Introduction
The
first Roman Emperors[1]
did not persecute the Christians. It is
true that Claudius (41-54), around the year 50 expelled the Hebrews from Rome,
as he had already done in Alexandria in 41.
According to the Roman historian Suetonius, (Claud., 25) because
of a certain Chrestus (sic) (impulsore Chresto) the Hebrews were
always provoking riots. This expulsion
punished too the Christians of Jewish origin,[2]
(cf. Acts 18,2) who were still taken as Jews. But it cannot however be considered a real
and proper persecution.
Nero’s Persecution
The
real persecution was inaugurated by the base Roman Emperor Nero (54-68) (Eus.
II, 25,5) who succeeded Claudius on the throne.
This monster of depravity, perverse and mad, to his many public crimes,
such as to do away with the son of Claudius – Britannicus, his mother –
Agrippina, brothers and wives – Octavia and Poppea alike, to say nothing of
countless other members of his family, added one more terrible crime to his
account: “he was the first of the emperors to be considered or declared
enemy of the worship of the almighty god” (cf. Eus. Hist. Eccl.). So it is not strange what the Roman
Tertullian has to say of him: “study your records: there you will find that
Nero was the first to persecute this teaching, when, after subjugating the
entire east, in Rome especially he treated everyone with savagery. that such a man was author of our
chastisement fills us with pride for anyone who knows him can understand that
anything not supremely good would have been condemned by Nero” (Quoted by
Eus., Hist. Eccl. Ibid.).
According
to the Roman historian Tacitus (Annales, XV,44) the tremendous
persecution against the Christians is closely united with the fire of Rome of
July 64. The fire lasted for days. Of the fourteen districts three were totally
destroyed. Seven were partially
destroyed. The popular rumor inculpated the Emperor, but to throw away this
dangerous rumor Nero accused the Christians, helped by informers (of Jewish origin?)
and arrested a huge multitude of Christians.
According to Tacitus these people were given to pernicious superstitions
(Exitialis superstitio) and were hated by the people because of their
supposedly shameful practices. He
continued to say that they were condemned not because of the fire but because
they were guilty of anti-social practices.[3] For almost the whole majority of scholars
Nero was the only one responsible for this widespread and devastating
fire. There are some, however, who
affirm, without foundation, that Tacitus is a little biased against Nero,
almost suggesting the possibility that the accusation against the Christians
might be true.
In
order to give a spectacle to the people, the executions were carried out in the
imperial gardens with refined ways of torture.
The Christians were torn to pieces by dogs, crucified, made into torches
after daylight. The persecution seemed
to have ranged only in Rome, where Nero, this conspicuous fighter against God,
“was led on to murder the apostles. It
is recorded that in his reign Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and Peter
likewise was crucified…” (Eus. II, 25, 5).
Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (II, XIV,6) gives the date
67 or 68 instead of 64 or 65 for Peter’s martyrdom, probably merely because he
attributes to Peter the famous twenty-five years as Bishop of Rome, beginning
in 42. But the persecution once begun
may have continued after 64, and it is not at all impossible that Paul,
arrested after his return to Rome, may have suffered the capital penalty
(beheading) just one or two years after St. Peter. But the same immemorial cult which unites
them together attests to the relative chronological proximity of their
deaths. The impression left by this
persecution on the Roman world was strong and durable; from this time on
wards
the name “Christian” was prohibited and taken as something criminal, worth
deserving death.
I
cannot resist the temptation to write down the very words of Tacitus, the great
Roman historian. He was not well
disposed towards the Christians, and seeing no guilt in them about the fire of
Rome, still he says they were guilty of hate against the human race. Here are his words:
…But neither human
resources, nor imperial munificence, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated
sinister suspicions that the fire had been instigated by him. To suppress this rumor, Nero fabricated
scapegoats and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved
Christians (as they were popularly called).
Their originator, Christ, had been executed during Tiberius reign by the
governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, but in spite of this temporary setback the
deadly superstition had broken out fresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief
started) but even in Rome where all degraded and shameful practices collect and
flourished in the capital.
First, Nero had
self-acknowledged (fatebantur) Christians arrested. Then on their information (indica eorum),
large numbers of others were condemned – not so much for incendiarism as for
their anti-social tendencies. Their
deaths were made farcical, dressed in wild animal’s skin, they were torn to
pieces by dogs, crucified, or made into torches as substitute for
daylight. Nero provided his gardens for
the spectacle, and exhibited displays in the circus, at which he mingled with
the crowds or stood in a chariot, dressed as a charioteer. Despite their guilt as Christians, and the
ruthless punishment it deserved, the victims were pitied. For it was felt that they were being
sacrificed to one man’s brutality rather than to the national interest.[4]
The Church Under the Flavian Emperors
The
Church had come into collision with the traditions which the Empire
represented, and the authorities which embodied them, in a first tragic
encounter in the reign of Nero, and from that moment persecution, or more
precisely, the constant danger of persecution, the effective realization of
which depended on circumstances, became its lot.
