The history of the church from our Lords incarnation, to the twelth year of the Emperour Maricius Tiberius, or the Year of Christ 594 / as it was written in Greek, by Eusebius Pamphilius ..., Socrates Scholasticus, and Evagrius Scholasticus ... ; made English from that edition of these historians, which Valesius published at Paris in the years 1659, 1668, and 1673 ; also, The life of Constantine in four books, written by Eusibius Pamphilus, with Constantine's Oration to the convention of the saints, and Eusebius's Speech in praise of Constantine, spoken at his tricennalia ; Valesius's annotations on these authors, are done into English, and set at their proper places in the margin, as likewise a translation of his account of their lives and writings ; with two index's, the one, of the principal matters that occur in the text, the other, of those contained in the notes.

CHAP. XIV. What Writings Clemens has mentioned.

THat I may speak briefly, in his a 1.1 Instituti∣ons he makes b 1.2 short explications of all the c 1.3 written word of God, not omitting those Scri∣ptures whose authority is d 1.4 questioned by some: I mean the Epistle of Jude, and the other e 1.5 Catho∣lick Epistles, and that of Barnabas, and that which is said to be the Revelation of Peter: And The Epistle to the Hebrews, which he affirms to be Paul's, but was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue; which when Luke had with much care and pains translated, he publisht it for the [use of the] Grecians. Wherefore we may find the stile of the translation of this Epistle, and Of the Acts of the Apostles to be the same.

f 1.6 But 'twas for a very good g 1.7 reason, that this Title [Paul the Apostle] was not set before it, for he (saies he) writing to the Hebrews who were possest with a prejudice against, and a suspicion of him, very wisely did not prefix his name at the beginning, least he should cause an aversion in them to his Epistle. But a little after, he continues, saying; Now, as a blessed Presbyter said, because the Lord, being the Apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul through modesty, in that he was sent to the Gentiles, does not entitle himself the Apostle of the Hebrews, both in reverence to the Lord, and also because 'twas over and above his duty that he writ to the Hebrews, being the Preacher and Apostle of the Gentiles.

Again Clemens in the same books writes a tradition con∣cerning the order of the Gospels which he re∣ceiv'd from the Elders before him, and it is this:

Those Gospels, he said, which contain the Genealogies were written first. And this was the occasion of writing Marks Gospel: when Peter Preach'd the word publickly in Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were there present entreated▪ Mark, (who had been his follower h 1.8 a long time, and remembred what he had said,) that he would write down the things which had been spoken. When he had compos'd the Gospel, he imparted it to those who had intreated it of him. Peter having understood this, i 1.9 used no perswasives either to hinder him, or to incite him to it. But John, being the last of all, when he saw how those things which appertain'd to Christs humanity were already manifested in the Gospels, was mov'd [to the enterprise] by his k 1.10 acquaintance, and being inspir'd by the Spirit, he wrote a Go∣spel concerning Christ's Divinity. Thus much Clemens.

But again, the said Alexander in an E∣pistle of his to Origen, mentions Clemens, and Pantaenus also, as men who were his familiars: he writes thus.

For this, as you know was the will of God, that the friendship, which was be∣gun betwixt us from our Ancestours, should not onely remain inviolable, but also become more fervent and firm. For we know those blessed Fathers who went before us, with whom we, after a short time shall be joyn'd, I mean the truely blessed Pantaenus my Master, and the holy Clemens my Master, who also profited me much; and if there be any others like them, by whom I came to the knowledge of you, my most excellent Lord and Brother:

And after this manner were these things. Moreover, Adam∣antius (for that also was Origen's name,) in these times, when Zephyrinus Presided over the Church of Rome, l 1.11 travell'd to Rome, (as he himself some where says) having a desire to see the most antient Church of the Romans: where he made no long stay, but return'd to Alexandria. And with all diligence there perform'd his custo∣mary duty of Catechist, Demetrius the then Bi∣shop of those Churches exciting him to it, and little less then beseeching him to labour earnestly for the utility of the Brethren.

