12-CHAPTER 12. THE FLAVIAN POLICY TOWARDS THE CHURCH.

CHAPTER 12. THE FLAVIAN POLICY TOWARDS THE CHURCH.

DURING the two years that immediately followed the death of Nero, the anarchy and confusion of the struggle for power would naturally prevent any development in the Imperial policy. The attention of the rival emperors and of the governors of provinces must have been almost entirely concentrated on the great struggle; and none but the most pressing business of government can have been attended to. We thus reach the year 70, when the Flavian dynasty was firmly settled in power. Here unfortunately we lose the guidance of Tacitus, whose Histories of the Flavian period would have doubtless cleared away the obscurity which envelops this critical time in the relations of the Church to the Empire. We possess only the brief biographies of Suetonius, which are personal studies, not formal history, Xiphilin’s epitome of the history of Dion Cassius, and various other even poorer documents. In the dearth of contemporary and trustworthy authorities we are compelled, unless we leave this period a blank, to have recourse to hypothesis. The development in the State action, which has been alluded to on p. 242, must fall between 70 and 96. What can we learn or conjecture about the way in which it took place?

1. TACITUS CONCEPTION OF THE FLAVIAN POLICY.

It will serve our purpose best to begin by considering the attitude of Tacitus as a historian towards the Christians. In Annals, xv. 44, he introduces them into his pages. [Note: In the Histories, which were written before the Atmals, the Christians were certainly mentioned as a developed sect. Tacitus wrote the Annals to lead up to the completed Histories.] After mentioning the names popularly applied to them and the hatred popularly entertained towards them, he describes their origin and early history. From this elaborate and careful introduction we may infer, first, that Tacitus, with the fuller knowledge of their importance as a factor in Roman history which he possessed in A.D. 12O, [Note: Taking this as a rough date for the composition of Annals, xv.] considered this to be the moment when they entered on the stage of his history ; and, second, that the carefulness and parade with which the new factor is introduced mark the entrance of a figure which is to play some important part in the tragedy. [Note: We must remember that in the ancient plays every important figure is formally introduced to the audience at its first appearance.] In the conclusion of the Anuals, as we have seen, this figure can have played no part; but in the Histories there can be no doubt that the Christians were mentioned several times. Although this work is lost, except for the years 68-70, we have in the pages of Sulpicius Severus, as has been proved by Bernays, [Note: See his paper, a masterpiece of analysis, über die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus, republished in his Gesammelte Abhandlungen.] an epitome of one important passage. This fourth century writer used Tacitus carefully: he made extracts almost verbatim from the account of the Neronian persecution in the Annals, xv. 44; and Bernays have discussed his relation to Tacitus, and have shown that there are strong signs of a Tacitean origin in Sulpicius narrative of the council of war, which was held after the capture of Jerusalem. In this council different opinions were expressed. Some thought that the temple should be left uninjured. Others, and among them Titus himself, expressed the view that the Temple especially ought to be destroyed, in order that the religions [Note: Tacitus, of course, called them superstitiones but Sulpicius altered the term to religiones.] of the Jews and of the Christians might be more completely extirpated ; for these religions, though opposed to each other, had yet the same origin. The Christians had arisen from amongst the Jews; and, when the root was torn up, the stem would easily be destroyed. This speech cannot be supposed to embody the actual words of Titus. Very probably it was composed by Tacitus himself; but its importance is even greater in that case, for it would then embody the historian’s mature conception of the nature of the Flavian policy towards the Christians, as shown in the whole course of their rule. Whether then it gives an abstract of Titus actual speech, reported by some member of the council, or was composed by Tacitus, it is a historical document of the utmost importance, and we must examine it carefully. In Titus speech the difference between Judaism and Christianity is fully recognized; but the fact is not grasped that the latter was quite independent of the Temple and of Jerusalem as a centre. Titus had only a superficial knowledge of the Christians and their principles, gained entirely from his experience in Palestine; and the circumstances of Palestinian Christianity quite explain his idea of its connexion with the Temple.

