Macrianus therefore having treacherously betrayed one of the Emperours which preceded him and made War upon the other was immediately extirpated and together with his whole family became extinct Gallienus was now proclaimed and by common consent received Emperour he was both an old Emperour and a new for he was before them and also survived them for according to that which was spoken by the Prophet Esaias Behold the former things are come to pass and new things shall now rise up For as a cloud rising up before the rays of the fun overshadoweth it for a while and appears to be substituted into the place thereof but when the cloud has gone over it or is dissolved the sun which before was risen seems then to arise again so Macrianus who set himself before and approacht the very Empire of Gallienus now is not for he never was but Gallienus as he was Emperour before so he now continues to be And the Empire it self having deposited its old Age as it were and being cleansed from the dregs of its former improbity now flourisheth with greater vividness is seen and heard of at a larger distance and spreads its fame in all places He afterwards declares the time when he wrote these things in these words It now again comes into my mind to contemplate the years of our Emperour For I see how those most impious persons who had so great a name are in a short time become most obscure But our most Pious and Religious Emperour having passed his seventh is now in the ninth year of his Empire in which we are about to solemnize the Festivals CHAP. XXIV Concerning Nepos and his Schism BEsides Dionysius wrote two Books concerning the promises The occasion of his writing these Books was Nepos an Aegyptian Bishop who taught that the promises which were made to the Saints in the sacred Scriptures should be performed in the Jewish sence and affirmed that there was to come a thousand years state upon earth which should be spent in bodily pleasures Now he supposing he could confirm his own opinion out of John's Revelation wrote a Book upon this Question and intitled it A Confutation of the Allegorical Expositors which piece Dionysius confutes in his Books concerning the Promises In the first Book of which he proposeth his own opinion concerning the Question In the second he discourseth concerning the Revelation of John where in the very beginning he makes mention of this Nepos and writes thus concerning him But because they produce a Book of Nepos's on which they rely very much as if it did infallibly demonstrate that the Kingdom of Christ should be set up on earth indeed for several other things I commend and love Nepos for his faith his industry and study in the Scriptures and also for the many Psalms and Hymns he composed with which many of the Brethren are even at this time much delighted And I reverence the man for this reason chiefly because he is dead But I judge truth most to be beloved and to be the most precious of all things It is our duty to praise and freely to commend what-ever is truly said but we are also to examine and correct what-ever unsound opinion appears to have been committed to writing Now could he be present and discusse his opinion by word of mouth then a bare discourse by Questions and Answers without any writing might suffice to convince and reduce the adverse party to an agreement But since there is a Book published and as to some it seems a most perswasive one since some Teachers look upon the Law and the Prophets to be of no value neglect to follow the Gospels have small esteem for the Epistles of the Apostles and promise great things concerning the Doctrine of this Book as containing some great and hidden Mystery since they will not suffer the more ignorant of our brethren to think of any thing that is sublime and great neither of the glorious and truly divine advent of our Lord nor of our Resurrection from the dead our gathering together to him and our being made like him But perswade them to think that men hope for nothing in the Kingdom of God but abject and mortal things such as they now hope for It is necessary we enter into a dispute against our Brother Nepos as if he himself were present After some words he continues saying When I was in the Province of the Arsinoitae where as you know this opinion was long since propagated so far that there were Schisms and revoltings of whole Churches together having convened the Presbyters and Teachers of the Brethren in every particular Vilage such Brethren also as had a mind to come being present I advised them that there might be researches made into this Doctrine in the presence of a publick Assembly And when they produced this Book as a defence and an impregnable bulwark sitting with them three whole days together from morning till evening I endeavoured to discusse the contents thereof In all which time I did extraordinarily admire the constancy of the Brethren their love to truth and the great quickness and readiness of their understanding with so much order modesty and moderation did we propose Questions propound doubts and yield our assents For we took special care never pertinaciously to defend our former opinions when once they were found to be erroneous neither did we shun the objections of others But to the utmost of our power we endeavoured to keep close to the points of the present Question and confirm them as well as we could Neither if we were convinc't were we ashamed to be perswaded out of our opinion and consent with others But with a good conscience unfeignedly and with hearts displai'd to God we received what-ever was grounded upon the demonstrations and declarations of the sacred Scripture In the conclusion the chief maintainer and champion of this Doctrine by name Coracio confessed and made a protestation to us in the Audience of all the Brethren there Assembled that he would no longer adhere to this opinion nor dispute concerning it nor mention it nor preach it so powerfully was he convinc't by the Arguments which had been brought against it And the rest of the Brethren which were present rejoyced at this conference and at the reconciliation and unanimity which was amongst all men CHAP. XXV Concerning the Revelation of John HAving interposed some words he afterwards says thus concerning the Revelation of John Indeed some of our Ancestours disowned and wholly rejected this Book confuting every Chapter and demonstrating it to be an unknown and senseless work and that the Title is forged for they say it is not John's Neither is it a Revelation because it is covered over with so thick and dark a vail of Ignorance And that not onely no Apostle but also no holy or Ecclesiastick person could have been the compiler of this
those places and have written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Illustrious instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Grammarianâ 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã he that desires to have a knowledge in Forensian Cases not as 't is in the common reading ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâ¦ã ãâ¦ã diligent in recounting the Works and Publick Edifices of the City Antioch as may be seen in ãâ¦ã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
he found Aquila and Priscilla there who were lately come from Italy thither upon account of the Edict of Claudius commanding all Jews to depart from Rome as it is in the 18 chap. Acts. From all this its apparent that there was a good distance of time between the Council held at Jerusalem and the Edict of Claudius in which space all this we have related was dispatcht by Paul the Apostle In Chronico Alexandrino the Council at Jerusalem is placed on the sixth year of Claudius he had better have said the seventh For so all things agree exactly For Paul staid at Antioch the remaining months of that year wherein the Council was then the following year he travelled through Syria Cilicia Phrygia and Galatia At length in the ninth year of Claudius he came into Greece Vales. h ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is at which time Aquila c. for it may be read in two words thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as I found it written in the Kings and the Fuk. M. SS Vales. a The same number he sets down in his Chronicon But Josephus in his 2 B. of the Jewish wars says there was somewhat more than ten thousand killed But in his 20 th B. of Antiquities which work he compiled after his History he accounts the number of the slain to be twenty thousand Which number I would rather agree too because these Books as I said were written last by him Vales. b This Agrippa the younger to speak properly was never King of the Jews For after the death of Agrippa his father who dyed the fourth year of Claudius Claudius took him being very young and kept him with him neither did he permit him to succeed in his fathers Kingdom Afterwards Herod the King of Chalcis being dead Claudius gave Agrippa his Uncle's Kingdom which when he had held four years Claudius in the twelfth year of his Reign gave him Thraconitis which was the Tetrarchie of Philip and also the Kingdom of Lysanias having first taken Chalcis from him He transferred to him also the authority over the Temple and the power of electing the High-priests which his Uncle Herod had A little after Nero added to his Kingdom part of Galilce as Josephus writes in his twentieth B. of Antiq. Which being thus its apparent Eusebius was mistaken who wrote both here and in his Chronicon that Agrippa the younger succeeded in his fathers Kingdom presently after the death of his father and was made King of the Jews by Claudius Although Eusebius says not here expresly that he was by Claudius made King presently after his fathers death Indeed out of Josephus it may be evidently shown that the younger Agrippa was not made King immediately after his fathers death For in his second Book of the Jewish wars chap. 13 he makes the twelfth year of Nero wherein the Jewish war began to be the same with the seventeenth of King Agrippa Therefore the younger Agrippa began to reign in the eighth year of Claudius Moreover I will not deny that he was King of the Jews seeing he was King of Galilce and is by Justus reckoned among the Kings of the Jews But I deny that ever he was King of Judea For after the death of the Seniour Agrippa which happened in the fourth year of Claudius Judea was brought into the form of a Province and every year the Procuratours of Caesar were sent thither as Josephus relates Vales. c In the Chronicon of Eusebius Felix is said to have been sent Procuratour into Judea by Claudius in the eleventh year of his Reign But in Scaligers Edition of that work it is more rightly placed on the tenth year of Claudius Yet it seems to be truer that Felix was sent into Judea in the ninth of Claudius For Tracitus in his twelfth Book says That Felix was lately set over the Jews Sulla and Otho being Consuls which was the tenth year of Claudius and in Acts 24. Paul pleading his cause before this same Felix which was done on the thirteenth year of Claudius speaks thus to him For as much as I know that thou hast been for many years a judge unto this Nation Moreover Rufinus is mistaken in that he thinks these are Josephus's words when as it appears that they indeed are Eusebius's Vales. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã so it is in Josephus Gelenius renders it enemies which I like not For Josephus by that term means ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the most eminent Personages Vales. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifies properly to attend too or observe In this sense Eusebius uses the word chap. 18. of this Book and in B. 3. chap. 24. This word occurs in Athenaeus Polybius and others Vales. * Acts 21. 38. See Josephus Antiq. B. 20. c. 6 7. See also D r Hammond on Acts 21. 38. b Josephus says there were thirty thousand men which is so to be understood as that the number of the whole multitude was 30000 of which 4000 onely were murtherers And so Josephus will be reconciled to Luke But I agree not with Eusebius who writes that this was done in Nero's time For in Acts 21 this Egyptian is said to have been overthrown a little before Pauls coming to Jerusalem Now Paul came thither in the last year of Claudius which may be gathered from the 24 chap. Acts where Luke writes that Portius Festus was sent as successour to Felix Seeing therefore Festus was sent into Judea in the second year of Nero the overthrow of this Egyptian must necessarily fall on the last year of Claudius The narration of Josephus who seems to refer all this to the times of Nero deceived Eusebius But Eusebius ought to have considered that Josephus does in that place relate all the Acts of Felix together as well what he did under Claudius as what under Nero. Vales. a Indeed this place is very obscure and therefore Musculus as also D r Hanmer omitted it But having considered upon it long and much at length I apprehended the true sense of this place Eusebius therefore says that from the second Epistle of Paul to Timothy this may be gathered to wit that Paul in his first defence was acquitted by the Judges sentence but afterward at his second defence he was condemned The former part hereof he apparently manifests in these words At my first defence no man stood with me and whenas he says I was delivered out of the mouth of the Lyon which is as much as if he had said I was snatcht from Nero's jaws But Paul speaks far otherwise of his second accusation For he does not say The Lord delivered me out of the mouth of the Lyon as he had said before For he foresaw God revealing it to him that he should by no means any longer avoid the sword of the persecutour but should end his life by a glorious martyrdom Therefore when he had said of his first accusation I was delivered out of the mouth of the Lyon concerning his
more certainly of the death of King Agrippa than he who dedicated his work to him Which I indeed wish had not dropt from so acute a man For how can an Historian testifie of the death of him to whom he dedicates his History unless we say that Justus dedicated his Chronicle to Agrippa when he was dead which is absurd But as Scaliger without all ground asserted that Justus Tiberiandensis dedicated his Chronicle to K. Agrippa so what he inferrs therefrom is also absurd But from Photius his testimonie it is manifest that that work was put forth by Justus after the death of King Agrippa Josephus relates that the History of the Jewish wars was published by Justus also after the death of Agrippa although it was written twenty years before A book of this same Justus his whose title was ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is quoted by Laërtius in the life of Socrates which Photius says was the same with his Chronicle Vales. d He means Julius Archelaus and Herod as Josephus himself declares in his first book against Apion Julius Archelaus was brother in law to King Agrippa for he had married his Sister Mariamne so says Josephus at the end of his 19 and 20 books of Antiquit. Vales. e Nicephorus in his 3 book chap. 11. interpreting these words of Josephus says that Titus with his own hand copied out the books of Josephus his History of the Jewish wars See what Johannes Langus has noted at that place of Nicephorus But all interpreters who have translated this place of Josephus into Latine understand thereby that Titus onely subscribed the books of Josephus with his own hand and did not copy them out himself But I would rather follow the opinion of Nicephorus Neither do these words of Josephus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã seem to sound any thing less to me Thus this place is pointed in all Copies as well M. S. as Printed But if this place of Josephus were to be understood onely of Titus his Subscribing Josephus his books with his hand then the distinction or comma ought to be put after the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but here you see it put after the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. f In the most excellent M. SS Maz. Med. Fuk. and in S r Hen. Savills M. S. it is written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which reading all interpreters seem to have followed but I like Rufinus his Version best who translates it To be publickly read in which sense the same word is used by Eusebius in chap. 22. of his second book where he speaks of the General Epistles of James and Jade and in chap. 3. of his 3 book But from these words of Josephus we may gather that the History of the Jewish wars was put out by him in the Reign of Vespasian but his Antiquities were published by him in the thirteenth year of Domitian as he himself testifies at the end of his 20 book and at the close of his book of his own life But that which Scaliger affirms in Animad Euseb. p. 187. to wit that the book of Josephus his own life was by him put out seven years after his Antiquities seems not probable to me for that book is as we made it out before onely the conclusion of his twentieth Book of Antiquities and at the end of it Josephus reckoning up the Roman Emperours concludes with Domitian Vales. a This account of Eusebius his here agrees not with what he has written in that work of his called his Chronicon for there he writes that presently after the death of James Simcon was elected to wit in the seventh year of Nero. But here he makes it evident that after the murder of James the Episcopal See was vacant for the space of about eight or nine years Which intervall of time that the Authour Chronici Alexandrini might fill up he places the death of James on the first year of Vespasian Vales. b That is because as we conjecture he married Mary which was Sister to the B. Virgin upon which account Simeon the son of this Cleophas is here called Cousin-German by the mothers side to our Saviour for so we translate the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not patruelem i. e. Cousin-German by the fathers side as it is in the version of Valesius but consobrinum i. e. Sisters son For Mary the wife of Cleophas and the B. Virgin were Sisters see Jo. 19. 25. and so Simeon the son of the former Mary and our Saviour the son of the latter were Sisters children See the Learned Bâ Pearson on the Creed p. 175 176. Edit Lond. 1669. And Petavius in hares 78. Epiphan cap. 7 14. and also St Jerom in Catalog a I know not why R. Stephens read Anacletus seeing that all our books have it written Anencletus And so Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus and his Translatour Anastasius Bibliothecarius in Chronolog Tripartit reads it So also Nicephorus Calistus in Libr. 3. cap. 2. and Georgius Syncellus and the M. SS copies of Rufinus So likewise Irenaeus in Lib. 3 where he reckons up the Roman Bishops in order names him Anencletus and omits the name of Cletus which to me seems to be made of a piece of the word Anencletus Neither does Optatus nor S. Augustine in his 165 Epistle where he counts up the Romish Bishops acknowledge Cletus But on the contrary in two very antient Catalogues of the Roman Bishops one whereof is in the Monastery of S. German and the other in the Jesuits Colledge at Clermont there is no mention of Anencletus but onely of Cletus who succeeded Linus and sat eleven years one month and two daies From whence its evident that Cletus and Anencletus was the same man See more of this in P. Halloixius in notat ad cap. 7. vitae Irenaei Vales. a That is the First after Mark So Eusebius said before concerning Linus Bishop of Rome at the 2 chap. of this book For Mark was the Apostle of the Alexandrians as we before have said But the Apostles were not reckoned amongst the number of the Bishops There was therefore no need of putting in here ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as Nicephorus did See Seldens notes ad Eutychium patriarcham Alexandr Vales. b Rufinus and the other Translatours call this man Abilius and also Jerom himself in Chronico not so rightly as I judge For he ought to be called Avilius which is a Roman name as well as Annianus who was Bishop before Avilius Besides the order of the chapters is here disturbed in the common Editions this chap. of the succession of Avilius being put before that of the succession of Anencletus but we by the direction of the M. SS copies Maz. and Fuk. have placed them in their true order This was a very antient mistake for in the Index of the chapters prefixed before the 3 B. of Rufinus his translation and in all the Greek copies except in that of Fuk. the same errour is committed But in the
words of the Authour are prefixt before the exposition this term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which is all one as if Eusebius should have said ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ' ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Agamemnon is on our sideâ 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or else we may take the word in this sence as if the Heathens should call the Christians the very ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the off-scouring the filth the very faeceâ populi and the purgamânâa seculi which interpretation is not to be rejected here Vales. f Christoph. in his Latine Version renders this word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã decenter ornantes dressing them up neatly but he mistakes for Dionysius speaks of their dress afterwards in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã decking them in their best cloaths ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 â 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã And on the reverse this ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ' ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is the term in the original I have rendred it docilitatem aptness to be taught For auditours are properly said ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã when they apprehend the sense of words Vales. h The Greek phrase is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is not put in this place for dispensation but for the same as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in this sence Vales. * See B. 3. Chap. 28. pag. 44. note c. d. * Revelat. c. 22. v. 7 8. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is a term proper to the Rhetoricians as plainly appears by the following word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I think that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã has the same import with dispositio or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in Suidas is the same as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. â Vers. 4. * 1 John c. 1. v. 1. â Matth. c. 16. v. 17. * Revalat c. 1. v. 9. â Revelat. c. 22. v. 7 8. b We ought to take special notice of this passage concerning
are wanting in the Maz. and Fuk. M. SS They are in the Kings M. S. And in the Med. M. S. they are written at the margin here in the same hand in which that M. S. is written Moreover although Eusebius here says he before related that Maximianus Herculius re-assumed the Imperial dignity yet hitherto I cannot find the place where Eusebius has said this Vales. n ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the expression here is to be understood in the same sense with that we explained a little before in this chapter ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the first that was deisied See note i. in this thirteenth chapter Vales. * To Maximianus a Aurelius Victor in the life of Maxentius says the same adeo saevus uti praetorianis caedem vulgi quondam annuerit he was so cruel that one time he connived at his Guards for killing the common people Constantine having vanquished Maxentius did quite put down the Praetorian Cohorts i. e. those Souldiers whose office it was to guard the Emperours body upon pretence of this slaughter here mentioned they made among the common people but in reality that they should not attempt any alterations in the government nor make Emperours as they had done Maxentius whom they proclaimed Augustus Moreover Zosimus tells the same story here mentioned by our Eusebius but a little otherwise For he relates that when the temple of the God Genius at Rome was accidentally fired and the people flockt together to quench the fire a Souldier who derided this God of the Gentiles was killed by the common people upon which there immediately happened so great an uproar amongst the Souldiers that the whole City had been destroyed had not Maxentius intervened Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã So our Authour words it in the Greek They were called Sâcerdotes i. e. chief Priests by the Gentiles who had the Temples of a whole Province under their care but the Flamines the Priests were those who in every Town and City took care of the performance of their Religious Rites See Valesius's notes on Amm. Marcellinus Book 28. pag. 375. Moreover Maximinus must not be supposed to have been the first that instituted these chief Priests of the Provinces for there were such Priests long before his time But Maximinus increased their honour and allowed them a guard i. e. Lictors and Apparitors thâse chief Priests of the Provinces were made out of the body of the Curiales i. e. those that were of the Court or Senate in every City see Valesius's notes on Amm. Marcell B. 28. p. 374. who had before born all publick Offices and discharged them worthily This place of high Priest of a Province was accounted so honourable that he that bore it took place of the Magistrates or Duumviri See the Gesta purgat Caeciliani B. 9. chap. 4. These high Priests had the power of entring into the secretum of the Judges and of being assessours with them as appears from the Acts of Theodorus the Martyr at November 9. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Musculus translates it Statutis Laws Christophorson mandaâis commands Valesius indictionibus imposts or taxes Our Eusebius uses the same term at chap. 8. B. 10. Where speaking of Licinius he says ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. he invented several sorts of Taxes against his Subjects See book 10. chap. 8. note d. d See Eusebius's oration concerning the praises of Constantine c. 7. where this passage is repeated almost in the same words Vales. * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is the term in the Greek Valesius renders it Clavorum suffixiones the being fastned with nails perhaps our Authour means crucifixion e ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is the expression in the Greek Some words seem to be wanting which may be thus supplied ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã having requested a short space of time for a recess Eusebius used the same phrase before when he spake of the Antiochian woman who with the two Virgins leapt into the River Vales. f At the margin of the Maz. and Savill M. SS I found this Scholion written for the explication of these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. How does this man admire those women who were the authours of their own deaths And yes the Judgment of the Church is not to record them amongst the number of the Martyrs who have been their own executioners For 't is an argument of fear rather than courage by death to prevent the dread of punishment But the Church looks upon those as Martyrs who suppose nothing to be dreadfull upon account of the confession of Christ but with alacrity suffer all tortures that a Tyrannick and devilish subtilty can produce against them The Authour of this Scholion has made a true remark to wit that the Church approves not of self-murder when men out of a fear of death or through desperation lay violent hands on themselves But as often as they are dâiven to do that by the instinct of the divine spirit which âarely happens then the Church approves and admires that act but proposes it not for imitation See what S t Augustine thought concerning this matter in his first Book De civitate Dei chap. 26. Vales. a The persecution began in the year of Christ 303 when Diocletian was in his 8 th an Maximian in his 7 th consulate It ended in the year of Christ 312 then when Constantine having conquered Maxentius sent letters to Maximinus Emperour of the East to procure liberty for the Christians as our Eusebius relates in Book 9. Therefore the persecution lasted ten years as 't is here affirmed And so the years are noted in the M. S. copies of Eusebius's Chronicon as Pontacus has observed Epiphanius therefore is mistaken who in his Book De ponder Mensur says this persecution lasted twelve years See the following chapter where our Authour relates that the persecution ceased on the tenth year Vales. a At these words we began the 16 th chapter agreable to the Maz and Fuk M. SS But in the Med M. S. which Rob. Stephens followed in the distinction of the chapters there is no new chapter began here Vales. b He means Maximianus Galerius as 't is apparent from the following words for he was the Authour of the persecution raised against the Christians Rufinus in the 1â th chapter of this book speaks thus concerning Gâlerius Ille verò qui âi secundus ân honore postmâdum etiam in primis successor âuit qui in centor ac âignifâr nostra persecutionis extiterat c. i. e. But he who was the next in honour to him afterwards succeeded him in the first and chiefest place who also was the incendiary and first beginner of our persecution c. Cedrenus attests the same Vales. * Matth. 18. 7. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã He means his genitals which Victor in his Epitomo does confirm Galerius Maximianus says he consumptis genitalibus defecit d The phrase in the Greek is ãâã ãâã
our Eusebius here the words are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã on the eighth day of the moneth Desius that is as the Romans stile it before the seventh of the Ides of June By these words in the Latine Copies of the M. SS in Saint Germans Library the title before Claudius Joly's Copy of these Acts is to be amended where 't is said Procopius suffered on the fourth of the Nones of August Notwithstanding in all the Martyrologies the Martyrdom of Procopius is set on the eighth of the Ides of July The Greeks also celebrate the memory of the great Martyr Procopius on the same day as may be seen in their Menaeum But that Procopius is a different person from ours although he was born at Jerusalem and suffered at the same time almost and in the same City that our Procopius did For our Procopius was a Reader and an Exorcist as Eusebius attests But the other was a Captain of Egypt The first Procopius was a Christian from his Childhood the second was at first a worshipper of Daemons Our Procopius was beheaded having suffered no tortures and so obtained the Crown of Martyrdom by a most compendious and easie kind of death The other Procopius suffered a tedious and most cruel Martyrdom having undergone most horrid tortures under two Presidents of Palestine Justus and Flavianus Upon which account he is reckoned by the Greeks amongst the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Great Martyrs See book 6. chap. 32. note b. Lastly our Procopius was taken at Scythopolis brought to Caesarea in Palestine and there beheaded The other was apprehended in Egypt and Martyred in Caesarea a City of Phoenicia which was also called Paneas if we may believe Simcon Metaphrastes Vales. e It is I perceive taken for granted amongst all men that the months of the Syro-Macedonians were wholly the same with the Julian months from that time when Julius Caesar publisht his year For Scaliger and our Petavius do in many places affirm this and the only difference as they say was that the Syro-Macedonians began their year from October But there are many things which make me dissent from their opinion For first Bede in his Ephemeris and in his book De ratione Temporum says that the months of the Greeks began from Apellaeus which answers to December But Marcus in his Life of Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza attests that those of Gaza began their year from the month Dius For these are his words at pag 1090. Primo mense qui ab eis vocatur Dios deinde etiam secundo qui dicitur Apellaeos i. e. in the first month which they call Dius then also in the second which is termed Apellaeus The Emperour Julianus in Antiochico confirms this where he expresly says that Lous was the tenth month amongst the Syrians Now if they began their year from October then Lous which answers to August would not have been the tenth but the eleventh month The same is manifested by Julianus in Misopogone pag. 70. in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. The Calends of the Syrians were come and Caesar goes to the Temple of Jupiter Philius again Then came the Calends of January For in my notes on book 23. of Ammian Marcellinus pag. 252 I have shown that the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã was the same with the Calends of January and Caesar goes to the Temple of the God Genius Concerning the Temple of this God Genius at Antioch See Evagrius's Hist. book 1. chap. 16. Then passing by the ominous day he renews his vows in the Temple of Jupiter Philius according to the custome of his Ancestours Seeing therefore Julianus attests that the New Moon of the Syrians year did a little precede the Calends of January it is manifest that the beginning of the Roman and Syrian year was not the same But it may be plainly collected from the same place of Julian that Dius was the first month of the year amongst the Antiochians For Julian says that on the Calends of the first month of the Syrians he went to the Temple of Jupiter to sacrifice because their first month was sacred to Jupiter and received its name from him For it was called Dius ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã from Jupiter and the first month was rightly called after his name who was thought to be the principal cause and origine of all things Now if October were the first month of the Syrian year that passage in Julian would have been impertinent For when the Antiochians would deride Julian for his assiduity in worshiping the Gods they produce this example thereof The Calends of the Syrians were come and Caesar goes to the Temple of Jupiter Philius again then came the Calends of January and Caesar goes to the Temple of the God Genius There must therefore necessarily be some little space of time between the Calends of the Syrians and the Romans that so Julian might deservedly be derided by the Antiochians for his too frequent offering of sacrifice It is therefore necessary that either Apellaeus must have been the first month amongst the Syrians which is Bede's opinion or else Dius Thus far concerning the beginning of the Syro-Macedonian year which we have demonstrated to be different from the beginning of the Julian year We will now inquire into the Syro-Macedonian months and see whether they began and ended at the same time that the Roman months did Indeed this place in Eusebius does plainly shew that the beginning of the months amongst the Syrians and Romans was not the same for it makes the eighth day of the month Desius to be the same with the seventh of the month June Therefore the Syrian month Desius began one day before the Roman month June Moreover Marcus in the life of Porphyrius affirms that the months of the inhabitants of Gaza preceded the Roman months five days His words are these Pluit autem Dominus c. Our Lord sent a continued rain from the eighth day of the month Audynaeus to the tenth Now Audynaeus amongst the Romans is January For their months precede the Roman months five days But on the eleventh day we celebrated the Feast of the Epiphany praising God From which words 't is apparent that the beginning of the months amongst those of Gaza was almost the same with the beginning of them amongst the Egyptians Further Epiphanius in his book De Ponderib chap. 20. makes the sixteenth day of May the same with the twenty third of the Grecian month Artemisius The form of the months amongst the Tyrians was different from this they made use of the Macedonian account of the months For in the Acts at Tyre which are related in the ninth Action of the Council of Chalcedon the tenth day of the month Peritius is confounded with the twenty fifth of February and in the fifth Action Concil Constantinop sub Mena the twenty eighth day of the Tyrian month Lous is said to have been the sixteenth day of the Roman month September From all
Diociesian was Consul the fourth time and Maximian the third as the inscription of the first interrogatory sheweth Whence 't is plain that these Acts of Pilate were forged long before the persecution the contrary to which Eusebius affirms in this place But that I may freely speak my sense the inscription of these Acta praefidialia is in my judgment false and it should be corrected thus when Diocletian was Consul the ninth time and Maximian the eighth For 1 there is in those Acts mention of the Imperial command whereby 't was ordered that all men should sacrifice to the Gods Now this command was issued out on the nineteenth year of Diocletian's Empire 2 In the ninth chapter these words occur The President said you curse the Princes who have secured a lasting and continued Peace Andronicus said I have cursed the Plague and the bloud thirsty which destroy the world That expression concerning the securing a lasting and continued Peace cannot agree with the fourth Consulate of Diocletian for at that time the Barbarians attacked the Roman Empire on every side Besides I can't see how Diocletian and Maximian can be termed Blood thirsty till after the 19 th year of Diocletian when the Persecution began Lastly which is another argument Eusebius affirms that these Acts of Pilate were forged in the time of this persecution Vales. b Rufinus has rendred the Greek phrase here which is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã thus act is profiteri to attest the truth of the said Acts by signing of them for an evidence may be given both by word of mouth and in writing also Vales. a This Silvanus is a different person from that Silvanus which Eusebius mentions in his book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine chap. the last For this was Bishop of Emesa the other was Bishop of Gaza The first was beheaded in the Mines at Palestine with 39 other Martyrs in the eighth year of the Persecution But this Silvanus was cast to the wild beasts at Emesa on the ninth year of the Persecution Concerning this man's Martyrdom Eusebius has said something before in his eighth book although not in its proper place see B. 8. Chap. 13. Vales. b Eusebius mentioned this man's Martyrdom before in the eighth book chap. 13. but not in its proper place For the eighth book does not go beyond the eighth year of the Persecution But Peter Bishop of Alexandria was Martyr'd in the ninth year of the Persecution which Eusebius expresly affirmeth in the end of the seventh book upon the seventh of the Calends of December as we read in the Excerpta Chronologica published by Scaliger Usuardus says the same and so does Ado and the old Roman Martyrology The Greeks celebrate his birth day on the 14 th of November The Acts of his Passion are extant in a M. S. in Greek which the Reverend Father Franciscus Combesisius has and will shortly publish with many other things Vales. c Eusebius has mentioned this man's Martyrdom at book 8. chap. 13. though not in its due place But here he remarks the time more distinctly wherein Peter and Lucianus suffered to wit under Maximin not in the Reign of Galerius Maximianus as Baronius would have us believe at the year of Christ 311. cap. 3. Also Baronius is mistaken in placing the Martyrdom of Peter Bishop of Alexandria on the year of Christ 310. for he suffered in the year of our Lord 311 on the ninth year current of the Persecution Baronius's errour arose from his beginning the Persecution a year too soon which mistake we have sufficiently confuted before at book 8. chap. 2. note c. Moreover in regard Lucianus's Martyrdom happened under Maximin the Martyrdom of Anthimus Bishop of Nicomedia should in my judgment be placed under Maximin also Indeed Anthimus suffered a little before Lucianus as Lucianus informs us in his Epistle to the Antiochians which I made mention of in Book 8. chap. 13. note a. we may also make the same conclusion from the Acts of Lucianus the Martyr where instead of Maximinus we read Maximianus which is a common errour in the Greeks Vales. d When Galerius was dead Maximinus took possession of Asia and Bithynia which Provinces together with Illyricum and Thracia were governed by Galerius For Galerius kept these Provinces for himself as Eutropius informs us the same is asserted by the old Authour of the Excerptions which I published at the end of my Amm. Marcelinus Maximinus therefore made his abode at Nicomedia which was the chief City of Bithynia where the Emperours had a pallace ever since Diocletions time Further the following words do evidently manifest that by the term Emperour Maximinus must be meant Wherefore I wonder at Baronius for asserting that Lucianus suffered under Galerius not under Maximin when as Eusebius contemporary with Lucianus affirms he was killed by Maximin Vales. a Any man may justly wonder why Eusebius should affirm here that this was never seen before Were the Decrees of the Cities or the Edicts of the Emperours never published before now This cannot be denyed nor is it denyed by our Eusebius But that which he asserts to have never been seen before is the ingraving of these Edicts upon plates of Brass For as we observed before Book 8. chap. 5. note b. the Imperial Edicts were written on paper Vales. * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã all day long so Rufinus and Langus render it Christophorson and Musculus translate it quotidie daily Vales. b Christoph. and Musculus thought that this clause ought to be referred to Deos the Gods but we make it to be referred to the Tyrians themselves Maximin does attempt to blacken the faith of the Christians by these words he calls it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a faith of bare words as if the Christian faith had nothing in it but words and were void of all reality Vales. c The antients believed that on set days the Gods descended into those Cities for which they had a kindness hence it is that the inhabitants of Delos and Miletum solemnized the coming of Apollo and the Argivi the advent of Diana This coming of the Gods we find mentioned up and down in the Poets as in Virgil. Hence it is that upon old Coins and in the Calendar we find written Aâventuâ Impp. Vales. d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã He aludes to that Aspect of the Planets called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which term is used concerning the Planets when they seem to move neither backward nor forward in their Epicycles but are stationary Vales. e In the Greek Text the term is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã parts not in sunder but it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã does not raise vast hills out of its own bowells For two sorts of Earthquakes contrary to each other are here spoken of by Maximin to wit 1 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which as Amm. Marcellinus describes them book 17. pag. 98. Edit Paris 1636 humum molestius suscitantes sursum propellunt
harm And yet Rufinus Eccles. Histor. book 2. chap. 7. out of whom Socrates borrowed this story defends the common reading which we have followed in our Version And Jerome also does confirm this our reading in his Epistle to Castrutius Vales. a What Socrates says here is in my opinion false viz. that Basilius and Gregorius after they had finished the course of their Learned studies at Athens were hearers of Libanius the Sophista at Antioch Gregorius himself does refute this in his Poem concerning his own Life where he says that he was in the thirtieth year of his age when he left Athens and that his friends would have detained him at Athens that he might be a professour of eloquence the same is attested by Rufinus book 2. chap. 9. Eccles. Hist. but that he fled secretly from thence and went into his own Country Vales. * Or Rhetorick * Or quoted â Or the Office of a Deacon b Baronius says Basilius was prefered to the Bishoprick of Caesarea in the year of Christ 369 and this he attempts to prove from Gregorius Nyssenus's testimony Theophanes and Cedrenus in his Chronicon do place the beginning of Basilius's Episcopate on the ninth year of Valens which was the year of Christ 371. But the same Authours do affirm that Basilius was yet but a Presbyter in the eighth year of Valens See Theophanes's and Cedrenus's words at the said eighth year of Valens Gregorius Nazianzenus does confirm the sâme in his Oration de Laudibus Basilii Where he does attest in express words that Basilius was yet but a Presbyter only of the Church of Caesarea at such time as Valens guarded with a part of Heretical Prelates undertook an expedition against the Churches of the East which he hastned to deliver up to the Arians Moreover Valens undertook this expedition against the Orthodox on his own third Consulate that is on the year of Christ 370 as our Socrates does affirm compare the 14 th and 17 th chapters of this 4 th book Gregorius Nyssenus confirms this in his first book against Eunomius who had upbraided Basilius with fearfulness and pusillanimity where he describes Valens's preparations and expedition against the Churches in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. The Emperour went from Constantinople into the East pâft up in his mind with the late successfull and fortunate Actions he had performed against the Barbarians That is after the War against the Goths and the League made with them Which hapned in the year of Christ 369. as Amm. Marcellinus attests Wherefore that expedition of Valens's to destroy Gods Churches hapned in âife year of our Lord 370 as I have now said Now that Basilius was then no more than a Presbyter his Brother Gregorius does in the same place inform us For he says that the Praeâect of the Praetorium to wit Modestus at first made use of flatteries and promised Basilius a Praesulate and an Ecclesiastick presidency provided he would obey the Emperour Nyssân's words are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Therefore Basilius was not Bishop of Casarea at such time as Modestus endeavoured to pervert him Moreover Modestus first bore the Praefecture of the Praetorium when Gratianus âI and Probâs were Coss. in the year of Christ 371 as I have remarkt in my notes on the 29 th book of Amm. Marcellinus pag. 380. It may also be proved by another argument that Basilius was preferred to the Episcopate of Caesarea after the year of Christ 370. For Nazianzon in the Funeral Oration which he wrote on him says that Basilius was but a Presbyter at such time as that Famine by far the âorest of all the Famines that are mentioned to have hapned at any time hapned in Cappadocia Now this is the Famine which our Socrates mentions in the sixteenth chapter of this book it hapned in the third Consulate of Valentinianus and Valens Vales. c Gregorius Nazianzenus who is more to be credited in these things does attest in his Funeral Oration concerning the praises of Basilius that Basilius as yet but a Presbyter went into those parts with a design to oppose himself against the perfidiousness of the Arians Vales. d Socrates borrowed this out of Rufinus who in book 2. chap 9. Eccles. Histor. writes thus Gregorius vero apud Nazianzon c. But Gregorius being substituted Bishop in his father's stead at the Town Nazianzum faithfully âore the storm of the Hereticks And yet 't is manifest that Gregorius was not made Bishop but Coadjutor only to his own father Gregorius in the Episcopate of Nazianzum and upon this condition too that he should not succeed his father in that Bishoprick as he himself attests in his Eighth Oration and in his Poem concerning his own Life He was first constituted Bishop of Sasimi by Basilius the Great who had been the first Founder of this Bishoprick that he might assure that place to his own Church as Gregorius attests in the Poem concerning his own Life From thence he was translated to the Constantinopolitan See which he quickly left betook himself to Nazianzum and governed the Bishoptick of that place some while till such time as being wearied out with age and diseases he made choise of his own successour Jerome's account therefore is true whose words in his book De Script Ecclesiast are these Gregorius primùm Sasimorum deinde Nazianzenus Episcopus c. Gregorius Bishop first of Sasimi and afterwards of Nazianzum c. And 't is strange that although he governed three Bishopricks yet they were all doubtfull and uncertain 'T is plain that in his Epistles he himself does frequently deny that he ever presided over the Episcopate of Sasimi or ever performed any sacerdotal office there Neither Jerome his Scholar nor Rufinus do ascribe the Constantinopolitan Bishopâick to him Lastly he delivered the Bishoprick of Nazianzum to another rather than governed it himself Vales. * That is Basilius and Gregorius e This account disagrees from what the two Gregorius's to wit Nazianzenus in his funeral oration and Nyssenus in his first book against Eunomius do relate concerning Basilius For they do attest that Basilius was not brought before Modestus the Praefect of the Praetorium at Antioch but that this was done in the City Caesarea Sozomen therefore Eccles. Hist. book 6. ch 16. has truly corrected Socrates's mistake here where he relates that Valens came from Antioch to Caesarea and ordered Basilius should be brought before the Tribunal of the Praefect of the Praetorium Further you must observe that Valens Augustus came to Caesarea twice and made an attempt to vanquish Basilius His first journey thither was when Basilius was no more than a Presbyter which as we have shown before was in the year 370. This is evidently confirmed by Sozomen in his sixth book When he came the second time thither 't is not certain But I conjecture it was on the year of Christ 371 or 372. Which I collect from Modestus's Praefecture which falls
on those years Nazianzenus distinguishes these two journeys of Valens's in his twentieth Oration pag. 346. of his works Edit Paris 1609. Vales. 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I have amended it thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã concerning Origen it would be better thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but there were never any Orationes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã commendatory Orations Wherefore I doubt not but it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã although Nicephorus confirms the vulgar reading Now ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 â He means the Sacrament of the Lords Supper b Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it is doubtless to be thus worded ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Questionless Socrates left it written thus and we have rendred it accordingly Vales. c The expression in the original is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to signifie as it is usually done or as the manner is Wherefore I am rather of opinion that it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã every inhabitant of the Provinces so Epiphanius Scholasticus read it For he renders it thus Singuli Provincialium c. Every Subject of the Provinces ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã has the same import with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which phrase Socrates has made use of a little before in this chapter where his words are ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
most studiously read by those who have a mind to declaim From whence it appears that Eusebius in his exposition of the Scriptures has chiefly followed the Historicall and Literal sense but has not touched the Mystick and Allegoricall For the term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã comprehends these senses Allegoria therefore differs from Theoria as a species does from the Genus Indeed Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus of whom we now speak had written a Book with this Title ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is what may be the difference between Theoria and Allegoria But I wonder at Jerome who says that Diodorus was instructed neither in Eloquence nor in the knowledge of humane Learning And yet Theodoret Histor. book 4. compares his eloquence to a most limpid River and Photius in his Bibliotheca does attest that in his discourses he was clear and perspicuous Vales. e That Chrysostome converst familiarly with Basilius 't is evident from Chrysostome's books de Sacerdotio But who that Basilius was concerning whom Chrysostome speaks in those books 't is uncertaine Socrates does in this place affirm that it was Basilius Magnus Photius in his Bibliotheca says it was Basilius Bishop of Seleucia Baronius at the year of Christ 382 does deservedly disprove both these opinions Chrysostome 't is certain does attest in the beginning of his book that himself and that Basilius concerning whom he there speaks had always the same masters Now Basilius Magnus learnt Rhetorick at Athens but Chysostome was Libanius's hearer at Antioch a long while after that If that were Basilius the Great whom Chrysostome affirms to have obtained the principall place amongst his own companions and friends doubtless some footsteps of his friendship would at this day be extant in Basilius's Epistles But amongst so many of his Epistles which have been preserved to our times there occurs not one written to our Johannes Wherefore I agree with Baronius who says that that Basilius who was companion to Chrysostome was Basilius Bishop of Raphanea or else Basilius Bishop of Byblus For both these persons were Chrysostomes contemporaries in regard they subscribed the Constantinopolitan Council Vales. f Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã sometimes made a Deacon c. In my judgment it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã at that time made a Deacon c. For it follows but afterwards constituted Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia Epiphanius Scholasticus confirms our conjecture as 't is apparent from his Version for thus he renders it qui tunc à Meletio factus erat Diaconus who was then made Deacon by Meletius Further Amphilochius in his Life of Basilius the Great does relate that Basil was made Deacon by Meletius Bishop of Antioch But that book is stuft with fables and lies Doubtless in regard Basil the Great was by lawfull degrees promoted to be Reader and Presbyter at Caesarea as Gregorius Nazianzenus does attest in his Funerall Oration concerning the praises of the same Basilius 't is scarce credible that he should have been made Deacon any where else but at Caesarea Vales. g Nicephorus what Authour he follows I know not makes this Zeno Bishop of Gaza or Majuma But whereas Zeno was created Bishop of Majuma in the Reign of Theodosius as Sozomen relates book 5. chap. 8 he must necessarily be a different person from that Zeno who ordained Chrysostome Reader in regard Chrysostome was made a Reader in Valens Augustus's Reign about the year of our Lord 370. But Baronius at the year of Christ 382 says that this Zeno by whom Chrysostome was ordained a Reader of Antioch was Bishop of Tyre the same person who was present at the Constantinopolitan Councill and was then Meletius being absent his Deputy in the Church of Antioch In which thing I do readily assent to Baronius But whereas he repoves Socrates there for his saying that that Zeno was Bishop of Jerusalem therein the Cardinal is evidently mistaken For Socrates does not make Zeno Bishop of Jerusalem he only says that Zeno the Bishop returning from Jerusalem Ordained Chrysostome Reader of Antioch Now Zeno had made a journey to Jerusalem either on the account of prayer as it was the custom of those times or by reason of some Ecclesiastick affair But here arises a difficulty For if Zeno in his return from Jerusalem ordained Chrysostome Reader of Antioch the City of which he was Bishop must necessarily be farther remote from Jerusalem than Antioch was or at least it must lie at the side of Antioch Which cannot be said of the Cities Tyre and Gaza For both those are far nearer to Jerusalem than Antioch is Therefore this Zeno who ordained Chrysostome Reader of Antioch was Bishop of some other City In Basil the Great 's 69 th Epistle there is mention of one Zeno a Bishop who was present at the Antiochian-Council under Meletius but the name of his See is not set down I know Palladius in the Life of Chrysostome does relate that Chrysostome was ordained Reader by Meletius But this in my judgment is so to be understood that that may be said to have been done by Meletius which was performed by Zeno supplying his place Vales. * See Euseb Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 30. note q. â That is Meletius's party h This is the Evagrius of whom we have spoken at note b. in this chapter But what Socrates says to wit that Chrysostome was ordained Presbyter by Evagrius has but little of probability For if that be true which Socrates says I mean that Chrysostome after Meletius's death abstained from Paulinus's communion how can it be supposed that Chrysostome should admit of Evagrius's ordination who was successour to Panlinus It is better therefore to follow Palladius Simeon Metaphrastes and others who relate that Chrysostome was promoted to the Presbyterate by Flavianus the Bishop Vales. * Or Rectitude of Life â Or simplicity or singleness * Bishoprick * Hatred â Or displease all men â Or he chose to eat with no body * Or the first of the Eunuchs a From this place 't is apparent that the Bishops heretofore did not usually Preach to the people out of the Pulpit For this Socrates takes notice of as a thing singular in Chrysostome to wit that being about to make an Oration he went up into the Pulpit that he might be the easier heard by the people Most commonly the Bishops Preached standing on the steps of the Altar We are informed hereof from King Childerbert's Constitution which Sirmondus has recorded in his first Tome of the Councills of France pag. 300 but it is there imperfect We will make good one defect in it from the most ancient Corbeiensian Manuscript after this manner Qualiter in sacrilegos dei injuria vindicetur nostrum est pertractandum Et quia fides nostra ut verbo de altario sacerdote faciente quaecunque de Evangelio Prophetis vel Apostolo fuerit adnuntiatum in quantum Deus dat intellectum ad nos querimonia processiâ c.
