Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire in the first two centuries (before 170)

Contents I. The policy of the Roman emperors after Trajan II. Reasons for the persecution of Christians I. The policy of the Roman emperors after Trajan 1 The policy of extreme intolerance, as developed under Domitian, long became the guiding principle in the Roman government's attitude towards Christianity. It, as was said earlier, really expressed the extreme degree of denial among Christians of the very right to exist in a civilized society, and here one cannot help but see striking evidence of how even that state system, which has the honor of being the highest exponent of legal relations between people, was capable of, with strong socio-political movements, forgetting its basic principle - pereat mundus, fiat justitia (let the world perish, if only there was justice!) and succumbed in its actions to the influence of those very “empty cries of the people”, against which the law of the Twelfth Tables also warned. 2 The mob, guided by uninformed views and unverified rumors, persistently demanded the destruction of Christians, shouting: “to the lions of Christians,” and the government, contrary to its basic principle, condescended to recognize these views of the popular crowd and actually deprived Christians of their very right to exist (non licet esse vos - “you should not exist!”). It was precisely this kind of policy of extreme denial that continued to operate under Trajan. This emperor was no longer the same as Domitian, and the main principle of his government was precisely to establish the rule of law and justice everywhere. He was a wonderful administrator and a high expert in Roman laws; but as an administrator, he avoided drastic measures in every possible way and set his goal to introduce truth and justice into the already existing forms of social-state relations. The empire, with its immense size and the diversity of its constituent peoples with their local legal relations, demanded strict adherence to already established policies as a guarantee of the sustainable life of this huge organism, and therefore Trajan strictly observed the traditional way of life, seeing in it an expression of the political meaning of entire dynasties that, with their labor, created and supported this socio-political community. That is why Pliny, knowing this inflexible conservatism of the emperor, only with extreme caution, through the most distant hint, dared to let him know whether it was time to make some changes in policy towards Christians, which he expressed in his famous letter-report, 3 which caused the no less famous rescript of Trajan, in which indeed the previous extreme policy of denial towards Christians was somewhat softened, and although their very name continued to serve sufficient grounds for condemnation, but some human rights were already recognized for them - at least in the sense that they could not become the victim of any anonymous denunciation, as was the case before. Trajan was such an outstanding person on the throne of the Caesars for his administrative abilities that the influence of his policies could not but affect the policies of the emperors who followed him. Therefore, it is not surprising that Adrian continued the same policy until the conditions of modern times prompted him, one way or another, to introduce his own view into the government’s attitude towards Christianity. An expression of this view of his is his rescript addressed to the proconsul of Asia, Minucius Fundanus, in 124, a few years after Tacitus held this office and twelve years after Trajan's rescript to Pliny. Of course, this rescript could not remain without zealous critics suspecting or even outright denying its authenticity (Keim, Linsey, etc.), but this denial simply stemmed from their insufficient understanding of the actual relationship between church and state, and not from the essence of the matter. In fact, the rescript of Hadrian could not be more consistent with the state of affairs, and therefore such an authority as Mommsen speaks out for its authenticity, who says that “the unfounded suspicions cast on the authenticity of this document serve as the best proof of how little modern writers are able to understand the attitude in which the Roman government stood towards Christianity.”4 Even earlier, another famous researcher, Lightfoot, spoke in the same sense, who says that “this rescript, compared with the history of that time, cannot at all serve as a stumbling block: on the contrary, precisely this kind of behavior on the part of the emperor must be assumed to explain history... Although the matter did not reach the actual abolition of the policy, which made a crime out of the very confession of Christianity, it had already suffered a significant blow.” 5 In general, Hadrian's rescript follows the same direction as Trajan's, but in some respects goes further than it. So, 1) its purpose is to protect innocent people from attacks by false and malicious accusers, as well as to curb the self-will of the latter; 2) residents of the provinces, however, are given the right to initiate legal proceedings against Christians before the tribunal of the rulers, but at the same time they must provide sufficient data for the prosecution, and not limit themselves only to unfounded denunciations and cries of “Down with Christians!” 3) clear proof is required that Christians have somehow violated the law, and 4) if the accuser does not prove the validity of his denunciation or claim, then he is subject to punishment as a false accuser. In these provisions, the rescript obviously takes a new step towards limiting the government's previous negative attitude towards Christians. The latter are no longer completely rejected and deprived of all rights; Some rights are already recognized for them, although for now only in a negative sense, in the sense of some protection from the encroachment of malicious and false accusers. This is a very important step; but the government acted extremely cautiously and, even making this concession in favor of justice, tried to disguise it with the obscurity and uncertainty of its provisions. In fact, there is a lot that is unclear in the legal sense in the rescript; It is unclear, for example, even the important position regarding those crimes, the proof of which was now required from the prosecutor. It does not say directly here, as it was in Trajan’s rescript, that the very name of Christians is already a crime; but on the other hand, the established principle is not canceled. As for the violation of the law, which must be proven when accusing Christians, it is entirely left to the discretion of the ruler - to consider or not to consider the name itself such an illegality; but at the same time, for him, depending on his personal sympathies or views, it was quite possible to deduce from the rescript the conclusion that for an accusation it was necessary to require proof of the commission of a more specific crime. Given such uncertainty, the accuser could well be afraid of losing the case and being subjected to the punishment established for an unproven or false accusation. Everything here depended on the personal character and discretion of the ruler, as a result of which such phenomena were possible that one ruler could consider the case completely proven when the accused was brought to recognize the name of a Christian, and another, at the same time, standing on the basis of the same rescript, could not consider such recognition sufficient for conviction and even give instructions to the accused on how they should respond in such cases in order to avoid any punishment without offending their religion. 6 The reason for such uncertainty was that Adrian himself fully recognized that the state religion itself was in a state of complete decay, supported only artificially, and therefore, not wanting to admit it, he made concessions in relation to other religions, including Christianity, allowing the religious question, so to speak, to be resolved by its own process according to the needs of the time. Such uncertainty, possible in the field of theory, of course presented a lot of practical difficulties, which Hadrian’s successors had to resolve in relation to Christianity. His rescript essentially did not establish any principle, and one of the most important provisions in it could be interpreted in very different ways. The most definite provisions in it were that Trajan's prohibition of searching for Christians was confirmed and that an informer or plaintiff who failed to defend his case was subject to punishment for false accusation or slander (calumnia). Despite all this, the previous principle continued to apply, that any Christian could be executed at any time by order of the governor of the province. The most important significance of such acts as the Rescripts of Trajan and Hadrian was that by virtue of them Christians were protected from condemnation based on vague cries of the crowd or nameless informers, since this now required a certain person who would take on the unenviable role of accuser (which until then was tantamount to the role of a murderer) in relation to a certain person. This was a very important step towards the recognition of individual civil rights for Christians, and therefore Christians, as one might assume, could already feel some security from accusers and informers - especially due to their cohesion and strong unity. A professional accuser or informer (delator), although it was a necessary phenomenon in the system of Roman government and was even encouraged by Roman laws, was always an extremely unpopular person, and Horace, for example, strongly castigated such individuals in his immortal satires. 