Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. I. Eusebius: Church History; Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine.

Sabinus, an otherwise unknown personage, seems to have been prefect of Egypt at this time, as Æmilianus was during the persecution of Valerian, according to Bk. VII. chap. 11.

282:2072

One of the frumentarii milites, or military commissaries, who were employed for various kinds of business, and under the emperors especially as detectives or secret spies.

282:2073

μὴ εὑρίσκων. It is not meant that the frumentarius could not find the house, but that he did not think to go to the house at all, through an error of judgment (“being smitten with blindness”), supposing that Dionysius would certainly be elsewhere.

282:2074

οἱ παῖδες. This is taken by many scholars to mean “children,” and the conclusion is drawn by them that Dionysius was a married man. Dittrich translates it “pupils,” supposing that Dionysius was still at the head of the catechetical school, and that some of his scholars lived with him, as was quite common. Others translate “servants,” or “domestics.” I have used the indefinite word“ attendants” simply, because the παῖδες may well have included children, scholars, servants, and others who made up his family and constituted, any or all of them, his attendants. As shown in note 8, the word at any rate cannot be confined in the present case to servants.

282:2075

Strabo (Bk. XVII. chap. 1) mentions a small town called Taposiris, situated in the neighborhood of Alexandria.

282:2076

We know nothing about this Timothy, except that Dionysius addressed to him his work On Nature, as reported by Eusebius in VII. 26. He is there called Τιμώθεος ὁ παῖς. Dionysius can hardly have addressed a book to one of his servants, and hence we may conclude that Timothy was either Dionysius’ son (as Westcott holds) or scholar (as Dittrich believes). It is reasonable to think him one of the παῖδες, with others of whom Dionysius was arrested, as recorded just above. It is in that case of course necessary to give the word as used there some other, or at least some broader sense than “servants.”

282:2077

Greek ἐξηνδραποδισμένους, meaning literally “reduced to slavery.” The context, however, does not seem to justify such a rendering, for the reference is apparently only to the fact that they were captured. Their capture, had they not been released, would have resulted probably in death rather than in slavery.

282:2078

These four men are known to us only as companions of Dionysius during the persecution of Decius, as recorded here and in Bk. VII. chap. 11. From that chapter, §23, we learn that Caius and Peter were alone with Dionysius in a desert place in Libya, after being carried away by the rescuing party mentioned here. From §3 of the same chapter we learn that Faustus was a deacon, and that he was with Dionysius also during the persecution of Valerian, and from §26 that he suffered martyrdom at a great age in the Diocletian persecution. See also Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 11.

282:2079

As we learn from Bk. VII. chap. 11, §23, this rescuing party carried Dionysius to a desert place in Libya, where he was left with only two companions until the persecution ceased.

Chapter XLI.—The Martyrs in Alexandria.

1. The same writer, in an epistle to Fabius, 2080 bishop of Antioch, relates as follows the sufferings of the martyrs in Alexandria under Decius:

“The persecution among us did not begin with the royal decree, but preceded it an entire year. 2081 The prophet and author of evils 2082 to this city, whoever he was, previously moved and aroused against us the masses of the heathen, rekindling among them the superstition of their country.

2. And being thus excited by him and finding full opportunity for any wickedness, they considered this the only pious service of their demons, that they should slay us.

3. “They seized first an old man named Metras, 2083 and commanded him to utter impious words. But as he would not obey, they beat him with clubs, and tore his face and eyes with sharp sticks, and dragged him out of the city and stoned him.

4. Then they carried to their idol temple a faithful woman, named Quinta, that they might force her to worship. And as she turned away in detestation, they bound her feet and dragged her through the entire city over the stone-paved streets, and dashed her against the millstones, and at the same time scourged her; then, taking her to the same place, they stoned her to death.

5. Then all with one impulse rushed to the homes of the pious, and they dragged forth whomsoever any one knew as a neighbor, and despoiled and plundered them. They took for themselves the more valuable property; but the poorer articles and those made of wood they scattered about and burned in the streets, so that the city appeared as if taken by an enemy.

6. But the brethren withdrew and went away, and ‘took joyfully the spoiling of their goods,’ 2084 like those to whom Paul bore witness. I know of no one unless possibly some one who fell into their hands, who, up to this time, denied the Lord.

7. Then they seized also that most admirable virgin, Apollonia, an old woman, and, smiting her on the jaws, broke out all her teeth. And they made a fire outside the city and threatened to burn her alive if she would not join with them in their impious cries. And she, supplicating a little, was released, when she leaped eagerly into the fire and was consumed.

8. Then they seized Serapion in his own house, and tortured him with harsh cruelties, and having broken all his limbs, they threw him headlong from an upper story. And there was no street, nor public road, nor lane open to us, by night or day; for always and everywhere, all of them cried out that if any one would not repeat their impious words, he should immediately be dragged away and burned.

9. And matters continued thus for a considerable time. But a sedition and civil war came upon the wretched people and turned their cruelty toward us against one another. 2085 So we breathed for a little while as they ceased from their rage against us. But presently the change from that milder reign was announced to us, 2086 and great fear of what was threatened seized us.

10. For the decree arrived, almost like unto that most terrible time foretold by our Lord, which if it were possible would offend even the elect. 2087

11. All truly were affrighted. And many of the more eminent in their fear came forward immediately; 2088 others who were in the public service were drawn on by their official duties; 2089 others were urged on by their acquaintances. And as their names were called they approached the impure and impious sacrifices. Some of them were pale and trembled as if they were not about to sacrifice, but to be themselves sacrifices and offerings to the idols; so that they were jeered at by the multitude who stood around, as it was plain to every one that they were afraid either to die or to sacrifice.

12. But some advanced to the altars more readily, declaring boldly that they had never been Christians. Of these the prediction of our Lord is most true that they shall ‘hardly’ 2090 be saved. Of the rest some followed the one, others the other of these classes, some fled and some were seized.

13. And of the latter some continued faithful until bonds and imprisonment, and some who had even been imprisoned for many days yet abjured the faith before they were brought to trial. Others having for a time endured great tortures finally retracted.

14. But the firm and blessed pillars of the Lord being strengthened by him, and having received vigor and might suitable and appropriate to the strong faith which they possessed, became admirable witnesses of his kingdom.

15. The first of these was Julian, a man who suffered so much with the gout that he was unable to stand or walk. They brought him forward with two others who carried him. One of these immediately denied. But the other, whose name was Cronion, and whose surname was Eunus, and the old man Julian himself, both of them having confessed the Lord, were carried on camels through the entire city, which, as you know, is a very large one, and in this elevated position were beaten and finally burned in a fierce fire, 2091 surrounded by all the populace.

16. But a soldier, named Besas, who stood by them as they were led away rebuked those who insulted them. And they cried out against him, and this most manly warrior of God was arraigned, and having done nobly in the great contest for piety, was beheaded.

17. A certain other one, a Libyan by birth, but in name and blessedness a true Macar, 2092 was strongly urged by the judge to recant; but as he would not yield he was burned alive. After them Epimachus and Alexander, having remained in bonds for a long time, and endured countless agonies from scrapers 2093 and scourges, were also consumed in a fierce fire. 2094

18. And with them there were four women. Ammonarium, a holy virgin, the judge tortured relentlessly and excessively, because she declared from the first that she would utter none of those things which he commanded; and having kept her promise truly, she was dragged away. The others were Mercuria, a very remarkable old woman, and Dionysia, the mother of many children, who did not love her own children above the Lord. 2095 As the governor was ashamed of torturing thus ineffectually, and being always defeated by women, they were put to death by the sword, without the trial of tortures. For the champion, Ammonarium, endured these in behalf of all.

19. The Egyptians, Heron and Ater and Isidorus, and with them Dioscorus, 2096 a boy about fifteen years old, were delivered up. At first the judge attempted to deceive the lad by fair words, as if he could be brought over easily, and then to force him by tortures, as one who would readily yield. But Dioscorus was neither persuaded nor constrained.

20. As the others remained firm, he scourged them cruelly and then delivered them to the fire. But admiring the manner in which Dioscorus had distinguished himself publicly, and his wise answers to his persuasions, he dismissed him, saying that on account of his youth he would give him time for repentance. And this most godly Dioscorus is among us now, awaiting a longer conflict and more severe contest.

21. But a certain Nemesion, who also was an Egyptian, was accused as an associate of robbers; but when he had cleared himself before the centurion of this charge most foreign to the truth, he was informed against as a Christian, and taken in bonds before the governor. And the most unrighteous magistrate inflicted on him tortures and scourgings double those which he executed on the robbers, and then burned him between the robbers, thus honoring the blessed man by the likeness to Christ.

22. A band of soldiers, Ammon and Zeno and Ptolemy and Ingenes, and with them an old man, Theophilus, were standing close together before the tribunal. And as a certain person who was being tried as a Christian, seemed inclined to deny, they standing by gnashed their teeth, and made signs with their faces and stretched out their hands, and gestured with their bodies. And when the attention of all was turned to them, before any one else could seize them, they rushed up to the tribunal saying that they were Christians, so that the governor and his council were affrighted. And those who were on trial appeared most courageous in prospect of their sufferings, while their judges trembled. And they went exultingly from the tribunal rejoicing in their testimony; 2097 God himself having caused them to triumph gloriously.”

Footnotes

283:2080

I read φ€βιον with the majority of the mss., and with Valesius, Stroth, Burton, Closs, and Crusè, preferring to adopt the same spelling here that is used in the other passages in which the same bishop is mentioned. A number of mss. read φαβιανόν, which is supported by Rufinus, and adopted by Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen. On Fabius, bishop of Antioch, see chap. 39, note 7. The time of his episcopate stated in that note fixes the date of this epistle within narrow limits, viz. between 250 and the spring of 253. The whole tone of the letter and the discussion of the readmission of the lapsed would lead us to think that the epistle was written after the close of the persecution, but in §20, Dioscorus is said to be still among them, waiting for “a longer and more severe conflict,” which seems to imply that the persecution, if not raging at the time, was at least expected to break out again soon. This would lead us to think of the closing months of Decius’ reign, i.e. late in the year 251, and this date finds confirmation in the consideration that the epistle (as we learn from chap. 44) was written after the breaking out of the Novatian schism, and apparently after the election of Novatian as opposition bishop, for Fabius can hardly have sided with him against his bishop, so long as he was only a presbyter. Doubtless Novatian’s official letter, announcing his election, had influenced Fabius. But Novation was elected bishop in 251, probably in the summer or early fall; at least, some months after Cornelius’ accession which took place in February, 251. It seems, from chap. 44, that Fabius was inclined to side with Novatian, and to favor his rigoristic principles. This epistle was written (as we learn from chap. 42, §6) with the express purpose of leading him to change his position and to adopt more lenient principles in his treatment of the lapsed. It is with this end in view that Dionysius details at such length in this chapter the sufferings of the martyrs. He wishes to impress upon Fabius their piety and steadfastness, in order to beget greater respect for their opinions. Having done this, he states that they who best understood the temptations to which the persecuted were exposed, had received the lapsed, when repentant, into fellowship as before (see chap. 42, note 6). Dionysius’ own position in the matter comes out very clearly in this epistle. He was in full sympathy with the milder treatment of the lapsed advocated in Rome and in Carthage by Cornelius and Cyprian.

283:2081

The edict of Decius was published early in the year 250, and therefore the persecution in Alexandria, according to Dionysius, began in 249, while Philip was still emperor. Although the latter showed the Christians favor, yet it is not at all surprising that this local persecution should break out during his reign. The peace which the Christians were enjoying naturally fostered the growth of the Church, and the more patriotic and pious of the heathen citizens of the empire must necessarily have felt great solicitude at its constant increase, and the same spirit which led Decius to persecute would lead many such persons to desire to persecute when the opportunity offered itself; and the closing months of Philip’s reign were so troubled with rebellions and revolutions that he had little time, and perhaps less inclination, to interfere in such a minor matter as a local persecution of Christians. The common people of Alexandria were of an excitable and riotous disposition, and it was always easy there to stir up a tumult at short notice and upon slight pretexts.

283:2082

ὁ κακῶν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ μ€ντις καὶ ποιητής. The last word is rendered “poet” by most translators, and the rendering is quite possible; but it is difficult to understand why Dionysius should speak of this person’s being a poet, which could have no possible connection with the matter in hand. It seems better to take ποιητής in its common sense of “maker,” or “author,” and to suppose Dionysius to be thinking of this man, not simply as the prophet of evils to the city, but also as their author, in that he “moved and aroused against us the masses of the heathen.”

283:2083

Of the various martyrs and confessors mentioned in this chapter, we know only what is told us by Dionysius in this epistle.

283:2084

Heb. x. 34. Upon the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17; and upon Eusebius’ opinion in the matter, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1.

283:2085

We know that the closing months of Philip’s reign were troubled with seditions in various quarters; but Dionysius is our only authority for this particular one, unless it be connected, as some think, with the revolt which Zosimus describes as aroused in the Orient by the bad government of Philip’s brother, who was governor there, and by excessive taxation (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 272).

283:2086

This refers to the death of Philip and the accession of Decius. The hostile edicts of the latter seem not to have been published until some months after his accession, i.e. early in 250. But his hostility to Christianity might have been known from the start, and it might have been understood that he would persecute as soon as he had attended to the other more important matters connected with his accession.

284:2087

Matt. xxiv. 24. Eusebius reads σκανδαλίσαι; Matthew, πλανᾶθαι or πλανῆσαι

284:2088

i.e. to sacrifice.

284:2089

οἱ δὲ δημοσιεύοντες ὑπὸ τῶν πρ€ξεων ἤγοντο. Every officer of the government under the imperial regimen was obliged to sacrifice to the Gods upon taking office, and also to sacrifice at stated times during his term of office, and upon special occasions, or in connection with the performance of important official duties. He might thus be called upon in his official capacity frequently to offer sacrifices, and a failure to perform this part of his duties was looked upon as sacrilege and punished as a crime against the state. Christian officials, therefore, were always in danger of suffering for their religion unless they were allowed as a special favor, to omit the sacrifices, as was often the case under those emperors who were more favorably inclined toward Christianity. A private citizen was never obliged to sacrifice except in times of persecution, when he might be ordered to do so as a test. But an official could not carry out fully all the duties of his position without sacrificing. This is one reason why many of the Christians avoided public office, and thus drew upon themselves the accusation of a lack of patriotism (cf. Origen, Contra Cels. VI. 5 sq., and Tertullian’s Apol. c. 42); and it is also one reason why such Christians as happened to be in office were always the first to suffer under a hostile emperor.

284:2090

Cf. Matt. xix. 23. This sentence shows that Dionysius did not consider it impossible even for those to be saved who denied Christ before enduring any suffering at all. He was clearly willing to leave a possibility of salvation even to the worst offenders, and in this agreed perfectly with Cornelius, Cyprian, and the body of the Roman and Carthaginian churches.

284:2091

ἀσβέστῳ πυρί.

284:2092

The Greek word μ€καρ means “blessed.”

284:2093

ξυστῆρας. “The instrument of torture here mentioned was an iron scraper, calculated to wound and tear the flesh as it passed over it” (Crusè).

284:2094

πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ.

284:2095

Rufinus adds at this point the words et alia Ammonaria (“and another Ammonaria”). Valesius therefore conjectures that the words καὶ ᾽Αμμον€ριον ἕτερα must have stood in the original text, and he is followed by Stroth and Heinichen. The mss., however, are unanimous in their omission of the words, and the second sentence below, which speaks of only a single Ammonarium, as if there were no other, certainly argues against their insertion. It is possible that Rufinus, finding only three women mentioned after Dionysius had referred to four, ventured to insert the “other Ammonaria.”

284:2096

It has been suggested (by Birks in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) that this Dioscorus may be identical with the presbyter of the same name mentioned in Bk. VII. chap. 11, §24. But this is quite impossible, for Dioscorus, as we learn from this passage, was but fifteen years old at the time of the Decian persecution, and Dionysius is still speaking of the same persecution when he mentions the presbyter Dioscorus in the chapter referred to (see note 31 on that chapter).

285:2097

μαρτυρί& 139·. It is difficult to ascertain from Dionysius’ language whether these five soldiers suffered martyrdom or whether they were released. The language admits either interpretation, and some have supposed that the magistrate was so alarmed at what he feared might be a general defection among the troops that he dismissed these men without punishing them. At the same time it seems as if Dionysius would have stated this directly if it were a fact. There is nothing in the narrative to imply that their fate was different from that of the others; and moreover, it hardly seems probable that the defection of five soldiers should so terrify the judge as to cause him to cease executing the imperial decree, and of course if he did not execute it in the case of the soldiers, he could hardly do it in the case of others.

Chapter XLII.—Others of whom Dionysius gives an Account.

1. “Many others, in cities and villages, were torn asunder by the heathen, of whom I will mention one as an illustration. Ischyrion 2098 was employed as a steward by one of the rulers. His employer commanded him to sacrifice, and on his refusal insulted him, and as he remained firm, abused him. And as he still held out he seized a long staff and thrust it through his bowels 2099 and slew him.

2. “Why need I speak of the multitude that wandered in the deserts and mountains, and perished by hunger, and thirst, and cold, and sickness, and robbers, and wild beasts? Those of them who survived are witnesses of their election and victory.

3. But I will relate one occurrence as an example. Chæremon, 2100 who was very old, was bishop of the city called Nilus. He fled with his wife 2101 to the Arabian mountain 2102 and did not return. And though the brethren searched diligently they could not find either them or their bodies.

4. And many who fled to the same Arabian mountain were carried into slavery by the barbarian Saracens. Some of them were ransomed with difficulty and at a large price; others have not been to the present time. I have related these things, my brother, not without an object, but that you may understand how many and great distresses came upon us. Those indeed will understand them the best who have had the largest experience of them.”

5. A little further on he adds: “These divine martyrs among us, who now are seated with Christ, and are sharers in his kingdom, partakers of his judgment and judges with him, received some of the brethren who had fallen away and become chargeable with the guilt of sacrificing. When they perceived that their conversion and repentance were sufficient to be acceptable with him who by no means desires the death of the sinner, but his repentance, having proved them they received them back and brought them together, and met with them and had fellowship with them in prayers and feasts. 2103

6. What counsel then, brethren, do you give us concerning such persons? What should we do? Shall we have the same judgment and rule as theirs, and observe their decision and charity, and show mercy to those whom they pitied? Or, shall we declare their decision unrighteous, and set ourselves as judges of their opinion, and grieve mercy and overturn order?” 2104 These words Dionysius very properly added when making mention of those who had been weak in the time of persecution.

Footnotes

285:2098

Ischyrion is known to us only from this passage.

285:2099

ἐντέρων καὶ σπλ€γχνων

285:2100

Of the bishop Chæremon of Nilus we know only what is told us here. The city Nilus or Nilopolis was situated on an island in the Nile, in middle Egypt, some distance south of Memphis.

285:2101

τῇ συμβί& 251· ἑαυτοῦ. The word σύμβιος, which means a “companion” or “partner,” can signify nothing else than “wife” as used here in the feminine.

285:2102

τὸ ᾽Αρ€βιον ὄρος. The name Arabicus mons, τὸ ᾽Αρ€βιον οὖρος, was given by Herodotus to the range of mountains which separated that part of Arabia lying west of the Arabian Gulf from the Nile valley (see Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Rom. Geography).

285:2103

εἰσεδέξαντο καὶ συνήγαγον καὶ συνέστησαν καὶ προσευχῶν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἑστι€σεων ἐκοινώνησαν. It will be observed that nothing is said here about joining with these persons in celebrating the eucharist, or about admitting them to that service, and hence Valesius is quite right in distinguishing the kind of communion spoken of here from official communion in the church, around the Lord’s table. Dionysius does not imply that these confessors had the power given them to receive the lapsed back again into the Church, and to dispense the eucharist to them. That was the prerogative of the bishop, and evidently Dionysius has no thought of its being otherwise. The communion of which he speaks was private fellowship merely, and implied a recognition on the part of these confessors that the persons in question had truly repented of their sin, and could be recommended for readmission into the Church. As we see from chap. 44, §2, the recommendation of these persons or of the people in general was quite necessary, before the bishop would consent to absolve the fallen person and receive him back again into the Church. And Dionysius’ words in this passage show that he felt that the judgment of these confessors in regard to the fitness of the lapsed for readmission ought to be received with consideration, and have influence upon the final decision. Dionysius thus shows great respect to the confessors, but does not accord them the privileges which they claimed in some places (as we learn from Tertullian’s de Pudicitia, 22, and from a number of Cyprian’s Epistles) of themselves absolving the lapsed and readmitting them to church communion. In this he showed again his agreement with Cyprian and with the principles finally adopted in the Roman and Carthaginian churches (cf. e.g. Cyprian’s Epistles, 9 sq., al. 15; see also Dittrich, p. 51 sq.).

286:2104

The object of the letter is clearly revealed in these sentences (see chap. 41, note 1).

Chapter XLIII.—Novatus, 2105 his Manner of Life and his Heresy.

1. After this, Novatus, a presbyter of the church at Rome, being lifted up with arrogance against these persons, as if there was no longer for them a hope of salvation, not even if they should do all things pertaining to a genuine and pure conversion, became leader of the heresy of those who, in the pride of their imagination, call themselves Cathari. 2106

2. There upon a very large synod assembled at Rome, 2107 of bishops in number sixty, and a great many more presbyters and deacons; while the pastors of the remaining provinces deliberated in their places privately concerning what ought to be done. A decree was confirmed by all, that Novatus and those who joined with him, and those who adopted his brother-hating and inhuman opinion, should be considered by the church as strangers; but that they should heal such of the brethren as had fallen into misfortune, 2108 and should minister to them with the medicines of repentance.

3. There have reached us epistles 2109 of Cornelius, bishop of Rome, to Fabius, of the church at Antioch, which show what was done at the synod at Rome, and what seemed best to all those in Italy and Africa and the regions thereabout. 2110 Also other epistles, written in the Latin language, of Cyprian and those with him in Africa, 2111 which show that they agreed as to the necessity of succoring those who had been tempted, and of cutting off from the Catholic Church the leader of the heresy and all that joined with him.

4. Another epistle of Cornelius, concerning the resolutions of the synod, is attached to these; and yet others, 2112 on the conduct of Novatus, from which it is proper for us to make selections, that any one who sees this work may know about him.

5. Cornelius informs Fabius what sort of a man Novatus was, in the following words:

“But that you may know that a long time ago this remarkable man desired the episcopate, but kept this ambitious desire to himself and concealed it,—using as a cloak for his rebellion those confessors who had adhered to him from the beginning,—I desire to speak.

6. Maximus, 2113 one of our presbyters, and Urbanus, 2114 who twice gained the highest honor by confession, with Sidonius, 2115 and Celerinus, 2116 a man who by the grace of God most heroically endured all kinds of torture, and by the strength of his faith overcame the weakness of the flesh, and mightily conquered the adversary,—these men found him out and detected his craft and duplicity, his perjuries and falsehoods, his unsociability and cruel friendship. And they returned to the holy church and proclaimed in the presence of many, both bishops and presbyters and a large number of the laity, all his craft and wickedness, which for a long time he had concealed. And this they did with lamentations and repentance, because through the persuasions of the crafty and malicious beast they had left the church for the time.” A little farther on he says:

7. “How remarkable, beloved brother, the change and transformation which we have seen take place in him in a short time. For this most illustrious man, who bound himself with terrible oaths in nowise to seek the bishopric, 2117 suddenly appears a bishop as if thrown among us by some machine. 2118

8. For this dogmatist, this defender of the doctrine of the Church, 2119 attempting to grasp and seize the episcopate, which had not been given him from above, chose two of his companions who had given up their own salvation. And he sent them to a small and insignificant corner of Italy, that there by some counterfeit argument he might deceive three bishops, who were rustic and very simple men. And they asserted positively and strongly that it was necessary that they should come quickly to Rome, in order that all the dissension which had arisen there might be appeased through their mediation, jointly with other bishops.

9. When they had come, being, as we have stated, very simple in the craft and artifice of the wicked, they were shut up with certain selected men like himself. And by the tenth hour, when they had become drunk and sick, he compelled them by force to confer on him the episcopate through a counterfeit and vain imposition of hands. Because it had not come to him, he avenged himself by craft and treachery.

10. One of these bishops shortly after came back to the church, lamenting and confessing his transgression. And we communed with him as with a layman, all the people present interceding for him. And we ordained successors of the other bishops, and sent them to the places where they were.

11. This avenger of the Gospel 2120 then did not know that there should be one bishop in a catholic church; 2121 yet he was not ignorant (for how could he be?) that in it there were forty-six presbyters, seven 2122 deacons, seven sub-deacons, 2123 forty-two acolyths, 2124 fifty-two exorcists, 2125 readers, 2126 and janitors, 2127 and over fifteen hundred widows and persons in distress, all of whom the grace and kindness of the Master nourish.

12. But not even this great multitude, so necessary in the church, nor those who, through God’s providence, were rich and full, together with the very many, even innumerable people, could turn him from such desperation and presumption and recall him to the Church.”

13. Again, farther on, he adds these words: “Permit us to say further: On account of what works or conduct had he the assurance to contend for the episcopate? Was it that he had been brought up in the Church from the beginning, and had endured many conflicts in her behalf, and had passed through many and great dangers for religion? Truly this is not the fact.

14. But Satan, who entered and dwelt in him for a long time, became the occasion of his believing. Being delivered by the exorcists, he fell into a severe sickness; and as he seemed about to die, he received baptism by affusion, on the bed where he lay; 2128 if indeed we can say that such a one did receive it.

15. And when he was healed of his sickness he did not receive the other things which it is necessary to have according to the canon of the Church, even the being sealed by the bishop. 2129 And as he did not receive this, 2130 how could he receive the Holy Spirit?”

16. Shortly after he says again:

“In the time of persecution, through cowardice and love of life, he denied that he was a presbyter. For when he was requested and entreated by the deacons to come out of the chamber in which he had imprisoned himself and give aid to the brethren as far as was lawful and possible for a presbyter to assist those of the brethren who were in danger and needed help, he paid so little respect to the entreaties of the deacons that he went away and departed in anger. For he said that he no longer desired to be a presbyter, as he was an admirer of another philosophy.” 2131

17. Passing by a few things, he adds the following:

“For this illustrious man forsook the Church of God, in which, when he believed, he was judged worthy of the presbyterate through the favor of the bishop who ordained him to the presbyterial office. This had been resisted by all the clergy and many of the laity; because it was unlawful that one who had been affused on his bed on account of sickness as he had been should enter into any clerical office; 2132 but the bishop requested that he might be permitted to ordain this one only.”

18. He adds to these yet another, the worst of all the man’s offenses, as follows:

“For when he has made the offerings, and distributed a part to each man, as he gives it he compels the wretched man to swear in place of the blessing. Holding his hands in both of his own, he will not release him until he has sworn in this manner (for I will give his own words):

‘Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that you will never forsake me and turn to Cornelius.’

19. And the unhappy man does not taste until he has called down imprecations on himself; and instead of saying Amen, as he takes the bread, he says, I will never return to Cornelius.” Farther on he says again:

20. “But know that he has now been made bare and desolate; as the brethren leave him every day and return to the church. Moses 2133 also, the blessed martyr, who lately suffered among us a glorious and admirable martyrdom, while he was yet alive, beholding his boldness and folly, refused to commune with him and with the five presbyters who with him had separated themselves from the church.”

21. At the close of his letter he gives a list of the bishops who had come to Rome and condemned the silliness of Novatus, with their names and the parish over which each of them presided.

22. He mentions also those who did not come to Rome, but who expressed by letters their agreement with the vote of these bishops, giving their names and the cities from which they severally sent them.” 2134 Cornelius wrote these things to Fabius, bishop of Antioch.

Footnotes

286:2105

Eusebius, and the Greeks in general, write the name Νοου€τος (though in Bk. VII. chap. 8, below, Dionysius writes Νοουατι€νος). Socrates has the form Ναυ€τος, which appears also in some mss. of Eusebius. Cyprian and the Latins write the name Novatianus. Lardner, in a note on chap. 47 of his Credibility, argues with great force for the correctness of the name Novatus, while Heinichen and others maintain that Novatianus is the right form. The name Novatiani, Νοουατιανοί, which was given to his followers, is urged with some reason by Lardner as an argument for the shorter form of the name. But even if his opinion is correct, the name Novatian is too long established to be displaced, and serves to distinguish him from the Carthaginian presbyter Novatus. The schism of Novatian was only one of the outcrops of the old strife between lax and strict discipline in the Church, the strife which had shown itself in connection with Montanism and also between Callistus and Hippolytus (see above, chap. 21, note 3). But in the present case the immediate cause of the trouble was the treatment of the lapsed. The terrible Decian persecution had naturally caused many to deny the faith, but afterward, when the stress was past, they repented and desired to be readmitted to the Church. The question became a very serious one, and opinions were divided, some advocating their acceptance after certain prescribed penances, others their continued exclusion. The matter caused a great deal of discussion, especially in Rome and Carthage. The trouble came to a head in Rome, when Cornelius, who belonged to the lax party, was chosen bishop in the year 251, after the see had been vacant for more than a year. The stricter party at once aroused to action and chose Novatian, the leader of the party, opposition bishop. He had been made a presbyter by the bishop Fabian, and occupied a very prominent position in the Roman Church. He seems originally to have held less rigid notions in regard to the treatment of the lapsed, but before the end of the persecution he became very decided in his opposition to their absolution and restoration. His position, as well as his ability and piety, made him the natural leader of the party and the rival candidate for the bishopric. He does not, however, seem to have desired to accept consecration as an opposition bishop, but his party insisted. He immediately sent the usual letters announcing the fact to the bishops of the principal sees, to Carthage, Alexandria, and Rome. Cyprian at once refused to recognize his appointment. Dionysius wrote to him advising him to withdraw (see his epistle, quoted in chap. 45). But Fabius of Antioch was inclined to take his side (see chap. 44, §1). Novatian was excommunicated by the council mentioned just below, and then founded an independent church, baptizing all who came over to his side. We know nothing of his subsequent career (according to the tradition of his followers, and also Socrates, H. E. IV. 28, he suffered martyrdom under Valerian), but his sect spread throughout the East and West, and continued in existence until the sixth century. Novatian was not at all heretical in doctrine. His work upon the Trinity is both able and orthodox. His character was austere and of unblemished purity (the account given by Cornelius below is a gross misrepresentation, from the pen of an enemy) and his talents were of a high order. But the tendency of the Church was toward a more merciful treatment of the lapsed and of other sinners, and the stricter methods advocated by him fell more and more into disfavor. Novatian was quite a prolific writer. According to Jerome, de vir. ill. chap. 10, he wrote de Pascha, de Sabbato, de Circumcisione, de Sacerdote, de Oratione, de Cibis Judaicis, de Instantia, de Attalo Multaque alia, et de Trinitate grande Volumen. The de Cibis Judaicis and the de Trinitate are still extant. The best edition of his works is that of Jackson (London, 1728). An English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 611–650. Novatian was the author also of one of the epistles of the Roman clergy to Cyprian (Ep. 30). Our contemporaneous sources for a knowledge of Novatian and his schism are the epistles of Cyprian (some ten of them), and the epistles of Dionysius and Cornelius, quoted by Eusebius in this chapter and in chaps. 44 and 45.

286:2106

καθαροί, “pure.”

286:2107

This council is undoubtedly identical with the one mentioned in Cyprian’s epistle to Antonianus (Ep. 51, §6; al. 55). It was held, according to Cyprian, soon after the Carthaginian synod, in which the treatment of the lapsi was first discussed, and accepted the decisions of that council. The Carthaginian synod met in the spring of 251 (see Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 112). The Roman synod must, therefore, have been held before the end of the same year; Hefele thinks about October (ibid. p. 114). Cornelius would not, of course, have waited long before procuring the official condemnation of the opposition bishop. We know nothing more about the constitution of the council than is told us here. It was, of course, only a local synod. The pastors of the remaining provinces were the other Italian bishops who could not be present at the council. Cornelius solicits their opinion, in order that the decree passed by the council may represent as large a number of bishops as possible.

286:2108

τοὺς δὲ τῇ συμφορŽ περιπεπτοκότας. The Carthaginian synod had decided that no offenses are beyond the regular power of the Church to remit.

286:2109

Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 66) gives the singular instead of the plural (epistolam ad Fabium); so also Rufinus; but there is no reason for doubting the integrity of the Greek text of Eusebius, which runs, ἦλθον δ᾽ οὖν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐπιστολαὶ Κορνηλίου. Valesius, although translating epistolæ Cornelii, yet follows Jerome and Rufinus in believing that only one epistle is meant here. Neither Rufinus nor, apparently, Jerome knew anything about the epistle, except what they read in Eusebius, and therefore it is more probable that Eusebius was correct in using the plural than that they were correct in using the singular. It is easy to understand the change of Eusebius’ indefinite plural into their definite singular. They were evidently written in Greek; for in speaking of Cyprian’s epistles immediately afterward, Eusebius especially mentions the fact that they were written in Latin. The epistle from which Eusebius quotes just below was also written in Greek, for Eusebius would otherwise, as is his custom have mentioned the fact that he gives only a translation of it. This has been pointed out by Valesius; but, as Routh remarks, we can certainly go further, and say that the other epistle mentioned by Eusebius must have been in Greek, too, since it was written by the same Cornelius, and addressed to the same Fabius. These epistles are no longer extant.

286:2110

Eusebius says, τὰ περὶ τῆς ῾Ρωμαίων συνόδου καὶ τὰ δόξαντα πᾶσι τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ᾽Ιταλίαν κ.τ.λ., which Jerome has transformed or compressed into de Synodo Romana, Italica, Africana, another instance of the careless way in which his de vir. ill. was composed.

287:2111

These epistles from Cyprian and the African bishops Jerome transforms into a single epistle from Cornelius to Fabius, de Novatiano, et de his qui lapsi sunt. At least, it seems impossible to explain this epistle mentioned by Jerome in any other way. Knowing the slovenly way in which he put his work together, it is not surprising that he should attribute these epistles to the same person who wrote the ones mentioned just before and after. Since the first epistles mentioned are said to have been addressed to Fabius and also the last one, from which Eusebius quotes, it is reasonable to conclude that all mentioned in this connection were addressed to him; and it would of course be quite natural for Cyprian, too, to write to Fabius (who was known to be inclined to favor Novatian), in order to confirm the account of Cornelius, and to announce that he agreed with the latter in regard to the treatment of the lapsed. No epistle, however, of Cyprian or of other African bishops to Fabius are extant, though the same subject is discussed in many epistles of Cyprian addressed to the people.

287:2112

Rufinus mentions only two epistles of Cornelius in this connection, apparently confounding this one on the deeds of the Novatians with the one mentioned just before on the Decrees of the Council. Jerome, on the other hand, making Cornelius, as already mentioned, the author of the epistles of Cyprian and the African bishops, assigns four epistles to Cornelius. None of the epistles mentioned in this section are extant, except the long fragment of the last one quoted just below. As mentioned in the next chapter, Fabius inclined to take the side of Novatian over against the laxer party; and it was on this account that Cornelius wrote him so many epistles (compare also the epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria, quoted in chaps. 41 and 42, and see note 1 on the former chapter), and endeavored to blacken the character of Novatian as he does in the passages quoted.

287:2113

This Maximus was a presbyter, and one of a party of Roman confessors who played a prominent part in the controversy about the lapsed. He and his companions were imprisoned at the very beginning of the Decian persecution (Cyprian, Ep. 24; al. 28), i.e. early in the year 250, and while in prison they adopted rigoristic views and wrote to some Carthaginian confessors, urging strict methods in dealing with the lapsed (see Cyprian, Ep. 22; al. 27). Early in the year 251, after eleven months in prison, the presbyter Moses, the leading spirit of the party, died, and Maximus became the chief one among them. Moses before his death, in spite of his rigoristic principles, refused to commune with Novatian and his five presbyters (as we learn from §20 of this chapter), apparently because he saw that his insistence upon strict discipline was tending toward schism, and that such discipline could not be maintained without sacrificing the Church. But Maximus and those mentioned with him here, together with some others (see Cyprian, Ep. 45; al. 49), became even stricter than at first, and finally went over to the party of Novatian (which took its rise after the election of Cornelius in 251), but were at length reconciled to Cornelius and the rest of the Church, and received back with rejoicing (see Cyprian, Ep. 43, 45, 46, 49, 50; al. 46, 49, 51, 53, 54). The notices of Maximus and Urbanus in Cyprian’s epistles, which with the epistle of Cornelius constitute our only source for a knowledge of their lives, do not mention a second confession made by these two men, so that we cannot tell when it took place, but it must of course have been during the persecution of Decius.

287:2114

Urbanus was a confessor only, not a presbyter or deacon as we learn from the notices of him in Cyprian’s epistles, in connection with the party referred to in the previous note.

287:2115

Sidonius likewise was a confessor simply, and is mentioned with the others in the epistles of Cornelius and Cyprian.

287:2116

Celerinus was also one of this party of Roman confessors (as we learn from Cyprian, Ep. 15, al. 87), who, upon his release from prison, went to Carthage, and was there ordained a reader by Cyprian (Ep. 33, al. 39). His release from prison and departure for Carthage took place before the release of the others and before the death of Moses (as we learn from Ep. 15), that is, before the end of the year 250. He was still in Rome, however, at Easter of that year, as we learn from his epistle to Lucian, mentioned below. He came of a family of martyrs (Ep. 33), and was himself one of the most celebrated confessors of his time. There is extant an epistle written by him to Lucian, the Carthaginian confessor (Cyprian, Ep. 21), in which he begs absolution for his sisters, who had denied the faith. The epistle (as we learn from its own statements) was written at Easter time and in the year 250, for there was no bishop of Rome at the time of its composition. As we learn from this passage, Celerinus went over with these other Roman confessors to the party of Novatian, and returned with them to the Church. He is, however, mentioned neither by Cyprian nor by Cornelius (in his epistle to Cyprian) in connection with the schism of these confessors. This is very remarkable, especially since Celerinus was quite a prominent character. It is possible that he was in Carthage the greater part of the time, and did not return to Rome until shortly before the confessors returned to the Church. He might then have thrown in his lot with them, and have returned with them to the orthodox church; and yet, not having been mentioned by Cornelius’ earlier epistle to Cyprian, announcing the schismatic position of the confessors, he was omitted also in the later letters announcing their return (which in fact only mentions the three leaders), and in Cyprian’s reply, which of course would only mention those of whom he had been told in Cornelius’ first epistle. Of the subsequent career of Celerinus and of these other confessors we know nothing.

287:2117

There is no reason to doubt, as Cornelius does, Novatian’s sincerity in declaring that he did not seek the office of bishop. Both Cornelius and Cyprian make his ambition and his jealousy of Cornelius, the successful candidate, the cause of his schism. But such an accusation was made against every schismatic, even when there was not a shadow of support for it, and there is no reason to suppose it nearer the truth in this than in other cases. In fact, his own protestation, as recorded here by Cornelius, and as testified to by Dionysius in chap. 45, as well as the character of the man as revealed in his life previous to his episcopal ordination (as certified to even by his enemies), and in his writings, are entirely opposed to the supposition that he sought the episcopal office and that his schism was a result of his defeat. We shall do much better to reject entirely this exceedingly hostile and slanderous account of his enemy Cornelius, and to accept his own account of the matter as reported by Dionysius in chap. 25. He was the natural head of the rigoristic party, made such by his commanding ability, his deep piety, and his ascetic principles of living; and when Cornelius, the head of the lax party, was made bishop (in March, 251), the strict party revolted, and it could not be otherwise than that Novatian should be elected bishop, and that even if reluctant he should feel compelled to accept the office in order to assert the principles which he believed vital, and to prevent the complete ruin of the Church. Cornelius gives a sad story of his ordination to the episcopate. But one thing is certain, he had with him for some time a large portion of the best people in the Roman church, among them Maximus and others of the most influential confessors, who seem at length to have returned to the Church only because they saw that the schism was injuring it. Certainly if Novatian had been a self-seeker, as Cornelius describes him, and if his ordination had been of such a nature as Cornelius reports, he could never have had the support of so many earnest and prominent men. It is doubtless true, as Cornelius states, that Novatian was ordained by three Italian bishops, very likely bishops of rural and comparatively insignificant sees, and it is quite possible that one of them, as he also records, afterwards repented of his act as schismatic, and returned to the Church and received absolution. But all this does not imply that these three bishops were deceived by false pretenses on the part of Novatian, or that they were intoxicated when they performed the service. This, in fact, may be looked upon as baseless calumny. Novatus, the Carthaginian agitator who had caused Cyprian so much trouble, took a prominent part in the Novatian schism, though to make him the author of it, as Cyprian does, is undoubtedly incorrect (see Lardner, Works, III. p. 94 sq.; London ed. 1829). It was perhaps he (as reported by Eulogius, according to Photius, Cod. 182, and by Theodoret, Hær. Fab. III. 5) that found these three bishops to ordain Novatian. It is not at all improbable, when so many prominent men in the Roman church favored the stricter principles and supported Novatian, that bishops could be found in Italy who held the same principles and would be glad to ordain Novatian as bishop of Rome.

288:2118

μ€γγανον

288:2119

As Closs remarks, these words are evidently an allusion to Novatian’s work, de Trinitate.

288:2120

ἐκδικητἡς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Possibly another sarcastic reference to Novatian’s work in defense of the doctrine of the Church; possibly only an allusion to the fact that he prided himself on his orthodoxy.

288:2121

The principle, that there should be only one bishop in a city, was not clearly enunciated and forcibly emphasized until the third century. Cyprian’s writings are full of it (cf. his treatise On the Unity of the Church), and in connection with this Novatian schism, which showed so plainly the disintegrating effects of a division of the church under two bishops, the principle was established so firmly as never again to be questioned. I do not mean to assert here that the principle so clearly and conclusively established at this time was a new principle. We find it enunciated even by Ignatius at the beginning of the second century, and it was the common opinion of Christendom, or otherwise Cyprian could not have appealed to universal custom as he does in discussing the matter. I mean simply that the principle had never before been brought to such a test as to require its formal enunciation and public recognition by the clergy and the Church at large. The emergency which now arose compelled such formal statement of it; and the Council of Nicæa made it canon law (cf. Bingham’s Antiquities, I. p. 160 sq.).

288:2122

The limitation of the deacons to seven in number was due to the fact that the appointment of the Seven by the apostles (Acts vi.) was commonly looked upon as the institution of the office of the diaconate. But upon this matter, see above, Bk. II. chap. 1, note 2a. The practice of limiting the number of the deacons to seven was quite a common one, and was enacted as a law in the fifteenth canon of the Council of Neo-Cæsarea (held early in the third century). The practice, however, was by no means universal, as we are informed by Sozomen (H. E. VII. 19). Indeed, at least in Alexandria and in Constantinople, their number was much greater (see Bingham’s Ant. I. p. 286).

288:2123

The sub-deacons (the highest of the inferior orders of the clergy) are first mentioned in this epistle of Cornelius and in various epistles of Cyprian. At what time they arose we cannot tell, but they seem to have appeared in the East later than in the West, at least the first references we have to them in the Orient are in the fourth century, e.g. in the Apost. Const. VIII. 21. They acted as deacons’ assistants, preparing the sacred vessels for use at the altar, attended the doors during communion service, and were often employed by the bishops for the conveyance of letters or messages to distant churches. See Bingham’s Ant. Bk. III. chap. 2.

288:2124

The Acolyths (ἀκόλουθοι), another of the inferior orders of the clergy, are likewise first mentioned here and in Cyprian’s epistles. They seem to have been of much later institution in the East, for we first hear of them there in the time of Justinian (Justin. Novel. 59). Their duties seem to have been to attend to the lights of the church and to procure the wine for communion service. See Bingham, ibid. chap. 3.

288:2125

The Exorcists likewise constituted one of the inferior orders of the clergy; but although we find exorcism very frequently referred to by the Fathers of the second century, there seems to have been no such office until the third century, the present being the earliest distinct reference to it. In the fourth century we find the office in all parts of the Church East and West. Their duty was to take charge of those supposed to be possessed of an evil spirit; to pray with them, care for them, and exorcise the demon when possible. See Bingham, ibid. chap. 4.

288:2126

The Readers, or Lectors (Greek, ἀναγνῶσται; Latin, Lectores), constituted still another of the inferior orders, and were already a distinct office in the time of Tertullian (cf. de Præscrip. chap. 41). From the third century on the order seems to have been universal. Their duty was to read the Scriptures in the public services of the sanctuary. See Bingham, ibid. chap. 5.

288:2127

The Janitors, or Doorkeepers (Greek, πυλωροί or θυρωροί; Latin, ostiarii or janitores), are first mentioned in this passage. In the fourth century, however, we find them frequently referred to. Their office seems to have been about the same as that of the modern janitor or sexton. See Bingham, ibid. chap. 6.

289:2128

There is no reason to doubt that Novatian received clinical baptism, as here stated by Cornelius. This does not imply, as is commonly supposed, that he was of heathen parentage, for many Christians postponed baptism as long as possible, in order not to sacrifice baptismal grace by sins committed after baptism. We do not know whether his parents were heathen or Christians. Upon the objection to Novatian’s ordination, based upon his irregular baptism, see below, §17.

289:2129

τοῦ τε σφραγισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου σφραγισθῆναι here means confirmation or consignation (as it was commonly called among the Latins); that is, the imposition of the hands of the bishop which regularly followed baptism, immediately if the bishop were on the ground, in other cases at as early a date as possible. The imposition of hands was for the purpose of conveying the Holy Spirit, who should supply the newly baptized Christian with the necessary grace to fit him for the Christian life. Confirmation was thus looked upon as completing the baptism and as a necessary pre-condition of receiving the eucharist. At the same time, if a person died after baptism, before it was possible to receive imposition of hands, the baptism was not regarded as rendered invalid by the omission, for in the baptism itself the full remission of sins was supposed to be granted. The confirmation was not necessary for such remission, but was necessary for the bestowal of the requisite sustaining grace for the Christian life. Cornelius in the present paragraph does not intend to imply that regenerating grace was not given in Novatian’s baptism. He means simply that the Holy Spirit was not given in that full measure in which it was given by the laying on of hands, and which was necessary for growth in grace and Christian living. The baptism was looked on in ordinary cases as in a sense negative,—effecting the washing away of sin, the laying on of hands as positive, confirming the gift of the Spirit. The former, therefore, was sufficient to save the man who died immediately thereafter; the latter was necessary to sustain the man who still remained in the world. Compare with these words of Cornelius Tertullian’s de Baptism. chap. 6. The earliest extant canon on this subject is the thirty-eighth of the synod of Elvira (306 a.d.), which decrees that a sick person may in case of necessity be baptized by a layman, but that he is afterward, if he recovers, to be taken to the bishop that the baptism may be perfected by the laying on of hands. The seventy-seventh canon decrees the same thing for those baptized by deacons, but expressly declares that if the baptized person die before the imposition of hands, he is to be regarded as saved in virtue of the faith which he confessed in his baptism. It is not necessary to give other references in connection with this matter. For further particulars, see Bingham, ibid. Bk. XII.

On the signification of the verb σθραγίζω, see Suicer’s Thesaurus. We can hardly believe that Novatian failed to receive imposition of hands from the bishop, for it is inconceivable that the latter would have omitted what was regarded as such an important prerequisite to church communion in the case of one whom he ordained to the presbyterate. Novatian may not have received confirmation immediately after his recovery, but he must have received it before his ordination. As seen in §17, it is not the omission of confirmation that causes the objections on the part of the clergy, but the clinical baptism.

289:2130

The majority of the mss., followed by Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen, read τούτων. But some of the best mss., followed by all the other editors, read τούτου.

289:2131

This is certainly a calumny. It is possible, as Neander suggests, that Novatian, although a presbyter, withdrew somewhat from active duty and lived the life of an ascetic, and that it is this to which Cornelius refers in speaking of his admiration for “another philosophy.” But however that may be, Cornelius’ interpretation of his conduct as cowardly or unworthy is quite false. See above, note 1.

289:2132

Clinic baptism (so-called from κλίνη, “a bed”) was ordinarily looked upon in the early Church, in which immersion was the common mode of baptism, as permanently debarring a person from the presbyterate, and by many persons it was denied that such baptism was baptism at all. The latter opinion, however, the Church refused to sustain (cf. Cyprian, Ep. 75; al. 19). The twelfth canon of the Council of Neo-Cæsarea (held early in the fourth century) says, “If any man is baptized only in time of sickness, he shall not be ordained a presbyter; because his faith was not voluntary, but as it were of constraint; except his subsequent faith and diligence recommend him, or else the scarcity of men make it necessary to ordain him.” It is clear that this canon meant to apply only to persons whose baptism was delayed by their own fault. It was common for catechumens to postpone the rite as long as possible in order not to forfeit baptismal grace by their post-baptismal sins, and it was to discourage this practice that such canons as this of Neo-Cæsarea were passed. Even this canon, however, provided for exceptional cases, and the fact that Novatian was ordained in spite of his irregular baptism is a proof that he must have been an exceptionally pious and zealous man.

289:2133

On Moses (or Moyses, as he is called by Cyprian), see note 9, above.

Lipsius (Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 202, note) maintains that Cornelius is referring, at this point, not to Novatian, but to Novatus, the Carthaginian presbyter, and that Eusebius has confounded the two men. He bases this opinion upon the mention of the five presbyters, whom he identifies with those who, with Novatus, separated from the Carthaginian church in connection with the schism of Felicissimus (see Cyprian, Ep. 39; al. 43), and also upon the fact that Moses died before the election of Novatian as opposition bishop. In regard to the first point, it must be noticed that, in an epistle to Cyprian upon the schism of Novatian (Cyprian, Ep. 47; al. 50), Cornelius mentions five presbyters (including Novatus) as connected with Novatian in his schism. Certainly it is most natural to refer Cornelius’ words in this paragraph to the same five men. Indeed, to speak of Novatus and the five presbyters with him would be very peculiar, for Novatus himself was one of the five, and therefore there were but four with him. As to the second point, it may simply be said that Moses might well have refused to commune with Novatian, before the election of the latter, seeing that his position would inevitably lead to schism. There remains, therefore, no reason for supposing Eusebius mistaken, and for referring these words to Novatus of Carthage, instead of Novatian of Rome.

290:2134

These lists of the bishops present at the council, and of those who expressed their agreement with the decision of the synod, are no longer extant.

Chapter XLIV.—Dionysius’ Account of Serapion.

1. To this same Fabius, who seemed to lean somewhat toward this schism, 2135 Dionysius of Alexandria also wrote an epistle. 2136 He writes in this many other things concerning repentance, and relates the conflicts of those who had lately suffered martyrdom at Alexandria. After the other account he mentions a certain wonderful fact, which deserves a place in this work. It is as follows:

2. “I will give thee this one example which occurred among us. There was with us a certain Serapion, 2137 an aged believer who had lived for a long time blamelessly, but had fallen in the trial. He besought often, but no one gave heed to him, because he had sacrificed. But he became sick, and for three successive days continued speechless and senseless.

3. Having recovered somewhat on the fourth day he sent for his daughter’s son, and said, How long do you detain me, my child? I beseech you, make haste, and absolve me speedily. Call one of the presbyters to me. And when he had said this, he became again speechless. And the boy ran to the presbyter. But it was night and he was sick, and therefore unable to come.

4. But as I had commanded that persons at the point of death, if they requested it, and especially if they had asked for it previously, should receive remission, that they might depart with a good hope, he gave the boy a small portion of the eucharist, telling him to soak 2138 it and let the drops fall into the old man’s mouth. 2139

5. The boy returned with it, and as he drew near, before he entered, Serapion again arousing, said, ‘Thou art come, my child, and the presbyter could not come; but do quickly what he directed, and let me depart.’ Then the boy soaked it and dropped it into his mouth. And when he had swallowed a little, immediately he gave up the ghost.

6. Is it not evident that he was preserved and his life continued till he was absolved, and, his sin having been blotted out, he could be acknowledged 2140 for the many good deeds which he had done?”

Dionysius relates these things.

Footnotes

290:2135

See above, chap. 39, note 7.

290:2136

This epistle, as we may gather from the description of its contents in the next sentence, is without doubt the same from which Eusebius has quoted at such length in chaps. 41 and 42. Upon the date and purpose of it, see chap. 41, note 1. We possess only the fragments quoted by Eusebius in these three chapters.

290:2137

Of this Serapion we know only what is told us in this chapter.

290:2138

ἀποβρέξαι. This is translated by Crusè and by Salmond (in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 101) “soak (or steep) in water”; but the liquid is not specified in the text, and it has consequently been thought by others that the bread was dipped in the wine, as was commonly done in the celebration of the eucharist in the Eastern Church (see Bingham’s Ant. Bk. XV.). But it must be noticed that the bread was soaked not by the presbyter but by the boy, and that too after his return home, where there can have been no consecrated wine for eucharistic use, and there is no hint that wine was given him for the purpose by the presbyter. It therefore seems probable that the bread was soaked simply in water, and that the soaking was only in order that the old man, in his enfeebled state, might be able to receive the element in a liquid instead of in a solid form.

290:2139

κατὰ τοῦ στόματος ἐπιστ€ξαι

290:2140

ὁμολογηθῆναι. The meaning is apparently “acknowledged or confessed by Christ,” and Valesius is doubtless correct in remarking that Dionysius was alluding to the words of Matt. x. 32.

Chapter XLV.—An Epistle of Dionysius to Novatus.

1. But let us see how the same man addressed Novatus 2141 when he was disturbing the Roman brotherhood. As he pretended that some of the brethren were the occasion of his apostasy and schism, as if he had been forced by them to proceed as he had, 2142 observe the manner in which he writes to him:

2. “Dionysius to his brother Novatus, greeting. If, as thou sayest, thou hast been led on unwillingly, thou wilt prove this if thou retirest willingly. For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. Nay, to me it seems greater. For in the one case a man suffers martyrdom for the sake of his own soul; in the other case in behalf of the entire Church. And now if thou canst persuade or induce the brethren to come to unanimity, thy righteousness will be greater than thine error, and this will not be counted, but that will be praised. But if thou canst not prevail with the disobedient, at least save thine own soul. I pray that thou mayst fare well, maintaining peace in the Lord.” This he wrote to Novatus.

Footnotes

290:2141

This epistle to Novatian was doubtless written in reply to a letter from him announcing his election to the episcopate of Rome, for we know that Novatian sent such letters, as was customary, to all the prominent bishops of the Church. Dionysius’ epistle, therefore, must have been written soon after the election of Novatian, which took place in the year 251. We have only the fragment quoted in this chapter.

290:2142

Novatian may well have been urged against his will to permit himself to be made opposition bishop; but of course, once having taken the step, so long as he believed in the justice of the cause for which he was contending, he could not turn back, but must maintain his position with vigor and firmness. This, of course, would lead his enemies to believe that he had himself sought the position, as Dionysius evidently believed that he had.

Chapter XLVI.—Other Epistles of Dionysius.

1. He wrote also an epistle to the brethren in Egypt on Repentance. 2143 In this he sets forth what seemed proper to him in regard to those who had fallen, and he describes the classes of transgressions.

2. There is extant also a private letter on Repentance, which he wrote to Conon, 2144 bishop of the parish of Hermopolis, and another of an admonitory 2145 character, to his flock at Alexandria. Among them also is the one written to Origen on Martyrdom 2146 and to the brethren at Laodicea, 2147 of whom Thelymidres was bishop. He likewise sent one on Repentance to the brethren in Armenia, 2148 of whom Merozanes was bishop.

3. Besides all these, he wrote to Cornelius of Rome, when he had received from him an epistle against Novatus. 2149 He states in this that he had been invited by Helenus, 2150 bishop of Tarsus, in Cilicia, and the others who were with him, Firmilianus, 2151 bishop in Cappadocia, and Theoctistus, 2152 of Palestine, to meet them at the synod in Antioch, where some persons were endeavoring to establish the schism of Novatus.

4. Besides this he writes that he had been informed that Fabius 2153 had fallen asleep, and that Demetrianus 2154 had been appointed his successor in the episcopate of Antioch. He writes also in these words concerning the bishop of Jerusalem: “For the blessed Alexander 2155 having been confined in prison, passed away happily.”

5. In addition to this there is extant also a certain other diaconal epistle of Dionysius, sent to those in Rome through Hippolytus. 2156 And he wrote another to them on Peace, and likewise on Repentance; 2157 and yet another to the confessors there who still held to the opinion of Novatus. 2158 He sent two more to the same persons after they had returned to the Church. And he communicated with many others by letters, which he has left behind him as a benefit in various ways to those who now diligently study his writings. 2159

Footnotes

291:2143

This epistle on the subject of repentance or penance, which was the burning one just at this time in connection with the lapsed, was doubtless written at about the same time with those to Fabius and Novatian, already referred to. No fragments of it have been preserved.

291:2144

This work (πρὸς Κόνωνα ἰδία τις περὶ μετανοίας γραφή), which was probably written at about this same time, is mentioned also by Jerome (de vir. ill. 69). Eusebius preserves no extract from it, but extended fragments have been preserved in various mss., and have been published by Pitra (Spic. Solesm. I. p. 15 sq.), though it is questionable whether all that he gives are genuine. The translation of Dionysius’ works in the Ante-Nicene Fathers omits all of these fragments, though they are interesting and valuable. For further particulars, see Dittrich, p. 62. The general character of the letter must have been the same as that of the preceding.

291:2145

ἐπιστρεπτική; literally, “calculated to turn.” Musculus and Christophorsonus translate hortatoria; Valesius, objurgatoria; Stroth and Closs, “Ermahnungsschrift”; Crusè, “epistle of reproof.” The word does not necessarily carry the idea of reproof with it, but it is natural to suppose in the present case that it was written while Dionysius was absent from Alexandria, during the persecution of Decius, and if so, may well have contained an admonition to steadfastness, and at the same time, possibly, an argument against rigoristic measures which some of the people may have been advocating in reference to the lapsed. At least, the connection in which Eusebius mentions it might lead us to think that it had something to do with that question, though, as the epistle is no longer extant, we can reach no certainty in the matter.

291:2146

This epistle was doubtless written while Origen was suffering imprisonment in the persecution of Decius (see above, chap. 39, and below, p. 394), and was for the purpose of comforting and encouraging him (cf. Origen’s own work on martyrdom, referred to in chap. 28, above). The epistle is no longer extant. Numerous fragments are given by Gallandi, Migne, and others, which they assign to this work; but Dittrich has shown (p. 35 sq.) that they are to be ascribed to some one else, perhaps to another Dionysius who lived much later than the great bishop.

291:2147

This epistle to the Laodiceans, which is no longer extant, very likely dealt, like so many of the others, with the question of discipline. Of Thelymidres, bishop of Laodicea, we know nothing.

291:2148

We know no more about this epistle to the Armenians than is told us here. The character of the letter must have been similar to the two upon the same subject mentioned above. Of the bishop Merozanes nothing is known.

291:2149

On Cornelius, see above, chap. 39, note. 3. His epistle to Dionysius is no longer extant. Dionysius’ epistle to him is likewise lost, and is known to us only from what Eusebius tells us here. It was written after the death of Fabius of Antioch (see below, §4), and therefore probably in 253 (see above, chap. 39, note 7). It has been questioned whether this synod of Antioch to which, according to Eusebius, Dionysius referred, was really held, or only projected. The Libellus Synodicus records it as an actual synod, but its authority is of no weight. On the other hand, Eusebius’ words seem plainly to indicate that he believed that the council was really held, for he speaks of it as “the synod at Antioch”; had he thought of it only as projected, he could hardly have referred to it in such definite terms. In spite, therefore, of the doubts of Dittrich, Hefele, and others, I am inclined to believe that Eusebius supposed that the synod had actually been held in Antioch. Whether the epistle of Dionysius warranted him in drawing that conclusion is another question, which cannot be decided. I look upon it, however, as probable that, had the synod been simply projected and failed to convene, some indication of that fact would have been given by Dionysius, and would have caused a modification of Eusebius’ statement.

291:2150

Helenus, bishop of Tarsus, played a prominent part in the controversy concerning the re-baptism of heretics, maintaining, like most of the Oriental bishops, the necessity of re-baptizing them (see below, Bk. VII. chap. 5), and also in the controversy which arose about Paul of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chaps. 28 and 30). From the latter chapter we should gather that he presided at the final council in Antioch, which passed condemnation upon Paul, Firmilian, who seems to have presided at the previous councils, having died on his way to the last one. Of Helenus’ dates we know only what we can gather from the facts here stated. He must have been bishop as early as 252; and he cannot have died until after 265 (on the date of the Antiochian synod at which Paul was condemned, see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note 1).

291:2151

On Firmilian, see above, chap. 26, note 3.

291:2152

On Theoctistus, see above, chap. 19, note 27.

291:2153

On Fabius, bishop of Antioch, see above, chap. 39, note 7.

291:2154

Demetrianus, the successor of Fabius, and predecessor of Paul in the bishopric of Antioch, is mentioned also in Bk. VII. chaps. 5, 14, 27, and 30. The date of his accession is uncertain; but as Fabius died probably in 253 (possibly in 252), we can fix approximately the beginning of his episcopate. In Bk. VII. chaps. 5 and 14, he is said to have survived Gallienus’ edict of toleration (260 a.d.); but as Harnack has shown (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 51), this notice is quite unreliable, as are also the notices in the Chronicle. We can only say that his successor, Paul, became bishop between the years 257 and 260.

291:2155

On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see above, chap. 8, note 6.

291:2156

The interpretation of this sentence is very difficult. The Greek runs ἑξῆς ταύτῃ καὶ ἑτέρα τις ἐπιστολὴ τοῖς ἐν ῾Ρώμῃ τοῦ Διονυσίου φέρεται διακονικὴ διὰ ῾Ιππολύτου. The φέρεται, according to the usage of Eusebius, must mean “is extant,” and some participle (e.g. “written” or “sent”) must then be supplied before διὰ ῾Ιππολύτου. Whether Eusebius means that the letter was written by Hippolytus or was carried by him to Rome cannot be determined. The latter is more probable and is the commonly accepted interpretation. That Eusebius should name a messenger in this particular case and in no other seems peculiar, unless it be supposed that Hippolytus was so prominent a character as to merit especial mention. Who he was we do not know, for chronology will not permit us (as was formerly done by some scholars) to identify him with the great writer of the Roman church (see above, chaps. 20 and 22), and no other Hippolytus of prominence is known to us. In view of Eusebius’ mention of the name at this point, I am inclined, however, to think that he, knowing so little about the Roman Hippolytus, fancied that this was the same man. If he did, he had good reason to mention him. The word “diaconal” (διακονικὴ) in this sentence has caused much dispute. Rufinus translates epistola de ministeriis; Valesius, epistola de officio diaconi, that is, “concerning the office (or duties) of the diaconate,” and it seems out of the question to understand the word in any other way. Why Dionysius should address an epistle on this subject to the Roman church it is impossible to say. Magistris supposed that it was called “diaconal” because it was to be read in church by a deacon, and concluded that it was an exhortation to peace, since it was customary for the deacons to offer the εἰρηνικ€, or prayers for peace. The supposition is attractive, for it is natural to think that this epistle, like the others, discussed the Novatian schism and contained an exhortation to peace. But we cannot without further evidence adopt Magistris’ explanation, nor indeed can we assume that a diaconal epistle as such (whether the word is a technical one or not, and though it might seem such we have no other trace of such a use of it) had to do with the unity or peace of the Church. We must, in fact, leave the matter quite undetermined. Compare Dittrich, ibid. p. 55.

292:2157

Of these two epistles to the Romans we know only the titles, as given here by Eusebius.

292:2158

On these confessors, and their return to the Church, see above, chap. 43, note 9. Dionysius’ epistles to them are known to us only from Eusebius’ reference to them in this passage.

292:2159

Besides the epistles mentioned by Eusebius in this and the previous chapter we know at least the titles of a number of others. In Bk. VII. many are referred to, and extracts from some are quoted by Eusebius. See especially Bk. VII. chap. 26, where another partial list of them is given. Eusebius does not pretend to mention all of Dionysius’ epistles; indeed, he states that he wrote many besides those mentioned. For further particulars in regard to all the epistles known to us, see Dittrich’s monograph.

Book VII.

Introduction.

In this seventh book of the Church History, the great bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius, 2160 shall again assist us by his own words; relating the several affairs of his time in the epistles which he has left. I will begin with them.

Footnotes

293:2160

On Dionysius, see especially Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

Chapter I.—The Wickedness of Decius and Gallus.

When Decius had reigned not quite two years, 2161 he was slain with his children, and Gallus succeeded him. At this time Origen died, being sixty-nine years of age. 2162 Dionysius, writing to Hermammon, 2163 speaks as follows of Gallus: 2164

“Gallus neither recognized the wickedness of Decius, nor considered what had destroyed him; but stumbled on the same stone, though it lay before his eyes. For when his reign was prosperous and affairs were proceeding according to his mind, he attacked the holy men who were interceding with God for his peace and welfare. Therefore with them he persecuted also their prayers in his behalf.” So much concerning him.

Footnotes

293:2161

Decius reigned about thirty months, from the summer of 249 until almost the close of the year 251 (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 285). His son Herennius Etruscus was slain with his father in a battle fought against the Goths in Thrace; another son, Hostilianus, was associated in the purple with Decius’ successor, Gallus, but died soon afterwards, probably by the plague, which was at that time raging; possibly, as was suspected, by the treachery of Gallus. There has been some controversy as to whether Hostilianus was a son, or only a nephew, or a son-in-law of Decius. Eusebius in speaking of more than one son becomes an independent witness to the former alternative, and there is really little reason to doubt it, for Zosimus’ statements are explicit (see Zosimus, I. 25, and cf. Tillemont, ibid. p. 506). Two other sons are mentioned in one inscription but its genuineness is doubtful. Eusebius, however, may be urged as a witness that he had more than two (cf. Tillemont, ibid.).

293:2162

ἑνὸς δέοντα τῆς ζωῆς ἑβδομήκοντα ἀποπλήσας žτη τελευτŽ. Upon the date of Origen’s birth and upon his life in general, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 2, note 1, and below, p. 391 sq.

293:2163

Of this Hermammon we know nothing. The words of Eusebius at the close of chap. 22, below, lead us to think that he was probably a bishop of some church in Egypt. Fragments of the epistle addressed to him are preserved in this chapter and in chapters 10 and 23, below. It is possible that Dionysius wrote more than one epistle to Hermammon and that the fragments which we have are from different letters. This, however, is not probable, for Eusebius gives no hint that he is quoting from more than one epistle, and, moreover, the three extracts which we have correspond excellently with one another, seeming to be drawn from a single epistle which contained a description of the conduct of successive emperors toward the Christians. The date of the epistle is given at the close of chap. 23; namely, the ninth year of the Emperor Gallienus (i.e. August, 261–August, 262), reckoning from the time of his association with his father Valerian in the purple.

293:2164

Gallus succeeded Decius toward the close of the year 251 and reigned until the summer of 253 (some with less ground say 254), when he was slain, with his son, by his own soldiers. His persecution of the Christians (under him, for instance, Cornelius, bishop of Rome, was banished, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3), seems to have been less the result of a deeply rooted religious conviction and a fixed political principle (such as Decius possessed) than of the terrible plague which had begun during the reign of Decius and was ravaging the empire during the early part of Gallus’ reign (see Tillemont’s Hist. des Emp. III. p. 288). He persecuted, therefore, not so much as a matter of principle as because he desired either to appease the populace or to propitiate the Gods, whom he superstitiously believed, as the people did, to be the authors of the terrible scourge.

Chapter II.—The Bishops of Rome in those Times.

Cornelius, 2165 having held the episcopate in the city of Rome about three years, was succeeded by Lucius. 2166 He died in less than eight months, and transmitted his office to Stephen. 2167 Dionysius wrote to him the first of his letters on baptism, 2168 as no small controversy had arisen as to whether those who had turned from any heresy should be purified by baptism. For the ancient custom prevailed in regard to such, that they should receive only the laying on of hands with prayers. 2169

Footnotes

293:2165

On Cornelius, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3.

293:2166

Eusebius makes Cornelius’ episcopate a year too long (see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 3), and hence puts the accession of Julius too late. Jerome puts him in the second year of Gallus (see the same note) and gives the duration of his episcopate as eight months, agreeing with Eusebius in the present passage. The Armenian Chron. puts Lucius in the seventh year of Philip, and assigns only two months to his episcopate. But it is far out of the way, as also in regard to Cornelius. The Liberian catalogue assigns three years and eight months to Lucius’ episcopate, putting his death in 255; but Lipsius has shown conclusively that this must be incorrect, and concludes that he held office eight months, from June, 253, to March, 254. He was banished while bishop of Rome, but returned very soon, and died in a short time, probably a natural death. The strife in regard to the lapsed, begun while Cornelius was bishop, continued under him, and he followed the liberal policy of his predecessor. One letter of Cyprian addressed to him is extant (Ep. 57; al. 61).

293:2167

Lipsius puts the accession of Stephen on the twelfth of May, 254, and his death on the second of August, 257, assigning him an episcopate of three years, two months and twenty-one days. The dates given by the chief authorities vary greatly. The Liberian catalogue gives four years, two months and twenty-one days, which Lipsius corrects simply by reading three instead of four years, for the latter figure is impossible (see chap. 5, note 5). Eusebius, in chap. 5, tells us that Stephen held office two years. Jerome’s version of the Chron. says three years, but puts his accession in the second year of Gallus, which is inconsistent with his own statement that Cornelius became bishop in the first year of Gallus. The Armenian Chron. agrees with Eusebius’ statement in chap. 5, below, in assigning two years to the episcopate of Stephen, but puts his accession in the seventh year of Philip, which, like his notices of Cornelius and Lucius is far out of the way.

The discussion in regard to the lapsed still continued under Stephen. But the chief controversy of the time was in regard to the re-baptism of heretics, which caused a severe rupture between the churches of Rome and Carthage. Stephen held, in accordance with ancient usage and the uniform custom of the Roman church (though under Callistus heretics were re-baptized according to Hippolytus, Phil. IX. 7), that baptism, even by heretics and schismatics, is valid; and that one so baptized is not to be re-baptized upon entering the orthodox church, but is to be received by the imposition of hands. Cyprian, on the other hand, supported by the whole of the Asiatic and African church, maintained the invalidity of such baptism and the necessity of re-baptism. The controversy became very sharp, and seems to have resulted in Stephen’s hurling an excommunication against the Asiatic and African churches. Compare the epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian (Ep. 75), and that of Dionysius, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 5, below. Stephen appears to have been a man of very dictatorial and overbearing temper, if our authorities are to be relied upon, and seems to have made overweening claims in regard to Rome’s prerogatives; to have been the first in fact to assume that the bishop of Rome had the right of exercising control over the whole Church (see especially the epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian; Cyprian’s Epistles, No. 74, al. 75). It must be remembered, however, that we know Stephen only through the accounts of his opponents. It had been the practice in the churches of Asia for a long time before Cyprian to re-baptize heretics and schismatics (cf. the epistle of Firmilian to Cyprian, and the epistle of Dionysius, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 5, below), and the custom prevailed also in Africa, though it seems to have been a newer thing there. Cyprian, in his epistle to Jubaianus (Ep. 72, al. 73), does not trace it back beyond Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, under whom the practice was sanctioned by a council (186–187 or 215–217 a.d.). Under Cyprian himself the practice was confirmed by a council at Carthage, in 255 a.d. The more liberal view of the Roman church, however, in time prevailed and was confirmed with some limitations by the Council of Arles, in 314. Stephen figures in tradition as a martyr, but there is no reason to think that he was one, for the Church was enjoying comparative peace at the time of his death. Two epistles are extant, addressed to him by Cyprian (Nos. 66 and 71, al. 68 and 72). A number of Cyprian’s epistles refer to Stephen.

294:2168

Six epistles by Dionysius on the subject of baptism are mentioned by Eusebius (see below, chap. 5, note 6). It is clear that Dionysius, so far as Eusebius knew, wrote but one to Stephen on this subject, for he calls the one which he wrote to Xystus the second (in chap. 5). Dionysius’ own opinion on the subject of re-baptism is plain enough from Eusebius’ words in this chapter, and also from Dionysius’ own words in chap. 5, below. He sided with the entire Eastern and African church in refusing to admit the validity of heretical baptism, and in requiring a convert from the heretics to be “washed and cleansed from the filth of the old and impure leaven” (see chap. 5, §5).

294:2169

See note 3.

Chapter III.—Cyprian, and the Bishops with him, first taught that it was necessary to purify by Baptism those converted from Heresy.

First of all, Cyprian, pastor of the parish of Carthage, 2170 maintained that they should not be received except they had been purified from their error by baptism. But Stephen considering it unnecessary to add any innovation contrary to the tradition which had been held from the beginning, was very indignant at this. 2171

Footnotes

294:2170

From 247 or 248 to 258, when he suffered martyrdom.

294:2171

See the previous chapter, note 3.

Chapter IV.—The Epistles which Dionysius wrote on this Subject.

Dionysius, therefore, having communicated with him extensively on this question by letter, 2172 finally showed him that since the persecution had abated, 2173 the churches everywhere had rejected the novelty of Novatus, and were at peace among themselves. He writes as follows:

Footnotes

294:2172

διὰ γραμμ€των, which might mean “letters,” but in the present case must refer apparently to a single letter (the plural, γρ€μματα, like the Latin litteræ, was very commonly used to denote a single epistle), for in chap. 2 Eusebius says that Dionysius’ first epistle on baptism was addressed to Stephen, and in chap. 5 informs us that his second was addressed to Xystus. The epistle mentioned here must be the one referred to in chap. 2 and must have been devoted chiefly to the question of the re-baptism of heretics or schismatics (περὶ τούτου referring evidently to the subject spoken of in the previous chapter). But Eusebius quite irrelevantly quotes from the epistle a passage not upon the subject in hand, but upon an entirely different one, viz. upon the peace which had been established in the Eastern churches, after the disturbances caused by the schism of Novatian (see Bk. VI. chap. 43 sq.). That the peace spoken of in this epistle cannot mean, as Baronius held, that the Eastern churches had come over to Stephen’s opinion in regard to the subject of baptism is clear enough from the fact that Dionysius wrote another epistle to Stephen’s successor (see the next chapter) in which he still defended the practice of re-baptism. In fact, the passage quoted by Eusebius from Dionysius’ epistle to Stephen has no reference to the subject of baptism.

294:2173

The persecution referred to is that of Decius.

Chapter V.—The Peace following the Persecution.

1. “But know now, my brethren, that all the churches throughout the East and beyond, which formerly were divided, have become united. And all the bishops everywhere are of one mind, and rejoice greatly in the peace which has come beyond expectation. Thus Demetrianus in Antioch, 2174 Theoctistus in Cæsarea, Mazabanes in Ælia, Marinus in Tyre (Alexander having fallen asleep), 2175 Heliodorus in Laodicea (Thelymidres being dead), Helenus in Tarsus, and all the churches of Cilicia, Firmilianus, and all Cappadocia. I have named only the more illustrious bishops, that I may not make my epistle too long and my words too burdensome.

2. And all Syria, and Arabia to which you send help when needed, 2176 and whither you have just written, 2177 Mesopotamia, Pontus, Bithynia, and in short all everywhere are rejoicing and glorifying God for the unanimity and brotherly love.” Thus far Dionysius.

3. But Stephen, having filled his office two years, was succeeded by Xystus. 2178 Dionysius wrote him a second epistle on baptism, 2179 in which he shows him at the same time the opinion and judgment of Stephen and the other bishops, and speaks in this manner of Stephen:

4. “He therefore had written previously concerning Helenus and Firmilianus, and all those in Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia and the neighboring nations, saying that he would not commune with them for this same cause; namely, that they re-baptized heretics. But consider the importance of the matter.

5. For truly in the largest synods of the bishops, as I learn, decrees have been passed on this subject, that those coming over from heresies should be instructed, and then should be washed 2180 and cleansed from the filth of the old and impure leaven. And I wrote entreating him concerning all these things.” Further on he says:

6. “I wrote also, at first in few words, recently in many, to our beloved fellow-presbyters, Dionysius 2181 and Philemon, 2182 who formerly had held the same opinion as Stephen, and had written to me on the same matters.” So much in regard to the above-mentioned controversy.

Footnotes

294:2174

On Demetrianus, Thelymidres, and Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46. On Theoctistus, see ibid. chap. 19, note 27; on Firmilian, ibid. chap. 26, note 3; on Mazabanes, ibid. chap. 39, note 5.

294:2175

This clause (κοιμηθέντος ᾽Αλεξ€νδρου) is placed by Rufinus, followed by Stroth, Zimmermann, Valesius (in his notes), Closs, and Crusè, immediately after the words “Mazabanes in Ælia.” But all the mss. followed by all the other editors give the clause in the position which it occupies above in my translation. It is natural, of course, to think of the famous Alexander of Jerusalem as referred to here (Bk. VI. chap. 8, note 6), but it is difficult to see how, if he were referred to, the words could stand in the position which they occupy in the text. It is not impossible, however, to assume simple carelessness on Dionysius’ part to explain the peculiar order, and thus hold that Alexander of Jerusalem is here referred to. Nor is it, on the other hand, impossible (though certainly difficult) to suppose that Dionysius is referring to a bishop of Tyre named Alexander, whom we hear of from no other source.

294:2176

The church of Rome had been from an early date very liberal in assisting the needy in every quarter. See the epistle of Dionysius of Corinth to Soter, bishop of Rome, quoted above in Bk. IV. chap. 23.

294:2177

Dionysius speaks just below (§6) of epistles or an epistle of Stephen upon the subject of baptism, in which he had announced that he would no longer commune with the Oriental bishops, who held to the custom of baptizing heretics. And it is this epistle which must have stirred up the rage of Firmilian, which shows itself in his epistle to Cyprian, already mentioned. The epistle of Stephen referred to here, however, cannot be identical with that one, or Dionysius would not speak of it in such a pleasant tone. It very likely had something to do with the heresy of Novatian, of which Dionysius is writing. It is no longer extant, and we know only what Dionysius tells us about it in this passage.

294:2178

Known as Sixtus II. in the list of Roman bishops. On Sixtus I. see above, Bk. IV. chap. 4, note 3. That Xystus (or Sixtus) was martyred under Valerian we are told not only by the Liberian catalogue, but also by Cyprian, in an epistle written shortly before his own death, in 258 (No. 81, al. 80), in which he gives a detailed account of it. There is no reason to doubt the date given by the Liberian catalogue (Aug. 6, 258); for the epistle of Cyprian shows that it must have taken place just about that time, Valerian having sent a very severe rescript to the Senate in the summer of 258. This fixed point for the martyrdom of Xystus enables us to rectify all the dates of the bishops of this period (cf. Lipsius, l.c.). As to the duration of his episcopate, the ancient authorities differ greatly. The Liberian catalogue assigns to it two years eleven months and six days, but this is impossible, as can be gathered from Cyprian’s epistle. Lipsius retains the months and days (twelve or six days), rejecting the two years as an interpolation, and thus putting his accession on Aug. 24 (or 31), 257. According to Eusebius, chap. 27, and the Armenian Chron., he held office eleven years, which is quite impossible, and which, as Lipsius remarks, is due to the eleven months which stood in the original source from which the notice was taken, and which appears in the Liberian catalogue. Jerome’s version of the Chron. ascribes eight years to his episcopate, but this, too, is quite impossible, and the date given for his accession (the first year of Valerian) is inconsistent with the notice which he gives in regard to Stephen. Xystus upheld the Roman practice of accepting heretics and schismatics without re-baptism, but he seems to have adopted a more conciliatory tone toward those who held the opposite view than his predecessor Stephen had done (cf. Pontius’ Vita Cypriani, chap. 14).

295:2179

The first of Dionysius’ epistles on baptism was written to Stephen of Rome, as we learn from chap. 2, above. Four others are mentioned by Eusebius, addressed respectively to Philemon, a Roman presbyter (chap. 7, §1), to Dionysius of Rome (ibid. §6), to Xystus of Rome (chap. 9, §1), and to Xystus and the church of Rome (ibid. §6).

295:2180

ἀπολούσασθαι

295:2181

Dionysius afterward became Xystus’ successor as bishop of Rome. See below, chap. 27, note 2.

295:2182

Of this Philemon we know only that he was a presbyter of Rome at this time (see below, chap. 7, §1). A fragment from Dionysius’ epistle to him on the subject of baptism is quoted in that chapter.

Chapter VI.—The Heresy of Sabellius.

He refers also in the same letter to the heretical teachings of Sabellius, 2183 which were in his time becoming prominent, and says:

“For concerning the doctrine now agitated in Ptolemais of Pentapolis,—which is impious and marked by great blasphemy against the Almighty God, the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, and contains much unbelief respecting his Only Begotten Son and the first-born of every creature, the Word which became man, and a want of perception of the Holy Spirit,—as there came to me communications from both sides and brethren discussing the matter, I wrote certain letters treating the subject as instructively as, by the help. of God, I was able. 2184 Of these I send 2185 thee copies.”

