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. V. Concerning the Sedition which hapned at Alexan∣dria, on account of Proterius's Ordination; like∣wise, [concerning what hapned] at Jerusalem.

AFter these things, Dioscorus * 1.1 was banished to Gangra [a City] in Paphlagonia; and by the common Vote of the Synod, Pro∣terius obtaines the Bishoprick of Alexandria. After he had taken possession of his own See, a great and most insufferable Tumult arose, the populace fluctuating [and being divided] into different opinions. For some demanded Dio∣scorus, as it usually happens in such cases; O∣thers adhered pertinaciously to Proterius. So that, thence arose many and those deplorable calamities. 'Tis certain, Priscus the Rhetorician does relate [in his History,] that at that time he came a 1.2 out of the Province of Thebaïs to Alexandria, and saw the people making an At∣tack against the Magistrates. And, that when the Souldiers would have put a stop to the Tu∣mult, the people threw stones at them, and made them run; that after this the Souldiers took re∣fuge in that which heretofore had been b 1.3 Se∣rapis's Temple, where the people besieged them, and burnt them alive. That, the Emperour having notice hereof, sent two thousand new raised Souldiers thither: who having the oppor∣tunity of a fair wind, made so prosperous a Voy∣age, that they arrived at the great City Alex∣andria on the sixth day [after they had been ship't.] That after this, when the Souldiers most filthily abused the wives and daughters of the Alexandrians, facts far more horrid and nefarious than the former, were perpetrated. And at last, that the people meeting together in the Circus, entreated c 1.4 Florus, who was then Commander of the Milice [throughout Egypt,]

and also Praefect of Alexandria, that he would restore to them the d 1.5 allowance of Bread-corn (which he had taken from them,) and the Baths and the Shows, and whatever else they were deprived of on account of the Sedi∣tion which had been raised amongst them. And that Florus, by e 1.6 his perswasion, went into the Assembly of the people, and promised to per∣form all this, and so the Sedition was ap∣peased and vanished by little and little. Nor, were affairs at the Solitude near Jerusalem, in a sedate posture. For some of the Monks, who had been present at the Synod, and had imbibed Sentiments contrary to those Constitutions there established, came into Palestine: and com∣plaining that the Faith was betrayed, made it their business to inflame and disturb * 1.7 all the Monks. And in regard Ju∣venalis had recovered his own See, and, being by the Seditious compelled to retract and Anathematize his own opinion, had made a journey to the Imperial City; those who embraced Sentiments contrary to the Chalcedon Synod, (as I have said a∣bove,) met together, f 1.8 and in the [Church of the] Holy Resurrection ordained Theodosius Bishop, the same person who had raised great disturban∣ces in the Synod at Chalcedon, and who had given them the first account of that Synod. Con∣cerning which Theodosius, the Monks in Palestine, when they afterwads wrote to g 1.9 Alcison, gave this account: viz. that having h 1.10 by his own Bishop been detected of [the commission of] impious Facts, he had been expelled out of his own Monastery; that going afterwards to Alex∣andria, i 1.11 he had made an attempt upon Dio∣scorus, and that, after he had been lacerated with many stripes as a Seditious person, he was set upon a Camell, in such manner as Malefactours [are u∣sually served,] and carried all over the City. k 1.12 To this person came [the Inhabitants of] many Cities in the Palestines, and procured Bishops to be or∣dained over themselves by him. Amongst which number was one Petrus, by birth an Hiberian, who was entrusted with the government of the Bishop∣rick of that Town called Majuma, which is hard by the City of the Gazites. When Marcianus had re∣ceived information of these things, in the first place he commands Theodosius to be brought to Court to him. Then he sends Juvenalis, to rectifie what had been done; whom he ordered to turn out all those who had been ordained by The∣odosius. After the arrival of Juvenalis therefore, many wicked and horrid Facts were perpetrated; as well the one Faction as the other proceeding to the commission of whatever their fury sug∣gested to them. For the envious Devil, hated by God, had so mischievously contrived and mis∣interpreted the l 1.13 change of one Letter, that not∣withstanding the m 1.14 pronouncing of the one of these [Letters] doth therewithall wholly in∣fer the other, yet 'tis thought by most persons, that there is a vast difference between them, that the meanings of both are diametrically opposite each to the other, and that they do mu∣tually destroy one another. For, he that con∣fesses Christ IN TWO Natures, does plain∣ly affirm him [to subsist] OF TWO Na∣tures; because, whilest he confesses Christ both in the Deity and in the Humanity, he asserts him to consist n 1.15 of the Deity and of the Humanity.

