CHAPTER II: MISSIONS AND PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHURCH FROM THE CAPTIVITY OF ST. PAUL TO
MISSIONS AND PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHURCH FROM THE CAPTIVITY OF ST. PAUL TO HIS DEATH AND THAT OF ST. PETER. __________________________________________________________________
§ I. Various Phases of St. Paul's Captivity.
AS he crossed the threshold of the citadel Paul entered on a captivity which was to terminate only with his life. Let us endeavor to follow him through its various phases. The Tribune Lysias was much embarrassed by the presence of this prisoner, whose crime was unknown to him. He thought his guilt might be most easily ascertained by putting Paul under torture in its least cruel form. This was an expeditious method recommended by the Roman law, but only to be applied to slaves, or in cases of exceptional seriousness. [146]
Lysias thought he had before him a common agitator, a low ringleader of a despised people. He felt no hesitation in inflicting a degrading penalty on a man whom he regarded as worse than a slave. Paul, however, appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen, and the very name sufficed to cover him with a powerful shield. The next day the Tribune brought his prisoner before the bar of the Sanhedrim, hoping to discover the cause of the hostility of the Jews to him. The Jews were vehemently desirous to have the whole matter left in their hands. Religious offenses were still within their province, and they might thus have avenged themselves on Paul, without all the delays of Roman jurisdiction. [147] It was important for Paul that these tactics should be frustrated. If the Sanhedrim were unanimous in finding him guilty of profaning the Temple, he might be at once given over to his implacable enemies. He therefore sought to divide them by setting forth in strong language his belief in a resurrection. Such a challenge could not fail to kindle strife between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Paul cannot be accused of duplicity, for there were in truth certain views common to him and to the Pharisees, and his opposition to their spirit of formalism was too well known to permit any misconception of his attitude toward them. We do not hesitate, however, to prefer his defense in the presence of the clamorous crowd, or before Felix and Festus, as being less politic and more noble. The violent words of Paul to Ananias, compared to the conduct of the Saviour under similar circumstances, make us sensible of the vast distance between the Master and the disciple. The Apostle still carried a human heart within his bosom, and he had ever to be on his guard against the outbreak of his impetuous disposition. [148] The sitting of the Sanhedrim ended in a great dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The exasperation of the latter against Paul seemed so great that the Tribune once more interposed, and to save Paul's life remanded him to prison. On learning of a nefarious plot laid by the Jews against the captive, Lysias sent him away to Cæsarea.
The Procurator Felix, to whose tribunal Paul was now brought, was a freedman of the Emperor Claudius, brother of Pallas, the favorite of Agrippina. He belonged to that class, famous for its baseness and immorality, which then governed the world by governing the Cæsars, purchasing power by flattery, and using it with tyranny to recover the price paid for it. Tacitus has characterized Felix with one stroke of his incisive pen, when he says, "At once a debauchee and a tyrant, he performed functions little less than royal with the spirit of a slave."
[149] In order to establish his position in Judæa, he married Drusilla, daughter of Herod Agrippa. He made his government odious to the Jews, indulging himself, as we further learn from Tacitus, in every sort of crime. [150] He had continually to suppress attempts at sedition, headed sometimes by robbers called sicarii, sometimes by false messiahs. He acted with the greatest severity toward the chiefs of the nation, in consequence of riots between the Jews and the Syrians in Cæsarea. [151] Such a man was likely to hold Paul and his accusers in an even balance, and to treat both with the impartiality of a common hatred. It is more than probable that if Paul had not been able to appeal to his rights as a Roman citizen he would have been left to perish in some obscure dungeon, or would have been put to death as a leader of sedition. But it was not possible for even a Felix to treat a Roman citizen with this cruel indifference. He was compelled to hear his cause. His marked antipathy to the rulers of the Sanhedrim was a circumstance favorable to the accused. The charges brought by the Jews against Paul were as false as they were bitter. They accused him, by the mouth of their advocate Tertullus, with being the chief of a sect which they represented as politically dangerous, stirring up sedition in Judæa and throughout the world. They knew well that nothing would be more sure to irritate the cruel Proconsul than such suspicions as these. They mentioned also the profanation of their Temple as a pretext for bringing the accused within their own jurisdiction. Paul refuted their accusations point by point, by the clear and simple narration of his last journey to Jerusalem. Felix was convinced of his innocence, but, willing to pacify the Jews, he remanded him to prison. He subsequently gave him at intervals several mock hearings, in which he sought rather to gratify his own curiosity and that of his wife Drusilla, than to do justice to Paul. Reproved in his conscience by Paul's solemn reasonings of righteousness and judgment to come, he left him for two years in prison, secretly hoping that Paul and his friends would in the end offer a large sum for his release.
The captivity of the Apostle at this time was not rigorous. It was not, however, the merely nominal imprisonment known as custodia libera, which allowed the prisoner the right of living in the house of a consul, a praetor, or a magistrate. This sort of detention was granted only to the most illustrious offenders, and Paul was not of this number. We know positively that he was committed to the guard of Roman soldiers; but there were many degrees in military captivity, and the magistrate could at will relax or tighten the bonds. [152] Felix commanded that Paul should be treated leniently, and be allowed free intercourse with his friends. Acts xxiv, 23. The Apostle thus received frequent communications from the Churches. Can we suppose that he was himself entirely silent during these two years passed at Cæsarea, so near to his beloved Churches in Asia Minor--those Churches for which he had expressed such tender anxiety to the Ephesian elders? Had he not forewarned them at Miletus of the dangerous inroads that would be made by oriental Gnosticism on these Christians, already beset with so many snares, and blown about by such various winds of doctrine? Was it not high time to put them on their guard against perils so serious? These considerations seem to us to justify the supposition that the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, and the lost Epistle to the Laodiceans, were written during this period of captivity at Cæsarea.
[153] The Epistle to Philemon may also well have been written at this date. Paul had met in his imprisonment with a poor fugitive slave belonging to a Christian at Colosse. Full of the thought that in Christ there is neither bond nor free, he had devoted himself with most affectionate solicitude to this unhappy outcast of society, and, according to his own beautiful expression, had in his bonds begotten him to the faith. He thus gave the strongest demonstration of the absolute equality which exists between Christians, and he secured the future emancipation of the slave by sending him back as his own son in the faith, and consequently as a brother of his master, to the house from which he had fled. [154]
Felix was removed from Cæsarea, and Festus came in his place. The new governor, like his predecessor, had to wage warfare with the Jewish brigands, who under the name of Sicariii laid waste the country. He had also some serious differences with the Temple authorities at Jerusalem.
[155] Probably the hostility between him and the priest's party broke out soon after his entry upon office. It may have even begun to manifest itself at the time of his journey to Jerusalem. Acts xxv, 1. In that case the tergiversations in the treatment of the Apostle would be explained. Festus at first shows himself favorable to the Jews; and willing to do them a pleasure, leaves Paul in prison. Then suddenly he turns against them, and haughtily refuses to allow the prisoner to be brought before the Sanhedrim. The High Priest is therefore compelled to go down to Cesarea to sustain the accusation. The Jews, finding it hopeless to get Paul brought before their own tribunal, as guilty of crimes exclusively concerning their religion, change their tactics, and accuse him of stirring up rebellion against the Emperor. This appears from the defense of the accused, who strongly asserts his innocence on this point. Acts xxv, 8. Wearied of this interminable trial, indignant at being made a tool to serve the policy of the Roman procurators in their relations with the Jews, Paul takes a decisive step, and appeals to the Emperor. This was of course the highest jurisdiction, and there was no power in the empire the decisions of which might not be revised and reversed by this supreme authority. [156] Henceforward Paul's cause was withdrawn from the inferior tribunals. It must be pleaded and receive its solution at Rome.
