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 SIXTH BOOK OF THE Ecclesiastical History OF SOCRATES SCHOLASTICUS. (Book 6)

The PREFACE.

WE have finished the task enjoyned by You (most Sacred man of God Theodorus!) in the sive foregoing Books; wherein, according to our best ability, we have com∣prized the History of the Church from the times of Constantine. But you must know, that we have not been curious about our Stile; for we considered, that should we have been carefull about an Elegancy of expression, we might peradventure have mist of our design. Besides, could we have accomplished [our design,] yet we were altogether unable to write such things, as are extant in the Composures of Ancient Historians; whereby any one of them might suppose himself able either to amplifie, or disimprove Transactions. Further, such a Stile would in no wise have edified the Many and the Simpler sort of persons; who are desirous of

knowing affairs only, not of admiring the Stile for its elegant composure. That therefore our work might not be unusefull to both these sorts of persons; to the Learned, because 'tis unworthy of being compared with the Elegant Stile of Ancient Writers; and to the unlearned, in regard they cannot attain to [the knowledge of] affairs, being concealed by a pride and over-elegancy of Expression: We have designedly made use of such a Stile, * 1.1 as seems indeed to be lower and more mean, but is notwithstanding plainer and more perspicuous.

But, before we begin our Sixth Book, we must give this premonition: In regard we undertake [the writing a Narrative] of the affairs which have hapned in our own age; we are afraid, lest we should seem to record such things as will displease many persons: a 1.2 either because (according to the proverb,) Truth is bitter: or in regard we mention not their names, whom [all men] have a great love for, with an Encomium: or [Lastly] because we extoll not their Actions. The Zeal••ts of our Religion will con∣demn us, because we do not give the Bishops the Title of Most dear to God, or Most Holy, or such like. Others also will sometimes make curious remarks, because we term not the Emperours Most Divine, and Lords; nor [do give them] those other titles which are usually attributed to them. But, in as much as I am able to prove and demonstrate from the Testimony of Ancient Writers, that a b 1.3 Servant amongst them did usually call his Master by his proper name, and made no account of his Dignity [or Title,] by reason of the urgency of affairs; and in as much as [my indeavour is] to obey the Laws of History, which do require a sincere, pure, and true Narrative of Transactions, free from all manner of Masks and Covers; I will in future proceed in the same Narration; Recording those things which either I my self saw, or could learn from those who had seen them; and making a judgment of the Truth from their not varying in their Relations, who told me them. But, my La∣bour in discovering the Truth hath been great, in regard many, and those different persons gave me an account of affairs; some of whom affirming they were present at the transacting of these things; and others asserting they knew them better than any other persons.

CHAP. I. That after the death of the Emperour Theodosius, when his Sons had divided the Empire [be∣tween them,] and Arcadius had met the Army returning from Italy, after some short stay there; Rufinus the Praefectus Praetorio was killed by the Souldiers at the Emperours feet.

THE Emperour Theodosius having ended his life in the Consulate of Olybrius and Probinus, on the seven∣teenth of the month January; his Sons succeeded him in the Roman Empire. Ar∣cadius had the Government of the Eastern Em∣pire, and Honorius of the Western. [The Bi∣shops] who Presided over the Churches at that time, were Damasus in the Imperial [Ci∣ty] Rome; Theophilus at Alexandria; Johan∣nes was in possession of the Churches at Jerusa∣lem; and Flavianus of those at Antioch. At Constantinople [termed also] New Rome, Ne∣ctarius filled the [Episcopall] Chair, as we have related in the foregoing Book. About the eighth of the month November, in the same Consulate, Theodosius's body was brought [to Constantinople,] and interred by his Son Arca∣dius with an honourable and solemn Funeral. Not long after this, on the eight and twentieth of the same month, the Army also arrived, which had been employed in the War against the Tyrant, under the Emperour Theodosius's command. When therefore the Emperour Arcadius (a∣greeable to the usuall custom) had met the Ar∣my without the City-gates, the Souldiers at that time slew Rufinus the Emperours Praefectus Praetorio. For Rufinus lay under a suspicion of turning Tyrant, and 'twas believed, that he had called the a 1.4 Hunni (a Barbarous Nation) into the Roman Territories. For at that time they destroyed Armenia, and some parts of the East, by making incursions into those Provinces. Moreover, on the same day whereon Rufinus was killed, Marcianus Bishop of the Novatians died. He was succeeded in that Bishoprick by Sisinnius, of whom we have made mention * 1.5 above.

CHAP. II. Concerning Nectarius's death, and the Ordination of Johannes.

WIthin a small intervall of time, Nectarius also, Bishop of Constantinople, departed this life, in the Consulate of Caesarius and Atticus, about the twenty seventh of the month Septem∣ber. Forthwith therefore, a * 1.6 Contention aros•• about the Ordination of a Bishop; and some desired one person, others another, When a Consult had been severall times held about this matter, it was at last concluded on▪ that † 1.7 Jo∣hannes a Presbyter of the Antiochian Church, should be sent for from Antioch. For a fame was spread concerning him, for his ‖ 1.8 Learning and Eloquence. Within some small space of time therefore, the Emperour Areadius (with the common consent of all persons, I mean the

Clergy, as well as Laity) sends for him. And, to the end that his Ordination might be accom∣plished with more of firmness and authority, by the Emperours order many other Prelates were present, as was also Theophilus [Bishop] of Alexandria; who made it his business to * 1.9 blacken Johannes's glory, and to promote Isi∣dorus (a Presbyter under himself) to the Bi∣shoprick; whom he had a great love for, be∣cause Isidorus had undertaken a very dangerous affair upon his account. What that business was, we must now declare. When the Empe∣rour Theodosius was actually ingaged in a War against the Tyrant Maximus, Theophilus sent pre∣sents by Isidorus to the Emperour, and delivered two Letters to him, ordering him, to present the Gifts and Letters to him that should be Conque∣rour. Isidorus, in obedience to these commands, arriving at Rome, stayed there expecting the * 1.10 Event of the War. But this business could not lie long concealed; for a Reader who ac∣companied him, stole the Letters privately. On which account Isidorus being in a great fear, fled forthwith to Alexandria. This was the oc∣casion of Theophilus's being so highly concer∣ned for Isidorus. But [the Grandees] of the Imperial Palace, gave Johannes the preference. And in regard many persons raised accusations against Theophilus, and presented Libells (some upon one account, others on another) against him, to the Bishops that were present; Eutropius the Chief person of the Bed-chamber to the Emperour, took the written Accusations, and shewed them to Theophilus, bidding him take his choice, whether he would Ordain Johannes, or be brought to his Tryall and answer the Ac∣cusations on foot against him. Theophilus▪ ter∣rified herewith, Ordained Johannes. Johannes therefore being Ordained, was seated in the Epi∣scopall Chair in order to [his bearing] the Office of a Bishop, on the twenty sixth of February, in the following Consulate, a 1.11 which the Emperour Honorius celebrated at Rome, and Eutychianus (at that time b 1.12 Praefectus praetorio) at Constantinople, with Games and Sports. But in regard this Johannes is famous, both for the Books he left written, and also for the many troubles he fell into, I judge it fit not to pass his affaires over in silence, but relate as compendiously as 'tis possible, what might be decla∣red more at large; and to set forth, whence he was, from whom extracted, how he was called to the E∣piscopate, after what manner he was deprived of it; and [lastly] upon what account he was more ho∣noured after his death, than whilest he was living.

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 1.13 who are conversant in the * 1.14 Forum, he chose rather to follow a quieter sort of life. And this he did, in imitation of b 1.15 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 1.16 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 1.17 Allego∣ricall interpretation thereof. Thus far concerning these persons. Moreover, Johannes, (who e 1.18 converst frequently and familiarly with Basilius f 1.19 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 1.20 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 * 1.21 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 † 1.22 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 1.23 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 * 1.24 Sanctity of Life, he was not cautious and circumspect in▪ relation to things future; and by reason of his ‖ 1.25 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.

CHAP. IV. Concerning Serapion the Deacon, and how by his instigation Johannes became offended with, and an enemy to his Clergy.

THis being the humour and disposition of Jo∣hannes, after his promotion to the * 1.26 Epis∣copate, he was more supercilious and severe to∣wards his Clergy than was fitting; his design in that being (as he expected,) to rectifie the lives of those under him. Immediately there∣fore

at his very entry [upon the Bishoprick] he seemed rough and austere to the Ecclesiasticks, and incurred their * 1.27 Odium, many of them be∣came his enemies, and declined him as an angry person. Serapion his Deacon incited him to † 1.28 alienate all mens minds from himself. And on a time, when all the Clergy were present, he spake aloud to the Bishop, after this man∣ner, You will never be able (O Bishop!) to get the mastery over these persons, unless you drive them all out with one rod. This expression of his excited an Odium against the Bishop. Not long after the Bishop ejected many persons out of the Church, some for one reason, others for another. But they (as it usually happens in such violent proceedings of Governours,) enter into a Combination against him, and calum∣niated him to the people. That which induced the hearers to a belief of what was spoken against him, was, that the Bishop would not eat with any body, nor would he upon any invitation go to a Feast. Upon which account most espe∣cially, the calumny against him improved, and grew greater. Upon what design ‖ 1.29 he refused to eat with any person, no one could ever cer∣tainly tell. For those who are desirous of de∣fending him, say that he had a very weak sto∣mack, and could hardly digest meat; for which reason he did eat alone. Others affirm, he did this on account of his Ascetick and most severe course of life. What-ever of truth there was in this matter, it was of no small advantage to his Ac∣cusers, in order to their calumniating him. Not∣withstanding, the people did highly approve of him upon account of the Sermons he Preach't in the Church, loved the man exceedingly, and dis∣regarded those persons who attempted to accuse him. Moreover, what his Sermons were, (as well those published by himself, as them taken by the Notaries from his mouth as he Preach't them,) how elegant, inviting and perswasive; it is needless now to declare, in regard those that are desirous may read them, and reap abundant benefit from them.

CHAP. V. That Johannes differed not only with the Clergy, but with the Magistracy also. And concerning Eutropius the Eunuch.

AS long as Johannes was offensive to the Clergy only, the designes framed against him were weak, and infirm. But after he at∣tempted to reprove many of the Magistracy also, beyond the bounds of what was fit, then the envy against him was much more enkindled. Many things were spoken against him; most whereof were in future believed by the hearers. But that which made an addition to the calumny, was the Oration at that time spoken by him against Eutropius. For Eutropius the Eunuch (the chief person of the Bed-chamber to the Em∣perour, the * 1.30 first Eunuch that was vouchsafed the dignity of a Consul by the Emperour,) de∣sirous to be revenged upon some persons who had taken sanctuary in the Church, made it his business to get an Edict published by the Em∣perours, prohibiting any person from flying into the Churches for sanctuary, but that such as had fled thither should by force be drawn out thence. But [divine] vengeance followed immediately hereupon. For the Law was promulged, and not long after Eutropius himself, having offen∣ded the Emperour, made his escape into the Church. The Bishop therefore (whilest Eu∣tropius lay under the Altar, and was terrified with fear,) a 1.31 sitting in the Pulpit (out of which it had before been his usage to Preach, in order to his being heard more easily;) made an Oration in reproof of him. Whereupon he seemed to give a greater offence to some persons, because he was not only incompassionate towards an unfor∣tunate man, but on the contrary even reproved him. Eutropius therefore at that time bearing the Consulate, was by the Emperours order be∣headed, for some crimes [he had committed.] His name also was rased out of the * 1.32 Fasti Consulares, and only Theo∣dorus's name, who had been his Col∣league in the Consulate, was b 1.33 Re∣corded therein. 'Tis reported likewise, that Bi∣shop Johannes, making use of his usuall freedom and boldness in speaking, did sharply reprove Gaina also, at that time Master of the Milice, because he took the confidence to make a re∣quest to the Emperour, that one of the Churches within the City might be assigned to the Arians, who were of the same opinion with himself. He also reproved several other of the Grandees upon various accounts, with much freedom and bold∣ness; by reason of which liberty of his, he gai∣ned the Ill-will of many persons. Wherefore, Theophilus also Bishop of Alexandria, soon after Johannes's Ordination, began to consider, how he might undermine and ruine him. And with some persons that were present he discoursed privately concerning that affair; but he imparted his own design [by Letters] to many others, who were at a great distance. For he was not only vexed at Johannes's too great boldness; but also be∣cause he had not been able to promote Isidorus, a Presbyter under him, to the Bishoprick of Con∣stantinople. In this posture were Bishop Johan∣nes's affairs; and immediately, at the very be∣ginning of his Episcopate, he felt the pangs of mischief and disquietude. But we will declare the matters that concern him, in the procedure of our History.

CHAP. VI. Concerning the Tyranny of Gaïna the Goth, and the disturbance he raised at Constantinople; and concerning his death.