7 And this is easily explained. If sometimes the informer could be guided by a feeling of vengeance, then usually he was guided in his denunciations by greed, the hope of profiting at the expense of the accused. In the days of the republic, the motivation for denunciation could also sometimes be the desire to advance in the field of political activity, but usually even then the main motive was the calculation of getting money or a famous place, as was promised by several separate laws. In the case of the persecution of Christians, there were not particularly many such benefits, and the informer, initiating persecution, could not meet with much approval for his action even from those who hated Christians, and in view of the new law, such an informer had no more chance of winning than losing, and could be subject to trouble not only from the law itself, which threatened punishment for slander, but also from the surrounding society, especially where Christians were already numerous and, thanks to their cohesion, held in their hands on all the functions of social life. 8 And despite all this, informers and accusers were present and caused Christians a lot of trouble and disaster. This could depend, firstly, on purely social relations, when, thanks to the influence of Christians, entire industries suffered great losses and damage, the representatives of which were the accusers of Christians before the government. This question, in the absence of more or less definite data, is, however, quite unclear; but in any case there is no doubt that the corporate spirit among representatives of various types of industry was very developed in Asian cities. It has already been reported above how the bakers in Magnesia staged a strike, which had such serious consequences that the intervention of the proconsul was necessary. 9 Therefore, although the circumstances under which explosions of persecution against Christians usually occurred in the second century are almost completely unknown to us, it is not incredible that in this regard a significant role was played by the corporations of various merchants or industrialists who were informers or accusers of Christianity before the government simply in the form of maintaining their declining industry under the influence of Christianity. Secondly, the motivation for denunciation or accusation could accidentally be personal hostile relationships, such as a feeling of revenge. An example of this is the case of Ptolemy, who was accused before the tribunal of the prefect Lollius Urbicus around 152. 10 But the greatest danger lay in popular excitement, which began as a result of some sudden cause, some general disaster, unusual signs or natural phenomena that frightened the imagination, under the influence of which the people became excited and looked for the culprits of such disasters. Such culprits were usually recognized as Christians, who were accused by various informers, in this case already acting as a kind of public benefactors. This phenomenon is noted by Christian writers, and Tertullian says: “Whether there is a flood from the Tiber, or the Nile does not flood, whether the sky does not give rain, whether there is an earthquake, whether there is a famine or a plague, the cry is sure to be heard: to the lions of Christians!” 11 From this it is already clear how important Hadrian’s rescript could have been, since it clearly forbade taking into account the cries of an angry mob as a basis for accusations and the accusation was conditioned on the speech of a specific accuser, moreover, taking responsibility for the veracity of the accusation under fear of punishment in case of failure to prove it. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that, despite this favorable rescript, the general principle underlying the policy of the Roman government continued to operate, and history knows of many martyrs who accepted the crown of martyrdom precisely during the reign of Hadrian, although at the same time the position of Christians had already become so free that at that time their special defenders or apologists could speak on their behalf, which were the first apologists Quadratus and Aristides. Rescripts like the one Hadrian addressed to Fundan were secret and confidential documents, and yet Justin the Philosopher could refer to the latter no more than twenty years after its publication. How did Christians find out about him? This question is quite interesting, but, unfortunately, cannot be resolved with certainty. It is possible that Hadrian himself deliberately brought it to their attention, but it is more likely that the Christians themselves, thanks to their influential position in the province, had the opportunity to penetrate the secrets of the proconsul's office. This assumption is in full agreement with the well-known fact that the new religion at that time was indeed widespread both in this province and in its neighbors. In support of this assumption, one can point to the interesting fact that, for example, Florinus, who served at the imperial court and enjoyed high favor there, together with Irenaeus, listened to lessons from St. Polycarp in Smyrna, and thus could conveniently serve as an intermediary between the highest administration of the government and the hierarchy of the Christian church. The time and circumstances of this interesting fact, unfortunately, are not known with certainty. Due to the insufficient data to determine the time of birth of St. Irenaeus, these facts can presumably be attributed to the period between 135 and 150 years. It is quite possible that in time an inscription will be discovered that will provide a clue to the explanation of this fact, especially if it provides evidence that at this time the emperor made a trip to the provinces of Asia, which can now only be guessed at. Finally, it is possible that Christians simply bought a copy from a rescript favorable to them. There are many cases in history when they bought from officials - scribes (commentarienses) copies of the official cursive protocols drawn up at the very trial of the martyrs, and these official Acta form the basis of many tales or “deeds” of the martyrs, and in some cases the latter reproduce the acts even with literal accuracy. 12 The original rescript, of course, was kept in the government archives of the proconsul of the province of Asia. The most favorable side of Hadrian's Rescript continued to operate during the reign of Antoninus Pius. This peaceful and benevolent emperor was generally an enemy of all violence, and tried to maintain peace and mutual goodwill between people and individual classes everywhere. But, of course, human passions do not cope with the intentions of the sovereigns, and even during this peaceful reign there were cases of rebellious outbursts of persecution of Christians - especially in large Greek cities like Athens, Larissa, Thessalonica and others. It is not known what actually caused these rebellious outbreaks, which engulfed mainly Greece, but there is reason to assume that the main reason for these rebellious outbreaks was the reaction on the part of paganism, which was intensifying to be reborn in a new, philosophical form. Under pressure from the rebellious spirit of the mob, the prefects of many cities yielded to the demands of street hecklers and put Christians on trial or execution, as was the case, for example. with St. Polycarp in Smyrna, where popular passions could become especially furious under the influence, in addition, of some important public disaster, like the earthquake that befell this city in 151 or 152. This weakness of the prefects and rulers was the motivating reason for Antoninus to address various cities with letters in which he condemned and prohibited disorderly and rebellious outbreaks against Christians. They especially confirmed the position of Hadrian's Rescript that simply rebellious cries of the crowd should not be accepted as a formal accusation