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.

THE FIFTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS. (Book 5)

The PREFACE.

BEfore we begin the History of our Fifth Book, we make a request to those who shall read this Work of ours, that they would not blame us, because, designing to Write an Ecclesiastick History, we in∣termix therewith the Wars also which have at several times hapned, so far as we could procure a true Relation thereof. For we do this upon several accounts. First, to bring [the Readers] to a knowledge of what has been Transacted. Secondly, that our Readers may not be cloy'd, a 1.1 by being continually detained with [a perusal of] the contentious disagreements of Bishops, and with the designes they framed against one another. But most especially, that it might be made apparent, that when the Affairs of the State were disturbed, those of the Church also (by a certain sympathy as it were,) be∣came distempered and disordered. For, let any man make an observation, and he will find, that the mischiefs of the State, and troubles of the Church, have gathered strength and spread together. For, he will perceive, that they have either had their rise at one and the same time, or else have immediately followed one another. And sometimes [the calamities] of the Church lead the way; then follow the [commotions of the] State: at others, on the contrary. So that, I cannot perswade my self, that the interchangeable course [of these things] does proceed from any fortuitous accident, but that they take their beginnings from our iniquities: and that calamities are sent for the chastizement thereof. For, according to the Apostle, † 1.2 Some mens sins are open before hand, going before to judgment: and some [men] they follow after. Upon this account therefore, we have interwoven some affairs transacted in the State, with our Ecclesiastick History. What was done in the Wars during the Reign of Constantine, because 'tis so long ago, we could not find an account of. But we make a cursory mention of the Actions done since, according to the relation thereof, which we have received from persons yet living. We do, without intermitting any one of them, include the Emperours in this our History, because from such time as they began to embrace the Christian Religion, the affairs of the Church have depended upon them; and the greatest Synods have been, and at this present are * 1.3 convened by their determination and appointment. Moreover, we have made mention of the Arian Heresie, because it has disquieted the Churches. Let this be sufficient to have been said by way of Preface. We will now begin our History.

CHAP. I. How (after the death of Valens,) when the Goths laid Siege to Constantinople, the Citizens sallied out of the City against them, having those Sara∣cens who were under Mavia's Command, to be their Auxiliaries.

AFter the Emperour Valens had ended his life by an unknown sort of death, the Barba∣rians made their approaches again to the very walls of Constantinople, and ruined the Suburbs on every side of it. The Citizens, sorely vexed there∣at, on their own accord sallied out against the Barbarians, every one taking what came next to hand for Arms. * 1.4 Dominica, the Emperours Wife, gave every one that went out upon this piece of service, such pay out of the Imperial Trea∣sury, as was usually allowed to Souldiers. Some few Saracens, their Confederates, assisted them; be∣ing sent from Mavia, whom we have mentioned be∣fore. When the Citizens had after this manner made a resistance against them at that time, the Bar∣barians retreated farther off from the City.

CHAP. II. That the Emperour Gratianus, having recalled the Orthodox Bishops from their Exile, drove the Hereticks out of the Churches, and took Theo∣dosius to be his Colleague in the Empire.

GRratianus being together with Valentinianus Junior in possession of the Empire, and detesting his Unkle Valen's cruelty towards the Christians, recalled those who had been Exiled by him. Moreover, he made a a 1.5 Law, that per∣sons of all Sects might, without any distinction, securely meet together in their Oratories: only the Eunomians, Photinians, and Manichaeans, were extruded out of the Churches. Being also sen∣sible of the languishing condition of the Roman Empire, and of the growth of the Barbarians; and [perceiving also] that the State was in want of a valiant and couragious man; he chuses Theodosius (a person descended of a noble fami∣ly in Spain, who had performed many a brave piece of service in the Wars, and upon that ac∣count had by all men been long since judged worthy of the Empire, even before Gratianus's Election of him,) to be his Colleague in the Em∣pire. Having therefore proclaimed him Empe∣rour in Sirmium, a City of Illyricum, in the Con∣sulate of Ausonius and Olybrius, on the sixteenth of January he divides with him the care of mana∣ging the War against the Barbarians.

CHAP. III. What Bishops were in possession of the Presidency over the greater Churches at that time.

AT this time Damasus Presided over the Church at Rome, who had succeeded Li∣berius. Cyrillus was as yet in possession of the Church at Jerusalem. The Antiochian Church (as I have said,) was divided into three parts. For Dorotheus the Arian, successour to Euzoius, was possest of the Churches. Of the rest one part paid obedience to Paulinus, the other to Melitius, who was recalled from Banishment. Lucius, although * 1.6 living in Exile, Presided over the Arians at Alexandria: the professours of the Homoöusian opinion in that City were headed by Timotheus, successour to Peter. Demophilus was in possession of the Churches at Constanti∣nople, who succeeded Eudoxius in the Presidency over the Arian Faction. Those that abomi∣nated communion with him, celebrated their as∣semblies apart by themselves.

CHAP. IV. How the Macedoniani, who had sent an Embassy to Damasus [Bishop] of Rome in defence of the Homoöusian Creed, returned again to their old Heresie.

THe Macedoniani, after their Embassy sent to Liberius, for some time held a perfect and entire communion with the Churches through∣out every City; intermixing themselves with those, who from the beginning had embraced that Draught of the Creed [publish't] at Nicaea, But when the Emperour Gratianus's Law [was promulged, which] allowed a Liberty to [se∣veral] Sects, they made it their business * 1.7 to hold separate assemblies again. Being met to∣gether at Antioch in Syria, they determined again, that the term Homoöusios was to be abominated, and that a communion was not in any wise to be held with those who embraced the Nicene Creed. ••ut † 1.8 they proceeded not in their attempt. For many of their own party, finding fault with their [inconstancy,] because sometimes they Decreed one thing, at others another, left them, and in future became firm Adherents to those that embraced the Homoöusian Creed.

CHAP. V. Concerning what hapned at that time at Antioch, upon Paulinus's, and Melitius's account.

MOreover, at the same time arose a great difference at Antioch in Syria, upon Me∣letius's account. We have told you * 1.9 already, that Paulinus Bishop of Antioch, by reason of his eminent piety, was not banished: and that Me∣litius, after he had been restored by † 1.10 Julianus, was again banished by * 1.11 Valens, and at length recalled in ‖ 1.12 Gratianus's Reign. At his return to Antioch, he found Paulinus very much decayed by reason of his great age. Immediately there∣fore all those who were Meletius's favourers, used their utmost endeavours to make Melitius Paulinus's * 1.13 Coadjutor. But, upon Paulinus's saying, that it was contrary to the Canons, to ad∣mit of a Coadjutor who had been Ordained by the Arians; the people make use of force, and cause him to be Consecrated in one of the Churches without the City. Hereupon a great difference arose; But afterwards the people came to an agreement upon these terms. Having assembled † 1.14 those persons that were reputed fit to be en∣trusted with the Bishoprick, they find them to be in all six; of which number Flavianus was one. They bound these men by an Oath, that none of them should make an interest for the Bishoprick, after the death of one of the * 1.15 Prelates; but that they should permit the Surviver to continue pos∣sest of the See of the person deceased. Having given them an Oath after this manner, the people came to an agreement, nor was there any further dissention amongst them. But, the † 1.16 Luciferiani made a separation from the rest, for this reason, because Melitius, who had been Ordained by the Arians, was admitted to the Bishoprick. Whilst affairs at Antioch were in this posture, a very ur∣gent occasion oblieged Melitius to take a journey to Constantinople.

CHAP. VI. That Gregorius of Nazianzum was by a gene∣ral suffrage of the Orthodox constituted Bishop of the Constantinopolitan Church; at which time the Emperour Theodosius (after his Victory over the Barbarians,) fell sick at Thes∣salonica, and was Baptized by Ascholius the Bishop.

AT which time, Gregorius was translated from the Bishoprick of Nazianzum to that of Constantinople, by the common suffrage of many

Prelates. And this was done in such a man∣ner [as I have declared.] About the same time the Emperours, Gratianus and Theodosius, got each of them a Victory over the Barba∣rians. Gratianus * 1.17 returned immediately into the Gallia's, because the Alamanni overran those Provinces. But Theodosius, after [he had e∣rected] his Trophies, hastned to Constantinople, and arrives at Thessalonica. There he fell sick, and earnestly desired that he might be vouchsafed Christian Baptism: for by his progenitours he had been bred up in the Christian Religion, and was a professour of the Homoöusian Faith. Being desirous with all possible speed to be baptized, because his distemper increased, and having [for that reason] sent for the Bishop of Thessalonica, he first enquired of him, what Faith he profest. And when the Bishop had made answer, that the opinion of the Arians had not invaded the Provinces of Illyricum, and that the novelty which Arius had given birth too, was not so prevalent as to prey upon the Churches in those Countries; but that they con∣tinued to preserve that Faith immoveable and un∣shaken, which from the beginning was delivered by the Apostles, and had been confirmed in the Nicene Synod; [upon this answer] the Em∣perour was most willingly baptized by Ascholius the Bishop. Not many days after [Theodosius] recovered of his distemper, and came to Constan∣tinople about the twenty fourth of November, in Gratianus's fifth and his own first Consulate.

CHAP. VII. That when Gregorius was come to Constantinople, and some Bishops murmured at his Translation; he refused the presidency over the Church. And, the Emperour orders Demophilus the Arian Bishop, either to give his assent to the Homo∣öusian Faith, or else to go out of the City; which latter he chose rather to do.

AT that time Gregorius of Nazianzum, be∣ing a 1.18 translated [to Constantinople,] cele∣brated his assemblies within the City, in a small Oratory. Whereto the Emperours afterwards joyned a stately Church, and named it b 1.19 Ana∣stasia. But Gregorius (a person for eloquence and piety far more eminent than all men of his own time,) perceiving that some murmured [at his translation,] because he was a stranger; after he had exprest his joy for the Emperours arrival, refused to make any longer stay at Con∣stantinople. The Emperour finding the Church in this posture, was very sollicitous, how he might make Peace, procure an Union, and en∣large the Churches. Immediately therefore he opens his mind to Demophilus, who presided o∣ver the Arian Sect, [and makes a proposal to him] whether he would give his assent to the [Creed published at the] Nicene Synod, unite the people, and embrace Peace. Upon Demo∣philus's refusing to comply with his proposition; If then (said the Emperour) you eschew Peace and Concord, We order you to quit the Churches. When Demophilus had heard these words, and considered with himself how difficult it was to make a resistance against those in authority and power; he called the multitude together in the Church, and standing up in the midst of them, spake these words on his own account to his fol∣lowers. Brethren, 'tis written (said he) in the * 1.20 Gospel; if they shall Persecute you in this City, flee ye into another. In regard therefore the Em∣perour c 1.21 excludes us from the Churches, take notice, that to morrow we will have our Meetings without the City. Having said these words, he went out: not so, as if he apprehended the true meaning contained in this Evangelick Oracle, [the import whereof is,] that such as flee out of the converse of this world, should seek the Jeru∣salem which is above. But be [following ano∣ther sense of these words, went] out of the City∣gates, where for the future he had his Meetings. Together with him went out Lucius of Alexan∣dria, who having been ejected, as I said * 1.22 before, made his escape to Con∣stantinople, in which City he lived. After this manner therefore the Arians (who for the space of fourty years had been in posses∣sion of the Churches,) declining the agreement they were invited to by the Emperour Theo∣dosius, departed out of the City, in Gratianus's fifth and Theodosius Augustus's first Consulate, on the twenty sixth of November. And the pro∣fessours of the Homoöusian Faith, succeeding in their places, recovered possession of the Churches.

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 1.23 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 1.24 Embassy, which they had sent by Eu∣stathius to Liberius heretofore Bishop of Rome: and b 1.25 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 † 1.26 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 1.27 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 1.28 priviledges of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because that City was New-Rome. They did again confirm the Nicene Creed; and constituted e 1.29 Patriarchs, having made a f 1.30 division of the Provinces; that so

g 1.31 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 * 1.32 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 1.33 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.

CHAP. IX. That the Emperour Theodosius [ordered] the body of Paulus Bishop of Constantinople to be honourably translated from [the place of his] Exile. At which time also Meletius [Bishop] of Antioch departed this life.

AT that time the Emperour translated the body of Paulus the Bishop from the City Ancyra: whom Philippus Praefect of the Prae∣torium had banished upon Macedonius's account, and had ordered him to be strangled in Cucusus a Town of Armenia, as I have * 1.34 already men∣tioned. [Theodosius] therefore, having re∣ceived [his body] with much honour and re∣verence, deposited it in the Church which now bears his own name; which Church the em∣bracers of Macedonius's opinion were heretofore in possession of, at such time as they were sepa∣ratists from the Arians: but were then expelled by the Emperour, because they refused embracing of his faith. Moreover, at the same time, Me∣litius Bishop of Antioch fell into a distemper, and died: in praise of whom Gregorius, Basilius's brother, spoke a a 1.35 Funeral Oration. Meletius's body was by his friends conveyed to Antioch. Such as were favourers of Meletius, did again refuse to be subject to Paulinus: but caused Fla∣vianus to be substituted in the place of Meletius. By reason whereof a new division did again arise amongst the people. Thus the Antiochian Church was afresh divided into two parties, on account of their Bishops, not of their faith.

CHAP. X. That the Emperour ordered a Synod of all the Sects to be convened, at which time Arcadius his son was proclaimed Augustus; and that the Nova∣tians (who as to their faith embraced the same sentiments with the Homoöusians) were the only persons that had permission to hold their assemblies within the City. But the other Hereticks were forced from thence.

BUt, there were disturbances in other Cities also, [which hapned] at such time as the Arians were ejected out of the Churches. On account whereof I cannot choose but admire the Emperours judiciousness and prudence. For he suffered not (so far as it was in his power [to prevent them,]) the Cities to be filled with tumultuous disturbances: but with∣in a short space of time, ordered a Synod of all the Heresies to be again convened, supposing that by a mutual conference of the Bishops, one con∣cordant opinion would prevail amongst all men. I am of opinion, that this design of the Empe∣rour's was the cause of that fortunate success he [then] had. For, about the same time, by a particular dispensation of divine providence, the Barbarous Nations were reduced to a subjection to him. And amongst others, Athanarichus King of the Goths made a Surrendry of himself with all his own people unto him, a 1.36 who soon after died at Constantinople. Moreover, at that time the Emperour pro∣claimed his Son Arcadius, Augustus, in the second Con∣sulate of * 1.37 Merobaudes which he bore with † 1.38 Saturninus, on the sixteenth of January. Not long after these things, the Bishops of every Sect ar∣rived from all places, in the same Consulate, in the month June. The Emperour therefore having sent for Ne∣ctarius the Bishop, consul∣ted with him, what project should be made use of that the Christian Religion might be freed from dissentions, and the Church reduced to an Union. And he said, that that Controversie which caused a separation in the Churches, ought to be discussed, that so by a removal of the Discord, an agree∣ment might be effected in the Churches. At the hearing of this Nectarius was full of anxiety and sollicitude. And having sent for Agelius

then Bishop of the Novatians, (in regard he was a person that embraced the same sentiments with him as to the Faith,) he makes known to him the Emperours intent. He, as to other things, was indeed a very pious person: but be∣ing not very able to maintain a dispute, con∣cerning the Doctrine [of Faith,] he proposes his Reader under him, by name Sisinnius, as a fit per∣son to manage a Conference. But Sisinnius (an eloquent man, and well experienced in affairs, one who had an accurate skill in the expositions of the Sacred Scriptures, and in Philosophick o∣pinions,) knew that these Disputations do not only not unite dissentions, but also raise Heresies to an higher degree of contention. Upon which account, he gave Nectarius this advice. In re∣gard he very well knew, that the Ancients avoided the attributing a beginning of Existence to the Son of God; (for they apprehended him to be Coeternal with the Father;) he advises him to shun Logical disputes; and to produce for evi∣dences the b 1.39 Expositions of the Ancients: and that the Emperour should propose to the Chiefs of each Heresie this question, Whether they would entertain any respect for the Ancients who c 1.40 flou∣rished before the dissention in the Church, or whether they would reject them as estranged from the Chri∣stian Religion? For if they reject them [said he,] then let them dare to Anathema∣tize them. And if they shall be so audacious as to do that, the multitude will forth∣with extrude them by vio∣lence. Upon the doing where∣of, the truth will undoubt∣edly obtain a manifest victo∣ry. But, if they shall refuse to reject the Ancient Do∣ctours, then it will be our business to produce the Books of the Ancients, whereby our opinion will be attested and confirmed. Nectarius ha∣ving heard all this from Si∣sinnius, goes in great hast to the Pallace; and makes the Emperour acquainted with the advice which had been given him. The Emperour em∣braces it with much eagerness, and handled the matter prudently. For, without discovering his design, he asked [the Chiefs of the Hereticks] this one question, Whether they had any respect for, and admitted of those Doctours of the Church [who lived] before [the rise of] the dissention? Upon their non-refusal of them, and their affirming that they highly revered and ho∣noured them as being their Masters; the Empe∣rour enquired of them again, whether they would * 1.41 acquiesse in them as witnesses of the Christian Religion worthy to be credited? When the Chiefs of the Sects and their Logicians (for they had amongst them many persons well provided for the combat of dispute;) heard this, they knew not what to do. For every one of them fell into a disagreement of opinion; some affir∣ming that the Emperours Proposal was good; others [thinking] it not conducive to their de∣sign. For some were one way affected towards the Books of the Ancients, others another. Nor could they any longer agree amongst themselves: and they dissented not only from other Sects, but those of the same Sect differed one from the other. Concordant malice therefore, like the tongue of those ancient Gyants, was divided, and their tower of mischief demolished. After the Emperour perceived their confused † 1.42 Dissention, and [was sensible] that they confided in dis∣putation only, and not in the Exposition of the Ancients; he betook himself to a second project. And orders every Sect to d 1.43 set forth [and de∣liver in] to him in writing a Draught of that Creed which they owned. Then, those [of every Sect] amongst them that were skilfullest and most eloquent, wrote their own opinion, making use of a great deal of caution and circumspection in their expressions. A day also was pitcht upon, whereon the Bishops of each Sect upon summons met at the Pallace. At which time were present Nectarius and Agelius, Prelates of the Homoöusian Creed; of the Arians, Demophilus; of the c 1.44 Eunomi∣ans, Eunomius himself; of those that embraced Ma∣cedonius's opinion, Eleusius [Bishop] of Cyzicum.