I Will now relate an affair worthy to be re∣corded, which hapned at this very time; and will demonstrate, how divine providence freed the City and Roman State from the greatest danger imaginable, by unexpected assistances. What that was, must now be declared. Gaïna was by extract a Barbarian. Having made himself a

Subject to the Romans, and ingaged in a Mili∣tary Employ, he rose by degrees, and was at length constituted Generall both of the Roman Horse and Foot. When he had gotten so great a power, he knew not himself, nor could he mo∣derate his own mind. But (as the saying is) moved every stone, that he might render the Ro∣man Empire subject unto himself. He sent for the whole nation of the Goths, out of their own Coun∣try. a 1.34 And took care, that such as were his relations should have the Command of the Military Forces. [Moreover,] when Tribi∣gildus (one of his kindred, Tribune of those Souldiers lodged in Phrygia,) * 1.35 rai∣sed a Rebellion by Gaïna's instigation, and ruined the whole Province of Phrygia; Gaïna orders the matter so, that the care of affairs there should be committed to him∣self. To which the Em∣perour Arcadius, foreknow∣ing nothing [of his design,] readily yielded. Gaïna therefore forthwith made an Expedition, pretendedly indeed against Tribigildus; but in reality, with a resolution to turn Tyrant. He took along with him a vast multitude of the Barbarous Goths. And when he was arrived in Phrygia, laid all places desolate. The Ro∣mans were on a sudden mightily disturbed, not only by reason of the vast number of Barbarians who were with Gaïna, but also in regard the [fertilest and] most usefull Provinces of the East were highly endangered. But then the Em∣perour, in relation to the present juncture of af∣fairs, made use of a prudent and usefull advice, and by subtlety made an attempt upon the * 1.36 Bar∣barian. Having therefore sent [Embassadours] to him, he took a resolution of appeasing him as well by words, as deeds. Upon Gaïna's deman∣ding two of the eminentest Personages of the Se∣natorian Order (who had born the Consulate, to wit, Saturninus and Au∣relianus, b 1.37 persons whom he look't upon as hinderers of his designes;) to be Hosta∣ges; the Emperour, in com∣pliance with the necessity of that time delivered them, though unwillingly. These two persons, prepared to undergo death for the good of the publick, with a cou∣ragious mind obeyed the Emperours Command. And went forth to meet the Bar∣barian, some distance from Chalcedon, at a place termed the Hippodrome; being rea∣dy to endure whatever he should inflict. How∣ever, they suffered no harm. But Gaïna made use of * 1.38 dissimulation, and came to Chalcedon. Whither the Emperour Arcadius also went to meet him. The Emperour and the Barbarian going both into that Church where the body of the Martyr Euphemia is deposited, bound them∣selves in a mutuall Oath, that they would not frame designes one against the other. The Em∣perour, a person that had a pious and religious esteem for an Oath, and was upon that account beloved by God, kept the ingagement he had en∣tred into. But Gaïna violated it, and receded not from the design he had proposed to him∣self; but was intent upon causing Burnings and Plunderings, both at Constantinople, and also (if he could have effected it) over the whole Roman Empire. The * 1.39 City therefore was turned into a Barbary, by reason of the innumerable multi∣tudes of Barbarians, and its inhabitants had the treatment of Captives. [Moreover,] so great was the danger which hung over the City, that a vast Comet which reached from heaven even to the earth, the like to which no man ever saw be∣fore, gave an indication thereof. Gaïna there∣fore in the first place impudently attempted to make plunder of the silver publickly exposed to sale in the shops. But when, by a preceding Rum••ur thereof, [the Money-changers] ab∣stained from exposing their silver on their Ta∣bles; he betook himself to another designe. And in the dead of the night he sends a great number of Barbarians to burn down the Pallace. At which time it was perspicuously manifested, how great a care God had of the City. For a mul∣titude of Angels appeared to the Traytors, in the form of armed men of a vast Stature; whom the Barbarians conjecturing to be in reallity a numerous and valiant Army, were astonished thereat, and departed. When this was told to Gaïna, it seemed incredible to him. For he well knew, that the greatest part of the Roman Army was then absent, being engarisoned in the Cities [of the East.] On the next night there∣fore, and on many nights afterwards, he sent other persons. But when he had sent c 1.40 severall men, who still brought him the same news; (for God's Angels always appeared in the same form to the Traytors:) at length he himself went ac∣companied with a great multitude, to be a specta∣tour of the Miracle. Supposing them really to be an * 1.41 Army of Souldiers, which on the day∣time lay concealed, and in the night opposed his attempts; he framed a design, prejudiciall (as he thought) to the Romans, but which (as the event demonstrated) was of great advantage to them. For feigning himself to be possest with a devill, upon a pretence of prayer, he goes to the Church of John the Apostle, which is seaven miles distant from the City. The Barbarians went out with him, and carried out their Arms covertly, hiding them partly in Tuns, and partly making use of other devices. But when the Guard that kept the City-gates, having discovered the trick, would not suffer them to carry out their weapons, the Barbarians drew their swords, and slew those that guarded the Gates. Hereupon arose a horrid tumult in the City, and death seemed to be impendent on all persons. Notwithstanding, at that time the City suffered no harm, all its Gates being strongly fortified. But the Empe∣rour made a seasonable use of prudent advice, and having proclaimed Gaïna a publick Enemy, he commanded those Barbarians who were left in the City to be slain. One day d 1.42 after the men that guar∣ded the Gates had been slain, the Souldiers that were pre∣sent engage the Barbarians within the City-gates, near the Church of the Goths. For all the Barbarians who were left in the City flock't thi∣ther. They burnt the Church, and slew a great many of the Barbarians. Gaïna, informed that those of his party who could not get out of the

City were slain, and perceiving that his Artifices were unsuccessfull to himself, left [S^t John's] Church, and went in great hast into Thra∣cia. Being come to Cherronesus, he endeavou∣red to pass▪ over from thence, and take Lamp∣sacus, that from that place he might make himself Master of the Eastern parts. But upon the Em∣perour's sending forces immediately both by Land and Sea, there appeared another admirable effect of divine Providence. For whilest the Barba∣rians, wanting Vessells patch't up Ships in great hast and disorder, wherein they might make their passage; on a sudden the Roman Navy appeared in sight, and a West-wind blew hard. The Ro∣mans had a safe and easie passage in their Ships. But the Barbarians together with their horses in their Ships were tossed up and down and disper∣sed by a Storm, and at length perished in the Sea. Many of them also were destroyed by the Romans. After this manner a numerous multitude of Bar∣barians at that time lost their lives in their pas∣sage. But Gaïna got away from thence, and flying through Thracia, falls into the hands of another party of the Roman Forces, by whom he is slain together with the Barbarians in his com∣pany. Let thus much be sufficient to have been said e 1.43 cursorily concerning Gaïna. If any one be de∣sirous of having an accurate account concerning the trans∣actions of that War, let him read The Gainëa written by Eusebius f 1.44 Scholasticus, who at that time was an Auditour of Troilus the Sophista: and having been a Spectatour in that War, he related the transactions thereof in four Books written in Heroick Verse. For which Poem he was much admired, whilest the memory of things was fresh. And very lately, Am∣monius the Poet his made a Poem upon the same subject, and recited it before the Em∣perour Theodosius Junior, in his sixteenth Consulate which he bore with Faustus; on ac∣count whereof he has gotten a great repute. Moreover, this War was ended on the Consulate of Stilichon and Aurelianus. And the year following, Fravitus bore a Consulate, a Personage by extract indeed a Goth, but one who had exprest much of kindness and fidelity towards the Ro∣mans▪ and had done them excellent service in this very War. On which account he had the dig∣nity of a Consulate bestowed upon him; in whose year the Emperour Arcadius had a Son born, Theodosius the Good, on the tenth of * 1.45 A∣pril. Let thus much be said concerning these things▪ [Further,] whilest the affaires of the Roman State were thus tempestuous, those intrusted with the Prelacy, abstained not in the least from framing Designes and Plots one against another, to the reproach and disgrace of the Christian Re∣ligion▪ ••or at this very time the Bishops em∣ployed their thoughts about raising tumults and insurrections against one another. Which mis∣chief took its beginning▪ from Egypt, upon this account.

CHAP. VII. Concerning the Dissention which hapned be∣tween Theophilus [Bishop] of Alexandria, and the Monasticks in the Solitude. And how Theophilus Anathematized Origen's Books.

A Little before this, a question had been star∣ted, whether God were a body, and had an humane shape; or whether he were incor∣poreall, and forreign, not only to an humane, but to any other bodily shape and figure what∣ever. By reason of this question, strifes and con∣tentions were raised amongst many persons: some favouring this opinion; others patronizing that. The greatest part of the plainer and simpler sort of Asceticks asserted, that God was corporeall, and had an humane shape. But most [other persons] condemned their opinion, affirming God to be incorporeall, and wholly void of all manner of bodily shape. Whose Sentiment was embraced by Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria; in so much that he invieghed publickly in the Church, in the presence of the people, against those who asserted God had an humane shape; and did himself expressly determine, that he was incorporeall. The Egyptian Asceticks under∣standing this, left their Monasteries and came down to Alexandria. And raised a tumult a∣gainst Theophilus, condemning him of impiety; and were resolved to kill him. Theophilus, ac∣quainted herewith, was sorely perplexed, and em∣ployed his mind about a device, how he might avoid the death he was threatned with. Being come into the presence of these men, he addrest himself to them in a flattering way, and spoke to them on this wise: * 1.46 Whilest I behold you, to my thinking I see God's Countenance. These words mollified the fury of the Monks. Their return to him was: If you speak true, [to wit,] that God's Countenance is like ours, then Anathematize Origen's Works. For some persons have disputed out of those a 1.47 Books, and contradicted our Opi∣nion. But, if you refuse to do that expect from us the Treatment due to impious persons and ene∣mies to God. I will do whatever seems good to you, (replied Theophilus) and therefore be not incensed against me. For I my self do abominate Origen's Books, and judge those persons worthy of reprehension, who admit of them. Theophilus therefore having after this manner given the Monks a repulse, dismissed them. And perhaps the controversie about this matter, which had come to this height, might have been quieted and appeased; had there not another accident forthwith hapned, of this nature. There presi∣ded over the Monasteries in Egypt four pious men, Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius. These persons were own Brothers; and from their [stature of] body were termed The Long▪ They were eminent both for their [Sanctity of] life, and eloquence. And upon that account their fame was very great at Alexandria. Moreover, Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria had an high esteem for these men. For which reason he con∣stituted one of them, to wit, Dioscorus, Bishop of Hermopolis; having by force constrained him [to undertake that Ecclesiastick Charge.] Two more of them he intreated to continue with him, and could scarcely perswade them to it: but in regard he was Bishop, at length he forced

them [to stay;] and b 1.48 having honoured them with the Dignity of Clergy-men, he committed the disposall of [the Revenue of] the Church to them. They, necestitated thereto, and discharged their office of Ste∣wardship very well. Not∣withstanding, they were dis∣pleased, because they could not Philosophize, as they had a mind to do, nor be intent upon [their studies of] an Ascetick Discipline. But when in process of time, they were of opinion that their souls received harm, in regard they per∣ceived the Bishop wholly intent upon Lucre, and making it his chief concern to amass money together, (and upon that account, as 'tis commonly said mo∣ving every stone;) c 1.49 then they refused to live a••y longer with him, saying they were in love with the Solitude, and preferred that before a City-life. The Bishop, as long as he was ignorant of the true rea∣son [why they resolved to be gone,] entreated them to stay. But after he perceived himself con∣demned by them, he was filled with rage, and threat∣ned to do them all man∣ner of mischief. When they, disregarding his me∣naces, were departed into the Solitude; Theophilus be∣ing (as may be conjectu∣red) a person of an hot and hasty temper, raised no small disturbance against these persons: but set all engines on work to create them trouble. He forth∣with entertained an hatred for their Brother Dioscorus also, Bishop of Hermopolis. For he was sorely vexed at him, because the Asceticks were his favourers, and had an high veneration for him. He very well knew, that he could no ways damnifie these persons, unless he could make the Monks their ene∣mies. He therefore makes use of this method. 'Twas certainly known to him, that those men, in their frequent disputes with him, [had strongly as∣serted] that God was incorporeall, and in no wise had an humane shape. For, humane pas∣sions do of necessity accompany an humane shape. And this had been diligently inquired into by the Ancients, especially by Origen. Al∣though this was Theophilus's own Sentiment con∣cern••ng God, yet that he might be revenged of his enemies, he was not ashamed of contradicting what he and they had well and truly asserted. But * 1.50 imposed upon most of the Monks, persons innocent indeed and sincere, but who were un∣skillfull in learning, yea most of them illiterate. For he sends Letters to the Monasteries in the Solitudes, giving them advice that they ought not to be perswaded by Dioscorus, nor his Bre∣thren, who affirm God to be incorporeall. For God (said he,) according to the [testimony of the] Sacred Scripture, hath eyes, ears, hands, and feet, as men have. But those persons about Dioscorus, being followers of Origen, do attempt to introduce an * 1.51 impious opinion; to wit, that God has neither eyes, nor ears, nor feet, nor hands. With this imposture he deceives most of the Monks; and there arises a very hot dissention amongst them. Such as had their minds † 1.52 cul∣tivated with Learning, were in no wise caught with this fraud; but continued their adherence both to Dioscorus and Origen. But the simpler sort, who were the most in number, and had the greatest warmth and zeal, forthwith made an insurrection against the Brethren. A division therefore was made amongst them, and they re∣proach't one another as impious persons. Theo∣philus's party termed the Brethren Origenists and impious persons. On the contrary, the other Faction stiled those instigated by Theophilus ‖ 1.53 An∣thropomorphitae. Whereupon no small contention arose, and an irreconcileable War was kindled between the Monks. As soon as Theophilus un∣derstood, that his design succeeded according to his own mind, he went to Nitria (where the Monasteries are,) accompanied with a great mul∣titude, and d 1.54 Arms the Monks against Dioscorus and his Brethren. They having been in great danger of loosing their lives, at length with great difficulty made their escape. Johannes Bishop of Constantinople was in the interim wholly ig∣norant of what had been done in Egypt: and he grew famous for his Learning and Eloquence, on account whereof he became eminent [in all pla∣ces.] He was also the first person that inlarged the Prayers [usually made] in the Nocturnall Hymns, [which he did] for this reason.

CHAP. VIII. Concerning the Prayers of the Nocturnall Hymns [sung] by the Arians and Homoöusians; and concerning the ingagement which hapned be∣tween them: and that the singing of Hymns in parts, wherein one sang one verse, another another, had its originall from Ignatius a 1.55 The∣ophorus.

