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.

VALESIUS'S PREFACE, To HIS EDITION of EUSEBIUS'S HISTORY.

HAving performed the Office of a Solemn a 1.1 Dedication, 'tis now time, Most Illustrious Prelates! That I should give You a particular Account of my Work. For, whereas this Labour was undertaken by me, on Your account chiefly, and by Your Command; I do both wish, and also hope, that before all others, You will be the Readers and Judges of my Work. There are three things there∣fore, which I have endeavoured to perform in this Edition. The first is, an Amendment of the Greek Text: The second, a Latine Version of it. The third is, an Explanation of the obscurer places. As touching the Latine Version, after three Translatours of Eusebius's History, I have made a fourth. But no person before us, had attempted an Amendment and Explanation of the Eusebian Work. But, that I may speak more distinctly concerning each particular in its place and order, I will begin first from the Emendation. Who∣ever attempt a new Edition of old Writers, those persons must of necessity begin their Labour from an Emendation. So Origen, after He had undertaken a New Edition of the Seventy Inter∣preters, and had found many passages in them that were doubtfull and disagreeable by reason of the diversitie of Copies, in the first place Laboured in an Emendation of them. And having com∣pared the Copies of the Seventy Seniors, partly with the Hebrew Text, partly with three other Editions, namely Aquila's, Theodotion's, and Symmachus's; He took out all those Errours which had crept into the Edition of the Seventy Seniors. For this He himself intimates, in His Eighth Tractate on S^t Matthew, in these words. b 1.2 In Exemplaribus quidem Veteris Testamenti, quaecunque fuerunt inconsonantia, Deo praestante coaptare potuimus; utentes judicio caeterarum Editionum. Ea enim quae videbantur apud Septuaginta dubia esse propter Consonantiam Exemplariorum, facientes judicium ex Editionibus reliquis, convenientia Servavimus. Indeed, in the Copies of the Old Testament, whatever [passages] were disagreeable, by God's assistance we have been able to make ••it; using the judgment of the rest of the Editions. For those [passages] which seemed in the Seventy to be doubtful by reason of the agreement of Copies, making a judgment from the other Editions, we have preserved agreeable.

Origen's Example was afterwards followed by S^t Jerome, who bestowed a new Edition of the Seventy Translatours mended by Himself, and distinguished by Asterisks and Obelisks, on the men of His own Language, as He Himself attests in several places. And that I may speak also con∣cerning profane Writers, Crates and Aristarchus, Grammarians, who set forth most accurate Edi∣tions of Homer's Poem, have done nothing else in a manner, but mended and distinguished that Work. In like manner therefore, when I had resolved to publish a New Edition of the Eusebian History, I used my utmost Industry and diligence in its Emendation. Two Editions onely of Eusebius's History have hitherto come forth in Greek. The one is the Paris-Edition, which Robert Stephens▪ Printed; a person who on this very account has deserved highly of Learning, because He was the first that published the Body of Ecclesiastick History in a most Excellent Letter. The other is the Geneva-Edition. But this has in the Greek Text every where exprest that Edition of Robert Stephens: save onely, that it has various Readings and Emendations set at the margin, [taken] out of the Copies of Learned men; and, that out of those Copies it has supplied some imperfections which occur in the Books concerning the Life of Constantine. Therefore, my pains

