11-CHAPTER 11. THE ACTION OF NERO TOWARDS THE CHRISTIANS

CHAPTER 11. THE ACTION OF NERO TOWARDS THE CHRISTIANS

WE have learned from Pliny that actions against the Christians had become habitual before the accession of Trajan, and that a form of procedure had grown up. Neumann, though differing in some respects from our estimate of Pliny’s evidence, is quite agreed on this point. The next question that comes up is, when this habitual action originated. Neumann dates its origin in A.D. 95, and supposes it to be founded on an edict of the Emperor Domitian. But we have already seen that Pliny’s action was not founded on any law or edict, but was that of a practical ruler and governor interpreting a fixed but unwritten principle of policy. Moreover, the opposition of the Empire is too settled and confirmed to be explained in this way. An edict of Domitian might be overturned by a word from Trajan; [Note: See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. p. 1069, ed. ii. 226] but Trajan clearly regarded the proscription of the Christians as a fundamental principle of the Imperial policy, which he did not choose, or shrank from trying, to alter.

We cannot then accept Neumann’s view, and must look for some more deep-seated reason for the hostility of the Empire to the new religion. Our authorities for the time of Domitian are so scanty that we are reduced to hypothesis about it; and we have to go back to the reign of Nero to find another well-attested moment in the Imperial action.

1. TACITUS, ANXALS, 15. 44. In the famous chapter of Tacitus about the persecution of the Christians under Nero in 64 A.D., we have a document very different in character from Pliny’s report to Trajan; and the difficulties which face us in the attempt to estimate rightly its meaning and value are of a different order.

Any question as to Tacitus veracity in matters of fact need not trouble us. He certainly took the greatest care to seek out good authorities and to compare them with each other, and to state facts as they occurred. [Note: The bias which undoubtedly exists in his work is founded on his inability even to see, much more to sympathize with, the finer sides of Imperial policy. In matters of detail and fact he was a very careful investigator, and tried to be an accurate recorder, though his straining after literary effect often veils his description of facts.] Nor need we touch on the genuineness of the chapter.

There have been, and perhaps always will be, occasional doubts; but they belong to the curiosities of literature. As to the extent to which Tacitus account is coloured by the circumstances of his own time, the most diverse opinions have been held. It has been maintained [Note: By B. Bauer, Christus und die Cessaren, 1877, p. 273. Not having access to the book, I follow the account given by Arnold, “Die neronische Christenverfolgung" p. 105.] that Tacitus took his materials for describing the Christians of Nero’s time from the letter of Pliny, which we have just been discussing, that he adopted from him the term fatebantur, deepened Pliny’s superstitio prava immodica into superstitio exitiabilis, and used fos flagitia which Pliny speaks of as an explanation of the popular hatred of the Christians. Bauer has even used this theory as a proof that the letter of Pliny is genuine. In direct contradiction to this theory it has been stated [Note: By Holbrooke, Tac. Ann., note on xv. 44.] that "the ignorance of Tacitus on this subject is more remarkable because his friend Pliny had already learned the ways of Christians while governor in Asia Minor." This implies the view that Tacitus had strictly adhered to the ignorant accounts of contemporaries, and had introduced nothing of the knowledge which was possessed by some, at least, of his contemporaries. [Note: There can be no doubt that Tacitus possessed as much know ledge of the Christians as any Roman did at this period, because (1) he had been proconsul of Asia, the chief stronghold of Christianity, about 112-116, before he is believed to have composed the Annals (see the inscription of Mylasa quoted in Bull, de Corr. Hell., 1890, p. 621) ; (2) he is known to have taken great pains to collect evidence for his history, and to have consulted Pliny about another point in preparation for his earlier great work.]

We shall neither accuse Tacitus of ignorance about what was known to Pliny, nor shall we credit him with thrusting Pliny’s ideas into a period to which they were foreign. We shall try whether it is not possible to believe Tacitus, when he claims to be describing the state of public feeling and belief in A.D. 64; even though we also consider that he was probably quite aware of Pliny’s investigation and its results. We hold that Tacitus wished and tried to describe the events of this year 64 and of other years as they occurred; though we quite acknowledge that he could not divest himself of his knowledge, and could not possibly write exactly as he would have written if the Annals had been composed in the reign of Nero.