THe Arians, as we have said, had their Meetings without the City. Every week therefore, as often as the Festivall days occur∣red▪ (I mean the Sabbath, and Sunday,) where∣on Assemblies were usually held in the Churches; they flock't together within the City, about the publick * 1.56 Piazza's, and sang Hymns adapted to the Arian Heresie, answering one another by turns. And this they did for the most part all night long. Early in the morning they sang the same alterna∣tive Hymns, passed through the midst of the City, out of its Gates, and so went to the places where they met. But in regard they would not desist from making use of such terms as gave a provocation to the Assertours of the Homoöusian opinion: (For they frequently Sang such words as these, Where are they who affirm Three to be one power?) Johannes being afraid, lest any of the more ignorant sort might be drawn away from the Church by such Hymns, in opposition to them appoints some of his own people, that they also might imploy themselves in singing of Nocturnall Hymns, and by that means both ob∣scure the Sedulity of the Arians about these things, and also confirm his own party [the Orthodox] in the profession of their Faith. This design of Johannes's was seemingly good and usefull; but the conclusion of it was di∣sturbance and dangers. For, in regard the Hymns of the Homoöusians, in their singing of them in the night, were performed with more of pomp and Show: (for Johannes invented Silver Cros∣ses, whereon were carried wax-tapers lighted; the Empress Eudoxia being at the charge here∣of:) the Arians, who were very numerous, and possest with an envious emulation, resolved to be revenged, and to make an Attack against them. For, by reason of that power and sway which they had formerly had, they were as yet hot and ready for such conflicts, and likewise they despised their adversaries. Without delay there∣fore, on one of those nights they ingaged. Briso, the Empresse's Eunuch, who at that time was the Singers Instructour, received a wound in his fore∣head by a stone: and moreover, some persons on both sides were slain. The Emperour incen∣sed hereat, prohibited the Arians from singing their▪ Hymns any more in publick. Such, as we have declared, were the transactions then. We are further to relate, whence this usage of singing alternative Hymns in the Church had its original. b 1.57 Ignatius the third Bishop of Antioch in Syria from the Apostle Peter, who also converst with the Apo∣stles themselves, saw a Vision of Angells, praising the Holy Trinity by singing of Alternative Hymns, and he delivered that way of singing, which he had seen in his Vision, to the Antiochian Church. Whence the same Tradition was spread over all o∣ther Churches. This is the account we have recei∣ved concerning Alternative Hymns.

CHAP. IX. Concerning those termed The long Monks, and how Theophilus having conceived an implaca∣ble hatred against Johannes upon their ac∣count, made it his business to get him deposed [from his Bishoprick]

NOt long after this, the Monks together with Dioscorus and his Brethren, went from the Solitudes to Constantinople. They were accompa∣nied by Isidorus, a person for whom Theophilus had heretofore had a great * 1.58 Love; a 1.59 but was then become his most deadly Enemy, upon this account. One Peter was b 1.60 Chief-Presbyter of the Alex∣andrian Church. Theophilus had conceived an hatred a∣gainst him, and took a resolu∣tion of ejecting him out of the Church. He charged him with this accusation, that he had admitted a woman, by Sect a Manichaean, to [a participa∣tion of] the Sacred Mysteries, before he had brought her off from the Manichaean Heresie. But in regard Peter said that the woman had renounced her Heresie, and that she had not been admitted [to the Eu∣charist] contrary to Theophi∣lus's mind, Theophilus was for that reason highly incensed, in regard he was calumnia∣ted. For he affirmed himself to be wholly ignorant of what had been done. Peter therefore summoned Isidorus to attest, that the Bishop was not ignorant of what had been done concerning the woman. It hapned that Isidorus was at that very time at the Imperiall City Rome. For he had been sent by Theophilus to Damasus Bishop of Rome, that he might make a reconciliation between him and Flavianus Bishop of Antioch. For Meletius's adherents made a separation from Flavianus, on account of his Oath, as has been declared * 1.61 be∣fore. Isidorus therefore being returned from Rome, and summoned by Peter to give in his E∣vidence, affirmed that the Manichaean woman was admitted [to the Sacrament] agreeable to the Bishop's consent: and that the Bishop himself administred the [Sacred] Mysteries to her, Hereupon Theophilus was highly enraged, and out of anger ejected them both [out of the Church.] This was the occasion of Isidorus's accompanying Dioscorus and his Brethren to Constantinople; that the designs which had frau∣dulently been formed against them, might be in∣spected and lai•• open before the Emperour him∣self, and Johan•••••• the Bishop. Johannes infor∣med hereof, gave the men an honourable rece∣ption; and excluded them not from communion

of the Prayers; but said he would not allow them a communion of the [Sacred] Mysteries, before cognizance had been taken of their Case. Whilest the affair was in this posture, a false report is brought to the hearing of Theophilus, as if Jo∣hannes had both admitted them to the Sacred Mysteries, and was also ready to give them as∣sistance. Wherefore [Theophilus] made it his whole business, that he might not only be reven∣ged upon Dioscorus and Isidorus, but cast Jo∣hannes also out of his [Episcopall] Chair. He sends Letters therefore to the Bishops of every City, concealing indeed his own design, and to appearance blaming therein Origen's Books only: [notwithstanding,] Athanasius, (who lived long before him,) in confirmation of his own Faith, has frequently made use of the authority and Testimony of Origen's writings, in his Ora∣tions against the Arians.

CHAP. X. That Epiphanius [Bishop] of Cyprus being also led away by Theophilus's frauds, convened a Synod of Bishops in Cyprus, to determine a∣gainst Origen's Writings, and reproved Johan∣nes for reading Origen's Books.

HE became reconciled also to Epiphanius Bi∣shop of Constantia in Cyprus, with whom he had heretofore disagreed. For Theophilus a 1.62 had been angry with Epiphanius, in regard he entertained abject thoughts of God, and sub∣posed him to have an humane shape. Al∣though Theophilus embraced these Sentiments concerning God, and reproved those who supposed the Deity had an humane shape; yet by rea∣son of the hatred he had con∣ceived against some other per∣sons, he openly denyed his own thoughts: and at that time entred into a friendship with Epiphanius (with whom he had before been at diffe∣rence,) as if he had altered his mind, and entertained now the same Sentiment with him concerning God. He was very earnest with Epi∣phanius likewise to convene a Synod of the Bishops in Cyprus, that therein Origen's Writings might be condem∣ned. Epiphanius being by reason of his singular piety a person of a plain disposition and unacquainted with subtlety, was soon induced into Errour by Theophilus's Letters. And having assembled a Synod of the Bishops within the Island [Cy∣prus,] prohibits the reading of Origen's Books. He sent Letters also to Johannes, intreating him to abstain from reading Origen's Works; and [requesting] that he also would convene a Synod, and make the same determination he had done. Theophilus therefore having wound in Epiphanius, a person famous for his piety, to embrace his own opinion, and perceiving that his design throve according to his wish; became more confident, and he also ••••••self b 1.63 Assem∣bled many Bishops: in which convention (a∣greeable to what had been done by Epiphanius) a sentence of condemnation was ponounced a∣gainst the Writings of Origen, who had been dead c 1.64 almost two hundred years: Not that this was Theophilus's principall design, but [he did it chiefly] to be revenged on Dioscorus and his Brethren. Johannes gave little heed to what he was acquainted with either from Epiphanius, or Theophilus himself; his mind being wholly im∣ployed about Preaching in the Churches. And for that indeed he was extraordinarily eminent: but he altogether slighted the plots and designes formed against him. But after it came to be apparently known to most persons, that Theo∣philus made it his business to divest Johannes of his Bishoprick, then all those men who had an hatred for Johannes, joyned in their raising ca∣lumnious complaints against him. And many, as well of the Clergy, as of the Grandees who had a great interest in the Imperiall Pallace, sup∣posing they had a very fair opportunity offered them of being revenged upon Johannes, pro∣cured a Grand Synod to be convened at Con∣stantinople, sending into divers parts [for the Bishops,] partly by Letters, and partly by Mes∣sengers.

CHAP. XI. Concerning the [two] Syrian [Bishops] Seve∣rianus and Antiochus, how, and for what rea∣sons they disagreed with Johannes.

MOreover, the Odium against Johannes was increased by another accident of this na∣ture. There were two Bishops who flourished at one and the same time, by extract they were Syrians, [their names] Severianus and An∣tiochus. Severianus Presided over the Church of Gabali, which is a City of Syria; and Antiochus over that of Ptolemaïs scituate in Phoenice. Both of them were famous for their eloquence. Se∣verianus, though he seemed to be very Learned, yet did not pronounce the Greek tongue exactly and distinctly: but whilest he spoke Greek, his voice had the sound of Syriack. Antiochus came first to Constantinople from Ptolemaïs; and ha∣ving for some time Preached in the Churches [of the Imperiall City] with much Labour and Diligence, and from them procured a great summe of money; at length he returned to his own Church. Afterwards, Severianus being in∣formed that Antiochus had gotten a great deal of money at Constantinople, made it his business to follow his example. Having therefore ex∣ercised himself very much, and made many Ser∣mons, he also comes to Constantinople. Where being curteously received by Johannes, for some

time he soothed and ••••attered him, and was not∣withstanding beloved and honoured by Johan∣nes: in the mean while he grew famous for his Sermons, and on that account came to be taken notice of by * 1.65 many great personages [of that City,] and moreover, by the Emperour him∣self. It hapned that the Bishop of Ephesus died at that time, and Johannes was necessitated to make a journey thither, to ordain a Bishop there. Being come to that City, and finding some en∣deavouring to promote one person to the Bi∣shoprick, others another, (who also strove very earnestly amongst themselves upon their ac∣count, for whom they gave their suffrages;) Johannes perceiving that both parties contended most pertinaciously, and would in no point be obedient to his admonitions; resolved to put an end to their contention * 1.66 without offending either faction. He himself therefore preferred one He∣raclides his Deacon, by Nation a Cypriot▪ to the Bishoprick. And so both parties desisted from their mutuall contentiousness, and were at quiet. On this account Johannes was necessitated to stay at Ephesus a long time. In the interim that he resided there, Severianus gained a greater esteem and affection from his Auditors at Constantinople. Nor was this thing unknown to Johannes. For he was with all imaginable speed acquainted with what-ever hapned. When therefore Serapion (of whom we have made mention † 1.67 before,) suggested this to him, and told him the Church was disturbed by Severianus, Johannes was pro∣voked to an Emulation. And having ‖ 1.68 incident∣ly taken away many Churches from the Nova∣tianists and Quartadecimani, he returned to Con∣stantinople. Where he renewed the care of the Churches which was incumbent on him. But no body was able to endure Serapion's haughtiness and arrogancy. For in regard he was in posses∣sion of a great * 1.69 interest and favour with Jo∣hannes the Bishop, his insolence towards all persons was immeasurable. For which reason the Odium also against the Bishop became more enkindled. Upon a time, when Severianus passed by him, Serapion refused to give him the Honour due to a Bishop: but continued in his seat, demon∣strating thereby that he had but a very slight esteem for Severianus's presence. Severianus could not bear this contempt of Serapion's; but spake with a loud voice to those that were present, If Serapion dies a Christian, Christ hath not been In∣carnate. Serapion having gotten this occasion, did openly render Severianus odious to Johan∣nes: He concealed the first clause of the sentence, [to wit, this] if Serapion dies a Christian; and affirmed that Severianus said these words only, doubtless Christ was not incarnate. He produced a company of his own [faction] who attested that the words were spoken so. Johannes there∣fore forthwith expells Severianus out of the City. This coming to the knowledge of the Empress Eudoxia, she reproves Johannes severely; and gave order that Severianus should forthwith be recalled from Chalcedon in Bithynia. He re∣turned immediately. But Johannes declined his friendship; nor could he be induced thereto by the intreaty of any one. a 1.70 Till at length the Empress Eudoxia, in that Church called The A∣postles, cast her Son Theodosius (who now Reigns successfully, but was then a very young child;) before Johannes's knees, and b 1.71 having adjured him frequently by her Son, with much adoe pre∣vailed with him to admit of a friendship wi••h Se∣verianus. After this manner therefore these two persons were to appearance reconciled: ne∣vertheless, they retained a rancoured mind one towards another. Such was the occasion of Jo∣hannes's grudge against Severianus.

CHAP. XII. That Epiphanius coming to Constantinople, held Assemblies, and performed Ordinations contra∣ry to Johannes's mind; that he might gratifie Theophilus.

NOt long after this, Epiphanius the Bishop comes again out of Cyprus to Constantinople, induced thereto by Theophilus's * 1.72 perswasives: he brought along with him † 1.73 a copy of a Sen∣tence of a Synod, wherein he had not declared Origen to be Excommunicate, but had condem∣ned his Books only. Arriving therefore at Saint John's Church, (which is distant from the City seven miles,) and coming ashoar, he celebrated an Assembly, a 1.74 and ordained a Deacon; after which he entred into the City. That he might gratifie Theophilus, he declined Johannes's invi∣tation, and lodged in a little private house. And having called together those Bishops who were then at Constantinople, he produced a copy of the Sentence of condemnation against Origen's Books, and recited it to them: b 1.75 having nothing to say

against those Books, only he and Theophilus were pleased to reject them. Some [of the Bishops] out of that reverential respect they bore Epipha∣nius, subscribed [this Decree of the Synod:] but very many of them refused to do it. Amongst which number was Theotimus Bishop of Scythia, who made this answer to Epiphanius. I (said he) will neither be injurious (O Epiphanius!) to a person who has long since ended his life piously; nor dare I attempt so impious a fact, as to condemn what our Predecessours have in no wise rejected; especially when I do not c 1.76 know of any ill doctrine in the Books of Origen. After this he produced a Book of Origen's, which he began to read, and shewed the Ecclesiastick expositions [of Scri∣pture which occur'd] therein. And then he sub∣joyned these words. They who are injurious to∣wards these writings, perceive not that they fix a reproach upon those very Books, concerning which these are written. This was the return, which Theotimus (a person eminent for his piety and rectitude of life,) made to Epiphanius.

CHAP. XIII. What this Writer can say in defence of Origen.

