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. VIII. Concerning the hundred and fifty Bishops convened at Constantinople, and concerning the deter∣minations made by them, after they had Or∣dained Nectarius in that City.

[AFter this] the Emperour without any delay, summons a Synod of Bishops [who em∣braced] his own Faith; that by them the Ni∣cene Faith might be confirmed, and a Bishop of Constantinople ordained. And because he had some hopes of being able to unite the Macedoni∣ani to [a profession of] his own Faith; he sum∣moned the Prelates of that Heresie also. There met therefore of [the Embracers of] the Ho∣moöusian Faith, Timotheus from Alexandria; from Jerusalem Cyrillus, who having made a Re∣tractation, at that time assented to the Homoöu∣sian Creed: Melitius was come thither from Antioch before, having been sent for to that City on the account of Gregorius's Ordination: also a 1.1 Ascholius from Thessalonica, and many others.

They were in all an hundred and fifty. The principal persons of the Macedonian party, were Eleusius of Cyzicum, and Marcianus [Bi∣shop] of Lampsacus. [Of this Sect] there were thirty six [Bishops,] most of whom came from the Cities about the Hellespont. They met there∣fore in the Consulate of Eucharius and Evagrius, in the month of May. The Emperour, and the Bishops that embraced his Creed, did their ut∣most, to bring Eleusius and his followers over to their own side; putting them in remembrance of the a 1.2 Embassy, which they had sent by Eu∣stathius to Liberius heretofore Bishop of Rome: and b 1.3 that not long since they themselves had entred into a promiscuous communion [with the Orthodox,] on their own accord: And that they, having once acknowledged and pro∣fest an agreement in the [points of] Faith, did not do what was right and honest, now to at∣tempt a subversion of what had been well and wisely determined by themselves. But the Ma∣cedoniani, little regarding either admonitions, or reproofs, chose rather to profess the Arian opi∣nion, than to give their assent to the Homoöusian Creed. Having made this answer, they departed from Constantinople; and wrote to their followers in every City, ordering them in no wise to give their consent to the Creed of the Nicene Synod. But the [Prelates] of the † 1.4 other party staied [at Constantinople,] and entred into a Con∣sult about the ordination of a Bishop. For Gre∣gorius, as we have told you a little before, refu∣sed the Bishoprick, and prepared for his depar∣ture to Nazianzum. There was a person by name Nectarius, [a descendant] of a Senato∣rian family, a sweet tempered man, admirable for his whole course of life, c 1.5 although he bore the Praetors Office. This person the people seized upon, elected him Bishop, and he was Ordained by the hundred and fifty Prelates then present. Moreover, at the same time [the said Prelates] promulged a sanction, that the Bishop of Constanti∣nople should have the d 1.6 priviledges of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because that City was New-Rome. They did again confirm the Nicene Creed; and constituted e 1.7 Patriarchs, having made a f 1.8 division of the Provinces; that so

g 1.9 those Bishops [who make their abode] with∣out the bounds of their own Dioecesis, should not invade the Churches without their limits. For this had been promiscuously done before, by rea∣son of the persecutions. And to Nectarius was allotted the * 1.10 Great City and Thracia▪ Helladius successour to Basilius in the Bishoprick of Caesarea in Cappadocia;

Gregorius [Bishop] of Nyssa a City also in Cap∣padocia, (who was Basilius's brother; and O∣treïus [Bishop] of Meletina in Armenia, had the h 1.11 Patriarchate of the Pontick Dioecesis for their allotment. To Amphilochius of Iconium, and Optimus [Bishop] of Antioch in Pisidia, was assigned the Asian [Dioecesis.] To Timo∣theus [Bishop] of Alexandria was given [the superintendency over the Churches] throughout Egypt. The administration of the Churches throughout the East was committed to the Bishops of that Region, [to wit] to Pelagius of Lao∣dicea, and Diodorus of Tarsus; but to the Antio∣chian Church were reserved the priviledges [of Honour,] which were given to Meletius then present. They likewise decreed, that if need re∣quired, a Provincial Synod should determine the Ecclesiastick affairs of every Province. These sanctions were confirmed by the Emperours own consent. Such was the conclusion of this Syond.

