|
| |||||
|
|
|
| ||
Roman Empire & Christianity-II
We have here to explain how the attitude of the Roman empire, at first friendly or
indifferent, developed into one of fierce conflict, the different stages in the policy-if we
can speak of any uniform policy-of the Roman government toward Christianity, the
charges or mode of procedure on which Christians were condemned, and when and how
the profession of Christianity (nomen ipsum) became a crime. We shall see the Roman
empire progressively weakening and Christianity gaining ground. For the sake of
clearness we shall divide the Roman empire into six periods, the first from the
commencement of the Christian era till the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
1. Beginning of Christianity until Death of Nero, 68 AD:
At first the presence of the Christian faith was unknown to Roman authorities. It
appeared first merely as a reformed and more spiritual Judaism; its earliest preachers and
adherents alike never dreamed of severing from the synagogue. Christians were only
another of the Jewish sects to which a Jew might belong while adhering to Mosaism and
Judaism. But soon this friendly relation became strained on account of the expanding
views of some of the Christian preachers, and from the introduction of Gentile
proselytes. The first persecutions for the infant church came entirely from exclusive
Judaism, and it was the Jews who first accused Christians before the Roman courts.
Even so, the Roman government not only refused to turn persecutor, but even protected
the new faith both against Jewish accusations and against the violence of the populace
(Acts 21:31f). And the Christian missionaries-especially Paul-soon recognized in the
Roman empire an ally and a power for good. Writing to the Romans Paul counsels them
to submit in obedience to the powers that be, as "ordained of God." His favorable
impression must have been greatly enhanced by his mild captivity at Rome and his
acquittal by Nero on the first trial. The Roman soldiers had come to his rescue in
Jerusalem to save his life from the fanaticism of his own coreligionists. Toward the
accusations of the Jews against their rivals the Romans were either indifferent, as Gallio
the proconsul of Achaia, who "cared for none of those things" (Acts 18:12ff), or
recognized the innocence of the accused, as did both Felix (Acts 24:1ff) and Porcius
Festus (Acts 25:14ff). Thus the Romans persisted in looking upon Christians as a sect of
the Jews. But the Jews took ano**then persecution of Christianity resulted from no definite policy, no
apprehension of danger to the body politic, and no definite charges, but from an
accidental spark which kindled the conflagration of Rome (July, 64 AD). Up to this time
no emperor had taken much notice of Christianity. It was only in the middle of the reign
of Augustus that Jesus was born. In the reign of Tiberius belong Jesus' public ministry,
crucifixion and resurrection; but his reign closed too early (37 AD) to allow any
prominence to the new faith, though this emperor was credited with proposing to the
senate a decree to receive Christ into the Roman pantheon-legend of course. Under the
brief principate of the mad Gaius (37-41 AD) the "new way" was not yet divorced from
the parent faith. Gaius caused a diversion in favor of the Christians by his persecution of
the Jews and the command to set up his own statue in the temple. In the next reign
(Claudius, 41-54 AD) the Jews were again harshly treated, and thousands were banished
from Rome (Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit: Suet. Claud.
25). Some would see in this an action against the Christians by interpreting the words as
meaning riots between Jews and Christians, in consequence of which some Christians
were banished as Jews, but Dio Cassius (lx.6) implies that it was a police regulation to
restrain the spread of Jewish worship. It was in the reign of Nero, after the fire of 64 AD,
that the first hostile step was taken by the government against the Christians, earliest
account of which is given by Tacitus (Ann. xv.44). Nero's reckless career had given rise
to the rumor that he was the incendiary, that he wished to see the old city burned in order
to rebuild it on more magnificent plans. See NERO. Though he did everything possible
to arrest the flames, even exposing his own life, took every means of alleviating the
destitution of the sufferers, and ordered such religious rites as might appease the wrath
of the gods, the suspicion still clung to him.
"Accordingly in order to dissipate the rumor, he put forward as guilty (subdidit reos)
and inflicted the most cruel punishments on those who were hated for their abominations
(flagitia) and called Christians by the populace. The originator of that name, Christus,
had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius, and the
baneful superstition (exitiabilis superstitio) put down for the time being broke out again,
not only throughout Judea, the home of this evil, but also in the City (Rome) where all
atrocious and shameful (atrocia aut pudenda) things converge and are welcomed. Those
therefore who confessed (i.e. to being Christians) were first arrested, and then by the
information gained from them a large number (multitudo ingens) were implicated
(coniuncti is the manuscript reading, not conuicti), not so much on the charge of
incendiarism as for hatred of mankind (odio humani generis). The victims perished amid
mockery (text here uncertain); some clothed in the skins of wild beasts were torn to
pieces by dogs; others impaled on crosses in order to be set on fire to afford light by
night after daylight had died. .... Whence (after these cruelties) commiseration began to
be felt for them, though guilty and deserving the severest penalties (quamquam adversus
sontes et novissima exempla meritos), for men felt their destruction was not from
considerations of public welfare but to gratify the cruelty of one person (Nero)."
