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

CHAP. XX. Concerning the Synod at Serdica.

a 1.1 THe Bishops in the Western parts [of the

Empire,] both because b 1.2 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 * 1.3 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 * 1.4 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 1.5 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 1.6 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 1.7 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 1.8 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 1.9 inserted the h 1.10 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 * 1.11 Anomoios, they made a more ma∣nifest publication of [the term] † 1.12 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 * 1.13 they were the preser∣vers and defenders of the Nicene Faith, but † 1.14 these had been so audacious as to adulterate it. They therefore restored i 1.15 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 ‖ 1.16 book▪

but then he used his utmost diligence † 1.17 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 1.18 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.

Notes

• a 1.1

  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 1.2

  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.
• * 1.3

  He means Constans.
• * 1.4

  General.
• c 1.5

  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 1.6

  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 1.7

  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 1.8

  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 1.9

  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 1.10

  The Anomoians were such as asserted, that the Son had a sub∣stance or essence different from, or unlike to the Father.
• * 1.11

  That is, different, or unlike.
• † 1.12

  Co-essen∣tial, or con∣substantial.
• * 1.13

  The We∣stern Bi∣shops.
• † 1.14

  The Ea∣stern Bi∣shops.
• i 1.15

  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.
• ‖ 1.16

  See Socrates, book. 1. chap. 36 Eccles. Hist.
• † 1.17

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to renew the combat with the sentence which, &c.
• k 1.18

  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.