them away to make a Collection of those Papers, giving order, that whatever Paper might be of use in setting forth the Notitia of this Tax, whereever it were found, should be brought to himself; to the end that, after much circum­spection and the most exquisite accuracy ima­ginable, a Notitia of this whole Tax might be again composed. When therefore those persons, who were employed in this affair, had some time after made their return, Anastasius seemed very chearfull and full of joy. And he did [...]. Every bo­dy sees it must be made [...]. Which is the same as if he should have said, [...] really. Further, this adverb is re­ferred to the verb Rejoyce. Which being most certain, 'tis nevertheless strange, that both Translatours should have referred this adverb to the following word [...], thus, And he did rejoyce, because he had re­ally and truly obtained what he desired. Vales. really rejoyce, because he had obtained what he desired. He inquired therefore the manner, how, and with whom [these papers] had been found, and whether or no any one of this sort [of Monu­ments] were left behind. But, when they had affirmed positively, that great pains had been [Page 472] taken by them in the Collecting of these papers, and had sworn by the Emperour himself, that no other paper could be found in the whole Roman Empire, which might set forth The No­titia of this Tax: [the Emperour ordered] a great fire to be again made of those papers which had been brought, the ashes whereof he [caused to be] put into water; it being his intent wholly to abolish this Exaction: that so, neither the dust, nor the ashes, nor any the least remain of this thing, or of the burnt papers, might be left appearing. But, least whilst we so much extoll the Or, In­hibition. abolition of this Tax, we should seem not to know, what, and how great matters have with partiality enough been rela­ted by the more ancient Writers concerning this [Exaction;] come on, I will now produce even those passages also, and will demonstrate them to be false, and most especially, from those very things which they themselves have related.

CHAP. XL. Concerning what Zosimus hath written in relation to The Chrysargyrum, and about the Em­perour Constantine.

ZOsimus (one of their number [who have followed] the execrable and abominable Superstition of the Or, Gen­tiles, or, Graecians. Heathens,) being highly incensed against Constantine [on this account,] because he was the first Emperour that embra­ced the Christian Religion, and relinquished the abominable Superstition of the Or, Gentiles. Graecians; re­lates, that he was the first [Emperour,] who invented that termed The Chrysargyrum, and made a Law, that such a Tax as that should be brought in [to the Treasury] every fourth year. [The same Zosimus] has Or, Blasphe­med. loaded that Pious and Magnificent Emperour with infinite other [Calumnies.] For, he says, that he con­trived severall other altogether intollerable [mischiefs] against [persons of] all qualities and conditions, and, that he cruelly murdered his Son Crispus, and likewise killed his own Wife Fausta, whom he shut up [and stifled] in a Bath which had been over-much heated. And, that when he had sought amongst his own Priests for an expiation of such horrid and ne­farious Murders as these, and had found none: (for they openly declared, that such black crimes as these could not be purged by sacrifice) [he adds] that he accidentally met with an Egyptian who had come out of Iberia: and, that having received information from him, that the Faith of the Christians abolished all manner of sin, he embraced those things which the Egy­ptian had imparted to him. And, that from that time he relinquished Or, His Paternall Religion. the Religion of his Ancestours, and made a Beginning of Impiety, Or, As he says. as he terms it. Now, that these things are notoriously false, I will demonstrate immediate­ly: But, in the first place I must give a Rela­tion concerning The Chrysargyrum.

CHAP. XLI. An Invective against Zosimus, on account of the Reproaches and Calumnies he has cast upon Constantine and the Christians.

THou sayst therefore, (O destructive and im­pure Or, De­vill. Daemon!) that Constantine resolving to build a City equall to Rome, at first attempted the erecting of such a great City in the mid way between Troas and Ilium; and having laid the Foundations and raised the wall to an heighth, afterwards he found Byzantium to be a place more Commodious, and so incompassed that with walls; which old City he enlarged to such a degree, and adorned it with such Or, Beauties of Buildings. splendid Buildings, that it seemed not much inferiour to Rome which in so many years had by little and little arrived at that Greatness. Thou sayst further, that he distributed amongst the Byzan­tine people Or, Bread, or, Bread-corn. The Annona out of the publick stock, and gave a vast sum of Gold to those who had removed together with him to By­zantium, for the building of their own private houses. Again, thou writest word for word thus; After Constantine's death, [the supream management of] Affairs devolved only to his Son Constantius, [to wit] after the death of his two Brothers. And when Magnentius and Vetranio had set up for Tyrants, he attacked Ve­tranio by perswasives. For, both their Armies being come together, [...]. It must be made Con­stansius, as the reading is in the Tellerian M. S. and in Nicephorus book 16, chap 41. And a little after this, instead of [...], Enemies; it must be [...], Wars; as the reading is in the same Nicephorus. Vales. Constantius in the first place made a Speech to the Souldiers, and put them in mind of his Fathers Liberality, with whom they had waged many Wars, and [by whom] they had been honoured with the greatest Gratuities. Which when the Souldiers had heard, they divested Vetranio of his purple, and drew him out of the Tribunal [clothed] in a private habit. Notwithstanding, [thou doest affirm,] that he underwent nothing of molestation from Constan­tius, who together with his Father hath by Thee been loaded with so many Calumnies. How therefore Thou canst judge it agreeable [to af­firm] the same person to have been so Liberall, and so Bountifull; and yet so tenacious and sor­did, as to have imposed such an execrable Tax; I am [I must confess] wholly ignorant. Fur­ther, that he neither slew Fausta nor Crispus, nor, for that reason, received our Mysteries from any Egyptian; hear the words of Eusebius Pam­philus, who flourished in the same times with Constantine and Crispus, and was frequently conversant with them. (For, thou writest not even what thou hast received by Report, much less the Truth: in regard thou livedst a long time after, [to wit,] in the Reign of Arcadius and Honorius (to [...]. Doubtless it must be [...], in two words; and accordingly we have ren­dred it, to whose times. And so Nicephorus read, who has exprest these words of Evagrius thus; [...]; which place of Nicephorus, Langus understood not, as 'tis apparent from his Version of it. It must be rendred thus, Quibus historiam tuam terminasti, wherein thou hast closed thine History. For Zosimus brought down his Work to the taking of Rome effected by Alaricus, as 'tis manifest from Photius's Bibliotheca. Further, from this passage in Nicephorus and Evagrius, Vossius (in his book de Historicis Graecis) affirms, that Zo­simus lived in the times of Theodosius Junior. Yet, neither of those two Authors hath said that of Zosimus. They only say, that he lived under Honorius and Arcadius, with which [Emperours] he termi­nated his History, or rather long after them. Indeed, I am of opinion, that this Zosimus lived about the times of Anastasius. For he cites Olympiodorus Thebaeus, who wrote his History under Theo­dosius Junior, as Photius attests; and he names Syrianus Philosophus, who was the master of Proclus Diadochus. Now, Proclus lived in the Times of Anastasius. Lastly, Saidas writes, that Zosimus the Sophist lived in the Reign of Anastasius; whom I think to be the same with Zosimus the Historiographer. For many Rhetoricians and Sophists betook themselves to writing History, as 'tis manifest both from Dionysius Halicarnasseus, and also from many others. And the dignity of Advocate of the Fiscus [or, Treasury,] -wherewith Zosimus was adorned, disagrees not much from the Sophistick dignity. Vales. whose Times thou hast brought down thine History,) or rather, after them.) [Page 473] In the This pas­sage of Eu­sebius oc­curs at book 8, chap. 13, Eccles. Histor. from which place our Evagrius is to be corrected. Vales. Eight Book of his Ecclesiastick History [Eusebius] writes word for word thus: With­in some small Intervall of time, the Emperour Constantius (a person of extraordinary mild­ness throughout his whole life, most favourable to his Subjects, and one that had a singular affection for the divine Doctrine [of our Religion,]) ended his life according to the common Sanction of Na­ture, leaving his own Son Constantine, Emperour and Augustus in his stead. And, after some other words. Constantine, Son to this man, being im­mediately from that very time [of his Fathers death,] Proclaimed supream Emperour and Au­gustus by the Souldiers, (but long before that, by the supream God) exhibited himself an emulatour of his Fathers Piety towards our Religion. And, at the To wit, pag. 198 of our Version. close of his History, he expresses himself in these very words. But Constantine the mighty Conquerour, gloriously adorned with all the Virtues of Religion, (together with his Son Crispus, a Prince highly beloved of God, and in all things like his Father,) recovered his own East. Doubt­less Eusebius (who survived Constantine,) would never have so highly extolled Crispus, if he had been murdered by his Father. Moreover, Theo­doret relates in See Theo­doret's Ec­cles. Hist. book 1. chap. 32. his History, that Constantine at the very close of his life, was made partaker of Salutary Baptism at Nicomedia; and, that he defer'd it till that time, because he was desirous of being baptized in the River Jordan. Thou sayst moreover, (most execrable and impurest of Mortalls!) that the Or, Af­fairs of the Romans. Roman Empire, from such time as the Christian Religion shewed it self, hath decayed, and been utterly destroyed; [which thou affirmest,] either because thou hast read nothing of what hath hapned in an­cient times, or else with a designed malice to at­tack the Truth. For, the contrary is manifestly apparent, to wit, that the Roman Empire hath increased together with our Faith. Consi­der therefore, how about the very [time of the] Advent of Christ our God amongst men, Long before Christ's Advent Macedonia had been subdued by the Ro­mans. Moreover, the Alba­ni, Iberi, and Colchi had been conquered by the same Romans long before Christ's birth. Therefore, what Evagrius says here, is nothing to the purpose. But, concerning this whole Invective of Evagrius's against Zosimus, see Johannes Leun­clavius's Apology, which he has prefixt before his Edition of Zosi­mus. Vales. most of [the Cities of] the Macedonians were ruined by the Romans: Albania also and Iberia, the Colchi and Arabians, were made Subjects to the Romans. [Consider like­wise,] how Caius Caesar, on the Hundredth [...], on the Hundred twenty third Olympiad. The same is the reading in the Greek copies of Nicephorus; but it must be made [...], &c, on the Hundredth eighty second Olympiad, from Euse­bius, and the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle, pag. 437. Vales. eighty second Olympiad, in great fights sub­dued the Galli, Germani, and Britanni, (which Nations inhabited Five hundred Cities▪) and annexed them to the Roman Empire; as it has been recorded by Historians. This is the Cae­sar, who after the Consuls, was the first Mo­narch of the Roman Empire; who made a way out of Or, The worship of many Gods. Polytheism and Or, A turbulent Dominion mannaged by the peo­ple. Democracy, and in­troduced a praevious Veneration of a Monar­chy, on account of that just ready to come, The Monarchy of Christ. Immediately, all Judaea, and the Neighbouring Countries, were annext [to the Roman Empire:] in so much that, The See Eu­seb. Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 5. note (a, b, c.) First Inrollment was then made, in which Christ also together with others was Enrolled, to the end that Bethlehem might publickly de­clare the completion of that Prophecie [which had been uttered] concerning it self. For it hath been predicted by the Prophet Micah con­cerning it in this manner: See Mic. 5. 2. And Thou bethle­hem in the Land of Juda, art not the least amongst the Princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth to me a Governour, who shall Or, Feed. rule my people Israel. And Evagrius mistakes. For a­bout twenty years before out Saviour's Nativity, Egypt was re­duced into the form of a Pro­vince. Vales. after the Nativity of Christ our God, Egypt was added to the Roman Empire, Au­gustus Caesar, under whom Christ was born, having to­tally subdued Antonius and Cleopatra who killed themselves. After which persons, Cornelius Gallus is constituted Praefect of Egypt by Augustus Cae­sar; and he was the First who Governed Egypt after The Ptolemies, as it has been recorded by Hi­storiographers. Further, how many [Countries] have been taken away from the Persians, by Ventidius, and by Corbulo, Nero's Or, Com­mander. Dux; by [...], &c. It would be better written thus, Trajan al­so, Severus and Carus. For this is required by the order of time. Instead of Severus, it might be written Verus. For he got a great Victory over the Persians, as we are informed from the Writers of the Historia Augusta. Vales. Trajan also, Severus, and Carus; by Cassius likewise, Odaenathus of Palmyra, Concerning this Apollonius I have read nothing in any place. Vales. A­pollonius, and others: how often have [the Cities] Se­leucia and Ctesiphon been ta­ken; as likewise Nisibis, (which sometimes passed in­to the hands of the Romans, at others, into those of the Persians;) [lastly,] that Armenia, and the adjacent Nations, have been an­nexed to the Roman Empire, Thou thy self, to­gether with other Writers, dost Relate. But I had almost omitted those things which Thou writest were done by Constantine, who toge­ther with his professing of our Religion, valiant­ly and with great Courage Governed the Roman Empire: and what Thy Julian suffered, a par­taker of the same Mysteries with thy self, who left such deep wounds upon the Roman State. But, whether any thing of what hath been pre­dicted concerning the end of the world, hath either received a Or, Pr [...]em, or, Beginning. prelude, or shall obtain an end, is of an higher dispensation than Thou canst conceive. But, if Thou pleasest, let us make inquiry, in what manner those Empe­rours who asserted the Superstition of the Gen­tiles, and how they who had a value for the Christian Religion, concluded their [lives and] Reigns. Was not Caius Julius Caesar, the First Monarch of the Roman Empire, murdered by Treachery, and so ended his life? did not some Souldiers with their swords kill the other Caius who was Germanicus C. Caesoris pater, Drusi & Minoris Antoniae filius, à Tiberio patruo adoptatus, &c. So Suetonius in the Life of Caius Ca­ligula. Nephew to Ti­berius? was not Nero mur­dered by one of his Dome­sticks? Did nor Galba un­dergoe the same Fate? Otho, and Vitellius also; which three Emperours Reigned only sixteen months. Did not Domitian (who was his bro­ther,) destroy the Emperour Titus by poison? Was not Domitian himself in a miserable man­ner [Page 474] removed out of this world by Stephanus? What wilt thou say concerning Commodus, did not he end his life by [the violent hands of] Narcissus? Pertinax also, and Julian, under­went they not the same Fate? did not Anto­ninus Son to Severus, murther his Brother Geta, and was not he himself afterwards taken off in the same manner by Martialis? what [of] Macrinus also, was not he carried up and down like a Captive about Byzantium, and nefariously murdered by his own Souldiers? Aurelius Antoni­nus likewise, born at the City Emesa, was not he slain together with his mother? and Alexander his Successour in the Empire, fell not he together with his mother by Or, The same. the like fact? What shall we say concerning Maximinus, was not he destroyed by his own Souldiers? What concerning Gordianus, who by Philippus's Treacheries [was murdered] by his own Souldiers, and ended his days? Now, doe Thou tell me, was not Philippus and his Suc­cessour Decius slain by their Enemies? Gallus and likewise Volusianus, were they not thrust out of their lives by their own Forces? Aemi­lianus also, fell not he in the same manner? Va­lerianus, was not he taken prisoner, and carried up and down by the Persians? [In fine,] after Gallienus had been treacherously murdered, and Carinus slain, the [supream management of] affairs came to Diocletianus, and those whom he took in to be Colleagues in the Empire with himself. Of whom, Maximianus Herculius, and his Son Maxentius, as likewise Licinius, were utterly destroyed. But, from such time as the most celebrated Constantine entred upon the Em­pire, and dedicated to Christ a City built by himself, which bore his own name; look about earnestly [and see,] whether any of those who Reigned in that City, excepting only Julian thy Pontif and Emperour, have been slain either by their own Citizens, or by their Enemies; or whether any Tyrant hath ever vanquished an Emperour, [...]. In the Tellerian M. S. I found it written, [...]: but I would rather express it thus, [...], save only, &c. Vales. save only Ba­siliscus who drove out Zeno: notwithstanding, he was af­terwards routed by the same Zeno, and ended his life. I assent also to what thou writest concerning Valens; [because] he was the Occasioner of such and so vexatious mischiefs against the Christians. For, concerning any o­ther Emperour [besides these,.] even Thou thy self canst not say it. Let no person account these things to be forreign to our Ecclesiastick History; but rather [look upon them as] most usefull and Or, Co­herent. accommodate; in regard the Historio­graphers amongst the Heathens do designedly attempt to cloud the accurate knowledge of transactions. But let us return to the remaining Actions of Anastasius.

CHAP. XLII. Concerning Or, Gol­den Tax. The Chrysotelia.

THE Actions we have already mentioned, were egregiously performed by Anastasius in a manner besitting the Imperial Majesty. But the same Emperour did some things in no wise answerable to those [we have related.] For he invented that termed What The Chrysotelia should be, is hard to guess, in regard our Evagrius, contenting himself in setting down the bare name, has omitted to explain the thing it self; nor has any other of the Ancient Writers, that I know of, made mention of this thing. But, as much as I am able to attain by conjecture, I do think the Chrysotelia to have been nothing else, but a paying of Gold, which Anastasius first ordered to be exacted from the Provincialls in stead of the Tributary Function. For the old Romans were wont to bring in the Tributes in the very Species themselves, to wit, in Wheat, Barley, Wine, and Oyl: out of which, being carried together into the publick Granaries, the Military and Civil Annona was distri­buted. Moreover, by the Sanctions of the Emperours it had been forbidden, that the Collectors should exact Gold of the Provin­cials instead of The Species [to wit, Wheat, Barley, &c.] as may be seen in the fourth and fifth Law of the Theodosian Code, Tit. Tributa in ipsis speciebus inferri. But Anastasius was the first who gave order, that instead of The Species, money should be exacted of the Provincialls. Now, I gather this, partly from the word Chrysotelia it self, whereby is signified a paying of Gold instead of Tribute; and partly from that which Evagrius speaks in this whole chapter concerning The Tributary Function, as we shall see after­wards. Vales. The Chrysotelia, and [...]. Johannes Langus has rendred this place very well, in this manner: Et populos suos Vecti­gales bellicis impensis per nundinationem divenditis supra modum gra­vavit, And he over-much burthened his people that payed Tribute, the Military Expences being by a Market made Sale of. Musculus tran­slates it thus: Et Militares sumptus one rosissime contra consuetas contributiones divendidit, and in a most burdensome manner made sale of the Military Expences contrary to the usuall contributions. But, Christophorson renders it worst of all, in this manner: Et Stipendia Militaria, unà cum exactionibus, non sine gravissimo reipublicae detri­mento divendidit, And sold the Military Stipends, together with the exactions▪ not without the heaviest detriment to the Re-publick. But, to the end we may fully understand the thing it self, we will diligently weigh each word. Evagrius therefore says, [...]. That word signifies in Latine, eum qui vendidi [...], him that hath sold. Suidas also observes, that a fraudulent selling, or sale, is un­derstood by this word. Now, the selling of the Military Expence may be meant in a twofold manner. For, either Anastasius Farmed out the Military Expence to Publicans, in such manner as our Kings are wont to do, who usually let out the allowance of the Military Annona, [that is, the Souldiers Provisions,] of Cloths, and other things of that nature, to Publicans and Farmers. Or else, that Sale was no other thing than an Adaeration, [or, setting a money-value upon these Expences:] in such a manner as if Anastasius should have Rated at a most burthensome value the Military Expence, to wit, the Clothes, Arms, Forrage, which were wont to be brought in by the Provincialls: which thing redounded to the loss of the Pro­vincialls, who instead of The Species themselves were forced to pay a price. And this latter sesse I have followed in my Rendition. Now, by these words, [...] Evagrius means not only the Military Stipends, [or, Souldiers pay,] as Christophorson thought; but, all manner of charge belonging to the Militia, to wit, Clothes, Arms, and Provisions. Justinian makes frequent use of this word in his thirteenth Edict, where he distinguishes also between [...] and [...]. And he informs us, that the [...] were the Annonae, and the Capita [or, Forrage for the Beasts] which were paid to the Magistrates in Gold: but, of what sort the [...] were, he explains not; only he intimates, that the values of them also were exacted from the Provincialls; where he speaks concerning The Dux of Libya. Vales. rated the expence of the Militia at a very high value, to the great dammage [...]. What [...] were, Musculus and Chri­stophorson understood not. The provincialls who paid Tribute, are so termed The Old Glosses explain [...], thus, Tributarius, a person obnoxious to the paying of Tribute; [...] Tributum, Tribute. So Evagrius (book 5. chap. 13,) calls the Tributaries [...]. Vales. of the Provincials. Besides, [...]. Amongst the Burthens of the Decuriones, the Exactione [or, Collection] of the Tributes was not the least. For they out of their own body made Susceptores [Takers, or Receivers,] of The Annonae, and Praepositi [or, Overseers] of The Mansions and Granaries, as 'tis evident from the Theodosian Code, in The Title de Decurionibus, and in The Titles de Susceptoribus. Which yet is not so to be understood, as if only the Decurions might Collect the Fiscall Tributes. For, both the Officialls of the Praefecti Praetorio, and likewise the Officialls of the Presidents, were wont to Collect the Tributes from the Pro­vincials; as Amm. Marcellinus informs us, book. 17, in these words. Denique inusitato exemplo, id petendo Caesar Impetravera [...] a Prae­fecto, &c. In fine by an unusuall Example, Caesar by entreaty had obtained that of the Praefect, that the dispose of the second Belgica, which was oppressed with manifold mischiefes, might be committed to him; to wit, on that condition, that neither the Official of a Prefect, nor of a President, should urge any one to pay. [In Valesius's Edition of Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 90, where this passage occurs; it is printed thus: ......... inique. Inusitato Exemplo, which imperfection in Marcellinus's Copy he does, I suppose, supply here by altering the punctation, and making it, Denique inusitato, &c.] The Emperour Anastasius wholly took away from the Decurions the exaction of the Tributes, which they in part took care of. Hence 'tis, that in Justinian's thirteenth Edict, where he treats concerning the Exaction of the Tributes of Egypt, he makes no mention of the Decurions; but only names the Scriniarii and the Tractatores of the Praetorian Praefecture, who Collected the Fiscall Tributes from the Payers, and brought them to the Double Table, or Chest, of the Praetorian Praefecture, the one Private, the other Generall. Which thing was, I suppose, instituted by Anastasius, who had De­creed, that the Tributes should be brought in▪ not in their very Species, but in Gold, as I have remarked above. Now, why Ana­stasius should institute that, this reason may be assigned. The Em­perour Anastasius, in regard he was most provident in mannaging the publick affairs, (as Procopius attests,) was willing rather to buy Peace of the Barbarians with Gold, than to engage with them in a doubtfull War. Which when he had succeeded in according to his desire, he lessened the number of the Milice, in regard he had no need of them, because the Barbarians, appeased with Gold, would keep the Peace. Therefore Suidas in the word [...], says that the Provinces of the Roman Empire, were in his Times almost empty of Souldiers. Whereas therefore the Roman Legions had been re­duced to so small a number, there was no necessity of carrying so many Species Annonariae [that is, Wheat, Barly, &c.] into the pub­lick Granaries. Wherefore Anastasius judged it to be better, to ex­act money from the Provincialls, wherewith he might redeem Peace from the Barbarians. Vales. he took away the Exaction of the Tri­butes [Page 475] from the Courts [of the Cities,] and in­stituted those termed [...]. There is mention of these Vin­dices in Ju­stinians Novells, and in the thirteenth Edict. The words of the Author of the A­lexandrian Chronicle pag. 785, are these: [...]: which his translator hath rendred thus: inter quos Antipater Antiochiae Vindex seu Judex occubuit, amongst whom was slain Antipater the Vindex or Judge of A [...]ioch. But the Vindices were not Judges, but persons set over the Collection of the Tributes, as Justinian informs us, in Novell 124, and 125. Where he joyns them with the Curiales, Officiales, Canonicarii, and Exactours of the Tributes. And the same is confirmed by this place of Evagrius. For he says, that the Emperour Anastasius took the Exaction of the Tributes from the Curiales, and translated it to those Vindices which himself had instituted. The Vindices therefore exacted the Tributes from the Pro­vincialls. The same Justinian in his thirteenth Edict says, that one Pota­mo [...], in the times of Anastasius, under pretence of Vindex of Alexandria, was set over the exaction of the Tributes. For so I render these words; [...]. Whence also we learn that the Vindex of Alex­andria was set over the exaction [...]; that was a Tax for the Exportation of Tyles and other wares which were exported out of the City Alexandria. Further, out of this money which the Vindex had Col­lected, he was compelled to allow wood to heat the publick Baths, and to fulfill other solemn duties, as the same Justinian informs us in the above mentioned Edict. From which passages therein, some persons might be able to Collect, that there was only one Vindex in every City. 'Tis further to be noted, that that Constitution of Ana­stasius, wherein the Exaction of the Tributes [...] said to have been taken from the Curiales, was in no wise observed by the succeeding Empe­rours. 'Tis certain, Justinian, in the forementioned Novells▪ does expresly name the Curiales amongst those who at their own peril ex­acted and undertook the Tributes. Vales. The Vindices in every City, [...]. The Emperour Justinian calls this person Marianus, in his thirteenth Edict, in these words: [...], &c. Your glorious Magnificence hath found in a certain paper in the times of the Emperour Anastasius of pious memory, then when Marianus of glorious memory administred the publick affairs under him▪ But, Marcelli­nus in his Chronicon terms him Marinus; Indictione V. [says he Paulo & Musciano Coss. die dominico, dum Jubente Anastasio Caesar [...], per Marinum­per (que) Platonem in Ecclesiae pulpi [...]o consistentes, in Hymnum Trinitatis Dei­passianorum quaternitas additur▪ &c. Plato was indeed Praefect of the City Constantinople, as Victor Thunonensis informs us in His Chronicon: but Marinus was Praefectus praetorio; wherefore he is set before Plato by Mar­cellinus. Further, Cedrenus and Zonaras, whilst they tell the same thing with Marcellinus and Victor, mention not the names of Marinus and Pla­to, but do express the dignity of each of them, stiling the one of them [...], the other [...] ▪ Where, by the term [...] they mean the Praefectus Praetorio, because the Praefectus Praetorio manna­ged the accounts of the Tributes. But, we must not omit what Zona­ras relates, to wit, that by this Marianus the Praefect (for so he calls him) Vitalianus the Tyrant was vanquished in a Sea-fight, by the help of certain Burning-glasses, which had been framed by Proclus the Philosopher. From which words some might conjecture, that this was the Marinus Syrus Schollar to Proclus the Philosoper. Indeed, Nicephorus▪ also, in the last Chapter of his fifteenth Book, calls this Ma­rinus, a Syrian. But, I am of opinion, that that Marinus Syrus, who was Praefectus Praetorio in Anastasius's times, must be distin­guished from Marinus Syrus the Philosopher, who wrote Proclus's Life. For this Marinus last mentioned was by Religion a Pagan, as we learn from an old Epigram which occurs in the A [...]thologi [...]. But, the former Marinus was a Christian, as 'tis manifest from Mar­cellinus. Vales. by the inducement (as 'tis said,) of Marinus the Syrian, who administred the su­preamest dignity, that [Grand Officer who bore that place] the Ancients termed The Praefectus Praetorio. Whence it hapned, that the Tributes were both extreamly lessened, and the beauty also of the Cities decayed. For anciently, the noblest personages were enrolled in the Albs [or, Registers] of [all] Cities, and each City had and appointed those [persons who were registred] in Or, In the Courts of Judica­ture. The Cu­ria, instead of a certain Senate.

CHAP. XLIII. Concerning the Tyranny of Vitalianus.

[FUrther,] Vitalianus by Extract a Thracian, makes an insurrection against Anastasius. Having laid waste Thracia and Or, Moe­sia. Mysia [...], as far as Odyssus. It must be written, [...], Odessus. For so 'tis termed by Diodorus Siculus, by Strabo, and by Stephanus. The ancient Coyns▪ also have it thus written, as I have long since ob­served at the twenty seventh Book of Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 334 of my notes. Nevertheless, most Writers, as well Greek as Latine, call it Odyssus as if it had had its name from Ulysses. Indeed, Jo­hannes Langus has rendred that Ulyssopolim, which Nicephorus had termed [...] in chap. 38, book 16. Vales. as far as [the Cities] Odessus and An­chialus, he hastned to the Imperial City, at the head of a [vast, but] inconside­rate multitude of the Nations of the Hunni. Against whom the Emperour sent Hypatius. Who having been betrayed by his own [Forces,] and taken alive by the Enemy, was afterwards redeemed with a vast Ransome; and Cyrillus undertakes the man­nagement of that whole War. And in the first place, a doubtfull En­gagement hapned. Then, after [the fight] had received many Or, Al­terations. Turns, as well in pur [...]its, as Retreats▪ and Cyrillus had had the better; [on a sudden] [...] ▪ I judge it must be written in one word thus, [...]. There is the same mistake in Nicephorus, Chap. 38▪ Book 16. what the import of [...] is, Suidas tells us in­comparably well, in that word. In the Tellerian M. S. I found it plainly written [...] Vales. the Enemy began to fall on again, the [Roman] Souldiers having volun­tarily given ground and turned their backs. And, in this manner Vitalianus took Cy­rillus Or, O [...] of Odessus. in the [City] Odessus: and after he had ruined all places with fire and sword, he made his march as far as that place called Sycae; having no o­ther thoughts in his mind, than of taking the Imperial City it self, and of being put into possession of the Empire. But when Vita­lianus had encamped in Sycae, Marinus the Sy­rian, of whom we have made mention before, is sent by the Emperour, to engage him with a Or, N [...] ­v [...]ll Forces. Marine Army. Both Or, Ar­mies. Fleets therefore stood opposed to each other, the one having Sycae a Stern, the other Constantinople. And at first [by compact as 'twere] they forbore enga­ging. Then, after some excursions of the Ships, and Or, Throwing of Missile weapons. Skirmishes on both sides, a sharp Sea­fight was begun between the two Fleets, about those places termed Bytharia; and Vitalianus ha­ving Tack't about, flies with all the Sail he could make▪ after he had lost most of his Forces▪ They also who were about him, Sailed off with all imaginable hast; in so much that on the day fol­lowing, not one of the Enemy was to be found about There was a place so called, as Marcellinus attests in his Chronicon, whose words we have quoted at chap. 25▪ note (c.) Stephanus has made mention of the same place in the word [...]. Vales. Anaplus, or at the Imperial City it self. [Page 476] 'Tis moreover said, that [after this,] Vitali­anus spent some time at Anchialus, and kept himself quiet. Further, another Nation of the Hunni [...]. The Hunni having pas­sed the Caspian Streights [or, narrow passes,] made an irruption into Armenia, Cappadocia, and Pontus, in the Consulate of Anthemius and Florentius, on the year of Christ 515, as Marcellinus and Victor Thunonensis relate in their Chronicons. They were also termed Sabiri, or Saber, as Cedre­nus attests: for so 'tis to be read in Theophanes. From which Au­thours it must be made here [...], having past the Caspian, Streights. 'Tis certain, Nicephorus has thus exprest this place of Evagrius, at book 16. chap. 38. Through these Cas­pian Narrow Passes, the Hunni were wont to break into the Roman Pale, as Procopius tells us Book 1. Persic. Where he gives an ex­cellent description of these Narrow Passes, and attests that they had been heretofore fortified by Alexander the Macedonian. Whence, that passage of Saint Jerome, in his Epitaph of Fabiola, receives light; which runs thus: Ecce subito discurrentibus Nuntiis, Oriens totus in­tremuit, ab ultimâ Maeötide inter Glacialem Tana [...]m, & Massagetarum immanes populos, ubi Caucasi rupibus feras Gentes Alexandri Cla [...]stra cohibent, [...]rupisse Hunnorum examina. Vales. having past the Caspian Streights, made an Incursion [into the Roman Provinces.] At those very same times also, Rho­dus Or, Suf­fered a most vio­lent, &c. was shaken by a most Violent Earthquake, in the dead of the night; which was the third calamity it had suffered of that Nature.

CHAP. XLIV. That Anastasius being desirous to add these words, Who hast been Crucified on our account, to the Hymn [termed] See Meur­sius's Glos­sary, in the word [...]. The Trisagium, a Sedition and disturbance hapned amongst the people. Which [Anastasius] fearing, Or, Feig­ned an hu­miliation. made use of dissimulation, and soon altered the minds of the people. And concerning the death of A­nastasius.

BUt at Constantinople, when the Emperour was desirous of making an addition of these words, Who hast been Crucified on our account, to [The Hymn termed] The Trisagium; a most violent Sedition hapned, as if the Christian Re­ligion had been totally Or, Ab­rogated. Subverted. Mace­donius and the Constantinopolitane Clergy were the Authours and Abettours of this Sedition, as Severus affirms in his Epistle to This So­thericus [or, Soterichus,] had been ordained Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia by Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople. Who going over afterwards to the Eutychian party, joyned himself to the impious Xenaïas, as Theophanes relates in his Chronicon. 'Tis no wonder therefore, that Severus, a Ringleader of the Eutychians, should have written Letters to Soterichus, a person like himself, and should in them have ac­cused Macedonius a Catholick Bishop, as being the Authour of the Sedition. Severus himself was rather the Occasioner of this Se­dition, who had perswaded the Emperour Anastasius, that to The Hymn [termed] The Trisagium he should add this Clause, Who hast been Crucified for us, have mercy upon us; as Cedrenus relates in his Chroni­con. Further, Proclus Bishop of Constantinople had been taught this Hymn [termed] The Trisagium, by Angells. Which, as soon as the Priest had approacht the altar, the Chaunter out of the Pulpit began to sing, in this manner, [...], Holy God; Holy Mighty▪ Holy Immortall; as Jovius Monachus writes Book 6, in Photius's Bibliotheca. On account of this Hymn most violent Tumults arose afterwards in the Church, when the Easterns would add this Clause to it, [...], Who hast been Crucified for us, referring it to Jesus Christ. But the Constantinopolitanes and Westerns rejected that addition, least any passion should be attributed to the Con­substantiall Trinity: and in place thereof sang these words, [...], Holy Trinity have mercy upon us; as Ephraemius Patriarch of Antioch informs us in Photius his Bibliotheca. Mace­donius did right therefore, who retaining the usage delivered by Pro­clus, refused that addition. Vales. Soterichus.

Which [Epistle] he wrote before he had ob­tained the Episcopall Throne, whilst he resided [...]. Christo­phorson has rendred this place ill, thus, Vitam in aulâ Impe­ratoriâ de­gebat, Lead his life in the Impe­rial Pallace. Nicephorus also com­mitted the same mi­stake, who has ex­pounded these words of Evagrius thus: [...], but as yet resi­ded in the Imperial Pallace. But, in E­vagrius it must be written, [...], that is, a [...] the Impe­rial City. For so E­vagrius is wont to call Con­stantinople, as I have noted a­bove. Be­sides, in the foregoing chapter he terms it so. Vales. at the Imperial City, to wit, at that time [...]. Doubtless it must be, [...], and we have rendred it accordingly. So also Nicephorus read: for he has exprest Evagrius's words thus▪ [...], at that time, when he was driven from his own Monastery. Yet I wonder, that this was not perceived by the Translatours, to wit, Musculus and Christophorson. Vales. when he, together with others, had been ejected out of his own Monastery, as I have See Chap. 33. related already. On account of these Calumnies, besides other reasons Chap. 32. already mentioned, I am of opinion that Macedonius was ejected [out of his See.] From this occasion the populacy was enraged, and in regard they were not any longer to be withheld, many personages of the Nobility were reduced to the greatest of dangers, and se­verall of the eminentest places [of the City] were burnt down. And when the people had found a certain Country-fellow (who lead a Mo­nastick course of life,) in the house of Marinus the Syrian, they cut off his head; affirming that by this mans motives and perswasions that Ex­pression had been added [to The Hymn.] They also put his head upon a pole, [carried it about,] and in a deriding manner exclaimed, that he was the Enemy of the Trinity. [Further,] the Sedition increased so vastly, ruining all things, and being superiour to all Or, Strength. Oppo­sition, that the Emperour, Or, Out of necessity forced to a compassion. com­pelled by necessity, went to the Cirque without his Crown, and sent the Criers to the people, to make Pro­clamation, that with all imaginable readiness he would resigne his Empire: but, that it was a perfect impossibility for all of them to obtain the Empire, which cannot endure many Colleagues; and, that there was of necessity to be one, who might Govern the Empire after him. Which when the people perceived, by a certain Divine impulse as it were they altered their mindes, and besought Anastasius to put his Crown upon his head, and promised to be calm and quiet [in future.] When Anastasius had survived these disturbances Nay; Anastasius lived seven years compleat after this Sedition. Vales. some small in­tervall of time, he departed to another life, ha­ving Governed the Empire of the Romans, seven and twenty years, three months, and as many days.

The End of the Third Book of Evagrius's Ecclesiastical History.

THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS Epiphaniensis, And [one] of the EX-PRAEFECTS.

CHAP. I. Concerning the Empire of Or, Ju­stinus the First. Justinus Senior.

ANastasius therefore being (as I have said,) translated to a better allot­ment, Justinus, by Extract a Thra­cian, vests himself with the purple Robe, on the ninth day of the month Panemus, which amongst the Romans is termed July, in the Five hundredth sixty sixth year of Antioch's be­ing styled a free City: he was declared [Empe­rour] by the Imperial Guards, of whom also he was Commander, having been made [...]. That is, Magi­ster Offici­orum, Ma­ster of the Offices. For so the Greeks do usually ex­plain that dignity. Nevertheless, Jordanes in his Book de Successione Regnorum, relates, that Justinus was by the Senate elected Emperour, not from his being Master of the Offices, but Comes of the Guards. To whom agrees the Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, and the Old Chronographer whom I long since published at the end of Amm. Mar­cellinus's History. Procopius (in his Anecdota, pag. 28,) speaking of the Emperour Justinus as yet a private person, writes thus; [...], For the Emperour Anastasius had made him Comes of the Guards in the Pallace. The same Procopius makes Justinus, not a Thracian, (as Evagrius, Cedrenus, and Zonaras do,) but an Illyrian, born at the Town B [...]derian [...]. Theophanes also says Justinus was an Illyrian. But, I cannot enough admire at the Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, who although he makes him a Bederianite, yet terms him a Thracian. Vales. Master of the Offices at Court. He obtained the Im­perial Dignity beyond all expectation, in regard there were many of Anastasius's relations, who were eminent personages, had arrived at the greatest fortunateness imaginable, and who had procured to themselves all that power which might have invested them Or, With so great a dignity. with the Imperial Dignity.

CHAP. II. Concerning the Eunuch Amantius, and Theocri­tus, and in what manner Justinus put these persons to death.

MOreover, there was [at that time] one Amantius the chief person of the Im­perial Bed-Chamber, a man of great power [and interest.] Who, in regard 'twas unlawfull for a man deprived of his Genitalls [as he was,] to be possest of the Roman Empire, was de­sirous of encircling Theocritus, a great Con­fident of his, with the Imperial Crown. Having therefore caused Justinus to be sent for, he gave him vast quantities of money, ordering him to distribute it amongst those who were most fit to effect this thing, and who might be able to in­vest Theocritus with the purple Robe. But Ju­stinus having with this money purchased, either [the suffrages of] the people, or else the Bene­volence of those termed The Guards, (For 'tis reported both ways;) invested himself with the Imperial Dignity. Forthwith therefore he Or, De­stroyes from amongst men. takes off Amantius and Theocritus, together with some other persons.

CHAP. III. In what manner Justinus slew Vitalianus by trea­chery.

BUt, he calls Vitalianus [then] [...]. Nicephorus (book 17. chap. 1.) instead of the word [...], making, substituted [...], living. But I am of o­pinion, that Evagrius wrote▪ [...], making his Residence▪ and, that the two former words were omitted by Transcribers. The reading may also be [...], pitching his Tent, or, dwelling. Vales. making [his Residence] in Thracia, (who had attempted to divest Anastasius of the Empire,) to Constantinople: being afraid of his power, of his skill in relation to Military affairs, of the greatness of his Fame then [spread] amongst all men, and of the desire he had to obtain the Empire. But perceiving by a sagacious foresight, that he could on no other terms bring Vitalianus within his own power, unless he should feign himself his friend; and having [for that rea­son] mask't his face with a fraud not to be detected, he constitutes him Master of [...]. There were two Armies in the Court of the Roman Emperour, who were called Praesentes, in Greek, [...]. These were commanded by two Magistri Mi­litum, who were termed in Praesenti, or Praesentales. And in the Eastern Empire, one of these Commanders was a Magister of Foot, the other of Horse. But in the Western Empire, each of them was a Magister of Horse and Foot. Concerning these two Magistri of the present Milice, or, Milice in waiting, Malchus speaks in his Ex­cerpta Legationum pag. 93. Moreover, Jordanes in his Book de Suc­cessione Regnorum agrees with our Evagrius, where he speaks these words concerning the Emperour Justinus; Foedusque cum Vitaliano percussit, &c. And he made a League with Vitalianus, and after he had sent for him, made him present Master of the Milice and ordinary Consul. See Meursius's Glossary in the word [...]. In the Fifth Action of the Constantinopolitane Synod under Menas, pag. 751, these words occur, [...]. Vales. one [of those Armies] termed The Present Militia. [Page 478] After this, he gave a greater Or, Place. occasion of perswa­sion, whereby Vitalianus might more deeply be im­posed upon, and promotes him to the Consulate. [...]. In the Tellerian M. S. this place is written thus, [...]. Vales. Vitalianus therefore being made Consul, after he was arrived at the Imperial Pallace, ended his life by being treacherously murdered [...]. Musculus renders this place thus, in obscuriore quâdam Palatii janu [...], in a certain more obscure gate of the Pallace. Christophorson translates it in this manner; in portâ quâdam post Aulam positâ, in a certain gate placed after [or, behind] the Pallace. Johannes Langus, who rendred Nicephorus into Latine, has translated it thus; ad quandam in mediâ Aulâ Januam, at a certain Gate in the middle of the Pallace. He was minded belike to express that word which Nicephorus made use of, to wit, [...]. The Greeks had two Gates in their Edisices which had no Cellars, or, Vaults. The first of these, which lookt towards the Street, was termed [...], the Porch-Gate, as Harpocration informs us in the word [...]: the second Gate was called [...], or, [...], because it was in the midst between the Porch and the Atrium [or, Court;] or else because it was in the middle between The [...], men's Apartment, and The [...], womens Apartment; as the Authour of the Etymologicon affirms. Lysias men­tions both these Gates in his Oration pro Eratosthene de Caede, in these words; [...], but having remembred that in that night the Gate between the Porch and Atrium and the Porch-Gate creak't. I think it must be written thus, [...]. Heliodorus (in the close of his third book,) alludes to this place of Lysias, when he says, [...]. Which passage the Translatour renders thus, Perstrepebat Ostium Atrii, the Gate of the Atrium creak't. Aelius Dionysius (in his Lexicon in Eustathius on [...]. pag. 862,) says these words; [...]; The Greeks term the middle Gate [...] ▪, especially the middle of the two Gates, as Aelius Dionysius affirms▪ Which [Gate] also the same person stiles [...]. The same is affirmed by The Scholiast of Apol­lonius at his third book. Let thus much be noted concerning the propriety of this word, in the Exposition whereof Harpocration is mistaken, (see him in the word [...];) who from Lysias thought the import of it was, [...], that termed the sordid Court [or, Yard] were the fowls were. But, we must now come nearer to the matter. The words of Victor Thunonensis in his Chro­nicon are these: Maximo V. C. Coss. Vitalianus, &c. In the Consulate of the most famous Maximus, Vitalianus is said to have been killed at Constantinople within the Pallace, (in a place which by a Greek word they term The Delphicum,) by the faction of Justinianus the Patricius. Further, The Delphicum was an House in the Pallace at Constantinople, wherein were the Stibadia [see book 5. chap. 13. note (a.)] of the Emperour; it was so termed from The Delphick Table; whereon drinking Cups were wont to be placed, as Procopius informs us in the first book of his Vandalicks, pag. 116. The Delphicum there­fore was The House of the nineteen places to lye down on and banquet, near to which was a spacious Atrium, or Area, as we will declare hereafter at our Annotations on book 5. chap. 13. In this Area, there­fore or spatious Court, Vitalianus was slain in his own Consulate, on the year of Christ 520, as Marcellinus informs us in his Chronicon. For [...], or [...] imports Cur [...]is, a large and spacious Court, which was betwixt the mens Apartment and the womens Apartment, as we have seen from the Authour of The Etymologicon, &c. But, if we would rather take [...] to signifie a Gate, we must mean the Gate of The Delphicum. Thus the Constantinopolitan Synod under Menas is said to have been held [...]; that is, in the Western Atrium of the Venerable Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Cedrenus in Justinian's thirty seventh year says that the [...] of the greater Church was burnt; which is termed The Garsonasta­sium. The old Glosses de Habitatione, interpret [...], compluvium, a p [...]nt-house. Theophanes in his Chronicon, pag. 158, relates that Ju­stinian built a great Cistern of The Mesaulium or Atrium of Illus's Ba­silica. The Old Glosses expound [...], Atrium, a Court. But when we read that the Councill was held in the Mesaulium, it is not to be understood of an open Court, but of the Porticus's of the Court. For the Councills of Bishops were not held abroad in the open Air. Vales. at one of the inner Gates; [...]. I had other make it [...], paying. For [...] is no Greek ph [...]se, if I mistake not. But, 'tis righter thus, [...], which the Latines term poenas solvere, to undergo punishment. Thus Evagrius expresses him­self in chap. 32. of this book. Vales. paying this punishment for those high contumelies wherewith he had affe­cted the Roman Empire. But these things hap­ned afterwards.

CHAP. IV. How [Justinus] having Ejected Severus, put Paulus into his place: and, that some little time after, Euphrasius obtained the See of An­tioch.

BUt Severus, who had been Ordained Bishop of Antioch, agreeable to what we have Book 3. Chap. 33. already related, (in regard he ceased not [...]. It must be made [...], daily, as the rea­ding is in the Tellerian Manu­script, and in Ni­cephorus. Evagrius took this passage out of the Li­bell of the Monks, which is recorded in the Fifth Action of the Constantinopolitane Synod under Menas, pag. 712: [...]; for daring daily (as we may say,) to Anathematize the Holy Synod at Chalcedon, he hath held Communion thus far, [or, in this manner,] he has in the sacred Diptycks many of the Bishops under him­self who had sate in that Holy Synod at Chalcedon. For so it must be read agreeable to the Old Translatour: and this, Liberatus confirms in his Breviarium, chap. 19; where his words concerning Severus are these: Sed vexabatur in Episcopatu, tanquam Anathematizaret quidem Synodum, nominaret autem Episcopos Synodi; But he was vexed in his Bishoprick, as if he should Anathematize the Synod, but would name the Bishops of the Synod. Vales. daily to Anathematize the Synod at Chal­cedon, especially in those they term [...]. Christophorson understood not this term, as 'tis apparent from his Version. For he has rendred it thus: Et maximè in Litteris quae [...], id est, quae de Episcopis in sede Episcopali collocandis scriptae sunt, and especi­ally in the Letters which [are termed] [...], that is, which are written concerning the Bishops to be placed in the Episcopall Chair. Johannes Langus (in chap. 2, book 17, of Nicephorus,) translates it truer, thus: Potissimùm verò in eis quae Enthronisticae, sive Synodales dicuntur, Epistolis, but most especially in those Letters, which are termed Enthronistick or Synodicall Letters, &c. So the Letters were termed, which the Patriarchs sent one to another, at their Install­ment, that is, in the beginning of their Episcopate▪ There were also Enthronistick Homilies, or Sermons, which the Bishops Preacht to the people at their entrance upon their Episcopate. Concerning these, Liberatus (chap. 19.) writes thus, treating of our Severus, concerning whom Evagrius speaks here▪ Fertur autem Expositio ejus, quae ab eo dicta est in Enthronismo, But his Exposition is extant, which was spoken by him at his Installment, wherein he does both embrace Zeno's Uniting Edict, and also Anathematizes the Chalcedon Synod, and like­wise confesses himself to hold Communion with the Alexandrian and Con­stantinopolitane Prelates. Vales. The In­stalling Letters, and in the Answers thereto, which he sent to the Patriarchs in all places; (but they were embraced and admitted of at Alexandria only, by Johannes Successour to the former Johannes, and by Dioscorus and also He means Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria, who had succeeded Dioscorus Junior in that Bishoprick▪ as Liberatus relates chap. 19. For Timotheus Bishop of Constantinople cannot be meant here, in re­gard Evagrius has said just before, that Severus's Synodick Letters were embraced and admitted of only at Alexandria▪ Vales. Timotheus, which Letters are preserved till these Times of Ours;) and because many con­tentions in the Church arose therefrom, and the most faithfull people were divided into Factions; this Severus [I say]) is by Justinus's order Seized in the Nay; Severus was ejected in the second year of the Emperour Justinus, on the year of Christ 517, as Baronius has remarked truly▪ Vales. First year of his Empire, and underwent the punishment of having his Tongue cut out, as it has been reported by some persons. [Page 479] The executing of which punishment was com­mitted to Irenaeus, [...]. By these words I am of o­pinion the Comes of the East is meant; which was a Civill dignity▪ as I have long since re­marqued at Amm. Marcelli­nus, pag. 5. of my notes. Neverthe­less, Nice­phorus thought that this Irenaeus was the Dux of the Militia. For he has interpola­ted this passage of Evagrius in this manner: [...], who commanded the Military Companies at Antioch. But there is a fault in these words of Evagrius, [...], which in my judgment are to be expunged; or else to be corrected in this man­ner [...]. Vales. who being then Comes of the East, resided at Antioch. 'Tis certain, Se­verus himself (in his Letter to some of the An­tiochians, wherein he relates the manner of his own Flight;) does aver, that Irenaeus had been ordered to apprehend Severus. him. In which Letters, he loads Irenaeus with the greatest Calumnies, [...], &c. Without doubt it must be, [...], because he had placed the watchfullest Guard imaginable about him, &c. I have noted already, that in these Books of Evagrius, [...] is most frequently put instead of [...]. Vales. because he had placed the watchfullest Guard imaginable about him, that he might not make his escape out of Antioch. There are those who affirm, that Vitalianus, who as yet seemed to hold the chiefest place of favour and authority with Justinus, requested Severus's tongue, because Severus in his own Sermons had been injurious towards him. Severus therefore flies from his own See [the Chair of Antioch,] in the month Gorpiaeus, which in the Roman Tongue is termed September, on the Five hun­dredth sixty seventh year of Antioch's being styled a free City. After whom Paulus ascends that [Episcopal] Chair, and The Emperou [...] Justinus, at the beginning of his Empire, made an establishment by a Law, that all the Bishops should embrace the Chalcedon Synod: but if any would not embrace it, they should be driven from their Sees. Liberatus has mentioned this Law in his nineteenth chapter, in these words: Mortuo Anastasio, & Justino facto Imperatore, Anastasius being dead, and Justinus being made Em­perour, Severus is accused by Vitalianus the Magister Militum, a Religious and Orthodox person, because he despised the Emperours Command, and would not embrace the Synod. See Baronius at the year of Christ 519, Number 145. Further, this place of Evagrius seems to have given occasion of a mistake to Nicephorus. For, because our Evagrius had said, that Paulus, Severus's successour had been ordered to assert the Chalcedon Synod at his Installment, Nicephorus thought that this Pau­lus was in secret an Eutychian: Nevertheless, that this was false, Liberatus informs us in his Breviarium chap. 19; as also the Legates of the Apostolick See in their Relation to Pope Hormisda, which Baronius records at the year of Christ 519. Vales. is ordered pub­lickly to commend and assert the Chalcedon Synod. Moreover, Paulus having Paulus Bishop of Antioch was accused by his own Clergy, and by some others of the people of Antioch, before the Legates of the Apo­stolick See, who as yet resided at Constantinople; and after their depar­ture, before the Emperour Justinus; who not able to clear him­self of the Crimes objected against him, being vanquished by the testimony of his own Conscience▪ presented Recusatory Libells, re­questing that he might have leave to retire from the Episcopal Office which he had undertaken. Which when he had been permitted to do, he spontaneously removed himself from the Sacerdotall Function, as the Emperour Justinus relates in his Letter to Pope Hormisda, which Baronius records at the year of Christ 521. But although it is not expresly said in the foresaid Letter▪ to whom Paulus presented those Libells: yet it seemeth to me▪ that he presented those Libells to the Emperour Justinus. For, that is declared by Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople, in the Letter which he wrote to Pope Hormisda con­cerning the same affair. Vales. voluntarily with­drawn himself from Antioch, finished his life, and goes the [common] way of all men. Af­ter him, Euphrasius, who [came] from Jeru­salem, is preferred to his Chair.

CHAP. V. Concerning the Fires which hapned at Antioch, and the Earthquakes; wherein Euphrasius was buried, and ended his life.

ABout these same Times of Justinus, frequent and dreadfull Fires hapned at Antioch, which lead the way as 'twere to those most terrible Earthquakes that followed afterwards, and gave beginning to the ensuing Calami­ties. For, after some short time, in the seventh year of Justinus's Reign, [...]. Chri­stophorson understood not this passage, as 'tis appa­rent from his Ver­sion. For he renders it thus: Anno Septi­mo Regni ejusdem Justini, mense [...]e­cimo, Arte­misio vide­licet, id est, Maio, In the se­venth year of the same Justinus's Reign, on the tenth month, to wit Ar­temisius, that is, May, &c. Christophorson thought, that the tenth month was here termed Arte­misius. But 'tis not so. For Artemisius was not the tenth month of the Macedonians. Evagrius therefore says this only here, that that Earthquake hapned at Antioch in the seventh year▪ on the tenth month of Justinus's Empire. Concerning the year we shall see after­wards, whether it be truly reckoned the seventh. But the tenth month is rightly put by Evagrius. For, that Earthquake hapned in the month May, as Evagrius, and likewise Theophanes do attest. Now, this was the tenth Month of Justinus's Empire. For Justinus be­gan his Reign on the ninth day of the month July, as the Au­thour of the Alexandrian Chronicle observes. Therefore, the month May of the following year was the tenth month of Justinus's Reign. These things concerning the month admit of no doubt. As to the year, our Evagrius had done ill to place this Earthquake on the se­venth year of Justinus's Empire, in regard he ought rather to have said the eighth. For this Earthquake hapned on the fourth Indiction, when Olybrius was Consul alone; as Marcellinus Comes and Theo­phanes do attest in their Chronicon's: which was the year of Christ 526. On which year the eighth year of the same Emperours Reign was current till the month July. Baronius therefore has not rightly pla­ced this Earthquake on the year of Christ 525; who was lead into a mistake by Evagrius. Further, in the Florentine Manuscript, at these words of Evagrius, this Scholion was set in the Margin; [...], [Note] that May is termed the tenth month. But this Scholiast, whosoever he was, is mistaken here. For May is not simply and absolutely termed the tenth month by Evagrius here, but only the tenth month of Justinus's Empire, as I have said above. Vales. on [his] Tenth month, in the month Artemisius, or May, on the Twenty ninth day thereof, at the very hottest time of Noon-day, on the sixth day of that termed The Week, a shaking and quaking of the Earth invaded the City, which almost wholly overturned and ruined it. After th [...]se [trem­blings and quakings of the Earth] followed a Fire, sharing as it were the Calamity with them. For, those places which these [shakings and quakings of the Earth] afflicted not, the fire spreading it self all about, reduced to Embers and Ashes▪ Further, what places of the City were ruined, how many persons perished in the Fire and by the Earthquakes, (as 'tis probably supposed;) also, what wonderfull and [almost] inexpressible accidents hapned; Johannes the Rhetorician has most pathetically related, with the Narrative whereof he hath closed his History. Lastly, Euphrasius himself also, having been inclo­sed within those ruines, [...], in fine therefore. In the Florent. M. S. the reading is truer, thus, [...], ended his life. Further, concer­ning this Earthquake wherewith Antioch was ruined in the times of the Emperour Justinus; besides Theophanes and Cedrenus, Procopius speaks in the first book of his Persica, pag. 67, and 68; where he re­lates that three hundred thousand person [...] perished in that Earth­quake. Vales. ended his life; [which accident brought] another Calamity upon that City, in regard no person was left alive, who might provide such things as were necessary.

CHAP. VI. Concerning Ephraemius who succeeded Euphra­sius.

BUt the Salutary providence of God over men, which [usually] provides the Re­medy before the Blow, and sharpens the Sword of its Anger with Clemency, which in the very interim that affairs are in a deplorable and desperate posture, displays its own compassion▪ [Page 480] excited Ephraemius [...], who held the Raines of Govern­ment of the East. That is, was then Comes of the East, under whose dispose were all the Provinces of the East; as the No­titia of the Roman Empire informs us. That Ephraemius was adorned with this dignity, we are told by Johannes Moschus in chap. 37. of his Limonarium; where his words are these: Eo tempore vir clemens, & misericordiae operibus deditus Ephraemius Comes Orientis erat, At that time Ephraemius, a person of great clemency, and addicted to works of compassion, was Comes of the East, and by him the publick Buildings were repaired: for the City had been ruined by an Earthquake. Photius also attests the same, in his Bibliotheca, chapter 228. Vales. then Comes of the East, to take all possible Care, that the City might want nothing of those things that were necessary. Which person the Inhabitants of Antioch ad­mired on this very account, and chose him their Bishop. Ephraemius therefore obtains the Apo­stolick Chair, which was allotted to him as the Reward and Recompence as 'twere of such his pro­vidence [towards that City.] Thirty months after this, Antioch was again afflicted with Earthquakes: [...]; and then also▪ &c. I would rather read, [...], at which time also, &c. Which is the reading in the Telle­rian Manuscript, and in Nicephorus, who writes, that in Justinian's Reign Antioch had that name given it. The same is attested by Stephanus Bysantius in the word [...], and by Theophanes in his Chronicon. This Latter Earthquake hapned on the twenty ninth day of November, in the seventh Indiction, two years after the former Earthquake, as Theophanes relates pag. 151; or rather thirty months after the former Earthquake, as Evagrius says truly. For, so ma­ny months are reckoned from the twenty ninth of May in the year of Christ 526, to the twenty ninth of November in the year of Christ 528. In which year the seventh Indiction began to be reckoned from the month September. Whence, that appears to be most true which I have remarked before, viz. that that former Earth­quake hapned at Antioch on the year of Christ 526; and not on the year 525, as Baronius thought. And yet Baronius has rightly placed the latter Earthquake on the year of Christ 528; which is true. For, where­as he follows Evagrius's Calculation, he ought to have placed that Earthquake on the year 527: in regard the former Earthquake had hap­ned at Antioch on the year 525 of Our Lord's Nativity. Vales. at which time also it [changed its name, and] was called Theopolis; and the Emperour made provision for it by all other care and diligence whatever.

CHAP. VII. Concerning Zosimas and Johannes who were Wor­kers of Miracles.

BUt, in regard we have mentioned the foresaid Calamities, come on, we will also insert some other passages, worthy to be remembred, into this our present Work; which passages were brought to our knowledge by those who saw them. There [was] one Zosimas, a person who exercised him­self in a Monastick life, by Extract a Phoenician, of that Phoenice termed Maritima; the place of his Nativity was Sinde, a Village distant from Tyre not full out twenty furlongs. This man▪ by his abstinence from and use of meats, and by other virtues of his life, had in such a manner Or, Brought God home with in him­self. possest himself of God, that he could not only foresee things future, but had also received [from God] the Gift of [...], of all man­ner of un­disturbed­ness in re­lation to the passions. being free from all manner of perturbation of mind. Being therefore [one time] in the City Caesarea, which is the Me­tropolis of one of the Palestines, at the house of [...]. Musculus has referred these last words, to the word [...]. For he renders it thus: Hic junctus erat nobili cuidam Caesariensi, He was joyned to a certain Noble man of Caesarea. But Njcephorus and Christophorson construed these words otherwise, and referred them to the verb [...] which precedes, thus; Being therefore, &c, as we have rendred it. Which opinion I do ra­ther approve of. Yet, that which follows in Evagrius raises a doubt, to wit, that Zosimas asked the standers by for a Censer. For, if Zo­simas was in the house of Arcesilaus a Laick, how could he seek for a Censer there, in regard 'tis not usuall to have Censers in the house of a Laick? Vales. a personage of eminency; (his name was Ar­cesilaus, a person Nobly descended and Learned, and one who had arrived at Honours and those other [accomplishments] which adorn the life of a man:) at that very instant of time wherein Antioch was ruined [by the Earthquake,] this Zosimas all on a sudden grew sad, mourned and sighed deeply, and shed so great a quantity of tears that he wetted the earth. He also asked for a Censer, and having burnt Incense all over that place where they stood, he prostrates him­self on the ground, in order to his appeasing God with Prayers and Supplications. Then Arcesilaus asking him, what that was which trou­bled him so much, he answered in express words, that the Noise of the Ruine of Antioch just then rang in his ears. In so much that Arcesilaus and those then present, being stricken with an amazement, wrote down the hour, and found afterwards, that it had so hapned as Zosimas had declared. Severall other wonders were wrought by this person; the multitude whereof I will omit, in regard they are even more in number than can be told; and will mention only some of them. There flourished at the same time with this Zosi­mas, a man by name Johannes, for virtues like to him; who had exercised a Monastick and [...], a life void of matter. immate­riall life in the Laura [...], Chuzica. So also the reading is in Nicephorus, and Ortelius has retained the same reading in his Thesaurus Geogra­phicus. But in the excellent Flo­rentine Manuscript it is [...] Chuziba; which is doubtless truer. For so Johannes Moschus terms that Laura in chap. 24; cùm autem venisset in Eremum, & moraretur in Cellis Cusibas, But when he was come into the Desert, and abode in the Cells at Cusiba, be performed the same works of mercy. For he went through the high way which leads from Jordan to the Holy City. Where 'tis observable, that those are termed Cells by Moschus, which Evagrius calls a Laura. Indeed, a Laura was nothing else but Cells of Monks dispersed here and there, as I have remarkt a­bove, at book 1. chap. 21. note (b.) yet Moschus (chap. 24.) calls it The Monastery Chuziba.—Vales. Chu­ziba, (which is scituate in the extremity of the valley, at the Northern part of the highway that leads passen­gers from Jerusalem to the City Jericho;) This Johannes was first Ab­bot and Presbyter of the Mona­stery Chuziba; whence he had the surname of Chuzibite. But afterwards he was made Bishop of Caesarea, as (besides Evagrius) Johannes Moschus informs us, chap. 24. Vales. but had been made Bishop of the forementioned City Caesarea. This Johannes the Chuzibite, in regard he had heard that the wife of the foremen­tioned Arcesilaus had beat out one of her eyes with a Weavers Shuttle, ran to her in great hast, to make an inspection into the wound. But when he had seen it, and [perceived] that the pu­pill was faln out, and the whole eye perfectly run out, he orders one of the Phi­sitians who had Or, Fol­lowed. come thither, to bring a Sponge, and to put the eye which was faln out into its place again as well as he could, and to put the Sponge about it and bind it with Or, Rol­lers. Swathells of Linnen. Arcesilaus, was not then present. For [...]e hapned to be at that time with Zosimas, in his Monastery, which was scituate in the Village of the Sindeni, distant from Caesarea about five hundred furlongs. Messengers therefore ran in great hast to Arcesilaus, to acquaint him with what had hapned. Arcesilaus was sitting near to Zosimas holding a Conference with him. As soon as he understood [the misfortune that had befaln his wife,] he wept bitterly, pluckt off and tore his hair, and threw it into the air. When Zosimas enquired the reason hereof, Arcesilaus gave him an account of what had hapned, but made fre­quent interruptions in his Relation by sighs and tears. Zosimas therefore having left him, retired alone by himself into a certain little Or, House. Room, where he was wont to converse with God, as 'tis the usage of such persons. After [Page 481] some little time he came out, lookt chearfully, and with a modest and grave smile [...], cooled his hand. In Robert Ste­phens the reading is, [...]. stroakt Arce­silaus's hand softly, Go, says he, go away with joy: Grace is given to the Chuzibite. Your wife is cured; she has both her eyes; that accident could deprive her of nothing, in regard it so plea­sed the Chuzibite. And so it hapned, these two righteous persons having at one and the same time wrought a Miracle. This same Zosimas going one time to Caesarea, and leading an Ass after him whereon he had laid some things that were needfull to him, meets a Lyon, who having seized upon the Ass, went his way. Zosimas followed the Lyon over the wood, till such time as he had filled his belly with the Asse's flesh. After which Zosimas laugh't, and speaks [these words] to the Lyon; But Friend [says he] my journey is stopt, for I am a man [...]. Musculus omitted these words in his Ver­sion. But Christo­phorson has rendred them thus; quippe cùm annis pluri­mis onustus [...]im, in re­gard I am loaden with many years. Which rendition is not to be born with; for his fol­lowing words are, & aetate admodùm provectus, and very aged. By this Version therefore Evagrius would be made to say the same thing in both places. The Greeks term Gross, thick and fat men [...]. Which sort of persons are tender and delicate, and unfit to carry a burden. See Suidas in the word [...]. Nice­phorus also understood not this word. For instead thereof he has substituted these, [...], and by reason of my want of necessaries am macerated, [or, melted.] Vales. gross and fat, and of a very great age; nor am I able to carry that burthen on my back which was laid upon the Ass. If therefore you have a mind that Zosimas should remove from hence, you must necessarily carry my Burthen, [though this be a thing] contrary to the Law of your Nature; and [after that] you shall be a wild Beast again. The Lyon wholly forgetting his Rage, began to fawn, in a most gentle manner [...]. Doubtless it must be written, [...], ran to. In Nicephorus the reading is [...], ran under. But our Emendation seems better. Vales. ran immediately to Zosimas, and by his gesture Or, Roared out. shewed his obedience. Zosimas therefore having laid the Asses burden on him, lead him as far as the Gates of Caesarea; demonstrating hereby the power of God, and how all things serve and obey us men, when we live to God, and do not adulterate that Grace which is given to us. But, least I should lengthen my History by [re­lating] more [such passages as these,] I will return to that place from whence I have made a digression.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning the Universall Calamities.

DUring the same Justinus's Governing the [Roman] Empire, that [City] now named Dyrrachium (which was anciently called Epidamnus,) was ruined by an Earthquake. As was likewise Corinthus, scituate in Achaia. Anazarbus also, the Metropolis of the Second Cilicia, [suffered] a fourth Calamity of this sort. Which Cities Justinus rebuilt by the ex­pence of a vast sum of money. In these very same times also, Edessa a City of the Osröeni, which was vastly great and rich, was drowned by the waters of the torrent of The Scirtus which runs hard by it; in so much that most of the houses were beaten down, and an innumerable multitude of men destroyed, whom the water carried away. Edessa and Anazarbus had their [ancient] names changed by Justinus; for both those Cities were adorned with That is, he gave each of them the name of Justinopo­lis. his own name.

CHAP. IX. How Justinus whilst he was yet living, took Ju­stinianus to be his Colleague in the Empire.

THe same Justinus having passed the eighth year of his Empire, The Au­thour of the Alexan­drian Chro­nicle, in­stead of, three days, has made it, five. For he writes, that Justi­nianus was made Au­gustus by Justinus, after eight years nine months and five days of Ju­stinus's Empire, on the Calends of Aprill, in the Consu­late of Ma­vortius; which was the year of Christ 527. But the Authour of that Chro­nicle disa­grees from himself: for he relates, that Justinus entred on the Em­pire on the ninth day of the month July, in the year of our Lords Na­tivity 518. From which time to the Calends of Aprill in the year 527, there are eight years, and as many months, together with one and twenty days. But if we follow Cedrenus, who relates that Justi­nianus was made Augustus by Justinus on the fourteenth of Aprill, then the Computation of the Alexandrian Chronicle will be most certain. Vales. and also nine months and three days [of his ninth year,] Justinianus his Sisters Son is made his Colleague in the Em­pire, being proclaimed on the first [day of the month] Xanthicus, or Aprill, in the Five hun­dredth seventy fifth year of Antioch's being stiled a free City. And when these affairs had pro­ceeded in this manner, Justinus removes from his Empire here [on earth,] Or, Ha­ving un­dergone his perfect day. ha­ving ended his life on the first day of Löus, or the month August, when he had reigned four months with Justinianus, and had [...]. In the Tellerian Manuscript, I found it written, [...], and had held the Imperiall Government, or, the Empire: which reading pleases me best. Vales. held the Empire [as well alone, as with a Colleague] nine compleat years [From Evagrius's own Computation 'tis apparent, that these words [one month] must be added here. For in regard he has said a little before this, that on the Calends of Aprill of this year, the eighth year of Justinus's Reign was compleated, and that he had reigned over and above, nine months and three days; the Consequence is, that on the Calends of August of the same year, nine years were passed toge­ther with one month and three days. Whence 'tis Collected, that Justinus's Reign is to be begun from the twenty eighth day of June, ac­cording to Evagrius's Sentiment. Vales. one month,] and three days. [Further,] when Justinianus was invested with the sole Go­vernment of the whole Roman Empire, and the Synod at Chalcedon had been asserted over all the most Holy Churches, by the order of Justinus, as I have related; the affairs of the Ecclesia­stick constitution were as yet disturbed in some Provinces; and especially at the Imperial City, and at Alexandria: Anthimus then Governing the Bishoprick of Constantinople, and Theodosius presiding over the Church at Alexandria. For both [these Prelates] asserted one Nature [in Christ.]

CHAP. X. That Justinianus favoured those who embraced the Chalcedon Synod. But [his Wife] Theodora was a Lover of the Contrary party.

JUstinianus indeed couragiously defended the [Fathers] which had been convened at Chalcedon, and the Expositions they had made. But his Wife Theodora [favoured] them who asserted one Nature: [...]. I think it should be worded thus; [...], whether it were because they themselves really thought so. For the sense requires this reading. Nicephorus in no wise understood the meaning of this passage. But Musculus has explained it excellently well in this manner: Sive autem sic verè sentiebant, sive sic dispensa­tione quâdam inter ipsos convenerat; But whether they really thought so, or whether it had been so agreed amongst themselves by a certain dispen­sation. Christophorson has followed Musculus, and began a new period from these words, in this manner, Sive igitur ita r [...]ver [...] sentiebant, &c. Whether therefore they really thought so, &c. But we have joyned them with the foregoing words. Vales. whether it were because they themselves really thought so: [Page 482] (For when the Subject of the debate is concer­ning the Faith, Fathers differ from their Chil­dren, and Children from their Parents, the Wife [disagrees] with her own Husband, and again the Husband with his own Wife:) or whether it had been so agreed upon between themselves [...]. Musculus renders it, dispensa­tione quâ­dam, by a certain dis­pensation. Which Version I do not ap­prove off. Johannes Langus translates it, ex com­posito, by a­greement, or, appointment. Christophorson, deditâ operâ, on set purpose. I would rather render it, per simulationem, through pretence, or, out of a politick design. For, 'tis opposed [...], to truth. Some therefore were of opinion, that by fraud and under a Colour it had been agreed on between Justinian and Theodora, that the one should adhere to the Catholicks, the other to the Acephali. In French we should term it, Par Politique. Vales. out of a politick design, that the Emperour should defend those who asserted two Natures in Christ our God after the Union: but the Empress, them who maintained [there was but] one Nature. Nevertheless, neither of them yielded to the other. But Justinian pertina­ciously adhered to what had been agreed on at Chalcedon: and Theodora, addicted to the Con­trary party, made all imaginable provision for those who asserted one Nature. And she every way cherished [...]. By this word Christophorson understood The Acc­phali. For he has explained this place thus: Et ejus epinionis Homines, si Nostrates essent, benevolè & amicè complexa est: Sin externi, prae­miis benigne remunerata: And the men of that opinion, if they were our Country-men, she entertained kindly and friendly: but if Forreigners, she rewarded them liberally with gifts. But Nicephorus renders [...], the Catholicks and the Orthodox; which I can by no means ap­prove of. For, by [...] our Evagrius means The Orientalls. But, by [...] Forreigners, he means The Westerns, Vales. our Country-men; but she fa­voured Forreigners with vast presents of money. [In fine,] she perswades Justinian to cause Se­verus to be sent for [to Constantinople.]

CHAP. XI. How Severus perverted Anthimus [Bishop] of Constantinople, and Theodosius [Bishop] of Alexandria: which Prelates the Emperour ejected, and put others [into their Sees.]

SEverus's Letters, both to Justinianus, and also to Theodora, are still extant: from which it may be Collected, that Severus, after his relin­quishing the Chair of Antioch, at first deferred his journey to the Imperial City; but, that after­wards he went thither. He writes also [in the same Letters,] that when he was come to Con­stantinople, he discoursed with Anthimus, and finding that he embraced the same Sentiments with himself, and [maintained the same] opi­nion in relation to God; he perswaded him to relinquish his [Episcopal Chair.] He wrote al­so concerning the same matters to Theodosius who was Bishop of the City Alexandria: in which [Letters] he boasts, that he had per­swaded Anthimus himself, as hath been said, to give such Opinions as these the preference before earthly Glory, and his own [Episcopal] Chair. Anthimus's Letters to Theodosius concerning these matters are also extant, as likewise Theodosius's to Severus and Anthimus; which Letters I omit, (leaving them to those who are desirous of rea­ding them,) least I should heap together an im­mense multitude [of transactions] [...]. I agree with the Learned, who have already mended this place thus▪ [...], within this present book. Vales. within this present book. But, both these [To wit, Anthimus, and Theo­dosius. Pre­lates,] in regard they proceeded con­trary to the Emperour's Commands, and would not embrace what had been agreed on at Chalcedon, were expelled from their own Sees. And In the place of Theodosius Bishop of Alexan­dria, Pau­lus was substituted. Who be­ing soon ejected, Zoilus was put into his See, as Liberatus informs us in his Breviary, chap. 23; and likewise Victor Thunonensis in his Chronicon, and Theophanes pag. 188. Liberatus attests, that this Paulus was Orthodox. But Victor Thunonensis and Theophanes affirm him to have been an Heretick, and to have celebrated Dioscorus's name in the Sacred Diptycks. For Victor's words are these: Basilio V. C. Cos. Alexandrinae Ecclesiae, in the Consulate of the most famous Basi­lius, Theodosius and Gaianus being banished from the Alexandrian Church, instead of them Paulus the first of the Tabennesiotae [is made Bishop,] who celebrating the deposition of his predecessour the Heretick Dioscorus, is deposed by the Palestine Councill, and Zoilus is ordained Bishop in his room. But Theophanes writes thus concerning Paulus: [...], This person having celebrated the memory of the profane Severus, was ejected out of his Bi­shoprick by the Emperours displeasure. He had better have said, of the profane Dioscorus; for Severus, if I mistake not, was as yet living, at such time as Paulus was ejected out of his Bishoprick, that is, on the year of Christ 537. I have made these remarkes for this reason, be­cause Baronius, in his Annalls, says nothing else concerning this Paulus, save what had been related by Liberatus. Vales. Zoilus succeeds in the Chair of Alexandria: but in that of the Imperial City, Evagrius mistakes, and puts Epiphanius instead of Menas. For Anthimus had succeeded Epiphanius. After Anthimus was ejected, in his place Menas was ordained Bishop of Constantinople by Pope Aga­petus; after Belisarius's Consulate, on the year of Christ 536; as Marcellinus relates in his Chronicon. Vales. Epiphanius: Concerning this Peace and Union of the Churches which hapned after the Ordination of Paulus Bishop of Alexandria, Liberatus (in his Breviarie, chap. 23.) speakes these words: Hoc ergo modo unitas facta est Ecclesiarum anno decimo imperii Gloriosi Justiniani Augusti, On this manner therefore an Union was made of the Churches in the tenth year of the Empire of the Glorious Justinianus Augustus. For all the Patriarchs at that time embraced and admitted of the Chalcedon Synod; that is, in the year of Christ 537. To wit, the Bishop of Rome, whose Apocrisiarius [or, Legate,] Pelagius was at Constantinople: Paulus Bishop of Alexandria: Ephraemius of Antioch, and Petrus of Jerusa­lem. Of which Prelates, Paulus, when at the beginning he had preten­ded to assert the true Faith, afterwards revolted to the Eutychian He­resie, as I have remarked at note (b,) from Victor and Theophanes their Chronicles. Vales. so that, in all the Churches from hence forward, the Chalcedon Synod was publickly Some person studious of Ecclesiastick Antiquity, will perhaps make enquiry here, in what manner or order this Preaching [Publishing, or Asserting,] of the Chaleedon Synod was wont to be performed. I answer, that this preaching was usually made in the Ambo, or Pulpit of the Church, by the Bishop, or another person deputed by him, whilst the Solemn [or, Publick] Prayers were performed. We have this information from the Letter, or Libell of the Orthodox Bishops pre­sented at Constantinople to Pope Agapetus, which Libell is recorded in the First Action of the Constantinopolitan Synod under Menas, where they speak thus concerning the Emperour Justinian: [...] And on this account he made a Constitution that the four Sacred and Holy Synods should be Preached by the divine Preachers in the divine Prayers wheresoever performed. The Old Translatour renders these words thus: & propter hoc Statuit quatuor Sanctas Synodos in divinis & sacris initiati­onibus, a sacris praedicatoribus praedicari, And on this account he ordered, that the four Holy Synods should be Preach't by the Sacred Preachers, in the di­vine and Sacred Initiations. This Translatour thought, that [...] was taken in this place for Initiation, or Baptism, as it is wont usually to be taken. But at this place, [...] is taken for The Publick Prayers, and has the same import with- [...], The Divine Liturgie. Indeed, the Chalcedon-Synod was first Preach't [or, Asserted] in the Publick Prayers at Constantinople, in the Reign of Justinus Senior, as may be seen in the Fifth Action of the Constantino­politane Synod under Menas, pag. 725, &c. Edit. Colon. But the Stu­dious of Ecclesiastick Antiquity must be cautioned, that they suffer not themselves to be led into an errour by the Latine Translatour, who writes that this publication was made after the prayers were ended. When as nevertheless, the Greek Text there has a far different im­port; the words whereof are these: [...] &c: when Sunday and Munday come, the Liturgle being to be performed [or, celebrated,] in the Holy Church of God. The same errour is com­mitted by the Translatour, at pag. 733; where the Greek runs thus: [...], &c. which words are to be rendred thus: And after the reading of the Holy Gospell, when the Divine Liturgie, as usually, is to be celebrated, and the doors are shut, and the Holy Creed, according to Custome, read, &c▪ Which passages the studious Reader may peruse there, if he has a mind to understand the whole order [or fashion,] wherein the Four Oecumenicall Synods were Preach't [or proclaimed,] and read in the Sacred Diptycks. Vales. preacht up and asserted, and no body dared to Anathematize it: but those per­sons who would not embrace these Sentiments, [Page 483] were by innumerable ways compelled to give their consent thereto. A He means Justinian's fourty se­cond No­vell, which is also re­corded in the Fifth Action of the Con­stantinopo­litan Synod under Me­nas. In the Edition of Henry Ste­phens, who publisht Justinian's Novells in Greek, this Constitu­tion is in­deed said to have been dated on the se­venteenth of the Calends of August, in the Consulate of the most famous Belisarius. But, in the Edition of the Constantinopolitane Councill under Menas, 'tis said to be dated on the eighth of the Ides of August, after the Con­sulate of the most famous Belisarius; which is doubtless truer. For, in regard Justinian promulged that Constitution against Anthimus and Severus, after the sentence of the Constantinopolitan Synod pronounc't against those Prelates, (as the Emperour himself attests in the Pre­face of that Constitution:) and whereas the Constantinopolitan Synod pronounced a Sentence of Condemnation against the foresaid An­thimus and Severus on the twelfth of the Calends of June, after Beli­sarius's Consulate: it is altogether necessary, that that Constitution of Justinian's should have been promulged on the year after Belisa­rius's Consulate. Vales. Constitution there­fore was written by Justinianus, wherein he hath Anathematized Severus and Anthimus with others, and has made obnoxious to most sore punishments those who assert their Opinions. From that time therefore, nothing of dissention remained in the Churches over the whole world: but the Patriarchs of each Dioecesis agreed one with another, and the Bishops of the Cities fol­lowed their own Exarchs at this place are the Primates, or Patriarchs of each Dioecesis, as Evagrius has said a little before: in the same manner as Jacobus Syrmondus has explained it in the Second Book of his Propem­pticon▪ Chap. 5, where he discourses excellently and most Learnedly concerning Exarchs. To whose exact diligence there remains nothing to be added by us. Nor has Christophorson done ill in rendring [...] here, Arch-Bishops. For Primates were heretofore termed Arch-Bishops, as Isidorus informs us in the Seventh Book of his Origines, in these words: Ordo Episcoporum quadripartitus est, The order of Bishops is divided into four parts, into Patriarchs, Arch-Bishops, Metropolitanes, and Bishops. A Patriarch in the Greek tongue imports the highest Father, because he holds the first, that is, the Apostolick place: As the Roman, the Antiochian, the Alexandrian. Arch-Bishop in Greek is termed the highest of Bishops. For he holds the Apostolick place, and presides as well over Metropolitanes, as Bi­shops. Vales. Exarchs: and the Four Synods were Preach't up in the Churches; the First whereof was that at Nicaea, then, that at Con­stantinople, the Third [was] the Former Synod at Ephesus, and the Fourth that at Chalcedon. More­over, there was a Fifth Synod convened by the Order of Justinianus: concerning which I shall speak what is fit and accommodate in its due place. In the interim, I will interweave into this present History those affairs which were transacted one after the other in these very times, and which deserved to be recorded.

CHAP. XII. Out of the History of Procopius Caesariensis, concerning Cavades King of the Persians, and his Son Chosröes.

PRocopius the Rhetorician has written the af­fairs transacted by Belisarius: [and he de­clares,] that Cavades King of the Persians, de­sirous to invest Chosröes being the younger of his other Sons, with the Kingdom, [...]. The conjecture of Learned men displeases me; who (instead of [...], de­sires,) have mended it thus, [...], consulted how, &c. Nicephorus (book 17. chap. 10,) instead of these two words uses this, [...], thought, or, cast in his mind: which pleases me best. Vales. considered how he might procure his Son Chosröes to be adopted by the Emperour of the Ro­mans; to the end that by this means the Kingdom might be most firmly se­cured to him. In regard therefore Cavades. he mist of this his design; by the inducement of Proclus who sate Quaestor to [the Emperour] Justinian, the Feud against the Romans was increased. Fur­ther, the same Procopius with much exqu site­ness and great elegance hath set forth the Actions of Belisarius Master of the Eastern Milice, at such time as the Romans and Persians were at War one with another. He relates the first Victory therefore of the Romans about the places Daras and Nisibis, when Belisarias and Hermoge­nes commanded the Roman Army. To which he subjoyns also what hapned in the Country of the Armenians, and with how great [mischiefs] Alamundarus Commander of those Barbarians [termed] Or, Who dwelt▪ in Tents: He means the Sara­cens. Scenitae, infested the Roman Pro­vinces. Which Alamundarus took Timostratus, Brother to Rufinus, alive, together with the Souldiers Or, A­bout him. under his Command; and after­wards delivered him up [when Ransomed] with a vast sum of money.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning Alamundarus and Azarethus; and concerning that Sedition at Constantinople, which had the name Nica given it.

[THe same Authour] Or, With a Vehemen­cy of affe­ction. most passionately describes the Incursion of the fore men­tioned Alamundarus and Azarethus into the Or, Land of the Ro­mans. Roman Pale; and how Belisarius, forced there­to by his own Army, made an attaque upon those Barbarians in their return to their own Country, near the Banks of The Euphrates, the Festivall of Easter then approaching; and how the Roman Army was ruined, by their refusing to obey the advices of Belisarius: and lastly, how Rufinus and Hermogenes made that Peace with the Persians called Or, End­less, or, boundless. The Interminate Peace. To which Proco­pius. he subjoyns the popular Sedition that hapned at Byzantium, whereto The Or, Watch­word. Word of the people gave a name. For they gave it the Appellation of Nica, [because] the po­pulacy being assembled together had given one another this Or, Watch­word. Word, in order to their distin­guishing one another. In that [Sedition,] Hypatius and Pompeius were by the populacy forced to set up for Tyrants. But the Heads of them both by Justinian's Command were cut off by the Souldiers, and drowned in the Sea; the people having been soon quelled. More­over, Procopius affirms, that Thirty thousand men perished [...] in this mis­chief, or, harm. in this Tumult.

CHAP. XIV. Concerning Or, Ono­richus. Hunericus King of the Vandalls, and concerning those Christians whose tongues were cut out by him.

THe same Procopius, in his Book wherein he has related the Affairs of the Vandalls, gives a Narrative of Or, The Greatest. strange things, and which de­serve for ever to be kept in memory by men; which matters I come now to relate. Hunericus who succeded Gisericus in the Kingdom, in re­gard he embraced [the Tenets] of Arius, be­haved himself most barbarously towards those Christians in Africa; forcing them who asserted the Orthodox Opinions to [retract and] turn to the Opinion of the Arians. And if any re­fused to obey his Commands, he destroyed them by fire, and infinite other sorts of death. But he ordered the tongues of some of them to be cut out. Procopius affirms, that he him­self [Page 484] [...]. It must be [...], as others before us have alrea­dy obs [...]r­ved. Fur­ther, con­cerning these Afri­can Con­fessours (whose tongues Huncricus King of the Van­dalls had commanded to be cut out, and who afterwards desisted not from spea­king though their tongues were cut out,) Marcellinus Comes speaks in his Chronicon, at the Consulate of Theodoricus and Venantius; where he also attests that some of them were seen by him. Victor Thuno­nensis records the same in his Chronicon, at Zeno Augustus's third Con­sulate. And Victor Vitensis in his book De Persecutione Vandalorum; and lastly the Emperour Justinian in his First Law de Officio Praefecti Praetorio Africae. Which Constitution of Justinian's our Evagrius quotes a little lower in this chapter; although in the Greek Text the name of Justinus is erroneously written instead of Justinianus. See more in Baronius, at the year of Christ 484. Vales. saw these persons when they were at Con­stantinople, to which City they had fled; and that he conferred with them [and heard them] speak in such a manner as if they had suffered no such thing: and [he says,] that their tongues indeed were cut out from the very root: but, that they had an articulate voice, and spake di­stinctly: [which thing was] a wonder new and unusuall. The Constitution of In the Greek Text here, and in Robert Stephens's Edit. 'tis Justinus: See note (a) in this chapter. Justinian mentions these persons also. Two of whom Lapsed, as the same Procopius relates. For in regard they would Or, Have to do with. con­verse with women, they were deprived of their voice, and the grace of Martyrdom continued not any longer with them.

CHAP. XV. Concerning Cabaones the Moor.

MOreover, [Procopius] [...], produces. I had rather make it, [...], relates: as Evagrius expresses himself at the begin­ning of the next chapter. Vales. relates another admirable passage, which was wonderful­ly effected by God [our] Saviour, amongst men who were strangers in­deed to our Religion, but who behaved themselves pi­ously and holily at that time. He says, that Cabaones was King of those Moors about Tripoly. This Cabaones, says he, (for I think fit to make use of Procopius's own words, who has elegantly related these matters, as well as others;) Having received information, that the Vandalls would undertake an Expedition a­gainst him, behaved himself in this manner. In the first place he ordered his Subjects, to abstain from all manner of injustice, and Or, From food which brought nourish­ment. from dainty and delicious dishes, but most especially from the Or, Copu­lation with. company of women. Then, he pitcht two Camps, in the one he himself Encamped, together with all the men: but within the other he shut up the wo­men; and threatned he would inflict a punishment of death upon any one that should go into the wo­mens Entrenchment. After this, he sent Or, Scouts. Spies to Carthage, to whom he gave these Orders: that if the Vandalls, when on their expedition, should Or, Be injurious to. defile any Oratory Or, Which. wherein the Chri­stians worshipped, they should make an Inspection into what was done. But, when the Vandalls were removed from that place, [he enjoyned them] to do all things that were the quite contrary, to that Church out of which the Vandalls had made their Removall, and were gone. 'Tis reported that Cabaones. he said this also, that he was indeed ignorant of that God whom the Christians worshipped: but 'tis probable, says he, if he be a strong and powerfull [God,] as he is said to be, that he will be revenged on those who injure [his Deity,] and will defend his worshippers. The Spies there­fore, when they were arrived at Carthage, con­tinued there, and Or, Be­held. veiwed the preparation of the Vandalls. But when their Army had begun their Expedition towards Tripoly, The Scouts, or, Spies. they put themselves into a mean garb, and followed them. The Van­dalls on the very first day [of their march] made Stables of the Christians Oratories, into which they brought their Horses, and their other Beasts; omitting the performing no sort of Contumely what­ever: also they themselves practised Or, Their own Intem­perance. their usuall unruliness, cuff't those Christian Or, Priests. Ministers whom they could take, tore their backs with many stripes, and commanded them to wait on them. But, Cabaones's Spies, as soon as ever the Vandalls had removed from those places, performed what they had been ordered to do. For they cleansed the Churches immediately, with great care car­ried away the dung and whatever else had been irreligiously put therein, lighted all the Candles, paid the highest Reverence imaginable to the Or, Priests. Mi­nisters, and were indulgent to them in all other instances of kindness and beneficence. Then, they distributed money amongst the indigent, who sate about those sacred Houses; in this manner they followed the Army of the Vandalls. And the Vandalls from this very time throughout their whole Expedition committed such impious facts as these: but the Spies made it their business to apply remedies thereto. But when the Vandalls drew near [towards the Moors] the Spies hastned and told Cabaones, as well what the Vandalls, as what they themselves had done to the Churches of the Christians, and [informed him] that the Enemy approacht. Cabaones hearing this, put his Army into a posture fit to ingage. Most of the Vandalls, as 'tis said, were destroyed: many of them were taken by the Moors, and very few of that Army returned to their own homes. This overthrow Thrasamundus suffered from the Moors: and not long after this he ended his life, when he had Reigned seven and twenty years over the Vandalls.

CHAP. XVI. Concerning Belisarius's Expedition against the Vandalls, and their totall overthrow.

THe same Procopius relates, that Justinian (in compassion to those Christians who suf­fered grievously there,) declared [he would undertake] an Expedition [into Africa;] but by the suggestions of Johannes the Prae­fectus Pr [...]torio, he was diverted from that design. Yet, he was afterwards admonished in a Concer­ning this Vision which appeared to Justinian in his sleep, Victor Thunonensis writes thus: Justiniano Aug. IV. Cos. Justinianus Imp. Visitatione Lati, Justinianus Augustus being the fourth time Consul. The Emperour Justinianus, by a Visitation of Laetu [...] the Bishop who was made a Martyr by Hunericus King of the Vandalls, sends an Army into Africk against the Vandalls, under the Command of Belisarius Master of the Milice. Victor Vitensis has made mention of this Laetus the Bishop, in his first book De Persecutione Vandalorum. Further, concerning this Expedi­tion of Justinian into Africk against the Vandalls, Marcellinus Comes speaks also in his Chronicon, and places it on the Fourth Consulate of the same Justinianus, that is on the year of Christ 534. Marius Aven­ticensis relates the same in his Chronicon. But Baronius in his Annalls reproves Marcellinus, and maintains that that Expedition was under­taken by Justinianus in his Third Consulate, on the year of Christ 533. Justinian's Constitution de Confirmatione Digestorum (which is pre­fixt before the work of the Pandects,) confirms Baronius's opinion. But, by Baronius's favour, I think the opinion of Marcellinus and Victor to be truer. Nor do I doubt, but a fault has crept into Justinian's Constitution, (on the authority whereof Baronius relies,) and that the Third Consulate of the Emperour Justinian has been written by Transcribers of Books instead of The Fourth. And this Justinian him­self does so manifestly shew in the foresaid Constitution, that I admire it was not perceived by Baronius. For thus Justinian speaks: Leges autem nostras, quas in his Codicibus, id est, Institutionum & Digestorum posuimus, But our Laws which we have put in these Codes, that is, of the Institutions and Digests, [shall] obtain their strength from [our] third most happy Consulate of the present twelfth Indiction, on the third of the Calends of January, and shall be of force for ever. For on the twelfth Indiction Justinian bore his Fourth Consulate, as Marcellinus Comes attests. But, some one will object, that the twelfth Indiction was begun from the Calends of September, in Justinians Third Consulate. Therefore, we must have recourse to another Argument, to prove what I have said above; viz. that the Vandalick Expedition was begun on Justinians Fourth Consulate, and that that Constitution whereon Ba­ronius's opinion is founded, was written in Justinians Fourth Consulate. Now, this may be proved thus. In the end of the foresaid Constitution, as well in the Greek as Latine, Justinian makes mention of a Pr [...]fectus Praetorio of Africa. But, a Praefectus Pr [...]torio of Africa was first created by Justinian in his Fourth Consulate, a little before the Calends of the September of the thirteenth Indiction, as the First Law of the Code de Praefecto Praetorio Africae informs us. For Justinian speaks in this manner: Haec igitur Magnitudo tua cognoscens, ex Calendis Septem­bribus futurae decimae tertiae Indictionis effectui mancipari procuret. Vales. Dream, not to desist from that Invasion. [Page 485] For [he was told,] that in case he would give the Christians assistance, he should ruine Or, Af­fairs. the King­dom of the Vandalls. Incouraged by this Dream, [...]. Procopius's words out of the First Book of his Van­dalicks pag. 107, are these: [...], &c. Which words import, that his se­venth year was already past. Now, if we should say that the Vanda­lick Expedition was undertaken in Justinians third Consulate, as Justinians words do wholly seem to perswade; (when, about the Summer Solstice, the Roman Navy came up to the Byzantine Port, and soon after set Sail from thence (as Procopius relates,) that is about the end of the month June:) Justinian was then in the seventh year and third month of his Empire. For the first day of Justinians Reign is brought from the Calends of Aprill. But, if we should place the Vandalick Expedition on Justinians Fourth Consulate, it will be the eighth year of his Empire; and not the seventh, as Procopius writes: wherefore Baronius's opinion is truer; which is confirmed both by the Emperour Justinians au­thority, and also by the testi­mony of Procopius. Vales. having passed the seventh year of his Reign, he sends Belisarius to the Carthagi­nian War, about the Summer Solstice: after the Or, Ad­mirall Ship. Praetorian Ship had been brought to that Shore which is be­fore the Pallace, and Epi­phanius Bishop of the [Im­perial] City had made such Prayers as were fit and a­greeable, and had put a­board the Praetorian Ship some of those Souldiers, whom he had baptized a little before. The same Authour likewise has given a Narrative of some pas­sages concerning The Mar­tyr Cyprianus, which deserve [to be inserted into this] History: his express words are these. All the Cartha­ginians have an high vene­ration for that holy per­son Cyprianus, and [in honour] of him have e­rected a most magnificent Church Or, Be­fore. without that City, near the Sea-Shore, and besides other Religious respects [by them paid to him,] they also celebrate an Anniversary Fe­stivall, which they term Cypriana; and hence the Mariners are wont to call that Storm (which I have even now mentioned,) by the same name with this Festivall, because it usually rages at that very time, whereon the Africans are accustomed perpetually to celebrate that Festivall. In the Reign of Hunericus, the Vandalls took this Church from the Christians by force, drove the Priests out thence with great Ignominy, and afterwards Reformed, or, re­paired. altered it, in regard it was come into the posses­sion of the Arians. The Africans being vexed and highly displeased on account hereof, they say that Cy­prianus appeared and visited [them] frequently in [their] sleep, [and said to some of them,] that the Christians ought in no wise to be solli­citous about him: for, that he himself in process of time would be his own Revenger. Which pre­diction was compleated in the Times of Belisarius; when Carthage by the Commander Belisarius was reduced to a Subjection to the Romans, The Em­perour Ju­stinian a­grees; whose words in the First Law of the Code De Officio Praefecti Praetorio Africae, are these: Ut Africa per not tam brevi tempore reciperet Libertatem, ante nonaginta quinque annos a Vandalis captivata; that Africk should by vs receive its Liberty in so short a time, having been captivated by the Vandalls ninty five years be­fore. Marcellinus Comes in his Chronicon relates, that Carthage was taken by the Romans on the ninty sixth year of its being lost. But Victor Thunonensis affirms that Africk was recovered by the Romans under the Command of Belisarius, on the ninty seventh year of the Vandalls entrance into it. Vales. after the Ninty fifth year of its being lost: when also the Vandalls were totally vanquished, the Heresie of the Arians was prefectly driven out of Africa, and the Christians recovered their own Chur­ches, according to the Martyr Cyprianus's pre­diction.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning the Spoyls which were brought out of Africa.

THe same Procopius hath recorded this pas­sage. When Belisarius (says he) having vanquished the Vandalls, was returned to Con­stantinople, bringing along with him the Spoyls, the Prisoners of War, and Gelimeres himself King of the Vandalls; a Triumph was granted him, [at which time] he lead through the Cirque all things that were worthy of admiration. Amongst which there was a vast Treasure; for Gizerichus had heretofore plundered the Pallace at Rome, (as has before been related by me;) at such time as Eudoxia Wife to Valentinian Emperour of the Western Romans, (having both lost her Hus­band by Maximus's means, and also been injured as to her Chastity,) had sent for Gizerichus, promising she would betray the City t [...] [...]im. At which time [Gizerichus] burnt Ro [...], and car­ried away Eudoxia with her two Daughters into the Country of the Vandalls. When also, together with other Treasures, he made plunder of what ever Titus Son to Vespasian had brought to Rome, after his Conquest of Jerusalem; to wit, Solo­mon's Gifts, which he had dedicated to God. Which Gifts Justinian sent to Jerusalem again, in honour to Christ our God; whereby he ex­hibited a due honour to God, to whom they had been before dedicated. Procopius says also, that Gelimeres, lying then prostrate on the ground in the Cirque, over against the Empe­rours Throne whereon Justinian sate and be­held what was done, uttered this divine Oracle in his own Country Language, Vanity of Vani­ties, all is Vanity.

CHAP. XVIII. Concerning those Phoenicians who fled from the face of Jesus the Son of Nave.

MOreover, [the same Procopius] relates another thing, never mentioned by any Authour before him, which is most admirable, Or, And transcends the Hyper­bole [ex­cess, or, superla­tiveness.] of every wonder. and transcends almost all belief. He relates therefore, that The Moors, a Nation of the Afri­cans, removed out of Palestine, and took up their habitation in Africa: and, that they are those [people] whom the sacred Scriptures do men­tion [by the names of] Gergeshites and Jebu­sites, and those other Nations who were vanqui­shed by Jesus the Son of Nave. And he sup­poses this thing to be Or, E­very way. unquestionably true, from a certain Inscription cut in Phoenician Let­ters, which he affirms that he himself read. This [Inscription he says,] is to be seen near a Foun­tain, [Page 486] where two Columns of white Marble are erected, on which these words are cut: WE ARE THEY WHO FLIE FROM THE FACE OF THAT THIEF JESUS THE SON OF NAVE. And this was the conclusion of these transactions; Africa was again reduced to a subjection to the Romans, and paid in the Annuall Tributes, as it had usually done before. 'Tis moreover re­ported, that Justinian repaired an Hundred and fifty Cities in Africa, (some whereof were wholly ruined, and others, as to their greatest part) and, that he made them most transcen­dently more magnificent than they had been be­fore, [beautifying them] with an eximious splendidness, with Ornaments, and with Stru­ctures as well private as publick; with the In­closures of walls also, and with other vast Edi­fices, wherewith Cities are both usually adorned, and also [wherein] the Deity is appeased; with plenty of waters likewise, as well for use, as ornament; some of which waters were first brought into them by him, the Cities having not had them before; and others he reduced to their ancient course and order.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning Or, Theuderi­chus. Theodoricus the Goth and what hapned at Rome under him till the times of Justinian, and, that Rome was again reduced to a Subjection to the Romans, after Vitiges had fled out of that City.

I come now to declare the affairs which were transa [...]d in Italy, and these Procopius the Rhetorician has with great accuracy ralated till his own times. After Theodoricus, as it has Book 3. Chap. 27. already been declared by me, had taken Rome, (having wholly vanquished Odoacer who tyran­nized therein;) and had Governed the Roman Empire as long as he lived; Amalasuntha, who had been his Wife, undertook the Gardian­ship. Tutelage of Athalari­cus. Atalarichus Son to them both, and Governed the Empire; she Or, She inclined ra­ther to a masculine gravity. was a woman of a Masculine Spirit, and in this manner she managed affairs. This woman first incited Justinian to a desire of a Gothick War, having sent Embassadours to him, in regard a Plot was framed against her. Fur­ther, when Atalarichus had ended his life, which he did whilst very young, Or, Theudatus. Theodatus kinsman to Theodoricus takes upon himself the administration of the Western Empire. Who, when Justinian had sent Belisarius into the Western parts, relinquished his Government; (for being a person addicted rather to Books and Study, he was wholly unexperienced in Military affairs;) Vitiges a most warlike person being in the in­terim Commander in chief of the Western For­ces. From the History of the same Procopius we may extract this also, that when Belisarius arrived in Italy, Vitiges left Rome; and, that Beli­sarius with his Army about him made his approach to Rome. Whom the Romans received most wil­lingly, and opened their Gates to him; that ha­ving been chiefly effected by Silverius then Pon­tif of that City; who on this account had sent Fidelis a person that had been Assessour to Ata­larichus. Thus the City was delivered up to Belisarius without an Engagement: and Rome was again brought to a subjection to the Romans, after [the space of] Sixty years, on the ninth of the month Apellaeus which the Latines term December, when Justinian was in the eleventh year of his Empire. The same Procopius relates also, that when the Goths besieged Rome, Beli­sarius having a suspicion that Silverius Pontif of that City would betray it, † condemned him to * Or, Car­ried him a­way into Greece. a Deportation into Achaia; and made Vigilius Pontif in his stead.

CHAP. XX. How those [people] termed The Eruli turned Christians in the times of Justinian.

ABout these very times, as the same Procopius relates, The Concer­ning the conversion of these people to the Faith of Christ, Procopius speaks in book 1. of his Go­thicks, and Theophanes in his Chronicon, pag. 149. These people, in regard they lived near the Lake Maeotis, in Fenny places, were from thence first termed Eluri. For [...] in Greek signifies Fens, or Fennish places. Jordanes in his book de Rebus Ge [...]icis, writes thus concerning The Heruli: Nam praedicta Gens, Ablabio Historico referente, For the foresaid Nation, as Ablabius the Historian relates, dwelling near the Lakes of Maeotis, in Fennish places, which the Greeks term Ele, were named Eluri. The Authour of the Etymologicon says the same in the word [...]. Helmoldus in his Chronicon of the Slavi, chap. 2, affirms that these Heruli were a Slavick Nation, who dwelt between Albia and Odora, and reach't a great way out to the South in a long Bay; who also, as he writes, were by another name termed Heveldi. Vales. Eruli (who long before had passed the River Danube, at such time as Anastasius Governed the Roman Empire;) ha­ving been kindly received by Justinian who en­riched them with great wealth, by a generall consent turned all Christians, and changed their Pristine way of living for a more civilized and quieter course of life.

CHAP. XXI. That Belisarius recovered [the City] Rome, which had been again taken by the Goths.

AFter this, Procopius sets forth Belisarius's Return to Constantinople, and how he car­ried Vitiges along with him, together with the Spoyls taken out of Rome; also, Totila's seizure of the Roman Empire, and how Rome was again reduced under the Goths Dominion; and, that Belisarius arriving the second time in Italy, re­covered Rome again. And how, when the Per­sian War broke out, Belisarius was again sent for to Constantinople by the Emperour.

CHAP. XXII. That the Abasgi turned Christians also in those times.

THe same [Writer] Relates, that about these very times the Abasgi became more civilized, and embraced the Christian Religion; and, that the Emperour Justinian sent one of the Eunuchs belonging to his Court, by descent an Abasgian, his name Euphrata, amongst the Abas­gians, to declare to them, that no one in that Nation should in future have his Genitalls cut off with an Iron, nor, that a force should be put upon Nature. For, out of these the Ser­vants of the Imperial Bed-Chamber were for the most part chosen, whom they usually term Eunuchs. Then also Justinian built a Church [in honour] of The Theotocos amongst the Abasgi, and constituted Priests amongst them. And from thence forward [The Abasgi] lear­ned [Page 487] Or, The Opinions. The Dogmata of the Christians with the greatest accuracy imaginable.

CHAP. XXIII. That the Inhabitants of Tanais also at that time embraced the Christian Religion; and con­cerning the Earthquakes which hapned in Greece and Achaia.

IT is related by the same Writer, that the Inha­bitants of Tanais (those who dwell in this Region, term that Stream [which runs] out of the Lake Maeotis, untill [it falls] into the Euxine Sea, Tanais;) earnestly entreated Ju­stinian to send a Bishop to them; and, that Ju­stinian [...]. I doubt not but Evagrius wrote [...], and that Justinian brought their petition to effect. For thus Nicephorus words it, book 17, chap. 13. Vales. brought their Peti­tion to effect, and most wil­lingly sent a Prelate amongst them. The same Authour with much elegancy records, that in the times of Justi­nian, the Goths made an ir­ruption out of Maeotis into the Or, Land of the Ro­mans. Roman Pale; [he declares] also, that there hapned dreadfull Earthquakes in Greece, Boeotia, and Achaia, and, that the places about The Crisaean Bay were shaken, and, that innumerable other Towns and Cities were totally ruined. That there hapned likewise Chasms of the Earth in many places: and, that in some places the Ground closed and came together again: but, that in others, [those Chasms] continued.

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning Narses a Master of the Milice, and his Piety.

Procopius. HE relates likewise Narses's Or, Com­mand of the Army. Expedition, who was sent into Italy by Justinian; and in what manner he Conquered Totila, and af­ter him Teia; and how Rome was taken the Fifth time. Further, those persons who had an in­timacy with Narses do re­port, We have rendred this Clause, as far as the next full point, ac­cording as we found it pointed in Robert Stephens's Edition; the punctation in Valesius's E­dition (as the Learned Reader will easily observe,) puts a sense upon these words far different from that we have expressed in our Version. that he appeased the Deity with supplications and other [offices of] Piety [in such a manner,] pay­ing so due a veneration thereto, that even The Vir­gin and Theotocos her self manifestly declared to him the time when he ought to Engage: and that he should not give the On­set, before he had received the Signall from [...]; that is, Coe­litùs, from Heaven, as Grynaeus and Curte­rius have rendred it. Valesius translates it, ab illâ, from her, to wit, The Virgin Mary. thence. Many other actions, which deserve great commendation, were performed by Nar­ses; for he vanquished Buselinus and Sind­valdus, and reduced many [Regions,] as far as the Ocean, [to the Roman Empire.] Which [Actions] Agathias the Rhetorician has re­corded, but as yet they are not come to our hands.

CHAP. XXV. That Chosroes, Stimulated with Envy at the pros­perous successes of Justinian, broke out into a War against the Romans, and ruined many Roman Cities, amongst which [he destroyed] Antioch The Great also.

THe same Procopius has related these mat­ters also, how Chosroes, after he had re­ceived information that affairs both in Africa and Italy had succeeded so fortunately to the Roman Empire, was excessively inflamed with envy: and objected some things against the Roman Empire, affirming that the League was violated [by them,] and that they had broken the Peace which had been agreed on [be­tween the two Empires.] And, that in the first place Justinian dispatch't away Embassa­dours to Chosroes, who might perswade him not to break that Interminate Peace [which had been made] between them, nor to violate the Articles of agreement, but rather that the mat­ters in controversie might be inquired into, and composed in an amicable manner. But he says, that Chosroes, corroded by envy which stimula­ted him within, would accept of none of those rationall proposalls; but with a numerous Ar­my made an Invasion into the Roman Terri­tories, in the Thirteenth year of Justinian's Go­verning the Roman Empire. [The same Pro­copius] relates likewise, how Chosroes laid Siege to and destroyed [...] Sura a City scituate on the Banks of The Euphrates, [with the Inhabitants whereof] he seemingly made some Articles of agreement, but dealt with them far otherwise, [perpetrating] all the most Impious and Ne­farious Facts [amongst them,] having not in the least heeded the Articles of agreement; and was made Master of that City by Treachery rather than his Or, War. Arms. Also, how he burnt Beroea; and after that [made] an Attack upon Antioch, Ephraemius being then Bishop of that City, who had left it, [...]. I have cor­rected this place from the Telle­rian Manuscript, and from Nicepho­rus, in which Authour 'tis written thus: [...], in regard nothing of what he did succeeded according to his design, or, desire. See Pro­copius Book 2. Perfic. where he says, that Ephraemius the Bishop was falsely accused for having a design to deliver up Antioch to the Persians; and, that soon af­ter he fled into Cilicia, being a­fraid of the Irruption of the Persians. But concerning the Or­naments given by Ephraemius to the Church of the Antiochians, there is not a word extant in Procopius. Vales. in regard nothing of what he did, succeeded according to his design. Which [Pre­late] is reported to have preserved the Church and all [the Edifices] about it, ha­ving adorned [the Church] with sacred Gifts, [on this design,] that they might be the price of its Redemption. Moreover, [the same Wri­ter] also gives a most pa­theticall and lively descri­ption of the Siege of An­tioch, laid to it by Chos­roes, and how Chosroes [be­coming master of it] rui­ned and destroyed all things with Fire and Sword. Also, how Chosroes. he went to Seleucia a neighbouring City [to Antioch,] then to the Suburb Daphne; and after that to Apamea, Thomas then Governing the Chair of that Church, a person [admirable and] most powerfull both in words and deeds. This Prelate wisely refused not to be a Spectatour, together with Chosroes, of Or, Equestrian Games. The Cirque-Sports in the Hip­podrome, (though that was a thing contrary to the usage of the Church;) [it being his desire] by all imaginable ways to gratifie Chosroes, and [Page 488] to mitigate his mind. Whom Chosroes asked, whether he should be willing to see him at his own City. And they say, that Thomas answe­red really and according to the true Sentiment of his own mind, that he would not willingly see Chosroes in his own City. Which answer, as 'tis reported, Chosroes wondred at, and deserved­ly admired this man [for the love he bore] to Truth.

CHAP. XXVI. Concerning the Miracle of the Pretious and Vi­vifick wood of the Cross, which hapned at A­pamia.

BUt, in regard I am fallen upon this relation, I will also declare a Miracle that hapned At Apa­mia. there, which deserves to be inserted into our present History. When the Inhabitants of A­pamia were informed that Antioch had been burnt [by Chosroes,] they earnestly besought the fore­mentioned Thomas, to bring forth and expose to view (though contrary to the usuall cu­stome,) the Salutary and Vivifick wood of the Cross, to the end they might have the last sight of, and kiss the only Salvation of men, and might take the Or, Voy­age-provi­sion. Viaticum of another life, the pretious Cross being their Convoy to a better allotment. Which thing Thomas performed, and brought forth the Vivifick wood, having appointed some set days for its being exposed to view, to the end that all the neighbourhood might come to­gether thither, and enjoy the safety [arising] from thence. Together therefore with others, Or, Those who brought me to the Light. my Parents also went thither, leading me along with them who then Or, Fre­quented an inferiour Schoolma­ster. went to [the School of] a Grammar master. Wherefore at such time as we were vouchsafed to reverence and kiss the pre­tious Cross, Thomas lifting up both his hands, shewed the wood of the Cross [which was] the abolition of the Old Curse, and went all a­bout the sacred Church, as 'twas the usage on solemn and set days of Or, Ado­rations. veneration. But, as Thomas moved up and down, there followed him a vast flame of a shining, not of a burning fire, in so much that every place, where he stood to shew the pretious Cross, seemed to be all on a flame. And this hapned not once, or twice, but oftner, whilst the Bishop went round all that place, and whilst the people there assembled earnestly entreated Thomas that that might be done. Which thing predicted that safety which hapned to the Apamensians. A picture there­fore was hung up at the Roof of the Church, which [...]. 'Tis doubtfull, what [...] should signifie here, whether a picture, and an image of that flame which had followed the wood of the Cross; or, a Writing. Musculus took it for a Writing, or, an Inscription; as did also Christophorson, who renders it thus: Ob quam causam imago in testudine Sanctuarii statuta fuit, quae Inscriptione in Basi incisâ, hoc miraculum illis qui ejusdem ignari erant, commonstravit; For which reason an image was set up in the Roof of the Sanctuary, which by an Inscription cut upon its Basis, might show this Miracle to those who were ignorant of it. But this Rendition is intollerable. For first, a Basis is, not a term properly used about a Painted Picture, but concer­ning a Statue only. Besides, if the Image were in the Roof, where, I pray, was the Basis set. My Sentiment is, that the Image [or, representation] of this Miracle was Painted in the Arched Roof of the Church, whereon perhaps some Verses were inscribed, which might record this Miracle. Such like Inscriptions are extant in [...]ruther's Thesaurus, and in Paulinus's Epistles. Vales. by its representation might declare these things to those who know them not. Which [picture] was preserved intire untill the incursion of In Nice­phorus and the Telle­rian Manu­script the reading is [...], Ardaar­manes. Concer­ning this Adaarma­nes Ca­ptain of the Persians, and his ir­ruption into Syria, our Evagrius speaks in his sixth book. Vales. In Robert Stephens he is called Adearmanes. Adaarmanes and the Per­sians. At which time it was burnt, together with Gods holy Church and that whole City. And these things hapned thus. But Chosroes at his going away violated his Articles of agree­ment, (for he had agreed to some things then also;) and did the quite contrary; which [be­haviour] was agreeable indeed to his unstable and inconstant humour, but does in no wise befit a man of sense and reason, much less a King, Or, Who makes an account of his &c. who has a value for his Articles of a­greement.

CHAP. XXVII. Concerning Chosroes's Expedition against E­dessa.

THe same Procopius records what has been re­lated by the Ancients concerning Edessa and Agbarus, and how Christ [...]. I agree with Christophorson and Sr Henry Savill, who instead of [...], sent away, have mended it thus, [...], wrote. More­over, the words which immediately follow, (to wit, these, [...], &c,) are corrupted also. In the Florentine Manu­script 'tis thus worded, [...], &c. But the place as yet is not without fault. I write thus therefore: [...], Further also, how in [or, at] another incursion Chosroes resolved upon a Siege of the Edessens. Vales. wrote to Agbarus. Further also, how in another Incursion Chosroes resolved upon a Siege of the Edessens, supposing he should Or, provo false. enervate what had been divulged by the Faithfull, [to wit,] that Edessa should never be subdued by Or, E­nemies. an Enemy. Which thing is not indeed extant in that Letter sent from Christ our God to Agbarus, [...]. I had rather write, [...], by the stu­dious. Vales. as may be ga­thered by the studious from what has been re­lated by Eusebius Pamphilus, who has inserted that Letter word for word [into his Book 1. Chap. 13. Hi­story.] Nevertheless, 'tis both divulged and be­lieved amongst the Faithfull, [...]. This whole place is corrupted, as 'tis ap­parent to the Readers. Sr Henry Savill at the margin of his Copy hath noted, that perhaps it should be [...], demonstrated, or, de­clared: which emendation Nice­phorus confirms, in chap. 16, book 17. where he writes out this place of Evagrius thus; [...]: that is, as Langus tenders it, Res ipsa quoque praedictionis ejus fidem, quòd vera maximè sit & sibi ipsi consentiens, confirmavit; the thing it self also confirmed the authority [or, faith] of that prediction, that it might be very true and agreeable to it self. My Sentiment therefore is, that this whole clause of Eva­grius must be written thus: [...], and the event it self declared the Truth, Faith bringing the pre­diction to effect. Vales. and the Event it self de­clared the Truth, Faith brin­ging the Prediction to effect. For, after Chosroes had made an Attack against the City, and had severall ways attem­pted to break into it, and had raised so vast a Rampire, that in heighth it surmoun­ted the City-walls; and had made use of infinite other Engines; [after all this, I say] he retreated without effecting his design. But I will give a particular Nar­rative of what was done. Chosroes ordered the Forces he had about him, to bring together a vast quantity of wood of any sort of Trees they could light on, in order to a Siege. This [wood] having no sooner been orde­red to be brought together than 'twas effected, he laid it round in the form of a circle, cast Earth into the midst of it, and advanced it di­rectly towards the City. Building in this man­ner [Page 489] Or, By little and little. by degrees upon the wood and on the earth, and making nearer approaches to the City, he raised it to so vast a height, and made it surmount the City-wall so far, that from an higher place he could throw darts against those who in defence of the City endangered themselves on the wall. The Besieged therefore, when they saw the Rampire (like a Mountain) coming near and approaching the City, and were in ex­pectation that the Enemy would set foot into the City; very early in the morning attempted to work a Mine directly opposite to the Ram­pire which by the Romans is termed an See Pro­copius (out of whom Evagrius borrowed this,) book 2. Persic. pag. 83. In what manner these Aggesta were built by the Romans, Apollodorus informs us incomparably well in his Mechanicks. Which Book, being lately done into Latine by me, by Gods assistance I will e're long publish, together with some other Writers of the same subject. Vales. Ag­gesta; and put fire therein, to the end that, the wood being consumed by the flame, the Rampire of Earth might fall to the Ground. And that work was brought to perfection. But, after they had kindled the fire, Or, They mist of their design. their project proved unsuccesfull, in regard the fire had not a passage, whereby the air being let in, it might Or, Em­brace the matter. catch hold of the heap of wood. Being reduced therefore Or, To the greatest difficulty, or, highest pitch of desperation. to the greatest Non-plus imaginable, they bring forth This place of Evagrius is cited in the Seventh Occumeni­call Synod, pag. 613; and like­wise by Barlaam in his book Con­tra Latinos. Further, concerning this Image not-made-with-hands, which Christ is said to have sent to Agbarus, see Gretser in his book De Imaginibus non Manufactis. But, it is to be noted, that no mention is made of this Image transmitted by Christ to King Agbarus, either by Eusebius in the First Book of his Ecclesiastick History, or by Procopius in his Siege of the City Edessa. For these Authours relate, that a Let­ter only was sent by Christ to Agbarus, by the Apostle Thad­daeus. Vales. that Image framed by God, which the hands of men had not made; but Christ [our] God had sent it to Agbarus, in regard [Agbarus] desired to see him. Having carried this most holy Image therefore into the Mine which they had made, and Or, O­verwhel­med. sprin­kled it with water, they cast [some] of the same [wa­ter] upon the pile of fire and on the wood: and im­mediately (the Divine po­wer giving assistance to their Faith who had done this,) what had before been impossible to them, was brought to effect. For the wood forthwith received the flame, and being in the twinkling of an eye reduced to coals, transmitted it to the wood which lay above, the fire preying all about upon all things. Now the Besieged, when they saw the smoak brea­king out above, made use of this device. They brought forth little [...]. In Ro­bert Ste­phens's E­dition 'tis [...]. Lexicogra­phers have no such word. I meet with the term [...], which sig­nifies La­genam a Flagon, or Stone-bot­tle. Stone-bottles, and having stuft them with Brimstone, Tow, and other mat­ter which would readily take fire, they threw them upon that termed The Aggesta: which Bottles, (the fire kindling within them by the force of their being thrown,) raised a smoak, and thereby effected this, [to wit,] that it was not perceived that a smoak broke out of the Rampire. For all persons who were ig­norant hereof, supposed, that the smoak came out of the Bottles rather than from any other place. On the third day after this therefore, [...]. the small Tongues of Fire appeared coming forth out of the earth, and then those of the Persians who fought Or, From, upon the Rampire, were sensible what imminent danger they were in. But Chosroes, as if he resolved to make a resi­stance against the Divine power, turned the A­quaeducts which were before the City, up [...]pile of fire, and attempted to extinguish it [...] the fiery pile received the wa'er as if it had been rather Oyle, or Brimstone, or some such mat­ter as is Or, Wont to catch, Or, nourish a flame combustible, and was much more in­creased, till such time as it had destroyed the whole Rampire, and perfectly reduced the Ag­gesta to ashes. Then therefore Chosroes, disap­pointed of all his hopes, and being experimen­tally sensible, that he had gotten great disgrace by supposing he could vanquish that God wor­shipped by us; made an inglorious return into his own Territories.

CHAP. XXVIII. Concerning the Miracle which was performed at Sergiopolis.

MOreover, I will relate another thing, which was done by [the same] Chosroes at the City Sergiopolis; in regard 'tis [a passage] worthy to be recorded, and in reality deserves to be consigned to eternall memory. For Chos­roes came to this City also, and attempted to take it by a Siege. After therefore he had made an Attacque against its walls, Or, There was a con­ference on both sides about, &c. the Inhabitants came to a Parley with him about a preserva­tion of the City. And it is agreed [at length on both sides,] that the sacred Treasure and Gifts [which had been dedicated to the Church] should be the Ransome of the City; amongst which [gifts] was that Concerning this Golden Cross which Chosroes had ta­ken out of the Church of the Sergiopolites for the price of its Redemption, Theophylactus Simo­catta speaks in the Fifth Book of his History, Chap. 13. Where al­so Chosroes, Grandchild [or, Nephew] to this Chosroes here mentioned by Evagrius, does in express words attest, that that Cross in honour of the Martyr Sergius had been sent by the Emperour Justinian to Sergiopo­lis, and was placed in the Church of St Sergius. Vales. Cross also which had been sent thither by Justinianus and Theodora. After these things had been brought to Chosroes, he asked the Priest and those Persians who had been sent with him [into the City on that account,] whether there were any thing remaining. Then a certain person of those not accustomed to speak the truth, returned answer to Chosroes, that there were o­ther sacred Gifts of great value, which were concealed by the Citizens who were very few in number. Now, of [the sacred Treasure] which was brought out [of the City to Chos­roes,] nothing of value had been left behind consisting either of Gold or Silver, but of ano­ther sort of matter more pretious, and which was wholly dedicated to God; to wit, the most holy Reliques of the Victorious Martyr Sergius, which lay in a certain oblong Chest covered over with Silver. When Chosroes, per­swaded hereby, had sent his whole Army to the City, on a sudden, round the whole Circuit [of the City walls] there appeared an innumerable multitude of Souldiers, who with Bucklers de­fended the City. Which [Apparition] those sent by Chosroes having beheld, returned, and with admiration declared both their number, and their kind of Armour. But Chosroes, after on a second enquiry he understood that very few persons were left in the City, and those either very aged or very young, the men of strength and vigour being all cut off and destroyed; found that the Martyr was the Authour of this Miracle. And being [on this account] put into a fear, and having admired the Faith of the Christians, he returned into his own King­dom. [Page 490] In the excellent Florentine. Manuscript these words are written in the margin here: [...]; that is, [Note that Evagrius] speaks that concerning Chosroe, which no other Historian has men­tioned: to wit, that about the close of his Life he received the Sacra­ment of Baptism. Vales. They say also, that at the close of his Life he was vouchsafed [the Laver of] Divine Regeneration.

CHAP. XXIX. Concerning the Pestilentiall Distemper.

MOreover, I will give a Narrative of that [Pestilentiall] Distemper which brake out [in these times,] and which has raged now these Two and fifty years, ( [...]. A Postpositive Article seems necessary to be added, in this manner; [...], a thing which is never related to have hapned before. Which Emendation Nicephorus confirms book 17. chap. 17; who hath worded this place of Evagrius thus; [...], which thing never was heard of, that it [a Plague] should invade the earth for the space of two and fifty years. Indeed, no Plague is recorded to have raged so long. This Pestilence is said to have begun on the year after Basilius's Con­sulate, which was the year of Christ 543, as 'tis attested by Victor Thunonensis in his Chronicon, and by the Continuer of Marcellinus Comes's Chronicon. Victor Thunonensis writes thus concerning this Plague: Horum exordia malorum general [...] orbis Terrarum morta­litas sequitur, &c. A generall Mortality of the world follows the be­ginnings of these mischiefs, and the greater part of the people is killed by a Persecution of their Groynes. The words of Marcellinus's Continuer run thus: Indictione 6. Anno Secundo post Consulatum Basilii, in the sixth Indiction, on the Second year after Basilius's Consulate, a great Mortality destroys Italy, the East and Illyricum having in the same manner been already consumed. Victor does indeed seem to agree with Mar­cellinus, relating that that Plague began on the second year after Ba­silius's Consulate, as Marcellinus, records. But, in reality he dissents in the space of one year. For, the second year after Basilius's Con­sulate, in Victor Tunonensis is the same with the first year after Basilius's Consulate, to wit, the year of Christ 542. For, Victor Thunonensis does always term that year immediately following the Consulate of any Con­sul, the second year, not the first; as may be proved by many instances. Further, our Evagrius seems to follow Victor Thunonensis's opinion. For Evagrius says, that that Pestilence began two years after Antioch had been taken by the Persians. Now, Antioch was won by the Per­sians when Justinus Junior was Consul, on the year of our Lords Na­tivity 540, as Marcellinus and Marius relate in their Chronicles. But Baronius will have this Plague to have begun on the year of Christ 544. Vales. a thing which is never related to have hapned before,) and has in a manner destroyed the whole Earth. For, two years after Antioch had been taken by the Persians, a Pestilentiall disease began to rage, in some things like to that recorded by See Thu­cydides's Hist. book 2. pag. 129, &c. Edit. Fran­cosurt. 1594. Thu­cydides, in others far different. And it took its beginning from Aethiopia, as 'twas then re­ported: but by turns it has overrun the whole world; this Distemper having, I think, left no Mortalls untouch't. Some Cities were so sorely oppressed [with this Calamity,] that they be­came wholly empty of Inhabitants: but in other places where the Distemper arrived, its chastise­ment was more light. Nor did [this Pesti­lence] rage at any certain and set season [of the year;] nor, after it had raged, did it in a like manner recede. But, it seized some places at the beginning of Winter, others in the Spring time, [...]. I think it should be worded thus, [...], o­thers in Summer, as the rea­ding is in Niceph. book 17. chap. 18. Vales. others in Summer; again, othersome during the procedure of the Autumn. And, in some Cities, when it had touched some parts, it abstained [from infecting] the other parts thereof. And you might frequently see in a City not infected, some Families utterly de­stroyed: But in other places, one or two Fa­milies having been consumed, the rest of the City in future continued untouch't by the Distem­per. But, after a more accurate inspection in­to the matter, we found, that those Families which had continued untouch't, were on the year following the only ones which suffered [by this Distemper.] But, that which was the most wonderfull thing of all, was this, that if it hap­ned that the Inhabitants of those Cities infected, removed to any other place where this Distem­per raged not, they were the only persons seized with these Diseases, who [coming] out of in­fected Cities, made their Residence in Cities un­infected. And these things hapned frequently, both in Cities and in other places, at the periods of those Cycles termed the Indictions. But, most especially [...]. I am of the same opinion with Lear­ned men, who have mended it [...], in [or, on] the second year; as the rea­ding is in Nicephorus, So, 'tis cer­tain, Sr Henry Sa­vill hath mended it in the mar­gin of his Copy, and hath added this note, Anno Chri­sti 539, on the year of Christ 539. Sr Henry Savill thought indeed, that by these words Evagrius meant, that that Plague had raged chiefly on the Second Indiction. But Evagrius says not that; nor, had that Plague be­gun to rage on the year of Christ 539. Evagrius therefore says this only; viz. that on the second year of each Indiction that Plague raged more sorely than 'twas wont to do at other times. Vales. on the 2d year Or, O [...] the Cycle of fifteen years. of each Indiction, almost a totall destruction befell men. In so much that I my self who write these things; (For I thought good to interweave into this History what has a relation to my self, by a fit insertion of what is Congruous at places opportune and con­venient: [I my self, I say,]) who In the excellent Florent. and Tellerian M. S. I found it written, [...], as yet frequented [the School of] a Gram­mar-Master; which is more elegant. And thus Evagrius speaks above, at chap. 26; where he writes, that he frequented the School of the Grammarians, at such time a [...] Antioch was taken by Chosroes, that is, on the year of Christ 540. Vales. In Robert Stephens the rea­ding is, [...], as yet frequenting the Gram­mer-Masters. as yet frequented [the School of] a Grammer-Ma­ster, was seised with those termed the Or, swellings in the Groyn. Bubo's, about the beginning of this [Pestilentiall] Distemper. And in those Sicknesses which raged at seve­rall times, I lost many of my Chil­dren, my Wife, and severall others of my Rela­tions, [...]: That is, Servos & Colonos, my Servants and Husband-men. For [...] are Rusticks, or Tillers of Ground, who are likewise termed [...], as I have remarked at book 6, of Euseb. Eccles. Hist. chap. 40, note ( [...].) So Theophanes in his Chronicon pag. 139, speaking of Dioscorus Junior's Election; [...], says he, [...]. Where Anastasius Bibliothecarius renders it well, thus, Multitudinem Rusticorum, the mulitude of the Rusticks. Vales. my Servants also, and very many of those who lookt after and tilled my Grounds: the Circles of the Indictions dividing as 'twere the Calamities that befell me amongst themselves. At what time therefore I did write these things, being in the From this place, Evagrius's Birth may easily be found out. For, whereas he has said in the beginning of this chapter, that at such time as he wrote these things, it was the fifty second year of that Plague; and does now assert, that whilst he wrote the same things, he was in the fifty eight year of his age; it necessarily follows, that he had been born six years before the beginning of this Plague. Further, that Plague began on the year after Ba [...]ilius's Consulate, or, two years after the destruction of Antioch, as Evagrius has said above. Evagrius there­fore was born on the year of Christ 536, or 537. Vales. fifty eighth year of mine age, [...]. That is, duobus his postremis annis nondum elapsis, these two last years being not yet overpast. Which I should not have remarked, had not I perceived, that both Transla­tours have been out in the Version of this place. For Musculus renders it thus; Cùm autem ista scriberem, & annum aetatis quinquagesimum octavum agerem, & duo ista temporis spatia nondum elapsa essent, But whenas I wrote these things, and was in the fifty eighth year of my age, and those two spaces of time were not yet overpast, &c. But Christophorson translates it thus: Cùm autem ista scriberem, quinquagesimo octavo anno scilicet aetatis, non biennio antè, But when as I wrote these things, to [...] in the fifty eighth year of my age, not two years before, &c. He had [...] have said, intra hoc postremum Biennium, within these two last [...] Vales. with­in these two last years, when this Distemper had raged at Antioch now the fourth time, [Page 491] (For the These words are not to be understood so, as if four entire Indictions had passed from the beginning of this Plague, to that year where­on Evagrius wrote these things. For four entire Indictions make sixty years. But, Evagrius has said above, that at such time as he wrote these things, it was the fifty second year of that Pesti­lence. These words therefore are not meant concerning entire Indictions. For the Pestilence began to rage in the East, in the fifth Indiction, on the year after Basilius's Consulate, which was the year of Christ 542. From which if you count two and fifty years in order, it will be made the year of Christ 594. Vales. fourth Cycle [of the Indictions] hath passed from the beginning [of this cala­mitous Disease:]) besides the persons foremen­tioned, I lost my Daughter, and my Grandchild born of her. Further, this Distem­per Or, Was made up of many Dis­eases. consisted of a complication of Diseases. For, in some it began from the head, and having made the eyes bloudy, and tumified the face, it descen­ded into the throat, and sent the person seized with it from among men. In o­thers there hapned a Flix, or, Lask. loose­ness of the Belly. In other­some arose Bubo's, and thence [hapned] very high Fea­vers: and within two or three days they died, being as firm and [...]ound in body and mind as those who had been afflicted with no Distemper. Others became distracted and mad, and so ended their lives. Carbuncles also breaking out [of the body,] destroyed many men. Some per­sons having once, twice, and thrice been seized [with this Distemper,] and escaped with their lives; afterwards were infected [with it] a­gain, and died. The ways likwise of contra­cting this Distemper were different and mani­fold, and such as were Or, Sur­passing [all] ac­count. unaccountable. For some died, meerly by conversing and living to­gether [in the same house:] others, by a touch only: othersome, by entring into an house: again, others [contracted the Infection] in the Forum. Some having fied out of infected Cities, continued uninfected themselves, but im­parted the Disease to those who were not in­fected. Others contracted no Distemper at all, although they had lived with many in­fected persons, and had touched not only per­sons Distempered, but those likewise who were dead. Othersome (although they made it their business to destroy themselves, because of the loss of their Children or Families; and on this ac­count especially were continually conversant with the infected; nevertheless, as if the Disease made a resistance against their will,) were in no wise seized with it. This Pestilentiall Distemper there­fore has raged Two and fifty years, as I have said, till this present time; having out-done all [Plagues] which [ever hapned] before. [...]. In the Flo­rentine and Tellerian Manu­scripts, 'tis written, [...], For Philo­stratus admires; which reading nevertheless I approve not of. But, who this Philostratus should be concerning whom Evagrius speaks, and where he should have written this, 'tis uncertain. Philostratus an Athenian Historian is mentioned by Georgius Syn­cellus in his Chronicon, on the first year of the Emperour Aurelian. Vales. But Philostratus admires, because in his time a Plague raged Fifteen years. Now, the Events after this yet to come, are uncertain, in regard they pro­ceed thither, whither it shall seem well pleasing to God, who certainly knows both the Causes [of things,] and also whither they tend. But I will return to that place, from whence I have digressed, and will give a Narrative of the rest of Justinian's Transactions.

CHAP. XXX. Concerning [...] [...] to [...]e of mo­ney, and i [...] ­sati [...]ble­ness. Justinian's insatiable Avarice.

JUstinian was indeed [a person,] of an insa­tiable Avarice, and [...]o Or, [...] ­seemly. extravagant a Lover of what was another's, that for Gold he sold his whole Empire, to those who governed the Pro­vinces, to the Collectors of the Tributes, and to a­ny persons else who for no cause at all are Or, De­sirous. wont to frame Plots against men. Besides, Or, Ha­ving colou­red over inexcusable Praetexts. by pat­ching Calumnies together, he punished many and [almost] innumerable persons, whose possessions were great, with the loss of their whole E­states. Further, if a woman who got her lively­hood by the prostitution of her body, had Or, For­ged any fa­miliarity or mixture; that is, an act of un­cleanness. false­ly objected a familiarity or mixture against any one, out of her desire to procure what he had; immediately all the Laws were abolished and made null, and, provided she had made Justinian partaker of her Or, Ab­surd. filthy gain, she might remove all the riches of the person calumniated to her own house. Nevertheless, the same Emperour was profuse in his expending money: in so much that he erected many holy [...]. St Henry Sa­vel has ex­punged the particle [...] out of his Copy. But I am of opinion it is to be re­tained here, pro­vided the words be only transposed, in this manner; [...], in so much that he erected many holy and magnificent Churches every where. Vales. and magnificent Churches every where; and other pious Houses for the taking care of men and women, as well young as old, and of those disquieted with Va­rious diseases: and he allotted vast Revenues, out of the Income whereof these things might be done. He likewise did infinite other pious [Acts,] and such as are well pleasing to God, provided the doers thereof perform [those works] with such Goods as are their own, and offer their pure Actions, as a sacrifice, unto God.

CHAP. XXXI. Concerning the Great Church of Saint Sophia, and [that] of The holy Apostles.

FUrther, [the same Emperour] erected not only many other Churches at Constantinople of a gracefull composure, [in honour] to God and [his] Saints: but he also built that great and incomparable Work, [the like whereto] is not to be found any where on record, [to wit,] [...], that most spatious Temple of the Church. that most spacious Church of Saint Sophia, [a Stru­cture] beautifull and emi­nent, and which exceeds the possibilty of a description. Nevertheless, as far as I am able, I will attempt to de­scribe this Church. [...], the Temple of the Sanctuaries. The fabrick of the Sanctuary is a See Evagrius, Book 2. Chap. 3. note (b.) Tholus, erected upon four Arches, raised to so vast an heighth, that 'tis very difficult for those who look steadfastly from below, to see the Top of the Or, Arch. Hemisphaere: but such as stand above, though they be persons very bold and daring, will in no wise attempt to look down, and cast their eyes downwards to the Pavement. The Ar­ches are raised [...]. Some one will [...]er [...] haps ask, what this word [...], emp [...] m [...] ▪ For Eva­grius says that the Arches or Vaults a­rose empty from the Pavement to the top. In this place there­fore we are to under­stand, that [the Ar­ches] were open, up­held by no Columns. Procopius in his first Book De Aedificiis, attests this concerning two of the Arches only: [...]; but two of the Arches were raised up into the empty Air, at the rising and at the setting Sun. Vales. empty from the Pavement to the very Covering [or, Top] of the Roof. [Page 492] On the right hand and on the left, [...]. Translatours have rendred this place very badly. Musculus turns it thus: In dextro Latere ad Sinistram or­dinatae sunt in illis Columnae; In the right side on the left hand Columns are placed in them. Christophorson interprets it in this manner: In dextro latere, sunt homini ingredienti ad Laevam Columnae ordine locatae In the right side, on the left hand to a man going in, Pillars are placed in order, &c. They were led into a mistake by the omission of one Conjunction, [to wit, [...], and, which is wanting in Robert Ste­phens's Edition;] which we have put in from the Florentine M. S. in this manner; [...], On the right hand and on the left, &c. It remaines now that we explain what those words mean which follow next, viz. [...]. Evagrius himself therefore shall be his own Interpreter; who (in his first Book, chap. 14,) describing the sacred Church of Symeones the Stylite, says it consisted of four Portico's. [But, by Valesius's favour, Evagrius's words in that Chapter are these; [...], beautified with Portico's of [or, at the] four sides.] And then he adds these words: [...], &c. That is, opposite to [or, near to] those Portico's are placed Pillars; wherefore at this place, instead of [...], I would more willingly read [...]; to wit, by understanding the term [...], Arches. Vales. opposite to the [Arches] are placed Pillars, framed of Thessalick Stone: and they bear up These Hyper [...]a [Galleries, or, Upper Rooms] were designed for the women, that being therein placed apart by themselves, they might behold the solemn performances of the Divine Service, as Paulus Silentiarius relates in his description of Saint Sophia; which Authour says, that those upper rooms or Galleries, were upheld by six Columns of Thessalick Marble; whereas nevertheless, there were only two Columns below, which upheld the Galleries, pag. 110. Paulus terms them [...] the womens Hyper [...]ia; in like manner as our Evagrius does here, and also Procopius in his first Book; where he describes this Church of Saint Sophia: although Procopius rather terms them Porticus's. Vales. Hype­r [...]a, which being underpropt by other such like Columns, give a liberty to those that are de­sirous of looking down from on high upon the Mysteries. To which place also the Em­press comes on Holidays when She is present at the Sacred performance of the Mysteries. But the [Columns placed] at the East and West, By these words Evagrius sets forth the difference which was be­tween the Columns of the Church of Saint Sophia. For he says, that the Columns which were at the right and left side of the Church, that is, at the North and South, had Galleries or Chambers laid upon them, out of which the Faithfull might behold the Sacred Mysteries which were celebrated at the Altar. But the Columns which were placed at the East and West, upheld no Gallerie; but were left naked. It was my sentiment that these things were to be more largely explained, for this reason; because I perceived Translatours, especially Christophor­son, saw nothing here. Vales. are so left, that there should be nothing which might hinder the admiration of so vast a greatness. The Porticus's of the forementioned Hyper [...]a, finish so great a Work with Pillars and small Arches. Further, that the Miracle of this Structure may be plainer and more manifest, I have resolved to insert here the [number of] Feet, both of its Length, Breadth, and Heighth; as likewise the empty spaces, and heighth also of the Arches. The measure therefore is this. The length from that Or, gate. Door opposite to the Sacred [...]. He means, I suppose, the most Easternly part of the Church; which, because the whole Structure was a Tholus, must be almost Semi-circular, or, made in the form of a Shell. Concha, where the unbloudy Sa­crifice is offered, unto the [Concha] it self, is an Hundred and ninty Feet: the breadth from North to South, One hundred and fifteen Feet: the Or, depth. heighth from the Center of the He­misphaere to the Pavement, is an Hun­dred and eighty Feet. The breadth of each of the Arches is In Robert Stephens's Edition, as likewise in this of Valesius's, there is an imperfection in the Greek Text here. Curterius, Grynaeus, Chri­stophorson, and Dr Hanmer, in their Versions have inserted this num­ber, Sixty six; from what authority I know not. Musculus and Vale­sius leave a Blank here in their Versions; the latter of whom says no­thing concerning this imperfection, in his Notes. ...... Feet. The length from East to West [contains] Two hundred and sixty Feet. See, if you please, the descri­ption of Saint So­phia's Church, which Franciscus Combesisas, (a person that de­serves well of Lear­ning) has lately published, page 254. Paulus Silentiarius describes these Windows, in his Ecphrasis, (which the most Learned person Ca­rolus de Fraxino hath newly published;) and Procopius, in his first Book De Aedificiis. Vales. The breadth of their Light is Se­venty five Feet. There are besides at the West two other Porticus's very splendid, and open Courts on all sides of an admirable Beauty and Gracefullness. The same Justinian built the Church of The Divine Apostles, which will not readily give precedency to any other Temple. In which Church the Emperours Sozomen says the same in the close of his second Book of Ecclesia­stick History. But (which is to be taken notice of,) neither of them (neither Evagrius nor Sozomen,) do affirm it was peculiar to the Constantinopolitane Bishops, that they, in like manner as were the Em­perours, should be buried in the Church of the Apostles; but they speak in generall concerning the Bishops. Indeed Nicephorus (book 8. chapter the last,) does expressly attest, that not only the Constantino­politane, but other Bishops also, who for sanctity of life had excelled others, were interred there. For it often hapned, that Bishops, either sent for by the Emperours, or making a journey to the Imperial City on account of Ecclesiastick affairs, ended their lives there. Thus in the times of Anastasius, Alcissus and Gajanus died at Byzantium, and by Marcellinus in his Chronicon are recorded to have been buried in one Sepulcher. Vales. and the Pre­lates are customarily interred. But, concerning these and such things as these, let thus much every way [suffice] to have been said.

CHAP. XXXII. Concerning the Emperour [Justinian's] madness rather than kindness shown Or, To­wards [the Faction in] the blew colour. towards [the Faction] of the Venetiani.

[...]. In Robert Stephens's Edition the verb [...] is wanting, which the Geneva Printers have inserted unhappily from the conjecture of Christophorson and others. But from the Tellerian and Florentine Manuscripts I have mended this place thus, [...], &c, There was also another thing, &c: Which emendation Nicephorus confirms. For instead of these words of Evagrius, he substitutes these, [...]. Vales. THere was also another thing in Justinian, that exceeded the utmost ferity of Savage Beasts: (which whether [it proceeded] from a fault of Nature, or from sloth and fear, I cannot say; but, it took its beginning from that popular Sedition [termed] See Chap. 13. Nica.) For he seemed so Manifestly, or, openly. highly to favour the one of the Factions, I mean that [...], those of the Blew. of the Venetiani, that they committed murders up­on persons of the contrary Faction at noon day, and in the midst of the City; and not only feared not punish­ments, but also obtained re­wards: in so much that hence it hapned, that many were made Murderers. Moreover, a li­berty was indulged them of entring even into houses, of plundring the riches laid up therein, and of selling [miserable] men their own safe­ty. And if any one of the Magistrates had at­tempted to punish them, he endangered his own safety. 'Tis certain, a personage who was Comes of the East, because he had ordered some Seditious persons to be bea­ten with [...]; the term signifies originally a Nerve, or, Sinew; it imports also a Bow-string, or, Rope. Bow-strings, he himself was lead through the midst of the City and scourged with Bow-strings. Callinicus likewise Governour of Cilicia, be­cause according to the prescript of the Laws he had inflicted a capitall punishment upon two Cilician Murderers, Paulus and Faustinus, who fell upon him and would have murdered him; was Crucified, undergoing this punishment on account of his great prudence in passing judge­ment, [Page 493] and of [his observing] the Laws. Hence it hapned, that [...]. Valesius renders these words: Prasiniani, the green­coloured­faction. those of the other Faction, having fled out of their own Country, and fin­ding reception amongst no men what ever, but being driven from all places as persons most detestable; beset Travellers, and committed Ra­pines and Murders: and all places were filled with untimely deaths, Robberies, and such like horrid and impious Crimes. But sometimes Justinian. he tur­ned to the contrary opinion, and slew the Ve­netiani themselves; subjecting them to the Laws, to whom he had given permission of perpetra­ting nefarious Facts, in a Barbarick manner, throughout every City. But, to give a perti­cular Narrative of these matters, is a thing above Relation or [any compass of] time: never­theless, these things [I have mentioned] are sufficient for the making a conjecture concerning the rest.

CHAP. XXXIII. Concerning Barsanuphius the Asceta.

AT the same time, Divine persons, and such as were Workers of great Miracles, lived in various parts of the world: but such of them, whose Glory shone every where, [were thus term­ed.] Barsanuphius by extract an Egyptian: This per­son lead an unfleshly life in the flesh, in a certain Monastery near the Town Gaza: insomuch that he performed many Miracles and such as are superiour to [any] Relation. Moreover, 'tis believed that he lives at this present, shut up in his Cell; although Fifty years and upwards are now past, since he hath been seen by any person, or has pertaken of any thing that is upon the Earth. Which things Eustochius Prelate of Je­rusalem [...]. In­stead of the Verb [ [...], easily be­lieving,] which undoubtedly is corrupted, Nicephorus makes use of [...], disbelieving. And, instead of Eustochius Bishop of Jeru­salem, the same Nicephorus has Sallustius. Sallustius was indeed Bi­shop of Jerusalem in the Reign of Anastasius Augustus. But Eu­stochius governed the same Bishoprick about the beginning of Ju­stinus Junior's Empire, as Theophanes attests in his Chronicon. Vales. disbelieving, when he had ordered the Cell, wherein this man of God had inclosed himself, to be dug open, a fire brake out thence, which burnt almost all persons that were there present.

CHAP. XXXIV. Concerning the Monk Symeon, who for Christ's sake [feigned himself] a Fool.

MOreover, at [the City] Emisa there was one Symeones: this person had in such a manner divested himself of the Garment of Vain-glory, that amongst all persons who knew him not, he was accounted an Idiot, although he abounded with all manner of wisdom and divine Grace. Further, this Symeones for the most part lived alone by himself, allowing no person what ever a Liberty of knowing, either when or in what manner he Or, Ren­dred the Deity Pro­pitious. prayed to God; nor [permitting them to know] at what time he abstained from, or partook of nourishment at home. At some times being abroad in the streets, he seemed [...]. Doubtless it must be made [...], as the reading is in Nicephorus, book. 17. chap. 22. Vales. to be a person distracted, and to have nothing of prudence or wisdom in him. At other times he would go into a Victualling­house, and eat of what ever food or provision he met with, when he was hungry. But, if any person The Laicks were wont to bow their heads, not only before the Bishops and Presbyters, but before the Monks also, to receive their Blessing. An illustrious instance of which is extant in Sozomen, book 8. chap. 13. Vales. bowed his head and reverenced him, he would immediately run from that place in anger, being a­fraid that his own Virtue should be found out by the Vulgar. And in this man­ner Symeones behaved him­self in the Forum. But there were some per­sons that held a familiarity with him, with whom he usually conversed without any thing at all of dissimulation. Amongst those of his acquaintance therefore, one had a maid, who having been debauch't and got with child by some person, when she was forced by her Ma­sters to declare the man who had done this, she affirmed that Symeones had had to do with her in private, and that she was with child by him, and that she would swear that the matter was so, and (if need should require,) could mani­festly prove the thing. Which when Symeones had heard, he assented, saying that he carryed flesh about him, which was a frail and mutable thing. But when this matter came to be di­vulged amongst all persons, and Symeones (as it seemed) was obnoxious to a great ignominy, he withdrew himself, and feigned that he was ashamed. When therefore the woman's time of delivery was come, and she sate in the usuall posture of women in Travail; her Labour caused most acute, many, and intollerable pangs, and brought the woman into the imminentest dan­ger of her life. But the Birth Or, Was not in the least for­warded. fell not in the least. Symeones therefore being designedly come thither, when he was requested [by those pre­sent] to go to Prayers, he declared before them all, that the woman should not be delivered, un­till she would confess who was the Father of the child in her womb. Which when she had done, and had named the true Father, the Infant leap't forth immediately, Truth it self doing [as 'twere] the office of a Mid-wife. The same person was one time observed to go into the house of a Strumpet, and having shut to the door, he and she continued alone for some time: after this he opened the door again, and ran a­way in great hast, looking round least any one should see him, whereby he much increased the suspicion. In so much that the persons who had seen him, brought forth the woman, and enquired of her, both what the meaning of Sy­meones's coming into her was, and why he made so long a stay. The woman swore, that for three days before that, because of her want of necessaries, she had tasted of nothing but water only: but, that Symeones had brought victualls and meat and a vessell of Wine along with him, and having shut the door, had spread the Table, and bad her go to supper, and fill her self with provisions, because she had been sufficiently afflicted with want of nourishment; and she fetcht out the Remains of the victualls [which Symeones] had brought to her. Further, some small time before that Earthquake hapned which shook Phoenice Maritima, wherein Concer­ning this Earth­quake, the Authour of Antoninus Martyr's Itinerarium speaks in these words: Inde Veni­mus in par­tes Syriae, ubi requi­escit sanctus Leontius, Thence we came into the parts of Syria, where Saint Leontius rests, which City, together with other Cities, was ruined by an Earthquake in the time of the Emperour Justinian. From thence we came to Byblus, which City also, with all things that were therein, was destroyed. From thence we came into the City Triari, which was likewise ruined. Thence we came into the most splendid City Beryto, wherein there was lately a study of Learning; which was also ruined, as we were told by the Bishop of the City, to whom the persons were known, except the strangers who peri­shed there. Further, that City wherein Saint Leontius rests, is Tripoly, as I have remarked before, book 3. chap. 33. note (c.) This Earth­quake hapned on the twenty fourth year of Justinian's Reign, as Ce­drenus writes in his Chronicon, and Theophanes pag. 192. What those Au­thors relate concerning Botry a City of Phoenice, is memorable, viz that in that City there was an Haven made by that Earthquake, (there having been no Port there before,) the Promontory which was cal­led Litho-prosopon being removed. But in Theophanes 'tis written [...], instead of [...]. By which fault in the writing the Translatour was induced to render it Bostra; which is a very gross mistake; in regard Bostra is a Mid-Land-City of Arabia. The name of this City is in my judgment to be restored in Antoninus Martyr's Itinerary, at that place which I have quoted above. For, instead of the City Triari, it must be written Botry. Vales. Berytus, Byblus, and Tripolis suffered more [than other Cities, the same Symeones] holding a whip on high in his hand, scourged most of the Columns in the Forum, and cryed out, Stand, You must dance. Because therefore nothing was done unadvisedly and without design by this man, [Page 494] some persons present at his doing hereof, took particular notice of those Columns, which he passed by, and did not scourge: which Pillars fell not long after, being ruined by the Earth­quake. Moreover, he did very many other things, the Relation whereof requires a peculiar Treatise.

CHAP. XXXV. Concerning the Monk Thomas, who in like manner feigned himself a Fool.

THere was also at the same time one Thomas, who followed the same course of life in Syria Coele. This person went [one time] to Antioch, to receive the annuall stipend [allot­ted for the maintenance] of his own Monastery. [...]. Who would not ad­mire, that three Learned men should have been mistaken in the Rendition of this place? Johannes Langus translates it thus: illins enim Eccleslae cense­batur, for he was reckoned of that Church. And Musculus renders it almost in the same manner. But Christophorson has translated it worst of all, thus: ab eâ siqui­dem Ecclesiâ Presbyter fuerat ordi­natus, for he had been ordained Presbyter by that Church. These persons thought that these words [ [...], this Thomas] were here to be understood; whereas we are to understand [...], this annuall stipend, or Alms, which was wont yearly to be distributed out of the Revenues of the Church of Antioch to the Monastery of the Abbot Thomas. Vales. For [this annuall stipend] was ordered [to be paid] out of the [Revenues of the] Antiochian Church. Anastasius Steward. Oe­conomus of the same Church, (in regard the said Thomas troubled him frequently,) gave him [one day] a box on the ear with his hand. Where­at when the persons pre­sent with them were much offended, Thomas said, that neither he himself would re­ceive any thing more [of the annuall stipend,] nor should Anastasius Or, Give. pay any more. Both which things came to pass: Anastasius ending his life on the day following; and Thomas be­ing translated to an immortall life Johannes Moschus, in his Limo­narium Chap. 88, says this Thomas dy­ed in the Church of Saint Euphemia which was in the Daphnensian Suburb. Therefore the Church of the Blessed Euphemia was near the Hospitall, where­in strangers were entertained: in such manner as we now adays see Churches joyned to Hospitalls and Spi [...]les. Further, Johan­nes Moschus says, that this Thomas was the Apocrysarius, that is, the Procurator, of his own Monastery. For, those were termed Apocrysarii, who managed the affairs of Monasteries and Churches, as Justinian informs us in his sixth Novell. Vales. in the Hospitall of the Infirm at the Daphnensian Suburb, whilst he was on his Return home. They laid his dead Body in the Monuments of the Strangers. But, in regard when one or two had been buried after him, Thomas's Body was still above them, (God showing a great Mi­racle, even after his death: for [the other Bodies] were removed and thrust down;) [the Inhabitants] admire this holy person, and declare [the thing] to Moschus in the fore­cited cha­pter, calls the Bishop of Antioch, (not Ephrae­mius, but) Domninus, who suc­ceeded E­phraemius. Nicephorus Patriarch of Constan­tinople terms this person Domnus. Vales. Ephraemius. Then his Or, Most holy. Holy dead Body is removed to An­tioch with a publick Festivity and [a solemn] pomp, and is honourably buried in the Coemitary; having at its transla­tion caused the Pestilentiall distemper, which then raged at Antioch, to cease. And the In­habitants of Antioch do magnificently celebrate an anniversary Feast [in honour] of this [Tho­mas] till these our times. But let us Or, Turn our course. return to the Present, or, opposite. proposed Series of our History.

CHAP. XXXVI. Concerning the Patriarch Menas, and concerning the Miracle which hapned then to the Boy of a certain Hebrew.

ANthimus having been ejected (as I have Book 4. Chap. 11. said,) out of the Chair of the Imperial City, We have taken notice of this mistake of Evagrius's above, at chap. 11, note c;) which Ni­cephorus has also corrected. But Nicephorus himself, whilst he a­mends Evagrius's errour, has committed another. For he re­lates, that Menas was ordained by Pope Agatho; whereas he was ordained by Agapetus in the place of Anthimus, as 'tis agreed a­mongst all persons. Vales. Epiphanius succee­ded in that Episcopate: and after Epiphanius, Menas; in whose time hapned a Mi­racle highly worthy to be recorded. There is an Nicephorus Callistus (Book 17. Chap. 25.) attests, that this Cu­stome, (viz. that the Particles of the Sacred Eucharist which re­mained, were at Constantinople distributed amongst the Boyes to be eaten;) continued even in his age; and he writes, that he himself, whilst he was a Boy and was frequently conversant in the Churches, partook of those parts. Vales. an­cient usage at Constantinople, that when a great quantity of the Holy parts of the im­maculate Body of Christ our God are left▪ remaining, [some] young Boyes of their number who frequent the Grammar-Schools are sent for, that they may eat them. Which thing having hapned at that time, the Son of a Or, Glass­worker. Glass-ma­ker (as to his o­opinion a Jew,) was Or, Taken. called amongst the o­ther Boyes. This child told his Parents, who enquired the reason of his stay, what had hap­ned, and what he together with other boyes had tasted of. His Father, highly incensed and en­raged, snatcht up the boy immediately, and threw him into the Furnace of coals, wherein he usual­ly formed Glass. But his mother sought for her son, and when she could not find him, she went all about the City mourning and [...]. making great lamentation. And on the third day after standing at the door of her husband's work-house, she called her Son by his name, Or, Tea­ring her­self with weepings. weeping and tea­ring herself. The Boy knowing his mother's voice, answered her out of the Furnace. Shee breaks open the doors, goes in, and sees her Son standing in the midst of the coals, the fire having not touch't him in the least. The child, when afterwards asked in what manner he had continued un-hurt, said, that a woman cloathed in a purple garment came to him frequently, gave him water, quenched the coals that were near him, and fed him as often as he was hun­gry. Which passage having been brought to [the hearing of] Justinian, he [ordered] the boy and his mother to be [...], en­lightned. Baptised in the Laver [Page 495] of Regeneration, and [...]. Johan­nes Langus renders this place thus: Pu­erum cum matre di­vino Rege­nerationis Lavacro adhibuit, deoque dicavit; He admitted the Boy with his mother to the divine Laver of Regeneration, and Dedicated [them] to God. But Musculus and Christophorson have translated it far worse. For Musculus terms it, servavit, he kept, or, preserved. But Christo­phorson has rendred it thus: puerum cum matre Lavacro Regenera­tionis tingendos decernit, He Decreed the boy with his mother to be Baptized in the Laver of Regeneration. I doubt not but the place is thus to be rendred: Puerum simul ac matrem Regenerationis Lavacro initiatos Clero adscripsit, He enrolled the boy and his mother, having been initiated in the Laver of Regeneration, amongst the Clergy. Which must be understood in this manner, that the Emperour ordered that Boy to be reckoned amongst the Readers of the Church; but, com­manded his mother to be ordained a Deaconness. Vales. enrolled them amongst the Clergy: but his father, because he would not embrace the profession of Christianity, was [by the Emperour's order] crucified in [the Suburb] In this Suburb of the City Constantinople, punishments were here­tofore usually inflicted on Criminalls, as I have already intimated in my Notes on Book 28. Amm. Marcell. pag. 362. Whereto add a pas­sage of Saint Jerome out of his Commentaries on Matt. 26th, which runs thus: Extra urbem enim & foras portam loca sunt in quibus trun­cantur capita damnatorum, & Calvariae, id est, Decollatorum sumpsere nomen. Vales. Sycae, as designing to have murde­red his own son. These things hapned in this manner.

CHAP. XXXVII. Who were Bishops of the Greater Cities at that time.

AFter Menas, Eutychius ascends the [Epis­copall] Throne [at Constantinople.] But at Jerusalem, after Martyrius, Salustius succeeds in that See, and after him, Helias. After Helias, Petrus; and after Petrus, Macarius; [whose Election] the Emperour approved Or, Not as yet. not of; so that he was [afterwards] Ejected out of his own Chair: In­deed, ma­ny Monks severed themselves from his commu­nion, because he was thought to assert Origen's opinions. One of their number was the Abbot Elias, who was also called [...], as Johannes Moschus relates in the ninteenth Chapter of his Limonarium. And yet Theophanes, in his Chronicon pag. 205, says Macarius was ejected out of his See [...], that is, by subornation, fraud and calumny. But Theophanes relates that in a place wholly unfit and in­congruous, to wit, in the Empire of Justinus Junior. Now, Macarius was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem on the year of Christ 546; and ha­ving after two years been expelled out of his See, Eustochius was sub­stituted in his room on the year of Christ 548, as Baronius relates. Nevertheless, Victor Thunonensis differs herefrom, in his Chronicon. For he attributes eight years of Episcopate to Macarius, and says that Eustochius, was ordained whilst he survived, on the year before the Fifth Synod, that is on the year of Christ 552: and my Sentiment is, that this is truer. Vales. For they affirmed that he asserted Origen's opinions. After this [Macarius] there­fore, Eustochius succeeded in that Bishoprick. Af­ter the Ejection of Theodosius, as has been re­lated Chap. 11. above, Zoilus is declared Bi­shop of Alexandria. And when he was added [...]. The same is the reading in Nice­phorus also, book. 17. chap. 26. But I do not think it can be said in Greek, [...]. I write therefore, [...], &c. For, [...] is understood. Vales. to [the Alexandrian Bishops] his predecessours, Apollinaris undertakes [the Government of] that Chair. After Ephrae­mius, Domninus is entrusted with the [Episco­pall] Throne of Antioch.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Concerning the Fifth Holy Oecumenicall Synod, and on what account it was convened.

DUring therefore Vigilius's presidency over the Elder Rome; whilst in the first place Menas, and then Eutychius [was Patriarch] of Constantinople; and whilst Apollinaris [was Bi­shop] of Alexandria, Domninus of Amioch, and Eustochius of Jerusalem; Justinian con­venes the Fifth Synod, on this account. The Assertours of Origen's opinions abounding and growing powerfull [in the Monasteries of Pa­lestine,] and especially This New Laura is mentioned in the Life of Saint Euthymius. Concer­ning this matter Theophanes (though in an unfit place, to wit, in the Affairs of Justinas Junior,] writes thus: [...], But Eustochius removing to Jerusalem, out of that hatred he bore to Apollinaris, Agatho and Macarius, ejected those Monks of the New Laura, as Origenists: And on this account he himself was also [after­wards] ejected, and Macarius was again restored to his own Chair. Baronius thinks indeed, that Macarius was restored to his own See, a little before Eustochius's ordination; and then, that Eustochius had obtained the See of Jerusalem again, because by his Legates he was present at the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod on the year of Christ 553; as 'tis sufficiently manifest from our Evagrius, and from the Acts of the foresaid Synod. But Baronius was widely mistaken. For Macarius (Eustochius being ejected,) was restored to his own See long after the Fifth Synod, in Justinian's Thirty seventh year, on the Twenty fourth year after Basillus's Consulate; as Victor Thunonensis relates in his Chronicon, who lived in those very times, and could not be ignorant of that. Vales. in that termed The new Laura; Eustochius made it his whole busi­ness to eject them. And going to The new Laura, he drove them all out, and pursued them to a great distance, as being the common pest [of mankind.] They, dispersed into severall places, associated many persons to their own party. Theodorus surnamed Ascidas (Bishop of Caesarea the Head-City of the Province Cappadocia; [a Prelate] resident with Justinian, faithfull to him, and of whom the Emperour made great use;) undertook the Patronage of these [Monks.] Upon Theo­dorus's his making a disturbance therefore at the [Imperial] Pallace, and terming [Eusto­chius's] Fact the Or, All impiety. highest impiety and wicked­ness; Ruphus Abbot of Theodosius's Monastery, and Cyrillus Scythopo­litanus has composed an illu­strous E­logy of this Conon, in the Life of Saint Saba, about the end, in these words. Qui Cassia­nus cùm de­cimum men­sem impl [...]s­set in ad­ministrati­one, &c. Which Cassianus, when he had compleated his tenth month in his Administration, departed out of this life; after which the Monks commit the Praesecture to Conon. They command, but God, I suppose, moved the minds of the Monks to this. Now, he was a person highly eminent for true Sentiments, all manner of Virtue, and good Actions: who also made use of great care and diligence in his Prefecture. For he both re­collected those Fathers which had departed from thence, being ejected by the Origenists; and likewise erected and as it were renewed the Laura, which by those frequent Tumults and Wars of Hereticks, was now brought to its knees. Johannes Moschus speaks of the same Conon Governour of Saint Saba's Laura, in chap. 42; where he intimates, that he was an acquaintance of Eustochius's Bishop of Jerusalem. Vales. Conon [Abbot] of the [Monastery] of Saba (persons of the chiefest note Or, [a­mongst those] of the Soli­tude. amongst the Monasticks, both for their own worth, and on account of the Monasteries over which they pre­sided;) are sent to the Imperial City by Eustochius. They were accompanied with others also, not much inferiour to them in dignity. And these men resolved to debate con­cerning Origen primarily, and concerning Eva­grius and Didymus. But Theodorus the Cappa­docian, desirous of diverting them to another matter, [...], superinduces the Cause of Theodorus. Liberatus relates the same in his Breviary, chap. 24. Yet Libcratus says nothing concerning Rufus and Conon the Abbots sent by Eusto­chius to Constantinople. On the other hand Evagrius makes no men­tion of that condemnation of Origen, which had been made by the Em­perour Justinian by the endeavour of Pelagius Apochrysiarius of the Ro­man See; to which condemnation all the Patriarchs had subscribed, to wit, Zoilus of Alexandria, Ephraemius of Antioch, Petrus of Jeru­salem; as Liberatus writes in the foregoing chapter: now, that hapned on the year of Christ 538, as Baronius relates. But that Embassie of Conon, Rusus, and the other Palestine Monks, was sent by Eustochius to Constantinople on the year of Christ 551. For on that year Apol­linaris was put into the place of Zoilus Bishop of Alexandria, as Ba­ronius affirms. But Eustochius, out of his hatred chiefly to Apollinaris Bishop of Alexandria, ejected the Monks of the Now Laura out of their Monasterie, as being Origenists; agreeable to what we have related above out of Theophanes. Vales. proposes to be debated the Cause of Theodorus [Bishop] of Mopsuestia, and that [Page 496] of Theodoret and Ibas: the All-good God ha­ving excellently well disposed the whole matter so, that whatever was profane both on the one and on the other side might be wholly expelled. The first Question therefore having been pro­posed, whether it were lawfull to Anathematize the dead; Eutychius who was then present, (a person incomparably well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, who during Menas's Life was not very eminent; for he was then but [...]. That is, was Apo­crisiarius to the Bishop of Amasia. For as well the Patri­archs, as the Bishops of the grea­ter Chur­ches, had their Apo­crisiarii or Responsa­les, who managed Ecclesia­stick affairs in the Em­perour's Pallace. Which thing had been in use from the times of Constan­tine the Great, as Hincmarus tells us in Epist. 14. Ad Proce­res Regni. Monaste­ries had likewise their Apo­crisiarii in the Impe­rial City, who performed the same Office; as I have abserved above. There is mention of these Apocrisiarii in Justinian's Sixth Novell. See more in Pithoeus's Glossary ad Novellas Juliani Antecessoris, and in Rosueydus's O [...]omasticon ad Vitas Patrum. Vales. Apocri­siarius to the Bishop of Amasia;) being not only wiser, but also looking with contempt upon those convened, said in express words, that that question need not be debated: in regard King Josias did not only heretofore slay the living Priests of Daemons, but also dug open the Se­pulchers of those who had been dead long before. All persons that were present look't upon these [words of Eutychius's] to be most appositely spoken. Which [saying of his] when Justi­nian was acquainted with, he prefer­red Euty­chius. him to the Chair of the Im­perial City, on the death of Menas which hapned soon after. Further, Vigilius [...]. Johannes Langus understood these words concerning Eutychius's Ordination. For he has rendred them thus: [see Niceph. book 17, chap. 27.] Porro Vigilius etiamsi ei Scripto interveniente, cum Eutychio conveniret; assidere tamen illi no­luit; Further, although Vigilius agreed with Eutychius, approaching [or, interceding with] him by a Letter; yet he would not sit together with him. But this Rendition is contrary to the meaning of Eva­grius, and of Nicephorus himself. For Evagrius says only this; that Vigilius gave his consent indeed to those matters which were transacted in the Synod; but would not be present at it. And the same thing is confirmed by the Acts of the Fifth Constantinopolitan Synod, pag. 112. From which Acts we are informed, that Pope Vigilius who was then at Constantinople (although he had been frequently asked, both by the Emperour Justinian, and also by all the Bishops convened in that City, that he would come to the Councill, and had himself promised that by his Letter; yet) would never come to the Synod. Further, that writing, whereby Eva­grius says Vgilius had consented to the determination of the Synod, is nothing else but Vigilius's Constitution, which Baronius has pub­lished at the year of Christ 553; or else, the Letter of Pope Vi­gilius, which Petrus de Marca first set forth in Greek, together with a most Learned dissertation, which it would be worth while to read. Vales. gave his consent by his Letters, but refused to be pre­sent at the Synod. The Synod therefore being convened, when [the Emperour] Justinian asked, what their Sentiment was concerning Theodorus, and in relation to those things which Theodoret had written against Cyrillus and his Twelve Or, Cha­pters. Heads; also [what they thought] of that Letter said to be Ibas's, [written by him] to Maris the Persian: after many passages had been re­cited [out of the Books] of Theodorus and Theodoret, and after it had been made apparent, that Theodorus had long since been condemned, and [his name] expunged out of the Sacred Diptycks; and, that Hereticks ought to be con­demned even after their death: with all suffrages (as the usuall saying is,) they Anathematize Theodorus, and what had been written by Theo­doret against Cyrillus's Twelve Heads, and a­gainst the true Faith; Ibas's Letter also, which he wrote to Maris the Persian; [their con­demnation of the foresaid persons and writings] being conceived in these express words.

This sen­tence is ex­tant in the Eighth Col­lation of the Fifth Synod, pag. 112. Vales. Whereas the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ according to the Parable in the Gospells, &c. And after some other words. Besides all those other Hereticks which are con­demned and Anathematized by the four foremen­tioned holy Synods, and by the holy Catholick and A­postolick Church; We also condemn and Anathe­matize Theodorus who is styled Bishop of Mopsue­stia, and his impious writings; also, what hath been impiously written by Theodoret, both against the true Faith, and against the Twelve Heads of Cyrillus of Blessed memory, and against the First Holy Synod at Ephesus; in fine, whatever has been written by the same [Theodoret] in de­fence of Theodorus and Nestorius. Moreover, we also Anathematize that impious Letter said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Per­sian. And after some few words, they expoun­ded Fourteen These fourteen Capitula, or Expositions of the true Faith, are extant pag. 115, and 116, Synod. 5. Constantinop. Vales. Heads concerning the right and Or, Unblameable. sincere Faith.

And these things proceeded in this manner. But, In the Acts of the Fifth Con­stantinopo­litane Sy­nod which have come to our hands in the Latine tongue, there is no­thing of those things ex­tant which Evagrius subjoyns here, to wit, con­cerning the condemna­tion of O­rigen, Evagrius and Didymus. Therefore Baronius with good cause thought that those Acts were maimed and imperfect. Nicephorus affirms these things to have been done against Origen and his fol­lowers in the Second Convention: but Theophanes and the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle relate, that the Fifth Synod was princi­pally and most especially convened against the errours of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus; but in the second plate against the Tria Ca­pitula. Vales. when Libells were delivered in by the Monks Eulogius, Conon, Cyriacus, and Pan­cratius, against the opinions of Origen Ada­mantius, and against the followers of his im­piety and errour; Justinian consulted the then convened Synod about these matters, having sub­joyned [to his own Letter] a Copy of the Li­bell, as also what he had written to Vigilius concerning these things. From all which it may be gathered, that Origen had made it his business, to fill the Or, Sim­plicity. Purity of the Apostolick Or, Opi­nions. Dogmata with These words are taken out of the Emperour Justinian's Letter to the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod; part of which Letter is re­corded by Cedrenus in his Chronicon. [...]. That is, In regard therefore it has been told us, that there are certain Monks at Jerusalem who were followers of Pythagoras, Plato, and Origen; We were of opinion, that care ought [to be taken] and enquiry made about these persons, least by their Paganish [or, Graecian,] and Manichaean errour they should perfectly ruine many persons. The same occurs in the Emperour Justinian's Let­ter to Menas, concerning the Errours of Grigen. Vales. Paganish and Ma­nichaean Tares. A Relation therefore was transmitted to Justinian from the Synod, after the Exclamations which they [had heaped together] against Origen and those in­volved in the same erroneous Tenets with him. Part of which [Relation] runs thus.

You who possess a mind partaker [...]. I cannot ap­prove of Christo­phorson's transla­tion, who turns these words thus: Qui animum no­bilitatis an­tiquae participem tenes, who possess a mind partaker of Ancient Nobility. Johannes Langus and Musculus have rendred it better. Langus, in this manner; Qui animum obtines caelestis participem generositatis, who have a mind partaker of a celestial generosity. And Musculus, thus; Animum supernae nobilitatis sortite Christianissime Imperator. You who have gotten a mind of Supernall Nobility, Most Christian Empe­rour! Vales. of a Cele­stiall Nobility, Most Christian Emperour! And after some other words. We have avoided there­fore, we have avoided that [Doctrine.] For we knew not the voice of Strangers. And having securely bound this person, as a Thief, and like a Robber, with the Ropes of an Anathema, we have cast him out of the Sacred Rails. And after some few words. But you will know the power and efficacy of the matters which have been transacted by us, by the reading thereof.

[Page 497]Hereto they also annexed whatever Or, Chapters. Heads Origen's followers had [from their Masters] learned to assert; which [Heads] manifested both their agreements, as also their disagree­ments, and likewise their [...]. In Nicephorus 'tis written truer, thus, [...]; nor am I of opinion that [...] is a Greek word. To my best remembrance I have noted the same fault some where before this. But the place comes not at present into my mind. Vales. manifold errour. Amongst these there was a Fifth Head [which contained] the Blasphemies broach't by some private persons of that termed The New Laura; the Contents of which Head run thus. As far as may be gathered from these words of Evagrius, this Theo­dorus the Cappadocian was one of the Monks of the New Laura, which was near the City Jerusalem. This therefore is the Theodorus, follower of Nonnus the Origenist, who being afterward made Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, openly undertook the patronage of the Origenists, as Cyrillus Scythopolitanus relates in the Life of Saint Saba. Further, whereas this Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia acted the chief parts, as I may say, in the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod, as may be seen from its Acts, how is he now accused in the same Synod as an Origenist? We may therefore not without Cause conjecture, that these things which Evagrius, Theophanes, and Cedrenus say were done in the Fifth Synod against Origen, were long after that Synod added to it, on account of the likeness of their Subject: but, were not done in that Synod. So also, the Acts of the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod under Menas, against Anthimus and Zoaras, were wont to be joyned to this Fifth Oecumenicall Synod, as Photius attests in his Bib­liotheca. The same thing may also be proved by what Evagrius sub­joyns. For he says, that many impious expressions gathered out of the Books of Evagrius, Didymus, and Theodorus Mopsuestenus, were related to that Synod. Now, if these things had been done in the Fifth Constan­tinopolitane Synod, as Evagrius says, it would have been altogether super­fluous and unusefull, to repeat those expressions of Theodorus, which had so often been rekoned up and condemned in the abovesaid Synod. My Sentiment therefore is, that these things were acted against Origen in another Constantinopolitane Synod on the year of Christ 538; then, when certain Monks of Jerusalem, who were favoured by Pelagius a Deacon of the Roman Church, and by Menas Bishop of Constantinople, presented a Libell to Justinian, containing certain Heads collected out of Origen's Books; and requesting of the Emperour, that those Heads might be condemned; as Liberatus tells us chap. 23. of his Breviary. See Baronius at the year of Christ 538. Moreover, our conjecture is fully confirmed by what Evagrius writes a little before this; viz. that into those things done against Origen was inserted the Emperour Justinian's Letter to Pope Vigilius concerning the errours of Origen. These matters therefore were not transacted in the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod on the year of Christ 553. For on that year Vigilius was at Constantinople; nor was there any need that Justinian should treat with him by Letters. Wherefore these things were done against Origen long before, to wit, then when Justinian, having re­ceived the Libell of those Palestine Monks, wrote a Letter to Menas Bishop of Constantinople concerning the errours of Origen; giving him order, that when he had assembled the Bishops that were present in the Imperial City, and the Abbots of Monasteries, he should con­demn those errours. This Letter of Justinian's is extant in Greek and Latine, published at the end of the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod. In a place altogether forreign and unfit. For it belongs not to the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod which was celebrated on the year of Christ 553, but to another Constantinopolitane Synod, which by the Emperour Justinian's order had been convened on the year of Christ 538. There­fore Baronius has rightly placed that Letter of Justinian at that year I have mentioned. Now at the close of his Letter Justinian affirms in express words, that he had also written a Letter to Vigilius Bishop of Rome upon the same Subject. For thus he says. Haec porro eadem Scripsimus non modo ad Sanctitatem tuam, Moreover, we have writ­ten the very same things not only to your Sanctity, but to the most Holy and most Blessed Vigilius also Pope and Patriarch of the Seniour Rome, and to all the other most Holy Bishops and Patriarchs, of Alexandria, Theopolis, and Jerusalem, that they might both take care of this matter, and also that these things may come to an end. Lastly, those Anathe­matisms which Nicephorus says were thrown against Origen's opinions in the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod, occur in the self same words in Justinian's Letter to Menas, which was written long before the Fifth Synod, on the year of Christ 538; as Baronius informs us from Liberatus. The same also may be proved from the Letter which Gregory the Great wrote to the Four Patriarchs in the beginning of his Episcopate. For, although he does expresly profess in that Letter, that with Veneration he gives Reception to the Fifth Constantinopoli­tane Synod, in which Letter some writings of Ibas, Theodorus, and Theo­doret are condemned; yet he says not one word concerning Origen's condemnation. Which certainly he would not have omitted, if Origen had been condemned in that Synod. Vales. Theo­dorus Ascidas the Cappadocian said: If the A­postles and the Martyrs doe now work Miracles, and are in so great honour; unless in the Re­surrection they shall be made equall to Christ, what manner of Resurrection shall they have? The same Fathers related severall other Blasphe­mies of Didymus, Evagrius, and Theodorus, which with great diligence they had collected out of their Books. Further, some intervall of time after this Synod, These things are written carelessly enough by Evagrius, who has disguised the Cause of Eutychius's deposition, least he should in any wise offend the Me­mory of the Emperour Justinian. If any one be desirous of reading a compleat Narrative of this matter, 'tis extant in Surius in the Life of the Blessed Patriarch Eutychius, elegantly written by his disciple Eu­stathius, and in Nicephorus Book 17, Chap. 29. Baronius says that was done on the year of Christ 564, which was the Emperour Justinian's last year. Vales. Eutychius is ejected, and This is Johannes Scholasticus who has a Collection of Canons Ex­tant. Victor Thunonensis in his Chronicon, gives us this account of his ordination: Anno 39. Imperii sui Justinianus Eutychium Constan­tinopolitanum Episcopum, &c. In the 39th year of his Empire Justinian sends into Exile Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople, a Condemner of the three Heads, and of Evagrius the Hermite a Deacon, and of Didy­mus the Monk an Alexandrian Confessour, whose praises we have produced above from the authority of illustrious men; and in his room makes Jo­hannes Bishop a like [assertour] of the same Errour. Vales. Jo­hannes is placed in the Chair of the Constantino­politane Church in his room. This Johannes was born at [...]. In the excellent Florentine Manuscript I found it written [...], both here and in the following Chapter. Theo­phanes makes mention of this Mannour or Village, in his Chronicon pag. 151; where he writes concerning Alamundarus's irruption into Syria; [...] (says he,) [...]: that is, And he burnt the outward parts of Chalcis, and [ruined] the Mannour [or, Possession] Sirmium, and the Cynegick Region. In the Greek, instead of [...], Chal­cedon, I have mended it thus, [...], Chalcis. Vales. Sirimis, which is a Village scituate in the Cynegick Region, in the Antiochian Terri­tory.

CHAP. XXXIX. That Justinian Or, Be­ing perver­ted from the right opi­nion. having forsaken the right Faith, asserted the Body of [our] Lord to be incor­ruptible.

AT the same time Justinian Or, Tur­ned aside. deflected from the right High-way of [Orthodox] Sen­timents, and having entred a path untrodden by the Apostles and Fathers, fell into Thorns and Brambles. Wherewith being desirous to fill the Church, he mist of his design; the Lord having securely fenced Or, The King's way. the High­way [...], with un­speakable Hedges. In Nicepho­rus 'tis truer written, thus, [...], with Hedges not to be broken. Which writing the Tellerian Manuscript confirms. Vales. with hedges not to be broken, that Murderers [and Thieves] might not break in, as if the wall had been faln and the Fence broken down: [and thus] he ful­filled the Prophets Predi­ction. Johannes therefore, who was also termed Cate­linus, having Evagrius mistakes. For Jo­hannes succeeded not Vigilius, but Pelagius was his successour. After whose death, Johannes Ju­nior undertook the Episcopate of the Church of Rome, on the year of Christ 560. Vales. succeeded Vi­gilius in the Bishoprick of the Elder Rome, and Johan­nes born at Sirimis Gover­ning the Constantinopolitane Church, and Apoli­naris that of Alexandria, Anastasius successour to Domninus presiding over the Antiochian Church, and over that at Jerusalem This place is chiefly to be taken notice of against the Sentiment of Baronius, who be­lieved Macarius was restored to his own See before the Fifth Con­stantinopolitane Synod. But this passage of Evagrius refutes Baronius's opinion; Evagrius informing us here, that Macarius's Restitution was made long before that Synod. To Evagrius agrees Victor Thu­nonensis in his Chronicon, in these words: Anno. 37. Imperii Justi­niani, &c. On the 37th year of Justinian's Empire, Eustochius Bi­shop of Jerusalem who had been ordained whilst Macarius was alive, it ejected: and Macarius is again put into his own See. But Theophanes, in his Chronicon, places Macarius's Restitution on the times of Justinus Junior, as I have observed above. Vales. Macarius, who was again restored to his own Chair: [Page 498] when Justinian. he had Anathematized Origen, Didy­mus, and Evagrius, after Eustochius's deposition; Justinian writes that which amongst the Ro­mans is called an Edict, wherein he has termed the Body of [our] Lord incorruptible; and incapable of Naturall and irreprehensible Or, Af­fections. pas­sions; affirming that [our] Lord ate in the same manner before his Passion, as he did eat after his Resurrection, his most holy Body ha­ving received no change or alteration from its very Formation in the Womb, neither in the Voluntary and Naturall Passions, nor yet after [his] Resurrection. To which [Assertions] Justinian [resolved] to force the Prelates in all places to give their assent. But when all of them affirmed, that they earnestly expected [the opinion of] Anastasius Bishop of An­tioch, they [thereby] represt the [Empe­rour's] first Attempt.

CHAP. XL. Concerning Anastasius Arch-Bishop of Antioch.

MOreover, This Anastasius [was a person] both incomparably well skilled in the Sa­cred Scriptures, and also accurate in his Moralls and way of living: in so much that he would Or, Observe. take consideration about the most triviall mat­ters, nor would he Or, Make an excur­sion. deflect at any time from a constancy and firmness, much less in things mo­mentous, and which had a relation to the Deity it self. And he had Or, Mixt. tempered his disposition so, that neither an easiness of access to and con­ference with him, might render him exposed to what was unmeet and inconvenient; nor should an Austerity and Rigour make him inaccessible in relation to what was fit and rationall. In [conferences that were] weighty and Serious, he was of a ready ear, and fluent Tongue: But in [discourses that were] impertinent and su­perfluous, he had his ears perfectly shut. A bridle represt his tongue in such a manner, that he Or, Di­rected his discourse by reason. mea­sured his discourse with reason, and rendred Si­lence far better than talke. This person there­fore Justinian makes an Attack against, as a­gainst some inexpugnable Tower, and sets upon him with all manner of Engines; considering with himself, that if he could ruine [...]. In Nicephorus and the Tellerian Manuscript it is truer written, thus, [...], if he could ruine this [Tower.] For so the Rules of Grammer require it should be 'Tis a Metaphor drawn from Machines used in Sieges, wherewith Cities are wont to be assaulted. Further, concerning the constancy of this Anastasius Sinaïta in defending the true Faith against the Heresie of the Aphthartodocitae, Eustathius writes also in the Life of the Blessed Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople. Vales. this [Tower,] he should afterwards become Ma­ster of the City with ease, enslave the Doctrine of the true Faith, and lead captive the Sheep of Christ. But Anastasius by a divine heighth of mind rai­sed himself so far [above the Emperour,] (for he stood upon a Rock of Faith not to be broken;) that by his own Relation sent to Ju­stinian, he openly contradicted him, and in the same [Relation] demonstrated [to him] most perspicuously and with great eloquence, that the Body of [our] Lord was corruptible in passions naturall and irreprehensible, and that the Divine Apostles and Or, Divine. Holy Fathers both thought and taught so. The same answer he returned to the Monks of the First and Second Syria, who had consulted him: and he confirmed the minds of all persons, and [...], anoin­ted himself. prepared for the Conflict, reci­ting daily in the Church that saying of that Vessell of Election; Galat. 1. 8, 9. If any one preach any other Gospell unto you, than that you have received, though he be an Angell from Heaven, let him be accursed. Which [words] when all persons had Or, Lookt on. weigh­ed in their minds, a very small number only excepted, they imitated him. The same Ana­stasius wrote a [...]. 'Tis strange that three Transla­tours, Lan­gus, Mus­culus, and Christo­phorson, should all mistake in the Rendition of one word. The Grae­cians termed [...] and [...] Valedictory, or, Farwell Orations, and have handed down to us the peculiar method of Those Orations, as I have remarked in My Notes upon Eusebius's Life of Constantine, book 3. chap. 21, note (a.) Vales. Valedictory Oration to the An­tiochians, after he had received information, that Justinian was resolved to send him into Banish­ment. Which Oration is deservedly delightfull and admirable, for the elegancy of its words, the abundance of its Or, Sen­tences. sententious expres­sions, the frequent quotations of Sa­cred Scripture, [...]. Sr Henry Savil at the margin of his copy has mended it, [...]. For so the Rules of Gram­mar require it should be. But I have observed that the Rules of Grammar are sometimes despised by our Evagrius. Nicephorus, when he wrote out this passage of Evagrius, instead of the Conjunctive Particle, substituted a Praeposition, in this manner, [...]. Vales. and for the Accom­modateness of the History.

CHAP. XLI. Concerning the death of Justinian.

BUt this Oration was not published, God having provided some better thing for us. For Justinian, whilst he dictated a sentence of Deportation against Anastasius and the Prelates about him, was invisibly wounded, and ended his life, after he had Reigned in all Thirty eight years and eight months.

The End of the Fourth Book of Evagrius's Ecclesiastical History.

THE FIFTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS Epiphaniensis, And [one] of the EX-PRAEFECTS.

CHAP. I. Concerning the Election of [the Emperour] Ju­stinus, and concerning his Moralls.

WHen therefore Justinian in this manner had fill'd all places with Disquietude and Tumults, and at the close of his Life had received the condign reward of such [Actings,] he departed to the infernall Or, Ju­dicatories. punishments: but Justinus his Sister's Son, who was intrusted with the custody of the [Imperial] Pallace, which [Grand Officer] the Roman Tongue terms Concer­ning the Office of the Curopa­lates, much to hath been already said by many per­sons, to re­peat which here is su­perfluous; we will remark this only, that the Curopalates always went before with a Golden Rod, as often as the Emperour would appear in publick. Cassiodorus tells us this, in his Formula Curae palatii, in these words: Considera quâ Gratificatione tracteris, &c. Consider with what Gratification you are treated, how being adorned with a Golden Rod, amongst numerous obeysances, you seem to go first before the Royall feet. So also Corippus in Book 2. Chap. 7. De Lau­dibus Justini Minoris; where he describes Justinus's procession to the Cirque [in these words,] —Tunc ordine longoIncedunt summi proceres, fulgensque Senatus,Ipse inter primos vultu praeclarus honoro,Fratris in obsequi [...]m gaudent Marcellus abibat.Dispositorque novus sacrae Baduarius Aulae,Successor Soceri, factus mox Curopalates. Concerning this Golden Rod which was wont to be carried before the Roman Emperours, Paulus Silentiarius speaks, in his description of the Church of Saint Sophia, not far from the beginning. — [...] For I assent not to that Learned man, who hath rendred it, Aureas Secures, Golden Axes. And at first this dignity was small, for it was under the dispose of the Castrensis [See Dr Howells History, Second part, pag 64,] of the Sacred Pallace. But afterwards it began to be accounted the chiefest dignity of the Pallace, from such time as Ju­stinus Nephew to Justinian bore it. It was a Civil, not a Military dig­nity, as Alemannus thought, who (in his Notes on Procopius's Hi­storia Arcand,) confounds the Curopalates with the Comes Excubito­rum. Vales. Curopalates, is invested with the pur­ple after his [death:] neither Justinian's departure, nor the Election of Justinus ha­ving been made known to any person, save to those that were his Confidents, till such time as he appeared at the Or, Running of Horses in the Cirque. Ludi Circenses, Or, About to doe and submit himself to the usages of an Empire. in or­der to his performing and undertaking what usually belongs to an Emperour. After these [Solemnities] therefore were over, when nothing of an Or, In­novation. opposition had in any wise been attempted [against him,] he returned to the Pallace. [By] the first Edict he promul­ged, the [...]. Nice­phorus (book 17. chap. 33.) took these words of Evagrius as meant of the Bi­shops, who had been banished by Justinian into vari­ous places for their defence of the true Faith. But that word [...] can not bear this inter­pretation. Therefore Christophorson chose to interpret this place con­cerning the Bishops, who from all places had been assembled together at Constantinople. But neither can I approve of this Rendition; in regard Evagrius says those Bishops were not convened at Constanti­nople, but [...], that is, in all places. Vales. Prelates who had been convened in all places, were sent home to their own Sees, in order to their worshipping God in the usuall and recei­ved manner, no Innovation being made in relation to the Faith. And this Action done by him was highly commendable. But, as to his Life, he was dissolute, and Or, O­penly in­volved in. altogether a slave to Luxuries and Or, Immense. obscene pleasures: so ardent a lover also of other mens mo­ney, that he sold all things for illegall gain, and revered not the Deity even in the Ecclesiastick preferments, which he made his markets of to any persons he could meet with, and publickly proposed even these to sale. More­over, being possest [...]. Some word seems to be wanting, which may be supplied in this manner; [...] most contrary Vices. And so Christophorson seems to have read. Vales. See chap. 19. note (d.) with [two most contrary] Vices, Boldness and Sloth, in the first place he caused his This Justinus was Son to Germanus Patritius, and Cousin-ger­mane to the Emperour Justinus, as Johannes Biclariensis informs us in his Chronicon. Indeed, Germanus and Justinus Junior were akin. For Germanus was Justinian's Nephew by his Brother. But the Empe­rour Justinus was the Son of Vigilantia Justinian's Sister. Further, this Justinus Son to Germanus had born the Consulate in the year of Christ 540. The Emperour Justinian had created the same person Master of the Milice throughout Colchis and Armenia, in place of Marti­nus, as Agathias writes in his Fourth Book; but afterwards he made the same person Master of the Milice throughout the Thracia's; as Menan­der Protector declares in the First Book of his History, pag. 99. Vales. kinsman Justinus to be sent for, a personage of an universall honour and esteem, both for his skill in Military affairs, and for those other dignities [which he had born:] he at that time made his residence about the Danube, and hindred the Abari from passing that River. [Page 500] The Abari are a Scythick Nation who live in Waggons, and inhabit the Or, Fields. Regions scituate be­yond Caucasus. Which people, in regard they had been sorely afflicted by the In what manner these Abari, or Abares, having been vanqui­shed by the Turks, betook them­selves into Europe, Theophilactus Simocatta relates, Book 7. Chap. 7. Vales. Turks their Neighbours, [left their habitation, and] with their whole Families fled from them, and came to the Bosphorus. Then leaving the Shore of that termed the Euxine Sea, (where many barbarous Nations who had left their own dwellings, inhabited; moreover, Cities, Or, Camps. Castra, and [...]. In Nicephorus Book 17. Chap. 34, and in the Tellerian Manuscript, 'tis writ­ten in one word, thus, [...], Sta­tions, or Landing places; which I ra­ther ap­prove of. But I think this whole place must be thus written, [...], &c, where many Barbarous Nations, &c, according as we have rendred it. Vales. some Stations had been built [there] by the Romans, when either Or, Disabled. Veterane Souldiers, or Colonies had been sent thither by the Emperours:) they con­tinued on their journey, engaging▪ all the Bar­barians they met with, till such time as they were arrived at the Banks of the Danube, and In Justinianus Augustus's times, the Abares having passed into Europe, became first known to the Romans, as Theophilactus Simocatta relates in Book 7. Chap. 8: for when they had come to the places of Scythia and Maesia, they sent Embassadours to Justinian, on the thirty first year of Justinian's Empire, as Theophanes relates in his Chronicon, and Anastasius Bibliothecarius. But Victor Thunonensis mentions this Embassy a little later. Post Consulatum, &c. After the Consulate of the most famous personage Basilius on the twenty third year; the Em­perour Justinian makes the Embassadours of the Nation of the Abari whence they had come, &c. This was the thirty sixth year of Justi­nian's Empire. Concerning the same Embassy of the Abares to Ju­stinian, Menander Protector is to be consulted in the First Book of his History, pag. 99 of the King's Edition, where he excellently well de­scribes that Embassy, and confirms Victor Thunonensis's opinion. For he says, that Justinian died not long after. Vales. had sent Embassadours to Justinian. From thence therefore Justinus was sent for, on pretence as if he were to enjoy [the advantage of] that Com­pact which had been made betwixt him and the Emperour Justinus. For, in regard both of them were equall as to their Secular Grandeur and Power, and whereas the Empire Or, En­clined to both of them. hung as it were betwixt them; after many debates they had come to this agree­ment, that he who was arrived at the Empire, should give the other the Second place; that so, by being Second in the Empire, he might be First in respect of all other persons.

CHAP. II. Concerning the Murder of Justinus Kinsman to the Emperour Justinus.

[THe Emperour] Justinus therefore recei­ved Justinus with great appearances of kindness and friendship; but soon after he fra­med [various] causes and pretences, and [by de­grees] deprived him of his Guards, or, Parti­sans. Satellites, his Dome­sticks, and the Protectors of his Body, and [...]. Nicephorus took away the Praeposition here. For he has exprest this place of Evagrius thus: [...], and hindred him from going abroad. But I had rather write with Eva­grius. [...]. Which reading I have followed in my Version. Vales. forbids him Access to himself: [...]. Nicephorus and Christophorson understood these words of Evagrius concerning Justinus kinsman to the Emperour Ju­stinus. But I had rather take them as meant of the Emperour Justinus himself. For he being sickly, for the most part sate at home, and forbad his kinsman Justinus access to himself. Indeed, Cedrenus and Zonaras do attest what I have said concerning Justinus; For Cedrenus's words are these: [...] This Justinus was continually sick, and dim­sighted, and unable to come abroad. Vales. for he sate at home. [At length] by Justinus's order [...], is brought home. I had rather read [...], is removed. So in the foregoing chapter, where the reading is [...] Nicephorus read, [...], and understands that place of Evagrius concerning the Barbarians who had been carried thither by the Romans. Further, this Justinus was made Augustalis and Dux of Alexandria, by the Emperour Justinus in the sixth year of his Em­pire, as Theophanes and Cedrenus do relate. Cedrenus's words are these: [...], But Justinus having heard that his kinsman, who was Augu­stalis and Dux of Alexandria, meditated treachery against the Emperour, he sent and beheaded him. Write thus, [...], according as the reading is in Theophanes. For those two dignities, Augustalis and Dux, although they were distinct, yet were now and then given to one and the same person by the Empe­rours, as may be proved by many instances. Further, this dignity was bestowed on Justinus by the Emperour, not in honour to him, but rather that he might send him far off from the Imperial City. Therefore the City Alexandria was to Justinus instead of a prison. Hence 'tis, that Theophanes in his Chronicon relates, that Justinus Augustus detained his Cosin-German Justinus prisoner as 'twere at Alexandria. Moreover, Johannes Biclariensis, in his Chronicon, places the murder of this Justinus on the second year of Justinus Junior's Em­pire; to wit on the same year whereon Aetherius and Addaeus had a capitall punishment inflicted on them. And this is more agreeable to the account given here by Evagrius. Vales. he is removed to the Great City Alexandria; where he is most inhumanely murdered in the dead of the night, whilst he lay in his bed; this being the reward he received for his kindness to the Republick, and for those eminent Services he had performed in the Wars. Nor would the Emperour Justinus and his wise Sophia abate of their rage, or could they satiate their burning sury [conceived against Ju­stinus,] till such time as they had seen his head after 'twas cut off, and had trampled it under their feet.

CHAP. III. Concerning those Miscreants Addaeus and Aethe­rius.

MOreover, [...]. The for­mer nega­tive par­ticle must be expun­ged, as be­ing altoge­ther super­fluous. Vales. not long after, the Emperour delivered up Aetherius and Addaeus, (persons of the The words of Johannes Biclarien­sis in his Chronicon are these: Anno Se­cundo me­morati principis, &c. On the second year of the mentioned Emperour, in the Imperial City, Aetherius and Addaeus Patritii, being detected whilst by Physitians they attempted to kill Justinus by Poyson rather than sword, are ordered to be punished with a capitall sentence: the former was devoured by wild Beasts, the second was burnt to death. I know not whether Johannes Biclariensis termed these men Patritii instead of Senators; but there is a great difference be­tween the Patritian and Senatorian dignity. Concerning the same Aetherius and Addaeus, Eustathius in the Life of Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople, writes thus: Quâ quidem die, id est, tertiâ Octo­bris, On which day, that is the third of October, those persons also who had framed Plots against the holy man and had cast him into Exile, [I mean] Aetherius and Addaeus, the latter of whom was Praefect of the City, and the former was Curator of [the house of] Antiochus, died, &c. Vales. Senatorian Order, who had been great Favourites of the Emperour Justi­nian's,) to a judiciary process, they being charged with an accusation of High-Treason. Of these two, Aetherius confessed that he de­signed to kill the Emperour by Poyson, and said that he had Addaeus his Accomplice in this at­tempt, and his Assistant in all [his other de­signes.] But Addaeus with horrid Oaths affir­med, that he was wholly ignorant of these [Treasons.] Nevertheless, both of them were beheaded. Addaeus at such time as his head was cut off, affirmed, that in this matter he had been falsely accused, but that he was deservedly punished by [divine] Justice, which inspects all affairs where­ever transacted: for [he said] that by Magick he had murdered Theodotus the Praefectus Praetorio. [Page 501] But I cannot positively affirm whither or no these things were so: however, they were both most flagitious wretches. Addaeus was a Notorious Or, Bug­gerer. So­domite. And Aetherius omitted no sort of Calum­ny, but preyed upon the Estates as well of the living, as of the dead, in the name of that Imperial He means the house of Antiochus, of which Aetherius was Cura­tor, as Eustathius attests in the place just now cited: ille autem An­tiochiae Curator. Eustathius's words in Greek, if I mistake not, are these; [...], that is, But Aetherius Curator of the House of Antiochus. The same Eustathius makes mention of this house, where he describes in what manner Eutychius was ejected out of the Imperial City: Dicebant enim quidam graves viri, &c. For some grave men said, if he should go out of the Sacred Temple, he would be killed. For some Armed men, who were placed in the Mannour-House of Antiochus, stayed for him without, for that purpose. Theophilactus mentions the same Imperial House in his third Book, Chapter 3. There were many such houses at Constantinople, as the House of Placidia, the House of Flaccilla, the House of Hormisda, and severall others be­longing to the Emperour: each of which Houses had its Curator, who look't after that House or Pallace, and all its Revenues. These Officers are termed Curae Palatiorum in the Notitia of the Roman Empire, un­der the dispose of the Castrensis of the Sacred Pallace. But then, the dig­nity of these Curators was the chiefest, and their Title was Most Glo­rious and Most Magnificent: as Tiberius Augustus's Constitution de Domibus Imperialibus informs us. Vales. House, of which he was Curator [or, Governour,] during the Empire of Justinian. And such was the con­clusion of these matters.

CHAP. IV. Concerning the Edict of our Faith, which Justinus wrote to the Christians in all places.

MOreover, the same Justinus wrote an E­dict to the Christians in all places, [the Contents] whereof [ran] in these express words. IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST OUR GOD, EMPEROUR CAESAR FLAVIUS JUSTINUS, FAITH­FULL IN CHRIST, MILD, THE GREATEST, BENEFICENT, ALEMANICUS, GOTTHICUS, GERMANICUS, ANTICUS, FRANCICUS, ERULICUS, GEPAEDICUS, PIOUS, HAPPY, GLORIOUS, VICTOR, TRI­UMPHATOR, ALWAYS ADORABLE, AUGUSTUS. John 14. 27. My peace I give unto you, says the Lord Christ, our true God. My peace I leave with you, declares the same [Christ] to all men. The purport of which [expressions] is nothing else, but that those who believe in him should Or, Run together into. unite in one and the same Church: being of the same mind in relation to the true Or, Opi­nion. Faith of the Chri­stians, and having an aversion for them who affirm or think the contrary▪ For, the Or, First Salvation. Primary safe­ty [which] has been appointed to all men, [is] the Confession of the true Faith. Where­fore, We also following the Evangelick Admoni­tions, and the Holy Symboll, or Creed of the Holy Fathers, do exhort all men to betake themselves to one and the same Church and Opinion: believing in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, in the Consubstantiall Trinity, in the One Deity, or Nature and Or, Sub­stance. Essence, both in word and deed, and Or, Glo­risying. asserting One Might and Power and Ope­ration, in the three Hypostasis's or Persons, into which we have been baptized, in which we have believed, and to which we have been conjoyned. For we adore the Unity in the Trinity, and the Trinity in the Unity, which hath an admirable both Division, and Or, Joy­ning toge­ther. Unition: an Unity in re­spect of the Or, Sub­stance. Essence or Deity: but a Trinity in respect of the proprieties or Hypostasis's or Per­sons. For, that we may so speak, it is indivisibly divided, and divisibly conjoyned. For [there is] One in Three, [to wit,] the Deity, and Three [are] One, in whom [namely] is the Deity, or, to speak more accurately, which [are] the Deity it self: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, when as each Person is considered by himself; the mind [to wit] dividing those things which are inseperable: the Three [Per­sons being one] God, understood together, on ac­count of the same Motion and the same Nature. For we ought both to confess one God, and also to assert Three Or; Sub­sistencies. Hypostasis's or Proprieties. But we Confess him, the only Begotten Son of God, God the Word, who was begotten of the Father before Ages and without time, not made; in the last days to have descended from Heaven on our account and for our Salvation, and to have been incarnate by the Holy Ghost, and of our Lady the Holy Glorious Theotocos and Ever-Virgin Mary, and to have been born of her: [...], who is to the Father and to the Holy Ghost. In Nicephorus, Book 17. Chap. 35, where this Edict of the Emperour Justinus concerning the Faith is recorded, this place is read thus: [...]. who is equall to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. Which reading Christophorson hath followed. For he renders it thus; Qui est equalis Patri & Spiritui Sancto, who is equall to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. But in this place the equality of the Father and Son is not treated of: but, whether Christ be one of the Trinity. I have therefore supplyed this place righter from the excel­lent Florentine Manuscript, in this manner; [...] who is our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. The Tellerian M. S. has it written thus: [...] who is in the Father and in the Holy Spirit. Vales. In Robert Stephens the reading is the same with that set at the beginning of this note. who is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, Glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. For the holy Trinity hath not received an addi­tion of a Fourth Person, although one of the holy Trinity God the Word hath been incarnate: but he is One and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, Consubstantiall to God and the Father according to the Deity, and the same [Person is] of the same substance with us in respect of the Hu­manity: passible in the flesh, and the same [Per­son] impassible in the Deity. For we acknow­ledge not One God the Word who wrought Mi­racles, and another who suffered: but we confess One and the same our Lord Jesus Christ God the Word, to have been incarnate and perfectly made man, and that the Miracles Or, Are of. belong both to One and the same, as likewise the sufferings, which he Voluntarily underwent in the flesh on account of our Salvation. For Or, a cer­tain, or, some one man. a man gave not himself for us; but God the Word himself, made man with­out [any] Conversion, Or, Re­ceived. underwent both a Spon­taneous Passion, and a death in the Flesh for us. Although therefore we confess him to be God, yet we deny not that the same person is also Man: and by our confessing him to be man, we deny not the same Person to be also God. Whence, whilst we profess one and the same [Per­son] our Lord Jesus Christ to be Or, Made up. compounded of both Natures, the Deity and the Humanity, [...]. Christophorson has rendred this place ill, in this manner: Non Confusionem in Unitatem introducimus, We introduce not a confusion into the Unity. Nor has Musculus done righter; who translates it thus: Unitatem non con [...]ndimus, We confound not the Unity. I do not wonder at Musculus, who in this Edict of Justinus always renders [...] Unitatem, Unity, very erroneously. That Learned man hath committed▪ the same mistake, who has done into Latine the Fragments of Ephraemius Bishop of Antioch, which are ex­tant in Photius's Bibliotheca. But why Christophorson, who every where renders [...], Copulationem, Copulation, should at this place translate it otherwise, I know not. Johannes Langus Nicephorus's Translatour renders it thus: In Unione confusionem non inducimus, We induce not a confusion in the Union. Exactly right, if you add a Syllable, in this manner, in Unitione, in the Unition. For the term Unio, though it be now a days frequently used in the Schools of Philosophers and Divines, is a barbarous word, when 'tis taken for Unition. For Unio in Latine signifies Unitatem, Unity; as may be proved from Ter­tullian, Jerome, Prudentius, Pope Simplicius, and others. Let there­fore those Zoili [Carpers, or, Censurers] cease reproving of us, be­cause in the Letter of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, which is re­corded by Socrates book 1. chap. 6, we have translated [...], Union. For we did that from the use and propriety of the Latine Tongue: which they being wholly ignorant of, thought that Unio, Union, was nothing else but Unitionem, Unition. But, betwixt Unio and Unitio, there is as much difference, as between [...] and [...]. In Union or Unity, there is nothing but what is simple or single. But, in Uni­tion something compounded of two is necessarily understood. 'Tis certain, the Old Translatour of the Chalcedon Synod always renders [...], Unition, or adunation. Vales. we introduce not a Confusion into the Unition. [Page 502] For he Or, Shall not. will not cease to be God, because Or, So as we are. a­greeably to us he was made man: nor again, be­cause by Nature he is God, and cannot receive a likeness to us, will he refuse to be man. For, as he hath continued God in the Humanity, so also [though] existing in the Sublimi­ty, or Emi­nency. Majesty of the Deity, he nevertheless [continues] Man: Or, Be­ing both at the same time. existing Both in the same, and [is] One God and also Man, The Emmanuel. [Further, whereas] we con­fess him perfect in the Deity, and perfect in the Humanity, of which [two] he is also made up, [yet] [...]. we bring not in a particular Division or Section upon his one compounded Hypostasis: but we show the difference of the Natures, which is not destroyed [or, taken away] by the Unition. For, neither has the Divine Nature been changed into the Humane, nor hath the Humane Nature been converted into the Divine. But both [Na­tures] [...]. In Nicephorus 'tis truer written, thus; [...], &c. But, I had rather read thus; [...], be­ing understood, or rather existing, &c. Nor do I doubt but the Emperour Justinus wrote so as I have said: For he reproves him­self, because he had said, [...], being understood; as if the difference of the two Natures in Christ were in the understanding only▪ and did not really exist. Vales. being understood, or rather existing in the defini tion and [...], Form, fa­shion, state. manner of the proper Na­ture, we affirm that the Unition was made according to the person: now, the Unition according to the person imports, that God the Word, that is one Person of the Three persons of the Deity, was united not to a prae-existing Man, but in the Womb of our Lady the Holy-Glorious Theotocos and E­ver-Virgin Mary; that from her he framed to himself in a proper Person Flesh of the same substance with us and subject to like passions in all things, sin only excepted, and that it was enlive­ned with a rationall and intelligent Soul. [...]. In Nice­phorus the reading is [...], understand [...], in the ve­ry Flesh. Which rea­ding is not tollerable. For Christ had not a proper sub­sistency in the Flesh, but before he assumed Flesh, he had a pro­per subsistency▪ in regard he was the second person of the Sa­cred Trinity. Nevertheless, if any one be minded to defend Nicephorus's reading, I shall not much gainsay it. For it more fitly coheres with the words preceding. The sense therefore is this, that the Son of God, who had a proper subsistency from all Eternity, having assumed Flesh, subsisted therein perso­nally. Vales. For he had a Person in himself, and was made Man, and is One and the same our Lord Jesus Christ Glorified together with the Father and the Holy Ghost. [Moreover,] weighing in our minds his ineffable Unition, we rightly confess one Na­ture incarnate of God the Word, which in the Flesh is enlivened with a rationall and intelligent Soul. And again, taking into consideration the difference of the Natures, we assert them to be two, introducing no manner of Division. For each Nature is in him. Wherefore, we confess One and the same Christ, One Son, One Person, One Hypostasis, [to be] God and also Man. But all those, who have thought or do think con­trary hereto, we Anathematize, and judge them estranged from the Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church of God. Whereas therefore the true Points, or Opinions Dog­mata, which have been delivered to us by the Holy Fathers, are asserted; We exhort you all to Concur in one and the same Catholick and Apo­stolick Church; yea rather, we beseech you. For we are not ashamed, though placed in the sublimity of Royalty, to make use of such expressions [...], &c. I am of the same mind with the Lear­ned, who have long since men­ded it, [...], for the▪ &c. Al­though Nicephorus has retain­ed the vul­gar rea­ding. Vales. for the Consent and Union of all Christians, to the end one Glorification may be Sent forth. attributed to the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; and that in future▪ no per­son might pretend to quarrell [...]. The first word [...], persons, is used on ac­count of Nestorius's Heresie, who asserted two persons in Christ, the one of man, the other of the Word. But the word [...] Syllables was annext on account of the Futychians and Acephali, who affirmed that Christ consisted of two Natures before the Unition; but after the Unition, they asserted but one Nature in him. On the other hand, the Catholicks adored Christ in two Natures. Those Syllables therefore are [...] and [...]. Which though they are different, yet if they be rightly understood, do both aim at one and the same Faith and Opinion, as Justinus adds. See Evagrius above, at book 1. chap. 1 note (c.) Further, this Edict was promulged by Justinus Junior on the first year of his Empire, to wit the year of Christ 566, as Baronius remarks: than which Edict Justinus conferred nothing more upon the Catholick Church: but, satisfying himself in having only expounded the Orthodox Faith, he in future prohibited disputes about the Nestorian and Eutychian Opinion▪ and permitted every one to think of these matters according to his own arbitrement. From this Edict therefore followed no advantage, as Evagrius observes truly. Wherefore Johannes Biclariensis [said] amiss in his Chronicon, whose words concerning Justinus Junior are these: Qui Justinus anno primo Regni fui, Which Justinus in the first year of his Reign, destroyed those things which had been devised against the Chalcedon Synod. And suffered the Creed of the Holy Fa­thers of the Church convened at Constantinople, (which Creed had been laudably received in the Chalcedon Synod,) to have entrance, and to be sung by the people in every Catholick Church, before the Lords Prayer was to be repeated. Biclariensis attributes those things to Justinus Junior, which rather befitted Justinus Senior. Vales. about the Persons or the Syllables. For the Syllables tend to one and the same right Faith and meaning: that Usage and Scheme, or State. Form, which hitherto hath ob­tained in God's Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church, [remaining] in all things firm and without Innovation, and con­tinuing [so] to all Futurity.