The Emperour gave them a very kind reception at their meeting: and having received a Draught of the Creed in writing from every one of them, retired into a private apartment alone, where he prayed with much fervency, that God would give him his assistance, in order to an Election of the Truth. And having read over every one of the written Draughts of the Creed, he tore all the rest, (disapproving of them, in regard they introduced a separation of the Trinity) except the Homoöusian Creed only, which he commended and embraced. This was the rea∣son of the Novatians flourishing again, [and of their being permitted] to celebrate their sacred assemblies within the Cities. For the Emperour, admiring their consent as to the Faith, f 1.45 with those of his own opinion, gave com∣mand by [the promulga∣tion of] a Law, that they should securely enjoy their own Oratories; and that their Churches should have the same priviledges with g 1.46 those [Churches] of his own Faith. But, the Pre∣lates of the other Sects, by reason of their disagreement amongst themselves, were condemned and despised e∣ven by their own disciples. And being reduced to a desperation, and overwhel∣med with grief, they made their departure: and wrote Consolatory Letters to those of their own party, perswading them not to be troubled, because many relinquished them, and became adherents to the Homoöusian Creed. For many [they said] were called, but few chosen. Which expression they in no wise made use of, at such time as the greatest part of the people * 1.47 through force and fear became their favourers. But neither were the Professours of the Homoöusian Creed perfectly free from trouble and disquietude. For the affairs of the Antiochian Church caused a divi∣sion amongst those that were present at the Synod. For, the Egyptians, Arabians, and Cypriots † 1.48 ga∣thering together again, said that Flavianus ought to be expelled out of Antioch. But [the Bi∣shops] of Palaestine, Phoenice, and Syria stood up in defence of Flavianus. What conclusion this affair had, I will declare in its due place.

CHAP. XI. Concerning Maximus the Tyrant, how he slew Gratianus by treachery: at which time also Justina the mother of Valentinianus Junior, desisted, though unwillingly, from her design against Ambrosius Bishop of Millain, for fear of Maximus.

ABout the same times wherein these Synods were held at Constantinople, these transacti∣ons hapned in the Western parts. a 1.49 Maximus [coming] out of the Island Britannia, invaded the Roman Empire, and makes a treacherous at∣tempt upon Gratianus then ingaged in a War a∣gainst the Alamanni. In Italy, during Valenti∣nianus's minority, Probus a person that had been Consul, had the chief management of affairs, who at that time bore the Praefecture of the Praetorium.

Justina (mother to Valentinianus Augustus,) a woman that was an Arian, during her Husbands life, had no power to be mischievous towards the Embracers of the Homoöusian Creed. But after [her husbands death,] when her Son was very young, she went to Millain, and raised great disturbances against Ambrosius the Bishop, issuing out an Order that he should be banished. And whilest the people made a resistance [against this Order,] out of their excessive love to Am∣brosius, and opposed those that endeavoured to hale him away into Exile; in that interim news came, that Gratianus was treacherously slain by the Tyrant Maximus. For Andragathius Maxi∣mus's Lieutenant (being hid in a Carriage put into the form of a womans Horse-litter, and car∣ried by Mules; and having given the Guards a Command, that they should before-hand spread abroad a report, that the Emperour Gratianus's Wife was in that Litter;) meets the Emperour before Lyons a City in France, passing the Ri∣ver. The Emperour supposing it to be his Wife, was not aware of the Treachery: but, as a blind man does into a ditch, fell into the hands of his Enemie. ▪ For Andragathius leapt out of the Litter on a Sudden, and slew Gratianus. Grati∣anus therefore ended his life in the Consulate of * 1.50 Merobaudes and Saturninus, after he had Reigned fifteen years, and lived twenty four. This accident cool'd the Emperours Mothers heat against Ambrosius. Moreover, Valentinianus, though against his will, complyed with the ne∣cessity of that juncture, and admitted Maximus to be his Colleague in the Empire. At which time Probus, afraid of Maximus's power, resolves upon a retreat into those parts of the Empire nearer to the East. Immediately therefore he departs out of Italy; and arriving in Illyricum, he fixt his Residence b 1.51 in Thessalonica [a City] of Macedonia.

CHAP. XII. That the Emperour Theodosius having provided a numerous Army against Maximus, (at which time Flaccilla bore him his Son Honorius;) lest Arcadius at Constantinople▪ but went him∣self to Millain, where he came to an Engagement with the Tyrant.

BUt the Emperour Theodosius was extreamly full of care and sollicitude; and formed a very powerfull Army against the Tyrant; being afraid lest he should treacherously murder Va∣lentinianus Junior also. At the same time ar∣rived Embassadours from the Persians, requesting Peace of the Emperour. Moreover, then also a Son was born to the Emperour, named Honorius, of whom his Wife Flaccilla was delivered, in the Consulate of * 1.52 Richomeres and Clearchus, on the ninth of September. In the same Consulate died Agelius Bishop of the Novatians, a little before [Honorius's birth.] On the year following, whereon Arcadius Augustus bore his first Con∣sulate with Bauton, Timotheus Bishop of Alex∣andria ended his life, who was succeeded in that See by Theophilus. A year after this, Demophilus Bishop of the Arian Heresie, concluded his life. The Arians sent for one Marinus, a Bishop of their own Heresie, out of Thracia, whom they entrusted with the Bishoprick. But Marinus sate [Bishop] not long. For under him the Arian Sect was divided into two parties, as we shall de∣clare hereafter. Wherefore they sent for Doro∣theus out of Antioch in Syria, and constituted him their Bishop. In the interim, the Emperour proceeded to a War against Maximus, and left his Son Arcadius Augustus at Constantinople. Arriving at Thessalonica, he finds a 1.53 Valentinianus and those about him in great sadness and anxiety, because out of necessity they had admitted the Tyrant to be Emperour as it were. But Theo∣dosius, in outward appearance, gave no indica∣tion of his mind [in favour of either side.] For he neither b 1.54 rejected, nor admitted Maxi∣mius's Embassy. But he could not endure the sight of a Tyrannical Government over the Ro∣mans, covered with the specious pretence of an Imperial name. Having therefore Mustered his Military Forces, he marcht to c 1.55 Millain. For thither Maximus was already come.

CHAP. XIII. Concerning▪ the disturbance raised at Constanti∣nople by the Arians.

ABout the same time that the Emperour was busied in the War, the Arians in Constan∣tinople raised a disturbance, by this Artifice. 'Tis

usual with * 1.56 men to frame stories of things they are ignorant of. And if at any time they have got∣ten an occasion, they spread greater Rumours con∣cerning the things they have a mind to, being al∣ways extreamly desirous of changes and alterati∣ons. This was the case of Constantinople at that time. For some framed and divulged one thing con∣cerning the War which was waged at that great distance, others another; always presuming upon the worst event of affairs. And when nothing of action had hapned in the War, as if themselves had been Spectatours upon the very Spot, they discour∣sed concerning things which they knew not: [to wit,] that the Tyrant had gotten a victory over the Emperours Army, that thus many were slain on this side, and so many on that; and that the Emperour was just upon falling into the Tyrants hands. Then the Arians, at that time highly incensed, (for they were sorely vext, because those that had been persecuted by them hereto∣fore, were now in possession of the Churches within the City:) began to enlarge the Re∣ports. But afterwards, some of the stories that were told, induced even the Coyners themselves of these false rumours to believe, that the reports they had framed and divulged, were not feigned, but undoubtedly true. For, such persons as had taken them up upon here-say, affirmed to the authours of these lies, that the account of affairs was exactly agreeable to what they had heard from themselves. Whereupon, the Arians became emboldened, brake out into an irrational vio∣lence; threw fire into the Pallace of Nectarius the Bishop, and burnt it. This was done in Theodosius's second Consulate, [which he bore] with Cynegius.

CHAP. XIV. Concerning the Emperour Theodosius's Victory, and the Tyrant's overthrow.

BUt whilest the Emperour was upon his March towards the Tyrant, the Forces under Maxi∣mus's Command, informed of the great Military preparations, could not so much as resist an assault of the fame thereof; but, being put into a con∣sternation, bound the Tyrant, and delivered him to the Emperour. He was slain in the same Consulate, on the a 1.57 twenty seventh of Au∣gust. But Andragathius (he that slew Grati∣anus with his own hand,) after he under∣stood that Maximus was routed, cast himself in∣to the adjacent River, and was drowned. Then, both the Victorious Emperours made their En∣try into Rome. Honorius, Theodosius's Son, a child very young, was with them. For after Maximus was vanquished, his Father sent for him from Constantinople. They continued there∣fore at Rome, celebrating their triumphal Festivals. At which time Theodosius the Emperour shewed a signal instance of his goodness and clemency, to∣wards b 1.58 Symmachus a person that had been Con∣sul. For, this Symmachus was the eminentest person of the Senate at Rome, and was admired for his great skill in the Roman Literature. There are now extant many orations of his written in the Latine tongue. But, in regard he had com∣posed an Oration in praise of Maximus whilest he was alive, and had spoken it to him in pub∣lick; he was afterwards charged with the crime of high-treason. Upon this account he was afraid of a capital punishment, and took sanctuary in the Church. But the Emperour had so great a Reverence for the Christian Religion, that he not only highly honoured the Prelates of his own Faith; but gave a gratious reception to the No∣vatians also, who embraced the Homoöusian Creed. Therefore, that he might gratifie Le∣ontius Bishop of the Novatian Church at Rome, he pardoned Symmachus's crime. Symmachus having his pardon granted him, wrote an Apolo∣getick to the Emperour Theodosius. Thus this War, which at the beginning seemed to threaten [the Empire] with great calamity, was ter∣minated by this sudden conclusion.

CHAP. XV. Concerning Flavianus of Antioch.

AT the same time, these affairs were trans∣acted a 1.59 at Antioch in Syria. After the death of Paulinus, the people who had been his followers, had an aversion for Flavianus. Upon which account they caused Evagrius to be ordain∣ed Bishop of their own party. He having not long survived his Ordination, no other person was afterwards constituted in his place; which was effected by the diligence and endeavours of Flavianus. Notwithstanding those that had an aversion for Flavianus, in regard he had vio∣lated his * 1.60 Oath, kept their assemblies apart by themselves. But Flavianus left no stone untur∣ned, (as the saying is,) that he might bring these persons also to own a subjection to him. Which he effected soon after, [to wit,] when he had appeased the anger of Theophilus then Bishop of Alexandria, by whose intercession Flavianus procured a reconciliation also with Damasus Bishop of Rome. For both these Pre∣lates had been incensed against Flavianus, not only on account of his perjury, but also in regard he had given an occasion of a separation amongst that people who had been brought to an † 1.61 agree∣ment. Theophilus therefore being pacified, sent Isidorus a Presbyter, and reconciled Damasus, as yet offended; telling him, 'twas very con∣ducive for the effecting an union amongst the people, to pass by the fault which Flavianus had committed. Communion being after this man∣ner restored to Flavianus; the people of Antioch were within a small space of time reduced to a reconciliation. Such was the conclusion of this affair at Antioch. For the Arians in that city were ejected out of the Churches, and had their meetings in the Suburbs thereof. More∣over, in this interim died Cyrillus Bishop of Je∣rusalem, who was succeeded by Johannes.

CHAP. XVI. Concerning the demolishment of the Idol Temples at Alexandria; and concerning the Fight be∣twixt the Pagans and Christians, which hap∣ned on that account.

AT the very same time, this disturbance also hapned at Alexandria. By the solicitation of Theophilus the Bishop, the Emperour issued forth an Order, for the demolishment of the Hea∣then Temples at Alexandria; and gave command, that this Order should be put in execution by Theophilus's care. Theophilus being thus em∣powered, used his utmost endeavours in order to the exposing the Heathen Mysteries to ignominy and contempt. He cleansed Mithra's Temple; and destroyed that belonging to Serapis. He also exposed to publick view the bloudy Mysteries of the * 1.62 Mithreum. And shewed how full of ridicu∣lousness the Mysteries of Se∣rapis, and of the other Gods, were; ordering that the † 1.63 Priapus's should be car∣ried through the midst of the Forum. The Heathens at Alexandria, more especially those that profest Philosophy, upon sight of the doing hereof, were unable to repress their discontent: but made an addition to the * 1.64 former tragick actions which they had perpetrated. For, upon a sign given which they had agreed on before-hand, they made an unanimous assault upon the Christians, and murthered every one they met: moreover, the Christians defended themselves; and thus mischief was attended with mischief. This Fight was con∣tinued so long, till a satiety of slaughter put an end to it. Few of the Heathens were destroyed in this Conflict: but of the Christians [there fell] a great many. The wounded on both sides were innumerable. After the perpetration of this Action, a fear seized the Heathens, who dreaded the Emperours anger. Wherefore, ha∣ving done what they pleased, and satiated their minds with slaughters, they absconded, some in one place, others in another. Moreover, many of them fled from Alexandria, and dispersed themselves into several Cities. Amongst which number were the two Grammarians, a 1.65 Helladius and Ammonius; whose Scholar I was at Con∣stantinople, when very young. Helladius was stiled Jupiters Priest: Ammonius was † 1.66 Si∣mius's. This mischief being thus composed, the b 1.67 Praefect of Alexandria, and the Com∣mander in chief of the Milice in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the Heathen Temples. The Temples therefore were ruined, but the I∣mages of their Gods were molten into Caldrons, and into other utensills necessary for the Alex∣andrian Church; the Emperour having given [the Images of] the Heathen Gods [to that Church,] for the relief of the poor. Wherefore Theophilus brake in pieces all [the Images of] the Gods, save one, to wit, the Image of the fore-mentioned God, which he ordered to be preserved unmelted, and caused it to be set up in a publick place; least (said he) the Heathens should in ages to come deny, that they had been worshippers of such Gods. At which action [of Theophilus's,] Ammonius the Grammarian was, to my knowledge, highly disgusted: for he was wont to say, that the Religion of the Gentiles had suffered most horrid abuses, c 1.68 because but one Image only was not melted down; but was preserved meerly to render Gentilism ridiculous. But Helladius made his boasts in some persons hearing, that in the Conflict he had slain nine men with his own hand. Such were the doings in A∣lexandria at that time.

