The history of the church from our Lords incarnation, to the twelth year of the Emperour Maricius Tiberius, or the Year of Christ 594 / as it was written in Greek, by Eusebius Pamphilius ..., Socrates Scholasticus, and Evagrius Scholasticus ... ; made English from that edition of these historians, which Valesius published at Paris in the years 1659, 1668, and 1673 ; also, The life of Constantine in four books, written by Eusibius Pamphilus, with Constantine's Oration to the convention of the saints, and Eusebius's Speech in praise of Constantine, spoken at his tricennalia ; Valesius's annotations on these authors, are done into English, and set at their proper places in the margin, as likewise a translation of his account of their lives and writings ; with two index's, the one, of the principal matters that occur in the text, the other, of those contained in the notes.

CHAP. III. Concerning the Descent and Education of Johannes Bishop of Constantinople.

JOhannes therefore was born at Antioch [a City] of Syria-Coele, the Son of Secundus, and his mothers name was Anthusa, persons of a noble family in that Country. He was Scho∣lar to Libanius the Sophista, and an hearer of Andragathius the Philosopher. Being ready to betake himself to the practise of the Civil Law, and perceiving how laborious and unjust a life they lead, a 1.1 who are conversant in the * 1.2 Forum, he chose rather to follow a quieter sort of life. And this he did, in imitation of b 1.3 Evagrius; who having been educated under the same Masters, had long before betaken himself to a more sedate and quieter course of life. Changing there∣fore forthwith his garb and his gate, he applied his mind to reading the Sacred Scriptures, and fre∣quently went in great hast to the Church [on ac∣count of praying.] Moreover, he perswades The∣odorus and Maximus (who had been his School∣fellows under Libanius the Sophista) to leave their profession which had a respect to nothing but gain, and betake themselves to a more simple and meaner course of life. Of these two persons, Theodorus was afterwards Bishop of Mopsuestia a City in Cilicia; and Maximus of Seleucia in Isauria. But being at that time very studious and diligent about virtue, they were instructed in a monastick course of life by Diodorus and Carte∣rius, who then presided over the c 1.4 Monasteries.

Of these two Diodorus, afterwards made Bi∣shop of Tarsus, wrote many books, being in∣tent upon the bare Letter [and obvious sense] of the Sacred Scriptures; but avoiding the d 1.5 Allego∣ricall interpretation thereof. Thus far concerning these persons. Moreover, Johannes, (who e 1.6 converst frequently and familiarly with Basilius f 1.7 at that time ordained a Deacon by Meletius, but afterwards constituted Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia) was made Reader of the Antiochian Church, by g 1.8 Zeno the Bishop in his return from Jerusalem. Whilest he continued in the degree of a Reader, he wrote a book against the Jews. Having not long after obtained the dignity of a Deacon from Meletius, he wrote his books concerning Priest∣hood, and those against Stagirius: Moreover, those concerning the incomprehensible nature of God, and those concerning * 1.9 subintroduced women. Af∣ter this, when Meletius was dead at Constanti∣nople; (for he had made a journey thither, on account of Gregorius Nazianzenus's ordination:) Johannes made a separation from the † 1.10 Mele∣tianists, nor did he communicate with Paulinus; but lived quietly for the space of three whole years. Afterwards, when Paulinus was dead, he is ordained Presbyter by h 1.11 Evagrius, Paulinus's successour. This (to speak compendiously) was Johannes's course of life, before his being made Bishop. He was a person (as 'tis said) sower and morose, by reason of his [over∣much] zeal for temperance; and (as one of his intimadoes has reported;) from his younger years more addicted to anger, than bashfullness. Because of his * 1.12 Sanctity of Life, he was not cautious and circumspect in▪ relation to things future; and by reason of his ‖ 1.13 plainness, he was open and easie. He used too great a liberty in speaking to those who discoursed him. In his teaching, he made it his chief bu∣siness to improve the Moralls of his hearers: and in his conferences, he was supposed by those who knew him not, to be proud and arro∣gant.

Notes

• a 1.1

  That conjecture displeases me not, which came here∣tofore into my mind, to wit, that at this place, in∣stead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Further, Socrates and Sozo∣men, do in∣deed af∣firm, that John Chry∣sostome did not follow the Practise of the Civil Law. For they say, that he went from Li∣banius's School, when it was supposed he would have pleaded causes, and on a sudden betook himself to a quieter sort of life. Notwith∣standing, there are those who do affirm, that for some time he did plead Causes. Which seems to be intimated by Libanius's Epistle, which Isidorus Pelusiota records book 2. Epistol. But that Epistle of Libanius's is, I fear, written to some other Johannes, who then pleaded Causes at Constantinople, and spoke a panegyrick there to Theodosius, on account of his assuming his Sons to be his Colleagues in the Em∣pire. Now, our Chrysostome (who went from Libanius's School about the beginning of Valens's Reign,) neither left Antioch, that Libanius (who profest Rhetorick at Antioch) might write Letters to him being absent; nor could he praise Theodosius, who at that time was not Emperour. Nor can Libanius's words be understood of any other Emperour, than of Theodosius, who took in his Sons to be partners with him in the Empire. However, that Chrysostome did for some time practise the Civil Law, is apparent from the beginning of his first book de Sacerdotio. Vales.
• * 1.2