It is not possible to determine the meaning of Tacitus words with the same certainty as in the case of Pliny’s letters. Here, as usual, the attempt to disentangle from the rhetoric of Tacitus the precise and exact facts which he is describing cannot be successful, for it is hardly possible to rise above individual subjective judgment, and attain an interpretation which shall be quite certain. In such a case it is of the first consequence to determine from independent witnesses, even to a small extent, the exact state of the facts. Several other writers have, on authority quite independent of Tacitus, alluded to or described the action of Nero towards the Christians. The earliest of these is Clement of Rome, a contemporary and probably an eye witness; but his reference is too slight and general, and is not confined to this persecution alone. It will be considered in a later chapter.

2. THE EVIDENCE OF SUETONIUS. The chief independent witness is Suetonius, who was certainly acquainted with the work of Tacitus, with whom he undoubtedly had personal acquaintance. He has apparently used and followed the authority of Tacitus in some few passages, [Note: See especially Vesflas, 4, where he speaks of the general expectation of the period that out of Judaea were to spring they that should rule the world. Cp. Tac., Hist., v. 13; Teuffel-Schwabe, rum. Litteratur, 347, 8; Arnold, "Die neronische Christenver-folgung" p. 38. I shall have occasion often to quote, and sometimes to criticize, the latter useful monograph. ] and it is a quite fair assumption that he was acquainted with Tacitus view. Among a list of police regulations to ensure good order in Rome, [Note: Ner, § 16] he mentions the punishment of the Christians, a class of persons characterized by a novel and mischievous superstition. His list enumerates what he evidently considers as examples of good administration. They are all of the nature of permanent police regulations for maintaining order and good conduct. He mentions the sumptuary regulations, the institution of the sportula in place of the publica cena, the prohibition of the sale of any cooked food except vegetables in the cook shops, the infliction of punishments on Christians, the prohibition of the disorderly revels of the charioteers, etc. Every other regulation which is mentioned in the list is the permanent institution of a custom, or the lasting suppression of an abuse. It would be quite inconsistent with the others to introduce in the midst of them a statement which meant only that a number of Christians were executed on the charge of causing a fire. The fair and natural interpretation of Suetonius words is, that he considered Nero to have maintained a steady prosecution of a mischievous class of persons, in virtue of his duty to maintain peace and order in the city, and to have intended that this prosecution should be permanent. Such a steady prosecution implies a permanent settled policy; and if the chapter of Suetonius had been the only extant passage of a pagan writer referring to the subject, the view which is here stated would in all probability have been universally accepted. As we sec, this interpretation is in perfect harmony with all we have gathered from Pliny.

Contrast with this Suetonius account of the action taken by Claudius in the case of the disturbances which took place among the Jews in Rome about A.D. 52. [Note: Claud. 25. Here we have, according to the generally accepted view, a proof that the Christians were still considered under Claudius to be a mere Jewish sect; and dissensions between Christians and Jews were described in the authorities employed by Suetonius as “continued disturbances among the Jews."] This measure, which is obviously a single act suited to a special occasion, and does not involve the institution of any general rule, is mentioned along with the taking away of freedom from Lycia, the giving of freedom to Rhodes, the remission of tribute of the Ilians, the permitting of the German ambassadors to sit beside the Armenian and Tarthian envoys in the orchestra. The whole list is of the same kind, individual and single exertions of authority in special cases. None of them involves a general principle or the institution of a permanent rule applicable to all cases of a class.

Comparison of these two passages of Suetonius shows that he considered the action of Nero as different in character from that of Claudius. The latter expelled all Jews from Rome; but, as we know from other authorities, this was a mere single isolated act, and involved no lasting judgment. The former, on the contrary laid down a permanent principle regulating the attitude of the government towards the parties affected, viz., the Christians ; and this inference would certainly have been drawn by all historians had it not been for the authority of Tacitus, who has been interpreted as contradicting the view naturally suggested by Suetonius. Now, even if Tacitus words were as strongly opposed to this view as is usually thought, it might be plausibly argued that Suetonius was almost certainly acquainted with Tacitus opinion, and intentionally dissents from it; and, as he used excellent authorities, his express contradiction must be accepted. But I believe that Tacitus description has in parts been misunderstood, and that there is no serious contradiction, but a slightly different and more detailed version of the same facts. Suetonius gives merely a brief statement of the permanent administrative principle into which Nero s action ultimately resolved itself. Tacitus prefixes to his account of the same result a description of the origin and gradual development of Nero’s action; and the picture which he draws is so impressive and so powerful as to concentrate attention, and withdraw the mind of the reader from the final stage and the implied result of the Emperor’s action.

