PROGRESS OF EARLY CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA.
Opposition from corrupt Slave-Caste--Detestation of Christian
Doctrines by Slave-owners--Incomprehensibility of new Doctrine
of Equality--Absence of a destitute Free People a Drawback on
Reform--Spread of the New Teachings--Alarm, and Persecution of the
New Faith.
We have seen, in the preceding chapter, what apparently insurmountable
difficulties the early Christians had to struggle with in the
ignorance, contentment, traditional habits, and deep-rooted prejudices
of the slave-class. To these hereditary bondsmen, who knew no gods but
their masters’ gods, no law but their masters’ will, the sublime dogmas
of the Gospel appeared altogether incomprehensible and out of nature’s
course. Slavery they had ever regarded as decreed for them by fate; and
as they had no wants, spiritual or temporal, but such rude ones as were
abundantly provided for by their owners’ care, they regarded with alarm
and distrust the apostles of a new faith, which was characterised as
subversive of everything human and divine. In a word, the slave-class
was, of all classes existing at the time, the least accessible to
evangelical doctrine,--the least susceptible of the new dispensation
so freely and so bountifully offered, for the first time, to the whole
of humanity in the name of the Creator of all. Undoubtedly, this, if
not the first, was the greatest stumbling-block in the way of the new
reformers.
That the master-class and the civil magistrate should encounter
such unheard-of innovations with the fiercest resistance was but
what might naturally be expected. To these the new religion was at
once sedition and rank blasphemy. A religion which treated their
gods and oracles as the offspring of fraud, begotten upon the body
of folly, was subversive of everything they deemed conservative of
society and wished to be held sacred by the multitude. A religion
which taught there was only one true God, the common Father of all,
in whose sight all men were equal,--that this God was no respecter of
persons or of classes, but would judge all alike, without regard to
rank, family, or condition,--that His worship demanded the practice
of all the virtues, and a renunciation of pride, lust, covetousness,
ambition, injustice--in short, of all the vices inseparable from
tyranny and slavery,--that, to be acceptable in His sight, men should
be as brothers, loving Him above all things, and their neighbours as
themselves,--a religion which told masters and rulers that whoever
would be foremost should be the servant of the rest, and which enjoined
upon all that whatsoever they would have others to do unto them,
even so should they do unto others,--a religion of this (till then)
new and singular character must of necessity have appeared a medley
of abominations to masters and rulers. And such, in good sooth, it
did appear to them. Indeed, so utterly atrocious and “subversive of
all law and order” did Christianity appear to the world at its first
introduction, that, but for the obscurity and seeming insignificance
of its first propagators, it is impossible it ever could have been
established by mere human agency. Contempt and pity were the true
safeguards of its first missionaries. Had they, at the outset,
exhibited any signs of strength or importance, it is certain they would
have been extirpated at once. No slave-owner would tolerate a system
which went to deny him a property in his fellow-man. No ruler, no
magistrate, would spare innovators whose doctrine went to revolutionize
the entire social system as then constituted. No nation as a notion, no
people as a people, would, for an instant, endure a religion which went
to deprive them of _their_ gods--the accredited protectors of their
liberties and laws. For in those days, be it observed, every particular
State or people had its peculiar form of worship, and its own peculiar
gods; and every religion being particularly united with the laws which
prescribed it, there was no way of converting a nation but by subduing
it--no possibility of any system of proselytism proving successful
but what could enforce its dogmas at the head of a victorious army.
In other words, the only system of religious propagandism known in
the old pagan world was the propagandism of the sword. And here let
us note, for the benefit of certain shallow philosophists who declaim
against Christianity on the alleged ground that before its introduction
religious wars were unheard of, that political and religious wars
amongst pagans were one and the same thing; and consequently, to make
good their case, they should prove that political wars were unheard
of. Rousseau exposes this philosophic error effectively in his “Social
Contract,” when showing the inseparable connection that subsisted
between religion and politics under the pagan system. “The reason,”
he says, “there appear to have been no religious wars in the days of
paganism was, that each State, having its peculiar form of government
as well as of religion, did not distinguish its gods from its laws,
and the political was also a religious war; the jurisdiction of their
gods being, as it were, limited by the boundaries of the nation, and
the gods of one country having no right over the people of another.”