The judicial ceremony, therefore, which was enacted at Cæsarea a few days later, can only be regarded as a sort of amusement given by Festus to his illustrious guests--an amusement worthy of a blasé Roman, to whom the enthusiasm and faith of St. Paul were but a curious phenomenon. The King Agrippa, before whom Paul appeared, was Herod Agrippa, son of the nephew of Herod the Great, of the same name. Brought up in the palace of the Cæsars, he had attained to his high rank by flattery, and had received from the munificence of the Emperor, to whom he had been an assiduous courtier, [157] with the title of king, the tetrarchies formerly held by Philip and Lysanias. Like all favorites, he used his power despotically, making and unmaking the high priests at his pleasure. Versed in all intrigue, he lived a life of shameless license, in incestuous connection with his sister, the famous Bernice, who was subsequently to try the power of her charms on Vespasian and Titus.
Attention has often been drawn to the sharpness of outline with which these various personages are sketched by the sacred historian. On the one hand we see the Roman of the decline, essentially a materialist, treating religious questions with contemptuous irony, and charging Paul with madness when he speaks of the resurrection of the dead, and carries his hearers into that invisible world which has no existence for the pagan. Acts xxv, 19; xxvi, 24. On the other hand, Agrippa perfectly represents the man who knows the truth without loving it, and who, while giving to it the assent of his reason, refuses to yield to it his heart, and to break the chains of licentiousness. Acts xxvi, 28. In contrast to these two types of the ancient world, how nobly does Paul stand forth as the representative of the new religion! He gives an account, grand in its simplicity, of his past life, of his conversion, and his mission to the Gentiles. Acts xxvi, 4-23. His only crime is, that he has obeyed the call of God; for this alone have the Jews sought to kill him. He has no other apology to offer than his absolute devotion to the truth. The history of his ministry is the most eloquent commentary on the reply of Peter to the Sanhedrim: "We cannot but speak those things which we have seen and heard." Was it possible for him to resist commands so direct from God? Festus and Agrippa recognize fully the innocence of Paul, but he has appealed to Cæsar, and he must needs be sent to Rome.
The incidents of his voyage are familiar to us all. In the midst of perils of the sea, he manifests the same calmness, the same courage, the same zeal for souls, the same unvarying forgetfulness of self. After the shipwreck, and a sojourn of three months in the island of Malta, made use of by the Apostle for the foundation of a Church, he lands on those shores of Italy which he was to water with his blood, and receives at Puteoli the brotherly welcome of the Christians of the country. Forty miles from Rome, in the little town of Appii Forum, Paul is met by some Christians from the capital of the world; a still larger number are awaiting him at a little inn called the "Three Taverns,"
[158] thirty miles nearer the metropolis. Thus escorted, he enters the city by that Appian way which had witnessed so many triumphal processions amid its tombs. Little did any dream that this prisoner, conducted by a centurion, and surrounded by a group of poor and mean men, was the greatest conqueror who had ever trodden that path, and that no victory could be comparable with that he was to win over all the combined powers of the pagan world, which found their focus in the imperial city. The Centurion who brought Paul to Rome belonged to one of the legions of the praetorian guard. [159] He handed over his prisoner, according to his duty, to the prætorian prefect under whom he served. All the criminals who had appealed to the jurisdiction of Cæsar were put in charge of this high dignitary of the court. The prefect, at this time, was Burrhus, a man of distinction and moderation, and of severe morals, whose happy influence restrained even Nero in his career of crime. [160] He treated Paul with indulgence, probably in consequence of the favorable letters received from Festus, and also on the report of the Centurion, who had become the friend of his prisoner. Paul was allowed to remain under the guard of a soldier in a house hired by himself, and had free communication with his friends. This lenient captivity lasted for two years, during which Paul was not inactive. He first of all called the chief of the Jews together for solemn conference, thus showing how full was his heart of that charity which hopeth all things. Was not his very presence in that prison the living proof of their obduracy? and were not the chains which bound him riveted by their fierce fanaticism? Here, as every-where else, Paul found them the implacable enemies of Jesus Christ, and of his Church. The last recorded words of the Apostle addressed to them seem like the echo of the anathema pronounced by Christ on the Pharisees shortly before his death. Acts xxviii, 25-27. These stern utterances are the final judgment of the Apostle upon the Jews as a nation. [161]
After being thus repulsed by the rulers of the synagogue at Rome, Paul turned once more with success to the Gentiles. As in the prison at Cæsarea he had preached the Gospel to a poor slave, his companion in captivity, so now he endeavored to win to Christ the soldiers who guarded him by turns. His bonds were by this means to become famous through the whole prætorium. Phil. i, 13. In the same manner, he embraced every opportunity afforded him to fulfill his apostolic commission among the inhabitants of the great city, and his captivity contributed much to the increase of the Christian Church in Rome.
This state of things lasted till the year 62. Then every thing was changed. From Paul's letter to the Philippians we learn, first, that the party of Judaizing Christians had commenced their intrigues against him; they did not hesitate even "to add affliction to his bonds." Phil. i, 15, 16. The greatness of Paul's soul, his absolute disinterestedness and sublime charity, were brought out under these circumstances. In presence of the colossal paganism which was ever before his eyes in Rome, minor differences must be lost sight of, and help must be accepted from all who preached Jesus Christ, even if they preached only from unworthy motives, and to provoke contention and strife. Phil. i,
18. The captivity of the Apostle became increasingly strict. We cannot but wonder at the all but interminable delays in the hearing of his cause at Rome. But he had already waited two years at Cæsarea; and Nero, who began to show a disposition to tyranny, was not likely to be more eager than his proconsuls to do prompt justice. Nor must we forget that his trial could not come on till his accusers had arrived, for their charge must be laid before the imperial tribunal. At the time of year when the Apostle reached Rome the sea voyage was impracticable. Some months, therefore, must elapse before his trial could begin.
The Jews had no interest in hastening the matter to a conclusion; on the contrary, they might wish to allow time for the impression favorable to Paul, produced by the reports of Festus, to wear away. They awaited some auspicious moment for gaining the ear of the Emperor. They doubtless thought such a moment had arrived when Octavia Poppaea was raised to the rank of empress, for she openly protected them, and Josephus asserts that she was a proselyte. [162] It was easy to obtain her intervention in a cause which so closely concerned her protégés. The wise Burrhus, prefect to the praetorians, was just dead, and had been succeeded by Fennius Rufus and the wicked Tigellinus, the creature of Poppæa. [163] Paul was directly in the power of the natural protectors of his most deadly enemies. He had little hope of obtaining justice from Nero at a time when, according to the expression of Tacitus, the young Emperor was inclining to crime. [164] In his letter to the Philippians, the Apostle had already expressed forebodings of the fatal issue of his trial. He still thinks there is a possibility of his being set at large, but the thought of approaching death is ever present with him. Phil. i, 19-26. He is ready that his blood should be poured forth--a holy libation upon the sacrifice of the faith of the Churches. [165] But it is the second letter to Timothy which is especially full of the presentiments of immediate death. It is like the dying testament of the Apostle. The hour of martyrdom is at hand; already he is left alone, forsaken by all who did not share his courageous and disinterested faith. The disciples from Asia Minor have gone back to their country. 2 Tim. i, 15. Demas has saddened his heart by a cowardly defection. 2 Tim. iv, 10. Luke alone is with him. The malice of enemies becomes daily more declared. He has been summoned to stand before the bar of Cæsar unsustained by any human aid. 2 Tim. iv,
16. But his word has been mighty, none the less; and, with the help of God, he has been enabled to confess Christ before heathen Rome, and before the Emperor.
