always observed But more modern Writers whether by unskilfullness or a kind of sloth and negligence have changed them all And instead of a subdistinction they have put 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 't is 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 't is made evident that a final distinction is not rightly shown by us by our setting a poynt at the feet of a Letter Wherefore 't is 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 't were 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 Hexâ—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 't is 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 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 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 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 oâ— shall have a mind to compare my Translation with their Version He will
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 the 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 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 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 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 Dart of Diabolical force no whit inferiour to the former He also was a 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 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 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
Dionysius Bishop of Corinth flourisht in the Reign of M. Antoninus Vales. b He means the persecution in Diocletians Reign Vales. c 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. d 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. a 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 't is thus worded In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun See D r Hammond on that Text. The same opinion Gregory Nazianzen attributeth to the Maâ—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 't is 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 a In all ouâ— 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. b 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. c 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 D r 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 't is 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. d 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. e 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. f 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 t is 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 10 th year of M. Aurelius to wit the year after Verâ—â—'s death Vales. g 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. h The Rescript of Antoninus Pius who is here meant in savour of the Christians is not now extant 'T is 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. a 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 Stephenâ— followed in the body of this fourth book For in the Contents prefixt before this 4 th 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. b These words His two books against the Jews are not in the
〈◊〉 In the Kings Sheets these words are added in the margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which words some Learned man hath added by conjecture as 't is 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. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At the margin of Morâ—us's Copy 't is 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 't is over written in the same hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Faithfull which displeases not In the Fuketian Manuscript 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vales. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doubtless the reading must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 piety as I found it mended in the margin of Turnebus's Copy Vales. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. * Or Only into Constantius entred â— wisedome of thought a After this word in the King's Sheets the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pious is elegantly added in the margin thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vales. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 't is 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 speakâ— 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. c 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. * Or Worthy of d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. a 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. †Or The Nature of affairs b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 S r 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 't is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vales. * Or The Polytheisme of the Atheists c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S r H. Savil has noted at the margin of his Copy that perhaps the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is 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. d 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. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. * Or Imperial power †Viz. Diocletian and Maximian a 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 't is 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. * Or Siege †Or Adorable * See Eusebius's Eccesiastical
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 S r 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 S r 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 S r Henry Savil to the Oxford-Library But he presently sent me Robert Stephens's Edition in the margin whereof S r Henry Savil had noted the Emendations taken out of that his own Manuscript Copy Nevertheless as far as I have been able to conjecture S r 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 afterwards perceived were omitted by S r Henry Savil. Farther the same S r 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 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 Grammâ—rians found out three positures or distinctions whereby as 't were 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 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 Grâ—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 tâ—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 meâ—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 Tâ—rnâ—s ab arce Extulit raâ—co strepâ—erunt cornâ—a Cantâ— Utqâ—e acres concussit equos utque impâ—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 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 't is 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
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 't is 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 â—mâ—t that â—â—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 Ariâ—â— 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 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 Persecutourâ— 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 Writingâ— 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a person of a doubtfull and wavering faith we must enquire to which opinion chiefly we ought to assent 'T is 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 be gathered from Victorius Aquitanus Usuardus and others without question 't is 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 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 Socrates and 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 Ring-leader 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
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 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 Vatican or to the way Ostia you will find the Trophies of those who founded this Church And that they both suffered Martyrdome at the same time Dionysius Bishop of Corinth writing to the Romans doth thus affirm So also you 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 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 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 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 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 't is probable Preached to the Jews scattered throughout Pontus and Galatia and Bithynia 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 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 Eubulus grâ—â—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 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 't was 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 saâ—â— 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
