NPNF2-01 Eusebius 692
692 6 [Aifiopa", toi dicqa dedaiatai, escatoi andpwn,.
Oi men dusomenou uperiono", oi d`anionto".
—Odyss. 1. 23, 24.—Bag.]
7 Sapor II. (310–381) called the Great, one of the Sassanidae and afterwards the persistent enemy of the sons of Constantine. He was at various times a bitter persecutor of the Christians, and it is said (Plate) that “no Persian king had ever caused such terror to Rome as this monarch.” Compare article by Plate on the Sassanidae in Smith, Dict. of Gr. and R. Biog. and Mythol).
8 [Referring to the luminous appearances produced by the Pagan priests in the celebration of their mysteries.—Bag.]
9 [Valerian, who had been a persecutor of the Christians, and whose expedition against the Persians had terminated in his own captivity, and subjection to every kind of insult and cruelty from the conquerors.—Bag.]
10 [The sense given above of this passage (which in the text is corrupt), is founded on the reading restored by Valesius from Theodoritus and Nicephorus.—Bag.] Stroth translates (Hein.), “So I desire for you the greatest prosperity; and for them, too, I wish that it may prosper as with you.”
11 [That is, Friday. The passage is not very intelligible. Does it mean that Constantine ordered this day to be distinguished in some way from others, as the day of the Lord’s crucifixion?—Bag.]
12 [The decree of Constantine for the general observance of Sunday appears to have been issued a.d. 321, before which time both “the old and new sabbath” were observed by Christians.
“Constantine (says Gibbon, ch. 20, note 8) styles the Lord’s day Dies solis, a name which could not offend the ears of his Pagan subjects.”—Bag.] This has been urged as ground for saying that Constantine did not commit himself to Christianity until the end of life, but it only shows his tact and care in treating the diverse elements of his empire.
13 Compare for these, Yates, article Sigma Militaria in Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rm Ant., where there is given cut of the arch of Constantine showing such standards.
693 14 Compare Venables, Easter, Ceremonies of, in Smith and Cheetham, Dict., for account of the customs of the day.
15 [This prohibition must be limited to private sacrifices. See Bk. II., ch. 45, note.—Bag.]
16 “Str. rightly translates ‘and honored the festal days by public gatherings,0’ while Val). [and Bag.] falsely renders ‘duly honored the festival seasons of the church.0’”—Hein.
17 This saying of Constantine has occasioned a deal of exegesis and conjecture. Compare monograph of Walch mentioned under Literature in the Prolegomena for discussion and references to other older literature.
18 The most accessible reference for getting a glimpse of the legislation of Constantine in these and similar regards is the section, The alteration in general and penal legislation in Wordsworth’s Constantinus I., in Smith and Wace, Dict. 1 (1877). This section is on p. 636–7. Compare also the laws themselves as gathered in Migne, Patrol. lat. vol. 8. Compare also Prolegomena for general statement of the value of his legislation and his reputation as legislator.
19 [The word “philosophy,” here and in the 28th chapter, plainly indicates that virginity which was so highly honored in the earlier ages of Christianity, and the undue exaltation of which was productive, necessarily, of evils which it is scarcely possible to estimate at their full extent.—Bag.] On the growing prevalence of the practice of virginity compare Hatch, Virgins, in Smith and Cheetham, Dict. But this note belongs rather to the paragraph below; for the author does not refer to Christian virginity but primarily to philosophical celibacy in this instance. The Neo-Platonic philosophy of the times, through its doctrine of the purification of the soul by its liberation from the body or sensuous things, taught celibacy and ascetic practices generally. So Plotinus (d. 270 a.d.) practiced and taught to a degree, and Porphyry (d. 301+) more explicitly. Compare rich literature on Neo-Platonism, and conveniently Zeller, Outlines of Gr. Philos, Lond., 1886, p. 326–43, passim.
20 Compare Prolegomena, under Character and Writing’s.
21 Compare Prolegomena, and the Oration appended to this work).
22 [Since it is uncertain whether thou wilt be buried in the ground, or consumed by fire, or drowned in the sea, or devoured by wild beasts (Valesius in loc)..—Bag.]
