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. LIX. Concerning the disturbance raised at Antioch on Eustathius's account.

BUt, whilst all persons passed their lives in the greatest joy imaginable on account of these [Blessings,] and the Church of God was all manner of ways exalted amongst all Nations every where; the envy [of the Devil,] who is always contriving Plots against the Good, began again to make an insurrection against this so great a prosperity of our affairs: supposing, that the Emperour, † 1.1 exasperated at our distur∣bances and indecencies, would in future have his affection towards us alienated. Having there∣fore kindled a great fire, he ‖ 1.2 filled the Church of Antioch with Tragical Calamities: in so much that, there wanted but little of the whole Citie's being utterly subver∣ted. a 1.3 For the people of the Church were divided into two Factions; and the Com∣monalty of the City in an hostile manner were so high∣ly enraged against the Magi∣strates themselves, and the b 1.4 Milice: that, they were just upon the point of draw∣ing their Swords, had not the providence of God, and the fear of the Emperour, represt the violence of the multitude. And here the clemency of the Emperour, like a Saviour and Physitian of souls, did again by dis∣course administer a Cure to those distempered. For he dispatcht away thither one of those about him, whom he had had tryal of, a person honoured with the dignity of a Comes, a man eminently trusty and faithfull; [by whom he spake] to those people in a most gracious manner. And by Letter after Letter he ex∣horted them to entertain thoughts of Peace; and taught them to practise such things as were agreeable to the divine Religion. And at length he prevailed with them; and excused them in those Letters he wrote to them, affirming that he himself had publickly heard c 1.5 him who had been the occasioner of that Tumult. And these Letters of his, which were filled with no ordinary Learning and Utility, I had inserted at this place, had they not set a Brand of infamy on the persons † 1.6 guilty. Wherefore I will at present omit them, being resolved not to renew the memory of mischiefs: and will only annex those Letters to this Work, which he wrote to d 1.7 express the joy and satisfaction of his own mind in reference to the Peace and agreement of others. In which Letters he entreats them, that they would not in any wise challenge to themselves the Prelate of another place, by whose intervention they had made up a Peace amongst themselves; but that, agreeable to the Canon of the Church, they should rather choose him Bishop, whom [our Lord] himself the Common Saviour of all, should design [for that office.] He writes therefore both to the people, and also to the Bishops, se∣verally, these following [Letters.]

Notes

• † 1.1

  Or, Wearied out with.
• ‖ 1.2

  Or, En∣compassed.
• a 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. I reade 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from Socrates book 1. chap. 24. But this whole place is thus to be restored from the Fuketian, Savil. and Turnebian Copies: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; For the people, &c, as we have rendred it. Vales.
• b 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Christo∣phorson renders it ill, Milites prae∣sidiarios, the Souldiers in Garri∣son. For the Milites Praesidiarii were in Castles, not in Cities. I suppose therefore that those Soul∣diers are meant, who had perfor∣med their service in the wars; as likewise the Officials of the Comes of the East, and of the Consularis of Syria. Vales.
• c 1.5

  He means Eu∣stathius Bi∣shop of An∣tioch, as 'tis apparent from the Contents of this chapter. Whom when the Eusebians [that is, the party of Eusebius Bishop of Nicome∣dia] had by fraud and calum∣ny ejected out of his own See, a great tu∣mult was raised at Antioch. This hapned on the year of Christ 329, (as may apparently be ga∣thered from Philostorgius's second Book;) or on the year 330, as Theodoret seems to assert, book 2. chap. 31. For he writes, that Meletius was translated to the See of Antioch thirty years after Eu∣stathius's Deposition. Now, 'tis manifest that Meletius was transla∣ted to Antioch on the year of Christ 360. Wherefore, I can't assent to the most illustrious Cardinal Baronius, who being always angry with our Eusebius, whilst he refuses to follow his account, hath confounded all things. For he says that this Tumult hapned at Antioch on the year of Christ 324, that is on the very year before the Nicene Synod, then, when Eustathius was created Bishop of Antioch: whereas So∣crates, Sozomen, and Theodoret do attest, that this Tumult had hap∣ned at the deposition of this Eustathius. But Baronius proves by most evident arguments, as he himself supposes, that Eustathius was ejected out of the See of Antioch, not under the Reign of the Em∣perour Constantine, but in that of Constantius. Let us see therefore, with what arguments he endeavours to make this out. In the first place he cites a passage out of Athanasius's Epistle ad solitarios, about the beginning. Fuit, says he, quidam Eustathius Episcopus Antiochiae, &c. There was one Eustathius Bishop of Antioch, a person famous for conses∣sion, &c. whom the men of the Arian Opinion had accused to Con∣stantius by a forged calumny in such a manner, as if he had been contu∣melious towards the Emperours Mother. But I affirm, that in this passage of Athanasius, instead of Constantius, Constantine is to be writ∣ten. Which emendation is confirmed by those words immediately added concerning the Emperour's Mother. For he means Helena, who about this time had come into the East. For these words can't in any wise be meant of Fausia, who had been put to death above twenty years before, if we follow Baronius's computation. But the passage of Saint Jerom, out of his book de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, makes little for Baronius, in regard in the Old Editions, as also in that of Lyons which I have, 'tis plainly written, sub Constantino Principe missus est in exilium, was sent into Exile under the Emperour Con∣stantine. Wherefore, I had rather follow Eusebius here, than Ba∣ronius. Nor do I see, how so great stirs could have been made at the Creation of Eustathius, (of which stirs there is mention in the Em∣perour▪ Constantine's Letter,) that to appease them a Comes was to be sent, and so many Letters written by the Emperour. Besides, Constantine says in his Letter, that he had publickly heard him who had been the Authour of that whole Sedition; to wit, Eustathius, whom he had ordered to come to Court, and had banisht him into Thracia. And this Athanasius in his before-mentioned Letter, accounts as the first Exploit of the Arians; which thing is to be remarked. For this was done before the Synod of Tyre, which was convened against Athanasius, that is before the year of Christ 334. Athanasius therefore does right in beginning the History of the War which the Arians brought upon the Catholick Church, from Eustathius's deposition, as from the first Exploit of the Arians: which having succeeded according to their wish, they thought that all other matters would in future be ready and easie. Fur∣ther, Baronius's Opinion is refuted as well from what we have said a∣bove, as from this, because Flaccillus (who after Paulinus and Eulalius succeeded Eustatbius,) is mentioned amongst those Bishops present at the Synod at Tyre, by Athanasius in his Apology to the Emperour Con∣stantius▪ as Jacobus Gothofredus has well observed in his Dissertation•• on the second book of Philostorgius. Vales.
• † 1.6

  Or, Accused.
• d 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Christo∣phorson seems to have read; and we have rendred it accordingly. Vales.