Chapter IX.--The Victory of Constantine, and the Blessings which under him accrued to the Subjects of the Roman Empire.
1. To him, therefore, God granted, from heaven above, the deserved fruit of piety, the trophies of victory over the impious, and he cast the guilty one with all his counselors and friends prostrate at the feet of Constantine.
2. For when Licinius carried his madness to the last extreme, the emperor, the friend of God, thinking that he ought no longer to be tolerated, acting upon the basis of sound judgment, and mingling the firm principles of justice with humanity, gladly determined to come to the protection of those who were oppressed by the tyrant, and undertook, by putting a few destroyers out of the way, to save the greater part of the human race. [2984]
3. For when he had formerly exercised humanity alone and had shown mercy to him who was not worthy of sympathy, nothing was accomplished; for Licinius did not renounce his wickedness, but rather increased his fury against the peoples that were subject to him, and there was left to the afflicted no hope of salvation, oppressed as they were by a savage beast.
4. Wherefore, the protector of the virtuous, mingling hatred for evil with love for good, went forth with his son Crispus, a most beneficent prince, [2985] and extended a saving right hand to all that were perishing. Both of them, father and son, under the protection, as it were, of God, the universal King, with the Son of God, the Saviour of all, as their leader and ally, drew up their forces on all sides against the enemies of the Deity and won an easy victory; [2986] God having prospered them in the battle in all respects according to their wish.
5. Thus, suddenly, and sooner than can be told, those who yesterday and the day before breathed death and threatening were no more, and not even their names were remembered, but their inscriptions and their honors suffered the merited disgrace. And the things which Licinius with his own eyes had seen come upon the former impious tyrants he himself likewise suffered, because he did not receive instruction nor learn wisdom from the chastisements of his neighbors, but followed the same path of impiety which they had trod, and was justly hurled over the same precipice. Thus he lay prostrate.
6. But Constantine, the mightiest victor, adorned with every virtue of piety, together with his son Crispus, a most God-beloved prince, and in all respects like his father, recovered the East which belonged to them; [2987] and they formed one united Roman empire as of old, bringing under their peaceful sway the whole world from the rising of the sun to the opposite quarter, both north and south, even to the extremities of the declining day.
7. All fear therefore of those who had formerly afflicted them was taken away from men, and they celebrated splendid and festive days. Everything was filled with light, and those who before were downcast beheld each other with smiling faces and beaming eyes. With dances and hymns, in city and country, they glorified first of all God the universal King, because they had been thus taught, and then the pious emperor with his God-beloved children.
8. There was oblivion of past evils and forgetfulness of every deed of impiety; there was enjoyment of present benefits and expectation of those yet to come. Edicts full of clemency and laws containing tokens of benevolence and true piety were issued in every place by the victorious emperor. [2988]
9. Thus after all tyranny had been purged away, the empire which belonged to them was preserved firm and without a rival for Constantine and his sons alone. [2989] And having obliterated the godlessness of their predecessors, recognizing the benefits conferred upon them by God, they exhibited their love of virtue and their love of God, and their piety and gratitude to the Deity, by the deeds which they performed in the sight of all men.
The end, with God's help, of the Tenth Book of the Church History of Eusebius Pamphili.
[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.
[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.
[2986] The final battle was fought in September, 323. See the previous chapter, note 4.
[2987] ten oikeian he& 252;an apel?mbanon. Constantine's sole right to the East was the right of conquest.
[2988] Some of these laws of Constantine have been preserved by Eusebius in his Vita Const. Bk. II.
[2989] It is clear from this statement, as well as from the references to Crispus in the previous paragraphs, that the History was completed before his execution. See above, p. 45.
Supplementary Notes and Tables.
------------------------
On Bk. III. chap. 3, § 5 (note 17, continued).
Since this note was in type Dr. Gardiner's admirable and exhaustive essay on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XIV. p. 341 sq.) has come to hand, and I have been much pleased to see that the theory that Barnabas wrote the epistle is accepted and defended with vigor.
On Bk. III. chap. 3, § 6 (note 22, continued).
Upon the last chapter of Romans and its relation to the remainder of the epistle, see especially Farrar's Life and Work of St. Paul, p. 450 sq., Weiss' Einleitung in das N. T. p. 245 sq., Pfleiderer's Urchristenthum, p. 145 , Renan's Saint Paul, p. 461 sq. (maintaining that an editor has combined four copies of the one encyclical letter of Paul, addressed severally to as many different churches), Lightfoot's Commentary on Philippians, p. 172 sq., and Schaff, Ch. History, I. p. 765.
On Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17 (note 18 continued).