23 Compare Prolegomena, under Character.
24 Compare the Oration itself following this work).
694 25 [i.e. through the sufferings and resurrection of Christ.—Bag.]
26 Molz. in a note regards these as lectionaries, but they are usually thought to have been regular copies of the Scriptures in Greek—Septuagint and N. T., and the Codex Sinaiticus has been thought to be one of them. It dates from not earlier than the time of Eusebius, as it contains the Eusebian Canons, but yet from the fourth century. Altogether it is not impossible that it was one of these, and at all events a description of it, extracted from Scriveners (Introduction, 1883, p. 88 sq)., will be a fair illustration. “13 1/2 inches in length by 14 7/8 inches high.” “Beautiful vellum.” “Each page comprises four columns, with 48 lines in each column.” “Continuous noble uncials.” “Arranged in quires of four or three sheets.” It is evident from comparison of several quotations of Eusebius that the copy of the New Testament which he himself used was not closely related with the Sinaitic text, unless the various readings headed by this ms. are all mistakes originating with it. Compare allusions in the notes to such different readings. The last clause, although in the text of Heinichen, is of doubtful authority.
27 This word is a transcription, rendered “Procurator” by Bag., and is perhaps corresponding to that official (cf. Long. article Fiscus, in Smith, Dict. Gr. and R. Ant.). But this transcription is recognized (cf. Ffoulkes, Catholicus, in Smith and Cheetham, Dict.).
28 The fact that the Sinaiticus exhibits two or three hands suggests that it was prepared with rapidity, and the having various scribes was a way to speed.
29 [The parchment copies were usually arranged in quaternions, i.e. four leaves made up together, as the ternions consisted of three leaves. The quaternions each contained sixteen pages, the ternions twelve (Valesius in loc)..—Bag.] So probably, although the three-columned form of the Sinaiticus and the four of the Vaticanus suggest a possible other meaning).
30 These are general dates; “about” the tenth, etc., would have been more exact. Compare Prolegomena, under Life.
31 [Griado" logw. Well may the old English Translator remark on this, “An odd expression.” We may go further, and denounce it as an instance of the senseless and profane adulation to which our author, perhaps in the spirit of his age, seems to have been but too much inclined.—Bag.]
32 Compare on the Synod of Tyre (held 335 a.d.), Hefele, Hist. of Councils, 2 (1876), 17–26.
33 Compare Hefele, 2. 26–7.
34 [Alexander, bishop of Thessalonica. By the Pannonian and Maesian bishops are meant Ursacius and Valens, leaders of the Arian party; by the Bithynian and Thracian, Theogonius of Nicaea, and Theodorus of Perinthus (Valesius).—Bag.]
35 “The emperor showed himself very attentive to them.”—Molz.
695 36 [Eusebius gives us no example of his application of Scripture in this case. His commentator Valesius refers to Zeph. iii. 8 (LXX), Dia touto upomeinon me, legei Kurio", ei" hmeran anastasew" mou ei" marturion, tells us that Cyril of Jerusalem, in his fourth Homily, explains this passage in Zephaniah of the Martyrium, of Basilica, which Constantine built on the spot of the Lord’s resurrection. Let any one examine the whole passage (allowing for the mistake of one hebrew word for another by the (LLX), and say, if this be a fair specimen, what we are to think of the Fathers of the fourth century as interpreters of Scripture. See also Bk. 3, ch.33, note.—Bag.] “Intepreted pertinent passages from the prophets.”—Str. and Molz.
37 The Oration is appended to this work.
39 Yet Eusebius himself in his Oration uses language almost as obnoxious, and records that Constantine was much pleased with it. The difference was probably one of gracefulness).
40 His second son by Fausta. Crispus seems now to be counted out. This was not the famous Eusebia who was his second wife.
41 [“The younger Constantine was appointed to hold his court in Gaul; and his brother Constantius exchanged that department, the ancient patrimony of their father, for the more opulent, but less martial, countries of the East. Italy, the Western Illyricum, and Africa, were accustomed to revere Constans, the third of his sons, as the representative of the great Constantine” (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. 18).—Bag.] Compare Prolegomena, under Life.