Again, he that affirms [Christ to subsist] of two Natures, the same person by a necessary con∣sequence does confess [him] in two Natures; because, by his affirming Christ [to subsist] of the Deity and of the Humanity, he acknow∣ledges him to consist in the Deity and in the Hu∣manity: the flesh being neither converted into the Deity, nor the Deity * 1.16 changed into the flesh, of which [two Natures there is] an ineffable Union. So that, by this expression OF TWO, may at the same time commodiously be under∣stood this also IN TWO, and by this ex∣pression IN TWO [may also be meant] OF TWO, the one [expression] being † 1.17 not different from the o∣ther. For as much as, ‖ 1.18 ac∣cording to a copious use of speaking, the Whole is known not only [to con∣sist] of, but in its parts. Yet nevertheless, men think these [expressions] to be in such a manner separated and disjoyned the one from the other, ([which Sentiments they are induced to give entertain∣ment too] either from a certain usage * 1.19 about their thinking concerning God, or else from their being prepossessed [with a perswasion of mind] to have it so;) that they contemn [the un∣dergoing of] all sorts of death, rather than they will give their assent to the truth. And from hence arose those [mischiefs] which I have mentioned. In this posture were these matters.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Or, was condemned to dwell at, &c.
• a 1.2

  I have restored this place from the Florentine Manu∣script; to which a∣grees Ni∣cephorus, book 15. chap. 8. Christo∣phorson had mended it very ill, thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the Praefect of Thebaïs came at that time to Alexandria. But, the Province of Thebaïs was not governed by a Praefect; but by a President, as we are informed from the Notitia Imperii Romani. Besides, Priscus Rhetor says not, that the Governour of the Province of Thebaïs, but that he himself came then to Alexandria. Priscus had indeed been long conver∣sant in the Province Thebaïs, with Maximinus the Commander, whose Councellour and Assessour he was, when he waged war against the Nubae and Blemmyae, as himself informs us in his Excerpt, Legationum. In the Tellerian Manuscript, I found this place written thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, came by Alexandria from the Province of Thebaïs. But I should rather write it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. came to Alexandria out of the Province of Thebais. Vales. In Robert Stephens the reading here is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.3

  Nicephorus has added some passages here concerning Serapis's Temple, which are sufficiently profound, and which I remember not to have read any where else. Therefore I conjecture, that Nicephorus wrote these passages out of Priscus Rhetor's History, which then was extant entire. Vales. See Nicephorus's Eccles. Histor. book 15. chap. 8.
• c 1.4

  Of this Florus (who was Praefectus Augustalis and also Dux of Egypt,) Jordanes has made mention in his book De Successione Regnorum, where he writes thus concerning the Emperour Marcianus: Nobades Blemmyesque Aethiopia pr••olapsos, &c. He appeased the No∣bades and the Blemmyes, (who had fallen down from Aethiopia,) by Florus Procurator of the City Alexandria, and drove them from the Territories of the Romans. This Florus had succeeded Theodorus the Augustalis, as we are informed from Liberatus's Breviarium, chap. 14. Under whom Proterius is ordained Bishop, and that Sedition (which Evagrius describes here,) was raised at Alexandria, in the year of Christ 452. On account of which Sedition▪ whenas the publick [al∣lowance of] bread-corn, (which was wont to be delivered out to the Alexandrians,) the Baths also, and Shows, by the Emperour's order had been taken from the Inhabitants of Alexandria; the multitude mer to∣gether in the Cirque, and entreated Florus the Praefectus Augustalis, who was come to Alexandria a little before this, that these things might be restored to them. Therefore, this hapned on the year of Christ 453. Vales.
• d 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To the Ci∣tizens of A∣lexandria, as well as to those of Rome and Constanti∣nople, Loaves of bread were every day delivered out; as we are infor∣med from the four∣teenth book of the The∣odosian Code, Tit. De Fru∣mento A∣lexandrino. But who had been the Begin∣ner of this thing, 'tis uncertain. Diocletian was the first [Em∣perour] who bestowed the Pa••is Castrensis [the Camp-bread] upon the Alexandrians, as the Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle relates at Constantius Caesar's and Maximianus Jovius Caesar's fourth Cousu∣late; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (says he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, on this year the Panis Castrensis was given at Alexandria by Diocletian. Which passage occurs in the very same words in the Chronologicall Excerptions set forth by Scaliger at the end of Eusebius's Chronicon. Procopius (in his Anecdot. pag. 119.) says this Bread-corn was allowed by Diocletian to the poor only of the City Alexandria. Which when the Citizens of that City had in after times divided amongst themselves, they then transmitted it to their posterity. Procopius's words are these: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Diocletian having been made Emperour of the Romans, Decreed, that a vast quantity of Bread-corn should every year be given by the people to the indigent Alexandrians. The people having at that time quarrelled amongst their own selves about this [Bread-corn,] transmitted it to their descendants even to this day. In which words of Procopius's there is a very great fault, which Nicolaus Alemannus (a person otherwise of incomparable Learning) perceived not. For instead of these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the people,] it must undoubtedly be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, out of the publick stock of Corn laid up for the Emperours use.] And, a little after, instead of these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the people having at that time quarrelled amongst themselves about this Bread-corn;] it must be thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the people having at that time privately given this [Bread-corn] amongst their own selves.] Than which emendation there is nothing more certain. Further, long before Diocletian, to wit, in the times of Dionysius Alexandrinus, the Omogerontes of the City Alexandria received Bread-corn out of the publick stock, as Dionysius Alexandrinus informs us in his Epistle to Hierax the Bishop; which Letter Eusebius records, Eccles. Hist. book 7. chap. 21; where see note (e.) There∣fore Diocletianus augmented, rather than began, this distribution of Bread-corn at Alexandria. Vales.
• e 1.6

