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

CHAP. 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 1.1 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 1.2 [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.

Notes

• a 1.1

  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 1.2

  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.