Footnotes

295:2183

Of the life of Sabellius we know very little. He was at the head of the Monarchian (modalistic) party in Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (198–217), and was there perhaps even earlier. He is, and was already in the fourth century, commonly called a native of Africa, but the first one directly to state this is Basil, and the opinion seems to rest upon the fact that his views were especially popular in Pentapolis as early as the middle of the third century, as Dionysius says here. Hippolytus in speaking of him does not mention his birthplace, which causes Stokes to incline to the opinion that he was a native of Rome. The matter, in fact, cannot be decided. We are told by Hippolytus that Callistus led Sabellius into heresy, but that after he became pope he excommunicated him in order to gain a reputation for orthodoxy. Of the later life of Sabellius we know nothing. His writings are no longer extant, though there are apparently quotations from some of them in Epiphanius, Hær. 62, and Athanasius, Contra Arian. Oratio 4.

In the third century those Monarchians (modalists) who were known as Patripassians in the West were called Sabellians in the East. In the fourth and fifth centuries the Fathers used the term Sabellianism in a general sense for various forms of Monarchianism, all of which, however, tended in the one direction, viz. toward the denial of any personal distinction in the Godhead, and hence the identification of Father and Son. And so we characterize every teaching which tends that way as Sabellianistic, although this form of Monarchianism is really much older than Sabellius. See Harnack’s article on Monarchianism in Herzog, 2d ed. (abridged translation in Schaff-Herzog), and Stokes’ article on Sabellius and Sabellianism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., both of which give the literature, and Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. p. 580 sqq., which gives the sources in full. Neander’s account deserves especial notice. Upon Eusebius’ attitude toward Sabellianism, see above, p. 13 sq.

295:2184

ἐπέστειλ€ τινα ὡς ἐδυνήθην, παρασχόντος τοῦ θεοῦ, διδασκαλικώτερον ὑφηγούμενος, ὧν τὰ ἀντίγραφα žπεμψ€ σοι. Of these letters no fragments are extant. They are not to be confounded with the four books against Sabellius, addressed to Dionysius of Rome, and mentioned in chap. 26, below. It is possible, as Dittrich suggests, that they included the letters on the same subject to Ammon, Telesphorus, Euphranor, and others which Eusebius mentions in that chapter. Upon Dionysius’ attitude toward Sabellianism, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

295:2185

žπεμψα. The epistolary aorist as used here does not refer to a past time, but to the time of the writing of the letter, which is past when the person to whom the letter is sent reads the words. The same word (žπεμψα) is used in this sense in Acts 23:30, 2 Cor. ix. 3, Eph. vi. 22, Col. iv. 8. Cf. the remarks of Bishop Lightfoot in his Commentary on Galatians, VI. 11.

Chapter VII.—The Abominable Error of the Heretics; the Divine Vision of Dionysius; and the Ecclesiastical Canon which he received.

1. In the third epistle on baptism which this same Dionysius wrote to Philemon, 2186 the Roman presbyter, he relates the following: “But I examined the works and traditions of the heretics, defiling my mind for a little time with their abominable opinions, but receiving this benefit from them, that I refuted them by myself, and detested them all the more.

2. And when a certain brother among the presbyters restrained me, fearing that I should be carried away with the filth of their wickedness (for it would defile my soul),—in which also, as I perceived, he spoke the truth,—a vision sent from God came and strengthened me.

3. And the word which came to me commanded me, saying distinctly, ‘Read everything which thou canst take in hand, 2187 for thou art able to correct and prove all; and this has been to thee from the beginning the cause of thy faith.’ I received the vision as agreeing with the apostolic word, which says to them that are stronger, ‘Be skillful money-changers.’” 2188

4. Then after saying some things concerning all the heresies he adds: “I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father, 2189 Heraclas. 2190 For those who came over from heresies, although they had apostatized from the Church,—or rather had not apostatized, but seemed to meet with them, yet were charged with resorting to some false teacher,—when he had expelled them from the Church he did not receive them back, though they entreated for it, until they had publicly reported all things which they had heard from their adversaries; but then he received them without requiring of them another baptism. 2191 For they had formerly received the Holy Spirit from him.”

5. Again, after treating the question thoroughly, he adds: “I have learned also that this 2192 is not a novel practice introduced in Africa alone, but that even long ago in the times of the bishops before us this opinion has been adopted in the most populous churches, and in synods of the brethren in Iconium and Synnada, 2193 and by many others. To overturn their counsels and throw them into strife and contention, I cannot endure. For it is said, 2194 ‘Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmark, which thy fathers have set.’” 2195

6. His fourth epistle on baptism 2196 was written to Dionysius 2197 of Rome, who was then a presbyter, but not long after received the episcopate of that church. It is evident from what is stated of him by Dionysius of Alexandria, that he also was a learned and admirable man. Among other things he writes to him as follows concerning Novatus:

Footnotes

295:2186

Of this Philemon we know no more than we can gather from this chapter. Upon Dionysius’ position on the re-baptism of heretics, see above, chap. 2, note 4, and upon his other epistles on that subject, see chap. 5, note 6.

296:2187

Dionysius, in following this vision, was but showing himself a genuine disciple of his master Origen, and exhibiting the true spirit of the earlier Alexandrian school.

296:2188

ὡς ἀποστολικῇ φωνῇ συντρέχον…γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζιται. This saying, sometimes in the brief form given here, sometimes as part of a longer sentence (e.g. in Clement of Alex. Strom. I. 28, γίνεσθε δὲ δόκιμοι τραπεζιται, τὰ μὲν ἀποδοκιμ€ζοντες, τὸ δὲ καλὸν κατέχοντες), appears very frequently in the writings of the Fathers. In some cases it is cited (in connection with 1 Thess. 5:21, 22) on the authority of Paul (in the present case as an “apostolic word”), in other cases on the authority of “Scripture” (ᾑ γραφή, or γέγραπται, or θεῖος λόγος), in still more cases as an utterance of Christ himself. There can be little doubt that Christ really did utter these words, and that the words used by Paul in 1 Thess. 5:21, 22, were likewise spoken by Christ in the same connection. We may, in fact, with considerable confidence recognize in these words part of a genuine extra-canonical saying of Christ, which was widely current in the early Church. We are to explain the words then not as so many have done, as merely based upon the words of Christ, reported in Matt. xxv. 12 sq., or upon the words of Paul already referred to, but as an actual utterance of the Master. Moreover, we may, since Resch’s careful discussion of the whole subject of the Agrapha (or extra-canonical sayings of Christ), with considerable confidence assume that these words were handed down to post-apostolic times not in an apocryphal gospel, nor by mere oral tradition, but in the original Hebrew Matthew, of which Papias and many others tell us, and which is probably to be looked upon as a pre-canonical gospel, with the “Ur-Marcus” the main source of our present gospels of Matthew and Luke, and through the “Ur-Marcus” one of the sources of our present Gospel of Mark. Looked upon in this light these words quoted by Dionysius become of great interest to us. They (or a part of the same saying) are quoted more frequently by the Fathers than any other of the Agrapha (Resch, on p. 116 sq. gives 69 instances). Their interpretation, in connection with the words of Paul in 1 Thess. 5:21, 22, has been very satisfactorily discussed by Hänsel in the Studien und Kritiken, 1836, p. 170 sq. They undoubtedly mean that we are to test and to distinguish between the true and the false, the good and the bad, as a skillful money-changer distinguishes good and bad coins. For a full discussion of this utterance, and for an exhibition of the many other patristic passages in which it occurs, see the magnificent work of Alfred Resch, Agrapha: Aussercanonische Evangelienfragmente, in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 4, Leipzig, 1889; the most complete and satisfactory discussion of the whole subject of the Agrapha which we have.

296:2189

π€πα. According to Suicer (Thesaurus) all bishops in the Occident as late as the fifth century were called Papæ as a mark of honor and though the term by that time had begun to be used in a distinctive sense of the bishop of Rome, the older usage continued in parts of the West outside of Italy, until Gregory VII. (a.d. 1075) forbade the use of the name for any other than the pope. In the East the word was used for a long time as the especial title of the bishops of Alexandria and of Rome (see Suicer’s Thesaurus and Gieseler’s Church Hist. Harper’s edition, I. p. 499).

296:2190

On Heraclas, see Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 2.

296:2191

Compare Cyprian’s epistle to Quintus concerning the baptism of heretics (Ep. 70, al. 71). Cyprian there takes the position stated here, that those who have been baptized in the Church and have afterward gone over to heresy and then returned again to the Church are not to be re-baptized, but to be received with the laying on of hands only. This of course does not at all invalidate the position of Cyprian and the others who re-baptized heretics, for they baptized heretics not because they had been heretics, but because they had not received true baptism, nor indeed any baptism at all, which it was impossible, in their view, for a heretic to give. They therefore repudiated (as Cyprian does in the epistle referred to) the term re-baptism, denying that they re-baptized anybody.

296:2192

Namely the re-baptism (or, as they would say, the baptism) of those who had received baptism only at the hands of heretics standing without the communion of the Church.

296:2193

Iconium was the principal city of Lycaonia, and Synnada a city of Phrygia. The synod of Iconium referred to here is mentioned also by Firmilian in his epistle to Cyprian, §§7 and 19 (Cypriani Ep. 74, al. 75). From that epistle we learn that the synod was attended by bishops from Phrygia, Cilicia, Galatia, and other countries, and that heretical baptism was entirely rejected by it. Moreover, we learn that Firmilian himself was present at the synod, and that it was held a considerable time before the writing of his epistle. This leads us to place the synod between 230 (on Firmilian’s dates, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3) and 240 or 250. Since it took place a considerable time before Firmilian wrote, it can hardly have been held much later than 240. Of the synod of Synnada, we know nothing. It very likely took place about the same time. See Hefele’s Conciliengesch. I. p. 107 sq. Dionysius was undoubtedly correct in appealing to ancient custom for the practice which he supported (see above, chap. 2, note 3).

296:2194

φησί, i.e. “The Scripture saith.”

296:2195

Deut. xix. 14.

296:2196

On Dionysius’ other epistles on baptism, see above, chap. 5, note 6.

296:2197

On Dionysius of Rome, see below, chap. 27, note 2.

Chapter VIII.—The Heterodoxy of Novatus.

“For with good reason do we feel hatred toward Novatian, 2198 who has sundered the Church and drawn some of the brethren into impiety and blasphemy, and has introduced impious teaching concerning God, and has calumniated our most compassionate Lord Jesus Christ as unmerciful. And besides all this he rejects the holy baptism, 2199 and overturns the faith and confession which precede it, 2200 and entirely banishes from them the Holy Ghost, if indeed there was any hope that he would remain or return to them.” 2201

Footnotes

296:2198

The majority of the mss. have Νοουατιανῷ, a few Ναυατιανῷ. This is the only place in which the name Novatian occurs in Eusebius’ History, and here it is used not by Eusebius himself but by Dionysius. Eusebius, in referring to the same man, always calls him Novatus (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1). Upon Novatian and his schism, see the same note.

297:2199

λουτρόν. That Novatian re-baptized all those who came over to him from the Church is stated by Cyprian in his epistle to Jubaianus, §2 (No. 72, al. 73). His principle was similar to that which later actuated the Donatists, namely, that baptism is valid only when performed by priests of true and approved Christian character. Denying, then, that those who defiled themselves and did despite to God s holy Church by communing with the lapsed were true Christians, he could not do otherwise than reject their baptism as quite invalid.

297:2200

It was the custom from a very early period to cause the candidate for baptism to go through a certain course of training of greater or less length, and to require him to assent to a formulated statement of belief before the administration of the sacred rite. Thus we learn from the Didache that even as early as the very beginning of the second century the custom of pre-baptismal training was already in vogue, and we know that by the third century the system of catechetical instruction was a highly developed thing, extending commonly over two to three years. Candidates for baptism were then known as catechumens. So far as a baptismal creed or confession of faith is concerned, Caspari (see his great work, Studien zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols) has shown that such a creed was in use in the Roman church before the middle of the second century, and that it formed the basis of what we know as the Apostles’ Creed, which in the form in which we have it is a later development.

Inasmuch as Novatian, so far as we can learn, was perfectly orthodox on matters of faith, he would not have cared to make any alteration in such a creed as the present Apostles’ Creed. Exactly what Dionysius means in the present case is not certain. It is possible that he is simply speaking in general terms, assuming that if Novatian does not accept the Church baptism, he must overturn and pervert with it the instruction which had preceded; or it may be that he is thinking of that form of confession to which the candidate was required to give his assent, according to Cyprian, Ep. 69 (al. 70): credis in vitam æternam et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam ecclesiam? “Dost thou believe in eternal life and remission of sins through the holy Church?” The latter is the view of Valesius, who is followed by all others that have discussed the passage so far as I am aware. Of course Novatian could not put the last clause of this question to his converts, and hence Dionysius may have been thinking of this omission in using the words he does. At the same time I confess myself unable to agree with others in interpreting him thus. In the first place, it is, to say the least, very doubtful whether the question quoted above from Cyprian formed an article in the baptismal confession of the Church in general. It does not appear in the Apostles’ Creed, and can therefore hardly have formed a part of the earlier Roman formula which underlay that. And so far as I am aware there are no traces of the use of such an article in the church of Alexandria. In the second place, Dionysius’ language seems to me too general to admit of such a particular application. Had he been thinking of one especial article of the confession, as omitted or altered by Novatian, he would, in my opinion, have given some indication of it. I am, therefore, inclined to take his words in the most general sense, suggested as possible just above.

297:2201

These last clauses are, according to Valesius, fraught with difficulty. He interprets the αὐτῶν (“entirely banished from them”) as referring to the lapsi, and interpreted thus I find the passage not simply difficult, as he does, but incomprehensible. But I confess myself again unable to accept his interpretation. To me the αὐτῶν seems not to refer to the lapsi, to whom there has been no direct reference in this fragment quoted by Eusebius, but rather to Novatian’s converts, to whom reference is made in the previous sentence, and who are evidently in the mind of the writer in referring to Novatian’s baptism in the first clause of the present sentence. It seems to me that Dionysius means simply to say that in rejecting the baptism of the Church, and the “faith and confession which precede it,” Novatian necessarily drove away from his converts the Holy Spirit, who works in and through right confession and true baptism. The meaning of the words “if, indeed, there was any hope,” &c., thus becomes very clear; Dionysius does not believe, of course, that the Holy Spirit would remain with those who should leave the Church to go with Novatian, but even if he should remain, he would be driven entirely away from them when they blasphemed him and denied his work, by rejecting the true baptism and submitting to another baptism without the Church.

Chapter IX.—The Ungodly Baptism of the Heretics.

1. His fifth epistle 2202 was written to Xystus, 2203 bishop of Rome. In this, after saying much against the heretics, he relates a certain occurrence of his time as follows: “For truly, brother, I am in need of counsel, and I ask thy judgment concerning a certain matter which has come to me, fearing that I may be in error.

2. For one of the brethren that assemble, who has long been considered a believer, and who, before my ordination, and I think before the appointment of the blessed Heraclas, 2204 was a member of the congregation, was present with those who were recently baptized. And when he heard the questions and answers, 2205 he came to me weeping, and bewailing himself; and falling at my feet he acknowledged and protested that the baptism with which he had been baptized among the heretics was not of this character, nor in any respect like this, because it was full of impiety and blasphemy. 2206

3. And he said that his soul was now pierced with sorrow, and that he had not confidence to lift his eyes to God, because he had set out from those impious words and deeds. And on this account he besought that he might receive this most perfect purification, and reception and grace.

4. But I did not dare to do this; and said that his long communion was sufficient for this. For I should not dare to renew from the beginning one who had heard the giving of thanks and joined in repeating the Amen; who had stood by the table and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food; and who had received it, and partaken for a long while of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. But I exhorted him to be of good courage, and to approach the partaking of the saints with firm faith and good hope.

5. But he does not cease lamenting, and he shudders to approach the table, and scarcely, though entreated, does he dare to be present at the prayers.” 2207

6. Besides these there is also extant another epistle of the same man on baptism, addressed by him and his parish to Xystus and the church at Rome. In this he considers the question then agitated with extended argument. And there is extant yet another after these, addressed to Dionysius of Rome, 2208 concerning Lucian. 2209 So much with reference to these.

Footnotes

297:2202

i.e. his fifth epistle on the subject of baptism (see above, chap. 5, note 6). The sixth, likewise addressed to Xystus, is mentioned below in §6.

297:2203

On Xystus II. of Rome, see chap 5, note 5.

297:2204

On Heraclas, see above Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 2.

297:2205

See the previous chapter, note 3.

297:2206

The reference here, of course, is not to the Novatians, because this old man, who had been a regular attendant upon the orthodox Church since the time of Heraclas, if not before, had been baptized by the heretics long before Novatian arose. The epistle seems to contain no reference to Novatian; at least, the fragment which we have is dealing with an entirely different subject.

297:2207

Dittrich finds in this epistle an evidence that Dionysius was not fully convinced of the advisability of re-baptizing converts from heretical bodies, that he wavered in fact between the Eastern and the Roman practices, but I am unable to see that the epistle implies anything of the kind. It is not that he doubts the necessity of re-baptism in ordinary cases,—he is not discussing that subject at all,—the question is, does long communion itself take the place of baptism; does not a man, unwittingly baptized, gain through such communion the grace from the Spirit which is ordinarily conveyed in baptism, and might not the rite of baptism at so late a date be an insult to the Spirit, who might have been working through the sacrament of the eucharist during all these years? It is this question which Dionysius desires to have Xystus assist him in answering—a question which has nothing to do, in Dionysius’ mind, with the validity or non-validity of heretical baptism, for it will be noticed that he does not base his refusal to baptize the man upon the fact that he has already been baptized, partially, or imperfectly, or in any other way, but solely upon the fact that he has for so long been partaking of the eucharist.

298:2208

On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.

298:2209

So many Lucians of this time are known to us that we cannot speak with certainty as to the identity of the one referred to here. But it may perhaps be suggested that the well-known Carthaginian Confessor is meant, who caused Cyprian so much trouble by granting letters of pardon indiscriminately to the lapsed, in defiance of regular custom and of Cyprian’s authority (see Cypriani Ep. 16, 17, 20, 21, 22; al. 23, 26, 21, 22, 27). If this be the Lucian referred to, the epistle must have discussed the lapsi, and the conditions upon which they were to be received again into the Church. That the epistle did not, like the one mentioned just before, have to do with the subject of baptism, seems clear from the fact that it is not numbered among the epistles on that subject, as six others are.

Chapter X.—Valerian and the Persecution under him.

1. Gallus and the other rulers, 2210 having held the government less than two years, were overthrown, and Valerian, with his son Gallienus, received the empire. The circumstances which Dionysius relates of him we may learn from his epistle to Hermammon, 2211 in which he gives the following account:

2. “And in like manner it is revealed to John; ‘For there was given to him,’ he says, ‘a mouth speaking great things and blasphemy; and there was given unto him authority and forty and two months.’ 2212

3. It is wonderful that both of these things occurred under Valerian; and it is the more remarkable in this case when we consider his previous conduct, for he had been mild and friendly toward the men of God, for none of the emperors before him had treated them so kindly and favorably; and not even those who were said openly to be Christians 2213 received them with such manifest hospitality and friendliness as he did at the beginning of his reign. For his entire house was filled with pious persons and was a church of God.

4. But the teacher and ruler of the synagogue of the Magi from Egypt 2214 persuaded him to change his course, urging him to slay and persecute pure and holy men 2215 because they opposed and hindered the corrupt and abominable incantations. For there are and there were men who, being present and being seen, though they only breathed and spoke, were able to scatter the counsels of the sinful demons. And he induced him to practice initiations and abominable sorceries and to offer unacceptable sacrifices; to slay innumerable children and to sacrifice the offspring of unhappy fathers; to divide the bowels of new-born babes and to mutilate and cut to pieces the creatures of God, as if by such practices they could attain happiness.”

5. He adds to this the following: “Splendid indeed were the thank-offerings which Macrianus brought them 2216 for the empire which was the object of his hopes. He is said to have been formerly the emperor’s general finance minister 2217 ; yet he did nothing praiseworthy or of general benefit, 2218 but fell under the prophetic saying,

6. ‘Woe unto those who prophesy from their own heart and do not consider the general good.’ 2219 For he did not perceive the general Providence, nor did he look for the judgment of Him who is before all, and through all, and over all. Wherefore he became an enemy of his Catholic 2220 Church, and alienated and estranged himself from the compassion of God, and fled as far as possible from his salvation. In this he showed the truth of his own name.” 2221

7. And again, farther on he says: “For Valerian, being instigated to such acts by this man, was given over to insults and reproaches, according to what was said by Isaiah: ‘They have chosen their own ways and their abominations in which their soul delighted; I also will choose their delusions and will render unto them their sins.’ 2222

8. But this man 2223 madly desired the kingdom though unworthy of it, and being unable to put the royal garment on his crippled body, set forward his two sons to bear their father’s sins. 2224 For concerning them the declaration which God spoke was plain, ‘Visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.’ 2225

9. For heaping on the heads of his sons his own evil desires, in which he had met with success, 2226 he wiped off upon them his own wickedness and hatred toward God.”

Dionysius relates these things concerning Valerian.

Footnotes

298:2210

οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Γ€λλον. Eusebius is undoubtedly referring to Gallus, Volusian, his son and co-regent, and Æmilian, his enemy and successor. Gallus himself, with his son Volusian, whom he made Cæsar and co-regent, reigned from the latter part of the year 251 to about the middle of the year 253, when the empire was usurped by Æmilian, and he and his son were slain. Æmilian was recognized by the senate as the legal emperor, but within four months Valerian, Gallus’ leading general,—who had already been proclaimed emperor by his legions,—revenged the murder of Gallus and came to the throne. Valerian reigned until 260, when his son Gallienus, who had been associated with him in the government from the beginning, succeeded him and reigned until 268.

298:2211

Upon this epistle, see above, chap. 1, note 3.

298:2212

Rev. xiii. 5.

298:2213

Philip was the only emperor before this time that was openly said to have been a Christian (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 34, note 2). Alexander Severus was very favorable to the Christians, and Eusebius may have been thinking of him also in this connection.

298:2214

viz. Macrianus, one of the ablest of Valerian’s generals, who had acquired great influence over him and had been raised by him to the highest position in the army and made his chief counselor. Dionysius is the only one to tell us that he was the chief of the Egyptian magicians. Gibbon doubts the statement, but Macrianus may well have been an Egyptian by birth and devoted, as so many of the Egyptians were, to arts of magic, and have gained power over Valerian in this way which he could have gained in no other. It is not necessary of course to understand Dionysius’ words as implying that Macrianus was officially at the head of the body of Egyptian magicians, but simply that he was the greatest, or one of the greatest, of them. He figures in our other sources simply as a military and political character, but it was natural for Dionysius to emphasize his addiction to magic, though he could hardly have done it had Macrianus’ practices in this respect not been commonly known.

298:2215

The persecution which the Christians suffered under Valerian was more terrible than any other except that of Diocletian. Numerous calamities took place during his reign. The barbarians were constantly invading and ravaging the borders of the empire, and on the east the Persians did great damage. Still worse was the terrible plague which had begun in the reign of Decius and raged for about fifteen years. All these calamities aroused the religious fears of the emperor. Dionysius tells us that he was induced by Macrianus to have recourse to human sacrifices and other similar means of penetrating the events of the future, and when these rites failed, the presence of Christians—irreligious men hated by the gods—in the imperial family was urged as the reason for the failure, and thus the hostility of the emperor was aroused against all Christians. As a consequence an edict was published in 257 requiring all persons to conform at least outwardly to the religion of Rome on the penalty of exile. And at the same time the Christians were prohibited from holding religious services, upon pain of death. In 258 followed a rescript of terrible severity. Only the clergy and the higher ranks of the laity were attacked, but they were sentenced to death if they refused to repent, and the clergy, apparently, whether they repented or not. The persecution continued until Valerian’s captivity, which took place probably late in 260. The dates during this period are very uncertain, but Dionysius’ statement that the persecution continued forty-two months is probably not far out of the way; from late in the year 257 to the year 261, when it was brought to an end by Gallienus. In Egypt and the Orient the persecution seems to have continued a few months longer than elsewhere (see chap. 13, note 3). The martyrs were very numerous during the Valerian persecution, especially in Rome and Africa. The most noted were Cyprian and Xystus II. On the details of the persecution, see Tillemont, H. E. IV. p. 1 sq.

298:2216

i.e. the evil spirits. As Valesius remarks, the meaning is that since the evil spirits had promised him power, he showed his gratitude to them by inducing the Emperor Valerian to persecute the Christians.

298:2217

ἐπῖ τῶν καθόλου λόγων. The phrase is equivalent to the Latin Rationalis or Procurator summæ rei, an official who had charge of the imperial finances, and who might be called either treasurer or finance minister. The position which Macrianus held seems to have been the highest civil position in the empire (cf. Valesius’ note ad locum). Gibbon calls him Prætorian Prefect, and since he was the most famous of Valerian’s generals, he doubtless held that position also, though I am not aware that any of our sources state that he did.

298:2218

The Greek contains a play upon the words καθόλου and λόγος in this sentence. It reads ὅς πρότερον μὲν ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου λόγων λεγόμενος εἶναι βασιλέως, οὐδὲν εὔλογον οὐδὲ καθολικὸν ἐφρόνησεν. The play upon the word καθόλου continues in the next sentence, where the Greek runs τὸ καθόλου μὴ βλέπουσιν, and in the following, where it reads οὐ γὰρ συνῆκε τὴν καθόλου πρόνοιαν. Again in the next sentence the adjective καθολική occurs: “his universal Church.”

299:2219

Ezek. xiii. 3.

299:2220

καθολικῆς, “catholic” in the sense of “general” or “universal,” the play upon the word still continuing.

299:2221

Μακριανός. The Greek word μακρ€ν means “far,” “at a distance.”

299:2222

Isa. 66:3, 4.

299:2223

i.e. Macrianus.

299:2224

Valerian reposed complete confidence in Macrianus and followed his advice in the conduct of the wars against the Persians. The result was that by Macrianus’ “weak or wicked counsels the imperial army was betrayed into a situation where valor and military skill were equally unavailing.” (Gibbon.) Dionysius, in chap. 23, below, directly states that Macrianus betrayed Valerian, and this is the view of the case commonly taken. Valerian fell into the hands of the Persians (late in 260 a.d.), and Macrianus was proclaimed emperor by his troops, and on account of his lameness (as both Dionysius and Zonaras put it) or his age, associated with him his two sons, Quietus and Macrianus. After some months he left his son Quietus in charge of Syria, and designing to make himself master of the Occident, marched with his son Macrianus against Gallienus, but was met in Illyrium by the Pretender Aureolus (262) and defeated, and both himself and son slain. His son Quietus meanwhile was besieged in Edessa by the Pretender Odenathus and slain. Cf. Tillemont’s Histoire des Empereurs, III. p. 333 sq. and p. 340 sq.

299:2225

Ex. xx. 5.

299:2226

ηὐτύχει. Three mss., followed by Stephanus, Valesius, Burton, Stroth (and by the translators Closs, Crusè, and Salmond in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 107), read ἠτύχει, “failed” (“in whose gratification he failed”). ηὐτύχει, however, is supported by overwhelming ms. authority, and is adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen, and approved by Valesius in his notes. It seems at first sight the harder reading, and is, therefore, in itself to be preferred to the easier reading, ἠτύχει. Although it seems harder, it is really fully in accord with what has preceded. Macrianus had not made himself emperor (if Dionysius is to be believed), but he had succeeded fully in his desires, in that he had raised his sons to the purple. If he had acquired such power as to be able to do that, he must have given them the position, because he preferred to govern in that way; and if that be so, he could hardly be said to have failed in his desires.

Chapter XI.—The Events which happened at this Time to Dionysius and those in Egypt.

1. But as regards the persecution which prevailed so fiercely in his reign, and the sufferings which Dionysius with others endured on account of piety toward the God of the universe, his own words shall show, which he wrote in answer to Germanus, 2227 a contemporary bishop who was endeavoring to slander him. His statement is as follows:

2. “Truly I am in danger of falling into great folly and stupidity through being forced to relate the wonderful providence of God toward us. But since it is said 2228 that ‘it is good to keep close the secret of a king, but it is honorable to reveal the works of God,’ 2229 I will join issue with the violence of Germanus.

3. I went not alone to Æmilianus; 2230 but my fellow-presbyter, Maximus, 2231 and the deacons Faustus, 2232 Eusebius, 2233 and Chæremon, 2234 and a brother who was present from Rome, went with me.

4. But Æmilianus did not at first say to me: ‘Hold no assemblies;’ 2235 for this was superfluous to him, and the last thing to one who was seeking to accomplish the first. For he was not concerned about our assembling, but that we ourselves should not be Christians. And he commanded me to give this up; supposing if I turned from it, the others also would follow me.

5. But I answered him, neither unsuitably nor in many words: ‘We must obey God rather than men.’ 2236 And I testified openly that I worshiped the one only God, and no other; and that I would not turn from this nor would I ever cease to be a Christian. Thereupon he commanded us to go to a village near the desert, called Cephro. 2237

6. But listen to the very words which were spoken on both sides, as they were recorded: “Dionysius, Faustus, Maximus, Marcellus, 2238 and Chæremon being arraigned, Æmilianus the prefect said:

7. ‘I have reasoned verbally with you concerning the clemency which our rulers have shown to you; for they have given you the opportunity to save yourselves, if you will turn to that which is according to nature, and worship the gods that preserve their empire, and forget those that are contrary to nature. 2239 What then do you say to this? For I do not think that you will be ungrateful for their kindness, since they would turn you to a better course.’

8. Dionysius replied: ‘Not all people worship all gods; but each one those whom he approves. We therefore reverence and worship the one God, the Maker of all; who hath given the empire to the divinely favored and august Valerian and Gallienus; and we pray to him continually for their empire that it may remain unshaken.’

9. Æmilianus, the prefect, said to them: ‘But who forbids you to worship him, if he is a god, together with those who are gods by nature. For ye have been commanded to reverence the gods, and the gods whom all know.’ Dionysius answered:

10. ‘We worship no other.’ Æmilianus, the prefect, said to them: ‘I see that you are at once ungrateful, and insensible to the kindness of our sovereigns. Wherefore ye shall not remain in this city. But ye shall be sent into the regions of Libya, to a place called Cephro. For I have chosen this place at the command of our sovereigns, and it shall by no means be permitted you or any others, either to hold assemblies, or to enter into the so called cemeteries. 2240

11. But if any one shall be seen without the place which I have commanded, or be found in any assembly, he will bring peril on himself. For suitable punishment shall not fail. Go, therefore where ye have been ordered.’

“And he hastened me away, though I was sick, not granting even a day’s respite. What opportunity then did I have, either to hold assemblies, or not to hold them?” 2241

12. Farther on he says: “But through the help of the Lord we did not give up the open assembly. But I called together the more diligently those who were in the city, as if I were with them; being, so to speak, 2242 ‘absent in body but present in spirit.’ 2243 But in Cephro a large church gathered with us of the brethren that followed us from the city, and those that joined us from Egypt; and there ‘God opened unto us a door for the Word.’ 2244

13. At first we were persecuted and stoned; but afterwards not a few of the heathen forsook the idols and turned to God. For until this time they had not heard the Word, since it was then first sown by us.

14. And as if God had brought us to them for this purpose, when we had performed this ministry he transferred us to another place. For Æmilianus, as it appeared, desired to transport us to rougher and more Libyan-like places; 2245 so he commanded them to assemble from all quarters in Mareotis, 2246 and assigned to them different villages throughout the country. But he ordered us to be placed nearer the highway that we might be seized first. 2247 For evidently he arranged and prepared matters so that whenever he wished to seize us he could take all of us without difficulty.

15. When I was first ordered to go to Cephro I did not know where the place was, and had scarcely ever heard the name; yet I went readily and cheerfully. But when I was told that I was to remove to the district of Colluthion, 2248 those who were present know how I was affected.

16. For here I will accuse myself. At first I was grieved and greatly disturbed; for though these places were better known and more familiar to us, yet the country was said to be destitute of brethren and of men of character, and to be exposed to the annoyances of travelers and incursions of robbers.

17. But I was comforted when the brethren reminded me that it was nearer the city, and that while Cephro afforded us much intercourse with the brethren from Egypt, so that we were able to extend the Church more widely, as this place was nearer the city we should enjoy more frequently the sight of those who were truly beloved and most closely related and dearest to us. For they would come and remain, and special meetings 2249 could be held, as in the more remote suburbs. And thus it turned out.” After other matters he writes again as follows of the things which happened to him:

18. “Germanus indeed boasts of many confessions. He can speak forsooth of many adversities which he himself has endured. But is he able to reckon up as many as we can, of sentences, confiscations, proscriptions, plundering of goods, loss of dignities, contempt of worldly glory, disregard for the flatteries of governors and of councilors, and patient endurance of the threats of opponents, of outcries, of perils and persecutions, and wandering and distress, and all kinds of tribulation, such as came upon me under Decius and Sabinus, 2250 and such as continue even now under Æmilianus? But where has Germanus been seen? And what account is there of him?

19. But I turn from this great folly into which I am falling on account of Germanus. And for the same reason I desist from giving to the brethren who know it an account of everything which took place.”

20. The same writer also in the epistle to Domitius and Didymus 2251 mentions some particulars of the persecution as follows: “As our people are many and unknown to you, it would be superfluous to give their names; but understand that men and women, young and old, maidens and matrons, soldiers and civilians, of every race and age, some by scourging and fire, others by the sword, have conquered in the strife and received their crowns.

21. But in the case of some a very long time was not sufficient to make them appear acceptable to the Lord; as, indeed, it seems also in my own case, that sufficient time has not yet elapsed. Wherefore he has retained me for the time which he knows to be fitting, saying, ‘In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee.’ 2252

22. For as you have inquired of our affairs and desire us to tell you how we are situated, you have heard fully that when we—that is, myself and Gaius and Faustus and Peter and Paul 2253 —were led away as prisoners by a centurion and magistrates, with their soldiers and servants, certain persons from Mareotis came and dragged us away by force, as we were unwilling to follow them. 2254

23. But now I and Gaius and Peter are alone, deprived of the other brethren, and shut up in a desert and dry place in Libya, three days’ journey from Parætonium.” 2255

24. He says farther on: “The presbyters, Maximus, 2256 Dioscorus, 2257 Demetrius, and Lucius 2258 concealed themselves in the city, and visited the brethren secretly; for Faustinus and Aquila, 2259 who are more prominent in the world, are wandering in Egypt. But the deacons, Faustus, Eusebius, and Chæremon, 2260 have survived those who died in the pestilence. Eusebius is one whom God has strengthened and endowed from the first to fulfill energetically the ministrations for the imprisoned confessors, and to attend to the dangerous task of preparing for burial the bodies of the perfected and blessed martyrs.

25. For as I have said before, unto the present time the governor continues to put to death in a cruel manner those who are brought to trial. And he destroys some with tortures, and wastes others away with imprisonment and bonds; and he suffers no one to go near them, and investigates whether any one does so. Nevertheless God gives relief to the afflicted through the zeal and persistence of the brethren.”

26. Thus far Dionysius. But it should be known that Eusebius, whom he calls a deacon, shortly afterward became bishop of the church of Laodicea in Syria; 2261 and Maximus, of whom he speaks as being then a presbyter, succeeded Dionysius himself as bishop of Alexandria. 2262 But the Faustus who was with him, and who at that time was distinguished for his confession, was preserved until the persecution in our day, 2263 when being very old and full of days, he closed his life by martyrdom, being beheaded. But such are the things which happened at that time 2264 to Dionysius.

Footnotes

299:2227

On Germanus, and Dionysius’ epistle to him, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 2.

299:2228

Literally “it says” (φησί), a common formula in quoting from Scripture.

299:2229

Tob. xii. 7.

299:2230

This Æmilianus, prefect of Egypt, under whom the persecution was carried on in Alexandria during Valerian’s reign, later, during the reign of Gallienus, was induced (or compelled) by the troops of Alexandria to revolt against Gallienus, and assume the purple himself. He was defeated, however, by Theodotus, Gallienus’ general, and was put to death in prison, in what year we do not know. Cf. Tillemont’s Hist. des Emp. III. p. 342 sq.

299:2231

Maximus is mentioned a number of times in this chapter in connection with the persecution. After the death of Dionysius he succeeded him as bishop of Alexandria, and as such is referred to below, in chaps. 28, 30, and 32. For the dates of his episcopate, see chap. 28, note 10.

299:2232

On Faustus, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 10.

299:2233

In regard to this deacon Eusebius, who later became bishop of Laodicea, see chap. 32, note 12.

299:2234

Chæremon is mentioned three times in the present chapter, but we have no other reliable information in regard to him.

299:2235

We may gather from §11, below, that Germanus had accused Dionysius of neglecting to hold the customary assemblies, and of seeking safety by flight. Valesius, in his note ad locum, remarks, “Dionysius was accused by Germanus of neglecting to hold the assemblies of the brethren before the beginning of the persecution, and of providing for his own safety by flight. For as often as persecution arose the bishops were accustomed first to convene the people, that they might exhort them to hold fast to their faith in Christ. Then they baptized infants and catechumens, that they might not depart this life without baptism, and they gave the eucharist to the faithful, because they did not know how long the persecution might last.” Valesius refers for confirmation of his statements to an epistle sent to Pope Hormisdas, by Germanus and others, in regard to Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica (circa a.d. 519). I have not been able to verify the reference. The custom mentioned by Valesius is certainly a most natural one, and therefore Valesius’ statements are very likely quite true, though there seems to be little direct testimony upon which to rest them.

300:2236

Acts v. 29.

300:2237

We learn from §10, below, that Cephro was in Libya. Beyond this nothing is known of the place so far as I am aware.

300:2238

This Marcellus, the only one not mentioned in §3, above, is an otherwise unknown person.

300:2239

τῶν παρὰ φύσιν. That the τῶν refers to “gods” (viz. the gods of the Christians, Æmilianus thinking of them as plural) seems clear, both on account of the θεοὺς just preceding, and also in view of the fact that in §9 we have the phrase τῶν κατὰ φύσιν θεῶν. A contrast, therefore, is drawn in the present case between the gods of the heathen and those of the Christians.

300:2240

κοιμητήρια; literally, “sleeping-places.” The word was used only in this sense in classic Greek; but the Christians, looking upon death only as a sleep, early applied the name to their burial places; hence Æmilian speaks of them as the “so-called (καλούμενα) cemeteries.”

300:2241

See above, note 9.

300:2242

ὡς εἰπεῖν, a reading approved by Valesius in his notes, and adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen. This and the readings ὡς εἶπεν, “as he said” (adopted by Stroth, Zimmermann, and Laemmer), and ὡς εἶπον, “as I said” (adopted by Stephanus, Valesius in his text, and Burton), are about equally supported by ms. authority, while some mss. read ὡς εἶπεν ὁ ἀπόστολος, “as the apostle said.” It is impossible to decide with any degree of assurance between the first three readings.

300:2243

1 Cor. v. 3.

300:2244

Col. iv. 3.

300:2245

Λιβυκωτέρους τόπους. Libya was an indefinite term among the ancients for that part of Africa which included the Great Desert and all the unexplored country lying west and south of it. Almost nothing was known about the country, and the desert and the regions beyond were peopled by the fancy with all sorts of terrible monsters, and were looked upon as the theater of the most dire forces, natural and supernatural. As a consequence, the term “Libyan” became a synonym for all that was most disagreeable and dreadful in nature.

300:2246

Mareotis, or Mareia, or Maria, was one of the land districts into which Egypt was divided. A lake, a town situated on the shore of the lake, and the district in which they lay, all bore the same name. The district Mareotis lay just south of Alexandria, but did not include it, for Alexandria and Ptolemais formed an independent sphere of administration sharply separated from the thirty-six land districts of the country. Cf. Bk. II. chap. 17, notes 10 and 12, above. Mommsen (Roman Provinces, Scribner’s ed. Vol. II. p. 255) remarks that these land districts, like the cities, became the basis of episcopal dioceses. This we should expect to be the case, but I am not aware that we can prove it to have been regularly so, at any rate not during the earlier centuries. Cf. e.g. Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics of the Church, London ed., I. p. 192 sq.

300:2247

ἡμᾶς δὲ μᾶλλον ἐν ὁδῷ καὶ πρώτους καταληφθησομένους žταξεν.

300:2248

τὰ Κολλουθίωνος (sc. μέρη), i.e. the parts or regions of Colluthion. Of Colluthion, so far as I am aware, nothing is known. It seems to have been a town, possibly a section of country in the district of Mareotis. Nicephorus spells the word with a single l, which Valesius contends is more correct because the word is derived from Colutho, which was not an uncommon name in Egypt (see Valesius’ note ad locum).

301:2249

κατὰ μέρος συναγωγαί, literally, “partial meetings.” It is plain enough from this that persons living in the suburbs were allowed to hold special services in their homes or elsewhere, and were not compelled always to attend the city church, which might be a number of miles distant. It seems to me doubtful whether this passage is sufficient to warrant Valesius’ conclusion, that in the time of Dionysius there was but one church in Alexandria, where the brethren met for worship. It may have been so, but the words do not appear to indicate, as Valesius thinks they do, that matters were in a different state then from that which existed in the time of Athanasius, who, in his Apology to Constantius, §14 sq., expressly speaks of a number of church buildings in Alexandria.

301:2250

Sabinus has been already mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 40, §2, from which passage we may gather that he held the same position under Decius which Æmilianus held under Valerian (see note 3 on the chapter referred to).

301:2251

We learn from chap. 20, below, that this epistle to Domitius and Didymus was one of Dionysius’ regular festal epistles (for there is no ground for assuming that a different epistle is referred to in that chapter). Domitius and Didymus are otherwise unknown personages. Eusebius evidently (as we can see both from this chapter and from chapter 20) supposes this epistle to refer to the persecution, of which Dionysius has been speaking in that portion of his epistle to Germanus quoted in this chapter; namely, to the persecution of Valerian. But he is clearly mistaken in this supposition; for, as we can see from a comparison of §22, below, with Bk. VI. chap. 40, §6 sq., Dionysius is referring in this epistle to the same persecution to which he referred in that chapter; namely, to the persecution of Decius. But the present epistle was written (as we learn from §23) while this same persecution was still going on, and, therefore, some years before the time of Valerian’s persecution, and before the writing of the epistle to Germanus (see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 2), with which Eusebius here associates it. Cf. Valesius’ note ad locum and Dittrich’s Dionysius der Grosse, p. 40 sq.

301:2252

Isa. xlix. 8.

301:2253

See above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 10.

301:2254

See ibid. §6 sq.

301:2255

Parætonium was an important town and harbor on the Mediterranean, about 150 miles west of Alexandria. A day’s journey among the ancients commonly denoted about 180 to 200 stadia (22 to 25 miles), so that Dionysius retreat must have lain some 60 to 70 miles from Parætonium, probably to the south of it.

301:2256

On Maximus, see above, note 5.

301:2257

Of Dioscorus we know only what is told us here. He is not to be identified with the lad mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 41, §19 (see note 17 on that chapter).

301:2258

Of Demetrius and Lucius we know only what is recorded here.

301:2259

Faustinus and Aquila are known to us only from this passage.

301:2260

On these three deacons, see above, notes 6–8.

302:2261

See below, chap. 32, §5.

302:2262

See chap. 28, note 8.

302:2263

That is, until the persecution of Diocletian, a.d. 303 sq.

302:2264

That is, according to Eusebius, in the time of Valerian, but only the events related in the first part of the chapter took place at that time; those recorded in the epistle to Domitius and Didymus in the time of Decius. See above, note 25.

Chapter XII.—The Martyrs in Cæsarea in Palestine.

During the above-mentioned persecution under Valerian, three men in Cæsarea in Palestine, being conspicuous in their confession of Christ, were adorned with divine martyrdom, becoming food for wild beasts. One of them was called Priscus, another Malchus, and the name of the third was Alexander. 2265 They say that these men, who lived in the country, acted at first in a cowardly manner, as if they were careless and thoughtless. For when the opportunity was given to those who longed for the prize with heavenly desire, they treated it lightly, lest they should seize the Crown of martyrdom prematurely. But having deliberated on the matter, they hastened to Cæsarea, and went before the judge and met the end we have mentioned. They relate that besides these, in the same persecution and the same city, a certain woman endured a similar conflict. But it is reported that she belonged to the sect of Marcion. 2266

Footnotes

302:2265

Of these three men we know only what is told us in this chapter.

302:2266

Marcionitic martyrs are mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. IV. chap. 15, and in Martyrs of Pal. chap. 10. In H. E. V. 16, it is stated that the Marcionites as well as the Montanists had many martyrs, but that the orthodox Christians did not acknowledge them as Christians, and would not recognize them even when they were martyred together. Of course they were all alike Christians in the eyes of the state, and hence all alike subject to persecution.

Chapter XIII.—The Peace under Gallienus.

1. Shortly after this Valerian was reduced to slavery by the barbarians, 2267 and his son having become sole ruler, conducted the government more prudently. He immediately restrained the persecution against us by public proclamations, 2268 and directed the bishops to perform in freedom their customary duties, in a rescript 2269 which ran as follows:

2. “The Emperor Cæsar Publius Licinius Gallienus, Pius, Felix, Augustus, 2270 to Dionysius, Pinnas, Demetrius, 2271 and the other bishops. I have ordered the bounty of my gift to be declared through all the world, that they may depart from the places of religious worship. 2272 And for this purpose you may use this copy of my rescript, that no one may molest you. And this which you are now enabled lawfully to do, has already for a long time been conceded by me. 2273 Therefore Aurelius Cyrenius, 2274 who is the chief administrator of affairs, 2275 will observe this ordinance which I have given.”

3. I have given this in a translation from the Latin, that it may be more readily understood. Another decree of his is extant addressed to other bishops, permitting them to take possession again of the so-called cemeteries. 2276

Footnotes

302:2267

Valerian was taken captive by Sapor, king of Persia, probably late in the year 260 (the date is somewhat uncertain) and died in captivity. His son Gallienus, already associated with him in the empire, became sole emperor when his father fell into the Persians’ hands.

302:2268

Eusebius has not preserved the text of these edicts (προγρ€μματα, which were public proclamations, and thus differed from the rescripts, which were private instructions), but the rescript to the bishops which he quotes shows that they did more than simply put a stop to the persecution,—that they in fact made Christianity a religio licita, and that for the first time. The right of the Christians as a body (the corpus Christianorum) to hold property is recognized in this rescript, and this involves the legal recognition of that body. Moreover, the rescript is addressed to the “bishops,” which implies a recognition of the organization of the Church. See the article of Görres, Die Toleranzedicte des Kaisers Gallienus, in the Jahrb. für prot. Theol., 1877, p. 606 sq.

302:2269

ἀντιγραφή: the technical term for an epistle containing private instructions, in distinction from an edict or public proclamation. This rescript was addressed to the bishops of the province of Egypt (including Dionysius of Alexandria). It was evidently issued some time after the publication of the edicts themselves. Its exact date is uncertain, but it was probably written immediately after the fall of the usurper Macrianus (i.e. late in 261 or early in 262), during the time of whose usurpation the benefits of Gallienus’ edicts of toleration could of course not have been felt in Egypt and the Orient.

302:2270

Εὐσεβὴς, Εὐτυχὴς, Σεβαστός.

302:2271

Of Pinnas and Demetrius we know nothing. The identification of Demetrius with the presbyter mentioned in chap. 11, §24, might be suggested as possible. There is nothing to prevent such an identification, nor, on the other hand, is there anything to be urged in its favor beyond mere agreement in a name which was not an uncommon one in Egypt.

302:2272

ὅπως ἀπὸ τῶν τόπων τῶν θρησκευσίμων ἀποχωρήσωσι. This is commonly taken to mean that the “Christians may come forth from their religious retreats,” which, however, does not seem to be the sense of the original. I prefer to read, with Closs, “that the heathen may depart from the Christians’ places of worship,” from those, namely, which they had taken possession of during the persecution.

302:2273

The reference is doubtless to the edicts, referred to above, which he had issued immediately after his accession, but which had not been sooner put in force in Egypt because of the usurper Macrianus (see above, note 3).

302:2274

So far as I am aware, this man is known to us only from this passage.

302:2275

ὁ τοῦ μεγίστου πρ€γματος προστατεύων. Heinichen, following Valesius, identifies this office with the ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου λόγων (mentioned in chap. 10, §5), with the ὁ τῶν καθόλου λόγων žπαρχος (mentioned in Bk. IX. chap. 11, §4), &c. For the nature of that office, see chap. 10, note 8. The phrase used in this passage seems to suggest the identification, and yet I am inclined to think, inasmuch as the rescript has to do specifically with the Church in Egypt, that Aurelius Cyrenius was not (as Macrianus was under Valerian) the emperor’s general finance minister, in charge of the affairs of the empire, but simply the supreme finance minister or administrator of Egypt (cf. Mommsen’s Provinces of the Roman Empire, Scribner’s ed., II. p. 268).

303:2276

The use of their cemeteries, both as places of burial and as meeting-places for religious worship, had been denied to the Christians by Valerian. On the origin of the word κοιμητήρια, see chap. 11, note 14.

Chapter XIV.—The Bishops that flourished at that Time.

At that time Xystus 2277 was still presiding over the church of Rome, and Demetrianus, 2278 successor of Fabius, 2279 over the church of Antioch, and Firmilianus 2280 over that of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; and besides these, Gregory 2281 and his brother Athenodorus, 2282 friends of Origen, were presiding over the churches in Pontus; and Theoctistus 2283 of Cæsarea in Palestine having died, Domnus 2284 received the episcopate there. He held it but a short time, and Theotecnus, 2285 our contemporary, succeeded him. He also was a member of Origen’s school. But in Jerusalem, after the death of Mazabanes, 2286 Hymenæus, 2287 who has been celebrated among us for a great many years, succeeded to his seat.

Footnotes

303:2277

On Xystus II., see chap. 5, note 5.

303:2278

On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.

303:2279

On Fabius, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 7.

303:2280

On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.

303:2281

Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus from about 233–270 (?). Upon Gregory, see Bk. VI. chap. 30, note 1.

303:2282

On Athenodorus, see ibid. note 2.

303:2283

On Theoctistus, see Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27.

303:2284

Of the life and character of Domnus we know nothing. So far as I am aware he is mentioned only here. His dates are uncertain, but his predecessor, Theoctistus, was still bishop in the time of Stephen of Rome (254–257; see above, Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27), while he himself became bishop before the death of Xystus of Rome, as we may gather from this chapter, i.e. before August, 258 (see chap. 5, note 5), so that between these dates his accession must be placed. Eusebius’ words in this passage will hardly admit an episcopate of more than one or two years; possibly he was bishop but a few months.

303:2285

The dates of Theotecnus are likewise uncertain. Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 32, says that he was acquainted with Pamphilus during the episcopate of Agapius (the successor of Theotecnus), implying that he first made his acquaintance then. It is therefore likely that Agapius became bishop some years before the persecution of Diocletian, for otherwise we hardly allow enough time for the acquaintance of Pamphilus and Eusebius who did so much work together, and apparently were friends for so long a time. Pamphilus himself suffered martyrdom in 309 a.d. Theotecnus was quite a prominent man and was present at the two Antiochian synods mentioned in chaps. 27 and 30, which were convened to consider the heresy of Paul of Samosata.

303:2286

On Mazabanes, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 5.

303:2287

According to the Chron. of Eusebius, Hymenæus was bishop of Jerusalem from 265–298. It is expressly stated in the Chron. that the dates of the earlier Jerusalem bishops are not known (see Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1); but with the dates of the bishops of the latter part of the third century Eusebius can hardly have been unacquainted, and that Hymenæus was bishop at any rate as early as 265 is proved by chaps. 27 and 30 (see the note on Mazabanes referred to just above). The dates given in the Chron. may therefore be accepted as at least approximately correct.

Chapter XV.—The Martyrdom of Marinus at Cæsarea.

1. At this time, when the peace of the churches had been everywhere 2288 restored, Marinus in Cæsarea in Palestine, who was honored for his military deeds, and illustrious by virtue of family and wealth, was beheaded for his testimony to Christ, on the following account.

2. The vine-branch 2289 is a certain mark of honor among the Romans, and those who obtain it become, they say, centurions. A place being vacated, the order of succession called Marinus to this position. But when he was about to receive the honor, another person came before the tribunal and claimed that it was not legal, according to the ancient laws, for him to receive the Roman dignity, as he was a Christian and did not sacrifice to the emperors; but that the office belonged rather to him.

3. Thereupon the judge, whose name was Achæus, 2290 being disturbed, first asked what opinion Marinus held. And when he perceived that he continually confessed himself a Christian, he gave him three hours for reflection.

4. When he came out from the tribunal, Theotecnus, 2291 the bishop there, took him aside and conversed with him, and taking his hand led him into the church. And standing with him within, in the sanctuary, he raised his cloak a little, and pointed to the sword that hung by his side; and at the same time he placed before him the Scripture of the divine Gospels, and told him to choose which of the two he wished. And without hesitation he reached forth his right hand, and took the divine Scripture. “Hold fast then,” says Theotecnus to him, “hold fast to God, and strengthened by him mayest thou obtain what thou hast chosen, and go in peace.”

5. Immediately on his return the herald cried out calling him to the tribunal, for the appointed time was already completed. And standing before the tribunal, and manifesting greater zeal for the faith, immediately, as he was, he was led away and finished his course by death.

Footnotes

303:2288

The martyrdom of Marinus after the promulgation of Gallienus’ edict of toleration and after peace had been, as Eusebius remarks, everywhere restored to the churches, has caused historians some difficulty. It is maintained, however, by Tillemont and others, and with especial force by Görres in the Jahrbücher für prot. Theol., 1877, p. 620 sq., that the martyrdom of Marinus took place while the usurper Macrianus, who was exceedingly hostile to the Christians, was still in power in the East, and at a time, therefore, when the edicts of Gallienus could have no force there. This of course explains the difficulty completely. The martyrdom then must have taken place toward the beginning of Gallienus’ reign, for Macrianus was slain as early as 262. Of the martyr Marinus we know only what Eusebius tells us here.

303:2289

τὸ κλῆμα. The centurion received as a badge of office a vine-branch or vine-switch, which was called by the Romans Vitis.

303:2290

Achæus is an otherwise unknown person. That he was governor of Palestine, as Valesius asserts, is apparently a pure assumption, for the term used of him (δικαστής) is quite indefinite.

303:2291

On Theotecnus, see above, chap. 14, note 9.

Chapter XVI.—Story in Regard to Astyrius.

Astyrius 2292 also is commemorated on account of his pious boldness in connection with this affair. He was a Roman of senatorial rank, and in favor with the emperors, and well known to all on account of his noble birth and wealth. Being present at the martyr’s death, he took his body away on his shoulder, and arraying him in a splendid and costly garment, prepared him for the grave in a magnificent manner, and gave him fitting burial. 2293 The friends of this man, that remain to our day, relate many other facts concerning him.

Footnotes

304:2292

We know nothing more about this Astyrius than is recorded here. Rufinus, in his H. E. VII. 13, tells us that he suffered martyrdom at about this time; but Eusebius says nothing of the kind, and it is therefore not at all probable that Rufinus is correct. He probably concluded, from Eusebius’ account of him, that he also suffered martyrdom.

304:2293

Burton and Crusè close the chapter at this point, throwing the next sentence into chap. 17. Such a transposition, however, is unnecessary, and I have preferred to follow Valesius, Heinichen, Schwegler, and other editors, in dividing as above.

Chapter XVII.—The Signs at Paneas of the Great Might of our Saviour.

Among these is also the following wonder. At Cæsarea Philippi, which the Phœnicians call Paneas, 2294 springs are shown at the foot of the Mountain Panius, out of which the Jordan flows. They say that on a certain feast day, a victim was thrown in, 2295 and that through the power of the demon it marvelously disappeared and that which happened was a famous wonder to those who were present. Astyrius was once there when these things were done, and seeing the multitude astonished at the affair, he pitied their delusion; and looking up to heaven he supplicated the God over all through Christ, that he would rebuke the demon who deceived the people, and bring the men’s delusion to an end. And they say that when he had prayed thus, immediately the sacrifice floated on the surface of the fountain. And thus the miracle departed; and no wonder was ever afterward performed at the place.

Footnotes

304:2294

Cæsarea Philippi (to be distinguished from Cæsarea, the chief city of Palestine, mentioned in previous chapters) was originally called Paneas by the Greeks,—a name which it retained even after the name Cæsarea Philippi had been given it by Philip the Tetrarch, who enlarged and beautified it. The place, which is now a small village, is called Banias by the Arabs. It lies at the base of Mt. Hermon, and is noted for one of the principal sources of the Jordan, which issues from springs beneath the rocks of Mt. Hermon at this point. The spot is said to be remarkably beautiful. See Robinson’s Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. III, p. 409 sq.

304:2295

Valesius remarks that the heathen were accustomed to throw victims into their sacred wells and fountains, and that therefore Publicola asks Augustine, in Epistle 153, whether one ought to drink from a fountain or well whither a portion of sacrifice had been sent.

Chapter XVIII.—The Statue which the Woman with an Issue of Blood erected. 2296

1. Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, 2297 received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there.

2. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, 2298 is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases.

3. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city.

4. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, 2299 the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers.

Footnotes

304:2296

This account of the statue erected by the woman with the issue of blood is repeated by many later writers, and Sozomen (H. E. V. 21) and Philostorgius (H. E. VII. 3) inform us that it was destroyed by the Emperor Julian. Gieseler remarks (Eccles. Hist., Harper’s ed. I. p. 70), “Judging by the analogy of many coins, the memorial had been erected in honor of an emperor (probably Hadrian), and falsely interpreted by the Christians, perhaps on account of a σωτῆρι or θεῷ appearing in the inscription.” There can be no doubt of Eusebius’ honesty in the matter, but no less doubt that the statue commemorated something quite different from that which Christian tradition claimed. Upon this whole chapter, see Heinichen’s Excursus, in Vol. III. p. 698 sq.

304:2297

See Matt. ix. 20 sq.

304:2298

οὗ παρὰ τοῖς ποσὶν ἐπὶ τῆς στήλης αὐτῆς. This is commonly translated “at his feet, upon the pedestal”; but, as Heinichen remarks, in the excursus referred to just above, the plant can hardly have grown upon the pedestal, and what is more, we have no warrant for translating στήλη “pedestal.” Paulus, in his commentary on Matthew in loco, maintains that Eusebius is speaking only of a representation upon the base of the statue, not of an actual plant. But this interpretation, as Heinichen shows, is quite unwarranted. For the use of ἐπὶ in the sense of “near” or “beside,” we have numerous examples (see the instances given by Heinichen, and also Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, s.v.).

304:2299

Eusebius himself, as we learn from his letter to the Empress Constantia Augusta (see above, p. 44), did not approve of the use of images or representations of Christ, on the ground that it tended to idolatry. In consequence of this disapproval he fell into great disrepute in the later image-worshiping Church, his epistle being cited by the iconoclasts at the second Council of Nicæa, in 787, and his orthodoxy being in consequence fiercely attacked by the defenders of image-worship, who dominated the council, and won the day.

Chapter XIX.—The Episcopal Chair of James.

The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself 2300 and the apostles, and who, as the divine records show, 2301 was called a brother of Christ, has been preserved until now, 2302 the brethren who have followed him in succession there exhibiting clearly to all the reverence which both those of old times and those of our own day maintained and do maintain for holy men on account of their piety. So much as to this matter.

Footnotes

305:2300

That James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem by Christ himself was an old and wide-spread tradition. Compare, e.g., the Clementine Recognitions, Bk. I. chap. 43, the Apostolic Constitutions, Bk. VIII. chap. 35, and Chrysostom’s Homily XXXVII. on First Corinthians. See Valesius’ note ad locum; and on the universal tradition that James was bishop of Jerusalem, see above, Bk. II. chap. 1, note 11.

305:2301

See Gal. i. 19. On the actual relationship of “James, the Brother of the Lord” to Christ, see Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.

305:2302

There can be no doubt that a chair (θρόνος), said to be the episcopal seat of James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, was shown in that church in the time of Eusebius, but there can be no less doubt that it was not genuine. Even had James been bishop of Jerusalem, and possessed a regular episcopal chair, or throne (a very violent supposition, which involves a most glaring anachronism), it was quite out of the question that it should have been preserved from destruction at the fall of the city in 70 a.d. As Stroth drily remarks: “Man hatte auch wohl nichts wichtigeres zu retten, als einen Stuhl!” The beginning of that veneration of relics which later took such strong hold on the Church, and which still flourishes within the Greek and Roman communions is clearly seen in this case recorded by Eusebius. At the same time, we can hardly say that that superstitious veneration with which we are acquainted appeared in this case. There seems to be nothing more than the customary respect for an article of old and time-honored associations which is seen everywhere and in all ages (cf. Heinichen’s Excursus on this passage, Vol. III. p. 208 sq.). Crusè has unaccountably rendered θρόνος in this passage as if it referred to the see of Jerusalem, not to the chair of the bishop. It is plain enough that such an interpretation is quite unwarranted.

Chapter XX.—The Festal Epistles of Dionysius, in which he also gives a Paschal Canon.

Dionysius, besides his epistles already mentioned, 2303 wrote at that time 2304 also his extant Festal Epistles, 2305 in which he uses words of panegyric respecting the passover feast. He addressed one of these to Flavius, 2306 and another to Domitius and Didymus, 2307 in which he sets forth a canon of eight years, 2308 maintaining that it is not proper to observe the paschal feast until after the vernal equinox. Besides these he sent another epistle to his fellow-presbyters in Alexandria, as well as various others to different persons while the persecution was still prevailing. 2309

Footnotes

305:2303

Upon Dionysius of Alexandria, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1, and see that note for references to the various passages in which Eusebius mentions or quotes from his epistles.

305:2304

Eusebius supposes all of these epistles to have been written in the time of Valerian or Gallienus; but he is mistaken, at least so far as the epistle to Domitius and Didymus is concerned (see above, chap. 11, note 25), and possibly in regard to some of the others also.

305:2305

τὰς φερομένας ἑορταστικ€ς. It was the custom for the bishops of Alexandria to write every year before Easter a sort of epistle, or homily, and in it to announce the time of the festival. These writings thus received the name Festal or Festival Epistles or Homilies (see Suicer’s Thesaurus s.v. ἑορταστικός, and Valesius’ note ad locum). This is apparently the earliest mention of such epistles. Others are referred to by Eusebius in chaps. 21 and 22, as written by Dionysius to various persons. Undoubtedly all the Alexandrian bishops during these centuries wrote such epistles, but none are extant, so far as I am aware, except a number by Athanasius (extant only in a Syriac version, published in Syriac and English by Cureton in 1846 and 1848), a few by Theophilus (extant only in Latin), and thirty by Cyril (published in Migne’s Patr. Gr. LXXVII. 391 sq.).

305:2306

Of this Flavius we know nothing. The epistle addressed to him is no longer extant.

305:2307

On Domitius and Didymus, and the epistle addressed to them, see above, chap. 11, note 25. Eusebius quotes from the epistle in that chapter.

305:2308

That is, an eight-year cycle for the purpose of determining the time of the full moon. Hippolytus had employed the old eight-year cycle, but had, as he thought, improved it by combining two in a single sixteen-year cycle (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 22), as was done also by the author of the so-called Cyprianic Chronicle at the middle of the third century. The more accurate nineteen-year Metonic cycle (already in use among the Greeks in the fifth century b.c.) had not come into general use in the Church until later than this time. The Nicene Council sanctioned it and gave it wide currency, but it had apparently not yet come into use in the Church. In fact, the first Christian to make use of it for the computation of Easter, so far as we know, was Anatolius of Alexandria, later bishop of Laodicea (see below, chap. 32, §14). It was soon adopted in the Alexandrian church, and already in the time of Athanasius had become the basis of all Easter calculations, as we can gather from Athanasius’ Festal Epistles. From about the time of the Nicene Council on, Alexandria was commonly looked to for the reckoning of the date of Easter, and although an older and less accurate cycle remained in use in the West for a long time, the nineteen-year cycle gradually won its way everywhere. See Ideler’s great work on chronology, and cf. Hefele’s Conciliengesch. 2d ed. 1. p. 332, and Lightfoot in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 313 sq.

305:2309

These various epistles are no longer extant, nor do we know the names of the persons to whom they were addressed. At least a part of them, if not all, were very likely written during the Valerian persecution, as Eusebius states, for the fact that he made a mistake in connection with the epistle to Domitius and Didymus does not prove that he was in error in regard to all the others as well.

Chapter XXI.—The Occurrences at Alexandria.

1. Peace had but just been restored when he returned to Alexandria; 2310 but as sedition and war broke out again, rendering it impossible for him to oversee all the brethren, separated in different places by the insurrection, at the feast of the passover, as if he were still an exile from Alexandria, he addressed them again by letter. 2311

2. And in another festal epistle written later to Hierax, 2312 a bishop in Egypt, he mentions the sedition then prevailing in Alexandria, as follows:

“What wonder is it that it is difficult for me to communicate by letters with those who live far away, when it is beyond my power even to reason with myself, or to take counsel for my own life?

3. Truly I need to send letters to those who are as my own bowels, 2313 dwelling in one home, and brethren of one soul, and citizens of the same church; but how to send them I cannot tell. For it would be easier for one to go, not only beyond the limits of the province, but even from the East to the West, than from Alexandria to Alexandria itself.

4. For the very heart of the city is more intricate and impassable than that great and trackless desert which Israel traversed for two generations. And our smooth and waveless harbors have become like the sea, divided and walled up, through which Israel drove and in whose highway the Egyptians were overwhelmed. For often from the slaughters there committed they appear like the Red Sea.

5. And the river which flows by the city has sometimes seemed drier than the waterless desert, and more parched than that in which Israel, as they passed through it, so suffered for thirst, that they cried out against Moses, and the water flowed for them from the steep rock, 2314 through him who alone doeth wonders.

6. Again it has overflowed so greatly as to flood all the surrounding country, and the roads and the fields; threatening to bring back the deluge of water that occurred in the days of Noah. And it flows along, polluted always with blood and slaughter and drownings, as it became for Pharaoh through the agency of Moses, when he changed it into blood, and it stank. 2315

7. And what other water could purify the water which purifies everything? How could the ocean, so great and impassable for men, if poured into it, cleanse this bitter sea? Or how could the great river which flowed out of Eden, if it poured the four heads into which it is divided into the one of Geon, 2316 wash away this pollution?

8. Or when can the air poisoned by these noxious exhalations become pure? For such vapors arise from the earth, and winds from the sea, and breezes from the river, and mists from the harbors, that the dews are, as it were, discharges from dead bodies putrefying in all the elements around us.

9. Yet men wonder and cannot understand whence these continuous pestilences; whence these severe sicknesses; whence these deadly diseases of all kinds; whence this various and vast human destruction; why this great city no longer contains as many inhabitants, from tender infants to those most advanced in life, as it formerly contained of those whom it called hearty old men. But the men from forty to seventy years of age were then so much more numerous that their number cannot now be filled out, even when those from fourteen to eighty years are enrolled and registered for the public allowance of food.

10. And the youngest in appearance have become, as it were, of equal age with those who formerly were the oldest. But though they see the race of men thus constantly diminishing and wasting away, and though their complete destruction is increasing and advancing, they do not tremble.”

Footnotes

305:2310

This was after the fall of the usurper Macrianus, probably late in the year 261 or early in 262 (see above, chap. 13, note 3).

305:2311

This epistle written by Dionysius during the civil war to his scattered flock is no longer extant.

305:2312

Of this Hierax we know no more than is told us here.

305:2313

cf. Philem. 12.

306:2314

ἐκ πέτρας ἀκροτόμου. The adjective is an addition of Dionysius’ own. The LXX of Ex. xvii. 6 has only πέτρα, “rock.”

306:2315

ἐποζέσας; the same word which is used in the LXX of Ex. vii. 21.

306:2316

Γηὼν; LXX (Gen. ii. 13), Γεῶν; Heb. גִּיחֹון; A.V. and R.V., Gihon.

Chapter XXII.—The Pestilence which came upon them.

1. After these events a pestilential disease followed the war, and at the approach of the feast he wrote again to the brethren, describing the sufferings consequent upon this calamity. 2317

2. “To other men 2318 the present might not seem to be a suitable time for a festival. Nor indeed is this or any other time suitable for them; neither sorrowful times, nor even such as might be thought especially cheerful. 2319 Now, indeed, everything is tears and every one is mourning, and wailings resound daily through the city because of the multitude of the dead and dying.

3. For as it was written of the firstborn of the Egyptians, so now ‘there has arisen a great cry, for there is not a house where there is not one dead.’ 2320 And would that this were all! 2321

4. For many terrible things have happened already. First, they drove us out; and when alone, and persecuted, and put to death by all, even then we kept the feast. And every place of affliction was to us a place of festival: field, desert, ship, inn, prison; but the perfected martyrs kept the most joyous festival of all, feasting in heaven.

5. After these things war and famine followed, which we endured in common with the heathen. But we bore alone those things with which they afflicted us, and at the same time we experienced also the effects of what they inflicted upon and suffered from one another; and again, we rejoiced in the peace of Christ, which he gave to us alone.

6. “But after both we and they had enjoyed a very brief season of rest this pestilence assailed us; to them more dreadful than any dread, and more intolerable than any other calamity; and, as one of their own writers has said, the only thing which prevails over all hope. But to us this was not so, but no less than the other things was it an exercise and probation. For it did not keep aloof even from us, but the heathen it assailed more severely.”

7. Farther on he adds:

“The most of our brethren were unsparing in their exceeding love and brotherly kindness. They held fast to each other and visited the sick fearlessly, and ministered to them continually, serving them in Christ. And they died with them most joyfully, taking the affliction of others, and drawing the sickness from their neighbors to themselves and willingly receiving their pains. And many who cared for the sick and gave strength to others died themselves having transferred to themselves their death. And the popular saying which always seems a mere expression of courtesy, they then made real in action, taking their departure as the others’ ‘offscouring.’ 2322

8. “Truly the best of our brethren departed from life in this manner, including some presbyters and deacons and those of the people who had the highest reputation; so that this form of death, through the great piety and strong faith it exhibited, seemed to lack nothing of martyrdom.

9. And they took the bodies of the saints in their open hands and in their bosoms, and closed their eyes and their mouths; and they bore them away on their shoulders and laid them out; and they clung to them and embraced them; and they prepared them suitably with washings and garments. And after a little they received like treatment themselves, for the survivors were continually following those who had gone before them.

10. “But with the heathen everything was quite otherwise. They deserted those who began to be sick, and fled from their dearest friends. And they cast them out into the streets when they were half dead, and left the dead like refuse, unburied. They shunned any participation or fellowship with death; which yet, with all their precautions, it was not easy for them to escape.”

11. After this epistle, when peace had been restored to the city, he wrote another festal letter 2323 to the brethren in Egypt, and again several others besides this. And there is also a certain one extant On the Sabbath, 2324 and another On Exercise.

12. Moreover, he wrote again an epistle to Hermammon 2325 and the brethren in Egypt, describing at length the wickedness of Decius and his successors, and mentioning the peace under Gallienus.

Footnotes

306:2317

This letter seems to have been written shortly before Easter of the year 263; for the festal epistle to Hierax, quoted in the last chapter, was written while the war was still in progress (i.e. in 262), this one after its close. It does not seem to have been a regular festal epistle so-called, for in §11, below, we are told that Dionysius wrote a regular festal letter (ἑορταστικὴν γραφήν) to the brethren in Egypt, and that apparently in connection with this same Easter of the year 263.

306:2318

i.e. to the heathen.

306:2319

i.e. there is no time when heathen can fitly rejoice.

306:2320

Ex. xii. 30.

306:2321

καὶ ὄφελόν γε, with the majority of the mss., followed by Valesius, Schwegler, and Heinichen. Stroth, Burton, and Zimmermann, upon the authority of two mss., read καὶ ὄφελόν γε εἷς (“and would that there were but one!”), a reading which Valesius approves in his notes. The weight of ms. authority, however, is with the former, and it alone justifies the γ€ρ of the following sentence.

307:2322

περίψημα; cf. 1 Cor. iv. 13. Valesius suggests that this may have been a humble and complimentary form of salutation among the Alexandrians: ἐγὼ εἰμὶ περίψημ€ σου (cf. our words, “Your humble servant”); or, as he thinks more probable, that the expression had come to be habitually applied to the Christians by the heathen. The former interpretation seems to me the only possible one in view of the words immediately preceding: “which always seems a mere expression of courtesy.” Certainly these words rule out the second interpretation suggested by Valesius.

307:2323

The connection into which this festal epistle is brought with the letter just quoted would seem to indicate that it was written not a whole year, but very soon after that one. We may, therefore, look upon it as Dionysius’ festal epistle of the year 263 (see above, note 1). Neither this nor the “several others” spoken of just below is now extant.

307:2324

This and the next epistle are no longer extant, and we know neither the time of their composition nor the persons to whom they were addressed.

307:2325

On Hermammon and the epistle addressed to him, see above, chap. 1, note 3. An extract from this same epistle is given in that chapter and also in chap. 10.

Chapter XXIII.—The Reign of Gallienus.

1. But there is nothing like hearing his own words, which are as follows:

“Then he, 2326 having betrayed one of the emperors that preceded him, and made war on the other, 2327 perished with his whole family speedily and utterly. But Gallienus was proclaimed and universally acknowledged at once an old emperor and a new, being before them and continuing after them.

2. For according to the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah, ‘Behold the things from the beginning have come to pass, and new things shall now arise.’ 2328 For as a cloud passing over the sun’s rays and obscuring them for a little time hides it and appears in its place; but when the cloud has passed by or is dissipated, the sun which had risen before appears again; so Macrianus who put himself forward and approached the existing empire of Gallienus, is not, since he never was. But the other is just as he was.

3. And his kingdom, as if it had cast aside old age, and had been purified from the former wickedness, now blossoms out more vigorously, and is seen and heard farther, and extends in all directions.” 2329

4. He then indicates the time at which he wrote this in the following words:

“It occurs to me again to review the days of the imperial years. For I perceive that those most impious men, though they have been famous, yet in a short time have become nameless. But the holier and more godly prince, 2330 having passed the seventh year, is now completing the ninth, 2331 in which we shall keep the feast.”

Footnotes

307:2326

i.e. Macrianus; see above, chap. 10, note 5.

307:2327

He is supposed to have betrayed Valerian into the hands of the Persians, or at least, by his treachery, to have brought about the result which took place, and after Valerian’s capture he made war upon Gallienus, the latter’s son and successor. See the note referred to just above.

307:2328

Isa. xlii. 9.

307:2329

Dionysius is evidently somewhat dazzled and blinded by the favor shown by Gallienus to the Christians. For we know from the profane historians of this period that the reign of Gallienus was one of the darkest in all the history of the Roman Empire, on account of the numerous disasters which came upon the empire, and the internal disturbances and calamities it was called upon to endure.

307:2330

Gallienus is known to us as one of the most abandoned and profligate of emperors, though he was not without ability and courage which he displayed occasionally. Dionysius’ words at this point are not surprising, for the public benefits conferred by Gallienus upon the Christians would far outweigh his private vices in the minds of those who had suffered from the persecutions of his predecessors.

308:2331

The peculiar form of reckoning employed here (the mention of the seventh and then the ninth year) has caused considerable perplexity. Stroth thinks that “Dionysius speaks here of the time when Gallienus actually ruled in Egypt. For Macrianus had ruled there for a year, and during that time the authority of Gallienus in that country had been interrupted.” The view of Pearson, however, seems to me better. He remarks: “Whoever expressed himself thus, that one after his seven years was passing his ninth year? This septennium (ἑπταετηρίς) must designate something peculiar and different from the time following. It is therefore the septennium of imperial power which he had held along with his father. In the eighth year of that empire [the father, Valerian being in captivity in Persia], Macrianus possessed himself of the imperial honor especially in Egypt. After his assumption of the purple, however, Gallienus had still much authority in Egypt. At length in the ninth year of Gallienus, i.e. in 261, Macrianus, the father and the two sons being slain, the sovereignty of Gallienus was recognized also among the Egyptians.” “The ninth year of Gallienus, moreover, began about midsummer of this year; and the time at which this letter was written by Dionysius, as Eusebius observes, may be gathered from that, and falls consequently before the Paschal season of 262 a.d.” See also chap. 1, note 3, above.

Chapter XXIV.—Nepos and his Schism. 2332

1. Besides all these the two books on the Promises 2333 were prepared by him. The occasion of these was Nepos, a bishop in Egypt, who taught that the promises to the holy men in the Divine Scriptures should be understood in a more Jewish manner, and that there would be a certain millennium of bodily luxury upon this earth.

2. As he thought that he could establish his private opinion by the Revelation of John, he wrote a book on this subject, entitled Refutation of Allegorists. 2334

3. Dionysius opposes this in his books on the Promises. In the first he gives his own opinion of the dogma; and in the second he treats of the Revelation of John, and mentioning Nepos at the beginning, writes of him in this manner:

4. “But since they bring forward a certain work of Nepos, on which they rely confidently, as if it proved beyond dispute that there will be a reign of Christ upon earth, I confess that 2335 in many other respects I approve and love Nepos, for his faith and industry and diligence in the Scriptures, and for his extensive psalmody, 2336 with which many of the brethren are still delighted; and I hold him in the more reverence because he has gone to rest before us. But the truth should be loved and honored most of all. And while we should praise and approve ungrudgingly what is said aright, we ought to examine and correct what does not seem to have been written soundly.

5. Were he present to state his opinion orally, mere unwritten discussion, persuading and reconciling those who are opposed by question and answer, would be sufficient. But as some think his work very plausible, and as certain teachers regard the law and prophets as of no consequence, and do not follow the Gospels, and treat lightly the apostolic epistles, while they make promises 2337 as to the teaching of this work as if it were some great hidden mystery, and do not permit our simpler brethren to have any sublime and lofty thoughts concerning the glorious and truly divine appearing of our Lord, and our resurrection from the dead, and our being gathered together unto him, and made like him, but on the contrary lead them to hope for small and mortal things in the kingdom of God, and for things such as exist now,—since this is the case, it is necessary that we should dispute with our brother Nepos as if he were present.” Farther on he says:

6. “When I was in the district of Arsinoë, 2338 where, as you know, this doctrine has prevailed for a long time, so that schisms and apostasies of entire churches have resulted, I called together the presbyters and teachers of the brethren in the villages,—such brethren as wished being also present,—and I exhorted them to make a public examination of this question.

7. Accordingly when they brought me this book, as if it were a weapon and fortress impregnable, sitting with them from morning till evening for three successive days, I endeavored to correct what was written in it.

8. And I rejoiced over the constancy, sincerity, docility, and intelligence of the brethren, as we considered in order and with moderation the questions and the difficulties and the points of agreement. And we abstained from defending in every manner and contentiously the opinions which we had once held, unless they appeared to be correct. Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

9. And finally the author and mover of this teaching, who was called Coracion, 2339 in the hearing of all the brethren that were present, acknowledged and testified to us that he would no longer hold this opinion, nor discuss it, nor mention nor teach it, as he was fully convinced by the arguments against it. And some of the other brethren expressed their gratification at the conference, and at the spirit of conciliation and harmony which all had manifested.”

Footnotes

308:2332

Of this Egyptian bishop Nepos, we know only what is told us in this chapter. Upon chiliasm in the early Church, see above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 19. It is interesting to note, that although chiliasm had long lost its hold wherever the philosophical theology of the third century had made itself felt, it still continued to maintain its sway in other parts of the Church, especially in outlying districts in the East, which were largely isolated from the great centers of thought, and in the greater part of the West. By such Christians it was looked upon, in fact, as the very kernel of Christianity,—they lived as most Christians of the second century had, in the constant hope of a speedy return of Christ to reign in power upon the earth. The gradual exclusion of this remnant of early Christian belief involved the same kind of consequences as the disappearance of the belief in the continued possession by the Church of the spirit of prophecy (see Bk. V. chap. 16, note 1), and marks another step in the progress of the Church from the peculiarly enthusiastic spirit of the first and second, to the more formal spirit of the third and following centuries. Compare the remarks of Harnack in his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 482 sq. It seems, from §6, below, that Dionysius had engaged in an oral discussion of the doctrines taught in the book of Nepos, which had prevailed for a long time in Arsinoë, where the disputation was held. The best spirit was exhibited by both parties in the discussion, and the result was a decided victory for Dionysius. He was evidently afraid, however, that the book of Nepos, which was widely circulated, would still continue to do damage, and therefore he undertook to refute it in a work of his own, entitled On the Promises (see the next note). His work, like his disputation, undoubtedly had considerable effect, but chiliasm still prevailed in some of the outlying districts of Egypt for a number of generations.

