THE EFFECT OF PAGAN PERSECUTION ON THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
A variety of causes have operated to produce the result stated in
my second Thesis, among which I shall first consider those terrible
persecutions with which the saints were afflicted in the first
centuries of our era.
Let it not be a matter of surprise that I class those persecutions
as among the means through which the church was destroyed. The force
of heathen rage was aimed at the leaders and strong men of the body
religious; and being long-continued and relentlessly cruel, those
most steadfast in their adherence to the church invariably became its
victims. These being stricken down, it left none but weaklings to
contend for the faith, and made possible those subsequent innovations
in the religion of Jesus which a pagan public sentiment demanded, and
which so completely changed both the spirit and form of the Christian
religion as to subvert it utterly.
Let me further ask that no one be surprised that violence is permitted
to operate in such a case. The idea that the right is always victorious
in this world; that truth is always triumphant and innocence always
divinely protected, are old, fond fables with which well-meaning men
have amused credulous multitudes; but the stern facts of history
and actual experience in life correct the pleasing delusion. Do not
misunderstand me. I believe in the ultimate victory of the right,
the ultimate triumph of truth, the final immunity of innocence from
violence. These--innocence, truth and the right--will be at the last
more than conquerors; they will be successful in the war, but that does
not prevent them from losing some battles. It should be remembered
always that God has given to man his agency; and that fact implies that
one man is as free to act wickedly as another is to do righteousness.
Cain was as free to murder his brother as that brother was to worship
God; and so the pagans and Jews were as free to persecute and murder
the Christians as the Christians were to live virtuously and worship
Christ as God. The agency of man would not be worth the name if it did
not grant liberty to the wicked to fill the cup of their iniquity,
as well as liberty to the virtuous to round out the measure of their
righteousness. Such perfect liberty or agency God has given man; and it
is only so variously modified as not to thwart his general purposes.
Hence it comes that even when stealthy Murder in sight of his helpless
victim meditates the crime, no voice to prevent the act "speaks through
the blanket of the dark" crying, "Hold! hold!" Of course it follows
that running parallel with this fact of man's liberty is the solemn
truth of his full responsibility for the use he makes of it.
In the light of these reflections, then, I say that after Christ, as
before his day, the kingdom of heaven suffered violence and the violent
took it by force. [1] How far that violence, as manifested in the
persecutions of the first three Christian centuries, was effectual as
a factor in causing the destruction of the church is now to engage our
attention.
At the outset, however, there is a difficulty I cannot pass without
comment--the disagreement of eminent writers on the extent and severity
of the persecutions endured by the Christians up to the accession of
Constantine to the imperial throne of Rome. On the one hand infidel
writers, such as Gibbon and Dodwell, have sought to minimize the
suffering of the Christians under the persecutions, and on the other,
Christian writers, such as Milner, Paley and Fox, have sought to
magnify it. The motive on the part of both infidels and Christians is
obvious. The more violent and extensive the persecutions, the more
the martyrs, the more glorious the triumph for the church. While on
the other hand, if the persecutions can be proven to be limited, the
suffering made to appear trifling and the martyrs few in number, the
church is robbed of so much of her glory. Doubtless both parties have
gone to extremes in the contention. Unfortunately for the Christian
side of the controversy, there is much reason for believing that the
account of Christian suffering within the period named has been much
exaggerated. Their chief authority--Eusebius--has thrown more or
less suspicion upon the trustworthiness of all that he has written,
by declaring in the opening chapter of his Ecclesiastical History
and elsewhere that "Whatsoever, therefore, _we deem likely to be
advantageous to the proposed subject_, we shall endeavor to reduce
to a compact body by historical narration. For this purpose we have
collected the materials that have been scattered by our predecessors,
and culled, as from some intellectual meadows, the appropriate extracts
from ancient authors." [2]
On these passages Gibbon remarks: "The gravest of the ecclesiastical
historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related
whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all
that could tend to the disgrace of religion. Such an acknowledgment
will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly
violated one of the fundamental laws of history, has not paid a very
strict regard to the observance of the other." [3] Draper also refers
to the same when, commenting upon the inaccuracies of early Christian
writers, he says: "In historical compositions there was a want of
fair dealing and truthfulness almost incredible to us; thus, Eusebius
naively avows that in his history he shall omit whatever might tend to
the discredit of the church, and magnify whatever might conduce to her
glory." [4]
But while it must be conceded that there is much reason for believing
that the Christian fathers exaggerated both the extent and severity
of those early persecutions, it remains clear that both the extent
and severity of them were greater and more baneful to the church than
infidel writers allow; and the truth of it may be proven independent
of the testimonies of the Christian fathers. The proofs I refer to
are the edicts themselves, considered in the light of the well-known
cruelty of the Roman people, intensified by the malice of religious
zeal aroused to suppress an obnoxious society whose doctrines were held
to be destructive of the ancient religion of Rome, and a menace to the
existence of the state itself.