against Christians: the case against them should be conducted according to the correct judicial procedure and any violence on the part of the population should be prohibited as illegal. Of course, popular passions in some places neglected these suggestions and decrees of the emperor, and some rulers obeyed the former more than the latter; but it is also known that there were also rulers who strictly observed the wishes of the emperor and complied with the requirements of the law. For example, Pudent, who was proconsul of Cyrene and Crete shortly before 166, proved himself to be such. On the occasion of one rebellious outbreak of the mob against Christians, he emphatically declared that he was prohibited by the emperor's instructions (mandatum) from subjecting the case of Christians to an investigation unless someone made a formal accusation; and since there was no formal prosecutor, Pudent tore up the indictment presented along with the arrested Christian and set the latter free. 13 From Antoninus Pius the throne passed to Marcus Aurelius - this “philosopher on the throne of the Roman Caesars.” Philosophy, according to the usual idea, presupposes a breadth of views, and therefore one might think that the favorable side of the rescripts of previous emperors should have received even greater application in the policy of this emperor towards Christians. But the more striking fact is that in reality it turned out differently, and in the person of Marcus Aurelius, Roman policy clearly took a step back - to the narrow views of the House of Flavius. Of course, time took its toll, and even the philosopher-emperor was unable to stop the flow of new ideas in politics and life: views expanded, life made new demands, and the very concept of Rome as a political body imperceptibly but inevitably developed. But the philosophical current of thought was now not directed in a favorable direction for Christianity. One party of philosophers, namely the Cynics, it is true, continued to oppose narrow politics and advocated for a cosmopolitan spirit, which was persistently heading towards its final triumph. But the walking amateurish Greek philosophy was no longer on the side of the opposition. She now sat on the throne, and for a time imperial policy courted other favorites, losing sight of the goal towards which history was heading. Carried away by the ideas of current Greek philosophy, the Roman ruler inevitably had to become in opposition to Christianity. The Christian worldview was diametrically opposed to the Greek ideals of social life, and for a time, while the repressive tendency in imperial policy was in effect, an alliance of Roman power and Greek philosophical amateurism against Christianity, as a new and completely opposite system of social order, inevitably had to take place. They were not averse to putting up with current religions, hoping to take advantage of the rich ceremoniality of the pagan cult to express higher ideas, which, in their opinion, were hidden under the rough shell of this ritual. And paganism, which imperial policy throughout the first century, from Augustus to Domitian, tried in vain to galvanize into life, began precisely under Hadrian, under the arousal of opposition to Christianity, to feel the pulse of returning life. The pagan mysteries tried to present to the initiates a teaching that was supposed to compete with Christianity - as proof that the highest truths of life and morality were not at all alien to paganism, but on the contrary, Christians themselves borrowed them from ancient religions. With this view of philosophical amateurism on paganism, it becomes clear why he looked at Christianity with disdain, and since the latter did not at all want to submit to this philosophical scheme, which wanted to reduce all religions to one system of basic moral principles of life, but persistently preached that all these religions are false and the truth lies only in the teachings of Christ, then philosophy lost, so to speak, the balance of the spirit and, having in the person of Marcus Aurelius the omnipotent representative, who had all the means to suppress hostile systems, began to persecute Christians. At the same time, in the heat of the struggle, the better side, in terms of respect for the principle of justice, of the rescripts of the former emperors was forgotten, and the persecution took on very harsh forms and wide dimensions, as if to prove that philosophy cannot serve as a guarantee of humanity and justice when it feels incompetent in the fight against a stronger opponent, for whom, however, it does not want to recognize the advantage of possessing the truth. That the persecution of Christians under the philosopher-emperor was carried out on a very wide scale, there is a lot of clear and decisive evidence for this. Celsus in his "True Word" directly says that Christians were wanted for execution, 14 - which means that there was a direct violation of the imperial rescripts of Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus, which prohibited "looking for" them. Christian writers testify to the same thing. Melitopes, writing around 170-171, refers to new edicts, by virtue of which Christians were persecuted, and Moreover, this, which he calls unparalleled. 15 According to his testimony, even the informers were given special encouragement - in the form of a promise of loot from the property of the persecuted, and this promise, of course, raised to their feet all those unscrupulous and greedy people who were just waiting for an opportunity to profit at the expense of others, and there was no mercy from them, so that the most innocent people became victims of their evil slander, having no guarantee for it. your safety neither day nor night. Athenagoras, writing around 177-180, also testifies to the kind of violence, robbery and persecution Christians were subjected to, and what fines were imposed on them (probably to reward the zeal of informers). According to his testimony, the persecution took such merciless forms that the name “Christian” alone was enough to prove guilt and pronounce a death sentence, 16 - so that obviously the government’s policy towards Christians returned entirely to the dark period of the cruel reign of Domitian - in direct violation of previous rescripts. Theophilus of Antioch, around 180, also mentions that Christians were persecuted and wanted in his time. 17 The same is evidenced by the “acts of the martyrs.” The ruler of Gaul Lugdunum was looking for Christians in 177, and already at the beginning of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, in 163, Justin the Philosopher and his four companions were brought to trial by the prefect of the city, Junius Rusticus. At the beginning of the Acts of Justin it is said that the arrest was carried out in accordance with the regulations that ordered Christians to worship idols. It is clearly implied here that the accused were sought by special government agents by virtue of these particular decrees, and were not, as required by the rescripts, formally accused by individuals. If those arrested confessed to belonging to Christianity, they were ordered to make sacrifices to idols, and this order was repeated under the threat of cruel punishment. Thus, a number of documents clearly indicate that during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Christians were “wanted” as enemies of public order and the state; meanwhile, there is not the slightest trace to prove that such searches were carried out under Antoninus Pius, and they were completely prohibited by Trajan and Hadrian. This fact did not escape the attention of Keim, who says that “under Marcus Aurelius, a strong persecution of atheism began and under him, for the first time, it came to searching for Christians.” 18 In reality, these searches were not anything new, but represented only a renewal of the policy of the Flavian emperors at home, when Christianity was considered a crime in itself, in which view of it such an attitude towards it was the only logical one. Once a certain community is recognized as criminal, the state cannot tolerate its existence and, of necessity, must “search out” its members and punish them, as the Roman authorities now did in relation to Christians. But this raises the question, how did this resumption of the previous, already largely canceled policy take place? Was a special edict issued regarding this, or was a new clause simply introduced into the general instructions to the provincial rulers? Or, finally, the change in policy occurred simply due to the fact that the rulers, knowing the personal sympathies and antipathies of the emperor, acted towards Christians in accordance with his views on them, and since, in accordance with these views, they were criminals who deserved punishment by death, they were zealous in searching for and punishing them as such? Certain expressions found in documents of this period may perhaps serve as a basis for the conclusion that a special decree was issued on this subject. But on the other hand, these expressions hardly need to be taken in too strict a sense, and Melito, for example, speaking in one place about “new decrees,” in another place uses the term “instructions.” 