3. FIRST STAGE IN NERO’S ACTION.

Let us then turn to Tacitus account, and try to disentangle the facts as they were conceived by him. To do so successfully, we must try as much as possible to look from Tacitus point of view, and to assume the tone and the emotion with which he looked down from the lofty, serene height of philosophy on the toil, and zeal, and earnestness, and enthusiastic errors of miserable Christian.

According to Tacitus, Nero wished to divert from himself the indignation which was universally entertained against him as the author of the conflagration which destroyed great part of Rome in A.D. 64. He turned to his purpose the popular dislike of the new sect of fanatics, who were generally detested on account of the abominable crimes of which they were supposed to be guilty, [Note: Tacitus probably exaggerates the popular hatred (p. 346).] and who were nicknamed by the populace " Christians." He laid the blame of the fire on them, as being enemies of society, eager to injure the city. The Christians, therefore, were sought out. Those first of all who openly confessed the charge of Christianity were hurried to trial. Then on the information elicited at their trial, [Note: The word indicum is obviously not used in its strict sense of evidence given by a criminal who denounces his accomplices on promise of impunity, nor can we suppose that the first arrested Christians voluntarily called attention to others; hence we must understand information elicited from them during their trial.] many others were involved in their fate, [Note: I see no reason either to adopt the almost universally accepted emendation convicttio? coniuncti, or to have recourse to Boissier’s awkward coniuncti reperti stint. Tacitus rhetoric is responsible for the doubts. We must accept the MS. reading (corrected in all but the original and important MS.). Tacitus does not expressly state in precise terms that the accused were condemned: “they were hurried to trial; they were executed with novel refinements of punishment." Had he said merely this he could not have been misunderstood; all would have recognized the rhetorical device which leaves the essential point of condemnation to the reader, and hurries on to the final scene. But, in order to picture the hurry still more effectively, a sentence referring to a second class of criminals is interposed between the two clauses which describe the trial and the punishment respectively and so we have the form : "First, some were tried; then others were involved in the same fate : they were executed," etc. Cuq alone prefers the MS. reading, interpreting coniuncti as a legal term in the sense of “called on to answer the same charge." Arnold, with some justice, protests against the technical term in this highly rhetorical passage. I should rather understand a bold Tacitean, not technical, but poetical usage, such as Ann., xiii. 17: Nox eadem necein Britannici et rogum coniunxit (cp. Ann, vi. 26, iv. 57, 33, etc., for various bold uses of this verb). “They were put side by side with (or immediately after) “the first class of culprits.”] far less on the charge of incendiarism, than of hostility to society and hatred of the world. [Note: Haud fierinde is to be interpreted on the analogy of xiii. 21, where Agrippina, defending herself against Silana’s accusation that she had plotted against her own son Nero, says neque proinde a parentibus liberiquam ab imfiudica adulteri mutantur. “Parents are not so ready to change their children as a shameless woman like Solana is to change her lovers “i.e., while Gripping would not actually deny that parents occasionally turn away from their own children, the other case is infinitely more common. So here Tacitus is not prepared to assert that no one was actually involved in, and convicted on, the charge of incendiarism; but the other charge was far more common.] Their punishment was turned into an amusement to divert the populace; for example, they were made to play the part of Actaeon torn by his dogs, or were fixed on crosses [Note: Arnold s alteration, sunt, flammandiutque} is, I think, a change in the right direction; but the general sense is not doubtful.] to be set on fire, and to serve as torches at nightly festivities held in the Vatican Gardens.

