CHAPTER VII

CHAPTER VII

THE CHURCH "HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[EXSs: pened to be staying, and after delivering before the ruler an apology for the doctrine which he professed, was committed to prison and put to death.

Such trials were brought

upon us in a brief time by Maximinus, the enemy of virtue, so that this persecution which was stirred up against us seemed far more cruel than the former. they had once been Christiaris and that they were acquainted with their impious deeds, — that in their very churches they committed licentious acts; and they uttered as many other slanders against our religion as he wished them to.

Having taken down their words in writing, he communicated them to the emperor, who commanded that these documents also should be published in every place and city.

CHAPTER VII.

CHAPTER VI.

The Decree against us which was engraved on Those who suffered Martyrdom at this Time.

Pillars.

THE memorials against us! and copies of

the imperial edicts issued in reply to them were engraved and set up on brazen pillars in the midst of the cities,,—a course which had never been followed elsewhere.

The children in the schools had daily in their mouths the names of Jesus and Pilate, and the Acts which had been forged in wanton insolence.'

It appears to me necessary to insert here

this document of Maximinus which was posted on pillars, in order that there may be made manifest at the same time the boastful and haughty arrogance of the God-hating man, and the sleepless evil-hating divine vengeance upon the impious, which followed close upon him, and under whose pressure he not long afterward took the opposite course in respect to us and confirmed it by written laws.*

Nor long afterward, however, this military commander became his own murderer and paid the penalty for his wickedness.

But we were obliged again to endure exile and severe persecutions, and the governors in every province were once more terribly stirred up against us; so that even some of those illustrious in the Divine Word were seized and had sentence of death pronounced upon them without mercy.

Three of them in the city of Emesa' in Phoenicia, having confessed that they were Christians, were thrown as food to the wild beasts.

Among them was a bishop Silvanus," a very old man, who had filled his

office full forty years.

At about the same time Peter ® also, who presided most illustriously over the parishes in Alexandria, a divine example of a bishop on account of the excellence of his life and his study of the sacred

Scriptures, being seized for no cause and quite unexpectedly, was, as if by command of MaxiMinus, immediately and without explanation, beheaded.

With him also many other bish-

ops of Egypt suffered the same fate.

And Lucian,' a presbyter of the parish at Antioch, and a most excellent man in every respect, temperate in life and famed for his learning in sacred things, was brought to the city of Nicomedia, where at that time the emperor hapThe rescript is in the following words :

Copy of a translation of the rescript of Maximinus in answer to the memorials against us, taken from the pillar in Tyre.

"Now at length the feeble power of the

human mind has become able to shake off and to scatter every dark mist of error, which before this besieged the senses of men, who were more miserable than impious, and enveloped them in dark and destructive ignorance ; and to perceive that it is governed and estab1 Emesa was an important city in Northern Pheenicia, the birthplace of the Emperor Elagabalus, and chiefly famous for its great temple of the Sun, t 1 See above, chaps. 2 and 4.

? These decrees must have been published in 'this way in June, 312, or thereabouts; for in chap. ro, § 12, we learn that they were thus made public a little less than a year before the final edict of toleration, which was apparently issued in May, 373.

2 On Silvanus, bishop of Emesa, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 4.

3 On Peter, bishop of Alexandria, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 54.

According to that chapter he suffered in the ninth year of the persecution; that is, at least as early as April, 312.

3 See chap. 5.

4 The presbyter Lucian, who is mentioned also in Bk. VIII. chap.

13, above, was one of the greatest scholars of the early Church, and with Dorotheus (see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 9) at the head of the famous theological school at Antioch.

He produced a revised version of the LXX, which enjoyed a wide circulation (see Jerome's de vir. ll. 77, and Westcott's Hist. of the N. T. Canon, p. 392 sq.); and also wrote some books on Faith (see Jerome, 23zd.), some epistles (see zézd., and Suidas, s.v.), and a commentary on feb, of which a Latin fragment has been preserved and is given by Routh, Rel. Sacre, 1V.p. 7-10.

His works have perished, with the exception of a brief fragment of an epistle, the fragment from his commentary on Job just referred to, and a part of his defense before Maximinus (referred to in the present chapter) which is preserved vs Rufinus, #, Z. IX. 6, and is probably genuine (cf. Westcott, zbid. p.

393).

These extant fragments are given, with annotations, by Routh, tbid. p. 5 sq.

Lucian's chief historical significance lies in his relation to Arianism.

On this subject, see above, p. 11 sq.

4 ok cis paxpdv tavavtia mept nuav eBovAevaato re Kal dv eyypadwy vouwy edoyudtice.

Crusé translates, ' So that he did not long devise hostilities and form decrees against us." Itis true that the hrase ox eis waxpov may in general bear the Meaning 'not for ong," as well as " not long afterward"; but an examination of the numerous passages in which the words are used by Eusebius (e.g.

I, rz. 3 [..13. 4; Il. 6, §; Il. 7; Ill. 5. 7; IV. 7 123) VAT, 13. 2) will show that, with a single exception, he uniformly employs Ghices in the sense of 'not long afterward."

The single exception occurs in Bk. IV. chap. 7, § 2, where the phrase is clearly used with the other meaning —''not for long."?

In view of this preponderance of instances for the former use of the phrase in this single work, it seems best in the present case — the only doubtful one, so far as I am aware —to follow Valesius, Stroth, and Closs in translating "not long afterward," which is in full accord with the context, and more in harmony than the other reading with the structure of this particular sentence.

IX. 8.]

DECREE OF MAXIMIN ENGRAVED ON PILLARS.

NR with waving heads in the broad fields, and at the meadows glittering with plants and flowers, in response to abundant rains and the restored mildness and softness of the atmosphere.

Finally, let all rejoice that the might of the most powerful and terrible Mars has been propitiated by our piety, our sacrifices, and our veneration ; and let them on this account enjoy firm and tranquil peace and quiet; and let as many as have wholly abandoned that blind error and delusion and have returned to a right and sound mind rejoice the moré, as those who have been rescued from an unexpected storm or severe disease and are to reap the fruits of pleasure for the rest of their life.

But if

they still persist in their execrable vanity, let them, as you have desired, be driven far away from your city and territory, that thus, in accordance with your praiseworthy zeal in this matter, your city, being freed from every pollution and impiety, may, according to its native disposition, attend to the sacred rites of the immortal gods with, becoming reverence.

But that ye may know how acceptable to us your request respecting this matter has been, and how ready our mind is to confer benefits voluntarily, without memorials and petitions, we permit your devotion to ask whatever great gift ye may desire lished by the beneficent providence of the

immortal gods.

It passes belief how grateful, how pleasing and how agreeable it is to us, that you have given a most decided proof of your pious resolution; for even before this it was known to every one how much regard and reverence you were paying to the immortal i gods, exhibiting not a faith of bare and empty words, but continued and wonderful exam5 _ plesofillustrious deeds. Wherefore your city may justly be called a seat and dwelling of the immortal gods.

At least, it appears by many signs that it flourishes because of the pres-

ence of the celestial gods.

Behold, therefore, your city, regardless of all private advantages, and omitting its former petitions in its own behalf, when it perceived that the adherents of that execrable vanity were again beginning to spread, and to start the greatest conflagration, —like a neglected and extinguished funeral pile when its brands are rekindled, — immediately resorted to our piety as to a metrop-

olis of all religiousness, asking some remedy

andaid.

Itis evident that the gods have given you this saving mind on account of your faith and piety.

"Accordingly that supreme and mightiest Jove, who presides over your illustrious city, who in return for this your pious disposition.

And now ask that this may be done and

that ye may receive it; for ye shall obtain it without delay.

This, being granted to your city, shall furnish for all time an evidence of reverent piety toward the immortal gods, and of the fact that you have obtained from our benevolence merited prizes for this choice of yours ; and it shall be shown to your children and children's children." preserves your ancestral gods, your wives and children, your hearths and homes from every destructive pest, has infused into your souls this wholesome resolve ; showing and proving how excellent and glorious and salutary it is to observe with the becoming reverence the worship and sacred rites of the immortal gods.

For who can be found so ignorant or so devoid of all understanding as not to perceive that it is due to the kindly care of the gods

This was published against us in all the provinces, depriving us of every hope of good, at least from men; so that, according to that divine utterance, "If it were possible, even the elect would have stumbled" at these things.

And now indeed, when the hope of most of

us was almost extinct, suddenly while those who were to execute against us the above decree had in some places scarcely finished their journey, God, the defender of his own Church, exhibited his heavenly interposition in our behalf, well-nigh stopping the tyrant's boasting against that the earth does not refuse the seed sown init, nor disappoint the hope of the husbandmen with vain expectation ; that impious war is not inevitably fixed upon earth, and wasted bodies dragged down to death under the influence of a corrupted atmosphere ; that the sea is not swollen and raised on high by blasts of intemperate winds ; that unexpected hurricanes do not burst forth and stir up the destructive tempest ; moreover, that the earth, the nourisher and mother of all, is not shaken from its lowest depths with a terrible tremor, and that the mountains upon it do not sink into the opening chasms.

No one is ignorant that all these, and evils still worse than us.

CHAPTER VIII.

these, have oftentimes happened hitherto.

And all these misfortunes have taken place on account of the destructive error of the empty vanity of those impious men, when it prevailed in their souls, and, we may almost say,

The Misfortunes which happened in Connection with these Things, in Famine, Pestilence, and War.

THE customary rains and showers of the

winter season ceased to fall in their wonted weighed down the whole world with shame."

After other words he adds: " Let them look at the standing crops already flourishing

5 Matt. xxiv. 24.

THE CHURCH HISTORY

OF" RUSEBIVUS:

fixes.

abundance upon the earth and an unexpected famine made its appearance, and in addition to this a pestilence, and another severe disease consisting of an ulcer, which on account of its fiery appearance was appropriately called a carbuncle.!

This, spreading over the whole boay, greatly endangered the lives of those wno suffered from it; but as it chiefly attacked the eyes, it deprived multitudes of men, women,

and children of their sight.

In addition to this the tyrant was compelled to go to war with the Armenians, who had been from ancient times friends and allies of the Romans.

As they were also Christians? and zealous in their piety toward the Deity, the enemy of God had attempted to compel them to sacrifice to idols ine and pestilence.

Some, therefore, de-

sired to dispose of their most precious things to those who were better supplied, in return for the smallest morsel of food, and others, selling their possessions little by little, fell into the last extremity of want.

Some, chewing wisps of hay and recklessly eating noxious herbs, undermined and ruined their constitutions.

And some of the high-born

women in the cities, driven by want to shameful extremities, went forth into the marketplaces to beg, giving evidence of their former liberal culture by the modesty of their appearance and the decency of their apparel.

Some, wasted away like ghosts and at the

very point of death, stumbled and tottered here and there, and too weak to stand fell down in the middle of the streets; lying stretched out at full length they begged that a small morsel of food might be given them, and with their last gasp they cried out Hunger! having strength only for this most painful cry.

But others, who seemed to be better sup-

plied, astonished at the multitude of the beggars, after giving away large quantities, finally became hard and relentless, expecting that they themselves also would soon suffer the same calamities as those who begged.

So that in the midst of the market-places and lanes, dead and naked bodies lay unburied for many days, presenting the most lamentable spectacle to those that beheld them.

Some also became food for dogs, on which account the survivors began to kill the dogs, lest they should become mad and should go to: devouring men. and demons, and had thus made friends

foes, and allies enemies.

All these things suddenly took place at one and the same time, and refuted the tyrant's empty vaunt against the Deity.

For he had boasted that, because of his zeal for idols and his hostility against us, neither famine nor pestilence nor war had happened in his time.?

These things, therefore, coming upon him at once and together, furnished a prelude also of his own

destruction.

He himself with his forces was defeated in the war with the Armenians, and the rest of the inhabitants of the cities under him were terribly afflicted with famine and pestilence, so that one measure of wheat was sold for twenty-five hundred Attic

drachms.* Those who died in the cities were innumerable, and those who died in the country and villages were still more.

So that the tax lists which formerly included a great rural population were almost entirely wiped out ; nearly all being speedily destroyed by fam-

But still worse was the pestilence which

consumed entire houses and families, and especially those whom the famine was not able to destroy because of their abundance of food.

Thus men of wealth, rulers and governors and multitudes in office, as if left by the famine on purpose for the pestilence, suffered swift and speedy death.

Every place therefore was full of lamentation ; in every lane and market-place and street there was nothing else to be seen or heard than tears, with the customary instruments and the voices of the mourners.>

In this way death, waging war with these two weapons, pestilence and famine, destroyed whole families in a short time, so that one could see two or three dead bodies carried out at once.

Such were the rewards of the boasting of Maximinus and of the measures of the cities against us.

1 GvOpaé: "a carbuncle, malignant pustule (acc. to some smail-pox)." Liddell and Scott.

Eusebius is the only writer to tell us of this famine and pestilence during Maximin's reign, though

Lactantius (De Mort. pers. 37) does refer in a single sentence to a famine, without giving us any particulars in regard to it, or informing us of its severity or extent.

2 We do not know when Christianity was first preached in Armenia, but late in the third century

Gregory, '' the Illuminator," an Armenian of royal blood who had received a Christian training in Cappadocia, returned as a missionary to his native land, which was mainly heathen, and at the beginning of the fourth century succeeded in converting the king, Tiridates iit., and a large number of the nobles and people, and Christianity was established as the state religicu (see the articles Armenia and Gregory, the Illuminator, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).

The Armenians had been friends of the Romans for many generations and allies in their wars with the Persians on many occasions.

The present war is mentioned, so far as I know, only by Eusebius.

According to § 4, below, it ended in a defeat for Maximinus.

It cannot have been a war of great consequence.

It was very likely little more than a temporary misunderstanding, resulting perhaps in a few skirmishes between troops on the border, and speedily settled by a treaty of some kind or another.

Maximinus at any rate could not afford to quarrel long with his Eastern neighbors, in view of the struggle with Licinius which he knew must come in time. Whether the Armenians or the Romans were the aggressors in this affair,

Eusebius does not tell us.

It is very probable, as Mason suggests, that Maximinus tried to put down 'Christianity in Lesser Armenia, which was a Roman province and therefore under his sway, and that their brethren in the kingdom of Armenia took up arms against Rome to avenge their kindred and their faith.

Then did the evidences of the universal zeal and piety of the Christians become manifest to all the heathen.

For they alone in the midst of such ills showed their sympathy

3 See the previous chapter, § 8.

« An Attic drachm was a silver coin, worth about eighteen or Dineteen cents, 5 avA@y Te Kai KTUTWY.

CONSTANTINE'S VICTORY OVER MAXENTIUS.

XIX. 9.] and humanity by their deeds.

Every day some continued caring for and burying the dead, for there were multitudes who had no one to care for them; others collected in one place those who were afflicted by the famine, throughout the ius, who had not yet become insane.

Con-

stantine, who was the superior both in dignity and imperial rank," first took compassion upon those who were oppressed at Rome, and having invoked in prayer the God of heaven, and his Word, and Jesus Christ himself, the Saviour of all, as his aid, advanced with his whole army,' proposing to restore to the Romans their ancestral liberty.

But Maxentius, put-

ting confidence rather in the arts of sorcery than in the devotion of his subjects, did not dare to go forth beyond the gates of the city, but fortified every place and district and town which was enslaved by him, in the neighborhood of Rome and in all Italy, with an immense multitude of troops and with innumerable bands of soldiers.

But the emperor, relying upon the assistance of God, attacked the first, second, and third army of the tyrant, and conquered them all; and having advanced through the greater part of Italy, was already very near Rome.

Then, that he might not be compelled to

wage war with the Romans for the sake of the tyrant, God himself drew the latter, as if bound in chains, some distance without the gates, and confirmed those threats against the impious which had been anciently inscribed in sacred books, —disbelieved, indeed, by most as a myth, but believed by the faithful, confirmed them, in a word, by the deed itself to all, both believers and unbelievers, that saw the wonder with their eyes.

Thus, as in the time of

Moses himself and of the ancient Godbeloved race of Hebrews, "he cast Pharaoh's chariots and host into the sea, and overwhelmed his chosen charioteers in the Red Sea, and covered them with the flood,"® in the same way

Maxentius also with his soldiers and body-guards "went down into the depths like a stone," ® when he fled before the power of God which was with Censtantine, and passed through the river which lay in his way, over which he had formed a entire city, and gave bread to them all; so that the thing became noised abroad among all men, and they glorified the God of the Christians ; and, convinced by the facts themselves, confessed that they alone were truly pious and religious. After these things were thus done,

God, the great and celestial defender of the Christians, having revealed in the events which have been described his anger and indignation at all men for the great evils which they had brought upon us, restored to us the bright and gracious sunlight of his providence in our behalf ; so that in the deepest darkness a light of peace shone most wonderfully upon us from him, and made it manifest to all that God himself has always been the ruler of our affairs.

From time to time indeed he chastens his people and cor-

rects them by his visitations, but again after sufficient chastisement he shows mercy and favor to those who hope in him.

CHAPTER IX.

The Victory of the God-Beloved Emperors. z Tuus when Constantine, whom we have already mentioned * as an emperor, born of an emperor, a pious son of a most pious and prudent father, and Licinius, second to him,?— two God-beloved emperors, honored alike for their intelligence and their piety, — being stirred up against the two most impious tyrants by God, the absolute Ruler and Saviour of all, engaged in formal war against them, with God as their ally, Maxentius* was defeated at Rome by Constantine in a remarkable manner, and the tyrant of the East' did not long survive him, but met a most shameful death at the hand of LicinSe aS ee Se: ae eS eee 5 ovmw pavévtos tote.

This refers to Licinius' hostility to the Christians, which made its appearance some years later, and resulted in a persecution (see below, Bk. X. chap. 8). The clause, if a part of the original, obliges us to suppose that the ninth book was composed after Licinius had begun to persecute, but there are strong reasons for thinking that the first nine books were completed before 314 (see above, p. 45); indeed, we cannot explain Eusebius' eulogistic words in speaking of Licinius here and elsewhere in this book on any other ground.

It seems necessary, therefore, to regard this clause and the similar clause in § 12, below, as later insertions, made possibly at the time of the addition of the tenth book (see p. 45).

1 All the MSS., followed by Valesius and Crusé, give this as the title of the next chapter, and give as the title of this chapter the one which I have placed at the head of chapter 10.

It is plain enough from the contents of the two chapters that the titles have in some way become transposed in the MSS, and so they are restored to their proper position by the majority of the editors, whom I have followed.

1s See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13.

2 On Licinius, see 25d. note 21.

Constantine and Licinius were both Augusti, and thus nominally of equal rank, Nevertheless, both in the edict of Galerius, quoted in Bk. VIII. chap, 17, and in the edict of Milan, given in full in the De Mort. pers. chap. 48,

Constantine's name precedes that of Licinius, showing that he was regarded as in some sense the latter's senior, and thus confirming

Eusebius' statement, the truth of which Closs unnecessarily denies, It seems a little peculiar that Constantine should thus be recognized as Licinius' senior, especially in the edict of Galerius; for although it is true that he had been a Czsar some time before Licinius had been admitted to the imperial college, yet, on the other hand,

Licinius was made Augustus by Galerius before Constantine was, and enjoyed his confidence and favor much more fully than the 6 See above, note 2.

7 Constantine's battle with Maxentius, described in this chapter, took place on the sixth anniversary of the latter's accession, Oct. 27,

312 (see Lactantius, De Mort. pers. 44 and 46).

For particulars respecting Constantine himself and his campaign against Maxentius, see Dr. Richardson's prolegomena to his translation of the Lzfe of Constantine, p. 416. sq. of this volume.

; Ex. xv. 4,5.

The phrase translated "'charioteers" is aveSdtas tptotatas, whichis employed in the LXX to translate the Hebrew pps.

The word wy', which means literally a "third," and We Low rar hence a "third man" (Greek tpioratys), is used, according to Gesenius, to denote a chariot warrior, who was so called because

'three always stood upon one chariot, one of whom fought, while the second protected him with the shield, and the third drove." latter.

3 On Maxentius, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note x.

4 je. Maximinus.

For an account of his defeat by Licinius and his death, see below, chap. to.

9 Ex, xv. 5.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[IX. 9. dor."

And after this both Constantine

himself and with him the Emperor Licinius, who had not yet been seized by that madness into which he later fell,"® praising God as the author of all their blessings, with one will and mind drew up a full and most complete decree in behalf of the Christians," and sent an account of the wonderful things done for them by God, and of the victory over the tyrant, together with a copy of the decree itself, to Maximinus, who still ruled over the nations of the East and pretended friendship toward them.

But he, like a tyrant, was greatly pained by what he learned ; but not wishing to seem to yield to others, nor, on the other hand, to suppress that which was commanded, for fear of those who enjoined it, as if on his own authority, he addressed, under compulsion, to the governors under him this first communication in behalf of the Christians,!® falsely inventing things against himself which had never been done by him. bridge with boats, and thus prepared the

means of his own destruction.

In regard to him one might say, "he digged a pit and opened it and fell into the hole which he had made ; his labor shall turn upon his own head, and his unrighteousness shall fall upon his

owncrown.'""

Thus, then, the bridge over the river being broken, the passageway settled down, and immediately the boats with the men disappeared in the depths, and that most impious one himself first of all, then the shieldbearers who were with him, as the divine oracles

foretold, '"'sank like lead in the mighty

waters'; so that those who obtained the victory from God, if not in words, at least in deeds, like Moses, the great servant of God, and those who were with him, fittingly sang as they had sung against the impious tyrant of old, saying, " Let us sing unto the Lord, for he hath gloriously glorified himself; horse and rider hath he thrown into the sea; a helper and a protector hath he become for my salvation ;" " and "Who is like unto thee, O Lord ; among the gods, who is like unto thee? glorious in holiCopy of a translation of the epistle of the tyrant

Maximinus. ness," marvelous in glory, doing wonders."

These and the like praises Constantine, by his very deeds, sang to God, the universal

Ruler, and Author of his victory, as he entered Rome in triumph.

Immediately all the members of the senate and the other most celebrated men, with the whole Roman people, together with children and women, received him as their deliverer, their saviour, and their benefactor, with shining eyes and with their whole souls,

"Jovius Maximinus Augustus to Sabinus."

I am confident that it is manifest both to thy firmness and to all men that our masters Diocletian and Maximianus, our fathers, when they saw almost all men abandoning the worship of the gods and attaching themselves to the party of the Christians, rightly decreed that all who gave up the worship of those same immortal gods should be recalled by open chastisement and punishment to the worship of the gods.

But when I first came to the

with shouts of gladness and unbounded joy.

But he, as one possessed of inborn piety toward God, did not exult in the shouts, nor was he elated by the praises; but perceiving that his aid was from God, he immediately commanded that a trophy of the Saviour's passion be put in the hand of his own statue.

And when he had placed it, with the saving sign of the cross in its right hand, in the most public place in Rome, he commanded that the following in-

15 Upon Constantine's conversion, see Dr, Richardson's prolego-mena, p. 431, below.

On the famous tale of the flaming cross, with its Inscription TovTw vika, related in the Life of Constantine, I. 28,. see his note on that passage, p. 490, below.

16 See above, note 5.

17 This is the famous edict of Milan, which was issued late in the year 312, and which is given in the Latin original in Lactantius' De

Mort. pers. 48, and in a Greek translation in Eusebius' History, Bk, X.chap. 5, below.

For a discussion of its date and significance, see the notes upon that chapter.

18 This epistle or rescript (Eusebius calls it here a ypduma, just below an émtaroAy) of Maximin's was written before the end of the year:

312, as can be seen from the fact that in § 17, below, his visit to Nicome-. dia is spoken of as having taken place in the previous year.

But that visit, as we learn from the De Mort. pers. thas: 36, occurred in 3rr scription should be engraved upon it in the

Roman tongue:

" By this salutary sign, the true proof of bravery, I have saved and freed your city from the yoke of the tyrant; and moreover, having set at liberty both the senate and the people of Rome, I have restored them to their ancient distinction and splen- (cf. chp 2, note 1, above).

It must therefore have been issued immediately upon the receipt of the edict of Constantine and Licinius,

As Mason remarks, his reasons for writing this epistle can hardly have been fear of Constantine and Licinius, as Eusebius states, for he was bent upon war against them, and attacked Licinius at the earliest possible moment.

He cannot have cared, therefore, to take any special pains to conciliate them.

He was probably moved by a desire to conciliate, just at this crisis, the numerous and influential body of his subjects whom he had persecuted, in order that he might not have to contend with disaffection and. disloyalty within his own dominions during his impending conflict with Licintie!

The docu-. ment itself is a most peculiar one, full of false statements and contradictions.

Mason well says: 'In this curious letter Maximin contradicts himself often enough to make his Christian subjects dizzy.

First he justifies bloody persecution, then plumes himself upon having stopped it, next apologizes for having set it again on foot, then denies that it was going on, and lastly orders it to cease.

We cannot wonder at what Eusebius relates, that the people whose wrongs the letter applauded and forbade, neither built church nor held meeting in public on the strength of it; they did not know where to have it."

10 Psa. vii. 15, 16.

11 Ex, xv. 10.

12 [bid. verse 1, Eusebius, in this and the next passage, follows the LXX, which differs considerably from the Hebrew.

18 The LXX, followed by Eusebius, reads deSogacpévos év aylors to translate the Hebrew wpa VND.

It seems probable, both

as from the Hebrew original and from the use of the plural Ségacs in the next clause, that the LXX translator used the plural ayiocs, not to denote "' saints,'' as Closs renders ('' durch die Heiligen "), which would in strictness require the article, but "holiness."

I have therefore ventured to render the word thus in the text, although quite conscious that the translation does not accurately reproduce the Greek phrase as it stands.

Ex. xv. 31, 18 On Sabinus, see above, chap. r, note 3.

MAXIMIN'S GRANT OF PARTIAL TOLERATION.

IX. 9.] not suffer insults or extortions* from the beneficiaries,™ or from any others, I have thought meet to remind thy firmness in this epistle * also that thou shouldst lead our provincials rather by flatteries and exhortations to recognize the care of the gods.

Hence, if any one of his own choice should decide to adopt the worship of the gods, it is fitting that he should be welcomed, but if any should wish to follow their own religion, do thou leave it in their power.

Wherefore it behooves thy

devotedness to observe that which is committed to thee, and to see that power is given to no one to oppress our provincials with insults and extortions," since, as already written, it is fitting to recall our provincials to the worship of the god& rather by exhortations and flatteries.

But, in order that this command of ours may come to the knowledge of all our provincials, it is incumbent upon thee to proclaim that which has been enjoined, in an edict issued by thyself."

East under favorable auspices and learned that in some places a great many men who were able to render public service had been banished by the judges for the above-mentioned cause, I gave command to each of the judges that henceforth none of them should treat the provincials with severity, but that they should rather recall

them to the worship of the gods by flattery and exhortations."

Then when, in accordance with my command, these orders were obeyed by the judges, it came to pass that none of those who lived in the districts of the East were banished or insulted, but that they were rather brought back to the worship of the gods

by the fact that no severity was employed toward them.

But afterwards, when I went up last year* under good auspices to Nicomedia and sojourned there, citizens of the same city came to me with the images of the gods, earnestly entreating that such a people should

by no means be permitted to dwell in their country.

But when I learned that many men of the same religion dwelt in those regions, I replied that I gladly thanked them for their request, but that I perceived that it was not proffered by all, and that if, therefore, there were any that persevered in the same superstition, each one had the privilege of doing as he

Since he was forced to do this by necessity and did not give the command by his own will, he was not regarded' by any one as sincere or trustworthy, because he had already shown his unstable and deceitful disposition after his former similar concession.

None of our people, therefore, ventured to hold meetings or even to appear in public, because his communication did not cover this, but only commanded to guard against doing us any injury, and did not give orders that we should hold

pleased, even if he wished to recognize the

worship of the gods."

Nevertheless, I considered it necessary to give a friendly answer to the inhabitants of Nicomedia and to the other cities which had so earnestly presented to me the same petition, namely, that no Christians should dwell in their cities, — both because this same course had been pursued by all the ancient emperors, and also because it was pleasing to the gods, through whom all men and the government of the state itself .adure,—and to confirm the request which they presented in

behalf of the worship of their deity.

Therefore, although before this time, special letters have been sent to thy devotedness, and commands have likewise been given that no harsh measures should be taken against those provincials who desire to follow such a course, but that they should be treated mildly and moderately,

— nevertheless, in order that they may meetings or build churches or perform any of our customary acts.

And yet Constan-

tine and Licinius, the advocates of peace and piety, had written him to permit this, and had granted it to all their subjects by edicts and ordinances.

But this most impious man did not choose to yield in this matter until, being driven by the divine judgment, he was at last compelled to do it against his will. contradictory.

Certainly no one could gain from them any idea as to what the emperor had done in the matter.

24 geopous, literally, '' shakings," or '' shocks."

The word is doubtless used to translate the Latin concusszo, which in legal language meant the extortion of money by threats or other similar means.

The words concussto, concussor, concutit, are used very frequently by Tertullian in this sense; e.g. in his De fuga tm persecutione, chan! 12, ad Scap. chaps. 4 and 5, Aol. chap. 7.

See .

; :

; aS especially Oehler's note on the word in his edition of Tertullian's works, I. p. 484.

25 Bevedixcadiwv, a simple reproduction of the Latin deneficiarti, These benefictarti were ''free or privileged soldiers, who through the favor of their commander were exempt from menial offices" (Andrews' Lexicon).

We are nowhere told, so far as 1 am aware, that these Jeneficiari? were especially active in thus practicing extortions upoa the Christians; but we can gather from Tertullian's words in the various passages referred to that the Christians had to suffer particularly from the soldiers in this respect, and doubtless from the deneficiarz? most of all; for they possessed. more leisure than the common soldiers, and at the same time greater opportunity, because of their more intimate relations with the authorities, of bringing the Christians into difficulty by entering accusations against them.

20 Nothing could be farther from the truth than this and the following statement.

21 That is, after the death of Galerius in the year 311.

'' Maximinus, on receiving this news (i.e. of the death of Galerius), hasted with relays of horses from the East that he might seize the provinces, and, while Licinius delayed, might arrogate to himself the Chalcedonian straits.

On his entry into Bithynia, with the view of acquiring immediate popularity, he abolished the tax to the great joy of all.

Dissension arose between the two emperors, and almost war.

They stood on the opposite shores with their armies.

But peace and friendship were established under certain conditions; a treaty was concluded on the narrow sea, and they joined hands" (Lactantius,

De mort. pers. 36). See above, chap. 2, note 1, 26 rois ypaymacr.

On the use of the plural in speaking of a single epistle, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 12.

22 On these embassies, see 767d. note 3.

23 There is no sign of such consideration in Maximin's rescript, quoted in chap. 7, above.

The sentences which follow are quite 27 See note 24.

28 See above, note 17, and below, Bk. X. chap. 5.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[IX. to. a that the divine oracles are faithful and true, in which it is said, " A king is not saved by a great force, and a giant shall not be saved by the greatness of his strength; a horse is a vain thing for safety, nor shall he be delivered by the greatness of his 'power. Behold, the eyes of the Lord are upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy, to deliver their souls from death."'

Thus the ty-

rant, covered with shame, went to his own country.

And first, in frantic rage, he slew many priests and prophets of the gods whom he had formerly admired, and whose oracles had incited him to undertake the war, as sorcerers and impostors, and besides all as betrayers of his safety.

Then having given glory to the God of the Christians and enacted a most full and complete ordinance in behalf of their liberty,* he was immediately seized with a mortal disease, and no respite being granted him, departed this life.° The law enacted by him was as follows :

CHAPTER X.

The Overthrow of the Tyrants and the Words which they uttered before their Death.

THE circumstances which drove him to this course were the following.

Being no longer able to sustain the magnitude of the government which had been undeservedly committed to him, in consequence of his want of prudence and imperial understanding, he managed affairs in a base manner, and with his mind unreasonably exalted in all things with boastful pride, even toward his colleagues in the empire who were in every respect his superiors, in birth, in training, in education, in worth and intelligence, and, greatest of all, in temperance and piety toward the true God, he began to ¥ venture to act audaciously and to arrogate to himself the first rank.2

Becoming mad in his folly, he broke the treaties which he had made with Licinius? and undertook an implacable war.

Then in a brief time he threw all things into confusion, and stirred up every city, and having collected his entire force, comprising an immense number of soldiers, he went forth to battle with him, elated by his hopes in

Copy of the edict of the tyrant in behalf of

the Christians, translated from the Roman tongue.

"The Emperor Cesar Caius Valerius Maximinus, Germanicus, Sarmaticus, Pius, Felix, Invictus, Augustus.

We believe it manifest that no one is ignorant, but that every man who looks back over the past knows and is conscious that in every way we care continually for the good of our provincials, and wish to furnish them with those things which are of especial advantage to all, and for the common benefit and profit, and whatever contributes to the public welfare

. and is agreeable to the viewsofeach. When,

therefore, before this, it became clear to our mind that under pretext of the command of our parents, the most divine Diocletian and Maximianus, which enjoined that the meetings of the demons, whom he supposed to be gods, and

by the number of his soldiers.

And when he joined battle* he was deprived of the oversight of God, and the victory was given to Licinius,> who was then ruling, by the one and only God of all.

First, the army in which he trusted was destroyed, and as all his guards abandoned him and left him alone, and fled to the victor, he secretly divested himself as quickly as possible of the imperial garments, which did not fitly belong to him, and in a cowardly and ignoble and unmanly way mingled with the crowd, and then fled, concealing himself in fields and villages.

But though he was so careful for his safety, he scarcely escaped the hands of his enemies, revealing by his deeds

T Ps. xxxiii. 16-19.

