I
HADRIAN, A.D. 117-A.D. 138
Some four years after his correspondence with Pliny on the subject of
the Christians in Bithynia, the Emperor Trajan died somewhat suddenly
in the course of his Eastern campaign, at the Cilician, town of Selinus
(A.D. 117).
Trajan was succeeded by his kinsman Hadrian, who had married the
Emperor’s great-niece Julia Sabina. The circumstances of Hadrian’s
succession are somewhat confused. It was given out generally that he
had been adopted by Trajan as his successor. It is certain, however,
that his pretensions to the imperial power were favoured by Trajan’s
Empress, Plotina, and some even ascribe his succession largely to a
palace intrigue; it is clear that no real opposition to his peaceable
assumption of the imperial power was offered.
It is regrettable that we possess no notable contemporary history
of one of the most remarkable of the Roman Emperors. How intensely
interesting would have been a picture by Tacitus of so extraordinary
and unique a personality!
What we know of Hadrian and his reign of twenty-one years we gather
principally from the pages of Spartianus, one of the six writers of
the Augustan history who lived in the days of Diocletian, more than a
century and a half later, and from some brief notices of Dion Cassius,
of the Emperor Julian, and of three or four other writers who have
given us short sketches of his life, and also from a somewhat longer
account of the eleventh century monk Xiphilinus, and from notices on
medals and inscriptions.
The Emperor Hadrian was no ordinary man. Rarely gifted with various
and varied talents, he delighted to appear before the Roman world as
a soldier and a statesman, as an artist and a poet; and in each of
them, certainly in the first two characters, he occupied a fairly
distinguished position. To the world he has gone down as a great
traveller. He was not content with sitting at the helm of his Empire
in Rome, or in one of his magnificent villas in Italy; he would see
each of his many provinces and their chief cities with his own eyes,
and then judge what was best for them,--how he could best improve their
condition and develop their resources.
During his reign there were few, indeed, of the chief cities of the
Roman world which he had not visited,--few which did not receive in
some fashion or other the stamp of his presence among them. He was
accompanied usually with a vast trained staff, as we should term it,
of experts in arts and crafts, of painters, sculptors, architects, and
skilled builders.
He had, of course, immense resources at his command, for he was a
great financier, and was able with little effort to draw vast sums
for the magnificent works he carried on in all parts of the Empire.
The world had never seen, will probably never see again, a great
building sovereign like Hadrian; and though he restored, decorated,
rebuilt baths, amphitheatres, stately municipal buildings, and in many
instances whole cities, often named after himself,[30] he never seems
to have neglected Rome; for the traces of his expensive works there are
still to be seen, while he watched over and lavishly kept up the costly
amusements so dear to the luxurious and pleasure-loving capital. In one
day, for instance, we read of a hundred lions being slain in the arena
of the great Roman theatre, while his doles to the people were ever on
a lavish scale. Rome was never allowed to suffer for the absence or for
the immense foreign expenditure of the imperial traveller.
But Hadrian was not a good man, though he was a magnificent sovereign.
His life was made up of the strangest contradictions. At times he
played the part almost of an ascetic, abstaining from wine in his
repasts, and even submitting to the work and fatigues of an ordinary
legionary soldier. At times his life was disfigured by the grossest
excesses and debauchery.[31] His attitude towards Christianity
especially concerns us. He had no religion, no faith. He was interested
in all cults to a certain extent, was even initiated into the mysteries
of some of the old pagan beliefs; and while he accepted nothing, he
denied nothing.
His famous rescript to Serenus Granianus, now generally accepted as
genuine, gives us some conception of his estimate of Christianity, at
least in the earlier portion of his reign. It virtually endorses what
Trajan had written to Pliny in the matter of the Bithynian Christians.
They were not to be hunted out, but if legally convicted as Christians
they were to suffer. Hadrian, certainly in his earlier years, even
went further in the direction of toleration than his predecessor. An
informer, unless he could prove the truth of his accusation, would be
subject to the severest penalties of the law.
But Hadrian, like Trajan who reigned before him, and Antoninus Pius who
succeeded him on the imperial throne, knew very little of Christianity.
It is more than doubtful if he had ever seen a Gospel; and although his
sense of justice and his perfect indifference to all religions dictated
the terms and inspired the tone of the famous rescript in question, in
common with all Roman statesmen he evidently disliked and even feared
the strange faith which was gradually gaining ground so rapidly in the
world of Rome.
This dislike of Christianity, which some historians characterize in
Hadrian’s case as positively hatred of the faith, was shown markedly in
the latter years of his life by the deliberate insults which he offered
to the most sacred Christian memories in Jerusalem after the close of
the terrible Jewish war in A.D. 135. Some modern writers have
pleaded that no special profanation was intended by Hadrian when the
building of Ælia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem was proceeded
with after the Jewish war; but the testimony of Christian writers[32]
here is very positive. An image of Jupiter was placed on the Mount of
the Ascension; a statue of Venus was adored on the hill of Golgotha;
Bethlehem was dedicated to Adonis, and a sacred grove was planted
there; and the impure Phœnician rites were actually celebrated in the
grotto of the Nativity.
But for the historian of the first days of Christianity, by far the
most important event in this brilliant reign of Hadrian was the fatal
Jewish war of A.D. 133-5 and its striking results. This was
the war of extermination, as the Talmud subsequently termed it; the
war in which the false Messiah Bar-cochab and the famous Rabbi Akiba
were the most prominent figures. The outcome of this terrible war was
the absolute destruction of the nationality of the Jewish people. From
henceforth, _i.e._ after A.D. 134-5, the whole spirit of the
Jews was changed; they lived from this time with new ideals, with new
and different hopes and aims. This wonderful change we have described
at some length and with many details in Book V. of this work.
From this time forward, there is no doubt that the conception which
Roman statesmen had formed of Christianity underwent a marked change.
Hitherto, more or less, the Christian was regarded as a Jewish
dissenter, and was viewed at Rome with dislike, but at the same time
with a certain contemptuous toleration provided that he kept out of
sight. Trajan evidently, from the Pliny correspondence, was averse to
harsh persecution if it could be avoided; and Hadrian, certainly in his
earlier years, followed the policy of Trajan. But after A.D.
135 all this was changed. The Jewish people after the termination of
the last bitter war passed into stillness.
They now rigidly abstained from admitting any stranger Gentiles into
the charmed circle of Judaism, sternly forbidding any proselytizing.
They abandoned all earthly ambition--their hope and expectation of
seeing their land independent and powerful was relegated to a dim
and distant future. They believed that they were the chosen people
in far-back days of the Eternal of Hosts--they would quietly wait
His good pleasure, and by a rigid observance in all its minutest
details of the divine law, which they made the sole object of their
study and meditation, would merit once more His favour; they hoped
and expected at some distant day again to rejoice in the light of His
countenance,--a light, alas! long since veiled owing to their past
disobedience; to the Christian and his teaching in the meantime they
vowed an implacable hatred.
It then began (after A.D. 134-5), slowly at first, to dawn
upon the statesmen of Rome that the Christian was no mere Jewish
dissenter, but a member of a new and perfectly distinct community, a
sect intensely in earnest, successful in making proselytes, possessing,
too, a secret power which the Roman statesman marvelled at but was
incapable of understanding,--a secret power which made the Christian
absolutely fearless of death and utterly regardless of any punishment
human ingenuity could devise; a sect, too, which, quite independent
of the Jews, daily was multiplying, and was rapidly numbering in its
ranks men and women of every calling, drawn, too, from every province
indifferently in the wide Roman empire,--becoming, indeed, an Empire
within an Empire.
But the subjects of this inner Empire, while loyal to the State,
obedient, and peaceful, dwelt as it were as a nation apart, professing
an allegiance to an invisible Power unknown to the ancient traditions
of Rome, and irreconcilably hostile to the ancient religion on which
the true Roman loved to believe the grandeur of the Empire was based.
The consciousness of all this may be said to have really dawned upon
Roman statesmen only after the great change which passed over Judaism
at the close of the awful war of Hadrian,--a change which showed for
the first time the broad gulf which yawned between the Jewish people
and the new Christian community.
The last two years of Hadrian’s reign, which immediately followed the
close of the great Jewish war, were marked by the adoption of a new
and severer policy by the State in regard to Christians. We hear of
cases of extreme harshness in the case of the treatment of Christians
by the State. Many stories of martyrdom date from this period. This
stern policy was pursued through the reign of the blameless Antoninus
Pius, and became yet more pronounced and severe in the years of his
successor, the yet nobler and purely patriotic Marcus, under whose
rule, beneficent and just though it generally was, the Christians
suffered as they had never suffered before.
For the first time after the close of the great Jewish war, A.D.
133-A.D. 135, the imperial government recognised what a grave danger
to the Roman polity, to its ancient religion and its beliefs, was
Christianity.
* * * * *
For more than sixty years--that is, from the day that Nero charged
the then comparatively little band of Roman Christians with being
the authors of the great fire which reduced so large a portion of
Rome to ashes--had the sword of persecution hung over the Christian
communities. From that day, the follower of Jesus was an outlaw in the
great Empire. His home, his life, were exposed to a perpetual danger;
ever and anon a period of bitter persecution set in, and lives were
sacrificed and homes were wrecked to gratify some wild and senseless
popular clamour, or even as the result of some private and often
malicious information. There was no security any more for a member of
the proscribed sect.
It is true that a great and wise Emperor like Trajan reluctantly
allowed the law as it stood to be carried out, but he made no effort
to change it or to mitigate its stern penalties. Hadrian, certainly in
his early and middle life, was like his predecessor generally averse to
harrying the quiet sect, and his well-known rescript even threatened
the severest penalties to the false informer who denounced a Christian;
but in spite of these just efforts the Christian lived in a state of
perpetual unrest,--a martyr’s death was ever before the eyes of one who
elected to be a follower of Jesus. This position of the Christians in
the Roman Empire continued from A.D. 64-5 until the later days
of Hadrian, A.D. 135-8.
But after the close of the great Jewish war, A.D. 135, as we
have said, things grew even graver for the Christians. They now stood
out conspicuous as an irreconcilable sect, quite different from the
Jews, who after the great war had quietly submitted to Roman law and
order.
II
HADRIAN’S POLICY TOWARDS CHRISTIANITY IN HIS CLOSING YEARS
In the last years of Hadrian and during the reigns of Pius and Marcus
must be dated not a few of the accounts of early martyrs. The “Acts”
which contain these recitals, it is true, are for the most part of
doubtful authority.[33] They contain details which are clearly not
historical, and critical investigation generally pronounces them
untrustworthy. But the studies of later years, especially in the
lore of the catacombs, show us that even for the more improbable
and precarious records, evidently edited and enlarged at a date
considerably later than the events which they purport to chronicle,
there is evidently a basis of truth; and it is clear that the men and
women whose sufferings and brave deaths for the faith are told in the
“Acts,” for the most part were historical persons.
But we possess a much more dependable foundation for our statement that
the last years of Hadrian and the prolonged reigns of Hadrian’s two
successors, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Antoninus, were periods of bitter
persecution for the Christian sect in Rome and in the provinces; that
the years which elapsed between A.D. 135 and A.D. 180 were years of a
persecution graver and more sustained than anything endured previously
by the followers of Jesus.
There has come down to us a group of contemporary Christian
writings,[34] the authenticity of which no critic friendly or hostile
ventures to impugn. It is from these writings that we obtain our
knowledge of what was the condition of the Christians in the Empire.
There is no question but that doubtful “Acts of Martyrdom,” many of
which purport to belong to this period, _i.e._, from the last years
of Hadrian to the death of Marcus Antoninus, have given colour to the
theory which has found favour with certain writers, some even of the
first rank, that, after all, the number of martyrs was but small.
Recent study has, however, completely set aside this theory. In the
first place, the scientific investigation of the Roman catacombs has
shown that in many cases the heroes and heroines of the doubtful “Acts”
were real _historical_ persons; and, secondly, a careful study of the
fragments of contemporary writers above referred to, has given us an
exact and accurate picture of the period in question,[35] and the
largest estimate of the number of sufferers during this period which
has been made is probably too small.
Most melancholy was the close of the brilliant life of the great
Emperor. Shortly after the close of the Jewish war, Hadrian returned
to Italy and settled in the magnificent and fantastic palace he amused
himself by building in the neighbourhood of Rome at Tibur. The vast
group of buildings and parks and gardens of the so-called Villa of
Hadrian was a copy of the more famous temples, baths, and villas he had
visited during his long travels. Egypt, Greece, Italy, supplied him
with models. But the seeds of a fatal malady were already sapping his
strength. He was a sufferer from dropsy in its worst form; his life,
too, had long been enfeebled by his wild excesses, to which ever and
again he had given way. Then the strange mental sickness, the fatal
heritage of so many absolute sovereigns, came over him. Nothing pleased
him; no ray of hope lightened his ailing, suffering life; the present
and the future were both dark.
His government became cruel, arbitrary, tyrannical. Many executions,
not a few of them striking the highest in rank and authority,
disfigured the closing years of the Emperor. The Christian sect, which
lately, as we have explained already, had become in a specific manner
feared and dreaded by the State, largely suffered during these sad
closing years of his reign, and the dread persecution to which it was
subjected during the reigns of his successors began in good earnest.