  Translatours understood not this place, as 'tis apparent from their Versions. For they thought that the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his] was to be referred to Florus; when as it ought to be referred to Priscus Rhetor, out of whose History Evagrius has transcribed all these pas∣sages. For, Priscus Rhetor, in regard he was then conversant at Alexandria, gave Florus this advice, that he should go to the Cirque; in which place the Alexandrian populace were gathered together, and with great out▪ cries required Florus to come thither. Vales.
• * 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the whole society of Monks.
• f 1.8

  Christophorson has rendred this place ill, after this manner: in sancto die festo Resurrectionis, Theodosium designant Episcopum, on the Holy Festival day of the Resurrection, they choose Theodosius Bishop. Musculus renders it righter, thus, ordinarunt in Ecclesiâ Sanctae Resur∣rectionis, Theodosium illum, &c. in the Church of the Holy Resurrection, they ordained that Theodosius, &c. Concerning this Church of the Holy Resurrection I have made several remarks in my Notes on En∣sebius's Life of Constantine. [See Valesius's Letter to a friend, De Anastasi & Martyrio Hierosolymitano, which Letter he has published at pag. 304. of his notes on Eusebius.] But, concerning this Theodosius, who invaded the See of Jerusalem, consult Baronius at the year of Christ 452. Vales.
• g 1.9

  Instead of Aclison, it must without doubt be Alcison▪ a•• the reading is in Nice∣phorus. These Let∣ters of the Monks of Palestine to Alcison, are recor∣ded by E∣vagrius, book 3. chap. 31. At which place we will say more con∣cerning Alcison. Vales.
• h 1.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. S^r Henry Sa∣vil had made this remark at the side of his Copy, fortè 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, perhaps it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, by. So, 'tis certain, Christo. phorson and Musculus read; and so we have rendred it. I am very confident also, that Evagrius wrote it thus. But, Transcribers of books are wont frequent∣ly to mistake in these two praepositions, as 'tis known to those persons who have read over Manuscript copies. Vales.
• i 1.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he had received Dioscorus. S^r Henry Savil had made a remark at the margin of his Copy, that perhaps the reading should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he had laid hands upon,] which reading displeases me not. Nevertheless, I had rather write it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Which reading I have followed in my Ver∣sion. Nor does Nicephorus (book 15. chap. 9.) seem to have read otherwise, who has exprest this passage in Evagrius thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and had been an enemy to Dio∣scorus at Alexandria. But Musculus and Christophorson saw nothing in the rendition of this place. Vales.
• k 1.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I have corrected this place by the Florentine Manuscript, in which Copy 'tis read thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, To this person came [the Inhabitants of] many Cities in the Palestines. It had been so agreed between the Bishops of Antioch and Jerusalem in the Synod of Chalcedon, that the Three Pale∣stines should be under the disposition of the Bishop of Jerusalem. Vales.
• l 1.13

  Evagrius means the Praepositions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [that is, in and of,] which differ one from the other in one Letter. The Catholicks confest Christ in two Natures. The Hereticks asserted, that he consisted of two Natures, but, which had grown together and were become one Nature. For, after the Union of the Word, they affirmed, that the Nature of Christ was one. Vales.
• m 1.14

  I am of the same opinion with the Learned, who instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] have mended it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the pronoun∣cing; which is the same with the reading in Nicephorus. And so Christophorson read; who notwithstanding, in the rendition of this place, has in no wise exprest Evagrius's meaning. In the Telle∣rian Manuscript, I found it written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the pronouncing▪ Vales.
• n 1.15

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [confessing] is to be expunged, in regard 'tis superfluous. It occurs not in Nicephorus, and S^r Henry Savil, in his Copy, had drawn a line under it. Vales.
• * 1.16

  Or, pas∣sing into.
• † 1.17

  Or, not relinquish't by the other.
• ‖ 1.18

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which may also be rendred, according to a peculiar mode of expression: but 'tis an uncouth phrase, not often to be met with, especial∣ly in such a sense as 'tis here used.
• * 1.19

  Or, about their opi∣nion of God.