8 The final toleration edict of Maximin must have been issued very soon after his defeat, and its occasion is plain enough.

If he were to oppose Licinius successfully, he must secure the loyalty of all his subjects, and this could be done only by granting the Christians full toleration.

He could see plainly enough that Licinius' religious policy was a success in securing the allegiance of his subjects, and he found himself compelled in self-defense to pursue a 1 On the transposition of the titles of chaps. g and 10, see the previous chapter, note 1.

2 That Maximin should arrogate to himself, as Eusebius says, the highest rank is not very surprising, when we realize that that position, in so far as any difference in rank between the different rulers was acknowledged, belonged to him by right, inasmuch as he was Constantine's senior (having been first Cesar when the latter was only second), while Constantine (see above, chap. g, note 2) was regarded as the senior of Licinius. similar course, distasteful as it was to him.+ There is no sign that he had any other motive in taking this step.

Religious considerations seem to have had nothing to do with it; he was doubtless as much of a pagan as ever.

The edict itself is composed in an admirable vein.

As Mason remarks, '' Maximin made the concession with so much dignity and grace, that it is impossible to help wishing that his language were truer."

As in the previous decree, he indulges his passion for lying without restraint; but, unlike that one, the present edict is straightforward and consistent throughout, and grants the Christians full libe rty in the most unequivocal terms.

3 The treaty made in 311, just after the death of Galerius (see De mort. pers. 30.

4 This battle between Licinius and Maximin was fought on April 30, 313, at Adrianople, in Thrace.

Fora more detailed but somewhat imaginative account of the battle, see De mort. pers. chap. 45 sq.

Lactantius is considerate enough to accord Licinius the honor of a divine vision, that he may not be behind his imperial colleague Constantine; and he is pious enough to ascribe the victory wholly to the cirige aid vouchsafed in response to the prayers of Licinius and his soldiers.

® Maximin's death took place at Tarsus (according to De mort. pers. chap. 49), and apparently within a few weeks after his defeat at Adrianople and the publication of his edict of toleration.

The reports of his death are somewhat conflicting.

Zosimus and the epitomist of Victor say merely that he died a natural death; Lactantius tells us that he took poison; while Eusebius in § 14 sq. gives us a horrible account of his last sickness which, according to him, was marked, to say the least, with some rather remarkable symptoms.

Mason facetiously remarks that Eusebius seems to be thinking of a spontaneous combustion.

It was quite the fashion in the early Church to tell dreadful tales in connection with the deaths

_> The word Licinius is omitted by Laemmer and Heinichen, but without sufficient warrant, for it is found in nearly all the MSS.

® Lactantius (247d. chap. 47) informs us that Maximin's flight was so rapid that he reached Nicomedia, which was 160 miles from Adrianople, on the evening of the day following the battle.

As Gibbon remarks, '' The incredible speed which Maximin exerted in his flight is much more celebrated than his prowess in battle."

EXITS

DEATH OF MAXIMIN.

eee eS ee who recently had been destroyed by fire and sword, by wild beasts and birds of prey, in the presence of the tyrant himself, and had suffered every species of torture and punishment, and most miserable deaths as atheists and impious wretches, were now acknowledged by him as possessors of religion and were permitted to build churches; and the tyrant himself bore witness and confessed that they had some rights.

And having made such confessions, as if he had received some benefit on account of them, he suffered perhaps less than he ought to have suffered, and being smitten by a sudden scourge of God, he perished in the second campaign of the war.

But his end

was not like that of military chieftains who, while fighting bravely in battle for virtue and friends, often boldly encounter a glorious death ; for like an impious enemy of God, while his army was still drawn up in the field, remaining at home and concealing himself, he suffered the punishment which he deserved.

For he was smitten with a sudden scourge of God in his whole body, and harassed by terrible pains and torments, he fell prostrate on the ground, wasted by hunger, while all his flesh was dissolved by an invisible and God-sent fire, so that the whole appearance of his frame was changed, and there was left only a kind of image wasted away by length of time to a skeleton of dry bones; so that those who were present could think of his body as nothing else than the tomb of his soul, which was buried in a body already dead and completely melted away.

And as the

heat still more violently consumed him in the depths of his marrow, his eyes burst forth, and falling from their sockets left him blind.

Thereupon still breathing and making free confession to the Lord, he invoked death, and at last, after acknowledging that he justly suffered these things on account of his violence against Christ, he gave up the ghost.

Christians should be abolished, many extortions " and spoliations had been practiced by officials ; and that those evils were continually increasing, to the detriment of our provincials, toward whom we are especially anxious to exercise proper care, and that their possessions were in consequence perishing, letters were sent last year" to the governors of each province, in which we decreed that, if any one wished to follow such a practice or to observe this same religion, he should be permitted without hindrance to pursue his purpose and should be impeded and prevented by no one, and that all should

have liberty to do without any fear or suspicion that which each preferred.

But even now we cannot help perceiving that some of the judges have mistaken our commands, and have given our people reason to doubt the meaning of our ordinances, and have caused them to proceed too reluctantly to the observance of

those religious rites which are pleasing to them.

In order, therefore, that in the future every suspicion of fearful doubt may be taken away, we have commanded that this decree be published, so that it may be clear to all that whoever wishes to embrace this sect and religion

is permitted to do so by virtue of this grant of ours; and that each one, as he wishes or as is pleasing to him, is permitted to practice this re-. ligion which he has chosen to observe according to his custom.

It is also granted them to

build Lord's houses.

But that this grant of ours may be the greater, we have thought good to decree also that if any houses and lands before this time rightfully belonged to the Christians, and by the command of our parents fell into the treasury, or were confiscated by any city, — whethef they have been sold or presented to any one as a gift, —that all these should be restored to their original possessors, the Christians, in order that in this also every one may have knowledge of our piety and care."

These are the words of the tyrant which were published not quite a year after the decrees against the Christians engraved by him on pillars.* And by him to whom a little before we seemed impious wretches and atheists and destroyers of all life, so that we were not permitted to dwell in any city nor even in coun-

CHAPTER XI.

The Final Destruction of the Enemies of Religion.

Tuus when Maximinus, who alone had

remained of the enemies of religion' and had appeared the worst of them all, was put out of the way, the renovation of the churches from their foundations was begun by the grace of God the Ruler of all, and the word of Christ, shining unto the glory of the God of the universe, obtained greater freedom than before, try or desert, — by him decrees and ordinances were issued in behalf of the Christians, and they

SS of the persecutors, but in the present case exaggeration is hardly necessary, for it would seem from Lactantius' account, that he died not of poison, as he states, but of delirium tremens.

As Mason remarks, 'It is probable that Maximin died of Eohing worse than a natural death.

But the death which was natural to him was the most dreadful perhaps that men can die.

Maximin was known as an habitual drunkard; and in his dying delirium he is said to have cried out that he saw God, with assessors, all in white robes, judging him."

10 See chap. g, note 24.

11 i.e. the epistle addressed to Sabinus, and quoted in the previous chapter, which was written toward the end of 312 (see that chapter, note 18).

1 Maximian died in 310 (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 23), Galerius in 311 (see zézd. chap. 16, note 5), Maxentius in 312 (see above, chap. g, note 7), and Diocletian early in 313 (see Bk. VIII.

App. note 3).

12 See above, chap, 7.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[IX. 11. moned by justice which by no means overlooked his deeds against the Christians.

For when the statue had been set up by him at Antioch,' he appeared to be in the happiest state, and was already made a governor by Maxirhinus.

But Licinius, coming down to the city of

Antioch, made a search for impostors, and tortured the prophets and priests of the newly erected statue, asking them for what reason they practiced their deception.

They, under the stress of torture, were unable longer to conceal the matter, and declared that the whole deceptive mystery had been devised by the art of Theotecnus.

Therefore, after meting out to all of them just judgment, he first put Theotecnus himself to death, and then his confederates in the imposture, with the severest possible tortures.

To all these were added also the

children® of Maximinus, whom he had already made sharers in the imperial dignity, by placing their names on tablets and statues. And the relatives of the tyrant, who before had been boastful and had in their pride oppressed all men, suffered the same punishments with those who have been already mentioned, as well as the extremest disgrace.

For they had not received instruction, neither did they know and understand the exhortation given in the Holy Word: " Put not your 'trust in prin-

ces, nor in the sons of men, in whom there is no salvation; his spirit shall go forth and return to his earth ; in that day all their thoughts perish." ® while the impious enemies of religion were covered with extremest shame and dishonor.

For Maximinus himself, being first pronounced by the emperors a common enemy, was declared by public proclamations to be a most impious, execrable, and God-hating tyrant.

And of the portraits which had been set up in every city in honor of him or of his children, some were thrown down from their places to the ground, and torn in pieces ; while the faces of others were obliterated by daubing them with black paint.

And the statues which had been erected to his honor were likewise overthrown and broken, and lay exposed to the laughter and sport of those who wished to insult and

abuse them.

Then also all the honors of the other enemies of religion were taken away, and all those who sided with Maximinus were slain, especially those who had been honored by him with high offices in reward for their flattery, and had behaved insolently toward

our doctrine.

Such an one was Peucetius,? the dearest of his companions, who had been honored and rewarded by him above all, who had been consul a second and third time, and had been appointed by him chief minister ;* and Culcianus,* who had likewise advanced through every grade of office, and was also celebrated for his numberless executions of Christians in Egypt ;° and besides these not a few others, by whose agency especially the tyranny of Maximinus had been confirmed and ex-

tended.

And Theotecnus® also was sumThe impious ones having been thus

removed, the government was preserved firm and undisputed for Constantine and Licinius, to whom it fittingly belonged.

They, having first of all cleansed the world of hostility to the Divine Being, conscious of the benefits which he had conferred upon them, showed their love of virtue and of God, and their piety and gratitude to the Deity, by their ordinance in behalf of the Christians."

2 Of this Peucetius (Rufinus Peucedius) we know only what is told us here.

Walesius says: ''The name is to be rendered Picentzus, a name which was borne by a certain ca/umuiator in the time of Constantine, as is stated by Zosimus at the end of his second book.

The Latins, indeed, call them Picentes whom the Greeks call IIvxerious."

3 tv Kadddov Adywv émapxos, apparently equivalent to the phrase émi t@v xa8dAov Adywr, used in Bk. VII. chap. 10, §5. On its significance, see the note on that passage, and cf. Valesius' note ad locum.

4 This same Culcianus appears in the Acts of St. Phileas of Thmuzs (Ruinart, p. 434 sq.; see the extract printed in Mason, p.

290 sq.) as the magistrate or governor under whom Phileas suffered in Thebais.

He is doubtless to be identified, as Valesius remarks, with Culeianus (KovAyvavds) mentioned by Epiphanius (Her.

LXVIII. 1) as governor of Thebais at the time of the rise of the Meletian schism, while Hierocles was governor of Alexandria.

7 See chap. 3.

8 Lactantius (De mort. pers. chap. 50) tells us that Maximin left a wife and two children, a boy eight years old, named Maximus, and a daughter seven years old who was betrothed to Candidianus.

© Culcianus seems to have been governor of Thebais (where Phileas suffered, according to Bk. VIII. chap. 9), not of Egypt.

Possibly Eusebius employs the word Egypt in its general sense, as including Thebais.

9 Ps, cxlvi. 3, 4.

10 See below, Bk. X. chap. 5.

6 On Theotecnus, see above, chap. 2, note 4.

BOOK X.

& "Sing unto the Lord a new song, for he hath done marvelous things.

His right hand and his holy arm hath saved him.

The Lord hath made known his salvation, his righteousness hath he revealed in the presence of the nations."'*

And in accordance with the utterance which commands us to sing the new song, let us proceed to show that, after those terrible and gloomy spectacles which we have described," we are now permitted to see and celebrate such things as many truly righteous men and martyrs of God before us desired to see upon earth and did not see, and to hear and did not hear.'

But they, hastening on, obtained far better things,' being carried to heaven and the paradise of divine pleasure.

But, acknowledging that even these things are greater than we deserve, we have been astonished at the grace manifested by the author of the great gifts, and rightly do we admire him, worshiping him with the whole power of our souls, and testifying to the truth of those recorded utterances, in which it is said, "Come and see the works

CHAPTER I.

The Peace granted us by God.

Tuanxs for all things be given unto God the Omnipotent Ruler and King of the universe, and the greatest thanks to Jesus Christ the Saviour and Redeemer of our souls, through whom we pray that peace may be always pre-

served for us firm and undisturbed by external troubles and by troubles of the mind.

Since in accordance with thy wishes, my most holy Paulinus, we have added the tenth book of the Church History to those which have preceded,? we will inscribe it to thee, proclaiming thee as the seal of the whole

work; and we will fitly add in a perfect number the perfect panegyric upon the restoration of the churches,' obeying the Divine

Spirit which exhorts us in the following words : ee

1 Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, became afterward bishop of Antioch, as we are told by Eusebius, Contra Marcellum, \. 4, and by Philostorgius, H. £. Ill. 15.

Accor to Jerome's Chron., year of Abr. 2345, he was the successor of Philogonius and the predecessor of Eustathius in the episcopate of Antioch.

He was still alive when Eusebius completed his Hzstory, that is, at least as late as "3 (see above, p. 45), but he was already dead when the Council i iczea met; for Eustathius was at that time bishop of Antioch (see e.g. Sozomen, H. E. 1.17, Theodoret, H. Z. I.7, and the Acts of the Council of Niczea, ed.

Labbei et Cossartii, I. p. 51), and Zeno, bishop of Tyre (see the Acts of the Nicene Council, zézd.).

Philostorgius (zbzd.) informs us that he became bishop of Antioch but six months before his death, and there is no reason to doubt the statement.

Eusebius speaks of him in the highest terms, both here and in his

of the Lord, the wonders which he hath done upon the earth; he removeth wars to the ends of the world, he shall break the bow and snap the spear in sunder, and shall burn the shields with fire.'® Rejoicing in these things which have been clearly fulfilled in our day, let us proceed with our account.

Contra Marcellum, and it was at the dedication of his church in Tyre that he delivered the panegyric oration quoted in oP 4; below.

He is claimed as a sympathizer a Arius in his epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theodoret, H.

£. I. 5), and that he accepted Arius' tenets is im lied by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who, however, feels ss to admonish him for not showing greater zeal in the support of the cause (see this epistle quoted by Theodoret,

H. E.1.6).

This is the extent of our information in regard to him.

2 On the date of the composition of the tenth book of the Azstory, and its relation to the earlier books, see above, p. 45vf

The whole race of God's enemies was destroyed in the manner indicated,' and was thus suddenly swept from the sight of men.

So that again a divine utterance had its fulfillment: "I have seen the impious highly exalted and raising himself like the cedars of Lebanon ; and I have passed by, and behold, he was not ; and I have sought his place, and it could not be found."

And finally a bright and

splendid day, overshadowed by no cloud, illuminated with beams of heavenly light the churches of Christ throughout the entire world.

And not even those without our communion" were prevented from sharing in the same blessings, or at least from coming under their influea anaEnn TESS 3 elkotws & év aprOu@ TeArciw TOV TEAELOY év7av0a Kal mavnyuptKoy THS TOV EKKANTLOV avavewrews Adyov Katatafouev.

The meaning of this sentence is very obscure.

Valesius translates: ec aésurde ut opinor, absolutam omnibus numeris orationem panegyricam de ecclesiarum instauratione hic in perfecto numero collocabimus.

Stroth, followed by Closs, renders:

'' Mit Recht werden wir hier auch eine vollstandige feierliche Rede, von der Wiedererneuerung der Kirchen, als einen ordentlichen Theil miteinriicken."

Crusé reads: heute indeed, shall we here subjoin in a perfect number a complete discourse and panegyric on the renovation of the churches." The "' perfect number " seems to refer to the number of the book (the number ten being commonly so called in ancient times), to which he has referred in the previous clause.

Could we regard the "perfect panegyric " as referring to the book as a whole, as Crusé does, the sentence would be somewhat clearer; but the phrase seems to be a plain reference to the oration given in chap. 4, especially since Eusebius does not say 7s éxxAngias, but Tov éxkAngiov, as in the title of that oration. have preserved the play of words, TeAetw — TéAeLoy, In order to bring out Eusebius' thought more clearly, but it must be remarked that the word réAecov does not imply praise of the quality of his oration on the author's part.

It is used rather in the sense of comlete or final, because it celebrates a completed work, as the tenth bee completes his History, and thus crowns the whole.

4 Psa. xcviii. 1, 2.

5 Literally, '' spectacles and narratives'?

(dWees te wat dun ynoes).

6 Cf. Matt. xiii. 17.

7 Cf. Phil. i. 23.

8 Psa. xlvi. 8, 9.

9 See chaps. ro and rx of the preceding book.

10 Psa, xxxvil. 35, 36.

11 tois éfwOev Tov Kad' nuas O.acov.

THE. CHURCH HISTORY OF "EUSEDIU>:

[eae 37° ence and enjoying a part of the benefits bestowed upon us by God."

Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and one soul in all, and the same eagerness of faith, and one hymn from all in praise of the Deity.

Yea, and perfect services were conducted by the prelates, the sacred rites being solemnized, and the majestic institutions of the Church observed,' here with the singing of psalms and with the reading of the words committed to us by God, and there with the performance of divine and mystic services; and the mysterious symbols of the Saviour's passion were dispensed.

Atthe same time people of every

age, both male and female, with all the power of the mind gave honor unto God, the author of their benefits, in prayers and thanksgiving, with a joyful mind and soul.

And every one of the bishops present, each to the best of his ability, delivered panegyric orations, adding luster to the assembly.

CHAPTER II.

The Restoration of the Churches.

ALL men, then, were freed from the oppression of the tyrants, and being released from the former ills, one in one way and another in another acknowledged the defender of the pious to be the only true God. And we especially who placed our hopes in the Christ of God had unspeakable gladness, and a certain inspired joy bloomed for all of us, when we saw every place which shortly before had been desolated by the impieties of the tyrants reviving as if from a long and death-fraught pestilence, and temples again tising from their foundations to an immense height, and receiving a splendor far greater than that of the old ones which had been destroyed.

'But the supreme rulers also confirmed to us still more extensively the munificence of God by repeated ordinances in behalf of the Christians ; and personal letters of the emperor were sent to the bishops, with honors and gifts of money.

It may not be unfitting to insert these documents, translated from the Roman into the Greek tongue, at the proper place in this book,! as in a sacred tablet, that they may remain as a memorial to all who shall come after us.

CHAPTER IV.

Panegyric on the Splendor of Affairs.

A CERTAIN one of those of moderate tal-

ent,' who had composed a discourse, stepped forward in the presence of many pastors who were assembled as if for a church gathering, and while they attended quietly and decently, he addressed himself as follows to one who was in all things a most excellent bishop and beloved of God,' through whose zeal the temple in Tyre, which was the most splendid in Phcenicia, had been erected.

CHAPTER SII, The Dedications in Every Place.

Panegyric upon the building of the churches, 2% addressed to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre. a AFTER this was seen the sight which had been desired and prayed for by us all; feasts of dedication in the cities and consecrations of the newly built houses of prayer took

"Friends and priests of God who are clothed in the sacred gown and adorned with the heayenly crown of glory, the inspired unction and place, bishops assembled, foreigners came

_together from abroad, mutual love was exhibited the sacerdotal garment of the Holy Spirit ; and thou,' oh pride of God's new holy temple, endowed by him with the wisdom of age, and yet exhibiting costly works and deeds of youthful and flourishing virtue, to whom God himself, who embraces the entire world, has granted the distinguished honor of building and renewing this earthly house to Christ, his only begotten and first-born Word, and to his holy and divine bride ;*—-one might call thee anew Beseleel,>

the architect of a divine tabernacle, or Solomon, king of a new and much better Jerusalem, re ee TS between people and people, the members of Christ's body were united in complete har-

mony.

Then was fulfilled the prophetic utterance which mystically foretold what was to take place: "Bone to bone and joint to joint,"* and whatever was truly announced in enigmatic expressions in the inspired pas-

sage.

And there was one energy of the 12 By the edict of Constantine and Licinius full religious liberty was granted, not only to the Christians, but to all men of whatever creed or cult.

1 See below, chaps. 5-7.

1 Ezek. xxxvii. 7.

2 These sentences are excellent examples of Eusebius' rhetorical style, which marks the greater part of this tenth book. My endeavor has been to adhere as closely as possible to the original; and yet there are cases in which it is quite out of the question to give a literal translation without violating all grammatical laws, and in which the sense can be reproduced only by paraphrasing,

The present sentence runs vat wiv Kai THY mponyoumevwy evTedcis Asides tepoupyiar Te THY iepwudvwy, Kal Ocompemeis éxxAnalas erpnol, * This person was clearly Eusebius himself (see above, p. rr).

Upon the date of this dedicatory service, at which Eusebius deliv. ered the oration given in full in this chapter, see zzd.

? Paulinus, bishop of Tyre.

See above, chap. I, note r, 3 i.e, Paulinus.

4 ce Rey. xxi. 2.

5 BeoedeyA, which is the form found in the LXX.

The Hebrew is bxbxz, which the R. V. renders '" Bezalel."

See Ex. XXXV.

30 sq.

X. 4]

EUSEBIUS' DISCOURSE ATCIVRE.

the dunghill.'"

'He hath put down princes from their thrones and hath exalted them of low degree from the earth.

The hungry he hath filled with good things and the arms of the proud he hath broken.'"

Not onlyto

the faithful, but also to unbelievers, has he confirmed the record of ancient events ; he that worketh miracles, he that doeth great things, the or also a new Zerubabel, who added a much greater glory than the former to the temple

of God;*—and you also, oh nurslings of the sacred flock of Christ, habitation of good words, school of wisdom, and august

and pious auditory of religion :' It was long ago permitted us to raise hymns and songs to God, when we learned from hearing the Divine

Scriptures read the marvelous signs of God and the benefits conferred upon men by the Lord's wondrous deeds, being taught to say 'Oh God ! we have heard with our ears, our fathers have

Master of all, the Creator of the whole world, the omnipotent, the all-merciful, the one and only God.

To him let us sing the new song," supplying in thought," 'To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth forever';***To him which smote great kings, and slew famous kings: for his mercy endureth forever'; 'For the Lord remembered us in our low estate and delivered us from our adversaries.' ** And let us never cease to

cry aloud in these words to the Father of the universe.

And let us always honor him with our mouth who is the second cause of our benefits, the instructor in divine knowledge, the teacher of the true religion, the destroyer of the impious, the slayer of tyrants, the reformer of life, Jesus, the Saviour of us who were in despair.

For he alone, as the only allgracious Son of an all-gracious Father, in accordance with the purpose of his Father's benevolence, has willingly put on the nature of us who lay prostrate in corruption, and like some excellent physician, who for the sake of saving them that are ill, examines their sufferings, handles their foul sores, and reaps pain for himself from the miseries of another," so us who were not only diseased and afflicted with terrible ulcers and wounds already mortified, but were even lying among the dead, he hath saved for himself from the very jaws of death.

For none other of those in heaven had such told us the work which thou didst in their

days, in days of old.'® But now as we no longer perceive the lofty arm ® and the celestial right hand of our all-gracious God and universal King by hearsay merely or report, but observe so to speak in very deed and with our own eyes that the declarations recorded long ago are faithful and true, it is permitted us to raise a second hymn of triumph and to sing with loud voice, and say, 'As we have heard, so have we seen; in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God.'"

And in what city but in this newly built and God-constructed one, which is a 'church of the living God, a pillar and foundation of the truth,' concerning which also another divine oracle thus proclaims, ' Glorious things have been spoken of thee, oh city of God.'"

Since the all-gracious God has brought us together to it, through the grace of his OnlyBegotten, let every one of those who have been summoned sing with loud voice and say, 'I was glad when they said unto me, we shall go unto the house of the Lord,' ¥ and 'Lord, I have

loved the beauty of thy house and the place

where thy glory dwelleth.'* And let us not only one by one, but all together, with one spirit and one soul, honor him and cry aloud, saying, ' Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in his holy mountain.'

For he is truly great, and great is his house, lofty and spacious and 'comely in beauty above the sons of men.'

'Great is the Lord who alone doeth wonderful things' ;"

'great is he who doeth great things and things past finding out, glorious and marvelous things which cannot be numbered' ; great is he ' who changeth times and seasons, who exalteth and debaseth kings'; 'who raiseth up the poor from the earth and lifteth up the needy from 20 y Sam. ii. 8 (Psa. cxiii. 7).

21 Luke i. 52, 5322 Cf. Psa. xcvis 1.

28 mpocumaxovovtes.

Eusebius seems to use this rather peculiar expression because the words of song which he suggests are not the words of the '' new song" given by the Psalmist, but are taken from other parts of the book.

% Psa. cxxxvi. 4.

25 [bid. 17.

26 Jbid, 23, 24.

27 It is remarked by Valesius that these words are taken from some tragic poet.

That they are quoted from an ancient writer is clear enough from the Ionic forms which occur (6p, addAorpijar,

Eudapnou, and if a few slight changes be made (xauvdvtwy to KapmovTwr, évexey to eivexev, wey to Ta, ém' aAAoTpLATL TE to aAAoOtpijot) the words resolve themselves into iambic trimeters: —

THS TOV KaudvTwY elveKey GwTHpias opp Ta Seva, Ovyyaver 5 andéwv, adAotpinat cupdpopyatw idias kaprovTat Avmas, According to Valesius, Gregory Nazianzen in his first Ovatio quotes the last verse (kai To ém'adAorpiacs cuudopais idtas KaprovcGar

Avmas, in which there is no trace of the poetical form) with the remark ws én Tis TaY map' éxeivors gopwv; and Valesius adds:

" Ad quem locum Elias Cretensis notat verba hec esse Hippocratis quem Gregorius Nazianzenus sapientis cujusdam nomine designat."

Moreover, Schwegler remarks that the words are taken from Hippocrates.

In a note ad locum he says:

" Hippocratis medici (cf. Hippocr. de Flat. zzt. p. 78, ed.

Foes) gue eadem laudantur et ab aliis Scriptoribus, veluti a Luciano in Bis.

Accus. c. I. p.

49, ed. Bip.

Cf. gue interpretes adnotaverunt ad Luciani, Le ee VII. p. 400, ed. Bip."

I have not examined these references, and can therefore form no judgment in the matter.

6 See Hag. ii.

7 Eusebius iadcceme first the assembled clergymen in general, then Paulinus in particular, and finally the people, calling the latter " nurslings,"

'' habitation," "' school,"

'' auditory." he significance of the words as used by him is plain enough, but their collocation is rather remarkable.

14 Psa. xxvi. 8.

15 Psa. xlviii. 1.

8 Psa. xliv. 1.

9 Cf. Ex. vi. 6 et al.

10 Psa, xlviii. 8.

16 Psa, xlv. 2.

11; Tim, iii. 15.

17 Psa, cxxxvi. 412 Psa, Ixxxvii. 318 7o8 ix, Io.

18 Psa, cxxii. 1.

Dan. ii. 21.

THE "CHURCH®* HISTORYOF EUSEBIUS.

[X. 43 pe eS SS

preme rulers, conscious of the honor which they have received from him, spit upon the faces of dead idols, trample upon the unhallowed rites of demons, make sport of the ancient delusion handed down from their fathers, and acknowledge only one God, the common benefactor of all, themselves included.

And they confess Christ, the Son of God, universal King of all, and proclaim him Saviour on monuments," imperishably recording in imperial letters, in the midst of the city which rules over the earth, his righteous deeds and his victories over the impious.

Thus Jesus Christ our Saviour is the only one from all eternity who has been acknowledged, even by those highest in the earth, not as a common king among men, but as a true son of the universal God, and who has been worshiped as very God," and that rightly.

For what king that ever lived attained such virtue as to fill the ears and tongues of all men upon earth with his own name?

What king, after ordaining such pious and wise laws, has extended them from one end of the earth to the other, so that they are perpetually read in the hearing of all men?

Who has abrogated barbarous and savage customs of uncivilized nations by his gentle and most philanthropic laws ?

Who, being attacked for entire ages by all, has shown such superhuman virtue as to flourish daily, and remain young throughout his life?

Who has founded a nation which of

old was not even heard of, but which now is not concealed in some corner of the earth, but is spread abroad everywhere under the sun?

Who has so fortified his soldiers with the arms of piety that their souls, being firmer than adamant, shine brilliantly in the contests with their opponents?

What king prevails to

such an extent, and even after death leads on his soldiers, and sets up trophies over his power as without harm" to minister to the salvation of so many.

But he alone having reached our deep corruption, he alone having taken upon himself our labors, he alone having suffered the punishments due for our impieties, having recovered us who were not half dead merely, but were already in tombs and sepulchers, and altogether foul and offensive, saves us, both anciently and now, by his beneficent zeal, beyond the expectation of any one, even of ourselves, and imparts liberally of the Father's benefits, — he who is the giver of life and light, our great Physician and King and Lord, the

Christ of God.

For then when the whole human race lay buried in gloomy night and 'in depths of darkness through the deceitful arts of guilty demons and the power of God-hating spirits, by his simple appearing he loosed once for all the fast-bound cords of our impieties by

the rays of his light, even as wax is melted.

But when malignant envy and the evilloving demon wellnigh burst with anger at such grace and kindness, and turned against us all his death-dealing forces, and when, at first, like a dog gone mad which gnashes his teeth at the stones thrown at him, and pours out his rage against his assailants upon the inanimate missiles, he leveled his ferocious madness at the stones of the sanctuaries and at the lifeless material of the houses, and desolated the churches,

—at least as he supposed, — and then emitted terrible hissings and snake-like sounds, now by the threats of impious tyrants, and again by the blasphemous edicts of profane rulers, vomiting forth death, moreover, and infecting with his deleterious and soul-destroying poisons the souls captured by him, and almost slaying them by his death-fraught sacrifices of dead idols, and causing every beast in the form of

man and every kind of savage to assault us,

—then, indeed, the 'Angel of the great Council,'* the great Captain® of God, after the mightiest soldiers of his kingdom had displayed sufficient exercise through patience and endurance in everything, suddenly appeared anew, and blotted out and annihilated his enemies and foes, so that they seemed never to have had even a name.

But his friends and relatives he raised to the highest glory, in the presence not only of all men, but also of celes31 This seems to be simply a rhetorical expression of what is recorded in Bk. IX. chap. 9, in regard to the great statue of Constantine with a cross im his hand, erected in Rome after his victory over Maxentius.

It is possible that other smaller monuments of a similar kind were erected at the same time.

82 avrobeov.

The exact sense in which Eusebius uses this word is open to dispute.

That it asserts the Son to be possessed er se in and of himself, of absolute deity, — that is, that he is self-existent.

—can hardly be maintained, though Valesius does maintain it. The word admits some latitude of meaning, as Heinichen shows (in his edition of Eusebius, III. p. 736 sq., Melet. KX.), and its use does not forbid a belief in the subordination of the Son.

In my opinion it clearly indicates a belief in an essential deity of the Son, but not a full and absolute deity.

Stein, in his Dysbins. p138, remarks:

'' Eusebius wendet hier die platonischen Ausdriicke nach dem Vorbilde des Origenes auf das Wesen des Sohnes an. Nach

Origines bezeichnen diese Ausdriicke die Absolutheit des Sohnes nach den Platonikern jedoch bedeuten sie nicht das héchste Wesen.

Es ist nun Zweifelhaft, ob Eusebius mit diesen Begriffen den Sinn des Origenes, oder den der Platoniker verkniipft habe."

There can be little doubt, in my opinion, that Eusebius followed Origen so far as he understood him, but that he never carried the essential deity of the Son so far as to cease to think of some kind of an essential subordination.

See the discussion of Eusebius' position, on p. 11 sq. of this volume. I have translated the word avro@edv

""very God," because there seems to be no other phrase which does not aap beh express more, or less, than Eusebius means by the word. It must be remembered, however, that in using the phrase which is commonly employed to translate the later Nicene dAn@cvov

9edv, I do not use it in the full sense thus ordinarily attached to it, tial powers, of sun and moon and stars,

and of the whole heaven and earth, so that now, as has never happened before, the sua ee i a Se) SO % aBdaBas.

The application of the word is not perfectly clear, but the meaning seems to be "' without harm to himself," " unharmed." 'He is the only one able to minister to our salvation without sinking under the weight of the burden, or suffering from his contact with us.''

Eusebius is perhaps thinking especially of Christ's absolute sinlessness and victory over all temptation; perhaps only in a more general way of the great sere ork needed for such a task, strength possessed by Christ alone in sufficient measure to prevent his own complete exhaustion under the immense task,

29 Cf. Isa, ix. 6, % méyas apxioTpatnyos; cf. Josh. y. 13.

X. 4.]

EUSEBIUS' DISCOURSE AT TYRE.

Rein en obtained your people by the allotment and the judgment of the Father, as if he had appointed enemies, and fills every place, country and city,

Greek and barbarian, with his royal dwellings, even divine temples with their consecrated oblations, like this very temple with its superb adornments and votive offerings, which are themselves so truly great and majestic, worthy of wonder and admiration, and clear signs of the sovereignty of our Saviour?

For now, too, "he spake, and they were made ; he commanded, and they were created.'* For what was there to resist the nod of the universal King and Governor and Word of God himself?" him his own servant and interpreter, a new

Aaron or Melchizedec, made like the Son of God, remaining and continually preserved by him in accordance with the united prayers of all of you.