BUt in regard such as delight in reproaching, have imposed upon many persons, [and disswaded them] a 1.77 from reading Origen, as being a blasphemous Authour; I judge it not unseasonable to discourse a little concerning them. Vile and despicable men, who of themselves can∣not arrive at an eminency, are desirous of getting a name from discommending those who are better than themselves. The first per∣son affected with this di∣stemper was Methodius, Bi∣shop of a City in Lycia na∣med Olympus. Then, Eustathius, who for some small time Presided over the Church in Antioch. After him, Appollinaris, and lastly Theophilus. This Mess of Revilers have calumniated Origen, but proceeded not in one and the same method. For one has broke out into an accusation against him upon one account, another upon another; where∣by each of them hath sufficiently demonstrated, that he has fully approved of whatever he has not found fault with. For, whereas one has blamed him in particular for one opinion, another for ano∣ther; 'tis manifest that each of them has wholly admitted as true what he hath not cavilled at; his silence approving of that which he has not found fault with. Methodius indeed, when [in his books] he had in many passages severely inveighed against Origen, does notwithstanding afterwards unsay as it were what he had written, and b 1.78 admires the man, in the c 1.79 Dialogue to which he gave the Title of Xenωn. But, I do affirm, that an addition is made to Origen's commendation from his being accu∣sed by these persons. For they who have gotten together whatever they supposed blame-worthy [in Origen,] and notwithstanding have not in the least found fault with him in these their Col∣lections for entertaining ill Sentiments concerning the Holy Trinity; [these men, I say] do most evidently demonstrate and bear witness to his true and Orthodox piety. And by their not blaming him in this particular, they commend him by their own testimony. But Athanasius a cou∣ragious defender of the Homoöusian Faith, in his Orations against the Arians, does with a loud voice cite this Authour as a witness of his own faith, interweaving his words with his▪ own, after this manner; The most Admirable and Laborious Origen (says he) does by his own testimony confirm our Sentiment concerning the Son of God, affir∣ming him to be coëternall to the Father. They therefore who reproach Origen, have forgot themselves [and consider not] that they speak calumniously of Athanasius, Origen's praiser. But, let thus much be said concerning Origen. We will now return to the Sequell of our History.

CHAP. XIV. How Johannes (having invited Epiphanius to come to [his Pallace] and he refusing, and con∣tinuing his holding of separate Assemblies in the Church of the▪ Apostles,) admonished and re∣proved him, because he did many things contra∣ry to the Canons. Wher••at Epiphanius was terrified, and returned into his own Country.

a 1.80 JOhannes was in no wise angry, because Epi∣phanius had made an Ordination in his Church, contrary to the Canon: but invited him to come and lodge with him in the Bishops Pallace. But his answer was, that he would neither abide nor pray with him, unless he would expell Dioscorus and his Brethren out of the City, and with his own hand subscribe the con∣demnation of Origen's Books. Upon Johannes's deferring to do these things, and saying that no∣thing ought rashly to be done * 1.81 before a deter∣mination of a Generall Councill; those that ha∣ted Johannes put Epiphanius upon another design. For they contrive, that at the next Religious meeting which was to be held in that Church named The Apostles, Epiphanius should come forth publickly, † 1.82 condemn Origen's Books in the presence of all the people, Excommunicate Dioscorus with his followers, and reproach Jo∣hannes as being their favourer. These things were declared to Johannes: and on the day fol∣lowing he sends this message to Epiphanius (who was then come into the Church) by Serapion: Epiphanius, You do many things contrary to the Canons: first, you have made an Ordination in the Churches under my jurisdiction: then, without any order from me, you have made use of your own authority and ministred in the said Churches: Further, when b 1.83 heretofore I invited you hither, you refused to come, and now you allow your self that liberty. Take heed therefore, least a tumult being raised amongst the people, even you your self incur danger therefrom. Epiphanius having heard this, was fearfull and went from the Church: and after he had very much blamed Johannes, he began his voyage to Cyprus. Some persons report, that at his going a-board, he spake these words to Johannes, I hope you will not die a Bishop. And, that Johannes made him this return, c 1.84 I hope you will not arrive in your own Country. I cannot positively affirm, whether they who told me these things spake true. Not∣withstanding, the event was agreeable to both their wishes. For Epiphanius arrived not at Cyprus: but d 1.85 after his departure died on Shipboard. And within a small time after∣wards Johannes was deposed from his Bi∣shoprick, as we shall manifest in the procedure of our History.

CHAP. XV. How after Epiphanius's departure, Johannes made an Oration against women, and upon that ac∣count (by the care of the Emperour, and Em∣press,) a Synod was convened against him at Chalcedon, and he is ejected out of his Church.

FOr, after Epiphanius's departure, Johannes re∣ceived information from some persons, that the Empress Eudoxia had animated Epiphanius against him. And being a person of an hot dis∣position, and of a ready expression; without de∣lay he made an Oration in the presence of the people, the contents whereof were the discom∣mendation of all women in generall. The mul∣titude understands that Oration so, as if it had been * 1.86 Aenigmatically spoken against the Em∣press. This Speech is taken in writing by male∣volent persons, and brought to the knowledge of the Emperours. The Empress, informed here∣of, complains to the Emperour of the injury done to herself, and tells him that her injury was his. She takes care therefore, that Theophilus should forthwith convene a Synod against Johannes: which was in like manner urged by Severianus: for he still retained his grudge [against Johan∣nes.] Within a small intervall of time The∣ophilus arrived, accompanied with many Bishops of severall Cities [whom he had summoned to∣gether by his Letters.] a 1.87 For, the Emperour had given him this order by his Rescript. They flock't to∣gether most especially, who were displeased with Johan∣nes, some upon one account, others on another. They came also, whom Johannes had turned out of their Bi∣shopricks. For Johannes had deposed many Bishops in A∣sia, when he went to Ephe∣sus upon account of ordain∣ing Heraclides. All of them therefore by agreement met together at Chalcedon [a City] of Bithynia. One Cyrinus was at that time Bishop of Chalcedon, by country an Egyptian: he prated [against Johannes] before the Bishops, terming him an Impious, arrogant, and b 1.88 inexorable person. With which words the Bi∣shops were mightily pleased. But Maruthas Bishop of Mesopotamia; against his will trod upon Cyrinus's foot. By reason of

which [bruise] he was in very great pain, and could not accompany the rest of the Bishops in their passage to Constantinople. He therefore continued at Chalcedon; but the rest failed over to Constantinople. None of the Ecclesiasticks went out to meet Theophilus, nor shewed him the usuall respect and honour: for he was known to be [Johannes's] open enemy: The Alex∣andrian Mariners, whose Corn-fleet hapned to be there at that time, went forth to meet him, and received him with acclamations of joy. Theo∣philus refused to go into the Church; but took up his lodgings in one of the Emperours houses, named Placidiana. Thence-forward many ac∣cusations were raised against Johannes. Nor was there the least mention now made concerning Origen's Books: but they betook themselves to other absurd criminations. Provision being made before hand after this manner, the Bishops met at a place * 1.89 near the City Chalcedon termed the † 1.90 Oake, whither they cited Johannes imme∣diately, that he might make his defence in re∣ference to the Crimes he stood charged with. Together with him they summoned in Serapion [his Deacon,] Tygris the Eunuch a Presbyter, and Paulus a Reader. For these persons were accused together with Johannes. But, in regard Johannes made use of an c 1.91 Exception, and re∣fused those that summoned him in, as being his enemies, and appealed to a generall Councill; without any delays they cited him in four times. And when he refused to appear, but gave them always the same answer, they condemned and deposed him; laying no other crime to his charge but this only, that upon his being sum∣moned he would not appear. This business being divulged about Evening, put the multitude into the greatest tumult immaginable: wherefore they watched all night long, and would in no wise suffer him to be taken out of the Church: but cryed out, that cognizance ought to be taken of his case in a greater Synod. But the Emperour issued out an Order, that he should be forthwith ejected, and carried into banishment. Johan∣nes understanding this, surrendred himself about d 1.92 Noon on the third day after his deposition, the people not knowing of it. For he was afraid, least a disturbance might have been raised upon his account. So, he was conveyed away [and banished.]

CHAP. XVI. That the people being tumultuous because of Jo∣hannes's banishment, Briso the Empresse's Eu∣nuch, was sent to bring him back again to Constantinople.

BUt the people were intollerably tumultuous. And (as it usually happens in such cases,) those who had conceived an hatred against him, changed it into a compassion, and affirmed him to be calumniated, whom a little before they de∣sired to see deposed. Upon this account there∣fore, they were the most numerous, who ex∣claimed both against the Emperour, and the Synod of Bishops. But in a more especiall man∣ner they fix't the occasion of this calumny up∣on Theophilus. For his frauds could no lon∣ger continue concealed: but [were discovered] both by many other indications, and also because he communicated with Dioscorus and those ter∣med the Long Monks, a 1.93 soon after Johannes's deposition. Moreover, at that time Severianus also (in a Sermon he Preach't in the Church,) supposing he had a fair opportunity of re∣proaching Johannes, spake these words: Al∣though Johannes had been condemned for nothing else, yet his proud and arrogant disposition was crime sufficient [justly to have occasioned] his deposition. For men are forgiven all other sins, but God resisteth the proud, as the Sacred Scri∣ptures inform us. These words provoked the populace to an higher degree of obstinacy and contention. Upon which account the Empe∣rour gave order he should be recalled imme∣diately. Briso therefore the Empresse's Eunuch being sent, found him at b 1.94 Praenetum, which is a Mart-Town scituate over against Nicomedia, and ordered him, to return to Constantinople. But in regard Johannes, after he was recalled from Exile, refused to enter the City before he had been declared innocent by a greater Judicature; in the interim therefore he abode in a c 1.95 Village at some distance from the City, termed Ma∣rianae. Upon his making delays and refusing to enter the City, the multitude was incensed, and forthwith began to cast forth opprobious words against the Emperours. For which reason Jo∣hannes was forced to return. The populace there∣fore went forth to meet him with [expressions of] the greatest veneration and honour, and bring him directly to the Church: entreating him to place himself in the Episcopall Chair, and (according to his former usage) pray for peace upon the people. Upon his refusing to do that, and saying that that ought to be done by a determination of the Judges, and that it was necessary his condemners should acquit him; the multitude grew more inflamed, they being extreamly desirous to see him sitting in the [Episcopall] Chair, and to hear him Preach again. At length the people prevailed to have these things done. And Johannes, after he had seated himself in the Episcopall Throne, accor∣ding to his usage prayed for peace upon the people: and moreover, being constrained there∣to, he Preached a Sermon to them. This thing gave Johannes's adversaries an occasion of [raising] another calumnious accusation a∣gainst him. But concerning that they spake not one word then.

CHAP. XVII. That upon Theophilus's desiring to discuss He∣raclides's case then absent, and Johannes's refusing to permit him; an engagement hap∣ned between the Constantinopolitans and A∣lexandrians, wherein many were slain [on both sides.] At which Theophilus and some other of the Bishops were terrified, and fled from the City.

BUt in the first place Theophilus made an at∣tempt to call in question Heraclides's a 1.96 Ordination; that so, if possible, he might make that an occasion of deposing Johannes [a∣gain.] Heraclides was not present: but was judged in his absence, as if he had un∣justly beaten some persons, bound them with chains, and caused them to be led thorow the midst of the City Ephesus. And when Johannes and his fa∣vourers affirmed, that judgment ought not to be * 1.97 passed upon those that were absent; the Alex∣andrians on the contrary stifly maintained, that Heraclides's accusers ought to be admitted, al∣though they accused him in his absence. A tu∣mult therefore and a sharp conflict was forth∣with raised between the Constantinopolitans and Alexandrians. And a Fight hapned, wherein many persons received wounds, and some few were slain. Upon sight hereof, Theophilus fled forthwith to Alexandria: the same was done by the other Bishops, excepting a few who were of Johannes's side. And all of them made their escape and went to their own [Sees.] These things hapning thus, Theophilus was condemned in the judgment of all men. Moreover, the O∣dium against him was increased, by his being in no wise ashamed of reading Origen's Books constantly after this. Being asked therefore by one, why he would again embrace those Books which he had condemned; his answer was this: Origen's Books are like a Medow adorned with all manner of flowers. If therefore I find any thing that is good amongst them, I gather it. But, if any thing appears thorny to me, that (in regard it pricks) I let alone. This was The∣ophilus's answer; but he considered not this saying of wise Solomon: that, † the words of the* 1.98 wise are as goads, and they ought not to kick a∣gainst them, who are pricked by the precepts [con∣tained therein.] For these reasons Theophilus was condemned in all mens judgments. More∣over Dioscorus (one of those termed The Long Monks) Bishop of Hermopolis, b 1.99 died a little after Theophilus's flight, and was honoured with a splendid Funerall, being buried in the Church at The Oak, wherein the Synod upon Johan∣nes's account had been convened. But Johan∣nes imployed himself about Preaching. And ordains Serapion (for whose sake the Odium a∣gainst him had been raised,) Bishop of Hera∣clea in Thracia. Not long after, these things also hapned.

CHAP. XVIII. Concerning Eudoxia's Silver Statue, and how Jo∣hannes was ejected out of his Church again on account of that, and conveyed into banishment.

