Christian Church in the Roman Empire in the first two centuries (before 170)

The first centuries of Christianity will never cease to arouse keen interest, no matter how far we are removed from them. On the contrary, the further they move away from us and the longer a series of centuries obscures them from our historical gaze, the greater the incentive to study them. The Church is an organism that developed from one beginning and went through certain historical stages that in one way or another influenced the structure of its life, and the closer these stages are to the original, the more important they are, because the organism is always more susceptible to external influences during its early childhood, and these influences often determine the direction and character of its entire subsequent life. That is why, even at the end of our century, questions from the life and history of the primal church continue to invariably retain their interest for every thinking mind that is critical of the phenomena occurring before it and seeks for them a thorough explanation, which can only be found in history. Unfortunately, history, generous, one might even say too generous, with messages from later centuries, is too stingy with them in relation to the first centuries of the church, which meanwhile were in the full sense critical for it. True, much has been written about these centuries, and many strong minds have taken on the great task of exploring that critical moment in the history of the church, when it, having just entered its world-historical field, met with a gigantic enemy who conquered the world with his sword, and with his laws tamed the wild passions of even semi-savage peoples, and yet this important moment still remains insufficiently clear, so that lack of familiarity with it makes itself felt with deplorable force every time a more or less serious question is presented to life and thought. This, however, is the inevitable fate of any major religious and political movement, which, like grain, makes its first vegetation and development in the dark, inaccessible bowels of the earth. And this is understandable. At its beginning, every movement encounters the inert force of the surrounding structure of things, which it must overcome; hence the struggle inevitably begins, and its participants are too busy with work to have enough time to compile chronicles about it for the edification of subsequent times. Only when the movement comes into force do its leaders or participants find the opportunity to sum up the results of the struggle they endured and, to preserve them, accurately enclose them in writing. It was the same with the history of the primal church. In the third century, the state of things is still quite clear for us: we can have a fairly clear idea about the position of Christians, their teaching and life, their relationship to the world around them, about the structure and management of the church itself, about the life of its main leaders and representatives. But in this century we are already dealing with a more or less established state of affairs, which has taken certain forms, and when, as a result of this, we have a natural desire to trace exactly how and under what conditions this situation was formed, for which it turns out to be necessary to look deeper into the previous two centuries, then almost immediately history threatens to tear its guiding thread out of our hands. In an unclear situation, this or that figure appears before us, we hear about terrible persecutions and valiant confessors of Christ - but then the history of these centuries is silent on deeply important questions that arise in the mind, so that we necessarily have to be content in this regard with only a comparison of the state of things as we find it in the 3rd century with what is reported about the state of the church in Holy Scripture, and already on the basis of this comparison draw a conclusion about the intermediate period. Of course, Holy Scripture is the most reliable and incorruptible leader in this regard. Unfortunately, the latest negative criticism has managed to cast doubt in many people regarding this primary source, attributing many New Testament books to other authors and to other times than what the church accepts, and therefore, even in questions about the actual position of the church, as it appears in these books, science must necessarily first refute this criticism and indicate the unshakable foundations for the church’s view of them. In view of this state of affairs, one cannot help but welcome any attempt by serious science to shed some light on the life of the primal church, and especially when this attempt comes from persons who, by their special education, are most qualified for research in this deeply interesting, but inaccessible area. One of these researchers is the English professor Ramsay, the author of a recently published book bearing the title we borrowed for this article. 1 His research has long enjoyed honorable fame in historical literature, not only in England, and he is one of the best representatives of the serious type of English scientists of modern times, who are distinguished not only by the depth and breadth of knowledge, but at the same time by their independence of thought. Having previously been a professor of classical archeology, he thereby moved in a field that constitutes a natural basis for the study of the life of the Christian Church and is, therefore, a necessary condition for understanding the revolution it has produced in humanity; but at the same time, he did not limit his works only to studies of written sources; like a true Englishman, he took up a spade and a shovel, and personally carried out excavations in Asia Minor, which was one of the most important centers of early Christianity, which gave him the opportunity to look, so to speak, into the very layers of the soil on which the Christians of the first centuries lived and prayed and which the Christians of the first centuries watered with their blood. These studies gave him rich material, which he used in his book, which, by general recognition of impartial criticism, represents a rich contribution to the science of studying the subject considered in it. And first of all, it is pleasant to note in this book the gratifying fact that its learned author knows how to take a completely independent position in relation to the so-called negative criticism. Western literature of our time, especially in Germany, is flooded with critical works that seem to set out to destroy the entire edifice of Christian history to its very foundation, so as not to leave one stone unturned, and this criticism, coming from the luminaries of German university science, spreads in a wide wave among the masses, where it turns into a kind of cult, excluding any objections to it. His influence extends far beyond the borders of Germany itself, so that scientists from other countries also try to imitate his tone, often taking on faith what is said by some of the named luminaries, and not daring to declare their independence in relation to them, for fear of being branded as backward people and light extinguishers. Ramsay is alien to such fears. He admits that at one time he himself was interested in German criticism and fully recognizes, in principle, its scientific method; but at the same time he finds that this principle is carried forward by German scientists further than it should be, and is applied very poorly, so that their very criticism is often an insult to the true critical method. "True criticism," he says in the preface to his book, "must be imbued with sympathy; meanwhile, in the studies concerning religion, both Greco-Roman and Christian, many German scientists (with the exception of the greatest of them), in my opinion, if I may say so, show a lack of that instinctive sympathy for the life and nature of a known people, which is necessary for the correct use of the critical method. For several years I have been with great interest and jealousy, although with with little knowledge of the matter, followed these critics and accepted their conclusions. But lately, as I have come to understand Roman history better, I have come to the conviction that in regard to almost all the books of the New Testament, to regard them as spurious works of the second century would be to make as gross a mockery of criticism as if we were to regard the writings of Horace and Virgil as spurious works of the time of Nero.” 2 Fans of German criticism (and their name is legion!) may be horrified by such sacrilege against their idol, and some of them have already condemned Ramsay. But what is dearest to him is the truth, as it follows from impartial research, and he not only pronounces such a strict verdict on German criticism, but also provides irrefutable evidence of how much this criticism often sins against scientific accuracy and even conscientiousness, impressing with deep knowledge where there is none at all and where it is essentially even impossible. So even the founder of the Tübingen school, Baur himself, turns out to be not entirely pure in this regard. For historical science, even at the present time, there is no more difficult question about the relationship in which the Romans and non-Romans stood with each other in provincial cities, and from the newest article by Mommsen, 3 this best expert on Roman history, one can get an idea of ​​what difficulties and ambiguities this subject is associated with. But for Baur these difficulties no longer existed even at the time when he wrote his essay on the apostle. Pavle - fifty years ago. Not at all suspecting the scientific difficulties associated with this subject, he expounds it with amazing ease and, considering the well-known case of St. Paul at Philippi, where he was punished by the local authorities, who exceeded their authority in relation to him as a Roman citizen, freely discusses how these authorities really should have behaved in this case, and on the basis of his reasoning (presuming an accurate and intimate acquaintance with the matter) solemnly refutes the authenticity of the book of Acts; Meanwhile, but with the latest research, which has made it possible to better understand the living conditions in the Roman provinces, this document paints before us a strikingly vivid picture of how the provincial authorities, rashly subjecting the ap. Paul being punished as a simple native, they were suddenly frightened when they learned that they had committed lawlessness by punishing a Roman citizen in this way. “Ignorance can be freely forgiven,” says Ramsay, “but not such a bold exhibition of non-existent knowledge.” 