But though he has thus once been delivered out of the mouth of the lion, (2 Tim. iv, 17,) he knows he shall not escape a second time, and he gives his last exhortation to his most faithful friend. His heart is full, as at Miletus, of anxious care for the Churches. The heresy which then he feared has already begun to make havoc among them, (2 Tim, ii, 17; iii, 13; iv, 3,) and dangers are rife within and without. The Apostle points out to those who shall survive him the important work which will devolve upon them. He forewarns them of inevitable suffering and persecution, and epitomizes his own experience of the Christian vocation in all its height of privilege and depth of self-sacrifice in the noble words, "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him." Was not his whole career one "bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus," filling up that which was behind in the afflictions of Christ in his flesh, for his body's sake, the Church? Was not the living sacrifice already consumed by the fire of a fervent love? With what beautiful simplicity does he make the last surrender of himself when he says, "I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand;" (2 Tim. iv, 6;) and as he adds, " Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness," can we not see its brightness already circling the aged brow? This prisoner of the Lord Jesus has for his crown the many Churches founded by his ministry. Those honorable sufferings, which give such irresistible weight to his testimony, are like the thorns under which the brow of the Redeemer bled. There is but little left for Nero to do to perfect the crown of martyrdom, and to set on the apostleship of Paul the last and most sacred seal of blood. He has fought a good fight, he has finished his course. "Having given himself to God," says Chrysostom, "Paul desired to bring with himself the whole world as an offering. To this end he traversed sea and land, Greece and the barbarous countries, everywhere plucking up the thorns of sin, that he might sow the seed of the Gospel; and every-where transforming men into angels. [166] "Qui vocatus a Domino," adds St. Jerome in his forcible language, "effusus est super faciem universæ terræ." [167]
We shall presently consider Paul in the light of the first of the great teachers of the primitive Church; hitherto we have regarded him only as the man of conflict and of action, the missionary and the controversialist. If we inquire into the peculiar character of the missions undertaken and directed by him, we shall find that they differ somewhat from those of the foregoing period. The Divine Spirit works not less mightily in Paul than in Peter, but the part of the human agent is more distinctly observable. The thousands converted on the day of Pentecost and in Solomon's porch were acted upon by a sudden and irresistible influence, produced by the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Conversions in masses like these do not recur in this second period of the Church. The proselytes are many, but they are made one by one, through the personal efforts of St. Paul. The longer he remains in any place, the more important is the Church there formed. Results seem proportioned in their magnitude to the amount of direct personal effort. When we come to examine his teaching, we shall see how wise he was in his adaptation of the means he employed to win souls, and how admirably he sought and found the point of contact between those he addressed and the Gospel he preached. His ministry is accompanied with miracles, but he has less frequent recourse than earlier preachers to this method of persuasion. In many places he founded Churches by the power of his word alone. In these missions of the Apostle to the Gentiles, therefore, the Divine Spirit works more directly upon the conscience and less by external manifestations. Man cannot derive any glory to himself from this fact, for though God's method of intervention assumes a different form, it is none the less to this sovereign intervention of grace that the most beautiful fruits of the Apostle's labor are to be ascribed. [168] __________________________________________________________________
[146] "Edictum divi Augusti extat: quæstiones neque semper in omni causa et persona desiderari debere arbitror, sed cum capitalia et atrocia maleficia non aliter explorari et investigari possunt quam per servorum quæstiones, efficacissimas eas esse ad requirendam veritatem existimo." (Wieseler, work quoted, p. 376.)
[147] Wieseler, p. 378.
[148] There has been much dispute among commentators as to how Paul could have said of the High Priest, "ouk edein." Acts xxiii, 5. It has been maintained that Paul spoke ironically, "I know him, but do not recognize him." It has also been conjectured that the High Priest being illegally in office, Paul designed to give him a rebuke. These explanations are too ingenious. It is better to suppose that Paul really did not, at the first moment, recognize the High Priest.
[149] "Per omnem sævitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit." Tacitus, "Hist.," v, 9.
[150] "Annals," xii, 54.
[151] Josephus, "Ant.," viii, 7.
[152] Wieseler, work quoted, pp. 380, 381.
[153] Most commentators assign to these Epistles a later date, namely, the early part of Paul's captivity at Rome. Wieseler does so on the ground of the great freedom he enjoyed during that portion of his captivity. But the imprisonment at Cæsarea was sufficiently lax to allow direct and frequent communications with the Churches. (See Reuss, "Geschichte der H. Schr. N. T.," p. 98.)
[154] It appears to us, in spite of Neander's opinion, infinitely more probable that Onesimus should have fled from Colosse to Cæsarea than from Colosse to Rome. The fact that Paul was, in his captivity, the companion of a slave, proves that his confinement was not so light as at first it was at Rome, and we have thus an incidental argument in favor of our supposition. Wieseler (p. 455) endeavors to identify the Epistle to Philemon with that to the Laodiceans spoken of in Colossians iv, 16. He does so on the ground that the Epistle to Philemon is also addressed to Archippus, who in the Epistle to the Colossians (iv, 17) is mentioned as an inhabitant of Laodicea. But this latter fact does not appear clearly from the text. Besides, it is difficult to understand how a mere letter of recommendation could be spoken of as an epistle addressed to an entire Church.
[155] Josephus, "Antiquities," xx, 8-10.
[156] Dio Cassius uses the following words with reference to these appeals to the Emperor: Dikaze de, kai autus hidia ta te ephesima kai ta anapompima hosa an para te ton meizonon archonton aphiknetai, mete gar autodikos met' autotelhes outo tis parapan esto hoste me ouk ephesimon ap, autou diken gignesthai. ("Dio Cassius," ii, 19, 53.) Speaking of Augustus, he says, "He judged appeals and causes sent up to him even after the decision of the very highest authorities, for there was no independent or supreme judge from whom there could be no appeal to him."
[157] Dabon de ten dorean para tou Kaisaros. (Josephus, "Antiquities," xx, 7, 1.)
[158] Tres Tabernæ.
[159] We must thus understand the words: speires Sebastes. (Acts xxvii, 1.) Wieseler mentions that detachments of this prætorian guard were often sent on distant missions.
[160] Tacitus, "Annals," xii, 2.
[161] See Baumgarten, work quoted, second part, c. ii.
[162] Theosebes gas en. (Josephus, "Ant.," xx, 8, 11.
[163] Wieseler, pp. 403, 404.
[164] Tacitus, "Annals," xiv, 52.
[165] Phil. ii, 17. For a full description of the Apostle's spiritual position at this time, see Neander's "Practical Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians," p. 71.
[166] Epeide kalos heauton kathierose kai ten oikoumenen prosenenche. (Chrysost., "De laudib. Pauli apost.," Homily I.)
[167] Hieron., vol. iii., p. 1412. See Note F, at the end of this volume, on the captivity of Paul.
[168] See Note G, at the end of the volume. __________________________________________________________________
§ II. Mission of the other Apostles during this period. [169]
While Paul was carrying the Gospel from Asia Minor into Europe, and to the very center of Western paganism, the other Apostles were not inactive in the field of Christian missions. We possess few certain details of their labors. We only get glimpses of them through the prismatic lens of legend. It is, however, possible to make out, beneath the capricious adornments of fable, some positive facts of their history, which present traits of indisputable accuracy. There is no evidence that the Apostles, with the exception of Peter and Paul, took all the part in the primitive missions which is ascribed to them by the Church of the third century. The Episcopal notions of that age have colored the history of the first century. Just as to St. Peter was attributed the foundation and government of the Church at Antioch, which, as we have seen, was formed without his assistance, so it is very possible that an attempt should have been made in later times to refer to the Apostles the propagation of the faith in countries where the weight of the labor really rested on simple evangelists. We must, therefore, accept with reserve the testimony of historians, and never forget that their conception of the apostolate is not in all points identical with that of the primitive Church. They regard the Apostles as true metropolitan bishops, and cannot suppose a Church founded without their participation.
After the Council at Jerusalem, the Apostles disperse to meet no more. James, the brother of the Lord, continues to exercise paramount influence over the Church of that city; the holiness of his life, the form of his piety, the largeness of heart with which he fulfills his mission of conciliation, all contribute to strengthen it. Far from appearing as an adversary of Paul, James welcomes him, on his last visit to Jerusalem, with brotherly affection, and advises him to join himself to those Christian Jews who were about to fulfill in the Temple the vow of the Nazarite. We have no further details of his life from this time till his martyrdom; but we possess his epistle, from which we shall presently gather his doctrine. In it we shall find faithfully reproduced all the traits of his noble character--his piety, at once scrupulous and elevated; his stern and practical spirit; and, in the oriental coloring of his language, the reflection of the old prophets of Israel.