42 Centurions, generals, tribunes.
43 The expression is over strong. Constantius, e.g., was not baptized until just before his death).
44 [In his Chronicon, Eusebius gives the more correct period of thirty years and ten months. Constantine’s reign began a.d. 306, and his death took place a.d. 337.—Bag.] Compare Prolegomena, also Clinton, Fasti Rom. an. 337.
45 Compare Prolegomena, under Character.
46 “Psychical qualities”—including more than intellectual.
696 47 Compare Prolegomena, Character. There is a striking touch of naturalness in this passage which tells for the historical trustworthiness of the biographer, and though exposing the fault of the emperor yet gives a rather pleasing glimpse of his character.
48 Compare remarks in Prolegomena, under Writings and Character.
49 From this point to the end of the first sentence in ch. 58 is bracketed by Heinichen).
50 Literally “salutary word of cleansing,” but the paraphrase of Bag. will stand well whichever of the readings, “salutary cleansing,” or “salutary word of cleansing,” is adopted.
51 [These words seem to prove that the emperor now first became a catechumen. His postponement of baptism until his last illness (after having stood forward so long as the public advocate and protector of the Christian religion), and the superstitious reliance which he was encouraged to place on the late performance of this “mysterious” rite, afford an evidence of the melancholy obscuration of Christian truth at the very time when Christianity was ostensibly becoming the religion of the Roman Empire. There is probably too much truth in the following remarks of Gibbon: “The pride of Constantine, who refused the privileges of a catechumen, cannot easily be explained or excused: but the delay of his baptism maybe justified by the maxims and practice of ecclesiastical antiquity. The sacrament of baptism was supposed to contain a full and absolute expiation of sin; and the soul was instantly restored to its original purity, and entitled to the promise of eternal salvation. Among the proselytes of Christianity, there were many who judged it imprudent to precipitate a salutary rite, which could not be repeated; to throw away an inestimable privilege, which could never be recovered,” &c. (Decline and Fall, ch. 20).—Bag.] On the forms of admission to the catechumenate, compare Marriott, Baptism, in Smith and Cheetham, Dict.
52 Or “no hesitation.” On this clause a deal of controversy has hinged. “No hesitation shall longer prevail” is the rendering of Molz., and Keim (Uebertritt C. p. 1) similarly gives “let all duplicity be banished.” In the view of this translation, Constantine had been hedging all his life, trying to be Christian to Christians and heathen to heathen. The basis of the hypothesis is too slight for it to have any weight in view of the overwhelming documentary evidence of the frequent public professions of Christianity by Constantine, for which see Prolegomena, under Character. Discussion of various points relating to his baptism will be found under Literature, under the names Busaeus, Castelli, Dalhus, Frimelius Fuhrmann, Guidi, Halloix, Hynitzsch, Jacobus of Sarug, Nicolai, Polus, Schelstrate, Scultetus, Tentzel, Walther, Withof.
53 [It was customary for neophytes to wear white garments, which they laid aside on the eighth day from their baptism.—Bag.]
54 The idea of ownership in empire which seems so strange in these days of republics, and is disallowed even by theoretical monarchists, seems to have been a most matter-of-course one in the mind of Constantine, and Eusebius was a true imperialist regarding “tyranies” and “republics” as in the same category. Whether it was by “divine right” or “natural right” they were quite sure it was a “right,” and one to be freely exercised).
55 Compare Prolegomena, Life, Last Years; also for age at time of death, Prolegomena, p. 411, note.
56 [Alluding to his desire of being buried in the church of the apostles, and sharing their honors, as noticed in ch. 60.—Bag.]
57 [It appears that an interregnum of about three months took place, during which all the laws and edicts continued to be issued in the name of Constantine, as before his death.—Bag.]
697 58 The sharp sarcasms of Julian’s Caesars seem almost to have taken their text from this challenge. He marshals the great emperors before the gods, where each presents his claim to greatness. Constantine is greatly ridiculed, and yet to choose between Julian and Eusebius, if regard is had to Constantine’s real effect on world history, Eusebius is the truer judge, and is at least not so far wrong that his superlative enthusiasm for his imperial friend cannot be readily pardoned).