In three places in the Church History (Bk. III. chap. 24, § 17, chap. 25, § 2, and chap. 39, § 16) John's "former" epistle is referred to, as if he had written only two. In the last passage the use of protera instead of prote might be explained as Westcott suggests (Canon of the New Testament, p. 77, note 2), by supposing Eusebius to be reproducing the words of Papias; but in the other passages this explanation will not do, for the words are certainly Eusebius' own. In the Muratorian Canon only two epistles of John are mentioned, and in Irenæus the second epistle is quoted as if it were the first (see Westcott, ibid. p. 384, note 1). These facts lead Westcott to ask: "Is it possible that the second epistle was looked upon as an appendix to the first? and may we thus explain the references to two epistles of John?" He continues: "The first epistle, as is well known, was called ad Parthos by Augustine and some other Latin authorities; and the same title pros P?rthous is given to the second epistle in one Greek manuscript (62 Scholz). The Latin translation of Clement's Outlines (IV. 66) says: Secunda Johannis epistola quæ ad virgines (parthenous) scripta simplissima est. Jerome, it may be added, quotes names from the third epistle as from the second (De nom. Hebr.)." On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 8, § 7, Eusebius speaks of the "first" (prote) epistle of John, and in Bk. III. chap. 25, § 3, he expressly mentions a second and third epistle of John. It is evident, therefore, that whatever the use of protera instead of prote in connection with John's first epistle may mean as used by others, it does not indicate a knowledge of only a first and second as used by him. It is by no means impossible, however, that Westcott's suggestion may be correct, and that the first and second epistles were sometimes looked upon as but one, and it is possible that such use of them by some of his predecessors may account for Eusebius' employment of the word protera in three separate passages.
On Bk. III. chap. 25, § 4 (note 18 continued).
The words he pheromene Barn?ba epistole have been commonly translated "the so-called Epistle of Barnabas," or "the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas," implying a doubt in Eusebius' mind as to the authenticity of the work. This translation, however, is, in my opinion, quite unwarranted. There are passages in Eusebius where the word pheromai used in connection with writings cannot by any possibility be made to bear this meaning; cases in which it can be interpreted only "to be extant" or "in circulation." Compare, for instance, Bk. II. chap. 15, § 1, M?rkon hou to eungelion pheretai; II. 18. 6, monobibla autou pheretai; III. 9. 4; III. 16; III. 25. 3, he legomene 'Iakobou pheretai; III. 37. 4; III. 39. 1; IV. 3. 1, eiseti de pheretai para pleistois; IV. 14. 9, en te delotheise pros philippesious autou graphe pheromene eis deuro. Compare also IV. 15. I; IV. 23. 4, 9, 12; IV. 24. 1; IV. 28; V. 5. 6; 19. 3; 23. 2; 24. 10; VI. 15. 1; VI. 20, &c. These passages, and many others which are cited by Heinichen (Vol. III. p. 91), prove that the word is frequently used in the sense of "extant" or "in circulation." But in spite of these numerous examples, Heinichen maintains that the word is also used by Eusebius in another and quite different sense; namely, "so-called" or "ascribed to," thus equivalent to legomene. A careful examination, however, of all the passages cited by him in illustration of this second meaning will show that in them too the word may be interpreted in the same way as in those already referred to; in fact, that in many of them that is in itself the more natural interpretation. The passages to which we refer are Bk. III. chap. 25, §§ 2, 3, and 4; III. 3. 1, ten de pheromenen autou deuteran; III. 39. 6 (where I ought to have translated "is extant under the name of John"). To draw a distinction between the meaning of the word as used in these and in the other passages is quite arbitrary, and therefore unwarranted. The sense in which, as we have found, Eusebius so commonly employs the word attaches also to the Latin word fertur in the Muratorian Canon. I have not endeavored to trace carefully the use of the word in other writers; but while many instances occur in which it is certainly used in this sense, others in which either interpretation is allowable, I have not yet found one in which this meaning is ruled out by the nature of the case or by the context. In view of these facts I believe we should be careful to draw a sharp distinction between legomene or kaloumene and pheromene when used in connection with written works.
A considerable portion of my translation was in type before I had observed this distinction between the two words, which is commonly quite overlooked, and as a consequence in a few cases my rendering of the word pheromene is inaccurate. All such cases I have endeavored to call attention to in these supplementary notes.
On Bk. III. chap. 28, § 1.
For the Disputation which is ascribed to him, read his extant Disputation.
On Bk. III. chap. 32, § 6 (note 14^a).
The Greek reads p?ses ekklesias (without the article), and so, two lines below, en p?se ekklesi& 139;. All the translators (with the exception of Pratten in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII., who reads, "the churches") render "the whole church," as if reading pas with the article. We have not, it is true, enough of Hegesippus' writings to be able to ascertain positively his use of pas, and it is possible that he carelessly employed it indifferently with or without the article to signify the definite "all" or "the whole." In the absence of positive testimony, however, that he failed to draw the proper distinction between its use with and its use without the article, and in view of the fact that Eusebius himself (as well as other early Fathers so far as I am able to recall) is very consistent in making the distinction, I have not felt at liberty in my translation to depart from a strict grammatical interpretation of the phrases in question. Moreover, upon second thought, it seems quite as possible that Hegesippus meant to say "every" not "all"; for he can hardly have supposed these relatives of the Lord to have presided literally over the whole Church, while he might very well say that they presided each over the church in the city in which he lived, which is all that the words necessarily imply. The phrase just below, "in every church," is perhaps as natural as "in the whole church."