The Church History of Eusebius (part 26 of 28)

Notes

1. 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. paraskeue and nesteia. The day of Christ's crucifixion was called meg?le paraskeue, the "great preparation."

2. 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.

3. 2651

   Called Alosis in the Syriac version.

4. 2652

   The month Dius was the third month of the Macedonian year, and corresponded to our November (see table on p. 403, below).

5. 2653

   prosabb?tou hemera, i.e. on Friday, pros?bbatos being sometimes used among the Jews as a designation of that day, which was more commonly called paraskeue (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.

6. 2654

   See above, chap. 3, §1.

7. 2655

   Cf. Matt. x. 18

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 2658

    i.e. November fifth.

11. 2659

    On Silvanus, who afterward became bishop of Gaza, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13.

12. 2660

    Or "frankness"; literally, "freedom" (eleutheria).

13. 2661

    On Pamphilus, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40.

14. 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).

15. 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.

16. 2664

    homoethnon.

17. 2665

    i.e. July 25 (a.d. 308). See the table on p. 403, below.

18. 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.

19. 2667

    ho tou ton stratopedon archein epitetagmenos. Many regard this officer as the prætorian prefect. But we should naturally expect so high an official to be mentioned before the governors (hegemones). 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.

20. 2668

    Or "town clerks," taboul?rioi

21. 2669

    Literally, "its athletes" (autes), the antecedent of the pronoun being "the divine power."

22. 2670

    i.e. Nov. 13, 308.

23. 2671

    M?xus 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.

24. 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."

25. 2673

    i.e. Dec. 14, 308 (see the tables on p. 403, below).

26. 2674

    The majority of the codices read Promos, but as Valesius remarks, such a proper name is quite unknown in Greek, and the form probably arose from a confusion of b and m, which in ancient mss. were written alike. Two of our existing codices read Probos, and this has been adopted by Zimmermann and Heinichen, whom I have followed in the text.

27. 2675

    i.e. Jan. 11, 309.

28. 2676

    In the Syriac version "Absalom."

29. 2677

    Of this village we know nothing, but Eleutheropolis (originally Bethozabris) was an important place lying some forty miles southwest of Jerusalem.

30. 2678

    einai dokon. Eusebius did not wish to admit that he was a bishop in a true sense.

31. 2679

    Rom. x. 2.

32. 2680

    On Pamphilus, see above, Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40.

33. 2681

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

34. 2682

    i.e. Jerusalem.

35. 2683

    tes 'Iamniton poleos. Jamna, or Jamnia, was a town of Judea, lying west of Jerusalem, near the sea.

36. 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.

37. 2685

    proegoros, literally "advocate," or "defender."

38. 2686

    Gal. iv. 26.

39. 2687

    Heb. xii. 22. Upon Eusebius' view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1.

40. 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.

41. 2689

    I read peri auton with Zimmermann, Heinichen, Burton, and Migne. The mss. all have peri autous, which can hardly have stood in the original.

42. 2690

    The common mode of punishment inflicted on slaves.

43. 2691

    Of the so-called country of Manganaia 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.

44. 2692

    i.e. March 5, 310.

45. 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.

46. 2694

    logikon

47. 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.

48. 2696

    alogou zoou.

49. 2697

    Cf. Bk. VIII, chap. 2, §§2 and 3, and the note on that passage.

50. 2698

    Phil. iv. 8.

51. 2699

    On Peleus and Nilus, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 8. Paleus is called Paul in the Syriac version.

52. 2700

    The name of this man is given as Elias in the Syriac version; but both he and Patermuthius are called laymen.

53. 2701

    On Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 6.

54. 2702

    2 Cor. iii. 3.

55. 2703

    Ibid.

56. 2704

    The Syriac version says forty.

57. 2705

    On the cessation of the persecution in the West at the accession of Maxentius, see Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 1.

58. 2706

    On the division of the empire to which Eusebius here refers, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 17.

59. 2707

    i.e. the toleration edict of Galerius, published in the spring of 311. See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note 1.

60. 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.

61. 2709

    peri ton en Palaistine martures?nton telos. On the title of the work, see above, p. 342, note 1.

62. 2710

    The toleration edict of Galerius, given in Bk. VIII. chap. 17.

63. 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.

64. 2712

    Of Sabinus we know only what is told us here. He seems to have been Maximin's prime minister, or prætorian prefect (to ton exochot?ton ep?rchon axiomati tetimemenos, Eusebius says of him). He is mentioned again in chap. 9, where an epistle of Maximin addressed to him is quoted.

65. 2713

    Literally, "the divinity of our most divine masters, the emperors." The style throughout the epistle is of an equally stilted character.

66. 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.

67. 2715

    tous logist?s, commonly used to translate the Latin curatores urbium.

68. 2716

    tous strategous (the common designation for the chief magistrates of cities in the eastern part of the empire) kai tous praipositous tou p?gou.