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 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 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 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 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 Volume against the Jews and some others who had attempted to calumniate the 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 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 conclusion of his Antiquities for the confirmation of the quotations and Authorities we have taken out of him He therefore blaming 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 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 subscribed my Books with his own hand and gave command they should be 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 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 brother of Joseph CHAP. XII How
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 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 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 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 't were 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 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 strangers to you In the same Epistle also he makes mention of the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians and manifests that 't was very antiently customary to recite it publickly in the presence of the Church for he says 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 It s 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 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
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 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 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 'T Is likely that other monuments of 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 Rhosse who taking an occasion from the foresaid Gospel inclin'd to Heterodox doctrines Out of which Book 't will 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 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 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 Stromata's which are in all eight books are extant amongst us which books he thus intituled The variegated contexture of 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 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 who also made a Chronographie Moreover he mentions Philo Aristobulus Josephus Demetrius and Eupolemus Jewish Writers who all have prov'd by their writings that 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 Institutions he makes short explications of all the written word of God not omitting those Scriptures whose authority is questioned by some I mean the Epistle of Jude and the other 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 But 't was for a very good 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
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 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 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 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 11 th 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 't is 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 9 th 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 't is 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 't is 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
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 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 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 Homoüsian faith and introduce Arianism in its stead 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 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 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 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
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 Theophorus 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 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 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 Love but was then become his most deadly Enemy upon this account One Peter was 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 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 laiâ— open before the Emperour himself and Johanâ—â—â— the Bishop Johannes informed hereof gave the men an honourable reception and excluded them not from communion 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 had been angry with Epiphanius in regard he entertained abject thoughts of God and subposed him to have
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 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 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 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 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 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 't is in the common reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that desires to have a knowledge in Letters Further in what City Evagrius practised the Law 't is 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. chap. 18. 'T is 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 both in Pompous Shows and also about his marriage-bed Whence 't is 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 chapter of his First Book Where speaking concerning the Empress Eudocia's Jerusalem-journey 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 't is 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 't is 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 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 'T is 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 close of his History Which Volume when Evagrius had published not without the consent of Gregorius the Patriarch in the Reign of Tiberius Constantinus
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 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 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 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 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 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 For 't is 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 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 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 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 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 Behold your house is left to you desolate and 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 I will build my Church upon a rock and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it To have brought at first from fishing men that were contemptible and 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 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 Hand And which is the chiefest thing of all that hath been hitherto rehearsed that Peace 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 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 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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sayings or sentences taken out of the holy Bible with which John comforted the young mans mind Vales. i 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. a 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 D r Hammond on 2 Cor. 5. 20. b 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. c 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 15 th 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. * Matth. 4. 12. †Mar. 1. 14. Luk. 3. 19 20. John 2. 11. * Joh. 3. 23 24. d In the most antient Maz. M. S. I found it written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a dipthong i. e. Saleim Vales. * Book 2. Chap. 15. a 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 S t 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. b Concerning this book see the Learned Arch-Bishop Usher in his dissertation on Ignatius Epistles Chap. 7. Edit Oxon. 1644. c Concerning this Gospel S t 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 S t Jerom shews in Esaia c. 11. and in Ezech. c. 18. Vales. d 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. a I wonder that all Interpreters have erred in the translation of this word Rufinus renders it Scâ—tum a buckler Langus and Musculus armaturam armour Christophor son propugnaculum a bulwarâ— But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies telum a dart Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an instrument of diabolical force Vales. b In four of our M. SS copies to wit Maz. Med. Fuk. S r 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 â—aâ— 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 â—e came not out of the very City Samaria For Simon was of the Village Gitton but Menander of the Village Caparattae Vales. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. b 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. c This place of Dionysius is to be found whole and entire in the 7 th 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 Aâ—ch-Heretick who published it under the name of John the Apostle that he might get the greater authority for his own opinions Vales. d 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 3 d 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. a In the M. SS Maz. Med. and S r Henry Savills it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. after him to wit Cerinthus Vales. b 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 doâ—e or said by Nicholas rashly and inconsiderately Yea he declares in the 2 d of his StromatwÌ„n 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. c 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. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Menedemâ—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 Pharisaeorâ—m Vales. b Christophorson in this place did in no wiâ—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 begoâ— 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 thâ—â— 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. c 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 amenâ—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 â—eeing therefore one of the four daughters died at Câ—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 Menâ—o Graecorâ—m diâ— 4 Sept. See the place Vales. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's 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
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. b This name is written with a double p in all our M. SS but that of M r Fukett where t is 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. c But Origen in his 3 d 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 3 d 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. d 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. a 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. * Chap. 31 of this 3 d book b In 3 of our M. SS Maz. Med. and Fuk. it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Barsabbas Vales. Acts 1. 23 24. ☜ c Jerom in Catalogo calls Mark the interpreter of Peter from this place of Papias as I judge Hence 't is 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 it s 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. a 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. * Book 3. chap. 21. a 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. b This destroying of all Egypt and Lybia by the Jews besides Dion Orosius mentions in his 7 B. Vales. c 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. a 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
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. a 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 't is 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. b The reading in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Valesius thinks it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Demonstration c 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. 1â— and in the 36 chap. of that book he calls Origens homilies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vales. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. b The Title of Maximus's Book was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concernâ—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. c 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. a Nicephorus B. 4. chap. 2â— 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 confiâ—ms Nicephorus's opinion and mentions this very story of Theodotus the Tanner and Natalis the Bishop atteâ—ting he had taken it out of the book called Thâ— Little Labyrinth Vales. b Hence it appears that 't was 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. c 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. d 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. e Valesius says those stripes are meant here which Natalis had undergone for the confession of Christ Quas says he pro Christi confessione perâ—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 f 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. g He speaks of the last advent of our Saviour which the Antient fathers usually speak of not as future but present Vales. h 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 't is 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. i Some call him Asclepiades but Nicephorus and Rufinus termâ— him Asclepiadotus A little after this instead of Apollonius we read Apollonides as did Rufinus and Nicephorus Vales. k S r 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. l 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. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lectisâ—imi i. e. the choicest 't is the nearest signification of the word but does not fully explain it for the word imports something more See Viger Idiot pag. 195. b 'T is a critical dispute whether the Greek word be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Aspirate or a Tenuis some say 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because 't
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. h From this place 't is 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. i 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. a The Ebionites admitted onely S t Matthew's Gospel to be genuine but that Gospel of the Ebionites was not the same Gospel of S t 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 S t Matthew These words therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have rendred thus disputing strongly against Matthews Gospel to wit ours and the true Gospel of S t Matthew From this Symmachus the Ebionites were afterwards termed Symmachians because he strongly asserted their opinions Vales. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 S t 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. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. * That is Grecian Philosophy c That is who were his Scholars Vales. a 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S t 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 S t 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 S t 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 't was one and the same Porphyrius the Platonick who liv'd in Sicily and wrote against the Christians Baronius's Annals b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. c 'T is 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. d 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 't is manifest was a Voluminous Writer as the Catalogue of his works recorded by Eusebius does manifest
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 't is not likely that Beryllus should compose several books upon so slight an Argument therefore 't is 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 Pâ—rynicus uses this word in his Epistle to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vales. b 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. c 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 3 d book of this Ecclesiastick History Chap. 31. Vales. d Eusebius before in the 3 d book and 3 d 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 Portuâ— 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. a 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. b 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. c Theodoret in his book call'd Eranistes quotes this book of Hippolytus Vales. d 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 Noâ—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. a 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. b 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. c 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. a He means he ought to have adjoyned these things to what he has said in his second book of his Apology Vales. b 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 thirty-four Vales. c Hieronymus in his Apology makes this short Catalogue of Origen's Works â— 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