was to be bestowed upon that one Edition onely of Robert Stephens. Which, with as much diligence as I could, I have compared with Four Manuscript Copies of the best Note, and have restored it in many places. Two of these Four Copies, the King's Library furnisht us with. The former bears the Arms of Francis the first; written on Silken paper, about four hundred years since; and it does sometimes exhibit singular Readings, and very different from the other Copies. This is that, which in my Notes I have named The King's Copy. The other is out of the Medic••an Li∣brary, which being now removed into the King's, is called by one and the same name of the King's Library. This, to distinguish it from that former Copy, is in Our Notes termed the Medicaean Copy. Which, though it be something less ancient, is nevertheless transcribed from an excellent Copy, and by a Learned hand. Robert Stephens had made use of Both these Copies, in His Edition of the Eusebian History. And in His Printing of the Text it self, He has almost every where followed the King's Copy, and very seldom departs from its footsteps, as I have remark'd in my Notes. But in the distinction of the Chapters, He has exprest the Medicaean Copy, wherein the Contents are set before each Chapter, and are written in Red-Letters, There is, besides those, a third Copy, belonging to the most Eminent Cardinal Julius Mazarinus. Before I speak concerning the goodness and excellency of which Copy, it is requisite, and You (Most illustrious Prelates!) with importunity seem to crave this very thing of me, that a few words should be said concerning the Most Eminent Cardinal, by whom that Copy was lent me. For, whereas this Most Eminent Prince, born to every thing that is Great, does embrace Learning with a singular affection and benevolence; We, who from our infancy have applied our minds to the Studies of Learning, should doubtless be ungrateful, should we not, both in our own, and in the name of all Learned men in general, study to render Him all possible Thanks, as well in words, as in our Writings. Farther, with what favour and how great a benevolence He does honour and respect Learning, His bounteous Li∣berality and Munificence towards Learned men does attest; which, to speak nothing con∣cerning other persons, a 1.3 He was lately willing should be extended even to me also, when I neither hop'd for, nor thought of any such thing. The same thing is declar'd by His most com∣pleatly-furnisht Library. Which having stor'd with innumerable Copies of the Best Writers, partly Printed, and partly in Manuscript; He does not keep it perpetually shut like some Sepulchre, as those old Senators of the City Rome did, whom b 1.4 Ammianus Marcellinus doth sharply reprove on that very account: but opens it, as 'twere some publick House, to all the Learned; and volun∣tarily invites each person to it; and freely imparts the use of His Manuscript Books to the Studious, as often as they shall have need. What shall I say concerning His other virtues and eximious Accomplishments of mind? What concerning His wonderful Moderation and Lenity, whereby He hath allayed intestine Commotions and Tumults, without the bloud of any Citizen? But, these things will be spoken by me more fitly at another time, or more rhetorically by others. For at present I have resolved, to pursue those praises of His onely, which do apart belong to the Studies of Literature. Nevertheless, I can't possibly refrain my self▪ but must speak something here concerning that Peace, which the most Eminent Cardinal, with all imaginable earnestness and industry, does now chiefly urge and promote, and which we hope will in a short time be made publick by His Majesties c 1.5 Proclamation. For, this thing is of great concern to the ad∣vantage of Learning; which every one knows to be the child of Peace, and to repose it self under its Umbrage and defence. Whereas therefore the most Eminent Cardinal, when first placed at the Helm of State, had not Himself raised a dismal War with the Spaniards, but had found it already raised: by various Councills (as ['tis requisite] in so Great an affair,) long and accurately weighed at length He hath resolv'd upon this; that the Spaniards are to be broken by a lasting War, and must really be made to know how powerfull the French are in Arms, Riches, Valour, Con∣stancy, and the other necessary Provisions and Helps for a War: that the Enemy, made sensible of their own weakness and the power of the French, might be slower in future to provoke Our Nation, either by Arms or injuries. For ['twas His Sentiment,] that a firm and secure Peace could no otherwise be made with the Enemy, than till such time as by their frequent Overthrows and Losses they had perceived, that they were inferiour to the French in waging War. Therefore, when the Spaniards, no otherwise than the Phrygians, had at length understood that; then the most Eminent Cardinal, perceiving a fit opportunity of entring into a Peace presented it self, refus'd not to make it with the Enemy, and to recede something from Our Right, from the chief point of the whole War, lastly from that Hope and Victory which we had now almost in our hands; that there∣by He might [promote] the Good of the people, [answer] the wishes of all good men, and gratifie the desire of the whole Christian world. In which affair I can't indeed enough admire His singular prudence, and His wisdom that was so salutary to the State. For the Peace was for no other reason deferred so long, than that in future it might be lastinger and more firm. And let thus much be said by the by, concerning the praises of the most Eminent Cardinal. Who having, during the War, never desisted from cherishing Learning and Learned men in a most gracious man∣ner; 'tis much more to be hop'd, that in the time of His Own Peace, He will embrace the same Arts with a choice Affection and Care: and will bring it to effect, that Our French, who for the Glory of Arms have been always eminent above other Nations, may now excell for the praise of

