THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT'S TREATMENT OF THE CHRISTIANS
OUTLINE: I.--Religious persecutions before the Christian era.
II.--Christians first persecuted by the Jews. III.--Causes and
motives of persecution by the Roman government. IV.--Number
and general character of the persecutions. V.--Results of
persecutions. VI.--Sources.
Religious persecution originated long before the Christian era began--in
fact it runs through the whole history of religion. In Rome all citizens
were required by law to conform to the Roman religion so that the gods
would protect the state. Refusal brought punishment, but always on
political grounds.[91:1] Foreign religions which were either harmless or
helpful were often adopted, or at least tolerated.[91:2] Those, however,
which were dangerous to public morality, social order, or political
security, and which were not tolerant of other religions, were severely
treated by the Roman government. This was the Roman legal principle of
procedure in the case of every such religion,[91:3] hence when
Christianity appeared, Rome had already developed a distinct policy
which first tolerated and then persecuted it.
Persecution came to the Christians first from the Jews. Had not these
deserters of their fathers' faith precipitated Roman hatred upon the
Jews which resulted in persecution, expulsion, and loss of freedom and
independence?[92:1] Might not the Jewish religion be greatly weakened if
this proselyting continued? Hence the Christians were persecuted
individually and in masses.[92:2] The Jews sought in every possible way
to incite the Roman authorities against the hated Christians.[92:3] This
resulted in an irreparable breach between the two sects. The Christians
were brought into greater prominence, and the Romans even sought to
protect them from the Jewish fanatics.[92:4] At the same time a greater
Christian zeal was aroused, and thus the spread of the new faith was
promoted.
The Roman government tolerated the Christians at the outset, because
they were regarded as a harmless sect of Jews, whose work was quiet and
unobtrusive.[92:5] The significance of Christianity was not understood,
nor the marvellous spread of the faith noticed. Indeed Roman hostility
to the Jews led at first to personal and official protection of the
supporters of the new faith, until the Jewish War in 70 A.D.
The Roman policy soon changed, however, from that of indifference, or
protection, to persecution. The causes for this change are: (1) The
political science of the Roman Empire, and (2) the inherent character of
Christianity.
Ethically the Roman state embodied the highest good, hence all human
good depended upon the integrity and security of the state. That
principle subordinated the religious to the political, and made the
Emperor the head of all recognised religions. Roman law upheld this
theory, as clearly stated by Cicero: "No man shall have for himself
particular gods of his own; no man shall worship by himself new or
foreign gods, unless they are recognised by the public laws."[93:1]
Julius Paulus, a Roman citizen, stated the idea thus: "Whoever
introduces new religions, the tendency and character of which are
unknown, whereby the minds of men might be disturbed, should, if
belonging to the higher rank, be banished; if to the lower, punished
with death." Gaius said of forbidden associations: "Neither a society,
nor a college, nor any body of this kind, is conceded to all persons
promiscuously; for this thing is regulated by laws, or codes of the
Senate, and by imperial constitutions."[93:2] Hence from a legal
standpoint Christianity was illegal, because it introduced a new
religion not admitted into the class of _religiones licitæ_. "You are
not permitted by the law," was the taunt of pagans.[93:3] To organise
churches and to hold unlicensed meetings were violations of Roman law.
Might they not easily serve as covers for political plots? Mæcenas
advised Augustus: "Worship the gods in all respects in accordance
with the laws of your country, and compel all others to do the same.
But hate and punish those who would introduce anything whatever alien
to our customs in this particular . . . because such persons, by
introducing new divinities, mislead many to adopt foreign laws. Hence
conspiracies and secret combinations--the last things to be borne in a
monarchy."[94:1] Roman citizens, therefore, who turned Christian were
criminals, outlaws, bandits, and traitors; consequently the best
Emperors, those who felt called upon to enforce the law for the weal of
the Empire, those who wished to restore the vigour and power of old
Rome, sought to exterminate them, while the worst rulers were mostly
indifferent, and in some instances tolerant.