4 Science has advanced so much over the past fifty years and presented so much undoubted data to refute the negative-critical conclusions of the Tübingen school that its newest representatives began an energetic retreat from the position of their teacher and agree to attribute greater antiquity to the New Testament books than Baur himself recognized for them. But the leaven has remained to this day, so that even now the last Mohicans of this school, faithful to the principles of their ancestor, shamelessly sacrifice both facts and obvious data in favor of their favorite theories. As an example of this, Ramsay cites Pfleiderer in his newest work on “primitive Christianity.” Thus, proving that the letters of St. Ignatius are not authentic, Pfleiderer says that the story of Ignatius’s journey as a prisoner to be exposed to the beasts in Rome is an ahistorical fiction, because in the second century there is no analogy with this transfer of a criminal from the place of trial to the Roman amphitheater. 5 Meanwhile, in reality it turns out that this was precisely the usual practice among the Romans. There were even special rules and regulations regarding it, some of which have survived to us. If, among the small number of cases known to us of Christians who were exposed to fight wild animals in the amphitheater, there is no parallel with the story of Ignatius, then this in any case cannot serve as an argument against the usual practice. Such an expert on Roman history and life as Mommsen directly proves that the words of the Apocalypse about Rome as “intoxicated with the blood of martyrs” should be understood in relation to those Christians who were convicted in the eastern provinces and sent to Rome for execution. 6 The author gives another even more striking example of this, p. with what shamelessness German learned critics treat the New Testament books as documents. In order to prove that the 1st Epistle of St. Peter was written after the Emperor Trajan, a learned critic had to make a whole series of errors and distortions, which Ramsay exposes, 7 making the general conclusion that Pfleiderer’s enormous work, striking in its scholarly armature, may perhaps have significance for someone (for unscrupulous lovers of criticism); but for someone who demands that the theory be based on a document, rather than the document being cut out and adjusted to the theory, its value is zero. 8 Even our church-historical science, which often subserviently before the authorities of German scholarship and often does not dare to express its opinion that disagrees with it, has something to learn from Ramsay. Obviously, German scholarship is not as invulnerable as many people think: its critical structures turn out to be no stronger than houses of cards, and fall apart at the first touch of serious scientific criticism. And this independence of the English learned professor is all the more remarkable because he is not a theologian at all, but a civil historian, inclined to look at the facts of church history from a civil point of view. For him, the New Testament books and patristic works are the same material for scientific research as the works of Roman pagan writers. These are documents from which science must borrow material for its conclusions. But it was precisely this attitude to the matter that gave him the opportunity to correct one glaring injustice of the German critical school. When studying the period under consideration on the very essence of the matter, the historian encounters two classes of sources - the works of pagan writers and the works of Christian writers. Both of them, of course, require a critical attitude towards themselves, and this is where German criticism’s deplorable lack of sympathy for the subject under study, which, according to Ramsay, is necessary for impartial historical research, was reflected. Since with the duality of sources, distinguished by completely opposite character and spirit, it is necessary to resort to a comparative assessment of their significance and dignity, simple justice requires treating both with equal impartiality. Meanwhile, German criticism completely violates all justice when it, completely trusting the testimony of pagan writers, treats with complete distrust or disdain the testimony of Christian writers. This is especially noticeable where these testimonies diverge from each other, and the same fact is portrayed differently. In this case, criticism invariably takes the side of the former, rejecting the latter as the expression of subjective religious views that obscure reality, and therefore do not deserve any trust. This attitude to the matter is extremely unfair, and, according to Ramsay, reveals an extreme narrowness of critical and historical horizons. Of course, criticism must clearly distinguish between documents, some of which are more and others less reliable, or even completely unreliable; But in doing so, one must be guided by completely different rules - a deeper penetration into the very spirit and character of the documents. To be guided in this criticism only by the principle that guides modern German criticism means to mock the requirements of sound criticism. Why is the testimony of ancient pagan writers necessarily more reliable than the testimony of Christians? There is not the slightest reason for this. If Christian writers differ in their testimonies from pagan ones, then this is by no means a basis for rejecting the former and attributing them to a later time. Similar disagreements occur between the pagan writers themselves, and, moreover, of the same time (as, for example, between Juvenal and Martial in depicting the morals and customs of their time), and yet it never occurs to anyone to push any of them back to a later time. But this is not enough. According to Ramsay, the significance of Christian testimonies is not only not diminished due to their disagreement with pagan ones, but even increases. "It is now once and for all recognized," he says, "that the value of Christian documents lies in their difference from the Roman writers at least as much as in their agreement, that the difference in the transmission of the same facts reported by both classes of these documents was inseparable from the different points of view of their authors, and this difference, far from refuting the authenticity of Christian documents, in fact constitutes a necessary condition for its admission. If they agreed, they would lose their significance as historical authorities, and could not be considered authentic works of the time to which they claim to belong.” 9 The difference between the testimonies of Christian writers and pagan ones was actually due to the fact that the former, strange as it may seem, understood the state of things better than their pagan counterparts. The latter, with all the brilliance of their philosophical and literary education, were blind and deaf to the deep and great historical process that was taking place before their eyes, producing a complete revolution in world life. “Among the Roman writers,” says Ramsay, “we find philosophers who rattled with their rhetoric, we find rhetoricians who were entirely occupied with the highest questions of moral philosophy, at best pessimists who ceased to believe in the present and future of history, made heroes out of Cato with his pedantry, Brutus with his sugary pretense and Cicero with his superficial races, but completely despaired of the possibility restoration of the golden age. Historians were so fascinated by great events, satirists were so occupied with the vices of the upper classes of society, moralists with abstract discussions of morality, and poets with Greek mythology and the concern not to lose their position in the drawing rooms (atria) of the rich and the favor of the emperor and his freedmen, that they had neither the time to write seriously about the goals of imperial policy, nor the ability even to see them.”10 All these writers, for the most part, sighed about the past days of the republic, and did not notice that the times of the republic had passed irrevocably, and a new time was coming, for which the empire was an absolutely necessary preparation. The political struggle of republican