Notes

• a 1.1

  In the Sfortian M. S. both here, and also before, in chap. 6. of this book; this person is called Acholius. The Latins do commonly give him that name. For so he is called by Ambrosius, by Prosper in his Chronicon, and by Jordanes in his book de successione Regnorum. But the Greeks do usually term him Ascholius. This is the Ascholius, concerning whose death, Virtues, and Miracles, Saint Ambrosius writes, in his 59^th Epistle to the Clergy of Thessalonica. Where he says, that Anysius his Scholl•••• succeeded him. Vales.
• a 1.2

  See Book 4. chap. 12.
• b 1.3

  See what Socrates has remar∣ked concer∣ning this matter in chap 4. of this Book▪ Vales.
• † 1.4

  That is, the Ortho∣dox.
• c 1.5

  Instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. although, &c.] I had rather read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. who also at that time bore the Praetor's Office.] Nicephorus confirms our emendation; for he words it thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. and admi∣rable, as I may say, for all things; who then bore the Praetors Office. Vales.
• d 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They are the very words of the third Canon of the Constantinopolitan Synod. Whereby the Constantinopo∣litan Fathers do confer upon the Bishop of Constantinople a Prece∣dency, or Primacy of honour only; but give him nothing of a Metro∣political or patriarchical power, or jurisdiction. This is evident, not only from the cautious expression which the Fathers of this Synod make use of; (for they give him, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the priviledges of power or jurisdiction, nor priviledges in general; but they bestow on him only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the priviledges of honour:) but also from these very words themselves, compared with the second Canon of this Constantinopolitan Synod. For, in that Canon the Fathers had made a positive sanction, that a Dioecesis should be governed by its Bishops, (or by a Synod of all the Bishops in the same Dioecesis,) and that the said Bishops should exercise their Ecclesiastical power in that Dioecesis only: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that the Bishops of the Thracican Dioecesis should only govern the [Ecclesiastick] affairs of the said Thracican Dioecesis: these are the very words of the Canon. Now, every body knows, that Constantinople is scituate in the Thracican Dioecesis. In regard therefore, that the present Fathers had committed the whole government of the Thracican Dioecesis to a Synod of all the Bishops in the said Dioecesis; there could nothing remain, which they might assign to any other single Bishop in the said Dioecesis▪ before the rest of them, save only the bare priviledge of honour; which alone they do here confer upon the Constantinopolitan See scituate in the same Dioecesis. And thus, by the order of this Canon, Anatolius Bi∣shop of Constantinople is placed next after Leo the Bishop of Rome's Legates, in the subscriptions of the Council of Chalcedon. See Concil. General. Edit. Bin. Paris 1636. Tom. 3. pag. 452, 453. There oc∣curs an eminent instance of this honour due to the Constantinopolitan Bishop by vertue of this Canon, in Synod. Chalced. Act. 1. vid. Concil, General. Edit. Bin. ut prius▪ Tom. 3. pag. 61, 62. See the Learned D^r Be∣veredge's Annotat▪ on the third Canon Concil. Constantinop. pag. 95.
• e 1.7

  The first mention (if I mistake not,) of Christian Patriarchs (so I term them, because the Jews had Grand Officers amongst them thus termed, long before this time;) in any Authour worthy of credit, is at this place in our So∣crates. However, there is no small stir amongst Learned men, about defining the time wherein these Patriarchs were first constituted in the Christian Church. Valesius, in his notes on this chap. and in his third book of Ecclesiastick Observations upon Socrates and Sozomen, does in a great many words assert, that the Patriarchical authority was confirmed by the sixth Canon of the Nicene Synod. This assertion of his is suffi∣ciently confuted by D^r Beveredge, in his Annotat. upon that sixth Canon, pag. 52▪ &c. At which place, and in his notes on the second Canon of the Constantinopolitan Council, pag. 93, 94; the said Learned Doctor is of opinion (agreeable to our Socrates here,) that Patri∣archs were first constituted by this second Oecumenical Council held at Constantinople. Nevertheless, he grants, that most of those priviledges, which Patriarchs afterwards challenged were given them by other Councils. Lastly, D^r Barrow's sentiment is, that this Dioecesan (or Patriarchical) Form did soon after the Nicene Council creep into the Church, without any solemn appointment, by a spontaneous assumption and submission. See his excellent Treatise of the Pope's supre∣macy, pag. 240▪ &c.
• f 1.8

