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. XXI. That Symeones a Monk belonging to the Mona∣stery of the Aoemeti went to Rome, and ac∣cused those Bishops sent from the Romans to Constantinople as having held Communion with Hereticks; and, that these Legates, and those persons who held Communion with Petrus, were deposed by the Romans.

THese [accusations] were much increased by Symeones one of those Monks termed the Acoemeti, who was sent [to Rome] from Cyrillus. For this person accused Misenus and Vi∣talis for having communicated with Hereticks; [he averred] that the name of Petrus was pub∣lickly recited in the Sacred Diptycks, and that by this means many of the simpler sort were im∣posed upon by Hereticks, who affirmed that Pe∣trus was received [to communion] even by the See of Rome. Symeones added likewise, that when severall questions [were proposed,] Misenus and his companions would not allow of a conference with any person that was Orthodox, or make a delivery of Letters to them, or take an exact scrutiny of any thing that was audaciously at∣tempted against the true Faith. Silvanus a Pres∣byter (one that had conversed with Misenus and Vitalis at Constantinople,) was likewise brought in, who confirmed what had been said by the Monks. Moreover, Acacius's a 1.1 Letter to Sim∣plicius was read, [wherein Acacius] affirmed, that Pe∣trus had been long since De∣posed, and that he was a Son of Night. And on these accounts Misenus and Vitalis were removed from the Sacerdotall Function, and separated from the undefiled Communion; the whole Synod having given their Vote in these express words. The Church of the Romans doth not receive [to Commu∣nion] the Heretick Petrus, who hath long since been both condemned by the Vote of the Sacred Chair, and also Excommunicated and Anathematized. Against whom (though nothing else were obje∣cted, yet) even this would be sufficient, that having been ordained by Hereticks, he could not preside over the Orthodox. This also was contained [in the said Sentence:] b 1.2 But, that Acacius [Bishop] of Constantinople deserves a severe reproof, the thing it self has demonstrated; be∣cause in his Letter to Simplicius he has termed Petrus an Heretick, but at this present hath not

detected it to the Emperour: for he ought, if he had loved Zeno, to have done this: but he loves the Emperour with a greater ardency of affection, c 1.3 than he has for the Faith. But let us reduce our Relation to the d 1.4 following Series of affairs. There is extant an Epistle of Acacius's, [writ∣ten] to the Bishops in Egypt, and to the Eccle∣siasticks and Monks; and to the whole body of the Laity; wherein he has attempted to re∣pair and make up the Schism which had hapned. Concerning which affair he wrote also to Petrus Bishop of Alexandria.