Further Titus regarded both the Jewish and the Christian religions as evils to be extirpated; but he believed that they had a local home and centre, with which their organization was connected and on which they were dependent. The hypothesis is inevitably forced on us that, when Christianity was found to be independent of a centre at Jerusalem, and to flourish unchecked after the Temple was destroyed, the enmity that underlies the speech of Titus would be carried into vigorous action. If that were not so, the speech of Titus loses all its force and appropriateness; but, if our hypothesis as to the subsequent policy is correct, his speech appears as a fitting and dramatic introduction, worthily put into the mouth of the conqueror of Jerusalem. In the following books Tacitus would show how the emperors, when settled in Rome, and masters of the information about the Christians contained in the Imperial archives and steadily accumulating during their reign, resumed the Neronian vigour of repression. [Note: The passage in which Severus describes the subsequent development of Nero’s policy towards the Christians has been quoted above (p. 243); and Bernays has taught us how much use that chronicler made of Tacitus. Is he in this passage, with its reference to laws and edicts, giving his own general impression derived from the Histories of Tacitus? It is possible that he is; but if so, we must take exception to the words edicts and laics. We must hold that Sulpicius uses these terms loosely and inaccurately; and perhaps a chronicler of the fourth century was quite as likely to use the words loosely, as we have found some modern writers to be, even while they aim at scrupulous and rigid accuracy. (See above, p. 194.)]

Mommsen also is strongly inclined to the opinion that the account of the council of war which Sulpicius Severus gives (flatly contradicted as it is by the contemporary Jewish historian Josephus), is derived from Tacitus ; and he unreservedly adopts the view, that "the Jewish insurrection had too clearly brought to light the dangers involved in this formation of a national religious union on the one hand rigidly concentrated, on the other spreading over the whole East, and having ramifications even in the West." [Note: Provinces, ii. p. 216. I have slightly altered the printed translation.] 2. CONFIRMATION OF NERO’S POLICY BY VESPASIAN. Our hypothesis is that this development took place under Vespasian, after some years of his reign had elapsed. But the brief remainder of his reign, and the short reign of Titus, did not impress themselves on the memory of the Christians. [Note: But of course there probably were, even in the interval 68-75 A.D; isolated cases of accusation and trial, and, no doubt, condemnation, of Christians. The reference of Hilary to a persecution under Vespasian is only a slip in expression. A writer of the fourth century, who enumerates as three types of the persecutor Nero, Vespasian, and Decius, must not be quoted as a witness to a persecution under Vespasian (as is hesitatingly done by Lightfoot, Ignat. and Pol., i., p. 15). He meant Domitian, who was the second type.] Hence Domitian alone was remembered as the persecutor, ranking along with Nero; and the execration and condemnation, which were deserved by his personal character and conduct in other respects, have been apportioned to him in the popular memory of Christian times on account of a policy to which he was only the heir. His action was not due to his personal idiosyncrasies; it was the natural development of the Imperial policy, and the facts and reasons on which it was founded were stored in the Imperial archives, and were, of course, consulted by Trajan before he replied to Pliny. It is possible that a reference to Vespasian s actions occurs in a mutilated passage of Suetonius, where it is said that " never in the death of any one did Vespasian [take pleasure, and in the case of] merited punishments he even wept and groaned." The words in brackets are restored to fill up an obvious gap in the text of the MSS.; but this restoration is not sufficient We have here indubitably a reference to some class or individuals, whose punishment Vespasian felt himself compelled to accept while he regretted it; for it is inconceivable that Vespasian, a Roman, a soldier of long experience in the bloody wars of Britain and Judea, wept and groaned at every " merited " execution, as the restored text would imply. We think of the punishments which by the principle of Nero attached to the Christians; we saw from the way in which Suetonius mentioned Nero’s measure that he considered it a good one; he uses the same term supplicia in both places. Does not the second passage (Vesp. 15) look back to the first (Nero 16), and is not Suetonius here continuing in his own way the same subject? A more detailed reference did not enter into his plan. The principle was instituted by Nero. It continued permanently; and Suetonius would, according to his usual practice, not again allude to it, were it not for the detail, interesting to a biographer, that Vespasian wept while he confirmed its operation.

What form did the confirmation take? As yet Nero’s principle was merely unwritten law, according to which the governors, when any case came before them, judged it according to the precedent set them by the Emperor. The punishment of Christians was administrative, not judicial. The same character continues to attach to it under the Flavian Emperors and under Trajan (see p. 207). Hence we need not suppose that any edict or law was passed; only rescripts were issued to inquiring governors. But such repressive measures could not remain in the form which Nero gave them: they must develop to their logical conclusion; and the followers of a sect, whose tendency was to unsettle the foundations and principles of Roman society, were held as outlaws, and the very name treated as a crime. Such seems the natural course foreshadowed in the speech which the great historian puts into the mouth of Titus; and such is the state of administrative procedure, when Pliny was first called on to conduct cognitiones in the case of Christians.