of certainty can be gotten out of this Surname in regard 't is variously written in ancient writers Vales. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã When Pââvince submitted themselves to the Râmân Empire 't was usual for the Emperour to cause ãâã Edict to be drawn up and proclaimed âpenly upon the place The Tenour whereof was first to entitle the Emperour himself to all respects of dominion and supremacy over that people and then secondly to aboââ from this by a popular insinuation of all possible sacredness and Liberty of the Provincialls A particular instance hereof as it relates to this very City Antioch is produced by M r Jo. Gregory of Oxford see his works pag. 156 Edit London 1665 from Johannes Antiochenus's M. S. Geograph book 9â in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã And when the City Antioch had yielded it self up to the subjection of the Roman Empire an Edict of the Liberties thereof was sent by Jullus Caesar and publickly proclaimed at Antioch upon the twentieth of Mây ãâã the Contents where of were these AT ANTIOCH THE HOLY SACRED AND FREE CITY THE METROPOLITAN QUEEN AND PRESIDENT OF THE EAST CAIUS JULIUS CAESAR c. The Provinces usually returned the honour of these priviledges back upon the Emperour by this way of acknowledgement That they might keep the Emperour's Grace in perpetuall memory they reckoned all their publick affairs ever after from that time ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã continues the same Johannes Antiochenus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Therefore Antioch the Great in honour of the Emperour fixed its Aera in Caius Julius Caesar and made this year of Grace the first On which account this Aera of theirs which precedes that of our Lords Nativity fourty eight years was peculiarly called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã because at the fixing hereof the Emperour did ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã publickly name himself to all the title of dominion and also ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã publickly entitle them to all priviledges aâd immunities * Or lâd âo b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Musculus has rendred this place very ill But Christophorson in regard he could not understand the meaning of these words omitted them in his version Indeed this place tortured me a long while and very much Notwithstanding at length I found the meaning of it to be this After Evagrius has set forth the time wherein the Earthquake hapned at Antioch in the Reign of Leo Augustus by certain Notes to wit of the year month week day and Indiction in the last place he adds these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã That is that that Earthquake had hapned without any turning of the Cycles three hundred fourty seven years compleat after that Earthquake which had hapned in Trajan's times For this note of time hath no Cycle But the former notes of time assigned by Evagrius are notes of the Cycles or Periods For an Indiction is a Cycle of fifteen years and a week a month and a year are Circles and Periods always recurring This therefore is my Sentiment concerning the explication of this place Nevertheless if any one shall produce a more certain account of this passage I will not refuse to alter my opinion See Evagriuâ book 3. chap. 33 and note b there This place may also be taken otherwise by changing only the accent in this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã That so the sense may be this This is said to be the sixth Earthquake which shaked Antioch Noâ do I now doubt but this is the true interpretation of this plate In the Tellerian Manuscript I found it plainly written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the sixth with an asperate and the accent in the first syllable Vales. The reading in Robert Stephens is the same with that set at the beginning of this note In the Greek Text of Valesius's Edition this place is pointed and accented thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. which reading and punctation we have followed in our version â Or indictiââ c I have restored this place from the incomparable Florentine M. S. wherein 't is plainly written thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is fourty and seaven The reading in Nicephorus at book 15. chap. 20. is altogether the same Vales. And so 't is in Robert Stephen's Edition also notwithstanding Valesius's saying that he restored this place d Baronius in his Eccelesiastick Annals at the year of Christ 111 says that Evagrius is mistaken in affirming that that Earthquake which came to pass at Antioch in Trajan's Reign hapned on the year according to the Antiochians account 159. For that Earthquake hapned in the Consulate of Messala and Pedo as 't is manifest from Dion who asserts that the Consul Pedo perished in that Earthquake Further the Consulate of Messala and Pâdo fell on the year of Christ 115 as 't is agreed amongst all Chronologers It was then according to the Antiochians account the hundredth sixty third year not the hundredth fifty ninth year as Evagrius says For the years of the Antiochians precede Christ's Nativity fourty eight years Moreover concerning these years of the Antiochians amongst the Ancients the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle has spoken best of all in the affairs of Julius Caesarââ but amongst the Moderns Dionysius Petavius gives us the best account hereof in his books de Doctrina Temporum and in the second part of his Rationarium chap. 14. To which Authour nevertheless I can't give my assent in this which he affirms viz. that the beginning of these years is deduced from the month October which was the popular or ordinary beginning of the year amongst the Antiochians In my Annotations on Eusebius See Euseb. book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine chap. 1. note e. I have in my judgment sufficiently demonstrated that the Antiochians began their year from the month Dius or November Nor is that true which Petavius writes at the same place viz. that the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle seems to deduce the beginning of these years from the month May. For the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle does not say that he affiâms only that the Decree of the Senate whereby Antioch was pronounced a free City was received by the Antiochians on the month May and then also publickly proposed Vales. * Or the City e In the incomparable Florentine Manuscript this whole place is written thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Besides the Towers of the Hippodrome or Cirque which were near the gates and some of the Porticus's which lead to those Towers fell Which doubtless is the better reading The Gates of the Cirque were fortified with two Towers on each side There were also some Porticus's which led to those Towers from the gates of the Cirque as I suppose In the Tellerian M. S. I found it written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã some of the Porticus's which led to those Gates Vales. In Robert Stephens this whole clause is worded thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and the Towers of the
the year after the Consulate of Basiliscus and Armatus One Johannes whom Petrus had ordained Bishop of Apamia invaded his See as I observed before at chap. 10 note a. He having been Ejected an Oriental Synod ordained Stephanus as Theophanes tells us in his Chronicon This Stephanus when he had governed the See of Antioch about a years space was most barbarously murdered by Hereticks in the Church on the year of Christ 479 after the Consulate of the most famous Illus as Baronius has rightly observed from Pope Simplicius's Epistles Zeno being highly incensed on account of this murther sent some persons to Antioch who might revenge this Fact and punish the Authours of the Sedition Moreover to avoid Tumults he commanded Acacius Bishop of Constantinople to ordain a Bishop of Antioch in the Imperial City And this thing done on account of preserving the Ecclesiastick Peace as well the Emperour as Acacius excused to Pope Simplicius promising that in future the ordination of the Prelate of Antioch should be made by the Comprovinciall Bishops according to the Prescripts of the Canons Stephanus Junior therefore is ordained by Acacius and after he had sate three years Calendion is created Bishop in his stead by an Orientall Synod in the Consulate of Trocundus and Severinus on the year of Christ 482 as Baronius has learnedly observed from Pope Simplicius's Epistle Theophanes does indeed affirm that Calendion was ordained by Acacius at Constantinople by the Emperour Zeno's order Theophanes's opinion seems to be confirmed by Candidus in the third book of his History whose words are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in like manner as the Emperour Zeno when the impious Petrus disturbed the Churches of the East sent Calendion to be Consecrated Bishop of Antioch Besides in the Gesta de nomine Acacii 't is in express words written that Calendion was ordained by Acacius Bishop of Constantinople Simplicius also affirms the same in the cited Epistle if we weigh his words more attentively For what else is the meaning of these words Antiocheni exordium Sacerdotis quâ ratione serius fuerit Indicatum quamvis minimè nos latere potuerit tamen ipse vel Synodus ejus indicavit Quod sicut non optavimus fieri ita faciles excusationi quam necessitas fecit extitimus quia quod voluntarium non est non potest vocari in reatum c. For what guilt what necessity was to be excused before Simplicius unless Acacius had ordained Calendion at Constantinople contrary to the Ecclesiastick Laws But now what the same Theophanes adds concerning Johannes Codonatus who was ordained Bishop by the Antiochians knowing nothing of the Ordination made at Constantinople and whom Calendion afterwards removed to the See of Tyre I fear Theophanes is mistaken herein For not Calendion but Acacius removed Johannes to the See of Tyre as 't is attested by Pope Felix in the Libell of Condemnation of Acacius and by Gelasius and Liberatus Vales. e ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Doubtless it must be written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and also sent Synodical Letters to Petrus Bishop of Alexandria Thus Nicephorus read and yet Christophorson and S r Henry Savil at the Margin of his Copy mend it very simply thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to Proterius For Proterius was dead long before this 'T is manifest from Pope Gelasius's Epistles that Petrus Fullo held communion with Petrus Mongus Vales. f To wit with Petrus Mongus For with him after the Ejection of Johannes Tabennesiota Acacius held communion and received from and sent to him Synodicall Letters as Liberatus informs us But Acacius never held communion with Petrus Fullo yea he was wont to boast that he had never been joyned in communion with him whereas yet by this that he communicated with Petrus Mongus who maintained a communion with Petrus Fullo Acacius himself also might hold communion with Fullo as Pope Gelasius says in his Epistle to the Orientalls which was first published by Jacobus Syrmondus Vales. g Evagrius gives no reason why these men separated themselves from the communion of Petrus Mongus Besides Liberatus in his Breviary chap. 18 does relate this matter very obscurely in these words Igitur Petrus Mongus ab Abbote Ammone Johanne Episcopo Magileos c. Therefore Petrus Mongus having undergone Wars from the Abbot Ammon and Johannes the Bishop of Magilis and from the Abbots of the Monks of the Lower Egypt and a Sedition having been raised against him in the Cathedral Caesarea as 't is called or as 't is reported anathematized the Chalcedon Synod and Pope Leo's Tome And these things he did after he had written to Acacius and Simplicius that he held communion with them and with the Holy Synod And these matters having been in this manner performed some persons departed from Petrus's communion and declared them to the Roman Bishop at Rome Which words in themselves obscure enough are in my judgment to be explained thus Petrus Mongus after he had been restored to the Alexandrian See upon Johannes's Ejection at first used dissimulation and sent Synodicall Letters to Acacius and Simplicius wherein he affirmed that he held communion with the Synod of Chalcedon He also admitted those to communion who were of Timotheus Salophaciolus's party as Liberatus attests But afterwards when he had been vexed by the Eutyohian Monks on account of this dissimulation he anathematized the Chalcedon-Synod publickly in the Church Vales. * Or wrote h ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã had been written in my judgment it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã had been done And so Nicephorus read book 16. chap. 13. Vales. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I have mended this place thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in regard he was a person that could cloath himself in any dress partly from Nicephorus and partly by the authority of the Florentine and Tellerian M. SS Further concerning this wavering and fraudulent humour of Petrus's we have the attestation of Liberatus in these words Sed permansit Petrus in Episcopatu c. But Peter continued in his Bishoprick and wrote to Acaciâs that he was a Communicator of or held Communion with the Sinod and deceived the Alexandrians because he would not communicate with the Synod so that some Ecclesiasticks who were his Communicators some Monks and Laicks perceiving his Fallaciousness separated themselves from his communion And holding separate assemblies would not endure to communicate with his name Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must doubtless be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for those great Labours Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as it is in the Tellerian Manuscript and in Nicephorus Vales. c Mongus says this Crime was objected against him that he had removed the Reliques of Timotheus Salophaciolus into another place But he neither excuses that Fact nor denies it resting satisfied only in saying this that that Fact was impious in the presence of God and men For humane Laws do severely
Zeno Augustus's third Consulate And Victor Vitensis in his book De Persecutione Vandalorum and lastly the Emperour Justinian in his First Law de Officio Praefecti Praetorio Africae Which Constitution of Justinian's our Evagrius quotes a little lower in this chapter although in the Greek Text the name of Justinus is erroneously written instead of Justinianus See more in Baronius at the year of Christ 484. Vales. * In the Greek Text here and in Robert Stephens's Edit 't is Justinus See note a in this chapter â Or Have to do with a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã produces I had rather make it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã relates as Evagrius expresses himself at the beginning of the next chapter Vales. * Or From food which brought nourishment â Or Copulation with â Or Scouts * Or Be injurious to â Or Which â Cabaones * Or Beheld â The Scouts or Spies * Or Their own Intemperance â Or Priests * Or Priests a Concerning this Vision which appeared to Justinian in his sleep Victor Thunonensis writes thus Justiniano Aug. IV. Cos. Justinianus Imp. Visitatione Lati Justinianus Augustus being the fourth time Consul The Emperour Justinianus by a Visitation of Laetuâ the Bishop who was made a Martyr by Hunericus King of the Vandalls sends an Army into Africk against the Vandalls under the Command of Belisarius Master of the Milice Victor Vitensis has made mention of this Laetus the Bishop in his first book De Persecutione Vandalorum Further concerning this Expedition of Justinian into Africk against the Vandalls Marcellinus Comes speaks also in his Chronicon and places it on the Fourth Consulate of the same Justinianus that is on the year of Christ 534. Marius Aventicensis relates the same in his Chronicon But Baronius in his Annalls reproves Marcellinus and maintains that that Expedition was undertaken by Justinianus in his Third Consulate on the year of Christ 533. Justinian's Constitution de Confirmatione Digestorum which is prefixt before the work of the Pandects confirms Baronius's opinion But by Baronius's favour I think the opinion of Marcellinus and Victor to be truer Nor do I doubt but a fault has crept into Justinian's Constitution on the authority whereof Baronius relies and that the Third Consulate of the Emperour Justinian has been written by Transcribers of Books instead of The Fourth And this Justinian himself does so manifestly shew in the foresaid Constitution that I admire it was not perceived by Baronius For thus Justinian speaks Leges autem nostras quas in his Codicibus id est Institutionum Digestorum posuimus But our Laws which we have put in these Codes that is of the Institutions and Digests shall obtain their strength from our third most happy Consulate of the present twelfth Indiction on the third of the Calends of January and shall be of force for ever For on the twelfth Indiction Justinian bore his Fourth Consulate as Marcellinus Comes attests But some one will object that the twelfth Indiction was begun from the Calends of September in Justinians Third Consulate Therefore we must have recourse to another Argument to prove what I have said above viz. that the Vandalick Expedition was begun on Justinians Fourth Consulate and that that Constitution whereon Baronius's opinion is founded was written in Justinians Fourth Consulate Now this may be proved thus In the end of the foresaid Constitution as well in the Greek as Latine Justinian makes mention of a Prâfectus Praetorio of Africa But a Praefectus Prâtorio of Africa was first created by Justinian in his Fourth Consulate a little before the Calends of the September of the thirteenth Indiction as the First Law of the Code de Praefecto Praetorio Africae informs us For Justinian speaks in this manner Haec igitur Magnitudo tua cognoscens ex Calendis Septembribus futurae decimae tertiae Indictionis effectui mancipari procuret Vales. * Or Affairs b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Procopius's words out of the First Book of his Vandalicks pag. 107 are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Which words import that his seventh year was already past Now if we should say that the Vandalick Expedition was undertaken in Justinians third Consulate as Justinians words do wholly seem to perswade when about the Summer Solstice the Roman Navy came up to the Byzantine Port and soon after set Sail from thence as Procopius relates that is about the end of the month June Justinian was then in the seventh year and third month of his Empire For the first day of Justinians Reign is brought from the Calends of Aprill But if we should place the Vandalick Expedition on Justinians Fourth Consulate it will be the eighth year of his Empire and not the seventh as Procopius writes wherefore Baronius's opinion is truer which is confirmed both by the Emperour Justinians authority and also by the testimony of Procopius Vales. * Or Admirall Ship * Or Before * Reformed or repaired c The Emperour Justinian agrees whose words in the First Law of the Code De Officio Praefecti Praetorio Africae are these Ut Africa per not tam brevi tempore reciperet Libertatem ante nonaginta quinque annos a Vandalis captivata that Africk should by vs receive its Liberty in so short a time having been captivated by the Vandalls ninty five years before Marcellinus Comes in his Chronicon relates that Carthage was taken by the Romans on the ninty sixth year of its being lost But Victor Thunonensis affirms that Africk was recovered by the Romans under the Command of Belisarius on the ninty seventh year of the Vandalls entrance into it Vales. * Or And transcends the Hyperbole excess or superlativeness of every wonder â Or Every way * Or Theuderichus * Book 3. Chap. 27. â Gardianship â Athalaricus * Or She inclined rather to a masculine gravity * Or Theudatus * Or Carried him away into Greece a Concerning the conversion of these people to the Faith of Christ Procopius speaks in book 1. of his Gothicks and Theophanes in his Chronicon pag. 149. These people in regard they lived near the Lake Maeotis in Fenny places were from thence first termed Eluri For ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in Greek signifies Fens or Fennish places Jordanes in his book de Rebus Geâicis writes thus concerning The Heruli Nam praedicta Gens Ablabio Historico referente For the foresaid Nation as Ablabius the Historian relates dwelling near the Lakes of Maeotis in Fennish places which the Greeks term Ele were named Eluri The Authour of the Etymologicon says the same in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Helmoldus in his Chronicon of the Slavi chap. 2 affirms that these Heruli were a Slavick Nation who dwelt between Albia and Odora and reach't a great way out to the South in a long Bay who also as he writes were by another name termed Heveldi Vales. * Or The Opinions a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I
â Or Of the life of men b Theophylactus book 5. chap. 3. says Chosdroes was only termed Son by the Emperour Mauricius But Theophanes in hââ Chronicon pag. 224 affirms in express words that Chosdroes was a Son adopted by the Emperour Mauricius ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. On this year the Emperour Mauricius having adopted Chosroes the Emperour of the Persians c. Vales. * To Mauricius a Theophylactus book 4. chap. 15 says that Sittas was burnt to death by the Command of Comentiolus the Magister Militiae Vales. * Or Was. * He was Grandfather to this Chosroes â Book 4. chap. 28 where see note a. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In Theophylactus Simocatta book 5 chap. 13 the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. in regard the Wretched Zadesprates came out of the Army which reading I like best Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In Theophylactus the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to disturb Vales. * Or House â Or Grandfather See book 4. chap. 28. note a. â Or Pagan c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã There were three sorts of Stater's 1 Stater Atticus its value in our Coyn was Fifteen Shillings 2 Stater Aureus Macâdonicus its value in our money is Eighteen Shillings four pence 3 Stater Daricus which 't is probable is the money here meant it was valued at Fifteen Shillings our money See more in M r Brerewood de Ponderibus Pretiis veterum Nummorum chap. 8. pag. 22. d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In Nicephorus 't is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but in Theophylactus the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã within my self which reading I do rather approve of Vales. e ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In Theophylactus and Nicephorus 't is read in one word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã So also I found it written in the Tellerian Manuscript Vales. * Or Power â Or Pretious f ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Translatours understood not this place as 't is apparent from their Version For they both render it in this manner Et unicum utrinque apertum So also Radârus translated it who rendied Theophylactus into Latine save only that he has made it Hunnicum agreeable to the reading in the Greek Text of Theophylactus But Langus Nicephorus's Translatour has retained the Greek word thus Amphithyrum Hunnicum And by adding a Scholion has explained this term thus Judicio meo carceres sive cancâlli sunt In my judgement they are the Bars or Rails either surrounding the more Sacred Table of the Altar or keeping the people from it in each part whereof there is a door and a passage leading to it of Hunnick Work But by the favour of that Learned man he has not hit the signification of this word The Greeks termed Veyles or Curtains which hung before doors ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã So Chrysostome in his 84 th Homily on St Matthew speaking concerning Zaâhâus who entertained our Lord at a Banquet ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Consider when Christ was about to enter into his house how he adorned it for he ran not to his neighbours to borrow their Curtains and Chairs c. So in the Churches of the Christians there were Curtains before the doors as Epiphanius attests in an Epistle which Saint Jerome has done into Latine And that we may come nearer to the business at the very Altar there were Curtains where with the doors of the Altar or Choire were covered And when the Priest was about to celebrate the Eucharist those Curtains were wont to be drawn that the people might behold the Mysteries a far off This is atrested by S t Chrysostome in his third Homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã so also here when the sacrifice is offered and Christ is sacrificed when you shall hear these words Let us all pray together when you see the Curtains drawn then think that heaven is opened from above c. Where you see that the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is taken for the Curtains which were placed at the doors of the Altar There is also mention of these Veyles or Curtaines in an old paper of the Donation of the Cornutianensian Church which was first published by Johannes Suarefius Et pro arae or a vela Tramoscrica Alba auroclava 2 vela blattea auroclava paragaudata 2 c and afterwards vela linea paragaudata perficâ clavaturâ collomelina prasina 2 vela Linea paragaudata perficâ clavaturâ leucorhodina duo And again afterwards Item ante Regias Basilicae vela linea plumata majora fissa numero tria Item vela linea pura tria ante consistorium velum lineum purum unum In pronao velum lineum purum unum intra Basilicam pro porticibus vela linea rosulata sex Et ante secretarium vel curricula vela linea rosulata pensilia habentia arcus 2. Which place I have transcribed entire for this reason that the studious Reader may understand how manifold the use of Curtains was heretofore in the Church and that we might know what was the Hunnick veyle or Curtain in this place of Evagrius For as this paper of Donation informs us that the Persian Curtains were heretofore highly valued so the Hunnick Curtains were also chiefly commended Further the Persian Curtains are mentioned by Aristophanes's Scholiaest ad Ranas ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For these Curtains were termed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã because they were hung before doors as I have said Gulielmus Bibliothecarius in the life of Stephanus Sextus has this passage Conâulit in eadem Basilica Apostolorum cortinam lineam unam velothyra sârica tria in circuitu altaris Whence it appears that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifie the same thing Vales. a In the Greek Text of Valesius's Edition at this place we found these words wanting ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã were highly prevalent in which places he set forth the Ecclesiastick Dogmata or Opinions which we have inserted from Robert Stephens's Edition Valesius has exprest them in his Latine Version and so have all the other Translatours a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Nicephorus has explained this place incomparably well by inserting one word thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã That is as Langus renders it perhibetur sane primos dentes in columnae statione mutasse 't is indeed reported that he changed his first teeth in his Station on the Pillar In the excellent Florentine and Tellerian Manuscripts 't is written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã where the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is used instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã there Vales. * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã behaving himself like a child â Or Forgat his Nature â Or Distracted into b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Rules of Grammar require that we should write ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã precedes Vales. * Or One of those who
in the Seventh Book of his Ecclesiastick History Vales. * House Room or Building * Or Those only of his faithfull friends c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Concerning this signe whereby the Emperour 's coming was declared Corìppus speaks in these words Praenuntius ante Signa dedit cursor positâ de more Lucernâ Vales. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Christophorson renders it per medium consessum intrat enters through the midst of the assembly sitting together He might better have rendred it went thorow the middle space which was between the two ranks of the persons sitting That 's the import of the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to go between two So below at chap. 15. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. thorow the midst of whom the men of God without fear passed c. Vales. * Or Fiery â Or The motion of his walking â Or Meekness or modesty â Or First beginning or head ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Christophorson seems to have read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for he has rendred it thus Primùm in medio conventu erectus constitit in the first place he stood upright in the middle of the Convention Vales. â Or Small a Sozomen attests book 1. chap. 19. that he who had the first place on the right side and who in the name of the whole Councill made a speech to the Emperour was Eusebius Pamphilus And so 't is written in the Title of this chapter But Theodoret book 1. chap. 7. of his History says this Oration was not made by Eusebius but by Eustathius Bishop of Antioch Baronius has followed Theodoret's opinion whom any one from his writings will easily find to have been of a mind full of anger and hatred against our Eusebius But The Authour of the Tripartite History book 2. chap. 5. where he writes out Theodoret's words says that after Eustathius Bishop of Antioch Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea made a speech likewise concerning the praises of the Emperour Which nevertheless occurs not now in the Greek Copies of Theodoret so that it necessarily follows either that Epiphanius Scholasticus had procured more perfect Copies of Theodoret or else that he added this of his own head as 't is sometimes his usage Of this nature is that which we have noted above concerning the Bishop of the Imperial City whom Socrates from Eusebius relates not to have been present at the Nicene Synod where Epiphanius Scholasticus by a notorius mistake has added the name of Alexander when as he ought rather to have said Metrophanes But to return to our business there are those who write that that honour was conferred neither on Eustathius nor Eusebius but on Alexander Bishop of Alexandria that in the name of the Councill he should make a speech to the Emperour Nicetas in his Thesaurus Orthodoxae fidei book 5. chap. 7. affirms this in these words Eusebius de Vitâ Constantini Libro 3. se primum verba in Synodo fecisse testatur c. Eusebius in his third book concerning the Life of Constantine attests that be made the first speech in the Synod But if we believe Theodoret Eustathius was the first c. But as Theodorus Mopsuestenus writes that honour was frcely conferred on Alexander the Pontif of Alexandria But in such a diversity of Writers I should more willingly close with that opinion which affirms that the first Course of speaking was by the Synod conferred on Eusebius First of all because without controversie Eusebius was the Learnedest and most eloquent person amongst them Secondly he himself does plainly attest this at the beginning of this work in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. We our selves also by a Panegyrick spoken in his Vicennalia have lately Venerated the same glorious Conquerour environed with a Synod of Gods Sacred Ministers See the Preface to the first Book note a. Vales. â The Emperour * Or End â Or See â Or Ruine our goods a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Portesius Christophorson and the French Translatour have omitted this word notwithstanding that therein lyes the whole Emphasis and force of the sentence For to this word the following period is referred Take heed says he least after the destruction of their Tyranny who brought a War against God the Devill by some other way should again expose our Religion to reproaches and calumâies By another way therefore is meant intestine dissensions See the following words Vales. * Or Invest with b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must be written as I suppose ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I was of opinion that nothing remained to me And a little after with Turnebus and Gruterus I read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. But when I had received information of your c. Vales. â Or Report â Or Mixâ together c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Christophorson has rendred it ill à Deo impetrare by request to obtain of God when as he ought to have rendred it Praedicare to Preach For in this sense Eusebius is wont to use this word as 't is apparent from innumerable passages in his Eccles. History for instance book 4. chap. 15. In the Fuketian and Savil. Copies the reading is bad thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the Fuketian Copy this whole place is written far otherwise thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. refuse not in future to take away the occasions of dissent amongst you dissolve every knot c. And so S r Henry Savil and Christophorson found it in their Copies Vales. e ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I reade with Christophorson ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to dissolve But the common reading may stand provided after the words Saviour of us all a Colon be placed as S r Henry Savil hath noted at the margin of his Copy and so 't is poynted in the Kings Copy Vales. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In Socrates book 1. chap. 8. and in Nicephorus the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã intent But Gelazius Cyzizenus chap. 28. has ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã most intent With Socrates agrees the Fuketian Copy and the Kings Sheets Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In Socrates Gelasius and Nicephorus the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But in the Kings Copy 't is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. * Or Exposition a That is the draught of the Creed the Canons and the Synodick Letter For all these were confirmed by the Subscriptions of every one of the Bishops They who besides these three think that the Acts of the Nicene Synod were put into writing are very much mistaken For Eusebius says in express words that nothing was committed to writing except those matters which had been Decreed by the common consent of the Councill and he affirms that those things were confirmed by the Subscriptions of all Indeed Baronius at the year of Christ 325. chap. 62. says that the Acts were written by the Nicene Synod
Bishop of Jerusalem suffered Martyrdom Page 46 Chap. 33. How Trajan forbad that the Christians should be sought after ibid. Chap. 34. That Evarestus was the Fourth that governed the Roman Church Page 47 Chap. 35. That Justus was the Third that governed the Church at Jerusalem ibid. Chap. 36. Concerning Ignatius and his Epistles ibid. Chap. 37. Concerning those Preachers of the Gospel who at that time were eminent Page 48 Chap. 38. Concerning the Epistle of Clemens and those other Writings which are falsly attributed to him ibid. Chap. 39. Concerning the Books of Papias Page 49 Book IV. Chap. 1. WHo were the Bishops of the Roman and Alexandrian Churches in the Reign of Trajane pag. 50 Chap. 2. What the Jews suffered in this Emperours time ibid. Chap. 3. Who in the time of Adrian wrote Apologies in defence of the Faith Page 51 Chap. 4. Who were ennobled with the Title of Bishops over the Roman and Alexandrian Churches in this Emperours time ibid. Chap. 5. Who were Bishops of Jerusalem from our Saviour even to these times ibid. Chap. 6. The last Siege of the Jews in the time of Adrian ibid. Chap. 7. Who at that time were the Authours of false Doctrine Page 52 Chap. 8. What Ecclesiastical Writers there were in those times Page 53 Chap. 9. The Rescript of Adrian that we Christians should not be unjustly prosecuted ibid. Chap. 10. Who in the Reign of Antoninus were Bishops of the Roman and Alexandrian Sees Page 54 Chap. 11. Concerning those who were Arch-Hereticks in these times ibid. Chap. 12. Concerning Justin's Apologie to Antoninus Page 55 Chap. 13. The Rescript of Antoninus to the Common Council of Asia concerning our Religion ibid. Chap. 14. Some memoirs of Polycarp the Disciple of the Apostles Page 56 Chap. 15. How in the Reign of Verus Polycarp together with others suffered Martyrdom in the City of Smyrna ibid. Chap. 16. How Justin the Philosopher asserting the Christian Religion at the City of Rome suffered Martyrdom Page 60 Chap. 17. Concerning those Martyrs whom Justin makes mention of in his Apologie Page 61 Chap. 18. What Books of Justin's are come to our hands Page 62 Chap. 19. Who in the Reign of Verus presided over the Churches of Rome and Alexandria ibid. Chap. 20. Who then Governed the Church of Antioch Page 63 Chap. 21. Concerning the Ecclesiastical Writers who flourisht in that Age. ibid. Chap. 22. Concerning Hegesippus and those he makes mention of ibid. Chap. 23. Concerning Dionysius Bishop of the Corinthians and the Epistles he wrote Page 64 Chap. 24. Concerning Theophilus Bishop of the Antiochians Page 65 Chap. 25. Concerning Philippus and Modestus ibid. Chap. 26. Concerning Melito and what he has made mention of ibid. Chap. 27. Concerning Apollinaris Bishop of the Hierapolâtane Church Page 66 Chap. 28. Concerning Musanus and his Writings Page 67 Chap. 29. Concerning Tatianus and his Heresie ibid. Chap. 30. Concerning Bardesanes the Syrian and those Books of his that are extant ibid. Book V. THE Preface Page 68 Chap. 1. How many in the Reign of Verus underwent most âore Persecution in France for Religion and after what manner they suffered ibid. Chap. 2. How the Martyrs beloved of God kindly receiving such as fell away in the persecution wrought a cure upon them Page 74 Chap. 3. What a Vision appeared to the Martyr Attalus in his sleep Page 75 Chap. 4. How the Martyrs by their Epistle recommended Irenaeus ibid. Chap. 5. How God having from heaven heard the prayers of some of our Religion sent rain to Marcus Aurelius Caesar. ibid. Chap. 6. A Catalogue of those who were Bishops of Rome Page 76 Chap. 7. That even to those times Miracles were wrought by the faithfull ibid. Chap. 8. After what manner Irenaeus makes mention of the Divine Scriptures Page 77 Chap. 9. Who were Bishops in the Reign of Commodus Page 78 Chap. 10. Concerning Pantaenus the Philosopher ibid. Chap. 11. Concerning Clemens Alexandrinus ibid. Chap. 12. Concerning the Bishops of Jerusalem Page 79 Chap. 13. Concerning Rhodon and the Dissention of the Marcionites which he has made mention of ibid. Chap. 14. Concerning the false Prophets of the Cataphrygians Page 80 Chap. 15. Concerning the Schism of Blastus raised at Rome ibid. Chap. 16. What has been committed to memory concerning Montanus and his false Prophets ibid. Chap. 17. Concerning Milâââdes and the books he compiled Page 82 Chap. 18. How Apollonius also confuted the Cataphrygians and whom he has made mention of ibid. Chap. 19. Serapion's Opinion concerning the Heresie of the Cataphrygians Page 84 Chap. 20. What Irenaeus wrote against the Schismaticks at Rome ibid. Chap. 21. How Apollonius suffered Martyrdom at Rome Page 85 Chap. 22. What Bishops flourisht at that time Page 86 Chap. 23. Concerning the Question then moved about Easter ibid. Chap. 24. Concerning the Disagreement of the Churches throughout Asia ibid. Chap. 25. How all with one consent unanimously agreed about Easter Page 89 Chap. 26. How many Monuments of Irenaeus's Polite Ingenie have come to our hands ibid. Chap. 27. How many also of the works of others who then flourished are come to our knowledge ibid. Chap. 28. Concerning those who from the beginning were defenders of Artemon's Heresie what manner of persons they were as to their Morals and how that they were so audacious as to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures ibid. Book VI. Chap. 1. COncerning the Persecution under Severus pag. 91 Chap. 2. Concerning Origens virtuous course of life from a child ibid. Chap. 3. How Origen being very young Preacht the word of Christ. Page 92 Chap. 4. How many of those who had been instructed by him became Martyrs Page 93 Chap. 5. Concerning Potamiaena Page 94 Chap. 6. Concerning Clemens Alexandrinus ibid. Chap. 7. Concerning Judas the Writer ibid. Chap. 8. Concerning the bold Act of Origen Page 95 Chap. 9. Concerning the Miracles of Narcissus ibid. Chap. 10. Concerning the Bishops of Jerusalem Page 96 Chap. 11. Concerning Alexander ibid. Chap. 12. Concerning Serapion and his Books that are extant Page 97 Chap. 13. Concerning the Writings of Clemens ibid. Chap. 14. What Writings Clemens has mentioned Page 98 Chap. 15. Concerning Heraclas Page 99 Chap. 16. What pains and study Origen bestowed about the Holy Scriptures ibid. Chap. 17. Concerning Symmachus the Translatour ibid. Chap. 18. Concerning Ambrosius Page 100 Chap. 19. What things have been recorded concerning Origen by the Gentiles ibid. Chap. 20. What Books are now extant of such as wrote in these times Page 102 Chap. 21. What Bishops were eminent in those times ibid. Chap. 22. How many of Hippolyâus's works are come to our hands Page 103 Chap. 23. Concerning Origen's studiousness and how he was honoured with the dignity of Priesthood ibid. Chap. 24. Concerning the Expositions he made at Alexandria ibid. Chap. 25. After what manner Origen has mentioned the Books of the Old and New Testament Page 104 Chap. 26. How Heraclas succeeded in the Bishoprick of Alexandria Page 105 Chap. 27. How the Bishops
2. Concerning the Re-edification of the Churches Page 184 Chap. 3. Concerning the Consecration of Churches every where solemniz'd ibid. Chap. 4. A Panegyrick concerning the splendid posture of our Affairs ibid. Chap. 5. Copies of the Imperial Laws Page 192 Chap. 6. Concerning the Estates belonging to the Christians Page 19â Chap. 7. Concerning the Immunity of the Clergy ibid. Chap. 8. Concerning Licinius's exorbitancies which afterwards ensued and concerning his death ibid. Chap. 9. Concerning Constantius's Victory and concerning the prosperity procured by him to all those that live under the power of the Romans Page 197 The Contents of the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus in VII Books Book I. Chap. 1. THE Preface to the whole Book pag. 209 Chap. 2. After what manner Constantine the Emperour was converted to the Christian Religion ibid. Chap. 3. How whilst Constantine augmented the prosperity of the Christians Licinius his Collegue persecuted them Page 2â0 Chap. 4. That there was a war raised betwixt Constantine and Licinius upon account of the Christians Page 211 Chap. 5. Concerning Arius's contest with Alexander the Bishop ibid. Chap. 6. How from this contention there arose a division in the Church and how Alexander Bishop of Alexandria deposed Arius and his Complices ibid. Chap. 7. How Constantine the Emperour griev'd at these disturbances in the Church sent Hosius a Spaniard to Alexandria to exhort the Bishop and Arius to a reconciliation Page 214 Chap. 8. Concerning the Council held at Nicaea a City of Bithynia and concerning the Faith there published Page 215 Chap. 9. The Epistle of the Synod concerning those matters determined by it and how Arius was degraded together with them that embraced his Sentiments Page 219 Chap. 10. That the Emperour summoned to the Synod Acesius also a Bishop of the Novatian Heresie Page 225 Chap. 11. Concerning Paphnutius the Bishop ibid. Chap. 12. Concerning Spyridon Bishop of the Cyprians Page 226 Chap. 13. Concerning Eutychianus the Monk ibid. Chap. 14. That Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia Theognis Bishop of Nice who had been banished because they were abettors of Arius's Opinion having afterwards sent a Libell of Repentance and agreed to the exposition of the Faith were readmitted to their Sees Page 227 Chap. 15. That Alexander dying after the Nicene Synod Athanasius was consecrated Bishop of the City Alexandria Page 229 Chap. 16. How the Emperour Constantine having enlarged the City heretofore call'd Byzantium named it Constantinople ibid. Chap. 17. How Helena the Emperours Mother came to Jerusalem and having there found Christs Cross which she had sought for a long time built a Church ibid. Chap. 18. How the Emperour Constantine abolished Gentilism and erected many Churches in several places Page 230 Chap. 19. After what manner the Innermost Indian Nations were in the time of Constantine converted to Christianity Page 231 Chap. 20. After what manner the Iberians were converted to the Christian Religion Page 232 Chap. 21. Concerning Antonius the Monk Page 233 Chap. 22. Concerning Manes the Author of the Heresie of the Manichees and whence he had his original ibid. Chap. 23. How Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia and Theognis Bishop of Nice taking courage again endeavoured to subvert the Nicene Creed by plotting against Athanasius Page 234 Chap. 24. Concerning the Synod convened at Antioch which deposed Eustathius Bishop of Antioch upon whose account there was a Sedition raised by which that City was almost ruined Page 235 Chap. 25. Concerning the Presbyter who made it his business to get Arius recalled Page 236 Chap. 26. How Arius being recalled from Exile and having given up a Libell of Repentance to the Emperour did therein hypocritically pretend himself an asserter of the Nicene Creed Page 237 Chap. 27. How Arius returned to Alexandria by the Emperours order and upon Athanasius's refusal to admit him Eusebius's faction framed divers accusations against Athanasius before the Emperour ibid. Chap. 28. That the Emperour ordered a Synod of Bishops should be convened at Tyre upon account of the accusations brought against Athanasius Page 239 Chap. 29. Concerning Arsenius and his hand which was reported to have been cut off ibid. Chap. 30. That Athanasius being found innocent after his first accusation his Accusers made their escape by flight ibid. Chap. 31. That Athanasius fled to the Emperour upon the Bishops not admitting of his defence at his second accusation Page 240 Chap. 32. That after Athanasius's departure he was depoposed by the Vote of the Synod ibid. Chap. 33. How the Synod having left Tyre came to Jerusalem and after the celebration of the feast of Dedication of the New Jerusalem readmitted Arius to communion ibid. Chap. 34 That the Emperour by his Letter summoned the Synod to attend him that Athanasius's case might be accurately discussed in his presence Page 241 Chap. 35. That when the Synod came not to the Emperour the Eusebians accused Athanasius as if he had threatned that he would prohibit the carriage of that Corn with which Alexandria furnished Constantinople Whereupon the Emperour being incensed banished Athanasius confining him to the Gallia's ibid. Chap. 36. Concerning Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra and Asterius the Sophista Page 242 Chap. 37. How after Athanasius was exiled Arius being sent for from Alexandria by the Emperour raised disturbances against Alexander Bishop of Constantinople ibid. Chap. 38. Concerning Ariu's death Page 243 Chap. 39. How Constantine falling into a distemper ended his life ibid. Chap. 40. Concerning Constantine the Emperours Funeral ibid. Book II. Chap. 1. THE Preface wherein he gives an account why he made a new Edition of his First and Second Book pag. 245 Chap. 2. How Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia with his accomplices earnestly endeavouring to introduce Arius's opinion again made disturbances in the Churches ibid. Chap. 3. How Athanasius confiding in the Letter of Constantine the Younger returned to Alexandria Page 246 Chap. 4. That upon Eusebius Pamphilus's death Acacius succeeded in the Bishoprick of Caesarea Page 247 Chap. 5. Concerning the death of Constantine the Younger ibid. Chap. 6. How Alexander Bishop of Constantinople at his death proposed Paulus and Macedonius to be elected into his Bishoprick ibid. Chap. 7. How the Emperour Constantius ejected Paulus who had been Ordained Bishop and having sent for Eusebius from Nicomedia entrusted him with the Bishoprick of Constantinople ibid. Chap. 8. How Eusebius assembled another Synod at Antioch of Syria and caused another form of Faith to be published Page 248 Chap. 9. Concerning Eusebius Emisenus ibid. Chap. 10. That the Bishops convened at Antioch upon Eusebius Emisenus's refusal of the Bishoprick of Alexandria Ordained Gregorius and altered the expressions of the Nicene Faith ibid. Chap. 11. That upon Gregorius's arrival at Alexandria guarded with a Military force Athanasius fled Page 250 Chap. 12. How after Eusebius's death the people of Constantinople restored Paulus to his See again And that the Arians made choice of Macedonius pag. 250 Chap. 13. Concerning the slaughter of Hermogenes the Lieutenant-General and how
who is over all and worshipped him with virtuous works and not with the ceremonious service of the Law delivered afterwards by Moses Unto him being such a one it was said that In him shall all the Tribes of the earth and all Nations be blessed The very same manner of Religion which Abraham followed is found at this present among Christians alone throughout the world practised by them in works which are far more evident than words What then hindreth but that we may henceforth confess that one and the same way of living and the same kind of Religion is common to us who have our name from Christ with them who of Old sincerely served God and were so dear unto him It plainly appears therefore that that perfect and exact rule of Religion which hath been delivered unto us by the Doctrine of Christ is neither New nor Strange but if we ought to speak the truth the first the onely and the true one And of these matters let thus much suffice CHAP. V. Of the times of our Saviours Manifestation unto Men. BUt after this preparation wherein by way of Preface we have laid down such things as are fit to usher-in the Ecclesiastical History we design it now remaineth that we take the first step as it were of our journey from the appearance of our Saviour in the flesh calling upon God the Father of the Word and upon Jesus Christ himself of whom we Treat our Saviour and Lord the heavenly Word of God that he will be our help and fellow-labourer in the declaration of the Truth It was now therefore the two and fortieth year of the Reign of Augustus and the eight and twentieth year after the subduing of Egypt and the death of Antonius and Cleopatra in whom the Rule of the Ptolomees in Egypt ceased when our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ at the time of the first Taxing which was when Cyrenius was Governour of Syria was born in Bethlehem of Judea agreeable to the Prophecies that went before of him Which Taxing under Cyrenius Flavius Josephus a most famous Historiographer among the Hebrews maketh mention of adding thereto another History concerning the Sect of the Galileans which sprang up about the same time whereof amongst us also Luke in the Acts of the Apostles maketh mention saying thus After this man rose up one Judas of Galilee in the days of the Taxing and drew away much people after him he also himself perished and all even as many as obeyed him were dispersed The same indeed Josephus before mentioned in his eighteenth Book of Antiquities doth agree in and confirm thus word for word Cyrenius one of the number of the Roman Senatours a man who had born all Offices and by all the degrees of Honour had climbed at length to the Consulship and who was greatly renowned in other respects came with a few men into Syria being sent on purpose by Caesar as Judge of the Nation and to take the Valuation of their Estates And a little after he saith Judas Gaulanites a man of the City named Gamala having taken unto him one Saddochus a Pharisee earnestly sollicited the people to Rebellion Both of them affirming that the Taxing of this Tribute inferred nothing but manifest Servitude and exhorting the whole Nation to maintain their Liberty And in his Second Book of the Wars of the Jews he writeth thus of the same Person At that time a certain Galilean by name Judas stirred up the people of that Region to defection upbraiding them for paying Tribute so tamely to the Romans and having God their Sovereign for suffering mortal men to be their masters So far Josephus CHAP. VI. That in his time according to the Predictions of the Prophets the Princes of the Jewish Nation who before by succession had held the Principality surceased and that Herod the First of the Aliens became their King NOw at that time when Herod the First of them who by descent was a Forreigner had obtained the Rule over the Jewish Nation the Prophecy written by Moses was fulfilled which said There shall not want a Prince in Juda neither a Leader fail of his Loyns untill he come for whom it is reserved Whom he declares to be the expectation of the Gentiles Indeed the things of that Prophesie hung unaccomplished all the time that it was lawful for the Jews to live under Princes of their own Nation who taking their beginning as high as Moses himself continued down their Reign even to the Empire of Augustus under whom Herod the First Forreigner had the Government of the Jews granted him by the Romans who as Josephus declares was by his fathers side an Idumaean by his mothers an Arabian But as Affricanus one not of the vulgar sort of Writers says they who have been more accurate about his pedegree say he was the son of Antipater who was the son of one Herod an Ascalonite who was one of the servants which Ministred in the Temple of Apollo This Antipater being taken by Idumaean theeves while he was yet a child remained a long time among them because his father being one of a mean Estate was not able to redeem him And being brought up after their manner of breeding became at length very familiarly acquainted with Hyrcanus the High-priest of the Jews This very mans son was that Herod who lived in the time of our Saviour When therefore the principality of the Jews was come into the hands of this Alien then was the expectation of the Gentiles even at the doors according unto that Prophesie For then the Line of their Native Princes and Governours was broken off which had been drawn down by a continued Succession from Moses himself untill that time For before they were taken Captives and carried into Babylon Kings reigned over them beginning from Saul who was the first and from David Before their Kings Princes bore Rule over them whom they called Judges beginning their Government after Moses and his Successour Jesus After their return from Babylon there ceased not amongst them a form of Government an Aristocracie together with an Oligarchie the best ruling and they but few in number For the High-Priests had held that preeminence untill Pompey the Roman Captain coming upon them by main force besieged and ransacked Jerusalem polluted the Holy places by entring into the Sanctuaries of the Temple and sent prisoner to Rome the High-priest whose name was Aristobulus with his sons who by succession from his Progenitors had continued unto that time both Prince and Priest and committed the Office of High-priesthood unto his brother Hyrcanus and from that time âorth made the whole Jewish Nation become Tributary to the Romans And indeed not long after Hyrcanus the last of those to whom the High-priesthood by succession befell being taken prisoner by the Parthians Herod the first Forreigner as I said before had the Government of the Jewish nation delivered to him by the Roman