This passage-the earliest classical account of the crucifixion and the only mention
of Pilate in a heathen author-offers some difficulties which require to be glanced at. It
is held by some that Tacitus contradicts himself by writing subdidit reos at the beginning
and sontes at the end, but sontes does not mean guilty of incendiarism, but guilty from
the point of view of the populace and deserving severe punishment for other supposed
flagitia, not for arson. It is thus quite clear that Tacitus regards the Christians as
innocent, though he had not the slightest kindly feeling toward them. Qui fatebantur
means most naturally, "those who confessed to being Christians," though Arnold argues
that confiteri or profiteri would be the correct word for professing a religion. But this
would contradict both the sense and the other evidences of the context; for if fatebantur
could mean "confessed to arson," then the whole body of Christians should have been
arrested, and, further, this would have diverted suspicion from Nero, which was not the
case according to Tacitus. Some Christians boldly asserted their religion, others no
doubt, as in Bithynia, recanted before tribulation. By indicio eorum Ramsay (Christianity
in the Roman Empire, 233) understands "on the information elicited at their trial," i.e.
from information gathered by the inquisitors in the course of the proceedings. This
incidental information implicated a large number of others, hence Ramsay prefers the
manuscript reading coniuncti to the correction conuicti. This is in order to explain the
difficulty seemingly raised, namely, that the noblest Christians who boldly confessed
their Christianity would seek to implicate brethren. But it is not impossible that some of
these bold spirits did condescend to give the names of their coreligionists to the Roman
courts. Hence, Hardy (Christianity and the Roman Government, 67) prefers the more
usual rendering of indicio eorum as "on information received from them." This may have
occurred either (1) through torture, or (2) for promised immunity, or (3) on account of
local jealousies. The early Christian communities were not perfect; party strife often ran
high as at Corinth. And in a church like that of Rome composed of Jewish and pagan
elements and undoubtedly more cosmopolitan than Corinth, a bitter sectarian spirit is
easy to understand. This as a probable explanation is much strengthened and rendered
almost certain by the words of Clement of Rome, who, writing to the church at Corinth
(chapter vi) from Rome only a generation after the persecution, and thus familiar with
the internal history of the Roman ecclesia, twice asserts that a (ðïë˜ ðëyèïò, poluñ
pleôñthos = Tac. multitudo ingens) of the Roman Christians suffered (äéN æyëïò, diañ
zeôñlos), "through jealousy or strife." The most natural and obvious meaning is "mutual
or sectarian jealousy." But those who do not like this fact explain it as "by the jealousy
of the Jews." Nothing is more easily refuted, for had it been the jealousy of the Jews
Clement would not have hesitated one moment to say so. Those who are familiar with
the Christian literature of that age know that the Christians were none too sensitive
toward Jewish feelings. But the very fact that it was not the Jews made Clement rather
modestly omit details the memory of which was probably still bearing fruit, even in his
day. Once more correpti, usually rendered "arrested," is taken by Hardy as "put upon
their trial." He argues that this is more in accord with Tacitean usage. A "huge
multitude" need not cause us to distrust Tacitus. It is a relative term; it was a
considerable number to be so inhumanly butchered. There is some hesitation as to
whether odio humani generis is objective or subjective genitive: "hatred of the Christians
toward the human race" or "hatred of the human race toward the Christians."
Grammatically of course it may be either, but that it is the former there can be no doubt:
it was of the nature of a charge against Christians (Ramsay).
» See:PERSECUTION
Some have impugned the veracity of Tacitus in this very important passage, asserting
that he had read back the feelings and state of affairs of his own day (half a century later)
into this early Neronian period. This early appearance of Christianity as a distinct
religion and its "huge multitude" seem impossible to some. Schiller has accordingly
suggested that it was the Jews who as a body at Rome were persecuted, that the
Christians being not yet distinct from Jews shared in the persecutions and suffered, not
as Christians, but as Jews. But Tacitus is too trustworthy a historian to be guilty of such
a confusion; besides, as proconsul in Asia he must have been more or less familiar with
the origin of the Christian party. Also Poppea was at this time mistress of Nero's
affections and sufficiently influential with him to stay such a cruel persecution against
those to whom she had a leaning and who claimed her as proselyte. Again, the Jewish
faith was certe licita and a recognized worship of the empire.