Christianity, inherently, was opposed to the whole governmental, social,
and religious systems of Rome in the most offensive and uncompromising
manner. It advocated one God for all men, one universal kingdom, one
brotherhood of all men, and one plan of salvation. It was world-wide,
above the Emperor, and advocated a non-Roman unity. The Christians were
subjects of God's kingdom first, and the Emperor's next; and when Rome
spurned this secondary allegiance they ceased to feel themselves Romans
at all.[94:2] They refused the duties of loyal citizens, held no
offices, objected to military service,[94:3] and refused to sacrifice
to the honour of the Emperor.[95:1] "Does not the Emperor punish you
justly?" asked Celsus. "Should all do like you he would be left
alone--there would be none to defend him. The rudest barbarians would
make themselves masters of the world." Furthermore the Christians
claimed the exclusive possession of divine knowledge and called all
forms of pagan worship idolatrous.[95:2] Christianity itself was
intolerant of all other religions. Was not Christianity the only true
faith? How then could the Christians compromise with false faiths, or
concede to them any truth, or any right to exist?[95:3] Hence it was
inevitable, and Christians were keenly conscious of the fact, that a
conflict should arise between Christianity and the Roman Empire, before
the universal dominion of the world could come. The efforts of imperial
officers to compromise matters, by insisting on mere outward conformity,
met with little success.
The attack made by paganism on Christianity came first from Roman
philosophers, scholars, and statesmen for all sorts of motives. Some
desired popular favour, others were sincere, still others sought to win
imperial approval. Many, no doubt, even though they had no longer any
heart for the ancient faith, yet could not bear to see it abolished.
They would agree with Cæcilius that "Since all nations agree to
recognise the immortal gods, although their nature or their origin may
be uncertain, I cannot endure that any one swelling with audacity and
such irreligious knowledge should strive to dissolve or weaken a
religion so old, so useful, so salutary."[96:1] Tacitus called
Christians "haters of mankind," and assailed their religion as a
"destructive superstition."[96:2] Suetonius denounced the new faith as a
"poisonous or malignant superstition." Others scoffed at these odd
devotees as "dangerous infidels," "enemies of Cæsar and of the Roman
people," and "a reprobate, unlawful, desperate faction." Priests, driven
on by duty and possibly fearing the loss of their offices, added their
sacred voices to the popular clamour.[96:3] Merchants and artists, whose
livelihood depended upon the sale of their products and wares to pagan
temples and worshippers, raised their voices against the new sect
"without altars, without temples, without images, and without
sacrifices."[96:4] Then the populace, incited by the above-named
classes, took up the opposition and soon spread the wildest
reports.[96:5]
Christians were also declared to be responsible for every disaster like
war, famine, fire, pestilence, flood, earthquakes, death of prominent
persons, etc. The gods, angered at the presence of such persons, sent
these dire calamities[96:6] on the atheists, who denied the many gods
and worshipped but one, and who discarded all images--even that of the
Emperor.[96:7] Did they not adore the wood of a cross and worship the
head of an ass?[97:1] Did they not refuse to conform to all religious
observances and festivals? Who but dangerous conspirators would hold
their meetings in secret at night? These anarchists who refused all
civic service[97:2]; these social revolutionists who broke up family
ties,[97:3] set slave against master, taught robbery under the guise of
equality, refused to enjoy the social games and festivals, and
interfered with business; these cannibals who ate the flesh and drank
the blood of their infants, the offspring of their incestuous and
adulterous carousals--what punishment could be too severe for such
degenerates? Were they not a Jewish sect which had deserted the faith of
their fathers, and which could command respect neither for age nor
legality?[97:4]
The occasion for the inevitable war between the Roman sword and the
Christian cross was popular hatred and ridicule, and the frequent
outbreaks of the mobs. The fundamental cause was political necessity,
for the Christians were guilty of _crimen læsæ majestatis_, high
treason. Christianity in the Roman Empire was somewhat like anarchy
to-day in the United States in its relation to the state. The technical
charges made against the Christians were: (1) introducing a _religio
illicita_, for which the penalty was death or banishment; (2) committing
_læsa majestas_, for which the penalty was loss of social rank,
outlawry, or death by sword, fire, or wild beasts; (3) being guilty of
_sacrilegium_, for which the penalty was death by crucifixion, the ax,
or wild beasts; (4) practising magic, for which the penalty was
crucifixion, or exposure to wild beasts in the circus.
Both the number and character of the persecutions seem to be
misunderstood. The Church Fathers and many later historians magnify the
number, fierceness, and duration of the persecutions, and the number
killed.[98:1] On the contrary it seems that considerable time elapsed
before the Christians were noticed by the government, which then
proceeded against them with caution and reluctance and punished them in
comparative moderation.[98:2] The Church enjoyed many seasons of rest
and peace. The number of Christians killed during the entire period of
persecution was comparatively small.[98:3] The persecutions varied with
the whims and feelings of each Emperor--the best rulers like Trajan,
Marcus Aurelius, Decius, and Diocletian, feeling the necessity of
upholding the law, were the most energetic persecutors, while the worst
Emperors were indifferent, or even favourable. The early persecutions
were only spasmodic outbreaks and limited; the later ones were general.