To him therefore alone let

it be granted, if not in the first place, at least in the second after the first and greatest

High Priest, to observe and supervise the inmost state of your souls, —to him who by experience and length of time has accurately proved each one, and who by his zeal and care has disposed you all in pious conduct and doc- « A special discourse would be needed accurately to survey and explain all this ; and also to describe how great the zeal of the laborers is regarded by him who is celebrated

trine, and is better able than any one else to give an account, adequate to the facts, of those things which he himself has accomplished with the as divine,* who looks upon the living temple which we all constitute, and surveys the house, composed of living and moving stones, which Divine assistance.

As to our first and great

High Priest, it is said," 'Whatsoever he seeth the Father doing those things likewise the Son also doeth.'® So also this one," looking up to him as to the first teacher, with pure eyes of the mind, using as archetypes whatsoever things he'seeth him doing, produceth images of them, making them so far as is possible in the same likeness, in nothing inferior to that Beseleel, whom God himself < filled with the spirit of wisdom and understanding' and with other technical and scientific knowledge, and called to be the maker of the temple constructed after. heavenly types given in symbols.

Thus this

one also bearing in his own soul the image of the whole Christ, the Word, the Wisdom, the Light, has formed this magnificent temple of the highest God, corresponding to the pattern of the greater as a visible to an invisible, it is impossible to say with what greatness of soul, with what wealth and liberality of mind, and with what emulation on the part of all of you, shown in the magnanimity of the contributors who have ambitiously striven in no way to be left behind by him in the execution of the same purpose.

And this place, — for this deserves to be mentioned first of all,—which had been covered with all sorts of rubbish by the artifices of our enemies he did not overlook, nor did he yield to the wickedness of those who had brought about that condition of things, although he might have chosen some other place, for many other sites were available in the city, where he.would have had less labor, and been free from trouble.

But having first aroused himself

to the work, and then strengthened the whole people with zeal, and formed them all into one great body, he fought the first contest.

For he thought that this church, which had been is well and surely built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, the chief cornerstone being Jesus Christ himself, who has been rejected not only by the builders of that ancient building which no longer stands, but also by the builders — evil architects of evil works — of the structure, which is composed of the mass of men and still endures.* But the Father has approved him both then and now, and has made him the head of the corner of this our common church.

Who that beholds this living temple of the living God formed of ourselves —this greatest and truly

divine sanctuary, I say, whose inmost shrines are invisible to the multitude and are truly holy and a holy of holies — would venture to declare it? Who is able even to look within the sacred enclosure, except the great High Priest of all, to whom alone it is permitted to fathom the mysteries of every rational soul?

But perhaps it is granted to another, to one

only, to be second after him in the same work, namely, to the commander of this army whom the first and great High Priest himself has honored with the second place in this sanc: tuary, the shepherd of your divine flock who has a I 383 Psa. xxxili. 934 700 TauBactAéws Kal Tmavnyenovos Kal avrov Qe0v Adyou.

Valesius translates, Verb? omnium_ regis ac principis ac per se Dei, Closs, " des Wortes, das der Konig aller KGnige, der oberste

Fiirst und selbst Gott ist''; Crusé, "The universal King, the universal Prince, and God, the Word himself."

A conception is thus jntroduced which the clause as it stands, without the repetition of the article with Adyov, seems to me hardly to warrant.

At any rate, the rendering which I have adopted seems more accurately to reproduce the original.

; 35 Peodoyounev@.

The use of the word Oeodoyew in the sense of speaking of, or celebrating a person as divine, or attributing divinity to a person, was very common among the Fathers, especially in connection with Christ.

See Suicer's Thesaurus, s.v. II. and Bk. V. chap. 28, § 4, above.

36 Eusebius' reference to these various buildings is somewhat confusing.

He speaks first of the Church of Christ, "the living temple which we all constitute"; then of the Jews, "' the builders of — SS — — —————— —60060€00—0—0 eee 87 Literally, "it says" (dna), i.e. " the Scripture says."

38 John v. 19.

39 i.e, Paulinus.

40 Ex. xxxv. 31. that ancient temple which no longer stands"; and finally, as it seems, of the heathen, "' builders of the structure which still endures and is composed of the mass of men'' (rwy moAAwy avOpadrwv).

THE: CHURCH «HISTORY (OB BUSEBIUS.

[X43

especially besieged by the enemy, which had first suffered and endured the same persecutions with us and for us, like a mother bereft of her

'For,' he says, 'in the wilderness water has broken out, and a pool in thirsty ground, and the dry land shall be watered meadows, and in the thirsty ground there shall be springs of water.'

These things which were

prophesied long ago have been recorded in sacred books; but no. longer are they transmitted to us by hearsay merely, but in facts.

This desert, this dry land, this widowed and deserted one, 'whose gates they cut down with axes like wood in a forest, whom they broke down with hatchet and hammer,' whose books also they destroyed," 'burning with fire the sanctuary of God, and profaning unto the ground the habitation of his name,' 'whom all that passed by upon the way plucked, and whose fences they broke down, whom the boar out of the wood ravaged, and on which the savage wild beast fed,' now by the wonderful power of Christ, when he wills it, has become like a lily.

For at that time also she was chastened at his nod as by a careful father; 'for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.'* Then after

being chastened in a measure, according to the necessities of the case, she is commanded to rejoice anew; and she blossoms as a lily and exhales her divine odor among all men. ' For,' it is said, ' water hath broken out in the wilderness,' the fountain of the saving bath of divine regeneration."

And now she, who a little before was a desert, 'has become watered meadows, and springs of water have gushed forth in a thirsty land.'*'

The hands which before were 'weak' have become 'truly strong' ;® and these works are great and convincing proofs of strong hands.

The knees, also, which before were 'feeble and infirm,' recovering their wonted strength, are moving straight forward in the path of divine knowledge, and hastening to the kindred flock ® of the all-gracious Shepherd.

And if there are any whose souls have been

stupefied by the threats of the tyrants, not even they are passed by as incurable by the saving Word ; but he heals them also and urges them on to receive divine comfort, saying, ' Be ye comforted, ye who are faint-hearted ; be ye strengthened, fear not.'

This our new

and excellent Zerubabel, having heard the word which announced beforehand, that she who had been made a desert on account of God should enjoy these things, after the bitter capchildren, should rejoice with us in the signal

favor of the all-merciful God.

For when the Great Shepherd had driven away the wild animals and wolves and every cruel and savage beast, and, as the divine oracles say, 'had broken the jaws of the lions,'* he thought good to collect again her children in the same place, and in the most righteous manner he set up the fold of her flock, 'to put to shame the enemy and avenger,'* and to refute the impious daring of the enemies of God.*

And now they are not,—the haters of God, — for they never were.

After they had troubled and been troubled for a little time, they suffered the fitting punishment, and brought themselves and their friends and their relatives to total destruction, so that the declarations inscribed of old in sacred records have been proved true by facts.

In these declarations the divine word truly says among other things the following concerning them : 'The wicked have drawn out the sword, they have bent their bow, to slay the righteous in heart; let their sword enter into their own heart and their bows be broken.'* And again: 'Their memorial is perished with a sound'* and 'their name hast thou blotted out forever and ever'; for when they also were in trouble they 'cried out, and there was none to save: unto the Lord, and he heard them not.'

But 'their feet were bound together, and they fell, but we have arisen and stand upright.'

And that which was announced beforehand in these words, —

'O Lord, in thy city thou shalt set at naught their image,' ** — has been shown to be true |

to the eyes of all.

But having waged war like the giants against God," they died in this way.

But she that was desolate and rejected by men received the consummation which we behold in consequence of her patience toward God, so that the prophecy of Isaiah

was spoken of her:

' Rejoice, thirsty desert, let the desert rejoice and blossom as the lily, and the desert places shall blossom and be glad.'** 'Be strengthened, ye weak hands and feeble knees.

Be of good courage, ye feeblehearted, in your minds; be strong, fear not.

Behold our God recompenseth judgment and will recompense, he will come and save us.'

"1 Psa, lviii. 6.

Eusebius agrees with the LXX, which reads Tas mvAas TOY AEd'TWY, 55 Diocletian's first edict included the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians, as well as of their churches. b Bk, VIL. chap. 2.

| aaah ate sa. Ixxiv. 7.

5 [bid. \xxx. 12, 13.

58 Heb. xii. 6, with which Eusebius agrees exactly, differing from Prov. iii, 12 in the use of macdeveu instead of eAeyxet.

® Psa. viii. 2.

The LXX has xaraddoat instead of Eusebius'

KaTaloxuvat, 43 Literally, 'the God-fighting, daring deeds of the impious "

(Tats Oecoudxars Tov aceBay TOAMALS) « Psa. xxxvii. 14, 15.

45 Psa. ix. 6.

Eusebius agrees with the LXX in reading pet' nxov: " with a sound."

59 Isa. xxxv. 6, 48 Jbid. xx. 8.

46 Jbid. 5.

47 Psa. xviii. 41.

49 Jézd. \xxiii. 20.

50 Cf. Bk. I. chap. 2, § 19, above, and the note on that passage.

Ibid, 3, 4.

51 Isa, xxxv. 1.

... © THs Ocias ToD Gwrnpiov ovtpod madtyyeveoias, Cf. Titus. iii. 5.

61 Isa. xxxv, 7.

CS hes. eae '

THY OlKELaY TOLLYHY,

8 Jbzd. 3.

64 Isa. xxxv. 4.

X. 4.]

EUSEBIUS' DISCOURSE AT TYRE.

eS emer eames of sacred purifications, setting up fountains opposite the temple which furnish an abundance of water wherewith those who come within the sanctuary may purify themselves.

This is the first halting-place of those who enter; and it furnishes at the same time a beautiful and splendid scene to every one, and to those who still need elementary instruction a fitting station.

But passing by this spectacle, he has

made open entrances to the temple with many other vestibules within, placing three doors on one side, likewise facing the rays of the sun.

The one in the middle, adorned with plates of bronze, iron bound, and beautifully embossed, he has made much higher and broader than the others, as if he were making them guards for raised and spread out a great and lofty vestibule toward the rays of the rising sun," and furnished those standing far without the sacred enclosure a full view of those within, almost turning the eyes of those who were strangers to the faith, to the entrances, so that no one could pass by without being impressed by the memory of the former desolation and of the present incredible transformation.

His hope was that such an one being impressed by this tivity and the abomination of desolation, did not overlook the dead body; but. first of all with prayers and supplications propitiated the Father with the common consent of all of you, and invoking the only one that giveth life to the dead as his ally and fellow-worker, raised her that was fallen, after purifying and freeing her from her ills.

And he clothed her not with the ancient garment, but with such an one as he had again learned from the sacred oracles, which say clearly, 'And the latter glory of this house

shall be greater than the former.'® Thus, enclosing a much larger space, he fortified the outer court with a wall surrounding the whole, which should serve as a most secure

bulwark for the entire edifice.

And he

it as fora queen.

In the same way, arranging the number of vestibules for the corrihas the dors on each side of the whole temple, he made above them various openings into building, for the purpose of admitting more light, adorning them with very fine wood-carving.

But the royal house he has furnished with more beautiful and splendid materials, using unstinted liberality in his disbursements.

It seems to me superfluous to describe here in detail the length and breadth of the building, its splendor and its majesty surpassing description, and the brilliant appearance of the work, its lofty pinnacles reaching to the heavens, and the costly cedars of Lebanon above them, which the divine oracle has not omitted to mention, saying, 'The trees of the Lord shall rejoice and the cedars of Lebanon which he hath planted.'® Why need I now describe the 44 skillful architectural arrangement and the surpassing beauty of each part, when the testimony of the eye renders instruction through the ear superfluous?

For when he had thus completed the temple, he provided it with lofty thrones in honor of those who preside, and in addition with seats arranged in proper order throughout the whole building, and finally placed in the middle" the holy of holies, the altar, and, that it might be inaccessible to the multitude, enclosed it with wooden lattice-work, accurately wrought with artistic carving, presenting a wonderful sight to the beholders.

And not even the pavement was neglected by him ; for this too he adorned with beautiful marble of every variety.

Then finally he passed on to the parts without the temple, providing spacious exedrz and buildings on each side, which were

might be attracted and be induced to

enter by the very sight.

But when one comes within the gates he does not permit him to enter the'sanctuary immediately, with impure and unwashed feet; but leaving as large a space as possible between the temple and the outer entrance, he has surrounded and adorned it with four transverse cloisters, making a quadrangular space with pillars rising on every side, which he has joined with lattice-work screens of wood, rising to a suitable height ; and he has left an open space ® in the middle, so that the sky can be seen, and the free air bright in the rays

of the sun.

Here he has placed symbols wove, eee ee 65 Hag. ii. 9.

66 The description of the church of Tyre which follows is very valuable, as being the oldest detailed description which we have of a Christian pasties Eusebius erptoet other ees Ln his ae

Constantin?

+ 30-39, 41-43, 0, 51-53,

- 58, and describes some of them at consi eran ie bh." We have a number of descriptions from later sources, but rely for our knowledge of early Christian architecture chiefly upon the extant remains of the edifices themselves.

For a very full discussion of the present church, which was an excellent example of an ancient Christian basilica, and for a detailed description of its various parts, see Bingham's A xtiquztzes,

Bk. VIII. chap. 3 sq-, and compare also the article Basz/zka in Kraus' Real-Encyclopadie der Christ. Alterthiimer.

The literature on the general subject of early Christian architecture is very extensive.

See more particularly the works referred to in the articles in Smith and Cheetham's

Dict. of Christ. A ae and in the Encyclop. Britannica ; and cf. also Schaff's Ch. Hist.

III. p. 538 sq.

Bingham remarks that the ancient basilicas commonly faced the west, and that therefore the position of this church of Tyre was exceptional; but this is a mistake.

It is true that from the fifth century on, the altar almost uniformly occupied the east end of the church, but previous to that time the position observed in the present case was almost universally followed, so that the present building was not at all exceptional in its position.

See the article Ortentierungin Kraus' Real-Encyclopidie.

Although the common custom was to have the church stand east and west, yet the rule was often neglected, and theré exist many notable examples of churches standing north and south, or quite out of line with the points of the compass. y ¢ ai@ptov, the Latin atrium.

69 Psa. civ. 16.

70 i.e. in the apse, or chancel, not in the middle of the nave, or body of the church.

1 é€é5pas kai oixovs.

Large basilicas were always provided with additional rooms, and adjacent buildings, such as ta tisteries, diaconica, secretaria, &c., which were used for various ecc esiastical purposes, and which were often of considerable size, so that important synods frequently met in one or another of them.

Cf. Bingham, zbid. chap. 7.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[X.4

Se a a eC hath the Lord called thee, nor as a woman hated from her youth, saith thy God.

For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercy will I have mercy upon thee ; in a little wrath I hid my face from thee, but with everlasting mercy will I have mercy upon thee, saith the Lord that hath redeemed thee.'®

'Awake, awake, thou who

hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury ; for thou hast drunk the cup of ruin, the vessel of my wrath, and hast drained it.

And there was none to console thee of all thy sons whom thou didst bring forth, and there was none to take thee by the hand.'® 'Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of ruin, the vessel of my fury, and thou shalt no longer drink it.

And I will put it. into the hands of them that have treated thee unjustly and have humbled thee.'

'Awake, awake, put

on thy strength, put on thy glory.

Shake off the dust and arise.

Sit thee down, loose the bands of thy neck.'® 'Lift up thine eyes round ahout and behold thy children gathered together; behold they are gathered. together and are come to thee.

As I live, saith the Lord, thou shalt clothe thee with them all as with an ornament, and gird thyself with them as with the ornaments of a bride.

For thy waste and corrupted and ruined places shall now be too narrow by reason of those that inhabit thee, and they that swallow thee up shall be far from thee.

For thy sons whom thou hast lost shall say in thine ears, The place is too narrow for me, give place to me that I may dwell.

Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these?

I am childless and a widow, and who hath brought up these for me?

I was left alone, and these, where were they for mer joined to the basilica, and communicated with the entrances to the interior of the structure.

These were erected by our most peaceful"

Solomon,. the maker of the temple of God, for those who still needed purification and sprinkling by water and the Holy Spirit, so that the prophecy quoted above is no longer a word merely, but a fact; for now it has also come to pass that in truth 'the latter glory of this house is greater than the former.'®

For it was necessary and fitting that as her shepherd and Lord had once tasted death for her, and after his suffering had changed that vile body which he assumed in her behalf into a splendid and glorious body, leading the very flesh which had been delivered™ from corruption to incorruption, she too should enjoy the dispensations of the Saviour.

For having received from him the promise of much greater things than these, she desires to share uninterruptedly throughout eternity with the choir of the angels of light, in the far greater glory of regeneration," in the resurrection of an incorruptible body, in the palace of God beyond the

heavens, with Christ Jesus himself, the uni-

versal Benefactor and Saviour.

But for the present, she that was formerly widowed and desolate is clothed by the grace of God with these flowers, and is become truly like a lily, as the prophecy says,® and having received the bridal garment and the crown of beauty, she is taught by Isaiah to dance, and to present her

thank-offerings unto God the King in reverent words.

Let us hear her saying, 'My soul shall rejoice in the Lord ; for he hath clothed me with a garment of salvation and with a robe of gladness; he hath bedecked me like a bridegroom with a garland, and he hath adorned me like a bride with jewels; and like the earth which bringeth forth her bud, and like a garden which causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth, thus the Lord God

"These are the things which Isaiah foretold; and which were anciently recorded concerning us in sacred books ; and it was necessary that we should sometime learn their truthfulness by their fulfillment.

For when

the bridegroom, the Word, addressed such language to his own bride, the sacred and hdly

Church, this bridesman,"

— when she was desolate and lying like a corpse, bereft of hope in the eyes of men, — in accordance with the united prayers of all of you, as was proper, stretched out your hands and aroused and raised her up at the command of God, the universal

King, and at the manifestation of the power of Jesus Christ; and having raised her he established her as he had learned from the description given in the sacred oracles.

This hath caused righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.'"

In these words she exults.

And in similar words the heavenly bridegroom, the Word Jesus Christ himself, answers her.

Hear the Lord saying, 'Fear not because thou hast been put to shame, neither be thou confounded because thou hast been rebuked; for thou shalt forget the former shame, and the reproach of thy

widowhood shalt thou remember no more.'

"Not" as a woman deserted and faint-hearted 72 The name Solomon (Heb. intel) means "' peaceful."

73 Hag, ii. 9.

4 Av@ecoav, which may mean also " dissolved, decayed."

Crusé translates '' dissolved"; Closs, '' schon verwesend."

7 Cf. Matt. xix. 28.

77 Isa, xi, 10, 11.

76 See Isa. xxxv. I.

78 [did. liv. 4.

79 The word " not" is omitted in the Hebrew (and consequently in our English versions), but is found in the LXX.

8 Isa. liv. 6-8.

82 bd. li.

81 Jb7d. li. x7, 18. a te i 88 Jbid. lii. 1, 2.

84 /b7d. xlix. 18-21.

85 vuudoorddos, referring to Paulinus.

X. 4]

EUSEBIUS' DISCOURSE AT TYRE.

ane with the great gifts of the Spirit.

And again, by means of them, he cleared out and cleaned with spades and mattocks—the admonitory words of doctrine *—the souls which a little while before had been covered with filth and burdened with every kind of matter and rubbish of impious ordinances.

And when he had

made the ground of all your minds clean and clear, he finally committed it to this allwise and God-beloved Ruler, who, being endowed with judgment and prudence, as well as with other gifts, and being able to examine and discriminate accurately the minds of those committed to his charge, from the first day, so to speak, down to the present, has not ceased to build.

Now he has supplied the brilliant gold, again the refined and unalloyed silver, and the precious and costly stones in all of you, so that again is fulfilled for you in facts a sacred and mystic prophecy, which says, 'Behold

I make thy stone a carbuncle, and thy foundations of sapphire, and thy battlements of jasper, and thy gates of crystals, and thy wall of is indeed a very great wonder, passing dll admiration, especially to those who. attend only to the outward appearance ; but more wonderful than wonders are the archetypes and their mental prototypes and divine models ; I mean the reproductions of the inspired and rational

building in our souls.

This the Divine Son himself created after his own image, imparting to it everywhere and in all respects the likeness of God, an incorruptible nature, incorporeal, rational, free from all earthly matter, a being endowed with its own intelligence; and when he had once called her forth from non-existence into existence, he made her a holy spouse, an all-sacred temple for himself and for the Father.

This also he clearly declares and confesses in the following words: 'I will dwell in them and will walk in them ; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.'® Such is the perfect and purified soul, so made from the beginning as to bear the image of the celestial Word.

But when by the envy and zeal of the malignant demon she became, of her own voluntary choice, sensual and a lover of evil, the Deity left her; and as if bereft of a protector, she became an easy prey and readily accessible to those who had long envied her; and being assailed by the batteries and machines of her invisible enemies and spiritual foes, she suffered a terrible fall, so that not one stone of virtue chosen stones ; and all thy sons shall be taught of God, and thy children shall enjoy complete peace ; and in righteousness shalt thou be built.' Building therefore in righteousness,

he divided the whole people according to their strength.

With some he fortified only the outer enclosure, walling it up with unfeigned faith ; such were the great mass of the people who were incapable of bearing a greater structure.

Others he permitted to enter the building, commanding them to stand at the door and act as guides for those who should come in; these may be not unfitly compared to the vestibules of the temple.

Others he supported by the first pillars which are placed without about the quadrangular hall, initiating them into the first elements of the letter of the four Gospels.

Still others he joined together about the basilica on both sides ; these are the catechumens who are still advancing and progressing, and are not far separated from the inmost view of divine things granted to the faithful.

Taking from

among these the pure souls that have been cleansed like gold by divine washing," he then supports them by pillars, much better than those without, made from the inner and mystic teachings of the Scripture, and illumines them" by windows.

Adorning the whole temple

with a great vestibule of the glory of the one universal King and only God, and placing remained upon another in her, but she lay completely dead upon the ground, entirely divested of her natural ideas of God.

"But as she, who had been made in the image of God, thus lay prostrate, it was not that wild boar from the forest which we see that despoiled her, but a certain destroying demon and spiritual wild beasts who deceived her with their passions as with the fiery darts of their own wickedness, and burned the truly divine sanctuary of God with fire, and profaned to the ground the tabernacle of his name.

Then burying the miserable one with heaps of earth, they destroyed every hope of deliverance.

But that divinely bright and saving Word, her protector, after she had suffered the merited punishment for her sins, again restored her, securing the favor of the all-merciful

Father.

Having won over first the souls of the highest rulers, he purified, through the agency of those most divinely favored princes, the whole earth from all the impious destroyers, and from the terrible and God-hating tyrants themselves.

Then bringing out into the light those who were his friends, who had long before been consecrated to him for life, but in the midst,

87 raig mAnKTiKals THY MaOnudtwy SidacKadias.

88 Isa. liv. 11-14.

89 Oeiw AovtpYy; i.e. baptism.

9 Heiniahen, followed by Closs, reads rovs mév.

"6 Some of them he supports by pillars ... others of them he illumines by windows."' i all the MSS. read rovs pév .

. Tots . ToUs dé: as it were, ofa storm of evils, had been concealed under his shelter, he honored them worthily nn 88, which, in view of the gen ral character of Eusebius' style throughout this oration, we are hardly justified in changing, I have theremp power Valesius, Burton, and Crusé in retaining the reading

86 2 Cor. vi. 16. of the

THE -CHURCH+HISTORY - OF) EUSEBIUS.

[X. 4. praise their Maker and the Supreme Ruler of the universe with hymns of praise unutterable and incomprehensible to us, — who that is mortal is able worthily to celebrate this?

'For eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of men those things which God hath prepared for them that love him.'"

Since we, men, children, and women, small

and great, are already in part partakers of these things, let us not cease all together, with one spirit and one soul, to confess and praise the author of such great benefits to us, 'Who forgiveth all our iniquities, who healeth all our diseases, who redeemeth our life from destruction, who crowneth us with mercy and compassion, who satisfieth our desires with good things.' *

'For he hath not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities

;'™ 'for as far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our iniquities from us.

Like as a father pitieth his own children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.'™ Rekindling these thoughts in our memories, both now and during all time to come, and contemplating in our mind night and day, in every hour and with every breath, so to speak, the Author and Ruler of the present festival, and of this bright and most splendid day, let us love and adore him with every power of the soul.

And now rising, let us beseech him with loud voice to shelter and preserve us to the end in his fold, granting his unbroken and unshaken peace forever, in Christ Jesus our Saviour; through whom be the glory unto him forever and ever.

Amen." on either side of the authority of the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit as second lights, he exhibits abundantly and gloriously throughout the entire building the clearness and splendor of the truth of the rest in all its details.

And having selected from every quarter the living and moving and well-prepared stones of the souls, he constructs out of them all the great and royal house, splendid and full of light both within and without ; for not only soul and understanding, but their body also is made glorious by the blooming ornament of purity and modesty.

And in this temple there are also thrones, and a great number of seats and benches, in all those souls in which sit the Holy Spirit's gifts, such as were anciently seen by the sacred apostles, and those who were with them, when there 'appeared unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire, and sat upon each one

of them.'™ But in the leader of all it is reasonable to suppose™ that Christ himself dwells in his fullness,* and in those that occupy the second rank after him, in proportion as each is able to contain the power of Christ and of the Holy Spirit."

And the souls of some — of those, namely, who are committed to each

of them for instruction and care — may be seats for angels.

But the great and august and unique altar, what else could this be than the pure holy of holies of the soul of the common priest of all?

Standing at the right of it, Jesus himself, the great High Priest of the universe, the Only Begotten of God, receives with bright eye and extended hand the sweet incense from all, and the bloodless and immaterial sacrifices offered in their prayers, and bears them to the heavenly Father and God of the universe.

And he himself first worships him, and alone gives to the Father the reverence which is his due, beseeching him also to con-

CHAPTER V.

Copies of Imperial Laws, tinue always kind and propitious to us all.

"Such is the great temple which the great Creator of the universe, the Word, has built throughout the entire world, making it an intellectual image upon earth of those things which lie above the vault of heaven, so that throughout the whole creation, including rational beings on earth,

Ler us finally subjoin the translations I from the Roman tongue of the imperial decrees of Constantine and Licinius. x Cor. ii. 9.

9% Psa. ciii. 3-5.

9 bid. 10.

100 Jézd. 12, 13.

101 €is Tous gUumavTas aidvas TOV.aidvu.

1 Heinichen gives 'Avriypada BacwAtkOv vonwy mepi ray xpirri— avois mpooynxdvtwy as the title of this chapter.

All but three of the MSS., however, agree in limiting the title to the first three words, the last four being given by the majority of them as the title of chap. 6, The words are quite out of place at the head of that chapter, which in two important MSS., followed by Stroth, is made a part of chap. 5.

Heinichen inserts the words at this point because they are out of place in the position in which they commonly occur; but the truth is, they are no better adapted to the present chapter: than to that one, for only one of the edicts quoted in this chapterhas reference to the property of Christians.

[t seems to me much more likely that the words were originally written in the margin of some codex opposite that particular rescript, and thence by an error slipped into the text at the head of a later one, which was then made a separate chapter.

In view of the uncertainty, however, as to the original position of the words, I have followed Laemmer, Schwegler, Stroth, Closs, and Stigloher, in omitting them altogether. his Father might be honored and adored.

But the region above the heavens, with the models of earthly things which are there, and the so-called Jerusalem above,® and the heavenly Mount of Zion, and the supramundane city of the living God, in which innumerable choirs of angels and the Church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven,"

1 Acts ii. 3.

Price tows.

9 auros dAos éyxabnrar XpioTos.

94 Valesius remarks, '"'

Sic Hieronymus seu guis alius de ordinibus ecclesie: in tllis esse partes et membra virtutem, in episcopo plenitudinem divinitatis habitare." From what source the quotation comes I do not know.

% Cf, Gal. iv. 26.

% Cf. Heb. xii. 22, 23.

X. 5.]

EDICT OF MILAN.

ihe to each one freedom is to be given to devote his mind to that religion which he may think adapted to himself,® in order that the Deity may exhibit to us in all things his accustomed care and favor.

It was fitting that

we should write that this is our pleasure, that those conditions' being entirely left out which were contained in our former letter concerning the Christians which was sent to your devotedness, everything that seemed very severe and foreign to our mildness may be annulled, and that now every one who has the same desire to observe the religion of the Christians may do so without molestation.

We have resolved to communicate this

most fully to thy care, in order that thou mayest know that we have granted to these same Christians freedom and full liberty to observe their own religion.

Since this has

been granted freely by us to them, thy devotedness perceives that liberty is granted to others also who may wish to follow their own religious observances ; it being clearly in accordance with the tranquillity of our times, that each one should have the liberty of choosing and worshiping whatever deity he pleases.

This has been done by us in order that we might not seem in any way to discriminate against any rank or religion.'

And we decree still

further in regard to the Christians, that their places, in which they were formerly accustomed to assemble, and concerning which in the former letter sent to thy devotedness a different command was given,® if it appear that any have bought them either from our treasury or from any other person, shall be restored to the said Christians, without demanding money or any other equivalent, with no delay or hesitation.

If any happen to have received the said places as a gift, they shall restore them as quickly as possible to these same Christians: with the understanding that if those who have bought these places, or those who have received them as a gift, demand anything from our bounty, they may go to the judge of the district, that provision may be made for them by our clemency.

All these things are to be granted to the society of Christians by your care immediately and

Copy of imperial decrees translated from the Roman tongue."

"Perceiving long ago that religious liberty ought not to be denied, but that it ought to be granted to the judgment and desire of each individual to perform his religious duties according to his own choice, we had given orders that every man, Christians as well as others, should preserve the faith of his own sect and re-

ligion® But since in that rescript, in which such liberty was granted them, many and various conditions * seemed clearly added, some of them, it may be, after a little retired from such

observance.

When I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, came under favorable auspices to Milan and took under consideration everything which pertained to the common weal and prosperity, we resolved among other things, or rather first of all, to make such decrees as seemed in many respects for the benefit of every one; namely, such as should preserve reverence and piety toward the deity.

We resolved, that is, to grant both to the Christians and to all men freedom to follow the religion which they choose, that whatever heavenly divinity exists' may be propitious to us and to all that live under our government.

We have, therefore, determined, with sound and upright purpose, that liberty is to be denied to no one, to choose and to follow the religious observances of the Christians, but that 2 This is the famous Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and Licinius late in the year 312, after the former's victory over Maxentius (see above, Bk. IX. chap. 9, note 7). The edict has a claim to be remembered as the first announcement of the great doctrine of complete freedom of conscience, and that not for one religion only, but for all religions.

In this respect it was a great advance upon the edict of Cialetinies which had granted conditional liberty to a single faith.

The greater part of the edict (beginning with § 4) is extant in its original Latin form in Lactantius' De mort. pers. chap. 48. The Greek translation is still less accurate than the translation of the edict of Galerius given in Bk, VIII. chap. 17, above, but the variations from the original are none of them of great importance.

The most marked ones will be mentioned in the notes.

3 The reference in this sentence is not, as was formerly supposed, to a lost edict of Constantine and Licinius, but to the edict of Galerius, as is proved by Mason (p. 327 sq.), who has completely exploded the old belief in three edicts of toleration, and has shown that there were only two; viz. that of Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius, published in 311, and the present one, issued by Constantine and Licinius in 312 « The Greek word is aipécets, which has been commonly translated "sects," and the reference has been supposed to be to various schismatic bodies included in the former edict, but, as Mason remarks, such an interpretation is preposterous, and introduces an idea in direct contradiction to the entire tenor of the present document.

The fact is that, although "'sects" is the natural translation of the word aipécets, we find the same word in 6 In this sentence it is stated distinctly, not simply that Christians may remain Christians, but that anybody that pleases may become a Christian; that is, that the fullest liberty is granted to every man either to observe his ancestral religion or to choose another.

§ 6, below, used to translate conditiones, and it may be reasonably assumed — in fact, it may be regarded as certain in view of the context—that in the present case the same word stood in the Latin original.

I have no hesitation, therefore, in adopting the rendering which I have given in the text.

These "conditions," then, to which the edict refers were enumerated, not in the former edict itself, but in the rescript which accompanied it (see above, Bk, VIII. chap. 17, note 9). hat these conditions were may be conjectured, as remarked. in that note, from the provisions of the present edict (cf.

Mason, p. 330 Sq-).

5 Sri wore core Oecdtys Kal ovpaviov modyuaros.

Latin: guo quidem divinitas in sede celest?, The Greek is by no means a reproduction of the sense of the Latin, and indeed, as it stands, is quite untranslatable.

I have contented myself with a paraphrase, which does not express what the Greek translator says, but perhaps is not entirely at variance with what he meant to say.

7 Greek, aipécewr; Latin, condztionibus (see note 4, above).

8 undemra TYnp mde Opyoxeia rv.

Latin, honorz, neque cutquam religiont.

Mason concludes from this clause that in the rescript which accompanied the previous edict Christians had been excluded from certain official positions.

9 That there was some condition attached in the last rescript to the restoration of their property to the Christians is clear from these words.

We may gather from what follows that the Christians were obliged to pay something for the restored property, either to the occupants or to the government.

Constantine states that henceforth the tesperel treasury will freely bear all the expense+involved in the transfer.

THE CHURCH HISTORY

-OF 4 EUSEBLUS.

EX. 8s which belong of right to another should not only be left unmolested, but should also be restored.* Wherefore it is our will that

when thou receivest this letter, if any such things belonged to the Catholic Church of the Christians, in any city or other place, but are now held by citizens" or by any others, thou shalt cause them to be restored immediately to. the said churches.

For we have already determined that those things which these same churches formerly possessed shall be restored to them.

Since therefore thy devot-

edness perceives that this command of ours is most explicit, do thou make haste to restore to them, as quickly as possible, everything which formerly belonged to the said churches, — whether gardens or buildings or whatever they may be,—that we may learn that thou hast obeyed this decree of ours most carefully.

