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. XXXVIII. Concerning the Fifth Holy Oecumenicall Synod, and on what account it was convened.

DUring therefore Vigilius's presidency over the Elder Rome; whilst in the first place Menas, and then Eutychius [was Patriarch] of Constantinople; and whilst Apollinaris [was Bi∣shop] of Alexandria, Domninus of Amioch, and Eustochius of Jerusalem; Justinian con∣venes the Fifth Synod, on this account. The Assertours of Origen's opinions abounding and growing powerfull [in the Monasteries of Pa∣lestine,] and especially a 1.1 in that termed The new Laura; Eustochius made it his whole busi∣ness to eject them. And going to The new Laura, he drove them all out, and pursued them to a great distance, as being the common pest [of mankind.] They, dispersed into severall places, associated many persons to their own party. Theodorus surnamed Ascidas (Bishop of Caesarea the Head-City of the Province Cappadocia; [a Prelate] resident with Justinian, faithfull to him, and of whom the Emperour made great use;) undertook the Patronage of these [Monks.] Upon * 1.2 his making a disturbance therefore at the [Imperial] Pallace, and terming [Eusto∣chius's] Fact the † 1.3 highest impiety and wicked∣ness; Ruphus Abbot of Theodosius's Monastery, and b 1.4 Conon [Abbot] of the [Monastery] of Saba (persons of the chiefest note * 1.5 amongst the Monasticks, both for their own worth, and on account of the Monasteries over which they pre∣sided;) are sent to the Imperial City by Eustochius. They were accompanied with others also, not much inferiour to them in dignity. And these men resolved to debate con∣cerning Origen primarily, and concerning Eva∣grius and Didymus. But Theodorus the Cappa∣docian, desirous of diverting them to another matter, c 1.6 proposes to be debated the Cause of Theodorus [Bishop] of Mopsuestia, and that

of Theodoret and Ibas: the All-good God ha∣ving excellently well disposed the whole matter so, that whatever was profane both on the one and on the other side might be wholly expelled. The first Question therefore having been pro∣posed, whether it were lawfull to Anathematize the dead; Eutychius who was then present, (a person incomparably well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, who during Menas's Life was not very eminent; for he was then but d 1.7 Apocri∣siarius to the Bishop of Amasia;) being not only wiser, but also looking with contempt upon those convened, said in express words, that that question need not be debated: in regard King Josias did not only heretofore slay the living Priests of Daemons, but also dug open the Se∣pulchers of those who had been dead long before. All persons that were present look't upon these [words of Eutychius's] to be most appositely spoken. Which [saying of his] when Justi∣nian was acquainted with, he prefer∣red * 1.8 him to the Chair of the Im∣perial City, on the death of Menas which hapned soon after. Further, Vigiliuse 1.9 gave his consent by his Letters, but refused to be pre∣sent at the Synod. The Synod therefore being convened, when [the Emperour] Justinian asked, what their Sentiment was concerning Theodorus, and in relation to those things which Theodoret had written against Cyrillus and his Twelve † 1.10 Heads; also [what they thought] of that Letter said to be Ibas's, [written by him] to Maris the Persian: after many passages had been re∣cited [out of the Books] of Theodorus and Theodoret, and after it had been made apparent, that Theodorus had long since been condemned, and [his name] expunged out of the Sacred Diptycks; and, that Hereticks ought to be con∣demned even after their death: with all suffrages (as the usuall saying is,) they Anathematize Theodorus, and what had been written by Theo∣doret against Cyrillus's Twelve Heads, and a∣gainst the true Faith; Ibas's Letter also, which he wrote to Maris the Persian; [their con∣demnation of the foresaid persons and writings] being conceived in these express words.

f 1.11 Whereas the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ according to the Parable in the Gospells, &c. And after some other words. Besides all those other Hereticks which are con∣demned and Anathematized by the four foremen∣tioned holy Synods, and by the holy Catholick and A∣postolick Church; We also condemn and Anathe∣matize Theodorus who is styled Bishop of Mopsue∣stia, and his impious writings; also, what hath been impiously written by Theodoret, both against the true Faith, and against the Twelve Heads of Cyrillus of Blessed memory, and against the First Holy Synod at Ephesus; in fine, whatever has been written by the same [Theodoret] in de∣fence of Theodorus and Nestorius. Moreover, we also Anathematize that impious Letter said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Per∣sian. And after some few words, they expoun∣ded Fourteen g 1.12 Heads concerning the right and † 1.13 sincere Faith.