heard concerning Jesus by his disciple and Apostle Thaddaeus who without the help of Herbs or Medicines restored him to his former soundness And not onely him but one Abdus also the son of Abdus who had the Gout he coming and falling down at Thaddaeus's feet received a blessing by prayer and the laying on of his hands and was healed Many others also of the same City with them were cured by the Apostle who wrought wonderfull Miracles and Preached the Word of God After all this Agbarus spake thus We believe Thaddaeus whatever thou dost thou performest by the power of God and therefore we greatly admire thee But We pray thee moreover give us some farther account of the Advent of Jesus How and after what manner it was of his power also and by what virtue he wrought those mighty Works we have heard I shall now be silent replied Thaddaeus because I am sent to publish the Word of God But assemble all the men of thy City together to me to morrow and I will Preach the Word of God to them and will disperse the Word of life among them and expound the Advent of Jesus after what manner it was his Commission and for what reason his Father sent him the power of his Works the Mysteries he declared to the world by what power he wrought so great Miracles his new Preaching the slender and mean reputation he made himself of the despicableness of his outward man how he humbled himself even unto death how he lessened his Divinity how many and great things he suffered of the Jews how he was Crucified how he descended into Hell and rent asunder that Inclosure never before severed how he rose again and together with himself raised those from the dead who had layn buried many ages how he descended from heaven alone but ascended to his Father accompanied with a great multitude how with glory he is set down at the right hand of God his Father in Heaven and how he will come again with power and glory to judge both quick and dead Agbarus therefore commanded the men of his City to come together very early and hear Thaddaeus Preach After this he commanded that Gold and Silver should be given to Thaddaeus But he refused it saying how shall we who have left all that was our own take any thing that is anothers These things were done in the Three hundredth and fortieth year All this being translated word for word out of the Syriack Tongue and not unprofitable to be read we have thought good to set down opportunely in this place THE SECOND BOOK Of the Ecclesiastical History OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS The PREFACE WHatsoever was necessary to be premised by way of Preface to Our Ecclesiastical History both concerning the Divinity of the comfortable Word the Antiquity of the points of our doctrine and Evangelical Politie and also moreover concerning the Manifestation our Saviour lately made of himself his Passion and the Election of the Apostles we have Treated of in the foregoing Book and briefly summed up the proofs thereof Now therefore in this we will diligently look into what followed upon his Ascension partly from what we find noted in Holy Writt and partly from other Records which we will mention in due place CHAP. I. Of those things which were instituted by the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ. FIRST of all therefore Matthias who as before hath been manifested was one of the Lords disciples by lot was elected into the Apostleship of the Traitour Judas Then seven approved men were by prayer and imposition of the Apostles hands Ordained Deacons for the publick Administration of the Churches affairs of which number Stephen was one who immediately after his Ordination as if he had been made Deacon onely for this was the first that after the Lord was slain by those very Jews that had been the Lords murtherers who stoned him to death And thus he being the first of the worthily victorious Martyrs of Christ gained a Crown answerable to his Name Then James also who was termed the brother of the Lord because he also was called the Son of Joseph for Joseph was the father of Christ to whom Mary being Espoused before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost as the Sacred History of the Gospel doth declare This same James I say who for his eminent virtue the Antients surnamed the Just was as they relate the first that had the Episcopal seat of the Church at Jerusalem delivered to him So Clemens affirms in the sixth Book of his Institutions For he says That after our Saviours Ascension Peter James and John although our Lord had preferred them before the rest did not contend for the Dignity but chose James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem The same Author in the seventh Book of the same work says this farther of him The Lord after his Resurrection conferred the gift of Knowledge upon James the Just John and Peter which they delivered to the rest of the Apostles and those to the Seventy Disciples one of whom was Barnabas But there were two James's the one surnamed the Just who was cast head-long from the Battlement of the Temple and beaten to death with a Fullers Club the other was beheaded Paul makes mention of this James the Just writing thus Other of the Apostles saw I none save James the Lords brother At this time also all that our Saviour had promised to the King of the Osdroënians was fulfilled For Thomas moved thereto by Divine impulse sent Thaddaeus to Edessa to be a Preacher and Evangelist of the Doctrine of Christ as from a Record there found we have a little before manifested He when he was come thither did in the Name of Christ both cure Agbarus and also astonished all the Inhabitants of the country with the wonderfulness of his Miracles And when he had sufficiently prepared them with such Works and brought them to an adoration of Christs power he made them disciples of his wholesome Doctrine From that very time untill now the whole City of the Edessens has continued to be Consecrated to Christs Name enjoying no trivial evidences of our Saviour's graciousness towards them And these things are said as from the History of the old Records We will now return again to Holy Writ After the Martyrdom of Stephen when the first and sorest persecution of the Church at Jerusalem by the Jews arose all the disciples of Christ except the Twelve onely being scattered throughout Judea and Samaria some of them travelling as far as Phoenice and Cyprus and Antioch as Holy Scripture testifieth were not able to be so bold as to communicate the Word of Faith to the Gentiles but Preach't to the Jews onely At that time Paul also untill then made havock of the Church entring into every house of the faithfull haling men and women and committing them to prison Moreover Philip one of those who was ordained
all the people bear thee witness that thou art just and respectest not the person of any man perswade the multitude therefore that they be not deceived about Jesus for we and all the people put our confidence in thee stand therefore upon the battlement of the temple that from on high thou mayest be conspicuous and thy words readily heard by all the people for upon account of the passover all the tribes together with the Nations are come together Therefore the foresaid Scribes and Pharisees placed James upon the battlement of the Temple and cried out to him and said O Justus whom we all ought to put our confidence in because the people are mislead after Jesus who was crucified declare to us which is the gate of Christ who was crucified and he answered with a loud voice Why do ye question me about Jesus the Son of man He even sits in heaven at the right hand of great power and will come in the clouds of heaven Now when many were fully satisfied and confirmed and glorified God for this Testimony of James and cryed saying Hosanna to the Son of David then the same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another we have done ill in exhibiting such a Testimony to Jesus but let us go up and cast him down that so the people being terrified may not give credit to him And they cried out saying O O even Justus himself is also seduced And they fulfilled that which was written in Esaiah We will destroy the righteous for he is troublesome to us wherefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings They went up therefore and cast down Justus and said amongst themselves Let us stone James the Just and they began to stone him for he was not fully dead after his fall but turning he kneeled saying I intreat thee O Lord God the Father forgive them for they know not what they doe As they were thus stoning of him one of the Priests of the sons of Rechab the son of Rechabim testifyed of by Jeremy the Prophet cried out saying cease what doe ye Justus prays for us And one of them being one of the Fullers took a leaver with which he used to squeeze garments and smote Justus on the head and so he was martyred And they buried him in that place and his Grave-stone as yet remains neer the Temple This man was a true and substantial witness both to Jews and Gentiles that Jesus was the Christ and soon after Vespasian beset Judea round about and took the Jews captive These things Hegesippus having related fully and largely does therein agree with Clemens But James was a person so admirable and so much cried up amongst all men for his righteousness that the most sober men of the Jews were of opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem which immediately followed upon his Martyrdome and that this siege befell them upon no other account than that audacious villany committed against this James Josephus therefore was not afraid to testifie this in writing declaring himself in these words These things befell the Jews in the way of revenge for James the Just who was the brother of Jesus called Christ because the Jews had murthered him being a most righteous person And the same Authour in the twentieth Book of his Antiquities relates his death in these words Caesar being certified of Festus his death sent Albinus Procuratour into Judea But Ananus the younger who as we said before had gotten the High-priesthood was a man as to his disposition rash and excessively bold he embraced the Sect of the Sadduces who in matters of judgment are cruell above all the Jews as we before manifested Ananus therefore being such an one as we have described him to be supposing he had a fit opportunity in that Festus was dead and Albinus yet upon his journey called an Assembly of the Judges into which he caused the brother of Jesus called Christ whose name was James with certain others to be brought whom he accused as violatours of the Law and so delivered them up to be stoned But as many as seemed to be the mildest and most modest in the City and who were the strictest observers of the Law were very much offended hereat and sending privately to the King they intreated him to write to Ananus to warn him that he should not any more attempt any such thing For that he had not done this first fact regularly and legally And some of them also went to meet Al binus journeying from Alexandria and informed him that it was not lawfull for Ananus without his consent to assemble the Sanhedrim Albinus being induced to believe what they said wrote in great anger to Ananus threatning that he would punish him And King Agrippa for this very thing took the High-priesthood from him which he had held three months and constituted Jesus the son of Dammaeus High-priest Thus much concerning James whose the first of those called the general Epistles is reported to be But you must know it is suspected to be spurious Therefore not many of the Antients have made mention of it like as neither of that called Jude being also one of the seven termed the general Epistles Yet notwithstanding we know that these with the rest have been publickly read in most Churches CHAP. XXIV How after Mark Annianus was constituted the first Bishop of the Church of the Alexandrians BUt Nero being in the eighth year of his reign Annianus the first after Mark the Apostle and Evangelist succeeded in the publick charge of the Church at Alexandria being a man beloved of God and in all respects admirable CHAP. XXV Of the persecution in the time of Nero in which Paul and Peter were for Religion graced with Marty dome at Rome THe Empire being now confirmed to Nero he giving his mind to the commission of nefarious facts armed himself against the very worship of the supream God Indeed how wicked a person he was our present leisure will not permit us to describe But in as much as many have related in most accurate Treatises those things that were done by him he that is desirous may from thence see the cruelty and insolent rage of the man Whereby having without all consideration destroyed an infinite number of men he arrived to such an height of murdering cruelty that he forbore not his most familiar and most beloved friends but slew his mother and his wife with innumerable others that were related to him as if they had been enemies and adversaries by sundry kinds of death This indeed also ought together with the rest to have been ascribed to him as one of his titles That he was the first of the Emperours that demonstrated himself to be an Adversary to the worship due to God Thus much again Tertullian the Roman does record saying after this manner Consult your Records There you 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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for that must be the Reading as we have intimated in our notes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâ¦ã 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
Then he does not obscurely reprehend that advice of Nectarius who abrogated the Paenitentiary Presbyter For he says that hereby Licence was given to Sinners whenas there was no body that might reprove offenders Which Opinion could not proceed from a Novatian in regard those Hereticks admitted neither of Repentance after Baptism nor of a Penitentiary-Presbyter as Socrates does there attest Add hereto the testimony of Theodorus Lector who in his Epistle prefixt before his Ecclesiastick History calls Socrates Sozomen and Theodoret ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is men that were pious and acceptable to God Moreover Theodorus Lector lived in the same City and almost at the same time that Socrates did to wit in the Reign of the Emperour Anastasius Lastly Petrus Halloixius in his notes on the life of Saint Irenaeus pag. 664 is of the same Opinion with us For disputing against Baronius who at the year of Christ 159. had written thus These things Socrates the Novatian who with the Jews celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day of the Moon c. he utters these words And whereas Socrates is termed a Novatian that may be taken in a double sence The one is that he sometimes favoured the Novatians which also Bellarmine affirms in his Book de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis at the year of our Lord 440. both concerning him and likewise concerning Sozomen The other is that he was a follower of the Novatian-Heresie In the now cited Chapter he neither shews himself to be a Novatian nor a favourer of them For he blames them and detects their dissensions and vices in so much that he may seem not to have been a friend but an enemy or rather neither of the two but a declarer of the truth which is the business of an Historian Thus far concerning Socrates we must now speak of Sozomen Hermias Sozomen was also a practiser in the Law at Constantinople at the same time with Socrates His Ancestours were not mean they were originally Palestinians Inhabitants of a certain Village neer Gaza called Bethelia This Village did in times past abound with a numerous company of Inhabitants and had most stately and ancient Churches But the most glorious Structure of them all was the Pantheon Scituated on an artificial Hill which was the Tower as it were of Bethelia as Sozomen relates in Chap. 15. of his fifth Book The Grandfather of Hermias Sozomen was born in that Village and first converted to the Christian Faith by Hilarion the Monk For when Alaphion an inhabitant of the same Village was possessed with a devil and the Jews and Physitians attempting to cure him could do him no good by their Inchantments Hilarion by a bare invocation of the Name of God cast out the Devil Sozomen's Grandfather and Alaphion himself amazed at this miracle did with their whole families embrace the Christian Religion The Grandfather of Sozomen was eminent for his expositions of the sacred Scriptures being a person endowed with a polite wit and an acuteness of understanding Besides he was indifferently well skilled in Literature Therefore he was highly esteemed of by the Christians inhabiting Gaza Ascalon and the places adjacent in regard he was usefull and necessary for the propagating of Religion and could easily unloose the knots of the sacred Scriptures But Alaphion's descendants excelled others for their Sanctity of Life kindness to the indigent and for their other Virtues and they were the first that built Churches and Monasteries there as Sozomen attests in the place before cited Where he also adds that some holy persons of Alaphion's Family were surviving even in his days with whom he himself when very young was conversant and concerning whom he promises to speak more afterwards Undoubtedly he means Salamanes Phusco Malchio and Crispio brothers concerning whom he speaks in Chap. 32. of his Sixth Book For he says that these brethren instructed in the Monastick discipline by Hilarion were during the Empire of Valens eminent in the Monasteries of Palestine and that they lived neer Bethelia a Village in the Country of the Gazites For they were descendants of a Noble Family amongst them He mentions the same persons in his Eighth Book and Fifteenth Chapter where he says Crispio was Epiphanius's Arch-Deacon 'T is apparent therefore that those brethren I have mentioned were extracted from Alaphion's Family Now Alaphion was related to Sozomen's Grandfather Which I conjecture from hence First because the Grandfather of Sozomen is said to have been converted together with his whole Family to the Christian Religion upon account of Alaphion's wonderfull cure whom Hilarion had healed by calling on the name of the Omnipotent God Further this conjecture is confirmed by what Sozomon relates to wit that he when very young was familiarly conversant with the aged Monks that were of Alaphion's Family And lastly in regard Sozomen took his name from those persons who were either the Sons or Grandchildren of Alaphion For he was called Salamanes Hermias Sozomenus as Photius attests in his Bibliotheca from the name of that Salamanes who as we observed before was Phusco's Malchio's and Crispio's brother Wherefore that mistake of Nicephorus's and others must be amended who suppose that Sozomen had the surname of Salaminius because he was born at Salamine a City of Cyprus But we have before demonstrated from Sozomen's own testimony that he was not born in Cyprus but in Palestine For his Grandfather was not only a Palestinian as is above said but Sozomen himself was also educated in Palestine in the bosome as I may say of those Monks that were of Alaphio's Family From which education Sozomen seems to me to have imbibed that most ardent love of a monastick life and discipline which he declares in many places of his History Hence 't is that in his Books he is not content to relate who were the Fathers and Founders of Monastick Philosophy but he also carefully relates their Successours and disciples who both in Egypt Syria and Palestine and also in Pontus Armenia and Osdroëna followed this way of Life Hence also it is that in the Twelfth Chapter of the First Book of his History he has proposed to be read in the beginning as it were that gorgeous Elogue of Monastick Philosophy For he supposed that he should have been ungratefull had he not after this manner at least made a return of thanks to those in whose familiarity he had lived and from whom when he was a youth he had received such eminent examples of a good converse For that he himself intimates in the Proeme to his First Book But it is collected that Sozomen was educated at Gaza not onely from this place which I have mentioned but also from Chap. 28. of his Seventh Book where Sozomen says that he himself had seen Zeno Bishop of Majuma This Majuma is a Sea-Port belonging to the Gazites Which Bishop although he was almost an hundred years old yet was never absent from the Morning and Evening Hymns unless it hapned that
of blessed memory had determined to restore this Bishop to his own See and return him to your most amiable piety yet in regard being prevented by humane chance he died before the accomplishment of his desire We being his successour thought it agreeable to fulfill the mind of that Emperour of sacred memory Moreover how great a reverence and respect he has procured from us you shall know from himself as soon as he shall come into your presence Nor is it a wonder that We have done any thing in favour to him for both the representation of your love and also the aspect of so great a personage moved and exited Our mind hereto May the Divine Providence preserve you dearest brethren Upon the confidence of this Letter Athanasius comes to Alexandria and the people of Alexandria most willingly received him But as many as were followers of Arius's opinion entred into a combination and conspired against him hereupon continual Seditions arose which gave an occasion to the Eusebian faction of accusing him before the Emperour because upon his own inclination and award without the determination of a general Council of Bishops he had returned and taken possession of the Alexandrian Church And they made so great a proficiency in their calumnies that the Emperour being incensed expelled him out of Alexandria But how that was effected I will a little after this relate CHAP. IV. That upon Eusebius Pamphilus's death Acacius succeeded in the Bishoprick of Caesarea DUring this interval of time Eusebius who was Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and had the sirname of Pamphilus departed this life and Acacius his Scholar succeeded him in that Bishoprick This Acacius published many other books and also wrote particularly concerning the Life of his Master Eusebius CHAP. V. Concerning the death of Constantine the Younger NOt long after this the Emperour Constantius's brother who bore the same name with his Father Constantine the younger invading those parts of the Empire that belonged to his younger brother Constans and ingaging with his Souldiers is slain by them in the Consulate of Acindynus and Proclus CHAP. VI. How Alexander Bishop of Constantinople at his death proposed Paulus and Macedonius to be elected into his Bishoprick AT the very same time the City Constantinople was involved in another tumult which followed on the neck of those disturbances we have before related raised upon this account Alexander who presided over the Churches in that City a Prelate that had couragiously opposed Arius departed out of this life after he had spent twenty three years in that Bishoprick and had lived ninety eight years compleat having ordained no body to succeed in his place But he commanded those to whom the power of electing belonged to make choice of one of those two whom he should name And if they were desirous of having one that should be both skillfull in teaching and also of an approved piety and uprightness of life he advised them to make choise of Paulus one that he had ordained Presbyter a person that was a young man indeed in respect of his age but old in understanding and prudence But if they would rather have one commendable for an external shew of piety only they might elect Macedonius who had long since been made a Deacon of that Church and was now grown aged Hereupon there hapned a great contest concerning the Ordination of a Bishop which very much disturbed that Church For the people were divided into two factions the one side adhered to the Arian opinion the other embraced the determinations made at the Nicene Synod And as long as Alexander continued alive the Homoöusian party prevailed the Arians disagreeing and contending daily amongst themselves concerning their own opinion But after Alexanders death the success of the peoples contest was dubious Therefore the Homoöusian party proposed Paulus to be ordained Bishop but those that embraced Arianism were very earnest to have Macedonius elected And in the Church called Irene which is near that Church now named The Great Church and the Church of Sophia Paulus is ordained Bishop in which election the suffrage of Alexander then dead seemed to have prevailed CHAP. VII How the Emperour Constantius ejected Paulus who had been Ordained Bishop and having sent for Eusebius from Nicomedia entrusted him with the Bishoprick of Constantinople BUt the Emperour arriving not long after at Constantinople was highly incensed at this Ordination of Paulus And having convened a Council of Bishops that embraced Arius's opinion he vacated Paulus's Bishoprick And he translated Eusebius from Nicomedia and constituted him Bishop of Constantinople When the Emperour had performed these things he went to Antioch CHAP. VIII How Eusebius assembled another Synod at Antioch of Syria and caused another form of Faith to be published BUt Eusebius could by no means be at quiet but as the common saying is moved every stone that he might effect what he had designed Therefore he procures a Synod to be assembled at Antioch in Syria under a pretence of dedicating a Church which Constantine the father of the Augusti had begun to build after whose death Constantius his son finished it in the tenth year after its foundation was laid but in reality that he might subvert and destroy the Homoöusian Faith At this Synod there met ninety Bishops who came out of divers Cities But Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem who had succeeded Macarius was not present at that Synod having considered with himself that he had been before induced by fraud to subscribe Athanasius's deposition Neither was Julius Bishop of Rome the Great present there nor did he send any body to supply his place Although the Ecclesiastick Canon doth order that the Churches ought not to make Sanctions contrary to the Bishop of Romes opinion This Synod therefore is convened at Antioch the Emperour Constantius himself being there present in the Consulate of Marcellus and Probinus This was the fifth year from the death of Constantine the father of the Augusti At that time Placitus successour to Euphronius presided over the Churches in Antioch The Eusebians therefore made it their principal business to calumniate Athanasius saying in the first place that he had done contrary to that Canon which they had then constituted because he had recovered his Episcopal dignity without the consent of a general Synod of Bishops For returning from his exile he had upon his own arbitrement and award rushed into the Church secondly that a tumult being raised at his entrance many had lost their lives in that Sedition and that some persons had been scourged by Athanasius and others brought before the seats of Judicature Moreover they produced what had been done against Athanasius in the City of Tyre CHAP. IX Concerning Eusebius Emisenus AFter the framing of these calumnies they proposed one to be made Bishop of Alexandria and in the first place they named Eusebius Emisenus Who this person was Georgius of
your minds and endeavours a splendid and generous Character of that your noble Descent Let it be published to Our Citizens of Alexandria Thus wrote the Emperour CHAP. IV. How upon Georgius's being murdered Athanasius returned to Alexandria and recovered his own Church NOt long after Athanasius returning from his Exile was kindly received by the people of Alexandria who at that time expelled the Arians out of the Churches and gave Athanasius possession of the Oratories But the Arians assembled themselves in some obscure and mean houses and Ordained Lucius in the place of Georgius Such was the state of affairs then at Alexandria CHAP. V. Concerning Lucifer and Eusebius AT the same time Lucifer and Eusebius were by an Imperial Order recalled from banishment Lucifer was Bishop of Caralis a City of Sardinia Eusebius of Vercellae which is a City of the Lygurians in Italy as we have said before Both these persons therefore returning from Exile out of the Upper Thebais held a consult how they might hinder the impaired Laws of the Church from being violated and despised CHAP. VI. How Lucifer arriving at Antioch Ordained Paulinus IT was concluded therefore that Lucifer should go to Antioch in Syria and Eusebius to Alexandria that by assembling a Synod together with Athanasius they might confirm the opinions of the Church Lucifer sent a Deacon as his Substitute by whom he promised his assent to what should be determined by the Synod But he himself went to Antioch and finds that Church in a great disturbance For the people disagreed amongst themselves For not only the Arian Heresie which had been introduced by Euzoius divided the Church but as we have said before Meletius's followers also by reason of their affection towards their Master differed from those who embraced the same Sentiments with them Lucifer therefore when he had constituted Paulinus Bishop over them departed from thence again CHAP. VII How Eusebius and Athanasius accorded together and assembled a Synod of Bishops at Alexandria wherein they expensly declared that the Trinity is Consubstantial BUt as soon as Eusebius arrived at Alexandria he together with Athanasius was very diligent about convening a Synod There assembled Bishops out of several Cities and conferred amongst themselves concerning many and most weighty matters In this Synod they asserted the Divinity of the holy Ghost and included him in the Consubstantial Trinity They likewise determined that Christ at his incarnation assumed not only Flesh but an humane Soul which was also the opinion of the primitive Ecclesiasticks For they introduced not any new Doctrine invented by them into the Church but confirmed those points which Ecclesiastick tradition had from the beginning asserted and which the Learnedest persons amongst the Christians had demonstratively affirmed For such Sentiments as these all the Antients in their disputations concerning this point have left us in their Writings Irenaeus Clemens Apollinaris of Hierapolis and Serapion president of the Church in Antioch do assert this in the Books by them composed as an opinion by general consent acknowledged to wit that Christ at his assumption of Flesh was endowed with a humane Soul Moreover the Synod convened upon Berillus's account who was Bishop of Philadelphia in Arabia in their Letter to the said Berillus hath maintained the same Doctrine Origen also doth acknowledge every where in his works which are extant that Christ at his incarnation assumed an humane Soul but more particularly in the ninth Tome of his COmments upon Genesis he has explained the Mystery hereof where he hath copiously proved that Adam is a type of Christ and Eve of the Church Holy Pamphilus and Eusebius who borrowed his Sirname from him persons worthy to be credited do attest this For both these persons who club'd in their drawing up the Life of Origen in writing and answered such as were prepossest with a prejudice against that person in those famous Books wherein they made an Apology in defence of him do affirm that Origen was not the first person engaged in this Subject but that he interpreted the mystical tradition of the Church But those Bishops present at the Synod of Alexandria omitted not their researches into this question to wit concerning Ousia and Hypostasis For Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine whom we formerly mentioned who was sent before by Constantine the Emperour to compose the disturbance at that time raised by Arius being desirous to root out the opinion of Sabellius the Libyan raised a dispute concerning Ousia and Hypostasis which was the occasion of another dissention But the Nicene Synod which was soon after convened made not the least mention of this dispute Notwithstanding in regard some persons were afterwards desirous of contending about this matter for that reason these determinations were made in this Synod concerning Ousia and Hypostasis It was resolved by them that these terms ought not to be used concerning God For they said that the term Ousia was not so much as mentioned in the sacred Scriptures and that the Apostle oblieged thereto upon a necessity of delivering some opinions had not rightly used the word Hypostasis But they Decreed that these terms were to be admitted of upon another account to wit when they refute Sabellius's opinion least for want of expressive words we should suppose the Trinity to be one thing called by a triple name but we must rather believe every one of those named in the Trinity to be truly God in his proper Person These were the determinations of the Synod at that time But nothing hinders but we may briefly declare our knowledge concerning the terms Ousia and Hypostasis Such persons amongst the Greeks as were Expositours of their Philosophy have given various definitions of Ousia but they have not made the least mention of Hypostasis Irenaeus Grammaticus in his Alphabetical Lexicon entitled Atticistes affirms this word Hypostasis to be a barbarous term For it is not says he used by any of the Antients but should it be any where found occurring it is not taken in that sense wherein 't is now used For in Sophocles in his Tragedy entitled Phoenix the term Hypostasis signifies Treachery In Menander it imports Sauces as if any one should term the Lees in an Hogshead of Wine Hypostasis But you must know that although the Antient Philosophers did not make use of this term Hypostasis yet the more modern Philosophick Writers used it frequently instead of Ousia Moreover they have given us as we said various definitions of Ousia But if Ousia may be circumscribed by a definition how can we properly make use of this term in reference to God who is incomprehensible Evagrius in his piece intitled Monachicus disswades us from discoursing rashly and inconsiderately concerning God But he altogether forbids the defining of the Divinity in regard it is a most Simple thing For definitions says he belong to
forth at Antioch according as we have remarked in our foregoing Book And when by some persons they were asked this question You who are termed Macedoniani if you differ in your Sentiments from the Acacians how comes it to pass that you have communicated with them untill now as being of the same opinion with you To this demand they returned an answer by Sophronius Bishop of Pompeiopolis a City of Paphlagonia after this manner The Western Bishops says he were infected as it were with a disease with the Homoöusian opinion Aëtius in the East having adulterated the doctrine of the Faith introduced an opinion whereby he maintained a dissimilitude of substance between the Son and the Father Both these opinions were impious For the Western Bishops did rashly knit together in one the distinct persons of the Father and Son binding them together with that Cord of iniquity the term Homoöusios Aëtius wholly separated that affinity of nature which the Son hath to the Father by introducing this expression Unlike according to Essence Since therefore the Assertours of both these opinions fall into the highest extreams of opposition the middle way between these two assertions seemed to us to be more agreeable to truth and piety whereby 't is affirmed that the Son is like to the Father according to Subsistence This is the answer which the Macedoniani returned by Sophronius to that question as Sabinus says in his Collection of the Acts of Synods But whereas they accuse Aëtius as being the Authour of the Anomoian opinion and not Acacius 't is apparent they do fallaciously corrupt the truth thinking to avoid the Arians on the one side and the Homoöusians on the other For they are confuted by their own words that through a desire of innovating they have made a separation from them both But let thus much be said concerning these persons CHAP. XI How the Emperour Julianus exacted money from the Christians BUt the Emperour Julianus having at the beginning of his Reign shown himself mild and gratious to all persons in process of time did not demonstrate himself to be of such a like temper towards every one For whenever there hapned any occasion of calumniating Constantius he most readily granted the Christians requests But when no such reflections were to be made he made all men apparently sensible of that private hatred which he had conceived against the Christians in general Forthwith therefore he issues out an Order that the Church of the Novatians in Cyzicum which had been totally demolished by Euzoius should be rebuilt imposing a most burthensome penalty upon Eleusius Bishop of that City if he did not perfect that building at his own charge within the space of two months He also promoted gentilism with his utmost endeavour And as we have said before he opened the Pagan Temples Yea he himself did publickly offer sacrifice to the Genius of the City Constantinople in the Basilica where the image of the Publick Genius was erected CHAP. XII Concerning Maris Bishop of Chalcedon MOreover at this time Maris Bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia being led by the hand into the Emperours presence for he was very aged and had that distemper in his eyes termed the Pin and Web when he came before him he reproved him sharply terming him an impious person an Apostate and an Atheist The Emperour returned him opprobrious language for his reproaches calling him blind fellow And your Galilaean God said he will never cure you For Julianus did usually term Christ The Galilaean and Christians Galilaeans But Maris answered the Emperour with a greater confidence I thank God said he for depriving me of mine eyes that I might not behold your face who have fal'n into such horrid impieties The Emperour made no return hereto but was severely revenged on him afterwards For when he perceived that those who suffered Martyrdom in the Reign of Diocletian were honoured by the Christians and having observed that many persons were very desirous of being made Martyrs as if he resolved to be revenged on the Christians upon this very account he took another course He declined indeed that extremity of cruelty practised in the Reign of Diocletian nevertheless he did not wholly abstain from raising a Persecution For I call that a Persecution when those who live peaceably are by any means whatever disquieted and molested Now he disturbed them after this manner He made a Law that the Christians should not be allowed an education in humane Literature least said he when they have sharpned their tongues they should with a greater readiness answer the Disputants amongst the Heathens CHAP. XIII Concerning the tumult raised by the Heathens against the Christians HE also issued out an Order that those who would not relinquish the Christian Religion and come and offer sacrifice to Idols should not hold any Military imploy about Court. Nor would he permit the Christians to be Governours of Provinces saying that their Law forbad the use of the sword against such delinquents as had deserved a capital punishment Moreover he induced many persons partly by flatteries and partly by gifts to sacrifice Immediately therefore both those who were true Christians and also they who pretended the profession of that Religion being tryed in a furnace as it were were apparently manifested to all men For such as sincerely and cordâally professed Christianity willingly left their Military Offices being resolved to suffer any thing rather then renounce Christ. Amongst whom were Jovianus Valentinianus and Valens all which persons afterwards wore the Imperial Crown But others who were not found Christians who preferred riches and Secular Honours before the true felicity without the least delay submitted and offered sacrifice One of which number was Ecebolius a Sophista of Constantinople Who making himself conform to the dispositions and humours of the Emperours was in Constantius's time pretendedly a very zealous Christian In Julianus's Reign he seemed a very fierce assertour of Gentilism After Julianus's death he would needs profess Christianity again For having prostrated himself before the door of the Oratory he cried out Trample upon me who am salt without savour This is the true Character of Ecebolius a person as at first so afterwards light and inconstant At that time the Emperour desirous to be revenged upon the Persians for the frequent incursions they had made into the Roman Territories in the Reign of Constantius went in great hast through Asia into the East But being sensible of the many mischiefs which accompany a War and that a vast Treasure is required to carry it on without which it cannot be commodiously managed he craftily devised a way to extort money from the Christians For he imposed a pecuniary mulct upon those that refused to sacrifice and the exaction was very severe upon such as were sincere Christians For every one was compelled to pay proportionably to his estate And thus the Emperour by an unjust collection
Religion he would have spoken against him all that hath been said by Christians and as 't is very likely being a Sophista would have enlarged upon that subject For whilst Constantius was living he wrote Encomiums upon him but after his death he loaded him with reproaches and abusive accusations Wherefore had Porphyrius been an Emperour he had undoubtedly preferred his books before Julian's and had Julianus been a Sophista he would have termed him an ill Sophista as he does Ecebolius in his Epitaph upon Julian Since therefore he as being of the same Religion with the Emperour as a Sophista and as the Emperour's friend has related what he thought good we according to our ability will answer what he has written In the first place therefore he says that the Emperour undertook those Books when Winter had lengthened the nights This term to undertake or attempt imports that he made it wholly his business to write a discommendation as the Sophistae usually do when they instruct young men in the rudiments of their Art For he had been acquainted with those Books long before but then he made his attempts against them And having spent a great deal of time in a tedious contest he did not oppose them as Libanius says with solid arguments but for want of truth betook himself to Jests and Drollery whereof he was a great admirer by which means he derided what is firmly established in those Books For whosoever undertakes a Contest against another does usually belie him against whom he manages the dispute one while by perverting the truth at another by concealing it And he that has a Pique against another as an adversary endeavours not only to act but to speak against him in all things and delights to turn the faults that are in himself upon him with whom he is at variance That Julianus and Porphyrius whom Libanius calls The Tyrian Old man did both of them take great delight in scoffing is evident from their own Books For Porphyrius in the Books he wrote concerning Philosophick History has made the Life of Socrates a ridicle who was the eminentest of the Philosophers and has left such passages upon Record concerning him as neither Melitus nor Anytus Socrates's Accusers would have attempted to say Concerning Socrates I say a person admired amongst the Grecians for his modesty Justice and other Virtues Whom Plato the most admirable Philosopher among them Xenophon and the whole company of Philosophers not only honour as a person beloved by God but also repute him to have been endowed with a wisdom more than humane And Julianus imitating his Father has discovered the distemper of his own mind in the Book he entitled The Caesars wherein he has discommended all the Emperours his predecessours not sparing even Marcus the Philosopher That both of them therefore took great delight in Scoffs and Taunts their own writings do sufficiently declare Nor need I many or solid arguments but this is sufficient to represent the humour and disposition of them both This Character I give of them grounding my conjecture concernning their disposition upon the works of each of them But what Gregorius Nazianzenus has said concerning Julianus you may hear delivered in his own words For in His second Oration against the Gentiles he says thus Experience and his assuming the Imperial Dignity and Authority evidenced these things to others But to me they were in a manner apparently manifest long before at such time as I was conversant with him at Athens For he came thither immediately after the innovations attempted by his Brother having requested this of the Emperour The design of this his journey was twofold the one was more honourable namely to see Greece and the Schools there the other was kept secret known but to a very few to wit that he might consult the Sacrificers and Impostours there concerning his own affairs for his impiety was not yet in possession of confidence and liberty At that time therefore I well remember I was no bad Divine concerning this person although I pretend not to be one of their number who are well versed in the knowledge and use of these predictions But the unevenness and inconstancy of his disposition and the incredible extravagancy of his mind made me a Prophet if he be the best Prophet who gives the truest conjecture For 't was my opinion that no good could be portended by an instable neck by shoulders which sometimes he brandished at others represt by wandring and rowling eyes a furious countenance feet unsteady and stumbling a nose breathing forth reproach and contempt ridiculous cuttings of faces signifying the same thing immoderate and excessively loud laughter noddings and then denials by his countenance without any reason a voice represt and cut off by his breath immethodicall and indiscreet questions answers no whit better then these crowding one after another inconstant to themselves nor yet proceeding in a Learned Order What need I give a particular description of every thing Before his Actions I saw he would be the same that I have sinoe found him to be by his Actions And were some of those persons here who were then present and heard me they would be easily induced to attest this To whom when I saw these things I forthwith spake these words How great a mischief to its self does the Roman Empire breed up When I had uttered these words I prayed to God that I might be a false Prophet For that was better than that the world should be filled with such horrid mischiefs and that such a monster should appear the like to which had never been seen before although many deluges are recorded many devastations by fire many earthquakes and chasms and moreover many monstrous and inhumane men and beasts that were prodigious and compounded of several kinds of which Nature produced new forms Upon this account he ended his life in a manner answerable to his madness This Character Gregorius has given us concerning Julianus Moreover that in those many Books in the compiling whereof they imployed themselves they have attempted to violate the truth by perverting some passages of the sacred Scriptures by making insertions in other some and by explaining all things agreeable to their own design many persons have demonstrated in their answers to them who have also overturned and confuted their Fallacies But above all other Ecclesiastick Writers Origen who lived long before Julianus's times by raising objections against himself from such passages in the sacred Scripture as seemed to disturb the Readers and after that by clearing of them has put a stop to the fallacious cavills and verbose niceties of ill-affected persons Which works of his had Julianus and Porphyrius perused carefully and given them a candid reception undoubtedly they would have turned their discourses to some other subject and would not have applied their minds to the writing of fallacies stuft with impiety and
provided for the combat of dispute heard this they knew not what to do For every one of them fell into a disagreement of opinion some affirming that the Emperours Proposal was good others thinking it not conducive to their design For some were one way affected towards the Books of the Ancients others another Nor could they any longer agree amongst themselves and they dissented not only from other Sects but those of the same Sect differed one from the other Concordant malice therefore like the tongue of those ancient Gyants was divided and their tower of mischief demolished After the Emperour perceived their confused Dissention and was sensible that they confided in disputation only and not in the Exposition of the Ancients he betook himself to a second project And orders every Sect to set forth and deliver in to him in writing a Draught of that Creed which they owned Then those of every Sect amongst them that were skilfullest and most eloquent wrote their own opinion making use of a great deal of caution and circumspection in their expressions A day also was pitcht upon whereon the Bishops of each Sect upon summons met at the Pallace At which time were present Nectarius and Agelius Prelates of the Homoöusian Creed of the Arians Demophilus of the Eunomians Eunomius himself of those that embraced Macedonius's opinion Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum The Emperour gave them a very kind reception at their meeting and having received a Draught of the Creed in writing from every one of them retired into a private apartment alone where he prayed with much fervency that God would give him his assistance in order to an Election of the Truth And having read over every one of the written Draughts of the Creed he tore all the rest disapproving of them in regard they introduced a separation of the Trinity except the Homoöusian Creed only which he commended and embraced This was the reason of the Novatians flourishing again and of their being permitted to celebrate their sacred assemblies within the Cities For the Emperour admiring their consent as to the Faith with those of his own opinion gave command by the promulgation of a Law that they should securely enjoy their own Oratories and that their Churches should have the same priviledges with those Churches of his own Faith But the Prelates of the other Sects by reason of their disagreement amongst themselves were condemned and despised even by their own disciples And being reduced to a desperation and overwhelmed with grief they made their departure and wrote Consolatory Letters to those of their own party perswading them not to be troubled because many relinquished them and became adherents to the Homoöusian Creed For many they said were called but few chosen Which expression they in no wise made use of at such time as the greatest part of the people through force and fear became their favourers But neither were the Professours of the Homoöusian Creed perfectly free from trouble and disquietude For the affairs of the Antiochian Church caused a division amongst those that were present at the Synod For the Egyptians Arabians and Cypriots gathering together again said that Flavianus ought to be expelled out of Antioch But the Bishops of Palaestine Phoenice and Syria stood up in defence of Flavianus What conclusion this affair had I will declare in its due place CHAP. XI Concerning Maximus the Tyrant how he slew Gratianus by treachery at which time also Justina the mother of Valentinianus Junior desisted though unwillingly from her design against Ambrosius Bishop of Millain for fear of Maximus ABout the same times wherein these Synods were held at Constantinople these transactions hapned in the Western parts Maximus coming out of the Island Britannia invaded the Roman Empire and makes a treacherous attempt upon Gratianus then ingaged in a War against the Alamanni In Italy during Valentinianus's minority Probus a person that had been Consul had the chief management of affairs who at that time bore the Praefecture of the Praetorium Justina mother to Valentinianus Augustus a woman that was an Arian during her Husbands life had no power to be mischievous towards the Embracers of the Homoöusian Creed But after her husbands death when her Son was very young she went to Millain and raised great disturbances against Ambrosius the Bishop issuing out an Order that he should be banished And whilest the people made a resistance against this Order out of their excessive love to Ambrosius and opposed those that endeavoured to hale him away into Exile in that interim news came that Gratianus was treacherously slain by the Tyrant Maximus For Andragathius Maximus's Lieutenant being hid in a Carriage put into the form of a womans Horse-litter and carried by Mules and having given the Guards a Command that they should before-hand spread abroad a report that the Emperour Gratianus's Wife was in that Litter meets the Emperour before Lyons a City in France passing the River The Emperour supposing it to be his Wife was not aware of the Treachery but as a blind man does into a ditch fell into the hands of his Enemie For Andragathius leapt out of the Litter on a Sudden and slew Gratianus Gratianus therefore ended his life in the Consulate of Merobaudes and Saturninus after he had Reigned fifteen years and lived twenty four This accident cool'd the Emperours Mothers heat against Ambrosius Moreover Valentinianus though against his will complyed with the necessity of that juncture and admitted Maximus to be his Colleague in the Empire At which time Probus afraid of Maximus's power resolves upon a retreat into those parts of the Empire nearer to the East Immediately therefore he departs out of Italy and arriving in Illyricum he fixt his Residence in Thessalonica a City of Macedonia CHAP. XII That the Emperour Theodosius having provided a numerous Army against Maximus at which time Flaccilla bore him his Son Honorius lest Arcadius at Constantinople but went himself to Millain where he came to an Engagement with the Tyrant BUt the Emperour Theodosius was extreamly full of care and sollicitude and formed a very powerfull Army against the Tyrant being afraid lest he should treacherously murder Valentinianus Junior also At the same time arrived Embassadours from the Persians requesting Peace of the Emperour Moreover then also a Son was born to the Emperour named Honorius of whom his Wife Flaccilla was delivered in the Consulate of Richomeres and Clearchus on the ninth of September In the same Consulate died Agelius Bishop of the Novatians a little before Honorius's birth On the year following whereon Arcadius Augustus bore his first Consulate with Bauton Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria ended his life who was succeeded in that See by Theophilus A year after this Demophilus Bishop of the Arian Heresie concluded his life The Arians sent for one Marinus a Bishop of their own Heresie out of Thracia whom they entrusted with the Bishoprick But