CHAP. XVII. Concerning the Hieroglyphical Letters found in the Temple of Serapis.

[MOreover,] at such time as Serapis's Tem∣ple was rifled and demolished, there were Letters found [in it,] ingraven on stones; a 1.69 which [Letters] they call Hieroglyphical. These Characters had the forms and resemblances of crosses. When the Christians and Heathens saw these Characters, each party * 1.70 ada∣pted them to their own Religion. For the Christians, who affirm that the Cross is the signe of Christs salutary Passion, thought this Character was properly and pecu∣liarly theirs. The Heathens alledged it was some thing [that belonged in] common both to Christ, and to Serapis: for, a Character [said they] made in form of a Cross, betokens one thing amongst the Christians, another amongst the Heathens.

Whilest these things were controverted amongst them, some of the Heathens (who were conver∣ted to the Christian Religion,) having skill in these Hieroglyphical Letters, gave an interpreta∣tion of the Character made in form of a Cross, and said it signified Life to come. This the Chri∣stians took hold of with much earnestness, as be∣ing more advantageous to their Religion in par∣ticular; and were not a little proud of it. b 1.71 But after it had been manifested by other Hiero∣glyphicall Letters, that Serapis's Temple would have an end, when a Character in form of a Cross should appear; (for thereby was sig∣nified Life to come:) then many more came over to the Christian Religion, and after a Confession of their sins were baptized. This is a relation of what hapned upon account of the Character [that was discovered,] made in form of a Cross; which relation I had from report. But, I am not of opinion, that the Egy∣ptian Priests foreknew what should happen to Christ, and therefore caused the figure of a Cross to be ingraven on stones. For, if the Mystery of [our Saviours] coming into the world were hid from Ages, and from Generations, as the Apostle * 1.72 says; and if the Devill himself, the Prince of wickedness, knew nothing of it; 'twas much more unknown to his Ministers, to wit, the Egyptian Priests. But di∣vine providence designed the same thing should happen at the enquiry made into this Character, which he had heretofore demonstrated in the Apo∣stle Paul's [Preaching.] For he, inspired with wisedom by the divine Spirit, made use of the same method towards the Athenians, and brought many of them over to the Faith [of Christ;] at such time as he read the * 1.73 inscription upon [one of their] altars, and ada∣pted it to his own discourse. Un∣less any one should perhaps say, that the word of God had the same operation upon the Egy∣ptian Priests, that it had on Balaam and Caiaphas. For those † 1.74 two persons (though they did it contrary to their will and know∣ledge,) uttered prophesies concerning good things. But, let thus much be said concer∣ning these things.

CHAP. XVIII. That the Emperour Theodosius, during his stay in Rome, did a great deal of good to that City, both by demolishing those Receptacles for Thieves in the Bake-houses, and also [by prohibiting] the obscene [use] of Bells in the Stews.

MOreover, the Emperour Theodosius, during his short stay in Italy, was in many in∣stances highly beneficiall to the City of Rome, partly by his donation of some things, and partly by his abrogating others. For his donations were many and great: and he * 1.75 regulated two villa∣nous and most infamous abuses [frequently pra∣ctised in] that City. The one whereof was this. There were in the † 1.76 great City Rome houses of a vast bigness and largness, long since [built,] wherein the bread was made which was distribu∣ted amongst the Citizens. The Masters of these houses (whom the Romans in their language term a 1.77 Mancipes,) in process of time turned these Edifices into Receptacles for Thieves. For, in regard the Bake-houses in these buildings were situated under ground; at the side of each of these Structures they built Victualling houses,

wherein they prostituted Whores, by which de∣vice they * 1.78 trapanned many persons; some go∣ing in thither to supply themselves with food, others to satisfie their libidinous and filthy de∣sires. For, by a certain Engin [purposely made on that account] they were † 1.79 conveyed from the Victualling house down into the Bake∣house. This trick was chiefly put upon strangers that sojourned at Rome. Such as were after this manner trapan'd, they forced to work in the Bake-houses. In which places many continued till they were grown old; being not permitted to go out, and their relations taking it for gran∣ted that they were dead. One of the Emperour Theodosius's Souldiers fell into this snare. But after the Souldier was shut up in the Bake-house, and not suffered to go out, he drew a Dagger that he had, and killed those that opposed [his escape.] The rest of them, affrighted at what had happened, let the Souldier go out. The Em∣perour having had notice hereof, punished the Mancipes, and gave order that those houses, which were Receptacles for Thieves, should be pulled down. This was one of the ignominious pra∣ctises, from which the Emperour freed the Im∣perial City. Another was of this sort. If a woman were taken in adultery, they punished the delinquent, not with such a sort of punishment as might make her better, but in such a manner rather as should aggravate her offence. For they shut her up in a narrow Brothel-house, and forced her to play the whore in a most impudent man∣ner. And, during the time of performing that most unclean act, they caused little b 1.80 Bells to be rung, to the end that what was done [within] might not be concealed from those who passed by; but that that ignominious punishment should be made known to all people by the sound of the Bells rung. When the Emperour had informa∣tion of this impudent usage, he would by no means tollerate it: but commanded those Sistra (for by that name these Stews were called,) to be pulled down; and gave order that women taken in adultery, should be * 1.81 punished by other Laws. From these two most wicked and reproachfull † 1.82 usages, the Emperour Theodosius freed the City of Rome. Who, after he had well settled all o∣ther affairs, left Valentinianus Junior Emperour at Rome. But he himself, together with his Son Honorius, returned to Constantinople, and entred that City in the Consulate of Tatianus and Sym∣machus, on the tenth of November.

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 1.83 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 1.84 Canon of the Churches; to the intent that

such persons as had sinned after Baptism, might make a confession of their crimes c 1.85 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 * 1.86 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 † 1.87 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 1.88 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 1.89 work also worthy of Repentance to shew. f 1.90 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 1.91 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 1.92 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 1.93 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, * 1.94 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.

CHAP. XX. That there were [at that time] many Schisms amongst the Arians, and other Hereticks.

BUt I think it fit, not to leave unmentioned those things also which hapned amongst others, I mean the Arians, Novatians, and those who had their denominations from Macedonius and Eunomius. For the Church being divided, rested not in that division once made. But tur∣ning again, came to an engagement one with ano∣ther; and taking hold of a small and frivolous pretence, raised mutual separations and divisions. Now, in what manner, when, and for what rea∣sons, each party were the Authours of dissentions amongst themselves, we will manifest in the pro∣cedure of our History. But this you must know, that the Emperour Theodosius persecuted none of them, except Eunomius: who holding his meetings in private houses at Constantinople, and reciting the books he had written, was by the Emperours order sent into banishment, in regard he corrupted many persons with his doctrine. But the Emperour molested none of the other [He∣reticks,] nor did he force them to a communion with himself. But permitted every one of them to meet at their private Conventicles, and to entertain such Sentiments concerning the Chri∣stian Faith, as every of them * 1.95 could attain to in their conceptions thereof. He gave the other Hereticks a Licence of building themselves Ora∣tories without the Cities. But ordered, that the Novatians, (in regard they embraced the same Sentiments with himself, as to the Faith,) should without any fear continue in their Churches within the Cities, as I have said before. Con∣cerning whom I judge it opportune to relate some passages, and shall make a short repetition of what has been said before.

CHAP. XXI. That the Novatians also disagreed amongst them∣selves.

A Gelius Presided over the Church of the No∣vatians at Constantinople during the space of fourty years, from the times of Constantine untill the sixth year of the Emperour Theodosius, as I have * 1.96 somewhere related before. Being near his death, he ordains Sisinnius to succeed him in his Bishoprick. He was a Presbyter of that Church over which Agelius Presided; a person of great eloquence, and had been instructed in Philosophy by Maximus the Philosopher at the same time [that he read to] the Emperour Julian. But when the Novatian Congregation found fault with this Ordination, because [Age∣lius] had not rather ordained Marcianus, a per∣son of an eminent piety, by † 1.97 whose interest the Novatians had continued unmolested during Va∣lens's Reign; Agelius, desirous to appease the people's discontent, ordained Marcianus also: and being somewhat recovered from his distem∣per, he went into the Church, and spake these words to the people on his own account: After my decease, (saies he) take Marcianus [for your Bishop,] and after Marcianus, Sisinnius. Ha∣ving survived these words a small time, he ended his life. Marcianus therefore being constituted Bi∣shop over the Novatians, there arose a division in their Church also, upon this account. One Sab∣batius, (a person that had turned Christian from being a Jew,) being by Marcianus promoted to the dignity of a Presbyter, continued notwith∣standing a zealous promoter of Judaism, where∣with he had been leavened before. Moreover, he was extreamly ambitious of being made a Bishop. Having therefore procured two Presbyters (The∣octistus and Macarius, who were privy to his am∣bitious design,) to be his Assistants, he took a resolution of defending that innovation [made by the Novatians] in Valens's Reign, concerning the Festival of Eaester, at Pazum a Village in Phrygia; which I have mentioned ‖ 1.98 before. And first of all, under pretence of [following] an Ascetick and more austere course of life, he secretly withdrew from the Church, saying that he was aggrieved upon the account of some persons; in regard he had a suspicion, that they were unworthy of a participation of the * 1.99 My∣steries. But in process of time his design was discovered, to wit, that his desire was to hold private and separate meetings. When Marci∣anus understood this, he himself complained of his own mistake in ordaining, to wit, because he had promoted persons so ambitious of vain∣glory to the † 1.100 Presbyterate. And being grieved, did frequently use to say, that it had been better he had laid his hands on thorns, than when he pre∣ferred Sabbatius to the dignity of a Presbyter.

Moreover, * 1.101 he procured a Synod of Novatian Bishops to be convened at * 1.102 Sangarum; which is a Mart-Town in Bithynia, lying near Heleno∣polis. [The Bishops] being convened there, sent for Sabbatius, and ordered him to set forth before the Synod the reasons of his grief. Upon his affirming, that the dissention about [the ob∣servation] of the Feast [of Easter] was the cause of his being troubled, (for it ought [as he said] to be kept in the same manner that the Jews observed it, and agreeable to that Sanction which those convened at Pazum promulged:) the Bishops present at the Synod, having a suspi∣tion, that Sabbatius pretended all this on account of his being desirous of a Bishoprick, bound him with an oath, that he should never accept of a Bishoprick. When he had sworn to this, they published a * 1.103 Rule concerning the Feast of Easter, to which Canon they gave this Title, † 1.104 Adiaphoros: affirming that a disagreement a∣bout the Festival [of Easter] was not a suf∣ficient reason for a separation from the Church; and that those convened at Pazum did no pre∣judice to the Catholick and universal Rule. For, the Ancients [they said,] and those who lived nearest the Apostles times, although they differed in the observation of this Festival, yet communi∣cated one with another, and in no wise raised any dissention [on that account.] Besides, the Novations [they added,] who inhabit the Im∣perial City Rome, never followed the Jewish usage; but always kept Easter after the Aequi∣nox; and yet they separated not from those of their own Faith, who observed not the Feast of Easter after the same manner that they them∣selves did. Upon these and many such like mature considerations, they made that Indifferent Canon (which I have mentioned) concerning Easter: whereby it was left to every ones ar∣bitrement, to celebrate Easter according to that usage which by a prejudicate opinion he had embraced: and that there should be no dissen∣tion in relation to communion, but that those who celebrated that Festival after a different man∣ner, should notwithstanding continue in the unity and agreement of the Church. This Rule there∣fore concerning the Feast of Easter: having at that time been constituted and confirmed by them; Sabbatius being bound by his oath, (if at any time there hapned any discrepancy in the celebration of the Feast of Easter,) himself an∣ticipated the Fast by keeping it in private by him∣self, b 1.105 and having watched all night, he celebra∣ted the solemn day of the Sabbath of the Passover. And again, on the day following, he came to the Church at such time as the whole congregation were assembled there, and together with them partook of the Mysteries. This he did for many years: and therefore could not avoid being taken notice of by the multitude. Upon which account some of the simpler sort of people, more espe∣cially the Phrygians and Galatians, thinking they should be justified by this fact, imitated Sabbatius, and kept the Passover in secret agreeable to his fashion. But some time after this, Sabbatius dis∣regarding his oath, held Schismatical Meetings by himself, and was constituted Bishop over those that were his own followers, as we shall manifest in the procedure of our History.

CHAP. XXII. This Historian's Sentiment concerning the disa∣greements which appear in some places, in re∣lation to the Feast of Easter, Baptisms, Fasts, Marriages, the order of celebrating the Eu∣charist, and other Ecclesiastick Rites and Ob∣servances.

But, I think it not unseasonable to declare in short what comes into my mind concer∣ning Easter. Neither the Ancients, nor the Mo∣derns who have studiously followed the Jews, had in my judgment any just or rational cause of contending so much about this Festival. For they considered not with themselves, that when the Jewish Religion was changed into Christi∣anity, those accurate [observances] of the Ma∣saick Law, and the Types [of things future] wholly ceased. And this carries along with it its own demonstration. For, no one of Christ's Laws has permitted the Christians to observe the Rites of the Jews. Moreover, on the contrary, the Apostle has expresly forbid this, and does not only reject Circumcision, but also advises against contending about Festival days. Where∣fore, in his Epistle to the Galatians, his words are these, * 1.106 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law? And having spent some few words in his discourse hereof, he de∣monstrates, that the people of the Jews are ser∣vants, but that those who have † 1.107 followed Christ are called to Liberty. Moreover, 'tis his ad∣monition, that days and months and years should

