RELIGIOUS LEGISLATION OF THE PERIOD.
During the first century of the Christian era, the empire, while
manifesting more or less hostility to the religious innovations which
were imported from the East, did not declare open war against them.
The doctrine of a state-religion was not clearly defined or vigorously
upheld. At different epochs under the republic, foreign rites had been
proscribed, especially those of Sabazius, Isis, and Serapis.[18.1] But
those mysterious systems presented such irresistible attractions to the
common people, that the proscription proved unavailing.[18.2]
When (A. U. C. 535) the demolition of the temple of Isis and Serapis
was decreed, not a workman could be found to commence it, and the
consul himself had to set the example by breaking down the doors
with an axe.[18.3] It is evident that the Latin creed was no longer
satisfying to the masses; and we may suppose with good reason that it
was for the purpose of gratifying the popular instincts that the rites
of Isis and Serapis were reëstablished by Cæsar.[18.4]
That great man, with the profound and liberal intuition which
characterized him, had shown himself favorable to entire freedom
of conscience.[18.5] Augustus was more attached to the national
religion.[18.6] He had an antipathy to the Oriental creeds,[18.7] and
prohibited the spread of even the Egyptian rites in Italy;[18.8] but
he allowed every system, and the Jewish in particular, to enjoy freedom
and supremacy in its own country.[18.9] He exempted the Jews from all
observances conflicting with their conscience, especially from civil
duties on the Sabbath.[18.10] Some of his officers manifested a less
tolerant spirit, and would willingly have prevailed on him to become a
persecutor in the interest of the Latin form of worship;[18.11] but he
does not appear to have yielded to their mischievous counsel. Josephus,
whom we may, however, suspect of some exaggeration, declares that
Augustus even went so far as to present a gift of consecrated vases to
the service of the temple at Jerusalem.[18.12]
Tiberius Cæsar was the first of the emperors who definitely adopted
the principle of a state-religion, and who enforced strict precautions
against the Jewish and Oriental propaganda.[18.13] It must be borne
in mind that the emperor was also "_Pontifex Maximus_," and that in
protecting the ancient Roman worship he was performing an official
duty. Caligula revoked the Tiberian edicts,[18.14] but his supervening
lunacy prevented any further results. Claudius seems to have carried
out the Augustan policy. At Rome he strengthened the Latin ceremonies,
showed considerable dislike to the advance of foreign religions,[18.15]
enforced rigorous measures against the Jews,[18.16] and implacably
persecuted the religious confraternities.[18.17] In Judea, on the
contrary, he treated the natives of the country liberally.[18.18] The
favor enjoyed at Rome by the family of Agrippa under the two reigns
just mentioned, secured to their co-religionists a powerful protection
in all cases not coming within the regulations of the Roman police.
The emperor Nero troubled himself but little about religion.[18.19]
His cruelties towards the Christians were the mere outcrops of his
natural ferocity, not the results of legislative policy.[18.20] The
instances of persecution cited in the Roman annals of this period
emanated rather from the authority of the family than from that
of the Government,[18.21] and happened only in some noble houses
of Rome, where the ancient traditions of domestic rule had been
preserved.[18.22] The provinces were entirely free to adhere to their
own rites, on the sole condition of not interfering with those of
others.[18.23] Provincials residing at Rome were allowed the same
privileges so long as they avoided anything which occasioned public
scandal.[18.24] The only two religions against which the empire made
war in the first century, were Druidism and Judaism; and each of
these was, in truth, a fortress wherein was entrenched a distinct and
turbulent nationality. Most men were convinced that the profession of
Judaism implied hatred of the civil institutions of the empire and
indifference to the welfare of the state.[18.25] When Judaism assumed
the condition of a mere individual or private system of religious
belief, it was not persecuted.[18.26] The rigorous measures which were
put in force against the worship of Serapis, were perhaps suggested
by the monotheistic character[18.27] which caused it sometimes to be
confounded in public estimation with the Jewish and the Christian
religions.[18.28]
It appears, then, that no established legislation prohibited in the
apostolic age the profession of monotheistic creeds.[18.29] The
sectaries were always under _surveillance_ down to the accession of the
Syrian emperors; but it was not until Trajan's time that they were
systematically persecuted, as being intolerant and hostile towards
other sects, and as impliedly denying the authority of the state. In
a word, the only phase of religious belief against which the Roman
empire declared war was theocracy. Its own principle was that of a
purely secular organization. It did not admit that religion could
have any civil or political connexions or consequences. Above all it
would not admit of any association within the state and independent
of the state. This point it is essential to remember. It was in truth
the root from which sprang all the persecutions. The law concerning
the confraternities was in a much greater degree than religious
intolerance, the fatal cause of the cruelties which disgraced the
reigns of the most liberal emperors.