The next question is, Why were the Christians alone selected for persecution? That
they were so singled out we know, but exactly for what reason is hard to say with
certainty. A number of reasons no doubt contributed. (1) Farrar (Early Days chapter iv)
sees "in the proselytism of Poppea, guided by Jewish malice, the only adequate
explanation of the first Christian persecution," and Lightfoot is of the same opinion, but
this by itself is inadequate, though the Jews would be glad of an opportunity of taking
revenge on their aggressive opponents. (2) Christians had already become in the eyes of
the Roman authorities a distinct sect, either from the reports of the eastern provincial
governors, where Christianity was making most headway, or from the attention attracted
by Paul's first trial. They were thus the newest religious sect, and as such would serve as
victims to appease deity and the populace. (3) Even if ingens multitudo be rhetorical,
the Christians were no doubt considerably numerous in Rome. Their aggressiveness and
active proselytism made their numbers even more formidable. (4) They were
uncompromising in their expression of their beliefs; they looked for a consummation of
the earth by fire and were also eagerly expecting the Parousia of their king to
reconstitute society. These tenets together with their calm faith amid the despair of
others would easily cast suspicion upon them. (5) For whatever reason, they had earned
the opprobrium of the populace. "The hatred for the Jews passed over to hatred for the
Christians" (Mommsen). A people whom the populace so detested must have fallen
under the surveillance of the city police administration. (6) A large proportion of the
Christian community at Rome would be non-Roman and so deserve no recognition of
Roman privileges. These reasons together may or may not explain the singling-out of
the Christians. At any rate they were chosen as scapegoats to serve Nero and his minion
Tigellinus. The origin of the first persecution was thus purely accidental-in order to
remove suspicion from Nero. It was not owing to any already formulated policy, neither
through apprehension of any danger to the state, nor because the Christians were guilty
of any crimes, though it gave an opportunity of investigation and accumulation of
evidence. But accidental as this persecution was in origin, its consequences were of far
reaching importance. There are three principal views as to the date of the policy of
proscription of the new faith by the Roman government: (1) the old view that
persecution for the name, i.e. for the mere profession of Christianity, began under Trajan
in 112 AD-a view now almost universally abandoned; (2) that of Ramsay (Christianity
in the Roman Empire, 242ff, and three articles in The Expositor, 1893), who holds that
this development from punishment for definite crimes (flagitia) to proscription "for the
name" took place between 68 and 96 AD, and (3) that of Hardy (Christianity and the
Roman Government, 77), Mommsen (Expos, 1893, 1-7) and Sanday (ibid., 1894,
406ff)-and adopted by the writer of this article-that the trial of the Christians under
Nero resulted in the declaration of the mere profession of Christianity as a crime
punishable by death. Tacitus apparently represents the persecution of the Christians as
accidental and isolated and of brief duration (in the place cited), while Suetonius (Ner.
16) mentions the punishment of Christians in a list of permanent police regulations for
the maintenance of good order, into which it would be
were not condemned as Christians, but on account of
certain flagitia attaching to the profession and because the Roman police authorities had
learned enough about the Christians to regard them as hostile to society. A trial still
must be held and condemnation pronounced "in respect not of the name but of serious
offenses naturally connected with the name," namely, first incendiarism, which broke
down, and secondly hostility to civilized society and charges of magic. The others agree
so far with Ramsay as describing the first stages, but assert that odium humani generis
was not of the nature of a definite charge, but disaffection to the social and political
arrangements of the empire. At the outset a trial was needed, but soon as a consequence
the trial could be dispensed with, the Christians being "recognized as a society whose
principle might be summarized as odium generis humani." A trial became unnecessary;
the religion itself involved the crimes, and as a religion it was henceforth proscribed.
The surveillance over them and their punishment was left to the police administration
which could step in at any time with severe measures or remain remiss, according as
exigencies demanded. Christianity was henceforth a religio illicita. The Roman
government was never a systematic persecutor. The persecution or non-persecution of
Christianity depended henceforth on the mood of the reigning emperor, the character of
his administration, the activity of provincial governors, the state of popular feeling
against the new faith, and other local circumstances. There is no early evidence that the
Neronian persecution extended beyond Rome, though of course the "example set by the
emperor necessarily guided the action of all Roman officials." The stormy close of
Nero's reign and the tumultuous days till the accession of Vespasian created a diversion
in favor of Christianity. Orosius (Hist. vii.7) is too late an authority for a general
persecution (per omnes provincias pari persecutione excruciari imperavit; ipsum nomen
exstirpare conatus ....). Besides, Paul after his acquittal seems to have prosecuted his
missionary activity without any extraordinary hindrances, till he came to Rome the
second time. This Neronian persecution is important for the history of Christianity: Nero
commenced the principle of punishing Christians, and thus made a precedent for future
rulers. Trouble first began in the world-capital; the next stage will be found in the East;
and another in Africa and the West. But as yet persecution was only local. Nero was the
first of the Roman persecutors who, like Herod Agrippa, came to a miserable end-a fact
much dwelt upon by Lactantius and other Christian writers.
2. Flavian Period, 68-96 AD:
In the Flavian period no uniform imperial policy against Christianity can be
discovered. According to Ramsay the Flavians developed the practice set by Nero from
punishment of Christians for definite crimes to proscription of the name. But, as we have
seen, the Neronian persecution settled the future attitude of the Roman state toward the
new faith. The Flavians could not avoid following the precedent set by Nero.