Under an order of things like this, it is manifest no progress could
have been made by the first Christians had they appeared in sufficient
numbers, or of sufficient importance in the way of rank and station,
to attract the notice of governments. As already observed, it was to
their insignificance and obscurity alone they owed their preservation
and first successes. For, as we shall presently see, the moment they
grew strong enough to invite public vigilance, from that moment their
persecutions began, and a torrent of execration and vengeance was let
loose upon them the like of which was never witnessed before, nor will,
we trust, ever be again. What we shall say of these persecutions will
abundantly prove the horror which the doctrine of equality inspired in
rulers and slave-owners, and, at the same time, show what miracles of
_bearing_ and _forbearing_ the martyrs of the faith had to achieve
before those great principles, which all true Christians and democrats
now hold sacred, could ever obtain recognition in the world.
A third difficulty, as formidable as either of the others, although
of a negative kind, also obstructed the early Christians. It was the
absence of a numerous poverty-stricken, destitute class, corresponding
with our modern proletarians, and having, like them, no guarantee for
regular subsistence from day to day. Had such a class as this been
in existence in St. Paul’s time, his missionary labours amongst the
Gentiles would have been immeasurably lighter and more successful.
The millions would have been everywhere, as it were, predisposed for
the new doctrine. Life being a burden to such people, they would have
flung themselves with enthusiasm into the movement. But all history
goes to show that hardly any such class existed till a century or
two later. Speaking on this subject, an eminent French writer (M. de
Cassagnac) observes:--“We have no certain means of determining up to
what period of history pure slavery continued, _i.e._, slavery without
any enfranchisements or manumissions.”
Although we find early mention made of _freedmen_ in the Bible and
in the “Odyssey,” yet it is certain that in the primitive times of
slavery there were no beggars. One is, in effect, a beggar only though
lack of other means of subsistence. Now, a slave is not a beggar, he
being found and provided for by his master. There were no beggars in
our colonies during the early period of their settlement; and there
are but few still, notwithstanding the people of colour have been set
free. Blackstone judiciously observes, in his “Commentaries on the
Laws of England” (without being apparently aware of the value and
importance of the fact in a moral and social point of view), “that
the vast numbers of destitute poor which had already, in his time,
overspread England--and for whose subsistence the government had found
it necessary to make some provision, ever since the reign of Henry
IV., by an eleemosynary contribution levied with the regularity and
permanence of an ordinary tax--arose chiefly from the manumission or
setting free of large bodies of serfs during the middle ages, who were
suddenly and without forethought thrown upon society.” The monasteries,
with their magnificent hospitals and well-organised system of charity,
supported these poor outcasts as well as might be for a considerable
period. But at length came the Reformation, which, pitilessly closing
the monasteries, changed the workpeople into paupers, and the destitute
poor into robbers. Following up this argument, M. de Cassagnac,
after showing why there are fewer destitute poor in France than in
England, concludes thus:--“But whether we regard France, England,
or any other country,--whether we consult ancient history or modern
history,--we shall find it everywhere and at all times to hold good,
as a general rule, that _the emancipation of slaves is the first and
universal cause of pauperism and mendicity all the world over_.” Our
pseudo-philanthropists and saints of Exeter Hall--our abolitionists
and humanity-mongers, who sentimentalize so blandly and edifyingly
upon the evils of negro-slavery, will not, mayhap, be much gratified
by this piece of historic intelligence. It is not the less true,
however. Living experience adds the weight of its testimony to that
of ancient history to confirm M. de Cassagnac’s conclusions. For,
to this day, we find that wherever direct or chattel slavery is the
normal condition of the mass of the labouring class--as, for instance,
in sundry Asiatic nations and in the Southern States of America till
recently--there pauperism and mendicity are comparatively unknown. A
few beggars and destitute persons may be found, here and there, amongst
such people; but, besides that their number is hardly noticeable in the
general mass, it will also be found that even these few are decayed
freedmen and their offspring, or else the descendants of slaves who had
purchased or otherwise obtained their freedom.
M. de Cassagnac mentions another fact confirmatory of this conclusion.
It is, that the first great irruption of beggars, prostitutes, thieves,
and paupers which overran Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire is
ascertained to have taken place from the second to the sixth century--a
period which corresponds exactly with the time when the mass of pagan
slaves set free was added to the mass of enfranchised Christians; and
this irruption made itself manifest at once by the regular organisation
of hospitals which then took place, but which were altogether unknown
to the ancients, whose custom it was to provide for their sick and
infirm slaves in private infirmaries, to which dispensaries were
attached, within their own premises. Indeed, wherever we find the word
“beggar” or “pauper” occur in primitive writings, we may make sure
that those writings belong to an epoch when a great many slaves had
already been emancipated--that is to say, to a secondary epoch in the
civilization of the country the writings may refer to.