If the theory just stated be not accepted, the only possible alternative seems to be that under Nero the attitude of the Roman State towards the Christians was determined finally. We have rejected this alternative (see p. 243), for Tacitus s evidence on the point is conclusive against it, though the weight of Suetonius evidence is rather in its favour.

3. THE PERSECUTION OF DOMITIAN.

It may safely be asserted that it is only the date of the proscription which is hypothetical; its occurrence at some time before the downfall of the Flavian dynasty is certain. The persecution of Domitian burned itself incredibly into the memory of history; it may be doubted by the critic, but not by the historian. He that has only an eye for details, that " sees hairs and pores, examines bit by bit," will always find the evidence defective for almost every detail and fact of the persecution. But the historian who can discern "How parts relate to parts, or they to whole, The body’s harmony, the beaming soul," can never feel any doubt as to the general character of Domitian’s action towards the Christians, and will always see in it the same type of absolute proscription of the Name, which was taken by Pliny and Trajan as predetermined. So strong and early a tradition as that which constitutes Domitian the second great persecutor cannot be discredited without wrecking the foundations of ancient history. Those who discredit it must, to be consistent, resolve to dismiss nine-tenths of what appears in books as ancient history, including most that is interesting and valuable.

It is urged that it was the interest of the Christians to represent the two worst emperors, Nero and Domitian, as the two great persecutors; and therefore their evidence is dismissed as unworthy of credit. Pliny tortured the two Christian deaconesses, before he would accept their evidence; but he applied the same process to heathen slaves. To be consistent let us apply the same standard to all our authorities; and we then must begin with Thucydides, who had the strongest motives for misrepresenting the Athenian policy. If it were contended that ancient history as a whole is uncertain and unknowable, no reply need be made; but the same measure must be applied to it throughout; and on the ordinary standards of history, Domitian’s persecution is as certain as that of Nero. [Note: Schiller is consistent in disbelieving the evidence for both. He considers that ἀθεόljης and ἀσέβεια are used indifferently in this period as translations of the Latin impietas, which quite explains his consistent skepticism. If we take from the words of the ancient historians only such vague and loose ideas as a schoolboy gets from his lexicon, we cannot find much evidence in them. See his Gash. der room. Kaiser zest, i., p. 537. Neumann (pp. 14 and 17) points out the stricter sense in which these Greek terms were used.] The only passage in which any pagan writer mentions punishments inflicted by Domitian for religious reasons, occurs in the Epitome of the history of Dion Cassius, made in the eleventh century by the monk Xiphilin. Dion mentioned that Flavins Clemens, consul A.D. 95 and cousin of the Emperor, and his wife Flavia Domitilla, niece of the Emperor, were tried on a charge of sacrilege (ἀθεόljης). [Note: Neumann (p. 17) has observed that this is the technical sense of the word ἀθεόljης. We might at first expect that ὶσέβείια would be the rendering of the Latin sacrilegium; but it was pre-occupied as the translation of majestas. The word ίερ͟συλία, which was in earlier times (e.g., Acts 19:37) used to represent sacrilegium, was too loose a rendering; and the use of this old term in Acta Pauli et Theklae (see p. 401) stamps the episode in which it occurs as early.] Clemens was executed, and Domitilla was banished. A great many others were put to death or deprived of their property on the same charge, among them being Acilius Glabrio, consul in A.D. 91, who had after his consulship been sent into exile. Dion mentions that the persons against whom this charge was brought had gone astray after the manners of the Jews. We see, therefore, that a number of Roman citizens had changed their religion, and that the charge on which they were tried was sacrilege. The first question which has to be determined is what was the religion which these Romans had adopted. Was it Judaism or Christianity, or did some adopt one religion, some another?