308:2333

περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν. This work, as we learn from §3, below, contained in the first book Dionysius’ own views on the subject under dispute, in the second a detailed discussion of the Apocalypse upon which Nepos based his chiliastic opinions. The work is no longer extant, though Eusebius gives extracts from the second book in this and in the next chapter; and three brief fragments have been preserved in a Vatican ms., and are published in the various editions of Dionysius’ works. The Eusebian extracts are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 81–84. We have no means of ascertaining the date of Dionysius work. Hefele (Conciliengesch. I. p. 134), Dittrich (p. 69), and others, put the disputation at Arsinoë, in 254 or 255, and the composition of the work of Dionysius of course soon thereafter; but we have no authority for fixing the date of the disputation with such exactness, and must be content to leave it quite undetermined, though it is not improbable that it took place, as Dittrich maintains, between the persecutions of Decius and Valerian. In the preface to the eighteenth book of his commentary on Isaiah, Jerome speaks of a work of Dionysius, On the Promises (evidently referring to this same work), directed against Irenæus. In his de vir ill. 69, however, he follows Eusebius in stating that the work was written against Nepos. There can be no doubt on this score, and Jerome’s statement in his commentary seems to be a direct error. It is possible, however, that Irenæus, as the most illustrious representative of chiliastic views, may have been mentioned, and his positions refuted in the work, and thus Jerome have had some justification for his report.

308:2334

Evidently directed against Origen and other allegorical interpreters like him, who avoided the materialistic conceptions deduced by so many from the Apocalypse, by spiritualizing and allegorizing its language. This work of Nepos has entirely perished.

308:2335

The words “I confess that” are not in the original, but the insertion of some clause of the kind is necessary to complete the sentence.

308:2336

On early Christian hymnody, see above, Bk. V. chap. 28, note 14.

308:2337

“i.e. dire ante promittunt quam tradunt. The metaphor is taken from the mysteries of the Greeks, who were wont to promise great and marvelous discoveries to the initiated, and then kept them on the rack by daily expectation in order to confirm their judgment and reverence by suspense of knowledge, as Tertullian says in his book Against the Valentinians [chap. 1].” Valesius.

309:2338

ἐν τῷ ᾽Αρσινοείτῃ. The Arsinoite nome or district (on the nomes of Egypt, see above, Bk. II. chap. 17, note 10) was situated on the western bank of the Nile, between the river and Lake Mœris, southwest of Memphis.

309:2339

Of this Coracion, we know only what is told us here.

Chapter XXV.—The Apocalypse of John. 2340

1. Afterward he speaks in this manner of the Apocalypse of John.

“Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticising it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent.

2. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a vail of obscurity. And they affirm that none of the apostles, and none of the saints, nor any one in the Church is its author, but that Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called after him the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name.

3. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion; that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace. 2341

4. “But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem. But I suppose that it is beyond my comprehension, and that there is a certain concealed and more wonderful meaning in every part. For if I do not understand I suspect that a deeper sense lies beneath the words.

5. I do not measure and judge them by my own reason, but leaving the more to faith I regard them as too high for me to grasp. And I do not reject what I cannot comprehend, but rather wonder because I do not understand it.”

6. After this he examines the entire Book of Revelation, and having proved that it is impossible to understand it according to the literal sense, proceeds as follows:

“Having finished all the prophecy, so to speak, the prophet pronounces those blessed who shall observe it, and also himself. For he says, ‘Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things.’ 2342

7. Therefore that he was called John, and that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle 2343 were written.

8. For I judge from the character of both, and the forms of expression, and the entire execution of the book, 2344 that it is not his. For the evangelist nowhere gives his name, or proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or Epistle.”

9. Farther on he adds:

“But John never speaks as if referring to himself, or as if referring to another person. 2345 But the author of the Apocalypse introduces himself at the very beginning: ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave him to show unto his servants quickly; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John, who bare witness of the word of God and of his testimony, even of all things that he saw.’ 2346

10. Then he writes also an epistle: ‘John to the seven churches which are in Asia, grace be with you, and peace.’ 2347 But the evangelist did not prefix his name even to the Catholic Epistle; but without introduction he begins with the mystery of the divine revelation itself: ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.’ 2348 For because of such a revelation the Lord also blessed Peter, saying, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my heavenly Father.’ 2349

11. But neither in the reputed second or third epistle of John, though they are very short, does the name John appear; but there is written the anonymous phrase, ‘the elder.’ 2350 But this author did not consider it sufficient to give his name once and to proceed with his work; but he takes it up again: ‘I, John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and in the patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.’ 2351 And toward the close he speaks thus: ‘Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things.’ 2352

12. “But that he who wrote these things was called John must be believed, as he says it; but who he was does not appear. For he did not say, as often in the Gospel, that he was the beloved disciple of the Lord, 2353 or the one who lay on his breast, 2354 or the brother of James, or the eyewitness and hearer of the Lord.

13. For he would have spoken of these things if he had wished to show himself plainly. But he says none of them; but speaks of himself as our brother and companion, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed because he had seen and heard the revelations.

14. But I am of the opinion that there were many with the same name as the apostle John, who, on account of their love for him, and because they admired and emulated him, and desired to be loved by the Lord as he was, took to themselves the same surname, as many of the children of the faithful are called Paul or Peter.

15. For example, there is also another John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, 2355 whom Barnabas and Paul took with them; of whom also it is said, ‘And they had also John as their attendant.’ 2356 But that it is he who wrote this, I would not say. For it not written that he went with them into Asia, but, ‘Now when Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.’ 2357

16. But I think that he was some other one of those in Asia; as they say that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bearing the name of John. 2358

17. “And from the ideas, and from the words and their arrangement, it may be reasonably conjectured that this one is different from that one. 2359

18. For the Gospel and Epistle agree with each other and begin in the same manner. The one says, ‘In the beginning was the Word’; 2360 the other, ‘That which was from the beginning.’ 2361 The one: ‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father’; 2362 the other says the same things slightly altered: ‘Which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the Word of life,—and the life was manifested.’ 2363

19. For he introduces these things at the beginning, maintaining them, as is evident from what follows, in opposition to those who said that the Lord had not come in the flesh. Wherefore also he carefully adds, ‘And we have seen and bear witness, and declare unto you the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us. That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also.’ 2364

20. He holds to this and does not digress from his subject, but discusses everything under the same heads and names some of which we will briefly mention.

21. Any one who examines carefully will find the phrases, ‘the life,’ ‘the light,’ ‘turning from darkness,’ frequently occurring in both; also continually, ‘truth,’ ‘grace,’ ‘joy,’ ‘the flesh and blood of the Lord,’ ‘the judgment,’ ‘the forgiveness of sins,’ ‘the love of God toward us,’ the ‘commandment that we love one another,’ that we should ‘keep all the commandments’; the ‘conviction of the world, of the Devil, of Anti-Christ,’ the ‘promise of the Holy Spirit,’ the ‘adoption of God,’ the ‘faith continually required of us,’ ‘the Father and the Son,’ occur everywhere. In fact, it is plainly to be seen that one and the same character marks the Gospel and the Epistle throughout.

22. But the Apocalypse is different from these writings and foreign to them; not touching, nor in the least bordering upon them; almost, so to speak, without even a syllable in common with them.

23. Nay more, the Epistle—for I pass by the Gospel—does not mention nor does it contain any intimation of the Apocalypse, nor does the Apocalypse of the Epistle. But Paul, in his epistles, gives some indication of his revelations, 2365 though he has not written them out by themselves.

24. “Moreover, it can also be shown that the diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse.

25. For they were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse,—that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression,—as the Lord had bestowed them both upon him.

26. I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms.

27. It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have any one think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what I have only with the purpose of showing clearly the difference between the writings.”

Footnotes

309:2340

Upon the Apocalypse in the early Church, and especially upon Dionysius’ treatment of it, see above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 20.

309:2341

A portion of this extract (§§2 and 3) has been already quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28.

309:2342

Rev. 22:7, 8. Dionysius punctuates this passage peculiarly, and thus interprets it quite differently from all our versions of the Book of Revelation. The Greek text as given by him agrees with our received text of the Apocalypse; but the words κἀγὼ ᾽Ιω€ννης ὁ ἀκούων καὶ βλέπων ταῦτα, which Dionysius connects with the preceding, should form an independent sentence: “And I, John, am he that heard and saw these things.”

309:2343

On the Gospel and Epistle, see Bk. III. chap. 24, notes 1 and 18.

309:2344

τῆς τοῦ βιβλίου διεξαγωγῆς λεγομένης. Valesius considers διεξαγωγή equivalent to dispositionem or οἰκονομίαν, “for διεξαγωγεῖν is the same as διοικεῖν, as Suidas says.” He translates ex libelli totius ductu ac dispositione, remarking that the words may be interpreted also as formam et rationem scribendi, seu characterem. The phrase evidently means the “general disposition” or “form” of the work. Closs translates “aus ihrer ganzen Ausführung”; Salmond, “the whole disposition and execution of the book”; Crusè, “the execution of the whole book.”

310:2345

i.e. never speaks of himself in the first person, as “I, John”; nor in the third person, as e.g. “his servant, John.”

310:2346

Rev. 1:1, 2.

310:2347

Rev. i. 4.

310:2348

1 John i. 1.

310:2349

Matt. xvi. 17.

310:2350

See 2 John. 1:1, 3 John. 1:1.

310:2351

Rev. i. 9.

310:2352

Rev. 22:7, 8. See above, note 3.

310:2353

See John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:7, 20.

310:2354

See John 13:23, 25. These words, οὐδὲ τὸν ἀναπεσόντα ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ, are wanting in Heinichen’s edition; but as they are found in all the other editions and versions and Heinichen gives no reason for their omission, it is clear that they have been omitted inadvertently.

310:2355

In Acts 12:12, 25, Acts 13:5, 13, Acts 15:37. On Mark and the second Gospel, see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.

310:2356

Acts xiii. 5.

310:2357

Acts xiii. 13.

310:2358

See above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 13; and on the “presbyter John,” mentioned by Papias, see also note 4 on the same chapter, and on his relation to the Apocalypse, the same chapter, note 14.

310:2359

i.e. the writer of the Apocalypse is different from the writer of the Gospel and Epistles.

310:2360

John i. 1.

310:2361

1 John i. 1.

310:2362

John i. 14.

310:2363

1 John 1:1, 2.

310:2364

1 John 1:2, 3.

311:2365

See 2 Cor. 12:1, Gal. 2:22 Cor. xii. 1 sq., Gal. ii. 2.

Chapter XXVI.—The Epistles of Dionysius.

1. Besides these, many other epistles of Dionysius are extant, as those against Sabellius, 2366 addressed to Ammon, 2367 bishop of the church of Bernice, and one to Telesphorus, 2368 and one to Euphranor, and again another to Ammon and Euporus. He wrote also four other books on the same subject, which he addressed to his namesake Dionysius, in Rome. 2369

2. Besides these many of his epistles are with us, and large books written in epistolary form, as those on Nature, 2370 addressed to the young man Timothy, and one on Temptations, 2371 which he also dedicated to Euphranor.

3. Moreover, in a letter to Basilides, 2372 bishop of the parishes in Pentapolis, he says that he had written an exposition of the beginning of Ecclesiastes. 2373 And he has left us also various letters addressed to this same person. Thus much Dionysius.

But our account of these matters being now completed, permit us to show to posterity the character of our own age. 2374

Footnotes

311:2366

On Sabellius, and on Dionysius’ attitude toward Sabellianism, see above, chap. 6, note 1.

311:2367

The works addressed to Ammon, Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Euporus, are no longer extant, nor do we know anything about them (but see chap. 6, note 2, above). It is possible that it was in these epistles that Dionysius laid himself open in his zeal against the Sabellians to the charge of tritheism, which aroused complaints against him, and resulted in his being obliged to defend himself in his work addressed to Dionysius of Rome. If so, these letters must have been written before that work, though perhaps not long before. Of Ammon himself we know nothing. There were a number of cities in North Africa, called Berenice (the form Bernice is exceptional), but, according to Wiltsch, Berenice, a city of Libya Pentapolis, or Cyrenaica, is meant in the present case. This city (whose original name was Hesperides) lay on the Mediterranean some six hundred miles west of Alexandria.

311:2368

Of Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Euporus, we know nothing.

311:2369

On these books addressed to Dionysius of Rome, see below, p. 397.

311:2370

οἱ περὶ φύσεως. The date and immediate occasion of this work cannot be determined. The supposition of Dittrich, that it was written before Dionysius became bishop, while he had more leisure than afterward for philosophical study, has much in its favor. The young man, Timothy, to whom it was addressed, is perhaps to be identified with the one mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 40, §4. That it was a work of considerable extent, embracing more than one book, is indicated by Eusebius in this passage. A long extract from it is given by Eusebius in his Præp. Evang. XIV. 23–27 (printed with commentary by Routh, Rel. Sac. IV. p. 393 sq.; translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 84–91), and a few fragments are still preserved in a Vatican codex, and have been published by Simon de Magistris, in his edition of Dionysius’ works (Rome, 1796), p. 44 sq. (cf. also Routh, IV. p. 418, 419). In the extract quoted by Eusebius, Dionysius deals solely with the atomic theory of Democritus and Epicurus. This subject may have occupied the greater part of the work, but evidently, as Dittrich remarks (Dionysius der Grosse, p. 12), the doctrines of other physicists were also dealt with (cf. the words with which Eusebius introduces his extracts; Præp. Evang. XIV. 22. 10: “I will subjoin from the books [of Dionysius] On Nature a few of the things urged against Epicurus.” The translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 84, note 7, which implies that the work was written “against the Epicureans” is not correct). φύσις seems to have been taken by Dionysius in the sense of the “Universe” (compare, for instance, the words of Cicero, De nat. deorum, II., to which Dittrich refers: Sunt autem, qui naturæ nomine rerum universitatem intelligunt), and to have been devoted to a refutation of the doctrines of various heathen philosophers in regard to the origin of the universe. For a fuller discussion of the work, see Dittrich, ibid. p. 12 sq.

311:2371

This work on Temptations (περὶ πειρασμῶν) is no longer extant, nor do we know anything about the time or occasion of its composition. Dittrich strangely omits all reference to it. Of Euphranor, as remarked in note 3, we know nothing.

311:2372

Of this Basilides we know only what Eusebius tells us here, that he was bishop of the “parishes in Pentapolis” (or Cyrenaica, a district, and under the Romans a province, lying west of Egypt, along the Mediterranean Sea), which would seem to imply that he was metropolitan of that district (cf. Routh, Rel. Sac. III. p. 235). A canonical epistle addressed to him by Dionysius is still extant (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1). Eusebius tells us that Dionysius addressed “various epistles” to him, but no others are known to us.

311:2373

It is possible that this work also, like that On Nature, was written, as Dittrich thinks, before Dionysius became bishop. Eusebius evidently had not seen the commentary himself, for he speaks only of Dionysius’ reference to it. A few fragments, supposed to be parts of this commentary, were published in the appendix to the fourteenth volume of Galland’s Bibliotheca Patrum Veterum, after the latter’s death, and were afterward reprinted in De Magistris’ edition of Dionysius’ works, p. 1 sq. (English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 111–114). The fragments, or at least a part of them, are ascribed to Dionysius in the codex in which they are found, and are very likely genuine, though we cannot speak with certainty. For fuller particulars, see Dittrich, p. 22 sq.

312:2374

τὴν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς γενε€ν. This seems to indicate that the events recorded by Eusebius from this point on took place during his own lifetime. See above, p. 4.

Chapter XXVII.—Paul of Samosata, and the Heresy introduced by him at Antioch.

1. After Xystus had presided over the church of Rome for eleven years, 2375 Dionysius, 2376 namesake of him of Alexandria, succeeded him. About the same time Demetrianus 2377 died in Antioch, and Paul of Samosata 2378 received that episcopate.

2. As he held, contrary to the teaching of the Church, low and degraded views of Christ, namely, that in his nature he was a common man, Dionysius of Alexandria was entreated to come to the synod. 2379 But being unable to come on account of age and physical weakness, he gave his opinion on the subject under consideration by letter. 2380 But all the other pastors of the churches from all directions, made haste to assemble at Antioch, as against a despoiler of the flock of Christ.

Footnotes

312:2375

Xystus II. was bishop only eleven months, not eleven years. See chap. 5, note 5. Eusebius’ chronology of the Roman bishops of this time is in inextricable confusion.

312:2376

After the martyrdom of Xystus II. the bishopric of Rome remained vacant for nearly a year on account of the severe persecution of Valerian. Dionysius became bishop on the 22d of July, 259, according to the Liberian catalogue. Lipsius accepts this as the correct date. Jerome’s version of the Chron. gives the twelfth year of “Valerian and Gallienus” (i.e. 265–266) which is wide of the mark. The Armenian Chron. gives the eighth year of the same reign. As to the duration of his episcopate, authorities vary considerably. Eusebius (chap. 30, §23, below) and Jerome’s version of the Chron. say nine years; the Armenian Chron., twelve; the Liberian catalogue, eight. Lipsius shows that nine is the correct figure, and that five months and two days are to be read instead of the two months and four days of the Liberian catalogue. According to Lipsius, then, he was bishop until Dec. 27, 268. Dionysius of Alexandria addressed to Dionysius of Rome, while the latter was still a presbyter, one of his epistles on baptism (see above, chap. 7, §6, where the latter is called by Eusebius a “learned and capable man”). Another epistle of the same writer addressed to him is mentioned in chap. 9, §6. Dionysius of Alexandria’s four books against the Sabellians were likewise addressed to him (see chap. 26, above, and Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1). Gallienus’ edict of toleration was promulgated while Dionysius was bishop (see chap. 13, note 3).

312:2377

On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.

312:2378

Paul of Samosata was one of the most famous heretics of the early Church. He was bishop of Antioch and at the same time viceroy of Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra. Both versions of Eusebius’ Chron. put the date of his accession to the see of Antioch in the seventh year of Valerian and Gallienus, the year of Abr. 2277 (2278), i.e. in a.d. 259 (260); and Jerome’s version puts his deposition in the year of Abr. 2283, i.e. a.d. 265. These dates, however, are not to be relied upon. Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 51) shows that he became bishop between 257 and 260. Our chief knowledge of his character and career is derived from the encyclical letter written by the members of the council which condemned him, and quoted in part by Eusebius in chap. 30, below. This, as will be seen, paints his character in very black colors. It may be somewhat overdrawn, for it was written by his enemies; at the same time, such an official communication can hardly have falsified the facts to any great extent. We may rely then upon its general truthfulness. Paul reproduced the heresy of Artemon (see above, Bk. V. chap. 28), teaching that Christ was a mere man, though he was filled with divine power, and that from his birth, not merely from his baptism, as the Ebionites had held. He admitted, too, the generation by the Holy Spirit. “He denied the personality of the Logos and of the Holy Spirit, and considered them merely powers of God, like reason and mind in man; but granted that the Logos dwelt in Christ in a larger measure than in any former messenger of God, and taught, like the Socinians in later times, a gradual elevation of Christ, determined by his own moral development, to divine dignity. He admitted that Christ remained free from sin, conquered the sin of our forefathers, and then became the Saviour of the race” (Schaff). At various Antiochian synods (the exact number of them we do not know), efforts were made to procure his condemnation, but they were not successful. Finally one of the synods condemned and excommunicated him, and Domnus was appointed bishop in his place. The date of this synod is ordinarily fixed at 268 or 269, but it cannot have occurred in 269, and probably occurred earlier than 268 (see below, chap. 29, note 1). Since Paul was in favor with Zenobia, his deposition could not be effected until 272, when Aurelian conquered her. Being appealed to by the Church, Aurelian left the decision between the claims of Paul and Domnus to the bishops of Rome and Italy, who decided at once for Domnus, and Paul was therefore deposed and driven out in disgrace.

Our sources for a knowledge of Paul and his heresy are the letter quoted in chap. 30; a number of fragments from the acts of the council, given by Routh, Rel. Sac. III. 287 sq.; and scattered notices in the Fathers of the fourth century, especially Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, &c. Cf. also Jerome’s de vir. ill. 71, and Epiphanius’ Hær. 65. See Harnack’s article Monarchianismus, in Herzog, second ed. (abbreviated in Schaff-Herzog); also Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog., art. Paulus of Samosata.

312:2379

This synod to which Dionysius was invited was not the last one, at which Paul was condemned, but one of the earlier ones, at which his case was considered. It is not probable that the synod was called especially to consider his case, but that at two or more of the regular annual synods of Antioch the subject was discussed without result, until finally condemnation was procured (cf. Harnack, ibid. p. 52, and Lipsius, ibid. p. 228). Dionysius mentions the fact that he was invited to attend this synod in an epistle addressed to Cornelius, according to Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 46.

312:2380

Jerome, de vir. ill. 69, tells us that Dionysius wrote a few days before his death, but that is only an inference drawn from Eusebius’ statement. This epistle of Dionysius is no longer extant, although a copy of it was originally appended to the encyclical of the Antiochian synod (as we learn from chap. 30, §4), and hence must have been extant in the time of Eusebius, and also of Jerome. An epistle purporting to have been written by Dionysius to Paul of Samosata is given by Labbe, Concil. I. 850–893, but it is not authentic.

Chapter XXVIII.—The Illustrious Bishops of that Time.

1. Of these, the most eminent were Firmilianus, 2381 bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; the brothers Gregory 2382 and Athenodorus, pastors of the churches in Pontus; Helenus 2383 of the parish of Tarsus, and Nicomas 2384 of Iconium; moreover, Hymenæus, 2385 of the church of Jerusalem, and Theotecnus 2386 of the neighboring church of Cæsarea; and besides these Maximus, 2387 who presided in a distinguished manner over the brethren in Bostra. If any should count them up he could not fail to note a great many others, besides presbyters and deacons, who were at that time assembled for the same cause in the above-mentioned city. 2388 But these were the most illustrious.

2. When all of these assembled at different times and frequently to consider these matters, the arguments and questions were discussed at every meeting; the adherents of the Samosatian endeavoring to cover and conceal his heterodoxy, and the others striving zealously to lay bare and make manifest his heresy and blasphemy against Christ.

3. Meanwhile, Dionysius died in the twelfth year of the reign of Gallienus, 2389 having held the episcopate of Alexandria for seventeen years, and Maximus 2390 succeeded him.

4. Gallienus after a reign of fifteen years 2391 was succeeded by Claudius, 2392 who in two years delivered the government to Aurelian.

Footnotes

312:2381

On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.

312:2382

Gregory Thaumaturgus. On him and his brother, Athenodorus, see Bk. VI. chap. 30, notes 1 and 2.

312:2383

On Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 8. He presided at the final council which deposed Paul of Samosata, according to the Libellus Synodicus (see Labbe, Concilia, I. 893, 901), and this is confirmed by the fact that in the encyclical epistle written by this synod his name stands first (see chap. 30).

312:2384

Of Nicomas, bishop of Iconium in Lycaonia, we know nothing. An earlier bishop of the same city, named Celsus, is mentioned in Book VI. chap. 19, above.

312:2385

On Hymenæus, see chap. 14, note 11.

312:2386

On Theotecnus, see chap. 14, note 9.

312:2387

Of Maximus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, we know nothing. On Beryllus, an earlier and more celebrated bishop of the same city, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 33.

312:2388

i.e. Antioch.

313:2389

In both versions of the Chron. the death of Dionysius is put in the eleventh year of Gallienus, i.e. August, 263, to August, 264, and this, or the date given here by Eusebius (the twelfth year, August, 264, to August, 265) is undoubtedly correct. Upon the dates of his accession and death, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

313:2390

Maximus had been a presbyter while Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria, and had shared with him the hardships of the Decian and Valerian persecutions (see above, chap. 11). In chap. 32, he is said to have held office eighteen years, and with this both versions of the Chron. agree, and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the report.

313:2391

Eusebius here, as in his Chron., reckons the reign of Gallienus as beginning with the date of his association with his father in the supreme power; i.e. August, 253.

313:2392

Claudius became emperor in March, 268, and died of an epidemic in Sirmium some time in the year 270, when he was succeeded by Aurelian, whom he had himself appointed his successor just before his death. It is, perhaps, with this in mind that Eusebius uses the somewhat peculiar phrase, μεταδίδωσι τὴν ἡγεμονίαν

Chapter XXIX.—Paul, having been refuted by Malchion, a Presbyter from the Sophists, was excommunicated.

1. During his reign a final synod 2393 composed of a great many bishops was held, and the leader of heresy 2394 in Antioch was detected, and his false doctrine clearly shown before all, and he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church under heaven. 2395 2396

2. Malchion especially drew him out of his hiding-place and refuted him. He was a man learned in other respects, and principal of the sophist school of Grecian learning in Antioch; yet on account of the superior nobility of his faith in Christ he had been made a presbyter of that parish. This man, having conducted a discussion with him, which was taken down by stenographers and which we know is still extant, was alone able to detect the man who dissembled and deceived the others.

Footnotes

313:2393

Eusebius puts this council in the reign of Aurelian (270–275), and in chap. 32 makes it subsequent to the siege of the Brucheium which, according to his Chron., took place in 272. The epistle written at this council (and given in the next chapter) is addressed to Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, and Dionysius, bishop of Rome, so that the latter must have been alive in 272, if the council was held as late as that. The council is ordinarily, however, assigned to the year 269, and Dionysius’ death to December of the same year; but Lipsius has shown (ibid. p. 226 ff.) that the synod which Eusebius mentions here was held in all probability as early as 265 (but not earlier than 264, because Dionysius of Alexandria was not succeeded by Maximus until that year), certainly not later than 268, and hence it is not necessary to extend the episcopate of Dionysius of Rome beyond 268, the date which he has shown to be most probable (see chap. 27, note 2). Eusebius then is entirely mistaken in putting the council into the reign of Aurelian.

313:2394

i.e. Paul of Samosata.

313:2395

Malchion gained such fame from his controversy with Paul that an account of him is given by Jerome in his de vir. ill. 71. He tells us, however, nothing new about him, except that he was the author of an epistle to the bishops of Alexandria and Rome, referring probably to the encyclical letter given in the next chapter. We do not know upon what authority he bases this statement; in fact knowing the character of his work, we shall probably be safe in assuming that the statement is no more than a guess on his part. There is nothing improbable in the report, but we must remember that Jerome is our only authority for it, and he is in such a case very poor authority (nevertheless, in Fremantle’s articles, Malchion, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., the report is repeated as a fact). Both Eusebius and Jerome tell us that the report of his discussion with Paul was extant in their day, and a few fragments of it have been preserved, and are given by Leontius (de Sectis, III. p. 504, according to Fremantle).

313:2396

τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, i.e., “from the entire Catholic Church.” The phrase is usually strengthened by a πᾶς, as in the next chapter, § 2. On the use of the phrase, “Catholic Church,” see Bk. IV. chap. 15, note 6.

Chapter XXX.—The Epistle of the Bishops against Paul.

1. The pastors who had assembled about this matter, prepared by common consent an epistle addressed to Dionysius, 2397 bishop of Rome, and Maximus 2398 of Alexandria, and sent it to all the provinces. In this they make manifest to all their own zeal and the perverse error of Paul, and the arguments and discussions which they had with him, and show the entire life and conduct of the man. It may be well to put on record at the present time the following extracts from their writing:

2. “To Dionysius and Maximus, and to all our fellow-ministers throughout the world, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and to the whole Catholic Church under heaven, 2399 Helenus, 2400 Hymenæus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proclus, Nicomas, Ælianus, Paul, Bolanus, Protogenes, Hierax, Eutychius, Theodorus, 2401 Malchion, and Lucius, and all the others who dwell with us in the neighboring cities and nations, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and the churches of God, greeting to the beloved brethren in the Lord.”

3. A little farther on they proceed thus: “We sent for and called many of the bishops from a distance to relieve us from this deadly doctrine; as Dionysius of Alexandria 2402 and Firmilianus 2403 of Cappadocia, those blessed men. The first of these not considering the author of this delusion worthy to be addressed, sent a letter to Antioch, 2404 not written to him, but to the entire parish, of which we give a copy below.

4. But Firmilianus came twice 2405 and condemned his innovations, as we who were present know and testify, and many others understand. But as he promised to change his opinions, he believed him and hoped that without any reproach to the Word what was necessary would be done. So he delayed the matter, being deceived by him who denied even his own God and Lord, 2406 and had not kept the faith which he formerly held.

5. And now Firmilianus was again on his way to Antioch, and had come as far as Tarsus because he had learned by experience his God-denying wickedness. But while we, having come together, were calling for him and awaiting his arrival, he died.” 2407

6. After other things they describe as follows the manner of life which he 2408 led:

7. “Whereas he has departed from the rule of faith, 2409 and has turned aside after base and spurious teachings, it is not necessary,—since he is without,—that we should pass judgment upon his practices: as for instance in that although formerly destitute and poor, and having received no wealth from his fathers, nor made anything by trade or business, he now possesses abundant wealth through his iniquities and sacrilegious acts, and through those things which he extorts from the brethren, 2410 depriving the injured of their rights and promising to assist them for reward, yet deceiving them, and plundering those who in their trouble are ready to give that they may obtain reconciliation with their oppressors, ‘supposing that gain is godliness’; 2411 —

8. or in that he is haughty, and is puffed up, and assumes worldly dignities, preferring to be called ducenarius 2412 rather than bishop; and struts in the market-places, reading letters and reciting them as he walks in public, attended by a body-guard, with a multitude preceding and following him, so that the faith is envied and hated on account of his pride and haughtiness of heart;—

9. or in that he practices chicanery in ecclesiastical assemblies, contrives to glorify himself, and deceive with appearances, and astonish the minds of the simple, preparing for himself a tribunal and lofty throne, 2413 —not like a disciple of Christ,—and possessing a ‘secretum,’ 2414 —like the rulers of the world,—and so calling it, and striking his thigh with his hand, and stamping on the tribunal with his feet;—or in that he rebukes and insults those who do not applaud, and shake their handkerchiefs as in the theaters, and shout and leap about like the men and women that are stationed around him, and hear him in this unbecoming manner, but who listen reverently and orderly as in the house of God;—or in that he violently and coarsely assails in public the expounders of the Word that have departed this life, and magnifies himself, not as a bishop, but as a sophist and juggler,

10. and stops the psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ, as being the modern productions of modern men, and trains women to sing psalms to himself in the midst of the church on the great day of the passover, which any one might shudder to hear, and persuades the bishops and presbyters of the neighboring districts and cities who fawn upon him, to advance the same ideas in their discourses to the people.

11. For to anticipate something of what we shall presently write, he is unwilling to acknowledge that the Son of God has come down from heaven. And this is not a mere assertion, but it is abundantly proved from the records which we have sent you; and not least where he says ‘Jesus Christ is from below.’ 2415 But those singing to him and extolling him among the people say that their impious teacher has come down an angel from heaven. 2416 And he does not forbid such things; but the arrogant man is even present when they are uttered.

12. And there are the women, the ‘subintroductæ,’ 2417 as the people of Antioch call them, belonging to him and to the presbyters and deacons that are with him. Although he knows and has convicted these men, yet he connives at this and their other incurable sins, in order that they may be bound to him, and through fear for themselves may not dare to accuse him for his wicked words and deeds. 2418 But he has also made them rich; on which account he is loved and admired by those who covet such things.

13. We know, beloved, that the bishop and all the clergy should be an example to the people of all good works. And we are not ignorant how many have fallen or incurred suspicion, through the women whom they have thus brought in. So that even if we should allow that he commits no sinful act, yet he ought to avoid the suspicion which arises from such a thing, lest he scandalize some one, or lead others to imitate him.

14. For how can he reprove or admonish another not to be too familiar with women,—lest he fall, as it is written, 2419 —when he has himself sent one away already, and now has two with him, blooming and beautiful, and takes them with him wherever he goes, and at the same time lives in luxury and surfeiting?

15. Because of these things all mourn and lament by themselves; but they so fear his tyranny and power, that they dare not accuse him.

16. But as we have said, while one might call the man to account for this conduct, if he held the Catholic doctrine and was numbered with us, 2420 since he has scorned the mystery and struts about in the abominable heresy of Artemas 2421 (for why should we not mention his father?), we think it unnecessary to demand of him an explanation of these things.”

17. Afterwards, at the close of the epistle, they add these words:

“Therefore we have been compelled to excommunicate him, since he sets himself against God, and refuses to obey; and to appoint in his place another bishop for the Catholic Church. By divine direction, as we believe, we have appointed Domnus, 2422 who is adorned with all the qualities becoming in a bishop, and who is a son of the blessed Demetrianus, 2423 who formerly presided in a distinguished manner over the same parish. We have informed you of this that you may write to him, and may receive letters of communion 2424 from him. But let this man write to Artemas; and let those who think as Artemas does, communicate with him.” 2425

18. As Paul had fallen from the episcopate, as well as from the orthodox faith, Domnus, as has been said, became bishop of the church at Antioch.

19. But as Paul refused to surrender the church building, the Emperor Aurelian was petitioned; and he decided the matter most equitably, ordering the building to be given to those to whom the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome should adjudge it. 2426 Thus this man was driven out of the church, with extreme disgrace, by the worldly power.

20. Such was Aurelian’s treatment of us at that time; but in the course of his reign he changed his mind in regard to us, and was moved by certain advisers to institute a persecution against us. 2427 And there was great talk about this on every side.

21. But as he was about to do it, and was, so to speak, in the very act of signing the decrees against us, the divine judgment came upon him and restrained him at the very verge 2428 of his undertaking, showing in a manner that all could see clearly, that the rulers of this world can never find an opportunity against the churches of Christ, except the hand that defends them permits it, in divine and heavenly judgment, for the sake of discipline and correction, at such times as it sees best.

22. After a reign of six years, 2429 Aurelian was succeeded by Probus. He reigned for the same number of years, and Carus, with his sons, Carinus and Numerianus, succeeded him. After they had reigned less than three years the government devolved on Diocletian, and those associated with him. 2430 Under them took place the persecution of our time, and the destruction of the churches connected with it.

23. Shortly before this, Dionysius, 2431 bishop of Rome, after holding office for nine years, died, and was succeeded by Felix. 2432

Footnotes

313:2397

On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.

313:2398

On Maximus of Alexandria, see chap. 28, note 10.

313:2399

This phrase differs from that used in the previous chapter by the addition of πᾶς.

313:2400

On Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 8. On Hymenæus and Theotecnus see above chap. 14, notes 11 and 9. Hierax is possibly the bishop addressed by Dionysius in the epistle quoted in chap. 21. Malchion is mentioned in the preceding chapter; Maximus of Bostra and Nicomas of Iconium, in chap. 28, as distinguished bishops. Of the others we know nothing.

313:2401

It has been suggested that Theodorus may be Gregory Thaumaturgus, who was also known by that name (see Bk. VI. chap. 30); but this is extremely improbable for everywhere else in referring to him as bishop, Eusebius calls him Gregory, and in chap. 31 speaks of him as one of the most celebrated bishops, and puts him near the head of the list. Here Theodorus is placed near the end of the list, and no prominence is given him. There is in fact no reason to identify the two. The name Theodorus was a very common one.

313:2402

See chap. 27.

313:2403

On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.

314:2404

On this epistle, see chap. 27, note 6. As we see from this passage, the epistle of Dionysius was addressed not to Paul himself, but to the council, and hence could not be identified with the epistle given by Labbe, even were the latter authentic.

314:2405

It is plain from this passage that the case of Paul of Samosata had been discussed in at least two Antiochian synods before the one which deposed him, and not only in one as has been claimed. The passage shows, too, the way in which Paul escaped condemnation so long. Not merely on account of his influential position, as some have said, but also because he promised that he would give up his heresy and conform his teaching to the orthodox faith. The language would seem to imply that Firmilian had presided at the synod or synods, which are referred to here; and this is assumed by most writers. On Firmilian, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.

314:2406

The words “and Lord” are wanting in some good mss. as well as in Rufinus, and are consequently omitted by Schwegler and Heinichen. But I have preferred to follow the majority of the mss. and all the other editors in retaining the words which are really necessary to the sense; for it is not meant that Paul denied God, but that he denied his God and Lord Jesus Christ; namely, by rejecting his essential deity.

314:2407

On the date of Firmilian’s death, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3, above.

314:2408

i.e. Paul of Samosata.

314:2409

τοῦ κανόνος.

314:2410

I follow Heinichen in reading ὧν žτι ἐκσείει τοὺς ἀδελφούς, which is supported by five important mss. (cf. Heinichen’s note in loco). The majority of the editors read ὧν αἰτεῖ καὶ σείει κ.τ.λ., which, however, is not so well supported by ms. authority. Laemmer, on the authority of a single codex, reads ὧν žτι καὶ σείει, and still other variations occur in some mss.

314:2411

1 Tim. vi. 5.

314:2412

Paul was the “Procurator Ducenarius” of Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra, an official so-called because his salary was 200 sestertia. “The Ducenarius was an imperial procurator, so-called from his salary of 200 sesteria, or 1600 pounds a year. Some critics suppose that the bishop of Antioch had actually obtained such an office from Zenobia” (Gibbon). There seems to be no reason to doubt that Paul held such a position under Zenobia, which appears to be the implication of the words here, and so he is commonly spoken of as a high official, even as “Viceroy” of Zenobia. We know from Athanasius (Hist. Ar. §71, Oxf. ed. Chap. VIII. §10), that he was a great favorite with Zenobia, and that to her he owed the privilege of retaining his bishopric after the synod had deposed him. This friendship shown toward him by Zenobia, who was of the strictest manners, is much in his favor, and almost tempts us to doubt the terrible character given him in this epistle by the members of the synod. There must have been some palliating circumstances in the case. He can hardly have been as unqualifiedly bad as this letter paints him.

314:2413

Valesius says, “The Fathers do not here condemn Paul because he had a throne; …but because he erected a tribunal for himself in the church and placed upon that a high throne. Rufinus, therefore, translates this passage correctly: In ecclesia vero tribunal sibi multo altius quam fuerat exstrui, et thronum in excelsioribus collocari jubet. Bishops did sit on a seat a little higher than the rest of the presbyters, but they did not have a tribunal.” This has been frequently quoted, and is on the whole a true statement of facts. But the Greek is βῆμα μὲν καὶ θρόνον ὑψηλόν, and Rufinus is certainly wrong in putting his multo altius with the tribunal. The emphasis, as the Greek reads, is upon the βῆμα as such, not upon the height of it, while the θρόνος is condemned because of its height. The translation of Rufinus shows what was the custom in his day. He could not understand that a βῆμα should be objected to as such.

314:2414

Greek σήκρητον, for the Latin secretum, which was the name of the place where the civil magistrates and higher judges sat to decide cases, and which was raised and enclosed with railings and curtains in order to separate it from the people. In the present case it means of course a sort of cabinet which Paul had at the side of the tribunal, in which he could hold private conferences, and whose resemblance to the secretum of a civil magistrate he delighted to emphasize.

315:2415

᾽Ιησοῦν χριστὸν κ€τωθεν. Compare, by way of contrast, the words of John iii. 31: “He that cometh from above is above all” (ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπ€νω π€ντων ἐστίν). The words quoted in the epistle can hardly have been used by Paul himself. They are rather to be regarded as a logical inference from his positions stated by the writers of the epistle in order to bring out the blasphemous nature of his views when contrasted with the statement in John, which was doubtless in their minds while they wrote.

315:2416

The account seems to me without doubt overdrawn at this point. It was such a common thing, from the time of Herod Agrippa down, to accuse a man who was noted for his arrogance of encouraging the people to call him an angel descended from heaven, that we should almost be surprised if the accusation were omitted here. We have no reason to think, in spite of the report of these good Fathers, that Paul’s presumption went to such a blasphemous and at the same time absurd length.

315:2417

συνείσακτοι. On these Subintroductæ, see Smith and Cheetham’s Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s.v.

315:2418

It is quite probable that Paul had given some ground for the suspicions which the worthy bishops breathe here, but that is very far from saying that he was actually guilty of immorality. In fact, just below (§13), they show that these are nothing more than suspicions. Exactly what position the two women held who are mentioned in §14 it is difficult to say, but Paul must of course have given some plausible reason for their presence, and this is implied in §16, where the writers say that were he orthodox, they would inquire his reasons for this conduct, but since he is a heretic, it is not worth while to investigate the matter. As remarked above, while the direct statements of the epistle can in the main hardly be doubted, we must nevertheless remember that the prejudices of the writers would lead them to paint the life of Paul as black as circumstances could possibly warrant, and unfounded suspicions might therefore easily be taken as equivalent to proved charges.

315:2419

cf. Ecclesiasticus 25.

315:2420

We get a glimpse here of the relative importance of orthodoxy and morality in the minds of these Fathers. Had Paul been orthodox, they would have asked him to explain his course, and would have endeavored to persuade him to reform his conduct; but since he was a heretic, it was not worth while. It is noticeable that he is not condemned because he is immoral, but because he is heretical. The implication is that he might have been even worse than he was in his morals and yet no decisive steps have been taken against him, had he not deviated from the orthodox faith. The Fathers, in fact, by their letters, put themselves in a sad dilemma. Either Paul was not as wicked as they try to make him out, or else they were shamefully indifferent to the moral character of their bishops, and even of the incumbents of their most prominent sees.

315:2421

On Artemas, or Artemon, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 1. Paul’s heresy was a reproduction of his, as remarked above, chap. 27, note 4.

315:2422

The action of this council in appointing Domnus was entirely irregular, as the choice of the bishop devolved upon the clergy and the people of the diocese. But the synod was afraid that Paul’s influence would be great enough to secure his re-election, and hence they took this summary means of disposing of him. But it was only after the accession of Aurelian that Paul was actually removed from his bishopric and Domnus was enabled to enter upon his office (see chap. 27, note 4). The exact date of Domnus’ appointment is uncertain, as already shown (see the note just referred to); so also the date of his death. Both versions of the Chron. put his accession in the year of Abr. 2283 (a.d. 265), and Jerome’s version puts the accession of his successor, Timæus, in the year of Abr. 2288 (a.d. 270), while the Armenian omits the notice entirely. We can place no reliance whatever upon these dates; the date of Domnus’ death is certainly at least two years too early (see the note already referred to).

315:2423

On Demetrianus, the predecessor of Paul in the episcopate of Antioch, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.

315:2424

τὰ κοινωνικὰ γρ€μματα. Valesius says: “The Latins call them literas communicatorias, and the use of them is very ancient in the Church. They were also called formatæ (cf. Augustine Epistle 163). These writers were of two kinds: the one given to the clergy and laity when they were going to travel, in order that they might be admitted to communion by foreign bishops: while the other kind were sent by bishops to other bishops to declare their communion with them, and were in turn received from other bishops. Of the latter the synod speaks here. They were usually sent by new bishops soon after their ordination.” Valesius refers to Augustine (ibid.), to Cyprian’s epistle to Cornelius (Ep. 41, al. 45), and to the synodical epistle of the Council of Sardica.

315:2425

This is a very keen bit of sarcasm. As Harnack remarks, the mention of Artemas in this way proves (or at least renders it very probable) that he was still alive at this time, in which case his activity in Rome must be put somewhat later than the commonly accepted dates, viz. the episcopate of Zephyrinus (202–217).

316:2426

See chap. 27, note 4. The bishop of Rome to whose judgment Aurelian appealed was Felix, mentioned below.

316:2427

Aurelian, according to tradition, was the author of the ninth of the “ten great persecutions” against the Church. But the report is a mistake. Eusebius apparently is the ultimate source to which the report is to be referred, but he says expressly that he died before he was able to begin his intended persecution, and more than that, that he was even prevented from signing the decree, so that it is not proper to speak even of an hostile edict of Aurelian (as many do who reject the actual persecution). It is true that in Lactantius’ De mort. persecutorum, chap. 6, it is said that Aurelian actually issued edicts against the Christians, but that he died before they had found their way to the most distant provinces. It seems probable, however, that Eusebius’ account is nearest the truth, and that the reports that Aurelian actually signed the edicts as well as that he commenced the persecution are both developments from the original and more correct version of the affair which Eusebius gives. There is no reason to doubt the account of Eusebius. Aurelian’s conduct in the case of Paul does not imply any special friendliness on his part toward the Church. The Christians had secured legal recognition under Gallienus; and it was a simple act of common justice to put the valuable property of the Church in Antioch into the hands of the rightful owners whoever they might be. His act does imply, however, that he cannot have been in the beginning actively hostile to the Church, for in that case he would simply have driven Paul out, and confiscated the property.

316:2428

μονονουχὶ ἐξ ἀγκώνων τῆς ἐγχειρήσεως αὐτὸν ἐπιδεσμοῦσα

316:2429

Aurelian reigned from 270 to 275, and was succeeded by Tacitus, who ruled only six months, and he in turn by Probus (276 to 282), who was followed by Carus and his sons Carinus and Numerian, and they in turn by Diocletian in 284. Eusebius here omits Tacitus, although he mentions him in his Chron., and assigns six months to his reign, and five years and six months to the reign of Aurelian.

316:2430

Diocletian associated Maximian with himself in the government in 286, and sent him to command the West with the title of Augustus. In 293 he appointed Constantius Chlorus and Galerius as Cæsars, giving to the former the government of Gaul and Britain, to the latter that of the provinces between the Adriatic and the Euxine, while Maximian held Africa and Italy, and Diocletian himself retained the provinces of Asia. He issued an edict, opening his famous persecution against the Christians, of which Eusebius gives an account in the next book, on Feb. 23, 303.

316:2431

On Dionysius, bishop of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.

316:2432

According to the Liberian catalogue, Felix became bishop on the fifth of January, 269, and held office five years eleven months and twenty-five days, until the thirtieth of December, 274, and these dates Lipsius accepts as correct. Eusebius, in chap. 32, gives five years as the duration of his episcopate, and with this Jerome’s version of the Chron. agrees, while the Armenian gives nineteen years, which is absolutely inconsistent with its own notices, and must be of course a copyist’s mistake. Jerome puts the accession of Felix in the first year of Probus, which is wide of the mark, and the Armenian in the first year of Aurelian, which is not so far out of the way.

Felix addressed a letter, in regard to Paul of Samosata, to Maximus and the clergy of Antioch, of which fragments have been preserved in the Apology of Cyril of Alexandria, and in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (given by Mansi, Conc. I. 1114). The report of his martyrdom is probably a mistake, and has resulted from confusing him with Felix II., who was bishop of Rome in the fourth century.

Chapter XXXI.—The Perversive Heresy of the Manicheans which began at this Time.

1. At this time, the madman, 2433 named from his demoniacal heresy, armed himself in the perversion of his reason, as the devil, Satan, who himself fights against God, put him forward to the destruction of many. He was a barbarian in life, both in word and deed; and in his nature demoniacal and insane. In consequence of this he sought to pose as Christ, and being puffed up in his madness, he proclaimed himself the Paraclete and the very Holy Spirit; 2434 and afterwards, like Christ, he chose twelve disciples as partners of his new doctrine.

2. And he patched together false and godless doctrines collected from a multitude of long-extinct impieties, and swept them, like a deadly poison, from Persia to our part of the world. From him the impious name of the Manicheans is still prevalent among many. Such was the foundation of this “knowledge falsely so-called,” 2435 which sprang up in those times.

Footnotes

316:2433

The name Manes, or Mani, is not of Greek, but of Persian or Semitic origin. It has not yet been satisfactorily explained. The Greek form is Μ€νης or Μανιχαῖος; the Latin form, Manes or Manichæus. In this place Eusebius instead of giving him his true name makes a play upon it, calling him ὁ μανεὶς τὰς φρένας, “the madman.” This does not imply that Eusebius supposed his name was originally Greek. He perhaps—as others of the Fathers did—regarded it as a sign of divine providence that the Persian name chosen by himself (Mani was not his original name) should when reproduced in Greek bear such a significant meaning. See Stroth’s note on this passage.

Eusebius’ brief account is the first authentic description we have of Manes and Manichæism. It is difficult to get at the exact truth in regard to the life of Manes himself. We have it reported in two conflicting forms, an Oriental and an Occidental. The former, however,—though our sources for it are much later than for the latter—is undoubtedly the more reliable of the two. The differences between the two accounts cannot be discussed here. We know that Mani was a well-educated Persian philosopher of the third century (according to Kessler, 205–276 a.d.; according to the Oriental source used by Beausobre, about 240–276), who attempted to supersede Zoroastrianism, the old religion of Persia, by a syncretistic system made up of elements taken from Parsism, Buddhism, and Christianity. He was at first well received by the Persian king, Sapor I., but aroused the hatred of the Magian priests, and was compelled to flee from the country. Returning after some time, he gained a large following, but was put to death by King Varanes I, about 276 a.d. His sect spread rapidly throughout Christendom, and in spite of repeated persecutions flourished for many centuries. The mysteriousness of its doctrine, its compact organization, its apparent solution of the terrible problem of evil, and its show of ascetic holiness combined to make it very attractive to thoughtful minds, as, e.g. to Augustine. The fundamental principle of the system is a radical dualism between good and evil, light and darkness. This dualism runs through its morals as well as through its theology, and the result is a rigid asceticism. Christianity furnished some ideas, but its influence is chiefly seen in the organization of the sect, which had apostles, bishops, presbyters, deacons, and traveling missionaries. Manichæism cannot be called a heresy,—it was rather an independent religion as Mohammedanism was. The system cannot be further discussed here. The chief works upon the subject are Beausobre’s Hist. Crit. de Manichée et du Manichéisme, Amst. 1734 and 1739, 2 vols.; Baur’s Das Manichäische Religionssystem, Tüb. 1831; Flügel’s Mani, Seine Lehre und seine Schriften, aus den Fihrist des Abî Jakub an-Nadûn, Leipzig, 1882; and two works by Kessler (Leipzig, 1876 and 1882). See also the discussions of the system in the various Church histories, and especially the respective articles by Stokes and Kessler in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. and in Herzog.

317:2434

Beausobre maintains that Mani did not pretend to be the Paraclete, but merely a man, the messenger of the Paraclete. The Fathers generally, however agree with Eusebius in asserting that his claims were of the very highest sort. The point cannot be satisfactorily settled.

317:2435

See 1 Tim. vi. 20.

Chapter XXXII.—The Distinguished Ecclesiastics 2436 of our Day, and which of them survived until the Destruction of the Churches.

1. At this time, Felix, 2437 having presided over the church of Rome for five years, was succeeded by Eutychianus, 2438 but he in less than ten months left the position to Caius, 2439 who lived in our day. He held it about fifteen years, and was in turn succeeded by Marcellinus, 2440 who was overtaken by the persecution.

2. About the same time Timæus 2441 received the episcopate of Antioch after Domnus, 2442 and Cyril, 2443 who lived in our day, succeeded him. In his time we became acquainted with Dorotheus, 2444 a man of learning among those of his day, who was honored with the office of presbyter in Antioch. He was a lover of the beautiful in divine things, and devoted himself to the Hebrew language, so that he read the Hebrew Scriptures with facility. 2445

3. He belonged to those who were especially liberal, and was not unacquainted with Grecian propædeutics. 2446 Besides this he was a eunuch, 2447 having been so from his very birth. On this account, as if it were a miracle, the emperor 2448 took him into his family, and honored him by placing him over the purple dye-works at Tyre. We have heard him expound the Scriptures wisely in the Church.

4. After Cyril, Tyrannus 2449 received the episcopate of the parish of Antioch. In his time occurred the destruction of the churches.

5. Eusebius, 2450 who had come from the city of Alexandria, ruled the parishes of Laodicea after Socrates. 2451 The occasion of his removal thither was the affair of Paul. He went on this account to Syria, and was restrained from returning home by those there who were zealous in divine things. Among our contemporaries he was a beautiful example of religion, as is readily seen from the words of Dionysius which we have quoted. 2452

6. Anatolius 2453 was appointed his successor; one good man, as they say, following another. He also was an Alexandrian by birth. In learning and skill in Greek philosophy, such as arithmetic and geometry, astronomy, and dialectics in general, as well as in the theory of physics, he stood first among the ablest men of our time, and he was also at the head in rhetorical science. It is reported that for this reason he was requested by the citizens of Alexandria to establish there a school of Aristotelian philosophy. 2454

7. They relate of him many other eminent deeds during the siege of the Pyrucheium 2455 in Alexandria, on account of which he was especially honored by all those in high office; but I will give the following only as an example.

8. They say that bread had failed the besieged, so that it was more difficult to withstand the famine than the enemy outside; but he being present provided for them in this manner. As the other part of the city was allied with the Roman army, and therefore was not under siege, Anatolius sent for Eusebius,—for he was still there before his transfer to Syria, and was among those who were not besieged, and possessed, moreover, a great reputation and a renowned name which had reached even the Roman general,—and he informed him of those who were perishing in the siege from famine.

9. When he learned this he requested the Roman commander as the greatest possible favor, to grant safety to deserters from the enemy. Having obtained his request, he communicated it to Anatolius. As soon as he received the message he convened the senate of Alexandria, and at first proposed that all should come to a reconciliation with the Romans. But when he perceived that they were angered by this advice, he said, “But I do not think you will oppose me, if I counsel you to send the supernumeraries and those who are in nowise useful to us, as old women and children and old men, outside the gates, to go wherever they may please. For why should we retain for no purpose these who must at any rate soon die? and why should we destroy with hunger those who are crippled and maimed in body, when we ought to provide only for men and youth, and to distribute the necessary bread among those who are needed for the garrison of the city?”

10. With such arguments he persuaded the assembly, and rising first he gave his vote that the entire multitude, whether of men or women, who were not needful for the army, should depart from the city, because if they remained and unnecessarily continued in the city, there would be for them no hope of safety, but they would perish with famine.

11. As all the others in the senate agreed to this, he saved almost all the besieged. He provided that first, those belonging to the church, and afterwards, of the others in the city, those of every age should escape, not only the classes included in the decree, but, under cover of these, a multitude of others, secretly clothed in women’s garments; and through his management they went out of the gates by night and escaped to the Roman camp. There Eusebius, like a father and physician, received all of them, wasted away through the long siege, and restored them by every kind of prudence and care.

12. The church of Laodicea was honored by two such pastors in succession, who, in the providence of God, came after the aforesaid war from Alexandria to that city.

13. Anatolius did not write very many works; but in such as have come down to us we can discern his eloquence and erudition. In these he states particularly his opinions on the passover. It seems important to give here the following extracts from them. 2456

14. From the Paschal Canons of Anatolius. “There is then in the first year the new moon of the first month, which is the beginning of every cycle of nineteen years, 2457 on the twenty-sixth day of the Egyptian Phamenoth; 2458 but according to the months of the Macedonians, the twenty-second day of Dystrus, 2459 or, as the Romans would say, the eleventh before the Kalends of April.

15. On the said twenty-sixth of Phamenoth, the sun is found not only entered on the first segment, 2460 but already passing through the fourth day in it. They are accustomed to call this segment the first dodecatomorion, 2461 and the equinox, and the beginning of months, and the head of the cycle, and the starting-point of the planetary circuit. But they call the one preceding this the last of months, and the twelfth segment, and the final dodecatomorion, and the end of the planetary circuit. Wherefore we maintain that those who place the first month in it, and determine by it the fourteenth of the passover, commit no slight or common blunder.

16. And this is not an opinion of our own; but it was known to the Jews of old, even before Christ, and was carefully observed by them. This may be learned from what is said by Philo, Josephus, and Musæus; 2462 and not only by them, but also by those yet more ancient, the two Agathobuli, 2463 surnamed ‘Masters,’ and the famous Aristobulus, 2464 who was chosen among the seventy interpreters of the sacred and divine Hebrew Scriptures 2465 by Ptolemy Philadelphus and his father, and who also dedicated his exegetical books on the law of Moses to the same kings.

17. These writers, explaining questions in regard to the Exodus, say that all alike should sacrifice the passover offerings after the vernal equinox, in the middle of the first month. But this occurs while the sun is passing through the first segment of the solar, or as some of them have styled it, the zodiacal circle. Aristobulus adds that it is necessary for the feast of the passover, that not only the sun should pass through the equinoctial segment, but the moon also.

18. For as there are two equinoctial segments, the vernal and the autumnal, directly opposite each other, and as the day of the passover was appointed on the fourteenth of the month, beginning with the evening, the moon will hold a position diametrically opposite the sun, as may be seen in full moons; and the sun will be in the segment of the vernal equinox, and of necessity the moon in that of the autumnal.

19. I know that many other things have been said by them, some of them probable, and some approaching absolute demonstration, by which they endeavor to prove that it is altogether necessary to keep the passover and the feast of unleavened bread after the equinox. But I refrain from demanding this sort of demonstration for matters from which the veil of the Mosaic law has been removed, so that now at length with uncovered face we continually behold as in a glass Christ and the teachings and sufferings of Christ. 2466 But that with the Hebrews the first month was near the equinox, the teachings also of the Book of Enoch show.” 2467

20. The same writer has also left the Institutes of Arithmetic, in ten books, 2468 and other evidences of his experience and proficiency in divine things.

21. Theotecnus, 2469 bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, first ordained him as bishop, designing to make him his successor in his own parish after his death. And for a short time both of them presided over the same church. 2470 But the synod which was held to consider Paul’s case 2471 called him to Antioch, and as he passed through the city of Laodicea, Eusebius being dead, he was detained by the brethren there.

22. And after Anatolius had departed this life, the last bishop of that parish before the persecution was Stephen, 2472 who was admired by many for his knowledge of philosophy and other Greek learning. But he was not equally devoted to the divine faith, as the progress of the persecution manifested; for it showed that he was a cowardly and unmanly dissembler rather than a true philosopher.

23. But this did not seriously injure the church, for Theodotus 2473 restored their affairs, being straightway made bishop of that parish by God himself, the Saviour of all. He justified by his deeds both his lordly name 2474 and his office of bishop. For he excelled in the medical art for bodies, and in the healing art for souls. Nor did any other man equal him in kindness, sincerity, sympathy, and zeal in helping such as needed his aid. He was also greatly devoted to divine learning. Such an one was he.

24. In Cæsarea in Palestine, Agapius 2475 succeeded Theotecnus, who had most zealously performed the duties of his episcopate. Him too we know to have labored diligently, and to have manifested most genuine providence in his oversight of the people, particularly caring for all the poor with liberal hand.

25. In his time we became acquainted with Pamphilus, 2476 that most eloquent man, of truly philosophical life, who was esteemed worthy of the office of presbyter in that parish. It would be no small matter to show what sort of a man he was and whence he came. But we have described, in our special work concerning him, 2477 all the particulars of his life, and of the school which he established, and the trials which he endured in many confessions during the persecution, and the crown of martyrdom with which he was finally honored. But of all that were there he was indeed the most admirable.

26. Among those nearest our times, we have known Pierius, 2478 of the presbyters in Alexandria, and Meletius, 2479 bishop of the churches in Pontus,—rarest of men.

27. The first was distinguished for his life of extreme poverty and his philosophic learning, and was exceedingly diligent in the contemplation and exposition of divine things, and in public discourses in the church. Meletius, whom the learned called the “honey of Attica,” 2480 was a man whom every one would describe as most accomplished in all kinds of learning; and it would be impossible to admire sufficiently his rhetorical skill. It might be said that he possessed this by nature; but who could surpass the excellence of his great experience and erudition in other respects?

28. For in all branches of knowledge had you undertaken to try him even once, you would have said that he was the most skillful and learned. Moreover, the virtues of his life were not less remarkable. We observed him well in the time of the persecution, when for seven full years he was escaping from its fury in the regions of Palestine.

29. Zambdas 2481 received the episcopate of the church of Jerusalem after the bishop Hymenæus, whom we mentioned a little above. 2482 He died in a short time, and Hermon, 2483 the last before the persecution in our day, succeeded to the apostolic chair, which has been preserved there until the present time. 2484

30. In Alexandria, Maximus, 2485 who, after the death of Dionysius, 2486 had been bishop for eighteen years, was succeeded by Theonas. 2487 In his time Achillas, 2488 who had been appointed a presbyter in Alexandria at the same time with Pierius, became celebrated. He was placed over the school of the sacred faith, 2489 and exhibited fruits of philosophy most rare and inferior to none, and conduct genuinely evangelical.

31. After Theonas had held the office for nineteen years, Peter 2490 received the episcopate in Alexandria, and was very eminent among them for twelve entire years. Of these he governed the church less than three years before the persecution, and for the remainder of his life he subjected himself to a more rigid discipline and cared in no secret manner for the general interest of the churches. On this account he was beheaded in the ninth year of the persecution, and was adorned with the crown of martyrdom.

32. Having written out in these books the account of the successions from the birth of our Saviour to the destruction of the places of worship,—a period of three hundred and five years, 2491 —permit me to pass on to the contests of those who, in our day, have heroically fought for religion, and to leave in writing, for the information of posterity, the extent and the magnitude of those conflicts.

Footnotes

317:2436

ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἀνδρῶν.

317:2437

On Felix, see chap. 30, note 34.

317:2438

Jerome’s version of the Chron. agrees with this passage in assigning eight months to the episcopate of Eutychianus, while the Armenian gives him only two months. The Liberian catalogue, however, gives eight years eleven months and three days; and Lipsius accepts these figures as correct, putting his accession on the fifth of January, 275, and his death on the eighth of December, 283. Jerome puts his accession in the fifth year of Probus, which is wide of the mark, the Armenian in the second year, which is also too late by about two years. Lipsius explains the eight months of the Church History and the Chron. as a change, in their original source, of years to mouths. The present error makes up in part for the error in chap. 27, where Xystus is given eleven years instead of eleven months. Eutychianus was not a martyr, but was buried, according to the Liberian catalogue, in the Catacombs of St. Calixtus, a statement which has been confirmed by the discovery of a stone bearing his name.

317:2439

According to the Liberian catalogue, Caius became bishop on the 17th of December, 283, and held office for twelve years four months and six (or seven) days, i.e. until April 22, 296, and these dates are accepted by Lipsius as correct. Both versions of the Chron. agree with the History in assigning fifteen years to Caius’ episcopate, but this error is of a piece with the others which abound in this period. The report of his martyrdom is fabulous.

317:2440

According to the Liberian catalogue, Marcellinus became bishop on the 30th of June, 296, and held office for eight years three months and twenty-five days, i.e. until the 25th of October, 304, and these dates Lipsius accepts as correct, although there is considerable uncertainty as to the exact date of his death. Jerome’s version of the Chron. puts his accession in the twelfth year of Diocletian, which is not far out of the way, but does not give the duration of his episcopate, nor does Eusebius in his History. The Armenian Chron. does not mention Marcellinus at all. Tradition, although denied by many of the Fathers, says that he proved wanting in the Diocletian persecution, and this seems to have been a fact. It is also said that he afterward repented and suffered martyrdom, but that is only an invention. The expression of Eusebius in this connection is ambiguous; he simply says he was “overtaken by the persecution,” which might mean martyrdom, or might mean simply arrest. The eleven bishops that preceded him from Pontianus to Caius were buried in the Catacombs of St. Calixtus, but he was buried in those of Priscilla.

317:2441

Of Timæus we know nothing, nor can we fix his dates. The Chron. puts his accession in the year of Abr. 2288 (270 a.d.), and the accession of his successor, Cyril, in 2297 (279 a.d.), but the former at least is certainly far too early. Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 53) concludes that Cyril must have been bishop as early as 280, and hence neither Domnus nor Timæus can have held office a great while.

317:2442

On Domnus, see chap. 30, note 24.

317:2443

According to Jerome’s Chron., Cyril became bishop in the year of Abr. 2297, or fourth year of Probus (279–280 a.d.); and Harnack accepts this as at least approximately correct. The same authority puts the accession of his successor, Tyrannus, in the eighteenth year of Diocletian (301–302 a.d.), and just below Eusebius says that the destruction of the churches (in Diocletian’s persecution) took place under Tyrannus, not under Cyril. But the Passio sanctorum quattuor coronatorum (see Mason’s Persecution of Diocletian, p. 259–271) contains a reference to him which assumes that he was condemned to the mines, and died there after three years. The condemnation, if a fact, must have taken place after the second edict of Diocletian (303 a.d.), and his death therefore in 306. There is no other authority for this report, but Harnack considers it in the highest degree probable, and the indirect way in which Cyril is mentioned certainly argues for its truth. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome, however, seems to have known anything about it, and this is very hard to explain. The matter must, in fact, be left undecided. See Harnack, Zeit des Ignatius, p. 53 sq.

317:2444

This Dorotheus and his contemporary, Lucian (mentioned below, in Bk. VIII. chap. 13), are the earliest representatives of the sound critical method of Biblical exegesis, for which the theological school at Antioch was distinguished, over against the school of Alexandria, in which the allegorical method was practiced. From Bk. VIII. chap. 6 we learn that Dorotheus suffered martyrdom by hanging early in the Diocletian persecution, so that it must have been from this emperor, and not from Constantine, that he received his appointment mentioned just below. Diocletian, before he began to persecute, had a number of Christian officials in his household, and treated them with considerable favor.

317:2445

As Closs remarks, the knowledge of Hebrew was by no means a common thing among the early teachers of the Church; and therefore Dorotheus is praised for his acquaintance with it.

317:2446

προπαιδείας τῆς καθ᾽ ῞Ελληνας. Compare. Bk. VI. chap. 18, §3.

317:2447

According to the first canon of the Council of Nicæa (see Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I. p. 376), persons who made themselves eunuchs were not to be allowed to become clergymen, nor to remain clergymen if already such. But this prohibition was not to apply to persons who were made eunuchs by physicians or by their persecutors; and the latter part of the canon confines the prohibition expressly to those who have purposely performed the act upon themselves, and hence nothing would have stood in the way of the advancement of one born a eunuch as Dorotheus was, even had he lived after the Council of Nicæa, and still less previous to that time. Closs (followed by Heinichen) is therefore hardly correct in regarding the fact that Dorotheus held office as an exception to the established order of things.

317:2448

i.e. Diocletian.

317:2449

According to Jerome’s Chron. Tyrannus became bishop in the eighteenth year of Diocletian (301–302). If the account of Cyril’s death accepted by Harnack be taken as correct, this date is at least a year too early. If Cyril was sent to the mines in 303 and died in 306, Tyrannus may have become bishop in 303, or not until 306. According to Theodoret, H. E. I. 3, his successor, Vitalis, is said to have become bishop “after peace had been restored to the Church,” which seems to imply, though it is not directly said, that Tyrannus himself lived until that time (i.e. until 311). We know nothing certainly either about his character or the dates of his episcopate.

318:2450

This Eusebius, who is mentioned with praise by Dionysius of Alexandria, in the epistle quoted in chap. 11, above, was a deacon in the church of Alexandria, who distinguished himself by his good offices during the persecution of Valerian (a.d. 257), as recorded in that epistle, and also during the revolt and siege of Alexandria after the death of Valerian (in 262), as recorded in this chapter. From the account given here we see that he attended the first, or at least one of the earlier councils of Antioch in which the case of Paul was discussed (undoubtedly as the representative of Dionysius, whose age prevented his attending the first one, as mentioned in chap. 27), and the Laodiceans, becoming acquainted with him there, compelled him to accept the bishopric of their church, at that time vacant. As we see from the account of Anatolius’ appointment farther on in this chapter, he died before the meeting of the council which condemned Paul. We know in regard to him only what is told us in these two chapters. The name Eusebius was a very common one in the early Church. The Dict. of Christ. Biog. mentions 137 persons of that name belonging to the first eight centuries.

318:2451

Of this Socrates we know nothing.

318:2452

In chap. 11, above.

318:2453

Anatolius we are told here was a man of great distinction both for his learning and for his practical common sense. It is not said that he held any ecclesiastical office in Alexandria, but farther on in the chapter we are told that he left that city after the close of the siege, as Eusebius had done, and that he was ordained assistant bishop by Theotecnus, bishop of Cæsarea, and was the latter’s colleague in that church for a short time. When on his way to (possibly on his return from) the synod of Antioch, which passed condemnation upon Paul (and at which Theotecnus was also present), he passed through Laodicea and was prevailed upon to accept the bishopric of that city, Eusebius, his old friend, being deceased. The way in which Laodicea got its two bishops is thus somewhat remarkable. The character of Anatolius is clear from the account which follows. Jerome mentions him in his de vir. ill. chap. 73, and in his Ep. ad Magnum (Migne, No. 70), but adds nothing to Eusebius’ account. Upon his writings, one of which is quoted in this chapter, see below, notes 21 and 32.

318:2454

τῆς ᾽Αριστοτέλους διαδοχῆς τὴν διατριβήν: “A school of the Aristotelian succession,” or “order.”

318:2455

The Pyrucheium (the mss. of Eusebius vary considerably in their spelling, but I have adopted that form which seems best supported) or Brucheium (as it is called by other ancient writers and as it is more generally known) was one of the three districts of Alexandria and was inhabited by the royal family and by the Greeks. It was the finest and most beautiful quarter of the city, and contained, besides the royal palaces, many magnificent public buildings. Comprising, as it did, the citadel as well, it was besieged a number of times, and it is uncertain which siege is meant in the present case. It seems to me most likely that we are to think of the time of the revolt of Æmilian (see above, chap. 11, note 4), in 260 a.d., when the Romans under Theodotus besieged and finally (just how soon we cannot tell, but the city seems to have been at peace again at least in 264) took the Brucheium. Valesius and others think of a later siege under Claudius, but that seems to me too late (see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 345 sq.).

319:2456

Anatolius’ work on the passover is still extant in a Latin translation supposed to be the work of Rufinus (though this is uncertain), and which was first published by Ægidius Bucherius in his Doctrina Temporum, Antwerp, 1634. Ideler (Chron. II. 230) claims that this supposed translation of Anatolius is a work of the seventh century. But there are the best of reasons for supposing it an early translation of Anatolius’ genuine work (see Zahn, Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, III. p. 177–196). The Latin version is given with the other extant fragments of Anatolius’ works in Migne’s Pat. Gr. X. 209–222, 231–236, and an English translation of the Paschal Canons in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 146–151. Upon this work of Anatolius, see especially the works of Ideler and Zahn referred to just above.

319:2457

Anatolius was, so far as we know, the first Christian to employ the old Metonic nineteen-year cycle for the determination of Easter (see above, chap. 20, note 6).

319:2458

Phamenoth was the seventh month of the Alexandrian year, which was introduced in the reign of Augustus (b.c. 25) and began on the 29th of August. The month Phamenoth, therefore, began on the 25th of February, and the 26th of the month corresponded to the 22d of our March.

319:2459

Dystrus was the seventh month of the Macedonian year, and corresponded exactly with our March, so that the 22d of Dystrus was the 22d of March, which according to the Roman method of reckoning was the eleventh day before the Kalends of April.

319:2460

i.e. the first of the twelve signs of the Zodiac. On Anatolius’ method of calculation, see Ideler, ibid.

319:2461

δωδεκατημόριον: “twelfth-part.”

319:2462

So far as I am aware, Musæus is known to us only from this reference of Anatolius.

319:2463

Who the two Agathobuli were we do not know. In the Chron. of Eusebius a philosopher Agathobulus is mentioned under the third year of Hadrian in connection with Plutarch, Sextus, and Œnomaus. Valesius therefore suspects that Anatolius is in error in putting the Agathobuli earlier than Philo and Josephus. I must confess, however, that the connection in which Eusebius mentions Agathobulus in his Chron. makes it seem to me very improbable that he can be referring to either of the Agathobuli whom Anatolius mentions, and that it is much more likely that the latter were two closely related Jewish writers (perhaps father and son), who lived, as Anatolius says, before the time of Philo.

319:2464

Aristobulus was a well-known Hellenistic philosopher of Alexandria, who lived in the time of Ptolemy Philometor in the second century b.c. He was thoroughly acquainted with Greek philosophy, and was in many respects the forerunner of Philo. Anatolius’ statement that he wrote in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and consequently his report that he was one of the seventy translators of the Septuagint (on the legend as to its composition, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31) must be looked upon as certainly an error (see Clement Alex Strom. I. 22, Eusebius’ Præp. Evang. IX. 6, and XIII. 12, and his Chron., year of Abr. 1841). He is mentioned often by Clement of Alexandria, by Origen (Contra Cels. IV. 51), and by Eusebius, who in his Præp. Evang. (VII. 14 and VIII. 10) gives two fragments of his work (or works) On the Mosaic Law. It is doubtless to this same work that Anatolius refers in the present passage. No other fragments of his writings are extant. See especially Schürer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, II. p. 760 sq. See also Bk. VI. chap. 23, note 13, above.

319:2465

On the origin of the LXX, see above, Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31. The mythical character of the common legend in regard to its composition is referred to in that note, and that the LXX (or at least that part of it which comprises the law) was already in existence before the time of Aristobulus is clear from the latter’s words, quoted by Eusebius, Præp. Evang. XIII. 12, 1–2 (Heinichen’s ed.).

320:2466

Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 18.

320:2467

The Book of Enoch is one of the so-called Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, which was widely used in the ancient Church, and is quoted in the Jude 14 sq. The work disappeared after about the fifth century, and was supposed to have perished (with the exception of a few fragments) until in 1773 it was discovered entire in an Ethiopic Bible, and in 1838 was published in Ethiopic by Lawrence, who in 1821 had already translated it into English. Dillmann also published the Ethiopic text in 1851, and in 1853 a German translation with commentary. Dillmann’s edition of the original entirely supersedes that of Lawrence, and his translation and commentary still form the standard work upon the subject. More recently it has been re-translated into English and discussed by George H. Schodde: The Book of Enoch, translated, with Introduction and Notes, Andover, 1882. The literature on the book of Enoch is very extensive. See especially Schodde’s work, the German translation of Dillmann, Schürer’s Gesch. der Juden, II. p. 616 sq., and Lipsius’ article, Enoch, Apocryphal Book of, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

The teachings of the book to which Anatolius refers are found in the seventy-second chapter (Schodde’s ed. p. 179 sq.), which contains a detailed description of the course of the sun during the various months of the year.

320:2468

᾽Αριθμητικὰς εἰσαγωγ€ς. A few fragments of this work are given in the Theologumena Arithmeticæ (Paris, 1543), p. 9, 16, 24, 34, 56, 64 (according to Fabricius), and by Fabricius in his Bibl. Gr. II. 275–277 (ed. Harles, III. 462 sq.).

320:2469

On Theotecnus, see chap. 14, note 9.

320:2470

On the custom of appointing assistant bishops, see Bk. VI. chap. 11, note 1.

320:2471

Eusebius doubtless refers here to the final council at which Paul was condemned, and which has been already mentioned in chaps. 29 and 30 (on its date, see chap. 29, note 1). That it is this particular council to which he refers is implied in the way in which it is spoken of,—as if referring to the well-known synod, of which so much has been said,—and still further by the fact that Eusebius, who had attended the first one (see above, §5), and had then become bishop of Laodicea, was already dead.

320:2472

Of Stephen, bishop of Laodicea, we know only what Eusebius tells us in this passage.

320:2473

Theodotus, of whom Eusebius speaks in such high terms in this passage, was bishop of Laodicea for a great many years, and played a prominent part in the Arian controversy, being one of the most zealous supporters of the Arian cause (see Theodoret, H. E. I. 5 and V. 7, and Athanasius de Synodis Arim. et Seleuc. I. 17). He was present at the Council of Nicæa (Labbe, Concil. II. 51), and took part in the council which deposed Eustathius of Antioch, in 330 (according to Theodoret, H. E. I. 21, whose account, though unreliable, is very likely correct so far as its list of bishops is concerned; on the council, see also p. 21, above). He was already dead in the year 341; for his successor, George, was present at the Council of Antioch (In Encæniis), which was held in that year (see Sozomen, H. E. III. 5, and cf. Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 502 sq.). We have no information that he was present at the Council of Tyre, in 335 (as is incorrectly stated by Labbe, who confounds Theodore of Heraclea with Theodotus; see Theodoret, H. E. I. 28). It is, therefore, possible that he was dead at that time, though his absence of course does not prove it. According to Socrates, H. E. II. 46, and Sozomen, H. E. VI. 25, Theodotus had trouble with the two Apolinarii, father and son, who resided at Antioch. We do not know the date of the younger Apolinarius’ birth (the approximate date, 335, given in the article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. is a gross error), but we can hardly put it much earlier than 320, and therefore as he was a reader in the church, according to Socrates (Sozomen calls him only a youth) in the time of Theodotus, it seems best to put the death of the latter as late as possible, perhaps well on toward 340. The date of his accession is unknown to us; but as Eusebius says that he became bishop straightway after the fall of Stephen, we cannot well put his accession later than 311; so that he held office in all probability some thirty years. Venables’ article on Theodotus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. is a tissue of errors, caused by identifying Theodotus with Theodore of Heraclea (an error committed by Labbe before him) and with another Theodotus, present at the Council of Seleucia, in 359 (Athanasius, ibid. I. 12; cf. Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 713).

320:2474

Θεόδοτος: “God-given.”

320:2475

Of Agapius we know only what Eusebius tells us in this passage. He was the immediate predecessor of Eusebius in the church of Cæsarea, and probably survived the persecution, but not for many years (see above, p. 10 sq.). Eusebius speaks of him in the past tense, so that he was clearly already dead at the time this part of the History was written (i.e. probably in 313; see above, p. 45).

320:2476

Pamphilus, a presbyter of Cæsarea, was Eusebius’ teacher and most intimate friend, and after his death Eusebius showed his affection and respect for him by adopting his name, styling himself Eusebius Pamphili. He pursued his studies in Alexandria (according to Photius, under Pierius, more probably under Achillas, the head of the catechetical school there; see below, notes 42 and 53), and conceived an unbounded admiration for Origen, the great light of that school, which he never lost. Pamphilus is chiefly celebrated for the library which he collected at Cæsarea and to which Eusebius owes a large part of the materials of his history. Jerome also made extensive use of it. It was especially rich in copies of the Scripture, of commentaries upon it, and of Origen’s works (see above, p. 38). He wrote very little, devoting himself chiefly to the study of Scripture, and to the transcription of mss. of it and of the works of Origen. During the last two years of his life, however, while in prison, he wrote with the assistance of Eusebius a Defense of Origen in five books, to which Eusebius afterward added a sixth (see above, p. 36 sq.). During the persecution under Maximinus, he was thrown into prison by Urbanus, prefect of Cæsarea, in 307, and after remaining two years in close confinement, cheered by the companionship of Eusebius, he was put to death by Firmilian, the successor of Urbanus, in 309, as recorded below, in the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 11 (see above, p. 9). The Life of Pamphilus which Eusebius wrote is no longer extant (see above, p. 28). On Pamphilus, see Jerome, de vir. ill. chap. 75, and Photius, Cod. 118. See also the present volume, p. 5–9 passim.

321:2477

On Eusebius’ Life of Pamphilus, see above p. 28 sq.

321:2478

According to Jerome (de vir. ill. 76) Pierius was a presbyter and a teacher in Alexandria under the emperors Carus and Diocletian, while Theonas was bishop there (see note 51, below), on account of the elegance of his writings was called “the younger Origen,” was skilled, moreover, in dialectics and rhetoric, lived an ascetic life, and passed his later years, after the persecution, in Rome. According to Photius, Cod. 118, he was at the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, was the teacher of Pamphilus, and finally suffered martyrdom. Photius may be correct in the former statements. The last statement is at variance with Jerome’s distinct report which in the present instance at least is to be decidedly preferred to that of Photius. The first statement also is subject to grave doubt, for according to Eusebius (§30, below), Achillas, who was made presbyter at the same time as Pierius, and who lived until after the persecution (when he became bishop), was principal of the school. Eusebius’ statement must be accepted as correct, and in that case it is difficult to believe the report of Photius, both on account of Eusebius’ silence in regard to Pierius’ connection with the school, and also because if Pierius was principal of the school, he must apparently have given it up while he was still in Alexandria, or must have left the city earlier than Jerome says. It is more probable that Photius’ report is false and rests upon a combination of the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome. If both the first and third statements of Photius are incorrect, little faith can be placed on the second, which may be true, or which may be simply a combination of the known fact that Pamphilus studied in Alexandria with the supposed fact that Pierius was the principal of the catechetical school while he was there. It is quite as probable that Pamphilus studied with Achillas. Jerome tells us that a number of works (tractatuum) by Pierius were extant in his day, among them a long homily on Hosea (cf. also Jerome’s Comment. in Osee, prologus). In his second epistle to Pammachius (Migne, No. 49) Jerome refers also to Pierius’ commentary on First Corinthians, and quotes from it the words, “In saying this Paul openly preaches celibacy.” Photius, Cod. 119, mentions a work in twelve books, whose title he does not name, but in which he tells us Pierius had uttered some dangerous sentiments in regard to the Spirit, pronouncing him inferior to the Father and the Son. This work contained, according to Photius, a book on Luke’s Gospel, and another on the passover, and on Hosea. Pierius’ writings are no longer extant. The passages from Jerome’s epistle to Pammachius and from Photius, Cod. 119, are given, with notes, by Routh, Rel. Sac. 2d ed. III. 429 sq., and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 157. Pierius was evidently a “younger Origen” in his theology as well as in his literary character, as we can gather from Photius’ account of him (cf. Harnack’s Dogmengesch. I. p. 640).