Passing by the persecutions inflicted upon the Christians by the
Jews, an account of which is to be found in the New Testament, I call
attention to the first great pagan persecution under the cruel edict of
the Emperor Nero. For our information in respect to this persecution we
are indebted not to any Christian writer, but to the judicious Tacitus,
whom even "the most sceptical criticism is obliged to respect." [5]
Nero having set on fire the city of Rome, in order that he might
witness a great conflagration, and wishing to divert suspicion from
himself, first accused and then tried to compel the Christians to
confess the great crime--and now Tacitus:
"With this view he inflicted the most exquisite tortures on those men
who, under the vulgar appellation of Christians, were already branded
with deserved infamy. They derived their name and origin from Christ,
who, in the reign of Tiberius had suffered death by the sentence of
the procurator Pontius Pilate. For awhile this dire superstition was
checked; but it again burst forth; and not only spread itself over
Judea, the first seat of this mischievous sect, but was even introduced
into Rome, the common asylum which receives and protects whatever is
impure, whatever is atrocious. The confessions of those that were
seized discovered a great multitude of their accomplices, and they were
all convicted, not so much for the crime of setting fire to the city,
as for their hatred of human kind. They died in torments, and their
torments were embittered by insults and derision. Some were nailed on
crosses; others sewn up in the skins of wild beasts, and exposed to the
fury of dogs; others, again, smeared over with combustible materials,
were used as torches to illuminate the darkness of the night. The
gardens of Nero were destined for the melancholy spectacle, which was
accompanied with a horse-race, and honored with the presence of the
emperor, who mingled with the populace in the dress and attitude of
a charioteer. The guilt of the Christians deserved indeed the most
exemplary punishments, but the public abhorrence was changed into
commiseration, from the opinion that those unhappy wretches were
sacrificed, not so much to the public welfare as to the cruelty of a
jealous tyrant." [6]
Eminent scholars are divided in opinion as to whether this persecution
under Nero extended to the provinces or was confined to the city
of Rome. Gibbon assumes that it was both brief and confined to the
city. According to Milman "M. Guizot, on the authority of Suplicious
Severus and of Orosius inclines to the opinion of those who extend the
persecution to the provinces. Mosheim rather leans to that side on this
much disputed question. Neander takes the view of Gibbon, which is, in
general, that of the most learned writers." [7]
This controversy need not detain us a moment. It matters not to my
purpose whether the edicts of Nero extended to the provinces or were
limited in their operations to the Christians within the capital.
The testimony of Tacitus is sufficient to prove, first, that the
persecution was general within the city; second its terrible cruelty;
and third, the great abhorrence in which the Christians were held by
the Romans.
I submit to the consideration of the reader that a people so greatly
detested as the Christians, were not likely to meet with gentle
treatment from the Romans; and when, as subsequently it came to
pass, the people clamored for the sacrifice of the saints whom they
abhorred as the enemies of mankind, instead of looking upon them with
commiseration as the citizens of Rome did in their persecution under
Nero--when the Roman people, I say, clamored for the sacrifice of
the Christians and the emperors were cruel enough, and unjust enough
to issue edicts for their destruction, the persecutions of those
times were neither so limited nor so free from severity as Gibbon and
others would have us believe. Even in this persecution under Nero, if
no edicts were sent into the provinces commanding the execution of
Christians, it is not unreasonable to believe that the despisers of
the followers of Christ, finding warrant for their conduct by what was
taking place at Rome, under the supervision of the emperor himself,
would not hesitate to inflict hardships upon the saints without the
formality of his proclamation.
