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 SECOND BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS. (Book 2)

CHAP. I. The Preface, wherein he gives an account, why he made a new Edition of his First and Second Book.

Rufinus (he that wrote an Ecclesiastick History in the Latine tongue,) has erred concerning [the notation of] the times. For he supposes, that what was done against Athanasius, hapned after the death of Constantine the Emperour. He was also ignorant of his banishment into the Gallia's, and of several other things. We having at first fol∣lowed Rufinus [as our authour,] wrote the first and second book of our History according to his authority. But from the third to the seventh Book we have made a collection of some passages, partly out of Rufinus, and partly out of various other authours, and related others from those which do yet survive; and so have compleated our work. But when we had afterwards pro∣cured Athanasius's Books, wherein he laments his own calamitous sufferings, and how he was banisht by the calumny of the Eusebian facti∣on; we thought it more expedient to credit him (who had suffered these hardships) and those who had been present at the transacting of these matters; rather then such as have fol∣lowed conjectures [in their relations] thereof, and for that reason have been mistaken. Besides, having gotten [several] Letters of persons at that time very eminent, to our utmost ability we have diligently traced out the truth. Upon which account we have been necessitated * 1.1 entire∣ly to dictate again the first and second Book [of this work,] making use [nevertheless] of those passages, in the relation whereof Ru∣finus hath not forsaken the truth. Moreover, no∣tice is to be taken, that in our former Edition we had not inserted Arius's Libel of deposition, nor the Emperours Letters; but had onely set forth a bare relation of the affairs transacted, that we might not dull our Readers by a prolixe and tedious narration. But in regard that this also was to be done in favour to you a 1.2 O sacred man of God, Theodorus!) that you might not be ignorant of what the Emperours wrote in their Letters, nor of what the Bishops (chan∣ging that faith by little and little) promulged in divers Synods: wherefore, in this latter Edition we have made such alterations and insertions as we judged to be necessary. And, having done this in the first Book, we will also make it our business to do the same in that now under our hands, we mean the second. But we must now begin [the following series of] our History.

CHAP. II. How Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia with his ac∣complices, earnestly indeavouring to introduce Arius's opinion again, made disturbances in the Churches.

THe Emperour Constantine being dead, Euse∣bius [Bishop] of Nicomedia, and The∣ognis Bishop of Nice, supposing they had now gotten a very seasonable opportunity, made use of their utmost diligence and attempts to expell the * 1.3 Homoüsian faith, and introduce Arianism in its stead. a 1.4 But they [sup∣posed] it impossible for them to effect this, if Atha∣nasius should return [to A∣lexandria.] Moreover, in order to their forming and carrying on of their de∣sign in this matter, they made use of that Presbyters assistance, who had a little before been the cause of Arius's being recalled from banishment. But, how this was effected, we must relate. That Presbyter [we have mentioned] presented Con∣stantines last will and commands, which he had received from the Emperour at his death, to the Emperours son Constantius. He having found that written in the Will which he was very

desirous of; (for by the Will the Empire of the East was committed to him) had an hono∣rary respect for the Presbyter, allowed him a great liberty of speaking, and ordered he should freely and with confidence come into the Palace. This liberty therefore being allowed [the Pres∣byter,] made him in a short time well known both to the Empress, and also to her Eunuches. The principal person of the Emperours Bed-chamber at that time was an Eunuch, whose name was Eusebius. The Presbyter perswaded this person to embrace Arius's opinion. After which, the rest of the Eunuches were prevailed with to be of the same opinion. Moreover, the Emperours wife also, by the perswasion of the Eunuches and this Presbyter, became a favourer of Arius's Tenets. Not long after, this question came to [the hearing of] the Emperour himself. And by degrees it was spread abroad, first amongst b 1.5 those that were of the milice in the Palace; and afterwards it was divulged amongst the multitudes of the [Imperial] City. Those of the Bed-chamber toge∣ther with the women dis∣coursed concerning this o∣pinion in the Imperial Pa∣lace: and in the City, throughout every private family, there was a logi∣cal war waged. Moreover, the mischief soon spread its self over other Pro∣vinces and Cities. And (like a spark) this con∣troversie taking its rise from a small beginning, excited the hearers minds to a most pertinacious contention. For every person that enquired the reason of the disturbance, immediately had an occasion of disputing given him; and at the very interim of his making an enquiry, he re∣solved upon entring into a wrangling dispute. By this contention all things were subverted. These [alterations] were started in the Ea∣stern Cities only. For the Cities of Illyricum, and those [scituated] in the Western parts [of the Empire] were in that interim at quiet: for they would by no means disanull the determina∣tions made at the Nicene Synod. When there∣fore this mischief, thus kindled, increased and grew daily worse and worse, Eusebius of Nico∣media and his faction began then to think the disturbance of the Vulgar to be their gain. For [they were in hopes] of being enabled by this means only, to constitute a Bishop of Alex∣andria, that should be of the same opinion with them. But Athanasius's return at that time to Alexandria prevented this their design, who came thither fortified with one of the Augustus's Letters, which Constantinus the younger (who bore the same name with his Father) sent from Triers a City in Gallia to the people of Alex∣andria. [A Copy of] which Letter I have here subjoyned.

CHAP. III. How Athanasius, confiding in the Letter of Constantine the Younger, returned to Alex∣andria.

CONSTANTINUS CAESAR, to the people of the Catholick Church of the Alexandrians.

IT has not, We suppose, a 2.1 escaped the knowledge of your sacred mind, that Athanasius an inter∣preter of the venerable Law, was therefore sent into the Gallia's for a time, lest (in regard the barbarity of his bloud-devouring Enemies and Ad∣versaries continually menaced his sacred head with imminent danger,) he should undergo incurable mischiefs through the perverseness of wicked men. In order therefore to his frustrating of this [bar∣barity,] he was snatcht out of the Jaws of those persons that designed his ruine; and enjoyned to live under our district, in such a manner that, in that City wherein he was ordered to make his re∣sidence, he should abound with all manner of ne∣cessaries: although his most eximious virtue, ha∣ving put its confidence in the divine assistances, esteems as nothing the troubles of a rougher for∣tune. Wherefore, although Our Lord and Father Constantinus Augustus of blessed memory had determined to restore this Bishop to his own * 2.2 See, and [return him] to your most amiable piety: yet in regard, being prevented by humane chance, he died before the accomplish∣ment of his desire; We being his successour, thought it agreeable to fulfill the mind of that Emperour of sacred memory. [Moreover,] how great a reverence and respect he has procured from us, you shall know from himself, as soon as he shall come into your presence. Nor is it a wonder that We have done any thing in favour to him: for both the representation of your love, and also the aspect of so great a personage moved and exited Our mind hereto. May the Divine Providence pre∣serve you dearest brethren.

Upon the confidence of this Letter Athanasius comes to Alexandria, and the people of Alex∣andria most willingly received him. But as many as were followers of Arius's opinion, entred into a combination and conspired against him: hereupon continual Seditions arose, which gave an occasion to the Eusebian faction of accusing him before the Emperour, because upon his own inclination and award (without the determina∣tion of a general Council of Bishops) he had re∣turned and taken possession of the [Alexan∣drian] Church. And they made so great a pro∣ficiency in their calumnies, that the Emperour, being incensed, expelled him out of Alexandria But, how that was effected, I will a little after this relate.

CHAP. IV. That upon Eusebius Pamphilus's death; Acacius succeeded in the Bishoprick of Caesarea.

DUring this interval of time, Eusebius (who was Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, and had the sirname of Pamphilus) departed this life, and Acacius his Scholar succeeded him in that Bishoprick. This Acacius published many other books, and also wrote [particularly] con∣cerning the Life of his Master [Eusebius.]

CHAP. V. Concerning the death of Constantine the Younger.

NOt long after this, the Emperour Constan∣tius's brother, (who bore the same name with his Father,) Constantine the younger, in∣vading those parts [of the Empire] that be∣longed to his younger brother Constans, and in∣gaging with his Souldiers, is slain by them, in the Consulate of Acindynus and Proclus.

CHAP. VI. How Alexander Bishop of Constantinople, at his death, proposed Paulus and Macedonius to be elected into his Bishoprick.

AT the very same time, the City Constan∣tinople was involved in another tumult (which followed on the neck of those [distur∣bances] we have before related,) raised upon this account. a 2.3 Alexander, who presided over the Churches in that City, [a Prelate] that had couragiously opposed Arius, departed out of this life, after he had spent twenty three years in that Bishoprick, and had lived ninety eight years compleat, having ordained no body [to suc∣ceed] in his place. But he commanded those to whom the power of electing belonged, to make choice of one of those two whom he should name. And if they were desirous of having one that should be both skillfull in teaching, and also of an approved piety and uprightness of life, [he advised them] to make choise of Paulus, one that he had ordained Presbyter; a person that was a young man indeed in respect of his age, but old in understanding and prudence. But if they would rather have one commendable for an ex∣ternal shew of piety only, they might elect b 2.4 Mace∣donius, who had long since been made a Deacon of that Church, and was now grown aged. Hereupon there hap∣ned a great contest concer∣ning the Ordination of a Bishop, which very much disturbed that Church. For the people were divided into two * 2.5 factions; the one side adhered to the Arian opinion; the other embraced the de∣terminations made at the Nicene Synod. And as long as Alexander continued alive, the † 2.6 Ho∣moöusian party prevailed; the Arians disagreeing, and contending daily amongst themselves con∣cerning their own opinion. But after Alexan∣ders death, the success of the peoples contest was dubious. Therefore, the Homoöusian party proposed Paulus to be ordained Bishop: but those that embraced Arianism, were very earnest to have Macedonius elected. And in the Church called c 2.7 Irene (which is near that Church now named The Great Church, and the Church of Sophia,) Paulus is ordained Bishop; in which [election] the suffrage of Alexander, then dead, seemed to have prevailed.

CHAP. VII. How the Emperour Constantius ejected Paulus who had been Ordained Bishop: and, having sent for Eusebius from Nicomedia, entrusted him with the Bishoprick of Constantinople.

BUt the Emperour, arriving not long after at Constantinople, was highly incensed at this Ordination [of Paulus.] And having convened a Council of Bishops that embraced Arius's opi∣nion, he vacated Paulus's [Bishoprick.] And he translated Eusebius a 2.8 from Nicomedia, and con∣stituted him Bishop of Constantinople. When the Emperour had performed these things, he went to Antioch.

CHAP. VIII. How Eusebius assembled another Synod at Antioch of Syria, and caused another form of Faith to be published.

BUt Eusebius could by no means be at quiet: but (as the common saying is) moved eve∣ry stone, that he might effect what he had de∣signed. Therefore, he procures a Synod to be assembled at Antioch in Syria, under a pretence of dedicating a Church, which [Constantine] the father of the * 2.9 Augusti had begun to build: (after whose death, Constantius his son fi∣nished it, in the tenth year after its foundation was laid:) but in reality, that he might subvert and destroy the Ho∣moöusian Faith. At this Synod there met ninety Bishops, [who came] out of divers Cities. But Maximus Bishop of Je∣rusalem, who had succeeded Macarius, was not present at that Synod, a 2.10 having considered with himself that he had been before induced by fraud to subscribe Athanasius's deposition. Neither was Julius Bishop of Rome the Great present there: nor did he send any body to supply his place. Although the Ecclesiastick▪ Canon doth order, that the Churches ought not to make Sanctions contrary to the Bishop of Romes opinion. This Synod therefore is convened at Antioch (the Emperour Constantius himself being there pre∣sent,) in the b 2.11 Consulate of Marcellus and Pro∣binus. This was the c 2.12 fifth year from the death of Constantine the father of the Augusti. At that time d 2.13 Placitus, successour to Euphronius presided over the Churches in Antioch. The Eusebians therefore made it their principal busi∣ness to calumniate Athanasius, [saying] in the first place, that he had done contrary to that Canon, which they had then constituted, because he had recovered his Episcopal dignity without the consent of a general Synod of Bishops. For, returning from his exile, he had upon his own arbitrement and award rushed into the Church: [secondly,] that a tumult being raised at his entrance, e 2.14 many had lost their lives in that Sedi∣tion; and that some persons had been scourged by Athanasius, and others brought before the seats of Judicature. Moreover, they produced what had been done against Athanasius in the City of Tyre.

CHAP. IX. Concerning Eusebius Emisenus.

AFter the framing of these calumnies, they proposed one to be made Bishop of Alex∣andria, and in the first place [they named] Eu∣sebius Emisenus. Who this person was, Geor∣gius of Laodicaea, one that was present at this Synod, informs us. For he says (in the Book he wrote concerning his Life) that this Eusebius was descended from noble personages of Edessa in Mesopotamia: and that from his childhood he a 2.15 Learned the sacred Scriptures: that he was afterwards instructed in the Grecian literature by a Ma∣ster who then lived at E∣dessa; and in fine, that he had the sacred Scriptures interpreted to him by Pa∣trophilus and Eusebius; the latter of which persons pre∣sided over the Church in Caesarea, and the former over that in Scythopolis. After this, when he came to An∣tioch, it hapned that Eusta∣thius, being accused by Cyrus of Beroea, was deposed, as being an assertor of Sabellius's opinion. Wherefore Eusebius after∣wards lived with Euphronius, Eustathius's succes∣sour. Afterwards, that he might avoid being made a Bishop, he betook himself to Alexandria, and there studied Philosophy. Returning from thence to Antioch, he conversed with Flaccillus, Euphronius's successour, and was at length pro∣moted to the See of Alexandria by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople. But he went thither no more, because Athanasius was so much be∣loved by the people of Alexandria. He was therefore sent to Emisa. But when the Inhabi∣tants of that City raised a Sedition at his Ordi∣nation, (for he was reproacht, as being a per∣son studious of, and exercised in the Mathema∣ticks,) he fled from thence, and went to Laodi∣caea, to Georgius, who hath related so many pas∣sages concerning him. When this Georgius had brought him to Antioch, he procured him to be sent back again to Emisa by Flaccillus and Nar∣cissus. But he afterwards underwent another ac∣cusation, for being an adherent to Sabellius's principles. Georgius writes at large concerning his * 2.16 Ordination. And in fine adds, that the Emperour, in his expedition against the Barba∣rians, took him along with him, and that mira∣cles were wrought by him. But hitherto we have recorded what Georgius hath related con∣cerning Eusebius Emisenus.

CHAP. X. That the Bishops convened at Antioch, upon Eu∣sebius Emisenus's refusal [of the Bishoprick] of Alexandria, Ordained Gregorius, and altered the expressions of the Nicene Faith.

BUt when Eusebius, who had been chosen Bishop of Alexandria at Antioch, was a∣fraid to go thither, they then proposed Gre∣gorius to be Ordained Bishop of Alexandria. And having done this, they altered the * 2.17 Creed,

finding fault indeed with nothing [that had been determined] at Nice; a 2.18 but in reality [their design was] to subvert and destroy the Homoöusian Faith, by their continual assem∣bling of Synods, and by their publishing some∣times one, sometimes another form of the Creed; that so by degrees [all persons] might be b 2.19 per∣verted to the Arian opinion. Moreover, how these things were done [by them,] we will mani∣fest in the procedure of our History. But the E∣pistle they published concerning the Faith runs thus.

We have neither been Arius's followers: (for how should we that are Bishops be the Followers of a Presbyter?) Nor have we embraced any other Faith, than what was from the beginning set forth. But, being made inquirers into, and ex∣aminers of, his Faith, we have c 2.20 admitted and en∣tertained, rather than followed, him. And this you will understand from what shall be said. For we have learned from the beginning to believe in one supream God, the maker and preserver of all things as well intelligible as sensible. And in one only begotten Son of God, subsisting before all ages, existing together with the Father that begat him; by whom all things visible and invisible were made: who in the last days, according to the Fathers good pleasure, descended, and assumed flesh from the holy Virgin, and when he had compleatly fulfilled all his Fathers will, he suffered, and arose, and ascen∣ded into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father: and he shall come to judge the quick and dead, and continues a King and God for ever. We believe also in the holy Ghost. And (if it be requisite to add this) we also believe the Resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting.

Having written these things in their first E∣pistle, they sent them to [the Bishops] throughout every City. But, when they had continued sometime at Antioch, condemning as it were this [their former] Epistle, they a∣gain publish another, in these very words.

Another Exposition [of Faith.]

Agreeable to Evangelick and Apostolick tra∣dition, We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Framer and Maker of all things. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, God, by whom all things were made: begotten of the Fa∣ther before all worlds, God of God, Whole of Whole, Only of Only, Perfect of Perfect, King of King, Lord of Lord: the living Word, the Wise∣dom, the Life, the true Light, the way of Truth, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the Gate: im∣mutable and inconvertible: the most express image of the Father's Deity, * 3.1 Substance, Power, Coun∣cil, and Glory: the First begotten of every Crea∣ture: † 3.2 Who was in the beginning with God, God the Word, according as 'tis said in the Gospel: and the word was God, by whom all things were made, and in whom all things have subsisted. Who in the last days came down from heaven, and was born of the Virgin according to the Scriptures. And was made man, the medi∣atour of God and men, the Apostle of our Faith, and the Prince of life, as he himself says, * For I* 3.3 came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. Who suf∣fered for us, and rose again for us the third day, and ascended into the heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with Glory and Power, to judge the quick and dead. And [we believe] in the holy Ghost, who is given to believers in order to their Consolation, Sanctification, and Perfection: according as our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying, † 3.4 Go ye, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: to wit, of the Father being truly the Fa∣ther, and of the Son being truly the Son, and of the holy Ghost being truly the holy Ghost: which terms are not simply, or insignificantly * 3.5 made use of, but they do accurately manifest the proper and peculiar Person, Glory, and Order of each of those that are named. So that they are three in Person; but in consent One. d 3.6 We therefore holding this Faith, in the presence of God and of Christ, do anathematize all manner of Heretical and ill opi∣nions. And if any one shall teach (contrary to the ••ound and true Faith of the Scriptures,) saying, that there is, or was, a time, or an age, e 3.7 before the Son of God [was begotten;] let him be Anathe∣ma. And if any one says, that the Son is a Crea∣ture, as one of the Creatures, or that he is a * 3.8 Branch, as one of the Branches; and [shall not hold] every one of the foresaid points according as the sacred Scriptures have set them forth: or if any one Teaches or Preaches any other thing than what we have received, let him be Anathema. For we do truly, and f 3.9 clearly, believe and follow all things delivered by the Prophets and Apostles in the sacred Scriptures.

Such were the Expositions of the Faith, [pub∣lished] by those at that time convened at An∣tioch: to which also Gregorius (although he had not then made his entry into Alexandria, yet) subscribed as Bishop of that City. The Synod at that time assembled in Antioch, having done these things, and made some other Canons, was dissolved. The state of the publick affairs in the Empire hapned to be disturbed at the very same time also. A nation (they are called The Franci) made an incursion into the Roman territories in Gallia. At the same time also, there were ter∣rible earth-quakes in the East: g 3.10 especially at An∣tioch, which City was shaken thereby [continually] for the space of one whole year.

CHAP. XI. That, upon Gregorius's arrival at Alexandria [guarded] with a Military force, Atha∣nasius fled.

WHen these things were done, a 3.11 Syrianus the Captain (with the armed Soul∣diers under his command, being in number five thousand,) brought Gregorius to Alexandria. Those in that City who were favourers of Arius's opinion, assisted the Souldiers. Moreover, after what manner Athanasius, being expelled out of the Church, escaped being taken by them, I think fit to relate. It was now b 3.12 Evening, and the people lodged in the Church all night, a com∣munion being expected. The Captain came, and having put his Souldiers into a fighting posture, environed the Church on every side. Athanasius seeing what was done, made it his chiefest care, that the people might in no wise be damnified upon his account. And having commanded the Deacon to give the people notice of going to prayers, after that he gave order for the recitation of a Psalm. And when there was a sweet har∣mony made by reason of the peoples singing of the Psalm together, all the congregation went out through one of the Church doors. Whilst this was doing, the Souldiers stood still without striking a stroak: and so Athanasius escaped unhurt in the midst of those that sang the Psalm. Having secretly made his escape after this man∣ner, he hastned to Rome: Gregorius was then put into possession of the [Alexandrian] Church. But the people of Alexandria, unable to bear what had been done, burnt that, called Dionysius's Church. Thus far concerning these things. But Eusebius having done what he had a mind to do, c 3.13 sent an Embassage to Julius Bishop of Rome, entreating him to become Judge of those mat∣ters relating to Athanasius, and that he would call for a disquisition of the controversie before him∣self, in order to his taking cognizance thereof.

CHAP. XII. How, after Eusebius's death, the people of Constan∣tinople restored Paulus to his See again. And that the Arians made choice of Macedonius.

BUt Eusebius could never understand what Ju∣lius had determined concerning Athanasius. For having survived the Synod some small time, he dyed. Wherefore the people of Constantinople introduce Paulus into the Church again. But at the same time the Arians ordain Macedonius, in the a 3.14 Church dedicated to Paul. And this was done by those, who formerly had been assistants to Euse∣bius that disturber of all things, but were then his successours in power and authority. These are their names, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Chalce∣don, Theodorus of Heraclea in Thracia, Ursacius of Singidunum in the Upper Mysia, Valens of Mursa in the Upper Pannonia. Indeed, Ursacius and Valens changing their opinions afterwards, delivered their penetentiary Libel to Julius the Bishop, and having consented to the Homoöusian opinion, were admitted to communion. But at that time they were hot maintainers of the Arian Religion, and * 3.15 framed no trivial commotions against the Churches. One whereof was that made by Macedonius in the City of Constantinople. For from this intestine war amongst the Chri∣stians there hapned continual Seditions in the City, and many persons, oppressed by the violence of what was done, lost their lives.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning the slaughter of Hermogenes the Lieute∣nant-General, and how Paulus was for that reason turned out of the Church again.

BUt, what was done came to the hearing of Constantius the Emperour, who then made his residence at Antioch. Therefore he orders Hermogenes the Lieutenant-General, (whom he had sent into the coasts of Thracia,) that he should incidently pass through [Constantinople,] and turn Paulus out of that Church. He arriving at Constantinople, disturbed the whole City, by endeavouring to cast out the Bishop by force. For there immediately followed a Sedition a∣mongst the people, and all persons were ready to defend [the Bishop.] But when Hermogenes with much earnestness endeavoured to expell Paulus by his Military forces, the populace be∣ing exasperated (as in such like cases it usually happens,) made a more inconsiderate and rash attack against him. In the first place they set his house on fire. Then, having a 3.16 drawn him about by the heels, they killed him. These things were done in the Consulate of the Two Augusti, Constantius being then the third, and Constans the second time Consul. At the same time, Constans, having vanquished the nation of the Franci, made them enter into a league with the Romans. But the Emperour Constantius being informed of Her∣mogenes's

murder, rode post on horse-back from Antioch, and arrived at Constantihople: out of which City he expelled Paulus. He also punished that City, taking away more than forty thousand [bushels] of that bread-corn daily d••stributed, which was his fathers donation [to those Ci••i∣zens.] For before that time, neer eighty thou∣sand [b 3.17 Bushells] of wheat, brought thither from the City of Alexandria, were bestowed [amongst the inhabitants of that City.] More∣over, he differed the constituting of Macedonius Bishop of that City. c 3.18 For he was incenfed against him, not only because he had been or∣dained contrary to his will, but also in regard, upon account of the Seditions raised betwixt him and Paulus, Hermogenes his Lieutenant, and many other persons had been slain. Having therefore given him permission to gather assemblies of the people in that Church wherein he was ordained, he departed again to Antioch.

CHAP. XIV. That the Arians, having removed Gregorius from [the See of] Alexandria, put Georgius into his place.

AT the same time the Arians a 3.19 removed Gregorius from [the See of] Alexandria, b 3.20 as being a person odious, both upon account of his burning the Church, and also because he was not zealous enough in defending their opinion. Into his See they sent Georgius, a person born in Cappadocia, who had gotten the repu••e of being a very skillfull maintainer of their tenets.

CHAP. XV. How Athanasius and Paulus, going to Rome, and being fortified with Bishop Julius's Letters, re∣covered their own Sees again.

MOreover, Athanasius with much difficulty at last gat over into Italy. Constans the youngest of Constantin's sons had then the sole power in the Western parts [of the Empire,] his brother Constantine having been killed by the Souldiers, as we have before related. a 3.21 At the same time also Paulus Bishop of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra a City of Galatia the less, and Lucius of Adrianople, having been accused, one for one thing, another for ano∣ther, and driven from their Churches, arrived at the Imperial City Rome. They acquaint there∣fore Julius Bishop of Rome with their case. He (in regard the Church of Romes priviledge is such,) fortified them with his Letters wherein he made use of a great deal of liberty, and sent them back into the East, b 3.22 restoring to each of them his own ••••e, and sharply rebuking those who had inconsiderately deposed them. They, having left Rome, and confiding in Bishop Julius's Letters, possess themselves of their own Churches, and send the Letters to those whom they were written to. These persons having received [Ju∣lius's Letters,] lookt upon his reprehension as an injury and reproach to them. And having assem∣bled themselves in a c 3.23 Synod called at Antioch, they most severely rebuke Julius in a Letter writ∣ten by the joynt consent of them all, making it apparent, that it ought not to be determined by him, if they should have a mind to expell some [Bishops] from their Churches. For [they said] that they did not make any opposition, when Novatus was by * 3.24 them ejected out of the Church. Thus wrote the Eastern Bishops in answer to Julius Bishop of Rome. But in regard, upon d 3.25 Athanasius's entry into Alexandria there hapned a disturbance, caused by those who were adherents to Georgius the Arian; upon which disturbance there fol∣lowed (as they say) Seditions and slaughters of men: and [because] the Arians ascribe the infamy and blame of all these mischiefs to Atha∣nasius, as being the authour thereof; it is requisite

that we speak briefly concerning these things. In∣deed, God, the Judge of truth it self, only knows the true causes hereof. But, that such accidents do frequently and usually happen, when the multitude is divided into intestine factions, is a thing not unknown to prudent persons. In vain therefore do Athanasius's slanderers attribute the cause hereof to him; and especially Sabinus a Bishop of the Macedonian Heresie. Who (had he considered with himself, how great mischiess Arians have wrought against Atha∣nasius and the rest that embrace the Homoöusian Faith; or e 3.26 how many complaints the Synods con∣vened upon Athanasius's account have made there∣of, or what Maccdonius himself, f 3.27 that Arch-here∣tick, has practised throughout all the Churches) would either have been wholly silent; or, if he had spoken any thing, g 3.28 would instead of these [reproaches] have highly commended [Atha∣nasius.] But now, having [designedly] passed all these things over in silence, he falsly accuses the affairs [done by Athanasius.] Nor has he made the least mention of that Arch-heretick [Macedonius,] being desirous wholly to con∣ceal his tragick and audacious villanies. And (which is much more wonderfull,) he has not spoken ill of the Arians, whom notwithstanding he abhorred. But the ordination of Macedonius (whose heresie he was a follower of,) he has silently concealed. For had he mentioned that, he must necessarily have recorded his impieties; which those things done at that ordination do sufficiently demonstrate. But thus much con∣cerning this person.

CHAP. XVI. That the Emperour sent an order by Philippus Prae∣fect of the Praetorium, that Paulus should be ejected and banished, and that Macedonius should be enstalled Bishop in his See.

MOreover, the Emperour Constantius (re∣siding at Antioch) being informed that Paulus had taken possession of his See again, was highly incensed at what was done. He there∣fore wrote an order, and sends it to a 3.29 Philippus Praefect of the Praetorium, who had a greater power than the other Governours of Provinces, and was stiled the second person from the Em∣perour; that he should eject Paulus out of the Church, and introduce Macedonius into it in his room. Philippus therefore the Praefect being afraid that the multitude would raise a tumult, attempted to circumvent Paulus by subilety. He keeps the Em∣perours Order concealed in his own possession: and, pretending to take care of some publick affaires, he goes to the publick Bath, called Zeuxippus. Thither he sends for Paulus with a great shew of respect and honour, [acquainting him] that he must necessa∣rily come to him, and he came. After he was come upon his being sent for, the Prefect immediately shews him the Emperours Order. The Bishop patiently bore his being condemned without ha∣ving his cause heard. But the Prefect, fearing the rage of the multitude that stood round; (for great numbers of persons had flocked together about the publick Bath, [whose meeting there was caused] by the report of a suspicion) or∣ders one of the Bath doors to be opened, b 3.30 through which Paulus was carried into the Imperial Palace, put into a ship provided for that purpose, and forthwith sent away into banishment. The Prefect commanded him to go to c 3.31 Thessalonica the chief City of Mace∣donia, wherein Paulus had had his original extract from his Ancestours: in that City [he ordered him] to re∣side, and gave him the li∣berty of going to other Cities also, [to wit] those in Illyricum: but he forbad his passage into the Eastern parts [of the Empire.] Pau∣lus therefore being (con∣trary to expectation) cast out of the Church, and at the same time also [dri∣ven] from the City, was immediately carried away. But Philippus the Empe∣rour's Prefect went forth∣with from the publick Bath into the Church. Mace∣donius was with him, being * 3.32 thrown into his presence by an engin as it were; he sate with the Prefect in his chariot, and was exposed to the view of all men: they were sur∣rounded by a Military guard with their swords drawn. [Upon sight hereof] a dread forthwith seized the multitude: and all of them, as well the Homoöusians as the Arians flockt to the † 3.33 Church; every one earnestly endeavouring to get in thither. When the Prefect together with Macedonius came neer the Church, an irrational fear seized both the multi∣tudes, and also the Souldiers themselves. For, be∣cause the persons present were so numerous, that there could be no passage made for the Prefect to bring in Macedonius, the Souldiers began to thrust away the crowd of people by violence. But when the multitude wedged together in a crowd, could not possibly retire by reason of the places nar∣rowness; the Souldiers, supposing that the mul∣titude made a resistance, and designedly stopped the passage, made use of their naked swords, as if they had been engaging an Enemy, and began to cut those that stood in the way. There were destroyed therefore, as report says, about three thousand one hundred and fifty persons: some of whom the Souldiers slew; others were killed

by the crowd. After such brave exploits as these, Macedonius, as if he had done no mischief at all, but were clear and guiltless of what had happened, was seated in the Episcopal Chair by the Prefect, rather than by the Ecclesiastick Canon. Thus therefore did Macedonius and the Arians take possession of Chur∣ches by so great and numerous slaughters of men. At the same time also, the Emperour built. d 3.34 The great Church, which is now called Sophia. It was joyned to that Church named Ire••••••, which, being before a little one, the Emperours Father had very much beautified and enlarged. And both of them are to be seen at this present time, encompassed within one and the same wall, and called by the name of one Church.

CHAP. XVII. That Athanasius, being afraid of the Emperours menaces, returned to Rome again.

AT the same time, there was another false accusation patcht together against Atha∣nasius by the Arians, who invented this occasion for it. The * 3.35 Father of the Augusti had here∣tofore given a yearly allowance of Bread-corn to the Church of Alexandria for the relief of those that were indigent. It was reported by the Arians, that Athanasius had usually sold this Bread-corn for money, and had converted the money to his own gain. The Emperour there∣fore, having given credit to this report, threatned Athanasius with death. He, being made sensi∣ble of the Emperours menaces, made his escape, and absconded. But when Julius Bishop of Rome understood what the Arians had done against Athanasius, having also received Eusebius's Letter who was now dead, he a 3.36 invites Athanasius, to come to him; being informed of the place where he lay concealed. At the same time arrived the b 3.37 Letter, which those [Bishops] that before that had been convened at Antioch, wrote to him. Another c 3.38 Letter also was sent to him by the Bishops in Egypt, informing him, that those things objected against Athanasius were false. These Letters so directly contra∣dicting one another having been sent to Julius, he re∣turned an answer to those [Bishops] convened at Antioch, wherein he d 3.39 bla∣med them, first for the bit∣terness of their Letter; then [he told them] they had done contrary to the Canons, because they had not called him to the Synod; it being commanded by the Ecclesiastick Rule, that the Churches ought not to make Sanctions contrary to the Bishop of Rome's Senti∣ment. [He complained] also, that they had clan∣destinely adulterated the faith. And moreover, that what was heretofore done at Tyre, had been fraudu∣lently and corruptly trans∣acted, in regard the me∣morials of the Acts done at Mareotes had been made up of one side only. Fur∣ther, that what had been objected concerning Arse∣nius's murther, was ap∣parently demonstrated to have been a false accusation. These, and such like pas∣sages as these, Julius wrote at large to the [Bishops] convened at Antioch. More∣over, we had inserted here the Letters to Julius, and his answer also; had not the prolixity thereof hindred that design of ours. But Sabinus, a follower of the Macedonian Heresie, whom we have mentioned before, has not put Julius's Letters into His collection [of the Acts] of Synods. Although, he has not left out that [Epistle] written from those [convened] at Antioch to Julius. But this is usually done by Sabinus. For, such Letters as either make no mention at all of, or reject the term Homoöusios, those [E∣pistles, I say,] he carefully inserts. But the contrary hereto he voluntarily and on set purpose omits. Thus much concerning these things. Not long after this, Paulus preten∣ding a journey to Corinth, arrived in Ita∣ly. Both the [* 3.40 Bishops] therefore make their condition known to the Emperour of those parts.

CHAP. XVIII. How the Emperour of the Western parts requested of his brother, that such persons might be sent, as could give an account of [the deposition of] Athanasius and Paulus. And, that they who were sent published another form of the Creed.

BUt the Emperour of the Western parts, being informed of * 3.41 their sufferings, a 3.42 sym∣pathized with them. And he sends a Letter to his brother, signifying his desire to have three Bishops sent to him, who might give an account of Paulus's and Athanasius's deposition. b 3.43 The persons sent were Narcissus the Cilician, The∣odorus the Thracian, Maris the Chalcedonian, and Marcus the Syrian. Who being arrived, would in no wise admit of a congress with Athanasius. But, having suppressed the Creed published at Antioch, and patched up another form, they pre∣sented it to the Emperour Constans; the words whereof were these.

Another Exposition of the Faith.]

We believe in one God, the Father Almigh∣ty, the Creatour and maker of all things, * 4.1 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. And in his only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Fa∣ther before all worlds. God of God. Light of Light. By whom all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, were made. Who is the Word, and the Wisdome: and the Power, and the Life, and the true Light. Who in the last days was for our sakes made man, and was born of the holy Virgin. He was crucified, and died: and was buried, and arose from the dead on the third day, and ascended into the heavens, and was seated at the right hand of the Father, and shall come at the end of the world, to judge the quick and dead, and shall render to every person ac∣cording to his works; whose Kingdom being per∣petual, shall continue unto infinite ages. For He shall sit at the right hand of the Father, not only in this present world, but in that also which is to come. And [we believe] in the holy Ghost, that is, in the † 4.2 Paraclete: whom [Christ] having pro∣mised to the Apostles, after his assent into the hea∣vens, he sent him, ‖ 4.3 That he might teach them and bring all things to their remembrance. By whom also those souls who have sincerely believed in him, shall be sanctified. But those who say that the Son [existed] of things which are not, or of another substance, and not of God, and that there was a time when he was not, these persons the Catholick Church hath determined to be Aliens [from it.]