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 faeceâ— populi and the purgamâ—nâ—a seculi which interpretation is not to be rejected here Vales. f 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. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. a 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. * He means Macrianus and his two sons See Chap. 1. of this Book at the close of the Chapter †Esai 42. 9. b 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. * That is that the Promises were to be literally understood a 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. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 thâ— 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. c 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. d 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. e 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. f This Province was so called from Arsinoe who was Queen of it before it was a Roman Province Vales. g ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. h 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 i 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. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 S t Paul also in his Epist. to the Colossians Chap. 2. v. 2. 19. useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sence Vales. * See B. 3. Chap. 28. pag. 44. note c. d. * Revelat. c. 22. v. 7 8. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. * Revelat. c. 1. v. 1 2. †Vers. 4. * 1 John c. 1. v. 1. †Matth. c. 16. v. 17. * Revalat c. 1. v. 9. †Revelat. c. 22. v. 7 8. b We ought to take special notice of this passage concerning
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 13 th and Valentinianus 3 d being Consuls Moreover if Baronius reckon these things done in the 2 d 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 't is impossible there should be a Synod of Bishops that year there Vales. b 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. a In the Maz. Fuk. Med. and Sav. M. SS 't is writ thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lianus but in some printed Editions 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amilianus Also Rifinus and Niceph. call him Aelianus Athanasius says there were 70 Fathers in this Synod who devested Paul of Samosata Vales. b 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. c Hence we may gather the Epistle of Dionys. Alexand. to Paul of Samosata which is inserted in the 11 th 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. d 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. e 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. f 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 Telâ—clides use the word Vales. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by Langus very well translated praemia accipere to take bribes S t Paul uses that term Colos. 2. 18. Vales. h 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. i This is a Scripture phrase taken out of 1 Timothy chap. 6. v. 6. k 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. * See Book 5. Chap. 1. note c. l 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. m 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. n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. o 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 p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. *
Peter Faber in Agonistico B. 3. pag. 603. Vales. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ursorum immanium so Valesius renders it and we have translated it huge i. e. terrible outragious wild bears b By 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the term which here occurs Nicephorus B. 7. chap. 7. thought those were meant who stood without the Arenâ— 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. e 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. a 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. b That is the Procuratour or Receiver general of the Emperours revenues in Egypt For that Office is meant by these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vales. c The phrase is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the honourable Magistrates But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be expunged for as I think 't is 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 d 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 't is manifest that he suffered there Vales. a 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. b 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. * Phil. 2. 7 8. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Martyrs full of Christ so Ignatius Bishop of Antioch was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. full of God Vales. * 1 John 4. 18. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I suppose he means the Eculeus on which Offenders were hung and had their sides torn with iron-nailes Vales. e ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. * ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Porch Gallery or walking place under-propped with Pillars in such Philosophers taught and disputed the Stoicks had their name from hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 f 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. g The phrase in the original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which to me seems a new and uncouth expression Vales. h 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. i See B. 4. Chap. 16. note c. * Exod. â—2 20. †Exod. 20. 3. k 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 Ruâ—â—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. a Lactantius tells the same story in his book 5. Institut Diviâ—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 prâ—cipiâ—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. b 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. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the term in the original which the Latines called Magistratus or Duumvir 't is 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 't is manifest from the old Coyns and marbles See Valesius's his notes on Amm. Marcellinus B. 31. pag. 423 424. d 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. e He means the Procuratour or Steward of the Revenue Rufinus renders this place thus rationes summarum partium administrans which is truly translated Vales. f Concerning these Magistrirei privatae see Leg. 2 and 4 Cod. Theod. De jure fisci These Officers are usually joyned with the Ratioâ—alists in the Cod. Theod. See Valesius's notes on Ammian Marcellin Book 15. pag. 78. 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 Eâ— circundati defixis corporibus ignes Vales. b Rufinus translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the term here grid-irons So also the Old Gloss renders this term Vales. c 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 high-way Concerning the Martyrdom of these sort of Christian women who drowned themselves for the preservation of their Chastity and Religion see S t August De Civitat Dâ—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. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. * Ironically spoken e The Med. Maz and Fuk. M. SS read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superlative Vales. f 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. g 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. h 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. a 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. b 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. c In the Maz. Med. M. SS this person is called Dius in Robert Stephens he is named Didius Vales. d 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. e 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
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 q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 * He means the City of Constantinople r 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 aâ—so it is in Theodoret book 1. chap. 16. Vales. s 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. * He means our Blessed Saviours Sepulchre t 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 't is 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. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the faith autority or estimation of this miracle c. u 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. †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 15 th 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 x 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 y The inner roofs of Churches were commonly framed two ways For they were either beautified with arched or embowed roofs or else painted with Mosaick-work 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 z 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 3 d book De Gestis Synod Nicaenae which Epistle
