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. XIX. Concerning the Penitentiary Presbyters, how [these Officers in the Church] were at that time put down.

ABout the same time it was judged requisite to extinguish [the Office of] those Pres∣byters in the Churches; whose charge it was to oversee Penitents: [which was done] upon this account. a 1.1 From such time as the Nova∣tians made a separation of themselves from the Church, because they were unwilling to commu∣nicate with those that had Lapsed in the Persecu∣tion under Decius; the Bishops added a Presby∣ter, who was to have the charge of penitency, to the b 1.2 Canon of the Churches; to the intent that

such persons as had sinned after Baptism, might make a confession of their crimes c 1.3 before this Presbyter instituted for that purpose. This Ca∣non is in force to this day amongst other Heresies. Only the Homoöusians, and (who embraced the same Sentiments with them, as to the Faith,) the Novatians, have refused [making use of] the Penitentiary Presbyter. For the Novatians ad∣mitted not of this * 1.4 additional Function at its first institution. But [the Homoöusians] who are at this present in possession of the Churches, after they had retained [the Office of the Penitenti∣aries] for a † 1.5 long time, abrogated it in the times of Nectarius the Bishop, on account of this accident which hapned in the [Constantino∣politan] Church. There came a d 1.6 Gentlewoman to the Penitentiarie [of the Church of Constan∣tinople; to whom] she made particular con∣fession of those sins, which she had commit∣ted after Baptism. The Presbyter advised the woman to fast, and pray continually, that to∣gether with her confession, she might have some e 1.7 work also worthy of Repentance to shew. f 1.8 Some time after this the woman detected her self of another crime. For she confessed that a Deacon of that Church had lain with her. Upon her discovery hereof, the Deacon was eje∣cted out of the Church: and the g 1.9 people were in a kind of tumult disturbed. For they were not only offended at what was done, but also because that fact had brought an infamy and disgrace up∣on the Church. When therefore Ecclesiastick persons were reproacht upon this account, one Eudaemon a Presbyter of that Church, by birth an Alexandrian, advised Nectarius the Bishop, to h 1.10 abolish the Penitentiary Persbyters [Office;] and to leave every person to his own conscience, for the participation of the [Holy] Mysteries:

For this [in his judgment] was the only way of freeing the Church from obloquie and disgrace. I my self having heard these words from Eudae∣mon, have taken the boldness to insert them into this my History. For, as I have often said, I have used my utmost care and industry, to pro∣cure an account of affairs from those that knew them best, and to make accurate researches into them, lest I should record any passage which is untrue. But my answer to Eudaemon [when he told me hereof] first, was this; i 1.11 Whether your advice, O Presbyter! hath been for the Churches good, or otherwise, God knoweth. But I see that it has given an occasion, of our not re∣prehending one anothers faults any more, nor of our observing that Apostolick Precept, which saith, * 1.12 have no fellowship with the unfruitfull works of darkness, but rather reprove them. But, let thus much be sufficient to have been said concerning these things.