It is certain that Clemens and Domitilla suffered as Christians. The evidence is complete and conclusive, and there is practical agreement on almost all hands among modern writers on this point. [Note: Domitilla’s memory as a martyr was preserved, and the catacomb on the Ardeatine Way, where she was buried, was called afterwards by her name. It is known from inscriptions that the ground in which this catacomb was situated belonged to her. De Rossi’s discoveries on this point will be found most conveniently summarized in Lightfoot Clement, i., p. 35 ff. Eusebius mentions that Domitilla was a Christian (H. E., iii. 18, and Chron., pp. 162-3, anno 2112). Christian tradition speaks of both Clemens and Domitilla as Christian, and Syncellus, p. 650 ( Bonn edition), records this (the divergent accounts of Domitilla’s relationship are explained, probably rightly, by Lightfoot); while the Christianity of Clemens is not so well attested as that of Domitilla, there is at least no doubt that suspicions of this contributed to cause his trial and prompted the charges on which he was condemned. The Acta Nerei et Achillei also attests the fact of their religion. On Suetonius’ view, see below, p. 271.] The question as to Acilius Glabrio’s religion is more difficult, and opinion is much more divided. But in the account given by Dion it is difficult to separate his offence from that of Clemens and the others. [Note: Lightfoot’s attempt to separate them seems to me to be unsuccessful. (Clem., i., p. 81, n. 6.)] Dion reported by Xiphilin is not a very high authority ; but, so far as his evidence goes, it is that Acilius belonged to the same class of criminals as Clemens and others, [Note: An additional charge was brought against Acilius, of having fought in the arena during his consulship, and thus (we may infer) injured the " majesty " of Rome. He was, therefore, accused both of sacrilege and treason.] and that they were Christians. Moreover, when we read of De Rossi’s recent excavations, we can hardly refuse to follow Dion. De Rossi found that the original centre of a group of catacombs beside the Via Salaria consisted of a gamma-shaped crypt attached to a small chapel. In the chapel was buried the person who gave sanctity to the whole group of catacombs, and near whom other Christians wished to repose. [Note: The eager desire of the Christians to be buried near the grave of some saint or martyr (sanctis martyribus sociari) is a well-known and widely prevalent fact. (See Le Blant, Suppl. aux Actes des Martyrs, p. 272.) In this case, of course, there is no certain proof that the saint or martyr, who was buried in the chapel, belonged to the family which owned the land. Many cases occurred where a martyr’s body was bought or taken by Christians not of his kindred. Several are mentioned in extant Acta. (See Le Blant, p. 282.) But the probability is, of course, strong that the Acilii obtained the body of their own relative, and made it the central point of a new family sepulchre. The comparison of Dion with the discoveries of De Rossi makes the case very strong, but not conclusive.] The crypt was the burial-place of the family on whose property the chapel and the series of catacombs were situated, and to which apparently the person buried in the chapel belonged. The fragmentary inscriptions found here hardly leave room for doubt that the family was that of the Acilius Glabrios. Who then was buried in the chapel? Surely we may, with Dion, connect the charge against Acilius with that against Clemens and Domitilla, and consider that the body of the consul of 91 was brought back from his place of exile, and buried in Rome. It was the regular practice to leave the corpses of criminals free to their friends to tend and bury.

Those persons who are actually named by Dion as having perished on the charge of going astray after Jewish customs prove therefore to be Christians. Taking his words in connection with the persistent tradition about Domitian’s persecution, we cannot doubt that in A.D. 95 many Roman citizens were put to death on suspicion of being Christians, or at least of being connected with Christians.

4. BIAS OF DION CASSIUS. In the next place we have to face the question, why then does Dion speak only of Jewish manners? This fact ceases to present any serious difficulty when we observe that he seems to have studiously refrained throughout his history from referring explicitly to the Christians. [Note: The name occurs three times in Xiphilin’s epitome, but in each case he is plainly supplementing Dion from other authorities. It may be taken as certain that Xiphilin would not omit any reference to the Christians that occurred in Dion. He found none, but introduces references from other sources where he felt bound to complete Dion. The evidence deduced from Zonaras, who also used Dion confirms this conclusion.] This silence is obviously intentional. When Dion wrote in the third century, the Christians were of course perfectly well known; and there were many occasions on which an unbiased historian must have alluded to them. Whether Dion approved or disapproved of them, it was undeniable that they had been a factor of some consequence in the State from the time of Nero onwards. His silence may be compared with the peculiar language of Aelius Aristides, who also makes a "point of not naming the Christians, though he mentions " them in Palestine," in a passage where I cannot doubt that the Christians are at least included in the general description. [Note: Or., xlvi. πρὸς Πλάτωνα ὐπὲρ τω +́ν τεττάρων, vol. ii., p. 394 ff. (ed, Dindorf). This much-controverted passage is discussed more fully below, p. 351 ff.] It was apparently a fashion and an affectation among a certain class of Greek men of letters about 160-240 to ignore the existence of the Christians, and to pretend to confuse them with the Jews. These high-souled philosophic Greeks would not even know the name, for it was a solecism to use such a vulgar and barbarian word as Χριστιανός.