Notes

• a 1.1

  For the explication of the ti∣tle of this book; See the note (a) upon the 11^th chap. of the 5^th book, where 'tis prov'd by several quotations, that the true ren∣dring of this title is In∣stitutions, or, Infor∣mations.
• b 1.2

  This phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Langus translates compendio∣sam enume∣rationem, Musculus, contractas explicatio∣nes. And so Christo∣phorson al∣so: but Rufinus calls them compendiosas dissertiones. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore is the same as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which words Photius uses in that sence, that is explications, interpretations; though 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies narrations onely. Vales.
• c 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to Hesychius's interpretation, is rendered the written word, aliquid Scripto constans. Hesych.
• d 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are Scriptures, whose authority is que∣stion'd, disputed of, and by some contradicted, we must not therefore call them Apocrypha, as Rufinus does, for Apocrypha are those which are certainly false and compos'd by Hereticks; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are those which some approve of, others not: of which here Eusebius gives us a Catalogue, some of which in S^t Hieromes Catalogue are accounted Apocryphal, as the Revelation of Peter, which is concluded to be undoubtedly false. Vales.
• e 1.5

  Catholick Epistles are those which were not written to certain persons, particular Cities, or Provinces, but to whole Nations, and the Universal Church. Thus Themison, one of Montanus's disciples, impudently wrote a Catholick Epistle, like an Apostle, to the Univer∣sal Church, as Apollonius testifies book 5. chap. 16. Eusebius also mentions Dionysius Bishop of Corinth's Epistles to 4 Cities; which he calls Catholick. The Revelation of Peter which Eusebius mentions here, is quoted in Theodotus's excerptions which is printed at the end of Cle∣mens's Stromata: hence 'tis plain that these Collections of Theodotus are nothing else, but f••agments of Clemens's Hypotyp••seωn. Vales.
• f 1.6

  This quotation Clemens has out of Macarius.
• g 1.7

  This reason also S^t Hierome confirms upon the first chapter of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, where he says that S^t Paul does not after his accustomed way prefix his name before this Epistle, be∣cause he was about to speak of Christ, and thought it not fit to call himself an Apostle where Christ also must be stil'd an Apostle. Vales.
• h 1.8

  Though this word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] sig∣nifies a far off; yet here it must be re••dred as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a long time; which word Ni∣ceph. Cal. uses in this place, in∣stead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Vales.
• i 1.9

  All Co∣pies read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and so also does Ni∣ceph▪ but Christophor∣son boldly alter'd the reading, saying, that this passage impugned the autho∣rity of the Gospel. Eusebius relates this story in the 2^d book at the 14^th chapt. o∣therwise; saying, that Peter was migh∣tily pleas'd with the Gospel which was written by Mark and confirm'd it, appointing it should be read in the Churches. But if we weigh the words of Euscbius and Cle∣mens carefully, these places will appear not in the least contradictory, as Christophorson says they are: for although S^t Peter, as Clemens says, did neither openly prohibit no•• further him; yet he may be said to have tacitly approv'd of what he had done. Rufinus has very well translated the place, whom we ought to imitate, because by his translation he explains it very well, rendring it thus, licet fieri ip∣sum non jusserit tamen factum non prohibuit: by which 'tis very plain that he did not disallow of it. Vales.
• k 1.10

  This Hieronymus attests, speaking of John, in his Preface to his Commentaries upon S^t Matthew. Vales.
• l 1.11

  Baronius places Origen's coming to Rome, on the year of Christ 220; which was the first year of the Reign of Elagahalus the Empe∣rour: but we must in no-wise yield to this▪ seeing that Eusebius says he came to Rome in Antoninus Caracalla's Reign. Baronius also affirms that he came again to Rome in the Reign of Philip the Empe∣rour, that is in the year of Christ 248: but we must not believe Ba∣ronius in this; for Eusebius, who carefully and truely wrote the History of Origen, makes no mention of Origen's second coming to Rome: but rather seems to confute this of Baronius, saying thus, that Origen sent Letters concerning the profession of his faith▪ to Fabi∣anus, who was Bishop of Rome, therefore Origen went not to Rome, as Baronius says, onely sent Letters to Fabianus the Bishop of Rome. But hence arises Baronius's mistake; he follows Porphyrius, who, in his life of Plotinus, mentions one Origen, who was Plotinus's and Herennius's School-fellow; but this is not that Origen Adamantius which we mean here; but another Origen, therefore we must carefully make a distinction betwixt these two Origens▪ which we will shew hereafter. Vales.