Notes

• a 1.1

  The course of disci∣pline in relation to pene∣tency, as it was practised by the Fathers during the first and purest times, reformed o∣pen Transgressours, by putting them into Offices of open penitence, especially Confession, whereby they declared their own crimes in the hearing of the whole Church, and were not from the time of their first convention capable of the holy Mysteries of Christ, till they had solemnly discharged this duty. During which times, offenders in secret also, knowing themselves altogether as unworthy of admission to the Lords Table, as the other who were withheld; and being per∣swaded, that if the Church did direct them in the Offices of their penitency, and assist them with publick prayer, they should more easily attain what they sought, than by trusting wholly to their own endeavours; Lastly, having no impediment to stay them from it but bashfullness, which countervailed not the sore-mentioned induce∣ments; and besides, was greatly eased by that good construction, which the charity of those times gave to such actions, (wherein mens piety and voluntary care to be reconciled to God purchased them much more love, than their faults were able to procure dis∣grace;) these Offenders in secret, I say, were not nice to use some one of Gods Ministers, by whom the rest might take notice of their faults, prescribe them convenient remedies, and in the end, after pub∣lick confession, all joyn in prayer to God for them. But, as professours of Christianity grew more numerous, so they waxed worse; when persecution ceased, the Church immediately became subject to those mischiefs, that are the product of peace and security; to wit, Schisms, Discords, Dissentions, &c: faults were not corrected in charity, but noted with delight, and treasured up for malice to make use of, when the deadliest opportunities should be offered. Whereupon, in regard publick confessions became dangerous and prejudicial to the safety of well minded men, and in diverse respects advantageous to the Ene∣mies of God's Church; it seemed first unto some, and afterwards generally requisite, that voluntary penitents should cease from open confession. Instead whereof, private and secret confession was usual∣ly practised, as well in the Latine, as in the Greek Church. The cause why the Latins made this change of publick confession into pri∣vate, Leo the Great declares, in his Decretall Epistles, Epist, 80, ad Universos Episcopos per Campaniam, &c. pag. 148, 149. Edit Lugd. 1633. This alteration was made in the Greek Church, about such time as the Heresie of the Novatianists had its original, (which is our So∣crates's Sentiment here, and is very probable;) upon this occasion. The Church resolving (contrary to the opinion of Novatus, or ra∣ther Novatianus, and his followers; concerning which, see Euseb. Eccles. Histor, book 6. chap. 43.) to admit the Lapsed in the Decian persecution to communion, and judging it fit, that before that their admission, they (and all other voluntary penitents in future) should do pennance and make confession in private only; (to the end that the Novatianists might not take occasion at the multitude of publick penitents, of insulting over the discipline of the Church, as they usual∣ly had done, and did:) constituted in every Church a Penitentiary Presbyter: whose Office it was, to take the confessions and appoint the pennances of secret offenders. So that, if penitents in secret, being guilty of crimes whereby they knew they had made themselves unfit Guests for the Table of our Lord, did seek direction for their better performance of that which should set them clear; it was in this case the Penitentiarie's duty to take their confessions, to advise them the best way he could for their souls good, to admonish them, to counsell them; but not to lay upon them more than private pennance. As for notorious wicked persons, whose crimes were known; to convict, judge, and punish them, was the Office of the Ecclesiastical Consistory; Penitentiaries had their institution to another end. This Office of the Penitentiary was continued in the Greek Church for the space of above some hundred years; till Nectarius, and the Bishops of Chur∣ches under him begun a second alteration, abolishing even that con∣fession which their Penitentiaries took in private, upon that occasion which Socrates mentions here in this chapter. See M^r Hooker's Eccles. Politie, book 6. pag. 332. &c. Edit. Lond. 1666; also D^r Cave's Primitive Christianity, Part 3. Chap. 5.
• b 1.2

  In Rob. Stephens Edit. the reading is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Bishops added a Presbyter, who was to have the charge of penitency, to the Canon of the Churches. In the Sfortian M. S. the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the Ecclesiastick Canon;] which reading Epiphanius Scholasticus and Nicephorus found in their copies, as appears by the Version of the first, and the Greek Text of the second. Which two Authours took Canon to signifie a Rule or Ecclesiastick Decree. Pe∣tavius, in his notes on Epiphanius, pag. 242, took these words of Socrates in such a sense, as if the import of them were, that the Bishops, by publishing of a Canon then newly found out, added a Presbyter who should take charge of the penitents; which opinion of his he confirms by these following words of Socrates: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. this Canon is in force to this day amongst other Heresics; where the term Canon is manifestly taken for a Rule and Decree. But Valesius is not of Pe∣tavius's opinion. His reasons are, (1) The propriety of the Greek tongue admits not of this sense. (2) If a new Canon were then made concerning the institution of a Penitentiary Presbyter, he queries, where, and in what Councill it was published. Valesius's Sentiment therefore is, that the term Canon is here to be taken for the Matri∣cula, or Roll of Ecclesiastick Officers belonging to the Church. In which sense, he says, tis taken in the 2 Can. Concil. Chalccdon. pag. 112 Edit. Beveredg. where (tis true) it must be taken in a more comprehensive sense, than to signifie the C••crus only; that is, those who are ordained by imposition of hands: because the Fathers in that Canon speak of all the Ecclesiastick Officers, such as were the Occo∣nomi, the Defensores, the Mansionarii, &c. concerning whom see D^r Beveredge's Notes, pag. 109. But, whether it is to be used in this sense here, I determine not; let the Learned judge.
• c 1.3