Learning, and in the studies of the best Arts. But, 'tis now time, that we should return thither, whence we have digress'd. That third Copy therefore, which the Library of the Most Eminent Cardinal hath furnished us with, is far the best and ancientest of all those Copies of Eusebius which I have seen. For, whatever Emendations we found in other Copies, are all shown us by that Manuscript: and many other Amendments occur in it, which I found not in other Copies, as the Studious Readers will be able to perceive from my Annotations. It is written in Parch∣ment, [transcrib'd] about seven hundred years since, most neatly and also most correctly. It has likewise a 1.6 Short Expositions now and then set at the side, sometimes in an ancient, sometimes in a more modern hand; which Expositions we have set down in Our Notes, at their due places. Many other things also are to be taken notice of in that Excellent Manuscript, partly in the Ac∣cents, partly in the b 1.7 Distinction or Punctation. For, as to the Accents, in that Manuscript words are often acuted, which in other Copies have a Circumflex Accent. For instance, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that Copy are always acuted. But on the contrary, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which in other Manuscripts is mark'd with an acute Accent, is Circumflected in that Copy. And this in my judgment is righter. But, as to the Distinction, which we vulgarly term the Punctation, this Copy is so accurately poynted, that from this very one Manuscript you may understand the whole manner and knowledge of poynting, which is a thing of no small moment. Indeed, before I had procured this Copy, I was not thorowly acquainted with the usefulness and necessity of the Middle distinction; with which, that very one Book diligently inspected and examined, hath at length made me acquainted. But, we shall speak more hereafter, concerning the Distinction. This moreover I have observed in that most ancient Manuscript, as often as a c 1.8 full distinction, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is set in any Line, the first Letter of the following Line appears without the order of the rest, and touches upon the very outward margin. And this is a signe, that a new Chapter, or a new period is begun after that final distinction. I have observed the same in the other Manuscript Copies also. Indeed, in the Old Sheets of the King's Library, which contain Eusebius's Books concerning the Life of Constantine, I have found that 'tis always so, as often as a new Chapter is begun. We had, besides, a fourth Copy out of the Library of that most illustrious personage Nicholas Fuket, who bears the Office of Procuratour General in the Senate of Paris, and at the same time manages the Praefecture of the Royal Treasury, with the highest commendation. And these four Manuscript Copies we have made use of, in order to our amend∣ment of the Books of Ecclesiastick History. But, we have compared the Books concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine, with three ancient Copies. The first is that Copy of the King's, con∣cerning which I have spoken above, in