There is no reason for giving ten as the number of the persecutions--nor
for comparing them with the ten plagues of Egypt.
The first persecution occurred in Rome under Nero in 64 A.D.[99:1] Some
historians contend that the Neronian persecution fell upon the Jews,
whom Tacitus, writing fifty years after the event, erroneously calls
Christians.[99:2] Others maintain that the Jews, through court
influence, shifted the punishment from themselves to the
Christians.[99:3] Recent scholars, however, are inclined to accept the
literal narrative of Tacitus.[99:4] According to his version of the
situation, the persecution was accidental--a device of Nero to divert
the suspicion directed against himself of having burned Rome--and local,
that is, it did not extend to the provinces. A few Christians were
tortured and compelled to confess themselves guilty of incendiarism and
to give the names of others, and that led to the punishment of an
"ingens multitudo" as Nero's scapegoats.[99:5] As a punishment for their
alleged crime of incendiarism and "hatred for the human race," they were
covered with the skins of wild beasts and torn to pieces by the dogs in
the circus, crucified by day, and burned as torches by night.[100:1]
Paul, in all likelihood, fell a victim to this persecution and the Roman
Church has always believed that Peter also perished at this time.[100:2]
As a result, the attention of the Roman government was directed to these
"haters of the human race," and they became branded as outlaws and
brigands. Popular fury ran riot. A precedent was established, both in
Rome and the provinces, for punishing Christians for the name
alone.[100:3] Nevertheless sympathy was won for them, they secretly
increased in numbers, and were compelled to adopt a better organisation
in order to resist oppression. Above everything else the striking
difference between the Kingdom of God and the Empire of Cæsar was
strongly marked on the Christian conscience.
After Nero's persecution, under the Flavian Emperors (68-96), there was
a standing law against Christianity, like that against brigandage, but
it was only occasionally enforced.[100:4] There is no positive proof of
persecution under Vespasian (69-79). Titus (79-81), however, continued
the policy of Nero.[100:5] Under Domitian (81-96) there was increased
severity in both Rome and the provinces. This may have been occasioned
in part by the fact that as a result of the Jewish War all toleration
for the Jews was withdrawn. Christians were now classed with the hated
Jews. Flavius Clemens, the Emperor's cousin, was executed and his
beautiful wife Domitilla was banished.[101:1] Many others were killed,
compelled to fight wild beasts in the arena, or at least lost their
property.[101:2] It was even reported that Domitian planned to have all
the relatives of Jesus slain in order to prevent the rise of a possible
rival in the east.[101:3]
Of "the Five Good Emperors" (96-180) who succeeded the Flavian rulers,
three continued the policy of persecution. The first, Nerva (96-98), was
tolerant to the Christians. The next Emperor, Trajan (98-117), one of
the best Emperors, was not a wanton persecutor,[101:4] but felt it to be
his duty to uphold the laws and religion of the Empire.[101:5] He was
really the first Emperor to proceed against Christianity from a purely
legal point of view. By this time Christianity was clearly recognised as
a distinct sect and its real significance appreciated. His policy may be
clearly seen in his correspondence with Pliny, the governor of Bithynia
(112).[101:6] No doubt his views were influenced by Tacitus and Pliny,
who regarded Christianity as a "bad and immoderate superstition." Still
under Trajan persecution was limited to Bithynia, Jerusalem, and
Antioch, although Christianity had been formally proscribed everywhere,
together with all secret societies. His attitude was the model for
persecutions of the second century and later.[102:1]
Hadrian (117-138), who apparently judged Christianity rather trivially,
issued the famous rescript which forbade riotous proceedings, on the one
hand, and malicious information against the Christians on the other: "If
any one, therefore, accuses them and shows that they are doing anything
contrary to the laws, do you pass judgment according to the crime. But,
by Hercules! if any one bring an accusation through mere calumny, decide
in regard to his criminality and see to it that you inflict
punishment."[102:2] Hadrian's adopted son and successor, Antoninus Pius
(138-161), a wise, upright ruler, interfered to protect Christians at
Athens and Thessalonica. His edict, given in Eusebius, is probably
spurious, though the spirit may be correct.[102:3] Marcus Aurelius
(161-180), an educated Stoic and an excellent Emperor, encouraged
persecution against those guilty of "sheer obstinacy." Public calamities
had again aroused the mob against the Christians. The imperial decree,
