Отношение к христианству со стороны правительства

The dislike of Christianity on the part of the pagan people, all kinds of slander that aroused public opinion against them, did not remain without influence on the actions of the government. The mere fact that Christians disgusted and irritated many was enough to induce the Roman government to hostile actions against them: order and tranquility were of important public interest, and any innovations that caused disturbance and bore signs of self-will could never count on a tolerant attitude towards themselves. Therefore, Christianity, revealing a desire to spread its influence in society, sharply contradicting the religious foundations on which the entire system of the empire rested, demonstrating resistance to all measures of admonition and punishment, was naturally considered by the government as a phenomenon standing outside the protection and permission of the law. Finally, Christianity organized its followers through a system of established administration; in all places of the empire it formed societies and united them into one whole. Nothing could be more contrary to the Roman idea of ​​state than such organizations when they were established without the sanction and permission of state power. It is known how the government was afraid of sodalitates - associations or guilds of all kinds, which, in its opinion, could always be used for political purposes. The correspondence of Trajan with Pliny shows that the persecution of secret societies was one of the outstanding features of the policy of this emperor. These reasons were quite sufficient for the Roman government to see Christianity as a serious threat to the well-being of the empire and consider itself obliged to take the necessary measures. But the government also had deeper motives to establish those relations with Christianity that are marked by history. All ancient states were in some sense theocratic - Rome was no exception. Just as state life was everywhere permeated with religion, so religious life was part of political life. It was considered a civil duty to honor the domestic gods and in religious, as in all other matters, to obey the laws of the state. Human life in all its aspects is part of the state, the state embraces and regulates all areas of it. A pagan could not imagine the existence of such a sphere of human life over which the power of the state would not extend. It was completely incomprehensible to him that a person, citing his conscience, obeying his God, could refuse to obey the law and public order. For him, the state itself is, so to speak, God, and its laws are of a divine nature. In Rome this theocratic trait culminated in the cult of the emperor. What gods a person worships is his private matter - in this regard, the Roman state was tolerant in the newest sense of the word: it demanded no more from the adherents of the conquered religions than from the confessors of its own religion; but every subject was obliged to perform the cult of the emperor: this was his duty as a citizen. Thus, crimen laesae majestatis [charge of lese majeste] and crimen laesae publicae religionis [charge of insulting the state religion] were closely connected with each other. All accusations against Christians were based in this sense. For the Roman, Christianity was anti-national, hostile to the state, hostile to the emperor, represented opposition to the state religion and at the same time to the state itself, and until the state was rebuilt on new grounds, until then it could not treat Christianity otherwise than as a prohibited religion. Non licet esse vos [(Tertull., Apologet. 4.4)] - this is the general verdict of the government against Christians: “You have no right to exist.” “You stand outside the legal order,” - with these words Celsus begins his book against Christians [(Origen., Contra Celsum I, 1)] and with this he prefaces the whole process with a death sentence. Numerous acts of martyrdom indicate that legal proceedings always ended at the very point that Christians refused to give divine honors to the emperor. According to the view of the Roman state, by this they actually denied the state in its deepest foundations. Perhaps, if Christians had conceded on this point, then Christianity would have been forgiven for the fact that it could not, so to speak, present the documents required by law regarding its origin. But for Christians this would mean renouncing Christianity. Here lies the essence of the conflict, which did not allow for any reconciliation: only when the emperor himself bowed before the highest God, when Christianity itself was accepted as the basis of state life, did the period of persecution end. Here we must also look for an explanation for the sad fact that the most noble and patriotic emperors are among the persecutors of Christianity, and precisely because they sought to preserve and strengthen the ancient Roman spirit and system, to raise the state and people's life on an ancient foundation: they felt or understood the danger that threatened the state from the new spirit of Christianity, and tried to protect it. Through all the apparently varied activities of government there runs a continuous thread of definite policy. In this respect the ancient apologists show a somewhat superficial understanding when they accuse the government of inconsistency: the government in theory was mercilessly consistent, and the Roman emperor, by his very position as the guardian of the law, could not show leniency to a forbidden religion. But, on the other hand, the apologists were right when they pointed out the prevailing arbitrariness in relation to Christians on the part of various authorities. For crimes against the majesty there were no firmly established procedural forms and no firmly defined punitive laws; the prosecution of them was left to the magistrate by virtue of the police power belonging to him, whose duty it was to suppress all movements and aspirations that threatened danger to the state. They could punish, especially in cases of disobedience and opposition, even the death penalty. And in the trials of Christians, the proconsul or prefect acted not as a judge who was investigating a certain crime for which a certain punishment was imposed, but as a bearer of police power. But by its very nature it does not have firmly defined boundaries. This explains the difference in attitude towards Christians at different times and in different places. True, even just the name of Christians, just belonging to a Christian society without any other crimes was considered a crime for which they were subject to the death penalty; however, for the most part, many Christians remained calm, and when a process arose, officials could treat them some more strictly, others more softly, depending on how dangerous Christianity seemed to them for the state, or depending on personal character, the degree of mental and moral development and various considerations of official and non-official nature. But still, the most difficult thing in this situation was that Christians, as was said, did not have a legal right to exist and could at any time be subjected to unexpected persecution: where only the number of Christians was more or less significant and where there was some reason for detecting the hostility of the crowd, it was not difficult to force the authorities to enforce the law against Christians.