19 And the last term is probably the correct one, since in general the rulers of the provinces in their relations with Christians were guided by imperial instructions (mandata). These instructions, as previously shown, were subject to different interpretations, depending on the personal discretion of the ruler or the general tone of the reigning emperor. The general revival of religiosity that occurred during the reign of Marcus Aurelius in the pagan world should naturally have led to a more strict and consistent interpretation of the instructions, especially if it soon became known that the emperor was not against such an attitude towards Christians. But another question arises: did Marcus Aurelius make changes in the very instructions to the rulers? Neumann believes that previously there was a clause in the instructions that prohibited searching for Christians, and that now this clause was canceled by the emperor. In support of his assumption, he refers to Pudent’s modus operandi described above, but the argument is hardly satisfactory. One can, of course, think that such a point was included in the instructions given to the rulers by Andrian and Antoninus Pius; but the very fact that the rulers of the different provinces acted very differently towards the Christians, perhaps rather indicates that this diversity in action continued to exist throughout this whole century, and that the emperors did nothing more in this regard, as soon as they answered with their rescripts the questions put to them by their governors in the provinces. In the general instructions given to the governors or governors of the provinces, they were entrusted with the duty of searching for and punishing blasphemers and sacrilege, etc. In this case, the whole matter depended on how these governors looked at Christians. If the latter were recognized by them as blasphemers and even outright atheists, it means that they had an obligation to persecute them, and vice versa. But even in the first case, the rulers could either logically carry out their instructions, or comply with the rescripts of Trajan and Hadrian, which prohibited searching for Christians. Under Marcus Aurelius, in view of his hostile attitude towards Christians, naturally the rulers strictly adhered to the logical course of action, and therefore the persecution of Christians became inevitable. Thus, based on the stated facts and considerations, the conclusion follows that under Marcus Aurelius, in essence, no changes were made in the formulation of those provisions that determined the attitude of provincial rulers towards Christians. Deliberately and deliberately, he did not change the policies of his predecessors, and however, the spirit of this policy during his reign changed so much that the position of Christians under him became much more difficult than under previous emperors. 20 The evil intensified further because the imperial policy turned out to be in accordance with the hatred of Christianity lurking in the breasts of the pagan people. Old wild passions were awakened, rumors began to circulate again about flagitia, or those abominations that were allegedly committed by Christians and of which they were accused even under Nero. And it is remarkable that these slander was accepted on faith even by such high-ranking persons close to the court as the tutor of Marcus Aurelius Fronto, and they were also exposed during the persecution of Christians in Lugdunum in 177. To certify them to testify at the trial, contrary to the usual rule, even slaves were allowed, and in general, it is clear from everything that the anger that had been boiling in the chest of paganism against Christians, lately restrained by rescripts, was now given the opportunity to pour out: the beast of wild passion and misanthropy was released and he produced those bloody scenes, which are abundantly evidenced by the acts of the martyrs of this time and in which, by the way, such luminaries of the mind and piety, such as Justin the Philosopher and St. Polycarp of Smyrna. II. Reasons for the persecution of Christians From everything stated above, it was possible to see with sufficient clarity the main features that determined the relationship between the Christian Church and the Roman Empire until the year 170. It now remains for us to examine the reasons why the empire persecuted the new religion. And here we are presented with a kind of paradoxical question: the Roman Empire, being generally remarkably tolerant, made an exception to this rule only for Christianity - what is the reason for this strange phenomenon? There can be no doubt that the attitude of the emperors and their authorized rulers towards Christians was partly determined by the general dislike with which the people and society treated the adherents of the new religion. Rulers and even to a certain extent emperors acted in some cases in one way and not another simply to give satisfaction to the population and maintain a good and peaceful mood in them. Nero's persecution, as we have seen, was begun simply out of a desire to give some satisfaction to the popular passions and to avert from the head of the government the danger that obviously threatened him from popular suspicion. Having private reasons to quickly turn away the attention of the people, he subjected Christians to all sorts of tortures, making them entertainment for the people, who willingly accepted such bait due to the fact that they themselves hated the adherents of this incomprehensible religion. There is every reason to think that Christianity was first accepted in Asia Minor, and in the West, perhaps, everywhere, without any hostility and even with significant goodwill. If a contrary sentiment towards them arose and began to intensify, it depended on various social reasons, among which probably the strongest were the following: 1) losses incurred by merchants, whose business fell or was damaged due to the “strange” customs of life introduced by Christians, and 2) troubles and discord occurring in pagan families due to the fact that some of their members were converted to Christianity. In the latter case, the irritation felt by the pagan members of the family towards the preachers of the new religion was the stronger, the more love and mutual devotion existed in the family before this discord was introduced into it. The stronger the love that united the members of a certain family, the more fiercely the hatred should have been felt towards those who violated this love and caused extremely unpleasant discord. Under the influence of such reasons, private individuals tried to avenge themselves on those whom they considered to be the culprits of their misfortune, and for this purpose they themselves committed riots and illegal riots (Acts 14:19; 17:5; 19:23 et seq.), then they raised the case before the magistrates of provincial cities, although they did not have the power to impose heavy punishments (Acts 16:19), or they raised a thunderstorm against Christians Roman law (Acts 19:38). Before ordinary tribunals, dissatisfied Christians could, as was often the case in reality, appear with various complaints and slander. The most common slander, which could count on good success, was that Christians led an illegal lifestyle, disturbed public peace, caused confusion and committed sacrilege (Acts 19:37); Moreover, the accusation had to be more or less political in nature, since accusations on purely religious grounds were usually not taken into account by the Roman authorities and could only serve as a subject of arrogant ridicule, as happened before the tribunal of Gallio, brother of Seneca (Acts 18:15-17) 21. We know that accusations of Christians causing discord in family life were a subject of great concern to the apostles Peter and Paul, who paid much attention to this issue in their letters, 22 and one can hardly doubt that such accusations were often brought in the courts. A father, husband or master could privately deal with individual members of his family or home who were carried away by the new religion; 23 but in order to punish those persons who brought the “infection” of the new “disgusting superstition” into his house, he had to go to court with a complaint. There he could probably make an accusation against Christians of unlawful interference with the duties and rights belonging to another, 24 and although such interference was not strictly classified as a crime, it could in any case serve as a suitable means of inciting hatred