It was this unofficial persecution which, without doubt, arose in the
provinces as an indirect result of the persecution in the capital,
that has led a number of prominent writers to believe that Nero's
persecution extended throughout the empire. However that may be, a
"great multitude" suffered in the city of Rome, and were subject to
such tortures and cruel modes of death--described, mark you, by the
unfriendly Tacitus--that little is left to be added even by the fervid
imaginations of the Christian fathers. It is reasonable to believe
that the subsequent persecutions were not freer from cruelty than this
one under Nero; and therefore, though some allowance must be made
for exaggeration in the writings of the Christian fathers, it may be
safely concluded that those persecutions which preceded the reign of
Constantine were both widespread and horribly cruel.
What is usually denominated the third persecution of the Christian
Church occurred in the reign of Trajan, 98--117 A. D. Here, as in the
persecution under Nero, we may determine something of the severity and
manner of it from a Roman writer. Trajan intrusted the government of
Bithynia and Pontius to his personal friend, the younger Pliny. The new
governor, in his administration of the affairs of his provinces, found
himself perplexed as to what course he should pursue in regard to the
Christians brought before him for trial. He accordingly wrote to his
master for instruction; and I deem his letter of such importance as
showing the severity to which Christians were subject, the character of
the Christians, and the number of unfaithful members who had evidently
entered the church by that time, that I give it _in extenso_:
"Health.--It is my usual custom, sir, to refer all things, of which I
harbor any doubts, to you. For who can better direct my judgment in
its hesitation, or instruct my understanding in its ignorance? I never
had the fortune to be present at any examination of Christians, before
I came into this province. I am, therefore, at a loss, to determine
what is the usual object either of inquiry or of punishment, and to
what length either of them is to be carried. It has also been with me
a question very problematical, whether any distinction should be made
between the young and the old, the tender and the robust; whether any
room should be given for repentance, or the guilt of Christianity, once
incurred is not to be expiated by the most unequivocal retraction;
whether the name itself, abstracted from any flagitiousness of conduct,
or the crimes connected with the name, be the object of punishment. In
the meantime, this has been my method, with respect to those who were
brought before me as Christians: If they pleaded guilty, I interrogated
them twice afresh, with a menace of capital punishment. In case of
obstinate perseverance, I ordered them to be executed. For of this I
had no doubt, whatever was the nature of their religion, that a sullen
and obstinate inflexibility called for the vengeance of the magistrate.
Some who were infected with the same madness whom, on account of their
privilege of citizenship, I reserve to be sent to Rome, to be referred
to your tribunal. In the course of this business, information pouring
in, as is usual when they are encouraged, more cases occurred. An
anonymous libel was exhibited, with a catalogue of names of persons,
who yet declared they were not Christians then or ever had been; and
they repeated after me an invocation of the gods and of your image,
which for this purpose I had ordered to be brought with the images of
the deities. They performed sacred rites with wine and frankincense,
and execrated Christ, none of which things I am told a real Christian
can ever be compelled to do. On this account I dismissed them. Others
named by an informer, first affirmed and then denied the charge of
Christianity, declaring that they had been Christians, but had ceased
to be so, some three years ago, others still longer, some even twenty
years ago. All of them worshiped your image, and the statues of the
gods, and also execrated Christ. And this was the account which they
gave of the nature of their religion they once professed, whether it
deserves the name of crime or error, namely, that they were accustomed
on a stated day to meet before daylight, and repeat among themselves
a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath with
an obligation of not committing any wickedness; but on the contrary,
of abstaining from thefts, robberies, and adulteries; also, of not
violating their promise, or denying a pledge; after which it was their
custom to separate, and to meet again at a promiscuous, harmless
meal, from which last practice they however desisted, after the
publication of my edict, in which, agreeably to your order, I forbade
any societies of that sort. On which account I judged it the more
necessary, to inquire, by torture, from two females, who were said to
be deaconesses, what is the real truth. But nothing could I collect,
except a depraved and excessive superstition. Deferring, therefore,
any further investigation, I determined to consult you. For the number
of the culprits is so great, as to call for serious consultation.
Many persons are informed against of every age, and of both sexes;
and more still will be in the same situation. The contagion of the
superstition hath spread not only through cities, but even villages and
the country. Not that I think it impossible to check and correct it.