Christianity was spreading-especially in the East and at Rome. We have no account of
any persecution under Vespasian (though Hilary erroneously speaks of him as a
persecutor along with Nero and Decius) and Titus, but it does not follow that none such
took place. As the whole matter was left to the police administration, severity would be
spasmodic and called forth by local circumstances. The fall of Jerusalem must have had
profound influence both on Judaism and on Christianity. For the former it did what the
fall of Rome under Goths, Vandals, and Germans did for the old Roman religion-it
weakened the idea of a national God bound up with a political religion. The cleft
between Judaism and its rival would now become greater. Christianity was relieved from
the overpowering influence of a national center, and those Jews who now recognized the
futility of political dreams would more readily join the Christian faith. Not only the
distinction but the opposition and hostility would now be more apparent to outsiders,
though Vespasian imposed the poll-tax on Jewish Christians and Jews alike. No memory
of harshness against Christianity under Vespasian has survived. Ramsay (op. cit., 257)
would interpret a mutilated passage of Suetonius (Vesp. 15) as implying Vespasian's
reluctance to carry out justa supplicia against Christians.
Titus, "the darling of the human race," is not recorded as a persecutor, but his
opinion of Judaism and Christianity as stated in the council of war before Jerusalem in
70 AD and recorded by Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii.30, 6) is interesting as an approval
of the policy adopted by Nero. Severus' authority is undoubtedly Tacitus (Bernays and
Mommsen). The authenticity of the speech as contradicting the account of Josephus has
been impugned; at any rate it represents the point of view of Tacitus. Titus then
advocates the destruction of the temple in order that the religion of the Jews and the
Christians may be more thoroughly extirpated (quo plenius Judeorum et Christianorum
religio tolleretur), since these religions though opposed to each other were of the same
origin, the Christians having sprung from the Jews. If the root was removed the stem
would readily perish (radice sublata, stirpem facile perituram). We know, however, of no
active measures of Titus against either party, his short reign perhaps allowing no time for
such.
It is Domitian who stands out prominently as the persecutor of this period, as Nero of
the first period. His procedure against Christians was not an isolated act, but part of a
general policy under which others suffered. His reign was a return to ancient principles.
He attempted to reform morals, suppress luxury and vice, banish immoral oriental rites,
actors, astrologers and philosophers. It was in his attempt to revive the national religion
that he came in conflict with the universal religion. His own cousin, Flavius Clemens,
was condemned apparently for Christianity (atheism), and his wife, Domitilla, was
banished. The profession of Christianity was not sufficient for the condemnation of
Roman citizens of high standing; hence the charges of atheism or majestas were put
forward. Refusal to comply with the religion of the national gods could be brought under
the latter. But for ordinary Roman citizens and for provincials the profession of
Christianity merited death. No definite edict or general proscription was enacted; only
the principle instituted by Nero was allowed to be carried out. There was, as Mommsen
remarks, a standing proscription of Christians as of brigands, but harsh procedure against
both was spasmodic and depended on the caprice or character of provincial governors.
Domitian took one definite step against Christianity in establishing an easy test by which
to detect those who were Christians and so facilitate inquiries. This test was the demand
to worship the Genius of the emperor. This too was only part of Domitian's general
policy of asserting his own dominus et deus title and emphasizing the imperial cult as a
bond of political union. The Apocalypse reflects the sufferings of the church in this
reign.
3. The Antonine Period, 96-192 AD:
(1) Nerva and Trajan.
On the death of Domitian peace was restored to the Christian church which lasted
throughout the brief reign of Nerva (96-98) and the first 13 years of Trajan. It is a
curious fact that some of the best of the Roman emperors (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius,
Decius and Diocletian) were harsh to the Christians, while some of the worst (as
Commodus, Caracalla, Heliogabalus) left them in peace (see PERSECUTION, 17).
Christianity had been rapidly spreading in the interval of tranquillity. Pliny became
governor of Bithynia in 111 AD and found, especially in the eastern part of his province,
the temples almost deserted. Some Christians were brought before him and on
established precedents were ordered to be executed for their religion. But Pliny soon
discovered that many of both sexes and all ages, provincials and Roman citizens, were
involved. The Roman citizens he sent to Rome for trial; but being of a humane
disposition he shrank from carrying out the wholesale execution required by a consistent
policy.
He wrote to Trajan telling him what he had already done, rather covertly suggesting
tolerant measures. Should no distinction be made between old and young? Should
pardon not be extended to those who recanted and worshipped the emperor's image and
cursed Christ? Should mere profession (nomen ipsum) be a capital offense if no crimes
could be proven, or should the crimes rather be punished that were associated with the
faith (an flagitia cohaerentia nomini)? He then explains his procedure: he gave those
who were accused an abundant opportunity of recanting; those who persisted in this faith
were executed. He considered their "stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy" (pertinaciam
certe et inflexibilem obstinationem) as in itself deserving punishment. But the
administration having once interfered found plenty to do. An anonymous list of many
names was handed in, most of whom, however, denied being Christians. Informers then
put forward others who likewise denied belonging to the faith. Pliny was convinced their
meetings were harmless, and on examination of two deaconesses under torture
discovered nothing but a perverse extravagant superstition (sup. pravam immodicam).