and hostility towards the accused, and this was all the more convenient since the Roman court gave the complainants complete freedom of action in this regard. Since Nero's persecution the position of Christians has noticeably worsened, although it has not suffered a significant change in its general character. The emperor's course of action, which made it possible to bring charges of a moral rather than a criminal nature against Christians, served as a convenient precedent in this regard and had a strong influence on all provincial rulers, giving them the tone when discussing matters of this kind; but the same technique remained in practice, and the rulers in Asia Minor continued to occupy the position of impartial judges when considering cases between Christians and their accusers: they punished, in the proper sense, criminals, “encouraging those who do good” (1 Pet. 2:14). If Christians suffered from them, it was only when they were accused as criminals, and not as Christians; life beyond suspicion served as a reliable guarantee of innocence and protection against accusers (1 Pet. 2:15; 3:13). Whatever the family or social troubles, they in any case could not be of a serious nature until, thanks to the example given by Nero, the Roman administration itself began to give them a more socio-political character. It is true that in the epistle of St. James there are indications that there were persecutions of a serious nature even before Nero’s persecution; but for a correct understanding of his testimony, it must be borne in mind that James was writing to the Jews, who were governed not only by Roman law, but until the year 70 to a certain extent had their own administration, were governed by their own laws - even in the Roman cities of the eastern provinces. Of course, the most important punishments, and especially the death penalty, were removed from the area of ​​​​Jewish jurisdiction, and yet the Jews, on the basis of their laws, could subject other Jews to quite significant punishments, unless the latter had the rights of Roman citizenship. 25 Hence the situation of Jewish Christians before 64 was much more serious than the situation of Gentile Christians; but after this year (Nero’s persecution), it was already possible to successfully initiate official persecution before the Roman administration against both classes of Christians, and after the year 70, the privileges of the Jews in the matter of self-government were completely abolished. Thus, whatever troubles might be associated with the slander of individuals who acted against Christians for their personal or family motives, they could not represent a serious evil or great danger to Christians, and the apologists of the second century advocated the restoration of this procedure, demanding an impartial presentation of charges against Christians, open trials and freedom in defense against the accusation. 26 When persecutions of this kind were instigated against Christians, they met with an impartial attitude and tolerance on the part of Roman dignitaries, and in general even turned to them for protection. Apostle Paul personally, however, suffered a lot from the cruel treatment of the Roman authorities; but his position was exceptional. The poor Jew wanderer, who with his public speeches caused much unrest and strife among the Jews and incurred the enmity of rich and influential Jews, cannot serve as a completely sufficient example of the position in which more famous citizens could find themselves in their country. It was not only the population that was hostile towards Christians; it was shared by provincial rulers, officials of every class, and even the emperors themselves. Even such a generally humane person as Pliny was so dissatisfied with the behavior of Christians at the trial (their “persistence,” which seemed to him disobedience and a spirit of obstinacy) that in his report to Trajan he deliberately mentions this and exposes such stubbornness as in itself a sufficient basis for a guilty verdict. Even the Greeks were difficult for the Romans to cope with. Cicero speaks of their obstinate character, 27 which all Romans who dealt with the Greeks had to reckon with, and every proconsul of Asia could tell many cases characterizing their obstinacy and disobedience in coastal cities. But for the Roman rulers, in view of the unprecedented and unparalleled way of life and spirit of Christians, dealing with the latter was even more difficult than with the Greeks. The popular sentiment was thus strongly inclined in favor of persecution, and there is no doubt that the reason for the severity of Marcus Aurelius lay in the hostility towards Christians which he shared with the educated and uneducated classes of the population. Deprived of the ability to delve into the inner meaning of social issues and, thanks to philosophy, having risen above the possibility of being carried away by something mysterious and extraordinary (as Christianity should have seemed to everyone), Marcus Aurelius only logically applied to Christians those hostile views that he held towards them. It would be a mistake to see the reason for antipathy towards Christians in their disobedience to one or another specific law. Christians were so diametrically at odds with the general tendencies of the government and the ancient social system, with such inflexibility and mercilessness they violated the principles that both society and philosophy treasured most of all, that to persecute them by virtue of one legalization, or to look at them as ordinary criminals in one respect, would mean to diminish their guilt (in a conventional sense, of course) to an obviously absurd degree. True, one or another Christian was guilty of treason against the emperor or lese majeste and, as such, deserved death; but to put his crime on this basis would mean to place him in the same category with many noble, distinguished Romans who were condemned for the same crime. It is true that he adhered to a foreign and disgusting superstition and inclined many Roman citizens to change the patriotic loyalty to the religion of their country and their ancestors and indulge in some fantastic and monstrous worship of God; but the admirers of Isis and Sabazius did something of the same kind, and yet society treated their crime with contemptuous tolerance. It is true that (as it seemed to the pagans and as the famous rhetorician Aelius Aristides portrayed them) Christians broke with all Greek culture, with everything that was good and noble, broke family ties and set brother against brother, were distinguished by speeches, thoughts and actions that were equally contrary to good society, stood aloof from the pleasures, religion and duties of educated or loyal citizens, did not hold official positions, did not give any consolation in sorrow, did not heal strife, did not give good advice, made virtue out of poverty and beggary, engaged in robbery under the guise of equality and, under the cover of strict virtue, shameless vices, turned evil into good and considered ugliness beauty, laid claim to the title of true philosophers and at the same time spoke bad Greek. But, as the same rhetorician who paints this picture makes clear, 28 the cynics did the same, and yet the cynics were only the subject of ridicule and innocent satire. Due to the combination in their character and life of so many (in the Roman and generally pagan view) shortcomings, combined, moreover, with the great strength that their close unity with each other gave them, as well as due to fear, mixed with hatred and hardening the latter, Christians became the subject of special popular rage. In view of this, it seemed absurd to apply ordinary forms of legal proceedings to such people. Hence the policy of the emperors of the Flavian house, treating them as robbers and enemies of public order, was met with universal approval. A bloodthirsty cry was unanimously heard everywhere: to the lions of Christians - Christianos ad leones! If they were a nuisance and a mischief to civilized society during their lives, let at least society be given some recompense in the form of the entertainment that accompanied their deaths. Some of the features of Aristide's picture are not without (to put it mildly) exaggeration and prejudice; but in order to understand the subject more clearly, we must approach it from the point of view of the then imperial government and the enlightened classes of pagan society, and try to assimilate their views. For a while, we must put ourselves in the position of those who found that the entire structure of society was threatened by Christians, from which it must be saved one way or another. But a course of action consisting only of occasional concessions to the pressure of popular passions does not yet constitute politics. We have seen that the Roman government was by no means limited