Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChurch Fathers: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: 21.02.59 Supplement Notes Pt 2
TOPIC: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 01 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 21.02.59 Supplement Notes Pt 2
Other Subjects in this Topic:
We may suppose that at the same time whatever vague plans were in the minds of any of the Christians were crystallizing during that winter, as they began to realize that Galerius' hold upon the emperor was such that the latter could never be brought to break with him. We may thus imagine that while Galerius was seeking evidence of a plot, the plot itself was growing and taking a more serious shape in the minds at least some of the more daring and worldly minded Christians. Finally, sufficient proof was gathered to convince even Diocletian that there was some sort of a plot on foot, and that the plotters were Christians. The question then arose what course should be pursued in the matter. And this question may well have caused the calling together of a number of counsellors and the consultation of the oracle of Apollo of which Lactantius tells us. Galerius naturally wished to exterminate the Christians as a whole, knowing their universal hostility to him; but Diocletian just as naturally wished to punish only such as were concerned in the plot, and was by no means convinced that the Christians as a whole were engaged in it. The decision which was reached, and which is exhibited in the edict of the 24th of February, 303 seems to confirm in a remarkable manner the theory which has been presented. Instead of issuing an edict against Christians in general, Diocletian directs his blows solely against Christians in governmental circles,-public officials and servants in official families (cf. the interpretation of the edict given above in Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 6). This is certainly not the procedure of an emperor who is persecuting on religious grounds. The church officers should in that case have been first attacked as they had been by Decius and Valerian. The singling out of Christians in official circles-and the low as well as the high ones, the servants as well as the masters-is a clear indication that the motive was political, not religious. Moreover, that the edict was drawn in such mild terms is a confirmation of this. These men were certainly not all guilty, and it was not necessary to put them all to death. It was necessary to put an end to the plot in the most expeditious and complete way. The plotters should be shown that their plot was discovered, and the whole thing should be broken up by causing some of them to renounce their faith, by degrading and depriving of citizenship all that would not renounce it. It was a very shrewd move. Executions would but have increased the rebellious spirit and caused the plot to spread. But Diocletian was well aware that any one that renounced his faith would lose caste with his fellow-Christians, and even if he had been a plotter in the past, he could never hope to gain anything in the future from the accession of a Christian emperor. He was careful moreover to provide against any danger from those who refused to renounce their faith, by putting them into a position where it would be impossible for them to accomplish anything in that line in the future. He knew that a plot which had no support within official circles would be of no account and was not to be feared. The action, based on the grounds given, was worthy of Diocletian's genius; explained in any other way it becomes, in my opinion, meaningless. A further confirmation of the view which has been presented is found in the silence of Lactantius and Eusebius. The former was in Nicomedia, and cannot have failed to know the ostensible if not the true cause of the great persecution. Diocletian cannot have taken such a step without giving some reason for it, and doubtless that reason was stated in the preambles of his edicts, as is the case in the edicts of other emperors; but as it happens, while we know the substance of all the edicts, not a single preamble has been preserved. May it not be possible that the Christians, who preserved the terms of the edicts, found the preambles distasteful because derogatory to some of themselves and yet unfortunately not untrue?The reasons which Lactantius gives are palpable makeshifts, and indeed he does not venture to state them categorically. " I have learned," he says, " that the cause of his fury was as follows." Doubtless he had heard it thus in Christian circles; but doubtless he had heard it otherwise from heathen or from the edicts themselves; and he can hardly, as a sensible man, have been fully satisfied with his own explanation of the matter. Eusebius attempts no explanation. He tells us in chapter I, above, that the Church just before the persecution was in an abominable state and full of unworthy Christians, and yet he informs us that he will pass by the unpleasant facts to dwell upon the brighter side for the edification of posterity. Was the cause of the persecution one of the unpleasant facts ? He calls it a judgment of God. Was it a merited judgment upon some who had been traitors to their country? He gives us his opinion as to the causes of the persecution of Decius and Valerian; why is he silent about the causes of this greatest of all the persecutions ? His silence in the present case is eloquent.