To this Edict all persons gave their consent, and affirmed [that the Faith and Doctrine] was [therein] Orthodoxly promulged: but yet it reduced not so much as one [of the Churche's members,] which had been rent insunder, to an Unity, because [the Emperour] in express words had declared, that [the State of] the Churches had been preserved firm and without Innovation, and for the time yet to come [should so continue.]

CHAP. V. Concerning the Ejection of Anastasius Bishop of Or, An­tioch. Theopolis.

MOreover, Justinus ejected Anastasius out of the Chair of Theopolis; objecting a­gainst him, both the profuse expence of the sacred Revenue which had been made, saying it was immoderate, and not according to what was meet and necessary; and also [charging him] with Or, Blas­phemy a­gainst him­self. reflecting abusively on himself. For when Anastasius was asked, why he would fling away the sacred money in so lavish a manner, he replyed openly, that it might not be taken away by Justinus that common Pest. But 'twas said that [Justinus] had therefore conceived an old Grudge against Anastasius, because when [Page 503] he demanded money of him [...]. Nicephorus, in regard he un­derstood not these words, omitted them, as may be seen in book 17. chap. 36. For he his exprest this place of Evagrius thus: [...], But 'twas said that Justinus was angry with him, because he refused to give him money when he demanded it. But 'twas easie to have mended the place of Evagrius, in this manner; [...], because having been promoted to the Bishoprick he refused to give [Justinus] money who demanded it. And so Christophorson and Musculus seem to have read. For thus Musculus renders it; Dicitur autem Anastasio succensuise, quòd quum pecuniam pro Episcopatûs collatione exigeret, dare illam noluerit; But 'tis said that he had been angry with Anastasius, because when he exacted money for his Collation to the Bishoprick, he refused to give it. This occasion of hatred therefore against Anastasius was of a long standing, before Ju­stinus had arrived at the Empire. Wherefore Evagrius uses the word [...], which signifies an ancient and concealed Anger. 'Tis certain, whilst Justinian survived, Anastasius had been elected Bishop of An­tioch. Now, the Grandees at Court, and those whose interest was great with the Emperour, were wont to exact money of them who were elected Patriarchs, as may be proved by the Example of Chry­saphius the Eunuch, who demanded money of Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople; as Evagrius has related above, see book 2. chap. 2. Nevertheless, this was forbidden by the Novell Constitutions of Ju­stinian. Vales. at his promotion to the Bishoprick, Anastasius would not give it him. Moreover, Indeed, Theophanes in his Chronicon, brings another reason, on account whereof Anastasius Sinaïta was deposed from the See of An­tioch. But, because Translatours have in no wise hit the meaning of Theophanes, I will annex his words here: [...]: That is, as I render it. On the same year Anastasius the Great, Bishop of Antioch▪ in regard in his answer to the Synodick Letters, he had reprehended John Bishop of Con­stantinople who had ordained John Bishop of Alexandria, and had [at the same time reproved him] who had been ordained by him was ejected out of his Bishoprick by reason of Justinus's indignation. I reade there­fore in Theophanes, [...], which emendation is most certain. John Bishop of Alexandria had been ordained at Con­stantinople by Johannes Scholasticus, on the fifth year of Justinus's Empire, in the year of Christ 570, as Baronius also relates. After his ordination, when (as 'twas usuall) he had written Synodick Letters to Anastasius Bishop of Antioch, Anastasius in his answer to those Let­ters, had severely reproved his Ordainer Johannes; in regard, con­trary to the Ecclesiastick Rules, he had been thrust into the place of Eutychius as then living. He had also reprehended him, who having been ordained by him, had drawn upon himself the fault and blot of his own Ordainer. The Emperour Justinus (who loved Johannes Scholasticus, as being the person by whom he had been Crowned,) taking offence at this thing, ejected Anastasius out of his See. Theo­phanes's Latine Translatour thought, that those Synodick Letters which Anastasius had given answer to, had been written by Johannes Bishop of Constantinople; which is a mistake. For they were written by Jo­hannes Bishop of Alexandria in the beginning of his Episcopate. Therefore, after the word [...] a Comma must be put, as Anasta­sius Bibliothecarius has done. Further, Baronius places this Deposi­tion of Anastasius on the year of Christ 573; which is the eighth year of Justinus's Empire. But I had rather, with Theophanes, place it on the Fifth or Sixth year of the same Justinus, in regard it hapned a little after the ordination of Johannes Bishop of Alexandria, which was performed on the year of Christ 570, as Baronius himself does attest. Vales. other matters were objected against Anastasius, by some persons who, I sup­pose, were desirous of serving and promoting the Emperour's design.

CHAP. VI. That, after Anastasius, Gregorius was made Bi­shop, and concerning his disposition.

BUt after Anastasius, Gregorius is preferred to the Episcopall Throne, Musculus and Chri­stophorson have rendred this place very ill, as if by these words Evagrius would have shown, that Gregorius Bishop of Antioch had been eminent for Poetry. But Langus has turned these words righter, thus: Cujus lata est Gloria, ut Poeta verbis utar, whose Glory is far spread, that I may use the Poets words. Vales. Evagrius makes use of the same expression at chap. 15, book 1; where he speaks of Isidorus Pelusiota. whose Glory, that I may use the Poet's expression, is far spread. [This person] from his younger years had been exercised in the Monastick Conflicts, and had striven with so much courage and constancy of mind, that in a very short time, [...], from the first down upon his Chin. even during his youthfull age, he arri­ved at the highest degrees; and Governed the Monaste­ry of the [...] Johannes▪ Langus renders these words thus: Primùm verò By­zantii Monasterio praefuit, But in the first place he presided over the Monastery of Byzantium. But E­vagrius does not say, that Gre­gorius was a Monk or Abbot of Byzantium, but that he was Ab­bot of the Monastery of the By­zantii. This seems to have been a Monastery in Syria, wherein Gregorius, whilst he was yet young, had received the Rudi­ments of a Monastick life. Theo­phanes in his Chronicon, pag. 206, says Gregorius had been Apocri­siarius (that is, procurator, or, A­gent] of the Monastery of the Byzantii. Vales. Byzantii, where he embraced a Or, Un­furnished. Monastick life. [Afterwards,] by the Or, Per­swasion. order of Justinus [he pre­sided over the Monks] of mount Sinai al­so; in which place he fell into the greatest of dangers, by undergoing a Siege from those Arabians [termed] Scenitae. Nevertheless, when he had procured that place a profound Peace, he was called from thence to the Or, Arch-Bishoprick. Patriarchate. For under­standing and virtue of mind, [...]. I conjecture we should read here▪ [...], and in all things he was the emi­nentest person of all men. For so Evagrius expresses himself here­after, at chap. 19. of this book; where his words concerning Mau­ricius are these; [...], and every way accurate and immovable. Vales. and in all other things he was the eminentest person of all men, and the most active in [effecting] whatever he had proposed to himself; Or, Not to be woun­ded by fear. of an undaunted spirit, and a man not to be induced to yield, or to be afraid of the Secular power. He made such magnificent Or, Con­tributions. distributions of money, and used such a boun­tifullness and liberality towards all men, that whenever he went abroad, numerous crowds of people, besides those that were his usuall at­tendants, followed him. And whatever per­sons could either see, or hear he was [...]. I had rather make it [...], going forth. In Nicephorus the reading is [...], going. Vales. going forth, flock't together. [...]. Nicephorus read this place otherwise. For, in­stead of the word [...] he has [...], Mundane, or, Se­cular. Which in my judgment is far righter. Johannes Langus has translated Nicephorus's words thus: Et honorem mundanis dig­nitatibus debitum, prae viri hujus observantiâ secundo loco habebant, And they placed [or, had] the honour due to Secular dignities, in the second place, in respect of the observancy of this man. Vales. The honour gi­ven to the supreamest Powers [of this world] was inferi­our to that [paid] to this man; for people were for the most part desirous, both of seeing him as near as pos­sibly they could, and coveted to hear him discourse. For he was most excellently qua­lified to excite a desire of himself in all persons, who up­on what ever account came to and conversed with him. For, his aspect was admirable, and his discourse, by rea­son of his pleasantness of speech, most delightfull; as ready as ever was any man, in the present apprehending of a thing, and most quick in action: in Or, Gi­ving. choosing the best advice, and in passing a judgement, as well of his own, as the affairs of others, he was Or, Most sufficient. most pru­dent. On which account he performed so ma­ny and such great things, never deferring any business till the morrow. He was the admira­tion not only of the Roman Emperours, but of them of Persia also, in regard he so demeaned himself in all affairs, as either necessity required, [Page 504] or occasion would bear; [...]. in my own judge­ment, I have restored this place very hap­pily, in this manner, [...] that is, when time, or necessity re­quired, he would be always at hand. Vales. [to which he was] never wanting, as I shall manifest particularly in due place. There was in him much of ve­hemency, and also some­times passion. But on the other hand, his Lenity and Mansuetude was not little, but rather [...]. abundant and extra­ordinary. So that, that say­ing which with great wisedom hath been utte­red by Gregorius the Divine, might incompa­rably well befit him; an Austerity so well tem­pered with Or, Bash­fullness. Modesty, that the one is not injured by the other; but both are an ornament and com­mendation to each other.

CHAP. VII. How those termed the Persarmenii surrendred themselves Or, To the Chri­stians. to the Romans: on which account a War broke out Or, With the Per­sians. between the Romans and Persians.

DUring the first year of this [Gregorius's] Governing his Bishoprick, the [Inhabi­tants] of that [Country] anciently termed Ar­menia the Great (which afterwards was named Persarmenia; this [Region] had heretofore been subject to the Romans; but, after Philippus successour to Gordianus, had betrayed it to Sa­por, that termed Armenia the Less remained in subjection to the Romans; though all the rest was in the power of the Persians:) being profes­sours of the Christian Religion, in regard they had The same reason of the defe­ction of the Armenii is assigned by Theophanes Byzantius in Photius, and by Jo­hannes Bi­clariensis in his Chro­nicon; whose words are these: Ar­meniorum & Iberorum Gens qui a praedicatione Apostolorum Christi fidem suscepe­rant, The Nation of the Armenii and Iberi who from the Preaching of the Apostles had embraced the Faith of Christ, whilst by Chosdröa Em­perour of the Persians they were compelled to the worship of Idolls, resu­sed Obedience to that impious Command, and Surrendred themselves with their Provinces to the Romans. Which thing broke the League of Peace between the Romans and Persians. But the Abbot of Biclaire is mistaken in this, to wit, his placing the defection of the Armenii on Justinus Junior's First year. For the Peace between the Romans and Persians was broken on the Seventh year of the Emperour Justinus, as Theophilactus relates in the Third Book of his History, Chap. 9; and likewise Theophanes, and his Translatour Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and Cedrenus. Besides, even Johannes Biclariensis himself disagrees from himself in his Narrative of this affair. For he subjoyns these words a little after▪ Anno quinto Justinus Imperator, On [his] Fifth year the Emperour Justinus, having repelled the Persians, makes Armenia and Iberia Roman Provinces. Vales. suffered grievously from the Persians, and especially Or, In re­lation to their own Sentiment, or Opinion. in those matters which re­lated to their Religion, sent an Em­bassy secretly to Justinus, entreating they Or, Might be made. might be received as subjects to the Romans; to the end they might with freedome and security perform [the Rites] of the Divine wor­ship and honour, and that nothing might obstruct them [in those performances.] [Which Embassy] Justinus having admitted of, and some [Conditions set forth] in wri­ting having been agreed to by the Emperour, and confirmed with great and solemn Concerning this Oath, wherein the Emperour Justinus had bound himself, that he would never deliver up the Armenii and Iberi (who had Surrendred themselves to the Romans,) to the Persians, Menander Protector speaks in his Excerpt. Legationum, pag. 121 of the King's Edition: [...], &c. Which words the Translatour understood not. In the first place therefore, instead of [...] by Justinianus, it must be mended thus, [...] by Justinus. And then, the whole place is to be rendred in this manner. For Tiberius Caesar deservedly made the greatest account of those Oathes, which by the Emperour Justinus had been given to the Persarmenii and Iberi, who had revolted to the Romans. For the Emperour had sworn, that he would use his utmost endeavour, to reduce that Land, which had nourished them, to a subjection to himself. But, if he should not be able to effect that thing, and could not put an end to the War; yet, that he would never Surrender up to the Persians the Authours of that defection, and their Relations, and in generall those who should have a mind to be Subjects [or, partakers] of the Roman Republick. Vales. Oaths; the Armenii kill their own To wit, Surenas. For he had been made [...], or, Rectour of Armenia by the King of the Persians; af­ter he was slain, the Persarmenit delivered up themselves to the Romans, as Theophilactus tells us in his third book, chap. 9; and Theophanes Byzantius in his Ex­cerpta in Photius. Lastly, Menan­der says the same, in his Excerpta Legationum, pag. 115. Vales. Gover­nours, and Or, By a generall consent. in one intire Body joyn themselves to the Roman Empire, toge­ther with their Neighbours whom they had taken into an Association with themselves, as well those of the same, as of other Nations; Var­danes [being their Leader,] a person eminent amongst them for descent, dignity, and skill in Military affairs. When therefore Chosroes complain­ed of these things, Justinus dis­missed [his Embassadours] with these words, that the peace [which had been made between them] was terminated, and that 'twas not possible for Christians to reject Christians when they made them their refuge in a time of War. This was Justinus's answer. Nevertheless, he made no preparations for a War; but yielded up himself to his usuall Voluptuousness, and Or, Put all affairs in the Se­cond place to, &c. Postponed all af­fairs to his own pleasures.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning Marcianus the Or, Ma­ster of the Milice, or, Souldiers. Magister Militum, and concerning the Siege of Nisibis.

[FUrther,] he sends Theophanes in his Chro­nicon calls this per­son Marti­nus, as does likewise his Transla­tour Ana­stasius Bib­liotheca­rius. But Theophanes Byzantius, whose Ex­cerpta are extant in Photius's Bibliothe­ca, terms him Mar­cianus, and calls him the Empe­rour Ju­stinus's [...], Brother's Son. [Va­lesius in his note here, renders that Greek word, thus, Consobrinum, Sister's Son.] And says, he was sent Magister Militum into the East by Justinus on the Eight year of his Empire. Vales. Marcianus, who was his kinsman, Magister of the Orientall [Milice,] but allows him neither an Army fit for an engagement, nor any other sufficient pro­vision for the [carrying on a] War. Marci­anus arrives in Mesopotamia, to the manifest hazard and Subversion of all affairs, drawing along with him some few Souldiers, and those unarmed; having also with him some Trench­makers and [...]. From the Florentine and Tellcrian M. SS, I have mended it thus, [...] Drivers of Oxen; and so Nicephorus read. But Nice­phorus inserts two words here. For he expresses this passage thus, [...]: that is, as Langus renders it, as also Ditchers, and Taylors, and Drivers of Oxen. Which word [Tay­lours] Nicephorus seems to have read in his Copy. For I see not whence he could have gotten it. Further, there was use of these Taylours in the Camps, to mend the Souldiers clothes, or else to sow Skins together for Tents or Tabernacles. Vales. Oxe-drivers, whom he had by force taken from among the [...]. Translatours have rendred this place ill. For Mus­culus translates it thus: Et fossores quosdam ac bubulcos ex municipiis acceptos secùm habens, And having with him some Ditchers and Oxe-dri­vers taken out of the Towns. But Christophorson renders it in this manner: Inter quos habuit fossores & Bubulcos ex numero vectigalium exemptos, amongst whom he had Ditchers and Oxe-drivers exempted [or, taken] out of their number▪ who payed Tribute. They knew not what the word [...] signified. Evagrius has made use of this word above, at chap. 42, book 3. At which place we have remarked, that by that word, are meant the Provinciall Tributaries, who are also termed Collatores in the Code. From those therefore Martinus the Magister Militum had by force drawn Ditchers and Oxe-drivers, and Taylours, that he might make use of their Labour in his Army: for he rec­koned them not amongst the Souldiers, as Christophorson seems to have thought. Vales. Provincialls. He comes to an Engagement therefore with the Persians in a small Fight about Nisibis, (the Persians them­selves being as yet unprovided for a War;) and having got the better, lays Siege to the City: the Persians [in the interim] thought not fit to shut the Gates, but most scornfully re­proach't and derided the Army of the Romans. Many other Prodigies were seen, which fore­shewed the future misfortunes; but at the be­ginning of this War, we our selves saw a Calf newly calv'd, out of whose neck grew forth two heads.

CHAP. IX. How Chosroes (after he had sent his Generall Adaarmanes against the Romans, who afflicted them with many and those severe Losses;) went himself in person to Nisibis.

BUt Chosroes, after he had made sufficient pro­vision of all things necessary for a War, went to a certain [place,] and having past the Eu­phrates in his own Country, sends Adaarmanes into the Roman Territories, by a [place] ter­med Circesium. This Circesium is a Town most commodious to the Romans, scituate in the ut­most confines of the Empire. Which [Town] is fortified not only with walls raised to a vast heighth; but the Rivers Euphrates and Aboras do likewise encompass it, and make the City as 'twere an Island. But [Chosroes] himself having, together with those [Forces] about him, passed the River Tigris, marched directly to Nisibis. [Though] these things had been done, [yet] the Romans were a long while ignorant of them: in so much that Justinus, giving overmuch credit to report, (which said that Chosroes was either already dead, or drawing his very last breath,) became highly incensed, because the Siege of Nisibis was protracted so long; and sent some persons who might hasten Marcianus forward, and might forthwith bring him the Keys of the Gates: But when this af­fair was not in the least forwarded, but rather he himself procured great ignominy and disgrace, in regard he would attempt those things which could not be done against such and so vast a City, and with so pittifull and despicable an Army; in the first place a message is brought to Gregorius Bishop of Theopolis. For where­as the Bishop of Nisibis was an intimate friend to Gregorius, in regard he had received great presents from him; and moreover being one that was high­ly displeased at the Persians contumelious usage of the Christians, which the Christians had continu­ally suffered from them, being also desirous that his own City might become subject [to the Em­pire] of the Romans; he gave Gregorius an ac­count of whatever was done in the Enemie's Country, and in due time made known [to him] all things. Of which [matters Gre­gorius] forthwith sent Justinus a Relation, de­claring to him Chosroes's sudden irruption. But Justinus, involved in his usuall pleasures, heeded not what had been written [to him by Gre­gorius;] nor would he give credit thereto, but only supposed [that true,] which he him­self desired. For Or, It follows. 'tis usuall with persons who are dissolute, that they should be both [...]. In Nicephorus 'tis [...], with a double v. So a little before, where the reading is [...]; Nicephorus has it written [...], which is more usuall. Yet, that word may be written with a double [...], as Hesy­chius tells us. Vales. slothfull and con­fident against the Events [of affairs;] and if any thing happens contrary to their wills, they disbelieve it. He wrote therefore to Grego­rius, [in which Letters] he perfectly rejected those things [told him by Gregorius,] as being wholly false: or if they were true, yet, that the Persians could never prevent the Siege; but, that if they did prevent it, they would retire [from thence] with great loss. [At the same time] he sends one Acacius (a wicked and spitefull person,) to Marcianus, giving him order, that although Marcianus should have set one of his feet into the City, he should never­theless Or, Re­move him from his Command. turn him out of Commission. Which thing [Acacius] performed exactly, obeying the Emperour's Commands though to the dis­advantage of the Republick. For being arrived in the [Roman] Camp, he divests Marcianus of his Command, in the Enemies Country, with­out having acquainted the Army therewith. But the Centurions and Leaders of the Ranks, ha­ving understood at their coming off the Watch, that their Commander in chief was turn'd out of Commission, [...]. I think it must be made [...]. And so Musculus seems to have read. For he renders it thus: Exercitui porro adessenolunt, would not be any more present with the Army. Christophorson tran­slates it in this manner, Copias non ulterius ducunt, lead not the For­ces any more. But the Greek will not bear this sense Vales. would not appear in publick any more, but left [the Service,] were dispersed here and there, and brake up the ridiculous Siege. In the interim Adaarmanes having an Army of Persians and barbarous Scenitae fit to engage, passed by Circesium, and ruined the Roman Ter­ritories with all manner of depopulations, bur­ning and killing, designing in his mind or perfor­ming nothing that was mean and triviall. He also takes Castles and many Villages, no body making a resistance against him: First, because [at that time] there was no Commander [of the Romans:] and then, in regard the [Ro­man] Souldiers were by Chosroes shut up in Daras; as well Excursions to fetch in forrage, as irruptions, were made without impediment. He made an attack also upon the Antio­chians. Theopolites by the Souldiers he had with him; (for he went not thither in person.) Nevertheless, those [Soul­diers of his] received a repulse beyond all expe­ctation, although no body, excepting only a very small number, continued in the City; and though the Bishop was fled, and had carried a long with him the sacred Treasure, because, both most part of the wall was fallen down, and the people also had raised a Sedition, being desirous of beginning an Innovation, as it usually happens, and most espe­cially at such times as those. Moreover, [the Seditious] themselves betook themselves to their heels, and had left the City empty; nothing at all being to be found out, [...]; words which I have not yet met with▪ used in such a sense, as by all the Translatours they are taken here. that might either annoy the Enemy, or on the other hand keep them off.

CHAP. X. Concerning the taking of Apamia and Daras.

VVHen therefore [...]. This name is found variously written in ancient Authours. In Theophanes's Chronicon, he is called Artabanes, and Ar­damanes in the Palatine Manuscript Copy. Anastasius Bibliothecarius terms him Dux Adermanus. In Nicephorus 'tis [...], Vada­armanes. In Theophanes Byzantius, Baraamanes. Hereafter in the thirteenth chapter he is termed Ardamanes. Theophylactus, Book 3 [...] calls him Adormaanes. Vales. Adaarmanes had been frustrated in this attempt, having burnt that City anciently termed Heraclea, but after­wards named Gagalice, he took Apamia, which had been built by [...]. Undoubtedly it must be made [...], Nicatoris. For Seleucus the first King of Syria, because of his fa­mous Victories, had the surname of Nicator, as we learn from the Old Coyns, which ascribe this Title or Surname to him. Vales. S [...]e V [...] ▪ ­lesius's notes on Amm. Marcel. pag. 41. Seleucus Nicator, [a City] [Page 506] heretofore rich and populous, but in [process of] time it was become extreamly ruinous. Ha­ving possest himself of this City on some Articles of agreement, (for [the Inhabitants] were in no wise in a capacity to make a resistance, the wall by reason of its age being faln to the ground;) he utterly destroyed it by fire; and when he had made, plunder of all things, con­trary to the conditions agreed to by him, he went away, and lead away Captive all the Ci­tizens, and [the Inhabitants of] the adjacent Villages. Amongst which [Prisoners] he car­ried away alive the Bishop of the City, and that person who was entrusted with the Government [of the Province.] Moreover, he committed all manner of Or, Cru­elties. outrages at his departure, there being no body that might restrain or give him any the lest resistance, excepting a very few Souldiers sent by Justinus, under the Command of one Magnus, who was heretofore President of the Bankers. Argentarii at the Imperiall City, but had afterwards by Justinus been made Curator of one of the Imperial Houses. And these [Souldiers] also ran away with all the hast imaginable, there having wanted but little of their being all taken by the Enemy. When therefore Adaarmanes had performed these Ex­ploits, he came to Chosroes, who had not yet taken the City [Daras.] His joyning Forces with Chosroes was of great importance to [their] affairs, both because it gave incouragement to their own men, and also struck a terrour into the Enemy. Further, [Chosroes] found that City encompassed with a wall, and a vast Ram­pire of earth cast up hard by the wall, also those Engines [termed] Machines used in Sieges, to batter down the walls. Helepoles standing ready; and especially the Catapultae wherewith stones are thrown from an Eminence, which [Machines] they usually term Or, En­gines to cast stones. Petrariae. Or, With which. In this man­ner Chosroes became Master of that City by force, in the Winter time, Johannes the Son of Timo­stratus being its Governour, who was very little sollicitous about it, or rather betrayed it. For both are reported. Now, Chosroes had laid Siege to that City five months and more, no body appearing in its defence. Having there­fore brought all persons out of the City, (which were a vast multitude,) and in a cruell manner killed some of them there, and preserved others, which were the most in number, alive; he for­tified the City with a Garrison, because its site was commodious: but he himself returned into his own Countrey.

CHAP. XI. That the Emperour Justinus was seized with a Or, Frantick distemper. Frensie: but Tiberius undertook the care of the Republick.

WHich [proceedings] when Justinus was made acquainted with, having in his mind not so much as one thought that was sound and prudent, nor bearing his [...]. It must be made [...]; as I found it written in the Telle­rian M. S. Vales. misfortune so as it becomes a man to doe; from such an heighth of pride and haughtiness he falls into a Frantick distemper and madness, and in future became in­sensible of what was transacted. From thence forward therefore Tiberius had the management of the Republick, a person by descent a Thra­cian, but one who bore the chiefest place of trust, [and was the greatest favourite] with Justinus. The Em­perour Ju­stinus sent Tiberius the Comes of his Guards, against the Avares, with an Army sufficiently strong, on the ninth year of his Empire, as Theophanes relates in his Chro­nicon. But Johannes Biclariensis says that was done on the fourth year of Justinus's Empire: where he relates, that from this Battel Tiberius returned a Conquerour to Constantinople. Which yet is declared to be false by Evagrius and Theophanes. Vales. This person had heretofore been sent [by Justinus] against the Or, A­bores, or, Avares. Abari, [ac­companied with] a vast Army of Souldiers which had been raised. But, the Souldiers not en­during so much as the sight of the Barbarians, Tiberius wanted but little of being taken, had not the Divine providence in a wonderfull manner protected him, and reserved him for the Ro­man Empire; which had been reduced to such danger by Justinus's absurd and rash attempts, that ['twas feared least] together with the whole State it should be utterly ruined, and might yield to the Or, So great. prevalent power and dominion of the Barbarians.

CHAP. XII. That Trajanus having been sent Embassadour to Chosroes, Corrected, or, restored. repaired the affairs of the Romans.

TIberius therefore resolves upon a Councill, or, advice. Course very seasonable, and accommodate to the [present juncture of] affairs; which repaired the whole misfortune. For This Trajanus was Patritius and Quaestor of the Sacred Pallace; concerning his Embassie to the Persians, Menander Protector speaks in the Sixth Book of his Histories, pag. 157. and 165. This, as I think, is the Trajanus Patritius who had written a short Chronicle, an admirable work, as Suidas attests. Theophanes mentions him in his Chronicon, pag. 56. Suidas writes indeed, that he had lived in the times of Justinianus Rhinotmetus. But I am of opinion that Suidas is out, in regard no person of this name is mentioned in the Empire of Justinianus Rhinotmetus. But in the Reign of Justinus junior, Trajanus Patritius is commended by Menander Protector in his Sixth Book, and by our Evagrius here. Vales. Trajanus, a wise person of the Senatorian Order, a man highly valued by all men for his gray-hairs and un­derstanding, is dispatcht a­way to Chosroes: He was not to perform that Embassy in the name of [...], of the Em­pire. the Emperour, nor of the State; but was to speak in behalf only of [the Empress] Sophia. Moreover, She wrote to Chosroes, [in which Let­ter] She lamented both the calamities of her Husband, and also the State's being deprived of an Emperour; adding with all, that 'twas misbecoming [a Prince] to insult over a woman that was a wid­dow, over a Or, De­jected. dead Emperour, and over a de­serted State: For, that Chosroes. he himself, when he had faln sick sometime since, had not only ex­perienced the like [humanity and kind usage,] but had likewise had the best Physitians sent him by the Roman State, who also freed him from his distemper. [Hereby] therefore Chosroes is prevailed upon. And although he was just ready to make an Invasion [...]. In Nice­phorus the reading is truer. [...], upon the Territories [or, affairs] of the Romans. Vales. upon the Ter­ritories of the Romans, yet he concludes a Truce for the space of three years, in the Eastern parts. But, 'twas thought good, that Armenia [...]. In my own judgment I have re­stored this place very happily, so, that instead of the word [...], it must be written, [...]. For in the Truce which was made between the Romans and Persians, it had been expressly cautioned, that there should be a Cessation of Armes throughout the East only: but in Armenia and Iberia it should be lawfull to wage War. See Menander Protector in the Sixth Book of his Histories, pag. 157; which authour does fully confirm this our Emendation. And so does Theophylactus, Book 3. Chap. 12. Vales. should not be included in the like [conditions of a Truce;] so that, he might wage War there, provided no body disturbed the Eastern parts. [Page 507] During the transaction of these affairs in the East, Sirmium was taken by the [...], by the Bar­barians. The rea­ding in Ni­cephorus is the same. Nevertheless, I doubt not but it should be written [...], by the Abares. For the Abares took the City Sirmium, as Menander Protector attests in his Excerpta Legatio­num, pag. 117. Which City having before been in the hands of the Gepida, the Abares who had destroyed the Kingdom of the Gepidae, asserted, that that City, with the rest of the riches of the Gepidae, had passed into their power and dominion, as the same Menander relates, pag. 114 and 130. See Theophylactus, Book 1. Chap. 3. Vales. Abares: which [City] the Gepidae had possest them­selves of before, but had afterwards Surrendred it to [the Emperour] Justinus.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning the Election of Tiberius to the Em­pire, and concerning his disposition.

ABout the same time, Justinus by the advice of Sophia, proclaims Tiberius, Caesar. At which Election [Justinus] made such a speech, as transcends all History, as well ancient as mo­dern: the most Commpassionate God allowing Justinus this opportunity, both for a confession of his own sins, and also that he might be the Au­thour of wholesome advice for the advantage and benefit of the State. For, at a convention [...], in the open Court [of the Pallace.] Nicephorus adds a word here, in this manner, [...], in the open Court of the Imperial Pallace. Theophylactus makes mention of this place, Book 1, Chap. 1; and relates, that the Emperours were usually proclai­med there; [...] [says he,] [...], &c. Which place the Latine Translatour has exprest in a long circuit of words, in this manner: Tiberius namque in atriam palatii juxta domum, in quâ multi ex herbis, seu frondibus, ad coenandum, dormiendumve tori, sive Lectisternia, vestibulum illustre, visendumque proscenium. Huc, inquam, gestatus, &c. Whence it appears, that he understood not what was meant by these words. Likewise Nicephorus Callistus, when he wrote out this place of Theophilactus omitted the latter words. But my Sentiment is, that by these words, [...], Theophilactus means that House which in Greek was termed [...], Because in it there were nineteen Accubita, or Stibadia, whereon the Emperour with his Nobles lay down and ban­quetted at Christmas, and on the more solemn Festival days, as Theopha­nes and Anastasius Bibliothecarius do relate in the one and thirtieth year of Justinian; and likewise Luitprandus in Book 6 Rerum per Europam Gestarum, Chap. 3; where his words are these: Est domus quae De­caennea accubita dicitur, &c. There is an House which is termed the Decaennea accubita. It is so called for this reason, because nineteen Tables are spread there in the Nativity of our Lord. Whereon the Em­perour and likewise his Guests do banquet, not in a sitting posture, as on other days, but by lying down. Near this House was the Tribunal, or Throne, in which the Emperours and Empresses were crowned. Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus, pag 176, speaking of Isaurus Leo; [...] (says he) [...], in the Throne termed the Decaennea Accubita he Crowned his Son Constantine Emperour. Anastasius re­lates the same, as does likewise the Author Historiae Miscellae, Book 21. The same Writer, book 22, speaking of Constantinus Copronymus: Anno 28 Imperii sui coronavit, On the 28th year of his own Em­pire, the Emperour Crowned his Wife Eudoxia, after he had been thrice married, in the Tribunal of the nineteen Accubita. Hence 'tis, that Codinus (in his Origines Constantinopolitanae,) places [...], The Stepfimon, near the House of the nineteen Accubita: by which term [The Stepsimon] he means the throne whereon the Emperours were Crowned. Now, this House was, in the Third Region [of the City,] near the Hippodrome, as Luitprandus attests. Indeed, the Old Description informs us, that in that Region was the Great Cirque, and the Semicircular [or, half-round] Porticus, which was called The Sigma, and lastly the Tribunal of the Forum of Constantine. And 'tis very likely, that of that Porticus was made the House of the nine­teen Accubita; for a Sigma is the same with a Stibadium or an Accubi­tum. Moreover, the Church of Saint Stephen is by Codinus placed near the Tribunal of the nineteen Accubita, which Petrus Gyllius (book 2, chap. 15,) relates, from an Old Authour, to have been near the Sig­ma. Further, this House of the nineteen Accubita, was also termed The Delphica, or, The Delphicum, as Procopius attests book 1. of his Vandalicks, pag. 116; and Victor Thunonensis in his Chronicon. Vales. in the Atrium of the [Imperial] Pallace (where I can't tell why Evagrius should say this was an old cu­stome, that the Empe­rours of Constan­tinople should be proclaimed in the Atrium of the Imperial Pallace. For the old custome was, that the Augusti should be proclaimed in the Seventh Milliarium, or, mile, from the City, in the presence of the Army, in the Campus, or field without the City. And Valens, [was] the first that had been stiled Emperour in that Suburb, by his Brother Valentinian. After whom, the following Emperours of the East were proclaimed in the same place, as I have long since observed in my Notes on Amm. Marcellinus's 26th book. pag. 115, 116. The Emperour Zeno. also was Crowned in the Seventh Milliarium by his own Son Leo, as Victor Thunonensis relates in his Chronicon. Likewise Basilis­cus was a little after stiled Emperour in the Campus, as Theophanes in­forms us. Now, the Campus was in the Seventh Milliarium, as The­ophylactus attests, book 8, chap. 12. But who was first saluted Au­gustus in the Atrium of the Imperial Pallace, at Constantinople, I have not yet plainly found. Indeed, Justinus Junior seems to have been proclaimed Emperour there, as may be gathered from the first chapter of this book. Vales. ancient custome says such Solemnities were performed,) both of Theophanes in his Chronicon attests, that (not Johannes Scho­lasticus, but) Eutychius was then Patriarch of Constantinople. For Johannes Scholasticus died on the Tenth Indiction, in the month August, the day before the Calends of September. And Eutychius was restored to his own See on the same year, in the month October, on the Eleventh Indiction, as Theophanes attests. On the year following (which was the year of Christ 578, in the Twelfth Indiction, on the 26th of September,) this Eutychius Crowned Tiberius Augustus, as The­ophanes and the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle inform us. But, on a more attentive examination of the thing, I have perceived nothing is to be found fault with here: for Evagrius speaks not here concerning Tiberius's being proclaimed Augustus, but of the Appella­tion of Caesar granted to him. Further, Tiberias was made Caesar on the Eighth Indiction, as the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle informs us: at which time Johannes was Patriarch of Constantinople. Vales. Johannes the Patriarch, whom we mentioned before, together with his Clergy, of the Magistracy and Honorati, and of all the Grand Officers about the Court; Justinus, when he had invested Tiberius with the Imperial Coat, and had cloathed him in the [Pur­ple] Or, Cloake. Robe, with a loud voice spake publickly [these following words.]

Let not the Magnificence of Your Attire de­ceive You, nor the Scene of those things which are seen: by which I have been imposed upon, and have rendred my self obnoxious to the Extream­est of Punishments. Do You correct my mistakes, and withall [...], de­light of mind. Lenity and Mansuetude Govern the State. Then pointing to the Or, Go­vernours. Magistrates; You ought not, said he, in any wise to be per­swaded by them; and further added, For they have reduced me to those Circumstances wherein You now behold me. [He uttered] severall other such like [expressions,] which put all persons into an amaze, and drew from them plenty of Tears. Now, Tiberius was very tall of Body, and besides his Stature, the Comeliest person, not only of Emperours, but of all other men, [...]. I think it must be written, [...], as far as any one; &c. Nor do I doubt but Evagrius left it thus written. Our conjecture is confir­med by the Tellerian Manuscript, wherein I found it plainly written in this manner. Away therefore with the rendition of Musculus, who translates it thus: Insignis magis, quà [...] ut quisquam illi conferri possit, more eminent, than that any one might be compared to him. But Chri­stophorson turns it in this manner; Pulchritudinis excellentiâ omnium opinione major, for the excellency of beauty, greater than the opinion of all men. Vales. as far as any one may conjecture; [...]. The reading in th [...] Florentine Manuscript is truer, thus, [...], &c, in so much that, in the first place, &c. Evagrius alludes to that known verse of the Tragoedian; [...]. Vales. in so much that, in the first place, even his very shape deserved an Empire. His temper of mind was Sweet and Curteous, [a person] that received all men kindly even at the first sight. He esteemed it [the greatest] Riches to be liberall to all men in reference to bountifull Contributions, not on­ly as far as a necessity, but even to an affluence. [Page 508] [...] I had rather write, [...], &c. For he considered not, what Petitioners ought to re­ceive, as the reading is in Nicepho­rus, book [...]8, chap. 1. In the Flo­rentine and Tellerian Manu­scripts, in­stead of [...], 'tis written [...]. Vales. For he considered no [...], what Petitioners ought to receive, but what it became an Emperour of the Romans to give. 'Twas his Sentiment, that that Gold was adulterate Or, Which came from Tears. which was Collected with the Tears [of the Provincialls.] Hence ('tis cer­tain) it was, that he remitted the Collection of There is extant a Constitution of Justinus Junior, wherein he has remitted to the Provincialls the Remains of the Tributes of the past year, untill the Eighth Indiction of the Cycle current. Which Justinus seems to have done by the perswasion of Tiberius, whom a little be­fore he had Created Caesar, at the beginning of the Eighth In­diction, as the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle informs us. Into this first Constitution therefore of the Emperour Ju­stinus junior, the name of Tiberius the Caesar ought also to have been inserted. Vales. one whole years Tribute, to the Tributaries. And those possessions which Ada­armanes had ruined, he freed from the Tribu­tary Function, not only in proportion to the damage they had suffered, but also much above [the loss.] Moreover, At this present there is extant a Constitution of the Emperour Justinus junior, concerning the promoting Rectours of Provinces without reward. Which amongst the Novelt Constitutions of Justinus junior is the Fifth in number. In that Constitution Justinus gives permission to the Provincialls, that they may make known to the Em­perour those persons whom they should judge fit to Govern their own Province; and the Emperour promises, that he will give forth the Codicills and the Insignia [Marks, Tokens] of Magistracy free­ly, without any present or gift. Which Law, in regard it bears date on the eighth year of Justinus Junior's Empire, was, we doubt not, set forth also by the perswasion and suggestion of Tibe­rius the Caesar. Vales. those illegall Presents were remitted to the Magistrates, for which [Bribes] the Emperours had heretofore sold their Subjects [to them.] He also wrote Constitutions concerning these matters, ma­king thereby provision for the security of po­sterity.

CHAP. XIV. That the Emperour Tiberius raised a vast Army [to be imployed] against Chosroes; [at the head whereof] he sent Justinianus the Dux, and drove [Chosroes] out of Or, Land of the Ro­mans. the Roman Pale.

HAving therefore imployed the ill gotten Treasure to a good use, he made pro­vision for a War. And raises so vast an Army Or, Of men that were He­roes. of valiant men, by listing the choycest Soul­diers, both of the Or, Be­yond the Alpes. Transalpine Nations who [inhabit] about the Rhine, and also of the Or, On this side the Alpes. Cisalpines, of the Massagetae likewise, and other Scythick nations; of those also about Or, Pae­onia. Panno­nia and Moesia, of the Illyrii and Isauri: that he intermixt near an Hundred and fifty thou­sand men with his incom­parable [...]. Without doubt it must be made [...], Troops. 'Tis a wonder to me, that this was not taken notice of, either by Nicephorus, or the Translatours. Vales. Troops of Horse, and Routed Chosroes: who after his taking of Daras, immediately in the Summer had made an irruption into Armenia, and from thence resolved upon an Invasion of Caesarea, (which is the Metropolis of Cappadocia,) and of the Cities in that Region. He contemned the Roman Em­pire in such a manner, that when Caesar dis­patch't away an Embassy to him, he would not vouchsafe the Ambassadours access to him­self: but ordered them to follow him to Cae­sarea: for there, he said, he would Or, Con­sider of their Em­bassy. give them audience. But when he saw the Roman Army fronting him, (Commanded by Menan­der Pro­tector has mentioned this Ju­stinian Magister Militum throughout the East, in the Sixth Book of his Histories, pag. 159. As also Theophy­lactus, Book 3. Chap. 12. And likewise Johannes Biclarien­sis in his Chronicon: Anno 9. Justini Cos­droes Per­sarum Im­perator, On Justi­nus's ninth year Cos­droes Em­perour of the Per­sians, with too nume­rous an Army, ad­vances to ruine the Roman Confines: against whom Ju­stinianus Comman­der of the Roman Milice and Magister Militum of the East being sent by Tiberius, makes ready for a War, and in the Fields which lie between Daras and Nisibis engages in a brave Fight, having with him those most valiant Nations, which in the Lan­guage of the Barbarians are termed Hermani; where he vanquishes the forementioned Emperour. Vales. Justini­anus [...]. From the Florentine and Tellerian Manuscripts I have made good this place thus; [...] Brother to that Justinus who had been barbarously murdered by [the Emperour] Ju­stinus. This Justinian therefore was Son to Germanus, (which Theo­phylactus does also attest in his Third Book▪) Brother of that Justinus who had been slain by the Emperour, as Evagrius relates in the be­ginning of this book. Vales. Brother to that Justinus who had been barbarously murdered by [the Emperour] Ju­stinus,) accurately well Armed, the Trumpe [...]s sounding an Alarm, the Colours raised in order to an Engagement, the Souldier greedy of slaugh­ter, and with a most incomparable decency breathing forth rage and fury, [lastly] such and so great a number of Horse, as none of the Emperours had ever conceived in their mind; he was stricken with a great amazement, sighed deeply at so unhop't-for and unexpected a thing, and would not begin a Fight. When therefore he deferred an Engagement, made delayes, spent the time, and only feigned a Fight; Theophylactus mentions this person, in book 3. chap. 16; and in book 1. chap. 9. In which places the Latine Translatour terms him Cursius. But, he had better have translated it Cursus. For so Menander Protector calls him, in the sixth book of his Histories, pag. 159 of the King's Edition. In Theophanes's Chronicon, pag. 214, he is corruptly termed [...], Crous. Vales. Curs the Scythian, a person that Commanded the Right Wing, makes an Attack upon him. The Persians were not able to bear the Or, Ve­hemency. Shock of his Charge, but appa­rently deserted their Or, Or­der. Ranks; where­upon [Curs] made a great slaugh­ter amongst the Enemy. Then he Attacks the Rere [of the Persian,] where Chosroes and the whole Army had their Baggage: and he takes all the Kings Treasure, and more­over the whole Baggage, in the very sight of Chosroes, who bore it with patience, and [...] I rather approve of Nicephorus's reading, (book 18. chap. 2.) which runs thus; [...]: only, I would adde an Article, in this manner, [...]. That is, as Johannes Langus renders it, Quòd facilius is impressionem suam, quàm ipsius Cours sustineri posse existimaret, because be thought his own impression might with more ease be endared, than the Attack of Cours. Further, Theophanes in his Chronicon relates this Flight of the Persians and Victory of the Romans, after the death of the Emperour Justinus junior, when Tiberius had obtained the Empire alone. But Theo­phylactus, from whom Theophanes seems to have taken his Relation, attests that that hapned whilst Justinus was yet alive, when Tiberius bore the Title and Dignity of Caesar only, and governed the State; as may be seen in Theophylactus's third book, chap. 14. To whom agrees our Evagrius; for he relates the Death of Justinus Junior thereafter, in the nineteenth chapter of this book, where he says in express words, that after Justinus's death, Tiberius deprived Justinian of the Dignity of Magister Militum. Vales. thought his own trouble might with more ease be indured, than the Attack of Curs. In this manner therefore Curs, together with his Souldiers, possesses himself of great Riches and Plunder, and drives away the Beasts of burthen together with their Burthens, amongst which hapned to be Chosroes's Sacred Fire, adored by him as a God: [after this] he marches round the Persian Army singing a Victorious Song, and about Candle-lighting re­turns to Or, His own [for­ces.] the Roman Army, which Or, Had now broke their own Ranks. had now left its Station; neither Chosroes nor the Romans having be­gun a Fight: only some Skirmishes had hapned, and (as it usually hap­pens,) [Page 509] sometimes one man [came out] of each Army and engaged in a single Combat. On the night following Chosroes kindled many Fires, and prepared for a Night-Fight: and whereas the Roman Army was divided into two Camps, in the dead of the Night he falls upon those who were Encamped to the North­ward. After he had routed them by his sudden and unexpected Attack, he invades Melitina a City that lay near, which was then without a Garrison and destitute of Inhabitants. And after he had burnt down this whole City, he made preparations for his passing over the River Euphrates. But when the Roman Army was got together into one Body, and followed him, being put into a fear in relation to his own safety, he himself got upon an Elephant, and so past the River. But a vast number of the [Forces] about him were buried in the Tor­rent of the Euphrates. After he had received information of their being drowned, he mar­ched away from thence. Chosroes therefore having undergone this last punishment for his so great Petulan­cy, or, Con­tumelie. insolence towards the Romans, in com­pany of those [of his Forces] who had made their escape, went into the East, where he had a Truce, to the end no one might make an Attack upon him. But Justinianus with the whole Roman Army entred the Persian Em­pire, where he passed the Winter season, no body giving him any the least molestation. A­bout the Summer Solstice he returned, with­out the loss of any part of his Forces, and with great felicity and much glory spent the Summer about the Confines of both Em­pires.

CHAP. XV. That Chosroes being heavily disquieted at his own overthrow, ended his life: but his Son Hormisda undertook the Government of the Persians.

BUt, an immense [deluge of] sadness being poured in upon The death of Chosdroes King of the Per­sians is re­lated too soon here. For he died after Tiberius had gotten the Em­pire, as Theophy­lactus at­tests, book 3. chap. 16. which is also confirmed by Menander Protector in his Excerpt. Legat. Wherefore Theophanes is mistaken in his Chronicon, who relates Chosdroes's death, and the Inauguration of his Son Hor­misda, in the Empire of Justinus Junior. Vales. Chosroes, (who was now sorely distressed, reduced to a desperation, and overwhelmed with a reciprocall Torrent of Grief,) in a miserable manner took him out of this life; after he had erected an immortall Monument of his own Flight, [to wit] the Law he wrote, that no Emperour of the Per­sians should in future lead forth an Army a­gainst the Romans. His Son Hormisda succeeds him in the Empire. [...]. In the Tellerian Manuscript I found it written, [...] of whom I must at present omit to speak: which reading I prefer far before the Vulgar one. Vales. Of whom I must at pre­sent omit to speak, in regard the sequel [of Transactions] calls me to themselves, and doth expect the Line, or, Procedure. thread of my Discourse.

CHAP. XVI. Who at that time were Bishops of the Greater Churches.

AFter the departure of Johannes, called also Ca­telinus, out of this life, In Nice­phorus, book 17, chapt. 35, he is called Bonossus. This is he, whom Anastasius Bib­liothecarius and the other Au­thours who have written con­cerning the Lives of the Bishops of Rome, do term Benedictus. Baronius thinks he had the Sur­name of Bonosus. Vales. Bonosus undertakes the Government of the Bishoprick of Rome; he was succeeded by another Johannes, whose successour was Pelagius. The Con­stantinopolitane Chair, when Johannes was dead, was re­stored to Eutychius, who had been Bishop before Jo­hannes. After Apollinaris, Johannes succeeds in the Throne of Alexandria, who was succeeded by Eulogius. After Ma­carius, Johannes is promoted to the Episcopate of Jerusalem, a person who had been excer­cised in the Conflicts of an unfurnished life, in that termed the Monasterie of the Acoemeti; Chri­stophor­son under­stood these words so, as if Evagrius would have said, that in the times of Jo­hannes Bishop of Jerusalem, no tumuit had been raised in the Church. But to me Evagrius seems to mean another thing▪ to wit, that during that whole time, wherein those Prelates, here named by Evagrius, sate; there had been no tumult in the Church. Vales. nothing of an Innovation having been at­tempted in relation to the Ecclesiastick consti­tution.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning the Earthquake which hapned at An­tioch in the times of Tiberius.

BUt, [...] Nicephorus (book 18▪ chap. 3,) thought that by these words was meant the third year of Tiberius Augustus's Empire. The same was the Sentiment also of Chri­stophorson and Musculus, as may be gathered from their Renditions. But in my judgment, Evagrius seems to mean here the year of Tiberius's Caesarean Dignity. For, in the first place the words themselves do sufficiently show that. Then secondly, Evagrius has not yet related Justinus Junior's death, nor the Coronation of Tiberius. For he speaks of these hereafter, in the nineteenth chapter of this book. Where­fore, those things related in this chapter, hapned whilst Justinus Junior was yet alive. Vales. in the third year of Tiberius the Cae­sar's Governing the Roman Empire, there hapned at Antioch and the Suburb Daphne which is near it, a most dismall shaking of the Earth, [...]. It must be made [...] at the very; as 'tis in the Tellerian M. S; or, [...] as it is in Nicephorus. Vales. at the very hottest time of Noon-day. At which time all Daphne was totally demolished by this Earthquake, and the Edifices at Antioch, as well the publick as the private ones, were rent in sunder to the very earth, but fell not to the very ground. Some other accidents hapned likewise, highly worthy to be recorded, both at Theopolis it self, and at the Imperial City also: which disquieted both those Cities, and incited them to the greatest Tumults. [These Acci­dents] took their Occasion. beginning from a divine Zeal, and obtained a conclu­sion befitting God. Which [matters] [...]. I begin to relate. I had rather write, [...] I come: for so Graecians are wont to speak. In the Tellerian M. S. I found it plainly written, [...], I come to give a relation of. Vales. I come [now] to give a Narrative of.

CHAP. XVIII. Concerning the Insurrection against the Execrable Anatolius.

ONe Anatolius (a person at first [...] In the excel­lent Flo­tine Manu­script I found it plainly written, [...], of the ordi­nary rank, and one of the Sedentary Mechanicks. The same is the reading in Nicephorus. Further, 'tis strange that three Translatours should have been mista­ken in the rendition of one word. For Johannes Langus renders it thus: Erat Theopoli Anatolius quidam, ex plebeis ille quidem & ig­navis unus, There was at Theopolis one Anatolius, a person of the ordi­nary rank and one of the slothfull. Musculus translates it in this man­ner; Unus ex multis illis qui vitam delicatè instituunt, One of those many who lead a delicate life. Christophorson's Version runs thus; Anatolius vir quidam plebeius primùm & mollis. Anatolius a man at first a plebeian and effeminate, or, soft. Which interpretation they seem to have drawn from Suidas and the Authour of the Etymologicon; who expounded [...] in this manner, [...], idle and effeminate. But, this term signifies something else here, as is concluded from the preceding term. Wherefore I doubt not, but by this word Evagrius means the Artifices Sellularii, Sedentary Me­chanicks, which the Greeks also term [...] for the same rea­son, to wit because they do their work sitting. So Julius Pollux book 7, chap. 1; and the Authour of the Etymologicon in the word [...]. Vales. of the ordinary rank, and one of the Sedentary Mechanicks, but afterwards in what manner I know not, he had thrust himself into the Magi­stracy, and into other Offices;) lived in the City Antioch: where also he followed those affairs which he then had in hand. On which account likewise it hapned that he contracted an intimate familiarity with Gregorius the Pre­late of that City: and made frequent visits to him, [...]. I write, [...], partly that he might confer with him; the word [...] must be expunged, which crept in here from the foregoing line. Vales. partly that he might confer with him, and partly to render his own power and authority greater by often conversing with him. This [Anatolius] was afterwards discovered to have sacrificed [to the Gods;] and having on that account been called to Examination, was detected to be a most execrable wretch, a Con­jurer, and a person involved in innumerable im­pieties. But he Or, Bought off. corrupted the Comes of the East with money; and wanted but little of gaining his dismission, together with his Ac­complices; (For he had severall others of the same Moralls with himself, who had been ap­prehended at the same time that he was:) had not the populacy made an Insurrection, and by raising a great disturbance, spoyled that design. Moreover, they exclaimed against the Patriarch himself, and said that he Or, Was a partaker of that de­sign. was a party in that Consult. Also, some turbulent and destructive Daemon [...]. Doubtless it must be made, [...], had perswaded; as the rea­ding is in Nicephorus. Vales. had perswaded some persons, that he was Or, In­termixt. present together with Anatolius at the [detestable] sacrifices. For this reason Gre­gorius was reduced to the imminentest of dan­gers, most violent incursions being made against him by the populacy. And this suspicion was raised to such an heighth, that the Emperour Tiberius himself became desirous of knowing the truth from Anatolius's own mouth. He gives order therefore, that Anatolius and his Accomplices should forthwith be conveyed to the Imperial City. Which when Anatolius understood, he ran to an Image of the Theotocos hung up by a rope in the Prison, and having folded his hands behind his back, shewed him­self in the posture of an humble Suppliant and Petitioner. But she, abominating [the man,] and reproving [the Wretch] as impious and hatefull to God, [...]. Without doubt it must be written, [...], turned [her face] quite backward. And so Nice­phorus read, who has exprest this place of Evagrius thus, [...] turned her selfe quite away from him. Whence it appears, that Nicephorus put a Comma be­fore the word [...], after the term [...]: which puncta­tion I do rather approve of. Vales. In Robert Stephens's Edition, this passage is worded and pointed thus; [...]; But she, both a­bominating this impious person and perfectly reproving [the Wretch] hatefull to God, turned back­ward. turned [her face] quite back­ward; an horred sight, and worthy to be for­ever remembred: which thing having been seen, both by all the Prisoners, and also by those who were entrusted with the custody of Anatolius and his Accom­plices; was declared to all persons. Moreover, she was seen by some of the Faith­full, inciting them against that Pest Anatolius, and say­ing that he had been inju­rious to her Son. But after he was brought to the Im­perial City, and having been Or, Subjected. exposed to the acutest of Tortures, had not any thing in the least to say against the Prelate [Gregorius;] he, together with his Asso­ciates, became the Occasioner of greater Tumults there, and [was the Authour] of a popular Sedition in that City. For, when some of Viz. A­natolius's Accom­plices. them had received a sentence of Banishment, but were not to be taken off by a capitall punishment; the populacy, incensed by a kind of Divine zeal, put all things into a disturbance, by being exaspe­rated, and highly enraged. And having seized the persons that had been condemned to Exile, they put them into a Boat, and burnt them alive; which sentence the people pronounc't against them. They likewise exclaimed against the Emperour, and against Eutychius their own Patriarch, as being betrayers of the Faith: And they were about to have murdered Eutychius, and those persons to whom the Cognizance of this Cause had been committed, going up and down to all places in quest of them; had not providence, the preserver of all things, deli­vered them out of their hands who sought after them, and by degrees appeased the Rage of so numerous a multitude, in such a manner, that no mischievous Action was committed by their hands. Further, Anatolius himself in the first place was cast to the wild Beasts in the Amphi­theatre, and his Body having been torn by them, was afterwards fixt to a Cross. But neither in this manner found he an end of his punishment in this life. For the Wolves having drag'd his impure Body down from the Cross, (a thing never before seen,) divided it for a prey amongst themselves. There was also a certain person a­mongst us, who (before these things hapned,) affirmed, that he saw in his sleep, in what man­ner the Sentence against Anatolius and his Ac­complices should be Given­out, or, executed. pronounced by the peo­ple. And an Illustrious [...]: that is, Curator of the Impe­rial Houses. For the Houses of the Emperours, as well those in the Imperial City, as them in the Suburbs, had their Curatores, who look't after their Revenue. And this dignity was not the meanest, for the persons who bore it had the Titles of Most Glorious and Most Magnificent, as I have remarked before at the third chapter of this book. They seem also to have had a Jurisdiction, as Agathias shews in his Fifth Book, speaking concerning one Anatolius an Ex-consul; [...], &c. A person that had both been honoured with the Lignity of the Consuls, and besides had obtained an Office, [which was,] to take care of and to look after the Houses and posses­sions of the Emperour. Those Officers are by the Romans termed Cura­tores. The term [...], Office, in this passage of Agathias (though Vulcanius has omitted it in his Version,) is in no wise superfluous; but it imports an Office of a Magistrate, or a Jurisdiction. Besides, that purple Ribband [or Garland,] and the Tables which the same Ana­tolius was wont to affixe to the Houses of private persons, that he might challenge them for the Treasury, (as Agathias subjoyns in his fol­lowing words,) do manifestly enough declare, that Anatolius had a Jurisdiction as Curator of the Imperial Houses. 'Tis certain, the Constitution of the Emperour Tiberius concerning the Divine Houses, doth plainly attest, that those Curatores had Jurisdiction. For in that Constitution, Tiberius does make an express establishment, that an Actor, who shall prefer a Plaint [or, Sue Process] against a Cartularius or a Conductor or a Colonus of an Imperial House, con­cerning any matter belonging to an House of the Emperour, may, if he will, come to an hearing before the Most Glorious and Most Magnificent Curator. But if he suspects him, he may prosecute his Cause before any other Judge who shall have been put into Commission by the Emperour. But the Emperour Tiberius in that Law prohibites the Cu­ratores from fixing Tables or Fiscall Titles on the Houses of private per­sons, and from Sealing them. For the Curatores were wont to sell such Titles as these to the meaner sort, and to exact something of them for their Patronage and Protection, as Tiberius does there shew. More­over, these Houses, and the Conductores [Hirers] of them enjoyed many priviledges and immunities, as may be seen in the Theodosian Code, Tit. de privilegiis domus Augustae, and in the fore-mentioned Constitution of Tiberius. Vales. Curator of the Im­perial Houses, who was a vigorous defender of Anatolius, affirmed that he saw the Theotocos, who said, how long would he defend Anatolius, who had cast such great contumelies, both on her self, and on her son. And in this manner were these affairs concluded.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning Mauricius's Generalship, and concer­ning his Vertues.

BUt, Tiberius being now, after the death of Justinus, encircled with the [Imperial] Crown, turns Justinianus out of Commission, in regard he managed not [the War] against the Barbarians with the same fortunate success as formerly. And Yea, Tiberius, whilst Justi­nus as yet survived, created Mau­ricius Magister of the Oriental Milice, after he had turned out Justinian; as Theophylactus attests, book 3, chap. 15. Vales. he Cre­ates Mauricius Magister of the Eastern Milice, a person that derived his Descent and Name from the seniour Rome; but from his immediate Pa­rents he acknowledged him­self a Native of Arabissus, or Arabissum, was heretofore a Town of Armenia Secunda, as Hierocles informs us in his Notitia of the Provinces of the Eastern Empire. Indeed, in the First Constantinopolitane Sy­nod, a Bishop of Arabissus in Ar­menia the less is mentioned. More­over, Philostorgius ascribes this Town to Armenia the Less, as may be seen in Suidas, in the word [...]. But afterwards it was attributed to Cappadocia, if we may believe Evagrius. I know not whether it be the same with Arabisson, whereof Menan­der Protector makes mention in his Excerpta Legationum, (pag. 159 of the Kings Edition,) which Town was near Theodosiopolis. Vales. Arabis­sus, a City of Cappadocia. He was a personage of great prudence and perspicacity, every way accurate and im­moveable. As to his Diet and Moralls, he was con­stant and most exact, a per­fect Master over his appe­tite, making use of those [provisions] only that were necessary and easily procured; but [avoiding] all other things, Or, Wherewith a dissolute life is de­lighted. where­with dissolute and intem­perate men are wont to please themselves. He was not easie of Access as to Conferences with Or, The Vulgar. the Many, nor gave attention [promiscu­ously to all persons;] being sensible, that the first produced contempt, and the second o­pened the way to flattery. He permitted very few Visits to be made to himself, [...]. Musculus renders this place thus; ac­cessus ad se raros per­mittebat, eosque cla­boratos, he permitted very few Accesses to himself, and those [pro­cured] wit [...] a great deal of difficulty. Nor has Christophor­son transla­ted it bet­ter, in this manner; Rarò ad se adeundi concessit po­testatem, e­amque non nisi vehe­menter ora­tus, largi­tus est; He rarely gran­ted a power of access to himself; and he be­stowed that, not without very earnest intreaty. Neither of these Translatours have hit the sense of this place. But the Florentine Manuscript hath shown us the true reading of this passage. For, instead of [...], it is there writ­ten [...] I doubt not therefore but this whole place is thus to be read; [...] He permitted very few Visits, &c, as we have rendred it. Further, in the Florent. Manuscript these words are set in the Margin: [...], Those things which he speaks concerning Mauricius are full of admiration and worthy of praise. There occurs another Elogie of Mauricius, elegant enough, in Suidas in the word [...] taken out of Menander Protector's History: to compare that with this here, would not be unuseful. Vales. nor those except concerning affairs of consequence. But to matters superfluous he stopt his ears, not with wax, according to the Poet, but with rea­son rather: that so, reason might be the best key of his Ears, which should opportunely both open and shut them in Discourses. He had in such a manner, Or, Thrust from himself. clear'd himself of ig­norance, the Mother of Rashness; and of Sloth, which [...]. I am not of the same opinion with Christo­phorson and Sir Henry Savil, who at this place read [...] For there is no such Greek word as [...], as I think▪ Mus­culus also seems to have read in the same manner. For he renders it thus; Inscitiam verò matrem temeritatis, & ignaviam illius domesticam ac sociam sic a se repellebat, &c. for he so drove from himself Ignorance the Mother of Rashness, and Sloth her Domestick and Companion, &c. In the same manner Evagrius, in the beginning of this book, hath spoken concerning Justinus Junior; [...], &c. being possest with—Vices, Boldness and Sloth: where (as it seems from this place) we should read [...], with two Vices that were Comrades or Chamberfellowes. But if any one had rather read [...], as Sir Henry Savil does, then the pas­sage is to be rendred thus; Et inquilinam ejus, ac contubernalem igna­viam, And Sloth which dwelleth with her, and is her Comrade. For, there is as much difference between the word [...] and [...], as between [...] and [...]. Now, [...] im­ports Colonus, but [...] signifies Inquilinus; as Suidas informs us in the word [...]. They who were carried out of their own Country into any Colonie, were termed [...] or Coloni. But, he who volun­tarily left his own Country and removed into a Colonie or into any other City, was termed [...], or [...]. Christophorson is mistaken therefore, who hath rendred this place thus: Inscitiam autem Matrem Audaciae, & Timiditatem quae ei vicina ac finitima est, sic ab se depulit, But he in such a manner thrust from himself ignorance the Mother of Boldness, and Timidity which is her Neighbour and Borderer. [...] does not signifie Finitimam a Borderer, but inquilinam, as I have said. And the Latine word inquilina does exactly agree with the Greek-term. For 'tis called inquilinus ab incolatu, from habitation or dwelling. Besides, the words [...] does not signifie Vicinam, a Neighbour; (for that would be [...];) but Contu­bernalem, a Comrade or Chamber-fellow, who lives under the same Roof. But, after a more diligent inspection into the Matter, I should rather read at this place [...]. Vales. dwelleth with her, and is her [...]. I think it must be [...], understand, [...] Rashness. The reason of which emendation I have given a little before. Nicephorus (book 18, chap. 8,) writing out this passage of Evagrius, has exprest it thus; [...] Sloth which dwelleth with her and is her Assessour: which is the worst way of all. Vales. Comrade: that his being in danger was [to be ascribed] to Wisedome, and his slowness of Action, to security. For, Courage and Prudence rode on Opportunities as 'twere on an Horse, and governed the Raines according to what the Utility [of the Republick] might order. And, the Remissness and Or, Ve­hemency. Intensness of his very Assaults were performed in a certain Measure, Order, and Proportion. But concerning this matter we shall speak more accurately in the Sequel. For, what and how eminent a person he was, must be reserved to his own Empire; which hath made a more manifest discovery of this man, and, by having allowed him an uncontroulable power of doing any thing, has displaid his very inmost Recesses. This Mauricius therefore having at the head of the Roman Army made an Expedi­tion into the Persian Territories, takes from the Persians their Cities and most convenient Castles: and possessed himself of so great a Spoil, that the [...], the en­snared Captives. Captives he had brought away [out of Persia] [...]. In the Florentine Manuscript I found it written [...]. Nicephorus has made use of the simple verb [...]. I doubt not but Evagrius wrote [...], Peopled. Evagrius has used the same term in the first and second chapter of this book. Vales. peopled whole [Page 512] Islands, Cities, and Countreys, which in process of time had been deserted; and land that before had been wholly untilled, was by them rendred fertile; and out of them were raised numerous Armies, which with great Courage and Valour waged wars against other [barbarous] Na­tions: [in fine,] every family was filled with those that might perform Servile Offices, in re­gard Slaves could be procured at a most cheap rate.

CHAP. XX. How Mauricius vanquished Tamchosroes and Ada­armanes Generalls of the Persians.

MOreover, He engaged with the Eminentest of the Persian Commanders, to wit, Tam­chosroes and Adaarmanes, who had made an ir­ruption [into the Roman Pale] with a Con­siderable Army. In what manner, when, and where this Action was performed, let others re­late; or perhaps we will give a Narrative thereof in another work: for our present Subject pro­mises an account of far different affairs. Never­theless, [...], Tamoschroes. It must doubtless be written [...], Tamchosroes. For so E­vagrius calls him a little before. Menander Protector mentions this Commander, in his Excerpta Le­gationum, and Theophylactus in his Third Book. The same Theophy­lactus relates also (book 3, chap. 18,) how he was killed in a Battell against Mauricius. And attests, that that was done after the death of the Emperour Justinus, at such time as Tiberius was promoted to be Augustus. In the Tellerian Manuscript it is written [...], Chosrois. Vales. Tamchosroes fell in that Engagement, not by the Valour of the Roman Army, but by the piety only of their Commander in chief [Mau­ricius,] and by his Faith in God. [...], &c. In Robert Stephens the reading here is, [...], &c. Moreover, A­daarmanes flies with all ima­ginable hast, having been se­verely worsted in that Fight, and lost many of his own Forces: and that, notwith­standing Alamundarus, who Commanded the Or, Barbarous Scenitae. Saracens, had acted perfidiously, and refused to pass the River Eu­phrates, and to give assistance to Mauricius against those Saracens who were in the Persian Army. For the Sa­racens are not to be vanquished by others, be­cause of the fleetness of their Horses: nor can they be taken, if at any time they be Or, In­closed, or surrounded. stopt, and they prevent the Enemy in their Retreats. Notwithstanding also, Theophy­lactus has made men­tion of this Comman­der Theodorichus, in his third book, chap. 17. He was by Nation a Goth, as may be concluded from his name. Vales. Theodorichus, who was Commander of the Scythian Nations, stood not even the first Charge, but fled together with the Forces about him.

CHAP. XXI. Concerning those Signes which Or, De­clared Em­pire to Mauricius. presignified Mau­ricius's being made Emperour.

FUrther, there hapned Signes also shown from Heaven, which foretold, that Mauricius should be Emperour. For, as he offered incense late at night, within the Sanctuary of the Sacred House of the holy and most undefiled Virgin and Theo­tocos Mary, (which by the Antiochians is termed Justinian's Church,) the Veil about the Sacred Table seemed to be all on fire; in so much that Mauricius was struck with Terrour and Amaze­ment, and very much dreaded that sight. Gre­gorius Patriarch of that City, standing by Mau­ricius, told him, that that thing proceeded Or, From a certain Divine in­stinct. from God, and portended the greatest and most eximious events to him. Christ our God appeared likewise to him That is when Mauricius was in the East. So Nicephorus ex­pounds this place of Evagrius, in the ninth chapter of his 18th book. A little after, from the same Nicephorus, and from the Tellerian M. S. I have mended it, [...], and petitioned him in relation to a re­venge; whereas before it was one word, thus, [...], &c. Vales. in the East, requesting of him that he would avenge him. Which [Vision] ap­parently declared that he should be Emperour. For, from whom else could [our Saviour] have requested such things, save from an Emperour, and from one who was so pious an Adorer of himself? Moreover, his Parents related to me severall other memorable passages, and such as are worthy to be recorded, when I my self made enquiry of them concer­ning these matters. For his Father affirmed to me, that in his sleep he saw a vast Vine, which sprang out of his Bed at the very time of Mauri­cius's. his conception, and that a great many and those the fairest sort of Grapes appeared hanging on it. And his Mother declared, that [...], &c. I am of the same mind with Sir Henry Sa­vil, who hath noted in his Co­py, that perhaps it should be written, [...], &c. decla­red, that at the very time of her delivery, &c. And so the reading is in Nicephorus. In the Tellerian Manuscript I found it written, [...], at her very delivery. Vales. at the very time of her delivery, the Earth sent forth a strange and unusuall sweet smell. Also, that she termed See, if you please, what I have remarked concerning The Empusa, at the eighth book of Sozomen's History, chap. 6. Nicephorus, who deservedly derides such Old-wives-fables as these, affirms (chap. 9. book 18.) that in his age this [Shee-devill] was called Gillo. Those termed Strigae by the Romans, were like to these Empusae; concerning these Strigae see Festus. The old Glosses, Strigae, [...], Laestrygon, a Witch. Concerning this Gillo or Gello, which heretofore was believed to snatch away Chil­dren, Leo Allatius has remarked much, in his Letter to Paulus Zachias. Vales. The Empusa had often carried away the Infant, as if she would have devoured it: but was unable to do it any mischief. Symeones, likewise who kept his Station upon a Pillar near Antioch, a man of extraordinary prudence in the manage­ment of affairs, and one adorned with all the Divine Virtues, spoke and performed many things, which declared that Mauricius should be Emperour. Concerning which person we shall speak more opportunely in the following book of our History.

CHAP. XXII. Concerning the Proclaiming of Mauricius and Au­gusta.

FUrther, Mauricius is promoted to the Em­pire, at such time as Tiberius was drawing his last breath, and had delivered to him his Daughter Augusta, and the Empire instead of a portion, Or, He lived in the Empire but, &c. He survived his being made Emperour but a very short time; but left an immortall Memory for the good Actions he performed. Nor, are they easily to be confined within the bounds of a Narrative. Moreover, Tiberius left an incompa­rable Inheritance to the Republick, to wit, his proclaiming of Mauricius Emperour. To whom he distributed his Names also: for he styled Mauricius, Tiberius; and to Augusta [he gave the name of] Constantina. What was performed by them, the following book, divine strength affording me its assistance, shall set forth.

CHAP. XXIII. Or, Con­cerning a summary of, &c. A Computation of the Times from Justinus Junior, to Mauricius.

MOreover, that the Times may be Or, re­counted. distin­guished with all imaginable accuracy, you are to know, that Justinus Junior reigned This place gave occasion of a mistake to Baro­nius, who, in his Ec­clesiastick Annalls, following Evagrius as his Au­thour, at­tributes sixteen years and nine months Reign to Justinus Junior. But, the other Chronologers assign fewer years to Justinus. For, Johannes Bi­clariensis attributes but eleven years to him; Cedrenus, thirteen years and some few months. The Authour of the Alexandrian Chro­nicle affirms, that he Reigned twelve years and eight months. Lastly, Dionysius Petavius, a most diligent Writer of Times, gives Justinus thirteen years of Empire, lacking one month. Which years he be­gins from the year of Christ 565, on the month November, in the fourteenth Indiction, whereon he judges, (with Theophanes and Ba­ronius,) that Justinian died. To the opinion of which person I do most willingly subscribe. Indeed, that the first year of Justinus Ju­nior was current with the fourteenth Indiction, we are informed from the same Justinus's First Novel to Julianus Praefect of the City, which has this Subscription: Data 18. Kalendas Octobres Chalcedone, Imp. D. N. Justino P. P. August. Anno Primo, Indictione quintâ decimâ, Dated on the eighteenth of the Calends of October, at Chalcedon, Em­perour our Lord Justinus Father of his Country Augustus, on his first year, in the fifteenth Indiction. For, the first year of Justinus's Em­pire began from the month November, as 'tis agreed amongst all writers. It must therefore necessarily have then been the fourteenth Indiction: in regard, on the month September of the year following, the fifteenth Indiction is reckoned. For, if Justinus had begun his Empire on the fifteenth Indiction, (as Victor Thunonensis, Johannes Biclariensis, and the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle, have left it recorded;) and in the month November; 'tis certain, the first In­diction would have begun in the month September of the year following. Further, of these twelve years and eleven months, (during which compleat space of time we affirm that Justinus Reigned,) he Reigned alone and without a Colleague eight years nine months and an half: with Tiberius the Caesar, he Reigned four years, and almost one month. Vales. by himself twelve years ten months and a half; Tiberius Constantinus was made Caesar by Justinus, in the eighth Indiction, on the seventh-day of the month September, as 'tis recorded in the Alexandrian Chronicle. But he began his Empire in the twelfth Indiction, on the fifth day of the month October. Hence there are four years and twenty eight days of Tiberius's Caesarean power. But, if we had rather follow Theophylactus, who writes, that Tiberius was made Caesar by Justinus on the seventh day of December, on the sixth Feria; there will be three years and almost ten months, which is, from the year of Christ 574, to the year 578. Further, 'tis to be observed, that Tiberius Constantinus, after the death of Justinus Junior, recko­ned the years of his own Empire from the beginning of his Caesarean power, as we are informed by the Subscription of the same Tibe­rius's Sacra Pragmatica, concerning the Confirmation of the Emperour Justinus's Constitutions; which runs thus: Data tertio Idûs Au­gusti, &c. Dated on the third of the Ides of August, at Constanti­nople, on the eighth year of the Emperour our Lord Tiberius Con­stantinus Augustus, and on the third year after his own Consulate, and on the first year of the most noble Flavius Tiberius Mauricius the most happy Caesar. Vales. with Tiberius [his Colleague,] three years and eleven months. All which time put to­gether, [make up] sixteen years nine months and an half. Tiberius reigned alone four years. So that, from Romulus untill the proclaiming of Mauricius Tiberius Emperour, there are con­cluded to be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , as both the for­mer, and present [description of] the years hath manifested.

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning the Series of History, which is preserved till our Times.

BY God's assistance, the History of the Church is Or, Pre­served. handed down to us, digested into one body, by [the industry of the best] Writers. Till the times of Constantine, by Eusebius Pam­philus. From Constantine's Reign, to [the Em­pire of] Theodosius Junior, by Theodoret, Sozo­men, and Socrates: and [Lastly,] [...]. Doubtless it must be written, [...], &c. And [Last­ly] by those, &c. For 'tis refer­red to the foregoing words [...]; which the Transla­tours per­ceived not. Vales. by those Collections, we have made in this our present Work. The Ancient History, as well Sacred as Profane, is extant, continued in a Series by the Industrious. For Moses, who was the first that began to write an History, (as 'tis most evident­ly demonstrated by those who have made Col­lections in reference to these matters;) com­piled a true and most exact account of affairs from the beginning of the world, according to the information he had from God himself, with whom he conversed in the Mount Sina. Others who followed him, preparing a way for our Re­ligion, have in the Sacred Volumes set forth what hapned in succeeding Ages. Moreover, Josephus wrote a large History, which is every way usefull and profitable. Whatever occur­rences, whether fabulous or reall, have hapned amongst the Greeks and ancient Barbarians, whilst the Greeks waged Wars amongst them­selves, or against the Barbarians; or what­ever else has been transacted from such time as they had an account that men first existed; have been Recorded by Concer­ning Cha­rax Perga­menus a Writer of Greek Hi­stories, see what Vos­sius has written in his book de Historicis Graecis. Vales. Charax, Theopompus, and Ephorus, and by innumerable other Writers. The Actions of the Romans, wherein is contained the History [almost] of the whole world, or what­ever else hapned, whilst they were involved in Civill and intestine Broyls, or acted against others; have been set forth in writing by Diony­sius Halicarnasseus, who began his History from those people termed the Aborigines, and con­tinued it to Pyrrhus Or, The Epirote. King of the Epirotes. From that time, Polybius the Megalopolite hath brought down [his History] to the destruction of Carthage. All which Apianus has Or, judi­ciously. with great perspicuity distinguished, and hath gathered together each Action into one Body, although they were performed at different times. In like manner, the Affairs transacted after the Times of those Historians I have mentioned, have been committed to writing by Diodorus Siculus, [who wrote] till [the Times of] Julius Caesar; and by Dion Cassius who brought down his History to the Empire of Antoninus born at Emesa. He­rodian also, a Writer of the same Times, has given us a Record of Transactions till the death of Maximus. This seems to be the same person, who by Vo­piscus in the Life of Aurelia­nus▪ is ter­med Nico­machus; he had writ­ten an History of those times, as Vopiscus attests there. This Nicostratus here was a different person from Nicostratus the Sophist, who flourisht in the Empire of Marcus, as Suidas affirms, and also Georgius Scyncellus in his Chronicon. Vales. Nicostratus the Sophist of Tra­pezus has compiled an History, wherein he sets forth an account of affairs from Philippus who succeeded Gordianus in the Empire, untill Odae­nathus of Palmyra, and Valerian's disgracefull Expedition against the Persians. Dexippus also has written at large concerning the same matters, who begins from the [...]. In my Annotations on the Excerpta Legationum out of Dexippus, I have long since remarked, that at this place the reading must be, [...], from the Scythick Wars. For Dexippus wrote the [...], that is, the Wars which the Romans waged against the Scythians, as Photius attests in his Bibliotheca. Vales. Scythick Wars, and ends at the Empire of Claudius successour to Gallienus. The same Dexippus hath compiled an History of the Actions of the Carpi and other Bar­barous Nations, which they performed in their Wars within Achaia, Thracia, and Ionia, Eusebius begins from Octavianus, Trajanus, and Marcus, and has brought down his History as far as the death of Carus. Moreover, Arrianus wrote the Parthica and Alanica, in which books he re­lated the Actions performed by the Romans against the Parthians and Alans. Evagrius therefore means these books here. Vales. Arria­nus and Asinius Quadratus have written some [Page 514] things concerning the same times. The History of the following Times is given us by Zosimus, untill the Emperours Honorius and Arcadius. After which Emperours, Affairs have been Re­corded by Priscus Rhetor, and others. All these Transactions are excellently well reduced in­to an Epitome by This is the Eusta­thius Syrus, whose Te­stimony our Eva­grius has made fre­quent use of, in the foregoing books. Concerning this Authour Suidas writes thus: [...], Eustathius Epiphaniensis [wrote] a Chronologicall Compendium of af­fairs from Aeneas till the Emperour Anastasius in Tomes. At my perill write, [...], in two Volumes, or Tomes. I have Evagrius's authority here, for this Emendation. Vales. Eustathius Epiphaniensis, in two Volumes; the first whereof [comprizes matters transacted] untill the taking of Troy, and the second, unto the twelfth year of A­nastasius's Empire. From whence, untill the times of Justinian, Procopius the Rhetorician hath Recorded affairs. The History of those Times next immediately following, untill the flight of Chosroes Junior to the Romans, and his Restauration to his own Kingdom by Mauricius, (who made not any the least delay at that affair, but gave [the Fugitive] a Royall Reception, and with the Expence of a vast sum of money, and accompanied with great forces, conveyed him back into his own Kingdom, [...]. I think it must be, [...], with all possible expedition; in order to the avoi­ding the ill sounding of the words. Vales. with all possible expedition;) hath been written in a continued Series by Agathias the Rhetorician, and This Johannes was an Epiphaniensian. For, whereas Evagrius calls him his own Fellow-Citizen, he must needs have been an Epi­phaniensian, in regard Epiphania a City of Syria, was Evagrius's na­tive place. Wherefore Vossius is mistaken in his book de Histor. Graecis, who thought that this Johannes was by birth an Antiochian. Vales. Johan­nes my Fellow-Citizen and Kinsman; although as yet they have not made their Histories pub­lick. Concerning which affairs, we our selves also, the Divine Or, Be­nevolence. Clemency giving us permission, will in the Sequel give such a Narrative as is accom­modate and agreeable.

The End of the Fifth Book of Evagrius's Ecclesiastical History.

THE SIXTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS Epiphaniensis, And [one] of the EX-PRAEFECTS.

CHAP. I. Concerning the Marriage of Mauricius and Augusta.

MAURICIUS, After he had ob­tained the Empire, in the first place made provision for his Marriage. And, agreeable to the solemn usage of Emperours, he takes to Wife Augusta, who was also called Constantina. The pomp of those Nuptialls was most magnificently perfor­med, and Banquets and [...], pride, or, voluptu­ousness. Jolity [celebrated and observed] in every place of the City. At this Wedding were present Piety and Imperial Dignity, which [two] guarded [Mauricius and Constantina] in the gracefullest manner imaginable, and presented them with the richest Gifts. For, the Viz. Piety. First Shewed, or, brought. produced the Father and the Mother [of Mauricius,] (a thing never known to have hapned to any Emperour before,) who consecrated the Wedding with their Comely Gray-hairs and Venerable Wrin­cles; his Brethren also, eminent for their Shape, Stature, and Comeliness, who adorned the Nupti­all Pomp. The Viz. Imperial Dignity. Second [presented] a Robe interwoven with Gold, adorned with Purple and Indian Stones; Crowns also of the highest value, enrich't with much Gold and the va­rious brightnesses of Gems; all those personages likewise, which bore Offices in the Imperial Pallace, and were enrolled in the Militia; who carried Nuptiall Tapers in their hands, were [...]. In Nice­phorus (book 18. chap. 8.) the reading is, [...], Crowned; which I don't approve of. For 'twas not the custom amongst the Ancients, at least so far as I know, that those who were invited to weddings, should wear Crowns in like manner as did the Bridegrooms. Besides, the words next following do confute this reading. For Evagrius adds, that they were magnificently clothed for this reason, because they might more easily be distinguished, or known. But, that can have no relation to Crowns. For, they could not be known or distin­guished by the Crowns which they wore. Vales. most magnificently clad to the end they might be known, and with Songs celebrated that Nupti­all solemnity. In so much that, never was there amongst men any thing more Splendid or, More pros­perous, or, fortunate. Richer than that Or, Pomp. Show. Concer­ning this Demophi­lus, Suidas writes in his Lexi­con; in transcri­bing of whom Vos­sius (in his book de Hi­storicis Graecis,) was satis­fied, and has added nothing further. But, in re­gard I have had an account of his Coun­try, and way of wri­ting; in favour to the Studi­ous, I will here annex it. That Damophilus therefore (or, Demo­philus,) here men­tioned was a Native of Bithynia, who wrote severall usefull stories and pas­sages out of the books of the Ancients, as Julian informs us in his Misopog: [...] &c. Such writings were composed by Damophilus the Bithynian, of which he made a Collection out of various Authours, and composed Relations that were very pleasing both to the Younger and the Elder Student. I am sure Julian at that place produces a certain passage, which that Damophilus had Collected out of Plutarchus Chaer [...]nensis, in like man­ner as our Evagrius does here. Vales. Demophilus, writing concerning Rome, does indeed relate, that Plutarchus Chaeronensis uttered a [...], uttered a plain saying. I had rather read, [...], uttered a wise saying; as Christophorson seems to have read. Further, the place of Plutarch, which Evagrius means here, is ex­tant in his book de Fortu [...] Romanorum, not far from the begin­ning. Vales. wise say­ing, viz. that for the sake of that one only Rome. City, Virtue and Fortune had entred into a mutuall League. But I may say, that Piety and Felicity in such a like man­ner had come together in one Mauricius; for Piety had vanquished Felicity, and would in no wise permit her to make an escape. After this, Mauricius made it his business to invest and adorn, not his Body only, but his mind also, with the Imperial Purple and Crown. For, of all the Emperours that were his Pre­decessours, he alone Reigned over himself. And being in reality made an Emperour, he expelled out of his own mind that Popular, or, Ple­beian. Democra­ticall dominion of the passions. And having Constituted an [...]: the originall import of this term is, a go­vernment managed by many and those of the noblest Rank: but 'tis taken metapho­rically here, for a company of thoughts of the best sort. Aristocracy within his own mind, he shewed himself a living I­mage of Virtue, instructing his Subjects to an imita­tion of himself. All this is not spoken by me out of flattery. For, why should I utter these words with such a design, since Mauricius. he is whol­ly ignorant of what I write? But, that what I have said is really so, will be made evident, both by those Gifts conferred on him by God, and also from the successfull Ac­cidents which have hapned at severall times; all [Page 516] which must Or, Con­fessedly. without controversie be by us af­cribed to God.

CHAP. II. Concerning Alamundarus the Saracen, and his Son Naamanes.

BEsides all his other [Virtues,] this was the chiefest of his Care, that the bloud of none of those who had been guilty of High-Treason, should in any wise be shed. Therefore, he did not put to death even Alamundarus Chief of the Saracens, who had betrayed both the Republick and Mauricius himself, as I have Book 5. Chap. 20. already re­lated: but only punished him with Deportation to an Island, together with his Wife and some of his Children, [ordering him] to dwell in Sicily. But Naamanes Son to this man, (who had involved the State in innumerable mischiefs, and by the assistance of those Barbarians he had about him, had ruined and enslaved both the Phoenice's, and the Palestine's, at such time as [his Father] Alamundarus was seized;) al­though all [the Judges] were of opinion that he deserved a capitall punishment, was only de­tained by him under a Or, A free Custo­dy. Custody at large; and he inflicted no further punishment on him. He used the same [Clemency] towards innume­rable other persons, as shall be particularly re­lated in due place.

CHAP. III. Concerning Johannes and Philippicus Masters of the Milice, and the Actions done by them.

FUrther, Mauricius in the first place sent Johannes, (a Native of Thracia,) Com­mander of the Eastern Milice. Who having been worsted in some Engagements, and got the better in others, did nothing worthy of a Narrative. After him [he sent] Philippicus, who was related to him; for he had married the one of Mauricius's two Sisters. He en­tred the Enemies Country, ruined all things he met with, and possest himself of a vast quantity of Plunder. He likewise slew many [Inhabi­tants] of the City Nisibis, who were of Noble Birth and well descended, and of other Cities also which stood beyond the River Tigris. Moreover, he engaged with the Persians: where­upon a great Fight hapned, in which fell severall Persians of the greatest Note, and he took ma­ny Or, Alive. Prisoners; he likewise sent away a Or, Troop. Body of Persians unhurt, who had fled to a certain Or, Hill. Eminence conveniently enough scituated, when 'twas in his power to have taken them; after they had made him a promise, to perswade their own King, forthwith to dispatch away [an Embassy] to Treat about a Peace. He also be­haved himself very well in relation to severall other matters, during his command of the Ro­man Forces; for he freed the Army from all things that were superfluous, and which o­pened a way to Luxury; and the Souldiers were by him reduced to Modesty, tractable­n [...]ss, and obedience. But these matters must be left to those who have written, or do now write, according as they may either receive information from Report, or are lead by opi­nion: whose Relation, in regard it either stum­bles and is lamed by ignorance, or is softned by Affection and Partiality, or [Lastly] is blin­ded by Or, An­tipathy. Hatred, does [usually] wander from the Truth.

CHAP. IV. Concerning Priscus's Mastership of the Milice, and what he suffered from the Army who raised a Mutiny against him.

AFter this Philippicus, Priscus is preferred to the Mastership of the Milice; a person to whom access was not easily obtained, and one who came not abroad but upon affairs Or, Necessary. of con­sequence. For, it was his Sentiment, that he could transact every thing better and with more ease, if for the most part he continued retired: as if the Souldiery, induced by fear this way ra­ther, would yield a more ready obedience to his Commands. At the time therefore of his first arrivall in the Roman Camp, his looks were supercilious and haughty, and his garb too gorge­ous; when he [...]. These words are to be understood concerning the Edicts published by Priscus. For the word [...] shows that; which term has that im­port and signification I have men­tioned. Theophylactus confirms our Exposition, book 3, chap. 1; whom by all means consult. Vales. published some [Edicts] also, con­cerning the Souldiers Or, Patient sufferance. per­severance in undergoing hardships in the Wars, in reference to their being com­pleatly Armed, and in re­lation to the Annona which they were to receive out of the publick Treasury. They having had some intimation of these matters before hand, at that time broke forth into an open rage; and by a joynt con­sent made an Attack upon that place where Pris­cus's Tent was pitch't, and in a barbarous man­ner make plunder of his magnificent Furniture, and of his richest and most valuable Treasure. Moreover, they mist but little of killing him; had he not mounted one of his [...] Musculus renders it, equum V [...] ­hicularem, an Horse belonging to the Carriages. Christophorson translates it, Vecta­rium, a Chariot-horse. These Horses the Latines termed Veredos, be­cause they conveyed the Redae, as Festus tells us. Evagrius uses this word again, at the fifteenth chapter of this book. Where see what I have observed at note (a.) Vales. Led-Horses, and made his escape to Edessa. To which City the Souldiers sent a Detachment of their own Body, and laid Siege to it, demanding Priscus to be Surrendred up to them.

CHAP. V. Concerning Germanus's being forced against his will to undertake the Imperial dignity.

BUt when the Inhabitants of Edessa refu­sed to do that; they left Priscus there, and by force lay hands upon Germanus Com­mander of the Militia [...]. In Nicephorus (chap. 11. book 18.) the reading is, [...] with a mistake on the other hand. For, it must be w [...]itten, [...] For, there were two Phoenice's that were Provinces, the one termed Libanensis, the other Maritima. Vales. in Phoenice Libanen­sis, whom they create their Leader, and, [...]. I doubt not but it should be written, [...] that is, quantum in ipsis erat, as much as they were able to do it. Nicephorus confirms our Emendation, who instead of the foresaid words of Evagrius, hath substituted these; [...], as much as in them lay. In the Tellerian M. S, I [...]ound it plainly written, [...], &c. Vales. as much as they were able to do it, their Emperour. [Page 517] But, upon Germanus's refusall of that, and their urging it with a greater degree of heat and fierce­ness, a contention was raised on both sides; he [striving] that he might not be compelled, and they [contending] to bring about [what they desired:] and when the Souldiers Or, Pre­tended they would kill him. threat­ned him with death, unless he would volunta­rily undertake [that dignity they conferred on him;] and Germanus with a willing mind embraced death: at length, after they saw he could not be terrified, nor was to be aba­shed, they betook themselves to scourging him, and maimed the members of his body, suppo­sing he would in no wise indure those Tor­tures: for they judged him not more hardy than Nature and his age would bear. Ha­ving therefore set about this matter, they made tryall of him with a kind of Reverence and Compassion, and in fine forced him, though unwilling, to consent, and to swear [in a set form of words,] that in future he would Or, Pre­serve a fide­lity to them. continue faithfull unto them. In this man­ner therefore they compelled him their Subject to become their Ruler, him whom they go­verned to turn their Governour, and him a Captive to be their Sovereign. Then they displaced all other Officers in the Army, the Praefects of the Troops, the Tribunes, the Or, Those who com­manded an hundred, or ten. Centurions, and Decurions; and put whom they pleased into their places, casting forth reproaches in publick upon the Empire. And, for the most part they behaved themselves to­wards the Provincialls, with more of Or, Mo­deration. Modesty indeed, than Barbarians usually do: but were far from being The Transla­tours un­derstood not this place. For Musculus renders it thus: Et erga Municipes quidem multò moderati [...] quàm Barbari faci [...]bant; Erga socios verò belli, & Reipublicae Ministros, admodùm ali [...]no erant animo; And towards free-denizons [or, those of the same Country,] they behaved themselves with much more of Moderation than the Bar­barians did; but towards their Companions of War, and Ministers of the State, they were of a mind quite different. Christophorson has also rendred it in the same manner. But Johannes Langus, who turned into Latine Nicephorus Evagrius's Compilator, has expounded this place far better, thus; Et mitiores quidem illi in vectigales, and they were indeed more mild towards the people who paid Taxes and Tributes, than the Barbarians are wont to be. But they were very far from being Maintainers, or Defenders of the Republick, or what ever else I may stile them. Nicephorus▪ instead of these words [...] Fellow-Souldiers and Servants of the State, had substituted these, [...], But they were very far from being Maintainers, &c. Whence it appears, that Nicephorus understood not the meaning of these words of Evagrius, [...], Servants of the State. The Militia amongst the Romans, from the times of Augustus, was a kind of temporary servitude. Whence also the Souldiers were mar­ked with brands on their skin, in manner of Servants, as Vegetius informs us. Moreover, the Missio Militaris, or, Military discharge, does plainly answer the Manumission, or, making free of Servants. Suidas (or rather a certain old Writer in Suidas,) in the word [...] tells us, that Souldiers were under Servitude, as long as they were in Pay. So also Petrus Chrysologus in his fifteenth Sermon de Centurione. Vales. Fellow-Souldiers and Servants of the State. For, they neither received the Annonae by appointed Measures or weights, nor were they contented with the [...] I agree with Musculus and Christophorson, who have mended it thus, [...]. For Musculus renders it in this manner; nec deputatis Mansionibus contenti erant, nor were they contented with the appointed Mansions. As often as the Roman Army was about making a long march, an Edict was pub­lished long before, wherein all the Mansions, in which the Souldiers were to stay, were set forth; as Lampridius informs us, in Alex­ander Severus: Itinerum dies publicè proponebantur, The daies of the Marches were publickly set forth, in such a manner that an Edict was hung up two months before, wherein 'twas written: on such a day, at such an hour I shall go out of the City, and, if the Gods please, shall stay in the first Mansion. Then, at the Mansions in order, then at the Fortified or standing Camps, then when the Annona is to be received, and that also. Till such time as we are arrived at the Borders of the Barbarians. The Inns also, or Houses, wherein the Souldiers▪ either going to or returning from an Expedition, were to stay, were set out by the Mensores, or Quarter-masters; as Vegeti [...] informs us in book 2. chap. 7; and the Emperours likewise in the Theodosian Code, Tit. de Metatis. Vales. Man­sions or Quarters assigned them. But every one's Sentiment was his Law, and his will his set Measure.

CHAP. VI. How the Emperour sent Philippicus again, but the Army refused to receive him.

IN Order to the Composure of these [distur­bances,] the Emperour sends Philippicus. Whom the Souldiers not only received not; but if they suspected [...] any one to be a friend to him. The same likewise is the reading in Nicephorus▪ save that he, for perspecuitie's sake, hath added these words▪ [...] either by descent, or affection. Yet Musculus and Christophorson have rendred it, favere▪ to favour him; though the word [...] has not that signification. Therefore, I had rather read, [...] to have an inclination towards him. Vales. any one to have an in­clination towards him, he was in great danger of his life.

CHAP. VII. Concerning Gregorius [Bishop] of Antioch, and the Calumny framed against him; and in what manner he evinced it to be false.

WHilst affairs were in this posture, Gre­gorius Bishop of Or, The­opolis. Antioch makes his return from the Imperial City, having now been Conquerour in a certain Conflict, which I will here give a Narrative of. Whilst Aste­rius was Comes of the East, a difference had risen between him and Gregorius, wherein all the eminentest Citizens of Or, That City. Antioch had betaken themselves to Asterius's Or, Part. side. The Com­monalty also and Artificers of the City sided with Asterius. For all of them affirmed, that they had received some injury or other from Gregorius. At length, even the Populacy were likewise permitted to cast reproaches upon the Bishop. [...] Christophorson has explained this place thus; Ambo igitur; & Opti­mates & Populares, Both par­ties therefore, as well the Eminen­ter Citizens as the Ordinary sort, agreed in the same Opinion with the Commonalty. But Musculus ex­punged these words, [...] as appears from his Version. For thus he renders it, Utrique igitur in eandem sententiam conspirarunt, Both parties therefore agreed in the same Opinion: that is, as well the eminenter Citizens as the Ple­b [...]ians; or rather, as well the Ci­tizens as the Artificers. For so E­vagrius has distinguished both Parties a little before. Vales. Both parties there­fore, [as well the eminen­ter Citizens, as the Artifi­cers,] agreed in one and the same opinion with the Populacy; and both in the Streets, and in the Theatre, exclaimed against the Patri­arch in a reproachfull man­ner: nor did the Players ab­stain from [loading him with] such contumelies. In the interim, Asterius is de­prived of his Government, and Johannes undertakes it; who was ordered by the Emperour to make an en­quiry into that disturbance. This Johannes was a person unfit to manage the most triviall af­fairs, much less [to compose] a matter of such consequence. Having therefore filled the City with Tumults and Disturbances, and by a publi­cation of his Edicts declared, that any one that would, might accuse the Patriarch; He receives [Page 518] a Libell against him, presented by a certain per­son who was President of a money-Table; where­in 'twas set forth, that Gregorius had had to do with his own Sister, who was given in mar­riage to another man. He receives likewise [Accusations] from other men of the same kidney, [...]. Musculus renders it, the abun­dance and plenty of the Annona. Langus and Christophorson tran­slate it, the peace and felicity. The word [...] signifies both, as Suidas attests. Vales. which related to the peace and repose of the City [Antioch,] as if that had been frequently distur­bed by Gregorius. As to [the Crime he stood char­ged with for disturbing] the Repose of the City, Gregorius's answer was, that his defence was ready. But, in relation to other matters objected against him, he appealed to the Emperour and a Synod. What is now a days usu­ally done amongst us in Cri­minal Suits and Prose­cutions, that Coun­cill should by the Judges be assigned to the Party accused; the same was here­tofore in use in Ec­clesiastick Courts of Judicature also, as this place of Evagrius informs us. For Gregorius Bishop of Antioch, when he went to the Imperial City, to make his defence concerning his Accusation of Incest before a Synod of Bishops and before the Sena­tours, carried Evagrius Scholasticus along with him, who might be his Councellour and Assessour, and might give him advice where there was need. For that is the import of the word [...] at this place. Further, in this Relation of Evagrius's, many things are observable. First, his saying that Gregorius Bishop of Antioch, when accused of Incest by a Laick before a Secular Judge, appealed to the Emperour and a Synod. (Concerning an appeal to the Em­perour, the Letter of the Roman Councill to Gratianus Augustus is to be consulted, which was first published by Jacobus Syrmondus.) Se­condly, it is to be observed that Evagrius says, that Gregorius's Cause was tried before the Patriarchs and Metropolitanes, and be­fore the Senatours. So in the Chalcedon Synod, after the Bishops and Secular Judges were met together, the Cause of Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria was discussed and determined. In which Synod the most glorious Judges and Senatours are always named before the Bishops who were present at that Synod: in like manner as in this place of Evagrius, the Senatours are named before the Metropolitanes; but they are mentioned after the Patriarchs. Vales. Having me therefore his Assessour Councellour and Com­panion, he went to the Imperial [City, Con­stantinople,] in order to the making his de­fence against these [Accusations.] And, the Patriarchs in all places, partly in person and partly by their Legates, having been present at the Examination hereof, as likewise the Sacred Senate, and many of the most pious Metropo­litans; when the matter had been thorowly sifted; at length, after many Or, Con­flicts. Acti­ons, Gregorius carried the Cause: in so much that, his Accuser was scour­ged with Nerves, lead about the City, and pu­nished with Exile. From thence therefore Gre­gorius returns to his own See, at such time as the Roman Army in the East was in a Mutiny; Phi­lippicus then making his Residence about the Cities Beraea and Chalcis.

CHAP. VIII. That Antioch suffered again by Earth-quakes.

FOur months after Grego­rius's. his return, This was the year of Christ 589. For the years of the Anti­ochians precede the Nati­vity of Christ eight and fourty years, as I have observed above. Now, that which Evagrius adds, (viz. that this Earthquake hap­ned at Antioch Sixty one years after the former Earthquakes which had afflicted Antioch,) agrees exactly with our accounts. For, that former Earthquake, in Justinus's Reign, had hapned on the year of Christ 528, as I have remarked at the Fourth Book of Evagrius, Chap. 6, note (b.) Further, from hence may be gathered the year of the Constantinopolitane Synod, which was convened in the Cause of Gregorius Bishop of Antioch. This Synod Baronius places on the year of Christ 587. But, from Evagrius's authority; I doubt not of its having been assembled two years after. For, whereas this Synod was celebrated four months after that Earthquake whereby Antioch was shaken, and whereas that Earthquake hapned on the Sixth hundredth thirty seventh year of the Antiochians, as Evagrius attests; what I have affirmed is necessarily made out, viz. that the Constantinopolitane Synod was convened on the year of Christ 589. Vales. on the Six hundredth thirty seventh year of Antioch's being styled a Free City, Sixty one years after the former Earthquake, on the last day of the month Hyperberetaeus, whereon I had married a young Virgin, and the whole City kept Holiday, and celebrated a publick Festivity, both as to Pomp, and also round my Marriage-Bed; [...]. about the third hour of the night, hapned an Earthquake accompanied with a dreadfull noyse, which shook the whole City: it overturned very many Edifices, Or, Made their very foundations boyl. and tore up their very foundations. In so much that, all [the Buil­dings which stood] about the most holy Church were totally ruined, only the Hemisphaere there­of was preserved, which Ephraemius had built of Timber fell'd in the Daphnensian Grove, when it had suffered by an Earthquake in Ju­stinus's Empire. In the Earthquakes which hapned afterwards, the same Hemisphaere had been so bowed towards the Northern-side, that [...]. I think it must be written, [...] received, or, had. Our E­mendati­on is con­firmed by the Telle­rian Ma­nuscript, and by Nicepho­rus, who has worded this place of Eva­grius thus: [...] that is, as Langus renders it, eâque de caus [...], tigna quae id sustinebant, habuerat, and on that account it had Props which bore it up. The Greeks call these Props [...], in one word, as Hesychius attests. Which term I lately found Philo Mechanicus to have made use of, when I turned his books de Machinis into Latine. In French we call them, Des étais. In Latine they are termed Fulturas, Props, or Shoars. Which term Fultura is made use of by Livy, in his description of the Siege of Am­bracia. Vales. it had Timber-Props wherewith 'twas supported. Which Props having been thrown down by the violent concussion of the Earth, the Hemis­phaere returned to the other side, and being directed by a certain rule as 'twere, was re­stored to its proper place. Moreover, there fell many Buildings of that [Region] termed the Ostracine, the Psephium also, of which we have made mention Book 1. Chap. 18. before, and all those places called the [...]. In the Tellerian manuscript, and in Nicephorus, 'tis [...], Brysia, which I rather approve of. Certain pleasant and flourishing places seem to have been so termed, [...], which signifies, storere, to flourish; as Suidas attests, and the Authour of the Etymologicon in the word [...]. Vales. Brysia, the Edifices likewise about the most ve­nerable Church of the Theotocos, only its middle Porticus was miraculously preserved. Further, all the [...] The Translatours, Langus, Musculus, and Christophorson, understood not this place, as 'tis apparent from their Versions. For they have rendred it thus: Omnes quoque turres in plano Constitutae, disjectae sunt; Also all the Towers, placed in the Plain, were thrown down. I think [...] to be the Campus, which was without the Gates of the City Antioch, wherein the Souldiers were wont to be exercised. Athanasius makes mention of this place, in a Supplicatory address, which the Arians had presented against him to the Emperour Jovian then residing at Antioch: [...], that is, the first Congress they had with the Emperour [was] in the Gate Romanensis, when the Emperour went forth into the Campus. Vales. See Athanas. Works, Tom. 2. pag. 27. Edit. Paris. 1627. Towers in the Campus were ruined, but the rest of the Building continued entire, ex­cepting only the Battlements of the Walls. For some Stones of those Battlements were Or, Turned to the contra­ry side. driven backward, but they fell not. Severall other Churches suffered like­wise, as did also the one of the pub­lick Baths, to wit, [...] Nicephorus adds some few words here, in this manner: [...], &c. The whole place is thus rendred by Langus: Et utrumque publicum Lavacrum, ex pulcherrimo statu ad eam quae ex diametro est deformi­tatem, collapsum; And each publick Bath, fàln from a most beautifull condition to that deformity which is Diametrically opposite. Which rendition is by no means to be born with. Nor is Musculus's transla­tion much better, who renders it thus: Et ex publick Balneis alterum iisdem boris dirutum est, And the one of the publick Baths is ruined in the very same hours. Christophorson has expounded this place thus: Et utrumque publicum Balneum, quod duobus distinctis temporibus in­servit, eadem oppressit Calamitas; And the same Calamity ruined each of the publick Baths, which served for two distinct times. But my Sen­timent is, that the meaning of these words is this. There were at Antioch two publick Baths, divided according to the Seasons of the year. The one a Summer-Bath, the other a Winter-one. Of these Baths, says Evagrius, the one was ruined by that Earth­quake. Vales. one of them which was divi­ded according to the Severall seasons of the year. [Page 519] An innumerable company of people perished al­so in this Earthquake; and, as some have made a [...]. Christo­phorson has explained this place thus: Et ut quidam conjecturam ex pane, qui in totâ civi­tate consu­mi solet, fa­ciunt, haec lues Sexa­ginta homi­num millia extinxit; And as some make a con­jecture from the bread, which is w [...]nt to be spent in the whole City, this common de­struction destroyed Sixty thou­sand per­sons. But, I am not pleased with this Rendition. For 'tis my Senti­ment, that the number of the dead could not be made out that way. Wherefore, I had rather explain this place thus. As at Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria, the Annona was distributed to the Citizens, out of the publick stock; so in my opinion, the practise was at Antioch. For Antioch was one of the four greatest Cities of the Roman Empire. From this bread therefore, which they were wont to distribute daily, 'twas easie to collect the number of the dead. Nevertheless, if any one had rather follow Christophorson's Exposition, I shall not much resist him. Especially, in regard there is extant no evidence of any Ancient Writer, concerning the publick Annona of the City Antioch. Vales. Conjecture from the publick Annona, this Calamity destroyed about Sixty thousand per­sons. But, the Bishop was beyond all expecta­tion preserved, although the house wherein he sate fell, and no person escaped, save only those who stood about him. Which persons, when another shaking of the Earth had rent that place, [...]. Nicephorus has added some few words here, in this manner, [...], took up [the Bishop] together with his Bed, or, Couch, on their Shoulders. I know not whether he added this by conjecture, or found it so written in his own Copy. Vales. took [up the Bishop] on their shoul­ders, and let him down by a rope, and so made their escape from danger. There hapned ano­ther thing also, which was Salutary to the City, in regard our Compassionate God sharpned his Menaces with Lenity, and chastized the Sin [of the people] with the Rod of commise­ration and mercy. For, no part of the City hapned to be burnt, notwithstanding there was so vast a quantity of flame every where in the City, [which arose] from the Hearths, from the publick and private Candles, from Kit­chins, Furnaces, and Baths, and from innume­rable other places. Further, many persons of great note and eminency perished in this Earth­quake; amongst which number was Asterius. And the Emperour administred comfort to this Calamity of the City, by [a supply of] money [out of his Exchequer.]

CHAP. IX. That the Barbarians taking Courage from the Defection of the Army from the Empe­rour, set upon them, and were worsted by Ger­manus.

BUt the Army Or, Con­tinued in the same posture they were in. persisted in their Defection: in so much that the Barbarians made an irruption into the Roman Territories, being fully perswaded that no person would hinder them from doing such actions as are usually perpe­trated by Barbarians. But, Concer­ning this Victory of Germa­nus's, Theo­phylactus speaks briefly, as his usage is, in book 3, chap. 3. Vales. Germanus marches out against them at the head of the Roman Army, and gave them such a totall Rout and overthrow, that not so much as a Messenger was left remain­ing, to carry the Persian news of their Calamitous Defeat.

CHAP. X. Concerning the Emperour's Clemency towards the Mutineers.

MOreover, the Emperour rewarded the Ar­my with money. But, he recalled Ger­manus with some other persons from thence, and brought them to Tryall. And though all of them were condemned to undergo a capital punishment, yet the Emperour would not per­mit them to suffer any thing of trouble or in­conveniency; yea he bestowed honours and re­wards upon them. Whilst these affairs pro­ceeded in this manner, the Abares made two Excursions as far as that termed the Long Wall; [possest themselves of] Singidunum, Anchia­lus, and all Achaia, and took severall other Cities and Castles, and reduced [the persons they found there] to slavery, destroying all places with Fire and Sword; [no resistance being made against them,] in regard the greatest part of the Roman Army made their residence in the East. The Emperour therefore sends Theo­phylactus seems to call this person A­ristobulus, in his third book and third Chapter. He says also, that he was Curator of the House An­tiochus. Vales. An­dreas, a personage of eminentest note amongst the Imperial Or, Guards. Satellites, who might perswade the Army to receive their former Leaders, and the rest [of their Commanders.]

CHAP. XI. That Gregorius [Bishop] of Or, Theopolis. Antioch was sent to pacifie the Army.

BUt when the Souldiers would not endure so much as to hear this order, the manage­ment of that whole affair is Or, Cast upon. committed to Gregorius; not only because he was a person fit to negotiate matters of the greatest im­portance, but also in regard the Army gave him a deserved deference, and paid him the highest respect and honour. For some of the Souldiers had had money bestowed on them by him: and [he had supplied] others of them with Clothes, Provisions, and other Necessaries, This place is not a lit­tle difficult and obscure. Musculus renders it thus: Quando ad Militiam con­scripti ex Catalogo, per ipsum sunt admissi, when having been enrolled to the Militia by Catalogue, they were admitted by him. Christo­phorson translates it almost in the same manner; thus: Alii vestitu, cibo, & aliis rebus adjuti tum cùm in album militum adscripti & per eum admissi fuerant; Others were assisted with Clothes, Provision, and other things, then when they were registred in the Muster-Roll, and had been admitted by him. Nicephorus also seems to have followed the same sense, who has expressed this place of Evagrius thus: [...]. Which words Langus renders thus: tum autem quicunque delectu habito per sacramentum Militare in Catalogum adscripti erant, per ipsum id con­secuti fuerant; then also whoever, when an Election was made, by the Military Oath had been registred in the Muster-Roll, had obtained that by his means. But this rendition does not please me. For the Roman Militia was not at that time so desirable a thing, that there should be need of any persons favour and assistance for this matter to pro­cure any one to be enrolled amongst the number of the Souldiers. Wherefore, I rather think that these words, [...], are to be expounded thus, Tunc cum Militaribus numeris adscripti, per ipsius agros transirent, at such time as, when registred amongst the Military Companies, they had passed, or, mar­ched through his Grounds. Evagrius at this place sets forth the Munificence of Gregorius Bishop of Antioch, who had not only given entertainment to the Souldiers passing thorow his grounds, but had also bestowed on them Clothes, Provisions for eating, and money. Indeed, Justinian uses the term [...] in this sense, in his 130th Novell, concerning the passage of Souldiers; [...], in so much that without making complaint [or, without fault] he nou­rished those of our Army in their passage in every Province. In the Telleriam Manuscript I found this place thus written; [...]. Vales. at such time as, when registred in the Muster-Roll, they had marched thorow his [Grounds.] [Page 520] Having therefore sent Messengers all about, he calls together those who were accounted the principall persons of the Army, to a place termed [...] 'Tis a Village in the Ter­ [...]itory of Chalcis a City of Syria, whereof the Emperour Julian makes mention in his 27th Epistle. Near this Village were the Winter-Quarters of King Antiochus, the remains whereof were visible in his age, as Julian does there attest, in these words: [...]. Which place Martinius renders thus; Ad Litarbos veni, quod oppidum est in Chalcide: & casu incidi in viam quandam quae reliquias adhuc Antiochensium Hibernorum habebat, I came to Litarbi, which is a Town in Chalcis: and by chance I light upon a certain way which as yet bad the remains of the Antiochian Winter-Quarters. But I translate it thus; Litarba adveni, qui vicus est in agro Chalcidico. Et viam offendi quae reliquias habebat, Hibernorum Regis Antiochi; I came to Litarba, which is a Village in the Territory of Chalcis. And I found a way which had the Remains of the Winter-Quarters of King Antiochus. Theophanes mentions the same Village, in his Chronicon, pag. 151; where he says, that Alamundarus depopulated Syria prima, as far as the Borders of Antioch, and unto Litarga, and Scaphata. But in my judgment, it must be written thus in Thcophanes, [...], those possessions termed Litarba and Scaphata. Which emendation is confirmed by his fol­lowing words. For he adds, [...], and he burnt the places without Chalcis. Vales. Litarba, distant from Theopolis about Three hundred Furlongs. To whom, after he was come amongst them, notwithstanding he lay on his Bed, he spake these words.

CHAP. XII. Gregorius's Speech to the Army.

I Was indeed of Opinion, (Ye Men truly Ro­mans, as well by Name, as for Your Actions!) that You would have long since come to Me, both to Or, Com­municate. Confer with Me about the present Juncture, and to take that Advice also, which My Be­nevolence towards You doth abundantly promise. Which [kindness of mine] has indubitably been con­firmed by former Good Offices, at such time as, by sending You supplies of Necessaries, I As­swaged [...]. Christophorson dream't I know not what here, concerning a Navall Fight of the Romans. A Na­vall Fight had not been begun at that time by the Romans, but they had engaged with the Per­sians in a Land-Fight. Our E­vagrius therefore has made use of a Metaphor at this place; and compares the Roman Camp to a Ship: and the Mutiny they had raised, he compares to a Tempest. Vales. Your Navall Tu­mult, and the Storm which arose from thence. But, in regard That has been neg­lected till now, (an induce­ment thereto having perad­venture not hapned from a­bove,) both that the Per­sians, vanquished by persons without a Leader, might per­fectly understand the Va­lour of Romans; and also, that Your sincere kindness [to­wards the State,] having been accurately tried by opportunity, and attested by Actions them­selves, might every way receive confirmation: (For You have evidently demonstrated, that although You have had Cause of Trouble and Offence against your Leaders given you, yet no­thing is more of value to You than the State:) Come on therefore, Let us now consider what is to be done. The Emperour invites you, and has promised an Oblivion. Amnesty of all that is past, ha­ving received your Benevolence toward the State, and your fortitude in Battell, in Or, In­stead of a Supplica­tion and Olive-Branches. place of the Boughs and Olive-Branches of Suppliants; and having given you these securest pledges imaginable of his Pardon, in regard he says thus: if God hath given [...] preference, or, the Bet­ter. Victory to your Benevolence [to­wards the State,] and (your Offences being dispelled,) your Courage has shined forth, which is a most certain argument of Pardon granted; [...]. At this place, there was this whole line wanting [...], judgment? The heart of a King is in the Hand of God, which I have supplied from the Incomparable Florentine Ma­nuscript. There seems to have been the same imperfection also in that Copy which Nicephorus made use of. For he would ne­ver have omitted that brave Sentence which Mauricius had made use of, The heart of a King is in the hand of God; had he found it in his own Copy. Vales. How shall not I follow the Divine Judgment? The heart of a King is in the Hand of God, and he in­clines it which way he pleases. Obey me therefore, ye Ro­mans! with all imaginable speed. And let us not Or, Be­tray. loose the pre­sent opportunity, nor frustrate it by letting it slip: for it hates to be ta­ken after it has escaped, and, vex't as 'twere because it was [...]. In the excellent Florentine Manuscript, this whole place is read thus; [...]. Incomparably well, provided we read [...], in two words, as the reading is in Nicephorus, book 18, chap. 15. and we have rendred it accor­dingly. Away therefore with Christophorson's and Sr Henry Sa­vil's conjecture; who at this place have made it, [...], easily taken. Vales. neglected, never suf­fers it self to be taken twice. Be ye Heirs of your Ance­stours obedience, as you have been Inheritours of their Va­lour; that you may every way show your selves Romans, and that no infamous brand may be fixt upon your name, or demonstrate you to be a spu­rious Issue. Your Ancestours, when under the Government of Consuls and Emperours, by Obedience and Valour pos­sest themselves of the whole World. Manlius Torquatus [...]; see the story at large in Livy, Book 8. pag. 377, Edit. Paris. Crowned his own Son by beheading him; who though he had be­haved himself valiantly, had notwithstanding dis­obeyed Command. For, by the prudent conduct of Commanders, and the Obedience of the Mi­lice, great Or, Goods. things are wont to be performed. But if the one of these two be Or, Be­reaved of. separated from the other, it Halts, Staggers, and Stumbles; in re­gard these most excellent pair of Virtues are dis­joyned. Make no longer delays therefore: but Or, Obey me. be perswaded by Me, (the Sacerdotall Function does now mediate between the Emperour and his Army:) and give a demonstration, that what you do is not Or, Tyranny. Rebellion, but a just indignation [entertained] for some short time against those your Commanders by whom you had been injured. For if you will not flie [to the Emperour] with all imaginable speed, I indeed shall have Expi [...] ­ted, or, made satis­faction. done what is requisite, both in discharge of that Benevolence I owe the State, and of my friendship also to­wards you: but I would have you consider, what the Ends, or conclusions. Exits of Tyrants are. For, in what man­ner will you terminate the present State of affairs? 'Tis altogether impossible that you should continue together in a Body. For whence shall the fruits of the Earth be brought into you, or those con­veniences which the Sea affords the Or, Land. Continent for a supply; unless you wage War with Christians, and on the other hand be involved in Wars brought upon you by them, whereby you will commit and suffer the horridest Mischiefs, Villanies, and Re­proaches imaginable? And what will be the end hereof? Being dispersed into all places, you will spend the residue of your lives. Revenge will forth­with overtake you, and not suffer any Pardon to be granted you in future. Give therefore your right hands, and let us consider what is advan­tagious, both to Our selves and to the Government; in regard we have the Festivall Days of the Sa­lutary Passion, and of the most Holy Resurrection of Christ our God, to give us assistance in that affair.

CHAP. XIII. That, after Gregorius's Speech, the Souldiers changed their minds, and received their Ge­nerall Philippicus again.

HAving uttered these words, and shed ma­ny Tears, by a certain Divine impulse as 'twere he altered all their minds in a mo­ment. And they forthwith requested, that they might go out of the Or, As­sembly. Convention, and consult apart by themselves concerning what was to be done. Not long after which they returned, and surrendred themselves to [the ar­bitrement and will of] the Bishop. Who having nominated Philippicus to them, that they should request him for their Leader; their an­swer was, that as to that matter they and the whole Army were oblieged by great Oaths. Whereto Gregorius made this return without any the least hesitancy or delay, that by divine permission he was a Priest, and had power to loose and bind, upon earth and in heaven; and he put them in mind of the Divine See Matt. 16. 19. Ora­cle. When therefore they had acquiesced in this matter also, he appea­sed God with These Prayers and Suppli­cations may be referred, either to the reconciliation of the pe­nitents, and to the absolution from that Oath wherein the Souldiers had bound them­selves; or else to the solemn Prayers, which Gregorius then celebrated before the Tribunes and Centurions of the Roman Ar­my, to whom also he distributed the sacred Communion, as Eva­vagrius attests. So indeed Ni­cephorus expounds this place: [...] says he, [...] He appeased the Deity with Supplications. And ha­ving performed the divine Prayers, He imparted the immaculate Body to them all. Vales. Prayers and Supplications. And ha­ving distributed to them the immaculate Body [of Christ;] (For it was [...]. In the excellent Florentine and Tellerian Manuscripts, the word [...] is added; that is, the Second Feria [or, Monday] of the Great Week, or Passion Week. I found the same E­mendation also written in the margin of The Vulcobian Copy. Vales. a most solemn day, the Se­cond Feria, which is near the Holy passion:) He en­tertained them all at a sup­per, in number about two thousand persons, ordering Beds, whereon they might eat, forthwith to be laid for them on the Grass; and on the morrow re­turned home. But, 'twas thought good that the Soul­diers should meet together at what place they plea­sed. Gregorius therefore sends for Philippicus, who made his residence at Tar­sus in Cilicia, [...]. I assent to Christo­phorson and Sr Henry Savill, who have put a point after these words. For 'tis wholly necessary. More­over, before them, Nicephorus had distinguished this place thus. But the reading in Nicephorus is bet­ter, thus, [...], to the Emperour's City, or, Constan­tinople. Vales. and was preparing for his journey to Constantinople. Further, he dispatcht away a Re­lation to the Emperour con­cerning these affairs, where­with he likewise sent the Pe­tition of the Army, in which they requested Philippicus might be their Commander. Wherefore, when Philippicus was arrived at Antioch, the Army met him there; and ha­ving taken out those persons who had been vouchsased Divine Regeneration, to make an Address in their behalf, they fall prostrate before him. And when they had received his right hand, in confirmation of an Oblivion. Amnesty of what was past, they made an Or, Ex­peditions with him. Expedition under his Command. In this manner proceeded these affairs.

CHAP. XIV. Concerning the taking of Martyropolis.

[IN the interim,] one Sittas a [...]. In the Florentine and Tellerian Manuscripts 'tis truer written, thus, [...]; as also Vulcobius and Sr Henry Savil had mended it in their Copies. Nicephorus (book 18. chap. 17.) has expounded this place of Evagrius thus; [...] having been made Commander of Ten Souldiers amongst the Military Forces. These Officers were by the La­tines termed Decani, not Decu­riones, as Musculus and Christo­phorson do render it. Vegetius at­tests this book 2. chap. 8. speaking concerning the Centuriones or Ordinarii; Erant, says he, De­cani denis militibus praepositi qui nunc Caput Contubern [...]i vocantur, The Decani were Commanders of ten Souldiers, which Officers are now called the head of a File. Vales. Decanus in Martyropolis, vext at an injury he had re­ceived from one of the Military Commanders there, betrays the City [to the Enemy,] observing the time when the Garrison [...]. Without doubt it must be [...], in that City. For so the Rule of Grammar requires. Vales. lodged in that City was marched out of it: and ha­ving brought in a Persian [...]. Four hun­dred armed men, as Theophy­lactus relates, book 3. chap. 5. Vales. Cohort, as if it had been a Roman one, he possest himself of that City, which was a Or, Most com­modious. place of great conse­quence to the Ro­mans. He kept most of the younger women within the City; but turned out all other persons, ex­cept some few servants. Im­mediately therefore Philip­picus made his march thi­ther, and having invested the City, besieged it, although he had none of those pro­visions necessary for a Siege. Nevertheless, he made use of what came next to hand in his Attacks, and having wrought some Mines, ruined one of the Towers: but was not able to make himself Master of the City, in regard the Persians sate up all night, and Fortified, or, secured. repaired what had been beaten down. When therefore the Romans had made frequent At­tacks against the wall, they were as often beat off. For, the Darts thrown upon them from an higher place, very seldome mist the Mark they were designed against; in so much that, they were more damnified, than they could do hurt to the Enemy within; and therefore brake up the Siege. And having marched off at some small distance, Encamped; but took particular care of this, that no other supplies of Forces should be Or, Ad­ded. let in to those Persians Besieged. But by the order of Mauricius, Gregorius makes a journey to the Camp, and perswades them to return to the Siege. Nevertheless, they were unable to effect any thing more than what they had done before, in re­gard they were wholly destitute of warlike Engines commonly made use of in the Siege of Cities. On which account the Army was sent into their Win­ter-Quarters. But in the adjacent Castles, severall Garrisons were left, that the Persians might not by stealth get into the City. And on the Summer fol­lowing, when the Roman Army was got into a bo­dy, and the Persians had made an Expedition a­gainst the Romans, there hapned a great Fight a­bout Martyropolis. In which Engagement Philip­picus got the better, and many of the Persians fell, amongst whom was Or, Van­quished. slain one Or, Hero. vallant Prince; but no small number of Persians got into Marty­ropolis, which was the chief thing they designed to effect. From thence forward the Romans resolved not to lay Siege to that City: for it was im­possible for them to take it by Force. But they built another City at seven surlongs distance [from Martyropolis,] upon mountainous and Or, Bet­ter forti­fied. more inaccessible places; that from thence [Page 522] they might infest it with Stratagems and Or, Con­trary At­tacks. Ex­cursions. And these things [the Romans] performed during the Summer; but in the Winter the Army was dismist.

CHAP. XV. Concerning Comentiolus's Mastership of the Milice, and the taking [the Castle] Oc­bas.

AFter this, Comentiolus, by descent a Thra­cian, is sent successour [to Philippicus] in the Mastership of the Milice. He Engaged the Persians in a most couragious manner, and wanted but little of loosing his life, (having been beaten down together with his horse,) had not one of his Guards mounted him on [...]. Evagrius has made use of this word above, at chap. 4. of this book; where, as also here, the Translatours render it Vchicu­larem and Vectarium equum. But Nicephorus (book 18, chap. 18,) writing out this place of E­vagrius, explains the term [...] thus; [...], that is, having mounted him on one of the Horses lead after him, carried him out of the Fight. For Generalls when they went to an Engagement, were wont to lead with them severall horses, that if that whereon they rode were by chance killed, they might mount another. Vales. one of his Led-Horses, and con­veyed him out of the Fight. Nevertheless, [...]. In my judgment, I have resto­red this place very happily, thus; [...], &c, the Persians were vanquished and fled, &c. 'Tis certain, the word [...] being preser­ved, is in no wise agreeable here. For, they that are preserved or saved, flie no more. Nor could the Persians be termed [...], preserved, or, saved, till they were come to Nisibis. There­fore Evagrius adds, [...], made their escape to Nisibis. Instead of the word [...], Nicephorus has put [...], which is a more common word. Vales. the Persians were vanquished and fled, having lost all their Commanders; and made their escape to Ni­sibis. And being afraid to return to their own King; (For he had threatned them with death, unless they brought back their Com­manders safe and unhurt:) they enter into a conspi­racy there against Or, Hor­misdes. Hormisda, the Chief Authour whereof was Varamus Master of the Persian Milice, who not long before had made his return together with the Forces about him, from an Engagement with the Turks. In the interim Comentiolus invested Martyropolis, and leaves the greater part of his Forces there: but he himself, together with some choice Souldiers which he had chosen out man by man, makes an Excursion to [...]. It seems to be the same which by Theophy­lactus is termed Acbas, a Castle ve­ry strongly fortified. Theophy­lactus de­scribes the site hereof, book 1. chap. 12, altogether in the same manner, wherein Evagrius describes the site of the Castle Ocbas. Therefore, as well from the likeness of the name, as from the site, it appears, that Ocbas and Acbas were one and the same Castle; scituate near the River Nymphius and the City Martyropolis. Our conjecture is fully confirmed by Theophylactus, in book 4. chap. 2; where that Castle Ocbas, which our Evagrius says was taken by Comentiolus, is by Theo­phylactus himself termed Acbas. Vales. Ocbas, a Castle almost inexpugnable, sci­tuate over against Martyropolis, on the op­posite Bank [of the River Nymphius,] and placed upon a steep and craggy Rock; from whence the whole City was easily to be seen. And having laid Siege thereto, and left nothing unattempted, and beaten down some part of the wall with Engins for Battery. Catapults, he brake in that way, and takes the Castle by force. Therefore, the Persians in future wholly despaired of holding Marty­ropolis.

CHAP. XVI. Concerning the Murder of Hormisda.

WHilst these Actions were performed in this manner, the Persians Mur­dered Hormisda, who was the unjustest of all Kings; not only because he had oppressed his Subjects with exactions of money, but also for [his inflicting on them] various sorts of deaths.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning the Flight of Chosroes Junior to Or, The Romans. us.

[...]. From the Floren­tine and Tellerian M. SS. we have made good this place thus, [...], &c. Then, in his room they Con­stitute, &c. Further, Chosroes was made King of the Per­sians in the year of Christ 592, as Baronius writes in his Annals. Which was the tenth year of Mauricius's Empire, not the seventh, as Baronius relates. For the years of Mau­ricius's Empire proceed almost in an equall pace with the years of the Indiction, as do likewise the years of Justinus Junior's Empire. Wherefore, whereas on the year of Christ 592 it was the tenth Indiction, as Baronius himself attests, it must then also necessarily have been the tenth year of the same Mauricius's Empire. Yet, the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle places the Inauguration of Chosroes, and his flight to the Romans, one year before this account. For thus he writes; In the ninth In­diction, on the ninth year of Mauricius's Empire, on the seventh year after the Consulate of the same Mauricius Tiberius: [...], &c. On this year Chosroes Emperour of the Persians came to the Romans, having had a Rebellion raised against him by Baram [or, Varamus] his kinsman; and by the assistance of the Romans he was restored to his own Kingdome. But Johannes Biclariensis in his Chro­nicon, relates this to have been done a year sooner. For these are his words at the Eighth year of the Emperour Mauricius, where­with he closed his Chronicle. A vigesimo ergo Constantini Imperatoris anno, &c. From the twentieth year therefore of the Emperour Con­stantine, at which time the Arian Heresie took its beginning, untill the eighth year of Mauricius Emperour of the Romans, there are two hundred sixty six years. In these times therefore, wherein the omni­potent God (the venome of poysonous Heresie being destroyed,) has restored Peace to his Church, the Emperour of the Persians embraced the Faith of Christ, and made [or, confirmed] a Peace with the Em­perour Mauricius. Where, that is to be taken notice of, which Biclariensis says, viz. that the King of Persia, having thrown off the worship of Idolls, came over to the Faith of Christ. Indeed, Theo­phylactus attests the same, book 4. chap. 10, and book 5, chap. 2. Vales. THen, in his room they Constitute his Son Chosroes their King, against whom Varamus undertakes an Expedition to­gether with those Forces he had about him. Chosroes marches out to meet him accompa­nied with an Army not very numerous, and flies, because he perceived his own Forces were engaged in a treacherous design against him­self. And at length he arrives at Circesium, having first called upon the God of the Chri­stians, (as he himself affirmed,) that his Horse might go to that place, whither he should be lead by That is, God. him. Being come To Circe­sium. thi­ther, together with his Wives, two children newly born, and some Per­sian Nobles who voluntarily followed him; from thence he dispatches away an Embassy to the Emperour Mauricius. Mau­ricius, as in other affairs, so in this also con­sulted for the best; and being convinc't, by taking his measures even from this instance, of the inconstancy and mutability of this life, and of the sudden Turns ebbings and flowings Or, Of the life of men. of Humane affairs; readily ad­mits of Chosroes's humble address, and instead of an Exile [entertains him as] his Guest, Theophylactus (book 5. chap. 3.) says Chosdroes was only ter­med Son by the Emperour Mauricius. But Theophanes in h [...] Chronicon, pag. 224, affirms in express words, that Chosdroes was a Son adopted by the Emperour Mauricius: [...], &c. On this year the Emperour Mauricius having adopted Chosroes the Em­perour of the Persians, &c. Vales. and in place of a Fugitive makes him his Son; having [Page 523] given him a Reception [whereat he was pre­sented] with Imperial Gifts. By which [pre­sents] not only the Emperour himself de­clared his own kindness to Chosroes, to whom he sent them in a manner befitting an Em­perour; but the Empress also did the same towards Chosroes's Wives, and the Emperour's Children to those of Chosroes.

CHAP. XVIII. How the Emperour sent Gregorius and Do­metianus to meet Chosroes.

MOreover, he sent all his Imperial Guards, and the whole Roman Army together with their Commander in Chief, who were to follow Chosroes even whither he would. And, to show him greater honour, [he sent to him] Dometianus Bishop of Melitina his own kinsman, a person Prudent and Sagacious, most compleatly accomplish't both for Action and Discourse, and every way fit for the manage­ment of affairs of the greatest consequence. He sent likewise Gregorius, who in all things struck Chosroes with amazement, by his dis­courses, with his presents, and with the ad­vices he gave him, seasonable and accommodate to his affairs.

CHAP. XIX. That Chosroes recovered the Empire of the Per­sians, by that assistance given him by the Romans.

FUrther, when Chosroes was come as far as Hierapolis, which is the Metropolis of the [Province] Euphratensis, he went back again, in regard Mauricius also lookt upon that as expedient, who contributed more to the [ad­vantage of the] Suppliant, than to his own glory. Moreover, he pleasured Chosroes with a vast sum of money, a thing never recorded [to have been done] before. And when he had raised an Army of Persians, the whole charge whereof he paid out of his own Trea­sury, he sends Chosroes with a double Army, one of Romans, another of Persians, out of the confines of the Roman Empire; Martyropolis having before that been Surrendred to To Mau­ricius. him, together with Sittas. Which person was Theophy­lactus, book 4. chap. 15, says, that Sittas was burnt to death by the Com­mand of Comentiolus the Magister Militiae. Vales. Sto­ned by the Martyropolites, and afterwards cru­cified. Daras also was surrendred [to the Ro­mans,] the Persians having been drawn out thence. After this, when Varamus had been vanquished in a single Engagement by the Romans only, and had ingloriously fled away alone, Chosroes was brought back to his own Pallace.

CHAP. XX. That the holy Mother Golanduch Or, Was. lived in those Times.

IN those Times also lived the Martyr Go­landuch, and was conversant amongst us. Which woman, after many conflicts, was crow­ned with Martyrdome, (the Persian Magi be­ing her Tormentours,) and became a Wor­ker of great Miracles. Stephanus the Former, Bishop of Hierapolis, hath written her Life.

CHAP. XXI. Concerning those Sacred Presents, which Chos­roes sent to the Holy Martyr Sergius.

MOreover, Chosroes being repossest of his own Kingdome, sends to Gregorius a Cross, adorned with much Gold and pretious Stones, in honour of the Victorious Martyr Sergius. Which [Cross] Theodora Wife to Justinian had Dedicated: but He was Grandfa­ther to this Chosroes. Chosroes had made plun­der of it, together with other Sacred Treasures and Gifts, as has Book 4. chap. 28, where see note (a.) already been related by me. Further, the same Chosroes sent another Cross of Gold, whereon he set this Inscription in Greek Letters. I Chosroes King of Kings, Son of Hormisda, [sent] this Cross, at such time as by the Diabolick Force and Malice of the most unlucky Varamus and the Horse­men with him, We betook Our Self to the Empire of the Romans: and in regard the Wretched Zadespram came [...]. In Theophy­lactus Simocatta, book 5, chap. 13, the reading is, [...], &c. in regard the Wretched Zadesprates came out of the Ar­my, which reading I like best. Vales. with an Army to Nisi­bis, in a treacherous man­ner to Sollicite the Nisi­bene Horse to [...]. In Theophy­lactus the reading is, [...], to disturb. Vales. Revolt from and oppose Us; We also sent [a Body of] Horse with a Commander to [the Town] Char­chas. And because we had heard, that the Venerable and Illustrious Sergius was a Giver of those things requested from him; in the first year of Our Reign, on the seventh day of the month January, We made a request by the Genius of the said Saint, [promising] that if Our Horsemen should kill Zadespram, or could take him alive, We would send a Cross of Gold set with Gems to his Or, House. Church, in honour of his Venerable Name. And on the ninth of the month February, they brought Us the head of Zadespram. Having therefore obtained our de­sire; that we might put every thing out of doubt, we have sent to the house of the Venerable Saint Sergius, this Cross made by Us in ho­nour of his Venerable Name, together with that Cross sent to his house by Justinian Em­perour of the Romans, which in the Times of War between the two Empires, was brought hither by Chosroes King of Kings Son of Ca­vades, our Or, Grand­father. See book 4. chap. 28. note (a.) Father, and was found amongst our Treasures. Gregorius having with the consent of the Emperour Mauricius received these [Crosses,] with great pomp Dedica­ted them to, and deposited them in, the Sa­cred house of the Martyr. Not long after, the said Chosroes sent other presents also to the same Sacred Church, and on a Bason made of Gold, ordered this Inscription to be set in the Greek Tongue. I Chosroes King of Kings, the Son of Hormisda, [have ordered] this Inscri­ption to be set upon this Bason, not that it might be seen by men, nor that by my words the Greatness of Your Venerable Name might be made known; but, on account of the truth of what is inscribed, and by reason of those many Favours and Benefits which I have re­ceived from You. For, 'tis my happiness, that my Name is extant on Your Sacred Vessells. When I was at a place [called] Beramais, I requested of You (Holy Man!) that You would come to my assistance, and that Sira might conceive. And in regard Sira is a [Page 524] Christian, and I a Or, Pagan. Gentile, Our Law al­lows Us not to have a Christian Wife. On account therefore of my Benevolence towards You, I disregarded this Law, and have had a kindness for this Woman above my other Wives, and doe Love her every day more and more. Wherefore, I have taken a resolution, at present to desire▪ of Your Goodness, (Holy Man!) that She might conceive. I have re­quested therefore, and solemnly vowed, that if Sira shall conceive, I will send the Cross worn by her to Your Venerable house. And on this account, I and Sira have this design, that we will retain this Cross in Memory of Your Name, Holy Man! And we have resolved instead thereof (in regard its value exceeds not Four thou­sand four hundred [...] There were three sorts of Stater's, (1) Sta­ter Atticus; its value in our Coyn was Fifteen Shillings, (2) Stater Aureus Mac [...]doni­cus; its value in our money is Eighteen Shillings four pence, (3) Stater Daricus, which 'tis probable is the money here meant, it was valued at Fif­teen Shillings, our money. See more in Mr Brerewood de Pon­deribus & Pretiis veterum Num­morum, chap. 8. pag. 22. Miliaresian Staters,) to transmit Five thousand Staters. And from such time as I conceived this Request within [...]. In Nicephorus 'tis [...]: but in Theophylactus the reading is [...], with­in my self; which reading I do rather approve of. Vales. my self, and entertained these thoughts, untill we came to [...]. In Theo­phylactus and Nicephorus, 'tis read in one word, [...] So also I found it written in the Tellerian Manuscript. Vales. Rosumchosrum, ten days had not fully past. And Thou (Holy Man!) not that I deser­ved it, but because of Thine own goodness, appearedst to me in a dream by night, and didst affirm thrice to me, that Sira should be with child. And in the same Vision I answered Thee thrice, saying, 'tis well. And because Thou art a Giver of what is requested of Thee, from that day Sira was not sensible of the Cu­stome of Women. But I might perhaps have doubted in relation to this matter, had I not given cre­dit to thy words, (because thou art an holy person, and a Granter of requests,) that [Sira] should not in future be sensible of the Custome of Women. From hence I understood the Or, Power. Vir­tue of the Vision, and the truth of what was predicted by thee. I have therefore forthwith transmitted the Cross it self, and its value, to your Venerable house, with order, that of its price one Bason and one Cup be made, to be used at the holy Mysteries: moreover, that a Cross be made, which is to be fixed upon the Or, Pretious. Sacred Table, and a Censor; all of Gold: and Further, [...]. The Transla­tours un­derstood not this place, as 'tis appa­rent from their Ver­sion. For they both render it in this manner; Et unicum utrinque a­pertum. So also Ra­d [...]rus tran­slated it, who ren­died Theo­phylactus into Latine, save only that he has made it Hunnicum, agreeable to the reading in the Greek Text of Theophylactus. But Langus, Nicephorus's Translatour, has retained the Greek word, thus, & Am­phithyrum Hunnicum. And, by adding a Scholion, has explained this term thus: Judicio meo carceres, sive canc [...]lli sunt, In my judge­ment, they are the Bars or Rails, either surrounding the more Sacred Table of the Altar, or keeping the people from it; in each part whereof there is a door, and a passage leading to it, of Hunnick Work. But, by the favour of that Learned man, he has not hit the signification of this word. The Greeks termed Veyles or Curtains which hung be­fore doors, [...]. So Chrysostome in his 84th Homily on St Mat­thew, speaking concerning Za [...]h [...]us, who entertained our Lord at a Banquet: [...], [Consider,] when Christ was about to enter into his house, how he adorned it: for he ran not to his neighbours, [to borrow] their Curtains and Chairs, &c. So, in the Churches of the Christians, there were Curtains before the doors, as Epiphanius attests in an Epistle which Saint Jerome has done into Latine. And, that we may come nearer to the business, at the very Altar there were Cur­tains, where with the doors of the Altar or Choire were covered. And when the Priest was about to celebrate the Eucharist, those Curtains were wont to be drawn, that the people might behold the Mysteries a far off. This is atrested by St Chrysostome, in his third Homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians, in these words: [...] so also here, when the sacrifice is offered, and Christ is sacrificed, when you shall hear [these words] Let us all pray together, when you see the Curtains drawn, then think that heaven is opened from above, &c. Where you see, that the word [...] is taken for the Curtains which were placed at the doors of the Altar. There is also mention of these Veyles or Curtaines, in an old paper of the Donation of the Cornutia­nensian Church, which was first published by Johannes Suarefius. Et pro arae or a vela Tramoscrica Alba auroclava 2, vela blattea auro­clava paragaudata 2, &c: and afterwards, vela linea paragaudata perficâ clavaturâ collomelina prasina 2, vela Linea paragaudata perficâ clavaturâ leucorhodina duo. And again afterwards. Item ante Regias Basilicae vela linea plumata majora fissa numero tria. Item vela linea pura tria, ante consistorium velum lineum purum unum. In pronao velum lineum purum unum; & intra Basilicam pro porticibus vela linea rosulata sex. Et ante secretarium vel curricula vela linea rosu­lata pensilia habentia arcus 2. Which place I have transcribed entire, for this reason, that the studious Reader may understand, how mani­fold the use of Curtains was heretofore in the Church; and that we might know, what was the Hunnick veyle or Curtain in this place of Evagrius. For, as this paper of Donation informs us, that the Persian Curtains were heretofore highly valued, so the Hunnick Curtains were also chiefly commended. Further, the Persian Curtains are mentioned by Aristophanes's Scholiaest ad Ranas: [...] For these Cur­tains were termed [...], because they were hung before doors, as I have said. Gulielmus Bibliothecarius in the life of Stephanus Sextus has this passage. Con [...]ulit in eadem Basilica Apostolorum cortinam lineam unam, velothyra s [...]rica tria in circuitu altaris. Whence it appears, that [...] and [...] signifie the same thing. Vales. an Hunnick Veyle adorned with Gold. And, [our order is,] that the re­maining Miliaresians of the price shall belong to thine holy house; that by thy Genius (Holy Man!) thou wouldest give assistance in all things to me and Sira, but especially in relation to this Request; and, that what hath hapned to us from thine intercession, by the mercy of thy Goodness may arrive at perfection, agree­able to the will of Me and Sira. To the end that I, and Sira, and all persons in the world, may place our hope in thy power, and in future believe in Thee. These are the expressions [contained] in the Sacred Presents [trans­mitted] by Chosroes, which disagree in no­thing from Balaam's Prophecy; the com­passionate God having wisely disposed [all things in such a manner,] that the tongues of Gentiles should [some times] utter salu­tary words.

CHAP. XXII. Concerning Naamanes the Saracen.

AT the same time, Naamanes also, the Chief of a Tribe of those Saracens that were Enemies, a Pagan so wicked and abo­minable, that with his own hand he sacri­ficed men to his Daemons, came to Holy Ba­ptisme; and having melted down a [Statue of] Venus, which was nothing else but a reall Mass of Gold, he distributed it amongst the poor, and brought over all those persons about him to [the worship of] God. But Gregorius, after Chosroes's Crosses had been presented, by the Emperour's order went a Circuit to the Solitudes of those termed The Limits, wherein Severus's Tenets In the Greek Text of Valesius's Edition, at this place we found these words wanting, [...], were high­ly prevalent; [in which places] he set forth the Ecclesiastick Dog­mata, or, Opinions: which we have inserted from Robert Stephens's Edition. Valesius has exprest them in his Latine Version, and so have all the other Translatours. were high­ly prevalent; [in which places] he set forth the Ecclesiastick Dogmata, and brought over to the Church of God many Castles, Villages, Monasteries, and whole Tribes.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning the Death of Saint Symeon Junior the Stylite.

BUt in the interim, Saint Symeones fell sick of a distemper whereof he died; and, upon my giving Gregorius notice thereof, he made all the hast he could to him, to pay him his last Salutes. But Gregorius obtained not what he desired. Further, this Symeones for Virtue far excelled all persons of his own time; having from his tender years lead an austere Course of Life up­on a Pillar: [...]. Nicephorus has explained this place incomparably well, by inserting one word, thus; [...]. That is, as Langus ren­ders it, perhibetur sane primos den­tes in columnae statione mutasse, 'tis indeed reported, that he chan­ged his first teeth in his Station on the Pillar. In the excellent Florentine and Tellerian Manu­scripts, 'tis written [...], not [...] where the word [...] is used instead of [...], there. Vales. in so much that his teeth were changed in that Station upon the Pillar. He went up upon a Column, on this account. Whilst he was yet very young, he wandred up and down over the Tops of the Mountain, [...], behaving himself like a child. playing and leaping. And by chance hapned upon a wild Beast [termed] a Libard, about whose neck he cast his gir­dle, and as with the rein of a bridle as 'twere, lead the Beast who Or, For­gat his Na­ture. forgat his naturall ferity, and brought him to his own Monastery. Which when Symeones's Instructer, (a person who kept his Station upon a Pillar,) beheld, he asked the Boy what that was. Symeones made answer, that it was an Aelurus, which they usually term a Cat. From hence [his Instructer] conjectu­red how eminent a person Symeones would prove [in the Study of] Virtue, and there­fore carried him up into a Pillar. In which Pillar, and in another that stood upon the very top of the Mountain, he spent Sixty eight years, being vouchsafed all manner of Grace; both as to the casting out of Devills, as to the curing every disease and all manner of languishing distempers, and in relation to the foreseeing things future as if they had been present. He foretold Gregorius, that he should not see him die; but [said,] that he was ig­norant of what would happen after his own death. And when I my self was Or, Distracted into. troubled with various thoughts at the loss of my chil­dren, and doubted within my own mind, why the same [troubles] befell not the Pagans who had many children; although I had not opened my mind to any person whatever, yet he wrote to me, to abstain from such thoughts as those, [...]. The Rules of Grammar require, that we should write [...]. For [...] pre­cedes. Vales. in regard they were displeasing to God. Moreover, when the wife of Or, One of those who wrote under me. one of my Amanuenses had her milk stopt after her delivery, [by reason where­of] the Infant was in im­minent danger; [the same Symeones] put his hand upon her husbands right hand, and ordered him to lay it upon the breasts of his wife: which when he had done, immediately the milk sprang out as 'twere from a fountain, in such a manner that it Or, Filled. wetted the garment of the woman. Further, a child having been left upon the Road in the dead of the night, through the forgetfullness of those who travelled with him, a Lyon laid it on his back, and brought it to [Symeon's] Monastery, and by Syme­ones's order, those who ministred to him went out, and brought in the child, which had been Or, Guarded. preserved by the Lyon. The same person performed many other things Or, A­bove men­tion. highly memo­rable, which require an eloquent tongue, much time, and a peculiar Treatise; [all which actions of his] are celebrated by the tongues of men. For, persons of almost all Nations of the Earth; not only Romans, but Barba­rians, came frequently to him, and obtained their requests of him. Certain branches of a shrub which grew on that mountain, Or, Were to him. were made use of by him in stead of all sorts of meat and drink.

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning the Death of Gregorius Bishop of Antioch, and the Restauration of Anasta­sius.

NOt long after Baronius does in­deed place the death of Grego­rius Bishop of Antioch and the Restaura­tion of A­nastasius Si­na [...]ta on the year of Christ 594. But Baronius doubts at the same place, whether it ought not to be placed on the year following; especially in regard Gregorius Magnus, in the Register of the Letters of the thirteenth Indiction, congratulates Anastafius, because he had been restored to the See of Antioch. But the Authour of the Alexan­drian Chronicle, (who lived almost in the same times with Gre­gorius,) places Gregorius's death in the tenth year of the Empire of Mauricius, on the tenth Indiction; his words are these: [...], In the tenth Indiction; on this year Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch returned to Antioch, after the death of Gregorius who had been Patriarch, who had also before succeeded the same Anastasius. Where you may note that Anastasius is called Patriarch even before his Restoration; because, having been de­posed illegally and by force, he had always retained the title of Patriarch. 'Tis certain Pope Gregorius, in the three Letters he wrote to him at the beginning of his Episcopate, does always acknowledge Anastasius to be a Patriarch. But, he is never found to have ac­counted Gregorius (who had illegally taken possession of Anastasius's Chair whilst he was yet alive,) amongst the number of Patrlarchs. Vales. dyed Gregorius also, after he had been seized with a Goutish distem­per, wherewith he was much troubled, and had drank a potion [made of the herb] ter­med Hermodactylus was a plant unknown to the Ancients, 'Tis cer­tain, neither Dioscorides, nor Galen have made any mention of it. But, the Arabians after Serapion, confounded it with Colchicum and Ephemeron. Whom our Apothecaries have followed, and in their Shops substitute Colchicum instead of Hermodactylus. But Andreds Matthiolus (in his comments on the fourth book of Dioscorides,) hath long since taken notice of this mistake; and after him others, who have written concerning plants. When Matthiolus published the Former Edition of his Comments, he himself did not then fully know what Hermodactylus was. But afterwards, when he had procured that plant from the Illustrious personage Augerius Busbequius, who had brought it him at his return from an Embassy at Constantinopole; he gave us the Type or Cut of that plant at pag. 1109 of his Latter Edition. The Roots of this plant represent the likeness of fingers, with the addition of nails also. Whence the plant had its name. For Hermodactylus signifies the finger of Mercury. Further, the root hereof was heretofore given to those that were troubled with the Gout in the joynts or fingers, at such time as the humours issued out: for, of it self, and by a decoction of it, it has a purgative quality, as Paulus Aegineta relates in his seventh book. But now a days Her­modactylus is given to those troubled with the Gout in their feet, not at that time when the humours issue forth, but rather when the disease is grown strong and come to its height. For, when Modern Physitians had found by the use of this medicine, that it was noxi­ous in the approach or augmentation of the disease, they corrected the practise of the Ancient Physitians in this particular; as the most famous and most Learned Tossanus de Fontaine Doctor of Physick and Regius Professor in the University of Paris informed me, a person to whom I profess my self highly obliged, for his singular kindness to­wards me, and for his care and diligence in curing my distemper. Vales. Hermodactylus, which was administred to him by a Physitian. He ended his life, at such time as Gregorius was Bishop of the Elder Rome, who had succeeded Pelagius; [Page 526] and whilst Johannes [presided over the Church of] Or, The Junior Rome Constantinople, and Eulogius over that of Alexandria, (persons whom I have men­tioned before;) and during Anastasius's pre­sidency over the Antiochian Church, [...] From these words 'tis evidently concluded, that Ana­stasius was restored to the See of Antioch a little be­fore Gre­gorius's death. For Evagrius says, that Gregorius Bishop of Antioch dyed, after Anastasius had been restored to his own Chair. Yet, Nicephorus thought, that no­thing else was meant by these words, but that Anastasius had been restored to his own See after Gregorius's death. Vales. who had been restored to his own Chair Anastasius had been deposed on the year of Christ 570, as I have observed above, in my notes on book 5. chap. 5. From this year to the tenth of Mauricius's Empire, (whereon he was restored to his See, as the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle informs us,) that is to the year of Christ 592, there are three and twenty years. Vales. after three and twenty years. Johannes [was then Bi­shop] of Jerusalem; who died soon after, and as yet no body has undertaken the Go­vernment of that Church. And here shall my History be closed, namely, From these words some one might prehaps conjecture that which Baronius has also supposed, that Gregorius Bishop of Antioch dyed on the twelfth year of the Emperour Mauricius. For why should Eva­grius say, that he had closed his History on the twelfth year of Mau­ricius's Empire, unless he had related some thing before, which had been done on the twelfth year of the same Mauricius? Notwithstan­ding, after a more diligent inspection into the thing, Evagrius seems not in my judgment, to have designed to mean that by these words, for Evagrius says, that Gregorius Bishop of Antioch had ended his life, at such time as Gregorius Governed the Roman, and Eulogius the Alexandrian Church; and whilst Johannes presided over the Church at Jerusalem. Which Johannes having ended his life not long after, Evagrius saith no body was as yet put into his place. Evagrius there­fore closed not his History with the death of Gregorius, in regard he relates, that after Gregorius's death, Johannes Bishop of Jerusalem dyed; and that after his death no person was yet put into his See, at that time when he wrote these things. Wherefore Evagrius by these words means only this, that he wrote these things on the twelfth year of Mauricius's Empire. Vales. on the twelfth year of Mauricius Tiberius's Government of the Roman Empire; the following [affairs of the Church] being left to be collected and written by such as are desirous [of employ­ing themselves that way.] If any thing be either omitted, or not accurately set forth by us; let no person ascribe it to us as a fault; but let him consider with himself, that we have Collected into one Body Or, A wandring History. a dispersed and scattered History, and have made it our business [to consult] the advantage of men, in favour of whom we have Or, Sustained. under­taken so many and such vast La­bours. Another Volume has likewise been com­posed by us, which contains Relations, Letters, Decrees, Orations, Disputations, and some other things. The foresaid Relations contained in that Volume were all written in the Name of Gregorius Bishop of Antioch. By reason where­of we have obtained two dignities; [the one] from Tiberius Constantinus, [...]. I like not the Rendition of Christo­phorson and Musculus, who think that the ho­nour of the Quaesture was conferred upon our Evagrius by Tiberius. But Evagrius does not say, that he had the dignity [...] of Quaestor given him, but only [...] of Quaestorius. Now, there is a great dif­ference between Quaestor and Quaestorius. For he is Quaestor, who bears the Office of Quaestor. But, Quaestorius is he who has already born that Office. In regard therefore Evagrius says, that he had the honour Ex-Quaestore given him, he means that the Codicills Ex-Quae­store were conferred on him by the Emperour: altogether in the same manner, wherein (as he adds immediately,) the Codicills Ex-Prafectis Praetorio were bestowed on him by the Emperour Mauricius. Fur­ther, such persons as by their deserts had procured these Codicills, enjoyed all those priviledges, which belonged to the Honorati who had born those dignities, to wit, of the Quaesture and of the Praefecture. But, in my opinion the reading at this place ought to be, [...] (the term [...] being understood,) the [dignity] of Quaestorius. Vales. who invested us with the [Dignity] of Quaestorius, [the o­ther] from Mauricius Tiberius who sent us the Codicills of a Praefecture, [...]. Translatours understood not this place. For Musculus renders it thus; unde ista composuimus, cum ille imperii ignominiam ablaturus, Theodosium in lucem produxit, whence we com­posed those things, when he, about to take away the ignominie of the Em­pire, brought Theodosius into the light. Christophorson translates it in this manner: Quo regnante eas Relationes Composuimus; idque eo ipso tempore quo Theodosium in Lucem edidit, during whose Reign we composed those Relations; and that at that very time wherein he brought to light Theodosius. Christophorson was of opinion, that the reading here ought to be, [...]. But this emendation is not to be endured. For Evagrius had not composed that Work of Relations during the Reign of Mauricius, but whilst Tiberius Constantinus was Emperour, as he himself affirms a little above. Therefore, I had rather retain the common reading here, by understanding the word [...] Rela­tion, or [...] Discourse. For when the Emperour Mauricius's Son Theodosius was born, Evagrius wrote an Oration to the Emperour Mauricius, wherein he congratulated with him on account of the Birth of his Son, and foretold the highest felicity both to Mauricius and the Roman State, because Mauricius had abolished the old Reproach of the Roman Empire, and had at length begotten a Male-child. For, none of the Roman Emperours, who had Reigned in the Eastern parts; even from the times of Theodosius Junior, had begotten Male-children. Evagrius therefore says, that on account of this Oration, he had been rewarded by Mauricius with the Codicills of a most ample Praefecture. Vales. on account of that [Oration] we had composed, at such time as (having wiped away the reproach of the Empire,) he brought into the light [his Son] The most noble Theodosius was born in purple on the third year of Mauricius's Empire on the twenty sixth of the month September, and therefore on the fourth Indiction, which had begun from the Calends of the September of this year. The same Theodosius was afterwards Crowned Augustus by his Father Mauricius, in the eighth Indiction, on the twenty sixth of the month March, when he was four years and an half old, as Theophanes relates in his Chronicon, pag. 225. Vales. Theo­dosius, who gave a beginning of all manner of felicity, both to [Mauricius] himself, and to the State.

Six Books of Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus Epiphaniensis and [one] of the Ex-Praefects.

THE END.
THE LIFE OF CONSTANT …

THE LIFE OF CONSTANTINE, IN FOUR BOOKS, Written in GREEK, by Eusebius Pamphilus Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine; done into ENGLISH from that Edition set forth by Valesius and Printed at PARIS in the Year 1659.

Together with VALESIUS's Annotations on the said LIFE, which are made ENGLISH, and set at their proper places in the Margin.

Hereto is also annext the Emperour CONSTANTINE'S ORATION to the CONVENTION OF THE SAINTS, and EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS'S SPEECH CONCERNING THE PRAISES OF CONSTANTINE, Spoken AT HIS TRICENNALIA.

HINC LUCEM ET POCULA SACRA

CAMBRIDGE, Printed by John Hayes, Printer to the University. 1682.

VALESIUS'S Advertisement to the READER.

IN My Annotations on Eusebius's Ecclesiastick History, I have remarked, that the Titles or Contents of the Chapters, which are prefixt before each Book, were composed by Eusebius him­self. And this, in my judgment, I have proved by most evident Arguments. But, in these Books concerning the Life of Constantine, the matter is otherwise. For the Contents of these Books were not made by Eusebius himself, but by some other more modern Authour. Now, I make this con­jecture from hence, both because the Contents of these Chapters, are for the most part uncooth, insipid, and barbarous; and also in regard they always speak of Eusebius in the third person; whereas, in the Contents of the Chapters of his Ecclesiastick History, Eusebius always names himself in the first per­son. Besides, the distinctions of the Chapters are two thick, and occur too often; and one Letter and Constitution of the Emperour, is divided, and torn asunder as 'twere, into many Chapters. Which thing is wont often to beget a loathing and nauseousness in the Reader. I forbear mentioning the barbarous words and terms, which occur frequently in these Contents. For, in them you diverse times meet with [...], and [...]. All which considerations make me of this opininon, that I should believe any one else, rather than Eusebius, to have been the Authour of these Contents. Ne­vertheless, whoever the person was, he was ancient, and lived not at any great distance from the Age of Our Eusebius. And this is chiefly Collected from the Contents of the Fourth Book; wherein you may read some passages, which could not have been known, but by a Writer Contemporary with those times, of which sort is that concerning Marianus the Tribune and Notary, in the Contents of Chapter 44. Book 4; the name of which Notary we might at this day have been ignorant of, had not that Authour of the Contents, and after him Sozomen, given us information thereof. I have sometimes conjectured, that Acacius, (he, who succeeded Our Eusebius in the Chair of the Church of Caesarea, in regard he publisht these Books of his Master after his death,) Composed these Contents. But, this is but a meer conjecture, which any one that will, may follow. Lastly, the Reader is to be Advertised, that in all our Manuscript Copies, the Titles of these Chapters are written without the That is, Without setting forth what Chapter it is, viz. the 20th, 30th, &c. Numerall Notes. And in The Old Sheets belonging to the Kings Library, they occur praefixt before each Book. But in the Fuketian Manuscript, they are not only set before each Book; but are also added to every Chapter, in the Body of each Book.

THE FIRST BOOK OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS [...]. So Graecians are wont to inscribe their Books written concerning any one's Life: Philostratus gave his Books concerning the Life of Apollonius Tyaneus this Title, [...], Philostratus's eight Books concerning the Life of Apollonias Tyaneus. So also Marcus Antoninus entitled the Books concerning his own Life, [...], twelve Books of [Re­marks] upon himself. 'Tis further to be noted, that although these Books have this Title, concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine, yet all things are not contained therein, which were performed by that Emperour, but those matters only are described, which relate to true piety, and the Glory of the Christian Religion. Whereof Eusebius gives an express advertisement in the beginning of this book, chap. 11. Vales. CONCERNING THE LIFE OF THE BLESSED EMPEROUR CONSTANTINE At this place Robert Stephens has added these words, [...], five Books; what Copies he followed, I know not. For these words occur not, either in the King's Copy, or in the Old Sheets. Neither are these words to be found in the Fuketian Manuscript. 'Tis certain, this Work concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine consists only of four Books; which is also attested by Photius. But, because Eusebius had added three small Pieces, to wit, the Emperour Constantine's Oration to the Convention of the Saints, the description of the Church at Jerusalem together with the Sacred Presents there Dedicated by Constantine, and a Panegyrick spoken at Constantine's Tricennalia▪ hence it came to pass, that this Appendix was by some taken for a Fifth Book. Indeed, the Index of the Chapters which is prefixt before Constantine's Oration to the Saints, in the Fuketian Manuscript has this Title, [...], the Chapters of the Fifth Book. But in the Kings Copy, the Indices of the Chapters are omitted, and this Title is written at the side, though in a more modern hand, [...], the beginning of the Fifth Book. Vales..

The Preface. Concerning the Death of Constantine.

ALL Mankind have not long since ce­lebrated the recurring periods of our great Emperour's compleated [...], Se­cond and Third De­cade of years. 'Twas usuall with Emperours to celebrate solemn Feasts and Pastimes for joy they were arrived at the 10th, 20th, or 30th year of their Reign; the Feasts for their tenth year were termed Decennalia; those for their 20th, Vicennalia; and them for their 30th Tricennalia. Vi­cennalia and Tricennalia, with Festi­vities and publick Banquets. We our selves also, [...], with Vicennalian Hymns. This Ora­tion spoken by Eusebius in Constantine's Vicennalia is not now extant. We can only affirm this of it, that it was spoken in the Nicene Synod, in the presence of the Emperour Constantine, as Eusebius attests in the following words: but he tells us this very thing much more plainly in book 3, chap. 11. Vales. by a Panegyrick spoken in his Vicennalia, have lately venerated the same Glorious Conquerour envi­roned with a Synod of God's Sacred Ministers. Moreover, [...], we have platted him Tricennalian Crowns of Orations. He means The Tricennalian Oration concerning the praises of Constantine, which Eusebius had annexed at the close of his books concerning the Life of Constantine, as he himself attests book 4. chap. 46. Ne­vertheless, in the Fuketian Manuscript this Oration is prefixt before Eusebius's Books of the Life of the Emperour Constantine. Which is very right indeed, if we respect the time wherein this Oration was spoken▪ but 'tis Contrary to the opinion of the Writer himself, who ordered that Oration to be placed at the close of these books. Vales. we have platted him Crowns of Tri­cennalian Orations, wherewith we lately encircled his Sacred Head within his own Imperial pallace. [Page 530] But now Or, Our Oration is, &c. See chap. 2. note (c.) I am doubtfull and at a stand, de­sirous indeed to utter something according to the usuall manner, but ignorant which way to turn my self, and amazed at this only miracle of a new and surprizing Aspect, or, Sight. spectacle. For, which way soever I look with a fixt and steady eye, whether to the East or West, upon the whole Earth or to Heaven it self, I behold the Blessed [Emperour] present [...]. every where and in all places, [...]. Sr Henry Savil hath noted at the mar­gin of his Copy, that perhaps the reading should be [...], un­derstand [...], with our Oration is self. The same thing came also into my mind, before I had procured Sr Henry Savils Copy. 'Tis the same with what Eusebius says in the following chapter, [...]; and converst with us our selves, in a most admirable manner. But, after a more diligent in­spection into the thing, I am now of another opinion. Nor do I doubt but Eusebius wrote thus, [...], accompanied, or, conversing with Imperial Majesty her Self: which is a most elegant expression. For he makes Imperial Majesty a kind of Goddess as 'twere, whose inseparable Companion, he says, Constantine was after his death: in regard he conversed above with God the supreamest of Kings; but reigned on the earth in his Sons. Questionless, whosoever shall read the following words with attention, will never doubt of this Emendation. Vales. conversing with Imperiall Majesty her self. And I see his Sons, like some new Lumi­naries, filling the whole Earth with their Father's Rays, and [I behold] himself as yet living in Power and Authority, and managing the whole affairs of the world better and more potently than before; in regard he is diffused and enlarged by the succession of his Sons. Who be­fore had Or, Per­took of the honour of Gaesars. been invested with the Caesa­rian Dignity: but having now clothed themselves with their whole Father, on account of their eximious Or, Vir­tue of Reli­gion. Vir­tue and Religion are proclaimed Su­pream Soveraigns, Augusti, Adora­ble, Emperours, being illustrated with [all] their Fathers Ornaments.

CHAP. II. The Preface yet.

AND when I behold him (who a little before was seen [...]. The rea­ding in the Old Sheets is truer, thus, [...]; and we have rendred it accordingly. In the Fuketian Manuscript the four former words are wanting, and there is a blank­space left, capable of one or two words only. Vales. in a Mortall Body, and [...]. In the Fuketian Manu­scripts this place is written thus, [...], &c. But I had rather retain the ordinary reading, only I would alter the punctation. For, I am of opinion, that a C [...]mma is not to be placed after the word [...] in a most admirable manner, (as Mus­culus and Christophorson have done,) but after the word [...], thus, converst with us our selves, as we have pointed it. For Eusebius says this was the greatest Miracle and [...] most admira­ble; that although Constantine was dead, yet he had the same honours and obedience paid him as when alive. Vales. converst with us our selves,) in a most admirable manner enjoying the same Imperial Pallaces, honours, and commendations, even after the end of this life, when Nature re­jects as forreign whatever is superfluous; I am stricken with an incredible amazement. But now, when with an acuteness of mind I reach up to the very Arches of Heaven it self, and there Contemplate his thrice happy Soul conversing with God; wholly divested of its Mortall and Terrestriall Garment, and beauti­fied with a most Or, Re­splendent. Splendid Stole of Light: and when I perceive it not any more involved in the short periods of Time, within these Or, Re­sidencies of Mortalls. fading Ha­bitations; but honoured with an ever-flourishing Diadem, and [endowed] Or, With an Immor­tality of an endless, &c. with an endless life and a blessed immortality: [...]. From the Fuketian Manuscript and Sr Henry Sa­vil's Copy I have men­ded this place thus, [...], I am dumb, &c. [...] is an elegant expression, as persons skillfull in the Greek Tongue do very well know. Fur­ther, whereas all these expressions in this and the foregoing chapter, are spoken by Eusebius in the third person, concerning his Speech or Oration, we chose rather to change the person, and put it in the first, because the propriety of the Latine Tongue seemed wholly to re­quire that. Vales. For the same reason here given by Valesius in relation to the Latine Tongue, we have likewise altered the person in our English Version. I am dumb, and wholly deprived of the use of my Tongue and Reason. And being unable to utter one word, but passing sentence my self upon mine own weakness, and decreeing silence against my self, I give place to one more potent, who may de­clare his Or, The dignity of his equall praises. praises in a manner cor­respondent to his deserts; to him namely, who being Or, The Immortall God and The Word. Immortall and God The Word, is only able to con­firm and ratifie his own expressions.

CHAP. III. Concerning God who honoured the Pious Empe­rours and destroyed the Tyrants.

FOr whereas he has predicted, that they who glorifie and honour him, shall by him be Or, Sub­jected to. compensated with reciprocall Gifts and Re­wards; but, that those who have Made, or▪ constituted. profest themselves his Enemies and Adversaries, shall procure to themselves [...] destruction of their souls; long since [even from this life] he hath ascertained Or, The true pro­mises of these his words. the Truth of these his own words and promises. For he hath evidently set before our eyes the detestable Conclu­sions of Life. Exits of im­pious and God-opposing Tyrants; but hath demonstrated not only the Life of his Servant, but his death also to be desirable and worthy of the highest commendations: [...]. I am not pleased with the reading in the Fuke­tian Manu­script and in Gruter's Copy which reading I found set at the mar­gin in Mo­reus's Copy also; it is this, [...], &c. By a transposition of one particle I mend the place thus, [...], in so much that, &c, as we have rendred it. And I dare lay any wager, that Eusebius wrote so. Further, [...] imports here Titles or Scpulchrall Monuments, as I have at large remarked on Eusebius's Eccles. History. Vales. in so much that, even His Death. this deserves a commemoration, and is egregiously worthy not of Mortall but immortall Sepulchrall Monuments. The Or, The Na­ture of Mortalls. wit of men hath indeed found out a comfort and preservative against a Mortall and frail End, and by Consecrations of Statues, as 'twere by immortall ho­nours, have thought good to Reverence the Memories of their Ancestours. And some have framed Representations of men with the sha­dowed Colours of [...]. He means Paint of Encaustum, or, Ceruss, which was made by wax melted in the fire. This was the most ancient sort of Painting, as Pliny tells us, book 35, chap. 11. Ceris pingere ac picturam inurere quis primus excogitaverit, non Constat; 'tis not known who first found out Painting with wax and burning the Paint. The same Pliny reckons up three sorts of this Painting; to wit, with wax, with the Cestrum [a kind of Peircer to bore with] in Ivory, and with the Pencill in wooden Tables; Encausto pingendi duo fuisse antiquitus genera constat, cera, & in [...]bore cestro, donec classes pingi caepere. Hoc tertium accessit, resolutis igni ceris penecillo utendi. By which words 'tis very obscure what Pliny means, in regard he say [...], that the first sort of Painting with Encaustum was with wax. For 'tis not to be understood, that there was no wax in the other sorts of Encaustick Painting. The meaning therefore is this, that that first sort of Encaustick Painting was performed with wax only, no other instrument besides wax being made use of to Paint. Procopius (in his first book de Aedificiis Justiniani,) speaking concerning the Roof of a Church, describes this sort of Painting thus; [...], the whole Roof was adorned with Paintings, not with wax made liquid [or, burnt,] and diffused. 'Tis apparent, that by these words Pro­copius means [...], Encaustick Painting. 'Tis cer­tain, [...] occurs in John Chrysostome also, as 'tis recorded in the Second Nicene Councill, pag. 542. And in Pope Gregorie's Letter to Germanus Bishop of Constantinople, at page 535 of the same Nicene Councill; where Anastasius Bibliothecarius renders it, imaginem cerâ perfusam, a Picture besmeared with wax. The same term occurs hereafter in our Eusebius, at book 3. chap. 3, and in the History of Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople, about the end. Concerning this Painting Apuleius speaks, in defensione suâ, in these words: Enim verò quod luto fictum, vel are infu [...]um, vel lapide incisum, vel cerâ inustum, vel pigmento illitum. And Nazarius in the Pane­gyrick he spoke to Constantine, speaking concerning his Images thrown down by Maxentius, writes thus; Aboleri hic vultus non potest: uni­versorum pectoribus infixu [...] ▪ est, nec commendatione cera aut pigmento­rum fucis reni [...]e [...]: sed desiderio efflorescit animorum. Paulinus like­wise, in his eighth Epistle to Sulpicius Severus; at which place see Fronto Ducaeus's notes. There is also an eminent passage of Boethius's concerning this matter, in his Preface to his Books of Arithmetick, which he Dedicated to Symmachus the Patricius. At Picturae, manibus ta­bulae commissae fabrorum; cerae rusticâ observatione decerptae; colorum suci mercatorum solertia perquisiti; Lintea operosis elaborata textrinis, multiplicem materiam praestant. For so that place is to be corrected from an old Manuscript of Thuanus's Library. Lastly, Anastasius in his Sermon de Sabbato, which is recorded in the Seventh Synod, [...], the Image being nothing else but wood, and colours mixt and tempered with wax. Vales. Encaustick Painting; o­thers, with the Sculptures of inanimate matter; [Page 531] othersome have cut deep Letters on wooden or stone Tablets, wherewith they have [...]. I think it should be written, [...], have taken occasion: and so the reading is in the Old Sheets of the King's Library. Sr Henry Savil had likewise remarked at the margin of his Copy, that in his judgment the reading was to be thus. But in Moraeus's Copy at the margin 'tis mended thus, [...]; with which reading I am best pleased. Vales. taken oc­casion of consigning to Eternall Memory the Vir­tues of those whom they honour. But all these things were mortall, and con­sumed by length of time; in regard they exprest the pro­portions of mortall bodies, not the Forms, or, figures. Idea's of an immortall Or, Soul. mind. However, these things seem­ed to content those persons, who, after the conclusion of this mortall life, had concei­ved in their minds an hope of no other thing that was good. But God, God [I say] the Com­mon Saviour of all things, who hath treasured up with himself greater Goods than Man can have a conception of, for the Lovers of Piety; gives as a foregoing pledge even in this life, the First fruits of future Rewards, and in a manner represents and confirms immortall hopes to mortall eyes. The ancient Oracles of the Prophets, which are committed to writing, do plainly foretell these things. The Lives of per­sons dear to God, who heretofore have shined with all manner of Virtues, whose [Lives] are as yet celebrated by posterity, do give attesta­tion hereto. The same is clearly evinced to be true by the Testimony of this our present Age, wherein Constantine, the only person of all those who ever yet Governed the Roman Empire, having been made the friend of God the su­pream King, is proposed to all men as a power­full and illustrious instance of a Religious life.

CHAP. IV. That God honoured Constantine.

LAstly, God himself, whom Constantine wor­shipped, confirmed this with effectuall suf­frages, [...]. I read [...]. And a lit­tle after, instead of [...], it must be written, [...], for their information. Vales. by affording him his favourable and benigne presence and assistance, at the begin­ning, procedure, and end of his Reign: which person God proposed to mankind as an Pattern, or, In­stance. Exemplar for their information in relation to the divine worship. Indeed, of all the Emperours, whom we ever yet heard of, he was the only one, whom God, by those Blessings of all sorts which he conferred on him, demonstrated to be the grea­test Luminary and Loudest Proclaimer of steady Piety and true Religion.

CHAP. V. That he Reigned upwards of Thirty years, and lived above Sixty.

God. HE honoured the Time of his Reign with three compleated periods of Ten years, and [...]. A new and unusuall expression▪ [...], in­stead of that which others would term [...]. Eusebius says, that Constan­tine reig­ned thirty compleat years, and something more. Which is true. For, besides thirty years, he reigned al­most ten months. Further, at the beginning of this period, the reading must be, [...], the time of his Reign; not as the com­mon reading is, [...]. Vales. something more; but he circumscribed the whole Life he lead amongst men, with a space of time double as much. Further, be­cause God. He would propose him as the portraicture of his own Monarchicall power, [...]. Write [...], He made him the Conquerour; as I found it mended in the margin of the Mora [...] Copy▪ which reading Christophorson has followed. The same reading occurs in the old Sheets, in the Savilian, and in the Fuketian Manu­scripts. Vales. He made him the Conquerour of the whole Tyrannick Brood, and the Destroyer of the Or, God­opposing. Impious Giants: who, [instiga­ted] by a desperation and madness of mind, took up Arms of Impiety against God himself the supream King But, having made their appearance [...]. Christophorson renders it prope dixerim▪ I had al­most said; as if it had been written [...]. I doubt not but Eusebius meant another thing. For, being desirous to show how short a time the Tyrants [...], he says they were visible a shorter time than is required to speak. 'Tis the same which Graecians term [...], in the twinkling of an eye▪ a sort of Hyperbole familiar with Graecians. Vales. even during a shorter time than is required to speak, they were extinguished. But God, who is one and the sole God, when he had fortified his Servant, one opposed to ma­ny, with divine Armour [...]. The one of these words is redundant▪ and therefore we have [...]eit it our [...]n our Version. The former of them seems to me to be a Scholion: in the Fuket. Manuscript, the latter is wanting. A little after, instead of [...], &c, the rea­ding must be [...], &c▪ by his means, as 'tis in the Kings Sheets, and in the Savil, and Fuket. Manuscripts. Further, in the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis [...]. Vales., and by his means had cleared the world of the multitude of im­pious persons, constituted him the Teacher of his own Worship to all Nations: who in the [...], in the virtues of all. It must be made [...], in the hearing, &c▪ which Christophorson perceived not. In the old Sheets 'tis over written [...] in the same hand. Also, Instead of [...], I write [...], as 'tis in the Fuketian Manuscript. Vales. hearing of all men attested with a loud voice, that he acknowleged the True God, but abo­minated the Errour of false Deities.

CHAP. VI. That he was the Servant of God, and a Van­quisher of Nations.

ANd, like a faithfull and good servant, he practised and asserted this; openly styling himself a servant, and owning himself a wor­shipper of the supream King. But God re­warded him forthwith, by making him Lord and Master, and the only Conquerour of all the Emperours that ever were, alwaies invinci­ble and insuperable: [...]. I read, [...], and [He ad­vanced him to be] so great an Emperour, &c. In the Kings Sheets this place is supplied at the margin in this manner, [...], always vanquishing, and continually made joyfull with Trophies against his enemies. The Fuket. Manuscript has no variation, only adds a conjunction in this manner, [...], and always van­quishing. Vales. and [he advanced him to be] so great an Emperour on account of his Victories and Trophies, as no one is ever recorded to have been in former ages: so hap­py and dear to God; so pious and every way fortunate, that with all facility imaginable he reduced more Nations to a Subjection under him­self, than the former [Emperours had vanqui­shed;] and continued possest of his Empire, free from disturbance and disquietude, to the very moment of his Expiration.

CHAP. VII. [Constantine] compared with Cyrus King of the Persians, and with Alexander the Macedonian.

ANcient History relates Cyrus [King] of the Persians to have been more re­nowned and glorious, than all [the Prin­ces] that ever were. ▪ [...] ▪ Lear­ned men have attempted to restore this place several ways, as 'tis apparent from their Emendations, which are set at the mar­gin of the Geneva Edition, and written in the Moraean Copy. For some have conjectured it should be written thus; [...], &c, others have men­ded it thus▪ [...], &c. Which reading Christophorson has followed, as appears from his Rendition. But in the Moraean Copy this place is mended something otherwise, in this manner: [...], &c. From which im­perfections any one would conjecture that this is a reading of some Manuscript Copy. The latter imperfection is easily supplied, in this manner, [...]. But in regard all these readings abound with faults, nor can any thing that is good be extracted out of them, I had rather expunge these words. Indeed, if these words be razed out, the sense is most plain▪ thus, [...], which I have followed in my Version. The same was done before us, by Johannes Portesius, who first rendred these Books of Eusebius concer­ning the Life of Constantine into Latine. In the Kings Sheets, after those words [...], at the margin these words are added, [...]. The Fuketia [...] Manuscript represents this place in the same manner with the Copy of Moraeus and Turne­bus. Vales. But, the conclu­sion of his life, 'tis said, was in no wise fortunate, but reproachfull rather, and igno­minious; in regard he was slain by a woman. The Greeks tell us, that Alexander, [King] of the Macedonians vanquished Or, I [...] so [...] of all man­ner of Na­tions. innumerable Nations: but before he had perfectly arrived at man's estate, he ended his life by an untimely death, and was taken off by Or, Rio­tous ban­quetting. [...]. I think it must be [...], not much more, which rea­ding Porte­sius has fol­lowed. But Christophor­son ren­dred it so as if the reading were [...], or some­thing more. 'Tis cer­tain, A­lexander the Great Reigned twelve years and above, which make up something more than the third part of two and thirty years, if we go to an accurate computation. But Oratours, whose business it is to amplifie things, don't usually speak so exactly. Therefore Eusebius says well, [...], not much more. Vales. Debauchery and Drunkenness. He finished the whole course of his Life within the space of two and thirty years; • not much more than a third part of which years determined the time of his Reign. He march't on through bloud and slaughter, being a person that may be compared to thun­der, and incompassionately enslaved Nations and whole Cities without any respect had to Age. But when he was scarce arrived at [...]. Every body sees it should be [...], the flower of his Age, as 'tis also remarked in Moraus's Copy. In the old sheets the reading is [...]; but in the Fuketian Manu­script 'tis [...]. Further, a little after this it must be [...], not [...]. And at the close of the chapter I read, [...], is extolled for such mischiefs as these 3 although the Manuscript Copies varie not. In the Fuketian Manu­script I found it written, [...], which is truer than [...], as 'tis in the common Editions. Vales. the flower of his Age, and whilst he bemoaned his Catamite, Death approach't him Or, Cru­elly. on a sudden, and took him off Childless, without any Stock or Kindred, before he had raised a family, and in an Enemies Country far remote; that he might not any longer be the Ruine of Mankind. His Kingdom was imme­diately rent insunder, each of his Servants [stri­ving to] pull and tare off some part for them­selves. And yet this person is extolled for such mischiefs as these.

CHAP. VIII. That he subdued almost the whole World.

BUt Our Emperour began to Reign from that year of his Age, whereon the Mace­donian ended his life: and he lived twice as long as Alexander did; but trebled the length of his Reign. Further, having Or, For­tified. cultivated his Army with the mild and▪ modest Precepts of Piety, he march't into Britannia, and to those who dwell in the very Ocean which is diffused far and wide [...]. In the King's and Fuke­tian Ma­nuscripts, 'tis writ­ten in two words, [...], righter without question. So he expresses himself hereafter, at chap. 41. In the King's Copy the reading also is [...], righter than in the common Editions, where 'tis [...]. Nor is it otherwise in the Fuketian Manu­script. But on the contrary, a little after this, where the common Editions make it Ble [...], the same Fuketian Manuscript has it Ble [...]yae; not ill, as I have remarqued at Amm. Marcellin [...], pag. 13. Vales. at the setting of the Sun. He likewise subdued all Scythia, [which lyes] un­der the North it self, and is divided into innume­rable Nations of Barbarians, differing both in name and manners. Moreover, having extended his Empire to the utmost confines of the South, to the Blemmyae namely and Aethiopians; he look't upon a dominion over them who dwell at the rising Sun, not to be forreign and inconvenient. In fine, [...]. It must be written thus; [...]. Portesius referred these words, [...], &c, to the Indians: for he has rendred it thus; Indos extremos usque terra undique circumjectos. But I don't suppose this to be Eusebius's meaning. For the Old Geographers never affirmed that the Indians inhabited round the Circuit of the World. The Spaniards indeed, in the memory of our Grandfathers, have named a part of the Earth newly known to them and found out, West-India▪ but they did this according to their own arbitrement. Therefore, in this place of our Eusebius, I think it must be written [...], or rather, no alteration to be made. For the meaning is, that Con­stantine Preached Christ every where to all men, from South to North, and from West to East. Vales. having with the brightest rayes of Piety enlightned all mortalls inhabiting within the circumference of the whole Element of the [Page 533] Earth, even to the utmost bounds of the Or, Whole World. Con­tinent, that is, as far as the Outermost Indians, and the Nations inhabiting round on every side; he brought all the Reguli, Ethnarchs, [...]. Ma­ny faults are made in th [...]se books by the trans­position of words, as we have formerly shown. At this place such a fault oc­curs. Write therefore, [...], &c. Vales. and Sa­trapae of the Barbarous Nations under a sub­jection to himself; all which gave him volun­tary and joyfull Salutes, sent him Embassies and [...]. In the old Sheets this place is thus supplied at the margin, [...], &c, and sent him Embassies and Presents and Gifts. And a little after this, in the same Sheets, the reading is, [...], Constantine was known amongst them all. Vales. Presents, and put an high value upon his knowledge and friendship. So that, each per­son within his own Province paid him ho­nour, partly by Pictures, and partly with Statues publickly dedicated to him: and Con­stantine, the only person of the Emperours, was known and famous over the whole World. Even as far as these Nations therefore he Pro­claimed his own God by his Imperial Accla­mations, with all the freedome and liberty Ima­ginable.

CHAP. IX. That [he was] the Son of a Pious Emperour, and left his Empire to his Sons who were Emperours.

NOr The Kings Co­py begins a Chapter at these words, which we have rea­dily fol­lowed. The Fuke­tian Manuscript also, which usu­ally prefixes the Titles or Con­tents before each Chapter, be­gins the Chapter from these words. And I found the same division in the old Sheets of the King's Library. Vales. performed he this by words only, and was Or, De­frauded. disappointed in the thing it self: but, proceeding on in all manner of Virtue, he Or, Was adorned. abounded with the va­rious fruits of Piety; Ensla­ving. oblieging his Friends with Magnificent Benefacti­ons; Governing by the Laws of Clemency; and making his Empire easie and desirable to all his Subjects. Till at length, af­ter long periods of years, that God whom he worship­ped, Crowned him (when wearied out by various Con­flicts and Exercises,) with the Divine Rewards of an Immortality, and from a mortall Kingdome translated him to an end­less life, which he hath treasured up with himself for holy Souls; after God. he had raised him up Or, An issue of three chil­dren. three children, who might succeed him in his Empire. In this manner therefore, the Or, Throne of the Empire. Im­periall Dignity descended to him from his Fa­ther; and by the Law of Nature is reserved for his Children, and for their descendants; and, like some paternall Inheritance, shall hence­forward be forever propagated and prolonged. And indeed God himself, who hath exalted this most blessed Emperour (as yet Viz. In his Sons▪ see chap. 1. conver­sant amongst us,) to divine Honours, and hath adorned his Death with singular advantages [proceeding] from himself, can only be a fit Writer of his Life; in regard he has [...]. The word [...], recorded, is wanting, which I found written at the margin of the Mor [...]an Copy. But in the Kings Sheets, after the word [...] Conflicts, these words are added in the margin, [...], inscribing them to lasting Ages. Which words, whether added by con­jecture or taken out of some other Copy, seem to me in no wise to be rejected. The Fuketian Copy has the word [...]. Vales. Re­corded his Glorious Actions and Conflicts on Celestiall Tables and Monuments.

CHAP. X. That this History is necessary, and advantagious to the Souls and Mindes [of Men.]

BUt, though I am convinc't of the difficulty of saying any thing Or, W [...]r­thy of. befitting the Bles­sedness of so great a Person, and, that to be silent is safe and without danger: nevertheless [I count it] necessary to consecrate to eternall Memory the Portraicture of a most pious [Em­perour,] drawn [in the Colours of] words, in imitation of Or, A mortall Picture. mortall Paint; to the end I may [...]. In the Kings, Sa­vilian and Fuketian Copy, 'tis written [...]. But this expression seems to be a Sol [...] ­cisme. For he ought to have said [...], if he would have spoken cor­rectly. In the old Sheets the reading is [...] and [...] is written over it. Vales. clear my self of the imputation of sloth and negligence. For, [...]. The word [...] seems to be transposed, and must be placed lower, in this manner; [...], &c. For I should be a­shamed, should I not confer the utmost of mine own abilities, &c. A little after this, in the Fuketian Manuscript the reading is, [...], or, if you had rather have it so. [...], on him who with a Transcendency, &c. In the old Sheets of the Kings Library, this place is thus supplied in the margin. [...], on him who hath honoured us all, in respect of his Transcendency of piety towards God. Which reading I approve of highly. Vales. I should be ashamed of my self, should I not confer the utmost of my abilities, though they are slender and mean, on him who with a transcendency of piety honoured God. Further, 'tis my Sentiment, that this work will prove both advantagious to the life of man, and necessary to my self also; wherein are contained the Actions of a Great-minded Emperour, which are highly acceptable to God the Supream King. For, how can it be other­wise than disgracefull, that the Memory of a Nero, and of some other Impious and Atheisti­call Tyrants far worse than he, should not have wanted indefatigable Writers, who have adorned their Subjects, which were ill Actions, with a politeness and elegancy of Style, and made them up into voluminous Histories: but, that we should be silent, for whom God himself hath vouch­safed to procure such an Emperour as no [...]. In the Kings Copy the reading is, [...], no time hath seen. Vales. Age hath seen, and to whom he has allowed a liberty of coming into his presence, to His knowledge, and converse?

CHAP. XI. That he will at present relate only the Pious Actions of Constantine.

The King's and Fuke­tian Manu­scripts, and the King's Sheets be­gin the Eleventh chapter at these words. Vales. WHerefore, Or, If to any other persons, i [...] certainly belongs to us. 'tis certainly incumbent on us, rather than on any other per­son, to give a full Narrative of all the good things we have heard, to those whose minds, by an example of good works, are raised to a Love and de­sire of God. Now, He means those Writers who had Recorded the Affairs of Nero and other Tyrants; concerning whom he had spoken a little be­fore. Christophorson therefore ren­ders it well, Nam illi, &c. For those, &c. But, Portesius tran­slates it, Nam alii quidem, &c. For others, which is insuffe­rable. Vales. those Authors (who have put in­to writing the lives of men in no wise grave and sober, and [have Recorded] Af­fairs wholly unusefull for the improvement of manners, ei­ther out of favour or hatred to some persons, or else to make a show of their own Learning;) Or, With a pride of elegancy of words. with a magnifick furni­ture of words have, otherwise than was fit­ting, [Page 534] enlarged the Relations of most reproach­full Villanies, and thereby have rendred themselves the Teachers of vile Actions, and such as deserved to be buried in perpetuall ob­livion and darkness, to those who by Gods fa­vour and impulse have had no hand in mischief. But, our Style, though it is weak and altoge­ther unfit Or, For the great­ness of the Emphasis of what, &c. for the greatness and significancy of what we are to set forth, seems nevertheless to be polish't and illustrated even by the bare [...]. The other rea­ding, which I found in the old Sheets, pleases me better, name­ly [...], Relation. And so the reading is in the Fuke­tian and Savilian Manuscripts. Vales. Relation of good Actions. Nor, is the commemora­tion of Works acceptable to God, unusefull, but it affords a very advantagious Or, Reading. Lesson to those who shall have a mind rightly fitted and prepared. [Not to men­tion] therefore very many of this Thrice blessed per­son's [...]. In the old Sheets 'twas interli [...]ed [...], Stratagems, which I like not. For Eusebius does here oppose Constantine's [...], Imperial Actions, [...], to his works that were pious and acceptable to God. And he says, that he does designedly omit his Imperial Acti­ons: which he divides into two sorts, namely his warlike ones, and those of peace. But, he pro­poses to himself to set forth only those Actions of his, which bear a relation to Religion. Further, in the Kings Sheets, after those words, and whatever Triumphs he lead, these are added in the mar­gin, [...], &c. Moreover, the con­stitutions made by him, in the times of peace, for the regulation of the publick, and conducive, &c. which words seem to me to be of good note. Vales. Imperiall Actions, his Battells and Military En­gagements, his deeds of Va­lour, Victories, and Tro­phies [raised] against his Enemies, and what ever Tri­umphs he Lead; moreover, the Constitutions made by him, conducive to the uti­lity of every person; the Laws also he composed for the profit and ad­vantage Or, Of the Go­vernment of his Sub­jects. of his Subjects and the Government; in fine, many other of his Labours and Imperial Conflicts, which are kept in memory by all persons; [all these particulars, I say] I think fit to omit; in re­gard the Scope and De­sign of the Work under my hand admonishes me to declare and write those matters only which bear a reference to a Pious and Blessed course of life. Further, where­as even these particulars are almost infinite, out of those matters which have come to my know­ledge I will choose such passages only as are most sutable and seasonable, and worthiest of being consigned to the Memory of Posterity, and will give a Narrative of them with all possible bre­vity. In regard the time it self doth hencefor­ward allow us this Liberty, that we may extoll this Thrice-blessed Emperour with all manner of Commendatory Expressions. For, a power of doing this was not permitted before now, because it has been advised, that He means that passage which oc­curs at Ec­clesiasticus 11. 28. Judge none blessed be­fore his death: for a man shall be known in his children. Vales. we should not pronounce any person blessed before his Death, by reason of the uncertain Turns and Changes of Life. Wherefore, I call God to be my Assistant, and his Celestiall Word to co­operate with, and inspire me: and, [taking my beginning] from this Emperour's tender years, I will enter upon my Relation in this manner.

CHAP. XII. That Constantine, like Moses, was educated in the Houses of Tyrants.

[...], &c▪ the King's and Fuke­tian Manuscripts write it without an Article, [...], Ancient History relates; and so it is in the old Sheets: which sa­vours more of Eusebius's Style. A little after, I read [...]. Sr Henry Savil has done well to set this note at the beginning of this chapter, Huc usque prooemium, Thus far the Preface. Vales. ANcient History relates, that a Cruell Brood of Tyrants did heretofore op­press the people of the Hebrews: but, that God, shewing himself propitious to the oppressed, made pro­vision, that the Prophet Mo­ses, who at that time was but an infant, should be edu­cated in the very Houses and Bosomes of the Tyrants, and should be instructed in all the wisdom amongst them. But afterwards, when in process of time he arrived at Man's Estate, and Divine Justice, the usuall Defender of the injured, had taken a resolution to pro­secute the Oppressours: then this Prophet of God departed out of the Tyrants Houses, and exhibited himself a Minister of the Divine Will. He Or, E­stranged himself from. abominated, as well in reality as words, the Tyrants by whom he had been educated: but those, who in very deed were his own Brethren and Relatives, he declared to be his Friends and Familiars. After this, God constituted him the Leader of that whole Nation, and freed the He­brews indeed from that Servitude [they were opprest with] by their Enemies; but by his means was revenged on that Tyrannick Brood, by inflicting on them punishments sent from Heaven. This Ancient Story [I say,] which hath been delivered to many persons under the notion of a Fable, has filled the ears of all Mortalls. But now, the same God, who is also our God, hath granted us a power of viewing with our own eyes such Miracles as far surpass all Fables; which manner of Sight is accounted by those who of late have beheld i [...], to be truer than all sorts of Report or Hear-say. For the Ty­rants in our Age, resolving upon waging a War against the supream God, have sorely oppressed his Church. But Constantine, a person that not long after became the Tyrant▪slayer, whilst he was a child, youthfull, and beautified with the Juvenile Down upon his Chin, was in the midst of them, like that Servant of God [Moses,] and made his Residence within the very Houses of the Tyrants. Nevertheless, though very young, he communicated not with the im­pious in the same Moralls and way of living. For, Christo­phorson and Porte­sius have rendred these words [...], as if [...] were to be under­stood; thus, from that sort of life. But my Sentiment is, that [...] has the same import with jam tum, even then, ab [...]o Tempore, from that very time. And so Musculus renders it. Vales. at that very Age, a good disposition [improved] by the Divine Spirit, incited him to a Life that was pious and highly acceptable to God. Moreover, a studious Emulation of his Father added strength thereto, and invited the Son to an imitation of Virtues and good Actions. For, he had for his Father Constantius, (whose Memory 'tis fit we should at this op­portunity give a Resurrection to,) the Noblest of the Emperours in our Age. [...]. Doubtless it must be written, [...], which has the same import with [...], concerning whom. And so the reading is in the Kings Sheets and in the Savilian Manuscripts. In the Fuke­tian Manuscript 'tis [...], which is no ill reading. Vales. Concerning whom 'tis necessary to relate some passages briefly, which bear a reference to the commen­dation of his Son.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning his Father Constantius, who refused to persecute the Christians, in such manner as Diocletianus, Maximianus, and Maxentius did.

Or, Whilst four persons per­took of the Imperial Power over the Ro­mans. WHilst the Roman Empire was Go­verned by Four Augusti, Constan­tius. He was the only person who embraced a course of Life different from his Colleagues, and entred into a friendship with the supream God. For they, by a Siege as 'twere, ruined the Churches of God, and demolished them to the ground, and ut­terly destroyed the Oratories to their very foun­dations. But he kept his hands undefiled and clean from their nefarious impiety, nor would he in any wise render himself like to them. They defiled the Provinces Subject to them with the intestine Murders of men and women who were worshippers of God. He preserved his own mind from being polluted with [...]. I think the reading should be, [...]. The Do­natists used al­most the very same words, in the Suppli­catory Li­bell which they pre­sented to the Empe­rour Con­stantine: a Copy whereof is recorded by Optatus, In his first book. Ro­gam [...] te Constantine Imp. quo­niam de genere ju­sto es; cujus pater inter Caeteros Imperatores persecutionem non exercuit: & ab hoc scelere immunis est Gallia. Vales. such detesta­ble wickedness. They, by a confusion of the mischiefs of a [...]. The term [...] is wanting, or some other such like word. Nor is the conjecture of that Learned man to be omitted, which I found written at the margin of the Moraean Copy; to wit, that in his judgment the reading ought to be, [...]. But Turnebus at the margin of his Copy hath mended it [...], as hath likewise Sr Henry Savil. In the Kings Sheets, over the word [...] 'tis mended [...] ▪ which emendation I prefer before the rest. I write thus therefore, [...], and have rendred it accordingly. In the Fuketian Manu­script the reading is [...], Vales. detestable Idolatry, in the first place enslaved themselves, and then all their Sub­jects, in the frauds and errours of most impious Daemons. He being the Authour and Preserver of a most profound Peace Or, To those Go­verned by him. within the Limits of his own Empire, per­mitted his Subjects to prosecute their Worship and Service to God without any the least trouble or molestation. [Lastly,] they imposed the heaviest sorts of exactions up­on all men, and thereby made Life comfortless to them, and far more unpleasant than [any sort of] Death. But Constantius was the only person, who rendred his Government inoffensive, calm, and easie to his Subjects, and gave them an assistance from himself in nothing inferiour to a paternall care and sollicitude. Further, be­cause innumerable other Virtues of this per­son are celebrated amongst all men, I will on­ly commemorate one or two of his brave Actions, from which a conjecture may be made of those that are left unmentioned, and so pass to the proposed scope and design of my Wri­ting.

CHAP. XIV. How Constantius Father [to Constantine] be­ing reproach' [...] with poverty by Diocletian, fil­led his Treasuries, and afterwards restored the money to [the owners thereof] who had brought it in.

WHen a great Report was spread abroad concerning this Emperour, that he was mild and calm, that he was a most excellent per­sonage, that he was a superlative lover of God, and that, by reason of his transcendent clemency and indulgence towards his Subjects, he had hoarded up no money in his Treasuries: that He means Diocletian. Emperour who then filled the highest Station in the Empire, sent to him, and blamed his negligence in managing the publick affairs: and he reproach't him with poverty, alleadging this as an argument in confirmation of what he said, that he was possest of nothing laid up in his Treasuries. But Constantius entrea­ted those persons who came to him from the Emperour, to stay some little time with him; then he call'd together those men that were possest of the greatest quantity of riches, who lived within all those Provinces under his Empire▪ and signified to them, that he wanted money, and that this was a fit opportunity wherein every one of them ought voluntarily to give a demonstration of their kindness and benevolence towards their Emperour. When they heard that, [...]. Chri­stophorson understood not this place; for he has ren­dred [...], sta­tuentes, re­solving. [...] has the same import with vota suscipere, to pray, or, desire ear­nestly. Which term Eu­sebius uses in another place, as shall be noted hereafter. Portesius therefore has ren­dred this place righter, in this manner: His auditis, ac si de illâ ipsâ re vota jamdiu suscepissent ut id eveniret, quò se probare possent, &c. Further, after the word [...], readiness of affection, the verb [...], it's said, must be inserted. Vales. as if they had long since made this their desire, that an occasion might be offered them of shewing him their readiness of affection, ['tis said,] that with all imaginable haste and dili­gence they filled his Treasuries with Gold, Sil­ver, and other Riches; contending earnestly amongst themselves, that in giving they might out-vie one another: and this they performed with countenances full of joy and pleasantness. When this was done, Constantius gave order, that those persons sent from the [...]. I reade [...], as I found it mended in the Copy of Mor [...]us, Turnebus, Sr Henry Savil, and Fuketius. Further, I have rendred [...] the Senior Augustus. For so Diocletian is called in the Old Panegyricks and in Inscriptions. Vales. Senior Augustus should be Eye-witnesses of his Treasures. Then [...]. In the Kings Sheets these words are added in the margin; [...]. Which words some Learned man hath added by conjecture, as 'tis sufficiently apparent. I think there is only one word wanting here, [...], to give. I word it thus therefore, [...], Then he commanded, &c. Which sort of ex­pression is usuall with Eusebius. Vales. he commanded them [at their return] to give attestation to what they had seen; [and added,] that at present he had drawn toge­ther this Treasure and taken it into his own custody; but, that it had long before been kept for him by the owners of the money, deposited as 'twere with such [...]. At the margin of Mor [...]us's Copy 'tis mended thus, [...]. But this emendation is need­less. For, amongst the Ancients, money was deposited in Tem­ples, on account of securing it, and there kept by Guards or Watches of Souldiers, as Juvenal's Old Scholiast remarks, and Lipsius in his book de Magnitudine Romanâ. To these Souldiers therefore Eusebius alludes. By the term [...], the Palatini may also be meant here, who guarded the sacred Treasurie. In the Kings Sheets, 'tis over written in the same hand, [...], by Faithfull; which displeases not. In the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis [...]. Vales. Guards as are usually appointed to have the custody of Treasure. The Messengers were surprized with the strangeness of this thing: but Report says, that the most Benign Emperour, after their departure, sent for the owners of the money; and having high­ly commended them for their obedience and good affection towards him, ordered them to take back all their money, and return home. This is one Act of the forementioned Emperour's, [Page 536] which gives a demonstration of his Humanity and good Nature. This other Action of his [which followes,] contains an evident Testi­mony of [...]. Doubtless the reading must be [...], piety, as I found it mended in the margin of Turnebus's Copy. Vales. his piety towards God.

CHAP. XV. Concerning the Persecution [raised] by the other [Emperours.]

BY the Command of the Emperours, the Governours of Provinces in all places per­secuted the worshippers of God. And such as were the first of all the pious Martyrs, came out of the very Imperial Pallaces them­selves, underwent Conflicts in defence of their Religion, and with all imaginable alacrity en­dured Fire, Sword, the Depths of the Sea, and all sorts of death whatever. In so much that, within a very short space of time, the [...]. The Ad­verb [...] not without reason troubled both the Transla­tours, as may be gathered from their Renditions. But they ought to have considered, that Palatium, a Pallace, is taken in a twofold sense. For, sometimes it imports the Court of a Prince. In which sense there were at that time only Four Pallaces, to wit answerable to the num­ber of the Emperours. But sometimes, every House wherein an Em­perour does usually dwell, is termed a Pallace. And in this sense there were very many Pallaces in the Roman Empire. For there was scarce a City which had not a Pallace. Such Pallaces, or Imperial Houses, as these, were under the dispose of certain Officers, who were termed Curae Palatiorum; concerning whom there is mention in the Notitia Imperii Romani. Eusebius therefore means these Pallaces. I am of opinion, that the Publick or Royall Villae are like­wise meant, which the Caesariani look't after. Vales. Im­perial Pallaces in all places were emptied of God's Worshippers. From whence chiefly it came to pass, that the Authours of this wickedness remained deprived of the divine inspection and as­sistance. For whilst they persecuted the Worship­pers of God, by the same means they banished those supplications usually put up for themselves.

CHAP. XVI. How Constantius Father [to Constantine,] pre­tending himself a worshipper of Idolls, turned out those who were willing to offer Sacrifice; but retained within his own Pallace such as chose to profess themselves Christians.