to random measures. Already in the first measures with which Pliny treated Christians, there appears a well-known system according to which the very name of a Christian was presented as evidence of a crime, and it is impossible to assume that the permanent policy of a government such as the Roman one was determined simply by feelings of personal and popular antipathy. We cannot suppose that popular or personal passions could have exerted any pressure on Trajan when he confirmed the general principle of proscription against Christians. Adrian and Antoninus Pius explicitly forbade taking into account the cries of the mob against Christians, but both of them left the general principle in force. That direct and strong antagonism that makes itself felt in relation to the Roman state in the Apocalypse and in the Epistles of St. Ignatius cannot be explained this way. To explain the real reasons that determined the general policy of the imperial power, which was finally established, as we saw above, around 75–80, we need to look deeper, and then the matter will present itself in the following form. The success of the imperial government in the administration of a vast monarchy with its various peoples and states, which had become separate Roman provinces, depended very much on its ability to adapt itself to the customs, morals and religion of its subjects; it accepted into its system and found a place in it for all gods and all cults. Religious intolerance was contrary to the fundamental principles of the Roman imperial regime, and in fact very few traces of it can be seen in history. It prohibited Christianity, but at the same time it also prohibited Druidism. In both of these cases, obviously the imperial government saw some common feature that required exclusive treatment. In both cases the same dangerous principle was evident: both of these religions supported a “unity” that went beyond the authority of the imperial power, and were therefore prohibited on political, not religious grounds. On the other hand, the Jews must have seemed to the government to be very closely similar to the Christians. Every feature in Aristide's picture could be applied to them, and they too were the subject of general hatred. But in this case, the imperial government not only did not yield to popular passions, but, on the contrary, in many cases protected the Jews from popular rage. If the Jews, in the opinion of the government, were so much like the Christians, and yet the government treated them completely differently from the latter, then it is clear that the reason for the different treatment lay in those points in which the Christians differed from the Jews in the opinion of the imperial government. 29 To the extent that the Jews were only a people professing a different religion, the emperors allowed complete religious tolerance towards them. But as long as the Jews maintained a regular organization, which had its center in the temple in Jerusalem, they maintained a unity that was different from the unity that alone was recognized by the empire, and this fact made itself fully felt to the emperors during the great revolt of the Jews in 65-70. The policy of the Flavian emperors made a distinction between the Jewish religion and Jewish organized unity; it provided protection to the former, but prohibited the latter. Titus believed that with the destruction of the church, the unity that had its center in it would also be destroyed, and therefore he erected the church of Jupiter in place of the temple in Jerusalem, and for the latter he began to collect the tax that had previously been collected by the Jews in favor of the former. In the case of the Jews it was thus possible to separate their religion from their organization. The destruction of the church, however, had to be completed under Hadrian with the destruction of Jerusalem itself, on the site of which a new Roman colony was founded. But to a large extent, even after 70, and quite after 134, the Jews accepted the position granted to them by the state and enjoyed religious tolerance under the condition of recognizing the unity represented by the empire. Titus at first thought that Christians also had the center of their lives in the same church and that their unity would be destroyed with the destruction of the church. But soon the imperial government of the Flavian house became convinced that their organized unity had not weakened in the least from the destruction of the church: the Christians still continued, as they had before, to maintain unity regardless of the imperial unity and even in spite of it, and persistently strengthened their widespread organization. Such an organization was contrary to the basic principle of Roman government. Rome, throughout its political activity, set as its main rule the principle of divide et impera, the principle of government through division; all subjects were to have their center in Rome alone; no one had the right to concentrate his attention on his neighbors or enter into any agreement or connection with them. Meanwhile, Christians strove for some kind of extra-Roman unity; they drew up decisions in case of action by joint forces independent of Rome; they looked at themselves first of all as Christians and then as Roman subjects, and when Rome did not want to accept from them this, so to speak, secondary allegiance, demanding complete and unconditional allegiance, then they completely ceased to feel like Roman subjects. And in this case, it becomes even unnecessary to look for the reasons why Rome did not tolerate Christianity. If he wanted to remain true to himself, he had to force obedience, and to do so was to condemn all steadfast Christians to death. In past history, the Roman government owed much of its success to the severity with which it suppressed any organization independent of it, and the Christian Church was the living embodiment of that tendency, which Rome had hitherto succeeded in crushing. And now either Rome had to insist on unconditional submission to him, or she would have to admit that Christian unity was stronger than the unity of the Roman Empire. This disobedience to the principles of the Roman administration was only one form of that spirit of disobedience and obstinacy which is so often ascribed to the Christians by ancient writers, and which seemed to Pliny a perfectly sufficient ground for condemning them. That feature of Christianity, which Pliny in his report presents as a sufficient justification for subjecting its adherents to punishment, was precisely the point that, as Christianity grew, gave it, in the eyes of the imperial government, a politically dangerous character for the authority of the Roman government, and this fear, more than religious intolerance, lay at the basis of later persecutions. But at the same time, it is obvious that Pliny was not the first to see the dangerous nature of Christian principles. He was not the first ruler of a province in which Christians were numerous. Nor was he a person who had any special ability to foresee the likely political results of new principles, or was particularly jealous of the authority of the empire. He was not an experienced administrator either. He had never ruled a province before. He was a skilled financier and efficient lawyer, whose entire career was spent in Rome, with the sole exception of the obligatory months of military service as a tribune; but even this period he spent more in managing the financial part of the legion’s economy. He was appointed to the post of governor of the province because the finances of its cities were in poor condition, so that a reliable and hardworking dignitary and a good financier were needed to manage it. Therefore, it will not be much to say that if Pliny immediately noticed the spirit of disobedience to Rome contained in the new religion, then the same thing must inevitably have been noticed by every other ruler of any Asian province, every emperor of Rome and even every prefect of the city long before 112. The reason given here for the persecution of Christians by the Roman government, although obvious, was ridiculed as impossible by, for example, Aubè, who finds it inconceivable that Nero had already begun to suspect that the growth of an organized Christian religion could prove dangerous to the empire. This argument is, of course, difficult to answer; but there is nothing incredible even in such an assumption, much less in the theory according to which the emperors of the Flavian house already clearly saw in Christianity a principle dangerous for the empire. Indeed, it would be surprising if the vigilant Roman administration did not notice very early on that the principles of the new religion were in conflict with its own principles. Trajan refused to allow the establishment of an organization of 150 firemen in Nicomedia, or to allow