Having delivered these things, and exhibited many other to the Emperour, they departed without doing any thing further. Moreover, whilst there was hitherto an inseparable com∣munion between the Western and Eastern [Bi∣shops,] another Heresie sprang up at Sirmium, which is a City of Illyricum. For Photinus, (who presided over the Churches there,) a person born in Galatia the Less, a disciple of that * 4.4 Mar∣cellus who had been deposed, following his masters steps, asserted the Son [of God] to be a meer man. But we will speak concerning these things in their due place.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning the large Explanation [of the Faith.]

a 4.5 THe space of three years being compleatly passed after these things, the Eastern Bi∣shops having again assembled a Synod, and com∣posed another [form of] Faith, send it to those in Italy, by Eudoxius at that time Bishop of Germanicia, Martyrius and Macedonius who was Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia. This [form of the] Creed, being written a great deal more at large, and containing many more additions than those forms published before, was set forth in these very words.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and maker of all things, * 4.6 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. And in his only begotten Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, begotten of the Father before all ages. God of God. Light of Light. By whom all things in the heavens and in earth, visible and invisible, were made. Who is the Word, the Wisedom▪ the Power, the Life, and the true Light. Who in the last daies was for our sakes made man, and was born of the holy Virgin: He was crucified, and died, and was buried, and rose again from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father. He shall come at the end of the world to judge the quick and the dead, and shall render to every man according to his works. Whose Kingdom being

perpetual, shall continue unto infinite ages. For he sitteth at the right hand of the Father, not only in this present world, but in that also which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 come. We believe likewise in the holy Ghost, that is, in the * 4.7 Paraclete. Whom [Christ] having promised to the Apostles, after his ascent into hea∣ven he sent him, † 4.8 That he might teach them and bring all things to their remembrance. By whom also those souls that sincerely believe in him are sanctified. But those who assert that the Son [existed] of things which are not, or of ano∣ther substance, and not of God, and that there was a time or age when he was not, the holy Ca∣tholick Church hath determined to be aliens [from it.] In like manner also, those that affirm there are three Gods, or that Christ is not God before [all] ages, or that he is not Christ, or the Son of God, or that the same Person is the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, or that the Son is not begotten, or b 4.9 that the Father begat not the Son of his own will and pleasure; [these persons] the Holy and Catholick Church Anathematizes. For neither is it safe to assert, that the Son [existed] of things which are not: in regard this is no where declared concerning him in the divinely inspired Scriptures. Nor have we learned, [that he had his essence] from any other pre-existing substance besides the Father, but that he was truly and genuinely be∣gotten of the Father only. For the divine Word teacheth, that there is one unbegotten [principle which is] without beginning, [to wit] the Fa∣ther of Christ. Nor must they (who without authority of Scripture doe dangerously assert this [proposition,] there was a time when he was not) preconceive in their minds then any foregoing in∣terval of time, but God only who begat him with∣out time. For both times and ages were made by him. c 4.10 Nor must it be thought, that the Son is without an o∣riginal, or unbegotten as the Father is. For no Father, or Son can properly be said to be co-inoriginate and co∣unbegotten. But we have de∣termined, that the Father, being alone without an original and incomprehensible hath incom∣prehensibly and in a manner to all men imperceptible begotten: but that the Son was begotten before ages, and that he is not unbegotten like the Fa∣ther, but hath a beginning, [to wit,] the Father who begat him. * 4.11 For the head of Christ is God. Nor, although we acknowledge three things and per∣sons, [to wit,] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, according to the Scriptures; do we therefore make three Gods. For we know, that there is one only God, perfect of himself, un∣begotten, inoriginate, and invisible, [that is,] the God and Father of the only begotten, who of himself only hath his own existence, and who only does abundantly and freely give existence to all other things. But, although we do assert that there is one God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who only is unbegotten; we do not therefore deny Christ to be God before ages, as the Followers of * 4.12 Paul of Samosata do, who affirm that after his incarnation he was by a promotion deified, whereas by nature he was a meer man. For we know that he (although he hath been made subject unto the Father and unto God, yet nevertheless) was be∣gotten of God, and is by nature true and perfect God, and was not afterwards made God of * 4.13 man: but was for our sakes made man of God, and that he hath never ceased to be God. Moreover, we abominate and anathematize those who falsely stile him the bare and meer word of God, [and affirm] that he has no real existence, but hath his Essence in another: one while [terming him] as it were that word called by some d 4.14 The Word outwardly uttered by the mouth; at another, as it were the mental or internal Word: being of opinion, that before ages he was not Christ, nor the Son of God, nor the Mediatour, nor the Image of God: but that e 4.15 he was made Christ, and the Son of God, from such time as he took our flesh from the Virgin four hundred years agoe. For from that time they assert Christ to have had the begin∣ning of his Kingdom, and that it shall have an end after the consummation and the judgment. Such manner of persons as these are the fol∣lowers of Marcellus and Pho∣tinus the Ancyro-Galati∣ans: who reject the eternal existence and deity of Christ, and his endless Kingdom, (in like manner as do f 4.16 the Jews,) upon a pretence of seeming to constitute a mo∣narchy. For we understand him to be, not barely The word of God outwardly ut∣tered by the mouth, or his mental or internal Word, but the Living God the Word, and subsisting of himself; and the Son of God, and Christ: who existed with his Father and was conversant with him before ages, not by fore-know∣ledge only, and ministred un∣to him at the Creation of all things whether visible or invisible: but is the Word of God really subsisting, and is God of God. For it is he to whom the Father said, * 4.17 Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: who in his own Person appeared to the Fathers, gave the Law, and spake by the Prophets; and being at last made man, he manifested his Father to all men, and reigns unto perpetual ages. For Christ hath attained no new dignity: but we believe him to have been perfect from the beginning, and in all things like unto his Father▪ We also deservedly expel out of the Church those who affirm, that the Father, Son, and holy Ghost are the same Person, impiously supposing the three names to mean one and the same Thing and Person; because by an incar∣nation they make the incomprehensible and im∣passible Father subject to be comprehended, and to suffer. Of which sort [of Hereticks] are those termed amongst the Romans g 4.18 Patropassians, but

amongst us they are called * 4.19 Sabellians. For we know, that the Father, who sent, continued in the proper nature of his own immutable Deity: but the Son, who was sent, fulfilled the † 4.20 Oeconomie of his incarnation. In like manner, we determine those to be persons most impious, and strangers to truth, who irreligiously assert, that Christ was be∣gotten not by the will and pleasure [of the Fa∣ther,] to wit, attributing to God an unwilling and involuntary necessity, as if he had begotten the Son by constraint: because they have audaciously determined such things as these concerning the Father, which are contrary both to the common notions of God, and also to the sense and meaning of the scripture given by divine inspiration. For we, knowing God to have free and plenary power, and to be Lord of himself, do piously think, that he begat the Son voluntarily and of his own accord. Moreover, although with fear and reverence we do believe this which is spoken concerning him, ‖ 4.21 The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, up∣on account of his works: yet we suppose not, that the Son was made in the same manner with the rest of the Creatures and works made by him. For it is impious, and repugnant to the Ecclesiastick Faith, to compare the Crea∣tour with the works created by him, and to think that he hath the same manner of Generation with the things of a different nature from him. For the sacred Scriptures do teach us, that the one and alone-only-begotten Son was genuinely and truely begotten. But, although we do assert, that the Son is of himself, and that he doth live and subsist in like manner as the Father doth; yet we do not therefore separate him from the Father, ima∣gining in our minds in a corporal manner any spaces or intervalls of place between their con∣junction. For we believe that they are conjoyned without any intervening Medium, and without any space or distance, and that they cannot be separa∣ted one from the other: the h 4.22 whole Father embracing the Son in his bosome; and the whole Son hanging upon and cleaving close to the Father, in whose bosome he alone con∣tinually resteth. Believing therefore the most absolutely perfect and most holy Trinity, and asserting that the Fa∣ther is God, and that the Son also is God; notwith∣standing this, we do not acknowledge two, but one God, by reason of the Majesty of the Deity, and the one absolutely-entire conjunction of the King∣dom: the Father ruling over all things in gene∣ral, and over the Son himself also: and the Son being made subject to the Father, but (excepting him) reigning over all things which were made after him and by him, and by his Fathers will liberally bestowing the grace of the holy Spirit upon the Saints. For the sacred Scriptures have in∣formed us, that the manner of the Monarchy which is in Christ is thus manifested. We were necessitated to make a perfect explanation of these things at large (after the publication of our shorter form of the Creed,) not upon account of our excessive ambition: but that we might clear our selves from all strange suspicious concerning our sentiments, amongst such as are ignorant of our opinions: and that all persons inhabiting the Western parts might know both the impudent and audacious calumny of those who dissent from us, and also the Eccle∣siastick sentiments of the Eastern [Bishops] con∣cerning Christ, which is without violence confir∣med by the testimony of the divinely inspired Scriptures, i 4.23 amongst those whose minds are not depraved.

CHAP. XX. Concerning the Synod at Serdica.

a 4.24 THe Bishops in the Western parts [of the

Empire,] both because b 4.25 they were unskilled in the Greek language, and also in regard they understood not these things, admitted not of them; say∣ing, that the Nicene Creed was sufficient, and that there was no necessity of making any further disquisitions But when, upon the * 4.26 Emperours wri∣ting again, (orde∣ring that Paulus and Athanasius should be resto∣red to their own Sees,) no thing could be done further in that affair: (For there was a continued Sedition amongst the Populace:) Paulus and Athanasius reque∣sted that another Synod might be convened, that both their cause, and also the matters of faith, might be determined by an * 4.27 Oecumenicall Synod: and they made it apparent, that they had been depo∣sed for no other reason but this, that the Faith might be subverted. Another Oecumenicall Synod therefore is summoned [to meet] at Serdica (which is a City of Illyricum,) by the determi∣nation of the two Emperours; the one of them requesting this by his Letters▪ and the other (to wit, the Emperour of the East) readily com∣plying with him. c 4.28 It was then the eleventh year from the death of the Father of the Augusti: Rufinus and Eusebius were Consuls, at such time as the Synod at Serdica was assembled. About three hundred Bishops of the Western parts met there, as d 4.29 Athanasius attests. But from the Eastern parts Sabinus says there came but seventy, a∣mongst which number Ischyras, Bishop of Marcotes was recounted, whom they who had deposed Atha∣nasius, Ordained Bishop of that Country. Some of them pretended infirmity of body: others e 4.30 com∣plained of the shortness of the time that was set, lay∣ing the blame thereof upon Julius Bishop of Rome: although there had passed a year and six months, after such time as the Synod had been summoned, and during which space Athanasius made his abode at Rome, expecting the meeting of the Synod▪ When therefore they were all convened at Serdica, the Eastern Bishops refused to come into the presence of the Western, saying, that they would not enter into discourse with them, unless they would banish Athanasius and Paulus from the convention. But when Protogenes Bi∣shop of Serdica, and Hosius Bishop of Corduba (which is a City in Spain, as we said before) would by no means suffer f 4.31 Paulus and Athanasius to be absent [from the Synod, the Eastern Bishops] went away immediately. And re∣turning to Philippopolis, a City of Thracia, they made up a Synod apart by them∣selves. Wherein they o∣penly anathematized the term Homoöusios: and ha∣ving g 4.32 inserted the h 4.33 Ano∣moian opinion into their E∣pistles, they sent them a∣bout to all places. But the Bishops at Serdica in the first place condemned them for deserting [the Council.] Afterwards they divested Athanasius's Ac∣cusers of their dignities. And having confirmed that form of the Creed pub∣lished at Nice, and re∣jected the term * 4.34 Anomoios, they made a more ma∣nifest publication of [the term] † 4.35 Homoöusios: concerning which they wrote Let∣ters, and (as the others did) sent them about to all places. Moreover, both parties were of opinion, that they had done what was right and true; the Eastern Bishops [thought so,] because the Western [Prelates] had approved of and entertained those per∣sons whom they had deposed: and the Western Bishops [were of that opi∣nion,] because they who had deposed these persons, fled away before their cause had been discussed, and because * 4.36 they were the preser∣vers and defenders of the Nicene Faith, but † 4.37 these had been so audacious as to adulterate it. They therefore restored i 4.38 Paulus and Atha∣nasius to their Sees; as also Marcellus [Bi∣shop] of Ancyra [a City] in Galatia the less. He had been deposed a long time before, as we have made mention in our foregoing ‖ 4.39 book▪

but then he used his utmost diligence † 4.40 to get the sentence revoked which had been pronoun∣ced against him; declaring that the expressions of the book written by him were not understood, and that he therefore lay under a suspicion [of maintaining] Paul of Samosata's opinion. But you must take notice that Eusebius Pamphilus confuted Marcellus's book in a discourse against him, comprized in k 4.41 three entire books which he entitled Against Marcellus. He quotes Mar∣cellus's own words [in those books,] and in his discourse against them maintaines, that Mar∣cellus does assert (in like manner as Sabellius the Libyan and Paul of Samosata did) that the Lord [Christ] is a meer man.

CHAP. XXI. An Apology for Eusebius Pamphilus.

BUt in regard some have attempted to reproach this person, (I mean Eusebius Pamphilus) as if he were an Assertor of Arius's opinion in the books he hath published; I judge it not unseason∣able to say something concerning him. In the first place therefore, he was present at, and consented to, the Nicene Synod, which determined that the Son was coessential with the Father. Moreover, in his third * 4.42 Book concerning the Life of Constantine, he says word for word thus: But the Emperour incited them all to an unity of mind, until he had at that time reduced them all to be of the same mind and to have the same sentiments in relation to all those points, concerning which they had before disagreed. In so much that at Nice they did all perfectly agree in the [points] of Faith. Since therefore Eusebius, making mention of the Nicene Synod, does say, that all things about which they disagreed were com∣posed, and that they were all brought to be of one and the same mind and opinion; how can any persons judge him to be a maintainer of Arius's opinion. The Arians also themselves are mistaken, in their supposing him to be a fa∣vourer of their Tenets. But some body will perhaps say, that in his writings he seems to † 4.43 A∣rianize, in regard he always says a 4.44 By Christ. To whom we answer, that Ecclesiastick Writers have frequently made use of this Expression, and many other such like, which do signifie the dis∣pensation of our Saviours Humanity. And before all these [Writers] the Apostle Paul hath made use of these very expressions; and he was never thought to be the Teacher of a perverse opinion. Moreover, in regard Arius has been so audacious, as to stile the Son a Creature like unto one of those other [Creatures made by God;] hear what Eusebius saith (in his first book against Mar∣cellus,) concerning this; these are his very words: He only, and no other, hath been declared to be, and is, the only begotten Son of God, upon which account they are deservedly to be repre∣hended, who have audaciously stiled him a Creature, made of nothing like the rest of the Creatures. For how should he be a Son? How should he be Gods only begotten, who is entitled to the very same na∣ture with the rest of the Creatures, b 4.45 and would be one of those common Crea∣tures, in regard he (like them) is made a partaker of a Creation from nothing? But the sacred Oracles do not instruct us after this man∣ner concerning him. Then, after the interposition of some few words, he con∣tinues. Whosoever therefore doth determine that the Son is made of things which are not, and that he is a c 4.46 Crea∣ture produced out of nothing, that person hath forgotten, that he bestows upon him a name only, but in reality he denies him to be a Son. For he that is made of nothing, cannot truly be the Son of God, nor can any thing else which is made [be his Son.] But the true Son of God, in regard he is begotten of him as of a Father, ought deservedly to be stiled the only begotten and beloved of the Father. And therefore he must be God. For what can the off∣spring of God be else, but most exactly like to him that hath begotten him? A King indeed builds a City, but he begets not a City: but he is said to beget, not to build, a Son. And an Artificer may be said to be the Framer, not the Father, of that which he hath made. But he can in no wise be stiled the Framer of the Son who is begotten by him. So also, the supream God is the Father of his Son: but he is justly to be called the Maker and Framer of the world. And although this saying may be once found * 4.47 somewhere in the Scripture, The Lord created me the beginning of his ways in order to his works, yet we ought duly to inspect the meaning of those words, (which I will explain afterwards;) and not (as Marcellus doth) subvert a principal point [asserted by] the Church upon account of one word. These and many other such like expressions Eusebius Pamphilus utters, in his First Book against Mar∣cellus. And in his Third Book [of that work,] the same Authour, declaring in what sense the term Creature is to be taken, says thus. These things therefore having been after this manner proved and confirmed, the consequence is (agree∣able to all things explained by us before,) that these words also, The Lord created me the begin∣ning of his ways in order to his works, must have been spoken [concerning the same per∣son.] But, although he says he was created, yet he must not be so understood as if he should say that he had arrived to what he is from things which are not, and that he also was made

of nothing in the same manner with the other creatures; which some have perversely supposed: but [he speaks this] as being a person subsisting; living, preexisting, and being before the founda∣tion of the whole world; having been constituted the Ruler of the universe by his Lord and Father: the term Created being in that place used instead of Ordained or Constituted. Indeed, the Apostle hath in express words stiled the Rulers and Governours amongst men a Creature, saying, * 4.48 Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as Supream: or unto Governours, as un∣to them that are sent by him And the Prophet (where he saith, † 4.49 Prepare to invoke thy God O Israel. For be∣hold he that firmeth the thunder, and createth the Spirit, and declareth his Christ unto men.) hath not taken the word Created in such a sense as to signifie That which hath been made when as before it was not. For God did not then Create his Spirit, when he declared his Christ to all men by him. ‖ 4.50 For there is no new thing under the Sun. But [the Spirit] was, and did subsist before. But he was sent at such time as the Apostles were gathered together, when (like thunder) * 4.51 There came a sound from hea∣ven, as of a rushing mighty wind: and they were filled with the holy Ghost. And thus they declared Gods Christ amongst all men, agreeable to that Prophesie, which saith. † 4.52 For behold he that firmeth the thunder, and createth the spirit, and declareth his Christ unto men: The term Createth being made use of, instead of Sendeth, or Constituteth: and the word Thunder in ano∣ther manner signifying the Preaching of the Gospel. And he that saith, ‖ 4.53 Create in me a clean heart O God, said not that, as if he had had no heart before: but he prayed, that his mind might be made perfectly pure within him. After the same manner this is spoken, * 4.54 For to make in himself of twain one new man, instead of to conjoyn. Consider also, whether or no this saying be of the same sort, † 4.55 Put on that new man, which after God is created: and this, ‖ 4.56 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new crea∣ture: and whatever other [expressions] of this sort may be found by him that diligently searcheth the divinely inspired Scripture. You need not wonder therefore, because in this place * 4.57 The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, the term Created [is used] metaphorically, instead of Ordained or Constituted. After this manner Eusebius discourses in his Books against Mar∣cellus. We have produced his words here, upon their account, who have attempted causelesly to raile at and revile this person. Nor can they demonstrate, that Eusebius doth attribute a be∣ginning of Essence to the Son of God, although they may find him frequently making use of the expressions of dispensation: especially, because he was a great Emulator and Admirer of Origens Writings, wherein such as are able to understand Origens Books, will find [this] every where [asserted, to wit,] that the Son is begotten of the Father. Thus much we have said by the by, upon their account who have attempted to re∣proach Eusebius.

CHAP. XXII. That the Synod of Serdica restored Paulus and Athanasius to their Sees, and that, upon the Eastern Emperours refusal to admit them, the Emperour of the West threatned him with War.

BUt the [Bishops,] as well those convened at Serdica, as they who made up a particular Synod by themselves at Philippopolis [a City] of Thracia, having performed whatsoever each party thought requisite to be done, returned to their own Cities. [Thence forward] there∣fore the Western Church was severed from the Eastern: and the boundary of communion be∣tween them, was the mountain called a 4.58 Soucis, which parts the Illyrians from the Thracians. As far as that mountain there was a promiscuous communion, although their Faith was different. But they b 4.59 communicated not with those who lived beyond it. Such was the confusion of the Churches affaires at that time. Soon after this, the Emperour of the Western parts acquaints his brother Constantius with what had been done at Serdica, and entreats him to restore Paulus and Athanasius to their own Sees. But when Con∣stantius made demurrs to what he had writ∣ten, the Emperour of the Western parts in another Letter gave him his choice, [to wit,] that he should either admit Paulus and Atha∣nasius to their own former dignities, and re∣store their Churches to them; or else (if he did not this) he must look upon him to be his Enemy, and expect a War.

The c 4.60 Letter he wrote to his brother was this.

Paulus and Athanasius are indeed here with Us. But, upon enquiry We find that they are Persecuted upon account of their piety. If therefore You will promise to restore them to their Sees, and punish those who have causelesly injured them, We will send the men to You. But if You shall refuse to do as We have said, know for certain, that We Our Self will come thither, and restore them to their own Sees whether You will or no.

CHAP. XXIII. That Constantius, being afraid of his Brothers menaces, by his Letters ordered Athanasius to appear, and sent him to Alexandria.

THe Emperour of the East understanding these things, was reduced to a very great streight. And having forthwith sent for most of the Ea∣stern Bishops, he made them acquainted with the option his brother had proposed to him, and en∣quired of them what was to be done. They made answer, that it was better [for him] to grant Athanasius the Churches, than to under∣take a Civil War. Wherefore the Emperour, being necessitated thereto, summoned Athanasius to appear before him. At that very interim the Western Emperour sends Paulus to Constantinople, accompanied with two Bishops and other hono∣rary provisions, having fortified him both with his own Letters, and also with those from the Synod. But whilst Athanasius was yet fearful, and in doubt whether he should go to Constantius or not: (For he was afraid of the treacherous attempts of the Sycophants:) the Eastern Em∣perour invited him [to his Court] not only once, but a second and a third time; as it is evident from his Letters, the contents whereof, being translated out of the Latine tongue [into the Greek,] are these.

Constantius's Epistle to Athanasius. CONSTANTIUS VICTOR AUGUSTUS, to Athanasius the Bishop.

a 5.1 The humanity of Our clemency hath not per∣mitted you to be any longer tossed in and disquieted with the boysterous surges (as it were) of the Sea. Our indefatigable piety hath not neglected you during your being deprived of your native habita∣tion, whilst you wanted your goods, and wandred up and down in desert and impassable places. And although We have too long deferred the acquanting you by Letters with the purpose of Our mind, ex∣pecting you would of your own accord have come to Us, and requested a remedy for your troubles: yet because peradventure fear hath hindred that purpose of your mind, We have therefore sent to your Gravity, Letters filled with indulgence, that you should hasten to make your sudden appearance in Our presence without fear; whereby you might en∣joy your desire, and, having made experiment of Our humanity, be restored to your own habitation. For upon this account we made a request for you to Our Lord and Brother Constans Victor Augustus, that He would grant you the liberty of coming, to the end that being restored to your Country by both Our consents, you should have this pledge and as∣surance of Our favour.

Another Epistle to Athanasius. CONSTANTIUS VICTOR AUGUSTUS, to Athanasius the Bishop.

Although We have made it sufficiently known to you by Our former Letter, that you might securely come to Our Court, in regard We are earnestly a 5.2 desirous to send you to your own habitation: yet We have now b 5.3 sent this Letter to your Gra∣vity. Wherefore We entreat you to take a pub∣lick Chariot, and hasten to Us without any mistrust or fear, that you may enjoy what you desire.

Another Letter to the same person.

CONSTANTIUS VICTOR AUGUSTUS, to Athanasius the Bishop.

Whilst we made Our residence at Edessa, (your Presbyters being present there,) We were pleased, by sending a Presbyter to you, to hasten your coming to Our Court, to the end that after you were come into Our Presence, you might go im∣mediately to Alexandria. But, in regard a con∣siderable space of time is now past, since your re∣ceipt of Our Letter, and you have not yet come; We therefore took care to put you in mind by this, that you should now hasten to make your sudden appearance in Our Presence, that so you may be restored to your own Country; and obtain your desire. And that you might be most fully cer∣tified hereof, We have sent Achetas the Deacon, from whom you may understand both the purpose of Our mind, and also that you shall readily obtain what you desire.

Athanasius having received these Letters at Aquileia, (for c 5.4 there he abode after his depar∣ture from Serdica,) hastned immediately to d 5.5 Rome. And having shown the Letters to Ju∣lius the Bishop, he caused great joy in the Roman Church. For they supposed, that the Emperour of the East had now given his assent to their Faith, in regard he invited Athanasius to come to him. But Julius wrote this Epistle to the Clergy and Laity in Alexandria concerning Athanasius.

The Epistle of Julius Bishop of Rome, to those of Alexandria.

Julius to e 5.6 the Bishops and Presbyters, and Deacons, and to the Laity inhabiting Alexandria, his beloved Brethren, health in the Lord.

I also rejoyce with you, beloved Brethren, because you now see before your eyes the fruit of your Faith. For that this is truly so, any one may, see in our brother and fellow Bishop Athanasius: whom God hath restored to you, upon an account both of his purity of life, and also of your prayers. Hence it is apparent, that you have continually offered up to God prayers which were pure and full of cha∣rity. For, being mindfull of the Celestial promises, and f 5.7 of the course of life tending thereto, which you have been instructed in by the Doctrine of our

foresaid Brother; you certainly knew, and (ac∣cording to that true Faith which is implanted in you) were apprehensive of this, that your Bishop could not be perpetually seperated from you, whom you carried in your pious minds, as being continually present. Wherefore, I need not make use of many words in this my Letter to you. For your Faith hath prevented whatever could have been said by me: and by the grace of Christ those things have been fulfilled, which you in common prayed for and desired. I rejoyce therefore with you, (for I will say it again,) because you have preserved your souls inexpugnable in [your defending of] the Faith. Nor do I any whit less rejoyce with my Brother Athan sius, because (although he hath undergone many sharp afflictions, yet) he was not one hour unmindfull of your love, and your de∣sire. For although he seemed to have been with∣drawn from you for a time, yet he was continually conversant with you in spirit. And I am of opinion, Beloved, that all the trialls and troubles which have hapned to him, are not inglorious. For both your, and his Faith hath thereby been made known, and approved amongst all men. For, had not so many and great afflictions befell him, who would have believed, either that you should have had so great a respect and love for so eminent a Bishop, or that he should have been adorned with such excellent virtues, by reason of which he is in no wise to be defrauded of his hope in the hea∣vens? He hath therefore obtained a testimony of confession every way glorious, both in this, and in the world to come. For after his many and va∣rious sufferings both by Land and Sea, he hath trodden under foot all the treach••ries of the Arian Heresie; and after his having been frequently assaulted and brought into danger through envy, he hath despised death, being guarded by Almighty God, and our Lord Jesus Christ: hoping that he should not only avoid his Enemies Plots, but also be restored in order to your consolation, brin∣ging back to you greater Trophies by reason of your being conscious [of having done what was just and good.] Upon which account he hath been rendred glorious even as far as the ends of the whole earth, being approved for his [integrity of] life, undauntedly persisting in the defence of his resolution of mind, and Celestial Doctrine, and evidently declared by your constant and perpe∣tual judgment to be intirely beloved by you. He returns therefore to you now far more bright and glorious, than when he departed from you. For, if the fire tries and refines pretious metalls, I mean Gold and Silver, what can be said of so eminent a Personage according to his worth, who having van∣quished the fire of so great afflictions, and so many perills, is now restored to you, having been g 5.8 de∣clared innocent, not by our determination only, but by that of the whole Synod? Receive there∣fore (Beloved Brethren) with all Divine Glory and joy your Bishop Athanasius, h 5.9 together with those who have been his fellow sufferers. And re∣joyce, in that you enjoy your desires, who have nourished and quenched the thirst of your pa∣stour, hungring (if I may so speak,) and thir∣sting after your piety, with your comfortable wri∣tings. For you were a consolation to him during his abode in strange Countries: and you have cheri∣shed him with your most faithfull souls and minds, whilst he was Persecuted, and assaulted with trea∣cheries. Indeed, I rejoyce already, whilst I con∣sider and foresee in my mind the joy of every one of you at his return, and the most pious meetings [which will be given him] by the populace, and the glorious solomnity of those which will be assem∣bled, and what manner of day that will be, wherein our brother shall make his return: when forepast calamities shall have an end; and his pretious and wish't for return shall unite all persons in an alacrity of mind [exprest by] the highest degree of joy. Such a joy as this does, as to the greatest part of it, reach even as far as us, to whom Heaven, ('tis manifest) hath granted this favour, that we should be able to come to the knowledge of so eminent a Personage. It is fit therefore, that we should close this Letter with a prayer. May God Almighty, and his Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ afford you this perpetual grace, rendring you the reward of your admirable Faith, which you have demonstrated towards your Bishop by a glorious testimony: that better things may await you and your posterity both in this, and in the world to come, which * 5.10 Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nei∣ther have entred into the heart of man: the things that God hath prepared for them that love him, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom Glory be to Almighty God for ever and ever, Amen. I wish you good health, beloved Brethren.

Athanasius confiding in these Letters, went into the East. The Emperour Constantius received him not then with an incensed mind. But upon the suggestion of the Arians, he attempted to circum∣vent him. And speaks to him thus. You have indeed recovered your See by the Synods deter∣mination, and our consent. But, in regard there are some of the people in Alexandria, who do i 5.11 refuse to hold communion with you, suffer them to have one Church in the City. To which request Athanasius immediately made this return, and says, It is in your power, O Emperour, to command and do what you will. I also ask and request this favour of you, which I desire you would grant me. When the Emperour had rea∣dily promised him to grant it, Athanasius forth∣with added, that he desired to receive the same favour, that the Emperour had required should be granted him: for he also requested that throughout every City one Church might be al∣lowed to those who refused to communicate with the Arians. When the Arians understood that Athanasius's opinion would k 5.12 incommode [their party,] they made answer that that business was to be deferred till another time: but they per∣mitted the Emperour to do what pleased him. Wherefore, the Emperour restored Athanasius, Paulus, and Marcellus to their own Sees: as also, Asclepas of Gaza, and Lucius of Adrianople. For they also had been received by the Synod of Ser∣dica; Asclepas [was received] upon his ex∣hibiting the Acts, whereby it was manifest, that Eusebius Pamphilus (together with many others) having taken cognizance of his cause, had restored him to his dignity, and Lucius, because those that accused him were fled. Therefore, the Em∣perours Edicts were sent to their Cities, giving order that they should be readily admitted. Upon Basilius's being turned out of Ancyra, and Mar∣cellus's entrance into that City, there was no tri∣vial disturbance made, which gave those that were his adversaries an occasion of reproaching him. But the Gazites willingly received Asclepas. In Constantinople, Macedonius did for some small time give place to Paulus, and convened assemblies by himself seperately, in a private Church of that

City. But, in behalf of Athanasius, the Emperour wrote to the Bishops, to the Clergy, and to the Lai∣ty, that they should willingly receive him. More∣over, he gave order by other Letters, that what had been enacted against him in the Courts of Judicature, should be abrogated. The contents of his Letters concerning both these Particulars are these.

Canstantius's Letter, in behalf of Athanasius.

VICTOR CONSTANTIUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to the Bishops and Presbyters of the Catholick Church.

The most Reverend Bishop Athanasius hath not been deserted by the Grace of God. But although he was for a short time subjected to humane tryal, yet he hath received a just sentence from Divine Providence which inspects all things: having been restored, by the will of God, and our determina∣tion, both to his own Country, and Church, over which by Divine permission he presided. It was meet, that what is agreeable hereto should be per∣formed by our clemency. That so, all things which have heretofore been determined against those who have held communion with him, should now whol∣ly be forgotten, and that all suspicion [enter∣tained] against him should in future cease, and that the immunity, which those Clergy men that are with him did heretofore enjoy, should (as it is meet) be confirmed to them. Moreover, We thought it equitable to make this addition to Our Indulgence in favour of him, that all persons belonging to the sacred order of the Clergy might understand, that security is granted to all those that have adhered to him, whether they be Bishops, or Clerks: and a firm union with him shall be a sufficient testimony of every ones good resolution of mind. For, what persons soever (making use of a better judgment, and becoming followers of a sounder opinion,) shall embrace his communion. We have ordered, that all such shall enjoy that indulgence (according to the * 5.13 Pattern of the preceding providence) which We have now granted agreeable to the will of God.

Another Letter sent to the Alexandrians.

VICTOR CONSTANTIUS MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to the populace of the Catholike Church in Alexandria.

In regard We make l 5.14 your good Government Our aim in all things, and knowing that you have for some time been deprived of an Episcopall Provi∣dence, We have thought good to send back to you again Athanasius the Bishop, a person well known to all men for his sanctity of life and moral honesty. When you shall have received this person according to your usual manner, and as it is meet; and shall constitute him your assistant in your prayers to God; make it your business to preserve continually a Concord and Peace, befitting your selves, and gratefull to Us, according to the Sanction of the Church. For it is disagreeable to reason, that there should be any dissention or faction raised amongst you, contrary to the felicity of Our times. Our desires and wishes are, that you may be wholly freed from this mischief. And We exhort you to persist continually in your usual prayers to God, making use of him your Prelate and your assi∣stant, as was said before. That so this resolution of yours being conveyed to the m 5.15 ears of all men, even those▪ Gentiles as yet * 5.16 enslaved in the er∣roneous worship of Idols, may with the great∣est alacrity hasten to the knowledge of the sacred Re∣ligion, (most dear Alex∣andrians!) We therefore a∣gain exhort you to persist in what hath been said before. Do you willingly receive your Bishop, sent to you by Gods Decree and Our determination, and look upon him as worthy to be embraced n 5.17 with your whole souls and minds. For that doth both become you, and is also manifestly agreeable to Our Clemency. And that all manner of o 5.18 disturbance and oc∣casion of Sedition may be taken from such as are endowed with malevolent and factious mindes, We have by Our Letters given order to the judges a∣mongst you, that they should render all those liable to undergo the penalty of the Laws, whom upon inquiry they shall find to have been Seditions. Taking therefore into your consideration these two things, both Gods and Our determination, and also the care we have taken about your agreement, and the punishment [we have commanded to be in∣flicted] upon those that are disordered; make it your chief business to have a diligent regard to whatever doth become and agree with the Sanctions of the sacred Religion, and with all reverence to honour the * 5.19 foresaid [Prelate,] that so you together with him may offer up prayers to the supream God and Father, both for your Selves, and also for the good Government and Concord of mankind in general.

An Epistle concerning the abrogating what had been enacted against Athanasius.

VICTOR CONSTANTIUS AUGUSTUS, to Nestorius. And in the same Copy, to the Presidents of p 5.20 Au∣gustamnica, Thebaïs, and Lybia.