And these things proceeded in this manner. But, h 1.14 when Libells were delivered in by the Monks Eulogius, Conon, Cyriacus, and Pan∣cratius, against the opinions of Origen Ada∣mantius, and against the followers of his im∣piety and errour; Justinian consulted the then convened Synod about these matters, having sub∣joyned [to his own Letter] a Copy of the Li∣bell, as also what he had written to Vigilius concerning these things. From all which it may be gathered, that Origen had made it his business, to fill the * 1.15 Purity of the Apostolick † 1.16 Dogmata with i 1.17 Paganish and Ma∣nichaean Tares. A Relation therefore was transmitted to Justinian from the Synod, after the Exclamations which they [had heaped together] against Origen and those in∣volved in the same erroneous Tenets with him. Part of which [Relation] runs thus.

You who possess a mind partaker k 1.18 of a Cele∣stiall Nobility, Most Christian Emperour! And after some other words. We have avoided there∣fore, we have avoided that [Doctrine.] For we knew not the voice of Strangers. And having securely bound this person, as a Thief, and like a Robber, with the Ropes of an Anathema, we have cast him out of the Sacred Rails. And after some few words. But you will know the power and efficacy of the matters which have been transacted by us, by the reading thereof.

Hereto they also annexed whatever * 1.19 Heads Origen's followers had [from their Masters] learned to assert; which [Heads] manifested both their agreements, as also their disagree∣ments, and likewise their l 1.20 manifold errour. Amongst these there was a Fifth Head [which contained] the Blasphemies broach't by some private persons of that termed The New Laura; the Contents of which Head run thus. m 1.21 Theo∣dorus Ascidas the Cappadocian said: If the A∣postles and the Martyrs doe now work Miracles, and are in so great honour; unless in the Re∣surrection they shall be made equall to Christ, what manner of Resurrection shall they have? The same Fathers related severall other Blasphe∣mies of Didymus, Evagrius, and Theodorus, which with great diligence they had collected out of their Books. Further, some intervall of time after this Synod, n 1.22 Eutychius is ejected, and o 1.23 Jo∣hannes is placed in the Chair of the Constantino∣politane Church in his room. This Johannes was born at p 1.24 Sirimis, which is a Village scituate in the Cynegick Region, in the Antiochian Terri∣tory.

Notes

• a 1.1

  This New Laura is mentioned in the Life of Saint Euthymius. Concer∣ning this matter Theophanes (though in an unfit place, to wit, in the Affairs of Justinas Junior,] writes thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c; But Eustochius removing to Jerusalem, out of that hatred he bore to Apollinaris, Agatho and Macarius, ejected those Monks of the New Laura, as Origenists: And on this account he himself was also [after∣wards] ejected, and Macarius was again restored to his own Chair. Baronius thinks indeed, that Macarius was restored to his own See, a little before Eustochius's ordination; and then, that Eustochius had obtained the See of Jerusalem again, because by his Legates he was present at the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod on the year of Christ 553; as 'tis sufficiently manifest from our Evagrius, and from the Acts of the foresaid Synod. But Baronius was widely mistaken. For Macarius (Eustochius being ejected,) was restored to his own See long after the Fifth Synod, in Justinian's Thirty seventh year, on the Twenty fourth year after Basillus's Consulate; as Victor Thunonensis relates in his Chronicon, who lived in those very times, and could not be ignorant of that. Vales.
• * 1.2