4. SECOND STAGE: CHARGE OF HOSTILITY TO SOCIETY. But the trials and punishments of the Christians continued even after all pretence of connection with the fire had been abandoned. The safety of the people, it was argued, required that these enemies of society should be severely dealt with ; and more general charges of employing unlawful means to affect the minds of their victims among the people and turn them from the ways of their fathers, were brought against them, and easily proved. There can be no question that this action was at first popular with the mob. It furnished them with an object on which to direct for the moment the rage and frenzy aroused by the great fire; and popular feeling was already against the Christians. But, as Tacitus emphatically says, and as Pliny afterwards attests, the judgment of the mob on the origin of the fire was not permanently blinded: Nero was the real culprit, and not these miserable victims. At last popular feeling veered round, and the Roman public began to feel compassion for the Christians. Guilt} - indeed they were, and well deserved was their punishment; but the people thought that they were being exterminated rather to gratify the cruelty of an individual than from consideration of the common weal. On this interpretation we observe a remarkable analogy to the action of the English law-courts and people during the "Popish Plot" in 1679 action which in respect of brutality, injustice, and unreasoning credulity, furnishes a fit parallel to the Neronian trials. We have first a frenzy of terror and rage against the Christians, who arc tried on the charge of incendiarism. In the fear and excitement of the people, witnesses were easily found, and immediately believed. Soon, however, some variety in the accusations was needed, and this was supplied by the hatred of society (odium humani generis], of which the Christians were universally believed to be guilty. The new charge was obviously as easily proved and as readily credited as the first. But gradually popular feeling changed both in Rome in 64 and in England in 1679. The number of executions sated the people, and a reaction occurred. To understand the development of Nero s action, it is necessary to conceive clearly and precisely what is meant by the hatred of the world with which the Christians were charged (odium humani generis]. It was not the mere abstract emotion of which they were accused, but the actions in which that emotion manifested itself. To the Romans genus humannm meant, not mankind in general, but the Roman world men who lived according to Roman manners and laws; the rest of the human race were enemies and barbarians. The Christians then were enemies to civilized man and to the customs and laws which regulated civilized society. They were bent on relaxing the bonds that held society together; they introduced divisions into families, and set children against their parents; and this end they attained by nefarious means, working on the minds of their devotees by magical arts. [Note: Odium hicmani generis was, as Arnold aptly points out, the crime of poisoners and magicians, p. 23, n. i. The punishments inflicted on the Christians under Nero are those ordered for magicians. Paullus, Sentent. V. 23, 17, " Magicce artis conscios summo supplicio affici placuit, id est, bestiis obici aut cntci suffigi. Ifisi autem magi vivi exuruntur" Constantine ordered that feralis pest is absumat those who used magic arts (Cod. Theodos., ix. 16, 5); and also that haruspices should be burned (ib. ix. 16, i).] All this they did with a view to practice their abominable crimes (flagitia) more freely. So elastic an accusation was easily proved in the excited state of popular feeling. The Christians were in truth hostile to certain customs practiced freely in Roman society, but considered by them as vicious or irreligious; and the principle was readily admitted that he that is an enemy to a part is an enemy to the whole. The Christians were bent on destroying civilization, and civilization must in self-defence destroy them. [Note: In this connection the phrase utilitate publica is important. Obviously Nero assigned the common interest as the reason for his continued persecution of the Christians.] The crime of employing magical arts to compass their nefarious purposes was closely connected with this, and was even more easily proved. The extraordinary influence which the new religion acquired over its votaries, the marvellous reformation which it wrought in its converts, the enthusiastic devotion and unbending resolution of the whole body, were all proofs that supernatural means and forbidden arts were employed.

Tacitus has been criticized on the ground that there is no authority to prove that such flagitia were attributed to the Christians earlier than the second century.

Putting out of sight that in 1 Peter 2:12, "they speak against you as evildoers," [Note: καταλαλουντεσ υμων ως κακοποιων] these popular accusations arc distinctly referred to, we may reply that numerous historical examples show that such crimes were likely to be attributed to the private meetings of the Christians from the beginning. It is a real difficulty to understand how Fronto, the monitor of Marcus Aurelius, could credit these flagitia [Note: According to the representation of his words by Minucius Felix, Oct. 9 and 31,] but there is needed no proof that Tacitus is right in attributing the belief to the vulgar of the year 64. We find in his words a strong proof that he is giving the views held in 64, and not those which he himself entertained. We need not suppose that so careful an investigator credited them, especially as he so carefully and specially restricts the belief to the vulgar and the past.

5. CRIME WHICH THE CHRISTIANS CONFESSED.

Some other points in Tacitus description need a word. As to the words qui fatebantur, what crime did they confess? Arnold understands that they acknowledged the charge of incendiarism, and gave information against other Christians as guilty of the same crime. Credat Judans Afella : to me this seems absolutely incredible ; and the suggestion which Arnold makes that the Christians were partially implicated in, or at least privy to, the criminal act appears impossible. Moreover, this view is contrary to the recorded facts. If so many of the Christians acknowledged the crime on their trial and denounced others, their complicity in the crime would necessarily have been accepted by the popular opinion. But Arnold himself shows clearly that the popular opinion remained ultimately unshaken about the author of the fire, and that the revulsion of popular feeling which finally occurred was due to the growing conviction that the Christians were innocent and ill-treated. Such a conviction could never have grown up if the Christians had in numbers confessed the crime. The difficulty, which requires from Arnold seven pages of examination, seems to arise entirely from the compression of Tacitus style, and to disappear as soon as we make explicit the thought which is in his mind, and which he expects his readers to have in their minds viz., " The Christians were sought out." Assuming this step as implied in the context, [Note: This thought is implied in the brief introductory sentence: abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et pœnis affecit Christianos; this is the sequence of the narrative, for all that is interposed between Christian as an is a parenthetical description of the Christians. When the parenthesis is omitted, the sense oifatcbantur is clear. Hardly any one before Arnold felt a difficulty. ] Tacitus then proceeds, “Those who acknowledged the charge (of being Christians) were hurried to trial." The form of expression, assuming, but not making explicit in words, a thought implied in the circumstances, is quite in the style of Tacitus.