The same remark applies to mercenaries or wages-slaves; for the
ancient mercenary is no other than a manumitted slave, who is allowed
to sell his labour when he can no longer be sold himself, he being
no longer any one’s property. There is an allusion to this class of
persons in Leviticus xxv. 6: there are a few also in the “Odyssey.”
Plutarch, in his “Life of Theseus,” cites a verse of Hesiod, in which
also allusion is made to mercenaries or wages-slaves. In the same poem
of Hesiod there is mention made of beggars. These several allusions,
however, are made in such a way as to show that the class referred to
was insignificantly small. Moreover, it is far from certain that in
some of them the word “mercenary” does not refer to a class of slaves
corresponding with those modern ones in America, whose masters allowed
them, as it were, to farm themselves out to other employers, accepting
a fixed sum for themselves, and permitting the slaves to appropriate
the overplus; just as a modern London cabman is allowed to pocket all
he can make in the day, over and above what he pays his “governor”
for the use of his horse and vehicle. It is remarkable that Homer’s
“Iliad,” which was written before the “Odyssey,” does not contain a
single hemistich having reference to paupers or beggars; from which it
has been inferred that the period intervening between the two works
was one of those periods of transition when, manumissions occurring
with unusual frequency, a small mercenary class was formed, to which
allusion is made in the later poem. At all events, it is quite certain
that no large class of mercenaries or wages-slaves existed at the
time the Gospel was first propagated; and this was one of the main
difficulties in the way of its progress. A destitute proletarian class
would have hailed the doctrine of equality with joy and gladness.
To well-fed, contented, ignorant slaves, who had neither hunger nor
tuition to sharpen their intellects, it was all but incomprehensible:
besides, the relation in which they stood to their owners made it
perilous to tamper with them.
In the face of these formidable difficulties, it may well be asked
what means, short of the miraculous, could have secured such amazing
successes for Christianity so soon after its foundation? We are not
_divines_, and therefore shall leave the miraculous to those who prefer
accounting in that way for the truly marvellous progress made by the
first Christians in the propagation of their doctrines. Suffice it for
us to say that nothing like it was ever before known in the world, nor
since. Of the rapidity and multiplicity of its early triumphs we have
abundant evidence in the history of the Acts of the Apostles. In Judea,
where the Gospel was first preached (and where, no doubt, the labours
of bygone martyred prophets, the preachings of John the Baptist, and,
mayhap, the example and secret propagandism of the Essenes had prepared
the ground for the seed), the new mission was, as might be expected,
most successful. On the fiftieth day after the Crucifixion, it is said,
three thousand persons were converted in Jerusalem by a single sermon
of the Apostles. A few weeks after, five thousand true believers were
present at another sermon preached in Jerusalem. Within less than ten
years after Christ’s death, the disciples and followers had become
so numerous throughout Judea, particularly in and about Jerusalem,
that they were objects of jealousy and alarm to Herod himself. About
the twenty-second year after the Crucifixion they had so multiplied
themselves that their name was legion. These facts may be collected
from the Acts themselves.
Nor was it amongst the poor only that the doctrines of fraternity and
equality gained ground; they penetrated all ranks of the population;
they were ardently espoused by men in high stations and of responsible
offices, whose countenancing of such a creed was at the moment a most
perilous adventure. Amongst those early proselytes we find Joseph
of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both members of the Jewish sanhedrim or
council; Jarius, a ruler of the synagogue; Zaccheus, the chief of
the publicans at Jericho; Apollos, a distinguished orator; Sergius
Paulus, a Roman and governor of the island of Cyprus; Cornelius,
a Roman centurion; Dionysius, a judge and senator of the Athenian
Areopagus; Erastus, treasurer of Corinth; Tyrennus, another Corinthian
and professor of rhetoric; Paul, learned in the Jewish law; Publius,
governor of Melite (now Malta); Philemon, a man of great rank and
influence at Colosse; Simon, a sophist of some note in Samaria; Zenas,
a lawyer; and, we are told, even some of the emperor’s own household.
For, as may be inferred from some of these names, it was not in Judea
only the new faith triumphed: it spread with almost equal celerity
and success throughout Asia Minor, Greece, Africa, and the islands of
the Archipelago; indeed, everywhere in the countries bordering the
Mediterranean. There was hardly a province of the Roman empire that was
not visited by its missionaries, even in the lifetime of the Apostles.