times gave way to a deep process of social struggle, when the question was no longer about who should occupy certain positions or what rights to enjoy in the state, but about how humanity could free itself from the bonds of national-political conventions that bound it and merge into a single world brotherhood. And both the empire and the church equally strived for this, albeit in different ways. The empire, despite the backward protests of the mentally blind republicans, was precisely a new step in this great field, although even the closest observers of the flow of modern life, the greatest historians, like Tacitus, who mourned the fall of the republic and saw the ideal not in front, but behind, did not understand this. And so, when the Roman writers, blindly paying tribute to the past, despaired for the future, not noticing the fact that all the hopes of mankind were concentrated in the future, since the ancient world with its pagan way of life was in a hopeless process of decay, the true spokesmen of the emerging new world were Christian writers, who, although they did not possess such literary talents as their pagan counterparts, but possessed exactly what was most important with the consideration point of view - not only the ability to observe the signs of the times, but they themselves were faithful bearers and exponents of the spirit of the new time, heralds and at the same time executors of the ideal by which humanity was being reborn. This is why historical science, despite the absurd arrogance of German criticism, attaches such high importance to Christian documents, finding in them an even more faithful and truthful reflection of reality than can be found in pagan documents. This point of view enabled the English professor to restore at many points the dignity and historical significance of Christian documents, which gives his book the deepest interest. His book consists of two parts, one of which depicts the state of Asia Minor as the main center of the spread of Christianity under the Apostle Paul, and the second sets out the amazing history of the struggle of the Roman Empire with the Christian Church. We intend to introduce our readers to this last part, which addresses the deeply interesting question of when and why these two forces came into conflict with each other, and how the struggle between them was waged, ending in the triumph of the church. We dwell on this part because this very question has recently been the subject of a heated debate in our Russian literature, although unfortunately it did not produce anything more or less positive, ending with personal accounts of the disputing parties. 11 The voice of such an impartial researcher as Ramsay is, in our opinion, will not be superfluous in resolving the controversial issue. The author begins his study with the famous correspondence of Pliny the Younger with Trajan, as the most definite and important of the documents on the issue under consideration, in order, on the basis of it to grasp the main thread of the policy of the Roman imperial government in its relation to the Christian church, to then proceed to the study of these relations throughout the entire period under consideration, starting with Nero. We will follow his order, and in view of the importance of the chapter on the correspondence of Pliny with Trajan in the sense of the starting point for the study of the issue under consideration, we will present it in a presentation as close as possible to the original. I. Pliny's report and Trajan's rescript In view of the extreme importance of the correspondence between the famous governor of the province of Bithynia and the equally famous emperor on the question of how the Roman authorities should relate to the new, rapidly spreading, although still unknown in its essence, religion, Ramsay makes several preliminary remarks about its authenticity. 12 This question, fortunately, has already been the subject of numerous studies, so there is no need to dwell on it at length. We know about this correspondence thanks to a single manuscript of unknown age, found around 1500 in Paris, from where it was apparently taken to Italy a few years later. There it was used by various people until 1508, and since then it has disappeared somewhere, so no one knows where it is now. Despite this suspicious story, the correspondence, according to Ramsay, is undoubtedly genuine. It contains such a picture of the Roman administration in the provinces that until the learned studies of Mommsen appeared and the publication of the Corpus inscriptionum latinarum advanced, no one was able to properly understand its significance. But with each further step in familiarizing ourselves with the organization of the empire, we gain more and more opportunity to appreciate the importance of this one-of-a-kind document, which throws light on the field of Roman provincial government. Those two letters (96.97), which, in fact, occupy us now, are also authentic. One of them is undoubtedly written in the style of Pliny. The other reveals the direct, decisive manner of the great practical administrator Trajan, who expresses his thoughts without making a single superfluous phrase; but we do not have the same criterion regarding his style that we have in relation to Pliny; Moreover, it is possible that such rescripts were not compiled by the emperor personally, but in his office according to sketches or under the dictation of the emperor. The very spirit of these documents, so unlike the spirit of documents of later times, in itself serves as a sufficient guarantee of their authenticity. The forger usually revolves within the narrow limits of his personal knowledge, the tone and spirit of his time; and these documents gain more meaning the more we study them, so that the difficulties that undoubtedly lie in them depend rather partly on the incompleteness of our knowledge and partly on the obvious predisposition of some researchers in favor of unfounded historical views, than on the substance of their internal content. To properly evaluate both of these documents, we must put ourselves in the position of both parties and clearly understand their character and upbringing. One of the authors of the correspondence is distinguished by the precise, formal, but scrupulously fair character of a lawyer who occupied a high position and had a long practice in the Roman courts; and the other was the greatest and most shrewd of the administrators who held in his hands the imperial power inherited from Augustus. There is no doubt that in the question of how to act more correctly in relation to the accused, for the resolution of which Pliny actually turned to Trajan, the legal side of the situation is clearly revealed to him; but it does not explain anything that, according to Pliny’s assumption, the emperor could have already known in advance. Therefore, we must not only translate these documents, which would be relatively easy, but also interpret them, which is very difficult. In order to accurately understand the meaning of famous phrases, a lot has to be read between the lines, and most importantly, you need to remember that these are business papers, and their authors were men of action - not philosophers who were engaged in discussing abstract subtleties, and not historians who painted a picture of events for the benefit of future readers, but namely administrators who wanted to solve the issue that occupied them with all the rigor and precision required by law. The point is this. I. 13 In 112 A.D. 14, as we accidentally learn from Pliny’s letter, in Bithynia, not only in the cities, but even in the villages, and generally throughout this province, 15 the new religion spread so widely that the churches were almost completely empty and sacrificial rites ceased. A denunciation was made to Pliny that the perpetrators of this were Christians; but we do not know where this denunciation came from and in what form it was made. Pliny does not say whether the accusations were simply in the form that Christians were guilty of all this, or at the same time the denunciation stated that they caused damage and loss to private people, or, finally, they were generally guilty of serious crimes. Whatever the exact nature of the accusations, Pliny, in any case, paid attention to them. It is likely that Pliny, with his characteristic strict and precise concepts of the law and with a zealous attitude towards the duties of his service, immediately upon his arrival in the province began to implement the principles of Roman administration in the provinces with such energy and diligence, which was in sharp contrast to the mode of action of the rulers who preceded him. The latter allowed relaxations in the administration, which led to serious disorder and disruption of affairs in the province. Pliny was sent there with a special order to restore order there, and he, as we can be sure, showed his activity from the very day he took office. The nature of his mission, namely to restore order in the province, upset by administrative dissoluteness, gives even new strength and significance to the fact that he dealt with the case harshly against the Christians. This also throws a clear light on his explanation to the emperor that Christians deserved death for their stubbornness and rebellious spirit, regardless of the question of how much their Christianity itself was subject to punishment. They represented a gross example of