The success of my efforts hitherto forbids such desponding thoughts;
for the temples, once almost desolate, begin to be frequented, and the
sacred solemnities which had long been intermitted, are now attended
afresh, and the sacrificed victims are now sold everywhere, which once
could scarcely find a purchaser. Whence, I conclude, that many might
be reclaimed, were the hope of impunity, on repentance, absolutely
confirmed." [8]
To this Trajan sent the following answer: "You have done perfectly
right, my dear Pliny, in the inquiry which you have made concerning
Christians. For truly no one general rule can be laid down which
will apply itself to all cases. These people must not be sought
after. If they are brought before you and convicted, let them be
capitally punished, yet with this restriction, that if anyone renounce
Christianity, and evidence his sincerity by supplicating our gods,
however suspected he may be for the past, he shall obtain pardon for
the future, on his repentance. But anonymous libels in no case ought
to be attended to; for the precedent would be of the worst sort, and
perfectly incongruous to the maxims of my government." [9]
Gibbon makes much of the perplexity of Pliny as to how to proceed
against the Christians. For since the life of that Roman had been
employed in the acquisition of learning and the business of the world;
since from the age of nineteen he had pleaded with distinction in
the tribunals of Rome; therefore, from the ignorance of this Roman
governor, the great historian of the Decline and Fall concludes
that there were no general laws or decrees of the senate in force
against the Christians previous to Pliny accepting the governorship
of Bithynia. [10] There is nothing, however, in the circumstance of
Pliny's ignorance to justify such a conclusion.
It is not difficult to conceive how laws and decrees against the
Christians could exist and yet a man employed as Pliny was have no
technical knowledge of the _modus operandi_ of procedure against them.
His very letter, quoted above, seems to recognize the existence of such
laws before he went into Bithynia; for he pleads as an excuse for his
ignorance of how to proceed in the business neither the non-existence,
nor the newness of the laws, but merely the fact that he had never been
present at the examination of Christians brought to trial previous to
accepting the governorship of his provinces.
In like spirit Gibbon points to the mildness of both the emperor and
the governor as being against the idea that this persecution was very
severe. Giving full credit for that mildness, what was the status of
the Christians as to liability to persecution in Bithynia and Pontus
after Pliny received the instruction of his master? (1) They were
not to be sought after, that is, hunted down for the mere sake of
destroying them; (2) anonymous complaints or libels were not to be
entertained against them; (3) if brought before the judge and they
would renounce their religion by supplicating the gods of Rome, they
were to receive pardon. So far the tender mercies of Trajan extended.
They could still be accused by any one bold enough to affix his name
to the charge; and if the accused Christians refused to deny the
faith, they were punished by sentence of death. When it is considered
how bitter was the malice of their enemies, and how wide-spread the
detestation of Christianity, it will be conceded that even in Bithynia
and Pontus, notwithstanding the mildness of the emperor and the
humanity of the governor, there was still left plenty of opportunity
to vex the church and make persecution contribute to its destruction.
I say even in Bithynia and Pontus this was the case; how much more
was it so in those provinces where less humane magistrates than Pliny
administered the laws, and who proceeded without asking for instruction
from the emperor! In such provinces the saints were liable to be
accused anonymously, put to the torture, not with a view to force from
them a confession, but a denial of the charge, failing in which they
were executed without mercy.
The limits of this inquiry forbids anything like an exhaustive
examination of the several persecutions endured by the Christians. I
shall therefore content myself with a brief reference to those most
disastrous to the church.
Passing by, then, the persecutions under Aurelius and Verus, in which
the sufferings of the Christians in Gaul were most severe--especially
in the cities of Lyons and Vienne, [11] where churches were well nigh
destroyed by its violence; and also passing by the persecutions which
arose under the edicts of Severus, which were issued more especially to
prevent the propagation of Christianity than to punish those already
converts to it, I come to that general and terrible persecution under
Decius Trajan, in the middle of the third century. The incentive which
prompted the action of Decius against the Christians is variously
ascribed to hatred of his predecessor, Philip, whom he had murdered,
and who was friendly to the church; to his zeal for paganism; and
lastly to his fear, feigned or real, that the Christians would usurp
the empire. Perhaps all these motives combined impelled him to make war
upon the church. According to the representations of one Dionysius,
quoted by Eusebius, the persecution, at least in Africa, began before
the edicts of Decius were issued. "The persecution with us," says the
writer referred to, "did not begin with the imperial edict but precede
it by a whole year. And a certain prophet and poet, inauspicious to the
city [Alexandria], whoever he was, excited the mass of the heathens
against us, stirring them up to their native superstition. Stimulated
by him, and taking full liberty to exercise any kind of wickedness,
they considered this the only piety, and the worship of their demons,
_viz,_ to slay us. * * But as the sedition and civil war overtook the
wretches, their cruelty was diverted from us to one another. We then
drew a little breath, while their rage against us was a little abated.