Jude, the brother of James, and consequently of the Lord, also took an active part in the propagation of the Christian faith. It is not possible to determine from his epistle what was the principal sphere of his work. It may, however, be inferred, from his vehement denunciation of false teachers, that he had come in contact with the heretics of the Churches of Colosse and Ephesus, and that he resided in the countries where the first germs of Gnosticism appeared. [170] History gives no exact statement with reference to the other Apostles. The various traditions, however, connected with their names, enable us to follow the track of the missionaries of the primitive Church. It is of far less importance for us to know their names, and to be sure that they were really apostles, than to verify their triumphs over the paganism of the East and West. Accepted with this precaution, tradition sheds light upon the path of apostolic missions.
Paul, in his rapid journeys through Asia, could not have preached the Gospel to all the inhabitants of those wide regions. He had succeeded in founding, in a short space of time, important Churches, but these were surrounded by unbelieving and superstitious masses. It was, therefore, very necessary that the missions of the other Apostles should occupy, to some extent, the same ground gone over by him. According to the testimony of tradition, Cappadocia, Galatia, and Bithynia were evangelized by the Apostle Andrew, Peter's brother. [171] He is said to have also penetrated into Scythia, and thence into Thrace and Macedonia. [172]
The Churches of Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierapolis, founded by Epaphras and St. Paul in Phrygia, shed abroad the pure light of truth in that classic land of superstition. But the epistles of the Apostles themselves show how severely the triumph of Christianity was there contested. The work begun had to be constantly renewed; therefore, the Apostle Philip went to settle in that country. He took up his abode at Hierapolis with his daughters, one of whom had the gift of prophecy.
[173] His influence appears to have been great over the whole Church of Asia Minor.
The Christian mission does more than consolidate the work already commenced; it has an irresistible power of expansion. Matthew carries the divine message into Arabia; his Gospel was subsequently found in the language of that country. [174] He is soon followed by Bartholomew and Nathanael, who had at first accompanied Philip into Phrygia. [175] Matthias devotes himself to Ethiopia; [176] James, the son of Alphaeus, to Egypt. Simon Zelotes evangelizes Mauritania and Libya; he is said even to have visited Britain, [177] but this rests on the doubtful authority of Nicephorus. Mesopotamia is believed to have been traversed by Judas Thaddeus, who had his station at Edessa, where the new religion met with a very favorable reception. [178] The extreme eastern point of the primitive mission seems to have been the western frontier of India. Thomas is supposed to have preached the Gospel in the district adjoining Parthia. [179] It is certain that very early traces of Christianity are found in India. In the time of Constantine, a missionary who returned from that country asserted that he had met with Christians professing evangelical doctrine in its most ancient form.
If we endeavor to derive from the tradition of the Church any thing more than these very general indications about the Apostles, we enter the vague region of fable. We know from Eusebius that Philip died at Hierapolis, and that his tomb was there to be seen. [180] The apocryphal Acts of the Apostles are prolific in details of their sufferings. According to these legendary accounts, Andrew was sentenced to crucifixion by the Proconsul of Arabia, who was enraged at the conversion of his wife. [181] Matthew is said to have been burned;
[182] Thomas to have been pierced through with a lance; [183] and Bartholomew beheaded. [184] It is impossible to ascertain whether these traditions have any historical foundation. Be this as it may, it is certain that the first Christian missionaries in these remote countries fell in the midst of their enemies, and the obscurity of their death is the best guaranty of their heroic fidelity. "These lights of the world," eloquently says a distinguished theologian, "have disappeared from our sight, but we behold the world illuminated by them. They sought not their own glory, but they are known to God; and thousands of souls saved by their word owe to them their entrance into heaven."
[185]
We have more precise information as to the life of St. Peter after the Council at Jerusalem. From that time, however, his part is as inconspicuous in actual history as it is brilliant in legend. Paul fills the whole scene. Nothing could give stronger proof of Peter's growth in humility than the fact of his consenting to take the second place, after having, more than any other, contributed to lay the foundation of the Church by his courage and energy. It is clear that he has come under the strong influence of Paul; of this his epistle is the surest evidence. Unless we repudiate all proof, external and internal, it is impossible not to admit that the good understanding between these two Apostles is no invention of the writer of the Acts. Peter, however, according to the agreement voluntarily made at the Council at Jerusalem, devoted himself almost exclusively to the preaching of the Gospel among his countrymen. He passed by the great Churches founded by Paul in Phrygia and Asia Minor, [186] and chose as his center of action a city of once unrivaled celebrity--Babylon--where we find him shortly before his death. 1 Peter v, 13. According to Josephus, thousands of Jews had emigrated to that city. [187] The Jewish colony in Babylonia must have been very important, since two strongholds were necessary for the safe keeping of the offerings destined for the Temple at Jerusalem, and an escort of several thousands guarded the sacred treasure as far as Judæa, lest it should fall into the hands of the Parthians. [188] It is clear from these details given by the Jewish historian, that the synagogues of Babylonia continued in close connection with the religious center of their nation. After the destruction of Jerusalem, the rabbinical school of that country acquired very great influence. The Apostle Peter, therefore, found there a vast field of labor; he had an entire people to evangelize. The advocates of his primacy, in their eagerness to prove, at any price, that he resided at Rome during the greater part of his apostolic career, maintain that when in his Epistle he speaks of Babylon, he intends the mystic Babylon of the Apocalypse, or pagan Rome. But, in the first place, the Epistle of Peter was written before the Apocalypse and the persecution under Nero, that is to say, before the time when pagan Rome was to the Church what Babylon had been to the Jews of old. Up to this time the Christians had had much more to suffer from the Jews than from the Gentiles. It is worthy of remark, also, that the style of Peter in his Epistle is not raised to the lyric tone of ancient prophecy, and its conclusion is as simple as possible. There can, then, be no reason for attaching a far-fetched symbolic meaning to a designation perfectly clear in itself. Peter had succeeded in founding a Church at Babylon; [189] this Church had become a center of light to all the Jewish colony. Silas, one of the companions of Paul, joined Peter at Babylon, and the description given by him of the critical condition of the Churches in Asia Minor doubtless led the Apostle to address to them a letter of consolation.
[190] Persecution was, in truth, imminent; like a violent tempest, it was giving precursive tokens of its approach, and it was well that words of earnest exhortation should be multiplied on the eve of so terrible a conflict. Peter pleaded with holy eloquence, magnifying, like Paul, the greatness and glory of Christian endurance, and himself preparing to seal with his blood his witness to the truth. In his Epistle we feel that he has reached that full maturity of the Christian life which is itself an anticipation of heaven. The power of the grace of God is magnified in the greatness of the change wrought in him. This hot and hasty man, who could one day draw his sword against Malchus and the next deny his Lord, now displays the patience and gentleness of his Master; this ignorant and prejudiced Jew has risen to the height of a broad and spiritual Christianity. The equilibrium of his nature has been restored, his zeal refined, his energy at once brought under control, and fortified against the weaknesses of the flesh. To use his own image, the pure gold has been tried in the fire, (1 Peter i, 7,) and, as we see the transformation in Peter's character, we feel that there is no nature so headstrong and rebellious that its alloy cannot be purged by the process of the Divine Refiner. [191]
Did Peter go from Babylon to Rome? This is a much disputed question. It is impossible to answer it with certainty, but we incline to a reply in the affirmative. It is very necessary to guard against party prepossessions. If an historian, wedded to the hierarchical theory, has an interest in proving the sojourn of Peter at Rome, an historian espousing opposite opinions may erroneously imagine he has an interest in showing the contrary. Both are therefore bound to weigh with scrupulous impartiality the testimony of Christian antiquity. For ourselves, we find it impossible to suppose that Peter was at Rome under Claudius and at the commencement of the reign of Nero. Besides the reasons we have already pointed out, we lay stress on the incontestable fact that the name of Peter does not once occur in the epistle written by Paul to the Romans, nor in any of the other letters of that Apostle dated from Rome. Admitting the hypothesis of Baronius and writers of his school, such an omission would be inexplicable; but, on the other hand, we are inclined to believe that Peter did spend the last year of his life at Rome. We fully admit the uncertainty and contradictoriness of tradition on this point. We do not attach much importance to the indirect allusion in the epistle of Clement. [192] The passage of Ignatius which refers to the martyrdom of Peter is apocryphal. His contest with Simon Magus, described in the "Apocryphal Acts," is obviously legendary and absurd. [193] Dyonisius, of Corinth, positively affirms Peter's sojourn at Rome; but his testimony is invalidated by a palpable error, for, against all historical evidence, he attributes to Peter a share in the foundation of the Church at Corinth, [194] which, beyond question, was the work of Paul alone.