321:2479

A Meletius, bishop of Sabastopolis, is mentioned by Philostorgius (H. E. I. 8) as in attendance upon the Council of Nicæa, and it is commonly assumed that this is the same one referred to here by Eusebius. But Eusebius’ words seem to me to imply clearly that the Meletius of whom he speaks was already dead at the time he wrote; and, therefore, if we suppose that Philostorgius is referring to the same man, we must conclude that he was mistaken in his statement, possibly confounding him with the later Meletius of Sebaste, afterwards of Antioch. Our Meletius is, however, doubtless to be identified with the orthodox Meletius mentioned in terms of praise by Athanasius, in his Ep. ad Episc. Æg. §8, and by Basil in his De Spir. Sanct. chap. 29, §74. It is suggested by Stroth that Eusebius was a pupil of Meletius during the time that the latter was in Palestine, but this is not implied in Eusebius’ words (see above, p. 5).

321:2480

τὸ μέλι τῆς ᾽Αττικῆς, in allusion to Meletius’ name.

321:2481

The majority of the mss. and editors read Ζ€μβδας. A few mss. followed by Laemmer read Ζαβαδᾶς, and a few others with Rufinus, both versions of the Chron. and Nicephorus Ζ€βδας. We know nothing about this bishop, except what is told us here and in the Chron., where he is called the thirty-eighth bishop (Jerome calls him the thirty-seventh, but incorrectly according to his own list), and is said to have entered upon his office in the fifteenth year of Diocletian (Armen. fourteenth), i.e. in 298. Hermon succeeded him three years later, according to Jerome; two years later, according to the Armenian version.

321:2482

In chap. 14. See note 11 on that chapter.

321:2483

According to Jerome’s version of the Chron., Hermon became bishop in the eighteenth year of Diocletian, a.d. 301; according to the Armenian, in the sixteenth year. The accession of his successor Macharius is put by Jerome in the eighth year of Constantine, a.d. 312. Eusebius’ words seem to imply that Hermon was still bishop at the time he was writing, though it is not certain that he means to say that. Jerome’s date may be incorrect, but is probably not far out of the way. Of Hermon himself we know nothing more.

321:2484

See above, chap. 19.

321:2485

On Maximus, see chap. 28, note 10.

321:2486

On Dionysius the Great, see especially Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

321:2487

According to Jerome’s Chron., Theonas became bishop in the sixth year of Probus (281 a.d.); according to the Armenian, in the first year of Numerian and Carinus, i.e. a year later. Both agree with the History in assigning nineteen years to his episcopate. An interesting and admirable epistle is extant addressed to Lucian, the chief chamberlain of the emperor, and containing advice in regard to the duties of his position, which is commonly and without doubt correctly ascribed to Theonas. The name of the emperor is not given, but all of the circumstances point to Diocletian, who had a number of Christians in influential positions in his household during the earlier years of his reign. The epistle, which is in Latin (according to some a translation of a Greek original), is given by Routh, Rel. Sac. III. 439–445, and an English translation is contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 158–161.

321:2488

The character given to Achillas by Eusebius is confirmed by Athanasius, who calls him “the great Achillas” (in his Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt, §23). He succeeded Peter as bishop of Alexandria (Epiphanius makes him the successor of Alexander, but wrongly, for the testimony of Athanasius, to say nothing of Jerome, Socrates, and other writers, is decisive on this point; see Athanasius’ Apology against the Arians, §§11 and 59, and Epist. to the Bishops of Egypt, §23), but our authorities differ as to the date of his accession and the length of his episcopate. Eusebius, in this chapter, §31, puts the death of Peter in the ninth year of the persecution 311–312), and with this Jerome agrees in his Chron., and there can be no doubt as to the correctness of the report. But afterwards, quite inconsistently (unless it be supposed that Achillas became bishop before Peter’s death, which, in the face of Eusebius’ silence on the subject, is very improbable), Jerome puts the accession of Achillas into the fifth year of Constantine, a.d. 309. Jerome commits another error in putting the accession of his successor, Alexander, in the sixteenth year of Constantine (a.d. 320); for Alexander’s controversy with Arius (see above, p. 11 sq.) can hardly have broken out later than 318 or 319, and it would appear that Alexander had been bishop already some time when that took place. Theodoret (H. E. I. 2) states that Achillas ruled the church but a short time, and with him agrees Epiphanius (Hær. LXIX. 11), who says that he held office but three months. The casual way in which Achillas is spoken of in all our sources, most of which mention him only in passing from Peter to Alexander, would seem to confirm Theodoret’s report, and Alexander’s accession may, therefore, be put not long after 311.

322:2489

τῆς ἱερᾶς πίστεως τὸ διδασκαλεῖον. Eusebius refers here to the famous catechetical school of Alexandria (upon which, see above, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2). The appointment of Achillas to the principalship of this school would seem to exclude Pierius, who is said by Photius to have been at the head of it (see above, note 42).

322:2490

Peter is mentioned again in Bk. VIII. chap. 13, and in Bk. IX. chap. 6, and both times in the highest terms. In the latter passage his death is said to have taken place by order of Maximinus, quite unexpectedly and without any reason. This was in the ninth year of the persecution, as we learn from the present passage (i.e. Feb. 311 to Feb. 312, or according to Eusebius own reckoning, Mar. or Apr. 311 to Mar. or Apr. 312; see below Bk. VII. chap. 2, note o), and evidently after the publication of the toleration edict of Galerius, when the Christians were not looking for any further molestation (see below, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 2). According to this passage, Peter was bishop less than three years before the outbreak of the persecution, and hence he cannot have become bishop before the spring of 300. On the other hand since he died as early as the spring of 312, and was bishop twelve years he must have become bishop not later than the spring of 300, and he must have died not long before the spring of 312, and even then, if Eusebius’ other statements are exact, it is impossible to make his episcopate fully twelve years in length. The date thus obtained for his accession is in accord with the dates given for the episcopate of his predecessor Theonas (see above, note 51). Jerome puts his accession in the nineteenth year of Diocletian (a.d. 302), but this is at variance with his own figures in connection with Theonas, and is plainly incorrect.

Fourteen Canons, containing detailed directions in regard to the lapsed were drawn up by Peter in 306 (see the opening sentence of the first canon), and are still extant. They are published in all collections of canons and also in numerous other works. See especially Routh’s Rel. Sac. IV. p. 23 sq. An English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 269–278. Brief fragments of other works—On the Passover, On the Godhead, On the Advent of the Saviour, On the Soul, and the beginning of an epistle addressed to the Alexandrians—are given by Routh, ibid. p. 45 sq. These fragments, together with a few others of doubtful origin, given by Gallandius and Mai, are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, ibid. p. 280–283. In the same volume (p. 261–268) are given The Genuine Acts of Peter, containing an account of his life and martyrdom. These, however, are spurious and historically quite worthless.

Peter seems, to judge from the extant fragments, to have been in the main an Origenist, but to have departed in some important respects from the teachings of Origen, especially on the subject of anthropology (cf. Harnack’s Dogmengesch. I. p. 644). The famous Meletian schism took its rise during the episcopate of Peter (see Athanasius, Apology against the Arians, §59).

322:2491

Diocletian’s edict decreeing the demolition of the churches was published in February, 303. See Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 3.

Book VIII.

Introduction.

As we have described in seven books the events from the time of the apostles, 2492 we think it proper in this eighth book to record for the information of posterity a few of the most important occurrences of our own times, which are worthy of permanent record. Our account will begin at this point.

Footnotes

323:2492

Literally, “the succession of the apostles” (τὴν τῶν ἀποστόλων διαδοχήν).

Chapter I.—The Events which preceded the Persecution in our Times.

1. It is beyond our ability to describe in a suitable manner the extent and nature of the glory and freedom with which the word of piety toward the God of the universe, proclaimed to the world through Christ, was honored among all men, both Greeks and barbarians, before the persecution in our day.

2. The favor shown our people by the rulers might be adduced as evidence; as they committed to them the government of provinces, 2493 and on account of the great friendship which they entertained toward their doctrine, released them from anxiety in regard to sacrificing.

3. Why need I speak of those in the royal palaces, and of the rulers over all, who allowed the members of their households, wives 2494 and children and servants, to speak openly before them for the Divine word and life, and suffered them almost to boast of the freedom of their faith?

4. Indeed they esteemed them highly, and preferred them to their fellow-servants. Such an one was that Dorotheus, 2495 the most devoted and faithful to them of all, and on this account especially honored by them among those who held the most honorable offices and governments. With him was the celebrated Gorgonius, 2496 and as many as had been esteemed worthy of the same distinction on account of the word of God.

5. And one could see the rulers in every church accorded the greatest favor 2497 by all officers and governors. But how can any one describe those vast assemblies, and the multitude that crowded together in every city, and the famous gatherings in the houses of prayer; on whose account not being satisfied with the ancient buildings they erected from the foundation large churches in all the cities?

6. No envy hindered the progress of these affairs which advanced gradually, and grew and increased day by day. Nor could any evil demon slander them or hinder them through human counsels, so long as the divine and heavenly hand watched over and guarded his own people as worthy.

7. But when on account of the abundant freedom, we fell into laxity and sloth, and envied and reviled each other, and were almost, as it were, taking up arms against one another, rulers assailing rulers with words like spears, and people forming parties against people, and monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness, the divine judgment with forbearance, as is its pleasure, while the multitudes yet continued to assemble, gently and moderately harassed the episcopacy.

8. This persecution began with the brethren in the army. But as if without sensibility, we were not eager to make the Deity favorable and propitious; and some, like atheists, thought that our affairs were unheeded and ungoverned; and thus we added one wickedness to another. And those esteemed our shepherds, casting aside the bond of piety, were excited to conflicts with one another, and did nothing else than heap up strifes and threats and jealousy and enmity and hatred toward each other, like tyrants eagerly endeavoring to assert their power. Then, truly, according to the word of Jeremiah, “The Lord in his wrath darkened the daughter of Zion, and cast down the glory of Israel from heaven to earth, and remembered not his foot-stool in the day of his anger. The Lord also overwhelmed all the beautiful things of Israel, and threw down all his strongholds.” 2498

9. And according to what was foretold in the Psalms: “He has made void the covenant of his servant, and profaned his sanctuary to the earth,—in the destruction of the churches,—and has thrown down all his strongholds, and has made his fortresses cowardice. All that pass by have plundered the multitude of the people; and he has become besides a reproach to his neighbors. For he has exalted the right hand of his enemies, and has turned back the help of his sword, and has not taken his part in the war. But he has deprived him of purification, and has cast his throne to the ground. He has shortened the days of his time, and besides all, has poured out shame upon him.” 2499

Footnotes

323:2493

τὰς τῶν ἐθνῶν ἡγεμονίας

323:2494

γαμεταῖς. Prisca, the wife, and Valeria, the daughter, of Diocletian, and the wife of Galerius, were very friendly to the Christians, and indeed there can be little doubt that they were themselves Christians, or at least catechumens, though they kept the fact secret and sacrificed to the gods (Lactantius, De mort. pers. 15) when all of Diocletian’s household were required to do so, after the second conflagration in the palace (see Mason’s Persecution of Diocletian, p. 40, 121 sq.). It is probable in the present case that Eusebius is thinking not simply of the wives of Diocletian and Galerius, but also of all the women and children connected in any way with the imperial household.

323:2495

Of this Dorotheus we know only what is told us here and in chap. 6, below, where it is reported that he was put to death by strangling. It might be thought at first sight that he is to be identified with the Dorotheus mentioned above in Bk. VII. chap. 32, for both lived at the same time, and the fact that the Dorotheus mentioned there was a eunuch would fit him for a prominent station in the emperor’s household. At the same time he is said by Eusebius to have been made superintendent of the purple dye house at Tyre, and nothing is said either as to his connection with the household of the emperor or as to his martyrdom; nor is the Dorotheus mentioned in this chapter said to have been a presbyter. In fact, inasmuch as Eusebius gives no hint of the identity of the two men, we must conclude that they were different persons in spite of the similarity of their circumstances.

323:2496

Of Gorgonius, who is mentioned also in chap. 6, we know only that he was one of the imperial household, and that he was strangled, in company with Dorotheus and others, in consequence of the fires in the Nicomedian palace. See chap. 6, note 3.

323:2497

ἀποδοχῆς. A few mss., followed by Stephanus, Valesius, Stroth, Burton, and most translators, add the words καὶ θεραπείας καὶ δεξιώσεως οὐ τῆς τυχούσης, but the weight of ms. authority is against them, and they are omitted by the majority of editors.

324:2498

Lam. 2:1, 2.

324:2499

Ps. lxxxix. 39-45

Chapter II.—The Destruction of the Churches.

1. All these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word, “Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to wander in an untrodden and pathless way.” 2500

2. But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment.

3. Hence we shall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be usefull first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity. 2501 Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Divine Word.

4. It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, 2502 in the month Dystrus, 2503 called March by the Romans, when the feast of the Saviour’s passion was near at hand, 2504 that royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom. 2505

5. Such was the first edict against us. But not long after, other decrees were issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches in every place be first thrown into prison, 2506 and afterwards by every artifice be compelled to sacrifice. 2507

Footnotes

324:2500

Ps. cvii. 40.

324:2501

Gibbon uses this passage as the basis for his severe attack upon the honesty of Eusebius (Decline and Fall, chap. 16), but he has certainly done our author injustice (cf. the remarks made on p. 49, above).

324:2502

Diocletian began to reign Sept. 17, 284, and therefore his nineteenth year extended from Sept. 17, 302, to Sept. 16, 303. Eusebius is in agreement with all our authorities in assigning this year for the beginning of the persecution, and is certainly correct. In regard to the month, however, he is not so accurate. Lactantius, who was in Nicomedia at the time of the beginning of the persecution, and certainly much better informed than Eusebius in regard to the details, states distinctly (in his De mort. pers. chap. 12) that the festival of the god Terminus, the seventh day before the Kalends of March (i.e. Feb. 23), was chosen by the emperors for the opening of the persecution, and there is no reason for doubting his exact statement. At the beginning of the Martyrs of Palestine (p. 342, below) the month Xanthicus (April) is given as the date, but this is still further out of the way. It was probably March or even April before the edicts were published in many parts of the empire, and Eusebius may have been misled by that fact, not knowing the exact date of their publication in Nicomedia itself. We learn from Lactantius that on February 23d the great church of Nicomedia, together with the copies of Scripture found in it, was destroyed by order of the emperors, but that the edict of which Eusebius speaks just below was not issued until the following day. For a discussion of the causes which led to the persecution of Diocletian see below, p. 397.

324:2503

Δύστρος, the seventh month of the Macedonian year, corresponding to our March. See the table on p. 403, below.

324:2504

Valesius (ad locum) states, on the authority of Scaliger and Petavius, that Easter fell on April 18th in the year 303. I have not attempted to verify the statement.

324:2505

This is the famous First Edict of Diocletian, which is no longer extant, and the terms of which therefore have to be gathered from the accounts of Eusebius and Lactantius. The interpretation of the edict has caused a vast deal of trouble. It is discussed very fully by Mason in his important work, The Persecution of Diocletian, p. 105 sq. and p. 343 sq. As he remarks, Lactantius simply describes the edict in a general way, while Eusebius gives an accurate statement of its substance, even reproducing its language in part. The first provision (that the churches be leveled to the ground) is simply a carrying out of the old principle, that it was unlawful for the Christians to hold assemblies, under a new form. The second provision, directed against the sacred books, was entirely new, and was a very shrewd move, revealing at the same time an appreciation on the part of the authors of the persecution of the important part which the Scriptures occupied in the Christian Church. The third provision, as Mason has pointed out, is a substantial reproduction of a part of the edict of Valerian, and was evidently consciously based upon that edict. (Upon the variations from the earlier edict, see Mason, p. 115 sq.) It is noticeable that not torture nor death is decreed, but only civil degradation. This degradation, as can be seen from a comparison with the description of Lactantius (ibid. chap. 13) and with the edict of Valerian (given in Cyprian’s Epistle to Successus, Ep. No. 81, al. 80), consisted, in the case of those who held public office (τιμῆς ἐπειλημμένους), in the loss of rank and also of citizenship; that is, they fell through two grades, as is pointed out by Mason. In the interpretation of the fourth provision, however, Mason does not seem to me to have been so successful. The last clause runs τοὺς δὲ ἐν οἰκετίαις, εἰ ἐπιμένοιεν τῇ τοῦ χριστιανισμοῦ προθέσει ἐλευθερίας στερεῖσθαι. The difficult point is the interpretation of the τοὺς ἐν οἰκετίαις. The words usually mean “household slaves,” and are commonly so translated in this passage. But, as Valesius remarks, there is certainly no sense then in depriving them of freedom (ἐλευθερία) which they do not possess. Valesius consequently translates plebeii, “common people,” and Mason argues at length for a similar interpretation (p. 344 sq.), looking upon these persons as common people, or individuals in private life, as contrasted with the officials mentioned in the previous clause. The only objection, but in my opinion a fatal objection, to this attractive interpretation is that it gives the phrase οἱ ἐν οἰκετίαις a wider meaning than can legitimately be applied to it. Mason remarks: “The word οἰκετία means, and is here a translation of, familia; οἱ ἐν οἰκετίαις means ii qui in familiis sunt,—not graceful Latin certainly, but plainly signifying ‘those who live in private households.’ Now in private households there lived not only slaves, thank goodness, but free men too, both as masters and as servants; therefore in the phrase τοὺς ἐν οἰκετίαις itself there is nothing which forbids the paraphrase ‘private persons.’” But I submit that to use so clumsy a phrase, so unnecessary a circumlocution, to designate simply private people in general—οἱ πολλοί—would be the height of absurdity. The interpretation of Stroth (which is approved by Heinichen) seems to me much more satisfactory. He remarks: “Das Edict war zunächst nur gegen zwei Klassen von Leuten gerichtet, einmal gegen die, welche in kaiserlichen Æmtern standen, und dann gegen die freien oder freigelassenen Christen, welche bei den Kaisern oder ihren Hofleuten und Statthaltern in Diensten standen, und zu ihrem Hausgesinde gehörten.” This seems to me more satisfactory, both on verbal and historical grounds. The words οἱ ἐν οἰκετίαις certainly cannot, in the present case, mean “household slaves,” but they can mean servants, attendants, or other persons at court, or in the households of provincial officials, who did not hold rank as officials, but at the same time were freemen born, or freedmen, and thus in a different condition from slaves. Such persons would naturally be reduced to slavery if degraded at all, and it is easier to think of their reduction to slavery than of that of the entire mass of Christians not in public office. Still further, this proposition finds support in the edict of Valerian, in which this class of people is especially mentioned. And finally, it is, in my opinion, much more natural to suppose that this edict (whose purpose I shall discuss on p. 399) was confined to persons who were in some way connected with official life,—either as chiefs or assistants or servants,—and therefore in a position peculiarly fitted for the formation of plots against the government, than that it was directed against Christians indiscriminately. The grouping together of the two classes seems to me very natural; and the omission of any specific reference to bishops and other church officers, who are mentioned in the second edict, is thus fully explained, as it cannot be adequately explained, in my opinion, on any other ground.

325:2506

As we learn from chap. 6, §8, the edict commanding the church officers to be seized and thrown into prison followed popular uprisings in Melitene and Syria, and if Eusebius is correct, was caused by those outbreaks. Evidently the Christians were held in some way responsible for those rebellious outbursts (possibly they were a direct consequence of the first edict), and the natural result of them must have been to make Diocletian realize, as he had not realized before, that the existence of such a society as the Christian Church within the empire—demanding as it did supreme allegiance from its members—was a menace to the state. It was therefore not strange that what began as a purely political thing, as an attempt to break up a supposed treasonable plot formed by certain Christian officials, should speedily develop into a religious persecution. The first step in such a persecution would naturally be the seizure of all church officers (see below, p. 397 sq.).

The decrees of which Eusebius speaks in this paragraph are evidently to be identified with the one mentioned in chap. 6, §8. This being so, it is clear that Eusebius’ account can lay no claims to chronological order. This must be remembered, or we shall fall into repeated difficulties in reading this eighth book. We are obliged to arrange the order of events for ourselves, for his account is quite desultory, and devoid both of logical and chronological sequence. The decrees or writings (γρ€μματα) mentioned in this paragraph constituted really but one edict (cf. chap. 6, §8), which is known to us as the Second Edict of Diocletian. Its date cannot be determined with exactness, for, as Mason remarks, it may have been issued at any time between February and November; but it was probably published not many months after the first, inasmuch as it was a result of disturbances which arose in consequence of the first. Mason is inclined to place it in March, within a month after the issue of the first, but that seems to me a little too early. In issuing the edict Diocletian followed the example of Valerian in part, and yet only in part; for instead of commanding that the church officers be slain, he commanded only that they be seized. He evidently believed that he could accomplish his purpose best by getting the leading men of the church into his hands and holding them as hostages, while denying them the glory of martyrdom (cf. Mason, p. 132 sq.). The persons affected by the edict, according to Eusebius, were “all the rulers of the churches” (τοὺς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν προέδρους π€ντας; cf. also Mart. Pal. Introd., §2). In chap. 6, §8, he says τοὺς πανταχόσε τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν προεστῶτας. These words would seem to imply that only the bishops were intended, but we learn from Lactantius (De mort. pers. 15) that presbyters and other officers (presbyteri ac ministri) were included, and this is confirmed, as Mason remarks (p. 133, note), by the sequel. We must therefore take the words used by Eusebius in the general sense of “church officers.” According to Lactantius, their families suffered with them (cum omnibus suis deducebantur), but Eusebius says nothing of that.

325:2507

We learn from Lactantius (l.c.) that the officers of the church, under the terms of the second edict, were thrown into prison without any option being given them in the matter of sacrificing. They were not asked to sacrifice, but were imprisoned unconditionally. This was so far in agreement with Valerian’s edict, which had decreed the instant death of all church officers without the option of sacrificing. But as Eusebius tells us here, they were afterwards called upon to sacrifice, and as he tells us in the first paragraph of the next chapter, multitudes yielded, and that of course meant their release, as indeed we are directly told in chap. 6, §10. We may gather from the present passage and from the other passages referred to, taken in connection with the second chapter of the Martyrs of Palestine, that this decree, ordaining their release on condition of sacrificing, was issued on the occasion of Diocletian’s Vicennalia, which were celebrated in December, 303, on the twentieth anniversary of the death of Carus, which Diocletian reckoned as the beginning of his reign, though he was not in reality emperor until the following September. A considerable time, therefore, elapsed between the edict ordaining the imprisonment of church officers and the edict commanding their release upon condition of sacrificing. This latter is commonly known as Diocletian’s Third Edict, and is usually spoken of as still harsher than any that preceded it. It is true that it did result in the torture of a great many,—for those who did not sacrifice readily were to be compelled to do so, if possible,—but their death was not aimed at. If they would not sacrifice, they were simply to remain in prison, as before. Those who did die at this time seem to have died under torture that was intended, not to kill them, but to bring about their release. As Mason shows, then, this third edict was of the nature of an amnesty; was rather a step toward toleration than a sharpening of the persecution. The prisons were to be emptied, as was customary on such great occasions, and the church officers were to be permitted to return to their homes, on condition that they should sacrifice. Inasmuch as they had not been allowed to leave prison on any condition before, this was clearly a mark of favor (see Mason, p. 206 sq.). Many were released even without sacrificing, and in their desire to empty the prisons, the governors devised various expedients for freeing at least a part of those who would not yield (cf. the instances mentioned in the next chapter). At the same time, some governors got rid of their prisoners by putting them to death, sometimes simply by increasing the severity of the tortures intended to try them, sometimes as a penalty for rash or daring words uttered by the prisoners, which were interpreted as treasonable, and which, perhaps, the officials had employed their ingenuity, when necessary, to elicit. Thus many might suffer death, under various legal pretenses, although the terms of the edict did not legally permit death to be inflicted as a punishment for Christianity. The death penalty was not decreed until the issue of the Fourth Edict (see below, Mart. Pal. chap.3, note 2).

Chapter III.—The Nature of the Conflicts endured in the Persecution.

1. Then truly a great many rulers of the churches eagerly endured terrible sufferings, and furnished examples of noble conflicts. But a multitude of others, 2508 benumbed in spirit by fear, were easily weakened at the first onset. Of the rest each one endured different forms of torture. 2509 The body of one was scourged with rods. Another was punished with insupportable rackings and scrapings, in which some suffered a miserable death.

2. Others passed through different conflicts. Thus one, while those around pressed him on by force and dragged him to the abominable and impure sacrifices, was dismissed as if he had sacrificed, though he had not. 2510 Another, though he had not approached at all, nor touched any polluted thing, when others said that he had sacrificed, went away, bearing the accusation in silence.

3. Another being taken up half dead, was cast aside as if already dead, and again a certain one lying upon the ground was dragged a long distance by his feet and counted among those who had sacrificed. One cried out and with a loud voice testified his rejection of the sacrifice; another shouted that he was a Christian, being resplendent in the confession of the saving Name. Another protested that he had not sacrificed and never would.

4. But they were struck in the mouth and silenced by a large band of soldiers who were drawn up for this purpose; and they were smitten on the face and cheeks and driven away by force; so important did the enemies of piety regard it, by any means, to seem to have accomplished their purpose. But these things did not avail them against the holy martyrs; for an accurate description of whom, what word of ours could suffice?

Footnotes

325:2508

μυρίοι δ᾽ ἄλλοι. See the previous chapter, note 8.

325:2509

i.e. those who, when freedom was offered them on condition of sacrificing, refused to accept it at that price. It was desirous that the prisons which had for so long been filled with these Christian prisoners (see chap. 6, §9) should, if possible, be cleared; and this doubtless combined with the desire to break the stubbornness of the prisoners to promote the use of torture at this time.

325:2510

See the previous chapter, note 8.

Chapter IV.—The Famous Martyrs of God, who filled Every Place with their Memory and won Various Crowns in behalf of Religion.

1. For we might tell of many who showed admirable zeal for the religion of the God of the universe, not only from the beginning of the general persecution, but long before that time, while yet peace prevailed.

2. For though he who had received power was seemingly aroused now as from a deep sleep, yet from the time after Decius and Valerian, he had been plotting secretly and without notice against the churches. He did not wage war against all of us at once, but made trial at first only of those in the army. For he supposed that the others could be taken easily if he should first attack and subdue these. Thereupon many of the soldiers were seen most cheerfully embracing private life, so that they might not deny their piety toward the Creator of the universe.

3. For when the commander, 2511 whoever he was, 2512 began to persecute the soldiers, separating into tribes and purging those who were enrolled in the army, giving them the choice either by obeying to receive the honor which belonged to them, or on the other hand to be deprived of it if they disobeyed the command, a great many soldiers of Christ’s kingdom, without hesitation, instantly preferred the confession of him to the seeming glory and prosperity which they were enjoying.

4. And one and another of them occasionally received in exchange, for their pious constancy, 2513 not only the loss of position, but death. But as yet the instigator of this plot proceeded with moderation, and ventured so far as blood only in some instances; for the multitude of believers, as it is likely, made him afraid, and deterred him from waging war at once against all.

5. But when he made the attack more boldly, it is impossible to relate how many and what sort of martyrs of God could be seen, among the inhabitants of all the cities and countries. 2514

Footnotes

326:2511

στρατοπεδ€ρχης

326:2512

In the Chron. we are told of a commander by name Veturius, who is doubtless to be identified with the one referred to here. Why Eusebius does not give his name in the History, we do not know. There seems to be contempt in the phrase, “whoever he was,” and it may be that he did not consider him worth naming. In Jerome’s version of the Chron. (sixteenth year of Diocletian) we read: Veturius magister militiæ Christianos milites persequitur, paulatim ex illo jam tempore persecutione adversum nos incipiente; in the Armenian (fourteenth year): Veturius magister militiæ eos qui in exercitu Christiani erant, clanculum opprimebat atque ex hoc inde tempore ubique locorum persecutio se extendit. Evidently the occurrence took place a few years before the outbreak of the regular persecution, but the exact date cannot be determined. It is probable, moreover, from the way in which Eusebius refers to the man in the History that he was a comparatively insignificant commander, who took the course he did on his own responsibility. At least, there is no reason to connect the act with Diocletian and to suppose it ordered by him. All that we know of his relation to the Christians forbids such a supposition. There may have been some particular occasion for such a move in the present instance, which evidently affected only a small part of the army, and resulted in only a few deaths (see the next paragraph). Perhaps some insubordination was discovered among the Christian soldiers, which led the commander to be suspicious of all of them, and hence to put the test to them,—which was always in order,—to prove their loyalty. It is plain that he did not intend to put any of them to death, but only to dismiss such as refused to evince their loyalty by offering the customary sacrifices. Some of the Christian soldiers, however, were not content with simple dismission, but in their eagerness to evince their Christianity said and did things which it was impossible for any commander to overlook (cf. the instances given by Mason, p. 41 sq.). It was such soldiers as these that suffered death; and they of course were executed, not because they were Christians, but because they were insubordinate. Their death was brought on themselves by their foolish fanaticism; and they have no claim to be honored as martyrs, although Eusebius evidently regarded them as such.

326:2513

We should rather say “for their rash and unjustifiable fanaticism.”

326:2514

In this sentence reference is made to the general persecution, which did not begin until some time after the events recorded in the previous paragraphs.

Chapter V.—Those in Nicomedia. 2515

1. Immediately on the publication of the decree against the churches in Nicomedia, 2516 a certain man, not obscure but very highly honored with distinguished temporal dignities, moved with zeal toward God, and incited with ardent faith, seized the edict as it was posted openly and publicly, and tore it to pieces as a profane and impious thing; 2517 and this was done while two of the sovereigns were in the same city,—the oldest of all, and the one who held the fourth place in the government after him. 2518

2. But this man, first in that place, after distinguishing himself in such a manner suffered those things which were likely to follow such daring, and kept his spirit cheerful and undisturbed till death.

Footnotes

326:2515

Nicomedia, the capital city of Bithynia, became Diocletian’s chief place of residence, and was made by him the Eastern capital of the empire.

326:2516

The great church of Nicomedia was destroyed on Feb. 23, 303, and the First Edict was published on the following day (see above, chap. 2, note 3).

326:2517

Lactantius relates this account in his De mort. pers. chap. 13, and expresses disapproval of the act, while admiring the spirit of the man. He, too, is silent in regard to the name of the man, though, living as he did in Nicomedia, he can hardly have been ignorant of it. We may perhaps imagine that he did not care to perpetuate the name of a man whom he considered to have acted rashly and illegally. The old martyrologies give the man’s name as John. That he deserved death is clear enough. He was not a martyr to the faith, but a criminal, who was justly executed for treasonable conduct. The first edict contemplated no violence to the persons of the Christians. If they suffered death, it was solely in consequence of their own rashness, as in the present case. It is clear that such an incident as this would anger Diocletian and increase his suspicions of Christians as a class, and thus tend to precipitate a regular persecution. It must have seemed to the authorities that the man would hardly commit such a foolhardy act unless he was conscious of the support of a large body of the populace, and so the belief in the wide extension of the plot which had caused the movement on the part of the emperors must have been confirmed. See below, p. 398 sq.

327:2518

i.e. Diocletian and Galerius.

Chapter VI.—Those in the Palace.

1. This period produced divine and illustrious martyrs, above all whose praises have ever been sung and who have been celebrated for courage, whether among Greeks or barbarians, in the person of Dorotheus 2519 and the servants that were with him in the palace. Although they received the highest honors from their masters, and were treated by them as their own children, they esteemed reproaches and trials for religion, and the many forms of death that were invented against them, as, in truth, greater riches than the glory and luxury of this life.

2. We will describe the manner in which one of them ended his life, and leave our readers to infer from his case the sufferings of the others. A certain man was brought forward in the above-mentioned city, before the rulers of whom we have spoken. 2520 He was then commanded to sacrifice, but as he refused, he was ordered to be stripped and raised on high and beaten with rods over his entire body, until, being conquered, he should, even against his will, do what was commanded.

3. But as he was unmoved by these sufferings, and his bones were already appearing, they mixed vinegar with salt and poured it upon the mangled parts of his body. As he scorned these agonies, a gridiron and fire were brought forward. And the remnants of his body, like flesh intended for eating, were placed on the fire, not at once, lest he should expire instantly, but a little at a time. And those who placed him on the pyre were not permitted to desist until, after such sufferings, he should assent to the things commanded.

4. But he held his purpose firmly, and victoriously gave up his life while the tortures were still going on. Such was the martyrdom of one of the servants of the palace, who was indeed well worthy of his name, for he was called Peter. 2521

5. The martyrdoms of the rest, though they were not inferior to his, we will pass by for the sake of brevity, recording only that Dorotheus and Gorgonius, 2522 with many others of the royal household, after varied sufferings, ended their lives by strangling, and bore away the trophies of God-given victory.

6. At this time Anthimus, 2523 who then presided over the church in Nicomedia, was beheaded for his testimony to Christ. A great multitude of martyrs were added to him, a conflagration having broken out in those very days in the palace at Nicomedia, I know not how, which through a false suspicion was laid to our people. 2524 Entire families of the pious in that place were put to death in masses at the royal command, some by the sword, and others by fire. It is reported that with a certain divine and indescribable eagerness men and women rushed into the fire. And the executioners bound a large number of others and put them on boats 2525 and threw them into the depths of the sea.

7. And those who had been esteemed their masters considered it necessary to dig up the bodies of the imperial servants, who had been committed to the earth with suitable burial and cast them into the sea, lest any, as they thought, regarding them as gods, might worship them lying in their sepulchers. 2526

8. Such things occurred in Nicomedia at the beginning of the persecution. 2527 But not long after, as persons in the country called Melitene, 2528 and others throughout Syria, 2529 attempted to usurp the government, a royal edict directed that the rulers of the churches everywhere 2530 should be thrown into prison and bonds.

9. What was to be seen after this exceeds all description. A vast multitude were imprisoned in every place; and the prisons everywhere, which had long before been prepared for murderers and robbers of graves, were filled with bishops, presbyters and deacons, readers and exorcists, 2531 so that room was no longer left in them for those condemned for crimes.

10. And as other decrees followed the first, directing that those in prison if they would sacrifice should be permitted to depart in freedom, but that those who refused should be harassed with many tortures, 2532 how could any one, again, number the multitude of martyrs in every province, 2533 and especially of those in Africa, and Mauritania, and Thebais, and Egypt? From this last country many went into other cities and provinces, and became illustrious through martyrdom.

Footnotes

327:2519

On Dorotheus, see above, chap. 1, note 3.

327:2520

i.e. in Nicomedia, before Diocletian and Galerius.

327:2521

πέτρος, “a rock.” It is clear from the account of Lactantius (chap. 15) that this man, and the others mentioned in this connection, suffered after the second conflagration in the palace and in consequence of it (see below, p. 400). The two conflagrations led Diocletian to resort to torture in order to ascertain the guilty parties, or to obtain information in regard to the plots of the Christians. Examination by torture was the common mode of procedure under such circumstances, and hence implies no unusual cruelty in the present case. The death even of these men, therefore, cannot be looked upon as due to persecution. Their offense was purely a civil one. They were suspected of being implicated in a treasonable plot, and of twice setting fire to the palace. Their refusal to sacrifice under such circumstances, and thus evince their loyalty at so critical a time, was naturally looked upon as practically a confession of guilt,—at any rate as insubordination on a most grave occasion, and as such fitly punishable by death. Compare Pliny’s epistle to Trajan, in which he expresses the opinion that “pertinacious and inflexible obstinacy” ought at any rate to be punished, whatever might be thought of Christianity as such (see above, Bk. III. chap. 33, note 1); and at such a time as this Diocletian must have felt that the first duty of all his subjects was to place their loyalty beyond suspicion by doing readily that which was demanded. His impatience with the Christians must have been increasing under all these provocations, and thus the regular persecution was becoming ever more imminent.

327:2522

Gorgonius has been already mentioned in chap. 1, above. See note 4 on that chapter.

327:2523

In a fragment preserved by the Chron. Paschale, and purporting to be a part of an epistle written from prison, shortly before his death, by the presbyter Lucian of Antioch to the church of that city, Anthimus, bishop of Nicomedia, is mentioned as having just suffered martyrdom (see Routh’s Rel. Sac. IV. p. 5). Lucian, however, was imprisoned and put to death during the persecution of Maximinus (a.d. 311 or 312). See below, Bk. IX. chap. 6, and Jerome’s de vir. ill. chap. 77. It would seem, therefore, if the fragment given in the Chron. Paschale be genuine, and there seems no good reason to doubt it, that Anthimus suffered martyrdom not under Diocletian, but under Maximinus, in 311 or 312. In that case Eusebius is mistaken in putting his death at this early date, in connection with the members of the imperial household. Indeed, we see no reason for his execution at this time, and should find it difficult to explain if we were to accept it. In the time of Maximinus, however, it is perfectly natural, and of a piece with the execution of Peter of Alexandria and other notable prelates. Eusebius, as we have already seen, pays no attention to chronology in this Eighth Book, and hence there is no great weight to be placed upon his mention of the death of Anthimus at this particular place. Mason (p. 324) says that Hunziker (p. 281) has conclusively shown Eusebius’ mistake at this point. I have not seen Hunziker, and therefore cannot judge of the validity of his arguments, but, on the grounds already stated, have no hesitation in expressing my agreement with his conclusion. Of Anthimus himself, we know nothing beyond what has been already intimated. In chap. 13, §1, below, he is mentioned again, but nothing additional is told us in regard to him.

Having observed Eusebius’ mistake in regard to Anthimus, we realize that there is no reason to consider him any more accurate in respect to the other martyrdoms referred to in this paragraph. In fact, it is clear enough that, in so far as his account is not merely rhetorical, it relates to events that took place not at this early date, but during a later time after the regular religious persecution had begun. No such “multitude” suffered in consequence of the conflagration as Eusebius thinks. The martyrdoms of which he has heard belong rather to the time after the Fourth Edict (see below, Mart. Pal. chap. 3, note 2), or possibly to the still later time when Maximinus was at Nicomedia, and was in the midst of his bloody career of persecution.

328:2524

Eusebius does not accuse Galerius of being the author of the conflagration, as Lactantius does. In fact, he seems to have known very little about the matter. He mentions only one fire, whereas Lactantius distinctly tells us there were two, fifteen days apart (chap. 14). Eusebius evidently has only the very vaguest information in regard to the progress of affairs at Nicomedia, and has no knowledge of the actual order and connection of events. In regard to the effects of the fire upon Diocletian’s attitude toward the Christians, see above, note 3, and below, p. 400. Constantine (Orat. ad Sanct. Coet. XXV. 2) many years afterwards referred to the fire as caused by lightning, which is clearly only a makeshift, for, as Burckhardt remarks, there could have been no doubt in that case how the fire originated. And, moreover, such an explanation at best could account for only one of the fires. The fact that Constantine feels it necessary to invent such an explanation gives the occurrence a still more auspicious look, and one not altogether favorable to the Christians. In fact, it must be acknowledged that the case against them is pretty strong.

328:2525

Literally, “The executioners, having bound a large number of others on boats, threw them into the depths of the sea” (δήσαντες δὲ οἱ δήμιοι ἄλλο τι πλῆθος ἐπὶ σκ€φαις, τοῖς θαλαττίοις ἐναπέ& 207·ῥιπτον βυθοῖς). The construction is evidently a pregnant one, for it cannot be supposed that boats and all were thrown into the depths of the sea. They seem to have bound the prisoners, and carried them out to sea on boats, and then thrown them overboard. Compare the Passion of St. Theodotus (Mason, p. 362), where we are told that the “President then bade them hang stones about their necks, and embark them on a small shallop and row them out to a spot where the lake was deeper; and so they were cast into the water at the distance of four or five hundred feet from the shore.” Crusè translates, “binding another number upon planks,” but σκ€φη will hardly bear that meaning; and even if it could, we should scarcely expect men to be bound to planks if the desire was to “cast them into the depths of the sea.” Lactantius (chap. 15), in speaking of these same general occurrences, says, “Servants, having millstones tied about their necks, were cast into the sea.”

Closs remarks that drowning was looked upon in ancient times as the most disgraceful punishment, because it implied that the criminals were not worthy to receive burial.

328:2526

Compare Bk. IV. chap. 15, §41, above, and Lactantius, Div. Inst. V. 11. That in the present case the suspicion that the Christians would worship the remains of these so-called martyrs was not founded merely upon knowledge of the conduct of Christians in general in relation to the relics of their martyrs, but upon actual experience of their conduct in connection with these particular martyrs, is shown by the fact that the emperor first buried them, and afterward had them dug up. Evidently Christians showed them such honor, and collected in such numbers about their tombs, that he believed it was necessary to take some such step in order to prevent the growth of a spirit of rebellion, which was constantly fostered by such demonstrations. Compare the remarks of Mason on p. 135.

328:2527

Part of the events mentioned in this chapter occurred at the beginning; others, a considerable time later. See note 5, above.

328:2528

Melitene was the name of a district and a city in Eastern Cappadocia. Upon the outbreak there we know only what can be gathered from this passage, although Mason (p. 126 sq.) connects it with a rebellion, of which an account is given in Simeon Metaphrastes. It is possible that the account of the Metaphrast is authentic, and that the uprising referred to here is to be identified with it, but more than that cannot be said. There can be no doubt that the outbreak was one of the causes of the promulgation of the Second Edict, in which case of course it is clear that the Christians, whether rightly or wrongly, were held responsible for it. See above, chap. 2, note 7.

328:2529

Valesius identifies this usurpation in Syria with that of Eugenius in Antioch, of which we are told by Libanius (in his Oratio ad Theodosium post reconciliationem, and in his Oratio ad Theod. de seditione Antioch., according to Valesius). The latter was but a small affair, involving only a band of some five hundred soldiers, who compelled their commander Eugenius, to assume the purple, but were entirely destroyed by the people of the city within twenty-four hours. See the note of Valesius ad locum, Tillemont’s Hist. des Emp. IX. 73 sq., and Mason, p. 124 sq. This rebellion took place in the time of Diocletian, but there is no reason for connecting it with the uprising mentioned here by Eusebius. The words of Eusebius would seem to imply that he was thinking, not of a single rebellion, but of a number which took place in various parts of Syria. In that case, the Antiochian affair may have been one of them.

328:2530

τοὺς πανταχόσε τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν προεστῶτας. Upon this second edict, see above, chap. 2, note 7.

328:2531

It is evident enough from this clause alone that the word προεστῶτας, “rulers,” is to be taken in a broad sense. See the note just referred to.

328:2532

The Third Edict of Diocletian. Eusebius evidently looks upon the edict as a sharpening of the persecution, but is mistaken in his view. The idea was not that those who refused to sacrifice should be punished by torture for not sacrificing, but that torture should be applied in order to induce them to sacrifice, and thus render it possible to release them. The end sought was their release, not their punishment. Upon the date and interpretation of this edict, see chap. 2, note 8.

328:2533

Eusebius is probably again in error, as so often in this book, in connecting a “multitude of martyrs in every province” with this Third Edict. Wholesale persecution and persecution as such—aimed directly at the destruction of all Christians—did not begin until the issue of the Fourth Edict (see below, Mart. Pal. chap. 3, note 2). These numerous martyrdoms referred to here doubtless belong to the period after the issue of that edict, although in Africa and Mauritania, which were under Maximian, considerable blood was probably shed even before that time. For it was possible, of course, for a cruel and irresponsible ruler like Maximian to fix the death penalty for refusal to deliver up the Christian books, or for other acts of obstinacy which the Christian would quite commonly commit. These cases, however, must be looked upon as exceptional at this stage of affairs, and certainly rare.

Chapter VII.—The Egyptians in Phœnicia.

1. Those of them that were conspicuous in Palestine we know, as also those that were at Tyre in Phœnicia. 2534 Who that saw them was not astonished at the numberless stripes, and at the firmness which these truly wonderful athletes of religion exhibited under them? and at their contest, immediately after the scourging, with bloodthirsty wild beasts, as they were cast before leopards and different kinds of bears and wild boars and bulls goaded with fire and red-hot iron? and at the marvelous endurance of these noble men in the face of all sorts of wild beasts?

2. We were present ourselves when these things occurred, and have put on record the divine power of our martyred Saviour Jesus Christ, which was present and manifested itself mightily in the martyrs. For a long time the man-devouring beasts did not dare to touch or draw near the bodies of those dear to God, but rushed upon the others who from the outside irritated and urged them on. And they would not in the least touch the holy athletes, as they stood alone and naked and shook their hands at them to draw them toward themselves,—for they were commanded to do this. But whenever they rushed at them, they were restrained as if by some divine power and retreated again.

3. This continued for a long time, and occasioned no little wonder to the spectators. And as the first wild beast did nothing, a second and a third were let loose against one and the same martyr.

4. One could not but be astonished at the invincible firmness of these holy men, and the enduring and immovable constancy of those whose bodies were young. You could have seen a youth not twenty years of age standing unbound and stretching out his hands in the form of a cross, with unterrified and untrembling mind, engaged earnestly in prayer to God, and not in the least going back or retreating from the place where he stood, while bears and leopards, breathing rage and death, almost touched his flesh. And yet their mouths were restrained, I know not how, by a divine and incomprehensible power, and they ran back again to their place. Such an one was he.

5. Again you might have seen others, for they were five in all, cast before a wild bull, who tossed into the air with his horns those who approached from the outside, and mangled them, leaving them to be token up half dead; but when he rushed with rage and threatening upon the holy martyrs, who were standing alone, he was unable to come near them; but though he stamped with his feet, and pushed in all directions with his horns, and breathed rage and threatening on account of the irritation of the burning irons, he was, nevertheless, held back by the sacred Providence. And as he in nowise harmed them, they let loose other wild beasts upon them.

6. Finally, after these terrible and various attacks upon them, they were all slain with the sword; and instead of being buried in the earth they were committed to the waves of the sea.

Footnotes

328:2534

From the Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 8 sq. (more fully in the Syriac; Cureton’s English translation p. 26 sq.), we learn that in the sixth and following years of the persecution, many Egyptian Christians were sent to Palestine to labor in the mines there, and that they underwent the severest tortures in that country. No mention is made of such persons in the Martyrs of Palestine previous to the sixth year. Those in Tyre to whom Eusebius refers very likely suffered during the same period; not under Diocletian, but under Maximinus, when the persecution was at its height. Since in his Martyrs of Palestine Eusebius confines himself to those who suffered in that country (or were natives of it), he has nothing to say about those referred to in this chapter, who seem, from the opening of the next chapter, to have suffered, all of them, in Tyre.

Chapter VIII.—Those in Egypt. 2535

1. Such was the conflict of those Egyptians who contended nobly for religion in Tyre. But we must admire those also who suffered martyrdom in their native land; where thousands of men, women, and children, despising the present life for the sake of the teaching of our Saviour, endured various deaths.

2. Some of them, after scrapings and rackings and severest scourgings, and numberless other kinds of tortures, terrible even to hear of, were committed to the flames; some were drowned in the sea; some offered their heads bravely to those who cut them off; some died under their tortures, and others perished with hunger. And yet others were crucified; some according to the method commonly employed for malefactors; others yet more cruelly, being nailed to the cross with their heads downward, and being kept alive until they perished on the cross with hunger.

Footnotes

329:2535

No part of Christendom suffered more severely during these years than the territory of the tyrant Maximinus, who became a Cæsar in 305, and who ruled in Egypt and Syria.

Chapter IX.—Those in Thebais. 2536

1. It would be impossible to describe the outrages and tortures which the martyrs in Thebais endured. They were scraped over the entire body with shells instead of hooks until they died. Women were bound by one foot and raised aloft in the air by machines, and with their bodies altogether bare and uncovered, presented to all beholders this most shameful, cruel, and inhuman spectacle.

2. Others being bound to the branches and trunks of trees perished. For they drew the stoutest branches together with machines, and bound the limbs of the martyrs to them; and then, allowing the branches to assume their natural position, they tore asunder instantly the limbs of those for whom they contrived this.

3. All these things were done, not for a few days or a short time, but for a long series of years. Sometimes more than ten, at other times above twenty were put to death. Again not less than thirty, then about sixty, and yet again a hundred men with young children and women, were slain in one day, being condemned to various and diverse torments.

4. We, also being on the spot ourselves, have observed large crowds in one day; some suffering decapitation, others torture by fire; so that the murderous sword was blunted, and becoming weak, was broken, and the very executioners grew weary and relieved each other.

5. And we beheld the most wonderful ardor, and the truly divine energy and zeal of those who believed in the Christ of God. For as soon as sentence was pronounced against the first, one after another rushed to the judgment seat, and confessed themselves Christians. And regarding with indifference the terrible things and the multiform tortures, they declared themselves boldly and undauntedly for the religion of the God of the universe. And they received the final sentence of death with joy and laughter and cheerfulness; so that they sang and offered up hymns and thanksgivings to the God of the universe till their very last breath.

6. These indeed were wonderful; but yet more wonderful were those who, being distinguished for wealth, noble birth, and honor, and for learning and philosophy, held everything secondary to the true religion and to faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.

7. Such an one was Philoromus, who held a high office under the imperial government at Alexandria, 2537 and who administered justice every day, attended by a military guard corresponding to his rank and Roman dignity. Such also was Phileas, 2538 bishop of the church of Thmuis, a man eminent on account of his patriotism and the services rendered by him to his country, and also on account of his philosophical learning.

8. These persons, although a multitude of relatives and other friends besought them, and many in high position, and even the judge himself entreated them, that they would have compassion on themselves and show mercy to their children and wives, yet were not in the least induced by these things to choose the love of life, and to despise the ordinances of our Saviour concerning confession and denial. But with manly and philosophic minds, or rather with pious and God-loving souls, they persevered against all the threats and insults of the judge; and both of them were beheaded.

Footnotes

329:2536

Thebais, or the territory of Thebes, was one of the three great divisions of Egypt, lying between lower Egypt on the north and Æthiopia on the south. From §4, below, we learn that Eusebius was himself an eye-witness of at least some of the martyrdoms to which he refers in the present chapter. Reasons have been given on p. 10, above, for supposing that he did not visit Egypt until the later years of the persecution, indeed not until toward the very end of it; and it is therefore to this period that the events described in this chapter are to be ascribed.

330:2537

ἀρχήν τινα οὐ τὴν τυχοῦσαν τῆς κατ᾽ ᾽Αλεξ€νδρειαν βασιλικῆς διοικήσεως ἐγκεχειρισμένος. Valesius says that Philoromus was the Rationalis, seu procurator summarum Ægypti, i.e. the general finance minister of Egypt (see above, Bk. VII. chap. 10, note 8). But the truth is, that the use of the τινα implies that Eusebius is not intending to state the particular office which he held, but simply to indicate that he held some high office, and this is all that we can claim for Philoromus. We know no more of him than is told us here, though Acts of St. Phileas and St. Philoromus are extant, which contain an account of his martyrdom, and are printed by the Bollandists and by Ruinart (interesting extracts given by Tillemont, H. E. V. p. 486 sq., and by Mason, p. 290 sq.). Tillemont (ibid. p. 777) and others defend their genuineness, but Lardner doubts it (Credibility, chap. 60). I have examined only the extracts printed by Tillemont and Mason, and am not prepared to express an opinion in the matter.

330:2538

Phileas, bishop of Thmuis (an important town in lower Egypt, situated between the Tanite and Mendeaian branches of the Nile), occupies an important place among the Diocletian martyrs. The extant Acts of his martyrdom have been referred to in the previous note. He is mentioned again by Eusebius in chaps. 10 and 13, and in the former a considerable part of his epistle to the people of his diocese is quoted. Jerome mentions him in his de vir. ill. chap. 78, where he says: elegantissimum librum de martyrum laude composuit, et disputatione actorum habita adversum judicem, qui eum sacrificare cogebat, pro Christo capite truncatur. The book referred to by Jerome seems to be identical with the epistle quoted by Eusebius in the next chapter, for we have no record of another work on this subject written by him. There is extant, however, the Latin version of an epistle purporting to have been written by the imprisoned bishops Hesychius, Pachymius, Theodorus, and Phileas, to Meletius, author of the Meletian schism. There seems to be nothing in the epistle to disprove its genuineness, and it is accepted by Routh and others. The authorship of the epistle is commonly ascribed to Phileas, both because he is known to us as a writer, and also because his name stands last in the opening of the epistle. Eusebius says nothing of such an epistle (though the names of all four of the bishops are mentioned in chap. 13, below). Jerome’s silence in regard to it signifies nothing, for he only follows Eusebius. This epistle, and also the fragment of the one quoted in the next chapter by Eusebius, are given by Routh, Rel. Sac. IV. p. 87 sq., and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 161 sq.

Phileas’ learning is praised very highly by Eusebius and Jerome, and his scholarly character is emphasized in his Acts. The date of his death cannot be determined with exactness, but we may be confident that it did not, at any rate, take place before 306, and very likely not before 307. The epistle quoted in the next chapter was written shortly before his martyrdom, as we learn from §11 of that chapter.

Chapter X.—The Writings of Phileas the Martyr describing the Occurrences at Alexandria.

1. Since we have mentioned Phileas as having a high reputation for secular learning, let him be his own witness in the following extract, in which he shows us who he was, and at the same time describes more accurately than we can the martyrdoms which occurred in his time at Alexandria: 2539

2. “Having before them all these examples and models and noble tokens which are given us in the Divine and Sacred Scriptures, the blessed martyrs who were with us did not hesitate, but directing the eye of the soul in sincerity toward the God over all, and having their mind set upon death for religion, they adhered firmly to their calling. For they understood that our Lord Jesus Christ had become man on our account, that he might cut off all sin and furnish us with the means of entrance into eternal life. For ‘he counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself taking the form of a servant; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself unto death, even the death of the cross.’ 2540

3. Wherefore also being zealous for the greater gifts, the Christ-bearing martyrs endured all trials and all kinds of contrivances for torture; not once only, but some also a second time. And although the guards vied with each other in threatening them in all sorts of ways, not in words only, but in actions, they did not give up their resolution; because ‘perfect love casteth out fear.’ 2541

4. “What words could describe their courage and manliness under every torture? For as liberty to abuse them was given to all that wished, some beat them with clubs, others with rods, others with scourges, yet others with thongs, and others with ropes.

5. And the spectacle of the outrages was varied and exhibited great malignity. For some, with their hands bound behind them, were suspended on the stocks, and every member stretched by certain machines. Then the torturers, as commanded, lacerated with instruments 2542 their entire bodies; not only their sides, as in the case of murderers, but also their stomachs and knees and cheeks. Others were raised aloft, suspended from the porch by one hand, and endured the most terrible suffering of all, through the distension of their joints and limbs. Others were bound face to face to pillars, not resting on their feet, but with the weight of their bodies bearing on their bonds and drawing them tightly.

6. And they endured this, not merely as long as the governor talked with them or was at leisure, but through almost the entire day. For when he passed on to others, he left officers under his authority to watch the first, and observe if any of them, overcome by the tortures, appeared to yield. And he commanded to cast them into chains without mercy, and afterwards when they were at the last gasp to throw them to the ground and drag them away.

7. For he said that they were not to have the least concern for us, but were to think and act as if we no longer existed, our enemies having invented this second mode of torture in addition to the stripes.

8. “Some, also, after these outrages, were placed on the stocks, and had both their feet stretched over the four 2543 holes, so that they were compelled to lie on their backs on the stocks, being unable to keep themselves up on account of the fresh wounds with which their entire bodies were covered as a result of the scourging. Others were thrown on the ground and lay there under the accumulated infliction of tortures, exhibiting to the spectators a more terrible manifestation of severity, as they bore on their bodies the marks of the various and diverse punishments which had been invented.

9. As this went on, some died under the tortures, shaming the adversary by their constancy. Others half dead were shut up in prison, and suffering with their agonies, they died in a few days; but the rest, recovering under the care which they received, gained confidence by time and their long detention in prison.

10. When therefore they were ordered to choose whether they would be released from molestation by touching the polluted sacrifice, and would receive from them the accursed freedom, or refusing to sacrifice, should be condemned to death, they did not hesitate, but went to death cheerfully. For they knew what had been declared before by the Sacred Scriptures. For it is said, 2544 ‘He that sacrificeth to other gods shall be utterly destroyed,’ 2545 and, ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’” 2546

11. Such are the words of the truly philosophical and God-loving martyr, which, before the final sentence, while yet in prison, he addressed to the brethren in his parish, showing them his own circumstances, and at the same time exhorting them to hold fast, even after his approaching death, to the religion of Christ.

12. But why need we dwell upon these things, and continue to add fresh instances of the conflicts of the divine martyrs throughout the world, especially since they were dealt with no longer by common law, but attacked like enemies of war?

Footnotes

330:2539

On this epistle, see the previous chapter, note 3.

331:2540

Philip. 2.6-8Phil. ii. 6-8.

331:2541

1 John iv. 18.

331:2542

τοῖς ἀμυντηρίοις. The word ἀμυντήριον means literally a weapon of defense, but the word seems to indicate in the present case some kind of a sharp instrument with claws or hooks. Rufinus translates ungulæ, the technical term for an instrument of torture of the kind just described. Valesius remarks, however, that these ἀμυντήρια seem to have been something more than ungulæ, for Hesychius interprets ἀμυντήριον as ξίφος δίστομον, i.e. a “two-edged sword.”

331:2543

The majority of the mss., followed by Laemmer and Heinichen, omit τεσσ€ρων, “four.” The word, however, is found in a few good mss., and is adopted by all the other editors and translators, and seems necessary in the present case. Upon the instrument referred to here, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9. It would seem that “four holes” constituted in ordinary cases the extreme limit. But in two cases (Bk. V. chap. 1, §27, and Mart. Pal. chap. 2) we are told of a “fifth hole.” It is possible that the instruments varied in respect to the number of the holes, for the way in which the “four” is used here and elsewhere seems to indicate that the extreme of torture is thought of.

331:2544

φησί: “He says,” or “the Scripture saith.”

331:2545

Ex. xxii. 20.

331:2546

Ex. xx. 3.

Chapter XI.—Those in Phrygia.

1. A small town 2547 2548 of Phrygia, inhabited solely by Christians, was completely surrounded by soldiers while the men were in it. Throwing fire into it, they consumed them with the women and children while they were calling upon Christ. This they did because all the inhabitants of the city, and the curator himself, and the governor, with all who held office, and the entire populace, confessed themselves Christians, and would not in the least obey those who commanded them to worship idols.

2. There was another man of Roman dignity named Adauctus, 2549 of a noble Italian family, who had advanced through every honor under the emperors, so that he had blamelessly filled even the general offices of magistrate, as they call it, and of finance minister. 2550 Besides all this he excelled in deeds of piety and in the confession of the Christ of God, and was adorned with the diadem of martyrdom. He endured the conflict for religion while still holding the office of finance minister.

Footnotes

331:2547

I read πολίχνην with the majority of mss. and editors. A number of mss. read πόλιν, which is supported by Rufinus (urbem quandam) and Nicephorus, and is adopted by Laemmer and Heinichen; but it would certainty be more natural for a copyist to exaggerate than to understate his original.

331:2548

Lactantius (Dio inst. V. 11), in speaking of persecutions in general, says, “Some were swift to slaughter, as an individual in Phyrgia who burnt an entire people, together with their place of meeting (universum populum cum ipso pariter conventiculo).” This apparently refers to the same incident which Eusebius records in this chapter. Gibbon contends that not the city, but only the church with the people in it was burned; and so Fletcher, the translator of Lactantius in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, understands the passage (“who burnt a whole assembly of people, together with their place of meeting”). Mason, on the other hand, contends that the population of the entire city is meant. The Latin would seem, however, to support Gibbon’s interpretation rather than Mason’s; but in view of the account in Eusebius, the latter has perhaps most in its favor. If the two passages be interpreted differently, we can hardly determine which is the true version of the incident. Mason has “no hesitation” in referring this episode to the period immediately following the First Edict of Diocletian, at the time when the rebellions in Melitene and Syria were taking place. It may have occurred at that time, but I should myself have considerable hesitation in referring it definitely to any particular period of the persecution. If Eusebius’ statement at the close of this paragraph could be relied upon, we should be obliged to put the event after the issue of the fourth edict, for not until that time were Christians in general called upon to offer sacrifices. But the statement may be merely a conclusion of Eusebius’ own; and since he does not draw a clear distinction between the various steps in the persecution, little weight can be laid upon it.

332:2549

Rufinus connects this man with the town of Phrygia just referred to, and makes him one of the victims of that catastrophe. But Eusebius does not intimate any such connection, and indeed seems to separate him from the inhabitants of that city by the special mention of him as a martyr. Moreover, the official titles given to him are hardly such as we should expect the citizen of an insignificant Phrygian town to bear. He is said, in fact, to have held the highest imperial—not merely municipal—offices. We know nothing more about the man than is told us here; nor do we know when and where he suffered.

332:2550

τὰς καθόλου διοικήσεις τῆς ταρ᾽ αὐτοῖς καλουμένης μαγιστρότητος τε καὶ καθολικότητος. The second office (καθολικότης) is apparently to be identified with that mentioned in Bk. VII. chap. 10, §5 (see note 8 on that chapter). We can hardly believe, however, that Adauctus (of whom we hear nowhere else) can have held so high a position as is meant there, and therefore are forced to conclude that he was but one of a number of such finance ministers, and had the administration of the funds only of a particular district in his hands.

Chapter XII.—Many Others, both Men and Women, who suffered in Various Ways.

1. Why need we mention the rest by name, or number the multitude of the men, or picture the various sufferings of the admirable martyrs of Christ? Some of them were slain with the axe, as in Arabia. The limbs of some were broken, as in Cappadocia. Some, raised on high by the feet, with their heads down, while a gentle fire burned beneath them, were suffocated by the smoke which arose from the burning wood, as was done in Mesopotamia. Others were mutilated by cutting off their noses and ears and hands, and cutting to pieces the other members and parts of their bodies, as in Alexandria. 2551

2. Why need we revive the recollection of those in Antioch who were roasted on grates, not so as to kill them, but so as to subject them to a lingering punishment? Or of others who preferred to thrust their right hand into the fire rather than touch the impious sacrifice? Some, shrinking from the trial, rather than be taken and fall into the hands of their enemies, threw themselves from lofty houses, considering death preferable to the cruelty of the impious.

3. A certain holy person,—in soul admirable for virtue, in body a woman,—who was illustrious beyond all in Antioch for wealth and family and reputation, had brought up in the principles of religion her two daughters, who were now in the freshness and bloom of life. Since great envy was excited on their account, every means was used to find them in their concealment; and when it was ascertained that they were away, they were summoned deceitfully to Antioch. Thus they were caught in the nets of the soldiers. When the woman saw herself and her daughters thus helpless, and knew the things terrible to speak of that men would do to them,—and the most unbearable of all terrible things, the threatened violation of their chastity, 2552 —she exhorted herself and the maidens that they ought not to submit even to hear of this. For, she said, that to surrender their souls to the slavery of demons was worse than all deaths and destruction; and she set before them the only deliverance from all these things,—escape to Christ.

4. They then listened to her advice. And after arranging their garments suitably, they went aside from the middle of the road, having requested of the guards a little time for retirement, and cast themselves into a river which was flowing by.

5. Thus they destroyed themselves. 2553 But there were two other virgins in the same city of Antioch who served God in all things, and were true sisters, illustrious in family and distinguished in life, young and blooming, serious in mind, pious in deportment, and admirable for zeal. As if the earth could not bear such excellence, the worshipers of demons commanded to cast them into the sea. And this was done to them.

6. In Pontus, others endured sufferings horrible to hear. Their fingers were pierced with sharp reeds under their nails. Melted lead, bubbling and boiling with the heat, was poured down the backs of others, and they were roasted in the most sensitive parts of the body.

7. Others endured on their bowels and privy members shameful and inhuman and unmentionable torments, which the noble and law-observing judges, to show their severity, devised, as more honorable manifestations of wisdom. And new tortures were continually invented, as if they were endeavoring, by surpassing one another, to gain prizes in a contest.

8. But at the close of these calamities, when finally they could contrive no greater cruelties, and were weary of putting to death, and were filled and satiated with the shedding of blood, they turned to what they considered merciful and humane treatment, so that they seemed to be no longer devising terrible things against us.

9. For they said that it was not fitting that the cities should be polluted with the blood of their own people, or that the government of their rulers, which was kind and mild toward all, should be defamed through excessive cruelty; but that rather the beneficence of the humane and royal authority should be extended to all, and we should no longer be put to death. For the infliction of this punishment upon us should be stopped in consequence of the humanity of the rulers.

10. Therefore it was commanded that our eyes should be put out, and that we should be maimed in one of our limbs. For such things were humane in their sight, and the lightest of punishments for us. So that now on account of this kindly treatment accorded us by the impious, it was impossible to tell the incalculable number of those whose right eyes had first been cut out with the sword, and then had been cauterized with fire; or who had been disabled in the left foot by burning the joints, and afterward condemned to the provincial copper mines, not so much for service as for distress and hardship. Besides all these, others encountered other trials, which it is impossible to recount; for their manly endurance surpasses all description.

11. In these conflicts the noble martyrs of Christ shone illustrious over the entire world, and everywhere astonished those who beheld their manliness; and the evidences of the truly divine and unspeakable power of our Saviour were made manifest through them. To mention each by name would be a long task, if not indeed impossible.

Footnotes

332:2551

The barbarous mutilation of the Christians which is spoken of here and farther on in the chapter, began, as we learn from the Martyrs of Palestine, in the sixth year of the persecution (a.d. 308). The tyrant Maximin seems to have become alarmed at the number of deaths which the persecution was causing, and to have hit upon this atrocious expedient as a no less effectual means of punishment. It was practiced apparently throughout Maximin’s dominions; we are told of numbers who were treated in this way, both in Egypt and Palestine (see Mart. Pal. chap. 8 sq.).

332:2552

This abominable treatment of female Christians formed a feature of the persecutions both of Maximian and Maximin, who were alike monsters of licentiousness. It was entirely foreign to all the principles of Diocletian’s government, and could never have been allowed by him. It began apparently in Italy under Maximian, after the publication by him of the Fourth Edict (see Mart. Pal. chap. 3, note 2), and was continued in the East by Maximin, when he came into power. We have a great many instances given of this kind of treatment, and in many cases, as in the present, suicide relieved the victims of the proposed indignity.

333:2553

Eusebius evidently approved of these women’s suicide, and it must be confessed that they had great provocation. The views of the early Church on the subject of suicide were in ordinary cases very decided. They condemned it unhesitatingly as a crime, and thus made a decided advance upon the position held by many eminent Pagans of that age, especially among the Stoics. In two cases, however, their opinion of suicide was somewhat uncertain. There existed in many quarters a feeling of admiration for those who voluntarily rushed to martyrdom and needlessly sacrificed their lives. The wiser and steadier minds, however, condemned this practice unhesitatingly (cf. p. 8, above). The second case in connection with which the opinions of the Fathers were divided, was that which meets us in the present passage. The majority of them evidently not only justified but commended suicide in such an extremity. The first Father distinctly to condemn the practice was Augustine (De civ. Dei. I. 22–27). He takes strong ground on the subject, and while admiring the bravery and chastity of the many famous women that had rescued themselves by taking their own lives, he denounces their act as sinful under all circumstances, maintaining that suicide is never anything else than a crime against the law of God. The view of Augustine has very generally prevailed since his time. Cf. Leckey’s History of European Morals, 3d edition (Appleton, New York), Vol. II. p. 43 sq.

Chapter XIII.—The Bishops of the Church that evinced by their Blood the Genuineness of the Religion which they preached.

1. As for the rulers of the Church that suffered martyrdom in the principal cities, the first martyr of the kingdom of Christ whom we shall mention among the monuments of the pious is Anthimus, 2554 bishop of the city of Nicomedia, who was beheaded.

2. Among the martyrs at Antioch was Lucian, 2555 a presbyter of that parish, whose entire life was most excellent. At Nicomedia, in the presence of the emperor, he proclaimed the heavenly kingdom of Christ, first in an oral defense, and afterwards by deeds as well.

3. Of the martyrs in Phœnicia the most distinguished were those devoted pastors of the spiritual flocks of Christ: Tyrannion, 2556 bishop of the church of Tyre; Zenobius, a presbyter of the church at Sidon; and Silvanus, 2557 bishop of the churches about Emesa.

4. The last of these, with others, was made food for wild beasts at Emesa, and was thus received into the ranks of martyrs. The other two glorified the word of God at Antioch through patience unto death. The bishop 2558 was thrown into the depths of the sea. But Zenobius, who was a very skillful physician, died through severe tortures which were applied to his sides.

5. Of the martyrs in Palestine, Silvanus, 2559 bishop of the churches about Gaza, was beheaded with thirty-nine others at the copper mines of Phæno. 2560 There also the Egyptian bishops, Peleus and Nilus, 2561 with others, suffered death by fire.

6. Among these we must mention Pamphilus, a presbyter, who was the great glory of the parish of Cæsarea, and among the men of our time most admirable.

7. The virtue of his manly deeds we have recorded in the proper place. 2562 Of those who suffered death illustriously at Alexandria and throughout Egypt and Thebais, Peter, 2563 bishop of Alexandria, one of the most excellent teachers of the religion of Christ, should first be mentioned; and of the presbyters with him Faustus, 2564 Dius and Ammonius, perfect martyrs of Christ; also Phileas, 2565 Hesychius, 2566 Pachymius and Theodorus, bishops of Egyptian churches, and besides them many other distinguished persons who are commemorated by the parishes of their country and region.

It is not for us to describe the conflicts of those who suffered for the divine religion throughout the entire world, and to relate accurately what happened to each of them. This would be the proper work of those who were eye-witnesses of the events. I will describe for posterity in another work 2567 those which I myself witnessed.

8. But in the present book 2568 I will add to what I have given the revocation issued by our persecutors, and those events that occurred at the beginning of the persecution, which will be most profitable to such as shall read them.

9. What words could sufficiently describe the greatness and abundance of the prosperity of the Roman government before the war against us, while the rulers were friendly and peaceable toward us? Then those who were highest in the government, and had held the position ten or twenty years, passed their time in tranquil peace, in festivals and public games and most joyful pleasures and cheer.

10. While thus their authority was growing uninterruptedly, and increasing day by day, suddenly they changed their peaceful attitude toward us, and began an implacable war. But the second year of this movement was not yet past, when a revolution took place in the entire government and overturned all things.

11. For a severe sickness came upon the chief of those of whom we have spoken, by which his understanding was distracted; and with him who was honored with the second rank, he retired into private life. 2569 Scarcely had he done this when the entire empire was divided; a thing which is not recorded as having ever occurred before. 2570

12. Not long after, the Emperor Constantius, who through his entire life was most kindly and favorably disposed toward his subjects, and most friendly to the Divine Word, ended his life in the common course of nature, and left his own son, Constantine, as emperor and Augustus in his stead. 2571 He was the first that was ranked by them among the gods, and received after death every honor which one could pay to an emperor. 2572

13. He was the kindest and mildest of emperors, and the only one of those of our day that passed all the time of his government in a manner worthy of his office. Moreover, he conducted himself toward all most favorably and beneficently. He took not the smallest part in the war against us, but preserved the pious that were under him unharmed and unabused. He neither threw down the church buildings, 2573 nor did he devise anything else against us. The end of his life was honorable and thrice blessed. He alone at death left his empire happily and gloriously to his own son as his successor,—one who was in all respects most prudent and pious.

14. His son Constantine entered on the government at once, being proclaimed supreme emperor and Augustus by the soldiers, and long before by God himself, the King of all. He showed himself an emulator of his father’s piety toward our doctrine. Such an one was he.

But after this, Licinius was declared emperor and Augustus by a common vote of the rulers. 2574

15. These things grieved Maximinus greatly, for until that time he had been entitled by all only Cæsar. He therefore, being exceedingly imperious, seized the dignity for himself, and became Augustus, being made such by himself. 2575 In the mean time he whom we have mentioned as having resumed his dignity after his abdication, being detected in conspiring against the life of Constantine, perished by a most shameful death. 2576 He was the first whose decrees and statues and public monuments were destroyed because of his wickedness and impiety. 2577

Footnotes

333:2554

On Anthimus, see above, chap. 6, note 5.

333:2555

On Lucian of Antioch, see below, Bk. IX. chap. 6, note 4.

333:2556

Of Tyrannion and Zenobius, we know only what is told us here and in the next paragraph. All of the martyrs of whom Eusebius tells us in this and the following books are commemorated in the Martyrologies, and accounts of the passions of many of them are given in various Acts, usually of doubtful authority. I shall not attempt to mention such documents in my notes, nor to give references to the Martyrologies, unless there be some special reason for it in connection with a case of particular interest. Wherever we have farther information in regard to any of these martyrs, in Eusebius himself or other early Fathers, I shall endeavor to give the needed references, passing other names by unnoticed. Tillemont (H. E. V.) contains accounts of all these men, and all the necessary references to the Martyrologies, the Bollandist Acts, etc. To his work the curious reader is referred.

333:2557

Silvanus is mentioned again in Bk. IX. chap. 6, and from that passage we learn that he was a very old man at the time of his death, and that he had been bishop forty years. It is, moreover, directly stated in that passage that Silvanus suffered martyrdom at the same period with Peter of Alexandria, namely, in the year 312 or thereabouts. This being the date also of Lucian’s martyrdom, mentioned just above, we may assume it as probable that all mentioned in this chapter suffered about the same time.

334:2558

i.e. Tyrannion.

334:2559

Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, is mentioned also in Mart. Pal. chaps. 7 and 13. From the former chapter we learn that he became a confessor at Phæno in the fifth year of the persecution (a.d. 307), while still a presbyter; from the latter, that he suffered martyrdom in the seventh year, at the very close of the persecution in Palestine, and that he had been eminent in his confessions from the beginning of the persecution.

334:2560

Phæno was a village of Arabia Petræa, between Petra and Zoar, and contained celebrated copper mines, which were worked by condemned criminals.

334:2561

Peleus and Nilus are mentioned in Mart. Pal. chap. 13, from which passage we learn that they, like Silvanus, died in the seventh year of the persecution. An anonymous presbyter and a man named Patermuthius, are named there as perishing with them in the flames.

334:2562

On Pamphilus, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40. Eusebius refers here to his Life of Pamphilus (see above, p. 28).

334:2563

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

334:2564

Faustus is probably to be identified with the deacon of the same name, mentioned above in Bk. VI. chap. 40 and in Bk. VII. chap. 11. At any rate, we learn from the latter chapter that the Faustus mentioned there lived to a great age, and died in the persecution of Diocletian, so that nothing stands in the way of identifying the two, though in the absence of all positive testimony, the identification cannot be insisted upon. Of Dius and Ammonius we know nothing.

334:2565

On Phileas, see above, chap. 9, note 3.

334:2566

A Latin version of an epistle purporting to have been written by these four bishops is still extant (see above, chap. 9, note 3). We know nothing more about the last three named here. It has been customary to identify this Hesychius with the reviser of the text of the LXX and the Gospels which was widely current in Egypt in the time of Jerome, and was known as the Hesychian recension (see Jerome, Præf. in Paralipom., Apol. adv. Ruf. II. 27, Præf in quattuor Evangelia; and cf. Comment. in Isaiam, LVIII. 11). We know little about this text; but Jerome speaks of it slightingly, as does also the Decretal of Gelasius, VI. §15 (according to Westcott’s Hist. of the Canon, 5th ed. p. 392, note 5). The identification of the two men is quite possible, for the recension referred to belonged no doubt to this period; but no positive arguments beyond agreement in name and country can be urged in support of it. Fabricius proposed to identify our Hesychius with the author of the famous Greek Lexicon, which is still extant. But this identification is now commonly rejected; and the author of the lexicon is regarded as a pagan, who lived in Alexandria during the latter part of the fourth century. See Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Biography and Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. s.v.

334:2567

Eusebius refers here to his Martyrs of Palestine. See above, p. 29 sq.

334:2568

κατὰ τὸν παρόντα λόγον. Eusebius seems to refer here to the eighth book of his History; for he uses λόγος frequently in referring to the separate books of his work, but nowhere else, so far as I am aware, in referring to the work as a whole. This would seem to indicate that he was thinking at this time of writing only eight books, and of bringing his History to an end with the toleration edict of Galerius, which he gives in chap. 17, below. Might it be supposed that the present passage was written immediately after the publication of the edict of Galerius, and before the renewal of the persecution by Maximin? If that were so, we might assume that after the close of that persecution, in consequence of the victory of Constantine and Licinius, the historian felt it necessary to add yet a ninth book to his work, not contemplated at the time he was writing his eighth; as he seems still later, after the victory of Constantine over Licinius, to have found it necessary to add a tenth book, in order that his work might cover the entire period of persecution and include the final triumph of the Church. His motive, indeed, in adding the tenth book seems not to have been to bring the history down to the latest date possible, for he made no additions during his later years, in spite of the interesting and exciting events which took place after 325 a.d., but to bring it down to the final triumph of the Church over her pagan enemies. Had there been another persecution and another toleration edict between 325 and 338, we can hardly doubt that Eusebius would have added an account of it to his History. In view of these considerations, it is possible that some time may have elapsed between the composition of the eighth and ninth books, as well as between the composition of the ninth and tenth.

It must be admitted, however, that a serious objection to this supposition lies in the fact that in chaps. 15 and 16, below, the tenth year of the persecution is spoken of, and in the latter chapter the author is undoubtedly thinking of the Edict of Milan, which was issued in 312, after the renewal of Maximin’s persecution described in Book IX. I am, nevertheless, inclined to think that Eusebius, when he wrote the present passage, was expecting to close his work with the present book, and that the necessity for another book made itself manifest before he finished the present one. It may be that the words in chaps. 15 and 16 are a later insertion. I do not regard this as probable, but knowing the changes that were made in the ninth book in a second edition of the History, it must be admitted that such changes in the eighth book are not impossible (see above, p. 30 and 45). At the same time I prefer the former alternative, that the necessity for another book became manifest before he finished the present one. A slight confirmation of the theory that the ninth book was a later addition, necessitated by the persecution of Maximin’s later years, may be found in the appendix to the eighth book which is found in many mss. See below, p. 340, note 1.

335:2569

The abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, the two Augusti, took place on May 1, 305, and therefore a little more, not a little less, than two years after the publication of Diocletian’s First Edict. The causes of the abdication have been given variously by different writers, and our original authorities are themselves in no better agreement. I do not propose to enter here into a discussion of the subject, but am convinced that Burckhardt, Mason, and others are correct in looking upon the abdication, not as the result of a sudden resolve, but as a part of Diocletian’s great plan, and as such long resolved upon and regarded as one of the fundamental requirements of his system to be regularly observed by his successors, as well as by himself. The abdication of Diocletian and Maximian raised the Cæsars Constantius and Galerius to the rank of Augusti, and two new Cæsars, Maximinus Daza in the East, and Severus in the West, were appointed to succeed them. Diocletian himself retired to Dalmatia, his native province, where he passed the remainder of his life in rural pursuits, until his death in 313.

335:2570

Eusebius is correct in saying that the empire had never been divided up to this time. For it had always been ruled as one whole, even when the imperial power was shared by two or more princes. And even the system of Diocletian was not meant to divide the empire into two or more independent parts. The plan was simply to vest the supreme power in two heads, who should be given lieutenants to assist them in the government, but who should jointly represent the unity of the whole while severally administering their respective territories. Imperial acts to be valid had to be joint, not individual acts, and had to bear the name of both Augusti, while the Cæsars were looked upon only as the lieutenants and representatives of their respective superiors. Finally, in the last analysis, there was theoretically but the one supreme head, the first Augustus. While Diocletian was emperor, the theoretical unity was a practical thing. So long as his strong hand was on the helm, Maximian, the other Augustus, did not venture to do anything in opposition to his wishes, and thus the great system worked smoothly. But with Diocletian’s abdication, everything was changed. Theoretically Constantius was the first Augustus, but Galerius, not Constantius, had had the naming of the Cæsars; and there was no intention on Galerius’ part to acknowledge in any way his inferiority to Constantius. In fact, being in the East, whence the government had been carried on for twenty years, it was natural that he should be entirely independent of Constantius, and that thus, as Eusebius says, a genuine division of the empire, not theoretical but practical, should be the result. The principle remained the same; but West and East seemed now to stand, not under one great emperor, but under two equal and independent heads.

335:2571

Constantius Chlorus died at York, in Britain, July 25, 306. According to the system of Diocletian, the Cæsar Severus should regularly have succeeded to his place, and a new Cæsar should have been appointed to succeed Severus. But Constantine, the oldest son of Constantius, who was with his father at the time of his death, was at once proclaimed his successor, and hailed as Augustus by the army. This was by no means to Galerius’ taste, for he had far other plans in mind; but he was not in a position to dispute Constantine’s claims, and so made the best of the situation by recognizing Constantine not as Augustus, but as second Cæsar, while he raised Severus to the rank of Augustus, and made his own Cæsar Maximin first Cæsar. Constantine was thus theoretically subject to Severus, but the subjection was only a fiction, for he was practically independent in his own district from that time on.