the disorder and insubordination that was spreading throughout the province and which Pliny was entrusted with eradicating. This was his first duty, and it is not difficult to understand how, in his opinion, it was necessary to take energetic and severe measures in relation to Christians, as soon as his attention was drawn to them. And his measures did not remain fruitless. Pliny clearly says that as a result of his energetic measures against Christians, an improvement was not slow in one branch of trade, namely in the sale of food for sacrificial animals kept at the churches in readiness for the sacrifice of worshipers. This curious indication of an essentially insignificant industry suggests the idea that complaints against Christians were initially submitted to Pliny precisely by merchants whose business was in danger from them. He saw that people engaged in legitimate trade suffered damage in their trade and suffered losses due to the disorder that was caused in society and in ordinary spheres of life by Christians, under the influence of the newly invented ideas and customs they introduced. Such damage caused to the established order of public life, of course, could not help but arouse measures on the part of the Roman authorities, where it was in energetic hands, and usually in this way the Christian religion, in the first days of its existence, attracted attention and caused repressive actions on the part of the state. 16 An example of how a Roman ruler could react to just such a disruption to the normal course of trade is the neighboring province of Asia. When in Magnesia, on the Maeander, there were riots by bakers who formed a strike in order to raise the price of bread, a Roman dignitary (of course, the proconsul) forbade them to form an alliance with each other and ordered them to continue their work. This rebellious course of action was detrimental to public peace and order, and was always vigorously suppressed by the Roman government. The government did not raise the question of whether the bakers were right in demanding higher prices. Their strike, which threatened to leave the city without an adequate supply of grain, necessarily threatened to lead to disorder, and was therefore dangerous. Consequently, the proconsul ordered them to obey in all respects the special officials who were entrusted with the care of the general interests of the city. 17 II. The first cases, the investigation of which began in Bithynia and Pontus, were apparently of a monotonous nature. The first of the accused (and these were undoubtedly the most courageous and outstanding adherents of the new faith), 18 apparently, without exception, openly confessed their religion. According to the procedure adopted by Pliny, he asked them three times whether they were Christians, threatening them with punishment. When they persistently declared themselves Christians, those of them who were provincials were condemned to death by Pliny, and those who were Roman citizens he ordered to be sent to Rome for trial by the emperor. More difficult were those cases when, as a result of the trial, new accusations were brought forward, and the variety of court cases increased even more when Pliny was presented with an anonymous document containing accusations of many people. During further trials that began in this way, some of the accused immediately denied that they were Christians, others at first admitted that they belonged to Christianity, but yielded (as can be understood from the context) to the threats of the ruler and renounced their faith, saying that they had previously been Christians, but fell away from this faith, some even twenty-five years ago. All such accused brought incense before the statue of the emperor and cursed Christ. Pliny now found himself in a quandary. He had no doubts about how to act in the case when the accused persistently admitted that they were Christians; but he began to hesitate on those occasions when they repented. Those who repented were apparently detained until he consulted with the emperor, and those who denied that they had ever been Christians were released. When cases of open confession of Christianity turned out to be numerous, so that it was no longer enough to confine oneself to simply hearing the case and pronouncing a verdict, Pliny began to conduct an investigation into the very principles and life of Christians. Here the question arises: why did he do such an investigation? Did this come from enlightened curiosity and a scientific desire to explore the essence of the case, or was it required by the very essence of judicial proceedings? Pliny's position and legal education leave no doubt that he considered this investigation necessary in order to gain the opportunity to correctly resolve these cases. If Christians persistently recognized themselves as Christians, then Pliny did not consider it essential to carry out further investigation regarding their behavior before accusation. But if they renounced their faith and proved their repentance by performing the rites of a religion recognized by the state, then he, before pronouncing a sentence, found it necessary to make an investigation into their previous behavior and way of life. What did he mean by acting this way? Obviously, the following: simple repentance for a previous crime is not, according to the law, sufficient satisfaction and does not deserve complete forgiveness. A robber who confesses his crime and promises to improve his life is punished less severely than a persistent criminal; but nevertheless, he does not receive complete forgiveness: the court examines his past life and behavior in order to see what punishment is most suitable for him. In the same way, Pliny, when investigating the past life and behavior of Christians, had in mind to determine what degree of punishment was most fair for them. Having rejected Christianity, they could no longer be condemned for their faith, as the persistent confessors were condemned. But if in their past life they were guilty of infanticide and cannibalism and other serious crimes, then they were still subject to a certain punishment of the law and should have been subject to further prosecution. There is a remarkable analogy here with the procedure that took place at Lugdunum in 177. There, the repentant also did not receive complete forgiveness, but an investigation was made regarding their previous behavior as Christians, and even the testimony of slaves was taken into account. Since these slaves were pagans, owned by Christian masters, their testimony tended to prove that Christians were indeed guilty of disgusting crimes. 20 Consequently, those who renounced their religion were imprisoned as murderers and guilty criminals, and suffered even more than the confessors, who simply suffered punishment as Christians. 21 III. At first, Pliny, apparently, fully believed that the accusations raised by rumor against Christians were well-founded, and that the general hatred of them, according to which he pronounced a guilty verdict against them as soon as they admitted to belonging to Christianity, had its basis in disgust for their disgusting rites. He began to investigate their cases separately and, first of all, learned from those of them who renounced, and then from two deaconesses (who, as slaves, were interrogated under torture), that the Christian religion was not at all as terrible as it was portrayed in the denunciations, that all kinds of crimes were strictly forbidden by Christian teaching, that the worshipers of Christ were obliged by an oath (sacramentum) not to do anything bad, and that usually The accusations brought against them of infanticide, cannibalism and other disgusting crimes allegedly committed at their secret meetings are completely unfounded. This discovery obviously made a great impression on Pliny. But the general impression did not affect his attitude towards Christians. He still thinks that their religion is criminal, and that those whom he condemned deserved death, if not for Christianity, then for their very stubbornness. He was pleased with the favorable results which he had already achieved by his course of action, and expected that by continuing to apply the law wisely and strictly, he could easily suppress the sect itself and restore order. In his opinion, this was nothing more than a superstitio prava, immodica, it was a superstitio (in other words, non-Roman worship of non-Roman gods), firstly, a humiliating superstition (prava), and secondly, destructive of that rational and peaceful course of life, which is befitting both the philosophical mind and the honest citizen (immodica). True, it was the custom of Christians to gather in public meetings and have common meals; but they abandoned this illegal custom as soon as the ruler issued an order, in accordance with the instructions of the emperor, prohibiting the formation or existence of sodalitates (communities). None of the fundamental laws applied specifically to them; they avoided breaking these laws. The only question that remained regarding the Christian religion was whether it, even apart from its influence on the life and conduct of its adherents (an influence which Pliny thought was morally good), should be prohibited for political or religious reasons; and these two considerations for the Roman were in an essential connection with each other, because the state interfered in religious affairs only insofar as they