book contains little else besides warlike events, which ought to have no place in an Ecclesiastical History. Sozomen's style, however, is not without its faults. For the periods of his sentences are only joined together by the particles dè and ré, than which there is nothing more troublesome. Should any one attentively read the epistle in which Sozomen dedicates his work to Theodosius junior, he will find it true that Sozomen was no great orator. It remains, that we inquire which of these two authors, Socrates or Sozomen, wrote first, and which of them borrowed, or rather stole, from the other. Certainly, in regard both of them wrote almost the same things of the same transactions, inasmuch as they both began at the same beginning, and concluded their history at the same point, (both beginning from the reign of Constantine, and ending at the seventeenth consulate of Theodosius junior,) it must needs be true, that one of them robbed the other's desk. This sort of theft was committed by many of the Grecian writers. But which was the plagiary, Socrates or Sozomen, it is hard to say, in regard both of them lived in the same times, and both wrote their history in the empire of Theodosius junior. Therefore, in the disquisition of this question, we must make use of conjecture. Let us therefore see upon which of them falls the suspicion of theft. Indeed this is my sentiment, I suppose that the inferior does frequently steal from the superior, and the junior from the senior. But Sozomen is in my judgment far inferior to Socrates; and he betook himself to writing his history when he was younger than Socrates. For he wrote it whilst he was yet an advocate, as I observed before. Now, the profession of the advocates amongst the Romans was not perpetual, but temporary. Lastly, he that adds something to the other, and sometimes amends the other, seems to have written last. But Sozomen now and then adds some passages to Socrates, and in some places dissents from him, as Photius has observed, and we have hinted in our annotations. Sozomen therefore seems to have written last. And this is the opinion of almost all modern writers, who place Socrates before Sozomen. So Bellarmine in his book "De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis ;" who is followed by Miræus, Labbæus, and Vossius. Amongst the ancients, Cassiodorus, Photius, and Nicephorus name Socrates in the first place. So also Theodorus Lector recounts them, in his epistle which he prefixed to his Tripartite History. Thus far concerning Sozomen.

MEMOIR OF SOZOMEN.

LITTLE more than cursory allusions to SOZOMEN occur in the works of contemporary writers; and the materials for a memoir of his life are therefore at best but few and scanty. We should, in fact, be destitute of almost all knowledge as to his birth, education, mode of life, and private history, had not some information on these points been furnished by himself. In the work before us, the only one which has caused his name to be handed down to posterity, he draws aside the curtain which would otherwise have concealed his origin and parentage, and makes known to us a portion of his family history. He tells us (Book V. chap. xv.) that his grandfather was a native of Palestine, and of Pagan parentage; that he, with all his family, was converted to Christianity on witnessing a miracle wrought by St. Hilarion; and that, being possessed of great mental endowments, he afterwards became eminently useful to the men of Gaza and Ascalon, by his extraordinary power in expounding the most obscure passages of Holy Writ.

Our author himself seems to have been born about the beginning of the fifth century. He tells us that in his youth some of the founders of monasticism in Palestine were still living, although they had reached a very advanced period of life, and that he had enjoyed opportunities of intercourse with them. To this circumstance may probably be attributed the tone of reverential admiration in which Sozomen invariably speaks of the ascetic inhabitants of the desert.

The education of Sozomen was conducted with a view to the legal professsion; and he studied for some years at Berytus, then noted for its school of law. He afterwards established himself at Constantinople, and, it has been conjectured, held some office at the court of Theodosius the younger. He is reputed to have possessed some skill in the law, but it is certain that he never attained any eminence in his profession. It is

only in the character of an historian that he has rendered himself conspicuous. His first work was an abridgment of Ecclesiastical History, from the ascension of our Lord to the deposition of Licinius, (A. D. 324,) but this is not extant. The work before us seems to have been commenced about the year 443. It embraces a period of 117 years, namely, from A. D. 323 to A. D. 439. It is generally admitted to have suffered many alterations and mutilations ; and this may, in some measure, serve to account for the frequent inaccuracies in point both of narrative and of chronology which pervade the nine books of which it is composed. It is evident, from the very abrupt termination of this history, that it is but a fragmentary portion of a larger work. The precise object of Sozomen in undertaking to write this history is not apparent, as exactly the same ground had previously been gone over by Socrates, if we except the ninth book of the former, which is almost entirely devoted to the political history of the times. The learned Photius prefers the style of Sozomen to that of Socrates; yet Sozomen frequently evinces great deficiency in point of judgment, and on many occasions enlarges upon details which are altogether omitted by Socrates, as unworthy of the dignity of Ecclesiastical History. To us, there is manifest advantage in possessing these separate chronicles of the same events. Facts which might perhaps have been doubted, if not rejected, had they rested upon the sole authority of a single writer, are admitted as unquestionable when authenticated by the combined testimony of Socrates, of Sozomen, and of Theodoret. And, indeed, the very discrepancies which, on several minor points, are discernible in the histories of these writers, are not without their use, inasmuch as they tend to the removal of all suspicion of connivance or collusion.