There is here implied, precisely as in Pliny’s letter, a distinction between two classes of Christians those who made no secret of their religion, but openly professed and, we may perhaps add, taught and preached it, and those who were not known to their neighbours as Christians. We may safely conclude that the latter were the great majority. It is clear that in outward appearance they must have avoided all show of difference from their pagan neighbours. Situated as the}- were in the midst of a society where numberless little acts of life daily expressed respect for the common religion, these persons must in outward show have conformed with the common fashion and the ordinary usages of politeness, though strictly taken such usages implied belief in an idolatrous worship. [Note: For example, the pagan formula D(is) M(anibus) was sometimes used on Christian graves. See below, p. 435] It is of course well known that much controversy existed in the Church during the early centuries as to how far such conformity with the usages and conventions of society was right or permissible; and it is obviously a very delicate point, on which considerable difference of honest opinion is sure to exist, as to where such conformity ceases to be mere compliance with polite conventions, and becomes an acknowledgment of false religion.

6. CHARACTER, DURATION, AND EXTENT OF THE NERONIAN PERSECUTION. The analogy between the narrative of Tacitus and that of Pliny is great; [Note: Besides the points mentioned already in this chapter (fate-bantur, indicio, flagitia) Tacitus uses the phrase superstitio exitiabilis, Plinysuperstitio prava immodica.] but the inference drawn from it that Tacitus coloured his narrative through his knowledge of the situation in the second century is incorrect. There is an even more striking analogy in certain respects between the conduct of Pliny and that of the governor of Gallia Lugduncnsis in A.D. 177. [Note: See above, p. 204. The similarity would certainly be much more striking if we had the report addressed by the governor to Marcus Aurelius; but we only know the situation as it appeared to the Christians in Lugdunum.] In each case the resemblance is due to the essential similarity in the circumstances, and not to the colour imparted by the narrator. In the words of Tacitus, taken by themselves, there is nothing to suggest that the prosecution of the Christians continued for several years; but at the same time there is nothing inconsistent with this conclusion, which was suggested by the words of Suetonius. As we have seen, Tacitus asserts that the larger number (as the passage has been interpreted above, the far larger number) of the accused must have been condemned on the ground of hatred of the world and hostility to society. This went on till the Roman populace was sick of it, and began to pity the sufferers. Here we have the one expression in the whole paragraph that can safely be used as an indication of the extent of the persecution. The phrase ingens multitude alone might quite well be interpreted, in a writer like Tacitus, as indicating that the number arrested and tried was great in view of the charge viz., incendiarism, in which, as a rule, only a small number of persons are likely to unite. But it can have been no inconsiderable number and no short period which brought satiety to a populace accustomed to find their greatest amusement in public butcheries, frequently recurring on a colossal scale. Accordingly those writers, who would minimize the whole occurrence and treat it as the execution of a few Jews, find this statement a difficulty. Schiller treats it as absolutely false and incredible; and he considers that any novelty or intensification of cruelty in the form of execution would be only an additional amusement to the jaded nerves of the mob. [Note: Schiller, Gesch. d. Kaiserreichs unter der Regierung des Nero, p. 437. I quote it from Arnold, not having access to the book.] It certainly is a statement well deserving of careful thought; but probably few will agree with Schiller in thinking it absolutely incredible that the Roman populace could ever grow tired of butchery, or could ever feel that a persecuted class had been unfairly treated. It must, however, be confessed that there is no third alternative. Either Schiller is right and the statement incredible, or else there must have been a great and long-continued massacre. On these grounds we conclude that if Tacitus has correctly represented his authorities, the persecution of Nero, begun for the sake of diverting popular attention, was continued as a permanent police measure under the form of a general prosecution of Christians as a sect dangerous to the public safety.

