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. IX. How (after the Synod at Alexandria [made up] of those who asserted the Homoousian Faith,) Euse∣bius, returning to Antioch, found the Catholicks disagreeing there upon account of Paulinus's Or∣dination; and being unable to bring them to an agreement, he departed from thence.

BUt Eusebius Bishop of Vercellae, immediately after the Synod, went from Alexandria to Antioch. Where finding Paulinus Ordained by Lucifer, and the Populace disagreeing amongst themselves, (For the followers of Meletius had their assemblies apart by themselves:) he was troubled, because all people did not unanimously agree to the Ordination that had been made, and in his own thoughts disapproved of what was done. But, by reason of the reverence and respect he bore to Lucifer, he held his peace, and went a∣way, having promised, that he would rectifie what had been done, in a Synod of Bishops. Afterwards, he used his utmost diligence to unite the dissen∣ters, but could not effect it. In the interim Me∣letius returned from his Exile. And finding his followers celebrating their assemblies apart by themselves, he headed them. But Euzoïus, a Pre∣late who embraced the Arian Tenets, was pos∣sessed of the Churches. Paulinus had only one of the lesser Churches within the City, out of which Euzoïus had not ejected him, by reason of the reverential respect he had for him. But Meletius had his meetings without the gates of the City. After this manner therefore did Eu∣sebius depart from Antioch at that time. But when Lucifer understood that his Ordination was not approved by Eusebius, he lookt upon it as an injury, and was highly incensed. Where∣fore he separated himself from Eusebius's com∣munion, and out of a pertinacious contentiousness presumed to reprove what had been determined by the Synod. These things being transacted in a time of sadness and discord, caused many persons to separate from the Church. For there sprung up another new Heresie, [the followers whereof were termed] Luciferians. But Luci∣fer was not in a capacity of satisfying his anger. For he was bound by his own a 1.1 promises, by which (being sent by his Deacon) he had en∣gaged that he would assent to the Synods deter∣minations. Wherefore, he retained the Ecclesi∣astick Faith, and departed into Sardinia to his own See. But such as at first were agrieved to∣gether with him, do hitherto continue Separatists from the Church. Further, Eusebius, like a good Physitian, travelled over the Eastern Provinces, where he perfectly recovered those that were weak in the Faith, teaching and instructing them in the doctrines of the Church. Departing from thence, he arrived in Illyricum, and afterwards went into Italy, where he took the same course.

Notes

• a 1.1

  The term here in the original is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, defences,] which is in no wise agreeable here. Therefore, instead thereof, Nicephorus substituted these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by his own nets.] In my judgement, it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by his own promises;] and so Epiphanius read it, as appears by his Version. But Rufinus (book 1. chap. 30. Eccles. Hist.) has this passage only; sed constringeb••••ur, &c. But he was bound by the bond of his Legate, who by his authority had subscribed in the Council. Afterwards, Rufinus adds these words concerning Lucifer, si vero recepisset Alexandrini decreta concilii, &c. But, ••ad he admitted of the determinations of the Alexandrian Council, he saw that all his attempts must have been frustrated. But I see no reason why Lucifer should reject the Alexandrian Synod•• determinations. For that Synod had approved of Paulinus's ordination, as I have remarkt before from Athanasius's Synodick Epistle. And whereas Eusebius subscribed that Epistle, he also may seem to have approved of Lucifers Ordination of Paulinus. Yet, the same Eusebius coming to Antioch after the A∣lexandrian Council, and perceiving the disagreement between the Catholicks, would communicate with neither party, as Rufinus attests in the forequoted book and chapter: that is, he abstained as well from Paulinus's as Meletius's communion. Vales.