It should be added, that Sozomen is sometimes called Hermias and Salamanes, and that it was thought by some writers that Sozomenus was not his name, but that of his father, and that he was a native of Salamis in Cyprus. For further information on the subject the reader may consult Schoell's Geschichte der Griechischer Literatur, vol. iii. p. 317, &c.

THE

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

OP

SOZOMEN.

BOOK I

CHAP. I.-CONCERNING THE JEWISH NATION.-AUTHORS TO WHOM SOZOMEN WAS INDEBTED.

My mind has been often exercised in inquiring how it is that other men are ready to believe in the word of God, while the Jews are so incredulous,' although it was to them that instruction concerning the things of God was, from the beginning, imparted by the prophets, who likewise made them acquainted with the events attendant upon the coming of Christ before they came to pass.2 2 Besides, Abraham, the head of their nation and of the circumcision, was accounted worthy to be an eye-witness, and the host of the Son of God.3 And Isaac, his son, was honoured as the type of the sacrifice on the cross, for he was led bound to the altar by his father, and, as accurate students of the Sacred Scriptures affirm, the sufferings of Christ came to pass in like manner. Jacob predicted that the hope of the nations would be in Christ, which prediction is now accomplished; and he likewise foretold the time of Christ's appearance when he said, "The princes of the Hebrews of the tribe of Judah, the chiefs of the tribe shall

1 δύσπιστος. On this word Valesius remarks that Sozomen was a great imitator of the style of Xenophon, and that he commences his work in almost the very words of the latter, in his Cyropædia. 2 Comp. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. b. i. ch. 4.

Alluding to the occasion on which Abraham entertained three angels, and interceded on behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah. See Genesis xviii., and especially verses 2 and 3.

3

fail." 99 1 This clearly referred to the reign of Herod; for this king was, on his father's side, an Idumean, and on his mother's an Arabian, and the government of the Jewish nation was delivered to him by Augustus Cæsar and the Roman senate. And besides, among the other prophets, some declared beforehand the birth of Christ, his ineffable conception, his family, his country, and the continuance after his birth of his mother's virginity; some predicted his divine and wonderful actions, while others foretold his sufferings, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension into the heavens, and the signs by which each of these events was accompanied. But if any be ignorant of these facts, it is not difficult to obtain information by referring to the sacred books. Josephus, the son of Matthias,3 who was a priest, and moreover held in the highest repute by the Jews and Romans, may likewise be regarded as a notable witness to the truth concerning Christ; for impressed, no doubt, by the wonderful works wrought by our Lord, and the truthfulness of his doctrines, this writer evidently shrinks from calling him a man, but openly calls him Christ, and records that he was condemned to the death of the cross, and appeared alive again the third day. Nor was he ignorant of numberless other wonderful predictions accomplished in Christ, and uttered by the holy prophets. He further testifies that many, both Jews and Greeks, followed after Christ and continued in his love; and that the people who bear his name had never lost their corporate existence. It appears to me that, in bearing witness to these things, he loudly proclaims as the truth implied by the works, that Christ is God. It appears, too, that, being struck by the lustre of our Lord's miracles, he was led to steer a middle course, and did not vilify those who believed in him, but, on the contrary, rather coincided in opinion with them.5 When I reflect on these things, I am

1 Alluding to the dying words of Jacob, Gen. xlix. 10, "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.'

2 Isaiah, vii. 14, foretells that "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; but he does not declare, in words, the perpetual virginity of the mother of God. The Roman Catholic Church, however, infers the doctrine from certain types in the Old Testament; such as that of "the bush which burnt with fire, and was not consumed." (See Exod. iii. 2.)

3 Otherwise written Mattathias.

See Joseph. Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 4. 5 See the observations prefixed to Whiston's Josephus.