an inquiry when and where they were condemned Baronius says they were condemned and deposed in the Nicene Synod But this is contradicted by S t 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 't is 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. d 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 Duâ—um quidem ante judicium condemnati à Reverentiâ— vestrâ patienter ferrâ— 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. e 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. * Arius f 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. a 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. b 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 't is 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 a That is the Festivals for his having arrived to the twentieth year of his Empire b 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. c Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was set or placed it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was exposed or erected This emendation is confirmed by Epiphan Scholasticus's Version Vales. d 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. * See Esaâ— 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 a 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. b 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. a Christophorson and Musculâ—â— thought that these words were transposed they read them as appears from their Version thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Emperour
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. e 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. a Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that he was falsely accused not without reason S r 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 * Repentance Matth. 28. 19. a 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. b 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. a 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. b 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. c 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. d 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. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words Valesius has thus rendred conspirans adversus Principem conspiring against the Emperour e 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. f 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. g 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
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. * Book 2. Chap. 44. a 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. b 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. * Essence or Substance †Subsistence Existence or Personality ‖ 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 c The Acts of the Synod of Alexandria are not now extant but 't is 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 Father 's 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. * 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 S r Jerome who thought that the term Hypostasis in this Text signified Substantia and therefore in his Version 't is thus rendred figura substantiae ejus the figure of his substance See D r Owens account of this phrase in his Exposition on the Hebrews pag. 55 c. Edit London 1668. d 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. e 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 consuciâ—dine in dictione in prosodia which were alphabetically digested he composed one Book also de Atticismo as Suidas relates in his Lexicon Vales. f 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. * That is Substance †Unmixt or uncompounded a 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. * 1 Sam. 22. 2. †Or send forth * Or Midian See Exod. 2. 15. †1 Sam. 19. 11 c. * 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 †Or Obadiah See 1 Kings 18. 13. ‖ 2 Cor. 11. 32 33. * Numb 35. 11. †Matt. 10. 23. * Matt. 24. 15 16 17 18. * Matt. 2. 13. * See Matt. 12. 14 15. †John 11. 53 54. ‖ John 10. 58 59. b 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 't is written to be burnt with fire c. Which reading Epiphan Scholasticus followed as 't is apparent from his version But Musculus and Christophorson joyn these words according as 't is 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. * Matth. 14. 13. c 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 consultâ— 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. * Or was in our Saviour †Or was in the Saints †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the passions or affections of our infirmity * John 7. 30. †John 2. 4. * John 7. 6. ‖ Matt. 26. 45. a 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 constringebâ—â—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 â—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 Synodâ— 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. * That is the Homoöusian Faith a Concerning these little Synods or Conventicles of the Macedoniani this passage in Basilius's 72 Epistle Ad Evâ—senos is to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There is not amongst us one saith at Seleucia another aâ— Constantinople a third aâ— Zela a fourth at Lampsacum and a fifth at Rome Vales. * See book 2. chap. 39. b 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 't is certain accuses them upon this account in his 73 Epistâ—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 't is apparent from his 79 th Epistle to Eustathius Vales. c 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 't is certain did profess the
the earth d This passage is to be made good from Gregorius Nazianzenus thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and we have rendred it accordingly Vales. e 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. f 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 't is 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 't was requisite for Origen to expound those places of Scripture which seemed to contradict the sentiments of the Philosophers Vales. g He meanâ— 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. h 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. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Florentine M. S. the reading is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he deserted Nicephorus book 10. chap. 36. Eccles. Hist. words it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abjured Vales. * See Esai 7. 9. Socrates quotes the words of the Septuagint and we render it accordingly k Concerning Aristotles Peplum see what the Learned Guillelmus Canterus has remarkt Vales. l It should be Dionysius not Dionysus 'T is 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. m Suidas relates that Reginus Grammaticus wrote a book with this title Polymnemων Vales. n 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. o Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a race most incomparably the best the reading as the rule of verse requires should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a race ineffable Vales. p 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. * That is his favorite whom he kept to abuse contrary to nature q 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 't is 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. r Before these words I placed a full point following herein Nicephorus's authority Moreover the reading should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor is he himself ashamed Vales. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Pallium-wearers a 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 â—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 suprâ— a It must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which has the same import with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 approaches or addresses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies another thing to wit Progressus proceedings Vales. b 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 Evaeâ—enos and in Epist. 73. ad Monachos suos Vales. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that hasten towards c. c The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 new or unusual was added by Christophorson out of