which Manuscript, before the Books of Ecclesiastick History, occur the four Books concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine, written▪ though not in the same, nevertheless in an ancient hand. The second place belongs to the Old Sheets of the King's Library. So I call certain papers, which are digested into Quaternions; but they are loose, and are not made up into the form of a Book. In these Sheets, besides Eusebius's Books concerning the Life of Constantine, and the Oration of the same Emperour to the Saints, occurs the first Quaternion of the Ecclesiastick History; whereof I have likewise made frequent mention in my Notes. All the rest of it, by what accident I know not, is lost. The Fuketian Library furnished us with the third Copy. Wherein, before the four Books concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine, is prefixt Eusebius's Panegyrick, spoken to the same Constantine, in the thirtieth year of His Empire. This Copy, though of the meanest Antiquity, is nevertheless of the best Note, and in many places more correct and larger than those two former, which Robert Stephens made use of in His Edition. Besides these Manuscript Copies, we were assisted by those various Readings and Emendations, which learned men had with their own hands noted at the margin of Robert Stephens's Edition: Of which sort many Books are now to be found. But we made use more especially of three, which are likewise often mentioned in our Notes. The first was Hadrian Turnebus's, which with great exactness He had compared with The King's, and The Medicaean Copy. But the Books concerning the Life of the Emperour Constantine, had been compared with an English Copy, either by the hand of Hadrian Turnebus Himself, or that of Odo Turnebus. The second Copy was Vulcobius's; which, be∣cause Renatus Moraeus a Physician of Paris had lent me, I am wont in my Notes to term Moraeus's Copy. This Book contains some few other Emendations, besides those which occur in Turnebus's Copy. The third was S^r Henry Savil's Book, a person of incomparable Learning; it was sent me out of England by James Usher Arch-Bishop of Armagh. For, whereas I had perceived, that in Usher's Notes on the Martyrdom of the B. Polycarp, a Manuscript Copy of Eusebius's History out of S^r Henry Savil's Library was quoted; and had found, that, by some passages produced by Usher, that Copy was of the best Note; I made my request to Him by Letter, that he would transmit to me the Various Readings of that Copy; for I did suppose, that the whole Copy had been compared by him. But he wrote back to me, that the Copy it self, written in silken paper, had been given by S^r Henry Savil to the Oxford-Library. But he presently sent me Robert Stephens's Edition, in the margin whereof S^r Henry Savil had noted the Emendations taken out of that his own Manuscript Copy. Ne∣vertheless, as far as I have been able to conjecture, S^r Henry Savil hath not set all the readings of the Manuscript Copy at the side of that Edition; but those onely, which he thought to be good and undoubted. For some readings are produced by Usher out of that Manuscript Copy, which I