contained a political side and related to patriotism and loyalty, and in all other respects the gods were left to defend themselves (Deorum injuriae dis curae). IV. And so Pliny decided to postpone further paperwork until he found out the emperor’s opinion on this subject. In his report, he says that the strongest urge that forced him to postpone the paperwork was the consideration that the case concerned too many people. This raises the question according to what law or by virtue of what authority, in Pliny’s opinion, this matter had to be conducted. He was too strict a lawyer to hold the view that the law should be applied softly due to the fact that it is not obeyed by a large number of people; on the contrary, Roman jurists in practice were guided by the principle that when violators of the law increase in number, then in the form of exemplary intimidation of them, the law should be applied with greater severity and energy. In view of this, Pliny could not look at this matter as one that fit under a well-known definite law; he considered it a matter of practical administration and, by his very nature and education, knew, as every Roman ruler knew, that in the matter of government one often has to resort to compromises. By too severely implementing the general principle that the mere profession of Christianity is in itself dangerous to law and order and deserves the penalty of death, he was able, with a multitude of prosecutions, to increase rather than eliminate the disorder. This was a matter in which much was left to his own discretion and in which full scope was given to tact and governmental ability; in a word, a matter where it was necessary to act with the full authority that belonged to the ruler and administrator, not limiting himself to the role of a mere agent and judge, awarding punishment on the basis of a certain and unchangeable law. Pliny was evidently under the impression that his course of action was in accordance with the general powers and instructions of all provincial rulers, whose duty it was to preserve peace and order, and to prosecute and punish all those who by their actions disturbed or threatened to disturb the public peace. 22 This view is confirmed by the nature of Pliny’s correspondence with Trajan. He turns to the emperor not with questions about the law, but with questions about the administration and practical attitude to the matter. He asks for a relaxation of the law or accepted custom in individual cases, and generally desires to receive guidance for himself in those cases that are left to his own discretion and tact. Especially where, in his opinion, an exception to the general rule could be made, he turns to the emperor for advice on such matters that seem to critics almost insignificant to the point of being ridiculous; but the critics were too harsh on Pliny, because in these cases he, in reality, only criticizes the instructions given to him and makes it clear that they could be weakened at discretion. From this we can conclude how strictly Pliny considered himself bound by the general principles of imperial policy and how afraid he was to deviate from them even in insignificant matters, and, without a doubt, one can see in him a good example of a Roman official. The imperial policy governed the provinces autocratically, and the rulers, before making even the slightest change in the general rules, considered it their duty to seek advice from the emperors. The emperor's representatives who governed the provinces were not in the proper sense governors, but only commissioners. This circumstance is very important when studying the subject under consideration: the policy towards Christians throughout the empire depended on the desires and views of the reigning emperor. Mommsen pointed out the existence in the system of Roman state law of such a power that allowed the most rapid and radical action against Christians and which, apparently, was not always used in cases started against them. 23 The highest authorities were given very wide powers immediately, on their own responsibility, to take measures to suppress disorder or abuse, and to detain or punish anyone who might prove harmful to the state. In such cases, wherever necessary, the authorities could subject such individuals to exemplary punishment, such as tearing off their clothes and beating them, could order the culprit to be imprisoned for a while, could fine him or even subject him to death, although they did not have the right to subject him to long-term punishment (such as exile or imprisonment for a certain period), except in cases where a quick act of punishment entailed lasting results. This kind of administrative mode of action was widely and almost exclusively used especially in matters concerning religion. Roman religion was the expression of Roman patriotism, the knot of Roman unity and the guarantee of Roman prosperity. The administrative course of action, prompt and energetic, was a better and more rapid way of preventing the Roman citizen from neglecting this area of ​​his duties in relation to the state, and made it possible to punish the seducer who encouraged the neglect of these duties sooner than any recourse to formal law and formal legal proceedings. Hence, although such a formal procedure was possible, it was, however, hardly used by the authorities, it never received proper development and has no practical relation to the subject we are considering. It was only by administrative action that the worship of Isis was expelled from the borders of Rome, the worship of Celtic deities was prohibited by Roman citizens during the reign of Augustus, and the Romans who professed the Jewish religion were expelled from the capital. Pliny therefore acted by virtue of the power conferred upon him, which gave him power of life and death over all persons within the limits of his province, with the exception of Roman citizens; there is also no reason to think that he was the first ruler who had to act in such cases. This naturally eliminates any assumption that any formal law was applied in the suppression of Christianity. We can also conclude with confidence that not a single direct edict issued by the emperor commanded the suppression of Christianity. This conclusion is confirmed by the way Pliny presented the case to the emperor. It was his custom to cite or refer to those imperial edicts or rescripts that could be relevant to the issue proposed for the discretion of the imperial power, and if the usual course of action of the former proconsuls of Bithynia had managed to acquire binding force in the administration, 24 he would certainly have mentioned this; but in his report he does not refer to any previous edict or law. An instructive parallel in this regard can be found in letter 110. There one point is proposed for Trajan’s discretion, namely on the issue of practical administration, where a compromise turns out to be useful or at least permissible. Pliny proposes a case concerning one point in his instructions (mandata), prohibiting all monetary gifts from cities to individual citizens. The question was whether this rule was retrospective, whether the prohibited right by prescription had any effect, and whether the public prosecutor of the city of Amiza was right in demanding that an offering made twenty years ago be demanded back. On the question of Christians, Pliny not only does not set out any law or edict that they violated, but points out that they carefully avoided any violation of the order that he, in accordance with established practice, issued upon taking the province into his administration. In this edict, he, in accordance with the instructions (mandata) of the emperor, demanded strict execution of the law, which, due to the weakness of the previous rulers, had ceased to be enforced, namely the law prohibiting communities. Christians obeyed this law and changed their ways. V. Pliny proposes to the emperor three special questions, the consideration of which was postponed by us in order to put them in direct connection with the rescript sent in response to him by Trajan. 1) Is it necessary to make any distinction between those guilty because of their youth? in other words: should known mitigating circumstances be taken into account? 25 2) Is it necessary to forgive those who repent? 3) What is the actual nature of crime that needs to be investigated and punished? Is it necessary to punish for the very name Christian, without requiring any evidence that serious crimes were associated with him, or is the actual crime associated with this name subject to punishment? In the latter case, of course, it is assumed that the commission of serious crimes must be proven by clear evidence, unless the accused themselves confess to it, or, as is natural to assume, even deny the accusation. In the first case, the recognition of a Christian name by the accused is in itself a sufficient basis for conviction. Trajan does not give a formal answer to these questions, posed in this form and order; but his brief overview of the position and principles of action secretly contains the answer to each of them. After the data just presented, it is not difficult to understand his view. 1) Pliny, in Trajan’s opinion, acted correctly, i.e., his initial position that the very name of a Christian deserves the punishment of death if the guilty insist on it, is correct. 