One dominant thought seems to have haunted Hadrian--the longing for
death. Those who were nearest to his person, under the influence of
the wise prince his adopted successor, generally known as Antoninus
Pius, restrained him on several occasions from laying violent hands on
himself; but it was no avail, and Hadrian died at Baiæ, A.D.
138, the death no doubt hastened, if not absolutely caused, by his own
act.
The following little table will explain the succession of the Antonines
to the Empire:
_Hadrian_ first adopted Ælius Verus--a patrician, but a
voluptuous and carelessly living man; he died, however, in the
lifetime of Hadrian, leaving a son Verus, afterwards associated
in the Empire with Marcus, whom, however, he predeceased by many
years.
_Hadrian_ subsequently adopted as his successor Aurelius
Antoninus, known in history as Antoninus Pius.
_Antoninus Pius_ belonging to a Gallic family of Nîmes, had
filled the highest offices in the State, and later became a
trusted counsellor of the Emperor Hadrian, and his devoted
friend. He was a patrician of the highest character. When
Hadrian adopted him he required him to secure the imperial
succession by adopting Verus the son of Ælius Verus, whom he had
originally adopted but who had died, and also Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus, his young kinsman, a nephew of his (Hadrian’s) wife.
_Antoninus Pius_ became Emperor in A.D. 138. _Marcus
Aurelius Antoninus_ succeeded him in A.D. 161.
III
ANTONINUS PIUS, A.D. 138-A.D. 161
MARCUS ANTONINUS, A.D. 161-A.D. 180
After the death of Hadrian, in A.D. 138, for forty-two years
the Empire of Rome was ruled by two sovereigns who, pagan though they
were, live in the pages of historians of all lands as the most perfect
of any known sovereign rulers. They are known as the two Antonines: the
first is distinguished by the title given him by his contemporaries,
“Pius”; the second, by the best known of his several names, “Marcus
Aurelius.”
They were not conquerors, not even great legislators; although under
their beneficent, and with one sad exception generally wise rule,
the laws of the State, in the case especially of the downtrodden and
helpless, were materially improved and supplemented.
Our contemporary pagan literature here, alas! is but scanty; what has
come down to us is even more unsatisfactory than what we possess in the
contemporary records of Hadrian.
No great writer in prose or poetry arose in these forty-two years; and
when in the fifth and following centuries, the era of confusion and
universal decay, manuscripts began to be only sparingly copied, the
records of this period were neglected, and what attention to literature
was given, the copyists of the MSS. devoted to the masterpieces of the
Augustan and even of an earlier age, such as the famous prose works
of Cicero and Tacitus, of Pliny and of Suetonius; of poets such as
Lucretius, Vergil and Ovid, Propertius, Juvenal and Horace.
We possess only abbreviations of the Chronicles of the Antonines,
somewhat dry and uninteresting, wanting in details and in picturesque
illustration. It is true that no great war--no striking conquest--no
terrible intestine disturbances--disfigured these happier reigns, or
supplied material which would arrest the attention of the writer and
reader. It is mainly from side sources that we learn enough of the
character and government of the Antonines to justify the unfeigned
admiration which in all times has been given to these two good and
great princes.
The title “Pius,” which was bestowed on the elder Antoninus by the
Senate at the beginning of his reign, and by which he is universally
known, was well deserved. His unfeigned devotion to the ancient Roman
religion, his reputation for justice and wisdom, for clemency and
sobriety, his stern morality, the high example he ever set in his
private and public life--were admirably expressed in this title. His
great predecessors--Emperors such as Vespasian and Titus, Trajan
and Hadrian, possessed each of them some of these distinguishing
characteristics, but only some; the lives of these famous Emperors
being all more or less disfigured by regrettable flaws.
But the title “Pius” in the first instance seems to have been given to
the first Antonine owing to the universal admiration of his generous
and devoted behaviour to his adopted father and predecessor Hadrian,
whom he tenderly watched over during his last sad years of ever
increasing sickness and terrible life-weariness, and whose memory he
protected with a rare and singular chivalry, if we may venture to use a
beautiful and significant word which belongs to a later period in the
world’s history.
The sources, whence we derive our too scanty knowledge of this
almost flawless life, besides the notices and details preserved in
the abbreviations of the contemporary chronicles we have spoken of,
comprise the comparatively recently recovered letters of Fronto, a
famous philosopher and man of letters to whom Antoninus Pius entrusted
the principal share in the training of his adopted son and successor
known in history as the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, and more especially
the noble and touching estimate of his works and days contained in the
singular and exquisite little book written by his adopted son Marcus,
generally known as his “Meditations.”
We find the following striking words relating to Pius written by Marcus
in this little book after the great Emperor, who had trained him so
well for his high destiny, had passed away. It was in the form of a
soliloquy with himself--with his own soul:
“Life is short; the only fruit of the earth-life is to do good to the
men among whom our lot is cast. Ever act as a true pupil of Antoninus
(Pius). Call to mind his invariable fixity of purpose in carrying
out what was reasonable; remember how calm was his conduct under all
circumstances; think of his piety; remember that serene expression of
his; his invariable sweetness--his contempt for vainglory; his constant
care in sifting the truth; his indifference to unjust reproaches ...
never suspicious; utterly careless of his own personal comfort; paying
little heed to his food or his clothes; indefatigable in work; ever
patient and self-denying.... Think (O my soul) of all this, so that
when your own hour for departure strikes, it may find you, as it found
him, conscious that the life-work had been well done.”
Antoninus Pius had inherited a great fortune; and at the time of his
adoption by Hadrian he was well on in middle life, and had filled with
dignity and honour many of the high offices of State. When he succeeded
to supreme power as the absolute and irresponsible sovereign of the
greatest Empire ever under the sceptre of one man; after carefully
discharging the many duties of his great position in his magnificent
palace overlooking the Roman Forum, its splendid temples and its yet
more splendid memories, he loved to retire for a brief season to his
ancestral home and farm of Lorium in Etruria.
Antoninus Pius delighted in exchanging the imperial state and wearisome
pomp of his Roman court, the artificial pleasures of the theatre and
the circus, which gave him no real satisfaction, for the true and
healthy joys of the woods and the fields. He enjoyed the harvest
and the vintage festivals of the people. He loved the excitement of
the chase; he was at once a devoted fisherman and a hunter, though
for these things he never neglected the graver duties and the awful
responsibilities of his great position. The Fronto letters give us a
beautiful picture of his family life at his Lorium farm.
But the great and good Emperor had a deeper and more far-reaching
object at heart than simple self-gratification when he cast off the
trammels of State and forsook the gay and brilliant court of the great
capital for the plain unostentatious life of a country gentleman of the
old Roman school.
The first Antonine was conscious that the soft, luxurious city life of
which Rome was the great example, and which was too faithfully copied
in the wealthy provincial centres, was enfeebling the Empire,--the
builders and makers of Rome he well knew were the hardy race of men
who feared the old gods and who were ready to fight and die for their
country, and these men were the peasant-farmers produced by the old
rural life of Italy. He would set the fashion himself, and if possible
popularize this better and nobler way of living. He would bring back
the memories of those great ones who had been the makers of that mighty
empire.
It was no mere love of antiquity, no special taste for antiquarian
lore, which induced Antoninus Pius to grave upon his coins the
immemorial symbols telling of the ancient traditions belonging to the
great past of Rome,--symbols many of which have been immortalized in
the “haunting and liquid” rhythms of the poet loved in Rome,--Æneas
carrying his father; the white sow sacrificed to Juno by the fugitive
Æneas on the banks of Tiber; Mars and Rhea Sylvia; the sacred wild
fig-tree beneath whose branches the wolf found the children Romulus
and Remus; the wolf suckling the baby founders of the Queen City; the
augur Nævius and his razor before King Tarquinius Priscus; Horatius
who defended the bridge against the hosts of Porsenna. It was not
the instinct of a curious and scholarly archæologist, but a deep and
far-reaching purpose, which prompted Antoninus Pius to search out
and rebuild the little unknown Arcadian village of Pallanteum, the
ancient home of Evander, the host of Æneas,--Evander, the founder of
the earliest Rome, whose beautiful story is told in the noble epic
of Vergil.[36] The Emperor would popularize, would bring before his
people the glorious memories of the storied past--the wonderful story
of Rome--its cherished traditions which told of the old love of the
Immortals for Rome.
Antoninus Pius was by no means the first who felt that the greatness
of Rome had been built up by that hardy race of men who had lived
the simple homely life of rural toil, by men who feared the gods and
believed in the rewards and punishments of the Immortals. The great
statesman Emperor Augustus more than a century earlier had recognised
this, and his poet Vergil had pressed home this truth in his deathless
verses.
In the Eclogues, and still more in the Georgics, men were led to
reverence the old simple manners and customs; and in the charmed verses
of the Æneid the same teaching was enforced with yet greater eloquence
and earnestness. “Work and pray” was the conclusion of the Georgics
(_in primis venerare deos_), was the burthen of the poet’s solemn
charge.
And it was not only Augustus and his loved poet Vergil who had felt the
power of the ancient Roman religion, so sadly ignored if not despised
in their day and time, and who had seen that a return to the old Roman
way of living and to the primitive simple beliefs and the old austere
life alone would help to purify the corrupt and dissolute manners which
were weakening, perhaps destroying, the old Roman spirit. Tacitus, the
greatest historian Rome had ever given birth to, had also expressed
the same beautiful thought. Juvenal the poet-satirist, too, who had
lashed with an unsparing pen the luxury, the vices, and the follies
of his age, painted as his ideal Roman a Curius, thrice consul, who,
despising all state and pomp and luxury, hungry and tired after a day
in the fields, preferred “a meal of herbs and bacon served on homely
earthenware.”
Juvenal had a true Roman reverence for the old heroes of the Republic,
for the Curii, the Fabii, and the Scipios, and their unostentatious way
of living. Even Martial felt a strange charm in the antique simplicity
of the old republican statesmen and soldiers.
The younger Pliny, courtier, statesman, and polished writer, weary
and sated with the brilliant luxurious life of a great noble in the
earlier years of the second century, in his wonderful picture of social
life in the times of Trajan, shows us how intensely sensible he and
his circle were of the purer pleasures and rest to be found in “the
stillness of the pine woods, and the cold breeze from the Apennines
which blew over his quiet rural home in Tuscany.”
But while Augustus and his famous poets had striven to lead the
citizens of the great empire to love and lead the more austere and
purer life of the primitive Roman people, it was an open secret that
the imperial teacher himself failed to lead the life he professed to
love, for Augustus stained his own works and days with grave moral
irregularities. The two Antonines, on the other hand, different from
Augustus, set themselves as the noblest examples of a pure austere
life; no moral stain or flaw was ever suffered to disfigure the
life-work of these two patriotic pagan sovereigns.
* * * * *
There was one master-thought deep buried in the heart of Antoninus
Pius and of his adopted son and successor Marcus Antoninus. Their
whole career was influenced by an intense love of Rome. They would
preserve the mighty Empire from the decay which they perceived was
fast gaining ground; they would set, by their own example, the vogue
of the purer, simpler _religious_ life on which the foundation stories
of the Empire had been so securely laid; hence the bitter persecution
of the Christian sect which was so striking and painful a feature in
the Antonine administration of the Empire,--a persecution evidently
active and bitter in the reign of Pius, but which greatly increased in
intensity and virulence under the rule of his successor Marcus.
* * * * *
The Antonines were intensely persuaded that all that was great and
glorious in the Roman Empire came from the simple and even austere life
led by their fathers under the protection of the mighty Immortals--of
Jupiter of the Capitol, of Mars the Avenger, of Vesta with her sacred
fire, of the great Twin Brethren--of the gods whose temples with their
golden roofs were the stately ornaments of the Forum on which the
Emperors looked down from their proud home on the Palatine Hill. These
were the deities which the great pagan Emperor believed “had cradled
the Roman State and still watched over her career.” It was this belief
which induced Pius to grave on his coins the sacred memories of the
earliest days of this divine protection on which we have been dwelling.
IV
REASONS OF THE PERSECUTING POLICY OF THE ANTONINES
Among the subjects of the Empire only one group stood persistently
aloof from the crowds of worshippers who again thronged these
time-honoured shrines; this group refused to share in the ancient Roman
cult which the Antonines had once more made the vogue in Rome and in
her provinces, a cult to which these great pagan Emperors ever referred
the glories of the past, and on which they grounded their hopes of a
yet more splendid future for Rome.
The solitary group was indeed a strange one. To a Roman like Antoninus
Pius it appeared to be composed of a sect, comparatively speaking,
of yesterday; for when his predecessor Augustus reigned and Vergil
wrote, it had no existence. It was a sect professing, as it seemed
to the Emperor, a new religion--a religion which claimed for the One
it worshipped a solitary supremacy--a religion which regarded the
awful gods of Rome as shadows, as mere phantoms of the imagination.
Well might sovereigns like the Antonines shudder at a teaching which
would appear to a true patriot Roman, whose heart was all aflame with
national pride, to involve the most daring impiety, the most shocking
blasphemy; which would threaten a tremendous risk for the future of her
people, if this fatal teaching should spread.
And this strange sect of yesterday, the Emperors would hear from their
officials, was multiplying to an enormous extent, not only in Rome but
in all the provinces.