  The Roman Emperours who preceded Constantine the Great, com∣mitted the chief management of affairs in the Civill State of the Em∣pire to one, or at most to two Praefects of the Praetorium. But Con∣stantine the Great introduced a new partition of the Empire, (as Zosimus tells us, book 2. of his Histor. pag. 439, 440, Edit. Lugd. 1611;) and divided the management thereof amongst four Praefects of the Prae∣torium: one whereof was Praefect of the Pretorium in the East, a second of Illyricum, a third of Italy, and a fourth of the Gallia's. Each of these Praefects had several Dioecesis's under them: every single Dioe∣cesis was a Combination of divers Provinces together into one Ter∣ritory. What Diocesis's every one of these Prefects had under their district, and what and how many Provinces were included in each Dioecesis; the learned Reader may see in Guidus Pancirolus's notitia utraque, dignitatum, cùm Orientis, tùm Occidentis, Edit. Lugd. 1608. From which Author we will Transcribe the five Dioecesis's (for so many he had under him,) of the Praefect of the Praetorium of the East, as they occur at fol. 3, and 4, of his Comment: because they are necessary in order to the clear understanding of what we have to say further here. Sub dispositione virorum Illustrium Praefectorum Pr••torio per Orientem, &c. Under the dispose of the Illustrious the Praefects of the Praetorium throughout the East, are these Dioecesis's underwritten, The East, Egypt, the Asian, Pontick, and Thracican Dioecesis's.

  The Provinces of the East [or Eastern Dioe∣cesis] are XV.

  • Palestina,
  • Phaenice,
  • Syria,
  • Cilicia,
  • Cyprus,
  • Arabia. And the Dux (Com∣mander) and Comes (Earl) of the Milice.
  • Isauria,
  • Palestina Salutaris,
  • Palestina secunda,
  • Phoenice Libani,
  • Euphratensis,
  • Syria Salutaris,
  • Osrhoena,
  • Mesopotamia,
  • Cilicia secunda.

  The Provinces of E∣gypt [or Aegyptick Dioe∣cesis.] are VI.

  • Libya superior,
  • Libya inferior,
  • Thebais,
  • Aegyptus,
  • Arcadia,
  • Augustanica.

  The Provinces of the Asian Dioecesis X.

  • Pamphylia,
  • Hellespontus,
  • Lydia,
  • Pisidia,
  • Lycaonia,
  • Phrygia Pacatiana,
  • Phrygia Salutaris,
  • Lycia,
  • Caria,
  • Insula.

  The Provinces of the Pontick dioecesis XI.

  • Galatia,
  • Bithynia,
  • Honorias,
  • Cappadocia prima,
  • Cappadocia secunda,
  • Pa∣phlagonia,
  • Pontus Polemaniacus,
  • Hellenopontus,
  • Armenia prima,
  • Armenia secunda,
  • Galatia Salutaris.

  The Provinces of the Thracican Dioecesis VI.

  • Europa,
  • Thracia,
  • Haemimontis,
  • Rhodope,
  • Moesia secunda,
  • Scythia.

