The history of the church from our Lords incarnation, to the twelth year of the Emperour Maricius Tiberius, or the Year of Christ 594 / as it was written in Greek, by Eusebius Pamphilius ..., Socrates Scholasticus, and Evagrius Scholasticus ... ; made English from that edition of these historians, which Valesius published at Paris in the years 1659, 1668, and 1673 ; also, The life of Constantine in four books, written by Eusibius Pamphilus, with Constantine's Oration to the convention of the saints, and Eusebius's Speech in praise of Constantine, spoken at his tricennalia ; Valesius's annotations on these authors, are done into English, and set at their proper places in the margin, as likewise a translation of his account of their lives and writings ; with two index's, the one, of the principal matters that occur in the text, the other, of those contained in the notes.

CHAP. XXV. Concerning Diocletian, who with infamy re∣signed the Empire; and, by reason of his persecuting the Church, was stricken; with Thunder.

BUt Diocletian, after that Bloudy Cruelty of his Persecution, being condemned by a sen∣tence which he pronounc't against himself; a 1.1 be∣cause of the harm he received by the loss of his wits, was punished by being shut up in one despicable House.

What was the advantage therefore which he got, by his raising a War against our God? This, I think; that he might finish the remaining part of his Life, in a continual fear of being Thun∣der-struck. The City Nicomedia does attest this: nor, are they silent, who saw the thing with their own eyes; of which number I my self am one. b 1.2 The Palace was destroyed, and Diocle∣tian's own * 1.3 Room; Thunder, and a fire from Heaven ruining and devouring it.

Indeed, the event of those things had been pre∣dicted by prudent persons. For they were not silent, nor did they conceal their lamentation of affairs, which were managed with so much of indignity: but with freedom spake their minds openly and in publick, and discoursed one with another [in this manner.] What outragious fury is this? How extravagant is this arro∣gancy of power, that men should dare to wage a War against God; and should resolve to in∣sult over and reproach the most holy and most righteous Religion; and [should not scruple] to Plot and Contrive the Ruine of so numerous a multitude, and of such just men, when there is not the least fault in them? c 1.4 O Rare Instructer of the Modesty of all Subjects! O [Excellent Teacher] of that care which the Army bore towards their own Citizens! The Breasts of their own Country∣men were wounded by those, d 1.5 who had never seen the backs of their Enemies in a fight. But at length, Divine Providence inflicted on them the punishment of such impious facts; and yet, not without damage to the Empire. e 1.6 'Tis certain, the slaughters committed were so nu∣merous, f 1.7 that had they been made [in Bat∣tels] against the Barbarians, they might have been sufficient to have procured us a perpetual Peace.

For, that whole Army of the forementioned Em∣perour, when afterwards it came under the Command of a g 1.8 worthless person, who by force had seized upon the Empire of the Romans, (h 1.9 Divine Providence having at length set at Liberty that great City;) was totally ruined in many and those * 1.10 Bloudy Battels. i 1.11 Moreover, the Cries to God of those that were opprest, and who ar∣dently desired their Native freedom; the Praises also and Thanksgivings paid to God, after a deliverance from those Mischiefs, when Liberty k 1.12 and contracts with Justice were resto∣red to them; do not these things all manner of ways declare the Providence of God, and his Paternal Love towards men?