months and years should in no wise be observed Besides in his Epistle to the Colossians he does loudly affirm that such observations are a shadow Wherefore he says Let no man judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of any holy day or of the new moon or of the sabbath-days which are a shadow of things to come And in the Epistle to the Hebrews this very Apostle does confirm the same things in these words For the priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the law The Apostle therefore and the Gospels have no where imposed the yoak of servitude on those who have approached the Preaching of the Faith but have left the Feast of Easter and the other Festivals to be honoured by their gratitude and benevolence who have had benefits conferred upon them on those days Wherefore in regard men love Festivals because thereon they have a cessation from their labours each person in every place according to his own pleasure has by a certain custom celebrated the memory of the saving Passion For neither our Saviour nor his Apostles have enjoyned us by any Law to observe this Festival Not have the Gospels or the Apostles threatned us with any mulct punishment or curse as the Mosaick Law does the Jews For 't is meerly for the History's sake in order to a publishing of the reproach of the Jews because they polluted themselves with bloud on their very Festivals that it has been recorded in the Gospells that our Saviour suffered even on the days of unleavened bread Moreover it was not the Apostles design to make Laws concerning Festival days but to introduce good life and piety And it seems to me that as many other things in several places have been established by custom so the Feast of Easter also hath had a peculiar observation amongst all persons from some old usage in regard none of the Apostles as I have said have made any determinate Decree about it Now that the observation of this Festival had its original amongst all men in the Primitive times from custom rather than Law the things themselves do demonstrate For in Asia the Less most people kept the fourteenth day of the Moon disregarding the Sabbath day And though this was their practise yet they never made a separation from those who celebrated the Feast of Easter otherwise till such time as Victor Bishop of Rome over-much heated with anger sent an Excommunicatory Libell to the Quartodecimani in Asia For which fact Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France severely reproved Victor by Letter blaming him for his immoderate heat and informing him that although the Ancients differed in their celebration of the Feast of Easter yet they did in no wise separate from a mutual communion Also that Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who afterwards suffered Martyrdom under Cordianus communicated with Anicetus Bishop of Rome and made no separation from him on account of this Festival although Polycarp himself according to his own country usage practised in the Church of Smyrna kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the Moon as Eusebius says in the Fifth Book of his Ecclesiastick History Some therefore in Asia the Less as I have said kept the fourteenth day of the Moon Others in the Eastern parts celebrated that Feast on the Sunday indeed but they differed concerning the month Those first mentioned were of opinion that the Jews were to be followed although they observed not an exact Rule These celebrated Easter after the Aequinox refusing to keep that Feast with the Jews For they affirm that Easter must always be kept when the Sun is in Aries on that month which the Antiochians term Xanthicus and the Romans April And in their practise hereof they followed as they affirmed not the modern Jews who mistake almost in all things but the Ancients of that Nation and Josephus agreeable whereto are the words of that Authour in his Third Book of the Jewish Antiquities And thus these persons disagreed amongst themselves But all other Christians in the Western parts as far as the Ocean it self are found to have celebrated Easter after the Aequinox from a very ancient tradition For all these persons keep it after this manner and have never disagreed amongst themselves Nor did the Synod under Constantine alter this Festival as some have noysed it abroad For Constantine himself writing to those persons who differed about this Festival advised them in regard they were but few to become followers of those who exceeded them in number You will find the Emperours Letter entire in the Third Book of Eusebius's Life of Constantine But that part of it which treats concerning the Feast of Easter runs thus And since 't is a decent Order which all the Churches in the Western Southern and Northern parts of the world do observe and some places also in the East Upon which account all persons have at present judged it good and right and We Our Self also have engaged it will please Your Prudence to wit that what is observed with one concordant mind in the City of Rome throughout Italy Africa all Egypt Spaine the Gallia's the Britannia's the Libya's all Greece the Asian and Pontick Dicecesis and Cilicia will willingly be embraced by Your Prudence also which will attentively consider not only that the number of Churches in the forenamed places is greater but also that 't is most just and commendable that all persons should chiefly and in common desire that which strict reason seems to require and to have no society with the perjury of the Jews Such is the Emperours Letter Further the Quartodecimani do affirm that the observation of the fourteenth day of the Moon was delivered to them by John the Apostle But the Romans and those in the Western parts say that the usage in force with them was delivered by the Apostles Peter and Paul Notwithstanding neither of these two parties can produce any written testimony in confirmation hereof Moreover that the Feast of Easter is kept in all places from some usage and custom I do from hence conjecture No Sect of Religion observes the same ceremonies although it embraces one and the same opinion concerning God For they that are of the same Faith differ amongst themselves concerning Rites Wherefore it will not be unseasonable to add a few words concerning the different usages of Churches First therefore you may find that the Fasts before Easter are observed one way by some and in a manner different by others For they at Rome fast three continued weeks before Easter excepting Saturdays and Sundays The Inhabitants of Illyricum those throughout all Achaia and they at Alexandria observe a Fast of six weeks before Easter which they term the fourty days Fast. Others in a different manner from them begin their fast from the seventh week before Easter and though they fast three five days only
part of three weeks and that by intervalls yet nevertheless they also call that time the fourty days Fast. And I cannot but wonder how these persons though they disagree about the number of the days yet should in common give it the same name to wit the fourty days fast Of which appellation some assign one reason other another according to their particular fancies and humours You likewise find several persons disagreeing not only about the number of the days but differing also in their abstinency from meats For some abstain wholly from eating of living creatures others of all living creatures feed on fish only Othersome together with fish eat fowl also affirming according to Moses's words that these were made likewise of the waters Some abstain from all manner of fruits of trees and from eggs Others feed upon dry bread only othersome eat not even this Others having fasted till the ninth hour feed upon any sort of food whatever making no distinction Again amongst other Nations there are other usages for which innumerable reasons are assigned And in regard no one can produce a command in writing concerning this thing 't is manifest that the Apostles left every one to his own will and free choice in this case to the end that no person might be compelled through fear or necessity to the performance of what is good Such is the disagreement throughout the Churches about their fastings Nor is the variety amongst them less about their performances in their Religious Assemblies For though almost all Churches over the whole world do celebrate the Sacred Mysteries on the Sabbath day at the period of every week yet the Alexandrians and they at Rome on account of some ancient tradition refuse to practise this The Egyptians who are neighbours to the Alexandrians and the Inhabitants of Thebaïs have their Religious Meetings on the Sabbath notwithstanding they participate not of the Mysteries in such a manner as is usual amongst the Christians For after they have feasted and filled themselves with all manner of victuals in the evening they offer and partake of the Mysteries Again at Alexandria on the fourth Feria and on that termed the Preparation day the Scriptures are read and the Doctours expound them and all things are performed which belong to the Church Assembly except the celebration of the Mysteries And this is an usage of great antiquity at Alexandria For 't is manifest that Origen most commonly taught in the Church on these days Who being a very Learned Doctor and perceiving that the secret of the Mosaick Law was not to be expounded literally reduced his discourse concerning the passover to a Mysticall sense asserting that there had been one only true Passover to wit that which our Saviour celebrated at such time as being fastned to his Cross he vanquished the adverse powers making use of this Trophy against the Devill In the same City Alexandria as well the Catecumens as the Faithfull are without difference or distinction made Readers and Psalm setters whereas in all other Churches the Faithfull only are promoted to this dignity I my self when I was in Thessaly knew another custom also A Clergy-man in that Country if after his taking Orders he does lie with his wife whom he had legally married before his being Ordained is degraded whereas in the East all Clergy-men of their own accord do abstain from their wives even the Bishops themselves notwithstanding they do this voluntarily not by force or compulsion of a Law For many of them during even the time of their being Bishops have begotten children of a lawfull wife Moreover the Authour of this usage in Thessaly was Heliodorus Bishop of Trica in that Country under whose name there are love-Love-Books extant which he composed when he was a young man and entitled them Aethiopici This same custom is observed in Thessalonica in Macedonia and in Achaia I have also known another custom in Thessaly They baptize there on the days of Easter only Upon which account all of them except a very few die unbaptized At that Antioch which is in Syria the site of the Church is inverted For the Altar stands not towards the East but towards the West In Achaia at Jerusalem and in Thessaly they go to Prayers when the Candles are lighted in the same manner that the Novatians do at Constantinople Likewise at Caesarea in Cappadocia and in Cyprus on Saturdays and Sundays always in the Evening after the Candles are lighted the Presbyters and Bishops expound the Scriptures Those Novatians in the Hellespont perform not their Prayers wholly after the same manner with them who live at Constantinople but they are in most things conform to the usages of the Catholick Church In summe in all places and amongst all Sects you will scarcely find two Churches exactly agreeing about their prayers At Alexandria a Presbyter does in no wise Preach And this usage had its beginning from such time as Arius raised a disturbance in that Church At Rome they fast every Saturday At Caesarea in Cappadocia they exclude those from Communion who have sinned after Baptism as the Novatians do The same is also practised by the Macedoniani in the Hellespont and by the Quartodecimani in Asia The Novatians in Phrygia admit not of Digamists Those Novatians who inhabit Constantinople neither openly admit nor openly reject them But in the Western parts they are openly received The Bishops who in their severall times Presided over the Churches were in my judgement the Occasioners of this diversity And those who received these Rites and usages transmitted them to posterity in manner of a Law as ' t were To give in a Catalogue of all the Rites and Customs in use throughout all Cities and Countries is a thing difficult or rather impossible But these we have produced are sufficient to demonstrate that the Feast of Easter was by reason of some certain usage celebrated in a different manner in every particular Province Wherefore they are too profuse in their talke who have spread abroad a rumour that the time of celebrating Easter was altered in the Nicene Synod For the Fathers convened in that Synod made it their business to reduce the people who at first dissented from the far greater part of the Church to an agreement Now that there hapned many differences upon this account even in the Apostles times was a thing not unknown even to the Apostles themselves as the Book of the Acts does attest For when the Apostles understood that a disturbance was raised amongst the faithfull by reason of a dissention of the Gentiles being all met together they promulged a Divine Law drawing it up in form of a Letter whereby they freed Believers from a most burthensome servitude and vain contention about these things and taught them a most exact way of living well which would lead them to true piety
usefull action as I have said which he performed What that is must now be declared Being neer dying he sent for all the Presbyters belonging to the Churches under him to whom he exprest himself thus Take care about electing a Bishop over your selves whilest I am alive least afterwards your Churches be disturbed When they made answer that the Election of a Bishop was not to be left to them for in regard said they some of us have one Sentiment others another we shall never nominate the same person but we wish that you your self would name that man whom you desire to be your successour To which Paulus made this return deliver me then this profession of yours in writing to wit that you will Elect him whom I shall appoint to be chosen When they had done that and confirmed it by their subscriptions he sate on his bed and without discovering it to those who were present wrote Marcianus's name in the paper This person had been promoted to the Presbyterate and likewise had been instructed in aâ Ascetick course of life under Paulus but was then gone to travell After this he Sealed up the paper himself and caused the chief of the Presbyters to Seal it up also and then delivered it to one Marcus who was Bishop of the Novatianists in Scythia but had at that time made a journey to Constantinople to whom he spake these words If God shall permit me to continue much longer in this life restore this depositum to me now committed to your trust to be kept safely But if it shall please him to remove me out of this world in this paper you will find whom I have Elected to be my successour in the Bishopâick When he had spoken these words he died On the third day therefore after his death when they had unsealed the paper in the presence of a great multitude and found Marcianus's name therein they all cried out that he was a worthy and fit person And without delay they dispatcht away some messengers who might seize him They took him by a pious fraud at his residence in Tiberiopolis a City of Phrygia from whence they brought him along with them and about the twenty first of the same month ordained and placed him in the Episcopall Chair But enough concerning these things CHAP. XLVII That the Emperour Theodosius sent his Wife Eudocia to Jerusalem MOreover the Emperour Theodosius offered up his Thanksgivings to God for the benefits which he had conferred upon him And this he performed by honouring Christ with singular and eminent honours He likewise sent his wife Eudocia to Jerusalem For she had oblieged herself also to a performance of this vow if she might see her daughter married But the Empress herself also beautified the Churches at Jerusalem and all those in the Eastern Cities with various ornaments both when she went thither and likewise at her return CHAP. XLVIII Concerning Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia ABout that very time to wit in Theodosius's seventeenth Consulate Proclus the Bishop attempted a wonderfull thing the like to which has not been performed by any of the Ancient Bishops For Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia being dead the Caesareans came to Constantinople and requâsted they might have a Bishop And whilest Proclus was considering whom he should preser to that See it hapned that all the Senatours came to the Church on the Sabbath to give him a visit amongst whom was Thalassius also a personage who had born a Praefecture over the Provinces and Cities of Illyricum But though as it was reported he had been the person pitch't upon who was about to have the Government of the Eastern parts committed to his care by the Emperour yet Proclus laid his hands on him and instead of his being constituted a Praefectus Praetorio made him Bishop of Caesarea Thus successfull and prosperous were the affairs of the Church But I will here close my History with my prayers to God that the Churches in all places the Cites and Provinces may live in peace For as long as peace flourishes those that are desirous to do it will have no subject for their writing an History For we our selves who have performed what you enjoyned us in Seven Books O Sacred man of God Theodorus should have wanted matter for this our History if the lovers of seditions and tumults would have been quiet This Seventh Book contains an account of affairs transacted during the space of two and thirty years The whole History which iâââomprized in Seven Books contains the space of an hundred and fourty years It begins from the first year of the two hundredth seventy first Olympiad wherein Constantine was proclaimed Emperour and ends at the second year of the three hundredth and fifth Olympiad whereon the Emperour Theodosius bore his seventeenth Consulate The End of Socrates Scholasticus's Ecclesiastick History THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF Evagrius Scholasticus EPIPHANIENSIS And One of the EX-PRAEFECTS IN SIX BOOKS Translated out of the GREEK according to that Edition set forth by VALESIUS and Printed at PARIS in the Year 1673. Together with VALESIUS's Annotations on the said Historian which are done into ENGLISH and set at their proper places in the Margin Hereunto also is annexed an account of the foresaid Historian's Life and Ecclesiastick History Collected by VALESIUS and Rendred into ENGLISH HINC LUCEM ET POCULA SACRA CAMBRIDGE Printed by John Hayes Printer to the University 1681. VALESIUS'S ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE AND Ecclesiastick History OF EVAGRIUS SCHOLASTICUS Epiphaniensis EVagrius Scholasticus was by Nation a Syrian as was also Theodoret born at Epiphania which was a City of Syria Secunda as he himself has declared in the Title of his own work Therefore I wonder at Gerardus Vossius who in his Book de Historicis Graecis pag. 498 relates that Evagrius was born at Antioch But Evagrius himself both in the Title of his History and also in his Third Book Chap. 34 does expressly attest that he was born at Epiphania For speaking there concerning Cosmas Bishop of Epiphania his words are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Cosmas Bishop of Our Epiphania in the Vicinage whereof runs the River Orontes c. Besides Photius in his Bibliotheca chap. 29 affirms that Evagrius was born in Epiphania a City of Syria Coele ãâ¦ã which is strange Nicephorus Callistus does in two places term our Evagââââ ãâ¦ã ot Epiphaniensis but ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is Illustrious For in Nicephorus's First Book chap. 1 the words are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Moreover Evagrius the Illustrious c. And in Book 16. Chap. 31 Nicephorus quoting a passage of Evagrius out of his Third Book Chap. 34 which passage I have just now mentioned expresses himself thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Moreover in like manner as Evagrius the Illustrious has related concerning Severus But my Sentiment is that Transcribers have mistook at both
Emperour Anastasius perceived he ejected those Bishops who made any Innovation out of the Church where-ever he found any such person either crying up the Synod of Chalcedon contrary to the usage in those places or else Anathematizing it He ejected therefore out of the Imperial City in the first place Euphemius as we have related before and then Macedonius after whom Timotheus was made Bishop Flavianus also was by him ejected out of Antioch CHAP. XXXI The Letter of the Monks of Palestine to Alcison concerning Xenaias and some other persons NOw concerning Macedonius and Flavianus the Monks in Palestine in their Letter to Alcison say word for word thus But Petrus being dead they were again divided amongst themselves and Alexandria and Egypt and Libya continued within their own Communion The rest of the East likewise held a Communion separate from others in regard the Westerns refused communicating with them on any terms unless to their Anathematizing of Nestorius Eutyches and Dioscorus they would add Petrus Mongus also and Acacius The Churches therefore over the whole world being in this posture the genuine followers of Dioscorus and Eutyches were reduced to the smallest number imaginable And when they were now just about vanishing in such a manner as not to appear any more in the world One Xenaias a person agreeable to his name truly a stranger from God on what design we know not nor what the grudge was which he would revenge upon Flavianus but under a pretext of the Faith as most do say begins to move against Flavianus and to calumniate him as a Nestorian But when Flavianus had Anathematized Nestorius together with his opinion Xenaias passes from Nestorius to Dioscorus and to Theodorus and Theodoret Ibas and Cyrus and Eutherius and Johannes and we know not to what persons else nor whence he had gathered them Some of whom had in reality been Asserters of Nestorius's Sentiments but others of them suspected to have been Nestorius's followers had Anathematized him and had ended their lives in the Communion of the Church Unless says Xenaïas to Flavianus you will Anathematize all these persons who are distempered with Nestorius's Tenets you are an Embracer of Nestorius's Sentiments although you should Anathematize him a thousand times together with his Opinion By Letters also he excites the Favourers of Dioscorus and Eutyches perswading them to assist himself against Flavianus and to require him not to Anathematize the Synod but the forementioned persons only When Flavianus the Bishop had made a long and stout resistance against these men and against others who together with Xenaias combined against him to wit one Elusinus Bishop of the Second Cappadocia Nicias Bishop of Laodicea in Syria and others from other places to relate the Causes of which persons hatred against Flavianus belongs not to us but to others at length Plavianus supposing they would not be quiet in behalfe of these persons yielded to their contentious humour and having in writing Anathematized the foresaid persons sent his Libell to the Emperour For they had incensed him against Flavianus as being an Assertour of Nestorius's Opinion But Xenaias not satisfied even herewith required again of Flavianus that he should Anathematize the Synod it self and those who asserted two natures in the Lord Christ one of the Flesh another of the Deity Which when Flavianus had refused to do Xenaias accused him again as being a Nestorian After many debates in reference to this matter when the Patriarch had drawn up an Exposition of the Faith wherein he profest that he embraced the Synod as to what related to the Deposition of Nestorius and Eutyches but not as to its definition and doctrine of the Faith they renewed their Accusations against him as if he were a secret favourer of Nestorius's Sentiments unless he would add an Anathematism against the Synod it self also and against those who asserted two Natures in our Lord one of the Flesh another of the Deity Moreover by their many fraudulent words ' and expressions they induced the Isauri also to embrace their own Opinion And having drawn up a Writing concerning the Faith wherein they Anathematized the Synod together with those who affirmed two Natures or Proprieties in Christ they withdrew themselves from a Communion with Flavianus and Macedonius and enter into society with others who had subscribed to their Writing During this interim they entreated the Bishop of Jerusalem also that he would draw up in writing the Form of his own Faith Which he having set forth sent it to the Emperour by the followers of Dioscorus And that Copy of it which they produce does indeed contain an Anathematism of those who assert two Natures But the Bishop of Jerusalem himself affirms that it has been adulterated by them and produces another without any such Anathematism Nor need this seem a wonder For they have frequently corrupted the Books of the Fathers And by false Titles have ascribed many of Apollinaris's Books to Athanasius to Gregorius Thaumaturgus and to Julius By which Books especially they have induced many persons to embrace their own impiety Further they requested of Macedonius a Writing concerning his own Faith Who set forth an Exposition thereof affirming that he knew no other Faith save that of the Three hundred and eighteen and hundred and fifty Holy Fathers and he Anathematizes Nestorius and Eutyches and those who assert two Sons or two Christs or who divide the Natures but has made no mention of the Ephesine Synod which deposed Nestorius nor of that at Chalcedon wherein Eutiches had been deposed Whereat the Monasteries about Constantinople were highly offended and separated from the Communion of Macedonius the Bishop In the mean while Xenaias and Dioscorus having brought over many of the Bishops to their own party became intollerable and raised Tumults against those who refused to Anathematize the Synod And against such as would not in the end yield to them they framed many stratagems and caused them to be cast into Exile In this manner therefore they banish Macedonius and Johannes Bishop of Paltum and Flavianus These are the Contents of the foresaid Letter CHAP. XXXII Concerning the Expulsion of Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople and of Flavianus Bishop of Antioch BUt there were other things which secretly wrung Anastasius For when Ariadne had taken a resolution to cloath Anastasius with the Imperial purple Euphemius who presided over the Archi-Episcopal Chair of Constantinople would on no terms give his consent till such time as Anastasius had delivered to him a Caution or Contract in writing written with his own hand and confirmed with great Oaths that he would preserve the Faith entire and introduce no Innovation into Gods Holy Church if he should obtain the Imperial Scepter Which paper Euphemius delivered to Macedonius who was intrusted with the custody of the Sacred Vessells Euphemius had done these things on this
reading them least I should heap together an immense multitude of transactions within this present book But both these Prelates in regard they proceeded contrary to the Emperour's Commands and would not embrace what had been agreed on at Chalcedon were expelled from their own Sees And Zoilus succeeds in the Chair of Alexandria but in that of the Imperial City Epiphanius so that in all the Churches from hence forward the Chalcedon Synod was publickly preacht up and asserted and no body dared to Anathematize it but those persons who would not embrace these Sentiments were by innumerable ways compelled to give their consent thereto A Constitution therefore was written by Justinianus wherein he hath Anathematized Severus and Anthimus with others and has made obnoxious to most sore punishments those who assert their Opinions From that time therefore nothing of dissention remained in the Churches over the whole world but the Patriarchs of each Dioecesis agreed one with another and the Bishops of the Cities followed their own Exarchs and the Four Synods were Preach't up in the Churches the First whereof was that at Nicaea then that at Constantinople the Third was the Former Synod at Ephesus and the Fourth that at Chalcedon Moreover there was a Fifth Synod convened by the Order of Justinianus concerning which I shall speak what is fit and accommodate in its due place In the interim I will interweave into this present History those affairs which were transacted one after the other in these very times and which deserved to be recorded CHAP. XII Out of the History of Procopius Caesariensis concerning Cavades King of the Persians and his Son Chosröes PRocopius the Rhetorician has written the affairs transacted by Belisarius and he declares that Cavades King of the Persians desirous to invest Chosröes being the younger of his other Sons with the Kingdom considered how he might procure his Son Chosröes to be adopted by the Emperour of the Romans to the end that by this means the Kingdom might be most firmly secured to him In regard therefore he mist of this his design by the inducement of Proclus who sate Quaestor to the Emperour Justinian the Feud against the Romans was increased Further the same Procopius with much exqu siteness and great elegance hath set forth the Actions of Belisarius Master of the Eastern Milice at such time as the Romans and Persians were at War one with another He relates the first Victory therefore of the Romans about the places Daras and Nisibis when Belisarias and Hermogenes commanded the Roman Army To which he subjoyns also what hapned in the Country of the Armenians and with how great mischiefs Alamundarus Commander of those Barbarians termed Scenitae infested the Roman Provinces Which Alamundarus took Timostratus Brother to Rufinus alive together with the Souldiers under his Command and afterwards delivered him up when Ransomed with a vast sum of money CHAP. XIII Concerning Alamundarus and Azarethus and concerning that Sedition at Constantinople which had the name Nica given it THe same Authour most passionately describes the Incursion of the fore mentioned Alamundarus and Azarethus into the Roman Pale and how Belisarius forced thereto by his own Army made an attaque upon those Barbarians in their return to their own Country near the Banks of The Euphrates the Festivall of Easter then approaching and how the Roman Army was ruined by their refusing to obey the advices of Belisarius and lastly how Rufinus and Hermogenes made that Peace with the Persians called The Interminate Peace To which he subjoyns the popular Sedition that hapned at Byzantium whereto The Word of the people gave a name For they gave it the Appellation of Nica because the populacy being assembled together had given one another this Word in order to their distinguishing one another In that Sedition Hypatius and Pompeius were by the populacy forced to set up for Tyrants But the Heads of them both by Justinian's Command were cut off by the Souldiers and drowned in the Sea the people having been soon quelled Moreover Procopius affirms that Thirty thousand men perished in this Tumult CHAP. XIV Concerning Hunericus King of the Vandalls and concerning those Christians whose tongues were cut out by him THe same Procopius in his Book wherein he has related the Affairs of the Vandalls gives a Narrative of strange things and which deserve for ever to be kept in memory by men which matters I come now to relate Hunericus who succeded Gisericus in the Kingdom in regard he embraced the Tenets of Arius behaved himself most barbarously towards those Christians in Africa forcing them who asserted the Orthodox Opinions to retract and turn to the Opinion of the Arians And if any refused to obey his Commands he destroyed them by fire and infinite other sorts of death But he ordered the tongues of some of them to be cut out Procopius affirms that he himself saw these persons when they were at Constantinople to which City they had fled and that he conferred with them and heard them speak in such a manner as if they had suffered no such thing and he says that their tongues indeed were cut out from the very root but that they had an articulate voice and spake distinctly which thing was a wonder new and unusuall The Constitution of Justinian mentions these persons also Two of whom Lapsed as the same Procopius relates For in regard they would converse with women they were deprived of their voice and the grace of Martyrdom continued not any longer with them CHAP. XV. Concerning Cabaones the Moor. MOreover Procopius relates another admirable passage which was wonderfully effected by God our Saviour amongst men who were strangers indeed to our Religion but who behaved themselves piously and holily at that time He says that Cabaones was King of those Moors about Tripoly This Cabaones says he for I think fit to make use of Procopius's own words who has elegantly related these matters as well as others Having received information that the Vandalls would undertake an Expedition against him behaved himself in this manner In the first place he ordered his Subjects to abstain from all manner of injustice and from dainty and delicious dishes but most especially from the company of women Then he pitcht two Camps in the one he himself Encamped together with all the men but within the other he shut up the women and threatned he would inflict a punishment of death upon any one that should go into the womens Entrenchment After this he sent Spies to Carthage to whom he gave these Orders that if the Vandalls when on their expedition should defile any Oratory wherein the Christians worshipped they should make an Inspection into what was done But when the Vandalls were removed from that place he enjoyned them to do all things that were
in Areopago of which and the customs thereof See Budaeus on the Pandects Why it was called Areopagus see S t Aug. de civit Dei L. 18. c. 18. The Judges which sat in this Court were called Areopagitae who were lookt upon with such reverence that an Areopagite signified proverbially an excellent Persons Gell. L. 12. c. 7. Dionysius was one of these Areopagites * Matth. 28. 19. a So says Epiphanius in Haeres Nazaraeorum cap. 7. to wit that the Christians who dwelt in Jerusalem being forewarned by Christ of the approaching Siege removed to Pella But in his Book de ponderibus mensuris he writes that the disciples of Christ being warned by an angel removed to Pella And afterwards when Adrian rebuilt Jerusalem and called it after his own name Aelia Colonia they returned thither Vales. * A Myriad is ten thousand b Immediately before these words Bâ Christophorson in his Latine translation of Eusehius inserts a passage at length out of Josephus his Hist. of the Jewish wars B. the 6 th both against the authority of all the M. SS Copies and also without any necessity Neither Rufinus nor Nicephorus hath inserted this passage of Josephus's and Eusebius did sufficient to intimate it and to produce some words from it as are those ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. as it were in a prison which words Eusebius does sufficiently shew to be Josephus's in that he says ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. In the common Editions of Eusebius these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã were wanting which we have put in warranted thereto by the old M. SS copies Maz. Med. and Fuk. we found those words also in the Kings M. S. which Robert Stephens made use of in his Edition of Eusebius who too much favoured his own conjecture by expunging those words here and putting them in a little after thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã against the authority of all Copies Vales. * Joseph Hist. of the Jewish wars B. 6. chap. 26. a Josephus means that those wretched people tore the meat from one another not that they greedily devoured it as Christopherson took his meaning to be he translating it avidè ore abripiebant That is the meaning of those words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. b In Josephus it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but in the M. SS copies of Eusebius it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. which is the better reading for the Greeks call that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which the Latines call aciem and we in English the edge c. Vales. c Observe here the religion of the Jews who in what parts of the world soever they were always prayed to God with their eyes turned towards the holy City and the Temple We have an example of this custom in Dan. 6. 10. and 1 Kings 8. 48. and 1 Esdr. 4. 58. Hencâ perhaps was derived the custom of the Christians to pray towards the East Vales. d That is ten shillings in our coin See note on B. the 1. chap. 8. in the margin concerning the word Drachms e That is for the theeves not for her self and therefore it is in the original ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as the Geneva Edition of Eusebius adds in the margin Vales. f The Jews as well as the Grecians believed that the Ghosts of such as had been murdered follow those that killed them to take revenge of them In this sense those words may be taken that occur Gen. 4. 10. The voice of thy brothers bloud cryeth unto me from the ground i. e. thy brother whom thou hast wickedly slain requires that I should revenge him and punish thee for his murder Then it follows v. 12. a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth i. e. thy brothers ghost whom thou hast slain shall follow thee every where and be always troublesome to thee Vales. g That is all the Citizens were stricken with such an horrour at this fact as if it had been done in their own houses Vales. * Matt. 24. v. 19 20 21. a Eusebius is here mistaken for Josephus does not say so but onely affirms that the number of those that were taken captive during the whole war by the Romans amounted to ninety thousand men The words of Josephus are to be seen at the latter end of his sixth Book of the Hist. of the Jewish wars Vales. Luke 19. 42 43 44. Luke 21. 23 24. Luke 21. 20. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã these are the words of Eusebius by which he means not his own History as Bishop Christopherson thought but the History of Josephus in our translation therefore we have expressed his name but it is not we consess in the original of Eusebius Vales. * That is Josephus a We read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as it is in Josephus B. 7. pag. 960. But Nicephorus thought that this Star which appeared in the likeness of a Sword and the Comet which continued a whole year was all one which as we judge is not right Vales. b The Jews divided the whole ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. night and day or four and twenty hours into eight parts each of them containing 3 hours the 3 d the 6 th the 9 th and the 12 th hour of the day and the like again for the several watches of the night the ninth hour of the night or third watch according to their account was commonly betwixt our hours of twelve and three a clock in the morning See Buxtorf Synag Judaic Chap. 13. c The Scribes amongst the Jews were the same with the Doctors of the Law as Petavius has well observed in Animadvers ad Haeres 15 Epiphanii Their office it was to keep the holy Books of the Law and to read them in the presence of the people in the Temple and in the Synagogues But their principal office was to be assessours with the chief Priests and Elders in the great Councel called the Sânhedrim See the 6 and 23 Chapters of the Acts. The name of Scribe therefore was the name of a Magistrate among the Jews as well as among the Grecians And as the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Scribes in Greece were to be present at assemblies and judicatures and to have the custody of the Laws and Statutes made by the people and Decrees made by the Senate so also were the Scribes amongst the Jews the keepers of the Law That this was no small honour appears from many places in the Gospel where our B. Saviour reproves their pride and insolence After the same manner amongst the Grecians the Scribes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã were in great authority as appears from that which S. Luke relates Acts 19. 35. our translation calls him Town-Clerk how truly M r Jo. Gregory of Oxford will tell you in his notes on the Text chap. 9. p. 43. of his works Amongst the Jews the Scribes were so much the more respected by how much that nation above
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. doeâ expresly affirm that those books of Clemens Romanus entitled ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã were corrupted and falsified by the Ebionites Vales. a In the Kings M. S. it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. * Chap. 31 of this 3 d book b In 3 of our M. SS Maz. Med. and Fuk. it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Barsabbas Vales. Acts 1. 23 24. â 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã recte praedicare sermonem i. e. rightly to Preach
not yet perswaded me to believe that the Legion Melitina was named the Lightning Legion upon that account Some may object that there was indeed a Legion called the Lightning Legion before Antoninus's time but that he gave the Legion Melitina that name also because of the benefit he received by their means But if it were so it ought to be called the second Lightning Legion and yet Dio makes no mention of any such Legion although he reckons up exactly all the Legions enrolled by the former Emperours Moreover Dio says that the Lightning Legion had its station in Cappadocia which agrees very well with the Legion Melitina In the book called Notitia Imperii Romani the prefecture of the 12 Legion termed Fulminea at Melitina is reckoned under the disposition of the Duke of Armenia Whence t is collected that Melitina was not the name of the Legion but of the Town wherein the 12 Legion called Fulminea abode But 't was not usual to give the Legions their denomination from the places where they were in Garison but from the Countreys wherein they were inrolled Therefore what Eusebius says concerning the Legion Melitina seems to me scarce probable Besides Rufinus purposely omitted this name of the Legion as I suppose because he knew that Melitina was the name of a Town in Armenia the less wherein the 12 Legion called Fulminea kept guard in his time But that I may freely say what I think it seems not very probable to me that a whole Legion of Roman Souldiers should at that time be Christians which yet Eusebius seems to affirm who errs in this also because he has not produced the place of Apollinaris nor shown the book wherein he wrote these things But the words with which Eusebius closes this whole story doe sufficiently shew that he himself doubted of the truth of this matter for thus he says in this chap. Let every one determine concerning these things according to his own pleasure Vales. e Tertullians words are these At nos è contrario èdimus protectorem si litera Marci Aurelii gravissimi Imperatoris requirantur quibus illam Germanicam sitim Christianorum forte militum precationibus impetrato imbriodis cussam contestatur Tertul. Apol. pag. 6. Edit Regal Paris 1634. f Quales ergo leges istae quas adversus nos soli exequntur impii injusti turpes truces vani dementes Quas Trajanus ex parte frustratus est vetando inquiri Christianos quas nullus-Hadrianus quanquam curiositatum omnium explorator nullus Vespasianus quanquam Judaeorum debellator nullus Pius nullus Verus impressit Tertul. Apol. pag. 6 and 7. Edit as before We have added these words of Tertullian here that the learned Reader may see how different the translation Eusebius here quotes is from the original copies of Tertullian which we now have g Baronius has placed the election of Irenaeus to the See of Lyons on the year of Christ 180. For after the death of Pothinus which happened in the year 179 he says that See was vacant till the heat of the persecution was over Vales. D r Cave in his Chronological Table says Pothinus died in the year of Christ 177 to whom succeeded Irenaeus the year following * 2 Tim. 4. 21. a Our M. SS copies read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I doctrine I would rather read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã succession as Christophorson S r Hen. Savill and the old Translatour of Irenaeus read it Vales. a The Mââ Med. Fuk. and Savill M. SS read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã prayer the Kings M. S. and Robert Stephens ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã purity Vales. a These words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. of which number Irenaeus was one seem to be superfluous and written in the margin onely by some Scholiast But they are in the Maz. Med. Fuk. and Savil. M. SS Vales. b Irenaeus in that he affirms here that The Gospel according to Mark was written after the death of Paul and Peter does contradict what Eusebius related before at the 15 th chap. of the second book where he says Mark 's Gospel was publish't at Rome whilest Peter was alive and approved of by that Apostle But 't is no wonder that the antient fathers disagree amongst themselves in this matter seeing we have almost nothing of certainty about the writing of the sacred Gospels save that they are four and written by four several Authours But when or for what reason they were written and whether the Gospel of S. Matthew were first penned in Hebrew it s not very evident Vales. c All the ancient Ecclesiastick Writer as before was noted call that book the Wisedom of Solomon which we now call the Proverbi But that B. entitled now the Wisedom of Solomon is Apocryphal Vales. d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the term here in the original does properly signifie the sayings of wise men which are repeated by heart Vales. e Irenaeus is the ancientest writer that makes mention of Theodotion Wherefore we will see if from hence we can make out the time when Theodotion lived Epiphanius in his book de ponderib says Theodotion flourished under Commodus and then put forth his translation The Chronicon of Alexandria follows Epiphanius's opinion and says he publisht that work in the sixth year of the Emperour Commodus I Judge Theodotion to be somewhat ancienter For seeing Irenaeus has mentioned him in his books against Heresies which books t is manifest he wrote when Eleutherus was Bishop of Rome for he says so in the 3 d B. of thaâ work we must necessarily grant that Theodotion flourisht before Eleutherus was made Bishop of Rome Vales. f Some of the Ancients doe declare that the Greek translation of the holy Scriptures was performed under Ptolemaeus the son of Lagus others mention it to have been done under Ptolemaeus Philadelphus Which latter opinion in that 't is confirmed by the authority of the greater number of writers has at last prevailed Anatolius says the translation of the 72 was made both in the Reign of Ptolomy the Son of Lagus and also in that of his successour Philadelphus which to me seems very probable For seeing Aristobulus Josephus and Tertullian doe say in express words that Demetrius Phalereus put Ptolomy upon this business and it being manifest that the said Demetrius was in great favour with and authority under Ptolomy the son of Lagus and died soon after him we must necessarily say that this translation if it were done by the procurement of Demetrius was begun in the Reign of Ptolomy the son of Lagus And seeing that Philadelphus reigned about two years together with his father being made his Colleague in the Kingdom therefore perhaps 't is related that this translation was made under both the Princes Vales. The Learned Petavius is of the same opinion with Valesius in this matter as may be seen from his Annotations on Epiphanius's Book de ponderib pag. 379. Edit Paris 1622. g Cleâoens Alexandrinus says
