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.

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, (ac∣cording 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 Em∣pire) did chiefly make use of the Councels of Troilus the Sophista. Where he also gives him this Elogue: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (for that must be the Reading, as we have intimated in our * 1.1 notes) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 con∣cerning 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 to∣gether. 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: * 1.2 not because they were reduced into Schools: but in regard, being young-men that had left the Schools of the Rhetoricians, they pro∣fessed this Art. But at length, having left off his practice in the Law, he applied his mind to Writing of his Ecclesiastick History. In which work he has made use of a singular judiciousness and diligence. His judiciousness is manifested by his remarkes and sentiments interwoven every where throughout his Books: than which there is (in my opinion) nothing more excellent. But his diligence is declared by many other instances, chiefly by this, in regard he frequently annexes a note of the

times, that is, the Consulates and Olympiades, especially where he mentions such matters as are more momentous. Nor has he carelesly or negligently written his History, 〈…〉〈…〉 Rufinus Aquileïensis did, who seems to me to have composed his two Books of Ecclesiastick History (which he annexed to Euse∣bius's) without looking into any Records. Our Socrates did far otherwise, for having from all places got together the best monuments, that is, the Epistles of Prelates, the Acts of Synods, and the Books of Ecclesiastick Writers, agreeable to their authority he composed his History. And whereas in the first Edition of his Work, having therein followed Rufinus, he had placed the Synod of Tyre, and the banishment of Athanasius into the Gallia's in the Reign of Constantius Augustus, upon reading of Athanasius's Books afterwards, he perceived his Errour. Wherefore he was necessitated to set forth a new Edition of his History, wherein he both mended the mistake I have mentioned, and also made an addition of some other things, which were wanting in the former Edition, as he himself attests at the beginning of his Second Book. Whence it appears how highly we ought to value Socrates's History, to which the Writer himself put his last * 1.3 hand. In the composure of his Hi∣story Socrates has made use of a plain and mean Stile; which was done by him on set purpose, that he might the easier be understood by all persons, as himself attests at the beginning of his First and Third Book. For he lookt upon that Sublime and Eloquent manner of expression to be more agree∣able for Panegyrick-Orations, than an History of Ecclesiastick affairs. Moreover, he has dedicated his History to one Theodorus, whom in the beginning of his Second Book he Stiles a sacred man of God, which is the same appellation our Eusebius gives to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre at the beginning of his Tenth Book. But who this Theodorus was, it is to me unknown. For I cannot believe it was Theo∣dorus Bishop of Mopsuestia, in regard Socrates wrote his History after the death of Theodorus Mopsu∣estenus. But it is now time for us to inquire concerning his Sect and Religion, as we promised at the beginning.

Baronius in his Annalls, and Philippus Labbaeus in his Book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, do af∣firm that our Socrates was by Sect a † 1.4 Novatian. The same was Nicephorus's opinion before it was theirs, who in the Proeme to his Ecclesiastical History says thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is, That Socrates surnamed * 1.5 Catharus, but as to his mind he was not pure. Which words are not so to be understood, as if Socrates were Surnamed Catharus, but that it might be shown he was a Novatian. For the Novatians termed themselves Cathari, as we are informed from the Eighth Canon of the Nicene Councill. The same Nicephorus (in his 11^th Book and Chap. 14.) writes thus con∣cerning Socrates: Socrates (who in this place plainly shews himself not to be a detester of the Novatian Principles) relates that these things were told him by a certain old man, &c. Now, why our Socrates was by many accounted a Novatian, the reasons are not few, nor trivial. For first, he carefully Re∣cords the Series of the Novatian-Bishops, who Presided over their Church at Constantinople from the times of Constantine, and also remarks the Consulates wherein every one of them departed out of this life. Secondly, he highly extols them all, especially Agerius, Sisinius, Chrysanthus, and Paulus. By whose prayers, as he relates, a certain miracle was wrought at Constantinople. Lastly, he prosecutes all matters belonging to the Novatian Sect with so great a care and diligence, that he may seem to have been addicted to this Sect. But should any one examine these particulars with a greater accu∣racy, he will find nothing in them, that may evince our Socrates to have been a Novatian. For with the like diligence he enumerates the Arian-Bishops, who governed their Church at Constantinople; and yet it is not said he was an Arian. With no less carefulness also has he related all things that hapned to the Arians, Eunomians, and Macedonians at Constantinople, than he has Recorded what befell the Novatians. The reason hereof he himself has given, in Chap. 24. of his Fifth Book. Where he says, it was his design to Record those things most especially which hapned at Constantinople; both because he himself lived in that City, wherein he had been born and educated; and also in regard the affairs transacted there were more eminent, and worthier to be Recorded. But should any one ob∣ject, that the Arian-Bishops are not extolled by Socrates at the same rate that the Novatian-Bishops are; the answer hereto is easie. For the Arian-Bishops, who then lived at Constantinople, were far inferiour to the Novatian-Bishops. For the Church of these Hereticks did in those times abound with many and those eminent Prelates: which Sozomen also confirms by his testimony, who Records their Elogues, exactly like those given them by our Socrates. Wherefore, it must either be said that Sozo∣men was also a Novatian, or else our Socrates must be discharged from that calumny. But 'tis manifest Sozomen was not a Novatian. For (to omit Theodorus Lector's testimony, who, in his Epistle pre∣fixt before his Tripertite-History, Stiles him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a most blessed person,) he himself in his 9^th book relates, that he was present at a publick procession, celebrated at Constantinople in honour of fourty Martyrs, at such time as Proclus Presided over the Church of that City. Whence 'tis mani∣festly concluded, that Sozomen was a person of the Catholick Communion, in regard he was present at the publick prayers together with the Catholicks. I confess indeed, that our Socrates does fre∣quently favour the Novatians; for instance, when he recounts the Ringleader of the Novatian-He∣resie amongst the number of the Martyrs; when he affirms, that the Novatians were joyned to the Catholicks in the ties of a most intimate friendship and love, and that they prayed together with them in the Church of God; and lastly, when he commends Sisinius's Oration, which he made against this saying of Saint Crysostom, Although thou hast repented a thousand times, approach. But