If any thing be found to have been heretofore done to the detriment and injury of those who communicate with Athanasius the Bishop, Our Will is that that be now wholly abrogated. For Our Pleasure is, that those of his Clergy should again have the same immunity, which they formerly had. And We command, that this Order of Ours be kept: that so (Athanasius the Bishop having been re∣stored to his Church,) they who communicate with him may have the same priviledge which they always had, and which the other Clergy-men now have: whereby their affairs being thus setled, they also may rejoyce.

CHAP. XXIV. That Athanasius, passing through Jerusalem in his return to Alexandria, was received into Com∣munion by Maximus, and convened a Synod of Bishops which confirmed the Nicene Faith.

AThanasius the Bishop being fortified with these Letters, passed thorow Syria, and came into Palestine. And arriving at Jerusalem, he made known to Maximus the Bishop, both

what had been done in the Syond of Serdica, and also that Constantius the Emperour had consen∣ted to their determination: and he makes it his business to have a Synod of Bishops convened in that City. Maximus without any delay sent for some of the Bishops in Syria and Palestine: and having constituted a Synod, he also restored to Athanasius communion, and his [former] dig∣nity. Moreover, this Synod a 5.21 wrote to the Alexandri∣ans, and to all the Bishops in Egypt and Libya, decla∣ring to them what had been Determined and Decreed concerning Athanasius. Up∣on which account, those who were Athanasius's enemies egregiously derided Maxi∣mus, because he had be∣fore deposed Athanasius; but then altering his mind again, (as if nothing had been done before,) he gave his suffrage for A∣thanasius, and restored to him communion and his dignity. Ursacius and Valens (who had before been hot maintainers of Arianism,) understan∣ding these things, having at that time rejected their former industry [in asserting that opi∣nion,] went to Rome. And presented a peni∣tentiary Libel to Julius the Bishop, after which they embraced the Homoöusian Faith. And having written Letters to Athanasius, they pro∣fessed they would in future hold communion with him. Ursacius therefore and Valens were at that time in such a manner vanquished by Atha∣nasius's prosperous success, that (as I said) they gave their consent to the Homoöusian Faith. But Athanasius passed through Pelusium in his journey to Alexandria. And he admonished all the Ci∣ties through which he passed, to have an aversion for the Arians, and to embrace those that pro∣fessed the Homoöusian Faith. He ordained also in some of the Churches. Which gave begin∣ning to another accusation against him, b 5.22 because he attempted to ordain in other [Bishops] Di∣ocesses. Such was the posture of Athanasius's affaires at that time.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning the Tyrants Magnentius and Vetranio.

BUt in the interim a disturbance in no wise trivial seized the publick affaires of the Em∣pire. It is necessary that we should give a sum∣mary account only concerning it, by running over the chief heads thereof. When the * 5.23 Buil∣der of the City Constantinople was dead, his three Sons succeeded him in the Empire, as we have mentioned in our First Book. * 5.24 But you must know, that together with them reigned their Cousin-german, whose name was Dalmatius of the same name with his own Father. After he had been Colleague with them in the Empire some small time, the Souldiers slew him; Constantius nei∣ther b 5.25 commanding him to be murdered, nor yet for∣bidding it. After what man∣ner Constantinus Junior (in∣vading those parts of the Empire which belonged to his Brother,) was also slain in an engagement with the Souldiers, we have more than once mentioned * 5.26 be∣fore. After his slaughter, the Persian War was raised against the Romans, wherein Constantius performed no action that was fortunate. For, there hapning an c 5.27 Engage∣ment by night about the limits of the Romans and Persians, the latter seemed then for some little time to have been Conquerours. At the same time, the po∣sture of the Christians af∣faires was little less sedate: but upon Athanasius's ac∣count, and by reason of the term Homoöusios, there was a War throughout the Chur∣ches. During this state of affaires, there arose a Ty∣rant in the Western parts [of the Empire,] one Mag∣nentius. Who by treachery slew Constans the Emperour of the Western parts, residing at that time in the Gallia's. After which there was a mighty Civil War kindled. For the Tyrant Magnen∣tius conquered all Italy, he also reduced Africa and Libya under his own Dominion, and had possession even of the Gallia's. In Illyricum likewise, at the City Sirmium, another Tyrant was * 5.28 set up by the Souldiers; his name Vetranio. Moreover, Rome was involved in a disturbance. For d 5.29 Constantine had a Sisters Son, by name Nepotianus, who being guarded by a party of the Gladiatours, had by violence seized upon the Empire. This Nepotianus was slain by Magnen∣tius's Forces. But Magnentius himself invaded the rest of the Western Provinces, and made all places desolate.

CHAP. XXVI. How, after the death of [Constans] the Western Emperour, Paulus and Athanasius were Ejected out of their own Sees again. And, that Paulus, after his being carried into banishment, was slain. But Athanasius made his escape by flight.

AConfluxe of all these mischiefs hapned al∣most at one and the same time. For these things were done on the fourth year after the

Synod at Serdica in the a 5.30 Consulate of Sergius and * 5.31 Nigrinianus. Upon the re∣lation hereof, the whole Roman Em∣pire seemed to be devolved upon Con∣stantius only: who being proclaimed b 5.32 Empe∣rour in the Eastern parts, was wholly intent in making preparations against the Tyrants. In the interim, Athanasius's adversaries, sup∣posing they had gotten a very seasonable opportunity, did again frame most horrid false accusations against him, he having not yet entred Alexandria: they inform the Emperour Constantius, that he would subvert all E∣gypt and Libya. That which made the greatest addition to their calumny was, that Athanasius had Ordained in other [Bishops] Diocesses. Athanasius arriving at A∣lexandria during this trou∣blesome posture of affaires, assembled a Synod of Bi∣shops in Egypt. Who by an unanimous consent made the same determinations with those convened at Serdica, and with that Synod assem∣bled at Jerusalem by Maxi∣mus. But the Emperour, who had long before em∣braced the Arian opinion, wholly altered all things which he had a little before decreed. And in the first place, he gave order, that Paulus the Bishop of Constantinople should be banished, who was strangled by those that carried him into banishment, at c 5.33 Cucusus in Cappadocia. Marcellus also being ejected, Basi∣lius was again put into possession of the Church of Ancyra. Lucius of Adrianople was bound in iron chaines, and died in Prison. Moreover, what was reported concerning Athanasius made so prevalent an impression upon the Emperour, that he fell into an unmeasurable rage, and gave order that he should be slain whenever he could be found: and together with him, d 5.34 Theodulus and Olym∣pius, Prelates of Churches in Thracin. But Athana∣sius was not ignorant of what Orders the Emperour had given. But, having been made sensible thereof before hand, he betook himself to flight again, and so avoided the Emperours menaces. The Arians calumniated him for this his escape, especially Narcissus Bishop of Neroniades a City of Cilicia, Georgius of Laodicaea, and e 5.35 Leontius who then presided over the Church at Antioch. This Le∣ontius, when he was a Presbyter, was divested of that dignity, because he lived continually with a woman whose name was Eustolium, and en∣deavouring to conceal the suspicion of his un∣clean converse with her, he cut off his own geni∣talls; after which he was conversant with her, with a greater confidence and liberty, in regard he wanted those things upon account whereof he had fallen into that suspition. But by the Decree and diligence of the Emperour Constan∣tius he was promoted to the Bishoprick of the Antiochian Church after Stephanus, who had be∣fore succeeded Flaccillus. Thus far concerning this person.

CHAP. XXVII. That Macedonius, having got possession of the See [of Constantinople,] did much mischief to those that in opinion dissented from him.

MOreover, at that time Macedonius was put into possession of the Churches in Con∣stantinople, Paulus being dispatcht in the fore∣mentioned manner. And having procured a very great interest in the Emperour, he raised a war amongst the Christians, not inferiour to that wa∣ged by the Tyrants at the same time. For, having by his perswasions induced the Emperour to countenance him with his assistance in destroying of the Churches, he procured whatever wicked acts he had a mind to doe, to be established by Law. From that time therefore an Edict was publickly proposed throughout every City. And a military force appointed to see the Emperours Decrees put in execution. Those who asserted the Homo••usian Faith, were driven not only out of the Churches, but from the Cities also. At first indeed they made it their business to expell them only. But afterwards, the mischief grow∣ing worse and worse, they betook, themselves to a forcing of them to communicate with them, being very little sollicitous about the Churches. And this forcible constraint was nothing in∣feriour to that heretofore made use of by them, who necessitated the Christians to worship Idolls. For they made use of all manner of scourgings, various tortures, and proscriptions of their goods. Many were punished with exile. Some died un∣der their tortures: others were murdered, during their being led away to banishment. These things were done throughout all the Eastern Cities, but more especially at Constantinople. This intestine Persecution therefore, being but small before, was much increased by Macedonius, after he had gotten the Bishoprick. But the Cities of Achaia and Illyricum, and the Western parts of the Em∣pire, continued as yet undisturbed, in regard they both mutually agreed, and also retained the Rule of Faith delivered by the Nicene Synod.

CHAP. XXVIII. Concerning what was done at Alexandria by Geor∣gius the Arian; from Athanasius's own re∣lation.

BUt what [Villanies] Georgius during the same time committed at Alexandria, you may understand from Athanasius's own relation, who was present at, and a sufferer in those [miseries.] For, in his Apologetick concerning his own flight, he speaks word for word thus concerning what had been done there. For they came from thence to Alexandria, making search for me again, that they might murder me. And what hapned then was worse than that they had done before, For on a suddain the Souldiers

surrounded the Church, and instead of going to prayers, there hapned a sight. After this, Geor∣gius (sent by them out of Cappadocia,) arriving in Lent, increased those mischiefs which he had learn't from them. For after Easter-week, the Virgins were cast into Prison: the Bishops, bound in chaines, were led away by tho Souldiers: the houses of Orphans and Widdows were plundered, and the stock of Bread-corn [was pillaged:] they broke into houses. And the Christians were carried out [to burial] in the night. The houses were sealed up: and the brethren of those that were Clergy-men, were in danger upon their brethrens account. These things were horrid: but those afterwards committed were much more horrid. For the week after the holy Pentecost, the people, after they had fasted, went out to the Coemetery to pray, because they all abominated Georgius's communion. But that Villanous wretch understanding this, instigated Sebastianus the Captain, who was a Manichaean, against them. He with a company of Souldiers, carrying Armour, naked Swords, Bows, and Darts, made a violent attack upon the people on the very Lords day. And finding some few at their prayers (for most of them were gone away by reason of the time of the day;) he did such exploits as became the Arians to have performed amongst them. For having kindled a fire, he set the Virgins close to it, forced them to say, that they professed the Arian Faith. But when he perceived they were not to be vanquished, and that they despised the fire, he afterwards stript them, and beat them on the face in such a manner, that for a time they could scarce be known. And having seized fourty men, he beat them after a new and unusual manner. For he forthwith cut Rods from off Palm-trees, which yet had their pricks on them, and flea'd their backs after such a manner, that some of them by rea∣son of the pricks that stuck in their flesh, were for∣ced to make frequent use of Chirurgions: others of them, not able to endure [the pain,] died. Imme∣diately he took all the rest, that were left, and together with them a Virgin, and a 5.36 bani∣shed them into Oasis the Great. Moreover, they would not at first suffer the bodies of those that were dead to be given to their relations: but casting them forth unburied, they hid them as they thought good, that they might seem not to know of so barbarous a cruelty. And this these madmen did, having a blindness upon their minds. For, in as much as the Relations of those that were dead, rejoyced upon account of their confes∣sion, but mourned because their bodies lay un∣buried; their impiety and barbarity was so much the more plainly detected and divulged. Soon after this, they carried away into banishment out of Egypt and both the Libya's these Bishops, Ammonius, Thmuis, Cajus, Philo, Hermes, Plinius, Psenosiris, Nilammon, Agatho, Anagamphus, Ammonius, Marcus, Dracontius, Adelphius, another Ammo∣nius, another Marcus, and Athenodorus: and these Presbyters, Hierax, and Dioscorus. And they treated them so cruelly in their conveying them into banishment, that some of them died in the journey, and others in the very place of their exile. They b 5.37 drove away more then thirty Bishops. For it was their earnest desire, according as Ahab did, whol∣ly, if possible, to destroy the truth. Thus much Atha∣nasius hath related in his own words concerning the Villanies committed by Georgius at Alexan∣dria. But the Emperour marcht his Army into Illyricum. For the necessity of the publick af∣faires required his presence there; more espe∣cially, because Vetranio was proclaimed Empe∣rour there by the Souldiers. Being come to Sirmium, he made a League with Vetranio, after which he discoursed with him, and brought affaires to such a pass, that those Souldiers, who had proclaimed Vetranio, revolted from him to Constantius's side. Having therefore deserted Vetranio, they cried out that only Con∣stantius was Augustus, King and Emperour. No mention was made of Vetranio in their acclama∣tion. Vetranio, becoming sensible immediately that he was betrayed, laid himself prostrate at the feet of the Emperour. Constantius took his Imperial Crown and Purple from him, and trea∣ted him kindly, exhorting him to lead a more sedate and quiet life in the habit of a private per∣son. For [he told him] that a life void of dis∣quietude was much more sutable for a man of his years, than to have a name full of care and solli∣citude. Such was the conclusion of Vetranio's affaires. But the Emperour ordered, that he should be allowed an ample revenue out of the publick tribute. Afterwards he wrote frequently to the Emperour whilst he made his residence at Prusa in Bithynia, declaring to him, that he had been the Authour of the greatest happiness to him, in that he had freed him from cares, and the troubles that accompany a Crown: and said, that he himself did not do well, because he would not enjoy that happiness which he had bestowed upon him. Thus far concerning these things. At the same time, the Emperour Constantius, having created Gallus, his Fathers Brothers Son, Caesar, and given him his own name, sent him to Antioch of Syria, designing that he should guard the Eastern parts. Whilst he was making his entry into Antioch, the c 5.38 Sign of our Saviour appeared in the East. For a Pillar in the form of a Cross appearing in the heavens, struck the beholders with a great a∣mazement. The rest of his chief commanders he sent against Magnentius, at the head of a very great Army. In the interim, he himself made his residence at Sirmium, expecting the issue of affaires.

CHAP. XXIX. Concerning Photinus the Arch-Heretick.

MOreover, at that time Photinus who pre∣sided over the Church in that * 5.39 City, did more openly divulge that opinion which he had invented. Wherefore, when there arose a distur∣bance occasioned thereby, the Emperour ordered,

that a a 5.40 Synod of Bishops should be convened at Sirmium. Therefore, there met together in that City, of the Eastern [Bishops,] b 5.41 Marcus of Arethusa, c 5.42 Georgius of Alexandria, whom the Arian party (having removed Gregorius, as we said * 5.43 before,) put into his See; also Basilius (who presided over the Church at Ancyra, Marcellus having been ejected,) Pancratius [Bishop] of Pelucium, and d 5.44 Hypatianus of Heraclea. Of the Western Bishops, [there met there] Valens [Bishop] of Mursa, and Hosius Bishop of Cor∣duba in Spain (a person eminently famous at that time) was present against his will. These [Prelates] being convened at Sirmium, after the Consulate of Sergius and Nigrinianus, (in which year, by reason of the tumults caused by the Wars, no Consul published the solemn e 5.45 Shews and Playes usually exhibited at their en∣trance upon their Consulate,) and having upon examination found, that Photinus asserted the opinion of Sabellius the Libyan and Paul of Sa∣mosata; they immediately deposed him. And this determination of theirs was by all men, both then and afterwards, approved of as good and equitable. f 5.46 But those [Bishops] who stayed behind [at Sirmium] did that which was not gratefull to all men.

CHAP. XXX. Concerning the [forms of the] Creed published at Sirmium, in the presence of the Emperour Constantius.

FOr, as if they would condemn what they had heretofore determined concerning the Faith, they again composed, ratified, and published other * 5.47 draughts of the Creed: a 5.48 one whereof was dictated in the Greek tongue by Marcus of Are∣thusa: b 5.49 two more were drawn up in the Latine tongue, which neither agreed one with the other (either in the expressions, or in the composure,) nor yet with that Greek one, which the Bishop of Arethusa dictated. Moreover, the one of those Creeds drawn up in Latine, I will here subjoyn to that composed by Marcus: the other (which they afterwards recited at c 5.50 Sirmium,) we will set at it's proper place, where we shall declare what was done at Ariminum. But you must know that they were both translated into the Greek language. The draught of the Creed dictated by Marcus, runs thus.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Creatour and Framer of all things: * 5.51 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named: and in his only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, by whom all things, which are in the Heavens, and which are upon the Earth, vi∣sible and invisible, were made. Who is the Word, and the Wisedom, and the true Light, and the Life. Who in the last days was for our sakes in∣carnate,

and born of the holy Virgin, and was Crucified and died, and was buried, and arose again from the Dead on the third day, and was taken up into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and shall come at the end of the world to judge the quick and dead, and shall render to every man according to his works. Whose Kingdom being perpetual continueth unto infinite ages. For he is sitting on the right hand of the Father, not only in this present world, but in that also which is to come. And [We believe] in the holy Ghost, that is, the Paraclete; whom [our Lord,] (having promised he would send him to the Apostles after his ascent into the heavens, that he might teach and put them in mind of all things,) sent. By whom also those souls, which have sincerely believed in him, are sanctified. But those who affirm, that the Son [exists] of things which * 5.52 were not, or of another substance, and not of God, and that there was a time or an age when he was not, the Holy and Catholick Church hath certainly known to be Aliens [from Her.] We say it therefore again, if any one doth affirm the Father and the Son to be two Gods, let him be Anathema. d 5.53 And if any one, affirming Christ to be God the Son of God before ages, shall not profess him to have ministred to the Fa∣ther in order to the framing of all things, let him be A∣nathema. If any one be so audacious as to say, that the Unbegotten, or part of him, was born of Mary, let him be Anathema. If any one shall say that the Son was of Mary ac∣cording to prescience, and that he was not with God, born of the Father before ages, and that all things were made by him, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm the Essence of God to be † 5.54 di∣lated or contracted, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm the dilated Essence of God to make the Son, or shall term the Son the enlargement of his Essence, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm the internal or outwardly-uttered Word to be the Son of God, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm the Son who was [born] of Mary to be man only, let him be Anathema. If any one asserting him that was [born] of Mary to be God and man, shall understand the unbegotten God himself, let him be Anathema. If any one shall understand this Text, * 5.55 I am the first God, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God, (which is spoken in order to the destruction of Idolls, and those which are not Gods) in the same sense which the Jews take it in, [to wit, as if it were spoken] upon account of the subversion of the only begotten God before ages, let him be Ana∣thema. If any one hearing these words, † 5.56 The word was made flesh, shall suppose that the Word was changed into flesh, or that he assumed flesh by having undergone any change, let him be Anathema. e 5.57 If any one hearing that the only begotten Son of God was crucified, shall assert that his Deity underwent any corruption, or passion, or mu∣tation, or diminution, or de∣struction, let him be Ana∣thema. If any one shall af∣firm, that the Father spake not these words, † 5.58 Let us make man to the Son, but shall assert that God himself spake to himself, let him be Anathema. If any one shall say, that it was not the Son who ap∣peared to Abraham, but the unbegotten God, or part of him, let him be Anathema. f 5.59 If any one shall say, that it was not the Son who as a man wrestled with Jacob, but the unbegot∣ten God or part of him, let him be Anathema. If any one shall understand these words, † 5.60 The Lord rained from the Lord, not of the Father and of the Son, but shall say that God rained from himself, let him be Anathema. For the Lord the Son rained from the Lord the Father. g 5.61 If any one hearing [these words] The Lord the Father and The Lord the Son, shall term both the Father Lord, and the Son also Lord, and saying, The Lord from the Lord, shall assert that there are two Gods, let him be Anathema. For we place not the Son in the same degree with the Father, but [understand] him to be in∣feriour to the Father. For neither did he come down to h 5.62 Sodom without his Fa∣thers will. Nor did he rain from himself, but from the Lord, that is from the Fa∣ther, who hath the supream authority. Nor does he sit at his Fathers right hand of himself, but he hears the Father, saying, * 5.63 Sit thou at my right hand, let him be Ana∣thema. If any one shall affirm, that the Father Son and holy Ghost are one Person, let him be Anathema. If any terming the holy Ghost the Paraclete, shall call him the unbegotten God, let him be Anathema. If any one does say that the Para∣clete is no other [Person] than the Son, (as the Son himself hath taught us; for he has said, † 5.64 The Father, whom I will ask, shall send you another Comforter,) let him be Anathema. If any one shall say, that the Spirit is part of the Father and of the Son, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm, that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are three Gods, let him be Anathema. If any one shall say, that the Son of God was made like one of the Creatures, by the will of God, let him be Anathema. If any one shall affirm, that the Son was begotten against the will of the Father, let him be Anathema. i 5.65 For the Father was not forced by a physical necessity, nor did he beget the Son as if he were unwilling: but as soon as he was willing, he has declared that he begat him of himself without time and without passion, let him be Anathema. If any one shall say, that the Son is unborn and without a beginning, affirming as it were that there are two [Principles] without a beginning and unborn, and so making two Gods, let him be Anathema. For the Son is the Head and Beginning of all things. * 5.66 But the Head of Christ is God. For thus we piously refer all things by the Son to One who is without a begin∣ning,

the beginning of all things. Furthermore, we, making an accurate explanation of [their] sentiments [who profest] the Christian Religion, do assert, that if any one shall not affirm Christ Jesus to have been the Son of God before ages, and to have ministred to the Father at the framing of all things, but [shall say] that he was called the Son and Christ from such time only as he was born of Mary, and that he then received the beginning of his Deity; let him be Anathema, like [Paul] of Samosata.

k 5.67 Another [Draught of the] Creed pub∣lished at Sirmium in the Latine tongue, and rendred into Greek

In regard there seemeth to have been some dif∣ference concerning the Faith, all things were dili∣gently inquired into and discussed at Sirmium, in the presence of Valens, Ursacius, Germinius l 5.68 and the rest. It is manifest that there is one God the Father Almighty, according as it is decla∣red over the whole world: and his one only be∣gotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord m 5.69 and God and Saviour, begotten of his Father before ages. But it must not be asserted that there are two Gods, because the Lord himself hath said,* 5.70 I go unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God. Therefore he is God even of all, as the Apostle also hath taught, † 5.71 Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God who shall justifie the Cir∣cumcision by Faith. Moreover, all other things agree, nor have they any ambiguity. But whereas very many are disturbed about that term which in Latine is called † 5.72 Substantia, and in Greek Ousia (that is, that it may be more accurately un∣derstood, the word † 5.73 Homoöusion or * 5.74 Homoiöu∣sion,) these termes ought in no wise to be mentioned, nor discoursed of publickly in the Church, for this reason, and upon this account, because there is nothing Recorded concerning them in the Divine Scriptures, and in regard these things are above the reach of humane knowledge and mind of man, nor can any one declare the Son's Generation, ac∣cording as it is written, ‖ 5.75 And who shall declare his Generation? For 'tis manifest that only the Father knows how he begat the Son; and again, that the Son [only knows,] how he was begotten of the Father. It cannot be doubtful to any man that the Father is greater in honour, dignity, and divinity, and that he is greater in that very name of a Father: the Son himself attesting, † 5.76 The Father who sent me is greater than I. No man is ignorant that this is Catholick [Doctrine,] that there are two Persons of the Father and of the Son, and that the Father is the greater: but that the Son is made subject, together with all other things which the Father hath subjected to himself. That the Father hath no beginning, and is invisible, im∣mortal, and impassible: but that the Son was born of the Father, God of God, Light of Light. And that no man knows his Generation, (as was said before,) but only the Father. That the Son him∣self our Lord and God, took flesh, or a body, that is [was made] man, according as the Angel E∣vangelized. And according as all the Scriptures do teach, and especially the Apostle himself, the Teacher of the Gentiles, Christ received humanity of the Virgin Mary, by which he suffered. This is the Principal Head of the whole Faith, and its confirmation, that the Trinity must be always preser∣ved according as we read in the Gospel: † 5.77 Go ye and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. The number of the Trinity is entire and per∣fect. But the Paraclete, the holy Ghost, was sent by the Son, and he came according to promise, that he might Sanctifie and n 5.78 Teach the Apostles and all Believers.

They attempted to perswade Photinus to give his * 5.79 consent to, and subscribe these things, even after his deposition, promising that they would restore him his Bishoprick, in case by altering his mind he would Anathematize the opinion which he had invented, and consent to their sentiments. But he accepted not of that proposition; but chal∣lenged them to dispute. A day therefore be∣ing set, by the Emperours own appointment, the Bishops there present met, and also not a few of the o 5.80 Senatorian Order, whom the Em∣perour commanded to be present at the dispute.

In their presence, Basilius, who at that time pre∣sided over the Church at Ancyra, opposed Pho∣tinus, the Notaries taking their words in writing. There was a very great contest on both sides during their dispute; wherein Photinus being vanquished, was condemned. Spending the resi∣due of his life in exile, he wrote a p 5.81 Book in † 5.82 both Languages, for he was not un∣skilled in the Latine tongue. He wrote also against all Heresies, asserting his own opinion only. Let thus much be said concerning Photinus. Moreover, you must know, that the Bishops convened at Sir∣mium were afterwards q 5.83 displeased with that Draught of the Creed published by them in Latine. For it seemed to them, after its pub∣lication, to contain many contradictions. Where∣fore, they earnestly endeavoured to get it out of their hands who had transcribed it. But, in regard many hid it, the Emperour by his Edicts ordered, that all the Copies of it should be di∣ligently searched for and gathered up, threatning to punish those that should be found concealing of it. But his menaces were unable to sup∣press it when once published, in regard it had fallen into many mens hands. Thus far concer∣ning this.

CHAP. XXXI. Concerning Hosius Bishop of Corduba.

BUt, in regard we have mentioned Hosius the Spaniard, as being against his will present [at Sirmium,] we must say something very briefly concerning him. For a little before, this person had been sent into a 5.84 Banishment by the fraudulent practises of the Arians, But then, through the earnest desire of those convened at Sirmium, the Emperour sent for him, being desirous either to perswade, or else by force to compell him to give consent with those [Bi∣shops] present there. For if this could be accomplished, an evident testimony would seem to be given to their Faith. For this reason therefore; he was present (as I said,) being necessitated there∣to against his will. But when he refused to give his consent, they inflicted stripes and tortures upon the old man. Upon which account he was necessitated both to consent to, and subscribe those expositions of the Faith then published. Such was the conclusion of affaires at that time transacted at Sirmium. Moreover, the Emperour Constantius continued at Sirmium, expecting the event of the War against Magnentius.

CHAP. XXXII. Concerning the overthrow of Magnentius the Tyrant.

IN the interim, Magnentius having possessed himself of the Imperial City Rome, slew many of the Senatorian Order, and destroyed several of the Populace. But as soon as Constantius's Commanders, having got together a body of Romans, marched out against him, he left Rome, and went into the Gallia's. Where there hapned continual engagements; and sometimes one side, sometimes the other got the better. But in fine, Magnentius having been worsted about Mursa, which is a Fort of the Gallia's, was Besieged there. In which Fort such a miraculous accident as this is said to have hapned. Magnentius at∣tempting to encourage his Souldiers disheartned at their overthrow, ascended a lofty tribunal. His men, desirous to receive him with the shouts and acclamations usually given to the Emperours, contrary to their intent diverted them to Con∣stantius. For by a general consent they all cried out, not Magnentius, but Constantius Augustus. Magnentius looking upon this to be an * 5.85 Omen of his imminent Ruine, departed immediately out of the Garrison, and fled to the further parts of the Gallia's. Constantius's Commanders followed him with a very close pursuit. Whereupon there hapned another Engagement at a place called a 5.86 The Mountain Seleucus: wherein Magnentius being totally Routed, fled alone to Lyons a City of Gallia, three days journey distant from the Fort at Mursa. Mag∣nentius having got into Ly∣ons, in the first place killed his own mother. Then he slew his brother, whom he had created Caesar; and at last laid violent hands upon himself. This was done in the sixth Consulate of Constantius, and in Constantius Gallus's second Consulate, b 5.87 about the fifteenth of the month August. Not long after, another of Magnentius's brothers, his name Decentius, finished his own life, by hang∣ing

of himself. Such was Magnentius his exit. But the publick affairs of the Empire returned not to a perfect degree of tranquillity. For soon after this another Tyrant arose, by name Silvanus. But Constantius's Commanders quickly destroyed him, whilst he was making disturbances in the Gallia's.

CHAP. XXXIII. Concerning the Jews inhabiting Dio-Caesarea in Palestine.

AT the same time also that these things hap∣ned, there arose another intestine War in the East. For the Jews, who inhabited Dio-Cae∣sarea in Palestine, took Arms against the Romans, and overran and destroyed the adjacent places. But Gallus (who was also named Constantius, whom the Emperour, having created him Cae∣sar, had sent into the East) sent an Army a∣gainst them, and Routed them. And by his order their City Dio-Caesarea was totally de∣stroyed.

CHAP. XXXIV. Concerning Gallus Caesar.

GAllus having done this, was unable [with moderation] to bear his prosperous success: but immediately attempted to raise innovations against him by whom he had been created Caesar, and he himself was also resolved to play the Tyrant. ••ut, whereas his design was soon dis∣covered by Constantius: (For Gallus had upon his own authority ordered Domitianus, at that time Praefect of the Praetorium in the East, and Magnus the Quaestor, to be slain, because they had a 5.88 acquainted the Em∣perour with his design.) Constantius highly incen∣sed thereat, sent for Gallus to him. He, being in a very great fear, went unwilling∣ly. When he arrived in the Western parts, and was come as far as the Island Flanona, Constantius ordered he should be slain. Not long after, he created Julianus, Gallus's Brother, Caesar, and sent him against the Barbari∣ans in Gallia. Moreover, Gal∣lus (called also Constantius) was slain in the seventh Consulate of the Emperour Constantius, when he himself was Consul the third time. On the year following, in the Consulate of Arbetion and Lollianus, Julianus was created Caesar, on the sixth of the month November. Concerning Julianus we shall make a further mention in our following book. But Constan∣tius having got rid of his present mischiefs and disquietudes, bent his mind again to an Ec∣clesiastick War. For going from Sirmium to the Imperial City Rome, he again summoned a Synod of Bishops, and ordered some of the Ea∣stern Bishops to hasten into b 5.89 Italy; and at the same time commanded the Western Bishops to meet there also. But in the interim that they were making preparation to go into Italy, this accident hapned: c 5.90 Julius Bishop of Rome died, having Presided over the Church there fifteen years: Liberius succeeded him in his Bishop∣rick.

CHAP. XXXV. Concerning Aëtius the Syrian, Eunomius's Ma∣ster.

AT Antioch in Syria there arose another Arch Heretick, Aëtius, surnamed Atheus. He had the same sentiments with Arius, and maintained the same opinion. But he separated himself from the Arian party, because they had admitted Arius into communion. For Arius (as I said * 5.91 before) espousing one opinion in his mind, made an open profession of another with his mouth, when he hypocritically consen∣ted to, and subscribed the form of the Creed [drawn up] at the Synod of Nice, that he might deceive the then Emperour. Upon this account therefore Aëtius separated himself from the Arians. Moreover, Aëtius had formerly been an Hereticall person, and a very zealons de∣fender of Arius's opinion. For after he had been a little instructed at Alexandria, he re∣turned from thence. And arriving at Antioch in Syria▪ (for there he was born) he was Or∣dained Deacon by Leontius, at that time Bishop of Antioch. Immediately therefore he asto∣nished those that discoursed him with the no∣velty of his speeches. And this he did, trusting in Aristotle's Categories; (that Book is so enti∣tled by its Authour,) from the Rules whereof he discoursed, but was insensible of his framing fallacious arguments in order to the deceiving of his own self, nor had he learned the scope of Aristotle from knowing persons. For Aristotle, upon account of the Sophisters who at that time derided Philosophy, wrote that Exercitation for young men, and opposed the Sophisters with the art of discourse by subtile reasonings. Where∣fore the a 5.92 Ephecticks who expound Plato's and Plo∣tinus's works, do find fault with what Aristotle has subtilly and artificially asserted [in that work.] But Aëtius, having never had an Academick Master, stuck close to the Sophismes of the Categories. Upon which account he could nei∣ther understand how there could be a generation b 5.93 with∣out a beginning, nor how he that was begotten could be coëternal with him who begat him. Yea, Aëtius was a man of so little learning, so unskilled in the sacred Scriptures, and so wholly exercised in and addicted to a contentious and disputative humour, (which every Rustick may easily do;) that he was not

in the least studious in the perusal of those An∣cient writers who have explained the sacred Books of the Christian Religion, but wholly rejected Clemens, Africanus, and Origen, persons expert in all manner of knowledge and litera∣ture. But he patcht together Epistles, both to the Emperour Constantius, and to some other persons, knitting together therein trifling and contentious disputes, and inventing subtile and fallacious arguments. Upon which account he was surnamed * 5.94 Atheus. But although his as∣sertions were the same with those of the Arians; yet because they were unable to understand his difficult and perplexed † 5.95 Syllogismes, he who had the same sentiments with them, was by those of his own party judged to be an Heretick. And for this reason he was driven from their Church; but he himself pretended that he would not com∣municate with them. There are at this present some Hereticks propagated from him, [to wit,] those who were heretofore called Aëtians, but now they are termed Eunomians. For Eunomius (who ••ad been Aëtius's Notary,) having been instructed in that c 5.96 Heretical opinion by him, afterwards Headed that Sect. But we shall speak concerning Eunomius in due place.

CHAP. XXXVI. Concerning the Synod at Millaine.

AT that time the Bishops met in Italy; there came not very many of the Eastern Bi∣shops, in regard most of them were hindred from coming either by their great age, or by the length of the journey: but of the We∣stern Bishops there met above a 5.97 three hun∣dred. For it was the Emperours order, that a Synod should be held at the City of Millaine. Where being met together, the Eastern Bishops requested that in the first place sentence might by a general consent be pronounced against A∣thanasius: that so, that having been effected, he might in future be perfectly disabled from re∣turning to Alexandria. But when b 5.98 Paulinus Bishop of Triers in Gallia, and Dionysius, and Eusebius, (the former of whom was Bishop of c 5.99 Alba the Metropolis of Italy, and the latter of Vercellae which is a City of Liguria in Italy,) were sensible, that the Eastern Bishops, by a ratification of the sentence against Athanasius, attempted the subversion of the Faith, they arose and with great earnestness cryed out▪ that deceit and fraud was covertly designed against the Christian Religion by what was transacted: for they said, that the accusation against Athanasius was not true, but that these things were invented by them in order to the depravation of the Faith. After they had with loud voices spoken all this, the congress of Bi∣shops was for that time dissolved.

CHAP. XXXVII. Concerning the Synod at Ariminum, and concer∣ning the [Draught of the] Creed which was published there.