69. 2717

    The mss. all read gr?mmatos, but Valesius conjectures that pr?gmatos is the true reading, and his conjecture is supported by Nicephorus, who has phrontida peri christianon poieithai. Stroth follows Valesius, and I have done the same. Heinichen remarks: "Sed non necessaria, credo, est hæc emendatio, immo eadem fere exsistet sententia per gr?mmatos, 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 hina gnoen, peraitero autois toutou tou gr?mmatos phrontida poieisthai me prosekein), and there seems to be no other alternative than to change the word gr?mmatos to pr?gmatos, or at least give it the meaning of pr?gmatos, as Mason does, without emending the text (though I am not aware that gr?mma 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 pr?gma. 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 epistolge, for he calls the document an epistole in §3, above. On the other hand, if scriptura, or any other similar word, had been used and translated gr?mma by Eusebius, we should have expected him to call the document a gr?mma, not an epistole 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 me prosekein 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."

70. 2718

    tois kat' agrous epitetagmenois

71. 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.

72. 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.

73. 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.

74. 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).

75. 2723

    Theoteknos, "child of God."

76. 2724

    The logistai, or curatores urbium, were the chief finance officers of municipalities. See Valesius' note on Bk. VIII. chap. 11.

77. 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.

78. 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.

79. 2727

    peri ton kath' hemon psephism?ton

80. 2728

    psephon.

81. 2729

    psephismasi

82. 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.

83. 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.

84. 2732

    The commandant of the Roman garrison in Damascus.

85. 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-Phoenice, or Syro-Phoenicia.

86. 2734

    Emesa was an important city in Northern Phoenicia, the birthplace of the Emperor Elagabalus, and chiefly famous for its great temple of the Sun.

87. 2735

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

88. 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.

89. 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.

90. 2738

    See above, chaps. 2 and 4.

91. 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.

92. 2740

    See chap. 5.

93. 2741

    ouk eis makron tanantia peri hemon ebouleusato te kai di' engr?phon nomon edogm?tise. Crusè translates, "So that he did not long devise hostilities and form decrees against us." It is true that the phrase ouk eis makron 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.

94. 2742

    Matt. xxiv. 24.

95. 2743

    hanthrax: "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.

96. 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.

97. 2745

    See the previous chapter, § 8.

98. 2746

    An Attic drachm was a silver coin, worth about eighteen or nineteen cents.

99. 2747

    aulon te kai ktupon.

100. 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.

101. 2749

     See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 13.

102. 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.

103. 2751

     On Maxentius, see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 14, note 1.

104. 2752

     i.e. Maximinus. For an account of his defeat by Licinius and his death, see below, chap. 10.

105. 2753

     oupo manentos tote. This refers to Licinius' hostility to the Christians, which made its appearance some years later, and resulted in a persecution (see below, Bk. X. chap. 8). The clause, if a part of the original, obliges us to suppose that the ninth book was composed after Licinius had begun to persecute, but there are strong reasons for thinking that the first nine books were completed before 314 (see above, p. 45); indeed, we cannot explain Eusebius' eulogistic words in speaking of Licinius here and elsewhere in this book on any other ground. It seems necessary, therefore, to regard this clause and the similar clause in §12, below, as later insertions, made possibly at the time of the addition of the tenth book (see p. 45).

106. 2754

     See above, note 2.

107. 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.

108. 2756

     Ex. xv. 4, 5. The phrase translated "charioteers" is anab?tas trist?tas, which is employed in the LXX to translate the Hebrew slysyv. The word slys, which means literally a "third," and hence a "third man" (Greek trist?tes, 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."

109. 2757

     Ex. xv. 5.

110. 2758

     Psa. vii. 15, 16.

111. 2759

     Ex. xv. 10.

112. 2760

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

113. 2761

     The LXX, followed by Eusebius, reads dedoxasmenos en hagiois to translate the Hebrew n'dr bqds. It seems probable both from the Hebrew original and from the use of the plural doxais in the next clause, that the LXX translator used the plural hagiois, 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.

114. 2762

     Ex. xv. 11.

115. 2763

     Upon Constantine's conversion, see Dr. Richardson's prolegomena, p. 431, below. On the famous tale of the flaming cross with its inscription touto nika, related in the Life of Constantine, I. 28, see his note on that passage, p. 490, below.

116. 2764

     See abo'e, note 5.

117. 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.

118. 2766

     This epistle or rescript (Eusebius calls it here a gr?mma, just below an epistole) 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."

119. 2767

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

120. 2768

     Noteing chould be pharteer phrom tee trute tean teis and tee phollooing statement.

121. 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.

122. 2770

     On these embassies, see ibid. note 3.

123. 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.

124. 2772

     seismous, 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.

125. 2773

     benephikialion, 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.

126. 2774

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

127. 2775

     See note 24.