in no wise be observed. Besides, in his Epistle to the Colossians he does loudly affirm, that [such] observations are a shadow. Where∣fore he says, * 1.108 Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of any holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath-days; which are a shadow of things to come. And in the Epistle to the Hebrews, this very [Apostle] does con∣firm the same things in these words: † 1.109 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of neces∣sity a change also of the law. The Apostle therefore, and the Gospels have no where im∣posed the yoak of servitude on those who have approached the Preaching [of the Faith:] but have left the Feast of Easter, and the other Fe∣stivals, to be honoured by their gratitude and be∣nevolence, who have had benefits conferred upon them [on those days.] Wherefore, in regard men love Festivals, because thereon they have a cessation from their labours, each person in every place, according to his own pleasure, has by a certain custom celebrated the memory of the saving Passion. For neither our Saviour, nor his Apostles, have enjoyned us by any Law to observe this Festival. Not have the Gospels or the Apostles threatned us with any mulct, pu∣nishment, or curse, as the Mosaick Law does the Jews. For, 'tis meerly for the History's sake, in order to [a publishing of] the re∣proach of the Jews, (because they polluted themselves with bloud on their very Festivals,) that it has been recorded in the Gospells that our Saviour suffered even on the days of un∣leavened bread. Moreover, it was not the A∣postles design, to make Laws concerning Festi∣val days, but to introduce good life and piety. And it seems to me, that, as many other things in several places have been established by custom, so the Feast of Easter also hath had a peculiar observation amongst all persons from some old usage, in regard none of the Apostles, as I have said, have made any determinate Decree about it. Now, that the observation of this Festival had its original amongst all men in the Primitive times from custom rather than Law, the things themselves do demonstrate. For, in Asia the Less, most people kept the fourteenth day of the Moon, disregarding the Sabbath day. And though this was their practise, yet they never made a separation from those who celebrated the Feast of Easter otherwise: till such time as Victor Bishop of Rome, over-much heated with anger, sent an * 1.110 Excommunicatory Libell to the † 1.111 Quartodecimani in Asia. For which fact I∣renaeus Bishop of Lyons in France severely repro∣ved Victor by Letter; blaming him for his im∣moderate heat; and informing him, that al∣though the Ancients differed in their celebration of the Feast of Easter, yet they did in no wise separate from a mutual communion. Also, that Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, a 1.112 who afterwards suffered Martyrdom under Cordianus, communi∣cated with Anicetus Bishop of Rome, and made no separation from him on account of this Fe∣stival, although Polycarp himself, according to his own country usage [practised] in [the Church of] Smyrna, kept Easter on the four∣teenth day of the Moon, as Eusebius says in the * 1.113 Fifth Book of his Ecclesiastick History. Some therefore in Asia the Less, as I have said, kept the fourteenth day of the Moon. Others in the b 1.114 Eastern parts, celebra∣ted that Feast on the † 1.115 Sunday in∣deed; but they differed concer∣ning the month. Those [first mentioned] were of opinion, that the Jews were to be followed, although they observed not an exact Rule. c 1.116 These ce∣lebrated Easter after the Ae∣quinox, refusing to keep that Feast with the Jews. For they affirm that Easter must always be kept when the Sun is in Aries, on that month which the Antiochi∣ans term Xanthicus, and the Romans April. And in their practise hereof, they fol∣lowed [as they affirmed] not the modern Jews who mistake almost in all things, but the Ancients of that Na∣tion, and Josephus; agree∣able whereto are the words of that Authour in his Third Book of the Jewish Antiqui∣ties. And thus these persons disagreed amongst themselves. But, all other [Christians] in the Western parts as far as the Ocean it self, are found to have celebrated Easter after the Aequi∣nox, from a very ancient tradition. For all these persons keep it after this manner, and have never disagreed amongst themselves. Nor did the * 1.117 Sy∣nod under Constantine alter this Festival, as d 1.118 some have noysed it a∣broad. For Constantine him∣self writing to those persons who differed about this Fe∣stival, advised them, in re∣gard they were but few, to become followers of those who exceeded them in number. You will find the Emperours Let∣ter entire, in the Third Book of Eusebius's Life of Constantine. But that part of it [which treats] concerning the Feast of Easter, runs thus:—* 1.119 And since 'tis a decent Order, which all the Churches in the Western, Southern, and Northern parts of the world do observe, and some places also in the East. Upon which ac∣count, all persons have at present judged it good and right, (and We Our Self also have enga∣ged it will please Your Prudence;) [to wit,] that what is observed with one concordant mind in the City of Rome, throughout Italy, Africa, all Egypt, Spaine, the Gallia's, the Britannia's, the Libya's, all Greece, the Asian and Pontick Dice∣cesis, and Cilicia; will willingly be embraced by Your Prudence also: which will attentively consider, not only that the number of Churches in the forenamed places is greater; but also, that 'tis most just and commendable, that all persons should chiefly and in common desire that,

which strict reason seems to require; and e 1.120 to have no society with the perjury of the Jews. Such is the Emperours Letter. Further, the Quartodecimani do affirm, that the observation of the fourteenth day of the Moon was deli∣vered to them by John the Apostle. But the Romans, and those in the Western parts say, that the usage in force with them was delivered by the Apostles Peter and Paul. Notwithstan∣ding, neither of these two parties can produce any written testimony in confirmation hereof. Moreover, that the Feast of Easter is kept in all places from some usage and custom, I do from hence conjecture. No Sect of Religion observes the same ceremonies, f 1.121 although it embraces one and the same opinion concerning God. For they that are of the same Faith, differ amongst them∣selves concerning Rites. Wherefore, it will not be unseasonable to add a few words concerning the different usages of Churches. First there∣fore, you may find that the Fasts before Ea∣ster are observed one way by some, and in a manner different by others. g 1.122 For they at Rome fast three continued weeks before Ea∣ster, excepting Saturdays and Sundays. The In∣habitants of Illyricum, those throughout all A∣chaia, and h 1.123 they at Alexandria, observe a Fast of six weeks before Easter, which they term * 1.124 the fourty days Fast. i 1.125 Others in a dif∣ferent manner from them, begin their fast from the seventh week before Easter, and though they fast three five days only [part of three weeks,] and that by intervalls; yet nevertheless they also call that time the fourty days Fast. And I cannot but wonder, how these persons, (though they disagree about the number of the days, yet) should in common give it the same name, [to wit,] the fourty days fast. Of which appella∣tion some assign one reason, other another, ac∣cording to their particular fancies and humours. You likewise find several persons disagreeing not only k 1.126 about the number of the days, but differing also in their abstinency from meats. For some abstain wholly from [eating of] living creatures: others, of all living creatures feed on fish only. Othersome, to∣gether with fish, eat fowl also; affirming, according to Moses's * 1.127 words, that these were made likewise of the waters. Some abstain from all manner of fruits of trees, and from eggs. Others feed up∣on dry bread only: othersome eat not even this▪ Others, having fasted till the l 1.128 ninth hour, m 1.129 feed upon any sort of food whatever making no di∣stinction. n 1.130 Again, amongst other Nations, there are other usages: for which innumerable reasons are assigned. And in regard no one can pro∣duce a command in writing concerning this thing, 'tis manifest that the Apostles left every one to his own will and free choice in this case; to the end that no person might be compelled through fear or necessity, to the performance of what is good. Such is the disagreement through∣out the Churches about their fastings. Nor is the variety [amongst them] less, o 1.131 about their performances in their Religious Assemblies.

For, though [almost] all Churches over the whole world do celebrate the Sacred Mysteries on the Sabbath day at the period of every week; yet the Alexandrians and they at Rome, on ac∣count of some ancient tradition, refuse to practise this. The Egyptians who are neighbours to the A∣lexandrians, and the Inhabitants of Thebaïs, have their Religious Meetings on the Sabbath: notwith∣standing, they participate not of the Mysteries, in such a manner as is usual amongst the Christians. For after they have feasted, and filled themselves with all manner of victuals, in the evening they * 1.132 of∣fer, and partake of the Mysteries. Again, at Alex∣andria, on the † 1.133 fourth Feria, and on that termed the ‖ 1.134 Preparation day, the Scriptures are read, and the Doctours expound them; and all things are performed which belong to the Church Assembly, except the celebration of the Mysteries. And this is an usage of great antiquity at Alexandria. For 'tis manifest that Origen most commonly taught in the Church on these days. Who, being a very Learned Doctor, and perceiving that the secret of the Mosaick Law was not to be expounded literally, reduced his discourse concerning the passover to a Mysticall sense; asserting that there had been one only true Passover, [to wit,] that which our Saviour celebrated, at such time as being fastned to his Cross, he vanquished the adverse powers, making use of this Trophy a∣gainst the Devill. In the same City Alexan∣dria, as well the Catecumens, as the Faithfull, are without difference or distinction made Readers and p 1.135 Psalm setters, whereas in all other Churches, the Faithfull only are pro∣moted to this dignity. q 1.136 I my self, when I was in Thessaly, knew another custom also. A Cler∣gy-man in that Country (if after his taking Or∣ders, he does lie with his wife, whom he had legally married before his being Ordained) is r 1.137 degraded: whereas in the East all [Clergy∣men] s 1.138 of their own accord do abstain [from their wives,] even the Bishops themselves; not∣withstanding, they do this [voluntarily,] not by force or compulsion of a Law. For many of them, during even the time of their being Bi∣shops, have begotten children of a lawfull wife. Moreover, the Authour of this usage in Thessaly was Heliodorus, [Bishop] of Trica in that Country, under whose name there are Love-Books extant, which he t 1.139 composed when he was a young man, and entitled them Aethiopici. This same custom is observed in Thessalonica, in Macedonia, and in Achaia. I have also known another custom in Thessaly. They baptize there on the days of Easter only. Upon which ac∣count all of them, except a very few, die un∣baptized. At that Antioch which is in Syria, the site of the Church is inverted. For the Al∣tar * 1.140 stands not towards the East, but towards the West. In Achaia, at Je∣rusalem, and in Thessaly, they go to u 1.141 Prayers when the Candles are lighted, in the same manner that the Novatians do at Constantinople. Likewise, at Caesarea, in Cappadocia, and in Cyprus, on Saturdays and Sundays, always in the Even∣ing, after the Candles are lighted, the Presbyters and Bishops expound the Scriptures. Those No∣vatians in the Hellespont perform not their Prayers wholly after the same manner, with them who live at Constantinople: but they are vv 1.142 in most things conform to [the usages of] the Catholick Church.

In summe, in all places, and amongst all Sects, you will scarcely find two Churches exactly agree∣ing about their prayers. At Alexandria, a Presbyter does in no wise Preach. And this [usage] had its beginning from such time as Arius raised a disturbance in that Church. At Rome they fast every x 1.143 Sa∣turday. y 1.144 At Caesarea in Cap∣padocia they exclude those from Communion who have sinned after Baptism, as the Novatians do. The same is also practised by the Ma∣cedoniani in the Hellespont, and by the Quartodecimani in Asia. The Novatians in Phrygia admit not of * 1.145 Diga∣mists. Those No∣vatians who inha∣bit Constantinople, neither openly ad∣mit, nor openly reject them. But in the Western parts they are o∣penly † 1.146 received. The Bishops, who in their severall times Presided o∣ver the Churches, were (in my judgement) the Occasi∣oners of this diversity. And those who received these Rites and usages, transmitted them to posterity in manner of a Law as 'twere. To give in a Catalogue of all the Rites and Customs in use throughout all Cities and Countries, is a thing difficult, or ra∣ther impossible. But these we have produced, are sufficient to demonstrate, that the Feast of Easter was by reason of some certain usage ce∣lebrated in a different manner in every parti∣cular Province. Wherefore, they are too pro∣fuse in their talke, who have spread abroad a rumour, that [the time of celebrating] Ea∣ster was altered in the Nicene Synod. For the Fathers convened in that Synod made it their business to reduce the people, (who at first dis∣sented from the far greater part of the Church,) to an agreement. Now, that there hapned many differences upon this account, even in the Apo∣stles times, was a thing not unknown even to the Apostles themselves, as the Book of the Acts does attest. For when the Apostles understood, that a disturbance was raised amongst the faithfull, by reason of a dissention of the Gentiles; being all met together, they promulged a Divine Law, drawing it up in form of a Letter: whereby they freed Believers from a most burthensome servitude and vain contention about these things; and taught them a most exact * 1.147 way of living well, which would lead them to true piety; mentioning to them only such things as neces∣sarily ought to be observed. The Epistle it self is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles: yet nothing hinders but we may insert it here. * 1.148 The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren, send Greeting unto the Brethren which are of the Gen∣tiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. For as much as we have heard, that certain which went out from us, have troubled you with words, sub∣verting your souls, saying, ye must be circumcised, and keep the Law, to whom we gave no such com∣mandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our Beloved Barnabas and Paul: Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to Idols, and from bloud, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if you keep your selves, ye shall do well: fare ye well. These things pleased God. For these are the express words of the Letter, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessaries to be observed. Notwithstan∣ding there are some, who disregarding these [Precepts,] suppose all Fornication to be a thing indifferent: but contend about Holy days, as if it were for their lives: [these persons] in∣vert the commands of God, and make Laws for themselves, not valuing the Decree of the Apo∣stles: nor do they consider, that they practise the contrary to those things which seemed good to God. It were indeed possible, to have ex∣tended our discourse concerning Easter, much farther, and to have demonstrated, that the Jews observe no exact Rule, either in the time, or man∣ner of [celebrating] the Paschal solemnity: and that the Samaritans, who are a Schism of the Jews, do always celebrate this Festivall after the Aequinox. But this Subject requires a parti∣cular and more copious Treatise. I only say this, that they who so affectedly imitate the Jews, and are so solicitously accurate about Types and Figures, ought in no wise to dissent from them, [in any particular whatever.] For, if they have taken a resolution of observing all things with an accuracy; they must not only observe days and months, but all other things also, which Christ (constituted under the Law) did after the manner of the Jews, or which he suffered unjustly from the Jews, or [Lastly] which he wrought typically whilest he was doing good to all men. [For instance,] he entred into a Ship and taught: He ordered the passover to be made ready in an upper room: he commanded the Ass that was tied to be loosed: he proposed him, who bore a pitcher of water, as a sign to them for hastning their preparations of the passover: [these things, I say they must ob∣serve] and infinite others of this nature which are recorded in the Gospels. And yet they who suppose themselves to be justified by this Festi∣val, make it their business to observe none of these things in a bodily manner. For no Do∣ctor ever Preach't out of a Ship: no person ever went up to an upper room, and celebrated the passover there: they never tyed, and again un∣loosed an Ass that was tyed: [in fine] no person ever enjoyned another to carry a pitcher of water, to the end that the Symbolls might be fulfilled. For they thought that these and such like things as these * 1.149 savoured rather of Ju∣daism. For the Jews are solicitous about keep∣ing

their z 1.150 solemn Rites and Ceremonies in their bodies, rather than in their souls. Upon which account they are obnoxious to the Curse, be∣cause they conceive the Law of Moses [to con∣sist] in Types and Figures, but [understand it] not according to the truth. But those persons, who are favourers of the Jews, do indeed refer these things to an allegoricall sense and meaning: but they raise an irreconcilable War a∣bout days and months; contemning an allegoricall interpretation of them: in so much that, as to this particular, they themselves as well as the Jews, are of necessity condemned, and bring the sentence of Ex∣ecration upon themselves. But I think this sufficient to have been said concer∣ning these things. Let us now return to our Sub∣ject, whereof we have made mention a little * 1.151 be∣fore: to wit, that the Church [once divided] rested not in that first di∣vision; and that those who were divided, did again engage one another, and taking hold of a small and very frivolous pretence, rai∣sed mutuall separations and divisions. The Novatians as I have † 1.152 said were divided amongst themselves on account of the Feast of Easter: Nor was the division among them concerning this [Festivall] single. For some throughout divers Provinces [observed it] after one manner, others after another; and they disagreed amongst themselves not only a∣bout the month, but about the days of the week also, and about other matters of a small impor∣tance, part of them holding separate Assem∣blies, and part joyning in a promiscuous com∣munion.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning the Arians at Constantinople, who were also termed the Psathyriani.

MOreover, there arose dissentions amongst the Arians, upon this occasion. The contentious questions daily [started] amongst them, had reduced their discourses to some ab∣surdities. For, whereas it has been always be∣lieved in the Church, that God is the Father of the Son the Word; there hapned this Query amongst them, whether or no God could be cal∣led Father even before the Son existed? And, in regard they asserted, that the Word of God was not begotten of the Father, but existed of * 1.153 nothing; being thus mistaken about the first and chiefest Article of Faith, they deservedly fell into an absurd contentiousness about a bare word. Dorotheus therefore † 1.154 who had been sent for from Antioch by them, maintained, that [God] neither was nor could be termed a Father, before the Son existed. But Marinus (whom they had called out of Thracia before Dorotheus) having got a fair opportunity, (for he was vext because Dorotheus had been prefer∣red before him:) undertook to desend the con∣trary opinion. For this reason there hapned a dissention amongst them: and being divided on account of the foresaid Term, each party held separate Meetings. Those under Dorotheus con∣tinued possest of their own Meeting-houses. But Marinus's followers built themselves private O∣ratories, wherein they had their Assemblies; and asserted that the Father was always the Father, even when the Son existed not. Moreover, the maintainers of this assertion were termed a 1.155 Psa∣thyriani, because one Theoctistus by Country a Syrian, a * 1.156 Psathyropola by Trade, was a zea∣lous defender of this Opinion. Selenas Bishop of the Goths became a follower of these persons Tenets: † 1.157 He was a man of a mixt descent, a Goth by his fathers side, by his mothers a Phry∣gian. And upon this account he taught in the Church very readily in both these Languages. Further, this faction soon after quarrelled a∣mongst themselves; Marinus disagreeing with Agapius, whom he himself had preferred to the Bishoprick of Ephesus. But these two contended not one with another about [any point of their] Religion, but about * 1.158 Prima∣cy; the Goths sided with Agapius. Wherefore, many of the Ecclesiasticks under their juris∣diction (abominating the contest raised between them two, as being the product of their vain glory,) deserted them, and became adherents to the Homoöusian Faith. When therefore the Arians had continued divided amongst them∣selves during the space of b 1.159 thirty five years, afterwards, c 1.160 under the Reign of Theodosius Junior, in the Consulate of Plintha Master of the Milice, the Heresie of the Psathyriani being perswaded to cease from contending, were again united in one body [with the rest of the A∣rians.] And they made a Sanction [amongst themselves] in form of a Law as it were, that that Query, which had caused the separation be∣tween them, should in future never be mentio∣ned. But they could bring this to effect no where save at Constantinople only. For in other Cities (if any of these two parties chan∣ced to be inhabitants therein,) they persisted in their former separation. Thus much concer∣ning the division amongst the Arians.