1 Or “once suffering.”
2 ermaiou, “gift of Hermes”; i.e. providential good-fortune. Valesius wrongly conjectures erma, “foundation” of promise.
3 Valesius, followed by various translators, substitutes “God” for “Nature.” But all ms. authority, and the context as well, is against.
4 1709, Molz., Vales., Cous., render “substitute in place thereof their own superstition.”
5 [The bishop who is thus metaphorically addressed as the guide and controller of the Church.—Bag.]
6 Some mss. read poma, “draught.”
7 “I read auth frasei …but regarding frasei as derived not from the verb frazein, but from the noun frasi".”—Hein.
8 “Ought not to shrink or to be neglectful.”
9 Valesius, followed by 1709 and substantially by Bag., omitting pro", renders “enter upon the head and principal matter of our design.” Hein. retains pro", and like Molz. renders “proceed, as well as I may, to my theme.” He means rather that having God’s help he will not fear to “essay great things.”
698 11 Presiding “overseer,” “president,” or “ruler.” It is the one who has charge of games or ships or public works, &c.
12 Cf. Jn 1,3, Jn 1,13, Jn i. 14, and Ep 1,10. There is the greatest variety in the rendering of this passage, of which Bag.’s is the worst. The writer draws here on a philosophy of the Logos, which recognizes the second person of the Trinity as the creator and head of created things. The free version of Cousin gives the best flavor ofthe idea. “He was produced by the inexhaustible fecundity of hiseternal mind to preside over the creation and government of thisvisible world.” A better translation waits on a better exposition of the doctrine of the Logos and its history.
13 Molz. renders “und die Organe, mir Hilfe deter das Wahrgenommene innerlich zur Idee erhoben wird.”
14 Chr. substantially “natural and artificial”; Molz. “lifeless and live”; perhaps “inorganic and organic” is meant.
15 [Alluding to the fabulous division of the world between the brothers Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. Valesius in loc.—Bag.] Or rather Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades. Zeus had the heavens, Poseidon the sea, and Hades the underworld, while the earth remained “with high Olympus, common to us all”—a fruitful source of dissension. Cf. Homer, Il. XV. 184–195, ed. Doederlein, 2 (1864), p. 64–65; tr. Bryant, XV. ll. 227–245.
16 A possible reading here is exairetw", i.e. take as the chief object, &c.—Vales. and Hein.
17 Valesius remarks that many instances are recorded where the oracle of Apollo replied to those who consulted him that Bacchus or Saturn must be placated in order to their liberation.
19 A favorite theme of the Christian apologists. Cf. long list given in the Clementine Recognitions, X. 22.
20 Or “perfections.”
21 “To be referred not to the preceding ‘Christ0’ but …the supreme God.”—Hein. (?).
699 22 [Constantine seems to have supposed the Paradise of our first parents to be somewhere apart from this earth. In this fanciful idea, which is obviously indefensible from Scripture he is countenanced by the opinions of Tertullian, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Valentinian, and Jerome, some of whom placed it in or above the third heaven, others in the fourth, others again in a world superior to the present, &c. See the note of Valesius, who quotes from some of these Fathers. In reference to what follows, we may ask, Was Constantine acquainted with, or does he avoid noticing, the circumstances of the fall?—Bag.] Ans. Constantine like many another to our own day seems to regard the “fall” as a fall upwards—that complacent optimism which ignores Scripture and Schopenhauer alike).
23 Without the logo", i.e. inarticulate or (as here) irrational.
24 For a full discussion of various definitions and usage of the word Fate (h eiriarmenh) in Greek philosophy, compare Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics (Lond. 1880), p. 170–171, notes.