Farewell, our most esteemed and beloved Anulinus.''

without any delay.

And since the said Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other places, belonging not to individuals among them, but to the society" as a whole, that is, to the society of Christians, you will command that all these, in virtue of the law which we have above stated, be restored, without any hesitation, to these same

Christians ; that is, to their society and congregation: the above-mentioned provision being of course observed, that those who restore them without price, as we have before said, may expect indemnification from our bounty. In all these things, for the behoof of the aforesaid society of Christians, you are to use the utmost diligence, to the end that our command may be speedily fulfilled, and that in this also, by

our clemency, provision may be made for the common and public tranquillity."

For by this means," as we have said before, the divine favor toward us which we have already

Copy of an epistle in which the Emperor

commands that a synod of bishops be held at Rome in behalf of the unity and concord of the churches.* experienced in many matters will continue

sure through all time.

And that the terms of this our gracious ordinance may be known to all, it is expected that this which we have written will be published everywhere by you and brought to the knowledge of all, in order that this gracious ordinance of ours may remain unknown to no one."

14 i.e. that if they ave been molested, or taken from their owners, they should be restored, 15 roAttwv.

Walesius conjectures that woAcrevta@y should be read instead of moAcrav, and therefore translates a decurionibus.

Cruse, following him, reads "' by the decurions."

The correction, however, though an improvement, is not necessary, and I have not felt justified in adopting it.

16 This and the next epistle were occasioned by the Donatist schism, This great schism arose after the close of the Diocletian persecution, and divided the church of North Africa for more than a century.

Like the Novatian schism, it was due to the conflict of the more rigid and the more indulgent theories of discipline.

In Novatianism, however, the burning question was the readmission of the lapsed; in Donatism, the validity of clerical functions performed by unholy or unfaithful clergymen.

In the latter, therefore, the question was one of clerical, not lay discipline, and there was involved in it a very important theological principle.

The Donatists maintained that the validity of clerical functions depended upon the character of the administering clergyman; the Catholic party maintained that the validity of those functions depended solely upon Christ, and was quite independent of the character of the officiating clergyman,

Copy of another imperial decree which they tssued,® indicating that the grant was made to the Catholic Church alone.

"Greeting to thee, our most esteemed Anulinus.

It is the custom of our benevolence, most esteemed Anulinus, to will that those things

10 ro owpmatigo, Latin, corfor?.

The use of this werd (which we might almost translate '' body corporate") is a distinct recognition of the full legal status of the Christian Church, and of their right as a corporation in the eyes of the law tohold property.

The right did not on this occasion receive recognition for the first time, but more distinctly and in broader terms than ever before.

Upon the right of the Church to hold property before the publication of this edict, see especially Hatch's Constitution of the Early Christian Churches, p152, note 2s. rovided he had been duly qualified by the Church for the perormance of such functions,

Augustine, nearly a century after the rise of the sect, found it necessary to oppose it, and it was in the controversy with it that he developed his doctrine of the Church and the Sacraments.

The immediate occasion of the schism was the election of Czcilianus, who favored the milder principles of church discipline, to the bishopric of Carthage, in 311.

His election was opposed by the entire rigoristic party in Carthage and throughout orth Africa.

It was claimed that the Bishop Felix of Aptunga, by whom he was ordained, had been a traditor during the persecution, and that therefore Czcilian's ordination was not valid.

As a consequence the bishops of Numidia, who had not been invited to assist in the choice and ordination of Cacilian, held a synod in Carthage, and elected a counter-bishop, Majorinus.

Thus the schism was definitely launched.

The party called itself for a time by the name of its first bishop, but in 315 he was succeeded by Donatus, called the Great, to distinguish him from Donatus, bishop of Casa Nigrz, who had been one of the original leaders of the movement.

From him the sect took the name by which it was thenceforth known.

Doubtless personal jealousies and enmities had considerable to do with the origin of the schism, but it is quite inaccurate to ascribe it wholly to such causes.

The fundamental ground lay in the deep-seated difference in principles between the two parties in the Church, and it was inevitable that that difference should make itself felt in some such rupture, even had personal reasons not co-operated to such an extent as they did,

Our chief sources for a knowledge of Donatism are the anti-Donatistic works of Augustine (see The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, Vol. IV. p. 369 sq.), together with a number of his epistles, and Optatus' De Schismate Donatistarum.

The literature on the subject is very extensive.

See especially Valesius' essay, De Schismate Donat., Se cack to his edition of Eusebius (Reading's edition, p. 775 sq-); Ribbeck, Donatus and Augustinus, 1858; the: artic'es Ceczlianus and Donatism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. ;

11 Greek, THs Kowys Kat Snnootas novxias. Latin, more simply, quiet? publica, 12 rovTw yap TH Aoyton@.

Latin, hactenus.

13 It would seem that this communication was sent to Anulinus soon after the issue of the Edict of Milan; for it gives directions for the carrying out of some of the provisions made in that edict, and is very likely but a sample of special letters sent in connection with that document to the governors of the various provinces. We know from the next chapter that Anulinus was proconsul of the Roman province of Africa, of which Carthage was the capital city, and which was very thickly populated with Christians.

Of Anulinus himself we know only what we can learn from this and the next two chapters.

The title of the rescript as given by Eusebius is somewhat misleading.

There is no indication in the document itself that it was written with the distinct purpose of distinguishing the Catholic Church from schismatic bodies, and granting it privileges denied tothem.

If such had been its aim, it would certainly have stated it more clearly, The term '' Catholic Church" (in § 16) seems in fact to be used in a general seuse to indicate the Christian Church as a whole.

It is, to be sure, possible that Constantine may already have had some knowledge of the schismatics whom he refers to in another epistle, quoted in the next chapter; but his omission of all reference to them in the present case shows that he did not intend at this time to draw lines between parties, or to pass judgment upon any society calling itself a Christian church.

that there, in the presence of yourselves and of Retecius" and Maternus* and Marinus," your colleagues, whom I have commanded to hasten to Rome for this purpose," he may be heard, as you may understand to be in accordance with the most holy law.

But in order that

you may be enabled to have most perfect knowledge of all these things, I have subjoined to my letter copies of the documents sent to me by Anulinus, and have sent them to your abovementioned colleagues.

When your firmness has read these, you will consider in what way the above-mentioned case may be most accurately investigated and justly decided.

For it does not escape your diligence that I have such reverence for the legitimate * Catholic Church that I do not wish you to leave schism or division in any place.

May the divinity of the great God preserve you, most honored sirs, for many years."

"Constantine Augustus to Miltiades," bishop of Rome, and to Marcus."® Since many such communications have been sent to me by Anulinus,' the most illustrious proconsul of Africa, in which it is said that Cecilianus," bishop of the city of Carthage, has been accused by some of his colleagues in Africa, in many matters ; 2 and since it seems to me a very serious thing that in those provinces which Divine Providence has freely entrusted to my devotedness, and in which there is a great population, the multitude are found following the baser course, and dividing, as it were, into two parties, and the

bishops are at variance, —it has seemed good to me that Cecilianus himself, with ten of the bishops that appear to accuse him, and with ten others whom he may consider necessary for his defense, should sail to Rome,

(li re ee ae ae Neander's Church History, Torrey's translation, II. p. 182 sq-; Hefele's Conciliengesch.

ed., I. p. 293 $4.3 and Schaff's Church History, Il. p. 360 sqConstantine did not voluntarily meddle in the Donatistic controversy.

He was first os eee to by the Donatists themselves, throug the proconsul Anulinus, early in the year 313 (see Augustine, Zfzstle 88, for a copy of the letter in which Anulinus communicates their request to the emperor).

In response to their appeal Constantine (in the present epistle) summoned the two parties to appear before a Roman synod, which was held in October, 313.

_The Donatists were unable to prove their charges, and the synod gave decision against them. Again, at their own request, their case was heard at a council held in Gaul the following

Copy of an epistle in which the emperor

commands another synod to be held for the purpose of removing all dissensions among the bishops.

"Constantine Augustus to Chrestus," bishop: of Syracuse.

When some began wickedly and perversely to disagree among themselves in regard to the holy worship and celestial power and Catholic doctrine," wishing to put an end to such disputes among them, I formerly gave command that certain bishops should be sent from Gaul, and that the opposing parties

Oe ear (the synod of Arles; see the next epistle of Constantine quoted in this chapter).

This council also decided against them, and the Donatists appealed once more to the judgment of the emperor himself,

He heard their case in Milan in 3x6, and confirmed the decisions of the councils, and soon afterward issued laws against them, threatening them with the banishment of their bishops and the confiscation of their property.

He soon, however, withdrew his persecuting measures, and adopted a policy of toleration.

During subsequent reigns their condition grew worse, and they were often obliged to undergo severe hardships; but they clung rigidly to their rinciples until the invasion of the Vandals in 428, when the entire

North African Church was devastated.

: i 17 Miltiades (called also Melchiades) was bisho of Rome from July 2, 310, to Jan. 10 or 11, 314.

See Lipsius, Chron. der rim.

Bischéfe, p257 $4-

i, 18 Marcus is an otherwise unknown personage, unless Valesius' not improbable conjecture be accepted, that he was at this time a 22 Retecius was bishop of Autun in Gaul (see Optatus, I. 22, and the references given below).

An extended account of him, largely legendary, is given by Gregory of Tours (De gloria Conf. 75, according to the Dect. of Christ. Biog.).

The dates of his accession and death are unknown to us.

He attended the Council of Arles in 313. (see the list of those bie in Routh, IV. p. 312), and is spoken of in high terms by ugustine (Contra Ful. a 7; Opus imperf. cont. Ful. 1. 55), and also by Jerome, who informs us that he wrote a commentary on the Song of Songs and a work against Novatian (see his de vir. 711. 82,

Ep. ad Florentium, and ad MarcelJam, Migne, Nos. 5 and 37). resbyter of Rome, and is to be identified with the Marcus who was

Bison of Rome for some eight months in 336.

19 ydptat, The reference, as remarked by Valesius, seems to be not to epistles of Anulinus, but to the communications of the Donatists forwarded to the emperor by Anulinus.

In his epistle to the emperor, which was written April 15, 313 (see Augustine, Ef. 88),

Anulinus speaks of two communications handed to him by the Donatists, which he forwards to the emperor with his own letter. The former of them, which is no longer extant, bore the title Libellus ecclesie Catholice criminum Ceciliant.

The other, which is reserved by Optatus (Du Pin's edition, p. 22, and Routh, Re/. Sac. fv. 280) contained the request that the emperor would appoint some

Gallic bishops to hear the case, because the church of that country had not been subjected to the same temptation as themselves during the persecution, and could therefore render an impartial decision. It

23 Maternus was bishop of Cologne, the first one of that see known to us, but the date of his accession and death are unknown,

He is mentioned by Optatus (z4zd.), and was present at the Council of Arles (Routh, zézd.).

24 Marinus, whose dates are likewise unknown, was bishop of Arles (see Optatus, 7ézd.), and was present at the Council in that city in 314 Ge Routh, zdzd. p. 313).

This Roman Council convened in the house of Fausta, in the Lateran, on the second day of October, 313, and was attended by nineteen _bisho' s,—the three from Gaul just mentioned, Miltiades himself, and fifteen Italian bishops tay Optatus, zzd.).

The synod resulted in the complete victory of the party of Cecilian, as remarked above (note 15). below were directed by the emperor to proceed to Rome to join with Miltiades in the adjudication of the case.

Constantine speaks of receiving many such communications, but no others are preserved us.

Czecilianus had been arch-deacon of the church of Carthage 26 évOéonw.

27 The name of Chrestus appears first in the list of those present at the Council of Arles (see Routh, IV. 312), and in consequence it has been thought that he presided at the Council, a conclusion which some have regarded as confirmed by Constantine's own words in § 24, below.

But on the other hand, in the epistle of the synod addressed to Sylvester of Rome, and containing the canons of the Council, it is 'Hatinctly stated that Marinus, bishop, of Arles, presided; and this in itself seems more probable, although the document in which the statement is found may not perhaps be genuine under the bishop Mensurius, and had been a diligent supporter of the latter in his opposition to the fanatical conduct and the extreme rigor of the stricter party during the persecution.

In 311 he became bishop, and lived until about 345.

Me know nothing about his life after the first few years of the conflict.

His title to the bishopric was universally acknowled ed outside of North Africa, and by all there except the Donatists t emselves. xe % The chief charge brought against Czcilian was that he had been ordained by a traditor, Felix of Aptunga, and. that his ordination was therefore invalid.

The charge against Felix was carefull investigated at the Council of Arles, and pronounced quite groundless.

Man personal charges, such as cruelty to the martyrs in rison (which had its ny doubtless, in his condemnation of the 'oolish fanaticism which was so common during the persecution in Africa), tyranny, bloodthirstiness, &c., were brought against Cezcilian, but were dismissed in every case as quite groundless, (see, for instance, Ffoulke's article Marinus in the Dict. of Christ.

Biog., which needs, however, to be taken with allowance, for the case against the genuineness of the extant canons of the Council is by no means so strong as he implies).

Of Chrestus himself we know nothing more than can be gathered from this epistle.

28 amodviotac@at.

20 rhs aipécews THS KADOALKTS.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[X. 5. a AEE i i ee ee ee who were contending persistently and inces-|shalt choose, together with three servants who santly with each other, should be summoned from | may serve you on the way, and betake thyself

Africa ; that in their presence, and in the pres-|to the above-mentioned place before the ence of the bishop of Rome, the matter which| appointed day; that by thy firmness, and

appeared to be causing the disturbance might| by the wise unanimity and harmony of the be examined and decided with all care.®| others present, this dispute, which has disgrace-

But since, as it happens, some, forgetful] fully continued until the present time, in conboth of their own salvation and of the rev-|sequence of certain shameful strifes, after all erence due to the most holy religion, do not|has been heard which those have to say who are even yet bring hostilities to an end, and are|now at variance with one another, and whom unwilling to conform to the judgment already |we have likewise commanded to be present, may passed, and assert that those who expressed|be settled in accordance with the proper faith, their opinions and decisions were few, or that|and that brotherly harmony, though it be but they had been too hasty and precipitate in giv- | gradually, may be restored.

May the Almighty ing judgment, before all the things which ought | God preserve thee in health for many years." to have been accurately investigated had been examined, —on account of all this it has happened that those very ones who ought to hold brotherly and harmonious relations toward each other, are shamefully, or rather abominably,® divided among themselves, and give occasion for ridicule to those men whose souls are aliens to this most holy religion.

Wherefore it has seemed necessary to me to provide that this dissension, which ought to have ceased after the judgment had been already given by their own voluntary agreement, should now, if possible,

CHAPTER VI.

Copy of an Imperial Epistle,in which Money ts granted to the Churches?

"CONSTANTINE AucusTuS to Cecilianus,?

bishop of Carthage.

Since it is our pleasure that something should be granted in all the provinces of Africa and Numidia and Mauritania to certain ministers of the legitimate* and most holy catholic religion, to defray their expenses, I have written to Ursus,® the illustrious finance minister® of Africa, and have directed him to make provision to pay to thy firmness three thousand folles.'?

Do thou there-

ee ee among others to Jerome, who says in his Epitaph on the blessed Paula, '' There were present the bishops of Jerusalem and other cities, and an innumerable compan: of priests and Levites of the lower order (znferioris gradus)"; and to Gregory Nazianzen (Carm. tambic. de vita sua, p. 6), who says, ''the bishops in the church sat on a higher throne, the presbyters on lower seats on either side, while the deacons stood by in white garments."

Compare also Eusebius' description of the arrangement of the seats in the church of Tyre (Bap. 4, § 67, above), and for other references see

Valesius' note.

Possibly the Latin phrase used by Constantine was similar to that eucloyed| by Jerome: secundi gradus. be brought to an end by the presence of

many.

Since, therefore, we have commanded a number of bishops from a great many different places ™ to assemble in the city of Arles,® before the kalends of August, we have thought proper to write to thee also that thou shouldst secure from the most illustrious Latronianus,™ corrector of Sicily,® a public vehicle, and that thou shouldst take with thee two others of the second rank,® whom thou thyself

30 See the previous epistle.

41 aicxpas, uaddov 62 pucepas.

32 x dvapdpwv Kai auvOyitwy témwv.

Some old accounts give the number of bishops present at the Council as six hundred, but this is wild.

Baronius gave the number as two hundred, and he has been followed by many others, but this rests upon a false reading in a passage in Augustine's works.

The truth seems to be that there were not more than thirty-three bishops present, the number

1 Upon the title of this chapter given in the majority of the MSS., see above, chap. 5, note 1.

? The accompanying epistle furnishes the first instance which.we have of financial support furnished the clergy by the state.

From this time on the old system of voluntary contributions fell more and more into disuse, and the clergy gained their support from the income upon the church property, which accumulated rapidly, in consequence of special grants by the state and voluntary gifts and legacies by pious Christians, or from imperial bounties, as in the present case.

Chrysostom, however, complains that the clergy in nls time were not as well supported as under the ancient volun system.

The accuracy of his statement, however, is open to doubt, as is the accuracy of all such comparisons between an earlier age and our own, unless it be based upon exhaustive Statistics.

Upon the general subject of the maintenance of the clergy in the earl Church, see Bingham's A n#z; uzties, Bk. V. Compare also Hatch's

Constitution of the Early Christian Churches, p.150sq.

Upon the Montanistic practice of Paving their cler, aries, see above, Bk. V. chap. 18, note 8, and for an example of the same thing among the Theodotians, see Bk. Y. chap. 28, § 10. iven in the only lists of the members of the synod which we have face Routh, zé7d., and see. also Hefele, Conczliengesch. I. Pp. 2or).

88 Arles (Latin Avelate), a city of Southern rance, situated not far from the mouth of the Rhone.

It was at this time one of the most prominent episcopal sees of Gaul, and was the seat of more than one important council, of which the present is the first known to us.

The one summoned by Constantine convened, as we may ather from this passage, on the first of August, 314.

We do not ace how long its sessions continued, nor indeed any particulars in regard to it, though twenty-two canons are extant in an epistle addressed to Sylvester of Rome, which purport to be the genuine canons of the Council, and are commonly so regarded.

Their genuineness, however, is by no means universally admitted (cf. e.g. the article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. referred to in note 27).

If the canons are genuine, we see that the Council busied itself with many other matters besides the Donatistic schism, especially with the Easter question and with various matters of churc discipline.

See Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 201 sq. (2d ed.). i oe Cecilianus, see Rors chap.

5, note 20, évOéopov. rsus is an otherwise unknown persona e:

8 naodukév.

Cf. Bk, VIII. chap. rr, note 3 ashy 7 PddAets.

We learn from Epiphanius (De pond. et mens., at the end of the work ; Dindorf's ed. IV. p. 33) that there were two folles, one a small coin, and the other a sum of Money of uncertain value.

The latter is evidently referred to here.

According to one computation it was worth 208 denarii.

If this were correct, the present sum would amount to over ninety thousand dollars; but the truth is, we can reach no certainty in the matter.

For an exhaustive discussion of the subject, see Petavius' essay in Dindorf's edition of Epiphanius, IV, p, ro9 sq.

54 According to Valesius the name of Latronianus is found (teste Gualthero) in an ancient Palermo inscription (2% tabulis Sicudlis, zumero bg).

He is an otherwise unknown personage, 35 The ree Tov KoppyxTopos is evidently simply a transliteration of the original Latin correctoris.

Corrector, in the time of the emperors; was '' the title of a kind of land bailiff, a governor"

(Andrews' Lexicon).

%5 rav éx Tov Sevrépov Opdvov; i.e. presbyters.

Valesius remarks ad locum that presbyters were commonly called "priests of the second order," as may be gathered from various authors.

He refers

xr]

GRANTS OF CONSTANTINE TO THE CHURCH.

peer ee eens ae De Ee SS eee fore, when thou hast received the above sum of money, command that it be distributed

Sonat ocak among all those mentioned above, according

to the brief® sent to thee by Hosius.?

But if thou shouldst find that anything is wanting for the fulfillment of this purpose of mine in regard to all of them, thou shalt demand without hesitation from Heracleides," our treasurer," whatever thou findest to be necessary.

For I commanded him when he was present that if thy firmness should ask him for any money, he

The Exemption of the Clergy.

Copy of an epistle in which the emperor

commands that the rulers of the churches be exempted from all political duties* " Greeting to thee, our most esteemed Anulinus.

Since it appears from many circumstances that when that religion is despised, in which is preserved the chief reverence for the most holy celestial Power, great dangers are brought upon public affairs; but that when legally adopted and observed? it affords the most signal prosperity to the Roman name and remarkable felicity to all the affairs of men, through the divine beneficence, — it has seemed good to me, most esteemed Anulinus, that those men who give their services with due sanctity and with constant observance of this law, to the worship of the divine religion, should receive recompense for their labors.

Wherefore it

is my will that those within the province entrusted to thee,? in the catholic Church, over which Ceecilianus presides,* who give their services to this holy religion, and who are comshould see to it that it be paid without de-

lay. And since I have learned that some men of unsettled mind wish to turn the people from the most holy and catholic Church by a certain method of shameful corruption," do thou know that I gave command to Anulinus, the proconsul, and also to Patricius," vicar of the prefects,* when they were present, that they should give proper attention not only to other matters but also above all to this, and that they should not overlook such a thing when

it happened.

Wherefore if thou shouldst see any such men continuing in this madness, do thou without delay go to the abovementioned judges and report the matter to them; that they may correct:them as I commanded them when they were present."

The monly called clergymen, be entirely exempted from all public duties, that they may not by any error or sacrilegious negligence be drawn away from the service due to the Deity, but may devote themselves without any hindrance to their own law.

For it seems that when they show greatest reverence to the Deity, the greatest benefits accrue to the state.

Farewell, our most esteemed and beloved Anulinus."

_————— ne divinity of the great God preserve thee for many years." a 8 Bpeoviov; probably for the Latin breviarzum.

9 Doubtless to be identified with the famous Hosius, bishop of Cordoyra in Spain, who was for many years Constantine's most influential adviser and took a prominent part in all the great controversies of the first half of the fourth century, and who died shortly before 360, when he was upwards of a hundred years old.

Upon his life, see especially the exhaustive article by Morse, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

10 Heracleides is, so far as I am aware, mentioned only here.

11 sop émiTpomov TaY NMETEpwY KTNMATWY.

12 This would seem to be a reference to the Donatists.

If it is, it leads us to suppose that Constantine had heard about the troubles in Carthage before he received the communication from Anulinus referred to in the previous chapter; for we can hardly suppose that pending the trial of Czcilian 'onstantine would show him such signal marks of favor, which would lay him at once open to the charge of partiality, and would be practically a prejudgment of the case.

On the other hand, he could not have referred to the Donatists in this way after the trial of the case, for his words imply that he is referring, not to an already well-established and well-known party, but simply to individuals whom he has recently learned to be making some kind of trouble in the church.

These considerations seem to me to lead to the conclusion that this epistle receded the one to Miltiades quoted in the previous chapter, an also the one from 'Anulinus to Constantine (see notes 16 and 19 on that chapter).

If this be so, it must have been written as early as April, 313, and therefore soon after the epistle to Anulinus quoted in the previous chapter, § 15 sqWe might then be led to suppose that it was in consequence of this grant made by Constantine solely to Cecilian and the clergy under him that the Donatists decided to ae to part to suppress schismatics.

In 316 he enacted a stringent law against the Donatists (see the previous chapter, note 16), which, however, he withdrew within a few years, finding the policy of repression an unwise one.

'The same was done later in connection with the Arians, whom he at first endeavored to suppress by force, but afterward tolerated.

His successors were in the main far less tolerant than he was, and heretics and schismatics were frequently treated with great harshness during the fourth and following centuries.

1 Municipal offices and magistracies were a great burden under the later Roman empire.

They entailed heavy expenses for those who filled them, and consequently, unless a man's wealth was large, and his desire for distinction very great, he was glad to be exempted, if possible, from the necessity o supporting such expensive honors, which he was not at liberty to refuse.

The same was true of almost all the offices, municipal and provincial offices, high and low.

Discharging the duties of an office was in fact practically paying a heavy tax to government, and of course the fewer there were that were compelled to pay this tax, the greater the burden upon the few.

As a consequence, the exemption of any class of persons always aroused opposition from those who were not exempted.

In granting this emucty to the clergy, however, Constantine was granting them only what had long been enjoyed by the heathen priesthood, and also by some of the learned pectsaine

The privilege bestowed here upon the African clergy was afterward extended to those of other provinces, as we learn fan the Theodosian Code, x6. 2, 2 (A.D. 319).

The direct result of the exemption was that many persons of means secured admission to the ranks of the clergy, in order to escape the burden of office-holding; and this practice increased so rapidly that within a few years the emperor was obliged to enact various laws restricting the privilege.

See Hatch's Constitution of the Early Christ. Churches, p. 144 Sq: the emperor, his treatment of all who were opposed to Cecilian showing them that he had heard reports of them by no means to their advantage, and thus impelling them to try and set themselves right in his eyes and in the eyes of the world by a public investigation of their cause.

There are difficulties connected with the exact order of events at this point which beset any theory we may adopt, but the one just seated, seems to me most in harmony with our sources and with the nature of the case For a full, though not altogether cee manne discussion of the matter, which I cannot dwell upon here, see Walch's Ketzergeschichte, \V. p. 116 sq.

13 This Patricius is known to us, so far as I am aware, from this passageonly.

_— , , ; 14 7G oviKapiw TaY emapxur, which doubtless represents the Latin Vicarius Praefectorum, the vicar or deputy of the prefects.

See Valesius' note ad Jocum and the note of Heinichen (Vol. III. p. 463), with the additional references given by him.

- 15 This is the first instance we have of an effort on Constantine's 2 éyOéguws avadynhbetcav Kai PvdatTomevny.

3 i.e. the proconsular province of Africa (see above, chap. 5, ).

4 i.e. the Church of the entire province; for the bishop of Carthage was the metropolitan of the province, and indeed was

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[X. 8. evidences of true favor, did not refuse alliance with him, and did not refuse him the illustrious marriage with his sister, but honored him by making him a partaker of the ancestral nobility and the ancient imperial blood," and granted him the right of sharing in the dominion over all as a brother-in-law and co-regent, conferring upon him the government and administration of no less a portion of the Roman provinces than he himself possessed.?

But Licinius, on the contrary, pursued a course directly opposite to this ; forming daily all kinds of plots against his superior, and devising all sorts of mischief, that he might repay his benefactor with evils.

At first he attempted to conceal his preparations, and pretended to be a friend, and practiced frequently fraud and deceit, in the hope that he might easily accomplish the desired end.'

But_God was the friend, pro;

tector, and guardian of Coristantine, and bringing the plots which had been formed in

CHAPTER VIII.

The Subsequent Wickedness of Licinius, and his Death.

SucH blessings did divine and heavenly grace confer upon us through the appearance of our Saviour, and such was the abundance of benefits which prevailed among all men in consequence of the peace which we

enjoyed.

And thus were our affairs crowned with rejoicings and festivities.

But malignant envy, and the demon who loves that which is evil, were not able to bear the sight of these things; and moreover the events that befell the tyrants whom we have already men-

tioned were not sufficient to bring Licinius

to sound reason.

For the latter, although his government was prosperous and he was honored with the second rank after the great

Emperor Constantine, and was connected with him by the closest ties of marriage, abandoned the imitation of good deeds, and emulated the wickedness of the impious tyrants whose end he had seen with his own eyes, and chose rather to follow their principles than to continue in friendly relations with him who was better than they.

Being envious of the common benefactor, he waged an impious and most terrible war against him, paying regard neither to laws of secrecy and darkness to the light, he foiled them.

So much virtue does the great armor of piety possess for the warding off of enemies and for the preservation of our own safety.

Protected by this, our most divinely favored emperor escaped the multitudinous plots of the abominable man.

But when Licinius perceived that his secret preparations by no means progressed according .to his mind, for God revealed every plot and wickedness to the Godfavored emperor, — being no longer able to conceal himself, he undertook _ war,!

And at the same time that he determined

to wage war with Constantine, he also proceeded to join battle with the God of the universe, whom he knew t tantine worshiped, and began, gently for a time and quietly, to attack his pious subjects, who had never done his government any harm.'

This he did under if A Er Be owner.

Ath okt eal ee T nature, nor treaties, nor blood, and giving

no thought to covenants.!

For Constantine, like an all-gracious emperor, giving him the leading bishop of North Africa, and thus recognized as in some sense at the head of the church of that entire section of country.

1 To speak of Licinius as alone responsible for the civil war between himself and Constantine, which ended in his own downfall, is quite unjustifiable; indeed, this entire chapter is a painful example of the way in which prejudice distorts facts.

The Positions of the two emperors was such that a final struggle between them for the sole supremacy was inevitable. .

Already, in 314, a war broke out, which seems to have resulted from Licinius" refusal to deliver up a relative of his own, who had in some way been concerned in a conspiracy against Constantine.

The occasion of the war is not perfectly plain, but it is certain that Constantine, not Licinius, was the aggressor.

Constantine came off victorious, but was not able to overthrow his rival, and a treaty was concluded by which Illyricum, one of Licinius' most important provinces, was ceded to Constantine.

The two emperors remained at peace, each waiting for a time when he could with advantage attack the other, until 323, when a second and greater war broke out, to which Eusebius, who omits all reference to the former, refers in these two chapters.

The immediate occasion of this war, as of the former, is obscure, but it was certainly not due to Constantine's pity for the oppressed Christian subjects of Licinius, and his pious desire to avenge their sufferings, as Eusebius, who in his Vz#a Const. II.

3, in contradiction to this present passage, claims for his prince the honor of beginning the war without any other provocation, would have us believe.

Doubtless the fact that Licinius was persecuting his Christian subjects had much to do with the outbreak of the war; for Constantine saw clearly 'that Licinius had weakened his hold upon his subjects by his conduct, and that therefore a good time had arrived to strike the decisive blow.

A pretext—for of course Constantine could not go to war without some more material and plausible pretext than sympathy with oppressed Christian brethren —was furnished by some sort of a misunderstanding in regard to the respective rights of the two sovereigns in the border territory along the Danube frontier, and the war began by Constantine taking the initiative, and invading his rival's territory.

Two battles were fought, — one at Adrianople in July, and the other at Chrysopolis in September, 323,—in both of which Constantine was victorious, and the latter of which resulted in the surrender of Licinius, and the accession of Constantine to the supreme sovereignty of both East and West.

Cf. Gibbon, Harper's ed., I. p. 490 sq., and Burckhardt's Zez# Constantins, 2d ed.,

P. 328 sq.

1a See below, p. 400.

? A more flagrant misrepresentation of facts could hardly be imagined.

Licinius received his appointment directly from Galerius and owed nothing whatever to Constantine; in fact, was an Augustus before the latter was, and held his half of the empire quite independently of the latter, and indeed by a far clearer title than Constantine held hie See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, notes 18 and 21.

8 There is no reason to suppose that Licinius was any more guilty than Constantine in these respects.

' This is in direct contradiction to Eusebius' own statement in his Vita Const. II. 3 (see above, note 1), and is almost certainly incorrect.

5 Licinius, as Gérres has shown in his able essay Die Licinianische Christenverfolgung, p. 5 sq., did not begin to persecute the Christians until the year 319 (the persecution was formerly commonly supposed to have begun some three or four years earlier).

The causes of his change of policy in this matter it is impossible to state with certainty, but the exceedingly foolish step seems to have been chiefly due to his growing hatred' and suspicion of the Christians as the friends of Constantine.

Though he had not hitherto been hostile to them, he had yet never taken any pains to win their friendship and to secure their enthusiastic support as Constantine had, and as a consequence they naturally looked with envy upon their brethren in the west, who were enjoying such signal marks of imperial favor.

Licinius could not but be conscious o this; and as the relations between himself and Constantine became more and more strained, it was not unnatural for him to acquire a peculiar enmity toward them, and finally to suspect them of a conspiracy in favor of his rival, Whether he had any grounds for such a suspicion we do not know, but at any rate he began to show his changed attitude in 319 by clearing his palace of Christians (see § 10).

No more foolish step can be imagined than the opening of a persecution

K28))

LICINIUS PERSECUTES THE CHRISTIANS.

i ase a a ES aa ae ne the suffering should be thrown into bonds and into prison, and should endure the same punishment with the sufferers.

Such were the decrees of Licinius. the compulsion of his innate wickedness

which drove him into terrible blindness. He did not therefore keep before his eyes the memory of those who had persecuted the Christians before him, nor of those whose destroyer and executioner he had been appointed, on account of the impieties which they had committed.

But departing from sound reason, being seized, in a word, with insanity, he determined to war against God himself as the ally of Con-

Why should we recount his innovations in regard to marriage or in regard to the dying — innovations by which he ventured to annul the ancient laws of the Romans which had been well and wisely formed, and to introduce certain barbarous and cruel laws, which were truly unlawful and lawless?'

He invented, to the detriment of the provinces which were subject to him, innumerable prosecutions,* and all sorts of methods of extorting gold and silver, new measurements of land® and injurious exactions from men in the country, who were no longer living, but long since dead.

Why

is it necessary to speak at length of the banishments which, in addition to these things, this enemy of mankind inflicted upon those who had done no wrong, the expatriations of stantine, instead of against the one who was

assisted by him.

And in the first place, he drove from his house every Christian, thus depriving himself, wretched man, of the prayers which they offered to God in his behalf, which they are accustomed, according to the teaching of their fathers, to offer for all men.

Then he commanded that the soldiers in the cities should be cashiered and stripped of their rank unless they chose to sacrifice to the demons.