the 72 Seniours translated all the books as well those of the Law as those of the Prophets of the Scripture into Greek To whom agrees Theodoret in his Preface to his comment on the Psalms Olympiodorus and almost all other writers But Aristobulus and Josephus both Jewish writers doe intimate that the Law onely was by them turned into Greek Aristobulus's words may be seen B. 13. of Eusebius de praparat and Josephus's in his Preface to his Antiquities But to this it may be answered that the Jews under the name of the Law doe sometimes comprehend the Prophets also See Maâius's Preface to the Greek Edition of Joshua Vales. h Valesius reads this passage thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. satisfying the Kings desire herein He says Christophorson read this place so and S r Hen. Savill in his M. S. But the Kings the Maz. Med. and Fuk. M. SS as he says and Robert Stephens in his Edit read it thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. God having done according to his own will We follow Valesius but leave the Reader to his liberty i Justin the Martyr in his ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to the Gentiles says the 72. Seniours were by Ptolomy put into so many cells the ruines of which he saw at Alexandria Epiphanius in his book de ponderib says the King placed them two and two in a cell These words of Irenaeus agree best with Justin's account of this matter Others there are who deride this whole story about the cell because neither Josephus nor Aristeas nor Philo make any mention of them See Petavius's Annotat. on Epiphanius pag. 378. Edit Paris and M r Gregorie's discourse of Oxford concerning the 70 Interpreters * At Alexandria a Rufinus and Jerome in catalogo doe say that Pantaenus returning from India to Alexandria brought with him that Gospel of S t Matthew in Hebrew But Eusebius does not say so For by that which he adds ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã he meanes onely thus much viz. that than Copy of Bartholomew's was preserved untill Pantaenus came into India So Nicephorus expounds Eusebius's words B. 4. chap. 32 but I assent not to Nicephorus in that which he says further to wit that that Gospel of S t Matthew which Pantaenus found in India was dictated there by Bartholomow I rather believe that Copy was brought thither by Bartholomew out of Judea Further Jerom in catalog says the Gospel of S t Matthew written in Hebrew was preserved in the Library of Cafarea collected by Pamphilus the Martyr even in his time But I doubt 't was the Gospel according to the Hebrews which the Nazareans used For some thought that this Gospel of the Hebrews was the original Copy of S t Matthews Gospel but that 's a mistake Vales. a These books of Clemens's contained a short and compendious exposition of both Testaments says Photius in his Bibliotheca But because of the errours with which they abounded they were disregarded and at length lost Neither is there any other reason in my opinion why the books of Papias Hegesippus and others of the Ancients are âost Yet the Excerpta out of Theodotus which are extant after his Stromatewn seem to be taken out of his Institutions which I wonder no body has taken notice of before This I conclude to be true both because in those Excerpta out of Theodotus there are the same things said of Christ which Photius attests he read in Clemens's books of Institutions and also because the Authour of those Excerpta does about the end of them call Pantaenus Master Now Pantaenus was Clemens's Master as Eusebius says in this chapter whom Clemens in his Institutions does often quote as Photius relates Vales. * Or the most eminent persons of the Apostolick succession â It was that part of Italy which since is called Calâbria b Valesius thinks this person was Tatianus Justin the Martyrs Scholar Baronius says 't was Bardesanes of whom see B. 4. chap. the Iast but he was no Assyrian for he was of Edessa the chief City of Oâdroena c Baronius says this was Theophilus Bishop of Caesarea but I rather think him to have been Theodotus which I conjecture from hence because the Epitome of Clemens's institutions is entitled ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. the Epitome of Theodotus his Oriental Doctrine For Clemens calls that the Oriental Doctrine which he learned from his masters in the East I have two arguments to perswade me that Clemens does not here mean Theophilus of Caesarea 1 Theophilus was contemporary with Clemens for he flourisht in the times of Victor Bishop of Rome as we are informed by our Eusebius 2 None of the antients ever said that Theophilus was an Hebrew or which is all one a Jew Vales. a The most famous Churches especially those which were founded by the Apostoles did with great care keep the successions of their Bishops laid up amongst their Archives recording their names and the day of their deaths in a pair of Writing-tables These our Eusebius had diligently examined âs appears from this place and he has digested the Bishops of the principal Sees from the authority of these tables onely Wherefore the successions of Bishops which are recounted in the History and Chronicles of Eusebius are highly to be prized as being the ancientest and most certain Vales. b Before this Valens the names of two Bishops are wanting to wit Maximus and Antoninus which were omitted by the negligence of the Transcribers For seeing Eusebius affirmed Narcissus to have been the fifteenth Bishop of Jerusalem from Mark and the thirtieth from the Apostles that can't be unless you add two Bishops here Eusebius indeed in his Chronicon after Capito the twenty sixth from the Apostles reckons Maximus and Antoninus after these Valens and Dolichianus and then Narcissus Georg. Syncellus and Nicephorus doe agree with Eusebius onely between Julianus and Capito they insert one Helias whom Eusebius does not admit of Vales. a Rufinus does well translate this passage thus qui abstinentiae senectutis praerogativâusus c. who making an advantage of his abstinence and old age c. For ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã does usually signifie abstinence and a more strict course of life But I understand not how Apelles could boast of his continency who was rejected by Marcion because he was a fornicatour and afterwards retreated to Alexandria as Tertullian affirms in his book de praescription Wherefore let us see whether the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã does not signifie something else here it sometimes denotes the Office of a Decurio or Captain over ten horsemen for these Commanders are by the Graecians called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as I have observed in my notes on Amm. Marcellinus Also a man may conjecture that this place should be written thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. his venerable hoary haârs and old age For Apelles was commonly called old man and so Rhodon terms high
Moreover Porphyrius in these words of his here quoted by Eusebius saies Origen was eminently renowned upon account of his writings which he left behind him 2. Porphyrius in his life of Plotinus not far from the beginning has these words But when Herennius Origen and Plotinus had agreed amongst themselves that they would not publish the Opinions of Ammonius which having heard from him they approved of as most especially pure and refined Plotinus was as good as his word but Herennius first broke the compact and afterwards Origen followed him But Origen wrote nothing besides a book concerning Daemons and a piece in Gallienus's time wherein he proved that the King was the onely Poet. This last book Origen wrote in praise of Gallienus the Emperour to commend his Poâtical faculty For Gallienus was given to Poetry and there are some nuptial verses of his extant amongst the fragments of Petronius Arbiter Now if it be true that this Origen School-fellow to Plotinus wrote this book under Gallienus the Emperour doubtless he must necessarily be distinguished from Origen Adamantius For Origen Adamantius survived not the times of Gallienus but died when Gallus and Volusianus were Emperours in the year of Christ 252 having compleated the sixty ninth year of his age Vales. e The Heathens call'd the Christians and Jews Religion barbarous as Justin Tatianus and others affirm So they termed every thing which was not Grecian Porphyrius calls this barbarous Impudence to despise the Roman Gods and the Emperour's Edicts to be forc'd by no Torments or Persecutions to sacrifice to those Heathen Gods Vales. f ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Cauponari to sell Wine or to keep a Victualling-house Now because these Cauponae us'd to cheat the buyers by mixing and dashing their Wines and so enrich themselves this word is us'd to adulterate or corrupt as here and likewise in holy Writ in the 2 d Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 2. 17. we find ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not corrupting the Word of God Vales. g ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Porphyrius takes this Metaphor from Hucksters who by counterfeiting false wares for true circumvent the buyers for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifies to suborn to lay one thing for another hence ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a Changling a false child left in the place of one taken away Thus Porphyrius saies Origen plaies the Huckster Vales. h Origen quotes this Numenius in his books against Celsus he was a famous Pythagorean born at Apamea in Syria Longinus in his book De Fine mentions these Philosophers Numenius Cronius and Moderatus who he saies connected Pythagoras's and Plato's Opinions together Cronius's book ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is quoted by Nemesius in his book De Naturâ Hominis Cap. 2. Vales. i Apollophanes is call'd by Stobaens in his ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the son of Aegimius Vales. k This was Cassius Longinus who has onely one book exstant at this day entitl'd De sublimi Genere dicendi most men think he was a Grammarian but he profess'd Philosophy as Suidas and others testifie he was Porphyrius's Master in Platonick Philosophy at Athens He liv'd in Origen's time and was younger then him and died a long time after him 't is a wonder therefore that Porphyrius should reckon him amongst the antient Philosophers Vales. l This Moderatus was born at Gades now call'd Cales an Island on the South side of Spain without the Straits of Gibraltar he wrote eleven books ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Concerning Nicomachus See Photius and Suidas Vales. m Chaeremon was a Stoick Philosopher Origen in his books against Celsus quotes Charemon's book De Cometis he taught Philosophy at Alexandria and Dionysius Alexandrinus succeeded him in his School See Suidas in Dionysio Vales. Of this Chaeremon see Martials Epig. book 11. Epig. 57. n This Cornutus Aser Leptitanus taught Philosophy at Rome in the Reign of Claudius Nero he wrote many things concerning Philosophy and Eloquence Persius dedicates his fifth Satyr to him as to his Master he wrote a book De Graecorum Theologia which is cited by the Etymologist in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But the name is corrupted by Aldus Manutius and call'd Phornutus Vales. o We may from these words gather that Heraclas and Origen had the same Philosophy Master which Porphyrius affirms was Ammonius the most famous Philosopher of that Age. Vales. p The Philosophick habit was the Pallium or Cloak which was the usual Badge of the Greek Philosophers different from that which was worn by the ordinary Greeks which those Christians still kept to who before their conversion had been professed Philosophers this our Eusebius affirms of Justin the Martyr B. 4. Chap. 11. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã one that in a Philosophick habit was an assertour of the divine Word q Hence we may conjecture that the Clergie had at that time no peculiar habit seeing that Heraclas a Presbyter of Alexandria and afterwards Bishop always retain'd his Philosophick habit Vales. r Hence 't is conjectur'd that Origen Catechiz'd at Alexandria in a private Auditory and not publickly in the Church for had he before taught in the Church Demetrius could not have brought this as an objection against Alexander and Theoctistus Wherefore Rufinus mistakes who saâes Demetrius permitted him to Catechize publickly in the Church Vales. s He writes to Demetrius the Bishop in the third person understanding ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Your Holiness And without doubt had we the whole Epistle we should find these words to precede Vales. t Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem was a very eloquent man and without doubt wrote this Epistle himself which makes him use the first person here but the letter was writ both in his name and in the Bishop of Caesarea's Vales. u This Synnada is a very noted City of Phrygia and as Stephanus in his book De Urbibus writes it ought to be written with a double n though some write it with a single one it is deriv'd from ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã câhabito to dwell together because many flock'd from Macedonia to dwell together there from whence it was first call'd ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but was corrupted by the interposition of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã There is also some old pieces of Caracalla's Coin with this inscription ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Hence it appeares these Synnadenses were Doricks mix'd with Ionians for they were originally Macedonians and therefore Doricks though they liv'd in the midst of Ionia Vales. x Origen was about 30 years old when he came into Palestine for according to our Eusebius's account in this place he went thither about the end of Antoninus Caracalla's Reign Vales. a Christophorson translates this phrase ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã libellos ex variis Scriptoribus excerptos tanquam flosculos i. e. books like flowers selected out of divers Authours 'T is true the Antients call'd ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã things selected or excerptions out of any Authour such are Origen's Philocaliae Such
also are Apulcius's libri floridorum But this signification does not well agree with this place because Eusebius does not mention that Beryllus selected them out of any books And likewise he adds ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Pârynicus uses this word in his Epistle to ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in Greek concerning Caius's book against Proclus see Photius's Biblioth But Theodoret instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã writes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Noâtian 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in a bad sence as if Origen had set himself to write in emulation of Hippolytus and referrs ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to Hippolytus which is not so for we must understand ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
amongst the Romans that no Citizen should be beaten with rods but with Vines See Livy in his 57 Book upon this account the Souldiers were by the Centurions beaten with Vines whence at last the Vine came to be the badge of the Centurions Office Spartianus in the life of Hadrian uses it in this sense and so does Plutarch in Galba c In the Maz. Fuk. and Med. M. SS there is a stop here but in the Kings M. S. there is none which punctation in the three M. SS first named Salmasius in his notes on Spartianus defends against Casaubon in his notes on the same Authour who thought that the Vine was a badge which denoted those that were to be chosen Centurions who should bear that Office when there was a place vacated And therefore Casaubon read this passage thus There is a certain dignity amongst the Romans termed the Vine which those that obtain are said to be made Centurions when there is a place vacant which reading agrees with the Kings M. S. But Salmasius makes a stop as we do at the word Centurions which doubtless is the truest reading See note b in this chapter Vales. d That was the Judges name so a famous Captain was called who heretofore rebelled against Antiochus as Polybius relates This Achaeus was president of Palestine and had his residence at Caesarea which was the chief City of that whole Province Vales. e We read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which is a common but an Erroneous reading The Chlamys and the Balteus i. e. the Cloak and the Belt were military badges as may be proved from innumerable places in Chrysostom Libanius and others Vales. f The term here is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. he was perfected by Martyrdom For Martyrs were initiated by confession and perfected by death as Dionysius phrases it at the end of Chap. 11. in this book Clemens Alexandrinus in B. 4. Stromat pag. 206. gives another reason why Martyrdom is called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã because it demonstrates the perfection of love Vales. a Those whom our Eusebius here calls ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Phaenicians are the Grecians which inhabited Phaenicia For Paneas is a Greek name the Syrians or rather the Syro-Phoenicians called this City Dan as S. Jerom affirms in his Questions on Genesis his words are these Dan Phoenices oppidum quod nunc Paneas dicitur Dan autem unus è sontibus Jordanis Nam alter vocatur Jor quod interpretatur ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Duobus ergo sontibus qui haud procul a se distant in unum rivulum foederatis Jordanis deinceps appellatur i. e. Dan is a Town of Phoenicia which is now called Paneas Also Dan is the name of one of the Spring-heads of Jordan For the other is named Jor the interpretation whereof is a Stream These two Fountains therefore which are not far distant from each other are united into one Rivulet which is afterwards called Jordan Vales. b This custom ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of casting the sacrifice into the Springs or Wells which they worshipped was used by the Heathens And hence it is that Publicola asketh Augustine in his 153. Epistle whether it were lawful to drink of that Spring or Well into which any part of a sacrifice had been cast Vales. a This place of Eusebius concerning the woman who had the Issue of bloud is quoted in the seventh Synod Action 4. pag. 508. See also what Philostorgius saith in his seventh book chap. 3. And what Nicephorus who borroweth it from him Vales. * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it sometimes sign fies a Military Cloak this term occurs Psal. 109. 29. where 't is rendred a Mantle b Rufinus understands this place ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã so as if this herb had no healing vertue till it was grown up to the skirt of our Saviours vesture but since Eusebius does not expressely determine it that way every one may interpret the place as pleaseth him best I think Eusebius meaneth by the addition of these words that the herb grew up no higher then the skirt of our Saviour's doublet as if it were in reverence to him See Nicephor B. 6. chap. 15. Vales. c Rufinus translateth this word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã indifferenter indifferently but I rather think ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã here signifieth inconfiderately unadvisedly contrary to the Doctrine of the Ancients unwisely Moreover S r Henr. Savil in the margin of his M. S. upon these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the custom of the Heathens bids us take notice that this is here spoken concerning images Vales. a This was an old tradition that James the Apostle was Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by Christ. Besides Eusebius Saint Chrysost in his 38 Homil upon the Epistle to the Corinthians on these words Deinde visus est Jacobo Then he was seen of James expresly affirmeth it the same also Epiphanius Niceph Callist and others do affirm They all seem to borrow this opinion from the first book of Clemens's Recognitions also in the eighth book of his Constitutions Chap. 35. we find him speaking of James the Bishop of Jerusalem in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Ordained by our Saviour himself and the Apostles We must farther advertise the Reader that these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Apostle are wanting in the Kings Fuk. Maz. M. SS and in Rufinus but in our Maz. Med. Fuk. M. SS in the Contents of this Chapter we find this word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Apostle although in the Index of the Chapters which is prefixed we find it thus written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã concerning the Chair of James the Bishop Vales. a From this word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã aâ the same time some would conclude that Dionysius wrote these Epistles in the Persecution raised by Valerian but that is false for this Epistle to Domitius and Didymus was written in the Reign of Decius the Emperour Vales. b Rufinus very well translates this word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in this place Paschales Paschal Epistles The Bishops of Alexandria used to write these Paschal Letters every year and send them to the rest of the Churches of Aegypt that they might all agree in the time of the celebration of Easter There are at this day extant Epistles of this sort written by Theophilus Cyril and others what was the form of these Epistles we may understand from the 30 Paschal Homilies of Cyril first they discoursed some thing concerning Easter in the end they declared the beginning of Lent and the day of Easter whence we may call them Homilies as well as Epistles Vales. a In the Kings M. S. we find instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã this City ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã these Cities which reading is not to be rejected for that great faction had so divided Alexandria that in a manner it became of one City two as before he seemeth to intimate when he saith
last Edict of Maximin was written in the year of Christ 313 Constantine and Licinius being the third time Consuls Further these are the principal differences between the Emperours Rescripts and Edicts 1. Their Rescripts had their names annext to whom they were sent the Edicts spoke to all men in general 2. The Edicts were publickly proposed the Rescripts were given to those to whom they were sent as may be seen from Gest. Purgat Cecilian p. 28 nor was it usual to publish them unless this word was expresly added in the end of the Rescript proponatur Let it be published Lastly in their Rescripts the name of the Emperour was prefixt only with some few of his Titles but in their Edicts none of their Titles were omitted but all were carefully and proudly mentioned Vales. f This word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is by Langus rendered malè accepisse misapprehended misinterpreted which Version I approve of for ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in its genuin sense signifies malè interpretari But Musculus and Christoph. in imitation of him translates it negligâre to neglect pro nihilo habere not to value which is not so well The Fuk. and Savil. M. SS read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã disregarded which words seem to have been written in the margin as a Scholion at first but afterward crept into the Text. Vales. g That is by the Emperours who us'd to give those Estates which fell to the Exchequer to those that begged them See the Code in the Title De petitionibus Vales. h Chrysostome attests the same in his Oration concerning Saint Babylas against the Gentiles in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The eye-balls of one of them leapt out of his eye holes of their own accord while he was yet alive this was Maximin The other ran mad Diocletian was the Emperour that was distracted which is attested by Eusebius and by Constantine We have also an account of Maximins blindness in Epiphanius's piece De Ponderib Vales. Though in the common Editions the term here is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã yet we read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For Eusebius here means that Maximin was proclaimed a Common Enemy This was done very solemnly by the Decree of the Senate as the Compilers of the Historia Augusta inform us in many places and especially where they treat of Maximin Vales. b Him whom the Greeks name ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we have termed Picentius that there was a Sycophant of this name in the time of Constantine Zosimus attesteth in the end of his second book Certain we are that those persons whom the Greeks call ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Latines term Picentes Vales. c He seems to mean the Prefect of the Praetorium For the term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is never used but to denote either the Prefect of the Praetorium or the Prefect of the City Besides whenas Eusebius affirms that Picentius was advanced to great honour and made Consul twice by Maximin it would be absurd for him to say that he was made Rationalist by him that being a place of small honour in respect of the Prefecture of the Praetorium But there are these arguments to conâute this opinion 1. by these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Eusebius does always mean the Rationalist as we have frequently observed before 2. Sabinus was Prefect of the Praetorium to Maximin as we noted before in the year of Christ 311 and 312. Neither 3. is the dignity of the Rationalists Office to be lookt upon as mean and low For even Macrianus he that seized on the Empire in the times of Gallienus bore that Office and Eusebius himself book 8. chap. 9. calls it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã no mean Office speaking of Philoromus the Martyr But that which Eusebius says to wit that Picentius was made Consul thrice by Maximin is very intricate and difficult to be made out We have observed before that after Galerius's death Maximin took upon himself the Title of Augustus in the year of Christ 311. Therefore before this time when he was Caesar only he could not make Picentius Consul For the Augusti only had a right of creating the Consuls Therefore after Galerius's death Maximin declared himself and Picentius Consuls in that very year On the year following Maximin and Picentius bore their second Consulate in the East when Constantine and Licinius were the second time Consuls in the West But in Italy and Africa Maxentius was the fourth time Consul alone Then on the year after which was the 313 year of Christ the same Maximin and Picentius were Consuls the third time in the East as is evidently collected from this famous passage in Eusebius For 't is improbable that Maximin should give a third Consulate to another and not declare himself Consul once Indeed in the Alexandrian Chronicle Galerius Maximinus is put Consul with Maximianus being in his eighth Consulate which is the year of Christ 311. Although in that Chronicle he is called Galerius Maximus We therefore are the first that have taken notice that Maximin bore three Consulates Whence it may be gathered that Maximin was Augustus about two years having before been Caesar seven years and that he lived till the 313 year of Christ which we have also demonstrated from his Rescripts Wherefore I wonder how so notorious a mistake should creep into Eusebius's Chronicon as to place Maximin's death before Maxentius's It seems to have been committed by Saint Jerome for he added many things of his own to Eusebius's Chronicon Vales. d He was President of Thebaïs as Epiphanius attests in his 68 Here 's which is the Heresie of the Melâtiani where he is called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Culcïanus but it should be Culcianus as 't is evident from this place in Eusebius Yet Rufinus translates it Quintianus in Nicephorus 't is Lucianus both names are false For this President was called Culcianus as besides Eusebius the Acts of Phileas the Martyr's passion do affirm Vales. c Eusebius speaks of this Theotecnus before in this ninth book Cedrenus asserts that this Theotecnus perswaded Galerius Maximianus to raise a persecution against the Christians But he is mistaken in that ãâã takes Galerius Maximianus for Galerius Maximinus which is a common errour amongst the modern Greek Authours Vales. Psal. 146. 2 3 a He means Paulinus Bishop of Tyre to whom our Eusebius dedicated his Ecclesiastick History For by his perswasion he undertook this work as he does here plainly intimate Eusebius designedly omitted the dedication of his books to Paulinus at the beginning of this his work which is usually done upon account of Paulinus's modesty if I mistake not but was contented to make an honourable mention of him at the end of his History For he supposed it signified not much whether he dedicated his books to him at the beginning or at the end of them Eusebius dedicated to the same Paulinus two books ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã concerning the names of places the former of these
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Duâum 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã was set or placed it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Musculââ thought that these words were transposed they read them as appears from their Version thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Emperour
ordered that the Cubit should be removed into the Church of the Alexandrians But because the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã cannot be taken in a passive sense the place must be otherwise mended which from the Sfortian M. S. we have thus restored ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Emperour ordered Alexander to remove the Cubit into the Church of the Alexandrians Which emendation needs no confirmation See Rufin Eccles. Hist. book 2 chap. 23. This order of Constantines lasted not long For Julian commanded that the same Cubit should be carried back again into Serapis's Temple where it seems to have continued till Theodosius's reign and the demolishment of Scrapis's Temple Vales. * He means that Standard or Banner which the Emperour ordered to be made in figure like to the Cross that appeared to him in the face of the heavens See chap. 2 of this book * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã See 1 Tim. 6. 20. a See book 3. chap. 1. of Eusebius's Ecclesiastick History to which add this place of an anonymous Author out of the second Homily upon Matthew Denique cum post resurrectionem Dominâ Thomas Apostolus isset in Provinciam iââam adââncti sunt âi baptisati ab eo sacti sunt adjutores praedicationis illius meaning the Persian Magi. Vales. b This is Metrodorus the Philosopher whom Jerome has mentioned in his Chronicon who returning from his travails in India presented Constantine with many gemms and peaâls and feigned that many more of greater value were taken from him by Sapor King of the Persians which lie of his was the occasion of the Persian war as Am. Marcellinus attests book 25. pag. 295. Edit Vales. See Valesius's notes on Amm. Marââll pag. 304. * Rationes suas scriniaque commiâit so Rufinus from whom Socrates translated this story almost word for word describes this young mans Office book 1. chap. 9. Hist. Ecclesiast c Translatours understood not this place For Musculus renders it thus Ut separatis locis uterentur that they should make use of separate places Christophorson thus ut loca seperatim âibi sumerent that they should take to themselves places severally In this chapter Socrates has translated Rusinus book 1. chap. 9. Ecclesiast Hist. almost word for word and calls those ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which Rufinus had termed Conventicula Now Conventicula are properly private places wherein Collects or short prayers are made and from these places Churches are distinguished which belong to the right of the publick and are not in the power of any private person Vales. d Rufinus says the same Tum vero Athanasius nam is nuper sacerdotium susceperat i. e. But then Athanasius for he had a little before undertaken the Episcopate c. But if we consider the matter more attentively these things cannot be For Meropius the Philosopher is said to have travelled into India in imitation of the Philosopher Metrodorus who had taken a view of that Country before him But Metrodorus returned not from his Indian journey before the year of Christ 325. For at his return from India he presented the Emperour Constantine with gifts which he had received from the King of the Indians as we remarked before in note b. in this chapter Which must necessarily happen after the conquest of Licinius For then Constantine first received the Empire of the East Now Licinius was vanquished at the latter end of the year of Christ 324. Meropius therefore in regard following Metrodorus's example he attempted to travell over India must have undertaken this journey some years after him Let us then suppose that Meropius went into India in the year of our Lord 327. On the year following when he should have returned into his own Country he was slain by the Barbarians And Aedesius and Frumentius being as yet youths were presented to the Indian King and one of them was made his Cup-bearer the other was set over his Acts and evidences Royal. In which Offices both continued to the Kings death Now suppose they served the King three years After this the Indian King dies leaving his Son very young But the Queen his mother entreated Aedesius and Frumentius to undertake the Government of the Kingdome till her Son were of age Let us also allow that the Kings Son was about eight years old when his father died In as much as Frumentius returned not to Alexandria till the young King was grown a man it is wholly requisite that he should have managed the affairs of the Kingdom at least ten years So Frumentius returned to Alexandria about the year of our Lord 341 in which year Athanasius was not newly made Bishop but had held that Bishopricck above fifteen years From what we have said 't is apparent that this conversion of the Indians by Frumentius hapned in the Reign of Constantius not of Constantine as Rufinus and others that follow him have related Vales. e Athanasius speaks of this Frumentius in his Apologetick to the Emperour Constantius And a little after mentions Constantius's Epistle to Aizanas and Sazanas the Kings of Auxumis wherein he commands them to send Frumentius whom Athanasius had ordained Bishop of Auxumis to Alexandria to George Bishop of that City that he might receive from him the doctrine of the true Faith Whence it appears that Frumentius was at that time but newly ordained by Athanasius Now this Epistle was written in the year of Christ 356. Baronius in his Annotations on the Roman Martyrology says that this Frumentius Bishop of Auxumis must be differenced from the other Frumentius Bishop of the Indians But I do assert that he that was Bishop of Auxumis and he that is stiled the Bishop of the Indians is one and the same Frumentius For Auxumis is the Metropolis of Aethiopia Now the Aethiopians are by the ancients usually confounded with the Indians So Philostorgius calls the Homeritae who were the Auxumites neighbours Indians Also the Aethiopians who are now called Abyssines call themselves Indians and do acknowledge Frumentius to have been the Apostle of their Nation as Lucas Holsteinius attests in his notes on Baronius's Martyrology which were lately published at Rome Vales. * See Rufinus book 1. chap. 10. Eccles. Hist. Rufinus does not say that this child was the Kings Son but mulier quaedam parâulum suum c. a certain woman sayâ he carried about her son c. a Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã well skilled in Architecture I had rather read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã being very anxious I doubt not but Socrates wrote it thus For in Ruflnus book 1. chap. 10. from whom Socrates borrowed this relation the words are these cum ecce matutinus anxius cum suis omnibus ingrediens Rex c. when behold the King perplexed in his mind coming in the morning with all his attendants c. Vales. b The Sfort. Florent and All at M. SS call this persons name Baccurius But in Rufinus and others his name is more truly
Caesar. Certainly Dalmatius the son of Dalmatius was when these things were done which are related by Athanasius very young and could not sit as judge in so weighty an affair Besides he lived at that time at Narbona and together with Hannibalianus his brother was an Hearer of Exuperius the Rhetorician For from that City he was sent for by Constantine and created Caesar when very young as Ansonius affirms in his book de Professor Burdigal in the year of Christ 335. But that tryal concerning the murder of Arsenius was before Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch as Athanasius attests in the year of Christ 332 according to Baronius's opinion Vales. * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Concerning the import of this word the learned Reader may consult Scaliger Poâtic Lib. 3. Cap. 106. Epibaterion a The Synod of Tyre was held in the consulates of Constantius and Albinus as Athanasius attests in the year of Christ 335. This was the 28 th year of Constantines Empire His 29 th year began during the same mens consulates on the 8 th of the Calends of August on which day Constantine celebrated his Tricennalia i. e. the festivals for his having arrived to the 30 th year of his Empire as Idatius attests in Fast. anticipating that solemnity one whole year This anticipation of his Tricennalia has induced not only Socrates but several others also into a mistake Vales. a Rufinus in book 1. chap. 16. of his Ecclesiastick History says that this Archelaus was not the Consularis or President of Phoenicia but the Comes of the East Vales. * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ordered the matter prudently this is the import of thâse words if rendred literally a In Athanasius's second Apologetick pag. 783. Edit Paris the words are ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Archaph who is also called John In the Epistle of Alexander Bishop of Thessalonica to Athanasius he is also called Archaph Therefore this man had two names he was called Archaph by the Egyptians which was his Countrey name John was his Monastick name He was a Bishop of the Melitian faction at Memphis Athanasius relates that he was commanded by Constantine to agree with his Arch-Bishop Athanasius means Constantines Letter to John which he gives an account of at pag. 787 of his second Apologet. Edit Paris Vales. * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã See Calvin Lexic Juridic ân the word paragraphe a This place is imperfect as any one may perceive It may be made perfect if instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we make this addition ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã made their return to Tyre which we have followed in our Version Vales. a Musculus and Christophorson render these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã thus depositionis causas the causes of his deposition But I suppose that by these words is meant the Libel of his deposition or the Synodical Epistle concerning the condemnation and deposition of Athanasius Socrates uses the same term in his second book chap. 1. If any one be desirous to peruse a copy of these Epistles there is extant a Synodical Epistle of the Council of Antioch concerning the deposition of Paul of Samosata also the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Sardis concerning the deposition of Gregorius Alexandrinus Valens Ursacius and other Arian Prelates Vales. b In Athanasius the reading is truer thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of the City of the Hypselites as we noted before Stephanus de Urbibus says Hypseliâ is a Town in Egypt and that the inhabitants thereof are called Hypsclites Vales. a In Athanasius's second Apology against the Arians and in his book de Synodis Arimini and Seleuciae this Synodick Epistle of the Jerusalem Council is recorded in which Epistle the Bishops who had been convened there for the dedication of Constantines Church do attest that they had received into communion ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Arius and his followers which they had done according to the Emperours command who by his Letters had signified to them that he himself knew that those mens faith was true and orthodox both from their own attestation by word of mouth and also from the Libel of faith which they presented to him Which Libel Constantine had annexed to his Letters Now he means that Libel of faith which Arius and Euzoïus had presented to Constantine mentioned by Socrates before at the 26 chapter of this first book and by Sozomen book 2. chap. 27. For when Arius had presented a Libel of his faith to Constantine Constantine believing his doctrine to be agreeable to the Nicene faith would not himself give his judgment concerning this matter but remitted him to the examination of the Jerusalem Council as Rufinus and Sozomen do relate Athanasius also in his book de Synodis affirms expresly that Arius and his associates were received into communion by the Jerusalem Synod his words are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and after the banishment of Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria writing that they should admit to communion Arius and his followers c. But I suppose that Arius the Arch-Heretick is not to be meant here but another Arius his name sake who had been condemned by Alexander Bishop of Alexandria together with Arius his Ringleader For Arius the Arch-Heretick died long before the Jerusalem Synod as I have evidently proved in my second book of Ecclesiastick observations chap. 2. The Learned Reader will find three books of Ecclesiastick observations written by Valesius and publisht at the latter end of the second Vol. of his Greek Ecclesiastick Historians Therefore that Arius who together with Euzoïus presented a Libel of his faith to Constantine is a different person from Arius the Arch-Heretick Which may be demonstrated by another argument This Arius who presented a Libel to Constantine together with Euzoïus was not restored before the Jerusalem Synod that is before the year of Christ 33â nor joyned to the Catholick Church For he requests of the Emperour in the foresaid Libel that all altercations being taken away by his piety he may be united to the Catholick Church But Arius the Arch-Heretick was recalled from exile long before and readmitted to communion as the penitentiary-Libel of Eusebius and Theognius doth attest For Eusebius and Theognius do say there expresly that the authour of the whole controversie to wit Arius having given satisfaction was entirely restored Further Eusebius and Theognius sent that Libel to the Bishops in the year of Christ 328 as I shewed before Therefore Arius the Haeresiarch must necessarily have been recalled at the beginning of the same year Vales. b This place is imperfect it is easier to pick out the meaning of it than to correct the words Socrates therefore would say that the Bishops in their Synodical Epistle do obscurely mean Athanasius when they say that all eâvy and hatred now was bartished c. Vales. a In Athanasius's second Apology against the Arians where this Epistle of Constantines is recorded the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã
in his Rationarium Temporum Blondellus in his book de Primatu Ecclesiae and others do relate that Athanasius was recalled from banishment in the year of Christ 338 to wit the year after Constantines death who perceiving the foresaid prelate to be pressed on every side by the calumnies of his adversaries had for a time banished him into the Gallia's But I do maintain that Athanasius was restored in the year of Christ 337 when Felicianus and Titianus were Consuls in that very year wherein Constantine died which I can make evident as I suppose by a most demonstrable argument For Athanasius in his second Apology against the Arians pag. 805. relates that he was released from his banishment and restored to his Country by Constantine the younger who also wrote a Letter in his behalf to the populace and Clergy of the Alexandrian Church This Letter as Socrates does here so Athanasius there recites the inscription of it is this Constantinus Caesar to the people of the Catholick Church of Alexandria The subscription of this Letter is thus dated at Triers the fifteenth of the Calends of July As well the inscription as subscription of this Letter does attest what I say to wit that Athanasius was released from his exile soon after the death of Constantine the Great in the year of Christ 337. For if he had been restored on the year following then Constantine the younger would not have called himself Caesar but Augustus Nor would Athanasius have been restored by Constantine the younger but by Constantius to whom was allotted the Eastern part of the Empire Wherefore in regard Constantine stiles himself only Caesar in that Letter and since Athanasius attests that he was restored by Constantine the younger 't is apparent that that was done before the sons of Constantine the elder were by the Souldiers proclaimed Augusti For upon Constantines death there was a certain interregnum and the Roman world continued without an Emperour almost three months untill the brethren who under the name of Caesars Governed divers Provinces had met together in order to their making a division of the whole Roman Empire Constantine died on the eleventh of the Calends of June and on that very year there were three Augusti proclaimed to wit Constantinus Constantius and Constans on the fifth of the Ides of September as it is recorded in the Old Fasti which Jacobus Sirmondus published under the false name of Idatius This is that which Eusebius writes in his fourth book of Constantines Life chap. 71 to wit that Constantine retained his Empire after his death and that all Rescripts and Edicts bore his name as if he had been yet alive For this reason therefore Constantine the younger stiles himself Caesar only in his Letter to the Alexandrians in regard he was not yet proclaimed Augustus For the Letter was dated on the fifteenth of the Calends of July But he was created Augustus together with his brethren on the fifth of the Ides of September Moreover at that time whilst the brothers were stiled Caesars only Constantinus Junior was the chief in Authority because he was the eldest brother See Valesius's first book of Ecclesiastick observations on Socrates and Sozomen chap. 1. * Place a Socrates mistakes here and all those that follow him in placing the death of Alexander Bishop of Constantinople on the Consulate of Acindynus and Proclus in the year of Christ 340. In the second book of my Ecclesiastick Observations upon Socrates and Sozomen The Learned Reader will meet with Valesius's Ecclesiastick Observations on Socrates and Sozomen at the close of Valesius's second Volume of the Greek Ecclesiastick Historians he may find this matter discussed at the first chapter of the second book of those Observations I have by most evident arguments demonstrated that Alexander Bishop of Constantinople died in the Reign of Constantine the Great and that Paul succeeded him during the Reign of the said Constantine Baronius who places Alexanders death on the year of Christ 340 does manifestly contradict himself For he says that the Synod of the Bishops of Egypt which was summoned to confute the calumnies brought against Athanasius by the Eusebian faction was convened in the year of Christ 339. But those Bishops do expresly attest in their Synodick Epistle that at that very time Eusebius had left Nicomedia and had lept into the Constantinopolitan See 'T is needless to quote the words of that Epistle here in regard they are produced by Baronius himself at the year of Christ 340. Now if Eusebius had gotten the See of Constantinople in the year of Christ 339. Alexander must necessarily be supposed to have been dead before this year Vales. b This person was afterwards promoted to the degree of Presbyter under Paul Bishop of Constantinople and accused his own Bishop as Athanasius relates in his Epistle ad Solitar Vales. * Parts â That is those that owned Christ to be of the same substance or essence with the Father c There were two Churches of this name in Constantinople the one called the Old the other the New Irene as it is recorded in the Life of Paul the Constantinopolitan Bishop which Photius relates in his Bibliotheca Moreover the Old Church called Irene was contiguous to the Great Church which was afterwards named Sophia nor had it separate Clergy-men but the Clergy of the Great Church by turns ministred in that Church The Emperour Justinian informs us of this in the third Novell In the old description of Constantinople which is prefixt before the Notitia Imperii Romani this is called the Old Church and 't is placed in the second ward of the City together with the Great Church The Church Irene to wit The New Irene is recounted in the seventh ward of that City Socrates hath made mention of The Old Irene in his first Book chap. 37. It is termed the Church of Saint Irene after the same manner that the Church Sophia is called Saint Sophia not that there was a Virgin or Martyr called by that name Vales. a The Allatian M. S. inserts some words here after this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. and having through Eusebius's own ambition removed him from Nicomedia he constituted him Bishop of the Great City Constantinople Vales. * That is he means Constantiuâ and Constans sons to the Emperour Constantine the Great who had a little before this been proclaimed Augusti Constantine the other son of Constantine the Great was now dead See chap. 5. of this book a The particle ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã must be expunged here and the whole clause read in this continued form having considered with himself how he had been circum vented that he might subscribe Athanasius's deposition For Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem had together with Paul and the rest subscribed Athanasius's deposition in the Council of Tyre In regard of his sorrow for doing this he refused afterwards to be present at the Council of Antioch as Sozomen relates in his
Secondly in his dissertation de duplici Synodo Sirmiensi doth by most evident arguments demonstrate that the year of that Synod is truly assigned by Socrates after the Consulate of Sergius and Nigrinianus which was the year of Christ 351. I know Jacobus Sirmondus hath written two books wherein he has endeavoured to maintain Baronius's opinion against Dionysius Petavius But in regard he himself did not publish those books that is an evidence sufficient that at length he acknowledged his own opinion to be false Vales. b The Bishops here named by Socrates sate not in that Synod of Sirmium which was convened against Photinus after the Consulate of Sergius and Nigrinianus in the year of Christ 351 but in that other Synod which was convened there when Eusebius and Hypatius were Consuls in the year of Christ 359 a little before the Council of Ariminum which Latter Synod at Sirmium did also set forth that draught of the Creed which was afterwards recited at Ariminum before which the Consuls names were perfixt And this is evidently made out by Germinius in his Epistle to Valens which is recorded in Hilarius's Fragments and by Epiphanius in Heres Semiarian In the former Sirmium-Synod assembled against Photinus the Eastern Bishops only were present this is attested by Hilarius in his book de Synodis and by Vigilius Bishop of Tapsis in his Fifth Book against Eutyches Vales. c Georgius was not at this time viz. after the Consulate oâ Sergius and Nigrinianus Bishop of Alexandria For he was created Bishop there in the eighth Consulate of Constantius Augustus and in the First Consulate of Julianus Caesar which was in the year of Christ 356. Wherefore he could not sit in the former Sirmium Synod which deposed Photinus in the year of Christ 351. The same must be said of Hosius also who at that time lived under Magnentius's jurisdiction nor was he as yet banished to Sirmium Vales. * See chap. 14. of this book d Theodorus continued to be Bishop of Heraclea in Thracia in the year of Chist 356 as it is manifest from Athanasius's Circular Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya pag. 290 which Epistle Athanasius wrote in the year of Christ 356 after Georgius's entrance into the See of Alexandria Wherefore Hypatianus must necessarily have been made Bishop of Heraclea after the year 356. Sozomen hath made mention of the same Hypatianus book 6. chap. 7. Eccles. Hist. Vales. e Socrates here means by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Ludi Circenses which the Consuls exhibited at their entrance upon their Consulate which by the Latines is termed Consulatum dare Some Consuls besides the Ludi Circenses entertained the people with Scenical Plays and with hunting of wild beasts in the Amphitheatre Vales. f At this place we follow the Sfortian M. S. in which Copy this passage is more fully exprest thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. But those Bishops who staid behind c. Incomparably well in my judgment Indeed that draught of the Creed which was published in the Synod of Sirmium against Photinus is approved of by Hilarius in his book de Synodis as being Catholick but Athanasius in his book de Synodis Arimini Seleuciae condemns and rejects it in the same manner with the other Creeds composed by the Arians Nor do Hilarius and Athanasius disagree with one another concerning this one form of the Creed but about other draughts of it also for example about the Antiochian draught For Hilarius confesseth that the Eastern Bishops had good reason to compose new forms of the Creed when new Heresies arose against the Church But Athanasius doth maintain that those new draughts of the Creed were craftily composed by the Arians with a design to destroy the Nicene Creed Further that this place of Socrates instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that which was not best for all men I had rather read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that which was not gratefull to all men And so I have rendred it Vales. * Or other explanations concerning the Faith a Socrates and with him Sozomen is here doubly mistaken First because he supposed that there were three forms of the Creed drawn up in the Synod of Sirmium against Photinus whereas there was one form only composed in that Synod which besides Socrates is recorded by Athanasius pag. 900. and by Hilarius in his book de Synodis 338. Edit Paris 1631. Secondly in regard he asserts that that form of the Creed which was published in the Greek tongue at the Synod of Sirmium against Photinus was dictated by Marcus of Arethusa Marcus of Arethusa did not dictate that form I have mentioned but another before which the Consuls names were prefixt and which was afterwards recited at Ariminum as Nicholaus Faber hath already observed in the Preface he wrote to Hilarius's Fragments from Germinius's Epistle We must therefore distinguish between the three Synods of Sirmium each of which published their form of the Creed The first was convened against Photinus in the year of Christ 351. The second was assembled in the year of our Lord 357 wherein the Blasphemie of Hosius and Potamius was composed The third was celebrated when Eusebius and Hypatius were Consuls in the year of Christ 359 wherein that Creed was drawn up which Marcus of Arethusa dictated Vales. b Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã another the reading must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the other two or two more as it is in the Allat M. S. For Socrates here recounts three draughts of the Creed composed at Sirmium the two latter whereof he saith were written at first in Latine and afterwards translated into Greek Which in my judgment is not true I grant indeed that that Creed which by Hilarius is termed Hosius's Blasphemie was at first published in Latine But the other which had the Consuls names prefixt before it was undoubtedly at first dictated in the Greek tongue For he that dictated it viz. Marcus of Arethusa and the rest of the Bishops then assembled were almost all Graecians Lastly the subscriptions of the Bishops who subscribed this form are extant in Greek in Epiphanius in Hares Semiarian Vales. c Without doubt it must be Ariminum not Sirmium which reading Epiphan Scholasticus followed as appears from his Version See chap. 37. of this second book Vales. * Ephes. 3. 15. * Are not d Hilarius seems to have read otherwise For in his book de Synodis where he records this Creed he renders this passage thus fiquis c. and if any one affirming one God but shall not profess Christ to be God the Son of God before ages c. Vales. â Enlarged * Esai 44. 6. â John 1. 14. e In the Allat M. S. and in Athanasius's book de Synodis this Anathema is thus worded ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. and we have rendred it accordingly after the same manner Hilarius read this passage as from his Version appears Vales. â Gen.