WHen the Emperour understood this, He removed * 5.100 them out of the way by banishment. And resolved to convene a Gene∣ral Council, that so, by drawing all the Eastern Bishops into the West, he might (if it were possible) reduce them all to an agreement in opinion. But in regard the tediousness of the Journey rendred this design of his difficult, he ordered the Synod should be divided into two parts, permitting those then present to meet at Ariminum [a City] of Italy. But by his Letters he gave the Eastern Bishops order to assemble at Nicomedia [a City] of Bithynia. a 5.101 The Emperour issued out these orders with a design to unite them in opinion. But this design of his had not a successful event. For neither of the Synods agreed amongst themselves, but each of them was divided into contrary factions. For neither could they convened at Ariminum be brought to agree in one and the same opinion: and those Eastern Bishops gathered together at Seleucia of Isauria raised another Schism. Moreover, after what manner all these matters were transacted, we will declare in the procedure of our History, having first made mention of some few passages concer∣ning Eudoxius. For about that time b 5.102 Leontius (who had ordained Aëtius the He∣retick Deacon) departing this life, Eudoxius Bishop of Germanicia a City of Syria, being then present at Rome, considered with him∣self that he was to make haste. And having framed a cunning discourse with the Emperour, as if the City Germanicia stood in need of his consolation and defence, he requested that leave might be granted him to make a sudden return. The Emperour foreseeing nothing [of a de∣sign,] sent him away. But he, having pro∣cured the chiefest persons of the Bedchamber to, the Emperour to be his assistants, left his own City [Germanicia,] and * 5.103 clancularly possest himself of the Episcopate of Antioch: im∣mediately after which he attempted to favour Aëtius, and made it his business to assemble a Synod of Bishops, and c 5.104 restore him to his dig∣nity, [to wit,] his † 5.105 Diaconate. But he was in no wise able to effect this, be∣cause the hatred conceived against Aëtius was more prevalent than Eudoxius's earnestness for him. Thus much concerning these things. But when the Bishops were assembled at Ariminum,

the Eastern Prelates affirmed that they were come to the Council with a design wholly to omit the mention of the accusations against Athanasius. This desire and resolution of theirs was assisted by Ursacius and Valens, who at the beginning had been defenders of Arius's opinion: but [af∣terwards] they publickly consented to the term Homoöusios, by their Libel given in to the Bishop of Rome, as we said * 5.106 before. For these persons always inclined to the strongest side. They were assisted by Germinius, Auxentius, Demophilus, and Caius. When therefore some were ready to pro∣pose one thing in the congress of Bishops then present, and some another; Ursacius and Valens said, that all Forms of the Creed heretofore pub∣lished were to be accounted null and void; and that that last draught was to be admitted and ap∣proved of, which they had a little before published in their convention at Sirmium. Having said this, they caused a paper, which they had in their hands, to be read; [wherein was contained] another Form of the Creed (which they had drawn up before at Sirmium, but concealed it there, as I said * 5.107 before) which they then made publick at Ariminum. This d 5.108 Creed was tran∣slated out of Latine [into Greek;] the con∣tents thereof are these.

This Catholick Creed was published in the pre∣sence of our Lord Constantius, in the Consulate of the most Eminent Flavius Eusebius and Hypatius, at Sirmium, on the eleventh of the Kalends of June.

We believe in one only and true God, the Father Almighty, Creatour and Framer of all things. And in one only begotten Son of God, who was begotten of God, without passion, before all Ages, and be∣fore every beginning, and before all time con∣ceivable in the mind, and before every comprehen∣sible e 5.109 notion: by whom the Ages were framed, and all things were made. Who was begotten the only begotten of the Father, the only of the only, God of God, like to the Father who be∣gat him, according to the Scriptures. Whose Ge∣neration no person knoweth, but only the Father who begat him. We know that this only begotten Son of God, by his Father's appointment, came down from heaven in order to the abolishing of sin: and was born of the Virgin Mary, and con∣versed with the Disciples, and fulfilled every dis∣pensation according to his Fathers will: and was crucified, and died, and descended into the In∣fernal parts, and set in order what was to be done there. At the sight of whom the doorkeepers of hell trembled. He arose again on the third day, and conversed with his Disciples: and after the completion of fourty days, he ascended into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of his Father. And he shall come in the last day in his Fathers Glory, and render to every man according to his works. And [we believe] in the holy Ghost, whom the only begotten Son of God Jesus Christ him∣self promised to send as a Comforter to mankind, according as it is written: I go away to my Fa∣ther, and I will pray my Father, and he shall send you another Comforter, the spirit of truth. He shall receive of mine, and shall teach you, and bring all things to your remembrance. But▪ for the term * 5.110 Ousia, in regard it has been used by the Fathers in a more plain and ordinary sense, and, being not understood by the people, gives an offence to many, in as much as it is not contained in the Scriptures, we thought good to have it wholly removed, and in future to make no mention at all of this term Ousia, when God is spoken of, in regard the saecred Scriptures have no where mentioned the substance of the Father and of the Son. But f 5.111 we do assert, that the Son is in all things like the Father, as the sacred Scriptures do affirm and teach.

After the reading of this paper, those who were displeased with the contents thereof, rose up and said: we came not hither because we wanted a Creed. For we keep that entire, which we have received from our Ancestours. But [we are met,] that if any innovation hath hapned concerning it, we might repress it. If therefore what hath been recited doth contain nothing of novelty in it, do you now openly Anathematize the Arian Heresie, in such sort as the ancient Rule of the Church hath rejected other Heresies, as being blasphemous. For, it has been made manifest to the whole world, that Arius's impious opinion hath been the occasion of those tumults and disturbances, which have hapned in the Church untill this present time. This proposall, being not admitted of by Ur∣sacius, Valens, Germinius, Auxentius, Demophilus, and Caius, wholly rent in sunder the Church. For these persons adhered to what had been recited in the Synod of Ariminum. But the others did again confirm the Nicene Creed. Moreover, they derided the inscription prefixt before the Creed which had been read. And especially g 5.112 Athanasius, in the Epistle he sent to his acquaintance, where he writes word for word thus.

For what was wanting to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church as concerning piety, that dis∣quisitions should now be made about the Faith, and that they should prefix the Consulate of the present times before that Draught of the Creed (forsooth!) which they have published? For Ur∣sacius, Valens, and Germinius, have done that which never was done, or so much as ever heard of amongst Christians. For having composed such a

form of the Creed as they were willing to admit of, they prefixt before it the Consulate, the month, and the day of the present year, in order to their making it manifest to all prudent persons, that their Faith had not its beginning before, but now under the Reign of Constantius. For, they have written h 5.113 all things with a respect had to their own Heresie. Beside••, pretending to write concerning the Lord, they name another to be their Lord, [to wit,] Constantius. For he it was, who influenced and authorized their impiety. And they who deny the Son to be Eternal, have stiled him i 5.114 Eternal Em∣perour: such bitter enemies are they against Christ, by reason of their impiety! But perhaps, the holy Prophets specifying of the time [where∣in they prophesied] gave them an occasion of assigning the Consulate. Now, should they be so audacious as to assert this, they would most egregiously betray their own ignorance. For the prophe∣sies of th••se holy persons do indeed contain a mention of the times. Isaiah and Hosea lived * 5.115 in the days of Uzziah, Jo∣tham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Jere∣miah, † 5.116 in the days of Josiah. Ezekiel and Daniel [flou∣rish't] under Cyrus and Da∣rius. And others prophesied in other times: but they did not then lay the foundations of Re∣ligion. For that was in being before their times, and always was, even before the foun∣dation of the world, God ha∣ving prepared it for us by Christ. Nor did they thereby manifest the times of their own Faith. For even before those times they themselves were belie∣vers. But the times [which they mention] were the times of the Promise [which God made] by them. Now, the chief and principal head of the Promise was concerning our Saviours Advent. And by way of * 5.117 Appendix those things were added which should in future happen to Israel and to the Gentiles. These were the times manifested [by them, where∣by was declared] not the beginning of Faith, as we said before, but the times wherein those Pro∣phets themselves lived and foretold these things. But these † 5.118 Wise men in our days (whenas they neither compose Histories, nor predict future things, but) having written [these words,] The Catholick Faith was published, immediately add the Consulate, the month, and the day. And, as those holy persons wrote the History of affairs [in their age, and noted] the times of their own ministration; so these men do manifest the time of their own Faith. And would to God they had written concerning their own Faith only; (for now they first began to believe:) and had not attempted [to write] concerning the Catho∣lick [Faith!] For they have not written, Thus we believe: but after this manner, The Catho∣lick Faith was published. The audaciousness therefore of this design does reprehend their im∣piety: but the novelty of the * 5.119 Expression by them invented is altogether like the Arian Heresie. For by their writing after this manner they have informed [all persons,] when they themselves be∣gan first to believe; and from what instant they are desirous their Faith should be Preached. And▪ ac∣cording to that saying of Luke the Evangelist, * 5.120 A Decree [of Enrolment] was published; (which [Edict] was not before, but it began from those times, and was published by him that wrote it:) so these persons by writing thus, The Faith is now published, have demonstrated, that the Tenets of their Heresie are novitious, and were not in former times. But, in as much as they add the term Catholick, they are insensible of their fal∣ling into the k 5.121 impious opi∣nion of the † 5.122 Cataphrygae: and as they did, so do these assert, [saying,] the Faith of the Christians was first revealed to us, and took its beginning from us. And, as they stiled Maximilla and Montanus, so these term Con∣stantius their Lord and Ma∣ster, instead of Christ. But if, according to them, the Faith took its beginning from this Consulate, what will the Fathers, and the blessed Martyrs do? Moreover, what will they themselves do with such persons as were catechized and instructed by them, and died before this Con∣sulate? How will they raise them to life again, that they may root out of their minds what they seemed to have taught them, and implant in them those [sentiments,] which, as they write, are newly invented by them? To such a degree of ignorance are they arrived, being only well skilled in framing Pretexts, and they such as are undecent and im∣probable, and which may be presently confuted.

Thus wrote Athanasius to those of his ac∣quaintance. Such as are Lovers of learning (af∣ter they have found out this letter) may under∣stand the powerfull expressions therein contained. For we, having an aversion for prolixity, have inserted but part thereof here. Further, you are to take notice, that the Synod deposed Valens, Ursacius, Auxentius, Germinius, Caius, and De∣mophilus, because they would not Anathematize the Arian opinion. Wherefore they highly re∣senting their deposition, hastned forthwith to the Emperour, carrying along with them that Draught of the Creed which had been read in the Synod. And the Synod acquainted the Em∣perour with their determinations, by their let∣ter: the purport whereof, being translated out of Latine into Greek, is this.

The Letter of the Ariminum Synod to the Emperour Constantius.

l 6.1 By Gods will, and the Command of your Piety,

we believe Order has been taken, that we Western Bishops should come out of divers Provinces to the * 6.2 City of Ariminum: that the Faith of the Ca∣tholick Church might be made apparent to all men, and that Hereticks might be notified. For whilst all of us (who entertain such sentiments as are true) could review and consider matters, our determina∣tion was to hold the Faith which hath continued from [all] antiquity, which we have received by the Prophets, Gospels, and Apostles, by God himself and our Lord Jesus Christ, the preserver of your Empire and Doner of your † 6.3 safety. For we ac∣counted it a thing detestable to maim any of those matters which have been rightly and justly deter∣mined; and [to take away any thing] from those persons, who were Assessours in the Nicene * 6.4 Treaty, together with Constantine of glorious Memory the Father of your Piety. Which Treaty hath been ma∣nifested and insinuated into the minds of the people, and is found to have been then opposed to the Arian heresie, in such manner that not only that, but other he∣resies also have thereby been vanquished. From which Treaty should any thing be taken away, a passage would be opened to the poison of Hereticks. m 6.5 Therefore Ursa∣cius and Valens sometime lay under a suspicion of [being ad∣herents to] the same Arian he∣resie, and they were suspended from communion. They also begged pardon, as the contents of their Libel do manifest. Which they procured at that time from the n 6.6 Council of Millaine, the Embassadours of the Church of Rome al∣so assisting. Constantine be∣ing present in this [Con∣sult,] in regard after a searching disquisition, that [Creed] had been drawn up, (which he believing, and being baptized, departed to Gods rest,) we look upon it as a thing detestable, to make any † 6.7 Mutilations therein, or in any thing to set aside so many Saints, Confessours, and successours of the Martyrs, who were composers of that Treaty; in regard they have kept all things [asserted by] the past Writers of the Catholick Church. And it hath continued to these very times, wherein Your Piety hath received the power of Ruling the world from God the Father by God and our Lord Jesus Christ. But [these] wretched men, en∣dewed with an unhappy * 6.8 Sense, have again by a temerarious attempt proclaimed themselves the set∣ters forth of impious Doctrine: and even now they endeavour to shake what had been founded in rea∣son. For when the Letters of Your Piety orde∣red that the Faith should be Treated of, there was proposed to us by the forenamed disturbers of the Churches (Germinius, Auxentius, and Caius having joyned themselves to them,) a new [Creed] to be considered of, which contained much perverse Doctrine. But when the Creed they proposed publickly in the Council seemed to dis∣please, their sentiments were that it was to be drawn up otherwise. And it is manifest, that they have in a short time often p 6.9 altered these things. But lest the Churches should be frequently distur∣bed, we have determined that the ancient san∣ctions ought to be kept ratified and inviolable; and that the forementioned persons should be re∣moved from our communion. In order therefore to the informing of Your Clemency, we have di∣rected our Legates, who by our Letter will declare the opinion of the Council. To whom we have given this particular only in charge, that they should dis∣patch their Embassie no otherwise, than that the an∣cient Sanctions may continue firm and inviolable: as also that Your Wisdom might know, that peace cannot be accomplished by this which the forenamed Valens, Ursacius, Germinius, and Caius have pro∣mised, if any thing had been * 6.10 altered. For how can peace be kept by those who subvert peace? For all Regions, and especially the Roman Church hath been involved in greater disturbances. Upon which account we beseech Your Clemency, that You would hear and look upon all our Legates with favourable ears, and a serene countenance: q 6.11 and that Your Clemency would not permit any thing to be reversed to the injury of the Ancients, but that all things may continue which we have received from our An∣cestours, who (we are con∣fident) were prudent persons, and acted not without the holy Spirit of God. Because, not only the believing Populace are disquieted by that novel∣ty, but also Infidels are pro∣hibited from making their ap∣proaches to a r 6.12 credulity. We also entreat, that You would give order, that as many Bi∣shops as are deteined at Ari∣minum (amongst which there are many that are enfeebled with age and poverty,) may return to their Province; lest the Populace of the Churches suffer dammage by being destitute of their Bi∣shops. But we do with more earnestness petition for this, that no innovation may be made, nothing may be diminished; but that those things may re∣main uncorrupted which have continued in the times of the Father of Your holy Piety, and in Your own Religious days. And, that Your holy Prudence would not suffer us to be wearied out, and ravisht from our Secs: but that the Bishops with their Laity, free from disquietude, may al∣ways attend the [putting up their] Petitions, which they * 6.13 make for Your health, for Your Em∣pire, and for peace, which may the Divinity grant You to be profound and perpetual, according to Your deserts. Our Embassadours will bring both the subscriptions and also the names of the Bishops or Legates; as they will inform Your s 6.14 holy and Religious Prudence by another writing.

Thus wrote the Synod, and sent it by the Bi∣shops. But Ursacius and Valens having pre∣vented their Arrival, did before-hand calum∣niate the Synod, shewing [the Emperour] the Draught of the Creed, which they had brought along with them. The Emperour, whose mind had been long since wholly addicted to the Arian opinion, was highly incensed against the Synod: but had a great esteem and honour for Valens and Ursacius. Wherefore, the persons sent by the Synod staied a long while, being unable to get

an answer. But at length the Emperour wrote back to the Synod by those that were present, after this manner.

t 7.1 CONSTANTIUS VICTOR and TRIUMPHATOR AUGUSTUS, to all the Bishops convened at Ariminum.

That our Chiefest care is always employed a∣bout the Divine and venerable Law, even your goodness is not ignorant. Notwithstanding, We could not hitherto see the twenty Bishops sent from your Prudence, who undertook the dispatch of the Embassie from you. For we are wholly intent upon an expedition against the Barbarians. And, as you know, 'tis fit that a mind exercised about the Divine Law, should be vacated from all care and sollicitude. Wherefore We have ordered the Bishops to expect Our return to Adrianople, that, after the publick affairs shall be put into a good and settled posture, we may at length hear and deli∣berate upon what they shall propose. In the in∣terim, let it not seem troublesome to your gravity to wait for their return, in regard, when they shall come back and bring You our answer, you will be enabled to bring to a conclusion such things as appertain to the utility of the Catholick Church. When the Bishops had received this Letter, they returned an answer, after this manner.

We have received Your Clemencies Letter, (Lord Emperour Most dear to God!) wherein is conteined, that by reason of the pressing necessity of publick bu∣siness, You could not hitherto see our Embassadours. And You order us to expect their return, till such time as Your Piety shall understand from them what hath been determined by us agreeable to [the tra∣dition of] our Ancestours. But we do by this Letter profess and affirm, that we do in no wise recede from our resolution. And this we have given in charge to our Embassadours. We desire therefore, that with a serene countenance You would both order this present Letter of our Meanness to be read; and also gratiously admit of those things which we have given in charge to our Embassa∣dours. Undoubtedly, Your mildness, as well as we, doth perceive, how great the grief and sad∣ness at present is [every where,] in regard so many Churches are destitute of their Bishops in these most blessed times of Yours. And therefore, we again beseech Your Clemency, (Lord Empe∣rour Most dear to God!) that before the sharpness of winter (if it may please Your Piety,) You would command us to return to our Churches, in order to our being enabled to * 7.2 put up our usual prayers together with the people, to Almighty God, and to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, his only be∣gotten Son, in behalf of Your Empire, in such man∣ner as we have always done, and now most ear∣nestly desire to do.

After they had written this Letter, and con∣tinued together some small time; in regard the Emperour would not vouchsafe them an answer, they departed every one to his own City. But the Emperour had long before had a designe of disseminating the Arian opinion throughout the Churches. Which he then earnestly endea∣vouring to effect, made their departure a pretext of Contumely, saying that he was despised by them, in regard they had dissolved [the Coun∣cil] contrary to his will. Wherefore, he gave Ursacius's party free liberty of doing what they pleased against the Churches. He also com∣manded, that that Draught of the Creed which had been read at Ariminum, should be sent to the Churches throughout Italy, giving order that such as would not subscribe it, should be put out of the Churches, and others substituted in their places. And in the first place u 7.3 Liberius Bishop of Rome, having refused to give his consent to that Creed, is banished, the * 7.4 Ur∣sacians having substituted Fe∣lix in his place. This Fe∣lix being a Deacon in the Church of Rome, x 7.5 embraced the Arian opinion, and was preferred to that Bishoprick. But there are some who affirm, that he was not add••cted to the Arian opinion, but was by force necessi∣tated to be ordained Bishop. At that time there∣fore all places in the West were filled with in∣novations and disturbances, some being ejected and banished, and others put into their places. And these things were transacted by force, and the au∣thority of the Imperial Edicts, which were also sent into the Eastern parts. Indeed, not long after Li∣berius was recalled from banishment and recovered his own See; the people of Rome having raised a Se∣dition, and ejected Felix out of that Church: at which time the Emperour gave them his consent thereto against his will. But the Ursacians left Ita∣ly, went into the Eastern parts, and arrived at a City of Thracia, the name whereof was Nice. Where∣in after they had continued some small time, they made up y 7.6 another Synod there. And having translated that form of the Creed, read at Ari∣minum, into the Greek tongue, (as it has been before related,) they published and confirmed it, giving out that that Creed, which was made publick by them at Nice, had been dictated by an Oëcumenicall Synod; their design being to im∣pose upon the simpler sort of people by the like∣ness of the [Cities] name. For such persons were ready to think that it was the Creed pub∣lished at Nicaea a City of Bithynia. But this cheat was not at all advantagious to them: for it was soon detected; and they themselves con∣tinued to be exposed to the reproach and laughter of all men. Let thus much be said concerning what was transacted in the Western parts. We must now pass to the relation of what was done at the same time in the East. And our Narrative must begin from hence.

CHAP. XXXVIII. Concerning the Cruelty of Macedonius, and the Tumults by him raised.

THe Bishops of the Arian party assumed a greater degree of boldness from the Im∣perial Edicts. And upon what account they at∣tempted to convene a Synod, we will relate a lit∣tle afterwards. But we will first briefly recite

those things done by them before the Synod Acacius and Patrophilus having ejected Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem, placed Cyrillus in his See. Macedonius subverted the Provinces and Cities a 7.7 lying near to Constantino∣ple, preferring those that were embarqued in the same wicked design with him a∣gainst the Churches. He or∣dained Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum; and Marathonius Bishop of Nicomedia, who had before been a Deacon, placed under Macedonius: he was also very diligent in founding Monasteries of men and women. But after what manner Macedonius subver∣ted the Provinces and Cities which lay round Constanti∣nople, we are now to declare. This person therefore, ha∣ving possest himself of the Bishoprick in such a man∣ner as is * 7.8 before related, did innu∣merable mischiefs to those who would not entertain the same sentiments with him. Nor did he persecute those only who were discerned [to be members] of the Church, but the Novations also, knowing that they al∣so embraced the Homoöusian Faith. These therefore were together with the others disquieted, undergoing most deplorable sufferings. † 7.9 Their Bishop, by name Agelius, made his escape by ••light: But many of them, eminent for their piety, were taken, and tortured, because they would not com∣municate with him. And after their tortures, they forcibly constrained the men to partake of the holy * 7.10 mysteries. For they wrested their mouthes open with a piece of wood, and thrust the Sacrament into them. Such persons as un∣derwent this usage, looked upon it to be a punish∣ment far exceeding all other tortures. Moreover, they snatcht up the women and children, and forced them to be initiated [by Baptism.] And if any one refused, or otherwise spoke against this, stripes im∣mediately followed, and after stripes bonds, impri∣sonments, and other accute tortures. One or two [instances] whereof I will mention, that I may ren∣der the hearers sensible of the apparent barbarity and cruelty of Macedonius and those persons who were then in power. They squeezed the breasts of those women who refused to be communicants with them in the Sacrament, between [the doors of] † 7.11 Presses, and cut them off with a Saw. They burnt the same members of other women, partly with iron, and partly with eggs exceedingly hea∣ted in the fire. This new sort of torture, which even the Heathens never used towards us, was invented by those who professed themselves Chri∣stians. These things I heard from the long-liv'd Auxano, of whom I have made mention in the first Book. He was a Presbyter in the Church of the Novatians. And he reported that he himself indured not a few miseries [inflicted up∣on him] by the Arians, before he received the dignity of a Presbyter. For he said that he was cast into Prison together with Alexander Paph∣lagon, (who with him led a monastick life,) and sustained innumerable stripes. Which tor∣tures [as he related] he was enabled to indure: but Alexander died in Prison by reason of his stripes. His Sepulchre is now [to be seen,] on the right hand as you sail into the Byzantine Bay, which is named b 7.12 Ceras, near the Rivers: where there is a Church of the Novati∣ans, which bears Alexan∣ders name. Moreover, the Arians, by Macedonius's order, demolished many o∣ther Churches in divers Ci∣ties; as also a Church of the Novatians, scituate in Constantinople near Pelargus. Why I have made particu∣lar mention of this Church, I will here declare, as I heard it from the very aged c 7.13 Auxano. The Emperours Edict and Macedonius's vio∣lence gave order for the demolishing of their Chur∣ches who embraced the Homoöusian opinion. This Edict and Violence * 7.14 threat∣ned this Church also with ruine, and they were at hand, to whom the execution hereof was commit∣ted. I cannot choose but ad∣mire, when I reflect upon the great zeal and earnestness of the Novatians towards their Church, and the kindness which they had for those per∣sons, who at that time were ejected out of the Church by the Arians, but do now peace∣ably and quietly enjoy their Churches! When therefore they, to whom the execution hereof was enjoyned, were ur∣gent to demolish this Church also, a great multitude of peo∣ple that were Novatians, and others who embraced the same sentiments with them, flock't together thither. And when they had pulled down their Church, they conveyed it to another place. This place is scituate over against the City [Constantinople;] the name of it is Sycae, and 'tis the thirteenth Ward of the City. Moreover, the removal of the Church was performed in a very short time, it being carried away by a numerous multitude of people with an incredible alacrity of mind. For one carried Tiles; another Stones; a third Timber. Some took up one thing, some another, and carried it to Sycae. Yea, the very women and little children assisted in this business, look∣ing upon it as an accomplishment of their desires, and esteeming it as a great gain, that they were vouchsafed to be pure and faithful preservers of the things consecrated to God. In this manner there∣fore was the Church of the Novatians at that time removed to Sycae. But afterwards, when Constantius was dead, the Emperour Julian or∣dered the place to be restored to them, and per∣mitted them to rebuild their Church. At which

time the people, in the same manner as before, carried the materialls back again, and built the Church in its former place: and having made it more beautifull and stately, they would have it called * 7.15 Anastasia, a name apposite and signifi∣cative. This Church therefore was afterwards erected again, as I said, in the Reign of Ju∣lian. But then both parties, as well the Catholicks as the Novatians, were after the same manner persecuted. Wherefore the Catholicks ab∣horred to d 7.16 pray in those Oratories, wherein the Ari∣ans assembled themselves. But, in the other three Churches (for so many O∣ratories the Novatians had within the Ci••y [Constan∣tinople]) the Catholicks assembled with them, and prayed together. And there wanted but little of their being entirely united, had not the Novatians, who ob∣served their old injunction, refused to do that. But as to other matters, they preser∣ved such a singular benevo∣lence and kindness mutually, that they * 7.17 were rea∣dy to die for one another. Therefore both parties were at the same time persecuted, not only in the City Constanti∣nople, but in other Provinces and Cities also. For in Cy∣zicum, Eleusius the Bishop there did the same things against the Christians that were acted by Macedonius, putting them to flight and disquie∣ting them every where. He also totally demo∣lished the Church of the Novatians at Cyzicum. But Macedonius finished the enormous Villanies he had perpetrated, after this manner. Being in∣formed that in the Province of Paphlagonia, and especially at Mantinium, there were very many persons of the Novatian Sect, and perceiving that so great a multitude could not be driven [from their habitations] by Ecclesiastick persons, he procured four * 7.18 Companies of Souldiers to be by the Emperours order sent into Paphlagonia; that being terrified by those armed men, they might be induced to embrace the Arian opinion. But they who inhabited Mantinium, out of a zeal to [defend] their Sect, made use of despe∣ration against the Souldiers. And many of them getting together in one Body, and providing themselves with long Hooks and Hatchets, and whatever weapon they could lay hands on, they Marched out to meet the Souldiers. An En∣gagement therefore hapning, many of the Paphla∣gonians were therein slain: but all the Souldiers (except a very few) were cut off. This I heard from a Country man of Paphlagonia, who said he was present at that action. But many other Paphlagonians do affirm the same. Of this sort were Macedonius's brave exploits in defence of Christianity, [to wit,] Murders, Fights, Capti∣vities, and intestine Wars. But these practises of Macedpnius's raised a deserved † 7.19 Odium a∣gainst him, not only amongst those he had in∣jured, but amongst them also who were his ad∣herents. Yea, the Emperour himself was offen∣ded at him, both upon this account, and also for another reason, which was this. The Church, wherein lay the Coffin that contained the body of the Emperour Constantine, was threatned with Ruine. e 7.20 Wherefore for this reason, as well they who had entred that Church, as those that continued in it and prayed, were in a great fear. Macedonius therefore resolved to remove the Emperours bones, that the coffin might not be f 7.21 spoiled by the ruine [of the Church.] The people understanding this, attempted to hinder it, saying that the Emperours bones ought not to be removed; in regard that would be the same, as if they were dug up again. Imme∣diately the people were divided into two parties. The one affirmed, that no hurt could be done to the dead body by its being removed: the other side asserted it to be an impious thing. Those of the Homoöusian opinion met together also, and opposed the doing hereof. But Ma∣cedonius, disregarding those that resisted him, removes the body of the Emperour into that Church, wherein lies Acacius the Martyr's body. This being done, the multitude, divided into two parties, ran forthwith to that Church: and when the two Factions were drawn up against each other, immediately an engagement followed: Wherein so great a number of men were slain, that that Church-yard was full of bloud; g 7.22 and the Well therein overflowed with bloud, which ran even into the adjacent Portico, and from thence into the very street. The Emperour, informed of this calamitous accident, was incensed against Macedonius, both upon ac∣count of those that were slain, and also because he had been so audacious as to remove his Fathers body without his consent. Having therefore lest Julianus the Caesar to take care of the We∣stern parts of the Empire, he himself went into the East. But, how Macedonius was soon after this deposed, and underwent a punishment short of his enormous impieties, I will relate a little afterwards.

CHAP. XXXIX. Concerning the Synod at Seleucia [a city] of Isauria.

BUt at present, I must give an account of the other Synod, which by the Emperours Edict was to emulate that at Ariminum in the East. At first it was determined, that the Bi∣shops should be convened at Nicomedia in Bi∣thynia. But, a great earthquake, whereby the City Nicomedia hapned to be ruined hindred their being convened at that place. This hapned in the

Consulate of a 7.23 Dacianus and Cerealis, about the eight and twentieth day of the month August. They resolved therefore upon removing the Sy∣nod to the City Nicaea which was near to it. But this resolution was again altered: and it seemed [more convenient] to meet at Tarsus a City of Cilicia. When this displeased them also, they were assembled at Seleucia [a City] of Isauria, which is surnamed Aspera. This they did on the b 7.24 same year [whereon the Ariminum Council was held,] in the Con∣sulate of Eusebius and Hypatius. The persons convened were in number an hundred and sixty. There was present with them a personage eminent in the Imperial pallace, his name c 7.25 Leonas; in whose presence, as the Emperour had given order by his Edict, the disquisition about the Faith was to be proposed. Lauricius also the Comman∣der in chief of the Souldiers throughout Isauria, was ordered to be there, to provide the Bishops with what necessaries they might stand in need of. At this place therefore [the Bishops] were convened in the presence of these persons, on the twenty seventh of the month September, and began to dispute about making of publick Acts. For there were Notaries present also, who were to take in writing what was spoken by every one of them. A particular account of all matters then transacted, the studious Readers may find in Sabinus's Collection, where they are set forth at large. But we shall only cursorily relate the chief heads thereof. On the first day of their being convened, Leonas ordered every one to propose what they would. But such as were present said, that no dispute ought to be raised, before the persons absent were come. For these Bishops were wanting, Macedonius of Constantinople, Basi∣lius of Ancyra, and some others, who suspected they should be accused. Macedonius excused his ab∣sence by saying he was sick. Patrophilus affirmed he had a distemper in his eyes, and was therefore necessitated to continue in the Suburbs of Seleucia. All the rest proposed one occasion or other of their being absent. But, in regard Leonas said, that, notwithstanding the absence of these per∣sons, the question was to be proposed; those that were present made answer again, that they would in no wise enter into any debate, be∣fore the * 7.26 Moralls of those accused were in∣quired into. For Cyrillus of Jerusalem, Eu∣stathius of Sebastia in Armenia, and some others had been accused some time before. Hereupon arose a sharp contest amongst those that were present. For some affirmed, that the Moralls of such as had been accused were in the first place to be lookt into: others were of opinion, that no controversie ought to be discussed be∣fore [that concerning] the Faith. This Con∣test was raised by the different opinion of the Emperour. For his Letter was produced, in one passage whereof he gave order for the de∣bating of this matter in the first place, in another for that. A disagreement therefore hapning con∣cerning this matter, a Schism was made amongst the persons present. And this was the original cause of the Seleucian-Synods being divided into two parties. The one faction was headed by A∣cacius [Bishop] of Caesarea in Palestine, Geor∣gius of Alexandria, Uranius of Tyre, and Eu∣doxius of Antioch: of the same mind with whom there were only two and thirty other [Bishops.] The principal persons of the other faction were Georgius of Laodicea in Syria, So∣phronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, and Eleu∣sius of Cyzicum; who were followed by the major part. When therefore that side prevailed which was for debating in the first place concerning the Faith, Acacius's party manifestly rejected the Nicene Creed, and intimated the publication of another. But those of the other faction, who were superiour in number, approved of all o∣ther matters [determined] in the Nicene Sy∣nod; excepting only the term Homoöusios, which they found fault with. Therefore, after a very sharp contest amongst one another untill Evening, at length Silvanus (who presided over the Church at Tarsus) spake a loud, saying, there was no necessity of publishing a new Draught of the Creed, but that they ought rather to confirm that set forth at Antioch, at the consecration of the Church. When he had said this, Acacius's party secretly withdrew [out of the Council:] but the other faction produced the Creed [com∣posed] at Antioch, after the reading whereof the Council broke up for that day. On the next day they met in a Church in Seleucia, and having shut the doors, they read that Creed, and con∣firmed it by their subscriptions. Instead of some [Bishops] who were absent, the Readers and Deacons there present subscribed, by whom the absent persons had professed, that they would acquiess in that Draught [of the Creed.]

CHAP. XL. That Acacius [Bishop] of Caesarea dictated another Draught of the Creed, in the Synod at Seleucia.

BUt Acacius, and those of his party found fault with what was done, because they had subscribed covertly when the Church-doors were shut. For matters, said he, transacted in secret were naught, and to be suspected. He made these objections, because he was desirous of pub∣lishing another Draught of the Creed instead of that [subscribed by them,] which [form] he had about him, ready drawn up, and had before recited it to Lauricius and Leonas the Governours: and he made it his whole business to get that Draught only established and confir∣med. These were the transactions of the second day, when nothing else was done. On the third

day, Leonas was again very earnest to procu••e a meeting of both parties. At which time nei∣ther Macedonius of Constantinople, nor Basilius of Ancyra were absent. When therefore both these persons had joyned themselves to one and the same faction, the Acacians were again un∣willing to meet, saying, that as well those who had before been deposed, as them at present accused, ought in the first place to be put out of the assembly. After a great contest on both sides, at length this opinion was prevalent, the persons charged with an accusation went out; and the Acacians came in. Then Leonas said, that Acacius had delivered a Libell to him; [Leonas] not discovering it to be a Draught of the Creed, which in some passages secretly, in others openly contradicted the former. When silence was made amongst those that were present, (they sup∣posing the Libel to contain any thing else, rather than a form of the Creed;) Acacius's com∣posure of the Creed with a Preface thereto was then recited, the Contents whereof are these.