"not fit to be executed even against barbarous enemies," authorised the
use of torture to discover Christians and to compel them to recant, and
also ordered the confiscation of property. This order to seek out
Christians, and not await formal complaints, seems to mark a new step
in imperial legislation. Still persecution was not general, but confined
to Lyons and Vienne in southern Gaul, and to Asia Minor.[103:1]
The period from 180 to 249 saw no essential changes.[103:2] Persecutions
were merely local, and depended more upon provincial feeling and the
character of the governor, than on the Emperor. Some of the Emperors
were friendly to the new religion, others quite hostile. Commodus
(180-193), dissolute, timid, and cruel, was friendly to the Christians
owing, probably, to the influence of his favourite concubine, Marcia,
who may have been a Christian.[103:3] Septimus Severus (193-211), an
able soldier, was indifferent to the new faith up to 202, when he issued
a rescript forbidding pagans from becoming Christians, and enforced the
old Trajan law with considerable severity.[103:4] Caracalla (211-217)
and Heliogabalus (218-222), two of the most contemptible Roman rulers,
both tolerated Christianity. The former recalled banished Christians;
the latter sought to merge Christianity into his own elective system of
religion. Alexander Severus (222-235) actually gave Christianity a place
in his cosmopolitan faith, had a bust of Jesus set up in his private
chapel, allowed churches to be built, and protected the Christians.
But Christianity was not legalised. On the contrary, Ulpian, the great
jurist, collected for public use in case of need all the imperial laws
against the new faith.[104:1] Maximinus the Thracian (235-238), a
coarse, brutal, military leader, ordered that all officers of the
churches should be "put to death as responsible for the gospel
teaching."[104:2] Philip the Arabian (244-248) was reported to be a
Christian--at all events Christians were not punished during his
rule.[104:3]
The last period of persecution (249-311) was characterised by civil and
moral decline in the Empire and by the amazing growth of Christianity,
which had become bold and aggressive. It must either be exterminated, or
else adopted as the state religion. Hence the Emperors, who sought to
restore the old power and splendour of ancient Rome, showed the greatest
severity. Decius (249-251) issued the first edict of universal
persecution (250) as a political necessity.[104:4] Local officials,
under the threat of severe penalties, were required to compel all
Christians to conform to the state religion. Christians might flee, but
their property was confiscated and their return meant death. The
inquisitorial process was employed and penalties were severe, especially
for the leaders.[104:5] Decius declared that he would rather hear of the
rise of a rival Emperor than of the appointment of a Roman
bishop.[105:1] Valerian (253-260) was said at first to be "mild and
friendly toward the men of God,"[105:2] but public disasters and the
advice of his friends led him to renew the persecutions, so he issued an
edict in 257 commanding Christians to conform to the state religion on
pain of banishment. The assembly of Christians was forbidden,[105:3] and
the bishops were banished. The next year he promulgated a second decree
more sanguinary than that of Decius, because it condemned all bishops,
priests, and deacons to death.[105:4] Gallienus (260-268) recalled the
exiled Christians, restored their church property, and forbade further
persecution,[105:5] but Aurelian (270-275) ordered the old laws enforced
with renewed vigour.[105:6] His death, however, prevented the execution
of the order; and thus the Christians had about forty years of peace.
Under Diocletian (284-305), a warrior statesman, occurred the last,
longest, and harshest persecution.[105:7] It was mildest in the West and
worst in Syria and Egypt, and endured ten years. This Emperor,
apparently, took up the sword very reluctantly. In 287 he issued a
decree against the Manichæans in Egypt which was a general condemnation
of Christianity. In 295 all soldiers were ordered to sacrifice on pain
of expulsion, or, in obstinate cases, execution. In 303 Christians were
accused of burning the imperial palace at Nicomedia and suffered
accordingly. An imperial edict commanded the churches to "be razed to
the ground, the Scriptures destroyed by fire," Christian officials
degraded, Christian servants enslaved, bishops imprisoned and forced to
sacrifice, and torture employed to compel Christians to conform.[106:1]
Everywhere these laws were executed, Eusebius says, with great severity
until checked by the edict of limited toleration by Galerius and his
co-regents in 311,[106:2] and stopped by the decree of complete
toleration granted by Constantine in 313[106:3] after a glorious
struggle of 250 years.