Trajan replied that no universal and definite rule could be laid down, apparently
confirming the correctness of Pliny's action and perhaps disappointing Pliny in not
yielding to his humane suggestions. Nevertheless, the emperor made three important
concessions: (1) the Christians were not to be sought out by the police authorities, but if
they were accused and convicted they must be punished; (2) anonymous information
against them was not to be accepted; (3) even those suspected of flagitia in the past were
to be pardoned on proving they were not Christians or on renouncing Christianity. Some
regard this rescript of Trajan as the first official and legal authorization to proscribe
Christianity; but we have already seen that Christianity as such was proscribed as a
result of the Neronian investigations. Besides, there is not the slightest trace of any new
principle of severity, either in the letters of Pliny or in the rescript of Trajan. The
persecution of Christianity had been "permanent" like that of highwaymen, but not
systematic or general. Neither was Trajan's rescript an edict of toleration, though on the
whole it was favorable to the Christians in minimizing the dangers to which they were
exposed. The question was as yet purely one of administration.
Trajan initiated no procedure against Christians-in fact rather discouraged any,
asking his lieutenant to close his eyes to offenders-and Pliny consulted him in the hope
of obtaining milder treatment for the Christians by putting in question form what he
really wished to be approved. Trajan's rescript "marks the end of the old system of
uncompromising hostility."
» See:PERSECUTION, 15
(2) Hadrian.
The reign of Hadrian (117-38) was a period of toleration for the Christians. He was
no bigot, but tolerant and eclective, inquiring into all religions and initiated into several
mysteries and willing to leave religion an open question. In Asia, where Christianity
was making most progress, a state of terrorism was imminent if delatores were
encouraged against Christians making a profession of delatio (giving information). As
we saw in the letter of Pliny, even non-Christians were accused, and any professing
Christian could be threatened by these informers in order to secure a bribe for
proceeding no farther. Licinius Silvanus Granianus, like Pliny, found himself involved
in difficulties and wrote to Hadrian for advice. Hadrian's rescript in reply is addressed to
Granianus' successor, Minucius Fundanus, the proconsul of Asia, about 124 AD. The
genuineness of this important document, though impugned by Overbeck, Keim and
Lipsius, is vouched for by Mommsen, Hardy, Lightfoot and Ramsay. Indeed, it is much
easier accounted for as authentic than as a forgery, for who but the broad-minded
Hadrian could have written such a rescript? Apparently the questions put by the
proconsul must have been of a similar nature to those extant of Pliny. The answer of
Hadrian is a decided step in favor of Christianity and goes beyond that of Trajan: (1)
information is not to be passed over (a) lest the innocent suffer (as was the case under
Pliny), and (b) lest informers should make a trade of lodging accusations; (2) provincials
accusing Christians must give proof that the accused have committed something illegal;
(3) mere petitions and acclamations against the Christians are not to be admitted; (4) a
prosecutor on failing to make good his case is to be punished. These terms would
greatly increase the risk for informers and lessen the dangers for Christians. That the
name is a crime is not admitted, neither is this established principle rescinded. It is quite
possible that Hadrian's rescript "gave a certain stimulus toward the employment of the
more definite and regular legal procedure."
(3) Antoninus Pius (138-161).
The liberal policy of Trajan and Hadrian was continued by Antoninus, though
persecution occurred in his reign in which Ptolemeus and Lucius were executed at Rome
and Polycarp at Smyrna. But he decidedly confirmed Hadrian's policy of protecting the
Christians uncondemned against mob violence in his letters to Larissae, Athens,
Thessalonica and to "all the Hellenes." As at Smyrna, his "rescript was in advance of
public feeling," and so was disregarded. Anonymous delation was also repressed.
(4) Marcus Aurelius (161-80).
Under Aurelius a strong reaction set in affecting the Christians, caused partly by the
frontier disasters and devastating pestilence and partly by Aurelius' policy of returning to
ancient principles and reviving the Roman national religion. In this reign we find
persecution extending to the West (Gaul) and to Africa-a step toward the general
persecutions of the next century. Though no actual change was made by Aurelius, the
leniency of the last three reigns is absent. No general edict or definite rescript of
persecution was issued; the numerous martyrdoms recorded in this reign are partly due to
the fuller accounts and the rise of a Christian literature. Christianity in itself still
constituted a crime, and the obstinacy (ðáñÜôáîéò, parañtaxis) of Christians in itself
deserved punishment. Aurelius seems to have actually rebuked the severity of the
Roman governor at Lugdunum, and to have further discouraged the trade of informers
against Christians. Tertullian actually styles him as debellator Christianorum ("protector
of Christians"). We find as yet therefore no systematic or serious attempt to extirpate the
new faith. The central government "was all this time without a permanent or steady
policy toward the Christians. It had not yet made up its mind" (Hardy).
