Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

Psa. lxxiv. 7 .

Ibid . lxxx. 12, 13 .

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

Isa. xxxv. 6 .

τῆς θείας τοῦ σωτηρίου λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας. Cf. Titus iii. 5 .

Isa. xxxv. 7 .

Ibid . 3 .

τὴν οἰκείαν ποίμνην.

Isa. xxxv. 4 .

Hag. ii. 9 .

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.

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.

αἴθριον, the Latin atrium .

Psa. civ. 16 .

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

ἐξέδρας καὶ οἴκους. Large basilicas were always provided with additional rooms, and adjacent buildings, such as baptisteries, diaconica, secretaria, &c., which were used for various ecclesiastical purposes, and which were often of considerable size, so that important synods frequently met in one or another of them. Cf. Bingham, ibid . chap. 7.

The name Solomon (Heb. הׁמׁלשְׁ) means “peaceful.”

Hag. ii. 9 .

λυθεῖσαν, which may mean also “dissolved, decayed.” Crusè translates “dissolved”; Closs, “schon verwesend.”

Cf. Matt. xix. 28 .

See Isa. xxxv. 1

Isa. lxi. 10, 11 .

Ibid . liv. 4 .

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

Isa. liv. 6–8 .

Ibid . li. 17, 18 .

Ibid . li. 22, 23 .

Ibid . lii. 1, 2 .

Ibid . xlix. 18–21 .

νυμφοστόλος, referring to Paulinus.

2 Cor. vi. 16 .

ταῖς πληκτικαῖς τῶν μαθημ€των διδασκαλίας

Isa. liv. 11–14

θεί& 251· λουτρῷ; i.e. baptism.

Heinichen, followed by Closs, reads τοὺς μὲν…τοὺς δέ: “ Some of them he supports by pillars… others of them he illumines by windows.” But all the mss . read τοὺς μὲn…τοῖς δὲ, which, in view of the general character of Eusebius’ style throughout this oration, we are hardly justified in changing. I have therefore followed Valesius, Burton, and Crusè in retaining the reading of the mss .

Acts ii. 3 .

ἴσως

αὐτὸς ὅλος ἐγκ€θηται χριστός.

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.

Cf. Gal. iv. 26

Cf. Heb. xii. 22, 23 .

1 Cor. ii. 9 .

Psa. ciii. 3–5 .

Ibid . 10 .

Ibid . 12, 13 .

εἰς τοὺς σύμπαντας αἰ& 242·νας τῶν αἰ& 240·νων.

Heinichen gives ᾽Αντίγραφα βασιλικῶν νόμων περὶ τῶν χριστιανοῖς προσηκόντων as the title of this chapter. All but three of the mss ., however, agree in limiting the title to the first three words, the last four being given by the majority of them as the title of chap. 6. The words are quite out of place at the head of that chapter, which in two important mss ., followed by Stroth, is made a part of chap. 5. Heinichen inserts the words at this point because they are out of place in the position in which they commonly occur; but the truth is, they are no better adapted to the present chapter than to that one, for only one of the edicts quoted in this chapter has reference to the property of Christians. It seems to me much more likely that the words were originally written in the margin of some codex opposite that particular rescript, and thence by an error slipped into the text at the head of a later one, which was then made a separate chapter. In view of the uncertainty, however, as to the original position of the words, I have followed Laemmer, Schwegler, Stroth, Closs, and Stigloher, in omitting them altogether.

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.

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.

The Greek word is αἱρέσεις, which has been commonly translated “sects,” and the reference has been supposed to be to various schismatic bodies included in the former edict, but, as Mason remarks, such an interpretation is preposterous, and introduces an idea in direct contradiction to the entire tenor of the present document. The fact is that, although “sects” is the natural translation of the word αἱρέσεις, we find the same word in § 6, below, used to translate conditiones , and it may be reasonably assumed—in fact, it may be regarded as certain in view of the context—that in the present case the same word stood in the Latin original. I have no hesitation, therefore, in adopting the rendering which I have given in the text. These “conditions,” then, to which the edict refers were enumerated, not in the former edict itself, but in the rescript which accompanied it (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note 9). What these conditions were may be conjectured, as remarked in that note, from the provisions of the present edict (cf. Mason, p. 330 sq.).

ὅτί ποτέ ἐστι θειότης καὶ οὐρανίου πρ€γματος. Latin: quo quidem divinitas in sede cœlesti . The Greek is by no means a reproduction of the sense of the Latin, and indeed, as it stands, is quite untranslatable. I have contented myself with a paraphrase, which does not express what the Greek translator says, but perhaps is not entirely at variance with what he meant to say.

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.

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

μηδεμιŽ τιμῇ μηδὲ θρησκεία τινί. Latin, honori, neque cuiquam religioni . Mason concludes from this clause that in the rescript which accompanied the previous edict Christians had been excluded from certain official positions.

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.

τῷ σωματί& 251·. Latin, corpori . The use of this word (which we might almost translate “body corporate”) is a distinct recognition of the full legal status of the Christian Church, and of their right as a corporation in the eyes of the law to hold property. The right did not on this occasion receive recognition for the first time, but more distinctly and in broader terms than ever before. Upon the right of the Church to hold property before the publication of this edict, see especially Hatch’s Constitution of the Early Christian Churches , p. 152, note 25.

Greek, τῆς κοινῆς καὶ δημοσίας ἡσυχίας. Latin, more simply, quieti publicæ .

τούτῳ γὰρ τῷ λογισμῷ. Latin, hactenus .

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.

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

πολιτῶν. Valesius conjectures that πολιτευτῶν should be read instead of πολιτῶν, and therefore translates a decurionibus . Crusè, following him, reads “by the decurions.” The correction, however, though an improvement, is not necessary, and I have not felt justified in adopting it.

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.