We conclude then that Dion was biased, and that his attitude as an historian has a certain leaning which we must always make allowance for in estimating his testimony. In regard to the events of A.D. 95, we see that it would be quite in his style to describe the crime of Christians by the vague phrase "manners of the Jews"; and we therefore can find in his words no serious discrepancy with the inference which has been drawn from the individual cases mentioned by him.

5. DIFFERENCE OF POLICY TOWARDS JEWS AND CHRISTIANS. On the other hand, if we take Dion’s phrase to imply that he considered Clemens, Acilius, and many others to have been put to death for becoming Jewish proselytes, we are involved in insuperable difficulties, and must reject his evidence as wholly incredible. It is in itself improbable that many Romans had become Jewish proselytes; and it is difficult to account for the entire failure of corroborative evidence. A disposition among some classes of Romans to coquet with Jewish habits is indeed attested; but it was not carried to a degree which would render Dion s account probable.

It is true that under Domitian the Jews suffered much extortionate and harsh treatment. The Jewish poll-tax, which since the Jewish war, 67-70 A.D., had been levied for the benefit of Capitolinc Jupiter, was exacted with great severity. Proselytes, who strictly were not liable, and persons of Jewish origin, who had given up their faith, [Note: The whole history of the Jewish race precludes us from the supposition that these Jews had apostatized to paganism. They can have been only Jewish Christians.] are said to have been compelled to pay. The exaction was accompanied with much hardship, with insult, and even with violence to the person of suspects. [Note: The extreme violence which was applied to reluctant taxpayers is described by M. Le Blant in his Actes des Martyrs, p. 162 ff.] But the object was to enrich the treasury; for after the enormous extravagance of Nero, finance became one of the most important concerns of the Imperial policy. Hence it was that the poll-tax was levied from as many as possible; but for this very reason there appears to have been no slaying of Jews. Finance and not religion dictated the action towards them; and potential taxpayers would not be slain by a needy government, except in rare cases as a warning to others to pay more readily. [Note: See the passage quoted in preceding note. Schiller, i., p. 537, on the contrary, considers that the intention was to weaken the numbers and power of the Jews: Dass die Regierung durch Erhöhung und strenge Beitrebung der Fudensteuer in Rom selbst die Fuden zu decimieren und zu controllieren suchte.]

Finally, another alternative remains for consideration viz., that Christians and Jews were in A.D. 95 still confused with each other by the Romans, and that Dion (who of course was well aware of the difference between them) merely retained the phrase employed by his authorities. In that case the whole view which we have taken as to the attitude of the State towards the Christians during the first century is shown to be erroneous. Many high authorities have maintained that the Imperial Government continued till the time of Pliny and Trajan to consider Christians as a mere sect of the Jews, to speak about both as Jews, and to treat both in the same way. Neumann has correctly observed that this view is inconsistent with the spirit of Pliny’s and Trajan’s letters; but he only moves back a few years the discovery of the Christians by the Government. He thinks it certain that the Christians were reckoned by the Roman Government to be a mere sect of the Jews down to the reign of Domitian; or even if their existence was known, the same regulations applied to them as to the Jews. [Note: Neumann, p. 5 if., p. 14 ff.] The question as to the attitude of the Government towards the Christians had not yet been raised. Hitherto, indeed, the Christians had been affected along with the Jews by occasional measures directed against the latter; but on the whole they lived in freedom, protected by the screen of the legalized Jewish religion. Even under Domitian, Neumann considers that for a time the Christians were still classed among the Jews, and compelled to pay the Jewish poll-tax, and that the strict exaction of the tax revealed to the Government the extent to which Christianity had spread. In the last year but one of Domitian’s reign it was decided that the propagation of the Jewish-Christian religion should be restrained by the law. The Jews, on the other hand, were still tolerated, but Jewish proselytizing was forbidden.

We cannot admit that the Roman Government did not begin until A.D. 95 to understand that Christians were not a mere sect of the Jews, and to consider what should be its policy towards the former. The following reasons seem conclusive against Neumann s view.