25 automaton. The usual word for chance or accident is tuch. These may be here, as is often the case, simple synonyms, but both words are used in the same phrase later in such way as to suggest that tuch is parallel with “fate” rather than “chance” in the author’s mind). automaton seems to be used of “self-originating,” tuch of originating from some unknown cause or without any cause. The former is the modern, self-energized, “lift-yourselves-by-your-own-boot-straps” evolution. The latter is a form of agnosticism. Aristotle (Metaph. 10. 8) defines chance (tuch) as a “cause by accident” (sumbebhko"), or more literally “coincidence,” which is substantially what Janet (Final Causes, 1878, p. 19) means by defining chance as the coincidence of causes. At the end of the same chapter Aristotle uses automaton in contrast with tuch—“tuch or even automaton,” which has been rendered (M’Mahon) “chance or even spontaneity.” In modern phrase those who hold these three various views of the universe might be characterized as “material evolutionists,” “transcendental idealists,” and “philosophical (or perhaps ‘agnostic0’) evolutionists.”
26 i.e. “plan.”
27 dikaiosunh, better “righteousness,” “correctness of thinking, feeling, and acting” (Thayer, Lex. p. 149). So its opposite mentioned below (adikia) is better “unrighteousness,” as generally in the revised English version of the N. T., “mammon of unrighteousness” (Lc 16,9, e.g).. The word means more than our “just,” “more,” as Socrates said (Plat). Rep. 1. 331), “than to speak the truth and pay your debts.” Righteousness is the better translation, but we are met with the difficulty. that it has generally been rendered justice in translations of the philosophers.
28 swfrosunh, temperance, vs. akolasia, intemperance, below; soundness of mind vs. insanity (cf. use in Ac 26,25, and of verb in Mc 5,15 Lc 8,35 also use in Plato, Rep. Lc 332, &c).; self-control vs. unbridled desire. This same contrast of swfrosunh and akolasia is found in Aristotle, Eth. 2, 7,3; 7, 7,I; and especially 7, 9,5.
29 ti dikaion, not dikaiosunh.
30 This is very free, and follows translation of Valesius and 1709 text). 1709 marg. translates more literally, “But either crimes, or, on the other hand, brave performances, which are [the property] of a good and right purpose of mind, if they happen sometimes one way, at others another,” and Molz. somewhat similarly. It is possible that it should read: “Granted that either evil actions proceeding from a good and upright will, or contrariwise, good actions [from an evil will] which issue directly contrary [to their own nature or to just expectation] may be ascribed to chance or fate, how can the right,” &c.
700 34 noo" was not narrowed to the mere intellectual functions. “Intellectual” is not to be taken of brain function only, but of brain and heart,—real knowing, as against the “intellectuation” which men nowadays try to force the word “know” to mean.
35 “Quire of the stars,” 1709.
36 The “logo" endiaqeto"” of Philo, frequent in Alexandrian theologians. It is the unuttered thought vs. the expressed word.
37 Fore-ordination, or plan.
39 yuch" = “soul.” In the absence of a proper Biblical psychology the word has been most sadly abused in translations. The only way back to a proper conception of the words “spirit” and “soul” and “life,” &c., is to re-establish a uniform rendering for them. It is as bad as the rendering, of our English version, where nephesk (= yuch) is rendered “life.”
40 This is almost identically the form of what Socrates (Apol. c.2) declared to be the falsehood circulated by his enemies to his prejudice. “But far more dangerous are those who began when you were children and took possession of your minds with their falsehoods, telling of one Socrates, a wise man who …made the worse appear the better cause” (logon, “reason”), Tr. Jowett, 1 (1874), 316. This example does peculiar discredit either to the learning or the mental honesty of the author.
41 Rather “deriving existence from,” “proceeding from,” gives strict idea, but may be confounded with the technical “proceeding from” of the “filioque” controversy, which is quite another phrase.
43 “The one simple” is not in the text, but is a conjectural addition of Valesius, followed by most translators. “Consisting of bodily structure” seems possibly to be an epexegetical phrase relating to the “all things” which he divides into intellectual and sensible, making the intellectual as well as the sensible to have bodily (somatic) structure. “All things,” or “the universe,” a plural technical term, is regarded as his mind passes to the explanation as “the all.” This psychological probability appears a simpler solution than the various textual conjectures.
44 Heinichen suspects that there has been an inversion of words here, and that it should have been, “He further teaches the admirable and profitable doctrine,” and “a doctrine not merely to be admired” omitted.