1. 26. f This whole Anathematism was omitted here it occurs in Athanasius's and Hilarius's Copy of this Creed and therefore we inserted it Vales. The Learned Reader will find it in Robert Stephens Edit also â Gen. 19. 24. g This Anathematism is differently worded in all the Authours we have seen wherein this Creed occurs Valesius says that he has published it according to the reading of the Florent and Sfortian M. SS which Copies we have followed in our English version where it is thus worded in the Greek ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The reading in Robert Stephens is different from this and so is that in Athanasius pag. 901 where 't is thus worded ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Hilarius has translated otherwise as appears from his Version at pag. 339. Edit Paris 1631. His words are these Siquis dominum dominum patrem filium quasi dominum a domino intelligat quia dominum dominum duos dicat deos Anathema sit Thus variously is this Anathematism represented The Learned Reader may take the liberty as we have done to follow which Copy he pleases h We follow the reading in Hilarius and in Athanasius where it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to Sodom In Robert Stephens the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For neither did he descend into the body * Psal. 110. 1. â See John 14. 16. i Here we follow the reading in Athanasius which is thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. For the Father was not forced c. which reading is confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus and by Hilarius Vales. * 1 Cor. 11. 3. k Athanasius has the same words in his book de Synodis Arimini Seleuciae where after he had inserted this foregoing Creed he adds these words concerning this which follows ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Having rejected all these things as if they had invented better they promulge another Creed which they wrote at Sirmium in Latine but it was translated into Greek But Hilarius recording this Creed in his book de Synodis prefixes this title before it Exemplum Blasphemiae c. A Copy of the Blasphemy composed at Sirmium by Hosius and Potamius Which title Hilarius made himself and deservedly calls this Creed Blasphemy Who this Potamius here joyned with Hosius was Marcellinus Presbyter informs us in the Supplicatory Libel which he presented to the Emperour Theodosius Where amongst the corrupters of the Divine and Apostolick Faith after Arius he in the first place names this person his words are these Potamius Odyssiponae civitatis Episcopus c. i. e. Potamius Bishop of Lisbon was at first a Defender of the Catholick Faith but afterwards induced by the reward of a Farm belonging to the Emperours Revenue which he was very desirous of be corrupted the Faith Hosius of Corduba amongst the Churches in Spain detected this man and repelled him as being an impious Heretick But even Hosius himself summoned before the Emperour Constantius by the complaint of this Potamius and terrified with threats was fearfull being old and rich of banishment or proscription and so yielded to the impiety Vales. l These three words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and the rest occur not in the Latine Copy of this Draught of the Creed But they are extant in Athanasius and in all our M. SS Copies Hence 't is manifest that many Bishops were at that time convened at Sirmium Indeed Phoebadius Bishop of Angolesm in France in the Epistle he wrote against this Draught of the Creed does expresly affirm that it was published in a Synod of Bishops The same is sufficiently confirmed by Athanasius in the forequoted place Lastly in regard Hilarius in his foresaid book does attest that this Creed after it had been dictated at Sirmium was forthwith sent to all the Eastern and Western Bishops to be approved by them he evidently shews it to have been dictated in a Synod Nor can the Draught of a Creed be any where dictated but in a Synod of Bishops Further that Germinius here mentioned was Bishop of Sirmium put into Photinus's See upon his being ejected in the year of Christ 351. Nicolaus Faber in his Preface to Hilarius's Fragments says that this Germinius had before been Bishop of Cyzicum which I do not believe That place in Athanasius in his Epist. ad Solitar pag. 860 where he reproves the Emperour Constantius because contrary to the Ecclesiastick Canons he would send obscure fellows born in remote countries to be Bishops in the Cities deceived that Learned man Athanasius's words there are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. So he sent Gregorius from Cappadocia to Alexandria And Germinius was by him sent from the City Cyzicum to Sirmium From Laodicea he sent Cecropius to Nicomedia From these words of Athanasius it cannot be concluded that Germinius had been Bishop of Cyzicum before Otherwise the same must be said concerning Gregorius and Cecropius that the latter had been before Bishop of Laodicea and the former in Cappadocia which in regard 't is evidently false in these two cannot be said of Germinius This Germinius was preferred to the Episcopate of Sirmium by the Arians because he was a most eager defender of their opinion This we are informed of by Athanasius in his circular Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya pag. 290. Vales. m In the Allat and Sfortian M. SS and in Epiphanius's Version these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and God occur in Athanasius and Hilarius they are wanting Vales. * John 20. 17. â Rom. 3. 29 30. â Substance or Essence â That is of the same Substance or Essence * That is of like Substance or Essence â Esai 53. 8. â See John 14. 28. â Matth. 28. 19. n In Athanasius it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that he might teach Vales. * See chap. 29. note b. o Epiphanius in Hârâs Photinian relates that Photinus after he had been condemned and deposed in the Synod of Sirmium for so the reading must be not in the Synod of Scrdica went to Constantius and requested that he might dispute concerning the Faith before Judges by him nominated and that Constantius enjoyned Basilius Bishop of Ancyra to undertake the disputation against Photinus and gave leave that Thalassius Datianus Cerealis and Taurus who were Counts should be Judges or auditours of that disputation Amongst these Thalassius was the chief person in favour and authority with the Emperour as Zosimus tells us in his second book And was sent Prefect of the Pretorium into the East together with Gallus Caesar in the year of Christ 351. He died in the year of our Lord 353 in the sixth Consulate of Constantius Augustus and in the second of Gallus Caesar as Amm. Marcellinus relates book 14. Therefore the Synod of Sirmium and the disputation of Basilius against Photinus cannot fall on the year of Christ 357 as Baronius asserts Besides Epiphanius says further that in Basilius's disputation against Photinus Callicrates was
very good coherence with the preceding sentence I conjecture that this place was transposed in the Latine Copies Therefore next these words a passage would be opened to the poisons of Hereticks those in my judgment are to be placed which follow a little after in this manner Constantine being present in this Consult in regard after a searching disquisition c. unto these words our Lord Jesus Christ. To which are to be subjoyned these Therefore Ursacius and Valens c. Vales. n At chap. 20 of this book note a. we have remarkt many things concerning this first Synod of Millaine wherein Ursacius and Valens having presented a Libel of satisfaction condemned the Arian Heresie The said persons confirm the same in another Libel which they presented afterwards to Julius Bishop of Rome at Rome in these words Haereticum vero Arium c. sicut per priorem nostrum Libellum quem apud Mediolanum porreximus nunc semper anathematizasse profitemur Vales. â Maimings * Understanding p These words are spoken against Ursacius and Valens and their followers who daily promulged new forms of the Creed hereby demonstrating that they had no certain Faith as Athanasius frequently objects against them Vales. * Taken away q Here I followed the Greek Translatour of this Epistle and corrected the Latine Copy For in Hilarius's Fragments the common reading of this place is this Ne vel permittat Clementia tua jura vetera convelli that Your Clemency would not permit the ancient Laws to be reversed In the M. S. Copy which Sirmondus had seen the reading is ne vel aliquid permittat clementia tua injuriam veterum convelli Whence we smelt out the true reading which we have exprest in our Version Vales. r Here the Greek translatour was grievously out for instead of credulity he has rendred it cruelty Vales. * Or have s The Greek Translatour of this Letter makes use of the term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Divinity here but in Athanasius 't is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Sanctity It is improbable that the Bishops should have said The Divinity of the Emperour Vales. t This Letter of Constantius's together with the answer of the Bishops at Ariminum is extant in Athanasius's book de Synodis near the close of it Vales. * Or perform u Socrates is here mistaken For Liberius was not banished and Felix the Deacon put into his See after the Synod of Ariminum but long befoâe in the year of Christ 356. Vales. * That is Ursacius's party x In the Kings M. S. which copy Robert Stephens followed and in Robert Stephens's Edition there are several words wanting in the text at this place we have made up this Chasme frâââhe ãâã and Sfortian M. SS after this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. embraced the Arian opinion and was preferred to that Bishoprick But there are some who affirm that he was not addicted to the Arian opinion but was by force Moreover Baronius maintaines that Felix the Deacon preserred by Acacius to Liberius's See never was an Arian but was defiled with the communion only of the Arians Theodoret affirms the same in the second book chap. 17. of his Eccles Hist. And so does Sozomon book 4. chap. 11. Vales. y The Embassadours of the Synod of Ariminum who were sent to Constantius having been corrupted by Ursacius and Valens held a Council at Nice a Town of Thracia on the sixth of the Ides of October in the Consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius In which Council they in the first place rescinded the sentence of Excommunication which the Ariminum Bishops had pronounced against Ursacius Valens and the rest and pronounced them to be and always to have been Catholicks Then they published an Haeretical Form of the Creed Part of their Acts are extant in Hillarius's Fragments pag. 452 c. where are recounted 14 names of those that were Embassadours Vales. a This place is in an especial manner to be taken notice of For from it we conclude that the Bishop of Constantinople had even then a right of ordaining throughout Hellespont and Bithynia before the Council of Constantinople was held The same is confirmed from the Acts of Eudoxius Bishop of Constantinople who made Eunomius Bishop of Cyzicum Indeed the Bishops of Byzantium had a very great addition of authority and power from the time that the Emperour Constantine gave that City his own name and ordered it should be equal to the Senior Rome Also Eusebius of Nicomedia after his translation to that See brought no small increase of jurisdiction to it For he was the most potent Prelate of his own times Further the Reader is to take notice that the reading should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã lying near to Constantinople so Epiphanius Scholasticus reads it Unless we should say that the words are transposed here as it frequently happens in these books and that the place is thus to be construed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Macedonius in Constantinople subverted the neighbouring Provinces c. Vales. * See chap. 16. of this book â That is the Bishop of the Novatians * That is the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist â Or Chests b Polybius says the same in the fourth book of his History and Strabo in his sixth book to wit that Ceras is a Bay near Byzantium so termed from its likeness to an Harts horn But Pliny calls a promontory by this name scituated in that Bay To whom agrees Amm. Marcellinus book 22. pag. 212. Edit Paris 1636. which place because the common reading of it is very corrupt and is not yet mended in our Edition shall be here set down by me as it ought to be read thus promontorium Ceras praelucentem navibus vehens constructam celsius turrim quapropter Ceratas appellatur ventus inde suctus oriri praegelidus i. e. and the promontory Ceras on which stands a Tower built very high which gives light to the ships wherefore that extream cold winde which usually arises from thence is termed Ceratas Thus I have corrected this place having followed the footsteps of the written reading for the common reading which is this promontorium Ceras pralucentem navibus vehens constructam celsius turrim quapropter pharos appellatur vetus inde fons Euripuâ pragelidus The Authour whereof was Petrus Castellus is without any sense It was the usage of the ancients to name the winds from those places whence they blew Thus the Athenians called the North-west wind Scironites because it blew from the promontory Sciron as Strabo relates After the same manner therefore that wind was by the Constantinopolitans called Ceratas which blew from the promontory Ceras Vales. c In the Allat M. S. and in Epiphanius Scholasticus this old man is called Auxonius But at the beginning of this chapter and in Socrates's first book he is named Auxano From this Auxano Socrates seems to me to have had all the stories throughout
of Gangra in the reign of Constantine the Great But he is confuted both by Socrates and Sozomen For Socrates makes that Synod to be later than the Seleucian and Constantinopolitan Synod But Sozomen places it after Eustathius's deposition which was done by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople Now Eusebius thrust himself into the Constantinopolitan See in Constantius's reign as 't is agree'd amongst all men Lastly Basilius in his seventy fourth Epistle which he wrote to the Western Bishops against Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia makes no mention of the Council of Gangra Whence 't is manifest that at such time as Basilius wrote that Epistle which he did in Vatenâ's reign the Council of Gangra wherein Eustathius was condemned had not been held Some one will peradventure say which is objected by Baronius that that Eustathius condemned in the Synod of Gangra was a different person from Eustathius of Sebastia But this is gratis dictum noâ is it founded on the authority of any Authour Vales. d I have rendered this place so as to refer these words to Ariminum to these they sent which Version of ours is confirmed by Athanasius in his book de Synodis pag. 905 his words are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Having written these things in Isauria they departed to Constantinople and repenting as it were of what they had done according to their usual manner they altered their Draught and when they had added some words to wit that the term subsistence should not be used in relation to the Father and the Son and the holy Ghost they sent this form of the Creed to thâse at Ariminum c. Which passage in Athanasius Socrates does seem to transcribe here Epiphanius Scholasticus and Christophorson have rendred this place to this effect Having done this they sent the Creed read at Ariminum together with its supplement c. Vales. * Constantinople e I perfected and mended this place from the Florentine and Sfortian Copies Concerning the Consecration of this Church it is thus recorded in Idarius's Fasti Constantio decimo c. In Constantius's Tenth and Julianus's third Consulate the Great Church at Constantinople was consecrated on the fifteenth of the Kalends of March. Cedrenus in his Chronicon says this was the second Consecration of this Church For it was first consecrated says he by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople But being afterwards ruined it was re-edified by Constantius Augustus and consecrated by Eudoxius See the Chronicon Alexandrinum where many passages in no wise trivial occur concerning this Consecration Vales. a I can scarce believe that Meletius was translated from Sebastia in Armenia to the Episcopate of Beroea For Sozomen and Theodoret and before them Jerome do affirm that he was translated from Sebastia in Armenia to the See of Antioch making no mention of his being Bishop of Beroea Theodoret says only thus much that upon Meletius's being promoted to the Bishoprick of Sebastia perceiving a contumacy in those under his charge he retired from thence to some other place Then therefore he went to Beroea as I conjecture but he presided not over the City of Beroea This mistake of Socrates's was perceived by Baronius at the year of Christ 360. Which he corrects so as to affirm that Meletius was translated from Beroea to Sebastia not from Sebastia to Beroea Which as I suppose is not true in regard neither Theodoret nor Sozomen have affirmed that concerning Meletius Vales. b This persons name is written sometimes with an e thus Meletius sometimes with an i thus Melitius See Eusebius's Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 32. note a pag. 138. a Translatours understood not this place And yet they might have been informed from Harpocration's Lexicon that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the term here used does signifie adulterate or counterfeit by a Metaphor taken from money which has a false stamp Socrates therefore calls Homoiöusios For so 't is to be written agreeable to the Florentine and Sfortian Manuscripts and the import of the term is that the Son is of a substance or Essence like to the Father an adulterate name because 't is corrupted and counterfeitly put instead of Homoöusios i. e. that the Son is of the same substance or Essence with the Father which is the name of the true and uncorrupted Creed Further the Acacians rejected as well the term Homoïousios as Homoöusios and retained only Homoâos i. e. like the Father and wholly abhorred the term Ousia i. e. Substance Vales. * That is that the Son is of a Substance or Essence like to the Father b This place is corrupted by a transposition of the words which may easily be rectified thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã from thence forward manifestly asserted the term Homoiousios whereas before this they had not openly owned it Nor do I doubt but Socrates wrote thus Christophorson and Musculus apprehended not the meaning of this place But Epiphanius Scholasticus's rendition of it agrees with our Version only instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and as many as the reading in his copy seems to have been ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for as many as which displeaseth us not Vales. * That is Adversaries or Opposers of the holy Spirit c In the Allatian Manuscript the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã about Hellespont Vales. â That is Like the Father * They termed them Anomoei because of their asserting the Son to be unlike the Father â They had this name in regard they maintained the Son to be made of nothing or of things which are not See Athanasius pag. 906. Edit Paris whence Socrates borrowed these names for these Hereticks * 1 Cor. 11. 12. â Or Fallacy d In the Allatian M. S. he is called Erennius where this whole passage is thus worded ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã i. e. At Jerusalem Cyrillus having been deposed as has been said Erennius succeeded in that Church after whom Eâracius and after him Hilarius But Jerome in his Chronicon calls him Irenius for this is the reading in the most correct copies and in Johannes Miraeus's Edition Maximus Hierosoâymorum Episcopus moritur Post quem Ecclesiam Aâiani invadunt id est Cyrillus Eutychius rursum Cyrillus Irenius tertiò Cyrillus Hilaâius quarto Cyrillus id est Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem dies after whom the Aâians invade that Church that is Cyrillus Eutychius Cyrillus the second Irenius Cyrillus the third Hilarius Cyrillus the fourth In Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus's Chronicon he is very corruptly called Arsenius Vales. Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem had at his death ordained Heraclius to be his successour But Acacius Bishop of Caesarea together with some other Arian Bishops slighting his ordination substituted Cyrillus in the room of Maximus being now dead This Cyrillus degraded Heraclius from his Episcopal dignity and reduced him to the degree of a Presbyter as Jerome relates in his Chronicon Vales. a The Arians asserted a tenet neer of kin to this of the Apollinaristae or Apollinariuns ãâã
Nicephorus For in the Kings M. S. which Robert Stethens followed and in the Florent and Sfortian M. SS this word is wanting Nor did Epiphanius Scholasticus meet with it in his Copy as 't is apparent from his Version For thus he renders it Quando etiam Consubstantialitatis nomen quod aliter se quibusdam habere videtur dicimus cautam interpretationem a patribus excepisse Vales. d We remarked before Socrat. book 1. chap. 8. note a. that the term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is by the Greeks used to signifie the Creed because 't was commonly learnt by heart But the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is useless here In my judgment it would be placed better after these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It is this in full Vales. * Here follow the names of those Bishops who presented and consented to this Libel e In the Sfortian M. S. it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Siculi which reading is truer than ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Sicclus It is the name of a City Situate in the East concerning which I have yet met with nothing Amongst the Bishops of the Acacian party who subscribed the Seleucian Synod Evagrius of Mitilene of the Province of the Islands is recounted Vales. f This is neither a Greek nor a Latine name In the Tripartite-History it is Barbabentus Vales. g Epiphanius Scholasticus terms him Isacius He seems to be the same person with him that is called Iâsaces in Basilius's 69 Epistle which is the Synodick Epistle of the Antiochian Council under Meletius He is recounted between Cosroës and Narses Vales. h Upon my warrant make it Hippi This Petrus was Bishop of Hippi a Province of Palestine He subscribed the Seleucian Synod together with the others of the Acacian party here recounted to wit Zoïlus of Larissa Eutychianus of Eleutheropolis as you may read in Epiphanius in Haeres Semiarian Hippos was a Town in Palestine thirty Stadium's distant from Tiberias Josephus mentions it in his own Life Vales. i In Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version he is called Arabianus Adrenâis very right For this is the Arabianus or Arabion Bishop of the Adraï who subscribed the Seleucian Synod amongst the Bishops of the Acacian party as Epiphanius relates in Heres Semiarian Where he is placed after Exeresius Bishop of Gerast and next before Charisius Bishop of Azotus Adra or Adraon is a City of Arabia under the Bishoprick of Bostra as Guillelmus Tyrius informs us 'T is certain Uranius Bishop of Adra is reckoned amongst the Bishops of the Province of Arabia in the first Constantinopolitan-Synod But in the fifth Constantinopolitan-Synod one Dorymenius is counted Bishop of Adra. Vales. k I should rather write it Lamurio agreeable to Epiphanius Scholasticus for 't is a name formed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which signifies Talkative A little after this instead of Aâetius the said Epiphanius reads Aëtius and so I found it written in the Florentine M. S. Vales. l This person is mentioned by Marcus the Deacon in his Life of Porphyrius Bishop of Gaza which you have in Surius Vales. m Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and we have rendred it accordingly Vales. a I doubt not but instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in his Consulate Socrates wrote ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the same Consulate that is in the Consulate of Jovianus Augustus and Varronianus that noble young Prince his Son Vales. * That is in Marshalling of an Army â Or to his present fortune * That is Valentinianus and Valens b I am of the same mind with Christophorson who instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã had declared for the Acacians read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã had dissented from the Acacians Which reading I have followed in my Version The reading may be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã separated from which is perhaps truest Nicephorus has altered this passage of Socrates thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã asserting the same things with the Acacians which is worst of all Vales. * Or drew him thither â Or Faith * This Creed occurs in Socrates's Eccles. Histor Book 2. chap. 10. a Musculus and Christophorson have rendred these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Paulo antea a little before as if it had been ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I am of the opinion that this place is faulty and by a small change is thus to be restored ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which before had a very mean repute but was then âândred more conspicuous and better known in the Synod at Lampsacus He speaks concerning Macedonius's Heresie which hitherto says he had been obscure and unknown but then in the Synod of Lampsacus it became most apparently known I doubt not but Socrates wrote agreeable to my emendation Concerning this Synod of Lampsacus see Baronius at the year of Christ 365. Vales. * Or Dagalaïphus a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Epiphanius renders it bella parabantur the War was prepared Christophorson following the sense rather than the words translates it Bellum gets câptum est the War was begun to be waged But in order to the expressing the significativeness and propriety of the Greek phrase it must be rendred Bella incubuerunt or belli vis grassata est the War was with all diligence taken in hand or the force of the War raged Vales. b Ammianus Marcellinus relates no such thing concerning Agilo and Gomoarius Procopius's Captaines He does indeed affirm that they revolted to Valens's side but says not that they were cut in sunder with Saws Marcellinus gives us this narrative only See Amm. Marcellinus book 26. pag. 328 329 Edit Paris 1636. that the Tribunes Florentius and Barchalba after the sight at Nacolia delivered Procopius bound to Valens And that Procopius was immediately beheaded and Florentius and Barchalba soon after underwent the same punishment Therefore what Socrates relates here concerning Agilo and Gomoärius and concerning Procopius's being torn in sunder is false Philostorgius also in his ninth book relates that Procopius was beheaded and that Florentius who delivered him to Valens was burnt Vales. c This place is corrupted as 't is evident In my judgment 't is thus to be restored ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and we have rendred it accordingly Vales. * Or Notary * See Socrates book 2. chap. 35. a In the Florentine M. S. the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã into Blasphemies which is confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version Vales. b The common reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã apprehend the scope or designe in the Florent M. S. it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã comprehend the designe Vales. c Socrates has done ill to place Eunomius's promotion to the Episcopate of Cyzicum in the Reign of Valens Augustus For Eunemius was made Bishop of Cyzicum under the Emperour Constantius in that Synod of Constantinople which was held immediately after the Synod of Seleucia as Philostorgius does in express words affirm
book 5. chap. 3 and Theodoret book 2. chap. 27 29. Eccles. Histor. which two Authours have recorded Eunomius's affairs with a far greater accuracy than Socrates has related them 'T is certain that in Valens's Reign Eunomius was banished by Valens because he was reported to be a favourer of the Tyrant Procopius as Philostorgius affirms So unlikely is it that he should have had the Bishoprick of Cyzicum then bestowed upon him Sozomen has followed Socrates's mistake in book 6. chap. 8. Eccles. Histor. Vales. d Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it should undoubtedly be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã when he was come thither I wonder this was not perceived by Chrystophorson For Epiphanius might have shown him the true reading who renders it thus cum illuc venisset when he was arrived there Vales. e In Civil and Military offices some persons were actually employed in bearing of them others were Vacantes that is persons that had the title of such an Office but were not actually concerned in the management of it we may term them titular Officers who in the Code are said to be proecincti honore otiosi cinguli So some Tribunos are termed Vacantes in Amm. Marcellinus as I have remark't in my notes on that Historian After the same manner those Bishops are termed Vacantes by our Socrates who had the bare name of a Bishop without a Church without a Clergy and people over whom they might preside Of the same nature almost are those who now a days are stiled Bishops in Infidel Countries such a one therefore was Eunomius when being driven from Cyzicum he resided with Eudoxius at Constantinople Which hapned in Constantius's Empire not in Valens's Reign as Socrates here relates Further after Eunomius's expulsion Eleusius 't is probable recovered his See again Vales. a Amm. Marcellinus relates that Valens laid siege to Chalcedon during his War with Procopius At which siege the Inhabitants of that City reviled him from the Walls and contemptuously stiled him Sabaiarius Small-bear-drinker Sabaia as Marcellinus describes it was a small sort of Liquour made of Barly very usually drank in Pannonia In which Country Valens was born see Socrates book 4. chap. 1. and therefore was by way of reproach called Sabaiarius or Sabiarius That this was the Pannonians usual drink Dio attests Lib. 49. where he says that the Pannonians fed upon a very mean diet that they had very little Wine of Oyle and that Barly and Millet was their food and drinke See Amm. Marcellinus book 26. pag. 325. Edit Park 1636 and Valesius's notes thereon pag. 324. b Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it should in my mind be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as I have exprest it in my Version But the Chalcedonians because of that Revolt of theirs were not only punished with the demolishment of their walls but had this infamous brand also set upon them viz. that no Chalcedonian should ever be preferred to any Office Isidorus Pelusiota book 1. Epist 485 does attest this in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Law prohibits the Carthaginians from bearing any Office On my peril make it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Chalcedonians For the Carthaginians have no concern with this place in regard they were not subjects of the Eastern Empire concerning which Isidorus here speaks Vales. c Sozomen mentions these Baths termed Constantianae in his Eccles. Histor. book 8. chap. 21. They were in the Tenth Ward of the City Constantinople as we are informed from the old description of that City Also Ammianus Marcellinus book 3. relates that Valens built a Bath at Constantinople of the stones of the walls of Chalcedon But Cedrenus and Zonaras do affirm that an Aquaeduct or Conduit not a Bath was built of those Stones Which relations do not contradict one another For an Aquaeduct is necessary for a Bath It was doubtless a very famous work whereof mention is made by Themistius in Oratione decennali ad Valentem and by Gregorius Nazianzenus in his 25 th Oration who very elegantly terms this Aquaeduct of Valens's a Subterraneous and Aërial River So also Themistius in his Oration entitled Amaâorium or de Regiâ pulchritudine ad Gratianum the passage wherein I will so much the more willingly annex here because the Oration is not yet Printed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Moreover in Socrates here I had rather read Carosianae than Constantianae For the Baths called Constantianae were built by the Emperour Constantius as their name does declare But the Carosianâ Baths were finished by Valens and dedicated after Gratianus's third and Aequitius's Consulate Vindalonius Magnus being then Prâsect of Constantinople as 't is recorded in Idatius's Fasti and by the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle They were named Carosianae from Carosia Valens's daughter as Sozomen attests book 6. And they were in the Seventh Ward of the City as the description of Constantinople declares Vales. d This is the Clearchus who was afterwards Consul with Richomeres in the Empire of Theodosius Concerning whom Eunapius makes mention in the Life of Maximus the Philosopher and says that he had first been Vicarius of Asia in the Procopian War and was afterwards made Proconsul of all Asia by Valens for the eminent service he had done in the War with Procopius Libanius has very many Epistles written to this Clearchus in his fourth and fifth book wherein he commends him highly and intimates that he had a Royal command over Asia He was Prefect of Constantinople in the Consulate of Modestus and Arinthaeus as we are informed from the Theodosian Code Vales. e Cedrenus and Zânarus call it a Nymphaeum But the Nymphaea are not the same with Baths as 't is apparent from the description of Constantinople For the Nymphaea are the Nymphâ Temples wâtered with pleasant Fountains as I have long since remarkt in my notes on Am. Marcellinus pag. 46. Vales. a 'T is false what Socrates here says that the Anastasian Baths at Constantinople had their name from Anastasia Valens's daughter and were erected by Valens They were built by Constantine The Great and from his Sisters name were called the Anastasian Baths Amm. Marcellinus tells us thus much book 26. pag. 320 Edit Paris 1636. Where he describes Procopius's Tyrannick design his words are these Idem Procopius diductus in cogitationes varias Anasiasianas Balneas Petit a Sorore Constantini Cognominatas the same Procopius divided into various thoughts went to the Anastasian Baths which had their name from Constantines Sister At which place in Amm. Marcellinus I have long since remark't in my notes thereon that Anastasia Constantines Sister was married to Bassianus Caesar. After my publishing of those my notes on Amm. Marcellinus there was a noble and Learned person in England who found fault with this Annotation of mine and has stifly denyed that Bassianus was ever created Caesur Upon what account therefore I was induced to affirm this I will in short here declare When the Emperour
Nothing occurs at this passage which may make us think this Matron's pennance was publick 3 in regard she is injoyned to fast and pray continually that may be understood of private satisfaction which she performed at home and in secret To which reasons of Valesius's a fourth may be added drawn from the Penitentiaries Office which was to take the Confessions of secret penitents to advise them the best way he could for their souls health to admonish and councel them but not to lay on them more than private pennance See note a in this chapter f In the original 't is thus exprest ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã has the same import here with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã That is in process of time or some time after this For Socrates's meaning is that this was the womans second confession Which is confirmed by Nicephorus and Sozomen who in his Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 16 words this passage thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Whilest she made her abode in the Church upon this account to wit of performing the pennance injoyned her by the Penitentiary she confessed that she had been debaucht by a Deacon It may also not unfitly be thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. But the woman came to the Penitentiary and detected c. Vales. g Here arises a difficulty to wit how this fact could come to the peoples knowledge if the womans confession were secret How also the Bishop could know this wicked fact who degraded the Deacon on account thereof My Sentiment is that the Penitentiary-Presbyter to whom the woman had confessed this impious act first sent for the Deacon reproving him before the woman and forced him to a confession of his crime then he made a report of the whole matter to Nectarius the Bishop by whom he had been set over the penitents and whose deputy he was in that Office For the Penitentiary heard confessions only and enjoyned pennances But the Bishop himself reconciled penitents Nor ought any one to make this objection viz. if we admit what you have said to be true it follows that the secrets of confession may be discovered I deny that consequence For the Penitentiary-Presbyter made known the Deacon's wickedness only to the Bishop the Matron's name he concealed Further the Deacon's degradation does plainly confirm what I have asserted For Nectarius the Bishop could not have deposed him had he not had intimation from the Penitentiary who had detected the Deacon of whoredom Vales. h The Learned Reader must have observed that there is nothing wherein the Romanists do more disagree amongst themselves than in their accounts of this fact of Nectarius Petavius in his notes on Epiphanius pag. 243 does maintaine that Nectarius abrogated publick pennance only but continued confession that is private confession for publick he says was never in use in the Church Valesius in his note at this place does assert that neither confession nor pennance were abolished by Nectarius but that the Bishop removed this particular Penitentiary-Presbyter only and that but for a time because of the discontented people's indignation One John Hasselius who is mentioned by Pamelius in his 98 th note on Saint Cyprian's Treatise de Lapsis worte a book on purpose to shew that Nectarius did but put the Penitentiary from his Office and abrogated not the Office it self But all these assertions are palpably contradicted 1 by the whole advice which Eudaemon gives Nectarius in this chapter to wit of leaving the people from that time forward to their own consciences 2 by the conference between our Socrates and Eudaemon which follows in this chapter wherein complaint is made of some inconvenience which the want of this Office would breed 3 by that which the History declares concerning other Churches who did as Nectarius had done before them not in deposing the same man for that was impossible but in removing the same Office out of their Churches which Nectarius had abrogated in his All these particulars are evident from this chapter in Socrates with whom Sozomen book 7. chap. 16. agrees and adds further that in his time he lived in the reign of the Younger Theodosius the same abolition did still continue and that the Bishops had in a manner every where followed the example given them by Nectarius But though the Romanists differ as you see in their Sentiments about this fact of Nectarius's yet they all unanimously agree in this to wit that Nectarius did not abrogate Auricular Confession The reason of their consent in this assertion is plain should it be acknowledged that Nectarius did abrogate Auricular or private Confession as 't is evident he did from the attestation both of Socrates and Sozomen it would enforce them to grant that the Greek Church at that time held not Confession as the Latine Church now doth to be the part of a Sacrament instituted by our Saviour Jesus Christ which therefore the Church till the worlds end hath no power to alter See M r Hookers Eccles. Politie pag. 343 c. Edit Lond. 1666. i From this answer of Socrates's to Eudamon 't is apparent that Nectarius's abolition of the Penitentiary-Presbyter's Office displeased our Socrates Whence we may evidently conclude what ever Baronius and Petavius have said to the contrary at the places before quoted that our Socrates was no Novatianist For had he embraced that Heresie he would doubtless never have sound fault with that Sanction of Nectarius's whereby he abrogated the Penitentiary nor would he have doubted to pronounce these words concerning the advice Eudaemon suggested to Nectarius to wit whether it were usefull or hurtfull to the Church for the Novatians never admitted either of penitency or of the Penitentiary-Presbyter Besides Socrates in this place terms the assembly of the Homoöusians barely and simply The Church which he would questionless never have done had he been a follower of the Novatian Heresie Vales. * Ephes. 5. 11. * Or could comprehend in their opinion thereof * See Socrat book 4. chap. 9. book 5. chap. 10. â See Socrat book 4. chap. 9. â Socrat. book 4. chap. 28. * That is the Eucharist â The Office of Presbyter * That is Marcianus * Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã at Angarum the reading must doubtless be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã at Sangarum so Epiphan Scholasticus and Nicephorus read it and the same reading occurs in Sozomen book 7. chap. 18. Vales. * Or Canon â That is Indifferent b This place is corrupted nor is this fault of a short standing For even in Epiphanius Scholasticus's age this mistake had crept into the copies of Secrates as 't is apparent from his Version For Epiphanius renders it thus Cum haec ab els tunc fuissetregular definita c. When this determination had at that time been made by them Sabbatius bound by his oath if at any time there hapned any discrepancy in the Paschal solemnity fasted by himself and by night celebrated the
solemn day of the Passover on the Sabbath and again mes with the whole congregation in the Church and partook of the Mysteries Christophorson has exprest the same sense in his Version Nicephorus also Eccles. Hist. book 12. chap. 31 has followed the same sense For he says that Sabbatius as often as the Christians differed from the Jews in the celebration of Easter was wont to fast in private by himself and to celebrate the Passover on the Paschal-Sabbath about evening after the Jewish manner Then on the Sunday following after the Solemn Vigills his usage was to celebrate Easter with the rest of the Christians or rather Novatians But this interpretation does in no wise please me For thus Sabbatius as often as the Jewish Passover differed from the Christian-Paschal-Feast could not have celebrated the first Paschal-solemnity with the Jews Then if Sabbatius always celebrated the first Paschal-solemnity on the Sabbath day at evening after the Jewish manner how is it possible that he could celebrate the Solemn Vigills in the Church on the same Sabbath-day For this is attested in express words by Socrates here and by Sozomen book 7. chap. 18. My Sentiment therefore is that the words in this place of Socrates are transposed and must be put into their Pristine order after this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is Sabbatius being bound by his oath if at any time a disagreement hapned in the celebration of the Paschal-Festival himself by way of anticipation fasted in private at home and celebrated the Passover And watching all night on the solemn day of the Sabbath again on the next day he went to Church together with the rest of the congregation and partook of the mysteries Sozomen does evidently confirm this our emendation in his seventh book chap. 18 where he sets forth the same thing much more clearly in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. But from that time Sabbatius following the Jews unless it by chance hapned that all persons as well Christians as Jews did celebrate the Feast of Easter at one and the same time fasted before hand aâ the manner is and celebrated the Paschal solemnity in private by himself according to the sanctions of the Mosaick Law But on the Sabbath from the evening to a fit time be continued watching and making the usuall prayers and on the day following met in the Church in common with the congregation and partook of the mysteries Sabbatius therefore kept the Paschal solemnity twice in one and the same year the first time with the Jews the second with the Christians unless it by chance hapned that the Christians agreed with the Jews in the time of celebrating the Paschal Feast Which could very rarely happen Vales. Our English-rendition of this passage agrees with the Greek Text in Rob. Stephens's Edition and that in this Edition of Valesius's * Galat. 4. 21. â Or approached * Colos. 2. 16 17. â Hebr. 7. 12. * See Euseb Eccles. Histor. book 5. chap. 24. note i. â That is those that kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon a But Socrates is mistaken For Polycarp did not suffer Martyrdom in Gordianus's reign but in that of Marcus Antoninus as 't is manifest from Eusebius and other writers 'T is certain that Irenaeus does relate in his third book against Heresies which piece he wrote during Eleutherius's presidency over the Roman Church that is in the times of Marcus Antoninus that Polycarp had at that time suffered Martyrdom Wherefore these words who afterwards suffered Martyrdom under Gordianus are rather to be placed a little above after these Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France For they are more accommodate to Irenaeus than to Polycarp But let the prudent Reader determine hereof according to his own arbitrement I know indeed that in S t Benignus Divionensis's Chronicle the Martyrdom of Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons is placed before Polycarp's For the Authour of that Chronicle does relate that Irenaeus after his Martyrdom appeared to Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna in his sleep and commanded him to send Benignus into the Gallia's But these are meer trifles Vales. * See Euseb Eccles. Hist. book 5. chap. 24. b He seems to mean the Syrians Cilicians and Mesopotamians who kept Easter with the Jews before the Nicene Council as Athanasius informs us in his Epistle to the Africans in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. in regard the Syrians Cilicians and Mesopotamians differ from us and celebrate Easter at the same time that the Jews keep it Those Eastern people therefore concerning whom Secrates speaks followed the Jews indeed in that they observed the fourteenth day of the Moon of the first month before the Aequinox But they celebrated not Easter on the same day whereon the Jews kept it but on the Sunday following Wherefore Athanasius says that they kept Easter at the same time with the Jews but not on the same day as his Translatour has ill rendred it Vales. â In the Greek 't is on the Sabbath c He means I think the Montanistae and Pepusiani who kept Easter indeed after the Aequinox But always fixt that Festival on the month Xanthicus or April before the eight of the Ides that is the sixth day of April as Sozomen attests book 7. chap. 18. Vales. * He means the Nicene Synod d To wit the Audiani For these Hereticks affirmed that the Nicene Synod first altered the Paschal solemnity as Epiphanius attests pag. 822. Edit Petav. Vales. * See Euseb Life of Constantine book 3. chap. 19. e Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã have the reading in the Florent and Sfortian M. SS is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to have so it is in Eusebius and so Epiphan Scholasticus read as appears by his Version Vales. f Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in my judgment the reading should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã although it embraces one and the same opinion concerning God Socrates's meaning is this all Religions and Sects have different Rites and Ceremonies although they entertain the same Sentiments concerning God But the following words do plainly confirm our emendation For Socrates adds for they that are of the same Faith c. Nicephorus also favours this our amendment for he has exprest this passage in Socrates thus For though all men are of the same opinion yet they observe not the same traditions throughout the Churches Vales. g Baronius at the year of Christ 57 and 391 accuses Socrates of a double mistake First because he says that the Romans fasted three weeks only in Lent before Easter Secondly in regard he asserts that in those three weeks Saturdays were excepted on which days the Romans fasted not As to the first Socrates's opinion is defended against Baronius by Halloixius in his notes on the 11 th chapter of Ireneus's Life pag. 678. That which makes me incline to Socrates's opinion is the authority of CAssiodorus who in his Tripertite History has put this passage in