And yet these were small matters when compared

with the greater things that followed.

Why is it necessary to relate minutely and in detail all that was done by the hater of God, and to recount how this most lawless man invented unlawful laws?® He passed an ordinance that no one should exercise humanity toward the sufferers in prison by giving them food, and that none should show mercy to those that were perishing of hunger in bonds ; that no one should in any way be kind, or do any good act, even though moved by Nature herself to sympathize with one's neighbors.

And this was indeed an openly shameful and most cruel law, calculated to expel all natural kindliness.

And in addition to this it was also decreed, as a punishment, that those who showed compassion should suffer the same things with those whom they compassionated; and that those who kindly ministered to ee ERD men of noble birth and high reputation whose young wives he snatched from them and consigned to certain baser fellows of his own, to be shamefully abused by them, and the many married women and virgins upon whom he gratified his passions, although he was in advanced age"

—why, I say, is it necessary to speak at length of these 'things, when the excessive wickedness of his last deeds makes the first appear small and of no account?

For, finally, he reached such a pitch of madness that he attacked the bishops, supposing that they

— as servants of the God over all—would be hostile to his measures.

He did not yet proceed against them openly, on account of his fear of his superior, but as before, secretly and craftily, employing the treachery of the governors for the destruction of the most distinguished of them.

And the manner of their murder was strange, and such as had never before been heard of.

The deeds which he performed

at this critical juncture. eet at a time when he needed the most loyal support of all his subjects, he wantonly alienated the affections oft a large and influential portion of them, and in the very act gave them good reason to become devoted adherents of his enemy.

The persecution of Licinius, as Gorres has clearly shown (242d. p. 29 sq-) was limited in its extent and mild in its character.

It began, as Eusebius informs us, with the expulsion of Christians from the palace, but even here it was not universal; at least, Eusebius of Nicomedia and other prominent clergymen still remained Licinius' friends, and were treated as such by him.

In fact, he evidently punished only those whom he thought to be his enemies and to be interested in the success of Constantine, if not directly conspiring in his behalf. No general edicts of persecution were issued by him, and the sufferings of the Christians seem to have been confined almost wholly to occasional loss of property or banishment, or, still less frequently, imprisonment.

A few bishops appear to have been put to death, but there is no reason to suppose that they suffered at the command of Licinius himself.

Of course, when it was known that he was hostile to the Christians, fanatical heathen officials might venture, occasionally at least, to violate the existing laws and bring hated bishops to death on one pretext or another.

But such cases were certainly rare, and there seem to have been no instances of:execution on the simple ground of Christianity, as indeed there could not be while the Edict of Milan remained unrepealed.

Eusebius' statement that Licinius was about to proceed to severer measures, when the war with Constantine broke out and put a stop to his plans, is very likely true ; but otherwise his report is rather highly colored, as many other sources fully warrant us in saying.

For a careful and very satisfactory discussion of this whole subject, see Gorres, 27d.

7 Another play upon the same word: vémous, avdmous @s adn0s Kai mapavopmous, 8 émuoxywers.

The same word is used in connection with Maximinus in Bk. VIII. chap. 14, § 10, above.

Valesius cites passages from Aurelius Victor, and Libanius, in which it is said that Licintus was very kindly disposed toward the rural population of his realm, and that the cities flourished greatly under him.

Moreover, Zosimus gives just such an account of Constantine as Eusebius gives of Licinius.

Allowance must undoubtedly be made on the one side for Eusebius' prejudice against Licinius, as on the other for Zosimus' well-known hatred of Constantine.

Doubtless both accounts are greatly exaggerated, though they probably contain considerable truth, for there were few Roman emperors that did not practice severe exactions upon their subjects, at times at least, if not continually, and it is always easy in a case of this kind to notice the dark and to overlook the bright features of a reign.

Licinius was certainly a cruel man in many respects, and one hardly cares to enter the lists in his defense, but it should be observed that, until he became the enemy of Constantine and the persecutor of the Christians,

Eusebius uniformly spoke of him in the highest terms.

Compare Stroth's note ad locum (quoted also by Closs).

9 i.e. for the purpose of making new assessments, which is always apt to be looked upon as an oppressive act, whether unjust or not,

10 égyatéynpws.

Walesius remarks that, according to the epitomist of Victor, Licinius died in the sixtieth year of his age, so that at the time of which Eusebius was speaking he was little more than fifty years of age, le 32 sq- , '

> « a F 6 Note the play on the word vouos, vopous avoMOUS 6 TavavouLws TATOS.

Lad

THE 'CHURCH)/HISTORY

\OF~- EUSEBEUS.

po ples of justice with humanity, gladly determined to come to the protection uf those who were oppressed by the tyrant, and undertook, by putting a few destroyers out of the way, to save the greater part of the human race.!

For

when he had formerly exercised humanity alone and had shown mercy to him who was not worthy of sympathy, nothing was accomplished ; for Licinius did not renounce his wickedness, but rather increased his fury against the peoples that were subject to him, and there was left to the afflicted no hope of salvation, oppressed as they were by a savage beast.

Wherefore,

the protector of the virtuous, mingling hatred for evil with love for good, went forth with his son Crispus, a most beneficent prince,? and extended a saving right hand to all that were perishing.

Both of them, father and son, under the protection, as it were, of God, the universal

King, with the Son of God, the Saviour of all, as their leader and ally, drew up their forces on all sides against the enemies of the Deity and won an easy victory ;* God having prospered them in the battle in all respects according to their wish.

Thus, suddenly, and sooner

than can be told, those who yesterday and the day before breathed death and threatening were no more, and not even their names were remembered, but their inscriptions and _ their honors suffered the merited disgrace.

And the things which Licinius with his own eyes had seen come upon the former impious tyrants he himself likewise suffered, because he did not receive instruction nor learn wisdom from the chastisements of his neighbors, but followed the same path of impiety which they had trod, and was justly hurled over the same precipice.

Thus he lay prostrate. at Amaseia™ and in the other cities of Pontus surpassed every excess of cruelty.

Some of the churches of God were agam razed to the ground, others were closed, so that none of those accustomed to frequent them could enter them and render the worship due to God.

For his evil conscience led him to suppose that prayers were not offered in his behalf ; but he was persuaded that we did everything in the interest of the God-beloved emperor, and that we supplicated God for him."

Therefore he hastened to turn his fury against us.

And then those among the governors who wished to flatter him, perceiving that in doing such things they pleased the impious tyrant, made some of the bishops suffer the penalties customarily inflicted upon criminals, and led away and without any pretext punished like murderers those who had done no wrong.

Some now endured a new form of death: having their bodies cut into many pieces with the sword, and after this savage and most horrible spectacle, being thrown into the depths of the sea as food for fishes.

Thereupon the worshipers of God again fled, and fields and deserts, forests and mountains, again received the servants of Christ.

And when the impious tyrant had thus met with success in these meas-

ures, he finally planned to renew the persecution against all.

And he would have succeeded in his design, and there would have been nothing to hinder him in the work, had not God, the defender of the lives of his own people, most quickly anticipated that which was about to happen, and caused a great light to shine forth as in the midst of a dark and gloomy night, and raised up a deliverer for all, leading into those regions with a lofty arm, his servant, Constantine.

But Constantine, the mightiest victor, adorned with every virtue of piety, together with his son Crispus, a most God-beloved prince, and in all respects like his father, recovered the East which belonged to them ;* and they formed one united Roman empire as of old, bringing under their peaceful sway the whole world from the rising of the sun to the opposite quarter, both north and south, even to the extremities

CHAPTER IX.

The Victory of Constantine, and the Blessings which under him accrued to the Subjects of the Roman Empire.