But, presently, that change from a milder reign was announced to us,
and much terror was now threatening us. The decree [of Decius] had
arrived, very much like that which was foretold by our Lord, exhibiting
the most dreadful aspects so that, if it were possible, the very
elect would stumble. All indeed were greatly alarmed, and many of the
more eminent immediately gave way to them; others, who were in public
offices, were led forth by their very acts; others were brought by
their acquaintances and when called by name, they approached the impure
and unholy sacrifices. But pale and trembling, as if they were not to
sacrifice but themselves to be the victims and the sacrifices to the
idols. They were jeered by many of the surrounding multitude, and were
obviously equally afraid to die and to offer the sacrifice. But some
advanced with greater readiness to the altar and boldly asserted that
they had never before been Christians, concerning whom the declaration
of our Lord is most true, that they will scarcely be saved. Of the
rest, some followed the one or the other of the preceding; some fled,
others were taken, and of these some held out as far as the prison and
bonds, and some after a few days' imprisonment abjured Christianity
before they entered the tribunal. And some, also, after enduring
the torture for a time, at last renounced. Others, however, firm
and blessed pillars of the Lord, confirmed by the Lord himself, and
receiving in themselves strength and power, suited and proportioned to
their faith, became admirable witnesses of his kingdom." [12]
Eusebius at great length recounts the suffering of individuals both
in the east and west divisions of the empire, but it is not necessary
to follow him through all those details. It will be sufficient to say
that this persecution was more terrible than any which preceded it.
It extended over the whole empire, and had for its avowed object the
enforced apostasy of the Christians. [13]
How unrelenting the efforts must have been to encompass either the
destruction or the apostasy of the Christians will appear when it is
known that the governors of the provinces were "commanded, on pain
of forfeiting their own lives, either to exterminate all Christians
utterly, or bring them back by pain and tortures to the religion
of their fathers." "During two years," continues Mosheim, "a great
multitude of Christians in all the Roman provinces were cut off by
various species of punishment and suffering. This persecution was more
cruel and terrific than any that preceded it; and immense numbers
dismayed, not so much by the fear of death, as by the dread of the
long-continued tortures by which the magistrates endeavored to overcome
the constancy of the Christians, professed to renounce Christ; and
procured for themselves safety, either by sacrificing, i. e., offering
incense before the idols, or by certificates purchased with money." [14]
Gibbon, who never admits the severity of the persecutions under the
emperors, except when compelled by undeniable facts, says, of this
one under Decius: "The fall of Philip (the predecessor of Decius)
introduced with a change of masters, a new system of government so
oppressive to the Christians that their former condition, ever since
the time of Domitian, was represented as a state of perfect freedom
and security, if compared with the rigorous treatment which they
experienced under the short reign of Decius. * * * The bishops of the
most considerable cities were removed by exile or death; the vigilance
of the magistrates prevented the clergy of Rome during sixteen months
from proceeding to the new election; and it was the opinion of the
Christians that the emperor would more patiently endure a competition
for the purple than a bishop for the capital." [15]
Milner, quoting Cyprian, says concerning the effect of this
persecution: "Vast numbers lapsed into idolatry immediately. Even
before men were accused as Christian many ran to the forum and
sacrificed to the gods as they were ordered; and the crowds of
apostates were so great that the magistrates wished to delay numbers
of them till the next day, but they were importuned by the wretched
suppliants to be allowed to prove themselves heathens that very night."
[16]
The reign of Decius was brief, lasting only two years, and toward the
close of it, as if surfeited with slaughter, the violent persecution
against the saints relaxed somewhat of its severity; but his
successors, Gallus and his son Volusian, renewed it. A pestilential
disease broke out about this time and spread through a number of the
provinces, and this the pagan priests persuaded the populace was a
curse sent upon the people on account of the toleration shown to the
Christians. This was sufficient to re-kindle the flames of hatred and
for two years more the Church of Christ suffered violence as it had
done under Decius.