7. PRINCIPLE OF NERO’S ACTION. As we have seen, Pliny implies that the attitude of the Government towards the Christians was governed by a principle which was already in existence before Trajan’s time. The next question that awaits us is whether the principle is the same as that introduced by Nero. The answer must be in the negative. Pliny and Trajan both assume that Christianity is in itself a crime deserving of death. No question is asked, no investigation is made, about crimes committed by the Christians; the acknowledgment of the Name entails immediate condemnation. But under Nero it is otherwise. The trial is held, and the condemnation is pronounced, in respect not of the Name, but of serious offences naturally connected with the Name (flagitia cohccrentia noinini). These offences are, in the first place, incendiarism, and secondly, hostility to civilized society, which, as we saw, implied the practice of magic and tampering with the established customs of society.

Now we can admit that a certain rhetorical manner veils the bare facts in Tacitus s narrative; but we cannot admit that he has seriously misrepresented them. We have founded our interpretation on the view that he is accurate and trustworthy, and we cannot now abandon it. The action which he attributes to Nero is essentially different from the practice of Trajan’s time. Tacitus was familiar with the later practice; and, since he describes Nero’s action as different from it, we must conclude that he is following older authorities. Unless they had been conclusive on this point, he would naturally have described the action of Nero as similar to that of his own time. The chapter of Tacitus describes the action of A.D. 64; and Nero reigned four years longer. Now the development is easy from the stage described by Tacitus (in which proof is required that an accused Christian has committed some act of hostility to society) to the further stage implied by Pliny (in which it is assumed that Christians arc all guilty of such hostility, and may be condemned offhand on confession of the Name). Was this further step taken in the later years of Nero, and mentioned, as we must then suppose, by Tacitus in a later chapter?

Within the reign of Nero there is hardly enough time for such a development. The persecution began in 64, and it was obviously at an end when Nero left Rome towards the end of 66. [Note: This does not mean that executions of Christians ceased entirely, but that they were sporadic. The fact remains always that Christianity, as a disturbing influence, was opposed and punished by the State, whenever anything of a marked character drew the attention of the Government to it.] It had been continued by the Emperor after the people had become sick of it; and when his personal influence was withdrawn, it can hardly have continued. Flavius Sabinus, who was prefect of the city at the time, was not a person likely to urge it on actively, and the populace was opposed to it.

It is true that Sulpicius Severus, whose account of the Neronian persecution is founded on Tacitus, and stated almost in his words, proceeds, “This was the beginning of severe measures against the Christians. Afterwards the religion was forbidden by formal laws, and the profession of Christianity was made illegal by published edicts." [Note: Chron., ii. 29.] But the value of this late evidence depends entirely on its source; and there can be no doubt that this author’s account of the Neronian persecution has no authority, except in so far as he quotes from Tacitus. Now this statement was certainly not founded on anything that was said in the Annals; for the chapter, xv. 44, has the appearance of summing up the whole subject of Nero’s attitude towards the Christians, and there seems to be no opportunity for Tacitus to resume it in the conclusion of the work. [Note: The extant part of the Annals brings down the history till the summer or autumn of 66. Before the end of 66 Nero went away to Greece, and only returned in 68, just in time to hear of the revolt of Vindex. During the few weeks of his reign that remained, his attention must have been absorbed with more pressing needs than the trials of Christians.]

There are then only two alternatives in regard to the statement of Sulpicius Severus. Either it is a pure amplification of his own, inconsistent with Tacitus and possessing no authority, or it must be interpreted as referring to the action of subsequent emperors. I incline to the latter alternative. Sulpicius having described the beginning of persecution under Nero, adds a sentence briefly describing the repressive measures, more marked in theory, but not more terrible in action, which were decreed by later emperors.

But, as we have inferred from Suetonius, Nero introduced the principle of punishing the Christians. Is the account given by Tacitus consistent with this? The answer must be affirmative. In any single trial the general principle must have been laid down that certain acts, which all Christians were regularly guilty of, were worthy of death. Even after Nero left Rome, the prefect of the city would be bound to follow the example set by the Emperor; for it would be treason to dispute or disregard it. [Note: If the widely entertained opinion, that St. Paul was executed in A.D. 67 or 68, be right, we have an example of the trials which took place during Nero s absence before one of his delegates, probably the prefect of the city.] When Nero had once established the principle in Rome, his action served as a precedent in every province. There is no need to suppose a general edict or a formal law. The precedent would be quoted in every case where a Christian was accused. Charges such as had been brought against Paul in so many places were certainly brought frequently against others; and the action of the Emperor in Rome would give the tone to the action of the provincial governors.