The Greeks had led the way for the Romans, as well in matters relating
to private associations as in all other results of thought and
refinement. The Greek ηρανοι or θιασοι of Athens, Rhodes, and
the Islands of the Archipelago were useful societies for mutual
assistance in the way of loans, fire assurance, common religious
observances, and harmless amusement.[18.30] Each society had its rules
carved on a _stela_, its archives, its common fund, provided by both
voluntary contributions and assessments. The members met together to
celebrate the festivals and to hold banquets, where cordiality reigned
supreme.[18.31] A brother needing money could borrow from the treasury.
Women were admitted into these associations, and had a president for
themselves. The meetings were held in secret, and under strict rules
for the preservation of order. They took place, it seems, in inclosed
gardens, surrounded by porticoes or small buildings, and in the centre
was erected an altar for the sacrifices.[18.32] Each association had
its officers,[18.33] selected by lot for one year, according to the
usage of the ancient Greek democracies, and from which the Christian
"clergy" may have derived its name.[18.34] The presiding officer only
was elected by vote. These officers passed the candidate through a kind
of examination, and were required to certify that he was "_holy, pious,
and good_."[18.35]
There occurred in the two or three centuries which preceded the
Christian era, a movement in favor of these little religious clubs,
almost as marked as that which in the middle age produced so many
religious orders and subdivisions of orders. In the island of Rhodes
alone there is record of nineteen, many of which bore the names of
their founders, or reformers.[18.36] Some of them, particularly those
of _Bacchus_, inculcated lofty doctrines, and sought in good faith to
administer consolation to man.[18.37] If there yet remained in Greek
society a little charity, piety, or good morals, it was due to the
existence and freedom of these private devotional assemblies. They
acted as it were concurrently with the public and official religion,
the neglect of which was becoming more and more apparent day by day. At
Rome associations of this nature met with more opposition, and found
no less favor among the poorer classes.[18.38] The rules of Roman
policy in regard to secret confraternities were first promulgated
under the republic (B.C. 186) in the case of the Bacchanals. The
Romans were by natural taste much inclined to associations,[18.39]
and in particular to those of a religious character;[18.40] but these
permanent congregations were displeasing to the patrician order, who
controlled the municipal power,[18.41] and whose narrow conceptions of
life admitted no other social group besides the family and the State.
The most minute precautions were taken, such as the requirement of
a preliminary authorization, the limiting of the number of members,
and the prohibition against having a permanent _Magister sacrorum_,
and a common fund raised by subscription.[18.42] The same anxiety was
manifested on several occasions under the empire. The body of public
law contained clauses authorizing all kinds of repression;[18.43] but
it depended on the administrative power whether they should be enforced
or not, and the proscribed religions often reappeared in a very few
years after their proscription.[18.44] Foreign immigration, especially
from Syria, unceasingly renewed the soil in which flourished the creeds
so vainly doomed to extirpation.