There remains but one more persecution to notice, that which is
commonly known as the Diocletian. It could be called more properly the
Galerian persecution; for Galerius, son-in-law to the emperor, and one
with two others--Constantius Chlorus and Maximian--who shared with
him the responsibility of governing the empire, [17] had most to do
with it. It is said that Galerius was urged to secure the edicts of
Diocletian against the Christians by his mother, Romlia, a very haughty
woman, who had taken offense because the saints had excluded her from
their sacrament meetings. Be that as it may, it is generally conceded
that this severest of all persecutions against the Church of Christ was
inaugurated and carried on through the hatred and influence of Galerius.
According to Eusebius [18] the persecution began in the nineteenth
year of the reign of Diocletian--303 A. D. The emperor in issuing his
first edict could not be brought to the infamy of aiming at the lives
of the saints; it appears he could only be brought to that by degrees.
His first edict ordered the destruction of the Christian churches, and
the surrender of the holy scriptures and the degradation of Christians
from office. Shortly after this the royal palace at Nicomedia was twice
set on fire, and from it Galerius fled, giving out that he feared
Christian malice had attempted his life. The Christians being charged
with the crime the incident was made the excuse for issuing a second
edict, "in consequence of which whole families of the pious were slain
at the imperial command, some with the sword, some also with fire. But
the populace, binding another number upon planks, threw them into the
depths of the sea." [19]
A rebellion which occurred in Syria about this time was also charged
to Christian intrigue, and a third edict was issued commanding that
the heads of the church everywhere should be thrust into prison. "The
spectacle of affairs after these events exceeds all description.
Innumerable multitudes were imprisoned in every place, and the
dungeons formerly destined for murderers and the vilest criminals
were then filled with bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, readers
and exorcists, so that there was no room left for those condemned for
crimes." [20] It was ordered after a time that the prisoners should be
granted their liberty on condition that they offer sacrifice at the
shrine of the heathen gods. To effect that purpose the judges were
commanded to employ the most excruciating tortures.
Diocletian thought to destroy the Christian "superstition" by
overcoming the constancy of the leaders; but meeting with more
resistance than he anticipated, he at last issued a fourth edict,
directing the magistrates to compel all Christians, irrespective of
age, sex, or official position, to offer sacrifice to the gods; and
to employ tortures to compel that apostasy. The magistrates yielded
strict obedience to the edict of the emperor, and the Christian church
was reduced to the last extremity. [21] The scenes of suffering from
tortures and bloodsheds throughout the empire, except in Gaul, where
Constantine reigned, defy description. "Thousands, both men, and women
and children," says Eusebius, speaking of those who suffered in Egypt,
"despising the present life for the sake of our Savior's doctrine,
submitted to death in various shapes. Some, after being tortured with
scrappings [22] and the rack, and the most dreadful scourgings, and
other innumerable agonies which one might shudder to hear, were finally
committed to the flames; and some plunged and drowned in the sea,
others voluntarily offering their own heads to their executioners,
others dying in the midst of their torments, some wasted away by
famine, and others again fixed to the cross. Some, indeed, were
executed as malefactors usually were; others, more cruelly, were nailed
with the head downwards, and kept alive until they were destroyed by
starving on the cross itself." [23]
After describing similar but still more cruel tortures endured by the
Christians of Thebais, Eusebius continues: "And all these things were
doing not only for a few days or some time but for a series of whole
years. At one time ten or more, at another more than twenty, at another
time not less than thirty, and even sixty, and again at another time,
a hundred men with their wives and little children were slain in one
day, whilst they were condemned to various and varied punishments. We
ourselves have observed when on the spot, many crowded together in
one day suffering decapitation, some the torments of the flames; so
that the murderous weapon was completely blunted, and having lost its
edge, broke to pieces; and the executioners themselves wearied with the
slaughter, were obliged to relieve one another." [24]
Gibbon, whose very reluctance to concede the severity of these