We conclude, therefore, that between 68 and 96 the attitude of the State towards the Christians was more clearly defined, and that the process was changed, so that proof of definite crimes committed by the Christians (flagitia coJucrentia nomini} was no longer required, but acknowledgment of the Name alone sufficed for condemnation. Nero treats a great many Christians as criminals, and punishes them for their crimes. Pliny and Trajan treat them as outlaws and brigands, and punish them without a reference to crimes.

8. EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS.

Finally, we have to ask what the evidence of contemporary Christian documents is. In the Apocalypse and in First Peter the development has taken place, and Christians suffer for the Name. Both these documents have been referred to this period, the former by many recent critics, and the latter by tradition, which supposes St. Peter to have perished in the Neronian persecution. But in the following chapter we shall try to show that both belong to the latter part of the first century. As to the other documents of this period (admitting, as we do, the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles), we find in them no hint about persecution for the Name. Persecution is indeed alluded to as imminent on all; but it is not an organized persecution directed by the Government, nor do we find explicit references to punishment for the Name simply. The advice given by St. Paul as to the relations of the Christians to the society in which they are placed, is always in accordance with the situation which we have described as occupied by them under Nero. They should avoid, as far as is consistent with religion, the appearance of interfering with the present social order. The proper rule of life is to accept the world’s facts, not as in themselves right, but as indifferent, and to waste no time and thought on them. Slaves must be obedient. In society Christians are to observe the courtesies of life, though these had often a religious appearance. The most developed and pointed expressions in Paul are perhaps 1 Timothy 4:1, where slaves are counselled to “count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and the doctrine be not blasphemed," and Titus 2:4-5, where the young women are advised to maintain strictly the proper relations of family life, " that the word of God be not blasphemed." In both cases the position of Christians in pagan households is not merely not excluded, but is even the prominent idea. [Note: In the former passage heathen masters are expressly meant, for Christian masters are distinguished in the next verse. In the latter the analogy of1 Peter 3:1shows what the true significance is.] The established social order must, where possible, be respected, for any vain interference with it will give rise to calumnies and accusations against the Christians who bear the name of God, and against the doctrine which they teach.

James 2:6 stands on the same plane as the passage which has just been quoted from I Timothy: “Do not the rich persecute you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? Do not they blaspheme the honourable name by the ye are called?" Here and in 1 Timothy 6:1, the name is not spoken of in the tone used twenty years later, when it becomes almost a technical formula. [Note: That stage is marked in these pages by using the capital. James, strictly, does not bear on our present subject, see p. 349. ] The danger about 65-70 is that calumnies and false charges be circulated, and the Christians tried for these imputed crimes. In such trials recantation is not sought for, and would be no palliation of the crimes charged against the Christians.

All these familiar passages suit the close of the Neronian period, as we have described it. It would, however, require a special chapter to go over the Epistles of Paul from this point of view, and to show their agreement with the facts which we have elicited from Tacitus and Suetonius. As in all early Christian literature, the persecutions to which the Christians are liable occupy much less space than might perhaps be expected; only in a passing word or an obscure implication is any attention paid to them. But through the period that engages our attention paucity of references to persecutions can never be taken as a proof that none were going on. Probably “the doctrine " would never have surmounted them, if the attention of its teachers had been much given to them.

Incidentally we may here note that the tone of the Pastoral Epistles in this respect is consistent only with an early date. It is difficult for the historian of the Empire to admit that they were composed after that development of the Imperial policy towards the Christians which occurred (as we shall see in the following chapter) under the Flavian Emperors. But as this remark touches on a keenly controverted point, a little more space may fitly be devoted to the subject. I take Holtzmann’s Pastoralbriefe, p. 267, as the most complete statement of the opposite view, that the references to persecution denote a late date towards the middle of the second century. [Note: Among Holtzmann s indications of later date, none appear strong. An analogy to Apuleius does not tell much in favour of the date he assigns, 112-150. Every analogy to anything mentioned in later literature is taken, most uncritically and unhistorically, as a proof that an early date is impossible. Such analogies often merely prove general similarity in the situation; see p. 204-5.] The seeking out of the Christians (δίωξις, διωγμός) is alluded to in 2 Timothy 3:12 (γιωχθσονται); but it was practised from the first day of the Neronian persecution. The suffering of affliction and persecution (κακοπαθεν) is the lot of all Christians (2 Timothy 3:12, etc.) ; but the kind of suffering is expressly defined as the same to which Paul himself was exposed, and Holtzmann cannot surely be serious when he quotes these passages as a proof of a second century date (2 Timothy 3:11, 2 Timothy 4:17-18). There were some who showed cowardice, and shrank from enduring the persecution ; but we need not ask for proof that recantation occurred in Nero’s time, as well as in the second or the third century. The suffering is endured by the Christian as if he was a malefactor, and this treatment is complained of as unjust! (2 Timothy 2:9); but that is exactly the tone of the Xcronian period, and the Greek word Kettcovpyoi refers expressly to the Flagitia, for which the Christians were condemned under Nero, and for which they were no longer condemned in A.D. 112. Finally Holtzmann quotes rightly the analogy between 1 Peter 2:12 and 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:5, [Note: Bλασ¦ημειν is used in Clement, Epist., § 47; but that is no proof that the Epistles to Timothy were composed at the same time as Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. I do not know what date Holtzmann assigns to Clement Epistle, or whether he quotes this analogy as a proof of the date of Timothy.] And between 1 Peter 4:15 and 2 Timothy 2:9. But it is precisely these verses in 1 Peter which mark that epistle as retaining traces of earlier feeling, and as standing in the transition from the Neronian period to the formulated persecution of the Flavian period, when the Name is explicitly prohibited. Moreover, the flagilia were a standing reproach in all periods.