afterwards perceived were omitted by S^r Henry Savil. Farther, the same S^r Henry Savil, at the margin of that Edition, hath written many Amendments, out of a Book of John Christophorson's, which Book Christophorson had compared with some Manuscript Copies. These are the Helps from Books, wherewith we were furnished, when we undertook to mend the Books of Eusebius's History. But least any one should perhaps think, that any thing hath been altered by us rashly and at pleasure, we do before all things desire the Readers should know, that we have done nothing with∣out the consent and authority of the Best Copies. And so scrupulous were we, of making any alteration in these Books, that when it appeared most evidently, that the place was corrupted, we refused even then to favour and follow our own conjecture. For proof hereof, may be [pro∣duced] a place in the close of the tenth Book of the Ecclesiastick History, pag. 399 [of Our Edition;] which runs thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We could very easily have restored the true Reading here, and instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mended it in this man∣ner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For so Gelasius Cyzicenus, in a 1.9 His second Book, cites this place of Eusebius; nor is it otherwise written in Eusebius's second Book concerning the Life of Constantine, Chap. 19; where this passage is repeated almost in the very same words. Lastly, no place is mended in this our Edition, concerning which I have not advertised the Reader in my Notes, and have not given an account of mine amendment.

Distinction, or Punctation, is not the last part of Emendation; concerning which I must say some∣thing, least peradventure the Readers should be confounded by a new kind of poynting, which was first brought into this Edition by me. Although, if we would speak properly, this is not a new sort of Distinction, but the oldest, and made use of by all the Ancients, as well Greek as Latine Writers: which being wholly disused and lost by the negligence of more modern Authours, I have, at least in part, endeavoured to restore in this Edition. Those Ancients indeed (the figures of Letters being then newly invented,) wrote in one continued form, without any distinction at all. Which thing containing much of difficulty both in reading and pronouncing, the ancient Gram∣m••rians found out three positures or distinctions, whereby, as 'twere by certain Stations and Inns, the continued journey of speech might be distinguished and divided. The first they termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is a subdistinction: the second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is a middle distinction: the third 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is a final or full distinction. Now, they noted them by three Poynts plac'd in a different Site. For a Poynt set at the bottom of a Letter, denotes a subdistinction: a middle distinction, which the Latines have termed b 1.10 Moram, is shown by a poynt placed at the middle of a Letter. But that poynt which is set at the head of a Letter, denotes a final distinction. What the import and design of these distinctions is, the Grammarians do inform us; Donatus, and Marius Victorinus, and Diomedes in his Second Book. Which Author last named, at this place shall be to us instead of all. Lectioni, says he, posituras accedere vel distinctiones oportet, &c. To reading must be added the positures or distinctions, by Gr••cians termed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which, during our▪ reading, give a liberty of recovering breath, least it should fail by a continuation. These are three, a distinction, a sub∣distinction, a middle distinction or pause, or, as some will have it, a submiddle: the diversity of which [three,] is shown by three Poynts set in a different place. And after some few words. A distin∣ction is a t••ken of silence, when, the sense being ended, there is a Liberty of resting longer. The mark hereof, is a Poynt set above the verse, at the Head of the Letter. A subdistinction is a signe of a me••e and convenient silence, whereby the Course of pronunciation (the sense remaining) is so stop'd, that what follows, ought to succeed immediately. The note hereof, is a poynt plac'd under the verse. A pause is a small separation, interpos'd in the continuation of senses, and possesses the middle place of a meet distinction and subdistinction, in such manner that it may seem neither perfect in the whole, nor omitted, but by a signification of staying, may want the beginning of another sense. And it attends this office onely, that by the shortest respiration it may recover and nourish the Reader's breath. For, in pronouncing every one ought in such wise to be silent, that, because the breath it self is changed by a kind of decay, it may afterwards be recovered. As thus,

Ut belli signum Laurenti T••rn••s ab arce Extulit, & ra••co strep••erunt corn••a Cant••. Utq••e acres concussit equos, utque imp••lis arma. Extemplo turbati animi.

For, there are many middle clauses of this reading. First, least those be confounded, which are put as double-membred and treble-membred [clauses,] and the like. Then, that the c 1.11 Emphasis of the words may be more eminently apparent and conspicuous, which may be moved by some affection, either by indignation, or commiseration compared, &c. Such marks therefore of distinctions and punctations as these, all the ancients as well Greeks as Latines, made use of in their Books: which also, as 'tis manifest, were still in use, in the age of Isidorus Hispalensis. For this we learn from His Origines, Book 1. Chap. 19. In Manuscript Copies likewise which are somewhat ancienter, the same way of distinguishing is always observed. But more modern Writers,