The results of the persecutions were very marked and have been both
exaggerated and ignored:
1. The growth of Christianity was helped rather than hindered.
Persecution advertised the new belief and won sympathy. It created an
intense devotion to the cause, proved the truth of the religion, and
made a martyr's crown desirable. Tertullian exclaimed: "Go on! rack,
torture, grind us to powder; our members increase in proportion as you
mow us down. The blood of Christians is their harvest seed. Your very
obstinacy is a teacher. For who is not incited by a consideration of it
to enquire what there is in the core of the matter? And who, after
having joined us, does not long to suffer?" The period of persecution
ended with a conquest of the Emperor and a large part of the Empire. The
victory was thus a double one.
2. The organisation of the Church was effected. Persecution forced the
Church to organise itself more efficiently, produced responsible
leaders, who were forced to direct the struggle against Rome and who, as
a result, were given pre-eminence by special punishment, and developed
the monarchio-episcopal system. The extraordinary development of the
power of the Bishop of Rome, in particular, was influenced to a far
greater degree than is ordinarily taken into account. Much emphasis has
been laid on the fact that that epoch of outlawry ended by the adoption
of Christianity by the Empire. A much more important result, however, is
found in the fact that Christianity, for weal or woe, adopted the Roman
Empire.
3. The Church was kept purer in belief and more united in form. The
spiritual was magnified over the temporal. Common oppression joined
Christians in common sympathy. The differences between Christianity and
paganism were emphasised. With death over their heads the Christians
thought little of life here but much of that hereafter and regulated
their lives accordingly. Still the growing consciousness that the Church
was a world-wide institution must have been powerfully stimulated. With
the evolution of the idea of Christian unity appeared the conspicuous
leadership of the Roman Church. Irenæus (d. 202) could declare that it
was "a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this
church, on account of its pre-eminent authority." Tertullian (c. 220)
also recognised the distinction of the Roman Church, though later he
questioned the validity of the Petrine claim. It was left to Cyprian (d.
258) to give the first complete account of the Universal or Catholic
Church in his work on the _Unity of the Church_.
4. Persecution produced a group of extraordinary literary defenders like
the apologists, controversialists, and letter writers, and helped to
develop the fundamental, orthodox Christian doctrine. It also produced
much legendary poetry; and out of this baptism of blood was created the
heroic age of the Church, based partly on fact and partly on fiction.
5. The forms of worship were modified, the worship of saints and relics
was originated, and the priesthood was sanctified and set above the
laity.
6. An example was furnished for later persecutions of the pagans,
Mohammedans, Jews, and heretics.
SOURCES
A.--PRIMARY:
I.--CHRISTIAN.
1.--=New Testament.=
2.--=Church Fathers.=
1.--Clement, _Ep. to Cor._, ch. 5-7. Lightfoot, Lond.,
1891.
2.--Justin Martyr, _1 Apol._, ch. 5, 24, 31, 52. _2 Apol._,
ch. 2, 8. _Dialog. with Trypho_, ch. 110. _Ante-Nic.
Lib._, ii., 1, 2, 79.
3.--Athenagoras, _Plea for the Christians_, ch. 1-4, 12, 31.
_Ib._, ii., 375.
4.--Minucius Felix, _The Octavius_. _Ib._, 451-571.
5.--Severus, _Sacred Hist._, ii., ch. 28-33. _Nic. and
Post-Nic. Fathers_ xi.
6.--Tertullian, _To Scapulam_, ch. 4. _Ib._, ii., 49-51.
_Apology_, ch. 2-16. _Ib._, 55-84.
7.--Lactantius, _Divine Institutes_, v., ch. 1, 9, 11.
_Ib._, xxii., 92, 93, 98, 99. _About the Death of
Persecutors_, ch. 4, 7. _Ib._, xxii., 167, 168, 170.
8.--Origen, _Against Celsus_, i., ch. 3. _Ib._, x., 400.
9.--Cyprian, _Epistle 80_; _To Demetrianus_, ch. 17. _Ib._,
viii., 436.
10.--Irenæus, _Fragments_, ch. 13. _Ib._, x., 164, 165.
11.--Hippolytus, _Christ and Antichrist_, ch. 56, 60. _Ib._,
ix., 34, 35.
12.--Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._ Various eds.
II.--HEATHEN WRITERS.
1.--Tacitus, _Annals_, xi., 15; xv., 38-44.