Our sources are unanimous in giving Constantius an amiable and pious character, unusually free from bigotry and cruelty. Although he was obliged to show some respect to the persecuting edicts of his superiors, Diocletian and Maximian, he seems to have been averse to persecution, and to have gone no further than was necessary in that direction, destroying some churches, but apparently subjecting none of the Christians to bodily injury. We have no hint, however, that he was a Christian, or that his generous treatment of the Christians was the result in any way of a belief in their religion. It was simply the result of his natural tolerance and humanity, combined, doubtless, with a conviction that there was nothing essentially vicious or dangerous in Christianity.

335:2572

Not the first of Roman emperors to be so honored, but the first of the four rulers who were at that time at the head of the empire. It had been the custom from the beginning to decree divine honors to the Roman emperors upon their decease, unless their characters or their reigns had been such as to leave universal hatred behind them, in which case such honors were often denied them, and their memory publicly and officially execrated, and all their public monuments destroyed. The ascription of such honors to Constantius, therefore, does not in itself imply that he was superior to the other three rulers, nor indeed superior to the emperors in general, but only that he was not a monster, as some had been. The last emperor to receive such divine honors was Diocletian himself, with whose death the old pagan regime came finally to an end.

335:2573

This is a mistake; for though Constantius seems to have proceeded as mildly as possible, he did destroy churches, as we are directly informed by Lactantius (de Mort. pers. 15), and as we can learn from extant Acts and other sources (see Mason, p. 146 sq.). Eusebius, perhaps, knew nothing about the matter, and simply drew a conclusion from the known character of Constantius and his general tolerance toward the Christians.

335:2574

The steps which led to the appointment of Licinius are omitted by Eusebius. Maxentius, son of the old Augustus Maximian, spurred on by the success of Constantine’s move in Britain, attempted to follow his example in Italy. He won the support of a considerable portion of the army and of the Roman people, and in October of the same year (306) was proclaimed emperor by soldiers and people. Severus, who marched against the usurper, was defeated and slain, and Galerius, who endeavored to revenge his fallen colleague, was obliged to retreat without accomplishing anything. This left Italy and Africa in the hands of an independent ruler, who was recognized by none of the others. Toward the end of the year 307, Licinius, an old friend and comrade-in-arms of Galerius, was appointed Augustus to succeed Severus, whose death had occurred a number of months before, but whose place had not yet been filled. The appointment of Licinius took place at Carnuntum on the Danube, where Galerius, Diocletian, and Maximian met for consultation. Inasmuch as Italy and Africa were still in the hands of Maxentius, Licinius was given the Illyrian provinces with the rank of second Augustus, and was thus nominally ruler of the entire West.

335:2575

Early in 308 Maximinus, the first Cæsar, who was naturally incensed at the promotion of a new man, Licinius, to a position above himself, was hailed as Augustus by his troops, and at once notified Galerius of the fact. The latter could not afford to quarrel with Maximinus, and therefore bestowed upon him the full dignity of an Augustus, as upon Constantine also at the same time. There were thus four independent Augusti (to say nothing of the emperor Maxentius), and the system of Diocletian was a thing of the past.

336:2576

The reference is to the Augustus Maximian. After his abdication he retired to Lucania, but in the following year was induced by his son, Maxentius, to leave his retirement, and join him in wresting Italy and Africa from Severus. It was due in large measure to his military skill and to the prestige of his name that Severus was vanquished and Galerius repulsed. After his victories Maximian went to Gaul, to see Constantine and form an alliance with him. He bestowed upon him the title of Augustus and the hand of his daughter Fausta, and endeavored to induce him to join him in a campaign against Galerius. This, however, Constantine refused to do; and Maximian finally returned to Rome, where he found his son Maxentius entrenched in the affections of the soldiers and the people, and bent upon ruling for himself. After a bitter quarrel with him, in which he attempted, but failed, to wrest the purple from him, he left the city, attended the congress of Carnuntum, and acquiesced in the appointment of Licinius as second Augustus, which of course involved the formal renunciation of his own claims and those of his son. He then betook himself again to Constantine, but during the latter’s temporary absence treacherously had himself proclaimed Augustus by some of the troops. He was, however, easily overpowered by Constantine, but was forgiven and granted his liberty again. About two years later, unable to resist the desire to reign, he made an attempt upon Constantine’s life with the hope of once more securing the power for himself, but was detected and allowed to choose the manner of his own death, and in February, 310, strangled himself. The general facts just stated are well made out, but there is some uncertainty as to the exact order of events, in regard to which our sources are at variance. Compare especially the works of Hunziker, Burckhardt, and Mason, and the respective articles in Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog.

Eusebius’ memory plays him false in this passage; for he has not mentioned, as he states, Maximian’s resumption of the imperial dignity after his abdication. A few important mss., followed by Heinichen, omit the entire clause, “whom we have mentioned as having resumed his dignity after his abdication.” But the words are found in the majority of the mss. and in Rufinus, and are accepted by all the other editors. There can, in fact, be no doubt that Eusebius wrote the words, and that the omission of them in some codices is due to the fact that some scribe or scribes perceived his slip, and consequently omitted the clause.

336:2577

Valesius understands by this (as in §12, above), the first of the four emperors. But we find in Lactantius (ibid. chap. 42) the distinct statement that Diocletian (whose statues were thrown down in Rome with those of Maximian, to which they were joined, Janus-fashion) was the first emperor that had ever suffered such an indignity, and there is no hint in the text that Eusebius means any less than that in making his statement, though we know that it is incorrect.

Chapter XIV.—The Character of the Enemies of Religion.

1. Maxentius his son, who obtained the government at Rome, 2578 at first feigned our faith, in complaisance and flattery toward the Roman people. On this account he commanded his subjects to cease persecuting the Christians, pretending to religion that he might appear merciful and mild beyond his predecessors.

2. But he did not prove in his deeds to be such a person as was hoped, but ran into all wickedness and abstained from no impurity or licentiousness, committing adulteries and indulging in all kinds of corruption. For having separated wives from their lawful consorts, he abused them and sent them back most dishonorably to their husbands. And he not only practiced this against the obscure and unknown, but he insulted especially the most prominent and distinguished members of the Roman senate.

3. All his subjects, people and rulers, honored and obscure, were worn out by grievous oppression. Neither, although they kept quiet, and bore the bitter servitude, was there any relief from the murderous cruelty of the tyrant. Once, on a small pretense, he gave the people to be slaughtered by his guards; and a great multitude of the Roman populace were slain in the midst of the city, with the spears and arms, not of Scythians and barbarians, but of their own fellow-citizens.

4. It would be impossible to recount the number of senators who were put to death for the sake of their wealth; multitudes being slain on various pretenses.

5. To crown all his wickedness, the tyrant resorted to magic. And in his divinations he cut open pregnant women, and again inspected the bowels of newborn infants. He slaughtered lions, and performed various execrable acts to invoke demons and avert war. For his only hope was that, by these means, victory would be secured to him.

6. It is impossible to tell the ways in which this tyrant at Rome oppressed his subjects, so that they were reduced to such an extreme dearth of the necessities of life as has never been known, according to our contemporaries, either at Rome or elsewhere.

7. But Maximinus, the tyrant in the East, having secretly formed a friendly alliance with the Roman tyrant as with a brother in wickedness, sought to conceal it for a long time. But being at last detected, he suffered merited punishment. 2579

8. It was wonderful how akin he was in wickedness to the tyrant at Rome, or rather how far he surpassed him in it. For the chief of sorcerers and magicians were honored by him with the highest rank. Becoming exceedingly timid and superstitious, he valued greatly the error of idols and demons. Indeed, without soothsayers and oracles he did not venture to move even a finger, 2580 so to speak.

9. Therefore he persecuted us more violently and incessantly than his predecessors. He ordered temples to be erected in every city, and the sacred groves which had been destroyed through lapse of time to be speedily restored. He appointed idol priests in every place and city; and he set over them in every province, as high priest, some political official who had especially distinguished himself in every kind of service, giving him a band of soldiers and a body-guard. And to all jugglers, as if they were pious and beloved of the gods, he granted governments and the greatest privileges.

10. From this time on he distressed and harassed, not one city or country, but all the provinces under his authority, by extreme exactions of gold and silver and goods, and most grievous prosecutions and various fines. He took away from the wealthy the property which they had inherited from their ancestors, and bestowed vast riches and large sums of money on the flatterers about him.

11. And he went to such an excess of folly and drunkenness that his mind was deranged and crazed in his carousals; and he gave commands when intoxicated of which he repented afterward when sober. He suffered no one to surpass him in debauchery and profligacy, but made himself an instructor in wickedness to those about him, both rulers and subjects. He urged on the army to live wantonly in every kind of revelry and intemperance, and encouraged the governors and generals to abuse their subjects with rapacity and covetousness, almost as if they were rulers with him.

12. Why need we relate the licentious, shameless deeds of the man, or enumerate the multitude with whom he committed adultery? For he could not pass through a city without continually corrupting women and ravishing virgins.

13. And in this he succeeded with all except the Christians. For as they despised death, they cared nothing for his power. For the men endured fire and sword and crucifixion and wild beasts and the depths of the sea, and cutting off of limbs, and burnings, and pricking and digging out of eyes, and mutilations of the entire body, and besides these, hunger and mines and bonds. In all they showed patience in behalf of religion rather than transfer to idols the reverence due to God.

14. And the women were not less manly than the men in behalf of the teaching of the Divine Word, as they endured conflicts with the men, and bore away equal prizes of virtue. And when they were dragged away for corrupt purposes, they surrendered their lives to death rather than their bodies to impurity. 2581

15. One only of those who were seized for adulterous purposes by the tyrant, a most distinguished and illustrious Christian woman in Alexandria, conquered the passionate and intemperate soul of Maximinus by most heroic firmness. Honorable on account of wealth and family and education, she esteemed all of these inferior to chastity. He urged her many times, but although she was ready to die, he could not put her to death, for his desire was stronger than his anger.

16. He therefore punished her with exile, and took away all her property. Many others, unable even to listen to the threats of violation from the heathen rulers, endured every form of tortures, and rackings, and deadly punishment.

These indeed should be admired. But far the most admirable was that woman at Rome, who was truly the most noble and modest of all, whom the tyrant Maxentius, fully resembling Maximinus in his actions, endeavored to abuse.

17. For when she learned that those who served the tyrant in such matters were at the house (she also was a Christian), and that her husband, although a prefect of Rome, would suffer them to take and lead her away, having requested a little time for adorning her body, she entered her chamber, and being alone, stabbed herself with a sword. Dying immediately, she left her corpse to those who had come for her. And by her deeds, more powerfully than by any words, she has shown to all men now and hereafter that the virtue which prevails among Christians is the only invincible and indestructible possession. 2582

18. Such was the career of wickedness which was carried forward at one and the same time by the two tyrants who held the East and the West. Who is there that would hesitate, after careful examination, to pronounce the persecution against us the cause of such evils? Especially since this extreme confusion of affairs did not cease until the Christians had obtained liberty.

Footnotes

336:2578

See the previous chapter, note 21.

The character which Eusebius gives to Maxentius in this chapter is borne out by all our sources, both heathen and Christian, and seems not to be greatly overdrawn. It has been sometimes disputed whether he persecuted the Christians, but there is no ground to suppose that he did, though they, in common with all his subjects, had to suffer from his oppression, and therefore hated him as deeply as the others did. His failure to persecute the Christians as such, and his restoration to them of the rights which they had enjoyed before the beginning of the great persecution, can hardly be looked upon as a result of a love or respect for our religion. It was doubtless in part due to hostility to Galerius, but chiefly to political considerations. He apparently saw what Constantine later saw and profited by,—that it would be for his profit, and would tend to strengthen his government, to gain the friendship of that large body of his subjects which had been so violently handled under the reign of his father. And, no doubt, the universal toleration which he offered was one of the great sources of his strength at the beginning of his reign. Upon his final defeat by Constantine, and his death, see below, Bk. IX. chap. 9.

336:2579

On the alliance of Maximinus with Maxentius, his war with Licinius, and his death, see below, Bk. IX. chaps. 9 and 10. Upon his accession to the Cæsarship, and usurpation of the title of Augustus, see above, chap. 13, notes 16 and 22.

Maximinus Daza was a nephew of Galerius, who owed his advancement, not to his own merits, but solely to the favor of his uncle, but who, nevertheless, after acquiring power, was by no means the tool Galerius had expected him to be. Eusebius seems not to have exaggerated his wickedness in the least. He was the most abandoned and vicious of the numerous rulers of the time, and was utterly without redeeming qualities, so far as we can ascertain. Under him the Christians suffered more severely than under any of his colleagues, and even after the toleration edict and death of Galerius (a.d. 311), he continued the persecution for more than a year. His territory comprised Egypt and Syria, and consequently the greater part of the martyrdoms recorded by Eusebius in his Martyrs of Palestine took place under him. (See that work, for the details.) Upon the so-called Fifth Edict, which was issued by him in 308, see Mart. Pal. chap. 9, note 1. Upon his treatment of the Christians after the death of Galerius, and upon his final toleration edict, see Bk. IX. chap. 2 sq. and chap. 9 sq.

337:2580

Literally, “a finger-nail” (ὄνυχος).

337:2581

Compare chap. 12, note 3, above.

337:2582

Ibid.

Chapter XV.—The Events which happened to the Heathen. 2583

1. During the entire ten years 2584 of the persecution, they were constantly plotting and warring against one another. 2585 For the sea could not be navigated, nor could men sail from any port without being exposed to all kinds of outrages; being stretched on the rack and lacerated in their sides, that it might be ascertained through various tortures, whether they came from the enemy; and finally being subjected to punishment by the cross or by fire.

2. And besides these things shields and breastplates were preparing, and darts and spears and other warlike accoutrements were making ready, and galleys and naval armor were collecting in every place. And no one expected anything else than to be attacked by enemies any day. In addition to this, famine and pestilence came upon them, in regard to which we shall relate what is necessary in the proper place. 2586

Footnotes

338:2583

τοῖς ἐκτός.

338:2584

Diocletian’s First Edict was issued on Feb. 24, 303; and the persecution was brought to a final end by Constantine and Licinius’ edict of toleration, which was issued at Milan late in the year 312 (see below, Bk. IX. chap. 9, note 17). The persecution may therefore be said to have lasted altogether ten years; although of course there were many cessations during that period, and in the West it really came to an end with the usurpation of Maxentius in 306, and in the East (except in Maximin’s dominions) with the edict of Galerius in 311.

338:2585

This passage is largely rhetorical. It is true that enough plotting and warring went on after the usurpation of Maxentius in 306, and after the death of Galerius in 311, to justify pretty strong statements. Gibbon, for instance, says: “The abdication of Diocletian and Maximian was succeeded by eighteen years of discord and confusion. The empire was afflicted by five civil wars; and the remainder of the time was not so much a state of tranquillity as a suspension of arms between several hostile monarchs, who, viewing each other with an eye of fear and hatred, strove to increase their respective forces at the expense of their subjects” (chap. xiv.). At the same time, during the four years between 307 and 311, though there was not the harmony which had existed under Diocletian, and though the interests of the West and East were in the main hostile, yet the empire was practically at peace, barring the persecution of the Christians.

338:2586

See below, Bk. IX. chap. 8.

Chapter XVI.—The Change of Affairs for the Better.

1. Such was the state of affairs during the entire persecution. But in the tenth year, through the grace of God, it ceased altogether, having begun to decrease after the eighth year. 2587 For when the divine and heavenly grace showed us favorable and propitious oversight, then truly our rulers, and the very persons 2588 by whom the war against us had been earnestly prosecuted, most remarkably changed their minds, and issued a revocation, and quenched the great fire of persecution which had been kindled, by merciful proclamations and ordinances concerning us.

2. But this was not due to any human agency; nor was it the result, as one might say, of the compassion or philanthropy of our rulers;—far from it, for daily from the beginning until that time they were devising more and more severe measures against us, and continually inventing outrages by a greater variety of instruments;—but it was manifestly due to the oversight of Divine Providence, on the one hand becoming reconciled to his people, and on the other, attacking him 2589 who instigated these evils, and showing anger toward him as the author of the cruelties of the entire persecution.

3. For though it was necessary that these things should take place, according to the divine judgment, yet the Word saith, “Woe to him through whom the offense cometh.” 2590 Therefore punishment from God came upon him, beginning with his flesh, and proceeding to his soul. 2591

4. For an abscess suddenly appeared in the midst of the secret parts of his body, and from it a deeply perforated sore, which spread irresistibly into his inmost bowels. An indescribable multitude of worms sprang from them, and a deathly odor arose, as the entire bulk of his body had, through his gluttony, been changed, before his sickness, into an excessive mass of soft fat, which became putrid, and thus presented an awful and intolerable sight to those who came near.

5. Some of the physicians, being wholly unable to endure the exceeding offensiveness of the odor, were slain; others, as the entire mass had swollen and passed beyond hope of restoration, and they were unable to render any help, were put to death without mercy.

Footnotes

338:2587

The edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and Licinius toward the close of the year 312 (upon the date, see Mason, p. 333, note) put an end to the persecution in its tenth year, though complete toleration was not proclaimed by Maximin until the following spring. Very soon after the close of the eighth year, in April, 311, Galerius issued his edict of toleration which is given in the next chapter. It is, therefore, to the publication of this edict that Eusebius refers when he says that the persecution had begun to decrease after the eighth year. Maximin yielded reluctant and partial consent to this edict for a few months, but before the end of the year he began to persecute again; and during the year 312 the Christians suffered severely in his dominions (see Bk. IX. chap. 2 sq.).

338:2588

The plural here seems a little peculiar, for the edict was issued only in the name of Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius, not in the name of Maximin. We have no record of Licinius as a persecutor before this time, and Eusebius’ words of praise in the ninth book would seem to imply that he had not shown himself at all hostile to the Church. And in fact Licinius seems ruled out by §2, below, where “they” are spoken of as having “from the beginning devised more and more severe measures against us.” And yet, since Constantine did not persecute, we must suppose either that Licinius is included in Eusebius’ plural, or what is perhaps more probable, that Eusebius thinks of the edict as proceeding from all four emperors though bearing the names of only three of them. It is true that the latter is rather a violent supposition in view of Eusebius’ own words in the first chapter of Bk. IX. I confess that I find no satisfactory explanation of the apparent inconsistency.

338:2589

i.e. Galerius.

338:2590

Matt. xviii. 7.

338:2591

Galerius seems to have been smitten with the terrible disease, which Eusebius here refers to, and which is described by Lactantius at considerable length (De mort. pers. chap. 33) and with many imaginative touches (e.g. the stench of his disease pervades “not only the palace, but even the whole city”!), before the end of the year 310, and his death took place in May of the following year.

Chapter XVII.—The Revocation of the Rulers.

1. Wrestling with so many evils, he thought of the cruelties which he had committed against the pious. Turning, therefore, his thoughts toward himself, he first openly confessed to the God of the universe, and then summoning his attendants, he commanded that without delay they should stop the persecution of the Christians, and should by law and royal decree, urge them forward to build their churches and to perform their customary worship, offering prayers in behalf of the emperor. Immediately the deed followed the word.

2. The imperial decrees were published in the cities, containing the revocation of the acts against us in the following form:

3. “The Emperor Cæsar Galerius Valerius Maximinus, Invictus, Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, conqueror of the Germans, conqueror of the Egyptians, conqueror of the Thebans, five times conqueror of the Sarmatians, conqueror of the Persians, twice conqueror of the Carpathians, six times conqueror of the Armenians, conqueror of the Medes, conqueror of the Adiabeni, Tribune of the people the twentieth time, Emperor the nineteenth time, Consul the eighth time, Father of his country, Proconsul;

4. and the Emperor Cæsar Flavius Valerius Constantinus, Pius, Felix, Invictus, Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribune of the people, Emperor the fifth time, Consul, Father of his country, Proconsul;

5. and the Emperor Cæsar Valerius Licinius, Pius, Felix, Invictus, Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribune of the people the fourth time, Emperor the third time, Consul, Father of his country, Proconsul; to the people of their provinces, greeting: 2592

6. “Among the other things which we have ordained for the public advantage and profit, we formerly wished to restore everything to conformity with the ancient laws and public discipline 2593 of the Romans, and to provide that the Christians also, who have forsaken the religion of their ancestors, 2594 should return to a good disposition.

7. For in some way such arrogance had seized them and such stupidity had overtaken them, that they did not follow the ancient institutions which possibly their own ancestors had formerly established, but made for themselves laws according to their own purpose, as each one desired, and observed them, and thus assembled as separate congregations in various places.

8. When we had issued this decree that they should return to the institutions established by the ancients, 2595 a great many 2596 submitted under danger, but a great many being harassed endured all kinds of death. 2597

9. And since many continue in the same folly, 2598 and we perceive that they neither offer to the heavenly gods the worship which is due, nor pay regard to the God of the Christians, in consideration of our philanthropy and our invariable custom, by which we are wont to extend pardon to all, we have determined that we ought most cheerfully to extend our indulgence in this matter also; that they may again be Christians, and may rebuild the conventicles in which they were accustomed to assemble, 2599 on condition that nothing be done by them contrary to discipline. 2600 In another letter we shall indicate to the magistrates what they have to observe.

10. Wherefore, on account of this indulgence of ours, they ought to supplicate their God for our safety, and that of the people, and their own, that the public welfare may be preserved in every place, 2601 and that they may live securely in their several homes.”

11. Such is the tenor of this edict, translated, as well as possible, from the Roman tongue into the Greek. 2602 It is time to consider what took place after these events.

That which follows is found in Some Copies in the Eighth Book. 2603

1. The author of the edict very shortly after this confession was released from his pains and died. He is reported to have been the original author of the misery of the persecution, having endeavored, long before the movement of the other emperors, to turn from the faith the Christians in the army, and first of all those in his own house, degrading some from the military rank, and abusing others most shamefully, and threatening still others with death, and finally inciting his partners in the empire to the general persecution. It is not proper to pass over the death of these emperors in silence.

2. As four of them held the supreme authority, those who were advanced in age and honor, after the persecution had continued not quite two years, abdicated the government, as we have already stated, 2604 and passed the remainder of their lives in a common and private station.

3. The end of their lives was as follows. He who was first in honor and age perished through a long and most grievous physical infirmity. 2605 He who held the second place ended his life by strangling, 2606 suffering thus according to a certain demoniacal prediction, on account of his many daring crimes.

4. Of those after them, the last, 2607 of whom we have spoken as the originator of the entire persecution, suffered such things as we have related. But he who preceded him, the most merciful and kindly emperor Constantius, 2608 passed all the time of his government in a manner worthy of his office. 2609 Moreover, he conducted himself towards all most favorably and beneficently. He took not the smallest part in the war against us, and preserved the pious that were under him unharmed and unabused. Neither did he throw down the church buildings, nor devise anything else against us. The end of his life was happy and thrice blessed. He alone at death left his empire happily and gloriously to his own son 2610 as his successor, one who was in all respects most prudent and pious. He entered on the government at once, being proclaimed supreme emperor and Augustus by the soldiers;

5. and he showed himself an emulator of his father’s piety toward our doctrine. Such were the deaths of the four of whom we have written, which took place at different times.

6. Of these, moreover, only the one referred to a little above by us, 2611 with those who afterward shared in the government, finally 2612 published openly to all the above-mentioned confession, in the written edict which he issued.

Footnotes

339:2592

This edict was issued in April, 311 (see the previous chapter, note 1). There has been considerable discussion as to the reason for the omission of Maximin’s name from the heading of the edict. The simplest explanation is that he did not wish to have his name appear in a document which was utterly distasteful to him and which he never fully sanctioned, as we learn from Bk. IX. chaps. 1 and 2, below. It is possible, as Mason suggests, that in the copies of the edict which were designed for other parts of the empire than his own the names of all four emperors appeared. Eusebius gives a Greek translation of the edict. The original Latin is found in Lactantius’ De mort. pers. chap. 34. The translation in the present case is in the main accurate though somewhat free. The edict is an acknowledgment of defeat on Galerius’ part, and was undoubtedly caused in large part by a superstitious desire, brought on by his sickness, to propitiate the God of the Christians whom he had been unable to conquer. And yet, in my opinion, it is not as Mason calls it, “one of the most bizarre state documents ever penned,” “couched in language treacherous, contradictory, and sown with the most virulent hatred”; neither does it “lay the blame upon the Christians because they had forsaken Christ,” nor aim to “dupe and outwit the angry Christ, by pretending to be not a persecutor, but a reformer.” As will be seen from note 3, below, I interpret the document in quite another way, and regard it as a not inconsistent statement of the whole matter from Galerius’ own point of view.

339:2593

τὴν δημοσίαν ἐπιστήμην. Latin: publicam disciplinam.

339:2594

τῶν γονέων τῶν ἑαυτῶν τὴν αἵρεσιν. Latin: parentum suorum sectam. There has been some discussion as to whether Galerius here refers to primitive Christianity or to paganism, but the almost unanimous opinion of scholars (so far as I am aware) is that he means the former (cf. among others, Mason, p. 298 sq.). I confess myself, however, unable, after careful study of the document, to accept this interpretation. Not that I think it impossible that Galerius should pretend that the cause of the persecution had been the departure of the Christians from primitive Christianity, and its object the reform of the Church, because, although that was certainly not his object, he may nevertheless, when conquered, have wished to make it appear so to the Christians at least (see Mason, p. 302 sq.). My reason for not accepting the interpretation is that I cannot see that the language of the edict warrants it; and certainly, inasmuch as it is not what we should a priori expect Galerius to say, we are hardly justified in adopting it except upon very clear grounds. But in my opinion such grounds do not exist, and in fact the interpretation seems to me to do violence to at least a part of the decree. In the present sentence it is certainly not necessarily implied that the ancestors of the Christians held a different religion from the ancestors of the heathen; in fact, it seems on the face of it more natural to suppose that Galerius is referring to the earlier ancestors of both Christians and heathen, who were alike pagans. This is confirmed by the last clause of the sentence: ad bonas mentes redirent (εἰς ἀγαθήν πρόθεσιν ἐπανέλθοιεν), which in the mouth of Galerius, and indeed of any heathen, would naturally mean “return to the worship of our gods.” This in itself, however, proves nothing, for Galerius may, as is claimed, have used the words hypocritically; but in the next sentence, which is looked upon as the main support of the interpretation which I am combating, it is not said that they have deserted their ancient institutions in distinction from the institutions of the rest of the world, but illa veterum instituta (a term which he could hardly employ in this unqualified way to indicate the originators of Christianity without gross and gratuitous insult to his heathen subjects) quæ forsitan primum parentes eorumdem constituerant, “those institutions of the ancients which perchance their own fathers had first established” (the Greek is not quite accurate, omitting the demonstrative, and reading πρότερον for primum). There can hardly have been a “perchance” about the fact that the Christians’ ancestors had first established Christian institutions, whatever they were—certainly Galerius would never have thought of implying that his ancestors, or the ancestors of his brother-pagans, had established them. His aim seems to be to suggest, as food for reflection, not only that the ancestors of the Christians had certainly, with the ancestors of the heathen, originally observed pagan institutions, but that perhaps they had themselves been the very ones to establish those institutions, which would make the guilt of the Christians in departing from them all the worse. In the next clause, the reference to the Christians as making laws for themselves and assembling in various places may as easily be a rebuke to the Christians for their separation from their heathen fellow-citizens in matters of life and worship as a rebuke to them for their departure from the original unity of the Christian Church. Again, in the next sentence the “institutions of the ancients” (veterum instituta) are referred to in the most general way, without any such qualification as could possibly lead the Christians or any one else to think that the institutions of the Christian religion were meant. Conformity to “the ancient laws and public discipline of the Romans” is announced in the beginning of the edict as the object which Galerius had in view. Could he admit, even for the sake of propitiating his Christian subjects, that those laws and that discipline were Christian? Veterum instituta in fact could mean to the reader nothing else, as thus absolutely used, than the institutions of the old Romans.

Still further it is to be noticed that in §9 Galerius does not say “but although many persevere in their purpose…nevertheless, in consideration of our philanthropy, we have determined that we ought to extend our indulgence,” &c., but rather “and since (atque cum) many persevere in their purpose,” &c. The significance of this has apparently been hitherto quite overlooked. Does he mean to say that he feels that he ought to extend indulgence just because they do exactly what they did before—worship neither the gods of the heathen nor the God of the Christians? I can hardly think so. He seems to me to say rather, “Since many, in spite of my severe measures, still persevere in their purpose (in proposito perseverarent) and refuse to worship our gods, while at the same time they cease under the pressure to worship their own God as they have been accustomed to do, I have decided to permit them to return to their own worship, thinking it better that they worship the God of the Christians than that they worship no God; provided in worshiping him they do nothing contrary to discipline (contra disciplinam), i.e. contrary to Roman law.” Thus interpreted, the entire edict seems to me consistent and at the same time perfectly natural. It is intended to propitiate the Christians and to have them pray for the good of the emperor to their own God, rather than refuse to pray for him altogether. It is not an acknowledgment even to the Christians that their God is the supreme and only true God, but it is an acknowledgment that their God is probably better than no god, and that the empire will be better off if they become loyal, peaceable, prayerful citizens again (even if their prayers are not directed to the highest gods), than if they continue disaffected and disloyal and serve and worship no superior being. That the edict becomes, when thus interpreted, much more dignified and much more worthy of an emperor cannot be denied; and, little respect as we may have for Galerius, we should not accuse him of playing the hypocrite and the fool in this matter, except on better grounds than are offered by the extant text of this edict.

340:2595

ἐπὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαὶων καταστ€θεντα. Latin: ad veterum instituta.

340:2596

πλεῖστοι. Latin: multi.

340:2597

παντοίους θαν€τους ὑπέφερον. Latin: deturbati sunt.

340:2598

τῇ αὐτῇ ἀπονοί& 139· διαμενόντων. Latin: in proposito perseverarent.

340:2599

τοὺς οἰκοὺς, ἐν οἷς συνήγοντο, συνθῶσιν. Latin: conventicula sua componant.

340:2600

contra disciplinam, i.e. “against the discipline or laws of the Romans.” Galerius does not tell us just what this indefinite phrase is meant to cover, and the letter to the magistrates, in which he doubtless explained himself and laid down the conditions, is unfortunately lost. The edict of Milan, as Mason conclusively shows, refers to this edict of Galerius and to these accompanying conditions; and from that edict some light is thrown upon the nature of these conditions imposed by Galerius. It has been conjectured that in Galerius’ edict, Christianity was forbidden to all but certain classes: “that if a man chose to declare himself a Christian, he would incur no danger, but might no longer take his seat as a decurion in his native town, or the like”; that Galerius had endeavored to make money out of the transaction whereby Christians received their church property back again; that proselytizing was forbidden; that possibly the toleration of Christianity was made a matter of local option, and that any town or district by a majority vote could prohibit its exercise within its own limits (see Mason p. 330 sq.). These conjectures are plausible, though of course precarious.

340:2601

The Greek reads, in all our mss., κατὰ π€ντα τρόπον, “in every manner.” The Latin original, however, reads undique versum. In view of that fact, I feel confident that the Greek translator must have written τόπον instead of τρόπον. If, therefore, that translator was Eusebius, we must suppose that the change to τρόπον is due to the error of some scribe. If, on the other hand, Eusebius simply copied the Greek translation from some one else, he may himself have carelessly written τρόπον. In either case, however, τόπον must have been the original translation, and I have therefore substituted it for τρόπον, and have rendered accordingly. I find that Crusè has done likewise, whether for the same reason I do not know.

340:2602

Eusebius does not say whether the translating was done by himself or by some one else. The epistle of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus, quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 9, above, was translated by himself, as he directly informs us (see ibid. chap. 8, note 17). This might lead us to suppose him the translator in the present case; but, on the other hand, in that case he directly says that the translation was his work, in the present he does not. It is possible that Greek copies of the edict were in common circulation, and that Eusebius used one of them. At the same time, the words “translated as well as possible” (κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν) would seem to indicate that Eusebius had supervised the present translation, if he had not made it himself. Upon his knowledge of Latin, see the note just referred to.

340:2603

The words of this title, together with the section which follows, are found in the majority of our mss. at the close of the eighth book, and are given by all the editors. The existence of the passage would seem to imply that the work in only eight books came into the hands of some scribe, who added the appendix to make the work more complete. (Cf. chap. 13, note 15, above.) Whoever he was, he was not venturesome in his additions, for, except the notice of Diocletian’s death and the statement of the manner of the death of Maximinus, he adds nothing that has not been already said in substance by Eusebius himself. The appendix must have been added in any case as late as 313, for Diocletian died in that year.

340:2604

See above, chap. 13, §11.

340:2605

Diocletian died in 313, at the age of sixty-seven. The final ruin of all his great plans for the permanent prosperity of the empire, the terrible misfortunes of his daughter, and the indignities heaped upon him by Maximin, Licinius, and Constantine, wore him out and at length drove the spirit from the shattered body. According to Lactantius (De mort. pers. 42), “having been treated in the most contumelious manner, and compelled to abhor life, he became incapable of receiving nourishment, and, worn out with anguish of mind, expired.”

340:2606

Upon the death of Maximian, see above, chap. 13, note 23.

341:2607

ὁμὲν ὕστατος, i.e. Galerius, who was the second Cæsar and therefore the last, or lowest, of the four rulers. Upon his illness and death, see chap. 16, above.

341:2608

Constantius was first Cæsar, and thus held third rank in the government. The following passage in regard to him is found also in chap. 13, §12–14, above.

341:2609

Constantius was first Cæsar, and thus held third rank in the government. The following passage in regard to him is found also in chap. 13, §12–14, above.

341:2610

i.e. Constantine.

341:2611

i.e. Galerius.

341:2612

I read λοιπόν which is found in some mss. and is adopted by Stephanus and Burton. Valesius, Schwegler, Laemmer and Heinichen follow other mss. in reading λιπών, and this is adopted by Stroth, Closs and Crusè in their translations. The last, however, makes it govern “the above-mentioned confession,” which is quite ungrammatical, while Stroth and Closs (apparently approved by Heinichen) take it to mean “still alive” or “still remaining” (“Der unter diesen allein noch Ueberlebende”; “Der unter diesen noch allein uebrige”), a meaning which belongs to the middle but not properly to the active voice of λείπω. The latter translation, moreover, makes the writer involve himself in a mistake, for Diocletian did not die until nearly two years after the publication of Galerius’ edict. In view of these considerations I feel compelled to adopt the reading λοιπόν which is nearly, if not quite, as well supported by ms. authority as λιπών.

Martyrs of Palestine. 2613

————————————

The Following also we found in a Certain Copy in the Eighth Book. 2614

It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, in the month Xanthicus, 2615 which is called April by the Romans, about the time of the feast of our Saviour’s passion, while Flavianus 2616 was governor of the province of Palestine, that letters were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom.

Such was the force of the first edict against us. But not long after other letters were issued, commanding that all the bishops of the churches everywhere be first thrown into prison, and afterward, by every artifice, be compelled to sacrifice.

Footnotes

342:2613

On this work, see above, p. 29 sq. As remarked there, the shorter form of the work, the translation of which follows, is found in most, but not all, of the mss. of Eusebius’ Church History, in some of them at the close of the tenth book, in one of them in the middle of Bk. VIII. chap. 13, in the majority of them between Bks. VIII. and IX. It is found neither in the Syraic version of the History, nor in Rufinus. Musculus omits it in his Latin version, but a translation of it is given both by Christophorsonus and Valesius. The Germans Stroth and Closs omit it; but Stigloher gives it at the close of his translation of the History. The English translators insert it at the close of the eighth book. The work is undoubtedly genuine, in this, its shorter, as well as in its longer form, but was in all probability attached to the History, not by Eusebius himself, but by some copyist, and therefore is not strictly entitled to a place in a translation of the History. At the same time it has seemed best in the present case to include it and to follow the majority of the editors in inserting it at this point. In all the mss. except one the work begins abruptly without a title, introduced only by the words καὶ ταῦτα žν τινι ἀντιγρ€φῳ ἐν τῷ ὀγδό& 251· τόμῳ εὕρομεν: “The following also we found in a certain copy in the eighth book.” In the Codex Castellanus, however, according to Reading (in his edition of Valesius, Vol. I. p. 796, col. 2), the following title is inserted immediately after the words just quoted: Εὐσεβίου σύγγραμμα περὶ τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν μαρτυρησ€ντων ἐν τῷ ὀκταέτει Διοκλητιανοῦ καὶ ἐφεξῆς Γαλερίου τοῦ Μαξιμίνου διωγμῷ. Heinichen consequently prints the first part of this title (Εὐσεβίου…μαρτυρησ€ντων) at the head of the work in his edition, and is followed by Burton and Migne. This title, however, can hardly be looked upon as original, and I have preferred to employ rather the name by which the work is described at its close, where we read Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφιλου περί τῶν ἐν Παλαιστίνῃ μαρτυρησ€ντων τέλος. This agrees with the title of the Syriac version, and must represent very closely the original title; and so the work is commonly known in English as the Martyrs of Palestine, in Latin as de Martyribus Palestinæ. The work is much more systematic than the eighth book of the Church History; in fact, it is excellently arranged, and takes up the persecution year by year in chronological order. The ground covered, however, is very limited, and we can consequently gather from the work little idea of the state of the Church at large during these years. All the martyrs mentioned in the following pages are commemorated in the various martyrologies under particular days, but in regard to most of them we know only what Eusebius tells us. I shall not attempt to give references to the martyrologies. Further details gleaned from them and from various Acts of martyrdom may be found in Ruinart, Tillemont, &c. I shall endeavor to give full particulars in regard to the few martyrs about whom we have any reliable information beyond that given in the present work, but shall pass over the others without mention.

342:2614

The Martyrs of Palestine, in all the mss. that contain it, is introduced with these words. The passage which follows, down to the beginning of Chap. 1, is a transcript, with a few slight variations, of Bk. VIII. chap. 2, §§4 and 5. For notes upon it, see that chapter.

342:2615

The month Xanthicus was the eighth month of the Macedonian year, and corresponded to our April (see the table on p. 403, below). In Bk. VIII. chap. 2, Eusebius puts the beginning of the prosecution in the seventh month, Dystrus. But the persecution really began, or at least the first edict was issued, and the destruction of the churches in Nicomedia took place, in February. See Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 3.

342:2616

Flavianus is not mentioned in Bk. VIII. chap. 2. In the Syriac version he is named as the judge by whom Procopius was condemned (Cureton, p. 4). Nothing further is known of him, so far as I am aware.

Chapter I.

1. The first of the martyrs of Palestine was Procopius, 2617 who, before he had received the trial of imprisonment, immediately on his first appearance before the governor’s tribunal, having been ordered to sacrifice to the so-called gods, declared that he knew only one to whom it was proper to sacrifice, as he himself wills. But when he was commanded to offer libations to the four emperors, having quoted a sentence which displeased them, he was immediately beheaded. The quotation was from the poet: “The rule of many is not good; let there be one ruler and one king.” 2618

2. It was the seventh 2619 day of the month Desius, 2620 the seventh before the ides of June, 2621 as the Romans reckon, and the fourth day of the week, when this first example was given at Cæsarea in Palestine.

3. Afterwards, 2622 in the same city, many rulers of the country churches readily endured terrible sufferings, and furnished to the beholders an example of noble conflicts. But others, benumbed in spirit by terror, were easily weakened at the first onset. Of the rest, each one endured different forms of torture, as scourgings without number, and rackings, and tearings of their sides, and insupportable fetters, by which the hands of some were dislocated.

4. Yet they endured what came upon them, as in accordance with the inscrutable purposes of God. For the hands of one were seized, and he was led to the altar, while they thrust into his right hand the polluted and abominable offering, and he was dismissed as if he had sacrificed. Another had not even touched it, yet when others said that he had sacrificed, he went away in silence. Another, being taken up half dead, was cast aside as if already dead, and released from his bonds, and counted among the sacrificers. When another cried out, and testified that he would not obey, he was struck in the mouth, and silenced by a large band of those who were drawn up for this purpose, and driven away by force, even though he had not sacrificed. Of such consequence did they consider it, to seem by any means to have accomplished their purpose.

5. Therefore, of all this number, the only ones who were honored with the crown of the holy martyrs were Alphæus and Zacchæus. 2623 After stripes and scrapings and severe bonds and additional tortures and various other trials, and after having their feet stretched for a night and day over four holes in the stocks, 2624 on the seventeenth day of the month Dius, 2625 —that is, according to the Romans, the fifteenth before the Kalends of December,—having confessed one only God and Christ Jesus as king, 2626 as if they had uttered some blasphemy, they were beheaded like the former martyr.

Footnotes

342:2617

The account of Procopius was somewhat fuller in the longer recension of the Martyrs of Palestine, as can be seen from the Syriac version (English translation in Cureton, p. 3 sq.). There exists also a Latin translation of the Acts of St. Procopius, which was evidently made from that longer recension, and which is printed by Valesius and also by Cureton (p. 50 sq.), and in English by Crusè in loco. We are told by the Syriac version that his family was from Baishan. According to the Latin, he was a native of Ælia (Jerusalem), but resided in Scythopolis (the Greek name of Baishan). With the Latin agrees the Syriac version of these Acts, which is published by Assemani in his Acta SS. Martt. Orient. et Occident. ed. 1748, Part II. p. 169 sq. (see Cureton, p. 52). We learn from the longer account that he was a lector, interpreter, and exorcist in the church, and that he was exceedingly ascetic in his manner of life. It is clear from this paragraph that Procopius was put to death, not because he was a Christian, but because he uttered words apparently treasonable in their import. To call him a Christian martyr is therefore a misuse of terms. We cannot be sure whether Procopius was arrested under the terms of the first or under the terms of the second edict. If in consequence of the first, it may be that he was suspected of complicity in the plot which Diocletian was endeavoring to crush out, or that he had interfered with the imperial officers when they undertook to execute the decree for the destruction of the church buildings. The fact that he was commanded by the governor to sacrifice would lead us to think of the first, rather than of the second edict (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 6, note 3, and chap. 2, note 8). Still, it must be admitted that very likely many irregularities occurred in the methods by which the decrees were executed in the province, and the command to sacrifice can, therefore, not be claimed as proving that he was not arrested under the terms of the second edict; and in fact, the mention of imprisonment as the punishment which he had to expect would lead us to think of the second edict as at least the immediate occasion of his arrest. In any case, there is no reason to suppose that his arrest would have resulted in his death had he not been rash in his speech.

343:2618

οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη εἷς κοίρανος žστω,

εἷς βασιλεύς.

The sentence is from Homer’s Iliad, Bk. II. vers. 204 and 205. It was a sort of proverb, like many of Homer’s sayings, and was frequently quoted. As a consequence the use of it by Procopius does not prove at all his acquaintance with Homer or Greek literature in general.

343:2619

The majority of the mss. read “eighth,” which according to Eusebius’ customary mode of reckoning the Macedonian months is incorrect. For, as Valesius remarks, he always synchronizes the Macedonian with the Roman months, as was commonly done in his time. But the seventh before the Ides of June is not the eighth, but the seventh of June (or Desius). In fact, a few good mss. read “seventh” instead of “eighth,” and I have followed Burton, Schwegler, and Heinichen in adopting that reading.

343:2620

Desius was the tenth month of the Macedonian year, and corresponded to our June (see the table on p. 403, below).

343:2621

On the Roman method of reckoning the days of the month, see below, p. 402.

343:2622

We may gather from §5, below, that the sufferings to which Eusebius refers in such general terms in this and the following paragraphs took place late in the year 303. In fact, from the Syriac version of the longer recension (Cureton, p. 4) we learn that the tortures inflicted upon Alphæus and Zacchæus were, in consequence of the third edict, issued at the approach of the emperor’s vicennalia, and intended rather as a step toward amnesty than as a sharpening of the persecution (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 5, note 8). This leads us to conclude that all the tortures mentioned in these paragraphs had the same occasion, and this explains the eagerness of the judges to set the prisoners free, even if they had not sacrificed, so long as they might be made to appear to have done so, and thus the law not be openly violated. Alphæus and Zacchæus alone suffered death, as we are told in §5, and they evidently on purely political grounds (see note 10).

343:2623

We learn from the Syriac version that Zacchæus was a deacon of the church of Gadara, and that Alphæus belonged to a noble family of the city of Eleutheropolis, and was a reader and exorcist in the church of Cæsarea.

343:2624

See above, Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9.

343:2625

The month Dius was the third month of the Macedonian year, and corresponded with our November (see below, p. 403).

343:2626

μόνον ἕνα Θεὸν καὶ χριστὸν βασιλέα ᾽Ιησοῦν ὁμολογησ€ντες Βασιλεύς was the technical term for emperor, and it is plain enough from this passage that these two men, like Procopius, were beheaded because they were regarded as guilty of treason, not because of their religious faith. The instances given in this chapter are very significant, for they reveal the nature of the persecution during its earlier months, and throw a clear light back upon the motives which had led Diocletian to take the step against the Christians which he did.

Chapter II.

1. What occurred to Romanus on the same day 2627 at Antioch, is also worthy of record. For he was a native of Palestine, a deacon and exorcist in the parish of Cæsarea; and being present at the destruction of the churches, he beheld many men, with women and children, going up in crowds to the idols and sacrificing. 2628 But, through his great zeal for religion, he could not endure the sight, and rebuked them with a loud voice.

2. Being arrested for his boldness, he proved a most noble witness of the truth, if there ever was one. For when the judge informed him that he was to die by fire, 2629 he received the sentence with cheerful countenance and most ready mind, and was led away. When he was bound to the stake, and the wood piled up around him, as they were awaiting the arrival of the emperor before lighting the fire, he cried, “Where is the fire for me?”

3. Having said this, he was summoned again before the emperor, 2630 and subjected to the unusual torture of having his tongue cut out. But he endured this with fortitude and showed to all by his deeds that the Divine Power is present with those who endure any hardship whatever for the sake of religion, lightening their sufferings and strengthening their zeal. When he learned of this strange mode of punishment, the noble man was not terrified, but put out his tongue readily, and offered it with the greatest alacrity to those who cut it off.

4. After this punishment he was thrown into prison, and suffered there for a very long time. At last the twentieth anniversary of the emperor being near, 2631 when, according to an established gracious custom, liberty was proclaimed everywhere to all who were in bonds, he alone had both his feet stretched over five holes in the stocks, 2632 and while he lay there was strangled, and was thus honored with martyrdom, as he desired.

5. Although he was outside of his country, yet, as he was a native of Palestine, it is proper to count him among the Palestinian martyrs. These things occurred in this manner during the first year, when the persecution was directed only against the rulers of the Church.

Footnotes

343:2627

We learn from the Syriac version that the death of Romanus occurred on the same day as that of Alphæus and Zacchæus. His arrest, therefore, must have taken place some time before, according to §4, below. In fact, we see from the present paragraph that his arrest took place in connection with the destruction of the churches; that is, at the time of the execution of the first edict in Antioch. We should naturally think that the edict would be speedily published in so important a city, and hence can hardly suppose the arrest of Romanus to have occurred later than the spring of 303. He therefore lay in prison a number of months (according to §4, below, a “very long time,” πλεῖστον χρόνον). Mason is clearly in error in putting his arrest in November, and his death at the time of the vicennalia, in December. It is evident from the Syriac version that the order for the release of prisoners, to which the so-called third edict was appended, preceded the vicennalia by some weeks, although issued in view of the great anniversary which was so near at hand. It is quite possible that the decree was sent out some weeks beforehand, in order that time might be given to induce the Christians to sacrifice, and thus enjoy release at the same time with the others.

343:2628

There is no implication here that these persons were commanded, or even asked, to sacrifice. They seem, in their dread of what might come upon them, when they saw the churches demolished, to have hastened of their own accord to sacrifice to the idols, and thus disarm all possible suspicion.

343:2629

As Mason remarks, to punish Romanus with death for dissuading the Christians from sacrificing was entirely illegal, as no imperial edict requiring them to sacrifice had yet been issued, and therefore no law was broken in exhorting them not to do so. At the same time, that he should be arrested as a church officer was, under the terms of the second edict, legal, and, in fact, necessary; and that the judge should incline to be very severe in the present case, with the emperor so near at hand, was quite natural. That death, however, was not yet made the penalty of Christian confession is plain enough from the fact that, when the emperor was appealed to, as we learn from the Syriac version, he remanded Romanus to prison, thus inflicting upon him the legal punishment, according to the terms of the second edict. Upon the case of Romanus, see Mason, p. 188 sq.

344:2630

Valesius assumes that this was Galerius, and Mason does the same. In the Syriac version, however, he is directly called Diocletian; but on the other hand, in the Syriac acts published by Assemani (according to Cureton, p. 55), he is called “Maximinus, the son-in-law of Diocletian”; i.e. Galerius, who was known as Maximianus (of which Maximinus, in the present case, is evidently only a variant form). The emperor’s conduct in the present case is much more in accord with Galerius’ character, as known to us, than with the character of Diocletian; and moreover, it is easier to suppose that the name of Maximinus was later changed into that of Diocletian, by whose name the whole persecution was known, than that the greater name was changed into the less. I am therefore convinced that the reference in the present case is to Galerius, not to Diocletian.

344:2631

See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 8.

344:2632

See above, Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9, and Bk. VIII. chap. 10, note 5.

Chapter III.

1. In the course of the second year, the persecution against us increased greatly. And at that time Urbanus 2633 being governor of the province, imperial edicts were first issued to him, commanding by a general decree that all the people should sacrifice at once in the different cities, and offer libations to the idols. 2634

In Gaza, a city of Palestine, Timotheus endured countless tortures, and afterwards was subjected to a slow and moderate fire. Having given, by his patience in all his sufferings, most genuine evidence of sincerest piety toward the Deity, he bore away the crown of the victorious athletes of religion. At the same time Agapius 2635 and our contemporary, Thecla, 2636 having exhibited most noble constancy, were condemned as food for the wild beasts.

2. But who that beheld these things would not have admired, or if they heard of them by report, would not have been astonished? For when the heathen everywhere were holding a festival and the customary shows, it was noised abroad that besides the other entertainments, the public combat of those who had lately been condemned to wild beasts would also take place.

3. As this report increased and spread in all directions, six young men, namely, Timolaus, a native of Pontus, Dionysius from Tripolis in Phœnicia, Romulus, a sub-deacon of the parish of Diospolis, 2637 Pæsis and Alexander, both Egyptians, and another Alexander from Gaza, having first bound their own hands, went in haste to Urbanus, who was about to open the exhibition, evidencing great zeal for martyrdom. They confessed that they were Christians, and by their ambition for all terrible things, showed that those who glory in the religion of the God of the universe do not cower before the attacks of wild beasts.

4. Immediately, after creating no ordinary astonishment in the governor and those who were with him, they were cast into prison. After a few days two others were added to them. One of them, named Agapius, 2638 had in former confessions endured dreadful torments of various kinds. The other, who had supplied them with the necessaries of life, was called Dionysius. All of these eight were beheaded on one day at Cæsarea, on the twenty-fourth day of the month Dystrus, 2639 which is the ninth before the Kalends of April.

5. Meanwhile, a change in the emperors occurred, and the first of them all in dignity, and the second retired into private life, 2640 and public affairs began to be troubled.

6. Shortly after the Roman government became divided against itself, and a cruel war arose among them. 2641 And this division, with the troubles which grew out of it, was not settled until peace toward us had been established throughout the entire Roman Empire.

7. For when this peace arose for all, as the daylight after the darkest and most gloomy night, the public affairs of the Roman government were re-established, and became happy and peaceful, and the ancestral good-will toward each other was revived. But we will relate these things more fully at the proper time. Now let us return to the regular course of events.

Footnotes

344:2633

Of Urbanus governor of Palestine, we know only what is told us in the present work (he is mentioned in this passage and in chaps. 4, 7, and 8, below) and in the Syriac version. From the latter we learn that he succeeded Flavianus in the second year of the persecution (304), and that he was deposed by Maximinus in the fifth year (see also chap. 8, §7, below), and miserably executed.

344:2634

This is the famous fourth edict of Diocletian, which was issued in the year 304. It marks a stupendous change of method; in fact, Christianity as such is made, for the first time since the toleration edict of Gallienus, a religio illicita, whose profession is punishable by death. The general persecution, in the full sense, begins with the publication of this edict. Hitherto persecution had been directed only against supposed political offenders and church officers. The edict is a complete stultification of Diocletian’s principles as revealed in the first three edicts, and shows a lamentable lack of the wisdom which had dictated those measures. Mason has performed an immense service in proving (to my opinion conclusively) that this brutal edict, senseless in its very severity, was not issued by Diocletian, but by Maximian, while Diocletian was quite incapacitated by illness for the performance of any public duties. Mason’s arguments cannot be reproduced here; they are given at length on p. 212 sq. of his work. He remarks at the close of the discussion: “Diocletian, though he might have wished Christianity safely abolished, feared the growing power of the Church, and dared not persecute (till he was forced), lest he should rouse her from her passivity. But this Fourth Edict was nothing more nor less than a loud alarum to muster the army of the Church: as the centurions called over their lists, it taught her the statistics of her numbers, down to the last child: it proved to her that her troops could endure all the hardships of the campaign: it ranged her generals in the exact order of merit. Diocletian, by an exquisite refinement of thought, while he did not neglect the salutary fear which strong penalties might inspire in the Christians, knew well enough that though he might torture every believer in the world into sacrificing, yet Christianity was not killed: he knew that men were Christians again afterwards as well as before: could he have seen deeper yet, he would have known that the utter humiliation of a fall before men and angels converted many a hard and worldly prelate into a broken-hearted saint: and so he rested his hopes, not merely on the punishment of individuals, but on his three great measures for crushing the corporate life,—the destruction of the churches, the Scriptures, and the clergy. But this Fourth Edict evidently returns with crass dullness and brutal complacency to the thought that if half the church were racked till they poured the libations, and the other half burned or butchered, Paganism would reign alone forever more, and that the means were as eminently desirable as the end. Lastly, Diocletian had anxiously avoided all that could rouse fanatic zeal. The first result of the Fourth Edict was to rouse it.”

According to the Passio S. Sabini, which Mason accepts as in the main reliable, and which forms the strongest support for his theory, the edict was published in April, 304. Diocletian, meanwhile, as we know from Lactantius (de Mort. pers. 17) did not recover sufficiently to take any part in the government until early in the year 305, so that Maximian and Galerius had matters all their own way during the entire year, and could persecute as severely as they chose. As a result, the Christians, both east and west, suffered greatly during this period.

344:2635

Agapius, as we learn from chap. 6, below, survived his contest with the wild beasts at this time, and was thrown into prison, where he remained until the fourth year of the persecution, when he was again brought into the arena in the presence of the tyrant Maximinus, and was finally thrown into the sea.

344:2636

ἡ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς Θέκλα. Thecla seems to be thus designated to distinguish her from her more famous namesake, whom tradition connected with Paul and who has played so large a part in romantic legend (see the Acts of Paul and Thecla in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 487 sq., and the Dict. of Christ. Biog., s.v.). She is referred to again in chap. 6, below, but we are not told whether she actually suffered or not.

345:2637

A city of Palestine, lying northwest of Jerusalem, and identical with the Lydda of Acts ix. 32 sq. For many centuries the seat of a bishop, and still prominent in the time of the crusades. The persons referred to in this paragraph are to be distinguished from others of the same names mentioned elsewhere.

345:2638

To be distinguished from the Agapius mentioned earlier in the chapter, as is clear from the date of his death, given in this paragraph.

345:2639

Dystrus was the seventh month of the Macedonian year, corresponding to our March. See the table on p. 403, below.

345:2640

Diocletian and Maximian abdicated on May 1, 305. See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 16.

345:2641

When Maxentius usurped the purple in Rome, in the year 306. See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 21.

Chapter IV.

1. Maximinus Cæsar 2642 having come at that time into the government, as if to manifest to all the evidences of his reborn enmity against God, and of his impiety, armed himself for persecution against us more vigorously than his predecessors.

2. In consequence, no little confusion arose among all, and they scattered here and there, endeavoring in some way to escape the danger; and there was great commotion everywhere. But what words would suffice for a suitable description of the Divine love and boldness, in confessing God, of the blessed and truly innocent lamb,—I refer to the martyr Apphianus, 2643 —who presented in the sight of all, before the gates of Cæsarea, a wonderful example of piety toward the only God?

3. He was at that time not twenty years old. He had first spent a long time at Berytus, 2644 for the sake of a secular Grecian education, as he belonged to a very wealthy family. It is wonderful to relate how, in such a city, he was superior to youthful passions, and clung to virtue, uncorrupted neither by his bodily vigor nor his young companions; living discreetly, soberly and piously, in accordance with his profession of the Christian doctrine and the life of his teachers.

4. If it is needful to mention his native country, and give honor to it as producing this noble athlete of piety, we will do so with pleasure.

5. The young man came from Pagæ, 2645 —if any one is acquainted with the place,—a city in Lycia of no mean importance. After his return from his course of study in Berytus, though his father held the first place in his country, he could not bear to live with him and his relatives, as it did not please them to live according to the rules of religion. Therefore, as if he were led by the Divine Spirit, and in accordance with a natural, or rather an inspired and true philosophy, regarding this preferable to what is considered the glory of life, and despising bodily comforts, he secretly left his family. And because of his faith and hope in God, paying no attention to his daily needs, he was led by the Divine Spirit to the city of Cæsarea, where was prepared for him the crown of martyrdom for piety.

6. Abiding with us there, and conferring with us in the Divine Scriptures diligently for a short time, and fitting himself zealously by suitable exercises, he exhibited such an end as would astonish any one should it be seen again.

7. Who, that hears of it, would not justly admire his courage, boldness, constancy, and even more than these the daring deed itself, which evidenced a zeal for religion and a spirit truly superhuman?

8. For in the second attack upon us under Maximinus, in the third year of the persecution, edicts of the tyrant were issued for the first time, commanding that the rulers of the cities should diligently and speedily see to it that all the people offered sacrifices. 2646 Throughout the city of Cæsarea, by command of the governor, the heralds were summoning men, women, and children to the temples of the idols, and besides this, the chiliarchs were calling out each one by name from a roll, and an immense crowd of the wicked were rushing together from all quarters. Then this youth fearlessly, while no one was aware of his intentions, eluded both us who lived in the house with him and the whole band of soldiers that surrounded the governor, and rushed up to Urbanus as he was offering libations, and fearlessly seizing him by the right hand, straightway put a stop to his sacrificing, and skillfully and persuasively, with a certain divine inspiration, exhorted him to abandon his delusion, because it was not well to forsake the one and only true God, and sacrifice to idols and demons.

9. It is probable that this was done by the youth through a divine power which led him forward, and which all but cried aloud in his act, that Christians, who were truly such, were so far from abandoning the religion of the God of the universe which they had once espoused, that they were not only superior to threats and the punishments which followed, but yet bolder to speak with noble and untrammeled tongue, and, if possible, to summon even their persecutors to turn from their ignorance and acknowledge the only true God.

10. Thereupon, he of whom we are speaking, and that instantly, as might have been expected after so bold a deed, was torn by the governor and those who were with him as if by wild beasts. And having endured manfully innumerable blows over his entire body, he was straightway cast into prison.

11. There he was stretched by the tormentor with both his feet in the stocks for a night and a day; and the next day he was brought before the judge. As they endeavored to force him to surrender, he exhibited all constancy under suffering and terrible tortures. His sides were torn, not once, or twice, but many times, to the bones and the very bowels; and he received so many blows on his face and neck that those who for a long time had been well acquainted with him could not recognize his swollen face.

12. But as he would not yield under this treatment, the torturers, as commanded, covered his feet with linen cloths soaked in oil and set them on fire. No word can describe the agonies which the blessed one endured from this. For the fire consumed his flesh and penetrated to his bones, so that the humors of his body were melted and oozed out and dropped down like wax.

13. But as he was not subdued by this, his adversaries being defeated and unable to comprehend his superhuman constancy, cast him again into prison. A third time he was brought before the judge; and having witnessed the same profession, being half dead, he was finally thrown into the depths of the sea.

14. But what happened immediately after this will scarcely be believed by those who did not see it. Although we realize this, yet we must record the event, of which to speak plainly, all the inhabitants of Cæsarea were witnesses. For truly there was no age but beheld this marvelous sight.

15. For as soon as they had cast this truly sacred and thrice-blessed youth into the fathomless depths of the sea, an uncommon commotion and disturbance agitated the sea and all the shore about it, so that the land and the entire city were shaken by it. And at the same time with this wonderful and sudden perturbation, the sea threw out before the gates of the city the body of the divine martyr, as if unable to endure it. 2647

Such was the death of the wonderful Apphianus. It occurred on the second day of the month Xanthicus, 2648 which is the fourth day before the Nones of April, on the day of preparation. 2649

Footnotes

345:2642

On Maximinus and his attitude toward the Christians, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 2. He was made a Cæsar at the time of the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, May 1, 305, and Egypt and Syria were placed under his supervision.

345:2643

Apphianus is called, in the Syriac version, Epiphanius. We know him only from this account of Eusebius. For some remarks upon his martyrdom, see above, p. 8 sq.

345:2644

The modern Beirût. A celebrated school of literature and law flourished there for a number of centuries.

345:2645

The mss., according to Valesius, are somewhat at variance in the spelling of this name, and the place is perhaps to be identified with Araxa, a city of some importance in northwestern Lycia.

346:2646

This was simply a republication in its fullness of Maximian’s fourth edict, which was referred to in chap. 3 (see note 2 on that chapter). Eusebius does not mean to say that this was the first time that such an edict was published, but that this was the first edict of Maximinus, the newly appointed Cæsar.

346:2647

It is perhaps not necessary to doubt that an earthquake took place at this particular time. Nor is it surprising that under the circumstances the Christians saw a miracle in a natural phenomenon.

346:2648

Xanthicus was the eighth month of the Macedonian year, and corresponded to our April (see table on p. 403, below). The martyrdom of Apphianus must have taken place in 306, not 305; for according to the direct testimony of Lactantius (de Mort. pers. chap. 19; the statement is unaccountably omitted in the English translation given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers), Maximinus did not become Cæsar until May 1, 305; while, according to the present chapter, Apphianus suffered martyrdom after Maximinus had been raised to that position. Eusebius himself puts the abdication of the old emperors and the appointment of the new Cæsars early in April or late in March (see above, chap. 3, §5, and the Syriac version of the Martyrs, p. 12), and with him agree other early authorities. But it is more difficult to doubt the accuracy of Lactantius’ dates than to suppose the others mistaken, and hence May 1st is commonly accepted by historians as the day of abdication. About the year there can be no question; for Lactantius’ account of Diocletian’s movements during the previous year exhibits a very exact knowledge of the course of events, and its accuracy cannot be doubted. (For a fuller discussion of the date of the abdication, see Tillemont’s Hist. des Emp., 2d ed., IV. p. 609.) But even if it were admitted that the abdication took place four or five weeks earlier (according to Eusebius’ own statement, it did not at any rate occur before the twenty-fourth of March: see chap. 3, above, and the Syriac version, p. 12), it would be impossible to put Apphianus’ death on the second of April, for this would not give time for all that must intervene between the day of his appointment and the republication and execution of the persecuting edicts. In fact, it is plain enough from the present chapter that Apphianus did not suffer until some time after the accession of Maximinus, and therefore not until the following year. Eusebius, as can be seen from the first paragraph of this work on the martyrs, reckoned the beginning of the persecution in Palestine not with the issue of the first edict in Nicomedia on Feb. 24, 303, but with the month of April of that same year. Apphianus’ death therefore took place at the very close of the third year of the persecution, according to this reckoning.

346:2649

i.e. Friday, the old Jewish term being still retained and widely used, although with the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week it had entirely lost its meaning. Upon the prevalence of the word among the Fathers as a designation of Friday, see Suicer’s Thesaurus, s.v. παρασκευή and νηστεῖα. The day of Christ’s crucifixion was called μεγ€λη παρασκευή, the “great preparation.”

Chapter V.

1. About the same time, in the city of Tyre, a youth named Ulpianus, 2650 after dreadful tortures and most severe scourgings, was enclosed in a raw oxhide, with a dog and with one of those poisonous reptiles, an asp, and cast into the sea. Wherefore I think that we may properly mention him in connection with the martyrdom of Apphianus.

2. Shortly afterwards, Ædesius, 2651 a brother of Apphianus, not only in God, but also in the flesh, being a son of the same earthly father, endured sufferings like his, after very many confessions and protracted tortures in bonds, and after he had been sentenced by the governor to the mines in Palestine. He conducted himself through them all in a truly philosophic manner; for he was more highly educated than his brother, and had prosecuted philosophic studies.

3. Finally in the city of Alexandria, when he beheld the judge, who was trying the Christians, offending beyond all bounds, now insulting holy men in various ways, and again consigning women of greatest modesty and even religious virgins to procurers for shameful treatment, he acted like his brother. For as these things seemed insufferable, he went forward with bold resolve, and with his words and deeds overwhelmed the judge with shame and disgrace. After suffering in consequence many forms of torture, he endured a death similar to his brother’s, being cast into the sea. But these things, as I have said, happened to him in this way a little later.

Footnotes

347:2650

The martyrdom of Ulpian is omitted in the Syriac version. It was apparently a later addition, made when the abridgment of the longer version was produced; and this perhaps accounts for the brevity of the notice and the words of explanation with which the mention of him is concluded.

347:2651

Called Alosis in the Syriac version.

Chapter VI.

1. In the fourth year of the persecution against us, on the twelfth day before the Kalends of December, which is the twentieth day of the month Dius, 2652 on the day before the Sabbath, 2653 while the tyrant Maximinus was present and giving magnificent shows in honor of his birthday, the following event, truly worthy of record, occurred in the city of Cæsarea.

2. As it was an ancient custom to furnish the spectators more splendid shows when the emperors were present than at other times, new and foreign spectacles taking the place of the customary amusements, such as animals brought from India or Ethiopia or other places, or men who could astonish the beholders with skillful bodily exercises,—it was necessary at this time, as the emperor was giving the exhibition, to add to the shows something more wonderful. And what should this be?

3. A witness of our doctrine was brought into the midst and endured the contest for the true and only religion. This was Agapius, who, as we have stated a little above, 2654 was, with Thecla, the second to be thrown to the wild beasts for food. He had also, three times and more, marched with malefactors from the prison to the arena; and every time, after threats from the judge, whether in compassion or in hope that he might change his mind, had been reserved for other conflicts. But the emperor being present, he was brought out at this time, as if he had been appropriately reserved for this occasion, until the very word of the Saviour should be fulfilled in him, which through divine knowledge he declared to his disciples, that they should be brought before kings on account of their testimony unto him. 2655

4. He was taken into the midst of the arena with a certain malefactor who they said was charged with the murder of his master.

5. But this murderer of his master, when he had been cast to the wild beasts, was deemed worthy of compassion and humanity, almost like Barabbas in the time of our Saviour. And the whole theater resounded with shouts and cries of approval, because the murderer was humanely saved by the emperor, and deemed worthy of honor and freedom.

6. But the athlete of religion was first summoned by the tyrant and promised liberty if he would deny his profession. But he testified with a loud voice that, not for any fault, but for the religion of the Creator of the universe, he would readily and with pleasure endure whatever might be inflicted upon him.

7. Having said this, he joined the deed to the word, and rushed to meet a bear which had been let loose against him, surrendering himself most cheerfully to be devoured by him. After this, as he still breathed, he was cast into prison. And living yet one day, stones were bound to his feet, and he was drowned in the depths of the sea. Such was the martyrdom of Agapius.

Footnotes

347:2652

The month Dius was the third month of the Macedonian year, and corresponded to our November (see table on p. 403, below).

347:2653

προσαββ€του ἡμέρᾳ, i.e. on Friday, προσ€ββατος being sometimes used among the Jews as a designation of that day, which was more commonly called παρασκευή (cf. Mark xv. 42). Whether it was widely used in the Christian Church of Eusebius’ day I am unable to say (Suicer does not give the word); but the use of it here shows that it was familiar at least in Palestine. It is said in Kraus’ Real-Encyclop. d. christ. Alterth, s.v. Wochentage, to occur in a decree of Constantine, quoted in Eusebius’ Vita Const. IV. 18; but the text is doubtful, and at best, the use of it there proves no more as to the prevalence of the word than its use in the present case, for Eusebius simply gives, in his own language, the substance of Constantine’s edict.

347:2654

See above, chap. 3, §1.

347:2655

Cf. Matt. x. 18

Chapter VII.

1. Again, in Cæsarea, when the persecution had continued to the fifth year, on the second day of the month Xanthicus, 2656 which is the fourth before the Nones of April, on the very Lord’s day of our Saviour’s resurrection, 2657 Theodosia, a virgin from Tyre, a faithful and sedate maiden, not yet eighteen years of age, went up to certain prisoners who were confessing the kingdom of Christ and sitting before the judgment seat, and saluted them, and, as is probable, besought them to remember her when they came before the Lord.

2. Thereupon, as if she had committed a profane and impious act, the soldiers seized her and led her to the governor. And he immediately, like a madman and a wild beast in his anger, tortured her with dreadful and most terrible torments in her sides and breasts, even to the very bones. And as she still breathed, and withal stood with a joyful and beaming countenance, he ordered her thrown into the waves of the sea. Then passing from her to the other confessors, he condemned all of them to the copper mines in Phæno in Palestine.

3. Afterwards on the fifth of the month Dius, 2658 on the Nones of November according to the Romans, in the same city, Silvanus 2659 (who at that time was a presbyter and confessor, but who shortly after was honored with the episcopate and died a martyr), and those with him, men who had shown the noblest firmness in behalf of religion, were condemned by him to labor in the same copper mines, command being first given that their ankles be disabled with hot irons.

4. At the same time he delivered to the flames a man who was illustrious through numerous other confessions. This was Domninus, who was well known to all in Palestine for his exceeding fearlessness. 2660 After this the same judge, who was a cruel contriver of suffering, and an inventor of devices against the doctrine of Christ, planned against the pious punishments that had never been heard of. He condemned three to single pugilistic combat. He delivered to be devoured by wild beasts Auxentius, a grave and holy old man. Others who were in mature life he made eunuchs, and condemned them to the same mines. Yet others, after severe tortures, he cast into prison.

Among these was my dearest friend Pamphilus, 2661 who was by reason of every virtue the most illustrious of the martyrs in our time.

5. Urbanus first tested him in rhetorical philosophy and learning; and afterwards endeavored to compel him to sacrifice. But as he saw that he refused and in nowise regarded his threats, being exceedingly angry, he ordered him to be tormented with severest tortures.

6. And when the brutal man, after he had almost satiated himself with these tortures by continuous and prolonged scrapings in his sides, was yet covered with shame before all, he put him also with the confessors in prison.

7. But what recompense for his cruelty to the saints, he who thus abused the martyrs of Christ, shall receive from the Divine judgment, may be easily determined from the preludes to it, in which immediately, and not long after his daring cruelties against Pamphilus, while he yet held the government, the Divine judgment came upon him. For thus suddenly, he who but yesterday was judging on the lofty tribunal, guarded by a band of soldiers, and ruling over the whole nation of Palestine, the associate and dearest friend and table companion of the tyrant himself, was stripped in one night, and overwhelmed with disgrace and shame before those who had formerly admired him as if he were himself an emperor; and he appeared cowardly and unmanly, uttering womanish cries and supplications to all the people whom he had ruled. And Maximinus himself, in reliance upon whose favor Urbanus was formerly so arrogantly insolent, as if he loved him exceedingly for his deeds against us, was set as a harsh and most severe judge in this same Cæsarea to pronounce sentence of death against him, for the great disgrace of the crimes of which he was convicted. Let us say this in passing.

8. A suitable time may come when we shall have leisure to relate the end and the fate of those impious men who especially fought against us, 2662 both of Maximinus himself and those with him.

Footnotes

348:2656

i.e. April 2, 307. Eusebius is inconsistent with himself in this case. In chap. 3, above, he states that Apphianus suffered on April 2, in the third year of the persecution. But as shown in the note on that passage, Apphianus suffered in April, 306, and therefore, in that case, Eusebius reckons the first year of the persecution as beginning after the second of April. But in the present case he reckons it as beginning before the second of April, and the latter date as falling early in a new year of the persecution. That the martyrdom recorded in the present case actually took place in 307, and not in 308, as it must have done if Eusebius were consistent with himself, is proved, first, by the fact that, in entering upon this new chapter, he says, “the persecution having continued to the fifth year,” implying thereby that the event which he is about to relate took place at the beginning, not at the end, of the fifth year; and secondly, by the fact that later on, in this same chapter, while still relating the events of the fifth year, he recounts martyrdoms as taking place in the month of November (Dius). This is conclusive, for November of the fifth year can be only November, 307, and hence the April mentioned in the present paragraph can be only April of the same year. Evidently Eusebius did not reckon the beginning of the persecution in Palestine from a fixed day, but rather from the month Xanthicus (April). As a consequence, the inconsistency into which he has fallen is not very strange; the second day of April might easily be reckoned either as one of the closing days of a year, or as the beginning of the ensuing year. In the present case, he evidently forgot that he had previously used the former reckoning.

348:2657

i.e. on Easter Sunday. In the Syriac version, the events recorded in the present chapter are put on a Sunday; but that it was Easter is not stated.

348:2658

i.e. November fifth.

348:2659

On Silvanus, who afterward became bishop of Gaza, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13.

348:2660

Or “frankness”; literally, “freedom” (ἐλευθερία).

348:2661

On Pamphilus, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40.

349:2662

The death of Maximinus is related in Bk. IX. chap. 10. Nothing further is said in regard to Urbanus; but the fate of his successor Firmilianus is recorded in chap. 11, below. It is quite possible that Eusebius, in the present case, is referring to a more detailed statement of the fates of the various persecutors, which was to form the second part of the present work; and it is possible, still further, that the appendix printed at the close of the eighth book is a fragment of this second part, as suggested by Lightfoot (see above, p. 29).

Chapter VIII.

1. Up to the sixth year the storm had been incessantly raging against us. Before this time there had been a very large number of confessors of religion in the so-called Porphyry quarry in Thebais, which gets its name from the stone found there. Of these, one hundred men, lacking three, together with women and infants, were sent to the governor of Palestine. When they confessed the God of the universe and Christ, Firmilianus, 2663 who had been sent there as governor in the place of Urbanus, directed, in accordance with the imperial command, that they should be maimed by burning the sinews of the ankles of their left feet, and that their right eyes with the eyelids and pupils should first be cut out, and then destroyed by hot irons to the very roots. And he then sent them to the mines in the province to endure hardships with severe toil and suffering.

2. But it was not sufficient that these only who suffered such miseries should be deprived of their eyes, but those natives of Palestine also, who were mentioned just above as condemned to pugilistic combat, since they would neither receive food from the royal storehouse nor undergo the necessary preparatory exercises.

3. Having been brought on this account not only before the overseers, but also before Maximinus himself, and having manifested the noblest persistence in confession by the endurance of hunger and stripes, they received like punishment with those whom we have mentioned, and with them other confessors in the city of Cæsarea.

4. Immediately afterwards others who were gathered to hear the Scriptures read, were seized in Gaza, and some endured the same sufferings in the feet and eyes; but others were afflicted with yet greater torments and with most terrible tortures in the sides.

5. One of these, in body a woman, but in understanding a man, would not endure the threat of fornication, and spoke directly against the tyrant who entrusted the government to such cruel judges. She was first scourged and then raised aloft on the stake, and her sides lacerated.

6. As those appointed for this purpose applied the tortures incessantly and severely at the command of the judge, another, with mind fixed, like the former, on virginity as her aim,—a woman who was altogether mean in form and contemptible in appearance; but, on the other hand, strong in soul, and endowed with an understanding superior to her body,—being unable to bear the merciless and cruel and inhuman deeds, with a boldness beyond that of the combatants famed among the Greeks, cried out to the judge from the midst of the crowd: “And how long will you thus cruelly torture my sister?” But he was greatly enraged, and ordered the woman to be immediately seized.

7. Thereupon she was brought forward and having called herself by the august name of the Saviour, she was first urged by words to sacrifice, and as she refused she was dragged by force to the altar. But her sister continued to maintain her former zeal, and with intrepid and resolute foot kicked the altar, and overturned it with the fire that was on it.

8. Thereupon the judge, enraged like a wild beast, inflicted on her such tortures in her sides as he never had on any one before, striving almost to glut himself with her raw flesh. But when his madness was satiated, he bound them both together, this one and her whom she called sister, and condemned them to death by fire. It is said that the first of these was from the country of Gaza; the other, by name Valentina, was of Cæsarea, and was well known to many.

9. But how can I describe as it deserves the martyrdom which followed, with which the thrice-blessed Paul was honored. He was condemned to death at the same time with them, under one sentence. At the time of his martyrdom, as the executioner was about to cut off his head, he requested a brief respite.

10. This being granted, he first, in a clear and distinct voice, supplicated God in behalf of his fellow-Christians, 2664 praying for their pardon, and that freedom might soon be restored to them. Then he asked for the conversion of the Jews to God through Christ; and proceeding in order he requested the same things for the Samaritans, and besought that those Gentiles, who were in error and were ignorant of God, might come to a knowledge of him, and adopt the true religion. Nor did he leave neglected the mixed multitude who were standing around.

11. After all these, oh! great and unspeakable forbearance! he entreated the God of the universe for the judge who had condemned him to death, and for the highest rulers, and also for the one who was about to behead him, in his hearing and that of all present, beseeching that their sin toward him should not be reckoned against them.

12. Having prayed for these things with a loud voice, and having, as one who was dying unjustly, moved almost all to compassion and tears, of his own accord he made himself ready, and submitted his bare neck to the stroke of the sword, and was adorned with divine martyrdom. This took place on the twenty-fifth day of the month Panemus, 2665 which is the eighth before the Kalends of August.

13. Such was the end of these persons. But not long after, one hundred and thirty admirable athletes of the confession of Christ, from the land of Egypt, endured, in Egypt itself, at the command of Maximinus the same afflictions in their eyes and feet with the former persons, and were sent to the above-mentioned mines in Palestine. But some of them were condemned to the mines in Cilicia.

Footnotes

349:2663

Of Firmilianus, the successor of Urbanus, we know only what is told us here and in chaps. 9 and 11, below. In the latter chapter, §31, his execution is recorded.

349:2664

ὁμοεθνῶν.

350:2665

i.e. July 25 (a.d. 308). See the table on p. 403, below.

Chapter IX.

1. After such noble acts of the distinguished martyrs of Christ, the flame of persecution lessened, and was quenched, as it were by their sacred blood, and relief and liberty were granted to those who, for Christ’s sake, were laboring in the mines of Thebais, and for a little time we were beginning to breath pure air.

2. But by some new impulse, I know not what, he who held the power to persecute was again aroused against the Christians. Immediately letters from Maximinus against us were published everywhere in every province. 2666 The governors and the military prefect 2667 urged by edicts and letters and public ordinances the magistrates and generals and notaries 2668 in all the cities to carry out the imperial decree, which ordered that the altars of the idols should with all speed be rebuilt; and that all men, women, and children, even infants at the breast, should sacrifice and offer oblations; and that with diligence and care they should cause them to taste of the execrable offerings; and that the things for sale in the market should be polluted with libations from the sacrifices; and that guards should be stationed before the baths in order to defile with the abominable sacrifices those who went to wash in them.

3. When these orders were being carried out, our people, as was natural, were at the beginning greatly distressed in mind; and even the unbelieving heathen blamed the severity and the exceeding absurdity of what was done. For these things appeared to them extreme and burdensome.

4. As the heaviest storm impended over all in every quarter, the divine power of our Saviour again infused such boldness into his athletes, 2669 that without being drawn on or dragged forward by any one, they spurned the threats. Three of the faithful joining together, rushed on the governor as he was sacrificing to the idols, and cried out to him to cease from his delusion, there being no other God than the Maker and Creator of the universe. When he asked who they were, they confessed boldly that they were Christians.

5. Thereupon Firmilianus, being greatly enraged, sentenced them to capital punishment without inflicting tortures upon them. The name of the eldest of these was Antoninus; of the next, Zebinas, who was a native of Eleutheropolis; and of the third, Germanus. This took place on the thirteenth of the month Dius, the Ides of November. 2670

6. There was associated with them on the same day Ennathas, a woman from Scythopolis, who was adorned with the chaplet of virginity. She did not indeed do as they had done, but was dragged by force and brought before the judge.

7. She endured scourgings and cruel insults, which Maxys, a tribune of a neighboring district, without the knowledge of the superior authority, dared to inflict upon her. He was a man worse than his name, 2671 sanguinary in other respects, exceedingly harsh, and altogether cruel, and censured by all who knew him. This man stripped the blessed woman of all her clothing, so that she was covered only from her loins to her feet and the rest of her body was bare. And he led her through the entire city of Cæsarea, and regarded it as a great thing to beat her with thongs while she was dragged through all the market-places.

