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.

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS. (Book 1)

CHAP. I. The Preface to the whole Book.

EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS Having compil'd an Ecclesiastick Hi∣story in Ten entire books, concluded it in the Reign of Constantine the Empe∣rour: at which time also the a 1.1 Persecution against the Christians ceased, [which had been begun] by Diocletian. The same Authour, in the books he wrote concerning the life of Constantine, has made but a b 1.2 slight relation of the matters relating to Arius: for he was more carefull about the praises of the Emperour, and about a panagyrical subli∣mity in his expressions, as it is usually done in [the composition of] an Encomium, than about an accurate and exact account of what was done. But we, purposing to commit to writing the Ecclesi∣astick affaires from those times to these our own days, will begin our History c 1.3 from those things which he has left untouch't: we shall not be over curious about the grandeur of our stile, but what things soever we have found upon Record, or have heard from such as were present at the transactions thereof, we will particularly relate. And because it is conducive to our designe, to declare after what manner Constantine was converted to the Christian Religion, according to our ability we will speak something of that matter.

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

a 1.4 WE will begin from those times, where∣in Diocletian and Maximian sirnam'd Herculius, having by a mutual compact resign'd their Empire, embrac'd a private life: and Maxi∣mian sirnam'd Galerius, who had been Colleague in the Empire with them, came into Italy, and created two Caesars, Maximin in the Eastern parts [of the Empire,] and Severus in Italy. b 1.5 But in Brittaine Constantine was proclaimed Emperour, in the room of Constantius his Father, c 1.6 who died in the first year of the two hundredth seventy first Olympiad, on the five and twentieth day of the month July. [Lastly] at Rome, Maxentius the Sun of Maximianus Herculius was by the Preto∣rian Souldiers advanced to be a Tyrant rather then an Emperour. Hereupon Herculius passionately desirous of reassuming his Imperiall Authority, endeavoured to destroy his Son Maxentius. But he was hindred from doing that by the Souldiers Afterwards d 1.7 he died at Tarsus a City of Cilicia.

Severus Caesar being sent to Rome by e 1.8 Galerius Maximianus to take Maxentius, was betrayed by his own Souldiers and put to death. Last of all died Galerius Maximianus also, who was now f 1.9 the supream person in the Empire, ha∣ving before his death consti∣tuted Licinius Emperour; he was a Native of Dacia, and had for a long time been Galerius's fellow Souldier, and Confident. Maxentius in the mean while treated the Romans severely, behaving himself like a Tyrant rather than an Emperour towards them: impudently debauching the wives of persons gentilely extracted; killing many, and perpetrating such like facts as these. Whereof when Constan∣tine the Emperour had notice, he made it his business to de∣liver the Romans from that servitude he had pressed them with; and immediately became sollicitously inquisitive how he might destroy the Tyrant: whilst he was in this deep cogitation, he considered with himself what Deity he should invoke to be his assistant and Tutelar God in this Expedition. It came into his mind that the strict worship of the heathen Gods had not in the least availed Diocle∣tian; and he found that his Father Constantius having relinquished the superstition of the Grecians, had led a more fortunate and prosperous life. Whilst therefore he was [engaged] in this doubtfull deliberation, and upon the march with his Army some whither, there hapned to appear to him a wonderfull and unexpressible Vision. For about noon, when the day began now to decline some∣what towards after noon, he saw in [the face of] the heavens a pillar of light, in figure like unto a Cross, with this inscription on it, By this be thou Conquerour. The Emperour stood amaz'd at this apparition. And, almost disbelieving his own eyes, he asked them that were present, whether they also saw the same sight; which when they all had unanimously agreed in, [the mind of] the Emperour was corroborated by that Divine and wonderfull apparition. The night following Christ appeared to him in his sleep, and said unto him, make a standard in figure like that which ap∣peared [to thee] and make use of it, as an in∣fallible and ready Trophy, against thine Enemies. In obedience to this [Heavenly] Oracle, he or∣ders a Trophy to be made, in figure like a Cross, which is kept in the Pallace to this day. After this he proceeded in the dispatch of affairs with a greater vigour and alacrity of mind, and having engaged the Enemy before the very Gates of Rome, neer the Bridge called Milvius, he got the Victory; Maxentius being drown'd in the River. This was now the g 1.10 seventh year of Constantin's Reign, when he got the Victory over Maxentius. After these [Atchievements] whilst Licinius his Collegue (who was also his brother in law, by the marriage of his Sister Constantia) resided in the East, he also having received so many and such great favours from God, offered thanks∣givings to him his great benefactor; Which were of this sort, he put a stop to the Persecution against the Christians; he recall'd those that were in exile; he released such as were confined in Prison, and restored their Estates to those that had been pro∣scribed; he repaired the Churches, and all these things he did with great alacrity of mind. h 1.11 About this time Diocletian, who had resigned his Im∣perial power, died at Salona, a City of Dal∣matia.

CHAP. III. How whilst Constantine augmented [the prosperi∣ty of] the Christians, Licinius his Collegue per∣secuted them.

NOw Constantine the Emperour professing him∣self a Christian, did all things beseeming his pro∣fession; he erected the Churches and adorn'd them with most magnificent consecrated gifts: Moreover, he shut up and demolished the Temples of the Hea∣thens, and † 1.12 exposed the images placed therein. But Licinius his Collegue, adhering to the Opinions of the Heathens, hated the Christians: he forbore rai∣sing an open persecution against them, because he fear'd the Emperour Constantine: but in a clan∣destine manner he ensnared many of them: And at length proceeded to open violence against them. This Persecution was locall: for it raged in those parts only * 1.13 where Licinius made his residence. But in regard Constantine was in no wise unacquainted with these, and other such like his Ty∣rannous outrages, Licinius being sensible that he highly resented these proceedings, betook himself to the ma∣king of his Apology before him; and having appeased him by his obsequi∣ousness, he hypocritically made an amicable league with him, binding himself by many oaths, that in future he would never attempt any thing that was Tyrannical. But at the same time that he swore, he was also perjured. For he desisted not from his Tyrannick [conspiracies against Constantine] nor ceased he from persecuting the Christians. For by a Decree he prohibited the Bishops from frequenting the houses of Hea∣thens,

that there might be no pretence of propa∣gating the Christian Religion. This Persecution was at the same time open and secret. It was concealed and disguised in words; but in reality and deeds it was apparent. For those that lay un∣der its pressures, endured most deplorable afflicti∣ons [and losses] in their bodies, and as to their Estates.

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

THese proceedings rais'd the highest indigna∣tion in the Emperour Constantine [against Licinius:] and, the feigned league of friendship which was betwixt them being broken, they be∣came enemies to each other. Not long after they entred into an actual War against one another: and having fought several set-bat∣tels both by Sea and Land, at length Licinius was vanquished at Chrysopolis of Bithynia, a Port-Town of the Chalcedonensians, and yielded himself. Constantine having taken him alive, treated him kindly: and would in no wise slay him, but com∣manded him to reside at Thessalonica peaceably and without making any disturbance. But having liv'd quietly a while, he afterwards gathered in∣to a body some of the Barbarians, and attempted to recover his overthrow, and renew the War. Constantine being informed hereof, commanded that he should be put to death, and accordingly he was slain. Constantine having now the sole power and command over the whole [Roman Empire] and being proclaimed a 1.14 Emperour and Augustus, endeavoured again to augment the affairs of the Christians: which he effected divers ways: and by his means Christianity enjoyed a profound and secure Peace. But an intestine War amongst the Christians themselves succeeded this so firm a Peace. What manner of War this was, and how it began, in the sequel according to my ability I will relate.

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

AFter Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, who suf∣fer'd Martyrdom in the Reign of Diocletian, Achillas succeeded in that See. After Achillas [succeeded] Alexander, in the time of the fore∣mentioned Peace. He living in times that were more calm and secure, adorned and set his Church in order. Discoursing one day in the presence of his Presbyters, and the rest of his Clergy, too curiously concerning the [mystery of] the holy Trinity, he asserted this point of divinity, that there was an Unity in the Trinity. But Arius one of the presbyters placed under Alexander (a man of no mean skill in the faculty of reasoning, supposing that the Bishop design'd to introduce the opinion of * 1.15 Sabellius the Libyan, desirous to be perverse and contentious, deflected to an opinion that was diametrically opposite to that of Subellius, and as he thought, sharply and nimbly opposed the Bishop's assertions, arguing thus. If the Father begot the Son, he that was begotten hath a beginning of his existence. And from hence it is apparent, that there was a time, when the Son was not. Whence this is a necessary consequence, that he derives his existence from nothing.

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

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

The Letter of Alexander [Bishop] of Alexandria.

To Our well Beloved and Dearest Fellow-Mini∣sters of the Catholick Church in all places, Alexan∣der [wisheth] health in the Lord. a 2.1

Whereas there is one body of the Catholick Church, and 'tis commanded in the holy Scriptures that we keep the bond of Peace and Concord, it is requisite that we should Write, and inform one another of what things are done amongst us, to the end, that if one member suffer, or rejoyce, we may ei∣ther joyntly rejoyce, or suffer together. In our Diocess there∣fore there are lately started up men that are impious and enemies of Christ, who teach such Apostacy, as any one may judge, and justly term the fore-runner of Antichrist. And this I would most gladly have buried in silence, that the mis∣chief might have been consumed by being included amongst the Apostates only, least haply by its further progress into other places it should have infected the ears of the simple. But be∣cause Eusebius now Bishop of Nicomedia, supposing that the affairs of the Church are whol∣ly at his dispose, (in regard, having deserted the Church of Berytus, he has sordidly coveted that of Nicomedia, and has not been prosecuted by any,) does Patronize even these Apostates, and has boldly attempted to write Letters up and down in commendation of them, that thereby he might seduce some ignorant persons into this worst and most dis∣pleasing Heresie to Christ: I thought it therefore necessary, being sensible of what is written in the Law, to be no longer silent, but to

give you all notice, that you might know those that are the Apostates, and likewise the detestable expres∣sions of their heresie, and that if Eusebius write to you, you should give no heed to him. For he, at this time desirous to renew his Pristine Malevolence which seemed to have been silenced [and forgot] by length of time, pretends indeed to write Letters on their behalf, but in reality he declares, that he uses his utmost diligence to do this upon his own ac∣count. Now these are the names of those which are turn'd Apostates; Arius, Achillas, Aithales, Carpones, another Arius, Sarmates, Euzoïus, Lu∣cius, Julianus, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius; Secundus also and Theönas, who were some∣times stiled Bishops. b 2.2 And these are their Tenets which they have invented and do assert contrary to the autho∣rity of Scripture. God, they say, was not always a Fa∣ther; but there was a time when God was not a Father. The word of God was not from everlasting, but had his beginning from no∣thing. For God, who is, made him, who was not, of nothing. Therefore there was a time when he was not: for the Son is a Creature and a Work: neither is he like to the Father as to his Essence, nor is he by nature the genuine Word of the Father, nor his true Wisdom. c 2.3 But he is one of his Works, and one of his Creatures: and▪ is only improperly stiled the Word and the Wisedom: d 2.4 for he him∣self exists by the proper Word of God, and by the Wisedom that is in God, by which God made all things and him also. Wherefore he is by nature mutable and subject to change, as well as all other rational beings. So that the Word is different, disagreeable, and separate from the Essence of God; and the Father can∣not be declared or set forth by the Son, and e 2.5 is invi∣sible to him. For the Son does not perfectly and ac∣curately know the Father, neither can he perfectly be∣hold him: for the Son knows not his own Essence, what it is. For our sakes he was made, that God might make use of him, as an instrument, in order to our Creation, nor had he ever existed, had it not pleas'd God to Create us. And when one asked them, if the Word of God could be changed, as the Devil was, they were not afraid to answer, yes certainly he may: for he is of a Nature subject to change, f 2.6 in that he is begotten and created. We therefore with the Bishops of Aegypt, and g 2.7 Libya, neer a hundred in number, being met together, have * 2.8 ana∣thematized Arius, for these his Princi∣ples, and for his im∣pudent assertion of them, together with all his adherents. But Eusebius has given them entertainment, endeavouring to mix falshood with truth, and impiety with piety: but he shall not prevail: For truth getteth the victory: and light has no communion with darkness, nor hath Christ any agreement with ••elial. For who ever heard the like? or what man if he should now hear them would not be amazed thereat, and stop his ears, least the filth of this Doctrine should penetrate and infect them? What man is he, that when he hears these words of Saint John, In the beginning was the Word, will not condemn those that affirm, there was a time when the Word was not? Or who is he that, when he hears these words of the Gospel, The only be∣gotten Son, and by him all things were made: will not abominate these men that say, the Son is one of the Creatures. h 2.9 But how can he be one of those things that were made by him? Or how can he be termed the Only begotten, who (accor∣ding to their sentiments of him) is reckon'd amongst all the other creatures? How can he be made of nothing, whenas the Father himself saith, * 2.10 My heart hath in∣dited a good matter, and † 2.11 Before the morning I have begotten thee in the womb? Or how can he be unlike the Father in Essence, whenas he is the † 2.12 perfect Image, and * 2.13 the brightness of the Father, and whenas he himself testifieth, ‖ 2.14 He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father? Now if the Son be the Word and the Wisedom of the Father, How can there be a time when he was not? For 'tis the same [absurdity,] as if they should say, there was a time when God was both without his Word and his Wisedom. How can he be mutable and subject to change; who says concerning himself, * 2.15 I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and † 2.16 I and the Father are one? He [spake also] by the Prophet, ‖ 2.17 Behold me, for I am the Lord, and am not changed. And though some one may say, that this was spoken in reference to the Father, yet it will be more accommo∣date, to understand it now to be spoken in relation to the Word: because although he became man, yet was he not changed: but, as the Apostle says, † 2.18 Jesus Christ the same yesterday and to day, and for ever. But what motive could they have to say, that he was made for us, whenas Paul saith, * 2.19 For him are all things, and by him are all things? But concerning their Blasphemy in affirming, that the Son doth not perfectly know the Father, it ought not to be wondred at. For having once resolved to fight

against Christ, they despise even the Words of the Lord himself, who says, * 2.20 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father. If therefore the Father knoweth the Son only in part, it is mani∣fest, that the Son also knoweth the Father in part. But if it be impious to assert this, and if the Father knoweth the Son perfectly, it is perspicuous, that as the Father knoweth his own Word, so doth the Word know his own Father, whose Word he is. By as∣serting of these things, and explaining the sacred Scriptures we have frequently confuted them; but they, like Chamaeleons, have again been changed, pertinaciously contending to appropriate to themselves this that is written, † 2.21 When the impious is arrived at the very extreams of wicked∣ness, he despiseth. There have indeed been many He∣resies before these persons, which by their too much au∣daciousness have fallen into imprudence and folly: But these men, who by all their discourses i 2.22 attempt nothing less than the subversion of the Divinity of the Word, have to the utmost of their power made those [preceding] Heresies to be accounted just, in regard they approach neerer to Antichrist. Wherefore they are expelled out of the Church, and Anathematized. We are really troubled at the destruction of these men, and the rather because they were heretofore instructed in the Doctrine of the Church, but have now renounced it. Yet we do not look upon this as so strange a thing. For the same thing befell * 2.23 Hymenaeus and Philetus; and, before them, Judas, who though he had been our Saviour's Dis∣ciple, yet was afterwards his betrayer, and an Apostate. Neither have we continued unadvis'd of these very persons: for our Lord hath predicted, † 2.24 Take heed that no man deceive you: For many shall come in my name saying: I am [Christ,] and the time draweth neer, and they shall deceive many. Go ye not therefore after them. And Paul having learned these things from our Saviour, wrote thus, * 2.25 That in the latter days, some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to se∣ducing spirits and doctrines of devils, who detest the truth. Since therefore our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ hath himself commanded this, and also by his Apostle hath given us intimation concerning these men, we, being ear-witnesses of their impiety, have deservedly anathematized these men, as we said before, and openly declar'd them estranged from the Catholick Church and Faith. Moreover, we have signified thus much to your Piety, (beloved and dearest Fellow-Ministers) that if any of them should have the confidence to come to you, you might not entertain them, and that you should not be per∣swaded [to believe] Eusebius, or any one else that shall write to you concerning them. For it is our Duty, as we are Christians, to detest all those that speak or devise any thing against Christ, as the Enemies of God, and the corrupters of Souls, and * 2.26 not to say to such men so much as God speed, lest we become partakers of their iniquities (as Saint John hath commanded us.) Salute the Brethren that are with you, they that are with us salute you.

Alexander, having Written such Letters as this to all the Bishops in every City, the mischief grew worse; those to whom the Contents thereof were communicated, being hereby inflamed with a pertinacious contention. Some were of the same O∣pinion with, and subscrib'd to the Contents of these Letters; but others did the contrary. But Eu∣sebius Bishop of Nicomedia was in the highest degree incited to dissent, because Alexander had in his Letters made a reproachfull mention of him in particular. At that time Eusebius was a man of great interest, because the Emperour did then keep his Court at Nicomedia: for Diocletian had not long before built a Pallace there. For this reason therefore many Bishops were very obsequious to Eusebius. And he himself wrote frequently, sometimes to Alexander, [advising him] to suppress k 2.27 the con∣troversie raised [amongst them] and to readmit Arius and his Adherents into the Church: at other times [he wrote] to the Bishops of every particular City, [per∣swading them] that they should not consent to Alex∣ander. Hence it came to pass that all places were filled with tumult and distur∣bances. For now a man might have seen not only the Prelates of the Churches in words con∣tending with one another, but the populace also divided, some inclining to one party, some to ano∣ther. And this matter grew to that height of indignity and insolency, that the Christian Reli∣gion became a Ridicule even in the publick The∣aters. Those that were at Alexandria did * 2.28 per∣tinaciously contend about the chiefest points of the Faith: they also sent Embassies to the Bishops of every particular Province. Likewise, those that were of the other party, were authours of the like stirs and discords. l 2.29 There were mixed amongst the A∣rians the Melitians, who not long before had been separa∣ted from [the communion] of the Church. Now who these Melitians are, we must relate: one Melitius a Bishop of one of the Cities in Egypt, had been deposed by Peter Bishop of Alexandria (who suffered Martyrdom under Diocletian,) for several o∣ther reasons, but most espe∣cially for this, that in the time of Persecution he had denied the Faith and sacrific'd. This per∣son being divested [of his Bishoprick,] and having got a great many followers, constituted himself the Ringleader of their Heresie, who in Aegypt are to this day from him called Melitians. Moreover, having no reasonable excuse at all for his separation from the Church, he barely said thus much, that he was injured, he did likewise revile and speak reproachfully of Peter. Peter having suffered Martyrdom in the Persecution, ended his life. But [Melitius] withdraws his reproaches [from Peter] and casts them first upon Achillas, Peter's successour, and afterwards upon Alexander who succeeded Achillas. Du∣ring their being engaged in this dissention, Arius's controversie was started; and Melitius and his Complices became favourers of Arius, joyning with him in a conspiracy against the Bishop. Now those who lookt upon Arius's Opinion as absurd, approved of Alexander's condemnation of Arius, and thought the sentence pass'd against all that favour'd that Heresie was just and equitable. But Eusebius of Nicomedia, and as many as embraced

Arius's Opinion, wrote to Alexander that he should abrogate the sentence of Excommunica∣tion that had been pronounc't, and readmit the persons Excommunicate into the Church: in re∣gard they asserted nothing that was perverse or impious. Letters from both the disagreeing par∣ties having been after this manner sent to the Bishop of Alexandria, there was a Collection made of these Epistles: Arius Collected those which were written in his own defence, and Alex∣ander those that made against him. Hence those Sects, (which do abound so numerously in these our days,) that is, the Arians, Eunomians, and those that derive their denomination from Mace∣donius, took an occasion of defending their own Tenets. For each of them quote the Epistles of their own party as a sufficient evidence.

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

WHen the Emperour had notice of these things, he was greatly perplexed in mind, and looking upon this as his own calamitous concern, without delay he made it his business to extinguish the mischief newly hatch't, directing his Letters to Alexander and Arius by a person of known fidelity, nam'd Hosius, who was Bi∣shop of Corduba a City in Spain; which man the Emperour had a great love and esteem for. Part of this letter, 'tis not unseasonable to in∣sert here; the whole Letter a 2.30 is extant in Eu∣sebius's Books concerning the life of Constantine.

VICTOR CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to ALEXANDER and ARIUS.

We understand that this was the ground of the present controversie. For when You, Alexander, enquired of your Presbyters, what every particular man's b 3.1 Opinion was concer∣ning a certain Text of Scri∣pture, or rather concerning a part of a fruitless contro∣versie: and whereas you Arius, inconsiderately vented such sentiments as you ought either not to have conceiv'd at first, or if you had had such conceptions, it had been your duty, to have let them been buried in si∣lence: upon this a dissention has been raised between you, communion is refused: and the most Religious populace rent into two factions, is separated from the harmonious unity of the whole body. Where∣fore let both of you, mutually pardoning each other, quietly accept of what your fellow-servant doth rea∣sonably advise you to. But what is that? it was your duty neither to have asked such questions at first, nor if proposed, to have made any return thereto. For such questions, as no law does necessarily limit or prescribe, but are proposed by the contentiousness of an unprofitable vacancy from business (although they may be framed to exercise and imploy our natural parts about, yet) we ought to confine with∣in our own breasts, and not inconsiderately divulge them in publick assemblies, nor unadvisedly com∣mit them to the ears of the vulgar. For what person amongst a thousand is sufficiently qualifi'd either accurately to comprehend the full efficacy and nature of things so sublime and profound, or to expli∣cate them according to their worth and dignity? Or should any man look upon this to be an easie per∣formance, how small a part of the Vulgar will he induce to be fully perswaded hereof? Or what man can without danger of falling into gross errours in∣sist upon the accurate discussions of such nice contro∣versies? In questions therefore of this nature loqua∣city must be bridled and restrained; least either through the frailty of our nature (we being not able to explicate what we proposed,) or through the slowness of our Auditors understanding what they are taught (being unable accuratly to apprehend our discourse,) least [we say] from one of these causes the people be reduced to a necessity of Blas∣phemy or Schisme. Wherefore let an unwary que∣stion, and an inconsiderate answer with both of you mutually pardon each other. For this contest is not kindled upon an occasion of any principal or chief commandment of our law: neither have you intro∣duc'd any new Heresie concerning the worship of God. But you both hold one and the same Opinion; so that [you may easily close in a] consent of commu∣nion with each other. For whilst you thus pertinaci∣ously contend about trifles and things of no impor∣tance, c 3.2 tis not convenient that so numerous a people of God should be under your care and government, because of your dis∣sention with one another: nor is it only misbecoming, but 'tis also judged to be altogether un∣lawfull. Now that I may ad∣vertise your prudence by a smaller instance, I will tell you: you know even the Philosophers themselves, how that they are all united in [the profession of] one Sect, whenas notwithstan∣ding they frequently disagree in some part of their assertions; but although they do sometimes jarre * 3.3 in the very perfection of knowledge, yet because of the agreement and union of their Sect, they do again close in a mutual consent. Now if it be so [amongst them,] it will certainly be much more reasonable that you, who are the Ministers of the most high God, should in like manner be unanimous in the profession of the same Religion. But let us now with more accuracy and greater attention inspect and deliberate upon what has been said: whether it be just and equitable, that because of the trivial, vain, and pertinacious contests between you about words, brethren should be set in array [as it were] against brethren; and that that venerable assembly should upon your account, who contend with one another about things so slight and in no wise necessary, be rent asunder by an impious variance. These [contests] are poor and mean, and do be∣come a childish ignorance, rather than agree with [the gravity] of Presbyters, and prudent men. Let us of our own accord depart from the tenta∣tions of the Devil. Our great God, the Saviour of all men, hath reached forth a light common to all men. By the assistance of whose providence, give

us leave, who are his servant that we may success∣fully finish this our endeavour, that by our exhorta∣tion, diligence and earnest admonitions, we may reduce you to an unity of assembly. For in regard, as we have already said, you hold the same faith, and have the same sentiments of our Religion; and since the commandment of the law doth in all its parts inclose all in general in one consent and purpose of mind: Let not this thing, which has raised a mutual division between you, (in as much as it appertaineth not to the power and efficacy of Religion in general) by any means make a separation and a faction amongst you. These things we speak, not to necessitate you to be all of one Opinion concerning this foolish idle con∣troversie, of what sort soever it be. For the pretious value of the assembly may be preserved entire a∣mongst you, and one and the same Communion may be retained, although there be interchangeably a∣mongst you a great diversity of sentiments in things of the smallest import. For we do not all * 3.4 mean the same in all things, neither is there one disposi∣tion or opinion in all of us. Therefore, concer∣ning the Divine Providence, let there be amongst you one faith, one meaning, and one covenant of the Deity. But as for these slender and light questions, which with so much niceness you dispute of and make researches into amongst your selves, although therein you do not all agree in the same opinion, yet 'tis your duty, to confine them to your own thoughts, and keep them within the secret re∣positories of your own minds. Let therefore an un∣utterable and excellent common friendship, a belief of the truth, the honour of God, and a Religious observance of his Law, remain amongst you firm and immoveable; return ye to a mutual friendship and charity: restore to the whole body of the people their usual embraces. And be you your selves (having as it were purifi'd your own souls,) acquainted again [and renew your familiarity] with one another. For friendship is frequently more sweet and pleasing, after the d 3.5 occasion of the enmity is laid aside, return to a reconci∣liation again. Restore there∣fore to us peaceable and serene days, and nights void of sol∣licitude, that during the residue of our Life we may have the pleasure of the pure light, and the joy of a quiet life reser∣ved for us. Which if [we shall not obtain] we must ne∣cessarily groan, and be wholly surrounded with tears: nor shall we finish the residue of our Life without great dis∣quietude. For whilst the peo∣ple of God, (we mean our fellow servants,) are rent asunder by this pernitious and indiscreet dissention which they are now involved in, how is it possible for us in future to continue in a sedate temper of mind? And that you may be sensible of our excessive sorrow for this thing, be attentive [to what we shall tell you.] When we lately came to the City of Nico∣media, we had resolv'd forthwith to have made a journey into the East. But while we were hast∣ning towards you, and had performed above half our journey, the news of this affair quite altered our resolution: least we should be necessitated to be a spectator of these things, which we could not endure even to hear. Do you therefore by your unanimity for the time to come, open the way for us into the East, which by your mutual discord you have stopped up. Give us leave with joy speedily to see you, and all the rest of the people, and that with an unani∣mous consent of praises we may offer up to God due thanks for the publick agreement and liberty.