It is astonishing to observe to what an extent a subject, seemingly
so unimportant, occupied the greatest minds of that age. It was one
of the chief tasks of Cæsar and Augustus to prevent the formation
of new clubs, and to destroy those already established.[18.45] A
decree published under Augustus attempts to define positively the
limits of the right of association, and whose limits were extremely
narrow. The clubs (_collegia_) were to be merely for the purpose of
celebrating funeral rites. They were permitted to meet no oftener than
once a month; they were to attend only to the obsequies of deceased
members, and under no pretext could they obtain an extension of their
privileges.[18.46] The Empire resolved on performing the impossible. In
logical sequence to its exaggerated notion of the state, it attempted
to isolate the individual, to destroy every moral bond of fellowship
among men, and to combat that legitimate longing of the poor to press
closer together in some little refuge, as it were to keep each other
warm. In ancient Greece the "_city_" was tyrannical, but it offered
in exchange for its oppression so much amusement, enlightenment, and
glory, that none thought of complaining. The citizen submitted quietly
to its wildest caprices, and went to death for it with rapture. But the
Roman empire was too vast to be one's country. It offered to every one
great material advantages, but it gave no one anything to love. The
insupportable melancholy of such a life appeared worse than death.
Accordingly, in spite of the efforts of statesmen, the confraternities
multiplied immensely. They were precisely analogous to our
confraternities of the middle age, with their patron saint and their
common refectory. The great families might centre their pride in
their ancient name, their country, and their traditions; but the
humble and the poor had nothing but the _collegium_, and there they
fastened all their affections. The text of the law shows us that
all these clubs were composed of slaves,[18.47] veterans,[18.48] or
obscure persons.[18.49] Within their precincts the free-born man,
the freedman, and the slave, were equal.[18.50] They contained also
many women.[18.51] At the risk of innumerable taunts and annoyances,
and sometimes of severer penalties, men persisted in entering the
_collegium_, where they lived in the bonds of a pleasant brotherhood,
where they found mutual succor in time of need, and where they
contracted obligations which endured even after death.[18.52]
The place of meeting usually had a _tetrastyle_ (portico with four
fronts), where were set up the rules of the club near the altar of
its protecting divinity, and where stood a _triclinium_ for the
repasts.[18.53] These repasts indeed were looked forward to with
impatience; they took place on the day sacred to the patron divinity,
or on the birthdays of members who had contributed endowments.[18.54]
Every one brought his little portion; one of the brotherhood
furnished in turn the accessories of the feast, such as couches,
table-furniture, bread, wine, sardines, and hot water.[18.55] A slave,
newly emancipated, owed his comrades an _amphora_ of good wine.[18.56]
A quiet air of enjoyment animated the repast; it was a positive rule
that none of the business of the society should be discussed, in order
that nothing might disturb the brief interval of enjoyment and repose
which these poor souls were thus providing for themselves.[18.57] Every
violent act or rude remark was punished by a fine.[18.58]
In appearance these clubs were simply associations for burial of the
members.[18.59] But that object alone would have been enough to invest
them with a moral character. In the Roman, as in our own time, and as
in all ages when the religious sentiment is weakened, reverence for
the tomb is nearly all that the masses retain. The poor man loved to
believe that his body would not be cast into those horrible common
trenches;[18.60] that his club would provide for his decent obsequies;
that the brethren who should follow him on foot to the funeral pile
would receive each a little _honorarium_[18.61] (about four cents) in
testimony of respect for the departed.[18.62] The slave especially felt
the need of an assurance that if his master denied him the privilege
of the ordinary rites of sepulture, there would be a little band of
friends who would perform "imaginary obsequies."[18.63] Hardly any was
so humble or destitute as not to contribute a penny per month to the
common fund to procure after his death a little urn in a _Columbarium_,
with a slab of marble on which his name should be carved. Sepulture
among the Romans was of extreme importance, being closely connected
with the _sacra gentilitia_, or family rites. Persons interred together
even contracted a sort of intimate fraternity or relationship.[18.64]
These facts show why Christianity for a long time presented itself at
Rome as a kind of funeral association, and why the earliest Christian
sanctuaries were the tombs of the martyrs.[18.65] If Christianity
had been nothing more, it would not have provoked so much hostility.
But it was much more. It provided a common treasury;[18.66] it
considered itself a complete municipality; it believed in its own
assured permanency and continuity. When one enters on a Saturday
night one of the Greek churches in Turkey, for example that of St.
