The Church History of Eusebius (part 27 of 28)

Notes

1. 2850

   Literally, "it says" (phesi), i.e. "the Scripture says."

2. 2851

   John v. 19.

3. 2852

   i.e. Paulinus.

4. 2853

   Ex. xxxv. 31.

5. 2854

   Psa. lviii. 6. Eusebius agrees with the LXX, which reads tas mulas ton leonton.

6. 2855

   Psa. viii. 2. The LXX has katalusai instead of Eusebius' kataischunai

7. 2856

   Literally, "the God-fighting, daring deeds of the impious" (tais theom?chois ton asebon tolmais).

8. 2857

   Psa. xxxvii. 14, 15.

9. 2858

   Psa. ix. 6. Eusebius agrees with the LXX in reading met' echou: "with a sound."

10. 2859

    Ibid. 5.

11. 2860

    Psa. xviii. 41.

12. 2861

    Ibid. xx. 8.

13. 2862

    Ibid. lxxiii. 20.

14. 2863

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

15. 2864

    Isa. xxxv. 1.

16. 2865

    Ibid. 3, 4.

17. 2866

    Ibid. 6, 7.

18. 2867

    Psa. lxxiv. 5, 6.

19. 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.

20. 2869

    Psa. lxxiv. 7.

21. 2870

    Ibid. lxxx. 12, 13.

22. 2871

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

23. 2872

    Isa. xxxv. 6.

24. 2873

    tes theias tou soteriou loutrou palingenesias. Cf. Titus iii. 5.

25. 2874

    Isa. xxxv. 7.

26. 2875

    Ibid. 3.

27. 2876

    ten oikeian poimnen.

28. 2877

    Isa. xxxv. 4.

29. 2878

    Hag. ii. 9.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 2881

    aithrion, the Latin atrium.

33. 2882

    Psa. civ. 16.

34. 2883

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

35. 2884

    exedras kai oikous. 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.

36. 2885

    The name Solomon (Heb. hmls) means "peaceful."

37. 2886

    Hag. ii. 9.

38. 2887

    lutheisan, which may mean also "dissolved, decayed." Crusè translates "dissolved"; Closs, "schon verwesend."

39. 2888

    Cf. Matt. xix. 28.

40. 2889

    See Isa. xxxv. 1

41. 2890

    Isa. lxi. 10, 11.

42. 2891

    Ibid. liv. 4.

43. 2892

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

44. 2893

    Isa. liv. 6-8.

45. 2894

    Ibid. li. 17, 18.

46. 2895

    Ibid. li. 22, 23.

47. 2896

    Ibid. lii. 1, 2.

48. 2897

    Ibid. xlix. 18-21.

49. 2898

    numphostolos, referring to Paulinus.

50. 2899

    2 Cor. vi. 16.

51. 2900

    tais plektikais ton mathem?ton didaskalias

52. 2901

    Isa. liv. 11-14

53. 2902

    thei& 251; loutro; i.e. baptism.

54. 2903

    Heinichen, followed by Closs, reads tous men...tous de: "Some of them he supports by pillars...others of them he illumines by windows." But all the mss. read tous men...tois de, 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.

55. 2904

    Acts ii. 3.

56. 2905

    isos

57. 2906

    autos holos enk?thetai christos.

58. 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.

59. 2908

    Cf. Gal. iv. 26

60. 2909

    Cf. Heb. xii. 22, 23.

61. 2910

    1 Cor. ii. 9.

62. 2911

    Psa. ciii. 3-5.

63. 2912

    Ibid. 10.

64. 2913

    Ibid. 12, 13.

65. 2914

    eis tous sumpantas ai& 242;nas ton ai& 240;non.

66. 2915

    Heinichen gives 'Antigrapha basilikon nomon peri ton christianois prosekonton 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.

67. 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.

68. 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.

69. 2918

    The Greek word is haireseis, 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 haireseis, 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.).

70. 2919

    hoti pote esti theiotes kai ouraniou pr?gmatos. Latin: quo quidem divinitas in sede coelesti. 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.

71. 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.

72. 2921

    Greek, haireseon; Latin, conditionibus (see note 4, above).

73. 2922

    medemi? time mede threskeia tini. 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.

74. 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.

75. 2924

    to somati& 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.

76. 2925

    Greek, tes koines kai demosias hesuchias. Latin, more simply, quieti publicæ.

77. 2926

    touto gar to logismo. Latin, hactenus.

78. 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.

79. 2928

    i.e. that if they have been molested, or taken from their owners, they should be restored.