6. THE EXECUTIONS OF A.D. 95 AN INCIDENT OF THE GENERAL POLICY.

While we have to differ from Neumann on this point, we find him in other respects quite agreed with the view which we have taken as to the executions of A.D. 95. They were the result of action by the State against the Christians on the ground of their religion. We cannot, however, consider that these executions are by themselves sufficient to explain the persistent tradition which makes Domitian the second great persecutor, or to account for the facts which will be further described in the following chapter. The execution and banishment of Christians in A.D. 95, so far as the record in Dion goes, would appear to have been confined to Roman citizens. The obvious explanation of this is that mere execution of ordinary Christians was not mentioned by Dion any more than he would mention the execution of so many thieves. The attitude of the State towards the Christians during the Flavian period cannot be better described than in the words of Mommsen: "The persecution of the Christians was a standing matter, as was that of robbers." [Note: Provinces of the Roman Empire, ii., p. 199, of the translation.] It was inherent in the nature of the Imperial constitution that it should stamp out Christianity, just as it was inherent in its nature that it should stamp out brigandage. The desultory and fitful nature of the persecutions arose naturally from the situation. The repression of brigandage was as uncertain as the repression of Christianity. Both were permanent evils; and some governors made more or less energetic attempts to carry out completely the fundamental principle which proscribed both, while others made little or no attempt to cope with either. Many governors boasted, or were anxious to boast, that they had brought back from their province their lictors axes unstained with blood. [Note: See Le Blant, Actes des Martyrs, p. 127.] Under their rule little can have been done to punish either Christians or brigands. The Imperial system was inconsistent with the Christian principles of life and society; collision between them was inevitable. The actual moment when the collision first took place was due to accident viz., to the position of Nero in regard to the popular feeling in A.D. 64; but sooner or later it had to take place. Other circumstances determined the precise year of the collision, but the nature of the two powers determined its necessity.

Dion then would have defended his silence about the Christians in general on the ground that they were as far beneath the notice of history as were thieves and other malefactors. Only when Roman citizens were involved did it enter into his plan to allude to the proceedings. But much may be gathered from what he does record; and we may fairly ask what would be done to non-Romans, if noble citizens, consuls and relatives of the Emperor, were put to death on the charge of being Christians? A formal trial must be granted to all Romans, in which the exact accusation was plainly stated, and the character and degree of the crime considered in the sentence; but that gives no reason for thinking that a similar careful trial would be accorded to non-Romans. In their case the magistrate simply made the investigation necessary for attaining certainty about the facts, and forthwith exercised on the parties the powers that belonged to him as the guardian of law and order. The charge against these Romans in A.D. 95 was sacrilege. Now Mommsen has shown conclusively that there was no regular process in Roman law for trying such a crime; and the trial therefore could not be before an ordinary quaestio. A special procedure was required, and there can be no doubt that it was of the following character: the Emperor judged at least the case of his own relatives, and as the ultimate source and arbiter of right he pronounced the fitting decision, or as the supreme magistrate he took what steps he thought right to vindicate propriety and order. But no allusion seems to have been made to crimes connected with, or springing out of, Christianity; the trials were directly concerned with the religion of the accused; and the fact that Romans had become Christians was reckoned as sacrilege and punished with death. This decision of the supreme fountain of law and right must, when applied by magistrates to the case of non-Romans, have taken the form according to which Pliny in his first cognitiones acted, and which he understood to be already settled.

We need not consider that the trials of A.D. 95 were the first that Domitian (or his delegates) held. The only reason why we hear of them is that persons of such high rank were implicated.

7. EVIDENCE OF SUETONIUS ABOUT THE EXECUTIONS OF A.D. 95.

Suetonius also mentions the execution of Flavius Clemens and Acilius Glabrio. His references, though disappointingly brief, are sufficient to show that the account given in Xiphilin’s Epitome of Dion is neither complete nor entirely trustworthy. Suetonius evidently considered that the reason for the execution of both lay in Domitian’s dread of conspiracy and treason. We have seen, even in Xiphilin’s bald version, that Acilius must have been accused of treason as well as sacrilege; and Suetonius declares that he was put to death on a charge of fomenting disturbance or revolution. [Note: Quasi molitores rerum novarum. The word quasi, in a writer of Suetonius’ period, does not imply a false appearance, but a real ground of accusation.] About Clemens he only says that Domitian suddenly, on a very light suspicion, put him to death; but the context shows beyond a doubt that the suspicion was that Clemens was plotting. What is the relation between this charge of treason and conspiracy, as related by Suetonius, and the charge of sacrilege, which Dion (as represented by Xiphilin) considered to be the chief part of the accusation? Are the two accounts flatly contradictory, or do they present two different aspects of the same fact? We have seen that the two accounts of Nero’s persecution, by Tacitus and by Suetonius, complete each other; and we shall find that the same is the case with the different accounts of Dion and Suetonius.