  What the course of discipline in relation to peniten∣cy was, as it was pra∣ctised by the Fathers during the first and pu∣rest times, before Pe∣nitentiaries were insti∣tuted; we have decla∣red at note (a.) in this chapter, mostly in M^r Hookers own words. Which incomparable Authour, in the forecited book of his Eccles. Politie, has by unexceptionable authorities made it evident, (whatever the Learned Reader may find said to the contrary by Baronius at the year of Christ 56, by Petavius in his Diatriba about this point which occurs at pag. 225, of his notes on Epiphanius, or by Bellarmine:) that the ancient 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or confession, which the Primitives use to speak of in the exercise of repentance, was made openly in the hearing of the whole both Ecclesiastical Confistory and assembly. After the institution of Penitentiary Presbyters in every Church, this publick confession was abrogated; and such as were guilty of crimes, confessed them not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the presence of the people, but (as Socrates here says) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before this Presbyter instituted for that purpose. The same is confirmed by Sozomen, book 7. chap. 16. where he tells us, how a Presbyter Elected to the Office of a Penitentiary, was to be qualified. One of his qualifications was, that he ought to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a per∣son that could hold his tongue: by which 'tis plain, that the confessions made to him were private, and to be kept concealed.
• * 1.4

  That is, the Office of the Penitentiary. For these Hereticks ad∣mitted no person to their communion upon any repentance, who was once known to have sinned after Baptism: see Euseb. Eccles. Hist. book 6. chap. 43. which practise of theirs, how fair soever their pre∣tence might seem, made sinners not the fewer, but the closer, and the more obdurate.
• † 1.5

  To wit, from the Persecution under the Emperour Decius, till after the Election of Nectarius to the Episcopate of Constantinople.
• d 1.6

  Valesius, in his note here, starts this query; whether the con∣fession made by this Gentlewoman were publick, or private? In or∣der to the answering whereof, he remarks, that she confest twice before the Penitentiary. At her first confession, she made known all her sins; whereupon she is advised to continue in fasting and prayer. At her second, she discovered her having been debaucht by the Deacon. These two confessions (continues Valesius,) were different both in time and manner. The first was of all her faults 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, particu∣larly (as Socrates words it;) the second was of one crime only. All which may perhaps be true. After this remark made, Valesius con∣cludes both these confessions to have been secret; which (says he) is apparent from these two reasons (1) because publick confession was never in use in the Church: (2) in regard Socrates says, that this woman accused not her self before the people, but before the Peniten∣tiary. Valesius's first reason appears evidently false, not only from M^r Hookers words quoted before, and the unquestionable authorities he there produces to prove what he asserts; but from a passage in So∣zomen book 7. chap. 16. where that Ecclesiastick Historian, (giving reasons of the alteration which the Grecians made, by abrogating pub∣lick confession, and instituting Penitentiaries throughout all Churches to take the confessions and appoint the penances of secret offenders,) assignes this for one: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. It did from the beginning deservedly seem burthensome to the Priests, that sins should be declared before the whole congregation of the Church as witnesses, in a Theatre as it were; from which words 'tis evident that publick confession was once in fashion in the Church. Valesius's second reason we have before cleared and confirmed by the joynt Testimony of Socrates and Sozomen. See note (c.)
• e 1.7

  Valesius says here, he can't be indu∣ced to be∣lieve, that this Gen∣tlewoman did publick pennance. His rea∣sons for this are (1) Wo∣men were very rarely compelled to do pub∣lick pen∣nance, the Church being indulgent towards the modesty of Matrons. (2) No∣thing occurs at this passage, which may make us think this Matron's pen∣nance was publick. (3) in regard she is injoyned to fast and pray conti∣nually; that may be understood of private satisfaction, which she per∣formed at home and in secret. To which reasons of Valesius's, a fourth may be added, drawn from the Penitentiaries Office: which was to take the Confessions of secret penitents, to advise them the best way he could for their souls health, to admonish and councel them, but not to lay on them more than private pennance. See note (a) in this chapter.
• f 1.8

  In the original, 'tis thus exprest, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 has the same import here with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That is, in process of time, or some time after this. For Socrates's meaning is, that this was the womans second confession. Which is confirmed by Nicephorus, and Sozomen; who (in his Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 16,) words this passage thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Whilest she made her abode in the Church upon this account, [to wit, of per∣forming the pennance injoyned her by the Penitentiary,] she confessed that she had been debaucht by a Deacon. It may also not unfitly be thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But the woman came to [the Peniten∣tiary,] and detected, &c. Vales.
• g 1.9