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

SUch admirable and prudent advice did the Emperours Letter give them. But the mis∣chievous difference was grown so strong and potent, that neither the Emperours industry, nor the authority of the Person who brought the Let∣ters was able to do any good. For neither Alex∣ander nor Arius were in the least mollifi'd by the Letter: amongst the populace also there was an irreconcileable discord, and a great disturbance. Moreover, before this broke out, there was another distemper in that place, which had caus'd distur∣bance in the Church, (to wit) a disagreement concerning the Feast of Easter; but this was only in the Eastern parts: where some made it their business to celebrate that Festival after the Jewish manner, others [in their solemnization thereof] imitated the rest of the Christians throughout the whole world. But though they differ'd thus concerning the Feast, yet they did not refrain from a mutual Communion. However, they clou∣ded the joy of the Feast by this their dissention. The Emperour therefore seeing the Church di∣sturbed by these two evils, convened a General Council, by his Letters requesting the Bishops from all parts to meet together at Nice a City of Bithynia. Accordingly the Bishops out of divers Provinces and Cities assembled; concer∣ning whom Eusebius Pamphilus, in his third book of Constantin's Life, writeth thus word for word. The most eminent therefore amongst Gods Ministers of all those Churches which filled all Europe, Li∣bya and Asia, were conven'd. And one sacred Oratory, enlarged as it were by God himself, in∣cluded at the same time within its walls both Sy∣rians and Cilicians, Phoenicians and Arabians, Palestinians, and Aegyptians also, Thebaeans, Li∣byans, and those that came out of Mesopota∣mia. There was also at this Synod a Persian Bishop, neither was the Scythian absent from this Quire. * 3.6 Pontus also, and Galatia, Pamphilia and Cap∣padocia, Asia, and Phrygia afforded their most select Divines. Moreover, there appeared here Thracians, and Macedonians, Achaians and Epirots, and such as dwelt far beyond these were never∣theless present. [Hosius al∣so] that most fam'd Spaniard, (together with ma∣ny of his Countreymen) was one that sate in this Council. The † 3.7 Prelate of the Imperial City was

absent by reason of his age. But his Presbyters were there, and supplied his place. The Emperour Constantine was the only person of all the Princes since the foundation of the world, who (after he had platted such a Crown as this by the Bond of Peace) dedicated it to Christ his Saviour as a divine present and acknowledgment for the Vi∣ctories he had obtained over his Enemies and Adversaries, having constituted this Synod con∣vened in our days to be a lively representation of that Apostolick Quire. For it is * 3.8 Written that in the Apostles days there were gathered together devout men out of every nation under heaven, amongst whom were Parthians, Medes, and E∣lamites, and the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, of Pontus and of Asia, of Phrygia and Pamphilia; of Aegypt, and of the parts of Libya adjacent to Cyrene: strangers also of Rome, Jews and Proselytes, Cretians and Arabians. This was the only thing wanting, that Meeting [in the Apostles times] did not consist of the Ministers of God only. But in this present assembly the number of the Bishops exceededa 3.9 three hundred. And the Presbyters that accompanied them, the Dea∣cons, * 3.10 Acoluthi, and the many other persons were almost innumerable. Of these Ministers of God, some were emi∣nent for their Wisdom and Eloquence; others for their sober and discreet Lives, others for their patient sufferance [of hardships,] and others were adorned with b 3.11 modesty and a courteous behaviour. Some of them were highly respected by reason of their great age, and o∣thers were eminent for their youthfull vigour both of body and mind. Some were newly ini∣tiated into the Order of the Ministry. To all these the Emperour commanded a plentifull provi∣sion of food to be daily allowed. † 3.12 Thus much saies Eusebius concerning those there Assembled.

When the Emperour had ended his triumphal solemnities for his Victory over Licinius, he himself came also to Nice. The most eminent amongst the Bishops were these two, Paphnu∣tius Bishop of the upper Thebais, and Spyridion Bishop of Cyprus: but for what reason we have made mention of these two particularly, shall in the sequel be declared. There were also present a great many Laïcks, well skilled in Logick, ready to assist each their own party. Now the Patrons of Arius's Opinion were these. Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, (whom we mentioned before,) Theognis, and Maris: the first was Bishop of Nice, and Maris was Bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia. Against these Athanasius (who was then but a Deacon of the Church of Alexandria) con∣tended vigorously. But Alexander the Bishop had an high esteem for him: upon which ac∣count he became the subject of envy, as we shall declare in the sequel. A little before the con∣vention of the Bishops in one place, the Lo∣gicians exercised themselves by engaging in some skirmishing disputes with several persons: and when many had been enticed to take a delight in disputing, a Laick, one that was a Contessour, an honest well meaning man, oppos'd these Disputants, and told them thus: that nei∣ther Christ nor his Apostles taught us the art of disputing, nor vain subtileness, or fallacies, but a plain c 3.13 Opinion which is to be guarded by faith and good works. All that stood by, hearing him speak these words, admired him, and approved of what he said: and the Log••cians themselves, having heard this plain and honest declaration of the truth, did in future more patiently acquiesce: and thus was that tumult, which had been raised by disputing, composed. The next day after this all the Bishops were conven'd in one place; after whom came the Emperour. Who when he came in, stood in the midst of them, and would not take his seat till such time as the Bi∣shops had by bowing of their heads signified to him, that it was their desire he should sit down: so great a respect and reverence had the Empe∣rour for those men. After such a silence was made, as was agreeable to the occasion, the Emperour from his Chair of State began to speak to them in kind perswasive words, exhor∣ting them to unanimity and concord. He also advis'd them to pass by all private animosities. For many of them had brought in accusations against one another: and some of them the day before had presented petitionary Libells to the Emperour. But he, advising them to proceed to the business before them for which they were conven'd, gave command that the Libells should be burnt, adding only this [maxim;] Christ com∣mands him, who desires to obtain forgiveness, to forgive his brother. Therefore, after he had at large discoursed upon Concord and Peace, he referred it to their power and arbitrement with a greater accuracy to make a further in∣spection into the points of our Religion. It will be very opportune to hear Eusebius's relation of these affairs, in his third book of Constantin's Life. His words there are these: * 3.14 Many Que∣stions being proposed by both parties, and a great controversie raised even at the first beginning [of their debate,] the Emperour heard them all very patiently, and with an intent mind deliberately received their propositions; by turns he assisted the assertions of both parties, and by degrees re∣duced them, who pertinaciously opposed each other, to a more sedate temper of mind; by his gratious speeches to every person, which he spoke in the Greek tongue, (for he was not unskilled in that Lan∣guage) he rendred himself most pleasant, accept∣able, and delightfull; inducing some to be of his

Opinion by the force of his Arguments; wooing others by intreaties; praising those who spoke well, and exciting all to an accommodation; at length he re∣duc'd them all to an unanimity and conformity in Opinion concerning all points that were in debate. So that there was not only an universal agreement about [the Articles] of Faith, but also a set time generally acknowledg'd for the cele∣bration of the salutary Feast [of Easter.] More∣over, the Decrees ratified by a common consent were engrossed and confirm'd by the subscription of every person. These are Eusebius's own words concerning these things, which he has left us in his Writings: we thought it not unseasonable to make use of them; and have inserted them into our History, relying upon the testimony of what has been said by him: that in case any should condemn this Council of Nice as erroneous in the [matters of] Faith, we might take no notice of them, nor credit d 3.15 Sabinus the Macedonian, who terms all those that were convened in this Coun∣cil, idiots and simple per∣sons. For Sabinus (Bishop of those Macedonians which dwell at Heraclea a City of Thrace) who made a Col∣lection of the Canons which several Synods of Bishops published, reviles the Bi∣shops of the Council of Nice as being Idiots, and Ignorant fellows, being in∣sensible that he does also at the same time accuse Euse∣bius himself as an Idiot, who after a most exquisite search into it made a confession of that Faith. Some things he hath designedly omitted: o∣thersome he has depraved and changed: but he has interpreted all passages according to his own sense and design. He does indeed commend Eu∣sebius Pamphilus as a witness worthy to be credited: he does also praise the Emperour for his judgment and skill in the Principles of Christianity, but he complains of the Creed published at the Coun∣cil of Nice, as being set forth by Idiots and men that understood nothing. And that same mans words, whom he calls a wise and faithfull witness, he voluntarily contemns. For Eusebius testifieth, that of those Ministers of God that were present at the Council of Nice, some were emi∣nent for their prudent Eloquence; others for their gravity and solidness of life; and that the Em∣perour being present reduced them all to an agree∣ment, and made them to be of the same mind and opinion. But of Sabinus (wheresoever necessity requires) we shall hereafter make mention. Now the agreement in [the Articles of] our Faith e 3.16 published with loud acclamations, by the great Council of Nice, was this.

f 3.17 We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Fa∣ther, the only begotten, that is of the substance of the Father: God of God and Light of Light, very God of very God: begotten not made; of the same substance with the Father: by whom all things were made, that are in heaven and in earth: who for the sake of us men, and for our salvation descended, and was incarnate, and was made man, and he suffered and arose again the third day, ascended into the Heavens, he shall come to Judge the quick and the dead: [We also believe] in the Holy Ghost. But the holy Catholick and Apostolick Church doth anathematize those that aver, that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was made of nothing, Or that say he was made of another sub∣stance or essence, or that he is either created, or convertible, or mutable.

This Creed three hundred and eighteen Bishops approved of and embraced: and (as Eusebius testifies) being unanimous in their suffrages and sentiments, they subscribed it. There were only g 3.18 five that refused to allow of it, who misliked the word * 3.19 Homoou∣sios: these were Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis Bishop of Nice, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais. For in re∣gard they asserted, that that is * 3.20 Consubstantial which is from another either by Partition, or by Derivation, or by Eruption: by Eruption, as the Branch from the Root: by Derivation, as Children from their Parents: by Partition, as two or three pieces of Gold from the whole Mass: but that the Son of God is [from the Father] by none of these three ways. There∣fore they said, they could not give their assent to this [draught of] the Creed. Therefore af∣ter a tedious cavil about the term * 3.21 Homoöusios, they deny'd to subscribe the degradation of Arius. Upon which account the Synod anathematized Arius and all those that were of his opinion, adding this besides, that he should be prohibited from en∣tring into Alexandria. The Emperour also did by his Edict banish Arius, Eusebius, and Theognis. Eusebius and Theognis soon after their banish∣ment exhibited their penetentiary Libells, and assented to the belief of Homoöusios, as we shall declare in the procedure of our History. At the same time Eusebius sirnam'd Pamphilus, Bi∣shop of Caesarea in Palestine (having made some small Hesitancy in the Synod, and considered with himself whether he might securely admit of this form of Faith,) at length together with all the rest gave his assent, and subscrib'd: he also sent a Copy of the form of Faith to the people with∣in his Diocess, and explain'd to them the term Homoöusios, lest any one should have an ill opinion of him, because of his Hesitancy: Thus therefore he wrote word for word.

It is very probable (beloved) that you may have heard what hath been done concerning the Ecclesiastick Faith in the great Council convened at Nice, in regard report doth usually outrun an accurate Narrative of the matters Transacted. But [fea∣ring] lest by such a bare report the matter might be represented to you otherwise then really it is, we thought it requisite to send to you; first that form of Faith which we our selves proposed [to the Council,] and likewise that other published

[by the Bishops] who made some additions to ours. That form of Faith drawn up by us, (which was read in the presence of our most pious Emperour, and appeared to all to be sound and Orthodox,) runn's thus. As we have receiv'd by tradition from our Predecessours the Bishops, then when we were instructed in the first principles of the Faith, and received Baptism; as we have learnt from the divine Scriptures, and as (during our con∣tinuance in the Presbytership, and also since we have been intrusted with a Bishoprick) we have believed and taught, so we also now believe, and do make a publick declaration to you of our Faith: which is this.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only be∣gotten Son, the first born of every creature, begotten of God the Father before all worlds; by whom also all things were made: who for our salvation was incarnate, and conversed amongst men: who suffer'd, and rose again the third day, he ascended unto the Father, and shall come again in Glory to Judge the quick and the dead. We also believe in one Holy Ghost: We believe that each of these [Persons] is, and doth subsist: that the Father is truely the Father, the Son really the Son, and the Holy Ghost really the Holy Ghost: as our Lord also, when he sent his Disciples out to Preach, said. * 4.1 Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Concerning which [Articles] we do aver, that we thus maintain and hold them, that these are our sentiments of them, that this was our Opinion formerly, that this Opinion we will till death retain, that we will persevere in this be∣lief, and anathematize every impious Heresie. We call God Almighty, and Jesus Christ our Lord to witness, that these were sincerely and heartily our sentiments, ever since we were capable of knowing our selves, and that we do now think and speak what is most true: and we are ready to demonstrate to you, by most infallible proofs, and to perswade you, that both in times past we thus believ'd, and likewise thus Preached.

When this Creed was propos'd by us, there was no body that could oppose it. Moreover, our most pious Emperour, did himself first attest its truth: he protested that he himself was of the same Opi∣nion, and exhorted all to assent to, and subscribe these very Articles, and unanimously to agree [in the profession] of them; h 4.2 this one only word Ho∣moöusios being inserted; which term the Em∣perour himself thus explained, saying, he suppos'd that the word Homoöusios was not to be taken in such a sense as is agreeable to the affections of the body, and therefore that the Son had not his subsistance from the Father either by Division, or Abscission. For it is impossible [said he] that an immaterial intellectual and incorporeal nature, should be subject to any corporeal affection: but our sentiments of such things must be expressed in divine and mysterious terms. Thus did our most wise and pious Emperour Philosophize. But the Bishops upon the occasion of adding this word Ho∣moöusios drew up this form [of the Creed i 4.3.]

The Creed.

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

When this form of Faith was appointed by the Bishops, we did not inconsiderately omit making an enquiry, what their meaning was of those terms, of the substance of the Father, and of the same substance with the Father. Hence therefore arose several Questions and Answers; and the true im∣port of those words was with great accuracy exa∣mined. And it was acknowledged by them, that these words, To be of the substance, did only sig∣nifie thus much, that the Son is of the Father, but not as a part of the Father. It seem'd to us altogether reasonable and safe to give our assent to this meaning of this sacred Doctrine, which asser∣teth, that the Son is of the Father, but is not a part of his substance. Wherefore we our selves also gave our assent to this import [of those words;] nor do we reject the terme Homoöusios, having peace before our eyes as the marke at which we aime, and [being cautious] lest we should fall from a right apprehension [of the Faith] For the same reasons also we have admitted of these words, be∣gotten not made. For made, said they, is a common term attributed to all other creatures which were made by the Son; of whom the Son hath no resem∣blance. Wherefore he is no creature, like to those, which were created by him: but he is of a far more excellent substance then any creature▪ which sub∣stance, as the sacred Oracles do instruct us, is be∣gotten of the Father, but by such a manner of Gene∣ration as is ineffable, and inexpressible by any created Being. Thus also this proposition, that the Son is of the same substance with the Father, was discussed, to wit, that this is not [to be un∣derstood] according to the manner of bodies, nor [in a sense] agreeable to mortal Creatures. For this [Consubstantiality] cannot [be] either by Division of the Substance, or by Abscision, or Mutation of the Paternal Essence and Power. For all these things are inconsistent with the uncreated nature of the Father. But this [proposition] to be of the same substance with the Father doth

expresly represent to us no more than this, viz. that the Son of God hath no community with, or resem∣blance to, created Beings; but that in every re∣spect he is like to the Father onely, who hath be∣gotten him; and that he does exist of no other substance or essence, but of the Father. To this [Opinion] therefore thus explain'd we thought good to give our assent: more especially, because we also knew that some of the Ancient Learned and eminent Bishops, and Writers▪ have made use of this term Homoöusios, in their explications of the Divinity of the Father and of the Son. Thus much therefore we have said concerning the Creed published [at Nice,] to which we all agreed▪ not inconsiderately and without examination, but ac∣cording to the senses given, k 4.4 which were discussed in the presence of our most pious Em∣perour, and for the foremen∣tioned reasons, received with an unanimous consent. More∣over, as concerning the * 4.5 Anathema∣tism published by the Fathers after the Creed, we judged it not in the least trou∣blesome, in regard it does pro∣hibit the use of terms that oc∣cur not in the Scriptures, from the use of which terms came almost all the confusion and disturbance that hath been raised in the Church. Since therefore, no part of the Scripture given by divine inspiration hath made use of these terms, to wit, of things which exist not, and there was a time when he was not: it seem'd disa∣greeable to reason that these [assertions] should be either mentioned, or taught. To this good and sound Opinion we also have assented, in as much as in former times we have never made use of such ex∣pressions. These things (beloved) we thought re∣quisite to send to you, that we might most apparently evidence to you the considerateness as well of our examination and researches [into all points,] as of our assent: and [that you might also know] with what good reason we did at first make a resi∣stance even to the last houre, as long as some things written in a manner different from what they should have been, offended us: but at length with∣out further contention we embraced those points which were not offensive, when after a candid enquiry into the import of the terms we found them to be agree∣able with what we our selves had made confession of, in that form of the Creed we at first proposed.

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

CHAP. IX. The Epistle of the Synod, concerning those matters de∣termined by it, and how Arius was degraded, to∣gether with them that embraced his sentiments.

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

For as much as by the Grace of God, and [the Summons] of the most pious Emperour Constantine (who hath call'd us together out of diverse Cities and Provinces,) a great and holy Synod has been convened at Nice, it seem'd altogether necessary, that a Letter should be written to you in the name of the sacred Synod; whence you might understand what things were there propos'd, and what taken into examination, as also what were Decreed and established. First of all therefore, the impiety and iniquity of Arius and his complices was inquired into in the presence of the most pious Emperour Con∣stantine: and the Councils determination (which was confirmed by the suffrages of all) was, that his impious Opinion, and execrable terms and names should be anathematized, which [terms and names] he blasphemously used, a 5.1 af∣firming that the Son of God had his Being of nothing, and that there was a time when he was not; as also saying, that the Son of God had à freedom of will, [whereby he was] capable either of ver∣tue or vice: and calls him a Credture, and a Work. All these [Tenets] the holy Synod hath anathematized, not en∣during so much as patiently to hear this impious opinion, or rather madness, and these blasphemous expressions. But what issue the proceedings against him are arrived at, you have either heard already, or will hear; lest we should seem to insult over a man who hath receiv'd a condign recompence for his own wickedness. But his impiety was grown so prevalent, that he drew into the same pit of perdition [with himself] Theonas Bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus Bishop of P••olemaïs▪ For the same sentence [that had been given against him] was pronounced against them. But after the Grace of God had delivered us from that mischievous Opi∣nion and from impiety and blasphemy, and from those persons who were so audacious as to make divisions and [sow] discord amongst a people heretofore peace∣able; there yet remain'd the perverse stubborness of Melitius, and those that had been by him admitted into sacred Orders: and we now relate to you (beloved brethren) the judgment of the Synod concer∣ning this particular. It pleas'd therefore the Synod (which dealt more kindly with Melitius; for in the b 5.2 strictest sense and rigour of the law he did not deserve the least favour) that he should continue in his City, but have no jurisdiction, neither to Ordain,

or to * 5.3 propose the names of those that were to be Ordained, or to appear in any Village, or City upon this pretence: but that he should barely enjoy his appellation and title only. And as for c 5.4 those that had been Ordain'd by him to any function, being confirm'd by a d 5.5 more sacred Ordination, they should afterwards be admitted into Commu∣nion, and upon this condition they may continue possest of their preferment and function, but yet they are to acknowledge themselves always inferiour to all those that had been approved of in every Diocess and Church, who had been e 5.6 Ordained before by our dearest colleague in the sacred Function, Alexan∣der. So that besides, they shall have no power f 5.7 to propose, or nominate whom they please, or to act in any thing at all without the knowledge and consent of some Catholick g 5.8 Bishop, who is one of Alexanders suffragans. But those that by the grace of God and your prayers have not been found [en∣gaged] in any Schism, but have continued in the Catholick Church blameless; let such have power to nominate and elect those that are worthy of the sacred Function, and act in all things according to the established Law and Sanctions of the Church. And if it shall happen that some of those who now hold Ecclesiastick preferments, die, then let those that are newly admitted and receiv'd [into the Church] be prefer'd to the dignities of the deceased▪ h 5.9 pro∣vided that they shall appear worthy, and that the people shall freely elect them, provided also that the Bishop of Alexandria doth by his suffrage ratifie and confirm [the peoples Election.] This same Priviledge is also granted to all. But concerning Melitius in particular we otherwise Decree, that (because of his former irregularity, rashness, and giddiness of disposition,) no jurisdiction or autho∣rity shall be allowed him, he being a man able to revive the same disturbances that were before. These things are such as most especially and parti∣cularly relate to Aegypt, and [concern] the most holy Church of Alexandria. But if there shall be any other Canon or Decree made; being our Lord, and our most Reverent fellow Minister and Brother Alexander is present, he at his arrival will give you a more particular account, in regard he is the Authour of, and conscious to, what ever is done. We also send you the good news concerning the unanimous consent of all in reference to the cele∣bration of the most solemn Feast of Easter; for this difference also hath been made up by the assistance of your prayers; so that all the bre∣thren in the East, who formerly celebrated this Festival at the same time the Jews did, will in future conform to the Romans and to us, and to all who have of old observed our manner of cele∣brating Easter. Do you therefore (rejoycing at the good success of affairs, and at the unanimous Peace and Concord [amongst all men,] and also because all Heresie is wholly extirpated,) with a greater honour, and more ardent love receive our Fellow Minister (but your Bishop) Alexander, whose presence here hath greatly rejoyced us, and who in this his infirm age hath endured so great labours, that Peace might be restored amongst you. Pray for us all that those good determinations which are made, may remain firm and inviolable, through Almighty God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, together with the holy Ghost; to whom be glory for ever,

Amen.

In this Synodical Epistle 'tis apparent, that the Nicene Fathers did not only anathematize Arius and his followers, but the very terms of his O∣pinion also: and that (in regard they had a∣mongst themselves agree'd concerning the cele∣bration of Easter,) they received into Com∣munion i 5.10 the Arch-Heretick Melitius, allowing him indeed the liberty of retaining the dignity of a Bishop; but they deprived him of the power of doing any thing as a Bishop. And upon this account I suppose it is, that the Me∣litians in Aegypt are to this day separated from the Church, because the Synod took away all [Episcopal] power from Melitius. Moreover,

you must know, that Arius wrote a book con∣cerning his own Opinion, which he intitled Thalia. The stile of the book [and the Doctrine contained in it] was loose and dissolute, much resembling the Songs k 5.11 or Verses of * 5.12 Sotades. This piece of his also the Synod did at the same time condemn. Nor was the Synod only sollicitous about writing Letters concerning the Peace restored [to the Church:] but the Emperour Constantine also [signified the same] by his own Letters, who wrote to the Church of Alexandria as followeth.

The Emperours Letter.

Constantinus Augustus,

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

We have receiv'd the greatest blessing from the divine Providence, that being released from all Errrour, We can now embrace and profess one and the same Faith. The Devil hath no longer a dominion over us: for all the Machinations he design'd against us are now totally destroyed. The bright lustre of truth has (according to the com∣mandment of God) defeated those dissentions, those Schismes, those Tumults, and (if I may so term them) those fatal poysons of discord. We therefore do all adore one God in Name, and we believe that he is. Moreover, that this might be effected, by the admonition of God we conven'd a great many Bishops at the City of Nice: together with whom we our selves, one of your number, who re∣joyce exceedingly in that we are your fellow-servant, undertook the disquisition of the truth. We did therefore enquire into and accurately discuss all things, which seem'd to yield the least occasion of ambiguity, or dissention. And (may the divine Majesty pardon us!) how great and horrid Blas∣phemies have some indecently uttered concerning our * 6.1 Great Saviour, concerning our Hope and Life, speaking and openly professing that they believe things contrary to the divinely inspired Scriptures, and to the sacred Faith? Whenas therefore three hundred Bishops and upwards, admirable both for their moderation and acuteness of understanding, had unanimously confirmed one and the same Faith, (which, according to the verity and ac∣curate disquisition of the Divine Law, can only be the Faith) Arius, vanquished by a diabolical force, was found to be the only person, who with an im∣pious mind disseminated this mischief, first amongst you, and afterwards amongst others. Let us there∣fore embrace that Opinion, which Almighty God hath delivered. Let us return to our beloved brethren, from whom this impudent servant of the Devil hath separated us. Let us with all diligence imaginable hasten to the common body, and to our own natural members. For this doth well become your prudence, Faith, and Sanctity, that since his Error (who has been evidently prov'd to be an Enemy of the Truth) is confuted, you should re∣turn to the Divine Grace. For that which was approv'd of by three hundred Bishops, can be [judged] nothing else but the determination of God; especially, since the holy Ghost, residing in the minds of such great and worthy personages, hath disclosed to them the will of God. Where∣fore let none of you continue dubious, let none of you make delays: but do you all with great ala∣crity return to the right way▪ that when we come to you, which shall be as soon as possible, we may together with you return due thanks to God who inspects all things, because, having revealed the pure Faith, he hath restored you that mutual love which was the subject of all mens prayers. God preserve you, beloved Brethren.

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

Another Letter of Constantines.

VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS, AUGUSTUS, to the Bishops and People.

l 7.1 In as much as Arius has followed the Practices of wicked and profane persons, 'tis but just that he should undergo the same ignominy with them. Therefore, as Porphyrius, that Enemy of true Piety, found a just recompence for composing im∣pious Volumes against Religion, and such a recom∣pence as has rendred him ignominious to posterity, covered him with infamy and many reproaches, and his impious writings have been utterly de∣stroyed: so it also now seemes reasonable to term Arius and those that embrace his Opinion Por∣phyrians, that they may derive their denomina∣tion from him, whose morals they have so exactly imitated. Moreover, if any book written by Arius shall be found extant, we do hereby Order, that it be immediately burnt: that by this means not only his wicked Doctrine may be wholly destroyed, but also that there might not be left to posterity the

least monument of him. This also we declare, that if any person shall be found to have concealed a book compiled by Arius, and shall not immediate∣ly produce the said book and burn it, his punish∣ment shall be death. For immediately upon his being found guilty of this fact, he shall undergo a capital punishment. God preserve you.

Another Letter.

Constantinus Augustus, to the Churches.