whether by unskilfullness or a kind of sloth and negligence, have changed them all. And instead of a subdistinction, they have put d 1.12 little rods; for the mark of a middle distinction, two poynts: but they have cast the Note of a final distinction from the head to the feet of a Letter. Which ill way of poynting almost all Printers have followed, except Aldus Manucius. For he in his Edition of Greek Books, whereof he Printed almost an innumerable company, hath always retained that punctation, which he had found in Manuscript Copies. As to the Little Rods, I would not condemn them. For 'tis of very small moment, what mark we should make use of, to denote a subdistinction, provided that mark be placed at the feet of a Letter. Indeed, in that Excellent and most ancient Manuscript belonging to the Mazarine Library, whereof I have made mention before, I found a little rod placed sometimes for a middle, sometimes for a final distinction; that is, sometimes at the middle of a letter, sometimes at the top. And not onely by a little rod, but also by a Sicilicum or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 turned backwards, a middle distinction was sometimes denoted, as Victorinus informs us in his first Book of the Art of Grammar. But, whereas we now-a-days put a point at the feet of a letter for a final dictinction, in my judgment that can in no wise be born with. For it does not onely contradict Antiquity, but Reason also. For Reason requires, that a mark placed in the same site, should denote the same distinction. A poynt therefore placed in the bottom ought to signifie the same that a little rod does, which is set at the bottom of a Letter. For, not the mark it self, but the site of the mark alters the distinction. Whence 'tis made evident, that a final distinction is not rightly shown by us, by our setting a poynt at the feet of a Letter. Wherefore, 'tis not with∣out reason that I have endeavoured to restore the old way of Punctation in this Edition. I have indeed retained the Little Rod it self, in regard in denoting a subdistinction it serves for the same pur∣pose with a poynt: but from the authority of the Manuscript Copies, I have, by way of Recovery as 'twere, put the middle distinction into possession of its own places. The advantage and necessity whereof, the studious, I hope, will soon acknowledge. For, that middle distinction does not onely serve for this purpose, that breath may be taken in order to a continuing the beginning of another sense, and that the Emphasis may be more eminently apparent and conspicuous, as Diomedes writes▪ but also, to denote the difference of persons and dignities. So somewhere in these Books, where the reading is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Most Eminent Cardinal's Manuscript, after the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, adds a middle distinction. Besides, in many places I have set a poynt at the head of the Letter, to denote a final distinction: and would have done that every where, had not the force of old custom diverted me from my attempt. But, what I have in part onely performed in this Edition, that (I hope) will at length be perfected by others endued with greater Learning and Authority, who shall in future publish the Books of the Ancients. And thus much may suffice to have been spoken briefly concerning Our Emendation and Punctation. Come we now to the Latine Translation.

I doubt not but there will be many who will admire, why, after three Latine Translatour's of Eusebius, and those not meanly vers'd in the Greek Tongue, I should have made a fourth Version. To whom in the first place I answer thus. If after Rufinus, who first turned the Books of Ecclesiastick History into Latine, Musculus might have leave to make a new Translation; if again, after Muscu∣lus, Christophorson might have leave to do the same, why should not I also have the like Liberty with others? Amongst the Jews, after the Edition of the Seventy Seniours, confirmed by the Religion of so many oaths, by the authority of so many ages; first Aquila, then Theodotion and Symmachus, did each of them publish new Versions of the Old Testament. Also, some persons are found to be the Authors of a fifth, sixth, and seventh Edition, whose names are unknown: and all these Translations Origen hath plac'd in His Hex••pla, that they might be read by Catholicks. That therefore which the Jews were free to do in the Old Testament, why may not I have leave to do in Eusebius? especially, in regard 'tis less dangerous to attempt that in Eusebius, than in the sacred Books of the divine Scriptures. Indeed, many and those cogent reasons enforc'd me even against my will, to undergo the burthen of this new Translation. For, whereas by e 1.13 Your Command and with Your Advice I had undertaken a new Edition of the Ecclesiastick History▪ and perceived, that the Versions of former Translatours, by reason of their frequent mistakes and ill Renditions, did in no wise satisfie the desire of Learned men; as it has been f 1.14 already declared by the Testimony of J. Curterius and Peter Halloixius: one of these two things was of necessity to be performed by me, that I should either correct the old Translation, or else make a new one. Farther, to correct the Translation of others, as it is in it self a thing troublesome and difficult, so also it seemed invidious. For, His own praise and His own honour, is from us due to each person. They have done as much as in them lay, and by their own pains have endeavoured to lighten and lessen Our Labour. Therefore, the Work of each Translatour ought to be commended by us, rather than interpolated. Rufinus, although He follows the sense of Eusebius rather than His words, is nevertheless neat and clean, and not unpleasant to the Readers: and even on this very account highly to be commended, because He was the first that bestowed the Ecclesiastick History on men of the Latine Tongue; whose Translation the Western Church has made use of till Our own age. Musculus keeps closer to the words, and in translating is short and clear, and in many places more happy than Christophor∣son.