We having met together at Seleucia [a City] of Isauria (according to the Emperours Command) yesterday, which was before the fifth of the Calends of October, used our utmost endeavour with all modesly to preserve the peace of the Church, sted∣fastly to determine concerning the Faith (as our Emperour Constantius most dear to God hath or∣dered) according to the Prophetick and Evange∣lick expressions, and to introduce nothing into the Ecclesiastick Faith contrary to the Divine Scri∣ptures. But in regard certain persons in the Synod have injured some of us; have stopt the mouths of others, not permitting them to speak: have ex∣cluded othersome against their wills: have brought along with them out of divers Provinces persons deposed; and have in their company such as have been ordained contrary to the Canon [of the Church:] in so much that the Synod is on all sides filled with tumult, a 7.27 of which the most eminent Lau∣ricius president of the Pro∣vince, and the most Illustrious Leonas the Comes, have been eye-witnesses: upon this account we interpose these things. Not that we forsake the Authen∣tick Faith published at the Consecration at Antioch, but we give that the preference, especially in regard our Fa∣thers concurred about the pro∣position at that time in con∣troversie. But whereas the terms Homoöusion and * 7.28 Homoiöusion have in times past disturbed very many, and do still dis∣quiet them: and moreover, whereas 'tis said that there is an innovation lately coyned by some, who assert a dissimilitude of the Son to the Father. Upon this account we reject Homoöusion and Ho∣moiöusion, as being terms not to be met with in the Scriptures; but we anathematize the term † 7.29 Ano∣moion: and do look upon all such, as are asser∣tours thereof, to be persons alienated from the Church. But we do manifestly profess the like∣ness of the Son to the Father, agreeable to the Apostle, that hath said concerning the Son, ‖ 7.30 Who is the image of the invisible God.

We acknowledge therefore, and believe in one God, the Father Almighty: the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. More∣over, We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, begotten of him without any passion before all ages, God the Word, the only begotten of God, the Light, the Life, the Truth; the Wisedom: by whom all things were made, which are in the hea∣vens, and which are on the earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe him to have assumed flesh from the holy Virgin Mary, at the consummation of ages, in order to the abolition of sin: and that he was made man, that he suffered for our sins, and rose again, and was taken up into the Heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and that he shall come again in Glory to judge the quick and dead. We believe also in the holy Ghost, whom our Lord and Saviour hath termed The Paraclete, having promised, after his depar∣ture, to send him to his disciples, and he sent him. By whom also he sanctifies [all] Believers in the Church, who are Baptized in the name of the Fa∣ther, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. But those who Preach any thing contrary to this Creed, [b 7.31 we look upon] to be alienated from the Catho∣lick Church.

This is the Draught of the Creed published by Acacius. The persons who subscribed it were Acacius himself, and such as adhered to his opinion, being as many in number, as we have mentioned a little before. After the recitation here∣of, Sophronius [Bishop] of Pompeiopolis in Paphla∣gonia spake these words aloud: If to explain our own particular opinion every day be the exposi∣tion of the Faith, we shall be destitute of the exact discussion of the truth. These words were spoken by Sophronius. And I do affirm, that if as well those who lived before these men, as they that succeeded them, had at first entertained such sentiments concerning the Nicene Creed; all contentious disputes would have ceased, nor would a violent and irrational disturbance have been prevalent in the Churches. But let such as are prudent pass their judgment concerning the state of these matters. After they had mu∣tually spoken and heard many things concerning this business, and concerning the persons accused, the convention was for that time dissolved. On the fourth day they all met again in the same place, and with the same contentiousness began to dispute again. Amongst whom Acacius ex∣plained his opinion in these words: in as much as the Nicene Creed hath been once, and after that frequently, altered, nothing hinders, but a new Creed may be now published. Hereto Eleusius [Bishop] of Cyzicum made a return, and said; the Synod is at present convened, not

that it should learn c 7.32 what it had not the know∣ledge of before, nor to receive a Creed which it was not heretofore in possession of: but that, proceeding on in the Creed of the Fathers, it should never recede from it, either during life, or at the time of death. With these words Eleusius opposed Acacius's opinion, terming that Creed published at Antioch the Fathers Creed. But any one might have answered him also, in these words: how is it, that you stile those con∣vened at Antioch the Fathers, O Eleusius, where∣as you acknowledge not their Fathers? For they who were assembled at Nice, and by their con∣sent firmed the Homoöusian Faith, ought more properly to be termed the Fathers, both because they preceded in time, and also in regard those convened at Antioch were by them promoted to the Sacerdotal dignity. Now, if those [assem∣bled] at Antioch have rejected their own Fa∣thers, they who come after them do not per∣ceive themselves to be followers of Parricides. Moreover, how can they have admitted their Ordination to be Legitimate, whose Faith they have rejected as impious? For if those persons had not the holy Ghost, which is infused by Or∣dination, these have not received the Priesthood. For how could these have received [it] from them, who had it not to give? These words might have been spoken in opposition to what was said by Eleusius. After this they proceeded to another question. For, in regard the Acacians asserted in that Draught of the Creed which had been recited, that the Son was like the Father, they enquired of one another, in what respect the Son was like the Father. The Acacians as∣serted, that the Son was like the Father in respect of his Will only, not as to his Essence. But all the rest maintained, [that he was like the Fa∣ther] in respect of his Essence also. They spent the whole day in their altercations about this query; and they confuted Acacius, because in the books by him composed and published, he had asserted that the Son is in all things like the Father. And how can you (said they) now deny the likeness of the Son to the Father as to his Es∣sence? Acacius made this answer, no modern or ancient Authour was ever condemned out of his own writings. When they had maintained a tedious, fierce, and subtle dispute against one an∣other concerning this question, and could in no wise be brought to an agreement, Leonas arose, and dissolved the Council. And this was the con∣clusion, which the Synod held at Seleucia had. For on the day after, Leonas being intreated, re∣fused to come any more into the Congress, say∣ing that he had been sent by the Emperour, to be present at an unanimous Synod. But in re∣gard some of you do disagree, I cannot (said he) be there; go therefore and prate in the Church. The Acacians looking upon what had been done to be a great advantage to them, re∣fused to meet also. But those of the other par∣ty met together in the Church, and sent for the Acacians, that cognizance might be taken of the Case of Cyrillus Bishop of Jerusalem. For you must know that Cyrillus had been accused before; upon what account, I cannot tell. But he was deposed, because having been frequently sum∣moned in order to the examination of his cause, he had not made his appearance during the space of two whole years. Nevertheless when he was deposed, he sent an Appellatory Libel to them who had deposed him, and appealed to an higher Court of Judicature. To which appeal of his the Emperour Constantius gave his assent. In∣deed, Cyrillus was the d 7.33 first and only person, who (contrary to the usage of the Ecclesiastick Canon) did this, [to wit,] made use of Ap∣peals, as 'tis usually done in the publick [se∣cular] Courts of Judicature. He was at that time present at Seleucia, ready to put himself upon his trial: and therefore the Bishops cal∣led the Acacians into the assembly, (as we have said a little before,) that e 7.34 by a general consent they might pass a definitive sentence against the persons accused. For they had cited some other persons besides, that were accused, who for refuge had joyned themselves to Acacius's party. But in regard, after their being frequently summoned, they refused to meet, [the Bishops] deposed both Acacius himself, and also Georgius of Alex∣andria, f 7.35 Uranius of Tyre, g 7.36 Theodulus of Chae∣retapi in Phrygia, Theodosius of Philadelphia in Lydia, Evagrius of the Island Mytilene, Leon∣tius of Tripolis in Lydia, and Eudoxius who had heretofore been Bishop of Germanicia, but had afterwards crept into the Bishoprick of Antioch in Syria. Moreover, they deposed h 7.37 Patrophi∣lus, because being accused by Dorotheus a Pres∣byter, and summoned by them to make his de∣fence, he was contumacious. These persons they deposed. But they Excommunicated Asterius, Eusebius, Abgarus, Basilicus, Phoebus, Fidelis, Eutychius, Magnus, and Eustathius: determining they should continue Excommunicate, till such time as by * 7.38 making satisfaction they had cleared themselves of their ac∣cusations. Having done this, and written Letters concerning those Bi∣shops they had deposed to each of their Churches, they constitute a Bishop of Antioch, in the room of Eudoxius, whose name was An∣nianus. Whom the Acacians [soon after] ap∣prehended, and delivered him to Leonas and Lau∣ricius, by whom he was banished. Those Bi∣shops who had Ordained Annianus [being in∣censed] hereat, deposited i 7.39 Contestatory Libels against the Acacians with Leonas and Lauri∣cius, by which they openly declared, that the determination of the Synod was injured. And when nothing further could be done, they went to Constantinople, to inform the Emperour con∣cerning the matters determined by them.

CHAP. XLI. That, upon the Emperours return from the Western parts, the Acacians were convened in the City of Constantinople, and firmed the Ariminum Creed, making some additions to it.

FOr the Emperour, being returned from the Western parts, resided [in that City:] at which time also he made a person whole name was a 7.40 Honoratus the first Praefect of Constanti∣nople; having b 7.41 abolished the Proconsul's Of∣fice. But the Acacians prevented and calum∣niated them before-hand to the Emperour, having informed him, that the c 7.42 Creed which they had set forth was not admitted by them. Whereupon the Emperour was highly incensed, and resolved to disperse them, having commanded by an Edict [which he published,] that such of them as were subject to publick Offices, should be reduced to their former condition. For several of them were liable to [publick] Offices; some [were sub∣ject to the bearing of those Offices belonging] to the City Magistracy; others [to them apper∣taining] to the d 7.43 Sodalities of Officialls or Appa∣ritours in several Provinces. These persons be∣ing after this manner disturbed, the Acacians a∣bode for some time at Constantinople, and assem∣bled another Synod, to which they sent for the Bishops of Bithynia. When therefore they were all met together, being e 7.44 fifty in number, amongst whom was Maris of Chalcedon, they confirmed the Creed published at Ariminum, which had the Consuls names prefixt. Which Creed it would have been superfluous to have inserted here, had they made no additions to it. But in regard they added some words thereto, we thought it necessary to set it down at this place again. The contents of it are these.

We Believe in one only God, the Father Almighty, of whom are all things. And in the only begotten Son of God, begotten of God before all ages, and before every beginning: by whom all things, visible and invisible, were made. * 7.45 Who is the only begotten born of the Father, the only of the only, God of God, like to the Father (who begat him) according to the Scriptures. Whose generation no person know∣eth, but the Father only, who begat him. We know this Person [to be] the only begotten Son of God, who upon his Father's sending of him, came down from the heavens, according as 'tis written, upon account of the destruction of Sin and Death: and was born of the holy Ghost, and of the Virgin Mary according to the flesh, as it is written, and conversed with the disciples; and having fulfilled every dispensation according to his Fathers Will, he was crucified, and died, and was buryed, and descended into the parts beneath the earth. At whom hell it self trembled. Who arose from the dead on the third day, and was conversant with the disciples: and after the completion of fourty days, he was taken up into the Heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; he shall come in the last day of the Resurrection in his Fathers Glory, that he may render to every man according to his works. And [we believe] in the holy Ghost, whom he him∣self the only begotten of God, Christ our Lord and God, promised to send as an Advocate to mankind, according as 'tis written, the Spirit of truth; whom he sent unto them, after he was assumed into the Heavens. But we thought good to remove the term * 7.46 Ousia, (which was used by the Fathers in a more plain and ordinary sense, and being not understood by the people, has given offence,) in regard 'tis not contained in the sacred Scriptures; and that in future not the least mention should be made thereof, for as much as the sacred Scri∣ptures have no where mentioned the substance of the Father and of the Son. f 7.47 Nor ought the subsistence of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, to be so much as named. But we assert the Son to be like the Father, in such a manner as the sacred Scriptures do affirm and teach. Moreover, let all the Heresies, which have been heretofore condemned, and which may have risen of late, being opposite to this Creed published [by us,] be Anathema.

This Creed was at that time recited at Con∣stantinople. Having now at length passed through the labyrinth of the Expositions of Faith, we will reckon up their number. After the Creed [published] at Nice, they set forth two Expo∣sitions of the Faith at Antioch, at the Dedication. A third was that delivered to the Emperour Constans in the Gallia's, by Narcissus and those that accompanied him. The fourth was that sent by Eudoxius into Italy. Three [Draughts of the Creed] were published at Sirmium, one whereof was recited at Ariminum, which had the names of the Consuls prefixt. The eighth was that which the Acacians promulged at Se∣leucia. The last was set forth at the City Con∣stantinople, with an addition. For hereto was annexed, that neither substance, nor subsistence ought to be mentioned in relation to God. More∣over, Ulfila Bishop of the Goths did at that time first agree to this Creed. For before this he had embraced the Nicene Creed; being Theophilus's follower, who was Bishop of the Goths, and had been present at, and subscribed the Nicene Synod. Thus far concerning these things.

CHAP. XLII. That upon Macedonius's being deposed, Eudoxius obtained the Bishoprick of Constantinople.

BUt Acacius, Eudoxius, and those that were with them at Constantinople, made it wholly their business, that they also might on the other

side depose some persons of the contrary party. Now, you must know, that neither of the factions decreed these depositions upon account of Reli∣gion, but for other pretences. For though they dissented about the Faith, yet they found not fault with one anothers Faith in their mutual de∣positions of one another. Those therefore of Acacius's party making use of the Emperours indignation, (which he had kept [concealed in his mind,] and earnestly indeavoured to wreak it against others, but most especially against Mace∣donius,) do in the first place depose Macedonius, both because he had been the occasion of many murders, and also in regard he had admitted a Deacon taken in Fornication to Communion. Then, [they depose] Eleusius [Bishop] of Cyzicum, because he had baptized one Heraclius Hercules's Priest at Tyre, a person known to be a Conjurer, and ordained him Deacon. [In the next place they depose] Basilius, (or Basilas, for so he was also called,) who had been con∣stituted [Bishop] of Ancyra in the room of Marcellus, as having unjustly tortured a certain person, bound him with Iron chains, and confined him to Prison: also, because he had fastned ca∣lumnies upon some persons: and moreover, in re∣gard by his Letters he had disturbed the Churches in Africa. Dracontius [was deposed by them,] because he had removed from Galatia to Pergamus. Moreover, they deposed Neonas [Bishop] of Seleucia, in which City the Synod had been con∣vened, as also Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Pa∣phlagonia, Elpidius of a 7.48 Satala in Macedonia, and Cyrillus of Jerusalem; and others were eje∣cted by them for other reasons.

CHAP. XLIII. Concerning Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia.

BUT Eustathius [Bishop] of Sebastia in Armenia, was not so much as admitted to make his defence, because he had been long be∣fore deposed by Eulalius his own Father, who was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in regard he wore a garment misbecoming the Sacerdotal function. You are to know, that in Eustathius's room Meletius was constituted Bishop, concer∣ning whom we will speak hereafter. But Eusta∣thius was afterwards condemned in a Synod con∣vened upon his account at Gangra [a City] of Paphlagonia; because, after his deposition in the Sy∣nod at a 7.49 Caesarea, he had done many things repug∣nant to the Ecclesiastick Laws. For he had for∣bidden marriage, and maintained that meats were to be abstained from: and upon this account he separated many who had contracted marriages, from their wives, and perswaded b 7.50 those who had an aversion for the Churches, to communicate at home. He also enticed away servants from their Masters by a pretext of piety. He him∣self wore the habit of a Philosopher, and caused his followers to make use of a new and unusual garb, and gave order that women should be shorn.

He [asserted] that set Fasts were to be avoided; but maintained Fasting on Sundays. He forbad Prayers to be made in the houses of those who were married; and taught, that the blessing and communion of a Presbyter who had a wife (whom he had lawfully married during his being a Laick▪) ought to be declined as a thing most detestable. Upon his doing and teaching these and several other such like things as these, a Synod (as I have said) convened at Gangra in Paphlagonia deposed him, and Anathematized his opinions. c 7.51 These things were done afterwards. But Ma∣cedonius being then ejected, Eudoxius, despising the See of Antioch, is constituted [Bishop] of Constantinople, being consecrated by the Aca∣cians. Who forgot themselves, in that they De∣cree'd what was contradictory to their former determinations. For they who had deposed Dra∣contius because of his translation from Galatia to Pergamus, considered not with themselves, that by Ordaining Eudoxius who then made a second remove [to another Bishoprick] they did what was contrary to their own Sanctions. Having done these things, they sent the Creed which had been read, d 7.52 to Ariminum, together with its Sup∣plement, corrected by them; and gave order, that such as would not subscribe it, should be banished, according to the Emperours Edict. [Lastly,] They made known what they had done, both to others in the East who entertained the same sentiments with them, and also to Patro∣philus [Bishop] of Scythopolis. For he went from Seleucia forthwith to his own City. Fur∣ther, Eudoxius having been constituted [Bi∣shop] of the * 7.53 Great City, the e 7.54 Great Church named Sophia was at that time consecrated, in Constantius's Tenth and Julianus Caesar's third consulate, on the fif∣teenth of the month February. As soon as Eu∣doxius was seated in that See, he was the first that uttered this sentence which is [still]

in every bodies mouth, saying; The Father is Irreligious; the Son is Religious. When a tu∣mult and a disturbance arose thereupon, Be not troubled (said he) at what has been spoken by me, for, the Father is irreligious, because he worships no person: but the Son is religious, because he worships the Father. When Eudoxius had spoken these words, the tumult was appea∣sed; but instead of the disturbance, there was a great laughter raised in the Church. And this saying of his continues to be a ridicule even to this day. Such cavils the Arch-hereticks made use of, and busied themselves about such expressions as these, rending the Church in sunder [thereby.] This was the conclusion, that the Synod had, which was convened at Constantinople.

CHAP. XLIV. Concerning Meletius Bishop of Antioch.

IT now remaines, that we speak concerning Meletius. For he (as we said a little before) was made Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, after Eustathius's Deposition. He was afterwards tran∣slated from Sebastia to a 7.55 Beroea [a City] of Syria. When he had been present at the Synod in Seleucia, and Subscribed the Creed published there by Acacius, he went directly from thence to Beroea. Upon the convention of the Synod at Constantinople, when the Antiochians under∣stood that Eudoxius had despised [the presidency over their Church, and removed to the wealth of the Constantinopolitan See, they sent for b 7.56 Me∣letius from Beroea, and install him [Bishop] over the Church of Antioch. At first he superseded making any discourses about points of Faith, and delivered moral Doctrine only to his hearers. But after his continuance there some time, he ex∣pounded the Nicene Creed, and asserted the Ho∣moöusian opinion. Which when the Emperour understood, he gave order that he should be banished: and caused Euzoïus (who had before been deposed together with Arius,) to be or∣dained Bishop of Antioch. But as many as re∣served an affection for Meletius, left the Arian congregation, and made assemblies apart by themselves: [although] those who originally embraced the Homoöusian opinion, would not communicate with them, because Meletius had received his Ordination from the suffrages of the Arians, and because his followers had been baptized by them. After this manner was the Antiochian Church affected towards the other party, although they agreed with them in the points of Faith. But the Emperour understanding that the Persians were raising another War a∣gainst the Romans, went in great hast to Antioch.

CHAP. XLV. Concerning Macedonius's Heresie.

BUT Macedonius, who had been ejected out of Constantinople, being unable to bear his condemnation, could by no means endure to be at quiet. But joyned himself to those of the other par∣ty, who had deposed Acacius and his followers at Seleucia. He therefore sent an Embassy to Sophro∣nius and Eleusius, exhorting them to adhere to that Creed which was at first published at Antioch, and afterwards confirmed at Seleucia, and that they should give it an a 7.57 adul∣terate name, [to wit] the Homoiöusian Creed. Where∣fore many of his acquain∣tance and friends flock't to him, who are now from him called Macedoniani. And as many as dissented from the Acacians at the Synod of Seleucia, from thence for∣ward manifestly asserted the term * 7.58 Homoiöusios, b 7.59 where∣as before this they had not openly owned it. But there is a report, which has been prevalent amongst ma∣ny men, that this [term Homoiöusios] was not Ma∣cedonius's invention; but Marathonius's rather, whom they had made Bishop of Nicomedia a little before. Upon which account they call the followers of this o∣pinion Marathoniani also. In like manner Eustathius (who had been ejected out of Sebastia for that reason which we have mentioned a little before,) joyned him∣self to that party. But af∣ter Macedonius refused to in∣clude the holy Ghost in the Divinity of the Trinity, then Eustathius said, I cannot assent to the terming of the holy Ghost God, nor dare I call him a Creature. Upon which account, those that embrace the Homoöu∣sian-opinion, give these per∣sons the name of * 7.60 Pneumatomachi. The rea∣son, why these Macedoniani are so numerous in c 7.61 Hellespont, I will declare in its due place. Now, the Acacians used their utmost endeavours that they might be convened again at Antioch, in regard they repented their having asserted the Son to be wholly like to the Father. On the year following therefore, wherein Taurus and Floren∣tius were Consuls, they met at Antioch in Syria, (over which Church Euzöius presided, in which City the Emperour also resided [at that time]) when some few of them resumed a debate of those points which they had determined before, saying that the term† 7.62 Homoïos ought to be expunged out of the Creed, which had been published both at Ariminum, and at Constantinople. Nor did they any longer keep their Vizours on, but affirmed bare fac'd, that the Son was in all respects unlike the Father, not only as to his Essence, but in re∣lation to his Will also. And they openly as∣serted (according as Arius had affirmed) that he was made of nothing. To this opinion those who at that time were followers of Aëtius's Heresie at Antioch, gave their assent. Where∣fore, besides their having the appellation of A∣rians, they were also called * 7.63 Anomoei, and

† 7.64 Exucontii, by those at Antioch who embraced the Homoöusian opinion, who [notwithstanding] were at that time divided amongst themselves upon Meletius's account, as has been said before. When therefore they were asked by the Homoöusians, why they were so audacious, as to term the Son to be unlike the Fa∣ther, and to affirm that he exists of nothing, whenas in the Creed published by them they had said he was God of God; they attempted to elude this objection by such fallacious artifices as these: the phrase God of God (said they) has the same import with those words of the Apostle, * 7.65 but all things of God. Wherefore, the Son is of God, he being one of those all things. And upon this account, in the Editions of the Creed, these words According to the Scriptures are added. Georgius Bishop of Laodicea was the Authour of this † 7.66 Sophism. Who being a person unskilled in such expressions, was ignorant after what manner Origen had in former times discussed and interpreted such peculiar phrases of the A∣postle. But, notwithstanding their attempt to cavil after this manner, yet in regard of their in∣ability to bear the reproaches and contempt [thrown upon them,] they recited the same Creed, which they had before [published] at Constantinople: and so departed every one to his own City. Georgius therefore returning to Alex∣andria, continued his Presidency over the Chur∣ches there, (Athanasius as yet absconding▪) and persecuted those in Alexandria who embraced not his Sentiments. He was also cruel and se∣vere towards the Populace of that City; to most of whom he was very odious. At Jerusalem, d 7.67 Harrenius was Ordained in Cyrillus his room. You must also know, that after him * 7.68 Heraclius was Constituted [Bishop there,] who was succeeded by Hilarius. But at length Cyrillus returned to Jerusalem, and recovered the Pre∣sidency over the Church there. Moreover, at the same time there sprang up another Heresie, upon this account.

CHAP. XLVI. Concerning the Apollinaristae, and their Heresie.

AT Laodicea in Syria, there were two men of the same name, the Father and the Son: For each of their names was Apollinaris. The father was dignified with a Presbyterate in that Church: the son had a Readers place. They were both Teachers of Grecian Literature; the father taught Grammar, the son Rhetorick. The father was by birth an Alexandrian, and having at first taught at Bery••us, he removed afterwards to Laodioea, where he married; and bega•• his son Apollinaris. They both flourished at the same time with Epiphanius the Sophista, and being very intimate friends, they conversed together with him. But Theodotus Bishop of Laodicea, fearing that by their continual converse with that person they should be perverted to Gentilism, forbad their going to him. They regarding the Bi∣shops [prohibition] very little, continued their intimacy with Epiphanius. After this, Georgius, successour to Theodotus, endeavoured to reform [and wean] them from conversing with Epi∣phanius; but being unable to perswade them by any means, he punished them both with Ex∣communication. Apollinaris the son lookt upon what was done to be an injury, and confiding in the fluentness of his Sophistick faculty of speaking, he also framed a new Heresie, which flourisheth at this present, and bears the name of its Inven∣tour. But some do report, that they dissented from Georgius, not so much upon account of the forementioned reason, but because they saw he maintained absurdities; sometimes professing the son to be like the father, (according as it had been determined [in the Synod] at Seleucia;) at others inclining to the Arian opinion. Lay∣ing hold therefore of this specious pretext, they made a separation [from him.] But when they saw no body adhered to them, they introduce a [new] Scheme of Religion. And at first asserted, that a 7.69 humanity was assumed by God the Word in the Oeconomy of his incarnation, without the soul. But afterward, rectifying their former errour by repentance as it were, they added, that the soul was indeed assumed: but that it had not a mind, but that God the Word was in the place of a mind, in his assumption of Humanity. As to this point only these [Hereticks] do affirm that they dissent [from Catholicks,] who from them are now called Apollinaristae. For they assert that the Trinity is Consubstantial. But we shall mention the two Appollinaris's again in due place.

CHAP. XLVII. Concerning the death of the Emperour Constantius.

MOreover, whilst the Emperour Constantius resided at Antioch, Julianus Caesar engages with a numerous army of Barbarians in the Gallia's. And having obtained a Victory, was for that reason greatly beloved by all the Souldiers, by whom he is proclaimed Emperour. This being told to the Emperour Constantius put him into an agony. He was therefore baptized by Euzoïus, and * 7.70 under∣takes an expedition against Julianus. But arriving between Cappadocia and Cilicia, he ended his life at Mopsucrenae, (being seized with an Apoplexy by reason of his too great solicitude,) in the Consu∣late of Taurus and Florentius, on the third of No∣vember. This was the first year of the two hun∣dred eighty fifth Olympiad. Constantius lived fourty five years, and reigned thirty eight. He was his Fathers Colleague in the Empire thirteen years: after whose death [he Governed] twenty five: which space of years this Book doth contain.

Notes

• * 1.1

  That is, to make a new Edi∣tion of, &c.
• a 1.2

  Our Eu∣sebius has given the same title to Pauli∣nus Bishop of Tyre, at the begin∣ning of the tenth book of his Ec∣clesiastick Hist. whose Example Socrates here follows. Who this Theodo∣rus was, to whom Socrates dedicated his History, is uncertain. For I cannot think that Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia is here meant. Vales.
• * 1.3

  That is, the faith that pro∣fessed Christ to be of the same substance or essence with the Father.
• a 1.4

  This place is imperfect, and faulty. It may be made good not incommodiously, thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; but they understood that they could not effect this, if Athanasius should return. Vales.
• b 1.5

  Christophorson rendred these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] thus, Imperatoris satellites, the Emperours guards: which is ill translated. For by this term all the Palatini are meant; not only the Protectores, the domestici, and the rest of the Scholares, (see Valesius's notes on Amm. Marcellin. pag. 31. &c.) but the Ministeriani, and Scri∣niarii also. For this was termed the Palatine Milice. Vales.
• a 2.1

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] I read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] as it is in Athana∣sius's second Apologetick against the Arians▪ Caesar Ba∣ronius, (in his An∣nalls,) Dionysius Petavius, (in his Ra∣tionarium Tempo∣rum,) Blondellus, (in his book de Primatu Ecclesiae,) and others do relate, that Atha∣nasius was recalled from ba∣nishment, in the year of Christ 338, to wit, the year after Con∣stantines death; who, perceiving the foresaid prelate to be pressed on every side by the calumnies of his adversaries, had for a time banished him into the Gallia's. But I do maintain, that Athanasius was restored in the year of Christ 337, when Felicianus and Titianus were Consuls in that very year, wherein Constantine died: which I can make evident, as I suppose, by a most demonstrable argument. For Athanasius (in his second Apology against the Arians, pag. 805.) relates, that he was released from his banishment and restored to his Country by Constan∣tine the younger, who also wrote a Letter in his behalf to the po∣pulace and Clergy of the Alexandrian Church. This Letter [as So∣crates does here, so] Athanasius there recites: the inscription of it is this; Constantinus Caesar, to the people of the Catholick Church of Alexandria. The subscription of this Letter is thus, dated at Triers the fifteenth of the Calends of July. As well the inscription, as sub∣scription of this Letter, does attest what I say, to wit, that Athanasius was released from his exile soon after the death of Constantine the Great, in the year of Christ 337. For if he had been restored on the year following, then Constantine the younger would not have called himself Caesar, but Augustus. Nor would Athanasius have been re∣stored by Constantine the younger, but by Constantius, to whom was allotted the Eastern part of the Empire. Wherefore, in regard Con∣stantine stiles himself only Caesar in that Letter, and since Athanasius attests, that he was restored by Constantine the younger, 'tis apparent, that that was done, before the sons of Constantine the elder were by the Souldiers proclaimed Augusti. For, upon Constantines death, there was a certain interregnum; and the Roman world continued without an Emperour almost three months; untill the brethren (who under the name of Caesars Governed divers Provinces) had met together, in order to their making a division of the whole Roman Empire. Constantine died on the eleventh of the Calends of June, and on that very year there were three Augusti proclaimed, to wit, Constantinus, Constantius and Constans, on the fifth of the Ides of September; (as it is recorded in the Old Fasti, which Jacobus Sir∣mondus published under the false name of Idatius. This is that which Eusebius writes in his fourth book of Constantines Life, chap. 71, to wit, that Constantine retained his Empire after his death, and that all Rescripts and Edicts bore his name, as if he had been yet alive. For this reason therefore Constantine the younger stiles himself Caesar only, in his Letter to the Alexandrians, in regard he was not yet pro∣claimed Augustus. For the Letter was dated on the fifteenth of the Calends of July. But he was created Augustus (together with his brethren) on the fifth of the Ides of September. Moreover, at that time (whilst the brothers were stiled Caesars only) Constantinus Ju∣nior was the chief in Authority, because he was the eldest brother. See Valesius's first book of Ecclesiastick observations on Socrates and Sozomen. chap. 1.
• * 2.2

  Place.
• a 2.3

  Socrates mistakes here, (and all those that follow him,) in placing the death of Alexander Bishop of Constantinople on the Consulate of Acindynus and Proclus, in the year of Christ 340. In the second book of my Ecclesiastick Ob∣servations upon Socrates and Sozomen [The Learned Reader will meet with Valesius's Ecclesiastick Observations on Socrates and Sozomen, at the close of Valesius's second Volume of the Greek Ecclesiastick Histo∣rians; he may find this matter discussed at the first chapter of the second book of those Observations.] I have by most evident argu∣ments demonstrated, that Alexander Bishop of Constantinople died in the Reign of Constantine the Great, and that Paul succeeded him, during the Reign of the said Constantine. Baronius, who places Alex∣anders death on the year of Christ 340, does manifestly contradict him∣self. For he says, that the Synod of the Bishops of Egypt (which was summoned to confute the calumnies brought against Athanasius by the Eusebian faction,) was convened in the year of Christ 339. But those Bishops do expresly attest, in their Synodick Epistle, that at that very time Eusebius had left Nicomedia, and had lept into the Constantino∣politan See. 'Tis needless to quote the words of that Epistle here, in regard they are produced by Baronius himself, at the year of Christ 340. Now, if Eusebius had gotten the See of Constantinople in the year of Christ 339. Alexander must necessarily be supposed to have been dead before this year. Vales.
• b 2.4

  This person was afterwards promoted to the degree of Pres∣byter under Paul Bishop of Con∣stantinople, and accused his own Bishop, as Athanasius relates, in his Epistle ad Solitar. Vales.
• * 2.5

  Parts.
• † 2.6

  That is, those that owned Christ to be of the same sub∣stance or essence with the Father.
• c 2.7

  There were two Churches of this name in Constanti∣nople, the one called the Old, the other the New Irene; as it is recorded in the Life of Paul the Constantinopolitan Bishop, which Photius relates in his Bib∣liotheca. Moreover, the Old Church called Irene was contiguous to the Great Church, which was afterwards named Sophia: nor had it separate Clergy-men; but the Clergy of the Great Church by turns ministred in that Church. The Emperour Justinian informs us of this, in the third Novell. In the old description of Constantinople, which is pre∣fixt before the Notitia Imperii Romani, this is called the Old Church, and 'tis placed in the second ward of the City together with the Great Church. The Church Irene (to wit, The New Irene,) is recounted in the seventh ward of that City. Socrates hath made mention of The Old Irene, in his first Book, chap. 37. It is termed the Church of Saint Irene, after the same manner that the Church Sophia is called Saint Sophia; not that there was a Virgin, or Martyr, called by that name. Vales.
• a 2.8

  The Al∣latian M. S. inserts some words here, after this man∣ner: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; i. e. and having through Eusebius's own ambition removed him from Nicomedia, he con∣stituted him Bishop of the Great City [Constantinople.] Vales.
• * 2.9

  That is, he means Constan∣tiu••, and Constans, sons to the Emperour Constantine the Great; who had a little before this been proclaimed Augusti. Constan∣tine, the other son of Constantine the Great, was now dead. See chap. 5. of this book.
• a 2.10

  The par∣ticle [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] must be expunged here; and the whole clause read in this continued form; ha∣ving consi∣dered with himself how he had been circum ven∣ted that he might sub∣scribe A∣thanasius's deposition. For Maxi∣mus Bishop of Jerusa∣lem▪ had, together with Paul and the rest, sub∣scribed A∣thanasius's deposition, in the Council of Tyre. In regard of his sorrow for doing this, he refused afterwards to be present at the Council of Antioch; as Sozomen relates, in his 3^d book chap. 6. neer the end. Vales.
• b 2.11

  Athanasius (in his book de Synodis) set forth the time of this Council by these notes: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Those Bi∣shops that met at the dedication were ninety in number; [they were con∣vened] in the Consulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, in the tenth Indiction, the most impious Constantius being there present. Vales.
• c 2.12

  In the Consulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, on the eleventh of the Calends of June was compleated the fourth year from Con∣stantines death. The Synod of Antioch therefore was convened after this day, if it be true which Socrates here says, to wit, that it was con∣vened in the fifth year after Constantines death. Vales.
• d 2.13

  In Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version, this persons name is truer written, thus, Flaccillus. Nor is he otherwise called, in Pope Ju∣lius's Epistle to the Bishops convened in this Synod of Antioch. This person had been present before, at the Council of Tyre, and had with the Arians conspired against Athanasius, as the Epistle of the Egypti∣an Bishops to Dionysius the Comes doth inform us, which Epistle A∣thanasius has recorded, in his second defence against the Arians. Eu∣sebius of Caesarea dedicated the books he wrote against Marcellus, to this same Flaccillus. But, instead of Flaccillus, he is almost every where called Placitus: only in the following chapter, the Allatian M. S. terms him Flaccillus. Vales.
• e 2.14

  These calumnies of the Eusebians are incomparably well refuted by the Egyptian Bishops, in their Synodick Epistle, which Athanasius records, in his second defence against the Arians. Vales.
• a 2.15

  Sozomen (in his third book chap. 6.) explains this passage in Socrates; where he speaks thus concerning Eusebius Emisenus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. from his childhood (according to the custom of his own Country) he learned the sacred Scriptures by heart. Therefore the boys of E∣dessa got by heart the books of sacred Scripture, according to the usage of their Ancestours. Indeed, Ecclesiastick Writers do attest, that the Edessens were most ardent lovers of the Chri∣stian Religion. Vales.
• * 2.16