Having sufficiently experienced, by the flouri∣shing posture of the publick affairs, how great the benignity of the divine power has been towards us; we judged it our chiefest concern and aim [to labour] for the Preservation of one Faith, a sincere charity, and one universally ac∣knowledged Religion towards Almighty God a∣mongst the most blessed Congregations of the Ca∣tholik Church. But since this could not be other∣wise firmly constituted and established, unless all, or at least the greatest part of the Bishops were conven'd in one place, and every particular that concerns the most sacred Religion were by them first discussed: upon this account, when as many of the Clergy, as could possibly be got together, were assembled, and we also, as one of you, were present with them (for we will not deny, what we account our greatest glory, that we are your fellow servant) all things were sufficiently dis∣cussed so long, untill a determination acceptable to God the Inspector of all things, was published in order to an universal agreement and union: so that there is now no place left for dissention, or controversie about [matters] of Faith. Where also, after a disquisition made concerning the most Holy day of Easter, it was by a general consent concluded to be the best course, for all men in all places to celebrate that Festival upon one and the same day. For what can be more comely and commendable, or what more grave and decent, then that this Festival, from which we have received the hopes of immortality, should be unerringly kept by all men in one and the same order, and in a manner apparently and ex∣presly agreeable? And in the first place, all men lookt upon it as an unworthy thing and misbe∣coming the dignity of that most sacred Festival, to follow the Jewish usage in the celebration there∣of. For the Jews, persons who have defiled them∣selves with a most abominable sin, are deservedly impure and blind as to their understandings. Ha∣ving therefore rejected their usage, we may by a more certain and infallible order propagate that day to future ages for the completion of this solemnity, which we have kept from the first day of the passion even to this present time. Let us then have nothing in common with that most ho∣stile multitude of the Jews. We have received an∣other way from our Saviour. For there is pro∣posed to us a lawful and decent leading to our most sacred Religion. Let us therefore (dearest Brethren) with one accord constantly persist in this course, and * 8.1 withdraw our selves from that most adverse Society and their consciousness. For it is really most absurd for them to make their bragges, that we are not capable of our selves, without their instruction to observe these things. But of what are they able to pass a right judg∣ment, who after that parricide of theirs, the mur∣ther of our Lord, were struck with madness, and are led, not by the conduct of reason, but by an un∣governable * 8.2 impetus, whithersoever their innate rage shall drive them? Hence therefore it is that even in this particular they discern not the Truth, m 8.3 but always wandring at the greatest distance from a de∣cent and agreeable amend∣ment, they celebrate Easter twice within the space of one and the same year. What reason have we therefore to follow these men, who, it is acknowledged, are distempered with an abominable Errour? We must never endure the keeping of two Easters in one year. But although what we have said were not sufficient, yet nevertheless, it behooves your prudence to make it your greatest care, and the mat∣ter of your constant prayers, that the purity of your souls should not in the likeness of any thing seem to be joyned or mixed with the usages of most wicked men. Besides, this is to be considered, that it is a most impious thing, that there should be any dis∣agreement in a matter of so great concern, and in such a solemnity of Religion. For our Saviour left us but one day [to be celebrated in com∣memoration] of our Redem∣ption, that is the day of his most sacred Passion: and he also desired that his Catholick Church should be one. The members of which Church (al∣though they are much disper∣sed in divers places, yet ne∣vertheless) are cherished by one spirit, that is, by the will of God. Let the prudence of your sanctity consider, how grievous and undecent a thing it is, that on the self same daies some should keep strict Fasts, and others celebrate Feasts: and that on the days after Easter, some should be conversant in feastings and a vacantness from labours, and others devote themselves to set Fasts. Wherefore it pleased divine Providence that these things should be seasonably redressed, and reduced to one and the same form, as we suppose you are all sensible. Since therefore it was expe∣dient to make such an emendation in this point, as that we might not seem to hold the least Com∣munion with those Parricides, and Murderers of of our Lord, the Jews: and since this is the most decent and becoming order, which all the Churches of the Western, Southern and Northern parts of the world, and also some in the Eastern parts do observe: for these reasons all persons have at present judged it good and expedient; (and we our selves also promised that it would not be ungratefull to your wisdom,) that that which with such an universal unanimity is observed in the City of Rome, and all over Italy and Africa, throughout

all Aegypt, Spain, France, Brittain, Libya; over all Greece, and the Provinces of Asia and Pontus, and throughout Cilicia, would also be most willingly received and embraced by you. Let this also be seriously considered, that not only the number of the Churches in the forementioned places is far the greater; but also that it is most just and equal that all mens wills should universally concur in that which strict reason seems to require, and which has no Com∣munion with the perjury of the Jews. But, that we may speak more summarily and briefly, it was by a ge∣neral consent agreed that the most sacred Festival of Easter should be solemniz'd upon one and the same day. For it is undecent that there should be any diver∣sity in so great and holy a solemnity: and it is far bet∣ter to adhere to that Opinion, in which there is no mix∣ture of strange and absurd errour and impiety. Since therefore these things are thus ordered, do you with joy receive this celestial and truly divine Command∣ment. For whatsoever is transacted [and determi∣ned] in the sacred assemblies of the Bishops, must be attributed to the Divine will. Wherefore, when you have imparted to all our beloved brethren what has been prescribed, it is your duty to embrace, and establish the forementioned rule and observation of the most holy day: that when we shall come into the presence of your love (which we were long since desirous of,) we may celebrate the sacred Festival with you, on one and the same day: and that we may rejoyce together with you for all things, be∣holding the cruelty of the Devil totally removed by the divine power and our endeavours; whilst your Faith, Peace, and Concord does every where flourish. God preserve you, Beloved Brethren.

n 9.1 Another Letter to Eusebius.

VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS, AUGUSTUS, to Eusebius.

We really believe and are absolutely perswaded (Dearest Brother) that, in regard an impious desire and tyrannick violence hath persecuted the servants of God our Saviour even to this present time, the edifices of all Churches, have either by neglect gone to ruine, or through fear of the immi∣nent dangerousness [of the times] have been ador∣ned with less of stateliness. But now, since Li∣berty is restored, and that Serpent, o 9.2 that Persecutor Licinius, is by Almighty God's Providence and our instrumental endeavours forced out of the Administration of publick Affairs, we suppose that the divine power hath been sufficiently manifested to all men: and that all who either through fear or unbelief have fallen into any sins, p 9.3 having now acknowledged the only true God, will in future re∣turn to the true and right course of life. Do you therefore remind as well all [persons belonging to] the Churches over which you preside, as also all other Bishops presiding in other places, together with the Presbyters and Deacons, whom you know, that they use their utmost diligence about the structures of the Churches; either about repairing those that are still standing, or about inlarging others, or in building new ones, wheresoever it shall be found requisite. And you your self, and the rest by your mediation may ask necessaries [for that work] both from our Presidents of the Pro∣vinces, and also from the q 9.4 Office of the Praetorian Prefecture. For they are already impowred by our Rescripts to be diligently observant about all your Holinesses Orders. God preserve you, Beloved Brother.

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

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

By the assistance of God our Saviours Providence, so great a multitude of men have joyned themselves to the most Holy Church in that City which bears our * 10.1 Name; that [Christianity seems] to have made its greatest progress and increase there. r 10.2 It seems therefore very re∣quisite that there should be more Churches erected in that City. Wherefore do you with the greatest alacrity ad∣mit of what we have De∣creed. We thought fit to sig∣nifie this to your prudence, that you should order fifty Copies of the sacred Scriptures (the provision and use whereof you know to be most necessary for the instruction of the Church,) to be written on well prepared parchment by artificial Transcribers of Books, most skilfull in the Art of accurate and fair Writing; which [Copies] must be very legible, and easily portable in order to their being used. Moreover, Letters are dispatch't away from our clemency to the s 10.3 Rationalist of the Dioecesis to take care for provision of all things necessary towards the preparing of the said Copies. Let it therefore be the imployment of your care to see that the foresaid Copies be pro∣vided as soon as may be. You are also impowr'd by this our letter to make use of two publick carriages for their conveyance. For by this meanes those which are fairest Transcribed may be easiest convey'd even to our sight, to wit, if one of the Deacons of your Church be imployed in the performances hereof. Who when he comes to us, shall experience our liberality. God preserve you Dear Brother.

Another Letter to Macarius.

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

So great is our Saviours love and favour that no Rhetorick seems sufficient to set forth a declaration of the present miracle. For, that the * 11.1 Monu∣ment of his most holy passion, long since hid under∣neath the earth, should lie conceal'd for so many years space, till such time as, by the t 11.2 slaughter of the com∣mon Enemy, it should glo∣riously appear to his servants now set at liberty, [is a matter which] does really surmount all admiration. For if all those persons that throughout the whole world are accounted wise should be convened in one and the same place with a design to speak something according to the worthiness of this matter, they would not be able after their utmost endeavours to attain to [an explication of] the least part thereof. For the * 11.3 autho∣rity and greatness of this mi∣racle doth as far transcend every nature capable of hu∣mane reason, as things that are celestial do exceed those that are humane. Wherefore this is always our chief and only aim, that as the authority of the truth doth daily demonstrate it self by new miracles, so the minds of us all should with all modesty and unanimous alacrity become more careful and diligent about an observation of the divine Law. Which in regard we judge to be manifestly apparent to all men, our desire is you should most especially be perswaded of this, that it is altogether our chiefest care, that that sacred place (which by Gods command we have unburthened of that most detestable u 11.4 ac∣cession of the Idol, as it were of a ponderous and heavy weight; which [place] was by Gods determination made holy from the beginning, but was afterwards demonstrated to be more holy, out of which he hath brought to light the certainty of our Saviour's passion) should be beautified and adorned with magnificent and stately structures. Wherefore it does well be∣come your prudence so to order the matter, and to make such a provision of materials necessary for this work, that not only the Temple it self may in state∣liness excel all others in what place soever, but also that the other parts of it be made such, as that all the beautifullest structures in every City, may be ac∣knowledged far inferiour to this fabrick. And as concerning the workmanship and exquisite beauty of the walls, we would have you know that we have committed the care thereof to our friend † 11.5 Draci∣lianus, Deputy to the most excellent the Prefects of the Praetorium, and to the President of the Province. For our piety has taken order, that artificers and workmen, and whatever else they may be informed from your Prudence to be necessary for the structure, shall by their care be forthwith sent. But con∣cerning the Pillars or Marbles, (and whatever you your self on sight of the x 11.6 Model [of the building] shall judge to be more rich and useful,) make it your business to inform us by wri∣ting: that when we shall un∣derstand from your Letter, how many and what manner of materials you stand in need of, they may be convey'd to you from all parts. For it is but reasonable that that most admirable place of the whole world should be beautifi'd ac∣cording to its dignity and worth. We desire to know of you, whether you think good to have the inner roof of the Church y 11.7 arched, or made of any other sort of work. For if it be arched, it may also be guilded with gold. It remains therefore, that your holiness inform as soon as may be the forementioned Judges, how many Work∣men, and Artificers, and what money for expences you shall want. And be you care∣ful to return Us a speedy ac∣count, not only concerning the Marbles, and Pillars, but al∣so concerning the arched roof (if you shall judge that to be the more beautiful work.) Dearest Brother, God pre∣serve you.

The Emperour wrote several other E∣pistles in a more florid stile like Orations, against Arius, and those that embraced his Opinion, and caused them to be z 11.8 published in every City; in

which Epistles he represents [Arius] to be an infamous person, and rebukes him sharply in an Ironical manner. Moreover, He wrote to the a 11.9 Nicomedians, against Eusebius and Theognis: wherein he severely reprehends Eusebius's wicked∣ness, not only for his Arianism, but also because, having formerly been a favourer of the Tyrants party, he had been a Traitor against [Him and] his affairs. He therefore advises them to elect another Bishop in his stead. But I thought it su∣perfluous to insert his Letters concerning these matters here, because they are long. They that are desirous [to inspect them] may easily find them out, and read them over. Thus much con∣cerning these things.

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

THis great diligence and industry of the Em∣perour moves me to make mention of ano∣ther thing, wherein his mind is declared, and how careful and solicitous he was to procure Peace. For, consulting the concord and agreement of the Churches, He a 11.10 summoned Acesius, a Bishop of the Novatian Heresie, to appear at the Council. When the Synod had drawn up a form of the Creed, and subscribed it, the Emperour enquir'd of Acesius, whether he would also give his assent to these Articles of the Creed, and also to the determination about the Festival of Easter. He replied, O Emperour, the Synod has determi∣ned no new thing: for anciently even from the [Churches] original, and the Apostolick times, I have in this same manner received by tradition both this form of Faith, and also this time [for the observation] of the Feast of Easter. When therefore the Emperour demanded of him again, what then should induce you to be a separatist from the communion [of the Church?] he re∣lated what was done under Decius in the time of the Persecution, and recited the strictness of that severe Canon, ['to wit,] that those who after Baptism had committed any such sin, as the sacred Scriptures terms a mortal sin, ought not to be admitted to a participation of the sacred Mysteries: they were indeed to be exhorted to repentance, but ought not to entertain any hopes of remission from the Priests, but from God, who only is able, and has power to forgive sins. When Acesius had spoken thus, the Emperour re∣pli'd, O Acesius, set a Ladder, and do you alone climb up to heaven. This story neither Eusebius Pamphilus, nor any other Author has mentioned. But I had it from a person that was in no wise a lier, one who was very aged, and related what he had seen transacted in the Council. Whence I conjecture, that the same accident besell those who have omitted the mention hereof, which hap∣pens to many other Writers of History. For they usually pass over many things, either be∣cause they are ill affected towards some, or have a desire to gratifie others. Thus much concer∣ning Acesius.

CHAP. XI. Concerning Paphnutius the Bishop.

NOw because we have promised before, to make mention of Paphnutius and Spyridon, it will be seasonable to speak of them here. Paph∣nutius therefore was Bishop of one of the Cities in the upper Thebaïs: he was a person so pious, that wonderful miracles were wrought by him. In the time of the Persecution one of his eyes had been cut out: The Emperour had an high esteem for the man, and frequently sent for him to the Pallace, and kissed [the place of] that eye which had been dug out. So great a piety and reverence was there in the Emperour Con∣stantine. Let this therefore be one thing said by us concerning Paphnutius. This other (which was done by his advice for the utility and ad∣vantage of the Church, and the grace and orna∣ment of the Clergy,) I will now relate. The Bishops had a design to introduce a new Law into the Church, to wit, that those who were in holy Orders, I mean the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, a 11.11 should abstain from lying with those wives which they had married du∣ring the time they were Laïcks. And when a pro∣position was made to con∣sult hereof, Paphnutius b 11.12 rose up in the midst of the as∣sembly of Bishops, and cried out with a great deal of earnestness, that such an hea∣vy yoak ought not to be imposed upon those persons that were in sacred Orders, saying, that marriage was honourable, and the bed un∣defil'd; [so that they ought to be careful] least they should rather incommode the Church, by their over∣much severity. For all men [said he] cannot bear the practise of so strict and severe a conti∣nencie, nor is it likely that the chastity of every one of their wives should be preserved. (The husbands keeping company with his lawful wife he termed chastity.) It was sufficient [said he,] that they who had entred themselves into the function of the Clergy before they were married, should afterwards (according to the ancient tradition of the Church) abstain from entring into a state of Matrimony: but that no person ought to be separated from his wife,

whom he had heretofore married, [to wit,] whilst he was a Laick. Thus he spake, though he was a man, who had not experienced what marriage was, and (as I may truly aver) never knew a woman, for from his childhood he had been educated in a * 11.13 place where the strictest exercises of virtue and abstinence were con∣stantly practised, and was eminently famous a∣bove all men for his singular continencie. All the whole assembly of the Clergy were perswa∣ded to yield their assent, to what Paphnutius said; wherefore they silenc'd all further debate concerning this point, and left it to every mans arbitrement whether he would [or would not] abstain from keeping company with his wife. And thus much concerning Paphnutius.

CHAP. XII. Concerning Spyridon Bishop of the Cyprians.

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

CHAP. XIII. Concerning Eutychianus the Monk.

I Have also heard of Eutychianus, a pious man, who flourished at the same time: who al∣though he was one of the Novatian Church, yet was admired for works of the same nature with those [we have mentioned.] I will sin∣cerely confess who it was that gave me this ac∣count of him: nor will I conceal it, though I am sensible some will be offended with me for it. One Auxanon a Presbyter of the Novatian Church, was a person of a very great age: this man, when he was very young, went to the Council of Nice with Acesius, from him I re∣ceiv'd what I have said before concerning Ace∣sius. He liv'd from those times to the reign of Theodosius the younger, and rehearsed to me, though then very young, these [Memoires] of Eutychianus: he discours'd much to me con∣cerning the divine Grace infus'd into him: but one thing he told me concerning him more espe∣cially worthy of remembrance, which happened in the reign of Constantine. One of those belon∣ging to the Guard, whom the Emperour calls his a 11.14 Domesticks, being sus∣pected to have attempted some Tyrannick designes, made his escape by flight: The Emperour, highly in∣censed thereat, gave order, that he should be put to death, wherever he could be found: being apprehen∣ded about the mountain Olympus in Bithynia, he was shut up in prison, and loaded with very hea∣vy and painful chaines; neer these parts of Olym∣pus Eutychianus then resided, leading a solitary life, where he wrought many cures both upon mens bodies and soules. The long-lived Aux∣anon was with him at that time, being then very young, and was by him instructed in the Precepts of a solitary Life. Many did resort to this Eutychianus, beseeching him to release the Prisoner, by interceding for him with the Em∣perour. (For the fame of the miracles wrought by Eutychianus was come to the Emperours hearing.) He readily promised to make a jour∣ney to the Emperour. But in regard the Pri∣soner suffered most acute tortures caused by his chains, those that did sollicit for him, reported, that his death, ha••tned by [the tortures of] his fetters, would both prevent the Emperours punish∣ment, and Eutychianus's intercession for him. Eu∣tychianus therefore sent to the keepers of the Prison, and intreated them to release the man. But when they answered that it would be a very dangerous thing for them to release a criminal, he, taking Auxanon only along with him, went to the Prison: and upon the Keepers refusal to open the Prison, the grace which was in Euty∣chianus, did there more illustrate it self: for the Prison doors opened of their own accord, whilst the Keepers of the Prison had the keyes in their custody: and when Eutychianus, together with Auxanon, had entred the Prison, and a great a∣mazement had seized those that were present,

the chains fell from the Prisoners [members] of their own accord. Afterwards [Eutychi∣anus] together with his companion Auxano travelled to the City heretofore named Byzan∣tium, but afterwards called Constantinople, and being admitted into the Imperial Pallace, he freed the Prisoner from [the danger of] death. For the Emperour, having a great respect for Euty∣chianus, readily granted his request. This was done after [those times which we are now giving an account of.] But then, the Bishops that were present at the Synod, after they had drawn up in writing some things, which they usually term Canons, returned to their respective Cities. More∣over, I look upon it as a thing advantagious to such as are studious of History, to insert here those Bishops names (as many of them as we were able to find,) that were convened at Nice, as also [the name of] the Province and City over which every one of them did preside, and likewise the time wherein they were assembled. b 11.15 Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain. I do be∣lieve as is before written. c 11.16 Vito and Vincen∣tius Presbyters of Rome. Alexander [Bishop] of Aegypt. Eustathius [Bishop] of Antioch the Great. Macarius [Bishop] of Jerusalem. d 11.17 Har∣pocration [Bishop] of Cynopolis. And the rest whose names are particularly and fully set forth in the e 11.18 Synodicon of Athanasius Bishop of A∣lexandria. And the time when this Synod was convened was (as we found it in the f 11.19 Nota∣tion of the time prefixt before the Synod) in the consulate of Paulinus and Julianus, on the g 11.20 twentieth day of the month of May; that was the h 11.21 Six hundredth thirty six year from the reign of Alexander the Macedonian. Thus the Synod was concluded. We must also take no∣tice, that after [the dissolution of] this Synod, the Emperour took his Progress into the Western parts [of his Empire.]

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

MOreover, a 11.22 Eusebius and Theognis, b 11.23 having sent a Libell of Repentance to the most emi∣nent Bishops, were by an Imperial order recalled from exile, and restored to their own Churches:

those who had been Ordained in their places being removed by them; Eusebius [put out] Amphion, and Theognis [removed] Chrestus. This is a Copy of their Libell.

We having been sometime since c 11.24 condemned by your Piety, d 11.25 without having our cause de∣clared or defended, ought quietly to bear what has been determined by your holy discretion. But because 'tis absurd, by silence to give an oc∣casion of calumny against our selves, for this reason we declare to you, that we have both unanimously agreed to the [determination about the] Faith, and also (after we had made researches into the notion of Homöousios,) with our utmost earnestness laboured for Peace, having never been followers of any Heresie. And when we had suggested whatever came into our minds upon account of the Churches security, and had fully satisfied those that ought to be perswaded by us, we subscribed the Faith, but have not subscribed the Anathematism; not that we had any thing to object against the Faith, but because we did not believe the person accused to be such a one [as he was represented to be;] having been fully satisfied that he was no such person, partly from the private Letters written to us by him, and partly from the discourses he made in our presence. e 11.26 But if your holy Council was [then] satisfied, we [now] make no resistance, but agree to what you have determined, and by this Libell do fully declare and confirm our consent; [which we are induced to do] not because we took upon our exile▪ to be tedious and burdensom, but that we might avoid the suspicion of Heresie. For if you shall now vouchsafe to let us return to your presence, you shall find us to be of the same Opinion with you in all points, and quietly to adhere to what you have de∣termined: since it hath seemed good to your piety, gently to treat even * 11.27 him, who is ac∣cused for these things, and to f 11.28 recall him from banishment. But it would be absurd (since he that seemed to be guilty is recalled, and has made his defence in reference to those things laid to his charge,) that we should be silent, and muster up an argument against our selves. Do you therefore vouchsafe (as it befits your piety that loves Christ) to remind our Emperour most dear to God, to offer up our supplications to him, and speedily to determine concerning us as shall be most agreeable to your [prudence.]

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

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

a 11.29 SOon after, upon the death of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius was pro∣moted to the presidency over that Church. Ru∣finus relates, that this person, when he was very young, did, together with those that were his equals in age, play at a kind of an holy sport: this play was an imita∣tion of the sacerdotal fun∣ction, and of those persons order that were Clergy men. In this sport therefore A∣thanasius was elected Bishop, and every one of the rest of the children acted either a Presbyter, or a Deacon. This sport the children plaid at on that day, whereon was celebrated the Memory of Peter the Martyr and Bi∣shop. Alexander Bishop of Alexandria accidentally passing by at that time, saw all their play. And, having afterwards sent for the children, he enquir'd of them what place had been allotted to every one of them in the play, supposing that from what had been done some thing might be portended [concerning each of them.] And he gave order, that the children should be educated in the Church and instructed in learning; but most especially A∣thanasius. Afterwards when he was come to a maturity of age, he ordain'd him Deacon, and took him along with him to Nice, that he might assist him in the disputations there, at such time as that Synod was convened. These things Ru∣finus has related concerning Athanasius, in his b 11.30 books [of Ecclesiastick History:] nor is it at all unlikely that these things hapned: for many such like acts are frequently found to have been done. Thus much we have hitherto said con∣cerning Athanasius.

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

THe Emperour, after the [dissolution of the] Council spent his time in delight and plea∣sure. As soon therefore as he had finished the publick Festivities of his a 11.31 Vicennalia, he forth∣with imployed himself very diligently about re∣edifying and erecting of Churches. This he did as well in other Cities, as in that that bore his own name. Which City, being formerly call'd Byzantium, he very much enlarged; he encom∣passed it with magnificent walls, and beautified with several Edifices; and having made it equal to the Imperial City Rome, b 11.32 he named it Con∣stantinople, and did by a Law establish that it should be call'd New Rome. Which Law was engraven on a pillar of stone, and c 11.33 exposed to the publick view, being erected in the d 11.34 Strategium, neer to the Emperours Statue on horseback. He also founded two Churches in the same City, the one of which he named Irêne, and the other he called the Apostles: nor did he only improve and enlarge the affaires of the Chri∣stians, as I have said, but did also subvert [the super∣stition] of the Gentiles. For [he took their] ima∣ges [out of their Temples] and set them up in the most publick places, that they might serve to beautifie the City Constantinople: he al∣so expos'd the Delphick Tri∣pods openly in the Hippo∣drome. But it will perhaps seem superfluous to mention these things now. For they are sooner beheld with the eyes, than the relation of them can be heard. But at that time the Christian Religion was mightily propa∣gated and increased. For the divine Providence did (amongst other things) reserve that more especially for the times of Constantine: And thus has Eusebius Pamphilus in a magnifick stile re∣corded the praises of this Emperour. But yet we judge it not unseasonable for us to speak briefly of them, according to our ability.

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

HElena the Emperours Mother, (from whose name Drepanum, which was formerly only a Village, but made a City by the Emperour, was call'd Helenopolis) being admonished by God in her dreames, travell'd to Jerusalem. And when she found that place which was formerly Jerusalem, desolate (as the Prophet predicted) * 11.35 like a lodge [set up] to preserve apples, she searched diligently for Christs Sepulchre wherein he was buried, and whence he arose, and though with great difficulty, yet by God's assistance ••he found it out. What was the reason of this dif∣ficulty, I will in few words explain. Those that embraced Christs Doctrine, did after the time of his Passion pay an high respect to that mo∣nument. But the Heathens who abhorred the Christian Religion, having covered the place with an heap of earth, erected thereon a Temple to Venus, and set up her image there, designing wholly to suppress the memory of that place. And this plot of theirs had for a long time succeeded. But the Emperours Mother had notice hereof. Wherefore, having thrown down the image, re∣mov'd the earth, and wholly cleared the place, she finds three Crosses in the monument: one of

them was that blessed Cross on which our Saviour had hung: the other two were those, on which the two thieves, that were crucified with him, had dyed. There was also found with the Crosses Pilates Title, whereon he had written in divers Languages, and proclaim'd that that Christ who was crucified, was the King of the Jews. But in regard 'twas dubious which of these was the Cross that was searched for, the Emperours Mo∣ther was not a little troubled hereat. This trou∣ble the Bishop of Jerusalem, by name Macarius, soon eased her of; and by [the power of] his faith cleared the doubt. For he requested a sign of God and obtained it; the sign was this. A certain woman of that vicinage, having been oppressed with a tedious and lasting distemper, was now just at the point of death. The Bishop therefore commanded every one of the Crosses to be appli'd to her now expiring, being perswa∣ded in himself that if the woman were toucht by the pretious Cross [of the Lord] she should recover. Nor was his hope frustrated. For the two Crosses which were not our Lords being applied, the woman nevertheless continued in her dying condition; but when the third, the true and genuine Cross was applied, the dying woman immediately recovered and was made whole. After this manner was the Cross found out: the Emperours Mother erected over the place where the Sepulchre was, a most magni∣ficent Church, and call'd it a 11.36 New Jerusalem, buil∣ding it opposite to that old deserted Jerusalem, she left there one half of the Cross, inclosed in a silver case, as a relique to be seen by those that should desire it. The other half she sent to the Emperour, which when he had receiv'd, being fully per∣swaded that that City would be perfectly secure wherein such a [relique] as this was preserv'd, he hid it with∣in his own Statue, b 11.37 which is erected upon a vast Pil∣lar of Porphyrie in Constan∣tinople, in the Forum, call'd from him Constantin's Forum. This story I have recorded as it has been related to me; but almost all the inhabitants of Constantinople do affirm it to be true. Constantine having also received the Nailes with which Christs hands were fastned to the Cross; (for his mother, having found them also in the Sepulchre, sent them to him:) he ordered Bri∣dles and a Helmet to be made of them, which he made use of in his Military expeditions. More∣over, the Emperour gave large supplies of all man∣ner of materials towards the building of the Chur∣ches: and wrote to Macarius the Bishop to hasten the work. The Emperours Mother, having fini∣shed the New Jerusalem, built another Church in no wise inferiour in splendour to the former, in the Cave at Bethlehem, which was the place of Christs Birth according to the flesh: Besides, [she erected another Church] upon the mount, from whence he was taken up into heaven. And she was so religiously and piously affected to∣wards these things, that she would pray in the womens company together with others: she also invited, those Virgins that were enroll'd in the catalogue of the Churches to an entertainment. Where she her self waited, and brought the meat to the Tables. Besides she was very liberal both to the Churches, and also to the indigent. [In fine,] having spent her life very piously, she dyed about the eightieth year of her age: and her body was conveyed to the Imperial City New Rome, and deposited amongst the Imperial Mo∣numents.