2) One general rule cannot be applied to all cases, i.e., it means that mitigating circumstances must be taken into account at the discretion of the ruler. 3) Repentance deserves forgiveness if it is truly proven by the recognition of the rites of the Roman religion. 4) The ruler should not search for Christians; but if a formal accusation is made against them by a known (and not anonymous) accuser, then they must be punished. This rescript does not introduce legal proceedings against Christians for the first time. It is absurd to suppose that Trajan first laid down the rule that "Christians are criminals deserving of death; but one can turn a blind eye to them if the accuser does not insist on paying attention to them." Trajan speaks in the language of a man who feels it impossible to contradict the existing principle of the imperial government or to completely abolish it, but who wants this principle to be applied with gentleness and not enforced with persistence. One cannot help but be surprised by the fact, truly amazing in modern historical research, that so many of the newest and especially German critics, even people of high authority, 26 constantly repeated the false position that Trajan was the first to declare the very name of a Christian a crime, and that any Christian document pointing to the name as a basis for the punishment of death must be considered to have appeared later than this rescript. 27 VI. Trajan, like Pliny in his early trials, condemns Christians simply on the basis of their confession, without going into further consideration of the issue by legal proceedings or testimony. They, in his opinion, are lawless, and should be treated like robbers caught in the act of a crime. This point requires special attention because many high authorities deviate from the point of view expressed here. Practically the question boils down to this: were Christians condemned for violating the general law (recently confirmed by the order of Pliny, in accordance with the imperial instructions), which defined and limited to very narrow limits the right to form associations (collegia, sodalitates, communities), or were they condemned simply for their very name? The lack of clarity and some hesitation between these two fundamentally different forms of litigation is clear in many of the studies written on the subject. The same writers who on one page admit that Christians were punished for their very name, on the next page talk about the edict against communities as the basis on which Christians were punished. In response to this question, the following considerations are put forward: 1) If Christians were punished by Pliny as an illegal community (sodalitas), then he should have asked them some questions on this point. Even the most arbitrary rulers could not condemn a criminal to death for breaking the law without any legal proceedings, without specifying the law and bringing favorable or unfavorable testimony to prove that the criminal had broken the law; still less can we suppose that such a strict lawyer as Pliny could act in such an illegal way. Even an admission of guilt by Roman law was considered in some cases 28 insufficient to entail condemnation. 2) Pliny could not have asked Trajan what kind of their crime and how he should treat them if he looked at them as sodalitas. It was already quite clear to him from repeated rescripts that Trajan would not allow the slightest violation or relaxation of this law. 29 3) Pliny clearly says that Christians, by their own consent, abandoned weekly meetings and public meals, which would give them the character of a community. 4) Trajan would not have ordered Pliny in his rescript to refrain from searching for Christians if he had looked at them as a community. He considered the prohibition of all kinds of communities to be the main point of policy for any strong government. VII. If Pliny acted on the basis of the administrative principle carried out by the former rulers in Bithynia or in other provinces, then the question may arise whether, in view of the above data, we should not conclude that he would have referred to the course of action of the former rulers in justification of himself? The answer is clear. He does not refer to them and explains why he is not sure about their modus operandi: he has never before had the opportunity to take part in searches (cognitiones) in the case of Christians. There is a lot in this short position. 30 First of all, Pliny and Trajan obviously knew well that such searches were commonplace. 31 Secondly, these were precisely searches - cognitiones, and not formal legal proceedings, judicia. Pliny's experience as a lawyer was limited to the latter in the centumvir courts, including several political cases in the Senate. True, cognitions could also fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate and consuls; but it seems quite probable that the trial of Christians was left to the emperor or his delegates. 32 The emperor often entrusted such searches even in Rome to the city prefect, and in the provinces, if necessary, to the rulers. Pliny could not be completely familiar with the laws in force in such cases. Hitherto he had not ruled the province and was not prefect of the city. The searches provided to the emperor were usually carried out secretly, 33 and only their results were brought to the attention of the public. Pliny could not have been acquainted with the procedure in such investigations except as a member of the “consilium”, the council often used by emperors to deliberate, but although he never actually took part in such matters, yet, as a Roman lawyer and official, he certainly had a general understanding of their nature and record keeping. In carrying out these searches, Pliny followed a certain procedure. He asked the question to each accused three times, giving him full opportunity to repent. Why did he maintain this course of action? One could, perhaps, interpret his mode of action in the fact that he, simply out of impulses of humanity, tried to avoid the need to subject people to the punishment of death. And no doubt such a course of action would have been entirely consistent with his personal character; but we must remember that Pliny in this case was a Roman official and judge, and that he was a man in whom long practice as a lawyer and judge had developed and made dominant the strictly legalistic spirit of the Roman. On the judge's chair, Pliny was no longer the kind and condescending, albeit somewhat weak and sensitive person that he appears to us in his carefully composed letters; he was a Roman official, brought up in the courts in the strictest Roman formalism and the pragmatic spirit of scrupulous legality. Here he was no longer a man of that exalted character who could discern the spirit behind the letter of the law. For him to act according to prescribed forms was second nature, and in this case we must assume that he acted exactly like that. True, he says that he has never taken part in such searches before; but, as we have already seen, this does not mean that he was completely unfamiliar with such forms of office work; This only means that he did not feel quite a master in this area of ​​legal proceedings. He could calmly rely on the law when it came to executing a hundred or two hundred people; but when the question concerned whole thousands, he was no longer so sure of the real meaning of the existing laws. In addition, Pliny reports his course of action here to the emperor; hence there cannot be the slightest doubt that he acts here as a strict official. The ideal of the Roman judge resolutely did not allow his behavior on the judicial tribunal to be influenced by personal sympathies or humanity. A distinctive feature of the best and true Roman rulers was severity, which even turned into cruelty: leniency was usually the result of only weakness, partiality or negligence. Pliny, of course, was an extremely diligent and conscientious man, and he, of course, did not want his course of action to appear to the emperor as containing weakness. It is known that the same procedure was used in many other cases of later times, although it cannot be thought that these latter processes were carried out according to the example of Pliny. The only possible hypothesis seems to be that Pliny acted in accordance with an already existing procedure, which was formed on the basis of practice and custom. A number of rulers and emperors, holding the general view that Christianity is harmful to law and order, and acting in the same general view - to protect law and order, developed, with the legal constructiveness characteristic of the Romans in general, a general procedure, which had all the force of a legal precedent. The only objection that could possibly be made against this is hardly worthy of attention. If this procedure had already become common, then how could Pliny turn to the emperor for advice regarding it? If, after the above discussion of his position, any answer is needed, we might point to the fact that in the year 177 the ruler of Gaul Lugdunia also sought the advice of Marcus Aurelius and received a rescript correcting his course of action on one essential point. Even Septimius Severus was probably consulted by his representative: because his policy towards Christians found expression in several rescripts. The rulers wanted to act as the emperor himself would act if he were on the scene. And hence, in such a matter, where the details were largely left to their personal discretion, they often turned to the emperor for advice. VIII. Before finishing with this issue, let us note some other particulars. Christians did not abandon the usual morning meetings that Pliny speaks of, which were probably weekly liturgical meetings, and Pliny obviously did not find anything illegal in them. Despite the strictest rules regarding communities, the Roman government expressly allowed everyone the right to assemble for purely religious purposes. 