Photinus at Smyrna, he is struck with the power of those associated
religious memberships existing in the midst of a persecuting or hostile
community. That irregular collection of buildings (church, presbytery,
school, prison); these brethren passing to and fro in their little
inclosed city of refuge; these newly-opened tombs, with the lighted
lamps within; this odor of dampness, decay, and mould; this murmur
of prayer; these appeals for alms--create a deadened and subdued
atmosphere which may, to a stranger, appear sufficiently monotonous
or repulsive, but which must be full of attraction to the affiliated
members.
The societies, when once provided with a special authorization,
possessed at Rome all the rights and privileges of civil
persons.[18.67] This authorization was, however, granted only with
many restrictions whenever the society possessed a treasury and
sought to concern itself with anything but sepulture.[18.68] The
pretext of religious observances, or the performance of vows in
common, was guarded against by law, and formally declared to be one
of the circumstances which attached to an assembly the character of
crime;[18.69] and the crime was nothing less than high treason, at
least as regards the person who called the meeting together.[18.70]
Claudius even closed the taverns where the brethren met, and the small
eating-houses where the poor were furnished cheaply with hot water and
boiled meat.[18.71] Trajan and the more liberal monarchs continued
to view all these societies with distrust.[18.72] Low rank was an
essential condition without which the privilege of religious assemblage
was never accorded, and even then it was granted most sparingly.[18.73]
The lawyers who built up the Roman jurisprudence, so eminent in legal
science, displayed their ignorance of human nature by opposing in every
way, even with the menace of death, and by hedging in with all sorts
of odious and puerile restrictions an everlasting need of the soul
of man.[18.74] Like the authors of the "_Code Civil,_" they regarded
life with a wintry glance. If man's life consisted in amusing himself
under the orders of his superiors, in munching his crust and tasting
his puny pleasures in his rank under the eye of a taskmaster, all this
would be well devised. But the retribution awarded to social systems
which follow this false and contracted view, is first a melancholy
disgust, and next a violent triumph of religious partisans. Never will
man consent to breathe that icy air. He needs the little circle,
the brotherhood where he may live and die amongst his fellows. Our
vast abstract social organizations are not sufficient to supply all
the social instincts which exist in man. Let him alone to attach his
heart to something, to seek consolation where it may be found, to make
brothers to himself, and to draw closer the ties of affection. Let not
the cold arm of the state break into this kingdom of the soul, which
is also the realm of liberty. True life and happiness will not spring
up again in this world until that sad heritage left us by Roman law,
our inveterate distrust of the _private assembly (collegium)_, shall
have disappeared. Association independent of the state, without injury
to the state, is the great question of the future. The laws to be
made in regard to associations will determine whether or not modern
society will tend to the same destiny as ancient. One example should
suffice. The Roman empire bound its own existence to the law relating
to unlawful assemblages. Christians and barbarians, accomplishing in
this respect the task of human conscience, broke down that law, and the
empire having planted itself thereon, went down with it.
The Greek and Roman world, a secular and profane world, which possessed
not the true conception of a minister of religion, which had neither
divine law nor a revealed word, had here stumbled upon a problem which
it was unable to solve. And we may add that if it had possessed a body
of consecrated priests, a severe theology, and a strongly organized
system of religion, it would not have created the secular state, or
inaugurated the idea of a social system founded merely on reason,
and on the human wants and natural relations of individuals. The
religious inferiority of the Greeks and Romans was the result of their
political and intellectual superiority. The religious superiority of
the Jews, on the contrary, has proved the cause of their political
and philosophical inferiority. Judaism and primitive Christianity
comprised the negation of the civil authority, or perhaps we may more
accurately say the putting it under guardianship. Like the system of
Mahomet, they established social order upon the basis of religion. When
human affairs are controlled from that direction, great and universal
proselytisms are made, apostles traverse the world from end to end,
reforming and converting it; but in that manner are not constructed
political institutions, national independence, a dynasty, a code, or a
homogeneous people.