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

CHAP. XXXII. Concerning the Presbyter Anastasius, by whom Nestorius was perverted to Impiety.

ANastasius the Presbyter, who had come from Antioch with Nestorius, was his in∣timate acquaintance▪ Nestorius had an high e∣steem for him, and made use of his advice in the management of business. This Anastasius being Preaching one time in the Church, ut∣tered these words, Let no man stile Mary * 1.1 Theotocos. For Mary was a woman. But 'tis impossible for God to be born of a woman. The hearing hereof disturbed ma∣ny persons, as well of the Clergy as Laity. For they had been heretofore taught, to confess Christ to be God, and in no wise to separate him as man from the Divinity on account of his Incarnation; whereto they were induced by the Apostle's words, who saith; Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh; yet now henceforth know we him no more. b 1.2 And [a∣gain,] wherefore leaving the discourse concerning Christ, let us press forwards to perfection. A disturbance there∣fore having been raised in the Church (as I have said,) [about this matter;] Ne∣storius endeavoured to con∣firm Anastasius's expression; (for he was un∣willing, that the man for whom he had so great an esteem, should be reproved as having spoken blasphemy;) and made frequent discourses con∣cerning it in the Church, in which he proposed contentious questions concerning this thing, and every where rejected this term Theotocos. This question therefore being entertained in one manner by some, and in another by others; on this account a dissention arose in the Church. And being Engaged in an Encounter by night as it were, sometimes they asserted these things, at others those, affirming and in like man∣ner denying one and the same thing. But Ne∣storius was supposed by most men, to entertain such Sentiments, as to assert the Lord [Christ] to be a meer man, and to introduce the opi∣nion of Paul of Samosata and Photinus into the Church. Now, so great a controversie and di∣sturbance was raised about this matter, that 'twas thought necessary a Generall Councill [should be convened.] But I my self, after my reading the Books b 1.3 published by Nestorius, found him to be an ignorant person. And I will declare the truth un∣feignedly. For, his vices which I have spoken of already, I have not mentioned out of any hatred to him, nor will I, to gratifie any man, les∣sen my account of the good which I found in him. Ne∣storius seems not to me, to be a follower either of Paul of Samosata's opinion, or of Photinus's, nor in the least to assert the Lord [Christ] to be a meer man. But he was put into a fright by this term [Theo∣tocos] only, as if it had been a Bugbear. And this befell him meerly by reason of his great Illi∣terateness. For being naturally endowed with eloquence, he was supposed to be a man of lear∣ning; but in reality was unlearned and ignorant. He likewise scorned to read the Books of Ancient c 1.4 Expositours. For being puft up with pride by reason of his ability to speak well, he minded not reading the Ancients with any thing of accuracy; but thought him∣self better then any man else. To begin therefore from hence, he was wholly ignorant, that in the Catho∣lick Epistle of S^t John (to wit, in the ancient Co∣pies thereof,) it was thus written; d 1.5 every spirit which separates Jesus [from God,] is not of God. For, this sentence has been expunged out of the ancient Copies by those, whose desire it is to separate the Divine nature from the * 1.6 humane Oeconomy. Wherefore, the Ancient Expositours have made this very remark, to wit, that some persons have depraved this Epistle, being desirous † 1.7 to separate the Manhood of Christ from his Deity. For the Humanity is joyned to the Di∣vinity. e 1.8 Nor are they any more two, but one. The Ancients emboldened by this Testimony, scrupled not to stile Mary Theotocos. For Eusebius Pamphilus (in his third Book concerning the Life of Constantine,) has these express words. For * 1.9 Emanuel endured to be born for us. And the place of his Nativity is amongst the Hebrews termed Bethle∣hem. Upon which account the Empress Helena most dear to God, adorned the plaoe, where the † 1.10 God bearing Virgin was de∣livered, with admirable Monuments, and illu∣strated that sacred Cave with all manner of orna∣ments. And Origen (in the first Tome of his [Comments] upon the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans,) expounding in what manner [Mary] may be termed Theotocos, handles that Question largely. 'Tis apparent therefore, that Nestorius was wholly ignorant in the writings of the An∣cients. For which reason, as I have said, he opposes this only term [Theotocos.] For, that

he asserts not Christ to be a meer man, as Pho∣tinus and Paul of Samosata did, we are evident∣ly informed even from his own discourses which he hath published. Wherein he does in no place destroy the Hypostasis of the Word of God; but every where professes him to have a proper, reall and peculiar person and existence: nor does he deprive him of a subsistence, as did Photinus and Paul of Samosata. Which Tenet the Manichaeans and Montanus's followers have been so audacious as to assert. That this was Nestorius's opinion, I my self have found, partly by reading his own works, and partly from the discourses of his Admirers. Further, this fri∣gid and empty discourse of Nestorius has raised no small disturbance in the world.

Notes

• * 1.1

  That is, The Mother of God, or, the Virgin that bore God: a term that made a great distur∣bance in the Christian world, as the Reader will see here∣after.
• b 1.2

  Nicephorus, when he wrote out this passage of Socrates, ad∣ded the word [again,] shewing thereby, that the following words were taken out of S^t Paul's E∣pistle. Indeed, the words im∣mediately preceding occur at 2 Cor. 5. 16; but whence these are quoted, I cannot yet find. Vales.
• b 1.3

  S^r Henry Savill, had remar∣ked at the margin of his Copy, that in his judgment, instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, proposed,] it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, published.] And a little after, where the reading is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for being a naturall eloquent man] that Learned Knight had written in the margin fortè 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, perhaps it should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, naturally;] to which emendation we agree, as by our Version appears. For Nice∣phorus, who has extracted this passage out of Socrates, words it thus, Vales.
• c 1.4

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] it must undoubtedly be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Expositours,] though the same errour be in Nicephorus also. But Socrates himself does a little after this, shew it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For, his words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Ancient Exposi∣tours. Vales.
• d 1.5

  In the first Epist. of S^t John, chap. 4. vers. 2, 3; the words in the Greek Copies now extant are these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God. In the Latine Copies 'tis thus worded: Omnis spiritus qui confitetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse, ex Deo est: & omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum, ex Deo non est, Every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit which separates Jesus, is not of God. In that Greek Copy therefore, which the old Latine Translatour made use of, it was written thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, every spirit which separates Jesus from God is not; as Socrates attests it to have been written in the ancient Copies. Notwithstan∣ding, Socrates seems to have read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which words we have exprest in our Version. For Socrates's following words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. that some persons have depraved [or, corrupted] this Epistle, being desirous to separate the Manhood of Christ from his Deity [or, Man from God.] In the Alexandrian Copy (the various readings whereof the English have given us,) this place in John is thus written; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And every spirit which confesses not Jesus, is not of God. Which comes nearer to the vulgar reading. Vales.
• * 1.6

  Or, Dis∣pensation of man.
• † 1.7

  Or, To separate man from God.
• e 1.8

  Socrates mistakes here; and whilest he reproves Nestorius, falls into the Errour of Eutyches, who thought, that after the Union, there was not two, but only one nature in Christ. Unless we should say, that Socrates speaks concerning the persons, not the Natures. By this means Socrates might be excused, if his words would admit of this sense. 'Tis certain, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (concerning which terms these words are spoken) do altogether signifie Natures, not persons. Vales.
• * 1.9

  That is, God with us.
• † 1.10

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