CHAP. XXIV. That the Eunomians also raised Factions amongst themselves, which had various denominations given them derived from the names of their first Founders.

MOreover, neither did the Eunomians con∣tinue undivided. For Eunomius himself had long before this made a * 1.161 separation from Eudoxius, who † 1.162 Ordained him Bishop of Cy∣zicum, making this his pretence, to wit, because Eudoxius refused to give reception to his master Aëtius who was Ejected [out of the Church.] But those Hereticks who had their name from him, were after this divided into severall Factions. For first, one Theophronius

a Cappadocian (who had been instructed in the Art of disputing by Eunomius, and understood Aristotle's Categories, and his book concerning In∣terpretation, but * 1.163 indistinctly and imperfectly;) having wrote Books, to which he gave this Title concerning the exercise of the mind, incurred the displeasure of those of his own Heresie, and was by them Ejected as a desertour of their Sect. This person afterwards held Assem∣blies separate from them, and left behind him an Heresie which bore his own name. Then, one Eutychius at Constantinople, upon account of a very † 1.164 slight controversie, made a separa∣tion from the Eunomians, and at this present has his Meetings apart. Theophronius's fol∣lowers are termed Eunomio-Theophroniani: and the Adherents of Eutychius are called Eunomi-Eutychiani. What those slight and trifling words were, about which they differed, I judge it un∣worthy to be recorded in this History, lest I should too far digress from my purpose. [I will mention this] only, to wit, that they have adulterated Baptism. For they baptize not unto the Trinity, but unto the death of Christ. There was also for some time a dissention amongst the Macedoniani, when one Eutropius a Presbyter held Separate Assemblies; and Carterius would in no wise agree in opinion with him. And there may perhaps be some other Sects de∣scended from these in other Cities. But, in regard I make my Residence in Constantinople, where I was born and educated, I ‖ 1.165 have re∣solved to be larger in my Relation of what has been transacted in that City; both because I my self have been an eye-witness of some of those transactions, and also in regard the affairs transacted in that City, have been more eminent, and worthier to be remembred. And these things hapned not at one and the same time, but at different times. Now, if any person be desirous of knowing the names of the various Sects, he may have an account hereof, by rea∣ding that Book entitled Ancoratus, which Epi∣phanius Bishop of Cyprus composed. Let this be sufficient to have been said concerning these matters. But the affairs of the State were disturbed upon this occasion.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning Eugenius's Tyranny, and the death of Valentinianus Junior; also, concerning the Emperour Theodosius's Victory over the Ty∣rant.

IN the Western parts, a Grammarian by name Eugenius, having sometime been a Teacher of the Latine tongue, afterwards left his School, and undertook a Military employment in the Emperours Pallace, where he was made a 1.166 Ma∣ster of the Emperours Desks. And in regard he was a person of great eloquence, and upon that account more highly esteemed than others, he could not with moderation bear his prosperous success. But, taking one Arbogastes (born in b 1.167 Galatia the Less, who was Master of the Milice, a per∣son of a rough temper, cruell and bloudy-minded,) to be his assistant, he resolved to usurp the Imperial Crown. Both these persons therefore determine to mur∣ther the Emperour Valentinianus, having c 1.168 hired the Eunuchs that belonged to the Emperours Bed-Chamber, to be partakers in their design. These Eunuchs, having received [from them] promises of greater places than they had at pre∣sent, d 1.169 strangled the Empe∣rour in his sleep. Eugenius therefore immediately pos∣sest himself of the supream management of affairs in the Western parts of the Em∣pire, and did such things as were likely to be acted by a Tyrant. The Emperour Theodosius, informed hereof, was again extreamly distur∣bed and disquieted, in regard a way was hereby made for other troubles after [the War waged against] Maximus. Having therefore summoned together his Military Forces, and proclaimed his Son Honorius Augustus in his own third Con∣sulate [which he bore] with Abundantius, on the tenth of January he marched again in great hast into the Western parts, e 1.170 leaving both his Sons [now created] Augusti at Constan∣tinople. Many of the Bar∣barians [inhabitants] be∣yond the Danube followed him in this expedition he undertook against Eugenius, coming in voluntarily to give him their assistance against the Tyrant. After some short time, he arrived in the Gallia's with a very numerous Army. For there the Tyrant * 1.171 had put himself into a posture of receiving him, who also had a vast Army. They came to an Engagement therefore neer the River named Frigidus, which is distant f 1.172 from Aquileia thir∣ty six miles. In that part of the Armies where the Ro∣mans engaged the Romans, the Fight was doubtfull. But where the Barbarians (who were the Emperour Theodo∣sius's Auxiliaries,) engaged, Eugenius's Forces had much the better. When the Emperour saw the great slaughter that was made by the Enemy amongst the Barbarians, being in a great-Agony, he cast himself upon the ground, calling upon

God to be his assistant; and was in no wise frustrated of his request. For Bacurius his own Master of the Milice was so far encouraged, as to run with his Van-guard to that part where the Barbarians were * 1.173 hardest prest upon by the Enemy; who broke through their Ranks; and routed those that a little before were on the pur∣suit. There hapned another accident also, wor∣thy of admiration. For a very violent wind arose on a sudden, which retorted the darts cast by Eugenius's Forces, upon themselves; and moreover, it carried those thrown by Theodosius's Souldiers with a greater force against the Enemy. So prevalent was the Emperours Prayer. The success of the Battell being after this manner tur∣ned, the Tyrant cast himself at the Emperours feet, and requested his life might be saved. But the Souldiers beheaded him as he lay prostrate at the Emperours feet. These things were done on the sixth of September, in Arcadius's third and Honorius ••••cond Consulate. But Arbogastes (who had been the Authour of these great mis∣chiefs) being on his flight upon the third day after the battell; as soon as he knew there were no hopes of life for him, ran himself through with his own sword.

CHAP. XXVI. How the Emperour falling ill after his Victory, sent for his Son Honorius to Millain; and thinking himself somewhat recovered from his distemper, [he ordered] that * 1.174 Cirque-Sports should be exhibited, on which very day he dyed.

BUt, the Emperour Theodosius contracted an ill habit of body, from the troubles and disquietudes he underwent in this War. And supposing that his life would be ended by that distemper which was upon him, he was more sol∣licitous about the publick affairs, than [concer∣ned] at his own death, considering with him∣self, how great calamities do usually befall Sub∣jects after the death of their Emperour. Where∣fore, he sends forthwith for his Son Honorius from Constantinople, being desirous to settle * 1.175 the State of the Western Empire. After his Sons arrivall at Millain, he seemed to be somewhat revived from his distemper; and gave order for the celebration of Triumphant Cirque-Sports. And before Dinner he was very well, and was a Spectatour at the Cirque-Sports. But after Dinner he was taken very ill on a sudden, and could not come to see † 1.176 the Games. But, ha∣ving given his Son order to Preside at the Cirque-Sports, he died on the night following, in the Consulate of Olybrius and Probinus, on the seventeenth day of January. This was the first year of the two hundredth ninety fourth O∣lympiad. The Emperour Theodosius, lived sixty years; and reigned sixteen. This Book contains [an account of affairs transacted] during the space of sixteen years and eight months.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] I read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by being continually detained.] For a repetition of the negative particle is inelegant and nauseous▪ in regard these words [may not be cloy'd] do precede. For, after them, an affirmation ought to fol∣low. Vales.
• † 1.2

  1 Tim. 5. 24.
• * 1.3

  The Rea∣der may observe from this passage, in whose power it was in those days, to summon General Synods.
• * 1.4

  Or, Do∣mnica.
• a 1.5

  Sozomen mentions this Law of Gratia∣nus's, book 7. chap. 1. and so does Theodoret, book 5. chap. 2. who says that Sapor, Lieute∣nant-Ge∣neral, was sent by Gratianus into the Eastern parts of the Empire, to put this Law in Ex∣ecution. That hap∣ned in the year of Christ 378. This Law of Gratianus's is not now extant. And yet it seems to be mentioned in the fifth Law in the Theodosian Code, de fide Catholicâ. Vales.
• * 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; living in Exile. Lu∣cius was not bani∣shed; the people of Alexan∣dria forced him to leave that City: See Socrates, book 4. chap. 37.
• * 1.7

  Or, to dissent a∣gain.
• † 1.8

  Or, they reapt no be∣nefit, or de∣light, from their at∣tempt.
• * 1.9

  Book 4. chap. 2.
• † 1.10

  Book 3. chap. 9.
• * 1.11

  Book 4. chap. 2.
• ‖ 1.12

  See Book 5. chap. 2.
• * 1.13

  Or, Col∣league in the Bishop∣rick.
• † 1.14

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.15

  That is, Melitius, and Pauli∣nus.
• † 1.16

  See Book 3. chap. 9.
• * 1.17

  Or, Marched.
• a 1.18

  Indeed, Socrates thought that Gre∣gorius had been tran∣slated from the Bi∣shoprick of Nazi∣anzum, to that of Constan∣tinople: which was the o∣pinion of many o∣thers also. But Gre∣gorius had never been Bishop of Nazianzum; he was only his father Gregorius's Assistant in that Bishoprick, being sent for thither by his father (then very aged,) out of the Solitudes; whither he had retired after he had accepted of and also refused the Bishoprick of Sasimi, in the year of Christ 371; as Baronius has remarked. Vales.
• b 1.19

  I am not of Socrates's opinion, who says here, that that Church (wherein Gregorius Nazianzenus used to Preach the word of God at Constantinople,) was by the succeeding Emperours named Anastasia. For, in Gregorius's own life time this Church was called Anastasia; which is apparent, both from Gregorius's own Oration, wherein he bids farwell in express words to Anastasia, and The Apostles; and also from his Elegiack concerning the Dream of Anastasia. Consult Baronius, at the year of Christ 378. Vales.
• * 1.20

  See Matt. 10. 23. where 'tis thus wor∣ded in the Greek: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but when they shall perse∣cute you in this City. But here in Socrates the words are: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; if they shall persecute you out of this City, &c.
• c 1.21

  We found a far diffe∣rent reading in our Florentine and Sfortian M. SS. For, in both those Copies 'tis thus exprest; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, stands in need of the Chur∣ches: this reading Epiphan. Scholasticus has followed, as appears from his Version. For he renders it thus: Quia igitur Imperator Ecclesiis opus habet, In regard therefore the Emperour has an occasion for the Churches. Nicephorus maintains the common reading: for instead of [excludes us from] his words are [drives us out of.] The Manu∣script reading is in my judgment the better. Vales.
• * 1.22

  Book 4. chap. 37.
• a 1.23

  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 1.24

  See Book 4. chap. 12.
• b 1.25

  See what Socrates has remar∣ked concer∣ning this matter in chap 4. of this Book▪ Vales.
• † 1.26

  That is, the Ortho∣dox.
• c 1.27

  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 1.28

  〈 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 1.29

  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 1.30

  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 1.31

  〈 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.
• * 1.32

  That is, Constanti∣nople.
• h 1.33

  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.
• * 1.34

  See So∣crates, book 2. chap. 26. & book 2. chap. 16. note (a.)
• a 1.35

  This Fu∣neral Ora∣tion in praise of Melitius Bishop of Antioch, is now extant amongst the Works of Grego∣rius Nysse∣nus. Vales.
• a 1.36

  Athanarichus King of the Goths, entred Constantinople in the Consulate of Eucherius and Eva∣grius, on the eleventh of January, and died on the twenty fifth of the same month; as 'tis recorded in Idatius's Fasti, and in Mar∣cellinus's Chronicon. On the year following, which was the year of Christ 382, when Antonius and Syagrius were Consuls, the whole Gothick Nation surrendred it self to Theodosius, on the 3^d of Octob. as says the same Idatius. Vales.
• * 1.37

  In the Greek he is called Merogaudus here, and hereafter.
• † 1.38

  His name in the Greek is Satornilus.
• b 1.39

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Christophorson renders these word thus: the forms of the Creed delivered by the Ancients. Epi∣phanius Scholasticus thus: the tra∣ditions of the Ancients. I like neither Version. For Socrates means the Books of the Ancient Doctors of the Church; and more especially the interpreta∣tions of Sacred Scripture put forth by them. 'Tis certain, what he terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [Expositions] here, he does a little after call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Books of the Ancients. Where∣fore I have here chosen to ren∣der it Expositions, as Musculus does. For, what Socrates here calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a little lower he terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Expo∣sition of the Ancients. Vales.
• c 1.40

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, accommodated,] it must un∣doubtedly be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, flourished.] Which emendation is confirmed by Epiphanius Scho∣lasticus: for thus he renders it: De Antiquis Ecclesiae Doctoribus, qui ante divisionem floruissent, con∣cerning the Ancient Doctors of the Church who flourished before the division. Vales.
• * 1.41

  Insist, or rely upon.
• † 1.42

  Or Dis∣persion.
• d 1.43

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to make known their Draught of the Creed] I had rather read, as Nicepho∣rus does▪ [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to set forth [and deliver in] to him in writing a Draught.] &c, Vales.
• c 1.44

  This Draught of the Creed, which Eunomius then presented to the Emperour Theodosius▪ I have by me in Manuscript; for which I am oblieged to the most famous and Learned Emericus Bigotius. In the Bavarian Manuscript, and in Livineius's Copy, this Draught of the Creed was placed at the latter end of Gregorius Nyssenus's Books a∣gainst Eunomius, as Gretser attests. But, in the Florentine Copy, from which Bigotius transcribed this Creed, it was placed before those Books. Nor, will it be unusefull, to insert it here. For, though it contains Eunomius's whole impiety; yet some things occur in it, in no wise despicable.