Christophorson, as He is more diligent and learneder than Musculus, so also is more verbose, and has something of the Style of Cicero. Besides, He used Manuscript Copies in the making His Translation: and was the first that published Eusebius's Panegyrick spoken at Constantine's Tricen∣nalia, in Latine; which the Geneva-Printers afterwards Printed in Greek. Some body will be ready to say here. What need then was there of a new Version? whenas those Translatours abound with so many and such high commendations. I rehearse their praises, but do not detect their errours: which I had rather should be discovered by the testimony of others, than mine own. But, if any one will read my Notes, o•• shall have a mind to compare my Translation with their Version, He will doubtless understand, with how many and how gross mistakes their Translations are stuft; and that 'twas not without reason, that You had ordered me to make a new Version of Eusebius. But, because I am faln upon this discourse, not willingly but by a necessity, I will say something briefly concerning the errours of former Translatours. For, should I have a mind to reckon up all their mistakes one by one, my discourse would be stretcht to a vast length. To begin therefore with Rufinus; who knows not, that, at his pleasure, he has added many passages to Eusebius, has taken away many passages from him, has changed many; and in most places is rather a Paraphrast than a Translatour? For instance, in the Seventh Book he has inserted a tedious Narrative concerning the Miracles of Gregory Thaumaturgus, which occurs not in the Copies of Our Eusebius. The same person, in the Ninth Book, rehearses a speech of Lucian the Martyr, spoken before the Judge in defence of our faith; which Speech the Copies of Eusebius do not ac∣knowledge. He has omitted almost the whole Tenth Book of the Ecclesiastick History, in his Ver∣sion. I say nothing here concerning the Chapters altered by him in the Sixth and Seventh Book, in as much as I have given the Reader notice of this thing, in my Notes. How many places of Eusebius are misunderstood and ill rendred by him? This is he, who of Zacharias the Priest, of whom mention is made in Saint Luke's Gospel, has made us a Martyr of Lyons. This is he who hath confounded Biblias with Blandina. This is he who has made the most noble Martyr Philoromus a Tribune of Souldiers, from his being a Rationalist. To what purpose is it to speak concerning Musculus, whose Versions (for he has translated other Writers also into Latine,) are not extraordinarily approved of by the Learned? I could, if I had a mind, expose his innumerable mistakes: amongst which this is a notorious one. Dionysius Alex∣andrinus, in his Epistle to Germanus, which Eusebius records in his Sixth g 1.15 Book, says that he was taken by the Souldiers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and was brought to Taposiris. But Musculus believed Heliodysmas to be a Town. For thus he renders it. Ego namque cùm Heliodysmas unà cum illis qui mecum erant venissem, Taposirim à militibus ductus sum. For I, after I was come to Heliodysmae, together with them that were with me, was brought by the Souldiers to Taposiris. Farther, the same Musculus in his Translation has wholly omitted Eusebius's Book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, which is subjoyn'd to the Eighth Book of his Ecclesiastick History; for what reason I know not. For that Book of Eusebius's, is a most Elegant one. The Translation of John Christophorson re∣mains [to be spoken of,] which very Version wants not its Blemishes. For, to omit the Barbarisms which do frequently occur in it, his Translation is too prolix and intricate, whilst he either adds some words to fill up the period, or annexes his own Explanations in order to the clearing of an obscure place. Sometimes also, of two periods he makes but one, and puts two Chapters into one: in so much that, the division of the Latine Chapters in his Translation differs much from the Greek. Which thing, how much trouble and vexation it breeds in citing places out of Eusebius, all the Studious know. The same Translatour was indeed sufficiently well vers'd in Divinity: but he was meanly furnished with the skill of h 1.16 a Critick, and with the knowledge of Roman antiquity. Wherefore, in the proper names of Roman Magistrates, and in those matters which appertain to the Civil Administration, he is always out: for instance, in rendring the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in other such like terms. Lastly, Christophorson has embodied Eusebius's Book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, (which in Robert's Stephens's Edition, and in the Manuscript Copies, is subjoyned to the Eighth Book of his Ecclesiastick History,) with his Eighth Book, because he believ'd it to be a part thereof. Which mistake of Christophor∣son's, the Geneva-Printers having afterwards followed, that they might make the Greek agree with the Latine; of two Books of Eusebius's, have made but one. And let thus much be briefly spoken concerning the Errours of former Translations, not with any design to disparage, or lessen the glory of any Translatour; but, that all the Studious may understand, that we had good reason for our undertaking a new Translation. Which as I dare not warrant to be perfect and every way compleat, (for that would be too much confidence;) so I do boldly affirm, that it wants very many faults, wherewith former Translations do abound. Further, whereas three things are required in a Version; namely that it be faithfull, Elegant, and clear; I have made it my Business, that no one of these should be wanting in our Translation.

