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. VII. How Eusebius and Athanasius accorded together, and assembled a Synod of Bishops at Alex∣andria, wherein they expensly declared, that the Trinity is Consubstantial.

BUt, as soon as Eusebius arrived at Alexan∣dria, he, together with Athanasius, was very diligent about convening a Synod. There assembled Bishops out of several Cities, and con∣ferred amongst themselves concerning many and most weighty matters. In this Synod they asserted the Divinity of the holy Ghost, and in∣cluded him in the Consubstantial Trinity. They likewise determined that Christ at his incarnation assumed not only Flesh but an humane Soul, which was also the opinion of the primitive Ecclesiasticks. For they introduced not any new Doctrine, invented by them, into the Church, but [confirmed] those points which Ecclesiastick tradition had from the beginning asserted, and which the Learnedest persons amongst the Chri∣stians had demonstratively affirmed. For such Sentiments as these all the Antients in their dis∣putations concerning this point have left us in their Writings. Irenaeus, Clemens, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Serapion president of the Church in Antioch, do assert this in the Books by them composed, a 1.1 as an opinion by general consent ac∣knowledged, [to wit,] that Christ at his as∣sumption of Flesh was endowed with a [hu∣mane] Soul. Moreover, the Synod convened upon b 1.2 Berillus's account, who was Bishop of Philadelphia in Arabia, in their Letter to the said Berillus hath maintained the same Doctrine. Ori∣gen also doth acknowledge every where, in his works which are extant, that Christ at his incar∣nation assumed an humane Soul: but more par∣ticularly, in the ninth Tome of his COmments upon Genesis, he has explained the Mystery hereof; where he hath copiously proved, that Adam is a type of Christ, and Eve of the Church. Holy Pamphilus, and Eusebius who borrowed his Sir∣name from him, persons worthy to be credited, do attest this. For both these persons (who club'd in their drawing up the Life of Origen in writing, and answered such as were prepossest with a prejudice against that person, in those fa∣mous Books, wherein they made an Apology in defence of him,) do affirm, that Origen was not the first person engaged in this Subject, but that he interpreted the mystical tradition of the Church. But, those Bishops present at the Synod of Alex∣andria, omitted not their researches into this question, to wit, concerning * 1.3 Ousia and † 1.4 Hypo∣stasis. For Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine, (whom we formerly mentioned) who was sent before by Constantine the Emperour, to compose the disturbance at that time raised by Arius, being desirous to root out the opinion of ‖ 1.5 Sa∣bellius the Libyan, raised a dispute concerning Ousia and Hypostasis, which was the occasion of another dissention. But the Nicene Synod, which was soon after convened, made not the least men∣tion of this dispute. Notwithstanding, in regard some persons were afterwards desirous of con∣tending about this matter, for that reason these determinations were made in this Synod con∣cerning Ousia and Hypostasis. c 1.6 It was resolved by them, that these terms ought not to be used concerning God. For, [they said that] the

term Ousia was not so much as mentioned in the sacred Scriptures: and, that the * 1.7 Apostle, ob∣lieged thereto upon a necessity of [delivering some] opinions, had not rightly used the word Hypostasis. But they Decreed, that these terms were to be admitted of upon another account, to wit, when they refute Sabellius's opinion, least, for want of expressive words, we should suppose [the Trinity to be] one thing called by a triple name; but we must rather believe every one d 1.8 of those named in the Trinity to be truly God in his proper Person. These were the determinations of the Synod at that time. But nothing hinders, but we may briefly declare our knowledge con∣cerning [the terms] Ousia and Hypostasis. Such persons amongst the Greeks as were Expositours of their Philosophy, have given various defini∣tions of Ousia; but they have not made the least mention of Hypostasis. e 1.9 Irenaeus Grammaticus, in his Alphabetical Lexicon entitled Atticistes, affirms this word [Hypostasis] to be a bar∣barous term: For it is not [says he] used by any of the Antients: but should it be any where found occurring, it is not taken in that sense wherein 'tis now used. For, in Sophocles (in [his Tragedy entitled] Phoenix,) the term Hy∣postasis signifies Treachery. In Menander [it imports] Sauces; f 1.10 as if any one should term the Lees in an Hogshead of Wine Hypostasis. But, you must know, that although the Antient Philo∣sophers did not make use of this term Hypostasis, yet the more modern Philosophick Writers used it frequently instead of * 1.11 Ousia. More∣over, they have given us (as we said) various definitions of Ousia. But if Ousia may be circumscribed by a definition, how can we properly make use of this term in re∣ference to God, who is incomprehensible? Eva∣grius, in [his piece intitled] Monachicus, dis∣swades us from discoursing rashly and inconsi∣derately concerning God. But he altogether for∣bids the defining of the Divinity, in regard it is a most † 1.12 Simple thing. For defini∣tions, says he, belong to things that are compounded. The same Authour de∣livers these very words. Every pro∣position, says he, has either a Genus which is prae∣dicated, or a Species, or a Differentià, or a Pro∣prium, or an Accidens, or what is compounded of these; but none of these can be supposed to be in the sacred Trinity. Let that therefore which is in∣explicable, be adored with silence. Thus [argues] Evagrius, concerning whom we shall speak here∣after. But, although we may seem to have made a digression by relating these things; yet we have mentioned them here, in regard they are usefull and pertinent to the subject of our History.