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

AFter this, the Emperour, becoming more solicitous about [the propagation of] Christianity, abhorred the superstitions of the Gentiles: and first He abolished the combats of the Gladiators: afterwards he placed his own Statues in the Temples. The Heathens affirming that it was Serapis that caused the inundations of Nile whereby the fields of Egypt were watered, because there was a Cubit usually carried into his Temple, the Emperour a 11.38 ordered Alexander, to re∣move the Cubit into the Church [of the Alexan∣drians,] hereupon 'twas ge∣nerally reported, that, be∣cause Serapis was disgusted, the Nile would not over∣flow; nevertheless, there hapned an inundation on the ensuing year, and after∣wards, which also does con∣tinue to this day: And thus it was really demonstrated, that the inundation of the Nile hapned not by the meanes of their superstition, but by the decree of Provi∣dence. About the same time, those barbarous na∣tions, the Sarmatae and the Goths, made inroades into the Roman territories, and yet the Emperours forward∣ness in building of Churches was not in the least inter∣rupted thereby, but he made a commodious provision for both those affairs. For, having put his confidence in the * 11.39 Christian Banner, he totally subdued those his enemies; in so much that he took off the tribute of Gold which had been customarily paid to the Barbarians by those Emperours who were his predecessours; and that was the first time that they (being astonished at their prodigious overthrow) were perswaded to embrace the Christian Religion, by which Constantine had been every where preserv'd. Again, he erected other Churches: one he built at that place called the Oak of Mambre, under which the sacred Scriptures tell us that the Angels were entertained by Abraham. For the Emperour being inform'd that altars were erected under that Oak, and, that Pagan sacrifices were there perform'd; by his Letter he severely reproved Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea: and gave com∣mand that the altar should be demolished, and an house of prayer erected neer that Oak. He also gave order for the building of another Church, in Heliopolis, a City of Phaenicia, for

this reason. What manner of Law-maker the Citi∣zens of Heliopolis originally had, or what person he was as to his morals, I cannot certainly tell. But his disposition is sufficiently demonstrated from that City: For the Law of their country has commanded that the women should be com∣mon among them, upon which account the chil∣dren amongst them could not be known whose they were. For there was no distinction be∣twixt the parents and the children. Their Vir∣gins they delivered to strangers that arrived a∣mongst them, that they might deflower them. The Emperour made it his business to abolish this custom, which had so long prevailed amongst them. For having abrogated the flagitiousness of those unclean usages by a discreet and chast Law, he brought them to know and distinguish be∣twixt families: And when he had built Churches, he took care that a Bishop should be ordained over them, and a sacred Clergy. Thus he re∣form'd the impious usages of the Heliopolites, and made them more modest and civil. After the like manner also he demolisht the Temple of Venus at Aphaca neer [the mount] Libanus, and abrogated those impudent and obscene▪ My∣steries there celebrated. What need I relate how he expelled that Devil who pretended to utter Prophecies, out of Cilicia, commanding the house in which he lurked, to be demolished even to its very foundations. Moreover, so ardent was the Emperours love for the Christian Religion, that being about to ingage in a war with the Persians, he provided a tabernacle made of linen painted with divers colours, much resembling a Church (even as Moses did in the wilderness) and this he would have carried about with him, that so in the most desert regions he might have an Oratory ready. But this war went no further at that time: for it hapned to be immediately extin∣guished through the fear which the Persians had conceiv'd of the Emperour. But I think it un∣seasonable to relate here how diligent the Em∣perour Constantine was in repairing Cities, and how he turned many Villages into Cities; as for instance, Drepane, which bore his mothers name, and Constantia in Palestine, so called from his Sisters name Constantia. For our design is not to recount all the Emperours actions, but them only which belong to the Christian Religion, and those more particularly which were done about the Churches. Wherefore, the Emperours fa∣mous exploits, in regard they are of a subject different [from mine,] and require a peculiar treatise, I leave to others, that are able to com∣mit to writing such matters. Indeed, I my self, had the Church continued undisturbed by factions and discord, had been wholly silent. For where the subject affords not matter proper for a narrative, the relators words are superfluous and useless. But in regard a subtile, vain, and insignificant craftiness in disputing hath disturbed, and at the same time also dissipated and distra∣cted the Apostolick faith of Christianity, I sup∣posed it requisite to commit these things to writing, that so those affaires which have been transacted in the Churches, might not be buried in silence. For the knowledge of these things does both procure great praise and commendation a∣mongst most men, and also renders him that is well versed therein much more solid and cau∣tious; teaching him not to fluctuate or stag∣ger [in his sentiments,] when any * 11.40 vain bab∣blings about words and terms shall happen to arise.

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

NOw therefore we must record, how the Chri∣stian Religion was propagated in the times of this Emperour. For the innermost Indians, and the Iberians did then first embrace the Christian Faith. But we will briefly explain, what we mean by the addition of this term, the Innermost. When the Apostles about to take their journey to the Heathens, in order to their preaching to them, had by lot divided them amongst themselves, a 11.41 Thomas received the Apo∣stolate of the Parthians. To Matthew was allotted Ae∣thiopia. Bartholomew had that India assign'd to him which lyes upon the con∣fines of Aethiopia. But this innermost India which is in∣habited by several barbarous Nations, who make use of different languages, was not enlightned with the doctrine of Christianity, before the times of Constantine. What was the cause of their embracing the Christian Religion, I come now to relate. One Meropius, a Philo∣sopher, by birth a Tyrian, made it his business to see the Country of the Indians, emulating herein b 11.42 Metrodorus the Philosopher, who a little before him had travelled over that same Country. Meropius therefore taking along with him two youths that were related to him, who were in no wise unskilled in the Greek language, arrived in this Countrey in a Ship. And having seen what he desired, in order to his procuring▪ necessary provi∣sions, he put to land at a place which had a safe com∣modious harbour. It hap∣ned, that a little before [his arival there] the league betwixt the Romans and Indians had been broken. The Indians therefore took the Philosopher, and those that were in the Ship with him, and put them all to death, except his two young kinsmen. Having saved the lives of the two youths, out of a compassion to their age, they presented them to the King of the In∣dians. He, much pleased with the young mens lookes, made the one of them, whose name was Aedesius, the Cup bearer of his Table: to the other, whose name was Fru∣mentius, he * 11.43 committed the custody of his accounts and evidences royal. Not long after this, the King dying (having left behind him a Son to be his successour, who was a minor, and his wife,) gave these two young men their liberty. But the Queen, seeing her Son left in his minority, spoke to these two persons to take care of him, till such time as he should come to maturity of age. The young men, in obedience to the Queen, un∣dertake the management of the Kings business. But Frumentius was the chief person in managing the affairs of State. And he was very earnest in

enquiring of the Roman Merchants who then came to trade in that country, whether there were any that embraced Christianity to be found a∣mongst them. Having found some, and informed them who he was, he exhorted them to make choice of c 11.44 some private meeting places for the performance of prayers therein, after the manner of Christians. Afterwards, within some short interval of time he built an oratory▪ and they▪ having instructed some Indians in the principles of Christianity, brought them to prayers with them. But afterwards, when the young King came to a maturity of age, Frumentius resigning to him the administration of the affairs of the Kingdom, which he had well managed, petitioned for leave to return into his own Countrey. And though the King and his mother entreated him to stay, yet they could not perswade him, but being de∣sirous to see his own Countrey, he, together with Aedesius, returned home. Aedesius hastened to Tyre to see his Parents and Kindred: but Fru∣mentius arriving at Alexandria, related the whole story to Athanasius, d 11.45 who was then newly dig∣nified with that Bishoprick; informing him of the circumstances of his travells, and that there was good grounds to hope that the Indians would embrace Christianity: [He also desired him] that he would send a Bishop and a Clergy thither, and that he ought in no wise to neglect those tha•• might be brought unto salvation. Athanasius having taken into consideration what was most expedient to be done, entreated Frumentius him∣self to take upon him the Bishoprick, telling him that there was no man better quallified for it than he. Which was done. e 11.46 Frumentius therefore, dignified with an Episcopate, returns again to the Indians Country, and there became a preacher of the Christian Religion; he founded many ora∣tories, and being vouchsafed [the assistance of] divine grace, he wrought many miracles, and cured many mens bodies together with their souls. These things Rufinus says he heard from Aedesius's own mouth, who was afterwards dig∣nified with a Presbytership in the Church of Tyre.

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

IT is now a fit opportunity to relate after what manner the Iberians were at the same time converted to Christianity. A woman who led a religious and chast life, was, by the disposal of Divine Providence, taken captive by the Iberians. These Iberians dwell neer the Euxine Sea; they are a colony of the Iberians in Spain. This ca∣ptive woman therefore, living amongst the Bar∣barians, devoted herself to a Philosophick course of life. For together with the strictest and se∣verest exercises of Chastity, she used herself to most tedious and lasting fasts, and to continued prayer. The Barbarians seeing this, were ama∣zed at the strangeness and novelty of her actions. It hapned, that * 11.47 the Kings Son, being a very young child, fell sick. The Queen, according to the custom of that Countrey, sent the child about to other women to be cured: if perchance by long experience they might know of any cure for the distemper. When the young child had been carried about by his nurse, and could find no cure from any of the women, he was at last brought to this captive woman. She in the pre∣sence of many women, applyed not any material remedy, for she had no knowledge of any such Medicines. But, having taken the child, she laid him upon her own bed, which was made of hair∣cloath, and only spake these words: Christ (said she) who healed many, shall ••lso cure this child. Having added a prayer to these words, and invoked Gods assistance, the child immediately recovered, and from that time was very well. The report hereof was noised abroad amongst the Barbarian women, it came also to the Queens ear; and the captive woman became more eminent. Not long af∣ter the Queen, being fallen into a distemper, sent for the captive woman. She having refused to go by reason of her modesty and bashfull disposition, the Queen herself was conveyed to her. The captive woman does the same that she before had done to the child. And forthwith the sick Queen recovered, and returned her thanks to the woman. But she made her this answer, it is not I that do this, but Christ, who is the Son of that God, who made the world. She therefore exhorted the Queen to call

upon him, and to acknowledge the true God. The King of the Iberians, amazed at the sudden∣ness of her recovery from the disease, having en∣quired who it was that did these cures, presented the captive woman with Gifts. She answered, that she stood not in need of wealth, for piety was her riches. But that she should accept it as the greatest present, if he would acknowledge that God who was set forth and declared by her. With this answer she returned his pre∣sents. The King treasured up her words in his breast. The next day this accident befell the King going out a hunting: There fell a mist and a thick darkness upon the tops of the mountains and forrests where he was hunting, so that their sport was grown troublesome, and the way im∣passable. The King being in a very great straight, earnestly implored [the assistance of] those Gods whom he worshipped: But finding he was never the better, at last he bethought himself of the captive-womans God, and calls upon him to be his assistant. He had no sooner prayed, but the darkness caused by the mist was dispersed. Admiring at what was done, he returned home with joy, and having told his Queen what had befallen him, he forthwith sent for the captive woman, and enquired of her who that God was, whom she worshipped. When the woman was come into his presence, she made the King of the Iberians to become a Preacher of Christ. For, having been perswaded by this devout woman to believe in Christ, he convened all the Iberians that were his Subjects; and when he had related to them all things concerning the cure of his wife and his child, and also what had befallen him in his hunting, he exhorted them to worship the God of the captive-woman. Thus therefore they both became Preachers of Christ, the King Preached to the men▪ and the Queen to the women. More∣over, the King, informed by the captive woman of the fashion of those Churches amongst the Romanes, commanded an Oratory to be built; and ordered a provision of all materials towards the building to be forthwith made. Therefore a Church was erected; and when they went about raising of the Pillars, Divine Providence attempts somewhat that might perswade the in∣habitants of that Country [to embrace] the Christian Faith. For one of the Pillars con∣tinued immoveable. No engine could be invented, that was able to stir it. But the ropes were broken, and the engines torn in pieces. The work-men therefore, desponding and quite out of heart, went away. Then was the captive womans Faith openly manifested. For she goes by night to the place without any bodies know∣ledge, and there stayed all night, spending the time in fervent prayer: and by Gods Providence the Pillar was raised, and stood fixt in the air, higher than its basis, in such a manner that it did not in the least touch its basis. Assoon as it was day, the King, a 11.48 well skilled in architecture, came to the building, and sees the Pillar hanging in the air above its own basis. Both he himself, and all his atten∣dants were amaz'd at what had happened, for a little while after in their sight the Pillar descended upon its own basis, and there stood fixt. Hereupon they all shouted, cried out that the Kings Faith was true, and celebrated the praises of the captive-womans God. After this they believed [in Christ] and raised up the rest of the Pillars with great alacrity of mind: and the whole building was in a short time perfectly finished. Afterwards an Embassie was sent from them to Constantine the Emperour, whereby they requested, that they might both in future be admitted to a confe∣deracie with the Romans, and also have a Bishop and an holy Clergy sent to them. For they pro∣tested that they did sincerely believe in Christ. This relation Rufinus says he had from b 11.49 Bacurius, who had formerly been a Prince of Iberia: but afterwards coming over to the Romans, he was c 11.50 made a captain within the limits of Palestine. At length he was advanced to the Office of a General, and did the Emperour Theodosius ex∣traordinary good service, in the d 11.51 war against Maximus the Tyrant. After this manner were the Iberians converted to the Christian Religion in the times of Constantine.

CHAP. XXI. Concerning Antonius the Monk.

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

CHAP. XXII. Concerning Manes the Author of the Heresie of the Maniche••s, and whence he had his ori∣ginal.

BUt it is usuall for cockle to grow up amongst the good corn, for the envy [of the Devil] loves to lay snares for the righteous. Not long before Constantines reign, there sprung up a kind of heathenish Christianity, together with the true Christian Religion, as heretofore false-Prophets arose up together with the Prophets, and Pseudo-Apostles amongst the Apostles. For in those days one Manichaeus attempted clandestinely to intro∣duce the opinion of Empedocles the Heathen Philo∣sopher, into Christianity. This man Eusebius Pamphilus indeed has mentioned, in the * 11.52 seventh book of his Ecclesiastick History, but has not ac∣curately

explained all things concerning him. Wherefore I judge it requisite to supply what he has omitted. For thereby it will be manifested, who this Manichaeus was, whence he came, and how he arived at so high a degree of audaciousness. One Scythianus a Saracen, married a captive wo∣man a native of the Upper Thebaïs. Upon her account he lived in Aegypt, and having been instructed in the Literature of the Aegyptians, he introduced the opinion of Empedocles and Py∣thagoras into the Christian Religion: asserting that there were two natures, the one Good, the other Evil; (as Empedocles also did) the evil nature he termed Discord; the good he called Friendship. One Buddas, heretofore named Tere∣binthus, was this Scythianus's Schollar. This man travelling into the Countrey of Babylonia, which is inhabited by the Persians, told many strange and prodigious things of himself, saying, that he was born of a Virgin, and educated in the moun∣tains. Afterwards he wrote four books, one he entitled [the book] of Mysteries; another, the Gospel; the third he called the Thesaurus, and the fourth Heads. But as he was counter∣fiting the performance of some mysterious sacred Rites, he was thrown down headlong by the Devil, and so died. The woman, at whose house he sojourned, buried him. She having possessed her self of his money, bought a boy, about seven years old, by name Cubricus: this boy she made free; and when she had bred him a Schol∣lar, she died soon after, and le••t him all Terebin∣thus's estate, and the books also which he had written, being instructed by Scythianus. Cubricus, now a free-man, takes these goods along with him, and travelling into Persia, changes his name, calling himself Manes. Where he distributed Buddas's, or Terebinthus's books, as his own ge∣nuine works, amongst his seduced followers. Now these are the Subjects of those books, in the words they seemingly assert the Christian Religion, but [if] the opinions [contained in them be attentively considered] they are [neer a kin to] Gentilism. For Manichaeus, being an impious person, does incite [his disciples] to worship a plurality of Gods. He also teaches, that the a 11.53 Sun is to be a∣dored. Besides, he intro∣duces Fate, and destroys mans free-will. He appa∣rently asserts a transmuta∣tion of Bodies, following herein the opinions of Em∣pedocles, Pythagoras, and the Aegyptians. He denies that Christ existed in the flesh, saying, that he was a meer * 11.54 Phantasm. He does also reject the Law and the Pro∣phets: and calls himself the Paraclete. All which Tenets, tis manifest, are wholly disa∣greeable to the orthodox [doctrine of the] Church. Moreover, in his Letters he has been so audacious as to stile himself an Apostle. But he met with a condign pu∣nishment for this impudent lie of his, [which befell him] upon this occasion. The son of the King of Per∣sia happened to fall sick; his Father, desirous to save the life of his son, left no stone unturn'd, as the common saying is. Having heard of Manichaeus, and supposing the wonders he did to be real and true, he sends for him as if he had been an Apostle, hoping that he might preserve his Sons life. When he was come, in a fictitious and pretended manner he takes in hand to cure the Kings son. But the King, seeing that his son died under his hands, clap't him in Prison, with a designe forthwith to put him to death. He made his escape [out of Prison] into Mesopotamia, and saved himself: But when the King of Persia had intelligence of his abode in those parts, he [caused him] to be brought from thence by force, and flead him alive: and having stuffed his skin with chaff, he hanged it up before the City gates. These things, which we relate, are no forgeries of our own, b 11.55 but we collected them out of a book we read over, [intitled] the disputation of Archelaus, Bishop of Cascharum, one of the Cities of Mesopotamia. For this Archelaus says, that he disputed with Mani∣chaeus face to face, and what we have written above concerning Manichaeus's Life, Archelaus himself does relate. Thus therefore does the envy [of the Devil,] as we said before, delight to entrap good affairs when in their most flourishing posture. But, for what reason the goodness of God should permit this to be done, (whether it be that he is desirous to have the true opinion of the Church brought to the test and examined, and wholly to extirpate arrogancy which usually grows up together with faith, or for what o∣ther reason) is a question that cannot be solved without great difficulty and tediousness: nor can it now be opportunely discust by us. For, it is not our design to examin [the truth] of opi∣nions, or to make researches into the abstruse ac∣counts of providence and the judgment of God; but, according to our ability, to compose a nar∣rative of the affairs that have been transacted in the Churches. After what manner therefore the superstition of the Manichaeans c 11.56 sprang up a little before the times of Constantine, it has been sufficiently declared. Let us now return to [the series of] those times, that are the proper sub∣ject of the History we designe.

CHAP. XXIII. How Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis Bishop of Nice, taking courage again, endea∣voured to subvert the Nicene Creed, by plot∣ting against Athanasius.

EUsebius and Theognis, being returned from exile, recovered their own Churches, having (as we said before) extruded those that had been ordained [Bishops] in their places: Moreover, they acquired great interest and fa∣vour with the Emperour, who had an high esteem

for them, looking upon them as converts from an Heretical to the orthodox Doctrine. But they abused this favour and liberty granted them, and made more disturbance in the world then for∣merly they had done; incited thereto by two motives; the one [proceeded] from the Arian Heresie, with which they had been formerly in∣fected; the other from their inveterate hatred against Athanasius; because he had so vigorously opposed them in the Synod, when the Articles of faith were discussed. First of all therefore they began to find fault with Athanasius's ordi∣nation, as if he were unworthy of a Bishoprick, and a 11.57 as if his ordination had been performed by unfitting persons. But it was afterwards demon∣strated that he was superiour to all manner of ca∣lumny: for being seated in the Bishoprick of Alex∣andria, he stifly and vigorously contended for the Nicene Creed: then Euse∣bius set all his wits at work to lay a plot for Athanasius, and to bring Arius again into Alexandria. For he suppo∣sed this to be the only way to eradicate the * 11.58 Doctrine of Consubstantiality, and in∣troduce Arianism. Eusebius therefore wrote to Athana∣sius that he would readmit Arius and his companions [into the Church.] b 11.59 And in his Letter he intreated him, but openly and in pub∣lick he threatned him. But when Athanasius could by no means be prevailed with, he attempts to perswade the Emperour to grant Arius leave to come into his pre∣sence, and that he would give him a liberty of re∣turning to Alexandria. And by what means he prevailed so far, as to ef∣fect this, I will relate in its due place. But before these things were done, there was ano∣ther commotion raised in the Churches. For her own sons did again disturb the peace of the Church. Eusebius Pamphilus relates, that immedi∣ately after the Synod, Aegypt raised mutual facti∣ons within it self, but he annexes not the occasion of this division. Whence he is thought by many to have been double-tongued, because, declining to set forth the reasons [of the discords] he had resolved with himself not to assent to what had been determined at Nice. But as we our selves have found from several Letters which the Bishops wrote to one another after the Synod, the term Homoousios disturbed some mens minds. Whilst they were busying themselves about this word, and made too curious inquiries into its import and meaning, they raised an intestine war amongst themselves. And what was done herein was not unlike a fight in the night. For neither side seemed to understand perfectly, why they reviled one another. For they that had an aversion for the term Homoöusios, look'd upon them that approved of it as introducers of c 11.60 Sabellius's and Montanus's opinion. And therefore they called them blas∣phemers, as being persons that destroyed the existence of the Son of God. On the other hand, they that were maintainers of the term Homoöusios, supposing the other [their adversaries] to be introducers of [the worship of] many Gods, abominated them, as the bringers in of Gen∣tilism. Eustathius Bishop of Antioch reviles Eusebius Pamphilus as one that adulterates the Nicene Faith. Eusebius answers, that he does in no wise infringe or Violate the Creed [pub∣lished] at Nice: but accuses Eustathius, for being an Assertour of Sabellius's opinion. For these reasons every one [of the Bishops] wrote Volumes, as if it had been against most bitter enemies: And although both sides asserted, that the Son of God had a * 11.61 proper, real and pecu∣liar Person and existence, and confessed that there was one God in three Persons, yet (how it came to pass, I know not) they could in no wise agree amongst themselves; and therefore would by no means endure to be at quiet.

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

THerefore, having convened a Synod at An∣tioch, they depose Eustathius, as one who was better affected towards Sabellius's opinion, than towards what the Nicene Synod had deter∣mined. But, as some report, [he was deposed] for other reasons less commendable: which yet they have not openly declared. But this is a thing which the Bishops usually do towards all that they depose; they load them wi••h re∣proaches, and call them impious persons, but annex not the reasons of their impiety. Now that they deposed Eustathius as a favourer of Sa∣bellius's opinion (Cyrus Bishop of Beraea being his accuser,) Georgius Bishop of Laodicea in Syria (one of their number who hated the term Homoöusios) has related in that Encomium a 11.62 he wrote upon Eusebius Emisenus. Concerning this Eusebius Emisenus we will hereafter speak in its proper place. But Georgius writes [such things as do not very well hang together] concerning Eustathius. For he reports, that Eustathius was accused by Cyrus for an assertour of Sabellius's opinion; again he says, that Cyrus was b 11.63 condem∣ned and deposed for maintaining the same errour.

But how can it be, that Cyrus should accuse Eusta∣thius, for being a Sabellian, who was himself a fa∣vourer of that Heresie. It is probable therefore that Eustathius was deposed for some other reasons. Moreover, at such time as Eustatbius was deposed, there was a very great Sedition raised in Antioch. And afterwards, [at the conferences] about the election of a Bishop, there was frequently kindled so great a flame [of dissention,] that it wanted but little of destroying the whole City, the po∣pulace being divided into two factions: one party of them contended vigorously for the translation of Eusebius Pamphilus from Caesarea in Palestine to [the See of] Antioch; the other faction was very earnest to have Eustathius restored. The whole City in general favoured the one or the other party [of the Christians.] The Military forces also were drawn up in battel array [on both sides] as it were against enemies, in so much that they were just about making use of their swords, had not God, and the fear of the Em∣perour repressed the violence of the multitude. For the Emperour by his Letters, c 11.64 and Eusebius by his refusal of the Bishoprick, appeased that Tumult and Sedition. Upon which ac∣count the Emperour admired him greatly, and writ a Let∣ter to him, in which he com∣mends his prudent resolu∣tion, calling him happy, be∣cause he was judged worthy to be Bishop not of one City, but almost of the whole world. It is recorded therefore that after this the See of An∣tioch was d 11.65 vacant eight years. But at length, by the diligence of those that plotted the sub∣version of the Nicene faith, e 11.66 Euphronius is or∣dained Bishop. Let thus much be related con∣cerning the Synod convened at Antioch upon Eu∣stathius's account. Soon after these things, Eu∣sebius (who had long before left Berytus, and was now possessed of the Church at Nicomedia,) made it his business, together with his confe∣derates, to bring Arius again into Alexandria. But, how they prevailed to effect this their de∣sign, and after what manner the Emperour was perswaded to admit Arius and Euzoïus into his presence, we are now to relate.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning the Presbyter, who made it his busi∣ness to get Arius recalled.

THe Emperour Constantine had a sister whose name was Constantia. She had been mar∣ried to Licinius who was heretofore colleague in the Empire with Constantine, but afterwards he became a Tyrant and was therefore put to death. She had a confident, a Presbyter, one that was a favourer of Arianism, who was reckoned amongst her domesticks. This man, prompted thereto by Eusebius and those of his faction, did in his familiar discourse with Constantia let fall some words concerning Arius, saying, that the Synod had done him wrong, and that his senti∣ments were not such as report represented them to be. Constantia having heard this was easily induced to give credit to the Presbyter. But she had not confidence to declare it to the Emperour. It happened that Constantia fell dangerously sick. The Emperour came daily to visit her in her sickness. But when she was brought into so dan∣gerous a condition by her distemper, that she expected to die immediately, she recommends the Presbyter to the Emperour, declaring to him his industry, piety, and how well affected he was towards his Government: and immediately after she died. The Presbyter was [after this] made one of the Emperours greatest confidents. And having by degrees got a greater liberty of spea∣king, he relates to the Emperour the same things concerning Arius, that he before told his sister; affirming that Arius had no other sentiments than what were agreeable to the Synods determination: and that if [the Emperour] would admit him to his presence, he would give his consent to what the Synod had decreed: a 11.67 Moreover, that he was falsely accused without the least of reason. These words of the Presbyters seemed strange to the Emperour. Thus therefore he answered [the Presbyter,] if Arius does consent to the Synods determination, and has the same senti∣ments with that, I will both admit him to my presence, and also send him back to Alexandria with repute and honour. Thus he answered, and immediately wrote to Arius after this manner.

VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS, AUGUSTUS, to Arius.

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

God preserve you, beloved brother.

Dated before the fifth of the Kalends of December.

This was the Emperours Letter to Arius. Here I cannot but admire the Emperours care and zeal for Religion. For 'tis evident by this Letter, that he had before frequently exhorted Arius to a * 12.1 recantation, in regard he reproves him, that after his frequent writing to him, Arius had not forthwith returned to the truth. Arius therefore having received the Emperours Letters, came soon after to Constantinople. There came

along with him Euzoïus; whom Alexander had divested of his Deaconship when he deposed Arius and his associates. The Emperour ad∣mits them to his presence, and asked them whe∣ther they would agree to the [Nicene] faith. They having readily given their assent, the Em∣perour commanded them to deliver in a Libel con∣taining [the Articles of] their faith.