Throughout the first century, one of the chief motives in the policy of the emperors within the city was dread of conspiracy among the Roman nobles in favour of a rival. Under the Flavian dynasty it was especially among the philosophers, and those nobles whose tastes lay in that direction, that conspiracy was feared. The philosophic temperament was connected with preservation of the memory of the old Roman republic, and with thoughts of freedom and unwillingness to submit to despotism. Even interest in past history was considered a dangerous symptom, and Tacitus is said to have felt it unsafe to write while Domitian lived. This policy was carried to an extreme by Domitian, who expelled the teachers of philosophy from Rome about A.D. 93, and put to death many of the Romans who had shown philosophic interests; but it did not originate in mere capricious tyranny. It was the permanent Flavian policy, and an example of its effect appeared in the execution of Helvidius Priscus by Vespasian.

Now there is great probability that, in the middle and end of the first century, many of the philosophic class among the Roman nobles took an interest in the speculations and doctrines of Jews and Christians and of the East in general. That Seneca had some slight acquaintance with Christian teaching appears to be plain from his writings, though it would be as absurd to say that he ever had any inclination towards Christianity as it would be to say that the extant correspondence of Paul and Seneca is genuine. So long as philosophy retained its spirit of opposition to the Government, and asserted the right of the individual against absolute despotism, it had a certain affinity with the position of Christianity in the Empire. Hence it came about that an inclination towards the doctrines of Christianity was a mark of the class which Domitian most dreaded, and an interest in foreign religions became a point in the accusations brought against many Roman nobles whose attitude had roused his suspicion. To Suetonius the important point in these trials was the general fact of suspected conspiracy, whereas in Xiphilin’s version one isolated detail, referring to religion (in which the monk was interested), is mentioned alone. But even in Xiphilin we see that treason (the crime of injuring the majestas of the State) must have been included in the charge against Acilius ; and at an earlier point in his Epitome he made it clear that the exile into which Acilius had been sent several years before was due to that cause exclusively. Domitian’s suspicions were roused by certain omens which had happened to Acilius during his consulship, A.D. 91. [Note: It is true that the same prodigies happened to his colleague in the consulship, Trajan, who was not banished; but we have too little information to enable us to understand why “one should be taken and the other left.”]

These considerations explain Suetonius phrase about the death of Flavius Clemens. The groundless suspicion on which he was executed was of conspiracy; and the "utterly contemptible indolence," which according to Suetonius characterized him, would appear to the historian a sufficient disproof of the suspicion. But it must be admitted that Suetonius words are not consistent with the idea that he was aware of Clemens being a Christian. We must then conclude that Clemens had been able to preserve the secret of his religion, and that Suetonius did not think it had been proved; [Note: Probably Dion also did not believe that the charges brought by Domitian against Clemens, Acilius, and others had been proved. They profited in the eyes of the later Romans by the general belief that Domitian’s action had been that of a jealous and groundlessly suspicious tyrant.] And Lightfoot is in all probability correct in saying that the “indolence" of Clemens was "the result of his equivocal position." By avoiding public duties to the utmost, he escaped showing his reluctance to comply with the pagan ceremonies constantly required of public officials, and thus incurred the charge of indolence.

8. THE FLAVIAN ACTION WAS POLITICAL IN CHARACTER. The comparison of the scanty records, then, points to the view that the real motive of the Flavian policy towards the Christian was political, and not religious. The Christians were a politically dangerous body; and, if that be so, the danger must have lain especially in the fact that they were an organized and united body. It is therefore inaccurate to speak of the Flavian action as directed against the Christians. That phrase might be used about Nero, but the Flavian action was, if we can trust our inferences from the authorities, directed against the Church as an organized unity. [Note: This point is of the utmost importance in our subject, and will engage further attention in Chapter XV.]