A a 1.100 Silver Statue of the Empress Eudoxia, clothed in a womans stole, had been e∣rected upon a pillar of Porphyry. It stood upon an high Basis, not very near, nor yet at any great distance from that Church named Sophia: but there was the distance of half the breadth of the street between them both. At that Statue publick sports were usually celebrated. Johannes sup∣posing what was perfor∣med [at those sports] to be done in contempt to the Church, reassumed his usu∣all freedom and boldness of speech, and armed his tongue against those who did these things. And whereas he ought to have perswaded the Emperours by an Ex∣hortatory Oration, to ab∣stain from such sports; he did not doe that: but made use of his sharp tongue, and reproach't those who had ordered these [sports] to be performed. The Empress did again apply these ex∣pressions to her self. And supposing Johannes's words [to be spoken] in con∣tempt to her, she makes it her business to have another Synod of Bishops convened against him. Johannes, made sensible hereof, Preach't that famous Sermon of his in the Church, the beginning where∣of is this: * 1.101 Herodias rages again, she is again disturbed, she dances again, she again desires to receive John's head in a Charger. Hereby the Empress was more highly exasperated. And not long after the Bishops arrived, to wit, Leontius Bishop of An∣cyra in Galatia the Less: Ammonius of Laodicea which is in Pisidia, b 1.102 Briso of Phi∣lippi in Thracia: Acacius of Beroea in Syria, and some others. After these Pre∣lates were come, those who had accused Johannes before, were set up again. Johan∣nes was emboldened with a greater degree of confidence before these Judges: and de∣sired that the Crimes he was accused of, might be inquired into. [In the interim, the Feast of] Our Saviour's Nativity approached, and the Emperour, as he had usu∣ally done before, went not to the Church: but gave Johannes notice, that he would not com∣municate with him, till such time as he should clear himself of the Crimes he stood charged with. Farther, in regard Johannes's accusers shewed a despondency and fearfulness of mind, by reason of his great confidence; the Bishops that were present superseded their researches into any thing else, and affirmed that a scru∣tiny was to be made concerning this only, to wit, that after his deposition he had thrust himself into his Episcopall Chair, without ha∣ving had it adjudged to him by the authority of a Synod. When Johannes made answer, that sixty Bishops who held communion with him, had decreed that; Leontius rejoyned [in

these words,] c 1.103 But they were the more in num∣ber, O Johannes! who condemned you in the Synod. Again, when Johannes urged, that that was not a Canon of the Catholick Church, d 1.104 but of the Arians making; (For the Bi∣shops * 1.105 heretofore convened at An∣tioch in order to the subversion of the Homoöusian Faith, out of their hatred to Athanasius, made that Canon:) [Leontius and his party] rejected his defence, and pronounced sentence against him: not considering, that by making use of that Canon, e 1.106 they depo∣sed Athanasius also. These things were trans∣acted at the approach of the Feast of Easter. The Emperour therefore gives Johannes notice, that f 1.107 he could not come to the Church, because two Synods had condemned him. Wherefore Johannes desisted in future, and went not any more to the Church. On which account those of his party left the Church immediately, and celebrated Easter in the publick Baths termed Constantianae. There were with them many Bi∣shops, Presbyters, and others of the Ecclesiastick Function; who were termed Johannitae, because from that time they held Meetings in severall places apart by themselves. Johannes appeared not at all in publick, for the space of two months, till such time as the Emperour issued out an Or∣der for his being carried away into Exile. By virtue whereof he was drawn out of the Church, and conveyed into banishment. On which very day some of the Johannitae set the Church on fire. Whilest that was burning, an Easterly wind blew, which conveyed the fire to the g 1.108 Senate-house, whereby that was burnt. This hapned on the twentieth of June, in Honorius's sixth Consulate, which he bore with Aristaenetus. Moreover, what mischiefs the Praefect of Constan∣tinople (whose name was h 1.109 Optatus, an Heathen as to his Religion, and therefore an hater of the Christians) did to Johannes's friends upon ac∣count of this fire, and how he destroyed many of them by a capitall punishment, I think fit to omit.

CHAP. XIX. Concerning Arsacius, who was Ordained Johan∣nes's successour, and concerning Cyrinus [Bi∣shop] of Chalcedon.

SOme few days after, Arsacius is Ordained Bi∣shop of Constantinople; he was brother to Ne∣ctarius, who had been Johannes's predecessour in that Bishoprick, and had governed it well: but he was very aged. For he was above eighty years old. During his calm and peaceable pre∣sidency over that Bishoprick, by reason of his sin∣gular mildness, Cyrinus Bishop of Chalcedon, * 1.110 whose foot Maruthas Bishop of Mesopotamia had unawares trod upon, was in so very ill a con∣dition, that his foot putrified, and he was forced to have it cut off. Nor was this abscission perfor∣med once only, but it was many times itera∣ted. For † 1.111 the Gangrene preyed upon his whole

body, in so much that it seized his other foot, which he was forced to have cut off also. I have mentioned this thing for this reason, in regard many persons did affirm, that Cyrinus suffered all this on account of the opprobrious words he had spoken against Johannes; for he frequently termed him an inexorable person, as I have said * 1.112 before. And because [about the same time] there fell an hail, [the stones whereof were] of a vast bigness, at Constantinople and in the Sub∣urbs round that City; (which hapned in the † 1.113 fore-mentioned Consulate▪ about the thirtieth of September:) this was said to have been an act of divine vengeance for Johannes's unjust deposition. These reports had more of credit given to them and were improved by the Em∣presse's death, which hapned soon after. For she ended her life on the fourth day after the hail fell. Others affirmed, that Johannes was de∣servedly deposed, because, when he was in Asia and Lydia, he had seized upon many Chur∣ches belonging to the Novatianists, Quartadeci∣mani, and some other [Hereticks, to wit,] at such time as he made a journey to Ephesus on account of Heraclides's Ordination. But, whether Johan∣nes's deposition were just, agreeable to their say∣ing who were incensed against him; or whether Cyrinus underwent a due punishment for his re∣proachfull language; and whether the hail fell, and the Empress died, upon Johannes's account; or whether these things hapned for other rea∣sons; or for both; God knows, who is the discerner of things secret, and the just Judge of Truth it self. I have recorded what the com∣mon reports of men were at that time.

CHAP. XX. How, after Arsacius, Atticus obtained the Con∣stantinopolitan See.

BUt Arsacius did not long survive his taking the Bishoprick. For, on the following Consulate, which was Stilichon's second and Anthemius's first, about the eleventh of No∣vember he died. Many persons being excee∣dingly desirous of obtaining the Bishoprick, and for that reason much time having been spent, on the following Consulate, which was Arca∣dius's sixth and Probus's first, a Religious per∣son was promoted to the Bishoprick, his name Atticus. By originall extract he was of Sebastia in Armenia, but had followed an Ascetick course of life from his younger years; and, besides his being furnished with a competency of Learning, he was endowed with a greater degree of natural prudence. But I shall speak concerning this per∣son hereafter.

CHAP. XXI. Concerning Johannes's departure to the Lord in exile.

JOhannes being carried into banishment, died at Comani upon the Euxine Sea, on the four∣teenth of a 1.114 September, in the following Con∣sulate, which was Honorius his seventh and The∣odosius's second. He was a person (as I have said * 1.115 before) by reason of his zeal for tem∣perance, more addicted to anger than bashfull∣ness, and because of his sanctity of life; he al∣ways made use of too great a liberty of speech. But it is▪ to me a wonder, how he, who was so zealous a follower of Temperance, should teach in his Sermons, that Temperance was to be con∣temned. For, whereas the Synod of Bishops al∣lowed repentance but once to those who lapsed after Baptism, he was so bold as to say, [b 1.116 al∣though] you have repented a thousand times, ap∣proach. For which doctrine many of his ac∣quaintance rebuked him; but more especially Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatianists: who wrote a book against this saying [of Chrysostome's,] and reproved him sharply for it. But, these things hapned long before this time.

CHAP. XXII. Concerning Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatianists, what expressions he is said to have used in his discourses with Johannes.

BUt, I judge it not inopportune, to speak some∣thing briefly concerning Sisinnius. He was (as I have often said) an eloquent person, and an excellent Philosopher. But in a more espe∣ciall manner he had taken pains about Logick, and was incomparably well versed in interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. In so much that Eunomius the Heretick would [out of fear] frequent∣ly avoid his judicious and powerfull acuteness in discourse. His diet was not slender. But though he was eminently temperate, yet his Fare was sumptuous and magnificent. His way of living was splendid and delicate, [he was clad] in a white garment, and bathed himself twice a day in the publick Baths. Being on a time asked by one, why he that was a Bishop, would bathe twice a day; his answer was, be∣cause I cannot bathe, thrice. At another time, when out of respect he went to give Arsacius the Bishop a visit, he was asked by one of those about Arsacius, why he would wear a garment misbecoming a Bishop? And where it was writ∣ten that a Priest should be cloathed in a white garment? His answer was, tell me first where is it written, that a Bishop should wear a black garment? And when he that asked him, was in doubt [how to return answer] to this contrary question, Sisinnius added: You, said he, can never shew that a Priest ought to wear black. But Solomon is my Authour, whose words are, * 1.117 Let thy gar∣ments be white. And our Saviour in the † 1.118 Gospels, appeared clothed in a white garment. Moreover, he shewed Moses and Elias, wearing white gar∣ments, to the Apostles. Having with readiness said these and many other such words as these, he was greatly admired by those that were pre∣sent. When Leontius Bishop of Ancyra in Ga∣latia

the Less, had taken the Church [there] from the Novatianists, and was [at that time] come to Constantinople, Sisinnius went to him, and entreated him to restore the Church. But Leontius in an heat made answer, and said to him, You Novatianists ought not to have Churches, [in regard] you take away Repentance, and ex∣clude the loving kindness of God. After Leontius had spoken these and more such ill words against the Novatianists, Sisinnius made answer, But no person repents in such a manner as I do. When Leontius added again, How do you Repent? Sisin∣nius, subjoyned, because I have seen you a 1.119. One time, Johannes reproved Sisinnius, and said to him, a City can∣not have two Bishops; Sisin∣nius's answer was, Nor has it. Johannes being angry hereat, and saying, you seem desirous of being the only Bishop; Sisinnius replyed, I do not say that, but that I am not a Bishop in your account only, when as notwithstanding other persons look upon me to be such. Johannes incensed at that answer, I (said he) will make you leave Preaching; for you are an Heretick. To which Sisinnius made this plea∣sant return: But I will give you a reward, if you will free me from so great pains. Johannes being mollified with this answer, replied, I will not make you leave off Preaching, if that Office be trou∣blesome to you. So facetious was Sisinnius, and so ready at answering. It would be tedious to write and record all his sayings. Wherefore, I have accounted it sufficient, by these few to shew what manner of person he was. I will only add this, that he was very eminent for his Learning; on which account, all the Bishops that were his suc∣cessours, loved and honoured him. Moreover, all the eminent personages of the Senatorian or∣der had a great affection for, and admired him. He wrote many Books: but * 1.120 he is too studious about words in them, and intermixes Poetick terms. He was more admired for his speaking, than his writing. For, in his face and voice, in his garb and aspect, and in the whole motion of his body, there was a gracefullness. By reason of which [accomplishments,] He was beloved both by all Sects, and chiefly by Atticus the Bishop. But, I think thus much sufficient [to have been said] concerning Sisinnius.

CHAP. XXIII. Concerning the death of the Emperour Arcadius.

NOt long after the death of Johannes, the Emperour Arcadius died; a man of a mild and quiet temper, and who at the close of his life got the repute of a person beloved by God, for this reason. There is at Constantinople a very spacious house, which is termed * 1.121 Carya. For, in the Court of this house there is a Nutt-tree, on which ('tis reported) the Martyr Acacius was hanged, and compleated his Martyrdom. On this account a small Church was built near that tree. The Emperour Arcadius desirous to see this Church, went into it [one day:] and when he had said his prayers, came out again. All those persons who dwelt near that Church, ran together to see the Emperour. Some went out of the house, and made it their business to take their standings before hand in the streets, from whence they supposed they might have a plainer view of the Emperour's countenance▪ and of the Guards that were about him. Others followed, untill all persons, together with the women and children, were got out of the Church. After which, all that great house, the buildings whereof enclosed the Church on every side, fell down immediately. Hereupon followed an out∣cry, together with an admiration, because the Emperours prayer had delivered so great a mul∣titude of persons from destruction. This hapned thus. [Moreover, Arcadius] leaving his Son Theodosius, then but eight years old, ended his life in the Consulate of Bassus and Philippus, on the first of May: this was the second year of the two hundredth ninety seventh Olympiad. He reigned with his Father Theodosius thirteen years: after his Fathers death [he reigned] fourteen; he lived one and thirty years. This book contains the † 1.122 History of twelve years and six months.

* 1.123 In other Copies this following passage occurs, not as if it were omitted, but worded in a different manner. We judged it therefore meet to annex it. On which account we have added it at this place.

BUt, in regard the Bishop of Ephesus hapned to die in the interim, Johannes was necessi∣tated to go to Ephesus, to ordain a Bishop. Be∣ing arrived in that City, and some endeavouring to promote one person, others another; he pre∣ferred one Heraclides, his own Deacon, by Coun∣try a Cypriot, to the Bishoprick. Whereupon a disturbance being raised in Ephesus, because He∣raclides was [reputed] unworthy of the Epis∣copate; Johannes was forced to stay at Ephesus for some time. During his residence there, Se∣verianus grew more beloved and esteemed by his Auditors at Constantinople. Nor was this un∣known to Johannes. For he was speedily ac∣quainted with what hapned by Serapion, whom he had a singular affection for, and to whom he committed the whole care of his Episcopate, in regard of his piety, his fidelity in all concerns, his prudence in the management of all matters, and his studiousness about defending the Bishops Rights. After some time, Johannes returns to Constantinople, and personally undertook again a becoming care of the Churches. But between Serapion the Deacon, and Severianus the Bishop, there arose a great * 1.124 dissention; Serapion oppo∣sing Severianus, because he strove to out-do Jo∣hannes in his Preaching; and Severianus en∣vying Serapion, because Johannes the Bishop fa∣voured him highly, and entrusted him with the whole care of his Episcopate. Being thus af∣fected one towards the other, the vehemency of their hatred hapned to be much increased by this reason. To Severianus on a time pas∣sing by, Serapion † 1.125 shewed not that honour which is due to a Bishop: but continued in his feat; whether it was because he saw him not, (as Serapion afterwards affirmed upon oath before the Synod;) or whether it was because he slighted the presence of a Bishop, (as Severianus averred,) [which of these was truest] I cannot say: God only knows. But Severianus could not then bear Serapion's con∣tempt;

but immediately, even before cognizance had been taken of the cause in a publick Synod, with an a 1.126 oath condemns Serapion, and not only [divests him] of the dignity of a Deacon; but ex∣communicates him also from the Church. Johan∣nes hearing this, took it very ill. But afterwards, when the business came under scru∣tiny before a Synod, and Serapion excused the fact, and averred that he saw him not, and also produced witnesses [in confirmation thereof;] the whole Synod of Bishops then convened pardoned him, and entrea∣ted Severianus to admit of Serapion's excuse. But Jo∣hannes the Bishop, that he might fully satisfie Severianus, removes Serapion and suspends him from the * 1.127 Office of a Deacon for a weeks space: although he used him as his right hand in all businesses, in regard he was a most acute and diligent person about Ecclesiastick Disputes and Answers. Notwithstanding, Se∣verianus could not thus be prevailed with: but made it his whole business to get Serapion not only wholly degraded from his Diaconate, but excommunicated also. Johannes was sorely vex∣ed hereat, went out of the Synod, and left the Bishops then present to determine the cause, having spoken these words to them: Do you inquire into the cause, and make such a defini∣tive determination as you shall think fit. For I refuse to determine the difference between them. After Johannes had spoken these words, and was risen up, the whole Synod arose likewise, and left the cause in the same state it was in, bla∣ming Severianus rather, because he † 1.128 acquiesced not in what had been said by Johannes the Bi∣shop. But Johannes admitted not Severianus to a familiarity any more in future: but ad∣vised him to return into his own Country, sig∣nifying thus much to him: Severianus, (said he,) 'tis not expedient, that the Diocess you are intrusted with should for so long a time continue unlookt-after▪ and destitute of the presence of its Bishop. Wherefore, hasten your return to your Churches, and neglect not the Gift [which God hath bestowed] upon you. When Severianus had begun his journey, the Empress Eudoxia, informed hereof, reproves Johannes, and causes Severianus to be forthwith recalled from Chal∣cedon in Bithynia. He came back immediately. But Johannes declined a friendship with him, and could by no persons entreaty be prevailed upon: till such time as the Empress Eudoxia, in that Church called the Apostles, cast her Son Theodosius Junior, then a very young child, before Johannes's knees, and having con∣jured him frequently by her Son, with much a-do perswaded him to admit of a friend∣ship with Severianus. After this manner there∣fore, ‖ 1.129 &c.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Or, as seems in∣deed to be plainer and more perspi∣cuous, but is notwith∣standing lower and more mean.
• a 1.2