8. After such treatment she manifested the noblest constancy at the judgment seat of the governor himself; and the judge condemned her to be burned alive. He also carried his rage against the pious to a most inhuman length and transgressed the laws of nature, not being ashamed even to deny burial to the lifeless bodies of the sacred men.

9. Thus he ordered the dead to be exposed in the open air as food for wild beasts and to be watched carefully by night and day. For many days a large number of men attended to this savage and barbarous decree. And they looked out from their post of observation, as if it were a matter worthy of care, to see that the dead bodies should not be stolen. And wild beasts and dogs and birds of prey scattered the human limbs here and there, and the whole city was strewed with the entrails and bones of men,

10. so that nothing had ever appeared more dreadful and horrible, even to those who formerly hated us; though they bewailed not so much the calamity of those against whom these things were done, as the outrage against themselves and the common nature of man.

11. For there was to be seen near the gates a spectacle beyond all description and tragic recital; for not only was human flesh devoured in one place, but it was scattered in every place; so that some said that limbs and masses of flesh and parts of entrails were to be seen even within the gates.

12. After these things had continued for many days, a wonderful event occurred. The air was clear and bright and the appearance of the sky most serene. When suddenly throughout the city from the pillars which supported the public porches many drops fell like tears; and the market places and streets, though there was no mist in the air, were moistened with sprinkled water, whence I know not. Then immediately it was reported everywhere that the earth, unable to endure the abomination of these things, had shed tears in a mysterious manner; and that as a rebuke to the relentless and unfeeling nature of men, stones and lifeless wood had wept for what had happened. I know well that this account may perhaps appear idle and fabulous to those who come after us, but not to those to whom the truth was confirmed at the time. 2672

Footnotes

350:2666

This is the so-called Fifth Edict, and was issued (according to the Passio S. Theodori) by Galerius and Maximinus, but was evidently inspired by Maximinus himself. Mason speaks of it as follows: “It would be inaccurate to say that this Fifth Edict (if so we may call it) was worse than any of the foregoing. But there is in it a thin bitterness, a venomous spitefulness, which may be noticed as characteristic of all the later part of the persecution. This spitefulness is due to two main facts. The first was that Paganism was becoming conscious of defeat; the Church had not yielded a single point. The second fact was that the Church had no longer to deal with the sensible, statesmanlike hostility of Diocletian,—not even with the bluff bloodiness of Maximian. Galerius himself was now, except in name, no longer persecutor-in-chief. He was content to follow the lead of a man who was in all ways even worse than himself. Galerius was indeed an Evil Beast; his nephew was more like the Crooked Serpent. The artful sour spirit of Maximin employed itself to invent, not larger measures of solid policy against his feared and hated foes, but petty tricks to annoy and sting them.” For a fuller discussion of the edict, see Mason, p. 284 sq. It must have been published in the autumn of the year 308, for the martyrdom of Paul, recorded in the previous chapter, took place in July of that year, and some little time seems to have elapsed between that event and the present. On the other hand, the martyrdoms mentioned below, in §5, took place in November of this same year, so that we can fix the date of the edict within narrow limits.

350:2667

ὁ τοῦ τῶν στρατοπέδων ἄρχειν ἐπιτεταγμένος. Many regard this officer as the prætorian prefect. But we should naturally expect so high an official to be mentioned before the governors (ἡγεμόνες). It seems probable, in fact, that the commander in charge of the military forces of Palestine, or possibly of Syria, is referred to in the present case. See Valesius’ note, ad locum.

350:2668

Or “town clerks,” ταβουλ€ριοι

350:2669

Literally, “its athletes” (αὐτῆς), the antecedent of the pronoun being “the divine power.”

350:2670

i.e. Nov. 13, 308.

350:2671

Μ€ξυς is not a Greek word. Ruinart, Acta Martt., p. 327, remarks, An a Syris repetenda, apud quos mochos est pulicanus a casas increpare? But the derivation is, to say the least, very doubtful. Cureton throws no light on the matter. The word in the Syriac version seems to be simply a reproduction of the form found in the Greek original.

351:2672

This is a glaring instance of uncritical credulity on Eusebius’ part, and yet even Crusè can say: “Perhaps some might smile at the supposed credulity of our author, but the miracle in this account was not greater than the malignity, and if man can perform miracles of vice, we can scarcely wonder if Providence should present, at least, miracles of admonition.” Cureton more sensibly remarks: “This, which doubtless was produced by natural causes, seemed miraculous to Eusebius, more especially if he looked upon it as fulfilling a prophecy of our Lord—Luke xix. 40: ‘I tell you, that if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.’ See also Hab. ii. 11.”

Chapter X.

1. On the fourteenth day of the following month Appellæus, 2673 the nineteenth before the Kalends of January, certain persons from Egypt were again seized by those who examined people passing the gates. They had been sent to minister to the confessors in Cilicia. They received the same sentence as those whom they had gone to help, being mutilated in their eyes and feet. Three of them exhibited in Ascalon, where they were imprisoned, marvelous bravery in the endurance of various kinds of martyrdom. One of them named Ares was condemned to the flames, and the others, called Probus 2674 and Elias, were beheaded.

2. On the eleventh day of the month Audynæus, 2675 which is the third before the Ides of January, in the same city of Cæsarea, Peter an ascetic, also called Apselamus, 2676 from the village of Anea, 2677 on the borders of Eleutheropolis, like purest gold, gave noble proof by fire of his faith in the Christ of God. Though the judge and those around him besought him many times to have compassion on himself, and to spare his own youth and bloom, he disregarded them, preferring hope in the God of the universe to all things, even to life itself. A certain Asclepius, supposed to be 2678 a bishop of the sect of Marcion, possessed as he thought with zeal for religion, but “not according to knowledge,” 2679 ended his life on one and the same funeral pyre. These things took place in this manner.

Footnotes

351:2673

i.e. Dec. 14, 308 (see the tables on p. 403, below).

351:2674

The majority of the codices read Πρόμος, but as Valesius remarks, such a proper name is quite unknown in Greek, and the form probably arose from a confusion of β and μ, which in ancient mss. were written alike. Two of our existing codices read Πρόβος, and this has been adopted by Zimmermann and Heinichen, whom I have followed in the text.

351:2675

i.e. Jan. 11, 309.

351:2676

In the Syriac version “Absalom.”

351:2677

Of this village we know nothing, but Eleutheropolis (originally Bethozabris) was an important place lying some forty miles southwest of Jerusalem.

351:2678

εἶναι δοκῶν. Eusebius did not wish to admit that he was a bishop in a true sense.

351:2679

Rom. x. 2.

Chapter XI.

1. It is time to describe the great and celebrated spectacle of Pamphilus, 2680 a man thrice dear to me, and of those who finished their course with him. They were twelve in all; being counted worthy of apostolic grace and number.

2. Of these the leader and the only one honored with the position of presbyter at Cæsarea, was Pamphilus; a man who through his entire life was celebrated for every virtue, for renouncing and despising the world, for sharing his possessions with the needy, for contempt of earthly hopes, and for philosophic deportment and exercise. He especially excelled all in our time in most sincere devotion to the Divine Scriptures and indefatigable industry in whatever he undertook, and in his helpfulness to his relatives and associates.

3. In a separate treatise on his life, 2681 consisting of three books, we have already described the excellence of his virtue. Referring to this work those who delight in such things and desire to know them, let us now consider the martyrs in order.

4. Second after Pamphilus, Vales, who was honored for his venerable gray hair, entered the contest. He was a deacon from Ælia, 2682 an old man of gravest appearance, and versed in the Divine Scriptures, if any one ever was. He had so laid up the memory of them in his heart that he did not need to look at the books if he undertook to repeat any passage of Scripture.

5. The third was Paul from the city of Jamna, 2683 who was known among them as most zealous and fervent in spirit. Previous to his martyrdom, he had endured the conflict of confession by cauterization.

After these persons had continued in prison for two entire years, the occasion of their martyrdom was a second arrival of Egyptian brethren who suffered with them.

6. They had accompanied the confessors in Cilicia to the mines there and were returning to their homes. At the entrance of the gates of Cæsarea, the guards, who were men of barbarous character, questioned them as to who they were and whence they came. They kept back nothing of the truth, and were seized as malefactors taken in the very act. They were five in number.

7. When brought before the tyrant, being very bold in his presence, they were immediately thrown into prison. On the next day, which was the nineteenth of the month Peritius, 2684 according to the Roman reckoning the fourteenth before the Kalends of March, they were brought, according to command, before the judge, with Pamphilus and his associates whom we have mentioned. First, by all kinds of torture, through the invention of strange and various machines, he tested the invincible constancy of the Egyptians.

8. Having practised these cruelties upon the leader 2685 of all, he asked him first who he was. He heard in reply the name of some prophet instead of his proper name. For it was their custom, in place of the names of idols given them by their fathers, if they had such, to take other names; so that you would hear them calling themselves Elijah or Jeremiah or Isaiah or Samuel or Daniel, thus showing themselves inwardly true Jews, and the genuine Israel of God, not only in deeds, but in the names which they bore. When Firmilianus had heard some such name from the martyr, and did not understand the force of the word, he asked next the name of his country.

9. But he gave a second answer similar to the former, saying that Jerusalem was his country, meaning that of which Paul says, “Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother,” 2686 and, “Ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” 2687

10. This was what he meant; but the judge thinking only of the earth, sought diligently to discover what that city was, and in what part of the world it was situated. And therefore he applied tortures that the truth might be acknowledged. But the man, with his hands twisted behind his back, and his feet crushed by strange machines, asserted firmly that he had spoken the truth.

11. And being questioned again repeatedly what and where the city was of which he spoke, he said that it was the country of the pious alone, for no others should have a place in it, and that it lay toward the far East and the rising sun.

12. He philosophized about these things according to his own understanding, and was in nowise turned from them by the tortures with which he was afflicted on every side. And as if he were without flesh or body he seemed insensible of his sufferings. But the judge being perplexed, was impatient, thinking that the Christians were about to establish a city somewhere, inimical and hostile to the Romans. And he inquired much about this, and investigated where that country toward the East was located.

13. But when he had for a long time lacerated the young man with scourgings, and punished him with all sorts of torments, he perceived that his persistence in what he had said could not be changed, and passed against him sentence of death. Such a scene was exhibited by what was done to this man. And having inflicted similar tortures on the others, he sent them away in the same manner.

14. Then being wearied and perceiving that he punished the men in vain, having satiated his desire, he proceeded against Pamphilus and his companions. And having learned that already under former tortures they had manifested an unchangeable zeal for the faith, he asked them if they would now obey. And receiving from every one of them only this one answer, as their last word of confession in martyrdom, he inflicted on them punishment similar to the others.

15. When this had been done, a young man, one of the household servants of Pamphilus, who had been educated in the noble life and instruction of such a man, learning the sentence passed upon his master, cried out from the midst of the crowd asking that their bodies might be buried.

16. Thereupon the judge, not a man, but a wild beast, or if anything more savage than a wild beast, giving no consideration to the young man’s age, asked him only the same question. When he learned that he confessed himself a Christian, as if he had been wounded by a dart, swelling with rage, he ordered the tormentors to use their utmost power against him.

17. And when he saw that he refused to sacrifice as commanded, he ordered them to scrape him continually to his very bones and to the inmost recesses of his bowels, not as if he were human flesh but as if he were stones or wood or any lifeless thing. But after long persistence he saw that this was in vain, as the man was speechless and insensible and almost lifeless, his body being worn out by the tortures.

18. But being inflexibly merciless and inhuman, he ordered him to be committed straightway, as he was, to a slow fire. And before the death of his earthly master, though he had entered later on the conflict, he received release from the body, while those who had been zealous about the others were yet delaying.

19. One could then see Porphyry, 2688 like one who had come off victorious in every conflict, his body covered with dust, but his countenance cheerful, after such sufferings, with courageous and exulting mind, advancing to death. And as if truly filled with the Divine Spirit, covered only with his philosophic robe thrown about him as a cloak, soberly and intelligently he directed his friends as to what he wished, and beckoned to them, preserving still a cheerful countenance even at the stake. But when the fire was kindled at some distance around him in a circle, having inhaled the flame into his mouth, he continued most nobly in silence from that time till his death, after the single word which he uttered when the flame first touched him, and he cried out for the help of Jesus the Son of God. Such was the contest of Porphyry.

20. His death was reported to Pamphilus by a messenger, Seleucus. He was one of the confessors from the army. As the bearer of such a message, he was forthwith deemed worthy of a similar lot. For as soon as he related the death of Porphyry, and had saluted one of the martyrs with a kiss, some of the soldiers seized him and led him to the governor. And he, as if he would hasten him on to be a companion of the former on the way to heaven, commanded that he be put to death immediately.

21. This man was from Cappadocia, and belonged to the select band of soldiers, and had obtained no small honor in those things which are esteemed among the Romans. For in stature and bodily strength, and size and vigor, he far excelled his fellow-soldiers, so that his appearance was matter of common talk, and his whole form was admired on account of its size and symmetrical proportions.

22. At the beginning of the persecution he was prominent in the conflicts of confession, through his patience under scourging. After he left the army he set himself to imitate zealously the religious ascetics, and as if he were their father and guardian he showed himself a bishop and patron of destitute orphans and defenceless widows and of those who were distressed with penury or sickness. It is likely that on this account he was deemed worthy of an extraordinary call to martyrdom by God, who rejoices in such things more than in the smoke and blood of sacrifices.

23. He was the tenth athlete among those whom we have mentioned as meeting their end on one and the same day. On this day, as was fitting, the chief gate was opened, and a ready way of entrance into the kingdom of heaven was given to the martyr Pamphilus and to the others with him.

24. In the footsteps of Seleucus came Theodulus, a grave and pious old man, who belonged to the governor’s household, and had been honored by Firmilianus himself more than all the others in his house on account of his age, and because he was a father of the third generation, and also on account of the kindness and most faithful conscientiousness which he had manifested toward him. 2689 As he pursued the course of Seleucus when brought before his master, the latter was more angry at him than at those who had preceded him, and condemned him to endure the martyrdom of the Saviour on the cross. 2690

25. As there lacked yet one to fill up the number of the twelve martyrs of whom we have spoken, Julian came to complete it. He had just arrived from abroad, and had not yet entered the gate of the city, when having learned about the martyrs while still on the way, he rushed at once, just as he was, to see them. When he beheld the tabernacles of the saints prone on the ground, being filled with joy, he embraced and kissed them all.

26. The ministers of slaughter straightway seized him as he was doing this and led him to Firmilianus. Acting as was his custom, he condemned him to a slow fire. Thereupon Julian, leaping and exulting, in a loud voice gave thanks to the Lord who had judged him worthy of such things, and was honored with the crown of martyrdom.

27. He was a Cappadocian by birth, and in his manner of life he was most circumspect, faithful and sincere, zealous in all other respects, and animated by the Holy Spirit himself. Such was the company which was thought worthy to enter into martyrdom with Pamphilus.

28. By the command of the impious governor their sacred and truly holy bodies were kept as food for the wild beasts for four days and as many nights. But since, strange to say, through the providential care of God, nothing approached them,—neither beast of prey, nor bird, nor dog,—they were taken up uninjured, and after suitable preparation were buried in the customary manner.

29. When the report of what had been done to these men was spread in all directions, Adrianus and Eubulus, having come from the so-called country of Manganaea 2691 to Cæsarea, to see the remaining confessors, were also asked at the gate the reason for their coming; and having acknowledged the truth, were brought to Firmilianus. But he, as was his custom, without delay inflicted many tortures in their sides, and condemned them to be devoured by wild beasts.

30. After two days, on the fifth of the month Dystrus, 2692 the third before the Nones of March, which was regarded as the birthday of the tutelary divinity of Cæsarea, 2693 Adrianus was thrown to a lion, and afterwards slain with the sword. But Eubulus, two days later, on the Nones of March, that is, on the seventh of the month Dystrus, when the judge had earnestly entreated him to enjoy by sacrificing that which was considered freedom among them, preferring a glorious death for religion to transitory life, was made like the other an offering to wild beasts, and as the last of the martyrs in Cæsarea, sealed the list of athletes.

31. It is proper also to relate here, how in a short time the heavenly Providence came upon the impious rulers, together with the tyrants themselves. For that very Firmilianus, who had thus abused the martyrs of Christ, after suffering with the others the severest punishment, was put to death by the sword. Such were the martyrdoms which took place at Cæsarea during the entire period of the persecution.

Footnotes

351:2680

On Pamphilus, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40.

352:2681

On Eusebius’ Life of Pamphilus, see above, p. 28 sq.

352:2682

i.e. Jerusalem.

352:2683

τῆς ᾽Ιαμνιτῶν πόλεως. Jamna, or Jamnia, was a town of Judea, lying west of Jerusalem, near the sea.

352:2684

i.e. Feb. 19 (see the table on p. 403, below). We learn from chap. 7, §§3–5, that Pamphilus was thrown into prison in the fifth year of the persecution and as late as November of that year, i.e. between November, 307, and April, 308. Since he had lain two whole years in prison (according to §5, above), the date referred to in the present passage must be February of the year 310. The martyrdom of Pamphilus is commonly, for aught I know to the contrary, uniformly put in the year 309, as the seventh year of the persecution is nearly synchronous with that year. But that the common date is a mistake is plain enough from the present chapter.

352:2685

προήγορος, literally “advocate,” or “defender.”

352:2686

Gal. iv. 26.

352:2687

Heb. xii. 22. Upon Eusebius’ view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1.

353:2688

The reference is still to the same slave of Pamphilus whose tortures Eusebius has just been describing, as we learn from the Syriac version, where the slave’s name is given at the beginning of the account.

353:2689

I read περὶ αὐτὸν with Zimmermann, Heinichen, Burton, and Migne. The mss. all have περὶ αὐτοὺς, which can hardly have stood in the original.

353:2690

The common mode of punishment inflicted on slaves.

354:2691

Of the so-called country of Μαγγαναία I know nothing. The Syriac version reads Batanea, which was a district of country lying to the northeast of Palestine, and it may be that Manganea was another name for the same region.

354:2692

i.e. March 5, 310.

354:2693

It was the universal custom in ancient times for a city to have its special tutelary divinity, to which it looked for protection and to which it paid especial honor. The name of the Cæsarean deity is unknown to us.

Chapter XII.

1. I think it best to pass by all the other events which occurred in the meantime: such as those which happened to the bishops of the churches, when instead of shepherds of the rational 2694 flocks of Christ, over which they presided in an unlawful manner, the divine judgment, considering them worthy of such a charge, made them keepers of camels, 2695 an irrational beast 2696 and very crooked in the structure of its body, or condemned them to have the care of the imperial horses;—and I pass by also the insults and disgraces and tortures they endured from the imperial overseers and rulers on account of the sacred vessels and treasures of the Church; and besides these the lust of power on the part of many, the disorderly and unlawful ordinations, and the schisms among the confessors themselves; also the novelties which were zealously devised against the remnants of the Church by the new and factious members, who added innovation after innovation and forced them in unsparingly among the calamities of the persecution, heaping misfortune upon misfortune. I judge it more suitable to shun and avoid the account of these things, as I said at the beginning. 2697 But such things as are sober and praiseworthy, according to the sacred word,—“and if there be any virtue and praise,” 2698 —I consider it most proper to tell and to record, and to present to believing hearers in the history of the admirable martyrs. And after this I think it best to crown the entire work with an account of the peace which has appeared unto us from heaven.

Footnotes

354:2694

λογικῶν

354:2695

“It was a punishment among the Romans that freemen should be condemned to take care of the emperor’s horses or camels, and to perform other personal offices of that kind” (Valesius). For fuller particulars, see Valesius’ note ad locum. In the Acts of St. Marcellus (who was bishop of Rome) we are told that he was set by Maximian to groom his horses in a church which the emperor had turned into a stable.

354:2696

ἀλόγου ζώου.

354:2697

Cf. Bk. VIII, chap. 2, §§2 and 3, and the note on that passage.

354:2698

Phil. iv. 8.

Chapter XIII.

1. The seventh year of our conflict was completed; and the hostile measures which had continued into the eighth year were gradually and quietly becoming less severe. A large number of confessors were collected at the copper mines in Palestine, and were acting with considerable boldness, so far as even to build places of worship. But the ruler of the province, a cruel and wicked man, as his acts against the martyrs showed, having come there and learned the state of affairs, communicated it to the emperor, writing in accusation whatever he thought best.

2. Thereupon, being appointed superintendent of the mines, he divided the band of confessors as if by a royal decree, and sent some to dwell in Cyprus and others in Lebanon, and he scattered others in different parts of Palestine and ordered them to labor in various works.

3. And, selecting the four who seemed to him to be the leaders, he sent them to the commander of the armies in that section. These were Peleus and Nilus, 2699 Egyptian bishops, also a presbyter, 2700 and Patermuthius, who was well known among them all for his zeal toward all. The commander of the army demanded of them a denial of religion, and not obtaining this, he condemned them to death by fire.

4. There were others there who had been allotted to dwell in a separate place by themselves,—such of the confessors as on account of age or mutilations, or for other bodily infirmities, had been released from service. Silvanus, 2701 a bishop from Gaza, presided over them, and set a worthy and genuine example of Christianity.

5. This man having from the first day of the persecution, and throughout its entire continuance, been eminent for his confessions in all sorts of conflicts, had been kept all that time that he might, so to speak, set the final seal upon the whole conflict in Palestine.

6. There were with him many from Egypt, among whom was John, who surpassed all in our time in the excellence of his memory. He had formerly been deprived of his sight. Nevertheless, on account of his eminence in confession he had with the others suffered the destruction of his foot by cauterization. And although his sight had been destroyed he was subjected to the same burning with fire, the executioners aiming after everything that was merciless and pitiless and cruel and inhuman.

7. Since he was such a man, one would not be so much astonished at his habits and his philosophic life, nor would he seem so wonderful for them, as for the strength of his memory. For he had written whole books of the Divine Scriptures, “not in tables of stone” 2702 as the divine apostle says, neither on skins of animals, nor on paper which moths and time destroy, but truly “in fleshy tables of the heart,” 2703 in a transparent soul and most pure eye of the mind, so that whenever he wished he could repeat, as if from a treasury of words, any portion of the Scripture, whether in the law, or the prophets, or the historical books, or the gospels, or the writings of the apostles.

8. I confess that I was astonished when I first saw the man as he was standing in the midst of a large congregation and repeating portions of the Divine Scripture. While I only heard his voice, I thought that, according to the custom in the meetings, he was reading. But when I came near and perceived what he was doing, and observed all the others standing around him with sound eyes while he was using only the eyes of his mind, and yet was speaking naturally like some prophet, and far excelling those who were sound in body, it was impossible for me not to glorify God and wonder. And I seemed to see in these deeds evident and strong confirmation of the fact that true manhood consists not in excellence of bodily appearance, but in the soul and understanding alone. For he, with his body mutilated, manifested the superior excellence of the power that was within him.

9. But as to those whom we have mentioned as abiding in a separate place, and attending to their customary duties in fasting and prayer and other exercises, God himself saw fit to give them a salutary issue by extending his right hand in answer to them. The bitter foe, as they were armed against him zealously through their prayers to God, could no longer endure them, and determined to slay and destroy them from off the earth because they troubled him.

10. And God permitted him to accomplish this, that he might not be restrained from the wickedness he desired, and that at the same time they might receive the prizes of their manifold conflicts. Therefore at the command of the most accursed Maximinus, forty, lacking one, 2704 were beheaded in one day.

11. These martyrdoms were accomplished in Palestine during eight complete years; and of this description was the persecution in our time. Beginning with the demolition of the churches, it increased greatly as the rulers rose up from time to time against us. In these assaults the multiform and various conflicts of those who wrestled in behalf of religion produced an innumerable multitude of martyrs in every province,—in the regions extending from Libya and throughout all Egypt, and Syria, and from the East round about to the district of Illyricum.

12. But the countries beyond these, all Italy and Sicily and Gaul, and the regions toward the setting sun, in Spain, Mauritania, and Africa, suffered the war of persecution during less than two years, 2705 and were deemed worthy of a speedier divine visitation and peace; the heavenly Providence sparing the singleness of purpose and faith of those men.

13. For what had never before been recorded in the annals of the Roman government, first took place in our day, contrary to all expectation; for during the persecution in our time the empire was divided into two parts. 2706 The brethren dwelling in the part of which we have just spoken enjoyed peace; but those in the other part endured trials without number.

14. But when the divine grace kindly and compassionately manifested its care for us too, then truly our rulers also, those very ones through whom the wars against us had been formerly carried on, changed their minds in a most wonderful manner, and published a recantation; 2707 and by favorable edicts and mild decrees concerning us, extinguished the conflagration against us. This recantation also must be recorded. 2708

The End of the Book of Eusebius Pamphili concerning those who suffered Martyrdom in Palestine. 2709

Footnotes

355:2699

On Peleus and Nilus, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 8. Paleus is called Paul in the Syriac version.

355:2700

The name of this man is given as Elias in the Syriac version; but both he and Patermuthius are called laymen.

355:2701

On Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 6.

355:2702

2 Cor. iii. 3.

355:2703

Ibid.

355:2704

The Syriac version says forty.

356:2705

On the cessation of the persecution in the West at the accession of Maxentius, see Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 1.

356:2706

On the division of the empire to which Eusebius here refers, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 17.

356:2707

i.e. the toleration edict of Galerius, published in the spring of 311. See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note 1.

356:2708

It would seem that the edict was originally appended to this shorter recension of the martyrs (the longer recension is complete in its present form, and contains no hint of such an addition). Very likely it was dropped with the second half of the work (see above, p. 29) as unnecessary, when the first half was inserted in the History. The edict is given in full in Bk. VIII. chap. 17, above.

356:2709

περὶ τῶν ἐν Παλαιστίνῃ μαρτυρησ€ντων τέλος. On the title of the work, see above, p. 342, note 1.

Book IX.

Chapter I.—The Pretended Relaxation.

1. The imperial edict of recantation, which has been quoted above, 2710 was posted in all parts of Asia and in the adjoining provinces. After this had been done, Maximinus, the tyrant in the East,—a most impious man, if there ever was one, and most hostile to the religion of the God of the universe,—being by no means satisfied with its contents, 2711 instead of sending the above-quoted decree to the governors under him, gave them verbal commands to relax the war against us.

2. For since he could not in any other way oppose the decision of his superiors, keeping the law which had been already issued secret, and taking care that it might not be made known in the district under him, he gave an unwritten order to his governors that they should relax the persecution against us. They communicated the command to each other in writing.

3. Sabinus, 2712 at least, who was honored with the highest official rank among them, communicated the will of the emperor to the provincial governors in a Latin epistle, the translation of which is as follows:

4. “With continuous and most devoted earnestness their Majesties, our most divine masters, the emperors, 2713 formerly directed the minds of all men to follow the holy and correct course of life, that those also who seemed to live in a manner foreign to that of the Romans, should render the worship due to the immortal gods. But the obstinacy and most unconquerable determination of some went so far that they could neither be turned back from their purpose by the just reason of the command, nor be intimidated by the impending punishment.

5. Since therefore it has come to pass that by such conduct many have brought themselves into danger, their Majesties, our most powerful masters, the emperors, in the exalted nobility of piety, esteeming it foreign to their Majesties’ purpose to bring men into so great danger for such a cause, have commanded their devoted servant, myself, to write to thy wisdom, 2714 that if any Christian be found engaging in the worship of his own people, thou shouldst abstain from molesting and endangering him, and shouldst not suppose it necessary to punish any one on this pretext. For it has been proved by the experience of so long a time that they can in no way be persuaded to abandon such obstinate conduct.

6. Therefore it should be thy care to write to the curators 2715 and magistrates and district overseers 2716 of every city, that they may know that it is not necessary for them to give further attention to this matter.” 2717

7. Thereupon the rulers of the provinces, thinking that the purpose of the things which were written was truly made known to them, declared the imperial will to the curators and magistrates and prefects of the various districts 2718 in writing. But they did not limit themselves to writing, but sought more quickly to accomplish the supposed will of the emperor in deeds also. Those whom they had imprisoned on account of their confession of the Deity, they set at liberty, and they released those of them who had been sent to the mines for punishment; for they erroneously supposed that this was the true will of the emperor.

8. And when these things had thus been done, immediately, like a light shining forth in a dark night, one could see in every city congregations gathered and assemblies thronged, and meetings held according to their custom. And every one of the unbelieving heathen was not a little astonished at these things, wondering at so marvelous a transformation, and exclaiming that the God of the Christians was great and alone true.

9. And some of our people, who had faithfully and bravely sustained the conflict of persecution, again became frank and bold toward all; but as many as had been diseased in the faith and had been shaken in their souls by the tempest, strove eagerly for healing, beseeching and imploring the strong to stretch out to them a saving hand, and supplicating God to be merciful unto them.

10. Then also the noble athletes of religion who had been set free from their sufferings in the mines returned to their own homes. Happily and joyfully they passed through every city, full of unspeakable pleasure and of a boldness which cannot be expressed in words.

11. Great crowds of men pursued their journey along the highways and through the market-places, praising God with hymns and psalms. And you might have seen those who a little while before had been driven in bonds from their native countries under a most cruel sentence, returning with bright and joyful faces to their own firesides; so that even they who had formerly thirsted for our blood, when they saw the unexpected wonder, congratulated us on what had taken place.

Footnotes

357:2710

The toleration edict of Galerius, given in Bk. VIII. chap. 17.

357:2711

For the reason of Maximin’s failure to join with the other emperors in the issue of this edict, see Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note 1.

357:2712

Of Sabinus we know only what is told us here. He seems to have been Maximin’s prime minister, or prætorian prefect (τῷ τῶν ἐξοχωτ€των ἐπ€ρχων ἀξιώματι τετιμημένος, Eusebius says of him). He is mentioned again in chap. 9, where an epistle of Maximin addressed to him is quoted.

357:2713

Literally, “the divinity of our most divine masters, the emperors.” The style throughout the epistle is of an equally stilted character.

357:2714

Literally, “have commanded my devotedness to write to thy wisdom.” It is clear that the communication was dictated, or at least directly inspired, by Maximin himself.

357:2715

τοὺς λογιστ€ς, commonly used to translate the Latin curatores urbium.

357:2716

τοὺς στρατηγοὺς (the common designation for the chief magistrates of cities in the eastern part of the empire) καὶ τοὺς πραιποσίτους τοῦ π€γου.

357:2717

The mss. all read γρ€μματος, but Valesius conjectures that πρ€γματος is the true reading, and his conjecture is supported by Nicephorus, who has φροντίδα περὶ χριστιανῶν ποιεῖθαι. Stroth follows Valesius, and I have done the same. Heinichen remarks: “Sed non necessaria, credo, est hæc emendatio, immo eadem fere exsistet sententia per γρ€μματος, hoc modo: ut scient sibi non licere operam dare sc. ut facile intelligitur persequendis Christianis, ultra hoc scriptum, id est, magis quam hoc scripto est designatum.” Closs interprets in the same way, translating: “dass sie sich nicht weiter, als in diesem Schreiben befohlen ist, mit den Christen zu befassen haben.” The Greek, however, does not seem to me to admit of this interpretation (it reads ἵνα γνῷεν, περαιτέρω αὐτοῖς τούτου τοῦ γρ€μματος φροντίδα ποιεῖσθαι μὴ προσήκειν), and there seems to be no other alternative than to change the word γρ€μματος to πρ€γματος, or at least give it the meaning of πρ€γματος, as Mason does, without emending the text (though I am not aware that γρ€μμα can legitimately be rendered in any such way). I am inclined to think that the word negotium stood in the original, and that it was translated by the word πρ€γμα. Had epistola or litteræ been used, referring to the present document,—and it could not well refer to anything else,—we should expect Eusebius to translate by ἐπιστολγή, for he calls the document an ἐπιστολή in §3, above. On the other hand, if scriptura, or any other similar word, had been used and translated γρ€μμα by Eusebius, we should have expected him to call the document a γρ€μμα, not an ἐπιστολή in §3.

The general drift of the letter cannot be mistaken. As Mason paraphrases it: “In other words, Christianity strictly is still illicit, though in particular cases not to be punished as severely as heretofore; and the emperor, though forced for the present not to require you to persecute, will expect you not to relax your exertions more than can be helped.” Mason justly emphasizes in the same connection the use of the words μὴ προσήκειν in the last clause, which do not mean non licere (“it is not permitted”) as Valesius, followed by many others, render them, but “it is not necessary,” “they need not.” It is plain that Maximin made his concessions very unwillingly and only because compelled to; and it is clear that he suppressed the edict of Galerius, and substituted general and not wholly unambiguous directions of his own, in order that as little as possible might be done for the Christians, and that he might be left free for a future time when he should find himself in a more independent position; he evidently did not care to compromise and hamper himself by officially sanctioning the full and explicit toleration accorded in the edict of Galerius. For a fuller discussion of Maximin’s attitude in the matter, see Mason, p. 309 sq. As he remarks, it is “almost a wonder that the judges interpreted Maximin’s document in a sense so favorable to the brotherhood as they really did. Though no effectual security was given against the recurrence of the late atrocities, the Persecution of Diocletian was at an end, even in the East. The subordinate officers issued and posted local mandates, which conceded more than they were bidden to concede.”

358:2718

τοῖς κατ᾽ ἀγροὺς ἐπιτεταγμένοις

Chapter II.—The Subsequent Reverse.

1. But the tyrant who, as we have said, ruled over the districts of the Orient, a thorough hater of the good and an enemy of every virtuous person, as he was, could no longer bear this; and indeed he did not permit matters to go on in this way quite six months. 2719 Devising all possible means of destroying the peace, he first attempted to restrain us, under a pretext, 2720 from meeting in the cemeteries.

2. Then through the agency of some wicked men he sent an embassy to himself against us, 2721 inciting the citizens of Antioch to ask from him as a very great favor that he would by no means permit any of the Christians to dwell in their country; and others were secretly induced to do the same thing. The author of all this in Antioch was Theotecnus, 2722 a violent and wicked man, who was an impostor, and whose character was foreign to his name. 2723 He appears to have been the curator 2724 of the city.

Footnotes

358:2719

The Edict of Galerius was issued in April, 311 (see Lactantius, de Mort. pers. 35, and Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note 1, above), so that Maximin’s change of policy, recorded in this chapter, must have begun in October, or thereabouts. Valesius supposes that the death of Galerius was the cause of Maximin’s return to persecuting measures. But Galerius died, not some months after the issue of the edict, as Valesius, and others after him, assert, but within a few days after it, as is directly stated by Lactantius (ibid.), whose accuracy in this case there is no reason to question. Another misstatement made by Valesius in the same connection, and repeated by Heinichen, Crusè, and others, is that Maximin became Augustus only after the death of Galerius. The truth is, he was recognized as an Augustus in 308 (see Lactantius, ibid. chap. 32; and Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 22, above). The cause of the renewal of the persecution seems to have been simply impatience at the exultation of the Church and at the wonderful recuperative power revealed the moment the pressure was taken off. That it was not renewed sooner was doubtless due to the more important matters which engaged the attention of Maximinus immediately after the death of Galerius, in connection with the division of the Eastern Empire between himself and Licinius (see Lactantius, ibid. chap. 36). It would seem from the passage just referred to, that as soon as these matters were satisfactorily adjusted, Maximin turned his attention again to the Christians, and began to curtail their liberty.

358:2720

Very likely under the pretext that night gatherings at the tombs of the martyrs, with the excitement and enthusiasm necessarily engendered under such circumstances, were of immoral tendency. Naturally, the honor shown by the Christians to their fellows who had been put to death at the command of the state was looked upon as an insult to the authorities, and could not but be very distasteful to them. They imagined that such meetings would only tend to foster discontent and disloyalty on the part of those who engaged in them, and consequently they were always suspicious of them.

358:2721

The same account is given by Lactantius, ibid. chap. 36 (“First of all he took away the toleration and general protection granted by Galerius to the Christians, and, for this end, he secretly procured addresses for the different cities, requesting that no Christian church might be built within their walls; and thus he meant to make that which was his own choice appear as if extorted from him by importunity”). It is possible that the account is correct, but it is more probable that the embassies were genuine, and were voluntarily sent to the emperor, while he was on a tour through his dominions, by the pagan population of some of the cities who knew the emperor’s own position in the matter, and desired to conciliate him and secure favors from him. Of course such deputations would delight him greatly; and what one city did, others would feel compelled to do also, in order not to seem behindhand in religious zeal and in order not to run the risk of offending the emperor, who since the death of Galerius was of course a more absolute master than before. Cf. Mason, p. 313 sq.

358:2722

Theotecnus, according to the Passion of St. Theodotus (translated in Mason, p. 354 sq.) an apostate from Christianity, was for some time chief magistrate of Galatia, where he indulged in the most terrible cruelties against the Christians. Beyond the account given in the Passion referred to we know in regard to Theotecnus only what is told us by Eusebius in the present book, in which he is frequently mentioned. His hatred of the Christians knew no bounds. He seems, moreover, to have been something of a philosopher and literary man (Mason calls him a Neo-Platonist, and makes him the author of the anti-Christian Acta Pilati; but see below, chap. 5, note 1). He was executed by command of Licinius, after the death of Maximinus (see below, chap. 11).

358:2723

Θεοτέκνος, “child of God.”

358:2724

The λογισταὶ, or curatores urbium, were the chief finance officers of municipalities. See Valesius’ note on Bk. VIII. chap. 11.

Chapter III.—The Newly Erected Statue at Antioch.

After this man had carried on all kinds of war against us and had caused our people to be diligently hunted up in their retreats, as if they were unholy thieves, and had devised every sort of slander and accusation against us, and become the cause of death to vast numbers, he finally erected a statue of Jupiter Philius 2725 with certain juggleries and magic rites. And after inventing unholy forms of initiation and ill-omened mysteries in connection with it, and abominable means of purification, 2726 he exhibited his jugglery, by oracles which he pretended to utter, even to the emperor; and through a flattery which was pleasing to the ruler he aroused the demon against the Christians and said that the god had given command to expel the Christians as his enemies beyond the confines of the city and the neighboring districts.

Footnotes

359:2725

Jupiter Philius, the god of friendship or good-will, was widely honored in the East. He seems to have been the tutelary divinity of Antioch, and, according to Valesius, a temple of his at Antioch is mentioned by the emperor Julian and by Libanius.

359:2726

“The ceremonies of the Gentiles, used in the erection and consecration of images to their gods, were various. Jupiter Ctesius was consecrated with one sort of rites, Herceus with another, and Philius with a third sort” (Valesius). For farther particulars, see his note ad locum.

Chapter IV.—The Memorials against us. 2727

1. Thefact that this man, who took the lead in this matter, had succeeded in his purpose was an incitement to all the other officials in the cities under the same government to prepare a similar memorial. 2728 And the governors of the provinces perceiving that this was agreeable to the emperor suggested to their subjects that they should do the same.

2. And as the tyrant by a rescript declared himself well pleased with their measures, 2729 persecution was kindled anew against us. Priests for the images were then appointed in the cities, and besides them high priests by Maximinus himself. 2730 The latter were taken from among those who were most distinguished in public life and had gained celebrity in all the offices which they had filled; and who were imbued, moreover, with great zeal for the service of those whom they worshiped.

3. Indeed, the extraordinary superstition of the emperor, to speak in brief, led all his subjects, both rulers and private citizens, for the sake of gratifying him, to do everything against us, supposing that they could best show their gratitude to him for the benefits which they had received from him, by plotting murder against us and exhibiting toward us any new signs of malignity.

Footnotes

359:2727

περὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμῶν ψηφισμ€των

359:2728

ψηφόν.

359:2729

ψηφίσμασι

359:2730

Lactantius (ibid. chap. 36) says: “In compliance with those addresses he [Maximinus] introduced a new mode of government in things respecting religion, and for each city he created a high priest, chosen from among the persons of most distinction. The office of those men was to make daily sacrifices to all their gods, and, with the aid of the former priests, to prevent the Christians from erecting churches, or from worshiping God, either publicly or in private; and he authorized them to compel the Christians to sacrifice to idols, and, on their refusal, to bring them before the civil magistrate; and, as if this had not been enough, in every province he established a superintendent priest, one of chief eminence in the state; and he commanded that all those priests newly instituted should appear in white habits, that being the most honorable distinction of dress.” Maximin perceived the power that existed in the Catholic Church with its wonderful organization, and conceived the stupendous idea of rejuvenating paganism by creating a pagan Catholic Church. The Roman religion should cease to be the loose, unorganized, chaotic thing it had always been, and should be made a positive aggressive power over against Christianity by giving it a regular organization and placing the entire institution in the hands of honorable and able men, whose business it should be to increase its stability and power in every way and in all quarters. We are compelled to admire the wisdom of Maximin’s plan. No persecutor before him had ever seen the need of thus replacing the Christian Church by another institution as great and as splendid as itself. The effort, like that of Julian a half-century later, must remain memorable in the annals of the conflict of paganism with Christianity.

Chapter V.—The Forged Acts.

1. Having therefore forged Acts of Pilate 2731 and our Saviour full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, they sent them with the emperor’s approval to the whole of the empire subject to him, with written commands that they should be openly posted to the view of all in every place, both in country and city, and that the schoolmasters should give them to their scholars, instead of their customary lessons, to be studied and learned by heart.

2. While these things were taking place, another military commander, whom the Romans call Dux, 2732 seized some infamous women in the market-place at Damascus in Phœnicia, 2733 and by threatening to inflict tortures upon them compelled them to make a written declaration that they had once been Christians 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.

Footnotes

359:2731

These Acts are no longer extant, but their character can be gathered from this chapter. They undoubtedly contained the worst calumnies against Christ’s moral and religious character. They cannot have been very skillful forgeries, for Eusebius, in Bk. I. chap. 9, above, points out a palpable chronological blunder which stamped them as fictitious on their very face. And yet they doubtless answered every purpose; for few of the heathen would be in a position to detect such an error, and perhaps fewer still would care to expose it if they discovered it. These Acts are of course to be distinguished from the numerous Acta Pilati which proceeded from Christian sources (see above, Bk. II. chap. 2, note 1). The way in which these Acts were employed was diabolical in its very shrewdness. Certainly there was no more effectual way of checking the spread of Christianity than systematically and persistently to train up the youth of the empire to look with contempt and disgust upon the founder of Christianity, the Christian’s Saviour and Lord. Incalculable mischief must inevitably have been produced had Maximin’s reign lasted for a number of years. As it was, we can imagine the horror of the Christians at this new and sacrilegious artifice of the enemy. Mason assigns “the crowning, damning honor of this masterstroke” to Theotecnus, but I am unable to find any proof that he was the author of the documents. It is, of course, not impossible nor improbable that he was; but had Eusebius known him to be the author, he would certainly have informed us. As it is, his statement is entirely indefinite, and the Acts are not brought into any connection with Theotecnus.

359:2732

The commandant of the Roman garrison in Damascus.

359:2733

Damascus, from the time of Hadrian (according to Spruner-Menke), or of Severus (according to Mommsen), was the capital of the newly formed province of Syria-Phœnice, or Syro-Phœnicia.

Chapter VI.—Those who suffered Martyrdom at this Time.

1. Not 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 2734 in Phœnicia, having confessed that they were Christians, were thrown as food to the wild beasts. Among them was a bishop Silvanus, 2735 a very old man, who had filled his office full forty years.

2. At about the same time Peter 2736 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 bishops of Egypt suffered the same fate.

3. And Lucian, 2737 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 happened 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.

4. 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.

Footnotes

360:2734

Emesa was an important city in Northern Phœnicia, the birthplace of the Emperor Elagabalus, and chiefly famous for its great temple of the Sun.

360:2735

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

360:2736

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.

360:2737

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. ill. 77, and Westcott’s Hist. of the N. T. Canon, p. 392 sq.); and also wrote some books on Faith (see Jerome, ibid.), some epistles (see ibid., and Suidas, s.v.), and a commentary on Job, of which a Latin fragment has been preserved and is given by Routh, Rel. Sacræ, IV. 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 by Rufinus, H. E. IX. 6, and is probably genuine (cf. Westcott, ibid. p. 393). These extant fragments are given, with annotations, by Routh, ibid. p. 5 sq. Lucian’s chief historical significance lies in his relation to Arianism. On this subject, see above, p. 11 sq.

Chapter VII.—The Decree against us which was engraved on Pillars.

1. The memorials against us 2738 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, 2739 —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. 2740

2. 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. 2741

The 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.

3. “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 established by the beneficent providence of the immortal gods.

4. 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 gods, exhibiting not a faith of bare and empty words, but continued and wonderful examples of illustrious deeds.

5. 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 presence of the celestial gods.

6. 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 metropolis of all religiousness, asking some remedy and aid.

7. It is 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 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.

8. 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 that the earth does not refuse the seed sown in it, 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 these, have oftentimes happened hitherto.

9. 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, weighed down the whole world with shame.”

10. After other words he adds: “Let them look at the standing crops already flourishing 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.

11. 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 more, 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 in return for this your pious disposition.

14. 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.”

15. 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” 2742 at these things.

16. 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 us.

Footnotes

360:2738

See above, chaps. 2 and 4.

360:2739

These decrees must have been published in this way in June, 312, or thereabouts; for in chap. 10, §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, 313.

360:2740

See chap. 5.

360:2741

οὐκ εἰς μακρὸν τἀναντία περὶ ἡμῶν ἐβουλεύσατο τε καὶ δι᾽ ἐγγρ€φων νόμων ἐδογμ€τισε. Crusè translates, “So that he did not long devise hostilities and form decrees against us.” It is true that the phrase οὐκ εἰς μακρόν may in general bear the meaning “not for long,” as well as “not long afterward”; but an examination of the numerous passages in which the words are used by Eusebius (e.g. I. 11. 1; I. 13. 4; II. 6. 5; II. 7; III. 5. 7; IV. 7. 12; VII. 13. 1) will show that, with a single exception, he uniformly employs them in the sense of “not long afterward.” The single exception occurs in Bk. IV. chap. 7, §12, 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.

361:2742

Matt. xxiv. 24.

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

1. The customary rains and showers of the winter season ceased to fall in their wonted 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. 2743 This, spreading over the whole body, greatly endangered the lives of those who suffered from it; but as it chiefly attacked the eyes, it deprived multitudes of men, women, and children of their sight.

2. 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 2744 and zealous in their piety toward the Deity, the enemy of God had attempted to compel them to sacrifice to idols and demons, and had thus made friends foes, and allies enemies.

3. 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. 2745 These things, therefore, coming upon him at once and together, furnished a prelude also of his own destruction.

4. 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. 2746

5. 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 famine and pestilence.

6. Some, therefore, desired 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.

7. And some of the high-born women in the cities, driven by want to shameful extremities, went forth into the market-places to beg, giving evidence of their former liberal culture by the modesty of their appearance and the decency of their apparel.

8. 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.

9. But others, who seemed to be better supplied, 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.

10. 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.

11. 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. 2747

12. 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.

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

362:2743

ἅνθραξ: “a carbuncle, malignant pustule (acc. to some, small-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.

362:2744

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 III., and a large number of the nobles and people, and Christianity was established as the state religion (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.

362:2745

See the previous chapter, § 8.

362:2746

An Attic drachm was a silver coin, worth about eighteen or nineteen cents.

362:2747

αὐλῶν τε καὶ κτύπων.

Chapter IX.—The Victory of the God-Beloved Emperors. 2748

1. Thus when Constantine, whom we have already mentioned 2749 as an emperor, born of an emperor, a pious son of a most pious and prudent father, and Licinius, second to him, 2750 —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 2751 was defeated at Rome by Constantine in a remarkable manner, and the tyrant of the East 2752 did not long survive him, but met a most shameful death at the hand of Licinius, who had not yet become insane. 2753

2. Constantine, who was the superior both in dignity and imperial rank, 2754 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, 2755 proposing to restore to the Romans their ancestral liberty.

3. But Maxentius, putting 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.

4. 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.

5. Thus, as in the time of Moses himself and of the ancient God-beloved 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,” 2756 in the same way Maxentius also with his soldiers and body-guards “went down into the depths like a stone,” 2757 when he fled before the power of God which was with Constantine, and passed through the river which lay in his way, over which he had formed a bridge with boats, and thus prepared the means of his own destruction.

6. 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 own crown.” 2758

7. 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 shield-bearers who were with him, as the divine oracles foretold, “sank like lead in the mighty waters”; 2759 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;” 2760 and “Who is like unto thee, O Lord; among the gods, who is like unto thee glorious in holiness, 2761 marvelous in glory, doing wonders.” 2762

8. 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.

9. 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, with shouts of gladness and unbounded joy.

10. 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.

11. 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 inscription 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 splendor.” 2763

12. 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, 2764 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, 2765 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.

13. 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, 2766 falsely inventing things against himself which had never been done by him.

Copy of a translation of the epistle of the tyrant Maximinus.

14. “Jovius Maximinus Augustus to Sabinus. 2767 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.

15. But when I first came to the 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. 2768

16. 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.

17. But afterwards, when I went up last year 2769 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. 2770

18. 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 pleased, even if he wished to recognize the worship of the gods. 2771

19. 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 endure,—and to confirm the request which they presented in behalf of the worship of their deity.

20. 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 not suffer insults or extortions 2772 from the beneficiaries, 2773 or from any others, I have thought meet to remind thy firmness in this epistle 2774 also that thou shouldst lead our provincials rather by flatteries and exhortations to recognize the care of the gods.

21. 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.

22. 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, 2775 since, as already written, it is fitting to recall our provincials to the worship of the gods 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.”

23. 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.

24. 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 meetings or build churches or perform any of our customary acts.

25. And yet Constantine 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. 2776 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.

Footnotes

363:2748

All the mss., followed by Valesius and Crusè, 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.

363:2749

See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13.

363:2750

On Licinius, see ibid. 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 Cæsar 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 latter.

363:2751

On Maxentius, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 1.

363:2752

i.e. Maximinus. For an account of his defeat by Licinius and his death, see below, chap. 10.

363:2753

οὔπω μανέντος τότε. 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).

363:2754

See above, note 2.

363:2755

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 Life of Constantine, p. 416. sq. of this volume.

363:2756

Exod. 15:4, 5. The phrase translated “charioteers” is ἀναβ€τας τριστ€τας, which is employed in the LXX to translate the Hebrew שָׁלִישָׁיו. The word שָׁלִישׁ,

which means literally a “third,” and hence a “third man” (Greek τριστ€της, 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.”

363:2757

Ex. xv. 5.

364:2758

Ps. 7:15, 16.

364:2759

Ex. xv. 10.

364:2760

Exod. 15.1. Eusebius, in this and the next passage, follows the LXX, which differs considerably from the Hebrew.

364:2761

The LXX, followed by Eusebius, reads δεδοξασμένος ἐν ἁγίοις to translate the Hebrew נֶאְדָּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ. It seems probable both from the Hebrew original and from the use of the plural δόξαις in the next clause, that the LXX translator used the plural ἁγίοις, 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.

364:2762

Ex. xv. 11.

364:2763

Upon Constantine’s conversion, see Dr. Richardson’s prolegomena, p. 431, below. On the famous tale of the flaming cross with its inscription τούτῳ νίκα, related in the Life of Constantine, I. 28, see his note on that passage, p. 490, below.

364:2764

Σεε αβόε, νοτε 5.

364:2765

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.

364:2766

This epistle or rescript (Eusebius calls it here a γρ€μμα, just below an ἐπιστολή) 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 Nicomedia is spoken of as having taken place in the previous year. But that visit, as we learn from the De Mort. pers. chap. 36, occurred in 311 (cf. chap. 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 Licinius. The document 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.”

364:2767

On Sabinus, see above, chap. 1, note 3.

365:2768

Νοτηινγ χουλδ βε φαρτηερ φρομ τηε τρυτη τηαν τηισ ανδ τηε φολλοωινγ στατεμεντ.

365:2769

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.

365:2770

On these embassies, see ibid. note 3.

365:2771

There is no sign of such consideration in Maximin’s rescript, quoted in chap. 7, above. The sentences which follow are quite contradictory. Certainly no one could gain from them any idea as to what the emperor had done in the matter.

365:2772

σεισμούς, literally, “shakings,” or “shocks.” The word is doubtless used to translate the Latin concussio, which in legal language meant the extortion of money by threats or other similar means. The words concussio, concussor, concutit, are used very frequently by Tertullian in this sense; e.g. in his De fuga in persecutione, chap. 12, ad Scap. chaps. 4 and 5, Apol. chap. 7. See especially Oehler’s note on the word in his edition of Tertullian’s works, I. p. 484.

365:2773

βενεφικιαλίων, a simple reproduction of the Latin beneficiarii. These beneficiarii 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 I am aware, that these beneficiarii were especially active in thus practicing extortions upon 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 beneficiarii 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.

365:2774

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

365:2775

Σεε νοτε 24.

365:2776

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

Chapter X.—The Overthrow of the Tyrants and the Words which they uttered before their Death. 2777

1. 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. 2778

2. Becoming mad in his folly, he broke the treaties which he had made with Licinius 2779 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 demons, whom he supposed to be gods, and by the number of his soldiers.

3. And when he joined battle 2780 he was deprived of the oversight of God, and the victory was given to Licinius, 2781 who was then ruling, by the one and only God of all.

4. 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. 2782 But though he was so careful for his safety, he scarcely escaped the hands of his enemies, revealing by his deeds 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.

5. 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.” 2783

6. Thus the tyrant, 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, 2784 he was immediately seized with a mortal disease, and no respite being granted him, departed this life. 2785 The law enacted by him was as follows:

Copy of the edict of the tyrant in behalf of the Christians, translated from the Roman tongue.

7. “The Emperor Cæsar 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 views of each.

8. 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 Christians should be abolished, many extortions 2786 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 2787 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 religion which he has chosen to observe according to his custom. It is also granted them to build Lord’s houses.

11. 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,—whether 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.”

12. 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. 2788 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 country or desert,—by him decrees and ordinances were issued in behalf of the Christians, and they 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

Footnotes

366:2777

On the transposition of the titles of chaps. 9 and 10, see the previous chapter, note 1.

366:2778

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 Cæsar when the latter was only second), while Constantine (see above, chap. 9, note 2) was regarded as the senior of Licinius.

366:2779

The treaty made in 311, just after the death of Galerius (see De mort. pers. 36).

366:2780

This battle between Licinius and Maximin was fought on April 30, 313, at Adrianople, in Thrace. For a 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 divine aid vouchsafed in response to the prayers of Licinius and his soldiers.

366:2781

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

366:2782

Lactantius (ibid. 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.”

366:2783

Psa. xxxiii. 16-19

366:2784

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 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 liberty in the most unequivocal terms.

366:2785

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 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 nothing 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.”

367:2786

See chap. 9, note 24.

367:2787

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).

367:2788

See above, chap. 7.

Chapter XI.—The Final Destruction of the Enemies of Religion.

1. Thus when Maximinus, who alone had remained of the enemies of religion 2789 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, while the impious enemies of religion were covered with extremest shame and dishonor.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Such an one was Peucetius, 2790 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; 2791 and Culcianus, 2792 who had likewise advanced through every grade of office, and was also celebrated for his numberless executions of Christians in Egypt; 2793 and besides these not a few others, by whose agency especially the tyranny of Maximinus had been confirmed and extended.

5. And Theotecnus 2794 also was summoned by justice which by no means overlooked his deeds against the Christians. For when the statue had been set up by him at Antioch, 2795 he appeared to be in the happiest state, and was already made a governor by Maximinus.

6. 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.

7. To all these were added also the children 2796 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:

8. “Put not your trust in princes, 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.” 2797

9. The 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. 2798

Footnotes

367:2789

Maximian died in 310 (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 23), Galerius in 311 (see ibid. chap. 16, note 5), Maxentius in 312 (see above, chap. 9, note 7), and Diocletian early in 313 (see Bk. VIII. App. note 3).

368:2790

Of this Peucetius (Rufinus Peucedius) we know only what is told us here. Valesius says: “The name is to be rendered Picentius, a name which was borne by a certain calumniator 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 Πυκετίους.”

368:2791

τῶν καθόλου λόγων žπαρχος, apparently equivalent to the phrase ἐπὶ τῶν καθόλου λόγων, used in Bk. VII. chap. 10, §5. On its significance, see the note on that passage, and cf. Valesius’ note ad locum.

368:2792

This same Culcianus appears in the Acts of St. Phileas of Thmuis (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 (Κουληιανός) mentioned by Epiphanius (Hær. LXVIII. 1) as governor of Thebais at the time of the rise of the Meletian schism, while Hierocles was governor of Alexandria.

368:2793

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.

368:2794

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

368:2795

See chap. 3.

368:2796

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.

368:2797

Ps. 46:3, 4.

368:2798

See below, Bk. X. chap. 5.

Book X.

Chapter I.—The Peace granted us by God.

1. Thanks 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 preserved for us firm and undisturbed by external troubles and by troubles of the mind.

2. Since in accordance with thy wishes, my most holy Paulinus, 2799 we have added the tenth book of the Church History to those which have preceded, 2800 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, 2801 obeying the Divine Spirit which exhorts us in the following words:

3. “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.” 2802

4. 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, 2803 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. 2804

5. But they, hastening on, obtained far better things, 2805 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 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.” 2806

6. Rejoicing in these things which have been clearly fulfilled in our day, let us proceed with our account.

7. The whole race of God’s enemies was destroyed in the manner indicated, 2807 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.” 2808

8. 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 2809 were prevented from sharing in the same blessings, or at least from coming under their influence and enjoying a part of the benefits bestowed upon us by God. 2810

Footnotes

369:2799

Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, became afterward bishop of Antioch, as we are told by Eusebius, Contra Marcellum, I. 4, and by Philostorgius, H. E. III. 15. According 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 History, that is, at least as late as 323 (see above, p. 45), but he was already dead when the Council of Nicæa met; for Eustathius was at that time bishop of Antioch (see e.g. Sozomen, H. E. I. 17, Theodoret, H. E. I. 7, and the Acts of the Council of Nicæa, ed. Labbei et Cossartii, I. p. 51), and Zeno, bishop of Tyre (see the Acts of the Nicene Council, ibid.). Philostorgius (ibid.) 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 Contra Marcellum, and it was at the dedication of his church in Tyre that he delivered the panegyric oration quoted in chap. 4, below. He is claimed as a sympathizer by Arius in his epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theodoret, H. E. I. 5), and that he accepted Arius’ tenets is implied by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who, however, feels obliged to admonish him for not showing greater zeal in the support of the cause (see this epistle quoted by Theodoret, H. E. I. 6). This is the extent of our information in regard to him.

369:2800

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

369:2801

εἰκότως δ᾽ ἐν ἀριθμῷ τελεί& 251· τὸν τέλειον ἐνταῦθα καὶ πανηγυρικὸν τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἀνανεώσεως λόγον κατατ€ξομεν. The meaning of this sentence is very obscure. Valesius translates: Nec absurde 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 vollständige feierliche Rede, von der Wiedererneuerung der Kirchen, als einen ordentlichen Theil miteinrücken.” Crusè reads: “Justly, 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 Crusè 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 τῆς ἐκκλησίας, but τῶν ἐκκλησὶ& 242·ν, as in the title of that oration. I have preserved the play of words, τελεί& 251·—τέλειον, in order to bring out Eusebius’ thought more clearly, but it must be remarked that the word τέλειον does not imply praise of the quality of his oration on the author’s part. It is used rather in the sense of complete or final, because it celebrates a completed work, as the tenth book completes his History, and thus crowns the whole.

369:2802

Ps. 98:1, 2.

369:2803

Literally, “spectacles and narratives” (ὄψεις τε καὶ διηγήσεις).

369:2804

Cf. Matt. xiii. 17.

369:2805

Cf. Phil. i. 23

369:2806

Ps. 46:8, 9.

369:2807

See chaps. 10 and 11 of the preceding book.

369:2808

Ps. 37:35, 36.

369:2809

τοῖς žξωθεν τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς θι€σου.

370:2810

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.

Chapter II.—The Restoration of the Churches.

1. 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 rising from their foundations to an immense height, and receiving a splendor far greater than that of the old ones which had been destroyed.

2. 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, 2811 as in a sacred tablet, that they may remain as a memorial to all who shall come after us.

Footnotes

370:2811

See below, chaps. 5–7.

Chapter III.—The Dedications in Every Place.

1. 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 place, bishops assembled, foreigners came together from abroad, mutual love was exhibited between people and people, the members of Christ’s body were united in complete harmony.

2. Then was fulfilled the prophetic utterance which mystically foretold what was to take place: “Bone to bone and joint to joint,” 2812 and whatever was truly announced in enigmatic expressions in the inspired passage.

3. And there was one energy of the 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, 2813 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.

4. At the 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.

Footnotes

370:2812

Ezek. xxxvii. 7.

370:2813

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 ναὶ μὴν καὶ τῶν προηγουμένων ἐντελεῖς θρησκεῖαι, ἱερουργίαι τε τῶν ἱερωμένων, καὶ θεοπρεπεῖς ἐκκλησίας θεσμοί.

Chapter IV.—Panegyric on the Splendor of Affairs.

1. A certain one of those of moderate talent, 2814 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, 2815 through whose zeal the temple in Tyre, which was the most splendid in Phœnicia, had been erected.

Panegyric upon the building of the churches, addressed to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre.

2. “Friends and priests of God who are clothed in the sacred gown and adorned with the heavenly crown of glory, the inspired unction and the sacerdotal garment of the Holy Spirit; and thou, 2816 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; 2817 —

3. one might call thee a new Beseleel, 2818 the architect of a divine tabernacle, or Solomon, king of a new and much better Jerusalem, or also a new Zerubabel, who added a much greater glory than the former to the temple of God; 2819 —

4. 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: 2820

5. 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 told us the work which thou didst in their days, in days of old.’ 2821

6. But now as we no longer perceive the lofty arm 2822 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.’ 2823

7. 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,’ 2824 concerning which also another divine oracle thus proclaims, ‘Glorious things have been spoken of thee, oh city of God.’ 2825 Since the all-gracious God has brought us together to it, through the grace of his Only-Begotten, 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,’ 2826 and ‘Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house and the place where thy glory dwelleth.’ 2827

8. 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.’ 2828 For he is truly great, and great is his house, lofty and spacious and ‘comely in beauty above the sons of men.’ 2829 ‘Great is the Lord who alone doeth wonderful things’; 2830 ‘great is he who doeth great things and things past finding out, glorious and marvelous things which cannot be numbered’; 2831 great is he ‘who changeth times and seasons, who exalteth and debaseth kings’; 2832 ‘who raiseth up the poor from the earth and lifteth up the needy from the dunghill.’ 2833 ‘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.’ 2834

9. Not only to the faithful, but also to unbelievers, has he confirmed the record of ancient events; he that worketh miracles, he that doeth great things, the 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, 2835 supplying in thought, 2836 ‘To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth forever’; 2837 ‘To him which smote great kings, and slew famous kings: for his mercy endureth forever’; 2838 ‘For the Lord remembered us in our low estate and delivered us from our adversaries.’ 2839

10. 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.

11. For he alone, as the only all-gracious 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, 2840 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 power as without harm 2841 to minister to the salvation of so many.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. But when malignant envy and the evil-loving demon well-nigh 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,’ 2842 the great Captain 2843 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.

15. But his friends and relatives he raised to the highest glory, in the presence not only of all men, but also of celestial powers, of sun and moon and stars, and of the whole heaven and earth, so that now, as has never happened before, the supreme 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.

16. And they confess Christ, the Son of God, universal King of all, and proclaim him Saviour on monuments, 2844 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 trite son of the universal God, and who has been worshiped as very God, 2845 and that rightly.

17. 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?

18. 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?

19. 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?

20. What king prevails to such an extent, and even after death leads on his soldiers, and sets up trophies over his 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.’ 2846 For what was there to resist the nod of the universal King and Governor and Word of God himself? 2847

21. “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 as divine, 2848 who looks upon the living temple which we all constitute, and surveys the house, composed of living and moving stones, which 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. 2849 But the Father has approved him both then and now, and has made him the head of the corner of this our common church.

22. 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?

23. 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 sanctuary, the shepherd of your divine flock who has obtained your people by the allotment and the judgment of the Father, as if he had appointed 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.

24. 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 doctrine, 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 Divine assistance.

25. As to our first and great High Priest, it is said, 2850 ‘Whatsoever he seeth the Father doing those things likewise the Son also doeth.’ 2851 So also this one, 2852 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’ 2853 and with other technical and scientific knowledge, and called to be the maker of the temple constructed after heavenly types given in symbols.

26. 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.

27. 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 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 children, should rejoice with us in the signal favor of the all-merciful God.

28. 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,’ 2854 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,’ 2855 and to refute the impious daring of the enemies of God. 2856

29. 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:

30. ‘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.’ 2857 And again: ‘Their memorial is perished with a sound’ 2858 and ‘their name hast thou blotted out forever and ever’; 2859 for when they also were in trouble they ‘cried out and there was none to save: unto the Lord, and he heard them not.’ 2860 But ‘their feet were bound together, and they fell, but we have arisen and stand upright.’ 2861 And that which was announced beforehand in these words,—‘O Lord, in thy city thou shalt set at naught their image,’ 2862 —has been shown to be true to the eyes of all.

31. But having waged war like the giants against God, 2863 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:

32. ‘Rejoice, thirsty desert, let the desert rejoice and blossom as the lily, and the desert places shall blossom and be glad.’ 2864 ‘Be strengthened, ye weak hands and feeble knees. Be of good courage, ye feeble-hearted, in your minds; be strong, fear not. Behold our God recompenseth judgment and will recompense, he will come and save us.’ 2865 ‘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.’ 2866

33. 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,’ 2867 whose books also they destroyed, 2868 ‘burning with fire the sanctuary of God, and profaning unto the ground the habitation of his name,’ 2869 ‘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,’ 2870 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.’ 2871

34. 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,’ 2872 the fountain of the saving bath of divine regeneration. 2873 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.’ 2874 The hands which before were ‘weak’ have become ‘truly strong’; 2875 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 2876 of the all-gracious Shepherd.

35. 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.’ 2877

36. 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 captivity 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.’ 2878

37. 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. 2879

38. And he raised and spread out a great and lofty vestibule toward the rays of the rising sun, 2880 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 might be attracted and be induced to enter by the very sight.

39. 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 2881 in the middle, so that the sky can be seen, and the free air bright in the rays of the sun.

40. Here he has placed symbols 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.

41. 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 it as for a queen.

42. In the same way, arranging the number of vestibules for the corridors on each side of the whole temple, he has made above them various openings into the 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.

43. 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.’ 2882

44. Why need I now describe the 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 2883 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.

45. 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 exedræ and buildings 2884 on each side, which were joined to the basilica, and communicated with the entrances to the interior of the structure. These were erected by our most peaceful 2885 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.’ 2886

46. 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 2887 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, 2888 in the resurrection of an incorruptible body, in the palace of God beyond the heavens, with Christ Jesus himself, the universal Benefactor and Saviour.

47. 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, 2889 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.

48. 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 hath caused righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.’ 2890

49. 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.’ 2891 ‘Not 2892 as a woman deserted and faint-hearted 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.’ 2893

50. ‘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.’ 2894 ‘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.’ 2895

51. ‘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.’ 2896 ‘Lift up thine eyes round about 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.

52. 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 me?’ 2897

53. “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.

54. For when the bridegroom, the Word, addressed such language to his own bride, the sacred and holy Church, this bridesman, 2898 —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.

55. This is indeed a very great wonder, passing all 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.

56. 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.’ 2899 Such is the perfect and purified soul, so made from the beginning as to bear the image of the celestial Word.

57. 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 remained upon another in her, but she lay completely dead upon the ground, entirely divested of her natural ideas of God.

58. “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.

59. 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.

60. 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, as it were, of a storm of evils, had been concealed under his shelter, he honored them worthily 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 2900 —the souls which a little while before had been covered with filth and burdened with every kind of matter and rubbish of impious ordinances.

61. And when he had made the ground of all your minds clean and clear, he finally committed it to this all-wise 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.

62. 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 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.’ 2901

63. 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.

64. Taking from among these the pure souls that have been cleansed like gold by divine washing, 2902 he then supports them by pillars, much better than those without, made from the inner and mystic teachings of the Scripture, and illumines them 2903 by windows.

65. Adorning the whole temple with a great vestibule of the glory of the one universal King and only God, and placing 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.

66. 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.’ 2904

67. But in the leader of all it is reasonable to suppose 2905 that Christ himself dwells in his fullness, 2906 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. 2907 And the souls of some of those, namely, who are committed to each of them for instruction and care—may be seats for angels.

68. 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 continue always kind and propitious to us all.

69. “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, his Father might be honored and adored.

70. But the region above the heavens, with the models of earthly things which are there, and the so-called Jerusalem above, 2908 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, 2909 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.’ 2910

71. 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.’ 2911 ‘For he hath not dealt with us according to our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities;’ 2912 ‘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.’ 2913

72. 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. 2914 Amen.”

Footnotes

370:2814

This person was clearly Eusebius himself (see above, p. 11). Upon the date of this dedicatory service, at which Eusebius delivered the oration given in full in this chapter, see ibid.

370:2815

Paulinus, bishop of Tyre. See above, chap. 1, note 1.

370:2816

i.e. Paulinus.

370:2817

Cf. Rev. xxi. 2

370:2818

βεσελεήλ, which is the form found in the LXX. The Hebrew is לאֵלְצַבְּ, which the R.V. renders “Bezalel.” See Ex. xxxv. 30 sq.

371:2819

See Hag. ii. 9

371:2820

Eusebius addresses first the assembled clergymen in general, then Paulinus in particular, and finally the people, calling the latter “nurslings,” “habitation,” “school,” “auditory.” The significance of the words as used by him is plain enough, but their collocation is rather remarkable.

371:2821

Psa. xliv. 1.

371:2822

Cf. Ex. vi. 6, et al.

371:2823

Psa. xlviii. 8.

371:2824

1 Tim. iii. 15.

371:2825

Psa. lxxxvii. 3.

371:2826

Psa. cxxii. 1.

371:2827

Psa. xxvi. 8.

371:2828

Psa. xlviii. 1.

371:2829

Psa. xlv. 2.

371:2830

Psa. cxxxvi. 4.

371:2831

Job ix. 10.

371:2832

Dan. ii. 21.

371:2833

1 Sam. 2:8, Ps. 113:71 Sam. ii. 8. (Psa. cxiii. 7).

371:2834

Luke 1:52, 53.

371:2835

Cf. Psa. xcvi. 1

371:2836

προσυπακούοντες. 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.

371:2837

Psa. cxxxvi. 4.

371:2838

Psa. 136.17.

371:2839

Ps. 136:23, 24.

371:2840

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 (ὁρῇ, ἀλλοτριῇσι, ξυμφορῇσι), and if a few slight changes be made (καμνόντων to καμόντων, ἕνεκεν to εἵνεκεν, μὲν to τὰ, ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτριῇσι τε to ἀλλοτριῇσι) the words resolve themselves into iambic trimeters:—

τῆς τῶν καμόντων εἵνεκεν σωτηρίας

ὁρῇ τὰ δεινὰ, θιγγ€νει δ᾽ ἀηδέων,

ἀλλοτριῇσι συμφορῇσιν ἰδίας

καρποῦται λύπας.

According to Valesius, Gregory Nazianzen in his first Oratio quotes the last verse (καὶ τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίαις συμφοραῖς ἰδίας καρποῦσθαι λύπας, in which there is no trace of the poetical form) with the remark ὡςžφη τις τῶν παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις σοφῶν; and Valesius adds: “Ad quem locum Elias Cretensis notat verba hæc 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. init. p. 78, ed. Foes) quæ eadem laudantur et ab aliis Scriptoribus, veluti a Luciano in Bis. Accus. c. I. p. 49, ed. Bip. Cf. quæ interpretes adnotaverunt ad Luciani, l.c. Tom. VII. p. 400, ed. Bip.” I have not examined these references, and can therefore form no judgment in the matter.

372:2841

ἀβλαβῶς. 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 strength needed for such a task, strength possessed by Christ alone in sufficient measure to prevent his own complete exhaustion under the immense task.

372:2842

Cf. Isa. ix. 6

372:2843

μέγας ἀρχιστρ€τηγος; cf. Josh. v. 13.

372:2844

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 in 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.

372:2845

αὐτοθεόν. The exact sense in which Eusebius uses this word is open to dispute. That it asserts the Son to be possessed per 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. XX.), 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 Eusebius, p. 138, remarks: “Eusebius wendet hier dei platonischen Ausdrücke nach dem Vorbilde des Origenes auf das Wesen des Sohnes an. Nach Origines bezeichnen diese Ausdrücke die Absolutheit des Sohnes, nach den Platonikern jedoch bedeuten sie nicht das höchste Wesen. Es ist nun Zweifelhaft, ob Eusebius mit diesen Begriffen den Sinn des Origenes, oder den der Platoniker verknüpft 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 αὐτοθεόν “very God,” because there seems to be no other phrase which does not necessarily 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 ἀληθινὸν θεόν, I do not use it in the full sense thus ordinarily attached to it.

373:2846

Psa. xxxiii. 9.

373:2847

τοῦ παμβασιλέως καὶ πανηγεμόνος καὶ αὐτοῦ θεοῦ λόγου. Valesius translates, Verbi omnium regis ac principis ac per se Dei; Closs, “des Wortes, das der König aller Könige, der oberste Fürst und selbst Gott ist”; Crusè, “The universal King, the universal Prince, and God, the Word himself.” A conception is thus introduced which the clause as it stands, without the repetition of the article with λόγου, seems to me hardly to warrant. At any rate, the rendering which I have adopted seems more accurately to reproduce the original.

373:2848

θεολογουμένῳ. The use of the word θεολογέω 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.

373:2849

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 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” (τῶν πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων).

373:2850

Literally, “it says” (φησί), i.e. “the Scripture says.”

373:2851

John v. 19.

373:2852

i.e. Paulinus.

373:2853

Ex. xxxv. 31.

374:2854

Psa. lviii. 6. Eusebius agrees with the LXX, which reads τὰς μύλας τῶν λεόντων.

374:2855

Psa. viii. 2. The LXX has καταλῦσαι instead of Eusebius’ καταισχῦναι

374:2856

Literally, “the God-fighting, daring deeds of the impious” (ταῖς θεομ€χοις τῶν ἀσεβῶν τόλμαις).

374:2857

Ps. 37:14, 15.

374:2858

Psa. ix. 6. Eusebius agrees with the LXX in reading μετ᾽ ἤχου: “with a sound.”

374:2859

Psa. 9.5.

374:2860

Psa. xviii. 41.

374:2861

Psa. 18.8.

374:2862

Psa. 73.20.

374:2863

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

374:2864

Isa. xxxv. 1.

374:2865

Isa. 35:3, 4.

374:2866

Isa. 35:6, 7.

374:2867

Ps. 74:5, 6.

374:2868

Diocletian’s first edict included the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians, as well as of their churches. See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 2.

374:2869

Psa. lxxiv. 7.

374:2870

Ps. 80:12, 13.

374:2871

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

374:2872

Isa. xxxv. 6.

374:2873

τῆς θείας τοῦ σωτηρίου λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας. Cf. Titus iii. 5.

374:2874

Isa. xxxv. 7.

374:2875

Isa. 35.3.

374:2876

τὴν οἰκείαν ποίμνην.

374:2877

Isa. xxxv. 4.

375:2878

Hag. ii. 9.

375:2879

The description of the church of Tyre which follows is very valuable, as being the oldest detailed description which we have of a Christian basilica. Eusebius mentions other churches in his Vita Constantini, III. 30–39, 41–43, 48, 50, 51–53, 58, IV. 58, and describes some of them at considerable length. 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 Antiquities, Bk. VIII. chap. 3 sq., and compare also the article Basilika in Kraus’ Real-Encyclopädie der Christ. Alterthümer. 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. Antiq. and in the Encyclop. Britannica; and cf. also Schaff’s Ch. Hist. III. p. 538 sq.

375:2880

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 Orientierung in Kraus’ Real-Encyclopädie. Although the common custom was to have the church stand east and west, yet the rule was often neglected, and there exist many notable examples of churches standing north and south, or quite out of line with the points of the compass.

375:2881

αἴθριον, the Latin atrium.

375:2882

Psa. civ. 16.

375:2883

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

375:2884

ἐξέδρας καὶ οἴκους. Large basilicas were always provided with additional rooms, and adjacent buildings, such as baptisteries, diaconica, secretaria, &c., which were used for various ecclesiastical purposes, and which were often of considerable size, so that important synods frequently met in one or another of them. Cf. Bingham, ibid. chap. 7.

376:2885

The name Solomon (Heb. הׁמׁלשְׁ) means “peaceful.”

376:2886

Hag. ii. 9.

376:2887

λυθεῖσαν, which may mean also “dissolved, decayed.” Crusè translates “dissolved”; Closs, “schon verwesend.”

376:2888

Cf. Matt. xix. 28.

376:2889

See Isa. xxxv. 1

376:2890

Isa. 61:10, 11.

376:2891

Isa. 54.4.

376:2892

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

376:2893

Isa. liv. 6-8.

376:2894

Isa. 51:17, 18.

376:2895

Isa. 51:22, 23.

376:2896

Isa. 52:1, 2.

376:2897

Isa. 49.18-21.

376:2898

νυμφοστόλος, referring to Paulinus.

377:2899

2 Cor. vi. 16.

377:2900

ταῖς πληκτικαῖς τῶν μαθημ€των διδασκαλίας

377:2901

Isa. liv. 11-14

377:2902

θεί& 251· λουτρῷ; i.e. baptism.

377:2903

Heinichen, followed by Closs, reads τοὺς μὲν…τοὺς δέ: “Some of them he supports by pillars…others of them he illumines by windows.” But all the mss. read τοὺς μὲn…τοῖς δὲ, which, in view of the general character of Eusebius’ style throughout this oration, we are hardly justified in changing. I have therefore followed Valesius, Burton, and Crusè in retaining the reading of the mss.

378:2904

Acts ii. 3.

378:2905

ἴσως

378:2906

αὐτὸς ὅλος ἐγκ€θηται χριστός.

378:2907

Valesius remarks, “Sic Hieronymus seu quis alius de ordinibus ecclesiæ: in illis esse partes et membra virtutem, in episcopo plenitudinem divinitatis habitare.” From what source the quotation comes I do not know.

378:2908

Cf. Gal. iv. 26

378:2909

Cf. Heb. 12:22, 23.

378:2910

1 Cor. ii. 9.

378:2911

Psa. ciii. 3-5.

378:2912

Psa. 103.10.

378:2913

Ps. 103:12, 13.

378:2914

εἰς τοὺς σύμπαντας αἰ& 242·νας τῶν αἰ& 240·νων.

Chapter V.—Copies of Imperial Laws. 2915

1. Let us finally subjoin the translations from the Roman tongue of the imperial decrees of Constantine and Licinius.

Copy of imperial decrees translated from the Roman tongue. 2916

2. “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 religion. 2917

3. But since in that rescript, in which such liberty was granted them, many and various conditions 2918 seemed clearly added, some of them, it may be, after a little retired from such observance.

4. 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 2919 may be propitious to us and to all that live under our government.

5. 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 to each one freedom is to be given to devote his mind to that religion which he may think adapted to himself, 2920 in order that the Deity may exhibit to us in all things his accustomed care and favor.

6. It was fitting that we should write that this is our pleasure, that those conditions 2921 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.

7. 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.

8. 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. 2922

9. 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, 2923 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.

10. 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 without any delay.

11. 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 2924 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.

12. 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. 2925

13. For by this means, 2926 as we have said before, the divine favor toward us which we have already experienced in many matters will continue sure through all time.

14. 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.”

Copy of another imperial decree which they issued, 2927 indicating that the grant was made to the Catholic Church alone.

15. “Greeting to thee, our most esteemed Anulinus. It is the custom of our benevolence, most esteemed Anulinus, to will that those things which belong of right to another should not only be left unmolested, but should also be restored. 2928

16. 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 2929 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.

17. Since therefore thy devotedness 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.”

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. 2930

18. “Constantine Augustus to Miltiades, 2931 bishop of Rome, and to Marcus. 2932 Since many such communications have been sent to me by Anulinus, 2933 the most illustrious proconsul of Africa, in which it is said that Cæcilianus, 2934 bishop of the city of Carthage, has been accused by some of his colleagues in Africa, in many matters; 2935 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,—

19. it has seemed good to me that Cæcilianus 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, that there, in the presence of yourselves and of Retecius 2936 and Maternus 2937 and Marinus, 2938 your colleagues, whom I have commanded to hasten to Rome for this purpose, 2939 he may be heard, as you may understand to be in accordance with the most holy law.

20. 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 above-mentioned 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 2940 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.”

Copy of an epistle in which the emperor commands another synod to be held for the purpose of removing all dissensions among the bishops.