  Theo∣dorus's
• † 1.3

  Or, All impiety.
• b 1.4

  Cyrillus Scythopo∣litanus has composed an illu∣strous E∣logy of this Conon, in the Life of Saint Saba, about the end, in these words. Qui Cassia∣nus cùm de∣cimum men∣sem impl••s∣set in ad∣ministrati∣one, &c. Which Cassianus, when he had compleated his tenth month in his Administration, departed out of this life; after which the Monks commit the Praesecture to Conon. They command, but God, I suppose, moved the minds of the Monks to this. Now, he was a person highly eminent for true Sentiments, all manner of Virtue, and good Actions: who also made use of great care and diligence in his Prefecture. For he both re∣collected those Fathers which had departed from thence, being ejected by the Origenists; and likewise erected and as it were renewed the Laura, which by those frequent Tumults and Wars of Hereticks, was now brought to its knees. Johannes Moschus speaks of the same Conon Governour of Saint Saba's Laura, in chap. 42; where he intimates, that he was an acquaintance of Eustochius's Bishop of Jerusalem. Vales.
• * 1.5

  Or, [a∣mongst those] of the Soli∣tude.
• c 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, superinduces the Cause of Theodorus. Liberatus relates the same in his Breviary, chap. 24. Yet Libcratus says nothing concerning Rufus and Conon the Abbots sent by Eusto∣chius to Constantinople. On the other hand Evagrius makes no men∣tion of that condemnation of Origen, which had been made by the Em∣perour Justinian by the endeavour of Pelagius Apochrysiarius of the Ro∣man See; to which condemnation all the Patriarchs had subscribed, to wit, Zoilus of Alexandria, Ephraemius of Antioch, Petrus of Jeru∣salem; as Liberatus writes in the foregoing chapter: now, that hapned on the year of Christ 538, as Baronius relates. But that Embassie of Conon, Rusus, and the other Palestine Monks, was sent by Eustochius to Constantinople on the year of Christ 551. For on that year Apol∣linaris was put into the place of Zoilus Bishop of Alexandria, as Ba∣ronius affirms. But Eustochius, out of his hatred chiefly to Apollinaris Bishop of Alexandria, ejected the Monks of the Now Laura out of their Monasterie, as being Origenists; agreeable to what we have related above out of Theophanes. Vales.
• d 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is, was Apo∣crisiarius to the Bishop of Amasia. For as well the Patri∣archs, as the Bishops of the grea∣ter Chur∣ches, had their Apo∣crisiarii or Responsa∣les, who managed Ecclesia∣stick affairs in the Em∣perour's Pallace. Which thing had been in use from the times of Constan∣tine the Great, as Hincmarus tells us in Epist. 14. Ad Proce∣res Regni. Monaste∣ries had likewise their Apo∣crisiarii in the Impe∣rial City, who performed the same Office; as I have abserved above. There is mention of these Apocrisiarii in Justinian's Sixth Novell. See more in Pithoeus's Glossary ad Novellas Juliani Antecessoris, and in Rosueydus's O••omasticon ad Vitas Patrum. Vales.
• * 1.8

  Euty∣chius.
• e 1.9

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Johannes Langus understood these words concerning Eutychius's Ordination. For he has rendred them thus: [see Niceph. book 17, chap. 27.] Porro Vigilius etiamsi ei Scripto interveniente, cum Eutychio conveniret; assidere tamen illi no∣luit; Further, although Vigilius agreed with Eutychius, approaching [or, interceding with] him by a Letter; yet he would not sit together with him. But this Rendition is contrary to the meaning of Eva∣grius, and of Nicephorus himself. For Evagrius says only this; that Vigilius gave his consent indeed to those matters which were transacted in the Synod; but would not be present at it. And the same thing is confirmed by the Acts of the Fifth Constantinopolitan Synod, pag. 112. From which Acts we are informed, that Pope Vigilius who was then at Constantinople (although he had been frequently asked, both by the Emperour Justinian, and also by all the Bishops convened in that City, that he would come to the Councill, and had himself promised that by his Letter; yet) would never come to the Synod. Further, that writing, whereby Eva∣grius says Vgilius had consented to the determination of the Synod, is nothing else but Vigilius's Constitution, which Baronius has pub∣lished at the year of Christ 553; or else, the Letter of Pope Vi∣gilius, which Petrus de Marca first set forth in Greek, together with a most Learned dissertation, which it would be worth while to read. Vales.
• † 1.10

