4kt6s heathens ; so that Constantine ascribed to himself only a sort of episcopate in partibus injidelium. But this contradicts the connec- tion ; for Eusebius says immediately after, that he took a certain religious oversight over all his subjects (rohs o.px"l^^vovs a-rravras iireffKoiret, etc.), and calls him also elsewhere a " universal bishop " (i. 44). (b) Gieseler's interpretation is not much better (I. 2. § 92, not. 20, Amer. ed. vol. i. p. 371) : that oi iKrSr denotes all his subjects, Christian as well as non-Christian, but only in their civil relations, so far as they are outside the church. This entirely blunts the antithesis with ot flaw, and puts into the emperor's mouth a mere commonplace instead of a new idea ; for no one doubted his political sovereignty, (c) TJie genitive is rather to be taken as neu- ter in both cases, and irpay,ud.T<iiv to be supplied. This agrees with usage (we find it in Polybius), and gives a sense which agrees with the view of Eusebius and with the 134 THIRD PERIOD. A.D. 311-590. tending over the whole Roman empire, therefore oecumenical or "universal ; the other spiritual or sacerdotal, divided among tlie different diocesan bishops, and appearing properly in its unity and totality only in a general council. Accordingly, though not yet even baptized, he acted as the patron and universal temporal bishop of the church ; * sum- moned the first oecumenical council for the settlement of the controversy respecting the divinity of Christ ; instituted and deposed bishops ; and occasionally even delivered sermons to the people ; but on the other hand, with genuine tact (though this was in his earlier period, a, d. 31-i), kept aloof from the Donatist controversy, and referred to the episcopal tribunal as the highest and last resort in pm'ely spiritual matters. In the exercise of his imperial right of supervision he did not follow any clear insight and definite theory so much as an instinctive impulse of control, a sense of politico-religious duty, and the requirements of the time. His word only raised, did not solve, the question of the relation between the imperial and the sa- cerdotal ej^iscopacy and the extent of their respective jurisdic- tions in a Christian state. This question became thenceforth the problem and the strife of history both sacred and secular, ran through the whole mediaeval conflict between emperor and pope, between impe- rial and hierarchical episcopacy, and recurs in modified form in every Protestant established church. In general, from this time forth the prevailing view was, that God has divided all power between the priesthood and the kingdom (sacerdotium et imperium), giving internal or spir- itual affairs, especially doctrine and worship, to the foi'mer, and external or temporal affairs, such as government and discipline, whole practice of Constantino. There is, however, of course, another question : What is the proper distinction between to. iia-cc and to sktos, the interna and externa of the church, or, what is much