  EUNOMIUS's Creed.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Whereas God and our Sa∣viour Jesus Christ according to a most just sentence has said, that he will con∣fess before God and the Father, those which should confess Him before men, and that he will deny such as should deny Him: and whereas the Apostolick Doctrine does exhort us, to be always ready to [give] an account to every one that asketh it: Whereas [lastly,] the Imperial commands do require this Confession; with all readiness We confess what our Sentiments are, and that We Believe in one only true God, according to his own Doctrine, not honouring Him with a false voice. For He cannot lye. But is by nature and Glory truly one God: without beginning, always, and eternally alone. Not parted or divided into many as to his Substance, according to which he is one: nor existing sometimes one, at others another; no•• receding from what he is: nor formed from one Substance into three Persons. For he is altogether and wholly one, continuing always alone in one and the same manner. Having no companion of his Divinity, no partaker of his Glory, no Consort of his power, no Assessour of his Kingdom. For he is one and the only Omnipotent God, God of Gods, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. The Highest over all the earth, the Highest in the heavens, the Highest in the Highest, the Heavenly things: true in being what he is, and always continuing so. True in his Works, true in his Words. The beginning of all Subjection, Power, Empire. Above Conversion, and free from change, as being incorrupt. Not dividing his own Substance in begetting, nor being the same begetting and begotten, or existing the same Father and Son. For he is incorrupt. In working in no wise wanting matter, or members, or natural instruments. For he stands in need of nothing. WE BELIEVE also in the Son of God, the only Begotten God, the First begotten of every Creature, Christ the true God, not unbegotten: not (before he was,) named the Son without Generation, be∣gotten before every Creature. Not uncreated. The Beginning of the Waies of God [in order to his] Works, and being the Word in the beginning: not without a beginning. The living Wisdom, the operating Truth, the sub∣sisting Power, the begotten Life: as being the Son of God giving Life to the living; and restoring Life to the dead: the true Light, enlightning every man that cometh into the world: God, and the Minister of Good things; in regard he is begotten of the Goodness and Power of the Father: who hath not divided with him that has imparted the Dignity, nor with any other, his Fathers Substance, or Kingdom. But by Generation is made Glorious, and the Lord of Glory. Who has received Glory from the Father, but has not partaken of the Fathers Glory. For, the Glory of the Almighty is incommunicable, as he himself has said, I will not give my Glo∣ry to another. Who has been glorified by the Father before ages. Who has been glorified by the Father through ages, and throughout the whole rational and created Substance. Whom the whole celestial Milice doth guard. For he is the Lord and King of Glory, as being the Son of God and God: the Framer of things immortal and mortal, the Framer of Spirits and of all flesh. For all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made. The King and Lord of all Life and breath of those [Creatures] that were made by him. For all things were delivered unto him by the Father, according to his holy expression, and the Father hath given all things into his hand. Obedient to the framing and creating of the things which are. Obedient to every Administration. Not receiving his being the Son, or God, from his obedience: but in that he is the Son, and is the only begotten, he is made God. Obedient in Works. Obedient in Words. The Mediatour in Sentences [or Decrees.] The Media∣tour in Laws. Him we acknowledge to be the Sun of God, and the only begotten God. Him alone [we acknowledge to be] like to him that begat him upon account of an eminent similitude and a peculiar conception [or sig∣nification.] Not as the Father [is] to the Father. For there are not two Fathers. Nor as the Son [is] to the Son, there being not two Sons. Nor as the Unbegotten to the Unbegotten. For there is one only Unbe∣gotten, [to wit] the Omnipotent; and one only begotten Son. But [he is like] as the Son to the Father: in regard he is the Image and Seal of every operation and power of the Almighty: the Seal of all the Works, Words, and Councels of the Father. Him we acknowledge to be one of those who covered the earth with [a deluge of] waters. Who burnt the Sodomites with fire. Who inflicted punishment on the Egyptians. Who made Laws according to the Commandment of the Eternal God. Who in the times of the Prophets converst with the Ancients. Who called those that refused to obey. Who has received all power of Judging. For the Father judgeth no man: but hath given all judgment to the Son. Who in the last days was made flesh: made of a woman. Made man in order to the deliverance and Salvation of us men. Who assumed man [or humanity] consisting of a Soul and Body. Who by his tongue and mouth Preached peace to those that were near and such as were remote. Who was made obe∣dient unto the Cross and unto death. And who saw not corruption, but rose again the third day. And after his Resurrection he compendiously expounded the mystery to his [disciples.] He sits on the right hand of the Father: and shall come to judge the quick and dead. After this [person,] We Believe in the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth. The Teacher of Piety. Made by the Only begotten, to whom he was once subject. Who is not to be reckoned after the Father, nor together with the Father. For there is one only Father, who is God over all. Nor is he to be equalled with the Son. For he is the Only begotten, and has no Brother begotten at the same time with him. Nor yet is he to be compared with any other thing. For he has transcended all other things that have been made by the Son, in Ge∣neration, Nature, Glory, and Knowledge. In regard he is the first and best, the greatest and most beautifull work of the Only begotten. Who also him∣self being one, and the first, and the Only, and the most eminent of all the Sons composures, by reason of his substance and natural Dignity; does per∣fect every operation and Doctrine according to the Sons arbitrement, by whom he is sent, and of whom he receives. And he makes a relation to those that are instructed▪ teaching the Truth: sanctifying the Saints: leading them who come to the Sacrament: dividing to the Spirit all his free gifts, who gives grace. And he cooperates with the faithfull, in order to their understanding and contemplation of the things commanded. Who groans with them that pray: is the Guide to what is profitable: gives strength in order to Piety: enlightens Souls with the light of knowledge: purges the thoughts: chases away devills: cures the sick: heals the diseased: brings back the wanderers [into the way:] comforts the afflicted: erects those that stumble and fall: refreshes those that labour: encourages with shouts those that strive: emboldens those that are fearfull: is the Guardian and Overseer of all men: takes all imaginable care, and makes provision for the promotion [or access] of the well minded, and for the preservation of the more faithfull. Further, We Believe in that Resurrection▪ which shall be [effected] by our Saviour; [to wit] of those very Bodies which have been dissolved, together with their proper members and particles: when nothing shall be wanting or changed, of those things which composed every mans body in this present life. Moreover, [We Believe] the Judgment which shall be after this, of those things which have been ill-thought or acted; and likewise of all the works, words, actions, practises, conceptions of the mind, and thoughts which have hapned in this present life: so that nothing at all, whether of the greatest matters, or of the least, shall be con∣cealed: nothing of those things, which have been legally done, or unjustly perpetrated, shall be neglected or overlookt: but a proportionate and just sentence shall be given [or measured out.] And those that have continued impious and sinners to the end [of their lives,] shall be sent away to an endless punishment. But such as have led Holy and righteous lives, shall be taken up to an eternall life. These are our Sentiments, which we have learned from the Saints, and thus we think and believe. We have omitted nothing of what we have learned, on account of shame, or out of fear. Nor have we by reason of turpitude or contentiousness made any additions thereto, or perverted any thing therein. Neither are we conscious to our selves of any such falsity or detestable impiety as is framed against us by those Syco∣phants, or slanderers; Whose damnation is just.

  That this is the confession of Faith, which was delivered by Euno∣mius to Theodosius, in the month June, on the second Consulate of Merobaudes which he bore which Saturninus; is evident from these words which occur at the beginning of this confession; to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and whereas the Imperial commands do require this confession. Vales.
• f 1.45

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about those of his own opinion,] it must be thus mended [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with, or to those of his own opinion.] The same errour occurs before in this chapter; where he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which we have corrected by ren∣dring it thus: For some were one way affected towards the Books of the Ancients, others another. Vales.
• g 1.46

  I read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with those [Churches] of his own Faith. For the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Churches is understood. The priviledges of Churches are, a priviledge of sanctuary, a priviledge of re∣ceiving Embassies, and the like. Vales.
• * 1.47

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, per∣haps he means the Imperial power; for Constantius and Valens were great favourers of these Sects.
• † 1.48

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ma∣king a joynt at∣tempt a∣gain.
• a 1.49

  Musculus and Christo∣phorson seem to have thought (as by their Ver∣sions ap∣pear,) that this man was born in Brittain; which (though perhaps true, yet) cannot be made out from this passage in our Socrates. Zosimus (Histor. book 4.) says this Maximus was a Spaniard. Our Countrey-man Guil∣das calls him Germen Plantationis Britannicae, a branch of the Britan∣nick Plantation. Camden mentions him in his Britannia (pag. 240▪ 241, Edit. Lond. 1607.) where he quotes some verses out of Ausonius; in which he is termed Rhutupinum Latronem, the Richborow-Thief.
• * 1.50

  Or, Me∣rogaudus.
• b 1.51

  I will here pro∣pose my doubt to the Reader. I am of opinion therefore, that Thessalonica, which was the chief City of Macedonia, was under Theodosius's Em∣pire. My reasons are; (1.) because Theodosius, after he had been Proclaimed Augustus by Gratianus at Sirmium, went to Thessalonica, resided there a long while, and received the Embassies of the Cities of the East: and when he fell sick, he was baptized by Acholius Bi∣shop of that City, as Zosimus, Prosper, Socrates, and others do re∣late. (2.) During his Residence in that City, he published many Laws, which are extant in the Theodosian Code, in the Titles de fide Catholica, and de Haereticis; which Laws are dated at Thessalonica. (3.) Lastly, in the Constantinopolitan Synod, at which 'tis manifest the Eastern Bishops only were present, Acholius Bishop of Thessalonica is reckoned, as may be seen in the eighth chapter of this book. After Theodosius's times, there is no doubt but Thessalonica was under the Eastern Emperours. For 'twas the chief City of the Oriental Illyricum, which contained Macedonia and Dacia, as we are informed from The Notitia of the Roman Empire. But, whether or no it was under the Eastern Emperours, about the beginning of Theodosius's Reign; may deservedly be doubted. For Aurelius Victor, and Zonaras do expresly affirm, that Gratianus gave Theodosius only the East and the Thracia's. And Zosimus relates, that Valentinlanus Junior (upon his division of the Empire with his Brother,) had Italy, Africk, and Illy∣ricum. Neither had Constantius, or Valens (who governed the Eastern Empire before Theodosius) Illyricum under their Dominion. In the times of Valens, 'tis certain, Mamertinus Praefect of the Praetorium, Governed Italy, Africa, and Illyricum at the same time; as Amm. Marcellinus attests. Notwithstanding, Valens (after his Brother Valentinianus's death) seems to have annext Macedonia and Dacia to his own Empire, by the consent of his Brother's Sons, Which Collection I make from the close of Amm. Marcellinus's thirty first book: where he says, that Valens's Souldiers and Palatines, who had been besieged by the Goths at Adrianople, went out after that Siege was broken up, and hastned some into Dacia▪ others into Macedonia, sup∣posing that Valens had retired thither. See Amm. Marcellinus, pag. 468. Edit. Par. 1636. Vales.
• * 1.52

  Or, Ri∣chomelius.
• a 1.53

  The phrase is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which Christo∣phorson renders ill, thus, Va∣lentinian's Souldiers. For Socra∣tes means Valentinian himself who was on this year (when Valentinian himself was the third time Consul, with Eutro∣pius,) conquered by Maximus, (as Sulpitius informs us, in his first book concerning the life of Martinus) and together with his mother Justina, his Praesects and Comites, fled to Thessalonica. Vales.
• b 1.54

  But Zosimus says, that Maximus's Embassy was received by Theo∣dosius; and that he acknowledged him to be Emperour, and admitted of his Statues▪ and ordered Cynegius Praefect of the Praetorium in the East, that Maximus's Statues should be proposed to publick view at Alexandria, and that he should declare to the people that Maximus was Colleague of his Empire. Which thing Sigonius (in his book de Occidentati Imperio) has done ill to place on the year of Christ 384, when Richomeres and Clearchus were Consuls; in regard it was done in Valentinianus's third Consulate, which he bore with Eutropius, on the year of Christ 387. For, on this year Cynegius was Praefect of the Praetorium. Vales.
• c 1.55

  He should rather have said Aquileia. For thither Maximus went, as Zosimus and the other Chronologers do inform us. Vales.
• * 1.56

  This Cha∣racter does well befit too many persons of our own nation at this jun∣cture.
• a 1.57

  Socrates i s mistaken. For Maxi∣mus was slain, not on the 27^th of August, but on the 28^th of July, as I∣datius says in his Chro∣nicon. The same is recorded in those Fasti, which Jacobus Sirmondus has publi∣shed under Idatius's name. For, these are the words there: Theo∣dosio Aug. II. & Cynegio Coss. &c. In the second Consulate of Theo∣dosius Augustus [which he bore] with Cynegius, on that year, Maxi∣mus the Tyrant that publick Enemy, is slain by Theodosius Augustus, three miles from Aquileia, on the fifth of the Calends of August [that is, on the 28^th of July] Also, his Son Victor is slain a few days after, in the Gallia's, by Theodosius's Comes. Further, this Victor had been created first Caesar, and then Augustus, by his Father; as we are in∣formed from this Old Inscription recorded by Sigonius, in his 9^th book, de Occidentali Imperio: DD. NN. MAG. CL. MAXIMO, ET FL. VICTORI PIIS FELI∣CIBUS SEMPER AUGUSTIS BONO R. P. NATIS. Where you see Maximus has two Praenomina, to wit, Magnus Clemens. Sulpitius Severus (book 2. Histor. Sacr.) calls him Clemens Maximus. But, by Orosius he is termed Magnus Maximus. Vales.
• b 1.58

  Here is a mistake, either of Socrates, or of his transcri∣bers; in calling Symmachus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a person that had born the Consulate. For Symma∣chus whose Epistles are extant at this day, had not at that time been Con∣sul; but three years after he bore a Consulate with Tati∣anus. Vales.
• a 1.59

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, about An∣tioch in Syria] I had rather word it thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, at Antioch in Syria.] Vales.
• * 1.60

  Compare chap. 5. with chap. 9. of this book.
• † 1.61

  See chap. 5.
• * 1.62

  That is, Mithra's Tem∣ple: what these Mysteries were, Socrates has told us, book 3. chap. 2.
• † 1.63

  Pieces of wood made in fa∣shion of a mans privities.
• * 1.64

  See book 3. chap. 2.
• a 1.65

  Some ex∣cerptions of this Hel∣ladius the Gramma∣rian, are extant in Photius's Bibliotheca. Vales.
• † 1.66

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, The Ape's Priest. For the Egyptians worship an Ape, as Lucian tells us, in his piece, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.67

  Sozomen (book 7. chap. 15.) calls this Praefects name Evagrius: and the Commander in chief of the Milice in Egypt, he names Romanus. Eunapius likewise (in the Life of Aedesius,) names both these per∣sons; and attests, that they gave a great assistance to Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria, in destroying the Temple of Serapis. I will insert Eunapius's own words here, because they want correcting; (See Eunap. in vità Aedes••i, pag. 63. Edit. Colon. Allobrog. 1616:) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; That is, the Temples about the City Canobus underwent the same thing, Theodosius being at that time Emperour, and Theophilus Presiding over those execrable persons; he was a certain Eurymidon, that reigned over the haughty Gyants. Evetius being then Governour of the Civill affairs: and Romanus intrusted with the Command of the Milice throughout Egypt. On my perill, correct it thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Evagrius being then Governour of the Civill affairs. In the Theodosian Code, (title, De Paganis,) there is a Law extant of Theodosius's, directed to this Evagrius Praefect of Egypt, and to Romanus Comes of the Milite throughout Egypt; which Law was dated at Aquilcia, in the Con∣sulate of. Tatianus and Symmachus. From which Law it may be con∣cluded, that Serapi••'s Temple was demollished at Alexandria, in the year of Christ 391. But Marcellinus, in his Chronicon, contradicts this; and says this Temple was destroyed when Timasius and Promotus were Consuls; which was the year of Christ 389. And this, in my judg∣ment, is the truer. For Cynegius Praefect of the Praetorium, at his being sent into Egypt, had a command from Theodosius, that he should pull down the Heathen Temples; as Zosimus relates in his first book. And he had executed that command, as Idatius attests in his Fasti. Now, Cynegius died in his own Consulate, on the year of Christ 388. Vales.
• c 1.68

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because but, &c.] Socrates means the Image of their God Simius, which Theophilus had ordered to be reserved on purpose. And thus Epiphan. Scholasticus has explained this place in Socrates; much better then Christophorson; who under∣stood those words of Socrates [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as spoken concerning a certain (or rather uncertain) God. Vales.
• a 1.69

  Instead∣of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 called an Hiero∣glyphick;] it ought rather to be thus written [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which [Letters] they call Hieroglyphical:] so Epiphanius Scholasticus seems, to have read. In∣deed, Socrates and Sozomen do relate, that these Hieroglyphical Letters were found in the Temple of Serapis, cut upon the walls thereof. But Rufinus does not say they were found there: he tells us rather, that they were kept and expounded at Canopus. At his 2^d book, Eccles. Histor. chap. 26; these are his words: Jam vero Canopi quis enumere•• superstitiosa flagitia? &c. But now, who can enumerate the super∣stitious impieties at Canopus? Where, under a praetext of their sacer∣dotal Letters, (for so they call the ancient Letters of the Egyptians;) there was in a manner a publick School of Magick Art. Vales.
• * 1.70

  Fitted, or applied.
• b 1.71

  Socrates borrowed this out of Rufinus's 2^d book, Eccles. Hi∣stor. chap. 29. He ap∣prehended not Rufi∣nus's mea∣ning. For Rufinus says not, that it was predicted to the Pa∣gans by o∣ther Sacer∣dotal Let∣ters, that Serapis's Temple would then be destroy∣ed, when that sign of the Cross should ap∣pear: he only says, that the E∣gyptians received this as a tradition from their Ancestours, to wit, that the Temples wherein they then worshipped, should stand so long, till that sign should come, wherein there was Life. But, because mention is here made of Serapis's worship, and of the Letters found in his Temple; nothing hinders, but we may here explain, (in favour of the studious) an Old Epi∣gram concerning Scrapis, which is recorded by Eusebius in his books de Demonstratione Evangelicâ. For it contains both the manner how this God was worshipped by the Egyptians; and besides, Scaliger understood it not, in his Animadversions on Eusebius, Number 1730. The Epigram therefore runs thus:

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

  That is,

  The seven Vowells do my praise resound, Who am the Great, Immortal Deity, Th' unwearied Father of the Universe.