  Or, Cha∣pters.
• f 1.11

  This sen∣tence is ex∣tant in the Eighth Col∣lation of the Fifth Synod, pag. 112. Vales.
• g 1.12

  These fourteen Capitula, or Expositions of the true Faith, are extant pag. 115, and 116, Synod. 5. Constantinop. Vales.
• † 1.13

  Or, Unblameable.
• h 1.14

  In the Acts of the Fifth Con∣stantinopo∣litane Sy∣nod which have come to our hands in the Latine tongue, there is no∣thing of those things ex∣tant which Evagrius subjoyns here, to wit, con∣cerning the condemna∣tion of O∣rigen, Evagrius and Didymus. Therefore Baronius with good cause thought that those Acts were maimed and imperfect. Nicephorus affirms these things to have been done against Origen and his fol∣lowers in the Second Convention: but Theophanes and the Authour of the Alexandrian Chronicle relate, that the Fifth Synod was princi∣pally and most especially convened against the errours of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus; but in the second plate against the Tria Ca∣pitula. Vales.
• * 1.15

  Or, Sim∣plicity.
• † 1.16

  Or, Opi∣nions.
• i 1.17

  These words are taken out of the Emperour Justinian's Letter to the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod; part of which Letter is re∣corded by Cedrenus in his Chronicon. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is, In regard therefore it has been told us, that there are certain Monks at Jerusalem who were followers of Pythagoras, Plato, and Origen; We were of opinion, that care ought [to be taken] and enquiry made about these persons, least by their Paganish [or, Graecian,] and Manichaean errour they should perfectly ruine many persons. The same occurs in the Emperour Justinian's Let∣ter to Menas, concerning the Errours of Grigen. Vales.
• k 1.18

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I cannot ap∣prove of Christo∣phorson's transla∣tion, who turns these words thus: Qui animum no∣bilitatis an∣tiquae participem tenes, who possess a mind partaker of Ancient Nobility. Johannes Langus and Musculus have rendred it better. Langus, in this manner; Qui animum obtines caelestis participem generositatis, who have a mind partaker of a celestial generosity. And Musculus, thus; Animum supernae nobilitatis sortite Christianissime Imperator. You who have gotten a mind of Supernall Nobility, Most Christian Empe∣rour! Vales.
• * 1.19

  Or, Chapters.
• l 1.20

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Nicephorus 'tis written truer, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; nor am I of opinion that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Greek word. To my best remembrance I have noted the same fault some where before this. But the place comes not at present into my mind. Vales.
• m 1.21