Notes

• a 1.1

  This clause is thus wor∣ded in the Greek [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;] where the term [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] ought in my judgment to be ex∣punged, as being unnecessarily inserted here by some careless Tran∣scriber out of the foregoing line, where it occurs. But Nicephorus (book 10. chap. 14. where he writes out this passage of Socrates) makes use of the term [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] either because that was the ▪reading in his Copy; or else in regard he thought [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] was to be so explained. Vales.
• b 1.2

  Nicephorus▪ (at the book and chapter now mentioned) calls this person Cyrillus. But, from the authority of the Florentine and Sfortian M. SS. we have termed him Berillus. Our emendation is confirmed by Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version. Berillus was not Bi∣shop of Philadelphia, as Socrates says here, but of Bostra (or of Bo∣stri) in Arabia: he denied Christ to have been God before his in∣carnation, as Eusebius informs us, book 6. chap. 33. of his Ecclesiastick History; where see note (a.) That passage of Origens must be un∣derstood concerning this Heresie of Berillus's, which occurs in his Comment on the Epistle to Titus: where his words are these: Sed & eos qui hominem dicunt Dominum Jesum, &c. Also those, who affirm the Lord Jesus to be a man fore-known, and predesigned, who before his coming in the flesh had no peculiar existence of his own, but that being born man he had the Deity of the Father only in him; these persons, I say, cannot, without great danger, be accounted members of the Church. This passage occurs also in Pamphilus's Apologetick in defence of Origen. And Gennadius has mentioned it, in his book De Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, cap. 4. Vales.
• * 1.3

  Essence, or Sub∣stance.
• † 1.4

  Subsi∣stence, Ex∣istence, or Personality.
• ‖ 1.5

  See Eu∣seb. Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 6. note (b.) This was the diffe∣rence be∣twixt the Sabellian and Arian Heresie▪ Sabellius confounded the persons in the sacred Trinity, Arius divided the substance.
• c 1.6

  The Acts of the Synod of Alexandria are not now extant; but 'tis sufficiently apparent, both from that Synodick Epistle which Athanasius wrote in the name of that Council, and also from hence, because the Great Atha∣nasius was present at that Synod, that what Socrates here says is false. For, as to the Synodick Epistle, there occurs no such passage in that, as this, that the terms Ousia and Hypostasis are not to be used as often as we speak concerning God. Nor, would Athanasius ever have suffered that to have been determined in his Synod, which does manifestly con∣tradict the Nicene Creed. For in that Creed the term Ousia does oc∣cur. Socrates seems to have been deceived by this passage in the Synodick Epistle: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. And, by the grace of God, all persons, after such interpretations of those terms, una∣nimously agreed, that that Creed, which the Fathers made profession of at Nice, was better and more accurate, and that in future, it was suffi∣cient, that the terms thereof should be made use of. In which words, the terms Ousia and Hypostasis are not condemned: but this only is asserted, that it is more safe to use the terms of the Nicene Creed, than these, of three Hypostasis's and of one Hypostasis. For the debate at that time was only concerning these words; some affirming there were three Hypostasis's in the sacred Trinity, as did the followers of Meletius: o∣thers, with Paulinus, professing there was but one Hypostasis. But no question was then started concerning the term Ousia. For both sides as∣serted that there was one substance in the Trinity. How therefore can that which Socrates here says stand good, to wit, that it was Decreed in the Alexandrian Synod, that these terms Eusia and Hypostasis were not to be used concerning God? Perhaps also Sabinus▪ (whose Collection Socrates had diligently perused) had led him into this mistake. Vales.
• * 1.7

  They mean, I suppose those words of the A∣postle at Hebr. 1. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Cha∣racter of his Subsistence, or (as our English Version words it) the express image of his person. Some of the Anti∣ents were very cau∣tious about acknow∣ledging three Hypo∣stases in the Deity. Par∣ticularly S^r Jerome, who thought that the term Hypo∣stasis in this Text signified Substantia: and there∣fore in his Version 'tis thus ren∣dred figura substantiae ejus, the fi∣gure of his substance. See D^r O∣wens ac∣count of this phrase, in his Ex∣position on the Hebrews, pag. 55, &c. Edit. London. 1668.
• d 1.8

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the names,] which is the common reading▪ the Florentine M. S. words it thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of those named.] But Nicephorus maintains the common reading; for he has recorded this passage of Socrates thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which his Learned Translatour Langus has thus rendred: Sed tribus usurpatis nominibus, res quaeque in Trinitate tripliciter distin∣cta peculiari subsistentiâ suâ intelligatur. But I cannot approve of this rendition, in regard it recedes too far from the Authours words. Langus was puzled with these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the names,] and not without reason. For the bare name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, is neither believed, nor asserted to be God; but the things [or persons] signified by those names. Wherefore, the reading in the Florentine M. S. is, in my judgment, to be pre∣ferred before the vulgar reading; and we have rendred it according∣ly. Vales.
• e 1.9

  Irenaeus Grammaticus was an Alexandrian, the Scholar of He∣liodorus Metricus, who by a Latine name was called Minucius Pacatus. He wrote many books concerning the propriety of the Attick Language. For he compiled three Books of Attick names, and as many more de Atticâ consuci••dine in dictione & in prosodia, which were alphabeti∣cally digested: he composed one Book also de Atticismo, as Suidas re∣lates in his Lexicon. Vales.
• f 1.10

  Nicephorus (book 10. chap. 15.) reads this passage otherwise. For, instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as if any one should term] he words it thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And another stiles it the Lees in an Hogshead.] Epiphanius Scholasticus translates this place thus: Apud Menandrum vero veluti faeces quae ex vino colliguntur in dolio, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id est, subsistentiam designare dicit. But, I think that there is another sense of these words; to wit, that Menander should term Sauce Hypostasis, because it settles in the bottom of the dish, like Lees, or Sedement, in an Hogshead. Vales.
• * 1.11

  That is, Substance.
• † 1.12

  Unmixt▪ or uncom∣pounded.