Some of its earliest and most marked triumphs came off in the heart
of Greece itself, at that time reputed the most polished nation in
the world, and to whose schools and academies (as being the choicest
nurseries of learning, art, and science) the aristocracies of Rome
and elsewhere sent their sons to be educated and trained for public
employments. Indeed, long before the last of the Apostles disappeared,
we read of churches founded at Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Berœa,
Philippi, and other Greek cities. Rome herself, the seat of empire
and mistress of the world, was not proof against the contagion of
spiritualized democracy. Before the end of the second century there
were Christians to be found in almost every department of the imperial
service--Christians in the senate, in the palace, in the camp, in
the public offices,--in short, everywhere, it is said, except in
the temples and the theatres, from which, of course, their religion
debarred them.
But, it will be readily imagined, this amazing progress was not
obtained without paying the cost which is paid for all reformations, in
the blood and calamities of the principal actors. A religion of such
unheard-of character, ushered into a world such as we have described,
could not but excite the fiercest opposition and call forth the most
malignant passions. It was so with Christianity, despite all the
miracles alleged to have been wrought in its favour. The very term
“Christian” was first heard of as a term of reproach. The new believers
are said to have got that name at Antioch, where the people “were given
to scoffing,” but afterwards adopted it themselves as a term of honour,
and gloried in it, just as we have seen the Chartists of England adopt
that title (first given them in derision by their enemies), and glorify
themselves in it; or as the French revolutionists of 1793 adopted and
converted into an honorary title the nickname of “Sans Culottes,”
contemptuously given them by Lafayette; or as our democratic brethren
in America converted “Yankee Doodle” into a national air, by way of
revenge for the insult originally intended by their enemies in its use.
That the word Christian was, indeed, originally used as a term of
reproach cannot be doubted. Christ or his disciples never used the
term. It is nowhere to be found in the Gospels; and if made use of
twice or thrice in the Acts, and in one of the Apostolic Epistles,
it is evidently used as a term borrowed from others, and not as one
voluntarily adopted by the sect itself. But the best proof that the
term was used in an offensive sense, and that the sect itself was held
in detestation (mitigated only by contempt), is furnished by Tacitus’s
“Annals,” in the only passage in which that historian deigns to notice
them. It occurs where, speaking of the Christians persecuted by Nero,
he describes them as believers in a “deplorable and destructive
superstition,” which had its origin with one Christ; and then, as
if for want of a name to give them, he adds, “_Vulgus Christianos
appellabat_,” _i.e._ the vulgar or common people called them Christians.
At the period referred to here, the Christians were too few and too
weak to cause much alarm out of Judea. Hence the air of contempt
with which Tacitus wrote of them. Not very long after, however,
the score was altogether changed. From a handful of obscure and
unnoticeable sectarians, having scarcely any feelings in common with
the rest of mankind, they grew into a gigantic community, having
their missionaries, their churches, and even their political agents,
spread throughout every corner of the empire. It was then their
persecutions began to assume those forms and proportions which are
necessary to attract history; it was then the pagan priesthoods,
pagan magistrates, and pagan aristocracies found it necessary to
check the tendencies of the new heresy, and to rouse and infuriate
the superstitious prejudices and passions of the populace against the
innovators. Nor was this a difficult task. At all times it is easy
enough to influence ignorant mobs against reforms they understand not,
and against men they comprehend not. It was peculiarly so in the case
of the pagan rabble, let loose against the early Christians. For, be
it observed, this new religion, which never ceased proselytizing,
was a singularly exclusive one. It denied dogmatically, and rejected
contemptuously, every alleged fact and article of heathen mythology,
and the existence of every article of their worship. It would hear
of no compromise, no amalgamation. If it prevailed at all, it must
prevail by the subversion of every altar, statue, temple, consecrated
to pagan uses. It pronounced all other gods false; all other worship
sinful and an abomination. With these peculiarities engraved on it,
it was impossible for the new religion to escape persecution from the
pagan priesthood and superstitious rabble. And when we combine with
this the consideration that the pagan magistrates and rulers regarded
the doctrines of Christ as subversive of governmental authority, of the
subordination of classes, and of the institution of property itself, as
well as of religion and of the protection of their gods, we shall be
at no loss to appreciate the nature of the feelings about to be roused
into action against the Christians. We shall see, as we proceed, how
these feelings showed themselves in the struggles and prosecutions
which ensued.
[Illustration: Decoration]