  This whole clause [ei∣ther because (according to the pro∣verb,) truth is bitter] is in my judgment to be ex∣punged, in regard it disturbs the sense. Or, if it has a place here, it must be put at the close of the period, after these words [extoll not their actions.] If this dis∣pleases any one; 'twill be sufficient, to expunge the parcticle [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, either,] and put this clause to the head of that fol∣lowing. Vales.
• b 1.3

  To wit, in the Comoedies of Menander, and others. You may see the same in Plautus's and Terentius's Latine Comoedies; wherein the Servants do usually call their Masters barely by their names. Vales.
• a 1.4

  Zozimus (book 5.) relates, that Alari∣cus and the Goths, not the Hunni, were solli∣cited by Rufinus, to invade the Roman Provinces. The same is assert••d by Marcellinus in his Chronicon. But Sozomen (book 8. chap. 1.) agrees with Socrates. Not, is there any disagreement between the forecited Authors. For Ru∣finus called in both those Nations against the Romans; the Goths first, under their Chief, Alaricus: after the Goths were routed by Stilichon he excited the Hunni to assist the Goths, as Claudian tells us, in his first book against Rufinus; and in his second book, he sets forth the same more clearly, neer the beginning thereof. But Sigonius, in his tenth book de Occidentali Imperio, where he makes it his business to relate this whole story, speaks not one word concerning this irruption of the Hunni; which negligence of his is inexcusable. Vales.
• * 1.5

  See book 5. chap. 21.
• * 1.6

  Or, a trouble, or, earnestness.
• † 1.7

  This per∣son was termed Chrysostom, that is, Golden∣mouth.
• ‖ 1.8

  Or, fit∣ness to be a teacher.
• * 1.9

  Or, de∣tract from.
• * 1.10

  Or, the Victory.
• a 1.11

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] it must be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Empe∣rour, &c.] A small fault, but which (be∣ing not perceived by Tran∣slatours) led them into a great mistake. For thus they have rendred it: On the following Consulate wherein Honotius the Emperour at Rome, and Eutychianus at Con∣stantinople Governed the publick. But, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies Consulatum dare, that is, to publish or shew the Ludi Circenses, on account of succeeding well in their Office of Consul. Vales. See Socrat. book 5. chap. 29. note (e.)
• b 1.12

  Christophor son has rendered it ill, thus, Praefect of the Emperours; whenas he should have translated it Praefectus Praetorio. For in the Greek it must be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] The same mistake in the same word I have taken notice of before. Eutychianus therefore was Consul and Praefectus Praetorio on the same year; which was the common usage of those times, as 'tis apparent from the Theodosian Code. Vales.
• a 1.13

  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.
• * 1.14

  Or, Courts of Judicature.
• b 1.15

  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 1.16

  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 1.17

  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 1.18

  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 1.19

  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 1.20

  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.
• * 1.21

  See Eu∣seb. Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 30. note (q.)
• † 1.22

  That is; Meletius's party.
• h 1.23

  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.
• * 1.24

  Or, Re∣ctitude of Life.
• ‖ 1.25

  Or, sim∣plicity, or singleness.
• * 1.26

  Bishop∣rick.
• * 1.27

  Hatred.
• † 1.28

  Or, dis∣please all men.
• ‖ 1.29

  Or, he chose to eat with no body.
• * 1.30

  Or, the first of the Eunuchs.
• a 1.31

  From this place 'tis apparent, that the Bishops heretofore did not usually Preach to the people out of the Pulpit. For this Socrates takes no∣tice of as a thing sin∣gular in Chryso∣stome, to wit, that being a∣bout to make an Oration, he went up into the Pulpit, that he might be the easier heard by the people. Most com∣monly the Bishops Preached standing on the steps of the Al∣tar. We are informed hereof from King Chil∣derbert's Constitu∣tion, which Sirmondus has recor∣ded, in his first Tome of the Coun∣cills of France, pag. 300; but it is there imperfect. We will make good one defect in it, from the most ancient Corbeiensian Manuscript, after this manner: Qualiter in sacrilegos dei injuria vindicetur, no∣strum est pertractandum. Et quia fides nostra ut verbo de altario sa∣cerdote faciente quaecunque de Evangelio, Prophetis vel Apostolo fuerit adnuntiatum▪ in quantum Deus dat intellectum: ad nos querimonia pro∣cessi••, &c. The sense of these words, which are very corrupt, is this. Because the Priests have complained, whilest they make Sermons to the people, that the Bansatrices [what the import of that word is, I cannot find] walk through the fields and recall the people from the Church; Therefore we command, &c. See Baronius at the year of Christ 407, number 17. Vales.
• * 1.32

  Or, the Catalogue of Consuls.
• b 1.33

  Hence 'tis, that in the Fasti of Prosperus, Idatius, and Cassiodorus, this year has only Manlius Theodorus Consul, Eutropius's name being expunged. Concerning Eustropius's death, consult Zofimus. Vales.
• a 1.34

  In my judgment this place is thus to be mended: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and took care, that such as were his Relations, &c. This our e∣mendation is confirmed by Sozo∣men, book 8. chap. 4. in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and he made his Relations centuri∣ons and tribunes. Had Translatours consulted this passage in Sozomen, they would have rendred Socra∣tes's words here more happily. Vales.
• * 1.35

  Or, made an innovation.
• * 1.36

  That is, Gaïna,
• b 1.37

  This passage is thus to be worded; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, persons whom he look't upon as hinderers of his de∣signes; So Nicephorus expresses it. Moreover, of these two per∣sons Aurelianus bore the Con∣sulate on this very year with Sti∣lichon: Saturninus had been con∣sul long before with Merobaudes, in the times of Theodosius Senior. Concerning whose praises The∣mistius speaks at large in his Gra∣tiarum Actio to Theodosius on ac∣count of the Peace made with the Goths, and on account of the Con∣sulate given to the said Saturni∣nus. Vales.
• * 1.38

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, making a feigned, or, disdainfull refusal.
• * 1.39

  Constan∣tinople.
• c 1.40

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in a various manner] we read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seve∣rall men;] and so Musculus seems to have read. Vales.
• * 1.41

  Or, a multitude.
• d 1.42

  I doubt not but Socrates wrote [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after the men that guarded the Gates were slain;] not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after the pulling down of the Gates] For on the foregoing day, those that guarded the Gates had been slain by Gaina's Souldiers, as Socrates has related a little before. Vales.
• e 1.43

  The true reading seems to be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cursorily concerning Gaïna. Vales.
• f 1.44

  Advocates were heretofore stiled Scholastici, as we are infor∣med from Justinian's 74^th and 76^th Novell. The words of Ma∣carius in his 15^th Homily, are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. He that desires to have a knowledge in Forensian Cases, goes and learns the Abbreviatures. And when he has been the first there, he goes to the School of the Romans, where he is the last of all. Again, when he comes to be the first there, he departs to the School of the Pragmatici [or, Pra∣cticants,] where he is again the last of all, and Arcarius [or No∣vice.] Then, when he is made a Scholasticus, he is Novice and the last of all the Lawyers. Again, when he becomes the first there, then he is made a President [or Governour of a Province.] And when he is made a Governour, he takes to himself an Assistant or As∣sessour. See more in Franciscus Pithoeus's Glossary ad Novellas Ju∣liani Antecessoris, and in Meur∣sius's Glossary in the term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vales.
• * 1.45

  In the year of Christ 401▪ See book 6. chap. 11. note (c.)
• * 1.46

  Or, I look upon you in the same manner that I do behold the face of God.
• a 1.47

  The pas∣sage in Origen (wherein he disputes against those who affirmed God was endewed with an humane shape▪) is extant in Theodoret, in his Que∣stions upon Genesis cap. 20▪ [quoted] from Ori∣gen's Com∣ments upon Genesis. Vales.
• b 1.48

  Johannes Launoius (in his book concerning the true interpretation of the sixth Canon of the Nicene-Councill) pro∣duces this passage in Socrates, to prove, that the Bishop of Alex∣andria ordained all the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, through∣out all Egypt. For he remarks, that Theophilus did two things here. First, he made Dioscorus Bishop of Hermopolis; then he ordained his two Brothers Cler∣gy-men, and joyned them to the same Dioscorus. 'Twas indeed Launoius's opinion, that Ammo∣nius and his brother were by The∣ophilus made Clergy-men of the Hermopolitane Church. Which was also the Sentiment (as I see) of the Author of the Sacred Geo∣graphy. But in my judgment, both these persons are mistaken. For Theophilus made them not Clergy-men of the Hermopolitane-Church; but kept them with himself, and ordained them Clerks of his own (that is, of the Alex∣andrian) Church. This is at∣tested by Socrates, in these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Two more of them be entreated to continue with him. Besides the following words in Socrates do more clearly evince this: for Socrates adds, that being made Stewards of the Church by Theophilus, in the first place they were displeased, be∣cause being ravished from the So∣litude, they had no further lei∣sure to mind the Monastick Philo∣sophy. But at length, when they discerned Theophilus's incredible Avarice and desire of riches, and percelved themselves vitiated by conversing with him, they re∣quested a dismission from him. From which words the proof is sufficient, that they converst with Theophilus; and being as it were his companions and domesticks, had an insight into his Vices and Rapines: For they were the oeco∣nomi, that is, the Stewards of the Revenue of the Church. More∣over, these Learned men were im∣posed upon by Epiphanius Schola∣sticus's Version; who has rendred this passage in Socrates thus: Quamobrem Dioscorum violenter tractum, &c. Wherefore he took Dioscorus by force, and made him Bishop of Hermopolis. Two more of them be intreated to dwell with him, and (although a Bishop) scarce∣ly prevailed: having ordained them, he made them Stewards of the Church. Vales.
• c 1.49

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they refused] I read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then they refused, Vales.
• * 1.50

  Or, wound in.
• * 1.51

  Or, blas∣phemous.
• † 1.52

  Or, ex∣ercised in.
• ‖ 1.53

  That is, persons that affirmed God had an humane shape.
• d 1.54

  Socrates conceals the true reason, why those Monks ter∣med The Long-Bre∣thren were driven out of the Mo∣nasteries of Nitria by Theophilus. For, they were forced from thence, because they were defenders of Origen, whom, together with his errours, Theophilus had condemned in the Alexandrian Synod. Socrates seems to have been imposed upon by some person that was an Origenist, who favouring Ammonius and his Brethren, had given Socrates a Narrative of that business, otherwise than it really was. Baronius, not content to fix the Novatian Heresie upon our Socrates does openly call him an Origenist. But we only say this, that Socrates had this his relation from some one of Ammonius's friends. I do not in the lest doubt, but Theophilus, out of a grudge and hatred towards Ammonius and his brethren, made the Errours of Origen and the crime of Heresie his pretext only; as he did afterwards frame the same calumny against John Chrystostome. Vales.
• a 1.55

  So the holy Mar∣tyr Igna∣tius is usually stiled. This term is differently accented in the Greek, which makes its import different also. For if it be written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it denotes a Divine person, one whose soul is full of God. If it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, its import is passive, and implies one born or carried by God. We are told by many Learned men, that Ignatius had this title from our Saviours taking him up in his arms. For, he was that very child (they say) whom our Saviour (Mar. 9. 36.) took up, and set in the midst of his disciples. Others, on the contrary, affirm this story to be groundless and uncertain. See D^r Cave's Life of Ignatius.
• * 1.56

  Covered, or Arched walk••.
• b 1.57

  I cannot imagine whence So∣crates had this story. For 'tis manifest, that Flavi∣anus and Diodorus were the first per∣sons, who in Constan∣tius's Reign divided the Quires of Singers at Antioch into two parts, and gave them David's Psalms, to be sung alternatively, or by turns: which usage being first practised at Antioch, afterwards spread over all the Churches of the world. Theodoret attests this in his Hist. lib. 2. cap. 24; as does also Theodorus Mo••suestenus (a person ancienter than he) who lived in the same times with Flavianus and Diodorus. Theodorus's words are quoted by Nicetas in Thesauro Orth••d••xae fidei, lib. 5. cap. 30. Although that way of singing of Psalms seems to have been used by the Syrians, before Flavianus and Diodorus's times. For Theodorus writes, that Flavianus and Diodorus were the first persons, who translated that kind of Psalmodie which they term Antiphonae [That is, when one singeth one verse, another another] out of the Syrian Language into the Grecian; and that those two persons appeared al∣most the only Authours of this thing, to all the parts of the world. What therefore the Syrians had done long before Flavianus's time, (to wit, in singing of David's Psalms alternatively in Syriack,) that F••••∣vianu•• and Diodorus ordered to be done, by the Grecians of Antioch in their singing the Psalms in Greek. Vales.
• * 1.58

  See the second chapter of this book.
• a 1.59

  Besides this reason of Theo∣philus's hatred against Isidorus, Sozomen (book 8. chap. 12.) re∣lates two other causes. The first was, because Isidorus had refused to give evidence in favour of Theophilus's Sister. The second, because ••e had reproved Theo∣philus for his over much diligence in building Churches, where∣by he wasted the money of the Church, which ought rather to have been bestowed on the poor. I am easily induced to believe, that these were the reasons of Theophilus's hatred against Isido∣rus; in regard both Socrates and Sozomen do expressly attest it. Notwithstanding, Isidorus was not for these reasons ejected out of the Church; but was condem∣ned by the sentence of the Bi∣shops, on account of Origen's Errours, which he maintained▪ as Baronius has long since in∣formed us from Palladius in Lau∣siaca. Vales.
• b 1.60