persecutions induces me to quote him as often as admissions are forced
from his unwilling lips, says of this persecution: "The magistrates
were commanded to employ every method of severity which might reclaim
them from their odious superstition, and obliged them to return to the
established worship of the gods. This rigorous order was extended, by a
subsequent edict, to the whole body of Christians, who were exposed to
a violent and general persecution. Instead of those salutary restraints
which had required the direct and solemn testimony of an accuser,
it became the duty as well as the interest of the imperial officer
to discover, to pursue, and to torment the most obnoxious among the
faithful. Heavy penalties were denounced against all who should presume
to save a prescribed sectary from the just indignation of the gods and
the emperors." [25]
This persecution lasted for ten years; and at the end of that time the
church presented a melancholy spectacle. Everywhere, even in Gaul, the
Christian houses of worship were laid in ruins. Streams of Christian
blood had flowed in every province of the empire, excepting in Gaul,
where Constantine governed; and there, it will be remembered, a
previous persecution under Aurelius and Verus had well-nigh destroyed
the churches. Public worship was suspended. The saints were either
driven to apostasy by tortures, had fled from the provinces to the
barbarians, or kept themselves concealed. Meantime the magistrates
incited as much by avarice as by hatred of Christianity, confiscated
not only the church property, but also the private possessions of the
ministers. In other cases the church leaders were either slain, or
mutilated and sent to the mines or banished from the country. "Many
through dread of undergoing torture had made way with their own lives,
and many apostatized from the faith; and what remained of the Christian
community, consisted of weak, poor and timorous persons." [26]
After adopting these measures for the destruction of the church,
severities of another character were put in operation. "It was thought
necessary to subject to the most intolerable hardships the condition
of those perverse individuals who should still reject the religion
of nature, of Rome, and of their ancestors. Persons of liberal birth
were declared incapable of holding any honors or employments; slaves
were forever deprived of the hopes of freedom, and the whole body of
the people were put out of the protection of the law. The judges were
authorized to hear and determine every action that was brought against
a Christian. But the Christians were not permitted to complain of any
injury which they themselves had suffered; and thus those unfortunate
sectaries were exposed to the severity, while they were excluded from
the benefits of public justice. This new species of martyrdom, so
painful and lingering, so obscure and ignominious was, perhaps, the
most proper to weary the constancy of the faithful; nor can it be
doubted that the passions and interest of mankind were disposed on this
occasion to second the designs of the emperors." [27] That the Romans
considered the destruction of the Christian church completed by the
Diocletian persecution is witnessed by the inscriptions upon monuments
and medals. Two pillars in Spain, erected to commemorate the reign of
Diocletian bore the following; on the first--
"DIOCLETIAN, JOVIAN, MAXIMIAN HERCULIUS, CAESARES AUGUSTI, FOR HAVING
EXTENDED THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN THE EAST AND WEST, AND FOR HAVING
EXTINGUISHED THE NAME OF CHRISTIANS, WHO BROUGHT THE REPUBLIC TO RUIN;"
On the second,
"DIOCLETIAN, ETC., FOR HAVING ADOPTED GALERIUS IN THE EAST, FOR HAVING
EVERYWHERE ABOLISHED THE SUPERSTITION OF CHRIST, FOR HAVING EXTENDED
THE WORSHIP OF THE GODS."
And on the medal of Diocletian this: "THE NAME OF CHRISTIAN BEING
EXTINGUISHED." [28]
When it is remembered that these persecutions, to which I have briefly
referred, ran through more than three centuries; that the emperors
whose edicts inaugurated them possessed unlimited power to execute
their decrees; that the age in which they occurred was cruel beyond
modern comprehension; that Roman, that is to say, pagan hatred of
Christians was venomously bitter, because they were made to believe
that the existence of the ancient religion of Rome and latterly the
existence of the empire itself depended upon the destruction of
Christianity--when all this is remembered, it is not to be wondered
at that the saints were worn out, or so nearly so that only "weak and
timorous" men were left to ineffectually resist the paganization of
Christianity--the destruction of the Church of Christ.
Footnotes
1. Matt. xi. 12.
2. "Euseb. Eccl. Hist.," Book VIII., ch. ii. and ch. xii.
3. "Decline and Fall," Vol. I., p. 486, Ed. of 1880.
4. "Intellectual Development of Europe," Vol. I., p. 360.