  Or, Courts of Judicature.
• b 1.3

  What Evagrius this should be, who having left Libanius's Auditory long before Chrysostome, had embraced a pious and Religious course of life, 'tis hard to determine. For I cannot think it was Evagrius of Pontus, who was afterwards a Deacon at Constantinople, under Gre∣gorius Nazianzenus, and under Nectarius; and thence removed into the Solitudes of Egypt. Baronius, at the year of Christ 382, calls this Evagrius, Chrysostome's School-fellow, Evagrius Junior, Son of the most noble Evagrius a Citizen of Antioch; and says that he went into the desart before Chrysostome, and lead a monastick life under Diodorus and Carterius. But, I know not what authority Baronius had for this, nor why he should term this person Evagrius Junior▪ Unless perhaps he has called this person Evagrius Junior, to distin∣guish him from Evagrius Senior the Antiochian, whom he had made mention of before at the year of Christ 372▪ from Basilius Magnus's E∣pistle to Eusebius of Samosata; the words whereof are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Presbyter Evagrius, the Son of Pompeianus of Antioch, who sometime went into the West with the Blessed Eusebius. The Latine Translatour has rendred it Evagrius Senior, &c; whereas he should have translated it; Evagrius the Presbyter, &c; concerning whom Hieronymus (in the Chronicon of Eusebius) writes thus: Zenobia apud Immas, haud longe ab An∣tiochia Vinci••ur, &c. Zenobia is conquered at Immae, not far from Antioch; in which fight Pompeianus the Commander, surnamed Fran∣cus, sought most valiantly against her: his family continues at this day at Antioch, from whose race our dearest Evagrius the Presbyter descended. Jerome makes mention of the same person in his book de Scri∣ptor. Eccles. And in my judgment, this is the Evagrius, Chryso∣stome's School-fellow, whom Socrates mentions here. For, what Baronius writes concerning Evagrius Junior, is founded on no au∣thour. Vales.
• c 1.4

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which is the Dative case, the rules of Grammer do require it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, over the monasteries] in the Genitive case; the reading in Sozomen is the same, as was also that in Epiphanius Scholasticus's Copy, as appears from his Ver∣sion. Further, Baronius (following indeed the Greek Writers) is of opinion, that these Monasteries of Diodorus, and Carterius, were situated without the City. But a Learned person, who has lately published the Life of John Chrysostome in French, does ••ffirm they were within the City Antioch: to whom notwithstanding I cannot assent. 'Tis more probable, that these Little Houses were placed in the Suburbs, to the end that pious and Religious persons, who were continually imployed in contemplation and reading of the sacred Books, might be far remote from noyse and disturbance. But what the same Learned person objects out of Theodoret, (to wit, that Dio∣dorus was continually conversant in Antioch, and made a couragious resistance against the rage and force of the Arians;) does in no wise weaken our opinion. For Diodorus, as often as he pleased, could easily come out of a Monasterie in the Suburbs, into the City. Vales.
• d 1.5

  Sozomen says the same of Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus; to wit, that he expoun∣ded the Sacred Scriptures, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, literally; but avoided the more abstruse and mysti∣call sense. Jerome says the same concerning him, in his book de Scri∣ptor. Eccles. Extant ejus in Apostolum Commentarii, &c. his Comments upon the Apostle are extant, and many other pieces, belonging rather to Eusebius Emisenus's Character: whose sense although he has followed, yet he could not imitate his eloquence, because of his ignorance in Humane [or Secular] Learning. Jerom says, that Diodorus has followed Eu∣sebius Emisenus's sense, that is, his method in explaining the Scri∣ptures. Let us see therefore, what sense Eusebius Emisenus has fol∣lowed. Jerome himself will inform us; whose words concerning Eu∣sebius Emisenus are these: Magisque Historiam Secutus, ab iis qui de∣clamare volunt, studiosissime legitur, and having rather followed History, he is most studiously read by those, who have a mind to declaim. From whence it appears that Eusebius in his exposition of the Scriptures, has chiefly followed the Historicall and Literal sense; but has not touched the Mystick and Allegoricall. For the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 compre∣hends these senses. Allegoria therefore differs from Theoria, as a species does from the Genus. Indeed, Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, of whom we now speak, had written a Book with this Title, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, what may be the difference between Theoria and Allegoria. But I wonder at Jerome, who says that Diodorus was in∣structed neither in Eloquence, nor in the knowledge of humane Lear∣ning. And yet Theodoret (Histor. book 4.) compares his eloquence to a most limpid River; and Photius in his Bibliotheca does attest, that in his discourses he was clear and perspicuous. Vales.
• e 1.6