The fragment of the preaching of Peter, quoted by Cyprian, belongs to a document which, though very ancient, is nevertheless apocryphal. [195] Irenæus [196] and Tertullian, [197] who both assert that Peter died at Rome, write at a period when many of the fables of the first century found ready currency. In spite, however, of all these errors of detail and absurd combinations, the unanimity of tradition as to Peter's stay at Rome appears to us of weight. It is so much the more worthy of credence, because several of the "Fathers"--for example, Tertullian and Irenæus--had no interest in establishing the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. We find, then, no difficulty in admitting that Peter passed the closing days of his life in the capital of the empire, and we see no conclusion deducible from this fact in favor of the hierarchy. [198] The Church of Rome had been founded many years before, and had long been molded by the powerful influence of Paul. Peter went to Rome to preach the Gospel, and he soon paid with his life the penalty of his faithfulness to Christ. He was never Bishop of Rome, and was not called to confer any episcopal dignity, for the simple reason that the old democratic organization of the Church was at that time, as we shall show, in full vigor. The influence of Peter at Rome was further diminished by his ignorance of the Latin tongue; for, according to Eusebius, Mark, who had accompanied him from Babylon, acted as his interpreter. From Rome, Mark went to Egypt, and a tradition, which there seems no reason to discredit, ascribes to him the foundation of the Church at Alexandria, which was subsequently to become the metropolis of high Christian culture. [199]
Many legends are linked with the names of the other disciples of the Apostles, and to each has been assigned a large share in the missions of the first century; but it is absolutely impossible to discriminate between the false and the true in this medley of fable. [200] There is no need to have recourse to the embellishments of tradition, in order to bring out the grandeur of the apostolic labors. Unadorned history amply justifies these words of Eusebius: "The apostles and disciples of the Saviour, scattered over the whole world, preached the Gospel every-where." [201] The blessed light which had risen in the East was diffused over a large portion of the world. [202] "In thus establishing the kingdom of Jesus Christ," says Theodoret, "the Christians made use of no carnal weapons; they employed no other force than that of persuasive words to demonstrate the excellence of his divine laws. They fulfilled their missions in the midst of dangers, enduring violence and wrong of every description in the cities through which they passed, being scourged, tortured, cast into dungeons, subjected to every kind of suffering. But though the bearers of these divine laws might be killed, the laws themselves were deathless. They proved only the more potent after the death of those who promulgated them, and in spite of the resistance of the Romans and the barbarians, they continued in undiminished force; and from the graves in which the Romans sought to bury the memory of these fishermen and tent-makers, that memory sprang into new and nobler life." [203] __________________________________________________________________
[169] See Fabricius, "Salutaris lux Evangelii toto orbi oriens," Hamburg, 1731, pp. 94, 95. Eusebius is here the principal source of our information. Nicephorus Callixtus, in the second book of his "Ecclesiastical History," supplies us with some authentic information. (Nicephori Callixti, "Ecclesiasticæ Historiæ," Libri XVIII.) The sort of romance of Abdias on the apostolic age has no kind of value. (Abdiæ, "Babylonæ Episcopi de Historia certaminis apostolici," Libri X. Edidit Wolfgangus Lazius, 1552.) It is a collection of absurd fables, with a strong monkish coloring. The Apostles are there made to celebrate mass, and preach sermons with three heads, before undergoing the most barbarous tortures. These absurd narratives have as their basis the "Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha." (Tischendorf edition, Lipsiæ, 1851.) See Thilo, "Codex Apocryphus N. Test.," Lipsiæ, 1833, and the "Codex Apocryphus" of Fabricius. We shall make much use of these writings when we presently trace the history of oral tradition in the second century. The "Acta Canctorum," and too often the "Memoires" of Tillemont, reproduce all these fables.
[170] See Note M, at the end of the volume.
[171] Niceph., "Hist. Eccl.," ii, 39.
[172] Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.," iii, 1.
[173] Nicephorus, "Hist. Eccles.," ii, 39. Hos kekoimetai en Ierapolei. (Eusebius, v. 24.) According to Eusebius, two of Philip's daughters continued virgins; while, according to Clement of Alexandria, they married. ("Stromat.," iii, 6.) Perhaps Eusebius confounded Philip the Apostle with Philip the Evangelist.
[174] Ho Pantainos eis Indous helthein legetai entha logos auton heurein to kata Matthaion euangelion. (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles.," v, 10.) Sophronimus understands by the Indians the inhabitants of Arabia Felix. (Fabricius, "Lux Salutaris," p. 104.)
[175] Eusebius, v, 10. Nicephorus (ii, 39) asserts that he had temples built in Asia; this gives us a measure of his historical value.
[176] Nicephorus, ii, 40. The Ethiopian mission has been often ascribed to Matthew. His name might easily be confounded with Matthias.
[177] Nicephorus, ii, 40.
[178] This is the origin of the legend about the correspondence between Jesus Christ and Abgarus, King of Edessa. (Eusebius, i, 13.)
[179] Nicephorus (ii, 40) says of Thomas: Hos kai ton ep' Haithiopias kai Indous kleron lachon. Origen, according to Eusebius, (iii, 2,) ascribed the mission among the Parthians to Thomas; but their country bordered on India. The narrative of the missionary contemporary with Constantine is found in Philostorgius, iii, 4.
[180] Eusebius, iii, 1.
[181] "Acta Apost.," Tischendorf edition, p. 128.
[182] Ibid., p. 129.
[183] Ibid., p. 239.
[184] Ibid., p. 249.
[185] Lange, Kirchen Geschichte, vol. ii, p. 403.
[186] The Epistle of Peter, addressed to these Churches, does not prove, as has been asserted, that he was at their head. We need only to remember how strong was at this time the sense of Christian oneness.
[187] Josephus, "Ant.," XV, iii, 1.
[188] Josephus, "Ant.," XVIII, ix, 1.
[189] This is the sense we attach to the words he en Babuloni suneklekte.
[190] Baronius ("Annals," An. 45) gives the year 45 as the date of the Epistle of Peter; but it is evident that it was really written much later, for Silas was with Peter when he wrote, and Silas did not leave Paul till after his first journey into Europe, that is to say, after the year 52. Acts xviii, 18.
[191] See Note I, at the end of the volume, on the Second Epistle of Peter.
[192] Clement, "Epistle to the Corinthians," c. v.
[193] "Acta Petri et Pauli," p. 1.
[194] See the passage in Dyonisius: Ampho (Petros kai Paulos) kai eis ten hemeteran Korinthon phuteusantes hemas, homoios edidaxan; homoios de kai eis ten Italian homose didaxantes, hemarturesan kata ton auton kairon. (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles." ii, 25.)
[195] Cyprian, "De non iterando baptismo."
[196] Tou Petrou kai tou Paulou en Rome euangelizomenon. (Irenæus, "Adv. Hæres," iii, 1.)