To him, therefore, God granted, from heaven above, the deserved fruit of piety, the trophies of victory over the impious, and he cast the guilty one with all his counselors

~~~"and friends prostrate at™the feet of Con-

stantine.

For when Licinius carried_his madness to the last-extremé, the emperor, the friend of God, thinking that he ought no longer to be tolerated, acting upon the basis of sound judgment, and mingling the firm princi_ 1 Eusebius speaks in the same way of the origin of i his Vita Const. TL.

3Cf. the previous chapter, nats x eri 2 Kpiory Baotdti piAavOpwrordtw.

Crispus, the oldest son of Constantine, by his first wife Minervina, waseborn about the beginning of the fourth century, made Czsar in 317, and put to death by Constantine in 326 on suspicion, whether justified or not we do not know, of conspiracy and treason.

Our sources agree in pronouncing him a young man of most excellent character and marked ability; and indeed he proved his valor and milita talents in the west in a campaign against the Franks, and also in ae present war with Licinius, in which he won a great naval battle, and thus contributed materially to his father's victory. is execution is the darkest blot on the memory of Constantine, and however it may be palliated can never, as it seems, be excused.

Eusebius prudently omits all reference to it in his Vzta Const.

7 Amaseia, or Amasia, as it is more commonly called, was an important city of Portus, situated on the river Iris.

. * The final battle was fought in September, 323.

See the previous chapter, note 4.

Eusebius makes it clear enough in this sentence that Licinius suspected a treasonable conspiracy on the part of the Christians.

See above, note 1.

4 Thy oixeiay édav ameAduBavov.

Constantine's sole right to the East was the right of conquest.

13 See zbzd.

X. 9.]

FINAL PEACE AND PROSPERITY.

Secuiee eee ee eS SS eS All fear therefore | were issued in every place by the victorious emperor.

Thus after all tyranny had been

purged away, the empire which belonged fo them was preserved firm and without a rival for

of the declining day. of those who had formerly afflicted them was taken away from men, and they celebrated splendid and festive days.

Everything was filled with light, and those who before were downcast beheld each other with smiling faces and beaming eyes.

With dances and hymns, in city and country, they glorified first of all God the universal King, because they had been

Constantine and his sons alone.® And having obliterated the godlessness of their predecessors, recognizing the benefits conferred upon them by God, they exhibited their love of virtue and their love of God, and their piety and gratitude to the Deity, by the deeds which they performed in the sight of all men. thus taught, and then the pious emperor

with his God-beloved children.

There was oblivion of past evils and forgetfulness of every deed of impiety; there was enjoyment of present benefits and expectation of those yet to 5 Some of these laws of Constantine have been preserved by Eusebius in his Vzta Const. Bk. IT.

6 It is clear from this statement, as well as from the references to Crispus in the previous paragraphs, that the Azstory was completed taining tokens of benevolence and true piety | before his execution.

See above, p. 45come.

Edicts full of clemency and laws con-

THE END, WITH GOD'S HELP, OF THE TENTH BOOK OF THE CHURCH

HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILI.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AND TABLES.

On Bk. III. chap. 3, § 5 (note 17, continued).

Since this note was in type Dr. Gardiner's admirable and exhaustive essay on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (in the Wicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XIV. p.

341 sq.) has come to hand, and I have been much pleased to see that the theory that Barnabas wrote the epistle is accepted and defended with vigor.

On Bk. III. chap. 3, § 6 (note 22, continued).

Upon the last chapter of Romans and its relation to the remainder of the epistle, see especially Farrar's Life and Work of St. Paul, p. 450 sq., Weiss' Einlettung in das N. T. p. 245 sq.,

Pfleiderer's Urchristenthum, p. 145, Renan's Saint Paul, p. 461 sq. (maintaining that an editor has combined four copies of the one encyclical letter of Paul, addressed severally to as many different churches), Lightfoot's Commentary on Philippians, p. 172 sq., and Schaff, Ch. History,

I, p.. 765; On Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17 (note 18, continued).

In three places in the Church History (Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17, chap. 25, § 2, and chap. 39,

§ 16) John's " former" epistle is referred to, as if he had written only two.

In the last passage the use of xporépa instead of rpurn might be explained as Westcott suggests (Canon of the New

Testament, p. 77, note 2), by supposing Eusebius to be reproducing the words of Papias ; but in the other passages this explanation will not do, for the words are certainly Eusebius' own.

In the Muratorian Canon only two epistles of John are mentioned, and in Irenzeus the second epistle is quoted as if it were the first (see Westcott, 2d/d. p. 384, note 1). These facts lead Westcott to ask: "Is it possible that the second epistle was looked upon as an appendix to the first? and may we thus explain the references to "vo epistles of John?"

He continues: "The first epistle, as is well known, was called ad Parthos by Augustine and some other Latin authorities ; and the same title rpés IIdpous is given to the second epistle in one Greek manuscript (62 Scholz).

The Latin translation of Clement's Ou/dines (IV.66) says: Secunda Johannis epistola que ad virgines

(rapOévous) scripta simplissima est.

Jerome, it may be added, quotes names from the ¢hird epistle as from the second (De nom. Hebr.)."'

On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 8, § 7, Eusebius speaks of the " first'? (xpaéry) epistle of John, and in Bk. III. chap. 25, § 3, he expressly mentions a second and third epistle of John.

It is evident, therefore, that whatever the use of arporépa instead of zpwérn in connection with John's first epistle may mean as used by others, it does not indicate a knowledge of only a first and second as used by him.

It is by no means impossible, however, that Westcott's suggestion may be correct, and that the first and second epistles were sometimes looked upon as but one, and it is possible that such use of them by some of his predecessors may account for Eusebius' employment of the word zporépa in three separate passages.

On Bk. III. chap. 25, § 4 (note 18, continued).

The words 4 depopevn BapvaBa émvorody have been commonly translated "the so-called Epistle of Barnabas," or "the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas," implying a doubt in Eusebius' mind as to the authenticity of the work.

This translation, however, is, in my opinion, quite unwarranted.

There are passages in Eusebius where the word épowae used in connection with writings cannot by any possibility be made to bear this meaning; cases in which it can be interpreted only

"to be extant' or "in circulation."

Compare, for instance, Bk. II. chap. 15, § 1, Mdpxov ob 76 ebayyedtov péeperat ; IT. 18. 6, povdBiBra airod péperar; III. 9. 4; III. 16; III. 25. 3, 9 Acyo-

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

EEE péry "laxdBov péperat; III. 37. 4; III. 39. 13; IV. 3. 1, eloére 8 péperar mapa wrciorors ; IV. 14.9, ev TH dyAwbelon mpds pirlurmnoiovs airod ypapy pepouery cis deipo.

Compare also IV. 15.1; IV.

9354°0,) Pay. IV ifagien 5) TV ie8 FV) SS 6319.9 3)5 "25-92 5-24. 105 VI egi"n} VIP 20) "xe.

These passages, and many others which are cited by Heinichen (Vol. III. p. 91), prove that the word is frequently used in the sense of "extant" or "in circulation."

But in spite of these numerous examples, Heinichen maintains that the word is also used by Eusebius in another and quite different sense ; namely, "so-called " or "ascribed to," thus equivalent to Aeyouevy.

A careful examination, however, of all the passages cited by him in illustration of this second meaning will show that in them too the word may be interpreted in the same way as in those already referred to; in fact, that in many of them that is in itself the more natural interpretation.

The passages to which we refer are Bk. III. chap. 25, §§ 2, 3, and 4; III. 3. 1, ryv d€ pepoperny atrod deurépay ; III. 39. 6 (where I ought to have translated "is extant under the name of John").

To draw a distinction between the meaning of the word as used in these and in the other passages is quite arbitrary, and therefore unwarranted.

The sense in which, as we have found, Eusebius so commonly employs the word attaches also to the Latin word fer/wr in the Muratorian Canon.

I have not endeavored to trace carefully the use of the word in other writers; but while "many instances occur in which it is certainly used in this sense, others in which either interpretation is allowable, I have not yet found one in.which this meaning is ruled out by the nature of the case or by the context.

In view of these facts I believe we should be careful to draw a sharp distinction between Aeyouévy OF Kadovpévn and gepouevy when used in connection with written works.

A considerable portion of my translation was in type before I had observed this distinction between the two words, which is commonly quite overlooked, and as a consequence in a few cases my rendering of the word ¢epopévy is inaccurate.

All such cases I have endeavored to call attention to in these supplementary notes.

On Bk. III. chap. 28, § 1.

For the Disputation which is ascribed to him, read his extant Disputation.

On Bk. III. chap. 32, § 6 (note 14").

The Greek reads rdons éxxAyoias (without the article), and so, two lines below, év rdoy éxxAyog.

All the translators (with the exception of Pratten in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIIL, who reads, "the churches"') render "the whole church," as if reading was with the article.

We have not, it is true, enough of Hegesippus' writings to be able to ascertain positively his use of was, and it is possible that he carelessly employed it indifferently with or without the article to signify the definite "all" or "the whole."

In the absence of positive testimony, however, that he failed to draw the proper distinction between its use with and its use without the article, and in view of the fact that Eusebius himself (as well as other early Fathers so far as I am able to recall) is very consistent in making the distinction, I have not felt at liberty in my translation to depart from a strict grammatical interpretation of the phrases in question.

Moreover, upon second thought, it seems quite as possible that Hegesippus meant to say "every POR

Sess for he can hardly have supposed these relatives of the Lord to have presided literally over the whole Church, while he might very well say that they presided each over the church in the city in which he lived, which is all that the words necessarily imply.

The phrase just below, "in every church," is perhaps as natural as "in the whole church."

On Bk. III. chap. 36, § 13.

For the Epistle to the Philippians which is ascribed to him, read his extant Epistle to the Philippians.

On Bk. III. chap. 39, § 1 (note 1, continued).

Since the above note was in type Resch's important work on the Agrapha (von Gebhardt and Harnack's Zexte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 4) has come to hand.

On p. 27 sq. he discusses at considerable length the sources of the Synoptic Gospels.

He accepts the theory which is most widely adopted by New-Testament critics, that the synoptic tradition as contained in our

Synoptic Gospels rests upon an original Gospel of Mark (nearly if not quite identical with our present Gospel of Mark) and a pre-canonical Hebrew Gospel.

In agreement with such critics he draws a sharp distinction between this original Hebrew Gospel and our canonical Greek

Matthew, while at the same time recognizing that the latter reproduces that original more fully

2900.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

than either of the other Gospels does.

This original Hebrew he then identifies with the Aoya referred to by Papias as composed by Matthew in the Hebrew tongue (see Bk. III. chap. 39,

§ 16) ; that is, with the traditional Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (see /dzd. chap. 24, note 5)». ¢ he arguments which he urges in support of this position are very strong.

Handmann regards the Gospel according to the Hebrews as the second original source of the synoptic tradition, alongside of the Ur-Marcus, and even suggests its identification with the Ady of Papias, and yet denies its identity with the Hebrew Matthew.

On the other hand, Resch regards the Hebrew Matthew, which he identifies with the Adyua of Papias, as the second original source of the synoptic tradition, alongside of Mark or the Ur-Marcus, and yet, like Handmann, though on entirely different grounds, denies the identity of the Gospel according to the Hebrews with the Hebrew

Matthew.

'Their positions certainly tend to confirm my suggestion that the Hebrew Matthew and the Gospel according to the Hebrews were originally identical (see above, Bk. III. chap. 27, note 8).

On Bk. III. chap. 39, § 6.

For ascribed by name to John, read extant under the name of John.

On Bk. III. chap. 39, § 16.

For from the first epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise, read from the former episile of John and from the epistle of Peter tkewise.

See p. 388.

On Bk. IV. chap. ro.

For the Pious, read Pius.

On Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2.

For the Pious, read Pius.

On Bk. V. Introd. § 1 (note 3, continued).

Zhe Successors of Antoninus Pius.

Antoninus Pius was succeeded in 161 by his adopted sons, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

Verus and Lucius Ceionius ¢lius Aurelius Commodus Antoninus.

Upon his accession to the throne the former transferred his name Verus to the latter, who was thenceforth called Lucius Aurelius Verus.

In his Chronicle Eusebius keeps these two princes distinct, but in his Hiszory he falls into sad confusion in regard to them, and this confusion has drawn upon him the severe censure of all his critics.

He knew of course, as every one did, that Antoninus Pius had two successors.

In Bk. IV. chap. 14, § 10, he states this directly, and gives the names of the successors as " Marcus Aurelius Verus, who was also called Antoninus," and "Lucius."

From that point on he calls the former of these princes simply Antoninus Verus, Antoninus, or Verus, dropping entirely the name Marcus Aurelius.

In Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2, he speaks of the emperor "whose times we are now recording," that is, the successor of Antoninus

Pius, and calls him Antoninus Verus.

In Bk. V. Introd. § 1 he refers to the same emperor as Antoninus Verus, and in Bk. V. chap. 4, § 3, and chap. g, he calls him simply Antoninus, while in Bk. IV. chap. 13, § 8, he speaks of him as the " Emperor Verus."

The death of this Emperor Antoninus is mentioned in Bk. V. chap. 9, and it is there said that he reigned nineteen years and was then succeeded by Commodus.

It is evident that in all these passages he is referring to the emperor whom we know as Marcus Aurelius, but to whom he gives that name only once when he records his accession to the empire.

On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 5, § 1 Buses bius speaks of Marcus Aurelius Czsar and chide distinguishes him from the Emperor Antoninus, to whom he has referred at the close of the previous chapter, and makes him the brother of that emperor.

Again, in the same chapter, § 6, he calls this Marcus Aurelius Cesar just referred to, the " Emperor Marcus," still evidently distinguishing him from the Emperor

Antoninus.

In this chapter, therefore, he thinks of Marcus Aurelius as the younger of the two sons left by Antoninus Pius; that is, he identifies him with the one whom we call Lucius Verus and whom he himself calls Lucius in Bk. IV. chap. 14, § 10.

Eusebius thus commits a palpable error.

How are we to explain it?

The explanation seems to me to lie in the circumstance that Eusebius attempted to reconcile the tradition that Marcus Aurelius was not a persecutor with the fact known to him as a historian, that the emperor who succeeded Antoninus Pius was.

It was the common belief in the time of Eusebius, as it had been during the entire preceding century. that all the good emperors had been friendly to the Christians, and that only the bad

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

emperors had persecuted.

Of course, among the good emperors was included the philosophical Marcus Aurelius (cf. e.g. Tertullian's 4o/. chap. 5, to which Eusebius refers in Bk. V. chap. 5).

It was of Marcus Aurelius, moreover, that the story of the Thundering Legion was told (see zdzd.).

But Eusebius was not able to overlook the fact that numerous martyrdoms occurred during the reign of the successor of Antoninus Pius.

He had the documents recording the terrible persecution at Lyons and Vienne; he had an apology of Melito, describing the hardships which the Christians endured under the same emperor (see Bk. IV. chap. 26).

He found himself, as an historian, face to face with two apparently contradictory lines of facts.

How was the contradiction to be solved?

He seems to have solved it by assuming that a confusion of names had taken place, and that the prince commonly known as Marcus Aurelius, whose noble character was traditional, and whose friendship to the Christians he could not doubt, was the younger, not the older of the two brothers, and therefore not responsible for the numerous martyrdoms which took place after the death of Antoninus Pius.

And yet he is not consistent with himself even in his History ; for he gives the two brothers their proper names when he first mentions them, and says nothing of an identification of Marcus Aurelius with Lucius.

It is not impossible that the words Marcus Aurelius, which are used nowhere else of the older brother, are an interpolation ; but for this there is no evidence, and it may be suggested as more probable that at the time when this passage was written the solution of the difficulty which he gives distinctly in Bk. V. chap. 5 had not yet occurred to him.

That he should be able to fancy that Marcus Aurelius was identical with Lucius is perhaps not strange when we remember how much confusion was caused in the minds of other writers besides himself by the perplexing identity of the names of the various members of the Antonine family.

To the two successors of Antoninus Pius, the three names, Aurelius, Verus, and Antoninus, alike belonged.

It is not surprising that Eusebius should under the circumstances think that the name Marcus may also have belonged to the younger one.

This supposition would seem to him to find some confirmation in the fact that the most common official designation of the older successor of Antoninus Pius was not Marcus Aurelius, but Antoninus simply, or M.

Antoninus.

The name Marcus Aurelius or Marcus was rather a popular than an official designation.

Even in the Chronicle there seems to be a hint that Eusebius thought of a possible distinction between Antoninus the emperor and Marcus, or Marcus Aurelius ; for while he speaks of the "Emperor Antoninus" at the beginning of the passages in which he recounts the story of the Thundering Legion (year of Abr. 2188), he says at the close: "vere quoque exstant Marci regis

(the M. Aurel gravissimi imperatoris of Jerome looks like a later expansion of the simpler original) guibus testatur copias suas iamiam perituras Christianorum precibus servaias esse.

But even when he had reached the solution pointed out, Eusebius did not find himself clear of difficulties ; for his sources put the occurrence of the Thundering Legion after the date at which the younger brother was universally supposed to have died, and it was difficult on still other grounds to suppose the prince named Marcus Aurelius already dead in 169 (the date given by Eusebius himself in his Chronicle for the death of Lucius).

In this emergency he came to the conclusion that there must be some mistake in regard to the date of his death, and possessing no record of the death of Marcus Aurelius as distinct from Antoninus, he simply passed it by without mention.

That Eusebius in accepting such a lame theory showed himself altogether too much under the influence of traditional views cannot be denied ; but when we remember that the tradition that Marcus Aurelius was not a persecutor was supported by writers whose honesty and accuracy he could never have thought of questioning, as well as by the very nature of the case, we must, while we smile at the result, at least admire his effort to solve the contradiction which he, as an historian, felt more keenly than a less learned man, unacquainted with the facts on the other side, would have done.

On Bk. V. chap. 1, § 27 (note 26, continued).

See also Bk. VIII. chap. 10, note 5.

On Bk. VI. chap. 2 (note 1, continued).

Ovigen's Life and Writings.

Origen Adamantius (on the second name, see Bk. VI. chap. 14, note 12) was of Christian parentage and probably of Greek descent on his father's side (as stated in the previous note), but whether born in Alexandria or not we do not know.

Westcott suggests that his mother may have been of Jewish descent, because in an epistle of Jerome (ad Paulam: Ep. 39, § 1, Migne's ed.) he is said to have learned Hebrew so thoroughly that he " vied with his mother"' in the singing of psalms (but compare the stricture of Redepenning on this passage, p. 187, note 1). The date of his birth may be gathered from the fact (stated in this chapter) that he was in his seventeenth

THE CHURCH HISTORY.

OFVEUSEBIUS.

year at the time of his father's death, which gives us 185 or 186 as the year of his birth (cf. Redepenning, I. p. 417-420, Erste Beilage).

We learn from the present chapter that as a boy he was carefully trained by his father in the Scriptures and afterward in Greek literature, a training of which he made good use in later life.

He was also a pupil of Clement in the catechetical school, as we learn from chaps. 6 and 14 (on the time, see chap. 6, note 4). He showed remarkable natural ability, and after the death of his father (being himself saved from martyrdom only by a device of his mother), when left in poverty with his mother and six younger brothers

(see § 13 of this chapter), he was able, partly by the assistance of a wealthy lady and partly by teaching literature, to support hirnself (§ 14).

Whether he supported the rest of the family Eusebius does not state, but his thoroughly religious character does not permit us to imagine that he left them to suffer.

In his eighteenth year, there being no one at the head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, he was induced to take the school in charge and to devote himself to the work of instruction in the Christian faith.

Soon afterward the entire charge of the work was officially committed to him by Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria (see chap. 3).

He lived at this time a life of rigid asceticism (2ézd.), and even went so far as to mutilate himself in his zeal for the prosecution of his work (see chap. 8).

His great influence naturally aroused the hostility of unbelievers against him ; but though many of his pupils suffered martyrdom (see chap. 4), he himself escaped, we do not know how.

Eusebius ascribes his preservation to the providence of God (7颢.).

During these years in which he was at the head of the catechetical school, he devoted himself with vigor to the study of Greek philosophy, and was for a time a pupil of the Neo-Platonist Ammonius Saccas (chap. 19).

He studied non-Christian thought, as he tells us, in order that he might be the better able to instruct his pagan and heretical pupils (2d7¢.).

His labors in the school in time grew so heavy that he was obliged to associate with himself his friend and fellow-pupil Heraclas, to whom he committed the work of elementary instruction (chap. 15).

It was during this time that he seems to have begun his Hexapla, having learned Hebrew in order to fit himself the better for his work upon the Old Testament (chap. 16).

During this period (while Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome, i.e. before 217) he made a brief visit to Rome (chap. 14), and later he was summoned to Arabia, to give instruction to the governor of that country, and remained there a short time (chap. 19).

Afterward, on account of a great tumult in Alexandria (see chap. 19, note 22), he left the city and went to Cesarea in Palestine, where, although only a layman, he publicly expounded the Scriptures in the church (chap. 19).

The bishop Demetrius strongly disapproved of this, and summoned him back to Alexandria

(7d72.).

Upon his return to Alexandria he entered upon the work of writing Commentaries on the Scriptures (see chap. 23).

During this period he wrote also other important works (see chap. 24).

In the tenth year of Alexander Severus (a.p. 231) he left Alexandria (according to chap. 26) and took up his residence in Ceesarea, leaving his catechetical school in charge of his assistant,

Heraclas.

The cause of his departure is stated in chap. 23 to have been "some necessary affairs of the church" which called him to Greece.

(For a statement of the reasons which lead me, contrary to the common opinion, to identify the departure mentioned in chap. 23 with that mentioned in chap. 26, see below, p. 395 sq.)

Jerome (de vir. tll. c. 54) says that he went to Achaia on account of heresies which were troubling the churches there.

His words are Et propter ecclesias Achaia, que pluribus heresibus vexabantur, sub testimonio ecclesiastice epistole Athenas per Palestinam pergeret.

We passed through Palestine on his way to Greece, and it was at this time that he was ordained a presbyter by the Palestinian bishops (chap. 23),

Theoctistus of Caesarea and Alexander of Jerusalem (according to Jerome, Z¢.; cf. also Euseb. chap. 8). Whether he remained long in Palestine at this time, or went on at once to Greece, we do not know ; but that a visit (to be distinguished from the second visit mentioned in chap. 32; see note 4 on that chapter) was made we know from a fragment of one of Origen's epistles written from Athens (printed in Lommatzsch's ed. of Origen's works, XXV. p-. 388) ; with which are to be compared Epiphanius, Her. LXIV. 1, and the remark made by Eusebius in chap. 16, § 2, in regard to the finding of a copy of a translation in Nicopolis.

Origen's ordination resulted in the complete alienation of the bishop Demetrius (upon his earlier and later attitude toward

Origen, and the causes of the change, see below, P. 394 8q.), and he called a council in Alexandria of bishops and presbyters (the council must have been held very soon after the receipt of the news of Origen's ordination, for Demetrius died in 232; see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4) which decided that Origen should be required to leave Alexandria and not be allowed to reside or to teach there, but did not depose him from the priesthood.

Afterward, however, Demetrius, combining with some bishops of like mind with himself, deposed Origen from his office, and the sentence was ratified by those who had before voted with him.

Photius gives this account in Cod.

118, quoting from the lost Defense of Pamphilus and Eusebius.

Eusebius himself tells us nothing

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

about these proceedings in his History, but simply refers us (chap. 23) to the second book of his Defense, which he says contained a full account of the matter.

(Upon the bearing of the words quoted by Photius from the Defense, see below, p. 395 sq.)

Demetrius wrote of the result of the council "to the whole world" (according to Jerome's de wir. t//. c. 54), and the sentence was concurred in by the bishops of Rome and of all the other churches, except those of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia (see Jerome ad Paul. Ep. 33; and Apol. adv. libros

Ruf. II. 18).

Taking up his abode in Cesarea, Origen made this place his headquarters for the rest of his life, and found there the most cordial sympathy and support (chap. 27).

He carried on in'Czesarea a catechetical school, expounding the Scriptures, lecturing on theology, and at the same time continuing his literary labors in peace until the persecution of Maximinus (a.D. 235237), during which some of his friends in Czesarea suffered (see chaps. 27, 28, 30, 32, and 36).

How Origen escaped and where he was during the persecution we do not know (see chap. 28, note 2).

In 237 or 238, at any rate, he was (again) in Cesarea, and at this time Gregory Thaumaturgus delivered his Panegyric, which is our best source for a knowledge of Origen's methods of teaching and of the influence which he exerted over his pupils.

(Upon the date, see Draeseke, Der Brief des Origenes an Gregorios in the Jabrbiicher f. prot. Theologie, 1887, p. 102 sq.)

During this period he did considerable traveling, making another visit to Athens (see chap. 32) and two to Arabia (see chaps. 33 and 37).

It was while in Cesarea, and when he was over sixty years old, that he first permitted his discourses to be taken down by shorthand writers (see chap. 26).

His correspondence with the Emperor Philip and his wife is mentioned by Eusebius in the same chapter.

He was arrested during the Decian persecution and suffered terrible torments, but not martyrdom (chap. 39).

He died not much more than a year after the close of the persecution, in the seventieth year of his age (see Bk. VII. chap. 1), at Tyre, and was buried there (Jerome, de vir. il. c. 54).

Origen was without doubt the greatest scholar and the most original thinker of his age.

He was at the same time a man of most devout piety, and employed all his wonderful talents in the service of what he believed to be the truth.

His greatest labors were in the field of exegesis, and here his writings were epoch-making, although his results were often completely vitiated by his use of the allegorical method of interpretation and his neglect of the grammatical and historical sense.

His services in the cause of scientific theology cannot be overestimated, and his thinking long stimulated the brightest minds of the Church, both orthodox and heretical.

Both his natural predilections and his training in the philosophy which prevailed in Alexandria in that day led him in the direction of idealism, and to an excess of this, combined with his deep desire — common also to Clement—to reconcile Christianity with reason and to commend it to the minds of philosophers, are due most of his errors, nearly all of which are fascinating and lofty in conception.

Those errors led the Church to refuse him a place among its saints and even among its Fathers in the stricter sense.

Even before his death suspicions of his orthodoxy were widespread ; and although he had many followers and warm defenders, his views were finally condemned at a home synod in Constantinople in 543 (?) (see Helele, II. 790).

Into the bitter controversies which raged during the fourth and fifth centuries, and in which Jerome and Rufinus

(the former against, the latter for, Origen) played so large a part we cannot enter here.

See the article Origenistic Controversies in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., or any of the Church histories and lives of Origen.

Origen was a marvelously prolific writer.

Epiphanius (Her. LXIV. 63) says that it was commonly reported that he had written 6000 works.

Jerome reduces the number to less than a third (adv. Ruf. WI. 22).

But whatever the number, we know that he was one of the most voluminous — perhaps the most voluminous writer of antiquity.

He wrote works of the most diverse nature, critical, exegetical, philosophical and theological, apologetic and practical, besides numerous epistles.

(On his great critical work, the Hexap/a, see chap. 16, note 8.) His exegetical works consisted of commentaries, scho/ia (or detached notes), and homilies.

Of his commentaries on the Old Testament, which were very numerous, only fragments of those on Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, and the Song of Solomon are preserved in the version of Rufinus, and a fragment of the commentary on Ezekiel in the Philocalia.

Of the New Testament commentaries we have numerous fragments both in Greek and Latin (especially on Matthew and John), and the whole of Romans in the translation of Rufinus.

Upon the commentaries composed by Origen while still in Alexandria, see'chap. 24; on those written afterwards, see chaps. 32 and 36.

No complete schola are extant; but among the numerous exegetical fragments which are preserved there may be portions of these schoia, as well as of the commentaries and homilies.

It is not always possible . to tell to which a fragment belongs.

Of the homilies, over 200 are preserved, the majority of them in the translation of Rufinus.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

The philosophical and theological works known to us are the two books On the Resurrection

(see chap. 24, note 5): the De principiis (see ibid. note 6) ; and the Stromaza (see ibid. note 7).

Origen's great apologetic work is his Contra Celsum (see chap. 36, note 3).

Two works of a practical character are known to us: On Martyrdom (see chap. 28, note 3) ; and On Prayer.

The latter work is not mentioned by Eusebius in his History, but is referred to in Pamphilus' Apology for Origen, Chap. VIII. (Lommatzsch, XXIV. p. 397).

It is extant in the original Greek, and is printed by Lommatzsch, XVII. p. 79-297.

It is addressed to two of his friends, Ambrosius and Tatiana, and is one of his most beautiful works.

As to the date at which Origen wrote the work, we know (from chap. 23 of the work) only that it was written after the composition of the commentary on Genesis (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 24), but whether before or after his departure from Alexandria we cannot tell.

Of his epistles only two are preserved entire, one to Julius Africanus, and another to Gregory

Thaumaturgus.

On the former, see chap. 31, note 1.

On the latter and on Origen's other epistles, see chap. 36, note 7.

Finally must be mentioned the Phidocaka (Lommatzsch, XXV. p. 1-278), a collection of judiciously selected extracts from Origen's works in twenty-seven books.

Its compilers were Gregory Nazianzen and Basil.

The principal edition of Origen's works is that of the Benedictine Delarue in 4 vols. fol. ; reprinted by Migne in 8 vols. 8vo.

A convenient edition is that of Lommatzsch, in 25 vols. small 8vo., a revision of Delarue's.

Only his De principiis, Contra Cels., and the epistles to Africanus and to Gregory have been translated into English, and are given in the Ante-lVicene Fathers,

Vol. IV. p. 221 sqq.

Of lives of Origen must be mentioned that of Huetius: Ovigeniana (Paris, 1679, in 2 vols.; reprinted in Delarue and Lommatzsch) ; also Redepenning's Origenes. Eine

Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre (Bonn, 1841 and 1846, in 2 vols.).

The respective sections in Lardner and Tillemont should be compared, and the thorough article of Westcott in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV. 96-142.

For a good list of the literature on Origen, see Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 785.

On Bk. VI. chap. 8, § 5 (note 4). Origen and Demetrius.

The friendship of Demetrius for Origen began early and continued, apparently without interruption, for many years.

In 203 he committed to him the charge of the catechetical school (chap. 3) ; in the present chapter we find him encouraging him after learning of his rash deed ; some years afterward, upon Origen's return from a visit to Rome, where his fame as a teacher had already become very great, Demetrius still showed the very best, spirit toward him (chap. 14) ; and a little later sent him into Arabia to give instruction to an officer in that country (chap. 19).

It is soon after this that the first sign of a difference between the two men appears, upon the occasion of Origen's preaching in Czsarea (id/d.). There seems, however, to have been no lasting quarrel, if there was any quarrel at all; for in 231 we find Demetrius giving Origen letters of recommendation upon the occasion of his visit to Achaia (see below, p. 396).

The fact that he gives him these letters, thus recognizing him as.a member of his church in good standing, and sending him upon his important mission with his official approval, shows that no open break between himself and Origen can as yet have taken place.

But in his commentary on John (Tom.

VI. pref.) Origen shows us that his last years in Alexandria were by no means pleasant ones.

He compares his troubles there to the waves of a stormy sea, and his final departure to the exodus of the children of Israel.

We know that he had been engaged for some time in writing commentaries, and that the first five books of his commentary on John — epoch-making in their significance, and sure to cause a sensation in orthodox, conservative circles —had recently appeared.

We know that his reputation for heterodoxy was already quite widespread and that the majority of the Egyptian clergy were by no means upon his side.

The trials to which he refers, therefore may well have been a result of this hostility to his teachings existing among the clergy about him, and Demetrius may have shared to an extent in the common feeling.

At the same time his dis. approval cannot have been very pronounced, or he could not have given his official sanction to Origen's important visit to Achaia.

But now, things being in this condition, Origen set out upon his mission, leaving Heraclas in charge of his school, and undoubtedly with the expectation of returning again, for he left the unfinished sixth book of his commentary on John behind him (see preface to the sixth book). He stopped in Palestine on his way to Athens, and there was ordained a presbyter by the bishops of that country (upon the motives which prompted him in the matter, see below, p. 397).

The result was a complete break between Demetrius and himself, and his condemnation by an Alexandrian synod.

To understand Demetrius' action in the matter. we must remember that both Eusebius and Jerome attribute the change in his attitude to jealousy of

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

Origen.

They may be too harsh in their judgment, and yet it is certainly not at all unnatural that the growing power and fame of his young catechumen should in time affect, all unconsciously, his attitude toward him.

But we must not do Demetrius an injustice.

There is no sign that his jealousy led him to attack Origen, or to seek to undermine his influence, and we have no right to accuse him, without ground, of such unchristian conduct.

At the same time, while he remained, as he supposed, an honest friend of Origen's, the least feeling of jealousy (and it would have been remarkable had he never felt the least) would make him more suspicious of the latter's conduct, and more prone to notice in his actions anything which might be interpreted as an infringement of his own prerogatives, or a disregard of the full respect due him.

We seem to see a sign of this over-sensitiveness (most natural under the circumstances) in his severe disapproval of Origen's preaching in Ceesarea, which surprised the Palestinian bishops, but which is not surprising when we realize that Demetrius might so easily construe it as a token of growing disrespect for his authority on the part of his rising young school principal.

It is plain enough, if he was in this state of mind, that he might in all sincerity have given letters of recommendation to Origen and have wished him God speed upon his mission, and yet that the news of his ordination to the presbyterate by foreign bishops, without his own approval or consent, and indeed in opposition to his own principles and to ecclesiastical law, should at once arouse his ire, and, by giving occasion for what seemed righteous indignation, open the floodgates for all the smothered jealousy of years.

In such a temper of mind he could not do otherwise than listen willingly to all the accusations of heresy against Origen, which were no doubt busily circulated in his absence, and it was inevitable that he should believe it his duty to take decided steps against a man who was a heretic, and at the same time showed complete disregard of the rules and customs of the Church, and of the rights of his bishop.

The result was the definitive and final exclusion of Origen from communion with the Alexandrian church, and his degradation from the office of presbyter by decree of the Alexandrian synods described above, p. 392 sq.

The two grounds of the sentence passed by these synods were plainly his irregular ordination to the priesthood when constitutionally unfit for it (cf. what Eusebius says in this chapter), and his heterodoxy

(cf. e.g. the synodical epistle of the Egyptian bishops given in Mansi's Collect. Concil. IX. col.

524, and also Jerome's epistle ad Pammachium et Oceanum, § 10, and Rufinus'

Apologi in Hieron. Il. 21).

That the ordination to the priesthood of one who had mutilated himself was not universally considered uncanonical in the time of Origen is proved by the fact that the Palestinian bishops (whom Origen cannot have allowed to remain ignorant of his condition) all united in ordaining him.

But the very fact that they all waited (which has perplexed some scholars) leads us to think that they realized that their action was somewhat irregular, and hence wished to give it sanction by the participation of a number of bishops.

The first canon of the Council of Niczea forbids such ordination, and the canon is doubtless but the repetition of an older one (cf. Apost. Canons, 21 to 24, and see Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 377), and yet Origen's consent to his ordination makes it improbable that there was in force in his time, even in Alexandria, a canon placing absolute and unconditional clerical disabilities upon such as he.

That the action, however, was considered at least irregular in Alexandria, is proved by the position taken in the matter by Demetrius ; and the fact that he made so much of it leads us to believe that the synod, called by him, may now have made canon law of what was before only custom, and may have condemned Origen for violating that custom which they considered as binding as law.

Certainly had there been no such custom, and had it not seemed to Demetrius absolutely binding, he would have ordained Origen to the priesthood long before.

His ordination in Palestine was in violation of what was known to be Demetrius' own principle, and the principle of the Alexandrian church, even if the principle was not, until this time or later, formulated into a canon.

On Bk. VI. chap. 12, § 6.

Since this passage was printed, I have seen Westcott's translation of this fragment of Serapion's epistle in his Canon of the New Testament, 5th ed. p. 390 sq. (cf. especially p. 391, note), and am glad to note that his rendering of the words xarapgopévwv airotd is the same as my own.

His interpretation of one or two other points I am unable to adopt.

On Bk. VI. chap. 23, § 4 (note 6).

Ovigen's Visit to Achaia.

Eusebius gives as the cause of Origen's visit to Greece simply "a pressing necessity in connection with ecclesiastical affairs," but Jerome (de vir. z//. c. 54) tells us that it was on account of heresies which were troubling the churches of Achaia ( propter ecclesias Achaia, que pluribus haresibus vexabantur).

Photius (Cod. 118) reports that Origen went to Athens without the

THE CHURCH "HISTORY OFRTEUSEBIUS.,

consent of Demetrius (xwpis tijs Tod oikeiov yvwuns éxioxdrov), but this must be regarded as a mistake (caused perhaps by his knowledge that it was Origen's ordination, which took place during this trip, that caused Demetrius' anger ; for Photius does not say that this statement rests upon the authority of Pamphilus, but prefaces his whole account with the words 6 re IdudwAos pdprus

Kat €repot mAcioror), for Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 54) says that Origen went to Athens by way of Palestine sub testimonio ecclesiastice epistole, and in chap. 62 he says that Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem wrote an epistle in which he stated that he had ordained Origen juxta testimonium

Demetrit.

We must therefore assume that Origen left Alexandria for Athens with Demetrius' approval, and with letters of recommendation from him.

It is the common opinion that Origen left Alexandria this time about 228 a.D., and after his visit in Achaia returned to Alexandria, where he remained until excommunicated by the council called by Demetrius.

Upon searching the sources, however, I can find absolutely no authority for the statement that he returned to.

Alexandria after his visit to Achaia; in fact, that he did seems by most scholars simply to be taken for granted without further investigation.

The opinion apparently rests upon the interpretation of two passages, one in a report of the proceedings of the Alexandrian synod taken by Photius from Pamphilus' Apology, the other in the preface to the sixth book of Origen's commentary on the Gospel of John.

In the former it is said that the synod voted to exile Origen from Alexandria, and forbade him to reside or to teach there (Yndilerar peracravat piv dd *AXeeavSpeias tov 'Opryevyy, kat pyre SarpiBewv ev airy, wyre SiSdoxev).