34 The morning meetings of Christians were of a religious nature; but the evening meetings were social meetings, consisting of a public meal, and therefore made the Christian community sodalitas. Christians abandoned this kind of illegal gatherings, but continued to perform those permitted by law. This circumstance is extremely important. It shows that Christian communities were fully aware of the need to act in accordance with the law, and in self-defense to use existing laws, as far as this was compatible with their religion. No conclusion can be drawn from Pliny's letter regarding the number of executions, and here we are completely left to personal calculations of probability. How many cases of exemplary punishment would be sufficient to produce the effect described by Pliny in restoring the abandoned worship of the ancient gods and renewing the obsolete church rituals? Probably, the history of the church can show that we did not exaggerate in accepting the figure of 100 or 200. If it is possible to find any, even remote, analogy in the number of witches burned in Scotland in a very recent time, then, perhaps, we have even determined this probability to be lower than the actual one. In order to produce the indicated effect, a certain time was also required. It is also impossible to determine with complete certainty Pliny’s attitude towards the confessors: did he resort to torture in this case, or condemn them to an exhibition in the amphitheater, or resort to a more merciful course of action, ordering their immediate execution? 35 He probably adhered to the usual procedure, which allowed the use of convicted criminals for public entertainment. Trajan's letter to Pliny referred to only one province. A copy of it, of course, was constantly kept in the ruler’s office; but, in the ordinary course of things, this document had no wider social significance or influence. The occasion, however, gave this rescript unusual importance, both in ancient and modern times. It was published (with the emperor's permission, of course) a few years later in the complete collection of Pliny's correspondence with Trajan. Thus it received wide publicity, and the officials, who always tried to act in accordance with the wishes of the emperor, accepted it as an expression of the established policy of Trajan. Tertullian could have directly referred to this letter, while he only speculates about the alleged reports of Pilate to Tiberius and Aurelius to the Senate, suggesting that they can be found if one rummages through the imperial archives. Trajan's Rescript is important in two respects: partly for its internal character and partly for the happy accident that has preserved it to our time. Completely fictitious importance was given to it by those researchers who considered it the first imperial rescript regarding Christians, which for the first time determined the attitude of the imperial power towards them. 36 Its actual importance is of a completely different kind. It marks the end of the old system, which consisted of complete hostility to Christianity, alien to any compromise. A question arises, which is interesting in the sense of assessing the personal character of Pliny, but which is not directly relevant to our purpose: what was his intention in seeking the advice of the emperor - was it simply to get his view on the matter, or did he not have a desire and hope that the policy towards Christians might be subject to revision? Personally, we cannot have the slightest doubt that the truth is on the side of the last alternative. Of course, it would be obscene and inconsistent with the position of the ruler to directly hint that imperial policy should be subject to revision; but Pliny, without making a direct allusion in this respect, goes far enough to express his thought, although he yielded sufficiently to the prevailing prejudice against Christians in order to avoid even an apparent allusion in this respect. The only decent course of action for him was to admit his unfamiliarity with the matter and ask for instructions; and it is here that this amazing change in his attitude towards Christians finds its explanation, according to which he, starting with an unshakable condemnation, ends his report by turning to the emperor with an elegantly simple question: “Should I punish them for their name, or for crimes associated with this name?” He is more apologetic for turning to the emperor for advice on this case, which involves the question of the lives of many thousands of people, than for all the other questions, it is true, often quite insignificant, with which he also turns to him. The apology seems to be extremely artificial, and we cannot really appreciate this letter until we understand that its author wanted the imperial policy to be changed, and yet avoided even the remotest hint that he specifically wanted this change. In view of the confidence in which Trajan had in Pliny, and the friendship he had for him, we must not be misled into thinking that this letter had any influence on him. Trajan's reply proclaimed a more lenient policy towards Christians, and it is pleasant to think that its author, whose life gives us the best idea of ​​the character of the Roman gentleman under the Empire, was in the last month of his life precisely the author of the change in this policy and the first step that was taken in the direction of rapprochement between the Empire and the Church. IX. In view of the importance and complexity of the subject, it would be useful to summarize the results we have obtained. 37 1) There was no specific law or formal edict against Christians individually at the time in question. 2) They were not persecuted or punished for violating any general formal law interpreted to apply to Christians. 3) They were tried and condemned by Pliny, with the full approval of Trajan, by virtue of the power conferred on him (imperium) and in accordance with the instructions given to the governors of the provinces to seek out and punish blasphemers, thieves, robbers and child-stealers. 4) Previously, they were generally classified in the same category as lawbreakers or public enemies (hostes publici), enemies of the fundamental principles of society and government, law and order, so that recognizing the name of a Christian in itself entailed condemnation. 5) This attitude towards Christians was accepted as an established principle of imperial policy, and was not established by the capricious action of any individual emperor. 6) Trajan, feeling obliged to enforce the established principle, was in his personal views against it, at least so much so that he ordered Pliny to turn a blind eye to Christianity until his attention was directly drawn to individual cases by a formal accuser, who appeared with an open demand from the imperial government to take measures against the villainy. 7) A certain form of procedure has established itself on the basis of practice and circumstances. 8) Pliny, when he had to take part in such a matter for the first time, used the usual procedure, guided either by his general knowledge in the non-specialized area of ​​\u200b\u200bofficial duty, or following the advice of his council and those precedents that his advisers could point out to him. When and under what conditions this policy was established, Ramsay sets out this in the following chapters, the content of which, and especially the chapter on Nero’s persecution, will be set out by us in the next issue of the magazine. The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170, by W.M. Ramsay, prof, of humanity at the University of Aberdeen. London, 1893. A few months later, a 2nd edition was required, which was published three months ago. We use the first edition of it. Ephemeris Epigraphica. Bl. VIl, 1892, pp. 436 et seq. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170, p.186. Urchristenthum, p. 826 (1887 ed.). See his "Provinces of the Roman Empire" (English ed.) vol. II, p. 199. See on page 187. This passage is so interesting in the sense of characterizing the hasty conclusions of German criticism that it can be cited in full here. Pfleiderer, with one stroke of his pen, solves the question of the first letter attributed to St. Peter. “He assumes that the persons to whom it is addressed were in the position introduced by the act of Trajan, and therefore the message is obviously later than Trajan. These persons belonged to the provinces or regions of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, and Pfleiderer boldly unites these regions into one Roman province - Asia Minor and declares that Pliny was the ruler of Asia Minor and that Trajan, in response to a question addressed to him by Pliny, issued an edict commanding the persecution of Christians in the province of Asia Minor (Urchristenthum, p. 656). It is still difficult to collect so many errors in one short position. Firstly, there was no such Roman province of Asia Minor at all. 2) For the ancients there was no such geographical or political unit as Asia Minor. 