701 45 “All the Greek-speaking world, and foreign lands as well.”
46 Rhadamanthus was a son of Jove (or Vulcan) and Europa. Cf. Hom). Il. 14. 322; Od. 4. 564, 7. 323.
47 [There can be no doubt (though the fact is not immediately apparent from the wording of the text), that the spirit of this passage is ironical.—Bag.]
48 Rather “cheat,” or “delude.” Mr. Charles Dudley Warner, essayist and novelist, says in an interesting essay on the relation of fiction to life, that the object of fiction is to produce illusions, and the test of its art is its power to produce such illusion.
49 There is a temptation here to adopt the translation of Molz. “Truth lies in the fiction, however, when what is told corresponds to reality.” Mr. Warner, in his lecture, goes on to say that the object of fiction is to reveal what is,—not the base and sordid things rely or peculiarly, but the best possibilities, and gives an exquisite exposition of the fact that the idealism of true fiction is simply the realism of the nobler characteristics and truths. The truth is, that the object of fiction or poetry as art is to produce the image,—fill the whole personality with a picture. This is only gained in its highest form when every detail exactly corresponds to truth or reality. The function of fiction is not illusion, but realization. Its object is the reproduction of truth). Molz. makes Constantine say that fiction is true when it corresponds to reality, though the forms be not historical or actual. This is a true observation, but not what Constantine says. He says in substance, with Mr. Warner, that the object is to produce illusion or deceive, while the idea of truth is just the reverse.
50 One ms. adds, “and concerning those who did not know this mystery.” In another the chapter is divided, and this is the heading of the second part.
51 Or “this discourse concerning virtue.”
52 [Alluding to the apostles, who are called in the beginning of ch. 15, “the best men of their age.” Were it our province to criticise, we might notice the contrariety of such expressions as these to the account which Scripture gives us of those “unlearned and ignorant men,” the feeble, and, in themselves, fallible instruments, whom God selected to further his wondrous designs of mercy to a ruined world.—Bag.] Were it in our province to criticise the critic, we might notice that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and refer to the whole Book of Proverbs. Any just conception of wisdom or true learning says the same thing. The man who knows that God and not fusi" or tuch manages the universe, is more learned than the wisest of those learned in things which are not so.
53 Christophorson extends ch. 10 to this point, and here introduces ch. II, with the heading “On the coming of Our Lord in the flesh; its nature and cause.”
54 Preserved, preserver, and preservation = saved, saviour, and salvation. This represents the N. T. idea better than the popular conception which confuses Christ our Saviour with Christ our Redeemer. Redemption was a necessary part of his effort for our salvation, but the salvation itself was a saving, in literal English preserving. We have been redeemed; we are being saved.
55 Bag. follows here Valesius’ translation and note where he makes the word “preservation” a conjectural emendation of Scaliger, inconsistent with the meaning of the passage, and omits translating “the cause of all things that exist.” But Hein. does not even hint such reading, and his text (followed also by Molz.), so far from tending to disturb the whole meaning, gives much the more intelligent conception. Christ is the preserver (saviour) of things. Preservation of things is the effect of that cause, just as the Father is the cause of the Son, and the Son the effect of that cause. Therefore they preserver precedes created things as a cause precedes its effect.
702 56 Valesius expresses a preference for the reading kaqodou (advent) here instead of kaqolou (universal), but the latter is the reading of Heinichen, and undoubtedly correct). Bag. has followed Valesius.
57 “New mode” is a paraphrase supported by only one ms. The real meaning of noqhn is well expressed by Chr., “alienam quandam a communi hominum natura nascendi rationem sibi ex-cogitavit.” Its usual meaning is “illegitimate.”