One of the marked features of the reign of Domitian is the attention which he devoted to the restoration of the national cultus. [Note: See Schiller, Geschichte, i., p. 536.] In this respect his policy was the same as that of Augustus; and, like him, he looked on the Imperial cultus as part of the national religion. He himself delighted to be identified with Jupiter, and to be idolized as the Divine Providence in human form ; and it is recorded that Caligula, Domitian, and Diocletian were the three emperors who delighted to be styled dominus et deus. Though a certain clement of individual caprice is discernible in the extent to which Domitian pushed the personal reference, yet the policy is not peculiar to him, but was a fixed and highly important part of the general Imperial policy, which treated religion as a part of the machinery of government. In this point of view, refusal to comply with the prescribed forms of respect to the Emperor was a refusal to be a member of the Roman unity, and constituted disloyalty and treason. As we have already seen, Pliny found the procedure already established that a charge of Christianity should be tested by calling on the accused to perform the ceremonies of loyal service and worship to the Emperor. Christianity was disloyalty; and, conversely, the mere rendering of the duties of loyalty disproved Christianity. The scanty evidence which we have found, therefore, seems to point to the view that Christianity was, under Domitian, treated as treasonable. This implies that the trials now assumed a new form. Individual Christians were no longer proved guilty of acts which showed hostility to the existing system of society; but the whole principles and constitution of the sect were condemned as hostile to the established order, and mere membership of the sect, if persisted in, was reckoned as treasonable. The Christians, as a body were outlaws, and were treated as such as soon as their adherence to the sect was recognized; and the trial was conducted only with the view of establishing the fact that the accused persons were Christians. Such was the cognitio which Pliny applied as a regular process to the first cases that were brought before him.

We have not found the slightest reference to this aspect of the case against the Christians in the case of Nero’s action; [Note: It is true also that we have as yet no complete proof that under Domitian procedure against the Christians had assumed this aspect; but we have no detailed account in the latter case, as we have in regard to Nero, and the evidence does show that some reference to religion was made by Domitian. The Christian authorities quoted in the following chapter prove that his action had assumed fully the character which we find in Pliny.] and we can hardly suppose that, if the action had assumed that character, Tacitus would have given the account which we read in Annals, xv. 44. Alike as historian and as proconsul of Asia, he must have been aware of the later character of procedure against the Christians; and, if he so pointedly describes Nero’s action as being of a different character, we must infer that he had found good reason to consider that the procedure with which he was familiar had been developed and systematized at a later time. Suetonius, on the other hand, in his brief allusion, lays stress only on the fact that the permanent principle of condemning Christians originated under Nero, and does not count it part of his duty as a biographer to recount the development which the principle underwent. It is obvious how widely the view here taken of a practically continuous proscription of the Christians from 64 onwards differs from that which is ordinarily accepted viz., that there were two isolated persecutions, one by Nero in 64, and the other by Domitian in 95. How then is it that the Christians are silent about this continuous persecution? No names of martyrs are preserved, [Note: The single exception is St. Paul, whose death is, by Lightfoot and others, dated about 67. If this date is right, the event proves the continuance of the principle after Nero’s personal direction was withdrawn. Nero was in Corinth on November 28th, 67, as we know from an inscription published by M. Holleaux, Discours prononce par Neron, Lyon, 1889, p. 13 ; see above, p. 243] no facts are recorded which have not been attributed to one or other of these two individual outbursts of fury. There is a Christian literature; there are Christian historians are their silence and their record not conclusive? Partly, I think, their silence is not conclusive, partly, I think, their evidence has been misinterpreted. Their silence is not conclusive, be cause the thoughts of the first century Christians were so absorbed in life, in teaching, in the imminent end of the world, that memory and history had small place with them. The moment, as it passed, sank out of sight and out of mind, in contemplation of the pressing future. Hence there survived in recollection only a few isolated facts about a very few of the greatest figures in their history; and these survived only in vague and dubious tradition. When history began for the Christians late in the second century, hardly any historical authorities later than the Acts of the Apostles remained, and the events of Christian history during a long period after A.D. 62 had perished from memory. So far from exaggerating, the Christian historians give a very defective account of the sufferings of that period. From the silence, therefore, of the authorities, no argument against the view here advanced can be drawn. But we have a few contemporary Christian documents, which are indeed not of the type of formal history, but which, being written by persons absorbed in the practical problems of life, as we have supposed the Christians to be, throw some light on that life. Persons whom we have assumed to be living a life so real could not compose abstract, philosophical, or moral, or even religious treatises. There must beat in their work the pulse of actual life. Here we have an infallible test of genuineness. The period was unique in its character, and unsurpassed in the violence of contending emotions; the writers were men of affairs, living in deadly earnest; the resulting literature must bear the stamp of the period, and must prove or disprove the view here advanced of the war between the Church and the Empire.

NOTE 1. The phrases used in the text "resumption of the Neronian policy by Vespasian," and "continuity of persecution after Nero" are not mutually contradictory. Nero’s precedent guided provincial governors in cases that were brought before them, until, in some way unknown to us; the question was again raised and decided by Vespasian in a more developed way. Similarly, it was again raised by Pliny for Trajan’s consideration, and by Licinius Silvanus Granianus for Hadrian’s.