2.--Juvenal, _First Satire_, verse 155 ff.
3.--Suetonius, _Hist. of the Twelve Cæsars_. Tiberius, ch. 36;
Claudius, ch. 25, 5; Nero, ch. 16, 38; Domitian, ch. 12.
Bohn.
4.--Dion Cassius, _Hist. of Rome_. Xiphilin's _Abridgment_ in
Eng. 2 vols. 1704.
5.--Pliny, _Letters_, x., 96, 97. Transl. by Lewis, Lond.,
1879.
6.--Aurelius, _Meditations_, xi., 3. Bohn, 1869.
7.--Celsus, _Against the Christians_. Eng. transl., Lond.,
1869.
8.--Lucian, _The Death of Perigrinus_. Transl. by Tooke.
Lond., 1820.
3.--=Collections.=
1.--Univ. of Penn., _Translations and Reprints_, iv., No.
1.
2.--Foxe, _Acts and Monuments_, i.
B.--SECONDARY:
I.--SPECIAL:
1.--Addis, W. E., _Christianity in the Roman Empire_. Lond.,
1893.
2.--Baring-Gould, _Lives of the Saints_. N. Y., 1873-7.
3.--Bigg, _The Church's Task under the Roman Empire_. Lond.,
1903.
4.--Butler, A., _Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and Saints_.
Dub., 1866.
5.--Carr, A., _The Church and the Roman Empire_. Lond., 1886.
6.--Casy, J., _Trials and Triumphs of the Church._ Dub., 1899.
7.--Castelloe, B. F. C., _The Church and the Catacombs_.
Lond., 1894.
8.--Croke, A. D., _The Church and the Roman Empire_. Lond.,
1890.
9.--Döllinger, J. J. I., _Hippolytus and Callistus_. Edinb.,
1876. _First Age of Christianity._ Lond., 1877.
10.--Gregg, J. A. F., _The Decian Persecutions_. Edinb., 1897.
11.--Hardy, E. G., _Christianity and the Roman Government_.
Lond., 1894.
12.--Healy, P. J., _The Valerian Persecution_. N. Y., 1905.
13.--Lightfoot, J. B., _St. Clement of Rome_, i., 69-81.
_Ignatius_, i., 69.
14.--Mason, A. J., _The Diocletian Persecution_. Lond., 1876.
15.--Newton, R., _Heroes of the Early Church_. Lond., 1889.
16.--Oxenham, H. N., _Studies in Ecclesiastical History and
Biography_. Lond., 1884. 27-56.
17.--Perram, A. F., _Stories about the Early Christians_.
Lond., 1887.
18.--Pressensé, E. de, _The Martyrs and Apologists_. N. Y.,
1873. i., ch. 2-14.
19.--Ramsay, W. M., _The Church in the Roman Empire_. N. Y.,
1893.
20.--Rankin, J., _The First Saints_. Lond., 1893.
21.--Renan, E., _Marcus Aurelius_. _Antichrist._
22.--Spence, H. D. M., _Early Christianity and Paganism_. N. Y.
and Lond., 1902.
23.--Steere, E., _Persecutions of the Early Church_. Lond.,
1880.
24.--Uhlhorn, G., _The Conflict of Christianity with
Heathenism_. N. Y., 1879.
25.--Watson, F., _Defenders of the Faith_. Lond., 1888.
26.--Workman, H. B., _Persecution in the Early Church_. Lond.,
1906.
II.--GENERAL:
Alzog, i., sec. 48, 64-70. Backhouse, pt. 2, ch. 2-8.
Bartlett, ch. 2. Baur, ii., 215-221. Bouzique, i., ch. 3.
Burton, ch. 2, 5, 7-11, 13, 16, 17. Butler, ch. 6-8. Chantrel,
ch. 3. Cheetham, ch. 3, sec. 1. Clarke, ch. 1, 2. Coxe, ch. 2,
sec. 27. Croke, ch. 1-10. Crooks, ch. 14. Darras, i., ch.
1-14. Döllinger, i., ch. 1, sec. 9, 10. Duff, ch. 11, 13, 15,
16, 22-25, 30. Fisher, pd. 2, ch. 1. Foulkes, ch. 1-3.
Gieseler, i., 119. Gilmartin, i., ch. 5. Guericke, 77-102.
Hase, 42-55. Hore, ch. 3. Hurst, i., 161-179. Jackson, ch.
2-3. Jennings, i., ch. 2-3. Knight, ch. 2-5. Kurtz, i., sec.