Under the rule of Commodus (180-192) Christians gain enjoyed a respite. The net
result of the collisions between the new faith and the government in this period is
somewhat differently estimated by Ramsay and by Hardy. The latter thinks (Christianity
and Roman Government, 156f) that Ramsay "has to some extent antedated the existence
of anything like a policy of proscription," due to antedating the time when Christianity
was regarded as a serious political danger. Hardy thinks that the Christian organization
was never suspected as more than an abstract danger during the first two centuries. Had
Rome taken the view that Christianity in its organization was a real danger and an
imperium in imperio, she must have started a systematic exterminating policy during a
period when Christianity could have least withstood it. When the empire did-as in the
3rd century-apprehend the practical danger and took the severest general measures,
Christianity was already too strong to be harmed, and we shall find the empire
henceforth each time worsted and finally offering terms.
4. Changing Dynasties, 192-284 AD:
In the next period the insecurity of the throne, when in less than 100 years about a
score of candidates wore the purple and almost each new emperor began a new dynasty,
enabled Christianity to spread practically untroubled. Further diversions in its favor were
created by those fierce barbarian wars and by the necessity of renewed vigilance at the
frontier posts. The Christians' aloofness from political strife and their acquiescence in
each new dynasty brought them generally into no collision with new rulers. Further, the
fact that many of these emperors were non-Roman provincials, or foreigners who had no
special attachment to the old Roman faith, and were eclectic in their religious views, was
of much importance to the new eastern faith. Moreover, some of the emperors proved
not only not hostile to Christianity, but positively friendly. In this period we find no
severe (except perhaps that of Decius) and certainly no protracted persecution. The
Christian church herself was organized on the principle of the imperial government, and
made herself thus strong and united, so that when the storm did come she remained
unshaken. In 202 Severus started a cruel persecution in Africa and Egypt, but peace was
restored by the savage Caracalla (lacte Christiano educatus: Tert.). Heliogabalus assisted
Christianity indirectly (1) by the degradation of Roman religion, and (2) by tolerance.
Acces deserve
notice: (1) that death was not the immediate result of Christian profession, but every
means was employed to induce Christians to recant; (2) Roman authorities already
cognizant of the dangers of Christian organization directed their efforts especially
against the officers of the church. Gallus continued this policy, and Valerian, after first
stopping persecution, tried to check the spread of the worship by banishing bishops and
closing churches, and later enacted the death penalty. Gallienus promulgated what was
virtually the first edict of toleration, forbade persecution and restored the Christian
endowments. Christianity now entered upon a period of 40 years' tranquillity: as outward
dangers decreased, less desirable converts came within her gates and her adherents were
overtaken in a flood of worldliness, stayed only by the persecution of Diocletian.
5. Diocletian until First General Edict of Toleration, 284-311 AD:
Like some other persecutors, Diocletian was one of the ablest Roman rulers. He was
not disposed to proceed against the Christians, but was finally driven to harsh measures
by his son-in-law Galerius. The first edict, February 24, 303, was not intended to
exterminate Christianity, but to check its growth and weaken its political influence, and
was directed principally against Bibles, Christian assemblies and churches. The second
was against church organization. A third granted freedom to those who recanted, but
sought to compel the submission of recalcitrants by tortures-a partial confession of
failure on the part of the imperial government. Bloodshed was avoided and the death
penalty omitted. But a fourth edict issued by Maximin prescribed the death penalty and
required the act of sacrifice to the gods. In the same year (304) Diocletian, convinced of
the uselessness of these measures, stayed the death penalty. The change of policy on the
part of the emperor and his abdication next year were virtually a confession that the
Galilean had conquered. After the persecution had raged 8 years (or 10, if we include
local persecutions after 311), Galerius, overtaken by a loathsome disease, issued from
Nicomedia with Constantine and Licinius the first general edict of toleration, April 30,
311. Christianity had thus in this period proved a state within a state; it was finally
acknowledged as a religio licita, though not yet on equality with paganism.
6. First Edict of Toleration until Fall of Western Empire, 311-476 AD:
In the next period the first religious wars began, and Christianity was first placed on
an equal footing with its rival, then above it, and finally it became the state religion of
both West and East. As soon as Christianity had gained tolerance it immediately became
an intolerant, bitter persecutor, both of its old rival and of heresy. Constantine, having
defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge (October 27, 312), became sole ruler of the
West, and, in conjunction with his eastern colleague Licinius, issued the famous edict of
toleration from Milan, March 30, 313, by which all religions were granted equal
tolerance, and Christianity was thus placed on an equal footing with heathenism.