58 This is supposed to refer to He i. 3, although a different Greek word is used.
59 Various suggestions have been made regarding the dove which according to the literal rendering “flew from the ark of Noah.” Christophorson (according to Valesius) supposes it to be that dove which Noah formerly sent out of the ark, this dove being a figure of the Holy Spirit which was afterward to come in the Virgin. Jerome, Ep. ad Oc., also regards the Noachic dove as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Vales., followed by 1711 and Bag., prefer to translate as if it were “like that,” &c. This form of the story, according to which the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove, is according to Valesius from the Apochrypha; perhaps, he suggests, from the “Gospel to the Hebrews.” In later art the dove is the constant symbol of the Holy Spirit, and is often found in pictures of the annunciation, e.g. in pictures by Simeone Memmi, Dürer, Andrea del Sarto, and many others. It is found in six of the pictures of the annunciation given by Mrs. Jameson (Legends of the Madonna, p. 165 sq)..
60 The author seems to have here a reference to the Aristotelian distinction between prudence and wisdom (cf). Ethics, 6. 3; 7. 8, &c).. It reminds of that passage (vi. 7, ed. Grant ad. ii. 165–166), where the two are distinguished and defined, wisdom being “concerned with the immutable, and prudence with the variable”; and a little farther along wisdom is distinguished from “statesmanship,” i.e. the “social” of Bag., which is a form of “prudence” (tr. Williams, p. 160), and indeed (vi. 8. 1) generically identical with prudence. So again (1, 2) “political art” is identified with ethics.
61 Social virtues or “political” virtues. Cf. the “political art” or “statesmanship” of Aristotle.
62 [Pollou xronou, “for a considerable time.” This seems to be a rhetorical addition to the circumstances of the miracle, scarcely to be justified by the terms of the inspired narrative.—Bag.]
63 At this point Christophorson begins his chapter xii., “of those who did not know the mystery,” &c.
64 The translator takes most extraordinary liberties with the word “philanthropy”; now it is “loving-kindness,” now “love of their fellow-men,” and so on in picturesque variety, and yet as appropriate as it is lacking in uniformity.
65 Cf. Rm 8,25; Ga 5,5.
66 [The text, in the last clause of this passage, is undoubtedly corrupt. The above is an attempt to supply a probable sense.—Bag.] This is omitted by Hein. from his text.
703 67 i.e. healing the paralytics. This paraphrased passage reads more literally, “bidding those bereft of sense [i.e. sensation, feeling] to feel again.” Still it may be that Molz. is right in thinking it refers to the senses—seeing, hearing, &c.—as well as feeling, though his translation will-hardly stand; “and to such as lacked any of the senses he granted the full use of all their senses again.”
68 Literally and better, “through the confession.” It refers to those who are technically known as confessors. Although in general the distinction prevails by which those who have suffered, but not unto death, are called “confessors,” while those who lost their lives are called “martyrs” (cf. Pseud-Cypr). de dupl. Mart. c. 31), yet its use for martyrs is not uncommon (cf. Ambrose, ad Gratian, c. 2). Later the term was used of all, especially faithful professors of Christ.
69 Cf. Jn 17,3; 1Jn 5,19–20).
70 This translation “to whom” accords with the reading of Valesius, followed by 1611, Molz., “Zimmermann,” Cous. (“whose cause he has sustained”), but Hein. adopts the reading “who,” preceded by Chr., who translates “who himself bravely endured martyrdom.”
71 [Alluding to the tapers, &c., lighted at the tombs of martyrs on the anniversary of their death.—Bag.] Compare Scudamore, Lights, The Ceremnonial Use of, in Smith and Cheetham, Dict. 1 (1880), 993 sq.
73 [The text of this passage is defective. The conjectural restoration of Valesius, which seems probable, is chiefly followed.—Bag.] Heinichen, like Christophorson and Savil before him, “does not hesitate,” with one of the mss., to omit this passage.
74 This is following with Heinichen, and meets the conjecture of Valesius as over against the mss. and other conjectures, which, substituting mania for omoia, read “for if it be madness to liken these things to him,” &c.
75 Or “sensible”; i.e. world of sense or perception.
76 This is the word often rendered by Bag. as “spiritual.”
77 This is supposed to refer to Rev. ii. 7–10; Rev 3,11, &c. It might well have in mind Col 3,2–4, or best of all Ap 21,7, as containing the thought of victory (nikaw = “overcome”).
NPNF2-01 Eusebius 692