But certainly such a decree is. far from proving that Origen, at the time it was passed, was actually in Alexandria.

It simply shows that he still regarded that city as his residence, and was supposed to be expecting to. return to it after his visit was completed.

In the preface to the sixth book of his commentary on John's Gospel, he speaks of the troubles and trials which he had been enduring in Alexandria before he finally left the city, and compares that departure to the exodus of the children of Israel.

But certainly it is just as easy to refer these troubles to the time before his visit to Achaia, a time when in all probability the early books of his commentary on John, as well as others of his writings, had begun to excite the hostility of the Alexandrian clergy, and thus made his residence there uncomfortable.

It is almost necessary to assume that this hostility had arisen some time before the synods were held, in order to account both for the hostility of the majority of the clergy, which cannot have been so seriously aroused in an instant, and also for the change in Demetrius' attitude, which must have found a partial cause in the already existing hostility of the clergy to Origen, hostility which led them to utge him on to take decisive steps against Origen when the fitting occasion for action came in the ordination of the latter (see above, p. 395).

The only arguments which, so far as I am able to learn, have been or can be urged for Origen's return to Alexandria are thus shown to prove nothing.

On the other hand, it is a fact that Origen was ordained on his way to Achaia, and then went on and did his business there, and it is difficult to imagine that Demetrius and the Alexandrian church would have waited so long before taking action in regard to this step, which appeared to. them so serious.

More than that, Origen reports that he had begun the sixth book of his commentary on John in Alexandria, but had left it there, and therefore began it anew in Palestine.

It is difficult to imagine that his departure was so hasty that he could not take even his MSS. with him ; but if he left only for his visit to Achaia, expecting to return again, he would of course leave his MSS. behind him, and when his temporary absence was changed by the synod into permanent exile, he might not have been in a position, or might not have cared, to send back for the unfinished work.

Still further, it does not seem probable that, if he were leaving Alexandria an exile under the condemnation of the church, and in such haste as the leaving of his unfinished commentary would imply, he should be in a position to entrust the care of his catechetical school to his assistant Heraclas (as he is said in chap. 26 to have done).

That matter would rather have been taken out of his hands by Demetrius and the rest of the clergy.

But going away merely on a visit, he would of course leave the school in Heraclas' charge, and after his condemnation the clergy might see that Heraclas was the man for the place, and leave him undisturbed in it.

After having, upon the grounds mentioned, reached the conclusion, shared so far as I knew by no one else, that it is at least unlikely that Origen returned to Alexandria after his. visit to Greece, I was pleased to find my position strengthened by some chronological considerations urged by Lipsius (Chronologie a. rim. Bischife, P195, note), who says that "we do not know whether Origen ever returned to Alexandria after his ordination," and who seems to think it probable that he did not.

He shows that Pontianus did not become bishop of Rome until 230 and therefore, if Eusebius is correct in putting Origen's visit to Achaia in the time of Pontianus' episcopate, as he does in this passage, that visit cannot have taken place before 230 (the commonly accepted date, which rests upon a false chronology of Pontianus' episcopate, is 228) ; while

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

rer Sl on the other hand, according to chap. 26, Origen's final departure from Alexandria took place in the tenth year of Alexander's reign (231 A.D.), shortly before Demetrius' death, which occurred not later than 232 (see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4).

Supposing, then, that Origen returned to Alexandria, we must assume his journey to Palestine, his ordination there, his visit to Achaia and settlement of the disputes there, his return to Alexandria, the composition of at least some part of his commentary on John, the calling of a synod, his condemnation and exile,— all within the space of about a year.

These chronological considerations certainly increase the improbability of Origen's return to Alexandria.

(It may be remarked that Redepenning, who accepts the commonly received chronology, assigns two years to the Czsarean and Achaian visit.)

Assuming, then, that this departure for Achaia is identical with that. mentioned in chap. 26, we put it in the year 231.

It must have been (as of course we should expect, for he stopped in Palestine only on his way to Achaia) very soon after his departure that Origen's ordination took place; and the synod must have been called very soon after that event (as we should likewise expect), for Demetrius died the following year.

As to the cause of Origen's ordination, it is quite possible, as Redepenning suggests, that when he went a second time to Palestine, his old friends, the bishops of Czesarea, of Jerusalem, and of other cities, wished to hear him preach again, but that remembering the reproof of the bishop Demetrius, called forth by his preaching on the former occasion (see chap. 19), he refused, and that then the Palestinian bishops, in order to obviate that difficulty, insisted on ordaining him.

It is not impossible that Origen, who seems never to have been a stickler for the exact observance of minor ecclesiastical rules and formalities, supposed that Demetrius, who had shown himself friendly in the past, and not hostile to him because of his youthful imprudence

(see chap. 8), would concur willingly in an ordination performed by such eminent bishops, and an ordination which would prove of such assistance to Origen in the accomplishment of the work in Achaia which he was undertaking with the approval of Demetrius himself, even though the latter could not bring himself to violate what he considered an ecclesiastical canon against the ordination of eunuchs.

We can thus best explain Origen's consent to the step which, when we consider his general character, it is difficult to suppose he would have taken in conscious opposition to the will of his bishop.

(On Demetrius' view of the matter, see above, p. 394 sq.) He was ordained, according to Jerome's de vir. il. c. 54 (cf. also chap. 8, above), by Theoctistus, bishop of Czesarea, and Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, together with "the most distinguished bishops of Palestine" (as Eusebius says in chap. 8).

On Bk. VII. chap. 25, § 11.

For in the reputed second or third Epistle of John, read in the extant second and third Epistles of John (ev rh devrépa depopévy "Iwdvvov Kat tpirn).

On Bk. VII. chap. 26, § 1 (note 4, continued).

On Dionysius' attitude toward Sabellianism and the occasion of the Apology (€Aeyxos kat dmrodo- " yia) in four books, which he addressed to Dionysius of Rome, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

This work is no longer extant, but brief fragments of it have been preserved by Athanasius (in his

De Sent. Dionysii) and by Basil (in his De Spir. Sancto).

English translation in the AnteNicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 92 sq.

The longer work was preceded by a shorter one, now lost, to which reference is made in one of the fragments of the longer work.

We donot know the exact date of the work, but may assign it with considerable probability to the earlier part of the episcopate of Dionysius of Rome ; that is, soon after 259.

Upon this work and upon Dionysius' attitude toward Sabellianism, see especially Dittrich, Dionysius der Grosse, p. 91. Sq.

On Bk. VIII. chap. 2, § 4 (note 3, continued).

Zhe Causes of the Diocletian Persecution.

The persecution of Diocletian, following as it did a period of more than forty years during which Christianity had been recognized asa religio Jicita, and undertaken as it was by a man who throughout the first eighteen years of his reign had shown himself friendly to the Christians, and had even filled his own palace with Christian servants, presents a very difficult problem to the historian.

Why did Diocletian persecute?

The question has taxed the ingenuity of many scholars and has received a great variety of answers.

Hunziker (in his Regierung und' Christenverfolgung des Kaisers Diocletianus und seiner Nachfolger, Leipzig,

1869), Burckhardt (in his Zeit Constantins, Basel, 1853, 2d_and improved edition, Leipzig,

1880), and A. J. Mason (in his Persecution of Diocletian, Cambridge and London, 1876), not to mention other investigators, have treated the subject with great ability and at considerable

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

length, and the student is referred to their works for a fuller examination of the questions involved.

It is not my purpose here to discuss the various views that have been presented by others ; but inasmuch as I am unable fully to agree with any of them, I desire to indicate my own conception of the causes that led to the persecution.

We are left almost wholly to conjecture in the matter ; for our only authority, Lactantius, makes so many palpably erroneous statements in his description of the causes which produced the great catastrophe that little reliance can be placed upon him (see Burckhardt's demonstration of these errors, zbid. p. 289 sq.).

Nevertheless, he has preserved for us at least one fact of deep significance, and it is a great merit of Mason's discussion that he has proved so conclusively the correctness of the report.

The fact I refer to is that the initiative came from Galerius, not from Diocletian himself.

Lactantius states this very distinctly and repeatedly, but it has been argued by Hunziker and many others that the persecution had been in Diocletian's mind for a long time, and that it was but the culmination of his entire policy.

Having settled political matters, it is said, he turned his attention to religious matters, and determined as a step toward the restoration of the old Roman religion in its purity to exterminate

Christianity.

But, as Mason shows, this is an entire misconception of Diocletian's policy.

It had never been his intention to attack Christianity.

Such an attack was opposed to all his principles, and was at length made only under the pressure of strong external reasons.

But though Mason has brought out this important fact so clearly, and though he has shown that Galerius was the original mover in the matter, he has, in my opinion, gone quite astray in his explanation of the causes which led Diocletian to accede to the wishes of Galerius.

According to Mason, Diocletian was induced against his will to undertake a course of action which his judgment told him was unwise.

'But the Cesar [Galerius] was the younger and the stronger man; and a determination to do has always an advantage over the determination not to do.

At length Diocletian broke down so far as to offer to forbid the profession of the faith within the walls of his palace and under the eagles of his legions.

He was sure it was a mistaken policy.

It was certainly distasteful to himself.

The army would suffer greatly by the loss.

Diocletian would have to part with servants to whom he was attached," &c.

To my mind, it is impossible to believe that Diocletian — great and wise emperor as he had proved himself, and with an experience of over eighteen years of imperial power during which he had always shown himself master

— can thus have yielded simply to the importunity of another man.

Our knowledge of Diocletian's character should lead us to repudiate absolutely such a supposition.

Feeling the difficulty of his own supposition, Mason suggests that Diocletian may have felt that it would be better for him to begin the persecution himself, and thus hold it within some bounds, than to leave it for Galerius to conduct when he should become emperor two years later.

But certainly if, as Mason assumes, Diocletian was convinced that the measure was in itself vicious and impolitic, that was a most remarkable course to pursue.

To do a bad thing in order to leave no excuse for a successor to do the same thing in a worse way — certainly that is hardly what we should expect from the strongest and the wisest ruler Rome had seen for three centuries.

If he believed it ought not to be done, we may be sure he would not have done it, and that neither Galerius nor any one else could compel him to.

He was not such a helpless tool in the hands of others, nor was he so devoid of resources as to be obliged to prevent a successor's folly and wickedness by anticipating him in it, nor so devoid of sense as to believe that he could.

It is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary to assume that Diocletian was convinced of the necessity of proceeding against the Christians before he took the step he did.

How then are we to account for this change in his opinions?

Burckhardt attributes the change to the discovery of a plot among the Christians.

But the question naturally arises, what motive can the Christians have had for forming a plot against an emperor so friendly to them and a government under which they enjoyed such high honors?

Burckhardt gives no satisfactory answer to this very pertinent query, and consequently his theory has not found wide acceptance.

And yet I believe he is upon the right track in speaking of a plot, though he has not formed the right conception of its causes and nature, and has not been able to urge any known facts in direct support of his theory.

In my opinion the key to the mystery lies in the fact which Lactantius states and the truth of which Mason demonstrates, but which Burckhardt quite overlooks, that the initiative came from Galerius not Diocletian, viewed in the light of the facts that Galerius had long been known to be a bitter enemy of the Christians, and that he was to succeed Diocletian within a couple of years.

The course of events might be pictured somewhat as follows.

Some of the Christian officials and retainers of Diocletian, fearing what might happen upon the accession of Galerius, who was known to be a deadly enemy of the Christians, and who might be expected, if not to persecute, at least to dismiss all the Christian officials that had enjoyed Diocletian's favor (Galerius himself had only heathen officials in his court), conceived the idea of frustrating in some way the appointed

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES.

succession and secure it for some one who would be more favorable to them (possibly for the young Constantine, who was then at Diocletian's court, and who, as we know, was later so cordially hated by Galerius).

It may have been hoped by some of them that it would be possible in the end to win Diocletian himself over to the side of Christianity, and then induce him to change the succession and transmit the power to a fitter prince.

There may thus have been nothing distinctly treasonable in the minds of any of them, but there may have been enough to arouse the suspicions of Galerius himself, who was the one most deeply interested, and who was always well aware of the hatred which the Christians entertained toward him.

We are told by Lactantius that Galerius spent a whole winter with Diocletian, endeavoring to persuade him to persecute.

The latter is but a conclusion drawn by Lactantius from the events which followed ; for he tells us himself that their conferences were strictly private, and that no one knew to what they pertained.

But why did the persecution of the Christians at this particular time seem so important a thing to Galerius that he should make this long and extraordinary visit to Nicomedia?

Was it the result of a fresh accession of religious zeal on his part?

I confess myself unable to believe that Galerius' piety lay at the bottom of the matter, and at any rate, knowing that he would himself be master of the empire in two years, why could he not wait until he could take matters into his own hands and carry them out after his own methods?

No one, so far as I know, has answered this question ; and yet it is a very pertinent one.

It might be said that Galerius was afraid that he should not be able to carry out such measures unless they had had the sanction of his great predecessor.

But Galerius never showed, either as Ceesar or Augustus, any lack of confidence in himself, and I am inclined to think that he would have preferred to enjoy the glory of the great undertaking himself rather than give it all to another, had he been actuated simply by general reasons of hostility toward the Church.

But if we suppose that he had conceived a suspicion of such a plan as has been suggested, we explain fully his remarkable visit and his long and secret interviews with Diocletian.

There was no place in which he could discover more about the suspected plot (which he might well fancy to be more serious than it really was) than in Nicomedia itself ; and if such a plot was on foot, it was of vital importance to unearth it and reveal it to Diocletian.

We may believe then that Galerius busied himself during the whole winter in investigating matters, and that long after he had become thoroughly convinced of the existence of a plot

Diocletian remained skeptical.

We may suppose that at the same time whatever vague plans were in the minds of any of the Christians were crystallizing during that winter, as they began to realize that Galerius' hold upon the emperor was such that the latter could never be brought to break with him.

We may thus imagine that while Galerius was seeking evidence of a plot, the plot itself was growing and taking a more serious shape in the minds at least of some of the more daring and worldly minded

Christians.

Finally, sufficient proof was gathered to convince even Diocletian that there was some sort of a plot on foot, and that the plotters were Christians.

The question then arose what course should be pursued in the matter.

And this question may well have caused the calling together of a number of counsellors and the consultation of the oracle of Apollo of which Lactantius tells us.

Galerius naturally wished to exterminate the Christians as a whole, knowing their universal hostility to him ; but Diocletian just as naturally wished to punish only such as were concerned in the plot, and was by no means convinced that the Christians as a whole were engaged in it.

The decision which was reached, and which is exhibited in the edict of the 24th of February, 303, seems to confirm in a remarkable manner the theory which has been presented.

Instead of issuing an edict against Christians in general, Diocletian directs his blows solely against Christians in governmental circles, — public officials and servants in official families (cf. the interpretation of the edict given above in Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 6). This is certainly not the procedure of an emperor who is persecuting on religious grounds.

The church officers should in that case have been first attacked as they had been by Decius and Valerian.

The singling out of Christians in official circles— and the low as well as the high ones, the servants as well as the masters — is a clear indication that the motive was political, not religious.

Moreover, that the edict was drawn in such mild terms is a confirmation of this.

These men were certainly not all guilty, and it was not necessary to put them all to death.

It was necessary to put an end to the plot in the most expeditious and complete way.

The plotters should be shown that their plot was discovered, and the whole thing should be broken up by causing some of them to renounce their faith, by degrading and depriving of citizenship all that would not renounce it.

It was a very shrewd move.

Executions would but have increased the rebellious spirit and caused the plot to spread.

But Diocletian was well aware that any one that renounced his faith would lose caste with his fellow-Christians, and even if he had been a plotter in the past, he could never hope to gain anything in the future from the accession of a Christian emperor.

He was

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

careful moreover to provide against any danger from those who refused to renounce their faith, by putting them into a position where it would be impossible for them to accomplish anything in that line in the future.

He knew that a plot which had no support within official circles would be of no account and was not to be feared.

The action, based on the grounds given, was worthy of Diocletian's genius ; explained in any other way it becomes, in my opinion, meaningless.

A further confirmation of the view which has been presented is found in the silence of Lactantius and Eusebius.

The former was in Nicomedia, and cannot have failed to know the ostensible if not the true cause of the great persecution.

Diocletian cannot have taken such a step without giving some reason for it, and doubtless that reason was stated in the preambles of his edicts, as is the case in the edicts of other emperors; but as it happens, while we know the substance of all the edicts, not a single preamble has been preserved.

May it not be possible that the Christians, who preserved the terms of the edicts, found the preambles distasteful because derogatory to some of themselves and yet unfortunately not untrue?

The reasons which Lactantius gives are palpable makeshifts, and indeed he does not venture to state them categorically.

'I have learned," he says, " that the cause of his fury was as follows."

Doubtless he had heard it thus in Christian circles ; but doubtless he had heard it otherwise from heathen or from the edicts themselves; and he can hardly, as a sensible man, have' been fully satisfied with his own explanation of the matter.

Eusebius attempts no explanation.

He tells us in chapter 1, above, that the Church just before the persecution was in an abominable state and full of unworthy Christians, and yet he informs us that he will pass by the unpleasant facts to dwell upon the brighter side for the edification of posterity.

Was the cause of the persecution one of the unpleasant facts?

He calls it a judgment of God.

Was it a merited judgment upon some who had been traitors to their country?

He - gives us his opinion as to the causes of the persecution of Decius and Valerian; why is he silent about the causes of this greatest of all the persecutions? His silence in the present case is eloquent.

The course of events after the publication of the First Edict is not difficult to follow.

Fire broke out twice in the imperial palace.

Lactantius ascribes it to Galerius, who was supposed to have desired to implicate the Christians ; but, as Burckhardt remarks, Diocletian was not the man to be deceived in that way, and we may dismiss the suspicion as groundless. That the fires were accidental is possible, but extremely improbable.

Diocletian at least believed that they were kindled by Christians, and it must be confessed that he had some ground for his belief.

At any rate, whether true or not, the result was the torture (for the sake of extorting evidence) and the execution of some of his most faithful servants (see Bk. VIII. chap. 6).

It had become an earnest matter with Diocletian, and he was beginning to feel —as he had never had occasion to feel before —that a society within the empire whose claims were looked upon as higher than those of the state itself, and duty to which demanded, in case of a disagreement between it and the state, insubordination, and even treason, toward the latter, was too dangerous an institution to tolerate longer, however harmless it might be under ordinary circumstances.

It was at about this time that there occurred rebellions in Melitene and Syria, perhaps in consequence of the publication of the First Edict ; at any rate, the Christians, who were regarded with ever increasing suspicion, were believed to be in part at least responsible for the outbreaks, and the result was that a second edict was issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches should be thrown into prison (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 6).

Here Diocletian took the same step taken by Decius and Valerian, and instituted thereby a genuine religious persecution.

It was now Christians as Christians whom he attacked ; no longer Christian officials as traitors.

The vital difference between the first and second edicts is very clear.

All that followed was but the legitimate carrying out of the principle adopted in the Second Edict,— the destruction of the Church as such, the extermination of Christianity.

On Bk. X. chap. 8, § 4 (note 1, a).

After Constantine's victory over Maxentius, his half-sister Constantia, daughter of Constantius

Chlorus by his second wife, Theodora, was married to Licinius, and thus the alliance of the two emperors was cemented by family ties.

Constantius Chlorus was a grandson of Crispus, brother of the Emperor Claudius II., and hence could claim to be, in a sense, of imperial extraction ; a fact which gave him a dignity beyond that of his colleagues, who were all of comparatively low birth.

Constantine himself and his panegyrists always made much of his illustrious descent.

TABLE OF EMPERORS AND BISHOPS.

TABLE OF ROMAN EMPERORS.

AUgUStUS 5. lisse eee eels Boa Kk fle B.C. 27-A.D. 14) Maximin 1.0... es eee et cece eet e ce cnees 235-238 BI) CuI TS WaiacejaSiunia iat la alaranmiancte.sials, Sicha Fue A.D. 14-37 |

The Gordians, I. and II. ......... ese eeeeees 237-238 (GA KEINE Wecetse es Tee SHR Re Reaee Gb SBE 37-41 | Maximus Pupiénus

(EIGHT Hrocdigncir hig io Rtint NEP ERS Ae Atay balbinustae Me ye a ae 23 INBEOM eae pieleices celsrers tea ance ache Aid gis Pisieterh ae bee GA—OSi |

GOLCIAN LL Mveyeisie sleek sears aieies sts «wae ioe tie 238-244 Gallia <eerite « sabts olnisiees Spares # siale si bieass ws sie G5-G9)|SPHIlip Taitese <\eteleiv enw

«ins wwiviais sielas,o.clnia oldate 244-249 Oe PS COC oC Coe Sr Racer ee Neon Techs.

Saki ise sie ies anes @ apeiewyoytsa\ceterene derete «ae 249-251 NGTPO DEMS areca Anne ii 5 ean gas oud cus ah sinks sa a.sue. anus GQ)| Gall ois sxe a, ope wlacasar O.0rsha tssia osm rors tRu rire Sonam] Riley 251-252

Vespasian ...-.-- sce e cece cece eer ees ec nceees OG9=79)| AMUNIAN 4 occ. aie caclein 6 cess s+ oye iia lage: oe nfe STOR OCR 253 Reuse pa tne cette a owiehe os alee ee ace WO=OMil

Valerian 'v2.0 se scamuus Sarye oes « sree /eyale a) [elite siaie 253-260 Dlormibian sete wet Sean aii re eis, ae Hoe rade gis bon. SI—961Gallienus 2792 < Aspessiars aero s ayetehele!aieldsaisiauprete slate 260-268 INGrvaies ataay sts cet yyaars ore cores penetra ane 96=098)| (Claudius: LI. <5 «</s.<=, nso 5a oi rots oceans apale yeiale 268-270 TA] ATL Yass cisiee nig rinse aloes sins Ssleusyaunin © Ge) aiapele vis lee OS-117 | Aurelian 2... ¢eecsceesececnsereseees cones ns 270-275 [EEG GIA Do aio SS aaa Sah Ar aaaigrtos (iS ich AIRS Lee ENBIGr pr Sno clon onmbatnmucanlovioccddies 275-276

Antoninus PiUSs. ssc ev ce esse eee s cece se ey eNle UZ8=16T | Probus.

05. 0.0. cee cece ees ener eccc cece cess 276-282 Marcus Aurelius [Antoninus Verus]]......... TOL—PSO ||)

CALUSit.. shisveleie'es pieiereits cleretave dies eltralitrery Srate cis st 282-283

RucingtVerusiove aM oniy Kerr pass .weend 161-169 | Carinus t Be

Commodys | sae ahs <rsibroyes even' nisi yeaa che 180-192) Numerian;+§)7-;ei# ee od Ge A leh ie 2 nnd Pert nar coco «o.oo We oe vine sb. 0leie <isiann/e.0 vin, icicle sive y's 193 | Diocletian f

BF oidudel CAO OOO OU oe oe 284-305

DiCIUs MP ONANUS

es ee ole bo ees na nee y yah ee eesis 193) Maximian! "$7. oe vevac's bia > ole ss cp o/)<1s10)sisisialsierere 285-305

INI EEE ace sero Ueen enet bls cece lea beg estes 193-194 enh Diets States © olchota le cat's s eretariets| safer 305-306

Septimius Severus...

0. cc. cece eee 193-211 | Galerius) f ..... 22s eee eee e econ ees +++ 305-311 Caracalla \ pre ele ldaaiae Rice v feaiesrele aes enue 211-217 |

Maxentius (not recognized by the others) . 306-312 (OP Ee RRS Cac DEG ee Oe Oy Cae eON TC 211-212 | Licinius ais fe GO%— 323 M. Opilius Macrinus.........0-sseeeeeeeeees 217-218 |

Maximin II.

+++ 6 308-313 Heliogabalus, or Elagabalus.............s-505 218—222 | Constantine

. 308-337 Alexander Severus. ........eeceseee cece veces 222-235

Tue BisHops oF RoME, ALEXANDRIA, ANTIOCH, AND JERUSALEM, MENTIONED BY EUSEBIUS.

Bishops of Rome.

(Dates taken from the table given by Lipsius in his Chronologie der rim, Bischéfe, p. 263 sq.)

Lucius, 8 months 10 days; June (25?), 253-March 5, 254.

Stephanus, 3 years 2 months 21 days; (May 12?), 254Linus.

Anencletus.

Clement.

Evarestus.

Alexander.

Xystus I., for about ten years; died between 124 and 126.

Telesphorus, 11 years; died between 135 and 137.

Hyginus, 4 years; died between 139 and 141.

Pius, 15-16 years; died between 154 and 156.

Anicetus, 11-12 years; died in 166 or 167.

Soter, 8-9 years; died in 174 or 175.

Eleutherus, 15 years; died in 189.

Victor, 9-10 years; 189-198 or 199.

Zephyrinus, 18-19 years; 198 or 199-217 (Aug. 26?).

Callistus, 5 years; 217—Oct. 14, 222.

Urbanus, 8 years; 222-230 (May 19?).

Pontianus, 5 years 2 months 7 days; (July 21?), 230Aug. 2, 257.

Xystus II., 11 months 12 (6?) days; Aug. 24 (31?), 257—-Aug. 6, 258.

Dionysius, 9 years 5 months 2 days; July 22, 259-Dec.

27, 268.

Felix I., 5 years 11 months 25 days; Jan. 5, 269-Dec.

30, 274.

Eutychian, 8 years 11 months 3 days; (Jan. §?) 275Dec. 8, 283.

Caius, 12 years 4 months 6 days; Dec. 17, 283-April 22, 296.

Marcellinus, 8 years 3 months 25 days; June 30, 296— (Oct. 25?), 304.

Vacancy until 307.

Marcellus, 1 year 7 months 21 days; (May 24?), 307— Jan. 15, 309.

Eusebius, 3 (4?) months 23 (16?) days; April 23 (16?), Sept. 28, 235.

Anteros, I month 12 days; Nov. 21, 235-Jan. 3, 236.

Fabianus, 14 years 10 days; 236-Jan. 20, 250.

Vacancy from Jan. 21, 250-March, 251.

Cornelius, 2 years 3 months 10 days; beginning of March, 251-middle of June, 253.

309-Aug. 17, 309.

Vacancy until 310.

Miltiades, 3 years 6 months 8 days; July 2, 310-Jan. 10

(112), 314.

Bishops of Alexandria.

Agrippinus.

Dionysius.

Julian.

Maximus.

Demetrius.

Theonas.

Heraclas.

Peter.

Annianus.

Justus.

Abilius.

Eumenes.

Cerdon.

Marcus.

Primus.

Celadion.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

Bishops of Antioch.

(Dates taken from the table given by Harnack in his Zez# des [enatius, p. 62.) Evodius.

Babylas, died in 250, during the persecution of Decius.

Ignatius.

Fabius, died toward the end of 252 or early in 253.

Hero.

Demetrian, died between 257 and 260.

Cornelius.

Paul, deposed between 266 and 269 (probably in 268).

Eros.

Domnus.

Theophilus, died not earlier than 182.

Timzeus, died about 280.

Cyril, sent to the mines in 303, and died probably toward Maximinus, died between 189 and 192.

Serapion, died about 209.

Asclepiades, died between 211 and 222.

Philetus, died not long before 229-231.

Zebinus, died between 238 and 249. the end of 306.

Tyrannus, succeeded Cyril probably in 303, possibly not until 306, and lived until the close of the persecution.

Bishops of Jerusalem.

James.

Justus.

Gaius I.

Dius.

Symeon.

Levi.

Symmachus.

Germanio.

Justus.

Ephres.

Gaius II.

Gordius.

Zaccheeus.

Joseph.

Julian II.

Narcissus, a second time.

Tobias.

Judas.

Capito.

Alexander.

Benjamin.

Marcus.

Maximus II. 'a Mazabanes.

John.

Cassianus.

Antoninus.

Hymenzus.

Matthias.

Publius.

Valens.

Zambdas.

Philip.

Maximus I.

Dolichianus.

Hermon.

Seneca.

Julian I.

Narcissus.

TABLE SHOWING THE RoMAN METHOD OF COUNTING THE Days OF THE MONTH.

(Taken from the Excyclopedia Britannica, article Calendar.) APRIL.

JANUARY.

June.

SEPTEMBER.

AvucusT.

DECEMBER.

FEBRUARY.

NOvEMBER.

Kalende.

Kalende.

Kalendez.

Prid. Nonas.

Prid. Nonas.

Prid. Nonas.

Prid. Nonas.

None.

None.

Nonae.

Prid. Idus.

Prid. Kal. Mart.

Prid. Kalen.

Prid. Kalen.

Prid. Kalen.

1 These two names are omitted by Eusebius in his Hzstory, but are given in his Chron. and also by Epiphanius.

See above, Bk. Vchop, 12, note 2.

TABLES OF ROMAN AND MACEDONIAN MONTHS.

ee nnn

EEE EISEN EEE RII EERIE RARER EISNER

ERED "Instead of distinguishing the days by the ordinal numbers, first, second, third, etc., the Romans counted dackwards from three fixed epochs ; namely, the Kalends, the Nones, and the Ides.

The Kalends were invariably the first day of the month, and were so denominated because it had been an ancient custom of the pontiffs to call the people together on that day, to apprise them of the festivals, or days that were to be kept sacred during the month.

The Ides (from an obsolete verb iduare, to divide) were at the middle of the month, either the 13th or the 15th day ; and the Nones were the minth day before the Ides, counting inclusively.

From these three terms the days received their denomination in the following manner : —

"Those which were comprised between the Kalends and the Nones were called the days before the Nones; those between the Nones and the Ides were called the days before the Ides ; and, lastly, all the days after the Ides to the end of the month were called she days before the Kalends of the succeeding month.

"Jn the months of March, May, July, and October, the Ides fell on the 15th day, and the Nones consequently on the 7th: so that each of these months had six days named from the Nones.

In all the other months the Ides were on the 13th and the Nones were on the 5th; consequently there were only four days named from the Nones.

Every month had eight days named from the Ides.

The number of days receiving their denomination from the Kalends depended on the number of days in the month and the day on which the Ides fell.

For example, if the month contained 31 days, and the Ides fell on the 13th, as was the case in January, August, and December, there would remain 18 days after the Ides, which, added to the first of the following month, made 19 days of Kalends.

In January, therefore, the 14th day of the month was called the nineteenth before the Kalends of February (counting inclusively), the 15th was the 18th before the Kalends, and so on to the 3oth, which was called the third before the Kalends (serio

Kalendas), the last being the second of the Kalends, or the day before the Kalends (priaie

Kalendas)."

TABLE OF MACEDONIAN MONTHS.

The months of the Macedonian year, as commonly employed in the time of Eusebius, corresponded exactly to the Roman months, but the year began with the first of September.

The names of the months were as follows :—

MACEDONIAN.

Roman.

MACEDONIAN.

Roman, 1. Gorpizeus.

September.

7. Dystrus.

March.

2. Hyperberetzus.

October.

8. Xanthicus.

April.

3. Dius.

November. g. Artemisius.

May.

4. Apellzeus.

December.

10. Deesius.

June.

5. Audynzeus.

January.

11. Panemus.

July.

6. Peritius.

February.

12. Loiis.

August.

yt A) ny} :

#0 eebeag shir ?

. bal yaristoaials 02 sew fi nag add Ya rake bis bit tonaie gt shoe elt fies, Rit 0) ea )A) ea Sees erm Pig yy — se 19:

"ely aay zits Urge: a oa boeividt oi, Grudn a r Ch ee 7 SSO garcia Sily ap. ice? levesiononcaeae

Raia mee a5 01 Sek bon «iat ont ance att pie ee ies esas a ps) lity, stow oa seg ba Oa ; ri ie oe tap ach i. Abe oc fi NG: "tpl a ry pei: i+ ties f Hh oR fs - a & <igae e "3 siteyoue at : ocd ne tina 4d, a9 MoY zohtseal dei = gt yer age Yo aces oct ot SPetuct.. seetingia bai tities aay 2. # piers ed "ay st pe vousupoebea

She np, cen sate wi edt Fem Hy i dirty AO grid Heb) 2c? aincen radi oct He xt Mhylt bas Aa pipet ene 62 eyed wick (je Mew a B WINER Se) text inapls Sods ab Wo texdenyn SE aay sett Migs «7 oe MM hab dic ods ot A wancthiny nb Dae $8. bd i i Babl of3 fuse aes, Ae acm easy : aaa "date. ast 'itr iet Gi iiecsat Liggweedie wedensa = ot Wt 98F ei ye) ayo cumin vine Oe shasied IS) wal EP" ico < is ond: i Bh oA Gagitnare) CaaS Wesel th pea a Bi simi wd opabert = PesPay new siti fieg jdt 6 a oF AB A a J. sawing. a eon et 402 to 2igralaed adt Wo baw: oe teal galt, (bork a > "Selle f =p eat tages oy Anse: awe ata' W ae 7 sade r s heigl Boe eps wend: Colic.) a, array: 'Whit ahd ower saree = pete eat st sn a: w zelae» to" ust "ni berpotya Ait tan 2 se nbaaginda naam adt paneer My $e ahi é coe iittala ont bel aaa oniged "on7 od

, a. naecliean na ro aia. :

'to

Pi a ee es 3

THE

LIFE OF CONSTANTINE,

By EUSEBIUS,

TOGETHER WITH THE

ORATION OF CONSTANTINE TO THE ASSEMBLY

OF THE SAINTS,

AND THE ORATION

OF EUSEBIUS

IN PRAISE OF CONSTANTINE.

A REVISED TRANSLATION, WITH PROLEGOMENA AND NOTES, BY

ERNEST CUSHING RICHARDSON, Pu.D.,

LIBRARIAN

AND ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR

IN HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL

SEMINARY.

wr yet eA to a rae i '

nA b pice as ry P ce eS ae . irs ~ a oe ties * '

al aes ey ee a .

Ce ry ats hha Ua

+ '

_ ~ z "ani THATeKOD. 40: aad | eumaeua 'a se Ser saeco , ethene 23 Ja vcrwt ae

PROLEGOMENA.

I. CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.

II. SPECIAL PROLEGOMENA.

PREP ACE:

In accordance with the instruction of the editor-in-chief the following work consists of a revision of the Bagster translation of Eusebius' " Life of Constantine," Constantine's "Oration to the Saints," and Eusebius' " Oration in Praise of Constantine," with somewhat extended Prolegomena and limited notes, especial attention being given in the Prolegomena to a study of the Character of Constantine.

In the work of revision care has been taken so far as possible not to destroy the style of the original translator, which, though somewhat inflated and verbose, represents perhaps all the better, the corresponding styles of both Eusebius and Constantine, but the number of changes really required has been considerable, and has caused here and there a break in style in the translation, whose chief merit is that it presents in smooth, well-rounded phrase the generalized idea of a sentence.

The work on the Prolegomena has been done as thoroughly and originally as circumstances would permit, and has aimed to present material in such way that the general student might get a survey of the man Constantine, and the various problems and discussions of which he is center.

It is impossible to return special thanks to all who have given special facilities for work, but the peculiar kindness of various helpers in the Bibiothéeque de la Ville at Lyons demands at least the recognition of individualized thanksgiving.

Be CR HARTFORD, Conn., April 15, 1890.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

I, GENERAL PROLEGOMENA:

COoNSTANTINE THE GREAT.

CHAPTER I.— LIFE.

Rlarly Wears ecoty a ccstrete curve arto eciv as a nfele = siele piel sta sie sca ocale alors elmeyetatersa cain ale orevche aye mara rere

MNeLhrst HVS! Years OL TEICM ance, temic le roje sere oie oc, rel atm a ttaralayetler tte ciel eral a olaloteretaleletetate

SisGaa trong UN Marecen ta 'a cle, cla cts oralete tio ihisistcl e's" loi inie ohare te iatevelero amis eteore are o's erenerratetatats

Sieoleh Kel SGA Re Ep Ghana Ine oh: COCO

UIGIC GE ADR

UION OG SOR

OID EO GOCOROPE COOOL

GRIEG CHIME

VO AES eretetete e's olla erohateieleloiel tere = evs @\e) air siete #1 s/0/aUalsVereisrs ets nies svaraiater ster erie toretarer td

'OURELET SF VOALS SiMe ered Shesateies ot old Ssnalaiore othe Maras a lcaie emai aie yer.s Giatal etm: apelin ekePar ate: ateteue)iene

DOE Ws feast an 0 on OM CIN

UC G.ODEO NE GoCh SO

AAOOOOd SG HOO

apiece | DOOC Coe SDEXCIL LV GV CAS csast atta als: ucts MOicToiso.6 ys onc) sts qual a .sehe Te ans oxcus oneueh ere caateamey sth) ee esc oeuerene aes

IGASC RV CARS i

re ote cue, aioip lace of sige 2 oF ous, pisibus sfoieVeasvseieteeso) Sie aus, Sys sus septs aie ale eleteataleielet oles avererars

CO?

DQ?

Or?

OD OP?

OR?

(2 "OD "MH Oo onT an WwW Nn

CHAPTER II.— CHARACTER.

Mribroductionic crectevec. pers, cite vo et erento elevebeharuie Telia aes erate cies aee. st Tac sGustieeaxtye.aiene gare § 1.

§ 2.

§ 3.

§ 4.

§ § Nu Inheritedscharacteristics!\saidins.Muss-4. Ravieidinw,<remlstetterds Shel. Salad ets ohabends arene wins. cers

Physicalveharacteristics seiets,..0)='lets sia vise 2siclele ale nie elie ooh eig vse eta) a ev ci teteiavel sete afelONk: ere

IEE Mtal CHATACLEEISUICE

0 oic.ary +o otacers oipicis cisce cle yovane ois tant nis cuolataare mist mrss arte eee ne i OME aie yereetame WOT aE CTAPACLOLISEICS oe cny tere tausis Agadslowuln n/a. be iaie aus! aselega's tas) cleave lose ele) otal aisle) Miamrsia ecg aleusiemanints

Religious characteristics........... BRyepiiays cas ealavele snare Riese emia: Oe ois srete:h suave Matava ters

wh CHAPTER III. — WriTINGs.

TREO WEL OR Reyee ee: Fils So aislerS 2a cc'a yee Se aURISNEPAAS aleras 3 WT es WIS ie Wlaleraie o wnare Mlleraltare oranenars

Oratorical writes a So es sce agp a see te cies ate alte riots oteite nictete tas ate ere alsttna ate eicreates

§ 2.

§ 3.

§ 4.

§ 5.

Tethers Ati CCICES ac 0.5, aiciwa cite sieve ol Galaie wari crave kaneidixapors-a oraieva hie a/eae alain eeiataare irene clad

CHAP Lie lV 5 Lik. MVDEICAL CONSTANTINGE cw cris 4s toes, 850 ais she 06 bo adic alerts «eye ern sraieaeeneneres

CHAPTER V.—SourcEs AND LITERATURE, GREK OCERG ELON eat eters chery erate cen sia cusses S 5.5 Sea sakia0¥ Mud EIS ersue Sym aiapa:'s ite.

0 eka», stele 'e eae MRSS § 1.

§ 2.

§ 3.

SOUECES eketee, Sisauemt viene. selina <i oadea aLOA 6 Roa ibharaps Budi bain whe ate'h A Lid petolda thats, diss etwarenes cere romans

TE IteLattive Hermes circa ete tt Ma a or aG oR TG ata me RANTEHGMI Ne Rc are SlcVanw aNd GRE, She WORN a aire, Ser aM II.

SPECIAL PROLEGOMENA:

ifetomConstantinere ee. meee. acd oe Oe cee CEL ee FONE EE Ty Ue Beste ea eae eae ee MO atronecia ts OMSta ni Ctlerec ra tniis orice tthe Sig'soetaereviaee) bac) scaveud steve, s.acpenv ble ipavare 0) AtnGeiStk ia) euaueters

(OPER

CT ES TIA

Ree ROR OT Ee ae ae RIS Cee ete cee ies S$ i:

§ 2.

§ 3.

CONSTANTINE:

III.

EUSEBIUS:

WEATIONNOl CONStANcinen ste teins oe tee estate ete ieee oe ee Crew omen eect lee ROTALIOMEGLEUUSE LUIS Mareen trthers a tite

Puree cle Sinaia sc asia sae kic 0.0 0.6 uw ance sale esiecs ee a ave

cata Pre | f

| ai ae re ned

' ie Hs TaMe Ser watt) \AMEMOORINN JAAD e :

— 1 SRYIAND

a —. a"

- . wy A ¢ ry ~

BE rd cosy vsvciusadeans<povqesciap shee A OaDas, clothes, a Ae EEN hye dle nos acey-Noeye foi yetsse ser cegbetnsendesne teal 0 fa ai wei aan 16.8 cl ee ee '.t5¢ ol aviter 5 : dy a Bie Sig pee ts ae cp vinubansiscedrees > Say 30 hea 34)

BRR By a soedone-eith de Seaman ere wad. HO LST et He CFind 1 meme patting Ts my bis leds Nid BMI MibES 43 bn dee LR Se 'ePcrnacten nu am Fs +) salt Tse Paes a4 am é ieien es. bansrtaele< 'Chaeins hs. oA fete: ve Leniesier.. cee awe eet sameialg

"ihe. trated: sews, eaperist shore: techy eee nr tie Up rseomens: peeirecint fie

MR Gitaroo of oindibes nate feat beets ialicty apf 5 reeds a, a te § Meg al Were: 4 eS, whick, i ger APRA WO F Lad ini sca AS Be ee le ee «" sired fr bethe wee we HD. ye loreies, Ge apm us aera | teh ap Ak ah beaks. iaeeueay saindisdibnanadiaiendiaba: ao aes cde etaloeg Ment eaubiinciat ti ne tani py BY 45 TERN Ae ee ee «8 0'g ey © Vo 2 Pode © Ay) Gas aie 4 ¥ereee ie sda Bet CREA hake ae. AIT Te Rp | SWABS) Sey oF #2 senses +B mmeites aks oe: enna Seep ww cin youth Wwe) Noh ts a un ated (1 per A ogee rae: eh tes Ra it C2 fier? N Tepe sk at: amet Te chaos et tele 7a sete 'Tt iw 8 sO See geese aed es Ae Pe d ~. 3 Wa fw a...

AX. AS :

Ets 2 west ' hoe aes aati Bet wet" ties 72 cthag: hisetestae so MgB =a Aupipsene Ye

2 ao Le, i a) Soca BEES i> oe a aa n % Pe. oes ie, Sb) re Sens: aed PRB

Z :

= eg PCS RT Fes +0 944 0 4 ee e* 4,*4 tf ode, FSFE 0) seh S a.

BS 04 es women te Vie des Ae eee ™ wliet tidiaas Ba tee Viet testa + ge hrrneee a ; ~o b r A: band Pee we a ee aD ey eb eee Sek ok ps i Peep eae Veet bows ote hae oe i

_ '

= .

— - , a '

- :

**2 P . bai i

~ : i ak

545... at oat Cee ee ctue!) @ Be ¢e de> oa ax ioudys ce Vou Vea s SHEys eee a "

= ; dt reli Gee | oi tree ns Stein Wee on We eee Senne ile Vion Hews ¥4 ons sete eo OM vo _ } :

PP ee ee ae es ee Agree tne oes ede eee be '

, a i *. see '% O4ie veel a> ee eue are eee vical teak AT ne Fen nae Dee aa ntewb hese ey wide ee Wi ween hh gal Ha "

San I ie Jen joa eenys Liepae dee Cy penp ene eens ee Oke tacit .

NN Res , he .

*\ Law! ha 1%, bikaweues oe ee eee eee eke re a ae or * ; + .

PROLEGOMENA.

I.—CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.

CHAPTER Jt.

Lire.!

Sk ae Early Years.

Tue Emperor Flavius Valerius Constantinus, surnamed the Great,' born February 27, 272 or 274,° at Naissus,* was son of Constantius Chlorus, afterwards Emperor,' and Helena his wife.*

He was brought up at Drepanum, his mother's home,' where he remained until his father became

1 This sketch of the life of Constantine is intended to give the thread of events, and briefly to supplement, especially for the earlier part of his reign, the life by Eusebius, which is distinctly confined

4 Anon. Vales. p. 471.

Const. Porphyr. (De themat.

2. 9), Stephanus Byzant. art. Naioods (ed. 1502, H. iii.), '' Firmicus 1. 4."

According to some it was Tarsus ('' Julius Firmic.

1. 2''), or Drepanum (Niceph. Callist.), or in Britain (the English chroniclers,

Voragine, and others, the mistake arising from one of the panegyto his religious acts and life.

2 "Imperator Cesar Augustus Consul Proconsul Pontifex Maximus, Magnus, Maximus, Pius, Felix, Fidelis, Mansuetus, Benificus,