21, 22. Merivale, 6-8. Milman, bk. i., ch. 1. Milner, i.,
cent. 2-4. Moeller, i., 74, 82, 159, 190. Neander, i., 86.
Newman, i., 147. Robertson, bk. i., ch. 1-3, 5-7. Schaff, ii.,
31 ff.
FOOTNOTES:
[91:1] Hardy, 1-18.
[91:2] Examples: Cybele, Bellona, Magna Mater.
[91:3] Examples: Cult of Isis excluded from Rome 58 B.C. (Tertullian,
_Apol._). Temples of Isis and Serapis destroyed 50 B.C. (Dion Cassius,
xi., 47). Repeated measures later. Jews expelled from Rome.
[92:1] Neander, i., 89; Fisher, 30. Caligula, it seems, expelled the
Jews from Rome; Claudius (41-54) first forbade their assembling (Dion
Cassius, 60, 6) and then sought to drive them out of the capital
(Orosius, _Hist._, 7, 6.)
[92:2] For individuals like Stephen, Acts vii., 58; James, Acts xii., 2;
Peter, Acts iv.; xii., 3; Paul, Acts ix., 23, 24; xiv., 5, 19; xvii.,
13; xxiii., 12; xvi., 23; xxii., 24. For masses see Acts viii., 1-4;
Acts xxvi., 10-12; Clement, _Recognitions_, i., ch. 53, 71; Justin
Martyr, _1 Apol._, ch. 36; _Dialogue with Trypho_, ch. 16, 39, 96, 115.
[92:3] Hurst, i., 153.
[92:4] Acts, xviii., 14, 15; xxi., 31, 32; xxiv., 1-27; xxv., 14; xxvi.,
32; Uhlhorn, 238.
[92:5] Origen, _Against Celsus_, iii., 1-3.
[93:1] _Concerning Laws_, i., pt. 2, ch. 8. This was also the ancient
principle of the XII. Tables.
[93:2] Bk. iii., ch. 4, par. 1.
[93:3] See Tertullian and Celsus.
[94:1] Address reported by Dion Cassius.
[94:2] Ramsay, 356.
[94:3] Uhlhorn, _Conflict of Christ. with Heathenism_, 231.
[95:1] Uhlhorn, _Conflict of Christ. with Heathenism_, 234.
[95:2] Gibbon, ii., bk. 3, ch. 16.
[95:3] Uhlhorn, 224; Moeller, i., 81.
[96:1] _Octav._, c. 8.
[96:2] _Annales_, xv., c. 44.
[96:3] Alzog, i., 257.
[96:4] Acts xix., 24 ff.; Pliny, _Ep._, x., 97; Neander, i., 92.
[96:5] For a detailed statement of the accusations read the apologies of
Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Origen.
[96:6] Cyprian, _To Demetrianus_, 1; Origen, _Against Celsus_, iii., ch.
16; Tertullian, _Apol._, ch. 40; _To Nations_, 9; Alzog, i., 261.
[96:7] Justin Martyr, _Apol._, i., ch. 6, 13, 17; Arnobius, _Against
Gentes_, iii., ch. 28.
[97:1] A crucifix with the head of an ass and body of a man was actually
dug up in Rome and is now exhibited in a museum there. In Tertullian's
day there was circulated a picture of a man with the ears of an ass,
clothed in a toga, holding a book, and with these words beneath: "The
God of the Christians" (_Apol._, 16; _Ad. Nat._, 11, 14; Tacitus,
_Hist._, v., 3). In the Palace of the Cæsars a rough sketch of a
crucified man with an ass's head was found (_Hist. Photographs_, No.
107, Oxf., 1870; _Univ. Quart._, July, 1879, p. 338).
[97:2] Origen, _Against Celsus_, viii., ch. 75; _Apol._, ch. 29, 35, and
39; Tertullian, _Concerning Idol._, ch. 17; _De Cor. Mil._, i., c. 15.
[97:3] _Cf._ Luke, xxi., 16.
[97:4] Hence all the hatred and prejudice of the Romans for the Jews
were turned against the Christians. Gibbon, ii., 6; Gieseler, i., p.
101.
[98:1] Origen declared that the number of Christian martyrs was small
and easily counted. _Celsum_, c. 3.
[98:2] Gibbon, ii., ch. 16; Uhlhorn, 234, 235.
[98:3] Moeller, i., 193.