  In conformity to this model of Government in the Civil State, the Regiment in the Church (which before had been metropolitical, when the Provinces were independent on each other in Ecclesiastical administrations,) was adapted. This Dioecesan form of Governance might, 'tis probable, privately creep into the Church, in that in∣terval of time between the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils; which is the opinion of D^r Barrow (See note (e.) in this chapter.) But, 'tis certain, it was confirmed by the Fathers convened in this second Oecumenical Synod; which sanction they made upon this oc∣casion. A little before the summoning of this Synod, Melitius Bi∣shop of Antioch in the East, took a journey to Constantinople, where he, together with some other Bishops promoted Gregorius of Nazian∣zum to the Constantinopolitan See. So Sozomen tells us, book 7. chap. 3 and 7. Soon after Melitius had done this, Peter Bishop of Alexandria sent some Bishops from Egypt to Constantinople, who or∣dained Maximus the Cynick Bishop of that City. See Sozomen book 7. chap. 9. Now, in the Political partition of the Roman Em∣pire, (as you may see by that Draught we have here given you of the Oriental-Praetorian-Praefecture,) these three places were in three seve∣ral Dioeceses. For, Antioch in Syria (whence Melitius came) was in the Oriental Dioecesis: Alexandria (from whence the Bishops we•••• sent by Peter) was in the Egyptick Dioecesis: and Constantinople (where these Bishops had celebrated their Episcopal ordinations) was Sci∣tuate in the Thracican Dioecesis. In regard these proceedings had pro∣duced a great deal of disorder and confusion in the Church; to re∣medy this in future, the Fathers convened in this Synod, make a Sanction, (See Conc. Constantinopol. II. Can. 2. pag. 87, Edit. Bevereg.) that the Ecclesiastick Dioecesis's should have the same Limits with those of the State; and that it should be as unlawfull for Ecclesiastick persons to perform any Office, or do any business be∣longing to them, without that Dioecesis wherein they were placed; as it was for the Civil Minister to intermeddle with any affair without the Limits of his Dioecesis. That this had not been duly observed in the Church before this Synod, but that Prelates made frequent Ex∣cursions out of one Dioecesis into another, to ordain, &c; is evident, not only from the instances we have mentioned just now; (where we find Melitius who belonged to the Oriental Dioecesis, and other Bishops of the Egyptick Dioecesis, ordaining a Bishop of Constanti∣nople, a City in the Thracican Dioecesis ▪) but also from the Testi∣mony of our Socrates, a person who lived soon after the convention of this Constantinopolitan Synod; who speaking here concerning its Sanctions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (says he,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. And they constituted Patriarchs, having made a division of the Provinces; that so those Bishops [who make their abode] with∣out the bounds of their own Dioecesis, should not invade the Churches with∣out their Limits. For this had been promiscuously done before by reason of the Persecutions. But, notwithstanding that this Dioecesan form (in imitation of the Civil State of the Empire) was brought into the Church, and thereupon Patriarchical Sees were erected: yet after this, several Provincial Churches had their ancient priviledges con∣firmed to them, (which confirmation is grounded on the sixth Canon of the Nicene Council, as D^r Beveredge has fully proved in his notes▪ on that Canon, pag. 58;) and remained Independent from the Patri∣archical Sees. For instance, the Cyprian Church was adjudged to be such an one, in the eighth Canon of the third General Council held at Ephesus, in the year of Christ 431. In which Canon, after the Ephesine Fathers had determined the Cyprian Church to be independent from the Bishop of Antioch; they add this clause: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. The same shall be observed in other Dioeceses, and in the Provinces every where: that so, none of the most Religious Bishops may invade another Province, which has not been for many years before, and from the begin∣ning under his, or his predecessours hand. In like manner, Armenia the Great was exempted from dependence on any Patriarchate; as 'tis apparent from That Order of the Presidency of the most holy Patriarchs, which D^r Beveredge has published (at his notes on the 36^th Canon Concil. Trullan. pag. 135, &c.) from a very ancient Greek Manu∣script in the Bodlcian Library. In which Manuscript, neither England, Scotland, nor Ireland, are reckoned dependents on the Roman Pa∣triarchate; as the Learned Reader, on perusall, will find. Though, 'tis as certain, that there was a compleat and absolute Church setled in this Island, long before this Manuscript Order was (or can be sup∣posed to have been) drawn up; as that there was one at Antioch, or Rome it self. For (not to mention those unquestionable authorities which might be here produced to prove, that the plantation of the Go∣spel in this our Province was as early as the close of Tiberius's Reign;) we have many witnesses of an undoubted authority to attest, that be∣fore the times of the Nicene Council, there was a compleat Church set∣led in this Island. For first, in the subscriptions to the first Council of Ar∣les (convened in France Before the Nicene Council, that is, before the year of Christ 325, as the Acts of the said Council, publisht by Jacobus Sirmondus do attest;) we meet with the names of these persons who went thither from this our Island: (See Concilia Antiqua Gallia, Tom. 1. pag. 9. Edit. Sirmondi Paris. 1629.) Eborius, Episcopus de civitate Eboracensi, &c. Eborius Bishop of the City of York in the Pro∣vince of Britania. Restitutus, Bishop of the City London, in the fore∣written Province. Adelfius, Bishop of the City Colonia of the Londoners. From the same Province, Sacerdos a Presbyter, Arminius a Deacon. Secondly, Athanasius (in his second Apology against the Arians pag. 720. Edit. Paris.) does attest, that the Bishops of the Britannia's were pre∣sent at the Sardican Council; which Synod was convened in the Con∣sulate of Rufinus and Eusebius (see our Socrates book 2. chap. 20, note c.) on the year of our Lord 347. Lastly, to mention no more, Hilarius Bishop of Poictiers in France, in the beginning of his Book de Synodis (pag. 318. Edit. Paris. 1631. which book was written about the year of our Lord 350.) sends Greeting Britanniarum Episcopis, to the Bishops of the Britannia's. This is sufficient to prove we had a Church here in those times. And, that this Church was governed by its own Bishops, till about the year of Christ 600, and subject neither to the Roman, not to any other forreign Prelate, is a thing evidently apparent from what Venerable Bede has recorded in his Ecclesiastick History. For when Gregory Bishop of Rome, (supposing the Inhabitants of this Island to be still intangled in the errours of Paganism,) had sent hither Augustine the Monk to convert them to Christianity; he unexpectedly found, not only the Christian Religion disseminated amongst them long be∣fore his arrival, but Bishops also rightly and duely constituted: which Prelates could not (in my simple judgment) be supposed the Subjects of the Roman Bishop, because he was so far from having any knowledge of them, that he did not believe there was one single Christian in this Island. But, though Augustine at his arrival found not the British Bishops dependants on the Roman See; yet, he resolves to use his utmost endeavour to make them such. In order to which, by the assistance of ••thelbert King of Kent (as Bede tells us, book 2. chap. 2. Eccles. Histor.) he summons together the Prelates of the adjacent Province of the Britons, advises them to alter their ancient usages▪ and to accept of him for their Arch-bishop▪ But they, having an Arch-bishop of their own already to wit, the Bishop of Kaerleon, and looking upon it to be a strange and unheard-of thing, that they should become Subjects to a Forreigner; wholly refused him and his monstrous proposal; telling him, that they would not own him for their Arch-bishop; and, as to their ancient customs and usages, that they could not relinquish them without the consent and licence of their own Nation. Whereupon they desired a second Synod might be convened. At which there met seaven Brittish Bishops (whose names you may see in Sir Henry Spelmans Councils, Tom. ••. pag. 106;) and many other Learned men; who by Dionothus (or, as Bed•• calls him▪ Dino••th) Abbot of Bangor gave Augustine the Monk this answer; (See Sir Henry Spelman, as before, pag. 108, 109:) Be it known to you and without doubt, that we are, and every one of us obedient and subject to the Church of God and Pope of Rome, and to every true and pious Christian, to love every one in his degree with perfect charity, and to help every one of them by word and deed to be the sons of God. As for any other obedience, I do not know that I owe it to him, whom ••e call the Pope, or that he hath right to challenge or require to be the Father of Fathers. This obedience we are ready to give and pay to him▪ and to every Christian continually. Besides, we are placed under the Government of the Bishop of Kaerleon upon Uske, who is to supervise un∣der God over us, to make us keep the spiritual way. What treatment the Brittish Prelates found from Augustines hand, after they had given him this answer; the Reader may see in Bed••, at the book and chapter now quoted. Where we find this Augustine, their pretended conver∣tour, threatning them with a War. Which by his instigation (see M^r Wheelocks notes on Bed. Eccles. Hist. book 2. chap. 2. Ethel••ridus King of the Northanhumbrians waged against them: wherein no less than 1200 Brittish Ecclesiasticks were slain at one time. After this, the Romish Bishop, for upwards of nine Centuries exercised a supream Ecclesi∣astick power in this Nation; though several of our Kings promulged severe Laws against it. But now at length, his Tyrannick yoak is broken off; and our Church enjoys its ancient priviledges: which may that God continue to it, by the most pretious bloud of whose eternal Son it was purchased! Amen.
• g 1.9