128. 2776

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

129. 2777

     On the transposition of the titles of chaps. 9 and 10, see the previous chapter, note 1.

130. 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.

131. 2779

     The treaty made in 311, just after the death of Galerius (see De mort. pers. 36).

132. 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.

133. 2781

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

134. 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."

135. 2783

     Psa. xxxiii. 16-19

136. 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.

137. 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."

138. 2786

     See chap. 9, note 24.

139. 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).

140. 2788

     See above, chap. 7.

141. 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).

142. 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 Puketious."

143. 2791

     ton katholou logon ?parchos, apparently equivalent to the phrase epi ton katholou logon, used in Bk. VII. chap. 10, §5. On its significance, see the note on that passage, and cf. Valesius' note ad locum.

144. 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 (Kouleianos) 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.

145. 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.

146. 2794

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

147. 2795

     See chap. 3.

148. 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.

149. 2797

     Ps. cxlvi. 3, 4.

150. 2798

     See below, Bk. X. chap. 5.

151. 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.

152. 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.

153. 2801

     eikotos d' en arithmo telei& 251; ton teleion entautha kai panegurikon tes ton ekklesion ananeoseos logon katat?xomen. 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 tes ekklesias, but ton ekklesi& 242;n, as in the title of that oration. I have preserved the play of words, telei& 251;—teleion, in order to bring out Eusebius' thought more clearly, but it must be remarked that the word teleion 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.

154. 2802

     Psa. xcviii. 1, 2.

155. 2803

     Literally, "spectacles and narratives" (opseis te kai diegeseis).

156. 2804

     Cf. Matt. xiii. 17.

157. 2805

     Cf. Phil. i. 23

158. 2806

     Psa. xlvi. 8, 9.

159. 2807

     See chaps. 10 and 11 of the preceding book.

160. 2808

     Psa. xxxvii. 35, 36.

161. 2809

     tois ?xothen tou kath' hemas thi?sou.

162. 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.

163. 2811

     See below, chaps. 5-7.

164. 2812

     Ezek. xxxvii. 7.

165. 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 nai men kai ton proegoumenon enteleis threskeiai, hierourgiai te ton hieromenon, kai theoprepeis ekklesias thesmoi.

166. 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.

167. 2815

     Paulinus, bishop of Tyre. See above, chap. 1, note 1.

168. 2816

     i.e. Paulinus.

169. 2817

     Cf. Rev. xxi. 2

170. 2818

     beseleel, which is the form found in the LXX. The Hebrew is l'ltsv, which the R.V. renders "Bezalel." See Ex. xxxv. 30 sq.

171. 2819

     See Hag. ii. 9

172. 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.

173. 2821

     Psa. xliv. 1.

174. 2822

     Cf. Ex. vi. 6, et al.

175. 2823

     Psa. xlviii. 8.

176. 2824

     1 Tim. iii. 15.

177. 2825

     Psa. lxxxvii. 3.

178. 2826

     Psa. cxxii. 1.

179. 2827

     Psa. xxvi. 8.

180. 2828

     Psa. xlviii. 1.

181. 2829

     Psa. xlv. 2.

182. 2830

     Psa. cxxxvi. 4.

183. 2831

     Job ix. 10.

184. 2832

     Dan. ii. 21.

185. 2833

     1 Sam. ii. 8. (Psa. cxiii. 7).

186. 2834

     Luke i. 52, 53.

187. 2835

     Cf. Psa. xcvi. 1

188. 2836

     prosupakouontes. 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.

189. 2837

     Psa. cxxxvi. 4.

190. 2838

     Ibid. 17.

191. 2839

     Ibid. 23, 24.

192. 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 (hore, allotriesi, xumphoresi), and if a few slight changes be made (kamnonton to kamonton, heneken to heineken, men to ta, ep' allotriesi te to allotriesi) the words resolve themselves into iambic trimeters:—tes ton kamonton heineken soterias hore ta deina, thing?nei d' aedeon, allotriesi sumphoresin idias karpoutai lupas. According to Valesius, Gregory Nazianzen in his first Oratio quotes the last verse (kai to ep' allotriais sumphorais idias karpousthai lupas, in which there is no trace of the poetical form) with the remark hos?phe tis ton par' ekeinois sophon; 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.

193. 2841

     ablabos. 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.

194. 2842

     Cf. Isa. ix. 6

195. 2843

     megas archistr?tegos; cf. Josh. v. 13.

196. 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.

197. 2845

     autotheon. 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 autotheon "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 alethinon theon, I do not use it in the full sense thus ordinarily attached to it.

198. 2846

     Psa. xxxiii. 9.

199. 2847

     tou pambasileos kai panegemonos kai autou theou logou. 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 logou, seems to me hardly to warrant. At any rate, the rendering which I have adopted seems more accurately to reproduce the original.

200. 2848

     theologoumeno. The use of the word theologeo 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.

201. 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" (ton pollon anthropon).