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

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

Arius and Euzoïus, to our most Religious and most pious Lord Constantine the Emperour. Ac∣cording to the order of your piety most acceptable to God, (our Lord the Emperour,) we do de∣clare our Faith, and in writing profess in the pre∣sence of God, that we and all our adherents do believe as followeth. We believe in one God the Father Almighty; and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son, who was made by him before all worlds: God the Word, by whom all things were made, that are in heaven, and that are in earth: who came down from heaven, and was incarnate, and suffered, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens, who also shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. [We also believe] in the Holy Ghost, and in the Resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the world to come, and in the kingdom of heaven, and in one Catholick Church of God [which is spred] from one end of the world to the other. This faith we have received from the holy Gospels, the Lord saying to his dis∣ciples: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing* 12.2 them in the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. a 12.3 If we do not thus believe these things, and [if we do not] truly admit of the Father, the Son and the holy Ghost, in such manner as the whole Catholick Church, and the Scriptures (which we believe in all things) do teach, God is our Judge, both now, and in the Judgment to come. We therefore beseech your pie∣ty (O Emperour most acceptable to God!) that we being Ecclesiastical persons, and holding the Faith and sence of the Church and the holy Scri∣ptures, may by your pacifick and religious piety be united b 12.4 to our mother, to wit the Church; all questions and superfluous disputations being wholly taken away and suppressed: that so both we and the Church, enjoying a mutual peace and union, may joyntly offer up our usual prayers for the peace∣able Reign of your Imperial Majesty, and for your whole Family.

CHAP. XXVII. How Arius returned to Alexandria by the Empe∣rours order, and upon Athanasius's refusal to admit him, Eusebius's faction framed divers ac∣cusations against Athanasius before the Empe∣rour.

ARius having thus perswaded the Emperour, returned to Alexandria. But this specious covert was not prevalent enough to suppress the silenced and hidden truth. For when Athanasius denied him reception upon his arival at Alexan∣dria: (in regard he detested the man as an abo∣mination:) he attempted to stir up new com∣motions in Alexandria, by disseminating his he∣resie. Moreover, at that time Eusebius did both himself write Letters, and also induced the Em∣perour to write, that Arius and his complices might be received [into the Church.] But A∣thanasius did wholly refuse to grant them re∣ception: And he acquainted the Emperour by his Letters that it was impossible for those, who had once rejected the faith, and were anathema∣tized, to be entirely readmitted again [to their degrees in the Church] at their return. But the Emperour, highly incensed [at this re∣turn] thus threatned Athanasius in a Letter a 12.5.

Part of the Emperours Letter.

Having therefore received the knowledge of our will, doe you afford a free ingress to all such as are desirous of entring into the Church. For if we shall receive information that you have prohibited any of those that are desirous [to be united] to the Church, or have hindred their admission, We will immediately send one who shall be impowred by Our order to depose you, and banish you your Countrey. Thus wrote the Emperour, having a regard to the good of the publick, and being unwilling that [the members of] the Church should be rent asun∣der. b 12.6 For he laboured to reduce them all to a perfect union. At that time there∣fore the Eusebians (who were deadly haters of Atha∣nasius,) supposing they had gotten a fair opportunity, made use of the Emperours indignation as instrumental for the execution of their own design. Upon which account they made great disturbances, labouring by that meanes to effect Athanasius's deposition from his Bishoprick: for they hoped that the Arian opinion would become absolutely pre∣valent by these means only, [to wit,] by a re∣moval of Athanasius. There was therefore by a joynt consent an attack made against him by Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Chalcedon, Ursacius of Singidunum [a City] of the Upper Maesia, and Valens of Mursa in the Upper Pannonia. These persons hire some of the

Melitian Hereticks, who bring in several accusa∣tions against Athanasius. And first they frame a complaint [against him] by c 12.7 Ision, Eudaemon and Callinicus, who were Melitians, as if Athana∣sius had ordered the Aegyptians to pay a linnen garment [under the notion of tribute] to the Church of Alexandria. d 12.8 But Alypius, and Macarius, Pres∣byters of the Church of A∣lexandria, who were then accidentally at Nicomedia, extinguished this accusation, having informed the Empe∣rour, that what they re∣ported against Athanasius was false. Wherefore the Emperour by his Letters sharply reproved those that informed against him: but he advised Athanasius in a Letter to repair to him. But the Eusebian faction, be∣fore his arival, and in or∣der to their preventing of it, tack another accusation to the first, far worse than the former: as if Athana∣sius, * 12.9 entring into a con∣spiracy against the Empe∣rours affaires, had sent a little chest full of gold to one Philumenus. But the Em∣perour, having taken cogni∣zance hereof at Psamathia, which is the Suburbs of the City Nicomedia, and finding Athanasius innocent, dis∣missed him with honour; and wrote to the Church of A∣lexandria, that their Bishop Athanasius had been falsly accused. It would indeed have been comely and decent to have passed over in si∣lence those calumnies, which the Eusebians after∣wards framed against Athanasius, lest Christs Church should be condemned by those that do not embrace his doctrine. But in regard they have been committed to writing, and exposed to the view of all men, I therefore judged it necessary to treat of these matters as compendiously as may be, which [if particularized] would re∣quire a peculiar volume. Wherefore I will give a short account, whence both the subject of the calumny it self, and also the contrivers of the false accusation had their original. e 12.10 Mareotes is a region of Alexandria. There are in it a great many, and those very populous villages, and in them many and stately Churches. All these Churches are under [the jurisdiction of] the Bishop of Alexandria, and subject to his City like Parishes. In this Country of Mareotes there was a man, by name Ischyras, who had committed a fact worthy of a thousand deaths. For, whenas he had never been admitted into sacred Orders, he [ne∣vertheless] took upon himself the name of a Presby∣ter, and was so audacious as to perform the office of a Presbyter. This Ischyras therefore, detected in the commission of the foresaid crime, made his escape thence, and arriving at Nicomedia, for re∣fuge fled to the Eusebian faction. They, in regard of their hatred towards Athanasius, receive him as a Presbyter; and promise to prefer him to the dignity of a Bishoprick, if he would frame an ac∣cusation against Athanasius, they deriving a pre∣tence [for this calumny] from those stories which Ischyras had contrived. For he gave out, that he had suffered most miserably by an assault made upon him: and that Macarius running furiously [into the Oratory] as far as the Altar, overtur∣ned the Table, broke the mystical Cup, and burnt the sacred books. For this accusation (as I have said) the Eusebians promised him a Bishoprick as his reward, being sensible that this accusation against Macarius, would (together with him that was accused) overthrow Athanasius also who had sent Macarius. This accusation therefore they charged him with afterwards. But before this [calumny they framed] another stuffed with all manner of hatred and maliciousness, which we must now speak of. Having got a mans hand (whence they had it, I know not, whether they had murdered any man and cut off his hand; or whether they had cut it off from some dead body, God only knows, and they that were authours of this fact,) they produced it [pretending] it to be the hand of one f 12.11 Ar∣senius, a Melitian Bishop: the hand they exposed to all mens view, but kept Arse∣nius concealed. And they re∣ported that Athanasius had this hand in his custody, and made use of it in the per∣formance of some magical delusions. This therefore was the chiefest and most im∣portant point of the accusa∣tion which these Sycophants had forged [against Atha∣nasius.] But (as it usually happens in such cases) other persons accused him of other matters. For all those who had been his enemies before, did at this time most especially make use of their utmost force against him. The Emperour, having intelligence of these procee∣dings, writes to g 12.12 Dalmatius the Censor, his bro∣thers son, who then kept his residence at Antioch in Syria; that he should command the persons ac∣cused to be brought before him, and (after he had taken cognizance of the case) order them that were convicted to be punished. He also sent Eu∣sebius and Theognis, that Athanasius might be tried before them. When Athanasius knew that he was to be summoned to appear before the Censor, he sent into Aegypt to find out Arsenius. He had certain information that the man was con∣cealed: but he could not apprehend him because he frequently changed his lurking holes by re∣moving from one place to another. In the interim, the Emperour suppressed the tryal which should have been before the Censor, upon this account.

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

THe Emperour had ordered a Synod of Bi∣shops to meet, that they might be present at the consecration of the Church which he had erected at Jerusalem. He therefore issued out an order that those Bishops [before they met there] should first be convened at Tyre, and by the by make researches into Athanasius's case: that so [all occasions of] contention being by this means wholly taken away, they might more peaceably perform the * 12.13 solemnities of the Churches dedi∣cation, and consecrate it unto God. a 12.14 This was the thirtieth year of Constantines Empire. More∣over, there were assembled at Tyre Bishops out of divers places, to the number of sixty, upon the summons of Dionysius, a person that had born the Consulship. Macarius the Presbyter was brought from Alexandria, bound in iron chains, under the custody of a guard of Souldiers. But Atha∣nasius would not have come thither (not that he so much dreaded the accusations brought against him: for he was not conscious to himself that he was guilty of those things he was accused for: but he was afraid least they should make any in∣novations there in opposition to what had by common consent been approved of at the Synod of Nice.) But yet he dreaded the Emperours menacing letters. For he had written to him that if he would not come voluntarily, he should be brought by force. Therefore Athanasius also was present there, being necessitated to it.

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

MOreover, Divine Providence forced Arse∣nius to go to Tyre. For having neg∣lected the commands which the Sycophants, whose hireling he was, had given him, he came in a dis∣guise, to see what would be done there. It ac∣cidentally hapned, that the servants of a 12.15 Archelaus (who was the Consularis) heard some persons in an Inn say, that Arsenius (the person reported to have been murthered) was there kept con∣cealed in some [Citizens] house. When they had heard this, and had taken good notice of them that spoke these words, they gave their Master an account of what they had heard. He, without the least delay, immediately searched for the man and found him: and when he had found him, ordered he should be secured. And gives notice to Athanasius not to be in the least di∣sturbed: for Arsenius was alive and present there. Arsenius being apprehended, denied that he was [Arsenius.] But Paul Bishop of Tyre, who had formerly known him, made it appear that he was the person. Divine Providence having be∣fore hand disposed of these things after this man∣ner, soon after Athanasius was summoned by the Synod. And when he had made his appearance, the Sycophants produced the hand, and enforced their accusation [against him.] But he * 12.16 de∣meaned himself prudently. For he enquired of those that were present, and of his Accusers, whe∣ther any of them knew Arsenius. When a great ma∣ny answered that they knew him very well, he cau∣sed Arsenius to be brought in before them, having his hands hid under his upper long garment: then he asked them again; is this the man that hath lost his hand? Hereupon, they (excepting those that knew whence the hand had been cut off) were astonished at the strangeness of the thing. For all the rest thought that Arsenius had really wanted a hand, and they expected that Athana∣sius would make his own defence some other way. But he took Arsenius's garment, and tur∣ning it on one side, shews the mans hand. A∣gain, when some supposed that his other hand was wanting, he made a short stay, permitting them to continue dubious. Immediately after, without any further delay, he turned aside the other part [of his garment] and shewed Arsenius's other hand: after which he thus addressed himself to the company; Arsenius, as you see, is found to have two hands: as for the third, let my Accusers shew the place whence it was cut off.

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

THese affairs concerning Arsenius having been thus transacted, they who had contrived this fraud, were reduced to a straight. But a 12.17 Achab, (who was also called John) Athanasius's Accuser, slipt away out of the Court of judicature, and so made his escape in the tumult. Thus Athanasius cleared himself from this accusation, without ma∣king use of any * 12.18 exception. For he was confi∣dent, that the bare sight of Arsenius being alive would abash the Sycophants.

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

BUt in his disproof of the false accusations brought against Macarius, he made use of legal exceptions. And first he excepted against Eusebius and his companions, as being enemies, alledging that no man ought to be judged by his adversaries. Afterwards he said, that it must be demonstrated, that Ischyras the Accuser had really procured the dignity of a Presbyter. For so it was written in the Libel of Accusation. But when the Judges would not allow of any of these exceptions, Macarius's cause was brought in. After that the Accusers were almost wearied out and quite faint, the further hearing of the cause was defered till such time as some persons should make a journey into Mareotes, that they might make inquisition upon the place concerning all matters that were doubtful. But when Athana∣sius perceived that those very persons were ordered to go, whom he had excepted against; (for The∣ognis, Maris, Theodôrus, Macedonius, Valens, and Ursacius were sent:) he cried out that their proceedings were treacherous and fraudulent. For it is unjust [said he] that Macarius the Presbyter should be kept in bonds, and that his Accuser, together with his Adversaries the judges should go; and [that this was done] for this reason, [to wit,] that the memorials of the Acts might be made up [in favour] of one side only. After Athanasius had spoke these words aloud, and made protestation before the whole Synod and Dionysius the president, when he saw that no body took notice of him, he privately with∣drew. Those therefore that were sent to Ma∣reotes, having registred the Acts in favour of one side only, as if those things had been most cer∣tainly true, a 12.19 which the Accuser had deposed; made [their return to Tyre.]

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

AThanasius being gone away, fled imme∣diately to the Emperour. The Synod in the first place condemned him in his absence for deserting his cause. But when the Acts, which had been made up in Mareotes arived, they passed the sentence of deposition against him; loading him with reproaches in the a 12.20 Libel of his deposition, but mentioned not a word how shamefully the Sycophants had been vanquished in the accusation of the murder. Arsenius also, who was reported to have been murdered, was received by them. He had at first been a Bishop of the Melitian Heresie: But he subscribed Athanasius's deposi∣tion, as being at that time Bishop of the b 12.21 Hypse∣lites. And thus (which was very strange) he that was reported to have been murdered by Atha∣nasius, being alive, deposed Athanasius.

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

IN the interim the Emperours Letters arrived, commanding the Synod to give their speedy attendance at New Jerusalem. And immediately with all possible expedition they hastned from Tyre to Jerusalem. Where after they had fini∣shed the solemnities of the consecration of the places, they a 12.22 readmitted Arius and his associates into the Church, saying, that they did it in obe∣dience to the Emperours Letters, by which he had signified to them that he was fully satisfied as touching Arius and Euzoïus's faith. Moreover, they wrote Letters to the Church of Alexandria, that all envy and hatred was now banished, and that the affaires of the Church were in a peaceable and sedate posture: and that Arius, in regard by his repentance he had acknowledged the truth, was in future to be received by them, and that deser∣vedley,

as being a member of the Church. b 12.23 [But] they obscurely intimated that Athanasius was de∣posed from his Bishoprick [by their saying that all envy and hatred was now banished] More∣over, they wrote to the Emperour, informing him of the same affaires. Whilst the Bishops were transacting these things, other Letters came un∣lookt for from the Emperour, which signified to them that Athanasius was fled to him for refuge: and that upon his account they must necessarily come to Constantinople. Now the Emperours intervening Letter is as followeth.

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

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

IT is indeed unknown to Us, what hath tumul∣tuously and tempestuously been determined by your Synod. But the truth seemeth in a manner to be perverted by a certain turbulent disorder, to wit, whilst by reason of your mutual contention, which you are desirous should be insuperable, you consider not those things that are well pleasing to God. But it will [We hope] be the work of Divine Pro∣vidence, to dissipate the mischiefs of this pertina∣cious contentiousness, after they are manifestly de∣tected; and to make it perspicuous to Us, how great a care you that have been convened have had of the Truth, and whether you have determined the matters that have been discussed by you without any favour or malice. Therefore, all of you must of necessity with speed attend upon Our piety, that you your selves may render an accurate account of what hath been done by you. Now, for what rea∣son we thought it requisite to write these things to you, and to summon you before our selves by this Letter, you shall understand from the sequel. As We were making our entry into Constantinople the City that bears Our name, [scitua••e in] Our own most flourishing Countrey; (it hapned that We then rode on Horse-back:) on a sudden Athana∣sius the Bishop, together a 12.24 with some Presbyters whom he had about him, approacht Us in the midst of the high way so unexpectedly, that he put Us into a consternation. For God the Inspectour of all things is our witness, that at first sight We were unable even to dis∣cern who he was, had not some of Our [servants] upon Our enquiry told Us (as it was meet) both who he was, and what injuries he had suffered. At that time We nei∣ther spoke to, nor had any discourse with him. But when he requested that he might be heard, and We had refused that, and in a manner ordered he should be removed from our presence; with a greater confidence he said, that he desired nothing else but your appearance here, that (being necessi∣tated thereto) he might in Our presence make a complaint of his sufferings. Wherefore, in regard this seemed reasonable to Us, and a matter befitting Our times, We willingly gave order for the writing of these things to you: that all you, who made up the Synod convened at Tyre, should without delay hasten to the Court of Our piety, in order to your making a real demonstration of the integrity and unbyassedness of your determination; to wit, in the presence of Us, whom none of you can deny to be a genuine servant of God. For by the worship we ex∣hibit to the deity, peace doth every where flourish, and the name of God is sincerely praised even by the b 12.25 Barbarians themselves, who till this time have been ignorant of the truth. Moreover, it is mani∣fest, that he who knows not the truth, acknowledges not God. Nevertheless, as we said before, even the Barbarians have (upon Our account who are Gods genuine servant) acknowledged the Deity, and have learned to pay a Religious worship to him, by whose Providence, as they have been really and truely made sensible, we are every where protected and provided for. Upon which account chiefly they have been brought to the knowledge of God; whom they worship out of a dread towards Us. But c 12.26 we, who seem to have a greater est••em for, (for We will not say, to defend) the holy mysteries of his Church: We say, We do nothing else, but what belongs to discord and hatred, and (to speak plain∣ly) what tends to the destruction of mankind. But, as we said before, come all of you to Vs speedily; with a full assurance, that with our utmost vigour we will endeavour the accomplishing of this, [name∣ly] that those things [comprehended] in the Law of God may most especially be preserved firm and unshaken (on which no reproach or ill opinion can possibly be fixt,) to wit, by dissipating, breaking to pieces, and utterly destroying the enemies of the Law, who under the covert of [Christs] holy name introduce various and different sorts of Blas∣phemies.

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

THis Letter put those present at the Synod into a great perplexity of mind. Where∣fore most of them returned to their own Cities. But Eusebius, Theognis, Maris, Patrophilus, Ur∣sacius and Valens, going to Constantinople, would not suffer any further enquiry to be made con∣cerning breaking the Cup, overturning the [Communion] Table, and the murthering of Arsenius: but they proceeded to another calum∣ny, having informed the Emperour, that Atha∣nasius had threatned to prohibit the sending of the Corn, which was usually conveighed from Alexandria to Constantinople: and that these words were said by Athanasius in the hearing of Adamantius, Anubion, a 12.27 Arbathion and Peter, all Bishops. For a calumny hath a greater force and prevalency, when the false Accuser is a person of repute and credit. The Emperour, thus cir∣cumvented

and incensed, punisheth Athanasius with banishment, ordering him to inhabit the Gallia's. There are those that say this was done by the Em∣perour, with a design thereby to procure a general union in the Church, in regard Athanasius had wholly refused to communicate with Arius and his followers. But he lived [in exile] at Triers a City of Gallia.

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

THe Bishops that were convened at Constan∣tinople did also depose Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia the less, upon this account. There was one Asterius a Professour of Rhetorick in Cappadocia, who left the teaching of that art, and owned himself a Professour of the Christian Religion. He also took in hand to write books (which are extant to this day) wherein he asserted Arius's opinion, saying, that Christ is the Power of God in the same sence that the Locust and Palmer-worm are in Moses said to be the Power of God, and other such like [Blas∣phemies] as these. This Asterius was continually in company with the Bishops, and with those Bi∣shops most especially that were not disaffected to Arianisme: Moreover, he came frequently to Synods, being very desirous to creep into the Bishoprick of some City. But he got not so much as a Presbytership, because he had sacri∣ficed in the time of Persecution. He went up and down to the Cities of Syria, and a 12.28 recited in publick the books he had made. When Marcellus understood this, being desirous to b 12.29 oppose him, through an over great earnestness [in his confu∣tation of him] he fell into the contrary errour. For he audaciously asserted, that Christ was a meer man, as Paul of Samosata did. Which when the Bishops then convened at Jeru∣salem had intelligence of, they took no notice of Asterius, because he was not enrolled in the catalogue of the Presbyters. But they required of Marcellus, as being a Priest, an account of the c 12.30 Book written by him. And when they found that he held Paul of Samosata's principles, they commanded him to alter his opinion. He, ashamed [of what he had done,] promised to burn his Book. But the convention of Bishops being hastily dissolved, upon the Emperours sum∣moning of them to Constantinople; when the Eu∣sebians came to Constantinople, Marcellus's case was again discussed. And upon Marcellus's refusal to burn his impious and unhappy Book according to his promise, the Bishops there assembled de∣posed him, and sent Basilius in his room to Ancyra. Moreover, Eusebius wrote three Books by way of Answer and Confutation of this Book, [of Marcellus's,] in which he manifestly laid open and reproved his false opinion. But Marcellus afterwards recovered his Bishoprick in the Synod of Sardis, saying that his Book was not rightly understood, and therefore he was judged to fa∣vour Paul of Samosata's Doctrine. But we will speak of this in its proper place.

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

WHile these things were transacted, the thirtieth year of Constantines Reign was compleated. a 12.31 Arius and his followers being returned to Alexandria, caused a ge∣neral disturbance in that City again. For the populace of Alexandria were very much troubled both at Arius and his Complices's return, and also at the exile of their Bi∣shop Athanasius. But when the Emperour understood the perversness of Arius's mind, he ordered him to be sent for again to Constantinople, there to give an account of the disturbances he had endea∣voured to rekindle. Alexander, who had some time before that succeeded Metrophanes, did then preside over the Church of Alexandria. The conflict this man had with Arius at that time, was a sufficient proof of his piety and accepta∣bleness to God. For upon Arius's arrival there, both the people were divided into two factions, and there also arose an universal commotion all the City over: some of them affirming, that the Nicene Creed ought to continue unshaken and without any alteration; and others pertina∣ciously asserting that Arius's opinion was con∣sonant to reason; Alexander was hereupon re∣duced to a great straight. And more especially, because Eusebius of Nicomedia had sorely threat∣ned him, saying that he would forthwith cause him to be deposed, unless he would admit Arius and his followers to Communion. But Alex∣ander was not so sollicitous about his own depo∣sition, as he was fearful of the enervating of the Doctrine of Faith, which they earnestly endea∣voured to subvert. For looking upon himself as the keeper and patron of the determinations made by the [Nicene] Synod, he made it wholly his business to prevent the wresting and depravation of those Canons. Being therefore reduced to those extremities, he entirely bad farwell to [the assi∣stances of] Logick, and made God his Refuge. He devoted himself to continued fasts, and omit∣ted no form or manner of praying. Now, he made this resolution within his own mind, and what he had resolved he secretly performed. Having shut up himself alone in the Church which is called Irene, he went to the Altar, laid himself prostrate on the ground under the b 12.32 holy Table, and poured forth his prayers [to God] with tears: he continued doing this for many nights and days together. Moreover, he asked of God, and received [what he had desired.] His petition was this; that if Arius's opinion were true, he might not see the day appointed for the disquisition thereof: but, if that Faith which he professed were true, that Arius (in re∣gard he was the Authour of all these mischiefs) might suffer condign punishment for his im∣piety.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Concerning Arius's death.

THis was the subject of Alexanders prayer. Now the Emperour, desirous to make tryal of Arius, sends for him to the Pallace, and en∣quired of him, whether he would give his assent to the determinations of the Nicene Synod. He, without any delay readily subscribed in the Em∣perours presence, making use of evasive shifts to elude and avoid what had been determined con∣cerning the Faith. The Emperour, admiring hereat, compelled him to swear. This he also did, by making use of fraud and deceit. More∣over, the manner of artifice he made use of in subscribing was, as I have heard, this. Arius, they say▪ wrote that opinion he maintained in a piece of paper, and hid it under his arm-pit: and then swore that he did really think as he had written. What I have written concerning his having done this, is grounded on hear-say only. But I have collected out of the Emperours own Letters, that he swore, besides his bare subscri∣bing. Hereupon the Emperour believed him, and gave order to Alexander Bishop of Con∣stantinople to admit him to Communion. It was then the Sabbath day, and on the day following he expected that he should be a member of the assembly of believers. But Divine vengeance closely followed Arius's audaciousness. For, when he went out of the Imperial Pallace, he was attended by the Eusebian faction, like guards, through the midst of the City, in so much that the eyes of all people were upon him. And when he came neer that place which is called Constantines Forum, where the pillar of porphyrie, is erected, a terror [proceeding] from a con∣sciousness [of his impieties] seiz'd Arius, which terrour was accompanied with a loosness. Here∣upon he enquired whether there were an house of office neer, and understanding that there was one behind Constantines Forum, he went thither. A fain∣ting fit seized him; a 12.33 and to∣gether with his excrements his fundament fell down forthwith, and a great flux of bloud followed, and his small guts. And bloud gushed out, together with his spleen and liver. He died therefore im∣mediately. But the house of office is to be seen at this day in Constantinople, as I said, behind Constantines Forum, and behind the Sham∣bles in the Piazza: and by every ones pointing with their finger at the jakes as they go by, the manner of Arius's death will never be forgotten by posterity. This accident hapning, a fear and an anxietie seized Eusebius of Nicomedia's faction: and the report hereof quickly spread it self all over the City, nay I may say over the whole world. But the Emperour did more zealously adhere to Christianity, and said that the Nicene Faith was now truly confirmed by God himself. He was also very glad, both at what had hapned, and also upon the account of his three sons, whom he had proclaimed Caesars: each of them was created at every * 12.34 Decennalia of his Reign. The Eldest of them (called Con∣stantine after his own name) he created Gover∣nour over the Western parts of the Empire, in the first tenth year of his Reign. His second son, Constantius (who bore his Grandfathers name,) he made Caesar in b 12.35 the Eastern parts of the Empire, in the twentieth year of his Reign. The youngest, called Constans he crea∣ted [Caesar] in the thirtieth year of his Em∣pire.

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

THe Year after, the Emperour Constantine, having just entred the sixty fifth year of his age, falls sick. He therefore left Constantinople and went by water to Helenopolis, to make use of the medicinal hot springs situate in the vici∣nage of that City. But when he was sensible that his distemper increased, he deferred bathing. And removed from Helenopolis to Nicome∣dia. He kept his Court there in the Suburbs, and received Christian Baptism. He was here∣upon very chearfull, and made his will, wherein he left his three sons heirs of the Empire, allot∣ting to every one of them their part, as he had done in his life time. He left many Legacies both to a 12.36 Rome and to Constantinople, and he in∣trusted his Will with that b 12.37 Presbyter, by whose intercession Arius was recalled, of whom we spoke something * 12.38 before: injoyning him not to deliver it into any mans hands, except his Son Constantius's, whom he had constituted Governour of the East. After he had made his Will, he lived some few days and then died. Moreover, none of his Sons were with him at his death. Therefore there was one immediately dispatcht into the East, to inform Constantius of his Fa∣thers death.

CHAP. XL. Concerning Constantine the Emperours Fune∣rall.

THey that were about the Emperour, put his Corps in a Coffin of Gold, conveighed it to Constantinople, and placed it [on a bed of State] on high in the Pallace; and there they paid their honorary respects to it, and set a guard about it, as when he was alive. This course they continued, till one of his Sons came. But when

Constantius arrived out of the Eastern parts, he was honoured with an imperial Sepulture, and de∣posited in the Church called The Apostles; which he himself had erected for this reason, that the Emperours and Prelates a 12.39 might not be far inferiour to the reliques of the Apostles. The Emperour Constantine lived to the age of Sixty five years: he Reigned One and thirty years. And died in the Consulate of Felicianus and Titianus, upon the twenty second day of May: which was the b 12.40 second year of the Two hun∣dredth seventy eighth Olympiad. Now, this Book contains in it the space of thirty one yeares.