They would receive reports from all lands how the new community called
Christian was daily adding fresh converts to its extraordinary and
dangerous belief,--converts drawn from the ranks of the humblest
traders, from slaves and freedmen--converts drawn, too, from the
noblest families of the Empire.
They would hear, too, from their responsible officials that the new
sect, from its great and ever-increasing numbers, its striking unity
of belief, its perfect organization, had already become a power in the
State,--a real power with which the imperial government sooner or later
would have assuredly to reckon, for it was a power which every day grew
more formidable.
And for the first time, too, the pagan Emperors learnt from their
officials that this new sect was not made up of Jews, as had been
hitherto generally assumed, but that its members were something quite
different--far, far more formidable and dangerous. It was true that
there was no suggestion of any open revolt on the part of this strange
group of subjects, such as Vespasian and Hadrian had to meet and to
crush at Jerusalem and in Palestine in the case of the Jews; the danger
to be feared from the Christians was that they were gradually winning
the people’s hearts; that they were turning the people’s thoughts
from the old gods of Rome to another and far greater Being, whom they
averred was the loving Lord of all men, the supreme arbiter of life and
death.
And to Emperors like the Antonines, whose devout minds ever loved
to dwell on the constant protection of the Immortals, who they were
persuaded had loved Rome from time immemorial, in whom they strove with
sad earnestness to believe, to whom they prayed and taught their people
to pray,--to Emperors like Pius and Marcus these Christians, with their
intense faith, a faith for which they were only too ready to die, were
indeed abhorrent; in their eyes they constituted an ever-present, an
ever-increasing danger to Rome, her glorious traditions, her ancient
religion, her very existence.
This was the secret of the new policy pursued by the State in its
treatment of the Christians. It began to be adopted in the last years
of Hadrian after the close of the great Jewish war in A.D.
134-5, when the Christian sect was discovered to be utterly separate
from the Jews--distinct and even hostile to the Jewish race, with
other and far more dangerous views and hopes; and when Antoninus Pius
set himself to reform his people by reminding them of the manners and
customs of their ancestors, by impressing upon them the duty of a more
earnest worship of the old gods of Rome, he found in the Christians his
most dangerous opponents; hence the stern treatment which the new sect
received at his hands; hence the policy of persecution which gathered
strength during his reign, and was intensified in the days of his
adopted son and successor Marcus.
On the whole, the usual verdict of tradition respecting the condition
of Christians under the Antonines must be reversed. The reign of
Antoninus Pius is commonly represented as a period of peace for the
Church, and little is said about the treatment of Christians under the
government of Antoninus Pius and of Marcus Antoninus. This favourable
view and usual reticence concerning any Christian sufferings during
these reigns is largely owing to the high estimation in which the two
Antonines as rulers are universally held;--that these great and good
Emperors could persecute and harass the followers of Jesus has been
usually deemed unlikely if not impossible.
To regard such men as persecutors would be to inflict a stigma on the
character of the two most perfect sovereigns whose lives are recorded
in history. The first Antoninus received his beautiful title “Pius” at
the urgent wish of the Senate, a wish that was universally endorsed by
the public opinion of the Empire; by this title he has been known and
revered by all succeeding generations.
Marcus, his adopted son and successor, who, if possible, held a yet
more exalted place in the estimation of men of his own generation, and
who has handed down to posterity a yet higher reputation for virtue and
wisdom, tells us in his own glowing and striking words that he owed
everything to the noble example and teaching of his adopted father
Antoninus Pius. To this Marcus, when he died, divine honours were
voluntarily paid with such universal consent that it was held sacrilege
not to set up his image in a house.
To brand such men as persecutors, for centuries would have been for
any historian, Christian or pagan, too daring a statement, and such
an estimate would have been received with distrust, if not with
positive derision; nor is it by any means certain that even now such
a conclusion will not be read by many with cold mistrust and even
with repulsion. But recent scholarship has clearly demonstrated that
the Antonines were bitter foes to Christianity, and that during their
reigns the followers of Jesus were sorely harassed. Under the Emperor
Marcus the persecutions extended throughout his reign; they were,
as Lightfoot does not hesitate to characterize them, “fierce and
deliberate.” They were aggravated, at least in some cases, by cruel
torture. They had the Emperor’s direct personal sanction. The scenes of
these persecutions were laid in all parts of the Empire--in Rome, in
Asia Minor, in Gaul, in Africa.
The martyrdom of Justin and his companions as told in the Acts of the
Martyrdom of the great Christian teacher, an absolutely authentic
piece, was carried out in Rome under the orders of Rusticus the city
prefect, the trusted friend and minister of Marcus, under the Emperor’s
very eyes; while the persecutions at Vienne and Lyons were the most
bloody persecutions on record up to this date, except, perhaps, the
Neronian; and for these Marcus Antoninus is directly and personally
responsible.
The Madaurian and Scillitan (proconsular Africa) martyrdoms apparently
took place a few months after the death of Marcus, but these martyrdoms
were certainly a continuation of the persecuting policy of Marcus. And
these awful sufferings to which the Christian communities were exposed
during these two reigns are not only learned from the few authentic
Acts of Martyrdom preserved to us, but from various and numerous
notices of contemporary writers which we come upon--embedded in their
histories, apologies, and doctrinal expositions. Some of these are
quoted[37] verbatim. The testimony we possess here of this continuous
and very general persecution during these reigns when carefully massed
together is simply overwhelming.[38]
* * * * *
Nor is the behaviour of the two Antonine Emperors, who ruled over
the Roman Empire for a period of some forty-two years, towards their
Christian subjects in any way at variance with their known principles.
Such men, with their lofty ideals, with their firm unyielding
persuasion that Rome owed her grandeur and power, her past prosperity
and her present position as a World-Empire, to the protection of the
Immortals whom their fathers worshipped, could not well have acted
differently.
We have seen what was the unvarying policy of Pius in his earnest
efforts to restore the purer, simpler life led by the old Romans who
had built up the mighty Empire; how faithfully he had followed in the
lines traced out by Vergil, who, as we have already quoted, wound
up his exquisite picture of the ancient Roman life with the solemn
injunction “_in primis venerare deos_.”
The pupil and successor of Pius, the noble Marcus, was if possible more
“Roman” than Pius; and his devotion to the gods of Rome was even more
marked. As a boy he was famous for his accurate knowledge of ancient
Roman ritual. When only eight years old he was enrolled in the College
of the Salii, reciting from memory archaic liturgical forms but dimly
understood in his days.[39]
Before his departure for the dangerous war with the Marcomanni, he
directed that Rome should be ceremonially purified according to the
ancient rites; and for seven days the images of the gods were feasted
as they lay on their couches in the public streets.
But it is in his private life that the intense piety of the second
Antonine emperor comes out with ever startling clearness. It was no
mere State reasons which prompted Marcus to uphold the ancient cult of
Rome. He evidently believed with a fervent belief in these old gods of
Rome. For instance, if his dear friend and tutor Fronto was ailing, he
would pray at the altars of the gods that one very dear to him might be
eased of his pain.
In that exquisite volume in which in the form of private and secret
memoranda he recorded his inmost thoughts and hopes,--that little
volume which amid the wreckage of contemporary literary remains has
come down to us intact,--again and again we meet with words telling of
his trust in the loving care of the Immortals revered in the Rome of
old days, but in whose existence in the later times of the Republic few
seem to have believed.
Out of a host of such memoranda scattered in the pages of the
_Meditations_ we will quote two or three of his words here.
“With respect to the gods, from what I constantly experience of their
power, I am convinced that they exist, and I venerate them” (xii. 28).
The whole of the first book of the _Meditations_ is, in fact, a hymn of
gratitude to the gods for their loving care of him.
“Live with the gods,” he writes (v. 2-7); “and he who does live with
the gods constantly shows to them that his own soul is satisfied with
the (lot) which is assigned to him.... Zeus has given to every man for
his guardian and his guide a portion of himself.”
And again (v. 33), “Until that time (thy end) comes, what is
sufficient? Why, what else than to venerate the gods and bless them?”
“If the gods have determined about me, and about the things which must
happen to me, they have determined well, for it is not easy even to
imagine a deity without forethought” (vii. 4. 4).
That the Antonine Emperors knew little really of Christianity is almost
certain. The name of Jesus was probably unknown to either Pius or
Marcus, and the canonical Gospels evidently had never come before them,
although these writings were generally current among the Christian
congregations at that time. Once only in his _Meditations_ does Marcus
refer to the sect, and then it was clearly with a feeling of dislike
and repulsion; their extraordinary readiness to give up their lives
for their belief, misliked the calm, stoic Emperor. “The soul,” he
wrote, “should be ready at any moment to be separated from the body;
but this readiness must come from a man’s own calm judgment, not
from mere obstinacy and with a tragic show, as with the Christians”
(_Meditations_, xi. 3).
Marcus before all things, it must ever be remembered, was a Roman. To
the Emperor, the tradition of Rome was a dogma. “Every moment,” he
wrote, “think ever as a Roman and a man; do whatever thou hast in hand
with perfect and simple dignity” (II. 5).
That he abhorred the Christian sect who poured scorn upon the
traditions he loved, and contempt upon the gods whom he adored, was
perfectly natural; and it must be remembered that not only before
the judge when they were arraigned did the Christians express utter
disbelief in the gods of Rome, but not unfrequently the more fanatical
Christians went out of their way to insult these deities in whom Marcus
believed with a real intensity.
When the noble Emperor had passed away, the leniency with which his
evil successor Commodus treated the Church was owing largely to his
dislike and jealousy of his father and his policy. In the following
century (the third) the gentleness of the treatment of Christians in
the reigns of Alexander Severus and Philip the Arabian was mainly
owing to the fact that these Emperors had little sympathy with the
Roman tradition; they were certainly foreigners: the first of them,
Alexander Severus, was a Syrian pure and simple. The name by which
Philip is always known tells us of his foreign nationality. The famous
persecutors of the third century, Decius, Aurelius and Diocletian, were
believers in the Roman tradition, and adopted as the groundwork of
their policy here, the principles of Trajan and the Antonines.
No crime was necessary to be proved in these reigns when one of the
sect was arraigned. The mere fact of the accused being a Christian
ensured at once condemnation. Christianity was utterly incompatible
with the ancient traditions of Rome.
BOOK II
THE LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE FAITH
INTRODUCTORY
The scene of the following sketches of the life of a Christian of the
first days is, generally speaking, laid in Rome; but much of what
belonged to the Christian of the Roman congregation was common to the
believer who dwelt in other great cities of the Empire.
The sketches in question deal with the following subjects:
1. The numbers of believers in the first two centuries which followed
the death of Peter and Paul.
2. The assemblies or meetings together of the Christian folk in
those very early times are specially dwelt on. These assemblies were
an extremely important and influential factor in the life of the
believer. This was recognized in the New Testament writings and in the
contemporary writings of the earliest teachers of the faith.
3. The various classes of the population of a great city which composed
these early assemblies are enumerated.
4. What was taught and done at these early gatherings together of
Christians is set forth with some detail.
5. Outside these gatherings, the life of a believer in the world is
referred to with especial regard to the many difficulties which were
constantly encountered by one who professed the religion of Jesus.
6. The methods by which these difficulties were to be grappled with are
described. Two schools of teaching evidently existed here, generally
characterized as the “Rigourist” and the “Gentle” schools. These are
briefly dwelt upon.
7. In the concluding paragraphs of this sketch of the early Christian
life, what Christianity offered in return for the hard and often
painful life which its professors had to live, is sketched.
I
LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN IN THE EARLY DAYS
There is no shadow of doubt but that in a comparatively short space
of time the religion of Jesus was accepted by great numbers of the
dwellers in the various provinces of the Roman Empire. This fact is
abundantly testified to by contemporary writers, Christian and pagan.
The only other widely professed religion with which we can compare
it--Mahommedanism--owed its rapid progress and the extraordinary
numbers of its proselytes mainly to the sword of the conquerors.
Christianity, on the other hand, possessed no army to enforce its
tenets. It was not even the heritage of a people or a nation. The Jews,
to whom in the first days of its existence it _might_ have belonged,
were very soon to be reckoned among its deadliest foes.
One powerful factor which influenced the reception of the new religion
has been rarely dwelt upon, but it deserves more than a merely passing
notice.
The news of the religion of Jesus, as by many channels it reached the
slave, often a highly educated slave, the freedman, the merchant,
the small trader, the soldier of the legions, the lawyer, the Roman
patrician, the women of the varied classes and orders in the great
Empire,--the news came of something that had quite recently happened;
and not only recently, but in a well-known city of the Empire. It was
a wonderful story, firmly and strongly attested by many eye-witnesses,
and it appealed at once to the hearts of all sorts and conditions of
men.
It differed curiously from all other religions of which the pagans of
the Empire had ever heard. These other religions were very ancient;
their cradle, so to speak, belonged to far-back days--pre-historical
days, as men would now call them. _This new religion really belonged
to their own time._ Its founder had talked with men quite recently. He
had lived in a city they knew a good deal about.
There was no dim mist about its origin; no old legends had gathered
round it--legends which few, if any, believed.
The story of the religion of Jesus, told so simply, so convincingly, in
the four Gospels, had a strange attraction; it went home to the hearts
of a vast multitude; it rang true and real.
* * * * *
We know that very soon after the date of the events of the Gospel
story the numbers of the men and women who accepted it were great.