[99:1] Tacitus, _Ann._, xv., 44. It seems to be very probable that
persecutions by the Roman government occurred earlier than this. 1 Pet.;
Rev. ii., 13; xx., 4.
[99:2] Schiller, Lipsius, and Hausrath.
[99:3] Notably Merivale.
[99:4] Hardy, Uhlhorn, Ramsay, Allard, and Harnack.
[99:5] E. Th. Klette, _Nero and the Christians_, who relies for his
conclusions on sources prior to Tacitus, repudiates the scapegoat
theory. He contends that Nero, influenced by Jewish intrigue, publicly
punished the Christians as Christians and because of the popular
suspicions against them, so as to make it appear that the burning of
Rome was due to the wrath of the gods.
[100:1] Juvenal, _Sat._, i., 155 ff.; Seneca, _Ep._, 14; Clement, _To
Corinth_, 6; Euseb., ii., c. 25; Orosius, vii., c. 7. _Cf._ Ramsay, _Ch.
in Rom. Emp._ 226 ff.
[100:2] Sulp. Severus, _Chron._ ii., c. 29; _Transl. and Rep._, iv., 6.
[100:3] Mommsen, Sandy, Hardy, Ramsay.
[100:4] Mommsen, v., 523 n.
[100:5] Sulp. Severus, _Chron._, ii., c. 30, 6; _Transl. and Rep._, iv.,
6-8.
[101:1] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, iii., c. 18; Dion Cass., lxvii., c. 14.;
Suet., _Dom._, c. 15; _Transl. and Rep._, iv., 6.
[101:2] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, iv., 26.
[101:3] Hegesippus, quoted in Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, iii., c. 20;
Tertullian; Clement of Rome, _1st Epistle_.
[101:4] Melito of Sardica (c. 170), Lactantius, Eusebius, and the
mediæval writers generally held that he was rather favourable to
Christians.
[101:5] Gieseler, Aubé, Overbeek, Uhlhorn, Keim and Renan held that
Trajan began a new era unfavourable to Christians but Lightfoot, Hardy,
and Ramsay explain it on the ground of political expediency.
[101:6] Pliny wrote sixty letters to Trajan and Trajan made forty-eight
replies. These have all been translated into English. Read letters 96
and 97. See _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 1, p. 8.
[102:1] For an excellent discussion of the significance of the Trajan
prosecutions, see Ramsay, _Ch. in Rom. Emp._, 190-225.
[102:2] Authenticity of this document is doubted by Baur, Klein,
Lipsius, Overbeek, Aubé, McGiffert, etc., but defended by Ramsay,
Lightfoot, Mommsen, Allard, Funk, Ranke, Uhlhorn, Moeller, etc. See
_Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 1, p. 10.
[102:3] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, iv., c. 13, 26; Tertullian; Harnack,
article on Pius in Herzog-Hauck, _Real Encyc._
[103:1] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, v., c. 1; _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 1,
p. 11.
[103:2] This period saw seventeen different Emperors.
[103:3] See Eusebius on this reign, _Eccl. Hist._, v., c. 9-24.
[103:4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Many martyrs are daily burned,
crucified, and beheaded before our eyes." Origen's father was among
them. At Scillite in Numidia 200 suffered. _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No.
1, p. 20. At Carthage two young women were given to wild beasts.
Tertullian refers to other persecutions. Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, vi., c.
1, 7.
[104:1] Moeller, i., 191.
[104:2] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, vi., c. 28; Origen, _On Martyrdom_.
[104:3] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, vi., c. 34.
[104:4] The text of this decree has been lost. Two later decrees were
issued--the first exiling Church officers, the second condemning them to
death. See Gregg, _The Decian Persecution_.
[104:5] Read Cyprian, _Concerning the Lapsed_, iii., c. 8, for the most
vivid account; _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 1, p. 21.
[105:1] Cyprian, _Ep. to Antonian_.
[105:2] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, vii., c. 10; Gregg, _The Decian
Persecution_.
[105:3] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, vii., c. 11.
[105:4] Cyprian, _Ep._, 81; _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 1, 20, 22, 23.
[105:5] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, vii., c. 13 ff.
[105:6] _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 1, p. 26.
[105:7] Mason, _The Persecution of Diocletian_.
[106:1] _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 1, p. 26; Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._,
viii.-x.; Uhlhorn, 407.
[106:2] _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 1, p. 28; Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._,
viii., 17.
[106:3] _Transl. and Rep._, iv., No. 1, p. 29.