he excited the Hunni to assist the Goths as Claudian tells us in his first book against Rufinus and in his second book he sets forth the same more clearly neer the beginning thereof But Sigonius in his tenth book de Occidentali Imperio where he makes it his business to relate this whole story speaks not one word concerning this irruption of the Hunni which negligence of his is inexcusable Vales. * See book 5. chap. 21. * Or a trouble or earnestness â This person was termed Chrysostom that is Golden-mouth â Or fitness to be a teacher * Or detract from * Or the Victory a Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which the Emperour c. A small fault but which being not perceived by Translatours led them into a great mistake For thus they have rendred it On the following Consulate wherein Honotius the Emperour at Rome and Eutychianus at Constantinople Governed the publick But ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifies Consulatum dare that is to publish or shew the Ludi Circenses on account of succeeding well in their Office of Consul Vales. See Socrat. book 5. chap. 29. note e. b Christophor son has rendered it ill thus Praefect of the Emperours whenas he should have translated it Praefectus Praetorio For in the Greek it must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The same mistake in the same word I have taken notice of before Eutychianus therefore was Consul and Praefectus Praetorio on the same year which was the common usage of those times as 't is apparent from the Theodosian Code Vales. a That conjecture displeases me not which came heretofore into my mind to wit that at this place instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Further Socrates and Sozomen do indeed affirm that John Chrysostome did not follow the Practise of the Civil Law For they say that he went from Libanius's School when it was supposed he would have pleaded causes and on a sudden betook himself to a quieter sort of life Notwithstanding there are those who do affirm that for some time he did plead Causes Which seems to be intimated by Libanius's Epistle which Isidorus Pelusiota records book 2. Epistol But that Epistle of Libanius's is I fear written to some other Johannes who then pleaded Causes at Constantinople and spoke a panegyrick there to Theodosius on account of his assuming his Sons to be his Colleagues in the Empire Now our Chrysostome who went from Libanius's School about the beginning of Valens's Reign neither left Antioch that Libanius who profest Rhetorick at Antioch might write Letters to him being absent nor could he praise Theodosius who at that time was not Emperour Nor can Libanius's words be understood of any other Emperour than of Theodosius who took in his Sons to be partners with him in the Empire However that Chrysostome did for some time practise the Civil Law is apparent from the beginning of his first book de Sacerdotio Vales. * Or Courts of Judicature b What Evagrius this should be who having left Libanius's Auditory long before Chrysostome had embraced a pious and Religious course of life 't is hard to determine For I cannot think it was Evagrius of Pontus who was afterwards a Deacon at Constantinople under Gregorius Nazianzenus and under Nectarius and thence removed into the Solitudes of Egypt Baronius at the year of Christ 382 calls this Evagrius Chrysostome's School-fellow Evagrius Junior Son of the most noble Evagrius a Citizen of Antioch and says that he went into the desart before Chrysostome and lead a monastick life under Diodorus and Carterius But I know not what authority Baronius had for this nor why he should term this person Evagrius Junior Unless perhaps he has called this person Evagrius Junior to distinguish him from Evagrius Senior the Antiochian whom he had made mention of before at the year of Christ 372 from Basilius Magnus's Epistle to Eusebius of Samosata the words whereof are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Presbyter Evagrius the Son of Pompeianus of Antioch who sometime went into the West with the Blessed Eusebius The Latine Translatour has rendred it Evagrius Senior whereas he should have translated it Evagrius the Presbyter concerning whom Hieronymus in the Chronicon of Eusebius writes thus Zenobia apud Immas haud longe ab Antiochia Vinciâur c. Zenobia is conquered at Immae not far from Antioch in which fight Pompeianus the Commander surnamed Francus sought most valiantly against her his family continues at this day at Antioch from whose race our dearest Evagrius the Presbyter descended Jerome makes mention of the same person in his book de Scriptor Eccles. And in my judgment this is the Evagrius Chrysostome's School-fellow whom Socrates mentions here For what Baronius writes concerning Evagrius Junior is founded on no authour Vales. c Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which is the Dative case the rules of Grammer do require it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã over the monasteries in the Genitive case the reading in Sozomen is the same as was also that in Epiphanius Scholasticus's Copy as appears from his Version Further Baronius following indeed the Greek Writers is of opinion that these Monasteries of Diodorus and Carterius were situated without the City But a Learned person who has lately published the Life of John Chrysostome in French does âffirm they were within the City Antioch to whom notwithstanding I cannot assent 'T is more probable that these Little Houses were placed in the Suburbs to the end that pious and Religious persons who were continually imployed in contemplation and reading of the sacred Books might be far remote from noyse and disturbance But what the same Learned person objects out of Theodoret to wit that Diodorus was continually conversant in Antioch and made a couragious resistance against the rage and force of the Arians does in no wise weaken our opinion For Diodorus as often as he pleased could easily come out of a Monasterie in the Suburbs into the City Vales. d Sozomen says the same of Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus to wit that he expounded the Sacred Scriptures ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã literally but avoided the more abstruse and mysticall sense Jerome says the same concerning him in his book de Scriptor Eccles. Extant ejus in Apostolum Commentarii c. his Comments upon the Apostle are extant and many other pieces belonging rather to Eusebius Emisenus's Character whose sense although he has followed yet he could not imitate his eloquence because of his ignorance in Humane or Secular Learning Jerom says that Diodorus has followed Eusebius Emisenus's sense that is his method in explaining the Scriptures Let us see therefore what sense Eusebius Emisenus has followed Jerome himself will inform us whose words concerning Eusebius Emisenus are these Magisque Historiam Secutus ab iis qui declamare volunt studiosissime legitur and having rather followed History he is
The sense of these words which are very corrupt is this Because the Priests have complained whilest they make Sermons to the people that the Bansatrices what the import of that word is I cannot find walk through the fields and recall the people from the Church Therefore we command c. See Baronius at the year of Christ 407 number 17. Vales. * Or the Catalogue of Consuls b Hence 't is that in the Fasti of Prosperus Idatius and Cassiodorus this year has only Manlius Theodorus Consul Eutropius's name being expunged Concerning Eustropius's death consult Zofimus Vales. a In my judgment this place is thus to be mended ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and took care that such as were his Relations c. This our emendation is confirmed by Sozomen book 8. chap. 4. in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and he made his Relations centurions and tribunes Had Translatours consulted this passage in Sozomen they would have rendred Socrates's words here more happily Vales. * Or made an innovation * That is Gaïna b This passage is thus to be worded ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã persons whom he look't upon as hinderers of his designes So Nicephorus expresses it Moreover of these two persons Aurelianus bore the Consulate on this very year with Stilichon Saturninus had been consul long before with Merobaudes in the times of Theodosius Senior Concerning whose praises Themistius speaks at large in his Gratiarum Actio to Theodosius on account of the Peace made with the Goths and on account of the Consulate given to the said Saturninus Vales. * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã making a feigned or disdainfull refusal * Constantinople c Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in a various manner we read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã severall men and so Musculus seems to have read Vales. * Or a multitude d I doubt not but Socrates wrote ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã after the men that guarded the Gates were slain not ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã after the pulling down of the Gates For on the foregoing day those that guarded the Gates had been slain by Gaina's Souldiers as Socrates has related a little before Vales. e The true reading seems to be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã cursorily concerning Gaïna Vales. f Advocates were heretofore stiled Scholastici as we are informed from Justinian's 74 th and 76 th Novell The words of Macarius in his 15 th Homily are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. He that desires to have a knowledge in Forensian Cases goes and learns the Abbreviatures And when he has been the first there he goes to the School of the Romans where he is the last of all Again when he comes to be the first there he departs to the School of the Pragmatici or Practicants where he is again the last of all and Arcarius or Novice Then when he is made a Scholasticus he is Novice and the last of all the Lawyers Again when he becomes the first there then he is made a President or Governour of a Province And when he is made a Governour he takes to himself an Assistant or Assessour See more in Franciscus Pithoeus's Glossary ad Novellas Juliani Antecessoris and in Meursius's Glossary in the term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. * In the year of Christ 401 See book 6. chap. 11. note c. * Or I look upon you in the same manner that I do behold the face of God a The passage in Origen wherein he disputes against those who affirmed God was endewed with an humane shape is extant in Theodoret in his Questions upon Genesis cap. 20 quoted from Origen's Comments upon Genesis Vales. b Johannes Launoius in his book concerning the true interpretation of the sixth Canon of the Nicene-Councill produces this passage in Socrates to prove that the Bishop of Alexandria ordained all the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons throughout all Egypt For he remarks that Theophilus did two things here First he made Dioscorus Bishop of Hermopolis then he ordained his two Brothers Clergy-men and joyned them to the same Dioscorus 'T was indeed Launoius's opinion that Ammonius and his brother were by Theophilus made Clergy-men of the Hermopolitane Church Which was also the Sentiment as I see of the Author of the Sacred Geography But in my judgment both these persons are mistaken For Theophilus made them not Clergy-men of the Hermopolitane-Church but kept them with himself and ordained them Clerks of his own that is of the Alexandrian Church This is attested by Socrates in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Two more of them be entreated to continue with him Besides the following words in Socrates do more clearly evince this for Socrates adds that being made Stewards of the Church by Theophilus in the first place they were displeased because being ravished from the Solitude they had no further leisure to mind the Monastick Philosophy But at length when they discerned Theophilus's incredible Avarice and desire of riches and percelved themselves vitiated by conversing with him they requested a dismission from him From which words the proof is sufficient that they converst with Theophilus and being as it were his companions and domesticks had an insight into his Vices and Rapines For they were the oeconomi that is the Stewards of the Revenue of the Church Moreover these Learned men were imposed upon by Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version who has rendred this passage in Socrates thus Quamobrem Dioscorum violenter tractum c. Wherefore he took Dioscorus by force and made him Bishop of Hermopolis Two more of them be intreated to dwell with him and although a Bishop scarcely prevailed having ordained them he made them Stewards of the Church Vales. c Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and they refused I read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã then they refused Vales. * Or wound in * Or blasphemous â Or exercised in â That is persons that affirmed God had an humane shape d Socrates conceals the true reason why those Monks termed The Long-Brethren were driven out of the Monasteries of Nitria by Theophilus For they were forced from thence because they were defenders of Origen whom together with his errours Theophilus had condemned in the Alexandrian Synod Socrates seems to have been imposed upon by some person that was an Origenist who favouring Ammonius and his Brethren had given Socrates a Narrative of that business otherwise than it really was Baronius not content to fix the Novatian Heresie upon our Socrates does openly call him an Origenist But we only say this that Socrates had this his relation from some one of Ammonius's friends I do not in the lest doubt but Theophilus out of a grudge and hatred towards Ammonius and his brethren made the Errours of Origen and the crime of Heresie his pretext only as he did afterwards frame the same calumny against John Chrystostome Vales. a So the holy Martyr Ignatius is usually stiled This term is differently accented in the Greek which makes
Chrysostome on the year of Christ 401 in the Consulate of Vincentius and Fravitus But I had rather place it on the year following For if it be true that Theodosius was then baptized as we have before related from Nicephorus which is indeed highly probable for Eudoxia would not have brought her Son into the Church of the Apostles had he not been baptized this reconciliation of the Bishops must necessarily happen on the year of Christ 402. For Theodosius Junior was born in the Consulate of Vincentius and Fraviâus which was the year of Christ 401 on the tenth of April For so 't is recorded in the Alexandrian Chronicle and in Marcellinus's which was put forth by Onuârius The reading in Sirmondus's Edition is false where it is on the eleventh of April Nor is it credible that he could be baptiâed except in the Easter of the year following If any one notwithstanding shall maintain that he was baptized a few days after his birth as Marcus seems to intimate in the life of Porphyrius we will allow this if he pleases But who can believe that Theodosius would have been brought into the Church by his Mother and placed at Chrysostome's knees before he was a year or ten months old Vales. * Or Arguments â ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a Baronius does at this place charge Socrates with a mistake because he has said that Epiphanius ordained a Deacon at Constantinople without the consent of the Bishop of that City Epiphanius had done that before indeed in the Diocess of John Bishop of Jerusalem as 't is manifest from Jerome's Epistles Sâcrates therefore and those that follow him being deceived by the likeness of the name thought that was done by Epiphanius in the Church of John Bishop of Constantinople This device Baronius has invented to excuse Epiphanius But who sees not that there is no reason why we should charge Socrates with a lie in those things which he himself was able to see For what had been once done already by Epiphanius in Palaestine why could it not afterwards be made use of by the same person at Constantinople For there was not so great a crime in ordaining a Deacon whom notwithstanding Epiphanius ordained not but by the entreaty of the multitude that stood by Vales. b Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I have nothing it must doubtless be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã having nothing in the next line we read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã were pleased instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is pleased Vales. c I agree with Christophorson who in stead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã saying read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã know and at the end of this clause placed a full point Notwithstanding 't is my opinion that there is something more wanting here And after the word Origen I think the place is to be made perfect thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã having said these words and produced a book c. Which is confirmed by Sozomen and Nicephorus And Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read thus as may be collected from his Version Vales. a Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the reading in the Sfortian M. S. is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. And so Epiphanius Scholasticus found it written in his copy For thus he renders it Sed quoniam detractores c. But in regard Revilers stealing privily upon many persons do reject Origen as being a blasphemous Authour I reade therefore ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã from reading Origen as being a blasphemous Authour Vales. b Baronius at the year of Christ 402 does charge Socrates here with a lie and with calumny because he has said that Methodius when he had before reproach't Origen did afterwards unsay what he had written and set forth his praises in his Dialogue intitled XenÏn or the House of entertainment But Baronius affirms that Methodius did the contrary For when he had at the beginning praised Origen afterwards having derected his Errours he inveighed against him Baronius confirms this by the testimony of Eusebius who in the sixth book of his Apologic in deâence of Origen writes thus Quomodo ausus est Methodius nunc contra Origenem scribere qui haec haec de Origenis lâcutus est dogmatibus How dares Methodius write against Origen now who has spoken these and these things concerning Origen's opinions Which paââage in Eusebius S t Jerome quotes in his Apologie against Rufinus to shew that he had done the same thing which Methodius did before But Eusebius in the place now cited does not say plainly that Methodius had heretofore spoken in defence of Origen For he does not say who had spoken these and these things concerning Origen's opinions but only who has spoken c. which may be taken on either side Therefore Socrates is not to be charged with a lie Vales. c Methodius wrote his books commonly in the way of Dialogues as 't is apparent both from his Convivium which is lately published by two Learned men and also from his books concerning the Resurrection which he had written against Origen out of which books Epiphanius produces some Excerptions Of the same sort also was this Dialogue of his entitled XenÏn that is the house of entertainment wherein strangers lodge For as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is a place for Virgins to dwell in so ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is an house for strangers to lodge in This book is mentioned in Photius's Bibliotheca in his Excerptions out of Methodius's book ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã where these words occur ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Which place the Translatour has rendred very ill it is thus to be translated That passage in the Gospel cast not that which is Holy to dogs nor your Pearls before swine is thus explained by XenÏn that by Pearls are meant the more secret Mysteries of the Religion given by God But the hogs c. the great Methodius says c. In this Dialogue therefore the title whereof was ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã an Origenist was introduced by name XenÏn against whom Methodius disputed not in his own name but under another person as Photius attests in the same Excerptions Hence 't is apparent that that Dialogue of Methodius's which Socrates calls XenÏn was the same to which Photius gives the title of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and that XenÏn is not to be taken for a place of entertainment but rather for a person of the Dialogue But some one will object that in that Dialogue intitled XenÏn Origen was highly commended by Methodius but in the Dialogue intitled ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Methodius terms him a Centaure For so 't is extant in two places in Photius's Excerptions My answer is 't is possible that in the beginning of that work Methodius might have been sharp upon Origen but in the end or procedure of it he might sound a Retreat as it were and praise him highly Notwithstanding if any one has a mind stifly
ipsum Athanasium hoc Canone utentes deponere nor thinking that by using of this Canon they deposed not only Johannes but even Athanasius himself Vales. f Christophorson thought these words were spoken concerning John who after this was withheld from entring the Church But I had rather they should be understood of the Emperour himself in which sense Epiphanius and Musculus takes them Our sentiment is confirmed by that passage in Socrates which occurs a little before in this chapter where he relates that Arcadius at the approach of Christmas gave John notice that he could not come into the Church unless John who had been condemned by the sentence of a Synod should first clear himself After the same manner therefore at the approach of Easter Arcadius gives John notice that he could not go to the Church as long as John condemned now by two Synods resided therein Vales. g This Edifice was called the Senate-house The Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle at the sixth Consulate of Honorius which he bore with Aristaenetus has these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã And on a sudden the Great Church was burns together with the Senate-house fired by those who held it termed the Xylocercetae on the second day at the sixth hour See Chronic. Alexandr pag. 714. Edit Monach. 1615. Zosimus describes this Structure about the middle of his fifth book It was in the Second Ward of the City Constantinople as we are informed from the Old description of that City published before the Notitia Imperii Romani Vales. h This if I mistake not is the Manichaean and Semipagan Praefect of the City who at the dedication of Eudoxia's Statue had mocked the Christians as we have related before see note a. in this chapter from Theophanes Palladius in the Life of Chrysostome speaks concerning the same Optatus that when he was Praefect of the City he compelled the Noble Matrons either to communicate with Arsacius who had been put into John Chrysostome's Bishoprick or else to pay two hundred pounds of Gold into the Exchequer Vales. * See chap. 15. â Or the destemper * Chap. 15. â See the close of the foregoing chapter a Instead of November it must be September as it is in the Sfortian M. S. and in Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version Nor did Nicephorus read otherwise who adds that the day whereon John Chrysostome died was dedicated to the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. For so it was agreeable that he who had passed his whole life under the Cross and had gloried in nothing but in the Cross of his Lord should be loosed from the Frame of his body on that Festivall as the same Nicephorus does elegantly write Vales. * chap. 3. b In what Homily this was said by Chrysostome I cannot find And yet we have little reason to question Socrates's authority because he lived in the same times and could have heard the Sermons as well of Chrysostome as of Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatians Moreover it may be more certainly concluded from this passage than from any other that Socrates was a Novatianist For he does both put an ill interpretation upon Chrysostome's saying and also openly favours Sisinrius Bishop of the Novatian party against John Chrysostome You must know further that this saying was objected to Chrysostome by Bishop Isaacius in the Synod ad Quercum because he gave sinners a liberty in regard he taught if you have sinned again repent again And as often as you sin come to me and I will heal you Vales. * Eccles. 9. 8. â Luke 9. 29. a In Suidas at the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã this whole passage in Socrates is transcribed where the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã âe answered is wanting Which word must either be expunged here as superfluous which we have done in our Version or else the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã subjoyned which went before must be blotted out Vales. * Or he hunts after words c. * That is a nutt-tree â Or the Space * This Appendix is part of the eleventh chapter of this book worded in a different manner only Musculus Grynaeus and D r Hanmer have omitted it in their Versions Christophorson Curterius and Valesius have inserted it in their translations The Greek Text of it occurs in Stephens's Edition and in Valesius's from which latter we have rendred it into English * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a narrowness of mind â Or gave not a He means the oath mentioned before at the 11 th chapter to wit if Serapion dies a Christian Christ hath not been incarnate Further these words condemns and excommunicates denote Severianus's menaces rather than the thing it self For Severianus Bishop of Gabali had no power of condemning or deposing a Deacon of another Diocess but he only threatned to do this and committed his complaint to the judgment of the Bishops Vales. * Or the honour â Or was not obedient to what c. â See chap. 11 at the latter end of it * That is Arcadius's Son * See Socrates book 2. chap. 1â a Nicephorus book 14. chap. 1. relates that this Anthemius enlarged the Pomoerium that is a space about the walls of a City or Town as well within as without which was not to be built upon of the City Constantinople demolished the old walls and built new onââ towards the Continent which says he are now standing and that he finished the work with an incredible swiftness to wit within the space of two months For so I render ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is walls to the Landward and not as Langus does Brick-walls But Nicephorus seems to be mistaken who attributes that to Anthemius which was done long after by Cyrus Praefect of Constantinople as Cedrenus relates in his Chronicon on the 26 th year of Theodosius Junior Further I would very willingly expunge this whole clause in our Socrates For it disturbs the sense and seems to have crept from the Margin into the Text. Vales. b This Troïlus the Sophista was one of Anthemius's chiefest friends as besides Socrates Synesius informs us in his Epistle to Troïlus Socrates mentions the same Troïlus at chap. 6. book 6. where he speaks concerning Eusebius Scholasticus who wrote Gaina's war in verse Suidas has mentioned the same person in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã where he affirms that he wrote Politick Orations and Books of Epistles Vales. c Instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã friendship the reading in the Florentine M. S. is truer thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã wisdom Which emendation is confirmed by Nicephorus Vales. Valesius in his account of the Life and Writings of Socrates and Sozomen reads ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Philosophy which alteration in the reading he makes in his Appendix to his Notes on Socrates and Sozomen * Book 6. chap. 20. * 1 Cor. 9. 22. â Or without prâmeditation a It would be more truly written Synnada with a double n. For so the
Christophorson thought because be saw mention was made of Acts by Evagrius that it followed immediately that these things were transacted in a Councill But the matter is not always so For whatever things were done in any affair may simply be called Acts although no Councill or judiciary proceedings intervened Vales. d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Article ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is to be expunged which is not acknowledged by Nicephorus Vales. e All other Authours relate that Mongus was ordained by one Bishop and he an Heretick So says Acacius in his Letter to Pope Simplicius and Felix in his Synodick Epistle to all the Monks and Archimandrites at Constantinople and in Bythinia The same is likewise attested by Theophanes in his Chronicon pag. 107 and by Gelasius in the Gesta de nomine Acacii Yet Liberatus affirms Petrus was ordained by more Bishops than one although he expresses not their number Vales. a This Letter of Acacius's is extant set forth in Latine amongst the Epistles of Pope Simplicius The same Letter is mentioned in Pope Felix's Epistle which contains Acacius's Sentence of Deposition Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã We have added the particle ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But from the Florentine Manuscript which particle casts a great light upon this place In the same Florentine Manuscript at the side of these words this Scholion was written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã That is This Authour does not say here expresly that Acacius was deposed by the Bishop of Rome but Theodorus and Basilius Cilix do manifestly affirm this Nicephorus book 16. chap. 17. attests the same concerning Basilius Cilix Further Our Evagrius is undeservedly reproved by that Scholiast because at this place he speaks nothing of Acacius's deposition Evagrius does here relate all things that were transacted in the Roman Synod which was convened in the year of Christ 484 against Vitalis and Misenus Legates of the Apostolick See In that Synod Vitalis and Misenus were indeed deprived of the honour of the Priesthood But Acacius was only reprehended and rebuked as 't is apparent from the Decree of the Synod here recorded by Evagrius After this Felix sent his Synodick Letters to Acacius wherein these words occurred Peccasti ne adjicias de prioribus supplica You have offended make no addition and supplicate for your former failings After receipt of which Letters when Acacius still stood out and committed Facts worse than the former Pope Felix the Bishops being a second time convened promulged a sentence of deposition against Acacius and directed it to Acacius by Tutus Defensor of the Roman Church which sentence begins thus Multarum transgressionum reperiris obnoxius You are found guilty of many transgressions That these things were transacted in this manner Pope Felix informs us in his Synodick Letter to the Presbyters and Archimandrites at Constantinople and throughout Bythinia For after he had written concerning Vitalis and Misenus and concerning Acacius who were condemned in the Roman Synod he adds these words Post illam sententiam quae in Acacium perturbatorem totius Orientis Ecclesiae dicta est c. After that sentence which hath been pronounced against Acacius the disturber of the whole Eastern Church being now also convened we have added to these Letters c. And a little after Unde nunc causâ Antiochenae Ecclesiae c. Wherefore being at this present convened in the presence of the blessed Apostle Peter on account of the Antiochian Church we do again hasten to declare to Your love the Custom which hath always obtained amongst us From which words it appears that this Letter was written by Felix in the name of the third Roman Synod which had been assembled on account of the Antiochian Church which after Calendion was ejected Petrus Fullo had invaded In this Synod therefore Felix had dictated the sentence against Acacius which begins thus Multarum transgressionum reperiris obnoxius You are found guilty of many Transgressions and had transmitted it to Acacius by Tutus the Defensor Nor can any one say that that sentence was pronounc't before in the Second Roman Synod at such time as Vitalis and Misenus were condemned but was sent a little afterwards by Felix by the Order of the Third Roman Synod For Evagrius refutes this who does not say that the sentence of deposition was pronounc't against Acacius in that Roman Synod wherein Vitalis and Misenus were condemned Besides Liberatus in his Breviarium chap. 18. does manifestly declare that that Sentence of Deposition against Acacius was pronounced long after the Condemnation of Vitalis and Misenus For hear what Liberatus says Redeunt aliquando Legati Sed praecesserant Monachi c. At length the Legates return But the Monks had gone before who in a grievous manner accused them of Treachery Having been forthwith heard and convicted from those Letters which they had brought they are removed from their own places And after some few words Ubi ergo ad plenum detectus est Acacius Haereticus c. When therefore the Heretick Acacius was fully detected Pope Felix put these words in his Synodick Letters you have offended make no addition and supplicate for your former failings Acacius having received these Letters persists in the same mind neither receding from Petrus's Communion nor yet perswading him openly to embrace the Chalcedon Synod and the Tome of Pope Leo. Pope Felix understanding this sent a writing of Condemnation to Acacius by Tutus the Defensor the beginning whereof is this You are found guilty of many Transgressions Vales. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the Florentine and Tellerian M. SS and in Nicephorus the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Loves not the Faith But it would be better written thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Thus Christophorson seems to have read and so we have rendred it At the Clause immediately foregoing instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For he ought if he had loved Zeno to have done this I would rather read thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Whereas if he had loved the Faith rather than Zeno he ought to have done this Vales. d After the Roman Synod which was convened on the account of Vitalis and Misenus and wherein Vitalis and Misenus had been condemned but Petrus and Acacius were only reproved and rebuked it was consequent that Evagrius should have spoken concerning the Sentence of Deposition pronounced against Acacius and sent to Constantinople by Tutus the Defensor And yet Evagrius has not done this here Whereof two reasons may be assigned For either this was done by Evagrius in reverence to the Constantinopolitan See or else because Evagrius had related that before from Zacharias Rhetor as may be seen in the eighteenth Chapter What therefore he had declared there he look't upon as superfluous to repeat at this place Vales. a I have made good this place from the Florentine M. S. in this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã after he had again Anathematized
Christophorson has rendred this place ill thus Vitam in aulâ Imperatoriâ degebat Lead his life in the Imperial Pallace Nicephorus also committed the same mistake who has expounded these words of Evagrius thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but as yet resided in the Imperial Pallace But in Evagrius it must be written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is aâ the Imperial City For so Evagrius is wont to call Constantinople as I have noted above Besides in the foregoing chapter he terms it so Vales. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Doubtless it must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and we have rendred it accordingly So also Nicephorus read for he has exprest Evagrius's words thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã at that time when he was driven from his own Monastery Yet I wonder that this was not perceived by the Translatours to wit Musculus and Christophorson Vales. * See Chap. 33. â Chap. 32. * Or Strength â Or Out of necessity forced to a compassion d Nay Anastasius lived seven years compleat after this Sedition Vales. * Or Justinus the First a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã That is Magister Officiorum Master of the Offices For so the Greeks do usually explain that dignity Nevertheless Jordanes in his Book de Successione Regnorum relates that Justinus was by the Senate elected Emperour not from his being Master of the Offices but Comes of the Guards To whom agrees the Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle and the Old Chronographer whom I long since published at the end of Amm. Marcellinus's History Procopius in his Anecdota pag. 28 speaking of the Emperour Justinus as yet a private person writes thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For the Emperour Anastasius had made him Comes of the Guards in the Pallace The same Procopius makes Justinus not a Thracian as Evagrius Cedrenus and Zonaras do but an Illyrian born at the Town Bâderianâ Theophanes also says Justinus was an Illyrian But I cannot enough admire at the Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle who although he makes him a Bederianite yet terms him a Thracian Vales. * Or With so great a dignity * Or Destroyes from amongst men a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Nicephorus book 17. chap. 1. instead of the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã making substituted ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã living But I am of opinion that Evagrius wrote ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã making his Residence and that the two former words were omitted by Transcribers The reading may also be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã pitching his Tent or dwelling Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã There were two Armies in the Court of the Roman Emperour who were called Praesentes in Greek ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã These were commanded by two Magistri Militum who were termed in Praesenti or Praesentales And in the Eastern Empire one of these Commanders was a Magister of Foot the other of Horse But in the Western Empire each of them was a Magister of Horse and Foot Concerning these two Magistri of the present Milice or Milice in waiting Malchus speaks in his Excerpta Legationum pag. 93. Moreover Jordanes in his Book de Successione Regnorum agrees with our Evagrius where he speaks these words concerning the Emperour Justinus Foedusque cum Vitaliano percussit c. And he made a League with Vitalianus and after he had sent for him made him present Master of the Milice and ordinary Consul See Meursius's Glossary in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the Fifth Action of the Constantinopolitane Synod under Menas pag. 751 these words occur ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. * Or Place c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the Tellerian M. S. this place is written thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Musculus renders this place thus in obscuriore quâdam Palatii januâ in a certain more obscure gate of the Pallace Christophorson translates it in this manner in portâ quâdam post Aulam positâ in a certain gate placed after or behind the Pallace Johannes Langus who rendred Nicephorus into Latine has translated it thus ad quandam in mediâ Aulâ Januam at a certain Gate in the middle of the Pallace He was minded belike to express that word which Nicephorus made use of to wit ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Greeks had two Gates in their Edisices which had no Cellars or Vaults The first of these which lookt towards the Street was termed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Porch-Gate as Harpocration informs us in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the second Gate was called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã because it was in the midst between the Porch and the Atrium or Court or else because it was in the middle between The ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã men's Apartment and The ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã womens Apartment as the Authour of the Etymologicon affirms Lysias mentions both these Gates in his Oration pro Eratosthene de Caede in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but having remembred that in that night the Gate between the Porch and Atrium and the Porch-Gate creak't I think it must be written thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Heliodorus in the close of his third book alludes to this place of Lysias when he says ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Which passage the Translatour renders thus Perstrepebat Ostium Atrii the Gate of the Atrium creak't Aelius Dionysius in his Lexicon in Eustathius on ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã pag. 862 says these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Greeks term the middle Gate ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã especially the middle of the two Gates as Aelius Dionysius affirms Which Gate also the same person stiles ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The same is affirmed by The Scholiast of Apollonius at his third book Let thus much be noted concerning the propriety of this word in the Exposition whereof Harpocration is mistaken see him in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã who from Lysias thought the import of it was ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that termed the sordid Court or Yard were the fowls were But we must now come nearer to the matter The words of Victor Thunonensis in his Chronicon are these Maximo V. C. Coss. Vitalianus c. In the Consulate of the most famous Maximus Vitalianus is said to have been killed at Constantinople within the Pallace in a place which by a Greek word they term The Delphicum by the faction of Justinianus the Patricius Further The Delphicum was an House in the Pallace at Constantinople wherein were the Stibadia see book 5. chap. 13. note a. of the Emperour it was so termed from The Delphick Table whereon drinking Cups were wont to be placed as Procopius informs us in the first book of his Vandalicks pag. 116. The Delphicum therefore was The House of the nineteen places to lye down on and banquet near to which was a spacious Atrium or Area as we will declare hereafter at our Annotations on book 5. chap.