Or, Only into Con­stantius en­tred [...] wise­dome of thought. ONly Constantius entred upon a After this word, in the King's Sheets, the term [...], Pious, is elegantly added in the margin, thus, [...]. Vales. Prudent and Pious Course. And the thing he performed was wonderfull to be heard, but much more admirable as to its performance. For, having given all the [...]. I reade [...], as 'tis in the Fuketian, and in Moraeus's Copy. That is, to all the Palatines who bore Office under him, and also to the Judges themselves who were placed in power. Power is a term properly attributed to the Greater Judges, of which sort were the Praefecti Praetorio. So Eusebius ex­presses himself hereafter; and Socrates, book 2. chap. 16; where he speak [...] concerning Philippus Praefectus Praetorio. Moreover, in the Gesta purgationis Caeciliani, Agesilaus Official to the Proconsul Ae­lian says thus, Potestas tua, &c. Your power, &c. See what I have remarked above, at book 5. chap. 1. of Euseb. Eccles. Histor. note (e.) Vales. Palatines that be­longed to his Court, even as far as the Judges that were invested with the supreamest powers, a free Liberty of Choice; he proposed this Con­dition to them, that if they would Sacrifice to Daemons, they might stay at Court with him, and enjoy their usuall Places and Honours; but if they would not do that, they should be excluded from accesse to him, thrust out, and re­moved from his knowledge and familiarity. Af­ter [His Courtiers] therefore had been here­upon divided into two parties, and some had betaken themselves to this, others to that side, and the Sentiment and purpose of every one of them was laid open: then this admirable Prince discovered his own design, which hitherto he had concealed, and condemned their timiditie and self-love: and to these he gave a kind Re­ception, on account of their Conscience devo­ted to God: but then he pronounced those, in regard they were betrayers of God, to be un­worthy of their Prince's favour. In the King's Co­py, at the side of these words, is set such a mark as this, [...] we have taken no­tice of such a mark as this some where be­fore: but, that Letter▪ which is set before the [...], is not open on the top here, but closed on all sides. Whence I am rather induced to believe, that this mark is [...] and [...], and that it signifies [...], that is, attend, con­sider. For this mark is added at places which have something of difficulty. For instance, the newness of this expression, [...], may put the Reader to a stand here, unless he knows that these words, [...], are to be understood. Vales. For how [said he] will it be possible they should pre­serve a fidelity towards their Emperour, who have been detected of perfidiousness towards God? Wherefore he made an Establishment by a Law, that such persons should be removed far from the Imperial Houses. But he decla­red openly, that those men who by the Testi­mony of Truth it self were manifested to be Or, Worthy of. acceptable to God, would render themselves like-minded to­wards their Emperour, and therefore he made them the Protectours of his Body, and the Guards of his Empire: and affirmed, that such persons as these ought to be made use of and accounted [...]. In the King's Copy the reading is [...], &c. amongst the chiefest and nearest, &c. Those words [...], ought to be made use of, are a redundancy of expression frequent with Eusebius. For so he has exprest himself in his books of History, as I well remember. Vales. as the chiefest and nearest of friends, and most intimate Relatives; and, that they were far more highly to be esteemed, than hoards of the most valuable Riches and Treasures.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning the same [Constantius's] Love and affection towards Christ.

We have made a division of a new chapter here, from the Authority of the Kings Manuscript; whereto a­grees the Fuketian Copy, and the old Sheets. Vales. WHat manner of person the Father of Constantine is recorded to have been, we have in short manifested. Now, what a Con­clusion of Life befell him, who had demonstrated him­self such a person towards God, and how great a dif­ference was shown between him and his Colleagues in the Empire, by that God whom he honoured, any one will easily discern, who with attention shall apply his mind to con­sider Or, The Nature of affairs. the thing it self. For, after he had for a long time given illustrious and approved in­stances of his Royall Virtue, by [avowing] [...], ac­knowledging, or some such like word is wanting. In the Kings Sheets, af­ter these words, [...] confessing, or, avow­ing, is ad­ded in the margin. Turnebus and Sr Henry Sa­vill add [...] know­ing, after the words [...]. But, that reading which I have produced out of the Kings Sheets, is better. For the term [...] is elegantly opposed to that which follows im­mediately, to wit, [...], condemning. In the Fuketian Ma­nuscript 'tis written [...]. Vales. one only supream God, and by condemning Or, The Polythe­isme of the Atheists. their Impiety who pay a wor­ship to more Gods than one, and had on all sides fortified [Page 537] his own house with the prayers of holy men; [...]. Sr H. Savil has noted at the margin of his Copy, that perhaps the Verb [...] 'tis said is to be added. But, that emendation is far better, which I found written in the Kings Sheets, at the margin; it is this, [...], which reading we have exprest in our Version. The reading in the Fuketian Manuscript is, [...]. Vales. he compleated the remainder of his Life with­out any thing of Trouble or disquietude: being made Master of that He alludes to that saying of Epicurus concerning God, [...]; as Nemesius relates it, chap. 44; Cicero, in his first book de Natura Deorum; and Laertius, pag. 795. Vales. Felicity, which, as 'tis said, consists in this, neither to be molested by others, nor to give others trouble. After this manner therefore [he rendred] the whole time of his Reign even, undisturbed, and pacate; and con­secrated his whole Family, his wife namely, and children, and all his servants, to one God the supream King. In so much that, that Com­pany which conversed together within the walls of his Pallace, differed in nothing from a Church of God. Amongst whom were Ministers of God also, who performed uninterrupted Acts of worship to the Deity, in behalf of the Em­perour's safety; [...]. In the Kings Sheets, the last word is undermarked with points, and [...] is written over, which I like better. Further, in the same Sheets, before these words, these are added in the margin, [...], and these [Acts of worship] were performed with him only. They that will, may follow this conjecture of the Learned Antiquary. To me these words seem not necessary. Vales. when as commonly amongst the rest, not so much as the bare name of those sort of men that were Religious, was permitted to be mentioned.

CHAP. XVIII. That after the Resignation of Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius was the first Au­gustus, and was adorned with a Numerous Issue.

FUrther, in recompense of these things, a re­ward from God attended him not long af­ter; in so much that he obtained the first and chiefest place of the Or, Imperial power. Empire. For those Viz. Di­ocletian, and Maxi­mian. Au­gusti who were His Seniours, by what means I know not, divested themselves of their Impe­rial Dignity: which sudden Change befell them This place is highly remarka­ble. For, from it this conclusion may be made, that the Persecution began on Diocletian's eighth, and Maximian's seventh Consulate; and not on the foregoing year, as Baronius will have it. Concerning which matter I have spent many words in my notes on Euseb. Eccles. History; see book 8. chap. 2. note (c.) For, whereas Eusebius affirms, that the Emperours Dio­cletian and Maximian divested themselves of their purple on the year after the Persecution was begun; and whereas 'tis manifest, that they did that on the year of Christ 304; what I have said does necessarily follow, to wit, that Diocletian's Persecution was begun on the year of Christ 303. Vales. on the first year after the Or, Siege. demo­lishment of the Churches; from whence forward, only Constantius was declared the first and Or, A­dorable. Chiefest Augustus. Who at first was ador­ned with the Diadem of the Caesars [together with See Eu­sebius's Ec­cesiastical History book 9. chap. 9. note ( [...];) and the Excerpta of that un­known Au­thour pub­lished by Valesius at the close of his Amm. Marcelinus, pag. 471. Galerius,] and had obtained precedency: but after [he had given] an Egregious Proof, or, try all. Spe­cimen of his own worth in that digni [...]y of Cae­sar, he was invested with the highest honour amongst the Romans, and was styled the First Augustus of those Sr Henry Savil has noted at the mar­gin of his Copy, that these four were, Galerius Maximianus, Severus, and Maximinus, but the fourth Maxentius. As to the three former, I assent to Sr Henry Savil. But, I do affirm, that the fourth was not Maxentius, but Con­stantius himself. For Maxentius seized not the Empire, till after Constantius's death. Vales. Four afterwards proclaimed. Moreover, he was the only person that excelled all the other Emperours in a numerous issue, being surrounded with a great Quire of Chil­dren, as well Males as Females▪ Lastly, after he had attained to a mature old Age, and, being ready to pay Or, The debt to common Nature. the Common debt of Nature, was at the point of ma­king his departure out of this life: then did God again demonstrate himself to him the performer of wonderfull Works, and by his providence took care, that Constantine the eldest of his Sons should be present with him at his Death, in order to his taking possession of the Em­pire.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning his Son Constantine, who when a young man, came into Palestine together with Dio­cletian.

FOr he convers't with the Emperours [who were his Father's] Colleagues; and made his Residence amongst them, agreeable to that ancient Prophet of the Lord Moses, as we have already said. [...]. I think the reading should be, [...], which we have exprest in our Version. In­deed, in Moraeus's Copy the particle [...] is written at the margin. Tur­nebus, at the margin of his Copy, had mended it, [...]. In the Fuketian Manuscript the reading is, [...]. Vales. And ha­ving newly past over his years of childhood, and ar­rived at those of his youth, he was vouchsafed the highest honour and esteem amongst the foresaid Emperours. At which Age of his we Our Selves saw him, when he past through the Province of Pa­lestine, in Company with the Senior Augustus. At whose right hand he stood, and appeared a most excellent and glorious person to those who were desirous of seeing him, and such a one as even then gave indications of an Imperial height of mind. For, as to the beautifull shape of his body, and his tallness of Stature, there was no other person that might be compared to him. Moreover, he so far excelled his equalls in strength and courage, that he was a ter­rour to them. But he was far more illu­strious and eminent for the Virtues of his mind, than for his bodily endowments and ac­complishments. And in the first place he beautified his mind with modesty; after that, with Polite Literature; and as well an innate prudence, as a wisdome infused from above, [...]. I read [...], adorned, as Eusebius does usually speak. And so 'tis mended in the old Sheets, at the margin. In the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis written thus, [...]. Vales. adorned him in a most transcendent man­ner.

CHAP. XX. The departure of Constantine to his Father, be­cause of Diocletian's treacherous designes [a­gainst him.]

FUrther, when the then Emperours perceived, that the Young man was Couragious, strong, and Great, and Or, Fil­led. endewed with an height and vigour of mind, they were woun­ded with After these words an Aste­risk ought to be pla­ced. For there are some words wanting, which Christo­phorson hath not rightly supplied. For the Emperours Diocletian and Gale­rius stu­died not only to disgrace Constantine, but to destroy him utterly. See the Excerpta de Gestis Constantini, which are published at the end of Amm. Marcellinus, and what we have remarked there. I was indeed of opinion formerly, that those Greek words which are written at the margin of the Geneva Edition, were not taken out of any Manuscript Copy, but were made from Christophorson's Latine Version. But after I had procured the Fukctian Manuscript I evi­dently perceived, that those readings were taken out of Manuscript Copies. 'Tis certain, the Fuketian Manuscript has this place writ­ten in this manner; [...], which reading we have exprest in our Version, So I found it written also in the Copies of Turnebus and Sr Henry Savil. But this reading, though confirmed by the authority of Manuscript Copies, nevertheless seems not genuine to me; both for that reason I have produced above, and on account also of the inele­gancy of the words. Vales. fear and envy. They watch't there­fore in expectation of a fit opportunity, where­in, agreeable to their desire, they might involve him in ignominy and disgrace. Which the young man being sensible of, (for the treacherous designes which had been once and twice framed against him, by the consent and appointment of God were discovered;) He opened away to his own safety by flying; and herein likewise he Or, Pre­served the imitation of, &c. imitated the great Prophet Moses. Further, God gave him his assistance in all things, and by his Divine provi­dence disposed affairs in such a man­ner, that he should be present with his Father, [...]. I had rather write [...], Will, or, Testament. For Constantius made his Will at that very time when his Son Constantine came to him, as Nicephorus relates book 7. chap. 18. A little before the reading should be [...], present, not [...]. Vales. in order to his succeeding him [in the Em­pire.]

CHAP. XXI. The Death of Constantius, who left his Son Constantine Emperour.

WHen therefore he had avoided these Or, En­gines of Treachery. Treacherous contrivances, he made all imaginable hast to his Father, into whose presence he came, after a long space of time. At that instant of his arrivall, his Father was at the very point of dying. When therefore Constantius beheld his Son present with him, whom he did not in the least expect, he leapt from his Bed, and cast his arms about him; and affirming that that only Grief which trou­bled him now ready to conclude his life, to wit, the absence of his Son, was wholly re­moved out of his mind, he put up a prayer of thanks to God; and said, that now he ac­counted Death to be better for him than Im­mortality. Further, when he had disposed of his affairs in a manner agreeable to his own mind, and [...]. Christophor­son rendred this place thus, in me­dio filiorum & filiarum se statuens, placing himself in the midst of his Sons and Daughters. Portesius has translated it in this manner, Simul Liberis ex commentario distribuit Hereditatem, And also distributed his Inheritance to his chil­dren out of a Commentary, or Book of Notes. Neither of these tran­slatours have hit the sense of this word. Eusebius uses the same term at book 3. chap. 20; at which place we will at large declare what [...] means, as also the import of [...]. Sr Henry Savil has expounded this word excellently well at the margin of his Copy▪ thus, Valedicens, taking leave, or, bidding fare­well. And so Athanasius expresses himself in the Life of Sr Antonius, about the end, [...], having taken leave of those Monks in the mountain without. Vales. had taken leave of his Sons and Daugh­ters, who like a Quire surrounded him on every side: He ended his life in his Pallace, lying on his Royall Bed, after he had surrendred the Or, His allotment of the Em­pire. Administration of his Empire, agreeable to the Law of Nature, into the hands of [...]. I write [...], &c. So Eusebius has exprest himself above, at chapter 18, speaking concer­ning Diocletian and Maximian, [...]. Vales. his eldest Son.

CHAP. XXII. How Or, When Constan­tius had been carried out to Buriall. after the Death of Constantius, the Army Or, Styled. saluted Constantine Augustus.

NOr did the State continue deprived of an Emperour. But Constantine was adorned with his Fathers Purple; and proceeding forth of his Father's Or, Houses. House, gave all men a de­monstration, that, by a resurrection as 'twere, the Father continued as yet to Reign in him his Son. Then he lead out his Father's Funerall, accompanied with the Friends of his Father After this clause, in the King's Sheets these words are added in the mar­gin; [...], brought forth his Father; and with an infinite multitude of people, and a Guard of Souldiers. Which words (though Sr Henry Savil and Christo­phorson sound them in their Copies, nevertheless) seem to me very little ne­cessary. Yet they occur in the Fuketian Manuscript. Vales., some of whom went before, others followed; and with all the splendour imaginable celebrated the Obsequies of that Pious Prince. All per­sons honoured the Thrice-blessed Emperour with Acclamations and Praises, and agreed in an una­nimous consent, that the succession of the Son in the Empire was a Resurrection of the dead Father. And forthwith, even at the first word, they Or, Styled. Saluted the young Prince Em­perour and Augustus, with fortunate Acclamations. Which expressions ut­tered in praise of the Son, were an ornament indeed to the dead Emperour; but they loudly proclaimed the Son Blessed, who was declared the Successour to so great a Father. Moreover, all the Provinces subject to his Empire, were filled with gladness and a joy that was inexpressible, because they had not, during the smallest mo­ment of time, been deprived of the assistance of an Imperiall Or, Decency. Providence and in­spection. Thus in the Emperour Con­stantius, God gave a demonstration to all persons of our Age, that such as this is the conclusion of a Pious and Religious life and conversation.

CHAP. XXIII. A brief Rehearsall of the Death of the Tyrants.

BUt what the Or, Con­clusions of life. Exits of those other persons were, who by an open War as 'twere made attacks against the Churches of God, I judge in no wise fit to insert into this present Nar­rative, nor to defile the Memories of the Good by Or, a composition of the con­trary. annexing a mention of the mischievous. In­deed, the Or, Ex­perience of the works. matters themselves are sufficient to repress and keep within the bounds of duty those persons, who by their own eyes and ears have received an account of that [whole Scene of Calamities] which befell each of them.

CHAP. XXIV. That Constantine obtained the Empire by the will of God.

IN this manner, the supream God himself, who is the Governour of the whole World, Or, By himself. by his own arbitrement designed and constitu­ted Constantine, begotten of such a Father, Prince and Emperour: in so much that, whereas the rest [of the Emperours] obtained this ho­nour by the approbation and votes of others, he was the only person, of whose [...], ac­cession. It ought, as I think, to be made [...], that is, promotion, or [...], advancement. And thus Turnebus hath mended it at the margin of his Copy, as I afterwards found. Vales. promotion no Mortall might boast.

CHAP. XXV. The Victories of Constantine over the Barbarians and Britanni.

WHen therefore he was firmly setled in the Empire, in the first place he be­gan to make provision Or, For his Father's allotment. for those parts of the Empire which had been transferred to him from his Father, and with much humanity and ten­derness [...]. So Eusc­bius is wont to term the Provinces of the Ro­mans, as might easi­ly be pro­ved from many pla­ces. Eu­sebius says therefore, that Con­stantine, as soon as his Empire was setled, took a progress round all those Provinces that had been under the Empire of his Father. Which Chistophorson understood not. Vales. visited all those Provinces that had heretofore been under his Father's Administra­tion. And, having reduced all those barbarous Nations, (whose habitations were about the River Rhine and the Western Ocean, who had taken the boldness to raise Commotions,) to an obedience to his own Government; from being intractable, he brought them over to a mild and more civilized Temper. But he was satisfied in repressing others, whom like Sa­vage Beasts he frighted from the confines of his Empire; to wit, those whose minds he perceived were incurable, and despaired of bringing them to a peaceable and quiet course of life. When [...]. At this place [...] seems to have the same import with [...], according to his own mind. Which Portesius perceived also. But Christophorson has rendred this place, and the whole chapter, very unhappily. Vales. these things had been per­formed according to his own mind, he set before his eyes the other parts of the world; then he made a Concer­ning this Voyage of Constantine into Bri­taine, none of the An­cients have written any thing. Therefore, the memory of this matter we owe to Eusebius only; who at this place does not obscurely intimate the time also; to wit, a little before Constantine undertook his Expedi­tion against Maxentius. Wherefore, this Voyage of Constantine's into Britaine hapned on Maximianus's eighth Consulate, in the year of Christ 311, as Sigonius has rightly remarked in his Second Book de Occidentali Imperio. But Sr Henry Savil thought Eusebius was mista­ken here: For this is his remark at this place; Eusebius ignorasse videtur, &c. Eusebius seems to have been ignorant, that the Father of Constantine dyed at York in Britaine. Vales. Voyage over to the Brittish Nations, situate within the Ocean it self. Whom when he had subdued, he lookt towards other parts of the world, that he might apply re­medies to those [Nations] who wanted his assistance.

CHAP. XXVI. How he took a Resolution of freeing Rome [from the Tyranny] of Maxentius.

AFter this he took into his consideration the whole Or, E­lement of the world. world, as twere some vast Body; and perceiving that the Head of the whole Earth, the Or, Im­perial. Chief City of the Roman Empire, was oppressed with a Tyrannick ser­vitude; in the first place he gave place to He means Galerius Maximi­anus, and Maximi­nus. For those he terms [...], his se­niours in time▪ that is, Senior Emperours. For although Maximinus was scarce declared Augustus as yet, nevertheless, because he had been made Casar some years before Constantine, therefore he may be accounted amongst the Emperours that were Seni [...]urs to Constantine. Vales. them to free it, who had obtained the other portions of the Roman Empire; in regard they were his Seniours in time. Now, when none of them could give it assistance; but those who had resolved upon making tryall, [...]. A twofold sense may be brought of these words. For you may either render them with Portesius and Christophorson, soedum rei eventum nacti sunt, had procured a shamefull event of the affair; or else, as I have translated them, turpi exitu peri [...]runt, had perished by an ignominious death. The former has rela­tion to Galerius Maximianus. The Latter interpretation is to be understood of Severus Caesar: who being sent by Galerius with an Army against Maxentius, when he would have made preparations to lay Siege to Rome, he was deserted by his own Forces, (whom Maxentius had brought off to his own side by the hope of rewards,) and fled to Ravenna: in which City he was besieged by Maxentius; and being soon imposed upon by the fraud and perjuries of Maxi­mianus Herculius, and carried to Rome in the habit of a captive, he was quickly after killed; as 'tis related in the Gesta Constantini. See the following chapter, where Eusebius relates this matter more at large. Vales. had peri­shed by an ignominious death; he profest his Life would be uncomfortable, if he should neg­lect the Imperial City when so sorely afflicted, and therefore made preparations to suppress the Tyranny.

CHAP. XXVII. That [Constantine] weighing in his mind the deaths of those who had worshipped Idols, chose rather the [profession of] Christi­anity.

BUt having well considered with himself, that he wanted some better assistance than his Military Forces, because of the evill Arts and Magick Impostures studiously followed by the Tyrant; he sought for a God to be his As­sistant; and accounted his furniture of Arms [Page 540] and Military Companies Or, In the second place. as secondary helps on­ly; but [perswaded himself,] that the assistance of a Deity was invincible and inexpugnable. He began therefore to consider with himself, what God he should take to be his assistant. Which whilst he sollicitously inquired into, Or, This thought. these thoughts arose in his mind: that of those many who had arrived at the Empire before him, they that had placed their hopes in a multitude of Gods, and had worshipped them In the Kings Shcets the word [...], Liba­tions, is ad­ded here. Vales. with Sacrifices and consecrated Gifts; at first had been deluded by Prophecies made to please and flatter them, and by Oracles which promised them all things that were prosperous and fortunate; but had at length found an unlucky and disastrous end: nor was any of their Gods ready at hand with them, to Or, Give them war­ning of. free them from that destruction inflicted on them by Heaven. That his Father was the only person, who had taken a course contrary [to those former Emperours;] and had con­demned their errour; who throughout his whole life had heretofore worshipped one su­pream God, whom he had found to be the Sa­viour and Keeper of his Empire, and the Be­stower of all good. When he had weighed these things with himself, and well considered, that those who had put their confidence in a multitude of Gods, had likewise faln into a multitude of destructions; in so much that, not the least footstep either of their Stock, Or, Nature. Issue, Or, Root. Kindred, Name, or Memory was left remaining amongst men: but [on the contrary,] that the God of his Father had given many and those effectuall demonstrations of his own power to his Father. And when he had further con­sidered, that those who before had lead out their forces against the Tyrant, because they had made their Expedition with a multitude of Gods, had undergone a disgracefull end. For the one of them had retreated ignominiously with all his Forces, without effecting any thing. And the other was killed in the midst of his Army, and so became [...]. 'Tis very hard to tell what Eusebius means by this expres­sion. Chri­stophorson renders it thus; Tanquam supervacanea mortis accessio factus est, was made as 'twere the superfluous accession of death. And Portesius, before him, had rendred it fa [...]i accessionem, the accession, or, vantage of Fate. But I understand not, why Severus shoud be stiled the vantage of death, when he only of all his Army perished. I had therefore rather render [...], vilem victimam, a cheap and easie Sacrifice. For vile persons are rightly termed [...]. Also, what ever happens with­out Labour and amidst sport as 'twere, is rightly termed [...]. So the death of Severus Caesar may rightly be stiled [...], in regard he was taken, and slain so easily, as if he had had no Souldiers about him. And perhaps it should be written [...]. Indeed, Gelasius Cyzicenus's words (book 1. chap. 3,) are these; [...]; where the Translator has rendred it the Accession of the War, which I like not. I had rather translate it in Gelasius thus, his velut belli proludiis ad bellum ipsum usus, having used these preludes of war as 'twere in order to the war itself. So also Eusebius expresses himself hereafter at book 2. chap. 52. Further, at this place there is a figure which Graecians term [...]. For the overthrow of Severus Caesar preceded that ignominious [...]ight of Galerius. Vales. a cheap and easie sacrifice of death. Ha­ving, I say, mustered up all these thoughts within his own mind, and considered them well, he judged it the highest pitch of Or, Folly. madness to trifle about [the worship of] those Gods which are nothing, and, after so clear a conviction, still to run on in blind errour: but his Sentiment was, that he ought only to wor­ship the God of his Father.

CHAP. XXVIII. That whilst he was praying to God, He shewed him a Vision; to wit, a Cross of Light in the Or, Heaven. Heavens, (it being then mid-day,) and an Inscription thereon, which admonished him, that by That he should Conquer.

HE called upon this God therefore in his prayers, entreating and beseeching him, that, who ever he was, he would manifest him­self to him, and reach out his right hand [to his assistance] in his present affairs. Whilst the Emperour was putting up these Prayers and earnest Supplications, a most wonderfull sign sent from God appeared. Which [sign,] had any other person given a Relation of it, would not easily have been [...], de­monstrated. I think the reading should be [...], received, or, admitted as true; and so Nicephorus seems to have read, book 7. chap. 29. So also I found it written in the King's Sheets. In the Fuk. and Savi­lian Manu­scripts, the reading is [...], appro­ved, or, entertai­ned. Vales. received as true. But since the Or, Victor Au­gustus. Victorious Emperour himself told it to us who write this History, a long while after, namely at such time as we were vouchsafed his knowledge and converse; and con­firmed† Or, Oaths. his Relation with an ‖ oath; who will hereafter doubt of giving credit to his Narrative? Espe­cially, when the succeeding Or, Time. Times gave an evident attestation to this Relation. [...] ▪ Nicephorus (book 7. chap. 29.) has expounded this place thus; [...], For being about noon on the march with his Army about him, the Sun verging towards the West, &c. So also Portesius has rendred Eusebius's words: Sub meridiem (says he) inclinante jam die, about noon, the day now declining. But perhaps the whole clause is to be continued in one breath, and the words of Eusebius to be construed in this manner, [...], when the day was now verging towards noon. Which in­terpretation is favoured by Zonaras, who giving an account of this Vision in the Gesta of Constantine, says it appeared [...], at mid-day. Indeed, in the King's and Fuketian Manuscripts, there is no Comma after the word [...], but only after the word [...] a Comma is set. And yet in Socrates, (book 1. chap. 2.) who wrote out these words of Eusebius, after the word [...], is set a Comma. Therefore Christophorson at both places renders it thus circiter meri­diem, die jam in pomeridianum tempus aliquantulum inclinante, about noon, the day now declining somewhat towards the afternoon. Which to me seems foolish, For [...] cannot be said, but when the day declines towards the evening, that is, after the ninth hour of the day, as Nicephorus rightly took it. But how can that agree with the preceding words [...], &c? For 'tis the same as if you should say, about noon towards the evening. Some one will perhaps say, that by these last words [...] Eusebius would mean, that that Vision was shown to Con­stantine a little after noon. For the Sun going from the Meridian Point, afterwards by degrees verges into the West. But if Eusebius thought so, what need was there of so many words? For he might have exprest himself with more of brevity, thus [...], it being now mid-day. Besides, Eusebius has said it in the plurall number, [...], that it might appear, that he meant not the sixth hour, but that whole space of hours which is ascribed to noon, to wit from the fifth hour to the ninth. Wherefore, I am induced to be of this opinion, that that Vision was presented to Constantine about the ninth hour of the day, whilst he was making a journey in company with his Army. And this is plainly confirmed by the following words. For Eusebius adds that Constantine being amazed after the Vision, whilst he was musing of many things within his own mind, night came on. Whence it ap­pears, that that Vision appeared to Constantine and his Souldiers not long before night. In the Eleventh Book of the Historia Miscella. where this passage of Eusebius is produced, this rendition of it occurs, circa meridiem, declinante jam sole, about noon, the Sun now de­clining. Vales. About the Meridian hours of the Sun when the day was declining, he said he saw with his own eyes the Trophy of the Cross in the Or, Heaven. heavens, placed over the Sun, made up of Light, and an Inscription annexed to it containing these words, BY THIS CONQUER. And, that at the sight thereof, an amazement seized both him, and all his Military Forces, which followed him as he was making a Journey some whither, and were spectatours of the Miracle.

CHAP. XXIX. That God's Christ appeared to him in his sleep, and ordered him to make use of a Stan­dard made in the form of a Cross, in his Wars.

MOreover, he began to doubt with himself, as he said, what the meaning of this Apparition should be. But whilst he was re­volving it in his mind, and very intent in his thoughts upon it, on a sudden night came on. At which time [as he said,] the Christ of God appeared to him when asleep, with that sign which had been shown him in the Heavens; and ordered him to get a Standard made in imitation of that he had seen in the heaven, which he should use as a salutary defence in his En­gagements with his Enemies.

CHAP. XXX. The making of that Standard framed in the fa­shion of a Cross.

AS soon as it was day he arose, and de­clared the whole secret to his friends. Then he called together the Workers in Gold and pretious Stones, in the midst of whom he himself sate, and by discourse gave them a description of that Or, Sign. Standard, and orde­red them to express its likeness in Gold and pretious Stones. Which [Standard] we our selves also [...]. The verb [...] hapned is to be added, which I found written at the margin of Moraus's Copy. In the Kings Sheets this place is supplied at the margin in this manner; [...], the Emperour himself, God having bestowed that also, vouchsased [us a sight of it.] And so Sr Henry Savil and Christophorson read. In the Fuketian Manuscript this place is written thus, [...], &c. as above. But, the one of these expressions is su­perfluous. For, either the verb [...] must be expunged; or else those words [...], &c. must be left out. Unless you will read as Sr Henry Savil did, [...], &c. For the Em­perour himself, God having bestowed that also, vouchsased us a sight of it. Vales. hapned sometime to have a sight of.

CHAP. XXXI. A description of the Standard made in fushion of a Cross, which the Romans do now term The Labarum.

IT was made in this form. A very long Spear overlaid with Gold, [...]. Lan­gus, Porte­sius, and Christophorson have rendred it Cornu, a Horn; whereas they ought to have translated it antennam, i. e. a cross piece like that whereto a Sail is fixed, or, the Sailyard. Vales. had a piece like a Sail-yard laid overthwart it, framed in fa­shion of a Cross. Above, on the very top of the Spear, was sixt a Crown, made up of pretious Stones and Gold. In this Crown was the Sym­boll of the Salutary Appellation, to wit, two Letters representing the name of Christ, [which they] denoted by the first Characters, the let­ter Rho being cut thorow in its middle part. Which two letters the Emperour was wont to wear in his Helmet, though [he embraced that usage] in the times which succeeded these mat­ters. Further, from the Cross-piece fixed athwart the Spear, was hung a kind of a Or, Sail. Flag, to wit, a purple cloth, covered with a variety of pretious Stones joyned one with another, which dazled mens eyes with the Rays of their Light; and being [...]. Sr Henry Sa­vil in his Copy has mended it [...]. in­terwoven. Indeed, in the Fuke­tian Manu­script I found it written [...]; and a little af­ter, the same Copy and Turnebus read [...], not [...]. Vales. interwoven with much Gold, presented those that viewed it with an inexpressible kind of Beauty. This Flag, hung at the Cross-piece, [...]. By these words Eusebius shews, that that Flag or Sail was square. For an equall measure of length and breadth, does necessarily make a square figure. Indeed, in the old Coyns of Constantine and the following Princes, this Flag is to be seen in that figure I have mentioned. Christophorson there­fore has rendred this place ill, in this manner, I stud igitur velamen ad cornu affixum, longitudinis latitudinisque crucis mensuram penitus exae­quavit. Vales. had a length ex­actly equall to its breadth. But, the upright Staff of the Spear, The meaning is, that that Spear from its basis to the Antenna, or Cross-piece fixed athwart it, was far longer, than from the Antenna to its very top. And this also may be discerned in the Coyns. This place may likewise have another meaning, viz. that that Spear was of a very great length from its bottome to the top. Vales. from its Lowest part was extended to a very great length, and in its upper part, under the Trophy of the Cross, at the very top of the [...]. It must be written [...], that is, Painted or Embroidered with a variety of Colours. For, that purple Flag which hung at the Antenna, was adorned with Gold and various sorts of Stones. But, I can't imagine what Chri­stophorson meant, who has rendred these words of Eusebius in this manner, ad texturae discurrentis fimbrias: unless he read [...] instead of [...]. Vales. Flag embroidered with a variety of colours, it bore a Golden Picture of the Pious Emperour, as far as his breast, and [a representation] likewise of his children. This salutary Standard the Empe­rour always made use of as a defence against the opposed Forces of all Enemies whatever; and he gave order, that other Standards made like to this, should be carried at the head of all his Armies.

CHAP. XXXII. That Constantine becoming a Catechumen, read the Sacred Scriptures.

BUt these things [were done] a little af­terwards. But being then amazed at that wonderfull Vision, after he had taken a reso­lution of worshipping [...]. It must be written in two words, [...], or [...], no other. Sr Henry Savil at the margin of his Copy hath mended it [...]: the Fuketian Manuscript has it [...]. Vales. no other God but him whom he had seen, he sent for [...]. At this place Euseblus seems to have made use of [...] instead of [...]. For there is no doubt but he means the Bishops: because a little after he adds these words, [...], &c. and having made those Prelates of God his Asses­ours, &c. Vales. those per­sons that were skilled in the Mysteries of His Doctrine; and enquired of them what that God was, and Or, What was the meaning of that Sign of the Vision which ap­peared. what the Vision of that Sign meant. [Page 542] They affirmed that he was God, the only begot­ten Son of the one and only God: but that that sign which had been shown him, was the Symboll of immortality, and the Trophy of that Victory, which he, when heretofore conversant on the earth, had obtained over death. They like­wise taught him the causes of his Advent, and expounded to him the accurate account of his [...]. What the import of [...] is in the writings of the holy Fathers, we have suffi­ciently no­ted at book 1. chap. 1. of Eusebius's Ecolcs. Hi­story. For, whatever Christ as man per­formed in the flesh, in order to the salvati­on of men, that is comprehended in the term [...]. Therefore Christophor­son's rendition of this place is not good, who has turned it thus, Christi inter homines oeconomiam, the oeconomic of Christ amongst men. Nor does [...] signifie amongst men, but rather agreeable to men, that is, in an humane manner and fashion. So Gregorius Nyssenus in his Epistle to Eustathia and Ambrosia; [...]. Vales. Incarnation. He gave them attention, being desirous of information in those matters. But he was taken up with an admiration of that ap­pearance of God which had been exhibited to his sight. And when he had compared that Ce­lestial Vision with the interpretation given of it by the discourses of the Bishops, he was strengthened in mind; and became fully per­swaded, that the knowledge of these matters was delivered to him by the ministration of God himself. From thence forward he resolved to apply himself to the reading of the Divine Books; and having made those Prelates of God his Assessours, was of opinion, that that God whom he had seen, was to be worshipped with all imaginable observancy. After this, being fortified with good hopes placed in Him, he undertook to extinguish Or, The Menace of Tyrannick fire. the fire of Tyran­nick fury.

CHAP. XXXIII. Concerning the adulteries committed by Maxen­tius at Rome.

FOr he who by Tyranny had possest himself of the Imperial City, was arrived at that height of impiety and wickedness, that no audacious fact, no filthy and impure practises were omitted by him. [...]. The place is imper­fect, as 'tis evident; with Chri­stophorson we have perfected it from the fourteenth chapter of the eighth Book of his Eccles. Hi­story. In the Kings Sheets, this place is supplied at the margin in this manner; [...], &c. In the Fuke­tian Manuscript 'tis written thus, [...], &c. Moreover, having parted Wives from their Husbands, be sent them back to their Husbands. Vales. For he parted the Wives, from their Husbands, to whom they had been legally married; and having debauch't them, in a most dishonourable manner sent them back to their Husbands. Nor did he in this wise insult over and abuse obscure persons, and those of mean quality, but even such as filled the emi­nentest places in the Roman Senate. But al­though he vitiated almost infinite numbers of free women in a most shamefull manner, yet could he in no wise satiate the immoderate and intemperate [Lust of] his own mind. But, after he began [to sollicite] Christian wo­men, [...]. The first word must be expunged. But the following words are maimed and corrupted, which 'tis hard to make good without the assistance of the Manuscript Copies. Yet it may be read in this manner, [...], he was unable to find out a saticty or satis­faction for his own Lusts. A little after this, the reading in the Fuketian and Sr Henry Savils Copy is, [...], &c. For they chose sooner, &c. Vales. He could by no arts of his own bring it about, [that he might enjoy their Embraces.] For they chose sooner to expose their lives [...]. It must, as I think, be written [...], to death. For so our Eusebius expresses himself in book 8, chap. 14; where he treats concerning the wickednesses of Maximinus; [...], others, haled away to be ravished, were more ready to part with their lives, than yield up their bodies to be defiled. Vales. to death, than suffer their Bodies to be vi­tiated by him.

CHAP. XXXIV. How the Praefect's Wife, that she might pre­serve her chastity, laid violent hands on her selfe.

ONe of these women, wise to a personage of the Senatorian Order in that City, who bore the Praefecture, when she understood that those [Guards,] which the Tyrant made use of as his Ministers in such wickednesses, were standing before her house, (this woman was a Christian;) and knew, that her Husband, out of fear, had given them order to take her, and carry her away [to the Tyrant;] having requested that a short space of time might be allowed her, wherein she might adorn her body in her usuall dress, she went in to her Chamber. And being left alone, she sheathed a Sword in her own Breast. And expiring immediately here­upon, she left her dead Body indeed to those that came to conduct her [to the Tyrant.] But, by this act of her's, which resounds far more than any voice, she has manifested to all men that now are and shall be in future Ages, that Chastity [a Virtue] so famous amongst Christians, is the only thing that is invincible, and which cannot be destroyed. Thus this wo­man behaved her self.

CHAP. XXXV. The Slaughter of the People of Rome by Maxen­tius.

ALL persons therefore, both the Com­monalty and the Magistracy, as well the Honourable as the Obscure, stood in great fear of him, [when they beheld] him audaciously perpetrating such impieties as these; and were sorely afflicted with his intollerable Tyranny. And although they were quiet, and patiently bore the austere servitude [they were op­prest with;] yet none could so avoid the Bloudy Cruelty of the Tyrant. For, one time, upon a very trivial pretence, he exposed the peo­ple of Rome to the slaughter of his own Guards. And so, innumerable multitudes of the Roman peo­ple (not Scythians, nor Barbarians, but his own Citizens,) were killed with Spears and all man­ner of Weapons, in the midst of the City. More­over, 'tis impossible to enumerate how many slaughters were committed of those that were Se­natours, to the end a seizure might be made of each persons Estate; infinite numbers of them being put to death at severall times, for various Crimes framed [against them.]

CHAP. XXXVI. Maxentius's Magick Arts against Constantine; and the scarcity of Provisions at Rome.

AT length, as the Complement of his im­pieties, the Tyrant proceeded to [exer­cise] the delusions of Magick Art: sometimes ripping up women great with child; other­whiles searching into the Bowells of new-born infants: He also Or, Sa­crificed. killed Lyons, and performed some other Horrid Rites, to call forth the Dae­mons, and repell the approaching War. For he hoped, that by these performances he should obtain Victory. Whilst he Tyrannized there­fore in this manner at Rome, 'tis impossible to relate what mischievous facts he perpetrated, and [how miserably] he enslaved his Sub­jects: in so much that, they were reduced to such extream penury and want of necessary sustenance, Or, As those of our age do re­cord never to have hapned at Rome, or any where else. as ('tis recorded by those of our times,) never hapned at Rome, nor any where else.

CHAP. XXXVII. The overthrow of Maxentius's Armies in Italy.

BUt Constantine, moved with compassion at all these [calamities of the Romans,] fur­nished himself with all manner of military pro­visions against the Tyranny. And when he had procured the supream God to be his Patron, and invoaked His [Son] Christ to be his Saviour and Assistant; and had set up the Vi­ctorious Trophy, to wit, the salutary Standard, before his Souldiers and Guards, he began his march with his whole Army, that by his in­tervention he might restore to the Romans the Liberties they had received from their An­cestours. Now Maxentius, confiding more in his Magick Or, Devices. Impostures, than in the Love and Affection of his Subjects, durst not so much as stir out of the City Gates; but with a multi­tude of Souldiers, and with innumerable Bodies of men laid in Ambushes, had fortified every place, Region, and City, which were under the pressures of his Tyranny. But the Emperour [Constantine] depended upon Divine assistance, and having attacked the Tyrant's first, second, and third Body, and with ease routed them all at the very first charge, he opened himself a passage into the greatest part of the Country of Italy.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Maxentius's Death on the Bridge of the River Tiber.

ANd he had now made his approaches very near to Rome it self. But least he should be constrained to assault all the Romans for the Tyrant's sake only, God himself drew the Tyrant (as it were with Cords) a great way out of the Gates: and effectually confirmed the truth of those Miracles (In Ro­bert Ste­phens's E­dition there was a whole line wanting here, which we have supplied from the Fuke­tian, Savilian, and Turnebian Copies. But 'twas easie to have made up this defect, without Ma­nuscript Copies, from book 9. chap. 9. of Eusebius's Eccles. Hi­story. Vales. Recorded in the ever­lasting Monuments of the Sacred Scriptures, which though they are accounted fabulous by many persons, and are not credited, are never­theless believed by the Faithfull;) he had wrought in times past against the wicked, to all in generall, Believers as well as Infidells, who with their own eyes saw this Mi­racle we are about to re­late. For, as heretofore in the days of Moses and the old religious Nation of the Jews, God cast the Chariots of Pharaoh and his Army into the Sea, and drowned his Chosen Captaines in the Red-Sea: after the same man­ner Maxentius with the Souldiers and Guards that were about him, were cast into the deep like a stone; at such time as, having been put to flight by that Divine power which gave assistance to Constantine's Arms, he would have past the River that was in the way before him. Over which he having laid a Bridge of boats well fast­ned together, had thereby framed an Engin of destruction against himself, being in hopes that the [Emperour] beloved by God might have been caught in this snare: but the God whom he worshipped was present with, and gave him his assistance. But the wretched Maxentius, [...]. In Morau [...]'s Copy the last word is expunged, as superfluous. But I am afraid that some words are wanting here. Sr Henry Savil, at the margin of his Copy, notes that 'tis to be made good thus, [...] of his aid, or some such like expression. In the Copy of Ha­drian Turnebus 'tis mended in this manner, [...], But that madman; but this emendation is written in a more modern hand, to wit, the hand of Odo Turne­bus: For Hadrianus had expun­ged the word [...] as superflu­ous. Vales. deprived of his aid, fra­med these secret machines against himself. On which account these words may be pertinently spoken of him; wherefore, Psal. 7. 16, 17. He he hath graven and digged up a pit, and is fallen himself into the destruction that he hath made. His travell shall come upon his own head, and his wickedness shall fall on his own pate. Thus therefore, by God's assent, the Machines framed upon the Bridge of Boats, and the Ambus­cade placed in them [being disjoyned] at a time in no wise expected, the passage began to sink, and the Boats together with the men in them descended on a sudden to the bottom [of the River.] And in the first place the Wretch Himself, then the Protectors and Guards that were about him, as the Divine Oracles have predicted, sank down like Lead into the deep waters. So that [Constantine's Souldiers] who by Divine assistance then obtained the Victory, in such sort as the Israelites heretofore did who were lead by that eminent servant of the Lord Moses, might deservedly have sung and repeated (though not in words exactly the same, yet in reality) [some of] those expressions which they heretofore did against that impious Tyrant [Pharaoh,] in this manner: Exod. 15. 1, 2, 11. We will sing unto the Lord, for he hath been magnificently glorified. The Horse and his Rider hath he thrown into the Sea. [My] helper and defender is become my salvation. And again, who is like unto thee, O Lord, amongst the Gods? Thou hast been glori­fied in the Saints, admirable in glories, doing wonders.

CHAP. XXXIX. Constantine's Entry into Rome.

AFter Constantine, who at that time imitated that Great servant of God Moses, had in reality sung these and other such like Hymns as these, in praise of God the Governour of all things, and the Authour of Victory; he made his entry into the Imperial City in Tri­umph. And immediately all persons, as well those of the Senatorian as them of the Equestrian Order in that City, being freed from the con­finement of a Prison as 'twere, together with the whole Roman Populace, received him with a joy in their Or, Eyes. Countenances that proceeded from their very Souls, with acclamations and a glad­ness insatiable. And the men, together with the women, children, and infinite numbers of servants, stiled him a Redeemer, a Saviour, and a Benefactour, with Voices that could not be silenced. But he, possest of a piety towards God naturally implanted in him, was neither swelled with pride at these Shouts, nor elevated at these commendations. But being sensible of that as­sistance which God had given him, he forthwith rendred a Thanksgiving to the Authour of his Victory.

CHAP. XL. Concerning the Statue of Constantine which held a Cross; and concerning its Inscription.

[...], with a great Pi­cture. In Eusebius's Panegyrick on Constan­tine's Tri­cennalia, the reading is [...] and with a Loud Voice; which in my judg­ment is to be prefer­red. Further, at these words I began a new chapter, following the Authority of the King's and Fuketian Manuscripts; to which agree the old Sheets. Vales. ANd with a Loud Voice and by Inscriptions He made known to all men the Salutary Standard; by erecting this Great Trophy a­gainst his Enemies in the midst of the Imperial City, [...]. The reading is truer in the Panegyrick, [...], and by plainly Engraving, &c. A little after this, the Fuketian and Savilian Manuscripts add a word in this manner, [...], which he hath demonstrated to be the pre­servative, &c. Vales. and by plainly Engraving this Salutary Standard, which is the preservative of the Ro­man Government and of the Empire of the whole world, with indelible Characters. He issued out therefore an immediate order, that an high Spear made in the form of a Cross, should be placed under the hand of his own likeness exprest in a Statue set up in the most publick and frequented place of the City Rome, and that this very inscription in the Latine Tongue should be cut upon it: [thus Englished;]

BY THIS SALUTARY SIGN WHICH IS THE
Or, True Cognizance of Valour.
COGNIZANCE OF TRUE VALOUR, I HAVE DELIVERED AND FREED YOUR CITY FROM THE SLAVISH YOAK OF THE TYRANT. AND HAVE SET AT LIBERTY THE SENATE AND PEOPLE OF ROME AND RESTORED THEM TO THEIR ANCIENT SPLENDOUR AND DIGNITY.

CHAP. XLI. The rejoycings over the Provinces, and Constan­tine's Acts of Grace.

THe Pious Emperour having in this manner adorned himself with the Confession of the Victorious Cross, with all imaginable freedom of Speech made known the Son of God to the Romans. And all persons inhabiting the City, as well the Senate as the people, in regard they had been eased of a bitter and Tyrannick Go­vernment, seemed in their own judgments to enjoy purer Rays of light, and to Or, Par­take of a Regenera­tion of a fresh and new life. enter upon a certain new life as 'twere. All those nations also which are bounded with the Western Ocean, freed from those mischiefs wherewith they had been before oppressed, celebrated Festivalls with the greatest cheerfullness, and continued to ap­plaud [Constantine, and give him the Titles of] Victour, Pious, and The Common Bene­factour. And with one voice and one mouth, all persons acknowledged he was a Common Good Or, Shown to. bestowed on men by God's favour and benignity. Moreover, the Emperour's Or, Edict was. Letters were fixt up in all places, which al­lowed an enjoyment of their own Estates to those who had had their Goods taken from them, and recalled to their own Houses such as had undergone an unjust Exile. And those per­sons were freed from Bonds, all manner of dan­ger, and fear; who by a Tyrannick Cruelty had layn under these sufferings.

CHAP. XLII. The Honours conferred on the Bishops, and the Building of the Churches.

MOreover, the Emperour personally in­vited God's Ministers to himself, and vouchsafed them the highest [...]. I think it must be made, [...], Veneration and honour. Turnebus in the mar­gin of his Copy had mended it, [...], and so 'tis written in the Fuketian Manu­script. In the Kings Sheets the adverb [...] is blotted out, and in its place [...] them is written above. Vales. Veneration and Honour; to whom he gave a kind and cour­teous Reception, as well by deeds as words, in regard they were persons consecrated to his God. There were admitted therefore to his own Table, men who as to their out­ward [...]. At this place [...] signifies not the countenance and form, as Christophorson thought, but the Garb and Dress. Wherefore I have exprest both in my Rendition; which I afterwards found had been done by Portesius also. The Garb and Dress of Prelates was at that time very mean, as Amm. Marcellinus attests in his 27th Book, where he speaks concerning Damasus and Ursinus. Gregory Nazianzen also, in the Funerall Oration he wrote concerning the praises of Basilius, says that he▪ whilst he was Bishop of Caesarea, was clad in a mean Cloak, which he terms [...]. Vales. Garb indeed and Dress seemed de­spicable, but they were not accounted such by him: For he was not for viewing the out­side of a man, which is visible to the eyes, [...]. In the Kings Sheets this place is supplied in the margin, in this manner, [...], but was pleased to behold God honoured in each person. But the reading is shorter in the Fuketian and Savil. Manuscripts thus, [...], but was plea­sed, or, thought good to look upon God himself. Vales. but was pleased to look upon God himself. [Page 545] And these persons he carried a long with him, which way so ever he made a journey; being fully perswaded, that that God whom they wor­shipped, would [...]. I had rather write [...], that is, for this Reason. Vales. for this very reason be pro­pitious to him. Moreover, he gave very Or, Rich. large and plentifull Or, As­sistances. Benefactions to the Churches of God out of his own Treasury; partly enlar­ging the Oratories, and raising them to an height; and partly adorning the august Or, Chappells, or, Vestries of the Church. Sa­craria of the Churches with many consecrated Gifts.

CHAP. XLIII. Concerning Constantine's Beneficence towards the Poor.

In the King's and Fuketian M. SS. and in the old Sheets, the Chapter▪ begins at these words. Vales. HE likewise made various distributions of money to the indigent. Besides, he shewed himself humane and beneficent even to [...]. He means the Heathens, who were [...] without the Church. And this is confirmed from the following Chapter, where his words are these; [...], such was his be­haviour to­wards all persons in generall. But his, &c. The like expression we meet with in Book 2, at the close of the 21, and beginning of the 22 chapters. Vales. Extraneous persons who made their ad­dresses to him. And to those Wretches and Abjects, who beg'd in the Forum, he [gave] not only money, and necessary food; but▪ pro­vided them decent garments also to cover their Bodies. But, on those, who had heretofore lived well, and by a change of Or, Life. For­tune had afterwards faln into great Calamities, he bestowed larger and more plen­tifull allowances. And with a mind truly Royall, conferred on such persons as these, magnificent Benefactions; to some of whom he gave pos­sessions of Lands; and honoured others of them with various dignities. He took a care, nothing inferiour to that of a Father, of those fal'n into the calamities of Or, Wanting Father and Mother. Orphancy: and relieved the destitute and forlorn con­dition of widdows, by cherishing them with his own patronage and protection. Moreover, he match't young Vir­gins made Orphans by the loss of their Parents, to rich men and such as were known to him­self. And this he did, when he had before hand bestowed on the Virgins [...]. Christophorson renders it ill, nuptas, married▪ for, not those that are married, but them who are marrying bring a Portion to their Husbands. The same Christophorson has committed the like mistake, in rendring the word [...] dead, as we have noted at Euseb. Eccles. Hist. book 10. chap. 8. note (c.) Vales. marrying, whatever it was fitting they should bring to such persons as took them to wife. [In fine,] In the King's Manuscript, at the side of these words, this mark is set, [...] ▪ which mark seems to me to denote, [...] seu [...], an elegant expression, or, place. Vales. as the Sun, when it rises upon the earth, does liberally im­part the Rayes of its Light to all men: in the very same manner Constantine, going out of his Imperial Pallace early in the morning, [...]; which words Valesius renders thus, ac cum caelesti solis Jubare quodammodo exoriens, and rising in a manner with a celestial beam of the Sun. and rising as 'twere together with that celestiall Lu­minary, imparted the Rayes of Light of his own [...]. Eusebius uses this term to signifie benignity or bene­ficence. So he has also used this word in the tenth book of his Hist. Vales. Beneficence to all those who approacht his presence. Nor did ever any pebrson come near to him, who gained not something of good: neither were they ever frustrated of their good hope, who had expected to receive assistance from him.

CHAP. XLIV. How he was present at the Synods of Bi­shops.

SUch was his behaviour towards all persons in generall. But his care of the Church of God was signal and eminent: [For] when some persons in several Provinces differed one with another; like some Common Bishop con­stituted by God▪ he convened Synods of God's Ministers: Nor disdained he to be present and sit with them in the midst of their Congress; but made himself an Associate in reference to the matters inquired into, and ministred to all persons those things which have relation to the peace of God. Further▪ he sate in the midst of them, as one amongst many; and would send off his Protectours, his Armed men, and all the Guards of his Body; but he was covered with the fear of God, and surrounded with the dearest affection of his [...]. At this place Eu­sebius does not term them faith­full, who were true­hearted and well­affected to­wards the Emperour, as the Translatours thought▪ but he styles the Christians so. For Constantine, in regard he was a most Religious Emperour, when ever he was present at the Councills of Bishops, was wont to send off all his Guards, and took with him only those of his Courtiers, who had been instructed in the mysteries of the Chri­stian Faith▪ Vales. Faithfull friends. And when he perceived any persons inclinable to ac­quiesce in an opinion that was sounder and bet­ter, and disposed to a quiet and agreeing tem­per of mind; he approved highly of such men, and shewed himself extraordinarily pleased at the unanimous consent of all. But he had an aversion for those that were opinionative and not to be perswaded.

CHAP. XLV. In what manner he bore with the That is, The Do­natists. Madmen.

MOreover, he patiently bore with some persons who were exasperated [...], exaspera­ted against them. Doubtless it must be written [...] against him, as the reading is in the King's and Fuketian Manu­scripts: which e­mendation I found written al­so in Mo­raeus's Co­py. In the old Sheets likewise 'tis mended in the same hand. Vales. against him; commanding such men in expressions that were sedate and mild, to behave themselves with prudence and modesty, and not to raise Sedi­tions. Some of these people, revering his ad­monitions, desisted [from being obstinate and perverse.] But he let alone others of them, who were incurable in reference to their being brought to a soundness of mind, and committed them to God; having at no time designed any thing of severity against any one of them. Hence it hapned, (as 'tis probable,) that He means the Donatists, of whose boldness and insolence many passages occur in Optatus and Augustinus. Concerning the begin­ning and progress of which Schism throughout Africa, we have made many remarks not taken notice of by others, and have designedly placed them at the close of these notes. Vales. See Valesius's notes on Eusebius, pag. 289, &c. those who had raised a Sedition in the Region of the A­fricans, proceeded to such an height of wicked­ness, that they attempted some audacious facts; In the Kings Sheets, this place is thus supplied in the margin, [...], some wicked devil (as 'tis likely;) which is more elegant. Vales. the Devill (as 'tis likely,) envying that plenty of the present blessings, and inciting those men to absurd practises, that he might incense the mind of the Emperour against them. [Page 546] But he reapt no advantage by his envy; in re­gard the Emperour accounted what was done to be Eusebius makes use of too soft a term. For those things which were then done by the Do­natists in Africa, were such, as not to deserve laughter, but anintadversion rather. For, both the sanctity of Re­ligion, and the authority likewise of the Emperour himself, were most insolently trampled on by those persons. But perhaps Eusebius at this place meant only those matters which had a reference to the contempt of the Imperial Majesty. For Constantine could dissemble those things, and might think them worthy of laughter, rather than trouble of mind. But he was resolved most severely to revenge what those Donatists did against God and the observancy of the Catholick Law, and on that design determined to pass over into Africk, as he himself writes in his Letter to Celsus Vicar of Africa. Vales. ridiculous, and affirmed tha he acknow­ledged it the incitation of the Devil. For [he said] that those were not the actions of sober persons, but of such as were either altogether mad men, or stimulated by the wickedest of Devils: which sort of people ought to be pitied, rather than punish't. [For it would not be such an height of justice to be incited] [...]. Before these words is to be set an Astorisk. For some words are wanting, which in my judgment may be supplied in this manner: [...], &c. which we have express in our Version. Christophorson and Sr Henry Savil made good this place otherwise. In the Kings Sheets this place is thus made up in the margin; [...], But, that he would in no wise inflict punishment on the fury of mad-men. But the words immediately following do reject this conjecture, In the Fuketian Manuscript this place is writ­ten thus; [...]. The same also is the reading in Turnebus's, and Sr Henry Savils Copy. But this reading seems to me to have issued from the conjecture of the Transcriber. Vales. a­gainst the fury of mad men, as 'tis a transcen­dency of Humanity to compassionate their con­dition.

CHAP. XLVI. His Victories over the Barbarians.

THus the Emperour in all his Actions wor­shipped God the Inspectour of all things, and [...], made an invulnera­ble provi­sion for his Churches. Although this term [...] may be fit­ly made out concerning Constantine, whose mind could never be exul­cerated and provok't by the madness of the Donatists and other Here­ticks of the same stamp; yet at this place I had rather write [...]. For, in my judgment, it cannot well be said, [...], he made an invulnerable Provision. But on the contrary, the term [...] will be used most elegantly: that is, he made an indefatigable Provision, &c. So in book 2. chap. 14. [...], he exercised a sleepless or watchfull care over the publick. Vales. with an indefatigable sollicitude made pro­vision for his Churches. But God rewarded him, and subdued almost all Barbarous Nations under his feet; in so much that he erected Trophies in all places against his Enemies. He proclaimed him Conquerour amongst all men; and rendred him formidable to his Enemies and adversaries; although naturally he was no such man; [...]. It must be written [...], but rather the mildest; as 'tis in the King's and Fuk. Manuscripts. Vales. but rather the mildest, meekest, and most compassionate personage of all Mortalls what ever.

CHAP. XLVII. The Death of Maximin and others, whose Plots Constantine discovered, God making them known to him.

IN the interim that he was doing these things, the He means Maximi­anus Her­culius. For he had ob­tained the 2d place in the Em­pire; and when he had framed Plots a­gainst Con­stantine, being de­tected, he ended his life with an halter. Besides, the following words, wherein Eusebius tells us his Pictures and Sta­tues were thrown down and defaced, do evi­dently shew, that Maximi­anus Her­culius is meant here. Which if true, Eusebius hath committed a most foul mistake here, in relating Herculius's death after the Victory over Maxentius: when as 'tis certain, that Maximianus Herculius ended his life two years before the defeat and destruction of Maxentius, on the year of Christ 310. But who can believe, that Eusebius, who was contemporary with these times, could have been guilty of so great a mistake? Besides, the Title of this chapter gives us the name, not of Maximianus, but of Maxi­minus. Therefore, I am easily induced to believe, that this place is corrupted, and that it ought to be mended thus, [...], the se­cond of those persons that were chosen into the Empire by those who had resigned the Government: that so, Maximinus may be meant here, who together with Severus was made Caesar by Diocletian and Maximian, at such time as they resigned their purple, as Idatius writes in his Fasti. And thus the order of the times will proceed right in Eusebius. For Maximinus ended his life after the overthrow of Max­entius, and by a most ignominious sort of death too, as Eusebius relates, Eccles. Hist. book 9. chap. 10. Vales. second of those two persons who had resigned the Empire, framed a design to cut off Constantine; and being discovered, ended his life by a most ignominious death. And [...]. I read [...], this was the first per­son; from book 8. chap. 13. of his Eccles. History; where this whole place occurs almost in the same words. Further, what Eusebius says hapned first of all to Maximianus Herculius, that his Pictures and Statues should in all places be thrown down, ought not to seem strange to any one. For we must understand this in the same man­ner, as where he tells us that Constantius Chlorus was the first Em­perour that was deified. He means he was the first of those Empe­rours which he had seen. But if any one had rather understand these words concerning Maximinus, he has Eusebius to defend his Opinion, who in the last chapter of his ninth book attests in express words, that all Maximin's Statues and Pictures were broken after his death. Vales. this was the first person, whose Pictures, Statues, and what ever other Monuments are usually erected in honour of the Emperours, were de­faced and thrown down in all parts of the world, in regard he was an impious and wicked wretch. After this man, other persons also re­lated to him, who were contriving secret Plots [against Constantine,] were detected; God himself in a most miraculous manner being the discoverer of all their designs to his servant, by Visions. For he frequently vouchsafed him his own presence, the Divine Likeness appea­ring to him in a most wonderfull manner, and suggesting to him all manner of foreknowledge in relation to future affairs. Indeed, the Mi­racles [shown him] by divine Grace, are in­expressible; nor is it possible for a Narrative to comprehend, what great blessings God him­self vouchsafed to afford his Servant. With which he was surrounded, and spent the re­sidue of his life in Repose and Safety; highly pleased at the benevolence and good affection of his Subjects; rejoycing because he saw all those under his Government leading peaceable and chearfull lives; but above all, extraordi­narily delighted with the splendour and flou­rishing condition of God's Churches.

CHAP. XLVIII. The Celebration of Constantine's Decennalia.

WHilst he was in this condition, the Tenth year of his Empire was com­pleated. On which account he celebrated pub­lick and solemn Festivalls, and put up Thanks­givings, like some pure sacrifices without fire and smoak, to God the supream King. With which [Holy Exercises] he was highly de­lighted; but [he was not so well pleased] with the account brought him by those Messengers, from whom he received advice, concerning the Ruine of the Provinces in the East.

CHAP. XLIX. In what manner Licinius afflicted the East.

FOr, At these words a chapter is begun in the Fuke­tian Manu­script, and in the old Sheets. Vales. a certain Savage Beast, he was told, had beset both the Church of God there, and the rest of the Provincialls also; the most im­pure Devil, enraged with emulation as 'twere, striving to do the quite contrary to those things performed by the pious Emperour. In so much that, the Roman Empire, divided into two parts, seemed to all men to be like the night and the day. For, a darkness involved the Inhabitants of the East: but a most bright day enlightned those who dwelt in the Or, Other part. Western parts. Whose enjoy­ment of those innumerable Blessings procured them by God, was an intollerable spectacle to the Envy of the Devil that hater of good: nor did the Tyrant, who oppressed the other part of the world, think that fit to be born with. Who seeing the affairs of his Empire succeeding pros­perously, and being vouchsafed an affinity by marriage to so great an Emperour as Constan­tine was, relinquished the imitation of that pious Prince, and strove to embrace the instru­ctions and wicked Moralls of the Impious. And he made it his business, rather to follow their advices, whose calamitous end he had been an eye-witness of, than This place must be made up from chapter 8. book 10, of his Eccles. History; whence also the following chapter is to be mended. Vales. to continue in a friend­ship and amity with him that was his Better.

CHAP. L. In what manner Licinius attempted to frame Trea­cheries against Constantine.

HE raises therefore an Or, Trai­terous. irreconcileable War against his Benefactour; without calling to mind the Laws of friendship; not considering his Oaths, his affinity, or the Leagues [that were between them.] For, the most Benigne [Constantine,] that he might give him the surest evidence of his sincere Benevolence and affection, made him partaker of his own pater­nall Lineage, and of that Imperiall bloud he drew from his Ancestours, by matching his Sister to him; and permitted him to enjoy the Colleague-ship of the whole Roman Empire. But Licinius's thoughts were contrary hereto, being taken up in contriving Machinations and ill-designes against his Better; inventing various sorts of Or, Menaces. Treacheries successively, that with mischiefs he might reward his Benefactour. And at the beginning he pretended friendship, and performed all things with deceit and fraud; hoping that his audacious designs might be kept concealed. But God discovered those Trea­cheries of his, hatch't in darkness, to his Ser­vant [Constantine.] Whereupon Licinius, because detected in his first attempts, betook himself to second frauds; sometimes preten­ding friendship; at others, procuring himself belief [by the Religion] of Oathes and Leagues: then on a sudden he would violate what he had agreed to; and again, would crave pardon by an Embassie; after which he would render himself infamous by Lyes. But at length he proclaimed open War; and, instiga­ted by a desperate madness of mind, took a resolution in future to bear Arms against God himself, of whom he well knew the Emperour [Constantine] was a Worshipper.

CHAP. LI. Licinius's Treacheries against the Bishops, and his prohibitions of Synods.

ANd in the first place, with great closeness and subtlety he made a strict inquiry into those Ministers of God that lived under his Dominions, who had never committed any Crime against his Government; by hunting out Various Calumnies against them. And when he could not furnish himself with any the least offence of theirs, nor had [any pretext] wherewith he might blame these men; he issued forth a Law, whereby he commanded, that the Bishops should in no wise Or, Hold communi­cation. confer one with another in any place what ever, nor should it be Lawfull for any one of them to go into the Church of his neighbour; nor to convene Synods, nor Councills; or to consult about matters that were usefull and advanta­gious. Now, this gave him an occasion of vexing and disquieting us. For, if those of our Religion transgrest that Law of his, they were oblieged to undergo punishment; but, if they paid an obedience to this his Order, of neces­sity they must enervate the Laws of the Church. For, 'tis impossible that the more momentous Matters of conside­ration, or, debates. Controversies should by any other means be composed and rectified, than by Synods. And thus this [Tyrant] highly odious to God, be­cause he studied in all things to contradict the pious Emperour, issued out such Orders as these [in reference to us Christians.] For Con­stantine called together God's Priests, in [...]. Tur­nebus at the margin of his Co­py hath mended it, [...]. And this reading I found in Moraeus's Copy also. But I had rather write, [...], in honour to those consecrated persons. For Eusebius gives reasons, why the Emperour Constantine would ever and anon convene Synods of Bishops. The first reason, says he, was, that he might give honour to Gods Priests when assembled together. Secondly, that he might establish Peace and Concord amongst them. 'Tis certain, Eusebius does usually term The Priests [...], as it frequently occurs in these books. But if, with Turnebus, we would rather read [...], then it must be made [...], that the discourse may agree with what follows; and [...] must be taken for Religion it self; which is more uncouth, For I had rather express it thus, [...], in honour to the sacred Law. Vales, ho­nour to those consecrated persons, and for the promoting of mutuall Peace and Concord. But Licinius, attempting to abrogate what­ever was well constituted, endeavoured to Dissipate, or, tear in sunder. disturb the harmonious agreement [of the Churches.]

CHAP. LII. The Banishments and Proscriptions of the Chri­stians.

ANd because Constantine, who was God's friend, vouchsafed the servants of God admission into his Imperial Pallaces; the Enemy [Page 548] of God Licinius, whose Sentiments were quite contrary hereto, Eusebius in his Chro­nicon, at the four­teenth year of Constan­tine, says thus; Li­cinius drives the Christians from his own Pal­lace. Oro­sius says the same in book 7. but in a disturbed order of affairs and times, in regard he relates that before the Cibalensian War, which War hap­ned on the eighth year of Constantine's Empire. For there were two Civil Wars between Constantine and Licinius. The first War, wherein Licinius was vanquished at Cibalis in Pannonia, hapned on the year of Christ 314. The reasons of which War are Recorded by no other Writer, that I know of, but the Authour of the Excerpta de Gestis Constantini, which I have long since published at the end of Amm. Marcellinus; see pag. 473. But the latter War was that, wherein Licinius was routed near Hadrianople, and at length compelled to a surrendry of himself on the year of Christ 324. Eusebius has made no men­tion of the former War; for this reason perhaps, because Licinius as yet had not raised Persecution against the Christians. For Licinius undertook to persecute the Christians long after that first War, to wit, on the fourteenth year of Constantine's Empire, as 'tis Recorded in Scaliger's and Miraeus's Edition of Eusebius's Chronicon, that is on the year of Christ 320. The same year occurs in Cedrenus's Chronicon. But Baronius relates, that Licinius raised Persecution against the Christians on the year of Christ 316. But in Baronius's Annalls, the History of both the Wars against Licinius is very much confused, and must be amended, partly from Idatius's Fasti, and partly from the Gesta Constantini heretofore published by me. 'Tis certain, Sozomen (book 1. chap. 7.) attests in express words, that Licinius undertook to persecute the Christians after the Cibalensian War. Vales. drove all God's Worship­pers, who lived under his Dominions, from his Imperial Pallaces; and sent into Banishment those persons in his Court that were faithfullest and best-affected to him. And such persons as for their former brave actions had received from him honour and dignities, them he ordered to serve others, and to perform servile Offices. And when he had seized upon the Goods of every one of them, as if they had been some unhop't-for Gain; at last he threatned [to pu­nish] those with death, who assumed to them­selves the salutary name [of Christians.] From these words a new Chapter ought to have been begun. For these words belong to Licinius's second Law. Further, the expression [...], which occurs in the Contents of Chap. 53, seems to be faulty, and put instead of [...], in the Church. And yet 'tis strange, that both in the King's Manuscript, and in the old Sheets, the reading is constantly, [...]. Although in the old Sheets 'tis mended in the same hand, [...]. But in the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis excellently written thus, [...], should not meet in the Churches together with the men. Vales. Fur­ther, whereas he himself possest a mind that was incontinent and lustfull, and committed infinite Adulteries, and the most infamous Acts of ob­scenity; Or, He despaired of finding the Ornament of Chastity amongst men. Valesius thinks it should be written and pointed thus, [...]; He despaired of the na­ture of men, making use of an ill argument. it was his Sentiment that no man could be chast and continent; Or, He Himself making use of himself as the Brand and Reproach of Nature. and thus, from his own distemper he past an ill judge­ment upon the Nature of mankind in gene­rall.

CHAP. LIII. [Licinius's] Edict, that Women should not meet in the Churches together with the Men.

VVHerefore, he made a second Law, wherein he gave Command, that the men should not be present at prayers [in the Church] of God together with the women: nor should womenkind frequent the Venerable Schools of Virtue: Lastly, that the Bishops should not deliver the Divine Precepts of Reli­gion to women; but, that women should be made choice of, to be the Teachers of women. But whereas these things seemed Ridiculous to all persons, he invented another device for the sub­version of the Churches. For, he ordered, that the solemn Assemblies of the people should be held without the Gates, in the open fields; affirming, that the fresh air without the Gates was far more commodious for crouds, than the Oratories situate within the City.

CHAP. LIV. That he Cashiered from the Militia those who re­fused to Sacrifice; and forbad, that such as were shut up in Prisons should have any nourishment given them.

BUt when he perceived they would not obey him even in this; in future [he went to work] bare-fac't [as we say,] and gave or­der, that the See what I have no­ted at chap. 8. book 10. of Euse­bius's Ec­cles. Histo­ry; whence these pas­sages are transcri­bed almost word for word. Vales. Civill Milice should be remo­ved from their attendance upon the See note (b.) Praesidial Office, unless they were willing to sacrifice to Daemons. [...]. So the words are to be con­strued; which Chri­stophorson perceived not. In­deed, in the Fuketian Manuscript, after the word [...] is pla­ced a Com­ma. [...] or [...] are Offices of Magistrates. For each Magi­strate had his Office or Attendants. This Office was a certain Body of Officials or Souldiers, who attended on the Judges, as may be seen in the Notitia of the Roman Empire. These Offices the Greeks termed [...], as I have long since remarked at the 26th book of Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 318 of my notes. The Old Glosses therefore are right, in explaining [...], officium, apparitio. So John Chrysostome in his first Homily on the Epistle to the Corinthians; [...], &c. Don't you see children, how when at play they make a company of Apparitours or Attendants, and Officials, &c. Vales. The Offices therefore of Magistrates throughout every Province, were emptied of pious and religious persons. And he himself, who made this Law, was deprived of the prayers of holy men, which he had bereaved himself of. What need we, [...]. Johannes Morinus, a Learned person who has rendred these Books into French, thought that by [...] here, the Gentiles or Heathens were meant; as if Eusebius had said, What need we make mention of the Heathens. See chap. 43, note (b.) But Christophorson renders [...] praeterea, besides; as if it 'twere the same with [...], in which manner Eusebius ex­presses himself at chap. 43. Vales. Valesius renders it in the same manner with Christophorson. besides these things, make mention, in what manner he gave order, that no person should shew compassion to those afflicted in Prisons, by ministring food to them; nor, that any one should take commiseration of such as perished with Famine in their Bonds: (that is, that not so much as one good man should exist:) nor, that those who by nature it self are drawn to a compassion of their neighbours, should do any thing of good? Indeed, this was clearly the most impudent and unjustest of Laws, and far out-did the utmost ferity of Nature. To which Law there was a penalty also annext, that they who shewed compassion, should suffer the same Inflictions with those to whom they shewed it; and that such as per­formed Offices of Humanity, should be lyable to punishment.

CHAP. LV. Concerning Licinius's Improbity and Avarice.

SUch were Licinius's Constitutions. But, what need we reckon up his Innovations concer­ning Marriages? Or his new Laws in rela­tion [Page 549] to such as are ending their lives? Whereby he presumptuously abrogated the ancient, good; and wisely established Roman Laws, and instead of them introduced certain barbarous and in­humane [Ordinances.] Besides, he found out a thousand sorts of Exactions towards his Sub­jects. On which account, he invented Or, Re­measurings. New Surveys of Lands, that he might compute a small field to be greater in measure, because of his insatiable desire after unequall Exactions. For this reason, he enrolled in his Censuall Tables the names of countrymen who were not alive, but had been dead long before; procuring to himself from hence a filthy and ignominious gain. For his sordidness had no measure; nor was his unsati­ableness to be circumscribed by any Limit. Wherefore, when he had filled all his Trea­suries with Gold, Silver, and immense quanti­ties of Riches, he sighed and lamented his Po­verty; his mind being disquieted with the dis­ease of The pu­nishment allotted him was, as we are told, to starve in the midst of plenty. Tantalus. [Why should I mention] what punishments of Exile he inflicted on In­nocent persons? What proscriptions of Goods? What Imprisonments of men well-descended and of eminent quality; whose young wives he de­livered to some impure slaves, that they might be most injuriously vitiated? How many mar­ried women, virgins, and young maids he him­self attempted to force, though his Body was now rendred decrepit by age? 'Tis needless to enlarge upon these things, in regard the exor­bitancy of his last Actions hath evinced his former to be triviall and in a manner no­thing.

CHAP. LVI. That at length he undertook the raising a Perse­cution [against the Christians.]

IN fine, he proceeded to that height of mad­ness, that he armed himself against the Churches; and sets upon the Bishops, whom he accounted to be his chiefest Adversaries; and look't upon them as Enemies, who were friends to the Pious and Great Emperour. On which account he sharpned his fury most espe­cially against them, having forsaken [...]. After these words, an Asterisk is to be pla­ced. For there is an imper­fection; which ne­vertheless may be made up from book 10. chap. 8. in this manner; [...], de­clining from the way of sober reason. In the Fuk. Turneb. and Savil. Copies, the reading is [...]. Vales. the way of sober and right reason. Nor did he take into consideration the memory of them, who had Per­secuted the Christians before him, nor of those, whose Destroyer and Punisher he himself had been appointed, because of the height of those im­pieties at which they had arrived. Neither [did he reflect upon] what he had been an eye­witness of; then, when with his own eyes he beheld the He means Galerius Maximianus, who was the first Authour and Ringleader of the Christians Persecution, as Euscbius relates in book 8. of his Eccles. History. Cedrenus writes, that on the eighteenth year of Diocletian, Maximianus had raised a Persecution against the Christians, by the perswasion of one Theotecnus an Impostour. Who having forged Acts of Pilate stuft with impiety against Christ, Galerius made an establishment by an Edict, that Masters should give them to their Schollars to be learned by heart. But any one may perceive, that Ce­drenus is out here, who attributes that to Galerius Maximianus, which was performed long after by Maximinus. This is an usuall mistake a­mongst the Greeks, to confound Maximianus with Maximinus. Vales. chief Authour of [our] mischiefs, whosoever he was, smitten with a scourge sent from Heaven.

CHAP. LVII. That Maximianus having been afflicted with a Fistulous Ulcer that bred worms, wrote [a Law] in favour of the Christians.

FOr, whereas he had begun a Siege of the Churches, and was the first that had defiled his own soul with the bloud of just and religious persons; a punishment sent from God seized him: which, having made its beginning in his very flesh, proceeded even to his soul. For on a sudden an Impostume arose upon him about the midst of the privy parts of his Body; after that a Fistula in ano: and both these diseases spread incurably, and did eat into his inmost bowells. From them bred an unspeakable multitude of worms, and a most Or, Deadly. noysom stench proceeded therefrom. For, the whole mass of flesh upon his body, by reason of that abundance of food he devoured, was grown to an immense fatness: which being then putrified, became ('tis said) an intollerable and most horrid spectacle to those that approach't him. Whilst therefore he was strugling under these many and great afflictions, at length, though late, he began to be sensible of the Villanies he had audaciously committed against the Church. After which, having made his confession to God, he stops the Persecution against the Christians; and by Laws and Imperial Edicts orders that their Churches should with all expedition be built: and commanded that the Christians themselves should perform their usu­all Solemnities, and make Supplications [to God] for him.

CHAP. LVIII. That Maximinus being a Persecutor of the Chri­stians, fled away in a servile habit and hid himself.

SUch was the punishment, which the Beginner of the Persecution underwent. But this [Licinius,] concerning whom we now speak, who had been an eye-witness of these things, and by experience had had an accurate know­ledge thereof; nevertheless, on a sudden forgat all; neither did he call to mind the punishment inflicted on the Former, [...]. The Praeposition must be expunged. Further, this person termed the Latter is Maxi­minus Tyrant of the East. Vales. nor the revenging judgment [di­vine justice executed] on the Latter. Who, because he strove with the greatest earnestness imaginable, to out-do the Former in a Combat of mischiefs as 'twere, gloried in his invention of new punishments against us. For he was not satisfied with Fire, Sword, and the [...]. Fastnings with Nails; nor with the wild­beasts and depths of the Sea. But besides all these, he himself contrived a certain new sort of punishment, and by a Law gave order, that those members whereby we perceive the light, should be destroyed. Immediately therefore, vast numbers, not only of men, but of children and women also, having had the Sights of their right eyes, and the Junctures of their feet rendred useless, partly by Iron, and partly by Or, Sea­ring-Irons. Cauteries, were thrust into the Mines, there to be afflict'd with daily Labour. On which account, the just judg­ment [Page 550] of God not long after seized this person also; at such time as, putting his trust in Dae­mons, whom he thought to be Gods, and con­fiding in innumerable Myriads of Armed men, he began an Engagement. For, being at that time deprived of the divine Or, Hope. assistance, he devested himself of the Imperial Habit, which in no wise became him; and having in a cowardly and most unmanly manner shrowded himself in the com­mon crowd, Or, In­vented. purchased his own safety by flight: after this, he absconded in the Fields and Country Villages [clothed] in a servile habit, and supposed he might have kept him­self concealed. But he could not thus avoid the great Eye Or, Of universall providence. of Providence which inspects all things. For when he hoped his life was now in safety, being struck with God's fiery dart, he fell prostrate on the ground; and his whole body was in such a manner consumed by a blow given him from Heaven, that the entire Or, Figure. shew of its Pristine beauty vanished; and only his parch't bones, turned into a perfect Skele­ton, like some Ghost, were left remaining to him.

CHAP. LIX. That Maximine, blinded by [the acuteness of] his Disease, Or, Wrote. issued out a Law in favour of the Christians.

FUrther, when this Disease, wherewith God had afflicted him, was arrived at a greater degree of acuteness and vehemency, See Eu­seb. Eccles. Hist. book 9. chap 10, note (a.) his eyes leap't out; and falling from their proper place, left him blind: thus, by a most just sentence he underwent the same punishments, which he had been the first Inventer of against God's Martyrs. Breathing nevertheless still after these so calamitous miseries, at length, though late, he also made an open confession to the God of the Christians, and declared his own oppo­sitions of the Deity. He likewise composed a Re­tractation, in such manner as the former person had done, and by Laws and Edicts in writing con­fest his own errour in reference to those whom he thought to be Gods; attesting, that by experience it self he had found, the Christians God to be the only true God. Notwithstanding Licinius knew all this, not by the information he received from others, but from the very facts themselves; yet wrapping up his mind within some thick darkness as 'twere, he Or, Ad­hered to, or, closed with those very Actions, or, persons. resolved upon a performance of the very same things they had done.

THE SECOND BOOK OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS CONCERNING THE LIFE OF THE BLESSED EMPEROUR CONSTANTINE.

CHAP. I. Licinius's Clandestine Persecution, and his Mur­der of the Bishops at Amasia [a City] of Pontus.

IN this manner the forementioned [Li­cinius] plunged himself into the pit of the Or, Re­bells a­gainst God. impious. And, imitating their ex­ample to his own destruction, whose ruines by reason of their Impiety he had beheld with his own eyes, he re-kindled the Persecution a­gainst the Christians, like some raging fire long since extinguished; and blew up the flame of impiety to a greater fierceness than his prede­cessours had done. Moreover, (like some out­ragious wild-beast, or crooked Serpent rolled to­gether about himself,) breathing forth Rage and Hostile Menaces against God, he durst not as yet commencè an open War against the Chur­ches of God within his own Dominions, because of his fear of Constantine: but concealing the venome of his malice, he contrived secret Plots, and those in some particular places only, a­gainst the Bishops; and Or, By the trea­chery of his Governours in each Pro­vince. by calumnies framed by his Governours of Provinces, destroyed the eminentest and most approved amongst them. And the manner of murdering them was new, such as never was known before. [...]. It must be made [...], from book 10. chap. 8. of his Eccles. History; where these pas­sages occur almost word for word. Further, 'tis strange that Eusebius should have made no mention, either in his Ecclesiastick History, or in these books, of Basileus Bishop of the Amas [...]ni: which Prelate ne­vertheless, as all Greek Writers do agree, was slain by Licinius's or­der. But Philostorgius, in the first book of his Eccles. History, writes in express words, that Basileus Bishop of Amasca in Pontus was present at the Nicaene Councill. Further, the Nicaene Councill, as 'tis manifest amongst all men, was convened the year after Licinius's deposition. Besides, Athanasius in his first Oration against the Arians, (where he makes mention of the eminent Bishops who were either present with him at the Nicaene Councill, or had approved of his opinion;) to­gether with others, names Basileus Bishop of Pontus. Nor does he style him Martyr, although he there terms Hosius Confessour. The Acts also of Basileus, which are extant in Metaphrastes, seem to me foolish and fabulous. And most of the passages which occur at the beginning of them, are word for word taken out of Eusebius. But that little story concerning the Virgin Glaphyra was, in my judgment, framed by some idle people. Vales. Indeed, the Facts perpetrated at Amasia [a City] of Pon­tus, far exceeded the most superlative Cruelty.

CHAP. II. The demolishments of the Churches, and Butcheries of the Bishops.

WHere some of the Churches, after that former Or, Siege. demolishment of them, were thrown down to the ground from their vast height; others were shut up by the Gover­nours in their severall districts, least any one of those persons who usually frequented them, should meet there, or least they [...] In the Fuk Manuscript, and in Sr Henry Savils Copy, 'tis written [...]; in book 10. chap. 8. of his Eccles. History 'tis [...], Vales. might render [Page 552] a due worship to God. For that person who is­sued out these orders, was of opinion, that prayers were not made there for him, being induced to entertain such thoughts as these from a consciousness of his own impieties. But he had perswaded himself, that all we did was in behalf of Constantine, and to render God pro­pitious [to him.] Now, those [Presidents] who were his flatterers and soothed him up, being fully perswaded they should do what would be gratefull to the impious [Ty­rant;] subjected the eminentest Prelates of the Churches to capitall punishments. Therefore, harmless and innocent persons were haled a­way, and without any the least cause puni­shed as if they had been Murderers. But some of them underwent a new sort of death, ha­ving their bodies cut with a sword (as Butchers do meat) into a great many pieces: and after this barbarous spectacle far more horrid than any Tragicall representation, they were thrown into the depths of the Sea to be made food for Fishes. After this therefore, persons that were worshippers of God began to flye again, in such manner as they had done a little before. And the Fields and Solitudes were again be­come the Receptacles of Gods servants. When the Tyrant had succeeded thus prosperously in these his attempts, he afterwards entertai­ned thoughts of raising a generall Persecution against the Christians. And he had undoubted­ly been master of his desire, nor could there have been any obstacle which might in future have hindred him from effecting it, had not [God] the defender of his own [servants,] (that he might prevent what would have en­sued,) caused his servant Constantine to ap­pear like some great Light in darkness and in a most obscure night, and led him by the hand as 'twere into these parts.

CHAP. III. In what manner Constantine was moved in be­half of the Christians, when [Licinius] made preparations to Persecute them.

Constan­tine. WHo perceiving, that the Or, Account. complaint he had received of the foresaid pro­ceedings was not any longer to be endured, musters up a soberness and prudence of mind; and having mixt an austerity of disposition with his own innate clemency, hastned to the Or, De­fence. as­sistance of the oppressed; judging, that that ought to be accounted a pious and holy Action, when by the taking off of one person, the greatest part of mankind is preserved. For [thus he thought with himself,] if he should make use of [...]. In book 10. chap. 9. whence this passage is transcri­bed, instead of [...], the rea­ding is [...], clemency only; which seems truer. I had also rather write [...]; un­less the Dative case may be ta­ken for the Ablative put ab­solute. Vales. much clemen­cy, and should shew com­passion to him who deser­ved no pity, it would not advantage him in the least, for he would in no wise de­sist from his practise of mis­chiefs, but would rather in­crease his Rage and Fury against his Subjects: nor could there be any hopes of safety in future remaining to those per­sons who had been afflicted by him. The Em­perour having considered these things with him­self, without any dilatoriness resolved to stretch forth a salutary right hand to those who had faln into the bitterest of calamities. He made therefore a Or, usuall. vast provision of Military Forces; and his whole Army, as well Troops of Horse as Companies of [...]ot, were drawn together. But before them all were carried Or, The signs or Marks of his good hope in God by the &c. the Insignia of his confidence in God, to wit, the foremen­tioned Standard.

CHAP. IV. That Constantine made provision for the War with Prayers; but Licinius, with Divinations and Prophecics.

ANd well knowing, that, if ever before, he now stood in need of prayers, he carried God's Or, Priests. Prelates along with him: it being his Sentiment, that these persons [...]. He alludes to the word [...], Guards of his Body. As there­fore the Emperours had always some Soul­diers with them to guard their bodies; so Constantine would have some Bi­shops, who were the guards of his soul as 'twere, al­ways pre­sent with him. Further, after the Verb [...] must be placed a point, from the King's and Fuketian Manuscripts; which Chistophorson perceived not. But, in the Fuketian, Turneb and Savil. Copies, 'tis truer written [...], he carried along with him. A little after, in the Fuketian Manuscript the reading is, [...], was informed, that Constantine, &c. which is truer in my judgment, Vales. The reading in Robert Stephens is, [...], &c. like some good Guards of his Soul, ought to be always present and conversant with him. Whereupon, when he that Headed the Tyranny was informed, that Constantine obtained Victories over his Ene­mies by no other means than by God's as­sistance; and, that the foresaid persons were alwaies present and conversant with him; also, that the Symboll of the Salutary passion went be­fore himself and his whole Army: he judged these things to be deservedly ridiculous; and at the same time mock't Constantine, and reviled him with opprobrious expressions. [...]. It must be [...], But he himself. Although our Manuscript Copies have no alteration here; save that instead of [...], in the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis [...]; but in the old sheets, [...]. Vales. But he himself got the Diviners and Soothsayers of the Egyptians about him, the Sorcerers and Im­postours, the Sacrificers and Prophets of such as he look't upon as Gods. And when he had with sacrifices appeased those [...]. It must, I think, be, [...], or rather in one word, [...], whom he thought, &c. Vales. whom he thought to be Gods, he enquired of them, what manner of end he was like to have of the War. They made answer with one consent, that [...]. In the Kings Manuscript 'tis [...]. I write [...], that is, without controversie. In the Fuketian, Savil. and Turneb. Copies 'tis [...], without contradiction. Vales. without contro­versie he would be the Conquerour of his Enemies, It must, as it seems, be written, [...]. So this whole place is to be restored. In the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis thus written, [...]: which is the best reading, and we have therefore followed it in our Version. Vales. and should get the better in the War; the Oracles every where promising him this in long [Page 553] and elegant Verses. Moreover, [...]. After these words, these fol­lowing, [...], are wanting in the Kings Manuscript, and are added in the margin in a very modern hand. If I may have leave to con­jecture, I think it should be written thus, [...], &c. The Interpreters of Dreams and Aruspices [or, Sacri­ficers] affirmed the like was, &c. Turnebus in his Copy had mended it [...] the Augures. In the Fuketian and Savil. Copies 'tis writ­ten [...], &c. Moreover, the Interpreters of Dreams predicted, &c. Vales. the Interpre­ters of Dreams predicted, that success was por­tended to him by the flying of Birds; and the Or, Sa­crifices. Aruspices affirmed the like was sig­nified by the motion of Entrails. Ele­vated therefore by the fallacious pro­mises of these persons, with great confidence he proceeded forth [...]. In the Fuketian Manuscript this place is written thus; [...]. He proceeded forth with great confidence; pitching his Camp as well as 'twas possible. Which reading and punctation displeases not; [...] signifies castrametari, to pitch a Camp, or lodge an Army. Vales. to the Camp, and made preparations for an Engagement.

CHAP. V. What Licinius spaek concerning Idolls and concer­ning Christ, whilst he was sacrificing in a Grove.

BUt when he was just about beginning Or, The War. a fight, he called together the choicest of his Protectors that were about Him, and those of his Friends for whom he had an higher value, into a certain place which by them was accounted sacred. It was a well-watered and shady Grove; but in it were erected various Statues, carv'd out of Stone, of those whom he thought to be Gods. To whom after he had It was the usage of the Hea­thens to light Ta­pers before the Statues of their Gods, as may be observed from the 22 book of Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 226, of Valesius's Edition. lighted Tapers, and offered the usuall sacrifices; 'Tis reported, that he made this speech [to those that stood by him.]

Friends and [...]. A term im­properly used by Eusebius, instead of [...] ▪ Vales. Fellow Souldiers! These, whom we Honour, whose Adoration hath been handed down to us from our Remotest Ancestours, are our Country Gods. But he who Leads the Army opposed against us, having violated the Usages and Institutions of his Fore-fathers, has made choice of their impious opinion who believe no God; and hath erroneously embraced a certain strange God [procured] from I know not whence: And with his most filthy sign [...]. In the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis [...]; and a little af­ter, the reading there is, [...], &c. He comes forth now against us; but much rather takes up Arms against those very Gods, &c. Which reading is truer, if I mistake not. Vales. disgraces his own Army. In whom having put his confidence, He comes forth and takes up Arms, not so much a­gainst us, as against those very Gods whom he hath abused. This present Or, Time. day therefore will evidently shew, which of Us two have erred in Opinion: and will give a judgment concerning those Gods who are worshipped by us, and of them [honoured] by the other side. For, either it will declare us Conquerours, and so most just­ly demonstrate our Gods to be the Saviours and true Assistants. Or else, if this one God of Constan­tine's who comes from I know not whence, shall get the better of our Gods, which are many, and at [...]. Christophorson omitted the word [...] at present; in which term lies the whole force of the Sentence. For Licinius shews, that his Gods exceed in number at present; but in a short time will be superiour in force and power. Johannes Portesius, otherwise a silly Translatour, has not omitted the rendition of this word. For he translates it thus, Numero quidem ad­huc potiores, as yet do exceed in number. A little before, I reade [...], this one God; as Turnebus has mended it at the margin of his Copy. Vales. present do exeeed in number; no body in future will be in doubt, which God he ought to wor­ship; but will betake himself to the more powerfull God, and attribute to him the Rewards of Vi­ctory. And, if this strange God, who is [...]. 'Tis the same as if he should have said. [...], who is of yesterday or the day be­fore. The impious Licinius derides Constan­tine's God, because he was a strange and new God. For amongst the Gods, some were accounted patrii, Gods of the Country, others peregrini, strange Gods. The dii patrii were com­mended for the ancientness of their worship. But the perigrini were new Gods, in regard they were lately procured or chosen. Cicero's words in his 2d book De Legibus, are these: Novos verò deos, & in his colendis nocturnas pervigilationes fic Aristophanes facetissimus poeta veteris comoediae vexat, ut apud eum Sabazius & alii quidam dii pere­grini judicati è civitate ejiciantur; But the new Gods, and the watchings all night long in the worship of them, have in such a manner been disquieted by Aristophanes the pleasantest Poet of Old Comedie, that Sabazius and some other Gods having by him been judged strange, are ejected out of the City. The passage of Aristophanes, which Cicero means, was extant in his Comedie Lemniis, as Suidas informs us in [...]. There was indeed at Athens a vast multitude of new and strange Gods, whom they termed [...] or [...]. Apollo­phanes the Poet had put together their names and Series in his Cretensi­bus, as Hesychius attests in [...]. Menander Rhetor or rather Alexander in methodo generis demonstrativi pag. 1612, observes; that some Gods were termed ancienter, others more modern, [...]. But Portesius and Christopherson who has followed him, have rendred this place ill; their mistake arose from hence, because they perceived not, that the Adverb [...] does sometimes signifie the same with nuper, lately, as I have noted at book 4. of the Ecclesiastical History chap. 8. note (d.) These remarks I had made here formerly, having followed the Geneva Edition▪ but afterwards I understood, that in Robert Stephens's Edition and in the Manuscript Copies the reading was, [...], who is now a Ridicule to us. Which reading the Translatours have followed, and therefore are in no wise to be blamed. Vales. now a Ridicule to us, shall appear to be the Victor, it will behoove us also to acknowledge and adore him, and to bid a long farewell to those, to whom we light Tapers in vain. But, if our Gods shall get the better, which no person can entertain a doubt of; after the Victory obtained in this place, we will proceed to bring a War upon those im­pious contemners of the Gods.

These are the words Licinius spake a little before the Engagement, to those persons who stood round him. Which very Speech of his was not long after imparted to [...], to us who have been called to this History. In Moraeus's Copy at the margin 'tis mended [...] who compose; in which manner Eusebius expresses himself at chap. 8. A little before, in the same Copy of Moraeus 'tis well mended [...], and to bid a long farwell to those: [In Ro­bert Stephens 'tis [...], &c.] In the Fuketian Manu­script I found it written, [...], to us who have been called to this History; which reading is right. Vales. us who have been called to this History, by those who had been ear-witnesses of his very expressions. Af­ter therefore he had made this Speech, he com­manded his Forces to begin the Fight.

CHAP. VI. The Apparition seen in the Cities under Licinius's Government, of Constantine's Souldiers pur­suing the Forces of Licinius.

WHilst these things were doing, a most wonderfull Apparition ('tis said) was seen in the Cities subject to the Tyrant. For, they thought they saw various Companies of Constantine's Souldiers, passing at noon day thorow the Cities, as if they had obtained the Victory. And these things were seen, when in reality no Body appeared; but the Divine and Superiour power, by that Vision shown to the eyes of men; foreshewed that which was ready to happen. Further, after the Armies had made ready to engage, he that had broken the League of Friendship, began the Fight first. Then Con­stantine, having called upon God the supream [Page 554] Saviour, and given this Signall to the Army about him; got the better in the The first Battel be­tween Con­stantine and Lici­nius was in Pannonia, at Cibalae; which Zosimus describes excellently well in his Second Book, as also The Authour of the Excerpta de Gestis Constantini, pag. 473. This Fight hapned when Volusianus the second time and Annianus were Consuls; on the eight of the Ides of October, as 'tis recorded in Idatius's Fasti. To whom agrees Sigonius in his third Book de Occiden­tali Imperio. In Eusebius's Chronicon the Cibalensian Battel is ill placed on the seventh year of Constantine, in regard that Action hapned on the eighth year of his Empire. Yea, if you compute the matter exactly, it was now the ninth year of Constantine's Empire. For, his ninth year began on the eighth of the Calend [...] of August, Volusianus the second time and Annianus being Consuls. Aurelius Victor writes thus concerning the Wars between Licinius and Constan­tine. Ita potestas orbis Romani duobus quaesita. Qui quamvis per Flavii Sororem nuptam Licinio connexi inter se erant, ob diversos mores tamen anxie triennium congruere quiv [...]re, &c. Thus the power of the Roman world was gotten by two. Who though by Flavius's Sister married to Licinius they had been joyned together, yet because of their different dispositions, for three years space they could ill agree, &c Which passage does manifestly confirm Idatius's Fasti: Otherwise, from the opinion of the Eusebian Chronicon it ought to be said, Bien­nium, for two years space. A passage in Eutropius's Tenth Book must also be corrected, which is commonly Printed thus. As primo eum in Pannonia, Secundò ingenti apparatu bellum apud Cibalas instruentem, repentinus oppressit, &c. Doubtless, the word Secundò must be ex­punged, which was added by some unskilfull Transcriber. For first, Constantine's first Battel against Licinius was at Cibalae, as we have shown above. Then, it would be ridiculous to say, that the first Battel was in Pannonia, the second at Cibalae; in regard Cibalae is a City of Pannonia. Moreover, Peanius who rendred Eutropius into Greek, acknowledges not that word Secundò, as appears from his Rendition. Yet Orosius (as also the Authour of the Historia Mis­cella,) hath followed the vulgar reading in Eutropius. For his words are these; Constantinus Licinium Sororis suae virum in Pannoniâ pri­mùm vicit, deinde apud Cibalas oppressit. Vales. first En­gagement. Not long after, he was superiour in a This second Fight of Constantine against Licinius, hapned in Thracia, as Zosimus informs us. But Zosimus mentions not the very place: but the Authour of the Excerpta de Gestis Constantini pag. 474. says 'twas fought in the Campus Mardiensis: which place is equally unknown to us. Further, this Battel hapned on the same year with that at Cibalae, as 'tis concluded from the Relation of Zosimus, and of that unknown Authour. Which may also be demonstrated by this argu­ment. After this Battel a Peace being made up between Constantine and Licinius, on the year following Constantine and Licinius were made Consuls; and In the West that year is inscribed, Constantine the Fourth and Licinius the fourth time Consuls; but in the Eastern parts Licinius's name is set first, in this manner, Licinius Augustus the Fourth and Constantine the fourth time being Coss; as it occurs in the Excerpta de Gestis Constantini. Vales. second Fight, and obtained a far greater Victory; in regard the Salutary Trophy was carried before his Army.

CHAP. VII. That in the Battels, where-ever the Standard, made in the form of a Cross, was, there a Victory was obtained.

INdeed, where-ever that [Standard] ap­peared, hapned a Rout of the Enemies, and a pursuit [was made] by those who had gotten the better. Which when the Empe­rour perceived, in what ever place he saw any party of his Army prest hard upon, thither he ordered the Salutary Trophy to be carried, as some most efficacious Or, Re­medy, or, help. Amulet to procure a Victory. After the doing whereof, a Victory followed immediately; in regard Strength and Courage was by a divine act of providence infused into those who fought.

CHAP. VIII. That fifty persons were made choice of, to carry the Cross.

WHerefore, out of the Protectours that were about him, he made choice of such persons as excelled for strength of body, courage of mind, and exemplariness of piety; on whom he imposed only this of duty, that they should take an assiduous care of this Stan­dard. These Guards to whose care Constan­tine com­mitted the Labarum in Battels, Grethserus (book 2. de Cruce, chap. 40.) says are the same with those who in the Theodosian Code are termed the Praepositi Laborum, that is, [...]. For the Greeks termed it [...], because it was an assistance to the Labouring Companies, as Sozomen at­tests. Vales. These persons were in number no less then fifty: on whom nothing else was incum­bent, but to surround, defend, and guard the Standard; which each of them by turns carried on his shoulders. These things the Emperour himself related to us who compose this Hi­story, whilst he was in Peace and Repose, a long time after [the Transaction] of these affairs; and to his Relation he added a matter highly worthy to be recorded.

CHAP. IX. That one of the Cross-bearers who sled, was killed; but he that by Faith stood his ground, was preserved.

FOr he said, that a dismal noise and sudden disturbance having one time put the Ar­my into a consternation during the very heat of an Engagement, he who bore the Stan­dard on his shoulders, was in an agony by reason of his fear; whereupon he delivered the Stan­dard to another, to the end he might make his escape out of the fight. That other person had no sooner taken it, [...]. The Fuk. Manuscript has opened to us the true wri­ting of this place; wherein the reading is [...]. For I doubt not but Eusebius wrote, [...], he who slipt away. Vales. but he who slipt away, being got without the protection of the Stan­dard, was stuck into the belly by a Dart cast at him, and was deprived of his life. Thus this man underwent the punishment of his co­wardise and infidelity, and lay dead upon the Spot. But the Salutary Trophy became the pre­servative of his Life who bore it. In so much that, though Darts were frequently cast at him who bore the Standard, yet he was preserved unhurt: but the Spear of the [Salutary] Trophy received the Darts. And this was a thing which far surpassed every miracle, [to see] in what manner the Enemies Darts fell upon the smallest circumference of the Spear, whereon they were fixt and stuck fast; but the Standard-Bearer was preserved from death: yea, none of those employed in this Office did ever receive a wound. This is not our rela­tion, but the Emperour's own, who amongst other matters declared this also to us. Who, when by the power of God he had obtained the former Victories, afterwards marched for­ward, and moved his Army in a Military order.

CHAP. X. Various Fights, and the Victories of Constan­tine.

But the Van [...]. The words are transpo­sed, and are thus to be re­stored, [...], &c. as 'tis in the Fu­ketian Ma­nuscript; and so we have ren­dred it. Vales. of the adverse party, not able to Or, Endure. stand his first Attack, cast away their Arms with both their hands, and fell prostrate at the Emperour's feet. He Or, Re­ceived them all safe. saved them all, being one that was highly pleased with the preservation of men. But others of them, who continued in Arms, prepared themselves for an Engagement. To whom when the Emperour had proposed overtures, and had [...]. I think it must be written, [...], that is, blandis & amicis verbis eos compellans, treating them with kind and friendly words. Further, what Eusebius relates in this chapter, seems to belong to the first Battel in the field of Cybalae, whereof I have spoken before. And this is confirmed by what follows. Vales treated them with expressions of kindness and friendship; perceiving they were not to be perswaded, he sent his Army against them. They turned their backs immediately, and betook themselves to flight. And some of them, taken in the pursuit, were slain by the Law of Or, War. Arms: but others ran one against ano­ther, and so were cut off by their own swords.

CHAP. XI. Licinius's Flight, and Inchantments.

AFter this, when their Prince saw himself deprived of an assistance [...]. Eusebius uses the term [...] in a new sense, to signifie Souldiers. In­deed, the Militia was a kind of Temporary servitude. Which Suidas tells us also, in the word [...]. Hence 'tis, that the Tyrones were marked, like Ser­vants, with certain marks in their skin. The Missio likewise, or Military-discharge answers the Manumission or making free of Servants. With good reason there­fore Eusebius terms the Roman Souldiers [...]. But if any one be displeased herewith he may easily make it [...] his own men. Vales. from his ser­vants, and that the vast numbers as well of Soul­diers as Auxiliaries which he had gotten together, were vanished; and was experi­mentally covinced that the hope he had placed in those whom he thought to be Gods, was vain; he forth­with betook himself to a most inglorious flight. And in this manner he made his escape, and Or, Was in safety. secured him­self from danger; because the most pious Emperour ordered his own men not to make a close pursuit af­ter him, to the end by flying he might obtain safety. For 'twas his hope, that Licinius, made sensible of the unhappy posture of his own affairs, might at length de­sist from his mad boldness, and would change his opinion for thoughts that were sound and better. These were Constantine's thoughts, sug­gested to him from that transcendency of Hu­manity wherewith he was endowed; and he took a resolution patiently to bear injuries, and to give Him pardon who deserved it not. But so far was Licinius from abstaining from his pristine improbity; that he heap't mischiefs upon mischiefs, and attempted more nefarious and audacious Facts. Moreover, he betook him­self again to the evill Arts and practises of Conjurers, and was more insolently embol­dened. But, that saying might have Or, In like man­ner. fitly been applied to him, which was spoken of that old Tyrant, to wit, God had hardned his heart.

CHAP. XII. In what manner Constantine, praying in a Ta­bernacle, obtained the Victory.

LIcinius having therefore involved himself in such [impieties] as these, was thrust headlong into the pit of destruction. But the Emperour, when he saw there was a necessity of a Hence it appears, that what I have noted at the tenth chapter is true; viz. that Eusebius speaks there concerning the former Bat­tel, which was fought at Cybalae. Vales. second Battel, diligent­ly Or, Dedicated his leasure to his Saviour. applyed himself to [the worship of] his Saviour. And pitch't a Concerning this Tabernacle which▪ Constantine carried about with him in his expeditions, So­zomen writes in book 1. chap. 8. Vales. Tabernacle of the Cross without [his Camp,] and at a good di­stance from it: where he Or, Made use of a chast and pure diet. lived chastly and purely, and poured forth his prayers to God; agreeable to the practise of that old Pro­phet of God; concerning whom the divine Oracles give this attestation, that Exod. 33. 7. He pitch't the Tabernacle without the Camp. Some few persons, of whose Faith piety and [...] perhaps it should be [...], sincerity. Vales. benevolence he had the most assured proofs, were continually present with him. And this he was always wont to do, as often as he was about to begin a flight. For he was slow, be­cause he would be secure: and 'twas his con­stant usage to act all things by the advice of God. Further, when with great earnestness he made Supplications to his God, he was always vouchsafed the Divine presence. After which, moved as 'twere by a more Divine inspiration, he was wont to leap out of the Tabernacle, and would forthwith give order for the immediate march of his Army▪ and that without delay, yea even in that very hour, they should draw their Swords. His men would fall on pell-mell, and cut down all before them without any di­stinction of age; till such time as (having got­ten a Victory [...]. In the Kings Copy 'tis [...]. I write [...], within a very short moment of an hour; so I found it mended in Moraus's Copy, and in the Fuketian Manuscript. A little before, instead of [...], I read [...], till such time as; in which manner Eusebius does usually express himself. Vales. within a very short space,) they had erected Victorious Trophies against their Enemies.

CHAP. XIII. His Humanity towards the Souldiers that were taken Prisoners.

IN this manner was the Emperour long be­fore wont, both to behave himself, and to order his Army, before they engaged in a Battel: for he always preferred God before his own Life; and studied to perform all things by his advices; and used all imaginable caution to prevent the slaughter of many men. On which account, he consulted the safety of the Enemies no less, than [Page 556] that of his own Souldiers. Wherefore, he ad­monished his own men, when they had been Victors in a Battel, to shew compassion to the vanquished: and, that being men themselves, they ought not to forget the same Nature which they were of. But if at any time he per­ceived, that the mindes of his Souldiers were greedy of slaughter, he repressed them by a Largess of Gold; giving order, that whoever took one of the Enemy alive, * should have a‖ Or, Should be honoured with, &c. certain weight of Gold bestowed on him. And this inticement for the preservation of mens lives, was found out by the Emperours prudence. In­somuch that, very many even of the Barbarians themselves were saved, the Emperour's Gold be­ing the Ransome of their Lives.

CHAP. XIV. Again concerning his Prayers in the Tabernacle.

THese, and infinite other such like actions as these, the Emperour was wont at other times frequently to perform. But at that pre­sent, before he joyned Battel, he retired alone into the Tabernacle, where, as his usage was, he was earnest in prayers to God; abstaining from all manner of divertisement, and delicious food; and Or, Af­flicting. macerating himself with fastings, and Or, Vex­ation of body. bodily austerities. And in this man­ner he appeased God with Supplications and Prayers, that he might have him for his be­nign and propitious Assistant, and might per­form those things which God had suggested to his mind. Moreover, Constan­tine's. his care in behalf of the Republick was watchfull and diligent; and he poured forth prayers, not more for the safe­ty of his own Forces, than for that of his Enemies.

CHAP. XV. Licinius's Or, De­ceit in re­lation to friendships. dissembled Friendship, and his Wor­ship of Idolls.

BUt because Licinius (who had fled a little before,) practised dissimulation, and en­treated, that an amicable League might be again renewed; [the Emperour] supposing a Peace would be of use [to the Government,] and advantagious to mankind in general, vouchsafed to grant him even this, upon certain The con­ditions of Peace were these, that Licinius should con­tinue pos­sest of the East, Asia, Thracia, Moesia, and Seythia Mi­nor; but that Dar­dania, Ma­cedonia, A­chaia, Pan­nonia, Moe­tia, and Dacia should be added to the Dominions of Constantine: this Information we have from Zosimus, Sozomen, and the Authour of the Excerpta de Gestis Constantini. Vales. Terms and Conditions. Licinius speciously pretended a ready compliance with the Terms offered him, and with oaths confirmed his Or, Faith. adherence thereto. But he secretly got together another Or, Pro­vision of Forces. Army of men, and resolved to renew the War, and begin a Fight. He also called in the Barbarians to be his Auxiliaries; and went up and down in quest of other Gods, because he had been deceived by the former. He did not in the least remember, what he himself had said a little before, in his Speech concerning the Gods. Nor would he acknowledge that God who had been Constantine's Defender: but in a most Ridiculous manner began to enquire out for himself, more and those newer Gods.

CHAP. XVI. In what manner▪ Licinius Commanded his Soul­diers, not to make an Attack against the [Standard of the] Cross.

AFter this, knowing for certain, that there was a certain divine and secret power in the Salutary Trophy, by which power (he un­derstood) Constantine's Army obtained Victo­ry; he warned his Souldiers, that they should by no means engage against it, nor by chance or [...]. In the Kings Sheets the reading is [...], incircumspectly, or in­considerately; in which manner 'tis mended in Turnebus's Copy at the margin. And so the Rea­ding is in the Fuketian Manu­script. Vales. rashly cast their eyes upon it. For, that Standard (he said,) was of a force incre­dible, and an Enemy and Adversary to him in particu­lar: wherefore they were to use great Caution, not to begin a Fight against it. Having given out these Orders, he prepared for an Engagement with Canstan­tine. Him, who by reason of his Or, Hu­manity. innate Clemency made delays, and de­ferred that Ruine which hung over him. The Or, Li­cinius's Army. Licinians, placing their confidence in a Mul­titude of Gods, marched forth with vast num­bers of Forces, carrying before them, as their defence, Images of dead persons, and inanimate Statues. But Constantine, surrounded with the Or, Coat of Mail. Armour of piety, against the multitude of his Enemies opposed the Salutary and Vivifick Standard of the Cross, as some affrightning spectacle and potent preservative against mis­chief. And at first he Or, Stop't. made an Alt; in which interim he forbore the use of his Arms, that he might not begin the fight first; which thing he did, on account of the League he had made.

CHAP. XVII. Constantine's Victory.

BUt when he saw the Enemy persisting in an obstinacy of mind, and perceived that they drew their Swords; moved with indigna­tion, [...]. I think it should be, [...], with one Shout and in a moment. And so 'tis in the Fuketian and Savil. Copies. Further, this signal Victory of Con­stantine's hapned in Crispus's and Constantine's third Consulate, on the fifth of the Nones of July, near Hadrianople, as 'tis recorded in Idatius's Fasti. But Baronius places this Hadrianopolitane Battel on the year of Christ 318, whereon Licinius the fifth time, and Crispus were Consuls. Whose opinion we overthrow by these arguments and Testi­monies of the best Writers. The first is Idatius, who in his Fasti writes thus; Crispo III. & Constantino III. Coss. &c. Crispus and Constantine being Consult the third time, the Hadrianopolitane Battel [hapned] on the fifth of the Nones of July, and the Chalcedonensian Battel on the four­teenth of the Calends of October. The same words occur in the Alex­andrian Chronicle; but they are erroneously ascribed to the year fol­lowing, when Paulinus and Julianus were Consuls. With Idatius agrees Aurelius Victor, who writes thus concerning the Fights between Constantine and Licinius: Quo sanè variis proeliis pulso, &c. Who having indeed been beaten in many Battels; in regard it would have seemed dangerous wholly to crush him; on account of Affinity; the chil­dren of them both being received into a Colleague-ship, and elected to the Empire of Caesars; Crispus and Constantinus begotten by Flavius: Licinianus by Licinius. Which [Colleague-ship] was scarce lasting, nor proved it happy to those who were assumed into it, being published in that same month on a day defiled with an Eclipse of the Sun. There­fore six years after, the Peace being broke, Licinius, Routed amongst the Thracians, went to Chalcedon. Crispus, Licinianus, and Con­stantinus had been created Casars in the Consulate of Gallicanus and Bassus, on the Calends of March, (as Idatius relates in his Fasti, and the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle,) that is, on the year of Christ 317. On the year following there hapned a darkness in the day time, at the ninth hour, as 'tis recorded in Idatius's Fasti. Wherefore Aurelius Victor is mistaken, who places the promotion of the Caesars on the same year whereon the Eclipse of the Sun hapned. For, there hapned indeed an Eclipse of the Sun on the year of Christ 318. But Crispus (together with Licinianus and Constan­tinus,) had been made Caesar on the year of our Lords Nativity 317. Yet, Aurelius Victor does rightly compute the intervalls of the times. For, from the Eclipse of the Sun, which hapned on the year of Christ 318, to the Hadrianopolitane Battel there are full Six years. Hereto agrees Cedrenus, who on the nineteenth year of Constantine's Empire, says, that Constantine undertook an Expedition against Licinius. For Constantine's nineteenth year falls on Crispus's and Constantine's third Consulate, which was the year of Christ 324. Sigonius differs not much from this account, who assigns the Hadrianopolitane Fight to the year of Christ 323, when Severus and Rufinus were Consuls. There is men­tion of the same Hadrianopolitane Fight in Lege 1. Cod. Theod. de Ve­teranis, where Constantine says thus. Veteranis qui ex die quintâ no­narum Juliarum, &c. To the Veteranes, who from the fifth day of the Nones of July, when the first Victory in Thracia shined upon the whole world, and who afterwards deserved a Mission [or, Discharge] at our Nicomedia, we have indulged certain priviledges by an Edict, &c. For the Hadrianopolitane Battel was sought on the fifth day of the Nones of July, as Idatius has recorded in his Fasti, and the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle. But the subscription of this Law is faulty. For, 'tis said to be published, Licinius the fifth time and Crispus being Consuls that is, on the year of Christ 318. Which gave occasion of mistake to Baronius. But, who sees not that it should be written, Paulinus and Julianus being Coss? For when they were Consuls, Constantine came to Nicomedia, after Licinius was Routed and to­tally vanquished. But, when Licinius the fifth time, and Crispus were Consuls, Nicomedia obeyed Licinius, and was the seat of his Empire. When they were Consuls therefore Constantine could not in­dulge a Mission and Priviledges to his own Veteranes, in the City Ni­comedia, in regard that City was in no wise subject to his Government. Whereas therefore in that Law Constantine does term it Our Nicome­dia, we must of necessity say, that that Law was dated in the Con­sulate of Paulinus and Julianus. Vales. with one Shout and in a moment he Routed all the Forces of the Enemy, and ob­tained a Victory at the same time, both over his Eenemies, and over the Daemons.

CHAP. XVIII. Licinius's Death, and the Triumphs celebrated over him.

THen he inflicted on that Licinius. Enemy of God, and on those about him, a condign punish­ment; to which he adjudged them by the Law of War. What persons soever therefore had been his Advisers to a War against God, were lead away, together with the Tyrant himself, and underwent a deserved punishment. And they, who [...]. I write, [...], a lit­tle before. Unless we should say, that the words are transposed, which frequently occurs in these Books. And so Christophorson seems to have mended this place; [...], a little after, did in reality discern the God of Constantine, what a God he was; which reading is very good. Further, in the Fuketian Manuscript and in the old Sheets, from those words, But when he saw, to these, only God; 'tis but one chapter, not two, as 'tis in the Geneva Edition. Vales. a little before had been puft up with a vain hope, did in reality embrace the God of Constantine, and profest that at length they acknowledged him to be the true and only God.

CHAP. XIX. The publick Rejoycings and Festivities.

MOreover, when the Impious were quite Or, Taken away. destroyed, the Rays of the Sun in future appeared bright and pure, [the cloud as 'twere] of Tyrannick power [being disper­sed.] And all parts of the world which paid obedience to the Roman Empire became con­joyned; those Provinces in the East were united to them in the West; and the whole Body of the Empire was adorned with Or, One Govern­ment of the whole. one univer­sall Monarch, as with one Head; the Dominion and Authority of one person Or, Ar­riving at. comprehending all men whatever. And the bright Rays of the Light of Piety bestowed joyfull days on them, who before sate in darkness and the shadow of death. Nor did there remain any remembrance of the past Evills; in regard all persons every where adorned the Conquerour with praises, and profest they acknowledged the only God his preserver. Thus, Our Em­perour, embellisht with all the virtues of Re­ligion, Constantinus Victor (for he procured himself this [...]. In Moraeus's Copy and the King's Sheets 'tis mended [...]. But I had rather write [...], this most agreeable and proper Surname. Constantine used the Praenomen of Victor, as 'tis apparent from his Constitutions and Letters. In the Gesta pur­gationis Caeciliani, some of his Letters have this Inscription, Victor Constantinus Maximus Au­gustus. Eusebius says therefore, that this was his proper name as 'twere. For the Greeks term a proper name [...]. In the Fuketian Manuscript the rea­ding is, [...]. Vales. most agree­able and proper Surname and Title, on account of those Victories granted him by God over all his Ene­mies and Opposers:) re­ceived the East; and redu­ced under a Subjection to himself the entire Roman Empire, conjoyned as here­tofore it had been. He was the first [Emperour] who publisht to all men the Do­minion of one God: and he himself, possest of the sole Dominion over the Roman world, governed the whole Body of Mankind. All fear of those mischiefs wherewith all men had been heretofore opprest, was now taken away. And they who in times past had been dejected and sorrowfull, then lookt one upon another with smiling countenances and chearfull eyes. In Dances also and Songs they first of all glorified God the King of Kings, ( [...]. Make it [...], for thus they were instructed, from the close of the Tenth Book of his Ecclesiastical History, where all these passages occur almost in the same words. A little after, write [...], and his most modest Sons as 'tis in the Fuketian and Savil. Manuscripts, and in the Kings Sheets. Vales. In Robert Stephens the reading is [...], Son. for thus they were instructed to do;) and in the next place The Victor Augustus, and his most Modest and Pious Sons The Caesars, with Or, Voices not to be stopt. uninterrupted Acclamations. There was an ob­livion of past Afflictions, no remem­brance of impiety; but an enjoyment of the present Or, Goods. Blessings, and an ex­pectation of more in future.

CHAP. XX. How Constantine made Laws in favour of the Confessours.

MOreover, the Emperour's Constitutions full of Clemency, were then Or, Opened. published amongst us also, as they had been before amongst those who inhabited the other part of the world: and Laws, breathing forth Piety towards God, gave various promises of all manner of Goods; in regard they bestowed In the Alexandri­an Chronicle these words occur concerning Constantine's Liberality and Indulgence towards the Provincials; on the twentieth year of his Empire, [...], he took off the Burthens of Artificers and Collators (that is, those of the Provincials who paid Tribute.) Vales. on the Provincials [Page 558] throughout each Province, what was usefull and of advantage to them; and assigned to the Churches of God those things that were con­gruous and convenient. And first of all, The Laws. they recalled home those persons, who, because they would not sacrifice to Idolls, had been banished by the Governours of Provinces, and compelled to remove out of their own Country. Then, they freed from publick Functions, those who for the same reason had been [...]. Chri­stophorson understood not this place; but Portesius has ren­dred it, not unhappily, in this manner; Qui eâdem de causâ translati erant ad Curias, who for the same reason had been removed to the Curiae. Vales. The Curia were the Offices of Corpora­tions, the bearing whereof was gene­rally very chargable and burthensome; the persons who bore these Offices were termed Curiales. adjudged to the Curiae: and ordered, that such as had been de­prived of their Goods, should have them re­stored to them again. Besides, they who du­ring the time of Persecution, [having been strengthened] by God, had given a signall proof of their fortitude and constancy of mind; and were either condemned to the Mines, there to be tor­tured with daily Labour; or adjudged to a De­portation into the Islands; or had been forced [...]. Christophorson renders this place ill, thus, ad publica imperii opera obeunda vi compulsi, by force compelled to undergo the publick Works of the Empire. Eusebius terms the Mines, publick Bake-houses, Work-houses wherein they Wove, and Gynaecia; [...]: to which works who ever had been condemned by a sentence of the Judge, lost their Liberty. For this was termed a ser­vitude of punishment. Now, 'twas usuall to condemn the Chri­stians to such works as these, because of their confession of Christ's name. And, as to the Mines, the matter is notorious. But, of a condemnation to the publick Bake-house, we have an instance in the Acts of the Passion of Pope Marcellus. Vales. to a slavery in the Publick Works; these per­sons, freed on a sudden from all these disquie­tudes and troubles, enjoyed their Liberty. Fur­ther, such as, by reason of their egregious re­soluteness in retaining their Religion, had been despoyled of the honour of the Militia, were recalled from this ignominy by the Emperour's Munificence: who gave them [...]. Two words seem to have grown into one, which are, thus to be disjoyned, [...]. A little after, where the rea­ding is, [...], of recovering their Houses; I think it must be, [...], of recovering their proper Offices. For they had not been despoyled of their Houses, but of their Employments in the Militia. Vales. a free Liberty of choice, either of recovering their proper Of­fices, and of flourishing in their Pristine digni­ties; or, if they were in love with a quiet and retired Life, of continuing in future exempt from the troubles of all publick Functions. Lastly, whatever persons in order to their being re­proacht and disgrac't, had been condemned to a slavery in the [...]. Concerning the Gynaecia there is fre­quent mention, as well in both the Codes, as in the Notitia of the Ro­man Empire. See Brissonius's Lexicon. Further, persons condem­ned to the Gynaecia, were clothed in a short coat made of Linnen, which was a servile habit. We learn this from the Passion of Ro­manus the Martyr, which is published by Mombritius, and occurs in the Musciacensian Copy. Eadem vero die Maximianus jussit, &c. But on the same day Maximianus commanded, that the Christians who were in the Pallace should be ungirt. Maximianus therefore took notice to himself of many passing by, whilst they were loosing their Girdles: and he saw Isitius of Blessed Memory; and being in a rage, called him to him, and stript him of the garments wherewith he was clothed, and clothed him in a Linnen-short-coat, and put him into the Gynaeceum to the Wool-Workers, in order to his reproach. Further, the Fuketian Manuscript has this place written thus, [...], which is the truer rea­ding no doubt, and we have followed it in our Version. Vales. The Gynaecium or Gynaiceium (says Brissonius in his Work de Verbo. Significat. book 7. fol. 254, Edit. Paris. 1596,) signifies the Weaving-House appointed for making the Garments of the Emperour. The Em­perours had Slaves of both Sexes employed in their Gynaecia. They had likewise Weaving-Houses for Linnen Garments, termed [...] Linyphia, which we find mentioned in Chap. 34 of this Second Book. Gynaecia, them [the Emperour] set at Liberty as well as the rest.

CHAP. XXI. How [he made Laws] concerning the Mar­tyrs, and concerning the Estates of the Chur­ches

ANd these were the Establishments which the Emperour made in written Laws, con­cerning such persons as had undergone those sufferings. But in relation to their goods, a most full and ample provision was made by a Law of the Emperour's. For he commanded, that the Goods and Estates of God's holy Mar­tyrs, who had ended their lives in their Con­fession, should be enjoyed by their nearest Re­latives. But, if no Relation of their's could be found, then the Churches were to have their Estates. And, the [Imperial] Letter of In­dulgence ordered, that the Goods which had been heretofore transferred to others, out of the Treasury, either by a Sale, or by donation; and which remained still in the Treasury, should be returned back to their Owners. Such were the favours which the Emperour's benignity con­ferred upon the Church of God, by his Laws transmitted into all the Provinces.

CHAP. XXII. In what manner he refreshed and cherish't the People also.

[...]. It must be, [...], But, &c. and from these words the twenty second chapter is to be begun, as 'tis in the Fuketian Manuscript and the Old Sheets. Vales. BUt, his Imperial Munificence bestowed more, and far greater Favours than these, upon the people that were strangers to our Re­ligion, and upon all the Pro­vinces. Wherefore, all the Inhabitants of our [Eastern Countries,] [...]. I mend it, [...], who having before this: which Christophorson saw not. I write also, [...], received an ac­count of what, &c. Vales. who having before this received an ac­count of what had been done in the other part of the Ro­man Empire, had styled them happy because they were possest of such Blessings; and who fervently prayed, that they themselves might at length enjoy the like: beholding these things with their own eyes, Or, Thought good to style. doubted not of terming themselves blessed now; and confest, that some new Miracle, and such a one as no Age under the Rays of the Sun had ever beheld before, so great and gracious an Emperour [namely,] had Or, Shi­ned upon. ap­peared to mankind. And these were their Sen­timents.

CHAP. XXIII. That he publickly Proclaimed God the Authour of Good; and concerning the Copies of his Laws.

BUt, when the Emperour, by the power of God his Saviour, had reduced all places under a Subjection to himself, he himself made known to all men that God who had bestowed these Blessings upon him: and attested, that [Page 559] God. He, not himself, was to be accounted the Au­thour of his Victories. And this he declared by his Letters, written as well in the Latine as Greek Tongue, and sent throughout every Pro­vince. Further, the Eusebius praises the Emperour Constan­tine's Elo­quence. For that is the meaning of these words. But Christophor­son seems to have read [...], the truth of our dis­course. It must also be written [...], as Tur­nebus has mended it at the side of his Copy; and the same is the reading in the Fuketian and Savil. Manuscripts. Besides, from these words the 24th Chapter is begun, both in the Fuketian Manuscript, and in the Old Sheets. Vales. powerfullness of his Lan­guage will easily be perceived by him, who shall apply himself to the perusall of his Letters, They were two: the one directed to the Chur­ches of God; the other, to the people in every City that were Strangers to our Religion. [...]. In the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis [...]; which reading the Geneva-men have taken notice of, as occuring in some Copies. But, this way of writing is not to be born with. For [...] in the singular number follows. Besides, Eusebius pro­duces but one Constitution of Constantine's here; to wit, that which had been sent by Constantine to the Provincials. He does indeed attest, that two Laws had been issued forth together in favour of the Christians; the one to the Catholick Church, the other to the Pro­vincials. But he annexes the Copy but of one of them, namely of that which had been sent to the Provincials of Palestine. The other, sent to the Churches, is omitted by Eusebius, either because it had been drawn according to the same Copy with that to the Provincials; or for some other reason. Vales. Which Latter, in regard 'tis accommodate to our present Subject, I think fit to insert here; both, that the Copy of this Letter may be recorded in the Mo­numents of History, and consigned to posterity; and also, that the truth of our Relation may re­ceive confirmation. It was transcribed from an Authentick Copy of the Imperial Law, which is in our Custody. A subscription whereto in the Emperour's own Or, Right band. hand, does, like some Seal, ‡ assert the verity of our Narrative.† Or, Record the evidence of the confirmation of our discourse.

CHAP. XXIV. Constantine's Law concerning Piety towards God, and concerning the Christian Reli­gion.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, [...]. In the Medicaean Manuscript I found it written, [...], to the Palestinian Provincials. Further, from these words I began the 24th Chapter, following the authority of the Kings and Fuketian Manuscripts. Vales. To the Provincials of Palestine.

AMongst those whose Sentiments concerning the Deity are right and prudent, it has long since been made apparent by a manifest Distin­ction, or, diversity. Evi­dence, [...]. From the Medicaean Manuscript make it [...], &c. And such as, &c. And a little af­ter, from the same Manuscript it must be read [...], worship of Christianity; and the same is the reading in the Kings Sheets and Fuketian Manuscript. Vales. In Robert Ste­phens 'tis [...]. and such as is sufficient far to remove all scruple whatever; how great a difference there hath been between an accurate observancy in reference to the most venerable Worship of Christianity, and those who are its Opposers [...]. The Medicaean Manuscript has it [...], desirous of contemning it; which rea­ding seems to me much truer. Vales. and desirous of contemning it. But now, by far evi­denter Actions and more illustrious Exploits, as well the absurdity of the doubt hath been demon­strated, as also, how great the power of the Su­pream God is. In as much as, to those who faith­fully revere the venerable Law, and dare not violate any of its precepts, a plenty of Or, Goods. Blessings is presented, and an incomparable strength with good hopes to effect what they have attempted. But, to them who have embraced an impious Opi­nion, [...]. The reading in the Medi­caean Ma­nuscript is far truer. For thus it runs, [...], &c. even the Events, &c. And after the word Worship, it has a point, which is the mark of an interrogation. Vales. even the Events were correspondent to the designes. For, who ever obtained any thing of good, that would not acknowledge God to be the Authour of Goods, and refused to pay Him a due Worship? [...]. The reading in the Medicaean Manuscript is far more elegant, thus, [...], Indeed, the things, &c. Vales. Indeed, the things themselves give confirmation to what we affirm.

CHAP. XXV. An Example from ancient Times.

IF therefore any one does in his thoughts run over the [...]. The particle [...] is wanting in the Me­dicaean Ma­nuscript; nor is it very neces­sary. Pre­sently, where the reading is [...], heretofore transacted; the same Manuscript has it, [...], at any time transacted. Also, instead of [...] the Issue of their at­tempt: 'tis written, [...], their attempts to an—is­sue; in which manner I found it written in the Kings Sheets and Fuketian Manuscript. Vales. former Times derived down as far as these days of ours, and in his mind contemplates the Affairs heretofore transacted; he will find all those, who laid Justice and Probity as the founda­tion of their Actions, both to have brought their attempts to an happy issue, and (as from some root of sweetness) to have likewise gathered the pleasantest fruit. But [he will perceive] them, who have audaciously attempted unjust Facts; (and have either [broken out] into a foolish madness against God himself; or have entertained not one good thought This place is imperfect, and ought thus to be restored from the Medicaean Manuscript; [...], which reading we have exprest in our Rendition. Vales. towards mankind; but have inflicted Exiles, Infamies, Or, Pub­lications of Goods. Pro­scriptions, Slaughters, and many other such like [punishments;] and who never repented at any time, nor re­called their mindes to a better Temper:) to have received rewards of the like nature. And these things do happen [...]. In the Medicaean Manuscript 'tis written, [...]. In the King's Ma­nuscript also 'tis [...]. Vales. not ill and unseemly, nor contrary to reason.

CHAP. XXVI. Concerning the Persecuted, and the Persecutors.

At these words I began the 26th Chapter, from the Fuk. Manu­script, and the King's Sheets. Vales. FOr, what ever persons proceed to Action with a just [purpose of] mind, and have the fear of God continually in their thoughts, pre­serving their Faith towards Him firm and un­shaken; and who do not prefer present fears and dangers before the hopes of those future things: although they may have had experience of some Troubles and afflictions for a time, yet they have not born what befell them with heaviness, be­cause they believe, that greater Rewards are [Page 560] treasured up for them. But, by how much more pressing the Calamities were, wherewith they have been tryed; by so much more shining was the Glory they obtained. [...]. The rea­ding in the Medi­caean Ma­nuscript is truer, thus, [...], But such as have either dishonour­ably, &c. 'Tis much like what he had said above, at chap. 25, where see note (b.) Vales. But, such as have either dishonourably contemned what is just; or not acknowledged God themselves, and have dared to inflict on those who faithfully Or, Follow. worship Him, Contumelies and the cruellest of punishments; and who have not judged themselves wretched, because they have [...]. In the Medicaean Manuscript the reading is [...], which is truer if I mistake not. A little after, the same Co­py has it, [...], have ended in a most reproachfull Overthrow. Vales. punished [men] upon such Pretexts as these; nor [accounted the persons thus punish't] happy and blessed, who amidst so great sufferings have preserved their Piety towards God inviolate: Many of these mens Armies have been ruined, and many routed. In fine, their whole Military Forces have ended in a totall Overthrow.

CHAP. XXVII. That Persecution hath been the Occasion of Mischief to those who waged War.

FRom such [impieties] as these, Or, Heavy. Bloudy Wars have risen, and dismall devastations. Hence [hath been occasioned] a want of ne­cessaries for daily use, and a multitude of [...]. In the Medi­caean Ma­nuscript 'tis [...], impendent Miseries. And a lit­tle before, in the same Copy, the reading is, [...], &c. From such [im­pieties] as these, bloudy Wars arise. Vales. im­pendent Mischiefs. Hence, the Authours of so great Impiety, fallen under the pressures of the ex­treamest calamities, have either perished by an [...]. The Medicaean Copy adds a word, in this manner, [...], perished by an unhappy death. A little after, in the same Manuscript the reading is, [...], For, each of them hath found, or met with, &c. which doubtless is truer. Vales. unhappy death; or, leading a most reproach­full Life, have acknowledged that more afflictive than Death it self; and have received punish­ments in a manner equall to their unjust Actions. For, each of them hath met with Mischiefs so much the more Calamitous, with how much more of vehemency he had through madness resolved to assault (as he hoped,) and put a force upon the Divine Law. In so much that, they were not only disquieted with the Troubles of this present Life, but most acutely tortured with a fear and expectation of the Infernall punishments.

CHAP. XXVIII. That God chose Constantine to be the Minister of Blessings.

FUther, when so great and sore an impiety had seized [...]. In the Me­dicaean Co­py 'tis [...] And a lit­tle after, [...], a great salutary Cure; without the Conjunction. Vales. Mankind; and the Republick, as 'twere by the rage of some Pestilentiall distemper, was in­fected with the imminentest of dangers, and there­fore wanted a Cure that was salutary and great; what solace, what Remedy did God find out, to free us from these evills? (Now, when I speak of God, [...]. In the Medicaean Copy, the simple term occurs in­stead of the compounded, thus, [...]; which has less of roughness. A little after, the reading in the same Copy is, [...] Vales. He must always be meant, who really is the only God, and is possest of a perpetuall power in every Age. [...]. The rea­ding in the Medicaean Manuscript is truer, [...], &c. Nor will it in any wise, &c. which emenda­tion So­zomen confirms book 1. chap 8. where he has epitomized this Law of Constantine. Vales. Nor will it in any wise be ar­rogancy for him, who acknowledges the Benefits [received] from God, to speak magnificently.) [...], For God Himself hath required, &c. In the Medicaean Copy the particle [...] is wanting, which to me seems altogether superfluous. Vales. God himself hath required and determined to make use of our assistance as fit in order to [the Completion of] his own will. Who having begun from that Brittish Ocean, and those parts where, by a determined Necessity, the Sun is or­dered to set▪; and having [...], by a certain divine power. The two last words are wanting in the Medicaean Copy, and the term [...] is referred to the word [...] which went before; in this manner, by a divine necessity, the Sun is ordered to set; and having expelled, &c. Vales. by a certain divine power expelled and dissipated [...]. After these words, the Fuketian, Tur­nebian and Savil. Copies adde these two, [...], hath wholly taken away. And so Christophorson read, as 'tis apparent from his Version, which at this place is very intricate. But I am of opinion, that those words [ [...], &c. Who, having begun from that Brittish Ocean, &c.] are spoken concerning Constantine himself, and not concerning God, as Musculus and Christophorson thought. Wherefore, there is no need of those words [...], which occur not, either in the Medicaean or King's Copy, or in the Old Sheets: especially, in regard it follows in the next chapter, [...], I am come as far as the Eastern parts. Vales. all those mischiefs which had possest [the world;] both, that Mankind, instructed by My Ministery, might be recalled to an observancy of the most Venerable Law; and also, that the most Blessed Faith might be increased and propagated, by God Him­self being the Leader:

CHAP. XXIX. Constantine's Pious Expressions towards God; and his praise of the Confessours.

( [...]. In the Me­dicaean Copy the reading is, [...]; right, if you make it [...]; For I could ne­ver have been un­gratefull. Further, these words from for I could, to highest value, must be under­stood as spoken by a Parenthesis. In the Fuketian and Turnebian Copies the reading is, [...]. Vales. FOr I could never have been ingratefull in reference to the Benefit wherewith I am oblieged; in regard I firmly believe [...]. In the Medicaean Copy this whole place is writ­ten far truer, thus, [...], &c. in regard I firmly believe this most excellent, &c. as we have rendred it. Fur­ther, with these words the whole period is concluded, which begins from those words of the preceding chapter, [...]. who having begun from that Brittish, &c. which the Translatours per­ceived not. Nor could I my self ever have found it out, with­out the assistance of the Medicaean Copy. Vales. this most excellent Ministery to have been conferred on Me as a Gift of the highest value;) at length I am come as far as the Eastern Parts. Which [Countries,] because they Or, Are sei­zed with. groan under heavier Calamities, call for a greater Cure from us. Further, I do most firmly believe, that My whole Soul, all that I breath, and what ever dwells within the inmost recesses of my mind, is entirely owing from Me to the supream God. I know accu­rately well indeed, that they who have rightly pur­sued Or, The Celestiall hope. an hope of Celestiall things, and have [...]. The Medicaean Manuscript has it written, [...] ▪ and have peculiarly and firmly placed this Queen. The Emperour Constantine terms the hope of the Sons of God, a Queen, because it excells all humane things Vales. peculiarly and firmly placed this Queen in the divine Or, Places. dwellings; do in no wise stand in need of the Bene­volence of men: in regard they enjoy [Page 561] so much the Greater Honours, [...]. Be­fore I had gotten the Medicaean Copy, I per­ceived the reading was to be, [...], by how much farther they have removed and separa­ted them­selves from, which conjecture the Medicaean Manuscript hath plainly confirmed. In which also the reading is, [...] so much the greater; but [...] is overwrit­ten, thus, [...]. Vales. by how much far­ther they have removed and separated themselves from Or, Ter­rene de­fects. the vices and impieties of Mor­tality. Nevertheless, I account it as belonging to Me, at the greatest distance now to remove, from persons void of all fault and reprehension, those necessities imposed on them for a time, and those misbe­coming tortures. Otherwise, it would be most absurd, that these mens fortitude and stability of mind, should have been made apparent under their Reign, who were desirous of persecuting them, on account of their Worship of God: but, that under a servant of God [swaying the Im­periall scepter,] their Glory should not have been raised [...]. In the Medicaean Copy I found it written, [...], &c. to a more resplendent and more blessed Scheme or Figure. Vales. to an higher degree of Resplendency and Blessedness.

CHAP. XXX. A Law setting [men] free from Banishment, from The Curia, and from Proscription of Goods.

LEt all those therefore, whether they be such as have changed their Country for a strange Soil; because they would not Or, Con­temn. betray their Ho­nour and Faith towards God, to which with their whole souls they had consecrated themselves, at what time soever each of them have been condemned by the cruell [...]. In the Medi­caean Copy 'tis [...]; and a little af­ter, the reading is [...], have been enrol­led together within, &c. In the King's Sheets and Fuketian Copy 'tis [...], have been enrolled within. Vales. The same with this last is the reading in Robert Stephens. Sentences of the Judges: or, whether they be such as have been enrolled within the Cata­logues of the Curiales, when as before they did not fill up their Number: be now restored both [...]. In the Medicaean Copy the reading is righter, thus, [...], he now restored both to their, &c. In the King's Copy the reading is also [...]: in Robert Stephens 'tis [...]. Further, Eusebius here calls their paternall Lands or Estates, [...]. For those that were lyable or bound to serve in the Curiae, (into which the richest persons were wont to be enrolled;) their Farms or Lands were en­slaved to the Curiae; [that is, were burthened with such Services and Offices as belonged to the Courts of Corporations.] There­fore, although they withdrew themselves by flight, it availed them nothing, in regard The Curia seized their Farms. Constantine there­fore appoints by this Constitution, that those who had been bound to the Curiae on account of the Christian Faith, (provided their paternall Farms, which the Curia had made seizure of, were not of a Curial origi­nal;) should recover those their paternall Farms. Wherefore Christo­phorson has rendred it ill, thus, Patriis sedibus, to their Fathers seats. Turnebus in his Copy hath mended it, [...] In the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis written [...]; as 'tis also in Sr Henry Savil's Copy, and in Christophorson. Vales. to their paternal Estates, and to their wonted leasure, and return thanks to God the Deliverer of all. Also, whoever have been deprived of their Goods, and, [...], opprest. In the Medicaean Copy the reading is [...], stricken, which pleases me better. For, 'tis a Civill-Law Term. So, feriri mulctâ, to be stricken or smitten with a mulct, occurs frequently in the Constitutions of the Emperours. Vales. stricken with a Or, Loss. Mulct of their whole substance, have hitherto led a most miserable and sad life; let them likewise be restored to their Pristine habitations, [...], Generations. In the Medicaean Copy 'tis [...], Fa­milies. And a little after, the reading there is [...], and may they with gladness enjoy. Vales. In Robert Stephens 'tis [...], and they shall with gladness enjoy. Fa­milies, and Goods; and may they with gladness enjoy the Beneficence of God.

CHAP. XXXI. Those in Islands likewise.

MOreover, we Command, that what ever per­sons are detained in Islands Not without reason he has added the words [...], against their wills; because of the Monks, who lived a solitary life in Islands. Vales. against their wills, shall enjoy [the benefit of] this provision [...]. The Modi­caean Manu­script gives us a diffe­rent rea­ding, in this man­ner; [...], &c. to the end that they who at any time have with some difficulty been inclosed, &c. And a little after, [...] may restore themselves. Also, [...], that such as for, not [...], And, that such, &c. Vales. : to the end that they, who hitherto have been in­closed, both within the impassable Craggs of Moun­tains, and within the surrounding Sea, being freed from their sad and inhumane Solitude, should re­store themselves to their dearest Relatives, and fulfill their wishes and desires. And, that such as for a long time have lived a miserable and necessitous Life in a most [...] detestable filthiness. In the Medicaean Copy I found it written [...]. Which perhaps is truer. The import whereof is cum invidioso quodam squalore, with an hated nasti­ness. Vales. detestable filthiness, having obtained their return as some prey given to them, and being in future freed from Cares, [...]. This place is written far other­wise in the Medicaean Copy. For, that Manuscript hath a full point after these words [...], and being in future freed from cares. Then, it words the following pas­sage thus; [...]. That is; For, to live with fear under Us, who both boast and believe we are the servants of God; would be a most absurd thing even barely to be heard; much more, that any one should undergoe either the sore Labours [at the Mines,] or the services in the publick works. Which reading, in my sentiment, is purer, and more plain than the common one. Vales. should without fear live with us. For, for any one to live in fear under us, who both boast and believe our selves to be the servants of God, would not only be a very absurd thing to be heard, but also much more to be believed. For our Nature, or, disposi­tion. usage is such, that we would cor­rect the faults of others.

CHAP. XXXII. Also, Those who have been Or, Dis­grac't in the, &c. condemned to the Mines and Publick Works.

ALso, what ever persons have been condemned either to work in the sore Labours of the Mines, or to undergo the Services in the Publick Works; Let such men exchange their continual Toyls for a [...]. In the Me­dicaean Copy 'tis [...]. In the Fuke­tian 'tis [...] Vales. sweet leisure, and in future lead a more easie life agreeable to their own minds, and conclude Or, The immode­rate Trou­bles of their La­bours. the Troubles of their im­moderate Labours with a pleasing rest. [...]. From the Medicaean Copy make it, [...] which is far truer. Turnebus in his Copy had mended it, [...]; but the reading of the Medicaean Manuscript is truer, which is confirmed by the Fuketian Copy. Vales. And although some of them may have Or, Faln from. lost their common Liberty, and may have been so unfortunate as to have been marked with infamy; never­theless, let them with a becoming joy recover their Pristine dignity separa­ted from them by some long voyage as it were, and hasten to return into their own Countries.

CHAP. XXXIII. Concerning the Confessours who have been employed in the Militia.

FUrther, to those who have heretofore been Or, Ap­proved in. adorned [...]. The Medi­caean Copy has it [...], in Milita­ry digni­ties: and a little af­ter, [...], upon this cruell, &c. Vales. with Military dignities, and have lost them upon this cruel and unjust pretence, to wit, because professing the knowledge of God, [...]. In the Medicaean Copy the reading is, [...], they accounted that more valuable then the dignity they had; let it be according to their will. Vales. they preferred that before the dignity they were possest of; it shall be Or, Eli­gible accor­ding to their will. free to choose, whether they will embrace their Mili­tary Employes, and continue in the same figure they were in; [...]. From the Medicaean Copy it must be written [...], leade a free Leisure. Which reading Sozomen confirms book 1. chap. 8. where he has epitomized this Law of Con­stantine. In the Fuketian Manuscript I found it written [...], live in freedome honourably. But the Medicaean Copy has it written, [...], lead an honour­able free Leisure. Vales. or live in freedome with an honourable discharge. For it will be fit and agreeable to reason, that he who hath demonstra­ted such a greatness of mind and Constancy in undergoing Or, Dangers. torments inflicted on him, should, according to his own choice, enjoy either Repose, or Honour.

CHAP. XXXIV. The setting at Liberty those free persons in the Gynaecea, or them delivered over to Sla­very.

[...]. The Medicaean Copy has it [...], more­ever, whatever persons, &c. Vales. ALso, whatever persons, by force deprived of their Nobility, have from the Judges received some such like sentence as this, that being thrust into the See chap. 20. note (e.) Gynaecea or Linyphia, they have endured [...]. In the Me­dicaean Co­py I found it written [...] from which, though a corrupt word, I presently smelt out the true and genuine reading of this place. I write therefore [...]; an unusuall and miserable Labour. For, such servilities in the Gynaecea and Weaving Houses were unusuall to free men. The same Copy has [...], not [...]. Vales. Cruell and miserable Labour, or were ac­counted Servants of the Treasury, their Pristine splendour of Birth [...]. The reading in the Medicaean Copy is truer, thus, [...], &c. being of no advantage to them. And a little after, from the same Copy I write [...], re­joycing—at, &c. Vales. being of no advan­tage to them: Let such men (rejoycing both at the honours they formerly enjoyed, and at the Or, Goods. priviledge of their Liberty,) re­cover their usuall dignities, and in fu­ture live in all manner of gladness. And let him ( [...]. The Medicaean Copy adds a word, in this manner, [...], &c. which is truer, if I mistake not. For the Emperour distinguishes two sorts of men: some of which, being nobly born, were enslaved to the Gynaecea, or made servants of the Fiscall Farms, which was a nobler servitude: others of them, whose extraction was meaner, were sold to private men. In the Fuketian Manuscript the reading is, [...]. Vales. who has changed his Liberty for Slavery, by an unjust and inhumane madness of the [...]. In the Me­dicaean Copy 'tis written [...]. He means the boldness and imma­nity of the Judge, who had despoiled a free man of his Liberty, on account of his confession of the true God. In the Kings Sheets I found it written [...]; the Fuketian Copy has it [...]. Vales. Seller, and hath often [...], lamenting: in the Medicaean Copy the reading is truer, thus, [...], hath—lamented. Vales. lamented his un­usuall servile offices, perceiving himself on a sudden as 'twere made a servant from being a free man;) receive his former freedome according to this our command, and restore himself to his Parents, and undergo those Labours that befit a Freeman; ha­ving cast out of his memory those misbecoming servilities, [...] In the Medicaean Copy 'tis more ele­gantly exprest, [...]; and a little before [...], having cast out of his memory. And the same is the reading in the Kings Sheets and Fuketian Copy. Further, from these words 'tis sufficiently apparent, that what I have said is true, viz. that in this latter place Constantine speaks of the viler and meaner sort of peo­ple, who had been sold by the sentence of the Judge. For, con­cerning the former sort who were eminent for the splendour of their Birth, Constantine says that they may now recover their Pristine di­gnity. But he sends away these latter to the Services and Labours usually undergone by Freemen. Vales. which he had before Laboured un­der.

CHAP. XXXV. Concerning the succession in inheriting the Goods of Martyrs and Confessours, and of such persons as had been banished, and of them whose Goods had been brought into the Treasury.

BUt, we must not omit mentioning those Estates, [...]. From the Medicaean Copy make it, [...], whereof severall, &c. And a little af­ter, [...]; which we have rendred accordingly. Neither do these words [...] occur in the King's Sheets. Further, I found the beginning of this period variously written in the old Copies. For in the Medicaean Manuscript 'tis read thus, [...], &c. In the King's Sheets, [...], &c. Turnebus in his Copy had mended it, [...]. In the Fuketian Copy I found it written, [...], &c. The King's Copy has also [...]. Wherefore, I doubt not but this is the true reading, and do wonder why Robert Stephens changed it. Vales. whereof severall persons have been deprived upon various pretences. Wherefore, if any persons, undergoing the eximious and divine Combat of Martyrdom with a fearlesness and confidence of mind, have been deprived of their Goods; [...]. In the Medicaean Copy the reading is, [...], or, if any men; which, I doubt not, is truer. For, whereas he had before spoken of the Mar­tyrs, he now speaks of the Confessours. A little after, from the same Copy, write thus, [...], &c. (forc't—, because by contemning the Faith they would not yield to the Persecutors;) have—been deprived of their Goods; &c. Vales. or, if any men, made Confessours, have procured them­selves the Or, Eternall hope. hope of Eternall Goods; also, whatever persons (forc't to re­move out of their Country, because by betraying their Faith they would not yield to the Persecutors;) have in like manner been deprived of their Goods: Lastly, Christophorson omitted this Clause, because it seemed nothing else but a superfluous repetition of what went before. But, in regard these words occur in the Medicaean Copy also, they are not rashly to be expun­ged. For, after the Emperour had spoken concerning the Martyrs, con­cerning the Confessours, and concerning the Exiles, who for fear of a Capitall sentence pronounc't against them, had left their Country; he now treats of those, who though they had not been condemned by a Capitall sentence, had nevertheless been despoyled of their Goods. For these were not in the number of Martyrs, or Confessours; in regard they had not been brought to a Tryall. Nor, had they been Exiles; but staying in their own Country, had by force been deprived of their possessions. 'Tis certain, in the Title or Contents of this Chapter, four sorts of persons are reckoned up. But Cristophorson omitted the fourth sort. Nevertheless, in the following chapter, the Emperour recounts three sorts of persons only, these last being wholly omitted. Vales. if any persons, though not condemned by a Capitall sentence, have [Page 563] nevertheless had the hard fortune to suffer a loss of their Goods: Our Order is, that the Inheri­tances of all these persons shall be given to their nearest Relations. Further, [...]. In the suc­cessions of persons in­testate, the Law calls the nearest of the Agnati [or, Kindred by the Male line] to the Inheritance, if their own Heirs be wanting, as Gaius informs us in his Institutions Titulo decimo sexto. Hence, the Agnati are by the Law termed Le­gitimi Heredes, Lawfull Heirs, because the Law casts the Inheritance upon these only. For, the Cognati [Kindred by the Female line] could not be Heirs by the Civil Law, but were called to the Inheri­tance by the Jus Praetorium only, as Lawyers inform us. Further, amongst the Cognati, he that was nearest took the Inheritance, in the same manner as amongst the Agnati. But there is a difficulty in this place, who ought to be meant by the word [...] of the Kindred, whether the Agnati, or Cognati. 'Tis ceetain, if by the term Laws we understand the Laws of the twelve Tables, it will be necessary that the Agnati should be meant. Sozomen words it thus, [...], to those nearer of Kin. Vales. whereas the Laws do in express words command, that the nearer of the kindred [shall receive the Inheritance,] 'tis easie to know, to whom the Inheritances be­long. [...]. In the Kings Copy the reading is [...] and moreover; which reading I have followed in my Version. At first it had been written in that Copy, [...] because; and afterwards, in a more modern hand, it was mended, [...] moreover. Vales. And moreover, 'tis agreeable to reason, that they should come to the succession, [...]. In the Medicaean Copy the reading is, [...]. The meaning of this place is very obscure. Christophorson renders it thus; Et quod ratione etiam oportet eos succedere, qui sint domesticâ consuetudine conjunctiores, constat: praesertim cùm illi ipsi Martyres, non criminis ullius convicti, sed suâ inducti voluntate, mortem oppetiverint; i. e. And that in reason they ought to succeed, who are nearer by a domestick acquaintance, 'tis manifest [...] especially, in regard those very Martyrs, not convicted of any crime, but induced by their own will, underwent death. But, there are many things to be found fault with in this Rendition. For first, [...] a voluntary death or end, cannot be spoken in reference to the Martyrs. Secondly, the dis­course here is not concerning the Martyrs alone, but concerning the Confessours also, and those that had fled their Country, who had dyed by their own death. Therefore, 'tis better to render it here, suâ & naturali morte, by their own and a naturall death. For so Graecians are wont to express themselves, and particularly our Eu­sebius, if I mistake not. Lastly, he has rendred the term [...] very ill in these words domesticâ consuetudine conjunctiores, nearer by a domestick acquaintance; whereas the import of that term is persons nearer related. I render therefore this whole place thus, Rationi consentaneum est, ut hi ad successionem veniant, qui propinquiores erant futuri, si illi suâ morte obiissent. 'tis agreeable to reason, &c. Our Ren­dition is confirmed, both by what I have said above, and also from what the Emperour says, [...], who would have been the nearer of Kin, not [...] who are. Now, by the next words, viz. those persons, he means the Martyrs. Vales. who would have been the nearer of kin, if those persons had ended their lives by their own and a naturall death.

CHAP. XXXVI. That the Church is to be Heir to those who have no Relations; and that the Legacies given by them shall remain firm.

BUt, if none of the Kindred be left, who, a­greeable to reason, may be Heir to any of the forementioned persons, to wit, of the Martyrs, or of the Confessours, or of those who have re­moved out of their Country on such an occasion as this; we decree, that the Church in every of those places shall always succeed in the Inheritance. [...]. From the Medicaean Copy make it [...]. A little before, the reading in the same Copy is [...], of the Confessours (truer than [...].) as it is in chap. 35. Also, [...], &c. Vales. Nor will this in any wise be Or, Grievous. uneasie to the defunct, if they shall happen to have The Church. Her their Heir, on whose ac­count they have undergone all imagi­nable Labours. [...]. I had ra­ther write [...] to annex, as Turne­bus and Sr Henry Savil have mended it. And so 'tis written in the Fuketian Manuscript. A little after, the reading in the Medicaean Copy is, [...], that, if any of the foresaid persons. Vales. Moreover, 'tis necessary to annex this also; that, if any of the foresaid persons have bequeathed any thing of their Goods to such as they had a mind [to give them,] the Or, Dominion. property thereof, as 'tis reasonable, shall remain firm and certain to them.

CHAP. XXXVII. That those who possess such places, and Gardens, and Houses, shall restore them; but without the Or, Fruits. Mean-profits.

FUrther, that no Or, Mistake. ambiguity may appear in this our Precept, [...]. From the Medicaean Copy make it, [...], &c. and we have ren­dred it ac­cordingly. Vales. but that every one may with readiness understand what the Law is; let all persons know, that if they are possest, either of a Ground, or of an House, or of a Garden, or of any thing else of the forementioned persons Estates, it will be good and advantagious to themselves, both to confess it, and to restore it with all imagi­nable celerity. [...]. In the Me­dicaean Copy the reading is, [...], And al­though, &c. And a little after, the same Copy has it, [...], have received—profits—; yet we judge a demand, incomparably well, as I think. For this is the second member of the period. The last member of the period is [...], Nevertheless, &c▪ which in the com­mon Editions is ill divided, and removed to the following Chapter. Vales. And although it may be most manifestly apparent, that some persons have re­ceived great profits from those [Estates,] by an unjust possession; yet we judge a Or, Exaction. demand of those Fruits to be in no wise just:

CHAP. XXXVIII. In what manner Supplicatory Libells ought to be presented in reference to these persons.

NEvertheless, let such men of themselves inge­niously acknowledge what profits they have gathered, and whence, and let them supplicate for a pardon of their offence to be granted them from Us; both, that their former Avarice [...], may be dis­solved. The rea­ding in the Medicaean Copy is truer, [...], may be cured. Vales. may be cured by such an emendation; and also, that the supream God, receiving this satisfaction in place of some repentance as 'twere, may be rendred pro­pitious [and remit] their offences. But, they who have been constituted Owners of such Estates, (if such men either deserve, or can have this Title given them,) alledging this in defence of them­selves, will per adventure say; that it was impossible they should abstain [from those things] then, when a manifold spectacle of all manner of mischiefs was set before their eyes; [...]. In the Medicaean Copy this place is written far other­wise, in this manner; [...], and we have rendred it accordingly. Which reading, as every one sees▪ is far truer. For those words [...] are altogether superfluous. A little after, in the same Copy the reading is, [...], &c. But, if any men do insist upon such discourses as these, &c. So 'tis also in the Fuketian Manuscript. Vales. when men were cruel­ly [Page 564] Or, Dri­ven away. ejected; incompassionately destroyed; care­lesly cast forth; when Proscriptions of innocent persons were frequent; the Or, Per­secutions ins [...]tiable. fury of Persecutors insatiable; and sales of Goods [every where vi­sible.] But, if any men do insist upon such dis­courses as these, and do persist in their insatiable [...], ad­monitions. I corrected this place by the help of the Me­dicaean Co­py, in which 'tis plainly written, [...], inten­tions, or, purposes. purposes and intentions; they shall be sensible, that such a practise will not be suffered with an im­punity to themselves; especially, in regard on this account chiefly we give our help and Ministery to the supream God. [...]. The Medicaean Copy has it, [...], &c. So that, what things a destructive, &c. and a little after, [...], it will now be dangerous, &c. Which I rather approve of. For this period is to be joyned with the foregoing one. Presently, where the reading is [...], 'tis righter in the Medicaean Copy, where the last particle is wanting. Vales. Whatever things there­fore a destructive necessity hath heretofore forced Or, To receive. to be received, its now dangerous to keep. And besides, 'tis necessary to les­sen Lusts not to be satiated, part­ly by considerations, and partly by Examples.

CHAP. XXXIX. That the Exchequer shall restore to the Churches, Grounds, and Gardens, and Houses.

[...]. In the Medi­caean Copy the particle [...] is wanting; and a little after, in the same Copy the reading is, [...]. Vales. NOr shall the Exchequer, if it be possest of any of those things forementioned, be per­mitted firmly to retain them. But, as 'twere not [...] I write [...], as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. Which the Medicaean Manuscript con­firms, wherein the reading is [...]. In the same Copy, after the word Churches, is added [...], that is, some words are wanting. Vales. daring to utter any thing of Obloquie against the sacred Churches, those things which for a long time it hath unjustly detained, them it shall at length justly restore to the Churches. All things therefore what­ever, which [...]. The reading in the Medicaean Copy is truer, thus, [...], may rightly appear. Vales. may rightly appear to appertain to the Churches; whether they be Houses [enjoyed as] a Possession; or certain Fields and Gar­dens; or whatever else they be, (no right be­longing▪ [...]. The emendation of this place is due to the Medicaean Copy, where we found it plainly written [...] ▪ to the dominion; excellently well. For the Emperours will is, that all places and Farms, which had been taken away from the Christians, should truly and sincerely be restored to them to­gether with their rights. In such a manner that, if service was owing to any Farm or Field, to wit, a drove-way, passage, or high­way, it should be restored to the Christians with the same right in no part diminished. Therefore, if any one had mortgaged a Farm taken from a Christian, or had let it out by Lease to be planted and improved, or by a sale of it had encumbred it with any burthen or service; all these things are by Constantine's Edict rescinded. A little after, where the reading is [...], from the same Copy we have mended it thus, [...], to be restored. Yet, the Fuke­tian, Turnebian, and Savilian Copies have [...] to be yielded up; which is no ill reading. Vales. to the Dominion being diminished, but all things continuing firm and entire;) We order to be restored.

CHAP. XL. The Places, where the Reliques of any Martyr are. Martyria and Coemiteries In the Greek 'tis, we order. are ordered to be yielded up to the Churches.

[...]. In Mo­raus's Copy 'tis mended, [...]; which pleases me better, Vales. MOreover, who doubts but those places, which have been honoured with the Bodies of the Martyrs, and are the Monuments of their glo­rious departure, do belong to the Churches? Yea rather, who would not even command that? In as much as, there can be no Gift more valuable, nor can there be any other Labour pleasanter, and After these words in the Greek; in the Me­dicaean Ma­nuscript follow these, [...], can there be any other; which words are wanting in the or­dinary Editions. Vales. which has in it more of advantage, than that, by the impulse of the divine [...], Spirit. In the Medicaean Copy 'tis [...], will, a diligent care be taken about such mat­ters as these. Also, in the Euk. Turneb. and Savil. Copies the rea­ding is [...]. Vales. In Robert Stephens, 'tis [...], to take a diligent, &c. Spirit, a diligent care be taken about these matters; to the end that those places, which with wicked pretexts have been taken away by unjust and [...]. In the Medicaean Copy 'tis [...], most wicked. Vales. most flagitious men, being justly yielded up, may be restored again to [God's] sacred Churches.

CHAP. XLI. That such as have bought things belonging to the Church, or have received them as a gift, must restore them.

From these words I began a new chapter: I also put the Title before it, which was wanting in the Gene­va-Edition▪ and in that of Robert Stephens printed a [...] Paris. Which de­fect we made up from the Fuketian Manuscript and the Kings Sheets. Vales. BUt, because it appertains to an entire and ab­solute Or, Pro­vision. providence, that they should not be past over in silence, who [...]. The Medicaean Copy opened to us the true writing of this place; wherein the reading is [...]. I write, [...], either by a right of Emption. Indeed, to style this Emption just, is contrary to the mind of Constantine, who terms these purchases unjust and nefarious presumptions. Vales. either by a right of Emption have bought any thing of the Exchequer, or by a Title of donation have possest themselves of any thing as granted to them, having [...]. I had conjectured long since, that the particle [...] was to be expunged: which conjecture of ours the Medicaean Copy does plainly confirm. The Emperour speaks concer­ning those men, who had petitioned that these places might be given them by the Emperours. Which Christophorson perceived not. Presently, in the same Copy the reading is, [...], truer than in the ordinary Editions, [...]. In the Fuk. and Turneb. Copies 'tis [...], which is the worst reading of all. Vales. in vain [...]. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis [...]. Vales. extended their insatiable desires to such Goods: Let all such persons know, that although they have attempted to alienate Our Clemency from themselves, by rea­son of their most notorious audaciousness in making such purchases; nevertheless, that our Benignity shall not be wanting to them, so far as 'tis possible and be­coming. But let it suffice thus far to have treated concerning these matters.

CHAP. XLII. An Earnest Exhortation to worship God.

[...]. In the Medicaean Copy 'tis [...]. Vales. FUrther, whereas it hath been [...]. If I mistake not, the reading in the Me­dicaean Copy is truer, thus, [...], &c. and we have pointed and rendred it accordingly. It should, I think, also be [...], of the omnipotent God. Vales. made appa­rent by most evident and most perspicuous demonstrations; partly by the power and might of [Page 565] the Omnipotent God, [...]. In the Medi­caean Copy the reading is [...]. Also [...] is wanting in that Copy, and like­wise [...]. All which words were added by those who understood not this O­ration. The whole place therefore is to be rendred thus. Porro cùm certis­simis ac evi­dentissimis, &c. Further, whereas it hath, &c. There is nothing clearer than this reading, nothing more certain. Instead of [...] for me, it must in my judgment be [...] or [...], by me, or from me. For Constantine meanes his own Ministery or Service, which he lent God in the effecting of these things. Concerning which matter he does, not without reason, boast in the beginning of this Edict. Vales. and partly by the Exhor­tations and Assistances which He desires should frequently be given by Me; that that calamitous grief and disquietude, which had heretofore seized the whole Complex of Humane affairs, hath now been banished from all places under the Sun: all of you in generall, and each person in particular, by a most accurate Or, Me­ditation. inspection do per­ceive, what and how great that [...]. In the Medicaean Copy the Article is wanting; and after these words, are added these, [...], what that Grace is. Which words cannot be wanting without a great detriment to the whole sentence. For, the term [...] imports that which he has above termed [...], the power of God: but [...] sig­nifies the Benefit conferred upon men by the assistance and ministery of Constantine. Vales. Power, what that Grace is, which hath whol­ly extinguished and destroyed the Seed (as I may so say) of the [...]. In the Medicaean Manuscript, 'tis [...], of the most flagitious and wickedest. Further, it must be made [...]; as 'tis in the King's Copy, in the Fuketian Manuscript, and in the Sheets. Vales. most flagitious and wickedest men; but hath recalled the gladness of the Good, and abundantly diffused it throughout all Regions: and which hath permitted all immaginable Li­berty to all persons, that they should again both pay a meet worship to the divine Law it self with the highest veneration, and also in a befitting man­ner revere those who have consecrated themselves to the service of that Law. Who having risen up out of [...]. In the Medicaean Copy the reading is [...] most profound. Vales. a most profound darkness as 'twere, and received a clear knowledge of [...]. The Melicaean Manuscript has it [...] of affairs. I found the same reading in the Kings Copy, in the Old sheets, and in the Fuketian Copy. Away therefore with Robert Ste­phens's Emendation. Vales. In Stephens 'tis [...], of Letters. Affairs, In the Medicaean Copy the close of this Edict runs thus; [...]. i. e. Will in future exhibit a due observancy, and a pious and agreeable honour to this Law. Let it be published in Our Eastern Parts. And this is the Subscription, which (as Eusebius attests, Chap. 23.) was put to this Edict in Constantine's own hand. For the Emperours were wont, in their own hand to add to the Edicts they sent out, proponatur, let it be published; and to give that in Command to the Praefecti Prae­torio, as it appears from the Novells of Valentinianus and Majorianus. Indeed, even this one word [...] Our, is a sufficient indication, that this Subscription was added in Constantine's own hand. For 'tis the Emperour himself that speaks, and who calls the Eastern parts His own. For so the Emperours were wont to express themselves, then especially, when they spoke of any Province lately reduced under their Government. So Constantine in his Letter to Elasius, and in that to Probianus Proconsul of Africk, says, African Nostram Our Africa; and in the first Law Cod. Theod. de Veteranis, apud Ni­comediam nostram, at Our Nicomedia. So in the only Law Cod. Theod. de his qui sanguinolentos, &c. Imperator Constantinus Italis suis, Emperour Constantine to his Italians. Lastly, Constantius Caesar in his Letter to Eumenius, which Letter Eumenius records in His Oration pro scholis; Merentur Galli nostri, &c. Our Galli are in service, &c. Further, this Edict of Constantine occurs, in the Medicaean Copy, after the Books of Ecclesiastick History, with this Title, [...], that is, a Copy of the Constitution of the Emperour dear to God, which, (after he had destroyed the Tyrants,) he wrote in the Greek Tongue, and transmitted to the Pro­vinces under him. Vales. will in future exhibite a due observancy, and a pious and agreeable honour to this Law. Let it be pub­lished in Our Eastern parts.

CHAP. XLIII. That those things which Constantine had established by Laws, were by him really accomplished and performed.

THese were the Constitutions contained in the Emperours first Edict sent to Hence it appears, that the Writer of this History was a Pa­lestinian. Which I was there­fore willing to remark, because Dionysius Goto [...]redus thought, that Eusebius Caesariensis was not the Authour of this Work: which never­theless 'tis easie to refute, both by innumerable testimonies of ancient Writers, and also from very many passages of this Work; especially from chap. 45. and 46, of this Book. Now, the foresaid Law of Con­stantine was issued out to the Palestinians in particular, for this rea­son, because the persecution had raged most sorely there, and there had been many Confessours and Martyrs in that Province. Notice likewise is to be taken of what Eusebius says, viz. that this first Sanction or Edict of Constantine had been brought to them. For that Edict concerning the Peace and Liberty of the Christians, which Con­stantine had sent into the East after his conquest of Maxentius, was by Maximine's fraud supprest, as Eusebius tells us in the beginning of his ninth Book. Vales. us. Immedi­ately therefore the Orders contained in this Law were effectually put into Execution: and all things were transacted, contrary to what a little before had been audaciously perpetrated by Tyrannick Cruelty. And they, to whom the Law granted them, enjoyed the Imperial Indulgences.

CHAP. XLIV. That he preferred Christians to the Government of Provinces; but if [any of the Gover­nours] were Pagans, he forbad them to sa­crifice.

AFter this, the Emperour Or, Took in hand af­fairs of the highest con­sequence. put his hand seri­ously to the work. And in the first place, most of those he sent as Governours of the Na­tions distributed throughout the Provinces, were persons dedicated to the salutary Faith. But, if any of them seemed addicted to Gentilism, it was forbidden them to Sacrifice. The same Law was imposed also [...]. He means the Vicarii, Comites, and Pro­consuls. For these dignities were far more eminent than those of the Presi­dents, as every one knows. But Christophorson, according to his usuall mistake, translates [...] Praefects; than which nothing is more absurd. Vales. upon those, who in dignity pre­ceded the Presidents, as likewise on them that had obtained the highest pitch of honour and the power of the Praetorian Praefecture. For either, if they were Christians, he gave them permission, that they should perform what was correspon­dent to their Appellation: or else, if they were otherwise affected, he ordered them not to wor­ship Idols.

CHAP. XLV. Concerning the Laws forbidding Sacrifices, and ordering the Churches to be built.

SOon after, [...]. Christo­phorson renders it, duae Leges in eandem sententiam promulgabantur, two Laws were promulged to the same effect, or meaning: wherein he seems to have followed Portesius, who had rendred it thus; Duae postea Leges emissae non ita dissimili argumento, Two Laws were afterwards issued out of a Subject not unlike. But I thought [...] to be the same with simul, uno eodemque tempore, together, at one and the same time. For so Eusebius does usually express himself. Vales. two Laws were issued out at one and the same time. The one whereof forbad the detestable Sacrifices to Idols, here­tofore [Page 566] usually performed in every City and Country; so that, no person in future should dare, either to Or, Make erections of Statues. erect the Statues of the Gods, or to attempt divinations and other such vain Or, Cu­riosities. Arts; [...]. These words of Eusebius are to be understood concerning private Sa­crifices. For Con­stantine the Great pro­hibited by a Law, that no one of the Heathens should Sa­crifice pri­vately at home, as the First Law in the Theodosian Code de Paganis informs us. There­fore, he had prohibited, that the Aruspices should be called out to any private house on account of Sacrificing. For these persons inspected the Entrails of Victims. But Constantine forbad not the going to the publick Temples to Sacrifice, and there to make use of the as­sistance of the Aruspices, as the first Law in the Theodosian Code de Maleficis, attests. See Libanius in his Oration pro Templis, pag. 10, and what Gotofred has noted there. Vales. nor, in any wise to Sacrifice. The other Law ordered the structures of the Orato­ries to be raised to a vast height, and the Churches of God to be enlarged both in length and breadth; as if all mankind (I had almost said) were about to unite themselves to God, and as if the madness of Polytheïsm had been wholly de­stroyed. The Emperour's own Piety towards God moved him to entertain such Sentiments as these, and thus to write to the Presidents of each Province. The Law contained this also, that they should not be sparing in the expence of money; but, that the charges [of building the Churches] should be defrayed out of the Im­perial Treasures. Moreover, he wrote Letters of this sort to the Prelates of Churches in all places: and such a one he vouchsafed to write to me also, which was the first Letter he sent to me by name.

CHAP. XLVI. Constantine's [Letter] to Eusebius and the rest of the Bishops, concerning the building of Churches; and that the old-ones should be re­paired, and built larger by the [assistance of the] Presidents.

VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, To Eusebius.

WE really believe and are absolutely per­swaded (Dearest Brother,) that, in regard an impious Desire, or, purpose. presumption and a Tyrannick Violence hath Persecuted the Servants of Our Saviour even to this present time, the Edifices of all Churches, have either by neglect gone to ruine, or through fear of the imminent iniquity [of the Times] [...]. In Moraeus's Copy 'tis mended thus at the margin, [...], have been less worthily adorned. There is also another Emen­dation, set at the margin of the Geneva Edition, [...], have been adorned with less of stateliness. Any one might guess likewise, that this place should be read and construed thus, [...], &c. or through fear have been made agreeable to the imminent iniquity [of the Times.] But that reading [...] is truer, and is confirmed by the Fuketian Copy. Vales. In Socrates (book 1. chap. 9. Eccles. History; where this Letter occurs) the reading is [...], &c. have been adorned with less of stateliness. have been less worthily adorned. But now, since Liberty is restored, and that I suppose Licinius to be meant, whom Constantine does thus term, because of his craftiness and age. Indeed, these following words, forc't out of the administration of publick affairs, do sufficiently evince this to be spoken of Licinius.▪ Whence also it may be conjectured, that this Letter was written a little after Licinius's deposition. Vales. See Socrates, book 1. chap. 9. note (o.) Serpent by Almighty God's providence, and our instru­mentall endeavours, is forc't out of the Administra­tion of publick affairs; we suppose that the Divine power hath been sufficiently manifested to all men: and that those, who [...]. In the be­ginning of this Letter, instead of [...] un­belief, he made use of the term [...] neglect. By the word Fear those Christians are meant, who through fear of the Persecu­tion had neglected the Chur­ches, or re­nounced the Faith: but the word unbelief belongs to the Pagans or Insidells, who had disturbed the sacred Houses, and severall waies molested the Chri­stians. Vales. either through fear or un­belief have fallen into any sins, having now [...]. The particle [...] must be expunged; which occurs not in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. See Socrat. book 1. chap. 9. note (p.) ac­knowledged [...]. In Socrates the reading is [...], Him that is truly God. Him that tru­ly is, will in future return to the true and right Course of Life. Do you therefore re­mind as well [all persons belonging to] the Churches over which you preside, as also Bishops presiding in o­ther places, together with the Presbyters and Deacons whom you know, that they use their utmost diligence about the structures of the Churches; either about repairing those that are still standing, or about en­larging them, or in building new ones where ever it shall be found requisite. And You your Self, and the rest by Your Mediation, may aske neces­saries [for that work,] both from Our Presi­dents of the Provinces, and also from the See book 1. chap. 54. uote (b.) The [...] are the Praefecti Praetorio, so termed because they were [...], that is, over the Presidents and Governours of Provinces. Therefore [...] is the Office of the Praetorian Praefecture, concerning which the Notitia of the Roman Empire is to be consulted. Further, the Office of the Praefectus Praetorio was supream to all other Offices of all the Ma­gistrates. For, as the Praefectus Praetorio in dignity excelled the rest of the Judges as well Civill as Military, so also his Officialls were more honourable than all other Apparitors. Hence, in the Chalcedon Coun­cill, Action 3, the Office of the Praefecti Praetorio is termed [...] the greatest Office. These things were not understood by the Translatours, whose mistake I had rather pass over in silence, than invidiously refute it. In the Fuketian Copy I found it written, [...], as 'tis also in Sr Henry Savils Copy. Vales. Of­fice of the Praetorian Praefecture. [...]. Christophorson renders it, Hisce enim per literas à me significatum est, For they are acquainted herewith by Letters from me: He has added the words à me from me, of his own head; which I like not. For, not the Emperour himself, but the Praefecti Praetorio most commonly wrote these sort of Letters. Vales. For they have already been empowered by Letters, to be diligently observant about Your Holinesse's Orders. God preserve You, Beloved Brother. From these words a new chapter is begun in the King's Copy. Fur­ther, hence it appears, that Constantine wrote Letters after the same Copy to the rest of the Bishops of the East. Vales.

The same Letters were sent to the Prelates of Churches throughput every Province. And the Presidents of Provinces were ordered to do what was agreeable and consonant hereto. So that, withall imaginable speed the Pre­cepts of the Law were effectually put in Exe­cution.

CHAP. XLVII. That he wrote against Idolatry.

BUt the Emperour made a further pro­gress in his [...]. Translatours have rendred this place extreamly ill, in regard they thought [...] was an adjective; nor could they perceive, that a Com­ma was to be placed after [...] signifies nothing else but Piety, or an observancy of the Deity. In this sense 'tis used in chap. 45. of this book, and in several other places in Eusebius. Vales. Piety towards God, and transmitted to the Provincials in each Pro­vince, [...]. It must be written [...], &c. an Oration against, as I found it mended in the margin of Moraeus's Copy. [...] imports here a speech, Ora­tion, [...]. In the Fuketian Copy this place is writ­ten thus, [...], an Ora­tion against Idolatry and Errour. Vales. an Oration against the errour of Ido­latry, [Page 567] wherein they had been involved, [...]. Chri­stophorson has ren­dred this place very ill; who, as I think, had not seen Porte­sius's Ver­sion. For Portesius has rendred these words right, although he has not hit the sense. Vales. who had Governed the Roman Empire before him. [In which Oration] he exhorted His Subjects with an admirable eloquence, to acknowledge the supream God, and openly to assume to them­selves his [Son] Christ to be their Saviour. Moreover, I judged it necessary to translate this Letter also, written with his own hand, out of the Latine Tongue [into Greek,] and insert it in to this present work; that we may seem to hear the Emperour himself, crying out in the hearing of all men after this manner.

CHAP. XLVIII. Constantine's Edict to the Provinces, concerning the Errour of Polytheism. The preface, con­cerning Virtue and Vice.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, To the Or, Ea­stern Pro­vincials. Provincials of the East.

ALL things what ever that are contained in the most Authentick Laws of Nature, do give all men sufficient notices of a divine provi­dence over and [...], contempla­tion; Va­lesius ren­ders it In­telligence. Inspection into the administration of all matters. Nor is there any doubt to those, whose minds are by the right way of knowledge Or, Car­ried to that scope. directed to that end, but an accurate compre­hension of a sound mind and of the very sight it self, [...]. Virtue seems here to be taken for per­fection, as well that which is in the sight, as that in the intel­lect. For each power and per­fection tends to the same end, to wit, the knowledge of truth. The sense proceeds to the truth of things sensible; and the understanding to the verity of Intelligibles from the truth it self of things sensible: and hence by degrees it ascends to the knowledge of the supream God. Also at this place [...] may be termed the force and virtue of Truth. Yet, the following words doe assure us, that this place must be taken concerning Moral Virtue. Vales. Valesius renders those Greek words set at the beginning of this note thus, verae virtutis eodem urgente atque inclinante naturâ, the nature of true Virtue verging and inclining to the same end. by one and the same impulse of true Virtue, may lead to the knowledge of God. Wherefore, no considerate person can ever be disturbed, when he perceives most men following Or, Con­trary pur­poses. Courses of Life contrary the one to the other. For, the Beauty of Virtue would be [...], foolish or absurd. I read [...] unusefull, as 'tis in the Fuketian Manuscript, and in Moraeus's, and Gruter's Copy. A little after I write, [...], Therefore a a Crown is proposed to Virtue. But these words are very obscure and intricate; which is partly to be attributed to Constantine himself, in regard being [...] a person that began to learn late, he was more obscure in expressing himself; and partly to Eusebius, or whoever else it was, who of obscure Latine words made the Greek more obscure. In the Fuketian Manuscript the reading is [...], and [...], &c. excellently well. Vales. unusefull and lye concealed, un­less improbity should on the other hand Or, Dis­close a life of perverse madness. set forth a perverse and depraved way of living. Therefore, a Crown is pro­posed to Virtue; but the Most high God presides in the Judgment [and punishment of Improbity.] But, I will attempt, with all possible perspicuity, to Or, Make a confession. discourse to you all, concerning those Or, Hopes within my self. Hopes I have of things future.

CHAP. XLIX. Concerning the Pious Father of Constantine; and concerning Diocletian and Maximian the Per­secutors.

I Always look't upon the former Emperours, by rea­son of the Ferity of their dispositions, as per­sons [...], men disin­herited. extraneous and forreign. My Father was the only man, who took in hand works of Lenity and Mansuetude; and with an admirable Piety invoaked God the Father in all his Actings. But the rest [of the Emperours,] not sound as to their Intellectualls, made immanity, rather then mild­ness, their Business; and this they nourished Or, Pro­fusely. in a wonderfull manner, subverting the true doctrine during their own times. Further, the fury of their improbity was kindled to such a degree, that He terms the Persecu­tions of the Christians, Civill Wars. For there is nothing liker a Civill War, than when the Christians were put to flight and murdered in all Cities, not by an incursion of Enemies and Barbarians, but of their own Fellow-Citizens. Vales. Civill Wars were raised by them, against all as well Divine as Humane affairs, when in the greatest repose and tranquillity imaginable.

CHAP. L. That by reason of Apollo's Oracle, who could not give forth Responses because of The just Men, a Persecution was raised.

IT was reported, that at that time Apollo gave forth an Oracle out of a certain Den and dark Cavern, not by humane voice; whereby he decla­red, that The just men upon earth were an hin­drance to him, that he could not speak the truth: and, that on this account Or, The Oracles of the Tripods were made false. false Oracles were given out from the Tripods: and, that for this reason [...]. It must be written, [...] (or, if you will, [...]) [...]; which reading we have followed in our Version. Portesius also, and Morinus understood these words concerning the Pythia or Priestess of Apollo. But, in the excellent Fuketian Manuscript, this whole place is written thus, [...], &c. For this reason he [Apollo] suffered his mournfull long hair to hang down neglected, &c: whereto agrees Sr Henry Savils Copy. Presently, in the same Copies the reading is [...], in what manner of end these things terminated. Vales. his mournfull prophetess suffered her long hair to hang down neglected; and, the Art of Divination being banish't, lamented that great Evill amongst men. But Let us see, what man­ner of conclusion these things were brought to.

CHAP. LI. That Constantine, when he was a youth, heard that the just men were the Christians, from him that had written the [Edicts] concerning the Persecution.

I Now Or, Call upon. appeal to Thee, Most high God! [Thou knowest,] that being then [...]. In the Greek Title of this chapter, 'tis truer written, [...] a youth. For Constantine was not then a child, when, as an Hostage, he resided at Diocletian's Court. For, he was delivered by his Father Constantius to Diocletian, on the year of Christ 291; after Constantius had been made Caesar by Diocletian. At which time Constantine was about 15 years old. For he dyed on the year of Christ 337, in the 62 year of his age. Vales. very young I heard, how He, who at that time held the chief­est [Page 568] place amongst the Roman Emperours, (a per­son wretched, truly miserable, Or, De­ceived in mind by errour. imposed upon by the errour of his mind;) with a great deal of curiosity enquired of those that were his Guards, who those just men were [that lived] upon the earth: and, that one of the Sacrificers about him made answer, that they were the Christians. The Emperour, [...]. In the Fuk. and Savil. Mana­scripts the reading is truer, [...]; and 'tis the same in the King's Copy. Vales. having devoured this answer like some honey, unsheathed the Swords, Or, In­vented. pre­pared to punish Crimes, against an un­blamable Sanctity. Immediately there­fore he wrote Edicts of Bloud [...]. He alludes to the point of an instrument to write with. Constantine expresses himself with much of Eloquence, in saying, that those Laws concerning the Persecution of the Chri­stians, were written with the bloudy points of Swords. So some of the Ancients tell us, that Dr [...]co's Laws were written with bloud, not with ink. Vales. with bloudy points of Swords (as I may say;) and ordered his judges to [...] to produce. I had rather say [...] to stretch; which is an usual expression with Eusebius. Vales. stretch that subtilty implanted on them by nature, to an invention of Acuter punish­ments.

CHAP. LII. How many sorts of Tortures and Punishments were made use of against the Christians.

THen you might, [I say] you might have beheld, with how great a freedom [and Licence] the Or, That gravity of piety. venerable worshippers of God daily underwent the severest of Contumelies, [cau­sed] by a continuedness of Cruelty. For, that modesty, which even none of the Enemies ever affected with any injury, [...]. So above, at book 1. chap. 27, Eusebius speaking of Severus Caesar, says [...] became a cheap and easie sacrifice of death; where see what we have noted concer­ning that expression. For the Translatours perceived nothing here. Vales. In the Greek Text of Valesius's Edition, the term [...] is left out; but it occurs in Robert Ste­phens. was made the easie sport and pastime of the contumely of their own enraged Fellow-Citizens. What fire, what man­ner of Torments, what sort of Tortures was not made use of upon every body, and without distin­ction [applied] [...]. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. A little after, in the same Copy, and in the Kings Sheets 'tis written, [...]. Vales. The reading in Robert Stephens is the same also. to persons of all ages what­ever? Doubtless, at that time the Earth wept; the Heavens, within whose circumference all things are contained, being defiled with Bloud, lamented. Also, the very [light of the] day it self was clouded by the sorrow and horrour of that prodigy.

CHAP. LIII. What reception was given to the Christians by the Barbarians.

BUt why [do I mention] these things? On account hereof the Barbarians do now boast, who gave reception to the men of our Country that fled at that time, and Kept, or, Preserved. treated the Captives with all imaginable tenderness and humanity. For, they allowed them not only safety, but permit­ted them to retain Or, The rites of their San­ctimony. their religious worship with security. Therefore, the Romans do now bear this perpetuall Brand of Infamy, which the Chri­stians, at that time driven out of the Ro­man world, and flying to the Barbarians, fixt upon them.

CHAP. LIV. What manner of Revenge overtook them, who, on account of the Oracle, raised a Persecu­tion.

BUt, what need I in many words rehearse those Lamentations, and that common mourning of the whole world? Those Authours of so hor­rid an impiety, perished afterwards by a most ignominious end, and were thrust down into the pits of Acharon, to an eternall punishment. For, having been Or, Mixt together. involved in intestine Wars, they left no Remains, either of their Name, or Stock. Which doubtless had never hapned to them, had not that impious prophecy of the Oracles of A­pollo had a false and depraved force.

CHAP. LV. Constantine's Glorification of God, and his con­fession in reference to the sign of the Cross, and his Prayer for the Churches and peo­ple.

NOw, I beseech Thee, Or, Greatest. Most supream God! Be mild and propitious to Thy Easterns: Be [mercifull] to all thy Provincialls, worn out by a lasting Calamitie: by me Thy servant, Or, Reach forth. administer a Remedy. And these things I aske of Thee not without Cause, O Thou Lord of all, Holy God! For, by Thy Guidance and As­sistance, I have undertaken and perfected Salu­tary Affairs. Every where carrying before Me Thy Sign, I have lead on my Victorious Army. And as often as the publick necessity requires, fol­lowing those very Ensigns of thy Or, Power. Virtue, I march out against the Enemy. For these reasons I have dedicated my mind to Thee, purely tem­pered with love and fear. For I love Thy Name with a sincerity: but I have an awfull fear for Thy Power, which Thou hast demonstrated by many indications, and hast thereby rendred my faith firmer. I hasten therefore, to put my shoulders, may own shoulders [I say to the Work,] that I may re-edifie thy Most holy He means The Catho­lick Church, which in the next chapter he terms the House of Truth. In the sacred Scriptures 'tis called The Pillar and Ground of Truth. A little after, from the Fuketian and Savil. Manuscripts, and from the King's Sheets write, [...], &c. which those detestable, &c. Vales. House; which those detestable and most impious [wretches] have ruined by Or, By a wickedness of demolishment. a wicked overthrow.

CHAP. LVI. How he prayes, that all persons may be Christians; but forces no body.

I Desire, that thy people may live in Repose, and without Tumult or disturbance, for the com­mon advantage of the world and all Mortalls. [Page 569] May those involved in the Errour [of Genti­lism] with gladness partake of an enjoyment of the same Peace and Quiet with the Believers. For, this▪ Reparation of mutuall society [...]. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. But that is the true reading which I found in the Kings Sheets, [...]. Which in­deed is far more elegant; and we have rendred it accordingly. Vales. will be of great efficacy in leading men to the true way. Let no person molest another. [...]. The meaning is, Let every one follow what religion he has a mind to. By which words Constantine leaves His Subjects an entire Liberty of worship­ping the Deity according as every one shall have a mind. For, the Most Religious Prince earnestly desired indeed, that all Mortalls should come to the Faith of Christ: but he never compelled any one to that. He wish't that the Heathens were freed from their Pristine Errour: notwithstanding, he prohibited not the Ceremonies and sa­crifices of the Temples, as he himself attests hereafter, at chap. 60. Vales. Let every one do that which his soul desireth. Yet, it behooves those whose Sentiments are true, to be firmly per­swaded, that they only shall live holily and purely, whom Thou callest [to this,] that they should ac­quiesce in Thy holy Laws. But, let those who with­draw themselves, have their Temples of Lies, since they desire them. We retain the most splendid House of Thy Truth, [...]. Valesius renders it, quam nascentibus nobis donasti, which thou gavest us when born. I understand neither the Emperour's, nor Valesius's meaning. which Thou hast given us according to Nature. We wish this likewise to them, namely, that by a common consent and a­greement, they also may reap a delight of mind.

CHAP. LVII. He gives Glory to God, who by his Son has enlightned those that were in Errour.

Concer­ning the Originall and Anti­quity of the Chri­stian Reli­gion, Eu­sebius writes the same in the beginning of his Ec­clesiastick History, and in his books de Evangelicâ Demonstra­tione. Vales. NOr is our Religion new, or of a late date; but, from such time as we believe this beautifull Fabrick of the world to have stood firm­ly put together, Thou hast instituted this [Reli­gion] with a due observancy of Thy Deity. Fur­ther, Mankind seduced by various Errours, hath stumbled. But, least this Evill should increase and grow stronger, Thou by Thy Son hast raised up a pure Light, and hast put all men in mind Or, Concerning Thy Self. of the worship of Thy Deity.

CHAP. LVIII. Another Glorification of God, from his Charge, or, Admi­nistration. Go­vernment of the world.

THy Works give confirmation to these things. Thy Power makes us innocent and faithfull. The Sun and Moon have their stated and pre­scribed Or, Way. Road; nor are the Stars moved round the Or, Cir­cuit. Axis of the whole world in an irregular manner. The Vicissitudes of Times recur by a certain Law. By Thy word the firm Or, Sta­tion. site of the Earth hath been established. And the wind makes its motion [...]. I read [...], according to a set time; as Chri­stophorson seems to have read. And so the reading is in the Fuketian and Savilian Manuscripts. Vales. according to a set time. Also, the current and carriage of the waters Or, Slides by. proceeds from the motion of a restless Flux. The Sea is contained within fixt and immovable Bounds. And what ever is diffused thorow the Earth and Ocean, every such thing is framed for certain ad­mirable and Or, Use­full advan­tages. great Uses. Which unless it were in this manner governed according to the Arbi­trement of Thy Will, doubtless so great a diversity, and [...] ▪ that is, so mani­fold a di­vinity, to wit, of the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Elements, concerning which he hath spoken above. For all these, unless they were governed by the Beck and Power of one God, would likewise be Gods. [...] therefore imports a power subject to no dominion; which we commonly term an Independency, which is proper to God only. Vales. so manifold a division of power, would have brought destruction upon the whole world and hu­mane affairs. He means the Gods of the Heathens, as I have said above: to wit, the Sun, Moon, and the rest of the Elements of the world, which Antiquity worshipped for Gods. Presently▪ from the Fuke­tian Copy write [...] as the reading also is in the Kings Sheets. Vales. For they who have waged War against one another, would doubtless have fought with a greater vehemency against mankind. Which questionless they do, although they are not seen with the Eyes.

CHAP. LIX. He praises God, in regard he always teaches good things.

WE give Thee many thanks, Thou Lord of all, Greatest God! For, by how much the more Humane Nature is known from different Or, Studies. Endeavours; by so much the more the Or, The Discipline—is confirmed &c. Pre­cepts of the Divine Religion are confirmed in those, whose Sentiments are right, and [...]. In the Fuke­tian and Sr ▪ Henry Sa­vils Copy the reading is [...] &c. who are sincerely studious of Virtue. Vales. who are studious of true Virtue. But, whoever hinders himself from being cured, [...]. That is, whosoever suffers not him­self to be cured, or freed from the disease of Idolatry; let him impute it to himself, in regard the Medicine is ready. Christophorson has ren­dred this place ill, thus, alteri qui sanari vult, non vitio vertat, let him not blame another, who has a mind to be cured. I say no­thing concerning Portesius, who wanders from the true sense al­most every where. But Musculus has rendred these words not un­happily. Vales. let not him impute that to another. For the Medicine, which Or, Pre­sides over the Cure. is of strength sufficient to effect the Cure, is publickly proposed to all men. Only [this must be taken care of,] that no one should violate that Religion, which the things themselves do manifest to be pure and im­maculate. Let all us men therefore make use of the Or, The common Inheritance of that good given us. Valesius renders it, The fellowship. allotment of that Good in common con­ferred on us, that is, the blessing of Peace; to wit, by separating our Consciences from every thing that is contrary to it.

CHAP. LX. An Exhortation at the close of the Edict, that no person should give trouble or disturbance to another.

BUt, let no person do harm to another, by that which he hath perswaded himself of, [...] In the Kings Copy 'tis over written in the same hand, [...] received. Both readings may be born with. Vales. and de­clared. What one Man hath understood and known, with that let him assist his Neighbour▪ if it may be. But, if it be impossible, let him omit it. For 'tis one [Page 570] thing, voluntarily to undertake the Combat for im­mortality; another, to be forc't to it by punishment. These things I have said; these things I have discour­sed of more at large than the scope of Our Mansuetude required, because I would not conceal [...], the faith of the Truth. That is, The true Faith. For 'tis the same as if he should have said, [...] the Truth of the Faith. He expresses himself so again, hereafter. Vales. the true Faith. Especially, in regard some persons (as I hear,) do assert, that the Rites of the Temples and the These words are taken out of St Paul's Epist. to the Colos. chap. 1. v. 13. Further, as he here terms Gentilism the power of darkness, so lower (at chap. 67.) he calls Christianity the power and efficacy of Light. Vales. Power of Darkness are wholly abo­lished. Which I had indeed perswaded all men to, had not the violent [...]. This term does properly signifie Conspiracy and Re­bellion: which is most appositely said concerning the worship of Idols. For Idolatry is a defection from the true God. Vales. Insolency of nefarious Errour been immeasurably fix't on the minds of some persons, to the hurt and damage of the [...], of the common Resurrection. It must, as I think, be [...], Emendation or Correction. For the common word seems to have been fetcht out of the foregoing line. Further, at the end of this Edict, this subscription was doubtless placed (con­cerning which I have spoken at large above,) [...], Let it be published in Our Eastern parts. For this subscription is properly agreeable to this Edict, in regard it was sent to the Provincialls of the East. Vales. Emen­dation of Mankind.

CHAP. LXI. How from the City Alexandria Or, Questions. Controversies were raised on account of Arius.

THese things the Emperour, like a most loud­speaking Preacher of God, by his own Letter Or, Shouted sorth. proclaimed to all the Provincialls; Or, Dri­ving away. di­verting his Subjects from Diabolicall Errour; and exhorting them to the exercise of true Piety. But whilst he was exceedingly joyfull on account hereof, news was brought him, con­cerning a disturbance of no small consequence, which had seized the Churches. At the hearing whereof he was extreamly troubled, and began earnestly to consider of a Cure. [The Ori­ginall of the disturbance] was this. The peo­ple of God were in a flourishing condition, and Or, Were adorned with, &c. pleased themselves with the exercises of good Actions. There was no fear without, which might give disturbance: in regard, by the grace and favour of God, a splendid and most pro­found Peace fortified the Church on all sides. But Envy framed treacherous designes against our Blessings. [At first] it crept in privately; but [afterward] it daunced in the very midst of the Conventions of the Saints. At length it raised Contention between the Bishops, and [...] ▪ It must, as I think, be [...], and wrang­lings. Fur­ther, by [...] at this place is meant The envi­ous Devill. For so Eu­sebius does usually speak in many places, Vales. cast in discord and wranglings amongst them, under a pretence of the Divine That is, More sublime and hidden doctrines of the Chri­stian faith. Dogmata. From thence, as 'twere from some small spark, a great fire was kind­led. Which began from the Alexandrian Church, as 'twere from an Or, High place. Eminence; and afterwards over­ran all Egypt, and Libya, and the Further Thebais. Moreover, it ruined the rest of the Provinces and Cities: in so much that, you might have seen not only the Prelates of the Churches fighting one with another with words; but the people also rent into factions; some inclining to this party; others, to that. [...]. In the Kings Ma­nuscript the reading is [...], which I like bet­ter. This whole place therefore is thus to be written; [...], &c. and we have rendred it accordingly. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. Vales. Further, the spectacle of the things performed proceeded to such an height of ab­surdity, that even in the very Theaters of the Infidells, the vanerableness of the Divine Do­ctrine Or, Underwent a most, &c. was traduced by a most ignominious and reproachfull derision.

CHAP. LXII. Concerning Arius and the Melitians.

THese persons therefore at Alexandria in a childish manner strove about the Sublimest [Points.] But He means the Melitians, concerning whose Schism Epiphanius and Baro­nius are to be consul­ted. Vales. others all over Egypt and the Upper Thebais were in the interim at difference on account of a controversie which had been started before: so that, the Churches were in all places rent in sunder. And whereas the Body [of the Church] was distempered as 'twere with these [diseases,] all Libya likewise fell sick; and the other parts of the Provinces with­out were seized with the same distemper. For they of Alexandria sent Legates to the Bishops in each Province; and these, divided into either side, partook of the like Sedition and distur­bance.

CHAP. LXIII. How Constantine sent a Legate with a Letter in order to a Composure.

UPon hearing hereof the Emperour was highly perplex't in mind; and look­ing upon this thing to be his own calamitous Concern, he forthwith dispatches away one of the worshippers of God whom he had about him, (a He means Ho­sius Cordu­bensis, as Gelasius Cyzicenus relates book 2; and after him Pho­tius in his Bibliothe­ca, chap. 127; and Nicephorus. And before all these, Socrates and Sozomen. Vales. person whom he well knew to have been approved for his Or, Mo­dest Virtue of Faith. modesty of Faith, and in the late times to have been ennobled with confessions in de­fence of Piety;) to Alexandria, to make Peace between those that were at difference there. And by him he sends a most usefull and necessary Letter to the Occasioners of that Con­tention. Which Letter, in regard it containes an illustrious Specimen of his Care in reference to the people of God, is fit to be inserted into this our Discourse concerning him, The Contents of it are these.

CHAP. LXIV. Constantine's Letter to Alexander the Bishop, and Arius the Presbyter.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, To Alexander and Arius.

WE Or, Make God our witness. call God to witness, who, as 'tis meet, is himself the Assistant of Our attempts, Saviour of all men; that upon a two­fold account we were moved to take in hand the Mini­stery, or, Charge. management of those affairs which We have in reality performed.

CHAP. LXV. That he was continually Sollicitous about Peace.

FOr first, [our design was] to unite the [...]. I had ra­ther write [...], the af­fection or mind, or pre-possest Opinion. On the contrary, in the be­ginning of this Let­ter, instead of [...] upon a twofold account, I had rather reade [...]. Presently, I write [...], from the Fuketian and Savil. Copies: or rather, [...], &c. Vales. Opinion of all Nations concerning the Deity, in one Con­stitution and Form as 'twere: Secondly, We were desirous of restoring to an healthiness the Body of the whole World, afflicted as 'twere with some terrible [...]. Some words are wanting here, which in Moraeus's Copy are thus supplied, [...], &c. as the reading also is in the Geneva Edition; and we have rendred it accordingly. I would willingly have made good this place thus, [...], We were desirous to free [the Body of the whole world] opprest with some terrible disease of Tyranny. But in regard in the excellent Fuketian and Savilian Copies this place is so made good as I have set it above, 'tis better to follow that writing. Further, in the Fuketian Manuscript, the word [...] whole is wanting. Vales. distemper. Which [two things] ha­ving proposed to Our Self as Our aim, we inspected the one with the secret eye of Thought; but we attempted to effect the other by the power of a Military force: well knowing, that if (as 'twas Our desire) We could establish an universall a­greement amongst the Worshippers of God, the con­sequence would be, that the Administration of the publick Affairs would certainly obtaine a change agreeable to the pious minds of all men.

CHAP. LXVI. In what manner he put a stop to the Contro­versies raised in Africk.

[...]. Que­stionless it must be written [...], &c. When therefore, &c. A little after, where the reading is [...], the particle [...] is to be expunged. He means The Donatists, who after the Roman Synod and that of Orleance, after Constantine's own determination, were as yet tumultuons in Africa. Vales. WHen therefore an intollerable madness had seized all Affrica, occasioned by some persons, who with a rash levity had dared to rent the Religion of the people into various Sects; We being desirous to put a stop to this Distemper, could find no other remedy sufficient to effect its Cure, than (after we had destroyed the Without doubt he means Li­cinius, as these fol­lowing words de­clare, who had opposed his own impious opinion, &c. For Licinius had prohibited the Synods of the Christian Prelates, as Eusebius attests in book 1. chap 51. But Christophorson by a great mistake thought, that by the Common Enemy of the world here was meant The Devill. The meaning of this place therefore is this. We had thoughts, says Con­stantine, after our conquest of Licinius, of sending some of you Eastern Bishops into Africa, to make up a Peace there between the Donatists and Catholicks. For, when the Bishops of Italy and of the Gallia's could not effect that, we hop't it would at length be done by your help. But, as we perceive, you your selves do now stand in need of Peace-ma­kers. Vales. Common Enemy of the world, who had op­posed his own impious Opinion and Command a­gainst your sacred Synods;) [...]. I write [...], from Gruter's and Mo­raeus's Copy; whereto agree the Fuketian and Savilian Manuscripts, and the Kings Sheets. Vales. that we should send some of You as Assistants in order to the making up an agreement between those who were at variance one with another.

CHAP. LXVII. That the Beginnings of Religion were from the East.

FOr, whereas the power of [the true] Light, and the Law of the Sacred Religion, being by the Beneficence of God given forth out of the Bosomes (as I may so say) of the East, hath at the same time illuminated the whole world with its Sacred Light; we upon a very good ac­count believing [...]. Question­less the reading must be [...] you, as 'tis men­ded at the margin of Moraeus's Copy. Nor is the reading otherwise in the Fuketian and Savilian Manuscripts. Further, Constantine does expressly reckon the Egyptians amongst the people of the East, which was not perceived by Christophor­son. Indeed, Egypt was then accounted amongst the Provinces of the East, from the times of Maximine, who having been constituted Caesar in the East, had had Egypt under him. Hence 'tis, that Amm. Mar­cellinus (in his fourteenth book where he reckons up the Provinces of the East,) attests, that Egypt and Mesopotamia were of their num­ber. The place occurs at pag. 19 of our Edition. Moreover, the Comes of the East had Egypt and Mesopotamia under his dispose in the times of Constantine and Constantius, as this old Inscription informs us: M. MAECIO MEMMIO FURIO BALBURIO CAECILIANO. PLACIDO. C. V. COMITI ORIENTIS AEGYPTI ET MESOPOTAMIAE. CONSULI ORDINARIO, &c. Further, under the Lat­ter Emperours, although the Egyptick Diocese was severed from the Oriental, yet 'twas always under the Praefectus Praetorio in the East, as 'tis manifest from The Notitia of the Empire. A little after, I think it should be written, [...], have hastned to find you out. Vales. you would prove the Authours as 'twere and Promoters of the Salvation of [all] Nations, have attempted to find you out, as well by a propensity of our mind, as the Or, Es­sicacy. sight of our eyes. [...]. 'Tis the same with what he had said in the foregoing chapter, [...], after we had destroyed the Common Enemy of the world. Constantine means the Hadrianopolitane Battle, and that at Chalcedon. The For­mer of which hapned on the fifth of the Nones of July: the Latter on the fourteenth of the Calends of October, in the year of Christ 324. About the end of which year This Letter seems to have been dated. Vales. Imme­diately therefore after our great Vi­ctory and our most certain Triumph over our Ene­mies, [...]. I think the reading should be [...] perhaps also [...]; that is, we had resolved again to enquire into and determine that dissention of the Donatists. In the excellent Fuke­tian Copy the reading is [...], &c. and so 'tis mended in Turnebus's and Moraeus's Copy at the margin. Some words are doubtless wanting here. But the meaning of the place is wholly the same with what I have said. Further, the reading of all Copies being compared together, the place seems to be restored thus, [...], &c. we resolved upon enquiring what that first thing was, which, &c. Vales. we had resolved before all things to en­quire into that again, which we judged to be the chiefest and most momentous of all.

CHAP. LXVIII. That being troubled by reason of the Distur­bance, he advises to an Agreement.

BUt (O the most Beautifull and Divine Pro­vidence!) what a deadly wound hath been given to our Ears, or rather to [...]. Every one sees it should be written [...]. Nor is Christo­phorsons conjecture to be con­demned, who read [...] a deadly wound. For so the Fuketian and Savi­lian Copies, and the Kings Sheets, do plainly give it us written. Vales. In Robert Ste­phens the reading is [...] a deadly thing. our very heart, when 'twas told us, that the dissentions raised a­mongst you were far more fierce than those which have been [...]. Christophorson saw nothing here, nor perceived that this word [...] was to be referred to the Schism of the Donatists, whereof Constantine had spoken above. The Emperour says therefore, that this Schism was for the most part appeased, and that only some small Remains of it were left in Af­frica. Vales. left remaining in Africk? In so much that, your parts, from which we hop't a remedy might have been produced for others, do now stand in need of a greater Cure. Indeed, when we seri­ously considered of the Origine and cause of these [differences,] the Occasion appeared to us very trivial, and such as in no wise deserved so sierce a Contest. Wherefore, being induced to a neces­sity of [penning] this Letter, and writing to Your [...]. Christophorson designed­ly omitted the term [...] unanimous, because he thought, that Alexander and Arius could not be termed unanimous; in regard they disagreed one with another about matters of so great conse­quence. But Constantine does nevertheless term them unanimous, in regard he thought well of them both, and believed that they disagreed in words, rather than in reality and in mind. But the term [...] seems but little agreeable to Prelates. The Emperours do use this term indeed in their Letters to Governours of Provinces. But when they speak to Prelates, they do more frequently use Sanctity, Gravity, or Prudence. The Old Glosses, [...] Sol [...]rtia, Experientia, Sagacity or Prudence, Experience. Vales. Unanimous Sagacity, having also called upon Divine Providence to be Our Assistant in this affair, we do upon a good account interpose Our Self as the Umpire. Arbiter of your mu­tuall dissention, and as an Or, Dispenser. Admini­strator of Peace. For, if We Our Self (God giving us his assistance, al­though there were a greater occasion of discord, yet) by instilling reason into the Pious minds of Our Hearers, could be able without much difficul­ty [...]. The word [...] seems to be used in the Neuter Gender. For 'tis referred to the Article [...], whereto by and by [...] answers. In the Kings and Fuke­tian Copy therefore, after the Verb [...], a distinction is rightly placed. For the sense is not entire. But Christophorson, contrary to his own usage, of one period has made two. Vales. to recall each person to more wholesome Counsells; why may not we the same person (in regard the occasion is small and very trivial, which hinders the agreement of the whole Body;) promise Our Self an easier and far more expedite Or, E­mendation. accommodation of this matter?

CHAP. LXIX. Whence the Controversie between Alexander and Arius arose; and, that such matters ought not to be enquired into.