a few poor people to improve their livelihood by communal meals - on the express grounds that such communities contained political danger. Christians tried to act in such a way as not to come into conflict with the laws that prohibited “communities” - sodalitates; 30 but they, in any case, could not achieve to remain unnoticed by the imperial authorities. And indeed, how can we understand the wonderful ability which the empire showed in the matter of Romanizing the provinces, unless we suppose that it had a great practical ability to deal with the varied views and principles of different peoples? and how can we account for such practical ability unless we suppose that the imperial government was alive and clearly aware of the nature and probable consequences of any such system? The emperors aimed at a great goal; they pursued it with all the experience and wisdom of Roman law and Roman organization, and they severely punished those who opposed or even simply interfered with their actions. The principle of government just mentioned was in connection (though it should not be identified with them) with those restrictions that were imposed on the freedom of formation of colleges and communities (collegia et sodalitates). At the basis of both lies the same jealousy on the part of the government and the same distrust of the loyalty of the people. When Rome was a republic, all citizens had the right to form communities according to their will; but as soon as the empire was founded, it began to distrust such communities, and Julius Caesar already limited the law to their narrowest limits, 31 because the Roman government now began to see in the Roman people a danger to itself, against which it was necessary to guard. The old rule of prohibiting all attempts at unification between subordinate nationalities now, during the empire, mainly began to appear under the guise of prohibiting colleges and communities; but it actually had a broader purpose, and the prohibition was only one of the special applications of the general principle. This jealous principle of the Roman administration was fatal to all healthy life and political education of the subject peoples. This was a legacy of the old narrow Roman system, which looked upon subject peoples simply as a source of Rome's enrichment and strength. The true interest of the empire would require the abolition of this narrow and jealous system and the raising of the provincials to such a stage of political development at which they would be guided in their relations with Rome not so much by simple obedience to her laws and authorities as by the consciousness of their civic duties. Only with such an attitude to the matter could he fulfill his great mission - to create a great internally united state, the distinctive feature of which would be global citizenship and global patriotism. Here, as in many other cases, the Christian church realized those ideas and forms that the empire aspired to, but which the latter could not have realized without the help of Christianity. 32 Political and religious affairs in ancient times were much more closely connected than they are now. It was under the auspices of religion that legislation, social rules and policies gradually developed. Before they became strong enough to exist separately, they were held as religious principles, actuated by religious sanction and fear. Thus, the right to free communication and free unity of all subjects of the empire was not recognized for a long time except as a religious fact. The strength of the imperial government lay in the fact that it was more fully aware than any other administration before or after it of the duty of maintaining a tolerable standard of living comforts among the poorer classes of citizens. But while showing great concern for providing them with external, physical comforts, it was less attentive to its other duty - to educate them. Education, given according to a specific plan by the state, did not go beyond the usual series of pleasures, some of which even tended to brutalize rather than educate a person. Christianity came to the aid of the imperial government when it made it the government’s duty not only to feed and entertain the masses of the people, but also to educate them. And its representatives, such as Tatian, expressed the theory of universal education for the people with such courage and thoroughness that it has hardly ever found more zealous defenders. 33 The weak side of the empire (which caused the destruction of the first empire) was the moral decline of the lower classes: Christianity, if it had been adopted in time, could have prevented this collapse. Unfortunately, the imperial power was not able to understand in time this solidarity with the Christian Church and looked at it only with jealous eyes, as a dangerous rival to its autocracy and unconditional authority. Meanwhile, this jealous suspicion found more and more food in view of the undoubted fact that the Christian Church with amazing speed captured ever larger masses of the people and brought them into a “unity” independent of Rome. The organization of the church grew and strengthened, its threads penetrated into all pores of social and state life, and the cohesion of Christians became clearly dangerous for society. Where Christians were already quite numerous, they undermined the commercial and industrial interests of the pagans and, thanks to their cohesion, represented a force before which everyone outside their organization had to retreat. If Christians are now dangerous for local societies, then obviously over time, with their greater strengthening, they will directly become dangerous for the state, for the entire empire. And how quickly the organization of the church developed and how widely spread out by the time of Trajan’s reign, striking proof of this could be the circumstances surrounding the martyrdom of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer. When he was arrested by the Roman government, as one of the prominent leaders of the dangerous "community", letters poured in from everywhere expressing sympathy for him in the disaster that had befallen him, the news of which set this whole mysterious world in motion. During his slow journey to Rome for martyrdom, everywhere along the road he was met and escorted by crowds of sympathizing congregations. The news of his forced journey spread around with such speed that deputations from Ephesus, Magnesia and Thrall immediately came to him in Smyrna; Already in Troas, a message from Antioch caught up with him, and the news of his fate far ahead of him to Rome, and there the Christians were already preparing to meet him with dignity - his glorious confessor from distant Smyrna. From here it was clear to everyone that the Christian Church really is some kind of extraordinary “unity” that has nothing in common with the empire, it is a kind of state within a state. And if this feature was noticed, for example, by the satirist Lucian, who saw in it a special proof of the harmfulness of Christianity, then it would be strange, and even impossible, for this amazing phenomenon to escape the attention of the generally very vigilant Roman government in political affairs. And it really saw all this, and since such a phenomenon contradicted the very principle of the imperial government, which did not tolerate any other unity except the unity of the Roman imperial power itself, a struggle was inevitably going to begin between them, which actually began and lasted for two and a half centuries, when, despite the rivers of shed blood, the Christian Church continued to grow and strengthen, so that in the end the imperial power itself had to bow before the invincible power of the Cross. These are the outlines of the actual relationship between the Christian Church and the Roman Empire in the first two centuries. After all of the above, their attitude is quite clear, and it constitutes a completely natural and completely understandable basis for those persecutions that have become an indelible historical stain on the memory of the government, which was generally distinguished by a highly developed sense of justice. In relation to Christians, it violated this justice in the most blatant manner for entire centuries and stained its hands with the blood of completely innocent, honest and virtuous of its subjects. To say after this, as the Kiev professor says in his notorious lecture, that “there was no persecution from the state during the entire second century, just as there was none during the first century,” 34 means not only to ignore obvious historical facts, but also to directly reveal a complete misunderstanding not only of the spirit of Roman politics during the empire, but also of the nature of Roman history in general. See Christian Reading, no. II. Art. “Nero’s Persecution.” To characterize