21. “Constantine Augustus to Chrestus, 2941 bishop of Syracuse. When some began wickedly and perversely to disagree 2942 among themselves in regard to the holy worship and celestial power and Catholic doctrine, 2943 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 who were contending persistently and incessantly with each other, should be summoned from Africa; that in their presence, and in the presence of the bishop of Rome, the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance might be examined and decided with all care. 2944

22. But since, as it happens, some, forgetful both of their own salvation and of the reverence due to the most holy religion, do not even yet bring hostilities to an end, and are unwilling to conform to the judgment already passed, and assert that those who expressed their opinions and decisions were few, or that they had been too hasty and precipitate in giving judgment, before all the things which ought 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, 2945 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, be brought to an end by the presence of many.

23. Since, therefore, we have commanded a number of bishops from a great many different places 2946 to assemble in the city of Arles, 2947 before the kalends of August, we have thought proper to write to thee also that thou shouldst secure from the most illustrious Latronianus, 2948 corrector of Sicily, 2949 a public vehicle, and that thou shouldst take with thee two others of the second rank, 2950 whom thou thyself shalt choose, together with three servants who may serve you on the way, and betake thyself to the above-mentioned place before the appointed day; that by thy firmness, and by the wise unanimity and harmony of the others present, this dispute, which has disgracefully continued until the present time, in consequence of certain shameful strifes, after all has been heard which those have to say who are now at variance with one another, and whom we have likewise commanded to be present, may be settled in accordance with the proper faith, and that brotherly harmony, though it be but gradually, may be restored.

24. May the Almighty God preserve thee in health for many years.”

Footnotes

378:2915

Heinichen gives ᾽Αντίγραφα βασιλικῶν νόμων περὶ τῶν χριστιανοῖς προσηκόντων 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 chapter has reference to the property of Christians. It 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.

379:2916

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 Galerius, 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.

379:2917

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.

379:2918

The Greek word is αἱρέσεις, 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 αἱρέσεις, we find the same word in § 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). What these conditions were may be conjectured, as remarked in that note, from the provisions of the present edict (cf. Mason, p. 330 sq.).

379:2919

ὅτί ποτέ ἐστι θειότης καὶ οὐρανίου πρ€γματος. Latin: quo quidem divinitas in sede cœlesti. 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.

379:2920

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.

379:2921

Greek, αἱρέσεων; Latin, conditionibus (see note 4, above).

379:2922

μηδεμιŽ τιμῇ μηδὲ θρησκεία τινί. Latin, honori, neque cuiquam religioni. Mason concludes from this clause that in the rescript which accompanied the previous edict Christians had been excluded from certain official positions.

379:2923

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 imperial treasury will freely bear all the expense involved in the transfer.

380:2924

τῷ σωματί& 251·. Latin, corpori. The use of this word (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 to hold 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, p. 152, note 25.

380:2925

Greek, τῆς κοινῆς καὶ δημοσίας ἡσυχίας. Latin, more simply, quieti publicæ.

380:2926

τούτῳ γὰρ τῷ λογισμῷ. Latin, hactenus.

380:2927

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 to them. 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 sense 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.

380:2928

i.e. that if they have been molested, or taken from their owners, they should be restored.

380:2929

πολιτῶν. Valesius conjectures that πολιτευτῶν should be read instead of πολιτῶν, and therefore translates a decurionibus. Crusè, following him, reads “by the decurions.” The correction, however, though an improvement, is not necessary, and I have not felt justified in adopting it.

380:2930

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, provided he had been duly qualified by the Church for the performance 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 Cæcilianus, 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 North 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 Cæcilian’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 Cæcilian, 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 Casæ Nigræ, 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., appended to his edition of Eusebius (Reading’s edition, p. 775 sq.); Ribbeck, Donatus and Augustinus, 1858; the articles Cæcilianus and Donatism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.; Neander’s Church History, Torrey’s translation, II. p. 182 sq.; Hefele’s Conciliengesch. 2d ed., I. p. 293 sq.; and Schaff’s Church History, III. p. 360 sq. Constantine did not voluntarily meddle in the Donatistic controversy. He was first appealed to by the Donatists themselves, through the proconsul Anulinus, early in the year 313 (see Augustine, Epistle 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 year (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 316, 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 principles until the invasion of the Vandals in 428, when the entire North African Church was devastated.

381:2931

Miltiades (called also Melchiades) was bishop of Rome from July 2, 310, to Jan. 10 or 11, 314. See Lipsius, Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 257 sq.

381:2932

Marcus is an otherwise unknown personage, unless Valesius’ not improbable conjecture be accepted, that he was at this time a presbyter of Rome, and is to be identified with the Marcus who was bishop of Rome for some eight months in 336.

381:2933

χ€ρται. 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, Ep. 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 ecclesiæ Catholicæ criminum Cæciliani. The other, which is preserved by Optatus (Du Pin’s edition, p. 22, and Routh, Rel. Sac. IV. 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 was in consequence of this request that the Gallic bishops mentioned 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 to us.

381:2934

Cæcilianus had been arch-deacon of the church of Carthage 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. We know nothing about his life after the first few years of the conflict. His title to the bishopric was universally acknowledged outside of North Africa, and by all there except the Donatists themselves.

381:2935

The chief charge brought against Cæcilian was that he had been ordained by a traditor, Felix of Aptunga, and that his ordination was therefore invalid. The charge against Felix was carefully investigated at the Council of Arles, and pronounced quite groundless. Many personal charges, such as cruelty to the martyrs in prison (which had its ground, doubtless, in his condemnation of the foolish fanaticism which was so common during the persecution in Africa), tyranny, bloodthirstiness, &c., were brought against Cæcilian, but were dismissed in every case as quite groundless.

381:2936

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 Dict. 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 present, in Routh, IV. p. 312), and is spoken of in high terms by Augustine (Contra Jul. I. 7; Opus imperf. cont. Jul. I. 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. ill. 82, Ep. ad Florentium, and ad Marcellam, Migne, Nos. 5 and 37).

381:2937

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 (ibid.), and was present at the Council of Arles (Routh, ibid.).

381:2938

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

381:2939

This Roman Council convened in the house of Fausta, in the Lateran, on the second day of October, 313, and was attended by nineteen bishops,—the three from Gaul just mentioned, Miltiades himself, and fifteen Italian bishops (see Optatus, ibid.). The synod resulted in the complete victory of the party of Cæcilian, as remarked above (note 15).

381:2940

ἐνθέσμῳ.

381:2941

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 distinctly 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 (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.

381:2942

ἀποδιΐστασθαι

381:2943

τῆς αἱρέσεως τῆς καθολικῆς

382:2944

See the previous epistle.

382:2945

αἰσχρῶς, μᾶλλον δὲ μυσερῶς.

382:2946

ἐκ διαφόρων καὶ ἀμυθήτων τόπων. 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 given in the only lists of the members of the synod which we have (see Routh, ibid., and see also Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 201).

382:2947

Arles (Latin Arelate), a city of Southern France, 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 gather from this passage, on the first of August, 314. We do not know 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 maters besides the Donatistic schism, especially with the Easter question and with various matters of church discipline. See Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 201 sq. (2d ed.).

382:2948

According to Valesius the name of Latronianus is found (teste Gualthero) in an ancient Palermo inscription (in tabulis Siculis, numero 164). He is an otherwise unknown personage.

382:2949

The Greek τοῦ κοῤ& 191·ήκτορος 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).

382:2950

τῶν ἐκ τοῦ δευτέρου θρόνου; 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 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 company of priests and Levites of the lower order (inferioris gradus)”; and to Gregory Nazianzen (Carm. iambic. 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 (chap. 4, § 67, above), and for other references see Valesius’ note. Possibly the Latin phrase used by Constantine was similar to that employed by Jerome: secundi gradus.

Chapter VI. 2951 —Copy of an Imperial Epistle in which Money is granted to the Churches. 2952

1. “Constantine Augustus to Cæcilianus, 2953 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 2954 and most holy catholic religion, to defray their expenses, I have written to Ursus, 2955 the illustrious finance minister 2956 of Africa, and have directed him to make provision to pay to thy firmness three thousand folles. 2957

2. Do thou therefore, when thou hast received the above sum of money, command that it be distributed among all those mentioned above, according to the brief 2958 sent to thee by Hosius. 2959

3. 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, 2960 our treasurer, 2961 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 should see to it that it be paid without delay.

4. 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, 2962 do thou know that I gave command to Anulinus, the proconsul, and also to Patricius, 2963 vicar of the prefects, 2964 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 above-mentioned judges and report the matter to them; that they may correct them as I commanded them when they were present. 2965 The divinity of the great God preserve thee for many years.”

Footnotes

382:2951

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

382:2952

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 his time were not as well supported as under the ancient voluntary 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 early Church, see Bingham’s Antiquities, Bk. V. Compare also Hatch’s Constitution of the Early Christian Churches, p. 150 sq. Upon the Montanistic practice of paying their clergy salaries, see above, Bk. V. chap. 18, note 8, and for an example of the same thing among the Theodotians, see Bk. V. chap. 28, § 10.

382:2953

On Cæcilianus, see above, chap. 5, note 20.

382:2954

ἐνθέσμου.

382:2955

Ursus is an otherwise unknown personage.

382:2956

καθολικόν. Cf. Bk. VIII. chap. 11, note 3.

382:2957

φόλλεις. 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. 109 sq.

383:2958

βρεού& 187·ον; probably for the Latin breviarium.

383:2959

Doubtless to be identified with the famous Hosius, bishop of Cordova 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.

383:2960

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

383:2961

τοῦ ἐπιτρόπου τῶν ἡμετέρων κτημ€των.

383:2962

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 Cæcilian Constantine 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 preceded the one to Miltiades quoted in the previous chapter, and 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 sq. We might then be led to suppose that it was in consequence of this grant made by Constantine solely to Cæcilian and the clergy under him that the Donatists decided to appeal to the emperor, his treatment of all who were opposed to Cæcilian 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 stated seems to me most in harmony with our sources and with the nature of the case. For a full, though not altogether satisfactory, discussion of the matter, which I cannot dwell upon here, see Walch’s Ketzergeschichte, IV. p. 116 sq.

383:2963

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

383:2964

τῷ οὐικαρί& 251· τῶν ἐπ€ρχων, which doubtless represents the Latin Vicarius Præfectorum, the vicar or deputy of the prefects. See Valesius’ note ad locum and the note of Heinichen (Vol. III. p. 463), with the additional references given by him.

383:2965

This is the first instance we have of an effort on Constantine’s 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.

Chapter VII.—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. 2966

1. “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 2967 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.

2. Wherefore it is my will that those within the province entrusted to thee, 2968 in the catholic Church, over which Cæcilianus presides, 2969 who give their services to this holy religion, and who are commonly 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.”

Footnotes

383:2966

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 of 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 immunity 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 professions. The privilege bestowed here upon the African clergy was afterward extended to those of other provinces, as we learn from the Theodosian Code, 16. 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.

383:2967

ἐνθέσμως ἀναληφθεῖσαν καὶ φυλαττομενην

383:2968

i.e. the proconsular province of Africa (see above, chap. 5, § 18).

383:2969

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

Chapter VIII.—The Subsequent Wickedness of Licinius, and his Death.

1. 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.

2. 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 mentioned were not sufficient to bring Licinius to sound reason.

3. 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 nature, nor treaties, nor blood, and giving no thought to covenants. 2970

4. For Constantine, like an all-gracious emperor, giving him 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, 2971 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. 2972

5. 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. 2973

6. But God was the friend, protector, and guardian of Constantine, and bringing the plots which had been formed in 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.

7. 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 God-favored emperor,—being no longer able to conceal himself, he undertook an open war. 2974

8. 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 that Constantine worshiped, and began, gently for a time and quietly, to attack his pious subjects, who had never done his government any harm. 2975 This he did under the compulsion of his innate wickedness which drove him into terrible blindness.

9. 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 Constantine, instead of against the one who was assisted by him.

10. 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.

11. 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? 2976 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 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.

12. 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? 2977 He invented, to the detriment of the provinces which were subject to him, innumerable prosecutions, 2978 and all sorts of methods of extorting gold and silver, new measurements of land 2979 and injurious exactions from men in the country, who were no longer living, but long since dead.

13. 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 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 2980 —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?

14. 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.

15. The deeds which he performed at Amaseia 2981 and in the other cities of Pontus surpassed every excess of cruelty. Some of the churches of God were again 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.

16. 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. 2982 Therefore he hastened to turn his fury against us.

17. And then those among the governors who wished to flatter him, perceiving that in doing such things they pleased the impious tyrant, 2983 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.

18. 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 measures, he finally planned to renew the persecution against all.

19. 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.

Footnotes

384:2970

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 Vita 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 Zeit Constantins, 2d ed., p. 328 sq.

384:2971

See below, p. 400.

384:2972

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 his. See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, notes 18 and 21.

384:2973

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

384:2974

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

384:2975

Licinius, as Görres 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 of 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 at this critical juncture. Just at a time when he needed the most loyal support of all his subjects, he wantonly alienated the affections of 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 Görres has clearly shown (ibid. 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 Görres, ibid. p. 32 sq.

385:2976

Note the play on the word νόμος. νόμους ἀνόμους ὁ πανανομώτατος

385:2977

Another play upon the same word: νόμους, ἀνόμους ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ παρανόμους

385:2978

ἐπισκήψεις. 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 Licinius 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).

385:2979

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.

385:2980

ἐσχατόγηρως. Valesius 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.

386:2981

Amaseia, or Amasia, as it is more commonly called, was an important city of Pontus, situated on the river Iris.

386:2982

Eusebius makes it clear enough in this sentence that Licinius suspected a treasonable conspiracy on the part of the Christians. See above, note 1.

386:2983

See ibid.

Chapter IX.—The Victory of Constantine, and the Blessings which under him accrued to the Subjects of the Roman Empire.

1. 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 Constantine.

2. For when Licinius carried his madness to the last extreme, 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 principles of justice with humanity, gladly determined to come to the protection of 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. 2984

3. 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.

4. Wherefore, the protector of the virtuous, mingling hatred for evil with love for good, went forth with his son Crispus, a most beneficent prince, 2985 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; 2986 God having prospered them in the battle in all respects according to their wish.

5. 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.

6. 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; 2987 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 of the declining day.

7. All fear therefore 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 thus taught, and then the pious emperor with his God-beloved children.

8. 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 come. Edicts full of clemency and laws containing tokens of benevolence and true piety were issued in every place by the victorious emperor. 2988

9. Thus after all tyranny had been purged away, the empire which belonged to them was preserved firm and without a rival for Constantine and his sons alone. 2989 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.

The end, with God’s help, of the Tenth Book of the Church History of Eusebius Pamphili.

Footnotes

386:2984

Eusebius speaks in the same way of the origin of the war in his Vita Const. II. 3. Cf. the previous chapter, note 1.

386:2985

Κρίσπῳ Βασιλεῖ φιλανθρωποτ€τῳ. Crispus, the oldest son of Constantine, by his first wife Minervina, was born about the beginning of the fourth century, made Cæsar 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 military talents in the west in a campaign against the Franks, and also in the present war with Licinius, in which he won a great naval battle, and thus contributed materially to his father’s victory. His 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 Vita Const.

386:2986

The final battle was fought in September, 323. See the previous chapter, note 4.

386:2987

τὴν οἰκείαν ἑ& 252·αν ἀπελ€μβανον. Constantine’s sole right to the East was the right of conquest.

387:2988

Some of these laws of Constantine have been preserved by Eusebius in his Vita Const. Bk. II.

387:2989

It is clear from this statement, as well as from the references to Crispus in the previous paragraphs, that the History was completed before his execution. See above, p. 45.

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 Nicene 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’ Einleitung 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 προτέρα instead of πρώτη 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 Irenæus the second epistle is quoted as if it were the first (see Westcott, ibid. 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 two 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 πρὸς Π€ρθους is given to the second epistle in one Greek manuscript (62 Scholz). The Latin translation of Clement’s Outlines (IV. 66) says: Secunda Johannis epistola quæ ad virgines (παρθένους) scripta simplissima est. Jerome, it may be added, quotes names from the third epistle as from the second (De nom. Hebr.).” On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 8, § 7, Eusebius speaks of the “first” (πρώτη) 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 προτέρα instead of πρώτη 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 προτέρα in three separate passages.

On Bk. III. chap. 25, § 4 (note 18 continued).

The words ἡ φερομένη Βαρν€βα ἐπιστολή 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 φέρομαι 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, Μ€ρκον οὗ τὸ εὐγγέλιον φέρεται; II. 18. 6, μονόβιβλα αὐτοῦ φέρεται; III. 9. 4; III. 16; III. 25. 3, ἡ λεγομένη ᾽Ιακώβου φέρεται; III. 37. 4; III. 39. 1; IV. 3. 1, εἰσέτι δὲ φέρεται παρὰ πλείστοις; IV. 14. 9, ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ πρὸς φιλιππησίους αὐτοῦ γραφῇ φερομένῃ εἰς δεῦρο. Compare also IV. 15. I; IV. 23. 4, 9, 12; IV. 24. 1; IV. 28; V. 5. 6; 19. 3; 23. 2; 24. 10; VI. 15. 1; VI. 20, &c. 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 λεγομένη. 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, τὴν δὲ φερομένην αὐτοῦ δευτέραν; 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 fertur 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 λεγομένη or καλουμένη and φερομένη 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 φερομένη 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 14a).

The Greek reads π€σης ἐκκλησίας (without the article), and so, two lines below, ἐν π€σῃ ἐκκλησί& 139·. All the translators (with the exception of Pratten in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII., who reads, “the churches”) render “the whole church,” as if reading πᾶς with the article. We have not, it is true, enough of Hegesippus’ writings to be able to ascertain positively his use of πᾶς, 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” not “all”; 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 Texte 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 than either of the other Gospels does. This original Hebrew he then identifies with the λόγια 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 ibid. chap. 24, note 5). The 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 λόγια 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 λόγια 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 epistle of John and from the epistle of Peter likewise. See p. 388.

On Bk. IV. chap. 10.

For the Pious, read Pius.

On Bk. IV. chap. 18, § 2.

For the Pious, read Pius.

On Bk. V. Introd. § I (note 3, continued). The Successors of Antoninus Pius.

Antoninus Pius was succeeded in 161 by his adopted sons, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Verus and Lucius Ceionius Ælius 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 History 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. § I he refers to the same emperor as Antoninus Verus, and in Bk. V. chap. 4, § 3, and chap. 9, 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, Eusebius speaks of Marcus Aurelius Cæsar and expressly 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 Cæsar, 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 emperors had persecuted. Of course, among the good emperors was included the philosophical Marcus Aurelius (cf. e.g. Tertullian’s Apol. 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 ibid.). 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: literæ quoque exstant Marci regis (the M. Aureli gravissimi imperatoris of Jerome looks like a later expansion of the simpler original) quibus testatur copias suas iamiam perituras Christianorum precibus servatas 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).

Footnotes

402:2990

These two names are omitted by Eusebius in his History, but are given in his Chron. and also by Epiphanius. See above, Bk. V. chap. 12, note 2.

Table showing the Roman Method of counting the Days of the Month.

(Taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica, article Calendar.)

Days of the Month.

March.

May.

July.

October.

January.

August.

December.

April.

June.

September.

November.

February.

Kalendæ.

Prid. Nonas.

Nonæ.

Prid. Nonas.

Nonæ.

Prid. Idus.

Idus.

Prid. Idus.

Idus.

Prid. Kal. Mart.

Prid. Kalen.

“Instead of distinguishing the days by the ordinal numbers, first, second, third, etc., the Romans counted backwards 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 ninth 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 the days before the Kalends of the succeeding month.

“In 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 30th, which was called the third before the Kalends (tertio Kalendas), the last being the second of the Kalends, or the day before the Kalends (pridie 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. Gorpiæus.

September.

7. Dystrus.

March.

2. Hyperberetæus.

October.

8. Xanthicus.

April.

3. Dius.

November.

9. Artemisius.

May.

4. Apellæus.

December.

10. Dæsius.

June.

5. Audynæus.

January.

11. Panemus.

July.

6. Peritius.

February.

12. Loüs.

August.

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, Ph.d.

librarian and associate professor in hartford theological seminary.

Preface.

————————————

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 Bibliothèque de la Ville at Lyons demands at least the recognition of individualized thanksgiving.

E.C.R.

Hartford, Conn., April 15, 1890.

Prolegomena.

__________

I.—Constantine the Great.

__________

Chapter I

Life. 2991

§1. Early Years

The Emperor Flavius Valerius Constantinus, surnamed the Great, 2992 born February 27, 272 or 274, 2993 at Naïssus, 2994 was son of Constantius Chlorus, afterwards Emperor, 2995 and Helena his wife. 2996 He was brought up at Drepanum, his mother’s home, 2997 where he remained until his father became Cæsar (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 Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868); Zonar. 13. 1, &c.), but really as hostage, 2998 and remained with Diocletian, or Galerius, until the year 306. 2999 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). 3000 Shortly after joining the emperor he contracted (296 or 297) his alliance with Minervina, 3001 by whom he had a son, Crispus. 3002 He was at Nicomedia when Diocletian’s palace was struck by lightning (Const. Orat. 35), and was present at the abdication of Diocletian and Maximinus in 305 (Lact. De M. 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 Character), 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 Cæsar 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 Galerius, 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. 471). 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. Each relay of post horses which he left was maimed to baffle pursuit (Anon. Vales., Vict. Epit. 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), 3003 just in time to accompany him on his final expeditions to Britain (Eumen. Paneg. (310) c. 7; cf. Anon. Vales. l.c.). Constantius died shortly after at York (Anon. Vales. p. 471; Eutrop. 10. 1), having named Constantine as his successor (Euseb. V. C. 1. 21; Eumen. Paneg. (310) c. 7.; Lact. c. 24).

Footnotes

411:2991

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 to his religious acts and life.

411:2992

“Imperator Cæsar 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.

411:2993

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.) Eutropius 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, Cæs. sixty-two. Eusebius says he lived twice the length of his reign, i.e. 63 +.

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 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, Epit. Socrates, who, according to Wordsworth, says he was in his sixty-fifth year, uses the idiom “mounting upon” (ἐπιβ€ς) sixty-five years, which at the 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 translation “in his sixty-fifth year”) he was “about” 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 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.

411:2994

Anon. Vales. p. 471. Const. Porphyr. (De themat. 2. 9), Stephanus Byzant. art. Ναϊσσός (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 panegyrists (c. 4) speaking of his taking his origin thence), or Trèves (Voragine). Compare Vogt, who adds Rome (“Petr. de Natalibus”), or Roba (“Eutychius”), or Gaul (“Meursius”). Compare also monographs by Janus and by Schoepflin under Literature.

411:2995

For characterization of Constantius compare V. C. 1. 13 sq.

411:2996

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 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. E. 8. 13; Ephraem p. 21, etc.), also in various inscriptions (compare collected inscriptions in Clinton 2. 81). 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 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 Inst. Just. (1865) 113; 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, 18. For farther account of Helena, compare the V. C. 3. 42 and notes.

411:2997

Helena was born probably at Drepanum, afterwards called Helenopolis, in her honor, by Constantine (Procopius De ædif. V. 2, p. 311, Chron. Pasch. etc.).

412:2998

This appears from the disregard of his father’s repeated requests 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. p. 471, and the two Victors (Cæs. p. 156, Epit. 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.

412:2999

He was with Diocletian still in 305 (cf. Lact. and note, below), and was with his father early in 306.

412:3000

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.”

412:3001

This was probably a morganatic marriage or concubinate (Victor, Epit. 41, Zosimus 2. 20; Zonaras 13. 2, &c.). “The improbability that Constantine should have marked out an illegitimate son as his successor” which Ramsay (Smith, Dict. 2. 1090) mentions as the only argument against, is reduced to a minimum in view of Constantine’s law for the legitimization of natural children by rescript (Cod. Just. V. xxvii. ed. Krueger 2 (1877), 216–17; cf. notes of Sandars in his Inst. Just. (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 Dict. 2. 1090, “Tillemont, Hist. Emp. IV. iv. p. 84,” and Clinton, Fasti Rom. 2. (1850) 86, note k.

412:3002

Crispus was “already a young man” when made Cæsar in 317 (Zos. 2. 30).

412:3003

According to some (e.g. Victor, Cæs. p. 156; Victor, Epit. p. 51; Zos. 2. 8) his father was already in Britain.

§2. The First Five Years of Reign.

The will of the father was promptly ratified by the soldiers, who at once proclaimed Constantine Augustus. 3004 Supported by them, and also by Erocus, king of the Allemanni (Vict. Epit. 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 Cæsar (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. 3005 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. 23; 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. 10. 2; Vict. Cæs. p. 156; Anon. Vales. p. 472; Zos. 2. 9; Socr. 1. 2; Oros. c. 26, &c.; Lact. c. 26). He persuaded the willing (Eutrop. 10. 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). 3006 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. 3007 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). 3008

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, restoring cities, building up educational institutions, &c. 3009 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).

Footnotes

413:3004

So Eusebius H. E. 8. 13; Lact. c. 25; Julian Orat. 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 Cæsar. Eutropius (10. 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 “Cæsar” by Galerius (see below). The elevation was in Britain (cf. Eutrop. 10. 2; Eumen. Paneg. (310) c. 9; Soz. 1. 5, &c.).

413:3005

See coins in Eckhel 8, p. 72, under the year. It is also expressly stated by Paneg. (307) c. 5.

413:3006

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 of Maxentius that he betook himself to Gaul. That he went to Gaul with this purpose, at least, is mentioned by many (cf. Lact. c. 29; Oros. c. 28; Eutrop. 10. 2, “on a planned stratagem”). It seems curious, if he had attempted to supersede Maxentius by raising a mutiny (Eutrop. 10. 3), that he should now be working for him and planning to rejoin him (Eutrop. 10. 2), but it is no inconsistency in this man, who was consistent only in his unceasing effort to destroy others for his own advantage.

413:3007

Compare on all this Lact. c. 29; Eumen. Paneg c. 14.

413:3008

Socrates (1. 2) with many others (e.g. Zos. 2. 11) says he died at Tarsus, confusing him thus with Maximinus.

414:3009

Notably at Autun. The city had been almost destroyed. Eumenius, whose oration of thanks in behalf of the people of Autun is extant, praises Constantine as the restorer, almost the founder. The work had been undertaken by Constantius, indeed, but was carried on by his son. Constantine’s work of internal improvement was in many ways distinctly a continuation of the work begun by Constantius. Compare Eumen. Paneg. (especially c. 13, 22, &c.) and Grat. act.

§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 which 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.

I. The 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. Cæs.), Galerius and Constantius succeeding as Augusti and Severus, Maximinus Daza succeeding them as Cæsars (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 Cæsars, Constantine and Maximinus, one with a pretty definite claim to 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. Cæs.; 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. Cæs. &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. 33; Vict. Cæs., Vict. Epit.; Zos. 2. 11) reduced the number to four.

II. 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. p. 472); fond of boasting himself to be the illegitimate son of a dragon (Lact. 9; Vict. Epit. p. 49), 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 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 Dict. 2, p. 784; compare Euseb. H. E. 10. 8; V. C. 1. 49–56), and “in avaricious cupidity worst of all” (Vict. Epit. 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. H. E. 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, (Epit. 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. H. E. 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, Epit., 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.

III. 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. H. E. 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; H. E. 8. 14; Eutrop. 10. 4). 3010 The persecution under Maximin was of peculiar atrocity (Euseb. H. E. 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 persecutions” (Marriott, in Smith & W. 2, p. 594). It was not until the very end of this period 3011 that Galerius, in terror of death, issued the famous first edict of toleration. 3012 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.

Footnotes

415:3010

“Raging against the nobles with every kind of destruction,” Eutrop. 10. 4.

416:3011

Edict of toleration was April 30; Constantine’s anniversary, July 24.

416:3012

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. E. 8. 17.

§4. Second Five Years.

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. 3013 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 (Paneg.), and marched to meet the much more numerous forces of Maxentius,—Romans, Italians, Tuscans, Carthagenians, and Sicilians (Zos. 2. 15). 3014 First Sigusium was taken by storm (Naz. Paneg. [321] c. 17 and 21; Paneg. [313] c. 5); then the cavalry of Maxentius was defeated at Turin (Naz. Paneg. [321] c. 22; Paneg. [313] c. 6). After a few days’ rest in Milan (Paneg. [313] c. 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. [313]; 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. 3015 He reached the Tiber October 26. Maxentius, tempted by a dubious oracle 3016 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. 3017 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. p. 473; 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 in triumph amid rejoicings of the people, 3018 exacted penalties from a few of those most intimate with Maxentius (Zos. 2. 17), 3019 disbanded the Prætorian Guards (Vict. Cæs. 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. 3020

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. Epit. p. 50; 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. H. E. 10. 5; Lact. c. 48), and probably proclaimed. 3021 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. 3022

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 (Lact. c. 46). Maximin fled precipitately, escaping the sword only to die a more terrible death that same summer (Lact. c. 49; Euseb. V. C. 1. 58; cf. Zos. 2. 17). 3023 The death of Maximin cleared the field still farther. Through progressive subtractions the number of emperors had 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. 3024 Whatever the immediate cause, it was one of 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. 3025 First at Cibalis in Pannonia (Oct. 8), 3026 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. 3027 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).

Footnotes

416:3013

Eusebius represents the occasion of Constantine’s movement as a philanthropic compassion for the people of Rome (V. C. 1. 26; H. E. 9. 9).

Praxagoras (ed. Müller, p. 1) 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.

Undoubtedly he did pity them, and as to the legation, every Roman who found his way to Trèves 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. Whatever 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.

416:3014

Constantine numbered, according to Zosimus, 90,000 foot, 8,000 horse; and Maxentius, 170,000 foot, and 18,000 horse. 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 than 40,000 (c. 5).

416:3015

See note on Bk. I. c. 28.

416:3016

That “on the same day the enemy of the Romans should perish” (Lact. c. 44.).

416:3017

The circumstance pronounced by Wordsworth “almost incredible” is witnessed to by Eusebius (V. C. 1. 38), Zosimus (2. 15), Praxagoras (ed. Müller, 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 post facto notion or not is unclear.

417:3018

“Senate and people rejoiced with incredible rejoicing” (Vict. Cæs. p. 159). Cf. Euseb. V. C. 1. 39; Paneg. [313] c. 19; Naz. Paneg. c. 30; Chron. Pasch. p. 521, &c.

417:3019

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).

417:3020

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 after Constantine had gone, and that his æsthetic character is not to be charged with this crime. It was an arch to Trajan made over for the occasion,—by itself and piecemeal of great interest. Apart from the mutilation made for the glory of Constantine, it is a noble 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 “instinctu divinitatis” has its value in the “Hoc signo” discussion (cf. notes to the V. C.); and the sculptures are most suggestive.

417:3021

It has been maintained that there were three edicts of Constantine up to this time: 1. Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius in 311; 2. Constantine and Licinius in 312 (lost); 3. Constantine 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 certain things, it seems to have been disproved. The “harder edict” seems to have been a product of Eusebius’ rather slovenly historical method, and to refer to the first, or Galerian edict.

417:3022

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 (Phillott). 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, Ep. 43, ¶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, Ep. 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, Felix,—articles in Smith and W. Dict. &c.; and for general sources and literature, cf. Donatist Schism, Hartranft, in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 369–72; Völter, Ursprung des Donatismus, 1883; and Seeck in Brieger’s Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, 10 (1889), 505–508.

417:3023

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.

417:3024

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 Constantine, was the direct occasion of the war (Anon. Vales. p. 473). Compare Eusebius, V. C. 1. 50–51, and Socr. 1. 3, where Licinius is charged with repeated treachery, perjury, and hypocrisy. Zosimus, on the other hand (2. 18), distinctly says that Licinius was not to 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.

418:3025

Constantine at Cibalis had 20,000 Licinius 35,000 (Anon. Vales. p. 473).

418:3026

Zos. 2. 18; “by a sudden attack” (Eutrop. 10. 4); “by night” (Vict. Epit. p. 50). Cf. Orosius, c. 28.

418:3027

After the battle of Cibalis the Greeks and the Macedonians, the inhabitants of the banks of the Danube, of Achaia, and the whole nation of Illyrica became subject to Constantine (Soz. 1. 6; cf. Anon. Vales. p. 474; Zos. 2. 20; Oros. c. 28, &c.).

§5. Third Five Years.

About the time of his decennial celebration, 3028 his sons Crispus and Constantine, and Licinius, son of Licinius, were made Cæsars. 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.).

Footnotes

418:3028

Perhaps earlier and perhaps later. It is generally placed in 317 (cf. Clinton, p. 370).

§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. 3029 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 a long time Constantine had been vexed at the persecution of the Christians by Licinius (cf. Euseb. H. E. 10. 8, 9), persecutions waged perhaps with the express purpose of aggravating him. 3030 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. p. 474). Mutual recriminations and aggravations followed. Licinius would not let the Sarmatian coins pass current and had them melted down (Anon. Contin. Dio. Cass., in Müller, 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. 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 3031 (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. Epit. 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. 3032 Constantine was now sole emperor. His first act (Soz. 1. 8) was to issue a proclamation in favor of the Christians (Soz. l.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 in extenso by Eusebius (see various notes). In 325 (June 19-Aug. 25) the Council of Nicæa 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, 3033 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).

Footnotes

418:3029

Zos. 2. 21. An exhaustive discussion of this is that by Bessell, Gothen, in Ersch u. Gruber, Encykl. I. 75 (Leipz. 1862), 132–33. The same article (p. 133–35) discusses various relations of Goths and Sarmatians with Constantine.

418:3030

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 Constantine, and thought to wound him by their sufferings; and, besides, he suspected that they earnestly desired that Constantine should enjoy the sovereign rule” (1. 7). In this view of the case, it is easy to see how and why affairs marched as they did. Eusebius (H. E. 10. 9) makes this, like the war against Maxentius, a real crusade in behalf of the persecuted Christians.

419:3031

According to Zos. 2. 27, the final siege and surrender was at Nicomedia.

419:3032

Compare note on Bk. II. ch. 18.

419:3033

For his presence at Rome at this time, compare authorities above, and also law dated July, 326, given in Clinton (p. 380).

§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. 3034 The same year (Hieron. Chron.) the Cæsar Licinius, his sister’s son, was put to death (Eutrop. 10. 6; Hieron.; Prosper.), and shortly after 3035 his wife Fausta died or was put to death. 3036 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. E. 1. 18; Soz. 2. 2; Theoph. p. 41), and greatest of all, the transformation of the insignificant Byzantium into the magnificent Constantinople, 3037 which was dedicated in 330 (Idatius; Chron. Pasch. p. 285; Hesych. §42; Hieron.; cf. Clinton). 3038 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.).

Footnotes

419:3034

Crispus was alive and in power March 1, 326, as appears from coins (cf. Eckhel, 8, p. 101–2). 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. Cæs.; Soz. 1. 5; Vict. Epit. p. 50; Chron. Pasch.; Eutrop. 10. 6, &c., and discussion under Character.

419:3035

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, v. 1, p. 382, and Wordsworth).

419:3036

Disputed, but generally allowed. On this series of deaths, compare the somewhat opposite views of Görres and Seeck in the articles mentioned under Literature for latest views.

419:3037

The date of the beginning of the work is curiously uncertain. Socrates (1. 6) puts it directly after the Council of Nicæa, 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. It is 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 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.).

419:3038

For accounts of the founding of Constantinople, see Soz. 2. 3; Philostorgius, 2. 9; Malalas, 13. 5; Glycas, p. 462–64; Cedrenus, p. 495–98; Theoph. 41–42. Compare Zosimus, 2. 30; Anon. Vales. p. 475–76; Socrates, 1. 16; Orosius, c. 28; Praxagoras, Zononas, Codinus, Nicephoras Callistus, &c.

§8. Sixth Five Years.

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. Cæs. p. 352; cf. Soz. 1. 26), undertaken in behalf of the Sarmatians (Anon. Vales. l.c.), carried on by Constantine II., and brought to an end April 20, 332 (cf. Clinton). The following year (333) Constans was made consul (Idat.; Hieron.; Prosper has 332; cf. Zos. 2. 35; Vict. Cæs. p. 161, &c.), and in 334 the remarkable (Anon. Vales.) incorporation of 300,000 Sarmatians into the empire (Anon. Vales. p. 476; Idat.; Hieron.; cf. Ammian. 17. 12, 18; 17. 13; 19. 12; V. C. 4. 6). This same year Calocærus revolted in Crete and was defeated (Anon. Vales. p. 476; Vict. Cæs. p. 161; Oros. c. 28; Hieron.). The following year (335) Constantine celebrated his tricennalia, and Dalmatius was made Cæsar (Idat.; Hieron. An. 340; Vict. Cæs. p. 161; Anon. Vales. p. 476; Chron. Pasch. p. 532; Vict. Epit. p. 51; Oros. c. 28), making now four Cæsars and a nondescript (cf. Anon. Vales. p. 476),—Constantine II, Constantius, Constans, Dalmatius, and Hannibalianus, among whom the world was now partitioned (Anon. Vales. p. 476; Zos. 2. 39; Vict. Epit. p. 52).

§9. Last Years.

Later in this year, Constantine is known to have been at Jerusalem, where he dedicated a church (V. C. 4. 40; Chron. Pasch., but wrong year). It was also the year of the Synods of Tyre (Athanas. c. Ar. 1. p. 788; V. C. 4. 41; Theod. 1. 28). The same year, or early in the following one, Eusebius pronounced his tricennial oration (see Special Prolegomena). In 337 the Great Emperor died at Ancyrona, near Nicomedia, just as he was preparing for an expedition against the Persians, and was buried in the Church of the Apostles, at Constantinople (cf. notes on Eusebius’ Life of Constantine). 3039

Footnotes

420:3039

The events and dates of these later periods have to do mainly with theological matters,—the “religious” activity of Constantine, to which Eusebius devotes his attention so fully,—and are treated in the V. C.

Chapter II

Character.

§1. Introduction

A man’s character consists of an inherited personality enlarged, modified, or disfigured by his own repeated voluntary acts. A sufficiently exhaustive survey of such character may be made under the rubrics of: 1. Inherited characteristics. 2. Physical characteristics. 3. Mental characteristics. 4. Moral characteristics. 5. Religious characteristics.

The character of Constantine has been so endlessly treated, with such utter lack of agreement, that it seems hopeless to try to reach any clear results in a study of it. “Who shall decide when doctors disagree?” “How shall I go about it to find what sort of a man Constantine really was?” Certainly nothing can be gained by that method which chooses a few acts or characteristics to which shifting tests of various philosophies are applied. Nor can any haphazard selection and stringing together of traits give what is by its nature a synthesis of them all. Like any other scientific study, the first condition of method is that it be systematic. Then, a character generalization is worth just so much, no more, as the grounds on which it is based. To get a man’s character from secondary sources, from other men’s generalizations, is a hopelessly will-of-the-wisp effort. Again, another vice of characterization as usually practised is the interpretation of the whole by a part rather than the part by the whole. The individual act is thus made the standard of character. To get at what this personality called Constantine was therefore requires a systematic survey of the primary sources with a view to getting the ensemble that the eccentric may be judged by the normal. In such survey the main thing is the body of analyzed and grouped facts. The editor’s summary, like any summary, is worth only what the facts are worth. This method, however imperfectly carried out, is at least better than rambling observations of incoherent phenomena; and has therefore been adopted in this attempt to find out what sort of a man this Constantine was; Physically, Mentally, Morally, Spiritually.

§2. Inherited Characteristics.

The fact of the inheritance of character, virtues or vices as the case may be, curiously recognized in various nations and ancient philosophies (cf. Ribot. Heredity, N.Y. 1875, p. 375–6), and even in the ten commandments, has received the clearer exposition of modern science. In view of it, a scientific study of character considers antecedent generations. Biography rests properly on genealogy. Constantine’s father, Constantius Chlorus, was a man of great mildness, self-possession, and philosophic virtue, just, and a Neo-Platonist of the best type, a monotheist and philanthropist (cf. Sinclair, in Smith & W. 1. 661–2). Constantine is said to have inherited his father’s strength, courage, personal appearance (Eumen. Paneg. c. 4), piety (Pseud.-Leo, p. 83; cf. Const. and Euseb. in V. C. 2. 49), and general virtues. The slur of Zosimus on the character of Constantine’s mother seems to have been quite gratuitous. Her relation to Constantius was in nowise incompatible with virtue, and the honor afterwards paid her, along with the indisputable good early training of Constantine which was with her, indicate a woman of unusual character. The later enterprise and activity with the honors and responsibilities given her show her to have been of very considerable energy and ability.

§3. Physical Characteristics.

A graphic picture of his personal appearance is drawn by Cedrenus (p. 472–3). “Constantinus Magnus was of medium height, broad-shouldered, thick-necked, whence his epithet Bull-necked. His complexion was ruddy, his hair neither thick nor crisp curling, his beard scanty and not growing in many places, his nose slightly hooked, and his eyes like the eyes of a lion. He was joyous of heart and most cheery of countenance.” 3040 Many points in this description are confirmed by others, some apparently contradicted. Taken in detail, his Height was probably above medium. Over against this statement of Cedrenus (p. 472) that he was of middle height is that of the earlier Malalas (13. 1), who, while confirming the ruddiness of complexion, characterizes him as tall, and the explicit testimony of Eusebius, that among those with Diocletian “there was no one comparable with him for height” (V. C. 1. 19), and likewise among those present at Nicæa (V. C. 3- 10). But a “thick-necked” form hardly belongs to the strictly “tall” man, and a thick neck and broad shoulders would hardly belong to a form of “distinguished comeliness,” if it were short (Lact. c. 18). It may be supposed therefore that he can be described as above medium height. Moreover, there would naturally have been more mention of height by Lactantius and Panegyrists if it had been very extraordinary. In respect of Countenance he was undoubtedly handsome. The “majestic beauty of his face” mentioned by Theophanes (p. 29; cf. V. C. 1. 19; 3. 10) is confirmed by suggestions in the Panegyrists (e.g. Eumen. c. 17; Naz. c. 24), and all general testimony, and not belied by the coins. His Complexion was ruddy; “reddish” in the expression of Cedrenus (p. 272), “fiery” in that of Malalas (13.1). His Hair, rather thin and straight, scanty Beard, and “slightly hooked” Nose are shown also by the coins, where the nose varies from a pronounced Roman or ungraceful eagle’s beak to a very proportionate, slightly aquiline member. His Eyes were lion-like (Cedren.), piercingly bright (Paneg. 313, c. 19; also Eumen.). His Expression was bright and joyous (Cedren.), characterized by “noble gravity mingled with hilarity” (Naz. Paneg. c. 24), by “serenity” and “cheerfulness” (cf. Euseb. V. C. 3. 11). In brief, he seems to have been a type of the sanguine temperament.

Added to his beauty of face was an unquestioned beauty of form. His distinguished comeliness of Figure (Lact. c. 18) is a favorite theme with his enthusiastic friend Eusebius, who says, “No one was comparable with him for grace and beauty of person” (cf. Eumen. c. 17; V. C. 1. 19; 3. 10), and that his figure was “manly and vigorous” (1. 20). The broad Shoulders and thick Neck prepare one for the testimony to his great bodily Strength. The feats of personal valor in combat with the Sarmatian champions and the wild beasts (cf. above), his personal energy in battle (e.g. before Verona; cf. above), much special testimony (e.g. Eumen. Paneg. c. 4) and all the general testimony, show that the superlative language of Eusebius is well grounded, and interpreted with conservative imagination is to be taken as fact. According to him, “he so far surpassed his compeers in personal strength as to be a terror to them” (V. C. 1. 19), and in respect of Vigor of body was such that at the Council of Nicæa his very bearing showed that he surpassed all present in “invincible strength and vigor”; while at the age of sixty or upwards, “he still possessed a sound and vigorous body, free from all blemish and of more than youthful vivacity; a noble mien and strength equal to any exertion, so that he was able to join in martial exercises, to ride, endure the fatigues of travel, engage in battle,” &c. (Vict. 4. 53). In Bearing he was “manly” (V. C. 1. 20), self-possessed, calm (V. C. 3. 11), dignified (“noble gravity,” Naz. c. 24; of. Eumen. &c.), with “majestic dignity of mien” (V. C. 3. 10) and serenity (V. C. 3. 10). In Manners he was “suave” (ἐπιεικής) (V. C. 3. 10) and “affable to all” (V. C. 3. 13). This singular affability was such, according to Lactantius (c. 18), as to endear him greatly to his soldiers. Over against this, however, must be set the statement of Victor, Epit. that he was “a scoffer [irrisor] rather than suave [blandus]” (Vict. Epit. 51). But this seems founded on a false exegesis (cf. above) and withal there is no absolute contradiction. Moreover, all his intercourse with bishops, deputies, soldiers, citizens, barbarians, seems to have generally made a favorable impression, and such success without affability of manner would have been marvelous. In Dress his taste, late in life at least, became somewhat gorgeous. If he were reigning to-day, the comic papers would undoubtedly represent him, like some other good and great men, with exaggerated red neckties and figured waistcoats. He “always wore a diadem,” according to Victor, Epit. (p. 51), and according to many (Malal. 13. 7–8; Cedren.; Pseudo-Leo, &c.) “none of the emperors before him” wore the diadem at all. Eusebius’ description of his appearance at the Council of Nicæa would do credit to a Washington reporter on wedding-toilets; he was “clothed in raiment which glittered, as it were, with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones” (V. C. 3. 10).

Footnotes

421:3040

Cf. Vict. Epit. p. 51, where “bull-necked” is rendered as equal to “scoffer,” “such according to physiognomical writers being the character of stout men,” Liddell and Scott, Lex. p. 1569. But the very proverb on which Victor bases this interpretation would seem to make it refer to energy and obstinate force of character, which is altogether better fitting the word and the physiognomical characteristic.

§4. Mental Characteristics.

According to his biographer-friend, Constantine was even more conspicuous for the excellence of his psychical qualities than his physical (V. C. 1. 19). Among these qualities are natural intelligence (V. C. 1. 19), sound judgment (V. C. 1. 19), well-disciplined power of thought (Theoph. p. 29), and peculiarly, as might be expected from his eye and general energy, penetration (Theoph. p. 29). In respect of Education, it is said on the one hand that he “reaped the advantages of a liberal education” (V. C. 1. 19), and particularly that he was thoroughly trained in the art of reasoning (V. C.); but according to Anonymous Vales. (p. 471), and also Cedrenus (p. 473), his literary education was scanty. If there was early lack, he made up for it afterwards with characteristic energy, for he attained very considerable erudition (of a sort) for an emperor, as is shown in his Oration. According to Eutropius he was devoted to liberal studies. According to Lydus he was skilled both in the science of letters and the science of arms; for “if he had not excelled in both sciences, he would not have been made emperor of the Romans” (Lydus, de Magist. 3. 33),—a somewhat subjective ground. Such was his devotion to study that, according to Eusebius (V. C. 4. 29), “he sometimes passed sleepless nights in furnishing his mind with divine knowledge.” The measure of his thoroughness may be gathered from the fact that his knowledge of Greek even, does not seem to have been very extensive—“with which he was not altogether unacquainted” (V. C. 3. 13). His learning, as shown in his orations, is the learning of a man of affairs, and has many elements of crudity and consequent pretentiousness; but he is no worse than many authors—much better than most royal authors.

His learning had at least the excellent quality that it was radiated with reference to expression, as all sound learning must be. According to Eusebius, much of his time was spent in composing discourses, many of which he delivered in public (V. C. 4. 29), and he continued to the last to compose discourses and to deliver frequent orations in public.

The description by Eusebius of the character of his orations (V. C. 4. 24) seems to forbid any assumption of pure vanity as his motive. It is the most natural thing in the world that an emperor should make speeches, and that he should speak on scholastic or religious themes, and with the use of classical philosophy, mythology, and literature, should be no surprise in the days of President Harrison, Mr. Gladstone, and the Emperor William. There is no doubt he wrote and spoke vigorously and effectively to his soldiers, and on political and judicial matters (witness his laws), and his learned literary production is very fair amateur work, considering. In the Delivery of his speeches he seems to have had self-possession and modesty of manner, as e.g. at the Council of Nicæa, where “he looked serenely around on the assembly with a cheerful aspect, and having collected his thoughts in a calm and gentle tone…proceeded to speak” (V. C. 3. 11). His Literary style was somewhat inflated and verbose, but for this, compare Special Prolegomena. His Patronage of learning showed his interest in it. Following his father’s example and continuing his work, he encouraged the schools in Gaul (cf. above). Hosius and Eusebius were his friends and counselors. He made Lactantius tutor to Crispus (Hieron. Chron.). He had copies of the Scriptures made and distributed (V. C. 3. 1). In short, he especially “encouraged the study of letters” (Vict. Epit. 51) in every way.

§5. Moral Characteristics.

(a) In relations with events, things, or persons. First of all, Constantine excelled in Energy, that fundamental of all developed character. He was pre-eminent for masculine strength of character (Theoph. p. 29), a man of energy (vir ingens, Eutrop. 10. 1). This was manifested at every turn, in his successful military activity under Diocletian, in the decisive acts at the time of leaving him, in the prosecution of campaigns against Maximian, Maxentius, Licinius, in the wholesale way in which he pushed internal improvements, the building of Constantinople, the multiplication of Christian houses of worship, in his studies, in his law-making; in short, in everything he touched there was the same teeming, resistless energy of the man. His Determination was “bent on effecting whatever he had settled in his mind” (Eutrop. 10. 5). His Rapidity of action when he rejoined his father is described by Lactantius as incredible (Lact. c. 24). He showed the same alacrity in his quick return and surprise of Maximian, in his first entry into Italy, and in his campaign against Licinius. This energy and activity rose to positive Impetuosity, which led him at Verona, before Rome, and at Cibalis to plunge into the midst of battle, communicating his own resistless, indomitable, alert will to do, to his soldiers. Closely linked with these qualities was that personal Courage and Valor, inherited from his father (Paneg. 307, c. 3), mentioned by Eusebius (V. C. 1. 11), and explicitly or implicitly by almost every one. This most indubitable of all his qualities was witnessed to even by the scoffing Julian as “inexpressibly” great (Orat. p. 13), and mentioned even in the work whose chief aim seems, almost, to detract from Constantine (Cæs. p. 23). United with all these characteristics of greatness was a far-reaching Ambition. This on the one hand is represented to be an ambition for power and glory. He was “exceedingly ambitious of military glory” (Eutrop. 10. 7); “aspiring to the sovereignty of the whole world” (Eutrop. 10. 5). According to Zosimus, at the time of the appointment of Severus and Maximin, already having his mind set on attaining royalty he was roused to a greater desire by the honor conferred on Severus and Maximin, and this eager desire of power was already well known to many. On the other hand, this ambition is represented to be a burning zeal for righting wrongs; his wars against Maxentius and Licinius real crusades, and his actual objective in all things the reform to be effected. If the fruit proves the motive, this was so; for he consistently used or tried to use his power for what he thought public good. This he did in Gaul, after his victories, in his legislation, and in his internal improvements.

In view of all this powerfulness of personality, it may be said of all successes of this “man of power” (Eutrop. 10. 5) what Eutropius says of his success in war, that it was great, “but not more than proportioned to his exertions” (Eutrop.). With all this energy of personality, however, he was far from being headstrong. On the contrary, he showed marked Prudence, resembling his father in this also (Paneg. 307, c. 3). Sustaining so long the delicate position at the court of Diocletian, all his provision for guarding the frontiers, his long-suffering in waiting to be confirmed Cæsar, in waiting his opportunity to meet Maxentius, in waiting and getting everything in hand before meeting Licinius, his wise moderation in demand on the conquered, and the not pressing forward until he had everything well arranged, show this, and a high degree of Patience withal. This latter virtue was peculiarly characteristic whether exercised in respect of things or plans or people, and his great patience in listening to complaints (Naz. c. 24) is only a part of the whole. As he was patient, so he was distinguished for Perseverance, and “firm and unshaken” (Theoph. p. 29) Steadfastness. So great energy united with these other qualities barely needs testimony to suggest great Faithfulness to his tasks in hand, as in that “strict attention to his military duties” which Lactantius says (c. 18) characterized him as a young man. In brief, his whole personality was a marked example of that balance of power and the measuring of remote ends which is included under the word Self-control, in the use of the philosophy of which he, as well as his father, was a disciple. In this exercise of his great energy towards himself he was recognized to be remarkable. This self-control was manifested especially in his unusual Chastity. As a young man he was marked by correct moral habits (probis moribus, Lact. c. 18). The specific testimony of Eusebius to this (V. C.) would have comparatively little weight on a point like this, and the same might be said, in a measure, of the testimony of the Panegyrists (Naz. c. 24; 307, c. 4; 313, c. 4), who mention this virtue. But panegyrical art would forbid the laudation of what was conspicuously lacking; rather it would not be mentioned, and the general testimony goes to show at least a contemporary reputation for extraordinary continence, considering his time and environment. His relationship with Minervina hardly touches this reputation, whether she was wife or only legitimate concubine. The accusations and innuendoes of Julian, Cæsars, have, in any fairly critical estimate, hardly more than the weight of some malignant gossip whose backbiting is from his own heart. “Honi soit qui mat y pense.” Like Licinius, he seems to have been unable to understand that purity of heart which permitted the free companionship of women in social or religious life. Julian’s general charge of luxuriousness and sensuousness (p. 43, 306, 25, 38, 42, &c.) must be regarded largely in the same light; for this delight in soft garments, precious gems, games, and festivities was, if we can judge aright, in no sense “enervating pleasure and voluptuous indulgence”: for he was indefatigable in studies and works of all sorts, although it is perhaps to be referred to the vanity and love of display of which he is accused, and of which more later.

(b) In relations with people. In general he was Amiable,—popular with the soldiers, popular even with his subdued enemies (Eutrop. 10. 7). Diocletian reminded Galerius (Lact. c. 18) that he was “amiable,” and he must have been so; for he was “loved by soldiers” (Eumen. c. 16), and so “endeared to the troops” that in the appointment of Cæsar he was “the choice of every individual” (Lact. c. 18). This popularity he indeed “sought by every kind of liberality and obligingness” (Eutr. 10. 7.), but what he sought he found.

A very large element in this popularity was the universal Mildness, Mercifulness, and Forbearance which he showed. In these is found a class of characteristics which stand alongside his energy of character as peculiarly characteristic and great. “He whose familiar habit it was to save men’s lives” (V. C. 4. 6), as a young man promised, in the opinion of Diocletian (Lact. c. 18), to be “milder and more merciful than his father.” Even in the opinion of Julian he was “far more humane (πραότερον), and in very many other respects superior to others, as I would demonstrate if there were opportunity” (Julian, Orat. p. 15); and he again (p. 96) speaks of him in laudatory terms as contrasted with the other emperors. Eusebius, as might be expected, is still stronger in expression, and sets Constantine “in contrast with tyrants who were stained with blood of countless numbers,” saying that in Constantine’s reign “the sword of justice lay idle,” and men were “rather constrained by a paternal authority than governed by the stringent power of the laws” (V. C. 3. 1). This mercifulness he manifested on every occasion. “When Sigusium was on fire,” he directed greater effort towards saving it than he had to capturing it (Naz. Paneg. c. 21). At the taking of Rome he punished a certain few only of those most intimate with Maxentius (Zos.), and even Zosimus notes the great joy and relief of people at the exchange of Constantine for Maxentius. It is noticeable that in the inscriptions the epithet “clementissimus,” most rare of other emperors, is found a considerable number of times of him. So great was this mildness of conduct that he was “generally blamed for his clemency” (V. C. 4. 31), on the ground that crimes were not visited with their proper penalties. The testimony to this humaneness of character is almost unlimited and conclusive, but there is more or less evidence which is urged in qualification or contradiction. It is rather a common thing to say that he was at first mild, but later pride of prosperity caused him greatly to depart from this former agreeable mildness of temper (Eutrop.). Then the execution of the various members of his own family (cf. discussion below), the exposure of prisoners to the wild beasts (Eumen. Paneg. c. 12), his severe decree against those who should conceal copies of the works of Arius (Socr. 1. 9), his treatment of the Jews (Greg. Niceph., or at least his laws), and the severe penalties of some of his laws are among the points brought against him. But the remark of Eutropius is to be interpreted by the “former agreeable mildness of temper,” to which he himself witnesses, and the fact that this latter period was that where the points of view of the two men had widely diverged. The exposure of prisoners to wild beasts was no evidence of cruelty in itself; for under the customs then prevailing it might have been cruelty to his subjects not to have done this, and his treatment of the barbarian enemies is rather to be interpreted in the light of the testimony of Eutropius that he “left on the minds of the barbarians [Goths] a strong remembrance of his kindness” (10. 7). His treatment of his family is discussed elsewhere, but whatever its bearings may be, there is no just historico-psychological ground whatever for the use of the word which is so freely bandied,—cruelty. Cruel he was not in any sense. Even the extreme of the Panegyrist who says to him, “you are such by inheritance and destiny that you cannot be cruel” (Eumen. Paneg. c. 14), is nearer the truth. The penalties of his laws lay him open in a degree to a charge of growing severity; but it was great, if sometimes mistaken and overzealous, regard for what he deemed the public welfare, and on quite a different plane from anything which we express as cruelty. Though with the growing conservatism of a man who finds his purposes of mercy continually perverted and his indulgences abused, he yet remained to the end of his life most merciful and mild compared with those who went before and who followed.

This fact becomes more clear in seeing how he excelled in kindred virtues. The Patience already mentioned, distinguished forbearance, and undoubted benevolence, or at least generosity, are traits which group with mercy and have no fellowship with cruelty. And these he had. He showed distinguished Forbearance, and that oftentimes, as in a disturbance at Antioch, where he “applied with much forbearance the remedy of persuasion” (V. C. 3. 59). The outrageous conduct of those who, in the Arian disturbances, dared “even to insult the statues of the emperor…had little power to excite his anger, but rather caused in him sorrow of spirit” (V. C. 3. 4), “and he endured with patience men who were exasperated against himself.” These words are by Eusebius, to be sure; but his conduct with Donatists, Arians, Maximinianus, and Licinius, in individual and on the whole, show that in fact he did habitually exercise great forbearance. To this was added much activity of positive Kindness. On first accession he “visited with much considerate kindness all those provinces” (V. C. p. 23). This kindness was shown throughout his reign, and brightly illustrated in his treatment of the persecuted Christians from the beginning,—in his acts in Gaul, in his famous toleration edict, in his letter to Maximin, and in his acts throughout. After his victory over Maxentius came the edict that those wrongfully deprived of their estates should be permitted to enjoy them again,…unjustly exiled were recalled and freed from imprisonment (Euseb. V. C. 1. 41). After the victory over Licinius he recalled Christian exiles, ordered restitution of property, released from labor in mines, from the solitude of islands, from toil in public works, &c., those who had been oppressed in these ways (V. C. p. 70–71). There is strong concensus of testimony to a very lovable habitual exercise of this trait in his “readiness to grant hearing,” “patience in listening,” and “kindness of response” to those whose complaints he had patiently listened to (Naz. 24). He was most excellent (commodissimus) to hear embassies and complaints of provinces (Vict. Epit. p. 51),—a testimony which is borne out by the facts. His Generosity is equally undoubted. His magnificent gifts and largesses to the army were still remembered in the time of Julian (Orat. p. 13). His constant and lavish giving to the Christians is Eusebius’ unending theme: but it was not to the churches alone; for we read of his munificence to heathen tribes (V. C. 2. 22), his liberality to the poor (V. C. 1. 43) in giving money for clothing, provision for orphans and widows, marriage portions for virgins, compensation to losers in law suits (V. C. 4. 4). It was “scarcely possible to be near him without benefit” (V. C. 1. 43; cf. V. C. 3. 16; 3. 22; 4. 44).

Though slow to serve some friends through suspicion (i.e. dubius thus explained), he was “exceedingly generous towards others, neglecting no opportunity to add to their riches and honors” (Eutrop. 10. 7). “With royal magnificence he unlocked all his treasures and distributed his gifts with rich and high-souled liberality” (V. C. 3. 1). He seems to have carried it rather to excess, even on the showing of Eusebius. “No one could request a favor of the emperor, and fail of obtaining what he sought.…He devised new dignities, that he might invest a larger number with the tokens of his favor” (V. C. 4. 2). It is worth giving the account by Eusebius of this conduct in full here. He says (V. C. 4. 54) that this “was a virtue, however, which subjected him to censure from many, in consequence of the baseness of wicked men, who ascribed their own crimes to the emperor’s forbearance. In truth, I can myself bear testimony to the grievous evils which prevailed during those times: I mean the violence of rapacious and unprincipled men, who preyed on all classes of society alike, and the scandalous hypocrisy of those who crept into the church.…His own benevolence and goodness of heart, the genuineness of his own faith, and his truthfulness of character induced the emperor to credit the professions of those reputed Christians who craftily preserved the semblance of sincere affection for his person. The confidence he reposed in such men sometimes forced him into conduct unworthy of himself, of which envy took advantage to cloud in this respect the luster of his character.” There seems, therefore, some ground for the charge of Prodigality, that he “wasted public money in many useless buildings, some of which he shortly after destroyed because they were not built to stand” (Zos.), and (Zos. p. 104) “gave great largesses to ill-deserving persons, mistaking profusion for munificence” (τὴν γὰρ ἀσωτίαν ἡγεῖτο φιλοτιμίαν). Zosimus adds that to do this, he “imposed severe taxes on all, so severe that fathers were obliged to prostitute their daughters to raise the money, that tortures were employed, and in consequence whole villages depopulated.” This testimony is, however, by one bitterly prejudiced, who regarded money spent on Christian houses of worship as worse than wasted, and indicates only what appears from Eusebius as well, that expenditures for cities, schools, and churches built, and for other matters, must have been enormous. But so, too, they were enormous under other emperors, and Constantine, at least, instead of spending on debauchery, seems to have had something to show for it. As to taxes, Zosimus would undoubtedly sympathize with the Kentucky moonshiners in their “oppression” by revenue officers, if he were here now and Constantine were President, and would fulminate in the daily papers against the wicked party which by its wicked tariff compels men to marry their daughters to rich husbands in order to get their taxes paid,—and incidental luxuries supplied. But that does not say that an exorbitant tariff, to supply “jobs” which shall furnish rich “spoils” for those who have “pulls” out of the pockets of the many, is good; yet this, in modern phrase, is about what Constantine did. Constantine’s trust in his friends and generosity to the unworthy, with its consequences on the tax-payers, reminds strikingly of some of our own soldier-presidents, whom we love and admire without approving all their acts. And yet, on the other hand, much of the expenditure was for solid improvement, and could only be criticised by those who now oppose expenditures for navy, for improved postal service, public buildings, subsidies, &c.; though yet, again, his wholesale way of doing things also reminds one of the large generosity of some modern politicians in their race for popularity, with their Pension, Education, River and Harbor, and what not liberalities out of the pockets of the people. But whatever unwisdom may have been mingled, all this profusion shows in him a generosity of character which was at least amiable, and in the main genuine. His generosity took also the form of Hospitality, as shown by his entertainings at the Council of Nicæa (V. C. 4. 49). With all these qualities of amiable popularity there seems to have been joined a yet more fundamental element, of permanent influence among men, in a spirit of Justice so marked that the claim of the Panegyrist is hardly too sweeping when he says that “all who took refuge with him for whatever cause he treated justly and liberally” (Paneg. 307. 5)—if there is added “up to his light and ability.” Closely linked with this again is that “Unbending righteousness” of which Theophanes (p. 29) speaks. And to all these qualities was added that synthesis of qualities,—a remarkable Tact in his intercourse with men, a trait typically exemplified in his conduct at the Council of Nicæa, where “the emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and reviewed every proposition with steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the arguments of each party in turn, he gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconciliation,…persuading some, convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed question” (V. C. 3. 13).

But success with men and popularity seem to have opened that pitfall of success,—Vanity,—and it is charged that he fell thereinto, although there is testimony to the exact contrary. According to Victor (Epit. p. 51) he was “immeasurably greedy of praise.” This agrees with, and is at the same time modified by Eutropius’ testimony to his ambition for glory and for honorable popularity (10. 7), and his apparently complacent reception of the outrageous flattery of Optatian (cf. his letter), seems at least to show some weakness in this direction. So again his tendency toward Magnificence, as shown in his assuming the diadem and his dress in general (cf. above), in the splendor of banquets as witnessed by his approving friend (V. C. 3. 15), his desire to do on a large scale whatever he did, whether in the building of cities or splendid houses of worship, or in book-binding ornamentations of pearls and gems. And yet again it is shown in what seems at this distance his Conceit, sublime in its unconsciousness in reckoning himself a sort of thirteenth, but, it would seem, a facile princeps apostle, in the disposition for his burial, “anticipating with extraordinary fervor of faith that his body would share their title with the apostles themselves.…He accordingly caused twelve coffins to be set up in this church, like sacred pillars, in honor and memory of the apostolic number, in the centre of which his own was placed, having six of theirs on either side of it” (V. C. 4. 60). One can seem to read in this a whole history of unblushing flattery, and it reminds that Eunapius (Vic. ædes. p. 41) has spoken of his pleasure in the stimulant of “intoxicating flattery.” Still it is not to be supposed that this was a peculiarly weak vanity or an absorbing one. The testimony to his Modesty (V. C. 3. 10), though by Eusebius, is too circumstantial to be wholly unreal, and the testimony to his Humility in his “indignation at excessive praise” (V. C. 4. 48), and the records of Eusebius that he “was not rendered arrogant by these plaudits nor uplifted by the praises” (Euseb. V. C. 1. 39), and of the Chronicon Paschale (p. 521) that “he was not at all puffed up by the acclamations,” evidently represent a genuine thing. This mixed character is too frequently met with to be incomprehensible. Real power, recognizing its own success, glad of the recognition of others, not at bottom because of cold vanity, but from warm appreciation of human friendliness, became through success in carrying out what seemed to him, and were, divine plans, fired with the thought that he was the especial and necessary minister of God, that his thoughts and will were directly touched by the Divine Will and thus that whatever he thought or willed was infallible. He is not unlike some modern rulers. The spirit, though one of real vanity, or egotism at least, has an element of nobleness in it, and in most of its manifestations commands respect along with the smile. The accusation of Zosimus of Arrogance “when he had attained to the sole authority,” and that he “gave himself up to the unrestrained exercise of his power,” must be interpreted like those of other un-Christian witnesses, in the light of the fact that his actions worked relative hardships to the non-Christians, and that very justice to the Christians would seem injustice to them, and if Constantine was more than just, his generosity was at some one’s expense. His energy of execution and constant success, with his dominating idea of a Divine mission, would naturally engender this faith in his own infallibility; for what is arrogance but this vanity joined with power? His action toward schismatics—Donatists, Arians, or orthodox troublers of his peace—was such as to suggest some degree of this vice. Yet his success in keeping the followers of the old religion fairly mollified, and his generally successful tact, showed that this was in no sense a dominating and unrelieved characteristic. Two other weaknesses closely allied with these are also imputed to Constantine: Jealousy, as illustrated by the statement that “wishing to minimize the deeds of his predecessors, he took pains to tarnish their virtues by giving them jocose epithets” (Dion. Cont. 2 [Müller, p. 199]; cf. Vict. Epit. p. 51), and Suspiciousness (Eutrop. 10. 7); for which latter, a man who had survived as many plots as he had, might well be excused. Again and again and again he trusted men, and they deceived him. His conduct with Maximian shows that at least in the beginning, before he had had so much experience of untrustworthiness, he was remarkably free from this. A much more serious charge is that of Faithlessness preferred by Zosimus, who says (2. 28), “in violation of his oaths (for this was customary with him)” and twice repeats the charge. Eusebius, on the other hand, tells what great pains Constantine took not to be the one to break peace with Licinius (V. C.). One is worth as little as the other. The charge seems to rest mainly or wholly on his conduct towards Licinius, in beginning war and in putting him to death. A small boy once held a smaller boy in a firm grip, but agreed to spare him the cuffing he deserved because he was smaller. The smaller small boy promptly set his teeth in the leg of the larger small boy, and was properly cuffed for it. Thereupon the smaller small boy’s big brother was filled with indignation, which he manifested by seeking and finding the same fate. The indignation in behalf of Licinius seems to be in large measure big brother indignation—indignation with the wrong party. He appears to have been one of those who held a compact to be binding on the other party only. It wasn’t in the bargain that he should persecute the Christians, or in the other bargain that he should plot his benefactor’s overthrow. That king in Scripture who took back his promise to forgive a debt of ten thousand talents was not faithless.

(c) In relations with his family. He was a filial Son, having the confidence of his father, as shown in his wish of succession, and showing his mother all honors when he came to power (cf. coins showing her position as empress, and V.C.). “And well may his character be styled blessed for his filial piety as well as on other grounds” (V. C. 3. 47).

It is in this relation to his family, however, that the most serious attacks on the character of Constantine have been made. Eutropius says: “But the pride of prosperity caused Constantine greatly to depart from his former agreeable mildness of temper. Falling first upon his own relatives, he put to death his son, an excellent man; his sister’s son, a youth of amiable disposition; soon afterwards his wife; and subsequently many of his friends.” This has been a battle-ground of accusation or excusation in all the centuries. The testimony is very meagre and uncertain, but this much may be said: 1. That any jury would regard the fact of deaths as evidenced. It is witnessed by Eutrop. (10. 6), Zos., Vict., Hieron., &c. 2. That he was unjustifiable is not proven. In respect to the death of Fausta, at least, there was probably just cause; whether love intrigue or other intrigue, there seems to have been some real occasion. The death of Crispus, too, was from no mere suspicions, but on apparently definite grounds of distrust. It is historical assumption to say that he had no good grounds, whatever these may have been—illicit relationship with Fausta or more probably political intrigue. At the worst, he was put to death on false but, at the time, apparently true accusation: what has been done by judges and juries of the best intention. 3041 Of Licinius, his sister’s son, it can hardly be said that he had the same reason, as he was still a boy. But remembering the inherited character of Licinius, and noticing the curious fact that the cordiality between Constantia and Constantine was peculiarly great to the end, it seems as if there must have been some mitigating circumstance. 3042 In all historical candor it looks as if there had been some general intrigue against Constantine which had been met in this way; but the fairest verdict to enter is “causes unknown.”

In estimating the characteristic value of the acts it must be noted, 1. That it has in no sense the character of private execution. The emperor was judge. Even if he mistook evidence and put to death an innocent man, it was as when a judge does the same. 2. That the relative moral character of punishments inflicted is conditioned by the custom of punishment. An English judge of the past was not as cruel in hanging a man for theft, as a modern one in applying the extreme penalty of the law to an offense with mitigating circumstances, would be. 3. That all law of evidence, all rhyme and reason, says that any man’s any act is to be interpreted in the light of his general character. Where evidence is lacking or doubtful, such evidence of general character has actual weight, and may be conclusive. In application to these acts note (a) The peculiar forbearance which Constantine exercised toward Maximian. (b) The conclusive universal testimony to the general mildness of his character and his habitual mercifulness. In view of this, it is to be judged that there was some real, or appearing, great ground of judicial wrath. 4. That Constantine had suffered from plots on the part of his own relatives over and over again, and spared, and been plotted against again, as in the cases of Maximian, Bassianus, and Licinius. 5. That they were not put to death “in a gust of passion” at once, but in successive acts. In view of these things it is fair and just to say that they were put to death on grounds which seemed just and for the welfare of society, and their deaths in no sense indicate cruelty or unnaturalness on the part of Constantine. Even the death of Licinius must be interpreted by the political ethics of the times and its circumstances. So long as sentimentalists continue to send bouquets to murderers and erect monuments to anarchists, they will regard execution, even legal execution, as prima facie evidence of cruelty, and the killing of a murderer in self-defense, or the hanging of a traitor, as crime. Constantine’s whole character ensures that if he thought he could have spared them, or any one, with safety, he would have done so. 3043

In general he was a faithful husband as respects marital virtue, and a good father. He took care that his children should be well educated. Crispus was under Lactantius (Hieron.), and the others perhaps under Arborius (“Auson. de Prof. Burdig. 16”); at all events, he had the most accomplished teachers of secular learning to instruct in the art of war, and in political and legal science (V. C. 4. 51), and both by his own instruction and that of men of approved piety, took special pains with their religious training. He early appointed them to offices of authority, and distributed the empire among them.

(d) In relations with friends. His general conduct toward his friends was marked by very great liberality (cf. above). Eutropius speaks emphatically of this even while he uses the expression which has been such a puzzle to all, that “toward some of his friends he was double” (or dangerous), a phrase which is interpreted by Johannes Ant. as meaning “to some of friends false (unsound, ὑπούλως) and unsafe (unwholesome, οὐχ ὑγιῶς)” (ed. Müller 4. p. 602–3). His uniform effort to please his friends has been discussed above.

(e) In relations with society. 1. As General he seems to have been popular with his own soldiers (cf. above), inspiring them with enthusiasm and energy. Toward hostile soldiers he was merciful (cf. above), not following up an advantage further than was necessary, and toward conquered enemies unusually forbearing; e.g. at Sigusium, at Rome, with Maximian, with Licinius, and with the Goths (cf. above). His generalship is characterized by careful provision for the guarding of his rear, and by rapidity of movement and dash in actual conflict. 2. As Legislator he “enacted many laws, some good, but most of them superfluous, and some severe” (Eutrop. 10. 8). He seems to have had a weakness for law-making which, at all events, shows a characteristic respect for law little shared by his early contemporaries. Of course Eutropius would consider all laws in favor of Christians superfluous. Laws for the abolition of idolatrous practices, for the erection of Christian houses of worship, observance of the Lord’s Day (V. C. 4. 23), permitting cases to be tried before bishops (Soz. 1. 9; Euseb. H. E. 10. 7; Cod. Theod. Tit. de episc. 2) &c., would surely seem so. But even in other laws Constantine seems to have had at times an abnormal zeal for law-making, when his energies were not occupied in war or church-building. The laws were generally wise and, at the least, benevolently or righteously meant. Such were the abolition of crucifixion (Vict. Cæs.) and of gladiatorial shows (V. C. 4. 25; Socr. 1. 8; C. Theod. 15. 12. 1), the law that the families of slaves were not to be separated (C. Theod. 2.25), that forbidding the scourging of debtors (C. Theod. 7. 3), and that repressing calumny (Vict. Epit. 51). Among the “severe” laws were such as punished certain forms of illicit intercourse with death. 3. As Statesman his policy was broad and far-reaching. He fully organized and carefully established one section of his territory before he enlarged. He changed the whole constitution of the empire, both civil and military (cf. Wordsworth, in Smith & W.). He inaugurated reforms in finance, and especially was most assiduous in the matter of internal improvements, restoring and building from one end of the empire to the other. The great characteristic consummation of his reign was the union of Church and State, over which men are still divided as to whether it was a tremendous blessing or a tremendous curse. Tremendous it surely was in its shaping power on world history. (Compare numerous titles under Literature.) The general statement of Eutropius that “in the beginning of his reign he might have been compared to the best princes, in the latter part only to those of a middling character,” must be interpreted by the fact that during the latter part of his reign he was so associated with Christianity, in itself a falling away in the eyes of the old religionists. His reign was one of order and justice such as few were, and an order out of chaos, a reign in which it could be peculiarly said that “chastity was safe and marriage protected” (Naz. c. 38), where a man’s life and property were secure as under few of the Roman emperors. It is idle to refuse the title of Great to a man who, from the beginning, followed a consistent, though developing policy, organized the interior, and securely guarded the frontier of his empire at each enlargement, and finally unified the whole on such a basis as to secure large internal prosperity and development.

Footnotes

429:3041

It is hardly necessary to say that the various tales of the remorse of Constantine for the death of Crispus are mythical. The tale of Sopater has been mentioned. That of Codinus (De signo Cp. p. 62–63), also that, “in regret for death of Crispus, he erected a statue of pure silver with the inscription, ‘My unjustly treated son,’ and did penance besides,” falls into the same category.

429:3042

Seeck (Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1890, p. 73) maintains that it is established (“urkundlich fest”) that Licinius was still living in 336, in which case he would have been more than twenty years old. He maintains also that he was not the son of Constantine, but the illegitimate son of Licinius by a slave woman.

429:3043

On this question compare especially monographs of Görres and Seeck. See under Literature, where other titles, e.g. Hug and Wegnerus, will also be found. In general, the remark of Ludermann (Lipsius, Theol. Jahrb. 1886, p. 108) is valid, “The arguments against Constantine’s Christianity, which are drawn from his moral character, have ever been the weakest.”

§6. Religious Characteristics.

Was Constantine a Christian? This vain question has to be considered, hardly discussed. The interminable opinions, one way or the other, are for the most part wise-seeming, meaningless generalizations. Like any generalized statement, it is conditioned by the point of view of the author. When ten men answered the question “What is a Christian?” in ten different ways, who shall say what any one is? This has been the difficulty. One does not conceive of Christianity apart from baptismal regeneration. The question has then narrowed to one of baptism. Constantine was not a Christian until just before his death. Another has some other test. Another is not a Christian himself, and so on. A good Biblical, Protestant starting-point is to say he was a Christian as soon as he believed in Christ, and that the evidence of faith is in confession and action. Already, before his campaign into Italy, he seems to have been in intimate contact with the Christians. Hosius was probably already one of his advisers. The young emperor had inherited his father’s piety (Paneg. 307, c. 5), and was inclined to monotheism. The words of advisers must have made him think at least, and he seems to have made a sort of test of believing at the time of the famous “vision of the cross,” whatever that may have been. Judging from the way men think and feel their way to faith, it seems psychologically probable that, feeling his way along to that point, he tried faith and, having success, he substantially believed from that time on. Certainly from a very early period after this, the evidences begin to be clear and increasingly so as presumably his faith itself became more clear and fixed. The account in Eusebius of the process of thought by which he inclined toward Christianity has the greatest plausibility. He says that “considering the matter of Divine assistance, it occurred to him that those who had relied on idols had been deceived and destroyed, while his father…had honored the one Supreme God, had found him Saviour, &c.…he judged it folly to join in the idle worship of those who were no gods…and felt it incumbent on him to honor no other than the God of his father.” The nature of the vision of the cross, whether a miracle, a natural phenomenon, or only a dream, does not affect the probability of the account by Eusebius of what followed it (V. C. 1. 32). “At the time above specified, being struck with amazement at the extraordinary vision, and resolving to worship no other God save him who had appeared to him, he sent for those who were acquainted with the mysteries of his doctrines, and inquired also what God was.…They affirmed that he was God, the only begotten Son of the one and only God,” and he thereupon “made the priests of God his counsellors and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him, with all devotion.” According to Sozomen, “it is universally admitted Constantine embraced the religion of the Christians previous to his war with Maxentius and prior to his return to Rome and Italy; and this is evidenced by the dates of the laws which he enacted in favor of religion” (Soz. 1. 5; cf. 1. 3). Philostorgius (1. 6), “in conformity with all other writers,” ascribes to the victory over Maxentius (Photius. Epit.). This is confirmed, too, by the remark of the Panegyrist (313, c. 4; cf. c. 2 and c. 11), that he conducted the war by Divine instruction, and the famous inscription on the triumphal arch, “instinctu Divinitatis.” According to Augustine he was at the time of the petition of the Donatists, “mindful of the hope which he maintained in Christ” (August. contra litt. Petil. Bk. II. c. 92, p. 205).