VVE understand therefore, that the Ground of the present Controversie arose from hence. For whereas You, Alexan­der, enquired of your Presbyters, [...]. The word [...] is without doubt to be added from Gelasius Cyzicenus book 2. chap. 4. But Nicephorus (book. 8. chap. 13.) has [...], thought. By and by, where the reading is [...], the Fuketian and Savilian Copies have it written [...], which is truer. Vales. what every par­ticular persons [Sentiment was] concerning a certain passage of those things written in the Law, or rather asked about a part of a fruitless Controversie: and whereas You, Arius, [...]. The rea­ding in Gelasius is truer, thus, [...], that is, op­posed or ob­jected. And so Epipha­nius Scho­lasticus had read, as ap­pears from the 19th chapter of the Tripar­tite Histo­ry. Vales. incon­siderately vented that, which you ought either not to have conceived at first, or if you had had such conceptions, it had been your duty, to have let them been buried in silence: [...]. Nicephorus has expun­ged the first word as super­fluous, which ne­vertheless all our Co­pies retain, and Epi­phan. Scho­lasticus al­so, in his Version. Vales. hereupon a dissention has been raised between you, [...]. Langus renders it, conventus quidem so­lemnis qui­busdam de­negatus, the solemn Con­vention is denied to some. Christophorson translates it in this manner, Conventus qui in Ecclesiâ fieri solet, impeditus, the assemblie which i [...] wont to be made in the Church, is hindred. They took [...] therefore here for Synaxis, in which sense 'tis used not infrequently. So again in this chapter, [...], divulge them in or among publick assemblies. Further, Epiphan. Scholasticus renders it mysteria con­temnuntur, the mysteries are contemned. Vales. com­munion is denied; and the most holy people, rent into two Factions, are separated from the har­monious unity of the whole Body. Wherefore, let both of you, mutually [...]. Socrates and Gelasius Cyzicenus and Nicephorus have [...], that is, affording me your ears and mind. But the common reading, which we have followed, is truer. For so Constantine expresses himself below in the next chapter. Epi­phanius renders it voluntatem praebens. Vales. pardoning each other, accept of what your Fellow-Servant doth reason­ably advise you to. But what is that? It was fitting, neither to have asked such questions at first, nor if proposed, to have made any return thereto. For such Questions, which no Law does necessarily order or prescribe, but are proposed by the contentiousness of an unprofitable vacancy from business (although they may be made to exercise and imploy our Naturall parts about, yet) we ought to confine within our Breasts, and not inconsiderately divulge them in publick assemblies, nor unadvisedly commit them to the Ears of the Vulgar. For, what person amongst a thousand is sufficiently qualified, either ac­curately to comprehend the full efficacy and na­ture of things so sublime and profound, or to ex­plicate them according to their worth and dignity? Or, should any man look upon this to be an easie performance, how small a part of the Vulgar will he induce to be fully perswaded hereof? Or, [...]. In the Kings, Fuk. and Savil. Copies, the reading is, [...], &c. In Nicephorus 'tis [...], &c. truer than in the common Editions. By and by, from the Fuketian and Savil. Copies I have mended it, [...], or through the slower understanding of the Auditors, &c. Vales. what man can without danger of falling into gross errours, insist upon the accurate discussions of such nice Controversies? In questions there­fore of this nature, Loquacity must be bridled and restrained, least either through the frailty of our Nature, we being not able to explicate what we propose, or through the slower understanding of the Auditors, (being unable accurately to apprehend those matters discoursed of;) least [we say] [...]. In the King's, and Fuk. Copy the reading is [...] without the Preposition; which reading may be born with, if you referre the word [...] to those which follow [...], [...], either of Blasphemy, or Schism. The one of these two, says he, will beget an occasion either of Blasphemy, or Schism. But Socrates and Gelasius and Nicephorus have it written here [...]. Indeed, this place is very difficult and obscure by reason of the ill Syntax. Therefore in the Kings Copy at the side of this line is set this mark [...]. that is, [...], attend. Vales. from the one of these two Causes, the people be reduced to a necessity either of Blasphemy, or Schism.

CHAP. LXX. An Exhortation to an agreement.

VVHerefore, let an unwary Question, and an inconsiderate Answer in both of You mutually pardon each other. For this contest hath not been raised among you upon an occasion of any prin­cipal or chief Commandment of our Law: nor have you introduced any new Heresie concerning the wor­ship of God. But both of You hold one and the same Opinion; so that, You may easily close with each other in a [...]. Langus and Musculus render it Communionis tesseram, Mark or token of communion; Christophorson, communionis consensum, consent of communion. I had rather render it Signum, a sign. For, as in the mysteries of the Heathens some Signes or Symbols were delivered to the persons initiated, whereby the Symmystae [companions of the same discipline] might know one another: so the Christians had a sign of Communion, that is, The Eucharist, or Baptism. In­deed, Epiphanius Scholasticus renders it communionis signum, a sign of Communion. Vales. Valesius has translated it a society of Communion. consent of Communion.

CHAP. LXXI. That a pertinacious Contention ought not to have been raised concerning this matter, on account of some light and frivolous Expres­sions.

FOr whilst you thus pertinaciously contend about trifles and matters of no importance, 'tis not decent that so numerous a multitude of God's peo­ple should be under your Care and Government, because of your dissention with one another: nor is it only misbecoming, but 'tis likewise judged to be altogether unlawfull. Now, that we may ad­vertise your prudence by a smaller instance, [...]. The last word is wanting in Gelasius Cyzicenus, nor does it seem very necessary. 'Tis certain, Epi­phanius has omitted it in his Version. Vales. We will tell you: you know even the Phi­losophers themselves; [...]. Translatours understood not what the import of [...] was here; some of them have rendred it Opinion, or firm consent in one opinion; others, a profession of discipline. But, there is not one opinion amongst Philosophers, as 'tis sufficiently manifest. Therefore I had ra­ther render it Sect. For all Phi­losophers have some Sect to which they are addicted; some have the Sect of the Stoicks; others, that of the Peripateticks▪ Now, in every Sect there are sometimes controversies con­cerning some questions between Philosophers of the same Sect. Yet the same persons, on ac­count of the society of their Sect, do easily agree one with ano­ther. This is the meaning of Constantine's words as I think. Vales. how that they are all united in [the profession of] one Sect; whenas nevertheless, they fre­quently disagree in some part of their Assertions: but al­though they dissent in the very Perfection of science, yet be­cause of the agreement and union of their Sect, they close again in a mutuall consent. Now, if it be so [amongst them,] how will it not be much more reasonable, that [...], that we. We must read [...] that you; from Gela­sius, Nicephorus, and Epiphanius. And a little after, [...] between you, from the same Authours; to whom agree the Fuketian and Sa­vilian Copies, and the Kings Sheets. Vales. You, who are the Ministers of the most High God, should in like manner be unanimous in the profession of the same Reli­gion? But, Let us with more accuracy and a greater atten­tion, inspect and examine what we have now said; whether it be reasonable, that because of the triviall, vain, and per­tinacious Contests between you about words, Brethren should be set in array as 'twere a­gainst Brethren; and that the Venerable Assembly should up­on your account, who con­tend one with another about things so slight and in no wise necessary, be rent in sunder by an impious variance. These things are poor and mean, and do befit a childish ignorance, rather than agree with the understanding of Priests and prudent men. Let us of our own accord depart from the Temptations of the Devill. Our Great God the common Saviour of all, [...], hath pro­duced a Light. He had better have said [...] hath reached forth. A little before I read [...] the Common Saviour of all; as 'tis in the Fuk. and Savil. Copies. Vales. hath reached forth a Light common to all. By the as­sistance of whose Providence, give us leave who are his Servant, successfully to finish [...]. That is, this our endeavour and purpose, of establishing concord in the Church, and of reducing all men to the worship of one God. Con­cerning which endeavour and de­sign, Constantine hath spoken at the beginning of this Letter, and does boast of it every where. Vales. this our Endeavour; that by our Exhortation, diligence, and earnest admonitions, we may reduce you to a Com­munion of Convention. For in regard, as we have said already, your faith is one and the same, and your Sentiment of our Religion is one, and whereas the For the Law enjoyns us no­thing else but love; namely, that we should love God with the en­tire affection of our hearts, and our neighbour as our selves. In these two consists the whole Law, as our Lord says in the Gospell. Christophorson understood not this passage; he renders it thus; u­numque Legis ac disciplinae institu­tum, &c. and one Decree of the Law and discipline, which binds the whole body of the Church with its parts, in one agreeing concord and purpose of minds. Portesius tran­slates it truer, thus; Praeccptum­que Legis in id omnibus partibus in­cumvit, ut in unam animam uni­versum concludat, and the command­ment of the Law in all its parts earnestly endeavours at this, that it may include the whole Body in one mind. Perhaps also it should be written [...] in both its parts. For there are two parts of this command­mant, the one has a reference to God, the other to our neigh­bour. Vales. commandment of the Law doth in each part of it inclose all in generall in one consent and purpose of mind: Let not this thing, which has raised a small con­tention between you, (in as much as it appertaineth not to Or, The power of the whole. the sum of all Religion in ge­nerall,) by any means make any Separation and Faction a­mongst you. And these things we speak, not to necessitate you to be all of one opinion concer­ning this foolish idle Question, of what sort soever it be. For the pretious value of the Con­vention may be preserved en­tire amongst you, and one and the same communion may be retained, although there be in­terchangeably amongst you a great diversity of Sentiments in things of the least moment. For, we do not all will the same in all things; nor is there in us one disposition or opinion. Therefore concerning the Divine providence, let there be amongst you one faith, one understanding, and one Or, Co­venant of the Deity. consent in reference to God. But, as for those slender and trivial questions, which with so much niceness you dispute of and make researches into amongst your selves, although therein you do do not agree in the same opinion, yet 'tis fit you should confine them to your own thoughts, and keep them within the secret repositories of your minds. Let therefore that eximious [priviledge] of a common friendship, and the Or, Faith. belief of the Truth, and the honour of God, and a religious observancy in reference to [His] Law, remain amongst you firm and immoveable. Return ye to a mu­tuall friendship and charity: restore to the whole Body of the people their own embraces. And be you your selves (having [...]. That is, having put away the darkness of hatred, wherewith the acuteness of your mind was clouded and obscured. For it follows, [...], that is, be acquainted one with another again, embrace, salute. In which words Constantine seems to allude to the usage of the Christians of of his own time: amongst whom in their sacred Conventions, whilst the people approach't to the participation of the Mysteries, the Deacon often cried out [...], take acquaintance one of another; to wit, least any prophane person or Jew might creep to the sacred Table, as Chrysostome informs us in his first Oration against the Jews, pag. 440 of the First Tome. The same word Marcion used, when on a time he saw Polycarp, [...] take acquaintance of us, as Eusebius relates out of Irenaeus, book 4. chap. 14. of his Eccles. Hist. The Latines also use the verb recognoscere in the same sense. So in the passion of Fructuosus the Bishop: Cùm se excalceasset, &c. when he had pulled off his shoes, a Fellow-souldier, our Brother, by name Felix, came to him, and took him by the right hand, recognoscens eum taking acquaintance of him, and beseeching him, that he would be mind­full of him. Vales. purified your own souls as 'twere,) acquainted again [and renew your familiarity] with each other. [Page 574] For Friendship (when it returns to reconcilia­tion again,) frequently becomes sweeter and more pleasing, after the [...], the occasion of the Enmity. the reading must be [...] re­movall, as 'tis in Gelasius and Nicephorus. And so 'tis plainly written in the Fuk. and Savil. Copy, and in the Kings Sheets. Vales. removall of the Enmity.

CHAP. LXXII. That being highly affected with Grief in regard of his Piety, he was necessitated to shed tears; and, that on this account, he put off the Journey he was about to make into the East.

REstore therefore to us peaceable and serene days, and nights void of care; that the pleasure of the pure Light, and the joy of a quiet life may in future be reserved for us also. Which if [we shall] not [obtain,] we must of neces­sity groan, and be wholly surrounded with Tears; nor shall we finish the residue of our Life without great disquietude. For, whilst the people of God, (we mean our Fellow-Servants,) are rent in sun­der by this unreasonable and pernitious Contention one with another, how is it possible for us in future to continue in a sedate temper of mind? But, that you may be sensible of our excessive Grief on ac­count of this matter, [In So­crates the Verb [...] hear, or, be at­tentive, oc­curs; but we meet not with it here. be attentive to what we shall tell you:] when we lately came to the City Nicomedia, we had resolved forthwith to have made a journey into the East. But whilst we were hastning unto you, and That is, in mind and thought. For the mind is the greater and the better part of any one. But Christophorson thought the meaning was the greater part of his journey; which is not to be endured. Vales. by the greatest part were with you, [...], the news of this Letter. It must be made [...] affair, from So­crates, Ge­lasius Cy­zicenus, and Nice­phorus. A little after I read [...], as tis in Nicephorus and Sr Henry Savils Copy. Vales. the news of this af­fair Or, Wholly subverted. quite altered our Resolution: that we might not be necessitated to behold with our eyes those things of which we accounted even the Report to be intollera­ble. Do you therefore in future, by your unani­mity, open a way for us into the East, which by your mutuall Contentions you have stop't up. Give us leave with joy speedily to see you, and all the rest of the people, and that with an una­nimous consent of praises we may attribute to God due thanks for the Concord and Liberty of all persons.

CHAP. LXXIII. That after this Letter, the disturbance about the Or, Questions. Controversies continued.

AFter this manner the Pious [Emperour,] by sending his Letter, made provision for the Peace of the Church of God. Moreover, that good man made use of his utmost diligence, not only in carrying the Letter, but in fulfilling his will, by whom he had been sent. And he was every way a [...]. In the Kings Copy the word [...] is wanting, which is not very necessary▪ Neverthe­less, 'tis my con­jecture, that the place it to be read in one breath, thus, [...], That Good and every way Pious Person, as I have said, made use of his utmost dili­gence, not only in carrying the Letter, but in fulfilling his will, by whom he had been sent. But the affair, &c. He means Hosius; see chap. 63. Vales. Pious person, as I have said. But, the affair was greater, than to be accommodated by the help of a Letter. In so much that, the Contention of the persons at variance increased daily; and the vehemency of the mischief over­ran all the Eastern Provinces. Envy, and the ma­licious Devil, vext at the prosperity of the Church, Or, Wrought these things. invented these things for our destru­ction.

The End of the Second Book.

THE THIRD BOOK OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS CONCERNING THE LIFE OF THE BLESSED EMPEROUR CONSTANTINE.

CHAP. I. A comparison of Constantine's Piety with the Im­probity of the Persecutors.

IN this manner the Devill, that hater of Good, envying the Felicity of the Church, raised up storms and intestine disturbances in it, during a time of Peace and Joy. [...]. In Sr Henry Savil's Copy the rea­ding is [...]. In the Old Sheets both readings are retained, in this manner, [...], &c. Vales. In the interim, the Emperour dear-to-God neglected not the perfor­mance of what became him: [...]. In Moraeus's Copy 'tis mended in the margin, [...], But doing, &c. as 'tis also in the Fuk. and Savil. Copies. A little before, instead of [...], of what belonged to him; both Copies and the Kings Sheets have it [...], of what became him. Vales. but doing all things con­trary to what had been au­daciously perpetrated a lit­tle before by Tyrannick Cruelty, [by that means] he was made Superiour to every of his Enemies and op­posers. In the first place therefore, They, alienated from [his worship] who truly is God, by various methods of force compelled all men to adore those who were not Gods: but He, evincing them as well by words as in reality in no wise to be Gods, exhorted all per­sons to an acknowledgment of Him who is the only God. Besides, they derided God's Christ with blasphemous expressions: But he [...], he inscribed as his preservative. It seems to be used instead of [...], he assumed. But if you had rather take the verb [...] in its common signification, that may also be born with. For Constantine ordered it to be engraven on the Base of his Statue, which he erected at Rome after the Victory gotten over Maxentius, that by the Virtue of this Standard Rome had been set at Liberty by him. Vales. assumed to himself as his preservative, that very thing, a­gainst which those impious Wretches with the greatest Virulency Or, Ap­plied. belch't forth their Blasphe­mies; and gloried in the Trophy of the [Salu­tary] passion. They persecuted the Wor­shippers of Christ, and drove them from their houses and habitations. He recalled them all [from Exile,] and restored them to their own dwellings. They surrounded them with ignomi­nies; he made them honourable and happy in the opinion of all men. They seized upon the Goods of God's Worshippers, and with the greatest injustice made sale of them: He not only restored their Goods to them, but likewise enricht them abun­dantly with very many Gifts and Benefactions. They by written Constitu­tions [...], &c. The Rule of Syntax requires that we should read [...], &c. A little after it must be written [...], to honour [bestowed] by himself; as the reading is in the Fuketian and Savil. Copies. Vales. publisht Calumnies against the Prelates [of Churches:] on the con­trary, he raised and advan­ced those men to Honour [bestowed] by Himself, and by Edicts and Laws made them more renowned than they had been before. They demolished the Oratories to the very Foundations, and from their vast height pulled them down to the ground: He by a Law ordained, that those Oratories which were standing should be raised higher, and that new ones should be magnificently erected, [the [Page 576] charges whereof were defrayed] out of the Imperial Exchequer it self. They ordered the divinely-inspired Scriptures to be destroyed and consumed by fire: He made a Sanction, that at the charge of the Imperiall Treasury the [Copies of the sacred Volumes] should be increased, In Moraeus's Copy these words (which we likewise sound in the Fuketian and Savil. Manuscripts,) are added in the margin, [...], adorned, or augmen­ted, with a magnisick furniture; which reading Christophorson has followed in his version. Indeed, Constantine adorned those books which served for Ecclesiastick uses with Gemms and Stones; as Cedrenus tells us in his Chronicon, where he speaks concerning Me­trodorus the Philosopher. Vales. and Or, Augmented with. adorned with a magnifick furni­ture. They com­manded, that Synods of Bi­shops should in no wise be attempted to be any where convened: He called toge­ther into his own presence the Prelates out of all the Provinces; and vouchsafed them admission not only in­to his Pallace, and inmost Bed-Chamber; but likewise gave them a reception within his own House, and made them Companions of his Imperial Table. They honoured Daemons with consecrated Gifts: but he laid open their frauds, continually distri­buting the [...]; which words Va­lesius ren­ders thus, materiam ipsam dona­riorum nul­lis usibus dicatam, the matter it self of the consecra­ted Gifts dedicated to no uses. unserviceable matter of those con­secrated Gifts to such as could make use of it. They gave order, that the Temples [of the Gods] should be adorned with all imaginable splendour: He utterly demolished those very Temples, especially them that were highliest e­steemed of by superstitious men. They sub­jected the servants of God to the most ignomi­nious punishments▪ He took vengeance on those who had done these things, chastizing them with a [...], with a condigne punishment of God. I had rather make it [...], from God; as Euse­bius does usually express himself Vales. condign punishment from God; but he never desisted from honouring the memo­ries of Gods holy Martyrs. They drove men that were worshippers of God from the Imperial Pallaces: He put his chiefest confidence in such persons, knowing them to be of all men the best affected and faithfullest to him. They were overcome with [the love of] money, ha­ving enslaved their minds to a See book 1. chap. 55. Tantalick Or, Distemper. pas­sion: but he with an Imperial magnificence o­pened all his Treasures, and made distributions of them with a Or, Rich and noble bounty. Liberality that was bountifull, noble and generous. Lastly, they perpetrated infinite Murders, to the end they might make a seizure of, and expose to sale the Estates of those that were slain: but during the whole Reign of Con­stantine, every sword hung up as useless to the Judges; in regard the people and [...]. Chri­stophorson understood not the im­port of this word; He hath ren­dred it Cives, Citizens. But [...] are the Decuriones, as I have long since remarked at the 22d book of Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 225 of my notes. Vales. Decuriones were [...], that is, were ruled by a paternal power. He says therefore, that Constantine's Government▪ by reason of his mild­ness and clemency, was wholly like the Government of a Father over his Sons: So that, all the people and Decuriones, were not kept within the bounds of duty by force and fear like Subjects, but obeyed on their own accord, like Sons. In the Fuketian Copy, instead of [...] the reading is [...], by force and necessity. Vales. ruled by a paternall power, rather than governed by force and necessity. All which things whoever shall attentively consider, he will have good cause to say, that a certain new [...]. In mine own judgment, I have rendred this passage very happily, thus, novum saeculum, a new Age. So in the Coyns of Philippus, 'tis termed novum saeculum. The old Etrusci affir­med, that every Age was limited by the Gods, by a certain number of years: which number of years being ended, then prodigies were by the Gods shown from heaven, or out of the earth; whereby it might be signified, that a new Age was begun. And, that men were born, who would make use of new fashions and customes, and would be more or less dear to the immortal Gods. These signes the Etrusci had exactly noted in their Libri Rituales, as Plutarch has told us in Sulla; and Censorinus chap. 17. de Die Natali. Vales. Age seemed just then to have appeared; an unusuall light Or, Out of darkness. after a long darkness having shined upon mankind. And he will confess, that all this was the work of God, who opposed this Religious Emperour, as an Adversary against that multi­tude of the Impious.

CHAP. II. Again concerning the Piety of Constantine, who made a free and open profession of the Cross of Christ.

FOr, whereas they were such persons, the like to whom had never appeared at any time, and had dared to act such things against the Church, as Or, Are not contain­ed in the hearing of an age. no person from the utmost me­mory of men ever heard done; with good rea­son God himself produced a certain new Mi­racle, [I mean Constantine,] by whom he ef­fected such things as had never been known by report, nor represented to view. For, what miracle was stranger and more unusuall, than the virtue of our Emperour, whom the wisdom of God bestowed upon Mankind? For withall imaginable confidence and freedom he continued asserting God's Christ to all men; nor was he a­shamed of the He means the name of a Christian, as 'tis ma­nifest from the fol­lowing words. Salutary Appellation: but gloried in reference to that matter, and shewed himself in order to his being taken notice of and known by all men; sometimes sealing his face with the Salu­tary sign; at others, boasting in the Victorious Trophy.

CHAP. III. Concerning Constantine's Picture, over which was placed a Cross, and under it Or, A Dragon was woun­ded. a wounded Dra­gon.

MOreover, in an high painted Table pla­ced before the Or, En­try. Porticus of the Impe­rial Pallace, he proposed to the view of all men, the Salutary Sign represented in a Picture, set over his own head; but [he ordered] that Enemy and fierce Adversary [of Mankind,] who by the Tyranny of the impious had Or, Be­sieged. opposed the Church of God, to be drawn [underneath,] in the form of a Dragon [...]; Va­lesius ren­ders it in praeceps ru­entem, fal­ling head­long. falling into the deep. For the divine Oracles contained in the Book's of God's Prophets, have termed him a Dragon and a crooked Serpent. On which account the Emperour, under his own and his children's feet, in Encaustick painting exhibited to the view of all men, a Dragon wounded with a Dart thorow the midst of His belly, and cast into the depths of the Sea; denoting hereby that secret Enemy of Mankind; whom also he declared to have been thrust down into the pit of destruction, by the power of that Salutary Trophy placed over his head. And these things were tacitely shown by the Picture painted with a variety of Colours. But I am seized with an admiration of the Em­perour's great knowledge; in regard by divine [Page 577] inspiration he exprest those very things in paint, which the words of the Prophets had declared before concerning that same Beast in this man­ner, saying, See Esai. 27. 1. That God would Or, Bring forth. unsheath a great and terrible sword against the dragon the serpent that flees, and would slay the dragon that is in the sea. The Emperour therefore exprest the Figures hereof, Or, Ha­ving in the adumbra­tion truly▪ set forth the imitations. having in the Picture tru­ly imitated the thing it self.

CHAP. IV. Again concerning the Controversies [raised] in Egypt by Arius.

THese things he performed with a compla­cency of mind. But the blackness of Envy, which [at that time] in an horrid manner disturbed the Churches of God at Alexandria, and the Or, The Schismati­cal Mis­chief. He means the Schism of the Me­letians. For Egypt at that time was sick of a double dis­ease; to wit, the A­rian He­resie, and the Schism of Meletius. Vales. pestilent Schism of those of Thebais and Egypt, troubled him not a little. For the Bishops in each City Or, Were dashed a­gainst. Strove with the Bishops, and the people made insurrections against the people, and, dasht one against another like the [...]. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...], Symplegades; in which manner Turnebus had mended it at the margin of his Copy. Vales. The Symplegades are two Islands or Rocks in the Bosphorus; which had this name given them, because (as 'tis fabulously reported) they met one time, and fought. Symplegades, were cut in pieces by mutual wounds. In so much that, spurred on at length by a fury and desperateness of mind, they attempted impious and nefarious Facts, and were so audacious as to do violence to the Pictures of the Emperour. But these things did not so much excite the Em­perour's anger, as they grieved and disquieted his mind; in regard he was extreamly troubled at the madness of men that were impaired as to their Intellectualls.

CHAP. V. Concerning the dissention on account of [the Feast of] Easter.

MOreover, before these [distempers,] there had risen another most sore disease, which [...]. In my judgment the reading would be truer thus, [...], which had indeed a long while infested. Vales. for a long time had infested the Church; [namely] a dissention a­bout the He means Easter. Salutary Feast. For some affirmed, that the usage of the Jews ought to be followed: others asser­ted, that Or, The accurate hour of the time was to be, &c. the time it self was accurately to be observed, nor were er­roneous persons to be followed, who were estran­ged from Evangelick Grace [...]. This place is corrupted by an ill punctation. I write thus there­fore, [...], &c. who were estranged from Evangelick Grace even in this mat­ter also. Whereas therefore, &c. Eusebius says, that the Jews were estranged from the Grace of the Gospell, both in other things, and also most especially in this; because they as yet celebrated The Pascha agreeable to the Mosaick usage, not acording to the verity of the Gospell. Constantine confirms our Emendation in his Letter to the Churches, the words whereof are recorded below at chap. 18. [...]. Vales. even in this mat­ter also. Whereas therefore the people in all places had now for a long time disagreed one with another, and whereas the divine Laws [of our Religion] were disturbed and subverted; (for, in one and the same Feast, a Or, Change. diversity of time begat the greatest dissention imaginable amongst those who celebrated the Feast; in re­gard some persons Or, Were exercised with. afflicted themselves with fastings and austerities; others Or, Assi­gned, or dedicated their Lei­sure to a relaxation, or cessation. indulged to Leisure and Mirth;) there was no mortall able to find out and administer a remedy to this mis­chief; because the [...]. Graecians term that [...], as often as a fight is so maintained, that neither side gets the Victory. In the same sense Eusebius has here termed it [...], that is, paribus utrin (que) momentis libratam controversiam, the controversie was poysed by equall weights on both sides. Christophorson therefore has not rendred it well, thus, praesertim cùm controversia dissidentium animos ex aequo exa­gitaret, especially in regard the controversie equally disquieted the minds of the persons dissenting. Vales. controversie hung in an equall poyze as 'twere between the dissenting parties. To the only Omnipotent God it was easie to cure these Evills. Whose sole Minister of good things upon earth appeared to be Con­stantine. Who, after he had received an ac­count of what we have even now mentioned, and saw that his Letter to Alexandria proved inef­fectuall; himself mustered up [all the Forces of] his own mind, and said, that this Or, Other. new sort of a War against an in­visible Enemy that had disturbed the [peace of the] Church, ought to be ended by him.

CHAP. VI. In what manner he gave order, that a Synod should be convened at Nicaea.

IMmediately therefore setting in array as 'twere a divine Or, Pha­lanx. Army against That is, The Invisi­sible Ene­my. him, he convened an Or, Ge­nerall. Oecumenicall Synod; by honourable Letters inviting the Bishops every where, to the end they should come with all the speed imaginable. Nor was it a simple and bare Order; but the Empe­rour's appointment gave assistance to the business it self. For to some he allowed a Liberty of ma­king use [...]. 'Tis strange that Eusebius does here distinguish [...], the Beasts of burden from the Cursus Publicus▪ But it may be answered, that by the name of the Cursus Publicus Eusebius un­derstood the Waggons or Chariots. In which sense Nicephorus took it, book 8. chap. 14. To some Bi­shops therefore Constantine▪ or­dered Waggons or Chariots should be allowed; to others, publick Horses, whereon they might be conveyed to the Councill. Vales. of the Cursus pub­licus: others he supplied a­bundantly with the assistan­ces of Beasts of Burden. Moreover, a most convenient [place] was assigned for this Synod, a City [name­ly] which from Victory has the name Nicaea, situate in the Province of the Bithy­nians. When therefore the Emperour's Order was brought into all the Pro­vinces, all persons [set out] as 'twere from some Goal, and ran with all imaginable ala­crity. For the hope of good things drew them, [...]; Va­lesius ren­ders it, and the oppor­tunity of the pre­sent peace. and the participation of Peace, and [Lastly] the spectacle of a new Miracle, to wit, the sight of so great an Emperour. When therefore they were all come together, that which was done appeared to be the work of God. For they who were at the greatest distance one from another, not only in minds, but in bodies, Regions, places, and Provinces; were seen as­sembled together in one place. And one City received them all, as 'twere some vast Garland [Page 578] of Priests made up of a variety of beautifull flowers.

CHAP. VII. Concerning the Occumenicall Synod, at which were present Bishops out of all Provinces.

[...], the first fruits, or top. THe most eminent therefore amongst God's Ministers of all those Churches which fill'd all Europe, Africk, and Asia, were con­vened. [...] I read [...], &c. and one sacred, &c. from Gelasius Cyzi­cenus, Nicephorus, and Socrates. Vales. And one sacred Oratory, enlarged as 'twere by God himself, included at the same time within its walls, Syrians and Cilicians, Phoe­nicians and Arabians; Pa­lestinians likewise, and moreover Egyptians, The­baeans, Libyans; those also that came out of Meso­potamia. There was likewise present at this Synod a Persian Bishop; nor was b the Scythian absentp He has S [...]t the i cythians [...]nstead of the Goths. For so Grecians are wont to term them; as does Liba­nius, Themistius, Eunapius, and Eusebius himself in book 1. chap. 8. de Vitâ Constant. Vales. from this Quire. Pontus also, Galatia, and Pamphilia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Phrygia affor­ded their most select Di­vines. Moreover, [there appeared here] Thracians and Macedonians, Achaians and Epirots, and such as dwelt far beyond these, were nevertheless present. From Or, The Spaniards themselves. Spain likewise it self, that most celebrated person [Hosius] was one, amongst the many others, who sate in this Synod. Gelasius Cyzicenus thought that by these words was meant the Bishop of Constanti­nople. Whom Nicetas hath fol­lowed in his The­saurus Or­thodoxae fidei, book 5. chap. 6. in these words; Euscbius autem Pam­phili, &c. But Eusebius Pamphilus, in his third Book of the Life of the Emperour Constantine, writes that the Prelate of Constantinople was absent from the Synod, but he suppresses his name: in whose stead some Prosbyters appeared. But 'tis manifest from the Acts of the Synod, that at that time Metrophanes was Bishop of Constantinople, &c. So also Epiphanius Scholasticus tells us in Book 2. of his Tripartite History. But this Explication is not to be born with. For Constantinople was not as yet dedicated, nor gra [...]'t with the name of the Imperial City, when the Synod was convened in the City Nicaea. Therefore these words of Eusebius are necessarily to be understood concerning the Bi­shop of Rome. Which Sozomen confirms, book 1. chap. 16. (into which Writer the name of Juliu [...] has corruptly crept, instead of Silvester▪) and Theodoret book 1. chap. 7. Vales. The Prelate of the Imperial City was absent indeed, by reason of his age: but his Presbyters were there, who filled his place. Constantine was the [...]. The same also is the reading in Socrates. But I had rather make it [...] as 'tis in Gelasius and Nicephorus. And so Epiphan Scholasticus read in Socrates. But whereas [...] follows, that ought not to trouble any one. For Eusebius, hereafter at chap. 26. puts [...] together. Vales. only Emperour of all the Princes since the foundation of the world, who, after he had platted such a Crown as this with the Bond of Peace, dedicated it to Christ his Saviour, as a Divine present and gratefull ac­knowledgment for the Victories he had ob­tained over his Enemies and Adversaries; ha­ving constituted this [Synod convened] in our days, to be a lively Representation of that A­postolick Quire.

CHAP. VIII. That, like as ['tis said] in the Acts of the A­postles, they met together out of various Nations.

FOr 'tis See Acts 2. 5. said, that in the Apostles times, there were gathered together devout men out of every nation under heaven. Amongst whom were Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, and the Inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappa­docia, of Pontus, and Asia, of Phrygia and Pam­philia, of Egypt and the parts of Libya adjacent to Cyrene: strangers also of Rome, Jews and Proselytes, Cretians and Arabians. This only was wanting amongst them, they who met were not all the Ministers of God. But in this present Quire, there was a multitude of Bishops, which exceeded the number of In Socra­tes book 1. chap. 8. where this place of Eusebius is quoted, the reading is [...] three hundred. The Ancients are not agreed about the number of the Bishops who were present at the Nicene Synod. Eusebius at this place tells us they were two hundred and fifty. But Eustathius Bishop of Antioch (in his Homily concerning those words which occur in the Proverbs of Solomon, Dominus crea­vit me,) says they were about 270; but tells us, that he had not accurately reckoned up their number. But the more constant Report, and which is confirmed by the consent of all the more modern Authours, is, that 318 Bishops sate in that Synod. So a­mongst the Ancients Athanasius in his Epistle to the African Bishops, not far from the beginning, Hilarius in his book against Constantius, Hieronymus in his Chronicon, and Rufinus. Athanasius in his Letter con­cerning the Decrees of the Nicene Synod▪ says, that the Bishops who met at Nicaea were three hundred more or less. Vales. two hundred and fifty. But the number of the Presbyters and Deacons who followed them, [...]. It must be written, [...] from Socrates book 1. chap. 8. and from Gelasius and Nicephorus. In the Fuketian and Savilian Co­pies the reading is [...] and after the word [...] a midle distinction is set in all our Manuscript Copies. Vales. of the Acolythi, and of the many other persons, was not to be comprehen­ded.

CHAP. IX. Concerning the Virtue and Age of the two hun­dred and fifty Bishops.

[At these words I be­gan a new chapter, having fol­lowed the authority of the Kings and Fuketian Copy: whereto a­gree the Old Sheets. Vales. MOreover,] of these Ministers of God, some were eminent for their Or, Dis­course of wisedom. wisedom and eloquence; others, for their Integrity of life, and patient sufferance of hardships; [...]. Severall senses may be given of this passage. For [...] may be taken for modesty and a courteous behaviour; supposing [...] to be made use of instead of [...] Or, [...] may be meant concerning them, who were not the [...]minentest persons amongst the Bishops for learning and sanctity of life; but did not come much behind them. So the Ancients termed those Medios Principes ac duces, middle Princes or Commanders, who were neither the best, nor the worst, but were in a middle place between both. Lastly, [...] may be said of them, who deserved to be praised on both accounts, to wit, for their Learning and Sanctity. So Sozomen has expounded this place of Eusebius, in his first book, chap. 17. in these words: [...] &c. Some excelled in understanding and eloquence, and were eminent both for their knowledge in the sacred Scri­ptures, and for other learning also: others were famous for their integrity and virtue of life: others were well approved of on both accounts. Those whom Eusebius terms [...], are by Sozomen stiled [...], well approved of on both accounts. Epiphanius Scholasticus, in the second book of his Tri­partite History, chapter 1, renders this place of Eusebius thus: Mini­strorum verò dei, alii sapientiae sermone fulgebant, alii continentiâ vitae & patientiâ coruscabant: alii verò medio modo horum virtu­tibus ornabantur; but of the Ministers of God, some shined with the discourse of wisdom, others glistered with continency of life and patience; but othersome were in a middle manner adorned with the virtues of these. Vales. others, were adorned with modesty and a courteous be­haviour. Some of them were highly respected by reason of their great age; others were emi­nent for their youthfull vigour, both of body and mind. Some were newly in [...]tiated in­to the Or, Course. Order of the Ministery. To all which persons the Emperour com­manded a plentifull provision of food should be every day allowed.

CHAP. X. The Synod [was held] in the Pallace, amongst whom Constantine went in, and sate together with [the Bishops.]

BUt on the day appointed for the Synod, whereon the points in controversie were to be determined; after [...]. It must be written [...] every person, as Christo­phorson seems to have read. To whom nevertheless I can't assent, as to his ha­ving thought, that [...] was to be referred to [...]. But I doubt not, but [...] the determination (which word precedes immediately,) is to be understood. For 'tis [...]er Greek, as I take it, to say [...] or [...], than [...]. In the Fuketian and Savilian Copies 'tis plainly written [...]. Vales. every person concerned in that [determination] was come [...]. Whoever that person was that composed the Greek contents of the chapters, he took these words as meant of the Pallace; and Christophorson has followed him in that. Sozomen likewise (book 1. chap. 19.) and Theodoret (book 1. chap. 7.) do write that the Nicene Synod was held in the Pallace, where the Emperour Constantine ordered Seats and Benches to be prepared for the Bishops. Nicephorus also (book 8.) hath writ­ten out the words of Theodoret. But, with the favour of so many and such great men be it spoken, 'tis in no wise likely, that the Nicene Synod should have been held in the Pallace. These persons were de­ceived, as it seems, by the ambiguous word here made use of by Eu­sebius, [...]. For this term is promiscu­ously used, as well for the Pallace of the Emperour, as for a Church. 'Tis certain Eusebius, in the Tenth Book of his Eccles. History, terms a Church [...]. Indeed, much would be detracted from the authority of that Councill, should we believe it to have been held in the Emperour's Pallace. Besides, Eusebius himself does most appa­rently contradict this Opinion. For above at chapter 7, he writes thus in express words, [...], &c. And one sacred Ora­tory, enlarged as 'twere by God himself, included at the same time within its walls, Syrians and Cilicians, &c. What can be more manifest than these words? Is it not most evidently declared by this passage, that the Nicene Synod was held in the Church? For Eusebius affirms, that all the Bishops were contained within the compass of one Church. Moreover, the words which Eusebius subjoyns in this chapter, in my judgment do sufficiently shew this. For he writes, [...], to the very middlemost Edifice of the Pallace, which [Edifice] in greatness seemed to exceed all others. Eusebius says, that that House was the greatest and largest of all Houses in any place. But this can't be said of the Pallace of the City Nicaea. For, although we grant there was a Pallace in that City, questionless that could not be the greatest of all the Pallaces every where. For the Pallaces at Rome and Millaine were far greater. Nor do I doubt but the Pallace at Nicomedia was far larger and richer than that at Nicaea, in regard Nicomedia had been the Seat and Habitation of the Emperours from the times of Diocletian. Some one will perhaps answer, that Eusebius does not say, that that middle Edifice of the Nicene Pallace or Church, in largeness exceeded all the Buildings of the whole world; but only, that it was greater than the other Edifices of that Pallace or Church. For so Eusebius expresses himself hereafter, at book 4. chap. 66. where he describes Constantine's Funeral. Indeed, I could willingly grant, that this is the meaning of Eusebius's words. But yet it follows not from hence, that the Nicene Pallace is meant by Eusebius. For, as well in Churches as in Pallaces, the middlemost Edifice was the largest and most capacious, as 'tis manifest from Eusebius, in his description of the Church of Tyre. All things therefore being accurately weighed, this is my Sentiment: that the Bishops met first in the Church; and treated there many days concerning the opinion of Arius and the Rule of faith; but, that at length, on the day appointed for finishing the business, they came together into the Pallace, that they might de­clare their Opinion before the Emperour, and might put an end to the Contention. And thus all manner of difficulty is taken away. Indeed, Eusebius does plainly confirm that which I have said. For he says, that the Bishops, on the day appointed whereon an end was to be put to the Controversies, came all into the Pallace. And the Emperour going forth immediately to the Synod, all things, says he, were esta­blished in his presence. From which words it plainly appears, that Eusebius does here speak concerning the last day of the Councill, or the last Session, after the matter had been before discussed and sifted, in many Sessions of the Bishops. For so many and such great mat­ters, as were negotiated in that Synod, could not be examined and determined in one days space. The same also had been done before in the Antiochian Synod against Paul of Samosata, as Eusebius informs us in the Seventh Book of his Ecclesiastick History. Vales. to the very middlemost House, Room▪ or, Building. Edifice of the Pallace, which [Edifice] in greatness seemed to exceed all others: and after a great many Seats had been placed in order on both sides of the Room, the persons who had been sent for went in; and each of them took an agreeable Seat. But when with a befiting decency the whole Sy­nod had sate down, they were all silent, expecting the Emperour's coming forth. Soon after this enters one, then a second, and a third person of those about the Emperour. Others also went before, not any of the [Emperour's] usuall Protectours and Guards, but Or, Those only of his faithfull friends. those only of his friends who profest the Faith of Christ. And when, [...]. Concerning this signe whereby the Emperour's coming was declared, Corìppus speaks in these words▪ —Praenuntius anteSigna dedit cursor positâ de more Lucernâ. Vales. upon a sign given which declared the Emperour's entrance, they had all risen up, at length he himself d came walking in the midst, like some Celestial Angell of God:c [...]. Christophorson renders it per medium consessum intrat, enters through the midst of the assembly sitting together. He might better have rendred it, went thorow the middle space which was between the two ranks of the persons sitting. That's the import of the word [...], that is, [...], to go between two. So below at chap. 15. [...], &c. thorow the midst of whom the men of God without fear passed, &c. Vales. shining with his bright purple-garment as 'twere with the splendour of Light, glistering with Or, Fiery. fla­ming Rays, and adorned with the clear bright­nesses of Gold and pretious Stones. Such was the attire of his Body. But as to his mind, 'twas sufficiently manifest, that he was to an accuracy adorned with a fear and reverence of God. And an indication hereof was given by his cast­down Eyes, by his blushing Countenance, and by Or, The motion of his walking. his Gate and motion. Moreover, the rest of his Bodily shape; his tallness of Stature namely, wherein he excelled all persons that were a­bout him, [as he did likewise] in a Comli­ness of Make, in a magnificent gracefullness of Body, and in an invincible strength and might: all these [accomplishments I say] being mixt with a Or, Meekness, or, mode­sty. sweetness of disposition, and with an Im­perial Lenity and Mansuetude, declared the im­mense excellency of his mind to be superiour to all manner of commendation. After the Em­perour‖ Or, First beginning, or, head. was come to the † upper end of the seats, [...] Chri­stophorson seems to have read [...]: for he has rendred it thus; Primùm in medio conventu erectus constitit, in the first place he stood upright in the middle of the Convention. Vales. in the first place he stood in the midst. And when a Or, Small. low chair made of Gold had been placed before him, he sate not down till such time as the Bi­shops had beckoned to him. As soon as the Em­perour [had seated himself,] they all did the same.

CHAP. XI. The Silence of the Synod, after Eusebius the Bi­shop had made a short Speech.

THen Sozomen attests, book 1. chap. 19. that he who had the first place on the right side, and who in the name of the whole Councill made a speech to the Emperour, was Eusebius Pam­philus. And so 'tis written in the Title of this chapter. But Theo­doret (book 1. chap. 7. of his History,) says this Oration was not made by Eusebius but by Eustathius Bishop of Antioch. Baronius has followed Theodoret's opinion; whom any one, from his writings, will easily find to have been of a mind full of anger and hatred against our Eusebius. But The Authour of the Tripartite History, (book 2. chap. 5. where he writes out Theodoret's words,) says that after Eu­stathius Bishop of Antioch, Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea made a speech likewise concerning the praises of the Emperour. Which nevertheless occurs not now in the Greek Copies of Theodoret; so that it neces­sarily follows, either that Epiphanius Scholasticus had procured more perfect Copies of Theodoret, or else that he added this of his own head, as 'tis sometimes his usage. Of this nature is that which we have noted above concerning the Bishop of the Imperial City, whom So­crates from Eusebius relates not to have been present at the Nicene Synod, where Epiphanius Scholasticus by a notorius mistake has added the name of Alexander, when as he ought rather to have said Metro­phanes. But to return to our business, there are those who write, that that honour was conferred neither on Eustathius, nor Eusebius, but on Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, that in the name of the Councill he should make a speech to the Emperour. Nicetas in his Thesaurus Or­thodoxae fidei, book 5. chap. 7. affirms this in these words: Eusebius de Vitâ Constantini Libro 3. se primum verba in Synodo fecisse testa­tur, &c. Eusebius in his third book concerning the Life of Constantine attests, that be made the first speech in the Synod. But if we believe Theodoret, Eustathius was the first, &c. But as Theodorus Mopsuestenus writes, that honour was frcely conferred on Alexander the Pontif of Alex­andria. But in such a diversity of Writers I should more willingly close with that opinion, which affirms that the first Course of speaking was by the Synod conferred on Eusebius. First of all, because with­out controversie Eusebius was the Learnedest and most eloquent per­son amongst them. Secondly, he himself does plainly attest this, at the beginning of this work, in these words: [...], &c. We our selves also, by a Panegyrick spoken in his Vicennalia, have lately Venerated the same glorious Conquerour environed with a Synod of Gods Sacred Ministers. See the Preface to the first Book, note (a.) Vales. He of the Bishops, who sate first on the right-hand-side, arose, and addrest him­self to the Emperour in a speech of an indiffe­rent length, wherein he gave Almighty God [Page 580] thanks and praise for The Emperour. Him. After he had taken his Seat also, Silence was made, all persons having fixt their eyes on the Emperour. When he had lookt upon them all with joyfull eyes and a pleasing countenance, afterwards He made a re­collection of his own mind within himself, and with a calm and mild voice uttered these words.

CHAP. XII. Constantine's [Speech] to the Synod concer­ning Peace.

THe Or, End. Sum of my Prayers (Dearest Friends!) was this, that I might enjoy the sight of your Convention. Which having now obtained, I render my thanks to [God] the supream King; because, besides his innumerable other [Bene­fits,] He hath granted Me a sight of this, which is the chiefest of all Goods: I mean, that I might behold all You Convened together, and Or, See. find one and the same unanimous Sentiment amongst you all. Let no envious Enemy therefore in future Or, Ruine our goods. disturb the happy posture of our Affairs: and, since that opposition made by Tyrants against the Deity is wholly removed by the power of God Our Saviour, let not the malignant Devill [...]. Portesius, Christo­phorson, and the French Translatour have omit­ted this word; not­withstan­ding that therein lyes the whole Emphasis and force of the sentence. For to this word the fol­lowing period is referred. Take heed, says he, least after the destru­ction of their Tyranny who brought a War against God, the Devill by some other way should again expose our Religion to reproaches and calum [...]ies. By another way therefore is meant intestine dissensions. See the fol­lowing words. Vales. by any other methods Or, In­vest—with. expose the Divine▪ Law to Blasphemies. For, an intestine Sedition of the Church of God appears to me more grievous and dangerous than any sort of War or Fight whatever: nor do any externall affairs seem more afflictive to Me, than these mat­ters. Indeed, at such time as, by the Will and Cooperation of God, I had obtained a compleat Victory over mine Enemies, [...]. It must be written, as I suppose, [...], I was of opinion that nothing remained to me. And a little after with Turnebus and Gruterus I read [...], &c. But when—I had received information of your, &c. Vales. I was of opinion, that nothing remained to Me, but to give God thanks, and to rejoyce with those whom he by our means had set a Liberty. But when (contrary to all expectation) I had received information of your disagreement, I lookt upon that Or, Report. thing as in no wise to be neglected: but wishing that by our as­sistance a remedy might be applyed to this [mis­chief] also, without any delay I called you all together. And I am highly pleased with the sight of this Your Convention. But shall then judge that I have managed this affair according to my prayers, when I shall behold all of You Or, Mix [...] together. conjoyned in your minds, and one amicable a­greement in common concluded on amongst you all, which it becomes You, who are persons consecra­ted to God, [...]. Christo­phorson has rendred it ill, à Deo impetrare, by request to obtain of God; when as he ought to have rendred it, Praedicare, to Preach. For in this sense Eusebius is wont to use this word, as 'tis apparent from innumerable passages in his Eccles. History; for instance, book 4. chap. 15. In the Fuketian and Savil. Copies the reading is bad, thus, [...]. Vales. to Preach to others. Delay not therefore, Dearest Friends, ye Ministers of God, and good Servants of the Common Lord and Sa­viour of us all! But beginning [...]. In the Fuketian Copy, this whole place is written far otherwise, thus, [...], &c. refuse not in future to take away the occasions of dissent amongst you; dissolve every knot, &c. And so Sr Henry Savil and Christophorson found it in their Copies. Vales. even from hence to take away the Occasions of mutuall dissent a­mongst you, [...]. I reade with Christophorson [...], to dissolve. But the common reading may stand, provided after the words Saviour of us all, a Colon be placed, as Sr Henry Savil hath noted at the margin of his Copy: and so 'tis poynted in the Kings Copy. Vales. dissolve every knot of controversie by the Laws of Peace. For by this means You will perform both what is most acceptable to the supream God; and will likewise bestow a transcen­dent favour on Me Your Fellow-Servant.

CHAP. XIII. That he reduced those Bishops who were at dif­ference, to an agreement.

HAving spoken these words in the Latine Tongue, which were done into Greek by some other person, he gave those who presided in the Synod, leave to speak. But then, some of them began to accuse their neighbours; others answered their accusations, and on the contrary made complaints. Many things therefore being in this manner proposed on both sides, and a great controversie raised even at the first begin­ning [of the debate,] the Emperour heard them all very patiently, and with an [...]. In Socra­tes, book 1. chap. 8. and in Ni­cephorus, the reading is [...], intent. But Gelazius Cyzizenus, chap. 28. has [...] most intent. With So­crates a­grees the Fuketian Copy, and the Kings Sheets. Vales. intent mind received their proposed Questions; and by turns assisting the Assertions of both par­ties, by degrees he reduced them, who perti­naciously opposed each other, to a more sedate temper of mind. And by his gracious Speeches to each person, and his making use of the Greek tongue, (for he was not unskilled in that Lan­guage,) He rendred himself most extraordina­rily pleasing and delightfull; [...]. In Socrates, Gelasius, and Nicephorus, the reading is [...]. But in the Kings Copy 'tis [...]. Vales. inducing some to be of his opinion by the force of his argu­ments; woing others by entreaties; praising those who spoke well; and exciting all to an agreement: till at length he had made them all of the same mind and opinion, in relation to all matters concerning which they had before disa­greed.

CHAP. XIV. The Concordant Or, Ex­position. Determination of the Sy­nod concerning the Faith, and concerning Easter.

SO that, there was not only an universall agreement about the [Articles of] Faith, but one and the same time also was generally acknowledged for the celebration of the salu­tary Feast [of Easter.] Moreover, That is, the draught of the Creed, the Ca­nons, and the Syno­dick Let­ter. For all these were confirmed by the Subscriptions of every one of the Bishops. They who besides these three, think that the Acts of the Nicene Synod were put into writing, are very much mistaken. For Eusebius says in express words that nothing was committed to writing, except those matters which had been Decreed by the common consent of the Councill; and he affirms, that those things were confirmed by the Subscriptions of all. Indeed Baronius at the year of Christ 325. chap. 62. says that the Acts were written by the Nicene Synod, and has affirmed that that is expressly recorded by Athanasius in his book de Synodis. But Baronius was imposed upon by the Latine Version, which runs thus; Tom. 1. pag. 873. quòd si ad hanc rem usus Synodi de [...]ideratur, supersunt Acta patrum, nam neque in hâc parte negligentes fuere qui Nicaeae convenerunt, sed ita accuratè scripscrunt, &c. But if the use of the Synod be wanting to this matter, the Acts of the Fathers are to be had. For those convened at Nicaea were not negligent even in this matter, but wrote so accurately, &c. But in the Greek Text there is no mention of Acts; for thus it runs, [...], that is, the Writings of the Fathers are to be bad; to wit, the Creed, the Canons, and the Synodick Letter. There is another passage of Athanasius, in his Epistle de Decretis Nicaenae Synodi, pag. 250. whence it may be manifestly gathered, that there were no Acts written. For thus he speaks: Quandoquidem tua dilectio ca nosse desiderat quae in Synodo, &c. In as much as your love desires to know those things which were done in the Synod, I have made no delay; but have forth with signi­fied to you whatever was done there, &c. Now, if the Acts had been taken in writing by the Notaries▪ Athanasius had done enough, had he transmitted those Acts to his friend. Vales. the Deter­minations ratified by a Common Consent, were engrossed, and confirmed by the Subscription of every person. Which things having in this man­ner been performed, the Emperour affirmed that he had obtained this second Victory against the Enemy of the Church, and celebrated a Trium­phant Feast in honour of God.

CHAP. XV. That Constantine entertained the Bishops at a Feast, it being His Vicennalia.

AT the same time the twentieth year of his Empire was These words must be inter­preted fa­vourably. For the twentieth year of Constan­tine's Em­pire was not yet compleated, nay scarce begun. For the twentieth year of his Reign began on the eight of the Calends of August, when Paulinus and Julianus were Consuls, which was the 325th year of Our Lords Nativity. But the Nicene Councill was celebrated on the twentieth of the month May, in the same persons Consulate, as Socrates writes in the thirteenth chapter of his first book, or rather on the 13th of the Calends of July, on the 19th day of the month Desius, which by the Romans is termed June, as it occurs in the Acts of the Chalce­don Councill, in the Alexandrian Chronicle, and in the Collectio Cresco­niana. Which I think to be truer. For if we suppose the Nicene Coun­cill to have been convened on the 20th day of May, too narrow a space of time will be left for the transacting of those affairs which Constantine performed after his Conquest of Licinius. Licinius was vanquished in the last Battle at Chalcedon, on the year of Christ 324, on the 15th of the Calends of October, as 'tis recorded in Idatius's Fasti, and in the Alexandrian Chronicle. On the day following Licinius, who had betaken himself to Nicomedia, surrendred himself to Constantine the Victour. After this Constantine made his Entry into Nicomedia; whilst he made his residence in that City, and hastned to take his progress into the Eastern parts, he received the news concerning the dissention of the Alexandrian Church and all Egypt, on account of the Opinion of Arius and the disturbances of the M [...]letians, as he himself writes in his Letter to Alexander and Arius. And in the first place he sent Hosius with his Letters to Alexandria, who by his authority might compose the Tumul [...]s the [...]e. But after Hosius had staid some time at Alexandria, he returned to Constantino [...]e without having effected any thing. All which businesses could not any wise have been done within less time than three months▪ Further, when Constantine saw the mischief increase daily, he resolved upon convening a Generall Councill of Bishops, that thereby he might restore Peace to the Church. In order thereto he dispatch't away the Veredarii (Couriers) and Agentes in Rebus (Messengers of the Emperour) thorowout all the Provinces, who might call together the Bishops to Nicaea of Bythinia. Let us suppose therefore, that the Veredarii had brought the Emperour's Letters to each of the Bishops in the month March: 'tis scarce credible that the Bishops could come into Bythinia from the most distant Countries as well of the East as West, before the month July; especially, in regard they were conveyed thither by Land, not by Sea, as Eusebius tells us chap. 6. The Greeks do usually term the seventh Sunday after Easter, that namely which immediate­ly precedes Whitsontide, [...] the Sunday of the holy Fathers, or [...] of the 318 holy Divines which were at Nicaea; as we are in­formed f [...]om The Typick of the Monastery of Saint Saba. Vales. compleated. On which account publick Feasts were celebrated in all the other Provinces; and the Emperour him­self began the Feasts with the Ministers of God, banquetting together with them now reconciled one with another, and by them offering this be­coming sacrifice as 'twere to God. Nor was any of the Bishops absent from this Imperial Feast. Further, what was then performed, surpasses the bounds of any Narrative. For the [...]. In the same man­ner he joyns them both toge­ther a lit­tle above, where he speaks of Constan­tine's en­trance into the Synod. [...] are the Ha­stati, or the Protectors who carried Spears. Themistius in his Oration to the Emperour Jovian, writes that he went an [...] (a Spear-Carrier) against the Persian, that is a Protector Domesticus, as we un­derstand from Amm. Marcellinus. The [...] were the Scutati, Shield-Bearers; to wit, Souldiers who were under the Command of the Magister Militum praesentalis, or Master of the Milice who lived at Court or in the presence of the Prince. Vales. Protectors and Souldiers, with the naked points of their swords, on all sides guarded the Porticus's of the Pallace; thorow the midst of whom the men of God with­out fear passed, and went into the inmost Rooms of the Pallace. Then, [...]. It must be made [...] together with the Emperour, as Christophorson seems to have read; and so 'tis plainly written in the Fuketian Copy. Theodoret confirms our Emen­dation (book 1. chap. 11.) in these words, which do wonderfully explain this passage of Eusebius; [...], and having ordered many Stibadia to be made ready, He feasted them all in one and the same place; the more honourable of them he took to his own Table, but distributed the rest upon other Stibadia. A better Scolion could not have been placed at Eusebius's words. Those which Eu­scbius had termed [...], (for so 'tis to be read from the King's and the Fuketian Copy;) Theodoret calls [...]; that is Stibadia or Accubita. Nicephorus's Translatour renders it toros, which is ill done. Nor has Theodoret's Translatour done better in translating it S [...]des, Seats. Suidas interprets [...], a Bed lying on the ground, an Accubitum. The words of Juvenal's Scholiast at the fifth Satyr, are these; apud veteres Accubitorum usus non erat, sed in Lectulis Discumbentes manducabant, amongst the Ancients there was no use of the Accubita, but they lay down upon little Beds and eat. Vales. some of them That was heretofore the usual posture at Feasts. lay down together with the Em­perour; others rested themselves on Stibadia [or, Beds to eat on] pla­ced [...]. I think it must be written [...] on both sides. Than which Emendation nothing is more certain▪ Eu­sebius says that the Stibadia were placed on both sides of the Imperial Hall, whereon the Bishops might lie down; but, that the Emperour's Stibadium was in the midst, whereon he lay down together with the more honourable Bishops. After the same manner in the Nic [...]ne Synod, the Seats whereon the Bishops sate were placed on both sides: but the Emperour himself sate in the midst on a golden chair, between the two rows of the sitting Prelates. The Tribunal of the nineteen Accubita at Constantinople was some such like thing, made in imitation of this Constantinian Feast, as I think. Vales. See Evagr. book 5. chap. 13▪ note (a.) on both sides. One would have thought, that a representation of Christ's Kingdom was adumbrated, and that the thing it self was a dream, but nothing more.

CHAP. XVI. The Gifts bestowed on the Bishops, and the Let­ters written to all.

AFter the Feast had in a most splendid manner been kept, the Emperour received them all, and out of his own magnificence added this also, that he honoured every one of them ac­cording to his desert and dignity, with presents from himself. He likewise gave an account of this Synod, even to those who were not pre­sent at it, by his own Letter: which I will insert into this very Narrative concerning him [and will publish it fix't] as 'twere upon some pillar. The Contents thereof are these.

CHAP. XVII. Constantine's [Letter] to the Churches, con­cerning the Synod [convened] at Nicaea.
CONSTANTINUS AUGUSTUS To the Churches.

HAving sufficiently experienced, by the flouri­shing posture of the State, how great the benignity of the Divine power has been towards us; I judged it my chiefest concern and aim [to Labour] for the preservation of one Faith, a sincere Love, and one universally-acknowledged Re­ligion towards Almighty God, amongst the most Bles­sed Multi­tudes, or, people. Congregations of the Catholick Church. But in regard this thing could not be firmly and sted­fastly constituted, unless all, or at least the greatest part of the Bishops were convened in one place, and every particular that concerns the most Holy Religion were discussed: on this account, when as many of the Clergy, as could possibly be got to­gether, were assembled, and I my Self also, as one of You, was present with them, (For I will not deny, what I account my greatest Glory, that I am Your Fellow-Servant;) all matters were suf­ficiently discussed so far, till such time as an opinion acceptable to God the Inspectour of all things, was brought to light, [...]. In Theodo­ret and Nicephorus the reading is truer, thus, [...], &c. in order to, &c. Vales. in order Or, To a consent of unity. to an universall agreement and union: so that no place might be left for dissention or controversie in relation to the Faith.

CHAP. XVIII. The same persons [words] concerning the A­greement about the Feast of Easter, and a­gainst the Jews.

WHere also, after a disquisition made con­cerning the most Holy Day of Easter, it [...]. These words of Constantine, Athanasius seems to have had a re­spect to, when (in his Book de Synodis Arimini & Seleuciae, pag. 873.) he observes that the Fathers of the Nicene Synod spake one way in their exposition of the Faith, another in their defining the day of Easter. For in this business they made use of the word [...] it pleased, or, it was thought good. But in their Exposition of the Faith they did not in any wise say placuit, it pleased, but ita credit sancta & Universalis Ecclesia, the holy and Universall Church believes thus. 'Tis certain, the word [...] which Athanasius mentions, is not found in the Synodick Letter, but in this Letter only of Constantine's; which any one might conjecture, was not without reason taken for the Sy­nodick Letter. Vales. was by a generall opinion thought good to be Decreed, that [that Festivall] ought to be celebrated by all persons in all places on one and the same day. For what can be more comely, what more grave and decent for us, than that this Festivall, from which we have received the hopes of immortality, should be unerringly kept by all men, in one and the same order, and in a manner apparently agreeable? And in the first place, it seemed [to all] to be a thing unworthy and misbecoming, that in the celebration of that most Holy Solemnity we should follow the usage of the Jews. Who being persons that have defiled their own hands with a most detestable sin, are deser­vedly impure and blind as to their minds. For, [...], that Nation. I reade [...] usage, with Christo­phorson and Gruterus. We have noted the same fault in his Eccles. Hist. In the Kings Sheets and Sr Henry Savils Copy 'tis [...] usage. Vales. their usage being rejected, we may by a truer Order, which we have observed from the first day of the Passion untill this present time, pro­pagate the Or, Completion of this obser­vation. Rite of this ob­servance to future Ages. Let nothing therefore be common to us with that most hostile multitude of the Jews. For we have received ano­ther way from Our Saviour. There is proposed to us a [...]. In Gelasius and Nice­phorus the reading is [...], and a decent Law. But Socrates and Theodoret defend the common reading. Vales. Lawfull and decent course to [Our] most sacred Religion. Let us therefore (Dearest Bre­thren!) with one accord constantly persist in this course, and withdraw our Selves from that most im­pure [Society and] For they who celebrate the Lord's Pascha with the Jews, seem to be conscious of that wicked­ness which the Jews committed a­gainst the Lord. But Christophor­son renders [...], Opinion; with whom I agree not. Vales. In Socrates, instead of [...] im­pure, the reading is [...] Hostile or Adverse. their consciousness. For 'tis really most absurd, that they should boast, that we are not suffi­cient of Our Selves, without their instruction, to observe these things. But, of what are they able to pass a right judgment, who after the Mur­der of the Lord and that par­ricide, having been struck with madness, are led, not by the conduct of reason, but by an ungovernable Or, Vio­lence. impetus, whither soever their innate rage shall drive them? Hence there­fore it is, that even in this particular they dis­cern not the Truth: in so much that, wan­dring at the greatest distance [...]. So­crates, The­odoret, Gelasius, and Nicephorus have [...], &c. which I like not. For 'tis rightly said [...] Vales. from a de­cent and agreeable amendment, Whereas the Paschal Neomenia (or New-moon) of the Jews began from the fifth day of the moneth March and was ended on the third of April, hence it sometimes hapned, that their Pascha began before the Aequinox. So they kept a twosold Pascha in the same year, (if you understand the Solar or Julian year,) to wit, from the Vernall Aequinox of this year to the Vernall Aequinox of the year following. Ambrosius says the same in his Epistle to the Bishops of Aemilia, where he writes, that the Jews sometimes celebrated the Pascha on the twelfth month, that is, according to the Latines or Ori­entals. For the Jews never celebrated the passover on that month which amongst them was accounted the twelfth, but on the fourteenth day of the first month. Further, this repetition or doubling of their passover which Constantine objects against the Jews, seems to me not at all momentous. For the Jews might have retorted against the Christians, namely that they celebrated Easter twice in the same year, if we understand the year current. For let us suppose, that this year Easter was celebrated on the tenth of the Calends of May; on the year following it must necessarily be kept sooner. And so there will occur two Easters amongst the Christians within the space of one year current. Which nevertheless will not happen, if you count the year from the Aequinoctial Cardo to the Vernal Aequinox of the other year. See Epiphanius in Haeres. Audian. and Petav. Animad. p. 294. To whom add Aegidius Bucherius de Paschali Judaeorum Cyclo, cap. 3. Vales. they celebrate Easter twice within one and the same year. [...]. In Theodoret and Nicephorus the reading is [...], what reason therefore, &c. so 'tis also in Socrates and Ge­lasius. From whom the following words must be amended in this manner, [...], your prudence. And a little after, [...], in no likeness. Although in those writers I have mentioned, the reading is [...] in the likness of any thing. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis [...] upon no pre­tence. Further, the Authour of the Apostolick Constitutions. (book 5. chap. 16.) seems to allude to these words. Which any one will con­fess, who compares that place with these words of Constantine. Vales. What reason have we to follow these men, [Page 583] who, 'tis acknowledged, are distempered with a most grievous errour? For we shall never endure the keeping of two Easters in one and the same year. But, although what I have said were not sufficient, nevertheless it behooveth your prudence, to make it your greatest care, and the constant matter of your Prayers, that the purity of your souls should not in any thing seem to have communion with the usages of most wicked men. Besides, this also is to be considered, that 'tis a most detestable thing, that there should any disagreement be found in a mat­ter of so great concern, and in such a solemnity of Religion. For Our Saviour left us but one Festival day of our Liberty, that is the day of His most Holy Passion; and 'twas his will, that His Catholick Church should be one. The members of which Church (although for the most part they are disperst into many and various places, neverthe­less) are cherished by one spirit, that is by the Divine Will. Let the prudence of Your Sanctity consider, how grievous and indecent a thing it is, that on the self-same days some should keep He means the head [or beginning] of the Fast, which by the Quar­todecimani was be­gun at one time; by the other Christians, at another. Indeed, the following words concerning the days after Easter, do inform us that these words are to be understood concerning the held of the Fast. Otherwise it would be a superfluous Repetition. But if any one had rather understand these words con­cerning the end of the Lent fast, I shall not gainsay him. See Chryso­stome in his Homily against those who fasted the first day of Easter, pag. 714. Vales. strict Fasts, and others celebrate Feasts: and that after the days of Easter, some should be conversant in Feastings and a relaxation [of their minds;] and others devote themselves to set Fasts. Wherefore, 'tis the Will of Divine Providence, that this thing should be redressed by a convenient emendation, and reduced to one and the same form, as I suppose you are all sensible.

CHAP. XIX. An Exhortation, that they would rather follow the greatest part of the world.

SInce therefore it was expedient to make such an amendment in this matter, as that we might have nothing in common with the In the Greek 'tis [...], Na­tion. usage of those Parri­cides and Murderers of Our Lord; and since this is the most decent and becoming Order, which all the Churches of the Western, Southern, and Northern parts of the world, and also some of the Eastern parts, do observe: [...]. In So­crates, The­odoret, Ge­lasius and Nicephorus the reading is [...], for these rea­sons. But it would be better thus, [...], or [...], as 'tis above. In the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis [...], on this account, and so 'tis in Turnebus's Copy. Vales. on this account all persons have at pre­sent judged it good and expedient, (and I my self have promised that it would please your prudence,) that that which with one and a concordant mind is observed in the City of Rome, and over all Italy, Affrica, Egypt, Spain, the Gallia's, the Britan­nia's, the Every one sees, that the words are misplac't here. 'Tis righter therefore in Gelasius, thus, The Britannia's, Egypt, and the Libya's. Socrates has Libya; which reading I like best. Vales. Libya's, thorowout all Achaïa, the A­sian and Pontick Dioecesis, and Cilicia; Your pru­dence also would most willingly embrace and receive. Which [wisedom of yours] will consider, that not only the number of the Churches in the fore­mentioned places is far the greater; but that 'tis most just and equal, that all men should in common desire that, which [...]. In Theodoret and Gela­sius the reading is [...]; which dis­pleases me not, provi­ded [...] be the same with [...], that is, diligens supputatio, an exact reckoning; whence 'tis termed Computus Paschalis. [...] is taken in another sense, in the Synodick Letter of the Nicene Council, where it treats con­cerning the cause of Meletius. For 'tis there taken for the rigour of the Law, and 'tis opposed to equity or a dispensation. Vales. See Socrates, book 1 chap. 9. note (b.) strict reason seems to require, and should have no communion with the The Jews are termed persidious and perjured men, who, whenas they acknowledged no King or Lord besides God, afterwards denied the same [Lord,] and attested they had no other King but Casar. Vales. perjury of the Jews. But that I may speak more summarily and briefly, it has pleased the judgment of all in common, that the most holy Feast of Easter should be celebrated on one and the same day. For 'tis in­decent, that there should be any difference in so great a sanctity: and 'tis better to follow that Opi­nion, After these words, there was a whole line wanting in Robert Ste­phens's Edition; which 'twas easie to have made good from Socrates, Theodoret, Gelasius, and Nicephorus, in this manner, [...], wherein there is no mixture of [or converse with] strange errour and impiety. This is what Constantine had said above at chap. 18. [...]; where see what we have remarked at note (d.) For Christophorson in no wise understood these words. Vales. wherein there is no mixture of strange er­rour and impiety.

CHAP. XX. An Exhortation, that [all] should Or, Be perswaded by those things written by the Synod. give their assent to the Decrees of the Synod.

SInce therefore these things are thus, do you with all willingness receive this Or, Grace. Gift of God, and this truly divine Commandment. This o­pinion of Constantine concerning the autho­rity of the determina­tions of Synods, is to be taken notice of. There is another place like to this, in a Letter of the same Constantine to the Bi­shops after the Council of Orleance. Dico enim ut se veritas habet, &c. For I speak, as the truth is. The judgment [or, determination] of the Bishops [or, Priests] ought so to be esteemed, as if the Lord himself sate and judged. For they may not think any other thing, or judge any other thing, but what they are taught by the Instruction of Christ. Vales. For whatever is transacted [and determined] in the holy Assem­blies of Bishops, That has a reference to the divine will. Wherefore, when you shall have intimated to all our beloved Brethren those matters which have been transacted, From this place it may plainly be gathered, that this Letter of Constantine's was written to the Bishops who had not been present at the Synod. Indeed, the Letter is inscribed To the Churches. But, by the name of the Churches, the Prelates are to be meant. For The Church consists in the Prelates, as Honorius says in the Appendix to the Theodosian Code. Vales. you ought to embrace and establish the forementioned rule and observation of the most holy day: that when I shall come into the presence of This is an Expression peculiar to the Christians; who when they spoke to any one of their Brethren, either by word of mouth or Letter, were wont to say Your charity or Your Love. Nothing occurs more fre­quently in the Epistles of the holy Fathers, so that we need not heap to­gether instances. So Athanasius expresses himself in his Epistle concer­ning the Decrees of the Nicene Synod, a passage whereof we have quoted a little before. But Christophorson renders [...], dispensation; nor did he understand the meaning of this place. Vales. Your Love (which I have long since been desirous of,) I may celebrate the holy Festival with you, on one and the same day, and may rejoyce with you for all things, beholding the Cruelty of the Devil totally removed by the Divine power, and by [...], by your actions. I doubt not but it should be [...], our, as the reading is in Socrates, Theodoret, Ge­lasius, and Nicephorus. 'Tis certain, Constantine in his Letters is went to boast, that the Divine Majesty by his Labour had destroyed the Tyrants who persecuted the Church, and had freed the whole world from the superstitious worship of Damons. Vales. our Or, Actions. endea­vours; whilst your Faith, Peace, and Concord does every where flourish. God preserve You, Dearest Brethren!

[Page 584] [...]. Chri­stophorson understood not this place, as 'tis apparent from his Version. For he renders it thus; Edictum, quod idem pondus habebat & autoritatem cum hâc Epi­stolâ, Imperator in singulas misit Provincias: An Edict, which had the same weight and authority with this Letter, the Emperour sent into each Province. But Eusebius mentions no Edict, but only a Letter sent to the Bishops. Christophorson thought that [...] signified an Edict, which was a great mistake. For [...] is nothing else but a Transcript of a Letter; which Graecians do like­wise term [...] or [...]; and we in the vulgar Idiome call it Copiam, a Copy▪ Eusebius says therefore, that Constantine sent a Copy of this Letter into all the Provinces, or, (which is the same thing,) that he sent this Letter written from the same Copy to all the Pro­vinces. Further, the Reader is to be advertised, that the Title of this chapter was put in a wrong place, in regard it belongs to the conclusion of the foregoing Letter, as any one may see. This Title therefore must be placed above, before these words Since therefore these things, &c. as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. And there we have set it. Vales. A Copy of this very Letter was by the Empe­rour transmitted into every Province; whereby, as in a glass, he gives those that reade it, the clearest view of his own mind, and of his piety towards God.

CHAP. XXI. [His] advice to the Bishops now ready to go away, Or, Concerning Concord. that they would preserve Unity.

FUrther, when the Synod was about to be dis­solved, [...]. Transla­tours un­derstood not this expression. For Porte­sius ren­ders it thus, ex composito verba fecit ad Episco­pos. Christo­phorson in this man­ner, Scrmo­nem apud Episcopos de rebus ordine dispensandis instituit. But [...] imports no more than, Valedixit, he had farewell, or took his leave of. Menander, or rather Alexander Rhe­tor, (in the chapter [...] pag. 624,) writes, that [...] was by the Sophists termed an Oration▪ wherein the Scho­lastici (when the course of their studies was compleated,) departing from Athens, and about to return into their own Country, attested their grief in reference to their going away: or when any one going from home, resolved upon a journey to Athens. The same Authour in his chapter [...], gives us the method of such Orations: [...], he that bids farwell, pretends himself grieved on account of his departure. Moreover, throughout the whole chapter he every where uses [...] for valedicere, to bid farwell. And he says, that this sort of Oration was first invented by Homer, in whom Ulysses bids farwell to the Phaeaces. But Natalis Comes who translated Menander Rhetor into Latine, renders [...], adjunctivam Orationem, an adjunctive Speech, and translates those words I have cited, [...], &c. adjungens, &c. adjoyning, &c. Than which nothing can be more foolish. But with Graecians [...] is valedicere to bid farwell. Hesychius, [...]. So Eusebius uses it in the end of this chapter, and in the First Book, chap. 21. where he speaks concerning the death of Constantius Chlorus. There is an Ora­tion of this sort extant, made by Gregory Nazianzene in the conven­tion of the 150 Bishops; which Oration has this Title, [...], which is the same with [...]. For in this Oration Gregorius bids sa well to the Constantinopolitane Church. Suidas therefore is right in saying [...]. But, as to what the same Suidas adds, that Origen was called [...], in that he is much out: for Origen was termed [...], as Epipha­nius attests, not [...]. Vales. He made a Valedictory Speech to the Bishops. For on a set day he called them all together. And when they were met, he ad­vised them that they should use their utmost diligence to preserve Peace one with another, and to avoid pertinacious Contentions; that they should not be envious, if any Bishop amongst them appeared eminent and approved for wisdom and eloquence: but, should account the virtue of every one to be a common good: that those who were the more eminent ought not to Raise, or, advance. exalt themselves above them who were meaner: For, that it was God's property to give a judge­ment concerning every one's true virtue and worth. That it was rather behoveable, that [the more eminent] should yield and condescend to the Weaker, with an indulgence and Le­nity; especially, in regard 'twas very diffi­cult to find any thing every way perfect. Wherefore, that it behoved them to grant one another pardon for small offences, and to for­give and remit whatever has been committed through humane frailty; [...]. It would be better, were it made [...]. Vales. having always an high regard to, and honour for mutual Con­cord; least whilst they raise Seditions and Fa­ctions one amongst another, an occasion of de­rision might be given to those, who are ready to blaspheme the Divine Law. [...]. Some words seem to be wan­ting here. Indeed these Books are imper­fect in many places, as we have already noted diverse times. Now, this place may not unfitly be made good thus; [...], of which persons we must take the greatest care, and ought to do all things, in regard, &c. For these words are spoken concerning the Pagans, of whom Constantine had made mention just before, when he said [...], to those, who are ready to blaspheme the Divine Law. Constantine says therefore to the Bishops, that their chiefest care ought to be, least by their dissentions the Pagans should be provoked to contemn and deride the Christian Religion. For, that it behoves us, to take the greatest care imaginable of them, and to do all things, whereby they might be recalled to the true faith and salvation. But, that they might easily be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, if our matters might seem blessed and ad­mirable to them. Wherefore, that every one of them ought to be allured to our side by various ways and arts. Then he makes use of an instance of Physitians, who that they may restore health to the sick, devise all things which they believe may be of advantage to them. These words, 'tis certain, the Translatours understood nor, in whose Versions the Reader will find all things contrary. To this place is to be referred a passage of Eusebius in chap. 58. of this book, where he says that the Emperour Constantine gave a great quantity of Gold to the Churches for the maintenance of the poor, in regard he was desirous, that all men should be invited, even this way also, to embrace the doctrine of the saving faith; according to the example of the Apostle, who in his Epistle to the Philippians says these words, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is Preached. Further, in the Fuketian and Savilian Copies, and in Turnebus's Book, this whole place is written thus; [...]. Which questionless is the true reading. This only I would have mended, that instead of [...] it should be written [...]; and afterwards, instead of [...] that the reading be [...]. Vales. Of which per­sons we must take the greatest care, and ought to do all things, in regard they [...]. At this place [...] signifies to partake of the doctrine of the salutary Faith; in which sense 'tis taken by St Paul, where he says, that God would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth. This verb is in this sense proper to the Christian Religion. In which signification nevertheless, the Philosophers of the latter age used it, as I remember I have read in the Commentaries of Proclus on Timaeus. Vales. might easily be saved, if those things performed amongst us could seem to them desirable and worthy of imitation. [...]. It is rather to be written [...], by understanding [...] which was made use of a little before; and we have rendred it accordingly. But the Fuketian Copy has opened to us the true reading, wherein 'tis thus worded, [...], &c. But I suppose you are not ignorant, that, &c. And so Turnebus had mended it at the margin of his Book, from a Manuscript Copy. Vales. And, that they [ought] not to doubt, that the advantage [arising] from dis­courses does not profit all men. For some re­joyce, that conveniences are [...]. A new and unusual word; instead whereof it ought, as I think, to be [...], allowed. The meaning of this passage is the same with that we have set in our Version. For Constantine says, that the Pagans are wont to be converted to our Religion on various accounts and occasions. That some are drawn by the hope of food, namely because of the Aims of the Christians. Others, by the hope of Patronage; to wit, on account of the au­thority of the Bishops, who could do much with the Emperour and Grandees at Court. [...] signifies Patronage, Protection, or Favour, as I have noted at Amm. Marcellinus; which term John Chry­sostome makes frequent use of. In the excellent Fuketian Copy the word [...] is wanting, and this whole place is thus worded; [...]; For some rejoyce as 'twere on account of food: others are wont to run under those who are possessed of [or, have procured] Patronage. Vales. allowed them as 'twere in order to their maintenance: others [Page 585] are wont to flie to Patronage. Some love those from whom they have had a kind reception: and others being honoured with Gifts, are there­by induced to enter into a friendship. But their number is small who are [...]. The Fu­ketian Co­py and Sr Henry Sa­vil's have it written [...], Lovers of true dis­courses. And in the same man­ner 'tis mended in the margin of Turne­bus's Book. But the common reading (exprest in our Ver­sion) plea­ses me best, by reason of those words which immediately follow, to the end a tauto­logy might be avoided. A little after, the Fuketian Copy and the Kings Sheets have it written [...], in one Body; not [...], as 'tis in the common Editions. In the same Copy I found it written [...], For which reason they ought to fit and conform themselves to all men; not as 'tis commonly Printed, [...]. Vales. true Lovers of dis­courses, and Or, A friend of truth is rare. 'tis a rare thing to find a friend of Truth. For which reason they ought all to fit and con­form themselves [to all men,] and (like a Physitian) administer to each person those things which are profitable for sal­vation; to the end that the saving Doctrine may be honoured by all men. These were the ad­monitions [given them by the Emperour] in the first place. But in the close he added, that with all diligence and earnestness they would put up their prayers to God in behalf of him. Ha­ving in this manner taken leave of them, he per­mitted them all to return into their own Coun­tries. They therefore went home with all the chearfullness imaginable; and in future one Opinion, which had been agreed on in the Em­perours presence, prevailed amongst all men; in regard, those who for a long time had been disunited, closed again in one Body as 'twere.

CHAP. XXII. In what manner he sent to some, and wrote to others; and [concerning] the distributions of money.

THe Emperour therefore, rejoycing at this Or, Brave ex­ploit, viz. the union of the Church. great success, by his Letters imparted most plentifull and pleasing fruit to those who had not been present at the Synod. Moreover, he ordered liberal distributions of money to be made amongst all the people, as well those in the Countries as them in the Cities; in this manner honouring the publick Festivals [celebrated] on account of the twentieth year of his Empire.

CHAP. XXIII. How he wrote to the Egyptians, and exhorted them Or, In relation to Peace. to Peace.

BUt when all other persons were at Peace one with another, amongst the Egyptians only the mutual contention was fierce and implacable: in so much that they did again disturb the Em­perour; nevertheless they excited him not to anger. For he Or, Cherished. treated them with all the ho­nour imaginable, as if they had been Fathers, or rather Prophets of God; and called them to him a second time; and did again with great patience mediate between them; and honoured them with Gifts again, and declared to them his determi­nation by a Letter: wherein he confirmed and established the Decrees of the Synod; and be­sought them that they would be studious to pre­serve Concord, that they should not distract nor tear in sunder the Church; but, that they should take into their consideration the memory of the judgment of God. And these things the Emperour suggested to them by Or, His own wri­ting. a peculiar Letter.

CHAP. XXIV. That he frequently wrote Or, Piously. Pious Letters to the Bishops and People.

MOreover, he wrote infinite other things of the same sort with these, and penn'd a vast number of Letters; Or, Partly. sometimes to the Bi­shops, wherein he commanded those things which were of advantage to the Churches of God; at others, he addrest himself by Letters even to the Or, Multitudes. populacy themselves, [in which Letters] this thrice blessed person stiled the peo­ple of the Church, Brethren and his own Fellow­servants. But we will at another time get lei­sure Indeed, Eusebius did after­wards per­form what he here promises; and in a peculiar volume comprized all the Letters and Sanctions of the Emperour Constantine, which bore a reference to the Catholick Faith. This I am informed of from the Medicaean Copy; wherein, at the close of his Eccles. Hist. Constantine's Letter to the Pa­lestinians is written out, which Eusebius hath recorded in the foregoing book, and after the foresaid Letter these words occur; [...]; that is, Let these things therefore be here placed by me. But come on now; let us from another head [or, beginning] gather together the Laws, and all the Letters of our Pious and most mild Emperour [written] in defence of the true Religion. Vales. to make a Collection of these [Letters and Sanctions] in a peculiar Volume, to the end the Or, Body. Series of this our History may not be interrupted at present.

CHAP. XXV. That he ordered a Church to be built at Jerusa­lem, in the holy place of our Saviour's Resur­rection.

THese matters having been in this manner performed, this pious [Emperour] ef­fected [...]. The first word ought, I think, to be expun­ged, as be­ing super­fluous; un­less it should be made [...], on account of its memorableness. It may also be worded thus, [...]. Turnebus at the margin of his Copy hath made it [...] instead of [...]. Vales. another vast work highly memorable, in the Province of the Palestinians. But what was that? He lookt upon it as his duty, to render that most blessed place of the Salu­tary Resurrection, which is at Jerusalem, illu­strious and venerable in the sight of all men. He gave order therefore, that an Oratory should forthwith be erected there: which he was induced to do, not without God's appointment; but had his mind incited thereto by our Saviour himself.

CHAP. XXVI. That the Impious had covered our Lord's Sepul­chre with Rubbish and Idols.

FOr impious men, or rather the whole Tribe of Daemons by the assistance of such men, had heretofore made it their business, wholly to involve that admirable monument of Immor­tality in darkness and oblivion. [That Monu­ment I say] to which an Angel, shining with light, descended from heaven, and rolled away the stone from their minds who were really stony, and who supposed that the living [Christ] as yet lay amongst the dead: [which Angel] brought glad tidings to the women, and removed the stone of Infidelity from I supposed the word their was to be referred to the women which came early to the Sepul­chre of our Lord. But Christo­phorson referred it to those stony and incredulous persons, concer­ning whom Eusebius hath spoken a little before; which I approve not of. Vales. their minds, to the end he might assert an opinion concer­ning his Life, who was sought for by them. This salutary Cave therefore some impious and profane persons took a resolution wholly to render invisible; being so foolish as to think, that by this means they should con­ceal the truth. Where­fore, having by much la­bour brought together a vast quantity of earth, [...]. I would rather read [...], that is, from what place soever they could get it. Vales. from what place soever they could get it, and heap't it up, they Or, Cover. filled that whole place. And after this they raised it to an height, and paved it with stone; under which great heap of earth they hid the divine Cave which was below. Then, as if nothing else remained to [be done by] them, upon this [heap of] earth they pre­pare a truely horrid Sepulchre of Souls; erect­ing a dark Cavern of dead Idols, in honour of that Lascivious Daemon [whom they term] Venus: in which place they [...]. Christo­phorson has rendred this place very ill, in this man­ner; tum detestabiles ibi victi­ [...]as super impuras aras immo­lar [...], also to offer dete­stable vi­ctims there upon impure Al­tars. But the term [...] does sufficiently shew, that E [...] ­sebius speaks not here concerning Victims or Beasts killed in Sacri­fice, but concerning Libations; to wit, Wine, Milk, and the like, which the Heathens offered to their Gods. Besides, 'tis wholly absurd, that Victims should be killed upon the Altars. For Sa­crifices were killed by, not upon the Altars. This is a known Verse of Ovid; Rode caper vitem. Tamen hinc cùm stabis ad aras, &c. Vales. offered abomi­nable oblations upon impure and execrable Al­tars. For by this means only, and not other­wise, they thought to bring to effect what they had attempted, if by these execrable abomina­tions they could cover the salutary Cave. For the Wretches were not able to understand, that it was altogether unlikely, that he who had been Crowned with a Victory over death, should leave this attempt of theirs concealed: [...]. This place is im­perfect, of which sort very many occur in these Books of Eusebius. It may, as I think, not unfitly be made good in this manner; [...], &c. in the like manner as 'tis impossible, &c. Indeed, Eusebius's following words do most plainly confirm this our emendation. But Christophorson has confounded all things here, as 'tis apparent from his Version. Vales. in the like manner as 'tis impossible, that the Sun shining above the earth, and perfor­ming his Or, Own. usual course in the Hea­vens, should escape the knowledge of all man­kind. For the power of our Saviour (which shines with a light far more resplendent than the Sun, and which does not illustrate Bodies [as the Sun does,] but the souls of men,) had now filled the whole world with its own Raies of Light. Nevertheless, the Machinations of these im­pious and prophane men against the Truth, had con­tinued for a long space of time. Nor was there any person to be found, either of the Presidents, or Military Comman­ders. Duces, or of the Emperours themselves, who could be fit to destroy this so audacious an im­piety; save only this one [Prince,] the Friend to the supream God. Who, inspired with the divine Spirit, and not enduring that that forementi­oned place, which by the Enemies frauds had been hid under all manner of impure Or, Matters. filth, should be delivered up to oblivion and ignorance; nor thinking it fit to yield to their malice, who had been the occasioners hereof: having called upon that God who was his Assistant, gives order that it should be cleansed. It being his Senti­ment, that that part especially of the Ground, which had been defiled by the Enemie, ought by his means to enjoy the Divine Magnificence. As soon there­fore as this Order was issued out from the Em­perour, those engines of fraud were thrown down from their vast height to the very ground; and the Buildings erected to lead men into errour, were ruined and demolish't, together with the very Statues themselves and the Daemons.

CHAP. XXVII. In what manner Constantine gave order, that the Materials wherewith the Idol-Temple had been built, and the Rubbish should be removed and thrown at a great distance.

NOr did the Emperour's earnestness and di­ligence stop here. But he issued forth another Order, that the Materials of the Buil­dings demolished, which consisted of Stone and Timber, should be removed, and thrown at a vast distance without the confines of that Region. Which Order of his likewise was forthwith put in execution. Nor was he satisfied in pro­ceeding thus far only. But, incited again by a divine warmth and zeal, he commanded, that they should dig up the very ground it self of that place, to a vast depth, and carry away the earth which was thrown out a far off, in regard it had been defiled with the Gore of Sacrifices offered to Or, Daemons. Devils.

CHAP. XXVIII. The discovery Or, Of the Holy Sepulchre of the Holies. of the most Holy Sepulchre.

VVIthout delay therefore this Command was likewise fulfilled. But after ano­ther ground Or, In­stead of; he means the heap of earth wherewith the Hea­thens had filled that place. beneath the former, namely the place which was at the bottome, was discove­red; then the August and most Holy Or, Evidence. Monu­ment of our Saviour's Resurrection, contrary to all expectation appeared. And then also that Cave, [which may truly be stiled] the Holy of Holies, exprest a certain likeness to our Saviour's Resurrection: in regard, after its be­ing Or, Over­whelmed with. buried in darkness, it came forth into the light again, and gave a manifest History of those Miracles heretofore performed there, to be [Page 587] viewed by them who flock't together to that sight; [an History] that attested the Resur­rection of our Saviour [...]. It must doubtless be made [...], which Christophorson perceived not. The meaning of the place is this, that that restitution of the Lord's Se­pulchre after so many ages, did really confirm the Resurrection of our Lord. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...], in which manner Turne­bus had likewise mended it at the margin of his Book, from a Manuscript Copy. In the Kings Sheets 'tis [...]. Sr Henry Savil had noted at the margin of his Book, that perhaps it should be [...]. Vales. by the things themselves, which sound far more audibly and clearly than any voice.

CHAP. XXIX. In what manner he wrote to the Presidents, and to Macarius the Bishop, concerning the Building [of a Church.]

THese things having been thus performed, im­mediately the Emperour, by issuing forth pious Laws and constitutions, and by plentifull al­lowances for expences, orders a Church befitting God to be built about the Salutary Cave, with a magnificence that was rich and royal. For he had laid this design within himself long before, and with a divine alacrity had foreseen that which in future would be. [He gave command] there­fore to the Governours of the Provinces in the East, that by allowing liberal and plentifull sup­plies, they should make that Work Stately, large, and Magnificent. But to the Bishop who at that time presided over the Church at Jerusalem, he sent this Letter, wherein by manifest expressions he has asserted Or, The saving Do­ctrine of the Faith. the Doctrine of the saving Faith, writing in this manner.

CHAP. XXX. Constantine's [Letter] to Macarius, concer­ning the Building of the Martyrium of Our Sa­viour.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, To Macarius.

SO great is Our Saviour's Love and Favour, that [...]. In Socra­tes, Theo­doret and Nicephorus, the reading is [...]; which I think to be truer. Vales. no Rhetorick seems sufficient to set forth a Declaration of the present Miracle. For, that the Monument of his most Holy Passion, long since hid underneath the earth, should lie concealed for so many periods of years, till such time as, by the Constantine here terms Licinius the publick Enemy; after whose destruction, he says, the sacred Sepulchre of Our Lord, which before had been concealed, was brought to the light and sight of men. Li­cinius was slain on the year of Christ 326, as 'tis recorded in Ida­tius' Fasti. And on that very year, when Helena was come to Je­rusalem, the Sepulchre of Our Lord was found. By the name of Publick Enemy, the Devill might also be meant here, were not this contradicted by the following words. For the Devill was not then finally vanquished and overcome, when the Sepulchre of the Lord was cleared from the filth and rubbish which covered it. Besides, [...], that is, slaughter, is more appositely spoken of Licinius, than concerning the Devill. Vales. slaughter of that com­mon Enemy, it should gloriously appear to his servants now set at Liberty, [is a matter which] does really surmount all admiration. For, if all those persons who throughout the whole world are accounted wise, should be convened in one and the same place, with a design to speak something agreeable to the worthiness of this mat­ter; they would not be able after their utmost endeavours, to attain to [an explication of] the least part of it. [...]. I think it must be [...], and have rend ed it accor­dingly. Vales. For, The term [...], faith, autho­rity, or credit, is wanting here; which we have inserted from So­crates booke 1. chap. 9. the authority of this Miracle doth as far transcend every Nature capable of Humane reason, as things that are ce­lestial do exceed those which are humane. Wherefore, this is always my chief and only aim, that as the authority of the truth doth daily demonstrate it self by new Miracles, so the minds of us all should with all modesty and unanimous alacrity, become more carefull and diligent about [an observation of] the Holy Law. [...]. This place is to be mended from So­crates and Theodoret. Vales. Which thing in regard I judge to be manifestly apparent to all men, my desire is you should most especially be perswaded of this, that there is nothing which I have a greater care about and concern for, than that we should adorn that sacred place (which by God's command I have unburthened of that most detestable accession of the Idol, as 'twere of some ponderous and heavy weight; [which place] by God's determination was made holy from the beginning, but was afterwards demonstrated to be more holy, out of which he hath brought to light the Truth and Certainty of Our Sa­viour's passion;) with magnificent and stately structures.

CHAP. XXXI. That He would have this Church built so, as to exceed all the Churches in the world, for beauty of Walls, Columns, and Marbles.

THerefore, it does well become Your Prudence, so to dispose and make provision of all ma­terials necessary for the work, that not only the Church it self may in stateliness excell all others in what place so ever, but also that the other parts of it may be made such, as that all the beautifullest structures in whatever City may be out­done by this Fabrick. And as concerning the raising and exquisite workmanship of the walls, We would have you know, that the care thereof hath by Us been committed to Our Friend [...]. This place must likewise be mended from Socrates, Theo­doret, and Nicephorus, in this manner, [...], Deputy to the most Famous the Praefecti Praetorio. There a [...]e indeed two Laws of Constantine extant in the Theodosian Code, the one in the Title de Usuris, the other in that de Haereticis, written to this Dracilianus. The former has this Inscription; Imp. Constantinus Aug. ad Dracilianum agentem vices Praefectorum Praet. It was pub­lished at Caesarea in Palestine on the fifteenth of the Calends of May, in the Consulate of Paulinus and Julianus. But the second is said to have been published on the Calends of September▪ at Generastum, Constantinus Augustus the seventh time and Constantius Caesar being Coss. That is, on the year of Christ 326. On which year also Constantine wrote this Letter to Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem. Further, 'tis to be noted, that the Praefecti Praetorio are here termed Clarissimi, most famous. For they had not yet received the dignity of the Illustrissi­mate, [or the title of most Illustrious.] Moreover, in other of Con­stantine's Laws, the Praefecti Praetorio are stiled clarissimi, as it occurs in these Books. But, as the Praefecti Praetorio had only the Title of Clarissimi in Constantine's age, so the Vicarii [Deputies] of the Prae­torian Praefecture were stiled only perfectissimi [most perfect] in the times of the same Constantine; as a Letter to Probianus Proconsul of Africk informs us. See Athanasius's Apologetick to Constantius pag. 794. Vales. Dra­cilianus Deputy to the most Famous the Praefecti Praetorio, and to the President of the Province. [Page 588] For it has been ordered by Our Piety, that Arti­ficers and Workmen, and whatever else they may be informed of from Your Prudence as necessary for the Structure, shall by their care be forthwith sent. But concerning the Columns or Marbles, whatever You Your Self, [...]. At this place [...] signifies the form and deli­neation of the future work. In which sense 'tis taken also in the Letter of Himerius the Rationalis of Alex­andria to the Praefect of Mareotis, which Athanasius records in his Apo­logie, pag. 803. For, after he had said, that Augustus and the Caesars had permitted Ischyras to build a Church in his own Village, he com­mands the Praepositus of that Village, forthwith to draw a Modell of the future Building, and send it to his office. See Socrat. book 1. chap. 9. note (x.) Vales. on sight of the Modell, shall judge to be more sumptuous and usefuller, make it Your business to inform Us by Letter; that when we shall understand from Your Letter; how many and what manner of Materials You stand in need of, they may be conveyed to you from all parts. [This whole sentence is wanting here in the Greek Text of Eu­sebius. It occurs in Socrates book 1. chap. 9; in Theodoret book 1. chap. 17; and in Robert Stephen's Edition also at the said places of Socrates and Theodoret: but at this place 'tis left out in Robert Ste­phens's Edition. 'Tis inserted here in Valesius's Version; from whom, and the forementioned authorities, we have put it into our Translation. For 'tis but reasonable, that that most admirable place of the whole world, should be beautified according to its dignity and worth.]

CHAP. XXXII. That [Macarius] should write to the Pre­sidents concerning the beautifying of the Or, Inside of the Roof. Concha, and concerning Workmen, and Ma­terials.

FUrther, I desire to know of You, whether You think good to have the inner Roof of the Church [...]. The Roofs of Chur­ches were usually a­dorned two ways. For they were either beautified with Lacu­nariae, Em­bowed or Fretted-Roofs, or else wrought with Mosaick-Work. As to the Lacunaria, this place of Constantine is an evidence. Con­cerning the Mosaick-Work, Procopius is to be consulted, in his first book de Fabrick Justiniani, where he describes the Church of Saint Sophia. Now the Lacunaria were usually adorned two ways. For either they were gilded; or painted, which Pausias was the first inventer of, concerning whom Pliny (book 35, chap. 11,) writes thus: Idem & Lacunaria primus pingere instituit: nec cameras ante eum taliter adornari mos fuit. Isidorus (book 19. of his Origines,) writes thus; Laquearia sunt quae camcram subtegunt & ornant▪ quae & Lacunaria dicuntur: quòd Lacus quosdam quadratos vel rotundos ligno vel gypso vel coloribus habeant pictos, cum signis intermicantibus. Which place of Ifidor [...], Salmasius does without cause find fault with, in his notes on Flavius Vopiscus, pag. 393; where he denies that Lacunaria were ever put under Roofs. But Pliny in express words affirms that very thing, as also Constantine in this Letter. The Old Authour of the Questions upon the Old and New Testament, at Question 106, has these words; Sicut enim ad ornamentum domus pertinet, si camera ejus habeat auro distincta Laqucaria, &c. Vales. Arched, or Or, Fretted. Embowed, or made of any other sort of Work. For, if it be Embowed, it may also be Or, Adorned. gil­ded with Gold. [...]. At this place I followed the punctation of Theodoret and Nicephorus, who after the verb [...], gilded with Gold, set a point. All the Translatours likewise before us did the same, saying Musculus. But if any one had rather place the point after [...], thus [what remains, or, the rest of the Building, may be also guilded with Gold.] Then it must be writ­ten, [...], &c. Besides, Your Holiness as soon as may be shall inform. as the reading is in the Fuketian Manuscript and in Sr Henry Savil's [...]opy. Vales. It remains there­fore, that as soon as may be, Your Holiness should inform the forementioned Judges, how many Work­men and Artificers, and what money for Expences there will be need of: and that [Your Holiness] take care to give Me a speedy account, not only concerning the Marbles and Columns, but in re­ference also to the Embowed Roofs, if You shall judge that to be the more beautifull Work. God preserve You, Beloved Brother!

CHAP. XXXIII. How the Church of [Our] Saviour was built, which the Prophets had termed New-Jeru­salem.

THese were the Contents of the Emperour's Letter: his Or, Word. order was immediately fol­lowed by the things themselves effectually put in execution. And [...]. Eu­sebius uses the same words in his Pane­gyrick con­cerning Constan­tine's Tri­cennalia, to­wards the latter end of chap. 9. Nor has Christo­phorson translated it ill in both pla­ces, thus, Salutare Christi Mo­numentum, the Saluta­ry Monu­ment of Christ. In­deed, a­bove at chap. 28, Eusebius terms the Sepulchre of Our Lord [...], the Martyrium or Monument of Our Saviour's Resur­rection. Moreover, Cyril of Jerusalem, in his fourteenth Catechesis, writes that the place of Our Lord's Passion and Resurrection is termed The Martyrium. Vales. in the very Martyrium of Our Saviour, [...]. These words of Eusebius, So­crates has written out at chap. 17. book 1. [...]; But the Emperour's Mother erected in the place of the Sepulchre a most magnificent Church, called it New-Jerusalem, building it opposite to that Old deserted [Jerusalem.] Which words of Socrates are to be observed with more of attention. In the first place he attributes that to Helena, which Eusebius says was done by Constantine. Wherein he has followed the Authority of Rufinus, who (book 1. chap. 8. of his Eccles. History) writes, that this Church was built at Jerusalem by Helena. Now, although it be of small moment, whether Helena at the charge of the Emperour Constantine, or Constantine himself by the care and diligence of his Mother Helena, be said to have built that Church: yet 'tis better to follow Eusebius's opinion; in regard he was both present at the things themselves, and also produces Constantine's Letter concerning the building of that Church. 'Tis to be remarked also, that what Eu­sebius had worded thus, [...], in or at the Martyrium of Our Saviour; that is thus expprest by Socrates, [...], in the place of the Sepulchre. But, what Eu­sebius had expressed in this manner, [...], the New-Jerusalem was built; that Socrates words thus, [...], &c. erected—a—Church, called it New-Jerusalem, building it op­posite, &c: where any one may see that the word [...], called it, must be expunged. For that Church was not termed New-Jerusalem, as the Translatour thought, and before him Nicephorus; but it was called The Martyrium, or The Basilica Constantiniana, and Anastasis. Eusebius therefore and Socrates do say only this, that Con­stantine or Helena, having erected that Church which was a great and stately Structure, built the New-Jerusalem over against that old one, which heretofore had been ruined by the Romans. Which is most true. For from that time, the City Aelia, its true and old name being by degrees abolished, began to be called Jerusalem by the Christians; whenas notwithstanding, it really was not Jerusalem, in regard it had been erected in another soil, and was built by a Roman Emperour (who then was the bitterest Enemy to the Jews,) with that design and intent, that the Gentiles might inhabit it; but, that the Jews might be driven at the greatest distance from its entrance. Further, I doubt not but Eusebius alludes to that place which occurs in the Revelation, chap. 21. vers. 2; And I—saw the Holy City, New-Jerusalem coming down from God out of Heaven, prepared as a Bride adorned for her husband. Vales. the New-Jerusalem was built, over against that most celebrated Old [Jerusa­lem▪] which having been reduced to the Or, Last. utmost degree of Ruine and de­solation after that nefarious Murder of Our Lord, underwent the punishment of its impious Inhabitants. Opposite to this [City] there­fore, the Emperour erected Or, The Salutary Victory over death. the Trophie of Victory which Our Saviour had gain­ed over death, Or, With rich and abundant Ho­nours, or Glories. with a rich and gorgeous splen­dour. And this perhaps was that fresh and New Jerusalem, spoken of in the Oracles of the Prophets; concerning which there occurs so many, and such large expressions uttered by the divine Spirit it self. In the first place therefore, he adorned the sacred Cave, in regard it was the Head of the whole work; to wit, that divine Monument, at which an Angel shining with [a celestial] light, heretofore Evange­lized. declared to all men that Regenera­tion which was demonstrated by our Saviour.

CHAP. XXXIV. A description of the Fabrick of The most Holy Sepulchre.

THis [Monument I say,] in regard it was the Head of the whole work, the Empe­rour's Munificence in the first place Or, Di­stinguished. adorned with Eximious Columns, and with all imagina­ble beauty; and rendred it glorious and splen­did by various sorts of Ornaments.

CHAP. XXXV. A description of the Atrium, and of the Porti­cus's.

AFter that he passed to a most Spacious place, open to the pure air. The Floor, or, Bottom. Ground whereof he beautified by paving it with [...]. He seems to mean Marble, or at least polisht stone like to Marble. So in the following chapter Eu­sebius uses these words [...] to signifie the same. But Christophorson has rendred [...], Eximious Stone: Portesius translates it excellent Stone; not well, as I think. Vales. shining or bright stone, and inclosed it [...]. The Atria (Courts) of Churches consisted usually of four Porticus's, placed in form of a Quadrangle. In the midst there was an open place, such a one as we now a days see in the Cloysters of Monks. Eusebius informs us hereof, in the description of the Church at Tyre, which occurs in the Tenth Book of his Eccles. History. But in the Church at Jerusalem, the Frame or Composure was dif­ferent. For there were only three Porticus's there, placed at the three sides. But in the fourth side, which was directly opposite to the Sepulchre at the rising Sun, instead of a Porticus there was the Church it self, as Eusebius informs us in the following chapter. Which seems to have been done for this reason, that the Church it self might be enlightned with a larger light, no Porticus on the outside giving any hindrance to the lights. Vales. on three sides with Por­ticus's that Or, Ran out. were extended to a vast length.

CHAP. XXXVI. A description of the Walls, Roof, Beauty, and Gilding Or, Of the Temple of the Church. of the Church it self.

FOr, to that side placed opposite to the Cave (which [side] lookt towards the rising Sun,) the Or, Roy­al Church. Basilica was joyned: a Work ad­mirable and stately, raised to an immense height, and extended to a vast length and breadth. The In sides of which Structure [...]. The Ancients adorned walls with cut Crusts of Marble of a different colour, as I have noted at book 28. of Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 363. Such Crusts of Marble as these they termed [...]. See Gregor. Nazianz. in Orat. 32; and in His Carmen Anacreonticum ad animum suum. Vales. were covered with Crusts of Marble, that were of different colours: but the outward surface of the Walls, being beau­tified with polisht Stones cemented together by exact joynts, made a most glorious and beauti­full shew, nothing inferiour to the appearance of Marble. Or, At the Roofs themselves above. As to the top of the Church, he covered the outward part of the Roof with Lead, in regard that was the strongest defence against Winter showers. But the Inner Roof being Finished, or fitted. set with [...]. What [...] are, Hesy­chius and the Au­thour of the Etymologicon do inform us; who interpret [...], that is, Tabellae, tecta laqueata, Tablets, Embowed Roofs. Eusebius uses the same word hereafter at chap. 49. Hence therefore it appears, that the Roof of the Church was on the inside covered and adorned with a Lacunar [or Embowed Roof▪] ac­cording to Constantine's thoughts about it, as he attests in his Letter to Macarius. For on the outside it was covered with Lead, to keep off showers. Therefore the Roof must necessarily have been framed of Stone, which might bear up the Lead laid upon it. Vales. Carv'd Lacunaria, and spread like some great Sea all over the Church by Or, Con­tinued jun­ctures. Tables joyned one with another, and covered all over with the Bright, or clear. purest Gold, made the whole Church shine, as 'twere, with Rayes of Light.

CHAP. XXXVII. A description of the double Porticus's on both sides, and of the three Eastern Gates.

FUrther, at both the sides, There were four Porticus's in the Je­rusalem-Church; to wit, two at each side of the Church. For that's the meaning of these words [...]. Besides, the following words do manifestly evince this. For, of these Porticus's Eusebius says some were in the front of the Church, that is more outward; but others more inward. In the same manner there were four Porticus's in the Church of the Apostles which was in the City Rome, as Pruden­tius attests in the Passion of the Apostles▪ in these Verses; Subdidit & Parias fulvis laquearibus ColumnasDistinguit illic quas quaternus orod. The same Prudentius in the Passion of Hippolytus, writes thus con­cerning the Church of Saint Hippolytus: Ordo columnarum geminus laqucaria tectiSustin [...]t, auratis suppositus trabibus.Adduntur graciles tecto breviore recessus,Qui laterum scriem jugiter exsinuent. The same Form may be seen in the greater Churches amongst us, where four Orders of Pillars do make two Porticus's on both sides. Further, such Porticus's as these seem to be termed gemellares in the Itinerarium Hierosolymitanum. Interius verò civitatis sunt piscinae ge­mellares quinque Porticus habentes. In which place nevertheless, 'tis doubtfull, whither the pools themselves, or the Porticus's are to be termed gemellares. And 'tis better to understand the pools to be gemellares. For there were two Pools, as Jerome relates in his Book de Locis Hebraicis, where he treats of Bethesda. Vales. double [...]. Christophorson has rendred it Xystos, which is ill done. For [...] are by a Synecdoche made use of to signifie Porticus's. Hesychius expounds [...], Pillars which are set against [or, turned towards] a wall. But Christophorson referred those words [...] to [...] ▪ in this manner, [...], &c. at both the sides of the double Portius's, &c: where­as, after the word sides, a comma is to be placed, as the reading is in the King's and Fuketian Manuscript; and those words [...] ought to be referred to [...]. For the sides of the Church are meant here; which is confirmed from the Tenth Book of his Eccles. History, where he describes the Church of Tyre in these words, [...], to the Cloysters [or, Porticus's] on both sides of the whole Church. Vales. Porti­cus's as well [...]. Eusebius has treated above con­cerning the Porticus's of the Atrium. Now he speaks concerning the Porticus's of the Church. And in the first place he says, that at each side of the Church there were two Porticus's. Then he tells us, that those Porticus's were partly [...], partly [...]. Which I so ren­der, as that those Porticus's had two Roofs; and that some of them were equal to the floor of the Church it self; but that the other Porticus's were placed above them; such as we see in our Churches. Porticus's of this sort the Ancients termed [...] or [...], double-roof't. Gregory Nazianzene (Orat. 19, pag. 313, where he describes a Church built by his own Father,) has these words; [...], that is, rising to an height with the beauties of pillars and double-roof't porticus's. For in that place of Gregory it must be written [...] in one word, which Billius perceived not. We may also render [...], under-ground-porti­cus's. For in Temples, Porticus's of this sort were wont to be built, which Aristides (in his Oration de Cyziceno Templo) calls [...]. Where he also says, that that Temple was threefold, partly subterraneous, partly in the open air; but, that the middle part of it was fitted for daily uses. Vales. beneath as above, in length equal­led the whole Church; the Roofs of which [Porti­cus's] were likewise variously adorned with Gold. [Page 590] Of these [Porticus's,] [...]; that is, the outermost Porticus's. So in the 10th book, speaking of the Foun­taines that were before the doors of the Church at Tyre, he says they were opposite [...], to the front of the Church. Vales. they which were in the Front of the Church, were under-prop't with vast Columns: [...]. At the margin of the Moraean Copy 'tis mended [...], the same with which is the reading in Gruter's Book. It might also be mended [...]. But in regard the Fuk. and Savil. Copies have it [...], that reading is to be prefer­red. Vales. but those which were more inward, were born up by [...]. Christophorson renders it postes, posts; extreamly ill: Portesius translates better, pilas, piles. What [...] are, Pro­copius informs us in Book 1. de Fabricis Justiniani, where he describes the Church of Saint Sophia; to wit, hills or heaps of stone, which he compares to certain Rocks that underprop't the Apsis [Bowing of the Arch't Roof.] The latter Grecians have termed them [...], as Meursius has remarked in his Glossary. They were therefore stony piles, so called as I think from their figure, because they were four­corner'd, like pessi or pessuli, bars or bolts. Now, the inner Por­ticus's, which were next to the sides of the Church, were there­fore underprop't with these pessi, because they bore up the Roof of the Church on each side▪ which Roof in height exceeded all the rest. Vales. piles of Stone most beautifully adorned on the outside. Three Or, Gates. doors fitly placed at the ri­sing Sun, received the multitudes of those that went in.

CHAP. XXXVIII. A description of the Hemisphaere, and of the twelve Columns with their Capitals.

OPposite to these [doors] was the [...]. I write [...]: so he calls the Altar of the Church, because it was built in the form of an He­misphaere. Hence 'tis that he terms it [...] the Head of the whole Work. For Churches were therefore built, that upon the Altar an unbloudy Sacrifice might be offered to God. A little above Eusebius has termed the Sepulchre of our Lord the Head of the whole Work: but now he gives the Altar of the Church that name; which two differ widely one from the other. For the Sepulchre of our Lord is therefore called the Head of the whole Work, because it was the beginning and entrance [or, porch] as 'twere of the whole Fabrick, and because for the sake of that, Constantine built the whole work. But the Altar of the Church is termed the Sum of the whole Work, in regard the whole Work had a reference to that, and that was the Complement of the whole Structure, without which the Church was imperfect. Fur­ther, Eusebius has improperly stiled it The Hemisphaere, instead of the Hemicycle, or rather The Hemicylinder; of which form the Altar of Saint Sophia was, as Procopius informs us Book 1. de Aedificiis. In Turnebus's Book at the margin 'tis mended [...], but in a more modern hand. Vales. He­misphaere, the Head of the whole Work, [...]. 'Tis the same as if he had said [...], to the top. The Hemisphaere was stretcht from the bottom to the top of the Church. And in the bottom there were twelve pillars, placed in a semicircular form. Procopius (book 1. de Aedificiis) confirms this explication, where he describes the Church of Saint Sophia: whose description it will be pleasant to compare with this Narration of Eusebius. [...] may also be expounded in the upper end or top of the Church, that so the meaning may be, that the Altar was not placed in the middle of the Church, but at the upper end or top of it. Vales. which was Conti­nued, or prolonged. stretch't to the top of the Church. This Hemisphaere was Or, Crowned. begirt with twelve Pillars, equall to the number of our Saviour's A­postles. The heads of which [Pil­lars] were adorned with vast Capitals made of Silver: which the Emperour himself had de­dicated to his God, as the fairest sacred pre­sent.

CHAP. XXXIX. [...]. Christo­phorson is grievously out, in ren­dring [...] portas atri­enses, the Gates of the Atrium; as if [...] and [...] were all one. But [...] is Area, a Court or Court-yard. For that which in the Contents of this Chapter is termed [...], in the Text of the Chapter is by Eusebius cal­led [...]. He makes use of the same term in his description of the Church at Tyre, in the Tenth Book of his History, [...], the middle space he l [...]st open; see book 10. chap. 4. note (u.) Chri­stophorson renders it aream, which is not ill done. Portesius and Mus­culus translate it subdivale spatium, a space that is vacant or abroad in the Air, which is in my judgment better Latine. For the Latins called a clean place wherein Corn was threshed, Aream; but not those which now a days we term Curtes: yet use has prevailed, that Area should be called Curtes. Graecians likewise term Curtis (wherein Hens are fed and Oxen stalled,) [...] and [...]; as Apol­lonius informs us in book 3. Argonautic. pag. 134; and his Greek Scholiast, and Harpocration in the word [...]. The Areae of Churches are mentioned in Law 4 Cod. Theod. de his qui ad Ecclesias confugiunt. Ut inter templum quod parietum descripsimus cinctu, & Januas primas Ecclesiae, quicquid fuerit interjacens, five in cellulis, five in domibus, hortulis, balneis, areis atque porticibus, confugas interioris templi Vice tueatur. The Greek Constitution there related runs thus: [...], &c. You see that [...] is rendred Areas. This Law of Theodosius is related in book 7. Capitular. Caroli M. Tit. 125; where nevertheless, instead of areae, atrium is made use of. Vales. A description of the Area, Exhedrae, and Porches.

[...]. I had rather write [...], as Musculus seems to have read; and then it must be rendred thus, proceeding from hence to those passages which lie, &c. Vales. HEnce, at those passages which to them that goe out lie before the Church, he interposed an Area [or Court.] In which place there were [...]. Christophorson and Musculus render it right, Atrium. Indeed, the Old Translatour of the Gospell, whereever the word [...] occurs, renders it Atrium. Besides, in the Old Glosses [...] is expounded Atrium. Victorinus Petabionensis on the Revelation of Saint John, says, Aula atrium dicitur, vacua inter parietes area, Aula is termed Atrium, an empty Space between walls. Yet Isidorus (book 5. Origin.) distinguishes Aula from Atrium: But I agree rather with Victorinus. In the Itinerarie of Antoninus the Martyr, there is men­tion of the Atrium of the Constantinian Church. Further, notice is to be taken, that in the Contents of this Chapter, Exhedrae is made use of instead of Aula. Vales. first the Atrium, then the Porti­cus's [...]. The words seem to be transposed here; which I would rather read thus; [...]. In which place there were first the Atrium, then the Porticus's on both sides. For to those who went out of the Church, first of all occurred the Aula, then the Porticus's on the right and left hand of the Atrium, and after that the Porch. Vales. on both sides, and last of all the Gates of the Atrium. After which, the Porches of the whole Structure [placed] [...]. Before the greater Churches, for the most part there were streets, wherein was kept a Market of things vendible, on the Festival of that Martyr to whom the Church was dedicated. Which thing the Ancients therefore observed, that the sight of the Porches might be fairer, and that there should be nothing which might hinder their lights. So at Rome, before the Church of the Apostles there was a Street, as Prudentius attests. At Alexandria also, there was a Church at the great Street, as Athanasius informs us in his Epistle ad Solitar. [...]. Further, the word [...] seems to be a Scholion added to explain the term [...]; unless you had rather write [...]; and then it must be rendred thus, in the very midst of the broad Street, being most &c. Vales. in the very middle of the Street (where there was a Market,) being most beautifully adorned, gave such as were making a journey abroad, a most ama­zing Or, Sight. prospect [...]. It must be [...], of the things seen within, as 'tis mended at the margin of Turnebus's Copy. Vales. of the things seen within.

CHAP. XL. Concerning the Number of the Sacred Presents, or, Gifts. Donaria.

THis Church therefore, which was a manifest evidence of the salutary Resurrection, the Emperour erected; and beautified it throughout with a furniture that was Or, Rich. magnificent and truly Imperial. He adorned it likewise in a various manner with inexpressible Or, Beauties. ornaments of innu­merable consecrated Gifts, consisting of Gold, Silver, and pretious Stones. The Composure of which [ornaments,] being wrought with the most curious workmanship, and [eminent] for greatness, number, and variety, we are not now at leisure to describe particularly.

CHAP. XLI. Concerning the Building of the Churches at Beth­lehem, and on the Mount of Olives.

HAving likewise in the same Country found other places [...], cut. It must be written [...], ennobled, or, Ho­noured; as the reading is in his Panegyrick concerning Constan­tine's Tri­cennalia, chap. 9; where the same words are repeated. Vales. ennobled with two Or, Mystick. Sacred Caves, he beautified them also with magnificent Or, Honours. ornaments. To that Cave, wherein our Saviour first made his Divine appearance, where also he endured to be born in the flesh; he attributed a becoming Honour. But in the other Cave he honoured the Memory of our Lord's Ascent into the heavens, which [had heretofore hapned] on the top of a Mountain. And these places he a­dorned most magnificently; and [at the same time] eternized the Memory of His own Mo­ther, who had procured so great a Good for Mankind.

CHAP. XLII. That Helena Augusta, the Mother of Constan­tine, going [to Bethlehem] on account of Prayer, built these [Churches.]

FOr, in regard she had resolved to pay the due debt of her pious affection to God the su­pream King, and had determined that she ought to give thanks with Supplications for her own Son so glorious an Emperour, and for his Sons the Caesars most dear to God, her Grand-chil­dren; though now very aged, yet [...]. I had ra­ther read [...]; as I found it written in the Fuke­tian Copy, and in the Kings Sheets. Vales. she hastned and came with a youthfull mind, (being a woman of a Besides Eusebius's testimony, there are many things which perswade us to think, that Helena the Mother of Constantine was a woman of a singular prudence. For, whereas she had the Emperour Constantine always obedient to her, even to the very last day of her life; this very one thing is an argument of her sin­gular prudence. This also was an evidence of her great wisdome, that she abused not the riches of her Son, and the height of the dignity of Augusta, to Luxury and Voluptuousness; but with her own liberality succoured the Provinces, Cities, and private persons. And whereas she entirely loved her own Grand-children the Sons of Constantine, she took care of this above all, that no one of Constantius's children bre­thren to Constantine, should snatch the Empire from them▪ Where­fore, as long as she lived, she always detained them Exiles as 'twere; sometimes at Toloùse in France, as Ausonius writes; otherwhiles, at Corinth, as Julianus relates in his Letter to the Corinthians. A frag­ment of which Letter is extant in Libanius, in His Oration pro Aristo­phane Corinthio, pag. 217: where Libanius terms Helena [...], a crafty mother-in-Law, and attests, that by her advice and Step-mother-hatred, Constantius Father to Julian had been conveyed up and down this way and that way. Vales. singular prudence,) that she might view that admirable Ground, and with a care and sol­licitude truly Royal, might make a Visit to the Eastern Provinces, In the Greek 'tis [...], common­alty. Cities, and peo­ple. But, after she had given a due Veneration to the Footsteps of our Saviour, agreeable to that prophetick Expression which runs thus, See the Sept. vers. of Psal. 132. v. 7. Let us worship at the place where his Feet have stood: immediately she left the fruit of her own piety even to posterity.

CHAP. XLIII. Again Concerning the Church at Bethlehem.

FOr, she forthwith dedicated two Churches to that God whom she had adored: the one at the Cave Or, Of the Birth. wherein Christ was born: the other on the Mountain Or, Of the Ascent. whence he had ascended into Heaven. For Or, God with us. Emanuel endured to be born for us [...]. Chri­stophorson has not rightly ex­prest the force of the Greek word; who renders it in terris nasci, to be born—in the earth. For Euse­bius says more, viz. that the Lord for our sake would be born in a Cave under-ground. Saint Jerom's words in his Epitaph of Paula are these; Bethlehem & in Specum Salvatoris in­troi [...]ns, entring into Bethlehem and into the Cave of our Saviour. And a little after; orare in Speluncâ, in quâ virgo puerp [...]ra dominum infantem fudit, to pray in the Cave, wherein the Child-bed-Virgin brought forth the infant Lord. Whence by the by it appears, that where­ever Eusebius has made use of [...], it ought to be rendred Specum or Speluncam, a Cave. For so the Latines term it, not antrum, a den, as Christophorson renders it. Vales. under the earth: and the place of His Na­tivity is by the Hebrews termed Bethlehem. And therefore the Empress most dear to God, ador­ned the place where the Theotocos was delivered, with admirable Monuments, and illustrated that Sacred Cave with all manner of Ornaments. Not long after which, the Emperour honoured it also with Imperial sacred Gifts; increasing his Mo­ther's Or, Stu­dies of E­legancy. Magnificence with Monu­ments of Silver and Gold, and [...]. I approve not of Christophorson's translation, who renders it aulaea. For aulaea befit a scene rather than agree with a Church. I chose therefore to translate it Vela, Cur­tains; for there were Curtains in Churches. And they were made use of both in the doors of Churches; (concerning which see Epi­phanius in his Epistle to John Bishop of Jerusalem, which Letter Saint Jerome has done into Latine;) and about the Altar also, of which sort some are to be seen even at this time amongst us. Further, the Curtains which hung before doors, were by Grecians termed [...], which word occurs in Chosroes's Letter recorded in Theophilactus Simocatta, Book 5; Chap. 14.—&c.—See Evagr. Eccles. Histor. Book. 6, Chap. 21▪ note (f.) Vales. with various Curtains. Further, the Em­perour's Mother, Or, Ex­alted the memory—by statley, &c. in memory of his Ascent into the Heavens who is the Saviour of all, raised stately Edi­fices in the Mount of Olives; erecting a sacred House [...]. Some thing seems to be wanting here, or at least the words are transposed. Therefore I would have the place restored thus; [...], erecting a sa­cred, &c. But Christophorson understood these words so, as if Eusebius should say, that Helena built two Churches in the Mount of Olives; one on the top, the other in the Cave: which nevertheless I do not think to be true. For the Authour of the Jerusalem▪Itinerarie tells us, that one Church was built there by Constantine. And Eusebius in his Panegyrick (chap. 9. towards the end;) speaking of that Martyrium which Constantine built at Jerusalem, expresses himself in the same manner as he does here; viz. [...], &c. Where you see, that [...] and [...] are joyned, and used concerning one and the same Church. And he terms the Basilica, [...], because people came thither to pray; but the whole Sacred House (which being inclosed within one circuit, contains within it self the Atrium, Porticus's, Secrelaric, Baptistcrie, and the Church it self;) he terms [...]. Which Eusebius does most plainly declare below, at chap. 50 of this book, where he speaks concerning the Dominicum Aureum which Constantine built at Antioch. And thus the passage of Eusebius in the close of his Panegyrick concer­ning Constantine's Tricennaliae is to be explained; as likewise a passage in his tenth book, and another in chap. 45. of this book; where he joyns together [...] and [...]. 'Tis something otherwise in the fifth Law Cod. Theod. de his qui ad Ecclesias consugiunt. For there [...] is called the Basilica or Oratory where the Altar is. But the Church is termed that whole Building within the circumference whereof are contained the Atrium, Porticus's, Cells, Baths, and lastly the Oratory it self. Vales. together with an holy Church upon the very top of the Mount.

[Page 592] [...]. The Author of the Iti­nerarium Hierosoly­mitanum has these words; Inde ascen­dis in mon­tem Oli­veti, ubi dominus discipulos docuit ante passionem, Thence you go up to Mount O­livet, where our Lord taught his Disciples before his Passion. Bede (in his book de Locis San­ctis, chap. 7.) has this passage; Tertia quoque ejusdem montis ad australem Bethaniae partem Ecclesia est, There is a third Church a [...]so of the same Mount at the South part of Bethanie, where the Lord before his Passion spoke to his Disci­ples concerning the day of Judgment. He means the place in Saint Mathew chap. 24. This Sermon therefore Eusebius here terms [...], secret Mysteries, because the Lord then spake concerning secret things, viz. about the end of the world, concerning Christ's coming, and the last judgment. For even the Apostles came then to the Lord secretly, as Saint Matthew says; in regard they were desirous to know Mysteries, and the Revelation of things future, as Jerome on Mathew writes. But that which Eusebius says (viz. that our Lo [...]d delivered these Mysteries to the Apostles in the Cave,) is not expresly recorded in the Gospel. Yea, the contrary seems possible to be made out from the Gospel. For 'tis related therein, that the City Jerusalem was in sight to the Disciples, when our Lord Preach't these things. They were not therefore in the Cave, but in an open place. Yet it may be answered, that that Cave, had several holes, of which sort there were many Caves in Palestine, as the Itineraries inform us. Indeed, whereas Saint Matthew affirms, that the Disciples came to our Lord se­cretly, 'tis probable that that discourse in the Cave was made by Our Lord whilst he stayed there. Vales. Moreover, here (as the true History attests,) the supream Saviour [...]. The first word is to be expunged, as being superfluous. Eusebius seems to allude to the usage of the Gentiles, who performed their Mithriaca Sacra [Sacrisices in honour of the Sun] in a Cave, as Porphyry, (in his book de Abstinentia,) Jerome, and others inform us. The Fuketian Manuscript confirms our con­jecture, in which the word [...] is wanting. Vales. in the very Cave informed his [...], compa­nions. disciples in secret Mysteries. But the Emperour himself in this place also reverenced the supream King with all manner of sacred Gifts and Orna­ments. And these two stately and most beauti­full Monuments worthy of an eternal Memory, [erected] at the two sacred Caves, Helena Augusta the Religious Mother of a Religious Emperour, dedicated to God Her Saviour, being the indications of a pious affection; Her Son reaching out to Her the right hand of His Imperi­al power. Not long after which, this aged woman received a Or, The fruit. reward worthy [of her Labours.] For, having passed the whole time of her Life, unto the very Threshold of old age, in all manner of feli­city, and having as well in words as deeds brought forth plentifull fruits of the saving precepts; and having for that reason lead a Life void of trouble and grief, in the greatest healthiness both of body and mind; at length she obtained from God, both an end befitting her piety, and a re­ward also of her good [works,] even in this life present.

CHAP. XLIV. Concerning Helena's greatness of Mind, and Bene­ficence.

FOr whilst she was taking her progress round the whole East with a Or, Mag­nificence of Imperial power. Royal Magnificence, she heapt innumerable benefits and favours, both on Cities, and on every private person also who approacht her: and with a liberal Or, Right hand. hand she distributed numerous [largesses] amongst the Military Forces. But, on the poor, naked, and on such as were destitute of all help and comfort, She bestowed very many Gifts: making distribu­tions of money to some; plentifully supplying others with clothes to cover their bodies. Other­some She set at Liberty from bonds, as also them afflicted with the slavery of the Mines: She like­wise freed some that were opprest by the vio­lence of persons more powerfull than themselves; and again, re-called others from banishment.

CHAP. XLV. In what manner Helena was religiously conversant in the Churches.

HAving rendred her self eminent by such actions as these, [in the interim] she in no wise neglected Her piety towards God. For Or, She gave her self to be seen coming, &c. She was seen to come constantly into the Church of God; and beautified the sacred hou­ses with splendid ornaments; not contemning the [...]. Valesius renders it Sacella, Chappells. Churches even in the smallest Cities. You might therefore have beheld this admirable wo­man, in a Or, Grave, and mean, or, frugal. modest and decent garb associating her self with the rest of the multitude, and demon­strating her Reverence towards God, by all man­ner of pious actions.

CHAP. XLVI. How, being eighty years old, and having made her Will, she ended her Life.

BUt at length, when, after she had lived a sufficient space of time, she was called to a better allotment; having prolonged her life till about the eightieth year of her age, and be­ing arrived at the very confines of death, she composed ordained and declared her last Will and Testament, constituting her only Son (Or, Em­perour, Mo­narch, and Lord, &c. sole Emperour, and Lord of the world,) Her heir, together with his Sons the Caesars Her Grand­children; and distributing to each of Her Grand­children, those her own Goods, whatever she was possest of throughout the whole world. Having in this manner made Her Will, after­wards she closed her life, Her Or, So Great. Great Son being present with and standing by her, Or, Che­rishing her with all, &c. paying her all imaginable respect, and embracing her hands. Insomuch that, to those whose Sentiments are good and true, this thrice-blessed woman in no wise seemed to die, but in reality to Or, Un­dergoe. make a change of this earthly life, for one that was celestiall. [...], Her soul there­fore was reformed, or, new-framed. These words seem to favour of Origen's doctrine, to which our Eusebius was too much addicted. For the souls of the Blessed are not reformed into an Angelick substance. Indeed, Origen believed, that in the Resurrection, Bodies would be turned into souls, and Souls would be changed into Angels, as Saint Jerome says some where. Vales. Her soul therefore was new-framed into an incorruptible and Angelick substance, and re­ceived up to her Saviour.

CHAP. XLVII. In what manner Constantine deposited his Mo­ther; and how he honoured her whilst she was living.

BUt the Body of this Blessed woman was vouchsafed no trivial Honour. For it was conveyed into the He means Rome. For thither the dead Body of Helena Augusta was car­ried, and after two years was conveyed to Constan­tinople, as Nicephorus tells us, book 8. chap. 30. But Socra­tes (book 1. chap. 17.) transcri­bing Euse­bius's words, in­terprets [...], New-Rome. Which er­rour of So­crates, Baronius does de­servedly reprove, in regard by the name of the Impe­rial City Eusebius is always wont to mean Rome. Be­sides, Con­stantinople was not yet dedi­cated, and therefore could not be called the Imperial City, whenas then it was only old Byzantium. Nevertheless, Cedrenus has followed Socrates; who also adds this, that Helena died twelve years before Constantine. By this computation Helena must have died on the year of Christ 325, or 326. On which year nevertheless, she is said by Eusebius and Ru­finus to have gone to Jerusalem. Besides, after the death of Crispus Caesar and Fausta Augusta, Helena was for some time alive, as Zosimus attests, book 2. Further, Crispus was slain in the seventh Consulate of Constantinus Augustus which he bore with Constantius Caesar, on the year of Christ 326; as 'tis recorded in Idatius's Fasti. The death of Helena therefore may rightly be assigned to the year of our Lord 327, as Sigonius thinks, book 3. de Imperio Occidentali. Vales. Imperial City [accompa­nied] with a numerous train of the [Imperial] Guards; where it was deposited in a Royal Mo­nument. In this manner the Emperour's Mo­ther closed her Life; a woman worthy of an in­delible Memory, both in respect of her pious Actions, and also on account of that most eminent and admirable Son born of her. Whom 'tis fit we should stile Blessed, besides all other things, even for this also, his piety towards her who brought him forth; whom he rendred so Reli­gious, (she having before not been a worship­per of God,) that she seemed from her tender years to have been discipled by [...]. It must be written [...]. For 'tis referred to [...], as we have rendred it. And so I found it mended in Moraeus's Book, at the margin. Nor is it otherwise written in the Fuk. and Savil. Copies, and in the Kings Sheets. Vales. Him Himself who is the common Saviour of all: whom he honoured with Imperial Dignities in such a man­ner, that in all the Provinces, and by the very Companies of the Milice, she was stiled Augusta and Empress; and Golden Coynes were stamp't bearing her Image. Moreover, Constantine gran­ted her a power over the Imperial Treasures, to make use of them according to her own arbi­trement, and to dispose of them according to her own mind, in such manner as she thought good, and as every thing might seem well-pleasing to her. For even in Or, These things. this respect also, her Son rendred her conspicuous and Or, Wor­thy of Emu­lation. admirable. Wherefore, amongst those things belonging to the illu­strating of his Memory, We have, not without reason, included these also, which out of his transcendency of piety the Emperour per­formed in honour of his Mother; whereby he fulfilled the Divine Laws, which do injoyn due [Offices] of honour towards Parents. These forementioned beautifull structures therefore, the Emperour in this manner erected in the Pro­vince of Palestine. Moreover, in all the other Provinces also, he built new Churches, and made them far more stately than those that had been before.

CHAP. XLVIII. In what manner He built Churches. Martyria at Constan­tinople, and abolished all manner of Idolatry.

BUt when he had resolved upon raising that City to the highest honour which bore His own name, he beautified it with many Oratories, with vast Martyria, and with most stately Houses; part whereof were erected in the Sub­urbs, and part within the City it self. And by this means, he both honoured the Memories of the Martyrs, and likewise consecrated his own City to the God of the Martyrs. In fine, being [...]. I had rather make it [...], which is far more elegant. So indeed it occurs written in the Fuketian Copy, and in the Kings Sheets. Vales. wholly inspired with the wisdome of God, he thought it requisite, in such a manner to purifie that City, which he determined to dignifie with the appel­lation of his own name, from all sorts of Idolatry; that the images of those reputed to be Gods, should no where be worshipped in Temples therein; neither should Altars defiled with the [...], with the gore of bloud. Bloud of Victims be visible in it; nor Sacrifices wholly consumed by fire; nor should the Festivals of Daemons [be celebrated there;] nor any other of those usages [commonly practised] amongst superstitious persons.

CHAP. XLIX. The Sign of the Cross in the Pallace, and [the Image. Effigies of] Daniel in the Or, Fountains. Conduits.

YOu might therefore have seen in the Con­duits situate in the middle of the Forum, the Or, Symbols. Representations of the Good Shepherd, well known to those skill'd in the Divine Oracles; [the Effigies] of Daniel likewise, together with the Lyons, [...]. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis written [...]; and tis referred to those words [...], Daniel likewise. But the or­dinary rea­ding plea­ses me better, in regard it occurs both in the Kings Copy, and in the Old sheets. For [...] is referred to the word [...], Re­presentations. So that, it must be written, [...], [the Effigies] of Daniel likewise. Vales. cast in Brass, and shining with Or, Spangles. plates of Gold. Fur­ther, so ardent a divine Love had possest the mind of the Emperour, that in the stateliest Room of all those within the Imperial Pallace, at the very middle of the Embowed Roof which was gilded with Gold, a large Table was displaied, in the midst whereof was fixt the Sign of our Lord's passion, consisting of a variety of pretious Stones, and wrought with a great quantity of Gold. And this [in my judg­ment] seemed to have been Or, Made. set up by that pious Emperour, as the preserva­tive of the Empire it self.

CHAP. L. That He built Churches at Nicomedia also, and in other Cities.

WIth these [ornaments] therefore He beautified his own City. He likewise honoured the He means Ni­comedia, which was the Head-City of Bi­thynia. In which City Constantine had compelled Licinius, besieged therein to a surrendry. In memory therefore of that Victory, Constantine built a Church at Nicomedia. See Sozomen, book 2. chap. 3. Vales. chief [City] of Bithynia with the Monument of a most Or, Large. stately and most magnificent Church; in which place also, Or, Out of his own Treasures. at his own charge, he erected the Trophies of Victory which he had gained over the Ene­mies and Opposers of God, in ho­nour [Page 594] of his own Saviour. Moreover, he also grac't the chiefest Cities of the rest of the Pro­vinces, with most beautifull Oratories: [...]. It must be written [...]. Ex­cept you had ra­ther read thus; [...]; which rea­ding in­deed dis­pleases me not. In the Kings Copy 'tis written, [...], &c. Vales. for in­stance, that City which was the Metropolis of the whole East, that took its name from Antiochus. In which [City,] as 'twere in the head of all the Provinces of that Region, he dedicated [to God] a Or, Matchless. Peerless Church, in re­sect both of its Largeness and Beau­ty. For he encompassed the whole Temple with a large circuit on the outside: [...]. In his panegyrick, chap. 9, whence these words are transcribed, Eusebius has termed it [...]. I have rendred it Basilica the Cathedral or Church it self; not the Sanctuary, as Christophorson translates it. Vales. but within, he raised the Basilica to an immense height: it was built in an [...]. Of the same figure was that Church, which Nonnus Father to Gregory Nazianzene built in the Town of Nazianzum, as Gregory himself attests in his Funeral Oration concer­ning the praises of his own Father, pag. 313. These Temples were termed octachora. This old Inscription occurs in Gruter's Thesaurus, pag. 1166; Octachorum sanctos templum surrexit in usus.Octagonus fons est munere dignus eo. Now, that is a Templum Octachorum, which hath eight sides rising from the bottom to the very top. From the same reason Altars are termed trichora, in Paulinus's Epistle; that is, trino sinuata recessu, bent or embosomed with a triple recess, as the same Paulinus expresses himself, in his Natale of Saint Felix. Cedrenus (at the 26th year of Constan­tine,) terms that church which had been built by Constantine at An­tioch, Octagonum Dominicum, the eight-cornered Church. Vales. eight-square figure; and sur­rounded on all sides with many Lodging Rooms, and [...]. In Eusebius's Panegyrick, at the chapter just now cited, the reading is truer, thus, [...]. For so Eusebius terms them, in His description of the Church at Tyre, which you have in the Tenth Book of his Ecclesias. History. What an Exedra is, Valafridus Strabo tells us, in his book de Rebus Ecclesiasticis, chap. 6: Exedra est absida quaedam, seperata modicum quidem a templo vel palatio: dicta inde, quòd extra haereat. Graecè autem [...] vocatur; An exedra is a certain outward building, separated a little from the Temple or Palace: thence so termed, because it sticks without. In Greek 'tis called [...]. Strabo is indeed mistaken, because he understood not, that Exedra was a Greek word: but he is not at all mistaken in the origine of that word. For, 'tis truly termed [...], Exedra, [...], from its being without the seat. For so more outward houses were termed▪ which were usually built within the circuit of a Church, wherein 'twas lawfull to sit, and take rest, as Eusebius tells us. Concerning these Exedrae, Saint Austin speaks in his book de Gestis cum Emerito Donatista▪ Caesareae in Ecclesia majori, &c. At Caesarea, in the greater Church, when Deuterius Metropolitane Bishop of Caesarea, together with Alipius, Angustinus. Possidius, Rusticus and the other Bishops had gone forth into the Exedra, &c. In the Concilium Nam­netense, Canon 6th, there is mention of an Exedra. Prohibendum etiam secundùm majorum instituta, ut in Ecclesia nullatenus scpeliantur, sed in atrio aut porticu, aut in Exedris Ecclesiae; it is to be forbidden also, according to the orders of our Ancestours, that they should in no wise bury [or be buried] in the Church, but in the Atriu [...] ▪ or Porticus, or in the Exedrae of the Church. So the reading is in the Manuscript Copy belonging to the Bibliotheca Puteana. See Jerome on the 40th chapter of Ezechiel.—Further, the Fuketian and Savilian Copies have it written right here, [...]. Vales. Exhedrae, and with Or, Places. apart­ments [...]. See what we have noted at chap. 37. [...] are Houses whereto we go up no Stairs; to which are opposed [...] or [...], that is, Chambers, or upper Rooms. Although by the term [...] you may here un­derstand Cryptae, Vaults or Rooms under ground. Vales. as well above as under [or, even with] the ground. Which Church [he beautified] with Or, A­bundance of much Gold. a vast quantity of For this reason that Church was termed Dominicum Aureum, the Golden Church. Jerom in the Chronicon at the 22d year of Constantine; Antiochiae Dominicum quod vocant aureum, aedificari coeptum; at An­tioch the Dominicum which they term Aureum, was begun to be built. It was consecrated in the Reign of Constantius, on the fifth year after Constantine's death. Vales. Gold, and Or, Crowned it with the beauties of Brass, &c. ador­ned it with Brass and other Materials of great value.

CHAP. LI. That He likewise gave order for the building of a Church in [the place called] Mamre.

THese were the most eminent Structures, which the Emperour dedicated to God. But, having been informed, that that one and the same Saviour, who had lately made his appearance in the world, had heretofore exhibited the pre­sence of His Divinity, to certain men of Pa­lestine that were lovers of God, near that called the Oak of Mamre; He ordered an Oratory to be erected there also, to the God who had appea­red. Therefore, the Or, Im­perial Au­thority. Emperour's order was issu­ed out to the Governours of Provinces, by the Letters transmitted to each of them, commanding them to bring to effect what they had been en­joyned to perform. But to us who write this History, he sent an [...], a more rational Sermon. So also Euse­bius has before termed Constan­tine's Let­ters, because in those Letters Constantine seemed in a manner to Preach. Such is Constantine's Speech to the Convention of the Saints, and almost all his Letters, which are recorded partly by Eusebius, and partly by others. For in all these, Constantine, although as yet but a Catecbumen, plays the Doctour. Indeed▪ it can't be denyed, but Con­stantine was a man full of God, and was sent by God in order to the propagation of the Christian Faith; to which single person, next to the Apostles, we owe very much. Yet in Ecclesiastick affaires, he took something more upon himself, than might befit a Prince that was a Laick; the Bishops permitting him all things, and re­joycing greatly with themselves, because they saw an Emperour a Christian. Vales. Exhortation full of wise­dome. A Copy whereof I judge fit to be in­serted into this present work, to the end that the care and diligence of this most pious Empe­rour might be accurately known. Having bla­med us therefore for those things, which, as he had been informed, were done in the forementioned place, he wrote word for word thus.

CHAP. LII. Constantine's Letter to Eusebius concerning Mamre.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, To Macarius and the rest of the Bishops of Palestine.

EVen this very one thing was a most emi­nent favour [...]. In the rendition of this place all the Translatours, Por­tesius, Musculus and Christophorson, have been mistaken; they ren­dring it curam & solicitudinem, care and solicitude; as if the reading had been [...]. But Constantine speaks of his Mother-in-law, to wit, Eutropia Syra, to whom Fausta the wife of Constantine was daughter. For [...] signifies in Greek a mother-in-law, as the Old Glosses inform us, wherein 'tis thus read, [...] a father-in-law, [...] a mother-in-law. Indeed, the following words do plainly confirm our explication. For it follows, [...], by her Letters to us she hath made known. He means the Letters which his mother in law Eutropia had sent to him. Wherefore Christophorson's Emendation is to be rejected, who hath corrected it [...], to you. Moreover, these following words, [...], &c. do sufficiently shew the very same thing. For who would say concerning care and soli­citude, [...], the foresaid care and solicitude? That would have been altogether trifling and foolish. But in our Version all things are plain and clear. For [...] is rendred our foresaid mother in law; who by reason of her Piety and Religion could not hide so great an impiety, but by Letter declared it to her Son-in-law Constantine, that at length he might remedie this mischief. Eutropia therefore was a Christian, as we learn from this place. Her daughter Fausta also profest the Christian Faith, and together with her husband Constantine was buried in the Church of The Apostles. Further, I must not omit what I found noted at the margin of the Kings Copy. For there, over against the word [...], instead of a Scholion [...]. mother was written; as if Constantine meant his own mother Helena; which explication I don't approve of. 'Tis certain, Sozomen says it was the Emperour Constantine's Mother-in-law, who, when She was come to the Oak Mamre, and had found there the detestable impieties of the Heathens, gave Constantine an account of that affair. See Sozomen, Book 2. chap. 4. Vales. of my most Holy Mother-in- [Page 595] law [...], favour—to­wards us. I had rather write [...] to­wards you; although the com­mon rea­ding may be born with. Fur­ther, by a small transposition of the words, I would have the beginning of this Letter read thus, [...], &c. This was one and the greatest favour, &c. The other reading is [...], &c. Vales. towards you, that by Her Letters to us She hath made known that nefarious boldness of cer­tain impious persons, which hitherto hath lain con­cealed amongst you: to the end that, that long­neglected Crime might, (though late, neverthe­less) necessarily obtain a befitting animadversion and cure from us. For, 'tis most certainly the greatest impiety, that holy places should be defiled by detestable impurities. What therefore is that (dearest Brethren!) which, when it had escap't Your prudence, Our foresaid Mother-in-law, by reason of Her Reverence towards the Deity, was not able to keep concealed?

CHAP. LIII. That our Saviour appeared there to Abraham.

THat place termed This place was likewise called Te­rebinthus, distant from the City Jeru­salem about thirty miles, as we are told by the Authour of the Jeru­salem Itinerarie, who lived in the times of Constantine the great. His words are these. Inde Terebintho millia 9. ubi Abraham habitavit, &c. Thence to Terebinthus nine miles; where Abraham dwelt, and dug a well under a Turpentine tree, and spake with the Angels, and took food. There a Church is built by Constantine's order, of a wonderfull beauty. Then from Terebinthus to Chebron, two miles; where there is a Monu­ment [or, Memory] built four-square [or, by a four-square-figure] of Stones, of a wonderfull beauty, wherein are laid Abraham, Isaac, Ja­cob, &c. Sozomen also, book 2. chap. 4, relates that that place was termed Terebinthus. Now, this place was so called from a Turpentine­tree, which was said to be the oldest Tree there, and to have stood from the very beginning of the world, as Josephus attests in his fifth Book of the Jewish Wars. Although others said it was the Staff of one of the Angels which appeared to Abraham, from which Staff thrust into the ground sprang up a Turpentine-tree. So Georgius Syncellus tells us in his Chronicon. But 'tis strange, (whereas there was an Oak there under which Abraham had pitcht his Tent, as we read Gen. 18.) why that place should have taken its name from a Turpen­tine-tree, rather than from an Oak. Vales. In our English Bibles, at Genesis 18, there is not the least mention of an Oak, but of a Tree only, at verse 8. Nor does Saint Jerom, in his Translation, term it an Oak. Indeed, in the Version of the 72, (at Gen. 18. 1.) we have these words▪ [...], at the Oak Mambre: but the expression in the original is [...] in the Plaines of Mamre. The Seventy Two were belike of opinion, that [...] had the same im­port with [...]; the determination whereof is left to the Learned. at the Oak Mamre, wherein we are informed that Abraham had his habitation, is (She [...]. In the Kings Copy, the Fuk. Manuscript, and in the Kings Sheets, 'tis truer written thus, [...], is (She says)—defiled: [...], Mother-in-law, is understood. Vales. says) every way defiled by some superstitious persons. For, [...]. You must again understand [...], Mother-in-law. Our Mother-in-law (says Constantine) has related to us, that there is an Altar there, whereon impure sacrifices are offered. Vales. She has given us an account, that I suppose, that the Pictures of the Angels are meant, which had appeared there to Abraham. For the Heathens worshipped these Pictures. Moreover, the Heathens worshipped the Turpentine-tree it self, as Eusebius informs us in his fifth book Demonstr. Evangel; chap. 9. Which place Scaliger (in his Animadversions on Eusebius, pag. 192.) took in a wrong sense. For he thought, that that Turpentine-tree had had the highest honour imaginable paid to it by the Christians; and he cites Eusebius as the Relatour of that thing. But Eusebius speaks of the Heathens there, not concerning the Christians. For after he had said; [...], wherefore, to this present time, this place is adored, as being Divine, by those that dwell near it; and the Turpentine-tree is visible, which as yet stands: He adds; [...], and the Angells, which were entertained by Abraham, are painted in a Table there, on each side one; but he in the middle is made better, and exceeds in honour: He is our forementioned Lord himself, our Saviour, whom they ignorantly worship. You see Eusebius does here plainly speak of the Heathens, who were ignorant of Christ. For this cannot be spoken of the Christians. Our opinion is confirmed by Sozomen, book 2. chap 4; where he discourses at large concerning that Market kept at the Terebinthus. For he writes, that every year in Summer time, Jews, Christians, and Pagans came thither out of Palestine, Phoenice, and Arabia, partly on account of Trade, and partly for Religion; and, that all these celebrated a Festival after their own way. For the Heathens (he says) adored the Angells, offering to them Sacrifices, and meat and drink-offerings. The Pictures therefore of the Angells were there, to which the Pa­gans offered Victims. Saint Jerom de Locis Hebraicis, where he treats concerning Arboch, writes in this manner. Quercus Abraham quae & Mambre, The Oak of Abraham, which is also called Mambre, was to be seen there untill the times of the Emperour Constantine; and his Sepulchre is at present visible. And in regard a Church is now built there by us, Terebinthus [the Turpentine-tree] is superstitiously worshipped by all the Nations round, because under that Abraham heretofore enter­tained the Angells. Saint Jerom has added many things here of his own head. For Eusebius himself, in his book de Locis Hebraicis, has only these words, [...], &c. Arbo. This is Chebrom, now a great Village, heretofore a Metropolis, the ancient Habitation of the strange Nations [or, Philistines,] and Gyants, and after that the Royal City of David. It was in the alotment of the Tribe Judah, and was one of the Cities set out to the Levites, one of the Cities of Refuge also, distant from Aelia at the North two and twenty miles. The Oak of Abraham and his Sepulchre are to be seen there, and the Terebinthus [Turpentine-tree] is manifestly worshipped by our Enemies, as likewise the Angells entertained by Abraham. Heretofore its name was Arbo, afterwards 'twas called Chebrom, from Chebrom one of the sons of Caleb, as 'tis in the Chronicles. A famous passage this; which totally overthrows Scaliger's opinion, and does egregiously confirm our explication. For Eusebius says, that the Terebinthus and the Angells were superstitiously worshipped there by our Enemies; which is the appellation he gives to the Heathens and Jews. This passage of Eusebius is also cited by Damascenus, Book 3. De Imag. Vales. Idols which deserve an utter ruine and destruction, are erected near that Tree, and that an Concer­ning this Altar Eu­stathius speaks in his Hexa­meron, which he says was standing in his time, as also the Terebinthus it self. Whence it appears, that this work of Eustathius's was written before Constantine had given order for the demolishment of that Altar. In Sozomen's age, neither the Altar, nor the Terebinthus was standing. Nevertheless, the superstition of the Heathens continued in that place, as Jerom attests. So difficult a mat­ter it is wholly to pluck up the roots of Superstition! We must not omit what Antoninus the Martyr hath written concerning this place, in His Itinerarie. De Bethleem, says he, usque ad radicam Mambre sunt millia viginti quatuor: &c. From Bethlehem unto the root of Mambre there are twenty four miles: in which place rest the bones of Abraham, Jsaac, Jacob, Sarah, and Joseph. There is a Church built [per qua­drum] in a four-square-figure, and in the middle an uncovered Atrium: and thorow the midst of the Rails on one side the Christians enter, on the other the Jews, carrying in much incense. For, the interment of Jacob and David in that Ground, is most devoutly celebrated on the first day after our Lord's Nativity; in so much that, a multitude meets to­gether from all parts of the Land of the Jews, carrying Incense and Lights. And they bestow Gifts, and worship there. See Jerom in Epitaphio Paulae. Vales. Altar is built hard by, and that impure Sacrifices are continually Or, Per­formed. of­fered there. Wherefore, in regard this thing seems both disagreeable [...], disa­greeable to our times to our Empire. Christophorson expunged the four first Greek words, and they are wanting in the Kings, Fuketian, and Savil. Manuscripts. But if the matter were to be determined by me, I would rather blot out the following words, [...], to our Empire; which, in my judgment, are added instead of a Scholion, in order to the explaining of the former words. Graecians do elegant­ly term the time of any one's Empire, [...]. Further, the Emperours were mightily ambitious of this, that the felicky and clemency of their own times might be celebrated. Nothing occurs more frequent­ly in the Latine Historians, and in the Laws of the Emperours. In Philostratus (book 2. de Vitis Sophistarum, where he speaks of Heliodorus;) this word is corrupted. For when Heliodorus had begun his Oration in the Emperour's presence, Philostratus says that the Emperour arose on a sudden, and cryed out, such a man, the like to whom I have not yet seon! The Glory and Ornament of my Times▪ [...]; for so the reading should be. Constantine makes use of this very term in his Letter to the Hereticks, which occurs at the end of this book. Wherefore▪ I am of opinion, that the com­mon reading is to be retained: and that these words [...] are transpos'd, and must be placed after the word [...], thus; Wherefore, in regard in this our Empire, this thing, &c. Vales. to Our Times, and an indignity also to the sanctity of that place; I would have Your Gravity know, that we have given order by Letter to the most Perfect Acacius the Comes and a [...]. In the Fuketian Manuscript and the Kings Sheets the reading is [...], our friend. Vales. Friend of ours; [Page 596] that without any delay, not only all the Idols, which can be found in the fore-mentioned place, shall be committed to the flames; but that the Altar also shall be totally demolished: and, that [...]. I read [...]. That is, it shall be capitall for all those, &c. Where­fore, there is no need of Christo­phorson's emendation here, viz; [...], we judge him worthy of punishment, who, &c. Nevertheless, there is another rea­ding in the Fuk. Savil. and Turneb. Copies; which 'tis better to fol­low here. A little after, from the Fuk. Copy make it [...], &c. Which place moreover, &c. Vales. Though Valesius pre­ferres the reading in the Fuk. Sa­vil. and Turneb. Copies here; yet he has not shown us what it is. a condigne punishment shall be inflicted on all those, who, after this Order of Ours, shall dare to perform any thing that is impious in that place. Which place moreover We have commanded to be beauti­fied with the pure Edifice of a Church, to the end it may be made a fit Seat for holy men. But if any thing shall happen to be done contrary to Our Precept, 'tis fit it should without any delay be made known to Our Clemency, by Your Letters namely: to the end We may Order the person detected to undergo the extreamest of punishments, as being a trans­gressour of the Law. For you are not igno­rant, that the supream Lord and God appeared first to Abraham in that place, and talkt with him. Moreover, the observance of the holy Law took its first beginning there. There Our Saviour himself, together with the two Angels, first gave Abraham a full sight of his own presence. There God first of all appeared unto men. There he made Abraham a promise concerning his future feed; and immediately fulfilled that promise. There he foretold, that he should be the Father of many Nations. Which things being so, 'tis fit, as to me it seems, that by Your care this place should be preserved from all manner of pollution, and re­stored to its Pristine Sanctity; that so in fu­ture, no other thing be done in that place, save the performance of a befitting worship to the Al­mighty and Our Saviour and to God the supream Lord. Which thing [...]. I read [...] or [...] 'tis fit, as Christophorson seems to have read. In the Kings Sheets I found it writ­ten [...], according as I had conjectured. Vales. 'tis fit you should observe with a due care, if Your Gravity be desirous (of which I am confident) to accomplish my will, which is chiefly inclined to the worship of God. God preserve you, Beloved Brethren!

CHAP. LIV. The demolishment of the Idol-Temples and Or, Statues. I­mages in all places.

ALL these things the Emperour performed with all imaginable earnestness, to the Glo­ry of [Christ's] salutary power. And in this manner he ceased not from giving honour to God his Saviour. But he endeavoured all man­ner of ways to Vanquish, or, over­throw. confute the superstitious errour of the Heathens. Therefore, the Porches of some Temples in the Cities were Or, Made naked. laid open, they being, by the Emperour's order, deprived of their doors: the Roofs of others were ript, that wherewith they were covered being taken off. The venerable Brazen Or, Images. Statues of other some, on account whereof the errour of the Ancients had for a long time boasted, were exposed to publick veiw [...]. Sozomen (book 2. chap. 5, where he has in a manner transcri­bed this whole passage of Eusebius) words it thus, [...], in the Streets, and in the Cirque, and in the Pallace▪ Vales. in all the Forum's of the Em­perour's City. In so much that, for a re­proachfull sight to the Spectatours, there lay ex­posed to view, in one place Apollo Pythius, in another Sminthius; and in the very Cirque it self The Delphick Tripods; and the Themistius (in his fifth Ora­tion to Theodosius,) is a witness, that the Statues of the Muses were in the Curia of Constantino­ple. The same Authour, in his Oration to the Senate [...], says that these Statues were placed on this and that side, in a double number; so that they were not now nine, but eighteen. Vales. Heliconian Muses in the Pal­lace. In fine, the City which bore the Emperour's name, was filled in all places with Images, which being made of Brass with great art and cu­riosity, had heretofore been consecrated in every Pro­vince. To whom, under the notion of Gods, when men distempered with errour had for many ages in vain offered numerous Hecatombs and Holo­causts; at length, though late, they learn't to be wise; after the Emperour had begun to make use of these very Images as objects of sport in order to the laughter and recreation of the Be­holders. But, on those I­mages made of Gold [...] Constan­tine ordered the brazen Statues of the Gods to be brought to Byzantium, that he might beau­tifie that City with these sort of Spoyles. But whatever Statues were made of Gold or Silver, them he ordered to be melted down, and coyned into money, as Sozomen relates, book 2. chap. 5. who explains this passage of Eu­sebius excellently well. Concer­ning this demolishment of the Temples and destruction of the Statues, our Eusebius has a pas­sage in his second Sermon de Re­surrectione. Vales. he was revenged another way. For, whereas he perceived, that the simple multitude, like children, in vain stood in fear of those [...], things made up so, as to affright the beholders. Bugbeares of errour made of Gold and Silver; it was his Sentiment, that they ought wholly to be destroyed; in regard they would be like some pieces of Stones cast before the feet of those who walk in the dark; and because a smooth and plain passage through the Kings-high-way was in future to be opened to all men. After these words [opened to all men,] those which follow, as far as [Moreover, this admira­ble Emperour, &c.] are wanting in the Kings Copy, and in Robert Ste­phens's Edition. But they are added by Gruter, Portesius, Chri­stophorson, and others, from Eu­sebius's Panegyrick, and from Ma­nuscript Copies. Indeed, we found them in the Fuketian Copy; and Sr Henry Savil hath given us notice, that the same words are extant in his Copy. Vales. Having therefore considered these things with himself, he was of opinion, that he stood not in need either of military Forces or a numerous army, in order to his giving check to these things; but, that one or two of those persons well known to him, were sufficient to ef­fect this business; whom by one nod he dispatch't a­way into every Province. They, confiding in the Emperour's piety, and in their own Religious­ness towards God, made their way thorow the thickest crowds and thorow infinite multitudes of people, [...]. In the Pane­gyrick, chap. 8. whence these words are taken, the reading is [...], made a discovery of; which reading in my judgment is truer. Vales. and totally destroyed that ancient errour [of Idolatry] in all Cities and through­out every Country. And in the first place they com­manded the Priests them­selves, with much laughter and disgrace to bring forth their Gods out of certain dark recesses. Then they devested [those Gods] of their outward dress, and exposed their inward deformity, which lay concealed under a painted shape, to the eyes of all men. Lastly, having serap't off that matter which seemed to be use­full, and Or, Tried it in the furnace and in the fire. cast it into the fire, and melted it down; so much of it as by them was thought to be of use and necessary, they reserved, and put it up safe. But what was superfluous and wholly useless, that they left to the super­stitious for a lasting monument of disgrace. [Page 597] [...], &c. In Euse­bius's Pa­negyrick chap. 8. the reading of this place is fuller, in this manner, [...], Moreover, this admirable. Emperour performed another thing like hereto. In Moraus's Copy I found it writ­ten, [...], &c▪ moreover, at that time, &c. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. So also 'tis in Sr Henry Savils Copy, but without the Apocope. Vales. Moreover, this admirable Emperour performed another thing of this nature. For, at the same time that those Idols of the dead, made of pretious matter, were spoyled in that manner we have declared, [...], &c. Johannes Portesius renders it, ad alia perrouit, He proceeded to others. Christophorson translates it, reliquas aggressus est statuas, He set upon the other Statues. In the same sense namely, with that Eusebius had said above, [...], he was reven­ged another way. Vales. He ordered the rest of the Images consisting of Brass to be brought together. Therefore, those Gods, celebrated in the doting Fables [of the Greeks,] having had ropes made of hair cast about them, were drag'd away bound.

CHAP. LV. The demolishment of the Idol-Temple at Aphaca in Phoenice, and [the disannulling] those Acts of uncleanness [committed there.]

AFter this the Emperour having as 'twere lighted a most bright Torch, lookt about with his Imperial eye, if peradventure he might any where find any Remains of Errour as yet lying concealed. And as some most sharp­sighted Eagle, which has raised her self to hea­ven on her wings, sees from above those things on the earth which are at the greatest distance: in the same manner he, whilst he Walk't up and down in, or, was conversant in. was resi­dent in the Imperial Pallace of [...]. So Themistius does like­wise term Constan­tinople, in his 16th Oration, a­bout the close of it; to wit, on account of the Beauty and Magnificence of the publick Works, which Constantine had most gorgeously erected there. For he had spoiled all Cities, Towns, places, and Temples, that he might beautifie that City which bore his own name. There­fore Jerome has with good reason affirmed in his Chronicon, that Con­stantinople had been dedicated by the nakedness of almost all cities. Vales. his own most beautifull City, beheld as from a Watch-Tower a certain pernicious snare of souls in the Pro­vince of the Phoenicians. It was a Grove and a Temple, [not placed] in the midst of a City, nor in the Forums, or Streets; of which sort many [are visible] in Cities, most glo­riously built for ornament sake: but this [Tem­ple] was out of the way, far distant from the common Road and beaten path, consecrated to that filthy Daemon [termed] Venus, in part of the top of [Mount] Libanus which is at Concerning this Temple of Venus Aphacitis, Zosimus is to be con­sulted in his first book▪ and the Authour of the Etymologicon in the word [...]; as also Suidas in the word [...], and Mr Selden in Syntagm. 2. de Diis Syris. Further, in the Fuketian Manuscript the reading here is [...], of [Mount] Libanus in Aphaca. But in the Kings Sheets 'tis [...], in part of the Top of Libanus which [Top] is in Aphaca. Vales. Aphaca. This was a School of wickedness, [open] to all impure persons, and such as with all manner of Sloth, or, pleasure. Intemperance had debauch't their bodies. For certain effeminate men, who ought to be termed women rather then men, having re­nounc't the Or, Dignity. Gravity of their own Sex, ap­peased the Daemon [...]; Valesius ren­ders it, muliebria patientes. by suf­fering themselves to be made use of as women. Besides, unlawfull Or, Copulations of women. mixtures with women, and adulteries, and other Horrible. obscene and infamous facts were committed in that Temple, [...]. Doubtless it must be made [...], with­out a Governour▪ as the reading is in his Panegyrick, chap. 8▪ [...] where this whole passage occurs. Yet in the Fuketian Copy▪ 'tis [...] deserted, in the Pane­gyrick also. A little before it must be made [...], as the reading is in the Panegyrick. Vales. as in a place that was lawless and without a Governour. Nor was there any one that might inspect what was done in that place, in regard no person of gravity or modesty durst go thither. But the impi­eties committed there could not lie concealed from this great Emperour. But when He Himself had lookt into them with the eye of Im­perial providence, he judged such a Temple as this to be unworthy of [being en­lightned] with the Rays of the Sun. Wherefore, he orders it to be totally demolished, together with its Statues and con­secrated Gifts. Immediately therefore, the Or, In­struments. En­gines of this impudent and libidinous errour were dissipated by an Imperial Order; and a com­pany of Souldiers gave their assistance in cleansing that place. And they who had hitherto been addicted to Lasciviousness, being scar'd by the Emperour's Menaces, in future learned Modesty: as likewise did those superstitious Heathens, that in their own opinion seemed very wise; who even themselves truly and experimentally under­stood their own vanity [...]nd folly.

CHAP. LVI. The demolishment of Aesculapius's Temple at Aegae.

FOr, whereas the [superstitious] errour of those thought to be wise, was great and much talk't of, in reference to that Daemon of Cilicia; almost infinite numbers of men highly admiring him as a Saviour and a Physitian; in regard he sometimes appeared [...]. Neither Christo­phorson no [...] Portesius understood the true import of this word. For this term does not barely signifie to lie down and sleep, but to sleep in a Tem­ple. This was an usage of the Heathens, to lodge all night in the Temple, ex­pecting Dreams and Cures from their Gods. Of which thing innu­merable instances occur in ancient Writers, but especially in Aristi­des, in his Orationes Saerae. The Latines termed it incubare. Plautus's words in his Curculio are these; Ides fit, quia hic Leno agrotus incu­bat in Aesculapii fane. Solinus, chap. 7. Epidauro decus est Aesculapii sacellum, eui incubantes, &c. See Saint Jerom on the 65th chap. of Esaiah. vers. 4. Vales. to those who slept in his Temple; at others, healed the diseases of them that were infirm in their bodies: (ne­vertheless, he was a manifest Destroyer of souls, a Seducer of men from the true Saviour, one that drew off such as could easily be imposed upon, to the errour of impiety:) the Empe­rour [...]. Christophorson was egregiously mistaken in referring these words to Aesculapius, whenas they are spoken of the Emperour Constantine, as I have exprest it in my Version. 'Tis cer­tain, in the Fuketian and Turnebian Copies the reading is [...], the Emperour behaving, &c. Vales. behaving himself according to his wonted manner, (for he had proposed the jealous God and true Saviour as the object of his adoration;) ordered this Temple also to be pulled down to the very ground. Presently therefore, at one nod of the Emperour's, [this Temple, which was] a wonder cryed up amongst the He means Apollonius Tyaneus, concerning whom Philostratus re­lates in his first book, that he was a long time resident in the Temple of Aesculapius at Aegae, as the Guest of that very God. Vales. noble Philosophers, lay flat on the ground, being rui­ned [Page 598] by a Company of Souldiers: and [toge­ther with the Temple] [...]. In the excellent Fuketian Manuscript, this place is far o­therwise exprest. For, after the word [...] in the Greek [or, Soul­diers in the English Version] that Copy places a full point. Then, it has the following passage worded in this manner; [...], Because 'twas ma­nifest from the facts, that no Daemon lay lurking within it; nor a God; but a deceiver of souls, who for an exceeding long, &c. The four last words [ [...]] which are wanting in the or­dinary Editions, Turnebus had likewise added at the margin of. his book, from a Manuscript Copy. Presently, where the reading in the common Editions is, [...], &c. Thus therefore he, who promised that he would free others from their illnes­ses, &c: the Fuketian Copy has it thus written, [...], &c. For he who had promised that he would free others from their illnesses and calamity, himself found nothing for his own defence. Which reading seems to me fitter and better. In the Kings Sheets also I found it written [...]. Vales. He that lay lurking within it, who was not a Daemon, nor a God, but a Seducer of souls, one who for an ex­ceeding long space of time had led men into errour. Thus therefore he, who promised that he would free others from their illnesses and cala­mities, was not able to find out a [...]. The last word is wanting in the Kings Copy, and may perhaps be understood. But the other Copies acknowledge it. In the close of this chapter, instead of [...], the Fuke­tian Copy has [...]. Vales. remedy in order to his own preservation; no more than when he was struck with thunder (as we are told in the The story is this, this Aesculapius, by the entreaty of Diana, restored to Life Hippolitus who had been torn in pieces by horses; whereat Jupiter being angry, killed him with Thunder. Fables.) But the Actions of [...], Of our country Emperour. Our Emperour, being such as were highly acceptable to God, were not in like manner fabulous: but by the manifest power of Our Saviour himself, this Temple in that place was so utterly ruined [together with others,] that not the least footstep of the for­mer madness was left remaining there.

CHAP. LVII. How the Heathens having rejected their Idols, returned to the knowledge of God.

WHatever persons therefore had hereto­fore been addicted to the superstitious worship of Daemons, when with their own eyes they saw their own errour confuted, and actu­ally beheld the Ruine of the Temples and I­mages in all places; some of them came over to the salutary Doctrine of Christ: but others, although they refused to do that, yet condemned the vanity of their fore-fathers, and laught at and derided those which by them had heretofore been accounted Gods. And indeed, how could they forbear having such thoughts as these, when under an external beauty and splendour of the Images, they saw so much filth and impurity lie concealed within? For either the Bones of dead Bodies, and dry skulls [...]. In the King's, Fuketian, and Savi­lian Copies 'tis truer written [...]. Which word Christophorson renders thus, calvae praestigiatorum dolis callidè obtectae, skulls craftily covered by the frauds of Conjurers. Which translation I approve not of; and had rather render it subreptae, stoln, or else adornatae & ad malesicia comparatae, trimmed and made ready for mischievous Facts. For Bones and Skulls are the instruments of Conjurers, whereof they made use in order to their mischievous acts. Vales. stoln by the frands of Conjurers, were within them: or else, nasty rags and clouts stuft with abomi­nable filth; or lastly, a bundle of hay and straw. Which after they beheld heapt together within their soulless images, they blamed both their own and their fathers extream folly of mind; especially when they perceived, that with­in those their Or, In­accessible Recesses. Adyta, and within the Images themselves, there was no Inhabitant, In his Panegyrick concerning Constan­tine's Tri­cennalia, chap. 8, these words are placed otherwise, in this manner, [...], no Daemon, no God, no Utterer of Oracles, no Prophet: which I do indeed like better. Vales. no Daemon, no Utterer of Oracles, no God, no Prophet, as they had before perswaded themselves; no not so much as an impotent or obscure phantome. And therefore every dark Cavern, and every se­cret Recess was readily opened to those sent by the Emperour: the Adyta also, and places be­fore inaccessible, as likewise the inmost parts of the Temples, were trodden by the feet of the Souldiers. So that, hereby was discovered and exposed to publick view that blindness of mind, wherein all the Heathens had for so long a time been kept involved.

CHAP. LVIII That having demolished Venus's Temple at He­liopolis, He was the first who built [a Church there.]

This whole pas­sage, as far as the Hea­thens who honoured, &c▪ is wan­ting in the Kings Copy and in Robert Ste­phens's Edition. But it has been added by Learned men, from the authority of Manuscripts. Tur­nebus and Sr Henry Savil found it in their Copies; and we also saw it written in the Fuketian Copy, at the margin. But the reading in the Fuketian Manuscript is lar­ger by one word, thus, [...], &c. Vales. ANd these things may deservedly be re­counted amongst the Emperour's famous Actions; as likewise those matters particularly constituted by him in several Provinces. Of which sort is that [which we have seen per­formed by him] at Heliopolis a City of Phoenice. In which City the Heathens who honoured obscene Lust with the appellation [of the Goddess Venus,] permit­ted their wives and daughters to commit whoredom with impunity. But now a new and modest Law is issued out from the Emperour, where­by 'tis cautioned, that no one of those usages heretofore common amongst them, shall in future be in any wise audaciously practised. And to these per­sons he again transmitted instructions in writing; for he [...]. The last word is wanting in the Kings Copy and Stephens's Edition. Wherefore 'tis to be considered, whether we had not better read [...], in the first place. But, whereas the Turne­bian, Savilian, and Fuketian Manuscripts do defend the writing of the Geneva Edition, I am of opinion, that it is to be retained. Vales. was Or, Sent. appointed by God for this reason chiefly, that he might in­struct all men in the Laws of Tem­perance. Wherefore, he accounted it not a thing below himself, to Preach even to these persons by his own Letter, and to exhort them to hasten to the knowledge of God. And in that place he added works consonant to his words, e­recting even amongst them a [...]. I doubt not but it should be written [...]. For so Eusebius is wont to express himself, as I have remarked above. And by [...] he means Basilicam, a Church; but by [...] he means the whole compass or inclosure of the Church, that is, the Porch, Atrium or Court, Porticus's, Exhedrae, Baptisteries, and the other Edifices which are wont to be annext to Churches. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. Vales. most spacious Church with the Edifices belonging thereto. In so much that, Any one may, not without reason, wonder, why Eusebius should say it was a thing unheard-of by all ages, that a City addicted to the superstitious worship of Daemons, should receive a Church and a Bi­shop. For that had hapned to other Cities also at that time. But per­haps Eusebius means, that this was a thing new and unheard-of, that a Church of God had been built in that City, wherein as yet there was no Christians, but all persons equally adored Idols. This Church therefore was built by Constantine at Heliopolis, in hope rather than for necessity; to wit, that he might invite all the Citizens to the profession of the Christian Religion. A little after, the reading in the Fuketian Manuscripts is [...], truer than in the ordinary Edi­tions, where 'tis [...]. Vales. what had no where been heard of by any preceding age whatever, [Page 599] was then first of all really compleated; and a City of men addicted to the superstitious wor­ship of Daemons, was vouchsafed a Church of God, and Presbyters and Deacons; and a Bi­shop consecrated to the supream God, presided over the inhabitants of that place. Moreover, the Emperour taking great care that many per­sons might come over to the Faith of Christ, made large distributions there, in order to the relief of the poor: and in this wise he perswaded and invited men to the salutary Doctrine, in a manner uttering those very words spoken by Saint Paul; Philip. 1. 18. whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached.

CHAP. LIX. Concerning the disturbance raised at Antioch on Eustathius's account.

BUt, whilst all persons passed their lives in the greatest joy imaginable on account of these [Blessings,] and the Church of God was all manner of ways exalted amongst all Nations every where; the envy [of the Devil,] who is always contriving Plots against the Good, began again to make an insurrection against this so great a prosperity of our affairs: supposing, that the Emperour, Or, Wearied out with. exasperated at our distur­bances and indecencies, would in future have his affection towards us alienated. Having there­fore kindled a great fire, he Or, En­compassed. filled the Church of Antioch with Tragical Calamities: in so much that, there wanted but little of the whole Citie's being utterly subver­ted. [...]. I reade [...], from Socrates book 1. chap. 24. But this whole place is thus to be restored from the Fuketian, Savil. and Turnebian Copies: [...]; For the people, &c, as we have rendred it. Vales. For the people of the Church were divided into two Factions; and the Com­monalty of the City in an hostile manner were so high­ly enraged against the Magi­strates themselves, and the [...]. Christo­phorson renders it ill, Milites prae­sidiarios, the Souldiers in Garri­son. For the Milites Praesidiarii were in Castles, not in Cities. I suppose therefore that those Soul­diers are meant, who had perfor­med their service in the wars; as likewise the Officials of the Comes of the East, and of the Consularis of Syria. Vales. Milice: that, they were just upon the point of draw­ing their Swords, had not the providence of God, and the fear of the Emperour, represt the violence of the multitude. And here the clemency of the Emperour, like a Saviour and Physitian of souls, did again by dis­course administer a Cure to those distempered. For he dispatcht away thither one of those about him, whom he had had tryal of, a person honoured with the dignity of a Comes, a man eminently trusty and faithfull; [by whom he spake] to those people in a most gracious manner. And by Letter after Letter he ex­horted them to entertain thoughts of Peace; and taught them to practise such things as were agreeable to the divine Religion. And at length he prevailed with them; and excused them in those Letters he wrote to them, affirming that he himself had publickly heard He means Eu­stathius Bi­shop of An­tioch, as 'tis apparent from the Contents of this chapter. Whom when the Eusebians [that is, the party of Eusebius Bishop of Nicome­dia] had by fraud and calum­ny ejected out of his own See, a great tu­mult was raised at Antioch. This hapned on the year of Christ 329, (as may apparently be ga­thered from Philostorgius's second Book;) or on the year 330, as Theodoret seems to assert, book 2. chap. 31. For he writes, that Meletius was translated to the See of Antioch thirty years after Eu­stathius's Deposition. Now, 'tis manifest that Meletius was transla­ted to Antioch on the year of Christ 360. Wherefore, I can't assent to the most illustrious Cardinal Baronius, who being always angry with our Eusebius, whilst he refuses to follow his account, hath confounded all things. For he says that this Tumult hapned at Antioch on the year of Christ 324, that is on the very year before the Nicene Synod, then, when Eustathius was created Bishop of Antioch: whereas So­crates, Sozomen, and Theodoret do attest, that this Tumult had hap­ned at the deposition of this Eustathius. But Baronius proves by most evident arguments, as he himself supposes, that Eustathius was ejected out of the See of Antioch, not under the Reign of the Em­perour Constantine, but in that of Constantius. Let us see therefore, with what arguments he endeavours to make this out. In the first place he cites a passage out of Athanasius's Epistle ad solitarios, about the beginning. Fuit, says he, quidam Eustathius Episcopus Antiochiae, &c. There was one Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, a person famous for conses­sion, &c. whom the men of the Arian Opinion had accused to Con­stantius by a forged calumny in such a manner, as if he had been contu­melious towards the Emperours Mother. But I affirm, that in this passage of Athanasius, instead of Constantius, Constantine is to be writ­ten. Which emendation is confirmed by those words immediately added concerning the Emperour's Mother. For he means Helena, who about this time had come into the East. For these words can't in any wise be meant of Fausia, who had been put to death above twenty years before, if we follow Baronius's computation. But the passage of Saint Jerom, out of his book de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, makes little for Baronius, in regard in the Old Editions, as also in that of Lyons which I have, 'tis plainly written, sub Constantino Principe missus est in exilium, was sent into Exile under the Emperour Con­stantine. Wherefore, I had rather follow Eusebius here, than Ba­ronius. Nor do I see, how so great stirs could have been made at the Creation of Eustathius, (of which stirs there is mention in the Em­perour▪ Constantine's Letter,) that to appease them a Comes was to be sent, and so many Letters written by the Emperour. Besides, Constantine says in his Letter, that he had publickly heard him who had been the Authour of that whole Sedition; to wit, Eustathius, whom he had ordered to come to Court, and had banisht him into Thracia. And this Athanasius in his before-mentioned Letter, accounts as the first Exploit of the Arians; which thing is to be remarked. For this was done before the Synod of Tyre, which was convened against Athanasius, that is before the year of Christ 334. Athanasius therefore does right in beginning the History of the War which the Arians brought upon the Catholick Church, from Eustathius's deposition, as from the first Exploit of the Arians: which having succeeded according to their wish, they thought that all other matters would in future be ready and easie. Fur­ther, Baronius's Opinion is refuted as well from what we have said a­bove, as from this, because Flaccillus (who after Paulinus and Eulalius succeeded Eustatbius,) is mentioned amongst those Bishops present at the Synod at Tyre, by Athanasius in his Apology to the Emperour Con­stantius▪ as Jacobus Gothofredus has well observed in his Dissertation [...] on the second book of Philostorgius. Vales. him who had been the occasioner of that Tumult. And these Letters of his, which were filled with no ordinary Learning and Utility, I had inserted at this place, had they not set a Brand of infamy on the persons Or, Accused. guilty. Wherefore I will at present omit them, being resolved not to renew the memory of mischiefs: and will only annex those Letters to this Work, which he wrote to [...]. It must be [...], as Christo­phorson seems to have read; and we have rendred it accordingly. Vales. express the joy and satisfaction of his own mind in reference to the Peace and agreement of others. In which Letters he entreats them, that they would not in any wise challenge to themselves the Prelate of another place, by whose intervention they had made up a Peace amongst themselves; but that, agreeable to the Canon of the Church, they should rather choose him Bishop, whom [our Lord] himself the Common Saviour of all, should design [for that office.] He writes therefore both to the people, and also to the Bishops, se­verally, these following [Letters.]

CHAP. LX. Constantine's Letter to the Antiochians, that they should not draw away Eusebius from Caesarea; but should seek another [Bishop.]
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, To the people of Antioch.

HOw gratefull and pleasing is the Concord a­mongst You Or, To the pru­dence and wisedom of the world. to all the prudent and wise men of this Age! Even I my Self, Brethren, have determined to embrace You with an everlasting affection; being invited thereto both Or, By the Law. by the Rule of Religion, and by your way of Life, and also by your love and favour. This is most certainly the genuine product of Blessings, to Or, Have made use of. act with an understanding that is right and sound. For what can so much become you? [...]. This place is cor­rupted; the mea­ning of it I have pick't out as well as I could. And in the first place, I think it must be made [...], wonder not therefore. Then, a little af­ter write thus, [...], to whom one, as the reading is in the excellent Fuketian Copy, whereto Sr Henry Savil's, and Turnebus's book do in part agree. Vales. Wonder not there­fore, if I shall affirm the Truth to have been to you Or, An occasion of salvation. a cause of safety, rather than of hatred. Indeed, amongst Brethren (to whom one and the same affection of mind, and a progress in the way that is right and just, doth by Gods assistance promise an enrollment into the pure and holy fa­mily;) what [...]. After these words Scaliger and others have inserted these, [...], which I found written also in [...]'s book. But I can't approve of this their conjecture. For, what should the meaning of [...] be? I had much rather read thus, [...], than with a joy, &c. For, Constantine says that it does not become Christians to grieve at the Blessings of others, and to draw away the Bishops of neighbouring Cities from their own Churches, because they may be eminent for knowledge and virtue. For the Antiochians would have done that; who, after they had deposed Eustatbius, requested, that Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea might be made their Prelate. In the Fuketian Copy, after the word [...], there is a point set at the top. Then the reading is, [...], &c. Nor is it other­wise in Turnebus's Copy. Sr Henry Savil had mended it thus at the margin of his Copy; [...], &c. Which reading, whether it proceeded from conjecture, or was taken out of some Manuscript Copy, I can't approve of. Indeed I had rather reade thus; [...]; that the meaning may be the same with that which I have set above. Vales. can be more goodly and valuable, than with a joy and unanimity of mind to rest contented at their beholding the Blessings of all men? Especially, in regard the instruction of the divine Law incites [...]. Christophorson did not rightly understand this place. For Constantine means that earnestness or vehemency of their minds, wherewith the Antiochians had purposed to procure Eusebius to be their Bishop. As a little afterwards by the term [...] he means the Judgment wherewith they had elected the same person. I read therefore, [...], and because 'tis our desire that your judgment, &c: as the reading is in the Fuketian and Turneb. Copies. Vales. your purpose of mind to Or, A more beau­tifull di­rection. a greater perfection, and because 'tis our desire that your judgment should be confirmed by the best determinations. This will perhaps seem strange to you; what namely this preface of our Or, Dis­course. Let­ter should mean. Truly, I will neither avoid, nor refuse to declare the rea­son of this matter. For I confess that I have per­used the Acts, wherein both from your honour­able commendations and Testimonies in reference to Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, (whom I my Self also have long since very well known, on ac­count as well of his Learning as his Modesty;) I perceive you have an [...]. In the Old Sheets of the King's Library the rea­ding is [...], which plea­ses me mightily. But the Fuk. Sa­vil. and Turneb. Copies give us another reading▪ [...]. Vales. inclination towards him, and are desirous of making him your own. What, think you, came into my mind, who am [...]. I doubt not but it should be written [...] vov, ear­nestly hast­ning to. In the Fuke­tian Copy I found it written [...] vov [...]. It might also be made [...] vov, who am raised. Vales. earnestly hastning to an accurate disquisition of Or, The better. what is right and true? What a care and solicitude [do you believe me] to have taken on account of that your desire? O Holy Faith, which by the Words and Precepts of our Saviour dost exhibite to us as 'twere an express Or, I­mage. representa­tion of Life; with what trouble woul­dest even Thou thy self resist Or, Sins. Sinners, unless Thou shouldest wholly refuse to serve in order to gain and favour! Indeed to Me, he seemes to have [...]. A most e­legant sen­tence, which Christo­phorson un­derstood not. Indeed to me, says Constantine, he seems to have conquered Victory her self, who is earnestly studious of Peace. Therefore, after the word [...] [or, endeavour, in our Version] a point must be placed; as 'tis in the Kings and Fuketian Copy, and in the Old Sheets. Vales. conquered even Victory her self, who Or, More ear­nestly strives for Peace. makes Peace his more earnest study and endeavour. For where that which is decent, is law­full to any one, no body can be found who is not highly pleased with it. I be­seech you therefore, Brethren, on what account should we so determine, as thereby to procure others an injury? For what reason do we follow those things, which will certainly overthrow the Faith of Our Opinion? Indeed, I do highly praise that person, who by you also is approved of as worthy of honour and affection. Nevertheless, that (which amongst all should remain firm and ratified,) ought not in such a manner to have been Or, Weakened. enervated, as that all persons should not be contented [...] ▪ That is, every one should be contented with their own Limits. For [...] is a Boundary or Limit of grounds; whence those Writers are termed G [...]omatici, who have written concerning the Boundaries of fields. After the same way [...] is promiscuously taken amongst Graecians, as well for a Sentence, as a Limit. For as a Limit does bound Fields, so does a Sentence ter­minate strifes and controversies. Further, in my judgment it should be writen, [...]. For it follows, [...]. Although in the Fuketian and Turneb▪ Copies the reading is, [...], nor enjoy all their domestick, &c. Vales. with their own Limits, nor all enjoy their domestick Bles­sings; and that in a search after those who might e­qually seem worthy of the Bishoprick, not only one, but many persons should not be Or, Proposed. produced comparatively of equall worth with Eusebius. this per­son. For when neither [...]; Va­lesius renders it, nei­ther roughness nor violence. Ter­rour nor Roughness gives a­ny disturbance to Ecclesiastick Honours, it happens that those [Honours] are alike in themselves, and Or, Are to be accounted of equal price; so Valesius. are in all things equally desireable. Nor is it agreeable to rea­son, that a deliberation concerning this matter should be made [...], to another injury. It must be written [...], to the injury of others. 'Tis not becoming, says Constantine, that a deliberation of this nature about the choosing a Bishop into Eustathius's place, should bring an injury upon others. Nor ought ye to spoil other Churches. A little after, I am of the same opinion with Scaliger and Christophorson, who have mended it thus, [...]. And so I found it written in the Fuk. and Savil. Copies, and in the Old Sheets. Vales. In Robert Stephens 'tis [...]. to the injury of others: in re­gard the minds of all men, whether they may seem to be [...]. That is, whether they be inhabitants of a lesser City, such as is Caesarea; or of a greater City, of which sort is Antioch. All, says he, as well the Citizens of smaller, as of greater Cities, are equal with God. Wherefore lesser Towns are not to be de­prived of their Bishops. Constantine had said the same a little before; namely, that Ecclesiastick Honours are all equal, and are to be accounted of equal value. Vales. meaner or more illustrious do equally ad­mit [Page 601] of and keep the divine Decrees Dogmata; so that, as to what relate [...] to the Common Or, Law. Faith, one sort of persons are in nothing inferiour to another. These words may be referred to the preceding period. And so after the verb [...] a full point is to be set, and the place rendred thus: So that some per­sons (as to what relates to the Common Faith,) are in no wise inferiour to others, if we should plainly speak the truth. Where­fore, this is not to detain a man, but to take him away by force, &c. And thus this place is pointed in the Old Sheets. Vales. But should we plainly de­clare the Truth, any one might with good reason af­firm, that this is not to de­tain a man, but rather to take him away by force; and, that what is done is an act of Violence▪ not of Justice. And whether the Or, Multitudes. generality of the people think thus, or otherwise, I my self do plainly and bold­ly affirm, that this business gives occasion for an accusation, and does raise the disturbance of no small tumult. For, even lambs do shew the Or, Nature. force and strength of their teeth, as often as (the usual care and Con­cern of their Shepherd for them growing more remiss,) they perceive themselves deprived of their former guidance and looking to. Now, if these things be thus, and if we are not mistaken; in the first place, Brethren, consider this. (For many, and those great advantages will offer them­selves to you even at the very beginning.) First of all [I say consider this;] whether the Or, In­genuity. af­fection and love you have one towards ano­ther will not be sensible of some abatement of it self. Then [weigh this also,] that that person who From these words it may be gathered, that our Eusebius had come to Antioch together with the rest of the Bishops, who in a Synod had condemned Eusta­thius Bishop of Antioch; and that the Antiochians, after Eustathius's deposition, had a mind to keep him with them. This is what Constantine has said above [...], this is not a detention, but rather the taking away of a man by vio­lence. Theodorei tells us the same, book 1. chap. 22. Vales. came to you on account of good advice, does from the divine Judgment reap to himself the due fruit of Ho­nour; in regard he has re­ceived no mean favour from that Honourable Testimony which you by a general con­sent have given of His Or, Probity. Vir­tue. Lastly [consider,] [...]. I think it must be written [...], &c. For the verb [...], consider, is to be understood in common. But if any one has a mind to defend the common rea­ding, I shall not much resist him. Vales. that 'tis agreeable to your usage, to make use of a care and diligence which becometh good judgment, in your look­ing out for such a man as you stand in need of; so as that you may avoid all man­ner of tumultuous and disor­derly Clamour. For such sort of Clamour is always Or, Unjust. noxious; [...], and from the compa­ring of se­veral per­sons toge­ther. It would doubtless be better to read thus, [...]; that is, from the col­lision of many men, sparks and flames are usually raised. The Fuketian Copy hath at length confirmed our conjecture to us; wherein I found it plainly written [...]. Vales. and from the Knock­ing, or, beating to­gether. collision of several men one against the other, sparks and fires are usually raised. May I therefore so please God and you, and may I so leade a Life a­greeable to your desires and wishes, as I Love you, and the Calm Port of your Mildness; [...]. Christophorson renders this place thus: Ex qu [...] portu sordibus seditionis praeteritae ejectis, pacato mentis statu concordiam in earum locum inducite: Out of which port having ejected the filth of your past Sedition, in place thereof do you bring in Concord with a calm temper of mind. But in this Version, there are many things which I can't approve of. For first, I am not pleased with his making [...] to mean the filth of Sedition. In my judgment Constantine seems to hint at that cause, on account where­of Eustathius had been deposed; to wit, the debauching of a certain woman; concerning which whoredome consult Theodoret, book 1. chap. 21. The same thing is likewise intimated by Constantine a little after this, where he says, [...]. That is, For, whatever could any way defile the vessel, is drawn out by the Pump as 'twere. At which place nevertheless, Christophorson does again render it the filth of Sedition. But, how filth can be a term properly used in reference to Sedition I can't in­deed perceive. But no body can doubt, but it may be very proper'y spoken in reference to that incontinency wherewith Eustathius was charged. There is a Metaphor here, taken from Ports, which are wont to be cleansed, as often as they are stopt up with sand, mud; or such like filth. Now, those words [...] may be rendred adverbially; and so the reading must be [...] which displeases me not. May I so please God▪ says Constantine, as I Love you, and the port of your Lenity, after having cast out that filth, you have brought in Con­cord with good Morals. Indeed, this meaning pleases me much better than the common reading. For now the Antiochians were quiet, and the Sedition was appeased, at such time as Constantine wrote this Letter▪ as 'tis apparent from its beginning. Vales. since you have cast out that silth, and instead thereof have brought in Concord with good Morals, and have put up [A-boord your Ship] the firm Flag [of the Cross;] [...], Steering a celestial course to the Light it self. I think it must be made [...], a prosperous Course. For 'tis a Me­taphor taken from Navigation. In Sophocles, [...] is used to signifie a happy Voyage by Sea; and a Ship which Sails with a prosperous gale of Wind, is by Graecians termed [...]. Vales. Steering a prosperous course to the Light it self, with Rudders of Iron, as one may say. Where­fore, [...]. This whole Letter is in many places faulty; but especially this clause does abound with mistakes. For, what is the meaning of these words? I doubt not but it must be read thus, [...], convey on Boord, &c. Constantine does here make use of a continued Metaphor taken from Naviga­tion, and compares Christians to Merchants who make Voyages on account of Trade. Saile on, says he, with a prosperous Course to the eternal Light, having erected the Flag of the Cross in your Ships, and carry on Boord your Vessel the incorruptible Goods. For now, whatever could have endammaged the Ship, is Pumpt out. Thus, by making a small, and in a manner no alteration, the meaning does now appear ele­gant and plain. Vales. convey on Boord your Ship the incor­ruptible Cargo. For, whatever could any way defile the Vessel, is drawn out by the Pump as 'twere. Now therefore, use your utmost endea­vours, that your enjoyment [...]. It must, I think, be written in on word, [...]; as Sr Henry Savil had mended it in his Copy. In the Fuke­tian Copy the reading is [...]. The close of this Letter is in my judgment thus to be restored; [...]. Which reading I have followed in my Version▪ Constantine terms▪ the desire which the Antiochians had manifested towards Eusebius▪ when they coveted him to be their Bishop, [...], an inconsiderate desire. The affection of the Antiochians towards Eustathius may also be meant; at whose deposition they were vext, and had raised a Sedition. In the Fuk. Sav. and Turneb. Copies, this place is written thus, [...]. But the reading is plainer which we found in the Old Sheets, [...]. Vales. of all these Blessings may be such, as you may not a second time seem, either to have determined any thing at all, with an inconsiderate and unprofitable desire, or from the beginning to have attempted what is disa­greeable. God keep you, Beloved Brethren!

CHAP. LXI. Constantine's Letter to Eusebius, wherein he commends Him for His Refusal of [the See of] Antioch.
The Emperour's Letter This Title was written by Eusebius himself, as 'tis apparent. For He himself says concerning himself, [...], to us. Wherefore, there was no need of any other Title. Further▪ hence it may be plainly gathered, that these Books were written by Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea. Which, notwithstanding it may be proved by innumerable arguments and te­stimonies; yet I wonder at James Gothofred, who has been so bold as to deny it. In the Fuketian Copy, which has the Contents or Titles prefixt before every Chapter, these words are wanting. But in the Kings Sheets they are written at the margin. Vales. to Us, after our Re­fusal of the Bishoprick of Antioch.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, To Eusebius.

I Have perused your Letter very often; and have found that you do most exactly observe the Rule of Ecclesiastick discipline. For, to persist in those Sentiments which appear both acceptable to God, and agreeable to Apostolick Tradition, is an emi­nent degree of Piety. You may account your self blessed even in this very thing, because by the testimony of the whole world, as I may say, you have been judged worthy [...]. Baronius (at the year of our Lord 324, Number 145,) ex­pounds these words thus. Con­stantine, says he, terms the care of the Antiochian Church the Bi­shoprick of the whole Church; be­cause Antioch was the Metropolis of all the East. But, with the fa­vour of that great person be it spoken, there seems to be ano­ther sense of these words. For whereas all Cities were desirous of having Eusebius their Bishop, as Constantine attests a little after, Eusebius was by the consent of all worthy of the Episcopate of the whole world. Vales. to be Bishop over the whole Church. For, whereas all persons desire you to be [Bi­shop] amongst them, without question they increase this your felicity. But Your prudence ( [...]. In the Fuketian Copy and that of Sr Henry Savil, the reading is [...]. I should choose to write [...], &c. which hath &c. A little before, where the reading is [...], the Fuketian and Savilian Copies add [...], is an eminent degree of piety. Vales. which hath re­solved to observe the com­mands of God, and the A­postolick Canon, and that of the Church,) has acquitted it self incomparably well, in regard it hath refused the Bishoprick of the Church at Antioch; and hath en­deavoured to continue in that See rather, the presidency over which by the will of God it had at first under­taken. Further, concerning this matter I have written a Letter to the people, and to those other persons your Colleagues, who also them­selves wrote to me in relation to the same affairs. Which Letters when Your Or, Purity. Holiness shall have perused, it will easily understand, that, because Justice seemed to Resist them, I have written unto them by the impulse of the Deity. It will behove Your prudence also to be present at their Or, Con­sultation. Council, to the end this very thing may be con­stituted in the Church of Antioch. God keep you, Beloved Brother▪

CHAP. LXII. Constantine's Letter to the Synod, that Eu­sebius should not be drawn away from Cae­sarea.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS; To This The­odotus was Bishop of Laodicea in Syria; Nar­cissus was Bishop of Neronades in Cilicia; Aëtius was Bishop of Lydd [...] in Palestine: all Favourers of the Arian Party. Who, when they were come to Antioch, together with Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Eusebius Caesariensis, deposed Eustatbius, as Theodoret relates Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 21. But Aëtius betook himself afterwards to the side of the Orthodox, as Philostorgius attests, book 3. chap. 12▪ and also Athanasius. Now, Alpheus Bishop of Apamea in Syria, and lastly Theodorus Prelate of Sydon in Phoenice are named amongst the Bishops who subscribed to the Nice [...]e Synod. Concerning Theodotus, Athanasius speaks also, in his book de Synodis Arimini & Seleuciae. Vales. Theodotus, Theodorus, Narcissus, Aëtius, Alpheus, and to the rest of the Bishops which are at Antioch.

I Have read the Letter written by Your pru­dence, and do highly commend the wise re­solution of Your Colleague Eusebius. And when I had perfectly understood all transactions, part­ly from Your Letter, and partly from that of the Most Perfect Concer­ning Aca­cius Comes of the East, if I mistake not, Con­stantine speaks a­bove in his Letter to Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem, chap. 53. But Stra­tegius is he, who by another name was called Mu­sonianus; concerning whom I have made several re­marks in my Notes on the 15th Book of Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 99. He had been sent to Antioch by the Emperour Constantine, to appease the tumult there, as Eusebius has said above; see chap. 59. Vales. Acacius and Strategius [the Comites,] and had made a due inspection into the thing; I wrote to the people of Antioch, what was well pleasing to God, and besitting the Church. A Copy of which Letter I have or­dered to be annext hereto, to the end You also might know, what I, [...], I had rather write [...]. Vales. invited thereto by the way of Right, had ordered to be written to the people [of Antioch:] in as much as this was con­tained in Your Letter, that according to the suffrage of the people and [...], the prudence of your desire. I would more willingly read [...], the desire of your prudence. Fur­ther, from these words (which are ill understood by Christophorson) it appears, that the Bishops who had been convened at Antioch, had by their Letter requested of Constantine, that according to the desire of the Antiochian people, and themselves, Eusebius might be translated to the See of Antioch. Therefore those words, [...], are taken out of the Letter of the Bishops convened at Antioch, which they sent to the Em­perour Constantine. Vales. the desire of Your prudence, Eusebius the Most Holy Bishop of the Church of Caesarea might preside over the An­tiochian Church, and undertake the care thereof. [...]. I am not displeased with the conjecture of Learned men, who have mended it [...] &c, Indeed Eusebius's &c. The place might likewise have been restored thus, [...] &c. But the for­mer reading is confirmed by the authority of the Fuketian and Savilian Copies. Only the postpositive Article [...] is to be expunged, which oc­curs not in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. Indeed, Eusebius's Letter appeared highly ob­servant of the Ecclesiastick Canon: but 'tis meet, that Our Sentiment also should be made known to Your prudence. [...]. In the Fuketian and Sr Henry Savils Copy, the reading of this place runs thus; [...], For it hapned that there have come to me Euphronius which reading Chri­stophorson has followed. But the common reading is far better, [...], that is, I have been given to understand, as Musculus renders it; or, It has been told me. Vales. For, it has been related to me, that Euphronius a Presbyter, who is a Citi­zen of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and [...]. Understand [...], a Citizen; which word Christophorson perceived not was to be repeated in common. Now, [...] does not only signifie a person born in some City, but rather such a one as has his residence in a City, and is enrolled amongst the Citizens▪ whether he may have been born there, or elsewhere. Vales. Georgius [Page 603] [a Citizen] of Arethusa, a Presbyter also (Athana­sius says the same in his Book de Synodis Arimini & Seleuciae; that this George namely, who was afterwards Bishop of Laodicea, had first been or­dained Presbyter by Alex­ander Bishop of Alexandria; but was afterwards deposed by the same Alexander because of his impiety. In his Apologetick also against Constantius, pag. 728; he writes that the same person was deposed by Alexander, which very thing is plainly confirmed by the Fathers of the Sardican Council in their Synodick Letter. The same Athanasius, in the same Book de Synodis pag. 886, attests that this George resided at Antioch. Further, from the Kings Sheets I have pointed this place thus; [...], whom Alexander and so Mus­culus points the place. Vales. whom Alexander preferred to this dignity in the City Alexandria,) are most approved persons in reference to the Faith. This place seems to me to be imperfect, which is in my judgment thus to be made good: [...], which reading I have followed in my Version. By [...], these men, he means the foresaid Euphronius and Georgius. Of whom, Euphronius was afterwards Bishop of Antioch, and immediate successour to Eusta­thius; as Socrates and Sozomen doe relate, and also Theodorus Mopsu­estenus in Nicetas's Thesaurus Orthodox fidei. But this Georgius was, as I have said, afterwards Bishop of Laodicea. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. Further, 'tis to be noted, that men who were Arians, are here by Constantine commended for persons that were Orthodox; either because as yet they concealed their Heresie, or else in regard the Arians had possest themselves of the Emperour's ear and mind. Vales. It seemed good therefore, to give Your prudence notice of these men, that having [...]. Christophorson perceived nothing here. The term [...] in elections imports thus much, to propose or pub­lickly to produce the name of some person, that it may be inquired whe­ther he be worthy of that Office, the debate about which is in agitation. Which very thing Constantine in his Letter to the people of Antioch expresses by the verb [...]. The [...] was followed by an Examination, then the Election, and last of all the Ordination or Consecration. See Socrates's Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 9. note (f.) Vales. proposed them, and some others, whom You shall judge fit for the dig­nity of the Episcopate, You may determine such things as may be agreeable to the Tradition of the Apostles. For such matters as these having been well prepared and ordered, Your Prudence will be able so to direct this Election according to the Canon of the Church and Apostolick Tra­dition, as the Rule of Ecclesiastick discipline does require. God keep you, Beloved Bre­thren!

CHAP. LXIII. In what manner He endeavoured to destroy He­resies.

SUch were the admonitions [which the Em­perour gave] to the [Prelates] of the Churches, [advising them to do all things] in order to the glory and commendation of the divine Religion. But after he had made a riddance of all dissentions, and had reduced the Church of God to an agreement and Harmony of doctrine; He past from thence, and was of opinion, that another sort of impious persons were to be supprest and destroyed, in regard they were the poyson of Mankind. These were a sort of pernicious men, who under the spe­cious disguise of Modesty and Gravity ruined the Cities. Whom Our Saviour somewhere terms false Prophets or ravenous Wolves, in these words: Matt. 7. 15, 16. Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. By the transmission of a precept there­fore to the Presidents of Provinces, He put to flight the whole Tribe of these sort of persons. But besides this Law, the Emperour composed an enlivening Or, In­struction. Exhortation, directed to them by name; wherein he incited those men to hasten their repentance: For [he told them] that the Church of God would be to them a Port of Or, Salvation. safety. But, hear in what manner [...] ▪ Valesius renders it▪ he Prea­ches. He discoursed even to these persons, in his Letter to them.

CHAP. LXIV. Constantine's Constitution against the Here­ticks.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, To the Hereticks.

ACknowledge now by the benefit of this Law, (O ye Novatianists, Valentinians, Mar­cionists, Pauliani; and you who are termed Ca­taphrygae; in a word, all of you, who by your private Meetings, breed and Or, Perfect. compleat Heresies!) in how many Lyes the Or, Va­nity a­mongst you is, &c. vanity of your Opinions is wrapt up, and in what manner your Doctrine is Contained in, or, be­set with. compounded of certain pernicious poysons: in so much that, by you the healthy are reduced to weak­ness, and the living to a perpetual death: Ye Enemies of Truth, ye Adversaries of Life, and ye Councellours of destruction! All things amongst you are contrary to Truth; agreeable to filthy im­pieties; [...]. In the Fuketian Savil▪ and Turneb. Copies, I found it [...], rejoycing in; according as Scaliger, Christophorson and o­thers found it in their Copies. Vales. Valesius renders it re [...]erta, stust; on what account I know not. stuft with absurdi­ties and fictions: whereby you compose Lyes, afflict the Innocent, and deny Belie­vers the light. And, sinning continually under a Mask of Divinity, you defile all things! Ye wound the in­nocent and pure consciences [of men] with blows that are mortal and deadly; and ye ravish even the day it self (I had almost said,) from the eyes of men. But what necessity is there of recounting every par­ticular? Especially, since neither the shortness of the time, nor the urgency of Our Affairs will suffer Us to speak concerning your Or, Mis­chiefs. Crimes according as they deserve. For, your im­pieties are so large and immense, so filthy and full of all manner of outragiousness, that a whole day would not be sufficient for a description of them. And besides, 'tis fit we should remove our ears and turn away our eyes from things of this nature, least by a particular declaration of them, the pure and sincere Or, Activity. alacrity of Our Faith s [...]ould be defiled. What reason is there then that We should any longer tolerate such Mischiefs? Especially since Our long [...]. Perhaps it should be [...], neg­ligence and forgetful­ness. In the Fuk. Savil. and Turneb. Copies, the reading is [...], delay. A little after, from the Fuketian Copy I write [...], by a publick animadversion. Vales. In Robert Stephens 'tis [...] ▪ Vales. for­bearance is the cause, that even those who are sound, become infected with this pestilential distem­per as 'twere. Why therefore do we not immedi­ately cut off the roots (as we may so term them) of such a mischief by a publick animad­version?

CHAP. LXV. Concerning the taking away the Meeting-places of hereticks.