'tis one thing to favour the Novatians; another to be a Novatian. Our Socrates might indeed be a favourer of the Novatians, either because he was engaged in a friendship and familiarity with them, or in regard he approved of their discipline and abstinence. For, as far as we can Collect from his Books, he was something severe. But I can hardly perswade my self, that he was a Novatian; especi∣ally when as I seem to have found the contrary from some places which occur in his History. For first, in Chap. 38. of his Second Book, he frequently calls the Catholicks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those of the Church; and opposes them to the Novatians. Therefore he acknowledges that the Novatians were without the Church. Which he would certainly never have done, had he embraced that He∣resie. Besides, in the 20. and 23. Chapters of his Fifth Book he reckons the Novatians amongst the Hereticks, to wit, amongst the Arians, Macedonians, and Eunomians. Lastly, from Chap. 19. of the same Book it may be apparently concluded that Socrates was not a Novatian. For first, he always calls the Church simply and absolutely the Catholick-Church: opposing it to the Churches of other Sects, concerning which he treats in the following Chapters, to wit, of the Arians, Nova∣tians, and Eunomians. Then, he does not obscurely reprehend that advice of Nectarius who abro∣gated the † 1.6 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 Nova∣tian, in regard those Hereticks admitted neither of Repentance [after Baptism,] nor of a Peniten∣tiary-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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Ana∣stasius. 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 like∣wise 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 So∣crates. 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 So∣zomen 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 in∣habitant 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 acute∣ness 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 Mona∣steries there, as Sozomen attests in the place before cited. Where he also adds, that some holy per∣sons of Alaphion's Family were surviving even in his days, with whom he himself, when very young, was conversant, and concerning whom he promises to speak more afterwards. Undoubtedly he means Salamanes, Phusco, Malchio, and Crispio brothers, concerning whom he speaks in Chap. 32. of his Sixth Book. For he says that these brethren, instructed in the Monastick discipline by Hilarion, were during the Empire of Valens eminent in the Monasteries of Palestine: and that they lived neer Bethelia, a Village in the Country of the Gazites. For they were descendants of a Noble Family amongst them. He mentions the same persons in his Eighth Book and Fifteenth Chapter, where he says Crispio was Epiphanius's Arch-Deacon. 'Tis apparent therefore, that those brethren I have mentioned were extracted from Alaphion's Family. Now Alaphion was related to Sozomen's Grand∣father. 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 Ala∣phion'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 bro∣ther. 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 Ala∣phio's Family. From which education Sozomen seems to me to have imbibed that most ardent love of a monastick life and discipline, which he declares in many places of his History. Hence 'tis, that in his Books he is not content to relate, who were the Fathers and Founders of Monastick Philo∣sophy; 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 ex∣amples 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, al∣though he was almost an hundred years old, yet was never absent from the Morning and Evening Hymns, unless it hapned that he was detained by a disease. After this Sozomen applied himself to the profession of the Law. He was a Student in the Civil Law at Berytus, a City of Phoenicia, not far distant from his own Country, where there was a famous Civil-Law-School. But he practised the Law at Constantinople, as himself attests in his Second Book and third Chapter: And yet he seems not to have been very much employed in pleading of Causes. For at the same time that he was an Advocate in Constantinople, he wrote his Ecclesiastick History; which may be concluded from his own words. For thus he says (Book 2. Chap. 3.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. but what hapned to Aquilinus, a person at this time conversant with me, and one that Pleads Causes in the same Court of judicature, I will necessarily relate, partly as I heard it from him, and partly as I my self saw it. Further, before he wrote his Nine Books of Eccle∣siastick History, Sozomen composed a Breviary of Ecclesiastick affairs, from our Saviours ascension to the deposition of Licinius. Which work was comprized in two books, as himself attests in the Proeme to his First Book. But those two Books are lost by length of time. In the composure of his History, Sozomen has made use of a Stile neither too Low, nor too High, but between both: which Stile is most agreeable to a Writer of Ecclesiastick Affairs. Photius (in his Bibliotheca) prefers Sozomen's Stile before Socrates's. With whom we agree. But by how much Sozomen is superiour for the Elegancy of his expression, by so much Socrates exceeds upon account of his judiciousness. For Socrates judges incomparably well, both of men, and also of Ecclesiastick business and affairs. There is nothing in him but what is grave and serious. Nothing that you can expunge as superfluous. But on the contrary, some passages occur in Sozomen that are trivial and childish. Of this sort is his digression in his First Book concerning the building of the City Hemona, and concerning the Argo∣nauts, who carried the Ship Argo on their shoulders some furlongs. Also his description of Daphne without the walls of the City Antioch, which occurs at Chap. 19. of his Sixth Book. And that obser∣vation of his concerning the beauty of the body, where he Treats of that Virgin, with whom the blessed Athanasius absconded a long while. Lastly, his Ninth Book contains little else besides war∣like events, between which and an Ecclesiastick History there is no agreement. Besides, Sozo∣men's Stile, which Photius prefers before that of Socrates, wants not its faults. For I have observed, that the Periods are by Sozomen no otherwise joyned together, than by these particles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; than which there is nothing more troublesome. Should any one attentively read that Epistle wherein Sozomen Dedicates his Work to Theodosius Junior, he will find that which I have said to be certainly true, to wit, that Sozomen was no great Oratour.