  You must know, that the Egyptian Priests were wont to praise their God Serapis in no other manner, than by a recitation now and then of the seven Greek Vowells. Therefore, instead of Hymns and Songs, the Pipe and Harp; the sound of the seven Vowells was heard in Serapis's Temple. Dionysius Halicarnassensis does attest this, in his book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the chapter de Collisione Vocalium. Where after he has informed us, that the Collision of the Vowells is not so much to be avoided, in regard it sometimes produces a pleasant noise▪; he adds these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Moreover, in Egypt the Priests sing praises to the Gods by [repeating] the seven Vowells, sounding them out one after the other. And, instead of the Pipe and Harp, the sound of these Letters is heard. Elias Vinetus (in his notes at Ausonius's eighteenth Epistle,) does declare that he had seen an old inscription, which was found upon a golden plate, fixt on the breast of a dead body. This plate contained the seven Greek Vowells, repeated in seven Verses, in such order as you may see there. But I doubt not, but there were seven other Verses on the reverse of the said plate, in the same order with those on the foreside. To wit, in such a manner that the second Verse of the reverse side began with Omicron, the fourth with Ypsilon, the sixth with Omega. Vinetus could not explain this Riddle. In my judgment Serapis's name is denoted by these Letters; which God (as Hesychius attests) was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not only because there are seven Letters contained in his name, but in regard he was usually praised by the seven Vowells. Now, it was an usage amongst the superstitious Heathens to engrave Serapis's name upon a brazen plate, and wear it hung about their necks in form of a Buck∣ler. Artemidorus (book 4.) gives us an account of this usage, in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vales.

  In what order the seven Greek Vowells were placed on the foreside of this golden plate; the Learned Reader may see in Vinetus's notes on the 18^th Epistle of Ausonius, written to Tetradius; Edit. Burdigal. 1590.
• * 1.72

  Colos. 1. 26.
• * 1.73

  Acts 17. 22, &c.
• † 1.74

  See Numb. 24. & John. 11. 51.
• * 1.75

  Or, ren∣dred ineffe∣ctuall.
• † 1.76

  Or, in the Greatest Rome.
• a 1.77

  Amongst the Ro∣mans, Ba∣kers were called Mancipes; because they were [Mancipati] bound to the Colledge of Bakers, and to the Trade of making Bread: and their goods and families were obnoxious to this Function. See the eighteenth Law of the Theodosian Code de Pistoribus. In which Law, they are the Decuriales, (concerning whom I have made several remarks in my notes on Amm. Marcel.) who were of the Decuriae of the City of Rome. These Officers had the custody of all the publick Acts and Monuments; especially the sentences of Judges, Contracts, Adoptions, and the like. On which ac∣count (as Cassiodorus tells us, book 5. Epist. 21,) the quiet and se∣curity of all men, and the publick Faith was kept in their Desks. There was over all these a Rector of the Decuriae; concerning whose Office see Cassiodorus, book 5. Epist. 21, 22. But, to return to the Man∣cipes; it is observable, that in the fore-mentioned Law the Function of the Mancipes or Bakers is termed Mancipatus. So also it is called in that One Law in the Theodosian Code de Mancipibus: which Law was published at Rome by Theodosius, in the Consulate of Timasius and Promotus; at the same time that these things (which Socrates here relates) were done. See Meursius's Glossary in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 It is further to be remarkt, that those Constitutions made at Rome by Theodosius (which Socrates treats of in this chapter, and places after the Emperours Victory over the Tyrant Maximus,) are by Cedrenus placed after Theodosius's Victory over the Tyrant Eugenius. But Cedrenus's words (you will meet with this passage in Cedrenus, at pag. 266, Edit. Basil.) are corrupt, which I mend thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [in the fore-mentioned Edition of Cedrenus the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 against is omitted] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [in Cedrenus, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 strangers, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 living creatures:] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, making his Entry into Rome after his Victory over this person [Euge∣nius,] he did a great deal of good to that City, and abolished what [had been usually done] in the Bake-houses against strangers that fell in thither, whom they shut up in the Bake-houses till they became aged, and forced them to grind. The Authour of this emendation in Ce∣drenus, is Theophanes, who also relates this fact of Theodosius's, after his Victory over Eugenius. Concerning these Mancipes there is an eminent passage extant in the Excerptions of Joannes Lydus de Men∣sibus Graecorum, in the month March. Vales.
• * 1.78

  Intrap∣ped.
• † 1.79

  Or, fell from the Vi∣ctualling∣houses down into, &c.
• b 1.80

  I can scarce be∣lieve, that the Romans inflicted this sort of punishment upon adul∣teresses. For, after Constan∣tine's time, they al∣ways pu∣nisht adul∣tery with a capital pu∣nishment. We are in∣formed hereof from the Emperours Laws ex∣tant in Both the Codes, Tit. ad Legem Juliam de Adulteriis. I omit the testimony of Amm. Marcellinus, book 28. Further, any one may conjecture, that those little Bells, mentioned here by Socrates were not found out to punish adulteresses; but were commonly made use of by all whores who prostituting themselves in their Cells, by this sign called Tra∣vellers unto them. Concerning which custome Dio Cassius (in the Fragments of his 79^th book, which I have some time since published,) speaks these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. In fine, having made a Cell within the Pallace, he acted his lechery therein, standing naked before the door thereof, as whores usual∣ly do, shaking his shirs which was hung up with golden rings, and with a soft, delicate, and broken voice, inviting his companions to him. Vales.

  These words Dion Cassius speaks of Avitus or Heliogabalus, Em∣perour of Rome; the Learned Reader will find this passage, at pag. 912. Edit. Hanov. 1606.
• * 1.81

  Or, made liable to punishment.
• † 1.82

  Practises.
• a 1.83

  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 1.84

  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 1.85

  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.
• * 1.86

  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.
• † 1.87

  To wit, from the Persecution under the Emperour Decius, till after the Election of Nectarius to the Episcopate of Constantinople.
• d 1.88

  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 1.89

  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 1.90

  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 1.91

  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 1.92

  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 1.93

  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.
• * 1.94

  Ephes. 5. 11.
• * 1.95

  Or, could comprehend in their opi∣nion there∣of.
• * 1.96

  See So∣crat. book 4. chap. 9. & book 5. chap. 10.
• † 1.97

  See So∣crat. book 4. chap. 9.
• ‖ 1.98

  Socrat. book 4. chap. 28.
• * 1.99

  That is, the Eucha∣rist.
• † 1.100

  The Office of Presby∣ter.
• * 1.101

  That is, Marcianus.
• * 1.102

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, at An∣garum] the rea∣ding must doubtless be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, at Sanga∣rum:] so Epiphan. Scholasti∣cus, and Nicephorus read it; and the same rea∣ding occurs in Sozo∣men, book 7. chap. 18. Vales.
• * 1.103

  Or, Ca∣non.
• † 1.104

  That is, Indifferent.
• b 1.105

  This place is corrupted; nor is this fault of a short stan∣ding. For, even in E∣piphanius Scholasti∣cus's age, this mistake had crept into the copies of Secrates, as 'tis ap∣parent from his Version. For Epi∣phanius ren∣ders it thus: Cum haec ab els tunc fuissetregular definita, &c. When this determination had at that time been made by them, Sabbatius bound by his oath, (if at any time there hapned any discrepancy in the Paschal solemnity,) fasted by himself, and by night celebrated the solemn day of the Passover on the Sabbath: and again, mes with the whole congre∣gation in the Church, and partook of the Mysteries. Christophorson has exprest the same sense in his Version. Nicephorus also (Eccles. Hist. book 12. chap. 31,) has followed the same sense. For he says, that Sabbatius, (as often as the Christians differed from the Jews in the celebration of Easter,) was wont to fast in private by himself, and to celebrate the Passover on the Paschal-Sabbath about evening, after the Jewish manner. Then on the Sunday following, after the Solemn Vigills, his usage was to celebrate Easter with the rest of the Chri∣stians, or rather Novatians. But this interpretation does in no wise please me. For thus Sabbatius (as often as the Jewish Passover dif∣fered from the Christian-Paschal-Feast,) could not have celebrated the first Paschal-solemnity with the Jews. Then, if Sabbatius always celebrated the first Paschal-solemnity on the Sabbath day at evening after the Jewish manner, how is it possible, that he could celebrate the Solemn Vigills in the Church on the same Sabbath-day? For this is attested in express words by Socrates here, and by Sozomen, book 7. chap. 18. My Sentiment therefore is, that the words in this place of Socrates are transposed, and must be put into their Pristine order after this manner: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, Sabbatius being bound by his oath, (if at any time a disagreement hapned in the celebration of the Paschal-Fe∣stival,) himself by way of anticipation fasted in private at home, and celebrated the Passover. And watching all night on the solemn day of the Sabbath, again on the next day he went to Church together with the rest of the congregation, and partook of the mysteries. Sozomen does evidently confirm this our emendation, in his seventh book chap. 18; where he sets forth the same thing much more clearly in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But from that time Sabbatius following the Jews, (unless it by chance hapned that all persons [as well Christians, as Jews] did celebrate the Feast [of Easter] at one and the same time,) fasted before hand, a•• the man∣ner is, and celebrated the Paschal solemnity in private by himself, ac∣cording to the sanctions [of the Mosaick Law.] But on the Sabbath, from the evening to a fit time, be continued watching and making the usuall prayers, and on the day following met in the Church in common with the congregation, and partook of the mysteries. Sabbatius there∣fore kept the Paschal solemnity twice in one and the same year; the first time with the Jews, the second with the Christians: unless it by chance hapned, that the Christians agreed with the Jews in the time of celebrating the Paschal Feast. Which could very rarely happen. Vales. Our English-rendition of this passage agrees with the Greek Text in Rob. Stephens's Edition, and that in this Edition of Valesius's.
• * 1.106

  Galat. 4. 21.
• † 1.107

  Or, ap∣proached.
• * 1.108

  Colos. 2. 16, 17.
• † 1.109

  Hebr. 7. 12.
• * 1.110

  See Eu∣seb. Eccles. Histor. book 5. chap. 24. note (i.)
• † 1.111

  That is, those that kept Easter on the four∣teenth day of the moon.
• a 1.112

  But So∣crates is mistaken. For Poly∣carp did not suffer Mar∣tyrdom in Gordianus's reign, but in that of Marcus Antoninus, as 'tis manifest from Eusebius, and other writers. 'Tis certain, that Irenaeus does relate, (in his third book against Heresies, which piece he wrote during Eleutherius's presidency over the Roman Church, that is, in the times of Marcus Antoninus,) that Polycarp had at that time suffered Martyrdom. Wherefore these words [who afterwards suffered Mar∣tyrdom under Gordianus] are rather to be placed a little above, after these [Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France.] For they are more accom∣modate to Irenaeus, than to Polycarp. But let the prudent Reader de∣termine hereof according to his own arbitrement. I know indeed, that in S^t Benignus Divionensis's Chronicle, the Martyrdom of Irenaeus Bi∣shop of Lyons is placed before Polycarp's. For the Authour of that Chronicle does relate, that Irenaeus, after his Martyrdom, appeared to Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna in his sleep, and commanded him to send Benignus into the Gallia's. But these are meer trifles. Vales.
• * 1.113

  See Eu∣seb. Eccles. Hist. book 5. chap. 24.
• b 1.114

  He seems to mean the Sy∣rians, Cilicians, and Mesopotami∣ans, who kept Easter with the Jews before the Nicene Council, as Athanasius informs us, in his Epistle to the Africans, in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. in regard the Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians differ from us, and celebrate [Easter] at the same time that the Jews keep it. Those Eastern people therefore, concerning whom Secrates speaks, followed the Jews indeed, in that they observed the fourteenth day of the Moon of the first month before the Aequinox. But they celebrated not Easter on the same day whereon the Jews kept it, but on the Sunday following. Wherefore, Athanasius says, that they kept Easter at the same time with the Jews, but not on the same day; as his Translatour has ill rendred it. Vales.
• † 1.115

  In the Greek 'tis on the Sab∣bath.
• c 1.116

  He means (I think) the Montanistae, and Pepusiani, who kept Easter indeed after the Ae∣quinox. But always fixt that Fe∣stival on the month Xanthicus or April, before the eight of the Ides (that is, the sixth day) of April; as Sozomen attests, book 7. chap. 18. Vales.
• * 1.117

  He means the Nicene Synod.
• d 1.118

  To wit, the Audiani. For these Hereticks affirmed that the Ni∣cene Synod first altered the Pas∣chal solemnity; as Epiphanius at∣tests, pag. 822. Edit. Petav. Vales.
• * 1.119

  See Eu∣seb. Life of Constantine, book 3. chap. 19.
• e 1.120

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have,] the reading in the Florent. and Sforti∣an M. SS. is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to have] so it is in Eu∣sebius; and so Epiphan. Scholasticus read, as ap∣pears by his Ver∣sion. Vales.
• f 1.121

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in my judg∣ment the reading should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al∣though it embraces one and the same opinion concerning God.] Socrates's mea∣ning is this; all Religions and Sects have different Rites and Cere∣monies, although they entertain the same Sentiments concerning God. But the following words do plainly confirm our emendation. For Socrates adds, for they that are of the same Faith, &c. Nicephorus also favours this our amendment; for he has exprest this passage in Socrates thus: For though all men are of the same opinion, yet they observe not the same traditions throughout the Churches. Vales.
• g 1.122

  Baronius, at the year of Christ 57 and 391, accuses Socrates of a double mistake; First, because he says that the Romans fasted three weeks only in Lent before Easter; Secondly, in regard he asserts, that in those three weeks, Saturdays were excepted, on which days the Romans fasted not. As to the first, Socrates's opinion is defended against Baronius, by Halloixius in his notes on the 11^th chapter of Ire∣neus's Life, pag. 678. That which makes me incline to Socrates's opinion, is the authority of CAssiodorus, who in his Tripertite History has put this passage in Socrates into these words: Romani enim tres ante pascha Septimanas, praeter Sabbatum & dominicam, sub continua∣tione jejunant, the Romans fast three weeks before Easter without in∣termission, except on Saturday and Sunday. Could Cassiodorus be ignorant of the custom of the Roman Church in the observation of the Lent Fast, who was himself a Senatour, Consul, and Praefectus Prae∣torio in the City of Rome? Who can believe he would have put these words of Socrates into his History, if he had known the thing had been otherwise? Doubtless, Cassiodorus, had he known this to have been false, would on purpose have omitted Socrates's words, left he should leade his Reader into a mistake. Which in regard Cassio∣dorus has not done, but was resolved to have Socrates's testimony concerning the Romans Lent Fast read in the History which bears his name; from thence 'tis apparent, that what Socrates has said con∣cerning the Romans Fast is true. In the Catholick Church, though the Lent Fast was always observed by all persons, yet they fasted not after one and the same manner, as Irenaeus informs us in his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome; a considerable part whereof is quoted by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. book 5. chap. 24. wherefore Baronius is im∣pertinent in opposing Socrates with the testimony of Gregorius Mag∣nus. For the Romans fasted in Lent after one manner in Socrates's age, after another in the days of Gregory the Great. In the times of Pope Leo, with which Socrates was in a manner equall, the Romans fasted three days of the week only in Lent, to wit, on Munday, Wednes∣day, and Friday, as 'tis apparent from that Pope's Sermons concerning Lent. In the Roman Order I have in my judgment found a footstep of that ancient Custom, which Socrates relates here. For, that Sunday of Lent vulgarly termed Dominica de passione Domini, is called Domi∣nica Mediana; which name, 'tis said, was given it by command of the Roman See. Now, I see no other reason why it should be so termed, than, that of the three weeks wherein the Romans fasted in Lent, this was the second Sunday. Bede (in his Book concerning the Vernal Aequi∣nox) relates, that in Italy some fasted twenty days, others seven▪ But now, what Socrates says concerning Saturday, may be truly defended. For ••n Pope Leo's age▪ the Romans fasted not on Saturdays in Lent; as 'tis apparent from the close of that Pope's fourth Sermon concerning Lent. Add hereto Bede's testimony, in his book de Officiis; where he relates, that most people fasted not in Lent on Thursdays and Satur∣days▪ Vales.
• h 1.123