Constantine's favors toward the Christian faith were largely political; he wished simply
to be on the winning side. With each fresh success he inclined more toward Christianity,
though his whole life was a compromise. His dream was to weld pagan and Christian
into one society under the same laws; he in no way prohibited paganism. With the
rounding of Constantinople Christianity became practically the state religion-an
alliance with baneful consequences for Christianity. It now began to stifle the liberty of
conscience for which it had suffered so much, and orthodoxy began its long reign of
intolerance. The sons of Constantine inherited their father's cruel nature with his nominal
Christianity. Constantine had left the old and the new religions on equal footing: his sons
began the work of exterminating paganism by violence. Constantius when sole emperor,
inheriting none of his father's compromise or caution, and prompted by women and
bishops, published edicts demanding the closing of the temples and prohibiting
sacrifices. Wise provincial administrators hesitated to carry out these premature
measures. Christianity was now in the ascendancy and on the aggressive. It not only
persecuted paganism, but the dominant Christian party proscribed its rival-this time
heterodoxy banishing orthodoxy. The violence and intolerance of the sons of
Constantine justified the mild reaction under Julian the Apostate-the most humane
member of the Constantine family. He made a "romantic" effort to reestablish the old
religion, and while proclaiming tolerance for Christianity, he endeavored to weaken it by
heaping ridicule upon its doctrines, rescinding the privileges of the clergy, prohibiting
the church from receiving many bequests, removing Christians from public positions and
forbidding the teaching of classics in Christian schools lest Christian tongues should
become better fitted to meet heathen arguments, and lastly by adding renewed splendor
to pagan service as a counter-attraction. But the moral power of Christianity triumphed.
Dying on a battle-field, where he fought the Persians, he is said (but not on good
authority) to have exclaimed, "Thou hast conquered, O Galilean" (íåíßêçêáò Ãáëéëáså,
nenŒñkeôkas GalilaŒñe). For a brief period after his death there was religious
neutrality. Gratian-at the instigation of Ambrose-departed from this neutrality,
removed the statue of Victory from the senate-house, refused the title and robes of
pontifex maximus, prohibited bloody sacrifices, and dealt a severe blow to the old faith
by withdrawing some of the treasury grants, thereby making it dependent on the
voluntary system. Theodosius I, or the Great, adopted a strenuous religious policy
against both heresy and paganism. His intolerance must be attributed to Ambrose-a
bigot in whose eyes Jews, heretics and pagans alike had no rights. Systematic
proscription of paganism began. In 381 Theodosius denied the right of making a will to
apostates from Christianity, in 383 the right of inheritance, in 391 heathen public
worship was interdicted, in 392 several acts of both private and public heathen worship
were forbidden, and greater penalties were attached to the performance of sacrifice.
Christian vandalism became rampant; all kinds of violence and confiscation were
resorted to, monks or priests often leading the populace. For the present the West did not
suffer so severely from fanatic iconoclasm. Under the sons of Theodosius the
suppression of paganism was steadily pursued. Honorius in the West excluded (408 AD)
pagans from civil and military offices; in a later edict (423) the very existence of
paganism is doubted (paganos .... quamquam iam nullos esse credamus). That
heathenism was still an attraction is proved by the repeated laws against apostasy. Under
Valentinian III (423-55) and Theodosius II, laws were enacted for the destruction of
temples or their conversion into Christian churches. In the western empire heathenism
was persecuted till the end, and its final overthrow was hastened by the extinction of the
western empire (476). In the East Justinian closed the heathen schools of philosophy at
Athens (529 AD), and in a despotic spirit prohibited even heathen worship in private
under pain of death.
V. Victory of Christianity and Conversion of the Roman Empire.
Christianity was now acknowledged as the religion of both East and West. It had also
grown strong enough to convert the barbarians who overran the West. It restrained and
educated them under the lead of the papacy, so that its conquests now extended beyond
the Roman empire.
Merivale (preface to Conversion of Roman Empire) attributes the conversion of the
Roman empire to four causes: (1) the external evidence of apparent fulfillment of
prophecy and the evidence of miracles, (2) internal evidence as satisfying the spiritual
wants of the empire and offering a Redeemer, (3) the example of the pure lives and
heroic deaths of the early Christians, and (4) the success which attended the Christian
cause under Constantine. Gibbon (chapter xv of Decline and Fall) seeks to account for
the phenomenal success of Christianity in the empire by (1) the zeal and enthusiasm of
the early Christians, (2) the belief of Christianity in immortality with both future rewards
and future retributions, (3) miracles, (4) the high ethical code and pure morals of
professing Christians, and (5) strong ecclesiastical organization on imperial patterns. But
neither of these lists of causes seems to account satisfactorily for the progress and
success of the religion of Jesus.
1. Negative Causes:
This was due in the first place to negative causes-the moral and spiritual
bankruptcy of the antique world, the internal rottenness and decay of heathen systems.
All ancient national religions had failed and were abandoned alike by philosophers and
the masses, and no universal religion for humanity was offered except by Christianity.