Notes

• a 1.1

  In the Kings M. S. and Robert Stephens's Edit. it is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the war:] but in the Florent. and Sfort. M. SS. we found it written [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, persecuti∣on.] Vales.
• b 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here us'd does not (as usual∣ly) signifie singillatim, one by one, apart, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, partly: for Eusebius (in his books De vitâ Constantini▪) does indeed but partly touch the history of Arius; he prosecutes it not wholly, and particularly. Vales.
• c 1.3

  Musculus renders these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] thus, we will begin our History where he left off: Christoph. does translate it almost after the same manner, but more barbarously, as to his Latine. We have rendred these words thus [ab iis rebus quas ille intactas reliquit, operis no∣stri sumemus exordium, i. e. we will begin our History from those matters which he has left untouch't] For Socrates's meaning is, that he will begin from the History of Arius, which Eusebius had but partly touch't upon, in his books, concerning the life of Constantine: for Eusebius (says he) made it his business in those books, to enlarge upon the Emperours praises, rather than to give an exact account of the Ecclesiastick Affairs: but he himself, resolving to commit to writing the Affairs transacted in the Church, promises to give a more accurate relation of the Arian-Heresie, and to begin his History from those things which Eusebius had either purposely omitted, or but slightly touch't upon as not conducive to his design in hand. Indeed Socrates has not begun his History, where Eusebius left off. For Eusebius continues that work of his con∣cerning Constantines Life to the death of Constantine. But Eusebius has continued the Series of his Ecclesiastick History down to the tu∣mults raised by Arius, and to those affairs which preceded the Nicene-Council. If therefore we have a respect onely to Eusebius's Ten Books of his Ecclesiastick History, we may say that Socrates began where Eusebius ended. But if we also add his Books concerning the life of Constantine (as Socrates here does,) then that will not be true. Vales.
• a 1.4

  Vales. in his Latine translation begins this period not as Musculus and Chri∣stoph. do, and we have fol∣lowed his judgment, as more a∣greeable with the continua∣tion, and connexion of the sense.
• b 1.5

  Socrates seems to have been of opinion, that Con∣stantine and Maxentius began their Reign in the same year that Dio∣cletian and Maximianus Herculius did Resign the Empire. This also was the opinion of the Authour of the Chronicle of Alexandria, and of others who attribute the years of Constantius's Reign to Constantine his Son. And hence it is that Constantine the Great is reported to have Reigned 32 years, when as really he Reigned but 30 years, and 10 months. Vales.
• c 1.6

  Socrates does in the end of his Seventh Book (where he concludes his History) repeat this, in which place he says that he began his Hi∣story in the first year of the 271 Olympiad, in which year Constantine the Great was proclaimed Emperour. This Olympiad does begin at the Solstice of the CCCV. year, being the year after the resignation of Diocletian. But Constantius died not this year, but in that following, when he was the sixth time Consul with Galerius Augustus, as we may read in Fastis Idatii. And therefore Constantius's death is to be recko∣ned on the second year of the aforesaid CCLXXI. Olympiad. Vales.
• d 1.7

  Socrates is here in an error, for Maximianus Herculius, who was otherwise called Maximian the Elder, was by Constantin's command slain in Gallia, in the year of Christ 310. But Maximinus Caesar, being two years after conquered by Licinius, died at Tarsus, as Aurelius Victor relates, and Eusebius in his Chronicle and other Authours. This is the common mistake of the Greek Historians; they make a confusion betwixt Maximianus and Maximinus, using them promiscuously. Vales.
• e 1.8

  Although in the Greek it be Galerius Maximinus; yet we must read Maximianus: the Greeks u∣sually confound these two names. In the beginning of this chapter (where the words are, Maximianus surnamed Galerius) the Sfort. M. S. has it written Maximinus. Vales.
• f 1.9

  This passage [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Maxi∣mianus Galerius, who was now the supream person in the Empire] must be understood favourably, for Galerius was not really chief and sole Arbitratour of all things, whenas there were at the same time two other Augusti, to wit, Constantine in the Gallia's, and Maxentius at Rome. But never∣theless he may be said summam imperii administrasse, because he was the seniour Augustus, and was respected by the junior Augusti, as a father. Vales.
• g 1.10

  Constan∣tine got this Victo∣ry over Maxentius in the year of Christ 312. when he and Licinius were in their second Consulate, this was the sixth year of Constantin's Reign: for he begun his Reign on the 25^th day of July, in the year of Christ 306. But if we say that Maxentius was conquered on the eighth of the Kalends of October in the year 312, (as Onufrius reckons in his Fasti, and Sigonius in his Second Book concerning the Western Empire) then that which Socrates here affirms may be true; that Constantine routed Maxentius in the seventh year of his Reign. But it seems something odd to me, that Maxentius should (in the Panagyrick of Nazarius) be said to be slain in the end of his sixth year, just the day before he began his seventh. Maxentius began his Reign some days after Constantine, therefore if Maxentius died on the eighth of the Kalends of October, he must necessarily begin his Reign on the 7^th. And by this computation Constantine came to the Empire two months before Maxentius. Which indeed does not seem probable to me. But Socrates does here accord with his own opinion. For whereas Con∣stantine (according to him) began his Reign in the 305▪ year of Christ, he very well reckons this Victory in the seventh year of his Reign. Vales.
• h 1.11

  Diocletian died at Sa∣lona the 3^d of the nones of Decem∣ber, in the year of Christ 316. as Idatius does very well write in his Annals. The same also says the Authour of the Chronic. Alexand. but instead of Diocletian there is crept into the Text, Galerius Maximianus; 'tis also confirm'd by the authority of Zosimus in the second book of his History, where he says that Diocletian died 3 years after the 3^d Con∣sulship of Constantine and Licinius. For, having said, that from the Consulship of Chilon and Libo (in which the secular Games were celebrated) to the third Consulship of Constantine and Licinius, it was above 110 years, he adds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (i. e.) three years after died Diocletian. But Joseph Scaliger in his notes upon Eusebius, understood this passage of Zosimus so, as if Zosimus should say that Diocletian died three years after the resignation of his Empire, or after his ninth Con∣sulship. Vales.
• † 1.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 made com∣mon, or ex∣posed the I∣mages pla∣ced therein▪ that is (as we sup∣pose) he caused them to be dese∣crated.
• * 1.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the import where∣of rendred word for word, is this, it hapned there only, where Lici∣nius was: Valesius renders the words thus, in iis enim duntaxa•• partibus grassata est, quae subditi∣oni erant Licinii, it raged in those parts only, which were under Lici∣nius's jurisdiction.
• a 1.14

  In the Kings and Florentine M. SS. the particle [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and] is wanting; which Chri∣stoph. in∣serted. To me it seems not very necessary. If we do retain it, then [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] must signifie [Au∣gustus,] not King, as Christoph. renders it. Socrates alludes to the Souldiers acclamations, who after a signal Victory were wont to stile their Prince Emperour, and Augustus. The Citizens did the same, when the Victorious Prince made his entry into the City. Vales.
• * 1.15

  See Eu∣sebius's Ec∣clesiastical History book 7. chap. 6. note (b.)
• a 2.1

  Lucas Hotstenius, a very lear∣ned person, heretofore wrote a dis∣sertation upon this Epistle of Alexander's, which (to∣gether with some other pieces of his) he sent me a little before his death. In that Treatise he re∣markes in the first place, that in∣terpreters had not well rendred these words of Alexander [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] which they had tran∣slated thus [Cum unum sit Catho∣licae corpus Ecclesiae, whereas there is one body of the Catholick Church. But he asserts, that the place should rather have been thus rendred [whereas the Catholick Church is one body, &c. or, con∣sists of one body. For that learned person is of opinion, that Alex∣ander alludes to Saint Paul's E∣pistles, wherein the Church is frequently called Christ's body. But (by the favour of that great man and heretofore my dearest friend) this Version cannot be born with. For, if Alexander had thought, as Holstenius means, he would doubtless have expressed himself thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] which in regard he has not said, it is apparent, there can be no other sense of the words, than that expressed by Translatours. Besides, if Alexander would have said that the Church is the body of Christ, he would not have worded it thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one body] but rather thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the body of Christ.] Vales.
• b 2.2

  In the Florence M. S. after these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, these are] follow these [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Tenets of the Arians,) which words should ra∣ther be placed in the margin. In Gelasius there occur likewise at this place these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Arius's Opinion. Vales.
• c 2.3

  After these words [nor his true Wisdom] there was a whole clause wanting, which from our three M. SS. the Florentine, Sfor∣tian, and Allatian, and from Gela∣sius Cyzicenus we have made good, thus, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [But he is one of his Works, and one of his Creatures,] which words Epiph. Scholasticus had found in his Co∣py, as it is apparent from his Version. For he has Translated this whole place thus: Creatura est enim, & factura filius, neque similis est patri secundum substan∣tiam: neque verus est, neque verae sapientia ejus est, neque verum naturaliter patris verbum est, sed unus quidem creaturarum & fa∣cturarum est: For the Son is a Creature and a Work, neither is he like the Father as to his Essence: nor is he genuin, nor his true Wise∣dom: nor is he by nature the true Word of the Father, but one of his Creatures and one of his Works. Hence it appears, that that Greek Copy of Socrates, which Epiph. Scholasticus used, differed some∣thing from our Manuscripts. And yet Leo Allatius's Copy agrees exactly with that which Epi∣phanius followed. For thus it words this passage: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. So exactly do the Authours of the Greek and Latine Tri∣pertite History agree amongst themselves, that they seem to have borrowed from one another. Vales.
• d 2.4

  In Leo Allatius's M. S. Copy, the reading of this place is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which reading Epiphan. Scholast. has followed; who translates it thus; factus & ipse & existens in proprio Dei verbo, & in Dei sapientid, be himself is made and exists in the proper Word of God, and in the Wisedom of God. But we have rather followed the reading of the Kings, the Florentine, and the Sfortian M. SS. which is also confirmed by Gela∣sius. Vales.
• e 2.5

  In Leo Allatius's M. S. (which contains the Tripertite History that Theodorus Lector composed in Greek out of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret) these words are added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and is invisible. So Epiph. Scholast. reads it, as appears from his version. Vales.
• f 2.6

  Instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek, we with Gelasius chuse to read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and accordingly Tran∣slate it thus, begotten and created. This passage is thus Translated by Epiph. Factus aiunt, & con∣vertibilis est, they say that he is made, and is mutable. Vales.
• g 2.7

  In Leo Allatius's M. S. the reading is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but in Ge∣lasius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which rea∣ding does please me. For there are two Libya's, we may also here take notice of this number (to wit) 100 Bishops in Aegypt. The same number I remember I met with in Athanasius's Second Apology, against the Arians: pag. 788. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; there are in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, neer an hundred Bishops. Vales.
• * 2.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cur∣sed, or ex∣communi∣cated. See D^r Ham∣mond on Rom. 9. v. 3. note b.
• h 2.9

  In Leo Allatius's M. S. and in Gelasius. Cyzicenus, this place is truer written, thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which reading we have expressed in our Translation. The reading in the Florentine and Sfortian M. SS. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, How can he be equal with those things made by him. Vales.
• * 2.10

  Psalm 45. v. 1.
• † 2.11

  Psalm 110. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So the Septuagint words that Text; and we Translate accordingly; the very words of the 72 being here quoted.
• † 2.12

  Colos. 1. 15.
• * 2.13

  Hebr. 1. 3.
• ‖ 2.14

  John 14. 9.
• * 2.15

  John 14. 10.
• † 2.16

  John 10. 30.
• ‖ 2.17

  See Mal. 3. 6.
• † 2.18

  Heb. 13. 8.
• * 2.19

  Heb. 2. 10.
• * 2.20

  John 10. 15.
• † 2.21

  Prov. 18. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 So the Septuagint words this Text; which words occur here in the original. But in our English Version of the Bible (which agrees with the Hebrew) this Text is thus rendred, when the wicked cometh, then cometh also contempt.
• i 2.22

  The reading in Leo Allatius's M. S. and in Gelasius (which is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, have attempted the sub∣version) pleases me better than this [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Vales.
• * 2.23

  2 Tim. 2. 17, 18.
• † 2.24

  Mat. 24. 4. Luk. 21. 8.
• * 2.25

  1 Tim. 4. 1.
• * 2.26

  See 2▪ Epist. Joh. v. 10, 11.
• k 2.27

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the controversic raised] the reading in Leo Allatius's M. S. is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the question that raised the disturbance.] A little after this, in the same M. S. instead of [con∣sent to Alexander] the reading is [consent to those whom Alexander wrote to.] Vales.
• * 2.28

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, chil∣dishly.
• l 2.29

  Here, I am confident, Socra∣tes mistakes, For the Melitians did not side with the Arians till after the Counsel of Nice: being then solicited, by Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia to cast scandalous aspersions upon Athanafius, as he himself does testifie in his second Apology against the Arians. If the Melitians had joyn'd them∣selves with the Arians before the Council of Nice, the Fa∣thers of that Council undoubted∣ly had not treated them so kind∣ly as they did. Vales.
• a 2.30

  In the Greek af∣ter these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is extant in the Books, the Florent. M. S. reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, part of the Letter; which words although they may be written in the margin, yet sometimes are put into the Text by Authors; as for instance in Athanasius's Apology against the Arians. Vales.
• b 3.1

  After these words in the Greek: (to wit,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Leo Allat. M. S. and Gelas. Cyzicen: add 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the import of which we have also made use of in our Translation; though 'tis not exprest in the common Edit. Vales.
• c 3.2

  In Leo Allatius's M. S. this place is thus written [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; i. e. 'Tis neither decent, nor is it in any wise to be believed, that so nume∣rous a people of God (which ought to be governed by your prayers and prudence) should be at variance.] Epiphan. Scholasticus followed the same reading: for thus he translates this place: [tantum Dei populum, quem vestris ora∣tionibus & prudentiâ convenit gu∣bernari, discordare nec decet, nec omnino fas esse credibile est.] Vales.
• * 3.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; in ipsâ scientiae perfectione: So Va∣lesius, whom we follow. Mus∣culus renders it, in virtute scien∣tiae, in the virtue of knowledge: Grynaeus, disciplinae causâ, &c. upon account of their disci∣pline, &c.
• * 3.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, will, wish, or desire.
• d 3.5

  In my Annotations at the se∣cond book of Eusebius's Life of Constantine, instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after the oc∣casion of the enmity is laid aside] I have noted that the reading should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after the removing of the enmity;] as it is in some Copies. But, in as much as our M. SS. to wit, the Florent. Sfortian, and Allatian change not the reading here, we may bear with the common reading; which is also confirmed by Epiph. Scho∣lasticus's Version: for thus he translates this passage; suaviores crebrò sunt amicitiae post inimici∣tiarum causas ad concordiam resti∣tutae. Vales.
• * 3.6

  These words of Eusebius occur at the third Book of his Life of Constantine, Chap. 7. Socrates has not quoted them word for word as they are there: we (following herein Valesius, Musculus, and Grynaeus) have rendred them as they are in the forecited place of Euse∣bius.
• † 3.7

  Gelasius Cyzicenus supposed that by these words the Bishop of Constantinople was meant. With whom agrees Nicetas, (in Thesauro Arthodoxae fidei. book 5. chap. 6.) and Epiphanius Scholasticus in book 2. Histor. Tripart. Musculus (as 'tis apparent from his rendition of these words) thought the Bishop of Rome was hereby meant: for he renders this place thus, Romanae autem civitatis Episcopus propter senium decrat, i. e. The Bishop of Rome by reason of his age, was absent. Valesius is of the same opinion with Musculus. For (in his Annotations on Chap. 7. of the third Book of Eusebius's Life of Constantine) he says, that at such time as this Council was convened, Constantinople was not adorned with the name of The Imperial City. See Sozomen, book 1. chap. 16. and Theodo∣ret, book 1. chap. ••.
• * 3.8

  See Acts 2. 5.
• a 3.9

  The An∣cients are not agreed concerning the num∣ber of Bi∣shops that were at the Ni∣cene Coun∣cil. Eu∣sebius (in his third book, chap. 8. concer∣ning the life of Con∣stantine) says they were Two hundred and fifty. Eustathius Bishop of Antioch (in his Homily on those words of Solomon, The Lord created me, &c.) affirms they were about 270; but says he had not cast up their number exactly. The more constant account (which is confirmed by the consent of all modern Authours) is, that there sate in that Synod 318 Bishops, which is confirmed by these Ancients. viz. Athanasius, in his Epistle to the African Bishops, neer the beginning; Hilarius, in his book against Constantius; Jerome, in his Chronicon; and Rufinus. See Valesius's notes on Chap. 8. of Book 3. of Euse∣bius, de Vitâ Constant.
• * 3.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fol∣lowers, or Attendants.
• b 3.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Many senses may be given of these words. For first [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] may be taken for [mo∣desty and a curteous behaviour;] supposing [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to be put for [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] this sense we have followed in our Version. Secondly, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] may be meant concerning them, who were not the eminentest persons amongst the Bishops for Learning or Piety of Life; but did not come much behind them. So the Ancients called those medios principes ac duces, middle Princes or Captains, who were neither the best, nor the worst, but between both. Lastly, this phrase may be used con∣cerning them, who deserved to be praised on both accounts, to wit, for their learning and sanctity: and thus Sozomen interprets this place of Eusebius, as may be seen from his words in his first book chap. 16. See Valesius's notes on chap. 9. of the third book of Eusebius, de Vitâ Constant.
• † 3.12

  In the Allat. M. S. there are some words added here; in which Copy the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, concerning those there assembled Eusebius Pamphilus has thus at large discoursed:] which reading has a greater Emphasis. Vales.
• c 3.13

  I prefer the reading in the Allat. M. S, in which, instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a plain Opi∣nion] it is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. plain knowledge, &c.) Epiph. Scholasticus followed this latter reading, as appears from his Ver∣sion of this place. Socrates seems to have had this narration out of Rufinus's tenth book, where he treats concerning the Nicene-Council. But Socrates on set purpose altered some things. Ge∣lasius, treating on this Subject, enlarges upon it, relating the questions of each of the Philo∣sophers, and the Bishops answers thereto. All which passages of his look more like fables, than an History of what was done, Vales.
• * 3.14

  Eusebius, concerning the Life of Constan∣tine; book 3. chap. 13. and 14. Edit. Vales.
• d 3.15

  This Sabinus was Bishop of the Macedonians in Heraclea a City of Thrace; he made a Col∣lection of the Synodical Acts; a very usefull work; the testimony whereof Socrates does frequently make use of in this his History. But Socrates reproves him in ma∣ny places; both because he was unfaithfull in his Collection of those Acts, (studiously relating what conduced to the strengthen∣ing of his own Heresie, and omit∣ting the contrary,) and also in regard he always shews himself incensed against the Orthodox Bishops. An instance whereof is this relation of Socrates's here, where he says that Sabinus ter∣med the Fathers of the Nicene-Council ignorant and simple fel∣lows. But 'tis usual for He∣reticks to calumniate the ho∣ly Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Vales.
• e 3.16

  In the Allat. M. S. the reading here is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. now the agreement in the faith with loud acclamations approved of by the great Synod at Nice, and by Eusebius, &c.] Epiphan. Scholast. followed the same rea∣ding. Vales.
• f 3.17

  This following Creed is wanting in all our M. SS. viz. the Kings Sfortian: and Flo∣rent: but Christophor∣son did very well in pla∣cing it here: for 'tis plain both from Epi∣phanius Scholast, as also by those fol∣lowing words, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. this Creed three hundred, &c.] That it was placed here by the Historian himself. But all the M. SS. did omit it in this place because 'tis repeated a little after in Eusebius Pamphilus's E∣pistle. Vales.
• g 3.18

  There were only two Bi∣shops Secundus and Theonas which refus'd to subscribe to the Ni∣cene Creed, as Theodoret does very well testifie in the first book of his Ecclesiastick History, and (before him) Hieronymus in his Dialogue against the Luci∣feriani. The Synodical Epistle also of the Council of Nice, which is here related by Socrates does plainly confirm this. Vales.
• * 3.19

  That is, of the same substance.
• * 3.20

  That is, of the same substance.
• * 3.21

  That is, of the same substance.
• * 4.1

  Matt. 28. 19.
• h 4.2

  Eusebius seems to affirm, that the Empe∣rour Con∣stantine was the oc∣casion of adding the word Ho∣moousios to the Creed. But this is very impro∣bable. For Constantine was not so learned; being as yet but a Catechumen. Eusebius's relation therefore must be thus understood, that the Bi∣shops (after the Creed proposed by Eusebius Caesariensis,) judged that the word Homoöusios ought to be added to it; and that Con∣stan••ine confirmed their Opinion. But Eusebius, who made it his business to clear and excuse himself to those of his Diocess▪ because he hath subscribed that form of the Creed published by the Council, (as Athanasius, in his book De Decret. Synod. Nicen. and in his book De Synod. Arimini and Seleuciae▪ attests,) does designedly make the business intricate, and ascribes that to the Emperour Constantine, which should rather be ascribed to the Bishops. Vales.
• i 4.3

  Af∣ter these words, before the Nicene Creed, in the Florentine and Sfortian M. SS. are added these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] So the Greeks call the Creed, because the Catechumens got it by heart Socrates (in his third book chap. 25.) has these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and the rest of the Articles of the Creed. See Leontius Bisantius, in his book De sectis, pag. 466. Vales.
• k 4.4

  In the Greek Text of So∣crates (as it is published by Va∣lesius) there is at this place a great errour. For these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which were discussed in the presence of our most pious Emperour] are quite omit∣ted; and instead thereof, these [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and for the fore∣mentioned reasons received with an unanimous consent] are twice prin∣ted. We supplied this defect from Robers Stephens's Greek Edit. with which our Translation a∣grees; as it likewise doth with Valesius's Latine Version, and with that of Musculus, Christo∣phorson, and Grynaeus.
• * 4.5

  That is, the Curse.
• a 5.1

  This Epistle is extant in Theo∣doret, in chap. 6. of the first book of his Ecclesiastick History; but is in some places different from So∣crates's Edition of it here. For Theodoret omits the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, affirming,] together with the following clause, and joyns all this with the preceding period. In Leo Allatius's M. S. the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is also wanting, and that which follows, to wit, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, calls:] and instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the reading there is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Vales.
• b 5.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the phrase that d••••u••s here) imports the rigour or extremity of the Law: to which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 equity is opposed. The Fathers therefore of the Nicene▪ Council say▪ that the Synod dealt with Melitius, not according to the rigour and extremity of the Law, nor according to the exact rule and discipline▪ but (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) by way of dispensation. For in the strictest sense of the Law Melitius deserved no kindness or pardon, in regard he challenged ordinations which in no wise belong to him, and had made a Schism in Egypt. For that is evidently declared by these words of this Epistle, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those that by Gods grace have not been found [engaged] in any Schism. By reason therefore of his rashness and insolency, Melitius deserved to be deposed and excommunicated. But yet the holy Fathers had a mind to treat him kindly, depriving him of all power, and leaving him only the name of a Bishop. Now, why Melitius was thus kindly used▪ many reasons may be alleadged. The first (which the holy Fathers intimate in this Epistle) is, because they had before unsheathed and made use of their sharpest severity and censure against Arius and his followers. Now it was but equal, that after so sad and heavy a sen∣tence pronounc't against them, there should be a place afterwards less for clemency; especially, since Melitius had been convicted of no He∣resie, but was only accused to have made a Schism. Secondly, there were many persons amongst the Melitians▪ that were good men, and eminent for their plous lives. Of which sort was Paphnutius the Anchoret, and John the Bishop▪ whom Epiphanius mentions, in H••res. Melitian. Lastly, they did thus to promote peace, whereby the mem∣bers of the Church, which before had been rent in sunder, might cement and unite: therefore the Nicene Fathers received the Meli∣tians into communion. And this is a most illustrious example of Ecclesiastick dispensation. Vales.
• * 5.3

  See note (••) in this chapter.
• c 5.4

  I like not Chri∣stophor∣sons Ver∣sion, who thought these words were meant of the Pres∣byters or∣dained by Melitius. For Meli∣tius or∣dained not only Pres∣byters and Deacons throughout Egypt, but Bishops also, as Epiphanius attests. Yea, he had or∣dained far more Bishops, than Presbyters; as may be Collected from that Catalogue, which Alexander ('tis said) required of him, after the Nicene Synod. Wherein are reckoned twenty eight Bishops of Meli∣tius's party; but five Presbyters, and three Deacons. This Catalogue is extant in Athanasius's Second Apology against the Arians. Since therefore Melitius had Ordained so many Bishops, if the Nicene Fa∣thers had made no determination concerning the Bishops by him Ordained, their sentence had been imperfect; in regard they would have Decreed, what should be done with the Presbyters made by Melitius, but would have made no mention of the Bishops. Where∣fore I think these words must be taken in such a sense, as to include both Bishops, and also Presbyters. Vales.
• d 5.5

  In the first place the Synod Decreed, that the Bishops and Clergy, which had been Ordained by Melitius, should be confirmed by a more holy consecration, that is, should receive imposition of hands from the Bishop of Alexandria. For, in regard they had been Ordained with∣out his consent, it was the pleasure of the Synod, that they should be Ordained by the Alexandrian Bishop, according to the ancient usage, by which it was customary, that all the Bishops of the Diocess of Egypt should be Subject to the Prelate of Alexandria. But the Synod required not the re-ordination of Melitius, because he had been rightly Ordained before. Vales.
• e 5.6

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] it should rather be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ordained before] as it is in Theodoret, book 1. chap. 6. Eccles. Histor. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies another thing, as we shall shew hereafter. (see the following note.) Sozomen (in his first book chap. 24. where he epitomizes this Epistle) supposed these words were meant of the Clergy, not of the Bishops. Vales.
• f 5.7

  In our Annotations on the third book of Eusebius concerning the Life of Constantine, we remarked, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifies to propose the names of such persons as are to be ordained. So the Synod Decreed above concerning Melitius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he should neither ordain, nor propose the names of those that were to be ordained. In the same sence Nicetas used this term, in his Life of Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople, where he mentions his Election: his words are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. when therefore the names of many per∣sons were proposed to Preside over that Church, &c. Therefore the fol∣lowing words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or to nominate] are only an explication of the foregoing term. In the same sense Sozomen took this word, in his fore-cited 24 chapt. Moreover, we must note, that Melitius was more severely dealt with, (as being the authour of a Schism,) than the Melitiani. For the Nicene Fathers deprived Melitius of all Episcopal jurisdiction, and left him only the name of a Bishop. But they permitted the Melitians to exercise their Functions in the Church. That is, that the Deacons should Minister in the Or∣der of Deacons, and that the Presbyters should Consecrate and Ba∣ptize, as should also the Bishops. They only took from them their power of Voting in Elections: which was prudently done of the Nicene Fathers, least the Melitians should clandestinely promote some men of their own party to the Ecclesiastick preferments. Vales.
• g 5.8

  It should rather be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bishops,] as it is in Theo∣doret, and in the Allat. M. S. Vales.
• h 5.9