Clementissimus, Victor, Invictus, Triumphator, Salus Reip. Beticus, Alemanicus, Gothicus, Sarmarticus, Germanicus, Britannicus,

Hunnicus, Gallicanus," is a portion of his title, as gathered from coins, inscriptions, and various documents. rists (c. 4) speaking of his taking his origin thence), or Tréves

(Voragine).

Compare Vogt, who adds Rome (" Petr. de Natalibus"), or Roba ("' Eutychius"), or Gaul ('' Meursius'?).

Compare also' monographs by Janus and by Schoepflin under Lzterature.

5 For characterization of Constantius compare V. C. 1. 13 sq.

3 Calendarium Rom. in Petavius Uranal. p, 113.

The date varies by a year or two, according to way of reckoning, but 274 is the date usually given.

(Cf. Burckhardt, Manso, Keim, De Broglie, Wordsworth, etc.) Ewutropius and Hieronymus say he died in his sixty-sixth year, Theophanes says he was sixty-five years old, and Socrates and Sozomen say substantially the same, while Victor,

Epit. has sixty-three, and Victor, Ces. sixty-two.

Eusebius says he lived twice the length of his reign, i.e. 63 +.

6 It has been a much discussed question, whether Helena was legitimate wife or not.

Some (Zosimus 2. 8; Niceph. Callist. 7. 18) have asserted that Helena was a woman "' indifferent honest,"? and the birth of Constantine illegitimate.

This view is simply psychologically impossible regarding a woman of so much and such strength of character.

That she stood in the relation of legitimate concubinage (cf. Smith and Cheetham, Dict. 1. 422) is not improbable, since many (Hieron. Orosius, Zosimus 2. 8; Chron. Pasch. p. 516, and others) assert this lesser relationship.

This would have been Manso chose 274, because it agreed best with the representations of the two Victors as over against the ''later church historians."

But the two Victors say, one that he lived sixty-two years and reigned thirty-two, and the other that he lived sixty-three and reigned thirty; while Eutropius, secretary to Constantine, gives length of reign correctly, and so establishes a slight presumption in favor not unlike a modern morganatic marriage.

The facts are: 1. That she is often spoken of as concubine (cf. above).

2. That she is distinctly called wife, and that by some of the most competent authorities (Eutrop. 10. 2; Anon. Vales. p. 471; Euseb. H. £.8.13;

Ephraem p, 21, etc.), also in various inscriptions (compare collected inscriptions in Clinton 2. 8r).

3. That she was divorced (Anon.

Vales. p. 47).

The weight of testimony is clearly in favor of the word "' wife," though with divorce so easy it seems to have been a name only.

The view that she was married in the full legal sense, but only after the birth of Constantine, is plausible enough, and has of his other statement.

Moreover, it is supported by Hieronymus, whose testimony is not of the highest quality, to be sure, and is quite likely taken from Eutropius, and Theophanes, who puts the same fact in another form, and who certainly chose that figure for a reason.

The statement of Eusebius is a very elastic generalization, and.is the only support of Victor, Zfz#. Socrates, who, according to Wordsworth, says he. was in his sixty-fifth year, uses the idiom "mounting upon" (émBds) sixty-five years, which at the a support more apparent than real, in the fact that he "' first established that natural children should be made legitimate by the subsequent marriage of their parents" (Sandars /zst. ust. (1865) 113; least must mean nearly sixty-five years old, and unless there is some well-established usage to the contrary, seems to mean having lived already sixty-five years.

In the interpretation of Sozomen (also given in ¢vanslatzon ''in his sixty-fifth year") he was "about" cf. Cod. Just. V. xxvii. 1 and 5 ed. Krueger 2 (1877) 216).

Of course the story of her violation by and subsequent marriage to Constantius (Inc. auct. ed. Heydenreich) is purely legendary, and the same may be said of the somewhat circumstantial account of her relation as concubine, given by Nicephorus Callistus 7, sixty-five years old.

Now if he died in May, his following birthday would not have been as "' about," and he must have been a little over sixty-five.

This would make a strong consensus against Victor, against whom Eutropius alone would have a presumption of accuracy.

On the whole it may be said that in the evidence, so far.as 18.

For farther account of Helena, compare the V. C. 3. 42 and notes.

7 Helena was born probably at Drepanum, afterwards called Helenopolis, in her honor, by Constantine (Procopius De edz.

V. 2, p. 311, Chron. Pasch, etc.). cited by Manso, Wordsworth, Clinton, and the run of historians, there is no critical justification for the choice of the later date and the shorter life.

PROLEGOMENA.

Ceesar (A.D. 292 acc. to Clinton) and divorced Helena (Anon. Vales. p. 471).

He was then sent to the court of Diocletian, nominally to be educated (Praxagoras, in Miiller, Pragm. 4 (1868) ;

Zonar. 13. 1, &c.), but really as hostage,' and remained with Diocletian, or Galerius, until the year 306.2

During this time he took part in various campaigns, including the famous Egyptian expedition of Diocletian in 296 (Euseb.

V. C. 1. 19;

Anon. Metroph., Theoph. p. 10).?

Shortly after joining the emperor he contracted (296 or 297) his alliance with Minervina,* by whom he had a son, Crispus."

He was at Nicomedia when Diocletian's palace was struck by lightning (Const. Ovaz. 35), and was present at the abdication of Diocletian and Maximinus in 305.

(Lact. De Wf. P. c. 18 sq.). .

This last event proved a crisis for Constantine.

He had grown to be a man of fine physique (Lact. c. 18; Euseb. V. C. 1. 19), of proved courage and military skill

(cf. remarks on physical characteristics under Characzer), and a general favorite (Lact. l.c.). He had already "long before" (Lact. c. 18) been created Tribune of the first order.

It was both natural and fitting that at this time he should become Cesar in the place of his father, who became

Augustus.

Every one supposed he would be chosen (c. 19), and Diocletian urged it (c. 18), but the princely youth was too able and illustrious to please Gaierius, and Constantine was set aside for obscure, and incompetent men (cf. Lact.).

His position was far from easy before.

His brilliant parts naturally aroused the jealousy and suspicions of the emperors.

They, or at least Galerius, even sought his death, it is said, by tempting him to fight wild beasts (a lion, Praxag. p. 3; cf.

Zonaras 2, p. 623), or exposing him to special danger in battle (cf. Philistog. 1. 6; Lact. c. 24;

Anon. Vales. p. 471 ; Theophanes p. 10-12, &c.). The situation, hard enough before, now became,. we may well believe, intolerable.

He was humiliated, handicapped, and even in danger of his life.

He was practically a prisoner.

The problem was, how to get away.

Several times Constantius asked that his son might be allowed to join him, but in vain (Lact. c. 24 ; Anon. Vales. p. rey

Finally, however, Constantine gained a grudging permission to go.

It was given at night, and. the emperor intended to take it back in the morning (Lact. c. 24).

But in the morning it was too late.

Constantine had left at once to join his father.

He lost no time either in starting or making the journey. ach relay of post horses which he left was maimed to baffle pursuit.

(Anon. Vales., Vict. Zpit. p. 49 ; cf. Lact. c. 24, Praxag. p.3).

The rage of the emperor when he learned of the flight was great but vain.

Constantine was already out of reach, and soon joined his father at Bononia (Boulogne, Anon. Vales. ; cf. Eumen. Paneg. (310), c. 7),° just in time to accompany him on his final expeditions to Britain (Eumen. Paneg. (310) c. 7; cf. Anon. Vales. lc.).

Constantius died shortly after at York (Anon. Vales. p. 471 ; Eutrop. ro. 1), having named

Constantine as his successor (Euseb. V. C. 1. 21 ; Eumen. Paneg. (310) c. 7.3; Lact. c. 24).

1 This appears from the disregard of his father's repeated requests son as his successor" which Ramsay (Smith, Dict. 2. Iogo) mentions that he be sent back to him (Lact., Anon, Vales. p. 471), and the whole story of his final flight.

So also it is said by Anon, Vales. as the only argument against, is reduced to a minimum in view of Constantine's law for the legitimization of natural children by p. 471, and the two Victors (Ces. p. 156, Efzt. p. 49).

Zonaras (12. 33, ed. Migne 1091), gives both reasons for sending, and is likely right.

Nicephorus Callistus (7. 18) suggests that he was sent there for education, since Constantius could not take him himself on account of Theodora. rescript (Cod. Just. V. xxvii. ed. Krueger 2 (1877), 216-17; cf, notes of Sandars in his Just. ¥ust. (1865) 113).

It would be uncritical, as in the case before mentioned, to lay stress on this as positive evidence, but over against a simple " improbability " it has a certain suggestiveness at least.

The panegyrical praises of Constantine's continence hardly justify Clinton's claim that she was lawful wife; for to have a regular concubine would not have been considered in any sense immoral, and it would not have been particularly pertinent in a wedding oration to have introduced even a former wife.

For what little is known of Minervina, compare Ramsay, in Smith Dzct, 2. 1090, " Tillemont, Hist. Emp. IV. iv. p. 84," and Clinton, Fast? Rom. 2. (1850) 86, note &.

2 He was with Diocletian still in 305 (cf. Lact. and note, below), and was with his father early in 306, 8 Eusebius, who saw him on his way to Egypt in 296, gives the impression which he made on him at that time (l.c.).

According to some he was also with Galerius in his Persian war, and this is possible (cf. Clinton 1. 338-40).

Theophanes describes him as ''already eminent in war" (p. 10), Anon. Vales. p. 471, as conducting himself '' bravely."

5 Crispus was "'already a young man" when made Czsar in 4 This was probably a morganatic marriage or concubinate

(Victor, Zfzt. 41, Zosimus 2, 20; Zonaras 13. 2, &c.).

'The improbability that Constantine should have marked out an illegitimate 317 (Zos. 2. 30).

® According to some (e.g. Victor, Ces, P156; Victor, Zpzt.

P» 51} Zos, 2. 8) his father was already in Britain.

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.

§ 2. The First Five Years of Reign.

The will of the father was promptly ratified by the soldiers, who at once proclaimed Constantine Augustus.

Supported by them, and also by Erocus, king of the Allemanni (Vict. Zz¢. p. 49-50), he sent his portrait to Galerius, claiming the title of Augustus.

This the emperor refused to grant, but, much against his will, allowed him to have the title of Caesar (Lact. c. 25).

Constantine did not insist on his right to the greater title, but waited his time, and in the interim contented himself with the lesser, —as the coins show.?

There was enough to do.

After his father's death he waged war against the Francs, and later against the Bructeri and others (Eutrop.

10. 3; Paneg. (307) c. 4; Eumen. Paneg. (310) cc. 10-12; Nazar. Paneg. (321) 18; Euseb.

V. C. 1. 25, &c. ; cf. Inscr. ap. Clinton 2. 93), and celebrated his victories by exposing his captives to the wild beasts (Eutrop. 10. 3; Eumen. Paneg. (310) c. 12; Paneg. (313) c. 233 cf. Nazar.

Paneg. (321) c. 16).

Meanwhile affairs were marching at Rome, too.

The same year (306) that Constantine was elected Augustus by the soldiers, Maxentius at Rome was proclaimed emperor by the Pretorian

Guards (Eutrop. ro. 2; Vict. Ces. p. 156 ; Anon. Vales. p.. 472 ; Zos. 2.9; Socr. 1. 2; Oros. c. 26,

&c. ; Lact. c. 26).

He persuaded the willing (Eutrop. ro. 2) Maximian to resume the imperial purple (Lact. c. 26 ; Zos. 2. 10), but soon quarreled with him (Socr. 1. 2; Eutrop. 10. 3 ; Zos. 2.

11; Lact.c. 28) In 307 Constantine and Maximinus were named "sons of the emperors," and the following year were reluctantly acknowledged as emperors by Galerius.

Maximian, after he had quarreled with his son, betook himself to Gaul and made alliance with Constantine by giving his daughter Fausta in marriage (307).

He proved an uncomfortable relative.

The much-abused mother-in-law of fiction is not to be compared with this choice father-in-law of history.

First he tried to supersede Constantine by corrupting his soldiers.

At his persuasion Constantine had left behind the bulk of his army while he made a campaign on the frontier.

As soon as he was supposably out of the way, the soldiers were won by largesses, and Maximian assumed the purple again.

But he had reckoned without his host.

Constantine acted with decisive promptness, returned by such rapid marches that he caught Maximian entirely unprepared (Lact. c. 29) and drove him into Marseilles, where the latter cursed him vigorously from the walls (Lact. c. 29), but was able to offer no more tangible resistance.

The gates were thrown open (Lact. c. 29), and Maximian was in the power of Constantine, who this time spared his precious father-in-law.'

Grateful for this mildness, Maximian then plotted to murder him.

The plan was for Fausta to leave her husband's door open and for Maximian to enter and kill Constantine with his own hands.

Fausta pretended to agree, but told her husband (Zos. 2.11; Joh. Ant. p. 603 ; Oros. c. 28), who put a slave in his own place (but apparently did not "put himself in the place of" the slave), had the program been carried out, and catching Maximian in the act, granted him that supreme ancient mercy, — the right to choose how he would die (Lact. c. 30).

Though in the midst of wars and plots, and liable at any time to have to run from one end of his province to the other to put down some insurrection, Constantine kept steadily at the work of internal improvement, organizing the interior, fortifying the boundaries, building bridges, restorof Maxentius that he betook himself to Gaul.

That he went to Gaul with this purpose, at least, is mentioned by many (cf. Lact.

1 So Eusebius H. £. 8. 13; Lact. c. 25; Julian Ovat. 1. p. 13.

Eumenius (Paneg. 310, c. 7) says that he was elected '' imperator," but in cc. 8-9 speaks of him as having become Czsar.

Eutropius c. 29; Oros. c. 28; Eutrop. ro. 2, "on a planned stratagem").

It seems curious, if he had attempted to supersede Maxentius by raising a mutiny (Eutrop. ro. 3), that he should now be working for him and planning to rejoin him (Eutrop. ro. 2), but it is no inconsistency in this man, who was consistent only in his unceasing effort

(so. 2) also uses the word '"'imperator."

Zosimus, on the other hand (2.9), and Anonymus Vales. say he was elected " Augustus," but was only confirmed ''Czsar" by Galerius (see below).

The elevation was in Britain (cf. Eutrop. 10. 2; Eumen. Paneg. (310) to destroy others for his own advantage. c. 93; S0z. I. 5, &c.).

4 Compare on all this Lact. c, 29; Eumen. Paneg c. 14.

It is also ex2 See coins in Eckhel 8, p. 72, under the year.

5 Socrates (x. 2) with many others (e.g. Zos. 2. 1x) says he died pressly stated by Paneg- (307) c. 5. at Tarsus, confusing him thus with Maximinus.

3 It is said by many that the quarrel was a feigned one, and that it was wholly for the purpose of getting rid of Constantine in behalf

PROLEGOMENA.

ing cities, building up educational institutions, &c.1

At the end of five years' reign (July 24, 311) he had reduced the turbulent tribes, organized his affairs, and endeared himself to his people, especially to the Christians, whom he had favored from the first (Lact. c. 24), and who could hardly fail in those days of persecution to rejoice in a policy such as is indicated in his letter to Maximinus Daza in behalf of persecuted Christians (Lact. c. 37).

§ 3.

State of Affairs in 311.

In the meantime, while the extreme west of the empire was enjoying the mild rule of Constantine, the other corners of the now quadrangular and now hexagonal world, over «hich during this time Maximinus, Galerius, Licinius, Maximian, and Maxentius had tried to reign, had had a much less comfortable time.

Every emperor wanted a corner to himself, and, having his corner, wanted that of some one else or feared that some one else wanted his.

In order clearly to understand Constantine, a glimpse of the state of affairs in these other parts of the empire, together with some idea of the kind of men with whom he had to deal is essential, and may be gotten from a brief view of (1) The rulers, (2) Characters of the rulers, (3) Condition of the ruled.

(1) Zhe Rulers.

The intricate process of evolution and devolution of emperors, mysterious to the uninitiated as a Chinese puzzle, is briefly as follows: In 305 Diocletian and Maximian had abdicated (Lact. c. 18; Eutrop. 9. 27; Vict. Cs.), Galerius and Constantius succeeding 7s Augusti and Severus,

Maximinus Daza succeeding them as Cesars (Lact.c. 19).

In 306 Constantius died, Constantine was proclaimed Augustus by his army, Maxentius by the Pretorian Guards (cf. above), and Severus by Galerius (Lact. c. 25), while Maximian resumed the purple (see above).— four emperors, Galerius, Severus, Maximian, and Maxentius, with two Czsars, Constantine and Maximinus, one with a pretty definite claim te the purple, and the other bound not to be left out in the cold.

In 307 Licinius was appointed Augustus by Galerius (Lact. c. 29; Vict. C@s.,; Zos.

2.11}; Anon. Vales. ; Eutrop. 10. 4), who also threw a sop to Cerberus by naming Constantine and Maximin "sons of emperors" (Lact. c. 32 ; Coins in Eckhel 8 (1838) 52. 3). Constantine was given title of Augustus by Maximianus (?), and Maximinus about this time was forced, as he said, by his army to assume the title.

Meantime the growing procession of emperors was reduced by one.

Severus, sent against Maxentius, was deserted by his soldiers, captured, and slain in 307 (Lact. c. 26; Zos. 2. 10; Anon. Vales.; Eutrop. 10. 2; Vict. Ces. &c. &c.), leaving still six emperors or claimants, — Galerius, Licinius, Maxentius, Maximian, Maximinus, and Constantine.

In 308, making the best of a bad matter, Galerius appointed Constantine and Maximin

Augusti (see above), leaving the situation unchanged, and so it remained until the death of Maximian in 310 (see above), and of Galerius in May, 311 (Lact. c. 3 3; Vict. Ces.; Vict. Epit. ;

Zos. 2. 11) reduced the number to four.

(2) Characters of the Rulers.

Constantine's own character has been hinted at and will be studied later.

Severus was the least significant of the others, having a brief reign and being little mentioned by historians.

Diocletian's characterization of him was, according to Lactantius (c. 18), as ejaculated to Galerius,

"That dancing, carousing drunkard who turns night into day and day into night."

The average character of the other emperors was that of the prisoners for life in our modern state prisons.

Galerius, "that pernicious wild beast" (Lact. c. 25), was uneducated, drunken (Anon. Vales.

Pp. 472); fond of boasting himself to be the illegitimate son of a dragon (Lact. 9; Vict. Epit. p49), and sanguinary and ferocious to an extraordinary degree (Lact. c. 9. 21, 22, &c.).

Licinius, characterized by "ingratitude" and " cold-blooded ferocity," was "not only totally

1 Notably at Autun.

The.city had been almost destroyed.

Eu-|on by his son.

Constantine's work of internal improvement was in menius, whose oration of thanks in behalf of the people of Autun is | many ways distinctly a continuation of the work begun by Constan- 'extant, praises Constantine as the restorer, almost the founder.

The | tius.

Compare Eumen. Paneg. (especially c. 13, 22, &c.) and -work had been undertaken by Constantius, indeed, but was carried | Grat. act.

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.

————————————————————————EEEE—————EE

ana indifferent to human life and suffering, and regardless of any principle of law or justice which might interfere with the gratification of his passions, but he was systematically treacherous and cruel, possessed of not one redeeming quality save physical courage and military skill" (Ramsay, in Smith Dicz. 2, p. 784; compare Euseb. 7. Z. 10.8 ; V. C.1. 49-56), and " in avaricious cupidity worst of all" (Vict. Zit. p. 51).

Maximinus' character " stands forth as pre-eminent for brutal licentiousness and ferocious cruelty —' lust hard by hate'"' (Plumptre, in Smith & W. 3, p. 872), and according to Lactantius, c. 38, " that which distinguished his character and in which he transcended all former emperors was his desire of debauching women."

He was cruel, superstitious, gluttonous, rapacious, and " so addicted to intoxication that in his drunken frolics he was frequently deranged and deprived of his reason like a madman" (Euseb. 4. £. 8. 14).

Maximianus has been thought to be on the whole the least outrageous, and his somewhat defective moral sense respecting treachery and murder has been noted (cf. above).

He has been described as " thoroughly unprincipled . . . base and cruel" (Ramsay, in Smith Dict. 2, p. 981).

He is described by Victor, (Zz. p. 48) as " ferus natura, ardens libidine," being addicted to extraordinary and unnatural lust (Lact. c. 8).

Truly a choice "best" in this rogues' gallery.

Of Maxentius it is said (Tyrwhitt, in Smith & W. 3, p. 865): " His wickedness seems to have transcended description, and to have been absolutely unredeemed by any saving feature."

He "left no impurity or licentiousness untouched" (Euseb. #. Z. 8.14; cf. Eutrop. 10. 4; Lact.9).

He was marked by "impiety," "cruelty," "lust," and tyranny (Paneg. [313] c. 4).

He was the most disreputable of all, — unmitigatedly disreputable.

With all due allowance for the prejudice of Christian historians, from whom such strong statements are mainly drawn, yet enough of the details are confirmed by Victor, Z/zt¢., the Panegyrists, Eutropius, and other non-Christian writers to verify the substantial facts of the ferocity, drunkenness, lust, covetousness, and oppression of this precious galaxy of rulers.

(3) Condition of the Ruled.

Under such rulers there was a reign of terror during this period which contrasted strangely with the state of things under Constantine.

Galerius was " driving the empire wild with his taxations" (cf. Lact. c. 23 and 26), affording in this also a marked contrast with the course of Constantine in Gaul.

Maxentius led in the unbridled exercise of passion (Euseb. #. £. 8. 14; cf.

Lact. c. 18), but in this he differed from the others little except in degree (compare Euseb.

V. C. 1. 55 on Licinius), and according to Lactantius (c. 28) he was surpassed by Maximin.

In brief, all did according to their own sweet wills, and the people had to stand it as best they could.

The worst was that the oppression did not end with the emperors nor the friends and officials to whom they delegated power to satisfy their desires at the expense of the helpless.

Their armies were necessary to them.

The soldiers had to be conciliated and exactions made to meet their demands.

They followed the examples of their royal leaders in all manner of excesses and oppressions.

No property or life or honor was safe.

The persecution of the Christians reached a climax of horror in this period.

The beginning of the tenth persecution was, to be sure, a little before this (303), but its main terror was in this time.

Galerius and Maximian are said indeed to have persecuted less during this period, and Maxentius not at all ; but Galerius was the real author and sanguinary promoter of the persecution which is ascribed to Diocletian (Lact. c. 11), while Maximian was, in 304, the author of the celebrated " Fourth Edict" which made death the penalty of Christianity, and Maxentius was only better because impartial — he persecuted both Christian and heathen (Euseb. V: C. 1.

33-6; A. £. 8. 14; Eutrop. 10. 4)... The persecution under Maximin was of peculiar atrocity

(Euseb. #. Z. 8.17; 9. 6, &c.; Lact. c. 26-27), so that the whole of this period in the East, excepting a slight breathing space in 308, was a terror to Christians, and it is said that ' these two years were the most prolific of bloodshed of any in the whole history of Roman persecu1 " Raging against the nobles with every kind of destruction,'' Eutrop. to. 4.

PROLEGOMENA.

ee a a tions" (Marriott, in Smith & W. 2, p. 594).

It was not until the very end of this period? that Galerius, in terror of death, issued the famous first edict of toleration.

Such was the condition of things in July, 311.

The deaths of Severus in 307, Maximian in 310, and Galerius in 311, had cleared the stage so far as to leave but four Augusti, Licinius and Maximin in the East, Constantine and Maxentius in the West.

The only well-ordered and contented section of the world was that of Constantine.

In all the others there was oppression, excess, and discontent, the state of things at Rome being on the whole the most outrageous.

§ 4.

Second Five Vears.

This period was most momentous for the world's history.

Maxentius, seeking an excuse for war against Constantine, found it in a pretended desire to avenge his father (Zos. 2. 14), and prepared for war.

Like his father before him, however, he did not know his man.

Constantine's mind was prepared.

He was alert and ready to act.

He gathered all the forces, German, Gallic, and British (Zos. 2. 15) that he could muster, left a portion for the protection of the Rhine, entered Italy by way of the Alps (Pameg.), and marched to meet the much more numerous forces of Maxentius,— Romans, Italians, T: uscans, Carthagenians, and Sicilians (Zos. 2. 15).4

First Sigusium was taken by storm (Naz. Paneg. [321] c. 17 and 2x 3 Paneg. [313] c. 5) ; then the cavalry of Maxentius was defeated at Turin (Naz. Paneg. [321] c. 22; Paneg. [31 3) es 6Y;

After a few days' rest in Milan (Paneg. [31 3] ¢. 7) he continued his triumphant march, defeating the enemy again in a cavalry engagement at Brescia (Naz. Paneg. c. 25), and taking the strongly fortified Verona after a hard-fought battle before the walls (Anon. Vales. p. 473 ; Paneg. [31 Kee

Naz. Paneg. c. 25-26).

This had taken him out of his way a little; but now there were no enemies in the rear, and he was free to push on to Rome, on his way whither, if not earlier, he had his famous vision of the cross.'

He reached the Tiber October 26.

Maxentius, tempted by a dubious oracle® issued from Rome, crossed the Tiber, and joined battle.

His apparently unwise action in staking so much on a pitched battle has its explanation, if we could believe Zosimus

(2. 15), Eusebius (V. C. 1. 38), Praxagoras, and others.

His object was, it is said, by a feigned retreat to tempt Constantine across the bridge of boats which he had built in such a way that it could be broken, and the enemy let into the river.'

If it was a trick, he at least fell into his own pit.

The dissipated soldiers of Maxentius gave way before the hardy followers of Constantine, fired by his own energy and the sight of the cross.

The defeat was a rout.

The bridge broke.

Maxentius, caught in the jam, was cast headlong into the river (Anon. Val. P473; Lact. c. 44;

Chron. Pasch. p. 521, &c.) ; and after a vain attempt to climb out on the steep bank opposite

(Paneg. [313] c. 17), was swept away by the stream.

The next day his body was found, the head cut off (Praxag.; Anon. Vales. p. 473), and carried into the city (Anon. Vales. p. 473) on the point of a spear (Paneg. [313] c. 18; Zos. 2. 17; Praxag. p. 1). Constantine entered the city

1 Edict of toleration was April 30; Constantine's anniversary, July 24. ever underlying motive of personal ambition there may have been, it is probable that the philanthropic motive was his justification and pretext to his own conscience for the attempt to rid himself of this suspected and dangerous neighbor.

Zosimus being Zosimus, it is probable that Maxentius was the aggressor if he says so,

2 This edict was signed by Constantine and Licinius as well as by Galerius.

The Latin text is found in Lactantius, de mort. pers. c. 24; and the Greek translation in Eusebius, H. £. 8. 17.

8 Eusebius represents the occasion of Constantine's movement ' Constantine numbered, according to Zosimus, 90,000 foot, as a philanthropic compassion for the people of Rome (V. C. 1. 26;

H. E.9.9)-

8,000 horse; and Maxentius, 170,000 foot, and 18,000 horsé. According to Panegyr. (313) c. 3, he left the major part of his army to guard the Rhine and went to meet a force of 100,000 men with less

Praxagoras (ed. Miiller, Pp. t) says distinctly that it was to avenge those who suffered under the tyrannical rule of Maxentius and Nazarius (Paneg. c. 19), that it was " for liberating Italy."

So, too, Nazarius (Paneg. [321] c. 27), Zonaras (13. 1), Cedrenus, and Ephraem (p. 22) speak of a legation of the Romans petitioning him to go. than 40,000 (c. 5).

5 See note on Bk. I. c. 28.

6 That "on the same day the enemy of the Romans should perish"' (Lact. c. 44).

7 The circumstance pronounced by Wordsworth "almost incredible" is witnessed to by Eusebius (V. C. x. 38), Zosimus (2. 15),

Praxagoras (ed. Miiller, p. 1).

The bridge certainly broke as mentioned by Lactantius (c. 44) and as represented on, the triumphal arch, but whether the plot"? was an ex ost facto notion Undoubtedly he did pity them, and as to the legation, every

Roman who found his way to Tréves must have been an informal ambassador asking help.

The fact seems to be that he had long suspected Maxentius (Zos. 2. 15), and now, learning of his preparations for war, saw that his suspicions were well grounded.

Whator not is unclear.

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.

ee cet espn ca a in triumph amid rejoicings of the people," exacted penalties from a few of those most intimate with Maxentius (Zos. 2. 17),? disbanded the Praetorian Guards (Vict. Cas. p. 159; Zos. 2.17), raised a statue to himself, and did many other things which are recorded ; and if he did as many things which are not recorded as there are recorded things which he did not do, he must have been very busy in the short time he remained there.?

Constantine was now sole emperor in the West, and the emperors were reduced to three.

History was making fast.

After a very brief stay in Rome he returned to Milan (Lact. c. 45), where Licinius met him (Anon. Vales. p. 473; Lact. c. 25; Vict. Zpiz. p. 505 Zos. 2. 17, &c.).

It had become of mutual advantage to these emperors to join alliance.

So a betrothal had been made, and now the marriage of Licinius to the sister of Constantine was celebrated (cf. refs. above Lact.; Vict.; Zos.; Anon. Vales.).

At the same time the famous Second Edict or Edict of Milan was drawn up by the two emperors (Euseb. 4. Z. 10. 5; Lact. c. 48), and probably proclaimed.* Constantine then returned to Gaul (Anon. Vales. p. 473; Zos. 11. 17), where he was forced into another sort of strenuous warfare

— the ecclesiastical, taking a hand somewhat against his will in trying to settle the famous Donatist schism.*

Licinius had a more critical problem to meet.

Maximin thought it a good time to strike while Licinius was off in Milan engaged in festivities (Lact. c. 45); but the latter, hastily gathering his troops and pushing on by forced marches, met near Heraclea and utterly defeated him escaping the sword only to die a more terrible death

(Lact. c. 46).

Maximin fled precipitately, that same summer (Lact. c. 49; Euseb. V. C. 1. 583 cf. Zos. 2. 17).°

The death of Maximin cleared the field still farther.

Through progressive subtractions the number of emperors had now been reduced to two, — one in the East and one in the West.

They, too, promptly fell out.

The next year they were at war.

Causes and pretexts were various ; but the pretext, if not the cause, was in general that Licinius proved an accomplice after the fact, at least, to a plot against Constantine."

Whatever the immediate cause, it was one of 'lr a a SA a nate it Way Td lott).

The Donatists still urging, the Council of Arles was called, Aug. 1, 314, and some progress seemed to be made, but progress more satisfactory to the orthodox than to the schismatics, who urged again that Constantine hear the matter himself, as he finally did, November, 316 (Wordsworth; cf. Augustine, 2%. 43, 1 20). He confirmed the previous findings, and took vigorous but ineffective measures to suppress the Donatists, measures which he saw afterwards could not be carried out, and perhaps saw to be unjust.

Compare Augustine, Ef. 43, ch. 2, and elsewhere, also various documents from Augustine, Lactantius, Eusebius, Optatus, &c., collected in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 673-784.

Compare also Fuller, Donatism, Phillott, Fedix,—articles in Smith and W. Dict. &c.; and for general sources and literature, cf. Donatist Schism, Har1 «* Senate and people rejoiced with incredible rejoicing" (Vict.

Cas. p. 159).

Cf. Euseb. V. C. 139; Paneg. [313] ¢c19; Naz.

Paneg. c. 30; Chron. Pasch. p. 521, &c.

2 It is said he put to death Romulus, son of Maxentius, but it lacks evidence, and the fact that Romulus was consul for two years

(208-9) with Maxentius, and then Maxentius appears alone, seems to indicate that he died in 209 or 210 (cf. Clinton, under the years

208 and 209).

8 For the churches he is said to have founded, compare note on Bk. I. ch. 42.

The curious patchwork triumphal arch which still stands in a state of respectable dilapidation near the Coliseum at Rome, was erected in honor of this victory.

It is to be hoped that it was erected tranft, in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 369after Constantine had gone, and that his zesthetic character is not to be charged with this crime.

It was an arch to Trajan made over for 72; Vilter, Ursprung des Donatismus, 1883; and Seeck in Brieger's

Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, 10 (1889), 505-508. the occasion, — by itself and piecemeal of great interest,

Apart from the mutilation made for the glory of Constantine, it is a noble 6 According to Lactantius (c. 49), an attempt at suicide by poison was followed by a wretched disease, bringing to a lingering and most painful death. piece of work. The changes made were artistic disfigurements; but art's loss is science's gain, and for the historian it is most interesting.

The phrase '' zustinctu divinitatis" has its value in the "' Hoc signo" discussion (cf. notes to the V. C.); and the sculptures are most suggestive.

7 Bassianus, who had married Anastasia, sister of Constantine, was incited by his brother, who was an adherent of Licinius, to revolt against Constantine.

The attempt was nipped in the bud, and Constantine demanded from Licinius the author of the plot.

His refusal, together with the throwing down of the statues of Con4 It has been maintained that there were three edicts of Constantine up to this time: 1. Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius in 3r1; stantine, was the direct occasion of the war (Anon, Vales. p. 473)Compare Eusebius, V. C. 1. 50-51, and Socr. x. 3, where Licinius is charged with repeated treachery, perjury, and hypocrisy.

Zosimus, 2. Constantine and Licinius in 312 (lost); 3Constantine and Licinius in 313 (cf. Keim, p. 16 and 81-84; Zahn, p. 33).

So Gass in Herzog, p. 201, Wordsworth (Ch. Hist.), and others.

But, like most on the other hand (2. 18), distinctly says that Licinius was not to certain things, it seems to have been disproved.

The " harder edict 'a seems to have been a product of Eusebius' rather slovenly historical method, and to refer to the first, or Galerian edict. blame, but that Constantine, with characteristic faithlessness to their agreement, tried to alienate some of Licinius' provinces.

Here, however, notice that Zosimus would not count any movement in behalf of Christians as a proper motive, and sympathy for them was undoubtedly one of the underlying reasons.

5 The appeal of the Donatists to Constantine was first met by the appointment of a "court: of enquiry," held at Rome, Oct. 2, 313.

The result was unsatisfactory, and Constantine ordered an examination on the spot, which took place at Carthage, Feb. 15, 314 (Phil-

PROLEGOMENA.

the inevitabilities of fate.

Another vigorous campaign followed, characterized by the same decisive action and personal courage on the part of Constantine which he had already shown, and which supplied his lack of soldiers.'

First at Cibalis in Pannonia (Oct. 8),? then in a desperate battle at Mardia, Licinius was defeated and forced to make peace (Anon. Vales. p. 474; Zos.

2. 19-20).

The world was re-divided between the affectionate brothers-in-law, and Constantine took Illyrium to his other possessions.*

After this battle and the re-division there was a truce between the emperors for some years, during the early part of which (in 316 or 315) the Decennalia of Constantine were celebrated (Euseb. V. C. 1. 48).

§ 5.

TZhird Five Years.

About the time of his decennial celebration,' his sons Crispus and Constantine, and Licinius, son of Licinius, were made Czsars.

The peace between the emperors continued during the whole of this period.

There was more or less fighting with the frontier tribes, Crispus, e.g., defeating the Franks in 320 (Naz. Paneg. c. 3. 17?), but the main interest of the period does not lie in its wars.

It was a period of legislation and internal improvement (cf. Laws of 319, 320, 321, collected in Clinton, 1, p. 9; also De Broglie, I. 1, 296-97).

Early in the period he was at Milan, where the Donatist matter, which had been dragging along since 311, came up for final settlement (cf. note, above).

He was also at one time or another at Arles and at Rome, but the latter and greater part of the period was spent mainly in Dacia and Pannonia

(cf. Laws, as above).

The close of his fifteen years was celebrated somewhat prematurely at Rome, in the absence of Constantine, by the oration of Nazarius (cf. Naz. Paneg.).

§ 6.

Fourth Five Years.

If the third period was relatively quiet, the fourth was absolutely stirring.

There had undoubtedly been more or less fighting along the Danube frontier during the preceding years, but early in this period there was a most important campaign against the Sarmatians, in which they were defeated and their king taken prisoner.'

In honor of this victory coins were struck (Eckhel, Doct. Num. Vet. 8 (1827) 87).

But this was only skirmishing ; afterwards came the tug of war.

Nine years of peace proved the utmost limit of mutual patience, and Constantine and Licinius came to words, and from words to blows.

For along time Constantine had been vexed at the persecution of the Christians by Licinius (cf. Euseb. 1. E. 10. 8, 9), persecutions waged perhaps with the express purpose of aggravating him.®

Licinius, on the other hand, naturally chagrined over the previous loss of territory, knowing of Constantine's indignation over his persecutions, and perhaps suspecting him of further designs, was naturally suspicious when Constantine passed within his boundaries in pursuing the Sarmatians (Anon. Vales. P474).

Mutual recriminations and aggravations followed.

Licinius would not let the Sarmatian coins pass current and had them melted down (Anon. Contin. Dio. Cass., in Miiller, Fragm. Hist. Gr. 4 [1868] 199).

Altogether they soon came to blows.

The steps were short, sharp, decisive.

Constantine defeated Licinius by land (July 3, 323), and through Crispus, by sea (Soz. 1. 7; Anon. Vales. p. 474-5 ; Zos.

2. 22-3).

After the defeat at Adrianople, Licinius retreated to Byzantium (Zos. 2. 23-5 ; Vict. a i ie ia ee 1 Constantine at Cibalis had 20,000, Licinius 35,000 (Anon.

Vales. p. 473).

The same article (p. 133-35) discusses various relations of Goths and Sarmatians with Constantine, 2 Zos. 2. 18; ''by a sudden attack" (Eutrop. 10. 4); "by night"

(Vict. Epzt. p. 50).

Cf. Orosius, c. 28.

6 According to Sozomen, Licinius withdrew his favor from Christians and persecuted them, because "He was deeply incensed against the Christians on account of his disagreement with Constan5 After the battle of Cibalis the Greeks and the Macedonians, the inhabitants of the banks of the Danube, of Achaia, and the whole tine, and thought to wound him by their sufferings; and, besides, he suspected that they earnestly desired that Constantine should enjoy nation of Illyrica became subject to Constantine (Soz. 1.6; cf. Anon.

Vales. p. 474; Zos. 2. 20; Oros. c. 28, &c.). the sovereign rule" (1.7).

In this view of the case, it is easy to 4 Perhaps earlier and perhaps later.

It is generally placed in see how and why affairs marched as they did.

Eusebius (H. £.

317 (cf. Clinton, p. 370).

10. 9) makes this, like the war against Maxentius, a real crusade in behalf of the persecuted Christians.

® Zos. 2.21.

An exhaustive discussion of this is that by Bessell, Gothen, in Ersch u. Gruber, Excyéi. 1. 75 (Leipz. 1862), 132-33. a

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.

Epit. p. 50), and then to Chalcedon (Anon. Vales. p. 475 » Zos. 2. 25-6).

Two months after the first victory (Sept. 18) a final.and decisive battle was fought at Chrysopolis' (Anon. Vales. p. 475; Socr. 1.4).

Licinius surrendered on condition that his life should be spared (Zos. 2.

28), or rather Constantia secured from her brother the promise that his life should be spared

(Anon. Vales. p. 475; Vict. Zfit, p. 50; Pseudo-Leo, p. 85, &c.).

He retired to Nicomedia, residing at Thessalonica (Soz. 1. 7; Pseudo-Leo, &c.), but was put to death the following year.'

Constantine was now sole emperor.

His first act (Soz. 1. 8) was to issue a proclamation in favor of the Christians (Soz. 7.c.; V. C. 2. 24- , and 48- ). This was followed by many other acts in their favor, — building of churches, &c. (cf. Euseb. V. C., and notes).

From this time on he was much identified with Christian affairs, and the main events are given im extfenso by Eusebius (see various notes).

In 325 (June t9—Aug. 25) the Council of Nicza was held (cf.

Euseb. V. C. 3. 6, and notes), and Constantine took an active part in its proceedings.

The same year his Vicennalia were celebrated at Nicomedia (Euseb. V. C. 1. 1; Hieron. ; Cassiod.) and the following year at Rome also (Hieron., Cassiod., Prosper., Idat.), Constantine being present at both celebrations,*® being thus at Rome in July, and passing during the year as far as Arles, apparently spending some time at Milan (cf. the various laws in Clinton, v. 2, p. 92).

§ 7.

Fifth Five Years.

The beginning of this period was the beginning of the series of acts which have taken most from the reputation of Constantine.

Sometime in 326, perhaps while at Rome, he ordered the death of his son Crispus.* The same year (Hieron. Chron.) the Cesar Licinius, his sister's son, was put to death (Eutrop. 10. 6; Hieron.; Prosper.), and shortly after® his wife Fausta died or was put to death.

But apart from this shadow, the period was hardly less brilliant, in its way, than preceding ones.

It was a time of gigantic and, as some said, extravagant internal improvements.

Among various enterprises was the refounding, in 327, of Drepanum, his mother's city, as Helenopolis (Hieron. An. 2343; Chron. Pasch. p. 283(?); Socr. H. £.1. 183; Soz. 2. 2;

Theoph. p. 41), and greatest of all, the transformation of the insignificant Byzantium into the magnificent Constantinople,' which was dedicated in 330 (Idatius;

Chron. Pasch. p. 285 ; Hesych. § 42; Hieron. ; cf. Clinton).

It was probably during this period, too, that the work of improvement in Jerusalem was undertaken, and Helena made her famous visit thither (Euseb.

V. C. 3. 42; Soz. 21; Socr. 1.17; Ephraem. p. 24: Theoph. 37-8, &c.).

§ 8.

Sixth Five Vears.

The main event of the last full five-year period of this reign was the Gothic war (Hieron. An.

2347; Idat.; Oros. c. 28; Anon. Vales. p. 476; Eutrop. 10. 7; Vict. Ces. p. 3523 cf. Soz.

1. 26), undertaken in behalf of the Sarmatians (Anon. Vales. /.c.), carried on by Constantine II., and brought to an end April 20, 332 (cf. Clinton).

The following year (333) Constans was 1 According to Zos. 2. 27, the final siege and surrender was at 7 The date of the beginning of the work is curiously uncertain.

Nicomedia.

Socrates (1. 6) puts it directly after the Council of Nicza, and Philostorgius in 334, while there is almost equal variety among the modern historians.

Burckhardt says Nov. 4, 326; De Broglie, 328 or 329; Wordsworth as early as 325.

Itis possible that the strangeness which he felt in visiting Rome in 326, and the hostility with which he was met there (Zos. 2. 29, 30), may have been a moving cause in 2 Compare note on Bk. II. ch. 18.

3 For his presence at Rome at this time, compare authorities above, and also law dated July, 326, given in Clinton (p. 380).

4 Crispus was alive and in power March 1, 326, as appears from coins (cf. Eckhel, 8, p. ror-2).

Whether he was put to death before the Vicennalia does not appear, but that he was is not probable.

For death of Crispus and its date, compare Zos. 2. 29; Vict. Ces.,; Soz. 1.5; Vict. Zpit. p. 50; Chron. Pasch.; Eutrop. ro. 6, &c., and discussion under Character. the foundation of this '' New Rome," and that it was begun soon after his visit there.

He first began to build his capital near the site of Ilium (Soz. 2. 3; Zos. 2. 30), but "'led by the hand of God"

(Soz.), he changed his plan to that city whose site he so much admired (Soz.).

5 The same year according to Greg. Tur. (1.34).

Cf. Eutrop. and Sidon.

327, and even 328, is the date given by some (cf. Clinton, 8 For accounts of the founding of Constantinople, see Soz. 2. 3;

Philostorgius, 2. 9; Malalas, 13. 5; Glycas, p. 462-64; Cedrenus, y. 1, p. 382, and Wordsworth).

Pp495-98; Theoph. 41-42.

Compare Zosimus, 2. 30; Anon. Vales.

6 Disputed, but generally allowed.

On this series of deaths, compare the somewhat opposite views of Gérres and Seeck in the p475-76; Socrates, 1. 16; Orosius, c. 28; Praxagoras, Zononas,

Codinus, Nicephoras Callistus, &c. articles mentioned under Lzterature for latest views.

↑ Back to top