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. They are the words of the second Canon of the Constan∣tinopolitan Synod; which Dionysius Exiguus renders thus: qui sunt super Dioecesim Episcopi, &c. the Bishops who are over a Dioecesis. There may be a twofold sence of these words. For first, They may be termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who are over a dioecesis, or preside over a whole Dioecesis: of which sort is the Bishop of Alexandria, or the Bishop of Antioch, who is constituted not over a Province, but over a Dioecesis. Or se∣condly, they may be termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who are without their own Dioecesis: So Zonaras explains these words, in his Comment on this Canon. Lucas Holstenius has embraced the former sense of these words. For, at the Margin of his copy he had made a remark, that this pas∣sage in Socrates is to be explained thus: ne Episcopi, &c. Least the Bishops set over their own Dioecesis's, should invade the Churches situate without their limits. But, the latter sense is the truer; which the Canon it self declares in the following words: for the Fathers add, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the uncalled Bishops come not beyond their Dioecesis. Wherefore, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prelates without their bounds; which title Socrates has given Gregory Nazianzen at chap. 7. of this book; because of his removal from the Bishoprick of Sasimi (which was in the Pontick Dioecesis) to Constantinople. Further, it is to be noted, that Dioecesis in this Canon does not signifie a Diocese (as that word is commonly used,) or a Province, as the Greek Inter∣preters Zonaras and Balsamon supposed; but it imports many Pro∣vinces joyned together which are subject to one Governour. Whence the title of this Canon is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, concerning Dioeceses. For, its express words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. the fore written Canon concerning Dioecesises being observed, 'tis manifest that a Provincial Synod will govern affairs throughout every Province. You see what the title of this Canon is▪ and how it distinguishes a Province from a Dioecesis. For, 'tis not for∣bidden by this Canon, that Bishops should goe out of one Province in∣to another, to celebrate Ordinations: that being not to be done otherwise. To instance in the Asian Dioecesis, (see note f.) the Fa∣thers prohibit not a removal out of Lycia into Pamphilia, nor out of Caria into Lycia, on account of Ecclesiastick business: but they only forbid them to pass out of one Dioecesis into another. Vales.
• * 1.10