  These words do plainly confirm what we said be∣fore, to wit, that not only the Pres∣byters and Deacons, but the Bishops al∣so (who had been Ordained by Meli∣tius) are here spo∣ken of. For, if they here trea∣ted concer∣ning the Presbyters only that were to succeed in the places of other Presbyters, why should the Nicene▪ Fathers use so great caution, require so many and great things for this rea∣son, that one of the Melitian Presbyters should be put into the place of a de∣funct Pres∣byter of the Catholick Church? For the holy Fathers expresly prohibit, that any of the Melitians shall succeed in the place and dignity of the defunct▪ unless he seem worthy of that honour, unless the people Elect him, and unless his Election be confirmed by the Bishop of Alexandria. What need of so great caution and diligence in the promotion of a Presbyter? 'Tis therefore apparent, that these words do rather belong to the Bishops. In the Elections of whom most especially, the peo∣ples suffrages were necessary; and whose Election must besides be confirmed by the Bishop of Alexandria, in regard he was the Me∣tropolitane of all Egypt. Vales.
• i 5.10

  Socrates does unde∣servedly stile Meli∣tius an Arch-He∣retick. For neither do the Nicene Fathers, nor Atha∣nasius (in his 2 Apology) nor Epiphanius, accuse Melitius of any Heresie; they only affirm, he was the Authour of a Schism. But when the Meli∣tians had afterwards joyned themselves to the Arians▪ (which, as I remark•• before, hapned after the Nicene▪Synod, and Melitius's death,) they turned their Schism into an Heresie, as Augustine writes concer∣ning the Donatists. In this sense therefore Melitius may be termed an Arch-Heretick. Vales.
• k 5.11

  The Sfortian & Florentine, M. SS. add these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Verses;] which Christo∣phorson found in his Copy, as appears from his Version. Concerning Arius's Thalia, see Athanasius, in his second Oration against the Arians. When Socrates says, that this book of Arius's was condemned by the Synod, we must not so understand him, as if the Poem it self were particularly con∣demned, but the Doctrine only contained in that Poem. Vales.
• * 5.12

  He was a Maronite, a most obscene Greek Poet.
• * 6.1

  In the Allat. M. S. the reading is concer∣ning our Saviour; which I like better than this, concerning our Great Saviour. Vales.
• l 7.1

  This E∣pistle of Constantine the Empe∣rour is not rightly pla∣ced by our Author. It should ra∣ther be placed im∣mediately after Con∣stantin's Letter to the Chur∣ches which is the next in this cha∣pter. For certain∣ly those Letters which concern the Council of Nice should regularly be placed first. But this Letter does not concern that Council, nor does it in the least mention the Council. Athanasius in his Epistle ad Solitar. alludes to this Letter of Constantin's, where he speaks thus concerning the Emperour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (i. e.) Why does he (to wit, Constantine) endeavour to reduce the Arians into the Church▪ whom he himself calls Porphyrians? Vales.
• * 8.1

  In book 3 chap. 18. of Eusebius's Life of Constantine (where we have this Epistle of the Emperour,) the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which Valesius at that place, and here, renders thus [ab illâ turpissimâ societate & conscientiâ, from that most abominable so∣ciety and their consciousness.] Of this his Version, he gives this rea∣son: they who celebrate Easter with the Jews, seem to be conscious of that wickedness which they committed against our Lord. See his Annotat. at the book and chapter now cited.
• * 8.2

  Violence.
• m 8.3

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in the Florent. and Sfortian M. SS. the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, always:] which reading Theodoret con∣firms. In book 3. chap. 18. of Eusebius's Life of Constantine, it is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] whereas the Jewish Paschal Neomenia (or new Moon) began from the fifth day of March, and was concluded at the third of April, hence it some∣times hapned, that their Passo∣ver began before the Aequinox. So that they celebrated two Pass∣overs in one year, (suppossing you mean the Solar and Julian year) that is, accounting from the Vernal Aequinox of this year, to the Vernal Aequinox of the year following. Ambrosius asserts the same in his Epistle to the Bi∣shops of Aemilia, where he re∣lates, that the Jews sometimes celebrated their Passover in the twelfth month, that is, according to the Latines, and Eastern men. For the Jews never kept their Passover on their own twelfth month, but on the fourteenth day of their first month. More∣over, this celebrating of their Pas∣over twice in one year, which Con∣stantine objects against the Jews, seems to me not at all momen∣tous. For the Jews might have returned the objection upon the Christians, to wit, that they cele∣brated Easter twice in the same year. For, suppose Easter is this year kept on the tenth of the Calends of May; (that is, on the 22^d of April) next year it must necessarily be kept sooner. And so there will occur two Easters amongst the Christians within the space of one year current. But this will not happen, if you reckon the year from the Aequi∣noctial Cardo to the Vernal Ae∣quinox of the year following. See Epiphan. pag. 824. Edit Petav. and Petav. Animadvers. pag. 294, 295. See also Aegidius Buche∣rius de Paschali Judaeorum Cyclo, chap. 3.
• n 9.1

  This Let∣ter of the Emperour to Eusebius, and also the two next are misplaced. For they have no relation to the Council of Nice; neither do they make the lest mention of Arius or the Arians. Yea, the first of Con∣stantin's Letters to Eusebius was written before the Council of Nice, as Eusebius himself testifies, in his 2^d Book of Constantin's Life, Chap. 46. Vales.
• o 9.2

  We meet with this Letter of the Empe∣rours to Eusebius at book 2. chap. 46. of Eusebius's Life of Con∣stantine; where these three words [that Persecutor Licinius] are wanting; being added here, instead of a Scholion by Socrates, or some other Scholiast. He ••erms Licinius a serpent by reason of his craftiness, and age. Hence we may conjecture, that this Letter was written soon after Li∣cinius's deposition. See Valesius's notes on book 2. chap. 46. of Eu∣sebius's Life of Constantine.
• p 9.3

  Here we made choice of this reading [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. ha∣ving now acknowledged, &c.] By the term [fear] in the fore∣going clause he means the Christians, who through fear of persecution had neglected the Churches, or renounced the faith. The term [Un∣belief] belongs to the Heathens, who had demolished the Churches, and divers ways vexed the Christians. See Valesius's notes, at the Book and Chapter before cited.
• q 9.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the term here used, signifies an Office, or company of Apparitours attending on a Ma∣gistrate; i. e. a cer∣tain num∣ber of Soul∣diers waiting on the Judges▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are the Praesects of the Praetorium; so termed, because they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, over the Presidents and Rectours of Provinces. Therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the phrase here used) imports the Office of the Praetorian Praesecture, concerning which consult the Notitia Imperii Romani. Further, the Office (or Attendants) of the Prefect of the Praetorium was more honourable than the Offices of all the other Magistrates. For as the Prefect of the Prae∣torium excelled all the other judges, as well Military as Civil, in dig∣nity; so his Officials or attendants, were lookt upon to be more honour∣able then the other officials. Hence, in the Chalcedon Council, Action. 3, the Office of the Praefects of the Praetorium is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See Valesius's notes, at the before cited book and Chapter.
• * 10.1

  He means the City of Constanti∣nople.
• r 10.2

  In Eusebius's Life of Con∣stantine, book 4. chap. 36. (where this Letter occurs) this place is far otherwise read and pointed, than it is here; so a••so it is in Theodoret, book 1. chap. 16. Vales.
• s 10.3

  Concer∣ning the Rationalist and his Of∣fice, we have spo∣ken before, in our notes on Euse∣bius. By [Dioecesis] is meant here the Diocess of the East. The old Romans called a certain number of Provinces (which, taken to∣gether, were under a Deputy of the Praeto∣rian Prae∣fecture) by this name [Dioecesis.] For the Prefect of the Praetorium had under his jurisdiction many Dioeceses; but the Deputies had each but one Dioe∣cesis. This term began to be used in this sense about Constantin's time, as appears from his Letters, and from some Laws in the Cod. Theod. See Valesius's Annotations on Eusebius's Life of Constant. B. 4. chap. 36.
• * 11.1

  He means our Blessed Sa∣viours Se∣pulchre.
• t 11.2

  Constantine here terms Li∣cinius the publick enemy, after whose destruction, he says, the sacred Sepulchre of our Lord, which had been before concealed, was discovered. Licinius was slain in the year of Christ 326, as 'tis recorded in Fast. Idat. And on that very year, when Helena came to Jerusalem, the Sepulchre of our Lord was found. By the name of the publick Enemy, the Devil might here be meant, were not this contradicted by the ex∣pressions here used. For the De∣vil was not then vanquished and overcome, when the Sepulchre of our Lord was cleared from the rubbish that covered it. Besides, the term [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, slaughter] is more expressive, being meant of Licinius, than of the Devil. See Valesius's notes on Euscbius's Life of Constant. book 3. chap. 30.
• * 11.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the faith, autority, or estima∣tion of this miracle, &c.
• u 11.4

  He means the Temple built by Adrian the Emperour on Mount Calvary, in honour of Venus; which receptacle of Pa∣ganism was demolished by He∣lena, Constantines mother, and in the room thereof was built a mag∣nificent Temple, at this day cal∣led The Temple of the Sepulchre; the description whereof you may see in Sandys Travels, book 3. pag. 125. &c. Edit. Lond. 1673.
• † 11.5

  There are two Laws made by Constan∣tine extant in the Cod. Theod. (the one in Tit. de usuris, the other in Tit. de Haereticis,) written to this Dracilianus. The former of these Laws bears this Inscription, Imp. Constantinus Aug. ad Dracilianum agentem vices Praefectorum praet. that is, Emperour Constantinus Augustus to Dracilianus Deputy to the Praefects of the Praetorium. This Law was published at Caesarea in Palestine on the 15^th of the Calends of May, when Paulinus and Julianus were Consuls. The other is said to have been published on the Calends of September, Constantinus Aug. being the seventh time and Constantius Caesar Coff. that is, in the year of Christ 326. In which year Constantine wrote this Epistle to Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem. Further, we must remarke, that the Praefects of the Praetorium are here stiled clarissimi, most excellent. For as yet they had not received the title of Most Illustrious. Moreover▪ in other of Constantin's Laws, the Praefects of the Praetorium are stiled Most Excellent. Now, as the Praefects of the Praetorium were in Conctantin's time allowed only the title of Most Excellent, so the Deputies of the Praetorian Praefecture had in the said Constantin's times only the title of Most Perfect given them, as the Epistle to Probianus Proconsul of Africa shews, which we meet with in Athanasius's Apology to Constan∣tius, pag. 794. See Valesius's notes on book 3. chap. 31. of Eusebius's Life of Constantine.
• x 11.6

  At this place the term [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] signifies the Model or Delineation of the Fabrick that was to be erected. It is taken in the same sense, in the Epistle of Himerius Rationalist of Alexan∣dria to the Praefect of Mareotis; which Athanasius has recorded in his Apology, pag. 803. For after he had said, that Augustus and the Caesars had permitted Ischyras to build a Church in his Town, he orders the Governour of that Town, that he should forthwith draw a Model of the future buil∣ding, and transmit it to his Office; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (says he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See Valesius's notes, at the book and chapter before cited.
• y 11.7

  The inner roofs of Churches were commonly framed two ways. For they were either beautified with arched or embowed roofs, or else painted with Mosaick∣work. Concerning the arched (or embowed) roofs, this place of Constantin's Letter is an evi∣dence. Procopius evidences the use of the Mosaick-work, in his first book De Fabricis Justiniani, where he describes the Temple of Sancta Sophia. Now the arched roofs were usually adorned two ways. For they were either guil∣ded with gold, or painted; which latter way was first invented by Pausias, as Pliny attests, book 35▪ chap. 11. Hist. Natural. See Valesius's notes, at the book and chapter before cited.
• z 11.8

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He added] the reading must necessarily be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He published.] For the Roman Emperours did usually propose to pub∣lick view those Rescripts they wrote to the Cities. Therefore, at the close of the Rescript they added this word [Proponatur, let it be published:] as we have observed in our notes on Eusebius. So Con∣stantine, when he had wrote many Letters against Arius and his fol∣lowers, commanded they should be proposed to publick view in the Forum. Of this sort was Constantin's Epistle to Arius and the Arians, which Gelasius Cyzicenus has recorded in his 3^d book De Gestis Synod Nicaenae: which Epistle Epiphanius mentions in Hares. Arian. It was written by Constantine after the Nicene Synod, and it contains the pu∣nishment of those that would not recede from Arius's wicked tenets. For at the close of that Epistle, the Emperour commands, that, if they be persons of the ordinary rank, they shall pay tribute for ten heads, be∣sides their own Poll-money. But if they be descendants of the Curi∣ales, (or Noble-men,) they shall be delivered to the Court▪ and made liable to bear the publick Offices of the Decurions. This Letter there∣fore was like an Edict, and so ought to be publickly read and pro∣mulged. Vales.
• a 11.9

  The greatest part of this Epistle is extant in the first book of Theodorets Ecclesia∣stick Histo∣ry, chap. 20. it is entire in Latin, in Baro∣nius, at the year of Christ 329; as Justinian the Emperour sent it to Pope Vigi∣lius. Vales.
• a 11.10

  Sozomen relates the same story, in his first book chap. 22. but in such a manner, that 'tis sufficiently apparent, he had it out of So∣crates's Hi∣story. For Socrates tells the whole story more fully and ele∣gantly. And after he has told it, says he had it from a credible person, who lived in the times of the Nicene Council. But Sozomen begins this relation thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Its reported that the Empeour, &c. Nor does he confirm it by any persons authority. Besides Sozomen has in a manner stole the very words of Socrates, making some small alterations and in∣terpositions, as Plagiaries usually do. But this story seems to me very improbable upon many accounts. First, because it is founded on the autority of no ancient writer. Secondly, neither Socrates, nor Sozo∣men, do say, of what City Acesius was Bishop, which was very neces∣sary to confirm the story. Thirdly, it is not at all likely, that an He∣retical Bishop should be summoned by Constantine to an Ecclesiastick Synod. For if Constantine had sent for Acesius in order to the resto∣ring of Peace and Agreement to the Church, upon the same account he ought to have summoned the Bishops of other Heresies also to the Nicene Council. Lastly, what Socrates says, to wit, that he had this story from a very old man who was at the Synod, seems to me altoge∣ther incredible. This persons name was Auxano, a Novatian Presby∣ter, who was at the Synod with Acesius, and lived untill the reign of Theodosius Junior, as Socrates says chap. 13. of this book. Now from the Nicene Synod to the beginning of Theodosius's reign, there are 83 years. To which if you adde 20 (for so old Auxano must needs be when he was present at the Council) Auxano must necessarily be above an hundred years old, when he told Socrates this story. Let the Reader judge therefore, at what rate the testimony of a decrepid old Heretick is to be valued. Vales.
• a 11.11

  The Florent. M. S. addes [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Sub-Deacons:] and so the reading is in Sozomen, book 1. chap. 23; where he tells this story concer∣ning Paphnutius. where also what we said before is apparent, to wit, that Sozomen borrowed from So∣crates. For he that addes to anothers relation, shews evident∣ly that he wrote last. Vales.
• b 11.12

  Rufinus (out of whom So∣crates had the former story which he tells in this chapter concer∣ning Paphnutius) says not a word of this speech of Paphnu∣tius; see his first book Eccles. Hist. chap. 4. But he relates that Paphnutius was one of the Bishops in the parts of Egypt, and that he was present at the Nicene Coun∣cil.
• * 11.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, in a place, where the Ascetae li∣ved; con∣cerning whom, and their course of life, see Euseb. Ecclesiast. Hist. book 2. chap. 17. note (a.) book 7. chap. 32. note (c.) in the second Alphabet. Vales.
• a 11.14

  By 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he means the Protectores Domestici, or Guards of the Body, which waited on the Emperours person. They were Souldiers of a superiour order▪ who also had greater pay then the others. See Valesius's notes on Amm. Marcellin. book 14. pag. 33.
• b 11.15

  We per∣fected this place by the assistance of the Flo∣rentine and Sfortian M. SS. For in the com∣mon Edi∣tions of So∣crates, after these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hosius Bishop of Corduba,] followed these [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Vito and Vincentius.] But those incompa∣rable M. SS. exhibited this place entire to us, after this manner: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spain. I do believe as it is before written. Vito and Vin∣centius Presbyters of Rome, &c. This is the series of the Bishops who subscribed the Nicene Council; which Socrates transcribed from Athanasius's Synodicon, as he himself attests hereafter. In the Greek collections of the Canons this series is wanting, nor is it extant in Dionysius Exiguus's Version. But in that ancient collection lately pub∣lished at Paris, (which the Western Church heretofore made use of, before Dionysius's Version) and in Isidorus's collection, this series occurs almost in the same words. In that ancient collection the words are these: Et subscripserunt. Osius Episco••us civitatis Cordu∣bensis, Provinciae Spaniae dixit: ita credo sicut superius scriptum est. Victor & Vincentius Presbyteri urbis Romae. Alexander Alexandriae magna. Alph••cration, &c. i. e. And they subscribed. Osius Bishop of the City Corduba, in the Province of Spain said: I believe so, as it is above written. Victor and Vincentius Presbyters of the City of Rome. Alexander of Alexandria the great▪ Alphocration, &c. The words in Isidorus's Collection are almost the same. But in Athana∣sius's Synodicon, Eustathius Bishop of Antioch and Macarius Bi∣shop of Jerusalem are placed after Alexander Bishop of Alexan∣dria. Vales.
• c 11.16

  Athanasius makes mention of this Vito the Presbyter, in His Apologetick against the Arians, and attests, that a Roman Synod con∣sisting of fifty Bishops (by whom he was received into communion) was convened in his Church. Vales.
• d 11.17

  In the Latine collections of the Canons, Harpocration is stiled Bishop of Naucratis, and next to him is set Adamantius Cyno∣polites, or Cynensis, as it is in that forementioned ancient col∣lection. Vales.
• e 11.18

  This book of Athanasius's is not now (to my know∣ledge) extant. But 'tis probable that the names of the Bi∣shops who subscribed the Nicene Council, were translated out of that book. Vales.
• f 11.19

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the term that occurs here) imports the notation (or express declaration) of the time usually prefixt before publick Acts. In the Greek collection of the Canons (which Joannes Tilius first published) the notation of the time is prefixt, thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. The Canons of the 318. Holy Fathers, convened at Nice, in the Consulate of the most illustrious Paulinus and Julianus, on the 636^th year from Alexander, on the nineteenth day of the month Desius, before the thirteenth of the Calends of July. Vales.
• g 11.20

  It is o∣therwise in the Greek collection, which Ti∣ctius publi∣shed, (see the forego∣ing note.) For 'tis said that the Synod was convened on the ninteenth day of the month Desius (which the Romans call June) on the thirteenth of the Calends of July. Which is confirmed by the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle, by the Chalcedon Council, and by that Latine collection which Baronius calls Cresconiana, which account I think is the truest. For, should we suppose that the Council of Nice was as∣sembled on the twentieth day of May, there would be too narrow a space of time left for the transacting of those affairs which Constan∣tine did after his vanquishing of Licinius. Licinius was subdued in the last Engagement at Chalcedon, in the year of Christ 324, on the ▪15^th of the Calends of October, as 'tis recorded in Fastis Idatii, and in the Alexandrian Chronicle: on the day following Licinius (who made his escape to Nicomedia) yielded himself to Constantine the conque∣rour. After this Constantine made his entry into Nicomedia▪ whilst he continued there, and hastned to make his Progress into the Eastern parts, a messenger arrived, declaring to him the dissention of the Alexandrian Church, and of all Egypt, upon account of Arius's Opinion, and the disturbances of the Melitians, as himself attests in his Epistle to Alexander and Arius. And first he sends Hosius with his Letters to Alexandria, that he might compose those differences by his authority. But Hosius, after he had staied a little while at Alexandria▪ returns to Constantine without effecting his business. All this could in no wise have been done in a shorter space of time than three months. Moreover, Constantine perceiving the mischief to increase daily, resolves upon calling a general Council of Bishops, that he might thereby restore peace to the Church. Upon this account he dispatcht away Couriers throughout all the Provinces, to convene the Bishops at Nice in Bythinia. Suppose therefore, that the Couriers delivered the Emperours Letters to every one of the Bishops in the month of March: it is scarce credible, that the Bishops could come from the remotest regions, as well of the East as of the West, to Bi∣thynia, before the month July: especially since they came by land, and not by water, as Eusebius attests, book 3. chap. 6. De Vitâ Constant. See Vales. notes on Euseb. Life of Constant. book 3. chap. 14.
• h 11.21

  After these words [the Six hundredth thirty six year from the reign of Alexander the Macedonian] Leo Allat. M. S. adds these [and it was the nineteenth year from the beginning of the reign of Constantine the Emperour,] which is very true. For when Paulinus and Iulianus were Consuls, (which was on the 325^th year of Christ,) the Nicen•• Synod was (according to Socrates's Opinion) assembled in May. it being then the nineteenth year of Constantines reign. His twentieth year began the same year, about the end of July following. Vales.
• a 11.22

  Socrates has obser∣ved no or∣der here. For he says, that Eusebius and Theognis were recalled from banishment almost be∣fore he had told us they were exiled. Sozomen therefore did better, who in this particular corrected Socrates's relation. For, in the first book of his History, chap. 21▪ he relates that Eusebius and Theognis were banisht by the Emperour Constantine a little after the Synod, and that other Bishops were put into their Sees. Then, in his second book chap. 16. he declares how they were recalled from their banishment. From which passage (that I may make this remark by the by) it may be concluded, that Sozomen wrote his History after Socrates, in as much as he corrects and amends Socrates's narration in many places. Further, Eusebius and Theognis were banisht three months after the Nicene Synod, as Philostorgius attests: and returned from their exil•• (as the said Philostorgius relates) in the third year after that Synod▪ that is, in the year of Christ 328. which account agrees exactly with the History of affaires transacted in that time. For all Historians agree that Eusebius, upon his return from banishment, entertained thoughts of confirming Arius's Opinion, and of thrusting out those that asser∣ted the Nicene Faith. And, that his first attack was made against Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, whom he caused to be expell'd [from his See] by seigned calumnies, in the year of Christ 329, or 330. Baronius therefore did ill, to place Eusebius Nicomediensis's return from exile on the year of Christ 330. Vales.
• b 11.23

  Baronius (at the year of Christ 325.) reproves Socrates and Sozomen, for saying, that Eusebius and Theognis were banisht a little after the Nicene Synod▪•• and that some few years after (having sent a Libell of satisfaction to the most eminent Bishops) they were re∣called from their exile. Baronius endeavours to prove, that this Libell was presented by Eusebius to the Bishops in the Nicene Synod. For he asserts, that the rule of Faith was first written; which Eusebius Nicomediensis (with four other Bishops) refused to subscribe: but, that the said Eusebius, having afterwards presented a Libell of satis∣faction, did subscribe what had been determined [in the Synod.] But, after this, when the Synod had Anathematized Arius, Eusebius and Theo∣gnius (says he) would not subscribe this Anathematism; and for that reason they were condemned and deposed, by the Synod, and Amphion and Chrestus were put into their Sees. But the Emperour Constantine (continues he) interceded that the sentence might not be put in execu∣tion, and perswaded the Synod that they should admit of Eusebius and Theognius upon their presenting a Libell of Repentane. This is Baro∣nius's opinion. But he is out, first, in saying that there were two Libells presented by Eusebius: for of the former Libell no body has ever made mention. Secondly, he cites no authour for what he says concerning Eusebius's and Theognius's deprivation and condemnation done in the Nicene Council. Constantine (in his Epistle to the Nicomedians, the latter part of which Epistle in Greek the reader may meet in Theo∣doret. Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 20; it occurs entire at the close of Gelasius Cyzicenus's 3^d book pag. 217.) says not that it was then done, but only says, that Eusebius was afraid it would be done. Lastly, his saying that a Libell of Repentance was presented by Eusebius in the Nicene Synod, is manifestly refuted from the Libell it self. For this Libell was presented by Eusebius, when he was in banishment, as is attested by these words of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. and by this Libell do fully declare and con∣firm our consent; [which we are induced to do] not because we look upon our exile to be tedious, &c. Besides, this Libell was sent, when Arius was recalled from banishment; which is apparent from these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. But it would be absurd (since he that seemed to be guilty is recalled and has made his defence in reference to, &c. Moreover, Arius was recalled from banishment by Constantine long enough after the Nicene Synod. &c. Vales.
• c 11.24

  In as much as Eusebius and Theog∣nius do say in the beginning of this Epistle, that they were condemned by the Bishops; it is worth our making an inquiry, when and where they were condemned. Baronius says they were condemned and deposed in the Nicene Synod. But this is contradicted by 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 'tis manifest that was not done in the Nicene Synod; it must necessarily have been done in some other meeting of the Bishops. The reason of their being exiled, Constantine does declare in his Epistle to the Nicomedians, (the latter part whereof see in Therodoret. Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 20.) For he says, that he banished them, because they entertained certain Hereticks, (whom he had com∣manded 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 Em∣perour banished them. This is expresly affirmed by Athanasius (in his book De Synodis,) and by Theodoret (book 1. chap. 19. Eccles. Hist.) Vales.
• d 11.25

  Christophorson and Musculus omitted these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without having our cause declared or defended] in their Version. They occur in Sozomen (book 2. chap. 16.) and Epiphan. Scholasticus has rendred them thus: Du••um quidem ante judicium condemnati à Reverenti•• vestrâ, patienter ferr•• quae decreta sunt a sancto vestro con∣cilio 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 Theo∣doret. Eccles. Hist. book 1. chap. 20. Vales.
• e 11.26

  The meaning of these words is this. If we then sa∣tisfied your holy Coun∣cil (to wit, the Ni∣cene) and perswaded it to think, that we had just cause for our be∣ing unwil∣ling to sub∣scribe the Anathe∣matism, now we fully com∣pleat our consent, and are ready to subscribe as well the A∣nathema∣tism as the form of the Creed. You see how much the adding of these two words [then and now] would enlighten this place. Vales.
• * 11.27

  Arius.
• f 11.28

  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 11.29

  Socrates (as also Sozomen) Mistakes here in placing A∣lexander's death, and Athansius's Ordination after Eu∣sebius's and Theognis's return from exile. For Alexander Bi∣shop of Alexandria dyed within five months after the Council of Nice, as Athanasius testifies in his second Apology against the A∣rians, where he speaks of Me∣litius. 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 11.30

  See Ru∣finus's Ec∣cles. Hist. book 1. chap. 14. where Ru∣finus adds this circumstance to this story; that the boys (upon Alexanders en∣quiry) 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 ex∣amined him who had asked them the questions; found that all things had been done according to the rites of our Religion: and, after a confult with his Clergy, 'tis said, he ordered, that those boys (on whom water had been poured, after they were perfectly questioned, and had returned compleat answers) should not be rebaptized, &c. See Rufinus at the book and chapter now cited.
• a 11.31

  That is, the Festi∣vals for his having ar∣rived to the twentieth year of his Empire.
• b 11.32

  This place, which was corrupted and obseured by an ill distinction, we have illustrated and restor'd, by blotting out the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which particle is not to be found either in the Florent. or Sforti. M. S. our correction is also con∣firm'd by Epiphanius Scholasti∣cus's Version, who thus translates the passage, Et denominatam Con∣stantinopolim, appellari secundam Romam lege firmavit. Vales.
• c 11.33

