Section 369
The text on this page is estimated to be only 28.34% accurate
338 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. perors that was ranked among the gods by them, having every honour conferred upon him, after death, that was due to an em peror. He was the kindest and mildest of the emperors, and in deed the only one of them in our times, that passed his life con sistently with the imperial dignity, and who likewise in all other respects exhibited the greatest condescension and benevolence to all, and had no share in the hostility raised against us, but even preserved and protected those pious persons under him free from harm and calumny. Neither did he demolish the churches, nor devise any other mischief against us, and at length enjoyed a most happy and blessed death, being the only one who, at his death, did peaceably and gloriously leave the government to his own son, as his successor ; a prince who in all respects was en dowed with the greatest moderation and piety. His son Constantine, therefore, in the very commencement, being proclaimed supreme emperor and Augustus by the soldiers, and much longer before this, by the universal sovereign God, resolved to tread in the footsteps of his father, with respect to our faith. And such, indeed, was he. But Licinius after this was appointed emperor and Augustus, by a common vote of the emperors. Maximinus was greatly offended at this, since he had yet received only the title of Cesar from all. He, therefore, being particularly of a ty rannical temper, arrogating to himself the dignity, was created Augustus by himself. In the mean time, being detected in a con spiracy against the life of Constantine, the same (Maximian) that we have mentioned as having resumed the imperial dignity after his resignation was carried off by a most disgraceful death. And This is to be understood of the four emperors then reigning; Diocletian, Maxi mian, Constantius, and Galerius. It was the custom of the Roman senate to deify the emperors at their death. Our author, without intending to commend the practice, simply states the fact as a proof of the popularity of Constantius ; as the honour was not indiscriminately conferred. Othenvise, in regard to this deification, our author, in the midst of his commendations, almost appears a little ironical, upon the practice, how much soever he honoured the memory of Constantius. We are here forcibly reminded of the humorous strife between ^Esculapius and Hercules, in Lucian's dialogues, where Jupiter at last decides the dispute about priority, by assigning it to ^Esculapius, because he died first.