  Or Re∣stauration, or, Ele∣ction.
• * 2.17

  Or, the Faith.
• a 2.18

  Instead of these words [but in re∣ality their design was to subvert.] the Allat. M. S. has these [but giving the beginning to a pretext by their continual, &c.] and so Epiphan. Schol. read it, as from his Version appears. Vales.
• b 2.19

  In the Allat. M. S. the reading is [fall into.] Vales.
• c 2.20

  How these words are to be understood, I have ad∣vertized the Rea∣der, in the second book of my Ec∣clesiastick Observa∣tions, chap. 2. for we must not suppose, that the Arch-He∣retick A∣rius him∣self was admitted and enter∣tained in the Jerusalem Synod, but his followers only. For Arius himself was dead long before. Should any one maintain, that these words of the Bishops of the Antiochian-Council are to be understood of Arius him∣self, then I will answer, that the Jerusalem Synod is not meant here, but some other more ancient Synod, which admitted Arius to commu∣nion: for the Eusebian party had done that before the Synod of Jerusalem, as Athanasius attests, in his book de Synodis, not far from the beginning. Vales.
• * 3.1

  Essence.
• † 3.2

  John 1. 1.
• * 3.3

  Joh. 6. 38.
• † 3.4

  Matt. 28. 19.
• * 3.5

  Placed.
• d 3.6

  After these words [we there∣fore holding this faith,] in Athana∣sius's book de Synodis (where this form of faith oc∣curs) these are added [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and holding it from the be∣ginning to the end:] which ought not to have been omitted. Hilarius (in his book de Synodis) has translated this form of the Creed into Latine; in which Version of his these words occur. Vales.
• e 3.7

  I corrected this place by the assistance of the Florentine M. S. wherein it is written thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before the Son of God.] The Verb [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was begotten] which preceded, is to be understood here. In Athanasius's book de Synodis, the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before he was begotten.] But our reading pleases us better, because it comes neerer the sense of the Arians: who asser∣ted that the Son of God was made. Vales.
• * 3.8

  Or an Off-spring, or, a Foe••us.
• f 3.9

  In the Allat. M. S. the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and with fear:] 'Tis so also in Athanasius, and in Hilarius's Version. Vales.
• g 3.10

  No; An∣tioch was by a special priviledge free from this earth-quake. For so 'tis recorded in those incomparable Fasti Consulares, (which Sirmondus has published under the name of Ida∣tius;) in these words: Marcellino & Probino Coss. His consulibus pugna facta est ••um gente Francorum à Constante Augusto in Galliis. Et ipso anno terrae motus fuit ad orientem per totum annum praeter Antio∣chiam: i. e. in the consulate of Marcellinus and Probinus, there was a fight between the nation of the Franci and Constans Augustus in the Gallia's. And in the same year there was an earthquake in the East throughout the whole year except at Antioch. Vales.
• a 3.11

  In this place So∣crates mis∣takes, who confounds what was done at Georgius's installation with those things transacted at Grego∣rius's ari∣val. In∣deed Syri∣anus brought Georgius to Alex∣andria, as Athanasius attests, in his Epistle ad Solitar▪ and in his Apologe∣tick to Con∣stantius the Emperour; and in his Apology concerning his own E∣scape, when Syrianus pursued him. But these things ha∣pned a long while after this, to wit, in the year of Christ 356. Gre∣gorius, concerning whom Socrates speaks here, was brought to Alexan∣dria by Balacius the Captain, and Philagrius Prefect of Egypt, as Atha∣nasius relates, in his Epistle Ad Solitar. But Athanasius departed from Alexandria before their arival and went to Rome, whither he had been invited by Pope Julius's Letters. Vales.
• b 3.12

  Socrates borrowed this out of Athanasius's Apology concerning his own escape, about the close of it. Where Athanasius's words are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. it was now night, and some of the people lay in the Church all night, a communion being expected. But in his Apologetick to the Empe∣rour Constantinus, he shews manifestly that Syrianus made this irruption in the night, and not in the evening, as Socrates here says. Vales.
• c 3.13

  Our Socrates does mistake here also. For Eusebius of Nicomedia did not send Embassadours to Pope Julius, to incite him against A∣thanasius, after the Council at Antioch, but a long time before. But when the Presbyters sent by Athanasius had confuted Eusebius's Em∣bassadours in all points before Julius, at length Eusebius's Messengers referred the decision of the whole matter to Julius. Julius therefore, according to the request of the Embassadours, wrote Letters, both to Athanasius, and also to Eusebius and the rest of Athanasius's adversaries, by which he invited them to an Ecclesiastick judicature at Rome. But this was done before the Council at Antioch, as Athanasius informs us, (in his second Apologetick against the Arians,) and Julius Bishop of Rome (in his Epistle to the Bishops convened in the Council of Antioch.) This E∣pistle of Julius's, Athanasius has inserted at the 739^th page of his works, Edit. Paris. 1627. Moreover, Socrates's relation here may be refuted also by these arguments. For, if these things had been done after the Council at Antioch, not only Eusebius, but the whole Synod would have sent an Embassy, and Letters, to Julius. Besides, it would have been altogether ridiculous and unseemly, after the matter was determined in a Council, and put in execution, (Athanasius be∣ing now expelled, and Gregorius put into his See,) to write to Julius, that he would be judge, and remove the controversie in order to its being discust before him; as if the matter were still wholly un∣determined. Sozomen (book 3. chap. 7.) has followed Socrates's mistake in this relation. Vales.
• a 3.14

  In the old description of Constan∣tinople this Church is mentioned; where 'tis called Paul's Church, and 'tis placed in the seventh ward of the City. Vales.
• * 3.15

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, coagulated, or curded, as the run∣net doth in the making of cheese.
• a 3.16

  Ammia∣nus Marcel∣linus had at large described this Sedi∣tion of the Constanti∣nopolitans, in those books of his History which are lost. But he has by the by mentioned it in his 14^th book pag. 23. Edit. Paris. 1636. Libanius means this tumult in his Oration entitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and says it was a most violent Sedition. It hapned in the third Consulate of Constantius, and in Constans's se∣cond; which was the year of Christ 342, as it is recorded in Fast. Idat. Vales. See Valesius's Annotas. on Amm. Marcellinus page 47.
• b 3.17

  It is doubtful, whether Socrates meanes here bu∣shells of Bread-corn, or loaves of bread. The Author of the Life of Paulus Bi∣shop of Con∣stantinople (which oc∣curs in Photius's Bibliotheca, pag. 1421. Edit. David. Ho••s••bell. 1611.) supposed, that in this place loaves were meant. For thus he says: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. the whole donation was, eighty thousand loaves daily [distributed.] 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I am rather of opinion, (and so Epiphanius Scholasticus understands it,) that Bushells are meant. For the term [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of wheat] im∣ports bushells of wheat, rather then loaves. Besides, how could eighty thousand loaves be sufficient for that multitude of Citizens which inhabited Constantinople? should any one wonder at this vast quan∣tity of bread-corn usually distributed every day, let him hear Eu∣napius (in the Life of Aedesius, pag. 38 Edit. Comm. 1596. thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. But in our age, neither the ships loaden with corn which come from Aegypt, nor that vast quantity of wheat, brought out of all Asia, Syria, Phoenicia, and the rest of the Provinces (upon the consideration of tribute) is sufficient to fill and satisfic that drunken multitude of people, which Constantine (by emptying of other Cities) hath transported to Bysantium. Concerning this pre∣script about bread corn for the supply of Constantinople, (appointed by Constantine of blessed memory, and afterwards increased by Theo∣dosius,) See the second Law in Cod. Theod. de frumento urbis Constan∣tinop. Vales.
• c 3.18

  From the Authority of the Allat. M. S. this place is to be amended, thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. For he was incensed against him, not only because he had been or∣dained, &c. Thus also the reading is in the Life of Paulus Con∣stantinop. Vales.
• a 3.19

  Socrates mistakes here also. For Grego∣rius (who was created Bishop of A∣lexandria in the Synod of Antioch) held that Bishoprick six years, untill the Council of Serdica: in which he was deposed, and excommunicated, as it is related in the Synodical Epistle of that Council. And when he had survived this sentence about six months, he died, as Athanasius attests, in Epistol. ad Soli••ar. Theodoret has corrected this mistake of Socrates's and Sozomon's, in book 2. of his Eccles. Hist. Georgius was made Bishop of Alexandria by the Arians long after Gregorius, in the year of Christ 356. Vales.
• b 3.20

  This place was corrupted by a transposition of the words; which gave translatours an occasion of mistaking here. But the words might have been easily put into their order, after this manner; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. as being a person odious, both upon account of his burning the Church; and also because, &c. Socrates does here assign two reasons, why the Arians deprived Gregorius of his Bishoprick. The first is, because Gre∣gorius was a person hated by all men, upon account of his burning Dionysius's Church; which Socrates has mentioned before; Atha∣nasius also takes notice of it, in Epist. ad solitar. The other rea∣son is, because he seemed not zealous enough in defending their opinion. The same is confirmed by Sozomen, book 3. chap. 7. Eccles. Hist. Vales.
• a 3.21

  After the murder of Hermoge∣nes the Em∣perours Lieute∣nant-Ge∣neral, Con∣stantius put Paulus in∣to iron chains, and banisht him to Sin∣gar a Town of Mesopo∣tamia, whence he removed him after∣wards to Emisa, as I have re∣marked out of Athava∣sius, in my second book of Ecclesi∣astick ob∣servations, chap. 6. Therefore, what So∣crates here says is false, to wit, that Paulus was at Rome at the same time that Athanasius was there. Indeed, Marcellus Bishop of Anoy•••• was at Rome to∣gether with Athanasius, as we are informed from Julius's Letter to the Eastern Bishops; which is also ascertained from Marcellus's Libel which he presented to Julius. But Julius speaks not a word con∣cerning Paulus in his foresaid Epistle; whom he would doubtless have mentioned, had he been then at Rome with Athanasius and Mar∣cellus. Vales.
• b 3.22

  Julius restored not one of the forementioned Bishops, not Atha∣nasius himself, to his own See. For, in the Roman Synod, wherein Athanasius's and Marcellus's cause was discust, Athanasius was only pronounced innocent, and admitted to communion by Julius and the rest of the Bishops. But against Athanasius's accusers, who refused to make their personal appearance in judgment, nothing was determined; as I have observed out of Athanasius in my first book of Ecclesiastick Observations. Nor was Athanasius, Marcellus, Asclepas, or Lucius re∣stored before the Synod of Serdica. Vales.
• c 3.23

  After the Roman Synod, wherein Athanasius was pronounced in∣nocent, when Julius had sent a Letter by Gabianus the Comes to the Eastern Bishops, who had met in a Synod at Antioch at such time as the Church was dedicated; (see chap. 8. of this book,) the Eastern Bishops, in order to their answering of this Letter, were convened a∣gain at Antioch in the year of Christ 343. And they wrote back an elegant and sharp Letter to Julius, the sense whereof Sozomen re∣lates, book 3. chap. 8. Vales.
• * 3.24

  The Church of Rome. See Euseb. Ec∣cles. Hist. book 6. chap. 43.
• d 3.25

  What Socrates here says, to wit, that Athanasius returned at that time to Alexandria, is false. For Athanasius went not back to that City, till after the Council at Serdica, that is, till after the year of Christ 348. Vales.
• e 3.26

  We fol∣low Chri∣stophorsons & S^r Henry Savils rea∣ding here; which is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. or how ma∣ny com∣plaints the Synods, &c. Vales.
• f 3.27

  In the Allat. M. S. the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his [that is, Sabinus's] Arch-here∣tick▪ Vales.
• g 3.28

  The a∣mendment of this place we owe to the Allat. M. S. wherein tis thus written [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, would instead of these [reproaches,] &c. Vales.
• a 3.29

  Socrates (as also Sozomen) is mistaken here. For Paulus was by Philip∣pus. Prae∣fect of the Prae∣torium banished not to Thessalonica, but to Cucusus, and was there strangled by the Arians; as Athanasius informs us, in his Epist. ad Solitar. But these things hapned a long while after this, to wit, when Constans Augustus was dead, in the year of our Lord 350, or 351. as Baronius will have it, who long since perceived this errour of So∣crates's. Further 'tis easie to confute Socrates out of Athanasius. For Athanasius relates, that Philippus (after he had banished Paulus and caused him to be cruelly murdered by the Arians) was within less than a year deposed from his Prefecture, deprived of his goods, and ended his life miserably. Now, Philippus was Consul in the year of Christ 348: and on the year following he bore the Office of Praefect of the Praetorium, as may be collected from the Laws extant in the Theodosian Code directed to him. The same Philippus was after this sent Embassadour by Constantius to Magnentius, a little before the fight at Mursa, as Zosimus relates in his second book. Which hapned in the year of Christ 351. Let us therefore suppose that Philippus died on the year following, which was the year of Christ 352. Then Paulus might have been banished by him in the year of Our Lord 351; which is Baronius's opinion. And from this year Macedonius's pre∣sidency over the Constantinopolitan Church must be begun. Vales.
• b 3.30

  At this place there was wan∣ting this whole line [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, through which [Paulus] was car∣ried into the Imperial Palace] which I have made good from the Florentine and Sfortian M. S. In Leo Allatius's M. S. there is some∣thing more added here, after this manner: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. They had flockt about the publick Bath, being gathered to∣gether there by the report of a sus∣picion; because the people envi∣roned all the passages out, he or∣dered one of the Bath doors to be opened, thorough which Paulus was conveyed into the Imperial Palace, &c. Vales.
• c 3.31

  How Philippus could banish Paulus to Thessalonica, I see not. For Socrates relates these things as done whilst Constans was yet living, and before the Council of Serdica. But at that time Thes∣salonica was under the Govern∣ment of Constans Augustus. How therefore could Philippus (who was Praefect of the Praetorium to Constantius) banish Paulus to Thessalonica, and permit him to live in the Cities of Illyricum; but wholly forbid him entring into the Eastern parts [of the Empire?] Vales.
• * 3.32

  See Euseb. Eccles. History, book. 6. chap. 43. note (e.) pag. 113.
• † 3.33

  Churches
• d 3.34

  This Great-Church was consecra∣ted by Eu∣sebius Bi∣shop of Constanti∣nople, (he that before had been Bishop of Nicomedia) if we may credit Cedrenus. For at the ninth year of Constantius he writes thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. And Eusebius conse∣crated the Church of God, called the Great Church, which was finished by Constantius, according to the order of Constantine the Great in his Will. And he brought the reliques of the holy Martyr Pamphilus, and those of his companions, Theodulus, Porphyrius, and Paulus, from Antioch and deposited them therein. But Cedrenus mistakes in his notation of the time. For if this consecration were performed by Eusebius▪ of Nico∣media, it must be placed on the third or fourth year of Constantius, at which time Eusebius governed the See of Constantinople. The same Cedrenus relates, that this Church, being afterwards ruined, and re∣edified by Constantius, was consecrated by Eudoxeus. Vales.
• * 3.35

  Constan∣tine the Great.
• a 3.36

  Socrates does here confound all things, and repeats the same things twice, as if they had been done again. For he says that Athanasius fled to Rome twice. The same is asserted by Baronius (in his Annalls.) by Petavius (in his Rationarium Temporum,) and by Blondellus (in his book de primatu.) But we have sufficiently refuted this mistake, in our first book of Ecclesiastick Observations, chap. 6. Socrates makes the same mistake, in his asserting that Paulus Bishop of Constantinople came twice to Rome. Moreover, Julius received Eusebius of Nicomedia's Letter, before that Council of Antioch, which was held at the con∣secration of the New Jerusalem, as we remarked before. And at the same time he invited Athanasius and his adversaries to Rome, in order to the discussion of their cause, as 'tis manifest from Athanasius's relation. Vales.
• b 3.37

  The Bishops who had been convened at Antioch at the consecra∣tion, having received Julius's Letter written to Eusebius of Nicomedia, (in which he invited him and the rest of the Eusebians to Rome, in order to the having their cause discussed there on a set day, where∣on a Council was there to be held:) deteined Julius's messengers (Elpidius and Philoxenus,) beyond the day appointed. Then, after they had held their Synod, they dismissed the messengers, and gave them a Letter to Julius. Upon receipt whereof he wrote back that famous Letter, which Athanasius hath inserted, in his second Apology against the Arians; pag. 739, &c. Edit. Paris. 1627. Vales.
• c 3.38

  He means the Synodical Epistle, which the Bishops of Egypt wrote to all the Bishops every where: which is inserted in the first place by Athanasius in his forecited Apology, pag. 722. Edit. ut prius. Julius speaks concer∣ning this Synodical Epistle, in that letter he wrote to the Ea∣stern Bishops convened at An∣tioch: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Moreover, many Bi∣shops (says he) wrote from E∣gypt and from other Provin∣ces, in defence of Athanasius. Vales.
• d 3.39

  I read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he bla∣med] not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he sent:] S^r Henry Savil hath mended this place, in the margin of his Copy, and made it agreeable to our reading. In the Allat. M. S. this place is written thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; i. e. in the first place he found fault with the bitterness of their Epistle. This Letter of Julius's is still extant, preserved for us by Athanasius, in his second A∣pology against the Arians: pag. 739, &c. Edit. ut Prius. In that Letter Julius reprehends the insolency and pride, which the Eastern Bishops had used in their Letters to him. But, that which Socrates here adds (to wit, that Julius complained, because they had not invited him to the Synod: and that it was the Ecclesiastick rule, that nothing should be determined in the Church without the Bi∣shop of Rome's consent:) is not to be found in that Let∣ter. Indeed, Julius complains in that Epistle, because the Ea∣stern Bishops (upon their receipt of his Letter, wherein he invi∣ted them to the Synod at Rome,) disregarding this his invitation, had ordained Gre∣gorius Bishop in Athanasius's See. But he says not one word con∣cerning this Ecclesiastick Rule or Canon. And yet Sozomen (chap. 3. book 10. Eccles. Hi∣story) says the same that So∣crates does here. Vales.
• * 3.40

  That is, Athanasius & Paulus.
• * 3.41

  That is, Paulus and Athanasius's sufferings.
• a 3.42

  The rea∣ding here, and in Ro∣bert Ste∣phens Edi∣tion, is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] But I sup∣pose it should be thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, understanding their sufferings, sympathized with them:] for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has the same import with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to suffer with. But the reading may be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was very much troubled at:] which emendation is the best. Vales.
• b 3.43

  Some few months after the Synod at Antioch which was held at the Dedication; the Eastern Bishops made another form of the Creed, and sent it to Constans Augustus, and to the Western Bi∣shops, by Narcissus, Theodorus, Maris, and Marcus, as if it had been dictated by the Synod at Antioch. So Athanasius at∣tests in his book de Synod. Arimin. and Seleuc. This therefore hapned in the year of Christ 342. Socrates does evidently agree with Athanasius. For he says, that those messengers sent by the Eastern Bishops suppressed that form of the Creed composed by the Antiochian Synod; and instead thereof produced another, which themselves had made. Vales.
• * 4.1

  Ephes. 3. 15.
• † 4.2

  Or Com∣forter.
• ‖ 4.3

  See John 14. 26.
• * 4.4

  See So∣crates, book 1. chap. 36.
• a 4.5

  Athana∣sius (in his book de Sy∣nodis) says the same: his words are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. Afterwards, repenting as it were [of what they had done,] they again assemble a Synod of their own party, three years after. And they send Eudoxius, Martyrius, and Mace∣donius of Cilicia, and some other persons with them, into the parts of Italy; who carried along with them a prolixe [form of] saith, &c. Baronius. (in his Annals) says, that this second Council of Antioch (wherein that prolixe form of faith was promulged) was convened in the year of Christ 344. And he thinks that he proves this from Athanasius and Socrates. But, in my judgment, he is much mistaken. For first, this expression of Athanasius's [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after three years] signifies the fourth year, not the third. For it denotes, that three years were now past. In this sense also Socrates under∣stood the passage in Athanasius; in regard he says [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. the space of three years being com∣pleatly passed after these things. Since therefore that Synod of Antioch which had been convened at the Consecration, was held in the year of Christ 341; this second Antiochian Synod ought more truly to be placed on the year of Christ 345. Secondly, Athanasius does not say, that the second Antiochian Synod (wherein the large form of Faith was composed,) was assembled three years after that Synod at the consecration had been convened there: but he says, it was assembled three years after Narcissus, Theodorus, Maris, and Marcus had brought that new form of Faith to Constans Augustus, pretending it to have been composed at Antioch. Now, he says that this was done some few months after the Antiochian Synod held at the Consecration. From whence that which I have said is made apparent; to wit, that that Council (in which the large form of Faith had been composed,) was convened in the year of Christ 345; not in the year 344, as Baronius would have it. Vales.
• * 4.6

  Ephes. 3. 15.
• * 4.7

  Or Com∣forter.
• † 4.8

  See John 14. 26.
• b 4.9

  This was the opinion of the Ari∣ans. The Easterns explain this sentiment of theirs better hereafter, to wit, that the Father may be understood to have be∣gotten the Son wil∣lingly, without compul∣sion. Vales.
• c 4.10

  In Robert Stephens's Edition of Socrates (Fol. 197. Edit. Paris. 1594.) these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Nor must it be thought, that the Son is without an original, or un∣begotten as the Father is] are wanting. The said Robert Ste∣phens's Edition does in the fol∣lowing words also differ some∣thing from this Copy of the Creed here. Athanasius has inserted this whole Creed, in his book de Synod. Arimin. & Seleuc. pag. 896, &c. Edit. paris. 1627. Athanasius's copy and this in Valesius's Edition of Socrates do agree: whom we have followed in our Version.
• * 4.11

  1 Cor. 11. 3.
• * 4.12

  See Eu∣seb. Eccles. Hist. book 7 chap. 27. &c.
• * 4.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of men: but Valesius renders it, ex hominc, of man.
• d 4.14

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪] it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as it is in the Allat. M. S. and in Atha∣nasius, in his book de Synodis. By [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Philoso∣phers mean That word which is uttered by the mouth. Hilarius calls it Verbum prolativum. To which is opposed [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] which modern Phi∣losophers do term the word of the mind. Vales.
• e 4.15

  By these words the Eastern Bishops mean, the Heresie of Marcellus Ancyranus, who asser∣ted that Christs Kingdom began from his nativity, about four hundred years before that time; making use of a certain number for an uncertain. The Synodick Epistle of the Eastern Bishops at Serdica informs us hereof; which Epistle Hilarius has inserted, in his fragments. For these are their words in that Letter: Extiti•• namque temporibus nostris Mar∣cellus, &c. i. e. For there hath risen up in our days one Marcel∣lus of Galatia, the most execrable post of all Hereticks, who with a sacrilegious mind, and impious mouth, and a wicked argument, will needs set bounds to the per∣petual, eternal, and timeless▪ Kingdom of our Lord Christ, say∣ing, that he began his reign 400 years since, and shall end it at the dissolution of this present world. Vales.
• f 4.16

  We made good this place, by adding the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Jews:] which is not in Robert Stephens's Edit. but it oc∣curs in Athanasius, and in the Allat. M. S. Vales.
• * 4.17

  Gen. 1. 26.
• g 4.18

  The He∣resie of the Patropassians (or Patripassians) was very ancient, and far diffused. Tertullian (Adv. Prax. cap. 1, and 2.) chargeth this Heresie upon Praxeas. The same was maintained by Hermogenes, whence they were termed Hermogeniani. After whom Noëtus maintained the same, who (says Epiphanius) lived 130 years before his time: (See Epiphan. Heres. 57.) From Noëtus they had the name of Noëtiani; and from Sabellius, Noëtus's disciple, they were called Sabelliani. After whom succeeded Priscillianus in the same Heresie; from him they had the name of Priscillianistae. The sum and substance of this Heresie thus propagated by these succeeding assertours of it, was this: they affirmed there was but one Person in the Deity, to wit, the Father; that he only subsisted, and was the Maker of all things▪ that he came not only into the world, but was incarnate, and did all things which we say were done by the Son. In order to the Exclusion of these Hereticks, the Aquileian Church added these two terms [invisible and impassible] to the first Article of the Creed; shewing by the first▪ that the Father was not incarnate, and by the second, that he was not crucified.
• * 4.19

  See Eu∣seb. Eccles. Hist. book. 7. chap. 6. note (b.)
• † 4.20

  Dispen∣sation.
• ‖ 4.21

  See Prov. 8. 22. The Ea∣stern Bishops have here quoted the very words of the Septuagint: and we render it accordingly. But in the English Version (which followes the Hebrew exactly) the Text is thus rendred; the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
• h 4.22

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] we must necessarily read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the whole Father;] as it is in Athanasius: from whom the reading is to be made good in the words imme∣diately following; thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He alone continually resting in his Fathers bosome. Vales.
• i 4.23

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the reading in the Allat. M. S. and in Athanasius's book de Synodis is this [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. amongst those whose minds are not [perverted, corrupted, or] depraved. Vales.
• a 4.24

  This con∣fession of faith (for so Athanasius calls it) the Embassadours of the Eastern Bishops presented to the Western Prelates assembled at Millaine. For some Bishops together with the Presbyters of the Church of Rome had gone thither, to intreat Constans Augustus, that he would write to his brother Constantius about the assembling of a General Synod, in order to the determining of those dissensions in an Ecclesi∣astick Judicature, which had been raised in diverse Churches: thus we are informed by Athanasius in his Apology to Constantius. More∣over, when the Easterns had presented this draught of the Creed to those of the West, they requested them to subscribe it. But the Western Bishops made answer, that, as to what belonged to the Articles of Faith, the Nicene Creed was to them sufficient, to which nothing was to be added, nor anything to be taken from it. And as concerning the condemnation of those Hereticks who were disallowed of in that confession, they requested of the Eastern Bishops Embas∣sadours that they would in the first place condemn the Arian Heresie. But, upon their refusal to do that, the Eastern Embassadours being angry went away from the Council; as Liberius relates, in his Epistle to the Emperour Constantius, in these words: Quae est pax, Clemen∣tissime Imperator, &c. What peace is there, most Gracious Emperour, whenas there are four Bishops of their party, Demofilus, Macedonius, Eudoxius, and Martyrius, who above eight years since, when they would not condemn Arius's Heretical opinion at Millaine, departed from the Council in anger? notwithstanding, the Western Bishops condemned Photinus's Heresie in that Synod. But they pronounced no sentence against Marcellus, because he had before been judged clear from all manner of Heresie in the Roman Synod. In the same Synod vrsacius and Valens (who had lain under a suspicion of being Arians) having presented a Libel wherein they condemned Arius's perfidiousness and Photinus's Heresie, were admitted to communi••••, as the Synodick Epistle of the Ariminum Council informs us. The 〈…〉〈…〉e is attested by Ursacius and Valens themselves, in another Libel afterwards presented to Julius Bishop of Rome, in these words: Item Anathema dicimus, &c. Also we anathematize those, who deny, that Christ is God and the Son of God from all eternity, according to our former Libel, which we presented at Millaine, &c. We thought good to be more large in these remarks of ours concerning the Millaine Synod, because the memory thereof is very obscure in the Ecclesiastick Annals. Dionyfius Petavius is the first person that hath taken notice of this Synod, who (in his disser∣tation de duplici Synodo Sirmiensi) hath made many very learned observations concerning this Synod. But he has mistaken the year whereon it was convened. For he says it was held in the year of Christ 347, a little before the Council of Serdica. Which can in no wise be true. Therefore Jacobus Sirmondus (in his second Diatriba, which he wrote against Petavius) has in this particular deservedly reproved him. Baronius (who affirms that the long draught of the Creed (which Socrates has recorded in the foregoing chapter) was drawn up at the Antiochian Synod in the year of Christ 344,) places this Embassie of the Eastern Bishops and the Millaine Council on the same year also. But Sirmondus (in the forementioned Diatriba) assignes this Council to the year of Christ 346. Which opinion is in my judgment the truer. For, in the first place, Athanasius (in his Apologetick to Constantius,) relates, that on the fourth year after his coming to Rome he was by Constans Augustus summoned to Millaine, whither some Bishops were then gone. Now Athanasius came to Rome in the year of Christ 341. Secondly, Hilarius (in fragmentis) re∣lates, that the Millaine Synod (wherein Photinus was condemned) was held two years before Ursacius and Valens offered their Libel of satisfaction to Julius Bishop of Rome. For after he has recorded that Libel, he addes these words, Hac Epistola post biennium missa est, quàm haresis Photini a Romanis damnata est, i. e. this Letter was sent two years after the Romans had condemned Photinus's Heresie. Since therefore Ursacius and Valens wrote that Letter in the year of Christ 349, as Petavius attests; the Millain Council must needs have been celebrated on the third year before that: that is, on the year of Christ 346. For that expression [post biennium▪ two years after] imports thus much, to wit, on the third year after that; which Petavius did not consider. Vales.
• b 4.25

  Baronius does deservedly blame Socrates here, for his saying that the reason why the Western Bishops rejected this draught of the Creed was, be∣cause they understood not the Greek tongue. As if there were not then many in Italy who were well skilled in the Greek lan∣guage. Moreover, Theodorus Le∣ctor has with good reason found fault with this cause of their re∣fusal. For, instead of Socrates's words here, he has substituted these; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because of its manifest blasphemy. Vales.
• * 4.26

  He means Constans.
• * 4.27

  General.
• c 4.28

  From the consulate of Felici∣anus and Titianus, (which was in the year of Christ 337,) to the consu∣late of Ru∣finus and Eusebius which was in the year of our Lord 347,) there are Ten years compleat. Therefore, if the Council of Serdica was convened in the eleventh year after Constantine's death, it must of necessity have been assembled after the twenty second day of May. Vales.
• d 4.29

  Athanasius does not say, that about three hundred Bishops of the Western Churches met at the Council of Serdica. He only says this, that as well those who were present at the Council of Serdica, as those who subscribed the Synodick Epistle afterwards sent to them; also those who before the Council at Serdica had written Synodick E∣pistles in his behalf, out of Phrygia, Asia, and Isauria, were in all three hundred and fourty. This passage of Athanasius's occurs in his second defence against the Arians, pag. 768; Edit. Paris. 1627. Moreover, the same Athanasius (in his Epistle ad Solitar. pag. 818.) does ex∣presly attest, that the Bishops, who met at the Council of Serdica, as well those out of the Western as the Eastern parts, were no more than 170. His words are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. There met therefore, both from the East, and from the West, at the City of Serdica, 170 Bishops, neither more nor less. In the Mogunt. Edit. after the Canons of the Synod of Serdica, there is this note; & subscripserunt, &c. i. e. and all the Bishops of divers Provinces and Cities subscribed, being in number 121. Vales.
• e 4.30

  In this place Socrates seems to have been mistaken, in referring those things to the Council of Serdica, which belong to the Roman Synod. For when Julius had invited the Eastern Bishops to a Syond at Rome, that Athanasius's case might there be inquired into; the Eastern Bishops refused to come thither, pretending, amongst other reasons, the narrowness of the time set; as Julius informs us in his Epistle to the said Eastern Bishops, recorded by Athanasius, pag. 744. Indeed Socrates's following words, to wit [although there had passed a year and six months, after such time as the Synod had been summoned, and during which space Athanasius made his abode at Rome, &c.] doe manifestly confirm what I have said. For Athanasius, invited by Julius's Letters, came to Rome▪ where he abode a whole year and six months expecting his adversaries, and the Synod which had been summoned at Rome. Julius attests this, in his forequoted Epistle▪ pag. 748. Vales.
• f 4.31

  Paulus Bishop of Constanti∣nople was not present at the Sy∣nod of Serdica, as Theodoret at∣tests, (book 2▪ chap. 5. Eccles. Histor.) which is also confirmed by the Synodick Epistle of the Eastern Bishops at Serdica, which occurs in Hilarius's Fragments, at pag. 434. Edit. Paris. 1631. Vales.
• g 4.32

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having written Let∣ters] the reading in the Allat. M. S. is truer; which is thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having inserted in their Letters.] But what Socrates here says, (to wit, that the Eastern Bishops at Serdica established the opinion of the A∣nomoiani (see the following note in this chapter) in their Syno∣dick Epistle▪) is altogether false. Their Synodick Epistle is extant in Hilarius's Fragments, at pag. 434. Edit. Paris. 1631; and at the end of it there is a confession of faith added. In which confession▪ there is nothing which in the least sa∣vours of the Anomians opinion. The said Hilarius▪ relating (in his book de Synodis) the same draught of the Creed published by the Eastern Bishops at Serdica, owns it as Catholick, and ex∣plaines it. And Hilarius is so far from believing that they dissemi∣nated the Anomians opinion; that he affirms them to have obstru∣cted that opinion on every side. His words are these: Ex omni autem parte, &c. But on all sides, whithersoever sollicitude could turn it self, the passage is stopt up by the wit of the Hereticks, lest it should be Preacht, that there is any di∣versity or unlikeliness in the Son [from the Father.] Vales.
• h 4.33

  The Anomoians were such as asserted, that the Son had a sub∣stance or essence different from, or unlike to the Father.
• * 4.34

  That is, different, or unlike.
• † 4.35

  Co-essen∣tial, or con∣substantial.
• * 4.36

  The We∣stern Bi∣shops.
• † 4.37

  The Ea∣stern Bi∣shops.
• i 4.38

  In the Synodick Epistle of the Coun∣cil of S••r∣dica (which occurs in Theodoret B. 2. c. 8. Eccles. Hist.) there is not the least mention of Paulus. Vales.
• ‖ 4.39

  See Socrates, book. 1. chap. 36 Eccles. Hist.
• † 4.40

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to renew the combat with the sentence which, &c.
• k 4.41

  These three books (the Title whereof is De Eccle∣siastica The∣ologia ad versus Mar∣cellum) of Eusebius's are at this day extant. There are prefixt before them two books, entitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Against Marcellus; wherein he reproves his designe, malice, and envy. Eusebius attests (in the close of his second book against Marcellus) that he wrote these books by the order of those Bishops who had condemned Marcellus in the Constantinopolitan Synod. Further, it is uncertain whether or no Socrates had ever seen those two former books against Marcellus, in regard he has made no mention of them. Vales.
• * 4.42

  See Eu∣seb. concer∣ning the Life of Con∣stantine, book 3. chap. 13, 14 Edit. Vales.
• † 4.43

  That is, to assert Arius's o∣pinion.
• a 4.44

  Socrates means those Dox∣ologies, that occur at the end of Eusebius's Sermons; which Eusebius doth always put into this form: Glory be to the unborn Father by his only begotten Son, &c. This may plainly be seen in those Tracts of Eusebius's, which Jacobus Sir∣mondus hath published. For example, in the end of his first book against Sabellius, these are his words: Gloria uni non nato Deo, &c. i. e. Glory be to the one unborn God, by the one only begotten God the Son of God, in one holy Spirit, both now, and always, and throughout all ages of ages. Amen. And so concerning the rest. Also, in the Oration Eu∣sebius made at the Consecration of the Church at Tyre, (which oc∣curs at the Tenth book of his Eccles. Histor. chap. 4.) we meet with the same clause, at the close of that Speech; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. by whom be Glory to him. For so we have worded that place, agreeable to three of our M. SS. Further, 'tis manifestly known, that the Arians attributed this preposition [per quem, by whom] to the Son, upon this design, that they might make him subject to the Father. See The∣odoret upon the first chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Vales.
• b 4.45