The course of events after the publication of the First Edict is not difficult to follow. Fire broke out twice in the imperial palace. Lactantius ascribes it to Galerius, who was supposed to have desired to implicate the Christians; but, as Burckhardt remarks, Diocletian was not the man to be deceived in that way, and we may dismiss the suspicion as groundless. That the fires were accidental is possible, but extremely improbable. Diocletian at least believed that they were kindled by Christians, and it must be confessed that he had some ground for his belief. At any rate, whether true or not, the result was the torture (for the sake of extorting evidence) and the execution of some of his most faithful servants (see Bk. VIII. chap. 6). It had become an earnest matter with Diocletian, and he was beginning to feel-as he had never had occasion to feel before-that a society within the empire whose claims were looked upon as higher than those of the state itself, and duty to which demanded, in case of a disagreement between it and the state, insubordination, and even treason, toward the latter, was too dangerous an institution to tolerate longer, however harmless it might be under ordinary circumstances. It was at about this time that there occurred rebellions in Melitene and Syria, perhaps in consequence of the publication of the First Edict; at any rate, the Christians, who were regarded with ever increasing suspicion, were believed to be in part at least responsible for the outbreaks, and the result was that a second edict was issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches should be thrown into prison (see above, Bk. VIII. chap. 6). Here Diocletian took the same step taken by Decius and Valerian, and instituted thereby a genuine religious persecution. It was now Christians as Christians whom he attacked; no longer Christian officials as traitors. The vital difference between the first and second edicts is very clear. All that followed was but the legitimate carrying out of the principle adopted in the Second Edict,-the destruction of the Church as such, the extermination of Christianity.
On Bk. X. chap. 8, § 4 (note I, a).
After Constantine's victory over Maxentius, his half-sister Constantia, daughter of Constantius Chlorus by his second wife, Theodora, was married to Licinius, and thus the alliance of the two emperors was cemented by family ties. Constantius Chlorus was a grandson of Crispus, brother of the Emperor Claudius II., and hence could claim to be, in a sense, of imperial extraction; a fact which gave him a dignity beyond that of his colleagues, who were all of comparatively low birth. Constantine himself and his panegyrists always made much of his illustrious descent.
Augustus
b.c. 27-a.d. 14
Tiberius
a.d. 14-37
Caius Caligula
37-41
Claudius
41-54
Nero
54-68
Galba
68-69
Otho
69
Vitellius
69
Vespasian
69-79
Titus
79-81
Domitian
81-96
Nerva
96-98
Trajan
98-117
Hadrian
117-138
Antonius Pius
138-161
Marcus Aurelius [Antoninus Verus]
161-180
Lucius Verus
161-169
Commodus
180-192
Pertinax
193
Didius Julianus
193
Niger
193-194
Septimius Severus
193-211
Caracalla
211-217
Geta
211-212
M. Opilius Macrinus
217-218
Heliogabalus, or Elagabalus
218-222
Alexander Severus
222-235
Maximin I
235-238
The Gordians, I and II
237-238
Maximus Pupienus
238
Balbinus
238
Gordian III
238-244
Philip
244-249
Decius
249-251
Gallus
251-252
Aemilian
253
Valerian
253-260
Gallienus
260-268
Claudius II
268-270
Aurelian
270-275
Tacitus
275-276
Probus
276-282
Carus
282-283
Carinus
283-284
Numerian
283-284
Diocletian
284-305
Maximian
285-305
Constantius
305-306
Galerius
305-311
Maxentius (not recognized by the others)
306-312
Licinius
307-323
Maximin II
308-313
Constantine
308-337
The Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, mentioned by Eusebius.
Bishops of Rome.
(Dates taken from the table given by Lipsius in his Chronologie der röm. Bischöfe, p. 26 sq.)
Linus.
Anencletus.
Clement.
Evarestus.
Alexander.
Xystus I, for about ten years; died between 124 and 126.
Telesphorus, 11 years; died between 135 and 137.
Hyginus, 4 years; died between 139 and 141.
Pius, 15-16 years; died between 154 and 156.
Anicetus, 11-12 years; died in 166 or 167.
Soter, 8-9 years; died in 174 or 175.
Eleutherus, 15 years; died in 189.
Victor, 9-10 years; 189-198 or 199.
Zephyrinus, 18-19 years; 198 or 199-217 (Aug. 26?).
Callistus, 5 years; 217-Oct. 14, 222.
Urbanus, 8 years; 222-230 (May 19?).
Pontianus, 5 years 2 months 7 days; (July 21 ?), 230-Sept. 28, 235.
Anteros, 1 month 12 days; Nov. 21, 235-Jan. 3, 236.
Fabianus, 14 years 10 days; 236-Jan. 20, 250. Vacancy from Jan. 21, 250-March, 251.
Cornelius, 2 years 3 months 10 days; beginning of March, 251-middle of June, 253.
Lucius, 8 months 10 days; June (25?), 253-March 5, 254.
Stephanus, 3 years 2 months 21 days; (May 12?), 254-Aug. 6, 258.
Xystus II., 11 months 12 days (6?) days; Aug. 24 (31?), 257-Aug. 6, 258.
Dionysius, 9 years 5 months 2 days; July 22, 259-Dec. 27, 268.
Felix I., 5 years 11 months 25 days; Jan. 5, 269-Dec. 30, 274.
Eutychian, 8 years 11 months 3 days; (Jan. 5?) 275-Dec. 8, 283.