WHerefore, in as much as this pernicious­ness of your improbity is not any longer to be born with, We declare by this Law, that no one of you shall in future dare to hold Assem­blies. And therefore We have given order, that all those your houses, wherein you hold such As­semblies, shall be taken away: and this Care [of Our Majesty] does extend so far, as that the congregations of your superstitious madness shall not meet together, not only in publick, but neither in a private house, nor in any places, whereto the Right or Title is peculiar. Therefore, what ever persons amongst you are studious of the true and pure Religion, (which is a thing far more commendable and better,) let them come over to the Catholick Church, and hold communion with its sanctity; by the assistance whereof they may arrive at the Truth. But, let the Errour of your perverted mindes, I mean the execrable and pernicious dissent of Hereticks and Schismaticks, be wholly separated from the felicity of Our Times. For it becomes Our Blessedness, which by God's assistance We enjoy, that they who lead their lives [buoy'd up] with good hopes, should be reduced from all manner of Or, Disorderly. Extravagant Errour to the right way; from darkness to the light; from Vanity to the Truth; Lastly, from Death to Salvation. And, to the end that the force and power of this Remedy may be effectual and prevalent, We have given order, that [...]. The first word must be expun­ged, as su­perfluous. In the Fu­ketian, Sa­vil. and Turnebian Copies, the reading is [...]: perhaps it should be, [...], that the Conventicles—shall wholly be taken away. Vales. all the Conventicles of your Superstition, as We have said above, I mean the Oratories of all sorts of Here­ticks, (if it be fit to term them Oratories,) shall without any contradiction [...]. Christophorson did ill in rendring it diruta▪ pull'd down. For Constantine does not order the Churches of Hereticks to be pull'd down, but to be taken from them, and given to the Catho­lick Church. There are the like Constitutions of the Emperours in the Theodosian Code, in the Title de H [...]reticis. Further, from this Law of Constantine the Novatianists had before been excepted, as 'tis apparent from the second Law in the same Title. But in this last Sanction of Con­stantine, they are included, together with the other Hereticks and Schismaticks. Vales. be taken away, and without any delay delivered to the Catholick Church: but, that the rest of the places shall be adjudged to the publick: and, that no Licence shall be left to you [...]. The reading in the Fuketian Copy is truer, thus, [...]. For [...] is the proper term to denote this thing. The Latines in one word call it colligere, as may be proved by many instances. Whence they term that Collecta, which in Greek is [...]. Optatus (in his Second Book, where he speaks concerning the Bi­shops of the Donatists in the City Rome,) has this passage. Sed quia quibusdam Asri [...] urbica placuerat commoratio, & hinc a vobis profecti Vi­de [...]antur, ipsi petierunt, ut aliquis hinc qui illos colligeret mitteretur. And a little after. Non enim Grex a [...]t populus appellandi fuerant pauci, qui intra quadraginta & quod excurrit, basi [...]icas, locum, ubi colligerent non habebant. Vales. of holding Meetings there in future. So that, from this present day, your ille­gal Congregations shall not dare to meet, either in any publick or private place. [...]. Christophorson understood not this word; it was usual­ly added to the laws and Constitutions of Princes, and sometimes in their own hand. So in Theodosius's Novell de reddito Jure armorum, it occurs; Et Manu divind. Proponatur amantissimo nostri populo, Rom, And at the side, Data 8. Calend. Julias Romae Valentiniano & Anatolio Coss. See book 2. chap. 42. note (h.) After the word [...] herefore in the Greek, a point is placed in the Kings Copy, which is well done. In the Fuketian Copy, the verb [...] is wanting. Vales. Let it be pub­lished.

CHAP. LXVI. That impious and prohibited Books having been found amongst the Hereticks, very many of them returned to the Catholick Church.

IN this manner therefore the [...]; it properly signifies a company of Souldiers hid in any place, in order to their attacking the Ene­my at unawares. Dens of the Heterodox were by the Imperial Order laid open; and the wild Beasts themselves, that is the Ring-leaders of their impiety, were put to flight. Now, some of those persons who had been deceived by them, being put into a fear by the Emperour's Me­naces, crept into the Church with a mind and meaning that was false and counter­feit, and for a time [...]. In the Kings Copy, this term is thus explained in the margin, [...], acting the Hypocri­tes. Vales. play'd the Hypocrites. And be­cause the Therefore besides the above said Letter of Constantine to the Hereticks, there was another Law, which ordered the books of Hereticks to be found out and burnt; or else this Letter pro­duced by Eusebius is not entire. Further, the reading should be [...], And because, and a little after, [...], not [...], which is the rea­ding in the Fuketian Copy, and must be rejected; though, by what chance I know not, it has crept into our Edition. Vales. Law commanded that a search should be made after the Books of those men; they who made evill and forbidden Arts their business, were apprehen­ded. On which account they practised dissimulation, and did all things, to the end they might purchase themselves safety. But o­thers of them betook them­selves to a better hope, with a purpose of mind that was hearty, true, and sin­cere. Further, the Prelates of the Churches made an accurate Or, In­quisition. inspection into both these sorts of persons, and such as they found coming over [to the Church] Or, Feig­nedly. under a disguise, who were hid under the skins of Sheep, them they drove away a far off. But they who did this with Or, A pure mind. sincerity, were tryed for some time; and after a sufficient proof, [the Bishops] enrolled them amongst their number who are [...]. I had rather write [...]. For, that Bishop is properly said [...], who holds a re­ligious as­sembly. The [...] are the Laicks who come together into the Church. Whence [...] imports an Ecclesiastick Assemblie. Dionysius Alexandrinus's words in his fifth Epistle to Pope Xystus, are these; [...], &c. Therefore Scaliger, Christophorson, and Gruterus have mended it ill, thus, [...]. Christophorson has rendred it adscititios, counterfeit; which can no wise be born with. In the Fuk. and Savil. Copies, the reading likewise is [...]. Vales. admitted to the sacred As­semblies. And in this manner they treated those Or, He­terodox persons. Hereticks that were infamous and abominable. But such as maintain­ed nothing that was impious in Or, The Doctrine of their Opinions. their Opinions and Doctrines, but by the fault of Schismatical men had been rashly severed from the common society, them they ad­mitted [into the Church] [...], without care. It must doubtless be [...], with­out any delay. For he says, that Schismaticks were without delay received into the Church; but, that Hereticks were admitted after a long penitency. For the Church is always wont to give Schismaticks a more favourable and kinder reception, than Hereticks. Of which matter we have an eminent instance in the Nicene Synod; which, when it had Anathematized the Arians, received the Mel [...]tians into Communion, after they had been gently chastized. Now, what the difference is between Hereticks and Schismaticks, Basilius informs us in his first Canonical Epistle to Amphilochius; where he distinguishes these three, [...]. Nevertheless Chrysostome, in his eleventh Homily on the Ephesians, proves Schismaticks to be worse than Hereticks. Vales. without any delay. [Page 605] These therefore, returning in troops from some [...]. He has used [...] improperly, to signifie a Forreign Region. Which Christa­phorson not perceiving, rendred it very ill, ex colonia, from a Co­lony. Vales. Forreign Region as 'twere, recovered their own Country again, and acknowledged their Mother the Church. From which having strayed, after a long interval of time they made their return to The Church. Her with a gladness and joy. Thus the members of the whole Body were united one with another by one common Band, and grew together into one Frame. And the one and only Catholick Church of God, Or, Ha­ving been converted into it self. fitly cohering with it self, darted forth its Rays of Light; no congregation either of Hereticks or Schismaticks being left remaining in any part of the earth. To the performance of which [...]. The word [...] must be blotted out, because it disturbs the sense; unless you [...]ake it to signifie singula [...], or Eximious. Further, Christophorson has translated this place otherwise, For thus he rende [...]s it: cujus praeclari facinoris causam Imperator Deo acceptam plane re [...]ulit, the cause of which fa­mous Action the Emperour, plainly ascribed to God as acceptable to him. Nor does Musculus render it otherwise. But I have interpreted these words [ [...], or rather, [...]] con­cerning Constantine Himself; that is, The Emperour was the Au­thour of this glorious action. Johannes Portesius also, the first Translatour of these Books, renders this place in the same man­ner. For thus his Version runs; Id verò unicum ab orbe con­dito [...]actum, homini dei tutel [...] praeclaro, tum acceptum etiam relatum est. Vales. singular and great Action, Our Em­perour (the only person car'd for and respected by God, amongst all those that had ever sway'd the Imperial Sceptre,) entitled Himself.

THE FOURTH BOOK OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS CONCERNING THE LIFE OF THE BLESSED EMPEROUR CONSTANTINE.

CHAP. I. In what manner he honoured very many persons with gifts and promotions.

ALthough the Emperour accomplished so many and such signal performances in order to the Edification and Glory of God's Church; and administred all matters so, as that Our Saviour's Doctrine might every where find a glorious Repute, or, commen­dation. Reception: nevertheless, in the interim he neglected not the External, or, Tempo­ral. Civill affairs. But even in this respect he ne­ver desisted from bestowing various favours, which were successive and continued, on all the Inhabitants of each Province: sometimes demon­strating in publick a paternal care towards all persons; at other times, honouring in private each of His Favourites with different dignities; and bestowing all things upon all persons with a true greatness of mind. Nor did it ever hap­pen, that he mist of his design, who beg'd a Favour of the Emperour: neither was there ever any person who hop't to obtain a Boon from him, that went away frustrated of his ex­pectation. But some got Money; others E­states: some were grac't with the [...], with Consular dignities. Doubtless it ought to be written [...], with Praefectorian dignities, or, with the dignity of the Praefectorian Praefecture, from the Copies of Christophorson and Sr Henry Savil: or at least, [...]; as the reading is in the Fuke­tian and Turnebian Copies. [...] or [...] are the Praefecti Pra­torio. They are termed [...], because they excell the other Gover­nours and Judges. And they are stiled [...], in regard being placed under the immediate power of the Prince, they are above all others. It matters not much therefore, whether you term them [...] or [...]. But the ordinary reading, [...], consular, can no wise be born with. For, whereas he speaks afterwards concerning the Consular and Senatorian dignity, it would have been superfluous to make mention of the Consulate here. Nor can it be said, that be­low are meant the Consulares who governed Provinces. For first, it ought then to be mended there [...], which term occurs a lit­tle before. Secondly, under the term [...], the Consulares are also comprehended: so that, there can be no necessity of mentioning the Consulares by themselves. Lastly, in regard all the dignities are here reckoned up, 'tis not at all likely, that the Praefecti praetorio were omitted, whose number Constantine increased, as Zosimus attests. Now, at that time the Praefecti Praetorio had only the title of Claris­simi, as Constantine's Letter informs us, which Eusebius has recorded above; See book 3. chap. 31; and what we have noted there. Also, under the Emperour Constantius, the Praefecti Praetorio were only termed Clarissimi, as the Protestation of the People of Alexandria in­forms us, which Athanasius has recorded at the close of his Epistle ad solitarios. Vales. dignity of the Praetorian Praefecture; others with the Sena­torian: some were created Consuls; many were designed Presidents. Some were made Concer­ning the Comites of the first Rank, as also of the second and third Or­der, there is frequent mention in Old Inscri­ptions, and in The Code. Some of these were within the Pallace; others in the Consistory, who were afterwards termed Comites Con­sistoriani; others were Comites Domestici. In Gruter's Thesaurus, pag. 406, this old Inscription occurs; FL. EUGENIO V. C. EXPRAEFECTO PRAET. CONSULI ORDINARIO DESIGNATO. MAGISTRO OFFICIORUM OMNIUM. COMITI DOMESTICO ORDINIS PRIMI, &c. Concerning the same Comites Domestici, there is another Old Inscri­ption extant in the House of the Barbarini, worth the setting down here. M. NUMMIO. ALBINO. V. C. QUAESTORI CANDIDATO, PRAETORI. URB. COMITI. DOMESTICO. ORDINIS. PRIMI. ET CONSULI. ORDINARIO. ITERUM NUMMIUS. SECUNDUS. EJUS. This Nummius Albinus was Consul the second time and Praefect of the City in the times of Gallienus, as 'tis manifest from the Fasti, and from the Old Book de Praefectis Urbi. Whence it may be concluded, that this dignity of the Comes of the first and second Order or Rank, was not first instituted by Constantine, as Cujacius thought in his Notes on Justinianus's Code; but that it was in use long before Constantine's time. Vales. Comites of the first rank; others, of the second; others, of the third. Innumerable other persons had the That is, had the honour to be stiled per­fectissimi, most perfect. Perfectissimatus bestowed on them, as likewise very many other such like dig­nities. For, to the end he might honour the more, the Emperour devised various dignities.

CHAP. II. A Remission of the fourth part of the Or, Tributes. Census.

BUt, with what earnestness he endeavoured, that all mankind in general might lead joy­full and pleasant Lives, may be perceived even from this one instance, which being highly ad­vantageous to the Life of men, and extended to all persons in general, is even at this very present highly celebrated in the mouths of all. Having abated a fourth part of those annual Tributes which were paid for Land, he bestowed it upon the Owners of the Grounds: so that, if you compute the sum of this annual abatement, it will Or, Happen. appear, that every fourth year the [...], the Occu­piers of the fruits. This ex­pression can't be born with. 'Tis my Sentiment that the words are transposed here; and that at this place we should read, [...], the Occupiers of the Grounds: and above, [...], upon the Owners of the fruits. Turnebus at the margin of his copy, instead of [...], Occupiers, has made it [...], Possessours. Or at least it must (says he) be written, [...], the Occupiers of the places or Farms. Vales. Oc­cupiers of the Fruits are free from the payment of Tribute. Which thi g being Or, Esta­blish't by a Law. past into a Law, and confirmed for the time to come, not only to those of the present age, but to their chil­dren, and the successours of them, made the Emperour's Beneficence indelible and perpe­tual.

CHAP. III. The Equal­ling, or, making even. Peraequation of those Censûs that were too heavy and burthensome.

BUt, whereas some persons found fault with those Surveyes of Land, which had been made by the former Emperours, and com­plained that their own Grounds were too much opprest; here also [the Emperour in obe­dience] to the Laws of justice, dispatcht away [...]. These the Latines term Peraequatores; of whom there is mention in the fourteenth Book of the Theodosian Code, in the Title de Censitoribus, Peraequatoribus, & Inspectoribus. Most commonly Senatours were by the Prince elected to that Office; it was the business of these Officers, to make equal the Census in those Provinces which complained that they were opprest with the Burthen of the Tributes. In Gruter, pag. 361, this Old Inscription occurs: L. ARADIO VAL. PROCULO V. C. PRAETORI TUTELARI LEGATO PRO PRAETORE PROV, NUMIDIAE PERAEQUATORI CENSUS PROV. GALLECIAE. There is also extant a ninth Oration of Gregory Nazianzene, [...], to Ju­lianus the Peraequator. Vales. Peraequatores, who might free the Complai­nants from wrong.

CHAP. IV. That on those who were overthrown in Pecuniary Causes, he himself bestowed money out of his own [Income.]

MOreover, as often as the Emperour had pronounc't Sentence between two who were at Suit; to the end the party that had lost his cause, might not go away sadder [...]. Every one sees that the words are trans­posed here; which is a fault fre­quently committed in these Books. At my peril therefore, write thus; [...], to the end the party that had, &c. In the Fuketian Copy the words [...], than him in favour of whom Sentence had past, are wanting. But Tur­nebus and Sr Henry Savil place those words after the verb [...], might not go away. The said Sr Henry Savil hath noted at the margin of his Copy, that perhaps it should be [...], and that the comma after the word [...] should be blotted out. Which when I had read, I was extreamly glad, that my conjecture was confirmed by the judgment of that most Learned person. But, whereas Sr Henry Savil adds there, that Christophorson seems to have read thus, in this I can't assent to him. For Christophorson read [...], and renders it Libenter, willingly. Further, Turnebus does here mend it [...], which pleases me. Vales. than him in favour of whom Sentence had past; out of his own [Revenues] he bestowed on those who had been cast in their Suits, sometimes Farms, and some­times Money: by which means he managed the matter so, as that the party worsted did no less rejoyce than he who had carried the Cause; in re­gard [the person overthrown] had been vouchsafed to come into The Em­perour's. his pre­sence. For he judged it altogether un­fit, that any one who had stood before so great a Prince, should be dismist sad and sorrowfull. By this means therefore, both parties that were at Law returned from Sentence with countenances full of joy and chearfullness: and the Emperour's Great­ness of mind was the admiration of all men.

CHAP. V. The conquest of the Scythae, who were sub­dued by the Standard of Our Saviour's [Cross.]

[...]. I doubt not but It should be written thus, [...]. Than which emendation there is nothing more certain. In the Kings Sheets the reading is, [...]. Sr Henery Savil at the margin of his Copy mends it, [...]. In the Fuketian and Turnebian Copies, the reading of this place is this, [...]. Vales. WHat need have I here of making men­tion by the by as 'twere, how he re­duced the Barbarous Nations under the Empire of the Romans? In what manner he first brought under the Yoak, the Nations of the Instead of the Scythae, Socrates (book 1. chap. 18,) and Sozo­men (book 1. chap. 8,) term them The Goths. Indeed, Greek Writers do usually term them Scythae, whom the Latines call Goths. So Li­banius, Themistius, Eunapius, and many others. Further, the Goths were vanquished by the Roman Army in the Country of the Sarmatae, on the twelfth of the Calendr of May, in the Consulate of Pacatianus and Hilarianus, (as 'tis recorded in Idatius's Fasti,) that is on the year of Christ 332. Vales. Scythae and Sarmatae, who before had never learn't to obey any one; and forc't them even against their wills, to acknowledge the Romans their Lords? [Page 608] For the preceding Emperours had paid Socrates says the same at the place before ci­ted. In­deed Jor­danes (in his book de Rebus Ge­ticis, speak­ing concer­ning the Emperour Philippus▪) says the Romans paid an annual tri­bute to the Goths. And Petrus Patricius (in his Excerpta Legationum) attests the same con­cerning Tullus Menophilus, where he writes concerning the Carpi. Vales. Tri­bute to the Scythae: and the Romans were Ser­vants to the Barbarians, allowing them a sum of money yearly. [...]. I read [...], from the Fukctian and Turnebian Copies, and from the Kings Sheets. Vales. But this indignity was in­supportable to the Emperour: nor did he judge it a thing befitting a Victorious Prince, to pay what had been paid by the former Emperours. Putting his confidence therefore in his Saviour, he raised the Victorious Trophee against them also, and in a small time subdued them. Such of them as were contumacious and made a re­sistance, he vanquished by his Arms: but the rest he appeased by prudent Embassies, and from a Lawless and Savage life, reduced them to a way of living that was agreeable to reason and Law Thus the Scythae at length learn't to obey the Romans.

CHAP. VI. The Subduing of the Sarmatae, occasioned by the Rebellion of the Servants against their Ma­sters.

BUt God himself Or, Drove—under. prostrated the Sarmatae at the feet of Constantine; and subdued those men swelled with a Barbarick insolence, in this manner. For the Scythae having raised a War against them, the Sarmatae, that they might make a resistance against their enemies, armed their Slaves. After these Slaves had gained the Victory, they Or, Took up. turned their Arms against their Masters, and drove them all from their own [...]. From the Fuke­tian Copy it must be made [...]. Fur­ther, this Conspiracy of the Sar­matae a­gainst their Masters hapned on the year of Christ 334. In those Fasti which Ja­cobus Sirmondus terms Idatius's, these words occur; Optato & Pau­lino. His Coss. Sarmatae servi universa Gens Dominos suos in Roma­niam expulerunt. Jerome agrees also in the Chronicon, who terms those Slaves of the Sarmatae, Limigantes. And so does Amm. Marcellinus. See the Excerpta de Gestis Constanti. Vales. For a further ac­count of these Limigantes, the Reader may consult Dr Howell's Hi­story, second part, pag. 11, and 127, 128. habitations. They found no other Port of safety, save only Constantine. Who, in regard 'twas his usage to preserve men, gave them all a reception within the confines of the Roman Empire. And those that were fit for Service, he enrolled amongst his own Military Com­panies: But to the rest of them he distributed Grounds to be Tilled, in order to their pro­curing necessaries for a Livelyhood. In so much that, they acknowledged their calamity to have been succesfull and fortunate to them; in regard, instead of a Barbarick Savageness, they enjoyed a Roman freedom. In this man­ner God annext Or, All sorts of. very many Barbarous Nations to his Empire.

CHAP. VII. The Embassies of several Barbarous Nations, and the Gifts [bestowed on them] by the Em­perour.

FOr, from all places Embassies arrived conti­nually [at his Court,] and brought him such presents as were of greatest value amongst themselves. In so much that, even We our selves hapned on time to see Eminent, or, conspi­cuous. various shapes of Bar­barians, standing in order before the [...]. It must be [...], as I found it written in the Fuke­tian Manu­script and in the Kings Sheets. So Graeci­ans termed that gate of an house which they who go in, do first of all meet with: and they ac­counted that to be the Limit; to pass which was lookt upon as a thing indecent in Matrons. Philo's words in his Book de Specialibus Legibus are these; [...]. Without doubt Philo alludes to these Verses of Menander, which Stobaus records, chap. 163. [...]. These very verses of Menander, Harpocration does tacitly mean, in the word [...]. Vales. Court-Gate of the Imperial Pallace. Whose garb and manner of dress was different and changeable; and the hair both of their head and beard much unlike. Their aspect grim, barbarous, and ter­rible; and their Bodily Stature of an immense greatness. Some of them had ruddy counte­nances; the faces of others were whiter than snow. In othersome of them there was a middle temperature of colour. For the Blem­myae, Indi, and Aethiopes (who [as Homer's words (Odyss. 1. near the beginning) are these; [...]: Which Mr Hobbs has thus Englished; The Blackmoors are the utmost of mankind,As far as East and West asunder stand,So far the Blackmoors Borders are disjoyn'd. Homer says,] are divided two ways, and live in the out-skirts of the earth;) were to be seen a­mongst those forementioned Barbarians. Each o [...] these persons ( [...]. These words seem to be super­fluous; unless Eusebius had a mind to express the matter it self more clearly in this manner, in favour to those who had not been present and seen it. For the pictures of the Emperours were usually so drawn, as that they might represent the Embassadours of the Barbarians making them presents, or the Provinces paying them Gold, as may be seen in the Notitia of the Roman Empire. Vales. in such manner as we see it commonly painted in Tables) brought severally to the Emperour such presents as were of great­est value amongst themselves. Some [pre­sented him with] Crowns of Gold; others, with Diadems beset with pretious Stones; others, with yellow-hair'd boyes; others, with Barbar [...]k Garments He means the Barbarick manner of weaving▪ of which sort is that in Virgil, in the first Book of his Aeneid. ‘Et circumtextum croceo Velamen acantho. Vales.’ interwoven with Gold and Flowers; others, with Horses; others, with Bucklers, long Spears, Arrows, and Bowes. By which pre­sents they demonstrated, that they made an offer of their Service and confederacy of Arms to the Emperour, if he pleased. The Emperour re­ceived and Or, Laid in order. kept the presents brought by each of them, and remunerated them with so many and such great Favours, that in an instant of time the persons who had brought these presents were extraordi­narily enrich. Moreover▪ he Amm▪ Marcellinus says the same in his 21 Book, pag. 190, and 195 of our Edition. Vales. grac't the emi­nenter persons amongst them with Roman dig­nities: in so much that, very many of them forgat to return into their own Country, and Or, Fell in love with. chose to make their Residence here amongst us.

CHAP. VIII. That He wrote to the Persian Emperour (who had sent an Embassie to him,) in favour of the Christians there.

MOreover, in regard the King of the Per­sians was desirous of being made known to Constantine by an The only person that I know of, who speaks concerning this Em­bassie of Sapor to Constan­tine, is Li­banius, in his Oration entitled [...] pag. 119▪ where he writes, that Sapor King of the Per­sians, when he had resolved upon entring into a War with the Romans, and in order to that affair wanted Iron, took such measures as were frau­dulent and crasty, and dispatcht away Embassadours to Constantine, who might adore him as his Lord, and might request of him a vast quantity of Iron; under a pretence indeed, that with his Arms he might revenge himself on some Barbarians that were his neighbours: but in reality, that he might make use of that Iron against the Ro­mans Vales. Embassie, and had like­wise sent him Presents which were the signes of Peace and Amity; [...], &c. The other Translatours render these words so, as if they were all spoken concerning Constantine, supposing the import of them to be this, that Constantine entred into a League with the Persian King. But Valesius (whom we have followed▪) takes the former part of this clause as meant concerning the Persian King; and therefore has plac't a semicolon after his rendition of these words, [...]. making it his business to enter into a League with him: here also the Emperour [shewed] a transcendent great­ness of mind, and by the magnificence of his Presents far out-did him who had first ho­noured him. And being informed, that the Churches of God were numerous amongst the Persians, and that infinite numbers of people were gathered together within the Folds of Christ; he was highly pleased at the news hereof, as being the common Patron and Defender of all men whereever they lived; and even to those Regions also he extended his providence [which Laboured] for the good of all men.

CHAP. IX. Constantinus Augustus's Letter to Sapor King of the Persians, wherein he makes a most pious Confession of God and Christ.

A Copy [of the Letter] to the King of the Persians.

BY keeping the Divine Faith, I am a par­taker of the Light of Truth: being lead by the guidance of the light of Truth, I Or, Ac­knowledge the Divine Faith. arrive at the knowledge of the Divine Faith. By this means therefore, as 'tis confirmed by the things themselves, I acknowledge the most Holy Reli­gion: this very worship I declare to be the Tea­cher of my knowledge of the [...]; so the reading is in Theodoret, book 1. chap. 25. where a more perfect Copy of this Letter occurs, and therefore we have taken our Version of it from thence. Most Holy God. Ha­ving the power of this God for mine assistance, I have begun from the utmost Bounds of the Ocean, and have raised the whole World [...]. It must doubtless be [...], of safety: although in Theodoret, book 1. chap. 25, Edit. Stephen. the word [...] is wanting. But Epi­phanius Sholasticus acknowledges that word, as his Version informs us in the 3d book of the Tripertite History. Vales. to a firm hope of safety. In so much that, all the Provinces (which being enslaved under so many Tyrants, and involved in daily Cala­mities, [...]. 'Tis evident that this place is imperfect: In Ma­raeus's Copy I found it supplied in the same manner as 'tis in the Geneva Edition; namely thus, [...]. But whoever mended this place thus, was certainly an ill and unskilfull conjecturer. With how much more of ease and safety might this imperfection have been supplied from Theodoret, in which Writer this Letter of Con­stantine to Sapor occurs much perfecter, and more correct. Never­theless, the Fuketian, and Sr Henry Savil's Copy make up this defect in the same manner with the Geneva-Edition. Nor ought it to trouble us, because this expression is barbarous. For this Letter of Constantine had at first been written in Latine by him: then it was done into Greek by some unskilfull Translatour. The same thing has hapned to Constantine's other Letters and Orations. Vales. were in a manner totally ruined;) All these words, from, Having at length, to, This God I profess, are wanting in this Copy of Constantine's Letter to Sapor. They oc­cur in Theodoret; from the Greek Text of which Authour we have inserted them into our English Version. having at length gotten a Or, Avenger. Restorer of the Republick, are raised to life again by some sovereign medicine as 'twere. This God I assert: whose Standard my Forces which are dedicated to God, do carry on their shoulders, and are directed to what place soever the Rule of Equity invites them; and on these very accounts I immediately obtain most Glorious Victories as my Reward. This God I profess my Self to honour with an immortal me­mory. Him I contemplate with a pure and sin­cere mind, whose Seat is in the highest [Hea­vens.]

CHAP. X. That [He speaks] against Idols, and concer­ning the Glorification of God.

HIm I invoke upon my bended knees; and I have an aversion for all manner of abomi­nable Bloud, and unpleasant and detestable Odours; and lastly I do avoid all sorts of [...]. Chri­stophorson renders it Sacrificio­rum flammam, the flame of sacrifices▪ Camerarius, incantationum igni­culos, the fires of inchantments; which is a truer Version. For, cer­tain kinds of fires [were made use of] in the Mysteries of the Pa­gans, and a sort of light shined after darkness. Which thing the Priests of Daemons performed by magick Art, and I know not what impostures, to the end they might gain an Authority and Reverence to their sacred Rites. Apuleius's words in his 11th Book are these; Access [...] confinium Mortis: & calcato, I approach't the confines of death; and having trod the path of Proserpine, I went back, conveyed through all the Elements. At midnight I saw the Sun glistering with bright Light, &c. Concerning this Rite there is an elegant passage of Themistius, in Sto­baeus, chap. 274; which deserves to be set down here: [...], &c. This passage of Themistius is taken out of his Book concerning the Immortality of the Soul; wherein Themistius asserted that the soul was immortal, as well by several other arguments, as by this, that Gr [...]cians do term death [...], as if it were [...], that is, a Mystery. And, as these two terms are exceeding like one to the other, so the things themselves, signi­fied by these terms, have a wonderfull similitude. For, in the Mysteries there are first unconstant and restless wandrings, and troublesome circuits, and fearfull passages thorow dark places, and most tedious journeys accom­panied with weariness. Then, before an arrival at the end, all things are terrible; Horrour, trembling, sweat, and amazement. But at last, a certain admirable Light occurs, and pleasant places and Meadows, wherein sacred voices are heard, and holy apparitions seen, &c. To the same Rite belong these words of Origen, in his 4th Book against Cel­sus; [...]. Vales. terrene Fire: of all which the impious and execrable Errour [of superstition] has made use, and has [...]. In the Fuketian Copy I found it written, [...], which pleases me better. In the same Copy the reading is [...], many of the Nations. Vales. thrust down many of the Heathens, yea almost whole Na­tions, [Page 610] to the lowest Or, Parts. Hell. For, the supream God can in no wise endure, that those things which by His providence over men, and out of his own benig­nity [towards them] he has produced for common use, should be Or, Drawn. perverted to any one's Lust. But, He requires of men a pure mind only, and an immaculate soul; Or, Wherein. wherewith, as in a Bal­lance, he weighs the Actions of Virtue and Piety. For he is pleased with the works of Modesty and Lenity; loves the meek, hates the Turbulent; loves Faith, punishes infidelity: destroyes all power joyned with arrogancy, punishes the con­tempt of the proud. He utterly ruines those who are puft up with insolency, but distributes agree­able Rewards amongst them that are humble and patient of injuries. Or, And in this manner. Hence 'tis, that he puts an high Value upon that Empire which is just; con­firms it by his own assistances, and alwayes keeps Imperial Prudence in a Calm of Peace.

CHAP. XI. Against Tyrants and Persecutors; and concer­ning Valerian who was taken Prisoner.

NOr do I seem to my self to be mistaken (My Brother!) by my professing this one God to be the Author and Parent of all things. Whom many of those who have been possest of the Em­pire here, induced thereto by mad Errours, have attempted to deny. But, all these [Emperours] have been destroyed by such a dreadfull and aven­ging end, that since their times, all Mankind [...]. The rea­ding of this place is far otherwise in Theo­doret, namely in this man­ner; [...]. Incomparably well, in my judgment. Nor had Con­stantine written otherwise. All the preceding Emperours, says he, who persecuted the Faith of Christ, have been crush't by such a lamentable end, that now all mankind are wont to imprecate or wish for the Calamities of those Princes as the sum totall of punishment on them, who shall study to imitate them. What can be plainer and more elegant than this meaning of the words? [...] therefore does in this place signifie punishment, in which sense that term is frequently used amongst Graecians, as Agellius has remarked. Further, [...] is an elegant phrase to signifie that which the Latines term imprecari, to wish for as a Curse. So [...] is an usual expres­sion with Graecians, as I have noted above. Epiphanius Scholasticus translates this passage thus; Sed illos omnes finis comprehendit exitiosus, ita ut omne genus hominum post eos exurgens, clades illorum pro male­dictionis exemplo proponere videatur; But so distructive an end has in­closed them all, that all mankind who have lived since them, seem to pro­pose their Ruine as the pattern of a Curse. Vales. doth usually wish their Calamities may fall as a Curse and punishment on those, who shall study to imitate them. One of which persons I judge him to have been, (Him [I mean] whom divine vengeance, like some thunder, drove out of our Regions, and conveyed into your Country;) [...]. In the History of Theodoret the rea­ding is truer, thus, [...], who by his own, &c. He means Valerian, who having been taken prisoner by the Persians, ended his days amongst them in a dishonourable slaverie, and by his own private disgrace ennobled the Triumph of the Persians. That is, by his own ignominie he made the Victory of the Persians over the Romans most signal and famous. This is the meaning of this place, which was not hit, either by Epiphanius, or any of the other Translatours. In the Fuketian and Turnebian Copies it is [...], which is no ill reading. Vales. who by his own disgrace and ignominie erected that Trophie so Or, Famous. much boasted of amongst you.

CHAP. XII. That He saw the Fall of the Persecutors, and does now rejoyce because of the Peace of the Christians.

INdeed, this thing has succeeded well, namely, that in Our age also the punishment of such persons hath most evidently been demonstrated. For even I my self have been a spectator [of their disastrous End,] who lately disquieted the people dedicated to God, by their most impious Edicts. Therefore, I give God great thanks, be­cause by his signall Providence, all mankind who are observant of the divine Law, having Peace and Repose restored to them, are exceeding joy­full and glad. From whence I do perswade my self, that all affairs are in an excellent and most safe posture, in regard God vouchsafes to gather all persons to himself, by their pure and approved Religion, and by their unanimous Sentiment in re­ference to the Deity.

CHAP. XIII. An Exhortation, that he should love the Chri­stians, who live in his That is, in Persia. Country.

HOw great a pleasure and delight was it to Me (think you) when I heard, (what is my most earnest desire,) that even the richest and best places of Persia were Or, Far and wide. plentifully adorned with a [...]. The rea­ding in Theodoret is truer, [...]. For these words are referred to the verb [...]. Pre­sently, write [...], from Theo­doret and Nicephorus. Vales. multitude of these men, I mean Chri­stians? for my whole discourse at present is con­cerning them. I wish therefore, both that your affairs may continue in a most flourishing posture, and in like manner that their affairs maybe so too; that is, [...]. In Theodoret and Nicephorus the reading is [...]. In Syrmondus's Edition 'tis [...], &c. Which words Epiphanius Scholasticus renders into Latine thus; Tu ergo optimè gubernaveris, si fueris sicut illi, & habueris commune quod illi. Joachimus Camerarius who [...]endred Theodoret's History into Latine, translates it in this manner: Optimè igitur tecum, similiterque cum illis optimè agitur, quia communiter cum utrisque. And Langus's Version is in a manner the same. But this meaning does not satisfie me. Formerly I thought it was to be written thus, [...], that as you to them, so they to you. Which reading I had followed in my Version. But having now examined the matter more attentively, I am of opinion that the reading of Theodoret and Nicephorus is to be retained, and thus I render this whole place. Opto igitur, ut & tuae res quàm florentissima, & illorum perinde sint florentissimae; hoc est utriusque vestrûm ex aequo: I wish therefore, &c. Thus the sense is most plain, and the following words will agree. Only it must be made [...] in the optative mood. 'Tis certain Musculus read [...]: For thus he renders it: Cedat igitur id tibi optimè & illis similiter: & tibi inquam & illis. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading is [...], without that word [...]. Vales. Valesius (in his notes on Theodoret's History, book 1. chap. 25,) tells us, that in Leo Allatius's Copy the reading of this place is, [...], For even they are yours: which he concludes to be the truest reading of all. the affairs of both of you equally. For, by this means you will have God the supream Lord and Father, mercifull and propitious towards you. These persons therefore, because you are so great [a Prince,] I commit to Your Care: these very persons, in regard You are eminent for piety, I deliver into your hands. Love these men in a manner befitting Your own benignity and good na­ture. For, by this Your Faith, You will do an im­mense kindness both to Your Self and Us.

CHAP. XIV. How, by the earnestness of Constantine's Prayers, Peace was bestowed on the Christians.

ALL Nations in all parts of the world being (like some Ship,) in this manner steered and directed by one Commander, and willingly embracing the [...]. He means the Chri­stian Re­ligion, as I suppose; which al­most all Nations did then embrace; having re­jected the errour of their own Supersti­tion. Vales. Religion and Government of this Servant of God; and there being no per­son who might give any further disturbance to the Roman Empire; all men in future lead peace­able and undisturbed lives. But, because the Em­perour judg'd the Prayers of pious persons to be highly usefull and advantagious in order to the safety and preservation of the State, 'twas his Sentiment, that these were necessarily to be procured. Therefore, both he himself humbly implored Gods assistance, [...]. Make it [...], &c. un­less you had rather read [...], as 'tis in the Fuketian, Savil. and Turneb. Copies. Vales. and also commanded the Prelates of Churches to put up their prayers to God for him.

CHAP. XV. That both on his money, and in his Pictures, he ordered himself to be stamp't and drawn in a praying posture.

BUt, how transcendent a liveliness of [...]. A­nastasius Bibliothe­carius in his Version of the se­venth Sy­nod, where­ever the word [...] oc­curs in the Greek, ren­ders it deificum, which term imports any thing extraordinarily sent, or made by God himself. So the Latines termed the Books of the sacred Scriptures, Deificos Libros, as it occurs in the Gesta Purgationis Coeciliani. Vales. divine Faith was fixt in his soul, may easily be con­jectured from this very one thing; that on his Golden money he ordered his own Image to be stamp't in such a manner, as that he might seem to look up to God with his Hands Stretch't out. expanded, in the posture of one praying. And this sort of money was current over the whole Roman World. But in the Imperial Palaces which were [...], near certain gates. In the Fuketian and Turnebian Copies, and in the Kings Sheets, the reading is [...], in some Cities; which is far the truer reading, as I Judge. For Eusebius says, that not in all, but in the Palaces of some Cities, Constantine's Picture was thus drawn. Vales. in some Cities, his Pictures were plac't on high at the very entrance of the Porch, wherein he was drawn standing upright; looking up to heaven; [...]. Whoever was the Translatour of this Book, he has rendred this place with little of attention, thus; Et precantis formâ manus sursum tollens, and lifting up his hands in the form of one praying; whereas he ought to have rendred it, manibus expansis, ut precantes solent, with expanded hands as persons praying are wont to do. For the Christians were wont, when at prayers, to stretch forth their hands, that by this means they might represent the likeness of a Cross. Indeed, the Christians lifted up their hands, whilst they were praying. But this was not peculiar to the Christians, in regard the Heathens did the same; as Virgil attests in these words▪ ‘—Et geminas tollens ad sidera palmas.’ But, that was peculiar to the Christians, to expand their hands in the form of a Cross. Tertullian's words, in his Book de Oratione Chap. 11, are these: Nos verò non attollimus tantum, Sed etiam expandimus, & dominicâ passione modulamur; We do not only lift up [our hands,] but do spread them also, and we put our selves into a form agreeable to Our Lord's passion. He says the same in his Apologetick, chap. 30. Vales. but his hands were expanded, in the fashion of one praying.

CHAP. XVI. That He issued forth a Law, forbidding his own Or, Images. Statues to be placed in Idol-Temples.

IN this manner therefore he represented him­self praying, even in his Pictures drawn in Colours. But by a But Socrates (book 1. chap. 18;) relates the contrary, in these words; [...]; And first, he abolished the Combats of the Gladiatours; then, he placed his own Statues in the Temples. But any one might with good reason conjecture, that this place of Socrates is corrupted. For, So­crates does there reckon up all things, which were invented by Con­stantine in order to the abolition of the Superstition of the Heathens. Amongst which he says, that Constantine placed his own Pictures and Statues in the Temples of the Gods. But by doing of that, the supersti­tion of the Heathens was not extinguished, but rather increased, or chan­ged. For the Heathens would adore the Emperour in place of a God. Wherefore that passage of Socrates must be mended from Eusebius, in this manner; [...]. But he forbad, that his own Statues should be dedicated in the Temples. Vales. Law he forbad, that his own Statues should be dedicated in Idol-Tem­ples: least they should be [...]. The two last words must in my judgment be expunged; in regard they disturb the sense. For if you blot out them, the sense is plain. Vales. polluted, even as far as the Or, Ad­umbration. outward Form only, with the errour of prohibited Superstition.

CHAP. XVII. His praying in the Palace, and his reading of the Divine Scriptures.

BUt whosoever has a mind to give attention, will perceive far nobler [instances of his piety] than these; how he constituted [...]. Sozomen (book 1. chap. 8.) has these words [...], and he erected an Oratory within the Imperial Palace. 'Tis plain that Sozomen (as he usually does,) borrowed this out of our Eusebius. But Eusebius does not say, that Constantine built a Church in the Palace. He says only this, that he constituted a kind of a Church in the Palace. See Eusebius's Panegyrick on Constantine's Tricen­nalia. chap. 9; where he does plainly confirm our Opinion. Vales. a Church of God as 'twere, within the Imperial Palace; and with diligence and chearfulness lead the way himself, to those who assembled within that Church. Moreover, he took the Bible into his hands, and with an attentive mind meditated up­on those divinely-inspired Oracles. After which he recited the Prescri­bed, or, solemn. usual prayers, to­gether with [...], with those that filled the Im­perial Palace, or, the Church. [...] is an ambiguous expression, which signifies a Church, and a Palace. And Eusebius seems designedly to have play'd with the ambiguity of this phrase, because Constantine's Palace was like a Church. And those whom at this place he calls [...], he has termed above in this chapter, [...]. Vales. the whole assemblie of his Courtiers.

CHAP. XVIII. That by a Law He commanded Sunday and Fri­day to be honoured.

BUt He ordained, that a day should be e­steemed of, as convenient and fit for prayers; that day namely, which really is the Chief and First of the other days, and which is truly the Lord's, and the Salutary day. Moreover, he ap­pointed [Page 612] Deacons and Ministers consecrated to God, who were grac't with integrity of Life and all other virtues, to be the [...]. The Transla­tour fol­lowed the opinion of Sozo­men, and supposed a Church to have been meant here; with whom I don't a­gree. For Eusebius himself in his Panegy­rick, chap. 9, where this passage oc­curs word for word, says no­thing con­cerning a Church. The mea­ning there­fore of this place is, that Con­stantine committed the Care and Custo­dy of his whole Palace to the Ministers and Servants of God, and to the Prelates: so that, the Prelates were certain Controllers as 'twere of his house, or such Officers as the Romans termed Cura Palatii. Vales. Keepers of His whole house. Lastly, the Protectors and trusty Guards, furnished with the arms of good af­fection and faith, [...]. It must I think, be written [...], acknowledged: and so 'tis in the Panegyrick at the place now cited. The Printed-reading is not to be born with. Vales. acknowledged the Empe­rour himself as their Instructer in the practise of piety; and they themselves in the same man­ner honoured the Salutary and the Lord's day, whereon they poured forth [to God] prayers that were gratefull to the Emperour. And this Bles­sed [Emperour] incited all other men to practise the same thing; in regard this was his chiefest desire, that by degrees he might make all persons worshippers of God. And for this reason, he issued out a Precept to all those who lived under the Roman Empire, that they should keep Holy-day on those days which had their denomination from our Saviour; as likewise, that they should honour [...]. Doubtless it must be written, [...], the day before the Sabbath. And thus, as 'tis evident, he read, who composed the Contents of these Chapters. Moreover, Sozomen (book 1, chap. 8,) confirms this very thing in these words; [...], But, he made a Law that on that day called Sunday, (which day the Jews term the first of the Sabbath, but the Gentiles give it the name of Sunday;) and on that day before the Sahbath, all persons should cease from doing busi­ness in the Courts of Judicature, and abstain from all other employ­ments, and should worship God with Prayers and Supplications. In these words of Sozomen, something of difficulty occurs, as to what respects Fryday. For I can scarce perswade my self, that Constantine should have commanded, that on that day people should abstain from doing business in the Courts of Judicature. 'Tis certain, Eusebius affirms no such thing concerning Fryday, but concerning Sunday only. There is a Law of Constantine's extant in the Theodosian Code, Tit. de Ferils, in which Law Sunday only is excepted. Therefore So­zomen added this of his own. Who seeing this observed in his own Times at Constantinople (for he was an Advocate in that City, to­gether with one Aquilinus, as he himself relates in his second book chap. 3.) believed Constantine to have been the Authour of this thing. Vales. the day before the Sabbath: in memory (as I think) of those things said to have been performed on those days by the common Saviour. Further, where­as he instructed his whole Army diligently to honour the Salutary day, which happens to de­rive its name from the light and from the Sun; to those who had embraced the divinely-inspi­red Faith, he allowed time and leisure for a free exercise of themselves according to the usage and order of God's Church, to the end they might without any impediment be present at the performance of the prayers.

CHAP. XIX. How He ordered the Or, Heatbens. Ethnick-Souldiers to pray on Sundays.

BUt to them who as yet had not embraced the Doctrine of the divine Faith, He issued out a Precept in a Second Law, that [...]. It must be written [...], or at least [...], &c. Vales. on Sundays they should go out into a He terms that a pure field, wherein there were no Altars, no Se­pulchres. Vales. pure field in the Suburbs; where, after a Signal given, they should all together power forth a prayer to God, which they had Or, Me­ditated on. learnt before. For, [...], For, that they ought not to use their Spears. In Eusebius's Pane­gyrick, chap. 9, where this passage oc­curs in the same words; 'tis truer written [...], that they ought not to place, &c: which the tran­slatour perceived not. Vales. that they ought not to place their confidence in their Spears, nor in their Armour, nor in their strength of Body: but were to acknowledge the supream God, the giver of every good thing, and of Victory it self; and, that to him the solemn prayers were to be performed; lifting up their hands on high towards Heaven; but raising the eyes of their mind higher, as far as the celestial King himself: and that in their prayers they ought to call upon Him as the giver of Victory, the Saviour, the Preserver, and the Assistant. Further, he himself gave all His Souldiers a form of prayer, ordering all of them to recite these words in the Latine tongue.

CHAP. XX. The Form of Prayer which Constantine gave to His Souldiers.

THee we acknowledge [to be] the only God: Thee we declare [to be] King: Thee we in­voke as Our Assistant. 'Tis Thy Gift, that we have gotten Victories: By Thee we have vanquished Our Enemies: To Thee we pay our thanks for past Goods. Blessings: and from Thee expect [more] in future. We are all Thy humble Suppliants: Keep Our Emperour Constantine (together with His most pious Children,) in safety amongst us, and continue Him a Victor during the longest space of time, we humbly beseech Thee. These things He ordered his Military Companies to do on Sundays, and taught them to utter these expressions in their prayers to God.

CHAP. XXI. [He orders] the Representation of Our Saviour's Cross [to be drawn] upon the Arms of his Souldiers.

MOreover, he caused the Symbol of the Sa­lutary Trophie to be exprest Sozomen says the same, book 1. chap. 8. [...], &c. Further▪ that he might accustome His Souldiers to worship God in the same manner with himself, he markt their Arms with the Symbol of the Cross. Which words of Sozomen, as any one may see, are taken out of Eu­sebius. Further, by the term [...] Arms, I understand the Bucklers or Shields, whereon Constantine ordered the Salutary sign of the Cross to be painted. In the Notitia of the Roman Empire, such kind of Shields as these are to be seen, whereon the sign of the Cross is divers ways exprest. Moreover, Prudentius (in his Book against Symma­chus) attests the same in these verses: Christus purpureum Stellanti pictus in auroSignabat Labarum: Clypeorum insignia ChristusPinxera [...].—Vales. upon the very Arms [of His Souldiers: and [com­manded,] that before his [...], before the Armed Cross. I reade [...], before his Armed Forces; as the Translatour seems to have read. The occasion of the mistake seems to have been given by the contracted Form of writing. For whereas the Librarius [Book-writer] had written [...], some unskilfull Transcriber thought that the meaning of that abbreviature was [...], Cross. Vales. Armed Forces, none [Page 613] of the [...]. Be­fore these words in the Greek, the Fuk. and Turneb. Copies add two words in this manner, [...], &c. And in the following line, after the word [...], the same Copies and Sr Hen. Savil's insert the verb [...]. But the common reading, which we have followed, is far better. Vales. Golden Images should be carried in pomp, (as the usage had heretofore been;) but the Salutary Trophie only.

CHAP. XXII. [...]. I have, as I think, ve­ry happily mended the Title of this chapter, in this manner, [...], his fervency and earnestness in praying. For in this chapter Eusebius treats concerning that fervency in praying, wherewith Con­stantine was inflamed. The cause of the mistake arose from the usage of the Antiquarii [persons that wrote Books fair;] who in their writing out the Titles of chapters, were wont to omit the first letter, that afterwards at their leisure they might paint it with Vermilion. In the Kings Sheets the first letter of the Title is always left out. But in the Fuk. Copy 'tis sometimes added, sometimes omitted. For instance the Title of this chapter, both in the Fuketian Copy and in the Kings sheets, is thus worded, [...], the first letter being omitted; which the Fuketian Manuscript, in the body of the Book, does make good in this manner, [...], very ill, and without any sense, as it is apparent. Vales. His Fervency and earnestness in praying, and his Or, Honour. Religious observation of the Festival of Easter.

BUt He himself, in regard he was a partaker of the sacred Or, Mysteries. Rites, every day at stated hours shut himself up within the inmost Rooms of his Imperial Palace, where he converst alone with his only God; and falling upon his knees, made his request in humble supplications, that he might obtain those things which he stood in need of. But on the days of the Salutary Fe­stival, he raised the vigour of his Religious ex­ercises and meditations, and with his utmost strength of body and mind [...]. Christo­phorson renders it, divinos sa­crorum Ri­tus obibat, He performed the divine Rites of things sacred. Musculus translates it in this manner; Sacras ceremonias expediebat, he dispatcht the sacred Ceremonies. But neither of these two persons perceived that this place was corrupted. I reade therefore, [...], perfor­med the Office, &c. For he compares Constantine to a Prelate or Pontif: whence he subjoyns these words in the following chapter [...], In this manner therefore he himself performed the Office of a Priest to his own God: and in the chapter after that, adds, that, Constantine behaved himself as a Bishop; and in pre­sence of the Bishops took that appellation upon himself. Vales. performed the Of­fice of a Prelate or Pontif. [...]. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. I read [...], And with a chearfull­ness, &c. So above at chap. 17, his words are, [...], with diligence and chearfulness him­self lead the way to those who assembled within that Church. Vales. And with a chear­fullness and diligence he himself lead on all per­sons to the celebration of the Feast. But he turned the sacred Vigil into the brightness of day, [...]. The Christians in the Vigil of the Feast of Easter lighted a vast company of wax Tapers. Which thing having been done by them, within the Church only; Constantine gave order that with­out the Church also Tapers should be every where lighted, in ho­nour of so great a Festival. And whereas lights were usually kindled in the night, in great Cities, as I have remarked at the 14th Book of Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 6, of my notes; Constantine would have far more, and larger Torches lighted up on that night, to the end he might induce the minds of the Heathens to a veneration of the Christian Religion. Further, those pillars of wax, which Eusebius makes men­tion of here, do excellently well denote the Paschal-Taper which we are wont to light up in the Vigil of Easter: concerning which Taper Barnabas Brissonius has written a particular Book. See Gregory Na­zianzene in his 19th Oration. And in his second Oration de Pascha, pag. 676, he says, that then Lights were usually kindled both in private and publickly; in so much that, by reason of the multitude of lights which all ages and degrees of men lighted up, that night was rendred transcendently bright. Gaudentius Brixiensis therefore does deser­vedly term that night, noctem splendidissimam, a most splendid night; as does likewise Zeno Veronensis in his first Sermon ad Neophylos. Vales. pillars of wax which were of a vast height being lighted up all over the City, by those per­sons to whom this affair was given in charge. [...]. Mus­culus took these words in such a sense, as if they were an exposi­tion of the foregoing, words, [...], pillars of wax. But Christophorson distinguishes [...] from those pillars of wax; whom we have also followed. Grecians do properly term those [...], which the Latines call Tedae, Torches; as Pollux informs us Book 10. Chap. 26. In which place of Pollux the reading must be [...], not [...], as 'tis commonly printed. Hence a Game amongst the Greeks was termed [...], so cal­led from these Torches. Grecians do likewise use [...] to signifie a Lamp, in which sense it occurs in the 25th Chap. of Saint Matthew; in the same manner that [...] is taken both for a Torch, and also for a Lamp. Vales. Torches likewise were kindled, which enlight­ned all places; in so much that this Mystick Vigil was rendred brighter than any the most glorious day. But as soon as the day light ap­peared; in imitation of our Saviour's Bene­ficence, This passage of Eusebius is to be taken notice of in reference to the Easter-Alms, which Constantine was wont to bestow yearly, in me­mory of that Benefit which Christ on those days conferred upon mankind. The Ancient Christians were heretofore wont on the Feast­day of Easter to distribute money amongst the poor: which thing was carefully performed not only by Lay-persons, but by the Clergy also. Concerning which matter there is an eminent passage in Commodia­nus's Second Book of Institutions, Chap. 75. C ongruit in Pascha, die felicissimo nostro,L [...]tentur & illi qui postulant sumpta diurna.E rogetur cis quod sufficit, Vinum & Esca.R espicite fontem quo memorentur isla pro vobis.I mmodico sumptu deficitis Christo donare.C ùm ipsi non faci [...]is, quomodo suad [...]re potestisJ ustitiam Legis talibus? Vel semel in anno.S ic multos urget blasphemia saepe de Vobis. Commodianus speaks to the Clergy, as 'tis apparent from the Title of the Poem, and from the first letters of every verse. And he advises them, that at least on Easter-day they should bestow an Alms upon the poor. He reproves them also, because, by reason of their living too high, they had nothing left which they might bestow on the poor. For that is the meaning of this verse; ‘Immodico sumptu deficitis Christo donare.’ Concerning these very Paschal-Alms, Anastasius (in the Life of Pope Hadrian) speaks in these words. Simulque & in Balneo juxta ean­dem Ecclesiam sito, As likewise in the Bath also, which is situate near the same Church, where Our Brethren, the poor of Christ, who were wont to meet yearly to receive Alms in the Paschal Festivity, and to bathe; &c. Vales. He reacht out a bountifull hand to all Nations, Provinces, and people, and bestowed on all persons the richest sort of Gifts.

CHAP. XXIII. How He prohibited the worship of Idols; but ho­noured the Feasts of the Martyrs.

IN this manner therefore He Himself perfor­med the Office of a Priest to his own God. But to all persons who lived under the Roman Empire, as well to the Commonalty as the Milice, the doors of Idolatry were shut, These words must be rendred favourably. For 'tis manifest, that the Sacrifices of the Heathens were not expresly and by name forbidden by Constantine the Great, as Libanius in express words informs us in His Oration Pro Templis. Indeed, Constantine by issuing forth a Law prohibited private and domestick Sacrifices, as it appears from the Theodosian Code de Maleficis & Mathematicis, and from the first Law de Paganis. But he forbad not the publick and solemn Sacrifices, which had been instituted by their Ancestours. Eusebius repeats the same thing in chap. 25. Vales. and every sort of sacrifice was prohibited. A Law also was transmitted to the Presidents of Provinces, that they likewise should pay a veneration to the Lord's day. Which [Presidents] [...]. It must be made [...] being to be understood; and we have rendred it ac­cordingly. In Robert Stephen's Edition a point is ill set after the word [...]; whereas it should be placed after the verb [...], as 'tis in the Kings Copy, and in the Sheets: agreeably whereto we have pointed it. Vales. by the Emperour's Order did in like manner honour [Page 614] the Feast-days of the Martyrs, and shewed a due Reverence to the Times of the Ecclesiastick Festivals. All which things were performed with the greatest joy and satisfaction imaginable to the Emperour.

CHAP. XXIV. That He affirmed Himself to be as 'twere a Bi­shop of External Affairs.

WHerefore, at an Entertainment which one time He gave the Bishops, he cast forth an expression which was not absurdly uttered, [affirming] that he himself also was a Bishop: the words he made use of in our hearing, were these. You (says He) are Bishops in those matters transacted within the Church: But in them done without [the Church,] I am a Bishop, constituted by God. Therefore, the thoughts of his mind were agreeable to his ex­pressions; He governed all His Subjects with an Episcopal Care, and by what ever Methods he could take, incited them to be followers of Or, A pious life. true piety.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning His prohibiting of Sacrifices, and Initiations; and concerning His abolishing the Gladiators, and the heretofore impure [Priests] of the Nile.

ON this account it was, that by frequent Laws and Constitutions He prohibited all persons, from Sacrificing to Idols; from a Cu­rious consulting of [...]. The Tran­slatour has ren­dred it ill, nec oracu­la curiosè sectarentur, nor should curiously follow Oracles. For the Damons had long before ceased from giving forth Oracles. Wherefore Constantine's Law was superfluous, where­in he had forbidden the searching after Oracles. I had rather there­fore understand here the Diviners, Prophets, Astrologers, and Sooth­sayers: the consulting of whom was prohibited by Constantine, in the first and second Law Cod. Theod. de Maleficis & Mathematicis. Vales. Diviners and Soothsayers; from erecting Images; from performing secret Initiations; and from polluting the Cities with the Or, Murders. Bloody Shows of Gladiators. And whereas they of Egypt and A­lexandria had a custom [...]. Amongst the Egyptians, Androgyni were the Priests of the Nile, as Gregory Nazianzen informs us in his second Invective against Julian; as also in his Poem to N [...]e [...]ius. The same Gregorius (in the Oration which he wrote in Sancta Lumina Epiphaniorum,) does elegantly assert, that by this fact the Egyptians reproacht, rather than honoured th [...] Nile. Concerning the same Rite of the Egyptians, there is an eminent passage in Libanius's Oration Pro Templis, which, in regard it makes very much for our purpose, and was not understood by the Translatour, deserves to be set down here: [...]. Nor was a permission of Sacrificing reserved to Rome only, but to the City of Sarápis also, that great and populous City, which is possest of a multitude of Temples, by the assistance whereof it renders the plenty of Egypt common to all men. Now this [plenty] is the product of the Nile. They entertain the Nile at a Banquet, and [those Sacred Rites] per­swade it to rise and overflow the Fields; which [Rites] not being performed both at the stated and solemn time, and by those persons [ap­pointed for that purpose,] the Nile would not [swell and overflow its Banks.] Which thing when they well understood, who would very willingly have abolished these [Rites] also; nevertheless, on second thoughts they would not abolish them; But suffered that River to be entertained at a banquet, according to the usage of the Ancients, because of the usual Reward it paid, [to wit, a plentifull Crop.] From this place of Libanius it plainly appears, that these Androgyni the Priests of the Nile were not abolished by Constantine: or if they were abo­lished by him, they were soon after restored. Vales. of worship­ping their River, by the ministery of certain effeminate men; another Law was transmitted to them, [wherein 'twas ordered] that that whole Tribe of Persons that were both Males and Fe­males. Androgyni, in regard they were all an Falsified, or, depra­ved. adulterate sort of people, should be ut­terly destroyed; and that it should not be lawfull for those to be seen in any place whatever, who were distempered with the disease of this sort of uncleanness. Now, whereas the superstitious supposed, that the Nile would not in future any more overflow their Fields, as it had usually done before; God, in favour to the Emperour's Law, performed the quite contrary to what they expected. For those persons who by their ob­scenity had polluted the Cities, Or, Were not any more. were taken off indeed. But the River Nile, as if that whole Region had been cleansed and purged for it, ran higher than it had ever done before; and overflowing with a rich stream, laid all the fields under water: whereby it effectually taught the unwise, that they ought to have an Aver­sion for impure persons; but, that the origi­nal Cause of Blessings and Success was to be ascribed to the only [God, the] Giver of every thing that is Good.

CHAP. XXVI. The amendment of that Law made against the Childless, as also the Or, Cor­rection. alteration of that Law concerning Wills and Testaments.

BUt, in as much as the things of this Nature performed by the Emperour in every Pro­vince, are almost infinite; whoever shall at­tempt to record them accurately, will be furni­shed with plenty of matter [for such a subject.] Of the same sort herewith is this likewise, that, to the end he might reduce [ma­ny] Laws to a greater Sanctity; instead of the old, he made new ones. And 'tis easie to manifest the manner hereof, Or, In few words by one or two instances. The old Laws punished the See Sozo­men book. 1. chap. 9. who, in re­gard he was a Lawyer belonging to the By­zantine Forum, does ex­plain these knots of the Roman Laws, more perspicuously than Eusebius. Con­sult Lipsius also, in his Comment at the Third Book of Tacitus's Annals; where he discourses at large de Lege Papia. Vales. Childless with a deprivation of the inheritance of their Fa­thers. And this Law against the Childless was doubtless the Cruellest of Laws, in regard it in­flicted a punishment on them, as if they had been guilty of some Crime. [...]. I read, [...], But the Emperour, and do ex­punge these four words [...], which crept out of the margin into the Text. Further, this Constitution of the Emperour Constantine, is exstant in the 8th Book of the Theodosian Code, in the Title de Infirmandis Poenis Coelibatûs & Orbitatis. In the Fuke­tian and Savilian Copies, intead of [...], the reading is [...], &c. And so likewise 'tis written in the Copies of Scaliger, Bongarsius, and Christophorson, as the Geneva Printers have told us. But I had rather reade from Sozomen, [...]. Vales. But the Emperour ab­rogated this Statute, and turned it into an holy and religious Law. For he said, that those who committed faults designedly and on set purpose, ought to be chastized with condign punishment. [Page 615] But, Nature her self hath Or, Hath demonstra­ted many persons to be Child­less. denied Children to many persons: who although they earnestly de­sired a numerous issue; nevertheless wanted Children, by reason of their infirmity of Or, Nature. bo­dy. Others lived without having any Chil­dren, not that they would not have had Children to succeed them; but because they would avoid Carnal Copulation with a Woman; which [sort of continency] they embraced, out of their most ardent Love to Philosophy. Be­sides, many women consecrated to the service of God, were studious followers of Chastity and spotless Virginity, having dedicated them­selves, in reference as well to their minds as bodies, to a chast and most holy Life. What then? Ought this to be accounted worthy of punishment, or rather of praise and admira­tion? For, the very inclination to this thing deserves an high commendation: but, to per­fect and bring it to effect, is a matter above the strength of humane Nature. 'Tis fit there­fore, that those who (though very desirous of Children, nevertheless) are deprived of them by the infirmity of Nature, should be pitied ra­ther than punished. But he who is lead by the Love of a Sublimer Philosophy, is so far from deserving punishment, that he ought to be the wonder and admiration of all men. In this manner the Emperour with the greatest equity mended that Law. Further, provision had been made by the Old Laws, that dying persons, [...]. The words are misplaced here; but may easily be restored in this manner, [...]. This Law of Constan­tine, where­in he abo­lish't the severity of the Old Law, and the Forms of words in making Wills, is not (I think) now extant. But 'tis mentioned in the Third Law of the Theo­dosian Code de Testamentis. In the Fuk. and Savil. Manuscripts, [...] is wanting. Vales. who were at the very last gaspe as I may say, should make their Wills with a great deal of exactness, in some certain words: and there were Set Forms and Solemnities prescribed, and what expressions ought to be added. And hereupon many frauds were practised, in order to the disannulling the Will of the dead. Which when the Emperour perceived, he cor­rected this Law also; affirming, that a dying person ought to have a liberty of making his Will as he pleased, whether in bare words, or in any ordinary expressions; and, that he might declare his Last Will in There is indeed a Law of Constantine's extant, (Cod. Justin. Book 6. Tit. 21. qui Testamenta sacere possint, &c.) dated from Ni­comedia, concerning the Testaments of Souldiers in expedition, or in present service; by which they are discharged from the obligation of those solemnities which are by the Law made necessary in the Wills of other persons; and their Wills are made good, if but written on the Scabberd of their Swords, or on their Targets with their Bloud, or with their Swords in the dust, at such time as they died in Battle. any written Form; or if he had rather do it by word of mouth, he might; provided it were done in the presence of Credible Witnesses, who were able to preserve integrity with the Truth.

CHAP. XXVII. That he made a Law, that a Christian should not be Slave to a Jew, and that the Decrees of Synods should be firm and authentick, and so forth.

MOreover, he made a Law, that no Christian should serve Jews. For, it was [he said] a thing not to be permitted, that those who had been redeemed by our Saviour, should be reduced under the yoak of Slavery to those who were the Murderers of the Prophets and of the Lord. But if any person professing the Christian Religion should be found to be Slave to a Jew; [his order was,] that he should be set at Liberty; but, that the Jew should be punished with a pecuniary mulct. He also con­firmed those There is a Law of Constan­tine's ex­tant in the close of the Theodosian Code, un­der the Title de E­piscopali audienti [...], wherein the Empe­rour com­mands that the sen­tences pro­nounced by a Bi­shop, even in Causis Minorum, should ob­tain the force of a Law. The Translatour therefore has done ill, at this place to render [...], Re­gulas, Rules or Canons. For the discourse here is not concerning the Ecclesiastick Rules, which are promulged in a Synod by the Bi­shops; but concerning Sentences pronounc't between persons at Law, as 'tis apparent from the words which follow. Moreover, So­zomen understood these words of Eusebius no otherwise. But, that which occasions the difficulty is, what Eusebius has said in the fol­lowing words, [...], those Decrees—which were promulged in Synods. But, [...] is here used to signifie an Ecclesiastick Session, to wit of a Bishop and his Pres­byters. Sozomen has the very same term, in his first book▪ chap. 9; where he speaks concerning this Law of Constantine. Which Authour's words I do so much the more willingly produce, as often as the Laws are treated of, because he was a person incomparably well skill'd in the Roman Laws, as 'tis evident from his books. His words therefore in the foresaid book and chapter are these. [...], &c. Moreover, he permitted Litigants to appeal to the Judgment of the Bi­shops, if they had a mind to avoid the Civil Magistrates. And, that their [the Bishops] Sentence should be firm and valid, and of more force than the Sentence of the other Judges, as if it had been pronounc't by the Emperour himself. And, that the Governours of Provinces, and their Officials, should put in Execution the Sentences pronounc't [by the Bishops.] And, that the Decrees of Synods should be unalterable. But, if any one will have the Councills of Bishops to be meant by the term [...], then [...] will signifie the Sentences pronounc't in a Synod against mischievous Priests and Hereticks; which Sentences the Em­perours do confirm in the Second Law, in the same Title de Episco­pali audientia. Vales. Decrees of Bishops which were pro­mulged in Synods, by his own authority: in so much that, 'twas not in the power of the Gover­nours of Provinces to resci [...]d the Bishops deter­minations. For the Priests of God [he said] were Or, More ap­proved than any, &c. to be preferred before any Judge what­ever. He issued forth to His Sub­jects a vast number of Laws of this nature: to comprize all which in a peculiar Volumn, to the end an ac­curate inspection may be made into the Emperour's prudence even in this particular, would require a greater leisure. What neces­sity is there of our relating at present, in what manner he applied himself to the supream God, and was from morning to night sollicitously in­quisitive, what sort of men he might do good to; and how, in reference to His Beneficence, He shewed himself equal and [...], Liberal; Valesius renders it Civil. obliging to all persons?

CHAP. XXVIII. His Gifts [bestowed] on the Churches; and His Distributions of money to Virgins, and to the Poor.

BUt on the Churches of God He conferred innumerable Gifts, in a manner that was extraordinary and transcendent; sometimes be­stowing Lands; at others, Or, Cer­tain pro­portions of Bread, or Bread-corn. Annonae, for the maintenance of poor men, fatherless children, and Or, Mi­serable women. widows. Lastly, He took all imaginable care, that even infinite numbers of garments should be provided for the naked and such as wanted clothing. But above all others, He vouchsafed them the highest honour, who had wholly Or, De­dicated their Lives to, &c. ad­dicted themselves to the divine Philosophy. In­deed, [Page 616] he paid little less than a Veneration to the most Holy Quire of God's perpetual Virgins; in regard he was fully perswaded, that that very God, to whom they had consecrated them­selves, had taken up his habitation within the minds of such persons.

CHAP. XXIX. Speeches and Decla­mations. Discourses written by Con­stantine.

YEa farther, He spent whole nights without taking any rest, to the end He might ac­complish his own mind by a meditation on di­vine matters. He likewise employed his va­cant hours in Least any one should think, that our Euse­bius does flatter Con­stantine here, the same is also at­tested by Victor, in his Epi­tome, in these words. Ipse assiduè Le­gere, Scri­bere, medi­tari. Vales. writing Orations, and [...]. This term [...] was not under­stood by the Tran­slatour. For thus he renders it; fre­quentes cum suis inibat con­gressus; whereas it ought to have been rendred, crebras ha­bebat con­ciones, he made frequent Speeches. For [...] imports verba facere, to make a Speech; which Graecians do more frequently term [...]. So Isocrates terms it in the beginning of his Areopagi­tick; [...]: and also Pausanias (in Achaicis) pag. 168. Edit. Aldin▪ as likewise in the two Decreta Deliorum, which are ext [...]nt amongst the Marmora Arundelliana, pag. 42 and 43: [...]. Which words are thus to be rendred: ad Senatum quoque & ad populum verba faciendi expletis sacris primi omnium habeant facultatem. Polybius (book 4. pag. 302,) uses [...] in the same signification: [...], &c. Which place, in regard 'tis very faulty, we will by the by restore. Write thus therefore, [...], &c. Which emendation is confirmed by Polybius's next words, For it follows, [...], &c. Thus much concerning the signification of the word. As to the thing it self▪ from this deed of Constantine seems to have been derived the usage of the Byzantine Emperours, who made Cate­chetick Orations even concerning things sacred, which Orations were termed Silentia, as you may see in Meursius's Glossary, in the word [...]. Vales. made fre­quent Speeches in publick: accounting it as a duty incumbent on himself, to Govern his Sub­jects by the precepts of reason, and to make Or, His whole Em­pire ratio­nal. His own Government an Empire of Reason. Wherefore He himself would call a Meeting. Numerous multitudes of people flock't into the place of hearing, that they might be Auditours of a Philosophizing Emperour. But if during his Speaking, any occasion was offered of treating concerning Divini­ty, he stood upright immediately, and with a Or, Contracted. composed Countenance and low Voice, [...]. In the Fuketian and Turnebian Copies, the reading is [...], seemed to initiate, &c. Which in my judgment is the truer reading. Vales. seemed to initiate those that were present, in the Mysteries of the Divine Doctrine, with all imaginable piety and modesty. And when His Hearers applauded him with their Acclamations, He gave them no­tice by a nod, that they should look upwards to Heaven, and with pious praises highly ad­mire and honour that One Supream King. Farther, he divided his Speeches in such a man­ner, that in the first place he would lay the Confutation of the Errour of Polytheism, as the foundation [of his Discourse,] asserting by most evident arguments, that the Superstition of the Pagans was meer fraud, and the Bul­wark of impiety. Then he discoursed concer­ning the Sole Empire of God. After this he treated about Providence, whereby as well all things in general, as every individual is go­verned. From hence he proceeded to the Salu­tary Dispensation, and shewed That to have been done necessarily, and in an agreeable manner. Passing from that point, he began a discourse concerning the Divine Or, Ju­dicatory. Judgment. In his trea­ting whereof he gave the minds of His Hearers most sharp and severe Touches; reproving the Rapacious and Or, Co­vetous. Deceitfull, and those that had enslaved themselves to an insatiable desire of money. He likewise whip't as 'twere and scourg'd with his Expressions, some of His Confidents that stood round Him; and forc't them, when stung by their own Consciences, to Cast down their eyes. To whom he evi­denc'd and declared with a loud voice, that they themselves should give God an account of their own undertakings [...]. Af­ter these words, in the Kings Copy and in Robert Ste­phen's Edi­tion follow these, [...], which oc­cur at the beginning of the 30th chap. But in the Ge­neva Edi­tion, Some body, who I know not, hath noted at the margin, that there is a great imper­fection here; which Scaliger, Bongar [...]ius, Gruterus, and others supply in this manner: [...], &c. But first, those words [...], must be expunged. For the imperfection, if there be any in this place, begins before these words [...], which in the Ge­neva Edition appear corruptly repeated. Secondly, those words [...], &c. are altogether void of sense. This imper­fection therefore is better made up in Moraus's Book, thus: [...], to the end of the chapter, as 'tis in the Geneva Edition. In the same Copy the reading is truer, thus, [...], These things he attested continually. Sr Henry Savil in the lower mar­gin of his Copy, makes good this place thus; [...], &c. But, from the footsteps of the written reading which I found in the excellent Fuketian Copy, I have, as I think, very happily restored this place. The writing therefore of the Fuketian Manuscript is this: [...], &c. What is easier than to make up these imperfections in this manner? [...], &c. And a little after, [...], &c. Nothing is plainer, nothing more certain. That is, That the Empire of the world was delivered to Him by the Supream God: but, that He, by the Example of the Deity, had distributed the parts of His Empire to be governed by them. Vales. ▪ For [he told them,] that the Supream God had given him the Empire of the world; but, that he, in imitation of the Deity, had committed the parts of His Empire to their Government: more­over, that all of them should at a fit opportu­nity render an account of their Actions to the Supream King. These things he attested con­tinually; these things he suggested to them; with these Lessons he instructed them. And truly he himself, trusting in the sincerity of his own Faith, not only declared, but had his thoughts taken up with such matters as these. But they were unapt to learn, and deaf to all good Documents; applauding indeed his say­ings with their tongues and Acclamations; but in their practises they disregarded them by reason of their unsatiableness.

CHAP. XXX. That He shewed a certain Covetous person the mea­sure of a Grave, to the end he might shame him.

WHerefore, one time He took one of those persons about him by the hand, and spake these words to him. How far (Hark ye!) Do we stretch our Or, vn­satiable­ness. Covetous desires? Then marking out on the ground the Or, Stature. length of a man, with a spear which he hapned to have in [Page 617] his hand: Although (said he,) you were possest of all the Riches of this world, and of the whole Element of the Earth, yet you shall carry a­way nothing more than this space of ground which I have mark't out, if even For 'tis uncertain whether you shall be buried in the ground; in regard you may either be burnt, or drowned in the Sea, or devoured by wild Beasts. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...], not [...], as 'tis here. Vales. that be allowed you. Notwithstanding this Blessed Prince said and did these things, yet he reclaimed no person. But, 'twas manifestly evidenced by the very event of affairs, that the Emperours Or, Pre­dictions. Admo­nitions were rather like Divine Ora­cles, than bare words.

CHAP. XXXI. That he was laught at because of his too great Cle­mency.

FUrther, whereas there was no fear of Or, Death. any Capital punishment, which might restrain ill men from wickedness; (the Emperour himself being wholly inclined to Clemency, and the Go­vernours in each Province wholly neglecting the prosecution and punishment of Crimes;) this thing exposed the publick Administration of Af­fairs to no ordinary blame and reprehension: whether justly, or otherwise, every one may judge according as he shall think good. Let me be permitted to record the Truth.

CHAP. XXXII. Concerning Constantine's Or, Vo­lumn, or, discourse. Oration, which He wrote to The Convention of the Saints.

MOreover, the Emperour Or, Gave the writing of his, &c. wrote his Ora­tions in the Latine tongue. But they were rendred into Or, Our tongue. Greek by the Under the dispo­sition of the Magi­ster Offici­orum [Ma­ster of Of­fices] were the Inter­preters of various Nations and Languages, as the Notitia of the Roman Empire informs us. Constantine therefore made use of their assistance in translating his Orations and Letters out of Latine into Greek. Vales. Interpreters, whose imployment it was to do this. One of these orations done into Greek, I will, for an in­stance, annex after the close of this present Work; to which [Speech] he himself gave this Title, To the Convention of the Saints, dedi­cating that His Discourse to the Church of God: [which Oration I will subjoyn for this reason,] least any one should account our Testimony in reference to these matters, to be [nothing more than] Ostentation and Noise.

CHAP. XXXIII. How He heard Eusebius's Panegyrick concerning the Sepulchre of our Saviour, in a standing posture.

BUt that, in my judgment, is in no wise to be silently overpast, which this admirable [Prince] did, even in Our own presence. For, when we had one time besought him, being con­fident of his singular piety towards God, that he would be an Auditor of a Speech of Ours con­cerning the Sepulchre of our Saviour; He gave us Audience with all imaginable willingness. And a great company of Hearers standing round, [...]. The Tran­slatour renders it in ipsa Ba­silica, in the very Church, which I like nor. For Euse­bius notes this as a wonderfull instance of piety in Constan­tine, that the Empe­rour vouch­safed to hear Euse­bius's Ora­tion, in a standing posture within the very Pa­lace. Que­stionless, if the Emperour had heard the Speech standing in the Church, that would have been less strange, in regard the place it self requires reverence, and because in the Church the Emperour himself is one of the number of the Faithfull. But, for the Emperour to stand in the Palace whilst a Bishop was speaking, that is a signal instance of Religion. See chap. 46, whence it may be manifestly ga­thered, that the Palace is meant here. Further, the Christians were heretofore wont in a standing posture to hear the Sermon of the Priest in the Church. For no body sate in the Church but the Presbyters, as Optatus informs us, Book 4. Dum peccatorem arguit, & Sedentem in­crepat Deus, Specialiter ad vos dictum esse constat non ad populum, qui in Ecclesia non habet sedendi licentiam. Vales. within the Imperial Palace it self, He himself stood also, and together with the rest gave Au­dience. But when We entreated him to rest himself upon his Imperial Throne which was placed hard by, he would by no means be per­swaded to Sit; But with an intent mind, weighed what was spoken, and by his own Testimony ap­proved the truth of the Or, Points of Divinity. Theologick Dogmata. But when much time had been spent, and our Oration was continued to a great length; We were desirous to break off. But he would not suffer that; but entreated us to go on till we had ended our Discourse. And when we again Sollicited Him to sit down, He on the contrary was urgent in His Refusal: sometimes affirming, That it was unfit to hearken to Discourses which treated concerning God, with ease and remisness; at other times saying, that this was usefull and advantagious to Him. For it was [He told us] a thing consonant to Piety and Religion, to hear Discourses about Divine matters in a stan­ding posture. After these things were finished, we returned home, and betook our selves to our usual Studies and exercises.

CHAP. XXXIV. That He wrote to Eusebius concerning Easter, and about the Divine Books.

BUt He, always [...]. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis written [...], which is truer, if I mistake not. Vales. Sollicitously consulting the good of God's Churches, wrote a Letter to us, about providing [some Copies] of the Divinely inspired Oracles: as also [another Letter] concerning the most Holy Feast of Easter. He seems to mean the Book de Ratione Computi paschalis, which Beda (in his Book de Ratione Temporum, Chap. 42,) asserts to have been made by Euse­bius. Indeed, the Emperour Constantine, in his Letter to Eusebius, does attest, that that work of Eusebius's, which is here mentioned, was a Laborious work, and that it contained the whole account, Ori­ginal, and perfection of the Paschal Feast. Concerning this Book of Eusebius, Jerome in his piece de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis speaks thus, Hippolytus rationem paschae, temporumque Canones Scripsit, & sedecim annorum circulum reperit, & Eusebio qui super eodem pascha canonem decem & novem annorum circuli composuit, occasionem dedit. Which words of St Jerome, Bede hath transcribed in his Book de Sex Aetati­bus Mundi; and in his History, Book 5. Chap. 22. Vales. For, whereas we had dedicated a Book to Him, wherein the Mystick account of that Fe­stival was explained; in what manner He re­warded and honoured us by His answer, any one may perceive, by perusing this Letter of His.

CHAP. XXXV. Constantine's [Letter] to Eusebius, wherein He commends His Oration concerning Easter.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, To Eusebius.

IT is indeed a mighty Attempt, and [a work] superiour to all the power of Oratory, to de­clare the mysteries of Christ agreeably to their dignity, and in a due manner to unfold the [...], The con­troversie of Easter. It must be written [...], reason, or cause, as I also found it mended at the mar­gin of Mo­raeu's Co­py. Which emenda­tion is con­firmed by the follow­ing words. For he adds, [...], and its in­stitution, &c. 'Tis certain, [...] can­not be said concerning the original of a controversie. You would do better therefore to ren­der [...], institution. [...] imports the consummation of the Paschal Feast, performed by Christ, who by the Miracle of his own Resurrection, instituted a true Pascha for Christians. Vales. Reason and Ground of Easter, and its Institution, and its advantagious and laborious consummation. For, 'tis impossible even to men that are able to un­derstand things Divine, to declare those matters according to their dignity. Nevertheless, I do highly admire your excellent Learning, and your Extraordinary diligence, and have my self most willingly perused your Book; and, according to your desire, have given order, that it should be put into the hands of many persons who sincerely adhere to the observance of the Divine Religion. Where­as therefore you understand, with how great a de­light of mind we receive such Presents as these from Your Prudence, take care to please us in future with more frequent Discourses [...]. After these words in the Greek, in the Kings Copy, and in the Edition of Robert Stephens, these words follow, [...], although 'tis impossible, that such, &c. But Scaliger, Bongarsius, and others have made up this place from I know not what Copies. The same supplement I likewise found in the Fuketian Copy, and in Moraeus's Book, and indeed something more cor­rect than it is in the Geneva Edition. For, in that the reading is, [...]. But it must be written [...]. Vales., whereto you con­fess your self to have been by education accustomed. But (as the saying is,) we incite you who run, to your usuall Studies. In as much as, [...], This so great a confidence, or perswasion. He means his boldness who by Constantine's order had translated Eusebius's Book concerning Easter: or rather, [...] is the opi­nion and judgment of the Emperour himself. The Translatour un­derstood it as meant concerning the boldness or confidence of Euse­bius himself, which can in no wise be agreeable here. Doubtless, [...] cannot here be taken otherwise, than for the judgment and perswasion, as well of Constantine Himself, as of other men, who highly extolled Eusebius's Treatise concerning Easter, which by Con­stantinc's order had been rendred into Latine. This so great an opi­nion of all men, says he, does sufficiently shew, that you have met with no unworthy a Translatour. Futher, those words [...] may be construed two ways, either with the adjective [...], or with the term [...]. Vales. this so great an opinion does sufficiently demonstrate, that you have not found an unworthy Translatour of Your Writings, who can render Your Labours into [...]. After these words, in Moraeus's Copy there is an empty space left. Questionless the word [...] is wanting. The place therefore must be made good in this manner, [...], who can render, or rather, [...], as Eusebius expresses himself above at chap. 32. Indeed, in the Fuketian Copy, the reading is, [...]. . . . [...], &c. Vales. Latine: although 'tis impossible, that such a Version should express the dignity of Works that are so egregiously eminent. God keep You, Beloved Brother! Such was his Letter in reference to this matter. But, that which he wrote about pro­viding [some Copies of the Scriptures] to be read in Churches, runs thus.

CHAP. XXXVI. Constantine's Letter to Eusebius, concerning the providing [some Copies] of the Divine Scriptures.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, To Eusebius.

IN That City which bears Our Name, by the assistance of God Our Saviour's Providence, a vast multitude of men have joyned themselves to the most Holy Church. Whereas therefore all things do there receive a very great increase, it seems highly requisite, that there should be more Churches erected in that City. Wherefore, do you most willingly receive that which I have determi­ned to do. For it seemed fit, to signifie to Your Prudence, that you should order fifty Copies of the Divine Scriptures (the provision and use whereof you know to be chiefly necessary for the instruction of the Church) to be written on well-prepared parchment, by artificial Transcribers of Books most skilfull in the art of accurate and fair writing; which [Copies] must be very legible, and easily portable in order to their being used. Moreover, Letters are dispatcht away from Our Clemency to the [...]. At this place [...] signifies the Diocese of the East. so the Ro­mans ter­med a cer­tain num­ber of Pro­vinces, which joyntly o­beyed a Vicarius of the Praetorian Praefecture. For a Praefectus Praetorio had several Dio­ceses under his own dispose; but the Vicarii had but one Diocese. Further, this word began to be used in this sense about Constantine's times, as we learn both from Constantine's Letters recorded above, and also from some Laws of the Theodosian Code. Vales. Rationalist of the Dioecesis, that he should take care for the providing of all things necessary in order to the finishing of the said Copies. This therefore shall be the Work of your diligence, [to see] that the written Copies be forthwith pro­vided. You are also empowered by the Authority of this our Letter, to have the use of two publick [...]arriages, in order to their Conveyance. For by this means, those which are transcribed fair, may most commodiously be conveyed even to Our Sight; to wit, one of the Deacons of your Church being em­ployed in the performance hereof. Who, when he comes to Us, shall be made sensible of Our Or, Humanity. Bounty. God preserve you, Dear Brother!

CHAP. XXXVII. In what manner the Copies were provided.

THese things the Emperour gave order for. Which Order of his was immediately fol­lowed by the completion of the work it self; we having sent him [...]. The Tran­slatour ren­ders it right, ter­niones & quaterniones. For Parchment Copies were usually digested into Quaternions, that is, four sheets were made up together, as Ternions are three sheets made up together. And the Quaternions had sixteen pages the Ternions twelve. Further, in the last page of the Quaternion was set the number of the Quaternion, to wit, 1, 2, 3, and so on; as I have observed in the most ancient Copies, as well Greek as Latine. In a very old Copy of Gregorius Turonensis, which was written above nine hundred years since, in the last page of the Quaternion I found this mark, q. 1. that is, the first Quaternion. Further, the Reader is to be advertized, that in these words of Eusebius there is an Enallage. For he hath said [...] whereas it ought rather to have been worded thus, [...]. Vales. Ternions and Quaternions in Volumns magnificently adorned. Which very thing another answer of the Emperour's will at­test. In which Letter (information having been given him, that the City Constantia in our Coun­try, [Page 619] heretofore consisting of men notoriously su­perstitious, had by an [...] In the Fuketian Copy this place is read thus, [...]. And so I guess it was written in Sr Henry Savil's Copy, because Sr Henry hath under-mark't these three words, namely, [...], with lines. Vales. impulse of piety receded from their Pristine errour of Idolatry;) he sig­nified, that he rejoyced, and highly approved of that Action.

CHAP. XXXVIII. How the Mart-Town of the Gazaei, by reason of [its embracing] the Christian Religion, was made a City, and named Constantia.

FOr Constantia in the Province of Palestine having at this very time embraced the Sa­lutary Religion, was vouchsafed a signal honour, both from God, and from the Emperour. For, it was both termed a City, which it had not been before; and likewise changed its name for a better appellation, to wit, that of the Emperour's most religious Sister.

CHAP. XXXIX. That in Phoenice there was a City made [termed Constantina;] and in other Cities the Idols were destroyed, and Churches erected.

THe same thing was likewise done in many other places. For instance, in a City of the Province of Phoenice, which is called by the Emperour's name. The inhabitants where­of having committed their innumerable Images to the flames, changed their worship of them, for the observation of the salutary Law. More­over, in other Provinces, they came over in great companies, as well in the Country as in the Cities, to the saving knowledge [of God,] and destroyed their Images consisting of all sorts of matter (which before had been accounted sacred by them,) as if they were nothing: they also demolished their own Temples and places of worship, which were raised to a vast height, when no person ordered them to do it. But they erected Churches from the very foundations, and made a change of their former opinion, or errour rather. But, [...]; In the King's, and Fuke­tian Copies, 'tis written [...], in one word; which I ra­ther approve of. For it follows, [...]. But it would be better, were it thus written, [...]. Vales. to give a particular Narrative of all this pious Emperour's Actions, is not so much our business, as theirs who were vouchsafed a continual converse with him. After therefore we have in short [...]. The Translatour renders this place thus: nos verò quoniam breviter quae nobis nota fuerunt, literarum mo­numentis mandavimus; but because we have in short committed to wri­ting, those things which were known to us. But I render it thus; post­quam ea quae nobis nota sunt breviter exposuerimus, ad extremum ejus vitae tempus Sermonem trans [...]eremus; after we have briefly declared those things which are known to us, we will turn our discourse to the last time of his Life. Which rendition is doubtless truer, and more agreeable to the words and meaning of Eusebius. For, if Eusebius had meant so as the Translatour thought he did, he would have said, [...]. Vales. recorded in this work those matters which came to our knowledge, we will pass to the Or, Last time. later part of his Life.

CHAP. XL. That having created his three Sons Caesars in the three ten years of his Reign, He celebra­ted the dedication of the Martyrrum at Jeru­salem.

THirty Or, Pe­riods of years. years of His Reign were now com­pleated [...]. Af­ter these words, a whole line was left out in the Kings Copy, and in [...] ▪ Stephens's Edition; which I make up thus, [...], &c, wherein his three Sons had at dif­ferent, &c. The repeti­tion of the same word, namely [...], was the occasion that this whole line was omitted by the over-hasty Antiquarius [Transcriber of Books.] In the Fuketian Copy, the reading is, [...], excellently well. Thus by the addition of one small word, this place is perfected. But Sr Henry Savil supplied this place by adding three [...] [...]id also Scaliger and Christophorson, [...]. Vales.. Wherein his three Sons had at different times been created Colleagues of the Empire. Constantine, who bore the same name with his Father, was the first that partook of that honour, about the tenth year of his Father's Empire. His second Son Constantius, grac't with his Grandfather's name, was declared Cae­sar about the time of the celebration of his Fa­ther's Vicennalia. His third Son Constans, who by his own name denotes Presence and Stability, was promoted to this honour about the thir­tieth year of his Father's Reign. Thus there­fore when ( [...] ▪ an odd Ex­pression. according to a likeness of the Trinity as 'twere,) he had got­ten Or, A threesold issue of Sons. three Sons beloved by God, and had honoured them with the Colleagueship of his Empire, [...]. The translatour has ren­dred it ill, [...]cimo quoque anno, every tenth year. For Constantine did not create his Sons Caesars, every tenth year of his Empire. For he made Crispus and Constantinus, Caesars, in the Consulate of Gallicanus and Bassus, on the Calends of March, which was the eleventh year of his Empire. But Constantius was created Caesar, in the third Consulate of Crispus and Constantinus, on the sixth of the Ides of November, that is, on the nineteenth year of Constantine's Empire. Lastly, Constan▪s was proclaimed Caesar by his Father, in the Consulate of Dalmatius and Zenophilus, on the eighth of the Calends of January, when Con­stantine was entred into the twenty eighth year of his Empire▪ as it appears from Idatius's Fasti. Wherefore Eusebius's words will be better rendred thus, singulis decenni [...]s, in each of his ten years. But neither will what Eusebius hath said, be true, even this way. For Crispus and Constantinus junior were not created Caesars in Constantine's first ten years, but about his first ten years. Therefore, these words want a favourable interpretation. Which Baronius not in the least perceiving, has recorded Crispus to have been made Caesar on the year of Christ 315; which is a Prochronism of two years. Vales. at each period of ten years of his Reign; he thought his Tricennalia to be a [...]. I doubt not but it should be written [...]; which I wonder was not perceived by others. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis written, [...]; which reading I like not. Vales. most opportune time, wherein he might give thanks to [God] the supream King. And he himself judged it best and most agreeable, should He celebrate the dedication of that Martyrium, which with all imaginable diligence and magnificence he had caused to be erected at Jerusalem.

CHAP. XLI. That in this interim He ordered a Synod to be convened at Tyre, because of some controver­sies [started] in Egypt.

BUt the envious Devill, that Enemy to all good, [...]. It must be written in one word, [...] like, or, as 'twere; as I found it mended at the margin of Moraeus's Copy: and a little after, the reading must be [...]. Vales. like some dark cloud opposed a­gainst the most splendid Rayes of the Sun, at­tempted to disturb the brightness of this Cele­brity; [Page 620] and again disquieted the Churches in Egypt with his own contentions. But the Em­perour, whom God himself took care of, having again armed a Synod of many Bishops resem­bling the Host of God, set them in array a­gainst the Malevolent Devil: an Order having been issued forth from him, that [the Prelates] of all Egypt and Libya, Asia and Europe, should hasten, in the first place to a determination of the Controversie, and from thence to make a de­dication of the formentioned Martyrium. Where­fore he commanded them, that by the by they should compose the differences, at the Metropolis of Phoenice. For, it was [he said] unfit, to approach the worship of God with dissenting mindes; in regard the Divine Law prohibits those that are at variance, from bringing their Gifts [to God,] [...] Some bo­dy, who it was I know not, has noted at the margin of the Gene­va Edition, that it should be [...]. But I had rather reade [...], before they have entred into a League. Nevertheless, in the Fuketian and Savil. Copies the reading is [...], and we have rendred it accordingly. Vales. before they have embraced friendship, and are peaceably affected one towards another. These wholesome precepts [of our Saviour] the Em­perour gave new Life to, by a continual medi­tation on them within his own mind; and advised them to set about the business with all imaginable consent and agreement of mind, by his Letter which runs thus.

CHAP. XLII. Constantine's Letter to the Synod at Tyre.
VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, To the Holy Synod [convened] at Tyre.

IT was manifestly agreeable to, and highly be­fitting the prosperity of our Times, that the Catholick Church should be void of all disturbance, and that the Servants of Christ should now be free from [...]. At this place [...] has a passive sig­nification. And imports the same with the term [...], which occurs at the close of this Letter. And thus Christophorson renders it in the First Book of Theodoret's Eccles. Hist. chap. 28. Vales. all manner of reproach. But in regard some persons, prick't forward by the Spur of unsound Contention, (For I will not say that they leade a life unworthy of themselves;) attempt to confound all things; which [mischief] seems to Me more grievous than any Calamity whatever: for this reason I incite you, who (as the saying is) run of your own accord, that without any delay you would meet together, and make up a Synod; that you may give your assistance to those who want it; that you may administer a Remedie to the Bre­thren who are in danger; that you may reduce the dissenting members to an agreement; [and lastly,] that you may correct Faults, whilst opportunity does permit: to the end that, to so many and such large Provinces you may restore a befitting Concord, which (oh absurd!) the arrogancy of a few men hath destroyed. Further, that this thing is highly acceptable to God the supream Lord, and more earnestly wish't for by Us than any desire whatever; Lastly, that to your selves (if you shall restore peace,) it will be an occasion of no small honour, I suppose all men do acknowledge. Delay not there­fore; but henceforward raise your alacrity to the highest pitch, and make it your business to put an end to the present differences by a befit­ting [...]. It must be made [...] from Theo­doret; and the word [...] which fol­lows pre­sently, must be expun­ged: which word oc­curs not in the Fuke­tian Copy. Vales. determination: [meeting together namely with all Sincerity and Faith, which that Saviour whom we worship, who lifts up his Uoice [...]; Vale­sius renders it, in om­ni negotio, in every business. every where in a manner, does chief­ly require [...]. So the reading is in Theo­doret; from whose first book, chap. 29, this place is made good, which in the Manu­script Co­pies, and in Stephens's Edition was imper­sect. But in Moraeus's Copy I found ano­ther pun­ctation of this place, which in my judgment is righter, thus, [...], does chiefly require of us. But, as to what, &c. Only I would rather read [...], from you. Ne­vertheless, the common reading may be born with. In the Fuketian, as well as the Turnebian Copy, and in Moraeus's Book, 'tis written; [...]; according to our Rendition. Vales. of us. But, as to what appertains to [...] which Valesius renders, religionem nostram, our Reli­gion. Our Piety, nothing shall be wan­ting to you. All things have been done by Me, which by your Letter you gave notice of. [...], I have sent. It must be [...], I have written, as the Translatour seems to have read. Yet in Theodoret and the Fuke­tian Copy the reading is, [...], I have sent to those, &c. Vales. I have written to those Bishops whom you desired, that they should come, and be partakers with you in the Common Care and Solicitude. I have sent [...]. Flavius Dionysius is termed Come [...] by Athanasius in his Apologetick to Constantius, where he relates a great deal concerning this Synod at Tyre, which was held in the Con­sulate of Constantius and Albinus, in the months August and Septem­ber. This Dionysius had before been Consularis of Phoenice, in the Consulate of Januarinus and Justus, as it appears from the Fourth Law Cod. Theod. de Famosis Libellis. Vales. Dionysius the Ex-Consularis, who may both put in mind those Bishops that ought to come with you to the Synod, and may also be an Inspector of what is transacted, [...]. So indeed the reading is in Theodoret. But in the Fuketian Copy this place is written thus, [...]. Which reading Scaliger, Bongarsius, and others found in their Copies. A little after I write, [...], from the Fuketian Copy and Theodoret. For there is no small emphasis in these words [...]. Vales. but most especially of regu­larity and good order. But if any person (which I don't in the least suspect,) presuming at this juncture to violate our precept, shall refuse to be present; One shall be forthwith dispatch't from Us, who by an Imperial Order shall drive that per­son into Exile, and shall teach him, that 'tis in no wise fit to resist the determinations of an Emperour, when published in defence of the truth. As to what remains, it shall be the business of Your Sanctity, neither with hatred] nor favour, but in a manner agreeable to the Ecclesiastick and Apostolick Rules, to find out a befitting remedy, whether for Crimes, or such things as have hapned by mistake: to the end, you may free the Church from all reproach, may lighten Our Cares, and, having restored the pleasantness of Peace to those Churches now distur­bed, may procure the eminentest Glory to your Selves. God preserve You, Beloved Brethren!

CHAP. XLIII. That at the Feast of Dedication [of the Church] at Jerusalem, there were Bishops present out of all the Provinces.

AFter these Orders had been effectually put in execution, another Messenger from the Emperour arrived, who having brought [...]. In the Old Sheets the reading is [...]. In the Fuketian Copy there is an imperfection, and the last part of the word only occurs, thus [...]. Therefore Sr Henry Savil supplied it in this manner, [...], with an Order; and so did Scaliger, and the rest. Vales. an Im­perial [Page 621] Letter, moved the Synod, that without any delay they would forthwith hasten their journey to Jerusalem. All of them therefore left the Province of the Phoenicians, and by [the assi­stance of the] Cursus Publicus went whither they had received orders to go. At which time that whole place was filled with a numerous Or, Quire of God. divine assembly, the eminent Bishops out of every Pro­vince having met together at Jerusalem. For the He means A­lexander Bishop of the City Thessaloni­ca, who was present at the Sy­nod at Tyre, as Athanasius witnesseth. By the Bi­shops of Pannonia and Moesia, Eusebius means Ur­sacius and Valens lea­ding men of the A­rian fa­ction, who were sent from the Synod of Tyre into Egypt, that they might there en­quire concerning the Crimes wherewith Athanasius had been charged, as Athanasius relates in his Apologetick. Vales. Macedonians had sent the [Bishop] of the Metropolis amongst them: and the Pannonii and Moesi [had directed thither] the choycest flower of God's youth in their Country. There was likewise present the Ornament of the Per­sian Bishops, an holy person and one that was incomparably well verst in the divine Oracles. He means Theogonius Bishop of Nicaea, and Theodorus Bishop of Perinthus, which was otherwise termed Heraclea; which Prelates were present at the same Synod, as Athanasius and Theodoret do in­form us. Besides Theogonius, two other Bishops out of Bithynia were present at the Synod of Tyre, namely Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Maris of Chalcedon. Vales. The Bithynians also and Thracians Or, A­dorned the fullness of the Synod. by their own presence adorned the Convention. Nor were the most emi­nent [of the Bishops] amongst the Cilicians absent. Those of Cappadocia likewise who excelled for Learning and Eloquence, shined in the midst of this Congress. Moreover, all Syria and Mesopotamia, Phoenice and Arabia, to­gether with Palestine it self; Egypt also and Li­bya, and those who inhabit the Country of Thebaïs, all [met] together, and filled up that great Quire of God. Who were followed by an innu­merable company of people out of all the Pro­vinces. There was present together with all these persons, an Athanasius in his Apologetick to Constantius▪ pag. 788, speaking concerning this Synod, does attest, that Constantine sent the Palatine Souldiers, who were to obey the commands of the Bishops: His words are these, [...]. Vales. Imperial Attendance; and from the Imperial Palace it self, approved men were sent, who, with Expences furnished by the Em­perour, might illustrate the Festivity.

CHAP. XLIV. Concerning their Reception by Marianus the Notary, and concerning the money distributed amongst the poor, and the sacred Gifts of the Church.

BUt, over That is, The appro­ved men sent from the Impe­rial Palace. all these there was appointed as chief, a This was Marianus the Tribune and No­tary, as 'tis said in the Contents of this Chapter, and in So­zomen. He bore the same dig­nity under Constantius, as Athanasius attests in his Book de Synodis Arimini & Seleuciae. Vales. person highly acceptable and use­full to the Emperour; one that was eminent for his Faith, Religion, and Skill in the Sacred Scri­ptures. Who having been famous for his con­fessions in defence of piety during the times of the Tyrants, was deservedly entrusted with the ordering of these matters. This person there­fore with all imaginable sincerity paid obedience to the Emperours Commands, and honoured the Synod with a most Courteous Reception, enter­taining them with splendid Feasts and Banquets. But, amongst the indigent and naked, [...]. It must be written [...]. There is the same errour in the foregoing Chapter; where the reading is [...], instead of [...]; in which manner 'tis written at both places in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. and a­mongst infinite multitudes of poor of both Sexes, who stood in great need of food and other ne­cessaries, he distributed vast quantities of money, and a great number of Garments. Lastly, he va­riously adorned the whole Church with magni­ficent and royal sacred Gifts.

CHAP. XLV. Various Discourses of the Bishops, in the Sacred Assemblies; as also of Eusebius himself the Authour of this Work.

SUch was the Service performed by this person. But the Ministers of God adorned the Festi­val, partly with their prayers, and partly by their Discourses. This whole pas­sage, as far as those words, O­thers interpreted, &c, was wanting in the Kings Copy and in Robert Stephens Edition: which words Learned men have inserted from some Manuscript Copy, as I judge. For they seem to me to be genuine, and to proceed from Eusebius's own stile. They do indeed occur in the excellent Fuketian Copy; but in Sr Henry Savil's, they are wanting. For, at this place Sr Henry hath made this Remark. Christophorsonus hoc loco, &c. At this place Christophorson has from his own Copies inserted these following words, which to me seem scarce agreeable to this place, [...], &c. Vales. For some of them with praises celebrated the [...]. Eusebius does, not with­out reason, term that kindness and benignity which the Emperour Con­stantine made use of towards the Priests of God, a benignity towards Christ himself. For, kindness towards his Ministers, redounds to the honour of the Lord himself. Therefore says Christ in the Gospel. He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and, that which you have done to one of them, you have done to me. Vales. Benignity of the Religious Empe­rour towards the Universal Saviour, and in their Orations set forth the Magnificence of the Marty­rium. Others Or, De­livered to their hear­ers Theolo­gick, &c. entertained their hearers with The­ologick discourses upon the divine Dogmata, fitted to the present solemnity, as with some splendid banquet of rational food. Others Or, Made in­terpreta­tions of the divine rea­dings. interpreted the Lessons of the divine Volumns, and disclosed the Mystick meanings. But such as were unable to ar­rive at these things, appeased the Deity with un­bloudy Sacrifices and mystick Immolations; hum­bly offering up their prayers to God, for the com­mon Peace, for the Church of God, [...]or the Empe­rour himself who was the Occasioner of such great Blessings, and for his pious Children. At which place we our selves also, who were vouchsased Or, Goods. Blessings much above our deserts, honoured the solemnity with various discourses uttered in pub­lick; sometimes making descriptions in writing of the stateliness and magnificence of the Royal Fa­brick; at others, [...] Here the words seem to be tran­sposed, a thing which, as we have told you, is frequently done in these Books. Above therefore is must be written, [...] making descriptions; and here the reading must be, [...], ex­plaining the meanings, &c. But some body will perhaps aske, what those Prophetick Visions are, which Eusebius means here. He means, if I mistake not, that place which occurs in the third chapter of Zepha­niah, verse 8; [...]. For Cyril of Jerusalem also, in his fourth Homily, explains this passage of Zephaniah concerning the Mar­tyrium or Church, which Constantine erected in the place of our Lord's Resurrection. Vales. explaining the meanings of the prophetick Visions, in a manner befitting the pre­sent [...]. He terms the Jerusalem Church, and all its Members and Edifices, Symbols. See Eusebius's Oration in the dedication of the Church at Tyre, which is recorded in the tenth book of his Eccles. History: where he asserts, that every member of the Church imported some thing that was mystical. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading is▪ [...], without the con­junction [...] Vales. Symbols and Figures. Thus was the Feast of Dedication celebrated, with the greatest joy imagi­nable, ' [...]. The Translatour has ren­dred it right, tricesimo imperii anno, in the thirtieth year of his Empire. For the Dedication-Feast of the Jerusalem Church was celebrated in the year of Christ 335, on the Ides of September, Constantius and Al­binus being Consuls, in Constantine's Tricennalia. At which time Constantine was in the thirtieth year of his Empire. [...], does properly signifie Tricennalia, that is, a festivity of sports which were performed on account of the thirtieth year of an Emperours Reign. The Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle, in the Consulate of Con­stantius and Albinus, has these words: [...]; which in Idatius's Fasti occur rend [...]ed into Latine, in this manner; His Coss. Tricennalia Edidit Constantinus Augustus die 8. Cal. August; in the Consulate of these persons, Constantinus Augustus published his Tricennalia, on the eight of the Calends of August. Yet sometimes [...] and Tricennalia are taken for the thirtieth year. So Jerome relates, that Dalmatius was created Caesar in Con­stantine's Tricennalia, that is, on the thirtieth year of his Empire. But whereas I have said, that the Dedication Feast of the Jerusalem Church was celebrated on the Ides of September, of this matter I have Nice­phorus my Authour, in his eight book, chap. 30. Indeed, in Saint Sa­ba's Typicon, and in the Greek Menology, on the thirteenth day of September are placed [...]. So also Sophronius in his Oration de Exaltatione Sanctae Crucis; and this Festivity was observed every year, for the space of eight days. From these Authours the Alexandrian Chronicle must be corrected, wherein there is a mistake, as well in the day as the Consulate, in which these things were done. Vales. on the very Tricennalia of the Emperour.

CHAP. XLVI. That He afterwards recited his Description of our Saviour's Martyrium, and his Oration up­on Constantine's Tricennalia, before the Em­perour Himself.

BUt, what the Form of our Saviour's Church is, what the fashion is of the Salutary Cave, [...], and how great the Empe­rours at­tempts of Elegancy. how great the Beauty and Elegancy of the Structure, and [Lastly] how Amongst the other Donaria [Sacred Gifts,] which Con­stantine gave to the Jerusalem Church, there was a Sacerdo­tal pall woven with threads of gold, which the Bishop made use of in his performing the solemn prayers, as Theodoret relates, Eccles. Hist. book 2. chap. 27. Vales. many the Donaria, made partly of Gold and Silver, and partly of pretious Stones; we have, as well as we could, comprized in a peculiar Treatise, and have dedicated it to the Emperour Himself. Which Book we shall make a seasonable pub­lication of [...], after this present Subject. That is, at the close of this work. The Translatour rendred it ill; Quod etiam cum videbitur & absoluto opere edemus. But our Rendition is confirmed by Eusebius himself in chap. 32. of this book. Vales. at the close of this present Work: whereto we will annex that Oration concerning his Tricennalia, which, having not long after made a journey to Constantinople, we recited in the Em­perours own hearing. This was the For Eusebius had before made a speech in the Palace, as he him­self attests above, at chap. 33, where see what we have noted. Vales. second time that we celebrated the praises of God the supream King, within the Imperial Palace. Which [Oration] the Emperour, who was beloved by God, being an auditor of, seemed like one transported with joy. And this he him­self manifested after the Speech was done, in re­gard he entertained those Bishops that were pre­sent at a Banquet, and bestowed on them all ima­ginable honour.

CHAP. XLVII. That the Synod at Nicaea hapned on Constantine's Vicennalia; but the Dedication [of the Church] at Jerusalem [was performed] on His Tri­cennalia.

THis Second Synod, the greatest that we have known, the Emperour convened at Jeru­salem, after that first Synod, which he had as­sembled [...] I had ra­ther write [...], which rea­ding I have followed in my Ver­sion; nor do I doubt, but Euse­bius wrote so. Further, in this place there is an ambiguity. For the words may be construed thus; [...], &c, This Second Synod, which we know to be the greatest after that First [Synod] which he had assembled at the most eminent City of Bithynia, the Emperour conven [...]d at Jerusalem. Which sense Christophorson has followed, Vales. at the most eminent City of Bithynia. That was a triumphal [Synod,] which in the Vicennalia of [Constantine's] Empire paid its [...]. I embrace the emendation of Learned men, which I found written in Moraeus's Copy also; [...] Neve [...]heless, I would willingly add another word also, in this manner, [...] and have ren­dred it accordingly. Further, the term [...] must be rendred vota, vowes. For Eusebius alludes to the usage of the Romans, who in such Solemnities made Vowes for the safety and felicity of the Prince, as 'tis apparent from Plinius's Epistle to Trajan. Moreover, in old Coyns we reade such Vows as these thus exprest, VOTIS XX. MULTIS XXX. But in other Coyns 'tis thus, SIC X. SIC XX. That is, So His Decennalia, So His Vicennalia. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis plainly written [...]. Vales. Vows for the Victory obtained over his Ene­mies and Adversaries, in that very City which had its name from Victory. But this [Synod] grac't the period of his third Decade; when the Emperour Dedicated to God the Giver of all Good, [...]. In the Letter of the Bishops of the Jerusalem Synod, (who by Constantine's Order met in order to the Dedication of this Church, which Letter Athanasius records in his Apologetick, pag. 801,) 'tis termed [...], the Salutary Martyrium. Jerome also in his Chronicon terms it the Martyrium; as does likewise Sozomen book 2 chap. 26, Marcus in the Life of Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza, and Eucherius in his Book de Situ urbis Hierosolymitan [...]. See Our Letter de Anastasi, &c, wherein we have at large proved a­gainst Jacobus Gretserus and Jacobus Sirmondus, that there was only one Church erected by Constantine, which was termed the Martyrium and Anastasis. Which Letter we thought good to make a second publication of, at the close of our Notes, pag. 304, &c. Vales. the Martyrium, as 'twere some Sacred Present of Peace, [erected] round the very Monument of our Saviour.

CHAP. XLVIII. That Constantine was displeased with One, who praised Him too highly.

This whole clause, as far as the word [...] in the Greek, or, His very face in the English, was wanting in the Kings Copy, and in Robert Ste­phens's Edition: Learned men had inserted it, whether from some Manuscript Copies, or from conjecture, I know not. But at length, the Fuketian Copy has in­formed us, that these words were on a good account inserted, from the Manuscripts. Vales. AFter the performance of all these things; when the Emperour's God-like Virtue was cry'd up in the Discourses of all men, one of the Ministers of God was so bold, as to pro­nounce Him blessed to His very face: in regard he had both been vouchsafed the supream Empire over the whole Roman world in this Life present; and also, in that to come, should reign toge­ther with the Son of God. But he, much displeased at the hearing of this Expres­sion, advised the man, that he should not presume to utter such words; but, rather that by prayer he would make his humble request to God, that as well in the Life pre­sent, as in that to come, Constan­tine. He might appear wor­thy of being reckoned amongst the servants of God.

CHAP. XLIX. The Marriage of Constantius Caesar, His Son.

WHen the Thirtieth year of His Empire was ended, He celebrated the Marriage of his second Son▪ [...]. Questionless it must be written thus, [...], having long before performed, &c. Vales. having long before perfor­med the same thing for his elder Son. Banquets there­fore and Feasts were made; the Emperour Himself led His Son the Bridegroom, and in a most splendid man­ner entertained and feasted the whole company, the men apart by themselves, and the women in separate places by themselves. Or, Rich distributi­ons of gifts. Rich Gifts were likewise bestowed, both on the people, and on the Cities.

CHAP. L. The Embassie and Presents [sent from] the In­dians.

AT the same time arrived Embassadours from those Indians who dwell at the rising Sun, and brought with them Presents. Which were various sorts of pretious Stones of an exquisite Lustre, and wild Beasts of a Nature different from those known amongst us. All which they presented to the Emperour, [thereby] decla­ring that his Empire reach't [...] to the very ocean it self. It must, I think, be written, [...]; to their [that is, the In­dian] O­cean it self. Further, Metrodorus the Philosopher seems to have been the chiefest person of this Indian Embassie; who from the King of the Indians brought to Constantine very many Gems and Pearls: and pretended that he had brought many more, had not the Persian King taken them from him in his passage thorow Persia. By which lie Con­stantine being prevailed upon, whilst with too much eagerness he pur­sues what had been taken from Metrodorus, raises the Persian War, as 'tis recorded by Cedrenus and Amm. Marcellinus. But Cedrenus relates that in a place wholly foreign and disagreeable, namely in Constantine's twenty first year; whereas he ought to have placed it on the thirty first year of Constantine. For in this year the peace be­tween the Romans and Persians was broken. Vales. to the Indian Ocean it self; and that the Leaders, or Princes. Roytelets of the Indians Country honoured him with Pictures, and Statues erected to Him, and profest their acknowledgment of Him to be the Emperour and King. [...]. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis [...], &c. But in the Old Sheets the reading is, [...], which I like better. Vales. Indeed, at the be­ginning of his Empire, the Britains [who dwell] at the setting Sun, were the first that submit­ted themselves to his Government: but now the Indians whose habitation is at the rising Sun, [did the same.]

CHAP. LI. That Constantine having parted His Empire be­twixt His three Sons, instructed them in the Art of Governing, Or, With Piety. and Offices of Piety.

WHen therefore he had reduced both the Limits of the whole world under His own power, He divided his whole Empire, distri­buting some paternal inheritance as 'twere to his dearest Relatives, amongst His three Sons. To the Elder, He gave his Grand-fathers allot­ment: to the Second, the Empire of the East: to the Third, that Portion which lay in the midst between these two. But being desirous to procure a good inheritance for his Children, and such as might be salutary to their Souls, he scat­tered the seeds of Piety in their minds: partly by [...] instructing, [...] furnishing them with. Eusebius makes use of this word in the same sense again, in the next chapter. Vales. cultivating them himself with divine Precepts; and partly by appointing them Tutors, who were persons of approved Piety. He like­wise set over them Teachers of Secular Learning, such persons namely as were arrived at the heighth of Literature. O­thers instructed them in the knowledge of the Military Art. Others were their Instructours in politicks, and matters Civil. And [lastly,] others rendred them knowing and expert in the Laws. Moreover, to each of His Sons was al­lotted an Imperial Or, Fur­niture▪ Attendance, [namely] Or, Soul­diers ar­med with Shields; Spear-men; Guards of their Bo­dies. Scu­tarii; Hastati; Protectors; Legions also, and Mi­litary Companies; and Officers that commanded them, [to wit,] Centurions, Tribunes, and Or, Captaines. Duces: of whose skill in warlike affairs, as like­wise of their good affection towards them his Sons, the Father had had experience.

CHAP. LII. How, when they were arrived at man's estate, He taught them Piety.

FUrther, during their being Caesars as yet very young, they had (as 'twas requisite,) Ministers and Councellours present with them, who admi­nistred the publick affairs. [...]. Any body may of himself perceive, that it should be written [...], But when, &c: which I should not have taken notice of, had I not fear'd least any one should think that it had escap't me. A little after, the word [...] seems to be super­fluous. Vales. But when, afterwards, they grew up to be men, their Fathers instruction one­ly, was sufficient for them. Who sometimes incited them, when present with him, by private instructions to an imitation of himself; and taught them to become ex­act followers of his own piety: at other times, when they were absent, by his Letters he sug­gested to them Imperial Precepts. The first and chiefest whereof was this, that they should value the knowledge and worship of God the supream King, above all riches whatever, and before the Empire it self. But at length he gave them power, of themselves to do what might be of ad­vantage to the publick: and before all things gave them this in charge, that they should take a particular care of God's Church, and com­manded them openly to own themselves to be Christians. And in this manner he instructed his Sons. But they, incited not so much by Precept as their own alacrity of mind, exceeded the admonitions of their Father; in regard they had their minds always intent upon piety to­wards God, and in the very Palace it self exact­ly performed and observed the Rites of the Church, together with all their Domesticks. For this was the work of the Fathers Care, to assign no Domesticks to his Sons, but such as were That is, Christian [...] ▪ worshippers of God. [...]. So in the foregoing chapter Eusebius makes use of the word [...] to signifie Military Companies; and in many other places. So Sozomen book 1. chap. 8. [...]. from that time the Roman Legions, which they now term Companies, provided each of them a Tabernacle proper to themselves. Further, this place seems to me to be imperfect, and must be made good in this manner; [...], [...], and we have rendred it accordingly. For Eusebius says, that both the Commanders of the first Companies, and those also to whom the Care of the Republick was committed by Constantine, were Favourers of the Christian Religion. By those former persons, he means the Tribunes and Comites of the Scholae: but the latter are the praefecti Praetorio, the Quaestors of the sacred Palace, the Masters of the Offices, and the others who transacted Civil affairs. Vales. The Com­manders also of the First Companies, and they to whom the Care of the State was entrusted, [Page 624] Viz. Christians were of this sort. For he Or, For­tified him­self with, &c. confided in per­sons who profest a faith in God, as in some strong and firm walls. [...]. I like not the con­jecture of the Lear­ned, who after the word [...] have added [...], thus, well con­stituted, which addition I found written in Moraeus's Copy also. But if any thing was to have been added, I would rather have put in [...], thus. For [...] can have no place here, in regard in the following clause [...] occurs. Otherwise it would be an idle repetition, nor would there be more said in the second member of the period, than in the first. Nevertheless, in the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. Vales. When this thrice-bles­sed Prince had [thus] constituted these matters also, God the disposer of every good thing, (in re­gard all affairs of the State had been put into good order by the Emperour,) thought it now at length an opportune time, for translating him to a better allotment, and brought upon him the debt due to Nature.

CHAP. LIII. That after He had Reigned about two and thirty years, and lived above sixty, He had a Body that was sound and healthy.

HE Compleated the time of His Reign in This pas­sage of Eu­sebius hath led many persons in­to a mis­take. A­mongst whom was Dionysius Petavius, who both in his An­notations on Epipha­nius's Book de Ponderibus, and also in his eleventh Book de Doctrinâ Temporum, confiding in the authority of Eusebius, was of opinion that Constantine died in the thirty second year of his Reign. Most of the Ancients have likewise written the same thing: viz. Philostorgius, Book. 2. Theodorus Lector in his Collectanea; Epiphanius, and the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle: and amongst the Latines, Aurellus Victor. But this opinion seems to me wholly absurd▪ For they who think thus, must of necessity affirm also, that the same Constantine began his Empire on the year of Christ 305, Constantius the fifth time and Maximianus being Consuls. And, that on the same year Constantius Augustus the Father of Constantine departed this Life. But, on the year following which is the year of Christ 306, Constantius Augustus was Consul the sixth time with his Colleague Maximianus, as all the Fasti do constantly affirm. Wherefore Constantine's Reign can be brought but from the year of Christ 306. Now therefore, whereas he died in the Consulate of Felicianus and Titianus, that is on the year of Christ 337, on the twenty second of the month May, as 'tis agreed on amongst all Writers, it is plainly made out, that Con­stantine Reigned thirty years, and ten months, three days only ex­cepted. For he had been created Caesar on the eighth of the Calends of August, as Idatius writes in his Fasti. Eutropius therefore and Rufinus are right in their affirming, that Constantine ended his Life in the thirty first year of his Empire. Our Eusebius also says true in his Chronicon, that Constantine Reigned thirty years and ten months. Further, whence it has hapned, that our Eusebius here, and most of the Ancients have attributed two and thirty years Reign to Con­stantine, this, as I think, was the reason. Two years before his death, Constantine had celebrated his Tricennalia, in the Consulate of Constantius and Albinus, as Eusebius has related above. They thought therefore, that the thirtieth year of Constantine's Reign had been com­pleated when those men were Consuls; which nevertheless is false, as I have noted above. Besides, from the beginning of Constantine's Reign, unto his death, two and thirty Pair of Consuls are reckoned. Whence it might have hapned, that they should believe him to have died in the thirty second year of his Empire. Further, some Chro­nologers have ascribed the years of his Father Constantius, because he Reigned but a very short time, to Constantine. But the Reader is to be advertized, that the most Learned Petavius has at length chan­ged his Sentiment, and has embraced the Common opinion concerning the years of Constantine's Reign, and concerning its beginning; as 'tis apparent from the Fourth Book of the Second part of his Rationarium Temporum. Vales. two and thirty years, abating some few months and days: but the space of His Life was about double as much. At which age his Body continued free from Diseases, firm, void of all manner of blemish, and youthfuller than any the most juvenile Body; beautifull to behold; and strong to do any thing whatever, that was to be performed by strength. In so much that, he could exercise as a Souldier; ride; walk; fight; erect Trophies against his conquered Enemies; and, according to his own usage, could obtain un­bloudy Victories over his opposers.

CHAP. LIV. Concerning those who abused his eximious humanity, to Or, In­satiable­ness, and Hypocrifie. avarice and a pretence of Piety.

HIS Mind also arrived at the heighth of hu­mane perfection; being adorned with all manner of Or, Goods. accomplishments; but most espe­cially, with humanity. Which, nevertheless, many persons found fault with, by reason of the baseness of ill men, who ascribed [the occasion of] their own badness to the Emperours [...]. The last word is here added by learned men from the Manu­script Co­pies; which word I likewise found in Mr Fuket's Book. But I had ra­ther place this word before the Verb [...]. So Eusebius [expresses himself] at the close of his Third Book con­cerning the Life of Con­stantine. It would indeed be far more elegantly written thus, [...] ▪ Vales. pa­tience and clemency. Indeed, even we our selves beheld the mighty prevalency of these two Vices in those times; [...]. I embrace the emendation of Learned men, which occurs also in the Fuketian Copy, viz. [...]. Fur­ther, the judgment of our Eusebius is here to be taken notice of, who i [...] the Reign of Constantine, as in some most beautifull Countenance, took notice of this Blemish, that he chose the worst and most rapacious men to be his friends, and to bear the publick Offices: and, that he was circumvented by the fraud and craft of certain persons, who preten­ded themselves to be Christians. Aurelius Victor reproves almost the same thing, in these words: Fiscales molestiae severius pressae. Cun­ctaque divino ritui paria videre [...]tur, n [...] parùm dignis ad publica aditum concessisset. Quae quanquam saepius accidêre, tamen in summo ingenio, atque optimis Reip. moribus, quamvis parva vitia elucent magis. Amm. Marcellinus also in his sixteenth Book, attests the same. Nam proximo­rum [...]auces aperuit primus omnium Constantinus. Vales. the Violence namely of in­satiable and ill men, who infested almost all Mortals; and the unspeakable Dissimulation of those who craftily crept into the Church, and pretendedly took upon themselves the name of Christians. But the Emperours innate humanity and goodness, the sincerity of his Faith, and [...], and that Love and Truth which was in his disposi­tion. Integrity of his Morals, induced him to credit the specious and outside piety of those men who were thought to be Christians, and who with a crafty mind preten­ded to Maintain, or, keep. bear a true and sin­cere benevolence towards him. His committing of himself to which per­sons, did sometimes perhaps drive him upon those things that were unfitting; the Envy [of the Devil] bringing this Blot upon his other Or, Goods, praises. [...]. In the Fuk. and Sr Hen Savil's Copy the reading is [...]. Vales.

CHAP. LV. How Constantine wrote Orations to the very last day of his Life.

BUt Divine Vengeance seized I suppose amongst o­thers, Ab­labius to be meant; who af­ter Con­stantine's death, in regard 'twas be­lieved that he attem­pted a Re­bellion, was slain by the or­der of Con­stantius, as Eunapius does at large relate in the Lives of the So­phistae. Vales. those men not long after. But the Emperour him­self had in such a manner furnished his mind with discursive knowledge, that to his very death, according to his accustomed manner, he wrote Orations; and, [...]. Above, at chap. 29 of this book, Eusebius has made use of the term [...] ▪ where see what we have noted. You might al­so reade [...], as 'tis writ­ten at the margin of the Geneva-Edition. The Translatour persisting in his mistake, renders it here also, Congressus cum amicis habere, to hold meetings with his friends; whereas he ought to have translated it, conciones habere, to make Speeches, as 'tis plainly confirmed by the words following. Victor in his Epitome says the same likewise concerning Constantine: Commodissimus tamen▪ rebus▪ multis [...]uit: Calumnias sedare legibus severissimis: nutrire ar [...]es bonas, prae­cipuè fludia Literarum: legere ipse scribere, meditare. Where medi­tari has the same import with [...], that is, declamare, to declaim▪ Vales. as his usage was, made Speeches, and instilled into his hearers divine Precepts: He would likewise be continually making of Laws, sometimes about Civil matters, at others, concerning Military affairs: in fine, he employed his thoughts about all things that were advantagious, and of use to the life of men. But this is highly worthy to be recorded, namely that when he was at the point of death, he re­cited a certain Funeral Oration in the presence of his usual Auditory. And [...]. Doubtless it must be written [...], having continued; as others have already remarked▪ Vales. having continued his Speech to a great length, he discoursed there­in concerning the Immortality of the Soul, and concerning those who had spent their Lives pious­ly, and concerning the Blessings treasured up with God himself for those that love him. But on the other hand, he made it apparent by many and those evident reasons, what manner of end they would come to, who had lead a contrary course of life; and gave an accurate description of the calamitous death of the impious. By his solid and weighty attestation to which truth, he seemed severely to touch those about him. In so much that, he asked one of them [...]. I had rather write [...]. So Eusebius does usually term the Heathens, and especially the Philo­sophers, who thought themselves wiser than others. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. But the third syllable has a line drawn under it. Vales. who were puft up with a vain opinion of wisdom, what his Sentiment was in reference to those things which had been discoursed of. Who by his own te­stimony confirmed the truth of what had been spoken, and though much against his will, highly commended his reasonings against the worship of many Gods. By making such discourses as these to his Confidents, before his death, he seemed to render his way to a better allotment, smooth and plain.

CHAP. LVI. How, making an Expedition against the Per­sians, He took the Bishops along with him, and [provided] a Or, Ta­bernacle. Tent made in form of a Church.

THis also is worthy to be recorded, that about the forementioned time, upon his hearing of the motion of those Barbarians [who dwell] at the East, having said, that as yet there remained to him this Victory [to be obtained] over them, he resolved upon an Expedition a­gainst the Persian. Which when he had deter­mined to undertake, he summoned together his Military Forces; and likewise conferred with the Bishops that were about him, concerning the desighe of his Expedition; it being his chiefest care, that some persons should always be present with him, who were of use in order to the wor­ship of God. They affirmed, that they would most willingly follow him, nor would in any wise leave him; but with their incessant prayers to God would ingage and fight together with him. At which news he was highly pleased, and described to them a way whereby they might go [...]. Those words which fol­low after these in the Geneva-Edition, unto the beginning of the 58th chapter, (which passage we have inclosed within this mark [],) were wanting both in the Kings Copy, and in Robert Stephen's Edition: and they have been added by Learned men, from conjecture as I think. For the chapters which follow are too short, and contain nothing more than the very Titles of the chapters; which is a thing altogether disagree­able to Eusebius's designe. Wherefore 'tis credible, that I earned men inserted these words from the Titles of the chapters, which oc­cur per [...]t before the fourth Book. Further, in the Geneva-Edition, these words [...], which occur after the verb [...], must be expunged. For the imperterction begins before these words [...], &c. We have taken notice of a like mistake above. Our conjecture concerning this Supplement is plainly confirmed by the Fuketian Copy which (though it faithfully shews the other Supple­ments which are publish't by the Geneva-men, as we have noted in their places; yet) has not the Supplement of this place. Nor is this Fragment written in Turnebus's Copy, although all the rest occur▪ written at the margin of his Book. Vales.. [Socrates (book 1. chap. 18.) relates the very same thing, in these words: [...], &c. Moreover, so ardent was the Emperours Love for the Christian Religion, that being about to ingage in a War with the Per­sians, He provided a Tabernacle made of Linen, painted with divers colours, much resembling a Church, even as Moses did in the wilderness, and this he would have carried about with him, that so in the most desert Regions he might have an Oratory ready. Which words of Socrates I have the more willingly produced, because I know that Socrates is wont most commonly to make use of the very words of Eusebius, in those passages which he borrows out of Eusebius. Therefore, these words of Socrates may supply the place of Eusebius's words. For I can very hardly be induced to believe, that those words which occur in this imperfection, are Eusebius's. Further, before this, in the Licinian War namely, Constantine had a Tabernacle of the Cross fixt without the Camp, into which he retired to fast and pray, as Eusebius attests Book 2. But in his preparation for the Persian War, Con­stantine did this further, that he built a Tabernacle in form of a Church. Sozomen relates, that from this practise of Constantine it was afterwards derived, that each Cohort in the Roman Army had its Tabernacle furnished like a Chappel, and peculiar Priests and Dea­cons, who might there perform Divine worship. Vales. Then he prepared a Tabernacle most richly furnished, made in the form of a Church, for the use of this War; wherein he resolved, in company with the Bishops, to pour forth his prayers to God the Giver of Victory.

CHAP. LVII. That having received the Embassie of the Persians, He watch't all night, together with others, on the Feast of Easter.

IN the interim the Persians, informed of the Emperours preparation for a War, and being extreamly fearfull of coming to an Engagement with him, Rufus Festus writes the same thing in his Breviarium. Constantinus rerum dominus, &c. Con­stantine supream in the Empire, at the latter end of his Life prepared an Expedition against the Persians. For the Nations in the whole world being subdued; and he being rendred more glorious by a fresh Victory obtained over the Goths, went down against the Persians with many Troops. At whose approach the Kingdoms of Babylonia trembled so much, that an humble Embassie from the Persians met him, and promised they would do what they were commanded. Nevertheless, they deserved not to be pardoned for the continual Eruptions, which they bad attempted thorowout the East under Constantius Caesar. But Socrates says only this: [...], &c. But this War went on no farther at that time: For it was immediately extinguished by the fear which the Emperour had out the Persians into. Vales. by an Embassie entreated him to make a Peace. [Page 626] Wherefore, this most peaceable Emperour, gave the Embassie of the Persians a kind reception, and [...]. You will here observe the Barbarism, not of Eusebius, but of him who has made up this chapter. For it ought to have been said, [...]. Nor is this likely, that Constantine, who had drawn to­gether all the Forces of the Roman Empire against the Persians, should have made a Peace with them. 'Tis certain, the contrary is affirmed by Rusu [...] Festus, whose words we have produced above; as also by Eutropius, and Aurelius Victor. But Socrates intimates, that a Peace, or at least a Truce, was made with the Persian. Vales. readily entred into a League with them. The great Festival of Easter was now at hand: wherein the Emperour paid his Vowes to God, and together with others watch't all night long.

CHAP. LVIII. Concerning the Building of that termed the Mar­tyrium of the Apostles, at Constantinople.

Who sees not, that this passage was made by another hand? For it does not in the least agree with the following chapter. In this chapter Constantine is said to have begun to build the Church of the Apostles, after Easter in the year 337. But in the fol­lowing chapter, which 'tis ma­nifest was written by Eusebius, that Church appears to be now finished. But from Easter to Pente­cost, on which day Constantine died, the ground could scarce be dug up, in order to laying the founda­tion of the Temple. Wherefore that Church must necessarily have been begun to be built long be­fore▪ See chap. 36. Vales. AFter this He began to build a Martyrium in that City which bore his own name, in memory of the Apostles.] And when he had raised the Church to an un­expressible height, he made it Splendid and Glorious by a variety of all manner of Stones, covering it with Crusts of Marble from the Foundation to the very Roof. He laid the inner-Roof all over with Lacu­naria of very small work, and gilded it thorowout with Gold. [...]. It must be, [...]. Vales. Above, in­stead of Tyles, Brass was laid, which afforded the whole Structure a secure defence against showers. Which [covering] being likewise over-spread with Gold, shined gloriously: in so much that, it Or, Se [...] forth brightnesses to them who, &c. dazled their eyes who beheld it at a distance, [the Brass] Beating back. reverberating the Rayes of the Sun. But the whole [...]. Above, at book 3. chap. 36, Eusebius terms the outward Roof of a Church, [...]. Therefore [...] seems here to be the Roof of the whole Church, or at least of the Altar. Such Roofs built in form of a Circle, we French-men do at this day term Domat [...] ▪ Further, concerning the magnificence of this Church of the Apostles, Gregory Nazianzene, in his Poem de Insom [...]io Anasta­sia, writes thus: [...] [...]. That is▪ And likewise the magnificens Temple of Christ's Disciples, distinguished by four sides in form of a Cross. In this Form Churches were heretofore built, as Gretser hath remarqued in his Books de Cruce, and Marcus in the Life of St Porphyrius. Vales. Roof was encompas­sed round with chased Net-work, made of Brass and Gold.

CHAP. LIX. A further description of the same Martyrium.

IN This manner was the Church it self beauti­fied, by the Emperour's extraordinary Care and Munificence. But about the Church there was a most Spatious Or, Open Court. Area, open to the pure Air. At the four sides whereof ran Porticus's [joyned one to another,] which inclosed the Area Scituate in the midst, together with the Church it self. Moreover, [...] Imperial, or stately houses. Basilicae, Baths, Rooms to lodge and eat in, and many other apartments built for their use who kept the place, were joyned to the Porticus's, and were equall to them in length.

CHAP. LX. That in this [Church] also, He built Or, A Tombe for his own burial. Him­self a Sepulchre.

ALL These [Edifices] the Emperour Or, Con­secrated. Dedicated [with this intent,] that He might consign to posterity the memory of our Saviour's Apostles. But he had another de­sign in his mind, when he built this Church: which [purpose of his] was at first concealed; but in the end it became known to all men. For he had Or, Trea­sur'd up a place there. designed this place for himself Or, At the f [...] time of his death. after his death; foreseeing by a transcendent alacrity of Faith, that his own Body should after death be made a [...]. Eusebius alludes to that appellation of [...], that is, equall to an Apostle▪ which was given to Constantine after his death, as it occurs in the Menaea of the Greeks. Which appellation I can't tell why Scaliger (in his fifth Book de Emendatione Temporum,) should so much envy him, as to say that much was detracted from the praise and glory of the Apostles, because their name is given to Constantine. Doubtless, whoever shall accurately look into those things done by Constantine, in order to the propagation of the Faith of Christ, will acknowledge that name to have been deservedly given Him. If Thecla could deserve that appellation, which woman Basilius Seleucensis and others do term [...], how much more justly will it be given to Constantine, by whom 'tis effected, that we are now all Christians? Further, Eu­sebius makes use of the same words again, below at chap. 71. The Authour of the Synodicon speaking concerning the Nicene Synod; [...], Constantine, the Apostle among the Christian Emperours. And so he is termed in the Office of the Greeks, at the 21st of May, as it occurs in the Ty­picon of St Saba. Vales. partaker of the Apostles appellation: [...]. In Robert Stephens's Edit. 'tis likewise worded and pointed in the same manner. to the end that even after death, He might be estee­med worthy of the prayers which should be performed there in honour of the A­postles. Having therefore raised twelve Chests. In the Greek 'tis [...]. Capsae there, as some Sacred Columns, in honour and memory of the choire of the Apostles, he But Chrysostome (Homil. 26. in 2. Epist. to the Corinthians, pag. 741,) says Constantine was bu­ried in the Porch of the Church of the Apostles, as their Porter; and that matter he magnifies ac­cording to his usual way. These things therefore must be so re­conciled, as that Constantine him­self would have had his dead body buried in the midst of the Apo­stles: but, that Constantius, or some body else, placed it other­where. Indeed Zonaras writes, that Constantius deposited his Fa­ther's Corps in the Church of the Apostles, in a peculiar Porticus, which he had built for that very pur­pose. Vales. placed his own [...], Coffin. Ark in the midst; on each side of which lay six Capsae of the Apostles. And this, as I have said, he prudently con­sidered of, [namely] where his Body might be decently deposited after he had ended his Life. Having in his mind ordered these matters [Page 627] long before, he consecrated a Church to the A­postles; [...]. And so 'tis in Robert Stephens. believing, that their memory would be usefull and advantagious to his Soul. Nor did God account him unworthy of those things which by his prayers he expected. For, as soon as the first [These words within this mark [], from Exercises to Martyrs, are wanting in Robert Stephens; nor has Musculus taken any notice of them in his Ver­sion. Ex­ercises of the Feast of Easter had been compleated by him, and when he had past over our Saviour's day, rendring it splendid to himself, and a Festival to all other persons; whilest he was in­tent upon these things, and spent his Life herein to the very [...]. In Moraus's Book the reading is [...], and an Asterisk is placed before that word. I reade therefore, [...], and spent his Life herein to the very close of it. Farther, this Asterisk assures us, that this imper­fection was supplied from some Manuscript Copy. Nevertheless, I question much, whither even these words also proceed not from the conjecture of some Learned man. For this expression seems to me scarce Greek, [...]. And I had much rather write [...]. But the words which oc­cur at the end of the imperfection, are much more suspicious; viz. [...]. For first, [...] is a foolish expression, in regard Eusebius always says [...], in the neuter gender. Then, why has he said [...], in the plural number? Was that Church dedicated to many Martyrs together? There was a famous Church at Helenopolis, dedicated to the Martyr Lucianus. In this Church therefore Constantine abode on account of prayer, when he returned from the warm waters. Where­fore it ought to have been said [...], of the Martyr, not [...], of the Martyrs. After I had written this note, I procured the Fuketian Copy, which has retained the true writing of this place. For thus it is; [...], having made his abode for some considerable time in the Oratory of the Martyrs. In the same Copy the reading is [...] without a chasme: also, [...]. Vales. Close of it, God, by whose assistance he performed all these things, opportunely vouch­safed him a divine passage to a better allot­ment.

CHAP. LXI. [The Emperour's] Indisposition of Body at He­lenopolis, and his Prayers. [Also] con­cerning his Baptisme.

AT first an unequal temper of Body hapned to him: together therewith a distemper seized him. Soon after which he went to the Or, Baths of warm water, &c. warm Baths of his own City: thence he goes to the City which bore the name of his own Mother: where having made his abode for some considerable time, in the Oratory of the Mar­tyrs,] he put up his Prayers and Supplications to God. And when he perceived that the end of his Life drew near, [...]. It must, I think, be written, [...], he thought. Vales. he thought this was the time of purgation, of all those sins which he had committed throughout his whole Life: firmly be­lieving, that whatever sins as a man he had faln into and committed, would be washt from off his Soul, by the efficacy of mystick words, [...]. I suppose it must be written, [...] and by the salutary Laver. For what can the meaning of [...] be, especially when he had said before, [...], by the efficacy of mystick words. In the Old Sheets the reading is [...], which plainly confirms our emendation. Vales. and by the salutary Laver. Having therefore considered this with himself, kneeling upon the pavement, he humbly beg'd God's pardon, making a confession of his sins in the very Martyrium: in This place does chiefly call for the Reader's attentive diligence. For from it, that great question concerning Constantine's Baptism may easi­ly be determined. Eusebius says therefore, that the Emperour Constan­tine did then first of all receive imposition of hands with solemn prayer in the Church: that is in one word, was then first made a Catechumen▪ For Catechumens were made by imposition of the hand by the Bishop, as the sixth Canon of the Council of Orleance informs us: De his qu [...] in infirmitate credere volunt, placuit eis debere manum imponi. The same is established in Chap. 39. of the Eliberitane Council. Gentiles si in infirmitate desideraverint sibi manum imponi, si fuerit eorum ex aliquâ parte vita honesta, placuit cis manum imponi, & fieri Christianos. Which Eliberitane Canon (that I may give notice of that by the by,) seems to be nothing else but an exposition of the Orleance-Canon: which may also be seen in other Chapters of that Council. Concerning the same Rite there is a famous place in Sulpicius Severus, Dialog. 2▪ con­cerning the Miracles of Saint Martin, Chap. 3. Postremò cuncti cater­vatim ad genua beati viri ruere caeperunt, fideliter postulantes, ut eos faceret Christianos. Nec Cunctatus, in medio, ut erat, campo, cunctos impositâ universis manu Catechumenos fecit. The same Author, Book 1. Nemo [...]rè, says he, Eximmani illâ multitudine fuit Gentilium, qui non impositione manûs desideratâ, in Dominum Jesum relicto impietatis errore crediderit. St Augustine also, in Book 2. de Peccat [...]rum Remissione, Chap. 26. Non uniusmodi est Sanctificatio. Nam & Catechumenos secundùm quendam modum suum per signum Crucis & Orationem manus impositionis puto sanctificari. Petrus Chrysologus writes the same like­wise in his 52d Sermon. Hinc est quod veniens ex Gentibus, impositione manus & exorcismis ante â daemone purgatur; & apertionem aurium percipit, ut fidei capere possit auditum. So also in his 10 [...] th Sermon▪ Namque ut incurvus peccatis Gentilis erigatur ad coelum, prius à Gentili por impositionem manuum nequam spiritus effugatur. To these Authours, is to be annext Symeon Metaphrastes, who in the Acts of the Holy Mar­tyrs Indes and Domna, writes thus concerning Cyrillus the Bishop. Ille autem cùm moderat [...] divinas ei cecinisset Scripturas, & Venerandâ Christi cruce cam obsignasset, tunc quidem eam facit Catechumenam. Lastly, Marcus in his Book concerning the Life of Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza: Die sequenti parentes mulicris & Cognati euntes ad B. Porphyrium, prociderunt ad ejus pedes, petentes Christi signacu­lum. Beatus verò cùm eos signasset, & [...]cisset Catechumenos, dimisit illos in pace, praecipiens eis ut vacarent Sanctae Ecclesiae. Et Paulò post cùm cos caechesi instituisset, baptizavit. From these Authours it ap­peares, that Catechumens were heretofore made in the Church, no otherwise than by an imposition of the hand. Whereas therefore Constantine is said to have then first received imposition of the hand in the Church, 'tis plain that as yet he was not a Catechumen. But some body will say: who can believe that the Emperour Constantine was not till this time a Catechumen? whereas he had both been present at the Nicene Council, and had published so many Laws and Rescripts in favour of the Christians; had built so many Churches; had all manner of ways incited the Heathens to embrace the Faith of Christ; and had deprived the Hereticks and Schismaticks of their Churches. Indeed, Eusebius does attest, that he had performed all the Offices of a Christian. For he writes, that he had busied himself in fastings and prayers, and had observed Sundays, and the Feasts of the Martyrs; and also, that he had watcht all night in the Vigils of Easter. All these things, and many more besides, which might be produced, doe prove Constantine, not to have been a Heathen; but they do not evince him to have been a Catechumen. 'Tis certain, in these four Books of Eusebius, wherein the Piety and Religion of Constantine is celebrated, it no where occurs, that Constantine prayed in the Church with the rest of the Catechumens, or that he partook of the Sacrament of the Catechumens. And although Eusebius does in express words affirm that, of Helena Augusta the Mother of the Emperour Constantine, that shee stood in the Church with the rest of the women; yet you will never find the same thing said by him concerning Con­stantine. If it be objected, that Constantine made his abode at Hele­nopolis in the Church of the Martyrs, and pour'd forth his prayers to God: in the first place I answer, that this passage occurs not in our Copies, as I have observed a little before. Secondly, even Heathens had a liberty of going into the Churches, except only in the time of prayers; how much more might the Emperour do that, who profest himself a Christian. Whereas therefore Eusebius does plainly inform us here, that Constantine received imposition of the hand from the Prelates first at Helenopolis; it evidently appears, that before that time he was not a Catechumen. I know, that Athanasius (in the Life of Saint Anthony, where he speaks concerning the Letters written by Con­stantine to Anthony,) and Saint Augustine (in Epist. 162, and 166,) do give Constantine the Title of a Christian Prince. But it may be answered, that they have in this matter followed the vulgar opinion and Report of all men; and, that they publickly termed Constantine a Christian Prince, not because he had as yet been initiated in the Sacraments of the Christian Faith, but in regard he openly profest the worship of the Christian Religion. Also, another far more weighty objection against our Opinion, may be brought from Chap. 32, Book 1. the Contents of which chapter run thus, [...], &c, That Constantine becoming a Catechumen, &c. Whence it may be concluded, that Constantine was made a Catechumen soon after that Vision of a Cross in the Heavens. But my answer is, that those Contents were not made by Eusebius, but by some more modern person, as it is shown above. Besides, [...] is taken there for [...], instructed, or, taught. 'Tis certain, Eusebius does not say any where in that chapter, that Constantine was made a Catechu­men, but only, that the Bishops being call'd for by him, opened to him the reason of that Celestial Vision: and that thence forward he ap­plyed himself to the reading of the Sacred Volumns. Vales. which [Page 628] place likewise he was first vouchsafed [...]. So in the first book of his History chap. 13, these words occur, [...], received a blessing by prayer and the laying on of his hands.—Saint Augustine, Book 2. de Remissione Peccatorum, Chap. 26, terms it Orationem manûs impo­sitionis, the prayer of imposition of the hand. Vales. impo­sition of hands with prayer. Removing from thence, he goes to the Suburbs of the City Nicomedia: where he called the Bishops toge­ther, and spake to them in this manner.

CHAP. LXII. Constantine's request to the Bishops, that they would confer Baptism upon him.

THis was the time long since hop't for by me, when I thirsted and prayed, that I might obtain Salvation in God. This is the Hour, wherein even We may also enjoy that Seal which conferrs immortality; the Hour, wherein We may partake of that [...]. A very foolish repetiti­on, this▪ in regard he had said just before, [...], that Seal which conferrs immortality. Wherefore I doubt not but Eusebius wrote [...], the salutary gift. For so the Antients termed Baptism also, as, besides others, Gre­gory Nazianzene informs us. Vales. Salutary Impression. I had here­tofore taken a Resolution, of doing this in the Least any one should rashly find fault with Constantine, because he cove [...]ed to be baptized there, where the Lord had heretofore been baptized by John; notice is to be taken, that most Christians at that time coveted the same thing. Our Eusebius's words in his Book de Locis Hebraicis, are these. [...]. Which place Jerome renders thus: BETHBAARA trans Jordanem, &c. BETHBAARA beyond Jordane, where John Baptized to Repen­tance: whence even to this day many of the Brethren, that is of the num­ber of believers, desirous to be born again there, are baptized in the vital Stream. Jerome takes Eusebius's words to be meant concerning Catechumens who earnestly desired that they might be baptized in Jordan. But the words of Eusebius may be understood concerning bare washing. Indeed, long after the age of Eusebius and Jerome, the Faithfull were wont to wash in that very place, especially on the Festival of the Theophania [that is, either on the first of February, or the sixth of January, as Scaliger affirms in his Notes on 1 Cor. 15.] after the Baptism of the little children; as I have learnt from the Itinerary of Antoninus the Martyr, whose words are these. Juxta Jordanem verò ubi baptizatus est Dominus Jesus, est tumulus cancell is circundatus. Et in loco ub [...]redundat aqua de alveo suo, posita est Crux lignea intus in aquâ, & ex utrâque parte rupes strata marmore. Et in vigilia Theophan [...]ae magnus ibi [...]it conventus populorum. Et quarta aut quinta vice gallo canen [...]e, siunt Vigiliae. Completis Matu [...]inis, primo diluculo surgentes procedunt ad Sacra Ministeria c [...]lebranda sub divo. Et diaconi tenentes sacerdotem, descendit sacerdos in [...]lumen. Et hor a quâ caepit benedicere aquam, mox Jordanis cum magno rugitu post se revertitur; & stat aqua superior in se usque dum baptismus per [...]citur: inferior autem fugit in mare. And a little after: Baptismo autem com­pleto, descendunt omnes in flumen pro benedictione, induti sindonibus quas [...]ibi ad Sepulturam servant. The same thing is likewise related in the Hodoeporicon of Saint Willibald which Canisius published. Ad Jor­danem, ubi Dominus suit baptizatus, ibi nunc est Ecclesia in columnis lapideis sursum elevata: & subtus ecclesiam est nunc arida terra, ubi dominus baptizatus suit. In ipso loco & ibi nunc baptizant. Ibi stat crux lignea in medio, & parva derivatio aquae stat illic; & unus suni­culus extensus super Jordanem hinc & inde [...]irmatur. Tunc in solem­ritate Epiphaniae infirmi & aegroti venientes habebant se cum funiculo, & sic demerguntur in aquam. Episcopus Noster Willibaldus balneavit se ibi in Jordane. Vales. streams of the River Jordan, where Our Saviour himself, Or, Ac­cording to our exam­ple: So Valesius renders it. in a likeness to us, is re­corded to have partaken of the Laver. But God, who best knows what is advantagious to Us, in this place vouchsafes Us a participation thereof. [...]. The meaning of these words is sufficiently intricate. Had Constantine a mind to say this? Let all persons now cease from doubting concerning m [...], whether I be really a Christian; let no body in future suspect me to have embraced the Faith of Christ in words only, not from the inmost affection of my heart. A [...] may also be taken at this place for [...]; that is, Let all delay be removed. Which sense does indeed agree better with what goes before. For in these words Constantine accuses himself, because namely he had too long deferred the Salutary Laver, and because he had been so long wavering as 'twere and doubtfull, neither fol­lowing the Rites and Ceremonies of the Heathens, nor embracing the worship of the Christians. Vales. Let therefore all doubt be removed. b [...]. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...], I had heretofore taken a resolution of doing this; in which manner I found it written in Turnebus's and Moraeus's Copy. Vales. For if the Lord of Life and Death, will have Us continue our Life any longer here; and if it be [...]. There may be a two­ [...]old mea­ning given of these words: for either [...] is un­derstood with [...]; which sense the Translatour of this Book has followed. Or else with [...] is understood, which meaning is in my judgment truer. Indeed, in the Kings Copy, after the word [...] a middle distinction is placed. Besides, that word [...] does plainly shew, that Constantine speaks concerning himself. Lastly, if these words were to be meant concerning God, Constantine would not have said [...], with the people of God, but [...], with his people. Vales. once so determined [concerning me,] that I may in future be assembled with the people of God, and, being made a member of the Church, may together with all the rest partake of the prayers: I will prescribe my self such Rules of living, as may Or, Be worthy of God. befit [a servant of] God.

These were the words he spake. They per­formed the Rites, and compleated the Divine Ceremonies; and, [...]. In the Books of Turne­bus and Moraeus, at the margin 'tis men­ded [...], which pleases me better. This verb [...] is frequently taken in this sense, in the Sacred Scri­ptures. Vales. having first enjoyned him whatever was necessary, made him a partaker of the Sacred Mysteries. Constantine therefore, the only person of all those that ever were Em­perours, was by a Regeneration [...]. I can't approve of the Version of the Translatours▪ who have rendred [...], initiatus est, was initiated; as if the reading ought to be, [...]. But I have chose to render it, con­summatus est, was perfected. So St Cyprian in his 73 Epist. to Ju­baianus, pag. 145▪ Quod nunc quoque apud nos g [...]ritur, ut qui in Ecclesia baptizantur, praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur, & per nostram Ora­tionem ac manus impositionem Spiritum Sanctum consequantur, & signa­culo dominico consummentur. 'Tis certain, the Greek Fathers do usually term Baptism [...], that is, Persection and Consumma­tion. So Athanasius in his third Oration against the Arians; [...]. And a little after; [...]. Also, a little after he makes use of [...], for baptizari, to be baptized: [...]. And in the following page he does again term Baptism [...]. In which places P. Nannius always ren­ders it initiationem, initiation. Moreover, Gregory Nazianzene in his first Oration against Julian, gives Baptism the same name; [...]. Lastly, Clemens Alexan­drinus, Book 1. Paedagog. writes, that Baptism is called by various names. For, sometimes, he says, 'tis termed [...]; sometimes [...]; sometimes [...]. Then he annexes a reason why it should be termed [...]: we term that [...], says he, whereto nothing is wanting. What is farther wanting to him who knows God, and who possesses the grace of God, and now enjoyes Life eternal. Whence Clemens concludes thus; that all persons who have believed in Christ, and who have been dipt in the sacred Laver, are now perfect. [...]. Amongst the Latines also, they were termed perfecti Christiani, perfect Christians, who had re­ceived Baptism, although they had not received imposition of the Hand from the Bishop. The Old Authour de Haereticis non rebapti­zandis, has this passage; Quod hodiernâ quoque die non potest dubitari esse usitatum, & evenire solitum ut plerique post Baptisma [...]ine im­positione manûs Episcopi de saeculo ex [...]ant; & tamen pro perfectis [...]ide­libus habentur. And again afterwards, at pag. 135 Edit. Rigal [...]; he uses a perfect Christian for a Believer; and, an imperfect one for a Catechumen. See the place.—Vales perfected in the Martyria of Christ: and being dignified with the Divine Seal, [...]. That which I have already remark' [...] to have hapned in many places of this work, has, I conjecture, been committed here also; namely, that the words are transposed. I am of opinion therefore, that it must be read thus▪ [...], rejoyced, and was renewed in Spirit. For he alludes to that verse of the known Psalm, Create a clean heart in me, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Further, from this place of Eusebius we may gather, that Constantine was not sprinkled in his Bed, as the sick were wont to be; but received Baptism in the Church. For Eusebius says, [...], &c, was by a Regeneration perfected in the Martyria of Christ. Soon after this, from the Fuketian Copy and the Old Sheets write [...], was filled with light. Vales. rejoyced in Spirit; [Page 629] and was renewed, and filled with the Divine Light. The joy of his mind was great, by rea­son of his transcendency of Faith▪ but he was stricken with an amazement at the manifesta­tion of the Divine Power. After all things had been duely performed, He was clothed with 'Tis a known thing, that it was heretofore the custom, that Neophytes [i. e. persons newly baptized,] should be clothed in white garments, which they afterwards laid by, on the eighth day. Zeno Veronensis in his fifth Sermon ad Neophytos. Primus vos qui in se credentem reprobat nullum, non aries sed agnus excepit: qui vestram nuditatem velleris sui niveo candor [...] vestivit. St austin in serm. 157. de Tempore. Paschalis Solemnitas hodiernâ festivitate concluditur. Et ideò bodie Neophytorum habitus commutatur: ita tamen, ut candor qui de habitu deponitur, semper in corde teneatur. Bede attests the same in his Book de Officiis. Septuage [...]im [...], says he, tendit ad sabbatum ante Octavas Paschae, quando hi qui in Vigilia paschae baptizantur, alba vestimenta deponent. Which words occur also in the Roman Or­der. In an old Pontifical Book of the Church of Senona, written ou [...] about six hundred years since, there is a solemn prayer extant, which the Bishop made over the Neophytes, at such time as they laid aside their Albes; which I thought worth while to annex here. ‘Benedictio in Sabbato quando albas deponunt.’ Deus qui calcat [...]s in [...]erni Legibus captivitatem nostram resolutâ ca­tenarum compage dignatus est ad Libertatis praemia revocare, ipse vobis praestet ita hanc vitam tran [...]igere, ut in illam perpetuam ipso duce possitis intrare, Amen. Tantum praebeat vobis [...]e [...]vorem Catholicae fi [...]ei, ut sancti adventus illius sit [...] expectatione securi, Amen. Vt quicunque hic meruer [...]n [...] purgare und [...] Baptismi, ibi praesentari valeant p [...]o Judici can­didati, Amen. Farther, the Neophytes celebrated those eight days after Baptism with all imaginable Religion: in so much that, during those days, which were also termed Octavae, they lookt upon it as impious, to touch the earth with their naked feet, as St Austin writes in Epist. 119. ad Januarium. Also, during those days they were wont to go bare-headed, which was a sign of Liberty. St Austin Serm. 4. in Dominica Octavarum paschae. Hodi [...] Octavae dicuntur in [...]antium: re­velanda sunt capita eorum quod est indicium Libertatis. Habet enim Liber­tatem ista spiritalis nativitas, &c. On the contrary, the Catechu­mens went in publick with their heads covered, in regard they were a Type of Adam expelled out of Paradice, as Junilius says Book 2. Chap. 16. Which I am of opinion is to be understood concerning the Competentes only, who covered not only their heads, but their faces also, as Cyrill of Jerusalem informs us in his first Catechisme. But this covering was taken off of them in Baptism, or at least on the eighth day after Baptism. For this is rather intimated by those words of St Austin, quoted by us a little above. And the same is likewise confirmed by Theodorus Bishop of Canterbury in his Liber Poenitentialis, in these words. In monachorum ordinatione Abbas debet missam cantare, & tres Orationes complere super Capus ejus; & septem dies velet caput ejus▪ septimo die abstollat velamen. Sicut in Baptismo Presbyter septimo die velamen in [...]antum tollit▪ ita & Abbas debet Monacho, quia secundus Baptismus est juxta judicium pa­trum▪ & omnia peccata dimittuntur sicut in Baptismo. Vales. white and Royal Garments, which shined like the Light; and rested himself upon a most bright Bed; nor would he any more touch the pur­ple.

CHAP. LXIII. In what manner he praised God, after he had received Baptism.

AFter this he lifted up his voice, and poured forth to God a prayer of thanksgiving. Which ended, he added these words. Now I know my self to be truly blessed: [...]. The Gene­va-Printers added the last word from the Books of Scaliger and Bongarsius; which I likewise found added in Moraeus's Copy. But 'tis wanting in the Kings Copy, nor does it seem to me to be very necessary. In the Fuke­tian, Turnebian, and Savil [...]an Copies, the verb [...] is ad­ded after the word [...] ▪ there­fore, there is a mistake both in Moraeus's Book, and in the Ge­neva-Edition. Vales. now 'tis evident that I am accounted worthy of an im­mortal life: now I have an assurance that I am made a partaker of Di­vine Light. Moreover, he termed them miserable, and said they were unhappy, who were deprived of such great Or, Goods. Blessings. And when the Tribunes and Chief Offi­cers of the Military Forces came in, and with tears be­wailed [their own misfor­tune,] that they themselves should be left desolate; and prayed for his longer Life: He answered them also, and said, that now at length he was vouchsafed true life, and that only He himself knew, what great Bles­sings he had been made a partaker of. Where­fore, that he hastned, and would by no delayes defer going to his God. After this, he dis­posed of every thing according to his own mind. And to those Romans who inhabit the Imperial City, he bequeathed certain Annual Gifts. But he left the inheritance of the Em­pire, as 'twere some paternal Estate, to his own children; ordering all things in such a manner, as he himself thought good.

CHAP. LXIV. The death of Constantine on the Festival of Pen­tecost, about noon.

FUrther, all these things were transacted in that great Solemnity of the most venerable and most sacred Pentecost; which is honoured with seven weeks, [...]. It must be written, [...], as it occurs in the Kings Sheets. Farther▪ from this place 'tis apparent, that Pen­tecost is taken, not only for that day which is the fiftieth after Ea­ster-day, but also for the seven weeks which follow Easter. Thus 'tis every where used, as well by Greek as Latine Writers, St Jerome in his Letter to Marcella; Non quo per totum annum exceptâ Pentecoste jejunare non liceat. Hence, amongst the Greeks there is a Festival termed [...], which is the twenty-fifth-day from the Feast of Easter. Besides other writers, John Chrysostom makes mention of this Feast, in his Fifth Homily de Ann [...]. Vales. but is sealed with Or, An uni [...] ▪ Va­lesius ren­ders it, u­nitate. the number one. In which Festi­val hapned, both the Ascent of the Common Saviour into the Heavens, and also the descent of the Holy Spirit upon men, as the Divine Scriptures do attest. In this Solemnity therefore the Em­perour, having obtained those things we have mentioned, on the last day of all, (which should any one term the Feast of Feasts, he would not be mistaken;) Or, The Meridian hours of the Sun. about noon, was taken up to his God: lea­ving to mortalls that part of Him­self which was related to them; but joyning to his God that part of his Soul which was endued with understanding, and the Love of God. This was the End of Con­stantine's Life. But, let us proceed to what follows.

CHAP. LXV. The Lamentations of the Milice, and Tribunes.

THE Protectors, and the whole Body of his Guards, rent their clothes forthwith, and casting themselves prostrate on the earth, beat their heads against the ground; uttering [...]. The last word must be expunged, although it occurs in all our Copies. Pre­sently, it must be written [...], from the Fuketian Copy. In the Kings Sheets the reading is [...]. Vales. mournfull expressions [in­termixt] with Sighs and Cries; calling upon him their Master, their Lord, their Emperour; nor [did they invoke him barely] as a Master, but, like most Or, Genuine. obedient Children, [they accounted him] as a Father. Moreover, the Tribunes and Centurions styled him a Saviour, a Preserver, a Benefactour. And the rest of the Army, as 'tis usual amongst flocks, with all imaginable decency and becoming Re­verence, desired and wisht for their Good Shep­herd. The common people also ran up and down all over the City, and by Shreikes and Cries gave a manifest indication of their inward grief of mind. Others with dejected Countenances seemed like persons astonished; and [...]. It must doubtless be written, [...]. Concerning the publick mourning of all persons, at the Funeral of Constantine the Great, Aurelius Victor attests the same, in these words. Funus relatum in urbem sui nominis. Quod san [...] populus Rom. aegerrimè tulit: quippe cujus armis, Legibus, clementi imperio quasi novatam urbem Rom. arbitraretur. His dead Body was brought into the City that bore his own name. Which the people of Rome were sorely troubled at: in regard, by his Arms, Laws, and mild Government, they supposed the City Rome renewed as 'twere. I know indeed, that these words of Aurelius Victor may be understood concerning the Citizens of Rome, who took it ill, because Constantine's Body had been interred at Constantinople rather then at Rome. Nevertheless I am of opinion, that Victor thought otherwise; to wit, that all the Inhabitants of the Roman world were most sorely troubled at the death of Con­stantine. Which meaning is plainly confirmed by the following words: Quippe cujus armis, legibus, clementi imperio, quasi novatam Orbem Romanum arbitraretur. For so 'tis to be read, and not urbem Romanam. Vales. each par­ticular man lookt upon this as his own Calami­ty, and bemoan'd himself, because the common Good of all men was taken out of this their life.

CHAP. LXVI. That His Body was carried from Nicomedia to Constantinople, into the Palace.

AFter this, the Milice took His Body [out of the Bed,] and laid it into a Coffin of Gold; which they co­vered [...]. The one of these words is useless. The Fuketian Manuscript has only the Latter; whereto agrees Turne­bus's Book. Vales. with Purple, and carried it to the City that bore his own name. And there they plac't it [...], upon losty Benches or Seats. on high, [...]. The reading in the Fuke­tian and Turnebian Copy is truer, thus, [...]: but it must without doubt be made [...], as 'tis above, at book 3. chap. 10. Vales. in the stateliest Room of the Imperial Pa­lace. Then they light up Tapers round it, which be­ing put into Candlesticks of Gold, rendred the Sight ad­mirable to those that beheld it, and such a one as had never been seen on earth, by any person that was ever under the Sun's Rayes, since the world was first made. For within, in the very middlemost Room of the Imperial Pa­lace, the Emperours Corps lay on high in a Golden Coffin; and being adorned with Im­perial Ornaments, the Purple namely and the Diadem, was encompassed by many persons, who watcht with, and guarded it night and day.

CHAP. LXVII. That even after His Death, he was honoured by the Comites and the rest, in the same manner as when he was alive.

MOreover, the Generals, or Com­manders in chief. Duces, Comites, and the whole Order of the Judges and Magistrates, whose usage it had here­tofore been to [...]. Concerning the manner of salu­ting the Roman Emperours, con­sult the Learned Dr Howells Hi­story, Second Part, pag. 52. This Adoration was little more than what is now a days used to Prin­ces, namely, a kneeling to them, and bowing the head. adore the Emperour, made not the least alteration in their former Custom, but came in at set times, and on their knees saluted the Emperour when dead, and laid in his Coffin, as if he had been yet alive. After these Grandees, those of the Senate, [...]. That is, the Honorati. So the Latines termed those who bore honours, as I have at large remarked at the 14th Book of Amm. Marcellinus. Whereto add a passage of Gauden­tius Bishop of Brixia, in his Let­ter to Benevolus. Nam sicut Ho­noratorum nostrae urbis, ita etiam dominicae plebis, domino annuente, dignissimum caput es. Vales. and all the Honorati, came in, and did the same. After whom, mul­titudes of all sorts of people, together with women and children, approacht to the sight hereof. And these things were thus performed during a long space of time: the Milice having taken a Resolution, that the Corps should lie and be guarded in this manner, till such time as his Sons could come, who might honour their Fa­ther by Or, Their own car­riage of him. a personal attendance at his Funeral. [In fine,] this most Blessed [Prince] was the only Mortal who After Constantine's death, there was an Interregnum, nor did any Augustus Reign in the Ro­man world. Which interregnum [i. e. a time when there was no Emperour,] continued not only till Constantine's Burial, but to the fifth of the Ides of September, as Idatius attests in his Fasti. So, for the space of three months and an half, the Roman world was without the Empire of an Augustus. For during that whole time, which is between the e­leventh of the Calends of Jun [...] and the fifth of the Ides of Septem­ber, his Sons were styled only Cae-sars. 'Tis certain, Constantinus Junior, in his Letter so the Alexan­drians, which bears date after his Fathers death, in the Consulate of Felicianus and Titianus, on the fifteenth of the Calends of July, has the Title of Caesar only. This Let­ter is extant in Atbanasius, in his Second Apologie, near the end. Vales. Rei­gned after death; and all things were performed in the usual manner, as if he had been still alive: this being the sole person, from the utmost memory of man, on whom God conferred this. For, whereas he of all the Emperours had been the only one, who by acti­ons of all sorts whatever had honoured God the su­pream King, and his Christ; he alone, and that deserved­ly, had these honours al­lotted him: and the su­pream God was pleased to vouchsafe him this, that even his dead Body should Reign amongst men. Whereby God clearly shew­ed them, whose minds are not Or, Turned into stone. totally stupified, that [...], in Stephens 'tis [...], and we have rendred it accordingly. the Empire of his Soul is endless and immor­tall. In this manner were these things per­formed.

CHAP. LXVIII. In what manner the Army resolved, that his Sons should be forthwith proclaimed Augusti.

IN the interim, the Tribunes dispatcht away some choice men belonging to the Military Companies, who for their fidelity and good af­fection had heretofore been Or, Well known. acceptable to the Emperour; that they might make the Caesars acquainted with what had been done. And these were the things which those men performed then. But the Armies in all places, as soon as they were acquainted with the Emperours death, incited thereto by Divine instinct as 'twere, with an unanimous consent resolved, as if their Great Emperour had been yet living, that they would acknowledge no other person as Em­perour of the Romans, save only his Sons. And not long after, they determined to have them all henceforward, not stiled Caesares, but Augusti; which [name] is the Or, Greatest Symbol of supream Empire. Cognisance of supre­macy of Empire. And these things were done by the Armies; who by Letters one to ano­ther, signified their own suffrages and Accla­mations; and the unanimous consent of the Legions was in one and the same moment of time, made known to all persons wherever they dwelt.

CHAP. LXIX. The Mourning Or, Of Rome. at Rome for Constantine, and the Honour [done Him] by Pictures after his death.

BUt the Inhabitants of the Imperial City, as well the Senate as people of Rome, when they were acquainted with the Emperours death, lookt upon that to be most doleful news, and more calamitous than any misfortune whatever; and therefore set no Bounds to their mourning. The [...]aths therefore and Forums were shut up, and the publick Shows [omitted;] as likewise whatever other Pleasures, as Recreations of Life, are usually followed by those who spend their time in mirth and [...]ollity. Such also, as had heretofore abounded with delights, walk't the Streets with dejected Countenances. And all in general stiled [the Emperour] Blessed; a person dear to God; and one that was truly worthy of the Empire. Nor made they these Declarations in bare words only: but pro­ceeding on to actual performances, they honou­red him when dead, with dedications of Pictures, as if he had been still alive. For, having exprest a Representation of Heaven in Colours on a Table, they drew him making his Residence in an Aetherial Mansion, above the Celestial Arches. Moreover, they proclaimed his Sons the sole Em­perours and Augusti, without the Colleague­ship of any other person; and with humble sup­plications made it their earnest Request, that they might have the The same is at­tested by Aurelius Victor, in those words of his, which we quoted above, at chap. 65. noto (b.) Vales. Body of their Emperour with them, and might deposite it within the Im­perial City.

CHAP. LXX. That his Body was deposited at Constantinople, by his Son Constantius.

IN this manner, even these [Inhabitants of Rome] grac't this Emperour, who was ho­noured by God. But the Constan­tius Caesar, whom his Father had made Go­vernour of the East, upon hea­ring of his Father's sickness, had in great hast taken a journey, that he might see his Father before he died. But the vehe­mency of his disease frustrated the Son's desire. For when he was arrived at Nicomedia, he found his Father dead; as Julian relates in his first Oration concerning the praises of Constantius, pag. 29. With Julian, the other Writers of History do likewise agree. Zonaras is the only Authour who relates, that Constantius Caesar, who was then at Antioch, arrived whilst his Father was yet living; and that he honoured him, when dead, with a most magnificent Fu­neral. Vales. Second of his Sons▪ when he was come to the place where his Fa­ther's Corps lay, conveyed [...]. The last word save one is added by the I earned, from conjecture as I think. Nevertheless, there seems to be something more wanting: and perhaps Eusebius wrote thus [...] to the City that bore his own name. Hence it appears, that Constantine's dead Body was kept at Nico­media with all Imaginable honour and reverence, till the coming of Constantius Caesar. Who, after he was arrived at Nicomedia, con­veyed his Father's Corps to Constantinople. Wherefore, the Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle is mistaken, who relates, that Constan­tius came directly to Constantinople, and there celebrated his Father's Funeral. Vales. [it] to the City [that bore his own name,] he himself going before the Hearse. The Companies of the Mi­lice march't before, Troop by Troop in a Mi­litary Order: and behind followed an innume­rable multitude of people. But the Hastati and Scutarii surrounded the Emperour's Corps. When they were come to the Church of our Saviour's Apostles, they deposited the Coffin there. And thus the new Emperour Constan­tius, honouring his Father, as well by his pre­sence, as other befitting Offices, in a due manner performed Or, The things of a becoming Sanctity. his Funeral obsequies.

CHAP. LXXI. The [...] ▪ the sacred Assemblie. performance of the solemn prayers in that termed the Martyrium of the Apostles, at the Or, death. Funeral of Constantine.

A two­fold sense may be given of these words. For, either Euse­bius means, that Constantius Cae­sar, when he had deposited his Father's Ark or Coffin in the Church, went presently out of the Church with the Souldiers▪ or else this is his meaning only, that Constantius having done that, withdrew out of the middle of the Church, that he might give place to the Priests. Which meaning is in my judgment truer. For Con­stantius, although he had not as yet been baptized, was neverthe­less a Catechumen, as Sulpicius Se­verus tells us in the Second Book of his History. Vales. BUt after he had withdrawn himself, to­gether with the Military Companies; the Ministers of God, as likewise the Multi­tudes, and all the Congre­gation of the Faithfull, came forth, and by prayers per­formed the Rites of the Divine worship. At which time this Blessed [Prince,] lying on high [...]. See Gellius, B. 13. Cap. 10. upon a lofty place, was celebrated with praises. Likewise, a vast number of people, to­gether with those persons consecrated to God, no [...] without tears and great lamentation, poured forth prayers to God for the Emperour's Soul, thereby performing a most grate­full Office to this pious Prince. Further, herein also God demonstrated his singular Favour towards his Servant: because [after] [Page 632] his death Tran­slatours thought that these words were spoken of God, who gave the Empire to Constan­tine's Sons▪ But after a more at­tentive ex­amination of the mat­ter, I am of opinion that they are spoken concerning Constantine himself, who, even dead▪ delivered the Empire to his Sons. And this is confirmed by the following words. Vales. he bequeathed the Empire to his own dear Sons, who were his Successours; and because, [...]. It must, I think, be written, [...]. Constantine had wisht, that after his death, he might not, like other Princes, be consecrated, and reckoned a­mongst the Divi: but, that being buried with the Apostles, he might be a partaker of the prayers, which are wont to be offered to God by the Faithfull in honour of them; as Eusebius has said above, at chap. 60. Whence it appears, that here it must be written [...], not as it is in Moraeus's Book, and at the margin of the Geneva-Edition, [...], through his own most, &c. Nor will this place be perfect, even this way, unless these words be added, [...], &c. Which Eusebius confirms in the foresaid 60th chapter. The point must also be blotted out, which is set a little after, as well in the Kings Copy, as in the Common Editions; and it must be read in one breath, thus, [...], &c. Than which there is nothing more certain; which makes me admire, that Translatours saw not this. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading of this place runs thus; [...], &c. Nor is it other­wise in the Books of Turnebus and Sr Henry Savil▪ save only that Sr Henry has it, [...]. &c. But in the Kings Sheets I found this place written thus; [...]. &c. Which reading comes nearer to our Emenda­tion. Further, those words, [...], are spoken in a Parenthesis; and this is intimated by that punctation in the Fuketian Copy, which I have shown above. Vales. agreeable to his own most earnest desire, the Tabernacle of his thrice-blessed Soul was vouchsafed a place with the Monument of the Apostles; to the end namely, that it might be honoured in the same degree with the name of the Apostles; and that it might be joyned with God's people in the Church; and might be vouchsafed the Divine Rites, and Mystick Service; and might enjoy a Communion of the Holy Prayers: [...], &c. I write, [...]; which reading the following words do confirm. And so I found it plainly written in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. but, that He himself, pos­sest of the Empire [even] after death, ma­naging the whole Government by a Return to Life as 'twere, Such was the Inscription, usually perfixt before the Laws and Letters of Constantine, as Eusebius does every where attest. Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus. He took the Pronomen [fore­name] of Victor, after his Victory obtained over the Tyrants. His Sons also, by an hereditary right as 'twere, retained that name, as their Letters inform us. Farther, from this place it appears, that after the death of Constantinus Maximus, for about three months space, that is during the whole time of the Interregnum, all Laws and Edicts were inscribed with the Name of Constantine, as if he had been living, in regard there was no other Augustus in the Roman world, as I have observed above. This place may also be meant concerning the Sons of Constantine the Great, who made use of the same Title and Name; and in whom their Father seemed to be revived. Which sense is con­firmed by what follows. Vales. Victor, Maximus, Au­gustus, might in his own name still [...]. I write [...], that it may answer the verb [...] which occurs several lines above. Further, in the Kings Copy, at the margin of this chapter, the Greek Scholiast had written these words in honour of Constantine, [...]. The same Writer does in this work often besprinkle him with praises and good wishes. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...] Vales. Rule the Roman State.

CHAP. LXXII. Concerning the Bird [termed] the Phoenix.

NOt like that Egyptian Bird: which being the only one of her kind, is said to die upon [an heap of] Spices, at her death making her self a sacrifice: and presently [as 'tis re­ported,] is restored to life again out of those very ashes; and raising her self by her wings, appears the same in kind that she was before. But in the same manner with his Saviour ra­ther; who, like wheat sown, from one Grain diffusing himself into many, by the blessing of God hath brought forth an Ear of Corn, and hath filled the whole world with his fruits. In a like manner hereto, this thrice-blessed [Prince,] by the Succession of his Children, from being one, has been made [...] Sr. Henry Sa­vil at the margin of his Copy re­markes, that the reading should be [...]; to whom I agree: yet I had ra­ther read [...]. Vales. many: in so much that, throughout all Provinces, Statues are raised in honour of Him, together with his Sons; and the usual name of Constantine Is in use, or is embraced. obtaines even after his death.

CHAP. LXXIII. In what manner they Stamp't Constantine on Coyns, ascending up into Heaven as 'twere.

MOreover, Repre­sentations were stamps on Coyns, or, Money. Coyns were Stamp't bearing this impress: on the fore-side they ex­prest this Blessed [Prince] [...] The last word is, in my judgment, to be blotted out; which in all probability crept out of the margin into the Text. For [...] had been written in the margin, which might explain the following word [...]. But, that which occurs in the margin of the Geneva-Edition, namely [...], is in my judg­ment most egregiously foolish. For the propriety of the Greek Tongue admits not of that expression. Besides, in most Coyns Constantine appears with an Helmet on his Head. Vales. with His Head covered: But, on the Or, O­ther part. Reverse [he was represented sitting] like a Cha­rioteer, in a Chariot drawn by four Horses, and taken up [into Heaven] by a Right hand. hand stretcht out to him from above.

CHAP. LXXIV. That whereas God had been honoured by Him, He was on the other hand deservedly honoured by God.

THese [Miracles] the supream God laid be­fore our very eyes, in [the person of] Constantine, who was the only [Prince] of all the preceding Emperours, that had openly profest himself a [...] Que­stionless it must be made [...] It is also to be written, [...] the only Prince, or at least those words are to be understood. Further, Eusebius excepts none of the Roman Emperours, whilst he says, that Constantine was the first of them all, who was plainly and openly a Christian. Which doubtless is most true. For although the Emperour Philippus is by some reported to have been a Christian; yet he did not openly profess the Christian Religion, as Constantine did. Orosius (Book 7.) writes in a different sense concerning Con­stantine, in this manner; Primus Imperatorum Christianus, the First Christian of the Emperours, except Philippus, who in my judg­ment was made a Christian during a very few years, for this reason only, that the thousandth year of Rome might be dedicated to Christ, rather than to Idols. Vales. Christian; whereby God manifestly declared, [...] I had rather reade, [...] that is, How great a difference there was wit [...] him, or, how great a difference he made. Vales. How great a difference [Page 633] he made, between those who thought good to worship him and his Christ, and them that had embraced a contrary [opinion.] Who ha­ving brought a War upon God's Church, there­by rendred him their Enemy and Or, Ad­versary. Opposer. And indeed, the disastrous and unfortunate close of every of their Lives, has produced a most con­vincing Argument of the greatness of the divine hatred towards them: in the same manner that the death of Constantine has rendred the pledges of God's favour in reference to him, manifest and apparent to all men.

CHAP. LXXV. That Constantine was more pious than [any of] the foregoing Roman Emperours.

VVHo being the Sole Emperour of the Romans, that had honoured God the Supream King with a Transcendency of piety; and the only one that had freely and boldly Preach't. published the Doctrine of Christ to all men; and the only person (as I may say,) that had raised his Church to such a degree of Honour and Glory, as no one had ever done before; and the only person that Or, Had▪ overthrown all the er­rour of, &c. had totally destroyed the Errour of Poly­thëism, and confuted all the Rites and Modes of [such a] Superstition: is the only per­son also, that was vouchsafed such [ho­nours,] both in this Life, and after death, as no one, either amongst the Graecians or Barbarians, is reported ever to have ob­tained; Nor can there be any one mentioned, amongst the ancient Romans themselves, from the Remotest Times to this present Age, who may be compared with this [our Prince.]

THE EMPEROUR Constantine's After his four Books concerning the Life and Piety of the Emperour Constantine, Eusebius had added Two Orations; the one whereof was the Emperour Constantine's, [Entitled] To the Assemblie of the Saints, or To the Church of God: the other was written by himself, concerning the Fabrick and Sacred Presents of the Jerusalem-Martyrium, as Eusebius himself does attest in Chap. 32, and 46 of his Fourth Book. But the Latter Oration of Eusebius is not now extant. And that former one [namely Constantine's] abounds with so many faults, that it would almost be better, if it were not extant. But whereas this is a singular monument of that Religious Prince, and an illustrious proof of his Studies and Disposition, I shall, I think, do what will be worth while, if I shall [...]mploy my care and diligence, in mending and explaining it. Vales Oration, [...]. In book 4. chap. 32, the reading is [...], he entitled, which is in my judgment to be preferred. This therefore was the Title of this Oration, [...], Victor, Maximus, Augustus Constantinus To the Convention of the Saints. Vales. WHICH HE ENTITLED TO THE CONVENTION OF THE SAINTS.

CHAP. I. The Preface makes mention of Easter; and, that Or, The Word of God. Christ, having been several ways bene­ficial to all men, hath had plots framed against him by those, on whom he has conferred fa­vours.

THE Or, Brighter Splendour both, &c. more [than usual] Bright­ness and Splendour, both of the Day and Sun; the Preface of the Resur­rection; the new Or, Joyning to­gether. Reparation of Bodies long since dissolved; [...]. In Moraeus's Book, as likewise in the margin of the Geneva-Edition, 'tis men­ded [...]; which word I doe not remember to have met with any where. But in Scaliger's Copy 'tis corrected [...], which comes nearer to the Reading of the Manuscript Copies. Indeed, in the Kings Copy 'tis [...]: whence I conjectured that it should be written [...], that is, the Foundation. He does elegantly term the Resur­rection of our Lord, the foundation of the promise. Nor has Christo­phorson done ill in rendring it pignus promissionis, the pledge of the promise; which is in a manner the same. For a pledge is given for an assurance; whence 'tis by Graecians termed [...]. In the Fuketian and Savilian Copies I found it written [...]. Vales. the Foundation of the promise, and the way leading to Life eternal, the day [namely] of the Passion is now come, Dearest Doctours, and all the rest of You [My] Friends! [...]. I assent not to Learned men, who joyn these with the foregoing words, and reade thus, [...], &c. For if we read thus, it will be a foolish repeti­tion, in regard Constantine had said before, [...]. In which words Constantine salutes all the Catholick people, in such a manner as Preachers are wont to do. Wherefore those words [...], are the beginning of another period, wherein Constantine sets forth the happiness of the Catholick people. Further, I would more wil­lingly read [...], ye multitudes, &c▪ that Constantine may be made to speak to the people. Nevertheless, in the Fuketian and Savilian Copies, this place runs thus; [...]. Vales. Ye Multitudes of Believers are far more Blessed [than others;] Ye [who wor­ship] God the very [Authour] of Religion, and who, as well by an inward sense of every particular Soul, as by outward Expressions, do without intermission praise Him, according to those Rules [contained] in the Divine Oracles. But, Thou Nature, Mother of all things! What of this sort hast Thou ever conferred upon the world? Or rather, Or, What man­ner of workman­ship is thine? what is in any wise Thy work? In as much as He [who is the Authour] of all things, was the Framer of thy [...], of thy Sanctitie. At the margin of the Geneva-Edition there is a note set, that 'tis otherwise written [...], substance. But having look't into the matter more accurately, I am of opinion, that the common reading is to be retained. For Constantine says▪ that Nature is not the Framer of things, in regard She Her self was made by God; nor is he only the Origine of Nature Herself, but of that Sanctitie also which is in Her. For 'tis God who hath adorned Nature. For the ornament of Nature, is a Life according to the Law and prescript of God. This is the meaning of this place, which Christophorson perceived not. For I say nothing of Portesius, whom I have found most unskilfull, in a manner every where. Yet, in the Fuk. Turneb. and Savil. Copies, and in the Kings Sheets 'tis [...], substance. Vales. Sancti­ty also. For He it is, who has adorned Thee: [Page 636] in as much as the Beauty of Nature, is a [...], a life agree­able to Nature. It must be writ­ten, [...], a life agree­able to God, as 'tis apparent from the foregoing note. In one word [...], that is, Religion, is the Ornament of Nature. But, what sense there can be in the common reading, truly I can't perceive. So our Eusebius gave his books concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine this Ti­tle, [...]. In the Kings Sheets 'tis, [...]. Vales. Life agreeable to God. [...]. It must be written [...], &c. In­deed, in the Fuketian Copy 'tis [...], &c. Vales. But, those things prevailed afterwards, which are di­rectly contrary to Nature; [namely,] that no one should adore God [the Authour] of all things with a congruous worship; and, that it should be sup­posed, that all things were managed, not by Providence, but Chance, in a disorderly and Or, Erroneous. discomposed manner. And although Or, Divine inspiration by the Prophets▪ particularly, &c. the Pro­phets inspired by the Divine Spirit, particularly and in express words foretold these things, to whom Credit ought to have been given; yet Or, Wicked impiety. im­pious injustice made its Resi­stance by all manner of de­vices; hating and reproach­ing the very Light of Truth; and embracing [...], the incon [...]utableness (if I may so say) of darkness. the impe­netrable darkness of Errour. Nor, was Force and Cruelty wanting; especially, when the Will of Princes gave assi­stance to the Sudden, or, unthought-on. rash and heady Motion. impetus of the Vulgar; or rather, when Or, Their Will; that is, the Will of Princes. they themselves headed an unseasonable Fury. Where­fore, this way of Life ha­ving been confirmed by the usage of many Gene­rations, was the Occasion of dismal Calamities to the men of those times. But, as soon as ever the presence of our Saviour shined forth, im­mediately, instead of unjust Actions, Justice [was advanc't;] in place of a Or, Manifold. most de­structive Storm, arose a Calm; and all those things which had been predicted by the Pro­phets, were fulfilled. For, after [that Saviour of ours] was taken up on high to his Father's House, having Or, Sur­rounded. enlightned the world with the Rayes of Modesty and Or, Sobriety. Continence, He founded a Church on earth, like some sacred Temple of Virtue; a Temple [that is] eternal and incor­ruptible; wherein might be piously performed due [Acts of worship] both to God the supream Father, and likewise an agreeable [service] to Himself. But what did the mad wickedness of the Nations invent, after these things? It en­deavoured to Or, Cast forth. reject the Benefits and Favours of Christ, and to ruine the Church, constituted in order to the Salvation of all men; and in place thereof to substitute its own [...] ▪ In the Kings Copy, the two last words are wan­ting, and an empty space is left, capable of one word only. I doubt not but the reading should be, [...], and in place thereof to introduce its own Superstition; that verb [...] being blotted out, which is wholly super­fluous. In the Fuketian Copy this place is written thus; [...], &c. But in the Kings Sheets 'tis [...], &c. Sr Henry Savil at the margin of his Copy hath mended it, [...], but it overturned its own Superstition. Upon a more diligent inspection into the thing. I am of opinion, that this place is thus to be restored; [...]: that is, The Nations, whe [...] they had resolved to ruine the Church of Christ, subverted their own felicity. Diseases [hapned] again, Seditions, &c. The term [...] may also be retained, that so the meaning may be this; the Heathens, whilst they persecuted the Church, ruined their own Re­ligion. For the Church of God being attackt by the persecutions of the Heathens, vanquished the superstition and worship of false Deities. Vales. Superstition.

Again [hapned] horrible Seditions, Wars, Fights, [...]. Turnebus at the mar­gin of his Book hath mended it [...], Mo­rosities. In­deed, in the Fuketian Copy 'tis written [...]. But in the Kings Sheets the reading is [...]; and then some lines are omitted. And perhaps it should be written in one con­tinued clause, [...], that is, [...] morose Furni­ture of Life. For, unless, we read so, what will be the meaning of those following words, [...], which Constantine reckons amongst the ill things? Musculus seems to have read, [...]; for he renders it, violenta Victûs astructio. Presently, the Fuketian Copy words it thus; [...], which having its being in men, as we have rendred it. Vales. Morosity, [a luxurious] Furniture of Life, and a love of Riches: which having its Being in men contrary to nature (a thing that is the property of wickedness,) does some­times recreate by false and specious hopes; at others, it astonishes with Fear. [...]. In Moraeus's Book, and in the Geneva-Edition, it is at the margin mended, [...], excellently well, as those skilled in the Greek tongue do know. The word [...] wickedness, is understood. The reading is [...], in the Fuk▪ and Turneb. Copies also. Vales. But, let Her lie prostrate on the ground, being vanquished by Virtue: and (as 'tis fit She should,) let Her rend and tear Her self by reason of Her Re­pentance. But, at present we [...]. The correction of this place is due to the Fuketian Copy; wherein 'tis plainly written, [...], must discourse. Than which Emendation there is nothing more certain. Vales. must discourse of those matters which appertain to the Divine Doctrine.

CHAP. II. An Or, Pre­caution. Address to the Church, and to his Hearers, that they would Pardon and amend his Mi­stakes.

HEar therefore, [...], Thou Pilot, or, Master of the Ship. So Constan­tine terms a Bishop, with no less elegant a Meta­phor, than when they, are ter­med Pa­stours. And, whereas the Church is usually compared to a Ship, the Bishops who govern it, are rightly termed the Patrons or Masters of the Ship; they being also the Apostles Successours, whom Christ, from being Fishers, made Governours of the Church. Farther, he terms Him one indued with Chastity and Virginity; because the Prelates of the Christians were such, [...]. Vales. Thou Master of the Ship, who art possest of Chastity and Virginity! And Thou Church, that art the Nurse of im­mature and Ignorant, or, un­taught. unskilfull Age! To whose Care and Charge, Truth and Or, Hu­manity. Clemency are committed: From whose everlasting Fountain, flows a Salutary [...]. The Fuketian Copy, Kings Sheets, and Tur­nebus's Book have it written [...], Potion, or, water to be drunk. Presently, where the reading is, [...], be ye attentive; in the Fuketian Copy 'tis [...], attend therefore. Vales. Stream. Be Ye Candid Hearers also, Ye who worship God with sincerity, and for that reason are His Care: be Ye attentive, not so much to the words themselves, as to the truth of what is delivered: and [respect] not Me that Speak, but the Piety of Devotion. Religious Office of Devotion rather. [Page 637] For, what can the benefit and advantage of Or, Words. an Oration be, when the mind of the Speaker re­mains undiscovered? Indeed, I do peradventure attempt Great things. But, that which oc­casions my Boldness, is the Love of God im­planted in me: for, this [Love] puts a Force upon Modesty. Wherefore, my desire is, that Ye who are eminently knowing in the Divine Mysteries, should be joyned with Me, as My Assistants; to the end that, if any mistake shall happen Or, A­bout my words. during My Speaking, You may go a­long with Me and correct it. Expect not any Perfect and Consummate Know­ledge, or, Learning. Doctrine from Me; but rather, give a kind reception to the Or, Inte­grity of My attempt. at­tempt of My Faith. Farther, may the most Greatest, or, most powerfull Inspiration. benign influence of the Father and Son, be effectually present with us, whilst we are ut­tering those things, which [...]. It must be made [...], and [...], the influ­ence or, in­spiration of the Father, must be understood; as Christophorson read. Indeed, in the Fuketian Copy 'tis written thus, [...]; whilst we are uttering, &c, as 'tis rendred. Vales. it shall Command and Suggest to Our Mind! For, if any person professing Rhetorick, or any other Art, shall sup­pose Himself able, without the Divine Assi­stance, with an accuracy to perfect His Work; He Himself, as also the Work He has under­taken, will be found ignorant, and imperfect. But, such persons as have once obtained the Divine influence, must neither loiter, nor be careless. Wherefore, having beg'd Your Pardon for the length of this Our [...]. Christophorson has rendred both this, and the preceding period, very ill. For he thought, that the import of [...] here, was delay, or defer­ring; whereas at this place, that word signifies a Preface. For Constantine excuses himself, because he had made use of too long a Preface. [...] is properly the beginning of a Song, which the Chorus was wont to sing in the first place. Aristophanes in Irene page 685, de Dithyrambicis; [...]: where the Scholiast notes, that [...] are, [...], the beginnings of Songs; and he cites a Verse of Homer. Iso­crates's words, in his Panathenaïcon, are these; [...]. This word therefore was afterwards translated from Singers to Orators; and they used [...], instead of [...], as Hesychius does attest. Ulpianus on Demosthenes's Oration de Ch [...]rsoneso; [...]. So Aristophanes, in Ir [...]ne, page 717, has used [...] and [...] in the same sense. Farther, from this place it appears, that the Preface of this Oration reaches as far as these words. Vales. Preface, We will enter upon the Or, Perfection. Head and Principal matter of Our design.

CHAP. III. That God is both the Father of Or, The Word, i. e. Christ. The Logos, and the Framer of the [whole] Crea­tion; and, that it were impossible for things to Exist, or, continue firm. consist, if their Causes were di­verse.

GOD, [...]. I think we must reade thus, [...], God, who is, &c. For, the chiefest Good is nothing else but the su­pream God. So below, at chap. 9. [...]. In the Fuketian and Savilian Copies, 'tis [...]; which is an ill reading. Vales. who is above every Essence, being always that Good which all things de­sire, has no Generation; and consequent­ly no Beginning. But He Himself is the O­rigine of all things that are brought forth. But He who has His Procession from Him, is united with Him again: the disjunction and conjunction being performed in Him, not lo­cally, but intellectually only. For, Or, Off­spring. that Foe­tus exists not by any dammage of His Father's bowels, as, for instance, those things do which are born of Seed: but, by the dispose of [Di­vine] providence Our Saviour has appear­ed, that he might preside, as well over this vi­sible world, as over all things and works fra­med therein. The Cause therefore, both of sub­sistence and Life, to all things which are con­tained within the Complex of this world, [is derived] from hence. Moreover, hence [pro­ceeds] the Soul, and every Sense, and the Organs, or, instru­ments. Faculties, by whose assistance those things which are signified by the senses, are perfected. What then does this Discourse Or, Ma­nifest. conclude? [Thus much,] that there is one President over all things which are; and, that all things what­ever are subject to his sole Dominion, as well things Celestial, as Terrestrial; both Natural, and also [...]. Chri­stophorson has rendred it artifici­alia, such namely as are made by some instrument, but are not be­gotten by Nature: wherein never­theless, I do not agree with him. For, whereas Constantine does Phi­losophize throughout this whole Oration; at this place also he has used Natural and Organical Bo­dies, in the same sense that Phi­losophers are wont to take them; namely, for Bodies that are en­dued with Organs or Instruments fit for operation. So Aristotle ex­presses himself, when he defines the Soul thus, the Act of an Or­ganical Body. But, an Organical Body is more than a Natural one. For, there are some Natural Bo­dies, which want Organs, for in­stance, Stones, and other things of that sort. Vales. Organical Bo­dies. For, if the Domi­nion over all these things, which are innumerable, should be in the hands, not of one, but of many; He alludes to the division of the world between those three Brethren, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto; which division the Greek-Theologi do talk of. Vales. Parti­tions and Divisions of the Elements, (as 'tis in the ancient Fables,) and Envy, and a desire of having more, powerfully contending to over­come, would disturb the har­monious Concord of all things: in regard those many, would [...], would continue to govern. In the Fuk. Copy the reading is, [...], would ad­minister, or, manage. Vales. manage that portion al­lotted to each of them, in a different manner. But, whereas this whole world does keep it self always in one and the same order, 'tis plain, that this is [...]. The Negative particle hath been ad­ded by the Learned, from con­jecture, as I think; as also, the words which follow next, [...]. All which words occur nei­ther in the Kings Copy, nor in the Old Sheets, not yet in Robert Ste­phens's Edition: neither do they in any wise agree with the pre­ceding words. For Constantine does not now treat concerning Providence; but he asserts only this, that there is one Beginning of all things; which he proves thus; If there were more Gods than one, each God would go­vern his own allotment: but, they would be very little solicitous, that the whole world should always keep it self in one and the same order. But, we see the Contrary. Therefore, there are not more Gods than one. This is Constantine's first argument against the Theologie of the Heathens. I reade there­fore, [...]. Thus the sense is most evident and plain. But, whereas those words which I have set above, are found in the Fuk. Savil. and Turnebian Copies; there is no need of our Emenda­tion. Vales. not performed without Providence, and, that it has not proceeded from chance. But, who could ever have acknow­ledged a Framer of univer­sal Or, Ge­neration. Matter? To whom in the first place, or in the last, were prayers and supplications [to have been assigned?] How could it be, that by my worshipping one of them [...]; that is, according to mine own arbitrement. It might also be read, [...], chiefly, or, most especially. Vales. by choice, I should not have been impious towards the rest? Or, ha­ving perhaps requested some­thing necessary for this life, shall I return thanks to that God who has given me as­sistance; but, revile him who was mine opposer? [Page 638] But, to whom shall I make my supplication, that he may declare to me the occasion of my Cala­mity, and may vouchsafe me a deliverance from it? Let us suppose, that an answer has been given us by Oracles and Prophecies: [...] This passage seems to me very obscure. Christo­phorson renders it thus; Fac respons [...] nobis per oracula dari: ista tamen fieri non propriâ ac suâ vi sed ad deum aliquem pertinere. But, what the mea­ning here­of should be, truly I can't see. But, having examined all things with more of attention, at length I found out the true meaning of this place. This therefore is what Constantine says. If there be many Gods; when I shall fall into calamity, to which of them shall I address my self, that he may acquaint me with the cause of my Misery, and free me from it. Let us suppose (says he,) that, for instance, Apollo has answered me, that 'tis not in his power to deliver me, but, that that belongs to another God. What is more plain than this sense? It must therefore be written, [...] but belong to another God. Many such Oracles as these are extant in the Histories of the Greeks; where Apollo answers those who Consult him, that they must appease Bacchus, or Saturn, if they have a mind to be delivered from their Ca­lamity. Vales. but, that these things are not in their power, but belong to another God. What is the Compassion then? Of what sort is the providence of God towards man? Unless perhaps, some one of them, in­clinable to be kinder, being more forcibly moved, shall give assistance against another, who is not in the least kindly disposed towards men. More­over, Anger, and Discord, and Railing; and in fine, a confusion of all things would follow from hence; whilst not one of them would per­form his own part; but, through covetousness not satisfied with his own affairs, would invade those that belong to others. What therefore will be the consequence hereof? Questionless, this dis­cord amongst the Celestial powers, would ruine things under Heaven, and things on earth; the Order and Vicissitude of Seasons and times would vanish, as likewise the delight and use of those fruits produced at the several seasons of the year; the day would be destroyed, and the Rest of the night which follows the day. But enough concerning these matters. Let us now return to those reasons which can in no wise be re­futed.

CHAP. IV. Concerning Or, The Errour in reference to Idols. their Errour who worship I­dols.

WHatever had a Beginning, must neces­sarily have an End also. Now, a temporal Beginning, is termed a Or, Birth. Generation. But, the things produced by a Generation, are all Corruptible. Besides, Time defaces their Form and Beauty. How then can they, who [have their Original] from a corruptible Ge­neration, be immortal? Now, such an Opinion as this hath been divulged amongst unthinking people, namely, that Marriages are usually made amongst the Gods, and children begotten. But, if they who are begotten, be immortal; and if [new Gods] are always be­gotten, [...]. In the Fuketian Copy, after the first word, there is an Empty space, capable of one word. I write therefore, [...], their kind, &c. Vales. their Kind must ne­cessarily be excessively nume­rous: after which Acces­sion made, [...] It must be, [...] as I found it mended at the margin of Moraeus's Copy. In the Fuk. Copy the reading is [...] without the Conjunction. Vales. what Heaven, what manner of Earth must it be, that can be capable of Containing such a grow­ing swarm of Gods? But, what can any one say in refe­rence to those men, who joyn the Brethren-Gods in a society of Marriage [with the Sister-God­desses;] and who charge them with Adulteries, and Acts of Incontinency? We do confidently as­sert this also, that the very Honours and Or, Re­wards. Acts of worship, attributed to them by men, are mixt with Or, Whoredoms and Wicked­nesses. uncleannesses and Lust. [...] I had rather read [...] &c. A little after, where the reading is, [...] at the margin of Moraeus's Book 'tis mended [...] and so 'tis corrected in Gruter's Copy. Vales. Now therefore, some skil­full person, and a Statua­ry, having conceived in his mind the Form [of his future work,] frames it by the Rules of Art, and Or, In the interim. soon after, a forgetful­ness falling [upon him,] as 'twere, he flatters his own work, and worships it in place of an immor­tal God: whereas notwithstanding, he himself, [...] 'Tis truer in the Fuk▪ Copy, [...] &c. Vales. the Father and Framer of that Statue, must confess himself to be mortal. Moreover, they themselves do shew the Sepulchres and Or, Cof­fins. Arks of those Immortals, and honour the dead with Or, Im­mortal. Divine Honours: being wholly ignorant, that that which is truly Blessed and Or, In­corruptible. Immortal, stands not in need of Honour from Mortals. For, that which can be discerned by the mind only, and comprehended by the understanding, requires neither a Form whereby it may be known, nor admits of a figure, as its image or Resemblance. But, all these things are done, in favour of the dead. For, they were really men, whilst they lived, Or, Being partakers of the Body. and were endued with Bodies.

CHAP. V. That Christ the Son of God framed all things, and has appointed to every thing the term of its Existence.

BUt, why do I defile my tongue with impure expressions, when I am about to praise the true God? I am resolved in the first place to Or, Purge. wash away that bitter potion as 'twere, with one that is pure. Now, this pure potion is Or, Poured. drawn out of that Or, Ever­lasting. ever-flowing Fountain of Virtues, of that God who is extolled by Us. Indeed, I account it my proper Business, to praise Christ [both] by [an holiness of] Life, and a thanksgiving also, which is due to him from us, for those his many and signal benefits. I assert therefore, that 'tis he who hath setled the Beginnings of this Universe, and who hath Or, In­vented the Creation of man. So Valesius renders it. Created men, and [...] The three former words have been added by Learned men from M. S. Copies. Nevertheless, they oc­cur not, either in the Kings Copy, or in the Old Sheets. But I have set a point after the word [...], from the authority of the Kings, and Fuketian Copy, and from the Old Sheets. Which Christophorson ha­ving not perceived, he joyned this with the following period. Now, the meaning of this place, is this. I affirm, says he, that as well man, as the other things which are in the world, are his workmanship, who hath constituted all these things in order; that is, the workmanship of the Supream God. It must therefore be written, [...] as 'tis in Sr Henry Savil's Book, and as Christophorson seems to have read. Then I reade, [...] and who hath established, than which emendation there is nothing more certain. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...] Therefore, [...] has the same import with [...], an expression which he makes use of hereafter. Vales. who hath established these things by a certain Law and Order. And immediately, when That is, Our first Parents. they were newly brought forth, he removed them Here Constantine seems to place that Paradise, wherein God put Adam, without the Bounds of the earth. Which was the Senti­ment of very many of the Ancients. Stephanus Gobarus, chap. 11. had handled this probleme; [...], that Paradise is neither in Heaven, nor on Earth, but between them. And this was the Title of the twelfth chapter, that Paradise is the Jerusalem above, and is in the third heaven: and, that the trees which are there▪ are endued with understanding and knowledge: and, that Adam, after his transgression, was cast down from thence, into the Earth. Then [follows] a contrary assertion, that Paradise is not in the third Heaven, but in the Earth. 'Tis cer­tain, Tatianus, in his Oration Contra Graecos, does affirm, that that Paradise, wherein Adam was placed by God, was not in this earth which we inhabit, but in another far better. His words are these, (which doubtless Stephanus Gobarus had quoted, in confirmation of that Opinion;) [...]. Be­sides, Tertullian seems to have thought the same. For thus he writes concerning Adam, in his Book de Patientiâ. Innocent erat, & Deo de proximo amious, & Paradisi Colonus. At ubi semel succidit impa­tientiae, desivit Deo sapere; desivit caelestia sustinere posse, exinde bomo terrae datus, & ab oculis dei dejectus, &c. The same may be made out from his Second Book against Marcion, Chap. 2 and 10; where he uses the same Metaphor with Tatianus.—Were that Book now extant, which Tertullian wrote concerning Paradise; it might be more plainly known, that this, which I have mentioned, was his Opi­nion. Lastly, Clemens Alexandrinus (in Excerptis Theodoti, or in his Books [...] page 341, Edit. Commelin.) places the terrestrial Paradise, wherein Eve was made, in the fourth Heaven. But Origen had placed Paradise, whereof Adam was an Inhabi­tant, in the third Heaven; as Methodius informs us in his Book de Re­surrectione in Epiphanius pag. 572. And before all these, Valentinus placed that Paradise, wherein Adam dwelt, above the third Heaven; and had affirmed it to be intellectual; as Irenaeus attests, B.1. Vales. in­to a certain blessed and flourishing [Page 639] place, Or, Loaden. abounding with a [...] &c. The Rules of Gram­mar re­quire, that we should write [...] And so 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. variety of fruits; and at first He would have them ignorant of Good and Evil. But at length He appointed a Seat upon earth, a Mansion befitting a rational Creature; and then, in regard they were Crea­tures endued with reason, He shewed them the knowledge of Good and Evil. Then also He gave order, that mankind should be in­creased; [...] It must, I think, be thus; [...], and, that all that, &c. It might also be writ­ten in this manner, [...], &c, wherefore, all that healthy place—was in­habited; and so there needs no alteration. Vales. and, that all that healthy space, terminated by the Circuit of the Ocean, should be inhabited. When Man­kind was thus increased, Arts necessary for the use of Life After these words, Learned men have added these, [...] and Sciences; which I found written also at the margin of Moraeus's Book. Nevertheless, they are wanting, not only in the King's Copy, and in the Sheets, but in the Fuketian and Savil. Copies also. Vales., were invented. In like manner, the Kinds of irrational Creatures increased also; a certain peculiar vir­tue and power being found planted by Nature in every Kind. In tame Creatures, a Gentleness and Obedience to man: but in those that are wild, strength and swiftness, and a certain natural provi­dence, whereby they may preserve themselves from danger. And, to men [God] enjoyned a Care over all the tame Creatures: but, against the wild, he instituted a certain Strife and Combat as 'twere. After these things, He formed the Generation of Birds; in number, almost infinite; but in nature and conditions, very different; [beautified] with a great and gorgeous va­riety of Colours; and [...] I write [...], as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy▪ A little be­fore, where the reading is [...] but in nature and species very different; I read [...] conditions; in which manner I also found it written in Turnebus's Book. Vales. naturally endued with a Musical Harmony. Also, when he had most beautifully Or, Dif­ferenced. distinguished all other things whatever, which this world contains within its Compass; and had set the fatal Term of Life to them all; He Or, Adorned the most perfect complement of the Universe. finished the Fabrick of the Universe, grac't with all sorts of Ornaments.

CHAP. VI. Concerning Fate; that what is discourst of it, is false; [and this] is demonstrated, both from humane Laws, and Or, Those matters in reference to the Crea­tion. things created; which are moved, not disorderly, but in a regular manner; by which order of theirs, they demonstrate the Determi­nation, or, Prescript. Command of the Creator.