From the pagan Empire we have the testimony of Tacitus, the most
eminent of Roman historians. Writing some fifty years after the first
persecution under Nero, A.D. 64, he describes the Christians
at the time of that first persecution as “a vast multitude” (_ingens
multitudo_).[40]
Still more in detail the younger Pliny, the Governor of Bithynia,
writing to the Emperor Trajan _circa_ A.D. 112-13 for instructions
how to deal with the Christians, relates that the new religion had
spread so widely in his province, not merely in the cities but in
the villages and country districts generally, that the temples were
almost deserted.[41] It is, of course, possible that the new faith
had found especial favour in Bithynia; but such a formal and detailed
representation from an official of the highest rank and reputation
to the Emperor of what was happening in his own province, is a sure
indication of the enormous strides which Christianity had generally
made in the Empire when the echoes of apostles and apostolic men were
still ringing in the ears of their disciples. S. John’s death only
preceded Pliny’s letter to Trajan[42] by at most twenty years.
Among contemporary Christian writers we find similar testimony to
the vast numbers of Christians in very early times. To take a few
conspicuous examples:
Clement, bishop of Rome _circa_ A.D. 95, writing to the Church
at Corinth, speaks of “the great multitude of Christians” who suffered
in the persecution of Nero, A.D. 64.[43]
Hermas, in his book termed the _Shepherd_, shows us that in the reign
of the Emperor Hadrian, _circa_ A.D. 130-40, there was resident a
large number of Christians in the capital, many of them well-to-do and
wealthy citizens.
Soter, bishop of Rome, writing to the Church of Corinth,[44] shortly
after A.D. 165, refers to the Christians as superior in numbers to the
Jews, no doubt especially alluding to the Roman congregation mentioned.
In the Acts of the Martyrdom of Justin, _circa_ A.D. 165,
an undoubtedly genuine piece, Rusticus the Roman prefect asks Justin
where the Christians assembled. In reply, Justin said, “Where each one
chooses and can; for do you imagine that we all meet in the very same
place?”
Irenæus in a very striking passage,[45] written _circa_ A.D.
180, alludes to the size and importance of the Roman congregation. His
words are as follows:
“Since, however, it would be most tedious in such a volume as this to
reckon up the (Episcopal) succession of all the Churches, we confound
all those who assemble in unauthorized meetings by indicating the
tradition handed down from the apostles of the _most great_, the
very ancient, and universally known Church organized by the two most
glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.”
The statements of Tertullian _circa_ A.D. 195-200 are well
known and are often quoted; and though they are probably exaggerated,
still such assertions, although they are rhetorical rather than simple
statistics, would never have been advanced by such a learned and
weighty writer if the numbers of the Christians of his time (the latter
years of the second century) had not, in many cities and countries,
been very great.
In the works of Tertullian we come across such statements as the
following:
“The grievance (of the pagan government) is that the State is filled
with Christians; that they are in the fields, in the citadels, in
blocks of houses (which fill up the cities). It grieves (does the
government), as over some calamity, that both sexes indifferently, all
ages, every condition, even persons of high rank, are passing over to
the Christian ranks.”[46]
And again: “We are not Indian Brahmins who dwell in forests and exile
themselves from the common life of men.... We company with you in the
world, forsaking neither the life of the Forum, nor the Bath, nor
Workshop, nor Inn, nor Market-place, nor any Mart of commerce. We sail
with you, fight with you, till the ground with you, even we share in
the various arts.”[47]
About fifty years after Tertullian’s writing just quoted, Cornelius,
bishop of Rome, A.D. 251, in an Epistle addressed to Fabius,
bishop of Antioch,[48] gives some official statistics of the Roman
Church in his days.[49] Cornelius particularizes the classes of the
various officials, together with the numbers of persons in distress who
were on the lists of the Church receiving charitable relief. Scholars
and experts, basing their calculations upon these official statistics,
variously estimate the numbers of Christians in the city of Rome at
from 30,000 to 50,000, the latter calculation on the whole being
probably nearest to the truth.
Lastly, in this little sketch of the vast numbers of disciples who at
a very early date had joined the Christian community, the changeless
testimony of the Roman catacombs must be cited. Much will be found
written in this work regarding these enormous cemeteries of the
Christian dead. It is absolutely certain that in the second half of the
first century these catacombs were already begun.
The words of the eminent German scholar Harnack may well be quoted
here: “The number, the size, and the extent of the Roman catacombs ...
is so great that even from them we may infer the size of the Roman
Church, its steady growth, its adherents from distinguished families,
its spread all over Rome.”[50]
The foregoing contemporary witnesses, including the testimony of the
Church to the size and numbers of the Christian congregation, speak
of the Roman Christians with two notable exceptions--the pagan Pliny
and the Christian Tertullian. The others, including Clement of Rome,
Hermas, Justin Martyr, Soter, Irenæus, Cornelius, are specially writing
of Rome and the Christian portion of its population.
But, as has been already remarked, what was written of Rome in a
greater or less degree applies to other great centres of population in
the Empire, notably to such centres as Antioch and Ephesus, Alexandria
and Carthage.
II
THE ASSEMBLIES OF CHRISTIANS
The Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and other New Testament Epistles,
bear witness to the favourable reception of the preaching of the new
faith. Paul’s success in Macedonia, Achaia, in the province of Asia,
and in Galatia had been extraordinary. Peter in his First Epistle
addresses the converts already scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Paul again expressly mentions in a
letter to the Roman Christians, that the faith of the Roman Church was
spoken of throughout the whole world.
The story of the progress of Christianity was taken up by the pagan
writers Tacitus and Pliny, and was dwelt upon by Clement of Rome,
Ignatius, Hermas, Justin, Irenæus, and the other Christian writers of
the first and second centuries already quoted.
Thus the great numbers of Christians in Rome and in other centres
dating from primitive days, already dwelt upon with some detail, is a
clear and indisputable fact.
Nothing did more for the progress and extension of the Christian
religion than the constant meeting together, the assemblies of the
various congregations of believers.
This was recognized from the earliest days. We read in the Epistle to
the Hebrews (x. 25) a solemn injunction to Christians not “to forsake
the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.”
Definite allusions to such “assemblies of believers” occur in the New
Testament writings, in the Acts and in the Epistles, _e.g._ 1 Cor. xi.
20 and following verses, Jas. ii. 2-4.
The importance attached to these meetings of believers by the rulers
and teachers of the Church of the first days, is manifest from the
chain of reminders and injunctions to the faithful which exists in the
contemporary writings we possess of leading Christians, dating from
the latter years of the first and all through the second and third
centuries.
The words they heard, and the matters decided upon at these gatherings,
more or less coloured and guided the life and conduct of Christians
in the world. From the first the Sunday meeting seems to have been
obligatory; but these meetings of the brethren were by no means
confined to the general assembly on Sunday. So we read in the _Didaché_
(the Teaching of the Apostles), a writing probably dating from the
latter years of the first century: “Thou shalt seek out every day the
company of the Saints, to be refreshed by their words.”[51] “Let us,”
writes Clement, bishop of Rome (_circa_ A.D. 95), “ourselves
then being gathered together in concord with intentness of heart, cry
unto Him as from one mouth earnestly, that we may be made partakers of
His great and glorious promise.”[52]
So S. Ignatius (_circa_ A.D. 107-10) in his Epistle to the
Ephesian Church[53] writes: “Do your diligence therefore to meet
together more frequently for thanksgiving to God, and for His glory;
for when ye meet together frequently the powers of Satan are cast down,
and his mischief cometh to nought in the concord of your faith.”
In his letter to Polycarp he says: “Let meetings be held more
frequently.”[54]
Barnabas (_circa_ A.D. 120-30): “Keep not apart by yourselves,
as if you were already justified; but meet together, and confer upon
the common weal.”[55]
Justin Martyr--in his first _Apology_, written in the middle of the
second century--describes these meetings of the brethren with some
detail.[56]
A very striking passage occurs in a writing of Theophilus, the sixth
bishop of Antioch, addressed to his friend Autolycus. Its date is
between A.D. 168 and A.D. 181. The power which these meetings of the
brethren exercised over the life of Christians is described as follows:
“As in the Sea there are Islands ... with havens and harbours in which
the storm-tossed may find refuge, so God has given to the world,
which is driven and tempest-tossed by sins, assemblies ... in which
survive the doctrines of the truth, as in the island-harbours of good
anchorage; and into these run those who desire to be saved ... and who
wish to escape the wrath and judgment of God.”[57]
III
OF WHOM WERE THESE ASSEMBLIES OF BELIEVERS COMPOSED?
From the very first days, it is certain that the assemblies or
congregations of the Christians were made up of all classes and orders
of the people. The lower classes, including slaves, freedmen, artisans,
small traders, no doubt were in the majority; but from the beginning,
persons of position, culture, and even of rank were certainly reckoned
among them.
In the days of the apostles we hear of many such. Among the earliest
believers were reckoned a Nicodemus, a Joseph of Arimathea, a Barnabas,
a Sergius Paulus. In Acts vi. 7 mention is made of a great company
of the priests obedient to the faith. Chapter x. tells us of the
centurion who sent for S. Peter. Paul himself and Stephen were men of
high culture. Priscilla the wife of Aquila and the Phoebe of Rom. xvi.
1 were evidently persons of considerable means. Others might be named
in these categories. S. James (ii. 14) in his picture of one of these
meetings alludes to the presence of the rich among the worshippers.
Tacitus speaks of a lady of distinguished birth (_insignis femina_) who
evidently belonged to the Christian ranks; and very shortly after, some
near connexions of the imperial house of Domitian were persecuted for
their faith.
Pliny, when he wrote to Trajan, tells him how many of all ranks in the
province of Bithynia had joined the Christian sect.
Ignatius in the early years of the second century, writing to the Roman
Church, gives utterance to his fear lest influential members of the
Church should intercede for him, and so hinder his being exposed to the
beasts in the amphitheatre games.
Roman Christians of wealth and position are clearly alluded to by
Hermas in the _Shepherd_ (Comm. x. 1), and he assumes the presence of
such in the Roman congregation (Simil. i. etc.)
In the famous dialogue of Minucius Felix, _circa_ A.D. 160,
the speakers belong to the higher ranks; these under thinly disguised
names were probably actual personages well known in their day. The
scene and story of the writing, the class of argument brought forward,
all evidently issued from and were addressed to a highly cultured
circle.
In the writings of Justin Martyr, dating from about the middle of the
second century, are various references to the presence of wealthy and
cultured persons in the Christian congregation of Rome.
Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, whose pictures of Christian life
belong to the latter years of the second century, bear ample testimony
to the same fact. Clement even wrote a special treatise entitled,
_What rich man can be saved?_ in which he refers not to pagans whose
conversion to Christianity was to be aimed at, but to those who were
Christians and at the same time wealthy.[58]
Tertullian again and again refers to the presence of the rich and the
noble in the Christian Churches, in such passages where he speaks of
thousands of every age and rank among the brethren--of officials of the
Empire, of officers of the imperial household, of lawyers, and even of
men of senatorial rank. In his passionate appeals, too, he singles out
fashionable ladies, and dwells on their costly dress and jewels.
But the most striking proof of the presence of many high-born and
wealthy members of the Christian Brotherhood in this congregation
dating from primitive times, after all exists in that wonderful City of
the Dead beneath the suburbs of Rome which is now being explored.
These Roman catacombs, as they are termed, in the large majority of
cases in the first instance began in the villa gardens of the rich, and
were, as time went on, enlarged by their owners in order to offer the
hospitality of the tomb to their poorer brothers and sisters.
As we shall see in our chapter dealing with these all-important
memories of early Roman Christianity, as cemetery after cemetery is
examined we come upon more and more relics in marble and stone which
tell of great and powerful Roman families who had thrown in their
lot with the despised and persecuted people who had accepted the
story of Jesus of Nazareth, and who, in common with the slave and
petty tradesman, shared in the hard trials of the Christian life, and
welcomed the joys and solace of the glorious Christian hope.
These striking memories of the Christian dead, who in life bore great
names and possessed ample means, date from the first century onward.
One of the more famous of these very early catacombs, the cemetery of
Domitilla, was the work of the members of the imperial family--of near
relatives of the Emperor Domitian.
Indeed the composition of the meetings of the Christian Brotherhood
varied very little from the days of Peter and Paul to the era of
the Emperor Constantine. The numbers of these assemblies, however,
increased with strange rapidity. There were, of course, in primitive
times but few of these assemblies. By the end of the third century
there were in the city of Rome some forty basilicas, each with its
separate staff of ministers and its individual congregation.[59]
IV
WHAT WAS SAID AND DONE IN THESE ASSEMBLIES AND MEETINGS OF THE BRETHREN
Justin Martyr in his first _Apology_, which was written, before
A.D. 139, gives us a good picture of one of these primitive
Christian assemblies in Rome. The early date of this writing enables us
to form an accurate idea of the outward procedure of one of these most
important factors in the Christian life in the first half of the second
century.