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was set, or placed] it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was exposed, or erected. This emendation is confirmed by Epiphan. Scholasticus's Version. Vales.
• d 11.34

  The Strategium was a pub∣lick edifice wherein the Strategi, (i. e. the Duumviri, the two prin∣cipal Magistrates that hereto∣fore governed the City Byzan∣tium) were wont to sit. It is mentioned in the old description of the City Constantinople, which is prefixt before the Notitia Im∣perii Romani. Vales.
• * 11.35

  See Esa••. 1. 8. where the Septua∣gint Ver∣sion is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which, in our En∣glish tran∣slation is thus wor∣ded, as a lodge in a Garden of Cucumbers; which ren∣dition does exactly a∣gree with the origi∣nal He∣brew.
• a 11.36

  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 He∣lena, or rather by Constantine, was call'd New Jerusalem. For Eusebius says no such thing: but he only alludes to the new Je∣rusalem, which is mentioned in Saint John's Revelations. See our notes on Euseb. Life of Con∣stant. book 3. chap. 33. Vales.
• b 11.37

  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 The∣odoret does by his authority con∣firm it, in the first book of his Ecclesiastick History and the last chapter. Vales.
• a 11.38

  Christophorson and Muscul•••• thought that these words were transposed; they read them (as appears from their Version) thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [the Emperour] or∣dered that the Cubit should be re∣moved into the Church of the Alexandrians. But, because the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] cannot be taken in a passive sense the place must be otherwise mended: which from the Sfortian M. S. we have thus restored: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; [the Emperour] ordered Alexander to remove the Cubit into the Church [of the Alexandrians.] Which emendation needs no confirmati∣on. See Rufin. Eccles. Hist. book 2▪ chap. 23. This order of Constan∣tines lasted not long. For Julian commanded that the same Cu∣bit should be carried back again into Serapis's Temple, where it seems to have continued till Theodosius's reign, and the de∣molishment of Scrapis's Temple▪ Vales.
• * 11.39

  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.
• * 11.40

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; See 1 Tim. 6. 20.
• a 11.41

  See book 3. chap. 1. of Eu∣sebius's Ecclesiastick History: to which add this place of an anony∣mous Author out of the second Homily upon Matthew. Denique cum post resurrectionem Domin•• Thomas Apostolus isset in Provin∣ciam i••••am, ad••••ncti sunt ••i: & baptisati ab eo, sacti sunt adjutores praedicationis illius: meaning the Persian Magi. Vales.
• b 11.42

  This is Metrodorus the Philo∣sopher, whom Je∣rome has mentioned in his Chro∣nicon; who, returning from his travails in India, presented Con∣stantine with many gemms and pea••ls, and feigned that many more of greater value were taken from him by Sapor King of the Persians: which lie of his was the occasion of the Persian war, as Am. Marcellinus attests, book 25. pag. 295. Edit. Vales. See Vale∣sius's notes on Amm. Mar••••ll. pag. 304.
• * 11.43

  Rationes suas scriniaque com∣mi••it; so Rufinus (from whom Socrates translated this story al∣most word for word) describes this young mans Office; book 1. chap. 9. Hist. Ecclesiast.
• c 11.44

  Transla∣tours un∣derstood not this place. For Muscu∣lus renders it thus. Ut separatis lo∣cis uteren∣tur, that they should make use of separate places. Chri∣stophorson thus, ut lo∣ca sepera∣tim ••ibi su∣merent, that they should take to themselves places seve∣rally. In this chapter Socrates has tran∣slated Ru∣sinus (book 1. chap. 9. Ecclesiast. Hist.) al∣most word for word; and calls those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 11.45

  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 Philoso∣pher is said to have travelled into India, in imitation of the Phi∣losopher 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 Fru∣mentius returned to Alexandria about the year of our Lord 341; in which year Athanasius was not newly made Bishop, but had held that Bishopricck above fifteen years. From what we have said 'tis apparent, that this conversion of the Indians by Frumentius hap∣ned in the Reign of Constantius, not of Constantine, as Rufinus, and others that follow him, have related. Vales.
• e 11.46

  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 or∣dained 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 or∣dained by Athanasius. Now this Epistle was written in the year of Christ 356. Baronius, (in his Annotations on the Roman Marty∣rology.) says that this Frumentius Bishop of Auxumis must be diffe∣renced 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 Auxu∣mis 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.
• * 11.47

  See Ru∣finus, book 1. chap. 10. Eccles. Hist. Rufinus does not say, that this child was the Kings Son; but, mulier quaedam par••ulum suum, &c. a certain wo∣man (say•• he) car∣ried about her son, &c.
• a 11.48

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, well skilled in Architecture] I had rather read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 ingre∣diens Rex, &c. when behold the King, perplexed in his mind, co∣ming in the morning with all his attendants, &c. Vales.
• b 11.49

  The Sfort. Florent. and All at. M. SS. call this persons name Bac∣curius. But in Rufinus, and others, his name is, more truly, Ba∣curius. Zo∣simus says he was born in that Armenia which borders on Iberia, and that he was a man without all malice, or deceit, very expert in Mi∣litary affairs. But Rufinus (book 1. chap. 10. and book 2. chap. 33. Eccles. Hist.) affirms he was a Prince of the Iberi; that he was a person of great fidelity, very studious of Religion and Truth: first made a Captain within the limits of Palestine; afterwards Comes of the Do∣mesticks; and lastly that he did Theodosius the Emperour great ser∣vice in his war with Eugenius. Vales. See Valesius's notes on Amm. Marcell. pag. 430, &c.
• c 11.50

  At this place Socrates mistook Rufinus's meaning. For Rufinus says that Bacurius was a Captain; Palestini limitis, of the Palestinian limit; when he told him these things. But Socrates seems to have read in Rufinus, Palestini militis ducem, that Bacurius was a Captain of the Palestinian milice. Vales.
• d 11.51

  Here also Socrates is out. For Bacurius served not Theodosius in the war against Maximus, but in that against Eugenius: as Rufinus attests, book 2. chap. 33. Eccles. Hist. and Zosimus, book 4. Vales.
• * 11.52

  See Eu∣sebius Ec∣cles. Hist. book 7. chap. 31.
• a 11.53

  It is most apparent that the Manichaeans adored the Sun. Li∣banius relates the same concer∣ning them, in book 4. Epist. 140. wherein he commends the Mani∣chaeans that were in Palestine (but suppresses their name) to Priscianus the President of Pale∣stine: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. Those men that worship the Sun without bloud, and honour God with the second appellation, who chastize their belly, and account the day of their death to be gain; are found to be in many places, but are every where few in number. They injure no man, but are mo∣lested by some. I doubt not but by these words Libanius means the Manichaeans; for they cannot be agreeably attributed to any other persons besides them. But he designedly omitted the men∣tion of their name, because the name of the Manichaeans was odi∣ous. Concerning the feigned fasts of the Manichaeans, see Cyrill, in his sixth Cateches. Vales.
• * 11.54

  That is, he had only the form or figure of a man; was ima∣ginatily, not really such.
• b 11.55

  The rea∣ding here must be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, out of Ar∣chelaus's Dialogue, or disputa∣tion:] which ap∣pears from the term [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we read.] This Archelaus, Bishop, of Mesopota∣mia, wrote the dis∣pute which he main∣tained a∣gainst Ma∣nichaeus, i•• Syriack: which be∣ing after∣wards tran∣slated into Greek, was in the pos∣session of many per∣sons, as Jerome at∣tests, in his book de scriptor. Ecclesiast. Cyrill of Jerusalem has men∣tioned this dispute, in his sixth Catechism. A fragment of this work is in my hands, wherein is contained the History of the impious and perfidious Manichaeus. But his disputation with Archelaus the Bishop, which was annexed to the close of this History, is wanting. In the room whereof is added Archelaus's Epistle to Diodorus the Presbyter. I am beholding to the eminent Emericus Bigotius for this monument▪ as also for many others. Vales. Valesius has published this dis∣putation of Archelaus's in Latine, at the close of his Annotations upon Sozomen, pag. 197, &c.
• c 11.56

  In the Allat. M. S. the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ sprang up;] which is better than [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sprang up before.] After the same man∣ner Socrates exp••esses himself in the beginning of this chapter. 'Tis a metaphor taken from Cockle, which is wont to grow up with the Corn. Vales.
• a 11.57

  I follow this rea∣ding [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if his or∣dination, &c. For Eusebius's party found fault with the ordination of Atha∣nasius upon two accounts; both because Athanasius was unwor∣thy of that honour, and also because his ordination had been performed by persons unfitting. See Philostorgius. Vales.
• * 11.58

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the ••aith of Homoou••ios; i. e. those words in the Cree••, wherein it ••s asserted that Christ is of the same essence or substance with the father.
• b 11.59

  Socrates borrowed these words out of Athanasius's second Apology against the Arians; where Athana∣sius gives an account how Eusebius secretly joyned with the Melitians in a conspiracie against him, these are his very words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which words of Athanasius, Sozomen makes use of in his second book, chap. 18. Vales.
• c 11.60

  It is hard to assign a reason, why Socrates should joyn Montanus with Sabellius. For Montanus himself made no innovations in the doctrine of the Trinity, but followed the faith of the Catholick Church; as Epiph••niu•• attests (in Hares•• Monta∣••ist.) and Theodoret (book. 3. H••ret▪ Fabul▪) Yet some of his disciples took away the difference of the persons, as Sabellius did; which Theo∣doret attests (at the place now cited) in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But some of them have denyed the three persons of the Godhead, in like manner as Sabellius did, saying that the father, Son, and holy Ghost are one and the same person. And hence it is, that in the Synodi∣call Epistle of the Arian Bishops at Scrdica, Montanus is joyned to Sabellius. Vales.
• * 11.61

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Learned Reader will find these terms incomparably well explained by Dionysius Petavius, in his Dogm. Theolog. Tom. 2. De Trinit. book 4. chap. 8. Sect. 10, &c. pag. 380. Edit. Paris. 1644.
• a 11.62

  It is strange to see how notoriously transla∣tours have been mista∣ken in the version of this place; they per∣ceived not that the last word was to be exp••nged, as being superfluous. For whenas at first there had been a remarke set in the margin, that in∣stead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he wrote] it should be otherwise written, thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he said:] afterwards this word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he said] crept out of the Margin, into the Text. Vales.
• b 11.63

  Whether Cyrus Bishop of Beraea did accuse Eustathius, as being a favourer of Sabellius's opinion, (as Georgius of Laodicea relates,) I know not. But what Georgius writes, to wit, that Cyrus himself was afterwards deposed because he favoured Sabellius's Heresie (i. e. be∣cause he defended the doctrine of Consubstantiality; for so these words are to be understood:) is very true. For Athanasius confirms this, in his Epistle ad Solitar. Where he reckon•• up in order all the Bishops thrust out by the Arians during Constantines reign. And in the first place he names Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, then Eutropius of Adria∣nople. Afterwards Euphration of the Balan••i, the two Cymatius's, Asclep•• of Gaza, Cyrus of Berae•• and others; who were banished by the Emperours Edict, and others put into their places. Vales.
• c 11.64

  The meaning of this place is this. The Emperour, by his Let∣ters written to Antioch, and Eu∣sebius, by his refusing the Bishop∣rick of Antioch, appeased that tu∣mult. Therefore these words [appeased the tumult and sedi∣tion] must in common belong to both the preceding clauses. Vales.
• d 11.65

  What Socrates here says, concerning the vacan∣cy of the See of An∣tioch eight years, after Eustathlus was depo∣sed, is false. For imme∣diately af∣ter Eusta∣thius was ejected; when Eu∣sebius of Cesarea had refused that See; Paulinus Bishop of Tyre was translated to that See, in the year of Christ 329: as I before noted in the tenth book of Eusebius's Ecclesiastick History, chap. 1. note (a.) Afterwards Euphronius succeeded Paulinus; or, as some will have it, Eualius. After whom Flaccillus was advanced to the See of Antioch, who (as Athanasius attests in his second Apology against the Arians) was at the Synod of Tyre. Vales.
• e 11.66

  Sozomen says the same; and Theodorus Mopsuestenus (apud Nicaetam in Thesauro Orthodox. fidei.) Which is also confirmed by Georgius of Laodicea, in his encomium of Eusebius Emisenus, Socrates quotes his words, in book 2. chap. 9. Eccles. Hist.) But Theodoret (book 1. chap. 22. Eccles. Hist.) puts Eualius between Eustathius and Euphronius, and says that he presided but a very short time. Phi∣lostorgius agrees with Theodoret. Vales.
• a 11.67

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that he was falsely ac∣cused not without reason] S^r Henry Sa∣vill and Christo∣phorson read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Moreover, that he was falsely accused without the least of reason.] This story concerning the Arian Presbyter (whom Constantia Augusta recommended to her brother Constantine) Socrates borrowed out of Rufinus, book 1. chap. 11. Eccles. Hist. But I suspect the truth of it, for these rea∣sons. First, because Athanasius (who does usually detect all the frauds of the Arians) has no where made mention of it. Secondly, in regard the name of this Presbyter is suppressed: for, if this Pres∣byter were in so great favour and authority with Constantine, that, (as Rufinus relates in the book and chapter now cited,) when the Em∣perour died, he should leave his Will, which he had written, in the hands of this Presbyter; doubtless, he was worthy to have had his name mentioned. But, in my judgment, Rufinus's authority is but small; for he wrote his History very carelesly, not from the Records of affaires transacted, but from fabulous stories, and relations groun∣ded barely on report.
• * 12.1

  Repen∣tance.
• * 12.2

  Matth. 28. 19.
• a 12.3

  After these words, there was wanting this whole clause [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, If we do not thus believe these things, and [if we do not] truly admit of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost] which we have made up from the autho∣rity of the Allatian M. S. and from Sozomen, book 2. chap. 27. Vales.
• b 12.4

  In the Kings M. S. and in Epiphanius Scholasticus, this place is pointed otherwise, thus [to our mother the Church, to wit, all questions, &c.] which distinction displeases me not. Vales.
• a 12.5

  After these words, the Florentine M. S. adds these [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, part of the Emperours Letter.] Which are altogether necessary, that the Reader may understand, that not the Emperours whole Epistle, but part of it only, is here inserted. Athanasius, in his second Apology a∣gainst the Arians, (out of whom Socrates took these passages) pro∣ducing this Epistle of Constantines, sets these very words before it; and adds, that this Epistle was brought to Alexandria by Syncletius and Gaudentius, Officers belonging to the Imperial Palace. But, that which Socrates affirms (to wit, that Arius came to Alexandria) is not mentioned by Athanasius, nor doe I think it is true. Vales.
• b 12.6

  After these words from the Florentine, Sfortian, and Allati∣an M. SS. we have added this whole period [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, For he laboured to reduce them all to a perfect union.] which was wanting in the common Editions. Sozomen has almost the same words, in his second book at the close of chap. 22; but he has changed their order. Vales.
• c 12.7

  We find these mens names in that cata∣logue of the Meliti∣an Bishops which Alexander pro∣cured from Melitius, This Ision was Bishop in Athribis, Eudaemon in Tanis, and Callinicus in Pelu∣sium. See Athanasius's second A∣pologetick. Vales.
• d 12.8

  Athanasius (in his Apologe∣tick) calls this man Apis, not Alypius. But names not the place, wherein Constantine took cogni∣zance of this matter. Yet Socra∣tes affirms it was at Nicomedia. Further, Baronius relates that these affaires were transacted in the year of Christ 329. But I would rather choose to place them on the year following. For these things hapned after Eusta∣thius's deposition, when Eusebius and Theognius, (returned from their Exile) had procured a great authority and interest with Con∣stantine. But what the same Baronius says (to wit, that Con∣stantines Letter, concerning A∣rius's readmission into the Church, was written to Athanasius in the year of Christ 327,) is a palpa∣ble mistake; and he dissents from Athanasius, whom notwithstan∣ding he professes to follow in all things. For Athanasius relates, that soon after Constantines Let∣ter, and Arius's repulse, the Me∣litians accused him of these crimes before the Emperour. Vales.
• * 12.9

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which words, Valesius has thus rendred, conspirans ad∣versus Principem, conspiring a∣gainst the Emperour.
• e 12.10

  This pas∣sage of So∣crates is very much enlightned by Athana∣sius in his second Apo∣logetick against the Arians. Whose words, because they are misun∣derstood by his translatour, I will here set down. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is, Mareotes is a region of Alexandria. In that region there never was a Bishop, or De∣puty Bishop. But the Churches of that whole region are subject to the Bishop of Alexandria. Each of the Presbyters hath peculiar Villages, (which are very great,) sometimes ten in number, or more. From these words it appears, that every Village of Mareotes had not its particu∣lar Presbyter; but that one Presbyter governed ten Villages and sometimes more. That Village, wherein Ischyras was, in regard it was the least of all, undoubtedly had neither its peculiar Church, nor Pres∣byter. To that Epistle which all the Presbyters and Deacons of Ma∣reotes wrote to the Synod of Tyre (which Letter is recorded by A∣thanasius in the book now cited) there subscribed fourteen Presbyters, and fifteen Deacons. Vales.
• f 12.11

  This Arsenius was a Bishop of the Melitians in the City Hyp∣selis which is in Thebaïs. In his Epistle, which he wrote to Atha∣nasius, he assumes to himself this title of honour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. To Athana∣sius the blessed Pope, Arsenius Bi∣shop of the City Hypselis, one of those sometimes under Melitius. But in the catalogue of Bishops of the Melitian faction, which Me∣litius delivered to Alexander, no Arsenius can be found. Vales.
• g 12.12

  Socrates took this out of A∣thanasius, in his se∣cond Apolo∣getick a∣gainst the Arians, his words are these; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Constantine wrote to Antioch, to Dalmatius the Censor, [ordering him] to hear the cause concerning the murder. The Censor therefore sent to me, to prepare for my defence. Socrates thought that this Dal∣matius was the son of Constantines brother, he that some years after was made Caesar by Constantine. But that is a great mistake. For Dalmatius the Censor was Constantines brother, and the Father of Dal∣matius the Caesar. The Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle confirms this, who writes thus concerning Constantine, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; i. e. and he created Dalmatius (the son of his brother Dalmatius the Censor) Caesar. Certainly, Dalmatius the son of Dalmatius was (when these things were done which are related by Athanasius) very young, and could not sit as judge in so weighty an affair. Besides, he lived at that time at Narbona, and (together with Hannibalianus his brother) was an Hearer of Exuperius the Rhetorician. For from that City he was sent for by Constantine, and created Caesar when very young (as Ansonius affirms in his book de Professor. Burdigal.) in the year of Christ 335. But that tryal concerning the murder of Arsenius was before Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch, (as Athanasius attests,) in the year of Christ 332, according to Baronius's opinion. Vales.
• * 12.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Con∣cerning the import of this word, the learned Reader may con∣sult Scali∣ger. Po••tic. Lib. 3. Cap. 106. Epibate∣rion.
• a 12.14

  The Sy∣nod of Tyre was held in the consu∣lates of Constantius and Albi∣nus, (as A∣thanasius 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 solem∣nity one whole year. This anticipation of his Tricennalia has induced not only Socrates, but several others also, into a mistake. Vales.
• a 12.15

  Rufinus, in book 1. chap. 16. of his Ecclesiastick History, says that this Archelaus was not the Con∣sularis (or President) of Phoenicia, but the Comes of the East. Vales.
• * 12.16

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ordered the matter pru∣dently: this is the import of th••se words, if rendred li∣terally.
• a 12.17

  In Atha∣nasius's se∣cond Apolo∣getick, pag. 783. Edit. Paris▪ the words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Coun∣trey name: John was his Monastick name. He was a Bishop of the Melitian faction at Memphis. Athanasius relates, that he was com∣manded 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.
• * 12.18

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See Calvin. Lexic. Juridic. ••n the word para∣graphe.
• a 12.19

  This place is im∣perfect, as any one may perceive. It may be made perfect, if instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] we make this addition [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made their return to Tyre:] which we have followed in our Version. Vales.
• a 12.20

  Muscu∣lus and Christophor∣son render these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] thus, depositionis causas, the causes of his de∣position. But I suppose, that by these words is meant the Libel of his deposition, or the Synodical Epistle concerning the condem∣nation 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 Pre∣lates. Vales.
• b 12.21

  In Atha∣nasius the reading is truer, thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the City of the Hypselites,] as we noted before. Stephanus (de Urbi∣bus) says Hypseli•• is a Town in Egypt; and that the inhabitants thereof are called Hypsclites. Vales.
• a 12.22

  In Atha∣nasius's se∣cond Apolo∣gy against the Arians, and in his book de Sy∣nodis Ari∣mini and Seleuciae, this Sy∣nodick E∣pistle of the Jerusa∣lem 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 be∣fore, 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 Con∣stantine, 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 Coun∣cil, as Rufinus and Sozomen do relate. Athanasius also (in his book de Synodis) affirms expresly, that Arius and his associates were re∣ceived into communion by the Jerusalem Synod: his words are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Bi∣shop 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 observa∣tions 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 Con∣stantine, is a different person from Arius the Arch-Heretick. Which may be demonstrated by another argument. This Arius who presen∣ted a Libel to Constantine together with Euzoïus, was not restored be∣fore the Jerusalem Synod, that is, before the year of Christ 33••; nor joyned to the Catholick Church. For he requests of the Em∣perour 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 12.23

  This place is im∣perfect; it is easier to pick out the mea∣ning of it, than to correct the words. Socrates therefore would say, that the Bi∣shops, in their Synodical Epistle, do obscurely mean Athanasius, when they say, that all e••vy and hatred now was bartished, &c. Vales.
• a 12.24

  In Athanasius's second Apo∣logy against the Arians (where this Epistle of Constantines is re∣corded) the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, together with some others.] But the reading we follow, to wit, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with some Presbyters] is bet∣ter; which is confirmed by Epi∣phan. Scholasticus. Vales.
• b 12.25

  Perhaps he means the Iberi∣ans, con∣cerning whose con∣version So∣crates has spoken be∣fore. Vales.
• c 12.26

  In Leo Allatius's M. S. and in Athana∣sius, the reading of this place is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Ye, who seem to have a greater e∣st••em for—the holy mysteries of his clemen∣cy.] Epi∣p••anius Scholasti∣cus read this passage thus also, as appears from his version: where, instead of [We, who seem, &c.] it is [ye, who seem, &c.] which is confirmed by the Fl••rent. M. S. Vales.
• a 12.27

  In A∣thanasius's second Apo∣logy, this man i•• cal∣led Arbetion. But it must be read with a diphthong, thus, Arbae∣tion. For 'tis a Greek name derived from Arba••us; of which name there was a Consul in Constantius's reign, as I have observed in my notes on Amm. Marcellin. Vales.
• a 12.28

  Athanasius (in his book de Synodis) says that this Aste∣rius sate in the Church amongst those that were of the Clergy, and recited his books in publick. Vales.
• b 12.29

  In the Allat. M. S. the rea∣ding is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to write against him.] So Epiphan. Scho∣last. seems to have read. Vales.
• c 12.30

  This book of Marcellus's was inti∣tled, de subjectione Christi, con∣cerning Christs sub∣jection▪ as Hilarius informs us, in the frag∣ment of his book. de Sy∣nodis. Vales.
• a 12.31

  Socrates does here follow Rufinus, who says that Arius (after the Synod at Jerusalem) returned to Alexandria; and a little after that (when his de∣vices would doe no good there) was recalled to Constantinople by Eusebius. But all this is false, as we intimated before, in re∣gard Arius died long before the Jerusalem Synod. Vales.
• b 12.32

  Rufinus (book 1. chap. 12. Eccles. Hist.) from whom So∣crates bor∣rowed this, words this passage thus, sub altari ja∣cens, lying under the altar▪ So∣zomen tells the same story; book 2. chap. 29. Vales.
• a 12.33

  In Leo Allatius's M. S. (or in Theodorus Lectors Tripertite History) this place is worded thus, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and together with his excrements his funda∣ment slid secretly down, and that termed by Physitians the Apeph∣••hesma fell immediately through his fundament; which was fol∣lowed by a great flux of bloud, and his small guts ran out, toge∣ther with his spleen and liver.] Which passage is in my judg∣ment incomparably well expres∣sed. Nor do I doubt but So∣crates wrote thus. 'Tis certain, Epiphanius Scholasticus does in part confirm this reading. Also, in the Ssortian M. S. it is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, slid secretly down] instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fell down.] Vales.
• * 12.34

  Or, eve∣ry tenth year of his Empire.
• b 12.35

  It should not be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. in the Eastern parts.] And, a little before, it must be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the same name with his Grandfather:] as it is in the Allat. M. S. But the vulgar reading is tolerable. For the Greek term [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is used not only to signifiy him who gives his name to ano∣ther; but in respect to him also, who takes his name from another. So Socrates does usually stile Constantinople 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a City that took its name from Constantine. Vales.
• a 12.36

  Concer∣ning this gift, which Constantine by his will bequeathed to the El∣der-Rome, our Euse∣bius is a witness; in his 4^th book of Constan∣tines Life, chap. 63. Vales.
• b 12.37

  Socrates borrowed this out of Rufinus, book 1. Eccles. Hist. chap. 11. But this story seems to me very improbable. For who can believe that the Emperour Constantine, who then had many Bishops about him, (for so Eusebius says expresly;) as also Grandees and great Offi∣cers, should make choice of one Presbyter, an unknown person, (for his name is always concealed) to whom he might commit the keeping of his Will, when he died. Wherefore, I had rather follow Philo∣storgius here, who says, that Constantine delivered his Will to Eu∣sebius of Nicomedia, by whom he had been baptized a little be∣fore. Vales.
• * 12.38

  Chap. 25. of this Book.
• a 12.39

  Musculus and Chri∣stophorson have ren∣dred this place thus; ne Impera∣tores & Antistetes reliquiis apostolorum destituerentur, that the Emperours and Prelates might not be deprived of the Apostles reliques. But I can∣not approve of this Version. For Constantine had deposited no re∣liques of the Apostles in that Church. I would therefore rather translate it thus, that the Emperours and Prelates there to be buried, might not be far inferiour to the Apostles reliques; but might be affected with the same degree of honour with them. Which inter∣pretation Eusebius confirms, in book 4. chap. 40. Concerning the Life of Constantine. Vales.
• b 12.40

  Socrates mistakes here. For in the con∣sulate of Felicianus and Titianus (which was the year of Christ 337) on the eleventh of the Calends of June (i. e. on the 22^d of May) the fourth year of the 278^th Olympiad was current. Which may be demonstrated by most evident reasons. But Socrates seems to have made use of a cor∣rupt Copy of Eusebius's Chronicle, wherein the year of the Olympiad was erroniously set. But, at this place of Socrates, we ought rather to read The third year. For Socrates says, that this first book of his History contains the space of One and thirty years. For he begins from the beginning of Constantines Reign, who, as he says, reigned One and thirty years. The beginning of his Reign he places on the first year of the 271 Olympiad, as we saw before. Now from this year to the second year of the 278^th Olympiad there are but thirty years, including therein the two terms. Wherefore, there must necessarily be a mistake in this place of Socrates. Vales.