BUt very many men, not so considerate as they should be, make Nature the Cause that has given Beauty and Gracefullness to all these things: some others of them [ascribe it] to Fate, or Fortuitous Chance; [...] Be­fore these words Musculus has set a point. For thus he renders this passage. Qui potestatem ho­rum sato tribuunt, ne hoc quidem intelligunt, &c. Christophorson has followed Musculus. Vales. assigning to Fate the power of these matters. Nor doe they understand, that when they speak of Fate, they utter a name indeed; but declare no Act, nor any substance proposed as a Sub­ject. For, what can Fate it self be, Or, By it self. in reference to it self, when Nature shall have produced all things? [...] It must, I think, be written, [...] Or, what shall, &c. In the Fuketian and Savi­lian Copies 'tis, [...] But in the Kings Sheets I found it written, [...] &c. Vales. Or, what shall Nature be thought to be, if the Law of Fate be inviolable?▪ Moreover, whereas 'tis said to be a Fatal Law, 'tis plain (in regard every Law is the Work of some Law-maker,) that even Fate it self, if it be a Law, is the Work and Inven­tion of God. All things therefore are subject to God, nor is there any thing that has no share of his power. We do also allow, that Fate both is, and must be thought to be the Will of God. But, in what manner do Justice, Temperance, and the other Virtues [derive their Being] from Fate? Or, whence [proceed the Vices] con­trary to these Virtues, in­justice namely, and Intem­perance? [...] I read, [...] &c. Further, this place is imperfect, as 'tis apparent; and it would be hard to supplie it without the Copies. Nevertheless, this seems to be Constantine's way of arguing. If, says he, the Virtues be from Fate, then so are the Vices also. But, the Vices cannot be from Fate. For wickedness is either from Nature, or from the will. Therefore, 'tis not from Fate. But, if any one shall say, that Virtue indeed and Vice are of the Will; but, that the Will should do right, or otherwise▪ this is from Fate: in what man­ner then can justice, which is no­thing else but a constant and per­petual desire of giving every one their due, be from Fate? In the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...] But Sr Henry Savil remarks at the margin of his Book, that perhaps it should be written▪ [...], and presently mends it, [...] Vales. For, wickedness [has its Original] from Nature, not from Fate: and Virtue is [nothing else] but good performances and Offices, of the Disposition and Morals. Or, But, either Crimes, or, on the other hand, brave performan­ces, which are [the property] of a good and right purpose of mind, if they happen sometimes one way, at others, another, according, &c. But, if those things (which from a good purpose of mind are done well, or which on the con­trary are performed other­wise,) have a different issue, according as it seems good either to Fortune or Fate; how will [...] The last word is added by Learned men from Manuscript Copies; which, nevertheless, I can in no wise approve of, though it does occur in the Fuketian Copy. I write there­fore, [...] How will all right, &c. The meaning is the same with what I have said above. Nevertheless, the written reading may be born with, that by [...] may be meant those things which are reckoned up by Constantine, to wit, Laws, Re­wards, punishments, Exhortations, and the rest of this sort, which con­tain justice in them. Vales. all Right, and a giving of every person his due [proceed] from Fate? But now, Laws, and dis­courses, which perswade to Virtue, and deter from Vi­ces; praises also, and dis­commendations; punishments likewise, and all those things whatever, wherewith men are incited to Virtue, and drawn off from wickedness; [Page 640] how can these be said to proceed from Fortune or Chance, and not from justice rather, which is the property of the provident God? For, Or Even that which is agreeable occurs, on account of mens living in this, or that man­ner. He gives men those things, which they deserve for their fol­lowing [...] Make it [...], with the accent in the last syl­lable, as I found it set at the margin of Moraeus's Copy. I read also, [...], from the Manuscripts. 'Tis cer­tain, the Fuketian Copy gives us this reading; [...]. Vales. In Ro­bert Stephens 'tis, [...]. this or that Course of Life: sometimes Pestilen­ces [do rage,] and Sedi­tions; and Scarcity and Plen­ty do by turns succeed one another; making Proclama­tion as 'twere in plain and express words, [...] I read [...], &c, that all such, as I found it mended in Moraeus's Book, at the margin. So indeed 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. that all such things as these do most fitly agree with our lives. For the Divine Essence rejoyces at the Or, Good inclinations. probity of men; but abominates all manner of impiety. And, as it em­braces a mind, whose Sen­timents concerning it self are moderate; so it hates boldness, and an arrogancy which raises it self higher than is becoming a Creature. The proofs of [...]. Af­ter the first word I found a blank in the Fuke­tian Copy, capable of one word. It must, I think, be made up thus, [...], and we have rendred it accordingly. Vales. all which matters, although they are very perspicuous, and do lye before our eyes; are yet [...]. The last word must be blotted out; In regard 'tis not to be found, either in the Kings Copy or in the Sheets, or Stephens's Edition. The place was rather to have been mended in this manner; [...] That is; Although it be certain, and evidenced by many instances, that Famine, Pestilence, and such sort of Calamities, are sent from Heaven in order to the punishing of mens wickedness; yet, that does much more manifestly appear, as often as those Calamities happen. For then we come to Our Selves, and understand the Causes of those things. Nevertheless, the reading in the Fuketian Copy is, [...] Vales. then more apparently mani­fest, [...] It must, I think, [...]e [...] or, if you had rather, [...] In the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...] And in the end of the period, [...] excellently well. It must therefore be written, [...] as often as, recollecting ourselves. Vales. as often as, making a descent into Our Selves, and as 'twere contracting our minds, We weigh with Our Selves the Cause of them. Wherefore, 'tis my assertion, that we ought to lead lives that are Or, Mo­derate and quiet. sober and calm, not raising Our Or, Mind. thoughts above the condition of Our Nature; but taking this into Our serious consideration, that God the Inspector of all Our Actions is continually present with Us. More­over, let us another way examine, whether this assertion be true, namely, that the dispose of all affairs [...] I had rather read, [...] or [...] has had a de­pendence upon, &c. Further, in the Fuketian and Turneb. Copies, the reading of this place runs thus, [...], &c. Vales. does depend upon Fortune and Chance. Whe­ther therefore, the Celestial Bodies, and the Stars, the Earth and the Sea, the Fire and the Winds, the Water and the Air, and the Vicissitude of times, and the seasonable Returns of Summer and Winter; whether [I say] it ought to be believed, that all these have hapned Or, Rashly. without reason and for­tuitously, rather than were created. 'Tis cer­tain, some persons, wholly void of understanding, do affirm, that men have found out many of these for their own use and advantage. And truly, whereas Nature does plentifully supply us with all manner of riches; we may grant, that, in reference to things which are terrene and cor­ruptible, this Opinion Or, Par­takes of some reason. wants not something of reason. But, are then things immortal and im­mutable, the Inventions of men also? For, of these, and of all other things of this nature, (which are removed from our senses, and can be comprehended by the mind only;) [...] Write, [...], not man, &c: But Christo­phorson read, [...] not the life of man, which consists of matter; which reading I condemn not, but the former Emendation pleases me best.—Nevertheless, the Fuketian Copy does plainly fa­vour Chistophorson's Version. Vales. not man, a Creature made of matter, but the intelligible and Eternal Essence of God is the Framer. Besides, the Course and Order of that Con­stitution, is the work of provi­dence also; [namely,] that the day is bright, being en­lightened by the Sun; that the night succeeds the setting of the Sun; and, that, when it has succeeded it, it is not left wholly [...] Un­derstand [...], of light. Wherefore there is no need of Christophersons conjecture; nor of Sr Henry Savil's, who mends it [...], dark. Vales. void [of Light,] by reason of the Quire of the Stars. But, what shall we say concerning the Moon; which, when at the greatest distance from the Sun, being in a direct opposition to him, is at the Full; but, is lessened, Or, By reason of its Con­verse with him at a nearer di­stance. as often as 'tis in a Conjun­ction with the Sun: do not these things manifestly declare the [...], God's conception of mind; Valesius ren­ders it intelligentiam. knowledge of God, and his sagacious wisedom? Far­ther, [...]. I read [...], as 'tis mended at the margin of Moraeus's Book. Presently, make it [...]. And again, a little lower, [...]. And thus I found it plainly written in the Fuke­tian Copy save that there it is [...] Vales. the usefull and season­able warmth of the Solar Rayes, whereby the Fruits are brought to maturity; the Blasts of the winds, which are of great use in making the year fruitfull and heal­thy; the refreshment of showers, and the admirable Harmony of all these, ac­cording to which they are all managed in a due and well-ordered manner: [lastly,] that per­petual Order of the Planets, which at fit and stated times make their Returns to the same Or, Place. point; is not the Command of God hereby manifested, and likewise the perfect and entire dutifullness of the Stars, which pay an Obe­dience to the Divine Law? Moreover, the Tops of Mountains, and the hollow depths of Valleys, [...]. It must be [...], as that Learned man had remarked in Moraeus's Book. And so the reading is in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. and the smooth Levels of far-spreading Fields; do these seem to exist without the providence of God? The prospect whereof is not only [...]. The word [...] should be ex­pung'd here. For at this place 'tis more elegantly understood. Sr Henry Savil has mended it at the margin of his Book, in this manner, [...]. Vales. gratefull, but the use also is delightfull and pleasant. The Or, Di­mensions. Spaces likewise and Or, Di­visions. Breaks of the Waters and the Earth, (which are of use partly for tillage, [...]. I read, [...], &c.; than which, nothing is more certain. In the Fuketian and Turneb. Copies 'tis, [...]. Further, I have rendred [...], discidia, fol­lowing the authority of Amm. Marcellinus, who somewhere ex­presses himself so. Christophorson has likewise rendred it well, divortia Terrarum, the divorcements of the Earth. Vales. and partly for conveyance of those things we stand in need of from forreign Regions;) do they not most clear­ly demonstrate the accurate and exact care of God? For, the Mountains contain water within their Bowels; which when the Plain has received, and Or, Has sufficiently moystened the ground in order to a refresh­ment. by the moysture thereof has sufficiently re­fresht [Page 641] the ground; it pours forth the residue of it into the Sea: and the Sea transmits it to the Ocean. And, dare we yet affirm, that all these things come to pass fort [...]itously, and by accident? When as notwithstanding, [...] In the Fuke­tian and Turneb. Co­pies this place is thus wor­ded, [...], we understand not in what manner of form and shape chance is characterized. Vales. we are in no wise able to declare, with what shape or Form Chance is endued: a thing which has no subsistence, either in the understanding, or sense; but is only the empty sound of a name Or, without a subsistence. without the thing, which makes a noyse about our Ears.

CHAP. VII. That, Or, As to things in­comprehen­sible. in things which we can't understand, we ought to glorifie the Creator's Wisdom; nor must we suppose Chance, or any thing else [save God,] to be the cause [of them.]

FOr Chance, 'tis most certain, is a Term [in­vented] by men, whose thoughts are rash and inconsiderate; and who cannot Or, Ap­prehend their own opinion. understand the cause it self: but, by reason of their weakness of apprehension, suppose that all these things, whereof they are unable to give a reason, have been framed and ordered without any thing of reason. There are indeed some things endued with an admirable nature, the certain and evident knowledge of the Truth whereof, lies deep: of which sort is the Nature of Warm Waters. For no person can readily assign the reason of so great a fire. And 'tis strange, that [that fire,] though encompassed round with cold water, nevertheless, should not loose its Native Heat. And these things are found to be very rare, and few in number thorowout the whole world; for this reason, as I perswade my self, that men might easily know the power of [Divine] pro­vidence; which has ordered two most contrary Natures, Heat namely and Cold, to spring from one and the same Root. Indeed, the things are many, and almost innumerable, which God hath bestowed on men, in order to their comfort and delight: but, the fruit of the Olive-tree and of the Vine, are chiefly [to be accounted such.] Of which two, [...]. Learned men have mended this place thus▪ [...]. But, whereas the particle [...] occurs neither in the Kings Copy, nor Robert Stephens's Edition, I had rather read [...] which is plainly confirmed by the succeeding words. For it follows, [...] Nevertheless, the Fuk. Sav. and Turneb, Copies do plainly confirm that emendation of Learned men. The same Fuketian Manuscript sets two points after the word [...] right. Vales. this has a power of recreating and exhilerating the mind. But the other is fit not only for delight: but of use in order to the curing of Bodies. The perpetual and ever­lasting course of Rivers deserves likewise the highest admiration; which, by their flowing night and day, give a representation of an eternal and never-ceasing life. Also, the con­tinual vicissitude of night and day, is in the same manner admirable.

CHAP. VIII. That God does plentifully supply men with those things that are usefull; but, with such as are for delight, [He furnishes them] in an indifferent manner only; bestowing both sorts, so as may be agreeable to their profit and advantage.

Or, Let all these words be▪ &c. ALL These words have been spoken by Us, in confirmation of this Truth, that nothing has been done without reason, or with­out understanding: but, that Reason it self, and also [...] In Moraeus's Book 'tis mended, [...] as Christophorson read; and as we have rendred it. And so 'tis plainly written in the Fuke­tian Copy. Vales. Providence, are [the Works] of God. Who has likewise Reserved, or treasured up the nature of Gold, &c. produced the se­veral kinds of Gold, Silver, Brass, and of the other Me­tals, in a manner and mea­sure that is fit and agree­able. For with those things, the use whereof was like to be manifold and various, [men] are by his order plentifully furnished: but, such things as are of use [...], for the de­light of the world, and▪ for plenty only. The word [...] is corrupted; in the place whereof I would rather put [...], Luxury. Yet, the ordinary reading may be born with. Vales. for the delight of the world, and for Luxury only; [them he hath bestowed,] both liberally, and also sparingly; [observing a Mean] between a parcimony and a profuseness. For, if the same plenty of those things which were made for orna­ment, had been granted; the Searchers after Met­tals, by reason of their over­much avarice, would have despised those [Mettals] that are of use for Husbandry, and Building, as well of Houses, as Ships; Iron namely, and Brass; and would have neglected the gathering of them toge­ther: but would have made it their whole bu­siness, to provide such things as serve for de­light, and a vain and fruitless superfluity of Riches. Wherefore, there is (they say) more of Difficulty and Labour, in finding Gold and Silver, than in finding all other Mettals what­ever: for this reason namely, that the soreness of the Labour may be opposed to the vehemency of the desire. How many other works of Divine Providence may besides be reckoned up; where­by, in all those things which it has plentifully conferred on us, it does plainly incite the Life of men to Modesty and the other Virtues, and draws [them] off from unseasonable and im­portunate desires? To find out the reason of all which things, is a greater Work than can be performed by man. For, how can the under­standing of a corruptible and infirm Creature, [...] It must be [...] as I found it written in the Fuketian Copy, after I had long before conjectured, that it was so to be written. Moreover, I point the whole place thus; [...] &c. [...] &c. Vales. arrive at the accuracy of truth? How can it apprehend the pure and sincere Will of God from the beginning?

CHAP. IX. Concerning the Philosophers, who, because they desired to know all things, erred as to their Opinions; In the very Ti­tle of the chapter there is a fault. For what can these words mean, [...]. But I think the place must be made good in this manner; [...]. Also, concerning the Opinions of Plato. And so 'tis plainly written in the Fuketian Copy. But, both in the Fuketian Copy, and also in the Kings Sheets, this chapter is begun from these words, [...], How many other works, &c. Vales. and some of them were exposed to dangers. Also, concerning the Opinions of Plato.

WHerefore, we ought to attempt those things that are possible, and which exceed not the capacity of Our Nature. For, the perswasiveness [...]. In the Fuk. and Turneb. Copies 'tis truer written, [...]. But in the Kings Sheets that word is omitted. I had ra­ther write also, [...], and have ren­dred it accordingly. Vales. of such matters as are found in Dia­logues and Disputations, does usually draw away most of us from the truth of things. And this befell many of the Philosophers, whilst they [...]. In the Sacred Scriptures this verb is used in such a sense, as to signifie, to exercise his wit; as Jacobus Tu­sanus has long since observed. Vales. See Psal. 119. 15; where this word occurs. exercise their wits in dis­courses, and in finding out the Nature of things. For, as often as the Greatness of things transcends their en­quiry, they Or, Hide. involve the Truth by various methods of arguing. Whence it hap­pens, that their Sentiments are contrary, and that they oppose one anothers Opinions: and this [they do] when they would pretend to be wise. From whence [have been occasioned] Commotions of the people, and severe Sentences of Princes [against them;] whilst they think, that the usages of their Ancestours are subver­ted by them. And their own ruine has very frequently been the consequence hereof. For Socrates, proud of his knowledge in disputing; [...]. The sense requires, that these words should be added, [...], and the stron­ger, more weak. This was the device of Protagoras, who promised young men, that he would make that reason which was stronger, more weak; and on the contrary, that which was weaker, more strong; [...]. Against the Sophists who promised these things, Socrates disputed con­tinually, that he might convince them that they knew nothing; and he pursued them with their own weapons, that is, arguments of Logick. Vales. when he would undertake to render Reasons that were weaker, more strong; and would frequent­ly make Sport in contradicting; was killed by the envy of those of his own Tribe, and of his fellow-citizens. Moreover Pythagoras, who pre­tended highly to the exercise of Temperance and Silence, was taken in a Lye. For, he de­clared to the Italians, that [...]. It must be made [...], from the Fuke­tian Copy.—What Constantine says (namely, that Pythagoras, after he was come into Egypt, and had heard what the Prophets had heretofore predicted; divulged those things afterwards all over Italy, as if God had revealed them to him;) seems to me scarce probable. Indeed, that Pythagoras came into Egypt, and there received from the Priests, the Mystick Rites and Ceremonies of their Religion; this, I say, is attested by Porphyrius in his Life, and by many o­thers▪ Moreover, we are told by Aristobulus, Clemens, and Eu­sebius, that Pythagoras had many things out of the Books of Moses. But, that he had learned the Prophecies of the Jews in Egypt, and had afterwards divulged them amongst the Italians; is a thing affirmed by none of the Ancients, that I know of. And perhaps this place is to be understood, not concerning the Pro­phecies of the Jews, but those of the Egyptians. For there were Prophets amongst the Egyptians, as I have observed in [...]y notes on Eusebius's Eccles. Hist. See book 4. chap. 8. note ( [...].) Which thing perhaps led Constantine into a mistake. Who having read, that Py­thagoras had learned many Secrets from the Prophets of the Egyptians, that is, their Priests; understood that as meant concerning the Pro­phets of the Hebrews. Vales. those things long before predicted by the Prophets, which he had heard whilst he was a Traveller in Aegypt, were revealed by God to him as 'twere in particular. Lastly Plato, the mildest and sweetest tempered person of them all, and the first man that drew off mens minds from the senses, to things intelli­gible, and such as always continue in the same state; accustoming men to look upwards, [...]. The conjunctive particle is wanting in the Fuk. and Savil. Copy, and in the Kings Sheets. I write therefore, [...], and instructing, as Sr Henry Savil read. Vales. and in­structing them to raise their eyes to things sublime; in the first place taught, that God was above every Or, Substance. Es­sence: wherein he did well. To Him he subjoyned a Se­cond; and in number distinguished the two Essences, although the perfection of them Both be one; and notwithstanding the Essence of the Second God, Or, Has its being. proceeds from the First. For He is the Framer and Governour of the Universe; and therefore transcends [all things.] But He who is the Second from Him, ministring to His Commands, ‖ ascribes the Constitution of* Or, Re­mits the Cause of the Constitution of all things to Him. all things to Him, as to the Cause. Therefore, according to the most accurate way of Philo­sophizing, there will be but One who takes the Care of all things, and consults their Good; God The Or▪ Word. Logos namely, who has beautified all things. Which Logos Himself being truly God, is also the Son of God. For, what other Name shall any one impose upon Him, besides the appellation of a Son, who at the same time shall not commit a sin of the deepest dye? For▪ He who is the Father of all, is deservedly esteemed the Father of His own Word also. Thus far Plato's Sentiments were right. But, in those things which follow, He is found to have wandred far from the Truth; whilst he both introduces a multitude of Gods, and also ascribes different Forms to each of them. Which was the occasion of a greater mistake amongst unthinking men: who do not consider the Pro­vidence of the most High God; but pay a ve­neration to Images framed by themselves, made according to the likeness of men, and some other Creatures. And thus it hapned, that that excellent He means Plato himself, whose excellent Wit, all the An­cients, yea the Christians also, were admirers of. Vales. Wit, and that Learning worthy of the highest Commendation, being mixt with some such errours as these, had in it less of purity and perfection. The same person seems to Me, to reprove Himself, and to correct that discourse; whilst he attests in express words, that the Rational Soul is the Spirit of God. For [...]. Christo­phorson seems to have read [...]. The place in Plato, which Constantine means, occurs in his Timaeus pag. 28. Vales. He divides all things into two sorts, intelligible namely and sensible: [the Former sort is simple and uncompounded,] the Latter consists of a Frame of Body. And, that is apprehended by the understanding; but this is perceived by Opinion with sense. Therefore, that which partakes of the Divine Spirit, in regard 'tis unmixt and immaterial, is also eternal, and has for its allotment an endless life. But, that which is sensible, be­cause 'tis dissolved the same way whereby it was at first framed, has no portion in an endless life. But, the Doctrine which Plato. he delivers in the following words, is highly admirable; that those who have lived well, the Souls namely of [Page 643] holy and good men, after their departure out of the Body, are consecrated in the most beauti­full [Mansions] of Heaven. [Which Asser­tion of his does not only deserve admiration,] [...]. Be­fore these words, after the verb [...], in the Gene­va-Edi­tion these words are inserted, [...], which assertion▪ &c: Christophorson, Scaliger, Bongarsius, and Gruter put in these words; as 'tis remark't at the margin of that Edition. I likewise found the same emendation in Mor [...]us's Book, in Turnebus's, Sr Henry Savil's, and in the Fuketian Copy▪ in which Copies also 'tis [...]. Vales. but is also highly usefull. For, what person giving credit to him, and expecting such a felicity, will not order his life in the best man­ner, will not exercise Righteousness and Tem­perance, and will not have an Aversion for wickedness? Agreeably to these words also, he has subjoyned, that the Souls of wicked men are tossed up and down in the Streams of Acheron and Pyriphlegon, floating [...]. I have rendred it, Navis fractae reli­quias, the Remains of a Shipwrack's Vessel; that is, The Tackle or Furniture of the Ship. For after a Shipwrack, these provisions and utensils of the Vessel, are tossed up and down in the Sea. But Christophorson renders it Merces, the Wares or Goods of the Mer­chant; a rendition that can in no wise be agreeable here. For when a Vessel is lost at Sea, most commonly the Goods sink to the bottome. Vales. like the Remains of a Shipwrack't Vessel.

CHAP. X. [...], It must be [...], not only, as the Lear­ned man, at the margin of Moraeus's Book, had conjectured it should be. And thus Christophorson read▪ nor is it otherwise written in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. Concerning those men, who do not only re­ject the Dogmata of the Sacred Scriptures, but them of the Philosophers, also: and, that we either ought to give the Poets credit in all things, or in nothing.

NEvertheless, there are some men so depraved as to their minds, that, when they reade these very discourses, neither care, nor are abashed with any thing of fear: but, as if they heard some forged Stories and Fables, they con­temn and laugh [at them.] They highly ex­tol a Variety and Fluency of expression; but abominate the solidness and severity of the That is, The more sublime and hidden Doctrines and parts of the Christian faith. Dogmata. [...]. I reade [...], &c. Vales. But, yet the same men give credit to the Fables of the Poets; and fill all Greece and the Barbarous Regions with vain and [...]. Christophor­son renders it ill, Praeconiis cele­brant. [...] here imports no­thing else but the Fables, where­with the Poets filled the world. So a little lower, speaking of the same Poets, he says, [...], They divulge the Fates of the same [Gods] also; and so in the eleven [...]h chapter, where he inveighs a­gainst Blasphemy or Impiety. Vales. false Stories. For the Poets affirm, that some men, Sons of the Gods, do judge Souls after death; and they constitute them the In­spectors and Triers of those departed, and celebrate their Sentences, and Judiciary pro­ceedings. But these very Poets commemorate the Fights of the Daemons, and Or, Laws. Rights of War amongst them. They divulge the Fates of the same [Gods] also. And affirm, that some of them are by nature cruel and austere; that others of them are strangers to all Care over men; and, that some of them are morose. Moreover, they bring in [the Gods] lamenting the slaughter of their own Sons; as if they were unable to give re­lief, not only to strangers, but to them also whom they love most entirely. They also feign them lyable to the same Passions and Troubles with men; whilst they sing their Wars and Wounds, their Joyes and Mournings. And they seem worthy of credit, when they affirm these things. For, whereas they attempt Poetry, in­cited thereto by some Divine motion; 'tis fit we should believe, and be perswaded by them, in reference to those things which they utter, [...], when a [...]e [...] by a sanatick fury. when moved by a Divine Spirit. They likewise re­late the Calamities of the Gods and Daemons. Indeed, their calamities are [...] ▪ It must, I suppose, be [...]; which I have followed in my Version. Vales. wholly agreeable with Truth. But some body will say, that 'tis lawfull for Poets to lye. For this ['tis asserted] is the Property of Poetry, to recreate the minds of the Hearers: but, [that is said] to be Truth, when what is spoken, is in it self no otherwise, than so as 'tis delivered. Let this be the property of Poetry, sometimes to conceal and withdraw the Truth. But, they who lye, never lye in vain and for nothing. For they do this, on account either of Gain and Profit; or else, being (as 'tis likely) conscious to themselves of some ill practise, they hide [the Truth,] out of a fear of that danger which the Laws threaten them with. [...]. I had rather reade, [...] ▪ and have rendred it accordingly. Vales. But doubtless, it might (in my judgment) be possible for them, when relating nothing save the Truth concerning the Divine Nature, neither to lye, nor act impiously.

CHAP. XI. Concerning Our Lord's Coming in the flesh, what it was, and for what reasons it has hapned.

IF therefore there be any person unworthy of [an acquaintance with] the best way of living, [...]. It must be written [...], and be conscious to himself▪ which I admire the Learned did not think of. Further, from the beginning of this period, that is, from these words [...], the eleventh chapter begins, both in the Sheets▪ and in the Fuketian Copy. And in this Manuscript, wherein the Contents are prefixt before each Chapter, this is the Inscription of this Chapter; [...], Concerning Our Lord's coming in the flesh, what [it was] and for what rea­sons it has hapned. And concerning those who knew not this My­stery; &c. But in the Kings Sheets, and in Robert Stephens's Edi­tion, which Christophorson has followed, this chapter is divided into two, and, concerning those who knew, &c, is the title of a new chapter. Vales. and be conscious to himself, that he hath lived wickedly and in a disordered man­ner; may he repent and look towards the Deity, having first clear'd the eye of his mind, and being made a stranger to his former most vitious courses. Nevertheless, he ought to rest satisfied▪ if even in his declining age he may [...]. Doubtless it must be [...], or [...], may attain; which I wonder neither Christophorson, nor Scaliger, nor others perceived; who have mended it, [...]. But, 'tis not Greek to say [...], but [...]. Yet in the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. Vales. attain wisdom. But, no Learning [that has proceeded] from men, was ever any assistance to Us. But, what­ever things are commendable in mens Lives and Morals, amongst those that have understanding [Page 644] are all accounted the Gifts of God. Moreover, [...]. Question­less it must be written [...], that is, a­gainst those poysoned d [...]r [...]s. Where, [...] is a preposition; which Sca­liger, Bongarsius, Curterius, and others saw not. So Constantine expresses himself in the fifteenth Chapter, near the beginning, [...]. Yet in the Fuketian Copy, and that of Tur­nebus, 'tis [...]. Vales. against those poysoned darts which the Devil has framed, I have no mean Buckler which I may oppose; the knowledge namely, of those mat­ters which are acceptable to God. [...]. Who would not admire, that Scaliger, Bongarsius, and the rest (out of whose Copies the emenda­tions are taken, and set at the margin of the Geneva-Edition,) should not have seen the true emendation of this place; which, ne­vertheless, is very obvious and easie. For, the words being parted, which had grown together into one, it must be written thus, [...], &c. The word [...], knowledge, is understood; which word was made use of a little before. But Christophorson ren­ders this place thus; Haec igitur commodè ad eum sermonem qui à me institutus est, delegi. Whence it appears, that either he has followed that emendation which occurs in the Books of Scaliger, Bongarsius, and Gruter; (which amendment I also found in Moraeus's Book,) or else that Scaliger and the rest, having followed Christophorson's Version, mended it in this manner: which latter I think truer. But, that amendment can't be born with. For, it departs too far from the footsteps of the vulgar reading, if instead of [...], you write [...]. Yet in the Fuketian and Savil. Copies, 'tis [...], &c. Vales. Out of which▪ [knowledge] having selected those things that are sutable to the discourse in hand, I will attempt to laud the Father of all things. [...]. In Moraeus's Book the Learned man had at the margin mended it, [...]. I think this whole place is to be read in one breath, thus; [...], &c. But, be Thou, &c. Which amendment the Kings Copy does confirm; wherein a point is set before the word [...]. From those words therefore the twelfth chapter is to be begun; although in the Kings Copy, and in Robert Stephens's Edition, a new chapter is begun from the word [...]. The Fuketian Manuscript does plainly con­firm our conjecture; wherein the reading is, [...], &c. But in the Kings Sheets I found it written, [...], as Christophorson read. In the same Sheets a new chapter is begun from those words which follow presently, [...], Some inconsiderate, &c. But, there is no need of beginning a new chapter here; in regard one is begun a little before, at, If therefore there be, &c, both in the Sheets, and in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. But, be Thou Thy Self (O Christ, Thou Saviour of all!) favourably present with this design of Our devotion, and do Thou adorn Our dis­course concerning Thine own power, prescribing to us the way and method of uttering praises. Farther, let no person expect, that he shall hear † an Oration garnished with a singular elegancy* Or, Names and things beautified with a cer­tain de­lectable­ness. of words. For I know accurately well, that that Oration which is soft and loose, and com­posed to please and allure, will be unacceptable to the prudent; when they who speak, make noyse and applause, rather than a sober and modest discourse, their Care and Business. Some incon­siderate and impious men do affirm, that Our Christ was deservedly condemned to punishment; and, that he who is the Authour of Life to the living, was himself deprived of life. But, 'tis not in the least strange, that [...]. Doubtless it must be written, [...]; But, 'tis not in the least strange, as 'tis written in the most excellent Fuketian Copy; whereto agree Sr Henry Savil's, and Christophorson's Copy. Vales. those who have once dared to be impious, and who have Or, Learnt nei­ther, &c. taken a resolution neither to be afraid, nor conceal their own wickedness, should assert this. But, that has exceeded the utmost degree of folly and madness, which they seem to have perswaded themselves of; that the immortal God underwent Force from men, and did not [suf­fer,] meerly out of his own benignity and kind­ness [towards them.] Nor do they consider, that magnanimity [...]. The two last words are added from Gruter's Book; which do likewise occur writ­ten at the margin of Moraeus's Copy. But, whereas they are not either in the Kings, or Fuketian Copy, or in Robert Ste­phen's-Edi­tion, there is no rea­son which may com­pel us to add them here. And perhaps it must be written, [...]; that term being brought hither which oc­curs in the foregoing line. Far­ther, this Disputation of Constantine is, in my judgment, designed against Por­phyrius, or some other Graecian Philosophers; who objected this a­gainst the Christians, because they asserted that Christ was crucified, and put to death by men. For thus they argued against the Chri­stians. If Christ be God, how could Force and Violence have been made use of against Him by men, in regard 'tis plain, that men are able to do nothing against God. Vales. In this Edition of Va­lesius's, the term [...] is left out, by a mistake of the Press I suppose; for 'tis in Stephens. and patience, is neither to be Or, Disturbed. changed by ignominy, nor remo­ved from its natural constancy and firmness by reproach; but, by conside­ration and an height of mind, does always break and beat back their fierceness, who invade and assault it. The Clemency of God had indeed resolved, wholly to destroy injustice, and to ad­vance Modesty and Equity. And therefore, having gathered together the [...]. So Constantine calls the Apostles; who nevertheless, 'tis-manifest, were illiterate and unskilfull persons. So also lower in this chapter, he terms the same persons [...], that is, men endued with an excellent wit. It was indeed Constantine's Sentiment, that we were to think honourably of the Apostles, whom the Church had so high a veneration for. But the holy Fathers speak far otherwise concerning the Apostles, and especially John Chrysostome; who confesses, that the Apostles were persons wholly ignorant and unskilfull; and from thence [...]etches a most cogent argument in con­firmation of the Christian faith; that illiterate men [had prevailed upon] the Philosophers; that the meanest sort of Fishermen of Judaea had perswaded the Romans, who were Conquerours of the world, to worship a person that was Crucified. Constantine repeats the same thing hereafter. Vales. wisest of men, That is, God's Cle­mency. it instituted a most beautifull and most advantagious doctrine to mankind; to the [...]. This term seems to be used instead of [...]; [and we have rendred it accordingly.] The meaning of this place is to be fetcht from a passage which occurs hereafter in this chapter where Constantine expresses himself thus; [...], But, this is the emi­nentest gift of Thy Clemency, that Thou hast rendred men, indued with a good, &c. For these two places borrow light one from the other. In the Fuk. Turneb. and Savil. Copies, the reading is [...], not [...]. Vales. end it might make the Good and Blessed, to emulate and admire his own providence, in reference to worldly affairs. Than which, what can be termed a greater Good? God Himself Or, Ad­ministring justice. prescribing the Laws of Justice, and rendring those, who shall deserve to be his disciples, like himself: to the end that, Good­ness and Virtue being diffused amongst all per­sons, an everlasting felicity might be procured for men. This is a Glorious Victory; this is true power; this is a mighty work, and most befitting [God;] the amendment namely of all people, and the reducing them to a better Tem­per. And to Thee O Thou Saviour of all, with praises and acclamations we ascribe the glory of this Victory! From these words a new chapter is begun in Robert Stephen's Edition, and in the Kings Copy; wherein these words are set at some little distance from the words foregoing. But in the excellent Fuke­tian Manuscript, and in the Sheets, there is no distinction made here. Vales. But, Thou, O wicked and in­famous Blasphemy, who dost advance Thy self by Lyes, Reports and Rumours every where publi­shed; Thou [I say] deceivest young men; and by perswasion dost impose upon youths, and those men who are endued with a childish dispo­sition; drawing them off from the worship of Him who is [...]. I had rather write it adverbially, [...]; [and have rendred it so.] And thus I found it plainly written in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. truly God; and erecting Images, to which they may pray, and pay an adoration! [Page 645] That so, being deceived, the Reward of their own senselessness may [...]. At this place [...] is taken in the same sense, wherein manet amongst the La­tines is sometimes used; as when 'tis said, te manet Capitolina pal­mata, that is, is provided for Thee. Graecians take the verb [...] in the same sense. So in Constantius's Letter to the Alex­andrians, which Athanasius re­cords in his Apologetick to the Emperour Constantius; [...]. Nevertheless, the Learned have from their own Copies long since mended it [...], may expect, or, wait: which emendation I found in the Books of Turnebus and Sr Henry Savil. The Fuketian Copy has [...], come upon them. Vales. await them. For they acouse and calumniate Christ the Authour of all Good, who is both God, and the Son of God. I [...] not this God de­servedly worship­ped by the Or, Modestest. So­berest and most prudent Nations and peo­ple? Who being possest of all manner of power; and al­ways continuing firm to his own purpose, has not made the least abatement of his innate Clemency. Be gone therefore, Ye Impious! (For that is permitted to You, in as much as no punishment is now inflicted on Your wicked­ness;) Begone, I say, to your slaughters of Victims, and to Your Banquets, Festivals, and Drunken Debauches. Wherein, under the Mask of Religion, you make pleasures and intemperance your business. You pretend indeed to perform Sacrifices; but in reality you serve your own Lusts. For you know nothing of Good, not so much as the first Command of the Great God; who has both prescribed Laws to mankind, and also given it in charge to his Son, that he should form and govern the Lives and Morals of men: to the end that they who shall lead their lives well and soberly, may, according to the Judgment of His Son, have a second Life allotted them, which will be blessed and happy. I have declared He means the Decree of God concerning the assuming manhood, or concerning the In­carnation, by which the life of men was repaired. 'Tis appa­rent therefore, that the Chapters are well digested by us; unless any one should have a mind, to make the tenth chapter reach to these words; which I should wil­lingly yield to. Vales. God's Decree concerning the Life of men, neither wandring in ignorance, as many do; nor yet led by guess, or conjecture. But some body will perhaps say, whence is this appellation of a Son; or, what is the man­ner of this Begetting; For there is but One only God, and He is wholly a Stranger to all Mixture and Copulation. But, it ought to be considered, that Generation is twofold; the one from Or, Birth. Con­ception, which is known to all men; the o­ther, from an Eternal Cause. The manner of which [Generation,] by the favour of Divine Providence that person sees even amongst men, [...]. Robert Stephens, in those va­rious Readings which he has remarked at the close of his Edition, gives notice, that in some Copies this place is read thus; [...], who is dear to him, that is, to God. Which doubtless is the true writing. For Constantine sayes, that the manner of a Na­tural Generation is known to all; but, that very few know the way of the Divine Generation; those namely whom God shall have a peculiar affection for. In the Kings Copy the reading is [...]. But in the Sheets 'tis written, [...]. But the Fuk. Savil. and Turneb. Copies give the true reading. Vales. who is dear to God. For, any wise man knows the Cause of the Disposition and order of the Universe. There being nothing there­fore which has not a Cause; 'tis necessary, that before all things which are, their Cause should exist. Where­as then the world, and the things therein, do ex­ist; and whereas the pre­servation of those things does exist also; 'tis neces­sary, that before all things which are, the Preserver should exist. So that, Christ Himself is the Cause [ [...]. The Geneva-men did ill, in admitting the two last words into the Text, from the conjecture of Scaliger, as 'tis noted at the margin. But, 'tis plain enough, that they are to be rejected. For, they both disturb the whole mea­ning of this place, and also occur not in the Manuscript-Copies▪ Vales. of preservation] of things, [...]. Christophor­son saw nothing at this place. But 'twas obvious to have been observed, that the reading here ought to be [...]. For here Constantine compares the Son with preservation, and the Father with the Pre­server. As therefore the Father is the Cause of the Son, but the Son, the Effect, or [...]: So the preserver is the Cause of the safety of all things; but safety is the Effect, or [...] of the Preserver. Vales. and preservation, the Effect. In the same manner as the The ancient Divines, those especially amongst the Greeks, af­firmed, that one person in the Trinity, God the Father namely, was the Cause; but, that the other Two, to wi [...] the Son and Holy Spirit, were the Causata, i. e. the Effects. So Athanasius in Quae­stion. Secund. chap. 11. and 12. [...], But the Son is not the Cause, but the Causatum. So also Johannes Damascenus in his first Book de Imaginibus, not far from the Beginning. Imago, say▪ he, Dei invisibilis est ipse Filius, The Image of the invisible God is the Son Himself, who bears the Father in Himself, and is in all things the same with Him, save in this one, that He is from Him, as from the Cause. For the Natural Cause is the Father, from which the Son proceeds. Also, Gregory Nazianzen, in Orat. 29, which is de Dogmate, does in ex­press words assert, that the Father is the Cause of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But, amongst the Latines, Marius Victorinus has exprest himself in the same manner, in his first Book against Arius.—Vales. Father is the cause of the Son; and the Son, the Effect. Now, that Christ Himself existed before all things, we have al­ready proved sufficiently. But in what manner came He down to men, and [why desoended He] into the world? The Intent and purpose [...]. Our Copies varie not here. Yet I would rather read [...], that is, of the Lord's Advent. Vales. of his Coming, as the Prophets have predicted, proceeded from His care over the Universe. For 'tis requisite, that the Framer should take care of His own Works. But, when he was about to Or, Ap­proach to a worldly Body. assume a terrene Body, and to stay upon Earth for some time, (necessity requiring this;) He devised for Himself a new way of being born. For the Conception [was] with­out a Marriage; and the Or, Birth. Child-birth of a pure Virginity; and a Virgin the Mother of God; and a Temporal Beginning of an Eter­nal Nature; and a Or, Sense. Perception of an intel­ligible Essence; and a [...]. It must, I think be written [...], as Christophorson read. For Constantine alludes to that place of Saint Paul, wherein Christ is termed the Brightness of the Glory of God the Father. See Hebr. 1. 3. In the Fuk. and Savil. Copies, 'tis [...]. Vales. mat­ter of an incorporeal Bright­ness. All things therefore, which then were seen, were agreeable hereto. [...]. In the Kings Copy at the margin, the word [...] is written, which is an explanation of the term [...]. The emendation therefore of Scaliger and the the rest is needless, who read [...]. Farther, this story of Constantine's is taken out of the Apocryphal Books, wherein 'twas related, that the Holy Ghost, under the shape of a Dove, descended into the Bosom of Mary, according a [...] the Angel had foretold to her. And perhaps these things were related in this manner, in the Gospel of the Hebrews. But Christophorson supposes that Dove to be meant here, which Noah heretofore sent out of the Ark: and that that Dove was a figure of the Holy Spirit, which was af­terwards to come upon the Virgin Mary. But I would rather read here, [...], a Bright Dove, &c. Thus the sense is plain and elegant. Vales. Abright Dove, [such a one as here­tofore] flew out of Noah's Ark, descended into the Bosome of the Uirgin. Those other things are likewise con­sonant, that were the con­sequences of this Or, un­touch't. unspotted [...]. After this word, as plac't in the Greek Text, I have set a point, from the authority of the Kings Copy: which Christophorson having not perceived, corrupted the meaning of this whole place, by adding some words. For thus he read; [...]. Nevertheless, the Fuketian Copy does plainly confirm this reading and punctation of Christophor­son; save that it has, [...]. As it is also in Turnebus's Book. Vales. Mar­riage, which is pu­rer than all Chastity, and [Page 646] more excellent than Continency it self. The [wonderfull] Wisdom of God from his very Cradle: and Jordan, [the River] which af­forded Him water for Baptism, receiving Him with a Reverence. Besides this, a Royal Un­ction Or, A­greeable. joyned with the knowledge of all things. A doctrine also, and power which performed wonderfull things, and healed incurable diseases. [...]; which Valesius renders thus, Mira denique celeritas in hominum▪ precibus audiendis, Lastly, a wonderfull swiftness in hearing mens prayers. And a swift and unhin­dred Assent to Humane prayers. And his whole life in general was benefi­cial and usefull to men. But, his Preaching [was such as might] not instill prudence, but wisedom: For his disciples did not learn those termed the [...]. Phi­losophers make two sorts of Vir­tues; the one [...], pra­ctical; which Constantine does here term [...], Civil; the other [...], contempla­tive, which leade our minds to the contemplation of God. Whence, some of Pythagoras's disciples were termed [...], others [...], as the Old Author concerning the Life of Pythagoras, in Photius's Biblio­theca chapt. 259, informs us. Farther, in the Fuketian Copy the reading of this place runs thus; [...], &c. The same also is the reading in the Books of Turnebus and Sr Henry Savil. But I agree with St Henry, who, after he had written this reading at the mar­gin of his own Book, blotted it out again, having added this note; Lectio vulgata retineri potest, paucis immutatis; the com­mon reading may be retained, a small alteration being made. Vales. Civil Virtues, but the paths which lead to an intelligible world; and laboured in the Con­templation of that Nature, which always continues in one and the same State; and made continual resear­ches into the notion of the supream Father. Now, as to his Favours and Acts of kindness, they were in no wise mean. Instead of [...], instead of soundness. Doubtless it is to be written, [...], Blind­ness. Presently, from the Kings Copy I have mended it, [...], instead of a faintness and weakness of body. And so it is in Sr Henry Savil's Copy. A lit­tle before, I had rather write, [...], instead of [...], &c. Vales. In Robert Stephen's, instead of [...], the reading is [...]. Blindness, sight; instead of faintness and a weakness of body, a sound and heal­thy constitution; Lastly, in­stead of death, a Restora­tion to Life. I omit that plentifull provision of Ne­cessaries for food in the Wilderness, and that abun­dance of all sorts, Or, In small, &c. raised from small quantities of Vi­ctuals, wherewith numerous multitudes were for a long space of time sufficed. This Thanksgiving, according as we are able, we render to Thee, Christ Thou God and Saviour, the supream Pro­vidence of the Great Fa­ther! Thou who savest us from Evils, and teachest us a Most Blessed Doctrine. For I speak not these words, that I might praise Thee, but in order to my giving Thee thanks. For who is he amongst men, that hath ever praised Thee ac­cording to Thy worth? For Thou art He, who art said to have created things of nothing; [...]. I reade, [...], &c. and to have given, &c. In the Kings Sheets, and in Sr Henry Savil's Book, the reading is [...], &c. But the Fuketian Copy has it, [...]. Vales. and to have given them light; and with Order and Measure to have beautified the Or, Dis­ordered confusion. confused heap of the Elements. But this is the eminentest Gift of Thy Clemency, that Thou hast rendred men, endued with a good disposition, Emulatours and Admirers of a Divine and Blessed life; [...]. Christophorson does here understand the verb [...], in common. Which though I condemn not, yet it does not seem necessary. In the Fuketian Copy, this place is thus read, [...], &c. without those words [...]. Vales. and hast taken order, that, ha­ving been made Merchants of those things which are truly good, they should impart their own wisedom and happiness to many others; and that they themselves should reap the immortal fruit of Virtue; being freed from Intemperance, but made partakers of Clemency; having mercy before their eyes, but hoping for the Or, Ex­pectation. Promises of Faith; lastly, [...]. After this word in the Greek, something seems to be wanting. Nor can it be made sense, unless you add these words, [...], &c. Which wri­ting I have followed in my Ver­sion. Vales. embra­cing Modesty and all man­ner of Virtue, [instead of injustice,] which the former Life of men had cast upon their Morals, [that it might be cut off] from him who makes provision for all things. For, no other person could be found, who might bee a fit Physitian for the curing such great Evils, and that injustice, which had prevailed in that age. Providence therefore coming even to the Earth it self, easily composed and beau­tified all things, which by wickedness and in­temperance had been disordered. Nor [did Christ perform] this secretly and in a con­cealed manner. For he knew, that there were some men, who with prudence and understanding would [...], would contemplate their own power. I doubt not but it should be read [...], his own power. Which is plainly evidenced from the fol­lowing words. For Constantine gives the reason, why Christ, who had come to cure the Diseases and Vices of men, and to bring news of a blessed and happy life in heaven, would perform so many Miracles on earth, by restoring eyes to the blind, health to the sick, life to the dead. This therefore, he says, he did, in favour of those whose understandings are more slow and heavy; that they might not doubt of his virtue and power, in regard they saw him perform so many Miracles. These are they, whom a little after he terms [...], ill men. Vales. contemplate his own power: but, that others, in regard as to their Nature they were like irrational creatures, would Or, Stick to. relye upon their own senses rather. [...]. I have, as I think, restored this place very happily; although Scaliger, Bongarsius, and others, whose amendments occur at the margin of the Geneva-Edition, saw nothing in it. But I have restored this place to its for­mer Lustre, and have in a manner made no alteration at all; thus; [...], and have rendred it accordingly. There is nothing more certain than this reading. Indeed, the Fuketian Copy agrees with the reading of Scaliger and Bongar­sius. But I have found from many places, that the authority of this Copy is sometimes weak. Which thing is evident enough, even from this one place. Vales. Wherefore, that no per­son, whether good or ill, might be in doubt; [he performed it] openly, and hath exposed this Blessed­ness and admirable Cure to publick view: restoring a­gain▪ to life, those that were dead; and commanding, that such as had been deprived of their senses, should again recover their former sound­ness of sense. But, that he rendred the Sea solid, and in the midst of a Storm or­dered a Calm to arise; and in fine, that (after he had performed wonderfull works, and from an incredulity had brought men over to a most strong Faith;) He Or, Flew away to, &c. ascended up into Heaven; whose work was this, save God's, and [a performance] of a most transcendent power? Nor did that time, which was nearest to his Passion, want those Sights that were highly admirable; when the darkness of night obscured the brightness of day, and Or, Blotted out the Sun. totally eclips'd the Sun. For, a terrour had seized all people every where, [who believed] that the end of all things was now come, and that a Chaos, such a one as had been before the Composure of the World, would now prevail. Moreover, the Cause of so great a Calamity was inquired into, and what horrid im­piety that might be, which had been committed by men against the Deity. [...]. I write [...], and have rendred it according­ly. Vales. Till such time as, with a pleasing greatness of mind, God had [Page 647] with contempt look't upon the contumely of the Im­pious, and had restored all things, and beauti­fied the whole Heaven with the usual Or, Daunce. course of the Stars. The Face therefore of the world, which [...]. There was no need of the Emen­dation of the Learned, who make it [...]; in regard [...] may also be used adverbially, instead of [...]. Yet in the Fuk. and Turneb. Copies, 'tis [...]. Vales. in a manner had been wholly covered with mourning and sadness, was again restored to its Or, Own. Native beauty.

CHAP. XII. Concerning those who knew not this Mystery; and, that their ignorance is voluntary; and, what great blessings await those who know it, and especially them who have died in Con­fession.

From these words the twelfth chapter is to be be­gun: Con­cerning those who knew not this Mystery; &c. For hitherto Constantine has treated about the Coming of Our Lord, and on what ac­count Christ descended to the Earth. But now he treats of those persons, who have been ignorant of this Mystery. Vales. BUt, some one of those, with whom 'tis usual to blaspheme, will peradventure say, that God was able to have made the will of men better, and more tractable and mild. [I demand] therefore, what better method, what more ef­fectual attempt in order to the amendment of ill men, than God's own speaking to them? Has not He, when present and ren­dred visible to all, taught them modestie and sobriety of life? If therefore the Command of a God who was present; hath availed no­thing; how could [the admonition] of one absent and un-heard, be of force? What there­fore was the Obstacle of that most Blessed Doctrine? The perverse, untractable, and fierce humour of men. For, when with an angry and displeased mind we receive those things which are well and fitly enjoyned, the Or, So­briety of the mind is spoyled and defac't. acuteness of our understanding is dull'd as 'twere, and clou­ded. [...]. I had rather write, [...], Besides, &c. For Constan­tine brings two reasons, why the Heathens embraced not the preaching of Christ. Vales. Besides, it was plea­sure to them, to neglect the commands; and in a loa­thing and disdainfull man­ner to give ear to the Law that was made. For, had they not been negligent and careless, they had received rewards befitting their attention, not only in this life present, but in that to come also, which is really and truly The Life. For, the reward of those who obey God, is an immortal and eternal Life. The attai­ning whereof is possible to them only, who shall know God, and shall propose their own lives, as some perpetual Pattern, or Sample. Exemplar, for their imitation, [...]. 'Tis an elegant Greek-phrase, this, [...]; spoken concerning those who frame their lives in order to the imitation of every thing that is best. For they who have a mind to make a great pro­gress in Virtue, ought to set some person before their eyes, whom they may imitate. Thus the Emperour Julian framed his own Actions and Morals, in imitation of Prince Marcus, as Amm. Marcellinus re­lates. Vales. that have resolved to live by way of Emu­lation with a desire of excelling. On this ac­count therefore the Doctrine was delivered to the wise, that what they shall command, might [...]. It must be written [...], in a pure mind; as the reading is in the Fuketian Copy. Where­in likewise it is, [...], excellently well. Vales. in a pure mind be preserved with care, by their companions; and that the observance of God's Command might thus continue true and firm. For, from such an observance, and from a pure Faith, and a sincere Devotion towards God, springs a fearlesness and contempt of Death. [Such a mind as this] therefore, gives a resi­stance to the Storms and Tumults of the world, [...]. In the Books of Scali­ger, Bongarsius, and Gruter, this place is worded thus; [...]: which writing I likewise found in the Fuketian Copy. But Sr Henry Savil in his Copy has mended it thus, [...], &c. And so Christo­phorson read. But the common reading, which I found in the Kings Copy, and in the Sheets, is in my judgment far better; and therefore we have followed it in our Version. Vales. being fortified in order to Martyrdom, by an inexpug­nable strength of Divine Virtue. And when with a magnanimity it has conquered the greatest Terrours, it is vouchsafed a Crown from Him, [...]. I doubt not but it should be, [...], &c, to whom, which I wonder Christophorson and the rest perceived not. Vales. to whom with cou­rage and constancy it hath born witness. Nevertheless, it does not boast in respect hereof. For, it knows I suppose, that even this is the Gift of God, that it has both endured Tortures, and hath also chearfully ful­filled the Divine Commands. Farther, such a life as this is followed by an immortal Memory, and an Eternal Glory; and that most deser­vedly. For, both the life of a Martyr is found to be full of modesty, and of a Religious observance of the Divine Com­mands; and [...]. Que­stionless it must be written, [...], and his death, that the sense may be com­pleat. Far­ther, this place con­cerning the Martyrs, is a most ele­gant one. Vales. his death likewise [appears] full of magnanimity and Or, Nobility. Gallantry. Wherefore, Hymns, Psalms, commen­dations, and praises are after this sung to God the Inspectour of all things; and such a And this passage is very re­markable, concerning the Sacrifice of thanksgiving, which was offered to God in memory and honour of the Martyrs. For so these words [...] are to be explained, which Christophorson understood not. For the Christians did not offer sacrifice to the Martyrs; but only to God; giving him thanks, that he had conferr'd on them a Crown of Martyrdom, as St Augustine writes, Book 8. de Civitat. Dei, Chap. the last. And this is what Constantine does here term [...], a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving. But, because the Chri­stians offered to God this unbloudy Sacrifice, at the Monuments and Sepulchres of the Martyrs, that they might give him thanks for the rewards of the Martyrs, and for their Crowns and Victories; there­fore Constantine says this honour was given to the Martyrs. Vales. Sacrifice of thanksgiving as this, is per­formed in memory of these persons: [a Sa­crifice] not polluted with bloud, and void of all manner of violence. Neither is the Odour of Frankincense required, nor a kindling of the Funeral-pile: but a pure Light only, as much as may be sufficient for the enlightning them, who pray to God. Sober Concerning these Banquets and Feasts of the Christians, which were made at the Sepulchres of the Martyrs, mention is made by St Austin, at the book and chapter now cited, in these words. Qui­cunque etiam epulas suas eò deferuns, &c. Also, whoever carry their Banquets thither, which is not indeed done by the better Christians, and in many parts of the world there is no such Custome: Yet, Whoever do that, when they have set them [there,] they pray, and take them away that they may eat them; or distribute also of them to the indigent; they will have them sanctified there, by the merits of the Martyrs, in the name of the Lord of the Martyrs. Farther, at first these Feasts were sober and moderate. But afterwards, when licentiousness was ar­rived at a greater height, they were perverted to Drunkenness and Lasciviousness. And therefore in most places they were wholly abolished, as St Austin attests, Epist. 64. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading is [...], not [...] as 'tis in the the ordinary Editions. Vales. Feasts and Ban­quets are likewise celebrated by many, made for the relief and refreshment of the indigent, and to help them who have been deprived [of their Estates and Country.] Which [Banquets] should any one think to be burthensome and in­convenient, his Sentiment would be repugnant to the Divine and most Blessed Or, Doctrine. Discipline.

CHAP. XIII. That a difference of the parts of the Creation is necessary; and that a propensity to Good and Evil, springs from the will of men: and therefore, that the Judgment [of God] is necessary, and agreeable to Reason.

BUt now, some persons do boldly and incon­siderately presume, to find fault with God [...]. I had ra­ther write, [...], even in this matter; as I found it men­ded in the margin of Moraeus's Book. And so 'tis written in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. even in this matter. What was his meaning [say they,] that he has not framed the nature of things, one and the same; but has commanded, that even most things should be produced different, and there­fore should be endued with a nature and disposition that are contrary▪ Whence springs a diversity of the Morals and Wills of us men. It had perad­venture been better, both as to what respects an obedience to the Commands of God, and as to an accurate Knowledge, or, Comprehen­sion. Contempla­tion of Him, and in refe­rence to a confirmation [...]. It must, I suppose, be [...], of the faith of every particular person. Vales. of the Faith of every parti­cular person; that all men had been endued with one and the same disposition. But [we answer,] 'tis al­together ridiculous to de­sire, that all men should be of one and the same hu­mour and disposition: [and 'tis absurd] not to consider and remark this, that the [...]. I had rather make it, [...]; which we have exprest in our Ver­sion. Vales. constitution of the whole world is not the same, with that of those things which are in the world: or this, that Natural things are not of the same substance with those that are Moral: Or Lastly this, that the Af­fections of the Body are not the same with those of the Mind. [...]. After these, there are ma­ny words wanting, as 'tis appa­rent from the Contents of the Chapter. We chose to get out any sense from a corrupt and im­perfect place, rather than with Christophorson to expunge the whole passage. Sr Henry Savil, in his Copy, has also expunged this whole period, as far as those words, [...], &c. Neither is mankind, &c. Indeed, in the Fuketian Copy that whole period is wanting. Vales. For, [the ratio­nal Soul does far ex­cel] this whole world; and is so much more blessed than Creatures that are earthly and lyable to Corruption, by how much it is nobler and more divine: neither is man­kind void of the divine good­ness. Nevertheless, all men are not promiscuously and without any thing of dif­ference [partakers of the Divine Goodness:] but those only, who have search't into the Divine Nature, and who have proposed to themselves this, as their chief purpose of Life and primary Study, the knowledge namely of things Divine.

CHAP. XIV. That a created Nature is at a vast distance from an Essence which is uncreated: and, that man Or, Is made a neighbour to it; that is, to an uncreated essence, by a life according to Virtue. approaches nearest to God, by a virtuous Life.

MOreover, to compare things that are made, with them which be eternal, is que­stionless the highest degree of madness. For these have neither beginning, nor end. But those, in regard they are brought forth and begotten; and because they have received a be­ginning both of their existing, and of their living for some set time; must consequently of necessity have an end also. But, how can those things which are [...]. Christo­phorson seems to have read [...], begotten; which reading pleases me best. Vales. begotten, be any ways compared with him, who hath commanded them to be begotten? [...]. I am of o­pinion, that this place is to be corrected thus; [...]; For, if, &c. That is, if the things which are made, be equal to God, that Command whereby he has ordered them to be made, would not be agreeable to him. For, an equal can't have authority and empire over an e­qual. Away therefore with the Emendation of Learned men, which I found in the Fuketian Copy, and in Moraeus's Book; namely this, [...], For if it be mad­ness to liken these things to him, the Command, &c. But if you reade thus, there is no sense; nor will the following words cohere with the foregoing. Chri­stophorson had indeed found it so in his Books, as 'tis visible from his Version. But, the common reading is supported by the au­thority of the Kings Copy, and the Old Sheets. Vales. For, if these things were equal to him, the Command where­by he ordered them to be produced, would in no wise fit and be agreeable to him. But, neither can things ce­lestial be compared with him; in the same manner that the sensible world [is not to be compared] with the Intelligible; nor Images, with the Originals. [...]. Mus­culus seems to have read [...], which I am extraordina­rily pleased with; For he ren­ders it; Quomodo autem om­nium comparatio non ridicula est, But, how is not the compa­ring of all things ridiculous, &c. Certainly, 'tis either thus to be read, or to be understood thus. For Constantine terms that equal­ling of all things, a confusion. Vales. But, is not the confusing and mix­ing of all things, a thing wholly ridiculous? in regard the dignity of the Divine Nature would be Or, Covered. clouded, [...]. Without doubt it must be [...]. For thus Constantine argues. Even things Celestial, says he, cannot be compared with God. Much less things Terrestrial▪ and Brutes. This is the meaning of this place. But the Manuscript Copies of Christophorson, Sr Henry Savil, Gruter, and Mr Fuket, word this place thus; [...], in regard the dignity of, &c. Which reading seems to me better, and more ele­gant. Vales. by a comparing of it with men, or with beasts. And, is not a desire of power, which might strive to equal the power of God, is not [I say such a de­sire] to be esteemed as pe­culiar to madmen and such as abhor a sober, modest, and virtuous course of Life? For if with earnestness we strive to attain divine fe­licity, we ought to leade our lives according to the Com­mand of God. For by this means, when we shall have lived in Conformity to that Law appoynted by God; be­ing made superiour to all Fate, we shall take up our Residence in immortal and eternal Mansions. For, this is the only strength in man, which is like to the divine power, [namely] a sincere and unfeigned worship paid to God; and a conversion to him; and a contemplation and knowledge of those things which are accepta­ble to the Deity: not to be enclined towards the Earth; but as far as we are able, to raise our minds to things sublime and celestial. For by such an [Page 649] endeavour a [...] this, [...]. He seems to allude to those passages we meet with in the second and third Chapter of the Revelations; where God says: Vincenti dabo Coronam, To him that overcometh I will give a Crown, &c. Indeed the life of a Christian man is wont to be compared to Champions, as it frequently occurs in St Paul's Epistles. But the word [...] is re­dundant, after the usual manner of Graecians, as 'tis well known to those skilled in the Greek Tongue. Vales. a Victory is procured for us, Or, In place of ma­ny goods. of equal value with many Bles­sings. The cause therefore of the dis­similitude of things, Or, Both as to digni­ty, and in a diversity of power. which is plac't in a distance both of dignity and power, has this reason. Wherein they who are wise, do willingly acquiesce, and are eminently thankfull. But the ingratefull, and the foolish, re­ceive a punishment [...]. In the Kings Copy 'tis [...], as Robert Stephens has also remarked in his Various Readings. I read therefore, [...], befitting, or, agreeable to; with Christophorson, Scaliger, Gruter, and others: or [...], which comes nearer to the footsteps of the written reading. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis, [...]. Vales. befitting their arrogance.

CHAP. XV. What Precepts Our Saviour delivered, and what Miracles He wrought; and how beneficial He hath been to those who own a subjection to Him.

FArther, the Son of God exhorts all men to Virtue, and constitutes himself a Teacher to such as are prudent, [instructing them] [...], in the Saviour's Commands. It should, I think, be made, [...]. in the Precepts of Salvation; as 'tis noted in the margin of the Geneva-Edition. You may also write, [...], &c, in the Father's Com­mands. For the mistake seems to have risen from a contracted way of writing. In the Kings, and Fuketian Copy, and in the Sheets, at this place 'tis thus written, [...]. Vales. in the Father's commands. Unless we forget our selves, being wretchedly ignorant, that for the sake of our ad­vantage, that is, on account of mens blessedness, He tra­velled up and down on earth; and having called together to himself the best men of [...], &c. Christophorson has rendred this place thus: Et ex illis qui id tem­poris hominum vitae adjumento fu­erunt, longè optimos advocasse ad [...], and had called to himself, by far the best of those men, who at that time were an assistance to the life of men. But, who ever exprest himself in this manner, [...], the best men of the most usefull? Wherefore, I doubt not, but this place is thus to be mended and pointed; [...], and having called toge­ther unto, &c, as we have ren­dred it. In the Fuketian and Turnebian Copies, the reading is [...]. Vales. those times, he delivered them a most use­full Doctrine, the preser­vative as 'twere of a sober life; teaching them Faith and Justice, against the Envy of the Or, Ad­verse Na­ture. Maliti­ous Devil, whose delight it is to [...]. In Tur­nebus's, and Moraus's Book, 'tis mended [...], &c, to allure and deceive, &c. But the Fuketian Copy has it truer written, [...]. Vales. allure and de­ceive the unskilfull. There­fore, he visited the sick; and eased the infirm of those ills, wherewith they were surrounded. He like­wise administred comfort to those, who were reduced to an extremity of poverty and indigency. He highly ex­tolled [...]. In Robert Stephens's Edition it was Printed, [...]; which reading is confirmed by the Kings and Fuketian Copy, and by the Sheets. But in Moraeus's Book I found it mended [...]; and I don't understand why the Ge­neva-men admitted this emendation into the Text. [...] has the same import with [...]. St Paul calls it Sapere ad sobrietatem, to think soberly, or, to sobriety. Vales. a sober modest and quiet temper of mind, joyned with reason; and gave com­mand, that with a courage and patience of mind we should bear all manner of injury, and every sort of contempt: teaching us, that the [...]. I had rather write [...], as 'tis noted in the margin of the Geneva-Edition. For, 'tis our common usage to term such Calamities as these, which do sometimes happen to good men, the Visitations of God. But Chri­stophorson has followed the com­mon reading; and renders it Mandatum, the Command. Vales. Visitation of his Father is of this sort: so that, they who could magna­nimously endure accidents, might always obtain the Victory. For he affirmed, that this is the most su­perlative degree of strength, [namely] a constancy of mind joyned with Philoso­phy; which is nothing else but a knowledge [...]. In Moraus's Book the Learned man has mended it at the Margin, [...], which displeases not. For there are many Platonick Expressions in this Oration. Vales. of what is True and Good, accusto­ming those who get riches fairly and justly, to impart what they possess, by a kind and liberal distribution to the poorer sort. But he whol­ly forbids mastership, and bearing sway over o­thers; openly declaring, that as he came to give assistance to the humble, so he would desist from favouring those, who should disrespect the hum­ble. Having therefore made Tryal of the Faith of those people subject to him, by such and so powerfull an Experiment, he rendred them not only Contemmers of the terriblest and most for­midable things, but most genuine disciples also of an hope and confidence in himself. More­over, he once sharply rebuked, and by his words represt one of his Companions, who had Or, Gi­ven place to anger. been over much heated with anger. That [Dis­ciple] had [...]. I read [...], as 'tis in Mo­raeus's Book; wherein 'tis also mended, [...], not ill. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis like­wise [...], and we have rendred it accordingly. Vales. with a drawn sword made an assault upon some body; exposing his own life, that he might assist our Saviour. But [his Lord] commanded him to be quiet, and to put up his Sword; reproving the man severely, because he had dispaired of a defence and refuge in Him Himself. And he enacted a Law in express words, that [...]. This place is thus to be restored from the Fuketian and Turneb. Copies, [...], &c. As to the following clause. [...], I had rather write thus, [...], or should attempt to resist him, &c. Vales. whoever should begin an assault upon ano­ther with the hands of Vi­olence, or should attempt to injure him who had begun, or [whoever in general] should make use of the sword, should perish by a violent death. This is most un­doubtedly the Celestial wise­dom, to choose to be in­jured, rather than to in­jure; and, as often as ne­cessity shall require, to be in a readiness to undergo, ra­ther than do evil. [...]. In Moraeus's Book, the Learned man hath set these words at the margin, [...] There are indeed many passages in this Oration, taken out of Plato's Philosophy; which the Learned Reader will of himself acknowledge. Vales. For, whereas the mischief of be­ing injurious is very great; not he who suffers the wrong, but he that does it, Or, Is encompast with. incurrs the heaviest punish­ment. Farther, [...]. In the Fuketian and Turneb. Coples, the reading is [...]. Vales. 'tis in the power of him who pays an obedience to God, neither to do, nor suf­fer an injury; provided he places his confidence in the protection of God, [Page 650] who is present with, and gives him assistance; to the end no one of His Subjects may re­ceive any harm. But, how should he [endea­vour] [...]. Sca­liger, Gruter, and others have mended it, [...], which emendation I like­wise found written in Moraeus's Book. It might also be written, [...], the two last words being left out; which, as every one sees, are not very necessary here. But the Fuketian Manuscript agrees with those Books of Scaliger and Gruter. Vales. to assist himself, who puts his trust in God? For, by this means a [...]. I doubt not but it should be written, [...]. Where [...] is made use of instead of [...], or [...]. But the Translatour who rendred this O­ration of Constantine into Greek, had but little skill in the Greek tongue, and was careless enough, as 'tis apparent from many pla­ces. Constantine gives a reason here, why the worshippers of the supream God would never re­venge themselves, nor resist force by force. For, should they do that, saith he, they must fight with their adversary, but they would be uncertain of the Victory. But, if they shall in no wise defend themselves, then they have a most certain Victory; for God fights for them. This is the meaning of this place, which (I admire at it,) neither Christophorson nor Muscu­lus understood. Vales. Fight betwixt two would ensue, and a doubtfull and uncer­tain Victory. But, no man of understanding preferrs du­bious matters, before those that are fixt and certain. But, how will he make any scruple about God's presence and assistance, who has had experience of so many perills, and has always been easily delivered from dangers, by the [...], by the will of the only God. It must be made [...] &c, by the sole &c, as I found it mended in Moraeus's Book. And a little after I read [...], as 'tis in the same Book. For [...] is un­derstood. In the Fuketian Copy and Old sheets, the reading is [...]. Vales. sole will and pleasure of God; who has walkt thorow the Sea, which by our Saviour's command was paved, and afforded a solid and firm way to the people that passed over it. For this, as I suppose, is the most evident and firm Ground­work. Basis of faith, this is the Foundation of confidence; when we behold these ad­mirable and incredible things performed and perfected by the command of the provi­dent God. Hence likewise it happens, that [...]. I would rather write [...], in the Nominative case. For that seems to me far more elegant. Presently, the reading must doubtless be, [...], &c. For the verb [...] is understood, which is used a little before. In the Fuketian Copy, and in the Sheets, the reading is, [...], &c. when any trial of Cala­mities falls out, &c. Vales. when any one falls into the trial of Calamities, he does [...]. In the Fu­ketian Manuscript. 'tis [...]. Vales. not re­pent himself of his Faith, and retains his hope in God firm and unshaken. Which habit being once firmly fixt in the mind, God takes up his habitation in the inmost thought. And whereas he is invincible; that mind al­so, which in its inmost thought [...]. At the mar­gin of the Moraean Copy 'tis men­ded▪ [...], posses­ses him, &c. Which reading Chri­stophorson has followed. And so 'tis written in the Fuketian Manuscript. Vales. possesses him that is thus invincible, can ne­ver be vanquished by those dangers that surround it. [...]. I read [...], Besides, we have, where [...] is taken adverbially, for [...]. Vales. Besides, we have learn't this very thing from God's own Victory; who, whilst he was making provision for the good of all men, when reproacht and insulted over by the impious and unjust, received no damage from his passion, but obtained a most Glorious Victory over wickedness, and was en­circled with an immortal Crown: having brought to effect the design and pur­pose of his own providence and love, towards the just; but, trampled upon the Cruelty of the unjust and Impious.

CHAP. XVI. That the Coming of Christ is foretold by the Prophets; and, that He was appointed for the destruction of Idols, and Idolatrous Cities.

MOreover, his Passion was long since fore­shewed by the Prophets; and his Corporal Nativity foretold. The very time likewise of his Incarnation was pre­dicted, [...]. In Mo­raeus's Book, at the margin 'tis mended, [...], which reading Christophorson has exprest in his Version. To me this expression seems scarce Greek. Therefore I had rather write, [...], wherein, &c. Yet in the Fuke­tian Copy 'tis, [...], &c. Vales. wherein the Shoots springing from injustice and intemperance, which are hurt­full to just actions and Mo­rals, might be destroyed; and [wherein] the whole world might be made par­taker of Prudence and Mo­desty; that Law namely, which our Saviour has pro­mulged, prevailing upon the minds of almost all men; the worship of the Deity being confirmed and establisht; and superstition wholly abo­lished. On account of which [superstition,] not only slaughters of irrational Creatures, but Sa­crifices of humane Bodies also, and detestable pollutions of Altars were exercised: for accor­ding to the Assyrian and Egyptian Laws, Or, just Souls. in­nocent men were Sacrificed to Brazen or earthen images. Wherefore, the Fruit they reapt, was a­greeable to such a Religion. Memphis [says he] and Babylon shall be made desolate; and both of them, with the Gods of their Countries, shall be left unin­habited. Nor do I relate these things from report and hear say; but I my self was present and saw them; [...]. Con­stantine says, that he himself had been a spectatour of the ruine and destruction of those two Cities, Memphis namely and Babylon, which had heretofore been most potent. We must therefore make enquiry, at what time Constan­tine might go to those places. Whilst he was but a youth he went in­to Egypt▪ at such time as he had a Military Employ in the Court of Dio­cletian, by whom he was kept as an Hostage. For Diocletian waged a War many years in Egypt, against Achilleu [...] who had rebelled in E­gypt, as Eutropius relates. Out of Egypt, Constantine went afterwards, in company with Diocletian, into Syria, and past through the Province of Palestine, where he was first seen by Eusebius, as he himself attests. Now Diocletian had made a journey into Syria, that with his own Forces he might assist Galerius Caesar, who waged a War with the Persian. And he made a long stay in Syria, in order to his making a Peace with the Persians, as we are informed from the History of Petrus Patricius. At that time therefore Constantine might take a View of the Rubbish and Remains of the City Babylon. Vales. and was made an eye-witness of the miserable and calamitous fortune of those Ci­ties. I am of opinion, that this place is corrupted meerly by the mis­placing of the words. For the sense is most apparent, if you restore the words in this manner; [...]; Memphis lyes desolate, &c. What is more plain than these words? The import of [...] here, is glory, [...], that boasting, wherewith namely Pharaoh pust himself up. Away therefore with the conjecture of Christophorson, Gruter, and others. And this was here­tofore our conjecture concerning the reading of this place. But after we had gotten the Fuketian Copy, we found out the true and genuine reading. For in that Manuscript, this passage occurs worded thus: [...], &c. And thus 'tis plainly read in Turnebus's, and Gruter's Book; save only, that that punctation we have made use of, is peculiar to the Fuketian Copy only; wherein, after the word [...], a point is set. The Translatour therefore of this Oration has used [...] in the Genitive case, whereas he ought to have said [...]. Moreover, [...] is put instead of [...]. This then is the import of this reading; and was made an eye­witness of Memphis the miserablest and most unfortunate of Cities. But Moses, according to the Divine Command, has laid wast the Country of the then most powerfull Pharaoh, &c. Farther, according to this reading, Constantine affirms, that Memphis only was seen by him; which I do indeed look upon to be truer. For he could never see Babylon, in regard he had never gone into Assyria. In the Kings Sheets, the reading of this place runs thus; [...], as in the ordinary Editions. But in the Kings Copy 'tis [...], as Stephens has publisht it. Sr Henry Savil in his Book has mended this place thus; [...], &c. But, that expression [...] would be foolish and trifling, nor would it agree with the following words. Besides, neither has Christophorson retained those words in his Version. Vales. Memphis lyes desolate, that Pride and Glory of the then most powerfull Pharaoh.

[Page 651] [...]. Chri­stophorson renders it, quem inso­lentiâ ela­tum perfre­git, whom raised with insolency he broke in pieces. Whence it appears, that he put in [...], or some such word. But there is no need of this Emendation, in regard [...] may be taken in the Nominative Case. In­deed, in all Our Copies, the Kings, the Fuketian, and the Sheets, this word occurs without the [...] subscript. So he expresses him­self below, chap. 19, [...], &c. Vales. Whom Moses ruined according to the Divine Command: and destroyed his Forces (which had gained the Victory over many, and the greatest Nations,) whilst well fortified [...]. It must I think be made [...], and compleatly furnished with Arms. Presently, where the reading is [...], a quiet supplication; I had rather write [...], humble. In the Fuketian Copy and the Kings Sheets the reading is [...]. Nor does Sr Henry Savil's con­jecture displease me, who has mended it, [...]. Vales. and compleatly furnished with Arms; not by the shooting of Arrows, or the throwing of Darts; but by an Holy Prayer only, and a quiet Sup­plication.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning the wisedom of Moses, which was emulated by the Wise Men amongst the Hea­thens; also concerning Daniel, and the Three Children.

FArther, no people ever were, or could have been blesseder than The Is­raelites. that [Nation;] had they not voluntarily alienated their minds from the Divine Spirit. But, what man is he, that can speak concerning Moses according as he deserves? Who having reduced Or, A disordered people. the confused multitude of the Jews into Order, and beautified their minds with Obedience and Modesty; in­stead of Captivity, conferred on them Liberty; instead of their sadness, rendred them joyfull. Who raised those mens minds to such an height, that by reason of the [unhop'd-for] change of their Affairs for the better, and because of their fortunate successes and Victories, they became puft up with pride and insolence. Who in wise­dom so far excelled those that had lived before him, that those persons which are most cele­brated by the Gentiles, whe­ther wise men [...]. A particle seems to be omitted here, which if inserted, the passage would be made far more elegant. I write therefore, [...], that is, whether wise men or Philosophers. Vales. or Philo­sophers, have been Emula­tours of His Wisdom. For Pythagoras having imitated his wisedom, has been so highly fam'd for his Mode­sty, that that most Or, Modest. prudent and sober person Plato, propo­sed his abstinence as a pattern for his own imita­tion. After he has spoken concer­ning the Egyptians, and concerning the destruction of Memphis; he passes to the Assyrians, and to the desolation of Babylon. And on occasion of the Egyptians, he has inserted the praise of Moses. But now treating concerning the Assyrians, he prosecutes Daniel's praises, who lived a Captive amongst the Assyrians or Babylonians. Vales. Daniel also, he who foretold things fu­ture, who shewed a Pattern, Specimen of a most transcendent greatness of mind, and who was egregiously eminent for the Or, Beauty▪ San­ctity of his Morals and his whole Life; what and how rigorous a Cruelty did he vanquish, of that Tyrant which then reigned in Syria? His name was Nabuchodonosor; all whose Race being now extinct, that vast and formidable power is transferred to the Persians. The riches of that Tyrant▪ were, and to this very day are, much spoken of in all mens discourses; as likewise his unmeet and foolish Care about a misbecoming worship; and At this place these words [ [...]] are wanting in the Greek Text of Valesius's Edition; omitted I suppose by the carelessness of the Printer; though Valesius has taken no no­tice of this mistake, in his Errata. They occur in Robert Stephen's Edition; from whom we have in­serted them into our Version. Nor has Valesius omitted them in his Translation. his great plenty of Metals of all sorts, for the making of Gods; and the tops of Temples [which he erected,] rea­ching as high as Heaven it self; and lastly, his horrid Laws about Religion, made and designed for Cruelty. All which [...] ▪ After these words, the Antiqua­rius who transcribed the Kings Copy, offended at the multitude of faults wherewith the Copy abounded, here made an end of writing. And he has attested this in these words set at the bot­tome of the page: .... [...];.... to the Sea of faults of this Book, I stopt my hand from writing, because there was nothing sound in the original Copy, as the Readers may conjecture from what is written. Vales. Daniel despised, on account of his sincere piety towards him who is truly God; and foretold, that that inconvenient earnestness of the Tyrant, would be the occasion of some great and sore mischief. Neverthe­less, he prevailed not with the Tyrant. For an af­fluence of Riches is a migh­ty hindrance to sober and good thoughts. But, at length the King manifested the cruelty of his own mind; having given order, that this just and guiltless person should be cast to the wild beasts, that he might be torn in pieces. More­over, the Consent of those Brethren in under­going Martyrdom, was highly couragious: whom posterity afterwards imitated, and procured tran­scendent glory, on account of their faith to­wards our Saviour. Who appearing unhurt by the fire, and furnace▪ and by those other Tortures appointed to consume them; by the approach and Touch of their pure Bodies repelled the fire con­tained within the furnace. But after the ruine of the Assyrian Empire, which was [...]. I can't imagine whence Constantine had this, his affir­ming namely, that the kingdom of the Assyri­ans was de­stroyed by the casting of Thun­der; which I don't re­member, to have read any where else. Neither do I well understand that. For, Men, Towers, and Cities may be destroyed by Thunder-bolts, as the Poets have told us concerning the Phlegyae. But, truly I can't see, how a kingdom could be ruined by Thunder. In the Fuketian and Turneb. Copies, and in the Kings Sheets, the reading is [...]. Vales. destroyed by Thunder-bolts; Daniel by [the direction of] Divine Providence, betook himself to Cambyses King of the Persians. But, Envy, [vexed him] here also; and, besides Envy, the de­structive Treacheries of the Magi­cians, or, Wise men. Magi; and a continued succession of many, and those the greatest perils. Out of all which he was easily delivered, by Christs assisting providence, and flourisht, being the Pattern. Exemplar of all manner of Virtue. For, whereas he poured forth his prayers to God thrice a day, and performed great and [...]. Constantine had in Latine termed it Virtutes; which word is in the Sacred Books usually taken to signifie Mi­racles, as every one knows. The Translatour of this Oration has done ill, in rendring it [...]; whereas he ought rather to have translated it [...]. Vales. unusual Miracles, Or, Of Works, &c. and Works highly memorable; the Magi, induced [Page 652] thereto by Envy, calumniated the very preva­lency of his prayers; making the King acquain­ted, that that great power of the man [...]. In the Fuke­tian Copy, this place is thus pointed; [...], calumni­ated the very pre­valency of his prayers, as dange­rous: and sorely ac­cused in the Kings pre­sence, that great power of the man. Vales. was very dangerous: [...]. I write, [...], and [at length] they per­swaded him; as 'tis mended at the margin of Moraus's Book. But, this rela­tion con­tradicts the Sacred Scripture. For, the Magi are not in the Sacred Volumes said to ac­cuse Daniel, But the Presidents and Princes: Nor is he called Cam­byses, who ordered Daniel to be cast to the wild-beasts, but Darius the Median; concerning whom the Opinions of Chronologers are va­rious. For most of them will have him to be Cyaxares, son to Astia­ges. But Scaliger affirms him to be Nabonnidus; to whose opinion our Petavius agrees. The consent of which two persons I value highly. For, whereas they are wont to dissent in most things; whereever we see them agree, it is the greatest Argument of Truth. Nevertheless, Abydenus in his History of the Assyrians, seems to contradict their Opinion. For he writes, that Nabuchodonosor, inspired by God a little before his death, foretold the Babylonians, that not long after, their City should be ruined. For, that Mulus the Persian should come, who should put the yoak of slavery on them. But, that Medus, the glory of the Assyrians, should be his Assistant in the besieging of that City. For so I render these words of Abydenus, [...]. 'Tis certain, the Greek words have no other import, than that which I have mentioned. Now, if Medus was Cyrus's Companion and Assistant in besieging Babylon, and in re­ducing it to slavery▪ then Medus is not Nabonnidus. But Scaliger, who will have Darius Medus to be Nabonnidus, does thus explain Aby­denus's words, that by Medus's fault that Calamity would befal the Ba­bylonians. But Abydenus has not said [...], but [...]; by which term is signified a Society and Communion of some fact, with another person. So the Son of God is termed [...], because to­gether with the Father He is the Authour of all things, 'Tis there­fore plain from Abydenus's words, that Medus is not Nabonnidus. Vales. and [at length] they per­swaded him, that this very person, who had been the Occasioner of so many, and such emi­nent Blessings to the State of the Persians, should be condemned to be devoured by fierce Lyons. Daniel therefore, [in this manner] condem­ned, not that he should be destroyed, but in order to his eternal glory; was shut up in the Den. And whilst he was conversant amongst the wild-beasts, found them more gentle and tamer, than those by whom he had been shut up. [...]. I had rather write it in the Nominative Case, thus, [...], For, a Prayer, &c. The meaning is, so great is the power of prayer, that it tameth the most savage Beasts. Indeed, in the Fuketian Copy, the reading is, [...], &c. Vales. For, a prayer of modesty and soberness, giving assistance by its powerfulness, tamed all those Beasts, though by their own nature they are fierce and raging. Which things being made known to Cambyses, (For 'twas impossible, that the performances of so great, and such a Divine power should lye concealed;) he was stricken with an amazement at the wonderfulness of what was told him; and he repented himself, be­cause he had been so easily prevailed upon by the Calumnies of the Magi. Nevertheless he Or, At­tempted. had a desire to be an eye-witness of that spectacle. [...]. In the Fuketian Copy, and in the Sheets 'tis, [...]. Vales. And when he beheld Daniel praising Christ, both his hands being lifted up on high; but [saw] the Lyons couching, and as 'twere worshipping the footsteps of the man: immediately [he con­demned] the Magi, who had perswaded him hereto, [to the very same punishment, and shut them up in the Den of the Lyons.] But the wild-beasts, which a little before had fawned upon and made much of Daniel, set upon the Magi, forthwith, and, agreeable to their own fierceness of Nature, tore all of them in pieces.

CHAP. XVIII. Concerning Sibylla Erythraea, who prophe­sied in an Acrostick of Verses, manifesting [Our] Lord and [His] Passion. The Acrostick is this; JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, SAVIOUR, CROSS.

BUt, I am Or, Rea­dy to, men­tion, &c. desirous likewise of mentioning [...]. The Fuketian Copy and Kings Sheets have it written [...], Testimonies; which is righter. For Constantine does not produce only one Testimony, but two. Vales. some Testimonies concerning the Divinity of Christ, taken from For­reigners. For by this means, even they whose usage it is to speak reproachfully of Christ, will also acknowledge Him to be God and the Son of God; if they will give credit to the Discourses of their own party. Sibylla Erythraea therefore, who says that She lived in the Sixth Age after the Flood, [...]. I embrace the amendment of Lear­ned men, which I also found in Moraeus's Copy; [...], was the Priestess of A­pollo. So indeed 'tis in the Fu­ketian Copy, and in the Sheets. Vales. was the Priestess of A­pollo: She wore a Crown on her head, in the same man­ner with that God who was worshipped by Her; and kept a Tripod, about which a Serpent was twisted; and gave forth Oracles to those who consulted Her: having [...]. He had bet­ter have said, [...]. Vales. by the folly of Her Parents been enslaved to this worship, from which nothing that is decent and virtuous, but immodest Fury only is pro­duced; agreeable to those very things which are related concerning Daphne. This woman there­fore, entring in great hast one time into the Places in Heathen-Temples, which no body went into, but the Priests. Adyta of Her unseasonable Superstition, and [...]. Whatever persons a­mongst the Christian Writers, produced the Oracles of the Sibylls in confirmation of the Christian Faith; they were constrained to say the same concerning the Sibylls, which Constantine does here; namely, that being inspired by a Divine Spirit, they uttered predictions con­cerning Christ. So Justin in his Paraenesis to the Graecians; [...], But, 'twill be easie for us, to learn the true worship of God, in part from the Old Sibyll, who from some powerfull inspiration, teaches us by Oracles, &c. Agreeably whereto St Augustine writes, in his de Civitate Dei B. 18. Chap. 23▪ and St Jerome in his first Book against Jovinianus. For he says, that Divination was by God allowed to the Sibylls, as a reward of their Virginity. And St Austin is not afraid of enrolling them in the City of God. But Gregory Na­zianzene in his Poem to Nemesius, says that Hermes Trismegistus and Sibylla, whatever they predicted concerning God, did not for [...] those things by Divine Inspiration, but had them out of the Sacred Books of the Hebrews, which they had incidently perused. ‘ [...].’ Indeed, Gregory of Nazianzum, and those most Holy Fathers of the Church did believe, that those verses were really composed by the Si­bylls; whereas notwithstanding, they were made by idle people, and pub­lished for the Sibyll's Verses, about the times of the Emperour-Hadri­an. 'Tis certain, no writer ancienter than Justin, has made mention of them. And Celsus, who, as we have shown above, lived in the Empire of Marcus Antoninus, affirms that the Christians had forged and inser­ted many passages into the Sibylline Verses. Origen records his words, in B. 7. [...]. I know indeed, that Origen den [...]es this▪ For thus he answers Celsus; that he ought to produce ancienter Copies of the Sibylline Verses, wherein those verses, which he said had been inserted by the Christians, were not in any wise to be found. It might doubtless have been easie for Celsus to do that, and by this argument to have evinced the falsity of those verses. But, there are other arguments, whereby this may be proved. For, if the Sibyll's Predictions concerning Christ had been so clear, why has not St Paul made use of Her Testimony, in his Epistles, and when he spoke to the Athenians; especially, in regard he disdained not to cite Aratus, and other Heathen▪ Poets. Doubtless, if the Sibyll had written this Acrostick concerning Christ, there is no reason, why we should scruple to reckon Her amongst the Prophets, and even in the first place. For, none of the Ancient Hebrew-Prophets wrote so clearly and distinctly of Christ, as are these verses of the Sibyll, produced by Constantine. And yet, neither Origen, nor any of the Holy Fathers ever allowed this, that the Sibylls should be reckoned amongst the Prophets: yea, they esteemed those who believed thus, to be Hereticks; and ter­med them Sibyllistae, as▪ Origen informs us in his fifth Book against Celsus. Where he answers Celsus, who had objected, that the Chri­stians were divided into several Sects; for, that some of them were Psychici, others Spiritales; that some of them worshipped the God of the Jews, others did not; that some, were Sibyllistae, &c. His words are these; [...]. Vales. being really filled with Divine Inspiration, ut­tered a Prophecy in verses, containing all those things which should happen in reference to God: plainly setting forth the History of the Advent of Jesus, by those Letters which stand in the front of every verse; which sort of Poem is term­ed an Acrostick. Now, the Acrostick is this, JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, SAVIOUR, CROSS. And Her Ver­ses are these.

I had at first resol­ved, to have put these Greek Verses into an English Acrostick, that is, to have made eve­ry verse begin with one of the Letters of these words [Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, Cross] in their due order; as they do in the Original: agreeably whereto Valesius, Musculus, Christophorson, and Curterius have done them into Latine Verse. But, on tryal I found it a thing very difficult (at least to me) to be well performed in our Language. Besides, I judged it a matter of less consequence to omit the Acrostick, than to give the Reader a lame and imperfect Version of the Original. Which must necessarily have been done, had I been tied up to begin every Verse with one of those particular Letters.
When the Great Day of Judgment shall appear,
The melting Earth shall then dissolve with fear.
A King Immortal shall from Heav'n descend,
At whose Tribunal the whole world attend.
Both Just and Wicked shall, when Time grows old,
Their mighty God in flesh array'd behold;
Armies of Saints on His Right hand shall come,
Whilst Humane Souls expect their final doom.
Th' Universe shall be a dry Barren Strand,
And Thorns shall flourish on the scorched Land.
Men shall with indignation cast away
Their Wealth, and Idols in that dreadfull day.
The parched Earth, and Heaven in flames shall fry,
And
[...]. This verse was omit­ted; from Moraeus's Book, the Fuketian Copy, the Kings Sheets, and from that Edition of the Sibylline Verses, which Seb. Castalio published, it is to be supplied in this manner,
[...]
[...]
Although I had rather read [...], in the Neuter Gender. Now, that this verse was omitted, we are informed from the Old Ver­sion in Saint Austin, de Civit. Dei, B. 18, chap. 23; which runs thus:
Exuret terras ignis, pontumque polumque
Inquirens.
Further, they had expunged this Greek Verse, for this reason, because the Acrostick seemed to be entire without it. Nor did they perceive that in the Acrostick, the name of Christ is written with a diphthong, thus, [...]: the reason of doing which I don't understand. Yet the Latine Acrostick in Saint Austin has retained it. Indeed, the Old Greeks made the name of Christ to consist of eight Letters, writing it [...], with a diphthong, as Irenaeus informs us, Book 1. Chap. 10. Vales.
searching fire drain the Ocean dry:
All flesh which in the Grave imprison'd lay,
Shake off their Fetters, and return to Day.
Fire 'twixt Good and Bad shall diff'rence make,
And filthy Dross from purer Metal take.
Mens secret Deeds shall all be open lay'd,
And th' obscure Mazes of their Hearts display'd.
Gnashing their Teeth, they shall their Fate bewail:
The Stars harmonious daunce, and th' Sun shall fail.
[...]. So the reading is in the ordinary Edition of the Sibylline Verses. The Old Version does likewise confirm this writing; for thus it runs, Volvetur Coe­lum, &c. Yet I doubt not but it should be made [...]. For [...] is understood, which occurs a little before. Vales.
The Orbs rol'd up, shrink into darkest night,
The Labouring Moon shall lose her borrow'd light.
Mountains with Plains on the same Level lye;
Valleys shall gape no more, nor Hills be high.
On the proud Billows Ships shall ride no more:
And Lightning the Earth's Face shall shrivel sore.
The
[...]. In the Fuketian Copy, and the Kings Sheets, the reading is, [...], &c. Vales.
crackling Rivers with fierce Fire shall burn,
Which shall their streams to solid Chrystal turn.
The Heav'nly Trump shall blow a dolefull sound,
[...]. In Castalio's Edition this verse is written thus, ‘ [...]’ which reading the Old Version in Saint Austin confirms; where 'tis thus rendred
Sed Tuba tunc sonitum tristem dimittet ab alto
Orbe, gemens facinus mis [...]rum variosque Labores.
In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. Vales.
And th' worlds destruction, and its sin resound.
The yawning Earth
[...]. In the E­dition of the Sibylline Vers [...]s, the reading is truer, thus ‘ [...]’ Vales.
Hell's vast Abyss shall show;
All Kings before God's just Tribunal go.
Then Liquid Sulphur from the Skye shall stream,
God shall pour down Rivers of vengefull flame.
All men shall then the Glorious Cross descry,
That wisht-for sign unto a faithfull eye:
The Life of pious Souls, their chief delight;
To Sinners an offence, a dismal sight:
[...], en­lightening Believers. In the Edition of the Sibylline Verses the reading is [...], the call'd; which I am better pleased with, both because the term [...] is made use of a little before, and also in regard it cannot be rightly said of the Faithfull, that they are illuminated by Baptism. For the Faithfull are not enlightned by Baptism, but the Gentiles ra­ther who are called to the Faith. But, after they shall have been illuminated by the Sacred Laver, then they are termed the Faithfull. Father, the twelve Streams denote, as I suppose, the twelve Apostles. Vales.
Enlightening the called with its beams,
When cleans'd from sin in twice six limpid streams.
His Empire shall be boundless, and that God
[...]. Betuleius has well re­marked, that the Sibyll does allude here to the second Psalm. [...], Thou shalt rule [or, feed] them with a Rod of Iron. Whence it appears, that what we have observed above from Gregory Nazianzene, is true; namely, that the Sibyll, or who­ever wrote the Sibylline Verses, hath borrowed many passages out of the Sacred Scriptures. Therefore, in my opinion 'tis plain, that these Verses (as Cicero has long since told us,) were not published by a Sibyll possest with a Prophetick Fury; but were written with a con­siderate and composed mind, by some body under the Cover of [...] Sibyll's name. Vales.
Shall Rule the Wicked with an Iron Rod.
This God, Immortal King, describ'd in Verse,
Our Saviour, dying shall man's doom Reverse.

And these things were predicted by the Virgin, who ('tis likely) was divinely inspired. But, I judge Her to be blessed on this very account, because our Saviour has made choice of Her to be a Prophetess of his own Providence and Car [...] in relation to us.

CHAP. XIX. That this Prophecy concerning Our Saviour, was not forged by any of the Christians; but was written by Sibylla Erythraea, whose Books Cicero rendred into Latine Verse, be­fore the coming of Christ. And, that Virgil makes mention of this Sibyll, as also of a Virgin delivered of a Child: but He sang of this Mystery, Or, In Riddles. obscurely; out of a fear of those then in power.

In the Fuketian Copy, and in the Old Sheets, this chapter is begun from these words; [...], And these things were predicted, after the end of the Acrostick. Vales. BUt, many persons (although they confess Sibylla Erythraea to have been a Pro­phetess, yet) disbelieve [this prediction.] For they suspect, that some body of our Religion, not unskil­led in the Art of Poetry, made these Verses, and put a false Title to them, and affirmed them to▪ be the Pre­dictions of the Sibyll; in regard they contain Sentences that are of great use to the Life of man, whereby both the immoderate use of plea­sures is restrained, and a way also is opened to a sober and temperate Life. ' [...] I embrace Christophorson's Emen­dation, who read [...] But, the truth it self, &c. Vales. But, the Truth it self is apparent and exposed to the view of all men; in as much as the diligence of Or, Our men. those who profess our Religion, hath made so accurate a Collection of the Series of Times, that no body can now suspect, that that Poem was composed after the Coming and Condemnation of Christ; [nor can it be now supposed,] that the common Report is false, namely, that these Verses were long before by way of Prophecy uttered by the Sibyll. For, 'tis by common consent acknowledged, that The pas­sage in Cicero, which Con­stantine means, is extant in his second Book de Divina­tione, where he makes mention of some Ver­ses of the Sibyll, and of an Acrostick. But, that Acrostick spoken of by Cicero, can no way be proved to be the very same, with this which Constantine produces here. Yea, the contrary may be gathered from Cicero's words. For, in that Acrostick mentioned by Cicero, the Romans were warned▪ that they should choose themselves a King, if they would be safe; as Cicero does there attest. Therefore, the first Letters of those Verses shewed, as 'tis probable, the name of Julius Caesar. But in this Acrostick produced by Constantine, there is no such thing extant. Wherefore 'tis not to be doubted, but Cicero meant an Acrostick different from this, though Sebastianus Castalio thought otherwise, as did likewise several other persons. Besides, what Constantine adds is false; namely, that Cicero rendred this Greek Acrostick con­cerning Christ, into Latine, and inferted it into his own Books. Vales. Ci­cero, after he had read this Poem, translated it into Latine, and inserted it into his own Works. This Ci­cero was taken off by Antony, whilest he was in power. Again, Antony was vanquished by Augustus, who reigned six and fifty years. His successour was Tiberius: in which time the presence of our Saviour shined upon the World, and the Mystery of the Most Holy Religion began to flourish, and a [...] Here also we must acknowledge the unskilfullness of the Translatour, who has made use of [...] instead of [...]. For [...] is no good expression; but it should be [...] Vales. new Progeny and Succession of people was Begun, or, insti­tuted. established. Concerning which, 'tis my Sentiment, that the Prince of the Latine Poets speaks, in these words.

Now from high Heaven springs a [...] In the Fuketian Copy, and in the Sheets, I found it written [...]. Vales. new progeny. And again, in another [...] 'Tis apparent that it must be made [...], place. And so 'tis in the Fuketian Copy, Further, neither the Fuketian Manuscript, nor the Old Sheets, begin a new chapter here. Vales. place of His Bucolicks.

Sicilian Muses, Sing we one Note higher.

What is plainer than this? For He adds.

Last times are come, Cumaea's Prophecy.

Meaning namely Sibylla Cumaea. Nor is he con­tent herewith; but has proceeded farther; as if necessity it self required His Testimony. What says He therefore?

And Time's great Order now again is born.
The maid Returns, Saturnian Realmes return.

Who therefore is that Virgin which returns? Is it not She, who was full of, and great with child by the Divine Spirit? And what hinders, but She who is great with child by the Divine Spirit, should always be a maid, and continue a Virgin? [The wisht-for King] [...] Add these words [...] the wisht-for King; of whom mention is made in the fast Verse ‘ [...]’ Nevertheless, in Virgil's Verse there is no such expression as this. But Constantine, as it may be supposed, had altered Virgil's Verses a little; and had designedly expunged Saturn's name, that he might serve his own design. Vales. shall also return again, and by His coming shall comfort the world. For the Poet adds.

[...]. The last word is wanting in the Fu­ketian Co­py, and in the Sheets. But Turnebus had noted at the margin of his Book, that perhaps it should be written [...] Vales.
To th' infant, chast Lucina, favouring be,
Who ending iron ages, through all lands
Shall golden plant:—
If any prints of our old Vice remain'd
By Thee they'r Void,
[...] This verse is in my judgment to be restored thus; ‘ [...]’ But the verse which precedes this, wants no mending. Yet, in the Fuketian Copy and Turnebus's Book, 'tis written thus, ‘ [...]’ Vales.
and Fear shall leave the land.

Which words we perceive to be spoken plainly, and also obscurely by way of Allegory. For, [...] I read [...], or ra­ther [...] And a little af­ter, where the reading is [...] Christ's Di­vinity; these words seem necessary to be added, [...]. In the Fuketian Copy, 'tis written, [...] and so 'tis in Sr Henry Savils Book. Vales. to those who make deeper Researches into the force and meaning of the Verses, [to them I say] they give a clear prospect of Christ's Di­vinity. [...]. I write, [...] &c, But, least any one, which is an amendment wholly necessary, and 'tis strange to me, that neither Scaliger, nor any of the other Correctors saw it. For whereas these words, [...] &c, went before; of necessity it must follow here, [...], that the sense may be compleat. For Constantine says that Virgil spoke both plainly, and ob­scurely. And, that he had obscurely intimated the Divinity and Advent of our Saviour: but, had spoken plainly and openly after the manner of the Heathens, and had named Altars and Temples. The Fuketian Copy confirms our conjecture; wherein 'tis written exactly so, as I had long before guess'd it should be. Vales. But, least any one of the Grandees in the Imperial City, might take occasion to accuse the Poet, because he had written [what was] repugnant to the Laws of his own Country, and had overthrown the Opinions concerning the Gods, which had in former times been delivered by their Ancestours; [on this account] he de­signedly obscures the truth. For he knew, I [Page 655] suppose, the Blessed and Salutary [...] I reade [...] My­stery; as Christophor­son likewise read. He has made use of [...] instead of [...]. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis [...] Vales. Mystery of our Saviour. Therefore, to the end he might avoid the outragious Cruelty [of men,] He led the minds of His hearers, to an usage where­to they were accustomed: and says, that Altars must be erected, and Temples built, and Sacri­fices performed to the New-born Child. The other words which He has subjoyned, are likewise a­greeable; [in favour] to those who might en­tertain such Sentiments. For he says.

CHAP. XX. Other Verses of Virgilius Maro's concerning Christ, and the interpretation of them; in which 'tis shown, but obscurely, as the usage of Poets is, that The Mystery is dis­closed.

HE a God's life shall take, with Gods shall see Mixt Heroes, and Himself their Object be:

Namely the just.
Rule with paternal power th' appeased earth,
Which shall to Thee (sweet child) undrest, bring forth
Berries,
[...] In Morae­us's Book, the Learned man had mended it at the margin, [...] that it might answer to Virgils Verse, Errantes Hederas, Wild▪Ivy. But the Greek Rendition is looser and less bound up to the Original; and in many places 'tis far wide of Virgils meaning. Vales.
wild Ivy, and shall pay First-Fruits
Of mixt Acanthus, with Egyptian Roots.

Farther, this admirable person, a man that was accomplisht with all manner of Litera­ture; in regard he had an accurate know­ledge of the Cruelty of those times; [has ad­ded these words;]

[...] I doubt not but it should be written, ‘ [...]’ Which emendation is so necessary, that without it the sense is not plain. In the Fuketian and Turneb. Copies the reading is, [...] &c. But in the Kings Sheets 'tis, [...], &c. Vales.
The Goates themselves shall home full udders bear:
Nor shall the Herds the mighty Lyons fear.

Wherein he speaks very true. For Faith will not be afraid of the Grandees of the Imperial Palace.

[...] The Fuketian Copy in­stead of these words, has these [...] the Sheets, [...] Vales.
Flowers shall thy cradle sprout; the Serpent shall,
And the deceitfull herb of
[...] With Scaliger and Bongarsius, I read [...] For it answers to those words of Virgil, & fallax herba veneni. But in Moraus's Book 'tis mended at the margin, [...] But, if you had rather reade [...] then it must be made [...] that the verse may stand good. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis [...] In the Kings Sheets, [...] Vales.
Venome fall:
In each place
Or, Amomum.
Roses of Assyria grow.

[...] At my peril write, [...] &c: in the Fuketian and Turneb. Copies, 'tis [...]. Vales. Than which nothing truer, nothing can be said more agreeable to our Saviour's Excellency and Virtue. For the power of the Holy Ghost hath presented the very Cradle of God, as 'twere some most fragrant flowers, to a [...] In Morae­us's Book 'tis men­ded, [...] And so 'tis written in the Fuketian Copy. But in the Sheets 'tis [...] Further, the meaning of this place is very intricate. Mus­culus renders it thus; Ipsis namque Dei Cunabulis Spiri [...]ûs Sancti Virtus fragrantes quosdam flores, novam scilicet progeniem dedit. For, to the very Cradle of God, the power of the Holy Spirit hath given some fra­grant flowers, to wit a new progeny. But Christophorson translates it in this manner; Ipsa enim Dei Cunabula Spirit [...]û▪ Sancti Virtute fra­grantes flores novae soboli extulerunt; For the very Cradle of God by the power of the Holy Spirit, hath brought forth fragrant flowers to a New off-spring. Musculus therefore read [...] But Christophorson only read [...] instead of [...] which I rather approve of. By [...] he means the new people of the Christians: concerning whom Virgil hath spoken above, in this Verse; ‘Jam nova progenies coelo demittitur al [...]o.’ Vales. new Generation. But the Serpent is destroyed, and the poyson of that Sorpent [is taken away,] who first deceived our First Parents, seducing their Minds from their in­nate [Temperance] to the enjoyment of pleasures; [...] I have added a Negative particle here; thus, [...], that they might not understand▪ which e­mendation the fol­lowing words do mightily confirm. But if any one shall have a mind to defend the ordinary reading, I shall not much gain­say it, in regard both may be maintained. Vales. that they might [not] understand the de­struction which hung over them. For, before the Coming of our Saviour, [that Serpent] had Broken, or, discou­raged. Subverted the minds of men, which were blinded with an ignorance of the immortality of the Just, and Held up, or sustain­ed. Buoy'd up with no hope that was profitable and advantagious. But af­ter His Passion, when the Body where­with he was clothed, had for some time been se­parated, [from His most Holy Soul;] [...] Constantine had made use of the term Spirit, instead of Soul. But the Translatour seems to have taken it as meant of the Holy Spirit; as if Christ had had His Divinity in place of a Soul, which was the Heresie of [...]pol­linaris. In the Fuketian Copy, after the word [...], separa­ted, a Comma is placed. Wherefore it is to be considered, whether those words, [...] ought to be joyned with these which follow, [...] or rather to be parted from them by a Comma; that the meaning may be this; that by the communication of the Holy Spirit, which Christ after His passion poured upon men, the possibility of a Resur­rection was manifested. Vales. by the Communication of the Holy Ghost, the [...] I don't approve of Christopher­sons Version, who has rendred this place thus, Resurrectionis vis ho­minibus patefacta est, the power of a Resurrection was made known to men. Nor has Johannes Portesius rendred it otherwise. But, I question not, but [...] has the same import with that exprest in my Version. Constantine says therefore▪ that 'twas made known to men after Christ's death, that 'twas possible for Bodies to rise. For before, the faith of a Resurrection was dark and obscure, even a­mongst the Jews. Which was the reason, that they feared death so much. Vales. possibility of a Resurrection was discovered to men: and if any spot of humane impieties were left remain­ing, it was wholly washt off in the Holy Laver. Then 'twas, that [Christ] ordered His Subjects to take courage; and from His adorable and most illustrious Resurrection, commanded them to hope for the like things. On a good account therefore it is spoken, that the Nature of things venomous is destroyed. Death it self is likewise destroyed; and the Resurrection is Or, Sealed. confirmed. [...]. Christophorson hath in­terpolated this place, by blotting out the two former words. Sr Hen­ry Savil also in his Book has expunged these words, [...] in the same manner with Christophorson. But both those persons are much mistaken. For Constantine, whose skill in Grammer was but mean, had construed Virgils Verse in this manner; Occide [...] Assyrium: Vulgò nascetur Amomum.The Assyrian [Stock] shall fall: Amomum shall grow every where. And this is evident, both from this place, and also from the Version of the Greek Translatour, who tenders this Verse of Virgil thus, [...]. For so this Verse is worded in the excellent Fuketian Copy, and exactly according to Constantine's mind. Farther, as to this whole Eclog of Virgil's, the Christians always affirmed, that it was translated out of the Sibylline Verses, and ought to be understood concerning Christ's Birth. Nor can these words be spoken of any body else, but of Christ, Hoc duce, si qua manent scel [...]ris vestigia nostri,Irrita perpetuâ solvent formidine terras. Thus, besides Constantine, St Austin understood these words, in his Epistle to Volusianus, and in his 155 Epist. In his Epistle to Volusianus, he gives this interpretation of the Assyrian Amomum, namely that thereby is meant the Opinion of Pherecydes the Assyrian, who was the first that as­serted the Immortality of the Soul. But this interpretation of St Austin can't be born with, in regard Pherecydes was not an Assyrian; but, a Syrian, that is, of the Island Syros. Wherefore, Constantine's ex­planation is to be preferred, who says, that by the name Amomum the Faithfull or the Christians are meant; because they are [...], that is without fault. But, that 'tis therefore termed Assyrium, because from the Assyrians sprang the first beginning of Faith. For Abraham an Assyrian, was the first who believed in God; whence he had the Name of the Father of Believers. Vales. Moreover, the Stock of the Assy­rians is destroyed also, who were the first beginners and chief promoters of a faith in God. [Page 656] And whereas he says, that Or, Our Ladies vose. [...]. I embrace Sr Henry Savils conjecture, who at the margin of his Book has noted, that perhaps it should be [...]. Vales. Amomum shall grow every where; [...]he gives the multitude of the Christians that appellation. Which [mul­titude,] like a vast number of branches flou­rishing with most fragrant flowers, springs from one and the same root. Most Learnedly spoken, O Maro, Thou wisest of Poets! And all the fol­lowing words are likewise agreeable hereto.

As soon as Thou the Hero's praise shalt know
And read Thy Father's Acts,
And unto Virtue's knowledge can'st attain:

By the praises of the Heroes, he means the Works of just men: and he terms the Constitution of the world and its accurate composure which is to last for ever, the Virtues or Acts of the Father. Perhaps also [he means thereby] the Laws, which the Church, beloved by God, does make use of; Or, Fol­lowing. directing to such a Course of life as is correspondent to [the Precepts of] Justice and Temperance. But, the Or, En­largement. raising of the Life of men (who stand in some middle rank between the Good and Bad,) [...]. The Prae­position must be ad­ded, which by mistake was omitted in Robert Stephens's Edition; thus, [...]. For so 'tis written in the Kings Sheets, and in Turnebus's, and Moraeus's Book. But I am better pleased with that reading, which is proposed from the Books of Scaliger and Bongarsius; which I likewise found in the Fuketian Copy; viz. [...]. For, [...] is a Verb proper to the Platonick Philosophy, out o [...] which several passages in many places of this Oration are taken. Hence comes the Sensus Anagogicus, the Mystick Sense, which occurs frequently in Proclus; and that saying of Plotinus, extolled by Synesius, [...]. Vales. to things more sublime, is worthy of admiration also; when as notwithstanding, [such a life] admits not of any sudden alteration.

The Fields shall mellow wax with golden grain.

That is, the Fruit of the Divine Law shall be pro­duced for the use [of men.]

The blushing grape shall hang on Thorns, unset;

Which things were not at all visible in the wicked and depraved life [of men.]

And th' hardned Oakes with dewy hony sweat.

[In which words] he describes the folly and hardned temper of mind, of the men who then lived. And perhaps he likewise shews, that those who on God's account have [...]. In the Fu­ketian Copy the reading is, [...]. I write therefore, [...], those who on God's, which emendation is most undoubtedly certain. Constantine explains that Verse of Virgil's; ‘Et durae quercus sudabunt roscida mella.’ He says therefore, that by this verse is meant those who undergo most sore labours for God's cause, or on God's account, shall receive most sweet fruit of their Labours. Vales. been exercised with Labour, shall receive some sweet fruit of their own patient sufferance.

Some steps of ancient fraud shall yet be found:
Thetis to tempt with Ships, and to surround
Cities with walls, bids Earth in furrows tear.
A second Typhis, a new Argo bear
Choice Heroes: and another War, imploy
Again a Great Achilles sent to Troy.

Incomparably well, Thou wisest of Poets! For Thou hast Exerci­sed, or, made use of. advanced [...]. I like Porte­sius's Ver­sion, (who renders it Poeticae Li­centiam,) better than Christophor­son's, who translates it poeticam facultatem, as Muscu­lus had likewise rendred it. For Grae­cians term that [...], which the Latines call Poeticam Licentiam, Poetick Licence; as, I remember, it frequently occurs in Themistius. Fur­ther, the Old Sheets begin a new chapter here, from these words [...], Incomparably well, Thou wisest of Poets! Which in my judgment is better. Here therefore the twentieth chapter is to be placed. Vales. Poetick Licence as far as it was becoming. For, it was not Thy designe to utter Oracles, in regard Thou wert not a Prophet. I suppose likewise, that the present dan­ger was an hindrance, which danger hung over their heads, who would go about to confute those Rites instituted by their Ancestours. As warily therefore, and as safely as 'twas possible, He has represented the Truth to those who are able to un­derstand it, whilst he lays the blame upon Towers and Wars, which at this very present are re­ally visible in the Life of men; and describes our Saviour going to the Trojan War. Now, by Troy [He means] the whole world. [...]. In the Fuketian Copy and T [...]nebus's Book this place is written thus; [...]. But Sr Henry Savil had mended it in his Copy, [...]. Vales. For [Christ] waged a War against the opposed Forces of wickedness; His Mission into the world being occasioned partly from the good will and pleasure of his own providence, and partly from the Order of the Supream Father. But, what says the Poet after these words?

Here when full years shall make Thee perfect man,

That is, when, after Thou art arrived at Man's Estate, Thou shalt have pluckt up by the roots those Mischiefs, which infest the Life of men; and shalt have adorned the whole world with Pea [...]e.

[...]. Who sees not, that it should be written, [...], &c. In the third verse from hence, I read [...]: for [...] is understood. Vales.
The Saylor shall forsake the Ocean;
Nor navigable pines shall traffick Ware;
But each part of the world shall all things bear.
After this verse, there is one of Virgils verses left out, in this quotation of Constantine's; this namely▪ Robustus quoque jam tauris juga Solvet Arator; that is, Nor shall his Steers the brawny Tiller yoak. Besides this, some other verses are left out hereafter, in this quotation.
Nor earth feel harrows, nor the vine the hook;—
[Page 657]Nor wool with various colours shall deceive.
But in the meadows Rams
[...]. I had ra­ther write [...], as 'tis in the Sheets. For [...] is an elegant phrase. I also write [...], in a word by it self, as 'tis in the Fu­ketian Co­py. A little after, I would rather reade [...], in the Imperative. For 'tis a rendition of this Verse of Virgil's, Aspice convexo nutantem pondere mundum. Vales.
shall scarlet have;
And changing, sometimes golden fleeces wear.
And feeding Lambs shall native purple bear.—
Attempt great honours, for the time draws near,
Dear Race of Gods, Great Stock of Jupiter!
Behold▪ The world shakes on its ponderous axe,
See, Earth, and Heavens immense, and th' Ocean's tracts;
How all things at th' approaching Age rejoyce [...]
Oh that my
[...]. In Moraeus's Book, the Learned man hath mended it, [...]. But, neither is the Verse made good this way. Wherefore, I should rather reade [...]. For these words are spoken in the Optative Mood. In the following Verse write [...], from Moraeus's Book. This Amendment admits of no doubt. But, concerning the former we must think further. For that place may, I think, be restored with less trouble, if you alter the punctation only, in this manner,
[...]
[...]
[...], &c.
Nothing more certain. [...] is put for [...]. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...], without the Verb [...]. Further, the Reader is to be acquainted, that all these Verses of Virgil, as well in the Fuketian Copy, as in the Sheets, are not written from the head; but the first words only of every Verse are severed some little space from the preceding. Which is therefore done, because these Verses are not recited without intermission, but with frequent interlocutions of Constantine's. Vales.
Life would last so long, and voyce,
As would suffice Thy Actions to rehearse:
Not Orpheus then should vanquish me in Verse,
Nor Linus, though their Parents present be;—
Should Pan strive with me, by Arcadia's doom,
Although a God, Pan should be overcome.

Behold, says he, the Joy of the Or, Immense. tottering World, and of all the Elements.

CHAP. XXI. That 'tis impossible for these things to be spoken concerning a meer Man: and, that unbelievers, by reason of their ignorance of the Divine worship, know not even whence they have their being.

SOme one of their number, whose Sentiments have less of prudence in them, will perhaps suppose, that these things are spoken concerning the Birth of a man. [...]. I had rather write, [...]; and have rendred it ac­cordingly. Vales. But, what reason can there be as­signed, that upon the Birth of a Son of Man, the earth should be unsown and un­plowed; and, that the Vine should not need the edge of the Hook, nor any other care or cultivation? How can these things be thought to be spoken concerning the Off-spring of a Man? [...]. In the Fuketian and Turneb. Copies, 'tis [...], For Nature, &c. Vales. For Nature is the Hand­maid of the Divine Will, and does not execute humane Commands. Besides, the Joy of [all] the Elements de­notes the Advent of God, not the Birth of any Man. And this, namely the Poets praying that the term of his Life might be prolonged, is a certain Evidence of Divine Invocation. For, 'tis our usage to ask life and safety of God, not of men. Thus therefore Sibylla Erythraea [speaks] to God. Why▪ O Lord, says She, dost Thou lay upon Me a necessity of Prophesying; and not ra­ther keep Me▪ raised] on high from the Earth, until the day of Thy Most Blessed Coming? But Maro adds these Verses also, to those we have quoted above.

[...]. Robert Stephens was the first that pub­lished this Verse in this manner, from conjecture as I suppose. For in the Kings Sheets and the Fuketian Copy, it is written thus, [...], &c. From which words it was most easie to restore the true reading of this place. Thus therefore I mend it;
[...]
[...].
Than which emendation, there is nothing more certain. Vales.
Begin Sweet Child, with smiles Thy Mother know:
Who ten long Months did with thy burthen go.
Sweet Child begin▪
[...]. Neither Constantine, nor the Greek Translatour apprehended the true meaning of Virgil's words. For, he understood them in this manner, as if Virgil had said, that the Parents had not smiled on the child; nor, had a God taken him to his Table, nor a Goddess to her Bed. Constantine supposed, that that verse of Virgil, ‘Incipe parve puer cui non risere parentes, &c.’ was to be read in one breath, without any distinction or stop: where­as nevertheless, after the word puer, a point is to be set; a thing which even Boyes know. Christophorson, because he perceived not this, interpolated Constantine's following words, by adding a Negative, against the mind of the Authour, and contrary to the Authority of all Copies. Farther, in the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]; which is truer, if I mistake not▪ Indeed, in the Sheets 'tis [...]. Vales.
cheer'd by no parents look,
To's Board no God, t' Her Bed no Goddess took.

For how should his Parents have smiled on him? [...]. 'Tis appa­rent to any one, that it ought to be written, [...], &c. In the Fu­ketian Copy 'tis, [...]. Vales. For God, who is His Father, is a Power void of Quality. And He Himself wants all figure, but [exists] in the circumscription of others; nor is he endued with an humane Body. Who like­wise is ignorant, that [...]. By the Holy Spirit Constantine seems to mean the Divinity, or the Divine Nature, as we have already remarked in the foregoing chapter. For he explains those words translated out of Virgil, [...] ▪ which are spoken of Christ, not concerning the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at this place I chose to render it the Spirit of God; rather than the Holy Spirit, as Portesius and Christophorson have done. Vales. the Spirit of God is Void of, or, has no part in. unconcern'd in a Marriage Bed? For, what desire, what Love, or, longing. Appetite [can there be] in the affection of the chief­est Good, whereof all other things are desirous? What can be wholly com­mon to Wisedom and Pleasure? From these words it appears, that that mistake, which we have taken notice of above, was not committed by Constantine himself, but by the Greek Translatour, who misunderstood Virgils last▪ Verses. For Constantine himself took those Verses of Virgil in their true sense, as 'tis visible from hence. For, when he had quoted Virgils words; (which run thus; —Cui non risere Parentes,Nec Deus hunc Mensâ, Dea nec dignata cubili est.) presently, finding fault with the Poet as 'twere, he adds these words▪ How, says he, could his Parents smile on him, in regard His Father is God, who wants both a body, and figure also. Besides, how can a Bed and a Table be any ways agreeable to God, who, 'tis manifest, is wholly void of a Marriage-bed, nor is he affected with the pleasures of meates. Then he adds these words, (whence what I have said, plainly appears, namely that Constantine understood Virgil's Verses excellently well;) Verùm illis humanam quandam Generationem exponunt, concedamus ut ita loquantur; But, let us pernsit those, who set forth a certain hu­mane Generation, to speak thus. In which words he excuses Virgil, in regard he was ignorant of Christ's Divine Generation. But in the Greek translation, wherein Virgils Verses are expounded ill, this period has no coherence with the foregoing words. Vales. But, it may be permitted them to speak these things, who [feign to themselves] a certain humane [Generation of Christ:] [...]. I embrace the conjecture of Learned men, which I likewise found noted in Sr Henry Savil's Book; [...], and who make it not▪ &c. Vales. and who make it not their business, to cleanse their mind from every ill fact and word. [Page 658] I here appeaal to Thee, O Piety! I implore Thy Assistance in reference to those things which are spoken: Thou, who [...]. The Rules of Gram­mar enjoyn it to be written [...], as 'tis in the Fuke­tian Copy. Further, this is a most ele­gant defi­nition of the Chri­stian Reli­gion; but 'tis basely corrupted by an ill punctation. I reade therefore; [...]; the most desireable of all Goods, &c. No­thing certainer than this reading nothing more elegant. Constantine terms Religion the School-mistris of a most Holy Hope, in regard She teaches us to hope for things Celestial, and to place all our hope in God, not in earthly and frail Goods. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...]. There is the same punctation in the Sheets. Vales. art [nothing else but] the Law of Chastity [and Holiness;] the most desirable of all Goods; the School-mistris of a most Holy Hope; the most certain and unfeigned Promise of immortality! Thee I adore, O Pie­ty and Clemency! To Thee we owe eternal thanks, for the benefit of thy Cure, [...], we stood in need of. It must questionless be writ­ten, [...], whereby we were healed. For 'tis elegantly said, [...], That is, healed by Thy Remedies. Vales. which we stood in need of! But, the Generality of Men, void of Thy assistance, by reason of their innate hatred towards Thee, have an Aversion for God also. Nor do they understand, that the very Cause, as well of their Life and Being, as of all other persons who are impious, depends upon that service and worship, [which is paid] to the Deity. For the whole world, and whatever is contained therein, is [...]. I had rather write, [...], His Work, or, workmanship. Vales. His Possession.

CHAP. XXII. The Emperour's Thanksgiving, wherein He as­cribes His Victories, and all His other Blessings, to Christ; also a Reproof of Maximinus the Tyrant of those times, who by the severity of his Persecution had increased the Glory of the Christian Religion.

INdeed, I my self do ascribe mine own Felici­ty, and all that I am possest of, to Piety, as to the Cause thereof. Whereto the Event of [...]. Any one might with good reason guess, that it ought to be writ­ten, [...], But whereas the sense is plain without this Emendation, I think no alteration is to be made here. Vales. all things, which have been answerable to My desires and wishes, does bear witness: My Battels; My Victories over mine Enemies; and My Trophies [are an Evidence hereof.] The [...]. So the Greeks are wont to call Rome, as may be made appear by innumerable instances. Thus Tatianus terms it, in his Oration adversus Graecos, where he speaks concerning the worship of Jupiter Latiaris▪ as also Porphyrius, in his Book de Ab­stinentiâ. Moreover, Eusebius, in his Tricennalian Oration con­cerning Constantine's praises, terms Rome thus, as we shall see there. Vales. Great City knows these things, and ce­lebrates them with praises. The same likewise is the Sentiment of the Inhabitants of My most beloved City; although, deceived by false hopes, She hath chosen a Prince unworthy of Herself: who forthwith underwent a Condigne punishment, and such as was agreeable to his own audacious impieties. But, I look upon these things as unfit to be mentioned now; by Me especially, who am directing My Discourse to Thee, [O Piety!] and who do make it my whole Care, [...]. I had ra­ther write, [...] &c, that I might address, &c. Vales. how I may address my selfe to Thee, in discourses that are Or, Chast and good. pure and seemly. Nevertheless, I will say some­thing, which shall neither appear foul nor indecent. A fierce and implacable War, abounding with [instances of] Madness and Cruelty, was by the Tyrants [waged,] both against Thee, O Piety! [...]. Before these words there is an Asterisk plac't in Robers Ste­phens's Edition, whereby 'tis shown, that some words are wanting here in the Manuscript Copies. But, the Geneva-Edi­tion has taken out those Aste­riscks which had been diligently noted by Robert Stephens, espe­cially in the end of this book. Further, some words are wanting here, which I make good thus, [...]; Both against Thee, &c. For, he speaks to the Christian Religion. Vales. and against all Thy most Holy Churches. Nor, were there some persons wanting in the City Rome, who re­joyced in such great and publick Mischiefs. A He means the field, where­in the Martyrs underwent their last punishment. For, it was the usage, as well amongst the Gra­cians, as Romans, that Criminals should have punishments inflicted on them, without the Gates; as I have at large remarked in my notes on Amm. Marcellinus. Whence it was, that Offenders led to punishment, were said ad campum duci, to be led to the field. So Saint Austin in his first Book against the Epistle of Parmenianus, chap. 8. Vales. Field was likewise pitcht in or­der to an Engagement. But, Thou camest forth, and didst voluntarily [...]. It must be, [...], &c. That is, and didst voluntarily deliver up thy self, be­ing supported, &c. Constantine alludes to the courage of the Martyrs, who voluntarily offe­red themselves to the Judges, and ran to death on their own accord, without compulsion. Indeed, [...] is not said, but concer­ning Him. who does any thing vo­luntarily; as, for instance, con­cerning Christ, who of his own accord delivered Himself for the salvation of mankind. Christo­phorson therefore has rendred this place ill, thus, t [...]ipsum adversariis opposuisti thou hast opposed thy self against the Adversaries. Our conjecture is confirmed by the Fu­ketian Copy, wherein 'tis written, [...]. Vales. deliver up Thy­self, being supported by a Faith in God. [...], the Cruelty of impious Mortals. In mine own judgment I have hap­pily found out the emendation of this place. For, whereas before these words, the term [...] oc­curs, the two last Letters of this word being repeated; I have re­stored the place thus; [...], &c. Then the cruelty of the impious, &c. No­thing more certain. Away there­fore with Gruter's and Christo­phorson's conjecture, who reade, [...], &c. Yet the Fuketian Copy confirms that rea­ding of Gruter's. But I have ob­served before, that many ill corrections are found in that copy. Vales. Then the Cruelty of the impious, ha­ving, like some furious fire, without intermission preyed upon all things which it met with, procured for Thee an admirable, and ever-to-be­celebrated Glory. For, on this account [it was,] that a veneration [of Thee] sei­zed the very Spectatours themselves. You might in­deed have seen the Execu­tioners and Tormenters, wea­ried out with torturing the [...]. After these words Christophorson, Scaliger, and others add [...], you might have seen; as I also found it in Moraeus's Book, and in the Fuketian Copy. But, there is no need of adding these words here, in regard the term [...] precedes, whereto all these words, ought to be referred. Nevertheless, I do acknowledge, that the discourse would be far more perspicuous, if you should add these words. Vales. Bodies of the Pious, and sorely perplext at the La­bour and Trouble they met with: but the Bonds [you might have beheld] broken; and the Engines of Torture loosed; and the fires which were brought, extinguished: but, [on the contrary,] the constancy and Boldness [of the Pious] not in the least weakened or abated. What advantage therefore hast Thou made, by at­tempting these things, He speaks to one of the persecutors; Maximinus namely, as 'tis in the Title of this Chapter. For he persecuted the Christians with more of Cruelty and Malice, than the others. Vales. O Thou wickedest of Men? What was the occasion of this thy outragious Fury? Thou wilt peradventure say, that [thou performedst these things] in honour to the Gods. What Gods were those? Or what Notion conceivest thou in thy mind, that is worthy of the Divine Nature? Didst Thou suppose the Gods to be angry in the same manner with Thee? If therefore they were such, it was expedient to wonder at their Resolution, rather than obey their im­pudent Commands, where­by they Or, per­swaded. orde­red [...]. The reading, I think, ought to be [...], unless there be a fauls in the word [...]. Vales. just men to be unjustly slain. [Page 659] But, Thou wilt perhaps affirm, [that these things were done by Thee,] on account of the insti­tutions and establishments of Thy Ancestours, and by reason of the Opinion of Men. I pardon Thee. For those institutions are exactly like to the Actions done by Thee, and [flow from] one and the same [Fountain of] ignorance. Thou thoughtest perhaps, that there was some excellent power and virtue, in Images made in the shape of a man, by Workmen and Artificers. Wherefore, Thou paidst a worship to them; making it Thy whole business, that they should not at any time be polluted with filth; those Great and Eminent Gods, forsooth! standing in need of humane [...]. The last word must be blotted out, in adding which, Christo­phorson, Scaliger, and Gruter did ill. I found the same term added likewise, in the Fuketian and Moraean Copies. But it is not at all necessary; only, after the verb [...], or polluted with filth, a Semicolon must be placed. And thus Portesius understood this place; who has indeed rendred these words more happily than Christophorson, in this manner. Omnis illa Curae tua, Omne studium ne sordibus opplerentur. Ita Magni primariique Dii human [...] se ope sustinebant; istam diligentiam requirebant. And so Musculus also. Vales. Care.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning the Polity of the Christians: and, that the Deity rejoyces in those who leade Virtuous lives: and, that we ought to ex­pect a Judgment, and a Retribution.

COmpare Our Religion with Your [Rites.] Is there not amongst Us a genuine Concord, and a lasting Humanity and Goodness of Na­ture? Is there not amongst Us such a Repre­hension for a fault, as may produce amendment, not ruine? [...], I read [...], and a Cure. The word [...] is un­derstood, which is made use of a little before. The rea­ding might also be, [...]; and a little after, [...]; which per­haps is righter. Vales. And a cure, which [may bring forth] safety, not Cruelty? Is there not a­mongst Us, a [...]. It appears from the following words, that instead of [...], faith, it should be [...] or [...], Love. For Love is in the first place to­wards God, then towards our neighbour. But Faith is not but in the one and only God. Therefore [...] can't in any wise be agreeable here. Besides, in regard he treats at this place concerning Reprehension; on that account Charity or Love is a fitting term. For a kind rebuke begets Charity. But, 'tis better to read here, [...], as I have said already. And so Musculus read, as it appears from his Version. Vales. sincere Faith also, in the first place towards God; and then, towards the Na­tural Community of men? Do not We exercise a Compassion towards those, against whom Fortune has waged a War? Is there not an honest plain and sincere life, and such as does not cover wickedness with [the mask of] any subtil fraud; and a knowledge of him that is truly God, and of his Monarchy? This is true Piety; this is a Religion that is sincere, and wholly uncorrupt. This is the most prudent course of life; and they who have embraced it, tend directly to an eternal life, making their passage through some splendid High-way as 'twere. For no person, who enters upon such a course of life, and who purifies his mind from [all pol­lution of] His Body, does wholly die: but he must be said to perform the Office appointed Him by God, rather than to die. For He who has confessed God, [...]. What the import of this term [...] is, we have observed in the foregoing Books of Constantine's Life; (See Book 1. Chap. 27. note (b.) and Book 2. Chap. 52. note (a.)) For Translatours have in no wise hit the meaning, of this term; which nevertheless, was easie to have been done here. Chri­stophorson renders it thus. Qui deum in [...]enuè confitetur, non contume­liae, non iracandiae sponte succumbit. From which words, there is no body but would extract this sense, that He who confesses God, is not angry, is not Contumelious. But, the meaning of the Greek words is far different; namely, that he who confesses the Name of Christ, before the Judge, does not yield to the Reproach and fury of the persecutors. Vales. does not give place, either to Contumelie, or Rage.

But, couragiously enduring necessity, has the Trial of his suffenance as his [...]. Chri­stophorson seems to have read [...] ▪ Benevo­lence; which I don't ap­prove of. For, no sense can be gotten out of this reading. Farther, [...] may be rendred instrumen­tum, aid, or, assi­stance; as Amm. Mar­cellinus expresses himself, Book 29. pag. 393. Caesar Dictator aiebat, miserum esse instrumentum senectuti, recordationem crudelitatis. Where see what I have long since remarked, at pag. 389 of my notes. I have rendred it Via­ticum, Voyage-provision, or, all things necessary for a journey. Nor has Musculus rendred it unfitly, in this manner: tolerantiae expe­rientiam compendii vice habet ad consequendam Dei Benevolentiam, He has his sufferance, in place of an advantage, in order to his ob­taining God's favour. Vales. Viaticum, in order to his procuring himself the Divine Cle­mency. [...]. In Moraus's Book, the Learned man had set these words at the margin; [...]; that is, a passage of Plato's taken out of his Common Wealth, B. 10. Indeed, in that Book, Plato disputes concerning those Rewards, which are given by God to just men, both in this life, and after death. But the argument whereby Constantine proves that, occurs not in Plato; at least, I don't know that it does. Vales. Nor is it to be doubted, but the Deity gives a kind reception to Or, The Virtue of men. men endued with Virtue. For it would be most absurd, that as well [...]. I doubt not but it is to be writ­ten thus; [...], &c. That is, For, it would be most absurd, that us well per­sons, &c. In which words, the term reverenced is referred to persons in great power; and likewise, have kindnesses shown them, has a reference to men of an inferiour Rank; which Christophorson per­ceived not. In the Fuketian and Turneb. Copies, and in Sr Henry Savil's, the reading is, [...]; which reading I like not. But Musculus read, [...]; not ill. Vales. persons in great power, as men of an infe­riour Rank, should shew themselves gratefull to­wards those, and should compensate their fa­vours, by whom they are either reverenced, or have kindnesses shown them: but, that He who is above all, and who is the Ruler over all, and is the Chiefest Good it self, should be negligent in making a Retribution. [...]. Doubtless it must be written, [...]. For, 'tis referred to [...], He who is above all, that is, the Supream God. Whom though he has termed [...], the Chiefest Good it self; yet, [...] in the Mascu­line Gender, ought to follow. Vales. Who does accom­pany us thorowout all Our Lives, and is pre­sent with us, as often as we do any Good. And forthwith commends and rewards Our Fortitude and [...]. Christophorson renders it Propensam Voluntatem, ready will. Musculus translates it Benevolentiam, Benevolence. I chose to render it obedientiam, obedience. For, this is the import of the Verb [...], morem gerere, obsequi Voluntati Divinae, to follow, to obey the Divine Will. [...] therefore, to render it exactly, is allubescentia, a willingness to please. In which sense 'tis taken in Saint Luke, in that Antheme of the Angels, after our Lord's Birth▪ [...]. This term occurs frequently, in both Testaments, as others have already observed. In the Fuketian Copy, 'tis [...]. Vales. Obedience: but deferrs the complement and perfection [of that Reward till another time.] For, the whole Account of Our lives shall then be cast up. And if all things be found well and right, the Reward of an Eter­nal life shall follow: but, a condigne punishment shall be inflicted on the wicked.

CHAP. XXIV. Concerning Decius, Valerianus, and Aurelianus, who ended their lives In the very Ti­tle of the chapter there is a fault, but such a one as may easily be mended. For, instead of [...], it must be written [...], miserably; as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy, and the Kings Sheets▪ Vales. miserably, because of their Persecution of the Church.

I Ask Thee now, Decius! who heretofore didst insult over the Labours of the Just; who hatedst the Church; and didst inflict punish­ments on those who had lived holily: [...] At my peril write, [...] what doest Thou now doe; in which manner I also found it mended in Moraeus's Book, at the margin. Nor is it otherwise written in the Fuke­tian Copy. But in the Sheets 'tis, [...] Vales. what doest Thou now do, after this life? With what, and how afflictive Miseries art Thou now prest? In­deed, that interval of time, which was between Thy Life and Death, has sufficiently demonstra­ted [...] Thy suc­cess. Thine Infelicity: when, having been overthrown with Thy whole ar­my in the Scythick Fields, Thou didst expose the Roman Empire, so highly celebrated in all places, to the contempt and scorn of the Or, Geta. Goths. Thou also, Valerian! After Thou hadst declared the same Bloudiness and Cruelty towards God's Servants, hast made a manifest discovery of God's Holy and Just Judgment; being taken prisoner by the Enemy, and carried up and down in Bonds, drest in thy purple, and thine other Imperial Attire: but at length, by the [...]. In Moraeus's Book, 'tis well men­ded, thus, [...]. Further, concerning the Emperour Valerian's skin, which was flea'd off by the Persians, and [...]alted; other Writers do likewise speak. Petrus Patricius mentions it, in his Excerpta Legationum, in which Authour Galerius upbraids the Persians, because they detained Valerian prisoner, he having been circumvented by fraud, to the last period of his old age; and because after his death, they most wickedly preserved his skin, and thereby fixt an immortal Brand of infamy upon his dead Body. Vales. order of Sapor King of the Persians, Thy skin was pull'd off, and preserved from corruption by salt, whereby Thou wert made an Eternal Trophy of Thine own Calamity. And Thou Aurelian! The Or, Flame of, &c. chief promoter of all impieties, by how ma­nifest a Stroke of Divine Vengeance, [...]. The Geneva-men did ill in inserting the particle [...] from the Books of Scaliger, Bongarsius, and Gruter; as they tell us: which particle I likewise found added in Moraeus's Copy. But, whereas that conjunction does disturb the sense, and oc­curs not, either in the Kings Sheets, or in Stephens's Edition; I am of opinion, that 'tis to be removed. Yet the Fuketian Copy retains it. Vales. whilst raging with fury Thou ran­nest thorow Thracia, wert▪ Thou slain in the midst of the High-way, and filledst the Tracks of the publick Road with Thine impious Bloud?

CHAP. XXV. Concerning Diocletian, who with infamy re­signed the Empire; and, by reason of his persecuting the Church, was stricken; with Thunder.

BUt Diocletian, after that Bloudy Cruelty of his Persecution, being condemned by a sen­tence which he pronounc't against himself; For what reason Dio­cletian re­signed the Empire, is a thing not agreed on amongst Writers. Some tells us, that Diocletian (in regard he was a Curious Searcher into things future, when he had found by the Answers of the Soothsayers, that most fore Calamities hung over the Roman State;) voluntarily re­linquish't the Empire. This is attested by Aurelius Victor. Others write, that Diocletian being grown old, when he perceived himself to be less fit for the management of the Government, both by rea­son of his age, and on account of his unhealthiness; took this Reso­lution. Thus Eutropius, a most faithfull, and most elegant Writer. The same is recorded by that unknown Authour, in the Panegyrick which he spoke to Maximianus Herculius and Constantine. Sed tamen, says he, utcunque fas fuerit, eum principem quem a [...] cogerent, & valetudo deficeres, receptui canere. Te verò in quo adhue sunt istae in­tegrae solidaeque vires, &c. There are those who write, that Diocle­tian, when he saw the Christians could not be overcome by him; by reason of grief and impatience, resigned the Empire; as we may reade in Zonaras. But Constantine does affirm in express words here, that Diocletian voluntarily removed himself from the Empire, on ac­count of the loss of his wits. And who is he, that dares contra­dict Constantine's Testimony, in regard he had lived in Diocle­tian's Court; nor could any of these affairs be unknown to him. Eusebius relates the same also, in the Eighth Book of his History. But, there are many things, which may make us doubt concerning this matter. For first, although Diocletian survived his Resignation of the Empire a long while, yet he never gave any indication of a distracted mind. Even that very one saying of his, (which was his answer to Herculius and Galerius, inviting him to re-assume the Em­pire.) how much of wisedom is there in it? Utinam Salonae possetis visere olera nostris manibus sata, I wish you could come to see the Pot­herbs sown with our hands at Salona. Therefore, in that Retirement he was always honoured by all the Emperours of that time, who paid a dutifull observance to him, as to a Father. Hear Eumenius in the Panegyrick which he spoke to Constantine. Atenim divinum illum virum, But, that Divine Person, who was the first that was a part­ner of and resigned the Empire, repents not of his own Resolution and deed. Happy and truly Blessed man, to whom now a private person, your dutifullness, who are so great Princes, doth pay an honour! Would Diocletian have been so highly honoured by four Emperours that were Augusti, had his Intellectuals been depraved? Or, would Eumenius have termed him a Divine Person, on this account espe­cially, because he was the first that had resigned the Empire, if that had been done by him, by reason of his madness and dotage? Lastly, Diocletian had taken a Resolution of resigning the Empire, long before the Persecution; then namely, when he triumphed over the Persians and other Barbarous Nations, at Rome. For there, in the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, he required an Oath of his Colleague Herculius, that they should both resign the Empire on one and the same day. This, Eumenius informs us of, in the Panegyrick now cited. Hunc ergo istum qui, &c. This man therefore was ashamed to imitate that person, who had been made a Brother [in the Empire] by him; it re­pented this man, that the other had sworn in the Temple of Jupiter Capi­tolinus. Now, Diocletian triumphed at Rome, with his Colleague Herculius, on the eighteenth year of his Empire, as Jerome relates in the Chronicon; that is, on the year before the Persecution was raised against the Christians. 'Tis certain, the Authour of the Panegyrick spoken to Maximianus and Constantine does attest, that that Resolution was taken by Diocletian, and communicated to Herculius, long before his Resignation: his words are these. Tale est Imp. quod omnibus nobis incluso gemitu moerentibus facere Voluisti▪ non quidem tu Reip▪ negligenti [...], aut Laboris fugâ, aut desidiae cupiditate ductus, sed confili [...] olim, ut res est, inter vos placiti constantiâ, &c. Which things being so, how can that which Constantine says, stand good, that Diocletian ran mad after the Persecution of the Christians, and for that reason voluntarily removed himself from the Empire? Indeed, I might be easily induced to believe, that Diocletian was seized with a sickness, after the Persecution was begun, and was for some time distracted; especially, in regard Constantine and Eusebius do constantly affirm that. For this usually happens to sick people, and specially to melan­cholick persons; of which sort Diocletian was, as may be guessed from his Coyns. But, I deny, that for this reason he resigned the Empire. Further, in the Fuketian and Turneb. Copies, the reading of this whole place runs thus. [...], &c. Vales. be­cause of the harm he received by the loss of his wits, was punished by being shut up in one despicable House.

What was the advantage therefore which he got, by his raising a War against our God? This, I think; that he might finish the remaining part of his Life, in a continual fear of being Thun­der-struck. The City Nicomedia does attest this: nor, are they silent, who saw the thing with their own eyes; of which number I my self am one. He means the Palace of Nicomedia, which was consumed by an accidental fire, a little after the Persecution against the Christians was raised by Diocletian. And the Emperours them­selves, and the rest of the Heathens, blamed the Christians as the Au­thours of this fire, and therefore raged against them with severer pu­nishments; as our Eusebius relates in the Eighth Book of his Eccles. History, Chap. 6, about the close of the Chapter. But Constantine attests, that that Palace was consumed by fire sent from heaven. Whose testimony has so much the more authority, because he him­self was present, when these things were done at Nicomedia. And Diocletian, astonished by this clap of Thunder, seems till his death to have continued [...], always fearing he should be struck with Thunder. 'Tis certain, this Narrative of Constantine's seems to in­timate this. From hence it appears, how egregiously mistaken Chri­stophorson is, in translating the Title of this chapter. For he thought, that Diocletian's Palace had been burnt, after his resignation of the Empire: whenas, nevertheless, that hapned whilst Diocletian as yet held the Empire, and made his Residence in the Palace of Nico­media. Vales. The Palace was destroyed, and Diocle­tian's own Or, House. Room; Thunder, and a fire from Heaven ruining and devouring it. [Page 661] Indeed, the event of those things had been pre­dicted by prudent persons. For they were not silent, nor did they conceal their lamentation of affairs, which were managed with so much of indignity: but with freedom spake their minds openly and in publick, and discoursed one with another [in this manner.] What outragious fury is this? How extravagant is this arro­gancy of power, that men should dare to wage a War against God; and should resolve to in­sult over and reproach the most holy and most righteous Religion; and [should not scruple] to Plot and Contrive the Ruine of so numerous a multitude, and of such just men, when there is not the least fault in them? [...]. The last word is wanting in the Fuke­tian Copy. Vales. O Rare Instructer of the Modesty of all Subjects! O [Excellent Teacher] of that care which the Army bore towards their own Citizens! The Breasts of their own Country­men were wounded by those, Either he speaks these words con­cerning the Tyrones, who ha­ving been newly en­rolled a­mongst the Militia, had never yet engaged with an Enemy; or else concerning those cow­ardly and faint-hearted Souldiers, whose usage it was to flee out of the Fight, and had never conquered their Enemies. Indeed, Diocletian's Army is said to have done nothing memorable, save only the taking of the Achilleum at Alexandria, by a long Siege. Farther, 'tis very hard to understand what Constantine should mean, when he says, that those Souldiers had wounded the Breasts of their own Citizens, that is, of the Christians. 'Tis probable, that Diocletian, in regard he was incensed against the Christians, by whom he supposed his Palace to have been fired, had given his Souldiers order, that whatever Christians they could find in the City or in the Fields, they should slay. 'Tis certain, many thousands of Christians are related to have been slain at Nicomedia, under Diocletian, and Maximian: the memory of which persons thus murdered, is by the Greeks cele­brated, on the fourth of September, and on the twenty eighth of De­cember. Vales. who had never seen the backs of their Enemies in a fight. But at length, Divine Providence inflicted on them the punishment of such impious facts; and yet, not without damage to the Empire. [...] This period is removed out of its place. For, it ought to have been placed immediately after the word [...] in this manner: [...], &c. That is,—who had ne­ver seen the backs of their Enemies in a Fight. 'Tis certain, the slaughters committed were so numerous, that had they been made [in Battels] against the Barbarians, they might have been sufficient to have procured us a perpetual peace. But at length, Divine Pro­vidence inflicted on them the punishment of such impious facts; and yet, not without damage to the Empire. For, that whole Army of the forementioned Emperour, &c. What can be clearer than these words, what more plain? Questionless, he must be very obstinate, who shall deny, that these words are thus to be restored. Vales. 'Tis certain, the slaughters committed were so nu­merous, [...] There may be a double mea­ning of this place. For, either it may be rendred thus, as Portesius has turn'd it. Sanè caedis & sanguinis tanta vis fuit, ut si Barbarorum esset, ad foedus sempiternum sufficeret. Indeed, so great was the abun­dance of slaughter and bloud, that had it been of the Barbarians, it might have sufficed for a perpetual League. Or else, with Christophorson, it may be translated in this manner. Tot planè factae sunt caedes, quot si in barbaros factae fuissent, satis multae ad aeternam pacem constituendam videri potuissent. So many slaughters were committed, that had as many been made against the Barbarians, they might have seemed enough to have establisht an Eternal Peace. And this latter sense pleases me best. Lucan's opinion is wholly the same, in the beginning of his Pharsalia, when he says; Heu quantum potuit terrae pelagique parariHoc quem civiles hauserunt sanguine dextrae! Yet, instead of [...], it would be better written, [...] For it fol­lows, [...]. Vales. that had they been made [in Bat­tels] against the Barbarians, they might have been sufficient to have procured us a perpetual Peace.

For, that whole Army of the forementioned Em­perour, when afterwards it came under the Command of a He means Maxentius, as 'tis ap­parent from the following words. Now, how Diocle­tian's Ar­my should come un­der the Command of Maxen­tius, is not diffi­cult to guess. After the Resignation of Diocletian, Galerius Maxi­mianus received his Forces; part whereof he delivered to Severus Caesar, for the defence of Italy. Some little time after, when Maxen­tius had seized the Empire of Rome, Galerius sent Severus with his Forces against him. But Maxentius having corrupted Severus's Army by fraud, and with promises, brought them over to his own side. After this, when Galerius had made an Expedition against Maxentius with a greater number of Forces, he also was deserted by a like Re­volt of his Souldiers. Thus Diocletian's Forces came under the Command and power of Maxentius. Vales. worthless person, who by force had seized upon the Empire of the Romans, ( [...]. In the Fuketian Copy, and in Turnebus's Book, this place is read thus, [...]. Vales. Divine Providence having at length set at Liberty that great City;) was totally ruined in many and those Manifold, or, Fights of all sorts. Bloudy Battels. [...]. It must be▪ [...], and we have rendred it accordingly. In the Fuke­tian Copy 'tis, [...]. Vales. Moreover, the Cries to God of those that were opprest, and who ar­dently desired their Native freedom; the Praises also and Thanksgivings paid to God, after a deliverance from those Mischiefs, when Liberty [...]. Constantine does glory, because, having crusht the Tyranny of Maxentius, he had restored to the Romans, Liberty and Contracts with justice. For, after the slaughter of the Tyrant, whatever things had been done, either by Him or his Judges, were null'd. Therefore, if any one had been preferred to a dignity by him, he was reduced to his former condition, and was forc't to bring in the Codicills [or, Patent] of the dignity he had obtained, to the Lawfull Prince. The Sentences also, and Decrees, which the Judges had made in those times, were taken away out of the Publick Scrinia and Offices of Record. Lastly, that whole time of the Tyranny was accounted for nothing, in the same manner as if it had never been. Wherefore, neither was it of advantage for the prescription of a long time. Compacts also and Bargains, and Con­tracts of what sort soever, which had been made between private persons during that space of time, were in like manner null'd, and that even with the strictest authority and power. But lawfull Princes, after they had gotten the Victory over Tyrants, and had rescinded all their Acts; were wont to confirm Bargains, Sales, Donations, Manumissions, and such like Acts of private persons, by granting an indulgence of a publick constitution: least, if all these should be made null, the quiet and security of private persons might be disturbed. Hereof we have information; from the Emperours Laws in the Theo­dosian Code, B. 15; De infirmandis his quae sub Tyrannis gesta sunt. Whence we understand, why Constantine says, that he had restored Contracts to the Romans. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading is [...], not [...]. To this usage Rufinus seems to allude, in the end of his ninth Book, when he says. Edictis namque frequentibus per omnem locum propositis, non solùm tyrannicas adversus Christianos depulerat leges, jusque civile reddiderat, &c. Vales. and contracts with Justice were resto­red to them; do not these things all manner of ways declare the Providence of God, and his Paternal Love towards men?

CHAP. XXVI. That God is the Cause of the Emperour's Piety; and, that we ought to seek prosperous Events from God, and to impute them to Him; but must a­scribe faults to our own sloth and negligence.

BUt, when they commend my Labour and Ser­vice, which took its rise from the Inspiration of God; doe they not plainly avouch, that God is [Page 662] the Authour of my Valorous Actions? [...]. It must be [...]; and before this word an interro­gation is to be set, as Christo­phorson seems to have read. Vales. No­thing more certain. For, 'tis God's property to do whatever is best: but, 'tis the property of men, to pay an obedience to God. Farther, this is, I suppose, the best and most excellent Mini­stery; when a man, before his taking an affair in hand, makes such provision, that all things be done with the greatest safety. Indeed, all men know, that the [...]. I can't ap­prove of Christo­phorsons Version, who renders it; Manuum ad coelos sublatarum cultum, the worship of hands lift up to Heaven. I doubt not, but [...] here has the same import with Ministerium, Ministery. For Constantine says, that men ought to give the Ministery or Service of their own hands to God; and that, with a pure and sincere Faith. He has made use of [...] and [...] above, in the same sense. Truly, I can't perceive, how [...] can be taken in such a sense, as to signifie hands lift up to Heaven, or, prayers. Besides, the fol­lowing words do most apparently refute Christophorson's Version. For Constantine adds, [...], and, that whatever has been performed for the advantage of men, by Prayers and Supplications joyned with Labour of the hands, hath been happily effected. For, after Constantine hath said, that men ought to give the Service of their hands to God, he adds, that not only the hands are to be lent to God, but Prayers also and Supplications are to be used, that the af­fairs which we have undertaken to perform, may succeed happily. This is what Graecians are wont to say in a common proverb, [...]; whereby they shewed, that together with prayer the hand was to be put to the work. Farther, when Constantine says [...], he speaks concerning himself, in the same manner that Aeneas does in Virgil. —Si Pergama dextrâDefendi possent, dextrâ bâc defensa fuissent. Vales. most Holy Ministery of these very hands, is owing to God, together with a pure and most sincere Faith; and, that whatever has been performed for the advantage of men, by Prayers and Supplications joyned with La­bour of the hands, hath been happily effected: in regard, so much of utility has [...]. It must be written in one word, [...]; which I admire Scaliger and the rest did not per­ceive. So 'tis certain, the reading is in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. redoun­ded to all persons, both privately and pub­lickly, as each man could have desired, not only for himself, but for his dearest Relatives. They have likewise seen Fights, and have been Spectatours of a Battle, when Divine Pro­vidence He means the people of Rome, who in regard they were opprest by the Ty­ranny of Maxen­tius, put up their prayers for Con­stantine, against Maxen­tius. And this sense may be born with. But ha­ving lookt more nar­rowly into the thing, I have a suspicion that there is something of a fault here. And perhaps the reading should be, [...], bestowed Victory on my Army. Vales. bestowed Victory on the people: and they have beheld God favouring and as­sisting our Prayers. For righteous Prayer is a thing invincible; and no man ever mist of his designe, who besought God holily. For, there is no [...]. At this place [...] is made use of to signifie praetextum, a pretence or colour; which term in Constantine's Latine Oration being not understood by the Translatour, he rendred it in this manner: but, would have done better, had he made use of the word [...]. Christophorson therefore, and Portesius have done ill, in rendring it mundum, the world. Vales. pretence left for a Repulse; save only where Faith is wavering. For God is always favour­ably present, and gives a gracious Reception to the probity of men. Wherefore, sometimes to slip and stumble, is a thing common to men: but God is in [...]. It must be written [...], Errours, or mistakes; as I found it mended in Moraeus's Book. And this the Geneva-men have already put us in mind of, from the Books of Scaliger and Bongarsius; whereto agrees the Fuketian Co­py. Vales. no wise the Authour of hu­mane Lapses and Mistakes. All persons therefore whatever, who are Followers of Piety, ought to give thanks to the universal saviour, [...]. I am not of the same mind with Scali­ger, Bongarsius, and Gruter, who mend this place thus, [...], for our own safety. I had rather reade, [...]; which reading I have followed in my Version. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis written, [...]. But in the Sheets 'tis, [...]. Vales. both for our and their own safety, and for the flourishing posture of the publick affairs: and with holy Prayers, and continual Supplications, to render Christ propitious to us, that he would preserve and perpetuate his own Favours. For he is the in­vincible Assistant and Defender of the Just: He is the best Judge; the Prince of immortality; the Donour of Eternal life.

Eusebius Pamphilus's ORATION IN PRAISE OF THE EMPEROUR CONSTANTINE, SPOKEN AT HIS Tricennalia.

The It was heretofore the usage of the Sophists, before their Orations to make a kind of a Flourish as 'twere, in a short Preface; after the manner of Harpers, who before the Song, sing some thing for Tryal-sake, This Preface was commonly termed [...]. So in Themistius's fifteenth Oration, and in Libanius's Declamations, it often occurs. Hence, [...] is by Theodoret taken to signifie a Prologue. Vales. Prologue [to the Oration] in Praise of Constantine.

I Come not hither with a Composure of Fables, nor with an Elegancy of Expressions framed to captivate the Ears; that by the Voice of Syrens as 'twere, I might charm [my Hearers:] nor, that in Golden Cups, namely the beautifull flowers of words bedeckt with the most exquisite art of Rhetorick, I might present the delicate potions of pleasure, to persons in Love with those things. But rather, paying an Obedience to [the Precepts of] the Wise, I perswade all men, to shun and avoid the publick Roads; and entreat them, that they would not herd with The Many. I am come therefore, that I might [...]. Write [...], from the Fuketian Copy. Vales. being amongst You a Or, Newer. New Song of the Emperour's Praises. And although numerous persons have attempted to tread the same Or, Dance. path with me, yet [...]. It must be made [...], the path, or footsteps of men. For 'tis a noted halfe-verse of Homer's concerning Bellerophon, which Cicero renders in the very words I have made use of in my Version, namely, Hominum Ve­stigia Vitans. 'Tis certain, in the Fuketian Copy 'tis plainly writ­ten, [...]. Farther, Eusebius has delignedly besprinkled this Prologue, with many pieces of verses taken out of the Poets, as with flowers; that by this kind of Elegance he might allure and please the minds of his Hearers. So above, [...] is a poetick expression. Vales. I will decline the Foot-steps of men, and will go in an untrodden way, into which 'tis impious to enter with unwasht feet. Indeed, they who affect Vulgar Discourses, and Expressions worn with the Sophisms, of, Subtil­ties. Witticisms of Lads, and who Court a pleasing and popular Muse; may daub mens Ears with Humane Narratives; whilst they submit the Arbitrage [of all things] to pleasure. But such as be initiated in the Mysteries of Universal Wisedom it self, (in regard they are Masters of the knowledge of things Divine and Humane;) accounting the choice of what is better, to be the highest felicity; [such I say] esteem and preferre the God-lov'd Virtues of our Emperour, and his Pious Actions, before his humane accomplishments and Deeds; leaving those His Secondary Excellencies, to be celebrated by inferiour persons. For, whereas the Emperour's mind is endued with a knowledge of matters Divine and Humane; and whereas those have a reference to God; but these, to Men: Let them, [...]. I doubt not but Eusebius wrote, [...], whoever namely are fit, &c. The Verb [...] are, must be understood. But Christophorson the Translatour of this Oration, in regard he perceived not these things, has confounded the whole meaning of this place, in his Version. In the Fuketian Copy, these words [...] are wanting; excel­lently well. Vales. whoever namely are fit for the performance of this [Page 664] Office, suggest things Humane to such as stand without the Sacred Rails. For, even these things are both illustrious and transcendent, and of great use to mankind. Yea, all the perfections visible in our Emperour, are eximious; [...]. So al­so the reading is in the Fu­ketian Copy; yet I had rather reade, [...], nevertheless. Vales. nevertheless, they are far [...]ut­done by His Diviner Excellencies. But, let those persons, who are within the Holy Sanctuaries, and who have entred into the Ady [...]a and invious Recesses [of the Church;] (after they have shut the doors against prophane and impious Ears,) unfold the secret Mysteries of the Emperour, to those men only who are initiated therein. Farther, when they have cleansed their Ears in the Fountains of Piety, and mounted their understanding upon the sub [...]me win [...] of the mind it self, let them lead a dance about [God Himself] the supream King, silently learning the Divine [Mysteries.] And let the Oracles, not those which are the products of Divination [...]. A transpo­sition of words usu­al with Eusebius, instead of [...]. Presently, the reading in the Fuketian Copy▪ is [...], not [...]. Vales. or rather of rage and madness; but them that are uttered by the illumination and inspiration of the Divine [Spirit,] [...]. Doubtless it is to be written, [...], in the Sacred Kites, or Mysteries; which emendation is confirmed by these words which follow presently, [...], Having there­fore learn't the Divine, &c. For Eusebius says, that the Sacred Books, wherein are contained the Divine Oracles, are our Teachers of the Sacred Mysteries, and are as 'twere some Hierophanta. Vales. be our Instructers in the Sacred Rites: [let them give us information] concerning the Kingdom it self; and concerning the Supream King; and concerning that Di­vine Guard which surrounds the Universal Governour: as also, concerning that Copy of Royal Power which is amongst us, drawn from that Original of the Celestial Kingdom; and concerning that other false one, which does counterfeit the Impress thereof: and lastly, concerning those things which do accompany Or, Both the one and the other Order; that is, the true Royal­power; and the counter­feit, or, false one. each sort of Empire. [...]. It has the same import with what he has said above, namely [...], learning the Divine Mysteries. For [...] signifies the same with [...]. Wherefore [...] will import the same with [...]. The Chief-Priests of the Eleusinia [...] Sacra were, at Athens, termed Hierophantae, who delivered and consigned the Rites of Ceres. Whom, persons initiated did so highly Revere, that they would never call them by their own names. Eunapius tells us this, in His Life of Maximus the Philosopher, in these words: [...], But, what his name was, who at that time was Hierophanta, it is unlawfull for me to declare: for, he had initia­ted me who write these things; and had enrolled me amongst the Eumolpidae. Lucian (or whoever else is the authour of it) attests the same in Lexiphane; where one Megalonymus an Athenian says, that when he had gone out one day to visit the Magistrate, he found the Daduchus [Torch-bearer,] and Hierophanta, and some other Ministers of the Sacred Rites, who hated one Dinias before the Magistrate, accusing the man because he had called them by their own names; whereas it was unlawfull to call them by their own names, after they had been consecrated: [...]. Although Lucian says more than Eunapius. For Eunapius has told us, that it was unlawfull only for those who had been Consecrated at Elcusina, to call that Hierophanta by his proper name, from whom they had received initiation. But Lucian affirms, that that was forbidden to all persons in general. Hence 'tis, that amongst Libanius's Epistles, some occur with this Title, [...], to the Hierophanta. And in the Fifth Book of Symmachus's Epistles, the first three are inscribed, To the Hierophanta. For, in regard both those persons had been initiated at Athens, they lookt upon it as a thing unlawfull, to call the Hierophanta by his own name. Vales. Having therefore learned the Divine Mysteries from these [Oracles,] as from some Hierophantae, we will thus begin our Divine [...]. The Geneva-Printers had left out a word, which we have supplied from the Fuketian Manuscript, thus, [...], we will begin our Divine Discourses, or, Mysteries. Vales. Discourses.

EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS'S [ORATION IN PRAISE OF] THE EMPEROUR CONSTANTINE, SPOKEN AT HIS TRICENNALIA.

THIS is the Great Emperour's So­lemnCHAP. I. Festival; wherein We who are the Servants of the Emperour, in­spired with the Instructions of Sa­cred Discourses, do rejoyce. He who gives be­ginning to, and Rules this Our Festival, is the Great Emperour Himself. Him I term The Great Emperour, who is truly Great. Him I mean, (nor will the Emperour, who is here pre­sent, be offended thereat, but will rather, to­gether with Us, highly approve of this Our Discourse concerning the Divinity;) [...]. These words are wanting in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. who is beyond the Universe; the Supream over all; the Highest; the most Immense. The Thrones of whose Empire, are the Celestial Arches; and the Earth, the Footstool of His Feet. [...]. It must, I think, be written, [...]; Nor can any one, &c. Nevertheless, something seems to be wanting here. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading is, [...]; which is right. Vales. Nor can any one Or, Worthily. perfectly com­prehend Him in His mind. For, the Glorious Light which surrounds Him, by the unspeakable Splendour of its Rayes, drives off all persons, and hinders them from beholding his Divinity. Or, About him the Celestial Hosts make their Rounds. Him the Celestial Hosts do en­compass: [Page 665] His Guards are the Supernal Powers; Him They acknowledge their Master, Lord, and Emperour. The innumerable multitudes of An­gels, and the Companies of Arch-Angels, and the Quires of Holy Spirits, Or, Drawing. deriving [their Splendour] from the Rayes about Him, as 'twere from some everlasting Fountains of Light, are illustrated. Likewise, all the Lights, and espe­cially those Divine and Intellectual Kinds of in­corporeal Lights, which have their place be­yond Heaven; do celebrate this Great Em­perour with the highest and most Divine Hymns. The vast Firmament, like some azure Curtain, is drawn between, which separates those without, from them who are conversant within the Palace. Round this [Firmament,] in the same manner with the [...]. Eusebius does elegantly compare the Sun and Moon to the Light-Bearers or Footmen, who were wont to go before the Emperour with Tor­ches and Lights, as I have noted at Amm. Marcellinus. Vales. Light-Bearers in the Im­perial Porticus's, run the Sun and Moon, and those other Luminaries of Heaven: which do both highly honour the Emperour Himself and also at His beck and word, afford the Splen­dour of an inextinguishable Light, to those who are without Heaven, and who inhabit a Gloomy Region. Whereas therefore I do presume, that Our Victorious Prince Himself also, does with praises celebrate [...], this Greatest Emperour Christ. The last word must be blotted out. For what Eu­sebius has said hither­to, he has spoken not concerning Christ, but of God the Father; to whom the antient Di­vines did properly assigne the Monarchy. Besides, the fol­lowing words do plainly shew, that these are not spoken concerning Christ. Neverthe­less, if any person be scrupulous of expunging any thing, he must set a distinction after the word [...], that the meaning may be this; that God the Father, the highest King of all, is celebrated with Hymns, both by Christ, and by Constantine. For our Eusebius does a little lower say the same thing concerning Christ. Vales. this Greatest Emperour; therein, in my own judgment, I [...]. It must, I think, be written, [...]; which reading I have followed in my Version. But some words are undoubtedly wanting here, which may be supplied in this manner; [...], &c. That is, Our Emperour well knowing, that this Greatest King is with Hymns celebrated by Christ, who him­self also is our most invincible King; He Himself likewise extols him with Praises and Hymns, thereby doing that which is right and well; for be understands, that he only is the origin of Empire to us. Thus the sense is most plain; nor do I think, that Eusebius either wrote, or thought otherwise. Nevertheless, in the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis written, [...]. Vales. seem to do very well: in regard I am truly sensible, that Or, He only [i. e. God] is the Authour of Empire to us. all power amongst us is derivative from Him. Him also the Religious Caesars do acknowledge to be the Fountain of all Or, Goods. Blessings: having received this Command from their Father. Him, the Milice; the numerous mul­titudes of the people, as well in the Countries as Cities; and the Governours of Pro­vinces assembling in the Church, do Religiously adore: being instructed by Our The Translatour thought these words were spoken concerning Constantine; which truly I don't condemn. Yet, they may also be meant of Christ. Vales. Great Saviour and Master. Lastly, all mankind in general, all sorts of Nations, Tribes, and Languages; and all per­sons, as well collectively and in one Body, as severally and apart; although in other matters they dif­fer in their Sentiments, yet agree in this very one confession; invoking this One and Only God, by natural reason, by notions self-learnt, and which proceed not from the instruction of any Teacher. What, does not the whole Or, Ele­ment Mass of the Earth acknowledge him Lord? By the Plants and Living Creatures produced out of it, does it not evidently demonstrate its submission to [...]. This place is corrupted, which ne­vertheless you might easily mend. At my perll there­fore write, [...], its submis­sion to the command of the Deity; which amendment is most un­doubted. Vales. his command who is far superiour in power? The Torrents also of Rivers overflowing with their waters, and the plentifull streams of Fountaines, perpetually issuing [...]. These four words are, in my judgment, to be blotted out, as being superfluous, and but little agreeable to this place. But if any person shall have a mind to retain them, they must be transposed in this manner; [...]. Although another participle would be substituted. For, [...] is no good expression. It would be better, were it made [...], as Eusebius expresses himself lower; or rather [...]. Vales. out of the un­known and immense depths of the Earth, do pro­fess him to be the Authour of this inexplicable and miraculous performance. The Gulfs of the Sea, inclosed within unfathomable depths, and the swollen Waves [...]. The last word is wanting in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. which are raised to a vast height, and strike the adjacent Earth with terrour; as soon as they approach the Shores, dread Him, being bound by the Command of His Divine Law. Moreover, the Or, Mea­sured Falls. Determinate Quantities of Winter Showers; and the astonishing noise of the Thunder; and the [...]lashings of the Lightning; and the variable and inconstant blasts of the Windes; and lastly, the aierie Or, Paths. Tracks of the Clouds, do plainly exhibit his presence [...]. It must I think, be▪ [...] to those, who can, &c. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...]; right. Vales. to those, who can in no wise take a view of him with their own eyes. The all enlightening Sun also, who hath Or, By his course fullfilled so, &c. finished so vast a number of ages, acknowledges him only as his Lord; and, in entire obedience to his command, never dare, go beyond his fixt Bounds. The Moon likewise, ( [...]. The Transla­tour ren­ders this place thus; Lunam quoque, cujus Lu­mon muit [...] obscurius est quàm Solis; the Moon like­wise, whose tight is far more ob­scure than that of the Sun. But I think it should be written, [...]; that is, the Moon which goes under the light of the Sun. Vales. which for the splendour of her light is far inferiour to the Sun,) being lessened and again increased at set periods of Times, obeys the Divine Commands. And the Beautie of Heaven, which glisters gor­geously with the Dances of the Stars, and Or, Goes on. moves with Order and Harmony, and measures over its own Circles; pro­claims God to be the Donor of all manner of Light. Likewise, all the other Ce­lestial Luminaries, having by his Beck and Word made up one harmonious Consort, finishing their long Course by the Circles of so vast a number of ages, like charioteers run over the Rounds of their Aetherial Stages. The successive Returns of nights and dayes, the changes of Seasons and Times, and the Order and Harmony of the Universe, do celebrate the manifold wisedom [ [...]. I had rather write, [...]. Instead of [...], another verb must be substituted; viz. [...] do extol, or [...] do proclaim. For that verb [...] is not at all agreeable here, and has crept in hither by mistake, out of the following period. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...], do celebrate his manifold wisedom; without those words [...], of his infinite and immense power; nor do these words occur in the most ancient Palatine Manuscript. Vales. of his in­finite and immense power.] Those invisible Powers, which flye about the Plains that lye streacht through the Air, do render to this God, due and befit­ting praise. The whole World therefore with a joynt consent doth la [...]d this Great Emperour. The Heavens above, and those Quires which are higher than the Celestial Arches, do reverence Him: the Hosts of Angels praise Him with in­expressible Hymns: and the Spirits which are [Page 666] the Off-springs of Intellectual Light, do pro­nounce Him their Parent and their God. Those Ages Or, Which were before all Time. unlimited by Time, which were be­fore this Heaven and this World; and besides, infinite other Ages, before all constitution of things visible, do acknowledge one sole and supream Master and Lord. Lastly, He Himself, who is in all, and before all, [...] I don't see how this expression can be made use of, in refe­rence to The Word, that That is before all things, and after all things; un­less we mean it concerning The Word incarnate. In which sense there is a passage in The Re­velation; I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. It may also be meant concerning The Word, who, al­though He was begot­ten before all ages, is nevertheless continually begotten by the Father. And this is what is said in the Psalms; Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee, &c. Thus The Word is before all things, and after all things, and in all things, not by a succession of time, but by reason of an eternal Generation. For, he is the origin and End of all things who begins and terminates all things which are, or which can be. Nevertheless, Eusebius's words may be understood otherwise, if they be construed with the verb [...] So, the meaning will be this; The Word does appease God the Father before all persons and after all persons. But the former exposition is truer. For in this man­ner Dionysius Alexandrinus, in his Epistle to Hermammon, speaks con­cerning the Son of God; [...] Neither had he regard to the judgment of Him who was before all, is in all, and above all. Which passage is quoted in the Seventh Book of the Eccles. Hist. Chap. 10. Novatianus likewise, in his Book de Trinitate, Chap. 14, says Christ is before all things, and after all things; before all things, as God; but after all things, as Man. Vales. and after all, His only-begotten Son and praeexisting Word; the Great High-Priest of the Great God; ancienter than all Time and all Ages; [...] The Translatour has ren­dred it ill, dignitatis paternae particeps, partaker of His Father's dignity; whereas it ought to have been rendred, devotus ac dicatus cultui patris, devoted, &c. 'Tis an expression like that inscription, which is com­monly extant on the Base of Statues which they had dedicated to the Emperours, DEVOTUS NUMINI MAJESTATI­QUE EJUS. But, these words smell ranck of Arianisme. For whoever asserts, that God the Word is devoted to the worship of God the Father; doubtless that person speaks too meanly of The Word, and seems not only not to equal The Word to God the Father, but rather to make Him subject to the Father. Of the same stamp is that expres­sion which Eusebius adds, that The Word makes supplication to the Father for the Salvation of all men. Which, if it be meant concerning God the Word, as He is the Word, can no wise be born with. But, if it be understood concerning Christ, that is, concerning the Word after He had assumed the humane Nature, it is most true. The same opi­nion is extant in his Second Book against Marcellus Chap. 7. where Euse­bius says, that the Son doth worship, adore, and glorifie God the Father. Farther, a little before, the reading in the Fuketian Manuscript is, [...] Vales. de­voted and consecrated to the worship of His Fa­ther, is the First and Only Person who makes Supplication to Him for the Salvation of all men. Who enjoyes a preheminence in the Government of the world; [...] but, possesses an equal share, &c. I doubt not but Eusebius wrote, [...] But, holds the second place in His Father's Kingdom: which expression the publishers being not able to endure, they thought it was to be changed into [...] that so the Son might be made equal to the Father. But, that Eusebius wrote as I have said, is apparent, first from the very Series of his Oration. For, at this place Eusebius distinguishes the Government and Regiment of the Universe, from the Kingdom of God the Father. And in the Government of the Universe, he does indeed say, that the Son holds the principal place: but, that he has the Second place in the Kingdom of His Father: [...] You see, that [...] that is, the Kingdom of the Universe, is opposed to the Kingdom of God the Father. To [...] therefore, [...] ought also to be opposed. Secon­ly, [...] is not Greek. Lastly, Eusebius, in his Books of Demonstrat. Evang. does always term the Son, the Second Cause: And, in Book 5. Chap. 4. Demonstrat. Evang. he says [...] Vales. but possesses an equal share of Glory with His Father, in His Father's King­dom. For, He is that Light which transcends all things; which dances about the Father, and which by its intervention Separates that Nature which is without a Beginning and without a Generation, from the substance of things begot­ten. Which Light also, streaming from above, from the Deity which wants both beginning and end, Or, Pro­ceeds forth on the out­side. diffuses it self without, and il­lustrates the Region above heaven, and all things that are within hea­ven, with the Rayes of Wisdom, which are far more Glorious than the splendour of the Sun. This is He, who is the Leader of the whole World; the Word of God who goes before all, and through all, and is in all things, as well Visible as invisible. By whom and through whom, Our Emperour dear to God, bearing a resemblance of the Celestial Empire, in imitation of the Deity, directs and manages the Helm of Government over all things upon the Earth.

AND That Only-begotten Word of God,CHAP. II. Reigns together with His Father, from ages which want a beginning, to infinite and endless ages. But this Our Emperour, [...] This place is, in my judgment, thus to be restored; [...] continues to Reign together with His Father, from ages which want a beginning, to infinite and endless ages. But, Our Emperour, dear to Him, &c. Vales. always dear to Him, being supplyed with some Imperial Emanations from above, and fortified [...] 'Tis not clearly enough made out, what this Surname of a Divine appellation should be, wherewith Constantine was ho­noured and signalized. Does Eu­sebius mean the name of Victor, which was given to Constantine, as we have remark't above? Or rather, the surname of Maximus, which is proper to God? The very Name Constantine may also be meant, the import whereof is, He that is. Now, the Sacred Scriptures do inform us, that this is the proper Name of God. Lastly, we may here understand the surname of Christianus, Chri­stian; an appellation which Con­stantine loved most entirely. Vales. with the Surname of a Divine appellation, governs upon earth during many and long periods of years. Far­ther, that Uni­versal Or, Sa­viour. Preserver renders Heaven, and the whole world, and the Celestial Kingdom, fit for his Father. But this [Our Emperour,] who is His Friend, brings all those persons living upon Earth, that are the Subjects of His Empire, to the Only-begot­ten Word and Saviour, and makes them fit [...] I read with the Translatour, [...] for His Kingdom. Vales. for His Kingdom. And, that Com­mon Saviour of all, by an invisible and divine power, drives off at the greatest distance from His Fold (in the same manner that a good Shepherd does wild-beasts,) those Rebellious Powers, which flew up and down thorow this Air that is nearest the Earth, and Or, Stuck upon the, &c. brooded the Souls of Men. But this [Our Emperour,] His friend, adorned from above by Him, with Trophies erected against his Ene­mies; by the Law of War subdues the open Ad­versaries of Truth, and chastizes them. That person, existing Or, The Word. The Logos before the world was framed, and the preserver of all things; delivers rational and saving Seeds to His Com­panions, and renders them reasonable, and in­structed in the knowledge of His Father's King­dom. This [Our Emperour,] His Friend, as 'twere some Interpreter to the Word of God, re­calls all mankind to the knowledge of God: cry­ing out in the hearing of all men, and with a loud voice promulging the Laws of [...] In the Fuketian Copy, the word [...] is wanting; which is the truer reading. Vales. true Piety and Verity, to all persons living upon the Earth. That Uni­versal Saviour opens the Ce­lestial Gates of His Father's Kingdom, to those who remove from hence thither. This [Our Emperour,] following the Example of the Deity, after He hath cleansed His Empire on earth, from all the filth of impious Errour, invites the Or, Quires. Assemblies of Holy and Pious men, into the Sacred Houses and Or, Churches. Basilicae; making it his chiefest care, that the whole Navy, with the [Page 667] Command and management whereof He is en­trusted, should be preserved together with the people on Boord. And He is the only person of all those that ever yet governed the Empire of the Romans, who having now been honoured by God the Supream King, with Or, Three periods of Decads. thirty years Reigne, celebrates this Festival, not to terrene Spirits, as the usage of the Ancients was, nor to the Apparitions of Daemons which seduce the unskilfull multitude, nor yet to the frauds and [...] The word [...] is corrupted; in place whereof, what term should be substituted, I don't know. Unless the word [...] will please. For he praises Constan­tine, because he would not ad­mit the Ethnick Oratours to his Decennalia. Vales. feigned Narratives of im­pious men: but, pays his thanks to that God, by whom he has been honoured, being truly sensible of those Bles­sings which He has confer­red on him. Not polluting his Or, Imperial Houses. Palace with bloud and gore, agreeable to the Rites of the Ancients; nor appea­sing terrene Daemons with smoke and fire, and with sacrifices of Beasts wholly consumed by fire on the Altars; but consecrating a most grate­full and acceptable sacrifice to the Supream King Himself, His own Imperial Soul namely, and His Mind which is most worthy of God. For this is the only Sacrifice wherewith God is well pleased: which Our Emperour has learnt to offer, with the purified thoughts of his mind, without either fire or bloud [...] These words ought to be expun­ged; which are not set in their due place here, but must be put in lower, in this manner; [...] giving confirmation to his piety, &c. There is nothing more certain than this Emendation; nor did the Translatour read otherwise, as 'tis apparent from his Version. Wherefore this seems to be a mistake of the Printer. This our Emendation was long after­wards confirmed to us by the Fuketian Copy; wherein 'twas exactly written as I had conjectured; save only, that 'tis there worded, [...], and wholly devoting himself, &c. Vales.: giving confirma­tion to his piety by those unerring Sentiments and Opinions treasured up in his mind; setting forth the praises of God in lofty and magnifick Orations, and by Imperial Actions emulating the Clemency of the Deity: and wholly devoting himself to God, and, like some great Gift, making a present of himself to Him, the First-fruits as 'twere of the World, with the Administration whereof he hath been entrusted. This greatest Sacrifice therefore, the Emperour in a due man­ner Offers, [...] It must be made [...] or [...] before all other, or, first. Vales. before all other. But he Sacri­fices like a Good Shepherd, not ‘Offering glorious Hecatombs of Firstling-Lambs:’ but rather, bringing over the minds of those ra­tional flocks, which are fed by Him, to the know­ledge and worship of God.

BUT God, highly pleased with such a Sa­crificeCHAP. III. as this, and with delight accepting this Gift offered to Him; praises the See the Prologue to this Ora­tion, note (b.) Hiero­phanta of this venerable and eximious Sacri­fice, and makes an addition of Or, Large. many periods [of years] to his Reigne; augmenting his fa­vours towards him, in a manner correspondent and proportionate to those Acts of Piety, where­with He is worshipped by the Emperour. And He has permitted him to celebrate all these Festivals with the highest prosperity of the Monarchy; at each period of the Decenna­lian Festivity, advancing one of his Sons to the Colleague-ship of the Imperial Throne [...]. These words, as far as [...], are wanting in the Fuketian Copy, and in the most ancient Palatine Copy, as the Geneva-men have told us. Vales. Valesius takes no notice of this clause; either in the Greek Text of his Edition, or in his Version. In Cur­terius's translation of this Oration (for I have not the Geneva-Edition by me,) it is worded thus; Et velut plantae florenti virenti­que temporum incrementa donata..

For, [...], in the first Decade of his Imperial period. If we make a more exact enquiry into the thing, it will be found false, that Con­stantine Junior was created Cae­sar by his Father, in the first Decennium [ten years] of Constan­tine's Em­pire. For Constantine Junior was created Caesar by his Father, in the Consulate of Gallicanus and Bassus, on the Calends of March, in the year of Christ 317. This was the eleventh year of Constantine's Reigne. Wherefore, Constantine Junior was not created Caesar within the first Decennium, but within the second rather. This place of Eusebius must therefore be favourably interpreted, and [...], must be taken for [...], about, &c. Vales. in the first Decennium of his Empire, he proclaimed his eldest Son, who bears the same name with his▪ Father, a Partner of the Im­perial Or, He­ritage. Realm: after that, his second Son, who was the next to him in age, at his second Decade: and in like manner his third, at his third Decade, which we now celebrate. [...] The Empe­rour Constantine published his Tricennalia in the Consulate of Con­stantius and Albinus, on the eight of the Calends of August, which day began the thirtieth year of his Empire. From this day therefore, in the foresaid persons Consulate, on the year of Christ 335, began the fourth Decennalian period of Constantine's Empire, according to the computation of Eusebius: whereas nevertheless, it ought rather to begin from the following year, namely, his thirty first year. But these things are not wont to be so exactly cast up, by Orators. Vales. And, whereas his fourth period [of ten years] is now current; in re­gard the spaces of times do more and more ex­tend themselves, he increases the Empire by a Copious Or, So­ciety. Colleagueship of his Stock, He means Dalmatius and Hanniballianus; the former of whom was declared Caesar, the other King, by Constantine, in the thirtieth year of his Empire, on the fifteenth of the Calends of October, as it oc­curs in Idatius's Fasti. Saint Jerome (in the Chronicon) tells us, that Dalmatius was made Caesar, in Constantine's Tricennalia. Where he has made use of the term Tricennalia, instead of the thirtieth year of his Empire: whereas nevertheless, Tricennalia is properly the first day of his thirtieth year. For the Roman Emperours celebrated their Quinquennalia, Decennalia, and Vicennalia, on the first day of the fifth, tenth, and twentieth year of their Empire. For these words signifie nothing else, but the Natalis [Birth-day] of the Empire, which was celebrated with the greatest Pomp and Festivity, every recurring fifth and tenth year. Now, this Fe­stivity lasted one or two days, in which time the Ludi Circenses and Theatrales were exhibited. Therefore, whereas Dalmatius was not created Caesar on the eighth of the Calends of August, which day began the thirtieth year of Constantine's Empire; Saint Jerome has exprest himself improperly, who has told us, that that Caesar was created in Constantine's Tricennalia. Our Eusebius does here more truly place that, after his Tricennalia, the fourth Decennalian period of Constantine's Empire now beginning. For, after the celebration of the Tricennalia, they began a new period; as if the thirtieth year, which was but just begun, had been now finished. And, as Lawyers are wont to say, that in dignities, a begun-year is accounted for a compleat one: so also they were wont to do, in the Quinquen­nalia, Decennalia, and the other Festivals of this sort. Thus, the place in Amm. Marcellinus's fourteenth Book is to be understood; where he speaks concerning Constantius's Tricennalia in these words. Arelate hiemem agens Constantius, post Theatrales Ludos atque Cir­censes ambitioso editos apparatu die 6. idus Octobris, qui Imperii ejus annum tricesimum terminabat, &c. For Amm. Marcellinus has undoubtedly made use of the thirtieth year compleated, instead of the thirtieth year begun, on account of that very reason which I have mentioned. Vales. and by Creations of Caesars; ful­filling the Oracles of [...]. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis [...] And, a little after, [...], &c. This place, which Eusebius cites out of the Divine Prophets, occurs in the seventh Chapter of Daniel. Vales. the Divine Prophets, which they long since proclaimed in this manner: And the Saints of the most High shall take the Kingdom. Thus therefore, God Himself the Supream King conferrs upon the most Pious Emperour, Or, In­creases of Times, &c. an In­crease both of years and children, and renders his Government of the Nations upon Earth, fresh and flourishing, as if it had been but now begun. [Page 668] And That is, God. he himself solemnizes this Festival [in honour] to Him; having made Him the Con­querour over all his Enemies and Adversaries; and exhibiting Him as the Pattern of true Piety, to all persons upon the Earth. But our Emperour, like the Light of the Sun, illustrates men, whose habitations are in places most remote from one another, with the glorious Or, Splendours. Presence of His Caesars, as 'twere by some Rayes trans­mitted from himself to the greatest distance. And on Us who inhabit the East, He hath be­stowed a [...]. He means Constantius Caesar. For he had at first been sent by his Father, to Govern the Gallia's. But afterwards he was removed into the East; as Julian informs us in his first Oration de Laudi­bus Constantii, and Libanius in his Basilic. Vales. Shoot truly wor­thy of himself: another of his Sons [he hath assigned] to another portion of men: and again, another [He has placed] otherwhere; like so many Lamps and Lights, which derive their Bright­ness from that Light diffu­sed from Himself. Farther, having joyned together for himself, the Four most va­liant Caesars, like so many young Horses, Or, To one Yoke of the Impe­rial Chariot; so Valesius. and fixt them under one Set of Har­ness belonging to the The Translatour saw no­thing here; he has rendred this place, thus, Porro imperii quadri­sariam dispertiti jugum, quasi qua­tuor equis, id est sibi, & tribus filiis Caesaribus Fortissimis imponens. But Eusebius does expressly name four Caesars, whom he compareth to four Horses, who being coupled together in one Yoke, drew the Imperial Chariot; over which Constantine presided, as Chario­teer. Now, the four Caesars were, Constantinus Junior, Constantius, and Constans, Sons of the Empe­rour Constantine; and Dalmatius the Son of Dalmatius; concerning whom we have spoken above. Vales. Im­perial Chariot, and fitted them with the Raines of Divine Concord and Unity; He Himself sits above, like the Charioteer, and puts them on; and drives over the whole world, wherever the Sun makes his Visits; and is per­sonally present in all places, and inspects all affairs. Lastly, being adorned with a representation of the Cele­stial Empire, having His eyes fixt upon Heaven, He directs and manages the affairs of Mortals, in a conformity to that Original Draught; and is encouraged and strengthened by a resem­blance of the Monarchy of God. For, this the [sole] King over all, hath bestowed on the Nature of Men only, [...]. This place tortured me a long while. But at length I have found out the most undoubted Emendation of it. I write there­fore; [...]. That is; For, this the [sole] King over all, &c. Eusebius re­peats the same hereafter, in chap. 4: where he reckons up the Favours, which mankind hath received from God the Word. [...]. But the Translatour, instead of [...], seems at this place to have read [...]. For thus he renders it. Istam enim imperii Formam Lex, quae rex omnium est, humano generi tribuit. Vales. of all those Creatures which are on Earth, [that it should express a likeness of his Divine Monarchy.] [...]. These words are spoken concerning the su­pream King and God; who really is the Law and Rule of Royal Power. The reading at this place might likewise be [...]; that so the meaning may be this, that God only is possest of the Royal Power, in regard he alone rules over all, and holds the Monarchy. There­fore, in the foregoing period, it must, I think, be written in this manner, [...]. Nor do I think, that Eusebius wrote otherwise. For the sentence is most plain and elegant, if we read thus. And this period will excellently well cohere with the foregoing one. Vales. For, He is the Law of Imperial power, whereby 'tis Decreed, that all should be subject to the Empire of One. More­over, Monarchy does far ex­cell all other Constitutions, and Forms of Government whatever. For Polyarchy, which is opposed to it, being a sort of Regiment wherein many Govern with an equali­ty of power and honour, ought rather to be termed Anarchy and Confusion. On which ac­count, there is one God, not two, nor three, nor yet many. For, to assert a multitude of Gods, is plainly to affirm, that there is no God at all. One King: and [...]. In the Fuke­tian Copy, the Comma is wan­ting, excellently well. For the Son of God is the Word and Law of God the Father, as Eu­sebius says a little afterwards. Vales. his Word and Impe­rial Law, One: which [Law] is not declared by words and syllables; nor is it written in Paper, or cut upon pillars, that it should be consumed by length of Time: but it is the living and self-subsisting [...]. Valesius tenders it, Dei sermo, word of God. God the Word, who disposes and orders his Fathers King­dom, to all those who are under Him, and after Him. Him the Cele­stial Hosts do surround, and Myriads of An­gels which are the Ministers of God; and in­numerable Troops of the Milice plac't above the World, and of invisible Spirits; who residing within the Inclosures of Heaven, use their ut­most diligence about the Order and Administra­tion of the whole World. Over all whom, the Royal Or, Word. Logos is the Captain and Prince, as 'twere some Praefect of the supream Emperour. The Sacred Oracles of Divines term Him, The Master of the Milice, and The Great High-Priest, and The Prophet of the Father, and The Angel of the Great Council, and The Brightness of His Father's Light, and The Only-Begotten Son; and [give Him] innumerable other such Titles as these. Whom when the Father had Constituted The Living Word, and The Law, and The Wisdom, and The Complement of all Good; He made a Present of [...]. The term [...] must be expunged, or else the word [...]: for one of those words is superfluous. Yet I had rather blot out the latter. For so Eusebius expres­ses himself hereafter, in chap. 12. Vales. This Greatest Blessing, to all those who are Subject to His Empire. But, He pierces thorow all things, and goes every where, and in a plentifull manner displays His Father's Favours to all per­sons; and has stretcht forth the Resemblance of the Imperial Power, even as far as those ra­tional Creatures which live on earth; having adorned the mind of man, which is framed ac­cording to His Own Likeness, with Divine Or, Powers. Faculties. Hence 'tis, that in the mind of man there is a participation of the other Virtues also, derived from a Divine Emanation. For, He only is wise, who is also the Sole God: He only is essentially Good: He only is strong and powerfull. And He is the Parent of Justice: the Father of Reason and Wisedom; the Foun­tain of Light and Life; the Dispenser of Truth and Virtue; and lastly, the Authour of Empire it self, and of all Dominion and Power.

BUT, Whence has man the knowledge ofCHAP. IV. these matters? Who hath declared these things in the hearing of Mortals? Whence has a Carnal tongue the Liberty, of uttering those matters, which are forreign both to flesh and body? Who ever saw the invisible King, and discovered these Excellencies in Him? 'Tis true, the Elements, which are joyned in an Affinity with Bodies, and the things made up of those Elements, are perceived by the Or, Sense of Bodies. senses of the Body. But, no person hath boasted, that with the eyes of the Body He hath ever had a sight of that invisible Kingdom, by which all things are Governed: nor, has mortal Nature ever beheld the Beauty of Wisedom. Who hath seen the Face of Justice, with Or, The sense of flesh. eyes of flesh? Whence was the Notion of Legal Government and Royal [Page 669] Dominion suggested to men? From whence could Imperial Power [be known] to man, who is made up of flesh and bloud? Who hath declared to those on earth, the invisible Or, Forms. Form, which can't be express't by any figure; and the incor­poreal Or, Sub­stance. Essence which wants all external Li­neaments? Questionless, there was one Interpre­ter of these things, the Word of God who pier­ceth thorow all things. Who is the Father and Maker of that rational and intellectual substance which appears to be in men: who being the Only Per­son that is united to the Divinity of the Fa­ther, watereth his own Sons with his Fathers Out­flowings. Effluxes. Hence have all men, Greeks and likewise Barbarians, those natural and self-learnt Reasonings: hence those Notions of Reason and Wisedom: hence the Seeds of prudence and justice: hence the [...], Com­prehensions. Inventions of Arts: hence the knowledge of Virtue [...]; which words Valesius renders thus, Et nomen Philosophiae, & Vene­randus amor Sapientiae, and the name of Philosophy, and the Vene­rable Love of Wisdom. and the gratefull name of Wise­dom, and the Venerable Love of Philosophick Learning. Hence the knowledge of all that is Good and Commenda­ble: hence the Representation of God Himself formed in the mind, and a Course of Life fitly answering the divine worship. Hence is man furnished with a Royal Power, and with an invincible Empire over all things that are in the Earth. But, after The Logos, who is the Parent of Rational Creatures, had imprest upon the mind of Man a Character agreeable to the Image and like­ness of God, and had made Man a Royal Crea­ture; (having conferred this on him only, of all those Creatures which are on Earth, namely that he should have a knowledge, both of Go­verning, and of being Governed; and also, that even from this Life he should [...]. It must, I think, be written [...]. For so Eu­sebius expresses himself in chap. 6, where he speaks thus concerning God the Word; [...]. The sentence is in both places the same. For, in the one place he speaks concerning the Celestial Kingdom; in the other, concerning Life eternal: and says, that some assays, proofs, and fore-exercises of each, are granted to men in this life, by the Divine Word. Wherefore I doubt not but Eusebius wrote in this manner, [...], &c. And thus the sense is most perspi­cuous. But the word [...], which went before, must be un­derstood. A long while after I had written this Note, having at length procured the Fuketian Co­py, I found my conjecture confir­med by its authority, at least in part. For in that Manuscript the reading is, [...], begin to meditate upon, and to fore-learn; incomparably well. Vales. begin to medi­tate upon, and to fore-learn that promised Hope of the Celestial Kingdom; for the sake of which Kingdom, He Himself came, and, as a Fa­ther of His children, disdained not personally to enter into a Converse with Mortals:) [...]. I had rather write, [...]. Fur­ther, this whole page of Eusebius's is put together very unfitly, by reason of the too great number of Verbs, which occur in the Im­perfect Tense. Whence 'tis, that his Discourse becomes irksome and unpleasant. Vales. He Himself, cultivating His own Seeds, and renew­ing His heavenly Supplies and Favours, declared to all men, that they should partake of the Celestial Kingdom. And he invi­ted all persons, and exhor­ted them, that they should be ready for their journey upwards, and should fur­nish themselves with a Gar­ment befitting their cal­ling. And by an unspeak­able power he filled the whole world, which is en­lightened by the Sun's Rayes, with his Preaching; by a likeness of the earthly King­dom, expressing the Kingdom of Heaven. To which he incites and encourages the whole Body of mankind to ha­sten, having shewed all men this Confidence and good Hope.

OF Which hope, Our Emperour most dearCHAP. V. to God, is even in this life made a par­taker; in regard he is adorned by God with innate Virtues, and has received into his mind the Celestial Effluxes derived from that Foun­tain. For he is rational from that Universal Reason▪ wise, from a communication of that Di­vine Wisdom: good, from a participation of that Goodness. And he is just, by being a partaker of that justice: and temperate, from that Exem­plar, or, Pattern. O­riginal of Temperance; and strong, by having that Supream Strength im­parted to him. [...], He there­fore will most truly be styled, &c. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading is, [...], He there­fore may most, &c▪ which is far the better reading. Vales. He there­fore may most truly be stiled Emperour, who hath fashioned his mind with Royal Virtues, to a likeness of the Celestial Empire. But, that person who is a stranger to these, and who has renounc't the King of this Universe; neither hath acknow­ledged the Celestial Parent of Souls; nor cloa­thed himself in a Garb befitting an Emperour; but hath Or, Hath bound up his mind in, &c. filled his mind with deformity and filthiness, and instead of Imperial Clemency, hath gotten the Rage of a Savage Beast; instead of an in­genuous disposition, the incurable poyson of im­probity; in place of Prudence, Folly; instead of Reason and Wisedom, Or, The most filthy irrationa­lity. a want of Reason and consideration, the foulest of all Vices: from which, as [...], as from a bitter potion. The Translatour renders it, tanquam ex amard stirpe, as from a bitter Root. Which doubtless is more elegant. For [...] and [...] are not in the least sutable one to the other. Yet Eusebius seems to allude here, to the Cup of iniquity; concerning which 'tis said in the Psalmes▪ all the Sinners of the Earth shall drink out of it, &c. Vales. from a bitter Root, most pernicious Sprouts do spring, namely, a sottish [...]. I doubt not but Eusebius wrote [...]. For 'tis an elegant Paranomasia, [...], which the Latine tongue can't express. In the Fuketian Copy, these words [...] are wanting. Vales. and intemperate Life; A­varice; Murders; Fightings against God; Impieties: he [I say] who is addicted to all these Vices, though he may seem sometime to Go­vern by Tyrannick Violence, yet cannot deservedly and in reality be stiled an Empe­rour. For, how should he represent a likeness of the Monarchical power [of hea­ven,] who bears a thousand false and adulterate Resem­blances of Daemons, imprest on his mind? How should he be a Prince and Lord over all, who hath procured for himself so infinite a number of Cruel and hard Masters? A servant to filthy pleasure; a servant to an excessive madness for women; a servant to money gotten by injustice; a servant of anger and rage; a servant of fear and dread; a servant of bloudy Daemons; and [lastly] a slave to soul-de­stroying Spirits. Therefore, (Truth it self fa­vouring us with its assent and Testimony,) this Emperour, dear to the supream God, is the sole Person that can truly be styled an Emperour: who only is free; or rather, who really is Lord. Who is above the desire of money, and superiour to the Love of women: a Vanquisher of plea­sures, even of them which Nature does allow of. Who is not overcome by anger and rage, but has those passions perfectly within his own power. He is really Emperour, and bears a Title d answerable to his practise: being [...] He alludes to Constantinè's pronomen [fore­name.] For Constantine had taken to himself the Pronomen of Victor, as I have noted at The Books concerning Constantine's Life. Vales. truely e [...]. The two last words are wanting in the Fuk. Copy. Vales. [Page 670] Victor; for he has gotten the Victory over those Passions, which are wont to overpower and con­quer the minds of men. Who is formed ac­cording to that Primitive Pattern. Idea of the su­pream Emperour; and in his mind, as in a glass, expresses those Rayes of Virtues darted from that Celestial Original. From which [Rayes] he is made temperate; Good; Just; Valiant; Pious; a Lover of God: [...]. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis, [...]; which is truer. Vales. and, which is pecu­liar to him only, this our Emperour is really a Philo­sopher. For he is one that truly knows himself; and is sensible, that the supplies of every thing which is good, are bestowed on him from without, or rather from hea­ven. One who demonstrates the August Title of his Mo­narchical Power, by the Exi­mious Ornature of his Im­perial Robe; and who is the Some body will make an en­quiry here, why Eusebius should say, that only Constantine was cloathed with the Imperial Pur­ple. For, there were at that time four Caesars, who wore the Pur­ple. Indeed, Amm. Marcellinus informs us, that the Caesars wore the Purple; in his Sixteenth Book, where he tells, how Constantius declared Julian, Caesar. But it may be answered, that Eusebius does not say absolutely, that only Constantine was clothed with the Purple; but, that he alone deservedly wore the Pur­ple. Vales. sole person, that is deser­vedly clothed with the Im­perial Purple, which becomes him. This is the Emperour, who night and day invokes the Heavenly Fa­ther; who in his Prayers Or, Calls upon him. implores his As­sistance; who burns with a desire of the Cele­stial Kingdom. For, whereas he understands, that things present are in no wise Or, Wor­thy of. to be com­pared with God the supream King, (in regard they are mortal and frail, and, like a River, transient, and continually perishing;) therefore he desires the incorruptible and incorporeal King­dom of God. That Kingdom he prayes that he may obtain; by a sublimity of thought, raising his mind above the Arch of Heaven, and being inflamed with an inexpressible desire of those Lights which shine there. In comparison with which Lights, he accounts the most valuable things of this life present, to be in nothing dif­ferent from darkness. For he sees, that the dominion over men (in regard 'tis nothing else but a small and short administration of a mor­tal and temporary Life;) is not much better than the authority and power of Goatherds, Shep­herds and Neatheards: yea rather, that 'tis more troublesome, or a Sovereignty over a [...]. I reade [...], a moroser sort of Cattel; which I wonder the Translatour saw not. For man is the morosest of all Crea­tures, and is governed with the greatest difficulty. Vales. moroser sort of Cattel. And, as to the Acclamations of The Many, and the Voices of Flatterers, [...]. I write [...], as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. The Translatour under­stood not this expression; which we may render into Latine▪ word for word, in this manner: mole­stiae potius deputat quàm voluptati, he places them to the account of trouble, rather than of pleasure. Vales. he esteems them to be trouble­some, rather than delight­full; by reason of The Constancy of his Morals: so Valesius. the so­lidity of his disposition, and the sincere discipline of his mind. Moreover, as often as he beholds the [...], the Guard of His Sub­jects. It must, I think, be writ­ten, [...]. For, at this place Eusebius means two sorts of Subjects; namely, those in Arms, and the Provincials▪ Whereof the latter pay money and tributes to the Emperour; which Eusebius and The­mistius do term [...], with a soft word covering the bit­terest thing of all. But, the former received money, as their Pay. Vales. dutifulness of His Subjects, his innume­rable Forces, and those vast multitudes, as well of Horse as Foot, that are at his Beck and Command; he is not in the least stricken with admi­ration, nor does he swell with pride at his authority and power over them: but, tur­ning his thoughts [...]. It must doubtless be written, [...], upon him­self; which I admire the Translatour per­ceived not. Vales. upon himself, he Or, Sees. acknowledges, in himself also, the common nature of all men. He laughs at the Garment made of Cloth of Gold interwoven with a variety of flowers, at the Imperial Purple, and at the Diadem it self: when he beholds the multitude stricken with an admiration of these things, and, wholly like children, ga­zing on this glorious pomp, as on some Bug-bear. [...]. The words are misplac't here, as it is plain to any one. I reade therefore, [...], But he himself▪ &c. In the Fu­ketian Copy, the reading is ill, [...], by reason of His knowledge of God. Vales. But he himself is not in any wise so disturbed as they are; but does cloath his mind with the knowledge of God, as with a Garment Embroidered with Temperance, Justice, Piety, and the other Virtues; which is a dress that does really and truly become an Emperour. Besides all this, as for riches which are with so much earnest­ness desired by men; I mean Gold, and Silver, and whatever sorts of Stones are had in admira­tion; he understands them to be really Stones wholly unprofitable, and useless matter. Such therefore as they are in their own nature, such and so highly does he esteem them; as things that are not in the least conducive in order to the diverting of ills and calamities. For, of what prevalency are these things towards the removal of Diseases▪ or the avoiding of death? Nevertheless, although he knows these things ac­curately well, being instructed by the very use of them; [...]. 'Tis the same with what he has said above, [...]. Further, this whole passage is thus to be distin­guished and explained; [...]. That is, Nevertheless, although, &c. Which is the same as if he should say: he desires not the wealth or riches of His Subjects, nor does he envy them their comely garb and dress, as en­vious and covetous princes are wont to do. Such a one was Valenti­nianus the Elder, who hated all those that were rich and well­clothed, as Amm. Marcellinus re­lates. Constantine was not of that mind: for he both valued very little his own habit and dress; and also was not troubled, at his Subjects being gorgeously apparelled. I have therefore spent some words in explaining this passage; because it was both obscure, and also not understood by the Translatour. Vales. yet he is in no wise disturbed in his mind, at the decent Garb of his Subjects; but laughs at those persons, who by reason of their fol­ly and simplici­ty Or, Are astonished at, &c. admire these things. Farther, he abstaines from surfeiting and drunkenness, and from exquisite dainties and delicate dishes; in re­gard they are the proper bu­siness of Gluttons: it being his Sentiment, that these things appertain to others, not to himself. For he is convinc't, that such de­bauches are extreamly hurt­full, and do cloud and dar­ken the intellective faculty of the Soul. On account of all these reasons, the Empe­rour, instructed in the know­ledge of Divine matters, and endued with a great mind, aspires after better things than those of this pre­sent life: calling upon the Celestial Father, and earnestly desiring His Kingdom; and perfor­ming all things with a singular piety; and Lastly, delivering the knowledge of the Su­pream God and Emperour, to all those Subject to his Empire, Or, who are instru­cted by a good master as 'twere. whom, as the best of Masters, he has undertaken to instruct.