on those years Nazianzenus distinguishes these two journeys of Valens's in his twentieth Oration pag. 346. of his works Edit Paris 1609. Vales. f 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. g 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. h 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. * So Rufinus says book 2. chap. 9. Eccles. Hist. * So Euseb. Eccles. Hist. book 6. chap. 30. a 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. * Or Epistles b 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. c In the Greek 't is 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. a 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. * Or Moralls †He means the Sacrament of the Lords Supper b Instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is doubtless to be thus worded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Questionless Socrates left it written thus and we have rendred it accordingly Vales. c 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. * Or studiously exercised or followed * Novatus d 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. e 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 't is 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
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. * Book 4. chap. 37. a 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 59 th Epistle to the Clergy of Thessalonica Where he says that Anysius his Schollâ—â— succeeded him Vales. a See Book 4. chap. 12. b See what Socrates has remarked concerning this matter in chap 4. of this Book Vales. †That is the Orthodox c 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. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 D r Beveredge's Annotat on the third Canon Concil Constantinop pag. 95. e 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 D r 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 D r 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. f 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 Prâ—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
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 M r Hooker's Eccles. Politie book 6. pag. 332. c. Edit Lond. 1666 also D r Cave's Primitive Christianity Part 3. Chap. 5. b 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 t is taken in the 2 Can. Concil Chalccdon pag. 112 Edit Beveredg where t is true it must be taken in a more comprehensive sense than to signifie the Câ—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 D r Beveredge's Notes pag. 109. But whether it is to be used in this sense here I determine not let the Learned judge c 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 M r 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 't is plain that the confessions made to him were private and to be kept concealed * 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 †To wit from the Persecution under the Emperour Decius till after the Election of Nectarius to the Episcopate of Constantinople d 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 M r 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 't is 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. e 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
life he means the Monks †Or upon c 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 yâ—â— 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. a I am of the same mind with Christophorson and S r Henry Savil who instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and having been illegally have mended it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as having been illegally performed 'T is 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. b The name of this Silentiarius was wanting in the ordinary Editions and in Nicephorus We have put it in from the incomparable â—â—orentine Manuscript wherein 't is plainly and expressly written thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Diomedes the Silentiarius Concerning the Silentiarii I have heretofore observed something in my Notes on Amm. Marcellinus Vales. c 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 D r Howell's account of these Officers Part II of his Hist. chap. 1. pag. 51. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. * Or I would not bring a greatness upon this present work †Or with all suffrages e There is mention of this Amphilochius Bishop of Side in Photius's Bibliotheca chap. 52. Where the Letters of Atticuâ— and Sisinnius Bishops of Constantinople written to him are recorded The same Amphilochius was present at the Ephesine and Chalcedon Synods as 't is 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. * The Emperour †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See 1 Cor. 15. 8. * Or how could he our Saviour have â—ad a place amongst so many so great and such Holy Fathers unless the Holy Spirit had been with them from the beginning †Or people * See chap. 5. †Or elect Timotheus another Bishop successour to Proterius a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 câ—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 Cedrâ—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 â—ascia which may be taken for a royall Diadem But nothing
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. c 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. * Or He lived in the Empire but c. †Or Concerning a summary of c. * Or recounted a 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 't is 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 't is 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. b Tiberius Constantinus was made Caesar by Justinus in the eighth Indiction on the seventh-day of the month September as 't is 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 't is 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. * Or Preserved a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doubtless it must be written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And Lastly by those c. For 't is referred to the foregoing words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Translatours perceived not Vales. b Concerning Charax Pergamenus a Writer of Greek Histories see what Vossius has written in his book de Historicis Graecis Vales. * Or The Epirote †Or judiciously c 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. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. e 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. f 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. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with all possible expedition in order to the avoiding the ill sounding of the words Vales. h 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. †Or Benevolence * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pride or voluptuousness †Viz. Piety ‖ Shewed or brought * Viz. Imperial Dignity a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Nicephorus book 18. chap. 8. the reading is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Crowned which I don't approve of For 't was not the custom amongst the Ancients at least so far as I know that those who were invited
favour him though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has not that signification Therefore I had rather read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have an inclination towards him Vales. * Or Theopolis †Or That City ‖ Or Part. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Plebâ—ians or rather as well the Citizens as the Artificers For so Evagrius has distinguished both Parties a little before Vales. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. c 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. * Or Conflicts * Gregorius's a 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. †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Or Made their very foundations boyl b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 causâ— 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. ‖ Book 1. Chap. 18. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Tellerian manuscript and in Nicephorus 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Translatours Langus Musculus and Christophorson understood not this place as 't is 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. * Or Turned to the contrary side e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 fà ln 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
and after the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a midle distinction is set in all our Manuscript Copies Vales. a At these words I began a new chapter having followed the authority of the Kings and Fuketian Copy whereto agree the Old Sheets Vales. * Or Discourse of wisedom b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 â—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. †Or Course a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is â—â—â—er Greek as I take it to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Fuketian and Savilian Copies 't is plainly written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vales. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is 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 'T is 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 't were 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 't is 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