  Sozomen attests the same, book 7. chap. 19. Moreover, the Alex∣andrians began the Lent Fast, not from the Sunday of the sixth week before Easter, (as Johannes Filesacus supposed, in the 7^th chapter of his book concerning Lent,) but from the Munday which followed that Sunday. Therefore, the first Sunday of the Alexandrians Lent was the fifth Sunday before Easter. And this is manifestly asserted by Theo∣philus and Cyrillus, in their Homilies or Paschal Epistles. ▪Which I wonder Filesacus perceived not, who produces Theophilus's testimony against himself. Vales.
• * 1.124

  Or Lent.
• i 1.125

  To wit, the Con∣stantinopo∣litans, and those peo∣ple who in∣habit the Provinces round that City, as far as Phoenice; so Sozomen attests, B. 7. chap. 19. Vales.
• k 1.126

  In the Florent▪ and Sfortian M. SS. the reading here is [about the number of the Fasts:] But the other reading, which we have followed, is confirmed by Socrates a little above, where his words are [And I cannot but wonder, how these persons, (though they disagree about the number of the days, yet) should in common give it the same name [to wit,] the fourty days Fast.] Vales.
• * 1.127

  See Gen. 1. 20.
• l 1.128

  That is, till our three a clock in the after∣noon; see Euseb. Ec∣cles. Histor. book 3. chap. 8. note (b.) I am of o∣pinion, that few fasted after this manner in Lent. For the Lent Fast lasted till the e∣vening. Vales.
• m 1.129

  In the Greek the reading here is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, make use of a different sort of food:] but I am of opinion it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, feed upon any sort of food without making any difference.] So Epiphanius Scholasticus read this place; for thus he renders it; alii usque ad nonam jejunantes boram, sine dis∣crimine ciborum reficiuntur, others having fasted to the ninth hour, re∣fresh themselves without making any difference about the sorts of food. Vales.
• n 1.130

  After these words [Again, amongst other nations, there are other usages] S^r Henry Savill in his Manuscript had placed a Subdistinction, (that is, a single point, which Greek writers usually placed at the bot∣tom of the Letter; See Valesius's Preface to his Edition of Eusebius:) but I had rather place a middle distinction (that is a Colon) here. Which is confirmed by Nicephorus, who has exprest this passage of Socrates thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and there are other usages amongst other Nations and Tribes: amongst whom also there are infinite causes of such [customs] as these. Vales.
• o 1.131

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Synaxis is a word used by Christian Writers in se∣veral senses. (1) 'Tis sometimes a general term, and contains all things usually done in the Religious Assemblies of Christians; in which sence we suppose it to be taken here. (2) The celebration of the Lord's Supper is by a peculiar name termed Synaxis. (3) 'Tis used so as to signifie the Christian Conventions or Assemblies, with∣out any respect had to the Eucharist. (4) Synaxis is sometimes ex∣pressly distinguished from the celebration of the Sacrament: in which sense our Socrates uses it a little lower in this chapter; where his words are these, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and all things are performed which belong to the Church-Assembly, except the celebration of the Mysteries [or, the Eucharist.] The Reader will find good authorities assigned for all these significa∣tions of this term, by the Learned Casaubon, Exercit. 16. ad Annal. Eccles. Baronii, Num. 42.
• * 1.132

  To wit, Alms and oblations.
• † 1.133

  That is, on wednes∣day in the Passion∣week.
• ‖ 1.134

  Or, Good-Friday.
• p 1.135

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mus∣culus and Christophor∣son have rendred this term very ill, thus, interpretes, Expounders. But Epiphanius translates it Psalmi Pronunciatores, Pronouncers [or Setters] of the Psalm; which rendition is good. It seems to have been these per∣sons Office, to begin to sing the first words of the Psalm; and then the people sang the rest after them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were heretofore termed Monitores who prompted the Players whilest they were Acting: they put the Actours in as oft as they forgot any passage in the Play, and were out. There were Monitores also in the prayers, of whom mention is made by Tertullian in his Apology; where he says, that the Christians prayed without a Monitour, because they prayed by heart. But Nicephorus at this place reads 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, No∣taries; instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Monitours: which reading displeases me not. For the Bishops had their Notaries, who were Learned young men. Thus Proclus is said to have been Atticus's Notary, as Socrates attests, book 7. chap. 41. And long before that, Athanasius was Notary to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, as Sozomen relates, book 2. chap. 17. In Pope Gelasius's Decrees, cap. 2. amongst the first Ecclesiastick degrees, the Lectores, Notarii, and Defensores are recko∣ned. In Caesarius Ar••latensis's Life, chap. 22. are these words: Lector aut Notarius coram illo non c••ssabat clamare, that is, the Reader or Notary ceased not to cry before him. In the First Action of the Ephesine Synod, Epaphroditus is termed the Reader and Notary of Hellanicus Bishop of the Rhodii. From all which authorities 'tis ap∣parent, that the Notarie's and Reader's Office was in a manner the same; to wit, to read the Psalms or other books of the Sacred Scri∣pture, either in the Church, or in the Bishops presence. And this Si∣meon Metaphrastes confirms, in the Acts of the Notaries Marcianus and Martyrius, which occur in Surius at the twenty fifth day of October. These Notaries registred the Acts which were made in the Church; on which account they seem to have had this name given them. In the Gesta Collationis inter Catholicos ac Donatistas, we meet with this Title: Excipientibus quo{que} Januario & Vitale Notariis Ecclesiae Catho∣lic••, Victore & Cresconio Notariis Ecclesiae Donatistarum, &c. that is, also Januarius and Vitales Notaries of the Catholick Church, Victor and Cresconius Notaries of the Church of the Donatists, registring [the Acts, &c.] There was over these a Primicerius Notariorum, [or the Chief of the Notaries,] who was usually chosen out of the Presbyters, as we are informed from the first Action of the Ephesine Council, wherein Petrus Presbyter of Alexandria, and Primicerius of the Notaries, recites the Emperour Theodosius's Edict to Cyrillus and the other Metropolitanes. But the chief duty of the Notaries was, to carry the Virge or Staff be∣fore the Bishop, as 'tis related in the second book concerning the Life and Miracles of Caesarius Ar••latensis. Vales.
• q 1.136

  In Rob. Stephens's Edition, this place is pointed thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 self knew another custome also in Thessaly, being made a Clergy-man there: If this punctation were true, it would follow, that Socrates was a Clergy-man in Thessaly. But this is in no wise probable, in re∣gard Socrates does every where stile himself Scholasticus, that is, an Advocate. Wherefore, I doubt not but this place must be otherwise pointed▪ to wit, after this manner: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. I my self when I was in Thessaly knew another custom also. A Clergy-man in that Country, &c. Notwithstanding Musculus and Christophorson have followed another punctation here, to wit, this; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. I my self knew another custom also in Thessaly. One being made a Clergy-man there, &c. Which distinction I can't approve of. For the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 would be superfluous, and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 would be too often repeated in the same period. Further, that Socrates had been conversant in Thes∣saly, is apparent from his following words. For a little after this he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 also I have seen [or known) another custom in Thessaly. Although the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is ambiguous, and may be meant as well of an absent, as a present person. Vales.
• r 1.137

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In Nicephorus the rea∣ding is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 put out of his orders, or, made no Clergy∣man; which displeases me not. Notwith∣standing, the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to denote something that is hea∣vier, to wit, his be∣ing excom∣municated. Vales.
• s 1.138

  We owe the amend∣ment of this place to the Flo∣retine M. S. For, whereas in the com∣mon Edi∣tions the reading here was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whereas all the most illustrious persons in the East do abstaine;] in that M. S. the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whereas in the East all [Clergymen] of their own accord do abstain, &c.) Which emenda∣tion is confirmed by Nicephorus. Vales.
• t 1.139

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] I had rather read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, composed;] in Nicephorus 'tis [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] But what Nicephorus adds, [to wit, that Heliodorus was ordered in a Synod either to burn his Love-Books, or else to relinquish his Bishoprick,] seems to me to be fabu∣lous. For there is no sufficient evidence, whether those books con∣cerning the Amours of Theagenes and Chariclea, were written by Heliodorus the Bishop, or by some body else. Vales.
• * 1.140

  Or, looks not.
• u 1.141

  This Office the Greek Church terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Latine, Lu∣cernarium; as Jacobus Syrmondus has observed in his notes on Enno∣dius. See Meursius's Glossary, in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and the notes on Cassianus, at the words Luccernaris Hora. Vales.
• vv 1.142

  I doubt not but instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] So∣crates wrote [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but they are in most things conform;] and so Nicephorus has worded it. Musculus and Christo∣phorson read thus also. For Musculus has rendred it thus: Sed in multis se imperiali conformant Ecclesiae, but in many things they conform themselves to the Imperial Church. Christophorson translates it after this manner: Sed tamen ex multo majore parte, primariae apud illos Ecclesia consuetudinem sequuntur, but yet by much the greater part, they follow the Custom of the Primary Church amongst them. Neither of these Translatours understood what was meant by these words here, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Socrates usually gives this appellation to the Catholick Church, because at that time it had gotten the chief power and authority. So in chap. 19. of this book, to the Novatians he opposes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those who are in possession of the Churches, that is, the Catholicks: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (says he,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. For the Novatians admitted not of this addi∣tional Function at its first institution. But [the Homoöusians] who are at this present in possession of the Churches, &c. Vales.
• x 1.143

  Except those Saturdays in Lent, and in the Ember-weeks. For in Lent the Romans fasted not on Saturdays, as we have shown before, at note (g.) in this chapter, from Pope Leo's Sermon concerning Lent. Nor did the Romans fast on Saturdays in the Fast of the Ember-weeks; but only on Wednesdays and Fry∣days: on Saturdays they watched at S^t Peters Church, as the same Leo informs us in his Sermons con∣cerning the Fast of the tenth month, concerning the Fast of Pentecost, and concerning the Fast of the se∣venth month. Wherefore, Baro∣nius, Petavius, and Halloixius do undeservedly reprove our Socra∣tes, because he has said that the Romans fasted not on Saturdays in Lent. Vales.
• y 1.144

  Petavius in his notes on Epi∣phanius, at the Heresie of the Quartodecimani, does affirm that Socrates is here mistaken; and says, that the Penitential Canons of Basilius the Great are suffici∣ent to confute this errour. But it may be answered, that after Basilius's death, there was per∣haps another usage observed in the Church of Caesarea. For So∣crates speaks of a Rite then in use, when he wrote this History. Vales.
• * 1.145

  That is, those who have had two wives successively one after another.
• † 1.146

  Or, ad∣mitted, that is, to Com∣munion.
• * 1.147

  Or, form of good life.
• * 1.148

  Acts▪ 15. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29.
• * 1.149

  Or, were rather Jewish.
• z 1.150

  The rea∣ding here is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The acci∣dents;] in which, what sense there can be, I see not. I am of opinion it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Symbolls] which term Socrates makes use of a little a∣bove, where he says to the end that the Symbolls might be fulfil∣led. By Symbolls, Socrates means the Legal ceremonies and com∣mands; for instance, Circumci∣sion, which the Jews kept in their bodies, but not in their hearts. Nicephorus has worded this pas∣sage in Socrates thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which words Lan∣gus renders thus: Siquidem & Judai ea quae sic in corporibus ac∣cidunt, majore studio, quàm si ani∣mabus eveniant, observare conten∣dunt, for the Jews also with a grea∣ter industry strive to observe those things which so happen to their bo∣dies, than if they hapned to their Souls. You see, that neither Nicephorus, nor his Translatour, apprehended Socrates's meaning. Socrates speaks concerning the Jews, who observed the law of works in their bodies, rather than their hearts; whom the Apostle (Rom. 2. 28.) terms Jews out∣wardly. Vales.
• * 1.151

  See chap. 20; at the be∣ginning.
• † 1.152

  Chap. 21.
• * 1.153

  Or, things which are not.
• † 1.154

  See chap. 12. of this book.
• a 1.155

  Theodoret gives an account of these Here∣ticks, book 4. Haeret. Fabul. Vales.
• * 1.156

  That is, a Cake∣seller.
• † 1.157

  Selenas.
• * 1.158

  Or, Pre∣cedency.
• b 1.159

  It must be twenty five years; and accor∣dingly Epi∣phanius Scholasti∣cus read it. For, from Arcadius's third and Honorius's second Consulate (in which year these things were done, which Socrates does here relate) to the Consulate of Monaxtius and Plinta [or Plintha] there are twenty five years. Vales.
• c 1.160

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Consulate] it must un∣doubtedly be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, under the Reign.] For the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 crept into this place from the following line. Vales.
• * 1.161

  See book 4. chap. 13.
• † 1.162

  See book 4. chap. 7.
• * 1.163

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, grosly, and rudely.
• † 1.164

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, absurd, or frigid.
• ‖ 1.165

  Or, I am larger.
• a 1.166

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which I have rendred thus, Magister Scriniorum Imperatoris, Master of the Emperours Desks: for the Greeks call those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whom the Latins term Magistros Scriniorum, Masters of the Desks; as Cujacius has truly remark't. But Salmasius, in his notes on Vopiscus pag. 481, affirms that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were the Proximi of the sacred Desks, not the Masters. For his opinion is, that there was only one Master of all the Desks, who had under him four Antigraphei or Proximi [that is, Clerks:] to wit, one in each Desk. But Salmasius is disproved, first by the Theodofian Code, and secondly by the Notitia Imperii Romani. For, in the Notitia Imperii Romani, there are four Masters of the Desks of the Roman Emperours reckoned; to wit, the Master of the Memory, the Master of the Letters, the Master of the Libells, and the Master of the Greek Letters. And, in the Theodosian Code, in the sixth Book, there is a particular Title de Magistris sacrorum Scriniorum, whom the Em∣perours will have preferred before the Vicarii. But concerning the Proximi, there follows another Title, at a great distance from this: wherein the Emperours give order only, that the Proximi after two years space should leave the Scrinia, and be followed by the Vicarii. From whence 'tis evident, that the Proximi of the Desks are distin∣guished from the Masters: for the Masters were chosen by the Empe∣rours Codecill [or Letters Patents,] as were the rest of the Officers of the Pallace. But the Proximi came to that place by degrees and order of promotion: and they were more than one in every Desk; whereas there was but one Master in each Desk. The Proximi therefore are not the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; in regard there were only four 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as we are informed from the Glosses of Julianus Antecessor. See Petrus Patricius in Excerpt. Legationum. Philostorgius relates, that Eugenius was preferred to the dignity of a Master, before he broke out into his Tyranny. Vales.
• b 1.167

  Instead of [Gallia the Less,] the reading in the Florentine M. S. is truer, thus [Galatia] Although Arbogastes was not born in Gallia, but in Francia, as all Historians agree. Vales.
• c 1.168

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, introduced] we read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hi∣red.] Vales.
• d 1.169

  Valentinianus Junior was mur∣thered at Vienna, in Arcadius's second Consulate which he bore with Rufinus; as Idatius rightly informs us in his Fasti. But Mar∣cellinus says, that fact was perpe∣trated in the Consulate of Tatia∣nus and Symmachus, on the Ides of March. Notwithstanding, this appears to be false, from the fourth and fifth Law in the Theo∣dosian Code de Apostatis. Vales.
• e 1.170

  Zosimus (in his fourth book) says, that only Arcadius was left by Theodosius at Constantinople; and that Honorius followed his Father in his Expedition against Eugenius. The same is asserted by Marcellinus in his Chronicon. But Philostorgius agrees with So∣crates. Vales.
• * 1.171

  Or, made pre∣parations.
• f 1.172

  Here there is a defect in the Greek Text; these words [from Aquileia thirty six miles] being wanting. Which Valesius says he perfected from Antoninus's Itine∣rary, and from Sigonius in his ninth book de Imperio Occiden∣tali.
• * 1.173

  Or, rou∣ted.
• * 1.174

  Or, run∣ning of horses.
• * 1.175

  Or, the Western parts.
• † 1.176

  Or, the sight.