3) Pliny was not the ruler of all the regions mentioned in the 1st Epistle of St. Peter, but only of one province - Bithynia - Pontus. His power did not extend to Cappadocia, or Galatia, or Asia. Therefore, if Trajan's command extended only to the province of Pliny, then Pfleiderer is not able to explain the facts with which he is dealing. 4)Trajan did not issue any edict regarding Christians.” Such is German criticism. And Pfleiderer is another one of its most respected representatives... Its value is nil, says Ramsay in his expressive language. Page 189. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170, p.182. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170, pp.184–165. We mean the well-known noisy controversy in Kiev between Prof. Kulakovsky and the anonymous author of articles in the “Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy” for 1892, who ardently exposed the frivolous liberalism of the former in resolving the deeply serious issue of the Christian Church and Roman law during the first two centuries (following on the same topic that is the subject of Ramsay’s study). This correspondence constitutes letters 96 and 97 in Epist. ad Trajanum. Henceforth the text belongs entirely to Ramsay. Mommsen gives you a choice between years 112 and 113. The province ruled by Pliny, officially called Bithynia and Pontus (Bithynia et Pontus), was very extensive, since, starting from the river Ripdaca in the west, it extended beyond Amiz in the east. The question arises whether he had to deal with Christians throughout the entire province or only in one part of it. Mommsen has shown that Pliny visited the eastern part of his province in the summer and autumn of 112, and that letters 96 and 97 were written during this visit, perhaps from Amiz (See Mommsen's article on the life of Pliny in Hermes III. 59. The letters immediately preceding and following 96 and 97 were written from Amiz). It is clear from this that the events that prompted Pliny to write this letter took place there, so that the indication of the rapid spread of the new religion, at least, refers to the eastern Pontus; but at the same time it would be unfair to limit its description to only this part of the province. The letter gives the general impression that it sets out the sad state of affairs in the entire province, and not in any one part of it. Pliny clearly says that cities (civitates) in general are heavily infected with Christianity. For example, this is exactly how troubles occurred in Philippi and Ephesus during the preaching of the Apostle Paul. ’Απαγορεύω μήτε συνέργεσϑαι τούς άρτοκ[ό]κους κατ’ ἔταιρίαν, μήτε ?? κοινῇ συμφέροντος ἐπιταττομένοις, καί τήν ἀναγκαίαν τοῦ ἄρτου Έργασίαν ἀνενδεῆ παρέχειν τῇ πόλει. Bull. Correspond. Hellenique, 1883, ρ.506. Unfortunately, this highly interesting and important document is incomplete, so that the date and exact circumstances of the case are unknown. They correspond to those qui fatebantuir in Tacitus, Chronicle XV, 44. Ipso tractatu, that is, new cases were put forward as a result of the data obtained during the first trials; but perhaps Hardy's explanation is also true, that the informers were encouraged to make new accusations; or both of these results can be contained in one short phrase. As for how I am inclined to understand this expression, then, in my opinion, ipso tractatu corresponds to the indicio eorum of Tacitus, Chronicle XV, 44. This refers to the data obtained during the first trials; but Tacitus attaches more importance to the fact that this information was acquired through the interrogation of the accused persons, and Pliny to the fact that it was found out in connection with their affairs. As other cases of later times show, Pliny usually began in each case with identification of the accused, and asked about his name, position, city, occupation, etc. See, for example, Acta Carpi and Le Blunt Supplem. aux Actes Des Martyrs §59 in Memories de l’Institut, t.XXX, part.II, 1883. θυέστεια δεῖπνα and Οἰδιπόδειοι μιξεις, in Euseb Hist. Eccles. V, I, Subsequently, the ruler addressed the emperor in writing with a request for instructions regarding those perpetrators who were Romans and. explaining the state of affairs, he mentioned (probably by accident, and not with the aim of asking for leadership) how he dealt with those who repented, and the emperor in his rescript commanded that forgiveness be given to all who repented. Digest, 48, 13, 4, 2: "Mandatis (i.e., the general instruction given to each provincial governor) autem cavetur de sacrilegiis ut praesides sacrilegos latrones plagiarios conquirant, et ut, prout quisque deliquerit, in eum animadvertant." Digest, I, 18, 13, pref.: “Ulpianus libro VII de officio proconsulis. Congruit bono et gravi praesidi curare, ut pacata atque quieta provincia sit quam regit. Quod non difficile obtinebit, si sollicite agat ut malis hominibus provincia careat, eosque conquiral: nam et sacrilegos latrones plagiarios fures conquirere debet, et prout quisque deiiquerit in eum animadvertere.” See his article in Historische Zeitschrift, XXVIII, 398, on which the following paragraph is based. Both letters suggest that the punishment should be death; the question quiatenus punire debeat in the preceding provision does not mean what degree of punishment should be inflicted on the offender, but what distinction should be made in the application of punishment, i.e., should mitigating circumstances be taken into account, or does repentance entitle one to forgiveness? Even those who have not fully grasped this erroneous view have often been influenced to some extent by it. For the history of this view, see Lightfoot, Ignal. and Rous., ί, p.7. Dulce, in his Essai sur les Rapports de l'Eglisse Chrétienne avec l'Etat Romain, 1883, p. 52, considered Wieseler the only scientist who refused to accept this view; but Lightfoot mentions others. It would be indelicate not to point out many English scientists (Lightfoot, Salmon, Gort, etc.) who interpreted Pliny and Trajan more correctly in their writings or lectures. But in general their reasoning on this subject suffered in some degree from the fact that they looked upon it as a matter of formal and positive law, instead of looking at it as a matter of practical administration. This conclusion was made especially in relation to the first letter of Peter, as a result of which criticism attributed it to the 2nd century. From the above it is clear that this is a simple misunderstanding arising from a misunderstanding of Traianov’s rescript... For more information on this, see Ramsay, p. 279 et seq. It is in judicio; but in cognitiones the admission of the charge was considered sufficient for conviction. Trajan did not allow the formation of a community of 150 firemen in such a large city as Nicomedia (Epist. 33:34); he also forbade poor people to unite for common food at a common expense (Epist. 102:103). All such communities were considered dangerous, as capable of producing common actions and taking on a political character. The meaning of this phrase is usually obscured by its translation: “I have never been present at such cases. The meaning of this statement is: “I have never held such an official position that I have had to decide or give advice in the affairs of Christians, and therefore I am unfamiliar with the exact nature of this kind of business.” As for the number of such cases, these words do not give rise to any conclusion. I cannot agree with Hardy, who says that this statement of Pliny decisively proves that the trials of the Christians were neither frequent nor important, otherwise Pliny would not have been unfamiliar with this matter. In the following paragraphs it will be proven that such a conclusion is not justified by the merits of the case. Hence, almost all the cases of Christians that we know about were tried before the tribunal of provincial rulers, city prefects, or the emperors personally. See Mommsen, Historic die Zeitsclirifi, ΧΧVIII, 414. This is exactly what happened in general and, probably, always. See Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, II, 926, ed.2. Furneaux, of course, is wrong (Tacitus, Annals, II, 577) when he speaks of such a situation questioner de christianis, as we see in Pliny’s letter. The process against Christians invariably, as far as we have data, was an imperial search (cognitio), carried out personally by the emperor or delegated, by authority, to the prefect of the city or the governors of the province. Judicium was never used before questio. Unless, of course, religion was permitted; but the empire completely abandoned, if not in theory then in practice, the old objection to non-Roman religions as unlawful. The latter is the usual, although not necessary, meaning of the expression: duci jussi. This phrase, perhaps, rather meant: “I ordered them to be taken where the law indicated.” The torture inflicted on deaconesses was not the punishment itself, but a preliminary act required by Roman law before the testimony of slaves could be accepted. We cannot doubt that alarming reports reached Rome from many rulers before this, especially from Asia Minor, and that the matter itself had already attracted the serious attention of the emperors. Compare with these general conclusions what the anonymous author of the polemical treatise says: “The Christian Church and the Roman Law,” pp. 71 et seq. Kyiv 1692).