Justin has been explaining the nature of the Eucharist; he then goes
on to say: “We continually remind each other of these things. And the
rich among us help the poor, and we always keep together; and for all
things which are given us, we bless the Maker of all through His Son
Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday,
all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place,
and the ‘Memoirs of the Apostles’ or the writings of the Prophets are
read, as time allows; then when the reader has done, the president (of
the assembly), in an address, instructs, and exhorts to the imitation
of the good things (which had formed the subject of the address). Then
we all rise and pray; and when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and
water are brought, and the president offers prayers and thanksgivings
according to his ability; and the people assent, saying, Amen; and
there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which
thanks have been given; and to those who are absent a portion is sent
by the deacons.
“And they who are well-to-do and willing, give what each thinks fit;
and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the
orphans and widows, and those who through sickness or any other cause
are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the stranger sojourning
among us--in a word, takes care of all who are in need.
“Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly.”
Justin goes on to explain the reason of the choice of Sunday, dwelling
especially on the fact of Jesus Christ having risen from the dead on
that day.
Such is a sketch of the framework of one of these primitive meetings
of the Christian Brotherhood, drawn by an eye-witness some time in the
first half of the second century, at most thirty or forty years after
S. John’s death.
It is a little picture of a gathering composed of all sorts and
conditions of men and women, of slaves and freedmen, of artisans,
tradesmen, and soldiers, with a certain admixture of cultured and
wealthy persons, drawn together in the first instance by the pressure
of the burden of the awful sadness of life, by a belief, hazy at first,
but growing clearer and more definite every day, as the congregation
listened to these teachers who dwelt on the words and acts of the
Divine Redeemer who had visited this earth for their sakes.
For they came together to hear more of the Redeemer who had sojourned
so lately among men. They listened while the Christian teacher
who presided over the gathering explained the historic words, the
commandments and promises of that pitiful, loving Master who had
entered into their life; they would then partake of the mystic
Eucharist feast together; and as they partook of the sacred bread and
wine as He had bidden His followers to do in memory of Him and His
death and suffering for their sakes, they would feel He was indeed in
their midst, and that new life, new hope were theirs.
The dogmatic teaching in these early assemblies was very simple,
but strangely sublime. It was given in a language every one could
understand. It went home to the hearts of all--of the wise and
unlearned alike. The story of the Gospels, the wonderful words of
the Master--were at once the text and subject of every sermon and
exposition.
We have among our precious reliquiæ of the earliest days enough to show
us what was the groundwork of this primitive teaching.
An _atonement_ had been made by the Divine One who had come among men;
He had suffered for them, and by His suffering had redeemed them. In
all the earliest Christian writings which we possess, this great truth
is repeated again and again. With adoring gratitude the Christian
Brotherhood loved and worshipped Him. Jesus Christ was the centre of
all their hopes--the source of their strange, newly found happiness.[60]
Very briefly we will quote a very few of these important dogmatic
sayings pressed home to the believers when they met together.
_Clement of Rome_--_circa_ A.D. 95:
“Let us fix our eyes on _the blood of Christ_, and understand
how precious it is unto His Father, because being _shed for our
salvation_.”--_Ep._ i. 7.
“Let us fear the Lord Jesus whose blood was given for us.”--_Ep._ i. 11.
“Jesus Christ our Lord hath given His blood for us, by the will of God
... His life for our lives.”--_Ep._ i. 49.
_Ignatius of Antioch_--_circa_ A.D. 107-10.
“It is evident to me that you are living not after men but after Jesus
Christ who died for us, that believing on His death ye might escape
death.”--_Ep. ad Trall._ 2.
“Him (Jesus Christ) I seek, who died on our behalf; Him I desire, who
rose again (for our sake).”--_Ep. ad Rom._ 6.
After relating the passion of the Cross, Ignatius went on to say: “For
He suffered these things for our sakes (that we might be saved).”--_Ep.
ad Smyrn._ 1, 2.
“Even the heavenly beings, and the glory of the angels, and the rulers
visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ (who
is God), judgment awaiteth them also.”--_Ep. ad Smyrn._ 6.
“Await Him ... the Eternal, the Invisible, who became visible for our
sakes; the Impalpable, the Impassible, who suffered for our sake, who
endured in all ways for our sake.”--_Ep. ad Polycarp_, 3.
_Epistle to Diognetus_,--early in second century,--an anonymous writing:
“He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own
Son as a ransom for us, the Holy One for transgressors, the blameless
One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the
incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that
are mortal.”
“For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His
righteousness? By what other One was it possible that we, the wicked
and the ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God?”
“Oh sweet exchange! Oh unsearchable operation! Oh benefits surpassing
expectation! that the wickedness of many shall be hid in a single
righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many
transgressors!”
“Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our
nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed
the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it
was (formerly) impossible to save, by both these facts He
desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to deem Him our
Minister--Father--Teacher--Counsellor--Healer--our Wisdom, Light,
Honour, Glory, Power and Life.”--_Ep. ad Diog._ ix.
_Shepherd_ of Hermas--written _circa_ A.D. 140.
“He Himself (the Son of God) then having purged away the sins of the
people, showed them the paths of life, by giving them the law which He
received from His Father.”
_Epistle of Barnabas_--written _circa_ A.D. 120-50:
“For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to
corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins,
which is effected by His blood of sprinkling.”--_Ep. Barnabas_, v.
“If, therefore, the Son of God, who is Lord (of all things), and who
will judge the living and the dead, suffered, that His stroke might
give us life, let us believe that the Son of God could not have
suffered except for our sakes.”--_Ep. Barnabas_, vii.
“Thou shalt love Him that created thee, thou shalt glorify Him that
redeemed thee from death.”--_Ep. Barnabas_, xix.
_Justin Martyr_--writing between _circa_ A.D. 114 and A.D. 165:
“Isaiah,” wrote Justin, “did not send you to a laver, there to wash
away murder and other sins; but those who repented were purified by
faith through the blood of Christ, and through His death, who died for
this very reason.”--_Dial. with Trypho_, xiii.
Writing of Jesus Christ, Justin comments thus on the words written by
Moses as prophesied by the patriarch Jacob: “He shall wash his garments
with wine, and his vesture with the blood of the grape.” This signified
that “He (Jesus Christ) would wash those who believe in Him with His
own blood.”--_Dial. with Trypho_, liv.
“If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ to take upon Him the
curses of all, knowing that after He had been crucified and was dead,
He would raise Him up”....
“For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of
the human family”....
“If His Father wished Him to suffer thus in order that by His stripes
the human race might be healed.”--_Dial. with Trypho_, xcv.
“And as the blood of the Passover saved those who were in Egypt,
so also the blood of Christ will deliver from death those who have
believed.”--_Dial. with Trypho_, cxi.
In well-nigh all these reliquiæ of the earliest Christian teaching,
copious use was made of that wonderful 53rd chapter of Isaiah, in which
the Hebrew seer sketched with a startling accuracy of detail some of
the leading features of the awful drama of the Divine Atonement for all
sin.[61] The scene of this drama was the storied Holy City, and the One
who made the great Atonement was He who on earth was known as Jesus
Christ and in heaven as the Son of God.
The above “Catena Aurea” (golden chain) of passages is taken from the
works we possess of the earliest teachers of Christianity who wrote
in the fifty years immediately following the passing of S. John the
beloved apostle, and they tell us exactly what was _the_ doctrine
pressed home to the Brotherhood in the early assemblies of Christians
of which we are here speaking.
There were other dogmas, no doubt, included in the teaching of these
early assemblies and meetings, such as the resurrection of the flesh;
the great reckoning before the Judge, at which even the just would
tremble were it not that the Judge was at the same time their Redeemer
and loving Friend. The unspeakable joys of Paradise, the garden of
their God and Saviour, were constantly dwelt upon, and the good glad
tidings would fall like dew from heaven upon the world-weary, sad-eyed
listeners.
But the great doctrine of the “Atonement,” at once simple and sublime,
so repeatedly pressed home in the above-quoted words of the earliest
teachers, was no doubt the strongest inducement which drew the
Christian folk to meet often together--was _the_ link which bound them
into one brotherhood, and knit them at the same time to the loving
Master.
It was a new preaching, this secret of the great love of God which
passeth understanding, and one that excited wonderful and soul-stirring
fears and hopes, and which filled the small dark corridors and
low-browed chapels of the Roman catacombs which the faithful often
used as meeting-homes for teaching and for prayer, with what seemed to
the groups of worshippers verily a Divine light; and to these early
Christian worshippers, the gloomy rough-hewn sleeping-places of the
dead, through which the pilgrim traveller now wanders and wonders,
seemed to them the very ante-chambers of heaven.
We have dwelt with some insistence upon the dogmatic teaching which
without doubt formed a part, and that by no means an inconsiderable
part, of the procedure of the primitive gatherings of Christians; for
it is often urged that the great bond which united the brethren of the
very early Church was only the beautiful mutual love and charity urged
in these gatherings.
There is some truth in this assertion. It was a new life which was
preached, and to a certain extent lived, by the Christian Brotherhood.
It was a life quite different to anything which had existed before the
Redeemer went in and out among men. We shall dwell on it presently; but
it must never be forgotten that the mainspring of this new life was the
doctrine of the Cross--of the _Atonement_ made by that Divine One who
had founded the new religion.
The belief in the supreme Divinity of Jesus, who had come from heaven
to redeem men, was the foundation story of the wonderful love and
boundless charity which lived in their midst,--a love which charmed
the hearts of all sorts and conditions of men, and attracted more and
ever more weary and heavy-laden men and women to join the company of
Christians.
ALMSGIVING
The duty and delight of materially assisting the poor and sad-eyed
brothers and sisters of the community became an absorbing passion in
the lives of very many of the rich and well-to-do members of each
congregation; and in populous centres the abundance of the alms
publicly contributed or privately given is a sure indication that many
well-to-do and even wealthy persons were at an early date numbered
among the Christians.
The splendid charities of the Church of the first days no doubt did
much to bring about the rapid progress of the religion of Jesus. There
was an intense reality in the love of the Christians of the first days
for one another. “See,” says Tertullian (_Apol._ xxxix.), quoting from
the pagan estimate of the new society, “how they love one another.” So
Cæcilius (in _Minucius Felix_, ix.) tells us “they love one another
almost before they are acquainted.”
Justin Martyr, in his picture already quoted of a Christian assembly
in the first half of the second century, speaks, as we have seen, in
detail of the destination of the alms collected.[62]
Tertullian, writing in the last years of the same century on what took
place at these meetings of the brethren, relates how “each of us puts
in a small amount one day in the month, or whenever he pleases, but
only if he pleases, and if he is able; for there is no compulsion in
the matter, every one contributing of his own free will. The amounts so
collected are expended on poor orphans, in support of old folk, ... on
those who are in the mines, or exiled, or in prison, so long as their
distress is for the sake of God’s fellowship.”
We notice how often it is repeated that all these offerings are purely
voluntary--the idea of communism[63] was absolutely unknown in the
Church of the first days. The fact that there were rich and poor is
ever acknowledged. This is especially marked in the tombs of the
catacombs, where the rich were laid to sleep in costly and even in
splendidly adorned chambers, leading out of the corridors where the
bodies of the poorer ones were tenderly and reverently buried, but in
far humbler and unadorned resting-places.
In less that fifty years after Tertullian’s time, Cornelius, bishop
of Rome, in a letter written _circa_ A.D. 250 (quoted by
Eusebius, _H. E._ vi. 43), gives us a fairly exhaustive catalogue of
the officials and the persons in distress supported by the voluntary
contributions of the Roman Brotherhood. He enumerates forty-six
presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes,
fifty-two exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers, together with fifteen
hundred widows and persons in poverty maintained constantly by the alms
of the faithful.
It is evident from the references in writings of the second century
that almsgiving in the Church of the first days occupied in the hearts
of believers a higher place, a far more important position, than it
filled in the dogmatic teaching of mediæval and yet later times.
The immeasurable work effected by the blessed Redeemer is never
minimized by the earliest and most weighty of the Christian teachers,
as we have seen in our little chain of quoted passages; but it is
indisputable that they considered that something might be done by men
themselves. Alms, according to these early instructors, held a very
high position in the new beautiful life they taught men who loved the
Lord to strive after.
We will quote a few prominent examples of this very early teaching
which, of course, was pressed home to the Brotherhood who gathered
together in these primitive assemblies; and to a large extent we see
that this somewhat peculiar dogmatic teaching concerning the value of
almsgiving had a marked and striking effect upon the listeners.
For instance, in the _Didaché_ (Teaching of the Apostles), written in
the last years of the first century, we read:
“If thou possessest (anything) by thy hands, thou shalt give a ransom
for thy sins.”--_Didaché_, iv.
This was no new idea in Hebrew theology; see Dan. iv. 27: “Break off
thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shoving mercy to the
poor.” See Prov. xvi. 6, and also Tob. xii. 8, 9.
So in the _Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs_, put out in the first
quarter of the second century:
“For in proportion as a man is pitiful to the poor, will the Lord be
pitiful towards him” (Zabulon 7).
“Almsgiving therefore is a good thing, even as repentance from sin.
Fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving than both; and ‘love
covereth a multitude of sins,’[64] but prayer out of a good conscience
delivereth from death. Blessed is every man that is found full of
these. For almsgiving lifteth off the burden of sin.”--_2nd Epistle of
Clement_ (part of an ancient homily put out _circa_ A.D. 130
to 150).[65]
_S. Cyprian_ about the middle of the third century develops almsgiving
into a formal means of grace, and indeed assigns a distinct
propitiatory value to alms, representing them as a means of prolonging
the effectiveness of baptism and abolishing subsequent frailties.[66]
_Lactantius_--_Inst._ vi. 12--_circa_ end of fourth century:
“Mercy has a great reward (_magna est misericordiæ merces_), for God
promises to it that He will remit all sins.”