80. 2929

    politon. Valesius conjectures that politeuton should be read instead of politon, 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.

81. 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.

82. 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.

83. 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.

84. 2933

    ch?rtai. 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.

85. 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.

86. 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.

87. 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).

88. 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.).

89. 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).

90. 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).

91. 2940

    enthesmo.

92. 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.

93. 2942

    apodiistasthai

94. 2943

    tes haireseos tes katholikes

95. 2944

    See the previous epistle.

96. 2945

    aischros, mallon de museros.

97. 2946

    ek diaphoron kai amutheton topon. 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).

98. 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.).

99. 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.

100. 2949

     The Greek tou kor& 191;ektoros 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).

101. 2950

     ton ek tou deuterou thronou; 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.

102. 2951

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

103. 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.

104. 2953

     On Cæcilianus, see above, chap. 5, note 20.

105. 2954

     enthesmou.

106. 2955

     Ursus is an otherwise unknown personage.

107. 2956

     katholikon. Cf. Bk. VIII. chap. 11, note 3.

108. 2957

     pholleis. 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.

109. 2958

     breou& 187;on; probably for the Latin breviarium.

110. 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.

111. 2960

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

112. 2961

     tou epitropou ton hemeteron ktem?ton.

113. 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.

114. 2963

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

115. 2964

     to ouikari& 251; ton ep?rchon, 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.

116. 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.

117. 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.

118. 2967

     enthesmos analephtheisan kai phulattomenen

119. 2968

     i.e. the proconsular province of Africa (see above, chap. 5, § 18).

120. 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.

121. 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.

122. 2971

     See below, p. 400.

123. 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.

124. 2973

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

125. 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.

126. 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.

127. 2976

     Note the play on the word nomos. nomous anomous ho pananomotatos

128. 2977

     Another play upon the same word: nomous, anomous hos alethos kai paranomous

129. 2978

     episkepseis. 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).

130. 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.

131. 2980

     eschatogeros. 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.

132. 2981

     Amaseia, or Amasia, as it is more commonly called, was an important city of Pontus, situated on the river Iris.

133. 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.

134. 2983

     See ibid.

135. 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.

136. 2985

     Krispo Basilei philanthropot?to. 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.

137. 2986

     The final battle was fought in September, 323. See the previous chapter, note 4.

138. 2987

     ten oikeian he& 252;an apel?mbanon. Constantine's sole right to the East was the right of conquest.

139. 2988

     Some of these laws of Constantine have been preserved by Eusebius in his Vita Const. Bk. II.

140. 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.

141. 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.

142. 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.

143. 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.

144. 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" (epib?s) 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.

145. 2994

     Anon. Vales. p. 471. Const. Porphyr. (De themat. 2. 9), Stephanus Byzant. art. Naissos (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.

146. 2995

     For characterization of Constantius compare V. C. 1. 13 sq.

147. 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.

148. 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.).

149. 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.

150. 2999

     He was with Diocletian still in 305 (cf. Lact. and note, below), and was with his father early in 306.

151. 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."

152. 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.

153. 3002

     Crispus was "already a young man" when made Cæsar in 317 (Zos. 2. 30).

154. 3003

     According to some (e.g. Victor, Cæs. p. 156; Victor, Epit. p. 51; Zos. 2. 8) his father was already in Britain.

155. 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.).

156. 3005

     See coins in Eckhel 8, p. 72, under the year. It is also expressly stated by Paneg. (307) c. 5.

157. 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.

158. 3007

     Compare on all this Lact. c. 29; Eumen. Paneg c. 14.

159. 3008

     Socrates (1. 2) with many others (e.g. Zos. 2. 11) says he died at Tarsus, confusing him thus with Maximinus.

160. 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.

161. 3010

     "Raging against the nobles with every kind of destruction," Eutrop. 10. 4.

162. 3011

     Edict of toleration was April 30; Constantine's anniversary, July 24.

163. 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.

164. 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. 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.

165. 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).

166. 3015

     See note on Bk. I. c. 28.

167. 3016

     That "on the same day the enemy of the Romans should perish" (Lact. c. 44.).

168. 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.

169. 3018

     "Senate and people rejoiced with incredible rejoicing" (Vict. Cæs. p. 159). Cf. Euseb. V. C. 1. 39; Paneg. c. 19; Naz. Paneg. c. 30; Chron. Pasch. p. 521, &c.

170. 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).

171. 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.

172. 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.

173. 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.

174. 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.

175. 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.