  As far as may be gathered from these words of Evagrius, this Theo∣dorus the Cappadocian was one of the Monks of the New Laura, which was near the City Jerusalem. This therefore is the Theodorus, follower of Nonnus the Origenist, who being afterward made Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, openly undertook the patronage of the Origenists, as Cyrillus Scythopolitanus relates in the Life of Saint Saba. Further, whereas this Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia acted the chief parts, as I may say, in the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod, as may be seen from its Acts, how is he now accused in the same Synod as an Origenist? We may therefore not without Cause conjecture, that these things which Evagrius, Theophanes, and Cedrenus say were done in the Fifth Synod against Origen, were long after that Synod added to it, on account of the likeness of their Subject: but, were not done in that Synod. So also, the Acts of the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod under Menas, against Anthimus and Zoaras, were wont to be joyned to this Fifth Oecumenicall Synod, as Photius attests in his Bib∣liotheca. The same thing may also be proved by what Evagrius sub∣joyns. For he says, that many impious expressions gathered out of the Books of Evagrius, Didymus, and Theodorus Mopsuestenus, were related to that Synod. Now, if these things had been done in the Fifth Constan∣tinopolitane Synod, as Evagrius says, it would have been altogether super∣fluous and unusefull, to repeat those expressions of Theodorus, which had so often been rekoned up and condemned in the abovesaid Synod. My Sentiment therefore is, that these things were acted against Origen in another Constantinopolitane Synod on the year of Christ 538; then, when certain Monks of Jerusalem, who were favoured by Pelagius a Deacon of the Roman Church, and by Menas Bishop of Constantinople, presented a Libell to Justinian, containing certain Heads collected out of Origen's Books; and requesting of the Emperour, that those Heads might be condemned; as Liberatus tells us chap. 23. of his Breviary. See Baronius at the year of Christ 538. Moreover, our conjecture is fully confirmed by what Evagrius writes a little before this; viz. that into those things done against Origen was inserted the Emperour Justinian's Letter to Pope Vigilius concerning the errours of Origen. These matters therefore were not transacted in the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod on the year of Christ 553. For on that year Vigilius was at Constantinople; nor was there any need that Justinian should treat with him by Letters. Wherefore these things were done against Origen long before, to wit, then when Justinian, having re∣ceived the Libell of those Palestine Monks, wrote a Letter to Menas Bishop of Constantinople concerning the errours of Origen; giving him order, that when he had assembled the Bishops that were present in the Imperial City, and the Abbots of Monasteries, he should con∣demn those errours. This Letter of Justinian's is extant in Greek and Latine, published at the end of the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod. In a place altogether forreign and unfit. For it belongs not to the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod which was celebrated on the year of Christ 553, but to another Constantinopolitane Synod, which by the Emperour Justinian's order had been convened on the year of Christ 538. There∣fore Baronius has rightly placed that Letter of Justinian at that year I have mentioned. Now at the close of his Letter Justinian affirms in express words, that he had also written a Letter to Vigilius Bishop of Rome upon the same Subject. For thus he says. Haec porro eadem Scripsimus non modo ad Sanctitatem tuam, &c; Moreover, we have writ∣ten the very same things not only to your Sanctity, but to the most Holy and most Blessed Vigilius also Pope and Patriarch of the Seniour Rome, and to all the other most Holy Bishops and Patriarchs, of Alexandria, Theopolis, and Jerusalem, that they might both take care of this matter, and also that these things may come to an end. Lastly, those Anathe∣matisms which Nicephorus says were thrown against Origen's opinions in the Fifth Constantinopolitane Synod, occur in the self same words in Justinian's Letter to Menas, which was written long before the Fifth Synod, on the year of Christ 538; as Baronius informs us from Liberatus. The same also may be proved from the Letter which Gregory the Great wrote to the Four Patriarchs in the beginning of his Episcopate. For, although he does expresly profess in that Letter, that with Veneration he gives Reception to the Fifth Constantinopoli∣tane Synod, in which Letter some writings of Ibas, Theodorus, and Theo∣doret are condemned; yet he says not one word concerning Origen's condemnation. Which certainly he would not have omitted, if Origen had been condemned in that Synod. Vales.
• n 1.22

  These things are written carelessly enough by Evagrius, who has disguised the Cause of Eutychius's deposition, least he should in any wise offend the Me∣mory of the Emperour Justinian. If any one be desirous of reading a compleat Narrative of this matter, 'tis extant in Surius in the Life of the Blessed Patriarch Eutychius, elegantly written by his disciple Eu∣stathius, and in Nicephorus Book 17, Chap. 29. Baronius says that was done on the year of Christ 564, which was the Emperour Justinian's last year. Vales.
• o 1.23

  This is Johannes Scholasticus who has a Collection of Canons Ex∣tant. Victor Thunonensis in his Chronicon, gives us this account of his ordination: Anno 39. Imperii sui Justinianus Eutychium Constan∣tinopolitanum Episcopum, &c. In the 39^th year of his Empire Justinian sends into Exile Eutychius Bishop of Constantinople, a Condemner of the three Heads, and of Evagrius the Hermite a Deacon, and of Didy∣mus the Monk an Alexandrian Confessour, whose praises we have produced above from the authority of illustrious men; and in his room makes Jo∣hannes Bishop a like [assertour] of the same Errour. Vales.
• p 1.24

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the excellent Florentine Manuscript I found it written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both here and in the following Chapter. Theo∣phanes makes mention of this Mannour or Village, in his Chronicon pag. 151; where he writes concerning Alamundarus's irruption into Syria; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (says he,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that is, And he burnt the outward parts of Chalcis, and [ruined] the Mannour [or, Possession] Sirmium, and the Cynegick Region. In the Greek, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chal∣cedon, I have mended it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Chalcis. Vales.