  So Arsacius, who succeeded Chrysostome in his Bishoprick, is termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chief-Presbyter, in the Acts of the Synod ad Quercum; and one Martyrius is stiled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chief-Deacon. Sozomen calls this Peter Arch-Presbyter. This is a name of honour, not of ancientness. For the Bishops Elected whom they pleased out of the Colledge of Presbyters to be Arch-Presby∣ters, as Liberatus informs us in his Breviarium, chap. 14. Vales.
• * 1.61

  See book 5. chap. 15.
• a 1.62

  'Tis false that Epi∣phanius was ever so sim∣ple, as to be addicted to the Heresie of the Anthropomorphitae: he had indeed once received a check upon that account from John [Bishop] of Jerusalem. But Jerome has re∣futed this Calumny, and also E∣piphanius himself, in that Sermon he Preach't at Jerusalem in the presence of John himself; as Je∣rome (in his book to Pammachius concerning the Errours of John of Jerusalem) and Baronius (at the year of Christ 393) do relate. Wherefore, there was no need of Theophilus's feigning himself an Anthropomorphite, to curry favour with Epiphanius. Both Socrates and Sozomen were imposed upon by some Origenist, a favourer of Ammonius and Dioscorus, who told them these things. For 'twas usuall with the Origenists, (as Baronius has truly remar∣ked,) to fix the crime of this Heresie upon the Catholicks, by whom they were condemned. Vales.
• b 1.63

  Socrates (and So∣zomen who has fol∣lowed him herein) is mistaken here, in supposing that the A∣lexandrian Synod (wherein Theophilus condemned Origen's books, to∣gether with Origen himself,) was held after that Synod con∣vened at Constantia by Epipha∣nius. 'Tis manifest, that Theo∣philus did first of all convene a Synod at Alexan∣dria, and condemn that Heresie in the year of Christ 399. Which was done after many conferences concerning that matter held by the Bishops who came thither, as Postumianu•• informs us in Sulpicius's Dialogues de Vitae B. Martini. After this Theophilus sent a Synodick Letter to all the Bishops, and he wrote a particular Letter to Epiphanius, beseeching and intreating him that he would convene all the Bishops of the Island, condemn the same Heresie himself, and subscribe his Synodick Letter. This Letter of Theophilus's is at this day extant, translated by S^t Jerome. Vales.
• c 1.64

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be ex∣punged. Moreover, Socrates here uses a perfect number for an im∣perfect. And for this reason he adds the Term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That is, almost, or, thereabout. But if we would speak exactly, above fifty years must be taken from this number. For Origen died on the year of Christ 252, as may be made out from what we have said at note (b.) and (c.) on Euseb. Eccles. Histor. book 7. chap. 1. From which year, to the year of Christ 399, wherein Origen was condem∣ned in the Alexandrian Synod, there are 147 years. Vales.
• * 1.65

  Or, ma∣ny of the Magistracy.
• * 1.66

  Or, With∣out labour, or, trouble.
• † 1.67

  Book 6. chap. 4.
• ‖ 1.68

  Or, By the by.
• * 1.69

  Or, Li∣berty and confidence.
• a 1.70

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in so much that the Empress,] in my judgment it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, till at length the Empress.] Nor do I doubt but Socrates wrote thus. Nicephorus words it expressly according to our emendation. And in Sozomen the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, untill,] which is the same. Vales.
• b 1.71

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, ha∣ving adju∣red him by her Son. The Ancients were wont to swear by their Children. So in Virgil,

  Per caput hoc juro, per spem surgentis Iüli: I swear by this head, by the hopes of growing Iülus.

  After the same manner, when they would earnestly entreat others, they beseeched them by their own children, and whatever they ac∣counted most dear to themselves. In this manner therefore Eudoxi•• spake to John Chrysostome at that time. By this little child of mine, and your spirituall So••, whom I brought forth, and whom you received out of the sacred Font; be reconciled with Severianus. 'Tis certain Chry∣sostome had received Theodosius Junior out of the sacred Font▪ as Ni∣cephorus relates at this place, from Simeon Metaphrastes, as I suppose. Further, Baronius places this reconciliation between Severianus and Chrysostome, on the year of Christ 401, in the Consulate of Vincentius and Fravitus. But I had rather place it on the year following▪ For if it be true that Theodosius was then baptized, as we have before re∣lated from Nicephorus: (which is indeed highly probable; for Eudoxia would not have brought her Son into the Church of the Apostles, had he not been baptized:) this reconciliation of the Bishops must neces∣sarily happen on the year of Christ 402. For Theodosius Junior was born in the Consulate of Vincentius and Fravi••us, (which was the year of Christ 401,) on the tenth of April. For so 'tis recorded in the Alexandrian Chronicle, and in Marcellinus's which was put forth by Onu••rius. The reading in Sirmondus's Edition is false, where it is on the eleventh of April. Nor is it credible, that he could be bapti••ed, except in the Easter of the year following. If any one notwithstan∣ding shall maintain, that he was baptized a few days after his birth, (as Marcus seems to intimate in the life of Porphyrius;) we will al∣low this, if he pleases. But who can believe, that Theodosius would have been brought into the Church by his Mother, and placed at Chrysostome's knees, before he was a year, or ten months old? Vales.
• * 1.72

  Or, Ar∣guments.
• † 1.73

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.74

  Baronius does at this place charge So∣crates with a mistake, because he has said, that Epi∣phanius or∣dained a Deacon at Constantinople without the consent of the Bishop of that City. Epiphanius had done that before indeed, in the Diocess of John Bishop of Jerusalem, as 'tis manifest from Jerome's Epistles. S••crates therefore, and those that follow him, being deceived by the likeness of the name, thought that was done by Epiphanius in the Church of John Bishop of Constantinople. This device Ba∣ronius has invented to excuse Epiphanius. But, who sees not, that there is no reason, why we should charge Socrates with a lie in those things which he himself was able to see? For what had been once done already by Epiphanius in Palaestine, why could it not afterwards be made use of by the same person at Constantinople? For there was not so great a crime in ordaining a Deacon, whom notwithstanding Epi∣phanius ordained not, but by the entreaty of the multitude that stood by. Vales.
• b 1.75

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have nothing;] it must doubtless be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having nothing:] in the next line▪ we read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, were pleased] instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is pleased.] Vales.
• c 1.76

  I agree with Chri∣stophorson, who in stead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saying,] read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, know,] and at the end of this clause pla∣ced a full point. Notwithstanding, 'tis my opinion, that there is something▪ more wanting here. And after the word [Origen,] I think the place is to be made perfect thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ha∣ving said these words, and produced a book, &c. Which is confirmed by Sozomen and Nicephorus. And Epiphanius Scholasticus seems to have read thus, as may be collected from his Version. Vales.
• a 1.77

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;] the reading in the Sfortian M. S. is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.] And so Epiphanius Scholasticus found it written in his copy. For thus he renders it: Sed quoniam detractores, &c. But, in regard Revilers, stealing privily upon ma∣ny persons, do reject Origen as be∣ing a blasphemous Authour. I reade therefore, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from reading Origen, as being a blasphemous Authour. Vales.
• b 1.78

  Baronius, at the year of Christ 402, does charge Socrates here with a lie and with calumny, because he has said, that Methodius (when he had before reproach't Origen,) did afterwards unsay what he had written, and set forth his praises, in his Dialogue intitled Xenωn, or, the House of entertain∣ment. But Baronius affirms, that Methodius did the contrary. For when he had at the beginning praised Origen, afterwards having de∣rected his Errours, he inveighed against him. Baronius confirms this by the testimony of Eusebius, who in the sixth book of his Apologic in de∣••ence of Origen, writes thus▪ Quomodo ausus est Methodius nunc contra Origenem scribere, qui haec & haec de Origenis l••cutus est dogmatibus, How dares Methodius write against Origen now; who has spoken these and these things, concerning Origen's opinions. Which pa••••age in Eusebius S^t Jerome quotes in his Apologie against Rufinus, to shew that he had done the same thing which Methodius did before. But Eusebius, in the place now cited, does not say plainly, that Methodius had here∣tofore spoken in defence of Origen. For he does not say [who had▪ spoken these and these things concerning Origen's opinions;] but only▪ [who has spoken, &c.] which may be taken on either side. There∣fore Socrates is not to be charged with a lie. Vales.
• c 1.79

  Metho∣dius wrote his books commonly in the way of Dia∣logues, as 'tis appa∣rent both from his Convivium, which is lately pub∣lished by two Lear∣ned men; and also from his books con∣cerning the Resurre∣ction, which he had written a∣gainst Ori∣gen, out of which books Epi∣phanius produces some Ex∣cerptions. Of the same sort also was this Dialogue of his, entitled Xenωn, that is, the house of entertainment wherein strangers lodge. For, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a place for Virgins to dwell in: so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is an house for strangers to lodge in. This book is mentioned in Photius's Bibliotheca, in his Ex∣cerptions out of Methodius's book 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where these words occur; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Which place the Translatour has rendred very ill: it is thus to be translated: That passage in the Gospel [cast not that which is Holy to dogs, nor your Pearls before swine] is thus explained by Xenωn, that by Pearls are meant the more secret Mysteries of the Religion given by God▪ But the hogs, &c. the great Methodius says, &c. In this Dialogue therefore, the title where∣of was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Origenist was introduced, by name Xenωn, against whom Methodius disputed, not in his own name, but under another person, as Photius attests in the same Excerptions. Hence 'tis apparent, that that Dialogue of Methodius's, which Socrates calls Xenωn, was the same to which Photius gives the title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and that Xenωn is not to be taken for a place of entertainment, but rather for a person of the Dialogue. But some one will object that in that Dialogue intitled Xenωn, Origen was highly commended by Me∣thodius; but in the Dialogue intitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Methodius terms him a Centaure. For so 'tis extant in two places in Photius's Excerptions. My answer is, 'tis possible that in the beginning of that work Methodius might have been sharp upon Origen; but in the end or procedure of it, he might sound a Retreat as it were, and praise him highly. Not∣withstanding, if any one has a mind stifly to maintain, that the Dia∣logue Xenωn differed from that intitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; then it must be said, that Xenωn was not the proper name of any man, but that there∣by is rather meant the whole School of Origen, wherein the Auditors and Schollars, coming from divers parts of the world, were conver∣sant. Which in my judgment is the truest. 'Tis certain, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were a proper name, it would have the accent in the last syllable save one. Vales.
• a 1.80

  This be∣ginning is too abrupt, especially in regard that digression concerning Ori∣gen went before. Therefore in my judgment [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] should precede here; and the begin∣ning of the next period should run thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. But his answer was, &c. Vales.
• * 1.81

  Or, be∣fore a Ca∣tholick, or, general disquisition.
• † 1.82

  Or, re∣proach.
• b 1.83

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and a∣gain] it should in my judge∣ment be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hereto∣fore;] (al∣though this reading be disagree∣able to all our co∣pies.) For 'tis oppo∣sed to what follows, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and now. Valesius.
• c 1.84

  The rea∣ding in the Florentine, M. S. plea∣ses me best; which is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do not hope, Epiphanius, to arrive in your own Country. Moreover, Ba∣ronius does deservedly deride these predictions of Epiphanius and Chrysostome, as fabulous and forged. Socrates relates them not for true and certain; and in my judgment they are altogether mi••be∣coming Holy men and Bishops. Vales.
• d 1.85

  Baronius does indeed place that contest between Epiphanius and Chrysostome on the year of Christ 402. But concerning Epiphanius's death he dissents from Socrates, Sozomen, and the other writers, who tell us that Epiphanius died soon after, in his return to his own Country. And yet Baronius confesses he knows not what year Epi∣phanius died on. Which I cannot wonder at enough. For, whereas Baronius follows Socrates and Sozomen in the fore-going account of that contest which hapned between those two eminent men, what reason had he to dissent from them about the death of Epiphanius? They might indeed have been mistaken in their relating the mutual predictions between Epiphanius and Chrysostome: nor is it sufficiently manifest, whether or no they predicted those accidents to one ano∣ther. But the things which hapned to each of them are most certain, nor could Socrates and Sozomen be ignorant hereof; the latter of whom was born at Salamine, over which City Epiphanius had been Bishop; and both of them were almost Epiphanius's contemporaries. It ought therefore to be look't upon as certain from the Testi∣mony of these Writers, that Epiphanius died at the close of the year 402▪ or at least on the beginning of the year following, before the Synod ad Quercum. Theophilus informs us hereof in his Epistle to Saint Je∣rome, which Epistle Jerome has prefix•• before The••••bilus's Paschal E∣pistles▪ which he translated into Latine. For in th••t Epistle Theophilus speaks these words concerning Chrysostome then condemned: Sed ille ut caetera ejus flagitia taccam, &c. But he, not to mention his other Crimes, admit••ed the Origenists to a familiarity with himself, and pre∣ferred many of them to the Sacerdotall Office; on account of which fact he ••••dned the hea••t of that man of God Epiphanius of Blessed memory, (who shined a bright Star in the world amongst the Bishops▪) and therefore has deserved to hear, Babylon is fallen, i•• fallen. Where you see Theophilus does speak of Epiphanius, as then dead; for he terms him a man of blessed memory: and he intimates, that he was dead be∣fore Chrysostome's condemnation. Vales.
• * 1.86

  Darkly. or, obscure∣ly.
• a 1.87

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Moreover, the Em∣perour, &c.] I had rather it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. For the Emperour, &c.] Moreover, Chrysostome affirms the contrary to what is said here, in his Epistle to Innocentius. For he says that the Emperour commanded The∣ophilus to come to Constantinople alone, to plead his cause: but, that he came thither, accompa∣nied with many Bishops. Not∣withstanding, these things may be reconciled, if we say that the Emperour gave Theophilus this order at the beginning, when the Monks had gone to him. But afterwards, at the instigation of his Wife Eudoxia, who was an∣gry with Johannes, the Empe∣rour commanded Theophilus to bring the Bishops out of Egyp•• with him. Vales.
• b 1.88