  Before these words there is a whole line wanting, (which (from the First Book of Eusebius de Ecclesiastica Theologia, Chap. 9.) is thus to be made up: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. For by this means he would be their brother, rather than the Son of God: and would be one of those common Crea∣tures, &c. Vales.
• c 4.46

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the reading should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, produced as Eusebius words it, at the place be∣fore cited. It should also be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] For these two words, although they are distinguished but by one Letter▪ yet do very much differ in their significations. For the term [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] signifies that which is born; but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] imports that which is made. Vales.
• * 4.47

  See Prov. 8. 22. and what was remarkt concerning that Text, in chap. 19. of this book. note (‖.)
• * 4.48

  1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. Where the expression in the original is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which may be rendred thus, to every humane Creature.
• † 4.49

  Amos 4. 12. 13. Euseb. quotes this Text in the words of the Septuagint: but omits the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I:] we have rendred them according to his quotation; which is very different from the Hebrew, and from our English Version.
• ‖ 4.50

  Eccles. 1. 9.
• * 4.51

  Acts 2. 2, 4.
• † 4.52

  Amos 4. 13.
• ‖ 4.53

  Psal. 51. 10.
• * 4.54

  Ephes. 2. 15.
• † 4.55

  Ephes. 4. 24.
• ‖ 4.56

  2 Cor. 5. 17.
• * 4.57

  Prov. 8. 22.
• a 4.58

  In our Annotations on the twenty first book of Amm. Mar∣cellinus, we have long since re∣marked, that this mountains name should be Soucis; and that here∣by is meant the streights of the Succi, which Amm. Mar∣cellinus de∣scribes in his twenty first book pag. 189. Edit. Paris. 1635. Philostorgius mentions the same streights, (in book 3. Eccles. Hist.) and calls them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Succi; being scituated between Dacia and Thracia. He de∣scribes them thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. They are streight passages of vast mountains, which are crouded together on each side into one place, in such a manner that they seem to embrace one ano∣ther. He means the two mountains, Haemus and Rhodope, which arising from different places, make an angle in that place, and do as it were kiss one another. Which gave the Ancients an occasion of seigning Haemus to be a young man, and Rhodope a maid, and that heretofore they fell in love with one another. You may meet with the story in Ovid. Metamorph. book 6. at the beginning. Busbequius (in 1 Epist Legat. Turci.) says that the Turks do now call this narrow passage Capi deruent, i. e. the Gate of narrownesses. Vales.
• b 4.59

  These words must have a favourable sense put upon them; and are not so to be understood, as if Socrates should have said, that after the Synod of Serdica the Western Bishops held no communion with the Eastern. For in the Synod of Sirmium (which was convened by the Western Bishops against Photinus two years after the Synod at Serdica) the Western Bishops sent their determinations to the Ea∣stern, upon account of preserving a communion. And the Eastern Bishops wrote back to them, as Hilarius informs us, in his Fragments. Thus therefore Socrates's words here must be understood: to wit; after the Synod of Serdica the Western Bishops did (not readily and rashly, but) with a great deal of cautiousness communicate with the Eastern. Vales.
• c 4.60

  Constans Augustus's Letter to his brother Constantius, which is here recor∣ded by So∣crates, is in my judg∣ment not to be lookt upon as ge∣nuine. For Athanasius makes no mention of this Letter: and Paulus's name (which is extant in it) doth upon good grounds render it suspicious. For at that time Paulus enjoyed his Bishoprick: neither was he present at the Synod of Serdica; nor restored by the determination thereof; as we shewed before. Wherefore, if this Letter of Constans's be genuine, it must necessarily have been written before the Council of Serdica. Lastly, Constantius's first Letter to Athanasius (which Socrates has inserted in the following chapter) evidently shews this to be a forged Letter. For Constantius in that Epistle saith, that by a Letter written to his brother he hath requested him to give Athanasius leave to return to his See. Vales.
• a 5.1

  This, and the two following Letters, are in A∣thanasius's second de∣fence, pag. 769. E∣dit. Paris. Vales.
• a 5.2

  In Atha∣nasius, in∣stead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 deter∣mined] the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 desired.] Vales.
• b 5.3

  In Athanasius, it is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sent] not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 manifested.] Vales.
• c 5.4

  After the Synod of Serdica, Athanasius made his abode first at Naïsis in Dacia. In which City he re∣ceived the Letters written to him by Constans Augustus. Afterwards, he left Naïsis, and went to Aquileia, as he himself attests, in his Apologetick to Constantius. pag. 676. Vales.
• d 5.5

  Athanasius relates the reason of this journey of his to Rome in his Second defence against the Arians; to wit, that he might take his leave of Julius the Bishop, and the Roman Church, by whom he had been so kindly entertained. For that is the meaning of these words of Athanasius: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. But I, upon receipt of these Letters, went to Rome, to bid the Roman Church and the Bishop farwell: For the term [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] signifies valedicere, to take leave of, or to bid farewell: as we have observed and proved in our Annot. on Eusebius's Life of Constantine; book 3. chap. 21. Vales.
• e 5.6

  In the Allat. M. S. and in A∣thanasius (in his second Apology against the Arians) these words [the Bishops and] are wanting. Instead hereof Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read [Julius the Bishop to the Presbyters, &c.] which reading Christophorson hath followed. Vales.
• f 5.7

  In Atha∣nasius the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] which I like not. For it must be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the course of life t••nding to them;] that is, to the pro∣mises. Or else the reading may be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of your mutu∣al love:] which rea∣ding Epi∣phan. Scho∣lastic. fol∣lowed. Vales.
• g 5.8

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 re∣ceived] in the Alla••. M. S. and in Athana∣sius, the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 decla∣red:] which I account the better reading. Vales.
• h 5.9

  In the Allat. M. S. the reading of this place is thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and together with him as many as have been partakers of so great labours with him. The reading in A∣thanasius is almost the same. But our Copies and Epiphanius Scho∣lasticus do confirm the common reading. Vales.
• * 5.10

  1 Cor. 2. 9.
• i 5.11

  This pas∣sage So∣crates had from R••si∣nus. There is no men∣tion of it in Athanasius Vales.
• k 5.12

  The rea∣ding must be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,; in∣commode;] which e∣mendation Rufinus confirmes, (book 1. chap. 19. Eccles. Hist.) and so doth E∣piphanius, in his Ver∣sion. Vales.
• * 5.13

  Likeness.
• l 5.14

  Epiphan. Scholasti∣cus reads [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Our good Govern∣ment▪ &c.] Vales.
• m 5.15

  I doubt not, but in∣stead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prayers] it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ears, o•• hearing▪] and so we have rendred it. Vales.
• * 5.16

  Or, eminently addicted to.
• n 5.17

  In the All••••. M. S. and in ••∣thana••ius, the rea∣ding here is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with your whole souls & minds.] Vales.
• o 5.18

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all manner of con••uta∣tion] the reading in the Allat. and Sfor∣tian M. SS. is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all manner of distur∣bance.] Vales.
• * 5.19

  Athana∣sius.
• p 5.20

  In the Allat. M. S. it is Augu∣stonica: in Athanasius it is called Augustam∣nica. The name of this Pro∣vince is usually written di∣vers ways. For some term it Au∣gustamnica, others Au∣gustanica: so I found it written in many both Greek and Latine M. SS. Others called it Au∣gustonica, to wit, from Augustus's Victory. In the subscriptions of the Bishops, who approved of Acacius's draught of the Creed, (which the Reader will meet with at the fortieth chapter of this second book,) whose names Epiphanius has recorded, (in Heres. Semiarian.) we read amongst others; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Ptolemaeus Bishop of Thmuis [a City] of Augustonica. Vales.
• a 5.21

  This Epistle of the Jerusa∣lem Synod is extant in Athana∣sius's second defence against the Arians▪ together with the names of those Bishops who subscri∣bed to that Synod. But we may here by the by take notice of the Bishop of Jerusalems authority, who (although he was no Metropolitane yet) sum∣moned the neighbouring Bi∣shops to a Synod, without the permission of the▪ Bishop of Cae∣sar••a. Vales.
• b 5.22

  Socrates speaks here concerning the Ordi∣nations performed by Athanasius in Egypt. For he says that was done after he arrived at Pelusium▪ which is the first City of Egypt to those that come out of Syria. If this be so, that opinion can no ways be maintained, which some now a days assert, to wit, that all Ordinations (as well of Bishops as of Presbyters) throughout Egypt belonged to the Bi∣shop of Alexandria: But we have sufficiently refuted this opinion in our Third Book of Ecclesiastick Observations published at the close of our Annotations on Socrates and Sozomen. Vales.
• * 5.23

  Constan∣tine the Great.
• * 5.24

  The e∣mendation of this place (which is very corrupt in Robert Stephens's Edition) we own to the Allat. M. S. where the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. But you must know, that together with them reigned their Cousen-german, whose name was Dalmatius of the same name with his own Father.] See Socrat. book 1. chap. 27. note (g.) The Florent. and Sfortian M. SS. alter not the Vulgar reading here. But the reading of the Allat. M. S. is evidently confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version. Only he calls Dalmatius Constantiu••'s Cousin-german by the mother's side. But Dalmatius was Constantiu••'s Cousin-german by the Father's side; for he was son to Dalmatius, Constantine the Great's Brother. Vales.
• b 5.25

  Eutropius relates the same: Dalmatius Caesar (says he,) Haud multò post oppressus est factione Militari, Constantio patruele suo si••••n•••• potius quàm jubente: i. e. Not long after, Dalmatius Caesar was slain by a faction of the Soul∣diers, Constantius his Cosin-ger∣man by the Father's side suffering, rather than commanding, it. Vales.
• * 5.26

  See Socrat. book 2. chap. 5.
• c 5.27

  He means the fight by night be∣tween the Romans & Persians, at Singar, a sortress of Mesopotamia, wherein the son of Sapor King of Persia was slain: but the Romans had a very great slaughter made amongst them, as Amm. Marcellinus re∣lates, book 18. pag. 122. Edit. Paris. 1636. See Our Annota∣tions on that passage; pag. 1••6. This Engagement hapned in the year of Christ 348, when Phi∣lippus and Salias were Consuls; as Idatius relates, in his ••••st••. Vales.
• * 5.28

  Or crept up by the Souldiers means.
• d 5.29

  In the Greek the reading is [Constan∣tius had a Sister's Son, &c.] But it must be [Constantine had▪ &c.] For Nepotianus was Son to Eutropia Con∣stantin's Sister; as Victor tells us, in his Epitome: and, as we are informed by Eutropiu••▪ Epiphanius Scholasticus's reading agrees with our emendation; but he mistakes in calling Nepotianus [••ra∣tru••lem Constant••ni▪ i. e. Constantin's Brothers Son,] in regard he was his Sisters Son. Vales.
• a 5.30

  The same is recor∣ded in Ida∣tius's Fasti; in these words: Ser∣gio & Nigriniano Coss. his Consuli∣bus Constans occisus est in Galliis à Magnentio, & levatus est Mag∣nentius die 15. Kal. Februar. Et Vetranio apud Sirmium Kal. Martii. Eo anno, & Nepotianus Romae tertio Nonas Junias. ••t pugna magna suit cum Romanis & Magnentianis: i. e. Sergius and Nigrinianus being Consuls, Con∣stans was slain in the Gallia's by Magnentius, and Magnentius was set up on the 15^th of the Ka∣lends of February. And Vetranio at Sirmium on the Kalends of March. On the same year, Ne∣potianus also at Rome on the third of the Nones of June. And there was a great battel between the Romans and Magnentians. The same is recorded in the Alexan∣drian Chronicle; but there, these passages are placed on the Con∣sulate of Limenius and Catullinus, when as they hapned on the year following. Which was the year of Christ, 350. Vales.
• * 5.31

  Or Ni∣grianus.
• b 5.32

  Constantius was long before Emperour of the East. But when Constans was dead, who Governed the Western Empire▪ he was by the Souldiers stiled Emperour of the whole Roman world. Vales.
• c 5.33

  In the Florent. M. S. this Towns name is written with a double s, thus Cucus∣sus. Vales.
• d 5.34

  Olympius was Bishop of Ac∣num a City of Thracia: Theodu∣lus was Bishop of Trajanople, as Athanasius attests, (in Epist. ad Solitar.) He mentions the same Bishops, in his Apologetick de Fuga Sua, pag. 703. But these passages are preposterously re∣lated by Socrates. For they were not done before the Magnentian war, as Socrates says, but when that war was ended, in the year of Christ 356; as Baronius hath truly remarked. Vales.
• e 5.35

  This per∣son has a great e∣logue given him in the Alexan∣drian Chro∣nicle, at the Consu∣late of Ser∣giu•• and Nigrinianus: which commendation was taken out of some Semi-Arian writer. Athanasius doth every where speak sharply con∣cerning this Leontius. His crafty disposition is incomparably well described by Theodoret; book 2. chap. 24. Eccles. Histor. Vales.
• a 5.36

  In Atbanasius the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they banished.] But in the Florent▪ and Sfortian M. SS. the reading (which I like better) is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he banished.] To shew, that this is to be understood of Sebastianus the Captain of Egypt, who then adjudged matters in a detestable course. Moreover, all these things are (as I have said) related in a preposterous manner by Socrates; in regard they were done in the year of Christ, 356. Vales.
• b 5.37

  The rea∣ding is the same in Athanasius. But in Theodoret (book 2. chap. 14. where this passage of Athanasius's is inserted) the reading is [They mur∣dered.] Vales.
• c 5.38

  The same is recorded in Idatius's Fasti, af∣ter the Consulate of Sergius and Nigri∣nianus, in these words: His Coss. Levatus est Constantius Caesar Id. Martii, & apparuit in Oriente Signum Salvatoris die 3. Kal. Februar. Lunae 28. i. e. During these mens Consulate Constantius [Gallus] was created Caesar on the Ides of March, and the Sign of our Saviour appeared in the East, on the third of the Kalends of February, on the 28^th of the Moon. But the Authour of the Alex∣andrian Chronicle says this Sign was seen in the East, on the Nones of May, about the day of Pentecost. To whom agrees Cyrillus, Phi∣lostorgius, and Cedrenus. And Socrates seems to confirm the same in this place. For he saith, that this Sign appeared in the East, when Gallus Caesar entred Antioch. Now Gallus was created Caesar on the Ides of March as (besides Idatius) the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle doth affirm. Vales.
• * 5.39

  That is, Sirmium.
• a 5.40

  It is not agreed a∣mongst the Learned, in what year the Synod of Sirmium (wherein Photinus was de∣prived of his Bi∣shoprick) was held. Socrates and Sozo∣men affirm it to have been cele∣brated af∣ter the Consulate of Sergius an Nigri∣nianus: in which year, by reason of the distur∣bances caused by the Civil War, there were no Consuls in the East; but in the Western parts Magnentius Augustus was Consul with Gaiso. Baronius (in His Ecclesiastick Annalls,) asserts, that that Synod was convened in the year of Christ 357; when Constantius Augustus was the Ninth time Consul, and Julianus Casar the Second time. But Dionysius Petavius (First in his Animadversions on Epiphanius, and Secondly in his dissertation de duplici Synodo Sirmiensi,) doth by most evident arguments demon∣strate, that the year of that Synod is truly assigned by Socrates, after the Consulate of Sergius and Nigrinianus, which was the year of Christ 351. I know Jacobus Sirmondus hath written two books, wherein he has endeavoured to maintain Baronius's opinion against Dionysius Petavius. But, in regard he himself did not publish those books, that is an evidence sufficient, that at length he acknowledged his own opinion to be false. Vales.
• b 5.41

  The Bishops here named by Socrates, sate not in that Synod of Sir∣mium, which was convened against Photinus, after the Consulate of Ser∣gius and Nigrinianus, in the year of Christ 351: but in that other Sy∣nod, which was convened there when Eusebius and Hypatius were Con∣suls, in the year of Christ 359, a little before the Council of Ariminum: which Latter Synod at Sirmium did also set forth that draught of the Creed, which was afterwards recited at Ariminum; before which the Consuls names were perfixt. And this is evidently made out by Germi∣nius, in his Epistle to Valens, which is recorded in Hilarius's Fragments; and by Epiphanius, in Heres. Semiarian. In the former Sirmium-Synod, assembled against Photinus, the Eastern Bishops only were present: this is attested by Hilarius, in his book de Synodis, and by Vigilius Bishop of Tapsis in his Fifth Book against Eutyches. Vales.
• c 5.42

  Georgius was not at this time (viz. after the Consulate o•• Sergius and Nigrinianus) Bishop of Alexandria. For he was created Bishop there in the eighth Consulate of Constantius Augustus, and in the First Consulate of Julianus Caesar, which was in the year of Christ 356. Wherefore, he could not sit in the former Sirmium Synod, which deposed Photinus in the year of Christ 351. The same must be said of Hosius also, who at that time lived under Magnentius's jurisdiction: nor was he as yet banished to Sirmium. Vales.
• * 5.43

  See chap. 14. of this book.
• d 5.44

  Theodorus continued to be Bishop of Heraclea in Thracia in the year of Chist 356, as it is manifest from Athanasius's Circular Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, pag. 290: which Epistle Atha∣nasius wrote in the year of Christ 356, after Georgius's entrance into the See of Alexandria. Wherefore, Hypatianus must necessarily have been made Bishop of Heraclea after the year 356. Sozomen hath made mention of the same Hypatianus, book 6. chap. 7. Eccles. Hist. Vales.
• e 5.45

  Socrates here means by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ludi Circenses, which the Consuls, exhibited at their entrance upon their Consulate: which by the Latines is termed Consulatum dare. Some Consuls, besides the Ludi Circenses, entertained the people with Scenical Plays, and with hunting of wild beasts in the Amphitheatre. Vales.
• f 5.46

  At this place we follow the Sfortian M. S. in which Copy this passage is more fully exprest, thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; i. e. But those [Bishops] who staid behind, &c.] Incomparably well in my judgment. Indeed, that draught of the Creed, which was published in the Synod of Sirmium against Photinus, is approved of by Hilarius, (in his book de Synodis,) as being Ca∣tholick: but Athanasius (in his book de Synodis Arimini & Seleuciae) condemns and rejects it, in the same manner with the other Creeds composed by the Arians. Nor do Hilarius and Athanasius disagree with one another concerning this one form of the Creed, but about other draughts of it also; for example, about the Antiochian draught. For Hilarius confesseth that the Eastern Bishops had good reason to compose new forms of the Creed, when new Heresies arose against the Church. But Athanasius doth maintain, that those new draughts of the Creed were craftily composed by the Arians, with a design to destroy the Nicene Creed. Further, that this place of Socrates, instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which was not best for all men] I had rather read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that which was not gratefull to all men.] And so I have rendred it. Vales.
• * 5.47

  Or, other explana∣tions con∣cerning the Faith.
• a 5.48

  Socrates (and with him Sozo∣men,) is here dou∣bly mista∣ken. First, because he supposed, that there were three forms of the Creed drawn up in the Sy∣nod of Sir∣mium against Photinus; whereas there was one form only composed in that Synod; which (besides Socrates) is recorded by Athanasius, pag. 900. and by Hilarius, in his book de Synodis 338. Edit. Paris. 1631. Secondly, in regard he asserts, that that form of the Creed, which was published in the Greek tongue at the Synod of Sirmium against Photinus, was dictated by Marcus of Arethusa. Marcus of Arethusa did not dictate that form I have mentioned, but another; before which the Consuls names were prefixt, and which was afterwards recited at Ariminum, as Nicholaus Faber hath already observed (in the Preface he wrote to Hilarius's Fragments) from Germinius's Epistle. We must therefore distinguish between the three Synods of Sirmium, each of which published their form of the Creed. The first was convened against Photinus, in the year of Christ 351. The second was assembled in the year of our Lord 357: wherein the Blasphemie of Hosius and Potamius was composed. The third was celebrated when Eusebius and Hypatius were Consuls, in the year of Christ 359; wherein that Creed was drawn up, which Marcus of Arethusa dictated. Vales.
• b 5.49

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 another] the reading must be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the other two, or two more] as it is in the Allat. M. S. For Socrates here recounts three draughts of the Creed composed at Sirmium; the two latter whereof he saith were written at first in Latine, and after∣wards translated into Greek. Which in my judgment is not true. I grant indeed, that that Creed, which by Hilarius is termed Hosius's Blasphemie, was at first published in Latine. But the other, which had the Consuls names prefixt before it, was undoubtedly at first dictated in the Greek tongue. For he that dictated it, (viz. Marcus of Arethusa) and the rest of the Bishops then assembled were almost all Graecians. Lastly, the subscriptions of the Bishops, who subscribed this form, are extant in Greek, in Epiphanius (in Hares. Semiarian.) Vales.
• c 5.50

  Without doubt it must be [Ariminum,] not [Sirmium:] which reading Epiphan. Scholasticus followed, as appears from his Version. See chap. 37. of this second book. Vales.
• * 5.51

  Ephes. 3. 15.
• * 5.52

  Are not.
• d 5.53

  Hilarius seems to have read otherwise. For in his book de Sy∣nodis, where he records this Creed, he renders this passage thus: & fi∣quis, &c. and if any one affirming one God, but shall not profess Christ to be God the Son of God before ages, &c. Vales.
• † 5.54

  Enlarged.
• * 5.55

  Esai. 44. 6.
• † 5.56

  John 1. 14.
• e 5.57

  In the Allat. M. S. and in Athanasius's book de Synodis, this Anathema is thus worded: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. and we have rendred it accordingly: af∣ter the same manner Hilarius read this passage, as from his Ver∣sion appears. Vales.
• † 5.58

  Gen. 1. 26.
• f 5.59

  This whole Anathematism was omit∣ted here: it occurs in Athana∣sius's and Hilarius's Copy of this Creed; and therefore we inser∣ted it. Vales. The Learned Reader will find it in Robert Ste∣phens Edit. also.
• † 5.60

  Gen. 19. 24.
• g 5.61

  This A∣nathema∣tism is dif∣ferently worded in all the Au∣thours (we have seen) where∣in this Creed occurs. Valesius says, that he has published it ac∣cording to the reading of the Florent. and Sfortian M. SS. which Copies we have followed in our English version: where it is thus worded in the Greek: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The reading in Robert Stephens is different from this; and so is that in Athana∣sius, pag. 901: where 'tis thus worded: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Hilarius has translated otherwise, as appears from his Version, at pag. 339. Edit. Paris▪ 1631. His words are these: Si∣quis dominum & dominum patrem & filium▪ quasi dominum a domino intelligat: quia dominum & domi∣num duos dicat deos▪ Anathema sit. Thus variously is this Anathema∣tism represented. The Learned Reader may take the liberty (as we have done,) to follow which Copy he pleases.
• h 5.62

  We follow the reading in Hi∣larius, and in Athanasius; where it is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Sodom.] In Robert Stephens the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, For neither did he descend into the body.]
• * 5.63

  Psal. 110. 1.
• † 5.64

  See John 14. 16.
• i 5.65

  Here we follow the reading in Athanasius, which is thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. For the Father was not forced, &c. which reading is confirmed by Epiphanius Scho∣lasticus, and by Hilarius. Vales.
• * 5.66

  1 Cor. 11. 3.
• k 5.67

  Athana∣sius has the same words in his book de Synodis Arimini & Seleuciae: where, after he had in∣serted this foregoing Creed, he adds these words con∣cerning this which follows; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Having re∣jected all these things, as if they had invented better, they promulge another Creed, which they wrote at Sirmium in Latine, but it was translated into Greek. But Hilarius recording this Creed in his book de Synodis, prefixes this title before it: Exemplum Blasphemiae, &c. A Copy of the Blasphemy composed at Sirmium by Hosius and Potamius. Which title Hilarius made himself, and deservedly calls this Creed Blas∣phemy. Who this Potamius, here joyned with Hosius was, Mar∣cellinus Presbyter informs us in the Supplicatory Libel which he presented to the Emperour Theodosius. Where, amongst the cor∣rupters of the Divine and Apostolick Faith, after Arius, he in the first place names this person: his words are these: Potamius Odyssiponae civitatis Episcopus, &c. i. e. Potamius Bishop of Lisbon was at first a Defender of the Catholick Faith, but afterwards induced by the re∣ward of a Farm belonging to the Emperours Revenue (which he was very desirous of,) be corrupted the Faith. Hosius of Corduba a∣mongst the Churches in Spain detected this man, and repelled him as being an impious Heretick. But, even Hosius himself, summoned be∣fore the Emperour Constantius by the complaint of this Potamius, and terrified with threats, was fearfull (being old and rich) of banishment, or proscription, and so yielded to the impiety. Vales.
• l 5.68

  These three words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the rest] occur not in the Latine Copy of this Draught of the Creed. But they are extant in Athanasius, and in all our M. SS. Copies. Hence 'tis manifest that many Bishops were at that time convened at Sirmium. Indeed Phoebadius Bishop of Angolesm [in France,] in the Epistle he wrote against this Draught of the Creed, does expresly affirm that it was published in a Synod of Bishops. The same is sufficiently confirmed by Athanasius, in the forequoted place. Lastly, in regard Hilarius (in his foresaid book) does attest, that this Creed, after it had been dictated at Sirmium, was forthwith sent to all the Eastern and Western Bishops to be approved by them; he evidently shews it to have been dictated in a Synod. Nor can the Draught of a Creed be any where dictated but in a Synod of Bishops. Further, that Germinius here mentioned, was Bishop of Sirmium, put into Photinus's See upon his being ejected, in the year of Christ 351. Nicolaus Faber (in his Preface to Hilarius's Fragments,) says that this Germinius had before been Bishop of Cyzicum; which I do not believe. That place in Athanasius (in his Epist. ad Solitar. pag. 860; where he re∣proves the Emperour Constantius because, contrary to the Ecclesiastick Canons, he would send obscure fellows, born in remote countries, to be Bishops in the Cities;) deceived that Learned man: Athanasius's words there are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. So he sent Gregorius from Cappadocia to Alexan∣dria. And Germinius was by him sent from the City Cyzicum to Sir∣mium. From Laodicea he sent Cecropius to Nicomedia. From these words of Athanasius it cannot be concluded, that Germinius had been Bishop of Cyzicum before. Otherwise, the same must be said con∣cerning Gregorius and Cecropius, that the latter had been before Bi∣shop of Laodicea, and the former in Cappadocia, which, in regard 'tis evi∣dently false in these two, cannot be said of Germinius. This Germi∣nius was preferred to the Episcopate of Sirmium by the Arians, be∣cause he was a most eager defender of their opinion. This we are informed of by Athanasius, in his circular Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, pag. 290. Vales.
• m 5.69

  In the Allat. and Sfortian. M. SS. and in Epiphanius's Version these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and God] occur; in Athanasius and Hilarius they are wanting. Vales.
• * 5.70

  John 20. 17.
• † 5.71

  Rom. 3. 29, 30.
• † 5.72

  Substance, or Essence.
• † 5.73

  That is, of the same Substance, or Essence.
• * 5.74

  That is, of like Sub∣stance, or Essence.
• ‖ 5.75

  Esai. 53. 8.
• † 5.76

  See John 14. 28.
• † 5.77

  Matth. 28. 19.
• n 5.78

  In Atha∣nasius it is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that he might teach. Vales.
• * 5.79

  See chap. 29. note (b.)
• o 5.80

  Epipha∣nius (in H••r••s. Pho∣tinian.) relates, that Photinus, after he had been condemned and deposed in the Synod of Sirmium, (for so the reading must be, not, in the Synod of Scrdica.) went to Constantius, and requested that he might dispute concerning the Faith before Judges by him nominated: and that Constantius enjoyned Basilius Bishop of Ancyra to under∣take the disputation against Photinus, and gave leave, that Thalassius, Datianus, Cerealis, and Taurus, who were Counts▪ should be Judges or auditours of that disputation. Amongst these Thalassius was the chief person in favour and authority with the Emperour (as Zosimus tells us in his second book.) And was sent Prefect of the Pretorium into the East together with Gallus Caesar, in the year of Christ 351. He died in the year of our Lord 353, in the sixth Consulate of Con∣stantius Augustus, and in the second of Gallus Caesar; as Amm. Marcel∣linus relates book 14. Therefore the Synod of Sirmium, and the dispu∣tation of Basilius against Photinus cannot fall on the year of Christ 357, as Baronius asserts. Besides, Epiphanius says further, that in Basilius's disputation against Photinus, Callicrates was a Notary, who had before been Notary to Rufinus Prefect of the Praetorium. Now, Rufinus was Prefect of the Praetorium in the Gallia's, in the sixth Consulate of Constantius Augustus, and in the second of Gallus Caesar, as Amm. Marcellinus tells us book. 14. But, two years before he had been Praefect of Illyricum. Now, in the year of Christ 357, Anatolius, not Rufinus, bore the Praefecture of the Praetorium in Illyricum. Further, it may be evidently concluded from Germinius's being made Bishop, that the Synod of Sirmium against Photinus (wherein Photinus was ejected out of his Bishoprick,) was not held in the year of Christ 357. For, Germinius was Bishop of Sir∣mium, before Georgius intruded himself into the See of Alexandria upon Athanasius's Ejectment, as Athanasius relates in the Circular Letter he wrote to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, at such ▪time as Georgius was in possession of the Alexandrian See. Moreover, Geor∣gius entred upon the See of Alexandria in the beginning of the year 356, as it is evident from the protestation of the Alexandrians which is extant at the close of Athanasius's Epistle ad Solitar. Seeing therefore Germinius was Bishop of Sirmium before the year of our Lord 356, Photinus also (whom Germinius succeeded) must neces∣sarily have been deposed before this year. Athanasius (in Epist. ad Solitar. pag. 860, where he recounts the ordinations of extraneous persons made by Constantius;) does in the first place mention Gre∣gorius's Ordination; then, Germinius's and Cecropius's; afterwards Auxentius's; and at last Georgius's. Amongst these persons, Gre∣gorius was made Bishop of Alexandria in the year of Christ 341. Germinius succeeded Photinus in the Episcopate of Sirmium in the year 351: after he had been sent for by Constantius then residing at Sirmium, as Athanasius relates in the fore-quoted place; which the Latine Translatour has rendred ill. On the same year Cecropius was made Bishop of Nicomedia, as it may be concluded from the foresaid passage in Athanasius. Lastly, Auxentius was preferred to the Bishoprick of Millaine in the year of our Lord 355: and on the year following Georgius thrust himself into the See of Alexandria. Vales.
• p 5.81

  In the Allat. M. S. it is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he wrote Books] which rea∣ding is con∣firmed by Epiphanius Scholasti∣cus's ver∣sion. Vales.
• † 5.82

  That is, in Greek, and Latine.
• q 5.83

  Socrates borrowed this passage out of A∣thanasius's book de Sy∣nodis A∣rimin. & Seleuciae. But herein he mi∣stakes; viz. what Athanasius had said concerning the third form of the Creed drawn up at Sirmium, (before which the Consuls names were prefixt,) Socrates attributes to the second, composed by Hosius and Potamius. The place in Athanasius is extant at pag. 904: but in regard of its length we forbear quoting the words here. Petavius (in his Animadversions on Epiphanius, pag. 318.) has followed this mistake of Socrates's. Vales.
• a 5.84

  I noted before, that Hosius's banish∣ment to Sirmium, and the form of the Creed drawn up by him, are here preposte∣rously re∣lated by Socrates. For Ho∣sius's lapse hapned in the year of Christ 357. as Baronius has truly observed. Vales.
• * 5.85

  Sign••.
• a 5.86

  In the Allat. M. S. this place is called [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mon∣to seleucus.] Epiphanius Schola∣sticus terms it The mountain Se∣leucus. We have the site of this place in the Jerusalem Itinerary. Vales.
• b 5.87

  It is something otherwise in Idatius's Fasti: thus: in the sixth Consulate of Constantius and the second of Constantius Gallus, Magnentius killed himself in the Gallia's at Lyons, on the third of the Ides of August; and Decentius, brother to Mag∣nentius, hanged himself on the fifteenth of the Kalends of September. In the Alexandr. Chronicle, the year of Magnentius's death is falsely set down; but the day is noted to have been on the fourteenth of the Ides of August. Vales.
• a 5.88

  I corrected this place by the assistance of the Allat. M. S. of Sozomen, and Cedrenus. In the Allat. M. S. the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. He slew them because they had acquainted the Emperour with his de••ign.] Sozomen's words (book 4. chap. 7.) are almost the same. But Epiphanius, our M. SS. Copies, and the Alexan∣drian Chronicle retain the Vul∣gar reading, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He (that is, Gallus) having not acquainted the Empe∣rour with his design of slaying Do∣mitianus, &c. Vales.
• b 5.89

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in∣to Gallia] the reading in the Allat. M. S. is truer; which is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into Italy:] which reading we have followed in our Version. Vals.
• c 5.90

  Julius Bishop of Rome died on the twelfth of April, when Constantius Augustus was Consul the fifth time, and Constantius Caesar the first time; which was the year of Christ 352: after he had sat Bishop fifteen years, one month, and eleven days; as it is recorded in the Antient book concerning the Roman Bishops, which is publi∣shed together with Victorius Aquitanus's Cycle. Vales.
• * 5.91

  Book 1. chap. 38.
• a 5.92

  Who these Ephecticks were, we may know from Diogenes Laër∣tius: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. Philosophers (says he) were generally divided into two sorts; some were termed Dogmatici, who discoursed concerning things as they might be comprehended: o∣thers were called Ephectici, who de∣fine nothing, and dispute of things so as they cannot be comprehended. See Diogen Laërt. in Proëm. de Vit. Philos. pag. 10. Edit. Colon. Allobrog. 1616. of these Ephecticks (whom we may in English call Doubters) the Scepticks were one Species.
• b 5.93

  In the original, the term is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] unbegotten] which is used instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without a beginning;] where∣fore, we have rendred it accord∣ingly. Vales.
• * 5.94

  That is, one that be∣lieves there is no God.
• † 5.95

  Or, me∣thods of ar∣guing.
• c 5.96

  In the Allatian M. S. in∣stead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that▪ Haeretical opinion] the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that contentious and verbose way of disputing:] but Epiphanius Scholasticus follows the vulgar reading, and so does Suidas, in the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] where he transcribes this passage of our Socrates. Vales.
• a 5.97