_S. Chrysostom_ speaks of this as “the medicine for our sins.”
In the _Apostolical Constitutions_, vii. 12 (probably put out in the
form that we possess them _circa_ the end of the fourth or early in the
fifth century), we read:
“If thou hast (acquired anything by the work of thy hands) give, that
thou mayest labour for the redemption of thy sins; for by alms and acts
of faith sins are purged away.”
All this is somewhat an exaggerated development of a teaching which
in the primitive Church undoubtedly elevated almsgiving to a chief
place in Christian practice; but that charity and kindness to the
poor and needy in primitive times often were regarded positively as
_a formal means of grace_, is clear from the weighty early references
just quoted, such honoured names as Cyprian and later even Chrysostom
appearing among the supporters of this view. That it was an exaggerated
estimate is, however, clear from the plain words of Paul in his
exquisite Psalm of Love (1 Cor. xiii.), where under the general term of
love or charity he expressly includes much besides mere almsgiving.
But, apart from this somewhat curious development and perhaps
exaggerated view, there remains the undisputed fact that almsgiving was
urged upon the primitive congregations of Christians with a force and
insistency quite unknown in mediæval and modern times; and the splendid
voluntary generosity to the poor and needy and forlorn on the part not
only of the well-to-do, but of all who had anything to give, however
little, was no doubt a most important element in the rapid extension
of the Christian religion. It demonstrated, as nothing else could, the
real and intense love of Christians one for the other. It was verily a
brotherhood, and constantly, even in the most exalted quarters,[67]
evoked the grudging admiration of the bitterest foes of the religion of
Jesus.
* * * * *
So numerous, so touching, so insistent are the early references here,
that it would be simply impossible to quote even a small part of them.
But a very few examples from early writings will, however, show what
was the nature of the exhortations and teaching here which we know were
pressed home in every one of these early gatherings of the Christian
Brotherhood.
The _1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians_ (_circa_ A.D.
90 or earlier) has been well described as matchless in early Christian
literature as an elaborate and effective piece of writing, lit up with
all the brotherly affection of the Church.
Such sentences as these occur in the Epistle: “Who did not proclaim
your splendid hospitality (to strangers)--you did everything without
respect of persons ... you are more ready to give than to take. Day and
night you agonized for all the Brotherhood, that by means of comparison
and care the number of God’s elect might be saved. You never rued an
act of kindness, but were ready for every good work.”
In the _Didaché_ (Teaching of the Apostles) we come across such
directions as--
“To every one that asketh thee give, and ask not back; for to all the
Father wishes to give of His own gracious gifts.”
“Blessed is he that giveth.... Let thine alms drop like sweat into
thy hands, so long as thou knowest to whom thou givest.” This
last injunction, from the way it is introduced, is probably a
reference to some unwritten traditional saying spoken by our Lord
Himself.--_Didaché_, i.
“Thou shalt not hesitate to give, nor in giving shalt thou
murmur.”--_Didaché_, iv.
“Thou shalt not turn away from the needy, but thou shalt share all
things with thy brother; and thou shalt not say that they are thine
own: for if ye are fellow partakers in that which is immortal, how much
more in things which are mortal.”--_Didaché_, iv.
_Aristides_--_circa_ A.D. 130-40:
“They (the Christians) love one another, and from the widows they do
not turn away their countenance, and they rescue the orphan ... and
he who has, gives to him who has not without grudging ... and if they
hear that any of their number is imprisoned or oppressed for the name
of their Messiah, all of them provide for his needs.... And if there is
among them a man that is poor and needy, and they have not an abundance
of necessaries, they fast two or three days, that they may supply the
needy with their necessary food.”[68]--_Apol._ xv.
_Hermas_--_Shepherd_--_circa_ A.D. 135-40:
“You know that you, servants of God, dwell in a foreign land, for your
city is far from this city. If, then, you know the city where you are
to dwell, why provide yourselves here with fields and costly luxuries?
He who makes such provision for this city has no mind to return to his
own city.... Instead of fields, then, buy souls in trouble as each of
you is able. Visit widows and orphans, and neglect them not; expend
on such fields and houses, God has given you your wealth and all your
gains. The Master endowed you with riches that you might perform such
ministries for Him.
“Far better is it to buy fields, possessions, houses of this kind.
Thou wilt find them in thine own city when thou dost visit it. Such
expenditure is noble and joyous: it brings gladness, not fear and
sorrow.”--Simil. i.
Harnack, _Mission, etc., of Christianity_ (book ii. chap. i.),
commenting on this passage of the _Shepherd_, has an interesting and
suggestive Note, in which he says: “For all the vigour of his counsel,
however, it never occurs to Hermas that the distinction between the
rich and the poor should cease within the Church. This is plain from
the next Similitude or Parable (ii.). The saying of Jesus, too, S. John
xii. 8, ‘The poor ye have always with you,’ shows that the abolition
of the distinction between rich and poor was never contemplated in the
Church.”
_Hermas_--_Shepherd_.--“Not hesitating as to whom you are to give or
not to give, for God wishes His gifts to be shared by all.”--Comm. 2.
“Rescuing the servants of God from necessities--being hospitable, for
in hospitality good-doing finds a field.”--Comm. 8.
_Polycarp_--_Epistle_ (written early in the second century):
“In love of the brotherhood, kindly affectioned one to another ... when
ye are able to do good, defer it not, for pitifulness delivereth from
death.”--_Epistle_, 10.
A short sketch of the practical side of the teaching current at these
meetings of the brethren will complete our description of these
primitive Christian gatherings. The teaching dwelt on duties for
the most part absolutely novel to the Roman world of the first and
second centuries of our era. The inescapable duties pressed home to
the listeners were duties generally quite unknown to noble, artisan,
or slave in Roman society of the first three centuries. If carried
out they would essentially change the old view of life current in all
grades of the Roman world.
As before, we draw our information exclusively from the remains of very
early Christian letters (Epistles) and tractates of well-known and
honoured teachers in the Brotherhood which have been preserved to us.
The practical side of the teaching current in the gatherings was very
largely based on the strange, beautiful, but perfectly novel saying of
the Founder of the religion. It was, in fact, a new language which was
used:
“_Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself._” The instructions given in
the early assemblies defined the term “neighbour,” and explained how
the love enjoined was to be especially shown.
Now in all the early Christian writings the persons to be helped in the
first place seem invariably to have been “_the widows and orphans_” of
the new Society; for example, _S. James_, the Lord’s disciple, writes
how “pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to
visit the fatherless and widow in their affliction,” etc. (i. 27).
_Hermas_--_circa_ A.D. 135-40--in his list of good deeds which
ought to be done, after faith and the fear of the Lord--love, concord,
words of righteousness, truth, patience--places “the helping widows,
looking after orphans.”--_Shepherd_, Comm. viii.
_Aristides_--_circa_ A.D. 130-40--has been already quoted.
_Clement of Rome_--_circa_ A.D. 90--gives as one of his quotations:
“He--the Master of the Universe--saith, ... Give judgment for the
orphan, and execute righteousness for the widows.”--_1 Epistle_, 8.
_Lactantius_--_circa_ last years of fourth century--in his catalogue
of the different kinds of benevolence and works of mercy which had
especially been enjoined on Christians, twice dwells on this peculiar
work, and then writes: “Nor is it less a great work of justice to
protect and defend orphans and widows who are destitute and stand in
need of assistance, and therefore that Divine Law prescribes this to
all,” etc.... And again: “For God, to whom everlasting mercy belongs,
commands that widows and orphans should be defended and cherished, that
no one through regard and pity for his loved ones should be prevented
from suffering death (_i.e._ martyrdom)” ... “but should meet it with
promptitude and faith, since he knows that he leaves his beloved ones
to the care of God, and that they will never want protection.” This
last telling argument repeated by Lactantius had been, no doubt,
frequently taught in the days of stress and trial.
These very early references might be multiplied; we find this
injunction again and again repeated. It is no exaggeration to assert
that among the poor and sad-eyed ones placed before the congregations
of believers to help, the poor widow and the orphan occupy the first
place.
_The Sick._--The visiting the sick and distributing the alms of the
brethren, public and private, were also urged as an inescapable
duty. This stood in the forefront of all their exhortations, and the
injunction was ever generously responded to. To quote references here,
where they are so very numerous, would be superfluous. Lactantius’
words, in his summary above referred to, will suffice to show what was
the mind of the Church, and how this wish of the Master’s had been
constantly urged.
Justin Martyr has well summarized the loved duty--“To undertake the
care and support of the sick, who need some one to assist them, is the
part of the greatest kindness, and is of great beneficence; and he who
shall do this, will both offer a living sacrifice to God, and that
which he has given to another for a time he will himself receive from
God for eternity.”--Justin, vi. 12.
So prominent a place did the giving of alms to the sick occupy among
the exhortations addressed to the Christians of the first days, that
the injunctions to succour the sick sufferers seem not infrequently
to have been extended beyond the circle of the “Household of faith.”
We find S. Cyprian, for instance, on the occasion of the great plague
of Carthage, A.D. 252, telling, in one of his addresses, his
audience that to cherish our own people was nothing wonderful, but
surely he who would become perfect must do more; he must love even his
enemies, as the Lord admonishes and expects.
“It is our duty not to fall short of our splendid ancestry.” In the
saintly bishop’s own grand untranslatable words--“Respondere nos decet
natalibus nostris.”[69] The Christians of Carthage, as their reply, at
once raised amongst themselves an abundant fund, and forming a company
for the succour of the sick, absolutely helped all without any inquiry
as to whether the sick sufferers were pagan or Christian.--Pontius,
_Life of Cyprian_.
Eusebius (_H. E._ ix. 8) gives a pathetic picture of the great
pestilence which raged at the end of the third century, and notices the
devoted behaviour of the Christians to all the sick and dying, without
reference to the sufferer’s creed.
This splendid altruism of the “Godless Galilean” was markedly referred
to by the Emperor Julian--“Not only their own poor, but ours do they
care for,” wrote the great Emperor; “_our poor_ lack our care,” was his
bitter reproach to paganism.--_Letter to Arsacius._
_Hospitality_ was another urgent recommendation pressed home by the
early Christian teachers to their flocks. Clement of Rome (quoted
above) in the first century dwells on this special virtue in his Letter
to the Corinthian Church.
The _Didaché_--_circa_ end of first century--dwells on this. “If he
who comes is a traveller, help him to the best of your ability” (chap.
xii.).
Much is said in this very early treatise on the duty of caring for
strangers, but care is specially enjoined to guard against any
imposture here.
_Hermas_ in the _Shepherd_ writes: “In hospitality, good-doing finds a
field” (Comm. viii.).
_Aristides_, quoted above, tells us how Christians “when they see the
stranger, bring him to their dwellings, and rejoice over him as over a
true brother.”
_Justin Martyr_ (quoted above), in his picture of a Christian meeting
on Sunday, especially directs that out of the alms contributed by the
faithful, among those who were to be succoured were “the strangers
sojourning amongst us.”--1 _Apol._ lxvii.
_Melito of Sardis_--so Eusebius, _H. E._ iv. 26, tells us--wrote a
treatise “on hospitality.”
_Cyprian_ expressly directs that the expenses of any stranger who may
happen to be in want, be paid out of certain moneys he had left for
that purpose.--_Ep._ vii.
Among other direct references to this duty may be quoted Tertullian,
_ad Uxor._ ii. 4, and the _Apost. Constit._ iii. 3; the Emperor Julian
in his Letter to Arsacius wishes the pagans would imitate these
Christian practices.
This striking and unique custom, which no doubt very largely
contributed to the feeling of Christian brotherhood, was, of course,
based upon the directions so often repeated in the New Testament
Epistles.
“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have
entertained angels unawares,” Heb. xiii. 2. “Distributing to the
necessity of saints, given to hospitality,” Rom. xii. 13. “Use
hospitality one to another, without grudging,” 1 Pet. iv. 9. “Beloved,
thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren and to
strangers,” 3 John 5, etc.
This urgent recommendation to practise hospitality in the New Testament
Epistles of Peter and Paul, of John and the writer of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, repeated with insistence and earnestness by writers of
the second and third centuries, was, as Justin Martyr tells us in his
picture of the Sunday gathering of Christians, incorporated among the
special exhortations to the brethren urging them to generous almsgiving.
The duty of “hospitality” thus pressed home at these gatherings as
important enough to rank with the claims of the widow and the orphan
and the sick poor, needs a few words of explanation.
In the early days of Christianity it must be borne in mind that the
widely extended world of Rome was not as in mediæval and modern times,
made up of different nations and peoples, but that the Roman world
was all one, that men were fellow-subjects of one great Empire, and
that the passing to and fro from land to land was far more common than
in after times; and that Christians, whether belonging to Asia or to
Greece, to Italy or to Gaul, made up one great Brotherhood.
For a Christian coming into a strange city to find there at once a home
and a warm welcome, and if poor and needy, help and assistance, would
constitute a very powerful inducement to very many to join the new
Society in which lived such a spirit of loving brotherhood and kindness.