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Muscul•••• renders it inflexible. Christophorson, contu∣macious. I would rather translate it inexorable; for we fall down at their knees, whom we entreat. Vales.
• * 1.89

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See Euseb. book 7. chap. 11. note (k.)
• † 1.90

  This was termed Sy∣nodus a•• Quercum, the Synod at the Oake.
• c 1.91

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] it must be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which is a Civill Law term: and we have ren∣dred it ac∣cordingly. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sig∣nifies an Exception. Now, one kind of an Exception is a refu∣sall of the Judges. Vales.
• d 1.92

  John Chryso∣stome, in his Epistle to Innocentius, does attest, that he was put on Shipboard late in the Evening, and carried into banishment. Upon which account Ba∣ronius (at the year of Christ 403.) charges Socrates with a mistake here. But, if we weigh Socrates's words more attentively, we shall find them in no wise differing from Chrysostome's Narrative. For So∣crates says only, that John Chrysostome surrendred himself to the Em∣perours Officers about Noon: therefore the Emperours Officers might detain him in custody till the Evening, that he might be conveyed into banishment with more secresie in the night. Vales.
• a 1.93

  Yea, he communi∣cated with them, be∣fore Jo∣hannes's case was inquired into: So Sozomen tells us, book 8. chap. 17. Vales.
• b 1.94

  This Town's name is written va∣riously. Hierocles, Theopha∣nes, Cedre∣nus, Nice∣phorus, and Moschopu∣lus, call it Pranetum. Sozomen terms it Pronetum. In Stepha∣nus 'tis named Pronectus. In the Pu∣tingerian Table it is called Pro∣netio. Vales.
• c 1.95

  Man∣nours, or Farms in the Coun∣try, which were at some di∣stance from the City, were ter∣med 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as we have remark't in our notes on Eusebius, book 7. chap. 11. note (k.) which the Latines do sometimes call Suburbana. Wherefore Ortelius (in his Thesaurus Geographicus) is mistaken, in his supposing Marianae to be the Suburbs of Constantinople; whenas it was a Village, so called from its builder. Sozomen (book 8. chap. 18.) says this Village was then in the Empress Eudoxia's pos∣session. Vales.
• a 1.96

  Instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] it must undoubtedly be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.] which is the rea∣ding in Georgius Alexandrinus's Life of John Chrysostome. Vales.
• * 1.97

  Or, made against.
• * 1.98

  * The first clause of this saying occurs at Eccles. 12. 11.
• b 1.99

  Dioscorus Bishop of Hermopolis was dead before the convention of the Sy∣nod at the Oak, nor was he bu∣ried in the Church at the Oak, but in S^t Mocius's Church; as Sozomen attests book 8. chap. 17. S^t Mocius's Church was at Constantinople, as we are informed by Pro∣copius and others. Wherefore Socrates is mistaken, who attributes that to Dioscorus, which was rather to have been said concerning his brother Ammonius. For, at such time as the Synod ad Quercum [that is, the Synod at the Oak] was summoned, Ammonius fell into a distemper. And having passed over to The Oak, he died soon after, and was honoured with a splendid funerall, in the Monastery of that place, as Sozomen tells us book 8. chap. 17. Vales.
• a 1.100

  Marcel∣linus (in his Chroni∣con) re∣ports this Statue to have been made in the Consulate of Theodo∣sius Junior and Rumoridus, which was the year of Christ 403: his words are these: Eudoxiae Arcadii uxo∣ris super porphyreticam Columnam argentea Statua suxta Ecclesiam posita hactenus fistit, a Silver Statue of Eudoxia, wise to Arca∣dius, placed upon a Porphyry-pillar near the Church still stands. The∣ophanes relates the same, who says, that that Statue was erected in that place called Pittacia, neer the Church of S^t Irene; and that at the dedication thereof the Prae∣fect of the City (who was a Manichaean and a Semipagan) ex∣cited the people to shout and daunce in such a manner, that the divine Service could not quietly be performed in the Church, because of the noyse made by the multitude of Daun∣cers. Notwithstanding▪ Baro∣nius places the dedication of this Statue on the year of Christ 404, But in regard Marcellinus Comes, in his Chronicon does in express words place it on the Consulate of Theodosius Junior and Rumori∣dus, I judge it more safe to fol∣low his opinion; provided it be said to have been made after the Synod ad Quercum, and after Chry∣sostome's first condemnation, that is about the close of the year 403. And this is confirmed by Socrates. For he adds a little after, that when the Nativity of our Lord drew neer, Arcadius gave Johan∣nes notice, that he could not come to the Church. Now, John was deposed a little before Ea∣ster, in the year of Christ 404. Vales.
• * 1.101

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. This Homily occurs at Tom. 7. pag. 545. of S^r Hen. Savils E∣dition of Chrysostome.
• b 1.102

  This Briso seems to be a dif∣ferent person from Briso the Bi∣shop, who (as Cedrenus tells us) was one of John Chrysostome's Scholars. And Socrates seems to have put Philippi instead of Philippopolis. For Philippopolis is an eminent City of Thracia. But Philippi is a City of Macedo∣nia. Vales.
• c 1.103

  Baronius (at the year of Christ 404,) charges Socrates with a lie here. For, in the Sy∣nod at the Oak thirty six Bishops only had condem∣ned Johan∣nes: of which twenty nine were Egyptians, the rest were of divers Provinces, as Theodorus (in Palladius, in his Dialogue concer∣ning the Life of Chrysostome,) relates from the Acts of the Synod at the Oak. But when he was afterwards recalled to Constantinople, he had been admitted to communion by sixty five Bishops. Either there∣fore Socrates must necessarily be mistaken, who has said that Chry∣sostome was condemned by more Bishops than those by whom he had been admitted to communion and restored; or else it must be said that Palladius is out. Unless any one will reconcile these things by saying thus, viz. That Leontius the Bishop has here reckoned the suffrages of the Bishops together, who had con∣demned John Chrysostome in both Synods, as well that held at the Oak, as the other assembled at Constantinople. For although, at such time as Leontius spake these words, the Bishops present in the Constantinopolitane Synod had not pronounced sentence a∣gainst Chrysostome, yet Leontius, who knew they were incensed a∣gainst Chrysostome, made not the least doubt of their suffrages. Vales.
• d 1.104

  Palladius tells us, that this very answer was given by John Chry∣sostome's defenders, against the Canon of the Antiochian Synod; to wit, that that Canon was made by the Arian Bishops. But Chry∣sostome's adversaries rejected this defence, asserting that Canon to have been made by the Catholick Bishops. And when Elpidius, a Bishop of Chrysostome's party, urged them to subscribe that draught of the Creed then promulged by those Bishops; they answered in presence of the Emperour, that they were ready to subscribe it: but they put off that business to another time. Therefore, what must we determine concerning this question? Athanasius indeed, in his book de Synodis, does wholly reject that Antiochian Synod, toge∣ther with its draught of the Creed, as having been held by the Arians with a design to subvert the Nicene Creed. But to Athanasius (who cannot be a sufficient witness in his own case,) we in the first place oppose Hilarius, then Pope Julius, and lastly, all the Eastern and Western Bishops, who have now at length by a generall consent ad∣mitted of that Synod. Hilarius, 'tis certain, (in his book de Synodis) does fully admit of it, and commends that form of the Creed drawn up there, as being usefull and necessary, on account of the Heresies which sprang up after the Nicene Councill. Moreover, Pope Julius wrote a Synodick Epistle to all the Bishops who had been convened in that Synod; amongst whom were Eusebius, Narcissus, Theodorus, and Maris. Which Synodick Epistle Athanasius does record intire, at pag. 739. &c. Tom. 1. Edit. Paris. 1626. In the title and body of that Letter, Julius terms them Beloved Brethren; which undoubted∣ly he would never have done, had he lookt upon them to have been Arians. Now, what reason had he to look upon them to be Arians, who as yet had not been condemned by the sentence of any Synod; and amongst whom there were very many stiff maintainers of the Ni∣cene Creed, which Baronius himself does not deny? Of which sort was Dianius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, whom Julius names in the first place; concerning whose praises Basil the Great has a peculiar Epistle extant. Lastly, all the Easterns have acknowledged that Synod to be Catholick, and inserted its Sanctions into the book of Canons, soon after John Chrysostome's times, as appears from the Chalcedon-Councill. And at▪ length the Western Church has by degrees admitted of those Canons, rendred into Latine by Dionysius Exiguus. Not∣withstanding, in John Chrysostome's times they might be rejected, in regard they were not received by a generall consent of the whole Church, nor as yet admitted by the Romish Church. Pope Innocentius, in his Epistle to the Constantinopolitan Church, (which Sozomen has recorded, book 8. chap. 26.) does in no wise admit of these Canons. Vales.
• * 1.105

  See So∣crat. book 2. chap. 10.
• e 1.106

  Christophorson supposed that these words were spoken by Socrates concerning the Bishops convened in the Antiochian-Synod. But I think they are to be understood concerning the Bishops then assembled at Constantinople against John Chrysostome. And in this sense Epipha∣nius Scholasticus and Musculus took this place: for Epiphanius has rendred it thus, non intelligentes, quod dum hâc regulâ uterentur, Atha∣nasium quoque deponerent, not understanding, that whilest they made use of this Canon, they deposed Athanasius also: and Musculus has translated it happily after this manner: nec cogitantes, non Johannem se modò, sed & ipsum Athanasium hoc Canone utentes deponere, nor thinking, that by using of this Canon, they deposed not only Johannes, but even Athanasius himself. Vales.
• f 1.107

  Christo∣phorson thought these words were spo∣ken con∣cerning John, who after this was with∣held from entring the Church▪ But I▪ had rather they should be understood of the Em∣perour himself; in which sense Epi∣phanius and Musculus takes them. Our senti∣ment is confirmed by that passage in Socrates which oc∣curs a little before in this cha∣pter: where he relates, that Arcadius at the approach of Christmas, gave John notice, that he could not come into the Church, unless John (who had been condemned by the sentence of a Synod,) should first clear himself. After the same manner therefore, at the approach of Easter, Arcadius gives John notice, that he could not go to the Church, as long as John, condemned now by two Synods, resided therein. Vales.
• g 1.108

  This Edifice was called the Senate-house. The Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, at the sixth Consulate of Honorius which he bore with Aristaenetus, has these words: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And on a sudden the Great Church was burns together with the Senate-house, [fired] by those who held it, termed the Xylocercetae, on the second day, at the sixth hour. See Chronic. Alexandr. pag. 714. Edit. Monach. 1615. Zosimus describes this Structure about the middle of his fifth book. It was in the Second Ward of the City Constantinople, as we are informed from the Old description of that City, published before the Notitia Imperii Romani. Vales.
• h 1.109

  This (if I mistake not) is the Manichaean and Semipagan Prae∣fect of the City, who, at the dedication of Eudoxia's Statue, had mocked the Christians, as we have related before (see note (a.) in this chapter.) from Theophanes. Palladius (in the Life of Chry∣sostome) speaks concerning the same Optatus; that when he was Praefect of the City, he compelled the Noble Matrons either to communicate with Arsacius, who had been put into John Chrysostome's Bishoprick, or else to pay two hundred pounds of Gold into the Ex∣chequer. Vales.
• * 1.110

  See chap. 15.
• † 1.111

  Or, the destemper.
• * 1.112

  Chap. 15.
• † 1.113

  See the close of the foregoing chapter.
• a 1.114

  Instead of [No∣vember,] it must be [September,] as it is in the Sfortian M. S. and in Epiphanius Scholasticus's Version. Nor did Nicephorus read other∣wise, who adds, that the day whereon John Chrysostome died, was dedicated to the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. For so it was agreeable, that he who had passed his whole life under the Cross, and had gloried in nothing but in the Cross of his Lord, should be loosed from the Frame of his body on that Festivall, as the same Nicephorus does elegantly write. Vales.
• * 1.115

  chap. 3.
• b 1.116

  In what Homily this was said by Chryso∣stome, I cannot find. And yet we have little reason to question Socrates's authority, because he lived in the same times, and could have heard the Sermons, as well of Chrysostome, as of Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatians. Moreover▪ it may be more certainly concluded from this passage, than from any other, that Socrates was a Novatianist. For he does both put an ill interpretation upon Chry∣sostome's saying, and also openly favours Sisinrius Bishop of the Nova∣tian party, against John Chrysostome.—You must know further, that this saying was objected to Chrysostome by Bishop Isaacius in the Synod ad Quercum▪ because he gave sinners a liberty, in regard he taught, if you have sinned again, repent again. And, as often as you sin, come to me and I will heal you. Vales.
• * 1.117

  Eccles. 9. 8.
• † 1.118

  Luke 9. 29.
• a 1.119

  In Suidas, at the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this whole passage in So∣crates is transcribed, where the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ••e answered] is wanting. Which word must ei∣ther be expunged here as super∣fluous, [which we have done in our Version;] or else the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, subjoyned] which went before, must be blotted out Vales.
• * 1.120

  Or, he hunts after words, &c.
• * 1.121

  That is, a nutt-tree.
• † 1.122

  Or, the Space.
• * 1.123

  This Ap∣pendix is part of the eleventh chapter of this book, worded in a different manner only. Musculus, Grynaeus, and D^r Hanmer have omitted it in their Versions. Christophorson, Curterius, and Valesius have inserted it in their translations. The Greek Text of it occurs in Stephens's Edition, and in Valesius's; from which latter we have rendred it into English.
• * 1.124

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a narrowness of mind.
• † 1.125

  Or, gave not.
• a 1.126

  He means the oath mentioned before, at the 11^th chapter, to wit, if Serapion dies a Christian, Christ hath not been incarnate. Further▪ these words [condemns] and [excommu∣nicates] denote Severianus's menaces, rather than the thing it self. For Severianus Bishop of Gabali had no power of condemning or deposing a Deacon of another Diocess; but he only threatned to do this, and committed his complaint to the judgment of the Bishops. Vales.
• * 1.127

  Or, the honour.
• † 1.128

  Or, was not obedi∣ent to what, &c.
• ‖ 1.129

  See chap. 11, at the latter end of it.