  That is, Constanti∣nople.
• h 1.11

  The term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not here used in such a sense, as to signifie a Patri∣archate strictly so taken. Nor, must we think, that these Prelates here men∣tioned by Socrates, were con∣stituted Patriarchs properly so called; because (as Valesius well remarks) there are more than one named here to be superintendents over one Dioecesis; for instance, Helladius, Gregorius, and Otreïus, are assigned for the Pontick Dioecesis. Now, what that power was, which is here given to these Prelates by the Synod (or rather by the Emperour Theodosius himself,) will appear from an inspection into the occasion of their being intrusted with this power. The Emperour Theodosius, perceiving the Churches to be notoriously pestred with Arianisme, took a resolution to extir∣pate it. In order whereto, he published an Edict (which is men∣tioned by Sozomen, book 7. chap. 9; and is still extant, being the third Law in the Theodosian Code, Tit. de fide Catholicâ:) to this effect; that in all places, the possession of the Churches should be delivered to such persons only, as would acknowledge and profess one and the same Deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in a subsistency of three per∣sons equal in honour and power. In order to a more clear manifesta∣tion of those persons that owned this acknowledgment and profession; such of them as were in Constantinople and Thracia, were by this Im∣perial Law obliged to hold communion with Nectarius Prelate of the Constantinopolitan See; those in the Pontick Dioecesis, with Helladius, Gregorius, and Otreïus, &c. For these Prelates (says Sozomen) the Emperour himself approved of, after he had seen and spoken with them; and also, they had an eminent repute for their pious Government of their Churches. And the Emperour orders further in his Edict, that who∣soever dissented from a communion of faith with these Prelates, in their several districts; he should be expelled out of the Church as a mani∣fest Heretick. You see then, that the power given to these Prelates here was not properly Patriarchichal; but only this, that their faith was to be the standard as it were, to measure that of others by, and a communion with them the Test for admitting persons to, or expelling them from, Ecclesiastick preferments. But, though we affirm, that the Prelates here mentioned by Socrates, were not constituted Pa∣triarchs properly so called: yet we see no reason of making an inference from hence, (as Valesius in his note here does,) that Patriarchs were not constituted by the Constantinopolitan Fathers. For this is plainly repugnant to our Socrates's fore-mentioned words in this chap. viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they constituted Pa∣triarchs, having made a distribution, or division, of the Provinces. On which distribution of the Provinces, the entire constitution of Pa∣triarchs has its sole dependence. For, from it arose Dioecesis's, over which Patriarchs were set. See the Learned D^r Beveredge's notes on the 6^th Canon of the Nicene Council, pag. 52, &c; and on the second Canon of the Constant. Synod. pag. 94.