Special means of intercourse through letters and messages and other
means were provided. Cæcilius in _Minucius Felix_ (c. ix.), an early
writing, as we have said, belonging to the middle of the second century
or even earlier, especially tells us that “Christians recognize each
other by means of secret marks and signs, and love one another almost
before they are acquainted.”
It was to give effect to this far-reaching spirit of brotherhood that
the apostles and their successors insisted so earnestly upon the new
and beautiful duty of “hospitality.” It was a practical proof that
all Christians were really brothers and sisters--“that goodness among
the Christians was not an impotent claim or a pale ideal, but a power
which was developed on all sides, and was actually exercised in common
everyday life.”
We have dwelt at some length upon what were the principal objects to
which the alms of the Brotherhood, asked so earnestly at the various
weekly assemblies, were devoted; there were, however, other “causes”
pleaded for besides these--no doubt principally in such great centres
as Rome, where a proportion of rich and well-to-do persons formed part
of the little gatherings; of these, relief and assistance to “prisoners
of the faith” occupy a prominent place.
There were many Christians, especially in the more acute periods of
persecution, who were arrested and imprisoned by the government, and
not a few condemned to the harsh discipline of the mines. Justin Martyr
especially names assistance to imprisoned Christians as one of the
regular objects to which a portion of the collections at the “meetings”
was devoted. It was ever a matter of love, if not of absolute duty, to
help and succour these. “If,” wrote Aristides in his _Apology_ quoted
above, “the Christians learn that any one of their number is imprisoned
or is in distress for the sake of the Name of Christ, they should all
render aid to such a one in his necessity.”--_Apol._ xv.
See, too, among other references, Heb. x. 34; Tert. _ad Mart._ i., and
_Apol._ xxxix.
Another and special object of almsgiving pressed upon the faithful was
help to other and perhaps distant Churches who from one cause or other
were in want. We find this urged upon Christian congregations even in
apostolic days.
In S. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians we find
various appeals to the generosity of these early communities to assist
the Church at Jerusalem. The deep poverty of this famous Church we have
already suggested was probably owing to the attempt of the Jerusalem
Christians literally to carry out the idea of community of goods.
In the Letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the Roman Church written
_circa_ A.D. 170, quoted by Eusebius, _H. E._ iv. 23, we find
this generosity referred to as a well-known custom of the comparatively
wealthy Roman congregation. “From the very first,” wrote Dionysius,
“you have had this practice of aiding all the brethren in many ways,
and of sending contributions to many Churches in every city ... by
these gifts you keep up the hereditary custom of the Roman Christians,
a practice which your bishop, Soter, has not only kept up, but even
extended.” In the third century, Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria,
writing to Stephen, bishop of Rome, alludes to the generous help given
to the poor Churches of Syria and Arabia. “To them,” he says, “you send
help regularly.”--Euseb. _H. E._ viii. 5.
Ignatius, referring to this noble generosity of the Roman congregations
as early as the first years of the second century, styles the Church of
Rome as “the leader of love.”
Cyprian, in the middle of the third century, several times mentions how
the Church at Carthage, evidently a wealthy community, was in the habit
of sending help to other and needy communities.
But there was one department in the novel teaching pressed home by
the early Christian teachers which seems at once to have riveted the
attention of the listeners, and its universal acceptance at once won
extraordinary, possibly an undreamed of popularity in the Christian
ranks. It was an entirely new departure from any custom prevalent in
the world of Rome--the injunction reverently to care for _the bodies of
the dead poor_.
The Emperor Julian in his summary of what he considered the chief
points in the hated Christian system which had won them so many hearts,
especially calls attention to this. He wrote this remarkable comment
here:
“This godlessness (_i.e._ Christianity) is mainly furthered by its
charity towards strangers, and its _careful attention to the bestowal
of the dead_.”--_Letter to Arsacius_, in Soz. v. 15.
Lactantius in his review of the Christian virtues urged by the great
teachers of the new religion, and to a great extent practised in the
early centuries, gives a prominent and detailed notice of this pious
and loving custom, and strikingly writes as follows: “The last and
greatest office of piety is the burying of strangers and the poor,”
adding that the noblest pagan teachers of virtue and justice had never
touched at all upon this inescapable duty. These had left this, he
adds, quite out, because they were unable to see any advantage in it.
Some of these pagan teachers, he goes on to say, even esteemed burial
as superfluous, adding that it was no evil to lie unburied and
neglected.
The great fourth century writer proceeds at some length to give some
of the reasons which had influenced Christians so tenderly to care for
their brethren who had fallen asleep: “We will not suffer the image
and workmanship of God to lie exposed as a prey to beasts and birds,
but we will restore it to earth from which it was taken; and although
it be in the case of an unknown person, we will supply the place
of relatives, whose place, since they are wanting, let benevolence
take.”--Lactantius, _Inst._ vi. 12.
Aristides--middle years of second century--thus dwells upon the tender
solicitude of the Christian folk for their dead: “When one of their
poor passes away from the world, one of them (the brethren) looks after
him, and sees to his burial according to his means.”--_Apol._ xv.
Aristides is here referring to the private charity of individual
members of the community, which was often very lavish in the early
centuries. Tertullian, on the other hand, writing on the same duty of
caring for the brethren, includes the cost of “burying the poor” as
coming out of the common fund made up of the money contributed at the
public meetings of the Brotherhood.--_Apol._ xxxix.
As the amount required for these burials and the subsequent care
bestowed on the places of Christian sepulture was very considerable,
the public collections made in the assemblies were necessarily often
largely supplemented by private alms.
All this loving care for the remains of the deceased went home to
numberless hearts among the survivors of the loved, and evidently
ranked high among the reasons which attracted many into the ranks of
the Christian Brotherhood.
In our little picture of very early Christian life, Rome and its
powerful Church has been generally selected as the scene of the life in
question. In this primitive custom of reverent care for the dead,--a
care which embraced the very poor as well as the rich and well-to-do,
we discern the reasons which led to the first beginnings of the vast
city of the Christian dead,--the wonderful city known as the Roman
catacombs. This will be carefully described at some length in this
work: the building and excavating of the endless corridors, the private
chambers, the chapels and meeting-rooms, began even before the close
of the first century of the Christian era, and went on for some two
centuries and a half--the long-drawn-out age of persecution.
They constitute a mighty and ever-present proof of the accuracy of
much that has been advanced in the foregoing pages on the subject of
the life led--of the hopes and ideals cherished among the disciples of
Jesus in that first stage of anxious trial and sore danger.
The pictures painted below in the chapters treating of the catacombs
of Rome are admirable contemporary illustrations of what the writings
of Aristides, Tertullian, and Lactantius tell us of the solemn duty to
the dead which was insisted upon with such touching eloquence to the
primitive congregations of the faithful.
V
THE SLAVE IN EARLY CHRISTIAN LIFE
There was ever present in these early assemblies of Christians one
class of persons who had no rank, no place in Roman society,--a class
in which Cicero had declared that nothing great or noble could exist.
Slavery has been well characterized as the “most frightful feature of
the corruption of ancient Rome, and it extended through every class of
the community.” Economically, “the poor citizen found almost all the
spheres in which an honourable livelihood might be obtained, wholly or
at least in a very great part preoccupied by slaves.” Morally, “the
slave population was a hotbed of vice, and it contaminated all with
which it came in contact.”[70]
Now what position did the slave occupy in early Christian society? It
is quite clear that the primitive Christians had no idea of abolishing
slavery. It was part of the ancient society, and they accepted it even
amongst themselves--apparently made no effort to abolish it; but the
view they took of it in reality dealt a death-blow to the unhappy and
miserable institution. It is true that whilst Christianity gradually
modified its most painful and objectionable features by example and
by precept, it was only after long, long years that it succeeded by a
bloodless revolution to wipe away the awful curse--“The mills of God
grind slowly.”
But the New Testament simply directs slaves to be faithful and
obedient. In the letter to Philemon, Paul never even hints at the
release of the slave Onesimus, who was very dear to him.
In 1 Cor. vii. 20, Paul urges every man to abide in the calling (_i.e._
the state of life or condition) in which he was when he was called to
God; and even advises the slave to be content to remain a slave even
if the opportunity to become free presents itself; for this is the
interpretation which a chain of the best commentators gives to the
words “use it rather.” See, too, Eph. vi. 5-9; Tit. ii. 9; 1 Pet. ii.
18.[71]
The earliest Christian writings take the same view of the question
of slavery as we find in the Epistles of Paul and Peter. So in the
_Didaché_ we read: “Thou shalt not give directions when thou art in
anger to thy slave or thy handmaid, who trust in the same God, lest
perchance they shall not fear the Lord who is over you both; for He
cometh not to call men according to their outward position, but He
cometh to those whom the Spirit hath made ready. And ye slaves, ye
shall be subject to your masters as to God’s image, in modesty and
fear” (chap. iv.).
Aristides writes as follows: “But as for their servants or handmaids,
or their children if any of them have any, they (the Christians)
persuade them to become Christians, for the love that they have towards
them; and when they have become so, they call them without distinction
Brethren.”--_Apol._, chap. xv.
But although slavery as an institution[72] was left for the time
virtually untouched, Christianity in its own circles worked an
immediate and vast change in the condition of the slave: “It supplied a
new order of relations, in which the relations of classes were unknown,
and it imparted a new dignity to the servile classes.”[73]
In the assemblies of the Christians of the first days on which we have
been dwelling, the social difference between master and slave was
quite unknown. They knelt side by side when they received the Holy
Eucharist. They sat side by side as the instructions were given and the
words of the Lord Jesus were expounded. Their prayers ascended together
to the mercy-seat of the Eternal. While not unfrequently a slave was
promoted to be the teacher; the highest offices in the congregation[74]
were now and again filled by chosen members of the slave class.
They suffered with their masters, and shared with them the glory of
martyrdom.
The Acts of the Martyred Slaves were read to the congregations of
the faithful, and the highest honour and veneration was paid to
their memory. The slaves Blandina of Lyons, Felicitas of Carthage,
Emerentiana of Rome the foster-sister of Agnes, the famous martyr--are
names which deservedly rank high in the histories of the early heroines
of the Church.
But although slavery was still recognized in the new Society which
outwardly made no abrupt changes, which desired no sudden and violent
uprooting in the old Society, a marvellous change passed over the
ordinary conception of the slave.
An extract from a letter of Paulinus of Nola to Sulpicius Severus,
the disciple and biographer of S. Martin of Tours (_circa_ the last
years of the fourth century), will give some idea of the regard so
largely entertained by Christian thinkers for the slave members of
the community. Thanking Sulpicius for a young slave he had sent him,
Paulinus of Nola, recognizing in the slave an earnest and devout soul,
writes to his friend as follows: “He has served me, and woe is me that
I have allowed him to be my servant--that he who was no servant of sin,
should yet be in the service of a sinner! Unworthy that I am, every
day I suffered him to wash my feet; and there was no menial duty he
would not have performed had I allowed him, so unsparing was he of his
body--so watchful for his soul. Ah, it is Jesus Christ that I venerate
in this young man; for surely every faithful soul proceeds from God,
and every humble man of heart comes from the very heart of Christ.”[75]
There is little doubt but that this authoritative teaching of the
Christian masters in the matter of the perfect equality of the slave in
the eyes of God, and the consequent tender and often loving treatment
meted out to the Christian members of the despised and downtrodden
class, gravely misliked the more thoughtful among the pagan aristocracy
of Rome, and that this teaching and practice of Christians in the case
of the vast slave class in the pagan Empire ranked high among the
dangers which they felt threatened the existence of the old state of
things. Grave considerations of this kind must have strongly influenced
the minds of men like Pius and Marcus and their entourage, before they
determined to carry out their bitter policy of persecution.
The Romans of the old school could have well afforded to regard with
comparative indifference the enfranchisement of any number of Christian
slaves. Freedmen, especially in the imperial household, were very
numerous in the days of the Antonines. But the teaching that these
slaves--_while still slaves_--were their brethren, and ought to be
treated with love and esteem, was a new and disturbing thought in the
Empire of the great Antonines.
* * * * *
Lecky, in his _History of European Morals_ (chap. iv.), has a fine
passage in which he sums up the great features of the new movement of
Christian charity, and its results on the world at large. It runs as
follows:
“There is no fact of which an historian becomes more steadily or more
painfully conscious than the great difference between the importance
and the dramatic interest of the subjects he treats. Wars or massacres,
the horrors of martyrdom or the splendour of individual prowess, are
susceptible of such brilliant colouring that with but very little
literary skill they can be so portrayed that their importance is
adequately realized, and that they appeal powerfully to the emotions
of the reader. But this vast and unostentatious movement of charity,
operating in the village hamlets and in the lonely hospital, staunching
the widow’s tears and following all the windings of the poor man’s
griefs, presents few features the imagination can grasp, and leaves no
deep impression upon the mind. The greatest things are those which are
most imperfectly realized; and surely no achievements of the Christian
Church are more truly great than those which it has effected in the
sphere of charity. For the first time in the history of the world it
has inspired many thousands of men and women, at the sacrifice of all
worldly interests, and often under circumstances of extreme discomfort
or danger, to devote their entire lives to the single object of
assuaging the sufferings of humanity. It has covered the globe with
countless institutions of mercy, absolutely unknown to the whole pagan
world. It has indissolubly united in the minds of men the idea of
supreme goodness with that of active and constant benevolence.”