  We meet with the same num∣ber in So∣zomen, book 4. chap. 9. But 'tis scarce cre∣dible that so great a number of Bishops should have been convened at this Council of Millaine: I should rather think that the copies of Socrates and Sozo∣men were false; and that instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 three hundred] it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 thirty.] In the Epistle of the Council of Millaine sent to Eusebius Bishop of Vercellae, there are the names of thirty Bishops only, who consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, Marcellus, and Photinus. Amongst whom some Eastern Bishops are recounted, as you may see in Baronius, at the year of Christ 355. Vales.
• b 5.98

  Paulinus Bishop of Triers was not present at the Council of Mil∣laine, but at that of Orleance, which had been convened two years be∣fore, in the year of Christ 353. See Baronius. Vales.
• c 5.99

  The reading is the same in Sozomen, book 4. chap. 9. But Ba∣ronius has long since remarked, that Alba is here put instead of Mil∣laine, For Millaine (not Alba) was the Metropolis of Italy. And Dionysius, who then opposed Constantius and the Arians, was not Bi∣shop of Alba, but of Millaine, as Athanasius attests in his Epistle a•• Solitar. Vales.
• * 5.100

  That is, Paulinus, Dionysius, and Euse∣bius.
• a 5.101

  These words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. ••. The Emperour is∣sued out these orders with a de∣signe to unite them in opinion] are wanting in Robert Stephens's Edition: we have inserted them, upon the authority of the Flo∣rentine and Sfortian M. SS. Vales.
• b 5.102

  The death of Leontius Bi∣shop of Antioch hapned in the year of Christ 356; Constantius residing then at Rome, as Baro∣nius has truly remarked. Vales.
• * 5.103

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, under∣mined, or burrowed into the Bi∣shoprick of Antioch.
• c 5.104

  Leontius Bishop of Antioch, had at first preferred Aëtius to a diaco∣nate: but being afterwards reproved by Diodorus and Flavianus, because he had advanced a person to sacred orders who had been bred up in ill studies, and was an assertour of impious Tenets; he divested him of his Deaconship, as Theodoret relates (Eccles. Hist. book 2. chap. 24.) Eudoxius therefore, as soon as he had gotten the Bishoprick of Antioch, attempted to restore Aëtius to his former pre∣ferment. Vales.
• † 5.105

  Dea∣conship.
• * 5.106

  Book 2. chap. 12.
• * 5.107

  Chap. 30.
• d 5.108

  We re∣mark't be∣fore, (book 2. chap. 30. note (b.) that this third Exposition of Faith was not translated out of Latine; but was at first dictated in Greek by Marcus Arethusius. Athanasius, who has recorded this Creed in his book de Synodis, does not say it was translated out of Latine; and yet, where-ever he pro∣duceth any monument rendred into Greek out of the Latine tongue, his continual usage is to give the Reader warning of it. Further, these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. This Creed was translated out of Latine [into Greek,] the contents thereof are these] are wanting in Robert Stephens's Edition; nor are they in Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version. Vales.
• e 5.109

  In Atha∣nasius's book de Sy∣nodis pag. 875; the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before every com∣prehensible substance.] Vales.
• * 5.110

  Substance.
• f 5.111

  The lat∣ter part of this Sirmi∣an Creed is set down by Germinius in his Epistle to ••ufianus, Palladius, and others, in these words: Nam sub bonae memoriae Constantio Imperatore, &c. For under the Emperour Constantius of good memory, when there began to be a dissention amongst some concerning the Faith; in the presence of the said Emperour, there being also present Georgius Bishop of the Alexandrian Church, Pancratius of Pelusium, Basilius at that time Bishop of Anquiri∣tum, Valens, Ursacius, and our slenderness; after a dispute had con∣cerning the Faith untill night, when it was reduced to a certain Rule, Marcus was chosen by us all to dictate it: in which Creed it is thus written, The Son is in all things like the Father, as the divine Scri∣ptures do affirm and teach. To which entire prosession of Faith we all gave our consent, and subscribed it with our hands. Their subscriptions are extant in Epiphanius (in Haeres. Semiarian. cap. 22.) which ought to be annexed to this draught of the Creed. The same form of the Sirmian Creed is mentioned in the Exposition of the Faith at Seleucia, which Epiphanius hath recorded in the foresaid Heresie, chap. 25; in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. Moreover, that that Draught of the Creed heretosore published at Sirmium in the presence of the piety of our Emperour [Constantius] does exactly agree with this form of the Creed, is very well known by them who have read that Creed; which was subscribed by them ••hat were then present, to wit, Basilius, Marcus, Geo••gius Bishop of Alexandria, Pancratius, Hypatianus, and most of the Western Bishops. Vales.
• g 5.112

  The pas∣sage in A∣thanasius here quoted by Socrates, occurs at the beginning of his Epistle de Synod•• Arimini & Seleuciae. Vales.
• h 5.113

  We read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 all things] as it is in A∣thanasius: See the forequoted passage. Vales.
• i 5.114

  For this is the title prefixt before the exposition of Faith at Sirmium [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. This Chatho∣lick Creed was expounded and pub∣lished in the presence of our Lord the most pious and Victorious Em∣perour Constantius Augustus, E∣ternal Augustus, &c.] as it is extant in Athanasius, at the fore∣quoted place. Which words I therefore annext here, because our Socrates, in his recitation of that Draught of the Creed, has omitted these titles. Indeed Con∣stantius did so readily give cre∣dence to such flatteries as these, that speaking of himself in his Edicts and Letters, he would sometimes assert his own eter∣nity. This is attested by Amm. Marcellinus, not far from the be∣ginning of his fifteenth book, in these words: Quo ille (speaking of Constantius) studio blandi••ia∣rum exquisito sublatus▪ immunem{que} se deinde fore ab omni mortalitatis incommodo fidenter existimans, con∣festim à justitia declinavit ita in∣temperanter, u•• AETERNITA∣TEM MEAM aliquoties subse∣reret ipse dictando, &c. Vales.
• * 5.115

  See Isai. 1. 1. and Hosea 1. 1.
• † 5.116

  Jeremiah 1. 2.
• * 5.117

  Addition.
• † 5.118

  He speaks ••ronically.
• * 5.119

  Writing.
• * 5.120

  See Luk. 2. 1.
• k 5.121

  In Athanasius the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, into the madness:] which is the better reading: for he means the Mon∣tanists, to whom madness is de∣servedly attributed. The term here, in Socrates, is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, impious opinion.] Vales.
• † 5.122

  See Eusebius Eccles. Hist. book 4. chap. 27. note (c.) and book 5. chap. 18.
• l 6.1

  This Letter of the Ariminum Synod is extant in Latine, in Hilarius, amongst the Fragments of his book de Synodis, pag. 451. Edit. Paris. 1631: out of whom we have transc••ibed it, and placed it here instead of a Version. It ought not to seem strange to any person, to see so great a disagreement between the Greek Version and the ori∣ginal Latine Copy of this Epistle. For this is an usual thing with Greek Translatours, as often as they render Latine into Greek; which may be easily perceived from the Emperours Rescripts, which occur in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History. But, we need not fetch exam∣ples hereof from any other place, than from this Letter: in which do occur almost as many mistakes in the Greek translation of it, as there are periods in the Letter. But, the beginning of this Letter is commonly thus worded in Hilarius▪ Lubente Deo ex praecepto pietatis Tuae credimus f••isse dispos••tum, &c. By Gods pleasure we believe it hath been ordered by the Command of your Piety, &c. But in the M. S. Copy made use of by Jacobus Sirmondus, the reading is thus: Ju∣bente Deo, &c. By Gods will, &c. So the Greek Translatour reads it▪ whom we have followed in this place. Any one may with good rea∣son conjecture, that [Jubente Deo, By Gods will] is written instead of [Juvante Deo, By Gods assistance.] Vales.
• * 6.2

  Or, place of the Ari∣minensians.
• † 6.3

  Salva∣tion.
• * 6.4

  Or, Con∣sult.
• m 6.5

  These words have no very good coherence with the pre∣ceding sentence. I conjecture that this place was transposed in the Latine Copies. There∣fore, next these words [a passage would be opened to the poisons of Hereticks,] those, in my judg∣ment, are to be placed, which follow a little after; in this man∣ner: Constantine being present in this [Consult,] in regard, after a searching disquisition, &c. unto these words [our Lord Jesus Christ.] To which are to be subjoyned these [Therefore Ur∣sacius and Valens, &c.] Vales.
• n 6.6

  At chap. 20 of this book, note (a.) we have remarkt many things concerning this first Synod of Millaine, wherein Ursacius, and Valens having presented a Libel of satisfaction, condemned the A∣rian Heresie. The said persons confirm the same in another Libel, which they presented afterwards to Julius Bishop of Rome, at Rome; in these words: Haere∣ticum vero Arium &c. sicut per pri∣orem nostrum Libellum, quem apud Mediolanum porreximus, & nunc & semper anathematizasse profite∣mur. Vales.
• † 6.7

  Maimings.
• * 6.8

  Under∣standing.
• p 6.9

  These words are spoken against Ursacius and Valens, and their followers; who daily promulged new forms of the Creed, hereby demonstrating that they had no certain Faith; as Athanasius frequently objects against them. Vales.
• * 6.10

  Taken away.
• q 6.11

  Here I followed the Greek Translatour of this Epistle; and corrected the Latine Copy. For in Hilarius's Fragments, the com∣mon reading of this place is this [Ne vel permittat Clementia tua jura vetera convelli, that Your Clemency would not permit the ancient Laws to be reversed.] In the M. S. Copy, which Sirmon∣dus had seen, the reading is [ne vel aliquid permittat clementia tua injuriam veterum convelli.] Whence we smelt out the true reading, which we have exprest in our Version. Vales.
• r 6.12

  Here the Greek translatour was grievously out; for instead of credulity he has rendred it cru∣elty. Vales.
• * 6.13

  Or, have.
• s 6.14

  The Greek Transla∣tour of this Letter makes use of the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Divinity, here: but in Athanasius 'tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Sanctity. It is improbable that the Bi∣shops should have said, The Divinity of the Emperour. Vales.
• t 7.1

  This Let∣ter of Con∣stantius's, together with the answer of the Bi∣shops at Ariminum, is extant in Athana∣sius's book de Synodis, near the close of it. Vales.
• * 7.2

  Or, per∣form.
• u 7.3

  Socrates is here mi∣staken. For Liberius was not ba∣nished, and Felix the Deacon put into his See, after the Synod of Ariminum; but long befo••e, in the year of Christ, 356. Vales.
• * 7.4

  That is, Ursacius's party.
• x 7.5

  In the Kings M. S. (which co∣py Robert Stephens followed,) and in Ro∣bert Ste∣phens's E∣dition, there are several words wan∣ting in the text at this place: we have made up this Chasme fr•••• ••he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Sfor∣tian M. SS. after this manner [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. em∣braced the Arian opi∣nion, and was prefer∣red to that Bishoprick. But there are some who affirm, that he was not addicted to the Arian opinion, but was by force.] Moreover, Baronius maintaines, that Felix the Deacon, preser∣red by Acacius to Liberius's See, never was an Arian, but was de∣filed with the communion only of the Arians. Theodoret affirms the same, in the second book chap. 17. of his Eccles Hist. And so does Sozomon book 4. chap. 11. Vales.
• y 7.6

  The Embassadours of the Synod of Ariminum (who were sent to Constantius,) having been corrupted by Ursacius and Valens, held a Council at Nice a Town of Thracia, on the sixth of the Ides of October, in the Consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius. In which Coun∣cil they in the first place rescinded the sentence of Excommunication, which the Ariminum Bishops had pronounced against Ursacius, Valens, and the rest: and pronounced them to be, and always to have been Catholicks. Then, they published an Haeretical Form of the Creed. Part of their Acts are extant in Hillarius's Fragments, pag. 452, &c. where are recounted 14 names of those that were Embassadours. Vales.
• a 7.7

  This place is in an especial manner to be taken notice of. For from it we conclude, that the Bishop of Constantinople had even then a right of ordaining throughout Hellespont and Bi∣thynia, before the Council of Con∣stantinople [was held.] The same is confirmed from the Acts of Eudoxius Bishop of Constanti∣nople, who made Eunomius Bi∣shop of Cyzicum; Indeed, the Bishops of Byzantium had a very great addition of authority and power, from the time that the Emperour Constantine gave that City his own name, and ordered it should be equal to the Senior Rome. Also, Eusebius of Nico∣media, after his translation to that See, brought no small in∣crease [of jurisdiction] to it. For he was the most potent Pre∣late of his own times. Further, the Reader is to take notice, that the reading should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, lying near to Constantinople;] so Epiphanius Scholasticus reads it. Unless we should say, that the words are transposed here. (as it frequently happens in these books;) and that the place is thus to be construed [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Ma∣cedonius in Constantinople subver∣ted the neighbouring Provinces, &c. Vales.
• * 7.8

  See chap. 16. of this book.
• † 7.9

  That is, the Bishop of the No∣vatians.
• * 7.10

  That is, the Bread and Wine in the Eu∣charist.
• † 7.11

  Or, Chests.
• b 7.12

  Polybius says the same, in the fourth book of his History, and Strabo, in his sixth book, to wit, that Ceras is a Bay near By∣zantium, so termed from its like∣ness to an Harts horn. But Pli∣ny calls a promontory by this name, scituated in that Bay. To whom agrees Amm. Marcellinus, book 22. pag. 212. Edit. Paris. 1636. which place (because the common reading of it is very cor∣rupt, and is not yet mended in our Edition,) shall be here set down by me, as it ought to be read; thus: & promontorium Ceras, praelucentem navibus vehens constructam celsius turrim: quapro∣pter Ceratas appellatur ventus in∣de suctus oriri praegelidus: i. e. and the promontory Ceras, on which stands a Tower built very high which gives light to the ships: wherefore, that extream cold winde, which usually arises from thence, is termed Ceratas. Thus I have corrected this place, having followed the footsteps of the written reading: for the com∣mon reading, (which is this, & promontorium Ceras pralucentem navibus vehens constructam celsius turrim, quapropter pharos appella∣tur: & vetus inde fons Euripu•• pragelidus.) The Authour where∣of was Petrus Castellus, is with∣out any sense. It was the usage of the ancients to name the winds from those places whence they blew. Thus, the Athenians called the North-west wind Sci∣ronites, because it blew from the promontory Sciron, as Strabo re∣lates. After the same manner therefore, that wind was by the Constantinopolitans called Cera∣tas, which blew from the pro∣montory Ceras. Vales.
• c 7.13

  In the Allat. M. S. and in Epiphanius Scholasticus, this old man is called Auxonius. But at the beginning of this chapter, and in Socrates's first book, he is named Auxano. From this Aux∣ano Socrates seems to me to have had all the stories throughout his History, which he relates con∣cerning the Novatians, of whom he tells very many. Vales.
• * 7.14

  Or, bring ruine upon this Church also.
• * 7.15

  That is, the Resur∣rection, a fit name; in regard it rose again, as it were, in the same place it stood in before.
• d 7.16

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the reading must undoubtedly ••e [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to pray;] which I wonder Christophorson did not perceive. Further, what Socrates relates here, to wit, that the Catholicks prayed in the Churches of the Novatians, seems to me incredi∣ble. Our Socrates was, in my judgment imposed upon by old Auxano, who fixed that upon all the Catholicks, which was per∣haps done by some few Chri∣stians, who were less cautious. For there is nothing more con∣trary to Ecclesiastick, discipline, than to communicate with Here∣ticks, either in the sacraments, or in prayer. But in my opini∣on they are mistaken, who from this relation do conclude Socrates to have been a Novatian: yea, it is evidently manifest from this place, that he was a Catholics. For in this chapter he frequently terms the Catholicks, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those of the Church; and opposes them to the Novatians. Therefore he lookt upon the Novatians to be without the Church. Vales.
• * 7.17

  Or, they chose.
• * 7.18

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, numbers.
• † 7.19

  Hatred.
• e 7.20

  The a∣mendment of this place is to be acknow∣ledged as due to the Allatian M. S. wherein 'tis thus written [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Where∣fore for this reason, as well they who had en∣tred that Church, as those that continued in it and prayed, &c.] For in the Flo∣rent, and and Sfor∣tian M. S. this place is enlarged but by one word only, thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Wherefore for this rea∣son they who pres••∣ded over &c.] But this Chasme is made up by the Allat. M. S. to which agrees Epiphan. Scholasticus's Version. But his rendring [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Custodes, Keepers] I like not, I should rather translate the term thus, those that made their abode for some time in the Church, upon account of praying there. Vales.
• f 7.21

  In the Sfortian M. S. the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, spoiled, which I think to be better than▪ [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, comprehended, or contained.] Vales.
• g 7.22

  I made good this place from the incomparable Allat. M. S. Our other▪ M. SS. make no alteration here: but when I perceived the vulgar reading (which is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. and it ran to the adjatent Porch, even to the street) to be wholly un••outh, I was not scrupulous of admitting the reading of the Allat. M. S. which is this [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. and the Well therein overflowed with bloud, which ran even into, &c.] Socrates says, there was so great a slaughter of men, that the Church-yard of Saint Aca∣cius was filled with mans bloud; and the Well therein overflowed with bloud, in such sort that it ran into the neighbouring Porch, and from thence into the Street. Vales.
• a 7.23

  This per∣sons name should not be Tatia∣nus, but Dacianus▪ For so he is called in the Fasti Consula∣res, and in Ammia∣nus Marcellinus. This man was one of Libanius's chiefest friends; to whom Libanius wrote very many of his Epistles, which are extant in the fourth book of his Epistles. In the 71 Epistle of that book he mentions his Consulate, and says he was Schollar to one of the Em∣perours, and Master to the other: his words are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. i. e. But your actions are illustrious, and better than that they should be extinguished. For your Consulate, and the honours bestowed upon you by the Emperours, and your having been one of the Emperours Schollars, and the others Master: Moreover, the stateliness, of your houses, and the numerousness, large∣ness, and handsomeness of your Bathes: all these things will for ever retain your name, although your body does depart. In the 146 Epistle of the same book, there is extant this Elogue of Datianus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. For, to hear such and so many brave exploits of a person, who has erected so many Kingdoms, and has been beneficial to so many men, nor has ever hurt any body, who is eminent for prudence, and has filled the Earth and Sea with the Glory of his name; is, to a man of discretion, greater than all present or future wealth. And, at the close of the same Epistle, he intimates, that the same Datianus had a Seat at Constantinople; and that in Antioch and the suburbs thereof, he had Houses and Palaces beautified with Fountaines and Bathes; to take a view whereof he invites him. Vales.
• b 7.24

  At this place occurs no trivial difficulty. For the destruction of the City Nicomedia hapned when Datianus and Cerealis were Consuls, in the year of Christ 358, on the month of August. But the Coun∣cill of Seleucia was held on the year following, in the Consulate of Eusebius and Hypatius, in the month of September. These things therefore hapned not in one and the same year. Wherefore it seem∣eth, that the reading at this place should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, on the year following.] Or, if the common reading must be retained, we must understand our Authours meaning to be, that the Councill of Bishops at Seleucia was held on the same year with the Ariminum Councill. Vales.
• c 7.25

  This Le∣onas was Questor of the sacred Palace: and Lauri∣cius was Comes of Isauria, as Ammianus Marcelli∣nus doth attest. Vales.
• * 7.26

  Or lives.
• a 7.27

  The reading of this place is in the Allat. M. S. more full, thus, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which we have exprest in our version; it being confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus, (only he puts Leo∣nas before Lauricius, which is un∣doubtedly truest:) and by Epi∣phanius, in Haeres. Semiarian. cap. 25. where this profession of Faith is recorded entire. Vales. See Epiphanius, Edit. Petav. pag. 872, &c.
• * 7.28

  See this term ex∣plained at chap. 30, of this book, note, (h.)
• † 7.29

  See chap. 20. of this book, note (h.)
• ‖ 7.30

  Colos. 1. 15.
• b 7.31

  This word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we look upon, or account] is wanting in our M. SS. It was first inserted by the publishers of the Geneva Edition, from Christophorson•• Version. But in regard we found not this reading in any Manuscript Copy, we took the boldness to expunge it. In Epiphanius, (in Haeres. Semi∣arian, pag. 872.) and in Atbanasius (in his book de Synod. Arimini & Seleuciae;) the reading of this place is thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Catholick Church hath determined them to be alienated [from it.] I found the same reading in the Allat. M. S. After these words there follow (in Epiphanius) the names of those Bishops, who subscribed this Draught of the Creed; being in num∣ber about fourty. But before those subscriptions, something is added there, which deserves to be set down here. The words therefore in Dionysius Petavius's Edition are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. now, that that Creed lately published at Sirmium, in the presence of the piety of our Emperour, does exactly agree with this Creed, is a thing mani∣festly known to those who have read that Creed. Then follows another Chapter, after this manner; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; (I doubt not but the reading should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to which subscribed.) i. e. To which they who were present subscribed, Basilius, Marcus, Georgius Bishop of Alexandria, Pancratius, Hypatianus, and most of the Western Bishops. Vales.
• c 7.32

  In the Florent. and Allat. M. SS. as saies Vales. the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which we have exprest in our Ver∣sion. But Valesius follows the other rea∣ding, which is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what it had the know∣ledge of before.]
• d 7.33

  Nay; long before Cy∣rill, the Do∣natists ap∣pealed from the determina∣tion of the Council of Orleans. For thus the Empe∣rour Con∣stantine speaks con∣cerning them in his Epistle: ò rabida fu∣roris auda∣cia! Sicut in causis Gentilium solet, appel∣lationem interposue∣runt: i. e. O the out∣ragious au∣daciousness of fury! As 'tis usually done in the cases of the Heathens, they have put in an appeal. Vales.
• e 7.34

  These two lines [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by a general consent they might pa••s a definitive sentence a∣gainst the persons ac∣cused. For they had ci∣ted some other persons besides, that were accused,] were at this place, wanting in the common Editions; we have inserted them from the Florentine and Sfortian M. SS. To which agrees Epiphanius Scholasti∣cus's Version. But Christophorson made up the chasme at this place very unhappily by conjecture: whence it appears, that he had no Manuscript Copies of Socrates, but various readings only, gathered from the Margins of Printed Copies. Vales.
• f 7.35

  This persons name should be Uranius (not Ursacius;) so he is called in Athanafius's book, de Synod. Arimin. & Seleuciae. pag. 880. which name also Epiphanius Scholasticus gives him; as does likewise Epiphanius, (in Haeres. Semiarian.) who names him among the Bi∣shops that subscribed the Acacian Creed. Vales.
• g 7.36

  In the Florentine and Allatian M. SS. this person is named (not Theodorus, but more truly) Theodulus. For that is his name in Atha∣nastus, Epiphanius, and Philostorgius. When this Theodulus had been divested of the Bishoprick of Chaeretapi, in the Council held at Seleu∣cia, he was afterwards ordained Bishop of Palestina by the Eunomi∣ans, as Philostorgius relatet. Concerning Leontius of Tripolis you may meet with many passages in Philostorgius. Vales.
• h 7.37

  Into his See they put one Philippus a Presbyter of Scythopolis, as Epiphanius attests, in Haeres. Semiarian. Vales.
• * 7.38

  Or, by making their de∣fence.
• i 7.39

  It should be but one word, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, So the Greeks term the Libels of protestation, (or, protests,) which were usually deposited with the Acts. We meet a form of one of these Libels, at the close of Athanasius's Epistle ad Solitarios. I suppose, that two Libels of pro∣testation were delivered by the Council; one to Leonas the Comes; another to Lauricius President of Isauria. Vales.
• a 7.40

  In the Old Fasti (put forth by Jacobus Sirmondus under the name of I∣datius,) there is this Record concerning this thing: Eusebio & Hypatio, his consuli∣bus primum processit Constanti∣nopoli prae∣fectus Vrbis, nomine Ho∣noratus, die tertio Idû•• Decembris: i. e. in the Consulate of Eusebius and Hypa∣tius a Prae∣fect of Con∣stantinople was first made, his name Hono∣ratus, on the third of the Ides of December. Vales.
• b 7.41

  Before the Emperour Constantius had made a Praefect of the City at Constantinople, the Province Europa (the chief City whereof was Constantinople) was governed by a Proconsul▪ as Socrates here attests. Athanasius mentions this Proconsul, in his Apologetick de Fugâ suâ, not far from the beginning; where he says that the Emperour Constantius wrote Letters to Donatus the Proconsul▪ against Olympius Bishop of Thracia. In the Emperour Constantius's Epistle also, which he wrote to the Senate and Constantinopolitan-people concerning the praises of Themistius, there is mention of this Proconsul; at the close of that E∣pistle. Vales.
• c 7.42

  That is, the Greed which had the Consuls names praefixt. Vales.
• d 7.43

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ So this place is worded in the Original. What the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were, I have long since explained in my notes on Amm. Marcellinus▪ to wit, the Bodies or Sodalities of Officials or Apparitours who attended upon the Presidents and Governours of Pro∣vinces. It was their duty to collect the tribute from the Inhabitants of the Provinces, and to put in execution the Presidents Orders. Fur∣ther, as they who had listed themselves in the Camp-milice, stood ob∣liged by a Military-oath, and enjoyed not a compleat liberty, but were bound in a servitude as it were, till such time as they were dis∣banded, (as Suidas declares, in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) so those Of∣ficials, who followed the City-milice, were bound to this employment as it were, and lyable to the Offices of their Milice; and their Farms, as well as those of the Decurions, were incumbred with these burdens, as 'tis apparent from the Theodofian Code. Vales.
• e 7.44

  In the Alexandrian Chronicle, seventy two Bishops are said to have been present at the Constantinopolitan-Synod, in the year of Christ, 360. Vales.
• * 7.45

  Or, who is the only begotten born, the only of the only Fa∣ther, &c.
• * 7.46

  Substance.
• f 7.47

  In Atha∣nafius's book de Synodis, pag. 906▪ the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Nor ought, &c.] to which a∣grees the Version of the Latine Translatour. Which is also con∣firmed by Athanasius himself, in the same book, pag. 905▪ the place we will quote by and by. Vales.
• a 7.48

  Satala was a Town in Armenia; of which there is frequent mention amongst the Antients. But in Macedonia, no mention is made of a City of this name by the Ancients. Where∣fore I judge, that instead of Macedonia, it should be Armenia, here in the Greek Text. Vales.
• a 7.49

  Sozomen, book 4. chap. 24. says 'twas at Neocae∣sarea. Vales.
• b 7.50

  These words of Socrates [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those who had an aversion for, or, detested the Churches] are not to be un∣derstood of all those who declined the Churches: but they must be joyned to the foregoing words, and are to be meant of those persons, who by Eustathius's perswasion had separated themselves from the converse of their wives. Eustathius perswaded these men to avoid the Churches assemblies, and not to communicate with other be∣lievers; but that, being as it were pure and perfect, they should participate of the sacred Mysteries by themselves at home. See what Epiphanius has related concerning this Eustathius, in his Hare••••e of the A••riani▪ and Basilius, in his Epistles. Vales.
• c 7.51

  I am not of Socra∣tes's opi∣nion, who makes the Synod of Gangra (wherein Eustathius was con∣demned) to have been after that assem∣bled at Se∣leucia, and after the Constanti∣nopolitan-Synod. So∣zomen (book 4. chap. 24.) makes the Synod of Gangra to be ancien∣ter than the Council of Antioch, which was held at the Dedication in the year of Christ 341. In∣deed, Ba∣ronius (at the year of Christ 361.) places the Synod of Gangra in the reign of Constantine the Great. But he is confuted both by Socrates and Sozomen. For Socrates makes that Synod to be later than the Seleucian and Constantinopolitan Synod. But Sozomen places it after Eustathius's deposition, which was done by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople. Now, Eusebius thrust himself into the Constantinopolitan▪ See in Constan∣tius's reign, as 'tis agree'd amongst all men. Lastly, Basilius (in his seventy fourth Epistle, which he wrote to the Western Bishops a∣gainst Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia,) makes no mention of the Coun∣cil of Gangra. Whence 'tis manifest, that at such time as Basilius wrote that Epistle (which he did in Vaten••'s reign,) the Council of Gangra, wherein Eustathius was condemned, had not been held. Some one will peradventure say, (which is objected by Baronius) that that Eustathius condemned in the Synod of Gangra was a dif∣ferent person from Eustathius of Sebastia. But this is gratis dictum, no•• is it founded on the authority of any Authour. Vales.
• d 7.52

  I have rendered this place so, as to refer these words [to Ari∣minum] to these [they sent:] which Version of ours is confirmed by Athanasius, in his book de Synodis, pag. 905▪ his words are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ &c. Having written these things in Isauria, they departed to Constantinople, and repenting as it were [of what they had done,] according to their usual manner they altered their Draught: and when they had added some words, [to wit] that [the term] subsistence should, not be used in relation to the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, they sent this [form of] the Creed to th••se at Ariminum, &c. Which passage in Athanasius, Socrates does seem to transcribe here, Epiphanius Scholasticus and Christophorson have rendred this place to this effect; Having done this, they sent the Creed read at Ariminum together with its supplement, &c. Vales.
• * 7.53

  Constan∣tinople.
• e 7.54

  I perfected and mended this place from the Florentine and Sfortian Copies. Concerning the Consecration of this Church, it is thus recorded in Idarius's Fasti: Constantio decimo, &c. In Constan∣tius's Tenth and Julianus's third Consulate, the Great Church at Constan∣tinople was consecrated, on the fifteenth of the Kalends of March. Cedre∣nus (in his Chronicon) says this was the second Consecration of this Church. For it was first consecrated, says he, by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople. But being afterwards ruined, it was re-edified by Con∣stantius Augustus, and consecrated by Eudoxius. See the Chronicon Alexandrinum, where many passages (in no wise trivial) occur concerning this Consecration. Vales.
• a 7.55

  I can scarce be∣lieve, that Meletius was tran∣slated from Sebastia in Armenia to the Episco∣pate of Be∣roea. For Sozomen and The∣odoret, and (before them) Je∣rome do af∣firm, that he was translated from Seba∣stia in Ar∣menia to the See of Antioch, making no mention of his being Bishop of Beroea. Theodoret says only thus much, that upon Meletius's being pro∣moted to the Bi∣shoprick of Sebastia, perceiving a contumacy in those under his charge, he retired from thence to some other place. Then therefore he went to Beroea, as I conjecture; but he presided not over the City of Beroea. This mistake of Socrates's was perceived by Baronius, at the year of Christ 360. Which he corrects so, as to affirm, that Meletius was translated from Beroea to Sebastia, not from Sebastia to Beroea. Which, as I suppose, is not true, in regard neither Theodoret nor Sozomen have affirmed that con∣cerning Meletius. Vales.
• b 7.56

  This persons name is written sometimes with an [e] thus Meletius; sometimes with an [i] thus Melitius. See Eusebius's Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 32. note (a) pag. 138.
• a 7.57

  Translatours understood not this place. And yet they might have been informed from Harpo∣cration's Lexicon, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the term here used,) does signifie adulterate, or, counterfeit▪ by a Metaphor taken from money which has a false stamp. Socrates therefore calls Homoiöusios (For so 'tis to be written, agreeable to the Florentine and Sfortian Ma∣nuscripts; and the import of the term is, that the Son is of a sub∣stance, or Essence like to the Fa∣ther:) an adulterate name, be∣cause 'tis corrupted, and coun∣terfeitly put instead of Homoöusios (i. e. that the Son is of the same substance, or Essence with the Fa∣ther:) which is the name of the true and uncorrupted Creed. Further, the Acacians rejected as well the term Homoïousios▪ as Ho∣moöusios; and retained only Ho∣mo••os (i. e. like the Father;) and wholly abhorred the term Ousia (i. e. Substance.) Vales.
• * 7.58

  That is, that the Son is of a Sub∣stance, or Essence like to the Father.
• b 7.59

  This place is corrupted by a transposition of the words; which may easily be rectified thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from thence forward manifestly asserted the term Homoiousios, whereas before this they had not openly owned it. Nor do I doubt but Socrates wrote thus. Christophorson and Mus∣culus apprehended not the mea∣ning of this place. But Epipha∣nius Scholasticus's rendition of it agrees with our Version: only instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and as ma∣ny as▪ the reading in his copy seems to have been [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for as many as] which displeaseth us not. Vales.
• * 7.60

  That is, Adversa∣ries, or Op∣posers of the holy Spirit.
• c 7.61

  In the Allatian Manuscript, the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 about Hel∣lespont] Vales.
• † 7.62

  That is, Like the Father.
• * 7.63

  They ter∣med them Anomoei, because of their asser∣ting the Son to be unlike the Father.
• † 7.64

  They had this name, in regard they maintained the Son to be made of nothing, or, of things which are not. See Athanasius, pag. 906. Edit. Paris; whence Socrates borrowed these names for these Hereticks.
• * 7.65

  1 Cor. 11. 12.
• † 7.66

  Or, Fal∣lacy.
• d 7.67

  In the Allatian M. S. he is called E∣rennius; where this whole pas∣sage is thus worded: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. At Jerusalem, Cyrillus having been deposed, as has been said, Erennius succeeded in that Church: after whom, E••∣racius▪ and after him Hilarius. But Jerome (in his Chronicon) calls him Irenius: for this is the reading in the most correct copies, and in Johannes Miraeus's Edition; Maximus Hieroso••ymorum Episco∣pus moritur. Post quem, Ecclesiam A••iani invadunt, id est Cyrillus, Eutychius, rursum Cyrillus, Irenius, tertiò Cyrillus, Hila••ius, quarto Cyrillus: id est, Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem dies; after whom, the A••ians invade that Church, that is, Cyrillus, Eutychius, Cyrillus the second, Irenius, Cyrillus the third, Hilarius, Cyrillus the fourth. In Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus's Chronicon, he is very corruptly called Arsenius. Vales.
• * 7.68

  Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem had at his death ordained Heraclius to be his successour. But Acacius Bishop of Caesarea, together with some other Arian Bishops, slighting his ordination, substituted Cyrillus in the room of Maximus being now dead. This Cyrillus degraded Heraclius from his Episcopal dignity, and reduced him to the degree of a Presbyter; as Jerome relates in his Chronicon. Vales.
• a 7.69

  The Ari∣ans asser∣ted a tenet neer of kin to this of the Apolli∣naristae, or Apollinari∣uns. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Arius (says Athanasius de Adv. Christi,) prosesses the flesh only to be the Cover of the Deity: and asserts the Word to have been in the flesh, in the stead of our inner man, that is, the soul. In this opinion he was followed by Eunomius, as Theodoret informs us, Contr. Haeres. book 5. chap. 11. But the Apollinarians differred from him: for they distinguished (as we may see from this passage in our Socrates) be∣tween the soul and mind of man; acknowledging (in the second E∣dition of their Heresie) that God the Word assumed an humane Body and a Soul; (which latter Arius and his crew denied) but not the mind, or spirit of man: the place whereof was supplied, said they, by the Word it self. This Phylosophick notion (making Man consist of three parts, a body, a soul, and a mind;) they borrowed from Plo∣tinus; so says Nemeseus in his de Nat. Hom.
• * 7.70

  Or, Pro∣ceeded to a War a∣gainst, &c.