[197] "Ubi Petrus passioni dominicæ adæquatur." (Tertullian, "Præscript.," 36.)
[198] The opposite opinion to that we have expressed is very fully stated in Blumhart's "History of the Establishment of Christianity."
[199] Eusebius, "Hist.," ii, 16. Eis ten Alexandrian parrhesia ton Christon kerutton. (Nicephorus, ii, 44.)
[200] See Fabricius, "Lux Evangelii," pp. 115-117.
[201] Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles.," iii, 1.
[202] See in Fabricius a list of Churches founded in the apostolic age, pp. 83-92.
[203] Ouch oplois chresamenoi alla peithontes. (Theodoret, "Therapeut. gent.," p. 115; "Opera," vol. iv, p. 610.) __________________________________________________________________
§ III. Mode of Primitive Evangelization. Origin of the First Three Gospels.
Having now described the missions of the primitive Church in their rapid and fruitful expansion, we must characterize the method adopted at this period in the propagation of the truth. "Faith cometh by hearing," says St. Paul, (Rom. x, 17,) and he sums up, in these words, the leading principle and practice of the apostolic Church, which was much more occupied with preaching the Gospel than with the composition of new sacred books. The Apostles were, for the most part, unlettered men, and they would not be likely to write except under pressure of necessity. Their Master had left them no instructions on this point, and he himself had written nothing. He had founded the Church by his word. [204] Again, the expectation of his speedy return in glory was then general. They thought that at any moment he might appear in the clouds to judge the world. They had, therefore, no motive for concerning themselves with a distant future, and for committing to writing memories which were still living in the heart of the Church. The Church itself, but partially freed from the bondage of Judaism, found in the sacred books of God's ancient people a solid foundation for its faith; and the incontestable truth of what they believed was sufficiently confirmed to the Christians by the declarations of the prophets. Endowed with the richest gifts of the Spirit, they were perpetually conscious of the pure and life-giving breath of inspiration. Paul boldly declared that the new covenant was not in the letter, but in the Spirit. 2 Cor. iii, 3-7; Rom. vii, 6.
None of the expressions by which preaching is spoken of in the New Testament can apply to written documents. That which is intended is always the living word, the solemn proclamation of the truth from the lips of witnesses. [205] When the Gospel is spoken of, the reference is not to a book, but to the substance of the apostolic preaching--to the good tidings of salvation, as the etymology of the word signifies. "The Apostles of Christ," says Eusebius, "purified in life, and adorned with all the virtues of the soul, but rough and uncultivated in speech, upheld simply by the power of Christ, through which they worked so many miracles--preached the kingdom of God to the whole world. They were not concerned to write books, being put in charge with a far grander and superhuman ministry." [206]
For a long time the Church preferred the living to the written word. "If I met," says Papias, "a brother who had known the Apostles, I asked him carefully what they had said--what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew had said. I thought I could gather more from a living testimony than from books." [207] It was very natural that, at a time when the first generation of Christians was still alive, their words should have been preferred to their writings. The Apostles themselves attached more importance to their preaching than to their letters; they thought they could gain a stronger influence over the Churches by their presence than by their epistles, else they would have been willing to remain at a distance from them, and would not have so frequently expressed a desire to visit them again. Rom. xv, 32; 1 Cor. xvi, 5, 6; 2 Cor. xiii, 10. "Having many things to write unto you," says John, "I would not write with paper and ink, but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full." [208]
It is in no degree our intention to detract from the importance of the written Gospels, but to throw, as far as may be possible within the limits imposed by our subject, some light on the question of their origin. It is proved that during many years the word of God was freely propagated by the living voice, and that the most flourishing Churches the world has known were founded by the preaching of the early missionaries. It was of vital importance, however, that the great facts of Christianity should be transmitted to posterity through a safer medium than mere oral tradition. After being set forth in several writings, which were not handed down beyond the first century, (Luke i, 1,) they were cast into a permanent form in our canonical Gospels, which bear so manifestly the seal of inspiration. We shall not do more here than indicate the origin of the first three Gospels, which date from this period. [209]
The origin of the Gospel of Mark is thus stated by Papias, who is himself only the echo of John the Presbyter, or the Elder: "Mark, having been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, the words and actions of Jesus Christ. His one great concern was to give, unaltered and unadulterated, that which he had heard." [210] Clement of Alexandria adds, that Mark wrote his Gospel at the express request of the hearers of Peter. [211] Luke himself clearly informs us of the motive which led him to write an account of the Gospel history. "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus." Luke i, 1-3. Matthew, according to Eusebius, wrote his Gospel in Hebrew on the eve of starting on his distant missions. Papias says, "Matthew made a collection in Hebrew of the discourses of the Lord Jesus, and each interpreted them as he was able." [212] __________________________________________________________________
[204] We have mentioned the absurd legend given by Eusebius about the correspondence of Jesus Christ with the King of Edessa. (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles.," i, 13.)
[205] Logos. (James i, 22.) Logos akoes. (1 Thess. ii, 13.) Kerugma. (Titus i, 3; 1 Cor. ii, 4; 1 Tim. i, 11; 2 Tim. ii, 2.)
[206] Spoudes tes peri to logographein mikran poioumenoi phrontida. (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles.," iii, 24.)
[207] Ou gar ta ek ton biblion tosouton me hophelein hupelambanon hoson ta para zoses phones. (Eusebius, " Hist. Eccles.," iii, 39.)
[208] 2 John 12. On this question see Gieseler, "Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Enstehung der Evangelien," p. 70.
[209] On the question of the sources of the synoptics, see my work, "Jesus Christ: His Life and Times," Book I, c. iv.
[210] Markos men hermeneutes Petrou genomenos hosa emnemoneusen akribos egrapsen, ou men toi taxei. (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccles.," iii, 39; vi, 14.) It has been maintained that these words could not apply to our Gospel of Mark, which has, say the objectors, as much order as the rest. Let us observe, however: 1st. That the discourses of the Saviour are not grouped in Mark as in Matthew. 2d. That we do not find in it the chronological order followed by Luke. 3d. That there are in Mark strange omissions; for instance, there is no account of the birth of Jesus Christ. The expression ou taxei seems, therefore, justified. (Tholuck, "Glaubwürdigkeit der evangel. Gesch.," 2d ed., p. 242.) There are a number of Latinisms in Mark's Gospel which confirm the testimony of Papias as to its being written at Rome.
[211] Eusebius, iii, 24.
[212] Matthaios men oun Hebraidi dialekto ta logia sunegrapsato. Hermeneuse d' auta hos en dunatos hekastos. (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.," iii, 39.) According to Schleiermacher, the meaning of the last phrase was, that each gave his own interpretation of the discourses of Christ. It appears to us, that by comparing the word hermeneuse with the word hermeneutes, applied to Mark, we arrive at the sense we have given. From this passage it appears that we have only a translation of the first Gospel. This explains those points in the narrative which to the direct statement of an eye-witness present real difficulties, as for instance, Matt. xxi, 2, 5, 7. __________________________________________________________________
§ IV. First Roman Persecution of Christianity. Persecution in Judæa. Death of James, the brother of the Lord.
Persecution always followed step by step in the track of Christian missions, endeavoring to sweep away their glorious results by torrents of blood, and succeeding only in watering and fructifying the buried seeds. We have already seen the outbreak of persecution in Judæa, giving to the Church its first martyrs. Paul had to encounter it in all his missionary journeys. We have left him at Rome loaded with chains, and awaiting his judgment. Up to the year 64 A. D., hostility to Christianity did not assume an official character. Opposition was offered, now in one city, now in another, but the Church was not as yet put under the ban of the empire. Its growth, however, had been so rapid, and its success so marked, that a terrible collision was inevitable with that imperial power which was the stronghold of all that Christianity came to destroy, and in which was personified that ancient order of things, the very basis of which Christianity was to undermine.