the attitude of the English reading public to serious works of scientific literature, it is worth noting that Ramsay’s book, which forms the source and basis of our articles, is already in its third edition. We still adhere to its first edition See above “Christian Reading” no. I, page 37. Histor. Zeitschrift, XXVIII, 420. Lightfoot, Ignatius, I, p.462 (2nd ed. p.478). This is how, by the way, according to Tertullian, the proconsul Cincius Severus (Tertull., Ad Scap. IV.), who was the ruler of Africa probably between 180 and 190, acted. In this case, he could act approximately as follows. The oath per genium Caesaris was considered impermissible among Christians and they did not use it; but the oath per salutem Caesaris was permissible, and at the same time was in wide use among the pagans. And so a ruler, friendly to Christians, could recognize the solemn oath per salutem imperatoris or imperatorum as a completely sufficient guarantee of loyalty, and could write in his protocol that the accused person was subjected to evidence of his loyalty and showed due respect for the cult of the emperors, while a ruler unfriendly to them could demand from them a clearer and more satisfactory proof of his loyal feelings. Tertullian approves of the oath per salutem, and numerous inscriptions show how common the oath form ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας τοῦ αὐότοκράτορος was. An example of the energy with which Christians could act against those who became instruments of their persecution before the government is the measures that they took in 323. against persons who played the role of informers and accusers in the persecution of Diocletian and Maximian, or who handed over books of Holy Scripture (traditores) to the persecutors for destruction. See Christian Reading, no. I, p.19. See Borghesi, Oeuvres IX. 295; Justin. II Apol. 2. Le Blunt, Actes des Martyres, pp.65 and 70. Tertull. ad Scap. IV. It is usually thought that Pudent was proconsul in Africa at this time. But Newman has sufficiently established the probability that he was proconsul of Cyrene and Crete. See Orig. With. Celsum VIII, 69. The question of the time of publication of Celsus’s work has been discussed many times, but it can most likely be attributed to this particular reign, when two emperors sat jointly on the throne, or to 161–169 or 177–180. Alternate references to the emperor in the singular or plural are a characteristic feature of many documents of this period. See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History IV, 26: καινὰ δόγματα, πραστάγματα. Libellus pro Christianis, I et seq. The word διώκουσι he uses reminds us that the agents who were entrusted with this matter, and who were under the command of the Irinarch, were called διογμῖται - “detectives”, pursuers, see O. Hirschfeld, Die Sicherheitspolizei im röm. Kaiserreich p.29 (Berl. Sitzungsberichte 1891, p.99. Keim, Aus dem Urchristenthum, p.99. Καινἀ δογματα in the first case and προστάγματα – in the last case. Neumann believes that the change in policy towards Christians occurred as a result of a special rescript allegedly issued in 176 - a rescript that prohibited the introduction of new religious rituals that could confuse and disturb the minds of the people. But this view does not withstand strict criticism, since it does not fit with the facts showing that the attitude towards Christians under Marcus Aurelius was the same both before and after the year of publication of the alleged rescript. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170, p.340. The favor of the Roman court, experienced by the apostle Paul in Corinth in protecting him from the slander of the Jews, apparently made an indelible impression on him, which was reflected in his thought and teaching. This event marked a noticeable line of division, reflected in the tone that distinguishes the epistles to the Thessalonians from the group of epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians and Romans. When moving from one group to another one cannot help but notice a remarkable change in feeling. See above Christian Reading vol.II, p.230. – Rarnsay pp.246 and 281. Tacitus, Chronicle XIII, 32. Pomponia was subjected to such a private trial (prisco instituto) by her husband in 58. For an excellent development of this family court, see Farrar in his essay “At the Dawn of Christianity” in trans. A.P. Lopukhina, chapter XXX. The Latin legal term alienum speculari and the noun - alieni speculator, probably underlies the Greek word ἀλλοτριοεπισκοπος (in 1 Pet. 4:15, in the Russian translation "encroaching on someone else's", in Slavic "alien visitor"), which is completely incomprehensible if you do not see it attempts to literally translate a foreign term that had nothing corresponding to itself in the Greek language. Justin. I, 3; Tatian. 4 et seq. The Jews could act against the Apostle Paul, who had the rights of Roman citizenship, in no other way than by initiating an official case against him before the Roman tribunal under some plausible pretext. Gallio probably did not delve into the matter enough to ascertain whether St. Paul had the rights of Roman citizenship, but left the matter to the Jewish court. In the case of Jesus Christ, the Jews could bring it to a serious end only by turning to the tribunal of the Roman procurator Pilate. The Jews, even in Palestine, could not be subject to the death penalty except by decision of the Roman governor. Perversitas, Fam. III, I, 4. And even now every Turkish governor could testify to the same thing. The Greeks under his control, with their obstinacy, make life itself a burden to him. Aristides ὑπἐρ τῶν τεττάρων vol. II, ρ. 400 et seq. (ed. Dindorf). Lightfoot finds this characteristic so unsuitable for Christianity that, in his opinion, the cynics themselves served as a model for this picture of Aristide (Ignat. I, p. 533). But it is more correct to think that in the mind of Aristides and similar rhetoricians, Cynics and Christians were united as members of the same class, differing in some respects, but in general being of the same type, and this picture gives the characteristics common to this whole class of people. Greek philosophers rebelled against the cosmopolitan spirit, which sought to escape the narrow framework of the Greek state, and this spirit was the peculiarity of both Cynics and Christians. Tacitus, however, says (Histor. V, 5) that the Jewish rites antiquitate defenduntur (found protection in their antiquity); but he did not mean here to formally explain why the imperial government favored the Jews. The difference in regard to antiquity between Judaism and Christianity was of more importance to philosophy than to government. How Christians acted in this regard is exemplified by the fact that, in order to avoid displeasure on the part of the government, they stopped gathering at love suppers in Bithynia, when the latter could be interpreted as a violation of the law that prohibited all kinds of associations. See Christian Reading vol. I, p.35. The government allowed only charitable unions among the poor, associations for mutual aid, and they were allowed to meet only once a month for any other purpose than the performance of religious rites, which was allowed without hindrance. The most common type of these unions were "burial societies"; but it would be a mistake to assume that these were only the only examples of this kind of unions. The use of the term collegia funeraticia (purely new name) sometimes led to the false idea that they were the only ones allowed. These were the collegia tenuiorum (lower classes of the population). “One of the most remarkable aspects of the history of Rome was the growth of ideas which found their realization and completion in the Christian Church. Universal citizenship, universal equality, a universal or universal religion, a universal church - all these were ideas that the empire was slowly developing, but which it could not realize before drowning itself in Christianity. Ramsay's words in the Expositor, 1889 p.402. In the book - page 192, approx. 1). According to Tatian, Christianity has as its goal universal education, and not that narrow education, which, as was the case with the Greeks and Romans, was limited only to the rich classes; its principle is free education for the poor, and it does not discriminate by gender, but admits everyone, both men and women, to the universal system of its education. By the way, Tatian also defends the Christian custom of allowing women to study philosophy (Apologist. §§ 32 and 33). Tatian did not appeal to any of the emperors; but he uses similar arguments together with other apologists, expressing them even more sharply than others. See lecture by prof. Y. Kulakovsky: with the Christian Church and Roman law during the first two centuries,” Christian Reading 1894, No. 5–6, p. 24.