âe of money and iâsatiâbleness â Or ââseemly â Or Desirous * Or Having coloured over inexcusable Praetexts â Or Forged any familiarity or mixture that is an act of uncleanness * Or Absurd a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã S t Henry Savel has expunged the particle ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã out of his Copy But I am of opinion it is to be retained here provided the words be only transposed in this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in so much that he erected many holy and magnificent Churches every where Vales. * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that most spatious Temple of the Church â ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Temple of the Sanctuaries â See Evagrius Book 2. Chap. 3. note b. * Or Arch. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Some one will âerâ haps ask what this word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã empâââ m ãâ¦ã For Evagrius says that the Arches or Vaults arose empty from the Pavement to the top In this place therefore we are to understand that the Arches were open upheld by no Columns Procopius in his first Book De Aedificiis attests this concerning two of the Arches only ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but two of the Arches were raised up into the empty Air at the rising and at the setting Sun Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Translatours have rendred this place very badly Musculus turns it thus In dextro Latere ad Sinistram ordinatae sunt in illis Columnae In the right side on the left hand Columns are placed in them Christophorson interprets it in this manner In dextro latere sunt homini ingredienti ad Laevam Columnae ordine locatae In the right side on the left hand to a man going in Pillars are placed in order c. They were led into a mistake by the omission of one Conjunction to wit ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and which is wanting in Robert Stephens's Edition which we have put in from the Florentine M. S. in this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã On the right hand and on the left c. It remaines now that we explain what those words mean which follow next viz. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Evagrius himself therefore shall be his own Interpreter who in his first Book chap. 14 describing the sacred Church of Symeones the Stylite says it consisted of four Portico's But by Valesius's favour Evagrius's words in that Chapter are these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã beautified with Portico's of or at the four sides And then he adds these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. That is opposite to or near to those Portico's are placed Pillars wherefore at this place instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I would more willingly read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to wit by understanding the term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Arches Vales. c These Hyperâa Galleries or Upper Rooms were designed for the women that being therein placed apart by themselves they might behold the solemn performances of the Divine Service as Paulus Silentiarius relates in his description of Saint Sophia which Authour says that those upper rooms or Galleries were upheld by six Columns of Thessalick Marble whereas nevertheless there were only two Columns below which upheld the Galleries pag. 110. Paulus terms them ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the womens Hyperâia in like manner as our Evagrius does here and also Procopius in his first Book where he describes this Church of Saint Sophia although Procopius rather terms them Porticus's Vales. d By these words Evagrius sets forth the difference which was between the Columns of the Church of Saint Sophia For he says that the Columns which were at the right and left side of the Church that is at the North and South had Galleries or Chambers laid upon them out of which the Faithfull might behold the Sacred Mysteries which were celebrated at the Altar But the Columns which were placed at the East and West upheld no Gallerie but were left naked It was my sentiment that these things were to be more largely explained for this reason because I perceived Translatours especially Christophorson saw nothing here Vales. â Or gate e ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã He means I suppose the most Easternly part of the Church which because the whole Structure was a Tholus must be almost Semi-circular or made in the form of a Shell * Or depth f In Robert Stephens's Edition as likewise in this of Valesius's there is an imperfection in the Greek Text here Curterius Grynaeus Christophorson and D r Hanmer in their Versions have inserted this number Sixty six from what authority I know not Musculus and Valesius leave a Blank here in their Versions the latter of whom says nothing concerning this imperfection in his Notes g See if you please the description of Saint Sophia's Church which Franciscus Combesisas a person that deserves well of Learning has lately published page 254. Paulus Silentiarius describes these Windows in his Ecphrasis which the most Learned person Carolus de Fraxino hath newly published and Procopius in his first Book De Aedificiis Vales. h Sozomen says the same in the close of his second Book of Ecclesiastick History But which is to be taken notice of neither of them neither Evagrius nor Sozomen do affirm it was peculiar to the Constantinopolitane Bishops that they in like manner as were the Emperours should be buried in the Church of the Apostles but they speak in generall concerning the Bishops Indeed Nicephorus book 8. chapter the last does expressly attest that not only the Constantinopolitane but other Bishops also who for sanctity of life had excelled others were interred there For it often hapned that Bishops either sent for by the Emperours or making a journey to the Imperial City on account of Ecclesiastick affairs ended their lives there Thus in the times of Anastasius Alcissus and Gajanus died at Byzantium and by Marcellinus in his Chronicon are recorded to have been buried in one Sepulcher Vales. * Or Towards the Faction in the blew colour a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In Robert Stephens's Edition the verb ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is wanting which the Geneva Printers have inserted unhappily from the conjecture of Christophorson and others But from the Tellerian and Florentine Manuscripts I have mended this place thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c There was also another thing c Which emendation Nicephorus confirms For instead of these words of Evagrius he substitutes these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. * See Chap. 13. â Manifestly or openly â ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã those of the Blew â ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the term signifies originally a Nerve or Sinew it imports also a Bow-string or Rope * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Valesius renders these words Prasiniani the greencolouredfaction â Justinian a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Instead of the Verb ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã easily believing which undoubtedly is corrupted Nicephorus makes use of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã disbelieving And
mind with Sir Henry Savil who hath noted in his Copy that perhaps it should be written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. â 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Doubtless it must be written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. And Lastly by those c. For 't is referred to the foregoing words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 â 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In my Annotations on the Excerpta Legationum out of Dexippus I have long since remarked that at this place the reading must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã from the Scythick Wars For Dexippus wrote the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Eustathius Epiphaniensis wrote a Chronologicall Compendium of affairs from Aeneas till the Emperour Anastasius in Tomes At my perill write ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in two Volumes or Tomes I have Evagrius's authority here for this Emendation Vales. g ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I think it must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. â Or Benevolence * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã pride or voluptuousness â Viz. Piety â Shewed or brought * Viz. Imperial Dignity a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In Nicephorus book 18. chap. 8. the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
to weddings should wear Crowns in like manner as did the Bridegrooms Besides the words next following do confute this reading For Evagrius adds that they were magnificently clothed for this reason because they might more easily be distinguished or known But that can have no relation to Crowns For they could not be known or distinguished by the Crowns which they wore Vales. * More prosperous or fortunate â Or Pomp. b Concerning this Demophilus Suidas writes in his Lexicon in transcribing of whom Vossius in his book de Historicis Graecis was satisfied and has added nothing further But in regard I have had an account of his Country and way of writing in favour to the Studious I will here annex it That Damophilus therefore or Demophilus here mentioned was a Native of Bithynia who wrote severall usefull stories and passages out of the books of the Ancients as Julian informs us in his Misopog ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Such writings were composed by Damophilus the Bithynian of which he made a Collection out of various Authours and composed Relations that were very pleasing both to the Younger and the Elder Student I am sure Julian at that place produces a certain passage which that Damophilus had Collected out of Plutarchus Chaerânensis in like manner as our Evagrius does here Vales. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã uttered a plain saying I had rather read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã uttered a wise saying as Christophorson seems to have read Further the place of Plutarch which Evagrius means here is extant in his book de Fortuââ Romanorum not far from the beginning Vales. â Rome â Popular or Plebeian * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the originall import of this term is a government managed by many and those of the noblest Rank but 't is taken metaphorically here for a company of thoughts of the best sort â Mauricius * Or Confessedly * Book 5. Chap. 20. * Or A free Custody * Or Alive â Or Troop * Or Hill * Or Antipathy â Or Necessary a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã These words are to be understood concerning the Edicts published by Priscus For the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã shows that which term has that import and signification I have mentioned Theophylactus confirms our Exposition book 3 chap. 1 whom by all means consult Vales. * Or Patient sufferance b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Musculus renders it equum Vâhicularem an Horse belonging to the Carriages Christophorson translates it Vectarium a Chariot-horse These Horses the Latines termed Veredos because they conveyed the Redae as Festus tells us Evagrius uses this word again at the fifteenth chapter of this book Where see what I have observed at note a. Vales. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In Nicephorus chap. 11. book 18. the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã with a mistake on the other hand For it must be wâitten ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For there were two Phoenice's that were Provinces the one termed Libanensis the other Maritima Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I doubt not but it should be written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is quantum in ipsis erat as much as they were able to do it Nicephorus confirms our Emendation who instead of the foresaid words of Evagrius hath substituted these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as much as in them lay In the Tellerian M. S I âound it plainly written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Vales. * Or Pretended they would kill him â Or Preserve a fidelity to them * Or Those who commanded an hundred or ten â Or Moderation c The Translatours understood not this place For Musculus renders it thus Et erga Municipes quidem multò moderatiââ quà m Barbari faciâbant Erga socios verò belli Reipublicae Ministros admodùm aliâno erant animo And towards free-denizons or those of the same Country they behaved themselves with much more of Moderation than the Barbarians did but towards their Companions of War and Ministers of the State they were of a mind quite different Christophorson has also rendred it in the same manner But Johannes Langus who turned into Latine Nicephorus Evagrius's Compilator has expounded this place far better thus Et mitiores quidem illi in vectigales and they were indeed more mild towards the people who paid Taxes and Tributes than the Barbarians are wont to be But they were very far from being Maintainers or Defenders of the Republick or what ever else I may stile them Nicephorus instead of these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Fellow-Souldiers and Servants of the State had substituted these ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But they were very far from being Maintainers c. Whence it appears that Nicephorus understood not the meaning of these words of Evagrius ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Servants of the State The Militia amongst the Romans from the times of Augustus was a kind of temporary servitude Whence also the Souldiers were marked with brands on their skin in manner of Servants as Vegetius informs us Moreover the Missio Militaris or Military discharge does plainly answer the Manumission or making free of Servants Suidas or rather a certain old Writer in Suidas in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã tells us that Souldiers were under Servitude as long as they were in Pay So also Petrus Chrysologus in his fifteenth Sermon de Centurione Vales. d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I agree with Musculus and Christophorson who have mended it thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For Musculus renders it in this manner nec deputatis Mansionibus contenti erant nor were they contented with the appointed Mansions As often as the Roman Army was about making a long march an Edict was published long before wherein all the Mansions in which the Souldiers were to stay were set forth as Lampridius informs us in Alexander Severus Itinerum dies publicè proponebantur The daies of the Marches were publickly set forth in such a manner that an Edict was hung up two months before wherein 't was written on such a day at such an hour I shall go out of the City and if the Gods please shall stay in the first Mansion Then at the Mansions in order then at the Fortified or standing Camps then when the Annona is to be received and that also Till such time as we are arrived at the Borders of the Barbarians The Inns also or Houses wherein the Souldiers either going to or returning from an Expedition were to stay were set out by the Mensores or Quarter-masters as Vegetiââ informs us in book 2. chap. 7 and the Emperours likewise in the Theodosian Code Tit. de Metatis Vales. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã any one to be a friend to him The same likewise is the reading in Nicephorus save that he for perspecuitie's sake hath added these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã either by descent or affection Yet Musculus and Christophorson have rendred it favere to
Christophorson translates it in this manner Quo regnante eas Relationes Composuimus idque eo ipso tempore quo Theodosium in Lucem edidit during whose Reign we composed those Relations and that at that very time wherein he brought to light Theodosius Christophorson was of opinion that the reading here ought to be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But this emendation is not to be endured For Evagrius had not composed that Work of Relations during the Reign of Mauricius but whilst Tiberius Constantinus was Emperour as he himself affirms a little above Therefore I had rather retain the common reading here by understanding the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Relation or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Discourse For when the Emperour Mauricius's Son Theodosius was born Evagrius wrote an Oration to the Emperour Mauricius wherein he congratulated with him on account of the Birth of his Son and foretold the highest felicity both to Mauricius and the Roman State because Mauricius had abolished the old Reproach of the Roman Empire and had at length begotten a Male-child For none of the Roman Emperours who had Reigned in the Eastern parts even from the times of Theodosius Junior had begotten Male-children Evagrius therefore says that on account of this Oration he had been rewarded by Mauricius with the Codicills of a most ample Praefecture Vales. h The most noble Theodosius was born in purple on the third year of Mauricius's Empire on the twenty sixth of the month September and therefore on the fourth Indiction which had begun from the Calends of the September of this year The same Theodosius was afterwards Crowned Augustus by his Father Mauricius in the eighth Indiction on the twenty sixth of the month March when he was four years and an half old as Theophanes relates in his Chronicon pag. 225. Vales. * That is Without setting forth what Chapter it is viz. the 20 th 30 th c. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã So Graecians are wont to inscribe their Books written concerning any one's Life Philostratus gave his Books concerning the Life of Apollonius Tyaneus this Title ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Philostratus's eight Books concerning the Life of Apollonias Tyaneus So also Marcus Antoninus entitled the Books concerning his own Life ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã twelve Books of Remarks upon himself 'T is further to be noted that although these Books have this Title concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine yet all things are not contained therein which were performed by that Emperour but those matters only are described which relate to true piety and the Glory of the Christian Religion Whereof Eusebius gives an express advertisement in the beginning of this book chap. 11. Vales. b At this place Robert Stephens has added these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã five Books what Copies he followed I know not For these words occur not either in the King's Copy or in the Old Sheets Neither are these words to be found in the Fuketian Manuscript 'T is certain this Work concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine consists only of four Books which is also attested by Photius But because Eusebius had added three small Pieces to wit the Emperour Constantine ' s Oration to the Convention of the Saints the description of the Church at Jerusalem together with the Sacred Presents there Dedicated by Constantine and a Panegyrick spoken at Constantine ' s Tricennalia hence it came to pass that this Appendix was by some taken for a Fifth Book Indeed the Index of the Chapters which is prefixt before Constantine's Oration to the Saints in the Fuketian Manuscript has this Title ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Chapters of the Fifth Book But in the Kings Copy the Indices of the Chapters are omitted and this Title is written at the side though in a more modern hand ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the beginning of the Fifth Book Vales. * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Second and Third Decade of years 'T was usuall with Emperours to celebrate solemn Feasts and Pastimes for joy they were arrived at the 10 th 20 th or 30 th year of their Reign the Feasts for their tenth year were termed Decennalia those for their 20 th Vicennalia and them for their 30 th Tricennalia a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã with Vicennalian Hymns This Oration spoken by Eusebius in Constantine's Vicennalia is not now extant We can only affirm this of it that it was spoken in the Nicene Synod in the presence of the Emperour Constantine as Eusebius attests in the following words but he tells us this very thing much more plainly in book 3 chap. 11. Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we have platted him Tricennalian Crowns of Orations He means The Tricennalian Oration concerning the praises of Constantine which Eusebius had annexed at the close of his books concerning the Life of Constantine as he himself attests book 4. chap. 46. Nevertheless in the Fuketian Manuscript this Oration is prefixt before Eusebius's Books of the Life of the Emperour Constantine Which is very right indeed if we respect the time wherein this Oration was spoken but 't is Contrary to the opinion of the Writer himself who ordered that Oration to be placed at the close of these books Vales. * Or Our Oration is c. See chap. 2. note c. â Aspect or Sight â ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã S r Henry Savil hath noted at the margin of his Copy that perhaps the reading should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã understand ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã with our Oration is self The same thing came also into my mind before I had procured S r Henry Savils Copy 'T is the same with what Eusebius says in the following chapter ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and converst with us our selves in a most admirable manner But after a more diligent inspection into the thing I am now of another opinion Nor do I doubt but Eusebius wrote thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã accompanied or conversing with Imperial Majesty her Self which is a most elegant expression For he makes Imperial Majesty a kind of Goddess as 't were whose inseparable Companion he says Constantine was after his death in regard he conversed above with God the supreamest of Kings but reigned on the earth in his Sons Questionless whosoever shall read the following words with attention will never doubt of this Emendation Vales. * Or Pertook of the honour of Gaesars â Or Virtue of Religion a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The reading in the Old Sheets is truer thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and we have rendred it accordingly In the Fuketian Manuscript the four former words are wanting and there is a blankspace left capable of one or two words only Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the Fuketian Manuscripts this place is written thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. But I had rather retain the ordinary reading only I would alter the punctation For I am of opinion
and has affirmed that that is expressly recorded by Athanasius in his book de Synodis But Baronius was imposed upon by the Latine Version which runs thus Tom. 1. pag. 873. quòd si ad hanc rem usus Synodi deâideratur supersunt Acta patrum nam neque in hâc parte negligentes fuere qui Nicaeae convenerunt sed ita accuratè scripscrunt c. But if the use of the Synod be wanting to this matter the Acts of the Fathers are to be had For those convened at Nicaea were not negligent even in this matter but wrote so accurately c. But in the Greek Text there is no mention of Acts for thus it runs ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is the Writings of the Fathers are to be bad to wit the Creed the Canons and the Synodick Letter There is another passage of Athanasius in his Epistle de Decretis Nicaenae Synodi pag. 250. whence it may be manifestly gathered that there were no Acts written For thus he speaks Quandoquidem tua dilectio ca nosse desiderat quae in Synodo c. In as much as your love desires to know those things which were done in the Synod I have made no delay but have forth with signified to you whatever was done there c. Now if the Acts had been taken in writing by the Notaries Athanasius had done enough had he transmitted those Acts to his friend Vales. a These words must be interpreted favourably For the twentieth year of Constantine's Empire was not yet compleated nay scarce begun For the twentieth year of his Reign began on the eight of the Calends of August when Paulinus and Julianus were Consuls which was the 325 th year of Our Lords Nativity But the Nicene Councill was celebrated on the twentieth of the month May in the same persons Consulate as Socrates writes in the thirteenth chapter of his first book or rather on the 13 th of the Calends of July on the 19 th day of the month Desius which by the Romans is termed June as it occurs in the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill in the Alexandrian Chronicle and in the Collectio Cresconiana Which I think to be truer For if we suppose the Nicene Councill to have been convened on the 20 th day of May too narrow a space of time will be left for the transacting of those affairs which Constantine performed after his Conquest of Licinius Licinius was vanquished in the last Battle at Chalcedon on the year of Christ 324 on the 15 th of the Calends of October as 't is recorded in Idatius's Fasti and in the Alexandrian Chronicle On the day following Licinius who had betaken himself to Nicomedia surrendred himself to Constantine the Victour After this Constantine made his Entry into Nicomedia whilst he made his residence in that City and hastned to take his progress into the Eastern parts he received the news concerning the dissention of the Alexandrian Church and all Egypt on account of the Opinion of Arius and the disturbances of the Mâletians as he himself writes in his Letter to Alexander and Arius And in the first place he sent Hosius with his Letters to Alexandria who by his authority might compose the Tumulâs theâe But after Hosius had staid some time at Alexandria he returned to Constantinoââe without having effected any thing All which businesses could not any wise have been done within less time than three months Further when Constantine saw the mischief increase daily he resolved upon convening a Generall Councill of Bishops that thereby he might restore Peace to the Church In order thereto he dispatch't away the Veredarii Couriers and Agentes in Rebus Messengers of the Emperour thorowout all the Provinces who might call together the Bishops to Nicaea of Bythinia Let us suppose therefore that the Veredarii had brought the Emperour's Letters to each of the Bishops in the month March 't is scarce credible that the Bishops could come into Bythinia from the most distant Countries as well of the East as West before the month July especially in regard they were conveyed thither by Land not by Sea as Eusebius tells us chap. 6. The Greeks do usually term the seventh Sunday after Easter that namely which immediately precedes Whitsontide ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Sunday of the holy Fathers or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of the 318 holy Divines which were at Nicaea as we are informed fâom The Typick of the Monastery of Saint Saba Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the same manner he joyns them both together a little above where he speaks of Constantine's entrance into the Synod ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã are the Hastati or the Protectors who carried Spears Themistius in his Oration to the Emperour Jovian writes that he went an ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a Spear-Carrier against the Persian that is a Protector Domesticus as we understand from Amm. Marcellinus The ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã were the Scutati Shield-Bearers to wit Souldiers who were under the Command of the Magister Militum praesentalis or Master of the Milice who lived at Court or in the presence of the Prince Vales. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must be made ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã together with the Emperour as Christophorson seems to have read and so 't is plainly written in the Fuketian Copy Theodoret confirms our Emendation book 1. chap. 11. in these words which do wonderfully explain this passage of Eusebius ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and having ordered many Stibadia to be made ready He feasted them all in one and the same place the more honourable of them he took to his own Table but distributed the rest upon other Stibadia A better Scolion could not have been placed at Eusebius's words Those which Euscbius had termed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for so 't is to be read from the King 's and the Fuketian Copy Theodoret calls ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is Stibadia or Accubita Nicephorus's Translatour renders it toros which is ill done Nor has Theodoret's Translatour done better in translating it Sâdes Seats Suidas interprets ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a Bed lying on the ground an Accubitum The words of Juvenal's Scholiast at the fifth Satyr are these apud veteres Accubitorum usus non erat sed in Lectulis Discumbentes manducabant amongst the Ancients there was no use of the Accubita but they lay down upon little Beds and eat Vales. * That was heretofore the usual posture at Feasts d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I think it must be written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã on both sides Than which Emendation nothing is more certain Eusebius says that the Stibadia were placed on both sides of the Imperial Hall whereon the Bishops might lie down but that the Emperour's Stibadium was in the midst whereon he lay down together with the more honourable Bishops After the same manner in the Nicâne Synod the Seats whereon the Bishops sate were placed on both sides but
He proceeded to others Christophorson translates it reliquas aggressus est statuas He set upon the other Statues In the same sense namely with that Eusebius had said above ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã he was revenged another way Vales. * Walk't up and down in or was conversant in a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã So Themistius does likewise term Constantinople in his 16 th Oration about the close of it to wit on account of the Beauty and Magnificence of the publick Works which Constantine had most gorgeously erected there For he had spoiled all Cities Towns places and Temples that he might beautifie that City which bore his own name Therefore Jerome has with good reason affirmed in his Chronicon that Constantinople had been dedicated by the nakedness of almost all cities Vales. b Concerning this Temple of Venus Aphacitis Zosimus is to be consulted in his first book and the Authour of the Etymologicon in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as also Suidas in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and M r Selden in Syntagm 2. de Diis Syris Further in the Fuketian Manuscript the reading here is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of Mount Libanus in Aphaca But in the Kings Sheets 't is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in part of the Top of Libanus which Top is in Aphaca Vales. * Sloth or pleasure â Or Dignity â ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Valesius renders it muliebria patientes * Or Copulations of women â Horrible c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Doubtless it must be made ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã without a Governour as the reading is in his Panegyrick chap. 8 â where this whole passage occurs Yet in the Fuketian Copy 't is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã deserted in the Panegyrick also A little before it must be made ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as the reading is in the Panegyrick Vales. * Or Instruments a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Neither Christophorson noâ Portesius understood the true import of this word For this term does not barely signifie to lie down and sleep but to sleep in a Temple This was an usage of the Heathens to lodge all night in the Temple expecting Dreams and Cures from their Gods Of which thing innumerable instances occur in ancient Writers but especially in Aristides in his Orationes Saerae The Latines termed it incubare Plautus's words in his Curculio are these Ides fit quia hic Leno agrotus incubat in Aesculapii fane Solinus chap. 7. Epidauro decus est Aesculapii sacellum eui incubantes c. See Saint Jerom on the 65 th chap. of Esaiah vers 4. Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Christophorson was egregiously mistaken in referring these words to Aesculapius whenas they are spoken of the Emperour Constantine as I have exprest it in my Version 'T is certain in the Fuketian and Turnebian Copies the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Emperour behaving c. Vales. c He means Apollonius Tyaneus concerning whom Philostratus relates in his first book that he was a long time resident in the Temple of Aesculapius at Aegae as the Guest of that very God Vales. d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the excellent Fuketian Manuscript this place is far otherwise exprest For after the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the Greek or Souldiers in the English Version that Copy places a full point Then it has the following passage worded in this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Because 't was manifest from the facts that no Daemon lay lurking within it nor a God but a deceiver of souls who for an exceeding long c. The four last words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which are wanting in the ordinary Editions Turnebus had likewise added at the margin of his book from a Manuscript Copy Presently where the reading in the common Editions is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Thus therefore he who promised that he would free others from their illnesses c the Fuketian Copy has it thus written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. For he who had promised that he would free others from their illnesses and calamity himself found nothing for his own defence Which reading seems to me fitter and better In the Kings Sheets also I found it written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. e ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The last word is wanting in the Kings Copy and may perhaps be understood But the other Copies acknowledge it In the close of this chapter instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Fuketian Copy has ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. f The story is this this Aesculapius by the entreaty of Diana restored to Life Hippolitus who had been torn in pieces by horses whereat Jupiter being angry killed him with Thunder * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Of our country Emperour a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the King 's Fuketian and Savilian Copies 't is truer written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Which word Christophorson renders thus calvae praestigiatorum dolis callidè obtectae skulls craftily covered by the frauds of Conjurers Which translation I approve not of and had rather render it subreptae stoln or else adornatae ad malesicia comparatae trimmed and made ready for mischievous Facts For Bones and Skulls are the instruments of Conjurers whereof they made use in order to their mischievous acts Vales. * Or Inaccessible Recesses b In his Panegyrick concerning Constantine's Tricennalia chap. 8 these words are placed otherwise in this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã no Daemon no God no Utterer of Oracles no Prophet which I do indeed like better Vales. a This whole passage as far as the Heathens who honoured c is wanting in the Kings Copy and in Robert Stephens's Edition But it has been added by Learned men from the authority of Manuscripts Turnebus and S r Henry Savil found it in their Copies and we also saw it written in the Fuketian Copy at the margin But the reading in the Fuketian Manuscript is larger by one word thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The last word is wanting in the Kings Copy and Stephens's Edition Wherefore 't is to be considered whether we had not better read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the first place But whereas the Turnebian Savilian and Fuketian Manuscripts do defend the writing of the Geneva Edition I am of opinion that it is to be retained Vales. * Or Sent. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I doubt not but it should be written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For so Eusebius is wont to express himself as I have remarked above And by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã he means Basilicam a Church but by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã he means the whole compass or inclosure of the Church that is the Porch Atrium or Court Porticus's Exhedrae Baptisteries and the other Edifices which are wont to be annext to Churches In the Fuketian Copy the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. d Any one
ãâã ãâã ãâã has had a dependence upon c. Further in the Fuketian and Turneb Copies the reading of this place runs thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Vales. * Or Rashly â Or Partakes of some reason l ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Write ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not man c But Christophorson read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not the life of man which consists of matter which reading I condemn not but the former Emendation pleases me best Nevertheless the Fuketian Copy does plainly favour Chistophorson's Version Vales. m ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Understand ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of light Wherefore there is no need of Christophersons conjecture nor of S r Henry Savil's who mends it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã dark Vales. * Or By reason of its Converse with him at a nearer distance â ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã God's conception of mind Valesius renders it intelligentiam n ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as 't is mended at the margin of Moraeus's Book Presently make it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã And again a little lower ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã And thus I found it plainly written in the Fuketian Copy save that there it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. * Or Place o ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as that Learned man had remarked in Moraeus's Book And so the reading is in the Fuketian Copy Vales. p ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã should be expung'd here For at this place 't is more elegantly understood S r Henry Savil has mended it at the margin of his Book in this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. * Or Dimensions â Or Divisions q ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. than which nothing is more certain In the Fuketian and Turneb Copies 't is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Further I have rendred ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã discidia following the authority of Amm. Marcellinus who somewhere expresses himself so Christophorson has likewise rendred it well divortia Terrarum the divorcements of the Earth Vales. â Or Has sufficiently moystened the ground in order to a refreshment r ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the Fuketian and Turneb Copies this place is thus worded ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we understand not in what manner of form and shape chance is characterized Vales. â Or without a subsistence * Or As to things incomprehensible â Or Apprehend their own opinion a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Learned men have mended this place thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But whereas the particle ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã occurs neither in the Kings Copy nor Robert Stephens's Edition I had rather read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which is plainly confirmed by the succeeding words For it follows ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Nevertheless the Fuk. Sav. and Turneb Copies do plainly confirm that emendation of Learned men The same Fuketian Manuscript sets two points after the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã right Vales. * Or Let all these words be c. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In Moraeus's Book 't is mended ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as Christophorson read and as we have rendred it And so 't is plainly written in the Fuketian Copy Vales. â Reserved or treasured up the nature of Gold c. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for the delight of the world and for plenty only The word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is corrupted in the place whereof I would rather put ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Luxury Yet the ordinary reading may be born with Vales. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as I found it written in the Fuketian Copy after I had long before conjectured that it was so to be written Moreover I point the whole place thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Vales. a In the very Title of the chapter there is a fault For what can these words mean ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But I think the place must be made good in this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Also concerning the Opinions of Plato And so 't is plainly written in the Fuketian Copy But both in the Fuketian Copy and also in the Kings Sheets this chapter is begun from these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã How many other works c. Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the Fuk. and Turneb Copies 't is truer written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But in the Kings Sheets that word is omitted I had rather write also ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and have rendred it accordingly Vales. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the Sacred Scriptures this verb is used in such a sense as to signifie to exercise his wit as Jacobus Tusanus has long since observed Vales. See Psal. 119. 15 where this word occurs * Or Hide d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The sense requires that these words should be added ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and the stronger more weak This was the device of Protagoras who promised young men that he would make that reason which was stronger more weak and on the contrary that which was weaker more strong ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Against the Sophists who promised these things Socrates disputed continually that he might convince them that they knew nothing and he pursued them with their own weapons that is arguments of Logick Vales. e ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must be made ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã from the Fuketian Copy What Constantine says namely that Pythagoras after he was come into Egypt and had heard what the Prophets had heretofore predicted divulged those things afterwards all over Italy as if God had revealed them to him seems to me scarce probable Indeed that Pythagoras came into Egypt and there received from the Priests the Mystick Rites and Ceremonies of their Religion this I say is attested by Porphyrius in his Life and by many others Moreover we are told by Aristobulus Clemens and Eusebius that Pythagoras had many things out of the Books of Moses But that he had learned the Prophecies of the Jews in Egypt and had afterwards divulged them amongst the Italians is a thing affirmed by none of the Ancients that I know of And perhaps this place is to be understood not concerning the Prophecies of the Jews but those of the Egyptians For there were Prophets amongst the Egyptians as I have observed in ây notes on Eusebius's Eccles. Hist. See book 4. chap. 8. note â Which thing perhaps led Constantine into a mistake Who having read that Pythagoras had learned many Secrets from the Prophets of the Egyptians that is their Priests understood that as meant concerning the Prophets of the Hebrews Vales. f ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The conjunctive particle is wanting in the Fuk. and Savil. Copy and in the Kings Sheets I write therefore ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and instructing as
a fault here And perhaps the reading should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã bestowed Victory on my Army Vales. e ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã At this place ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is made use of to signifie praetextum a pretence or colour which term in Constantine's Latine Oration being not understood by the Translatour he rendred it in this manner but would have done better had he made use of the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Christophorson therefore and Portesius have done ill in rendring it mundum the world Vales. f ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must be written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Errours or mistakes as I found it mended in Moraeus's Book And this the Geneva-men have already put us in mind of from the Books of Scaliger and Bongarsius whereto agrees the Fuketian Copy Vales. g ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I am not of the same mind with Scaliger Bongarsius and Gruter who mend this place thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for our own safety I had rather reade ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which reading I have followed in my Version In the Fuketian Copy 't is written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But in the Sheets 't is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. a It was heretofore the usage of the Sophists before their Orations to make a kind of a Flourish as 't were in a short Preface after the manner of Harpers who before the Song sing some thing for Tryal-sake This Preface was commonly termed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã So in Themistius's fifteenth Oration and in Libanius's Declamations it often occurs Hence ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is by Theodoret taken to signifie a Prologue Vales. b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Write ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã from the Fuketian Copy Vales. * Or Newer â Or Dance c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must be made ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the path or footsteps of men For 't is a noted halfe-verse of Homer's concerning Bellerophon which Cicero renders in the very words I have made use of in my Version namely Hominum Vestigia Vitans 'T is certain in the Fuketian Copy 't is plainly written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Farther Eusebius has delignedly besprinkled this Prologue with many pieces of verses taken out of the Poets as with flowers that by this kind of Elegance he might allure and please the minds of his Hearers So above ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is a poetick expression Vales. â Sophisms of Subtilties d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I doubt not but Eusebius wrote ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã whoever namely are fit c. The Verb ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã are must be understood But Christophorson the Translatour of this Oration in regard he perceived not these things has confounded the whole meaning of this place in his Version In the Fuketian Copy these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã are wanting excellently well Vales. e ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã So also the reading is in the Fuketian Copy yet I had rather reade ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã nevertheless Vales. f ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã A transposition of words usual with Eusebius instead of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Presently the reading in the Fuketian Copy is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. g ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Doubtless it is to be written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the Sacred Kites or Mysteries which emendation is confirmed by these words which follow presently ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Having therefore learn't the Divine c. For Eusebius says that the Sacred Books wherein are contained the Divine Oracles are our Teachers of the Sacred Mysteries and are as 't were some Hierophanta Vales. * Or Both the one and the other Order that is the true Royalpower and the counterfeit or false one h ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It has the same import with what he has said above namely ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã learning the Divine Mysteries For ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifies the same with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Wherefore ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã will import the same with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Chief-Priests of the Eleusiniaâ Sacra were at Athens termed Hierophantae who delivered and consigned the Rites of Ceres Whom persons initiated did so highly Revere that they would never call them by their own names Eunapius tells us this in His Life of Maximus the Philosopher in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But what his name was who at that time was Hierophanta it is unlawfull for me to declare for he had initiated me who write these things and had enrolled me amongst the Eumolpidae Lucian or whoever else is the authour of it attests the same in Lexiphane where one Megalonymus an Athenian says that when he had gone out one day to visit the Magistrate he found the Daduchus Torch-bearer and Hierophanta and some other Ministers of the Sacred Rites who hated one Dinias before the Magistrate accusing the man because he had called them by their own names whereas it was unlawfull to call them by their own names after they had been consecrated ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Although Lucian says more than Eunapius For Eunapius has told us that it was unlawfull only for those who had been Consecrated at Elcusina to call that Hierophanta by his proper name from whom they had received initiation But Lucian affirms that that was forbidden to all persons in general Hence 't is that amongst Libanius's Epistles some occur with this Title ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to the Hierophanta And in the Fifth Book of Symmachus's Epistles the first three are inscribed To the Hierophanta For in regard both those persons had been initiated at Athens they lookt upon it as a thing unlawfull to call the Hierophanta by his own name Vales. i ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Geneva-Printers had left out a word which we have supplied from the Fuketian Manuscript thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we will begin our Divine Discourses or Mysteries Vales. CHAP. I. * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã These words are wanting in the Fuketian Copy Vales. a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must I think be written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Nor can any one c. Nevertheless something seems to be wanting here In the Fuketian Copy the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which is right Vales. â Or Worthily â Or About him the Celestial Hosts make their Rounds * Or Drawing b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Eusebius does elegantly compare the Sun and Moon to the Light-Bearers or Footmen who were wont to go before the Emperour with Torches and Lights as I have noted at Amm. Marcellinus Vales. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã this Greatest Emperour Christ. The last word must be blotted out For what Eusebius has said hitherto he has spoken not concerning Christ but of God the Father to whom the antient Divines did properly assigne the Monarchy Besides the following words do plainly shew that these are not spoken concerning Christ. Nevertheless if
is required by the Rules of Syntax Vales. â Or A most wise and rational power or faculty t ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã They are terms properly belonging to Musick concerning which besides other Authours see Boëthius de Musicâ Book 1. Chap. 24 and 25 where he treats concerning the Synaphe and the Diazeuxis But the Translatour has rendred it Lapides âroâtatos i. e. Stones that are smoothed on both sides and are even with the thickness of the wall and are seen on both sides Than which rendition there is nothing more absurd Instead of the term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it should I thinke be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Tones or Notes I had almost forgot to give notice that at the beginning of this period the reading should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Vales. Concerning the term Diatones see Boëthius's forementioned Book Chap. 21 the Title of which chapter is De generibus Cantilenarum u ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the Fuketian Copy the reading is truer thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã invented the Nature of Swimming Creatures Vales. â Children w ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Translatour renders it modo herbarum formis cujusquemodi illustrando sometimes by illustrating it with all sorts of forms of herbs Which Rendition I don't approve of In my judgment Eusebius does rather mean the various figures of Countries For Europe has one sort of figure Asia another Africa another Now in these parts of the world all Provinces have their figures which God the Framer of this Universe hath given them having divided the world like a most pleasant garden into various Bedds By this term may also be meant the different Dresses and Garbs of the Earth For sometimes the Earth is green with grass at others 't is yellow with Corn here 't is shady with woods there 't is pleasant with Gardens Vales. x ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I think it must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã That is But why do I presume c which manner of Expression is very emphatical when the Oratour does as 't were stop and chide Himself In the Fuketian Copy 't is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. * Or Powers â Or Roll'd up CHAP. XII a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The words seem to be misplaced and are to be restored in this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But the Divine Doctrine does assert that c. Vales. b The Ancients distinguished the Aether from the heaven and by that name of Aether meant the Element of Fire So Anaxagoras as Aristotle tells us in his third Book de âoelo whom almost all persons did afterwards follow except the Peripateticks For the Peripateticks termed the substance of Heaven Aether See Aristotle de Mundo and affirmed that was a fifth Element The same is asserted by Heraclides in Allegoriis Homeri Peripatetici says he Aiunt naturam Caelestium corporum aliam esse ab igne c. The peripateticks do say that the Nature of the Celestial Bodies is different from fire and do term it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a nature that moves circularly and say that it is a fifth Element For fire which in Greek is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã does naturally move upwards but the Sun and Moon do not But the Stoïcks also themselves called the Element of fire Aether and thought that it was the principal part or the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of the whole world Censorinus or whoever else is the Authours speakes to this effect in Chap. 1. de Naturali Institutione Mundi Principale Solem quidâm putant ut Cleanthes c. Some think the Sun to be the Principal of the world as Cleanthes and Chrysippus the Aether by whose perpetual motion the things under it are held and administred And the Aether it self suffers nothing So also Eusebius uses it below in this chapter and S t Austin in his 147 th Sermon de Tempore Vales. c Not that the Son is not the true God but because the Name of God doth properly belong to the Father in regard he is the Fountain and Authour of the Deity But whereas Our Eusebius in his Epistle to Euphration hath said that the Son is not the true God as Athanasius and the Fathers of the seventh Synod do object against him that is in no wise to be born with For although the Father be properly termed God so that whenever God is simply and absolutely spoken we presently understand the Father nevertheless the Son is no less truly God than the Father in regard the Divinity of the Father and of the Son is one and the Same 'T is certain Eusebius in his First Book against Marcellus de Ecclesiasticâ Theologiâ Chap. 10. has expressely affirmed that the Son is the true God Although in the following Chapter he does a little diminish from what he had said above The words of Christ in S t John's Gospel Chap. 17. v. 3. are these This is Life eternal that they might know Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Vales. 'T is the Learned Petavius's opinion that the word Onely in that Text of S t John does in no wise exclude the Son For as he notes from S t Basil Epist. 141. p. 927 the words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã are made use of in scripture only to distinguish and separate the false Gods that they may be removed who are not true Gods and therefore are not Gods See Petav. Dogm Theolog. Tom. 2. De Trini Lib. 2. Cap. 4. Sect. 14. d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã We have shown above that ancient Divines attributed the Monarchy to God the Father but to the Son the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or disposition Indeed 't is the Father's property to reigne but the Son's property who is the wisdom of the Father is to dispose or set in order all things Wherefore they affirmed that Rest and Beatitude was the Father's property but Operation the Son 's Not that the Father Himself does not work but because the Father works things unknown and secret but the Son things more manifest to us as Marius Victorinus makes it out in his first book against the Arians And the Ancient Divines before the Nicene Council termed the Son ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but afterwards they avoided these Names as 't is apparent from S t Chrysostome in his Sermon de Sigillis Vales. e ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 'T is plain that it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the Fuketian Copy the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in one word Vales. f ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Doubtless it must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in a manner inexpressible as Eusebius says a little lower Vales. * Or Wholly overflowing in order c. g ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The last word must be expunged unless you would âather write ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã living Creatures For at
their Lust by the name of Cupid and the members wherewith acts of obscenity were performed Priapus and that intemperance which spreads it self into filthy pleasures they termed Venus This is the meaning of this place which the Translatour perceived not Vales. * Roll or Tumble c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is a proper Term of Magick Art Artemidorus B. 1. C. 79. joyns ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã together Plato B. 11. De Legibus pag. 933. has used ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to signifie the same See Harpocration in the verb ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The Latines call them Ligaturas Ligatures S t Austin's words in his seventh Tractate on S t John are these Usque adeo fratres mei c. In so much my Brethren that those very persons who seduce by Ligatures by charms by the deceits and engines of the Enemy mix the name of Christ with their own Charms Orosius B. 4. C. 13. calls it obligamentum magicum a Magick Bond or Tye. Vales. d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must be made ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã compulsory from the Fuk. Copy Vales. e ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Tertullian in his Book De Anima has termed them in Latine Paredros Spiritus which he joyns with the Catabolick and Pythonick Spirits who were put into men by Magicians Now they were called Paredri Daemones who assisted men and kept off diseases and unhappy accidents from them This we are told by Tertullian ãâ¦ã his Apolog. Chap. 23. in these words Si somnia immittunt haâentes simul invitatorum angelorum Daemonum adsistentem sibi potestatem For Magicians had Daemons that assisted and obeyed them who were their Paredri Familiars by whose help they performed many miracles Besides they put such Spirits into others that they might either infuse dreames into them or be always present with them in order to their defence The former sort of Spirits they termed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã senders or causers of Dreames the Latter they call'd ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Assistants or Familiars Sometimes also by Magick charms they threw boys against the ground who being afterwards raised as 't were from a Fit of the falling-sickness foretold things future to those that consulted them Which thing they performed by Catabolick Spirits as Heraldus has rightly remark't at Tertullian's Apology From hence Salmasius's mistake is made apparent who in his notes on Spartianus pag. 40 affirms that those were termed Paredri who from being men were reckoned amongst the Gods and were made Assessors to the Gods Which opinion of Salmasius's Gothofred has embraced in his notes on Tertullian's second Book ad Nationes Turnebus B. 26. Adversar is much righter save that he renders it malos genios evil Genii whereas notwithstanding the Good Genii and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã were so termed as Lucian writes concerning Hephaestion Lastly they usualy termed the Infernal Gods not the Celestial Paredri which being not observed by Salmasius was the occasion of his mistake See Demosthenes in Orat. Funebr about the close and Diodorus Siculus B. 1. pag. 45 and lastly Rufinus's Eccles. Histor. B. 2. Chap. 13. From which Authours 't is plain that the Infernal Gods were termed Paredri Vales. f ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Moreover c. Which though a small fault yet ought not to have been omitted Vales. g ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Here the words seem to be misplac't I read therefore ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Which way of writing this place We have followed in our Version In the Fuk. Copy this passage is written thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c. Which reading I don't approve of Vales. h ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Melcantharus Eusebius book 1. De Praeparat chap. 10 where he sets forth the Theology of the Phoenicians terms the one of these Gods Melicarthus the son of Demaron the Grandchild or Nephew of Caelus the other he calls Usous Brother to Hypsuranius who was the first that found out the Coverings of skins In the Fuketian Copy the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Melcatharus and Usorus Vales. i ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The reading must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and Obòdas For the Arabians worshipped Obodas and Dusares as Tertullian tells us Book 2. ad Nationes Chap. 8. Concerning Obodas see Uranius in his fourth Book of Arabick Antiquities Obodas was a most ancient King of the Arabians who was buried amongst the Nabathaei and had divine honours paid him by them as Stephanus relates in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã From him many Kings of Arabia were afterwards called by the name of Obodas two of whom Josephus mentions the one in the times of Alexander King of the Jews the other in the Reign of Herod Strabo also makes mention of the latter Further as far as may be conjectured from Histories the Arethae and Obodae Reigned by turns amongst the Arabians so that after an Arethas succeeded an Obodas and after an Obodas an Arethas And this seems to have continued a long while The Nabathaei worshipped Dusares also by which name they meant Bacchus as Isidorus in Hesycbius informs us Stephanus in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã speaks concerning this God also In the Fuketian Copy the reading here is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. k ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must be written ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã understand ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and we have rendred it accordingly Zamolxis is a known God of the Getae Presently the reading must be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and the Cilicians to Mopsus c. In the Fuketian Copy the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. l ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The last word was added by the Transcriber of this Book to the intent he might thereby shew that there is an imperfection here Indeed at this place some words seem to be wanting Unless you have a mind to understand these words in common ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã gave the Title of Gods which are made use of a little before In the Fuketian Copy that word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã occurs not but after the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a point is set Vales. m ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I think it should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and the Sons of Gods In the Fuketian Copy 't is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. * Dispositions or passions â Or Deaths n ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã From Porphyrius it must be made ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to the very same understand ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Saturn Vales. o ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Doubtless it must be made ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã from Porphyrius's Second Book de Abstinentia whom our Eusebius has transcrib'd here almost word for word And so the reading is in the Fuketian Copy agreeably whereto we have rendred it Vales. p ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I reade ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Also the Dumateni from Porphyrius in
First Book of his Divine Institutes Chap. 21 in these words Apud Cypriot In Thysius's Edition 't is Apud Cypri Salaminem At Salamine a City of Cyprus Humanam hostiam Jovi Teucer immolavit idque sacrificium posteris tradidit quod est nuper Hadriano imperante sublatum Amongst the Cypriots Teucer offered an humane sacrifice to Jupiter and delivered that sacrifice down to posterity which was lately abolished in the Reign of Hadrian Tertullian in the ninth Chapter of his Apology relates that in Africa infants were publickly offered in sacrifice to Saturn untill Tiberius's Proconsulate who for that reason crucified the Priests of Saturn And he adds that the Milice of his own Country or as some Copies have it written Patris sui of his own father which executed that very office under Tiberius the Proconsul were witnesses of this thing Whence it appears that the memory of this matter was as yet fresh For why should he cite the Souldiers or Apparitors of the Proconsular Office as witnesses unless some of those had been yet alive or could have been produced who had attended upon the Proconsul Tiberius at such time as he crucified those Priests Wherefore that Proconsulate of Tiberius might be fitly placed upon the times of the Emperour Hadrian especially in regard both Porphyrius and Lactantius do perswade us to think so Further whereas Pallas only says that they left off sacrificing men almost every where Eusebius without any exception affirms that this custom was abolished amongst all Nations whatever Which I can scarce be induced to believe For both Porphyrius and Lactantius in their fore-cited books do attest that Jupiter Latiaris was still in their age worshipped with humane Bloud at Rome Besides Tertullian witnesseth in his Apology that in his age Infants were in secret sacrificed to Saturn Vales. n ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Eusebius alludes to that famous saying of Heraclitus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the dead are more despicable than muck of which saying Strabo makes mention in the end of his sixteenth book and Origen in his fifth book against Celsus From whence came this proverbial expression ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã spoken concerning a man of no value Pollux book 5. chap. 46 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã more contemptible than dung if we should speak after the manner of Heraclitus Julian in his Oration against Heraclius the Cynick pag. 421 makes use of the same saying of Heraclitus in these words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but wholly to despise the Body and to account it according to Heraclitus even more contemptible than dung But with the greatest ease to perfect its cure as long as God shall order the Body to be used as an instrument Which place I have mended and supplied from Suidas in the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For in the ordinary Editions this passage is corrupt and imperfect Vales. * Or Nature o ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must be written with an interrogation thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But what can He do who is no Body And so Christophorson seems to have read Indeed in the Fuketian Manuscript the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Vales. p ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 'T is apparent that the reading should be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is judgment is not placed in sense Therefore the verb ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã must be understood here which Christophorson apprehended not for he hath erroneously joyned these words with the following There was a great dispute amongst the old Philosophers ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã So they termed the Rule whereby the truth of things is judged of by men The most ancient Philosophers did not place that power or faculty in the Senses but in the Reason as Sextus Empiricus informs us in his seventh book against the Mathematici Farther ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is taken two ways either for the faculty it self whereby truth is discerned or else for the instrument of that faculty Potamo the Philosopher termed the first ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã from which the second ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by which as Lartius tells us in the Proëme of his own work Vales. * Consider or determine of â Or Inconsistent q ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For this is the nature of the dead The words are misplaced here a thing which as I have already advertized does frequently happen in these Books I write therefore ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For this is the Nature of the Living c. A little before some words are all repeated which fault the studious Reader will easily mend of himself Vales. CHAP. XVII a ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must I think be worded thus ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã with an interrogation which reading I have followed in my Version Vales. * Or Numerous dârts of words b ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã This place is corrupted with a double fault nevertheless 't was easie to restore it in this manner ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã had governed the Empire c. Eusebius means Diocletian and his Colleagues who says he had governed the Republick gloriously and happily as long as they maintained a peace with God and with the Churches But after they attempted to bring a war upon God and to persecute His most Holy worshippers immediately all affairs were altered and put into a worse posture Eusebius says the same in the end of his eighth Book Vales. * Champions â Or Splendid Consecrations of Oratories c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã It must I think ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c And we have rendred it accordingly Vales. d ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I had rather read ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the name Nothing occurs more frequently in Ecclesiastick writers than the name of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or Dominicâ Nor have only the Greeks termed Churches thus but the Germans also have borrowed this name from the Greeks as Walafridâs Strabo informs us in his Book de Rebus Ecclesiasticis Chap. 7. Vales. Hence likewise we have our name for them in English to wit Churches and hence 't is that the Scots call them Kirks â Or Deprived of all hope * ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã In the Fuketian Copy the reading is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which we follow Vales. c ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Any one will easily perceive though I hold my peace that some words are wanting here I write therefore ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for thus any one which words must be included in a Parenthesis Indeed Christophorson seems to have read so as it appears from his Version Vales. f ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Christophorson joyned the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã with the term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which I don't approve of For by the term ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Eusebius means those women who having been deprived of their husbands consecrated their widowhood to God and he distinguishes these from the Quires of Virgins Farther out of the number of widows Deaconnesses and Presâyteresseâ were wont to be