Worship had degenerated into pure formalism which brought no comfort to the heart. An
imperious demand for revelation was felt which no philosophy or natural religion could
satisfy.
2. Positive Causes:
But it was to positive causes chiefly that the success of the new religion was due,
among which were the zeal, enthusiasm, and moral earnestness of the Christian faith. Its
sterling qualities were best shown in persecution and the heroic deaths of its adherents.
Paganism, even with the alliance of the civil power and the prestige of its romantic past,
could not withstand persecution. And when heathenism was thrown back on the
voluntary system, it could not prosper as Christianity did with its ideals of self-sacrifice.
The earnestness of early Christianity was raised to its highest power by its belief in a
near second coming of the Lord and the end of the aeon. The means of propagation
greatly helped the spread of Christianity, the principal means being the exemplary lives
of its professors. It opposed moral and spiritual power to political. Besides, Christianity
when once studied by the thinkers of the ancient world was found to be in accord with
the highest principles of reason and Nature. But "the chief cause of its success was the
congruity of its teaching with the spiritual nature of mankind" (Lecky). There was a
deepseated earnestness in a large section of the ancient world to Whom Christianity
offered the peace, comfort and strength desired. It was possessed also of an immense
advantage over all competing religions of the Roman empire in being adapted to all
classes and conditions and to all changes. There was nothing local or national about it; it
gave the grandest expression to the contemporary ideal of brotherhood. Its respect for
woman and its attraction for this sex gained it many converts who brought honor to it; in
this respect it was far superior to its greatest rival, Mithraism. In an age of vast social
change and much social distress it appealed to the suffering by its active self-denial for
the happiness of others. As an ethical code it was equal and superior to the noblest
contemporary systems. One incalculable advantage it could show above all religions and
philosophies-the charm and power of an ideal perfect life, in which the highest
manhood was held forth as an incentive to nobler living. The person of Jesus was an
ideal and moral dynamic for both philosopher and the common man, far above any
abstract virtue. "It was because it was true to the moral sentiments of the age, because it
represented faithfully the supreme type of excellence to which men were then tending,
because it corresponded with their religious wants, aims and emotions, because the
whole spiritual being could then expand and expatiate under its influence that it planted
its roots so deeply in the hearts of men" (Lecky, Hist of European Morals, chapter iii).
Add to all this the favorable circumstances mentioned under "Preparation for
Christianity," above (II), and we can understand how the Roman empire became the
kingdom of Christ.
LITERATURE.
Ancient sources include Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny's Letters, x.97-98 (in
Hardy's edition), Dio Cassius (in Xiphilin), the apologists, Church Fathers, Inscriptions,
etc.
Modern sources are too numerous to mention in full, but those most helpful to the
student are: Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; Merivale, Hist of the
Romans under the Empire; The Fall of the Roman Republic, 1856; Conversion of the
Roman Empire, 1865; Milman, Hist of Christianity; Hist of Latin Christianity; Ramsay,
The Church in the Roman Empire; The Expositor, IV, viii, pp. 8ff, 110ff, 282ff; E. G.
Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Government, 1894; D. Duff, The Early Church: a
Hist of Christianity in the First Six Centuries, Edinburgh, 1891; J. J. Blunt, A Hist of the
Christian Church during the First Three Centuries, 1861; Harnack, Mission and
Expansion of Christianity, 1907; Mommsen, "Der Religionsfrevel nach rom. Recht," in
Hist. Zeit, 1890, LXIV (important); Provinces of the Roman Empire; The Expositor,
1893, pp. 6ff; G. Boissier, La religion romaine d'Auguste aux Antonins; La fin du
paganisme; Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus der Romer; Gerb. Uhlhorn, Conflict of
Christianity with Heathenism, English translation by Smyth and Ropes, 1879; B. Aube,
Histoire des persecutions de l'eglise jusqu'a la fin des Antonins, 1875; Schaff, Hist of the
Christian Church (with useful bibliographies of both ancient and modern authorities);
Orr, Neglected Factors in Early Church Hist; Keim, Romans u. Christentum; Deissmann,
Light from the Ancient East, English translation, London, 1910; Wendland, Die
hellenistischromische Kultur2, 1912; F. Overbeck, "Gesetze der rom. Kaiser gegen die
Christen," in his Studien, 1875; C. F. Arnold, Die Neronische Christenverfolgung; Stud.
zur Gesch. der Plinianischen Christenverfolgung; Westcott, "The Two Empires," in
commentary to Epistles of John, 250-82; Friedlander, Sittengeschichte Roms; Lightfoot,
Apostolic Fathers; Lecky, Hist of European Morals, chapter iii. "The Conversion of
Rome."
-S. ANGUS
===============
RESPONSE SHEET 200
Send answers to answers@gracecollegeindia.com or annsmilymohan@yahoo.com
Q1. Write a short note on Roman Empire and Christianity.
http://www.gracecollegeindia.com
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