The Translation is followed by the Annotations. Wherein I had an eye chiefly to two things: first that I might give an account of my Emendations, and might propose to the Studious the various Readings of Manuscript Copies: Secondly, that I might clear the obscurer passages in Eusebius, and might explain the ancient Usages and Rites of the Church, by producing and

comparing the passages of other Writers. To my Annotations I have subjoyned a 1.17 four disserta∣tions. The first whereof is, Concerning the Beginning and Progress of the Schism of the Don••tists. The Second, Concerning the Anastasis and the Jerusalem-Martyrium. This is followed by a dispu∣tution about the Version of the Seventy Translatours against James Usher Arch-Bishop of Armagh. The Fourth is, concerning the Roman Martyrologie which Rosweydus published. And these are the things which with care and diligence I have performed in this Edition, in order to the illustration of Eusebius's History. Which if to any one they shall peradventure ••eem slight and of little worth, let him think, that all things which are published in this kind of Learning, are in a manner of this nature, and are either valued or contemned according to the affection and stomach of the Readers. For, if they find a candid and studious Reader, they are highly esteemed: but if they shall happen to fall into disdainful ears, they are look't upon as nothing. Besides, what but that which is very ordinary and mean can be expected, from me especially, who by reason of my weakness of sight am forc'd both to reade and write by other mens eyes and hands: and who, whilst by reason of the greatness of the Labour I do always hasten forwards, have so hastily dictated this whole work such as it is, that I have scarce had leisure to reade it over again. On which account I am the more to be pardoned, if perhaps in any place of my Notes I have not so fully satisfied the Reader's desire.—

Notes

• a 1.1

  Valesius Dedicated His first Volume, (which contains Eusebius's Ten Books of History, His Life of Constan∣tine, Con∣stantine's Oration, and His Own.) to the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and the whole Cler∣gy of the Gallican Church.
• b 1.2

  See Origen's Works, se∣cond part, pag. 46. Edit. Paris. 1619.
• a 1.3

  He al∣lowed Va∣lesius a yearly pen∣sion of 1500 Li∣vers: which sum the Cardinal sent him yearly, as long as he lived; and by his Will continued it till Va∣lesius's death: See Valesius's Life, writ∣ten by his Brother Hadrian.
• b 1.4

  See Amm. Marcelli∣nus, Book 14. pag. 14. Edit. Paris. 1636.
• c 1.5

  Or▪ Cryers.
• a 1.6

  Scholia.
• b 1.7

  He means, the distin∣guishing the Periods one from another, and the Clauses and Mem∣bers of each pe∣riod, by poynts.
• c 1.8

  Full poynt.
• a 1.9

  Chap. 1. Pag. 45. Edit. Paris. 1590.
• b 1.10

  A pause.
• c 1.11

  Actu•• verborum.
• d 1.12

  Comma's.
• e 1.13

  He means the French Clergy.
• f 1.14

  In His E∣pistle De∣dicatory.
• g 1.15

  Chap. 40.
• h 1.16

  Or, Criti∣cal Art.
• a 1.17

  These four Dis∣sertations are publi∣shed at the Latter end of Valesius's first Volume of the Ec∣clesiastick Historians.