This sanguinary collision took place in the latter part of the reign of Nero. Paganism could not have found a fitter representative than this Emperor. Persecutions against the Church must needs break forth at Rome, for the doctrine of the Church was on one essential point directly antagonistic to the theories of the ancient world. In that world, religion was closely associated with political organization. Polytheism had produced, as its natural result, State religions, which trampled on the rights of conscience. The individual had no personal guaranty, and must, under every circumstance, sacrifice himself to the State. Freedom of thought could only exist in the presence of religions thus established, by means of reservations and artifices strongly savoring of hypocrisy. The light in which religion was regarded by pagan antiquity is forcibly described by Cicero: "No one," he says, "has a right to have particular gods; no one may introduce new or strange gods not recognized by the law of the State." [213] Now the Christians most evidently did proclaim a new god within the empire. This accusation had been already brought against Paul at Philippi. "These men," it was said of Paul and Barnabas, "teach customs which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans." Acts xvi, 21. Christianity was not formally denounced as an unlawful religion until later, but its character of novelty placed it, from the first, at issue with the law. It might, perhaps, have even longer escaped the attention of the Cæsars if these had not been rendered, by a concurrence of events, peculiarly hostile to religious innovation. The Emperors were repeatedly troubled at this period by the inroads of strange superstitions. They were thus made conscious of the agitation of men's minds, and of the dull discontent which was pervading the ancient world. They had repeatedly taken severe measures for the repression of these dangerous novelties, with a view to restore the dignity of the national religion. A senatus consultum was passed in the reign of Claudius, which commanded the priests to attend vigilantly to the renewed observance of the ancient ceremonies of the Haruspices--"lest," as we read in the recital, "the ancient usages of Italy fall into desuetude through the prevalence of foreign superstitions." [214] It is clear that the imperial policy was eminently unfavorable to the introduction of oriental religions; it was awake and on its guard; Christianity, therefore, was in grave danger. By a strange contradiction, the new religion was rendered obnoxious equally by the features in which it resembled, and in which it differed from, Judaism. On the one hand, it was, by the mass of pagans, confounded with Judaism; on the other hand, the Jews themselves were its most bitter and most subtle foes and calumniators. The Jews were, as we know, objects of hatred and contempt to the pagans. Their spirit of insubordination constantly awakened the suspicions of the imperial power. Suetonius informs us that Claudius had issued a decree banishing all Jews from Rome, as a punishment for their constant agitations.
[215] It was, then, no recommendation to the Church to pass for a Jewish sect. But while thus confounded by the majority of the Gentiles with this execrated people, it was vehemently repudiated by the synagogue, which found means at Rome, as elsewhere, to stir up the passions of the populace by artful insinuations against the Christians. The Church was thus at once implicated in the unpopularity of the Jews and made the victim of Jewish intrigues. But there was a deeper reason for the passionate opposition so quickly shown to the new religion, in the incompatibility of the principles of the Christian life with the corruption of the ancient world. Paganism felt itself judged and condemned by a purity of faith and practice of which, till then, it had not had even a conception. Christianity cleaves like a lightning flash the thick darkness of antiquity. At once irritated and humiliated, Roman paganism will treat the Church as Jewish formalism has treated the Lord Christ. "Away with him," rang the cry through the streets of Jerusalem; "Away with him," was now re-echoed from the walls of Rome.
The determining cause of the persecution under Nero was the astonishing success of the new religion in the capital of the world. It had been tolerated so long as it could be ignored. The apocryphal letter from Pilate to Tiberius, which is said to have led that Emperor to propose to the senate to admit the God of the Christians into the Roman Pantheon, has no marks of authenticity. [216] It is certain that the Emperors took no heed of Christianity till they were constrained to do so by the popular voice. The first persecution was in reality a satisfaction given to the hatred of the populace. We find no trace of edicts proscribing Christianity in a general manner. Legal persecution was not declared until subsequently. Nero played the part enacted by Pilate in the crucifixion of Christ. He sacrificed the innocent to the blind fury of a misled crowd. He added to his villainy by casting on the Christians the imputation of having set fire to the city. But he only chose them as his victims because public execration was loud against them. "To put to silence the rumors raised against himself," says Tacitus, "Nero laid his own crime on certain persons rendered odious by their heinous offenses, and whom the people called Christians; on these he inflicted the most cruel punishments." [217] It was this blind and cruel popular hatred which gave occasion for the first persecution. It is important to ascertain the grounds of this animosity, and to investigate the calumnies brought against the Christians.
These calumnies have no connection with the subtle and perfidious accusations of the philosophers. We are brought face to face with popular prejudices in their grossest form. It would be a serious anachronism to transplant into the first century, and into the midst of the Roman populace, the learned objections of a Celsus or a Lucian. Tacitus himself puts us on the track of the charges which, in the year 65, were current in Rome against the Christians. "They were convicted," according to his statement, "not of the burning of Rome, but of the crime of hating the human race." [218] We discern in this accusation the confusion, so common, of the Church with the synagogue. The Jews did actually merit this accusation by their intractable pride and arrogant contempt of all other nations. This prejudice against the Christians, arising from a mistaken identification of them with their bitterest enemies, was probably strengthened by warnings uttered by them of a coming terrible judgment of God. They proclaimed the condemnation of sinful humanity; they painted its doom in prophetic pictures; they borrowed the strong colors of the ancient seers to produce a salutary terror. They spoke, doubtless, of those flames of judgment which should consume a godless world. It was easy, by materializing that which was spiritual, to represent them as dangerous conspirators, capable of causing the conflagration they predicted, and of bringing about by their own efforts the accomplishment of their prophecies. Their preaching must have been thus travestied to furnish the shadow of a pretext for the absurd accusation brought against them.
When Tacitus adds, that they were odious for their crimes and abominations, [219] he doubtless alludes to the infamous reports so long circulated against the Christians, to which Justin Martyr subsequently gave an indignant denial. "Do you believe," he exclaims, "that we devour men, and that, after our evening meal, we extinguish the lights to cover with darkness a hideous debauch?" These very calumnies are repeated in detail in the "Octavius" of Minutius Felix. "Must we not groan," says the champion of paganism, "when men belonging to a wretched, illegal, desperate faction rise up against the gods? a sect loving darkness, hating the day; it is silent in public, but loud in its secret retreats; it despises the gods and mocks at sacred things. Its members call each other brothers and sisters to add incest to idolatry. They drink the blood of a child, divide its members among them, make a covenant over this horrid sacrifice, and are pledged to silence by their common participation in crime." [220] "We are accused," says Tertullian, "of practicing infanticide in our sacred rites, of then feeding on the flesh of the victim, and concluding our feasts with incest." [221] These quotations from the " Fathers " are a true commentary on the words of Tacitus. In the next century we shall meet again with these vile accusations, with the addition of other yet more treacherous insinuations; but it is obvious that those now cited were the basis of all the rest. It is easy to see that they are a gross misrepresentation of Christian worship, and, in particular, of the Lord's Supper, in which the sacred symbols of the body of Christ were dispensed. The Church had cunning adversaries who knew how to malign her artfully, and who, observing the absence of all outward display in her worship, brought against her the charge of atheism. When we remember that through Poppæa the Jews of Rome had at this time the favor and the ear of Nero, we shall wonder the less at the success of their intrigues. One of the most ancient writers of the Church, Melito of Sardis, undoubtedly had these underhand practices in view when he said: "Nero and Domitian, incited by the councils of certain malicious persons, have endeavored to bring reproach on our religion. They have bequeathed to their successors these false accusations against us."
[222] These calumnies would have produced no effect, however, if the Church had not increased in Rome in a remarkable manner. "This detestable superstition," says Tacitus, "broke out on all sides, not only in Judæa, but in the city of Rome itself. Tacitus might have added that it had found its way even into the palace of the Cæsars, for St. Paul wrote to the Philippians at the same period: " My bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places." Phil. i, 13. The presence at Rome of the great Apostle of the Gentiles had been the principal cause of the rapid propagation of the new faith.