the Holy Sepulchre of the Holies †Or Instead of he means the heap of earth wherewith the Heathens had filled that place ‖ Or Evidence * Or Overwhelmed with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S r Henry Savil had noted at the margin of his Book that perhaps it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vales. * Or The saving Doctrine of the Faith a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Socrates Theodoret and Nicephorus the reading is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I think to be truer Vales. b 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 't is 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. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and have rend ed it accordingly Vales. * The term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith authority or credit is wanting here which we have inserted from Socrates booke 1. chap. 9. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This place is to be mended from Socrates and Theodoret. Vales. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This place must likewise be mended from Socrates Theodoret and Nicephorus in this manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deputy to the most Famous the Praefecti Praetorio There aâ—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 't is 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. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 At this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the form and delineation of the future work In which sense 't is 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. c 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 't is left out in Robert Stephens's Edition 'T is inserted here in Valesius's Version from whom and the forementioned authorities we have put it into our Translation * Or Inside of the Roof a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Ifidorâ—â— 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. †Or Fretted ‖ Or Adorned b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 S r Henry Savil's â—opy Vales. * Or Word a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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. a 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. * Constantine a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Questionless it must be written thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having long before performed c. Vales. * Or Rich distributions of gifts a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is 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. * Leaders or Princes b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Fuketian Copy 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But in the Old Sheets the reading is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I like better Vales. * Or With Piety a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instructing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 furnishing them with Eusebius makes use of this word in the same sense again in the next chapter Vales. * Or Furniture †Or Souldiers armed with Shields Spear-men Guards of their Bodies ‖ Or Captaines a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. * That is Christian◠b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. * Viz. Christians †Or Fortified himself with c. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. a 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 't is 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
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. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must be written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a pure mind as the reading is in the Fuketian Copy Wherein likewise it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excellently well Vales. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Books of Scaliger Bongarsius and Gruter this place is worded thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which writing I likewise found in the Fuketian Copy But S r 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. f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doubt not but it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c to whom which I wonder Christophorson and the rest perceived not Vales. g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. * Or Nobility h 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 S t 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. i Concerning these Banquets and Feasts of the Christians which were made at the Sepulchres of the Martyrs mention is made by S t 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 S t Austin attests Epist. 64. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 't is in the the ordinary Editions Vales. †Or Doctrine a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I had rather write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even in this matter as I found it mended in the margin of Moraeus's Book And so 't is written in the Fuketian Copy Vales. * Knowledge or Comprehension b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must I suppose be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the faith of every particular person Vales. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I had rather make it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have exprest in our Version Vales. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 After these there are many words wanting as 't is 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 S r 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. * Or Is made a neighbour to it that is to an uncreated essence by a life according to Virtue a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christophorson seems to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begotten which reading pleases me best Vales. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is visible from his Version But the common reading is supported by the authority of the Kings Copy and the Old Sheets Vales. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is either thus to be read or to be understood thus For Constantine terms that equalling of all things a confusion Vales. * Or Covered d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 S r Henry Savil Gruter and M r Fuket word this place thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in regard the dignity of c. Which reading seems to me better and more elegant Vales. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 S t Paul's Epistles But the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is redundant after the usual manner of Graecians as 't is well known to those skilled in the Greek Tongue Vales. * Or In place of many goods †Or Both as to dignity and in a diversity of power f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Kings Copy 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Robert Stephens has also remarked in his Various
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 aâ—â—â— 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 Pot-herbs 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 'T is 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 negligentiâ— aut Laboris fugâ aut desidiae cupiditate ductus sed confiliâ— 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. b 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 'T is 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. * Or House c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last word is wanting in the Fuketian Copy Vales. d 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 't is 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 'T is 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 'T is 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. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 'T
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 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 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 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