Notes

• a 1.1

  This Letter of Acacius's is extant, set forth in Latine a∣mongst the Epistles of Pope Simplicius. The same Letter is mentioned in Pope Felix's E∣pistle, which contains Acacius's Sentence of Deposition. Vales.
• b 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We have added the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But, from the Florentine Manu∣script; which particle casts a great light upon this place. In the same Florentine Manuscript at the side of these words, this Scholion was written: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is, This Authour does not say here expresly, that Acacius was deposed by the [Bishop] of Rome: but Theodorus and Basilius Cilix do manifestly affirm this. Nicephorus (book 16. chap. 17.) attests the same concerning Basilius Cilix. Further, Our Evagrius is undeservedly reproved by that Scholiast, because at this place he speaks nothing of Acacius's deposition. Evagrius does here relate all things that were transacted in the Roman Synod, which was convened in the year of Christ 484 against Vitalis and Misenus Legates of the Apostolick See. In that Synod Vitalis and Misenus were indeed deprived of the honour of the Priesthood. But Acacius was only reprehended and rebuked, as 'tis apparent from the Decree of the Synod, here recorded by Evagrius. After this, Felix sent his Synodick Letters to Acacius; wherein these words occurred; Peccasti, ne adjicias, & de prioribus supplica, You have offended, make no addition, and supplicate for [your] former [fai∣lings.] After receipt of which Letters, when Acacius still stood out, and committed Facts worse than the former; Pope Felix (the Bi∣shops being a second time convened,) promulged a sentence of de∣position against Acacius, and directed it to Acacius, by Tutus Defensor of the Roman Church; which [sentence] begins thus: Multarum transgressionum reperiris obnoxius, You are found guilty of many transgressions. That these things were transacted in this manner, Pope Felix informs us in his Synodick Letter to the Presbyters and Archimandrites at Constantinople and throughout Bythinia. For, after he had written concerning Vitalis and Misenus, and concerning Acacius, who were condemned in the Roman Synod; he adds these words: Post illam sententiam quae in Acacium perturbatorem totius Orientis Ecclesiae dicta est, &c. After that sentence which hath been pronounced against Acacius the disturber of the whole Eastern Church, being now also convened, we have added to these Letters, &c. And a little after: Unde nunc causâ Antiochenae Ecclesiae, &c. Wherefore being at this present convened in the presence of the blessed Apostle Peter on ac∣count of the Antiochian Church, we do again hasten to declare to Your love the Custom which hath always obtained amongst us. From which words it appears, that this Letter was written by Felix, in the name of the third Roman Synod, which had been assembled on account of the Antio∣chian Church; which, after Calendion was ejected, Petrus Fullo had invaded. In this Synod therefore Felix had dictated the sentence against Acacius, (which begins thus; Multarum transgressionum reperiris obnoxius, You are found guilty of many Transgressions;) and had transmitted it to Acacius, by Tutus the Defensor. Nor can any one say, that that sentence was pronounc't before in the Second Roman Synod, at such time as Vitalis and Misenus were condemned; but was sent a little afterwards by Felix, by the Order of the Third Roman Synod. For Evagrius refutes this, who does not say, that the sentence of deposition was pronounc't against Acacius in that Roman Synod wherein Vitalis and Misenus were condemned. Besides, Libera∣tus in his Breviarium (chap. 18.) does manifestly declare, that that Sentence of Deposition against Acacius was pronounced long after the Condemnation of Vitalis and Misenus. For hear what Liberatus says: Redeunt aliquando Legati. Sed praecesserant Monachi, &c. At length the Legates return. But the Monks had gone before, who in a grievous manner accused them of Treachery. Having been forthwith heard and convicted from those Letters which they had brought, they are removed from their own places. And after some few words: Ubi ergo ad plenum detectus est Acacius Haereticus, &c. When therefore the Heretick Acacius was fully detected, Pope Felix put these words in his Synodick Letters: you have offended, make no addition, and supplicate for [your] former [failings.] Acacius having re∣ceived these Letters, persists in the same mind, neither receding from Petrus's Communion, nor yet perswading him openly to embrace the Chalcedon Synod and the Tome of Pope Leo. Pope Felix understanding this, sent a writing of Condemnation to Acacius by Tutus the Defen∣sor; the beginning whereof is this. You are found guilty of many Transgressions. Vales.
• c 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the Florentine and Tellerian M. SS. and in Nicephorus, the reading is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Loves not the Faith. But it would be better written thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus Christophorson seems to have read, and so we have rendred it. At the Clause immediately foregoing, instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For he ought, if he had loved Zeno, to have done this;] I would rather read thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Whereas, if he had loved the Faith rather than Zeno, he ought to have done this. Vales.
• d 1.4

  After the Roman Synod which was convened on the account of Vitalis and Misenus, and wherein Vitalis and Misenus had been con∣demned; but Petrus and Acacius were only reproved and rebuked; it was consequent that Evagrius should have spoken concerning the Sentence of Deposition pronounced against Acacius and sent to Con∣stantinople by Tutus the Defensor. And yet Evagrius has not done this here. Whereof two reasons may be assigned. For, either this was done by Evagrius in reverence to the Constantinopolitan See: or else, because Evagrius had related that before from Zacha∣rias Rhetor; as may be seen in the eighteenth Chapter. What there∣fore he had declared there, he look't upon as superfluous to repeat at this place. Vales.