It was not possible that the Gospel should be disseminated in the metropolis of paganism without exciting vehement opposition. It could not, for the reasons already pointed out, engage public opinion without inflaming it against itself. Was it not in the world as a burning brand which was to set on fire the rotten edifice of a voluptuous and skeptical society? The self-interested devotees of paganism, men like Demetrius the silversmith, were even more numerous at Rome than at Ephesus. The Church had but to show itself, to be accursed. Nothing is more easy of explanation than this hatred of the Roman people to Christianity, and their eagerness to heap upon it undeserved reproach.
But though the first persecution was popular, it is none the less chargeable on the crowned tyrant who provoked it. Eusebius eloquently says, "Nothing was wanting to Nero but to add to his other titles that of being the first emperor who declared war against Christianity."
[223] His object was to divert from himself the suspicions of the people, who justly accused him of having set fire to a great part of the city to gratify a fantastic whim. He caused the Christians to be seized and tortured to compel them to confess a crime of which he himself was guilty. He thought that the spectacle of their death would compensate for that of the conflagration of the city, which had been amusing to none but himself. Blending buffoonery with cruelty, he devised the plan of clothing the Christians in the skins of wild beasts that they might be torn by the dogs. The Emperor assumed at this time an air of the greatest condescension, appearing in the circus in a plebeian garb, and mixing familiarly with the people. Some Christians were crucified; others, having been rubbed over with pitch, were made to serve as torches to light up the imperial gardens. [224] This fearful persecution did not extend beyond Rome. It was contrived for the amusement and exculpation of the Emperor, and was one of the awful caprices of that mad despot, who studied crime as a work of art. [225]
This first persecution produced a deep impression through the whole Church. Nero became to the Christians the type of Antichrist, and Rome a new Babylon, "the mother of harlots, drunken with the blood of saints." We trace this sentiment in all its vividness in the representations of the Apocalypse, which show us thousands of martyrs around the throne of God, crying for vengeance on the great whore seated on the seven hills. Nero seemed to the Church a sort of personification of the infernal powers leagued against her, and she could scarcely believe at his death that he had disappeared for ever. If we credit the Sibylline oracles, the Church lived in constant expectation of seeing him return from the far East to enter afresh into bloody warfare with the saints. [226]
St. Paul was probably put to death during this persecution, at the same time as St. Peter. According to a doubtful tradition, the latter was crucified with his head downward. Clement of Alexandria relates that Peter's wife went before him to death, and that the Apostle, calling her by name, addressed to her these simple and touching words, "Remember thou the Lord." [227] Caius, who lived at the commencement of the third century, says that he saw at Rome the tombs of the two Apostles, and we have no reason to question his testimony. [228] Among the mass of legends associated with the death of the two Apostles is one which, without possessing any historical value, has real beauty. We read in the "Acts of the Saints," that as Peter was trying to leave Rome to escape martyrdom, Jesus Christ suddenly appeared to him. Peter said, "Lord, whither goest thou?" The Lord replied, "I go to Rome, to be crucified." The Apostle understood that the words were to be fulfilled in him. [229] It was truly Jesus who suffered and was crucified in the persons of his disciples in that fearful persecution. From this assurance they drew all their comfort and strength.
While paganism was thus waging cruel warfare with the Church, Judaism in Palestine was persistent likewise in its hatred. James, the brother of the Lord, was put to death a short time before Peter and Paul. Neither his great popularity nor the unanimous respect he inspired, could avail to save him. The Pharisees were his implacable adversaries. He was, as we have said, a Jew after God's heart, and therefore raised immeasurably above the Judaism of his day; for it was impossible to embrace heartily the old covenant without being led on to the new. Piety so sincere and lofty as his was the crying condemnation of Pharisaism--a condemnation so much the more direct because conveyed under the very form of the old religion.
According to the statement of Hegesippus, [230] as the influence of James went on increasing day by day, the Scribes and Pharisees sought to lead him into a denial of his faith before the whole people assembled for the Passover feast. "Persuade the multitude," they said, "not to fall into error with regard to this Jesus. [231] We have all confidence in thee, also the people know that thou art a just man, and regardest not the persons of men." They brought him into the Temple and questioned him before the multitude. "Tell us, O thou just one," they said, "tell us what is the doctrine of Jesus?" [232] "You ask me," replied James, "of Jesus the Son of man; he is in heaven, at the right hand of the Almighty, and he will come again in the clouds." At these words the many Christians who were in the crowd uttered a loud hosanna. The enemies of James, furious at finding their crafty design turned against themselves, fell upon him, threw him down from the top of the Temple steps, and began stoning him. While the just man was praying for his murderers with his dying breath, a fanatic workman fell on him, and with heavy blows from a stick dispatched him. [233] The death of James was followed by a violent persecution of the Churches in Palestine. The letter which was addressed to them at this time by one of the disciples of Paul, probably Apollos, and known under the name of the Epistle to the Hebrews, was designed to strengthen the hearts of the Christians in Palestine under the ordeal of a fiery persecution. Still clinging, as they did, to Jewish prejudices, local and ceremonial, it was to them peculiarly grievous to be driven from the Temple, and compelled to relinquish the regular observance of the worship of their fathers.
[234] It was needful that they should learn from the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews to distinguish between vanishing types and the eternal realities of true religion. Great trials were yet awaiting them, for already the imperial armies were marching upon the Holy City, to make of its ruins the signal monument of the justice of God. __________________________________________________________________
[213] "Nisi publice adscitos." (Cicero, "De Legibus," ii, 8.)
[214] Viderent pontifices quæ retinenda firmandaque haruspicum ne vetustissima Italiæ disciplina per desidiam exolesceret. (Tacitus, "Annals," xi, 5.)
[215] Judæos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulsit." (Suetonius, "Claudius," 25.) The hypothesis of a tumult incited by the Christians is not tenable. The Church of Rome did not acquire any importance till after this date. Suetonius is, then, in error when he accuses the Christians of rebellion; but the decree issued by Claudius cannot be brought in question.
[216] This letter may be read in the Apocryphal Gospels, Tischendorf edit., p. 411. See also Tertullian, "Apologia," c. xxi; Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.," ii, 2.
[217] "Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos, et quæsitissimis poenis affecit quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat." (Tacitus, "Annals," xv, 44.)
[218] "Haud perinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt."
[219] "Flagitia pudenda."
[220] "Homines deploratæ illicitæ ac desperatæ factionis. Latebrosa et lucifugax natio. . . . se promiscue appellant fratres et sorores." (Minutius Felix, "Octavius," c. viii, ix.)
[221] "Dicimur sceleratissimi de sacramento infanticidii et pabulo inde et post convivium incesto." (Tertull., "Apol.," vii.)
[222] Hupo tinon baskai on anthropon anapeisthentes. (Routh, "Reliquiæ Sacræ," i, p. 117.)
[223] Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.," ii, 25.
[224] "In usum nocturni luminis." (Tacitus, xiii, 44.)
[225] Orosius (vii, 7) asserts, without giving any proof, that Nero's persecution was general.
[226] "Orac. Sibyll.," iv, 116.
[227] Clement, "Stromat.," vii, 736.
[228] Eusebius, ii, 25.
[229] "Acta Sanctorum." (Junius, iv, 432.)
[230] The account of Hegesippus is to be found in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.," ii, 23. We quote it from the text as given by Routh, "Reliquiæ Sacræ," i, pp. 209-211.
[231] Peison oun su ton hochlon peri Iesou me planasthai, ("Reliquiæ Sacræ," i, p. 210.)
[232] Tis he thura. Literally, "What is the door?" that is to say, what admits to the sect? in other words, what is its doctrine?
[233] It cannot be denied that in the detail of Hegesippus's narrative there is a certain theatrical air; but in substance the story seems authentic. (Neander, "Pflanz.," ii, 181.) The passage in Josephus ("Archælog.," xx, 9, 1) has no more impress of authenticity than that referring to Jesus Christ.
[234] See Note J, at the end of the volume, on the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________