MOreover, God affording him, as an Ear­nest,CHAP. VI. some Pledges of a future Retribution, conferrs on him [...]. He alludes to the Golden Crowns, which the Provincials were wont to present the Roman Emperours with, not only at their entrance upon the Empire, but in their Quinquennalia also, and Decennalia. Vales. Tricennalian Crowns, platted [Page 671] and made up of prosperous and happy Circles of years. And having now compleated three Cycles of ten years, he permits the whole Body of man­kind to celebrate [...]. Any one may see, that it should be written thus, [...]. For Euse­bius says, that these Feasts of The Tricennalia were celebrated, not onely by a numerous con­fluence of the people, but also by the common joy of the whole world. For some Feasts are publick, others private. Some are peculiar to Cities, others to a whole Province. Some are Feasts of the whole Roman world; as the Calends of Janu­ary, the Birth day of the Em­perours, their Quinquennalia, and the like. Indeed, in the Fuke­tian Copy I found it written as I had conjectured. Vales. publick, or rather universal Feasts. But, in the interim that Mortals rejoyce on earth, [crowned] with the flowers of the knowledge of God, it would not be absurd to ima­gine, that even the Quires in Heaven, incited by the Laws of Nature, do rejoyce likewise together with those that dwell on Earth. And ['tis probable,] that even the supream King himself, like an indulgent Father, is affected with Gladness, whilst He beholds Good Sons paying a due worship to God: and, that for this reason chiefly, He does honour the Prince and Authour of those Or, Blessings. things, with many Circles of years. In so much that, he is not satisfied with giving him thirty years Reigne; [...]. This place, in my judgment, is to be re­stored thus: [...]; In so much that, he is not satisfied, &c. The mistake arose from the word [...], which the Transcribers changed into [...], by an easie mistake. But, if any one has a mind to re­tain [...], then it is to be writ­ten [...]. Vales. but extends it to the longest time, and perpetuates it to an im­mense Aevum. Now, entire See note (k.) in this chapter. Aevum neither grows old at any time, nor does it dye: neither can the minds of mortals discern, either its Beginning or End. Nor does it suffer its own Center to be perceived, [...]. Questionless it is to be written, [...]. So the Translatour read also, and so we have rendred it. Eusebius him­self confirms this emendation; for soon after this, he writes thus concerning the present time, [...], But [that part of it] termed its time present, &c. nor that time which is termed its present, to be compre­hended by Or, Those that are desirous. any one; [...]. The Tran­slatour renders it, nedùm futurum Tempus aut praeteritum; much less Time future, or Time past. Whence 't [...]s apparent, that he read [...], excellently well. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis, [...]. Vales. much less Time future, or Time past. For, this Latter is not, in regard 'tis [...]. I write, [...], and have rendred it accordingly. For he speaks con­cerning the time past. A little after I read, [...], Nor is it at all possi­ble, &c. Vales. already gone. And the Time future is not yet come; wherefore, it is not. But, [that part of it] termed its Time present, flyeth away whilst we think or speak, yea sooner. Nor is it at all possible, that it should be ap­prehended as Time present: for we must of necessity, either expect things future, or contemplate things past. For [The present] slips away, and flies as quick as Thought. Thus therefore en­tire Aevum suffers not it Self to be subjected to the thoughts and accounts of men; but disdains to serve them. Nevertheless, it refuses not, to acknowledge [...]. In my judg­ment it should be, [...]; in which manner also the Transla­tour read; and we have rendred it accordingly. Eusebius alludes to a passage of Saint Paul the Apostle, who calls God [...], the King of Ages. Vales. God its own King and Lord; and it carries Him sitting on its Back▪ priding it self in all those [...]. He means the days, months, and years; and the vicissitudes of seasons, wherewith God hath adorned Aevum. Vales. Gayeties, [which it hath received] from Him. But God sitting above, and driving it on, has not bound it fast with a Golden chain, according to the fiction of the Poet; but, curbing and holding it in with the cords of an unspeakable wisdom, as 'twere with some Reins; with all imaginable Harmony he has constituted in it, Months and Times, Seasons and Years, and the interchange­able distances of Nights and Days; and has circumscribed it with various Limits and Mea­sures. For, Aevum, of its own nature, is [...]. I read [...]. Vales. direct or straight, and Is extended, or, prolonged. reaches to an immensity; and has taken the name of Aevum, [...]. Proclus (Book 4. on Plato's Timaeus pag. 241;) pro­duces the same Ety­mologie of [...]; at which place he discontses at large concerning Aevum, according to the Opinion of the Platonists. See the same Authour, in chap. 53, and 54, of his Platonick Institutions. But Eusebius does partly fol­low Plato's Opinion, and partly recedes from it▪ For, whereas he says, that Aevum does neither grow old, nor dye; that 'tis uni­form, and always like it self; that it wants parts, and distinction or difference; in that he agrees with Plato. But, when he affims, that it goes on and increases; when he makes past, present, and future time, to be Species or, Kindes of it; in this he disagrees, both from Plato, and from himself. For, what ever proceeds on and increases, must of necessity have parts. In Plato, Aevum is nothing else but Eternity. For Plato makes Aevum immoveable; according to the likeness whereof, he affirms, that God created Time, which he gives this definition of, a moveable Image of an immoveable Aevum, proceed­ing on in number and order; as it occurs in his Timaeus. Chalci­dius, on Plato's Timaeus is right: temporis, says he, proprium pro­gredi: aevi propria mansio, &c: 'Tis the property of Time to go for­ward: continuance is the property of Aevum, and a perseverance in being always the same. Also, there are parts of time, namely days, nights, and years: Aevum has no parts. Likewise, the Species of Time are several, past, present, future: the substance of Aevum is uni­form, in the sole and proper Present. But Eusebius took Aevum for Saculum, or rather, for the whole Mass and Collection of Times, as I may so say. For his words are, [...]. 'Tis certain, in the Sacred Scriptures, [...] and [...] are taken for time. For Time is taken two ways. The one is Particular, which is attributed to things single or particular. The other general, which is not more agreeable to this thing, than to that. And This the Ancients termed Aevum, as Censorinus informs us in his Book de Die Natali, chap. 16. Where he defines Aevum in this manner; tempus unum & maximum, one and the greatest Time, immense, without beginning, without end, which always was in the same manner, and always will be, nor does it belong more to any one man, than to another. Then he adds, that this Aevum is divided into three times, past, present, and future. In which he plainly agrees with our Eusebius. The same is likewise asserted by Marius Victorinus on Cicero's Books de Inventione Rhetoric. Chap. 75. But Gregorie Nazianzene, Orat. 35 and 42, takes Aevum for Eternity; where see what Psellus and Elias Cretensis have noted. Vales. as 'twere [...] [that is, always existing;] and is it self like its own parts; or rather, being void both of parts and distance, doth increase, being prolonged into A straight, or right line. rectitude only. But God hath divided it by middle Pieces, or, shreds. Segments, and, like a right line stretch't into Lon­gitude, hath severed it by points, and hath included in it a vast multitude. And, whereas it was one, and exactly like an Unite; He hath bound it with a variety of numbers; and, from its being without Form, hath made in it Or, A manifold variety of forms. manifold and various Forms. For first of all, He framed in it matter void of Form, as some substance fit to receive all Forms. In the second place, He created Quality in mat­ter, by the power of the number two; making that beautifull, which before was void of all comeliness. Afterwards, by [the help of] the number Three, He framed a Body, [...]. It should, I think, be written, [...]. In the Fuketian Copy, the word [...] is wanting; ex­cellently well. Vales. compounded of Mat­ter and Form, consisting of three Dimensions, namely, Latitude, Longitude, and Profundity. Then, from the number Two doubled, he de­vised Or, The Elements which are four in number. the Quaternion of the Elements; Earth; Water; Air; Fire; which he produced as some [Page 672] evérlasting Fountains, in order to the [...]; Valesius renders it, utilitatem, prosit, or, service. supply of this Universe. Farther, the number Four begets the number Ten. For, One; Two; Three; Four, make up the number Ten. The number Three Or, Joyned with. multiplied by the number Ten, hath Or, Found out the nature of, &c. pro­duced the space of a month. And a month by twelve Circuits or Turns, finishes the Course of the Sun. Hence the Circles of Years, and the changes of Seasons, have delineated and exprest Aevum, which before was void both of Form and shape, as 'twere in a variety of Paint [made up] of many flowers; in order to the ease and delight of those, who therein Or, Ride. run over the Course of Life. For, as those persons (who in hope of winning Prizes, perform the Courses in a Race,) have the distances set out to them, by Stadia or determinate quantities of Ground: and as they who travel long journeys, find the publick Road Limited, or circum­scribed. beset as 'twere, with some Man­sions and Stages; least any person, by having his expectation drawn out to an immense length, should be quite tired, and abate of his alacrity and vigour of mind: after the very same man­ner also, God the Supream Emperour, having confined the whole Mass of Time within the Lines of Wisedom, leads and manages it; and like a Charioteer, governs it variously, according as it seems good to Himself. The same Moderatour of the Universe, having bedeck't Aevum, which be­fore was void of figure, with beautifull colours and fresh flowers; has adorned the day with Brightness and the Rayes of the Sun: but, over the night he hath spread a Or, Blacker. darker colour, and has made the Lights of the Stars to glister therein, like some Bits or Spangles of Gold. And having light up the bright Rayes of the Day-Star, and the various Splendour of the Moon, and the most resplendent Companies of the Stars; he has Crowned the whole Heaven, as 'twere some large Embroidered Veil, or Hood. Vesture, with the manifold Beau­ties of Colours. Also, when he had extended the Air from a vast height to a great depth, and by its help had [...]. This whole pas­sage is, in my judge­ment, to be read in this man­ner; [...], and by its help or power had cooled, &c. In which manner the Translatour read. And so I found it written in the Fuk. Copy. Vales. cooled the length and breadth of the whole world; he commanded it to be grac't with all sorts of Birds; having opened this vast Sea as 'twere, wherein all those [Creatures] which pass thorow the Air, as well the He seems to mean the Aerial Daemons, concerning whom he hath spoken above, in the beginning of this Oration. Farther, we may un­derstand here as well the Good Daemons, as the bad. For the good Spirits also, whom we term Angels, pass thorow the air; as 'twere some Embassadours and Interpreters, carrying our desires to God, and bringing to us answers, and favours from God. Of which, even the ancient Philosophers were not ignorant. But, the Translatour thought, that at this place Eusebius spake of fishes. Concerning the Aerial Daemons, St Austin (Epist. 49.) speaks thus. Quanto per­niciosius est Sacrificare Daemoniis, How much more destructive is it to sacrifice to Daemon [...], that is, to an ill Spiritual Creature, which dwelling in this [...]carest and dark heaven, as in its Aerial prison, is predesti­nated to Eternal punishment.—Vales. invisible as visible, might swim. Lastly, having poyz'd the Earth in the middle like the Center, he encompassed it with the Ocean, [...]. I write [...]. He speaks elegantly, in saying that the Earth is clothed with the Ocean, as with a green Mantle. So David, Psalm 104. 6. Thou coveredst it with the Deep as with a Garment: namely the Earth, as Theodoret ex­plains it, and St Jerom on Haggai Chap. 1. Farther, those words [ [...]] must be blotted out, as being superfluous, and wholly disagreeable to this place; wherefore we have omitted them in our Version. They are a piece of a Verse of Homer's, out of his Second Iliad. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...]. Vales. priding it self in that its green-coloured Mantle. And after he had made This the Residence, Nurse, and Mother of all Creatures that are therein; and had moystened it partly with showers, and partly with waters issuing from Springs; He commanded it to flourish and grow green with all sorts of Plants and beautifull flowers, in or­der to the delight and pleasure of humane Life. And having therein formed a most excellent and honourable Creature, dear to the Divinity it self, according to His own Image; namely Or, Ra­tional man. Man, endued with a mind and knowledge, and the Off­spring of Reason and Wisedom; on him He con­ferred the Government and Empire over all the other Creatures, which creep upon the Earth and have their sustenance from it. For, of all the Creatures that are on the Earth, Man was the dearest to God; and like an indulgent Father He permitted, that all sorts of irrational Crea­tures should pay their Service and Obedience to Him. ['Twas] man, for whose sake He made the Sea navigable, and Crowned the Earth with all manner of Plants. On him He bestowed knowing and intellective faculties and powers, in order to his being rendred capable of all man­ner of Learning and Sciences. Into his hands He hath delivered, as well those Creatures which swim in the Depths, as the fowls which fly in the Air. To him He hath laid open the knowledge and contemplation of things Cele­stial; and hath discovered [to him] the Courses of the Sun, and changes of the Moon, and the Circuits of the Planets and fixed Stars. [Last­ly,] 'twas man alone, of all the Creatures that are on the Earth, to whom He gave order, that he should acknowledge the Celestial Father, and with Hymns should land and praise the Supream Emperour of entire Aevum. Besides all these things, that Great Framer of the World, hath begirt immutable Aevum with four changes of the year; the Winter-season He has bounded with the Spring: [...]. I had rather write, [...], and have rendred it ac­cordingly. Vales. but the Spring, which is the be­ginning of the Seasons of the year, He has weighed as 'twere in an equal Bal­lance. Then, when He had Crowned Universal Aevum with the manifold fruits of the Spring, [...]. Some­thing seems to be wanting here, which we may make up in this manner [...]. But, upon a more diligent enquiry into the thing, I am of opinion, that no­thing is wanting here. I reade therefore, [...], He delivered it, understand [...], Aevum: nor did the Translatour reade otherwise. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...]. Vales. He delivered it to the parching heat of the Summer. After this, having allowed a cessation from Labour as 'twere, He hath refresht it with the in­terval of Autumn. Lastly, when he has washt That is, Aevum; as appears from the following period. it (being as 'twere some Roy­al Steed,) in the moyst Falls of Winter showers, and has rendred it Slick and Gay by the waters which flow from Or, Himself. above, and has suf­ficiently fatned it with the continual waterings of the Rain; He again places it at the fore-gates of the Spring. When therefore the supream Emperour, had in this manner bound fast His own Aevum, with­in the Circle of the whole year, by such Reins of Divine wisedom as these; He delivered it to be managed by a He terms the Son grea­ter, not than the Father Himself; but means Him to be greater than all others. And perhaps any body would guess, that Eusebius▪ had written, [...], by a Less. Vales. Greater Governour, namely, His own only-begotten Word; to whom, as being the common preserver of all things, He has com­mitted the Reins of this Universe. But He, [Page 673] having received an Inheritance as 'twere, from a most excellent Father; and having bound to­gether all things, which are contained as well in the inner, as more outward Compass of Hea­ven, in one harmonious con­sent; [...]. In the Fu­ketian Copy 'tis truer written, [...]; and after the verb [...] a middle distinction is placed. Vales. proceeds straight for­ward: and with all imagi­nable equity makes provision of those things that are of use to his rational Flocks on earth. And having appointed a certain and fixt space of living to Mortals, He has given all men leave, that even in this Life they should be exercised in the Or, Prefaces. preludes of a better and an eternal life. For He hath taught, that af­ter the Term of this present Age, there is a Divine and happy Life; treasur'd up and re­served for them, who in the hopes of Celestial enjoyments, have undergone the Combat of this Life. And, that there shall be a Translation and Removal of those, who have spent their Lives soberly, modestly, and piously, from hence to a better allotment: but, for them, who shall have been detected of impieties in this Life, [He has given notice,] that there is an a­greeable place provided. After this, (as 'tis wont to be in the distributions of Prizes and Rewards in the Games,) having with a loud voice pronounced various Crowns [to be due] to the Victors, He Crowneth [...]. I doubt not but Eusebius wrote [...], He crowneth different, &c: which writing the following words do manifestly confirm. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis written, [...]. Vales. different persons with the different rewards of their Virtues. But, for a Good Emperour adorned with pie­ty, he declares far greater and more valuable Rewards of his Conflicts to be provi­ded. Some Beginnings where­of he permits to be celebra­ted even here, namely, a Fe­stivity... composed of perfect numbers; [...]. The first word is wanting in the Fuketian Copy; and the want of it is no fault, if I mistake not. But there is also another fault here. Wherefore this whole place is, in my opinion, thus to be cor­rected; [...], He permits to be celebrated, &c. Than which a­mendment there is nothing more certain. For the Festivity of the Tricennalia, concerning which Eu­sebius treats, consists of perfect numbers; to wit, Tens trebled, and Threes ten times repeated. Eusebius's following words, con­cerning The Denary, or Number Ten, do plainly confirm our E­mendation. Vales. of Tens trebled, and of Threes ten times re­peated. Whereof the first Or, Number Three. Ternary, is the Off-spring of an Unite: an Unite is the Mother of Numbers, and does preside over all Months, Seasons, and Years; and also, over all Cir­cles of Times. Moreover, it may deservedly be styled the Beginning, the Foundation, and the Element of all Mul­titude; being termed [...], from, [...], to stay or continue. For, whereas all Multitude is lessened and increased, accor­ding to the diminution or addition of Numbers; an Unite alone has stability and firmness, as its allotment; being separated from all Multi­tude, and from those Numbers produc't from it self. And therefore it bears a lively Resem­blance of that Indivisible Or, Substance. Essence, which is se­vered from all others; by the power and parti­cipation whereof, the nature of all things doth subsist. For, an Unite is the Framer of every Number; in as much as every Multitude does consist of a composition and addition of Unites. Nor is it possible, without an Unite, to have a conception in our thoughts of the substance of Numbers. But, an Unite it self, subsists with­out a Multitude; being separated at the greatest distance from, and far better than all Numbers; making and constituting all things; but, it self receiving an increase from none. Nearly re­lated hereto is the Ternarie, which in like man­ner can neither be cut in sunder, nor divided; and is the first of Numbers that are made up of Even and Odd. For the even number Two, having an Unite added to it, hath produced the Ternarie, which is the first of odd Numbers. Moreover, the Ternarie first shewed [Men] Justice, by teaching them Equality: for it has a Beginning, Middle, and End, all equal. And these things give a representation of the Mystick, most Holy, and Royal Trinity: which though it consists in a nature that is void of Beginning and Or, Birth. Generation, yet containes in it Self the Seeds, and Reasons, and Causes of the substance of all things which have Generation. And the power of the Ternarie may deservedly be thought the Beginning of all things. But the number Ten, which containes the End or Term of all numbers, Stops and Bounds all things [proceeding] as far as it self: and 'tis with good reason styled full, and every way perfect: in regard it comprehends all the Species, and all the measures, of all Numbers, Propor­tions. Ratio's, Concords, and Harmonies. 'Tis certain, Unites being by composition increased, are ter­minated by the Or, Number Ten. Denarie: and having the Decade allotted to them, as their mother, [...]. It must, I think, be written, [...], &c, and fixt Boundarie. So he calls the number Ten, because 'tis the Term and Meta of Num­bers. But, by fetching an Ele­gant Metaphor from the Cirque, he says that Unites do run round the number Ten, at 'twere the Meta. Wherefore, [...] was to have been tran­slated tanquam in Circo, as 'twere in the Cirque. Hence 'tis, that a little after this, he names the Carceres also, where his words are, [...], they return or run back to the first Carceres. Vales. and fixt Boundary; as 'twere in the Cirque they run round this Goal, or, Limit. Meta. Then, having performed a second Circuit, and again a third, and a fourth, and so on as far as Ten; of ten Tens they make up the Hundredth Number. After this they re­turn to the first Place of settingout. From whence they begin again, and proceed on to Ten; and having run round the Hundredth Number Ten times, going back a­gain, they perform long Courses round the same Metae; returning by a Circuit from themselves into themselves. For, of the number Ten, an Unite is the tenth part; and ten Unites make up one Denarie. But, a Denarie or Decade is the Limit, the [...]. The words must, I think, be pla­ced otherwise, and read thus, [...], the Meta, and the▪ fixt and stated Boundarie. 'Tis the same with what he says hereafter, [...], the firm and certain Limit. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...]. Vales. Meta, and the fixt and stated Boun­dary of Unites: the Meta of the infinity of Numbers; but, Or, The Limit and the End of Unites. the End, that is, the perfection of Unites. More­over, the Ternarie joyned to­gether with the Denarie, and having performed the third period of ten Circuits, produces that most natural Number, the Number Thir­ty. For, that which in Unites is the Ternarie, the same in Denaries is the Tricenarie or Thirtieth Number. And this is the firm and certain Limit of that great Luminary, which is the second from the Sun. For the Course of the Moon, from one conjunction with the Sun to the next, compleats the Circle of a Month: after which, She again receives a Beginning of Birth as 'twere, and does again begin new Light, and new Days: [...]. Doubtless it must be made [...], Unites; which I admire the Translatour per­ceived nor, in regard the fol­lowing words do plainly shew it. Farther, that the Ancients were wont to measure the Lunar Moneth by thirty dayes, Eusebius has informed us above in this O­ration; as also Geminus in his Isagoge. The Fuketian Copy does likewise confirm our Emendation. Vales. being grac't with thirty Unites; honoured with three Decades; and beau­tified [Page 674] with ten Ternaries. With the very same [Graces] is the Empire of Our Victor Au­gustus, and Lord of the whole world, [...]. It must be made [...], as may be plainly gathered from the following and preceding words. For it follows, [...], and [...]. And the foregoing words are, [...]. Which expression seems to me rough and unplea­sant: and I should choose barely to say, [...], &c. And this Emen­dation is likewise confirmed, by the Fuketian Copy. Vales. adorned, by the Bestower of all things that are good; and enters upon a beginning of new blessings: having hitherto accomplished the Tricenna­lian Festivities only; but now from hence forward en­tring upon longer intervals of Times; and Or, Pro­mising. e­spousing the hopes of future Bles­sings, in the Celestial King­dom. Where not one only Sun, but troops of innume­rable Lights daunce about the Supream Emperour: eve­ry one of which [...]. Perhaps it should be [...]. So indeed I found it written in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. is far more Glorious than the Sun it self; and do shine and glister, with the splendour of those Rayes shot from that Eter­nal Fountaine [of Light.] Where [there is] a life of the Or, Soul. mind, in the [...]. The Fuketian Copy has [...], pare: perhaps Euse­bius had written [...], invi­sible. Vales. incorruptible Beauties of Goods: where [there is] a life▪ void of all grief and trouble: where [there is] an enjoyment of temperate and most holy pleasure: Time without Time; a long and endless Aevum, enlarged to Spaces bounded by no Term: not any more [distinguished] by the intervals of dayes and months; nor measured by the Circles of Years, and the periods of Seasons and Times: but suf­ficient for one life continued to an immensity. Which is not enlightned by the Sun, nor illustra­ted by the multitude of the Stars, or Or, Rayes. Splendour of the Moon: but has that Luminary it self, God the Word, the only-begotten Son of the Supream Emperour. On which account, the Divine Discourses of Mystick Theology, do declare Him to be that Sun of Righteousness, and a Light which far transcends all Lights. We do firmly believe, that the very same per­son does illustrate those most blessed Powers, with the Rayes of Justice, and the beams of Wise­dom: and, that He does take the Souls of men, adorned with true Piety, not into the Cir­cumference of Heaven, but into His own Bo­som; and, that he does really confirm and ful­fill His own promises. But the eye of Mortals hath not seen, nor hath any ear heard; nei­ther can a mind cloathed with flesh, be able to discern and look into those things, which are prepared for them who have been adorned with P [...]ety: as likewise for You also, Most Reli­gious Emperour! To whom alone, of all persons that ever were, God Himself the Supream Em­perour of this Universe, has granted this, that You should cleanse and reform the Life of men. To whom also He hath shown His own Salutary Sign; by the power whereof having con­quered Death, He [...], raised a Triumph. He had better have said, [...], Lead, or celebrated. For [...]is not said, [...], but [...]. Indeed, [...] may pro­perly be said concerning a Trophy. Vales. celebrated a Triumph over His Enemies. Which Trophy of Victory, and Amulet of Daemons, when You had opposed a­gainst the Images of Errour; You [...]. Christo­phorson seems to have read, [...]; and thought that these words were spoken concerning Christ. But, after I had lookt more narrowly into the thing, I perceived, that these words are spoken in the Second Person. For Eusebius speaks to the Emperour himself. 'Tis certain, those words [...], over all impious Enemies and Barbarians, do evince that this is spoken concerning the Emperour. Vales. gained the Victory over all impious▪ Enemies and Barba­rians, as also over the Daemons themselves, who are another sort of Barbarians.

CHAP. VII.FOR, Whereas there are in us two Or, Natures. Sub­stances conjoyned, namely, Soul and Body; whereof the Latter is exposed to view, but the other remaines invisible: against both these, two sorts of Enemies and Barbarians, the one covertly, the other openly, have set themselves in array. And, the one of them opposes Bodies a­gainst Bodies: but the other assaults man's naked Soul it self, with all sorts of incor­poreal Engines. Farther, those visible Bar­barians, like some savage [...]. The Tran­slatour has done ill in rendring it, Pastores, Shepherds. I would rather retain the Greek word, or else render it Vagos, Wan­derers. For so the Latines ter­med those Barbarians, who sit­ting on their Horses, or in Wag­gons, were carried this way and that way, without any House or settled habitation. Such per­sons as these, because, in order to their getting food, they would range about to find places aboun­ding with pasture; were ter­med [...]. A little after, in the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...] ▪ destroying as many as they can Vales. Nomades, in nothing dif­ferent from wild-beasts, make an attack upon the meek and gentle Flocks of Men; ruine and depopulate Countries; en­slave Cities; [rush] out of the Desert, like fierce and furious Wolves, and fall upon the inhabitants of Cities; after which they destroy as many as they can. But the invisible Enemies, I mean the Soul-destroying Daemons, who are far more fierce and cruel than all Barbarians; flye about the Regions of this Air, and by the Engines of mischievous Polytheisme, had reduced all man­kind under their power: in so much that, the true God was not by them any longer look't upon as God; but they wandred up and down in manifold errour, without any worship of the Deity. For, having procured for themselves Gods from I know not whence, who have not any Being or Existence in any place whatever; they wholly neglected and undervalued Him who is the only, and the true God, as if He were not. Hence it was, that the Generation of Bodies was by them reputed and worshipt as a God; as also, a contrary Deity hereto, to wit▪ the destruction and dissolution of Bodies▪ And the former of these Gods, in regard He was the Authour of Generation, was honoured with the Rites of Venus. But the Latter, because He abounded with Riches, and in Strength excel­led Mankind, was named Pluto and Or, Death▪ Or [...] ▪ For, whereas the Men of that Age, acknow­ledged no other life, save that which takes its beginning from Generation; therefore they as­serted the Cause and Origine of that Life to be a God. And, whereas they believed Men not to exist any more, after death; they declared Death to be the Vanquisher of all, and a Great God. Then, concluding, that on account of that dissolution by death, they were in no wi [...]e accountable hereafter for what was performed here; they resolved upon living such a life, as in effect was [...] life; perpetrating such facts, as deserved to be punished with ten thousand deaths. For, they had not their minds taken up, with the thoughts of God; they expected [Page 675] not the Tribunals of the Divine judgment; nor call'd to remembrance the Or, Sub­stance. Nature of their own Souls: but acknowledging a sub­jection to one Cruel Patron, Death; and ful­ly perswading themselves, that [...]. At my peril write [...], by it; under­stand death. And so the rea­ding is in the Fuketian Copy. A little before, the Geneva▪ men had left out a word; which, from the Fuketian Copy, I have supplied in this manner, [...]. Vales. the destruction of bo­dies effected by it, was the dissolution [and annihila­tion] of the whole man; they declared Death to be a great and a rich God; and for that reason gave him the name of Pluto or Dis. Death therefore was to them a God; and not he alone; but what­ever else they accounted valuable in compari­son of Death; namely, those things which were conducive, in order to the rendring their Lives pleasant and delicate. For, the pleasure of the Or, Flesh. Body was by them accounted a God; nourish­ment was a God; the growth of those things [that produce nutriment,] a God; the fruit of Trees, a God; Drunkenness and Luxury, a God; the desire of Or, Bodies. things Carnal, a God; the Pleasure of those things, a God. Hence [came] the Mysteries of Ceres and Proserpina; hence the Ravishment of the Virgin [Proserpina] by Pluto, and Her Restoration again. Hence Bacchus's Initiations and Ceremonies; and Hercules vanquished by drunkenness, as by a more powerfull God. Hence the adulterous Rites of Cupid and Venus. Hence Jupiter himself en­raged with a Lust after women, and in Love with Ganymede: hence the fictions of Lasci­vious Fables, concerning Gods addicted to plea­sure, Wantonness, and Luxury. With such therefore, and so many Darts of Or, God­opposing Errour. impious su­perstition as these, the Cruel Barbarians, and profest Enemies to the Supream King, gaul'd the Inhabitants of the Earth; and at length reduc'd the whole Body of mankind to a Sub­jection to themselves; in so much that, Monu­ments of impiety were erected by them, in all parts of the earth; and Temples and Shrines of false Divinity, built in every Corner. More­over, [...]. By these words Eu­sebius either means the Empe­rours themselves, who had per­secuted the Christian Religion; or else all the Heathens. For these prevail'd at that time, be­fore the Christian Religion had obtained throughout the whole world. As therefore the Christian Religion was afterwards termed, [...], and the Chri­stians, [...]; (as I have noted at the Books of Eusebius's Eccles. Histor.) so the Gen­tiles, as long as their supersti­tion flourish't, are rightly ter­med [...]. Yet below, at the beginning of the ninth Chapter, he has used [...] to signifie the Emperours. Vales. those persons then thought to be in power, were so miserably enslaved to Errour, that they appea­sed their Gods, with the slaughters of their own Coun­try-men and Relations; and sharpened their Swords a­gainst the defenders of Truth; and [commenc't] an im­placable War, and lifted up impious hands, not against forreigne and barbarous E­nemies; but against their Domesticks and Friends, and against their Brethren, Kins­men and dearest Relatives; who by a purity of Life and Sobriety, and with purposes of true Piety, had resolved to pay a worship and observance to the Deity. After this manner, these men, seized with a distraction of mind, sacrificed persons consecra­ted to the supream King, to their own Daemons. But They, in regard they were couragious Wit­nesses of true Piety, and had been accustomed to prefer a glorious death in defence of truth, before life it self; did not in the least value so severe a Tyranny: but rather, as it became the Souldier▪s of God▪ being fortified with the Or, Virtue. Arms of Patience, they despised and laught at every sort of death; namely Fire, Sword, and the See Pag. 1 [...]0, note [*] piercings of Nails; the wild Beasts; the depths of the Sea; the cutting off, and after­wards searing of Limbs; digging out of Eyes; mutilations of the whole Body; and lastly, Famine, the Mines, and Bonds. All which, by rea­son of that Love and ardency of Affection they bore to their own King, they accounted sweeter than all the pleasures and enjoyments [of this life.] The minds likewise of the tenderer Sex were Valiant and Stout, endued with a Courage no­thing inferiour to that of men; some of whom underwent the very same Combats with men, and obtained equal rewards of Valour. Others, when drag'd away to be ravished, sooner re­signed their Lives to Death, [...]. In the eighth Book of his Ec­cles. Histo­ry, chap. 14, whence this passage is taken al­most word for word▪ the rea­ding is truer, thus, [...], than expose their bodies to be defi­led. Vales. than their Bo­dies to ravishment. And vast other numbers of them, not enduring so much as to hear the Menaces of Ravishment, wherewith they were threatned by the Presidents of Provinces; with a valiant mind endured all sorts of Tor­tures, and [the Execution of] every Capital Sentence. In this manner the Vauntguard of the supream Emperour, with an undaunted Courage of mind maintained the Fight, a­gainst their Army who paid a worship to many Gods. But the [Daemons,] who are the ad­versaries of God, and enemies to the salvation of men; demonstrating more of Cruelty than any the most savage Barbarian, rejoyced in such Libations of humane bloud. And their Assi­stants and Ministers, quaff't to them such Cups as these, filled with blood unjustly shed; provi­ding for them this direfull [...], and pious ban­quet. I reade [...], impious, with the Translatour; in the Fuke­tian Copy, 'tis written, [...]. Vales. and impious Ban­quet, to the ruine and destruction of humane kind. Affairs being in this posture; what ought to have been done by God, the King of those that were opprest? Ought▪ He to be careless of the safety of his dearest [Dependents,] and to neg­lect his own servants, when in this bloudy manner assaul­ted? [...] I should choose to write, [...], Doubtless▪ He can never▪ &c. So in the following period, I think it should be men­ded, [...], nor [...]n that person▪ where [...] is put for [...]. Vales. Doubtless, He can never be termed a prudent Pilot, who shall suffer his Vessel, together with the men on Board, to be sunk; with­out contributing any thing of his own assistance, in or­der to the preservation of the Ships-company. Nor, can that person be styled a [...]. I know in­deed, that a Commander who spares not his own Life, may be termed [...]. But, in regard this is a commendation befitting a Souldier, rather than a Com­mander▪ and because the term [...] is wont to be most commonly taken in an illsense; therefore, at this place I would more willingly read [...], that is, a wary and providen [...] General. So Amm. Marcellinus, speaking concerning Corbulo the most fam'd Commander of the Romans, gives him this Elogy; Provinciarum fidus defensor & cau [...]us, a faithfull and wary De­fender of the Provinces. Neverthe­less, if any one had rather retain the common reading▪ I will not gain-say it. Vales. wary and provident General, who shall render up his Allies to the Enemy, unreveng'd and undefended. Neither will a good Shepherd be unconcer­ned for, and [...]. The a­mendment of this place was obvious. For who sees not that it should be, [...] in which manner I found it written in the Fuketian Copy, and have rendred it accordingly. Vales. careless of a Sheep straying from the rest of his flock: but will rather leave all the other, which are safe and in good condition; and will most readily suffer any thing what­ever, on account of preser­ving that Sheep which has strayed; being ready, should there be a necessity▪ to encoun­ter even with fierce and ra­ging [Page 676] Beasts. But, the supream Moderator's care was not employ'd about a Sheep that wants rea­son; but He was highly concern'd for his whole Army; for the sake of those, who on his account were assaulted. Of whose Combats, and conflicts in de­fence of Piety, when he had approved; and had honoured them, who were now removed to him, with the rewards of Victory, [...]. I reade [...], with himself; in which manner Eusebius is wont to ex­press himself. A little after, the reading should be [...], might also become Re­latours: the Fuketian Copy con­firms both these Emendations. Vales. with himself; he enrolled them amongst the Angelick Quires in Heaven. But, others of them he continued still upon earth, as Seeds that might restore and give new life to Piety, for the good of posterity; that they should both be spectatours of his vengeance upon the impious, and might also become Relatours of those things which they had beheld with their own eyes. After this, when he had stretcht forth his right hand, in order to his being avenged of his Adversaries; by his very Nod, on a sudden he destroyed them; having first punished them with stripes inflicted on them from Hea­ven; and compell'd them, even against their wills, with their own lips to recant their own horrid wickednesses. But these, who were mean and contemned, and by almost all persons look't upon as forsaken and hopeless, he has raised from the ground, and highly exalted. And this, the supream Emperour [God,] effected from Heaven; when he had presented to us his own Servant, as some invincible Warriour. (For our Emperour, by reason of his transcendency of Piety, rejoyces in his being stiled The Ser­vant of God.) Whom God has made Con­querour over all sorts of Enemies whatever, having raised up him alone, against many. For, they were numerous; and almost infinite, as [...]. This place is corrupted; in my judg­ment, it must be restored thus; [...]. That is, For they were almost innumerable and many in regard they were the friends of many Damons and of themselves. I have expunged the word [...], because it had crept in hither, from the upper line. And by those innumerable men, against whom God raised one single person, Con­stantine; Eusebius means Maxentius, Maximianus Herculius, Maxi­minus, and Licinius; to whom Diocletian and Galerius may be ad­ded. But, by those many friends, both of the Daemons, and of themselves, he means the Presidents and Governours of Provinces, and the Comman­ders of the Milice; who, that they might curry favour with the Empe­rours, molested the Christians in all places. It may also be written, [...], in another sense; that is, many as being descended of many Daemons, and the friends of those Daemons. Which sense seems truer. For, it answers to these words which follow, [...], But, this One Emperour [is] of One. For Eu­sebius alludes to that passage in the Gospel; Ye are of your father the devil, Joh. 8. 44. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading of this place runs thus; [...]; For they were infinite; and many as being the friends of many Daemons. Which reading is purer and truer. Vales. being the friends of many Daemons. [...]. Eusebius here seems to have imitated Dionysius Alexandrinus; who in his Paschal Letter con­cerning the Tyranny of Macrianus, expresses himself in this man­ner▪ [...], &c. now is not, for he never was: which passage occurs in the seventh Book of his Eccles. Histor. Chap. 23. Vales. Yea rather, they were nothing: whence it is, that at present they are nothing. But this One Em­perour, [See Note (k.) is] of One, [and bears] the Image of That One Supream Emperour. They, [induced thereto] by an impious mind, destroyed pious men by bloudy Murthers. But he, imitating his own Saviour's example, and being only skilled in this, the preservation namely of men; has sav'd alive even the impious themselves, teaching them true Piety and Religion. Then, in regard▪ he is really Victor, he hath vanquished that twofold sort of Barbarians: civilizing the fierce and untractable Tribes of men, by prudent and ra­tional Embassies; compelling them to own, and Or▪ Not to be igno­rant of their, &c. submit themselves to their Betters; and from a Lawless and brutish life, reducing them to Civility and Humanity. But, as for that cruel and enraged Sort of invisible Daemons, he does really and manifestly [...]. The Transla­tour hath placed a distinction after the term [...]; and renders the passage thus; Reipsa coarguit repressitque; utpote quod jam olim fuisset ab ipso Deo superatum, he really confuted and represt it; in regard it had been long before vanquished by God Him­self. But I have taken away the distinction▪ and rendred it thus; rebus ipsis convincens, jam pridem à Deo fuisse superatum, He does real­ly, &c. The Reader may make choice of which rendition he plea­ses. For there is but little difference. How Constantine actually de­monstrated, that the Daemons were vanquished; Eusebius does pre­sently declare; when he says, that their Temples were r [...]ed by Con­stantine, and bestowed on the Christians. Vales. prove, that they were long since vanquished by God. For the Common Sa­viour of the Universe, had by an invisible Power routed those invisible Spirits. But this Our Prince, the Supream Emperour's Lieutenant-General as 'twere, [...]. It must be written, [...]. Vales. has pursued the vanqui­shed; spoyling Namely, the Daemons; whose Temples Constantine destroyed, and melted down their Images. those who were long since dead and consumed; and plentifully distributing the Booty amongst the Souldiers of [God] the Victor.

FOR, Whereas he perceived, that the simpleCHAP. VIII. multitude, like children, in vain stood in fear of those Bug-bears of Errour, made of Gold and Silver; it was his Sentiment, that they ought wholly to be destroyed; in regard they would be like some pieces of Stones, cast before the feet of those who walk in the dark; [...]. It must be made [...], to▪ all men; from the Fuketian Copy, and from his Third Book con­cerning the Life of Constantine, Chap. 54; where this passage oc­curs word for word. Vales. and because a smooth and plain passage thorow the Kings-high-way was in future to be open to all men. Having therefore diligently weighed these mat­ters with himself, he was of opinion, that he stood not in need either of Mili­tary Forces or a numerous Army, in order to his giving Check to those things; but, that one, or two of those persons well known to him, were sufficient to effect this business: whom by one only Nod he dispatcht away into every Province. They, confiding in [the Emperour's] Piety▪ [and in their own Religiousness towards God,] made their way thorow the thickest crowds, and thorow infinite multitudes of people, and [...]. Doubtless it is to be written [...], fully discovered; and thus it is to be mended in the Third Book of his Life of Con­stantine, Chap. 54; where the reading is [...] ▪ to­tally destroyed, In the Fuke­tian Copy 'tis [...]. Vales. fully discove­red that ancient Errour [of Idolatry,] in all Cities, and throughout every Coun­try. And in the first place, they commanded the Priests themselves, with much laugh­ter and disgrace to bring forth their Gods, out of certain dark re­cesses. Then they divested [those Gods] of their outward dress, and exposed their inward deformity, which lay concealed under a pain­ted shape, to the eyes of all men. Lastly, having scrap't off that matter which seemed to be usefull, and Or, tried it in the furnace and in the fire. cast it into the fire, and melted it down; [...]. The word [...] must be expunged; the Fuketian Copy acknowledges not that word. Vales. so much as by them was thought to be of use and necessa­ry, they reserved, and put it up safe. But, what­ever was superfluous and wholly useless, that they left with the superstitious, for a lasting monu­ment [Page 677] of disgrace. Moreover, this admirable Emperour performed another thing like hereto. For, at the same time that those Idols of the Dead, made of pretious matter, were spoyled in that manner we have declared; he Or, Set upon the o­ther Ima­ges, made of Brass. ordered the rest of the Images, consisting of Brass, to be brought together. Therefore, those Gods, [ce­lebrated] in the doting Fables [of the Greeks,] having had ropes made of hair cast about them, were drag'd away bound. After these things, this great Emperour, having as 'twere light up a most bright Torch, lookt about with his Im­perial Eye, if peradventure he could any where find, any Remains of Errour as yet lying con­cealed. And, as some most sharp-sighted Aeagle, which has raised herself to Heaven on her wings, sees from above those things on the earth that are at the greatest distance: in the same man­ner he, whilst he Walk't up and down in, or, was con­versant in. was resident in the Imperial Palace of his own most beautifull City, behold as from a Watch-Tower, a certain pernicious snare of Souls, lying concealed in the Province of the Phoenicians. It was a Grove and a Temple, [not placed] in the midst of a City, nor in the Forums, or Streets; of which sort many are visible in Cities, most gloriously built for ornaments sake: but this [Temple] was out of the way, far distant from the common Road and beaten path, consecrated to that filthy Daemon [termed] Venus, in part of the Top of [Mount] Libanus. This was a School of wickedness, [open] to all incontinent per­sons, and such as with all manner of dissolute­ness had debauch't their own Bodies. For certain effeminate men, who ought to be ter­med women rather than men, having renounc'd the venerableness of their own Sex, appeased the Daemon by suffering themselves to be made use of as women. Besides, unlawfull Or, Co­pulations of women. Coi­tions with women, and Adulteries, and other beastly and infamous facts were committed in that Temple, as in a place that was lawless, and without a Governour. Nor was there any one that might inspect what was done in that place, in regard no person of gravity or mo­desty durst go thither. But, the impieties com­mitted there, could not lye concealed from this Great Emperour also. But, when he himself had look't into them with the eye of an Im­perial providence, he judged such a Temple as this to be unworthy of being [enlightned with the Rayes] of the Sun it self, Wherefore he orders it to be totally demolished, together with [its Statues and] Consecrated Gifts. Imme­diately therefore, the Engines of this impudent and Libidinous Errour, were dissipated by an Imperial Order; and a Company of Souldiers gave their assistance in cleansing that place. And they who had hitherto been addicted to Lasciviousness, [being scar'd] by the Empe­rour's Menaces, in future learned modesty. When therefore the Emperour had in this man­ner [...]. I can't ap­prove of the Translatour's Version, who has rendred this place thus; Ad bunc modum igitur Imperator, tum spectra illa improbitatis & nequitiae, quae hominum animi o [...]caeca [...]i fuerant, palam sub omnium oculis sub­jecit, In this manner therefore the Emperour, both exposed to pub­lick view those Spectres of improbity and wickedness, wherewith the minds of men had been blinded, &c. But I had rather render it thus; Cùm flagitiorum larvas, quae in Daemonis illius populorum seductoris temple visebantur, detraxisset, &c. When therefore the Emperour had in this manner pull'd off, &c. [...] (for so the Ac­centuation is to be restored,) are the integumenta vitiorum, the masks of vices, wherewith the Heathens covered their own unclean­ness. So above, Eusebius speaking of the Images of the Daemons, says, [...], &c▪ Then they divested [those Gods] of their outward dress, and exposed their inward deformity, which lay concealed under a painted shape, to the eyes of all men. Farther, this place is thus to be mended from the Fuketian Copy, [...]. Vales. pull'd off those Vizards of abominable wickednesse, which were visible in the Temple of that Daemon the seducer of the people; and had exposed them to the view of all persons; he Preached his own Saviour in the presence of all. Nor was there any one who could defend or assist the persons detected; no Daemon; no God; no Utterer of Oracles; no Diviner. Nor were the minds of men any longer wrap't up in thick and profound darkness: but being illustrated by the Rayes of unerring Piety, they condemned the ignorance of their Ancestours; and pityed their Blindness; and pronounc't themselves happy, in regard they were free'd from the cruel slavery of Errour. [...]. Que­stionless it must be, [...] ▪ Thus there­fore in a moment. Presently, I read [...], the best Edu­catrix [or Breeder.] of Youth; without the particle [...]. For Eusebius alludes to that Verse of He [...]iod, in his Opera; ‘ [...].’ Vales. Thus therefore in a moment, by the Will of the Great God, and the Emperour's Assistance and Ministery, all the kinds of E­nemies and Adversaries, as well the visible as invisible, were totally destroyed: and in future, Peace, the best Educatrix of Youth, encompassed the habitation of all men. Nor were there any more Wars, because The Gods were not. Nei­ther did there happen any Fights, either in the Countries or Cities, as there had been before, when the worship of Daemons flourisht: nor were there any more effusions of bloud amongst men, such [...]s had usually hapned, whilst the fury of Polytheisme was prevalent.

NOw therefore 'tis seasonable, to oppose the newCHAP. IX. Face of affairs to the old, and inspect the Change of matters made for the better, by com­paring the worser with them; and to discern and perceive clearly, in what manner hereto­fore, Porches and Consecrated Plots of Ground; Graves and Temples, were [...]. You must understand [...], for the Daemons; or else [...], by the Heathens: for both may be meant: write also [...], were elaborately foun­ded, or, exquisitely prepared. In the Fuketian Copy, the begin­ning of this chapter, and the close of the foregoing one, i [...] omitted, by the carelessness of the Transcriber. Vales. most elaborately founded and prepared for them; and how the Temples were Or, Crown'd. beautified with vast num­bers of Consecrated Gifts. As for the Tyrants and those in whose hands the supream power then was, they had an high veneration for the Gods. The Nations also and people, in the fields and in all places, yea in their very Private dwellings, in their Store Houses namely and Bed-chambers, [...]. This ex­pression seems to me un­couth. For it can't well be said, [...]: nor can the term [...] be well joyned with [...]. Wherefore, I would more willingly reade this whole place, in this manner, [...], [...]. The Nations also and peo­ple, &c. Vales. ho­noured them with Statues, according to the Rites of their own Country. But, the fruit of their devotion, was not that mutual Peace, which we now behold with our eyes, but all things directly contrary hereto; to wit Wars, Fights, and Seditions; wherewith they were Worn out. sorely disquieted during the whole Course of their Lives, and filled their own Coun­tries with bloud and intestine slaughters. More­over, the Gods worshipt by them, with much flat­tery did indeed promise the then Emperours, Pro­phesies and Oracles, and predictions of things future. [Page 678] But those very Gods [...]. I read, [...], could not foresee, or, foreknow. Vales. could not Foreknow. foresee their own Ruine, and were alto­gether unable to foretell it to their own selves. Which is a most convincing Ar­gument, in order to the ma­nifestation of their cheat and imposture. 'Tis certain, none of those, hereto­fore admired for their Oracles, ever foretold the Glorious Coming of the Common Saviour amongst men, or the new Preaching of that divine knowledge, which was first delivered by him. Neither Pythius himself, nor any other of the Great Daemons, was ever apprehensive of their own desolation: nor did he presage or prophesie, who should vanquish and destroy them. What Diviner or Soothsayer hath foretold, that the worship of the Gods should be extinguished by the Coming of a Certain [...]; it may be rendred, of a certain new-born child. New Person into the world; and, that the knowledge and wor­ship of the supream Mediator of all things, should be diffused amongst all men? Who hath fore­seen this Holy and Religious Principality, and this Our Victor, and the Trophies which he has in all places of the earth erected against Daemons, and the Ruine of the [...]. 'Tis a term which occurs in sacred Scripture; see 1 Kings, chap. 12, and 13. The Images of D [...]mons were so termed, because they were commonly worshipped in high places. Vales. High places? Which of the Hero's hath ever declared in express words, that the lifeless Statues should be melted, and from an useless▪ Form be changed into necessary uses? Which of the Gods hath ever made any mention, concerning their own Statues which are melted down, and with disgrace and laughter [...]. Doubtless, the reading must be [...], cut; which Christophorson perceived not. Vales. cut into thinn plates? Where [I beseech you] were the Defenders of those [Gods,] that could not give assistance to the Monuments consecrated to them, which were ruined by Men? What is become of them, who heretofore raised Wars, and who now behold their own vanquishers living in a most calm and secure Peace? Where are those who put their trust in them, as in Gods, and elevated their own minds by a vain and fruitless confidence; [...]. As far as this place, there was a Chasme in the Fuketian Copy; which Manuscript gives us this reading of this place; [...]. I am of opinion, that the first word is to be blotted out. Vales. who, when they had raised the Errour [of their own superstition] to the highest pitch, and had commenc't an implacable War against the Defenders of Truth; Wretches as they were, pe­rished in a most miserable manner? Where are those Troops of Gyants, fighting against God Himself? And the hissings of Dragons; Who have whet their Tongues, and have uttered impious Expressions against the supream King? Those persons, profest E­nemies to the supream Emperour, confiding in a multitude of Gods, fell on with vast numbers of men in Arms; carrying before them as their defence, [...]. Write [...], as the reading is in his Life of Constan­tine, Book 2. Chap. 16; where this passage occurs. A little af­ter, write, [...]; as 'tis in his Life of Constantine, and in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. Resemblances of dead persons, in Statues void of life. But Our Emperour, cloathed with the Coat of Mail of Piety, having op­posed against the multitude of his Enemies, the salutary and vivifick Standard, as some affrightning spectacle, and potent Preserva­tive against mischiefs; obtained the Victory, both over his Enemies, and over the Daemons▪ After which, with a gratefull mind, he rendred a Thanksgiving-prayer to [God] the Authour of his Victory; and with a loud voice, and by the Monuments of Statues raised, he made known to all men the Triumphant Stan­dard; erecting this Great Trophy against all his Enemies, in the midst of the Imperial City; and issuing out an Express Command to all men, that they should acknowledge this salutary Standard (which no Age can deface,) as the Preservative of the Roman Government, that is, the Empire of the whole world. And here­with [...]e acquainted all persons, but more espe­cially the Milice. To whom [he gave this in charge,] that they ought not to Or, Hang their hopes on, &c. place their hopes in their Spears and Armour, nor in the strength of their Bodies; but should ac­knowledge God to be the Giver of all Good, and particularly of Victory it self. Thus the Emperour himself (strange and almost incre­dible!) was his own Armie's Instructer in their devotions; and delivered to them pious See his Life of Constan­tine, Book 4. Chap. 20. prayers, which were agreeable to the Divine Laws and Institutions; that they should lift up their hands on high, towards Heaven; but should Or, Transmit the eyes—to the, &c. fix the eyes of their minds on the highest object, namely on the Celestial King; and in their prayers should invoke him, as The Giver of Victory, The Saviour, The Preserver, and The Assistant. Moreover, that they should esteem of a day, as convenient and fit for prayers; to wit, that day, which really is the Chief and [...]. He terms the Lord's day, the first; not only because 'tis the first day of the week; but also, in regard it was the first day of the world. Whence it may deservedly be termed the Birth-day of the world. Farther, the Lord's Day is not only termed the first day, but the eighth also. St Austin's words (Book 1. Concerning the Lord's Sermon on th [...] Mount Chap. 11.) are these: Haecoctava Sententia quae ad Caput re­dit, &c: This eighth Sentence which returns to the Head, and declare [...] the perfect man, is perhaps signified by Circumcision also on the eighth day in the Old Testament; and by the Resurrection of the Lord after the Sabbath, which as 'tis she eighth, so 'tis also the first day. Before St Au­stin, Hilarius had said the same, in his Prologue to his Comments on the Psalms; where discoursing concerning the seventh Number, his words are these: Quem tamen ogdoas, quia dies eadem prima quae octava, &c: which nevertheless, the number eight (because the first day is the same with the eighth,) being added in the last Sabbath according to the Evan­gelick fulness, doth compleat. See also his following words in that Prologue. Moreover, Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, in his discourse when the day of the Theophania had fal'n on a Sunday, speaks concer­ning the Lord's day in this manner: [...], &c: Both Custome, and also duty doth require us, to honour every Sunday, and to observe that day as a Festival; in regard thereon our Lord Jesus Christ procured for u [...] a Resurrection from the dead. Wherefore, in the sacred Scriptures, this day is both termed The first, as being the beginning of life to us; and also The eighth, in regard it surpasses the Sabbath of the Jews. These words of Theo­philus are cited in the Typicon of St Saba, and by Balsamon in his Col­lection of Canons. To whom add Isidorus, and Beda in the Book de Divinis Officiis, where they treat concerning Sunday. Stephanus Go­barus writes the same, in his 29th Chapter. To this custom it is per­haps to be referred, that the Greeks. most commonly reckon the days of the week, not to the Sunday which precedes, but to that which follows. For, after the Sunday of the Prodigal Son, which is the ninth Sunday before Easter, those dayes which followed immediately, namely the second, third, and fourth Feria, and so on, were by the Greeks termed, [...], untill the following Sunday, which was termed Dominica [...], and this week was called [...]. [See Meursius's Glossary, in the word [...].] But after the Dominica [...], the second Feria which followed next, was termed [...] or [...], and so the other days of that whole week, unto the following Sunday, which was called by the same name, [...]. The same may be observed in the other Sundays, untill Easter-day. For after the Dominica [...], the second Feria was termed the second Feria of the Holy Fasts; and the whole week was called so, untill the following Sunday, which had the same name. Lastly, the [...] [the Great week, or, Passion-week] which we call the Holy Week, is reckoned to the following Sunday, namely Easter Day, as it appears from the Typicon of Saint Sa [...], Chap. 31. Cyrillus also, in his [...] Sermons, always begins the week of Easter, which we now term The Holy Week, from the second Feria; and closes it with the following Sunday, namely Easter-Day. Nor does Theophilus do otherwise in his [...]asch [...]l Epistles. Vales. First of [Page 679] other days, and which is truly the [...]. This is the most ancient name▪ of Sunday, whor [...]by it was [...]al­led even from the Apostles times. 'Tis certain, in the Reve­lation of Saint John, mention is made of the Lord's day; See Chap. 1. verse 10. But, what Ense [...]ius says here, and in the Life of Constantine; namely, that Sunday was consecrated and set apart for prayers and Ecclesiastick assemblies; this in my judgment, was instituted something later. For the first Christians, who had embraced the faith immediately after our Lords Ascent, met every day, always applying themselves to prayers, and all manner of Offices of Piety; as Sr Lu [...]e writes in the Acts of the Apostles. But afterwards, when the Heathens betook themselves in great numbers to the faith of Christ, and the Faithfull could not meet every day; it was appointed by the Apostles and their Suc­cessours, that at least on the Lord's Day, the Faithfull should meet together in the Church. Concerning which there is an eminent passage, in Justin the Martyr's Second Apology, about the close of it. [...], On the day termed Sunday, all per­sons as well those who dwell in the Country, as them in the City, [...]eet together, &c. He has termed it Sunday, not the Lord's Day, be­cause he s [...]oke to the Roman Emperours, who were well acquainted with Sunday, but knew not the Lord's Day, which was an appel­lation proper to Christians. Justin repeats the same thing a little after, in the same Apology. Hereto likewise Pliny agrees in his Epistle to Trajan. [...], says he, hanc fuisse summ [...]m vel c [...]lpa su [...]; vel erroris, &c. They affirmed, that this was the [...]otall either of their fault, or errour▪ that on a stated day they were want to meet together before it was light, and sing an Hymn to Christ, a [...] to God. Where, by a stated day he means The Lord's Day. Therefore, from this place of Pliny it may be gathered, that the Christians who then lived in Bi­thynia, met together on the Lord's Day only. Otherwise, Pliny, would have said, that they were wont to meet on stated days, not on a stated day. Although this is not so much the Testimony of Pliny himself, as the Christians own, who con [...]e [...]t that before Pliny, as he himself atte [...]s. Besides the Lord's Day, Epiphanius (in the Epi­logue to his Books against Heresies,) affirms that an Assemblie on the fourth and sixth [...]ri [...], and [...] (i [...] his Constitutions) says, that a meeting together on the Sabbath Day, was instituted by the Apostles. But, as to what belongs to the Stations of the fourth and sixth Feria, we are informed from Tertullian in [...]is Book de Jejuni [...], that they were meerly arbitrary and at will, not determined by any positive Law or Command. And although it was the Eastern [...] usage to meet toge­ther on the Sabbath, yet 'tis manifest from Epiphanius, Socrates and others, that in most Churches▪ Assemblies were not then held. There is an eminent passage of St Jerom's, on the Epist to the Galatians, Chap. 4. E [...] n [...]inord [...]gregatio pop [...] [...]idem minueret in Christo, &c. And least a disordered [...]ongregation of the people might lessen the faith in Christ, Word [...] [...]ome days [...]re appointed; that we might all come together. Not that that day where [...] we [...]et, is [...]ore solemn; but, that on whatever day there is an assembly, a greater joy may arise from the [...]ight of one another. Vales. Lord's, and the Salutary Day: and which has its [...]. He says, that the Lord's Day has its name from light, not because it was by the Heat [...]ens termed the day of the S [...], but because 'tis the day of the Lord, that namely whereon the Lord rose, and conferred on us Life and Light: and be­cause on that day we received the Holy Spirit, the Enlightner of our minds. See Clemen [...] Alexandrinus's Strom, Book 6. where speaking concerning the Sabbath, there occurs a most elegant passage, which for brevities [...]ake I here omit. The Lord's Day therefore is the day of Light, both because on that day the Light was first [...]reated, and also in regard we on that day received the knowledge of the truth by the Holy Spirit, who fell upon the Faithfull under the form of [...]ire, and without division was divided, as Clemens words it in the forementioned place. Vales. name from Light, Life, Immortality, and from every thing that is good. Moreover, He [...]. That is, not satisfied in his in­structing others, he himself practises those things which he teacheth, according to the command of the Gospel. Vales. himself, becoming his own Teacher of such good things, pays an a­doration to his Saviour in the most private Apart­ments of his Imperial Palace; and sometimes by praying fulfills the Divine Laws; at others, by hearing the sacred Scriptures read, he cultivates and instructs his own mind. Farther, persons consecrated to God, and who are adorned with holiness of Life and the other virtues, are his Servants and Ministers; and them he has ap­pointed to be the Or, Keepers. Controllers of his whole House. Lastly, his Protectors and trusty Guards, armed with the weapons of good affection, do acknowledge the Emperour as their Instructer in a pious Life. But the Emperour himself pays an honour to this Victorious Banner, having experimentally found a Divine Efficacy inherent in it. For, by this [Standard] vast multitudes of the adverse Army have been put to [...]light; by it the For­ces of invisible Daemons have been subdued. By it, their insolence, who opposed God Himself, was represt: by it, the tongues of flanderers and im­pious persons were silenced. By it the Barbarous Nations were vanquished. By it the frauds and mockery of Superstitious Errour were exposed and detected. Lastly, to it (which is the sum and perfection of all Goods,) the Emperour paying a due debt as 'twere, has erected Triumphal Arches in all places of the Earth. And with a bountifull and Royal hand [hath founded] Temples and Churches, in honour of it: and has issued forth an Order to all persons, that sacred Oratories should be built. In the very midst [...]. The reading must be [...]; and we have rendred it accordingly. Indeed, in the Fuketian Copy, 'tis [...]. Vales. therefore of the Pro­vinces and Cities, eximious Monuments of his Imperial magnificence were forthwith raised; and in a short time they shined gloriously in every Country, and ma­nifestly confuted and exposed the impiety of Ty­rannick Government. For those [Tyrants] having by a madness of mind been a little be­fore hurried on to wage a War against God; like mad dogs, vented their rage against the lifeless Structures, in regard they were unable to effect any thing against God Himself: and when they had thrown down the Oratories from their vast height to the very ground, and had dug up their very Foundations; they made them look like a City taken by the Enemy. Such was the Tra­gedy of wickednesses acted by them: wherein they attempted, as 'twere to assault the Deity it self; but were soon made sensible of their own madness. For a short space of time had scarce intervened, when a Storm poured on them from Heaven, swept them away and in one moment rendred them invisible: in so much that, neither kindred, nor issue, nor any the least relique of their memory, was left remaining amongst men; but, though they were numerous, yet in a minute, having first had stripes inslicted on them from Heaven, they all perished utterly, and be­came extinct. Such was the conclusion of these mens outragious Fury, whereby they had made an Insurrection against God. But this [Our Em­perour,] who, armed with the Salutary Trophy, [...]ad alone fal'n upon the Enemies; (or rather, was not alone; for he who is the sole Emperour, was present with, and assisted Him;) hath built new Oratories far better than those which a little before had been demolisht; and hath made the latter much more magnificent, than the former were: one while adorning the City which bears his own name, with various Churches of God; at another time, honouring the chief [City] of Bithynia, with [...]. It must be, [...]. For [...], Church, is understood; as 'tis apparent from His third Book concerning the Life of Con­stantine, Chap. 50. From whence it must be also here corrected, [...], the chiefest [Ci­ties;] as the reading likewise is in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. a most stately and most beautifull [Church.] He hath like­wise grao't the chiefest [Ci­ties] of the other Pro­vinces, with Ornaments of this nature. Moreover, when he had made choice of two eminent places in the East; the one in the Province of Palestine, because the vivi­fick Stream [of saving faith] has from thence, as from a Spring, diffused it self and over­flowed [Page 680] all Nations; the other in the Metropolis of the whole East, [...]. In the third Book of his Life of Constantine, Chap. 50, instead of the verb [...] is made use of. Indeed, this is a strange kind of an expression, [...]. And at first blush it may seem to be an Enallage, instead of [...], which [City] the Surname of Antiochus does grace. Yet, if any one shall inspect the mat­ter more narrowly, he will con­fess, that this was spoken by Eu­sebius▪ with a designe to greaten the thing. For such was the largness of the City Antioch, that it might seem rather to adorn its own Builder Antiochus, than to be adorned by his name. Vales. which graces the name of Antiochus: in this latter, as 'twere in the Head of all the Provinces of that Tract, he hath consecrated [to God] a Or, Divine. most glorious & match­less Structure, in respect both of its Largeness and Beauty. For he hath encompassed the whole Tem­ple, with a large circuit on the out side: but within, he hath raised the Basilica it self to an immense height, and has built it in an Eight­square Figure, and has va­riously adorned it; and ha­ving surrounded it on all sides with many lodging Rooms and Exhedrae, has crowned it with a variety of Ornaments. In this manner were these [Edifices] compleated. But in the Province of the Palestinians, in that City heretofore the Royal Seat of the Hebrews, in the middle of the City, [...]. That is, at the very place of Our Lord's Sepulchre. For so Eusebius is wont to call the Se­pulchre of Our Lord, as 'tis ap­parent from his Life of Constant. Book 3. Chap. 33. [...] does properly signifie a place where the Reliques of Martyrs are deposited. The Latines have in like mauner termed it Confessionem, Confession; which is the same with [...]. For [...] is in Latine call'd Confessor. Thus, in Anastasius, we reade the Confession of Saint Peter. Below, at Chap. 11, Eu­sebius calls it, [...]. Vales. at the very Martyrium of Our Saviour, [he has erected] a See Life of Constant. Book 3. Chap. 43. note (c.) Basilica of a vast bigness, and an Holy House in Honour of the Sa­lutary Cross, and has beautified it richly, and with all manner of magnificence. And he hath grac't the Monument of the supream Saviour, (which deserves an eternal Memo­ry,) and the Trophies that He raised against Death, with Ornaments that are in­expressible. And having se­lected three places in that Coun­try, which are honoured with three Mystick Caves, He has beautified each of them with magnificent Structures: to [...]. The rea­ding must be, [...]. For, it fol­lows, [...], and we have ren­dred it ac­cordingly. Farther, in the third Book of his Life of Constant. Chap. 41; He makes mention but of two Caves; whereas here he reckons up three. His discourse there, was concerning He­lena, who built Churches at Bethlehem and on the mount of Olives. But here he treats concerning Constantine, who erected a most magnificent Church in the place of Our Lord's Sepulchre: to whom also Eusebius with good reason ascribes those Churches built by Helena, in regard they had been raised by the Emperour's cost. Vales. that Cave wherein [Our Saviour] first made his Divine appearance, he hath assigned a befitting honour: in the other, he has illustra­ted the memory of his last Assumption, in the Top of the Mount: but in that Cave, which is in the midst between the other two, he has extoll'd Or, The salutary Vi­ctories of his whole Agony▪ the Combats and Victory of Our Saviour. All these [Caves] the Emperour has adorned magnifi­cently, thereby declaring to all persons the Salutary Sign [of the Cross.] [...]. At my peril write [...]; and under­stand [...], Signe. Which the Translatour having not perceived, made a notorious mistake. The Fuketian Copy confirms our Emen­dation. A little after, with the Translatour I reade [...], &c, and the time of his Reigne unless you would rather read, [...], &c, as we have rendred it; which to me seems righter. For [...] is not so elegant an expression. Vales. Which [Sign] gives the Emperour the reward of his piety, increases his whole Family and the time [of his Reigne,] and confirms the Throne of his Empire by Or, Long▪ many periods of years; reserving the Fruits and Rewards of Virtue, for His most excellent Children, and for [...]. The rea­ding must be [...], his own. After the mention of Constan­tine's Chil­dren, Eu­sebius has, not super­fluously, added his Stock or Kindred also: on account namely of Dalmatius and Hanni­ballianus, who were related to Constan­tine, being the Sons of his Bro­ther. Vales. His own Kindred, and for their Descendants. And this is a most convincing argument of the power of that God, whom the Emperour does worship; that He hath poyz'd the Scale of Justice with equal weights on both sides, and has assigned to each Party a fit and proportionate Reward. For the punishment due to impiety, immediately seized those who had assaulted and demolisht the sacred Houses; and they were forthwith swept away, without any Stock or Kindred, without any House, or Family. But this [Our Emperour,] who by Acts of Piety of all sorts, pays an Honour to His Lord; and who one while erects Churches to Him; at another time, manifests and makes Him known to His Subjects, by those Sacred Gifts which he hath dedicated to Him in all parts of the world: is most certainly known to have Him, and that most deservedly, the Pre­server and Keeper of his Family, Empire, and Race. In this manner have God's performances been made known, by the Divine power and Virtue of the Salutary Sign.

COncerning which [Sign] the DiscourseCHAP. X. might be large, wherewith they are well acquainted, [...]. The Translatour renders it, iis qui se sacrarum literarum profes­sioni consecraverint; which Ver­sion I don't approve of▪ [...] are the persons initiated, who were partakers of the Mysteries. But [...] are they who initiate other, and deliver the Mysteries to them. Vales. who have been initiated in those Mysteries delivered to them by divine persons. For, this Or, Was. is that truly sa­ving [Sign:] a thing won­derfull indeed to be related; but, far more admirable to be conceived: in what man­ner, as soon as it appeared on earth, That alone hath obsoured all those Fables, many ages since invented concerning the Gods; and hath delivered up Errour, to darkness and oblivion; but hath discovered to all persons that Intellectual Light (which had illustrated the minds of men,) the One namely, and the true God. Therefore, all people, now changed to a better and more enlightened Condition, spit on the faces of their dead Idols; trample under foot the impious Rites of Daemons, and deride that ancient Errour handed down to them from their Ancestours. And on the other side, men have every where founded Schooles of sacred Litera­ture, and are all trained up as 'twere in the Precepts of the saving Discipline: to the intent that, they may no longer dread Or, The Creation, visible, &c. things Crea­ted, which are visible to the eyes of flesh; nor lift up their eyes to the Sun, Moon, and Stars, and stop in an admiratian of those Bodies: but may confess Him, who transcends all these, Him who can't be perceived by sight, or any sense; to be the Creator of all things; and may learn to worship Him alone. All which singular and extraordinary Blessings and Favours [confer­red] on men, had their rise from this Great and admirable Signe. By the power and virtue where­of, all those Ills which were before, now are not: and those [Goods] which before were not, are Or, A­mongst all persons. every where resplendent, [deriving their Lustre] from the Rayes of Piety. Also, Discourses, Precepts, and Exhortations to a So­ber and Pious Life, are Preach't in the hearing of all Nations; yea, even the Emperour Himself Preaches. And this is the greatest wonder, that so mighty an Emperour, does with so loud a Voice call out to the whole world, like some Interpreter [Page 681] to God the supream King; and does invite all those Governed by Him, to the knowledge of the true God. And that, in the midst of the Im­perial Palace, [...]. I write, [...]; and have ren­dred it accordingly: He means the Pagan Sophistae, who in such like Decennalian Festivities as these, spoke Panegyricks to the Emperours. Such a one was Na­zarius's Panegyrick, spoken to Constantine, in his third Quin­quennalia, (or on the fifteenth year of his Empire,) and in the Quinquennalia of the Caesars. Such also was Themistius's Oration, in Valens's Quinquennalia. More­over, Claudius Mamertinus had pre­pared an Oration in the Quinquen­nalia of Maximianus Hirculius, as he himself attests. In the Fuk. Copy the reading is, [...]. Vales. the trifling and ridiculous Composures of impious men [are not re­cited,] as the usage was heretofore; but the Priests and Ministers of God, per­sons conspicuous for their Piety, with See Chap. 11. note (a.) Roy­al Hymns and Praises do cele­brate the Festi­val. That, the sole God, He who is the Emperour of the Universe, is declared and set forth to all; and that the E­vangelick Word [who promi­seth us all things which are] good, does unite mankind to [God] the supream King; shewing the glad ti­dings of His Celestial Father's being rendred propi­tious and benign to His Sons on earth. That, Quires do Laud Him with all manner of triumphant Songs; and, that the whole Body of mankind doth joyn in The Chorus together with the Angelick Com­panies in Heaven: and, that rational Souls, using those Bodies wherewith they are cloathed as some Musical Instruments, [do Laud] Him with befitting Hymns, and shout forth praises that are gratefull to him. That they who are Inhabitants of the East, together with those who dwell in the West, are instructed in His Pre­cepts, at one and the same moment of time: and, that those who have received the Southern and Northern parts of the world as their allotment, do sing Or, Con­cordant Songs. to the same melodious Tune: studiously following a pious Course of Life, by the very same methods and precepts: conspiring in the praises of one God, who is supream: admitting of one Saviour, His onely-begotten Son, the Au­thour of all Blessings: and [Lastly,] acknow­ledging one Moderatour and Emperour on Earth, and His Sons belov'd by God. Which Empe­rour, like some skilfull Pi­lot, [...]. This is a most corrupt place, which nevertheless, I have, as I think, with ease amended. I write therefore, [...], that is, Sublimis supra gubernaculum Sedens, Sits on high above the Rudder. But the Translatour dream't I know not what concerning Aevum. Presently, write [...], from the Fuketian Copy▪ for so Eusebius expresses himself here­after. Vales. sits on high above the Rudder, and holding the Helm in his hand, Steers the Vessel in a straight Course; and by a prosperous gale of Wind, brings all those under his command, into a safe and calm Port. But God Himself, the supream Emperour, stretches forth his right hand to Him from a­bove, and hitherto constitutes Him the Conquerour of all his Enemies and Opposers; encreasing the Strength of His Empire by long periods of years. But will hereafter make Him a partaker of far more excellent Blessings, and will really fulfill his own Promises made to Him. Of which Promises the time present permits not a Rehearsal; but a departure out of this Life is to be expected: in as much as, 'tis not possible for things divine to be distinctly perceived and fully apprehended, by mortal eyes and corporeal ears.

BUT, Come on, Victor Maximus Constan­tinus▪ CHAP. XI. [...]. The Greek Rhe­toricians termed O­rations con­cerning the praises of Emperours▪ [...]; which the Latines are wont to call Pane­gyricas, Panegy­ricks. The me­thod of these Ora­tions is de­livered by Alexander Rhetor, in his Book [...], Chap. 1▪ the Title of which Chapter ought to be, [...]. This Book is extant a­mongst the Greek Rhe­toricians published by Aldus▪ pag 613; but, which is ill done, 'tis confounded with Menander Rhetor's Book, which treats concerning the same Subject. Farther, in the fore­said Chapter of Alexander, there is cited an Oration of the most fam'd Sophist Gallinicus, with this Title, [...], written, if I mistake not, in praise of the Emperour Philip. Which I guess at from hence, because Philip was an Arabian as well as Callinicus, and was of mean birth: which are the Qualifications of that Emperour, to whom Calli­nicus spoke this Oration, as Alexander attests. The time suits very well also; For Callinicus lived in the Reign of Gallienus, as Suidas does wit­ness. There is also extant a [...] of Libanius's, written by him in honour of Constantius and Constans, when he was at Nicomedid. Eusebius therefore alludes to these Orations, and terms this Oration [...]. So in the foregoing Chapter, he has made use of this expression, [...], in allusion to the same thing; which the Translatour understood not. Moreover, this is to be remark't, namely that this Oration is by Eusebius termed [...], that is, an Imperial Book. For, 'tis indeed liker a Book, than an Oration; because by its too great length it exceeds the mea­sure of an Oration. Wherefore I can't perswade my self, that it was recited by Eusebius. Vales. in this Imperial Book [written] concerning the Supream Emperour, let us now deliver to You Or, The Mysteries of Secret Discourses. Secret and Myste­rious Matters: not that we may teach You, who have been instructed by God: nor that we may disclose Secrets to You, to Whom God Himself, long before these our discourses, (not from men, neither by any man, but by the Common Saviour Himself, and by the Presence and Appearance of His own Divinity, which hath often shined upon You,) hath opened and revealed things secret that were hidden: but, that we may bring untaught men to the Light; and may suggest to the ignorant, the Reasons and Causes of Your Pious and Religious Works and Deeds. Indeed, those great Actions dayly performed [...] ▪ It must be, [...], by your Virtue▪ and so the Translatour read. Vales. by Your Virtue, thorowout the whole habitable World, in order to the promoting the Worship and Honour of God the supream King; are celebrated in the mouthes of all Mor­tals. But, the Monuments of Gratitude, which You have consecrated to Your Preserver and Sa­viour, in Our Country, (I mean in the Province of Palestine, and in that City, whence, as from a Fountain-head, the Salutary Word hath powred forth its refreshing streams upon all men;) and the Trophies of that Victory gained over Death, which You have erected in the Edifices of Ora­tories, and in the Dedications of Sacred Hou­ses: [I say,] those Lofty and most beautifull Works of an Imperial Magnificence, Stru­ctures truly Imperial, erected [...]. It ought, I think, to be written, [...], about the Salutary Mar­tyrium, as Eusebius has exprest himself in the ninth Chapter▪ where see what we have observed, at note (o.) It might also be, [...], about the Salutary Monument. For, so it will be an elegant allusion, [...], a Monu­ment of an immortal Memory. And so Eusebius words it in the fore­said Chapter, [...], and the Monu­ment—which deserves an eternal Memory. Nevertheless I have obser­ved, that [...] is by Eusebius simply and absolutely taken to signifie the Salutary Signe of the Cross: [...], by the Divine Virtue of the Salutary Signe, as it occurs in the very close of the ninth Chapter: where nevertheless, the Fuketian Copy words it in this manner, [...]. Vales. about the Salu­tary [Martyrium, a Monument that deserves] an Immortal Memory; contain a Reason [for their having been built,] which is [...]. I don't doubt but it should be written, [...], contain a reason—which is not equally apparent and manifest to all persons. Which Emendation is confirmed by the words of Eusebius that follow presently. All persons, says he, are not acquainted with the reasons of those Works, which You have with great magnificence built near the Sepulchre of Our Lord. For, the Christians do indeed know them, and on that account do greatly admire You. But the Heathens deride such works as those. The reading therefore in the Fuketian Copy is ill, thus, [...], &c. Vales. not equally apparent and manifest to all persons. [Page 682] 'Tis certain, they who have been enlightened by the Celestial power and influence of the Divine Spirit, do know and understand [the true Cause of Your raising those Structures,] and on ac­count thereof do deservedly admire You, and do stile that Your purpose of mind, a blessed re­solution, as proceeding from no other than a di­vine impulse. But, those who are unskilled in matters divine, in a most immoderate man­ner deride, and scoff at that work, by reason of their blindness of mind: supposing it to be a mighty indecency, and a thing unbefitting [the Maje­sty of] so great an Emperour, to employ His care about the Monuments and Sepulchres of dead Bodies. For, would it not have been better (may some one of these persons say,) to observe and keep Our Ancestours Rites; and to appease the Hero's and Gods worshipt in each Province; and not to detest and abhor them, on account of such calamities as these? For, either they must be Or, Deified. affected with divine honours, in the same manner with ▪ [...]. He means Christ, as the Translatour has well noted at the margin. These words are spoken by Eusebius, with an intent to personate the Heathens, who (when the Chri­stians objected to them, the A­dulteries, quarrells, slaughters, death, and also Sepulchres of their Gods and Hero's) answe­red in this manner. If our Gods are to be rejected and despised on account of such humane Calamities as these, Your God is in like man­ner to be rejected also; whom you confess to have been condemned, to have been dead, and buried. Vales. this person, by reason of that likeness there is in their miseries and infe­licities: or else, if they are to be rejected, as being ob­noxious to humane sufferings; 'tis just, that the very same sentence be pronounc't against Him also. These words will peradventure be said by some one of those persons, having first contracted His Brows, and in His own vain opi­nion thinking Himself wiser than others, and with much of gravity extolling his own arrogance. To whom never­theless, a pardon of his igno­rance is vouchsafed, (and [...]. I should choose to write, [...], &c. For this seems to me more ele­gant. But the ordinary reading has the same sense; but 'tis not so expressive, nor so elegant. Nevertheless, he expresses him­self so hereafter in this chapter. A little after I read [...], Schools and places of Instruction; not [...], Doctrines. Vales. not to him only, but to every one who hath erred from the right way;) by the Gracious and mercifull Word of the Most Excellent Father; who hath Founded Schools and places of Instruction all over the whole world, in Countries and Villages, in fields and desert places, and in all Ci­ties whatever; and freely in­vites [all persons] to learn the Divine Precepts: and like a most indulgent Saviour and Physitian of Souls, perswades both Greeks and Barbarians; Wise and Simple; Poor and Rich; Servants and Masters; Governours and the Governed; the impious; the unjust; the unlearned; the unclean; the blasphemous; to come, yea to hasten to a Divine Cure. With a loud voice therefore proclaiming to all persons oblivion of their former wickedness, thus He heretofore cryed out, saying; Matth. 11. 28. Come unto Me all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. And again. I Matth. 9. 13. am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to re­pentance. And He adds the reason, saying: [Matth. 9. 12. For] they that be whole, need not a Phy­sician, but they that are sick. And [in another place,] I desire not the death of a sinner [so earnestly, as I desire] his repentance. Hence it is, that only that person who has been instructed in the knowledge of things Divine, (as soon as he shall have been acquainted with the reasons of that care and diligence imployed about the fore­mentioned Works,) must of necessity acknowledge a far more excellent instinct than that which is meerly humane, to have been in our Emperour, and must admire His Pious disposition towards the worship of God; and must believe, that this Care and Sollicitude in reference to Or, The Martyrium of salutary immorta­lity. the Mo­nument of the Salutary Resurrection, was not exerted without Divine appoyntment; but was really the product of the inspiration of that God, whose faithfull servant and Minister of good things, [the Emperour] boasts Himself to be. Being fully perswaded, Greatest Emperour! that these things are truly gratefull and acceptable to You, I have taken a resolution, in this present Discourse to set forth to all persons, the Causes and [...]. Without doubt it must be [...]; and a little after (as the words are plac't in the Greek,) [...]: and so the Translatour seems to have read, who renders it thus: Rerum pie & religiosè ab [...] te gestarum ra­tiones Gausasque hoc praesenti ser­mone explicare constitui. But he has rendred the word [...] ill, which does here signifie Fabricks or Edifices, which by the Latines are termed Opera, Works. For here Eusebius does manifestly treat concerning that Church, which Constantine had built at Je­rusalem, in a most magnificent and admirable manner. Fur­ther, this passage does plain­ly confirm Our Emendation at note (d.) in this chapter, [...]. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading is, [...]. Vales. Reasons of Your Pious Fabricks: glorying in this, that I am as 'twere the Interpre­ter of Your Intention, and the Relatour of Your Pious mind▪ and that I teach all those things, which 'tis fit and agreeable every person should be instructed in, whose desire it is to understand the Reasons of the Power of God, and of Our Saviour: on account of which [Reasons] He who existed long before, and had the sole Care and manage­ment of the Universe, at length came down from Hea­ven to us: for which [rea­sons] he ' [...] You must add the word [...], He cloa­thed Himself with the humane Na­ture▪ which word is ill placed in the foregoing line. This Emen­dation is confirmed by the Fuke­tian Copy. Vales. cloathed Himself with the humane Nature: for which [Reasons Last­ly,] He gave access even to death: moreover, [that I declare] the reasons of that immortal Life which followed hereupon, and of the Resurrection from the dead; and not the reasons only, but the most evident and ratio­nal demonstrations also, and the most indubitable Proofs, necessary to those who as yet stand in need of these things. But, now it is time, that we should here begin this our design'd discourse. They who have Changed, or, trans­ferred. ascri­bed the worship of God the Framer of the world and the supream Governour over all things, to those things created by Him; and have ho­noured the Sun and Moon, and the other parts of the world, and the first Elements [of all things,] Earth; Water; Air; Fire; with an appellation equal to their Maker and Framer: and have termed those things, Gods, which nei­ther ever were, nor had subsisted, nor had had any name, unless they had been [...]. The Transla­tour ren­ders it, Nisi Verbo Dei in Lucem editae fuis­sent, unless they had been brought to light by the Word of God. But this rendition is not expressive enough of the propriety of the Greek Term. Wherefore, I would rather render it, Nisi Verbo Dei adstitissent, unless they had stood by the Word of God. For 'tis a Metaphor taken from Servants, who, when their Lord calls, are at hand presently. There­fore this verb [...] is a fit word to be used concerning the Creation of the World. For the Lord said, Let there be made, and they were made. Farther, I have mended this place from the Fuketian Copy. For whereas the reading before was, [...], I have corrected it, [...]. Vales. present with and waited upon the Word of God who made the world: such persons, in my judgment, seem to differ very little from those, who Or, Con­temning, or, neg­lecting. passing by the Architect of eximi­ous Works in Imperial Palaces, great­ly admire the Roofs and Walls, and [Page 683] the Paintings thereon which consist of a va­riety of Flowers and Colours, and the Golden Arch [...]-Roofs. Lacunaria, and the curious Workmanship thereon, and the Carv'd works of Stones; and to those very things▪ attribute the praise and name of the skill of the Artist: whereas, the Cause of the admira­tion ought not to be ascribed to those things vi­sible to the eye, but onely to the Architect of those [curious pieces of work:] and in as much as 'tis to be acknowledged, that there are many works of great Art and Skill; but, that He only is wise and skillfull, who is the Authour of the Being of such Works as these, and of their being beheld by many. Nor, would they seem in any thing to differ from very young children, who should admire the Musical Instrument of the Harp it self, which consists of seven Strings; and not the Inventour Himself, and the person skilled in its Harmony, on account of this His knowledge: or they, who neglecting Him that had performed a brave piece of service in the Wars, should adorn the Spear, or the Shield, with Triumphant Crowns: or [Lastly] they, who should honour the Forums, the Streets, the Edifices, the lifeless Temples, and the Places for Exer­cise, or, Schools. Gymnasia; in the same degree with the Mighty Emperour, the Authour and Founder of the Great and Royal City: whereas 'tis not meet to admire the [Columns or] Stones, but rather the wise Builder Himself of this great Work, and Him by whose Laws and Sanctions it is Governed. In the very same manner also, they, who with the eyes of the Body behold this Universe, ought not to ascribe its Cause, either to the Sun, or Moon, or to any other of the Celestial Bodies: but must ac­knowledge all these to be the Workes of wisdom; being in the interim mindfull of the Maker and Framer of them, and preferring His Honour and Worship before all other things whatever. But, from a view of these very [Works,] with an entire af­fection of mind they must reverence and adore Him, namely the Word of God, the supream Em­perour [of this Universe,] who is not now to be perceived by the eyes of the body, but only by a pure and uncorrupt mind. For, in the Body of a man, no one hath ever termed the eyes, or head, or hands, or feet, or the rest of the members of a wise and knowing person, Wisdom; much less has any one termed the A long Garment worn by Philoso­phers. Pallium within which such a person is wrapt, wise; or His house-hold-stuff, wise; or the Vessels necessary for a Philosopher's use, wise: but every prudent person admires the invisible and disappearing mind that is in man. In the same manner also, rather than [we should wonder at] the visible Works of this whole world, which are corporeal, and framed of one and the same matter; we ought to admire that undiscer­ned and invisible Word, the Framer and Beau­tifier of this Universe; Who is the onely-begot­ten [Son] of God: Whom the Maker of all things Himself, a Being that far transcends every substance, hath begotten of Himself; and hath constituted Him the Ruler and Governour of this Universe. For, whereas it was impos­sible, that the transient and frail substance of Bodies, and the Nature of rational Creatures which had been newly made▪ should approach God the Supream Rectour, because of that in­finity of distance whereby He excells them: (For He is unbegotten, plac'd above and beyond all things; inexplicable; incomprehensible; inac­cessible; inhabiting Light that is not to be ap­proach't, as the [...]. So also 'tis in the Fuketian Copy; instead of [...]. Vales. sacred Oracles tell us: but they were produced out of nothing, and are vastly di­stant, and a long way separated from that unbegotten Nature:) with good reason therefore, the All-Good and Supream God, interposed as 'twere [...]. He terms the Son's power, a middle power be­tween God the Father and things created, not that the Virtue and power of the Son is different from the Virtue and power of the Father. For Eusebius does plainly call it here, the Divine power of the Son. But He gives it the name of Middle, because the Father does nothing by Himself, but all things by the Son. Therefore ancient Divines attributed the Monarchy to the Father; but the Administra­tion or [...] to the Son; as Tertullian informs us in his Book a­gainst Praxe [...]. See the Twelfth Chapter; where he does again term the Son, the Middle, and a certain Bond as 'twere, whereby things Created are coupled with the unbegotten Father. And least any one should think, that Eusebius deserves to be reproved here▪ Alex­ander Bishop of Alexandria (in his Epistle to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople,) expresses himself in the very same manner; [...], &c. Eusebius (Book 1. against Sabellius) declares the same thing at large. Non quia non sufficiebat Pater, ideo genuit Filium: &c. Not because the Father was not sufficient, therefore He begat the Son: but because those things which were made were not suf­ficient to bear the power of Him unborn. Therefore He speaks by a Media­tour. Why? Because we could not approach Him unborn▪ Nevertheless, Atha­nasius refutes these assertions incomparably well, in his third Oration against the Arians, pag. 397. Vales. the Middle, Divine, and Omnipotent Power of His own onely-begotten Word. Which [Power] is most intimately and most nearly conversant with the Father, and abides within Him, and enjoyes His Secrets: [...]. Doubtless it must be, [...]; we have rendred it accordingly. Vales. nevertheless, it does most graci­ously condescend and let down it self, and in a manner adapts and fits it self to those, who are far distant from the supream Height. For otherwise, it would be a thing neither pure nor holy, that He who is plac't above and beyond all things, should be joyned with corruptible matter and Body. Therefore, the divine Word Or, de­scended and mixt Him­self with this, &c. came down and put Himself into this Universe; and having taken the Reins of the whole world into His hands, Governs it by an incorporeal and divine power; and, like a most wise Charioteer, manages it according as it seems good to Himself. Now, the demonstra­tion of this Discourse is clear and perspicuous. For, if those parts of the world do subsist of them­selves, which we have usually termed the first Ele­ments, namely, Earth; Water; Air; and Fire; which consist of a nature void of reason, as we see with our own eyes: [or [...]. You will render this passage very clear and perspicuous, if you add a particle, in this manner; [...]; or, if there be, &c. The meaning is: For, whether the E­lements have their proper substance, or whether there be one and the same matter in them all, &c. Vales.,] if there be one matter [or, substance] common to them all, which those persons skil­led in such things as these, are wont to term the Recepta­cle, Mother and Nurse of all: and if that be without Form and Figure, wholly void of Life and Reason: whence [hath it hapned,] (will any one affirm,) that there is in it Beauty and Ornature? Whence [proceeded] the distinction of the Elements? Whence, Or, The running to­gether into one of, &c. the concord and a­greement of things contrary? Who hath comman­ded the heavy Element of Earth to be carried on the moist substance [of Water?] Who hath turned back the nature of Waters, which tends downward, and hath carried it about on high, in the clouds? Who hath bound the force of Fire, and [hath commanded it] to lie hid in wood, and to mix with things contrary to its nature? Who hath mingled the cold air with the hot na­ture of Fire, and [...]. I write, [...], &c: or at least, [...], which latter reading we have fol­lowed. Vales. by putting an end to the mu­tual fight between them, hath reduced them to con­cord [Page 684] and agreement? Who hath propagated man­kind, by inventing the Or, Manner. benefit of succession, [and hath enlarged it] to the [...]. I reade it in one word, thus, [...], and have rendred it accordingly. Eusebius makes use of the same word above. Vales. long-continuing space of an immortal Life? Who hath formed the Male, and fashioned the Female, thus as we see them; and [...]. I had rather point it thus, [...], and having made them both, and have rendred it accor­dingly. Vales. having made them both up into one harmonious Composition, hath found out one common prin­ciple of Generation to all li­ving Creatures? Who has changed the liquid nature of Sperm, which of it self is corruptible, fluid, and [...], and void of reason. I would rather say, [...]; which I have fol­lowed in my Version. Vales. void of sense; and hath made it prolifick and fit for the be­getting of living Creatures? Who even at this very instant works all these things, and infinite others besides these, which are far above wonder, and superiour to all admi­ration? Who is it, that every day and hour ef­fects the Generations [ [...]. The two last words must be expunged, which crept in hither from the upper line. It might also be written, [...], the Generations and corruptions. Vales. and corruptions] of all these, by an undiscerned and invisible power? The Wonder-working Word of God, is most deservedly to be lookt upon as the Au­thour of all these things. For the truly-omnipotent Word of God, diffuses Him­self over all things; and having in an incorporeal manner extended Him­self, both upwards to an immense height, and also downwards to a vast depth; and containing within His large hands as 'twere, the [...]. It must be, [...], &c. Which is required by the Rules of Syntax. Vales. Lati­tude and Longitude of the Universe, He hath compacted and bound together this whole world. Which when He had made up into an Instrument con­taining in it self all sorts of Harmony, for His own use; with Or, A most wise and rational power, or faculty. Reason and Wisdom He began to play upon the matter of Bodies, which is of it self irrational, without Form, and void of Figure; [...]. They are terms properly belonging to Musick; concerning which, besides other Authours, see Boëthius de Musicâ, Book. 1. Chap. 24, and 25; where he treats concerning the Synaphe, and the Diazeuxis. But the Tran­slatour has rendred it, Lapides [...]ro [...]tatos, i. e. Stones that are smoothed on both sides, and are even with the thickness of the wall, and are seen on both sides. Than which rendition, there is nothing more absurd. Instead of the term [...], it should, I thinke, be [...], Tones, or, Notes, I had almost forgot to give notice, that at the beginning of this period the reading should be, [...], &c. Vales. Concerning the term Diatones, see Boëthius's foremen­tioned Book, Chap. 21; the Title of which chapter is, De generibus Cantilenarum. fitly setting together and composing the disjuncts with the Diatones. He likewise Governs the Sun and Moon, and the other Luminaries of Heaven, by measures not to be unfolded; and leades [them] in such a manner, as may be most usefull and beneficial to this Universe. The same Word of God let Himself down upon the Earth also, where He produced living Creatures of every kind, and the variously­shap'd Beauties of Plants. The very same Word of God penetrated into the deep Re­cesses of the Sea likewise, and [...]. In the Fuke­tian Copy, the reading is truer, thus [...], invented. the Nature of Swim­ming Creatures. Vales. invented the Nature of Swimming Creatures: and there also He made infinite and innumerable Forms and Varieties of all sorts of living Creatures. He it is, who perfecting and compleating the Children. Foetus's con­ceived in the Wombe, within in the very Work-house of Nature, gives them Life and Form. He also lifts up on high the fluid and heavy Nature of the moist substance, and after­wards, when by a change He has made it sweet, brings it down gently and moderately to the Ground: but at Stated Seasons He bestows it in a more plentifull manner. Then, like some skil­full and excellent Husband-man, having sufficiently watered the fields with it, by dividing it into various Streams, and conveying it in several channells; and having mixt the moist substance with the dry ground; He dresses and adorns the Earth in a different manner; sometimes, with beautifull flowers; [...]. The Translatour renders it, modo herbarum formis cujusquemodi illu­strando, sometimes by illustrating it with all sorts of forms of herbs. Which Rendition I don't approve of. In my judgment, Eusebius does rather mean the various figures of Countries. For, Europe has one sort of figure, Asia another, Africa another. Now, in these parts of the world, all Provinces have their figures, which God the Framer of this Universe hath given them; having divided the world, like a most pleasant gar­den, into various Bedds. By this term may also be meant, the dif­ferent Dresses and Garbs of the Earth. For sometimes the Earth is green with grass, at others 'tis yellow with Corn; here 'tis sha­dy with woods; there, 'tis plea­sant with Gardens. Vales. at o­thers, with a variety of fi­gures; one while, with fra­grant scents; at another, with various sorts of Fruits: and at another time He af­fords all manner of enjoy­ments that are delicious to the Tast. [...]. I think it must be, [...]. That is, But, why do I presume, &c: which manner of Expression is very em­phatical; when the Oratour does as 'twere stop and chide Himself. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis [...]. Vales. But, why do I presume to rehearse the Or, Powers. wonderfull works of the Word of God, and to at­tempt impossibilities? where­as his Efficiency does far sur­mount all humane thought. Indeed, some persons have term'd Him The Nature of the Universe; others, The Soul of the World; others, Fate. Others have asserted, that He is that Supream and most Transcendent Being, God; thereby confounding, in a manner to me unintelli­gible, things that are at the greatest distance one from another: whilst they debase and throw down even to the earth, the Ruler of all things Himself, and the Unbegotten and Su­pream Nature; and joyn it with a Body, and with corruptible matter; and affirm that 'tis Or, Roll'd up. wrap't up in the midst, between Living Crea­tures that are rational and irrational, between substances mortal and immortal. Thus they.

BUT, The Divine Doctrine does assert,CHAP. XII. [...]. The words seem to be mis­placed, and are to be restored in this man­ner; [...], But, the Divine Doctrine does assert, that &c. Vales. that That which is the Supream Good it Self, and the Cause of all things, is far beyond all Comprehension: and therefore, that it is in­effable, and inexpressible, nor can have a name given it; and that 'tis not only above expres­sion, but all thought also. That 'tis not to be contained in place, nor is in Bodies: that [it exists] not in Heaven, nor in the The Ancients distinguished the Aether, from the heaven; and by that name of Aether, meant the Element of Fire. So Anaxagoras, as Aristotle tells us in his third Book de [...]oelo: whom almost all persons did afterwards follow, except the Peripateticks. For the Peripateticks termed the substance of Heaven, Aether; (See Aristotle de Mundo;) and affirmed that was a fifth Element. The same is asserted by He­raclides, in Allegoriis Homeri. Peripatetici, says he, Aiunt naturam Caelestium corporum aliam esse ab igne, &c. The peripateticks do say▪ that the Nature of the Celestial Bodies is different from fire, and do term it [...] (a nature that moves circularly,) and say that it is a fifth Element. For fire, which in Greek is [...], does naturally move upwards: but the Sun and Moon do not. But the Stoïcks also themselves called the Element of fire, Aether; and thought that it was the principal part, (or the [...],) of the whole world. Censorinus (or whoever else is the Authours) speakes to this effect, in Chap. 1. de Naturali Institutione. Mundi Principale Solem quid [...]m putant, ut Cleanthes, &c. Some think the Sun to be the Principal of the world, as Cleanthes: and Chrysippus, the Aether, by whose perpetual motion the things under it are held and ad­ministred. And the Aether it self suffers nothing. So also Eusebius uses it below in this chapter; and St Austin in his 147th Sermon de Tempore. Vales. Aether; [Page 685] or in any other part of the Universe: but, that 'tis wholly without all things, and hid within some secret Recess of the understanding. The sacred Oracles do teach, that He is to be acknowledged the Not that the Son is not the true God▪ but be­cause the Name of God doth properly belong to the Father, in re­gard he is the Fountain and Authour of the Deity. But, whereas Our Eusebius (in his Epistle to Euphration) hath said, that the Son is not the true God, (as Athanasius and the Fathers of the seventh Synod do ob­ject against him;) that is in no wise to be born with. For, although the Father be properly termed God; so that, whenever God is simply and absolutely spoken, we presently understand the Father: nevertheless, the Son is no less truly God, than the Father; in regard the Divinity of the Father and of the Son, is one and the Same. 'Tis certain, Eusebius (in his First Book against Marcellus, de Ecclesiasticâ Theologiâ, Chap. 10.) has expressely affirmed that the Son is the true God. Although in the following Chapter, he does a little diminish from what he had said above. The words of Christ in St John's Gospel (Chap. 17. v. 3.) are these. This is Life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Vales. 'Tis the Learned Petavius's opinion, that the word [Onely] in that Text of St John, does in no wise exclude the Son. For (as he notes from St Basil, Epist. 141. p. 927,) the words [...] and [...] are made use of in scripture, only to distinguish and separate the false Gods; that they may be removed, who are not true Gods, and therefore are not Gods. See Petav. Dogm. Theolog. Tom. 2. De Trini. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. Sect. 14. Onely True God; He who is separated from all Corporeal Substance and [...]. We have shown above, that ancient Divines attributed the Monarchy to God the Father; but to the Son, the [...] or disposition. Indeed, 'tis the Father's pro­perty to reigne: but the Son's property, who is the wisdom of the Father, is to dispose or set in order all things. Wherefore they af­firmed, that Rest and Beatitude was the Father's property: but Ope­ration, the Son's. Not that the Father Himself does not work; but because the Father works things unknown and secret; but the Son, things more manifest to us; as Marius Victorinus makes it out, in his first book against the Arians. And the Ancient Divines, before the Nicene Council, termed the Son [...] and [...]: but after­wards they avoided these Names, as 'tis apparent from St Chrysostome in his Sermon de Sigillis. Vales. forreigne to all Ministerial Oeconomie. Wherefore all things, are said to have existed from Him, but not by Him. But He Himself, as The Emperour, within in se­cret and inaccessible apartments, inhabits Light that is always unapproachable, and by the sole power of His own Will does [every where] Determine and Command. For, from His being willing, pro­ceeds the Existence of every thing that is; and He not being willing, it is not. Now, He wills all things that are good, because by His own Es­sence He is [...]. 'Tis plain that it should be [...]. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...], in one word. Vales. Goodness it self. But God the Word, by whom are all things, is­sues from above [...]. Doubtless it must be [...], or [...], in a manner inexpressible; as Euse­bius says a little lower. Vales. in a man­ner inexpressible, out of his Excellent Father, as out of an everlasting and immense Fountain, and flows forth like a River; Or, Wholly overflowing, in or­der, &c. spreading his streames all abroad, in order to the common preservation of every thing. And (that I may make use of an instance taken from our selves,) as the invisible and undiscovered Mind in us, (which, what, and of what sort it is as to its Essence, no mortal ever yet knew;) re­siding like some Emperour within the private A­partments of his own Palace, does alone will, and conclude upon those things that are to be done: but Discourse, as 'twere the onely-begotten Son, begotten by the mind in a manner that is inex­plicable, and by a power not to be exprest, pro­ceeds out of its Bosome, as from its Parent; and is the first Messenger and Interpreter of its Pa­rent's thoughts to all persons; and makes a pub­lick declaration of those things which its Pa­rent has concluded on in secret; and actually performs its Parents Resolves, conveying it self to the Ears of all men. Whence 'tis, that men receive benefit from Discourse: but no person has ever beheld with His eyes, the latent and invi­sible mind it self, which is the Parent of Dis­course. In the very same manner, or rather in a manner far beyond all comparison and re­semblance, the most Perfect Word of the Supream God, in regard He is the Onely begotten Son of the Father, not consisting of a power of pronuncia­tion, nor as to His nature made up of syllables, names, and words; nor exprest by a voice which strikes through the air: but existing the Living and Operating Word of the Supream God, and subsisting personally, as being the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God; proceeds from His Father's Divinity, and [comes forth] out of his Kingdom. And, in as much as He is the Good Off-spring of the Good Father, and the Common Saviour of all things, He [...]. The last word must be ex­punged; unless you would [...]a­ther write [...], living Creatures. For at this place He speaks chief­ly concerning living Creatures. Vales. passes thorow, and derives a moysture upon all [living Creatures:] and by reason of His own ful­ness of Reason, Wisdom, Light, and of all Goods, He diffuses Himself over all things, not only those that are at hand and near▪ but them also that are at the remo­test distance, whether on the Earth or in the Sea, or where ever else; if besides these there be in nature any other Seat or Habitation allotted to things. To all which, with the grea­test equity and justice He appoynts Limits, and Or, Places. Regions, and Laws, and stated Inheritances; and by his Royal power bestows upon, and sup­plies each of them with those things that are fit and agreeable. And to some of them he as­signes [for their place of Residence,] those Arches that are above the world; [...]. Write it in words disjoy­ned, thus, [...]: again, to others [He appoints,] &c. Vales. again, to others [He appoints] The Heaven for their Habitation; to o­thers, Aetherial Mansions; to others, the Air; to others, the Earth. And afterwards, He does again remove them from hence to other places; and makes an exact enquiry into the lives of every one of them, and rewards their Morals, Behaviour, and Conver­sation. He likewise provides food and nourish­ment, not only for Creatures endued with rea­son, but for those that are irrational also, which are of use to men: [...]. I doubt not but Eusebius wrote, [...]; in which manner the Translatour seems to have read▪ and we have rendred it accordingly. Vales. and to these Latter, He affords the enjoyment of a mortal and temporary Life; but to the Former, a participation of [a Life] immortal. In fine, He Himself, as being the Word of God, effects all things, is every where pre­sent, and by His rational power does penetrate and pass thorow all things. And looking up to His own Father, agreeably to His will and ap­pointment, He governs and manages all [...]. At this place the words seem to be transpo­sed; which I thus set in order; [...], agree­ably to his will and appointment, &c. A little after where the reading is, [...], the word [...] must be blotted out, in regard it occurs presently. Vales. inferiour things, and which are consequent to Him, in re­gard He is the Common Saviour of all: existing in a manner The Middle [between both,] and joyning that Substance which has an Original, [Page 686] with the unbegotten [Father.] For the Word of God is a most firm middle Bond, which does bind together things distant one from another, and suffers them not to de­part far asunder. He is that Providence which Governs the Universe: He it is, who takes care of, Composes, and Corrects all things. He is the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God. Lastly, He is the Or, Onely-Begotten God, the Word begotten of God. Onely begot­ten Word, God begotten of God. For, John 1. 1, 3. In the Begin­ning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made: as the sacred expressions of Divine men do inform us. He is the Common Planter of all things, by whose assistance the substance of all things does sprout and flourish; being con­tinually watered by showers from Him, and always [enlivened] with new Vigour, and every day endued with Comeliness and Beauty. He holds the Reines [of the Universe in his hand,] and directs all things in a straight Course, and by the arbitrement of his Father, manages the Helm of that vast Ship of the whole World. Such an incomparable Artist as this, the Onely-Begotten Son namely, when He who is God over all, [...]. It will be far more elegant, if you add a word, in this manner, [...], &c. as be­ing the most excellent, &c. I don't doubt but Eusebius wrote thus: for he has often exprest himself so above. Vales. as being the [most excellent] Father of the most excellent Off­spring. Foetus, had begot­ten of Himself; He bestowed Him on this World as the chiefest Good: [...]. Here also the particle is misplac't. Write therefore, [...], and having infused him as the soul and life▪ &c. Un­less you had rather wholly ex­punge that particle. 'Tis indeed wanting in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. and having infused Him as the Soul and Life into a Body inanimate, and [mixt] His own Word [and Rea­son] with the irrational Nature of Bodies; by the Divine power of His own Word He enlightened and gave life to formless Mat­ter, which was without shape, life, and figure. Whom we ought to acknowledge and contemplate, as continually and in all places present in Matter, and in the Elements of Bo­dies; and as the Begetter of all Creatures en­dued with Life: and [must own] Him to be The Light; and the Intellectual Product of in­explicable Light. Who, as to Essence, is One; because begotten of One Father: but contains in Himself many powers and faculties. For, because there be many parts of the world, [...]. The Translatour has done ill in rendring it Facultates, Faculties. For, those which Eusebius does here term [...], in the following member of the period he calls Gods. It ought therefore▪ to have been rendred Potestates. For so the Latines do term Daemons, whom the Greeks are wont to stile [...]. Servius in B. 3. Aeneid. Nam potestates, says he, aliae Caelestes sunt, &c. For some powers are Celestial, others Terrene, others mixt. And in B. 4. Nam potestates aut terrenae sunt, &c. For the powers are either Terrene, or Aerial, or Aetherial. Chalcidius on Plato's Timaeus, pag. 97; Quae potestates, says he, Aetherii, aeri [...]que sunt Daemones, &c. Which powers are Aetherial and Acrial Daemons, removed from our sight, and our other senses. St Austin uses the same term, in his tenth Book de Civitate Dei, Chap. 26: and in his Epistle to Volusianus. Apuleus in his Apo­logy. Longinianus in his Epistle to Augustinus. And Amm. Marcellinus, Book 21. Amongst the Greeks, nothing occurs more frequently. Sr Jerom on the 2d Chapter of Joël: A dextris, says he, & à sinistris vir­tutes & [...]ortitudines Dei legimus; quas Graeci [...] Vocant, &c. Vales. we must not for that reason think that there are many Powers: nor, because many things have been made, is it therefore fit we should determine, that there be many Gods also. [...]. At my peril write, [...], &c. Which is the same as if he would have said, [...], Indeed, those Supersti­tious Worshippers of many Gods. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading is, [...], &c. [...]. Excellently well. Vales. Indeed, those Sons of persons that were worshippers of many Gods, in regard as to their minds they were childish and simple, have err'd miserably; whilst they Deified the Parts of the Universe, and divi­ded the world, which in it self was one, into many. 'Tis the same, as if any person should take the eyes of one entire man, by them­selves, and should say that they were one Man; and again, the ears, another man; and in like manner, the head, [another:] as also the neck, and the breast, and the shoulders, and the feet, and the hands; and having thus divided the rest of the members into pieces; and Lastly, by a mental abstraction, severed the Faculties of the Senses; should affirm Him, who is really but one, to be a great many men. [He that should proceed thus,] would do nothing more than expose his own madness to be laught at by men of sense. Exactly such a one is he, who forms to himself an infinite number of Gods, out of the parts of one world; or who supposes, that the world it self, which has both a Beginning, and also consists of many parts, is a God; and who does not understand, that 'tis no way possible, that the Divine Nature should consist of parts. For, should it be compounded, it would want some other thing, which might compound it: [...]. It must be [...], &c: nor again, could, &c. Pre­sently, after those words [...], must be set a point of Interroga­tion; which the Translatour per­ceived not. Vales. nor again, could that in any wise be divine, which should consist of many parts. For, how [should it be divine,] when­as it would consist of [things] unlike and different, and of worse and better? But, [the Nature of God] is simple, indivisible, and uncompoun­ded; and is far beyond all this visible constitution of the world. Wherefore, He means St John the E­vangelist, whose words he had cited a little before, In the begin­ning was the Word, &c. Which words Eusebius does now ex­pound by way of paraphrase. Vales. that Preacher of Truth, has cryed out with a loud voice, plainly expressing Himself in this man­ner. 'Tis certain, the Word of God, who [existed] be­fore all things, is the only Saviour of all rational Creatures. [...]. The Tran­slatour construed the words thus, [...]. For he renders it, Qui di­cendo ex­primi ne­quit, who can't be exprest in words. Which rendition don't please me. I should therefore choose to construe the words another way, so as that it may be said, [...], that is, the Origine and Authour of the Word. 'Tis certain, Eusebius is wont to term God the Father, [...], Him who is above all. Indeed, at this place he compares The Word to The Father. And he says, that The Word is [...], before all things: but the Father, He says, is [...], beyond, or superiour to all things: every where attributing more to the Father. Vales. But God who is above all, the Authour of the Generation of the Word; in regard He alone is the Cause of all things, is properly styled the Father of His own Word, as of His Onely-Begotten: but He Him­self acknowledges no superiour Cause. Therefore, He Himself is the Onely God: but the Onely-Be­gotten proceeds from Him; He is the Saviour of all, the One Word of God, who [pierces] thorow all things. [...], &c. Doubtless it must be, [...]; Indeed, this sensible world. Which is made apparent from the following words. Vales. Indeed, this sensible World (as 'twere some many-string'd Harp, made up of dislike chords, whereof some are sharp, others flat, [Page 687] some slack, others strain'd, and othersome be­twixt both; but all well fitted and proportion'd, according to the Rules of the Art of Musick: in the same manner this world) consisting of many parts, and compounded in a various manner; of Cold namely and its contrary Heat; and again, of a moyst substance, and dry the contrary there­to; and of all these making up one Harmony, may fitly be styled the Great Musical Instrument and Composure of the Great God. But the Divine Word, who neither consists of parts, nor is made up of Con­traries, but is indivisible and uncompounded, with great art and skill does play upon [this musical In­strument] the Universe; and makes such a melody as is Or, Due. gratefull to his Father the supream King, and befit­ting Himself. [...]. There is a particle wanting here; which I put in thus; [...], for, as in one body. It may al­so be, [...], But as in one, &c. Vales. For, as in one Body, the Members and parts, the Bowels, and almost innume­rable Entrails, are compacted and set together; but one invisible soul is diffused through all its parts; & one mind, which is indivisible and incorporeal: so also in this Universe, the World it self, consisting of many parts, is made up into one; but the Word of God, whose power is manifold and Omnipotent, is in like manner One; and passes through all things, and is [...]. Perhaps it should be [...], in­visibly. For, The Word of God in an invisible manner is diffused through all things. But the com­mon reading is not rashly to be rejected. For Eusebius means, that the Word of God is infused into all things, not as a spirit, which in a wandring motion passes thorow all things, and is carried some­times this way, another while that way; but as a Soul, which is spread into all the members at once, and wanders not from these, to those. The Translatour renders [...], reverà, really. Vales. without wandring diffused and spread over all things, and is the cause of all things that are made in them. Do you not with your eyes see this whole world? How one Heaven containes [...]. Any one may perceive, that the words are mis­plac't here also. Write therefore, [...]; and we have rendred it accordingly. A little after, I read, [...], [...], &c. Again, One Sun, but not more; so that even by the transcendency—He obscures—&c. Vales. innume­rable Or, Daunces. Quires of Stars which go their Rounds about it. Again, how One Sun [leads up] the many other [Daunces of the Stars,] and by the transcendency of His Own Light, obscures the splendour of all the rest. In the same manner, the Fa­ther being One, his Word must be One also, as being the excellent [Off-spring] of the excellent Father. But, should any person complain, because there are not more; such a One has as good reason to find fault, because there are not more Suns, more Moons, more Worlds, and a thousand things beside; whilst like a mad man, he attempts to sub­vert and discompose those things, which are right and well-constituted by Nature. For, as in things visible, One Sun does enlighten this whole Sensible World: so in things intelligible, One Almighty Word of God illuminates all things, in a manner to us unknown and invisible. For, even in Man himself, one Soul and one Faculty of reasoning, is the Framer of many things all under one: for, one and the same mind, having been instructed in the knowledge of many matters, attempts both to till the Ground, and to build a Ship, and to steer it, and to set up an House. Also, one mind and reason in man, is capable of nu­merous Sciences. For, one and the same mind is skill'd in Geometry, and in Astronomy; and de­livers the rules of Grammar, and Rhetorick, and Physick: nor is [the mind] Mistress of these Liberal Sciences only, but of Arts Manual also. And yet no man was ever hitherto of Opinion, that there are many [Rational] soules in one body: nor hath any one admired or had a suspicion of many substances in the same man, because he is ca­pable of being skill'd in many Sciences. Let us suppose any one to have found an unform'd Lump of clay; and, (after He has softened it with his hands) to have fashioned it into the shape of a living Crea­ture; the head in one figure: the hands and feet in another; and again the eyes in another, as also the cheeks in another; and likewise In Pot­ters-work. So Valesius. by the Art of a Potter to have formed the ears, mouth, nose, breast, and shoulders. Although there are many figures, parts and members formed in this one Body; yet it must not therefore be thought, that there were as many Framers of this Work: but we must acknow­ledge the Artist of the whole work to be but one; and must necessarily commend that single person, who by the help of one Reason and one Faculty, has framed the whole Work. The same is to be thought concerning this whole world; which although it be one, yet consists of many parts. Nor must we there­fore suppose many framing Powers; or name many Gods: but must attribute the appellation of Divi­nity to the true God's One power and wisdom, which is compleatly furnished with all manner of sagacity, and with the perfection of Harmony: which by One and that a singular power and virtue, passes thorow all things; and goes through the whole world; and constitutes and enlivens all things; and lastly [...]. The article must be blotted out▪ or at least it must be [...], as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. Presently, where the reading is [...], I had rather read [...], as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. from it self gives a va­rious supply to all and singu­lar Bodies and Elements. So also, one and the same im­pression of the Solar Light, at one and the same instant il­lustrates the air; enlightens the eyes; heats the [sense of] touching; fattens the earth, and gives increase to plants: besides, it constitutes Time; rules and leades the Stars; goes round Heaven; beautifies the world; and renders the power of God, manifest and apparent to every one: and all these things it performs, by one and the same force of its own Nature. In like manner, the Nature of Fire, refines gold, melts lead; dissolves wax; dries clay; and burns wood: so many, and such great things it performs by one power and fa­culty, that namely of burning. In the very same manner, the Word of God, the supream Modera­tour of all things, who passes through all things, exists in all things, and Or, Runs over▪ overspreads all things, as well Celestial as Terrestrial; governs things in­visible and visible, and by [...]. It must, I think, be, [...]; or else, as 'tis in the Fuk. Copy, [...], by inexpressible or unspeak­able powers. A little after, where the reading is, [...]; the Translatour seems to have read, [...] moreover. But it would be better, were it written thus, [...], and on the Sun Himself, &c. Vales. unspeakable powers rules the Sun Himself, Heaven, and the whole world; is present with all things by his active power, and goes thorow all things. And on the Sun Himself, and on the Moon, and the Stars, He sheads forth a perpetual light out of His own Foun­tain of light. The Heaven, which He hath made as the most sit resemblance of His own Greatness, He does for ever govern. But the Powers which are beyond Heaven and the world it self, namely the Angels and Spirits, and the intelligent and rational substances; are by Him filled and enricht, with life and light, and wisdom, and all manner of Virtue, and Beau­ty, and Goodness, out of his own Treasures. Lastly, by one and the same framing Facul­ty, He never ceases from furnishing the Ele­ments with substance, and Bodies with mix­tures and Temperaments; and moreover, with Forms, and Figures, and innumerable Qualities; [Page 688] [...]. In the Fuk. Copy, these words [...] are wan­ting; they don't in­deed seem very neces­sary. Vales. as well in living creatures as plants; not only in rational Beings, but in Brutes; differ [...]cing and distinguishing all things with an admirable variety, and by one and the same power plenti­fully supplying all things with all things: hereby most clearly demonstrating, that not an Harp consisting of seven Chords, but this one all-Harmonious World, is the work of The One World-creating Word.

[...]. It must be writ­ten in conjoyned words, thus [...], as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. PRoceed we therefore in the next place to un-foldCHAP. XIII. the reason, which moved this Al­mighty Word to make His descent into this world. A sort of ignorant and unthinking men, not ap­prehending that this Word of God has the Presidency over Heaven and Earth, that He was begotten of His Father's Divinity, [the stream] as 'twere from that su­pream Fountain it self, and is always present and conversant with this world; and that He exhi­bits most apparent and manifest Indications of His own Providence and Care in reference to men: have given the adorable name [of God] to the Sun and Moon, and to the Heaven it self and the Stars. Nor have they stop't here: but have likewise deified a terrene Nature, and the Fruits produc'd from the Earth, and all manner of nourishment of Bodies: framing for themselves▪ Images of Ceres, of Proserpina and Bacchus, and of infinite other such like [Dei­ties.] Neither has it sufficed them to proceed thus far: but they have not been afraid of de­claring the thoughts of their own minds, and Speech it self the Interpreter of those thoughts, to be Gods: terming the mind, Minerva; and Speech, Mercurius: they have likewise named those faculties of the mind, whereby Arts and Sciences are acquired, Or, Mn [...]nosyne, that is, the Mother of the Moses. Moneta and The Muses. Nor have they stop't here: but making every day new accessions to their absurdities, by reason of their transcendent impiety, they have deified their own Commotions and perturbations of mind, which they ought to have had an aversion for, and to have cur'd by the Prescripts of Temperance. And even to their very Lust it self, and to the Mischievous and unruly disease of their Souls, and to those parts of the Body that are the Incentives to obscenity; [...]. It is to be made, [...], &c, and more­over, for 'tis referred to the word [...]. Eusebius says, that unchast passions were consecrated by men. For they called their Lust by the name of Cupid; and the members where­with acts of obscenity were per­formed, Priapus; and that in­temperance which spreads it self into filthy pleasures, they termed Venus. This is the meaning of this place, which the Translatour perceived not. Vales. and moreover, to that in­temperance excessively prone to filthy pleasures, they have given the names of Cupido, Priapus, and Venus, and o­ther such like appellations as these. Nor have they stopt here: but debasing themselves to the Generations of Bodies, and to this mortal life here below, they have deified mor­tal men, and after death which is common to all, have termed them Hero's and Gods; imagining that the immortal and divine Nature does Roll, or, Tumble. wander about Tombes and Sepulchres. Nor has this put a stop to their madness: but they have honoured all sorts of irrational Creatures, and the most noxious kinds of Creeping things, with the ve­nerable Title [of Divinity.] Neither were they satisfied herewith: but they have cut down Trees, and hew'd out Stones, and have dug forth the Mettals of the earth, Brass, Iron, and other mat­ter; whereof they have form'd Resemblances of women and shapes of men, and figures of wild beasts and creeping things: and afterwards paid them a divine worship and honour. Nor have they put an end to their madness here: but have given the Name of Gods to those malignant Dae­mons, which had hol'd in Images, and lay lur­king within obscure and dark Recesses, and who with greediness gap'd after and swallowed Li­bations, and the stinking savours of sacrifices. Nor did they stop here: but [...] is a proper Term of Magick Art. Ar­temidorus (B. 1. C. 79.) joyns [...] and [...] to­gether. Plato (B. 11. De Legi­bus, pag. 933.) has used [...] to signifie the same. See Harpocra­tion in the verb [...]. The Latines call them Ligaturas, Ligatures. St Austin's words, in his seventh Tractate on St John, are these. Us­que adeo, fratres mei, &c. In so much, my Brethren, that those very persons, who seduce by Ligatures, by charms, by the deceits and engines of the Enemy, mix the name of Christ with their own Charms. Orosius (B. 4. C. 13.) calls it obligamentum magicum, a Magick Bond or Tye. Vales. by certain Liga­tures of forbidden Craft, and by [...]. It must be made [...], compulsory; from the Fuk. Copy. Vales. wicked and compulsory enchanting Verses and charms, they allured and enticed those Daemons and invi­sible powers which fly about the Air, to be their [...]. Tertullian in his Book De Anima, has termed them in Latine Paredros Spiritus, which he joyns with the Catabolick and Pythonick Spirits, who were put into men by Magicians. Now, they were called Paredri Daemones, who assisted men, and kept off diseases and unhappy accidents from them. This we are told by Tertullian▪ ( [...]his Apolog. Chap. 23.) in these words. Si & somnia immittunt, ha [...]entes simul invitatorum angelorum & Daemonum adsistentem sibi po­testatem. For Magicians had Daemons that assisted and obeyed them, who were their Paredri, Familiars; by whose help they performed many miracles. Besides, they put such Spirits into others, that they might either infuse dreames into them, or be always present with them in order to their defence. The former sort of Spirits they termed [...], senders or causers of Dreames: the Latter they call'd [...], Assistants or Familiars. Sometimes also, by Ma­gick charms they threw boys against the ground, who being afterwards raised, as 'twere from a Fit of the falling-sickness, foretold things fu­ture to those that consulted them. Which thing they performed by Catabolick Spirits, as Heraldus has rightly remark't at Tertullian's Apology. From hence Salmasius's mistake is made apparent, who (in his notes on Spartianus, pag. 40,) affirms, that those were termed Paredri, who from being men were reckoned amongst the Gods, and were made Assessors to the Gods. Which opinion of Salmasius's, Gothofred has embraced, in his notes on Tertullian's second Book ad Na­tiones. Turnebus (B. 26. Adversar.) is much righter; save that he renders it malos genios, evil Genii: whereas notwithstanding, the Good Genii, and [...] were so termed, as Lucian writes con­cerning Hephaestion. Lastly, they usualy termed the Infernal Gods, not the Celestial, Paredri; which being not observed by Salmasius, was the occasion of his mistake, See Demosthenes in Orat. Funebr. about the close: and Diodorus Siculus, B. 1. pag. 45: and lastly Ru­finus's Eccles. Histor. B. 2. Chap. 13. From which Authours 'tis plain, that the Infernal Gods were termed Paredri. Vales. Assistants and Familiars. [...]. I read [...]; Moreover, &c. Which though a small fault, yet ought not to have been omitted. Vales. Moreover, some mortal men were deified by one sort of people; others, by another. For the Greeks honoured Bacchus, and Hercules, and Aesculapius, and Apollo, and some other men, with the name of Hero's and Gods. But the Egyptians esteemed Horus, and Isis, and Osiris, and other such like men as these, to be Gods. And these persons, who on account of their transcendent sagacity, boasted of the Invention of Geometry, Astrono­my, and Arithmetick; understood not, nor were so well skilled, (though in [...]. Here the words seem to be misplac't. I read therefore, [...], &c. Which way of writing this place, We have followed in our Version. In the Fuk. Copy, this passage is written thus, [...], &c. Which reading I don't approve of. Vales. their own judg­ments they lookt upon themselves to be such wife and knowing men;) as to weigh and con­sider, the measures of the power of God, and [to examine] how great a difference there is between His, and a mortal and brutish Nature. [Page 689] Hence it was, that they were not ashamed of dei­fying every sort of filthy and ill-favoured Beasts, and all manner of living Creatures, and veno­mous▪ Serpents, and savage Beasts. Also, the Phoenicians gave the Title of Gods to [...], Melcan­tharus. Eusebius (book 1. De Praepa­rat. chap. 10: where he sets forth the Theology of the Phoeni­cians:) terms the one of these Gods, Me­licarthus the son of Demaron, the Grand­child [or, Nephew] of Caelus: the other he calls Usous Bro­ther to Hypsura­nius, who was the first that found out the Cove­rings of skins. In the Fuke­tian Copy, the reading is [...], Melcatha­rus and Usorus. Vales. Melca­tharus and Usorus, and to some other obscure per­sons, who had heretofore been men. And so did the Arabians, to one [...]. The reading must be [...], and Obòdas. For the Arabians worshipped Obodas and Dusares, as Ter­tullian tells us, Book 2. ad Nationes, Chap. 8. Concerning Obodas see Uranius in his fourth Book of Arabick Antiquities. Obodas was a most ancient King of the Arabians, who was buried amongst the Na­bathaei, and had divine honours paid him by them; as Stephanus re­lates in the word [...]. From him many Kings of Arabia were afterwards called by the name of Obodas▪ two of whom Josephus mentions; the one in the times of Alexander King of the Jews; the other, in the Reign of Herod. Strabo also makes mention of the latter. Further, as far as may be conjectured from Histories, the Arethae and Obodae Reigned by turns amongst the Arabians: so that, after an Arethas, succeeded an Obodas▪ and after an Obodas, an Are­thas. And this seems to have continued a long while. The Na­bathaei worshipped Dusares also, by which name they meant Bacchus, as Isidorus in Hesycbius informs us. Stephanus in the word [...], speaks concerning this God also. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading here is, [...]. Vales. Dusares and Obadas; [...]. It must be written, [...]; understand [...]; and we have rendred it accordingly. Zamolxis is a known God of the Getae. Presently, the reading must be, [...], and the Cilicians, to Mopsus, &c. In the Fuke­tian Copy the reading is, [...]. Vales. and the Getae, to Zamolxis; and the Cilicians, to Mopsus; and the Thebaeans, to Amphi­areus: and again some [made Gods] of these, others of those; persons in nothing different from a mortal nature; but such as in reality were meer men. All the Egyptians by a general consent, the Phoenicians, the Greeks, and in short the whole Body of mankind which the Rayes of the Sun do enlighten, [have attributed divine ho­nours] to the parts of the world, and to the Ele­ments, and to [...]. The last word was added by the Transcriber of this Book, to the intent he might thereby shew, that there is an imperfection here. Indeed, at this place some words seem to be wanting. Unless you have a mind to understand these words in common, [...] gave the Title of Gods, which are made use of a little before. In the Fuketian Copy, that word [...] occurs not; but after the word [...] a point is set. Vales. the fruits which spring out of the Earth. And which is yet more strange, al­though they acknowledge their adulteries, their Sodomies, and their Ravishments of women; ne­vertheless they have filled all Cities and Towns and Countries, with their Temples and Statues and Shrines; and in a conformity to the Morals of their Gods, they have totally ruined their own Souls. Indeed, in words and expressions you might frequently hear Gods named amongst them, [...]. I think it should be, [...], and the Sons of Gods. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis [...]. Vales. and Sons of Gods, also Heroes, and Good Genii: But the thing it self was quite different and con­trary. For they grac't contrary things with con­trary names: in the same manner as if a man desirous to shew another the Sun and the Lumi­naries in the Heaven, should not lift up His eyes thither; but should cast his hands downwards toward the earth, and throwing them on the ground, grope for the Celestial Powers in the dirt and mire. Thus mankind, [induced thereto] by a stupidity of mind, and the fraud of mis­cheivous Daemons, was fully perswaded, that the intelligible Nature of God, which does far tran­scend Heaven and the world it self, resided be­low in the Generation of Bodies, in the Disposi­tions, or, passions. Af­fections of mortals, and in Or, Deaths. death. Further, men were arrived at such an height of madness, that they sacrificed their dearest Pledges to them; nor would they spare even Nature it self; but, out of fury and a distraction of mind, murdered their only-begotten, and the dearest of their chil­dren. For, what can be supposed a madder action than this, to sacrifice men; and to pol­lute all Cities, and their own houses with in­testine murders? Doe not the Greeks themselves give testimony to these matters? Is not every Hi­story fill'd with the rehearsall of these things? The Phoenicians did every year sacrifice their most be­loved and only begotten chil­dren, to Saturn. [...]. From Porphyrius it must be made [...], to the very same; understand [...], Saturn. Vales. To the very same [God,] in [the Island] Rhodes, on the sixth day of the month Me­tageitnion, they offered men in sacrifice. Also at Salamis, in a Temple of Mi­nerva Agraulis and Diomedes, 'twas the custom, that a man, pursu'd by others should run round about the Altar thrice; after which the Priest stab'd him into the stomack with a Launce; and thus he laid him on a pile of wood set on fire, and wholly consumed him. In Egypt likewise, in­numerable slaughters of men were committed. For at Heliopolis, three men were every day sacri­ficed to Juno: the barbarousness of which thing, King [...]. Doubt­less it must be made [...], from Porphyrius's Second Book de Abstinentia; whom our Eusebius has transcrib'd here, almost word for word. And so the reading is in the Fuketian Copy; agreeably whereto we have rendred it. Vales. Amoses having lookt into and rightly conside­red, ordered the like number of men made up of wax, to be substituted in their room. Also in [the Island] Chius they sacrificed a man to Bac­chus Omadius; and they did the like in Tenedos. In Lacedaemon they performed a sacrifice to Mars by [offering] men: and they did the very same in Creet, where they sacrificed a man to Saturn. At Laodicea in Syria, a Virgin was every year sacrificed to Minerva; in place of whom a Hart is now offered. Moreover, the Libyans and Car­thaginians appeased their own Gods with humane sacrifices. [...]. I reade [...], Also, the Duma­teni; from Porphyrius in the forecited place: although in Porphyrius, the ordi­nary reading is [...] Dumatii. Nor is it otherwise written in Eusebius's fourth Book De Praeparatione, chap. 16. But Dumateni, as I have said, pleases me best. Stephanus's words are these: [...]; that is: Dumatha, a City of Arabia: a Citizen [where­of is termed] Dumathenus, as Glaucus, [says] in the Second Book of his Arabick Archaeology. Indeed the Arabians in their Patronymicks, most commonly have this termination. Vales. Also, the Dumateni of Arabia of­fered a Boy in sacrifice yearly, whom they were wont to bury under the Altar. History does in­form us, that all the Greeks in general, before they marched out to war, usually sacrificed a man: and the Thracians and Scythae are recorded to have done the like. The Athenians mention [...]. These words are wanting in Porphyrius, which our Eusebius has added of his own. Indeed Porphyrius, in regard he treated concerning humane Victims, and spake of the Athenians, ought not to have omitted this instance. There was heretofore one Leus Amongst the Athenians, the son of Orpheus, as Suidas says; who (when Athens was afflicted with famine, and an answer had been given by Apollo Delphicus, that the City should no otherwise be preserved, unless some one of the Citizens would offer their daughters in sacri­fice to the Gods;) delivered up his three daughters, Phasithea, Theope, and Eubule, to be sacrificed for the safety of the City. Aelianus Book 12. Variae Historiae, Chap. 28▪) instead of Phasithea, names her Praxithea. Nothing occurs more frequently amongst the Greek Ora­tours, than the mention of these three daughters of Leus; as in Ari­stides's Panathenaïcus, in Libanius's thirteenth Declamation. Demos­thenes or whoever else is the Authour, in the Oration entitled [...], reckons this Leus amongst the [...], or Founders of the Tribes; from whom the Tribe of Leon took its name. For these are his words: [...]. Clemens Alexandrinus does likewise mention him, in his Protrepticon; and Gregory Nazianzene in his Poem De Virtute; and amongst modern writers, Leopardus in his nineteenth Book, in the last chapter save one. Vales. the Virgin­daughters [Page 690] of Leus, Erech­theus the son of Pandion, had six daugh­ters; Pro­togenia, Pandora, Procris, Cre [...]sa, Orithia, and Chtho­nia. The two eldest of these, Protogenia namely and Pan­dora, when an army of the Enemy had made an irruption out of Boeotia into Attica, voluntarily offer'd themselves to be sacri­ficed for the safety of their Country. On whom the Athenians conferred great honours after their deaths, and gave them the name of Virgines Hyacinthidae, because they had been sacrificed in Hyacinthus a Village of Attica, neer the Village of the Sphendalenses. Thus Pha­nodemus writes in the fifth Book of his Res Atticae, as Suidas attests in the word [...]. Whence a passage of Cicero's is clear'd, in His Oration pro Sextio, where his words are these. Mortem quam etiam Virgines Athenis, regis Opinor Erechthei filiae pro patria contempsisse di­cuntur, Ego vir consularis, &c. See Diodorus Siculus, Book 17; and Demosthenes (or whoever else is the Authour,) in the forementioned Oration entitled [...]. Others say, that Erechtheus had but four daughters, who bound one another in mutual oathes, that if one of them should die, the rest should kill themselves. Afterwards, when Eumo [...]pus assistng the Eleusinii, had made an irruption into Attica with great forces of the Thracians; an answer was given to Erechtheus consulting the Oracle, that the Victory should fall to the Athenians, if Erechtheus would sacrifice one of his daughters. Erech­theus therefore offered his youngest daughter Chthonia in sacrifice: which done, the other three daughters, according as they had obliged themselves by oath, killed themselves. Thus Apollodorus in his Bib­liotheca, and Hyginus in his 46th and 238th Fable: in whom the name of Chthonia is corrupted. These three daughters of Erechtheus, Sisters to Chthonia, Euripides (in his Erechtheus) had termed [...], as Hesychius attests; and had feigned, that after their death, they were turn'd into the Hyades. Theon's words on Aratus's Phaenomena, are these: [...]. Farther, as to the Virgines Hyacin­tbidae, some have affirmed, that they were not the daughters of Erech­theus, but [...]ne Hyacinthus. So Harpocration, in the word [...]; and Hyginus in his forementioned 238th Fable. Vales. and the daughter of Erech­theus, as offered in sacrifice amongst them. And who is ignorant, that even at this present, [...], in the great City. The Translatours have done ill in rendring it Megalopolis. For Porphyrius, whose words Eusebius makes use of here, gave Rome that name, according to the usage of his own age; as it has been long since remark't by Joseph Sea­liger in his Animadversions on Eusebius, pag. 53. 'Tis certain, Li­banius in his Oration entitled [...], does so term the City Rome. Farther, what Porphyrius says, (namely, that at Rome, on the Fe­stival of Jupiter Latiaris, still in his age a man was sacrificed;) is con­firmed by Lactantius, Book 1. chap. 21. Siquidem, says he, Latiaris Jupiter & nunc sanguine colitur humano; for Jupiter Latiaris is even at this present worshipt with humane bloud. Prudentius's words in his first Book against Symmachus, are these: ‘Funditur humanus Latiari in munere sanguis.’ Dion Cassius speaks concerning this Feast, in his fourty third Book, pag. 351. Now, the Latiaria were celebrated in December, as I think. For in that month the Gladiators Show was exhibited, as we are informed from Herunaritius's Calendarium. In the Latiare Sacrum the usage was, that the bloud of that Gladiator who had been killed in the encounter, should whilst it was warm be offered to Ju­piter, and as it were flung in his face; as Cyprian relates in his Book De Spectaculis, and Tertullian in his Apollogetick, Chap. 9. There is an emi­nent passage in Justin the Martyr's Apology to the Senate, where he speaks concerning this solemnity. His words are these.— [...].—Doing the same things that are done by you to an Idol you worship. On which is sprinkled not only the bloud of irrational Creatures, but humane Bloud also, by the eminentest and most noble personage amongst you, who makes this Libation of the Blood of those slain. From which place we gather, that the Praetor of the City performed this sacrifice: and that a man was not sacrificed to Jupiter, as Porphyrius says; but only, that the bloud of a Gladiator killed in the Theater, was offered to Jupiter. Vales. in the City Rome, on the Feast of Jupiter Latiaris, a man is sacrificed? The most approved persons a­mongst the Philosophers, have by their own te­stimony evidenced, that these things are thus. Moreover, Diodorus, who composed an Epitome of Libraries, says that the Africans offered as a publick sacrifice, two hundred of their no­blest Boyes to Saturn; and that [...]. The Tran­slatour has not hit the meaning of this place; he renders it thus: Et nihilominus trecentos allos sa­crificio addidisse▪ and nevertheless added three hundred more to the sa­crifice. But [...] is a proper term used concerning those Fa­thers, who deliver up their chil­dren to be sacrificed to the Gods, as we have seen above concerning Leus the Athenian. When there­fore the Nobles in Africa had presented three hundred Boyes to be sacrificed to the Gods, Diodorus says, that three hundred other Boyes were in like manner pre­sented by other persons; that they might shew their piety towards the Gods, no less evidently than the former had done. But I had rather read [...] two hundred, instead of [...] three hun­dred. Questionless, it must either be [...] two hundred, here; or else above, instead of [...] two hundred, it must be made [...] three hundred. Vales. three hundred other persons voluntarily presented their own sons, not fewer in number, to be sacrificed. But Dionysius, the Writer of the Roman History, does relate, that Jupiter himself in [...]. I think it must be [...]; which reading I have followed in my rendition. But our Eusebius is mistaken. For Dionysius Ha­licarnasseus (pag. 16.) relates, that the Gods required that of the Pelasgi, not of the Aborigi­nes; and that the men were not slain by them, but banisht out of their Country. In the Fuketiaa Copy the word [...] is wanting. Vales. his own name, and Apollo, required Humane sacrifices in Italy, from those termed The Ab­origines: and says farther, that those persons from whom these sacrifices had been re­quired, offered a portion of all manner of Fruits to the Gods: but, because they did not sacrifice men also, [he adds] that they fell into all sorts of Calamites; and, that they could not procure a re­laxation from these mischiefs, till such time as they had That is, Offered every tenth man of themselves in sacrifice. Decimated themselves. And that, being in this manner compelled to take off every tenth man by offering him in sacrifice, they became the Oc­casioners of the depopulation of their own Country. With so many and such great Cala­mities was the whole Body of mankind heretofore afflicted. Nor yet was this the only unhappiness wherewith men were attended: but they were slaves to infinite other, and those deplorable and incura­ble mischiefs. For all the Nations disperst thorowout the whole world, both Greeks and Barbarians, stirred up as 'twere and provok'd by a devilish impulse, were seized with the horrid and most sore disease of Sedition; in so much that, the Sons of Men were unsociable, and irreconcileable one to another; the great Body of Common Nature was torn piece-meal [and its members scatter'd] here and there; and in every corner of the Earth men Or, Rebell'd. were dis-united, and strove with one another on account of their dif­ferent Laws and Forms of Government. And not only this; but being enraged by frequent com­motions and insurrections, they made attacks upon one another: so that, they spent their whole lives in continued fights and intestine wars; nor durst any one, unless arm'd at all points like a warriour, stir abroad and travel whither he had a mind to go. Moreover, throughout all Countries and in the Villages, the Or, Tillers of the Ground. Boors Indeed, about the beginning of Diocletian's Reign, the Boors in Gallia, having entred into a Combination amongst them­selves, took up arms, and in­fested the High-ways, giving themselves the name of Bacau­dae; as we are told by Orosius, Eutropius, and Mamertinus in Maximianus's Panegyrick. Far­ther, from this passage of Eusebius we are informed, that that sort of Robbery was practised almost throughout the whole Roman world. Vales. wore swords; and possest themselves of provisions of Arms, rather than of Tools and furniture to till the ground: and to pillage and make slaves of such of the neighbourhood as they had taken Prisoners, was by them placed to the account of va­lour. Nor were they satis­fied only with this; but ta­king an occasion of leading unclean and wicked lives, from those Fables which they themselves had coyn'd concerning their own Gods; they ruined their own souls as well as bodies, by all the ways and methods of intemperance. Nor [Page 691] did they acquiesce herein; but passing those Bounds and Limits which Nature has set, they proceeded farther, and abused one another by the commis­sion of such acts of Obscenity, as are as unfit to be declared, as incredible: And Rom. 1. 27. men with men wrought that which is unseemly, and received in themselves that recompense of their errour which was meet, as the Sacred Scriptures do express it. Nor were they satisfied herewith; but having de­prav'd those Notions concerning God, infused into them by nature, they lookt upon all affairs here be­low, as not managed with any thing of Care and Providence; but ascribed the Origine and Con­stitution of this Universe to Or, Ir­rational and fortui­tous Na­ture. rash and fortuitous Chance, and to fatal Neoessitie. Neither did they end here: but supposing their souls to perish to­gether with their Bodies, they lead a brutish and lifeless life; not searching into the nature of the soul; not expecting the Tribunals of Divine judg­ment; not weighing in their minds the rewards of virtue, or the punishments of an unrighteous and wicked life. Moreover, whole nations, [en­slaved] to various sorts of impiety, consumed away in a brutish course of life, as if rotted by some inveterate disease. For some made horrible and most unnatural Mixtures with their own Mo­thers: others married their own Sisters; others debauch'd their own daughters. And some mur­dered strangers, who had come to them: others fed upon humane flesh: others strangled their aged people, and afterwards feasted on them: others cast them to dogs, whilst they were yet living, to be devoured by them. The time would fail me, should I attempt to give a particular Nar­rative of all those mischiefs, of that complicated and inveterate disease, which had seized the whole Body of mankind. These, and ten thousand more of the same nature with these, [were the calami­tous distempers;] on account whereof the most Gracious Word of God, com­passionating [...]. The Translatour seems to have read [...] his rational Flock amongst men. But I had rather read, [...], his own rational Flock. For so Eusebius is wont to call God the Word, namely the Pastour of His rati­onal Flock. Nevertheless in the Fuketian Manuscript 'tis [...], written in a contracted manner. Vales. His own Rati­onal Flock (heretofore by some of His Prophets, and long after that by other pious men, and then by those famous and illustrious persons who lived in the following ages,) incited those that were des­pair'd of and lost, to their own Cure: and partly by Laws, partly by various ex­hortations, and partly by all. manner of instructions, He infused into men the Begin­nings and first Rudiments of Divine Worship. [...]. It must be [...], &c, But when, &c: or else, as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy, [...], when therefore, &c. Vales. But when Mankind stood not any lon­ger in need of humane power, but wanted an Assistant far superiour and more powerfull than man was; in regard the Sons of men wan­dred in errour this way and that way, and were most cruelly torn in sunder, not by wolves and fierce wild-beasts, but by terrible and raging Dae­mons, and by furious and soul-destroying Spirits: at length The Word of God, in Obedience to His most Excellent Father's Command, with all imagi­nable willingness came to us Himself, and entred Our Tents. Now, the reasons of His descent hither, were the same with those I have men­tioned above. [...]. I had long since guess'd, that the reading should be, [...], on account therefore of which, when He hastned to the converse of Mortals; or else [...], when he was come; which conjecture seems to me most certain. For though the same sense might be ex­tracted from the ordinary reading, yet if we should retain that, I don't see whither these words [...] can be referred. But at length the Fuketian Copy hath confirmed our Conjecture, wherein the reading is, [...]. Vales. On account therefore of all which, when He was come to the converse of Mortals, He performed not that which had been usual and customary to Him; for He was incorporeal, and in an invisible manner could pass thorow the whole world, and by His Works themselves de­monstrated the Greatness of His own power, to the Inhabitants as well of Heaven, as Earth. But He Or, Chang'd His usual manner, for a newer. made use of a new and unusual man­ner of acting. For, having assumed a mortal Body, He vouchsafed to discourse and converse with men; with this designe, that He might save Mankind by its like.

BUt come on, in the procedure we will declare,CHAP. XIV. on what account the Incorporeal Word of God, having Or, Made use of. assumed a Body as an instrument, was present and conversant with men. And, by what other method could the Divine Essence (which can't be touched, is immaterial, and invisible,) shew it self to those, who seek for God in matter and below on the ground, [...]. This whole place is thus to be men­ded; [...], and who any, &c. In the Fuk. Copy the reading is [...]. Vales. and who any other way were unable, or at least un­willing, to inspect the Parent and Maker of all things; un­less He had exposed Himself to view under an humane Form and Shape? Hence it was, that by the most agree­able assistance of a mortal Body, He descended to a Con­verse with men, because such a Body was familiar and ac­ceptable to them. For, as the common proverb assures us, Like loves its Like. [...]. Without doubt it must be [...], In the same manner; so the rea­ding is in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. In the same manner therefore, the Word of God shewed Himself to those, who Or, Rejoyce in a sense, &c. were lead by a sense of things Vi­sible, and who sought Gods in Statues and Sculptures of lifeless Images, and fancied that the Deity dwelt in matter and in a Body; and lastly, who termed mortal men, Gods. On this account He procured Himself Or, A Bodily In­strument. the In­strument of a Body, as some most holy Temple; the sensible habitation of a rational Faculty; a venerable and most sacred Statue, of far greater worth and value than every inanimate Image. For an Image consisting of lifeless matter, which has been form'd into an humane shape by the hands of sordid and mean Mechanicks, the sub­stance Whereof is either Brass or Iron, Gold or Ivory, Stones or Wood; is a most fit and com­modious Mansion for Daemons. But that Divine Statue, fram'd and polisht by the Or, Power of &c. Omnipotent in­dustry of Divine Wisdom, was a partaker of Life and an intellectual substance. A Statue that was filled with all manner of Virtue: a Statue that was the Residence of God the Word, and a holy Temple of the most Holy God. The Inha­bitant whereof [God] The Word, was conver­sant amongst, and became acquainted with mor­tals, by means of an Instrument that was familiar and of kin to them: nevertheless, He submitted not himself to the like passions with men; neither, as an humane mind is, was He bound Or, To the Body. by the Bonds of the Body; nor, being made worse than Himself, did He change His own Divinity. [Page 692] For, as the Rayes of the Sun (which though they fill all places, and touch Bodies that are dead and impure, yet) suffer nothing therefrom: so, and in a far more excellent manner also, the incorporeal Power of God The Word, nei­ther suffers any thing, nor is He sensible of any de­triment in reference to His own Essence, nor does That ever exist worse than It Self, Or, When It incorporeal­ly touches a Body. when, be­ing Spiritual, It touches a Body. In this manner therefore the Common Saviour of all, exhibited Himself Beneficent and Salutary to all: demon­strating His wisdom by the Instrument of an hu­mane Body which he had assumed, no otherwise than a Musician [does shew His skill] by an Harp. We are told in the Fables of the Greeks, that Or­pheus by melody appeased all sorts of wild beasts, and mitigated the rage of savage monsters, by His skilfull strokes on the Chords of his Instrument. And this is both commonly reported amongst the Greeks, and also believ'd to be true; namely, that the lifeless Harp tam'd the wild-beasts; and [...]. Which words Valesius ren­ders thus, Et quercus Suavitate Cantûs delinitas immutasse, and that it changed the Oakes ravisht with the sweetness of its melody. Christophorson and Curterius ren­der this clause thus, tum arbores (quae fagi vocantur) musicae sua­vitate delinitae, si [...]us suos mutare solent, also the Trees (which are termed Beeches) pleased with the sweetness of its Musick, are wont to change their Sites. Perhaps the reading should be, [...], &c. moreover, that it re­moved the Oakes, which were ravisht by its Musick. But the all-wise and all-harmo­nious Word of God, when He would administer all me­thods of cure to the souls of men, which were depra­ved by a manifold improbity; took into his hands a Musi­cal Instrument, [...]. Eusebius terms the Hu­mane Nature which Christ as­sumed, [...]; in the same manner that the Latine Fathers are wont to speak concerning Christ, that He assumed Homi­nem, man. So Eusebius uses it a little above, where His words are, [...], by the instrument of an humane Body which he had assu­med. It occurs hereafter also. Vales. the compo­sure of his own wisdom, namely the Humane Na­ture; on which instrument He play'd Tunes, and by it did not charm [...]. These words are wanting in the Fuke­tian Copy; and seem to me to have been added by a Scholiast. Vales. Brutes [as Orpheus did,] but Creatures endued with reason; civi­lizing the Morals of all per­sons, as well Greeks as Bar­barians; and healing the out­ragious and brutish pertur­bations of their minds, by the Remedies of His Divine Doctrine. And, like some expert and knowing Physi­tian, applying to these sick minds, which sought the Deity in matter and in Bodies, a Natural, apposite, and fit Or, Help. Medicament; He shewed God in Man. After this, in regard He manifested no less care to­wards Bodies, than towards Souls; even the eyes of flesh beheld some stupendious miracles, and divine Wonders, and Works of His own omnipotence. But in the interim, by a corporeal mouth and Tongue He desisted not from instilling saving Precepts, into the ears of flesh. In fine, He performed all things by the Humanity which He had assumed, on their account, who could no otherwise, than only by this means, be made sen­sible of Or, Such a Divinity. His Divinity. And these things He performed in obedience to His Father's Counsels, [...]. Al­though this place be faultless, yet I can't omit that reading which I found in the Fuketian Copy, [...], &c: which reading I think to be truer. A little after, where the reading is [...], I have added a word from the Fuk. Copy; where 'tis thus worded, [...], &c, where His humane Vessel was. Vales. Himself continuing the same that He was before with the Father: neither changing His Essence; nor Or, De­stroying. loosing His own Nature: not bound with the Bonds of flesh; nor making His abode in that place where His Humane Vessel was; and altogether hin­dred from being present in other places. But, during that very interim wherein He was conver­sant with men, by His presence He filled all things, and was with the Father, and was in the Father; and in that very instant took care of all things to­gether, as well those which are in Heaven, as them on earth. Neither was He excluded, in the same manner that we are, from being present every where; nor hindred from performing divine works, ac­cording to His usual manner. But those things which were of Himself, He delivered to the Hu­mane Nature; but, on the other hand, He recei­ved not those things which were of the Mortal Nature it self. He did indeed confer Divine power on mortal Nature: but, on the contrary, He drew nothing from a participation of the Mor­tal Nature. Therefore, neither was He any way polluted, at such time as His Body was born; nor again, at such time as His mortal Body was [...]. It must be made [...], was dissolved; as the reading is in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. dissolved, did He, in re­gard He is impassible, suffer any thing in reference to His Essence. For neither, if an Harp should by accident be broken, or the Chords thereof burst; is it Or, Likely. ne­cessary that He Himself should suffer any thing, who playes upon the Harp. Nor, if the Body of any wise man happen to be punished, is there any reason we should affirm, that the wisdom in that wise man, or the Soul in that Body, is either mangled or burnt. [...]. I write [...]; and have rendred it accordingly. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]. In this man­ner Eusebius has exprest Himself a little above. Vales. In the very same manner, and on a far better account, 'tis a­greeable to reason we should assert, that the Power of the Divine Word received no dammage, from the Or, Af­fections. suf­ferings of the Body: in as much as, neither that instance of Light, which we have already made use of, does any ways permit the Solar Rayes, which are shot from Heaven upon the earth, and do touch dirt and mire and all manner of filth, to be polluted. For, though nothing hinders us from affirming, that even these things are illustrated by the Rayes of Light; yet we do not therefore [say,] that the Light it self is also bemired, or that the Sun is defiled by the mixture of Bodies: albeit these things are not wholly disagreeable to Nature it self. But, whereas that Saviour and incorporeal Word of God, [...]. The word [...], and that which follows [...], must in writing be joyned together, as one word, that is, as Graecians term it, [...]. Farther, in the Geneva-Edi­tion, this place was confused by the Printers fault; which we have restored thus, [...], whatsoever thing He shall have toucht. And so the reading is in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. is The Life it self and the intellectual Light it self; whatsoever thing He shall have toucht by His di­vine and incorporeal Virtue, that thing must afterwards of necessity live, and be conver­sant in rational Light. [...]. Without doubt it must be wor­ded thus, [...], and we have rendred it accordingly. Nothing is more certain than this Emenda­tion. For the following words do plainly shew, that Eusebius speakes here concerning a Body. And thus I found it written in the Fuk. Copy. Vales. In like manner also, whatever Body He shall have toucht, that Body is forthwith sancti­fied and illuminated: and im­mediately every disease, sick­ness, and Trouble departs from it. And those things which before were empty, re­ceive some portion from His Fulness. Wherefore, He spent almost the whole Course of His Life in such a manner, that He might sometimes shew His own Body to be lyable to the same passions that we are; but at others, that he might de­clare [Page 693] Himself to be God The Word: whilst He performed Great and Wonderfull Works, as God, and foretold things future long before they hapned; and demonstrated the word of God, (who was not seen by many,) by the things themselves; name­ly, by prodigious Works, Miracles, Signes, and Stupendious Powers; [...]. I read [...], &c, and moreover, &c. For so Graecians are wont to express themselves. And thus 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. and moreover, by Divine Doctrines, whereby He incited the minds of men, that they should prepare their souls for [the Bles­sedness] of that supernal Habitation which is beyond Heaven.

WHat remains now, but that we give anCHAP. XV. account of the cause and reason of that thing, which is the chief and principal of all: I mean the much-talk't-of End of His Life, and the manner of his Passion; and the grand Mi­racle of his [...], remembrance. It must be made [...], re­surrection, as the Translatour seems to have read. Presently, the reading must be [...], after an explication, or consideration of which [particu­lars;] as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. Resurrection after death. After an ex­plication of which [particu­lars] we will confirm the demonstrations of them all, by most manifest Testimonies. [The Divine Word] there­fore, having, on account of those reasons mentioned by us, [...]. The words are misplac't here, a thing which has frequently hap­ned in these Books, as I have already told you. I write there­fore, [...], and have rendred it accordingly. In Fuket's Copy 'tis [...], [...], &c. Vales. made use of a mortal instrument, as of a Or, Image. Statue most becoming the Majesty of God; and, in regard He is the Great Emperour, having by its Ministery, as 'twere by that of an Interpreter, Or, Lived an humane Life. been conversant amongst men; He performed all things in such a manner as became the Di­vine Power. Now, if, after that life spent amongst men, He had by some other means [...]. One of the two last words must be expunged. Vales. become invisible on a sud­den and gone away; if He had conveyed away His Interpreter privately, and by a flight had endeavoured to rescue His own Statue from the danger of death; and if afterwards, of Himself He had adjudg'd that very mortal Bo­dy to death and corruption: doubtless, all men would have believed Him to have been a meer Apparition or Ghost. [...]. Que­stionless it must be written thus, [...]. Nor would He Himself, the necessity of which emendation is plainly con­firmed by the following words, Vales. Nor would He Himself have performed those things which became Himself; in regard (although He was The Life, and The Word of God, and The Power of God; yet) He would have delivered up His own Interpreter to death and corruption. Nor would those things which He had performed against the Or, Devils. devil, have been terminated by an illustrious conflict and Combat with Death. Nor could it have been accurately known, whither He had withdrawn Himself: nor would He have been be­lieved by those, who had not seen Him with their eyes: nor could it have been made apparent, that He has a nature superiour to Death: nor could He have freed Mortal Nature from [the infirmity of] its own condition: nor would He have been Or, Heard of. fam'd thorowout the whole habitable world: nor could He have prevailed upon His own disciples to contemn death: nor would He have pro­cured for those who are followers of His doctrine, the Hope of a life with God after death: nor would He have fulfilled the Promises of His own Discourses: nor would. He have exhibited agree­able Events to the Prophetick Predictions concer­ning Himself: nor [in fine,] would He have undergone the last Combat of all; which was a­gainst Death it self. On account therefore of all these particulars, in as much as 'twas wholly ne­cessary, that His mortal Instrument, after that sufficient service which it had performed to the Divine Word, should have an end befitting God allotted to it; therefore [I say] His death is in this manner dispenc'd and ordered. [...]. I don't ap­prove of the Tran­slatour's rendition, who tran­slates this place thus: Nam cum duae rati­ones ab [...]un­di ex hâc vit â sibi re­liquae es­sent, For whereas two reasons of depar­ting out of this Life were re­maining to Him. As if in the Greek the reading were, [...]. Eusebius's meaning therefore is this; whereas the one of two things was of necessity to be done by Christ in the close of His Life, namely, that He should either yield up His Body to be wholly consumed by death, or else should declare Himself to be superiour to death. &c. You see how different this mea­ning is, from that of the Translatour. For Christ had not a two­fold reason for departing out of this life, but one only; namely, Death. For, as the Poet says, Omnes una manet mors, one Death a­waits all persons. But in death, one of these two things remained to be performed by Christ, that he should either wholly submit to death, and deliver up His Body to it as some rich Spoyles, or else should shew Himself to be above Death, and should rescue His Body, as a prey, out of the jaws of Death. Besides, Eusebius has shown a little before, that death was necessarily to have been undergone by Christ. For, had He been minded to withdraw His Body privately, and as 'twere by stealth, out of this life; without doubt all persons would have believed Him to have been a Ghost or Apparition, not a true and real man. He produces other reasons also, whereby He may confirm this. Which when He had set forth, at length He con­cludes in this manner. On account of all these reasons, says He, in as much as 'twas wholly necessary, that His Body should have an end befitting God allotted to it, Christ thus dispenc'd His own death. The one of these two things was to be done by Him in the end of this His Life, as I have said already. And these words hang toge­ther excellently well. But the Translatour's exposition differs wide­ly from Eusebius's meaning, in regard Eusebius would demonstrate, that a single, not a double reason for departing out of this life was left remaining to Christ. Vales. For, there remaining two things [to be done by Him] at the end of His Life; either that He should sur­render up His whole Body to Corruption and Ruine; and so close His whole Life, [...]. I should chuse to write, [...], and as of a Play, make a most reproachfull Catastrophe [or, calamitous conclusion] of His whole Life. Vales. like a Play as 'twere, with a most disgracefull Catastrophe; or else, that He should manifest Himself to be superiour to Death, and by the assistance of Divine Power should render His mortal Body, immortal: the first of these two was repugnant to His own Pro­mise. (For, 'tis not the property of fire, to cool; nor of light, [...]. It must be [...], to darken; as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. to darken. So, neither is it the [property] of Life, to die; nor; of the Divine Reason, to act contrary to reason.) For, how is it agreeable to reason, that He who had promised life to others, should be so negligent, as to suffer His own instrument to be corrupted, and should surrender up His own Image to destruction; and, that he who promised immortality to all that address themselves to Him, should by Death ruine the Interpreter of His own Divinity? The second thing therefore was necessary; I mean, that He should manifest Himself to be superiour to Death. In what manner then was that to have been done? Covertly and by stealth, or Or, With the greatest decency. openly and in the view of all? But, so glorious an Atchieve­ment, had it been performed by Him in the dark and in secret, and had it been unknown to any one, would have been advantagious to no body. But when divulged and Or, Heard. fam'd amongst all per­sons, it would redound to the benefit and advan­tage of all, by reason of the miracle of the thing. Whereas then it was necessary, that his Instru­ment should be manifested to be above Death, and [Page 694] whereas this was not to have been performed in secret, but in the view of men; on account hereof it was, that He avoided not Death. For, had He done that, He would have been lookt upon as a Coward, and inferiour to Death. But by His conflict with death as with an Adversary, He rendred that Body which was mortal, immortal; after He had undergone that Combat for the Life, Immortality and salvation of all persons. And as, should any one have a mind to shew us a [...]. Something must of necessity be added, thus, [...], some Vessel that can't be burnt. 'Tis certain, in the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...]; in which manner Christophorson read. A little after, in the Fuketian Manu­script 'tis thus worded, [...], pul­ling it out of the flames entire and unconsum'd; not as the reading is in the Geneva-Edition, [...]. Vales. Vessel that can't be burnt, and which is above the power of fire, He could by no other means Or, Gain a belief of the Mi­racle; so Valesius. make out the strangeness of the thing, than by taking the Vessel into His hands, by casting it into the fire, and afterwards by pulling it out of the flames entire and unconsum'd: in the very same manner, the Word of God who confers life on all, desirous to demonstrate that mortal instrument, which He had made use of in order to the salvation of men, to be superiour to Death; and to render it a partaker of His own life and immortality; [...]. At this place [...] seems to be taken by Eu­sebius, for the death or passion of Christ. So he has said above in this chapter concerning Christ, [...], therefore [I say] His death is in this manner dispenc't and ordered. See what I have noted at the First Book of his Eccles. Histor. Chap. 1. Note (b.) 'Tis certain Epiphanius calls the Sacrament of the Eucharist, [...], that is, the wor­ship of the Lord's Passion.—Vales. underwent a most usefull and advantagious dispensa­tion: These words must be helpt by a favourable interpretation. For Christ left not His own Body during the least moment of time. In regard, as 'tis wont commonly to be said, that which he had once assumed, he never parted with. But He suffered His own Body to be for some time destitute of the Company of His Soul. Present­ly, in the Fuketian Copy the rea­ding is, [...]. But I would rather write, [...], and surrendring up to death that which was mortal. Vales. forsaking His Body during a very short time, and surrendring up to Death that which was mortal, that its own nature might here­by be proved: then soon af­ter rescuing it from Death again, in order to the ma­nifestation of His Divine Power; by which [power] He made it For Christ rising from the dead, plainly declared that eter­nal life, which He had preacht to all men, to be superiour to every death. And this the Translatour understood not; who, though his Version be otherwise elegant enough, yet frequently wanders from the true sense: in so much that in this particular, the Ver­sion of this Panegyrick may seem far meaner than the Transla­tion of the Ecclesiastick History. Vales. apparent, that that Eternal Life which He had promised, was su­periour to all [the force of] Death. Now, the rea­son of this thing is evident and perspicuous. For, where­as it was altogether neces­sary for His disciples, that with their own eyes they should see a manifest and undoubted Reparation of life after death; in which [life] He had taught them to place their Hopes; in regard His design was, to render them Contemners and Vanquishers of death: not without rea­son it was, that He would have them behold this with their own eyes. [...]. I had rather write [...], that is, it behoved. Which reading the Translatour seems to have fol­lowed. Vales. For it be­hoved such persons, who were about entring upon a pious Course of life, by the clea­rest view to behold and imbibe this first and most necessary Lesson of all: and much more those, who were forthwith to Preach Him thoroughout the whole world, and to declare to all men the [...]. What Eusebius says, namely that Christ before He dyed had sprinkled some seeds of the knowledge of God amongst the Nations, may be understood two ways. For either He means the seeds which were by nature put into mens minds, whereby they are instructed in the knowledge of God; or else He means the preaching of Christ, who when conversant on earth, had declared the worship of the true God, not only to the Jews, but to the Gentiles also. Vales. knowledge of God, the foundation of which knowledge had before been laid by Him amongst all Nations. Which per­sons ought to rely and ground upon the [...]. Here Eu­sebius has made use of [...], instead of [...], or perswasion; whereas nevertheless, [...] is wont to be more frequently used to signifie the greater Cable of a Ship. In the same sense with that here, he has made use of this word in his Book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, Chap. 13; [...], a firm and most evident instance to perswade me to believe. Clemens Alexandrinus uses the same word frequently. Chrysostome (in Hom. 1. On the Epistle to the E­phesians,) notes, that this is a common but homely term, where­by is meant a certain vehemency and eagerness of will: his words are these, [...]. Vales. firmest and most undoubted perswasion of a life after death; to the end that without any fear or dread of Death, they might with alacrity undertake the Combat, [...]. It must be, [...], &c, against the Errour, &c. A little after I read, [...], shewing them the Trophies. The Fuketian Copy con­firms both Emendations. Vales. against the errour of the Nations who worship many Gods. For, unless they had learnt to dispise Death, they would never have been provided against those perils [they were to undergo.] Wherefore, when, as 'twas requisite, He would arm them against the power of Death, He did not deliver them a Precept in naked words and bare expressions, nor, as the usage of men is, did He compose an Oration concer­ning the immortality of the soul, made up of Perswa­sives and Probabilities: but really and actually shewed them the Trophies erected against Death. This then was the first and most Co­gent reason, of Our Savi­our's engagement with Death. For He shewed His disciples, that death, which is formi­dable to all, was nothing; and by a clear view ren­dred them eye-witnesses of [...]. This place is not a little difficult. For how can what Eusebius says be understood, that that life namely which Christ has pro­mised, is the first-fruits of a fu­ture Life with God? Question­less, by the Life promised to us by Christ, Eusebius means the Re­surrection, which is as 'twere the Entrance and Beginning of that eternal Life with God. Or ra­ther he means the Resurrection of Christ's Body, which was the first-fruits and pledge as 'twere, of our hope and Resurrection, as Eusebius tells us in the close of this Chapter. Vales. that Life promised by Him: which very [life] He made the First-Fruits of our com­mon hope, and of a future life and immortality with God. A second reason of His Resurrection was, the de­monstration of that Divine Power which had dwelt in His Body. For, in regard men had heretofore deified mortal persons who had been vanquished by Death, and had usually termed them Heroes and Gods, whom Death had subdued; on this very account the most Compassionate Word of God, did even here manifest Or, Himself. who He was: shewing men, [that His own] nature was above Death. And He not only raised His Mortal Body, after 'twas separated from His Soul, to a second Life; but proposed that Trophy of immortality, which by His conquest of Death He had erected, to be viewed by all: and in His very death taught, that He alone was to be acknowledged the true God, who had been crown'd with the Rewards of Victory over Death. I could also assign you a third reason of Our Lord's death. He was a Sacred Victim, offered up for the whole Race of mankind, to God the Supream King of the Universe. A Victim sacrificed [...]. See Grotius De Satisfac. Christi. Chap. 9. instead of the Flock of men: a Victim which routed and destroyed the Er­rour of Diabolical Superstition. For, after that one Victim ad eximious sacrifice, namely the most Holy Body of Our Saviour, was slain for man­kind, [Page 695] and offered up as the [...]. An elegant term, taken from the secretest mysteries of Magi­cians and Conjurers, who asser­ted that men were to be sa­crificed, to the end the life of others might be redeemed. So Antinous was sacrificed instead of the Emperour Hadrian, that He might defer His Fare; as 'tis related by Aurelius Victor, and others. This is [...], or [...], Life for Life, as Aristides expresses Himself in his Fifth Sacred Oration. Farther, 'twas necessary, that He who was in this manner sacrificed, should voluntarily offer Him­self to be slain. Which may be gathered both from Aristides, and from Aurelius Victor: in which Authour the words are these, Cùm voluntarium ad vicem magi poposcissent. Moreover, that custom of the Romans, who bequeath'd themselves to death for the safety of the Emperour, doth clearly shew this very thing. Vales. Whom the Greeks call'd [...], the Latines termed Vicarii; so Stephens in his Latine Thesaurus, in the word Vicarius. Vicarii, says he, etiam interdum sunt, &c. Vicarii also are sometime [...] those, who bequeath themselves to destruction and death, that they may bring those mischiefs on their own beads, which were about to befall others. Hence 'tis that Valesius does here render [...], Vicarium. Substitute to ran­some▪ the Life of all Nations, [...]. I doubt not but Eusebius wrote, [...], who, being before bound, &c. For he alludes to the Crime of Treason, which the Greeks are wont to term [...], as 'tis apparent from Dion Cassius, in several places. Vales. who, being be­fore bound by the impiety of Diabolical Errour, stood convict of Treason as 'twere; thence­forward all the power of [...]. It must be made [...], impure; we have already taken notice of a mistake like this above. 'Tis certain, in the Fuketian Copy the reading is [...]; and a little af­ter, in the same Copy 'tis [...]. Vales. impure and profane Daemons, became extinct; and all manner of terrestrial and fraudulent Errour was forth­with weakened, dissolv'd and confuted. The [...], the salutary miracle. It must be [...], sacri­fice; which I wonder Christophorson perceived not. So Eusebius has said a little above, [...], For, after that one Victim and eximious sacrifice, &c. Vales. Salutary Sacrifice therefore, [taken] from among men, namely the Or, Bo­dily Instru­ment. very Body of the [Divine] Word, was sacri­ficed in place of the whole Flock of men.

And this was the Victim delivered unto death, concerning which mention is made in the Expres­sions of the Sacred Scriptures; which are some­times worded in this manner, John 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world: sometimes they run thus, See Esa. ch. 53▪ v. 7, 4, 5, 6. ac­cording to the Septua­gint Ver­sion. as a sheep He was led to the slaughter, and as a Lamb be­fore His Shearer [He was] dumb. And they likewise tell us the reason, by adding these words, He bears our sins, and is tortured with pain for us: and we esteemed Him to be in labour and in stripes and in affliction. But He was woun­ded for our sins; and He was bruised by reason of our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace [was] upon Him; with His stripes we are hea­led. All we like sheep have gone astray; every one has wandered in His own way: and the Lord hath delivered Him for our sins. For these rea­sons therefore, the Humane Instrument of God the Word was sacrificed. But this Great High-Priest consecrated to God the Chief Governour and Su­pream King, being something else besides a Victim; namely, The Word of God; The Power of God, and The Wisdom of God; soon recalled His mor­tal [Body] from death; and presented it to His Father, as the First-fruits of Our common Salvation; having erected this for all mankind, as the Trophy of that Victory which He had gain'd over Death, and over the Army of Daemons, and [made it] the final Abolishment of those humane Victims which of old had been usually offered in sacrifice.

BUT whereas these things are thus, 'tisCHAP. XVI. now seasonable we should come to the de­monstrations: if indeed [...]. This wholeplace is, in my judgment, thus to be restored; [...], if in­deed the truth, &c. Vales. the truth of these mat­ters has any need of demonstration, and if it be indeed necessary, to produce testimonies in con­firmation of deeds that are manifest and evident. Take therefore these demonstra­tions, having first prepared Or, A candid [...]ar for our dis­course. your ears in order to a candid hearing of our dis­course. All Nations up­on the Earth were hereto­fore divided, and the whole Race of men [...]. It must be made [...], was minc't, or cut. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading of this whole place runs thus; [...]. Vales. was minc't into Provinces▪ into various dominions over each Nation and place, into Tyrannies, and manifold Principalities. On which account, fights and continued Wars, Depopulations and Captivities, as well in the Countries as Cities, never left them. Hence the numerous Subjects of Histories, Adul­teries and Rapes of women: [...]. I should rather write [...]. A lit­tle after I read, [...], which appeared superiour to all Di­abolical Energy or Force; the word [...], fraud, being ex­punged as superfluous. Unless you would word it, as the Fuke­tian Manuscript does, [...], fraud and force. Vales. hence the calamitous de­struction of Troy, and those Tragedies of the An­cients, whereof mention is made amongst all men. The Causes of which [calami­ties] should any one ascribe to their errour in worship­ping many Gods, 'tis my sen­timent He would not be mis­taken. But, after the Salutary Instrument, name­ly the most Holy Body of Christ, (which ap­peared superiour to all Diabolical fraud [and] Force, and was a stranger to every fault, as well in deeds as words;) was erected against the Daemons, as [...]. Question­less 'tis to be written, [...], which reading I have fol­lowed in my Ver­sion. Thus Eusebius has exprest himself a little above, in the close of the foregoing chapter; where speaking concerning the Body of Christ rais'd from the dead, his words are these: [...] as the Trophy of that Victory, &c. Which place casts no small light on this we have before us. For Eu­sebius says the same thing in both places. For he compares the Body of Christ, raised from death to life, and taken up into Heaven, to a Trophy which is erected over Enemies Vales. some Trophy of Victory, and the Abolishment of ancient Mischiefs; immediately all the works of Daemons were dissolved and dissipated: nor were there Dominions of places any more, nor manifold Principalities, nor Tyrannies, nor Or, Re­publicks; so Vale­sius. Democracies, nor (which were wont to arise from thence,) Depopulations of Countries, and Sieges of Cities. But, [...]. It must be, [...]; But, one God was Preach't amongst all men; which is confirmed by the following words. Vales. one God was Preach't amongst all men; and at the same time, one Empire also, that of the Romans, flou­rished over all; and that [...]. I read [...], irre­concileable and implacable hatred. And so the Translatour seems to have read. So Eusebius expresses himself a little after this, [...]; and at the same time that Hatred and S [...]ri [...]e, which, &c. I write also, [...], as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. irreconcileable and im­placable hatred, which the Nations had born one to another almost from the remotest Date of time, be­came forthwith utterly extinct. And as the know­ledge of one God was delivered to all men, and one way of Religion and Salvation, [namely] [...]. This place must, in my judgment, be writ­ten in this manner; [...]: which reading I have followed in my Version. One way of Religion and Salvation, says he, namely the Doctrine of Christ, was delivered to men. Vales. the Do­ctrine [Page 696] of Christ; so also, at one and the very same time, in regard One Monarch was consti­tuted over all the whole Roman Empire, a most profound peace Or, Em­braced all things. prevailed over the whole world. Thus by the appointment of One God, two signal Blessings, as 'twere two Branches, shot forth at one time amongst men; to wit the Empire of the Romans, and the Or, Pious Doctrine. Doctrine of Christian piety. Before that [Empire,] some in a separate and particular manner Governed Syria; others Reigned over Asia; others, over Macedonia. Also some were in possession of E­gypt severed from the other [Provinces;] and in like manner others, of the Country of the Arabians. Moreover, the Nation of the Jews had reduced Palestine under their jurisdiction and power. In every Village and City, and in all places, men were seiz'd with a kind of a madness as 'twere, and being really agitated by the Devil, committed murders one upon another, and made Wars and Fights their chief business. But two mighty Powers starting together, from the [...]. Valesius renders it ex unâ Transenna. [...] does properly signifie Meta, the Goal of a Race. same Barriers as 'twere, on a sudden made all things calm, and reduced them to an ami­cable Composure: I mean, the Empire of the Romans, which from that time was under the Government of a single person; and the Do­ctrine of Christ: which two [Powers] flourisht together, at one and the same time. Our Sa­viour's Power utterly destroyed those manifold Principalities and numerous Deities of Dae­mons; publishing and declaring One Kingdom of God to all men, as well Greeks as Barba­rians, even to those who inhabit the remotest Regions of the Earth. But the Empire of the Romans, in regard the Causes of many Princi­palities were That is, by the Do­ctrine of Christ which asser­ted God's Monarchy. before hand taken away, reduced those [Principalities] which as yet remained visible, under its own Dominion; making this its chief business, to joyn together the whole Body of mankind in one common union and agreement. And it hath already reconciled and knit together in one, most Nations: but within a short time it will reach even as far as the utmost Confines of the Earth: in regard the Salutary Doctrine [of Christ] joyned with a Divine Power, does before hand make all things easie to it and renders them smooth and plain. Doubtless, this will be acknowledged a great Miracle by them, who, induced thereto by a love of truth, shall with attention weigh the thing, and shall not be desirous of detracting from, and reviling the eminentest Or, Goods. Blessings. For, at one and the very same juncture, the Errour of Daemons was confuted; and at the same time that hatred and strife, which from remote ages had raged amongst the Nations, had an end put to it: and again, at the same time One God, and One knowledge of that God was Preacht amongst all; and at the same▪ time One Empire was established amongst men; and at the same time the whole race of men was Fitted or, made up in­to peace▪ &c. reduced to peace and friendship; and all per­sons mutually profest themselves Brethren, and acknowledged their Own Nature. Immediately therefore, being as 'twere children [...]. With­out doubt it must be written thus, [...], begotten by one or the same father. The mistake arose from the contracted way of writing. Vales. begotten by the same▪ Father, to wit one God, and born of the same Mother, namely true piety, they began to salute and re­ceive one another peaceably and affectionately: in so much as from that time the whole world seem'd in no point to differ from one well-governed House and Family; and any one might make a journey whither he listed, and travel to what place he pleased, withall imaginable secu­rity: and some might without danger pass from the Western to the Eastern Parts; again others might go from hence thither, as 'twere to their own Country: And the Responses of the ancient Oracles were fulfilled, as likewise numerous other predictions of the Prophets, which at present we have not leisure to cite: and moreover, those [Expressions] concerning the Divine Word, which run thus. Psal. 72. [...]. He shall have dominion from Sea to Sea, and from the River, unto the ends of the Earth. And again, Psal. 72. 7. In His days righteousness shall rise, and abundance of peace. [And in another place:] Esai. 2. 4. And they shall beat their swords into plow-shares, and [their] spears into pruning-hookes; and na­tion shall not lay hand on sword against nation, and they shall not learn war any more. These things were predicted, and many ages since pro­claimed in the Hebrew tongue: which appearing to be actually accomplished in Our days, do con­firm the Testimonies of those ancient Oracles. But if, besides these, you desire plenty of other demonstrations, take them, not in words, but in deeds, and realities. Open the eyes of your own mind, and set open the Gates of thought. For­bear speaking for some time, and consider with your self. Ask your self, and enquire as 'twere of some other person, and make researches into the Nature of affairs in this manner. What King from the utmost memory of men; or Prince; or Philosopher; or Law-giver; or Prophet whether Greek ro Barbarian, ever attained to so much power and authority, (I do not say after death, but whilst He was yet living, and breathing, and was able to perform many things;) as to fill the ears and tongues of all men upon earth, with [the Glo­ry] of His own name? 'Tis certain, no person hath performed this, except only Our One Saviour, after that Victory gain'd over Death: when He both Or, Spake a word to His Confidents. gave His disciples a Command in words, and also afterwards actually accomplished it. Matth. 28. 19. Go therefore, said He to them, make disciples of all nations in my name. And when He had foretold and affirmed to them, that His Gospel should be Preacht thorowout the whole world, for a Testimony to all Nations; to His words He forthwith added the actual completion of the thing. Immediately therefore, and not after a long interval of time, the whole world was filled with His Doctrine. What then has He to return in answer hereto, who at the beginning of this Oration blamed us; especially in regard the Te­stimony Or, Which is by sight. of the eyes is superiour to all manner of Or, Reason. reasoning? But, who hath chased away that always-noxious and destructive Tribe of Daemons (which heretofore prey'd upon the whole Or, Na­ture of men. Body of mankind, and by the motion and impulse of images shewed many Impostures and delusions amongst men;) by an invisible and potent hand, being as 'twere fierce and raging wild-beasts, from the Flock of men? What other person besides Our Saviour, by an invo­cation of Himself, and by the purest prayers in His Name put up to the Supream God, hath given a power of driving away the Remains of evil Spirits from among men, to those who with purity and sincerity would follow Or, The Life of that Phi­losophy delivered, &c. that Rule of Living and discipline delivered by Him? [Page 697] [...]. The word [...] can't have a place here. I write therefore from the Fuketian Manuscript, [...], what other person, save only, &c. Presently, the reading must be, [...]; or else, as 'tis in the Fuketian Copy, [...], on which account,—thorowout the whole world. For so Eu­sebius is wont to express himself, as in the end of Chap. 13. Vales. What other person, save onely our Saviour, hath taught his followers to offer unbloudy and rational sacrifices, which [are performed] by prayers and a mysterious [...], dis­course con­cerning God. naming of God? On which account, Altars have been e­rected thorowout the whole world, and Churches Consecrated: Valesius in his note at this place tells us, that the Geneva-Prin­ters designedly left out this clause [ [...], and Divine Ministrations of intellectual and Ra­tional sacrifices] because, says he, it contained an illustrious Testi­mony concerning the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass. But 'tis our Senstiment, that Valesius had as little ground for this assertion, from there words; as the Geneva-men had reason for that their omission. Our Church in one of its prayers after the celebration of the Eu­charist, makes mention of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving▪ And I verily believe, Eusebius means no other sacrifice than that here; witness the two Epithets He gives these sacrifices, namely [...], intellectual and rational. and Divine Ministrations of intellectual and ra­tional sacrifices, are offered up by all Nations to the Only▪ God the Supream King. Who by a secret and invisible power, hath caused those sa­crifices, which were usually [...]. I don't doubt but Eusebius wrote [...], sacri­fices—performed by bloud and gore, smoke and fire▪ as like­wise those cruel, &c. Than which emendation there is nothing more certain. Vales. performed by Bloud and Gore, smoak and fire; as likewise those cruel and furious slaughters of men, and humane Victims, to be abolished and wholly extinguished? In so much that, this thing is attested even by the very Histories of the Heathens themselves. For, all those sacrifices of men in all places of the Earth, were not abolished till after [the publication of] Our Saviour's Divine Doctrine, [namely] Eusebius took this passage out of Porphyrius's second Book de Abstinentia, where he writes thus. [...]. That is, But Pallas, who wrote best of all concerning the mysterious Rites of Mithra, says that humane Victims were almost every where abolished, in the Reign of the Emperour Hadrian. Which Lactantius does likewise confirm, in the First Book of his Divine Institutes, Chap. 21▪ in these words. Apud Cypriot, [In Thysius's Edition 'tis Apud Cypri Salaminem, At Salamine [a City] of Cyprus.] Humanam hostiam Jovi Teucer im­molavit; idque sacrificium posteris tradidit: quod est nuper Hadriano imperante sublatum. Amongst the Cypriots, Teucer offered an humane sacrifice to Jupiter▪ and delivered that sacrifice down to posterity: which was lately abolished in the Reign of Hadrian. Tertullian in the ninth Chapter of his Apology relates, that in Africa infants were pub­lickly offered in sacrifice to Saturn, untill Tiberius's Proconsulate, who for that reason crucified the Priests of Saturn. And he adds, that the Milice of his own Country (or, as some Copies have it writ­ten, Patris sui, of his own father▪) which executed that very office under Tiberius the Proconsul, were witnesses of this thing. Whence it appears that the memory of this matter was as yet fresh. For why should he cite the Souldiers or Apparitors of the Proconsular Office as witnesses, unless some of those had been yet alive, or could have been produced, who had attended upon the Proconsul Tiberius, at such time as he crucified those Priests. Wherefore, that Proconsulate of Tiberius might be fitly placed upon the times of the Emperour Ha­drian; especially in regard both Porphyrius and Lactantius do perswade us to think so. Further, whereas Pallas only says, that they left off sacrificing men almost every where; Eusebius without any exception affirms, that this custom was abolished amongst all Nations whatever. Which I can scarce be induced to believe. For, both Porphyrius and Lactantius, in their fore-cited books, do attest, that Jupiter Latiaris was still in their age worshipped with humane Bloud at Rome. Besides, Tertullian witnesseth in his Apology, that in his age Infants were in se­cret sacrificed to Saturn. Vales. about the Times of [the Empe­rour] Hadrim. Whereas therefore, so many co­gent arguments and evident demonstrations do give confirmation to Our Saviour's Might and Power after His death, who is so iron-minded, as not together with others to give evidence to the Truth, and not to acknowledge His life [to be] divine? For great Atchievements [are the performances] of the Living, not of the dead: and those things which we see, do furnish us with a knowledge of things hidden. Not long since indeed, yesterday as 'twere, a Race of men who fought against God; disturbed the Life of men, turned all things upside down, and were possest of great power and strength. But when they were departed from among men; thenceforward they lay upon the earth, [...]. Eu­sebius al­ludes to that fa­mous say­ing of He­raclitus, [...], the dead are more despicable than muck; of which saying Strabo makes mention in the end of his six­teenth book, and Origen in his fifth book a­gainst Cel­sus. From whence came this proverbial expression, [...], spoken con­cerning a man of no value. Pol­lux, book 5. chap. 46, [...], more contemptible than dung, if we should speak after the manner of Heraclitus. Julian, in his Oration against Heraclius the Cynick, pag. 421, makes use of the same saying of Heraclitus, in these words: [...]: but wholly to despise the Body▪ and to account it according to Heraclitus, even more contemptible than dung. But with the greatest ease to perfect its cure, as long as God shall order the Body to be used as an instrument. Which place I have mended and supplied, from Suidas in the word [...]. For in the ordinary Editions, this passage is corrupt and imperfect. Vales. more contemptible than dung; without breath; without motion; without voice. Nor is there now any account, or any mention made of them. For this is the Or, Nature. allotment of the dead. And He that is no longer, is no Body. But, [...]. It must be written with an interrogation, thus, [...]; But, what can He do, who is no Body? And so Christophorson seems to have read▪ Indeed, in the Fuketian Ma­nuscript the reading is, [...]. Vales. what can He do, who is no Body? But on the contrary, He who acts and works, and who is more powerfull than those that are alive, how can He be supposed not to be? And although He be invisible to eyes of flesh, nevertheless the [...]. 'Tis apparent that the reading should be, [...], that is, judgment is not placed in sense. Therefore the verb [...] must be understood here; which Christophor­son apprehended not; for he hath erroneously joyned these words with the following. There was a great dispute amongst the old Phi­losophers [...]. So they termed the Rule whereby the truth of things is judged of by men. The most ancient Philosophers did not place that power or faculty in the Senses, but in the Reason; as Sextus Empiricus informs us in his seventh book against the Mathematici. Farther, [...] is taken two ways, either for the faculty it self, whereby truth is discerned; or else for the instrument of that faculty▪ Potamo the Philosopher termed the first, [...], from which; the second, [...], by which; as Lartius tells us, in the Proëme of his own work. Vales. faculty of judging consists not in sense: nor do we by the senses of the Body perceive the rea­sons and Rules of Arts, or Speculations of Sciences. Neither did ever any with His eyes see the mind that is in men, much less the strength and power of God: but things of this nature are wont to be known and perceived by the works themselves. Wherefore in our Saviour also, 'tis fit we should inspect and Consider, or, deter­mine of. discern His invisible Power and Strength from His Works: namely, whether those many illustrious Acts, which even till this present time are done by Him, must be acknowledged [the performances] of a person living; or whether 'tis to be said, that they are the works of One who is not; or rather whether this question be not altogether foolish and Or, In­consistent. incoherent. For, how can any one with reason affirm Him to be, who is not? In re­gard 'tis manifest by the consent and suffrages of all, that that which is not, neither has any strength, nor can it act, or operate. [...], For this is the nature of the dead. The words are misplaced here; a thing which, as I have already adver­tized, does frequently happen in these Books. I write therefore, [...]. For this is the Nature of the Living▪ &c. A little before, some words are all repeated, which fault the studious Reader will easily mend of himself. Vales. For this is the Nature of the Living: but [the Nature] of the dead is contrary.

BUT 'tis here seasonable, that we should inspectCHAP. XVII. the Performances of our Saviour in this our age; and should contemplate the living works of the living God. [...]. It must, I think, be worded thus, [...], with an interrogation; which reading I have followed in my Version. Vales. For how should such Glorious Atchievements as these, not be the living Works of a living person, and of One who truly lives the Life of God? But, do You enquire what those are? Hear them. Not long since, some persons who had proclaimed war a­gainst God, with great obstinacy, and no less Power and Military Force, ruined and dug up from their very foundations, the Edifices of his Oratories; and resolved upon rendring His Churches wholly invisible; and with all ima­ginable Engines and Stratagems fought a­gainst Him who is not to be seen with eyes; casting and throwing aginst Him Or, Nu­merous d [...]rts of words. the darts of impious Expressions. But the invisible God was avenged on them in an invisible manner. Imme­diately therefore, by one only Nod of the Deity, they became extinct; [those persons I mean] who a little before lived delicious and pleasant lives and were thrice-happy; who were celebrated amongst all men, as equal with the Gods; who during many periods of years [...]. This place is corrupted with a double fault: nevertheless 'twas easie to restore it in this manner: [...], had governed the Empire, &c. Eusebius means Di­ocletian and his Colleagues, who (says he) had governed the Re­publick gloriously and happily, as long as they maintained a peace with God and with the Churches. But after they attempted to bring a war upon God, and to persecute His most Holy worshippers; im­mediately all affairs were altered, and put into a worse posture. Eu­sebius says the same in the end of his eighth Book. Vales. had Go­verned the Empire gloriously and happily, as long, namely, as there was peace and friend­ship between them and Him whom they afterwards oppo­sed. But when they changed their minds, and were so au­dacious as to engage in an actuall war with God; and set their Gods in array a­gainst Ours, as their Cham­pions. Leaders and De­fenders: immedia­tely, in one moment of time, and by the Beck and Power of that God whom they op­posed, they all underwent the deserved punishments of their audacious attempts. In so much that, giving ground to Him with whom they were engaged in war, and turning their Backs upon Him, they ac­knowledged His divinity as others had done; and hastned to grant and permit the clean contrary to those things, which a little before they had at­tempted. But our Saviour forthwith erected Vi­ctorious Trophies in all parts of the Earth; and did again adorn the whole world afresh, with holy Temples and Or▪ Splendid Consecrations of Oratories. Conse­crated Oratories: and in e­very City and Vill [...]ge, in all Countries, and in the desart places of the Barbarians, [...]. It must, I think, [...], &c▪ And we have ren­dred it accordingly. Vales. He dedicated Churches and Tem­ples, to one God the supream King and Lord of all. Hence also 'tis, that these consecrated places are vouchsafed the name of the Lord; and take their appellation not from men, but from the supream Lord Himself. For, from Him [...]. I had rather read [...], the name. Nothing occurs more frequently in Ecclesiastick writers, than the name of [...] or Dominic [...]. Nor have only the Greeks termed Churches thus, but the Germans also have borrowed this name from the Greeks, as Walafrid [...]s Strabo informs us in his Book de Rebus Eccle­siasticis, Chap. 7. Vales. Hence likewise we have our name for them in English, to wit Churches; and hence 'tis that the Scots call them Kirks. they have the name of Churches. Let Him therefore that has a mind to it, come forth and inform us, who, after so great a Ruine and Devastation, hath raised the sacred Houses from their foundations to so vast an height? Who [hath bestowed a Resurrection] upon those [Structures,] Or, De­prived of all hope. wholly despair'd of as to their being rebuilt, and has vouchsafed them a Re­edification, whereby they are become far more splendid and stately, than they had been before? [...]. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is, [...]. which we follow. Vales. and, which is most to be admired, hath not new-built them after the death of those Enemies of God; but whilst those very persons were yet alive, who had demolished them: in so much that, they themselves with their own mouthes, and by their own Letters recanted their bold attempts: and this they did, not whilst they were surrounded with the delights and pleasures of Life, (for thus any one might perhaps suppose, that they performed this [...]. Any one will easily perceive, though I hold my peace, that some words are wanting here. I write there­fore, [...], for thus any one, which words must be included in a Parenthesis. Indeed Christo­phorson seems to have read so, as it appears from his Version. Vales. with a re­gard to kindness and cle­mency;) but at such time as they were pursued with stripes inflicted on them from Heaven. Who, after so ma­ny and such impetuous storms of Persecution, and in the very heat and extremity of dangers, thorowout the whole world kept fixt to the Precepts of His Divine Doctrine, in­finite numbers of men that were zealous followers of a Philosophick Life, and strict worshippers of the Deity, [...]. Christophorson joy­ned the word [...] with the term [...], which I don't approve of. For, by the term [...], Eusebius means those women, who having been depri­ved of their husbands, consecrated their widowhood to God; and he distinguishes these from the Quires of Virgins. Farther, out of the number of widows, Dea­connesses and Pres [...]yteresse [...] were wont to be chosen, as Epiphanius attests in the Heresie of the C [...]lly­ridiani, and in the Epilogue of his Books against Heresies. Whence 'tis, that at this place Eusebius terms them [...]. For those wo­men did in a manner perform the Office of Priests; in regard they instructed women that were to be baptized. But the reading must be, [...], also wo­men that were in Holy Orders; and so 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. These women, before they could be cho­sen Deaconnesses, were wont to be examined. Amongst other things, they were asked, whether they had washed the Saints feet; as Ori­gen informs us in his thirty second Tome on Sain [...] John's Gospel. Vales. also women that were in Holy Orders, and Quires of Virgins which Dedicated the whole time of their Lives to a perpetual chastity of bo­dy and mind: and taught them abstinence from food, and most willingly to continue without meat and wine du­ring the space of many days, and to Or, To make use of the conti­nence and strength of a hard life, with, &c. lead a hard and austere oourse of life, with a singular modesty and temperance? Who hath so far prevailed upon women, and nu­merous multitudes of men, that they should exchange the food of their Bodies, for that rational food that a­grees with their rational souls, [which food is got­ten] by Or, Di­vine Rea­dings. a per­usal of Divine Lessons? Who hath taught Bar­barians and Peasants, wo­men, children and servants, and innumerable mul­titudes of all Nations, to despise Death; and to perswade themselves, that their Souls are immor­tal, and that [...]. Who sees not that the reading should be [...], there is an eye of Justice. For the ancients believed, that Justice had [...] most quick and sharp eye, which inspected all things that were done by men, and would never wi [...]k: which eye they appealed to as a witness, who had been any wayes injured. Nothing occurs more frequently, both amongst the Greeks and Latines. The old Poets words in S [...]obaeu [...] are these. [...]. We have not leisure to produce more authorities; nor is it at all ne­cessary, in regard the thing is so well known. Yet Christophorson saw not the Emendation of this place. Vales. there is an Eye of justice which inspects humane affairs; and that they should ex­pect a future judgment from God [to pass upon] the pious and the impious; and that for that rea­son, they ought to lead just, holy, and sober lives? [Page 699] For 'tis in no wise possible, that those who are not thus disposed, should submit themselves to the yoke of piety. All which egregious performances, are even at this present accomplished, only by Our Saviour. But let us omit these things. Come on, we will now apply our selves to [a conviction of] Him whose mind is as hard as flint, by such in­terrogatories as these. Tell me, Friend! and utter words that are rational; Or, Bring forth fruit, not out of &c. Let your ex­pressions be the products, not of a foolish and stu­pid heart, but of a soul endued with reason and understanding. Tell me [I say,] after you have often and duely weighed the matter with your self. Which of all the Sages who in times past have been famous, was known in the same manner with Our Saviour, and Presigni­fied, or, declared. proclaimed so infinite a number of ages since, by the Oracles of the Prophets, amongst the children of the He­brews, anciently God's beloved people? Who in their minds had a fore-knowledge of the place of His Birth, and of the times of His Coming, and of His manner of Life; of His Miracles likewise, of His Discourses, and of His famous actions; and left them on record in the sacred Volumns. [...]. Doubt­less the reading must be, [...]; in which manner also Christophorson seems to have read; and we have rendred it accor­dingly. Vales. Who hath shown Himself so swift a Revenger, of those audacious Attempts against Himself? that, im­mediately after that impious fact committed against Him­self, the whole Nation of the Jews should be pursued and punished by an invisible Power, and their Royal Seat utterly de­molished and overthrown from its very founda­tions, and the Temple, together with all the Ornaments and rich furniture therein, levell'd with the Ground. Who hath uttered predictions, [...]. It must be written [...], with the accent [...]ast back to the first syllable; which is done, as often as the preposition is set after the word. Presently the reading must be, [...], cor­respondent to the affairs them­selves. For 'tis referred to the word [...], predictions. In the Fuketian Copy 'tis [...]. Vales. both concerning those im­pious men, and also in refe­rence to the Church founded by Him over the whole world, exactly correspondent to the affairs themselves, and hath actually demonstrated and confirm'd the truth of those Predictions, in such a man­ner as Our Saviour hath done? Concerning the Temple of the Impious He had said, Matth. 23. 38. Behold, your house is left to you desolate, and, See Matt. 24. 2. there shall not remain a stone upon a stone in this place, which shall not be thrown down. But concerning His own Church [He spake in this manner,] Matt. 16. 18. I will build my Church upon a rock, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. [...]. 'Tis a mistake of the Printer, I think, instead of [...], to have brought: so 'tis in the Fuketian Copy. Vales. To have brought at first from fishing, men that were contemptible and Or, Rusticks. illiterate; and afterwards to have constituted them Law-givers, and Teachers to the whole world; what, and how mighty a thing does this seem to You? As for His promise to them, that He would make them Fishers of men, He not only uttered it in words, but performed it actually and abundantly: and conferr'd on them so great a degree of strength and power, that they composed writings, and published Books: and the authority of all those Books was so great, that being rendred into all Languages, as well of Greeks as Barbarians, thorowout the whole world, they are studiously read by all Nations; and the Contents of them are believed to be divine Oracles; of how mighty a prevalency is this, in order to a clear demon­stration of His Divinity? How considerable like­wise is that, namely that He foretold things future, and, long before it hapned, assured His disciples, that they should be brought before Kings and Princes, and should be punished, and undergo the extreamest of Torments, not for any foul act of their own, but only on account of their confes­sion of His Name? Moreover, that He fitted and prepared them chearfully to endure these things; and so fortified them with the Arms of Piety, that in their Conflicts with their adver­saries, their minds appeared firmer than an A­damant; what powerfulness of expression is it, which that matter does not exceed? Likewise, that not only those who had followed Him, but their successours also, and again they who imme­diately succeeded them, and at length such as have lived in this our present age, should with so undaunted a resolution [...], make the Forces of their minds nervose, or sinewie. unite the Forces of their minds; that although they had done nothing worthy of death, yet with pleasure would endure all man­ner of punishments, and every sort of Torture, on account of their eximious Piety towards the su­pream God; what degree of admiration does not this surpass? What King did ever continue His Reign during so vast a number of Ages? Who does thus wage war after death, and does erect Trophies over His Enemies; and does subdue every place, Country, and City, as well Gre­cian as Barbarian; and does vanquish His Op­posers by an invisible and latent Or, Right-hand. Hand? And, which is the chiefest thing of all that hath been hitherto rehearsed, [...]. He means the Peace which Christ, at His Birth, bestowed on the Roman world. Vales. that Peace Or, Which by his power reignes over the whole &c. by His Power pro­cured for the whole world, concerning which we have al­ready spoken what we judged agreeable, how should it not stop the mouthes of all slan­derers? In as much as, the Unity and Concord of all Nations, did really concur in time with the Preaching of Our Saviour, and with the Do­ctrine by Him disseminated over the whole world: and in regard [both of them] had long before been foretold by the Prophets of God, I mean the Or, Worldly. Universal Peace of the Nations, and the Do­ctrine delivered by Christ to the Nations. The whole length of the day would be insufficient for me, Emperour. Dread Sir! should I attempt to sum up in one, those most clear and cogent arguments of Our Saviour's Divine Power, drawn from the things which are at this present Visible. For no man since the Creation, either amongst the Grecians or Barbarians, hath ever ex­erted such mighty Efforts of a Divine Power, as Our Saviour has done. [...]. In the Fu­ketian Copy 'tis [...]; and just before, the reading is, [...]; not, [...]. Vales. But why do I say men? when as, even they who amongst all Nations are styled Gods, have not been endued with such a mighty power upon Earth. [Page 700] Or if the thing he otherwise, let Him that is desirous, make it out to us. Let Or, Eve­ry Philoso­pher. any of the Phi­losophers come forth and inform us, what God or Hero was ever heard of, from the very first Beginning of Time, who hath delivered to men the Doctrine of an Eternal Life and a celestial Kingdome, in such a manner as Our Saviour hath done: who has induced innumerable multitudes of men thorowout the whole world, to live in a con­formity to the Precepts of a celestial Philosophy; and has perswaded them, that they should Or, Pur­sue Heaven. aspire to Heaven, and hope for those Mansions there provided for Pious Souls? What person, whether God, [...]. Chri­stophorson has ex­pung'd the last word, which is not ill done. Ne­vertheless it may be read, [...] or man. Or else, [...], much less man. Vales. or Hero, or man, hath euer Illustra­ted. o­verspread and enlightened the [whole world,] from the rising as far as the setting Sun, with the brightest Beames of His Own Doctrine; running in a manner the same Course with the Sun: in so much that, all Nations where ever inhabiting, perform one and the same worship, to The One God? Who, whether God or Hero, hath crush't all the Gods and Hero's both Grecian and Barbarian, and hath made a Law, that no one of them should be esteemed a God; and hath so far prevailed, that this His Law should obtain every where: after which, when He was opposed by all, He Himself, being but One, hath routed the whole Force of His Adversaries, hath vanquished all those who had always been accounted Gods and Hero's, and hath brought the matter to this Issue, that all over the whole world, even from its remotest Li­mits, He Himself should alone be termed The Son of God by all Nations? Who hath comman­ded them who inhabit this vast Element of the Earth, as well those in the Continent, as them that live in the Isles, that meeting together [every week,] they should observe that termed the Lord's day, and celebrate it as a Festival: [...], and to fatten their own Bodies. I know indeed, that it was the Christians usage to feast more plen­tifully and splendidly on Sundays. But the word [...], to fatten, or feed fat, is no fitting term to be used concerning Christians. Wherefore I doubt not but Eu­sebius wrote, [...], and that they should not, &c. Vales. and that they should not feed fat their own Bodies, but should make it their business, to enliven and cherish their Soules with Divine instructions? What God or Hero, so opposed as Our Saviour hath been, hath ere­cted Victorious Trophies over His Enemies? for from Or, The beginning to the end. the first Times hitherto, they have not ceased their Hostilities, both against His Doctrine and People. But He being invisible, by an undiscern'd Power hath advanced His own Servants, together with the Sacred Houses, to the height of Glory. But what necessity is there, with so much of earnest­ness to attempt a Narrative, of Our Saviour's Divine Performances, which exceed all manner of expression? In as much as, though we be si­lent, the Things themselves do cry aloud to those, who are possest of Mental Ears. Undoubtedly, this is a new and wonderfull thing, and which was once only seen amongst the Race of mankind; that such signal Blessings as these should be [...]. Christo­phorson seems to have read [...], as it appears from his Version, which runs thus, Ut Homo tam egregia facinora ederet, that a man should per­form such signal and extraordinary Actions. But the Fuketian Copy hath opened to us the true reading of this place; which runs thus, [...], that such signal Blessings, &c. For Eusebius means all those Blessings, which he has par­ticularly reckoned up above: all which were conferred on men by Christ's coming down upon earth. Vales. conferred on men; and, that He who really is the only Son of God from all eternity, should be visible on earth.

[...]. Some words are wanting here; which we may supply thus, [...], to You O Em­perour! But the Fuk. Copy hath given us the true reading: where 'tis thus wor­ded; [...], and we have ren­dred it ac­cordingly. Vales. BUT these things which You have heardCHAP. XVIII. from us, will perhaps be superfluous to You [Great Sir!] Who by experience it Self have frequently been made sensible [of the pre­sence] of Our Saviour's Divinity, and who, not so much in words as deeds, have approved Your Self a Preacher of the Truth to all men. For You Your Self, Dread Sovereign! When You shall have lei­sure, can relate to us, if You please, innumerable Appearances of Our Saviour shewing You His Divi­nity; innumerable Visions in Your sleep: I mean not those Suggestions of His to You, which to us are se­cret and inexplicable; but those divine Councils and Advises infused into Your mind, and which are productive of matters universally advantagious, and every way usefull, in reference to the Care and Providence of Humane affairs. You will likewise unfold to us, in such a manner as they deserve, the apparent assistances of God Your Defender and Keeper in Your Wars: the Ruine of Your Enemies, and those that combin'd and plotted against You: Your Rescues in dangers: Your ready and expedite knowledge in difficul­ties: Your defence in Solitudes: Your Searches, or, discove­ries. in­dustry and readiness in straits and distresses: Your fore-knowledges of things future: Your Pro­vident Care in reference to the whole of affairs: Your deliberations concerning matters uncertain and obscure: Your undertakings in relation to the most momentous Things: Your Administra­tion of Civil matters: Your Ordering of Your Military Forces: Your Or, E­mendations in each par­ticular. Reformations every where: Your Constitutions in reference to publick Right: Lastly, Your Laws, which are of singular use to the Lives of men. You will likewise without any Omission recount each of those mat­ters, which are obscure to us, but most apparently manifest to Your Self alone, and are kept depo­sited in Your Imperial Memory, as in some se­cret Treasuries. In regard to all which parti­culars, as 'tis likely, when You had made use of the very same clear and cogent Arguments of Our Saviour's [Divine] Power, You rai­sed a See His Life of Constant. B. 3. chap. 43. note (c.) Basilica, as a Trophy of His Victory gain'd over Death, a Fabrick which You de­sign'd all should view, as well the Faithfull as Infidels; and an Holy Temple of the Holy God; and most stately, splendid, and glorious Monu­ments of an immortal Life and a divine King­dom; and [You gave] sacred Gifts [in me­mory] of the Victory of Our Saviour the Su­pream King, [Gifts] that are every way su­table to the Donour, and which do most ex­actly [...]. I am of opi­nion, that the word [...], Vi­ctor, is to be added after these words; not for this reason on­ly, because Constantine had the surname of Victor given him; but also, in regard this word makes a great elegance here. For Eusebius says, that those sacred Gifts which Constantine gave to the Jerusalem-Church, (because they are the monuments of the Victory of Christ the Supream King,) do incomparably well befit an Emperour that is a Victor. Vales. befit an Emperour [who is a Victor.] Wherewith You have adorned that Martyrium and Monument of immortal Life, that [...]. I have rendred it Regios Apices, Roy­al Letters or Characters. For so Eusebius is wont to express himself as I have remark'd otherwhere. He says therefore, that Constantine, by that most magnificent Fabrick, and those most rich sacred Gifts, wherewith he had adorned the Sepulchre of Christ, (as 'twere by Royal Letters set up in some publick place,) had proclaimed Christ the Victor and Triumpher to all people. Vales. in Royal Characters You might express and represent the Celestial Word of God to be the Victor and Trium­pher, [...]. With these words the Fuketian Copy does close Eusebius's Panegyrick. 'Tis certain, the words which follow, are but little necessary, nor do they seem to me to be Eusebius's. Vales. to all Nations; and, as well really as ver­bally, might publish a Pious and Religious Con­fession of God, in expressions which are clear, and that can't be obscur'd.

THE END.

THE INDEX Of the Chief Matters contained in the Text of these HISTORIANS. The First Number shews the Page; the Second, the Column.

