Church History

Notes

1. The toleration edict of Galerius, given in Bk. VIII. chap. 17.
2. For the reason of Maximin’s failure to join with the other emperors in the issue of this edict, see Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note 1.
3. Of Sabinus we know only what is told us here. He seems to have been Maximin’s prime minister or praetorian prefect (τω των εξοχτατων επαρχων αξιωματι τετιμημενοδ, Eusebius says of him). He is mentioned again in chap. 9, where an epistle of Maximin addressed to him is quoted.
4. Literally, “the divinity of our most divine masters, the emperors.” The style throughout the epistle is of an equally stilted character.
5. Literally, “have commanded my devotedness to write to thy wisdom.” It is clear that the communication was dictated, or at least directly inspired, by Maximin himself.
6. τους λογιστας, commonly used to translate the Latin curatores urbium.
7. τους στρατηγους (the common designation for the chief magistrates of cities in the eastern part of the empire) και τους πραιποσιτους του παγου.
8. The mss. all read γραμματος, but Valesius conjectures that πραγματος is the true reading, and his conjecture is supported by Nicephorus, who has φροντιδα περι χριστιανων ποιεσθαι. Stroth follows Valesius, and I have done the same. Heinichen remarks: “Sed non necessaria, credo, est haec emendatio, immo eadem fere exsistet sententia per γραμματος, hoc modo: ut scient sibi non licere operam dare sc. ut facile intelligitur persequendis Christianis, ultra hoc scriptum, id est, magis quam hoc scripto est designatum.” Closs interprets in the same way, translating: “dass sie sich nicht wetter, als in diesem Schreiben befohlen ist, mit den Christen zu befassen haben.” The Greek, however, does not seem to me to admit of this interpretation (it reads ινα γνωεν, περαιτερω αντοιδ τοντον τον γραμματοδ φροντιδα ποιεσθαι μη προσηκειν), and there seems to be no other alternative than to change the word γραμματος to πραγματος, or at least give it the meaning of πραγματος, as Mason does, without emending the text (though I am not aware that γραμμα can legitimately be rendered in any such way). I am inclined to think that the word negotium stood in the original, and that it was translated by the word πραγμα. Had epistola or litterae been used, referring to the present document,—and it could not well refer to anything else,—we should expect Eusebius to translate by επιστογη, for he calls the document an επιτοστολη in §3, above. On the other hand, if scriptura, or any other similar word, had been used and translated γραμμα by Eusebius, we should have expected him to call the document a γραμμα, not an επιστολη in §3.
9. τοις κατ αγρους επιτεταγμενοις.
10. The Edict of Galerius was issued in April, 311 (see Lactantius, de Mort. pers. 35, and Bk. VIII. chap. 17, note 1, above), so that Maximin’s change of policy, recorded in this chapter, must have begun in October, or thereabouts. Valesius supposes that the death of Galerius was the cause of Maximin’s return to persecuting measures. But Galerius died, not some months after the issue of the edict, as Valesius, and others after him, assert, but within a few days after it, as is directly stated by Lactantius (ibid.), whose accuracy in this case there is no reason to question. Another misstatement made by Valesius in the same connection, and repeated by Heinichen, Crusè, and others, is that Maximin became Augustus only after the death of Galerius. The truth is, he was recognized as an Augustus in 308 (see Lactantius, ibid. chap. 32; and Bk. VIII. chap. 13, note 22, above). The cause of the renewal of the persecution seems to have been simply impatience at the exultation of the Church and at the wonderful recuperative power revealed the moment the pressure was taken off. That it was not renewed sooner was doubtless due to the more important matters which engaged the attention of Maximinus immediately after the death of Galerius, in connection with the division of the Eastern Empire between himself and Licinius (see Lactantius, ibid. chap. 36). It would seem from the passage just referred to, that as soon as these matters were satisfactorily adjusted, Maximin turned his attention again to the Christians, and began to curtail their liberty.
11. Very likely under the pretext that night gatherings at the tombs of the martyrs, with the excitement and enthusiasm necessarily engendered under such circumstances, were of immoral tendency. Naturally, the honor shown by the Christians to their fellows who had been put to death at the command of the state was looked upon as an insult to the authorities, and could not but be very distasteful to them. They imagined that such meetings would only tend to foster discontent and disloyalty on the part of those who engaged in them, and consequently they were always suspicious of them.
12. The same account is given by Lactantius, ibid. chap. 36 (“First of all he took away the toleration and general protection granted by Galerius to the Christians, and, for this end, he secretly procured addresses for the different cities, requesting that no Christian church might be built within their walls; and thus he meant to make that which was his own choice appear as if extorted from him by importunity”). It is possible that the account is correct, but it is more probable that the embassies were genuine, and were voluntarily sent to the emperor, while he was on a tour through his dominions, by the pagan population of some of the cities who knew the emperor’s own position an the matter, and desired to conciliate him and secure favors from him. Of course such deputations would delight him greatly; and what one city did, others would feel compelled to do also, in order not to seem behindhand in religious zeal and in order not to run the risk of offending the emperor, who since the death of Galerius was of course a more absolute master than before. Cf. Mason, p. 313 sq.