IV. Christianity and Its Relation to the Roman State
The Jews of the Roman empire. Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Near East had thrown open to the Jews the whole Graeco-Macedonian world, and Jewish settlements rapidly appeared in all its important commercial centers. The Jewish colonies were encouraged by the Hellenistic monarchs who granted them immunity from military service, protection in the exercise of their religion, and a privileged judicial status in the cities where they were established. In course of time the number of Jews in these diaspora became much greater than in Judaea itself. Although the Jews resident outside of Syria had adopted the Greek language, and were influenced in many ways by their contact with Hellenistic culture, they still formed part of the religious community presided over by the High Priest at Jerusalem, and in addition to the annual contribution of two drachmas to the temple of Jehovah, every Jew was expected to visit Jerusalem and offer up sacrifice in the temple at least once in the course of his life. Moreover, they were active in proselytizing and made many converts among the Greeks and other peoples with whom they came into contact. However, their connection with Judaea was purely religious and not political in character.
The privileged status which the Jews had enjoyed in the Hellenistic states was recognized by the Romans and was specifically confirmed by Augustus, although this policy caused considerable dissatisfaction among their Greek fellow townsmen. Furthermore, in deference to the peculiarity of their religion, the Jews were not required to participate in the imperial cult. However, the imperial government made no attempt to foster settlements of the Jews in the western [pg 309]provinces, and during the early principate the only considerable Jewish colony west of the Adriatic was that in Rome. With the exception of Caligula, who tried to force the imperial cult upon the Jews, the successors of Augustus did not interfere with the Jewish religion, except to forbid its propaganda. The expulsions of the Jews from Rome under Tiberius and Claudius were not religious persecutions but police measures taken for the maintenance of good order within the city.
Christianity and Judaism. The Christian religion had its origin in Judaea as a result of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified by the Roman authorities in the principate of Tiberius, after having been condemned for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court for the enforcement of the law of Moses. From Judaea Christianity spread to the Jewish diaspora through the missionary activity of the disciples and other followers of Jesus, particularly the Apostle Paul. Although the Christian propaganda was not confined to these Jewish communities, it was among them that the first Christian congregations arose, and this, with the Jewish origin of the new faith, caused the Christians to be regarded by the Roman government as a sect of the Jews. In 49 A. D. Claudius banished the Jews from Rome because of disorders among them between the Christians and the adherents of the older faith. Nero’s persecution of the Christians in 64 A. D. was, as we have seen, not undertaken on religious grounds, and was perhaps due to Jewish instigation. On the whole, the Christians benefited by the attitude of Rome towards their sect, for it gave them the benefit of the immunities which the adherents of Judaism enjoyed.
Although the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. brought about the predominance of the non-Jewish element in the Christian ranks, until the end of the rule of the Flavians the Roman official world made no distinction between Jew and Christian. Domitian apparently exacted the didrachma from both alike. Towards the close of his reign, in 95 A. D., this princeps executed or banished a number of Romans of senatorial rank on charges of atheism or conversion to Judaism. Among the victims were some who professed Christianity. At the same time the Christian communities of Asia Minor seem to have suffered a rather serious persecution on the part of the state. However, this may have been due to disturbances between the Christian and the non-Christian elements in the Greek cities, and there [pg 310]is no definite proof that Domitian made the suppression of Christianity part of the public policy.
Christianity and the Roman state. After Domitian, Christians were no longer liable to the didrachma, and therefore lost their claim to the privileges and exemptions of the Jews. A conflict with the secular power was rendered inevitable by the very nature of Christianity, which was non-Roman, non-national, and monotheistic, refusing recognition to the cults of the state, and denying the divinity of the ruler. The Romans regarded the imperial cult from the political standpoint and considered the refusal to recognize the divinity of the princeps as an act of treason. On the other hand, Christians looked upon the question as a matter of conscience and morality and regarded the worship of the princeps as an act of idolatry. They could pray for him, but not to him. These two points of view were impossible of reconciliation. Furthermore, since the worship of the state gods formed such an integral part of the public life of each community, it was inevitable that those who refused to participate in this worship should be looked upon as atheists and public enemies. On another ground also the Christians were liable to punishment under the lex maiestatis, namely, as forming unauthorized religious associations. These constituted the crimes for which the Christians were actually punished from the close of the first to the middle of the third century of our era.