  Here arises a difficulty, to wit, how this fact could come to the peoples knowledge, if the womans confession were secret? How also the Bishop could know this wicked fact, who degraded the Deacon on account thereof? My Sentiment is, that the Penitentiary-Presby∣ter, to whom the woman had confessed this impious act, first sent for the Deacon, reproving him before the woman, and forced him to a confession of his crime: then, he made a report of the whole matter to Nectarius the Bishop, by whom he had been set over the penitents: and whose deputy he was in that Office. For the Penitentiary heard confessions only, and enjoyned pennances. But the Bishop himself reconciled penitents. Nor ought any one to make this objection, viz. if we admit what you have said to be true, it follows that the secrets of confession may be discovered. I deny that consequence. For the Penitentiary-Presbyter made known the Deacon's wickedness only to the Bishop; the Matron's name he concealed. Further, the Deacon's degradation does plainly confirm what I have asserted. For Necta∣rius the Bishop could not have deposed him, had he not had intima∣tion from the Penitentiary, who had detected the Deacon of whore∣dom. Vales.
• h 1.10

  The Learned Reader must have observed, that there is nothing wherein the Romanists do more disagree amongst themselves, than in their accounts of this fact of Nectarius. Petavius (in his notes on Epi∣phanius, pag. 243,) does maintaine, that Nectarius abrogated pub∣lick pennance only, but continued confession, that is private confes∣sion; for publick, he says, was never in use in the Church. Valesius (in his note at this place) does assert, that neither confession, nor pennance were abolished by Nectarius; but that the Bishop re∣moved this particular Penitentiary-Presbyter only, and that but for a time, because of the discontented people's indignation. One John Hasselius, (who is mentioned by Pamelius, in his 98^th note on Saint Cyprian's Treatise de Lapsis,) worte a book on purpose to shew that Nectarius did but put the Penitentiary from his Office, and abro∣gated not the Office it self. But all these assertions are palpably con∣tradicted (1) by the whole advice which Eudaemon gives Nectarius in this chapter, to wit, of leaving the people from that time forward to their own consciences; (2) by the conference between our Socrates and Eudaemon, which follows in this chapter; wherein complaint is made of some inconvenience which the want of this Office would breed: (3) by that which the History declares concerning other Churches, who did as Nectarius had done before them, not in de∣posing the same man (for that was impossible) but in removing the same Office out of their Churches, which Nectarius had abrogated in his. All these particulars are evident from this chapter in Socrates; with whom Sozomen (book 7. chap. 16.) agrees, and adds further that in his time (he lived in the reign of the Younger Theodosius,) the same abolition did still continue, and that the Bishops had in a man∣ner every where followed the example given them by Nectarius. But, though the Romanists differ (as you see) in their Sentiments about this fact of Nectarius's: yet they all unanimously agree in this; to wit, that Nectarius did not abrogate Auricular Confession. The reason of their consent in this assertion is plain: should it be acknowledged, that Nectarius did abrogate Auricular (or private) Confession, (as 'tis evident he did, from the attestation both of Socrates and Sozomen,) it would enforce them to grant, that the Greek Church at that time held not Confession, as the Latine Church now doth, to be the part of a Sacrament instituted by our Saviour Jesus Christ, which there∣fore the Church till the worlds end hath no power to alter. See M^r Hookers Eccles. Politie, pag. 343, &c. Edit. Lond. 1666.
• i 1.11

  From this answer of Socrates's to Euda∣mon, 'tis apparent, that Necta∣rius's abo∣lition of the Peni∣tentiary-Presbyter's Office, dis∣pleased our Socrates. Whence we may evidently conclude, (what ever Baronius and Petavius have said to the contrary, at the places before quoted) that our Socrates was no Novatianist. For, had he embraced that Heresie, he would doubtless never have sound fault with that Sanction of Nectarius's, whereby he abrogated the Penitentiary: nor would he have doubted to pronounce these words concerning the advice Eudaemon suggested to Nectarius, to wit, whether it were usefull or hurtfull to the Church: for the Novatians never admitted either of penitency, or of the Penitentiary-Presbyter. Besides, Socrates in this place terms the assembly of the Homoöusians barely and simply The Church: which he would questionless never have done, had he been a follower of the Novatian Heresie. Vales.
• * 1.12

  Ephes. 5. 11.