A.
  • ABari or Abares, a Scythick Nation, being heavily opprest by the Turks, leave their habitation, and come to the Bospho­rus. 500. 1. at length lodge themselves on the banks of the Danube. ibid. They make an excursion as far as the Long Walt, and take many Cities. 519. 2.
  • Abasgi embrace the Christian faith under Justinian. 486. 2.
  • Abdas Bishop of Persia. 373. 1.
  • Abd [...] son of Abdus, and Edessen, cured by Thaddaus. 15. 1.
  • Abgarus or Agbarus King of the Edessens, sends a Letter to Christ. 14. 1. Christ's answer to Abgarus. ibid.
  • Ablabius a Rhetorician and a Bishop. 374. 2.
  • Abramius Bishop of Urimi. 304. 1.
  • Acacius Bishop of Amida melts down the sacred Vessels, and with their price redeems captives. 379. 2.
  • Acacius Bishop of Beroea in Syria. 365. 2.
  • Acacius Bishop of Caesarea. 247. 1. His draught of the Creed 279. 1. He is deposed in the Synod of Seleucia. 282. 2. He wrote Eusebius Pamphilus's Life. 247. 1.
  • Acacius, after Gennadius, is ordain'd Bishop of Constantinople. 433. 1. He is termed Patriarch and Arch Bishop in the Emperour Basilis­cus's Constitution. 452. 2. Also, in the Penitentiary-Libell of the Bishops of Asia. 453. 2. what was transacted in his condem­nation and deposition. 459. 1, 2.
  • Acacius Bishop of Melitina declares Nestorius's Blasphemy in the Ephesine Synod. 404. 2.
  • Acacius Bishop of Ariarathia. 438. 1.
  • Acacius and Strategius, Comites. 607. 2.
  • Acesius Bishop of the Novatianists. 215. 1.
  • Achillas Bishop of Alexandria. 211. 1.
  • Achior the Ammonite. 10. 1.
  • Acoemeti, Monks so called. 459. 2.
  • Acts of Pilate. See Pilate.
  • Adaarmanes General of the Persians, is by Chosröes sent with an Army. 505. 1. besieges Antioch. 505. 2. burns Heraclea and Apamia. ibid. is vanquished by Mauricius. 512. 1.
  • Adamantius a Jewish Physician. 375. 2.
  • Adauctus a Martyr. 146. 1.
  • Addaeus and Aetherius Senators, punished with death. 500. 2.
  • Adrian. See Hadrian.
  • Adrianus and Eubulus Martyrs at Caesarea in Palestine. 169. 1.
  • Aedesius Brother to Appbianus, a Martyr at Alexandria. 161. 2.
  • Aedesius a Tyrian. 231. 2.
  • Aelia, that City heretofore term'd Jerusalem. 21. 1. 52. 1.
  • Aelius Publius Julius Bishop of Develtum. 84. 1.
  • Aemilianus Praefect of Egypt. 122. 1, 2.
  • Aemllius Frontinus Proconsul of Asia. 83. 2.
  • Aesculapius's Temple at Aegae in Cilicia. 597. 2.
  • Aëtius an Heretick surnam'd Atheus. 270. 2. He is made Deacon by Leontius. ibid.
  • Aëtius Arch-Deacon of the Constantinopolitan Church. 446. 2. Pri­micerius of the Notaries. 439. 2.
  • Aevum has neither beginning, nor end. 671. 1. whence so called. ibid.
  • Africanus's Opinion concerning the disagreement of the Gospels in reckoning up our Saviour's Genealogy. 9. 1, 2. concerning the History of Susanna. 106. 2. His Books of Chronography, or Annals. ibid. A most learned man. 271. 1.
  • Agabus a Prophet. 17. 2. His prediction concerning the famine was compleated under Claudius. 19. 2.
  • Agapius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. 138. 1.
  • Agapius and Thecla Martyrs of Palestine. 159. 1, 2.
  • Agapius and Dionysius, Martyrs at Caesarea in Palestine. 159. 2.
  • Agathias the Rhetorician, His History. 487. 1.
  • Agathobulus, two of that name, surnam'd the Masters. 137. 1, 2. Agbarus. See Abgarus.
  • Agellus Bishop of the Novatianists. 279. 1. 309. 1. 334. 2. 335. 1.
  • Agrippa made King of the Jews by Caius. 17. 2. He was also called Herod. ibid. and 19. 2. He kills James the Brother of our Lord. 19. 2. His death. 20. 1, 2.
  • Agrippa Son of King Agrippa, made King of Judaea by Claudian. 25. 2.
  • Agrippa Castor wrote against Basilides. 52. 2.
  • Agrippinus Bishop of Alexandria. 62. 2.
  • Alamundarus Governour of the Saracens. 378. 1.
  • Alamundarus King of the Saracens. 483. 2. Refuses to give as­sistance to the Romans, though confederates. 512. 1. Is banished by Mauricius into the Island Sioilie. 516. 1.
  • Alarichus King of the Goths▪ takes Rome. 373. 2. makes Attalus Emperour. ibid.
  • Albinus Procurator of Judaea. 28. 2.
  • Alcibiades a Martyr of Lyons. 75. 1.
  • Alexander, the fifth Bishop of Rome after the Apostles. 50. 1.
  • Alexander a Native of Phrygia, a Martyr at Lyons. 73. 1.
  • Alexander a Montanist, condemn'd for Robberies. 83. 1.
  • Alexander was Coadjutor to Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem. 95. 2. and 96. 2. He founded an Ecclesiastick Library. 102. 2. He is crown'd with Martyrdom. 108. 2. 116. 2.
  • Alexander Bishop of Alexandria. 211. 2. Having convened a Synod at Alexandria, condemns Arius and his followers. 211. 2. sends his Synodick Letter to all the Bishops. ibid. His Elogie. 220. 2.
  • Alexander Bishop of Antioch. 373. 1.
  • Alexander Bishop of Constantinople. 242. 2.
  • Alexander a Native of Paphlagonia, a Novatianist. 276. 1, 2.
  • Alexandrian Church, its Custome. 347. 1.
  • Alexandrians, their humour Seditious and heady. 429. 2.
  • Allegorical Expositions of Sacred Scripture. 24. 1.
  • Alphaeus and Zacchaeus Martyrs of Palestine. 154, &c.
  • Amachius President of the Province of Phrygia. 296. 1.
  • Ambrosius converted to the true faith by Origen. 100. 1. invites Origen to write, and supplies him with Notaries. 103. 1. was a Confessour under the Emperour Maximinus. 105. 2.
  • Ambrosius is ordained Bishop of Millain. 324. 2.
  • Amida a City of Mesopotamia, taken by the Persians. 470. 1.
  • Ammia, a Prophetess. 82. 2.
  • Ammon, Zeno, Ptolemaeus, Ingenuus, and Theophilus Martyrs at Alex­andria. 111. 2.
  • Ammon, Father of the Monks of Egypt. 316. 2.
  • Ammonarium two women of that name, Martyrs at Alexandria. 111. 1.
  • Ammonius was a Christian Philosopher. 101. 2. His Book con­cerning the agreement of Moses and Christ. ibid.
  • [Page] Ammonius Bishop of La [...]dic [...]a in Pi [...]idi [...]. 365. 2.
  • Ammonius, Dioscorus, Eusebius, and Euthymius, Monks commonly cal­led The Long Monks. 357. 2. they come to Constantinople. 359. 2.
  • Ammonius a Monk. 319. 1.
  • Ammonius a Poet. 357. 1. He recited his Poem before the Em­perour. ibid.
  • Amphilochius Bishop of Iconium. 334. 1.
  • Anastasian and Garosian Baths at Constantinople, whence so term­ed. 309. 1.
  • Anastasius Bishop of Rome. 373. 2.
  • Anastasius a presbyter, Nestorius's Companion and Confident. 402. 2.
  • Anastasius Bishop of Jerusalem after Juvenalis, subscribes to Basi­liscus's Circular Letters. 450. 2.
  • Anastasius is chosen Emperour from being a Silentiarius. 464. 2. would suffer no innovation to be made in reference to the con­stitution of the Church. 465. 1. Ejects Euphemius and Mace­donius Bishops of Constantinople. 465. 2. His name, after his death, was rased out of the sacred Diptychs, or Tables. 469. 2. whilst alive, he was Anathematized at Jerusalem. ibid. He ordered these words to be added to the Hymn termed The Tris­agium; Who hast been crucified on our account. 476. 1.
  • Anastasius succeeds Domninus in the Bishoprick of Antioch. 497. 2. His Character. 498. 1. His answer to the Emperour Justinian. 498. 2. Also, his Letter to the Monks of both the Syria's con­cerning the faith. ibid. His Fare-well-Speech to the Antio­chians. ibid. He is ejected out of his See. 502. 2. He is restored. 526. 1.
  • Avathematize, what it is. 387. 2.
  • Anatolius Bishop of Laodicea. 136. 1. His Book concerning Easter. 137. 1. He is first made Coadjutor by Theotecnus Bishop of Cae­sarea. 137. 2.
  • Anatolius Bishop of Beroea. 304. 2.
  • Anatolius Master of the Milice throughout the East, builds Anatolius's Porticus at Antioch. 415. 2.
  • Anatolius Senator, a wicked man, is convicted to have sacrificed to Daemons. 510. 1. He is cast to the wild Beasts in the Amphi­theatre at Constaminople. 510. 2.
  • Anazarbus the Metropolis of the Second Cilicia, is ruined by an Earth­quake. 481. 1. Being rebuilt by Justinus Senior, it is named Justinopoli [...]. ibid.
  • Andreas the Apostle, Preaches the Gospel in Scythia. 30. 1.
  • Androgyni the Priests of the Nile, destroyed by Constantine. 614. 2.
  • An [...]ncletus Bishop of the Roman Church. 38. 2.
  • Anicetus Bishop of Rome. 54. 2. How highly he honoured Poly­carp. 89. 1.
  • Annianus the first Bishop of Alexandria. 38. 2.
  • Annianus is ordained Bishop of Antioch by the Synod of Seleucia. 280. 2.
  • Anniversary or Nativity of the Publick Genius of the City Caesarea. 169. 1.
  • Anomoei, Hereticks. 304. 1.
  • Anomoei and Exucontii. 283. 2. 284. 1.
  • Anteros Bishop of Rome. 106. 1.
  • Anthemius is made Emperour of the Romans by Leo Augustus. 435. 2.
  • Anthemius Praefect of the Praetorium. 369. 2.
  • Anthimus Bishop of Constantinople, an Eutychian. 481. 2. By Severus's perswasion he leaves the See of Constantinople. 482. 1. His Letters to Theodosius. ibid. is ejected out of his See by Ju­stinian. ibid.
  • Anthimus Bishop of Nicomedia, is crowned with Martyrdom. 142. 2. 147. 2.
  • Anthropomorphitae, Hereticks. 357. 2. 358. 2.
  • Antinous Servant to the Emperour Hadrian. 53. 1. Hadrian builds a City in honour of him, and institutes Games. ibid. He is dei­fied. 303. 1.
  • Antioch termed Theopolis. 403. 2. 480. 1. Colonies from the Greeks carried thither. 416. 2. was shaken by a terrible Earth­quake in the Reign of Leo Augustu [...]. 433. 2. The Tetrapylum of Antioch. 434. 1. The Palace also and the Nymphaeum. ibid.
  • Antiochus Bishop of P [...]olema [...]s, by Preaching gathers a vast sum of money. 360. 2.
  • Antipater Son of Herod the Ascalonite, 8. 2. 10. 1. made Pro­curator of Judaea by Hyrcanus. 10. 1.
  • Antipater Bishop of Rhosus. 304, 1.
  • Antoninus, Zebinas and Germanus, Martyrs in Palestine. 165. 1, 2.
  • Antonius Bishop of Germa. 385. 2. is killed by the Macedo­niani. ibid.
  • Antonius a Monk. 233. 2 His Apophthegme, 318. 1.
  • Anulinus Proconsul of Africa. 193. 2.
  • Apelles, an Heretick. 79. 2.
  • Ap [...]aca a place in Phoenice, infamous for the worship of Venus. 597. 1. 677. 1.
  • Apianus, a writer of the Roman Affairs. 513. 2.
  • Apion, wrote upon the Six-days-work. 89. 2.
  • Apocalypse, whether written by Saint John the Evangelist, or by an­other. 130, &c.
  • Apollinaris Bishop of Hierapolis. 66. 2. 290. 1. His Books. ibid. and 67. 1.
  • Apollinares, two Laodicaeans, Father and Son, 284. 1, 2. their He­resie. ibid. Their Books. 296. 1, 2.
  • Apollinaris is ordained Bishop of Alexandria after Zoilus. 495. 1. He was present at the fifth Constantinopolitan Synod. 495. 2.
  • Apollonia a Virgin of Alexandria, is made a Martyr. 110. 1.
  • Apollonides an Heretick, corrupted the Books of Sacred Scripture. 90. 2.
  • Apollonius, an Ecclesiastick Writer. 82. 2.
  • Apollonius underwent an illustrious Martyrdom at Rome. 85. 1, 2.
  • Apollophanes, a Philosopher. 101. 1.
  • Apostles, many termed such, besides the twelve. 13. 2.
  • Apostles and Christ, their images carefully preserved. 126. 1, 2.
  • Apostles and Evangelists, determined nothing concerning the Feast of Easter. 345. 1.
  • Apphianus a Martyr in Palestine. 159. 2, &c.
  • Aquila of Pontus, rendred the Books of the Old Testament into Greek. 77. 2.
  • Aquila Praefect of Alexandria. 92. 2. 94. 1.
  • Arabianus Bishop of Antro [...]. 304. 1.
  • Arabianus an Ecclesiastick Writer. 89. 2.
  • Arcadius is proclaimed Augustus. 334. 2.
  • Archelaus Son to Herod. 12. 1.
  • Archelaus's disputation against Manichaeus. 234. 2.
  • Archelaus, Consularis of Phoenice. 239. 1.
  • Ardaba, a Town of Phrygia, Montanus's Country. 81. 1.
  • Ardaburius Master of the Eastern Milice. 411. 2.
  • Ardaburius, a General of the Romans. 378. 1. is sent into Italy. 381. 2.
  • Areobindus, a General of the Romans. 378. 2. vanquisheth the Persians. ibid.
  • Ares, Probus, and Elias, Egyptians, Martyrs in Palestine. 166. 1.
  • Arians were wont to call the Catholicks Sabellians. 235. 1.
  • Arians were termed Porphyrians. 221. 2.
  • Aristides wrote an Apology in defence of the Christians. 51. 1.
  • Aristion and John the Presbyter or Elder, Disciples of our Lo [...]. 49. 2.
  • Aristobulus, King and High-Priest of the Jews. 8. 2.
  • Aristobulus, one of the Seventy Translatours. 137. 2.
  • Aristonicus Bishop of Seleucia upon Belus. 304. 1.
  • Aristotlee's Book, entitled Peplum. 302. 2.
  • Arius and Euzoius present a Libell of faith to Constantine. 237. 1.
  • Arius asserts a new Opinion. 211. 1, 2. His followers. 212. 1. Their assertions. ibid. He writes a Book entitled Thalia. 221. 1. His Books are ordered to be burned. 221. 2. His fraud in sub­scribing. 243. 1. His death. ibid.
  • Armatus kinsman to Verina Augusta, is slain by Zeno Augustus. 462. 2. His Son Basiliscus, from being Caesar, is by Zeno compelled to be made a Presbyter. ibid.
  • Arsacius, Chrysostome being ejected, is ordained Bishop of Constan­tinople. 366. 2.
  • Arsenius a Bishop of the Melitians. 238. 2. Subscribes to Athana­sius's deposition. 240. 1, 2.
  • Arsenius a Monk. 317. 1.
  • Arsenius is by Zeno advanced to be Augustalis and Dux of Egypt. 461. 2.
  • Artemon's Heresie. 89. 2. The Authour thereof was Theodotus a Tanner. 90. 1.
  • Ascholius Bishop of Thessalonica. 331. 2.
  • Asclepas Bishop of Gaza. 251. 2. 261. 2.
  • Asclepiades Bishop of Antioch. 96. 2.
  • Asclepiadotus an Heretick, disciple to Theodotus. 90. 2 He mended the Books of Sacred Scripture. ibid.
  • Asclepius a Bishop of the Marcionites, was burnt for the faith of Christ. 166. 1.
  • Asiaticus Dux of Phoenice Libanensis. 469. 2.
  • Asinius Quadratus, a Writer of Roman-affairs. 513. 2.
  • Aspar Son to Ardaburius. 381. 2. He, together with his Sons, is slain by Leo Augustus. 436. 1.
  • Asterius a Sophist. 242. 1. Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra wrote a­gainst him. ibid.
  • Asterius Comes of the East, quarrells with Gregory Bishop of Antioch. 517. 2. He is killed in the Earthquake which ruined Antioch. 519. 1.
  • Asturius a Martyr. 125. 2. 126. 1.
  • Ater a Martyr of Alexandria. 111. 1.
  • Athalaricus Son of Theodoricus King of the Goths. 486. 1.
  • Athanasius Deacon of the Alexandrian Church. 216. 2. He is made Bishop of Alexandria. 229. 1. He is calumniated by the Euse­bians. 237. 2. is banished into the Gallia's. 242. 1. Goes to Rome. 250. 1. is restored in the Serdican Synod. 257. 2. Re­turns to Alexandria. 260. 1. dyes. 315. 2.
  • Athanasius's Book of Synods. 227. 1. His Book concerning the Life of Saint Anthony. 233. 2. 317. 1. His Letter to his Ac­quaintance. 272. 2, &c. His Apologetick concerning his own flight. 291. 2.
  • Athanasius Bishop of Ancyra. 304. 2.
  • Athanarichus King of the Goths. 326. 1. He surrenders himself to Theodosius. 334. 2.
  • At [...]alus of Pergamus, a Martyr at Lyons. 70. 1, &c.
  • [Page] Articus Bishop of [...] in P [...]rygia▪ 1 [...]2. 1.
  • Articus is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 369. 1. His Cha­racter. 370. 1. He puts Chrysostom [...]'s name into the Dypt [...]cks again. 382. 1.
  • Articus Bishop of Nicopolis. 443. 2.
  • Attis the same with Ado [...]s and Bacchus. 302. 2.
  • Augustus Reigned seven and fifty years. 12. 1.
  • Avilius Bishop of Alexandria. 38. 2.
  • Avitus Reigned eight months. 428. 2.
  • Aurelianus preparing for a Persecution, is smitten by Divine Ven­geance. 135. 1. 660. 1.
  • Aus [...] the name of Joshua the son of Nave. 5. 1.
  • Auxentius an Arian, Bishop of Millain. 272. 1. 274. 1. 324. 2.
  • Auxentius a Martyr in Palestine. 163. 1.
B.
  • BAbylas Bishop of Antioch. 106. 1. He dyed in prison. 108. 2. His Reliques translated. 298. 1. 414. 2. A Church built in honour of the Martyr. ibid.
  • Bacchylides and Elpistus. 64. 1.
  • Bacchyllus Bishop of the Corinthians. 86. 1.
  • Bacurius an Iberian, Dux of Palestine. 233. 2. Master of the Mi­lice. 351. 1.
  • Baptism the Seal of Christ. 40. 2.
  • Baptism of the sick in bed. 113. 2. persons so baptized, were not promoted to be Clergy-men. 114. 1.
  • Baradatus a famous Monk. 432. 1.
  • Barba Bishop of the Arians at Constantinople. 372. 1.
  • Barchochebas Leader of the Jews. 51. 2. 53. 2. Persecuted the Christians. 53. 2.
  • Bardesanes a Syrian. 67. 2.
  • Barlamenus Bishop of Pergamus. 304. 1.
  • Barnabas▪ one of Christ's 70 Disciples. 13. 2. His Epistle Apocty­phal. 43. 1.
  • Barsanuphius, a famous Monk. 493. 1.
  • Barsumas a Monk, raises Sedition in Syria. 445. 2.
  • Bartholomew Preaches the Gospel to the Indians. 78. 2.
  • Basilicus a Marcionist. 79. 2.
  • Basilides a Martyr. 94. 1.
  • Basilides an Arch-Heretick. 52. 1. He wrote four and twenty Books on the Gospel. 52. 2. He counterfeited two Prophets, Barcabas and Barcoph. ibid.
  • Basilidians, Hereticks. 63. 2.
  • Basiliscus the Brother of Verina wife to Leo Augustus, seizes the Em­pire, and makes his Son Marcus Casar. 449. 1. His Circular Let­ter against the Chalcedon-Synod. 449. 2. His Anti-Circular Letter. 452. 2.
  • Basilius Bishop of Ancyra. 266. 1. disputes against Photinus. 269. 1. is deposed. 282. 1. 303. 2. 321. 1. &c.
  • Basilius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. 310. 1. was a pillar of Truth. 318. 2.
  • Basilius Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria was present at the Second Ephesine Synod. 424. 2.
  • Bassianus and Stephanus Bishops of Ephesus are deposed, and another chosen in their place. 447. 2.
  • Belisarius Master of the Milice in the East, vanquishes the Persians. 483. 2. takes Carthage. 485. 1. takes Rome. 48 [...]. 1. Tri­umphs at his return out of Africa. 485. 2. Takes Rome again. 486. 2.
  • Bells made use of in the Stews at Rome. 341. 1.
  • Benjamin Bishop of Jerusalem. 5 [...]. 2.
  • Beryllus Bishop of Bostri. 102. 2. 107. 1.
  • Beryllus Bishop of Philadelphia in Arabia. 290. 1.
  • Beri [...]us, Biblus, and Tripolis, Sea-port Towns in Phoenice, are ruined by an Earthquake. 493. 2.
  • Besas a Souldier, a Martyr at Alexandria. 111. 1.
  • Betthera a very smal City of Judaea. 51. 2.
  • Biblias a Martyr at Lyons 70. 2.
  • Bishop's Chair. 106. 1.
  • Bishops and Clergy ought to give the people a good example. 134. 2.
  • Bishops are to be preferred before any Judge. 615. 2.
  • Bishop of Rome, his autority. 248. 1. 253. 2.
  • Bishops of Rome, their power. 374. 1.
  • Bishops usually wore a black Garment. 367. 2.
  • Bitus Bishop of Carrae. 304. 2.
  • Bizua a Town of Thracia. 314. 1.
  • Blandina a Martyr at Lyons. 70. 1. 72. 1. 73. 2.
  • Blastus an Heretick. 80. 1. 84. 2.
  • Boäne a Lake near Nicomedia. 435. 2.
  • Bonifacius Bishop of Rome. 374. 1.
  • Bonosus Bishop of Rome. 509. 2.
  • Bosci, a sort of Monks in Palestine that fed on the ground as Beasts do. 418. 1.
  • Briso Bishop of Phil [...]ppopolis in Thracia. 365. 2.
  • Briso Eunuch to Eudoxia Augusta. 364. 2.
  • Bry [...]ia, places near Antioch. 518. 2.
  • Buddas, termed also Tertbi [...]thus. 234. 1. He wrote four Books. ibid.
  • [...] converted to the [...]aith of [...]. 385. [...].
C.
  • CAb [...]nes a little King of the M [...]r [...] [...]e [...] Trip [...]ly. 484. 1. [...] what manner he vanquished the Van [...]als in Africa. ibid.
  • Celestinus See Celestinus.
  • Caesarea Philippi, is by the Phoenicians called Paneas. 125▪ 2. a Statue erected there to Christ by a woman whom Christ had c [...]ed▪ 126. 1.
  • Caius the Emperour, persecuted the Jews most severely. 18. 2. He seized upon their Prose [...]ae. ibid.
  • Caius an Ecclesiastick Writer flourished under Pope Zephyri [...]s. [...]9. 2. His disputation against Proclus 102. 2.
  • Caius and Alexander, Martyrs at Ap [...]me [...]. 82. 1.
  • Caius Bishop of Jerusalem. 79. 2.
  • Caius Bishop of Rome. 135. 2.
  • Caius a Bishop. 272. 2▪ &c.
  • Callicrates Bishop of Claudiopolis. 303. 2.
  • Callinicus a Melitia [...]. 238. 1.
  • Callendion is ordained Bishop of A [...]ioch. 453. 2. writes Letters to Zeno and Acacius against Peter▪ Mongus. 456. 2. is banished to Oäsis. 457. 1.
  • Callir [...]e a place in Judaea, famous for warm-waters. 11. 2.
  • Callistus wrote the Actions of Julian Augustus in Heroick verse. 299. 2.
  • Callistus Governour of Antioch under Theodosius Junior, built Cal­listus's Porticus. 415. 2.
  • Candidus wrote upon the Six-days-work. 89. 2.
  • Capito Bishop of Jerusalem. 79. 2.
  • Carbuncle during the Reign of Maximinus, deprived many persons of their sight. 175. 2.
  • Carpocrates Founder of the Sect of the Gnos [...]icks. 52. 2.
  • Carpocratians. 63. 2.
  • Carya a house at Constantinople. 368. 1.
  • Cassianus Bishop of Jerusalem. 79. 1.
  • Cassianus's Chronographie. 97. 2.
  • Cassius Bishop of Tyre. 89. 1.
  • Cataphrygae, Hereticks. 67. 1. the same with the Montanistae. 273. 2.
  • Catholick Church is one, and always like and constant to it self. 53. 1. It's accomplishments. ibid.
  • Cavades King of the Persians, breaks the League which the Persians had made with the Romans in Theodosius Junior's Reign. 470. 1. He is desirous to give his Kingdom to Ch [...]sr [...]s his youngest Son. 483. 1.
  • Cecropius Bishop of Sebastopolis. 442. 1.
  • Celadion Bishop of Alexandria. 54. 2.
  • Celerinus a Confessour, at first a follower of Nov [...]tut. 113. 1.
  • Celestinus Bishop of Rome. 374. 1. His Letter to Cyrillus, Johanne [...] and Rufus. 391. 2. and to Nestorius. 403. 1.
  • Celsus Bishop of Iconium in Pisidia. 102. 1.
  • Cephas, one of the 70 Disciples of Christ. 13. 2.
  • Cerdo Bishop of Alexandria. 40. 1.
  • Cerdo, an Heretick, flourished at Rome. 54. 2.
  • Ceras a Bay of the Pontick Sea. 276. 2.
  • Cerinthus an Arch-Heretick. 44. 1. 130. 1. Saint John the Apostle avoids his company. 44. 2.
  • Chaeromon a Philosopher. 101. 2.
  • Charemon Bishop of the City Nile. 111. 2.
  • Chalcedon-Council. See Council.
  • Chalcedon, its walls demolished by Valens Augustus's Order. 308. 1. The Bishop thereof is made a Metropolitane. 446. 2.
  • Charan a Writer of Grecian History. 513. 2.
  • Chief-Priest. See Pontif.
  • Christ, His Divinity. 2. 2. In Christ two Natures. ibid. and 692. 1, 2. Christ was acknowledged and worshipped by all the Prophets and just men. 2. 2. Christ, under the shape of man, appeared to Abraham, Jacob, J [...]shua. 3. 1. Christ's Kingdom is foretold by Daniel, that it should come after the end of the world. 4. 2. The Name of Christ Venerable in ancient Times. 5. 1. Christ, the name of the Jewish High-priests and Kings. ibid. Christ's Priesthood. 6. 1. Christ's Birth under Augustus. 7. 2. His Genealogy, as 'tis drawn by Saint Matthew and Saint Luke, reconciled. 9. 1. His Baptism under Tiberius. 12. 1. why he would dye. 693. 1, 2. He is very God. 694. 2.
  • Christian Religion was educated and flourisht together with the Ro­man Empire. 66. 1. It conferred prosperity upon the Roman world, ibid.
  • Christians, their name foretold by the Prophets. 6. 2. Their Reli­gion very ancient. ibid. and 569. 1. A Christian described. 6. 2. Name of Christians began first at Antioch. 17. 2. whence arose the Crime of Incest and killing infants, which was charg'd up­on the ancient Christians. 52. 2, &c. Name of Christians common to Hereticks also. 55. 1.
  • Chosroes King of the Persians, besieges Antioch and other Cities of Syria 487. 2. At the close of his Life he is Baptized. 490. 1. He burns Melltina. 509. 1.
  • Chosroes Son of Hormisda, is chosen King of the Persians. [...]2 [...]. 2. He flies to the Romans, and is adopted by the Emperour Mau­ricius. [Page] [...] He is carried back to his Kingdom by the Romans. 52 [...]. 1. He gives a Golden Cross to the Church of Saint Sergius the Martyr. 523. 2. He marries Sira a Christian woman, con­trary to the Persian Laws. 524. 1.
  • Chrysanthus Bishop of the Novatianists at Constantinople. 372. 1. 374. 1.
  • Chrysaybius Protector to Theodosius, an enemy to Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople. 408. 2. 421. 2. why he was angry with Fla­vianus. 401. 2.
  • Chrysargyrum, a Tax abolished by the Emperour Anastasius. 470. 2, &c. It was paid by common whores every fourth year. ibid. Zozimus affirms this Tax to have been begun by Constantine the Great. 472. 1. Evagrius denies it. 472. 2, &c.
  • Chrysopolis, a City of Bithynia, a Sea-port of the Chalcedonians. 382. 2. 211. 1.
  • Chrysotelia, that is a Golden Tax, first brought up by Anastasius. 474. 2, &c.
  • Church, its Gifts. 77. 1. 82. 2.
  • Churches, very large and spatious built by the Christians before Diocle­tian's Persecution. 140. 1.
  • Church of Acacius the Martyr at Constantinople. 368. 1.
  • Church at Alexandria termed Cas [...]reum. 376. 2. another Church there, called Alexander's. 375. 1.
  • Church Anastasia at Constantinople. 331. 1.
  • Church of the Goths at Constantinople 356. 2.
  • Church is not wont fiercely to persecute Hereticks. 370. 2.
  • Church, the disturbance thereof is usually accompanied with Tumults in the State. 329.
  • Church, its affairs depend on the will and appointment of the Em­perours. ibid.
  • Church of Rome, its priviledge. 251. 2.
  • Church of the B. Virgin Mary at Antioch, was called Justinian's Church, from the Builder's name. 512. 1. 518. 2.
  • Church Library first founded by Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem. 102. 2.
  • Circesium, a Castle which is begirt by the Rivers Euphrates and A­bora. 505. 1.
  • Clarus Bishop of Ptolemaïs in Syria. 89. 1.
  • Claudianus, a Noble Poet. 416. 1.
  • Clearchus Praefect of Constantinople. 308. 2.
  • Clemens, Saint Paul's companion, the third Bishop of Rome. 32. 1. 38. 2. His Epistle to the Corinthians. 39. 1. 48. 2. He ren­dred Saint Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews into Greek. ibid.
  • Clemens Alexandrinus. 78. 2. 271. 1. 290. 1. was Master of the Catechetick School at Alexandria. 94. 2. 96. 2. His Books. 97. 2.
  • Cleobians, Hereticks amongst the Jews. 63. 2.
  • Cleomedes is Deified. 302. 2.
  • Clopas or Cleophas was the Brother of Joseph. 38. 1.
  • Caele-Syria, afterwards named Syria Secunda. 467. 2.
  • Caemeteries of the Christians. 122. 2. 125. 1. Assemblies wont to be held in them. 172. 2.
  • Comentiolus by the Emperour Mauricius is sent Master of the Milice into the East. 522. 1.
  • Comites of the first and second Order. 606. 2.
  • Communion of the Laicks. 113. 2.
  • Conon, from being Bishop of Apamia, becomes a Souldier in the Army of the Isauri. 469. 2.
  • Conon Abbot of the Monasterie of Saint Saba in Palestine. 495. 2.
  • Constantia wife to Licinius, Sister to Constantine the Great. 236. 1.
  • Constantianae, Baths so called at Constantinople. 308. 1. 366. 2.
  • Constantinus Junior's Letter to the Alexandrians 246. 2. His death. 247. 1.
  • Constantine saluted Augustus by the Souldiers. 149. 1. 209. 2. Sees the sign of the Cross in the Heavens. 210. 1. 540. 2. Erects the signe of the Cross in Rome. 177. 2. 544. 1. Invites his Subjects to Embrace Christianity. 567. 1, &c. His Empire was not Bloudy. 576. 1. He entertains the Bishops at a Banquet. 581. 1. He for­gives his Subjects the fourth part of the Tribute. 607. 1. On Easter-day he bestows Alms on all persons. 613. 2. He abolishes the penalties of Single-life and want of Children. 614. 2, &c. during his Reign two Vices prevailed, Covetousness and Hypo­crisie. 624. 2. He is Baptized at Nicomedia. 628. 1. 243. 2. He dyes on the day of Pentecost. 629. 2. His Funeral very splen­did. 630. 1, &c. He was buried in the Church of The Apostles, 631. 2.
  • Constantine built two Churches at Constantinople, the one called Irene, the other The Apostles. 229. 2. 253. 1.
  • Constantius Chlorus Father to Constantine the Great, a most Religious Prince. 149. 1. He did not persecute the Christians. ibid. and 535. 1. His Clemency towards his Subjects. 535. 1. how he tryed their zeal for the Christian Religion. 536. 2. when he dyed. 209. 2.
  • Constantia a Mart-Town of the Gazaei. 618. 2.
  • Consubstantial, in what sense to be taken. 304. 1.
  • Consulate of Paulinus and Julianus. 227. 2. of Felicianus and Titianus, 244. 1.
  • Consulate of Acindynus and Proculus. 247. 1. of Marcellinus and Pro­binus. 248. 1. of Constantius III. and Constans II. 250. 2. of Eusebius and Rufinus. 257. 1. of Sergius and Nigrinianus. 264. 1. 266. 1. of Constantius Aug. VI. and Gallus II. [...]69. [...]. of Constantius VII. and Gallus III. 270. 1. of Arbetion and Lollianus. ibid. of Dacianus and Cerealis. 278. 1. Of Eusebius and Hypatius▪ ibid. of Constantius X. and Julian III. 282. 2. of Taurus and Floren­tius. 283. 2. and 284. 2.
  • Consulate of Julian Aug. IV. and Salustius. 299. 2.
  • Consulate of Jovian Aug. and Varronianus. 304. 2.
  • Consulate of Valentinian Aug. and Valens Aug. I. 306. 1. 2. of Gra­tianus and Dagalaisus. ibid. of Lupicinus and Jovinus. 310. 1. of Valentinian II. and Valens II. ibid. of Valentinian III. and Valens III. 313. 2. of Gratianus II. and Probus. 315. 2. of Va­lens Aug. V. and Valentinian Junior I. 327. 1. of Valens VI. and Valentinian Junior II. 328. 1.
  • Consulate of Ausonius and Olybrius. 330. 1. of Gratianus Aug. V. and Theodosius I. 331. 1. of Merobaudes and Saturninus. 337. 1. of Richomeres and Clearchus. 337. 2. of Arcadius Aug. and Bau­ton. ibid. of Theodosius Aug. II. and Cynegius. 338. 1. of Ta­tianus and Symmachus. 341. 1. of Theodosius III. and Abundan­tius. 350. 2. of Arcadius III. and Honorius II. 351. 1. of Oly­brius and Probinus. ibid.
  • Consulate of Caesarius and Atticus. 352. 2. of Honorius IV. and Eu­tychianus. 353. 1. of Stilichon and Aurelianus. 367. 1. of Hono­rius VI. and Aristaenetus. 366. 2 of Stilichon II. and Anthemius. 367. 1. of Arcadius Aug. VI. and Probus. ibid. of Honorius VII. and Theodosius II. 367. 2. 372. 1. of Bassus and Philippus. 368. 2. of Honorius IX. and Theodosius Junior V. 372. 1. of Honorius X. and Theodosius VI. 376. 2. of Monaxius and Plin­tha. 377. 1. of Honorius XIII. and Theodosius X. 379. 2. of Asclepiodotus and Marinianus. 381. [...].
  • Consulate of Theodosius Junior XI. and Valentinianus Caesar. I. 383. 2. of Theodosius Junior XII. and Valentinianus Aug. II. 383. 2. of Hierius and Ardaburius. 384. 2. of Felix and Taurus. ibid. of Theodosius Junior XIII. and Valentinianus III. 385. 2. of Bassus and Antiochus. 387. 2. of Theodosius XIV. and Maximus. 391. 1. of Areobindus and Aspar. ibid. of Isidorus and Senator. 393. 1. of Theodosius XVI. and Faustus. 393. 1. and 357. 1. of Theodo­sius XVII. and Festus. 394. 2.
  • Coracio an Egyptian, confuted by Dionysius Alexandrinus. 130. 1.
  • Cornelius a Centurion, the first of the Gentiles that was baptized by Peter. 17. 2.
  • Cornelius Bishop of Antioch. 63. 1.
  • Cornelius Bishop of Rome. 108. 2. His Letter against Novatus. 223. 1.
  • Cornelius Gallus the first Praefect of Egypt 473. 2.
  • Cornutus a Philosopher. 101. 2.
  • Cosmas Bishop of Epiphania in Syria, refusing to consent to Severus's Synodick Letters, separates from his communion, and sends him a Libel of deposition. 469. [...].
  • Councils always summoned by the Emperours autority, since they be­came Christians. 329.
  • Councils in Asia against Montanus's Heresie. 81. 2.
  • Councils, their usefulness and necessity. 547. 2.
  • Council in Palestine concerning the celebration of Easter-day. 86. 2.
  • Council at Rome under Pope Victor, concerning the same question. ibid.
  • Council of the Bishops of Pontus about the same affair. ibid.
  • Council of the Bishops in Gallia about the same thing. ibid.
  • Council of the Churches of Osdroena and Mesopotamia. ibid.
  • Council in Arabia against the Errours of Beryllus. 107. 1. Another Council in Arabia. 108. 1.
  • Council at Rome against Novatus. 112. 2.
  • Council of Africk against Novatus. ibid.
  • Council at Antioch about the Lapsed, and concerning Novatus's Opi­nion. 116. 1, 2.
  • Council at Iconium and Synnada concerning re-baptizing Hereticks 119. 2.
  • Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata 132. 2.
  • Council at Rome about the Cause of Caecilianus. 194. 2.
  • Council at Orleance concerning the same matter. ibid.
  • Council at Alexandria under Athanasius. 290. 1.
  • Council at Alexandria under Theophilus, against Origen's Books. 360. 1.
  • Council at Antioch. 248. 1. Draught of the Creed published there. 249. 1.
  • Council at Antioch, celebrated by Acacius. 283. 2.
  • Council at Antioch under Jovianus. 303. 2.
  • Council of Ariminum. 271. 2.
  • Council of Constantinople. 242. 1.
  • Council of Constantinople under Constantius. 281. 1.
  • Council of Constantinople under Theodosius. 331. 2, &c.
  • Council of Constantinople against John Chrysostome. 365. 2.
  • Council of Ephesus against Nestorius. 387. 1. 403. 1. &c.
  • Council at Jerusalem. 240. 2. A second Council at Jerusalem▪ 263. 1.
  • Council of the Macedoniani at Antioch. 330. 2.
  • Council of the Macedoniani at Lampsacus. 306. 1.
  • Council at Millain. 271. 1.
  • Council of Nice, or Nicaea. 577. 2, &c. two reasons thereof. 215. 2. the Canons. 227. 1. Subscriptions of the Bishops, day and year when held. ibid. its Synodick Letter. 219. 1. &c.
  • [Page] Council at Nice in Thracia. 275. 2.
  • Council of Novatians in the Village Pazum. 324. 1.
  • Council of Novatians at Sangaram. 344. 1.
  • Council at the Oak against John Chrysostome. 363. 2.
  • Council at Seleucia in Isauria. 278. 1. it was divided into two parts▪ as was the Ariminum-Council. 278. 2.
  • Council at Serdica. 256. 2.
  • Council of the Bishops of Sicilie. 312. 2.
  • Council of Sirmium, 266. 1. Draught of the Creed published there▪ 266. 2, &c.
  • Council of Tyre. 23 [...]. 1. Deposes Athanasius. 240. 1.
  • Council of Constantinople under Justinian, on what account convened. 495. 2. The matters transacted therein. 49 [...]. 1, &c.
  • Council at Ephesus, the second there, over which Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria presided. 408. 2. therein Eutyches is restored▪ and Fla­vianus condemned. 409. 1.
  • Council at Chalcedon, and the affairs transacted there. 421▪ 2. 423, &c. the Draught of the Creed published there▪ 425. 1, 2. An Epitome of the Acts of that Council. 437, &c.
  • Council of the Bishops of Asia in the City Ephesus under Basiliscus. 451. 1. the supplicatory-Libel presented by them to Basiliscus. ibid.
  • Creed, the Draught of that published in the Nicene Council. 217. 1. 218. 2.
  • Creeds, how many were set forth. 281. 2.
  • Crescens is sent into the Gallia's by Saint Paul the Apostle. 32. 1.
  • Crescens a Cynick Philosopher. 60. 1, 2.
  • Cyonius a Philosopher. 101. 1.
  • Cross, the signe thereof salutary and vivifick. 556. 2. 678. 1. Con­stantine used to seal his face with the signe thereof. 576. 2. He set up the signe of the Cross in the palace. 593. 2. Signa of the Cross, the Defence and Guard of the Empire. ibid. the Amulet of Daemons. 674. 1. its power and efficacy. 679. 2, &c.
  • Crosses of Sylver in the Church. 359. 1.
  • Cross, the salutary and vivifick wood thereof, in the City Apamia. 488. 1.
  • Cabit of the Nile carried to Scrapis's Temple. 230. 2. Constantine orders it to be carried into the Church. ibid.
  • Culcianus a fierce persecutor of the Christians, is slain. 181. 2.
  • Cars a Scythian, commands the right-wing of the Roman Army, and routs the Persians. 508. 1. He makes an irruption into the Per­sians Country, and winters there. 509. 1.
  • Cynegica, a Region not far from Antioch. 467. 2. 497. 2.
  • Cypriana, so the Carthaginians termed the Feast-day of Saint Cyprian. 485. 1.
  • Cyprianus the Bishop. 112. 2. was of opinion that Hereticks ought to be re-baptized. 117. 2, &c.
  • Cyrillus Bishop of Antioch. 135. 2.
  • Cyrillus is ordained Bishop of Alexandria. 372. 2. His power more than Sacerdotal. ibid. He drives the Jews out of Alexandria. 375. 2. He writes to Nestorius. 403. 1. He presides in the Synod of Ephesus. 404. 1. His Letter to John Bishop of Antioch. 405. 1.
  • Cyrillus is ordained Bishop of Jerusalem. 276. 1. being deposed, appeals to a greater Synod. 280. 1.
  • Cyrinus Bishop of Chalcedon. 363. 2. dyes by a putrified wound. 366. 2, &c.
  • Cyrus King of the Persians. 532. 1.
  • Cyrus Bishop of Beroea. 235. 2.
  • Cyrus Praefect of the Praetorium, famous for his Poetry. 416. 1.
D.
  • DAcidizus, a Sea-port. 314. 2.
  • Dadastana a place in the Confines of Galatia and Bithynia. 304. 2.
  • Dalmatius the Caesar. 263. 2.
  • Dalmatius the Censor, Son to Constantine's Brother. 238. 2.
  • Damas Bishop of Magnesia. 47. 2.
  • Damasus is ordained Bishop of Rome. 324. 1.
  • Damophilus or Demophilus what He wrote concerning the City Rome. 515. 2.
  • Daniel the Prophet, his praise. 651. 2, &c.
  • Daras in Mesopotamia, is built by the Emperour Anastasius, in the Frontiers of the Persians and Romans. 470. 1, 2. is besieged by Chosroes. 505. 2, &c. and is taken. 506. 1. is restored to the Romans. 523. 1.
  • Deacons, seaven of them ordained by the Apostles. 15. 2.
  • Decius the Emperour's Edict against the Christians. 110. 2. His death. 660. 1.
  • Decuriones enrolled in the Registers of the Curi [...], were Senators as 'twere. 475. 1.
  • Dedication of the Martyrium, or Jerusalem Church. 621. 2.
  • Demetrianus Bishop of Antioch. 116. 2. 118. 1.
  • Demetrius Bishop of Alexandria. 86. 1.
  • Demophilus. See Damophilus.
  • Demophilus a Bishop. 272. 1. 273. 2.
  • Demophilus is made Bishop of Constantinople. 313. 2. is ejected by Theodosius. 331. 2.
  • Description of the Church at Tyre▪ 188▪ &c.
  • Description of the Jerusalem Church. 189, &c.
  • Description of the Dominicum at Antioch. 594. 1. 680. 1. of the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople. 626. 1.
  • Desposyni, by that name the kindred of our Saviour were called▪ as were likewise those descended from them. 10. 1. They came from Na [...]ara and Cochaba. ibid.
  • Dexippus an Historian, wrote the wars of the Scythians. 513. [...].
  • Didymus a blind man. 320. 1. Three Books of his concerning the Trinity. 320. 2.
  • Didymus a Monk. 317. 1.
  • Digamists by some not admitted to the Sacrament. 348. 1.
  • Diocaesar [...]a a City of Palestine. 270. 1.
  • Dio Cassius brought down the Roman History as far as the Empire of Antoninus Elagabalus. 513. 2.
  • Diocletian's Edicts against the Christians. 1 [...]1. 1. 143. 2. 154. 1. He and Maximianus Herculius resign the Empire. 209. 2. Dio­cletian runs mad. 148. 2. 660. 1. He dyes at Salona. 210. 2.
  • Diodorus Siculus an Historian, continued his History to the Times of Julius Caesar. 513. 2. He wrote an Epitome of Libraries▪ 690. 1.
  • Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus. 334. 1.
  • Diodorus from being a Monk is made Bishop of Tarsus. 354. 1.
  • Diogenes Bishop of Cyzicus, was present at the second Ephesine Synod. 438. 1.
  • Diomedes the Silentiarius. 432. 1.
  • Dionysia a Martyr of Alexandria. 11 [...]. 1.
  • Dionysius Areopagita, the first Bishop of Athens. 32. 1.
  • Dionysius Bishop of Corinth. 64. 1. His Catholick Epistles. ibid.
  • Dionysius Bishop of Rome. 120. 1. 132. 1.
  • Dionysius the Ex-consularis 620. 2.
  • Dionysius Halicarnassensis. 513. 2. 690. 2.
  • Dionysius Alexandrinus, Origen's disciple, was master of the Alexan­drian School. 106. 1. is ordained Bishop. 107. 2. for the faith of Christ is banished to Taposiris. 109. 1. His Books. 116. 1▪ 2. 126. 2. 132. 1. He is banished to Cephro. 122. 2. He dyes in the Reign of Gallienus. 133. 1.
  • Dionysius's Book entitled Corona. 302. 2.
  • Dionysius Bishop of Alba in Italy. 271. 1.
  • Dioscorus a Confessour. 111. 1.
  • Dioscorus a Presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. 124. 1.
  • Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, presided at the second Ephesine Synod. 408. 2. He deposes Flavianus and Eusebius. 409. 1. He is con­demned in the Chalcedon Council. 424. 2. He is banished to Gangra. 426. 2. A Libel of deposition is sent to him. 441. 2. He was not deposed on account of the faith. 446. 1.
  • Disciples of Christ, their order and names are no where found written▪ 13. 2.
  • Dius Bishop of Jerusalem. 96. 1.
  • Dius, Faustus, and Ammonius Presbyters of the Alexandrian Church, Martyrs. 148. 1.
  • Docetae, Hereticks. 97. 1.
  • Doctrines, or Institutions of the Apostles, an Apocryphal Book. 43. 1.
  • Dolichianus Bishop of Jerusalem. 76. 2.
  • Dominica, so the Churches consecrated to the Lord Christ are named. 698. 1.
  • Dominica Augusta, Valen's wife. 322. 1. 329. 2.
  • Domitian, the second Persecutor of the Christians. 39. 1. He issued out an Edict, and ceased the Persecution. 40. 1.
  • Domitianus Bishop of Melitina, kinsman to the Emperour Mauricius. 523. 1. His commendation. ibid.
  • Domitilla for the faith of Christ is banisht into the Island Pontia. 39. 1.
  • Domninus a Martyr. 163. 1.
  • Domninus successour to Ephraemius in the Bishoprick of Antioch. 495. 1. was present at the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod. 495. 2.
  • Domnus Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. 125. 1.
  • Domnus Bishop of Antioch. 134. 2.
  • Domnus successour to Johannes in the Bishoprick of Antioch, is deposed in the Second Ephesine Synod. 409. 2. comes to Symeones the Stylite. 410. 2.
  • Dorotheus a Presbyter of the Antiochian Church. 135. 2.
  • Dorotheus, one of the Bed-chamber to the Emperour. 139. 2. 142. 1. is crowned with Martyrdom. 142. 2.
  • Dorotheus Bishop of the Arians at Antioch. 330. 1. is translated to Constantinople. 337. 2.
  • Dositheus Founder of the Sect of the Dositheans. 63. 2.
  • Dositheus Bishop of Seleucia▪ then of Tarsus▪ 389. 1.
  • Dracilianus Vicarius to the Praefecti Praetorio. 224. 1. 587. 2.
  • Dracontius Bishop of Pergamus. 282. 1.
  • Dusares and Obadas, Gods of the Arabians. 689. 1.
  • Dux of Phoenices. 173. 2.
  • Dyrrachium, anciently called Epidamnus, is ruined by an Earth-quake. 481. 1.
E.
  • EAster, observed by those of Asia, on the fourteenth day of the Moon. 86. 1, 2. the Dissension concerning the Celebration of Easter con­tinued [Page] till the Nicene Council. 577. 1. The Nicene Council's Decree concerning Easter-day. 582. 2. Easter-day was kept by the Ancients, from usage and custome. 346. 1.
  • Ebionites, Hereticks, who they were. 43. 2, &c. why so called. ibid.
  • Ecclesiasticks, their degrees of Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops. 24. 1. 143. 1. of Readers and Exorcists. ibid.
  • Eccb [...]tius the Sophist 285. 2. His Levity in changing his Religion. 295. 1. He is termed an ill Sophist by Libanius. 300. 2.
  • Edessa a most Christian City. 16. 1.
  • Edessa a City of Mesopotamia. 314. 2.
  • Edessa a City of Osdroena, is drowned by the overflowing of the Scir­tus. 481▪ 1. is rebuilt by Justinus Senior, and named Justinopolis. ibid. An Image of Christ, not made with hands, is kept there. 489. 1.
  • Egyptians do boast, that Geometry, Astronomy, and Arithmetick were first found out amongst them. 688. 2.
  • Elaea a Village, in the Suburbs of Constantinople. 383. 2.
  • Elephantina a Town in the Frontiers of Thebais. 407. 2.
  • Eleusinus Bishop of the second Cappadocia. 466. 1.
  • Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicus 276. 1. 279. 2. is deposed in the Con­stantinopolitan Synod. 282. 1.
  • Eleutherus Bishop of Rome. 68. 75. 1. 76. 2.
  • Elpidius Bishop of Satala. 282. 1.
  • Empire of Rome when first divided. 148. 2. 171. 1.
  • Emperour's Office, what it is. 448. 1.
  • Encratitae, their Heresie. 67. 1.
  • Ennathas a Virgin, Martyr'd in Palestine. 165. 2.
  • Enoch, his Apocryphal Book. 137. 2.
  • Ephorus and Theopompus, Writers of Graecian History. 513. 2.
  • Ephraemius Comes of the East under Justinus. 480. 1. He is chosen Bishop of Antioch by the Citizens, to whom he came in the time of the Earth-quake. ibid. and 487. 2. 494. 2.
  • Ephres Bishop of Jerusalem. 51. 2.
  • Epimachus and Alexander, Martyrs at Alexandria. 111. 1.
  • Epimenides the Cretian, an Initiator. 297. 1.
  • Epiphanius's Book, entitled Ancoratus. 350. 1.
  • Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, having assembled a Synod of Bishops, condemns Origen's Books. 360. 1. comes to Constantinople. 361. 2. Holds assemblies, and ordains there, without the consent of John Chrysostome. ibid.
  • Epiphanius Bishop of Tyre, refuses subscribing to Severus's Synodick Letter. 468. 2.
  • Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople. 482. 2. 485. 1.
  • Episcopal Jurisdiction. 390. 1.
  • Epistle of the Monks of Palestine, to Alcison the Bishop. 427. 2. 465. 2. 468. 2.
  • Eros Bishop of Antioch. 63. 1.
  • Eruli converted to Christianity, under Justinian 486. 2.
  • Essaeans, Hereticks of the Jews. 63. 2.
  • Estba first of all married to Matthan, then to Melchi. 9. 2.
  • Evagrius is ordained Bishop of Antioch. 338. 2.
  • Evagrius Bishop of Constantinople. 313. 2. is banished. 314. 1.
  • Evagrius Bishop of Mytilene. 280. 2.
  • Evagrius Bishop of Siculi. 304. 1.
  • Evagrius a Monk. 291. 1. 317. 2. wrote two Books, the one entitled The Monk, the other The Gnostick. ibid. His Book entitled The Practick. 318. 2. A passage quoted out of that Book termed The Gnostick. ibid.
  • Evarestus Bishop of Rome. 47. 1.
  • Eucharist, those that received it, said Amen. 114. 2. what was left of it, at Constantinople was given to Boys, to be eaten and drank. 494. 2.
  • Eudaemon a Melitian. 238. 1.
  • Eudaemon a Presbyter. 342. 2.
  • Eudocia an Athenian, wife to Theodosius Junior. 380. 1. 416. 1. She wrote Poems. 380. 1. She comes to Antioch. 416. 2. The An­tiochians bestow a Brazen Statue on her. 417. 1. She goes to Jerusalem, to pay her Vow. 417. 1. She converses with the Monks that lived there. 419. 2. She builds Saint Stephen's Church at Je­rusalem. ibid.
  • Eudocia Junior, daughter to Valentinianus Placidus and Eudoxia, marries Hunericus Son to King Geizericus. 428. 2.
  • Eudoxia Theodosius Junior's daughter. 392. 2. 416. 2. She marries Valentinianus Placidus. 392. 2. 416. 2. After Valentinian's death she marries Maximus. 428. 2. she calls Geizericus out of Africk. ibid.
  • Eudoxia Augusta, her Silver Statue. 365. 1.
  • Eudoxius Bishop of Germanicia. 254. 2. Seizes upon the Bishoprick of Antioch. 271. 2. is deposed. 280. 2. is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 282. 2. dyes. 313. 2.
  • Euelpis a Laick, Preaches in the Church. 102. 1.
  • E [...]e [...]hius a Bishop. 311. 2.
  • Eugenius sets up for a Tyrant in the West. 350. 1. is slain. 351. 1.
  • Eulogius, after Johannes, is ordained Bishop of Alexandria. 509. 2. 526. 1.
  • Eumenes Bishop of Alexandria. 51. 2.
  • Eunomians don't baptize into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ. 350. 1.
  • Eunomius, Aëtius's Notary. 271. 1. is made Bishop of Cyzicus. 307. 1. writes Comments on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans. ibid. Se­parates himself from Eudoxius. 313. 1.
  • Eunomius Bishop of Nicomedia contends with Anastasius Bishop of Nicaea about some Cities. 447. 2.
  • Eunuch to Queen Candace, was the first that Preach'd the Gospel to the Ethiopians. 16. 2.
  • Eunus, call'd also Cronion, a Martyr at Alexandria. 110. 2.
  • Eu [...]dius the first Bishop of Antioch after Saint Peter. 40. 1.
  • Euphemia the Martyr's Church at Chalcedon. 356. 1. is described. 422. 1, &c. two Miracles performed there. ibid.
  • Euphemius, after Fravita, is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 462. 1. He is banished. 465. 2.
  • Euphrasius is ordained Bishop of Antioch. 479. 1. He is buried in the Earth-quake at Antioch. 479. 2.
  • Euphronius a Presbyter, born at Caesarea in Cappadocia. 602. 2.
  • Euphronius is ordained Bishop of Antioch. 236. 2.
  • Euprepi [...]s's Monastery near Antioch. 406. 1.
  • Eusebius a Deacon of the Alexandrian Church, afterwards Bishop of Laodicea. 124. 2. 136. 1.
  • Eusebius Pamphilus Bishop of Caesarea, his Letter to the Caesareans con­cerning the Nicene Synod. 217. 2. &c. He drew up a Draught of the Creed, and proposed it to the Nicene Synod. 218. 1. How he ex­plains the term Homoöusios. 218. 2. He wrote three books a­gainst Marcellus. 258. 1. He was no Arian. ibid. &c. He wrote the History of the Church from the Apostles times, to those of Constantine. 472. 2. He made a Speech in the Nicene Synod, in praise of Constantine. 529. 1, 2. He spake another Oration in the Palace to the Emperour Constantine, on his Tricennalia. ibid. and 622. 1. The Antiochians invite him to be their Bishop. 599. 2. Constantine commends him for refusing that Bishoprick. 602. 1. He recited an Oration before Constantine in the Palace. 617. 1. He wrote against Porphyrius.▪ 302. 1. and Constantine's Life. 209. 1. and 345. 2.
  • Eusebius Emisenus. 248. 2.
  • Eusebius Bishop of Samosat [...]. 304. 1.
  • Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, writes Letters to many Bishops, in favour of Arius and his followers. 211. 2. He is angry with Alexander Bishop of Alexandria. 213. 2. He is translated to the Bishoprick of Constantinople. 247. 2. He dyes. 250. 2.
  • Eusebius Provest of the Bed-chamber to the Emperour, favoured the Arians. 246. 1. He is put to death. 287. 1.
  • Eusebius Scholasticus, Scholar to Troïlus the Sophist. 357. 1.
  • Eusebius Bishop of Vercella. 271. 1. 289. 2. a defender of the true Faith. 293. 2.
  • Eusebius and Theognius subscribed to the Nicaene Creed, but would not subscribe to the Anathematism. 228. 2. being banished on that account, they presented a penitentiary Libel to the Bishops. 228, 1.
  • Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, accuses Eutyches. 408. 1. His Libel presented to the Emperour against Dioscorus. 423. 2, &c.
  • Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra, was present at the second Ephesine Synod. 424. 2.
  • Eusebius, a Writer of the Roman History, from Augustus to the death of the Emperour Carus. 513. 2.
  • Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, ordains Evagrius Bishop of Constan­tinople. 313. 2. He is banished by Valens. 314. 1.
  • Eustathius Bishop of Antioch accuses Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea. 235. 2. He is deposed in the Synod at Antioch. ibid. He is ac­cused by Cyrus Bishop of Beraea. ibid.
  • Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, finds fault with Origen. 362. 1.
  • Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia. 278. 2. is suspended from Com­munion. 280. 2. He is deposed in the Constantinopolitan Synod. 282. 1, &c.
  • Eustathius Epiphaniensis, a writer of History. 514. 1. He closes his History on the 12th year of the Emperour Anastasius. 470. 1.
  • Eustathius Bishop of Berytus, wrote a Letter to Johannes a Bishop, concerning the affairs transacted in the Chalcedon Synod. 421. 2. He was present at the second Ephesine Synod. 424. 2.
  • Eustochius Bishop of Jerusalem. 493. 1. He succeeded Macarius. 495. 1. He drove the Origenists out of the New Laura. 495. 2.
  • Eutychius, a Bishop. 280. 2.
  • Eutyches. 408. 1.
  • Eutychianus Bishop of Rome. 135. 2.
  • Eutychianus, a Novatian Monk. 226. 2. His Miracles. ibid.
  • Eutychian Hereticks have corrupted many books of the Ancient Fa­thers, and have fathered many of Apollinaris's Books, on Athana­sius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Julius. 466. 2.
  • Eutychius disciple to Eunomius, coyn's a new Opinion. 350. 1.
  • Eutychius, after Menas, is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 495. 1. He had before been Apocrisarius to the Bishop of Ama [...]ia. 496. 1. He is ejected out of his See. 497. 2. He is restored. 509. 2.
  • Eutropius Praefect of the Imperial Bed-chamber. 355. 1. the first and the onely Eunuch that was ever made Consul. ibid.
  • Euzoïus is made Bishop of Antioch. 283. 1. is sent to Alexandria. 316. 1. He dyes. 327. 1.
F.
  • [Page]FAbian Bishop of Rome. 106. 1.
  • Fabius Bishop of Antioch. 108. 2.
  • Fadus Procurator of Judaea. 20. 2.
  • Familiar-spirits, or paredri. 52. 2.
  • Famine takes away bashfulness. 33. 1.
  • Fate and Fortune▪ empty names onely. 639. 2. 641. 1.
  • Faustus, Eusebius, and Chaeremon, Deacons of the Alexandrian Church. 122. 1.
  • Faustus a Martyr under Diocletian. 124. 2.
  • Feast of Our Lord's Ascension. 383. 2.
  • Feast of Our Lord's Nativity. 365. 2.
  • Felix Procurator of Judaea. 25. 2.
  • Felix Bishop of Rome. 135. 2.
  • Felix, from being a Deacon, is ordained Bishop of Rome. 275. 2.
  • Felix the Pope, successour to Simplicius, sends a Deposition to Aca­cius. 459. 1. Acacius did not acknowledge that deposition. 459. 2. He sends Vitalis and Misenus Legates to Zeno Augustus. ibid.
  • Festus Procurator of Judaea. 26. 2.
  • Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. 105. 2. 116. 1. 118. 1.
  • Firmilianus President of Palestine. 163. 2. is beheaded. 169. 1.
  • Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Capadocia 394. 2.
  • Flaccillus, or Placitus Bishop of Antioch. 248. 1.
  • Flavianus President of Palestine. 154. 1.
  • Flavianus is ordained Bishop of Antioch. 334. 2. a difference a­mongst the Bishops on account of his Ordination. 336. 2. He ap­peases the anger of Theophilus of Alexandria. 338. 2.
  • Flavianus, after the death of Proclus, is ordained Bishop of Constan­tinople. 408. 1. He condemns Eutyches in a Synod assembled at Constantinople. ibid.
  • Flavianus is ordained Palladius's successour in the Bishoprick of An­tioch. 462. 2. He is ejected by the Emperour Anastasius. 465. 2. He is banished to Petrae a Town in Palestine. 467. 1, 2.
  • Florentius Bishop of Sardis. 442. 1.
  • Florinus a Presbyter of the Church of Rome, falls into Heresie. 80. 1. 84. 2.
  • Florus Procurator of Judaea. 30. 2.
  • Florus Dux and Prefect of Alexandria. 426. 2.
  • Fravita is ordained Acacius's successour in the See of Constantinople. 461. 2.
  • Fravitus a Goth, a person of great valour. 357. 1.
  • Fritigernes, Leader of the Goths. 326. 1.
  • Frumentius is created the first Bishop of the Indians. 232. 1. 2.
G.
  • GAïnas General of the Souldiers. 356. 1. endeavours to turn Ty­rant. ibid. He is declared a publick enemy. 356. 2.
  • Galates Son to Valens Augustus. 322. 1.
  • Galilaeans, their Sect. 8. 1.
  • Galla the wife of Theodosius. 325. 2. the mother of Placidia. ibid.
  • Gallus is created Caesar. 265. 2. He is slain. 270. 1.
  • Geiorae or Geörae, whom the Jews called by that name. 10. 1.
  • Gelimeres King of the Vandals, is taken by Belisarius. 485. 2. lying prostrate before Justinian sitting in his Throne in the Cirque, what he said. ibid.
  • Gennadius succeeds Anatolius in the Constantinopolitan See. 433. 1.
  • Georgius made Presbyter of Alexandria by Alexander. 603. 1.
  • Georgius is made Bishop of Alexandria. 251. 1. His cruelty. 264. 2, &c. He is killed. 288. 1.
  • Georgius Bishop of Laodicea, wrote a Commendation of Eusebius Emi­senus. 235. 1. 248. 2.
  • Germanicus a Martyr at Smyrna. 56. 2.
  • Germanio Bishop of Jerusalem. 96. 1.
  • Germinius Bishop of Sirmium. 272. 1, 2. 273. 2.
  • Gladiators, their Shows forbid by Constantine. 614. 1.
  • Glycerius, after Olybrius, is made Emperour of Rome. 436. 1. He is ordained Bishop of Salonae. ibid.
  • Golanduch, an holy woman. 523. 1.
  • Gordius Bishop of Jerusalem. 96. 1.
  • Gorgonius, of the Bed-chamber to the Emperour. 139. 2. He is crowned with Martyrdom. 142. 2.
  • Gortheus Founder of the Sect of the Gortheans. 63. 2.
  • Gospel according to the Hebrews. 43. 1. 44. 1. 50. 2. 63. 2. Go­spel Syriack. 63. 2.
  • Gospel termed Diatessar [...]n, made up of the four Evangelists. 67. 2.
  • Goths divided into two parties. 326. 1. Why they became Arians. ibid.
  • Gratian is proclaimed Emperour. 310. 1. His Law against the Pho­tinians, Eunomians, and Manichaeans. 330. 1.
  • Grecian Learning was not forbidden to the Christians, either by Christ, or his Apostles. 296. 2. the Advantage and usefulness thereof. ibid. and 297. 1.
  • Gregorius Thaumaturgus, disciple to Origen. 106. 1. His Oration in praise of Origen. 322. 2.
  • Gregorius Bishop of Alexandria. 248. 2. 250. 1.
  • Gregorius Bishop of Nazianzum. 3 [...]0. 1. 321. 2. He is made Bishop of Constantinople. 322. [...]. 330. 2. His Oration against the Gen­tiles. 301. 1.
  • Gregorius Nyssenus, Brother to Ba [...]il the Great. 322. 2.
  • Gregorius from being a Monk is ordained Bishop of Antioch. 503. 1. His Character. 503. 2. He is accused for having been present at the sacrifices to Daemons. 510. 1. He is accused a second time, of Incest, and because he had burnt the Annona. 518. 1. He is ac­quitted in a Synod at Constantinople. ibid. His Speech to the Ro­man Souldiers who had made a Mutiny. 520. 1, &c. He recon­ciles the Roman Souldiers to the Emperour, and to their Com­mander. 521. 1. and frees them from the rash Oath they had taken. ibid.
  • Gregorius is ordained Bishop of Rome after Pelagius. 525. 2.
H.
  • HAdrian the Emperour, his Rescript to Minucius Fundanus in fa­vour of the Christians. 53. 2.
  • Hegesippus when he flourished. 53. 1. His Books. 63. 1, 2.
  • Helcesaïts, Hereticks. 108. 1.
  • Helena Queen of the Adiabeni furnishes the Jews with Corn. 21. 1. Her Sepulchre near Jerusalem. ibid.
  • Helena a whore, Simon Magus's Companion. 21. 2.
  • Helena Augusta Mother to Constantine, goes to Bethlehem to pray. 591. 1. comes to Jerusalem. 229. 1. builds two Churches there. 591. 2. Her piety and bountifulness. 592. 1. She finds the Sepulchre and Cross of our Lord. 229. 2. 230. 1. She builds three Churches in honour of Our Lord. 230. 1. Her death and burial. 592. 2, &c. 230. 2. Drepanum is from her termed Hele­nopolis. 229. 1.
  • Helenus Bishop of Tarsus. 118. 1.
  • Helius succeeds Salustius in the Bishoprick of Jerusalem. 495. 1.
  • Helion is sent Embassadour to the Persians. 379. 1. He is sent into Italy. 382. 1.
  • Heliodorus Bishop of Laodicea in Syria. 118. 1.
  • Heliodorus Bishop of Trica in Thessalia. 347. 2.
  • Heliopolites, their Law. 231. 1.
  • Helladius and Ammonius, Alexandrians, Grammarians. 339. 1, 2.
  • Helladius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. 333. 2.
  • Hemerobaptists, an Heresie amongst the Jews. 63. 2.
  • Heraclas, Origen's disciple. 92. 2. Origen chuses him his Assistant and Companion in teaching. 96. 1. He studied Philosophy and Grecian Learning. ibid. and 101. 2.
  • Heraclas a Presbyter wore a Philosophick Pallium. 101. 2. He is made Bishop of Alexandria. 105. 2. His Fame. 106. 2. His Rule about receiving Hereticks. 119. 2.
  • Heraclea a City of Syria, formerly called Gagalice. 505. 2.
  • Heraclides Origen's disciple, a Martyr. 93. 2.
  • Heraclides Deacon to John Chrysostome, is preferred to the Bishoprick of Ephesus. 361. 1.
  • Heraclitus wrote Comments on the Apostle. 89. 2.
  • Heraclius Bishop of Jerusalem. 284. 1.
  • Heraïs a Catechumen, she was a Martyr. 93. 2.
  • Herennius Bishop of Jerusalem. 284. 1.
  • Hereticks were not so bold as to broach their Errours till after the death of the Apostles. 46. 2. they are divided into manifold kinds of Errours. 53. 1. The Sects of Hereticks destroy one an­other. ibid. Their Converse is to be avoided. 56. 1. Hereticks have corrupted the Books of Sacred Scripture. 90. 2. Their Books must be read with Caution. 119. 1.
  • Hermas's Book called Pastor. 31. 2. 43. 1. 77. 2.
  • Hermogenes Master of the Milice is slain at Constantinople. 250. 2.
  • Hermon Bishop of Jerusalem. 138. 2.
  • Hermogenes an Heretick. 65. 1.
  • Hermophilus an Heretick, mended the Books of Sacred Scripture. 90. 2.
  • Herod the Great, no Jew but a Forreigner. 8. 1. by Father's side an Idumaean, by his Mother's, an Arabian. 8. 2. made King of the Jews by the Roman Senate and Augustus. ibid. and 10. 1. burnt the Jews Genealogies, and why. ibid. slays the infants of Beth­lehem. 10. 2. His disease described. 11. 1. His Largess to his Souldiers. 11. 2. orders his Sister Salome to kill the chief of the Jews whom he had imprisoned, at his death. ibid. puts three of his own Sons to death. ibid. Resolves to kill himself. ibid. His death. ibid.
  • Herod Junior, Son to Herod the Great, kills John the Baptist. 13. 1. He and his Wife Herodias are banisht by Caius. 17. 2. He was present at Our Saviour's Passion. ibid.
  • Herod Eirenarch of Smyrna, Son to Nicetes. 57. 2.
  • Herodian a Writer of Roman History. 513. 2.
  • Heron, Origen's disciple, a Martyr. 93. 2.
  • Heron and Isidorus, Egyptian Martyrs. 111. 1.
  • Heros Bishop of Antioch. 48. 1.
  • Hesychius, Pachumius, and Theodorus, Bishops and Martyrs. 148. 1.
  • Hierapolis the Metropolis of the Province Euphratensis. 523. 1.
  • Hieroglyphick Letters found in Serapis's Temple. 339. 2.
  • Hierophilus Bishop of Plotinopolis. 389. 1.
  • Hilarius Bishop of Jerusalem. 284. 1.
  • Hilarius Bishop of Poictiers. 293. 2.
  • [Page] Hippolitus 2 Bishop. 102. 2. His Books. 103. 1.
  • Holy Ghost. See Spirit.
  • Homonoea or Concordia, the name of a Church at Constantinople. 435. 1.
  • Honoratus Praefect of Constantinople. 281. 1.
  • Honorius is proclaimed Augustus. 350. 2.
  • Hormisda Son to Chosroes, succeeds his Father in the Kingdom. 509. 1. The Persians headed by Varamus conspire against him. 522. 2.
  • Hosius Bishop of Corduba. 195. 1. 214. 1. 266. 1. 269. [...], 2. was present at the Nicene Council. 578. 1.
  • Hunericus or Onorichus King of the Vandals, persecutes the Catholicks in Africk. 460. 1. 483. 2.
  • Hunni destroy Armenia. 352. 1.
  • Hunni heretofore called Massagetae. 449. 1.
  • Hyginus Bishop of Rome. 54. 1. the ninth successour of the Apostles. ibid.
  • Hymenaeus Bishop of Jerusalem. 125. 1. 133. 1.
  • Hypatia a Philosopheress. 376. 1. She is barbarously murdered. 376. 2.
  • Hypatianus Bishop of Heraclea. 266. 1.
  • Hyperechius a Bishop. 311. 2.
  • Hypostasis and Ousia, how they may be spoken concerning God. 390. 2, &c.
  • Hyrcanus Prince of the Jews taken by the Parthians. 8. 2.
I.
  • JAmes the Brother of Our Lord, one of the 70 disciples. 13. 2. 16. 1. is created Bishop of Jerusalem. 16. 1. surnamed James the Just. ibid. also surnamed Oblias. 27. 2. His Martyrdom. ibid. His Catholick Epistle. 29. 1. His Chair kept with great care. 126. 2.
  • Iberians converted to the Christian faith, when and how. 232. 2.
  • Jerusalem-Church was termed a Virgin. 63. 2.
  • Jerusalem, its last Siege and Famine described. 32, &c.
  • Jews first under Judges, after that under Kings; after the Captivity they were an Aristocracy with an Oligarchy: at length became Tributaries to Rome. 8. 2. They had the names of their An­cestours written out in ancient Rolls. 10. 1. They had a sacred Treasury called Corban. 19. 1. Their Seaven Sects. 63. 2. the destruction of the Jews under Vespasian. 35. 1. They endeavour to rebuild their Temple. 298. 2. Hadrian forbids them to enter Jerusalem. 52. 1.
  • Ignatius the second Bishop of Antioch after Saint Peter. 40, 1. 47. 1. His Epistles are reckoned up. 47. 2. He suffered Martyrdom at Rome. ibid. By Theodosius Junior's order, his Reliques are re­moved into the City Antioch. 413. 2.
  • Illus and Leontius rebell against Zeno. 464. 1.
  • Index of the Books of the Old Testament. 66. 2. 164. 1, 2.
  • Indians converted to the faith of Christ, when, and how. 231. 2.
  • Immestar, a place in Syria. 377. 1.
  • Innocentius Bishop of Rome. 373. 2.
  • Johannes, or John, two of them lived at the same time in Asia. 49. 1, 2.
  • John the Apostle Preach'd in Asia. 30. 1. dyed at Ephesus. ibid. was banished into the Island Patmos. 39. 1. returned from thence after Domitian's death, and governed the Churches of Asia. 40. 1, 2. for what reason he wrote his Gospel. 42. 1, 2. 105. 1. He wore a plate of Gold. 87. 1.
  • Johannes a Reader, is beheaded for the faith of Christ. 170. 1. His wonderful memory. ibid.
  • Johannes a Presbyter of the Church of Antioch. 352. 1. is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 353. 1. His descent and education. ibid. and 353. 2. His course of Life and disposition. 354. 2. He was wont to Preach sitting in the Pulpit. 355. 2. His death. 367. 1.
  • Johannes is ordained Bishop of Jerusalem. 338. 2.
  • Johannes Bishop of Proconnesus. 389. 1.
  • Johannes the Chief of the Notaries, sets up for a Tyrant. 381. [...].
  • John the Apostle's Church seaven miles from Constantinople. 356. 2.
  • John Chrysostoms Opinion concerning the Admission of Penitents. 367. 2.
  • Johannitae, so they were called who took John Chrysostom's part. 366. 2. at length they were re-united to the Church by Proclus. 393. 1.
  • Johannes Bishop of Antioch. 387. 1. 403. 2. coming to the Coun­cil the fifth day after Nestorius's Condemnation, assembles a Sy­nod, and deposes Cyrillus. 404. 2. is reconciled to Cyrillus 405. 1.
  • Johannes the Rhetorician an Historian. 413. 2. 434. 1. 464. 2. closed his History under Justinus Senior. 479. 2.
  • Johannes from being Steward is ordained Bishop of Alexandria. 455. 1. is ejected by Zeno Augustus's order. ibid. flyes to Rome to Pope Simplicius. 456. 2.
  • Johannes, after Athanasius, is ordained Bishop of Alexandria. 462. 2.
  • Johannes Bishop of Paltum, a Defender of the Chalcedon Synod, is ba­nished. 467. 1.
  • Johannes Scytha aud Johannes Gibbus, Masters of the Milice, vanquish the Isauri. 469. 2.
  • Johannes the Chuzibite a Monk in Palestine. 480. 2.
  • Johannes Scholasticus, Eutychius being ejected, is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 497. 2.
  • Johannes Bishop of Jerusalem. 526. 1.
  • Johannes called Catelinus, successour to Vigilius in the Bishoprick of Rome. 497. 2.
  • Johannes ordained Apollinaris's successour in the See of Alexandria. 509. 2.
  • Johannes succeeds Macarius in the See of Jerusalem. ibid.
  • Josephus the Historiographer. 36. 2. His Books. 37. 1, 2.
  • Joseph Bishop of Jerusalem. 51. 2.
  • Jovianus is chosen Emperour. 299. 2. makes a peace with the Per­sians. 300. 1. dyes. 304. 2.
  • Irenaeus a Presbyter of Lyons. 75. 1. is made a Bishop. 76. 1. His Books. 84. 2. 89. 1. when a youth he was an Hearer of Polycarp at Smyrna. 85. 1. He writes to Pope Victor. 87. 2. 345. 1.
  • Irenaeus a Grammarian Wrote a Lexicon. 291. 2.
  • Irenaeus of Tyre, and Aquilinus of Biblus, Bishops, are deposed in the second Ephesine Synod. 409. 1.
  • Irenaeus Comes of the East under Justinus Senior. 479. 1.
  • Irenius Bishop of Gaza. 304. 2.
  • Isacoces Bishop of Armenia the Great. 304. 1.
  • Isaurica, Donatives which the Emperour gave yearly to the Isaurians. 470. 1.
  • Ischyras assumes to himself the Office of a Presbyter. 238. 2. is made a Bishop by the Arians. 257. 1.
  • Ischyrion is killed for the faith of Christ. 111. 2.
  • Isdigerdes King of the Persians. 373. 1. Father to Vararanes. 415. 2.
  • Isidorus a Presbyter of Alexandria. 353. 1. hated by Theophilus, and why. 359. 2.
  • Isidorus Pelusiota. 413. 1.
  • Ision a Meletian. [...]38. 1.
  • Judas of Galile or Gaulanites. 8. 1.
  • Jude one of the Brethren of Christ. 39. 2.
  • Judas Bishop of Jerusalem. 51. 2.
  • Judas an Ecclesiastick Writer. 94. 2.
  • Julianus Bishop of Alexandria. 78. 2.
  • Julianus Bishop of Apamia. 82. 1.
  • Julianus a Martyr at Alexandria, under Decius. 110. 2.
  • Julianus a Martyr with Pamphilus. 168. 2.
  • Julianus created Caesar. 270. 1. He is Saluted Augustus. 286. 2. 284. 2. His Education. 286. 1. He recites his Orations in the Court. 287. 2. wrote against the Christians. ibid. His Book entitled The Caesars. ibid. persecutes the Christians. 295. 1. His Misopogon or Antiochicus. 298. 1. His Book concerning the Cynick Philosophy. 301. 2. He is slain. 299. 2.
  • Julianus Bishop of Lebedus. 438. 1.
  • Julianus Bishop of Bostri, refuses subscribing to Severus's Synodick Letters. 469. 1.
  • Julius Caesar takes five hundred Cities. 473. 1.
  • Julius Bishop of Rome, wrote a Letter to the Easterns. 253. 2. His Letter to the Alexandrians. 260. 2. &c. Sate Bishop fifteen years. 270. 2.
  • Justina Augusta, Mother to Valentinian Junior, favours the Arians. 337. 1.
  • Justinianus, Sister's son to Justinus, is by him proclaimed Augustus. 481. 2. a defender of the Chalcedon Synod. ibid. His wife Theo­dora is an Enemy to that Synod. ibid. His Constitution, wherein he Anathematizes Anthimus and Severus and their Associates. 483. 1. destroys the Kingdom of the Vandals in Africk. 485. 1. His insatiable covetousness. 491. 2. He favours the Faction of the Venetiani, and persecutes the Prasiani. 492. 2. He falls into the Heresie of the Aphthar [...]odocet [...]. 497. 2.
  • Justinianus Brother to Justinus, is sent Master of the Milice against the Persians. 508. 2. He is turned out of Commission by Tiberius. 511. 1.
  • Justinus the Philosopher. 53. 2. His Martyrdom. 60. 1, 2. His Books. 62. 1, 2.
  • Justinus Senior, after the death of Anastasius, is proclaimed Em­perour. 477. 1. He orders the Chalcedon Synod to be asserted and maintained throughout all Churches. 481. 2.
  • Justinus Junior, Justinian's Sister's son, from being Curopalates is made Emperour of the Romans. 499. 1. an effeminate and dis­solute person, and insatiably Covetous. 499. 2. His wife Sophia Augusta. 500. 2. He kills his kinsman Justinus, ibid. his Edict to all Christians concerning the Faith. 501, 1, &c. He runs mad. 506. 1.
  • Justus Tiberiensis, an Historian. 37. 2.
  • Justus Bishop of Jerusalem. 47. 1. Another Justus Bishop of the same place. 51. 2.
  • Justus surnamed Barsabas. 49. 2.
  • Justus Bishop of Alexandria. 49. 2.
  • Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem. 387. 1. was present at both the E­phesine Synods. 408. 2. He was present at the Chalcedon Synod. 423. 1.
L.
  • [Page]LAbarum described▪ 541. 1, 2. fifty Souldiers were appointed to to guard it. 554. 2.
  • Laetus Praefect of Egypt. 91. 2.
  • Laïcks, the Bishops entreating them, did sometimes Preach in the Church. 102. 1.
  • Lamydrion a Presbyter. 304. 2.
  • Laodicea in Asia was the place where the question about Easter was started. 6 [...]. 2.
  • Latronianus Corrector of Sicily. 194. [...].
  • Laurae and Monasteries in Palestine. 417. 2. the Monks manner of living there. ibid.
  • Lauricius Commander in chief of the Souldiers in Isauria. 278. 1.
  • Legi [...] sul [...]i [...], or Thundring Legion, whence it had that name. 75. 2, &c.
  • L [...]onas Comes of the Palace. 278. 1.
  • Lent-Fast variously observed amongst the Ancients. 88. 1. 2. 346. 1. 2.
  • Leonides a Martyr, Origen's Father. 91. 1.
  • Leontius Bishop of Ancyra. 365. 2,
  • Leontius Bishop of Antioch. 264. 1.
  • Leontius Bishop of Comani. 303. 2.
  • Leontius Bishop of Tripolis. 280. 2.
  • Levi Bishop of Jerusalem. 51. 2.
  • Libanius and Julianus the eminentest of all Sophists. 417. 1.
  • Libanius the Sophist teaches Rhetorick at Constantinople and Nicome­dia. 285. 2. Two Orations of his. 297. 2. His Funeral Ora­tion upon Julian. 300. 1.
  • Libel supplicatory presented to Leo by the Bishops of Egypt and Clergy of Alexandria, against Timotheus Aelurus. 430. 1, &c.
  • Liberius Bishops of Rome. 270. 2. is banished. 275. 2. His Letter to the Bishops of the Macedoniani. 311. 2, &c.
  • Licinius raises a war against Constantine. 196. 1. 547. 2. persecutes the Christians. 196. 1. 551. 2. His Coveteousness. 196. 2. 549. 1. He is vanquished by Constantine and Christ. 197. 2. 556. 2. He prohibites the Synods of Bishops. 547. 2.
  • Licinius is made Emperour by Galerius. 210. 1. Constantine mar­ries his Sister to him. 210. [...]. He persecutes the Christians in the East. ibid. He is vanished by Constantine, and soon after slain. 211. 1.
  • Linus the first Bishop of Rome. 31. 1. 32. 1.
  • Litarba a place three humdred furlongs distant from Antioch. 520. 1.
  • Longinus a Philosopher. 101. 1.
  • Longinus an Isaurian, rebels against the Emperour Anastasius. 469. 2.
  • Longinus Selinuntius chief of the Isauri. ibid.
  • Long-wall of the Cherronesus falls down by an Earthquake. 414. 2.
  • Long-wall built by the Emperour Anastasius 470. 2.
  • Lucianus a Presbyter of Antioch. 147. 2. a Martyr. 174. 1.
  • Lucianus Bishop of Arces, or Arcenus. 304. 2.
  • Lucifer Bishop of Caralis. 289. 2. He founds a Schisme and an He­resie of his own name. 293. 1.
  • Lucius a Martyr at Rome under Pius. 62. 1.
  • Lucius Bishop of Rome. 117. 2.
  • Lucius is by the Arians made Bishop of Alexandria. 289. 2.
  • Lucius Bishop of Hadrianople. 251. 2. 264. 1.
  • Lucuas Leader of the Jews. [...]0. 2.
  • Lupus Praefect of Egypt. ibid.
  • Lusius Quietus having vanquished the Jews, obtains the Govern­ment of Palestine. ibid.
M.
  • MAcar a Martyr at Alexandria. 111. 1.
  • Macarius an Egyptian Monk, a different person from Macarius of Alexandria. 217. 2.
  • Macarius of Alexandria a Monk. ibid.
  • Macarius a Presbyter of Alexandria, 238. 1.
  • Macarius is ordained Peter's successour in the See of Jerusalem. 495. 1. He is ejected out of that See, on account of Origen's doctrine. ibid. He is restored. 497. 2.
  • Macedoniani, Hereticks, assemble Synods often. 293. 2. Their Em­bassy to Liberius Bishop of Rome. 310. 2. The Libel of faith which they presented to him. 311, &c.
  • Macedonius is ordained Bishop of Constantinople by the Arians. 247. 2. His bloody Installation. 252. 2. He persecutes the Orthodox. 264. 2. He removes the Emperour Constantine's Reliques into another Church. 277. 2. Whereupon hapned a Sedition at Con­stantinople. ibid. He is deposed in a Synod at Constantinople. 282. 1. He founds a Heresie called by his own name. 382. 1, 2.
  • Macedonius Bishop of Mopsuestia. 254. 2.
  • Macedonius, Theodulus, and Tatianus Martyrs in Phrygia. 296. 1.
  • Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople. 465. 2. 467. 1. He is ejected. 467. 2. 476. 2.
  • Macrianus the Emperour Valerian's Praefect. 121. 1. turns Tyrant. 129. 1.
  • Magi a sort of people in Persia. 372. 2.
  • Magnentius turns Tyrant. 263. 2▪ being worsted kills himself. 269. 2.
  • Magnus, made master of the Milice, is sent against the Persians. 506. 1.
  • Magnus Bishop of Chalcedon, or Chalcis. 433. 1.
  • Magnus Comes of the sacred Largesses, or Treasurer. 304. 1.
  • Majorianus Emperour of Rome. 42 [...]. 1. is slain by Recimeres ma­ster of the Milice. ibid.
  • Malchion a Presbyter of Antioch, disputed against Paul of Samosata. 133. 1.
  • Mammianus, from being a Sedentary Mechanick becomes a Senator. 464. 2. is termed a Lover of the City, on account of his Structures. ibid.
  • Mancipes, so the Romans termed the Praefects of the Pistrina. 340. 2.
  • Manc [...]. 135. 2. called also Cubricus. 234. 1. His Tenets. ibid.
  • Manichaeans, their Heresie. 135. 2. They and the Montanists take away the subsistence of the Word. 387. 1.
  • Manlius Torquatus kills his own son, who had disobeyed command. 520. 2.
  • M [...]a fell from heaven in the time of a famine. 4 [...]8. 1.
  • Mantinium a Town of Paphlagonia. 277. 1.
  • Marathonius Bishop of Nicomedia. 276. 1. 283. 2, &c.
  • Marcelliani, Hereticks. 311. [...].
  • Marcellinus Bishop of Rome. 135. 2.
  • Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra. 248. 1. Hisopinion. ibid. and 255. 2. He is restored in the Synod of Serdica. 256. [...].
  • Marcianus Bishop of the Macedoniani at Lamplacus. 332. 1.
  • Marcianus Bishop of the Novatianists at Constantinople. 394. 1.
  • Marcianus a Novatian Presbyter. 309. 1. taught Valens's daughters. ibid. Bishop of the Novatianists at Constantinople. 343. 2.
  • Marcianus the Emperour, a Native of Thracia, the signes of his being Emperour. 420. 1, 2. His commendation. 421. 1. He is chosen Emperour by the perswasion of Pulcheria Augustia. ibid.
  • Marcianus Son to the Emperour Anthemius sets up for a Tyrant a­ganst Zeno. 463. 2. He is banished to Casarea in Cappadocia▪ and afterwards to Tarsus, and being shaven is ordained a Pres­byter.
  • Marcianus by Justinus Junior is sent Master of the Eastern Milice a­gainst the Persians. 504. 2. besieges Nisibis. ibid.
  • Marcion of Pontus an Arch-heretick. 54. 2. Marcionists. 63. 2.
  • Mark Companion to Peter, wrote His Gospel at Rome, 22. 2. 98. 2. that Gospel was afterwards approved of and confirmed by Saint Peter. ibid. Mark goes into Egypt and Preaches the Gospel there. ibid. He was Interpreter to Saint Peter. 49. 2. He was the first Bishop of Alexandria. 29. 1. He wrote his Gospel after Saint Peter's death. 77. 1▪ 2.
  • Marcius Turb [...] vanquishes the Jews in many fights. 50. 2.
  • Marcus Bishop of Jerusalem. 52. 1.
  • Marcus and Heretick. 54. 2.
  • Marcus Bishop of Alexandria. ibid.
  • Marcus Bishop of Arethusa. 254. 1. 266. 2.
  • Marcotes a region Subject to the Bishop of Alexandria. 23 [...]. 1.
  • Maria a Lake near Alexandria. 23. 1.
  • Marianae a Suburb near Constantinople. 364. 2.
  • Mary of the same Tribe with her husband Joseph. 10. 2.
  • Mary a Jewish woman; eats her own son in the Siege of Jerusalem. 34. 2.
  • Marinus Bishop of Tyre. 118. 1.
  • Marinus a Martyr at Caesarea. 125. 1.
  • Marinus Bishop of Berytus. 468. 2.
  • Marinus a Syrian, Praefect▪ of the Praetorium under Anastasius, van­quishes Vitalianus in a Sea-fight. 475. 2.
  • Maris Bishop of Chalcedon. 237. 2. 250. 2. 254. 1. 281. 1. 294. 2.
  • Martyr, that name due onely to Christ. 74. 2. Martyrs were disci­ples and followers of Christ. 59. 2. the honours of Martyrs. 647. 2. Martyrs honoured by Christians. 57. 2. their Reliques carefully preserved. ibid. Their Birth-day celebrated yearly. ibid. they are Christ's Assessours. 112. 1. the humility of the Martyrs. 74. 2. their kindness towards the lapsed. ibid.
  • Martyrs amongst the Hereticks. 82. 1.
  • Martyrs spoke when their tongues were cut out. 484. 1.
  • Martyrius Bishop of Antioch. 411. 2.
  • Martyrius Bishop of Jerusalem, sent Synodick Letters to Petrus Mon­gus. 457. 2.
  • Martyropolis delivered up to the Persians. 521. 2. it is restored to the Romans, together with its Betrayer Sittas. 523. 1.
  • Maruthas Bishop of Mesopotamia. 363. 2. 372. 2. is sent Embas­sadour to the King of the Persians. ibid.
  • Masbotheus Founder of the Sect of the Masbothaeans. 63. 2.
  • Mathew wrote a Gospel to the Hebrews in their own language. 42. 1. 50. 2. 77. 1. 78. 2. 104. 2. He Preached in Aethiopia. 231. 2.
  • Matthias the Apostle, one of Christ's Seventy disciples. 13. 2. 15. 1. His Preaching and Doctrine. 45. 1.
  • Matthias Bishop of Jerusalem. 51. 2.
  • Maturus a Neophyte, Martyred at Lyons. 70. 1.
  • Mavia Queen of the Saracens. 327. 1. 329. 2.
  • Mauricius made Master of the Milice by the Emperour Tiberius, is sent against the Persians. 511. 1. bornat Arabissus a City of Cap­padocia. ibid. His Morals and disposition. ibid. The signs of [Page] his being made Emperour. 51 [...]. 1▪ He is created Emperour by Tiberius. 512. 2. from the Emperour Tiberius, he is named Tiberius, and his wife is called Constantina. ibid. His wedding is described. 515. 1, 2.
  • Maxent. ut turns Tyrant at Rome. 149. 2. 210. [...]. at the begin­ning of his Empire, by an Edict he stops the persecution of the Christians. ibid. His wickedness and cruelty▪ [...] and 210. 2. and 542. 1. He is vanquished by [...]anstantine. 177. 1▪ 2. 210. [...].
  • Maximianus Galerius the Authour and Beginner of the Christians persecution, 151. 2. 153. 2. 549. 2. In what manner he was smitten by divine Dengeance▪ 151. 2. His Retractation, or Edict about restoring Peace and Liberty to the Christians. ibid. His death. 153. 1. creates two Casars, Severus and Maximium. 209. 1. Proclaims Licinius Augustus. 210. 1.
  • Maximianus Herculius hang'd himself▪ 149. 1.
  • Maximianus is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 388. 1.
  • Maximinus's Drunkenness and Lust. 150. 1, 2. the bloudiest of all the persecutors. 159. 2. 181. 1. He waged a War with the Armenians. 175. 2. is vanquished by Licinius. 179. 2. He de­clares himself Augustus. 149. 1. is very superstitious and fear­full. 150. 1, 2▪ covetous also and prodigal. ibid.
  • Maximinus Bishop of Antioch, the seventh Bishop there from the A­postles. 65. 1.
  • Maximus an Ecclesiastick Writer. 89. 2.
  • Maximus a Presbyter of the Roman Church, and 2 Confessour. 113. 1.
  • Maximus a Presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. 122. 1. 124. 2. afterwards Bishop of Alexandria. ibid. and 133. 1.
  • Maximus Bishop of Bostra. 132. 2.
  • Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem. 24 [...]. 1. subscribes to Athanasius's deposition in the Council of Tyre. ibid.
  • Maximus Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria. 353. 2.
  • Maximus a Philosopher of Byzansium, father to Euclid. 28 [...]. 1.
  • Maximus an Ephesian Philosopher, Julian's master. ibid.
  • Maximus turns Tyrant in the Gallia's. 336. 2. slays Gratianus. 337. 1. is killed. 338. 1.
  • Maximus Bishop of Antioch, was present at the Chalcedon Council. 423. 1.
  • Mazabanes Bishop of Jerusalem. 108. 2. 118. 1.
  • Mazices, Barbarians. 407. 1.
  • Mel [...]at [...]arus and Us [...]rus, Gods of the P [...]nicians. 689. 1.
  • Mel [...]hisedech Priest of the most high God. 6. 1.
  • Meletina a Region of Armenia the Less. 142. 2.
  • Meletius Bishop of the Churches of Pontus. 138. 2.
  • Meletius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia. 282. 1. is translated to Antioch. 283. 2. 293. 1. 303. 2. dyes [...] Constantinople. 334. 2.
  • Melitius a Bishop of Egypt, being condemned by P [...]r Bishop of Alexandria, makes a Schism. 213. 2. is condemned in the Nic [...]e Council. 219. 2.
  • Melito Bishop of Sardis. 56. 1. 65. 1. His Books 65. 2. 90. 1. He was an Eunuch. 87. 1.
  • Memnon Bishop of Ephesus. 387. 2. 404. 2.
  • Memnonius Governour of the City Antioch under Theodosius Junior. 415. 1. He built the Psephium at Antioch. ibid.
  • Men heretofore usually offered in sacrifice, as well amongst Greeks as Barbarians. 689. 2. That usage abolished by Hadrian the Em­perour. 697. 1.
  • Men that are dissolute, are both slothfull, and confident. 499. 2. 505. 1.
  • Menander an Arch-Heretick. 43. 2. Menandria [...]s, his followers. 63. 2.
  • Menas is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 494. 2.
  • Mercuria a Martyr at Alexandria. 111. 1.
  • Meropius the Philosopher, travels into India. 231. 2.
  • Merus a City of Phrygia. 296. 1.
  • Meruzanes Bishop of the Armenians. 116. 1.
  • Methodius Bishop of Olympus in Lycia. 362. 1. His dialogue entitled Xeno. 362. 2.
  • Metras a Martyr at Alexandria. 110. 1.
  • Metrodorus a Presbyter of the Marcionites, is burnt for the faith of Christ. 60. 1.
  • Metrodorus a Philosopher, travels into India. 231. 2.
  • Miltiades an Ecclesiastick Writer. 82. 1, 2. 90. 1.
  • Miracles wont to be wrought in the Church. 77. 1.
  • Miracle of a glistering Star. 412. 2, &c.
  • Miracle of the B. Virgin Mary. 510. 1, 2.
  • Mithra's Temple at Alexandria. 288. 1. 339. 1.
  • Moderatus a Pythagorean Philosopher. 101. 2.
  • Molestus Praefect of the Pratorium. 314. 1.
  • Montanus, with Priscilla and Maximilla, the founder of the Sect of the Cataphrygae. 75. 1. 80. 1. His Life. 81. 1, 2. His death. ibid. His sordidness and avarice. 83. 1.
  • M [...]ors originally came from Palestine. 485. 2.
  • Mopsus in Cilicia, worshipped for a God. 689. 1.
  • Moses a Presbyter of the Roman Church, a Martyr. 114. 2.
  • Moses the ancientest of all the Prophets. 2. 2. the great Servant of God. ibid. bred in the Court of Tyrants. 534. 2. constituted Lea­der of the people by God. ibid. was the first that wrote the sacred History, as he had been instructed by God. 513. 2. his commenda­tion. 651. 1, 2.
  • Moses a Monk, is made Bishop of the Saracens. 327. 1.
  • Mountain S [...]s [...]s in [...], [...]ear Lyons. 269. 2.
  • Mursa a Fort of Gallia▪ ibid.
  • Musanus an Ecclesiastick Writer. 67. 1.
  • Mus [...] a Jewish Writer. 137. 1.
N.
  • NAamanes a Saracen son to Alamundarus, is kindly used by Mauri­cius. 516. 1. He leaves the worship of Daemons, and is con­verted to the Christian faith. 5 [...]. 2.
  • Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem. 79. 1. His miracles. 95. 2.
  • Narcissus a Bishop. 248. 2. 254. [...]. 264. 1.
  • Narses being sent into Italy by Justinian, vanquishes To [...]a and T [...] Kings of the Goths, 487. 1. His piety towards God. ibid.
  • Natalis a Confessour at Rome, imposed upon by Hereticks. 90. 1. [...] length returns to the Church. 90. 2.
  • Nectarius is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 332. 1.
  • Nemesion an Egyptian. 111. 1.
  • Neon Bishop of Laranda. 102. 1.
  • Neonas Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria. 282. 1.
  • Nephalius a Monk of Syria. 461. 2. is by the Emperour Zeno s [...]nt to Alexandria, to restore vnity. ibid. Ejects Severus out of his Mo­nastery. 468. 2.
  • Nepos Bishop of Egypt. 129. 1, 2.
  • Nepos is made Emperour of Rome. 436. 1.
  • Nepo [...]ianus seizes the Empire of Rome. 263. 2.
  • Nero the first Roman Emperour that persecuted the Christians▪ [...]9, 1.
  • Nestorius is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 384. 2. persecutes the Hereticks. ibid. His opinion concerning Christ. 386. [...]. His ignorance and pride. 386. 2. He broaches a new Heresie. 403. 1. He is condemned in the Ephesine Synod. 404. 2. is banished to Oasis. 406. 1. His Letter to the president of Thebais concerning his Exile. 407. 1, 2. He is taken and let go by the Blemmyae. 406. 2. His tongue is eaten out with worms, which kills him. [...]. 1.
  • New-Testament, the Boo [...] thereof. 42. 2, &c.
  • Nicetas, father to Herod the Eiye [...]. 59. 2.
  • Nicias Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, an Opposer of Flavianus's. 466. 1.
  • Nicol [...]es, their Heresie. 44. 2, &c.
  • Nicomachus a Pythagorean. 101. 2.
  • Nicomedia, ruined by an Earthquake. 277. 2.
  • Nicomas Bishop of Iconium. 132. 2.
  • Nicostratus a Sophist of T [...]apezus, writes an History from the begin­ning of the Emperour Philip's Reign, to the death of Valerian, 513. 2.
  • Nitria, a mountain. 316. 2.
  • No Body is condemned out of his own Books. 280. 1.
  • Nocturnal and Morning Hymns were wont to be sung alternatively or by sides in the Church. 359. 1.
  • Novatus's Heresie. 112. 2. Novatus the Founder of the Sect of the Cathari or Puritans. ibid. why he made a Schism. 323. 1. He was Martyred under Valerian. 323. 2.
  • Novatus or Novatianus is deserted by the Confessours. 113. 1. He thrusts himself into the Bishoprick of Rome. ibid. His Character. 120. 1.
  • Novatianists celebrated the Festival of Easter indifferently. 344. 1.
  • Novatianists Church at Constantinople was pull'd down, and removed to another place. 276. 2.
  • Numenius a Philosopher. 101. 2.
O.
  • OAk of Mamre. 595. 1, 2. The Miracles performed in that place. 596. 1. a Church built their by Constantine. ibid.
  • Oasis by another name called Ibis. 407. 1.
  • Ocbas a very strong Castle over against Martyropolis. 522. 1.
  • O [...]nath [...] and Apollonius beat the Persians. 473, 2.
  • Odöacer seizes the Kingdom of Italy. 436. 2.
  • Oenomaus a Cynick-Philosopher. 303. 1.
  • Olybrius is made Emperour of Rome by Recimeres. 436. 1.
  • Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus. 47. 2.
  • Onesimus a pious and studious man. 66. 2.
  • Opportunity how described by Painters. 463. 2.
  • Optar. King of the Hunni. 385. 2.
  • Optatus Praefect of Constantinople. 366. 2.
  • Optimus Bishop of Antioch in Pisidi [...]. 334. 1.
  • Oracle found in a stone in the walls of Chalcedon. 308. 1, 2.
  • Oracle given to the Rhodians. 302. 3.
  • Oreste [...] Praefect of Alexandria. 375. 1.
  • Origen's Education from a child. 91. 2, &c. He teaches Grammar. 92. 2. when eighteen years old he is chosen Catechist of the A­lexandrian Church. ibid. His abstinence. 93. 1, 2. Demetrius's envy against him. 95. 1. He was called Adamantius also. 98. 2. He comes to Rome in Pope Zephyrinus's times. ibid. He was a [Page] person of eminent Learning. 271. 1. He made the [...] and Tetrapla. 99. 2. He brought up the allegorical interpretations of Scripture. 101. 2. Mamea Augusta sends for him. 103. 1. He is made Presbyter at Caesarea. 103. 2. His Books. 104. [...]. [...]06. 2, &c. 107. 2. He is [...] for the faith of Christ. 108. 2. He dyes [...] the seventieth year of his age. 11 [...]. [...].
  • Origen asserts the Son to be [...] with the Father. 372. [...].
  • Origen's [...] T [...]me of Comments on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Ro­mans. 386. 2.
  • Origen's [...]e [...]acters who, and how many. 36 [...]. 1. His defence▪ ibid. Theophilus's judgment concerning his Books. 365. [...].
  • Origen recited his Homilies on the fourth and sixth Veria, in the Church of Alexandria. [...]47. [...].
  • Ostracine a Region of the City Antioch. 434. 1. 518. [...].
  • [...] Bishop of Melitina. 334. 1.
P.
  • PAlestines, three of them subject to the See of Jerusalem. 447. 1. Palladius the Courier. 378. [...].
  • Palladius Bishop of Helenopolis, and afterwards of Aspuna. 389. 1.
  • Palladius a Monk, Evagrius's Scholar. 319. 2. wrote the Historia Lausiaca. ibid.
  • Palladius Pr [...]fe [...] of Egypt. 31 [...]. 1.
  • Palladius is ordained Petrus Fullo's successour in the See of Antio [...] ▪ 462. 2.
  • Palma Bishop of Amastris. 64. 1. 86. 2.
  • Pambos a Monk. 317. 1.
  • Pamphilus a Presbyter of the Church of C [...]sarea. 138. 1. 166. 2. He is crowned with Martyrdom. 148. 1. 16 [...]. 1. He collected an Ecclesiastick Library. 107▪ 1. He and Eusebius club'd in writing An Apologetick for Origen. 290. 2.
  • Pancratius Bishop of Pelusium. 266. 1.
  • Panopolis a City of Thebais. 407. [...].
  • Pantaenus Master of the Alexandrian School. 78. 2. 101. 2.
  • Pap [...]tius Bishop of Egypt, was present at the Nicene Council. 216. 1. 225. 2.
  • Papias Bishop of Hierapolis. 47. 1. His five Books. 49. 1. He was a person of but mean understanding. ibid. He was the first C [...]itiast ibid.
  • Papirius a Martyr. 87. 1.
  • Paschasinus and Lucentius are by Pope Leo sent to the Chalcedon Coun­cil. 421. 2. They condemn Dioscorus. 424. 2.
  • Pasinicus Bishop of Zelae. 303. 2. 31 [...]. 2.
  • Patriachs constituted in the Constantinopolitans Council. 332. 2.
  • Patricius Bishop o [...] Paltus. 304. 2.
  • Patropassians, Hereticks whom the Greeks term Sabelliani. 255. 2. 312. 2.
  • Patrophilus a Bishop. 241. 2. is deposed in the Synod of Sabelliani. 280. 2.
  • Patermuthius burnt for the faith of Christ. 170. 1.
  • Paulinus Bishop of Tyre. 183. 1. built a stately Church in that City. 184. 2.
  • Paul is made an Apostle. 16. 2. He is carried bound to Rome. 26. 2. is a second time carried to Rome, and Martyred. ibid. beheaded under Nero. 29. 2. His Epistles. 31. 2. Acts of Paul▪ an Apo­cryphal Book. ibid. and 43. 1. His Epistle to the Hebrews writ­ten in Hebrew. 98. 1. The Roman Church don't believe it to be his Epistle. 102. 2.
  • Paul of Samosata. 132. 2. attempts to revive Artemon's Heresie. 89. 2. 135. 2. is confuted by Malchion the Presbyter. 133. 1. His avarice and pride. 133. 2, &c. He is deposed in the Antiochian Synod. 134. 2. His Heresie. 255. [...].
  • Paulus a Martyr in Palestine. 164. 2. His pious and Christian prayer before his death. ibid. Another Paulus, Martyred with Pam­philus. 166. 2.
  • Paulinus is ordained Bishop of Antioch by Lucifer. 289. 2. 293. 1. He and Meletius come to an agreement. 330. 2.
  • Paulinus Bishop of Triers. 271. 1.
  • Paulus Bishop of the Novatians at Constantinople. 377. 1. His Com­mendation. ibid. and 385. 1.
  • Paulus Bishop of Tyre. 239. 2.
  • Paulus a Presbyter at Constantinople. 247. 2. is ordained Bishop▪ ibid. He is ejected ibid. restored. 250. 2. His death. 264. 1. His Reliques are removed to Constantinople. 334. 1.
  • Paulus Bishop of Emisa, is sent to Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria by Johannes Bishop of Antioch. 405. 1.
  • Paulus is ordained Bishop of Ephesus. 450. 2. He is put out of his See by Zeno Augustus. 453. 1.
  • Paulus, after Severus's Ejectment, is ordained Bishop of Antioch. 471. 1.
  • Peace termed The Interminate peace, made with the Persians by Ju­stinian▪ 483. 2. is broken by the Persians. 487. 2.
  • Pelagius Bishop of Laodicea▪ 304. 1.
  • Pelagius successour to Johannes in the Bishoprick of Rome. 509. 2.
  • Pelelis and Nilus, Egyptian Bishops, crowned with Martyrdom. 148. 1. 170. 1.
  • Pella a town beyond Jordan. 32. 2. The Christians remove thither▪ before the siege of Jerusalem. ibid.
  • [...]-Presbyters▪ [...]4 [...]. [...] ▪ [...]. abolished by Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople. ibid. &c.
  • Perigenes Bishop of Corinth. 388. [...] ▪ &c.
  • Pers-Armenia, so Armenia the Great was called; from the times of the Emperour Philip, it was subject to the Persians▪ [...]04. 1. the inhabitants thereof revolt to the Romans in Justinus Junior's Reign▪ ibid,
  • Pers [...]utio [...] of Diocletian lasted ten years. 151. 1.
  • Persians worship Fire. 372. 2.
  • Pestilent disease destroys almost the whole world in Justinian's Reigne. 490. 1, 2. it raged two and fifty years. ibid.
  • Peter the chief of all the Apostles. [...]. 1. comes to Rome to preach the word of God there▪ and to oppose Simon Magus ibid▪ is cruci­fied at Rome in Nero's time. [...] ▪ 2. 31. 1. Preached the Word of God to the Corinthians. 30. 1. was Preacher to the Jews that were dispersed. 30. 2. His Epistles. [...]1. 10. His [...], Gospel, Preaching, Revelation are Apocryphal Books. ibid. His wife was Martyred. 45. 1.
  • Petrus Bishop of Alexandria. 138. 2. is crowned with Martyr­dom in the ninth year of the persecution. 139. 1.
  • Petrus, of the Bed-chamber to the Emperour, is crowned with Mar­tyrdom. 14 [...]. 1.
  • Petrus, called also Apselamus, a Martyr in Palestine. 166▪ 1.
  • Petrus is ordained Bishop of Alexandria. 3 [...]. 2. He is put into prison. 316. 1. He returns to Alexandria. 327. 2.
  • Petrus chief Presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. [...]59. 2.
  • Petrus Bishop of [...]ippi. [...]04▪ [...].
  • Petrus the [...]iberian is ordained Bishop of Majuma▪ 4 [...]7▪ 2. He was present at Timotheus Aelurus's Ordination. [...]. 1. He is ba­nished with him. 468. 1.
  • Petrus Fullo Bishop of Antioch, subscribes to [...]'s Circular Letters. 450. 2. Zeno ejects him out of the See of Antioch. 453. 1. He restores him again. 457. [...].
  • Petrus Mongus is chosen Bishop of Alexandria after▪ Aelurus's death. 454. 1. He does in publick a [...]athe [...]atiz [...] the Chalcedon Synod. 457. 2. a man of a crafty disposition. ibid. His Letter to Aca­cius Bishop of Constantinople. 45 [...]. 1, 2.
  • Petrus Bishop of [...], refuses his consent to [...]'s Synodick Letters. 469. 1.
  • Petrus successour to Helias in the See of Jerusalem. 49 [...]. 1.
  • Pharisees, Hereticks amongst the Jews. [...]. [...].
  • Pharmaceus, a Port in the mouth of the Euxine Sea. [...]82. 2.
  • Phileas Bishop of the Thmuit [...] ▪ [...] Martyr. 144. 2▪ &c. 148. 2.
  • Philetus Bishop of Antioch. 102. 2.
  • Philip the Apostle had [...] wife, and children by her. 4 [...] ▪ 1, 2. dyed a [...] Hierapolis. ibid. His daughters were Prophetesses. ibid. and 87. 1. His daughters lived at Hierapolis. 49. [...].
  • Philip Bishop of Jerusalem. 51. 2.
  • Philip the Asi [...]r [...]. [...]8. [...].
  • Philip Bishop of Gortina. 64. 1. His Book against Marcion. 65. 1.
  • Philippus the Emperour was a Christian. 107. 2.
  • Philippus Pr [...]sect of the Pr [...]r [...]um, ejects Paul the Bishop out of his See. 252. 1.
  • Philippus a Presbyter of Side. 3 [...]4. 1. wrote an Ecclesiastick Hi­story. ibid. Socrates's judgment concerning Philip's History. ibid.
  • Philippicus is made Master of the Eastern Milice by Mauricius. 516. 1. He is sent a second time into the East, to quiet a Mutiny of the Souldiers. 517. 2.
  • Philo the Jew, a famous man, is sent Embassadour to Caius. 18. 1. His Books are reckoned up. 24. 2. and put into the publick Li­brary at Rome. 25. 1.
  • Philoromus a Martyr. 144. 2.
  • Philostratus writes, that in his time a Pestilence raged fifteen years. 491. 1.
  • Phlegon, an Historian. 416. 2.
  • Phoebus a Bishop. 280. 2.
  • Photinians, Hereticks. 311. 1.
  • Photinus Bishop of Sir [...]ium, founded an Heresie called by his own name. 254. 2. His opinion. 255. 2. He is deposed. 266. 1. He wrote against all Heresies. 269. 1.
  • Phrygians are naturally temperate. 323. 1.
  • Picentius, Maximinus the Emperour's Favorite, is slain. 181. 2.
  • Pierius a Presbyter of the Alexandrian Church. 138. 2.
  • Pilate when made Procurator of Jud [...]a, and how long he continued so. 12. 1. Those called Pilase's Acts forged long since his time. 12. 1. and 173. 2. He sends a Relation to Tiberius concerning Christ's Miracles. 16. 2. He laid violent hands on himself. 19. 1, 2.
  • Pilgrimage to places of the Holy Land. 96. 2. 591. 1.
  • Pinytus Bishop of Creet. 63. 1.
  • Pionius's Martyrdom in Smyrna. 60. 1.
  • Pisander a Poet. 416. 2.
  • Piso Bishop of the Adani. 304. 2.
  • Piso Bishop of Augusta. ibid.
  • Piterus or Petiros a Monk. 317. 2.
  • Pius Bishop of Rome. 54. 2.
  • Plato the Philosopher praised. 642. 2. What he thought of the Se­cond and Third cause. 372. 1.
  • [Page] Placidia, daughter to Valentinian and Eudoxia, married Olybrius. 428. 2.
  • Placidiana, an Imperial Palace at Constantinople. 364. 2.
  • Plintha Master of the Milice and Consul. 349. 2.
  • Plutarchus, Scholar to Origen, a Martyr. 92. 2. 93. 2.
  • Pusumatomachi, so the Macedoniani were termed. 283. 2.
  • Polybius Bishop of the Church at Trallis. 47. 2.
  • Polybius of Megalopolis brought down his History to the destruction of Carthage. 513. 2.
  • Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna. 47. 1. 345 [...] 1. comes to Rome on ac­count of the Controversie concerning Easter, and conferred with Anicetus. 56. 1. 88. 2. Avoids the meeting and salutation of Marcion the Heretick. 56. 1. His Epistle to the Philippians. 56. 1. His Martyrdome. 56. 2, &c. His prayer for the Catholick Church. 59. 1.
  • Polycarpus Bishop of Nicopolis in Thracia. 389. 1.
  • Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus. 86. 2. His Epistle to Pope Victor. ibid.
  • Pontianus Bishop of Rome. 103. 2.
  • Ponticus, Blandina's brother, a Martyr. 73. 2.
  • Ponti [...]s, or Chief Priests, of the Jews, were heretofore perpetual, and enjoyed that Office by Inheritance. 12. 2. The Sedition of the Chief Priests against the Priests. 26. 1. Chief Priest's Robe lockt up by Herod. 8. 2.
  • Porphyrius, servant to Pamphilus, is crowned with Martyrdom. 168. 1.
  • Porphyrius Bishop of Antioch. 373. 1.
  • Porphyrius a Philosopher, in love with Scoffing▪ 300. 2. He wrote Books concerning the History of Philosophy. ibid. He renounced the Christian faith. 302. 1.
  • Potamiaena, a Martyr. 94. 1, 2.
  • Pothinus Bishop of Lyons, a Martyr. 71. 1.
  • Potitus a Marcionist. 79. 2.
  • Prayer that is fervent has an invincible power. 652. 1. 662. 2.
  • Prayer for the dead. 631. 2.
  • Primus Bishop of Alexandria, the fourth from the Apostles. 50. 1.
  • Primus Bishop of Gorinth. 63. 1.
  • Priscus, Malchus, and Alexander, Martyrs under Valerian. 124. 2.
  • Priscus the Rhetorician, wrote an History of the War waged by At­tila against the Romans. 414. 2. 426. 2. 436. 1. 514. 1.
  • Priscus is sent Master of the Milice into the East. 516. 2. His pride. ibid. a Mutiny of the Souldiers against him, and against the Em­perour Maurich [...]. ibid.
  • Probus Praefect of the Pratorium. 336. 2.
  • Proclus is ordained Bishop of Cyzicus. 384. 1. is not admitted by the Inhabitants there. 384. 2. is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 391. 2. His Character. ibid. He causes John Chrysostome's Body to be conveyed to Constantinople. 393. 1, 2.
  • Proclus Quaestor of the sacred Palace under Justinian. 483. 1.
  • Procopius, the first Palestinian Martyr in Diocletian's persecution. 154. 1.
  • Procopius Master of the Milice, 379. 1.
  • Procopius sets up for a Tyrant. 306. 1. He is slain. 307. 1.
  • Procopius the Rhetorician, his Epitome of Histories. 483. 1, 2. 484. 1.
  • Proterius is ordained Bishop of Alexandria, in the place of Dioscorus, by the common vote of the Bishops of the Alexandrian Synod. 426. 2. He is murdered by the people of Alexandria. 430. 1.
  • Proterius Bishop of Smyrna was present at the Chalcedon Synod. 441. 1.
  • Protogenes Bishop of Sardica. 257. 2.
  • Psalmodie of the Ancient Christians, what it was. 24. 1. Psalms made by the Christians. 90. 1. 134. 1.
  • Psamathia, a Village near Nicomedia. 238. 1.
  • Psathyriani, Hereticks. 349. 1, 2.
  • P [...]olemaus a Martyr at Rome. 61. 2.
  • Publius Bishop of Athens, a Martyr. 64. 1.
Q.
  • QUadratus eminent for the gift of Prophecy. 48. 1. 82. 2. He presented an Apology to the Emperour Hadrian, in defence of the Christians. 51. 1.
  • Quadratus Bishop of Athens. 64. 1.
  • Questions concerning things that are sacred and obscure, are not to be committed to the Ears of the Vulgar. 572. 2.
  • Quartodecimani were excommunicated by Pope Victor. 87. 2. 345. 1. They derived their tradition from Saint John the Apostle. 346. 1.
  • Quinta, an Alexandrian woman, a Martyr. 110. 1.
  • Quintus a Native of Phrygia, who had voluntarily run to Martyr­dom, on sight of the Torments, renounced the faith. 57. 1.
  • Quirinius, or Cyrenius, President of Syria. 71 2.
R.
  • REginus's Book entitled Polymnem [...]n. 302. 1. Religious Assemblies variously celebrated amongst the Ancients. 346. 2. 347. 1.
  • Repentance, another Baptism. 41. 2. an Example of sincere Repen­tance. ibid. 'Tis the Trophy of the Resurrection. ibid.
  • Reticius and Maternus Bishops of the Gallia's. 194. 1.
  • Reverentius Bishop of Tyre. 389. 1.
  • Rhodes ruined by an Earthquake. 476. 1.
  • Rhodon Scholar to Tatianus. 79. 2.
  • Rhosse a Town in Syria. 97. 1.
  • Robas or Rougas a little King of the Barbarians. 392. 2.
  • Roman Church, its bounty and antiquity. 98. 2. it had forty six presbyters, and seven Deacons. 113. 2.
  • Roman Bishops, their Letters with what respect received heretofore. 64. 2.
  • Romans fast every Sabbath or Saturday. 348. 1. They fast three whole weeks before Easter. 346. 1.
  • Romanus a Deacon, a Martyr at Antioch. 158. 1, 2.
  • Romulus, surnamed Augustulus, Son to Orestes, the last Emperour of Rome. 436. 2.
  • Rufinus's Books of Ecclesiastick History. 226. 1. 229. 1. 232. 2. 233. 2. His mistake is noted. 245. 1.
  • Rufinus the Praefect of the Pratoriu [...], is slain. 352. 1.
  • Rufinus Bishop of Samosata. 440. 2.
  • Rufus Praefect of Judas, killed vast numbers of the Jews. 51. 2, &c.
  • Rufus Abbot of Theodosius's Monastery in Palestine. 495. 2.
S.
  • SAbbatius a Nouatianist, makes a Schisme amongst the Novatianists. 343. 2. He is made Bishop over part of the Novatianists. 344. 1. 374. 1. is banished to Rhodes and dyes there. 382. 2.
  • Sabellius the Heretick, his opinion. 119. 1.
  • Sabinianus Bishop of Zeugma. 304. 2.
  • Sabinus Praefect of Egypt under Decius. 109. 1. 123. 2.
  • Sabinus, Praefect of the Pratorium to Maximinus. 171. 2.
  • Sabinus a Macedonian Heretick, what he wrote concerning the Bishops convened at Nicaea. 217. 1. was Bishop of Heraclea in Thracia. ibid. He wrote a Collection of Synodal Acts. ibid.
  • Sacred Vessels of the Church, melted down to redeem Captives. 379. 2. given for the Redemption of a City. 483. 2.
  • Sacrifice [of the Christians] mystical and without bloud. 621. 2. 697. 1.
  • Sadduces, an Heresie among the Jews. 63. 2.
  • Sagaris a Bishop and a Martyr. 65. 2. 87. 1.
  • Salo [...], or Salona, a City of Dalmatia. 381. 2.
  • Salustius Praefect of the Praetorium. 298. 1.
  • Salustius is chosen Successour to Martyrius in the See of Jerusalem. 495. 1.
  • Samarites, an Heresie amongst the Jews. 63. 2. Samaritanes when they kept Easter. 348. 2.
  • Sanctus a Deacon of Vienna. 70. 1. 72. 1.
  • Sangarius, a River. 324. 1.
  • Sangarum, a Mart-town in Bithynia. 344. 1.
  • Sapor King of the Persians, Constantine's Letter to him. 609. 1▪ 2.
  • Sara [...]us. [...]12. 1.
  • Saturninus an Arch-Heretick in the Reign of Hadrian, 52. 1.
  • Saturnilians. 63. 2.
  • Se [...]o [...]at Alexandria 78. 2.
  • Scythianus a Saracen. 234. 1.
  • Sedition at Constantinople termed Nica. 483. 2.
  • Sejanus a cruel Enemy of the Jews. 18. 2.
  • Selenas Bishop of the Goths. 349. 2.
  • Seneca Bishop of Jerusalem. 51. 2.
  • Septuagint, or Seventy Translators. 78. 1.
  • Sepulchre of Our Lord covered with an heap of Earth by the Hea­thens, and polluted with an image of Venus. 586. 1.
  • Serapion Bishop of Antioch. 84. 1. 290. 1. His books. 97. 1.
  • Serapion a Martyr of Alexandria. 110. 1.
  • Serapion Deacon to John Chrysostome. 355. 1.
  • Serapion Bishop of the Thmuitae. 319. 1.
  • Serenius Granianus Proconsul of Afia. 53. 2.
  • Serenus, Origen's Scholar, a Martyr. 93. 2.
  • Serenus, another of Origen's Scholars, a Martyr. ibid.
  • Sergiopolis a City of Syria, wherein are kept the Reliques of the Mar­tyr Sergius. 489. 2.
  • Severa Augusta, wife to Valentian the Elder. 325. 2.
  • Severiani, Hereticks which had their name from Severus. 67. 2.
  • Severianus Bishop of Gabala. 360. 2.
  • Severianus Bishop of Arethusa, sends a Libel of deposition to Severus Patriarch of Antioch. 469. 1.
  • Severus Reignes at Rome after Majorianus. 429. 1.
  • Severus, after the Ejectment of Flavianus, is ordained Bishop of Antioch. 467. 2. His Life and Studies. 468. 1. He Anathema­tizes the Chalcedon Council in his Synodick Letters. 468. 2. His Letter to Soterichus 476. 1. His enstalling Letters. 478. 2. He is banished by the Emperour Justinus. ibid. His Letters to Ju­stinianus and Theodora. 482. 1.
  • Sextus wrote concerning the Resurrection. 89. 2.
  • Sibylla Erythraea. 652. 2. Her Verses concerning the Comeing of Christ. 653. 1, 2. In what words she addresses her self to God. 657. 2.
  • Signes which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem. 35. 2. &c.
  • Signe of the Cross seen in the East. 265. 2.
  • Silvanus Bishop of Emisa, a Martyr. 147. 2. 174. 1.
  • Silvanus Bishop of Gaza, a Martyr. 147. 2. His Character. 170. 1.
  • [Page] Silvanus Bishop of Tarsus. 30 [...]. 2.
  • Silvanus Bishop of Troas. 389. 1, 2. He had before been Bishop of Philippopolis. ibid.
  • Silvanus a Tyrant in the Gallia's. 270. 1.
  • Silverius Bishop of Rome, opens the Gates of that City to Belisarius. 486. 1. He is deposed by Belisarius, and Vigilius is put into his place. 486. 2.
  • Simon Mugus is baptized by Philip. 16. 2. comes to Rome, and there deceives many by his Impostures. 21. 2. He was the Ca­ptain and chief of all Hereticks. ibid.
  • Siricius Bishop of Rome. 373. 2.
  • Sirmium is taken by the Gepidae. 507. 1. taken again by those Bar­barians termed Abares. ibid.
  • Sisinnius is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 383. 2. His Cha­racter. 384. 2.
  • Sisinnius a Novatianist. 335. 1. He was a Learned man. ibid. ordained Bishop of the Novatianists at Constantinople. 343. 2. 352. 2. His book against John Chrysostome. 367. 2. His witty sayings. ibid, &c.
  • Socrates Bishop of Laodicea. 136. 1.
  • Socrates why put to death by his own Citizens. 642. 1.
  • Socrates Scholasticus learnt Grammar at Constantinople, of Helladius and Ammonius. 339. 1. Born and bred at Constantinople. 350. 1. dedicates his work to Theodorus. 351. what style he followed. ibid.
  • Socrates's Ecclesiastick History. 401. His mistake in his accounts of the Ephesine Synod. 404. 2. He is cited. 416. 1.
  • Sophia, the great Church at Constantinople. 253. 1. is consecra­ted by Eudoxius, 282. 2.
  • Sophia, a Church built by Justinian, is described. 491. 2, &c.
  • Sophronius Bishop of Pompeiopolis. 278. 2. 279. 2. is deposed in a Synod at Constantinople. 282. 1. 294. 1. 303. 2.
  • Sosthenes one of Christ's Seventy Disciples. 13. 2.
  • Sotas Bishop of Anchialus. 84. 1, 2.
  • Soter Bishop of Rome. 62. 2. His commendation. 64. 2.
  • Spirit, or Holy Ghost, is infused by Ordination. 280. 1.
  • Spyridon from being a Shepherd, is made a Bishop. 226. 1. He fed Sheep whilst he was a Bishop. ibid. His miracles. ibid.
  • Stephen Bishop of Rome. 117. 2.
  • Stephen the Deacon, first Martyr of Christ. 15. 2.
  • Stephen Bishop of Laodicaea. 138. 1.
  • Stephanus Bishop of Antioch. 264. 2.
  • Stephanus Bishop of Ephesus was present at the Chalcedon Council. 438. 1.
  • Stephanus is Ordained Bishop of Antioch. 453. 2. He is barba­rously murdered by the Boys of Antioch. ibid.
  • Stephanus Bishop of Hierapolis, wrote the Life of Saint Golanduch. 523. 1.
  • Succi, a Mountain that divides the Western Churches from the Eastern. 259. 2.
  • Sunday and Friday kept holy by Constantine's order. 61 [...]. 2. 613. 1. 679. 1. Sunday celebrated as a Festival, by Christ's own com­mand. 700. 1.
  • Symeon, Son of Clopas or Cleophas, Bishop of Jerusalem. 38. 1. after several Tortures, he is crucified. 46. 1, 2.
  • Symeon, or Symeones, the Stylite, flourished under Theodosius Junior. 410. 2. He spent Six and fifty years in Monastick Exercises and Severities. 411. 2. His dead body is with great honour conveyed to Antioch, in Leo's Reign. ibid. He was the first that found out the way of standing upon a pillar. 432. 1. His Letter to Leo Augustus. 432. 2. and another Letter of his, to Basilius Bishop of Antioch. ibid. His Mandra is described. 412. 1.
  • Symma [...]us the Ebionite. 99. 2. His books. ibid.
  • Symmach [...]s a Senator of Rome. 338. 2.
  • Syneros an Heretick. 79. 2.
  • Synesius is preferred to the Bishoprick of Cyrene, whilst he was en­tangled in the Errours of Gentilism. 413. 1, 2. His Epistles, and Oration to the Emperour Theodosius. ibid.
  • Synnada a City of Phrygia Pacatiana. 370. 2.
T.
  • TAblett, or Title of Criminals, who were led about in the Am­phitheatre. 72. 2.
  • Tam-Chosroes General of the Persians, is slain in battel by the Ro­mans. 512. 1.
  • Tanais, so the Barbarians call the Stream of the Lake Maeotis into the Euxine Sea. 487. 1.
  • Tatianus Founder of the Sect of the Encratitae. 60. 2. 67. 1. His Books. 67. 2. He is reckoned amongst the Catholick Writers. ibid.
  • Telesphorus Bishop of Rome, the seventh from the Apostles. 51. 2.
  • Temples of the Heathens demolished at Alexandria. 339. 1.
  • Tertullianus eminently skilfull in the Roman Laws. 17. 1.
  • Thaddaeus one of Christ's Seventy disciples. 14. 1. is sent to Edessa by Thomas the Apostle. ibid. cures Agbarus by laying his hand on him. 15. 1. Preaches the Gospel of Christ to the Edessens. ibid.
  • Thalassius, Praesect of the Praetorium, is ordained Bishop of Caesarea by the Patriarch Proclus. 394. 2.
  • Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, together with Dioscerus Bishop of Alexandria, presided at the Second Ephesine Synod. 424. 2.
  • Thebuthis the first that made a Schism in the Church of Jerusalem 63. 2.
  • Thecla the protomartyr, appears to Zeno in his sleep▪ 453. 1. in ho­nour of her, Zeno builds a most splendid Church in the City Se­leucia. ibid.
  • Thelymidres Bishop of Laodicea. 116. 1.
  • Themison a Montanist. 82. 1.
  • Themistius the Philosopher. 304. 2. His Oration to Valens, 326. 1.
  • Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. 105. 2. 116. 1, 2.
  • Theodoricus King of the Goths, resignes his Kingdom. 486. 1.
  • Theodoricus a Goth rebells against Zeno. 463. 1. He dyes, Leing wounded by the point of his Javelin. ibid.
  • Theodoricus Valamer is by Zeno sent against Illus and Leontius. 464. 1. He leaves the East, and goes into Italy, and having van­quished Odoacer there, possesses himself of the Kingdom of Italy. ibid. his wife Amalasuntha, 486. 1.
  • Theodoricus King of the Goths has a Military Command in the Roman Army. 512. 1.
  • Theodoritus Bishop of Cyrus, his Ecclesiastick History. 401. 473. 1. He is deposed by Dioscorus in the second Ephesine Synod, together with Ibas Bishop of Edessa, and Daniel Bishop of Carrae. 409. 1, 2. He is restored in the Chalcedon Council. 426. 1. 447. [...].
  • Theodorus Bishop of Heraclea in Thracia. 250. 2. 254. 1.
  • Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia. 353. 2.
  • Theodorus, a man of God. 245. 2.
  • Theodorus is cruelly tortured for the faith of Christ. 298. 1, 2.
  • Theodorus surnamed Ascidas, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. 495. 2. a favourer of Origen. ibid. and 497. 1.
  • Theodosia a Virgin, Martyred at Caesarea. 162. 2.
  • Theodosiapolis a City besieged by the Persians. 470. 1.
  • Theodosius Bishop of Philadelphia. 280. 2.
  • Theodosiolus is killed by Valens. 315. 2.
  • Theodosius the Great is created Emperour. 330. 1, He is baptized by Ascholius. 331. 1. dyes. 351. 2.
  • Theodosius Junior is born. 357. 1. His Commendations. 380. 1, 2. 392. 1. His Law against Nestorius, extant in the Code. 410. 2.
  • Theodosius Bishop of Synnada. 370. 2. in what manner he lost his Bishoprick. 371. 1.
  • Theodosius is ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, contrary to the Canons. 427. 1.
  • Theodosius Bishop of Alexandria, a Reviler of the Chalcedon Synod. 481. 2. Severus writes a Letter to him. 482. 1. His Letters sent to Anthimus and Severus. ibid. He is ejected out of his See by Justinian. ibid.
  • Theodotion the Ephesian turned the Old Testament into Greek. 77. 2.
  • Theodotus a Montanist. 75. 1. 81. 2.
  • Theodotus the Tanner, Excommunicated by Victor. 90. 1.
  • Theodotus Bishop of Laodicea. 138. 1.
  • Theodotus Bishop of Laodicea. 284. 2.
  • Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra, accuses Nestorius in the Ephesine Synod. 404. 2.
  • Theodotus Bishop of Joppa. 452. 1.
  • Theodulus a Martyr with Pamphilus. 168. 2.
  • Theodulus Bishop of Chaeretap [...]. 280. 2.
  • Theodulus and Olympius, Bishops. 264. 1.
  • Theodulus's Letter concerning Nestorius, and his Heresie. 403. 1.
  • Theonas Bishop of Alexandria. 138. 2.
  • Theonas Bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus Bishop of Ptolemais, are Anathematized by the Nicene Synod. 219. 2.
  • Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, the sixth from the Apostles. 63. 1. His Books. 65. 1.
  • Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. 86. 1.
  • Theophilus is ordained Bishop of Alexandria. 337. 2.
  • Theophilus Bishop of Castabali. 303. 2.
  • Theophilus Bishop of the Goths, subscribed to the Nicene Council. 281. 2.
  • Theophronius a Cappadocian, Ennomius's Scholar, coyns a new Heresie. 349. 2.
  • Theotecnus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. 125. 2. 133. 2.
  • Theotecnus Curator of the City Antioch. 172. 2. the Authour and Incentive of the Christians persecution. ibid. He is executed by Licinius's order. 182. 1.
  • Theotimus Bishop of the Arabi. 304. 2.
  • Theotimus Bishop of Scythia, what his sentiments were concerning Ori­gen's Books. 362. 1.
  • Therapeutae, why so termed. 23. 1. Their Monasteries and course of Life. ibid, &c.
  • Theudas an Impostour. 20. 2.
  • Thomas the Apostle, called Judas also. 14. 2. He preached the Gospel to the Parthians. 30. 1. 231. 2. a great Church dedica­ted to him in the City Edessa. 314. 2.
  • Thomas Bishop of Apamia. 487. 2. He is a spectatour of the Eque­strian Sports, contrary to the usage of the Church. ibid.
  • Thomas a Monk in Syria, feigned himself a fool. 494. 1.
  • Thraseas a Martyr. 84. 1. Bishop of Eumenia. 87. 1.
  • Thrasamundus King of the Vandals in Africa. 484. 2.
  • [Page] Tiberiopolis a City of Phrygia. 394. 1.
  • Tiberius Augustus how affected at Pilate's Relation concerning the Resurrection of Christ. 16. 2, &c.
  • Tiberius, after Justinus Junior became craz'd, managed the Empire together with Sophia wife to Justinus. 506. 1, 2. He is declared Caesar by Justinus. 507. 1. His Character. 517. 2.
  • Tigris an Eunuch, and a Presbyter. 364. 1.
  • Timaeus Bishop of Antioch. 135. 2.
  • Timolaus, Dionysius, Romulus, Pausis, Alexander, and another Alexan­der, Martyrs in Palestine. 159. 2.
  • Timotheus, Saint Paul's disciple, the first Bishop of the Ephesians. 31. 2.
  • Timotheus a Martyr in Palestine. 159. 2.
  • Timotheus is ordained Bishop of Alexandria. 327. 2. 330. 1. 331. 2.
  • Timotheus Aelurus is chosen Bishop by the Alexandrians whilst Pro­terius was living. 430. 1. He was ordained but by two Bishops. 430. 2. He wrote a Letter to Leo Augustus concerning his own ordination. 431. 1. He is banished to Gangra. 433. 1. He is re­called by the Emperour Basiliscus. 449. 2.
  • Timotheus Salosaciolus, after Aelurus's ejectment, is ordained Bishop of Alexandria. 433. 1. He flyes to Canopus. 454. 1. By Zeno's order he recovers his See. ibid.
  • Timotheus, after Macedonius's ejectment, is ordained Bishop of Con­stantinople. 468. 2.
  • Titus disciple to Saint Paul, Bishop of the Cities of Creet. 31. 2.
  • Titus Bishop of Bostra. 304. 1.
  • Tobias son of Tobias, an Edessen. 14. 2.
  • Tobias Bishop of Jerusalem. 51. 2.
  • Translations of Bishops forbidden. 388. 1. sometimes used on ac­count of the Church's necessity. ibid. Instances of such Transla­tions. 389. 1. They were forbidden by Constantine. 599. 2.
  • Tribigildus a Tribune of Souldiers. 356. 1.
  • Tripolis a City of Phoenice, wherein was the Church of Saint Leontius the Martyer. 468. 1.
  • Troïlus the Sophist a prudent man. 370. 1. a Native of Side in Pam­phylia. 384. 1.
  • Tychaeum of Antioch, that is, the Temple of the publick Genius, con­secrated in honour of the Martyr Ignatius. 414. 1.
  • Tyrannio Bishop of Tyre, a Martyr. 147. 2.
  • Tyrannus Bishop of Antioch. 136. 1.
V.
  • VAlens Bishop of Jerusalem. 79. 2.
  • Valens a Deacon of Aelia, is Martyred. 166. 2.
  • Valens the Emperour being baptized by Eudoxius the Bishop, becomes an Arian. 305. 1. He persecutes the Orthodox. 306. 1. He builds an Aquaeduct at Constantinople. 308. 2. He dyes. 328. 2.
  • Valentinianus is chosen Emperour. 305. 1. chuses Valens to be his Golleague in the Empire. ibid. dyes. 325. 1. had two wives at the same time. 325. 2.
  • Valentinianus Placidus, son to Constantius and Placidia. 382. 1. is proclaimed Caesar by Theodosius. ibid. is declared Augustus. ibid.
  • Valentinianus Juniour is created Emperour. 325. 1. He was Justina's son. ibid.
  • Valentina a Virgin, Martyred. 164. 1.
  • Valentinus an Arch-Heretick, flourished at Rome. 54. 2. Valenti­nians, Hereticks. 63. 2.
  • Valerianus at the beginning of his Reign, favoured the Christians. 121. 1. His ignominious slavery and captivity in Persia. 660. 1.
  • Valerius Gratus Procurator of Judaea. 12. 2.
  • Vararanes King of the Persians. 377. 2. persecutes the Christians. ibid.
  • Various usages and rites in divers Churches. 346. 1, &c.
  • Ventidius and Corbulo, Romans, conquered the Parthians. 473. 2.
  • Vetranio turns Tyrant. 263. 2. afterwards he became a private man. 265. 2.
  • Vettius Epagathus, a Martyr at Lyons. 69. 2.
  • Victor Bishop of Rome. 87. 2. excommunicates the Churches of Asia. ibid. He is disswaded therefrom by Irenaeus. ibid.
  • Victor Master of the Milice. 327. 2.
  • Vigils of the Christians, and their fasts before the Feast of Easter. 24. 1.
  • Vigil of Easter. 95. 2. observed by the Emperour Constantine. 613. 1.
  • Vigilius Bishop of Rome, refuses to come to the fifth Synod. 496. 1.
  • Vindices, Officers made in every City by the Emperour Anastasius. 475. 1.
  • Vine, the Badge of a Centurion's office. 125. 1.
  • Virgil's Verses concerning Christ. 654. 1, &c.
  • Virgins of the Christians. 24. 1. 161. 2. they were registred in the Matricula or Roll of the Church. 230. 1.
  • Vitalianus rebels against Anastasius. 475. 2. takes Hypatius and Cy­rillus Commanders of the Romans. ibid. being made Master of the Milice and Consul by Justinus, he is slain. 478. 1.
  • Vitalis and Misenus, Legates of the See of Rome, are condemned in a Synod at Rome for ill-management of their Embassie. 460. 2.
  • Ulfila Bishop of the Goths. 281. 2. 326. 2.
  • Ulpianus a Martyr at Tyre. 161. 2.
  • Ulpianus a Sophist, wrote an Oration in commendation of Antioch. 417. 1.
  • Uranius Bishop of Apamea. 304. 1.
  • Uranius Bishop of Meletina. ibid.
  • Uranius Bishop of Tyre. 278. 2. is deposed. 280. 2.
  • Urbanus Bishop of Rome. 102. 2.
  • Urbanus president of Palestine. 159. 1. is put to death. 163. 2.
  • Urbanus, Theodorus, Menedemus, and seventy other Presbyters, who had been sent Legates for the Catholicks to Valens, are barbarous­ly murdered. 314. 1, 2.
  • Urbicius, or Urbicus, Praefect of Rome. 61. 2.
  • Ursacius and Valens, Arian Bishops. 250. 2. condemned in the Sardican Synod. 257. 2. present a Penitentiary-Libel to Pope Julius. 263. 1. they are deposed in the Synod of Ariminum. 273. 2.
  • Ursinus a Deacon of the Roman Church. 324. 1.
W.
  • WEstern Church when severed in Communion from the Eastern. 259. 2.
  • Wisedom of Solomon, so the Book of Proverbs was called. 64. 1. 66. 2.
  • Woman of Alexandria, her chastity. 150. 2.
  • Women that were adulteresses, how punished by the Romans. 341. 1.
  • Word of God, His Nature, Proprieties, and Operations. 683. 1, &c. He is God of God, and light of Light. 686. 1. the reason of His Incarnation. 691. 2. &c.
X.
  • XEnaias a great stickler against Flavianus Bishop of Antioch. 466. 1. He is made Bishop of Hierapolis. 467. 2. by a Greek name he was termed Philoxenus. ibid.
  • Xorolophus a place in Constantinople. 371. 2.
  • Xystus Bishop of Rome. 51. 1.
  • Xystus, another Bishop of Rome. 118. 2.
Z.
  • ZAmbdas Bishop of Jerusalem. 138. 2.
  • Zacchaus Bishop of Jerusalem. 51. 2.
  • Zacharias the Rhetorician, an Historian, favoured Nestorius. 421. 2. blames Proterius falsely. 431. 1. He favoured Eutyches's party. 452. 2. Evagrius reproves him for his carelesness in writing his History. 459. 2.
  • Zamolxis a God of the Getae. 689. 1.
  • Zebinus Bishop of Antioch. 103. 2.
  • Zeno at first named Aricmesius, marries Leo Augustus's daughter. 435. 2. is created Emperour of the Romans. 436. 2. His wicked Life. 448. 1, 2. His Henoticon, or uniting-Edict. 455. 1, 2. His Letter to Pope Felix. 460. 1.
  • Zenobius a Presbyter of the Church at Sidon, Martyred. 147. 2.
  • Zephyrinus Bishop of Rome. 90. 1.
  • Zeuxippus's Bath. 252. 2.
  • Zoïlus Bishop of Larissa. 304. 1.
  • Zoïlus Governour of Antioch under Theodosius Junior, what Buildings he erected at Antioch. 415. 2.
  • Zoïlus is made Bishop of Alexandria, after Theodosius's ejectment. 482. 2. 495. 1.
  • Zosimus Bishop of Rome. 374. 1.
  • Zoticus Otrenus a Presbyter. 81. 1.
  • Zoticus Bishop of Comana. 82. 1. 84. 1.
  • Zozimas or Zosimas a Monk in Syria. 480. 1. He foretells the Earth­quake at Antioch. 480. 2. His miracles. ibid.
  • Zozimus an Historian, was a Heathen, and on that account hated Constantine. 472. 1. He brought down his History as far as the times of Honorius and Arcadius. 472. 2. when he wrote his History. ibid.

THE INDEX Of the Chief Matters that occur in the Notes on these HISTORIANS. The First Number shews the Page; the Second, the Column.

A.
  • ABares, or Abari, when first known to the Romans. 500. 1.
  • Acacius Bishop of Constantinople, never held communion with Petrus Fullo. 457. 2. He was condemned in no par­ticular Synod. 459. 1. when the sentence of deposition was pro­nounc't against him 461. 1, 2.
  • [...], what it signifies. 469. 1.
  • Acesius the Novatianist seems not to have been called to the Nicene Synod by Constantine. 225. 1.
  • Acoemeti had two Monasteries at Constantinople. 459. 2. 467. 1.
  • Acts what. 12. 1. Acts of Pilate when forged by the Heathens. 12. 1. 173. 2.
  • [...], the power of a perpetual Master of the Milice. 462. 2. a passage in Theophanes is mended. ibid.
  • Adjutor, the Prince of the Office of the Master of the Offices. 440. 1.
  • Adoration of the Emperour, what it was. 630. 2.
  • Adra, a City of Arabia. 304. 1.
  • Adulterer, so he was called who invaded the See of a Bishop that was yet living. 456. 2.
  • Adultery, how punished amongst the Romans. 341. 1.
  • Aegiochus, an Epithete given to Jupiter. 410. 1.
  • Aelia, so Jerusalem was called till Constantine's time, when it re­covered its old name Jerusalem again. 52. 1. 118. 1. 167. 2.
  • Aërial Martyr, so Symeon the Stylite was called. 411. 2.
  • Aether, the Element of Fire. 684. 2.
  • Africanus the Chronographer, not the same person that composed the Cesti. 106. 2.
  • Agathobulus a Philosopher. 137. 1.
  • Agbarus, called also Abgarus. 13. 2.
  • [...], Forum, a Market, or Court of Judicature. 69. 1.
  • [...], or Aevum, in Plato signifies eternity. 671. 2.
  • Agnati and Cognati, who, and wherein they differ. 563. 1.
  • Agrippa Junior, when he began to Reign. 25. 2.
  • [...], who they are. 563. 1.
  • [...], what it signifies. 219. 2. 583. 2.
  • Alabarches, the Chief Magistrate of the Jews that lived at Alexandria. 18. 1.
  • Allegories were by the ancient Graecians termed [...]. 23. 2.
  • Alexander Bishop of Constantinople, in what year he dyed. 247. 1.
  • Alexandria a very unhealthfull City, and why. 127. 2.
  • Alexandrian Bishops heretofore termed Popes. 404. 1. Nicephorus's Opinion is refuted. ibid. They had a secular principality. 372. 2.
  • Alexandrian Synod, wherein Origen's books were condemned by The­ophilus. 360, 2.
  • Alexandrian Synod, its Acts. 289. 2, &c.
  • Alexandrian Bishop, whether he ordained all over Egypt. 263. 1.
  • Alternative Hymns, by whom first appointed. 359. 1.
  • Ambon, a place wherein Criminals were set, whilst they were interro­gated by the Judge. 111. 2.
  • Amen was the answer of the Faithfull, when they received the conse­crated Bread. 114. 2. also, after the Priest had consecrated. 120. 2.
  • [...], Curtains hanging before doors. 524. 1, 2. many uses of them in the Church. ibid.
  • Amphilochius Bishop of Side. 432. 2.
  • [...], a Preface. 637. 1.
  • [...], a Strator, one that lifts his Master on horseback. 463. 1.
  • [...]. 128. 2.
  • [...], to comfort, or refresh. 40. 2.
  • Anastasia, the wife of Bassianus the Caesar. 309. 1, 2.
  • Anastasian Baths, whence so called. ibid.
  • Anastasis, the Church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem. 427. 1. 588. 2.
  • [...], the Relation of a President to the Emperour. 407. 2.
  • [...], a place neer Constantinople. 475. 2.
  • Anastasius Sinaïta Bishop of Antioch, when he was ejected. 503. 1.
  • Annas or Ananus, held the High-priest-hood many years. 12. 2.
  • [...], Props. 518. 2.
  • [...], Masters of the Scrinia. 350. 1.
  • Antioch when made a free City. 433. 2. three Forum's or Tribunals there, and as many Scholes of Advocates. 415. 1. In the same City was also the Praetorium of the Master of the Eastern Milice. 415. 2. when termed Theopolis. 480. 1.
  • Antiochians, from what moneth their years begin. 434. 1. 467. 2.
  • Antipater and Aristobulus, sons to Herod the Great, killed by his or­der. 11. 2.
  • Antipater, Grandfather to Herod the Great. 10. 1.
  • Antiphons, See Alternative Hymns.
  • [...], Vicarius, a substitute. 695. 1.
  • Apamia, the Metropolis of Syria Coele or Syria Secunda. 469. 1.
  • [...], what it signifies. 77. 2. 105. 1.
  • Apocryphal Books. 98. 1.
  • [...], what it signifies. 81. 1.
  • Apocrysarius of a Monastery, that is, one who managed the affairs of a Monastery. 494. 1. Apocrysarii or Responsales of Patriarchs and Bishops in the Emperour's Court. 496. 1.
  • Apollinarians, Hereticks. 284. 2.
  • Apollonia, a Virgin that suffered Martyrdom in the Reign of Philippus, not under Decius. 110. 1.
  • Apollonius, whilst Montanus was living, wrote against his prophesie. 83. 2, &c.
  • Apollonius a Roman Senator. 85. 2.
  • [...], its signification. 94. 1.
  • Apostates, when they return to the Church, are treated with more se­verity. 119. 2.
  • Apostles, the twelve were not onely so called, but several other per­sons. 14. 2. 29. 1.
  • Apostles are not reckoned in the number of Bishops. 38. 2.
  • [...], what it signifies. 402. 1, 2.
  • [...], what it imports. 72. 2.
  • Aquaeduct of Valens Augustus at Constantinople. 308. 1. 2.
  • Archelaus Bishop of Cascharum, his disputation against Manichaeus. 234. 2.
  • Areopagus, what it was. 32. 1.
  • [...]. 91. 1.
  • Arius, two of that name. 240. 2. Arius who with Euzoius pre­sented a Libel of faith to the Emperour Constantine, was not Arius the Arch-Heretick. ibid.
  • Arius, when and how recalled from banishment. ibid.
  • Artemius, Commander in chief of Egypt. 288. 2.
  • [...], to take away, or remove. 87. 1.
  • Arsenius, Bishop of the Hypselitae. 238. 2. 240. 2.
  • Ascetae, who were heretofore called so. 22. 2. Not onely Monks [Page] but Clergy-men also had that name given them. 139. 1. 168. 2.
  • [...], the Crime of Treason. 695. 1.
  • Asia, how many ways 'tis taken. 8 [...]. 1.
  • Asiarchs, what they were. 58. 2. how chosen. ibid. a very charge­able Office. ibid.
  • Asterius Urbanus, Authour of the books against the Cataphrygae. 82. 1.
  • Athanasius, in what year recalled from banishment. 246. 2. in what year he went to Rome. 256. 2. He went to Rome once onely. 253. 2. when a boy, he baptized his play-fellows. 229. 1.
  • [...], or Attis, Bacchus. 302. 2.
  • Atticus Bishop of Constantinople, his Epitaph. 383. 1.
  • Augustonica a Province of Egypt. 262. 2.
  • [...], a door of an house. 608. 2.
  • [...], Atrium, or a Court. 590. 2.
  • Avitus, how many moneths he Reigned. 428. 2, &c.
  • Ause, or Osee, the first name of Jesus the son of Nave. 5. [...].
  • [...]. 190. 2.
  • [...], Christian Virgins. 161. 2.
  • [...], so Eusebius calls Christ. 186. 2.
  • [...], the Honorati, are joyned with the Decuriones. 431. 2.
B.
  • BAcaudae, a sort of Boors, were up in Arms over the whole Roman world. 690. 2.
  • Bacurius Prince of the Iberi. 233. 2.
  • Baptism is by the Greeks termed [...] or a seal. 40. 2. 'tis the Symbol of our Lord's Passion. 184. 2. 'tis termed [...]. 628. 2.
  • Basileus Bishop of Amasia. 551. 2. a Martyr under Licinius. ibid.
  • Basilius the Great, what year made Bishop of Caesarea. 321. 1, 2. He was twice questioned by Valens. 322. 1.
  • Basilides's Prophets. 52. 2.
  • [...]. 681. 2.
  • [...], the Imperial City, so Eusebius always calls Rome, not Constantinople▪ 593. 1.
  • Basiliscus declared his son Marcus, Caesar; afterwards, Augustus, 451. 1.
  • Bataneotes, a Surname of Porphyrius the Philosopher. 100. 2.
  • Battle at Cibalae. 554. 1.
  • Battle at Hadrianople, what year it hapned. 556. 2.
  • Beneficiarii. 179. 1.
  • Beryllus's opinion concerning the Nature and divinity of Christ. 107. 1. His Heresie. 290. 2.
  • Berytus, what year the Synod was convened there. 409. 1.
  • Bishops in Egypt, were an hundred. 212. 2.
  • Bishops heretofore preached, standing on the steps of the Altar. 355. 2.
  • Bishops, their first Sermon always much taken notice of. 384. 2.
  • Bishops, their sentences in judicature made valid. 615. 2.
  • Bishops of other Cities, were usually buried at Constantinople, in the Church of The Apostles. 492. 2.
  • Bishops anciently wore a plate of gold on their forehead, in imitation of the Jewish High-priests. [...]7. 1.
  • Birth-day of the Martyrs, was that whereon they suffer'd Martyrdom. 59. 2.
  • [...], to lead a secular Life. 92. 2. [...], Laicks. ibid.
  • Bosci, Monks so called. 418. 1.
  • Botry a City of Phoenice. 494. 1. Theophanes and Antoninus Mar­tyr are mended. ibid.
  • British-Church very ancient. 333. 1, 2. it was, and is independent of the Roman Patriarchate. ibid.
  • Bruchium, what it was. 136. 2. the siege of it, when. ibid.
  • Brysia. 518. 2.
C.
  • CAEsarea, or Caesarium, the Great Church of Alexandria. 376. 2. whence it had that name. 430. 1.
  • Caius was Authour of the book called The Little Labyrinth. 89. 2. He wrote a book against Proclus. 102. 2.
  • Calendio is ordained Bishop of Antioch at Constantinople by Acacius, contrary to the Canons. 457. 1. how many years he sate Bishop. 462. 1.
  • [...], so Constantinople was termed. 597. 1.
  • [...] is sometimes made use of in stead of [...]. 446. 2. In old Coyns that City is written [...]. 460. 1.
  • Camp-bread given to the City Antioch by Diocletian. 427. 1. a place in Procopius about this Annona, is mended. ibid.
  • Campus, a place without the City Antioch, where the Souldiers exer­cised. 518. 2. Campus, a place seven miles distant from Constan­tinople. 507. 2. it was the place where Criminals were punished. 658. 2.
  • Canon of the Council of Antioch. 366. 1. what must be thought concerning that Council. ibid.
  • Canon, or set-allowance of Bread, or Bread-corn, at Constantinople. 251. 1.
  • Canon the second, of the Constantinopolitan Council, is explained. 333. 2.
  • Canon the sixth, of the Nicene Council, whither it [...]eats concerning Patriarchs, and their Jurisdiction. 332. 2.
  • Castalian Fountain neer Antioch. 414. 2.
  • Castrensis Panis. See Camp-bread.
  • [...], Ligatures, Inchantments. 688. 2.
  • Catechist taught in a private Auditory, not publickly in the Church. 102. 1.
  • Catechumens were made by Imposition of the Bishop's ha [...]d. 627. 1, 2. they covered their heads. 629. 1.
  • [...]. 74. 1.
  • Catholick Epistles. 98. 1.
  • Catholicus, a Rationalist. 121. 2. [...], a Rationa­list. ibid. and 181. 2.
  • Celsus the Philosopher, against whom Origen wrote, was Lucian's friend. 108. 1.
  • Cephro, and Coluthio. 122. 2. 123. 1.
  • Cerat [...]s, a wind about Byzantium, 276. 2.
  • [...], capitulum, a period. 131. 2.
  • Chaeremon, a Philosopher. 101. 2.
  • Chair or Throne of Saint Mark at Alexandria. 138. 2.
  • Chalcedon▪Synod, the copies of it that Evagrius made use of, are dif­ferent from ours. 439. 1. which are more genuine and authentick, Evagrius's copies, or ours. 444. 1.
  • Chalcedon had onely the bare name of a Metropolis given it by Mar­cianus. 446. 2.
  • Chartae, or Libels of Caecilianus's crimes, transmitted to the Emperour. 194. 1.
  • [...] instead of [...]. 125. 2.
  • Chorepiscopi, who they were. 134. 1.
  • Chosroes King of the Persians, when he dyed. 509. 1.
  • [...], Christ, was written with a dipthong. 653. 1. Christ before all things, and after all things. 666. 1.
  • Christ, in what year born. 7. 2. whether he was born on the twenty fifth of December. ibid.
  • Christian Religion termed [...]. 53. 1.
  • Christians wont to stop their Ears, when they heard any impious ex­pression. 85. 1. they gave their children the names of the A­postles. 131. 1. They prayed with expanded hands. 611. 1.
  • Christians were very desirous of being baptized in Jordan. 628. 1. who were termed perfect Christians. 628. 2. Their Feasts at the Sepulchres of the Martyrs. 647. 2. Their way of Burial. 124. 1. 128. 2.
  • [...], Encaustick painting. 530. 2.
  • [...]. 433. 2.
  • Chrysargyrum is in the Code termed Lustralis auri Collatio. 47. 1. The Emperours called it Vectigal. ibid. Libanius calls it Tribute, because 'twas paid every fourth year by Merchants or Traders. ibid. The Aurum poenosum is to be distinguished from it. ibid.
  • Chrysostome's saying concerning penitents. 367. 2.
  • Chrysotelia, what it was. 474. 2.
  • Churches, there were fourty of them at Rome in Decius's time. 113. 2.
  • Circular Letters, or Encyclicae. 432. 2.
  • Claudian at first wrote Greek Verses. 416. 1. when he began to write Latine verses. ibid.
  • Clavularis Cursus. 287. 2.
  • Clemens's book of Recognitions. 48. 2. 49. 1.
  • Clemens's Stromata. 97. 2.
  • Clemens's books entitled [...], or Institutions. 79. 1. a fragment of them is now extant, at the close of his Stromata. ibid.
  • Clergy-men wore a Philosophick Pallium. 101. 2. Clergy-men termed Competentes. 191. 2.
  • [...] the degree or order of Ecclesiasticks. 114. 1.
  • [...], he enroll'd amongst the Clergy. 495. 1.
  • Cletus Bishop of Rome, the same person with Anencletus. 38. 2.
  • [...] what it signifies. 412. 2. 422. 2.
  • [...], Stibadia, accubita, Beds to lye and eat upon, 581. 2.
  • Clinicks, their Baptism. 113. 2.
  • Coadjutor or Assistant can't be made without the Bishops consent. 96. 2. Two instances of Coadjutours. 137. 2.
  • Colligere, Collecta. 604. 2.
  • Clopas or Cleophas, whether Joseph's brother, and unkle to Christ. 38. 1.
  • [...], in Latine Areae. 122. 2.
  • Comites of the first and second order, long before the Reign of Con­stantine. 606. 2, &c.
  • Common Council of Asia, or [...], what it was. 55. 2. 56. 1.
  • Communicatory-Letters, two sorts of them. 135. 1.
  • Communion was twofold; one of prayer, the other of the Sacraments. 112. 1. private Communion. ibid. and 114. 2.
  • Confectoret. 59. 1.
  • Consession, whether private, or publick, amongst the Ancient Chri­stians. 341. 2. 342. 1, &c.
  • Consecrated Bread was wont to be moystned in water. 115. 2.
  • Constantina, a City of Phoenice, the Bishop whereof was Sophronius. 409. 1.
  • Constantine's Letters to the Bishops, taken for the Synodick Letter of the Nicene Synod. 582. 1.
  • [Page] Constantine took too much upon himself, in Ecclesiastick matters. 594. 2.
  • Constantine the Great, how many years he reigned. 624. 1. He was termed [...], equal to an Apostle. 626. 2. when he was made a Catechumen. 627. 2.
  • Constantine's Statue wont to be adored by the common people. 230. 1.
  • Constantine's Letter against Arius. 224. 2.
  • Constantinopolitane Bishop ordained in the Hellespont, and in the ad­jacent Provinces. 276. 1. He is simply and absolutely termed The Patriarch. 439. 1.
  • Constantinopolitane Synod assembled on account of the cause of Gre­gorius Bishop of Antioch, what year convened. 518. 1, 2.
  • Constantius Chlorus, in what year he dyed. 209. 2.
  • Constantius used to swear by his own eternity. 273. 1.
  • Corban, what it was. 19. 1.
  • [...], Rusticks or Boors. 109. 1. called also [...]. 490. 2.
  • Cornutus a Philosopher. 101. 2. He is erroneously termed Phornu­tus. ibid.
  • Council at Jerusalem, in what year assembled. 25. 1.
  • Council of Chalcedon, in what manner it was preached and published. 482. 2. The three General-Councils preached or published to­gether with it by the Deacon in the Church after the reading of the Gospel, and inserted into the Diptycks. ibid.
  • Criminals usually executed without the City. 495. 1.
  • [...]. 697. 2.
  • Curator of a City. 146. 1.
  • Curators of the Imperial Houses, who they were. 510. 1, &c. They had Jurisdiction. 511. 1. Their Title was, Most Glorious, and Most Magnificent. ibid. 510. 2.
  • [...], Dominica, or Churches. 698. 1.
  • Curiae, and Curiales. 558. 1.
  • Curiales or Decuriones did heretofore gather the Tribute. 474. 2. Anastasius the Emperour freed them from that. 475. 1. The fol­lowing Emperours null'd that Law. ibid.
  • Curopalates heretofore a despicable office, afterwards the highest dig­nity of the palace. 499. 1, 2. He was a different person from the Count of the Guards. ibid.
  • Cuziba, a Monastery and Laura. 480. 2.
  • Cynegica a Region near Antioch. 467. 2.
  • Cyrenius. See Quirinius.
  • Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria presided in the Ephesine Synod. 404. 1.
  • Cyrus Bishop of Beroea, banished on account of the Homoousian Faith. 235. 2.
  • Cyrus, a Poet. 416. 1.
D.
  • DAcianus. 278. 1.
  • Daemons of the Air, or Aërial Daemons. 672. 1.
  • Dalmatius the Censor, father to Dalmatius the Caesar. 238. 2, &c.
  • Damophilus the Bithynian, his Collectanea. 515. 2. He lived after Plutarch's time. ibid.
  • Darius the Mede, is not Nabonnidus. 652. 1.
  • Deacons distributed not the Sacrament amongst the people, when the Priest was present. 114. 2.
  • Decani, [...]. 521. 2.
  • Decennalia, Vicennalia, Tricennalia, what meant by them. 529. 1.
  • Decius, how many years he Reigned. 117. 1.
  • Decuriales, who they were at Rome. 340. 2. The Rector of the Decuriae. ibid.
  • Delphicum, an Edifice wherein were the Emperour's Stibadia, or Beds to lye and banquet on. 478. 1.
  • [...], what it signifies. 110. 2.
  • [...], to be read publickly. 38. 1.
  • Dengisich son to Attala. 435. 2. His name being faulty in the Alex­andrian Chronicle, is mended. ibid.
  • Depositions of Bishops, in what order usually declared. 442. 1.
  • Dexippus the Historian, his [...]. 513. 2.
  • [...], perpetual Priests. 191. 1.
  • [...], Masters of the Platonick School at Athens. 136. 1.
  • [...], Homilies, or Discourses to the people. 89. 1.
  • Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus, by whom written. 52. 1.
  • [...], Protests. 280. 2.
  • [...], Most Perfect. 177. 2.
  • [...], Charity, Love. 583. 2.
  • [...], componere, to bury the dead. 128. 2.
  • [...]. 130. 2.
  • [...], hasta amentata, a Javelyn fitted with a Leather­loop. 463. 1.
  • Dignus est, he is worthy, was the usual acclamation in the Election of Bishops. 106. 1.
  • [...], Enarrations, Expositions. 98. 2.
  • Dii patrii and Peregrini. 553. 2.
  • Diocletian's persecution, when it began. 140. 2. 158. 2. 537. 1. when it ended. 151. 1. what year Diocletian triumphed. 148. 1, 2. why he resigned the Empire. 660. 1, 2. in what year he dyed. 210. 2.
  • Dioecesis, what it signifies. 332. 2. 618. 2.
  • Dionysius Consularis of Phoenice. 620. 2.
  • [...], Porticus's. 590. 1.
  • Dioscorus Bishop of Hermopolis, when he dyed. 365. 1.
  • Dioscorus Junior when ordained Bishop of Alexandria. 467. 1. Li­beratus's mistake in relating his Ordination. ibid.
  • Dius, the first moneth of the Syro-Macedonians. 157. 1.
  • [...], Hereticks. 97. 1.
  • Dominica Mediana. 346. 1. whence so called. ibid.
  • Donatists, their Schism. 571. 2. they were the first that appealed from an Ecclesiastick Judicature. 280. 2.
  • Dorotheus Presbyter of Antioch, a different person from Dorotheus who was of the Bed-chamber to the Emperour. 135. 2, &c.
  • Dositheus the Samaritane, when he lived. 63. 2.
  • Doxology of the Arians. 25 [...]. 1.
  • Drachms whence so called, by whom used; Attick Drachms, their value. 11. 2.
  • Ducenarius, what he was. 134. 1.
  • [...] Powers, so Angels, as well as Daemons, are termed. 686. 1.
E.
  • EArth-quakes, two sorts of them. 175. 1.
  • Earth-quake at Antioch in Justinus's Reign, in what year it hapned. 479. 2.
  • Easter-Alms. 613. 2.
  • Ebionites, whence so called. 44. 1.
  • Ecclesiasticus, an Ecclesiastical person, in how many senses 'tis taken. 29. 2.
  • Edicts and Letters of the Emperours, written in paper. 142. 1.
  • Edict of the Praesecti Praetorio. 313. 1.
  • Edicts and Letters of the Emperours, wherein they differ. 180. 1.
  • [...]. 4. 1. 448. 2.
  • [...], what it signifies. 97. 2.
  • [...], what it signifies. 113. 1.
  • [...], madness of mind. 82. 2.
  • Egypt heretofore reckoned amongst the Provinces of the East. 571. 2.
  • [...] what. 92. 1. Philosophy and Rhetorick differ from them. ibid.
  • Elcesaïta, Hereticks. 108. 1, 2. so called from Elcesai or Elxaeus. ibid.
  • Eleusinius Bishop of Sasima. 466. 1. a place in Theophanes about him, is mended. ibid.
  • Emperours of Constantinople were usually proclaimed in the seventh Miliarium, or Mile. 507. 2.
  • Emperours of Rome rescinded all that had been done by Tyrants. 661. 2.
  • Empire of Rome when first divided. 148. 2.
  • [...], what it signifies amongst the Antients. 406. 2.
  • [...], Letters of the Patriarchs at their instalment. 478. 2. also [...], Homilies. ibid.
  • [...], to sleep in an Heathen-temple. 597. 2.
  • Encaenia of the Jerusalem-Church, on what day celebrated. 621. 2.
  • Encyclic Letters. See Circular-Letters.
  • [...] and [...], a supplicatory-Libel. 55. 1.
  • [...] signifies Unition, not Unity. 501. 2, &c.
  • [...], Pascal Letters. 126. 2.
  • [...], what it signifies. 118. 2.
  • [...], the Officials of the Praetorian Praefecture. 223. 2. 566. 2.
  • [...] and [...], made use of instead of [...]. 30. 2.
  • Ephesine Bishop heretofore ordained by the Bishops of his own Pro­vince. 452. 1. the Patriarchical Jurisdiction taken from him in the Chalcedon-Council. ibid.
  • [...], to salute. 56. 1. 573. 2.
  • [...], the advent or arrival of the Gods. 174. 2.
  • [...], Sedentary Mechanicks. 510. 1.
  • Epimenides, an Initiator. 297. 1.
  • [...], an Indiction. 468. 1.
  • Ephesine Council in Basiliscus's Reign. 451. 1.
  • Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, when he dyed. 363. 1. 2. His cha­racter. ibid.
  • Epistolae Communicatoriae. See Communicatory-Letters.
  • [...], and [...], what they signifie. 4. 1.
  • Essenes. 23. 1.
  • [...], the Provinces of the Romans. 539. 1.
  • [...], what it signifies. 511. 2.
  • Eruli are by the Grecians termed [...]. 486. 2.
  • [...], what it signifies. 73. 1.
  • Evagrius a Presbyter of Antioch, was afterwards Bishop of Antioch. 353. 2.
  • Evagrius Praefect of Egypt. 339. 1, 2. a passage in Eunapius his Life of Aedesius, mended. ibid.
  • Eucharist, so the Consecrated bread was termed. 88. 2. it was sent to other Bishops under the name of Eulogiae. ibid. it is given to a boy to carry to a sick man. 115. 1. it was sometimes given to penitents without reconciliation. ibid. it was put into the mouthes of the sick. 115. 2. what remained of it, was given to boys, to be eaten. 494. 2.
  • [...], vota facere, to pray, or desire earnestly. 535. 2.
  • Eudocia Augusta went twice to Jerusalem. 417. 1, 2. when she made her second journey thither. ibid.
  • Eudoxia the Empress, her silver Statue. 365. 1, 2.
  • Eugenius a Tyrant in Diocletian's time. 142. 2.
  • [Page]Eunomius when made Bishop of Cy [...]icus. 307. 2. His Creed. 335. 2, &c.
  • [...] ▪ who they were. 39. 2.
  • [...] signifies noble persons, not P [...]ricians. 39. 1.
  • Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastick History, after almost all his other works. 5. 1. His book concerning the Easter-Cycle. 617. 2. whether he made a speech to the Emperour in the Nicene-Council. 579. 2.
  • Eusebius and Lucifer, whether they were Legates of the Apostolic See. 289. 2.
  • Eusebius and Theognius, when banished, and when restored. 227. 2. when they presented a Libel of Satisfaction to the Bishops. 228. 1. They were not condemned in the Nicene Synod, but in some other Synod. ibid.
  • Eustatbius Bishop of Antioch, when deposed. 599. 2. when he dyed. 313. 2. His body when removed to Antioch. ibid.
  • Eutropia Mother-in-law to Constantine. 594. 2, &c.
  • [...], Ephecticks. 270. 2.
  • [...], Adaerare, to Value by money. 326. 2.
  • Exarchs, who they were. 483. 1.
  • Exedra, what it is, and whence so called. 594. 1.
  • [...], peraequatores. 607. 1, 2.
  • Exorcists, their office. 158. 2.
  • [...], Municipal Magistrates. 69. 1.
  • Expeditions, two of them were made against the Vandals in Leo Au­gustus's reign. 435. 2. a passage in Candidus Isaurus, concerning that Expedition, mended. ibid.
F.
  • FAithfull heard the Word, standing in the Church. 617. 2.
  • Faith onely by sense. 65. 2.
  • Fast before Easter, very ancient. 88. 1.
  • Fast, three sorts of it amongst the Ancient Christians. ibid. Fast of fourty hours before Easter, why used. ibid. Fast of the Great week, must be distinguished from the Lent-Fast. ibid.
  • Feasts at the Sepulchres of the Martyrs. 647. 2.
  • Felix when sent Procurator into Judaea. 25. 2.
  • Feriae, why the days of the week are so termed. 157. 2.
  • Feriae of the week, have their name from the following Sunday. 88. 1, 678. 2.
  • First succession of the Apostles, how far it reacht. 27. 1.
  • Flaccilla wife to the Emperour Theodosius. 325. 2.
  • Flaccillus Bishop of Antioch. 248. 1.
  • Flamen perpetuus. 191. 1.
  • Folles, two sorts of them. 195. 1. their value. ibid.
  • Form, or Draught of the Nicene Creed, was subscribed by all the Bi­shops, but two. 217. 2.
  • Frumentius Bishop of Auxumis, the same person with Frumentius Bi­shop of the Indians. 232. 1, 2.
  • [...]. 191. 1.
G.
  • GAlen's authority, great amongst the Ancients. 90. 2.
  • Galerius's Victory over the Persians. 152. 1.
  • Gangra, the Synod there when held. 282. 2.
  • Genealogies of the Hebrews, were registred in their publick Archives. 10. 1.
  • [...] and [...], how much they differ in signification. 258. 2.
  • Gillo or Gello, a kind of Shee-Devil. 512. 2. the same with Empusa. ibid.
  • Georae, or Geiorae, who they were. 10. 1.
  • Georgius of Laodicea was made a Presbyter by Alexander Bishop of the Alexandrians. 603. 1.
  • Germinius when made Bishop of Sirmium. 268. 1.
  • Glicerius the Emperour was not made Bishop of Portue, but of Sa­lonae. 436. 1, 2.
  • Golden-Rod usually carried before the Roman Emperours. 499. 1, 2.
  • Gospel according to the Hebrews. 43. 1.
  • Gospel of Basilides. 52. 2.
  • Gregorius Bishop of Alexandria, how many years he sate Bishop. 251. 1.
  • Gregorius Nazianzenus, his three Bishopricks. 321. 2. 331. 1.
  • Gynacea. 558. 1.
H.
  • HAdrian the Emperour built a Temple to Venus, on mount Cal­vary. 224. 1.
  • Hanniballianus. 667. 2.
  • Heathens, how they consecrated the Images of their Gods. 173. 1.
  • Heg [...]sippus was Irenaeus's Contemporary. 53. 1.
  • Helena her death▪ what year it hapned. 593. 1.
  • [...] signifies that age which is fit for warfare. 168. 1.
  • Henoticon, or Zeno's Edict about uniting the Churches, is termed [...]. 455. 1.
  • Hera [...]s a Catechumen. 94. 1.
  • Hereticks, whither they may lawfully be persecuted. 370. 2.
  • Hermodactylus, what manner of plant it was. 525. 2. the root of it good for those that are troubled with the Gout in the Joynts or fingers. ibid.
  • Hermogenes an Heretick. 65. 1. what his Heresie was. ibid.
  • Herod the Great was no Forreigner but a Jew. 8. [...]. after his death, his kingdom was divided into three parts. 12. 1.
  • Herod, called also Agrippa, who he was. 19. 2. what children he had. 20. 2.
  • Hexapla of Origen, whence so called. 99. 1. 99. 2.
  • Hierocles Praefect of Egypt, against whom Eusebius wrote. 161. 2.
  • Hierophantae were never called by their own name, by those whom they had initiated. 664. 1.
  • High-Priest, so every person was called, as long as he lived, who had once born that office. 12. 2. They wore a plate of Gold. 45. 2.
  • Hilarius and Athanasius differ in opinion concerning the Draughts of the Creed, drawn up by the Easterns. 266. 1, 2.
  • Hippolytus Bishop of Portue. 102. 2. His Paschal-Canon is part of his book concerning Easter. 103. 1.
  • [...]. 104. 1.
  • Honoratus was the first Praefect of Constantinople. 281. 1.
  • Honorati, [...]. 630. 2.
  • Hosanna, what it signifies. 28. 1.
  • Hosius subscribed first to the Nicene Synod. 227. 1.
  • Hyacinthides virgins at Athens, who they were. 690. 1.
  • [...] and [...], the Prefecti Praetorio. 606. 2.
  • Hypatia the Philosopheress, probably was Theon's daughter. 376. 1. by whose means she was murdered. 376. 2.
  • Hypatianus when made Bishop of Heraclea. 266. 1.
  • Hypodiaconi, or Sub-deacons, kept the doors of the Church. 191. 1.
  • Hypomnematographer, an office born by Lucian at Alexandria. 122. 2.
I.
  • JAcobus the Monk, to whom the Emperour Leo wrote, whither Ja­cobus Nisibenus. 432. 1.
  • James the brother of our Lord, whether one of the twelve Apostles. 13. 2. whether the son of Joseph. 16. 1. what is the meaning of his surname Oblias. 27. 2. in what year he suffered Martyrdom. 28. 2,
  • James ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by Christ. 126. 2.
  • [...], who termed so amongst the Greeks. 375. 2.
  • Iconium, the Synod there when convened. 119. 2.
  • [...] amongst the Egyptians, who they were. 36. 1.
  • Jerusalem▪ Bishop's authority. 263. 1.
  • Jews, how their families came to be so confused. 9. 1. their Genea­logies were not burnt by Herod. 10. 1. they had private copies of their Genealogies. ibid. they pray'd to God with their eyes turned towards the Temple. 33. 2. they were permitted to enter Jerusalem but once in a year. 52. 1. their seaven Herefies. 63. 2. Their Archisynagogi, Presbyters, Deacons, Patriarchs. 121. 1 at their Feasts the Gentiles were present also. 28. 1. Their disper­sion, and the reasons of it. 30. 2, &c. a Jew in secret, or inwardly. 167. 1. How they divided the night and day. 35. 2.
  • Image of Christ at Edessa. 489. 1.
  • Indians converted to the faith of Christ by Frumentius, in Constantius's reign. 232. 1, 2.
  • Interregnum of three months after the death of Constantine the Great. 630. 2.
  • Johannes is ordained Bishop of Alexandria at Constantinople, by Jo­hannes Scholasticus Patriarch of Constantinople. 503. 1.
  • Johannes Apamenus, Bishop of Antioch after Petrus Fullo. 453. 2.
  • Johannes Codonatus Bishop of Antioch. 457. 1.
  • Johannes Rhetor the Historian, not the same person with Johannes of Epiphania the Historian. 413. 2, &c.
  • Johannes Tabennesiota, Bishop of Alexandria, whence so called. 454. 2. He was Oeconomus of the Alexandrian Church. ibid. a place in Liberatus concerning him, is mended. ibid. He did not appeal to Pope Simplicius. 456. 2.
  • John the Baptist's Church in the City Alexandria, was the Great Church. 454. 2.
  • Josephus's History of the Jewish wars transcribed by Titus's own hand. 37. 2.
  • Josephus's book concerning his own Life, is part of his twentieth book of Antiquities. 37. 2. His books of History, otherwise divided than now they are. 11. 1.
  • Josepus, so the Ancients called Josephus. 12. 2.
  • Jovius Maximinus. 178. 1. his third Consulate. 181. 2.
  • Irenaeus, whether he brought the Letters of the Martyrs to Rome. 75. 2. In what year he was ordained Bishop. 76. 2. His Synodick Letter. 87. 2.
  • Irenarch, or Eirenarch. 57. 2.
  • Irene, two Churches at Constantinople, called by that name; the one, the old; the other, the new. 247. 2.
  • [...], a Copy. 584. 1.
  • Judas of Galile, or Gaulanites, when he made his insurrection. 8. 1. He was Founder of the Sect of the Galilaeans. 63. 2.
  • Judas whether the brother of our Lord. 39. 2.
  • Julian the Emperour, called Bull-burner. 297. 2.
  • Julianus, the Bishop of Rome's substitute in the second Ephesine Synod, was Bishop of Coe, not of Puteoli. 409. 1.
  • Justice, its eye. 699. 1.
  • Justinian's Vandalic Expedition, on what year of Christio was un­dertaken. 484. 2.
  • Justin the Martyr's first Apology, according to Eusebius, is that which [Page] is commonly entitled his second; and on the contrary, his [...] his first. 21. 2, 60. 1. 61, 1. Justin's second Apology, commonly entitled his first, was dedicated to Antoninus pius. 61. 1. Justin was Martyred in the Reign of Pius. ibid.
  • Justinus Senior, is by some termed a Thracian, by others an Illyrian. 477. 1. Before he was Emperour, he was Comes of the Excu [...]i [...] or Guards. ibid.
  • Justinus Junior, how many years he reigned. 513. 1.
  • Justus Tiberiensis, and his books. 37. 2.
K.
  • [...] the Matricula or Koll of the Church-officers. 342. 1.
  • [...]. 101. 1.
  • [...]. 99. 1.
  • [...]. 92. 2.
  • [...], coemiteries. 122. 2.
  • [...], what it signifies. 59. 2.
L.
  • LAcunaria. 588. 1.
  • Laicks, when about to receive the Sacrament, heretofore came up to the Altar. 120. 2. before Bishops and Monks that were emi­nent for piety of Life, the Laicks were wont to bow their heads, that they might receive a blessing. 493. 2.
  • Lampadarii, or Light-bearers. 665. 1.
  • [...], Torches. 613. 2.
  • Latiare Sacrum at Rome. 690. 1.
  • Laura what it is, and wherein it differs from a Monastery. 417. 2.
  • Laws of the Emperours Constantine and Theodosius, concerning burning the books of Hereticks. 450. 1.
  • Legates of Caesar, some were Consulares, others Praetorii. 46. 1.
  • Legate or Deputy of the Province of Lyons. 69. 1, 2.
  • Legion termed The Lightning Legion. 76. 1.
  • Legions amongst the Romans had their Chappel, or Oratory, and their Presbyters. 625. 2.
  • Leo's Letter by Dioscorus forbid to be read in the Council of Ephesius. 438. 1.
  • Leus's daughters at Athens. 690. 1.
  • Libellatici, who they were. 120, 1.
  • Licinita made the Cities of the Roman Empire to flourish. 196. 2.
  • Light after darkness, in the Mysteries of the Pagans. 609. 2.
  • Litar [...]a a Village in Chalcis. 520, 1. It's [...]ame-being faulty in Theo­phanes's Chronicon, is mended. ibid.
  • Linyphia. 558. 1.
  • Loaves of benediction. 374. 2.
  • [...], to bear the office of a Curator. 146. 1.
  • [...], so the Praefectus Praetorio was termed. 475. 1, 2.
  • [...]. 255. 2.
  • Long-wall termed the Anastasian-wall, from its Builder. 470. 2.
  • Longinus a Philosopher, taught at Athens. 101. 1.
  • Lotts, or [...] of the Athletae or Champions. 72. 1.
  • Lucianus a Martyr suffered under Maximinus. 174. 1.
  • Ludi Lugdunenses, or Sports at Lyons. 73. 2.
  • Lunar Month, was thirty days. 674. 1.
  • Lusius Quietus Deputy of Palestine. 51. 1.
  • [...]. 347. 2.
  • Lysanias the Tetrarch was not one of Herod's sons, nor his successour. 12. 1.
M.
  • MAcarius Bishop of Jerusalem, when ordained, and when ejected. 495. 1. in what year he was restored to his See. 495. 2.
  • Macedonius's Presidency over the Constantinopolitane Church, whence to be begun. 252. 1.
  • Macedoniani, their Embassie to Pope Liberius, in what year sent. 310. 2.
  • Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople, when first made Bishop, sub­scribed to Zeno's Uniting Edict, or Henoticon. 466. 2.
  • Magi amongst the Egyptians. 121. 1.
  • Magistrate of the City Jerusalem, was termed [...]. 36. 1.
  • Magistrates and Governours of Provinces can't be preferred to a Bi­shoprick, without consent of the Emperour. 394. 2.
  • Mancipes, so the Bakers were called; and Mancipatus was the office of Bakers. 340. 2.
  • Mandates or Commands of Princes, [...]. 178. 2.
  • Mandra, a Monastery; and [...], an Abbot of a Monastery. 412. 1.
  • Manichaeans, who was the first broacher of their Heresie. 135. 2. their Fasts. 234. 1.
  • Marcion at first a Mariner. 79. 2.
  • Marcotick Region was subject to the Bishop of Alexandria. 238. 1. How many Presbyters and Deacons it had. ibid.
  • Mark the Evangelist, what year he went into Egypt. 22. 2.
  • Mark the Interpreter of Saint Peter. 49. 2.
  • Martyrs will be Christ's Assessours when he comes to judgment. 112. 1.
  • Martyrs were beheaded in The Campus. 658. 2.
  • Martyrs, four sorts of them amongst the Greeks. 107. 1.
  • Martyrdom, what is so termed according to the command of the Gospel. 60. 1.
  • [...], the Sepulchre of a Martyr, [...]
  • [...], the Church of Saint Euphemia [...] Oratory of a Martyrium, what it was. 4 [...]6. 1, 2.
  • Martyrium, so the Jerusalem Church was called. 6 [...]. 2▪
  • Mashoth [...]i, and Masbotheani. 63. 2.
  • [...], so the Greeks call The Creed. 218▪ 2.
  • Matthew▪ where and in what year he wrote his Gospel. 42. 2.
  • Mausoleum or Tomb of Helena Queen of the Adiabeni near Jerusalem. 21. 2.
  • Maximus, two of that name who were Presbyters of the Roman Church. 113. 1. 114. 2.
  • Maximus the Cynick is ordained Bishop of Constantinople. 332. 2.
  • Maximus, two Philosophers of that name. 286. 1.
  • Maximus the Tyraut, what Country-man he was. 33 [...]. 2.
  • [...] ▪ Rome. 658. 1.
  • Melchi put instead of Matthat, in Our Saviour's Genealogy. 9. 2.
  • Meletius Bishop of Pontus. 138▪ [...] ▪ Surnamed Meleatus the Great. ibid.
  • Melitians after the Nicene Synod joyned with the Arians. 213. 2.
  • Melitius why kindly used by the Nicene Synod. 219. 2. He was [...]o Haeresiarch. 220. 2.
  • [...] instead of [...]. 6 [...]5. [...].
  • [...], area, a Court. [...]0. 2.
  • [...], the twenty fifth day from Easter. 629. 2.
  • [...]. 578. 2.
  • [...], Dardenarii, petty-merchants. [...]. [...].
  • [...] or [...], what it signifies, and in what senses 'tis used. 478. 1.
  • Methodius's book concerning the Resurrection, against Origen. 10 [...]. 1. why Eusebius has not mentioned Methodius. ibid.
  • Metrodorus the Philosopher. 2 [...]1. 1.
  • Metropolitans, their ordination does properly belong to the Patriarchs. 389. 2.
  • Milice is a sort of servitude. 517. 2. 555. 1.
  • Militia Palatina. 246. 1.
  • Millain-Synod, how many Bishops were at it. [...] ▪ 2▪ the matters transacted there. 256. 2. in what year of Christ it was held. ibid.
  • Mitella, or Little Mitre worn by Christian Virgins. 165. 2.
  • [...] assigned to God the Father, [...] to the Son and Holy Ghost. 683. 2.
  • [...] and [...]. [...]3. 2.
  • Montanus's Fasts. 83. 1. His Heresie called The new Prophecy. 84. [...].
  • Montanus and Sabellius, why frequently joyned together. 235. 1, 2.
  • Moyses, the Presbyter dyed before Cornelius's Ordination. 115. 1.
  • Mysia, two of them. 81. 1.
  • [...]. 482. 2.
N.
  • [...] or [...] is taken for the whole sacred house. 591. 2, &c.
  • [...], what it signifies. 431. 2.
  • [...], a Bishop. 636. 2.
  • [...] or [...], the first Sunday after Easter. 403. 2. the Greeks call it by that name [...]il [...], 404. 1.
  • Neapolis a City of Palestine. 55. 1.
  • Nectarius, whether he abolished confession or pennance. 342. 2, &c.
  • [...] the dead more contemptible than dung. 697. 2.
  • Neophytes were cloathed in white garments. 629. 1. they put them off, on the eighth day. ibid.
  • Nepos, how many years he reigned. 436. 1.
  • Nicene Synod was convened in the palace. 579. 1. How many Bishops met at that Synod. 578. 2. 216. 1. 227. 1. no Acts were made of this Synod. 581. 1. on what month and day it was held. 581. 1, 2.
  • Nicocles the Grammarian. 285. 2.
  • Nicolaites, what their Heresie was. 44. 2.
  • Nile, the priests thereof were Androgyni. 614. 1, 2.
  • Nicomas instead of Nicomachus. 122. 2.
  • [...], the Christian sacrifice. 697. 1.
  • [...] and [...], wherein they differ. 190. 2.
  • Nomades, who the Greeks call so. 674. 2.
  • Notaries of the Church, or of Bishops. 347. 1. what their office was. ibid.
  • Novatianists did not use the Chrism [...] in Baptism. 114. 1. they re­baptized the Catholicks that embraced their Here [...]ie. 120. 1.
  • Novatus and Novatianus are confounded by the Greeks. 115. 2.
  • Novatianus's Martyrdom, and the Acts of his passion are forged. 523. 2.
  • Novatianus was a Native of Phrygia. ibid.
  • Novum Saeculum, or a new age. 576. 1, 2.
  • Nubae, they were called Nomades also. 407. 1, 2.
  • Numenius the Philosopher, 101. 1.
  • [...], that is Lately. 53. 2. 553. 2.
  • Nymphaeum, the Temple of the Nymphs. 434. 1.
O.
  • OBodas, a God amongst the Arabians. 689. 1.
  • Ocbas and Acbas an Impregnable Fort near the River Nymphius. 522. 1.
  • [Page] Octachora Templa, eight-fided-Churches. 594. 1.
  • Octaves of Infants and Neophytes how religiously observed. 929. 1.
  • [...] Domestick protectors. 299. 2.
  • [...] is not used in reference to the Incarnation onely, but con­cerning all things which Christ did on earth, in order to mans sal­vation. 1. 2. 189. 2. 54 [...]. 1. 694. 1. the disputation con­cerning Christ is divided into the [...] and [...] 2. 1. [...], or the administration, is properly attributed to the Son. 683. [...]. 685. 1.
  • Olympiad, whence so called. 19. 2. how many years it consisted of. ibid.
  • Old Testament, three ranks or degrees of the books thereof amongst the Jews. 37. 1. How many in number the books thereof were. ibid. and 104. 1.
  • [...] and [...] of Alexandria. 127. 2.
  • [...], a place where the publick treasure was laid. 83. 1, 2.
  • [...], a dart. 43. 2▪
  • O [...]t [...]r King of the [...]nni. [...]85. 2. His brother Roas. 392. 2.
  • Oraria or handkerchiefs were wont to be shaken by Auditors. 134. 1.
  • Order of the Session of Bishops in Councils. 86. 2.
  • [...], and [...]. 51. 1.
  • Origen is ordained by two Bishop [...]. 95. 1. went onely once to Rome. 98. 2. distinguished the books of the Old Testament into Cola, verses, or such parts of the Text as contained an entire sense. 99. 2. After his Edition of the Hexapla, he made the Tetrapla. ibid. is a different person from the other Origen Plotinus's School-fellow. 100. 2, &c. is condemned by Demetrius and deposed. 103. 2. Demetrius's sentence was ineffectual. ibid. Origen, before his condemnation, removed from the City Alexandria. 105. 1, 2. His threefold work upon the sacred Scripture. 108. 1, 2. what year he dyed. 117. 1. He was not condemned in the fifth Synod at Constantinople, but long before. 497. 1.
  • Origen, that name is written with an Asperate by the Greeks. 92. 1.
  • Osanna, what it signifies, [...]8. 1.
  • Ostracine, a place or village near Antioch, whence so called. 434. 1.
  • [...] sometimes signifies the person of the Father. 3. 1.
P.
  • [...], what it signifies. 481. 1.
  • [...], a Church at Antioch, in the old City. 290. 1.
  • [...], one that buyes provisions, and sells them again. 418. 2.
  • Pallium, the Habit of the Philosophers. 101. 2.
  • Pall for a Bishop, woven with threads of Gold. 622. 1.
  • [...]. 410. 2.
  • Paphnutius, as Rufinus says, was present at the Nicene Council. 225. 2.
  • [...] who they were. 380. 2. not the same persons with the confectores. ibid. and 59. 1. 159. 1.
  • [...]. 171. 1.
  • [...] what it signifies. 420. 2. it imports also to list for a Souldier. ibid.
  • [...], the Muster-Roll. ibid.
  • Paradice upon Earth, were it was. 639. 1.
  • Paradoxi, Champions that had gained many Victories. 143. 1.
  • [...], adulterate, or counterfeit. 283. 2.
  • [...] assemblies of Schismaticks. 324. 1.
  • Paredri, Daemons so called, what they were. 688. 2.
  • [...] what it signifies. 178. 1.
  • [...] and [...], what they signifie. 81. 2.
  • Parembole, a Village in Egypt. 318. 2.
  • [...], what it signifies. 180. 1, 2.
  • [...]. 540. 1. [...]. 568. 1. 659. 1, 2.
  • [...] and [...]. 616. 1. 625. 1.
  • [...] signifies a Church. 1. 1. the reason of that name. ibid. sometimes 'tis taken for a whole Diocesse, sometimes for a particu­lar Church. ibid.
  • [...]. 516. 2. 522. 1.
  • Parricides, how punished. 161. 2.
  • Particular assemblies which were held in diverse Churches at Alex­andria. 123. 2.
  • [...], or [...], a wedding-chamber. 316. 2.
  • [...] what it signifies. 37. 1.
  • Patriarchs, when first constituted in the Church. 332. 2. &c. 33 [...]. 1.
  • A Patriarch being accused by a Laick, appeals to the Emperour and a Synod. 518. 1. He is judged in an auditory made up of Laicks and Ecclesiasticks. ibid.
  • Patripassians, or Patropassians, Hereticks. 255. 2, &c.
  • Paul the Apostle went not to Jerusalem in Tiberius's reign. 17. 2.
  • Paulinus Bishop of Tyre is translated to the Bishoprick of Antioch. 183. 1. 2.
  • Paulus Bishop of Alexandria, was a Heretick. 487. 2. Liberatus makes him a Catholick. ibid.
  • Peace was not given to the lapsed, without the people's consent. 115. 1.
  • [...] what it signifies. 694. 2▪
  • Penitentiary-Presbyter, why and when instituted. 341. 2.
  • Pent [...]cost, and the space of fifty days from Easter to Pentecost. 629. 2.
  • Perigenes the Bishop of Corinth, his Election is confirmed by the Bi­shop of Rome. 388. 2.
  • [...], what it signifies 313. 1.
  • [...], 124. 1. 128. 2.
  • [...], Hills or heaps of stone. 590. 1.
  • Pen [...]entiary-Presbyter, his office. 341. [...]. when abrogated. 342. 2.
  • Peter the Apostle, his second Epistle most undoubtedly his. 31. 1. He and Saint Paul did not suffer Martyrdom on the same year. 30▪ [...] ▪ He was not superior to the other Apostles. 441. 2.
  • Petrus Full [...] died before Petrus Mongus. 442. 1, 2.
  • [...], so the opinion of Eutyches was termed. 451. 2.
  • Phile [...], whether he suffered at Alexandria, or in Thebais. 144. 2.
  • Philip the Deacon was by the Ancients confounded with Philip the Apostle. 45. 2. the names of Philip's daughters. ibid.
  • Philippus the Praefectus Praetorio, when he dyed. 252. 1.
  • Philo's book against Flaccus, and that entitled concerning the Em­bassy to [...]ain [...]. 18. 1. His book against Flaccus, Eusebius terms His second book concerning Virtues. 18. 2.
  • Philoromus Rationalist of Egypt. 144. 2.
  • Philosophers borrowed their best Precepts from Moses's Law. 4. 2.
  • Phoenice, two of them, the one termed Maritima, the other Libanensis. 468. 1. They were subject to the Patriarch of Antioch. 468. 2. The Dux of Phoenice. 469. 2. 470. 1.
  • Phosphorion, and Bosporium, the Port at Constantinople. 435. 1.
  • Pilate killed himself. 19. 1. His character. ibid.
  • Pisander the Poet, two of that name, the former a Rhodian▪ the lat­ter a Native of Larinda, who wrote six books concerning the Mar­riages of the Goddesses and Heroes. 416. 2.
  • Placidia Augusta gave the Western Illyricum to Theodosius Junior. 393. 1.
  • [...], crusts of marble. 589. 1.
  • Plague in the Groyn which raged fifty years, when it began. 490. 1.
  • Platonick Philosophy, a School thereof at Alexandria. 376. 1, 2.
  • [...], what it signifies. 152. 2.
  • [...], abstinence. 79. 2.
  • [...], what it was amongst the Alexandrians. 375. 1.
  • [...], Decurions, 576. 1.
  • Polycarp, whether he came to Rome on account of the controversie concerning Easter. 88. 2. In what year he came to Rome. ibid. The day of his Martyrdom. 60. [...].
  • Porphyrius, why called Malchus, and Bataneotes. 100. when he lived. ibid.
  • Potamius Bishop of Lysbone was banished together with Hosius. 268. 1.
  • Power, or [...], is not used but concerning the Greater Judges. 536. 1.
  • Praefects of the Praetorium, and the other Judges, prefixed the Em­perours▪ Letters before their own Edicts. 179. 1.
  • Praefects of the Praetorium had the title of Clarissimi in Constantine's time. 587. 2. 606. 2.
  • Praefecture of the Praetorium, was the highest of all dignities. 47 [...]. 1. it had two Chests. 475. 1. also Numerarii of Gold. 471. 1.
  • Praenetum the name of a Town, variously written. 364. 2.
  • Praepositi Laborum, or rather Laboru, that is, [...], of the La­borum. 554. 2.
  • [...], what it signifies. 41. 2.
  • Presbyters performed the publick prayers together with the Bishop. 410. 2.
  • Presbyters were not ordained without the consent of the Clergy and people. 114. 1.
  • Presbyters were termed Priests of the second Order. 191. 2. 194. 2▪ &c.
  • Presbyter, whom Constantia at her death recommended to Constan­tine, who he was. 236. 2▪ 243. 2.
  • Praesens Numen, present deity, [...], 18. 2.
  • Praesentes or Praesentales Milites, present Milice; who they were. 477. 2. The Greeks call it [...]. ibid.
  • Priscus Rhetor the Historian, was a Thracian, born at Panium a Town in Thracia. 436. 1. a passage in Theophanes in mended. ibid.
  • [...], to instruct, to cultivate. 623. 2.
  • [...], a Village at some distance from a City. 123. 2.
  • Proclus, Chief of the Sect of the Cataphrygians. 29. 2.
  • Proconsul of Thracia. 281. 1.
  • Procopius, two Martyrs of that name. 157. 1.
  • Procurators of the familia Gladiatoria, or company of the Gladia­tours▪ 163. 2.
  • [...]. 663.
  • [...], to propose the name of a person to be ordained. 220. [...]. 603. 1.
  • Prophetae, so the High-priests amongst the Egyptians were termed. 53. 1.
  • Prophets that are true, how to be distinguished from the false one. 82. 2.
  • [...], to live according to example. 647. 1.
  • [...], Proseuchae of the Jews. 18. 2.
  • [...], to take pains. 405. 1. [...], to bear the changes of fortune. ibid.
  • [...], diligence, attention. 457. 2.
  • [...], what it imports. 41. 1.
  • [...], Let it be published, it was a word which the Emperours added to their Laws. 604. 1. [...], to publish an Edict. 516. 2.
  • [...], the chief or first of the Presbyters. 359. 2.
  • [Page] [...], [...] Provost, or Chief. [...]87. 1.
  • Psalm [...] or [...] ▪ when first in use in the Church. 23. 2. 90. [...].
  • Psalms called [...], 129. 2.
Q.
  • QUadratus Proconsul of Asia, under whom Polycarp suffered Mar­tyrdom, in what year he bore the proconsulate. 57. 2▪ &c.
  • Quadratus Bishop of Athens, a different person from Quadratus the disciple of the Apostles. 64. 1.
  • Quaternions, and Ternions. 618. 2.
  • Quirinius, or Gyrenius, when president of Syria. [...]. 1.
  • Quirus instead of Cyrus, and Quinegius for Cynegius. 466. 1.
R.
  • REcusatory-Libels, wherein Patriarchs requested of the Emperour, that they might have leave to relinquish their Bishopricks. 479. 1.
  • Regius Morbus, to signifie the Leprosie. 9 [...]. 2.
  • Religion of the Christians defined. 658. 1.
  • Rhetoricians were initiated by a certain rite. 374. 2. the Rhetorician's Pallium. ibid. and 389. 2.
  • Rhossus or Rhosse a City of Cilicia. 97. 1.
  • Roman-Church, their Liberality and Bounty towards the poor. 118▪ [...].
  • Romans, when they left off burning their dead. 1 [...]6. [...].
  • Rufinus's Letter to Ursacius. 108. 1.
S.
  • SAbaiarius, a Nick-name given to Valens by the Citizens of Chalce­don. 308. 1.
  • Sabba [...]um magnum, or the Great Sabbath, what it is. 57. 2.
  • Sabbath not kept as a fasting-day amongst the Romans, in Lent. 346. 1. nor in the Ember-weeks. 348. 1.
  • Sabellians, Hereticks, 119. 1.
  • Sacerdotes Provinciae, the Chief-priests of a Province. 150. 1. 173. 1.
  • Sacred Scripture, a threefold difference of the books thereof. 43. 1.
  • Sacrifices of the Heathens were not totally abolished by Constantine. 613. 2.
  • Schismaticks returning to the Church, were more kindly received than Hereticks. 604. 2.
  • Scholastici, Advocates. 357. 1.
  • Scholia, what meant by that word. 62. 1.
  • [...], what it means. 105. 1.
  • Scribes amongst the Jews, were the Keepers and Expounders of the Law. 35. [...] ▪ &c.
  • Scythae, so the Greeks call them, whom the Latines t [...]rm Goths. 578. 1. 607. 2.
  • Secretum, what it was. 134. 1.
  • Secular Judges who were present at a Council, when criminal matters were under debate, pronounced sentence; but in a matter of faith, they concerned not themselves. 424. 1. 439. 2.
  • [...], to calumniate, or extort. 133. 2.
  • [...], a Chappell wherein was the Tomb of a Martyr. 422. 2.
  • Sel [...]ucus was called Nicaror, not Nicanor. 505. 2.
  • [...] Excepta, excerptions. 440. 1.
  • [...] what it signifies. 84. 2.
  • [...] of Origen, ought in Latine to be termed Excepta, not ex­cerpta. 440. 1.
  • Senate, for an house or court. 366. 2.
  • Septuagint Translation when made. 78. 1. whether they translated all the books of Scripture. ibid. and whether in separate cells. ibid.
  • Serapis in what manner worshipped by the Egyptian Priests. 340. 1, 2. why he was called [...]. ibid. His Temple when de­molished. ibid.
  • Serdican-Council, how many Bishops present at it. 257. 1.
  • [...], a passage in him mended. 407. 2.
  • [...] Augustus was called also Serpentius or Serpentinus. 429. 1.
  • Showes amongst the Romans, were ordinary and extraordinary. 72. 1.
  • Sibylls, whether they foretold things by divine inspiration. 652. 2, &c.
  • Signes of the Zodiack were by the Greeks called [...]. 45. 1.
  • Silentiarii, who they were. 432. 1.
  • Simon Magus's death, when it hapned. 22. 1.
  • Sirmium, three Synods there, and their three Draughts of the Creed, 266. 2.
  • Sirmium-Synods in what years convened. ibid. and 269. 1.
  • Sitting, the usual posture of mourners amongst the Jews. 20. 2.
  • Socrates seems to have been a Novatianist. 367. 2. whether he was a Novatianist. 277. 1.
  • Son of God, was by antient Divines termed [...], 645. 2. He is termed The Middle, between the Father and things created. 683. 2.
  • [...], so Solomon's Book of Proverbs was called. 64. 1.
  • [...], to lay hands on, or ordain. 114. 1.
  • [...], or Sepulchral Monuments. 2 [...]. 1. 28. 2.
  • Stephen the Deacon, on what year he suffered Martyrdom. 15. [...].
  • Stephen the Pope, whether he excommunicated those of Africa, and of the East. 118. 2.
  • Stephanus Junior Bishop of Antioch, is ordained at [...]. 457. [...].
  • Strategium, what it is. 229. 2.
  • [...], Magistrates, or Duumviri. 1 [...]4. [...]. 146. [...].
  • [...], Officials, App [...]itours. 196. 2.
  • [...], 97. 2.
  • Sub-introduced women, who they were▪ 13 [...]. [...].
  • Succi, streights, or narrow passes so called. 259. 2.
  • Symeon the son of Cleophas, how a [...]in to our Saviour. 38. 1.
  • Symmachians, Hereticks. 100. 1.
  • Symplegades. 577. [...].
  • [...], I make a bargain. 402. 2. [...], a bargain. ibid.
  • [...], and [...]. 604. 2.
  • Syna [...], in how many senses it is used. 346. 2.
  • Sunday termed the first day, and the eighth. 678. 2▪ why this day was set apart for the meeting of the faithfull. 679. 1.
  • Syncelli, Officers which the Patriarchs had. 40 [...]. [...], &c. The Syn­celli were as well of the order of Presbyters▪ as Deacons▪ ibid. Not onely Patriarchs, but other Bishops also had their Syncell [...] ▪ ibid.
  • Syn [...]sius was not Bishop of Cyr [...]nae, but of Prolemais. 413. 2. what his belief was concerning the Resurrection. ibid.
  • Sy [...]ad [...], a City of Phr [...]gia▪ 102. 1. Synnadenses, the Citizens of that City, two of their Coyns explained. 37 [...] ▪ 2. They worship­ped Jupiter under the name of Pa [...]demos. ibid.
  • Synod of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, in what year held. 1 [...]. [...].
  • [...], to signifie an assemblie of the faithfull. 572. 2.
  • [...], a particular Synod, is op [...]sed to a gene [...]al [...] ▪ 408. 1. [...], a Synod of Bishops that made their residence for some time onely at the Imperial City. ibid.
  • [...], a modell or delineation of a future work. 588. 1.
  • [...], taking leave of, or bidding farwell. 53 [...]. 1. 5 [...]4. 1. [...]. ibid. [...]. ibid. and 498. 2.
  • [...] ▪ Tributaries. 47 [...]. 2. 504. 2▪ &c.
  • [...] a sign of Communion. 573. 1.
  • [...], what it signifies. 511. 2.
  • Superposition, a sort of Fast. 88. 1. in Greek termed [...]. ibid.
T.
  • TAbularii, who they were. 165. 1.
  • [...], companies of Souldiers. 623. 2, &c.
  • Tatianus was not a Professour of Rhetorick. 60. 2. 67. 1. Tatianus's Gospel [...] not the same with that termed The Gospel ac­cording to the Hebrews. 67. 2.
  • Taurobolia, and Cr [...]obolia. 303. 1, 2.
  • [...], Offices, and [...], Office, Body of Apparitours. 548. 2. 566. 2. 281. 1. [...]. 566. 2.
  • Taxing, [...], what it was; 7. 2. whether one or two Taxings. ibid.
  • [...], Martyrdom. 125. 2.
  • [...] Baptism. 628. 2.
  • Terebinthus, or Turpentine-tree, a place in Palestine. 595. 1, 2. That Turpentine-tree worshipped by the Pagans. ibid. At that place there was a Mart or Market yearly. ibid.
  • Testaments of Souldiers in Expedition. 615. 1.
  • Tetrapla were made by Origen after his Edition of the Hexapla. 99. 2.
  • Thaddaeus the Apostle, in what year he came to Edessa. 15. 2.
  • Th [...]la, instead of Theoclia. 453. 1. She was termed the Proto-Martyr. ibid.
  • [...], in what sense used by Eusebius. 91. 1.
  • Theodor [...] Asc [...]d [...]s. 497. 1.
  • Theodotion, when he published his Version. 77. 2.
  • Theodotus Bishop of Laodicea was an Arian. 602. 2.
  • Theodulus the Presbyter, when he wrote. 403. 1.
  • Theologia, anciently termed Theologicen. 2. 1.
  • [...], the Mistick sense. 354. 1.
  • [...], the sur-name of Saint Ignatius. 358. [...]. 414. 1. His re­liques were removed to Antioch long before Theodosius Junior's time. ibid.
  • Therapeutae were not Essens. 23. 1. nor Christians. 23. 2.
  • Thessalonica, whether it was under the government of Theodosius Senior. 337. 1. the Bishops of Thessalonica were Legates of the Roman See. 391. 2.
  • Thmuis, a City of Augustanica. 319. 1.
  • Tholus, what it is. 422. 1.
  • [...]. 113. 2.
  • Tiberius Constantinus, how long he reigned. 513. 1.
  • Time twofold, the one Perticular, the other general. 671. 2.
  • Timotheus Salofaciolus, called also Albus. 433. 1.
  • Tractates, so Homilies or Sermons to the people are termed. 108. 1.
  • Trajanus the Patricius, an Historian, when he lived. 506. 2.
  • Trapezita, who they were. 119. 2.
  • Tribunal of the nineteen Accubita. 507. 1. a place in Theophy­lactus Simocatta concerning that Edifice, is explained. ibid.
  • Tricennalia is taken for the Festival, and for the thirtieth year. 622. 1. 667. 2.
  • Tripolis, a City of Phoenice Maritima, wherein was the Sepulchre of the Martyr Leontius. 468. 1. 494. 1.
  • Trisagium, an Hymn in the Church. 476. [...], 2.
  • [Page] [...]. 449. 1. [...] ­phanes's Chronicon. ibid.
  • Troilus the Sophista. 370. 1.
  • [...], or [...], the Temple of the publick Ge [...]u [...]. 169. 414. 1.
  • [...], the publick Genius. 294. 2.
V.
  • VAcant Bishops. 307. 2▪
  • Valentinianus [...], where, and when proclaimed Augustus. 383. 2.
  • Valentinian Junior was [...]oson of Valens Augustus. 309. 2. He was also called Galates. ibid. In what year he dyed. 322. 1▪
  • Valerian, when he began to reign. 121. 1.
  • Vettius, a Roman name. 69. 2.
  • Vicarii or Deputies of the Praefects had the title of Perfectissimi in Constantine's time. 195. 1.
  • Victor the Pope, whether he excommunicated the Asians, or onely threatned it. 87. 2.
  • Victor Thunonensi [...], an eminent passage in him is mended. 402. 2, &c.
  • Victor was taken by Constantine as His Pranomen, or fore-name. 457. 2. And after his death by his sons. 632. 1.
  • Vigilius the Pope gave his consent to the Synod of Constantinople, but refused to be present at it. 496. 1.
  • Vigil of Easter, thereon the Christians kindled Lights, as well pub­lickly, as in private. 613. 1.
  • Vindices made by Anastasius. 475. 1.
  • Vine, the Badge of the Centurion's Office. 125. 1.
  • Virtues are either [...], or [...]. 646. 1.
  • [...], in what sense used by Divines. 93. 1.
  • Unio for Unition, is a barbarous, not a Latine word. 502. 2. Unio
  • [...], [...]. 421. 2.
  • [...] what it signifies. 266. 1.
  • [...], Fasts of superposition, 417. 2.
  • [...], who they were. 347. 1.
W.
  • WEek before Easter, termed by the Greek father [...] The Great Week. 24. 1. It began from the second Feria, or Monday. 88. 1. 678. 2, &c.
  • Widows, or Deaconnesses, their Examination. 698. 2▪
X.
  • XAnthicus, the name of a moneth amongst those of Smyrna, when it began. 60. 1.
  • [...], a Dialogue of Methodius the Bishop. 362. 2.
  • [...], a pair of Stocks. 60. 2. 71. 1. sometimes 'tis used to sig­nifie The Eculeus. 108. 2. 145. 1.
  • Xystus, how long Bishop of Rome. 132. 2.
Y.
  • YEars of the Edessens, whence they began. 15. 2.
  • Year of Christ, the first, according to Eusebius. 139. 2.
Z.
  • ZEla, a City of Cappadocia. 303. 2.
  • Zeno, whether Bishop of Majuma. 354. 1, 2.
  • Zozimus the Historian, did not live in the Times of Theodosius Junior. 472. 2, &c.
‘ [...].’
THE END.

Books Printed for, and Sould by Hannah Sawbridge at the Bible on Ludgate Hill.

Folio.

THE Lives of the Noble Graecians and Romans, by that Learned Historiographer, Plutarch, Translated from the Original: with the Addition of the Lives of many Eminent Persons and their Effigies Engraven in Cop­per Plates.

A Chronicle of the Kings of England containing all the passages of State and Church, by the famous Sir Richard Baker, Knight, with a continuation of all material Affairs of State to this time.

Astronomia Britannica Authore Vincentio Wing, In qua hi Quinque Tractatus traduntur.

  • I. Logistica Astronomica.
  • II. Trigonometria.
  • III. Doctrina Sphaerica.
  • IV. Theoria Planetarum.
  • V. Tabulae Novae Astronomicae.

Riverus Practice of Physick in 17 severall Books Translated into English by Nicholas Culpeper, Phys. and Astr. Abadiah Cole, Doct. Phys. and William Rowland, Physician.

Anatomy.
  • Riolanus,
  • Bartholinus
  • Veslingus,

All three Translated by Nicholas Culpeper, Gent. Student in Physick and Astrology.

The Compleat Surveyor, containing the whole Art of Surveying Land, by William Leybourne.

Cambridge Concordance, with Additions being the com­pleatest extant, by S. N.

A Large Bible, Cambridge print, fit for Churches.

Doctor Holi [...]kes Large Dictionary, being the best and largest in Print.

Gallileus's Mathematical System of the World, with Cuts, Englished by T. Salsbury Esq

Learned Cooks Comment on Litletons Tenures.

Maynards, Edward the 2d.

Doctor Cowels, Interpreter with T. Manlys Additions Corrected from former Errors: Now in the Press.

Morgans, Heraldry Epitomized: a large sheet.

Dyers Reports with 2 Tables▪

Townsends Tables C. L.

Physick Refined being the Works of that famous and profound Philosopher and Chymical Physician John Baptista Van Helmot.

The Year Books Compleat.

J. Rolls▪ Abridgement.

Rastalls Entries.

Cooks Reports, French.

—Entries.

Doctor Heylins Life of Bishop Laud.

Quarto.

Gouldman's Dictionary.

  • Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, &c. by W. Robertson. A. M.
  • Thesaurus Linguae Sanctae, &c. by W. Robertson. A. M.

With many other Quarto Books, and Books of lesser Volumes, which we have not room here to insert.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.