The tales of his baptism at this time, or by Sylvester at all, are pure fables (cf. under The Mythical Constantine), but it appears from antecedent probability, from testimony, and from his early subsequent identification with the Christians that he became fairly convinced at this time. His letters concerning the council at Arles, to be sure, have little direct evidence, but enough to show that he regarded the Christian religion as the worship of that one supreme God, and in them Hosius was already his trusted adviser. But in his letters to Chrestus (314) he speaks of those who are “forgetful of their own salvation and the reverence due to the most holy faith,” and if his letter to the bishops after the council at Arles—a letter full of expressions like “Christ the Saviour,” “brethren beloved,” “I who myself await the judgment of Christ,” “our Saviour” 3044 —be genuine, Constantine was well advanced in his commitment in 314; but whether it is or not, the fact of his Christian advisers, of his laws in behalf of Christians, and various substantial favors to them, his recognition of their God as his one God, makes it almost idle to discuss the question. Was Constantine a Christian in 314? What is a Christian? He seems to have been. The type was that of many a business-man church-member of to-day—Christians, but neither over-well-instructed, nor dangerously zealous in the exercise of his faith. It must be remembered that during these earlier years his confession of his faith and identification of himself with the Christians was conditioned by his relation to the old religion. Such a change was a radical novelty. His position was not yet secure. He had to use his utmost tact to keep all elements in hand. He was conditioned just as a modern Christian emperor or president, a majority of whose political advisers and subjects or electors are non-religious. He had great problems of political organization to effect, and was immersed in these. The only matter of surprise is that he grew so rapidly. There is no ground whatever for supposing that he dissembled to the end, or even at all. To say that his retaining the title of pontifex maximus, or making concessions respecting the old worship, or allowing soothsayers to be consulted, or even the postponement of his baptism, indicate this, is critical absurdity in the face of evidence. 3045 Testimony, both heathen and Christian, to the openness of his action is complete, and the testimony of his acts—such, e.g., as the law for the observance of Sunday—conclusive. Later, at least, he “most openly destroyed temple worship and built Christian houses of worship” (Eunap. Vita Ædes. 37, ed. Boiss. p. 20). From the defeat of Licinius on, edicts, letters, speeches, acts of all sorts, testify to a most unequivocal adoption of the Christian religion. Eusebius hardly overstates in saying that “he maintained a continual testimony to his Christianity, with all boldness and before all men, and so far was he from shrinking from an open profession of the Christian name, that he rather desired to make it manifest to all that he regarded this as his highest honor” (V. C. 3. 2). Really the question whether he considered himself, or was considered, a Christian at and after the time of the Council of Nicæa is too idle even to mention, if it had not been gravely discussed. In the opinion of the bishops there he was “most pious” and “dear to God” (Ep. synod. in Socr. 1. 9; Theodoret, 1. 8). On his part, letters are full of pious expression and usually begin or end or both with “beloved brethren.” To the council itself he describes himself as “fellow-servant” of “Him who is our common Lord and Saviour.” Another more considerable position is that all that indisputable external connection with Christianity was pure political expediency, that he was a shrewd politician who saw which way the wind was blowing, and had skill to take advantage of it. That Constantine was not a Christian in the strict sense even to the end of his life was the position of Keim. Burckhardt regards him as a pure politician, without a touch of Christian life. Brieger (1880) says we have not grounds to decide either way, whether he was “a godless egoistic fatalist or had a more or less warm religious or even Christian interest,” but that the fixed fact is, that it was not because of his inner belief in the Christian religion that he showed favor to the Christians. In a brief attempt to get some basis in the sources, the enthusiastic testimony of Eusebius and other writers, explicit as it is, may be quite disregarded, even the testimony to facts, such as his practice of giving thanks (V. C. 1. 39), of invoking Divine aid (Euseb. V. C. 2, 4, 6, 13; Soz. 2. 34), of his erecting a place of prayer in his palace (Soz. 1. 8), of his fasting (V. C. 2. 41), of his having a stated hour of prayer (V. C. 4. 22), although all these are interesting. The documents, however, unless by supremely uncritical rejection, can be regarded as fundamental sources. A brief analysis of these, even though imperfect, will furnish grounds on the basis of which those who apply various tests may apply them. Starting from his faith in Christ, surely the center of Christianity, he believed Christ to be Son of God, “God and the Son of God the author of every blessing” (S. C.), the revealer of the Father, who has “revealed a pure light in the person of Thy Son…and hast thus given testimony concerning Thyself” (S. C. 1), proceeding from the Father (S. C.), and incarnate, his incarnation having been predicted also by the prophets. He believed this Son of God to be his Saviour (Ad Tyr., Ad Ant., Ad Euseb., &c.) “our common Lord and Saviour” (Ad Euseb.), “our Saviour, our hope, and our life” (Ad eccl. Al.). He believed in his miraculous birth (S. C.) and in his death for our deliverance (Ad Nic.; cf. Ad Mac. &c.), “the path which leads to everlasting life” (S. C. 1), “a precious and toilsome” work (Ad Euseb.), and in his ascension into heaven (S. C. 1). He believed in “God the Father” (Ad Euseb. 2), “Almighty” (Ad Euseb.), Lord of all (Ad Euseb. 2), and the Holy Ghost (Ad eccl. Al.; cf. S. C.). He believed in “Divine Providence” (Ad Eccl. Al.; Ad Alex. et Ar.; Ad. Euseb. 1), God the preserver of all men (Ad Alex. et Ar.), who sees all things (Ad Syn. Nic.), who is near us and the observer of all our actions (S. C.), and “under the guidance of whose Almighty hand” he is (Ad Prov. Pal.), that all things are regulated by the determination of his will (Ad Euseb.). He believed in the existence of a personal devil (Ad Eccl. Al.). He believed in the future life (Ad Prov. Pal.), “the only true life” (S. C. 12), the “strife for immortality” (Ad Euseb.), to which those may aspire who know Him (S. C. 12). He believed in future rewards and punishments (Ad Prov. Pal.; S. C. 23). He believed in the inspiration of the Scriptures (Ad Eccl. Al.). He loved God (Ad Euseb. 2; V. C. 2. 55), and considered it his chief work in life to glorify Christ (S. C.). He loved his fellow-men, being disposed “to love you with an enduring affection” (Ad Ant.; V. C. 3. 60, &c.), and recognized it as virtue in others (8, c. 11). To him, God, in general, is the source of all blessings (Ad Prov. Pal.; S. C., &c.). “I am most certainly persuaded,” he says, “that I myself owe my life, my every breath, in short, my very inmost and secret thoughts to the favor of the Supreme God” (Ad Prov. Pal.). He recognizes contrition as a requisite for pardon (Ad. Prov. Pal), and that it is the power of God which removes guilt (Ad Euseb.). In the conduct of life. “Our Saviour’s words and precepts are a model, as it were, of what our life should be” (Ad. Ant.; V. C. 3. 60).

Expositions of his doctrinal and ethical positions might be multiplied almost without end from the many and fruitful sources, but a few specimens in his own expression will best show the spirit of his religious life. A most suggestive and beautiful sketch of Christ’s ministry on earth too long to quote here may be found in his Oration (ch. 15), but the following selections will give the idea:

A description of the inner Christian life. “For the only power in man which can be elevated to a comparison with that of God is sincere and guiltless service and devotion of heart to Himself, with the contemplation and study of whatever pleases Him, the raising our affections above the things of earth, and directing our thoughts, as far as we may, to high and heavenly objects” (S. C. 14).

A description of the outer Christian life. “Compare our religion with your own. Is there not with us genuine concord, and unwearied love of others? If we reprove a fault, is not our object to admonish, not to destroy; our correction for safety, not for cruelty? Do we not exercise not only sincere faith toward God, but fidelity in the relations of social life? Do we not pity the unfortunate? Is not ours a life of simplicity which disdains to cover evil beneath the mask of fraud and hypocrisy?” (S. C. 23).

A prayer. “Not without cause, O holy God, do I prefer this prayer to Thee, the Lord of all. Under Thy guidance have I devised and accomplished measures fraught with blessing: preceded by Thy sacred sign, I have led Thy armies to victory: and still on each occasion of public danger, I follow the same symbol of Thy perfections while advancing to meet the foe. Therefore have I dedicated to Thy service a soul duly attempered by love and fear. For Thy name I truly love, while I regard with reverence that power of which Thou hast given abundant proofs, to the confirmation and increase of my faith” (Ad prov. Or.).

A confession of faith in God and in Christ. “This God I confess that I hold in unceasing honor and remembrance; this God I delight to contemplate with pure and guileless thoughts in the height of his glory.” “His pleasure is in works of moderation and gentleness. He loves the meek and hates the turbulent spirit, delighting in faith. He chastises unbelief” (Ad Sap.). “He is the supreme judge of all things, the prince of immortality, the giver of everlasting life” (S. C. 36).

Was Constantine a Christian? Let each one apply his own test.

Footnotes

431:3044

It seems to have been frequently accepted as such—in the collections of councils, by the editor of Optatus, Ceillier, &c. It first appeared in the edition of Optatus, among the monuments relating to the Donatists gathered by him. These monuments are from one single though tolerably ancient ms. and no source for this is quoted, though the sources of others are given. In itself considered it is a surprise to find it at this stage of Constantine’s life. Still, it is not unlike his later productions, and it is not impossible to think of its having been written in the enthusiasm of a successfully ended enterprise. It would seem (unless there be some confirmatory study of the letter, not now at hand) that a cautious criticism would base nothing on this letter alone.

432:3045

His saying before baptism is discussed in the V. C. 4. 2, notes.

§7. General Characterization.

Before trying to gather into continuous statement the traits of character which have been examined, a few general characterizations must be mentioned at least. Beginning at the bottom, the unfriendly, or hostile, or at the least unsympathetic, heathen testimonies generalize him as at least relatively and on the whole both great and good. The general tendency of heathen testimony is to represent him as admirable in the early part of his reign, but execrable, or less admirable, in the latter part; that of Christian writers is to represent a growth of excellence, which raises him to saintship at the end. This is most natural. Favoring Christianity was itself a moral fall to a heathen, and bestowing money on Christians would be robbery. The turning of his character was with his changing face towards Christianity, and culminated in the overthrow of Licinius. Licinius fought really as the champion of heathenism. The adherents of a lost cause are characterizing their victor. It is like an ex-Confederate characterizing Lincoln or Grant. The point of view is different. Honest and true men in the South thought Lincoln a curse, and often in popular verdict his character was “black.” The popular proverb quoted by Victor (Epit. p. 51), “Bull-necked for ten years, for twelve a freebooter, and for ten a spendthrift (immature child),” has just the value of a Southern popular opinion of Lincoln, or a rural Northerner’s of “Jeff Davis.” Indeed, the first might summarize at times the Southern popular verdict of Grant; the second, a frequently expressed estimate of Lincoln’s conduct in the emancipation of slaves; and the third, their view of the enormous expenditure for pensions of Union soldiers, even as it was fifteen years ago. But even the rather severe Victor, who reports this proverb, finds Constantine “most excellent (commodissimus) in many respects,”—in respect of certain laws, in his patronage of the arts, especially that of letters, as scholar, as author, in the hearing of delegations and complaints (p. 51). Again, “Praxagoras, though a heathen, says that in all sorts of virtue and personal excellence and good fortune, Constantine outshone all the emperors who preceded him” (Photius, Cod. 62, ed. Müller, p. 1). And finally, the heathen Eutropius, who characterizes from his standpoint so admirably, 3046 though he naturally finds that “in the beginning of his reign he might have been compared to the best princes; in the latter part, only to those of middling character,” nevertheless records “that innumerable good qualities of mind and body were present in him,” and that he was “deservedly enrolled among the gods,”—using the meruit which he uses also of Aurelian, but not generally, and not even of Constantius. On purely heathen testimony, therefore, Constantine, taken by and large, was comparatively remarkable and admirable. A moderate Christian characterization is that of Theophanes (p. 29): “Pre-eminent for masculine strength of character, penetration of mind, well-disciplined power of thought; for unbending righteousness, ready benevolence, thorough majestic beauty of countenance, mighty and successful in war, great in wars with the barbarians, invincible in domestic wars, and so firm and unshaken in faith that through prayer he obtained the victory in all his battles.” Remembering, therefore, that in order to understand a character in past centuries one must project himself into his time; remembering again the circumstances of his time and its practice, we shall, without forgetting any of the acts on which he has been judged, find him on indisputable testimony superior to most of the other emperors in character, and as much above the circumstances of his times as would characterize a man of to-day as of peculiarly high moral character. In view of this, it is uncritical, and a violence to historical evidence, to approach one whom, at death, the heathen thought worthy to be enrolled among the gods, and the Christians canonized as saint (in the Greek calendar), as other than one who, taken all in all, was of unusual excellence of character. As in any synthesis, any organization, subordinate facts must be viewed in their relation to their center and whole, as by any law of criminal procedure acts must be judged in the light of general character, so any rational, legal, scientific, historical estimate of Constantine must be in view of this fact.

Footnotes

434:3046

Constantine, being a man of great energy, bent upon effecting whatever he had settled in his mind.…But the pride of prosperity caused Constantine greatly to depart from his former agreeable mildness of temper. Falling first upon his own relatives, he put to death his son, an excellent man; his sister’s son, a youth of amiable disposition; soon afterwards his wife; and subsequently many of his friends.”

“He was a man who, in the beginning of his reign, might have been compared to the best princes; in the latter part of it, only to those of middling character. Innumerable good qualities of mind and body were apparent in him; he was exceedingly ambitious of military glory, and had great success in his wars; a success, however, not more than proportioned to his exertions. After he had terminated the Civil War, he also overthrew the Goths on various occasions, granting them at last peace, and leaving on the minds of the barbarians a strong remembrance of his kindness. He was attached to the arts of peace and to liberal studies, and was ambitious of honorable popularity, which he, indeed, sought by every kind of liberality and obligingness. Though he was slow, from suspicion, to serve some of his friends, yet he was exceedingly generous towards others, neglecting no opportunity to add to their riches and honors. He enacted many laws, some good and equitable, but most of them superfluous, and some severe.”

§8. Summary.

With this as center of perspective, we have a picture of Constantine with lights and shadows, to be sure, but in the main true in its drawing and coloring. He was a man of rather more than medium height, strongly built, with broad shoulders, thick neck, and generally athletic and well-formed figure. His piercing eye, slightly aquiline nose, scanty reddish beard, and florid complexion, together with his bright expression, made a countenance striking and even handsome. Of great physical strength and vigor, he carried himself in a manly, self-possessed, dignified, and serene manner, uniting a dignity which might rise at times even to hauteur, or even incipient arrogance, with a general and customary affability. His dress, like his complexion, was somewhat florid. His mind was active, alert, intense without being somber, penetrating, sound, fairly cultivated, and well exercised in expression by pen or word. He was animated, habile, and attentive in conversation, self-possessed, steady, and calm in formal address. He was pre-eminently a man of energy, intense and resistless, with a determination to accomplish whatever he attempted, which rose under opposition to irresistible impetuosity, and wrought a courage which, in action, was absolutely fearless. His ambition was limitless, but not wholly or even mainly selfish.

With his energy and ambition were united the ballast of marked prudence, patience, perseverance, faithfulness to details, steadfastness, and supreme self-control. He was amiable and tactful, popular with his soldiers, and careful to please. Toward those who came into his power he showed habitual mildness and forbearance,—a mildness so great that he was generally blamed for it; and toward all he showed great kindness, justice, and a generosity which verged on the lavish. He was open to the charge of over-generosity, almost of prodigality, a good measure of real vanity, some over-insistence on his own will and thought as the final standard of right, and by no means free from mistakes or human weaknesses. He was a good son, husband, father, a remarkably successful general, a tolerable legislator, and a clear-sighted, firm-willed statesman. In his religious life he abounded in creed and confession—believing in the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and Eternal Life, in Repentance and Faith, in love to God, and love to man. He preached his faith on all occasions; he practiced thanksgiving and prayer abundantly. He regarded everything that he had or was as from God. The editor’s brief judgment is that Constantine, for his time, made an astonishingly temperate, wise, and, on the whole, benevolent use of absolute power, and in morality, kindly qualities, and, at last, in real Christian character, greatly surpassed most nineteenth century politicians—standing to modern statesmen as Athanasius to modern theologians.

Chapter III

Writings.

§1. Introduction

Quite a number of works by this emperor-author are extant. 3047 They may be grouped under, I. Oratorical writings; 2. Letters and decrees; 3. Laws; 4. Various.

Footnotes

436:3047

It is curious that there should be no critical edition of the collected works of so considerable a writer. A large portion of his works are, to be sure, included in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vol. 84, Paris, 1844; but this Opera Universa is neither wholly complete nor in any sense critical, and this seems to be the only attempt at a collection. The works enumerated here are mostly in the edition of Migne, but not all.

§2. Oratorical Writings.

According to Eusebius (V. C. 4. 29; cf. 4. 55) these were very numerous, and it may well be believed. He seems to have done much of everything he undertook at all—fighting, or learning, or building temples, or making laws, he was nothing if not incessant. He had a habit of inflicting his orations on his court, and undoubtedly had plenty of enthusiastic hearers, as any emperor would, and as Eusebius says he did. They seem to have been generally philosophical with as much religion as possible worked in (V. C. 4. 9). Not many are extant, but we have some account of the few following:

1. Oration to the saints (Oratio ad sanctum cœtum, S. C.). For this see the following translation and Special Prolegomena.

2. Address to the Council of Nicæa in praise of peace (Ad Syn. Nic.), in Euseb. V. C. 3. 12. Address of welcome. He rejoices in the assembly, and exhorts them to be united, that they may thereby please God and do a favor to their emperor.

3. Oration to the Council of Nicæa, in Gelasius, Hist. Coun. Nic. 1. 7. Begins with rhetorical comparison of the Church to a temple, and ends with injunctions to observe peace and to search the Scriptures as the authority in all points of doctrine. Appears dubiously authentic.

4. Address to the bishops on their departure from Nicæa. Abstract in Euseb. V. C. 32. 1. Exhorts them to keep peace, cautions against jealousy, &c.

5. Funeral oration. A description in Euseb. V. C. 4. 55. Dwells on the immortality of the soul, the blessings laid up for those who love God, and the ruin of the ungodly.

His method of composition is spoken of by Eusebius (V. C. 4. 29), and his manner of delivery may be gathered from Eusebius’ description of his speech at the opening of the Council of Nicæa (V. C. 3. 11). For the style of his oratorical discourses, compare remarks on the Oration to the Saints in the Special Prolegomena.

§3. Letters and Edicts.

It is hard to separate between letters, edicts, and laws. A substantial autocrat, the form of address was much the same, and the force. The extant letters are quite numerous, and those of which we have definite or general mention, many. He seems to have been a most industrious letter-writer. Of the extant letters a majority are undoubtedly or probably genuine. Some, however, need more critical study than seems to have been given to them. 3048 Following is the roughly chronological list, the works being grouped by years. The dating is taken mainly from the Migne edition, Ceillier, and Valesius with slight original study. The descriptions are of course from the documents themselves.

1. (313 a.d.) Edict of Constantine and Licinius for the restoration of the Church. In Lact. De M. P. c. 48, and also in Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. ed. Migne, 105–110). The second edict of toleration. The first edict (Euseb. 8. 17; Lact. De M. P. 34) can hardly be classed among the “writings” of Constantine. This famous second edict grants full religious liberty to the Christians and restoration of their property. Compare section on Acts of Toleration in Wordworth’s Constantinus.

2. (313.) First letter of Constantine and Licinius to Anulinus. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. ed. Migne, 479–480). Restores goods to the Catholic Christians; written about the same time as the edict of toleration, according to Ceillier.

3. (313.) Second Letter of Constantine to Anulinus. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 7 (Op. Const. 481–2). Ordering that the Catholic clergy be free from public service, that they might not be disturbed in their worship of God.

4. (313.) Letter of Constantine to Cæcilianus. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 6 (Op. Const. 481–4). Presents money—three thousand purses (folles)—to be distributed according to direction of Hosius.

5. (313.) Letter of Constantine to Melchiades (or Miltiades). In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. 477- ). Having received various letters from Anulinus regarding Cæcilian and the Donatists, he summons a council at Rome to consider the matter.

6. (314.) Letter of Constantine to Ablavius (or Ælafius). In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 283–4 (Op. Const. 483–6). The result of the council at Rome not having proved final, he summons the Council of Arles.

7. (314.) Letter of Constantine to Chrestus (Crescentius), bishop of Syracuse. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. 485–8). Invites to the Council of Arles.

8. (314.) Letter of Constantine to the Bishops after the Council of Arles. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 287–8 (Op. Const. 487–90). Contains gratulations, reprobations of obstinate schismatists, and exhortations to patience with such obstinateness. It is full of religious expressions, and if genuine, is a most interesting exhibition of Constantine’s religious position at this time, but it looks suspicious, and probably is not genuine.

9. (314) Letter of Constantine and Licinius to Probianus, the Proconsul of Africa. In Augustine, Ep. 88 (ed. Migne 33 [1865] 3045), and also in Contr. Cresc. (43 [1861] 540, also in Op. Const. and tr. Engl. in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1, p. 370). Orders that the Donatist Ingentius be brought to his court. One text adds Maximianus or Maximus in place of Maximus as epithet of Constantine.

10. (314 or 315.) Letter of Constantine to the Donatist Bishops. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 290 (Op. Const. ed. Migne [1844] 490). As the Donatists were not yet satisfied, he summons them to meet Cæcilian, and promises if they convict him in one particular, it shall be as if in all.

11. (315.) Letter of Constantine to Celsus. In Optat. Mon. vet p. 291 (Op. Const. 489–90). In reply to letter mentioning disturbances of the Donatists, he hints that he expects to go shortly to Africa and settle things summarily.

12. (315.) Fragment of a Letter of Constantine to Eumalius Vicarius. In Augustine’s Contr. Crest. 3. 71 (ed. Migne 43 [1861] 541; also Op. Const. 491–2). An extract of six lines, in which he says Cæcilianus was entirely innocent.

13. (316 or 317.) Letter of Constantine to the bishops and people of Africa. Optat. Mon. vet. p. 294 (Op. Const. 491–2). He has tried every way to settle the Donatist disturbances in vain, and now leaves them to God and advises patience.

14. (323.) First Letter of Constantine to Eusebius. In Euseb. V. C. 2. 46; Theodoret, 1. 14; Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 491–4). Empowers the repairing, enlarging of old, and building of new churches.

15. (323 a.d.) Law of Constantine respecting piety toward God and the Christian Religion (Ad prov. Pal.). In Euseb. V. C. 2. 24–42; abstr. in Soz. 1. 8 (Op. Const. 253–282). This long edict, addressed to the inhabitants of Palestine, contains an exposition of the prosperity which attends the righteous and the adversity which comes to the wicked, followed by edict for the restitution of confiscated property, the recall of exiles, and various other rectifications of injustices. This is the copy, “or letter,” sent to the heathen population of the empire.

16. (324.) Constantine’s edict to the people of the eastern provinces concerning the error of polytheism, &c. (Ad. prov. Or). In Euseb. V. C. 48– . This letter, written in Latin and translated by Eusebius, begins with “some general remarks on virtue and vice,” touches on the persecutions and the fate of the persecutors, expresses the wish that all would become Christians, praises God, and exhorts concord.

17. (323 or 324.) Letter of Constantine to Alexander the Bishop and Arius the Presbyter. In Euseb. V. C. 2. 64–72; Gelas. 2. 4; Socr. 1. 7 (Op. Const. 493–502). Expresses his desire for peace, his hope that they might have helped him in the Donatist troubles, his distress at finding that they, too, were in a broil, his opinion that the matters under discussion are of little moment, and what he thinks they are. He exhorts to unanimity, repeats his opinion that the matters are of little moment, mentions his “copious and constant tears,” and finally gets through.

18. (324–5.) Letter to Porphyrius (Optatian). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 19 [1846] 393–394 and in various editions of Optatian. This letter to Porphyrius or Optatian was on the occasion of the sending of a poem by the latter for his vicennalia. It expresses his pleasure and his disposition to encourage the cultivation of belles lettres. Compare note on Optatian under sources.

19. (325.) Letter of Constantine the King, summoning the bishops to Nicæa. In Cowper, Syriac Misc., Lond. 1841, p. 5–6. This is translated from a Syriac ms. in the British Museum, written in 501. Gives as reason for the choice of Nicæa the convenience for the European bishops and “the excellent temperature of the air.” This, if genuine, is the letter mentioned by Eusebius, V. C., but it looks suspicious.

20. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the churches after the Council of Nicæa. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 17–20; Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 501–506). Dwells on the harmonious result, especially respecting the Easter controversy, and commends to the bishops to observe what the Council has decreed.

21. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the church of Alexandria. In Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 507–510). Expresses great horror of the blasphemy of Arius, and admiration for the wisdom of the more than three hundred bishops who condemned him.

22. (325.) Letter of Constantine to Arius and the Arians. In “Conc. 2. 269.” A long and rather railing address against Arius.

23. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the churches. In Socr. H. E. 1. 9. A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written in 501, in Cowper, Syriac Misc., Lond. 1861, p. 6–7. Against Arius and the Porphyrians, and threatens that any one who conceals a work of Arius shall be punished with death.

24. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the Nicomedians against Eusebius and Theognis. In Gelas. 3. 2; Theodoret, 1. 20; Soz. 1. 21 (Op. Const. 519–524). A theological discussion partly of the relation of Father and Son, and an attack on Eusebius of Nicomedia.

25. (325.) Letter to Theodotus. In Gelas. 3. 3 (Op. Const. 523–524). Counsels him to take warning by what has happened to Eusebius (of Nicomedia) and Theognis, i.e. banishment, and get rid of such evil influence, if any, as they may have had on him.

26. (325.) Letter of Constantine to Macarius. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 30–32; Theodoret, 1. 16. Directs the erection of a peculiarly magnificent church at the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.

27. (330.) Letter of Constantine to the Numidian Bishops. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 295 (Op. Const. 531–532). Concerns a church taken possession of by schismatists.

28. (332.) Letter of Constantine to the Antiochians. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 60 (Op. Const. 533- ). Exhorts them not to persist in their effort to call Eusebius from Cæsarea to Antioch.

29. (332 a.d.) Letter of Constantine to the Synod of Tyre deprecating the removal of Eusebius from Cæsarea. In Euseb. V. C. 362; Theodoret, 1. 27 (Op. Const. 543–546).

30. (332.) Second Letter of Constantine to Eusebius. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 61 (Op. Const. 537–540). Commends Eusebius for having declined the call to Antioch.

31. (332.) Second Letter of Constantine to Macarius and the rest of the Bishops in Palestine (to Eusebius). In Euseb. V. C. 3. 52–53 (Op. Const. 539–544). Directs the suppression of idolatrous worship at Mamre.

32. (332.?) Edict against the heretics. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 64–5. Against Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, Cataphrygians who are forbidden to assemble and whose houses of worship are to be given to the Catholic party.

33. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Sapor, King of the Persians. In Euseb. 4. 9–13; Theodoret, 1. 24 (Op. Const. 545–552). Is mainly a confession of faith commending the Persian Christians to the special care of their king.

34. (333.) Letters of Constantine to Antonius, the monk, and of Antonius to him are mentioned in Athanasius, 1. 855 (Op. Const. 551–552). Constantine and his sons write as to a father. Antony grudgingly replies with some good advice for them to remember the day of judgment, regard Christ as the only emperor, and have a care for justice and the poor.

35. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius in praise of his discourse concerning Easter. Eusebius, V. C. 4. 35 (Op. Const. 551–554) praises the discourse and asks for more.

36. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius on the preparation of the copies of the Scriptures. In Euseb. V. C. 4. 36; Theod. 1. 15; Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 553–554). Orders fifty copies with directions as to style.

37. (335.) Fragment of the first letter of Constantine to Athanasius. In Athan. Apol.; Socr. 1. 27 (Op. Const. 553–556; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1843, p. 89). The letter summoning to the Council of Tyre, but only a half-dozen lines remain. This bids him admit all who wish to enter the church.

38. (335.) Letter of Constantine to the people of the Alexandrian Church. In Athan. Apol. c. Ar. c. 61 (Op. Const. 559–562; abstract in Soz. 2. 31; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1850, p. 90–92). Is a general lamentation over the dissensions of the Church, with expression of confidence in Athanasius.

39. (335.) Second Letter of Constantine to Athanasius. Athan. Apol. (Op. Const. 555–558). Expresses his reprobation of the false accusations of the Meletians against Athanasius.

40. (335.) Letter of Constantine to Joannes the Meletian. Athan. Apol. (Op. Const. 557–560). Congratulates on his reconciliation with Athanasius.

41. (335.) Letter of Constantine to Arius. In Socr. 1. 25 (Op. Const. 561–562). Invites Arius to visit him—the famous visit where he presented a confession of faith claimed to be in conformity with that of Nicæa.

42. (335.) A Letter to Dalmatius is mentioned by Athanasius, Apol. 5. 13, but not preserved (Op. Const. 563–564; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1850, p. 94). It required him to make judicial enquiry respecting the charge against Athanasius of the murder of Arsenius.

43. (335.) Celebrated Letter of Constantine concerning the Synod of Tyre. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 42 (Op. Const. 561–564). Exhorts the bishops to give zeal to fulfilling the purpose of the synod in the restitution of peace to the Church.

44. (335.) Letter to the Bishops assembled at Tyre. In Socr. H. E. 1. 34, and in Soz. H. E. 2. 28. Summons them to come to him at Constantinople and give account of their proceedings.

Besides these there are the clearly spurious:

1. Letter of Helena to Constantine (Op. Const. 529–530).

2. Letter of Constantine in response to Helena (Op. Const. 529–532).

3. Treaty of peace between Constantine, Sylvester and Tiridates (Op. Const. 579–582). On Tiridates compare various sources in Langlois Col. des historiens de…l’Armènie, and for literature respecting their authenticity, his note on p. 103.

4. Edict of Constantine to Pope Silvester (Op. Const. 567–578). The famous Donation which first appeared in Pseudo-Isidore, and for which see under The Mythical Constantine, p. 442–3.

There are also quite a large number of letters mentioned with more or less description, and a “multitude of letters” (V. C. 3. 24) of which there is no specific knowledge. Of the former may be mentioned that to the inhabitants of Heliopolis, one to Valerius (or Valerianus or Verinus) (Augustine, Ad Donat. p. c. c. 33); one to the Council of Tyre, asking them to hasten to Jerusalem (V. C. 4. 43; Soz. 2. 26); and one acknowledging the copies of the Scriptures prepared at his order, through Eusebius (V. C. 4. 37).

Footnotes

436:3048

There is of course more or less critical treatment of various letters in critical works on Donatism or Arianism or other special topics. Since writing the above, the exceedingly interesting analysis of sources for early Donatist history, by Seeck, in Briegers’ Ztschr. f. Kirchenges., 1889, has been examined. He has, like Völter and Deutsch before him, admirable critical studies of certain letters. But a systematic critical study of the Constantinian letters as a whole seem to be still lacking.

§4. Laws.

The numerous laws are collected in the edition of Migne (Patrol. Lat. 8. p. 93–400), mainly from the Theodosian code. They are in the opinion of Eutropius (10. 8) “many,” “some good and equitable, but most of them superfluous, and some severe” (cf. under Character). Many of them show the author’s tendency to declamation, but taken all in all they are businesslike and do credit, in the main, to their author’s heart, and even, though less conspicuously, to his head. For more specific account, compare the laws themselves as collected in Migne, the relating passages in Wordsworth and Ceillier, standard and annotated editions of the codes, and special treatises, such as Balduin, De leg. eccl. et civ. 1737.

§5. Various.

Besides the more formal works mentioned above, various conversations, sayings, bon mots, prayers, &c., are preserved, among which may be mentioned:

1. Memoirs of himself, of which no portion is extant. Writings of Constantine are mentioned by Lydus (p. 194, 226), but whether the writings referred to deserve the title given by Burckhardt it is hard to say.

2. A form of prayer given by Constantine to his soldiers (V. C. 4. 20).

3. His address when the memorials of contendents, at Council of Nicæa, were brought to him (Soz. 1. 17).

4. The conversation with Acesius, for which Socrates vouches, closing, “O Acesius, set up a ladder, and do you alone climb up to heaven.”

5. His rebuke to the courtier concerning covetousness (V. C. 4. 30).

6. His answer when told his statues had been stoned, “Strange, but I feel no wound” (“Chrysost. Ad Pop. Ant.”).

7. His appeal to the bishops, requesting them to confer upon him the rite of baptism (V. C. 4. 62).

8. His Thanksgiving after baptism and testimony (V. C. 4. 63).

In general, his writings were composed in Latin, and translated into Greek by those appointed for this special purpose (V. C. 4. 32). His general style is rhetorical, rather profuse, and declamatory, abounding in pious allusion and exhortation, as well as philosophical quotation and reflection. His works are interesting to study and not without a touch here and there of genuine literary interest. A remark on friendship, for example, unless it be a product of his habit of borrowing the thoughts of other men more or less directly, is delightful and most quotable. “For it often happens,” he says, “that when a reconciliation is effected by the removal of the causes of enmity, friendship becomes even sweeter than it was before” (Const. to Alex. and Ar. in V. C. 2. 71).

Chapter Iv

The Mythical Constantine.

The many legends which have attached themselves to the name of Constantine are valuable chiefly as curiosities, and can be treated here only in specimens. A few of the more interesting and important are the following:

1. Constantine and his Mother Helena.

A little anonymous work of some thirty pages, edited by Heydenreich from a fourteenth-century manuscript, was published under this title in 1879, and has drawn forth an astonishing amount of literature for so slight a thing. It has little value except as an illustration of mediæval romance, though Coen seems to think the honor of having introduced it into literature enough to warrant the expenditure of a good deal of pains in vindicating his claim to it. The story is written with tolerable art, and runs, abbreviated, something as follows:

Helena, daughter of a noble family of Trèves, came on a pious journey to Rome. The Emperor Constantius, crossing a bridge of the Tiber, saw Helena among other pilgrims. Struck with her beauty, he arranged that she should be detained by force at the inn where she stayed, when her fellow-pilgrims returned to Gaul. The emperor then constrained her by force, but, seeing the great grief which his act had caused, gave her a certain ornament of precious stones and his ring, as a sort of pledge, and went away. She did not venture to return to her country, but remained at Rome with the son who was born to her, representing that her Gallic husband was dead. This son, Constantine, grew up pleasing, handsome, and versatile. Certain merchants, seeing his excellent quality, formed a scheme of making money by palming him off on the emperor of the Greeks as a son-in-law, representing him to be a son of the Roman emperor.

The scheme was carried out, and the merchants after some time embarked again for Rome, with the Constantine and the princess, and much treasure. Toward the end of their journey they stopped over night at a little island. In the morning the young people awoke to find they had been deserted by the merchants, and Constantine in great grief confessed the deception which had been practiced. To this the princess replied that she cared little who he was or his family, since he was himself and her husband. After a few days of short rations they were taken by passing voyagers to Rome, where they joined Helena, and having purchased a house with the proceeds from the sale of certain valuables which the princess had kept with her, they went to hotel-keeping. Constantine took naturally to military life, and at tournaments surpassed everyone else so far as to arouse astonishment and inquiry. The emperor would not believe him a poor and friendless man, and had his mother called. After much vigorous evasion the truth came out, confirmed by the ring which the emperor had given Helena. Constantius first had the merchants put to death, and gave all their property to Constantine. Then a treaty was made with the emperor of the East, and Constantine was recognized as heir to the empire.

A more wildly unhistorical historical novel could hardly have been written even by a Muhlbach. For further account, see under Literature especially articles by Heydenreich and by Coen.

2. Constantine the Son of a British Princess.

Duke Coel of Colchester, say the old chronicles, by an insurrection became king. The Senate, rejoiced at the overthrow of an enemy, sent Constantius to Britain. Coel, fearing, sent ambassadors to meet him, gave hostages, and shortly died. Constantius was crowned, married Helena, daughter of Coel, the most beautiful, cultivated, and educated woman of her time. By her he had a son, Constantine, afterwards called the Great. This is in substance the account of Geoffrey of Monmouth (5. 6) and Pierre de Langloft (1, p. 66–7). The story is mentioned by Henry of Huntington (Bk. I. 37), who perhaps wrote before Geoffrey (in 1137 [?]), and Richard of Cirencester (2. 1. 33). Waurin (Vol. I. Bk. 2. 43) makes “Choel” Count of Leicester, but in general is identical with Geoffrey. The famous Brut of Layamon (ed. Madden, 2 [1847] p. 35) is translated with amplifications from Wace’s Brut, and this in turn from Geoffrey. This makes Coel Earl of Gloucester. The Eulogium Hist. calls Helena (1. 337) daughter of a British king, but also concubine, though elsewhere (2, p. 267) she is wife according to the conventional story. It is also mentioned by many others; e.g. Voragine, Golden Legend. It is interesting that this legendary father of Helena is supposed (Hayden, Index to Eulogium, p. 45, and Giles, note on Geoffrey, p. 162) to be the same as “Old King Cole, the merry old soul,” making Constantine thus the grandson of the Mother Goose hero.

3. Constantine’s Leprosy; Healing and Baptism by Silvester.

This tale is one of the most frequently found. The earliest account is said to be that of the Acts of Silvester. Some of the many who repeat it are Ephraem, Cedrenus, Zonaras. The following account is mainly from Glycas, p. 461–462.

When Constantine was fighting against Maxentius, after he had seen the sign of the cross, he was victorious. Then, forgetting, he was conquered, and grieving, he fell asleep and had a vision in which the blow of a switch on his nostrils brought blood which flowed down on his linen tunic in the form of a cross. Seeing this, he was filled with penitence, and became again victorious. Being led away a second time into idolatry through his wife Fausta, he was divinely afflicted with leprosy. The priests prescribed a bath in the blood of infants, and it was ordered; but when he heard the lamentations of the mothers, he said it was better to suffer than that so many infants should perish. Therefore the apostles, Peter and Paul as some say, appeared to him and told him Silvester would cure him, as he did. There are many varieties of the story and various details as to baptism, but in general the whole series of stories regarding his baptism at Rome centers in this story, and gratitude for this cure is the supposed occasion of the famous donation of Constantine. In this the circumstances of the miracle are given at length,—the words of the apostles, Silvester’s identification of them as apostles by portraits, the immersion, and subsequent instruction.

4. Donation of Constantine.

This most remarkable of forgeries for its practical effect on world-history has been the subject of endless discussion. It is, in brief, a supposed grant to the Pope of Rome, Silvester, of certain sweeping privileges in recognition of the miracle he has wrought. The edict gives a long confession of faith followed by an account of the miracle and mention of the churches he has built. Then follow the grants to Silvester, sovereign Pontiff and Pope of Rome, and all his successors until the end of the world,—the Lateran palace, the diadem, phryginus, the purple mantle and scarlet robe, imperial scepters, insignia, banners and the whole imperial paraphernalia, as well as various clerical privileges and pretty much the whole world to govern. It is impossible here even to represent in outline the history of this extraordinary fiction. Composed not earlier than the latter part of the eighth century (Martens et alt. 9 cent.; Grauert, 840–850; Hauck, Bonneau, 752–757; Langen, 778, &c.; Friedrich acc. to Seeberg, divides into an earlier [653] and a later [753] portion), it early came to be general, though not unquestioned, authority. In 1229–1230 a couple of unfortunates who ventured to doubt its authenticity were burned alive at Strasburg (Documents communicated by Ristelhuber to Bonneau p. 57–58). Not many years after, Dante seems (Inf. 19. 115) to have taken its authenticity for granted; and although there is a possible doubting (De Monarch. 4. 10), he does not venture to dispute this. He denies, however, Constantine’s power or right to give, if he did give. In modern times the fictitious character of the document is recognized by Protestants and Catholics alike, and the discussion, so vigorous formerly, over this authenticity has narrowed itself chiefly to a discussion of the place (France or Rome) and date (653–753, ninth century) and possible author. The discussion over these points has been lately renewed and is being carried on with animation. Among the later monographs are those of Martens (1889) and Friedrich (1889, not at hand). The latest treatise at hand is that of Seeberg in the Theol. Literaturbl. of Jan. 17. 24. 31 of the current year. For farther select literature, compare Verzeichniss in Martens; for sources, the chapters of Martens and Preface of Bonneau; for older literature, Muensch. p. 96–97, and in general the Literature of Constantine, in this volume, although no attempt has been made to exhaust the literature of this sub-topic there. Treatises on the Donation will be found under the names of Albani, Altus, Arrhenius, Bachmann, Bayet, Bonneau, Brunner, Chaulnes, Colombier, Cusa, Friedrich, Genelin, Grauert, Hauck, Hildebrand, Jacobatius, Kaufman, Krüger, Martens, Muench, Rallaye, Scheffer-Boichorst, Seeberg, Steuchus, Tacut, Valla, Walther, Wieland, Zeumer.

5. Dream concerning the Founding of Constantinople.

“As Constantine was sleeping in this city [Byzantium], he imagined that there stood before him an old woman whose forehead was furrowed with age; but that presently, clad in an imperial robe, she became transformed into a beautiful girl, and so fascinated his eyes by the elegance of her youthful charms that he could not refrain from kissing her; that Helena, his mother, being present, then said, ‘She shall be yours forever; nor shall she die till the end of time.’ The solution of this dream, when he awoke, the emperor extorted from heaven, by fasting and alms-giving. And behold, within eight days, being cast again into a deep sleep, he thought he saw Pope Silvester, who died some little time before, regarding his convert with complacency, and saying, ‘You have acted with your customary prudence in waiting for a solution from God of that enigma which was beyond the comprehension of man. The old woman you saw is this city, worn down by age, whose time-struck walls, menacing approaching ruin, require a restorer. But you, renewing its walls, and its affluence, shall signalize it also with your name; and here shall the imperial progeny reign forever’” (William of Malmesbury, Chronicle, tr. English. Lond. 1847, p. 372–3. The final section, which instructs Constantine how to lay out the city, is omitted). This is taken by the Chronicler from Aldhelm’s (d. 709) de laudibus virginitatis (c. 52, ed. Giles, 1844, p. 28–29), where, however, instead of kissing her, he much more appropriately “clothes her with his mantle, and puts his diadem adorned with pure gold and brilliant gems on her head.” It is given also by Ralph de Diceto (ed. Stubbs, Lond. 1876), 74–75, and probably by many others.

6. Voyage of Helena.

A matter-of-fact account of things which are not so, given in Hakluyt’s Voyages, 2 (1810), p. 34, is worth giving in the words of the translator:

“Helena Flavia Augusta, the heire and onely daughter of Cœlus, sometime the most excellent king of Britaine, by reason of her singular beautie, faith, religion, goodnesse, and godly Maiestie (according to the testimonie of Eusebius) was famous in all the world. Amongst all the women of her time there was none either in the liberall arts more learned, or in the instruments of musike more skilfull, or in the divers languages of nations more abundant than herselfe. She had a naturall quicknesse of wit, eloquence of speech, and a most notable grace in all her behaviour. She was seene in the Hebrew, Greeke, and Latin tongues. Her father (as Virumnius reporteth) had no other childe,…had by her a sonne called Constantine the great, while hee remained in Britaine…peace was granted to the Christian churches by her good meanes. After the light and knowledge of the Gospel, she grew so skilfull in divinity that she wrote and composed divers bookes and certaine Greeke verses also, which (as Ponticus reporteth) are yet extant…went to Jerusalem…lived to the age of fourscore years, and then died at Rome the fifteenth day of August, in the yeere of oure redemption 337…Her body is to this day very carefully preserved at Venice.”

7. The Finding of the Cross.

It is said in a certain “tolerably authentic chronicle,” according to Voragine, that Constantine sent his mother Helena to Jerusalem to try to find the cross on which our Lord was crucified. When she arrived, she bade all the Jewish Rabbis of the whole land gather to meet her. Great was their fear. They suspected that she sought the wood of the cross, a secret which they had promised not to reveal even under torture, because it would mean the end of Jewish supremacy. When they met her, sure enough, she asked for the place of the crucifixion. When they would not tell, she ordered them all to be burned. Frightened, they delivered up Judas, their leader and instigator, saying that he could tell. She gave him his choice of telling or dying by starvation. At first he was obstinate, but six days of total abstinence from food brought him to terms, and on the seventh he promised. He was conducted to the place indicated, and in response to prayer, there was a sort of earthquake, and a perfume filled the air which converted Judas. There was a temple of Venus on the spot. This the queen had destroyed. Then Judas set to digging vigorously, and at the depth of twenty feet, found three crosses, which he brought to Helena. The true cross was tested by its causing a man to rise from the dead, or according to others, by healing a woman, or according to others, by finding the inscription of Pilate. After an exceedingly vigorous conversation between the devil and Judas, the latter was baptized and became Bishop Cyriacus. Then Helena set him hunting for the nails of the cross. He found them shining like gold and brought them to the queen, who departed, taking them and a portion of the wood of the cross. She brought the nails to Constantine, who put them on his bridle and helmet, or according to another account, two were used in this way, and one was thrown into the Adriatic Sea.

It is interesting to trace the melancholy consequences of this particular enterprise of Constantine’s in the sad death of St. Cyriacus née Judas. The Emperor Julian, the apostate, “invited” him to sacrifice to idols. When he refused, melted lead was poured into his mouth; then an iron bedstead was brought, on which he was stretched, while a fire was built underneath and the body of the martyr larded with salt and fat. The saint did not budge, and Julian had a deep well dug, which was filled with venomous serpents. But contact with the saint killed the serpents, and a cauldron of boiling oil succeeded. Julian was so angry at the alacrity and cheerfulness of the saint’s preparations for this bath, that he killed him with a blow of his sword. There is some consolation in the thought of this premature death, in the fact that, unless his claim that he was nephew to Stephen, the Proto-martyr, be disallowed, he had reached a ripe old age of two hundred and fifty years or thereabouts.

The literature on this legend is very great. The finding of the cross is mentioned as early as Cyril of Jerusalem (ab. 347–350), within twenty-five years of the visit of Helena recorded by Eusebius (V. C. 3. 26), and with great frequency afterwards. The failure of any mention by Eusebius seems, however, conclusive against any finding, or pretended finding, at the time of Helena’s famous visit, though the contrary is acutely argued by Newman. The finding and use of the nails is often separated from the other, and is found in many of the sources on Constantine. But even those who believe in the miracle of the finding of the cross will hardly vouch for the story in the above form, which is substantially that of Voragine.

Compare Sinker’s article, Cross, Finding of, in Smith and Cheetham, Dict. 1 (1880), 503–506; Jameson, Hist. of Our Lord, 2 (1872) 385–391; Newman, Essays on Miracles (Lond. 1875) 287–326; and especially Voragine, whom see under Sources. Under the article Helena, in Smith & W. is a sub-article by Argles on the Invention of the Cross, which gives an admirable abstract of the sources in order.

These examples of the stories which have gathered around the name of Constantine do not begin to exhaust the list. The interesting tales of the sword of Constantine presented to Athelstan (Reg. Malms. 1, 1879, p. 55, 468; Eul. Hist. 3, 1863, p. 12), his conversion through remorse, and the whole series of allusions and stories in mediæval fiction and poetry must be passed here. If any one has the curiosity to follow them up, he will find the references in the articles of Heydenreich a good guide to literature. A few stories, like that of Constantine and Tiridates, one hesitates to class among the wholly fictitious (compare, under Sources, Agathangelos, Zenobius, and Faustus).

Chapter V

Sources and Literature.

§1. Introduction

The insertion in such a work as this of what seems almost technical in its character has this twofold purpose: first, to give a glimpse of the grounds of our knowledge of Constantine, with a view of how far and in what directions it has been worked out through literature; second, to serve the expressed purpose of this series, of encouraging farther study in its lines. The very knowledge of what the sources are, and their character, apart from any special study of them, gives a width of horizon and definiteness of conception to the general student, which can hardly be gotten in any other way; while for any one who plans farther study in any line, it is of first importance to find the what and where of his material.

§2. Sources.

Remembering the class of students for which the series is chiefly intended, effort has been made to refer to translations of sources where they are at hand, and to refer to the best accessible English authorities on them. But the plan has been to refer to the source itself in the edition actually used, and for literature on them to choose the best for ready reference. Both editions and authorities on sources are therefore selections, usually from many, of such as seem most directly useful. The intention has been to guide to all frequently mentioned sources, whether they were of great value or not, since a useless one costs often quite as much trouble to hunt up and find useless, as a good one to use. It is hardly to be hoped that all the sources often referred to have been gathered, but the following list represents pretty much all that are worth mentioning, and some which are not.

1. Inscriptions, coins, medals, &c.

In some sense these are the most reliable of sources, in spite of counterfeits. A large number will be found collected in Clinton. For farther critical study, compare the collections, great and small; for which, with the matter of inscriptions in general, see Hicks, E. L., and Hübner, E., in the Encyclopædia Britannica, 13 (1881) 121–133; and Babington, in Smith and Cheetham, 1 (1880) 841–862. Monographs on those relating to Constantine will be found under the names, Cavedoni, Cigola, Eltz, Freherus, Garucci, Harduin, Penon, Revellot, Valois, Westphalen, Werveke, in the Literature of this volume.

2. Laws.

These, with their dates, their official nature, their fullness and variety, are primary, and are the only sources recognized by some. They are embodied in the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, and collected from these are edited in Migne, Patrol. Latina, Vol. 8. See under Writings of Constantine, above.

3. Other Writings by Constantine.

See under Writings, above, p. 436. With this might perhaps be included also writings to Constantine, like that of Anulinus in Augustinus, Ep. 88.

4. General Literary Sources.

Taking in general chronological order, without attempting the impossibility of fixing the exact chronological place, the first group of contemporary sources is that of the Panegyrists (for collected editions, see Engelmann). It was a serious mistake, now recognized, to pass them by as worthless. Like all authentic documents, they have a minimum residuum of undoubted material, which is larger or smaller according to the critical acumen of the investigator. In the case of these, however inflated or eulogistic they may be, the circumstances under which they were spoken give a considerable value.

(1) Incerti auctoris Panegyricus Maximiano et Constantino dictus (Paneg. 307). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 609–620. Pronounced at celebration of marriage of Constantine and Fausta, a.d. 307. Besides having the great value of being contemporary evidence, the author shows a certain ingenuity in enlarging on the virtues of the young Constantine, who had few deeds to show, and on the deeds of Maximian, who had few virtues, and has therefore a certain discernible modicum of truth.

Compare the Monitum in Migne, Ramsay’s article on Drepanius, in Smith, Dict. 1073–4, and references under Eumenius.

(2) Eumenius (310–311). (a) Panegyric (Panegyricus Constantino Augusto). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1884), 619–640. (b) Thanksgiving Oration (Gratiarum Actio Constantino Augusto). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 641–654. Eumenius flourished during the reigns of Constantius, with whom he was in high favor, and Constantine. He was head of the school at Autun. The Panegyric was delivered at Treves, in 310. The authorship of Eumenius has been unwarrantably questioned, on the ground that the flattery and exaggeration of the work are not consistent with his taste and sense; but it would seem that both his exaggeration and his taste have been themselves exaggerated. His praise is hardly more “outrageous” than panegyrics were wont to be,—or are, for that matter; and so far from being “worthless,” there is a peculiar deal of interesting, unquestionable, and primary historical evidence. Still, his taste and veracity are not much above that of modern eulogists of living or dead emperors and politicians. The Gratiarum Actio is the official oration of thanks to Constantine in behalf of the citizens of Autun, on account of favors shown them. It was pronounced at Treves in 311.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 92; the Proœmium, in ed. Migne, 619–622; also for editions, Ramsay, article Drepanius, in Smith, Dict. 1. 1073–4; and for literature, Chevalier. For general account of the Panegyrists, see this article on Drepanius.

(3) Incerti Panegyricus Constantino Augusto (Paneg. 313). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 653– . This is usually ascribed to Nazarius, on the ground of style. It was spoken at Treves in 313, and relates mainly to the war with Maxentius. Various details relating to this are of such nature and form as to suggest again that the author is the same as that of the 321 Paneg.,—Nazarius.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 1145; the Proœmium in ed. Migne, &c., and literature as under Eumenius, above.

(4) Nazarius. (321) Panegyric (Panegyricus Constantino Augusto dictus). In ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 581–608. Nazarius is mentioned by Jerome as a distinguished rhetorician. This oration was delivered at Rome in 321. Constantine was not present. It is superlatively eulogistic, but like the related panegyrics contains many historical facts of greatest value.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 1145, the Monitum, in Migne, and references under Eumenius.

In the midst of the period which these cover comes one of the two great Christian sources, and he is followed by a considerable row of great and small Christians during the century.

(5) Lactantius (ab. 313–314). On the Deaths of the Persecutors (De M. P.). Ed. Fritsche (Lips. 1842), 248–286; ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 7 (Par. 1844), 157–276; tr. in T. & T. Clark Library, 22 (Edinb. 1871), 164–211, and in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo and N.Y.), 300–326 [Lord Hailes’ translation]. There are many editions in collected works, and about a dozen separate, and many translations,—in all a hundred or more editions and translations. There has been much controversy regarding the author of this work, but there is little doubt that it was Lactantius. Ebert (Gesch. chr. Lat. Lit. 1. 83) claims to have demonstrated the fact, and most of the later writers agree. The work was composed after the edict of Constantine and Licinius, and before the break between the two, i.e. 313–314. It was written thus in the midst of things, and has the peculiar historical value of a contemporary document, unprejudiced by later events. It is a sort of psalm of triumph, colored by the passionate rejoicing of one persecuted over the Divine vengeance which has come upon the persecutors. “In the use of the work the historian must employ great critical discernment” (Ebert, in Herzog, 8 [1881], 365). But granted all his prejudice, the facts he witnesses are of first value.

Compare Ffoulkes, in Smith and Wace, 3 (1882), 613–617; Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit. 2 (1873), 334; Ebert, in Herzog, Encyk. 8 (1881), 364–366, and Gesch. chr. Lat. Lit. 1 (1874), 83; and for farther literature, Bibliog, Synops. inAnte-Nicene Fathers Suppl. (1887), 77–81.

(6) Eusebius (ab. 260–340). I. Ecclesiastical History. 2. Constantine. 3. Chronicle.

For 1 and 3 compare Prolegomena of Dr. McGiffert at the beginning of this volume, and for 2, Special Prolegomena, p. 466.

(7) Optatian (fl. ab. 326). Panegyric, in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 19 (1846), 395–432; Letter to Constantine, do. 391–392. Optatian, Porfirius, or Porphyrius, as he is variously called, is dubiously Christian, composed this poem, or series of poems, while in exile, on the occasion of the Vicennalia of Constantine. It dates, therefore, from 325 or 326. It is a most extraordinary aggregation of acrostics, pattern poems, and every possible device of useless, mechanical variety of form, of little value, excepting as a sort of dime-museum exhibition of patience and ingenuity. It consists mainly in calling Constantine flattering names, but contains here and there an historical suggestion. It was accompanied by a letter to Constantine, and drew one from him, and a pardon as well (Hieronymus, Chron.).

Compare Wilson, article Porfirius, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 440; article Porphyrius, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 502; and for editions and literature, Engelmann.

(8) Athanasius (296–373). Apology against the Arians, and various works, ed. Bened. (1698), 2 v. in 3, fo; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 25–28 (1857), 4 v.; translated in part in Newman, Library of the Fathers, and in Schaff-Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (announced). The works of Athanasius contain various letters of Constantine (see under Works) and much of primary historical value for the latter part of Constantine’s reign. So far as it goes, the matter is almost equal to official documents as source.

Compare Bright, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 179–203; Schaff, Hist. of Church, 23 (1884), 884–893; and for extensive literature and editions, Chevalier and Graesse.

(9) Cyril of Jerusalem (ab. 315–386). Catechetical Lectures. In Migne, Patrol Gr. 33 (1857), especially 830. English translations in Newman, Library of Fathers, 2 (1838), one ref. p. 178. Letter to Constantine II. concerning the sign of the cross seen at Jerusalem, c 3. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 33 (1857), 1165–1176, ref. on 1167–1168. Two or three references only to excavation of the cross and building of churches, &c., at Jerusalem. They take significance only in the fact that Cyril is so near the time (the letter was 351 [?], or not many years later), and delivered his lectures in the very church which Constantine had built (sect. 14, 22).

Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884) 923–925; Venables, in Smith & W. 1 (1887), 760–763; and literature in Chevalier Schaff, &c.; also editions in Graesse, Hoffmann, &c.

(10) Ambrosius of Milan (ab. 340–397). Oration on the Death of Theodosius. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 16 (1866), portion relating to Constantine especially, 1462–1465. Relates chiefly to the Finding of the Cross.

Compare Davies, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 91–99; also Chevalier, Engelmann, Schoenemann, &c.

(11) Hieronymus (Jerome) (331–420). Chronicle. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 27 (1866). Part relating to Constantine, 493 (497)–500. A translation and continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, who ends with the death of Licinius. An indispensable but aggravating authority.

Compare Salmon, Eusebius, Chronicle of, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 348–355.

(12) Augustinus (354–430). Ep. 43, ed. Migne, 33 (1865), 159– , §§4, 5, 20, &c. He gives account of the various Donatist hearings, and speaks of having read aloud from various original documents, including the petition to Constantine, the proconsular acts, the proceedings of the court at Rome, and the letters of Constantine. He speaks of the hearing at Milan. Ep. 88, ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 33 (1865), 302–309. This has the text of letter of Anulinus to Constantine and Constantine to Probianus. Eps. 76. 2; 93. 13–14, 16 (which contains account of decree of Constantine that property of obstinate Donatists should be confiscated); 105. 9, 10 (not translated); 141. 8–10 (not translated), in ed. Migne, and tr. English ed. Schaff, contain various matter on the Donatist acts of Constantine. Ad Donatistas post collationem, c. 33, §56; ed. Migne, 43 (1861), 687 (important for dates given). Contra litt. Petil. Bk. II. ch. 92, §205; ed. Migne, 45 (1861), 326. Tr. in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 580–581. Contr. Epist. Parmen. Bk. I. chs. 5–6, §10–11; ed. Migne, 43 (1841), 40–41. Augustine as a source is of primary value, because of the otherwise unknown sources which he uses and quotes.

Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884), 988–1028; Maclear, in Smith & W. Dict. 1 (1877), 216–228. For literature see Schaff, Chevalier, Engelmann, and for particular literature of the Donatist portions, Hartranft, in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 369–372; and for editions, see Schoenemann, Graesse, Brunet, Engelmann, Schaff, Hartranft, &c.

The equally numerous series of non-Christian writers is headed, in value at least, though not in time, by Constantine’s secretary.

(13) Eutropius (4th cent.). Abridgment of Roman History, Bk. 10. Multitudes of editions and translations; the ones used are: (Paris, 1539), 63–68; transl. by Watson, (Bohn, 1853), 527–535. Eutropius was secretary to Constantine, and afterwards the intimate of Julian. His testimony, though brief, is of peculiar weight from his position for knowing and from a certain flavor of fairness. It was early remarked (Nicephorus Gregoras) that his praise of Constantine had peculiar force, coming from a heathen and friend of Julian. His dispraise, on the other hand, is conditioned by the fact that he applies it only to the period after Constantine began peculiarly to favor the Christians. He seems to be a cool, level-headed man of the world, unsympathetic with Constantine’s religion and, writing from this standpoint, presents a just, candid, reliable account of him.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 126–127; Watson, Notice, in his translations; also for multitudinous editions and translations, and relatively scanty though considerable literature, Chevalier, Engelmann, Graesse.

(14) Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ (? 2–324). Ed. Jordan and Eyssenhardt, Berol. 1864, 2 v. Contains a few dedications to and mentions of Constantine, for which see Index.

Compare Teuffel, Hist. of Rom. Lit. tr. Wagner, 2 (Lond. 1873), 320–324.

(15) Victor, Sextus Aurelius (fl. 350–400). Cæsars. In ed. Schottius, Antv. Plantin, 1579, p. 97–167. Section on Constantine chiefly, 157–162. Epitome, Antv. 1579. Section on Constantine, p. 49–52. These works, by different authors, have been associated since the time of the above edition with the name of Victor. The former is by him, the latter probably by a slightly later Victor. They use the same sources with Zosimus, but supplement him (Wordsworth). Both are interesting and important, and in Manso’s judgment, final where they agree.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 1256–1257; Thomas, article Aurelius, in Biog. Dict. (1886), 228; Manso, Leben Const. p. 215; and scanty references in Chevalier. For editions and farther literature, see Engelmann.

(16) Praxagoras Atheniensis (4th cent). In Photius, Cod. 62; Ed. Bekker, p. 20; ed. Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 2–3. Lived in reign of Constantine (Müller, p. 2). Although a heathen (Photius, Cod, 62), he lauds Constantine above all his predecessors. He wrote various works in the Ionic dialect, among others a “history of the deeds of Constantine the Great, in two books,” composed at the age of twenty-two. The fragments or resumé are preserved by Photius, as above. Though brief (three columns), it is a concise mass of testimony.

Compare Smith, Dict. 3. 517; also for literature, Chevalier; and for editions, the various editions of Photius in Graesse, Hofmann, Engelmann, &c.

(17) Calendarium Romanum Constantini Magni (350). In Petavius, Uranologium (1630), 112–119. Written after 337, and in or before 355, probably in 355. It is authority for the birthday of Constantine, Constantius, &c.

Compare Greswell, Origines Kalendariæ Italicæ, 4 (Oxf. 1854), 388–392.

(18) Julian the Apostate (331–363). Cæsars. Orations on Constantius and Constantinus, et pass. Ed. Paris, 1630, p. 12–96, 422; Vol. 2, 1–54, passim. Compare also ed. Hertlein, Lips. 1875–76, 2 v. 8vo. Editions and translations are very numerous. (Compare arts. of Wordsworth and Graves; also Engelmann, Graesse, &c. The orations which are panegyrical were delivered (Wordsworth) 355 and 358, and the Cæsars dates from shortly after his accession (in 361). The latter is a satire which has found literary favor, the substantial purpose of which is thought to be a suggestion that he (Julian) is much superior to all the great emperors; but which if one were to venture a guess at its real motive is quite as much a systematic effort to minimize by ridicule the lauded Constantine. The laudatory words of Julian himself in his orations are quite overshadowed by the bitter sarcasms of the Cæsars. As a matter of estimate of the value of this source, there is to be remembered the bitterness of Julian’s hostility to Christianity. What to Eusebius was a virtue would to Julian be a vice. In view of his prejudice, everything which he concedes is of primary weight, while his ill-natured gossip carries a presumption of slanderousness.

Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 2. 40–59; Wordsworth, in Smith & W. 3. 484–525; Graves, in Smith, Dict. 644–655. Compare for endless literature, Wordsworth, Chevalier, Engelmann, 1 (1880), 476–477.

(19) Libanius, (314 or 316–391 +). Orations. Ed. Morellus, Par. 1606–1627. Contain a few allusions of more or less interest and historical value, for which, see ed. Morellus, Index volume 2, fol. Qqqvb.

Compare Schmitz, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 774–776; and for editions and literature, Chevalier, Engelmann, &c.

(21) Ammianus Marcellinus (d. ab. 395). Histories. There are many editions, for which compare Engelmann, Graesse, and Wordsworth. Among editions are ed. Valesius (1636) and ed. Eyssenhardt, Berol. 1871. The work was a continuation of Tacitus, but the first thirteen books (including Constantine’s period) are best. He says (Bk. 15, ed. Valesius, 1636, p. 56–57) that Constantine investigated the Manichæans and like sects through Musonius, and gives account of the bringing of his obelisk to Rome, perhaps by Constantine (Bk. 17, p. 92–93; compare Parker, Twelve Egypt. Obelisks in Rome, Oxf. 1879, p. 1), and makes other mention, for which see Index to ed. Eyssenhardt, p. 566.

Compare Wordsworth, in Smith & W. 1 (1879, 99–101, and for literature, Chevalier (scanty) and Engelmann, 2 (1882), 43–45 (Rich).

(22) Eunapius (Anti-Christian) (ab. 347–414). Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists; Ædesius. Ed. Boissonade (Amst. 1822), 19–46 passim. Eunapius was born at Sardis about 347, and died after 414 a.d. (cf. Müller, Fragm. 87). He was a teacher of rhetoric, and besides this work wrote a continuation of the history of Dexippus, extending from 270–404 a.d. Fragments of this are preserved, but none relating to Constantine. Photius (Cod. 77) says that he calumniated the Christians, especially Constantine. With the fragments in Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 11–56, is included also (14–15) a fragment from the Vita Ædes., relating to Sopater. The death of Sopater and the relation of Ablavius to it is given more fully in the Vita Ædes. with various suggestive allusions. Much of his history is supposed to be incorporated in Zosimus, and this gives importance to his name, weight to Zosimus, and light on the hostile position of Zosimus towards Constantine.

Cf. Photius, Cod. 77; Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 7–9; Mozley, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 285–286; Schmitz, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 93; also for further literature and editions, Chevalier and Engelmann.

(23) Bemarchius (4th cent.) was of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; wrote the Acts of Constantine in ten books (Suidas, s.v. Βήμαρχιος; cf. Zonaras, p. 386). No portion is preserved. Wrote under Constantius, on whom he is said (Libanius, Orat. ed. Reiske, p. 24) to have delivered a panegyric.

Cf. Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 3; Smith, Dict. 1 (1859), 482, &c.

An early but as yet valueless group is that of Syriac and Armenian sources on the (apocryphal) treaty of Constantine with Tiridates.

(24) Zenobius of Klag (fl. ab. 324). History of Daron. French translation from Armenian in Langlois, Coll. Hist. Arm. 1 (1867), 353–355. Like the works of the other Armenian historians, the text of this writer has suffered more or less from corruption. He has two mentions (p. 344 and 351) of Constantine, the latter being an account of the treaty with Tiridates.

Compare introduction of Langlois, and literature in Chevalier.

(25) Agathangelus (ab. 330). History of the Reign of Tiridates and of the Preaching of St. Gregory the Illuminator, c. 125–127, §163–169; in Acta SS. Boll. Sept. VIII. 320– ; also with French translation from Armenian in Langlois Coll. d. hist. de l’Arm. p. 97– . The work extends for 226–330 a.d. The author was secretary to Tiridates, but the work as we have it is a redaction made, however, not long after, as it was used by Moses of Khorene. This was in turn later (seventh century?) retouched by some Greek hagiographer. This Greek form is extant in mss. at Florence and Paris (cf. editions above), and there is reason to suppose that the extant Armenian is a version from this Greek form. But with its additions of arrantly apocryphal matter, it is hard to tell what is what, and so all considerable mention of the relation of Constantine and Tiridates has been left out of the account of Constantine’s life. Yet we must hesitate to put it all down under the mythical; for Tiridates certainly had intercourse with the Romans, and the original form of this life was certainly by a competent hand, and the matter relating to Constantine is in part soberly historical enough.

For farther information, compare Davidson on Gregorius Illuminator, in Smith & W., Dict. 2. 737–739; Introduction, Langlois, p. 99–103.

(26) Faustus of Byzantium (320–392). Historical Library. French translation from the Armenian in Langlois, Coll. d. hist. Arm. 1. 201–310. There are mentions of Constantine and Tiridates in Bk. 3, chaps. 10 and 21. The work is open to some suspicions of having been tampered with, but Langlois inclines to give it a fairly good character. If genuine, the mention of the treaty with Tiridates would nearly establish it as historical fact.

Compare Beauvois Nouv. biog. gén. 17 (1856), 203, and Introduction of Langlois; also, literature in Chevalier.

The writers of the following centuries are for the most part Christian, uncertain or religiously unknown, excepting the very pronounced non-Christian who heads the list.

(27) Zosimus (fl. ab. 400–450). History. Ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1837), 8vo. Section on Constantine occupying Bk. 2. 8– , p. 72–106. The date of this writer has been put as early as the fourth century and as late as the end of the fifth. It will be safe to divide extremes. He is a heathen who, on the period of Constantine, draws from an anti-Christian and anti-Constantinian source, and who regards the introduction of Christianity as a chief cause of the decline of the Roman Empire (cf. various passages cited by Milligan). He is prejudiced against Christianity with the bitter prejudice of one who finds himself in a steadily narrowing minority, and he is occasionally credulous. But he wrote in a clear, interesting style, without intentional falsifications, and was quite as moderate as the Christian writer (Evagrius 3. 41) who calls Zosimus himself a “fiend of hell.” His extended account is therefore of great value among the sources, and especially as it is probably drawn in large measure from the earlier lost work of Eunapius.

Compare Milligan, in Smith & W., 4 (1887), 1225–1227: Mason, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 1334–1335; also, for literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, and for editions, Engelmann.

Anonymus Valesianus (fifth century). Ed. Valesius (Paris, 1636), p. 471–476. This fragment, first published by Valesius in the above editions of Ammianus, is of the highest value for the life of Constantine. It is evidently drawn from various sources, many of which are now lost. The compiler or writer shows a judiciousness and soberness which commends his statements as peculiarly trustworthy.

Compare the exhaustive examination by Ohnesorge, Der Anonymus Valesii de Constantino. Kiel, 1885. 8vo.

(27) Stephen of Byzantium (ab. 400). Greek Cities. Venet. Aldus, 1502, fol. H. iii. s.v. Ναϊσσὸς. The work is a dictionary of geography, and the fact in these few lines is of first value.

Compare Smith, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 904–906. Chevalier, Hoffmann, etc.

(28) Sozomen (b. ab. 400). Ecclesiastical History. Ed. Hussey, English translation, London, Bohn, 1855; newly edited by Hartranft in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2 (1890) [in press]. This history covers the period 323–423 (not 439). He draws largely from Eusebius. He has been described rightly (Dowling, Study of Eccl. Hist. p. 31) as relatively inaccurate, rhetorical and credulous. But he works from sources, though mainly from exact ones. For farther discussion, compare Hartranft in volume 2 of this series.

Compare also Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 722–723, and literature in Chevalier.

(29) Socrates (b. ab. 408). Ecclesiastical History. Ed. Hussey, reprinted with Introduction by Bright, Oxf. 1878. English translation London, Bohn, newly edited by Zenos in volume 2 of this series [in press]. This history covers the period 306–439. It is written with general good judgment, but for Constantine adds little to Eusebius of which it professes to be a continuation.

For farther description and discussion, compare Zenos, Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 709–711, and literature in Chevalier.

(30) Theodoret (b. ab. 393?–457?). Ecclesiastical History. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 82 (1859), 879–1280. English translation, London, Bohn, 1854. The birth of Theodoret has been placed at various dates, 386, 387, 393, &c., and the exact time of his death (453–458) is equally uncertain. This work reaches from 324 to 429, and is generally regarded as learned and impartial. It gives much concerning Constantine’s relations to the Arian controversy and incorporates many documents, which appear to be taken mainly from Eusebius’ Life of Constantine. A chief value is, it would seem, for the text of Eusebius. But his very use of documents shows care and gives value.

Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 904–919; Newman, Hist. Sketches, 2 (1876), 303–362; Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884), 881–882; and literature in Chevalier; also for editions, Graesse and Hoffmann.

(31) Orosius, Paulus (ab. 417). Histories, Bk. 7, chaps. 26–28. Ed. Migne Patrol. Lat. 31 (1846), 635–1174; section relating to Constantine occupies 1128–1137. For many editions and mss. compare Schoenemann, Bibl. Patr. Lat. 2 (1794), 481–507, and Engelmann, 2 (1882), 441– . It is said (Manso) that Orosius adds nothing to existing material. This is only in part true. At all events, his value as corroboratory evidence is considerable, brief as the work is.

Compare Phillott, in Smith & W, 4 (1887), 157–158; Ebert, Gesch. d. chr. Lat. Lit. 1 (1874), 323–330, and literature in Chevalier and Engelmann.

(32) Prosper Aquitanus (403–463+). Chronicle. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 51 (1861), 535–606 (8). Portion relating to Constantine, 574–576. The Chronicle extends to 444 or 455. To 326 he depends mainly on Eusebius’ Chronicle, and for the rest of our period on the continuation of Hieronymus.

Compare Phillott, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 492–497; Teuffel, Hist. of Rom. Lit. 2 (Lond. 1873), 482–484; and for literature, editions, &c., Chevalier, Engelmann, &c.

(33) Idatius (468+). List of Consuls (Fasti Idatiani). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 51 (1861), 891–914; portion relating to Constantine, 907–908. Idatius lived until after 469. This work, which is not generally acknowledged to be his, although quoted under his name, ends in 468. It contains brief statements of some events under the most significant years.

Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), and literature under “Idace de Lamego,” in Chevalier.

(34) Gelasius of Cyzicus (ab. 450– ). History of the Council of Nicæa. In Labbe, Concilia, 2 (1671), 103–286. There is also an abstract in Photius, Bibl. Cod. 88, ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 103 (1860), 293–296. Venables is probably just when he says: “His work is little more than a compilation from the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, to which he has added little but what is very doubtful or manifestly untrue.” There is a little on Constantine not in those sources, but to try to fix on any of it as authoritative quite baffles one. Still, it is not wholly clear that he did not use sources, as well as his own imagination, in adding to the other sources. It may be said to be “of doubtful value,” as source. It is not easy to see what Venables means in saying that the third hook, as we have it, gives only three letters of Constantine. This is true; but the second book, “as we have it,” gives several more.

Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 621–623.

(35) Jacobus of Sarug (452–521). Homily on the Baptism of Constantine. Ed. Frothingham, Roma, 1882. For further information consult the extended study of Frothingham.

(25) Philostorgius (b. ab. 468). English translation by Walford (Lond. Bohn, 1855), 425–528. The original work covered the period between 300 and 425. The fragments preserved contain several interesting facts, or fictions, relating to Constantine, some not found elsewhere. Photius and all the orthodox have always called him untrustworthy or worse, and a very unorthodox critic (Gibbon) finds him passionate, prejudiced, and ignorant; but it seems to be agreed that he used some sources not availed of by others.

Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1587), 390; Dowling, Study of Eccl. Hist. p. 26–27; and literature in Chevalier.

(26) Hesychius Milesius (ab. 500?– ). Origins of Constantinople. In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 146–155; also in ed. Orelli (Lips. 1820), 59–73. Hesychius, surnamed Illustris, of Miletus lived in the early part of the sixth century. This work contains several allusions to the founding of the city of Constantine. It seems to have been taken almost word for word in parts by Codinus.

Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 12–13; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 447–448; Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 143–145; also literature in Chevalier, and editions and literature in Engelmann.

(27) Cassiodorus (ab. 468–561+). Tripartite History. In Opera, ed. Garetius, 1 (Rotom. 1679, fol.), b 1–b 372. On Constantine, especially p. 207–243. (Same ed. in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 69 [1865], 879–1214.) Cassiodorus was born about 468 and lived to be more than ninety-three years old. This work is an epitome of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and has no additional value as source. A work on the Goths has been preserved to us only in an epitome by Jordanes. See Jordanes.

Compare Young, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 416–418, or (better for this work) Ramsay, in Smith, 1 (1859), 623–625; and for literature and editions, Chevalier, Engelmann, Graesse, etc.

(28) Lydus, Joannes (Laurentius) (490–550+). De Mensibus; De Magistratibus; De Ostentis, passim. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. Hist. Byz. (1837). Other editions of the various works may be found noticed in Graesse, Trésor, 4 (1863), 122; Brunet, Manuel, 3 (1862), 880; Engelmann, Bibl. scr. class. 1 (1880), 478–479; Hoffmann, Lex. He was born at Philadelphia in 490, and lived some time after 550. He was a heathen, but respectful toward Christianity (Photius, Cod. 180). He mentions Constantine ten or a dozen times; e.g. his foundation of Constantinople (De O. 21. 5), Constantine’s learning and military skill (De mag. 3. 53), and quotes (De magistr. 3. 33, ed. Bonn., p. 226), Constantine’s own writings.

Compare Photius, Cod. 180; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 600; Hase, Pref. and in ed. Bekker; Joubert, in Nouv. biog. gén. (Hoefer), 32 (1860), 388–391; and for farther literature, Chevalier and the article of Joubert, and Engelmann, Bibl. scr. class. 1 (1880), 479.

(29) Jordanes (or Jornandes) ( –551?). History of the Goths, (De Getarum origine et rebus gestis). In Cassiodorus, Opera, ed. Garetius, 1 (Rotom. 1679), 397–425; same ed. in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 69 (1865), 1251–1296. This work on the Goths is said by its author to be an epitome of the work of Cassiodorus. It says (p. 406–407) that Constantine employed Goths in his campaign against Licinius, and also in the building of Constantinople. It was composed in 551 or 552 (cf. Wattenbach, Deutschland’s Geschichtsq. 1 [1877], 66).

Compare Hodgkin, in Encycl. Brit. 13 (1881), 747–749; Acland, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 431–438 (exhaustive); and abundant literature in Chevalier, Engelmann, Wattenbach, &c.; also editions in Engelmann, “Potthast. Bibl. hist. med. æv. 1862, p. 102,” &c.

(30) Anonymous, qui Dionis Cassii historias continuavit (sixth century?). 14. Licinius (18 lines); 15. Constantinus (9 lines). In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 199; of especially Introd. in Müller, p. 191–192. These were first published by Ang. Mai in Script. Vet. Nov. Call. 2, 135–, 527–, and are found also in various editions of Dion Cassius; e.g. ed. Sturz. 9 (Spz. 1843). Mai strongly inclines to suspect that Johannes Antiochenus is the author, but this Müller (p. 191) argues to be impossible. They are sometimes referred to as Excerpta Vaticana. Petrus Patricius and various others have been suggested as authors, but all that is affirmed with any assurance is that the author was a Christian. This is on the ground of Diocletianus, 1 (p. 198). The fragments are very brief, but contain several little facts and turns not found elsewhere.

(31) Evagrius (536?–594+). Ecclesiastical History, 3. 40–41. English translation (1709), 472–474. A violent invective against and disproval of the charges of Zosimus against Constantine and adds nothing to historical facts.

Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 423–424.

(32) Procopius Cæsariensis (fl. 547–565). Histories. Ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1833–1838, 3 v. Two or three slight mentions, of which the nearest to any account is the division of the empire by Constantine, and the founding of Constantinople (De bel. Vand, 1. 1). He flourished from about 547 to 565. Whether he was Christian or heathen is uncertain. He is characterized by peculiar truthfulness (cf. his De ædif. 1; Praf. ed. Bonn, v. 3, 170–, and Milligan).

Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 487–488; Plate, in Smith, Dict. 3, 538–540; also for literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, 1. 655; and for editions, Milligan, Plate, and the various bibliographies.

(33) Petrus Patricius (fl. 550–562). Fragments. In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 189. Gives account of an embassy of Licinius to Constantine.

Compare Means, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 226–227; also Chevalier and Hoffmann.

(34) Gregory of Tours (ab. 573–594). History of the Franks, 1. 34. Ed. Ruinart (Paris, 1699), 27, &c. (?) History of the Seven Sleepers, do. 1272–1273, &c. Liber miraculorum, do. 725–729. The edition of Ruinart is reprinted in Migne, Patrol. Lat. vol. 71 (1867). In the first of these he quotes as authorities, Eusebius and Junius; the latter are full of legendary matter.

Compare Buchanan, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 771–776; also for editions and literature, Engelmann, Chevalier, and Graesse.

(35) Chronicon Paschale (ab. 630 a.d.) Ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1832, 2 v.; section relating to Constantine occupies vol. 1, p. 516–533. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 92 (Paris, 1865). The work is a chronicle of the world from the creation until 630. It has been thought, but on insufficient grounds (cf. Salmon), that the first part ended with a.d. 354 and was written about that time. It is really a homogeneous work and written probably not long after 630 a.d. (Salmon). It is frequently quoted, unfortunately, as Alexandrian Chronicle (e.g. M’Clintock and Strong Cycl.). The chief value is the chronological, but the author has used good sources and presumably some not now extant. It has something the value of a primary source of second rate.

Compare Salmon, In Smith & W. 1. (1877), 509–513; Clinton, Fasti. Rom. 2 (1850), 169; Ideler, Handb. d. Chron. 2 (1826), 350–351, 462–463; and for literature and editions, Salmon.

(36) Anonymous Acts of Metrophanes and Alexander (seventh century?), “in which is contained also a life of the emperor Constantine the Great.” In Photius, Cod. 256; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 104 (1860), 105–120. A more complete recession of this anonymous piece was edited by Combefis, who regards it as the work of a contemporary, written therefore in the middle of the fourth century (cf. his Hist. Mon. p. 573, teste Fabricius). The authentic details can be traced word for word, according to Tillemont, in other historians, while impossible statements show it to be not the work of a contemporary. It seems to fall under the class of works where “What is true is not new, and what is new is not true,” but it can hardly be regarded as sufficiently determined whether or no it is worthless.

Compare Tillemont, Mém. 7 (1732), 657; Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. 9 (1737), 124 and 498; Acta. SS. Nov. 1.

(37) Johannes Antiochenus (fl. 610–650). Chronological History. Fragments in Müller, 4 (1868), 535 (8)–622; Fragm. 168–169, on Constantius and Galerius, and 170–171a, on Constantine, p. 602–603. This writer is to be distinguished from Johannes Malalas, also known as Johannes Antiochenus. He flourished somewhere between 610–650 (Müller, p. 536). The sections relating to Constantine are in the main exactly correspondent to Eutropius. It has been conjectured (Müller, p. 1538) that Eutropius and Johannes copied from a common Greek source; but the curious error in the section on Constantine (p. 603), by which “commodæ” is converted into a proper name, and becomes the name of the sister whose son Constantine put to death, shows it to have been translated from the Latin. The work of Johannes has, however, some interesting suggestions and additions; e.g. its paraphrase of the word “dubius” in the characterization of Constantine’s conduct towards his friends.

Compare Müller, p. 535–538; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 587; also article of Stokes, and other literature under Malalas.

(38) Malalas (= John of Antioch) (ab. 700). Chronography, Bk. 13, 1–11. Ed. Dindorf (Bonnæ, 1831); in Corp. scr. hist. Byz. (section on Constantine, p. 316–324); also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 97 (Par. 1865), 1–70. Earlier editions are, Oxf. 1691, 8o; Venice, 1733, fol. [reprint of 1691, “quite useless”]. Lived about 700 (Müller, Fragm. 4 [1868], 536), or about 650 (Chevalier, 1205). He has been placed as late as ninth century (Hody), and as early as 601 (Cave). Noting is known of his personal history. He is to be distinguished from the John of Antioch in Müller’s Fragm. who is earlier than Malalas. He is very credulous and inaccurate and the section on Constantine is no exception to the rule.

Cite this text

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. I, part 3 of 4. . Hermetic Cloud, https://hermeticcloud.com/library/nicene-and-post-nicene-fathers-ser-ii-vol-i-part-3/. Public-domain text reproduced in full; markup only.