Popular accusations against the Christians. However, throughout this period the state did not take the initiative against Christians as such, but only dealt with those individuals against whom specific charges were laid by private initiative or the action of local magistrates. These popular accusations charged the Christians with forming illegal associations, with seeking the destruction of mankind (as odiatores humani generis), and with perpetrating all sorts of monstrous crimes in their religious rites. Such accusations were partly due to the belief of the early Christian church in the immediate coming of the kingdom of Christ, to their consequent scorn of wealth and public honors, and to the secrecy which surrounded the exercise of their religion.
The imperial policy from Trajan to Maximus. The attitude of the Roman government towards the Christians in the early second century is clearly seen from the correspondence between Trajan and Pliny the younger, the governor of Bithynia in 112 A. D. This cor[pg 311]respondence fails to reveal any specific law prohibiting Christianity, but shows that the admission of the name of Christian, accompanied by the refusal to worship the gods of the state and the princeps, constituted sufficient grounds for punishment. Thus a great deal of discretion was left to the provincial governor, who was directed to pay no attention to anonymous accusations but who was expected to repress Christianity whenever its spread caused conflicts with the non-Christian element under his authority. A rescript of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, ordained that Christians should receive the benefit of a regular trial, and that they should not be condemned for the name, but for some definite crime, e. g., for treason. An exception to the general policy of the emperors in the second century was the persecution of the Christian community at Lyons authorized by Marcus Aurelius. With the state straining every nerve in its struggle with the barbarians, he regarded the Christians as defaulters to the cause of the empire, and as unreasonable, ecstatic transgressors of the law. The attitude of Septimius Severus towards the Christians was in harmony with the procedure of Trajan and Hadrian. In 202 A. D. he ordered the governor of Syria to forbid Jewish proselytizing and Christian propaganda, but forbade that Christians should be sought out with the object of persecution. Severus Alexander showed himself well-disposed towards Christianity and the brief persecution of Maximinus the Thracian was merely a spasmodic expression of hatred against those protected by his predecessor.
The persecutions of the third century. By the middle of the third century the Christian church was in a flourishing condition. It numbered among its adherents men in all walks of life, its leaders were men of culture and ability, and abandoning the attitude of the early church towards the Kingdom of Heaven, the Christians were taking an active part in the society in which they lived. The number of the Christians was so great as to disquiet the government, since in view of their attitude towards the cults of the state they were still traitors in the eyes of the law. And so in their struggle against the forces which threatened the dissolution of the empire, certain of its rulers sought to stamp out Christianity as a means of restoring religious and political harmony and loyalty among their subjects. The Christians were regarded as enemies within the gates and the calamities of the time were attributed to the anger of the gods towards [pg 312]these unbelievers. In 250 A. D. Decius reversed the principle enunciated by Septimius Severus and ordained that Christians were to be sought out and brought to trial. This was accomplished by ordering all the citizens of the empire by municipalities to perform public acts of worship to the gods of the state. Those who refused were punished. The persecution of Decius was terminated by his death in 251, but his policy was renewed by Valerian in 257 A. D. In that year Valerian required the Christians to offer sacrifice publicly, forbade their reunions and closed their cemeteries. In 258 he ordered the immediate trial of bishops, priests and other officers of the churches, and set penalties for the various grades of the clergy who persisted in their beliefs. But Valerian’s persecution also was brief and ended with his defeat and capture by the Persians in 258 A. D. Naturally, in so large a body as the Christians now were not all were animated by the zeal and sincerity of the early brethren, and under threat of punishment many, at least openly, abjured their faith. However, many others cheerfully suffered martyrdom and by their example furthered the Christian cause. Truly, “the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church.” The persecutions tried the church sorely, but it emerged triumphant from the ordeal.
Organization of the Christian church. The early Christians formed a number of small, independent communities, united by ties of common interest, of belief, and of continual intercourse. Although the majority of their members were drawn, from the humbler walks of life, they were by no means confined to the proletariat. In their organization these communities were all of the same general type, resembling the Roman religious collegia, but local variations were common. Each church community was directed by a committee, whose members were called at times elders (presbyters), at times overseers (bishops). These were assisted by deacons, who, like themselves, were elected by the congregation to which they belonged. Among the presbyters or bishops one may have acted as president. The functions of the bishops were primarily administrative, including the care of the funds of the association, the care of the poor, the friendless, and traveling brethren, and of discipline among the members of the community. The deacons were the subordinates of the bishops, and assisted in the religious services and the general administration of the community.