Holtzmann appeals to the use of βασιλεισ in the plural in 1 Timothy 2:2, as a proof that conjoint emperors were reigning at the time. It is undoubtedly true that the use of the plural often furnishes an excellent and conclusive criterion of date. On this ground we may probably date the Acta of Carpus and Papylus, the True Word of Celsus, and several other documents, in the joint reign of M. Aurelius and L. Verus. Even though the singular βασιλενς be used in the same document, the argument is still valid; for the singular was the ordinary usage, into which a writer was apt to slip. [Note: I cannot therefore agree with the inference that Lightfoot draws from the use of the singular by Celsus. See his Ignat. and Polyc. i. p. 530, 593 n, edition II.] This rule can be proved by the usage of Athenagoras, and many other writers. [Note: Many of the cases are rightly quoted by Holtzmann, p. 269; see also Neumann, p. 58 n] But the case is quite different in 1 Timothy 2:2; the writer directs that a general rule be observed to pray “for all men; for kings and all that are in high place." The term βασιλεων without the article cannot be understood as denoting "the emperors who arc reigning at the present time; “it means” emperors (or sovereigns) in general." Where any definite information has reached us, we find that the accusations made against the Christians through out the reigns of Claudius and Nero are, as a rule, of the type just described e.g., at Philippi, " these men set forth customs which it is not lawful for us to receive or observe, being Romans " (Acts 16:21); at Thessalonica "they that have turned the world upside down." On the other hand, where the accusation was a purely religious one as at Corinth, "this man persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law” (Acts 18:13) the Roman governor refused to listen to a charge that was not on “a matter of wrong or of wicked villany." So St. Paul’s judges in Palestine agreed that there was no real charge against him, and that, if he had not appealed to the Emperor, he might have been set free.

One charge especially, which soon afterwards became a standing one and the regular test and touchstone of persecution, is never alluded to under Nero: this was the refusal to comply with the established and official worship of the emperors. That religion, though widely and willingly practiced in the provinces, was not yet explicitly adopted by the State as a political institution. Disrespect to the Emperor had indeed already been treated in Rome as treason (majestas, ασέβεια) ; but there is no evidence that as yet this charge had been brought against the Christians, [Note: Treason is, indeed, involved in the charge at Thessalonica : "These all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another King, one Jesus." But this and similar instances are quite different in type from the charge of treason founded on refusal to worship the Emperor. They belong to an early period, before the charge had been formulated in its developed shape.] or that compliance with the rites of the Imperial religion was formally proposed to them as the test of their faith. That treatment belongs to the later period, and marks the stage when they arc condemned for the Name, and when their death constitutes them “Witnesses” (μάρτνρεσ) to the Name. Under Nero they are not martyrs in the strict sense; they arc only sufferers. The action of Nero inaugurates a new era in the relation of the Empire towards Christianity; or, to speak more precisely, the Empire then for the first time adopted a definite attitude towards the new religion. So says Suetonius, and Tacitus does not disagree. Hitherto the Roman officials had, on the whole, treated the Christians with indifference, or even with favour mingled with contempt (see p. 133). Where they acted harshly, cither they were influenced by the enmity of influential Jews, or they punished the Christians as being connected with disturbances, which were due in whole or in part to their presence and action. But after 64 A.D. the example set by the Emperor necessarily guided the action of all Roman officials towards the Christians. As yet, however, the religion was not in itself a crime.