Notes

• a 1.1

  For what reason Dio∣cletian re∣signed the Empire, is a thing not agreed on amongst Writers. Some tells us, that Diocletian (in regard he was a Curious Searcher into things future, when he had found by the Answers of the Soothsayers, that most fore Calamities hung over the Roman State;) voluntarily re∣linquish't the Empire. This is attested by Aurelius Victor. Others write, that Diocletian being grown old, when he perceived himself to be less fit for the management of the Government, both by rea∣son of his age, and on account of his unhealthiness; took this Reso∣lution. Thus Eutropius, a most faithfull, and most elegant Writer. The same is recorded by that unknown Authour, in the Panegyrick which he spoke to Maximianus Herculius and Constantine. Sed tamen, says he, utcunque fas fuerit, eum principem quem a•••••• cogerent, & valetudo deficeres, receptui canere. Te verò in quo adhue sunt istae in∣tegrae solidaeque vires, &c. There are those who write, that Diocle∣tian, when he saw the Christians could not be overcome by him; by reason of grief and impatience, resigned the Empire; as we may reade in Zonaras. But Constantine does affirm in express words here, that Diocletian voluntarily removed himself from the Empire, on ac∣count of the loss of his wits. And who is he, that dares contra∣dict Constantine's Testimony, in regard he had lived in Diocle∣tian's Court; nor could any of these affairs be unknown to him. Eusebius relates the same also, in the Eighth Book of his History. But, there are many things, which may make us doubt concerning this matter. For first, although Diocletian survived his Resignation of the Empire a long while, yet he never gave any indication of a distracted mind. Even that very one saying of his, (which was his answer to Herculius and Galerius, inviting him to re-assume the Em∣pire.) how much of wisedom is there in it? Utinam Salonae possetis visere olera nostris manibus sata, I wish you could come to see the Pot∣herbs sown with our hands at Salona. Therefore, in that Retirement he was always honoured by all the Emperours of that time, who paid a dutifull observance to him, as to a Father. Hear Eumenius in the Panegyrick which he spoke to Constantine. Atenim divinum illum virum, &c; But, that Divine Person, who was the first that was a part∣ner of and resigned the Empire, repents not of his own Resolution and deed. Happy and truly Blessed man, to whom now a private person, your dutifullness, who are so great Princes, doth pay an honour! Would Diocletian have been so highly honoured by four Emperours that were Augusti, had his Intellectuals been depraved? Or, would Eumenius have termed him a Divine Person, on this account espe∣cially, because he was the first that had resigned the Empire, if that had been done by him, by reason of his madness and dotage? Lastly, Diocletian had taken a Resolution of resigning the Empire, long before the Persecution; then namely, when he triumphed over the Persians and other Barbarous Nations, at Rome. For there, in the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, he required an Oath of his Colleague Herculius, that they should both resign the Empire on one and the same day. This, Eumenius informs us of, in the Panegyrick now cited. Hunc ergo istum qui, &c. This man therefore was ashamed to imitate that person, who had been made a Brother [in the Empire] by him; it re∣pented this man, that the other had sworn in the Temple of Jupiter Capi∣tolinus. Now, Diocletian triumphed at Rome, with his Colleague Herculius, on the eighteenth year of his Empire, as Jerome relates in the Chronicon; that is, on the year before the Persecution was raised against the Christians. 'Tis certain, the Authour of the Panegyrick spoken to Maximianus and Constantine does attest, that that Resolution was taken by Diocletian, and communicated to Herculius, long before his Resignation: his words are these. Tale est Imp. quod omnibus nobis incluso gemitu moerentibus facere Voluisti▪ non quidem tu Reip▪ negligenti••, aut Laboris fugâ, aut desidiae cupiditate ductus, sed confili•• olim, ut res est, inter vos placiti constantiâ, &c. Which things being so, how can that which Constantine says, stand good, that Diocletian ran mad after the Persecution of the Christians, and for that reason voluntarily removed himself from the Empire? Indeed, I might be easily induced to believe, that Diocletian was seized with a sickness, after the Persecution was begun, and was for some time distracted; especially, in regard Constantine and Eusebius do constantly affirm that. For this usually happens to sick people, and specially to melan∣cholick persons; of which sort Diocletian was, as may be guessed from his Coyns. But, I deny, that for this reason he resigned the Empire. Further, in the Fuketian and Turneb. Copies, the reading of this whole place runs thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Vales.
• b 1.2

  He means the Palace of Nicomedia, which was consumed by an accidental fire, a little after the Persecution against the Christians was raised by Diocletian. And the Emperours them∣selves, and the rest of the Heathens, blamed the Christians as the Au∣thours of this fire, and therefore raged against them with severer pu∣nishments; as our Eusebius relates in the Eighth Book of his Eccles. History, Chap. 6, about the close of the Chapter. But Constantine attests, that that Palace was consumed by fire sent from heaven. Whose testimony has so much the more authority, because he him∣self was present, when these things were done at Nicomedia. And Diocletian, astonished by this clap of Thunder, seems till his death to have continued 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, always fearing he should be struck with Thunder. 'Tis certain, this Narrative of Constantine's seems to in∣timate this. From hence it appears, how egregiously mistaken Chri∣stophorson is, in translating the Title of this chapter. For he thought, that Diocletian's Palace had been burnt, after his resignation of the Empire: whenas, nevertheless, that hapned whilst Diocletian as yet held the Empire, and made his Residence in the Palace of Nico∣media. Vales.
• * 1.3

  Or, House.
• c 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The last word is wanting in the Fuke∣tian Copy. Vales.
• d 1.5