5. Of the burning of Rome, the punishment of the Christians and this
celebrated passage in the writings of the famous Roman annalist,
Gibbon, from whom I quote the phrase above, says: "The most sceptical
criticism is obliged to respect the truth of this extraordinary fact
and the integrity of this celebrated passage of Tacitus. The former
[the burning of Rome and the punishment of the Christians] is confirmed
by the diligent and accurate Suetonius, who mentions the punishment
which Nero inflicted on the Christians, a sect of men who had embraced
a new and criminal superstition. The latter may be proved by the
consent of the most ancient manuscripts, by the imimitable character of
the style of Tacitus, by his reputation, which guarded his text from
the interpolation of pious fraud." "Decline and Fall," Vol. i., p. 448.
6. "Tacitus Annl.," lib, XV., ch. 44.
7. See Milman's Note in "Decline and Fall," Vol. I., p. 450.
8. I have taken Milner's translation of the Epistle. See "Ch. Hist.,"
Vol I., p. 145.
9. "Milner's Ch. Hist.," Vol. I., p. 148.
10. "Decline and Fall," Vol. I., p. 453.
11. An account of these persecutions at great length will be found in
the letters of the survivors sent to the churches of Asia and Phrygia.
"Eusebius," Book V., ch. i.
12. That is, they were executed. Eusebius, Bk. vi., Ch. xli.
13. See Murdock's note in Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Bk. i, Cent. iii, Ch.
ii.
14. Mosheim, (Murdock) Bk. i, Cent. iii, Ch. ii.
15. "Decline and Fall," Vol i., Ch. xvi.
16. Milner's Church Hist., Vol. i, Cent. iii, Ch. viii.
17. The situation was this: A year after his elevation to the imperial
throne, Diocletian, believing the government of the vast empire of
Rome a task too great for a single mind, chose Maximianus Herculius,
commonly called Maximian, to be his colleague and to share with him
the title of Augustus. After a few years each of the emperors chose a
colleague in order to still further divide the labor of administration.
These were Constantius Chlorus and Galerius Maximianus, usually called
by his first name. Constantius and Galerius occupied an inferior
position to that of Diocletian and Maximian, and were honored only with
the title of "Caesar."
18. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. ii.
19. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. vi.
20. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. vi.
21. Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Cent, iv, Part i, Ch. i.
22. This torture was raking the flesh from the body by means of an
iron-toothed instrument.
23. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. viii.
24. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., Bk. viii, Ch. ix.
25. "Decline and Fall," Vol. i, p. 481. Gibbon claims, however, that
"notwithstanding the severity of this law, the virtuous courage of many
of the pagans in concealing their friends or relatives, affords an
honorable proof, that the rage of superstition had not extinguished in
their minds the sentiments of nature and humanity."--_Ibid_.
26. Schlegel, quoted by Murdock, see note Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Cent.
iv, Bk. ii. Ch. i.
27. "Decline and Fall," Vol. i, ch. xvi, p. 477. Gibbon undertakes
to modify what he has here written by saying that the policy of a
well-ordered government must sometimes have interposed in behalf of the
oppressed Christians. "This wants proof," says Milman in a footnote
on the remark, "the edict of Diocletian was executed in all its rigor
during the rest of the reign;" and gives reference to Eusebius Eccl.
Hist., Bk. viii, ch. xiii.
28. See Milner's Church History, Vol. ii, cent. iv, ch. ii, I also give
the following in evidence of the severity of the persecution of the
Christians in the early centuries of our era; and since it is taken
from the funeral oration pronounced by Libanius over the body of his
friend, the Emperor Julian, commonly called the apostate--because in
manhood he renounced that Christianity which had been forced on him in
childhood, and attempted to restore the ancient religion of Rome--it
is of the same character of evidence as that already found in the
statements of Tacitus and Pliny--it is the testimony of one unfriendly
to Christianity, who could have no motive for exaggerating the
sufferings of the Christians. Referring to the mildness of the methods
of persecution adopted by Julian against the Christians, Labanius says:
"They who adhered to corrupt religion [he means the Christians] were
in great terrors [on his accession to the throne] and expected that
their eyes would be plucked out, that their heads would be cut off, and
that rivers of their blood would flow from the multitude of slaughters.
They apprehended their new master would invent new kinds of torment,
in comparison of which mutilation, sword, fire, drowning, being buried
alive, would appear slight pains. _For the preceding emperors had
employed against them all these kinds of punishments_."