The foundation stories of all this vast movement of charity and
altruistic love were laid in the early years of Christianity.
The assemblies--the meetings together of the Christians of the first
days--constructed and developed, as we have seen, the laws of charity;
indicating the persons who were to be assisted, suggesting, too,
the means and resources out of which the sufferers--the forlorn and
needy--might be helped and comforted in life and in death.
All that happened subsequently--the mighty organizing work of great
masters of charity, such as Basil of Cappadocian Cæsarea, and later
of members of the monastic orders--was simply the development, the
expansion, the application to individual needs of the primitive
ordinances of the first days which we have been sketching
out,--ordinances all founded upon the advice, the injunctions, the
commands which we find in early Christian writings such as the
_Didaché_, the _1st Epistle_ of Clement of Rome, the _Apology_ of
Aristides, the _Shepherd_ of Hermas, the writings of Justin Martyr and
Minucius Felix, and a very little later in the more elaborate works of
Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, and repeated in the
first half of the third century by eminent teachers such as Origen and
Cyprian of Carthage; all primarily based more or less exactly upon the
words of the Lord Jesus and of His own immediate disciples.
In the primitive assemblies of the Christian Brotherhood these
things formed the groundwork of the instructions and exhortations of
the teachers and preachers, and were united with the dogma of the
Atonement, with the tidings of immortality, the promises of bliss and
eternal peace in the life beyond the grave.
Entering into one of these early assemblies held in an upper chamber or
courtyard of a wealthy Christian brother, or in one of those dark and
gloomy chambers of the catacombs, “we step,” as it has been well said,
“into a whole world of sympathy and of love.”
VI
DIFFICULTIES IN ORDINARY LIFE AMONG THE EARLY CHRISTIANS
But the rapt moments enjoyed by the men and women who met together in
these primitive assemblies soon passed. The perfect realization of
brotherhood, the sharing in the mystic Eucharist, the fervent prayers,
the dwelling on the sunlit words of their Divine Master, the earnest
and pressing injunctions to be generous in charity and almsgiving for
the benefit of the forlorn and sick in their company, the feeling that
the unseen presence of the Lord was all the while in their midst,--all
these things contributed to the joy and gladness which permeated each
little assembly; every one who assisted at one of these meetings could
whisper in his or her heart the words of the “apostle” on the Mount of
Transfiguration--“Lord, it is good for us to be here.”
But when the gathering dispersed, a reaction must have quickly set in.
From that atmosphere of sympathy, of love and hope, they passed at once
into the cold, hard, busy world--into family life--into the workshop,
the study, the barrack, and the Forum--all coloured with--permeated by
that system of gross and actual idolatry which entered into every home,
every trade and profession of the Roman Empire. What was to be their
conduct? how were Christians to behave in a world wholly given up to
an idolatry they knew was false, and utterly hateful to the Lord whose
presence they had just left?
The difficulties of a believer’s life in the early Christian centuries
must have been terrible; and it must be borne in mind that these
difficulties were not occasional, but of daily, almost of hourly
occurrence. To enumerate a few:
1. _In the family_, in domestic life. Consider the position of
a Christian slave--of a son or daughter--of a wife--in a pagan
family. What scenes of strain and estrangement if one member was a
Christian and the household generally clung to the old Roman religion!
The son or daughter might wish to be Christ’s disciple, and yet
shrink from “hating father and mother, brothers and sisters.” What
constant contests would the Christian have to endure--what bitter
reproaches--what perpetual danger of giving way and so endangering the
immortal soul! What share could the Christian member of a pagan family
take in the ordinary business and pleasures of the everyday existence,
to say nothing of the extreme peril to which a member of the sect
would be constantly subject of being denounced as a Christian to the
authorities, who were often too ready to listen to the informer?
2. _In Trade._--Many commercial occupations were more or less closely
connected with idol-worship; to say nothing of the makers and
decorators of idol-images, a trade that manifestly was impossible for
a Christian to be occupied in, there were hosts of artisans employed
in the great arenas where the public games were held; then, too, there
were the actors--the gladiators--those engaged in the schools and
training-homes of these. What were such persons to do?
3. In the ordinary _pleasures of the people_ in which such multitudes
took the keenest delight, was the Christian to stand aloof from all
these? Was the Christian to attract a painful and dangerous notoriety
by refusing to share in such dearly loved amusements, which with rare
exceptions were positively hateful to every Christian’s conscience?
4. Was the civil servant or the lawyer to abandon his calling in which
the worship of and reverence for the gods of Rome played so prominent
a part? Was the soldier, or still more the officer of the Legions,
to abandon his post and desert his colours, rather than acquiesce in
the daily service and adoration of the gods of Rome. Was he to refuse
to pay the customary homage to the awful Cæsar, when the slightest
disrespect or failure in homage to this sovereign master, who claimed
the rank of Deity, would be construed into treason and disloyalty?
5. _Education._--Could a Christian still continue to be a teacher of
the young, seeing that in all the manuals of education a knowledge of
the old gods still worshipped in Rome--their myths, their prowess,
their various attributes--was carefully taught? The very festivals and
sacred days had to be carefully observed by them, since it was by means
of these the teachers’ fees were reckoned.
All such and many other like questions had to be considered and weighed
by the Christian converts living in the world of Rome. Very thorny and
rough was the path which had to be travelled by every earnest Christian
in his way through life.
* * * * *
A striking and eloquent apologia for or explanation of the reasons
which guided many of the early Christian teachers to advocate a certain
feeling of toleration in various circumstances of everyday life may be
quoted here:
“The (Roman) Empire was originally developed quite apart from
Christianity under the shadow of the worship of the old false gods.
Everything in it bore the stamp of idolatry. Its laws and its customs,
first framed by patricians who were at once priests and lawgivers, then
consolidated by Emperors who ranked first and foremost as sovereign
pontiffs of the idol-worship, everything was coloured with and
permeated by polytheism. Art--Letters--private customs--all were pagan.
There was no public monument but was placed under the guardianship of
some heathen deity. No poem was composed without special reference to
an idol god; no feast began without a libation to an idol; no household
omitted the inescapable duty which directed that a sacred fire should
burn before the household gods (Lares). Thus absolutely independent
of Christianity, such a civilization must needs be intensely hostile
to the new faith, and its hostility never faltered one instant.
Differing here from the fixed rule of universal toleration, Roman
society from the very first displayed towards Christianity the
bitterest contempt--insulting treatment--persecution. The religion
of Jesus grew up and spread under circumstances of general ignominy
and hatred ... living in such a highly civilized community--mighty
and indeed all-powerful--the Church of Christ destroyed nothing,
adopted everything, quietly correcting, gently changing and reforming
everything, graving the Cross of its Founder on all the institutions of
pagan Rome; breathing its inspiration by degrees into all its laws and
customs.”[76]
VII
THE ASCETIC AND THE MORE PRACTICAL SCHOOLS OF TEACHING
The members of the Christian Brotherhood were not left without guidance
as to their behaviour in the world of Rome. There were _two schools_
among the Christian teachers of authority in the primitive Church.
The one which we will term the school of “Rigourists” or “ascetics”
found a brilliant and able exponent in the stern African Father,
Tertullian, who taught and wrote in the latter years of the second
and the earlier years of the third centuries. From the burning and
impassioned words of this famous African teacher we can form a
generally accurate idea of what was taught and pressed home in the
school of “Rigourists.”
No compromise was ever suggested by these hard, stern teachers--no “via
media” was even hinted at.
The artisan must forsake his calling if it even was connected in the
most remote degree with idol-worship,[77] with the games loved of
the people, with anything which appeared antagonistic to any of the
Master’s commands. These words must be understood in their strict
literal sense, and must be obeyed.
The soldier must abandon his colours, the civil servant his profession.
The slave must at all risks refuse his obedience when that obedience
involved acquiescence in any form of idolatry. The Christian wife,
the son or daughter in a pagan family, must gently but firmly decline
to share even in the formal ancestral worship, or to be present at
the public games of the arena, or the performances in the theatre. In
their dress and ornaments, in their very language, in their hours of
play and work, they must hold themselves aloof. We may picture to
ourselves how in many a pagan household, in the Forum, in the army and
civil service, gentle, pitying men and women would be found who would
shield and shelter these seemingly fanatical and earnest adherents of a
despised religion; but in many cases there would be no loving, pitying
ones who would strive to throw a kindly veil over what seemed to them
such strange, such unpatriotic and even disloyal conduct. Then would
assuredly follow arrest--imprisonment--exile--the deadly mines, where
the condemned toiled in a hopeless, dreary captivity. Not unfrequently
torture and death would be the guerdon of the devoted Christian under
circumstances of awful pain and mortal agony.
It is out of this class that the martyrs mostly came. It was to
embolden and encourage these that the little known “Schools of
Martyrdom” were formed, where very earnest Christians were trained to
endure all and suffer for the Name’s sake.[78]
The ascetics, however, were in the minority. There was another school
in the primitive Church, strict certainly in its instructions, but
more ready to make allowances; less uncompromising in its views of the
everyday Christian life; less literal in its interpretation of the
Divine Master’s words.
This gentler and more practical school is well represented in the
works still preserved to us of several of the great teachers of early
Christianity. A very conspicuous example of this school of teaching is
the famous Dialogue put together by the North African Latin writer,
Minucius Felix. The generally received date of the writing is _circa_
A.D. 160, in the reign of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus. It is
a work of peculiar charm. One scholar terms it “a golden Book”; another
(Renan) styles it “the pearl of Apologetic literature.”
It is cast in the form of a dialogue held by three persons on the then
beautiful seashore of Ostia. The speakers are real historic characters
of some rank and position in the Roman world in the middle years of
the second century. The arguments adduced by the pagan Cæcilius are
supposed to be a reproduction of a lost work of Fronto, the tutor and
friend of the Emperor Marcus. The refutation of Octavius the wealthy
Christian merchant, which follows and which convinced Cæcilius of the
truth of the new faith, is the principal piece in the work and the part
to which reference is specially made here, and it admirably voices many
of the views of the second and gentler school of early Christianity.
The criticism of Renan on the view of Christianity taken by Octavius
is striking, and fairly accurate. It is, he says, “the conception of
the new religion of amiable advocates wishful to enrol in the Christian
ranks, men of culture and position. Such men as the Octavius of the
Dialogue would never have written the Gospels or the Apocalypse; but,
on the other hand, without such liberal interpreters, the Gospels, the
Apocalypse, and the Epistles of Paul would have never penetrated beyond
the circle of a narrow sect, and in the long run the sect of Christians
would have disappeared.” “Minucius Felix,” the great French writer,
goes on to say, “represented in those early years the preacher of Nôtre
Dâme (in Paris) in our own time, addressing men of the world.”[79]
Christianity, in the eloquent presentment of Octavius, by no means
requires the believer to put aside the philosophers and pagan writers
whose works he admired. In the argument of Octavius, Christian teaching
lives in the pages of Aristotle and Plato. He points out with rare
skill and ingenuity that the new religion makes no claim on men to
give up their callings and professions; for instance, advocates like
Minucius, the author of “the Dialogue,” never dream, save in times
of vacation, of leaving the Forum the scene of their life-work.
Christians, like other men, busy themselves with the same occupations;
so society may surely accept them without any scruples. The cultivation
of Art--the study of Letters--are by no means incompatible with the
profession of Christianity. The religion of Jesus uses all these
things, and using them sanctifies them.
Eminent teachers, such as Clement of Alexandria at the close of the
second century in his _Pædagogus_, give directions to believers to
enable them to live a Christian life in the world. Origen, in many
respects a “Rigourist,” is far from emulating Tertullian in his stern
denunciations and warnings; and even such men as the saintly Cyprian,
who closed his beautiful life by a voluntary martyrdom, shows by his
own example that there were even times and seasons when a Christian by
flight might rightly avoid arrest and suffering for the Name’s sake.
In this gentler, more accommodating school it was clear that heathen
art was not forbidden. The decoration of even the earlier sepulchral
chambers in the Roman catacombs plainly indicates this freedom.
That this policy of the gentler school of early teaching, which
countenanced, perhaps suggested, many allowances, especially in
matters of purely ceremonial idolatry, was adopted by the majority of
believers, is clear from the numbers of Christians who we know lived in
the imperial court, served in the army, and occupied positions in the
civil service.
For instance, in the imperial court, in the days of S. Paul, we meet
with salutations from Christians in Cæsar’s household (Phil. iv. 22).
The well-known “graffito” on the Palatine, of the caricature of a
crucifix, is an indication that there were Christians among the
imperial pages in the reign of Marcus,[80] A.D. 161-80.
Irenæus (iv. 30) in the last quarter of the second century expressly
writes as follows: “And what of those who in the royal palace are
believers?”
Marcia, the favourite of Commodus, if not a Christian, was more than
kind to the Christian sect; that many Christians were in her circle is
certain. Even Tertullian testifies (_Apol._ xxxvi.) to the fact that
there were Christians in the palace of the Emperor Septimius Severus,
A.D. 193-212.
In the court of Alexander Severus (A.D. 222-35) were many
Christians; and it has been supposed, not without some reason, that the
Emperor himself was secretly a believer.