  Either he speaks these words con∣cerning the Tyrones, who ha∣ving been newly en∣rolled a∣mongst the Militia, had never yet engaged with an Enemy; or else concerning those cow∣ardly and faint-hearted Souldiers, whose usage it was to flee out of the Fight, and had never conquered their Enemies. Indeed, Diocletian's Army is said to have done nothing memorable, save only the taking of the Achilleum at Alexandria, by a long Siege. Farther, 'tis very hard to understand what Constantine should mean, when he says, that those Souldiers had wounded the Breasts of their own Citizens, that is, of the Christians. 'Tis probable, that Diocletian, in regard he was incensed against the Christians, by whom he supposed his Palace to have been fired, had given his Souldiers order, that whatever Christians they could find in the City or in the Fields, they should slay. 'Tis certain, many thousands of Christians are related to have been slain at Nicomedia, under Diocletian, and Maximian: the memory of which persons thus murdered, is by the Greeks cele∣brated, on the fourth of September, and on the twenty eighth of De∣cember. Vales.
• e 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This period is removed out of its place. For, it ought to have been placed immediately after the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in this manner: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. That is,—who had ne∣ver seen the backs of their Enemies in a Fight. 'Tis certain, the slaughters committed were so numerous, that had they been made [in Battels] against the Barbarians, they might have been sufficient to have procured us a perpetual peace. But at length, Divine Pro∣vidence inflicted on them the punishment of such impious facts; and yet, not without damage to the Empire. For, that whole Army of the forementioned Emperour, &c. What can be clearer than these words, what more plain? Questionless, he must be very obstinate, who shall deny, that these words are thus to be restored. Vales.
• f 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 There may be a double mea∣ning of this place. For, either it may be rendred thus, as Portesius has turn'd it. Sanè caedis & sanguinis tanta vis fuit, ut si Barbarorum esset, ad foedus sempiternum sufficeret. Indeed, so great was the abun∣dance of slaughter and bloud, that had it been of the Barbarians, it might have sufficed for a perpetual League. Or else, with Christophorson, it may be translated in this manner. Tot planè factae sunt caedes, quot si in barbaros factae fuissent, satis multae ad aeternam pacem constituendam videri potuissent. So many slaughters were committed, that had as many been made against the Barbarians, they might have seemed enough to have establisht an Eternal Peace. And this latter sense pleases me best. Lucan's opinion is wholly the same, in the beginning of his Pharsalia, when he says;

  Heu quantum potuit terrae pelagique parari Hoc quem civiles hauserunt sanguine dextrae!

  Yet, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it would be better written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 For it fol∣lows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vales.
• g 1.8

  He means Maxentius, as 'tis ap∣parent from the following words. Now, how Diocle∣tian's Ar∣my should come un∣der the Command of Maxen∣tius, is not diffi∣cult to guess. After the Resignation of Diocletian, Galerius Maxi∣mianus received his Forces; part whereof he delivered to Severus Caesar, for the defence of Italy. Some little time after, when Maxen∣tius had seized the Empire of Rome, Galerius sent Severus with his Forces against him. But Maxentius having corrupted Severus's Army by fraud, and with promises, brought them over to his own side. After this, when Galerius had made an Expedition against Maxentius with a greater number of Forces, he also was deserted by a like Re∣volt of his Souldiers. Thus Diocletian's Forces came under the Command and power of Maxentius. Vales.
• h 1.9

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the Fuketian Copy, and in Turnebus's Book, this place is read thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vales.
• * 1.10

  Manifold, or, Fights of all sorts.
• i 1.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It must be▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c; and we have rendred it accordingly. In the Fuke∣tian Copy 'tis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vales.
• k 1.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Constantine does glory, because, having crusht the Tyranny of Maxentius, he had restored to the Romans, Liberty and Contracts with justice. For, after the slaughter of the Tyrant, whatever things had been done, either by Him or his Judges, were null'd. Therefore, if any one had been preferred to a dignity by him, he was reduced to his former condition, and was forc't to bring in the Codicills [or, Patent] of the dignity he had obtained, to the Lawfull Prince. The Sentences also, and Decrees, which the Judges had made in those times, were taken away out of the Publick Scrinia and Offices of Record. Lastly, that whole time of the Tyranny was accounted for nothing, in the same manner as if it had never been. Wherefore, neither was it of advantage for the prescription of a long time. Compacts also and Bargains, and Con∣tracts of what sort soever, which had been made between private persons during that space of time, were in like manner null'd, and that even with the strictest authority and power. But lawfull Princes, after they had gotten the Victory over Tyrants, and had rescinded all their Acts; were wont to confirm Bargains, Sales, Donations, Manumissions, and such like Acts of private persons, by granting an indulgence of a publick constitution: least, if all these should be made null, the quiet and security of private persons might be disturbed. Hereof we have information; from the Emperours Laws in the Theo∣dosian Code, B. 15; De infirmandis his quae sub Tyrannis gesta sunt. Whence we understand, why Constantine says, that he had restored Contracts to the Romans. In the Fuketian Copy, the reading is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To this usage Rufinus seems to allude, in the end of his ninth Book, when he says. Edictis namque frequentibus per omnem locum propositis, non solùm tyrannicas adversus Christianos depulerat leges, jusque civile reddiderat, &c. Vales.