Caius, 12 years 4 months 6 days; Dec. 17, 283-April 22, 296.
Marcellinus, 8 years, 2 months 25 days; June 30, 296-(Oct. 25?), 304. Vacancy until 307.
Marcellus, 1 year 7 months 21 days; (May 24?), 307-Jan. 15, 309.
Eusebius, 3 (4?) months 23 (16?) days; April 23 (16?), 309-Aug. 17, 309. Vacancy until 310.
Miltiades, 3 years 6 months 8 days; July 2, 310-Jan. 10 (11?), 314.
Bishops of Alexandria.
Annianus.
Abilius.
Cerdon.
Primus.
Justus.
Eumenes.
Marcus.
Celadion.
Agrippinus.
Julian.
Demetrius.
Heraclas.
Dionysius.
Maximus.
Theonas.
Peter.
Bishops of Jerusalem.
James.
Symeon.
Justus.
Zacchaeus.
Tobias.
Benjamin.
John.
Matthias.
Philip.
Seneca.
Justus.
Levi.
Ephres.
Joseph.
Judas.
Marcus.
Cassianus.
Publius.
Maximus I.
Julian I.
Gaius I.
Symmachus.
Gaius II.
Julian II.
Capito.
Maximus II.
Antoninus.
Valens.
Dolichianus.
Narcissus.
Dius.
Germanio.
Gordius.
Narcisscus, a second time.
Alexander.
Mazabanes.
Hymenaeus.
Zambdas.
Hermon.
(Taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica, article Calender.)
Days of the Month.
MarchJanuAprilFebruary.
1
Kalendae.
Kalendae.
Kalendae.
Kalendae.
2
6
4
4
4
3
5
3
3
3
4
4
Prid. Nonas.
Prid. Nonas.
Prid. Nonas.
5
3
Nonae.
Nonae.
Nonae.
6
Prid. Nonas.
8
8
8
7
Nonae.
7
7
7
8
8
6
6
6
9
7
5
5
5
10
6
4
4
4
11
5
3
3
3
12
4
Prid. Idus.
Prid. Idus.
Prid. Idus.
13
3
Idus.
Idus.
Idus.
14
Prid. Idus.
19
18
16
15
Idus.
18
17
15
16
17
17
16
14
17
16
16
15
13
18
15
15
14
12
19
14
14
13
11
20
13
13
12
10
21
12
12
11
9
22
11
11
10
8
23
10
10
9
7
24
9
9
8
6
25
8
8
7
5
26
7
7
6
4
"Instead of distinguishing the days by the ordinal numbers, first, second, third, etc., the Romans counted backwards from three fixed epochs; namely, the Kalends, the Nones, and the Ides. The Kalends were invariably the first day of the month, and were so denominated because it had been an ancient custom of the pontiffs to call the people together on that day, to apprise them of the festivals, or days that were to be kept sacred during the month. The Ides (from an obsolete verb iduare, to divide) were at the middle of the month, either the 13th or the 15th day; and the Nones were the ninth day before the Ides, counting inclusively. From these three terms the days received their denomination in the following manner:-
"Those which were comprised between the Kalends and the Nones were called the days before the Nones; those between the Nones and the Ides were called the days before the Ides; and, lastly, all the days after the Ides to the end of the month were called the days before the Kalends of the succeeding month.
"In the months of March, May, July, and October, the Ides fell on the 15th day, and the Nones consequently on the 7th: so that each of these months had six days named from the Nones. In all the other months the Ides were on the 13th and the Nones were on the 5th; consequently there were only four days named from the Nones. Every month had eight days named from the Ides. The number of days receiving their denomination from the Kalends depended on the number of days in the month and the day on which the Ides fell. For example, if the month contained 31 days, and the Ides fell on the 13th as was the case in January, August, and December, there would remain 18 days after the Ides, which, added to the first of the following month, made 19 days of Kalends. In January, therefore, the 14th day of the month was called the nineteenth before the Kalends of February (counting inclusively), the 15th was the 18th before the Kalends, and so on to the 30th, which was called the third before the Kalends (tertio Kalendas), the last being the second of the Kalends, or the day before the Kalends (pridie Kalendas)."
Table of Macedonian Months
The months of the Macedonian year, as commonly employed in the time of Eusebius, corresponded exactly to the Roman months, but the year began with the first of September. The names of the months were as follows:-
Macedonian
Roman
1. Gorpiaeus
September
2. Hyperberetaeus
October
3. Dius
November
4. Apellaeus
December
5. Audynaeus
January
6. Peritius
February
7. Dystrus
March
8. Xanthicus
April
9. Artemisius
May
10. Daesius
June
11. Panemus
July
12. Loü