  That Chrysostome converst familiarly with Basilius, 'tis evident from Chrysostome's books de Sacerdotio. But who that Basilius was, concerning whom Chrysostome speaks in those books, 'tis uncertaine. Socrates does in this place affirm, that it was Basilius Magnus. Photius (in his Bibliotheca) says it was Basilius Bishop of Seleucia. Baronius (at the year of Christ 382,) does deservedly disprove both these opinions. Chrysostome ('tis certain) does attest in the beginning of his book, that himself and that Basilius, concerning whom he there speaks, had always the same masters. Now Basilius Magnus learnt Rhetorick at Athens: but Chysostome was Libanius's hearer at Antioch a long while after that. If that were Basilius the Great, whom Chry∣sostome affirms to have obtained the principall place amongst his own companions and friends, doubtless some footsteps of his friendship would at this day be extant in Basilius's Epistles. But, amongst so many of his Epistles which have been preserved to our times, there occurs not one, written to our Johannes. Wherefore I agree with Ba∣ronius, who says, that that Basilius who was companion to Chrysostome, was Basilius Bishop of Raphanea, or else Basilius Bishop of Byblus. For both these persons were Chrysostomes contemporaries, in regard they subscribed the Constantinopolitan Council. Vales.
• f 1.7

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sometimes made a Deacon, &c.] In my judgment it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, at that time made a Deacon, &c.] For it follows▪ but afterwards constituted Bishop of Cae∣sarea in Cappadocia.] Epiphanius Scholasticus confirms our conjecture, as 'tis apparent from his Version; for thus he renders it, qui tunc à Meletio factus erat Diaconus, who was then made Deacon by Meletius. Further, Amphilochius (in his Life of Basilius the Great,) does relate that Basil was made Deacon by Meletius Bishop of Antioch. But that book is stuft with fables and lies. Doubtless, in regard Basil the Great was by lawfull degrees promoted to be Reader and Presbyter at Caesarea, (as Gregorius Nazianzenus does attest, in his Funerall Oration concer∣ning the praises of the same Basilius) 'tis scarce credible, that he should have been made Deacon any where else, but at Caesarea. Vales.
• g 1.8

  Nicephorus (what Authour he follows, I know not,) makes this Zeno, Bishop of Gaza or Majuma. But, whereas Zeno was created Bishop of Majuma in the Reign of Theodosius, (as Sozomen relates book 5. chap. 8;) he must necessarily be a different person from that Zeno who ordained Chrysostome Reader; in regard Chrysostome was made a Reader in Valens Augustus's Reign, about the year of our Lord 370. But Baronius (at the year of Christ 382,) says that this Zeno (by whom Chrysostome was ordained a Reader of Antioch) was Bishop of Tyre, the same person who was present at the Constanti∣nopolitan Councill; and was then (Meletius being absent) his De∣puty in the Church of Antioch. In which thing I do readily assent to Baronius. But whereas he repoves Socrates there, for his saying, that that Zeno was Bishop of Jerusalem; therein the Cardinal is evidently mistaken. For Socrates does not make Zeno Bishop of Jerusalem▪ he only says, that Zeno the Bishop, returning from Jerusalem, Or∣dained Chrysostome Reader of Antioch. Now Zeno had made a journey to Jerusalem, either on the account of prayer, (as it was the custom of those times,) or by reason of some Ecclesiastick affair. But here arises a difficulty. For, if Zeno in his return from Jerusalem, ordained Chrysostome Reader of Antioch; the City of which he was Bishop, must necessarily be farther remote from Jerusalem, than Antioch was; or at least it must lie at the side of Antioch. Which cannot be said of the Cities Tyre, and Gaza. For both those are far nearer to Jerusalem, than Antioch is. Therefore, this Zeno, who ordained Chrysostome Reader of Antioch, was Bishop of some other City. In Basil the Great's 69^th Epistle, there is mention of one Zeno a Bishop, who was present at the Antiochian-Council under Meletius: but the name of his See is not set down. I know Palladius (in the Life of Chryso∣stome) does relate, that Chrysostome was ordained Reader by Me∣letius. But this, in my judgment, is so to be understood, that that may be said to have been done by Meletius, which was performed by Zeno supplying his place. Vales.
• * 1.9

  See Eu∣seb. Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 30. note (q.)
• † 1.10

  That is; Meletius's party.
• h 1.11

  This is the Eva∣grius, of whom we have spo∣ken at note (b.) in this chapter. But, what Socrates says, (to wit, that Chrysostome was ordai∣ned Pres∣byter, by Evagrius,) has but lit∣tle of pro∣bability. For, if that be true which So∣crates says, (I mean, that Chrysostome, after Meletius's death, abstained from Paulinus's communion;) how can it be supposed that Chrysostome should admit of Evagrius's ordination, who was successour to Pan∣linus? It is better therefore to follow Palladius, Simeon Metaphrastes, and others, who relate that Chrysostome was promoted to the Pres∣byterate by Flavianus the Bishop. Vales.
• * 1.12

  Or, Re∣ctitude of Life.
• ‖ 1.13

  Or, sim∣plicity, or singleness.