It remains, that we inquire which of these * 1.7 two Authours Wrote first, and which of them borrowed, or rather stole from the other. Certainly, in regard both of them Wrote almost the same things of the same Transactions, in as much as they both began at the same beginning, and con∣cluded their History at the same boundary, (both beginning from the Reign of Constantine, and ending at the Seventeenth Consulate of Theodosius Junior;) it must needs be true, that one of them robbed the others Desk. Which sort of theft (as Porphyrius attests in Eusebius's Tenth Book of Evangelick Preparation) was committed by many of the Grecian Writers. But which was the Pla∣giary, Socrates or Sozomen, 'tis hard to say, in regard both of them Lived in the same times, and both Wrote their History in the Empire of Theodosius Junior. Therefore, in the disquisition of this question, we must make use of conjecture. In such a case as this Porphyrius in the before quoted book (when it was uncertain whether Hyperides stole from Demosthenes, or Demosthenes from Hyperides, because both of them Lived at the same time,) openly declared that conjecture was to

be made use of. Let us therefore see upon which of them falls the suspicion of theft. Indeed this is my sentiment, I do suppose that the inferiour does frequently steal from the Superiour, and the Junior from the Seniour. But Sozomen is in my judgment far inferiour to Socrates; and he betook himself to Writing his History when he was younger then Socrates. For he Wrote it whilst he was yet an Advocate, as I observed before. Now, the profession of the Advocates amongst the Romans was not perpetual, but temporary. Lastly, He that adds something to the other, and sometimes amends the other, seems to have Written last. But Sozomen now and then adds some passages to Socrates, and in some places dissents from him, as Photius has observed, and we have hinted in our Annotations. Sozomen therefore seems to have Written last. And this is the Opinion of almost all modern Writers; who place Socrates before Sozomen. So Bellar∣mine in his Book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis; who is followed by Miraeus, Labbaeus, and Vossius. Amongst the Ancients, Cassiodorus, Photius and Nicephorus name Socrates in the first place. Al∣though Cassiodorus is found to have varied. For in his Preface to the Tripertite History, in a clean contrary order he names Theodoret in the first place, Sozomen in the second, and Socrates last. So also does Theodorus Lector recount them, in his Epistle which he prefixt before the Tripertite History. Thus far concerning Sozomen.

Notes

• * 1.1

  See So∣crat. Eccle∣siast. Hist. Book. 7. Chap. 1. note (c.)
• * 1.2

  Non quod in Scholas relati es∣sent; so he words it; the expres∣sion is am∣biguous.
• * 1.3

  That is, he himself Revised, and Cor∣rected it.
• † 1.4

  See Eu∣sebius's Ec∣cles. Hist. Book 6. Chap. 43.
• * 1.5

  That is, Pure.
• † 1.6

  See So∣crates's Ec∣cles. Hist. Book. 5. Chap. 19. note (a.)
• * 1.7

  Socrates and Sozo∣men.