The Roman Church under the Flavian Emperors
But
just at first, being little known in spite of all, even after the bloody outburst
of the year 64, and benefiting perhaps by the fact that the Emperors who
followed Nero did not set out to imitate their predecessor who had left so
deplorable a memory, the Church enjoyed a brief period of unquestionable
tranquility. There is absolutely no
indication that in the ephemeral reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius, or under
the two first Flavian emperors, Vespasian (69-79) and Titus (78-81), Christians
were attacked as such. In point of fact,
it was then that at Rome, in the very heart of the Empire, Christianity, which
there as elsewhere attracted mostly the humble, made also some of its most
notable conquests in the highest circles of imperial society.
These
conquests had moreover begun even before the first persecution. Already under Nero a great lady, Pomponia
Graecina, married to a certain Plautius, a consul whose cousin espoused the
emperor Claudius, had become suspect because she led a life which was too
austere in the eyes of those of her circle, and had been accused of foreign superstition;[5] it
is all the more probable that she had been converted to the Christian faith
because subsequently we find the name of the Pomponii fairly well represented
in the inscriptions in the Roman catacombs.[6] A. Plautius, her husband, claimed as head of
the family the right to judge her according to ancient domestic custom, and
declared her innocent. She lived until
the reign of Domitian.
Converts to Christianity from the Aristocracy
The
Flavians doubtless had no preconceived hostility against a religion which had
issued from Judaism. Though they had
brought about the ruin of Jerusalem, the siege of which had been begun by
Vespasian before he came to the throne, and which had finally collapsed under
the blows of Titus in 70, they had admitted into their entourage the
representatives of a revived Judaism, including the princess Berenice, of the
house of Herod, and the historian Flavius Josephus.
Jewish
ideas, which under Nero had possessed a temporary protector in Poppea, enjoyed
then a return of favor in Rome, and the tendency towards religious monotheism
profited thereby. The situation in
Flavian Rome must thus have helped the progress of Christian propaganda even
among the families of the senatorial aristocracy: after the Pomponii, it made
converts among the Acilii: M. Acilius Glabrio, consul in the year 91, was very
probably a Christian, and the oldest Christian cemetery, consecrated to the
exclusive and collective use of those belonging to Roman Christianity, was a
property of the Acilii on the Via Salaria.[7]
The
Imperial house itself provided some converts.
Flavius Sabinus, elder brother of Vespasian, was perhaps already a
Christian[8]
and his son, Flavius Clemens, a cousin German of Titus and Domitian, consul in
95, adopted the Christian faith. His
wife Flavia Domitilla followed him, and made to the Roman Church a bequest
similar to that of the Acilii, which became the cemetery on the Via
Ardeatina still known to-day by their name; their two sons, pupils of
Quintilian, who should have succeeded Titus and Domitian, themselves without
male issue, also professed Christianity.
If the tragic and premature end of Domitian, a natural epilogue to a
tyrannical reign, had not annihilated the imperial hopes of these two young
men, the Empire would have had at its head Christian princes two hundred years
before Constantine.[9]
Another
princess of the imperial house, a second Flavia Domitilla, niece of the first,
would also have to be counted among the illustrious recruits to Christianity in
Rome before the end of the first century, if her existence were more certain.[10]
The Persecution in Rome Under Domitian
It was
upon this flourishing Roman Christianity that, in spite of the bonds which
linked some of its members to the throne itself, persecution broke out a second
time in the year 95, under Domitian.
This
ruler has left the memory of being a fickle tyrant; the philosophers, and all
others who had the air of retaining some independence, were or became suspect
to him. Moreover, he wanted to react against the spread of Jewish customs which
had taken place under the rule of his father and brother. His antipathy towards the Jews was in harmony
with his financial necessities, for his Treasury was exhausted after the
excessive expenses he had incurred in the embellishment of Rome. Accordingly he caused to be levied with great
strictness the tax of the didrachma, which the Jews, when independent, had paid
to the Temple at Jerusalem and the right to which had afterwards been claimed
by Rome.[11] There were many recalcitrants among the
proselytes who had adopted the faith of Israel but did not regard themselves as
Jews.
Were
the Christians who, though distinct from the Jews, were nonetheless still
regarded as a Jewish sect, also called upon to pay the didrachma and did their
very natural resistance call for severe measures? There is, in point of fact, nothing which
indicates this: it seems rather that only circumcised people were dealt with as
refractory to the tax, and that if punishment was applied, it consisted only of
pecuniary penalties. But on the other
hand, the measures taken to compel the payment of the didrachma by all the
circumcised may quite well have led indirectly to the persecution, by enabling
the imperial power to take note of the number of citizens who led what was
regarded as a Jewish life, whether they were proselytes of the faith of Moses
or followers of that of Jesus.
Thus,
so far as Christians were concerned, there was nothing to prevent the penal
effect from being applied immediately; all that was required was to set once
more in motion the Neronian interdict which had remained in abeyance for thirty
years, but of which the murderous capabilities could be activated again at any
moment. At this time also, in contrast
to what the relative moderation of Trajan will prescribe a little later in
requiring a previous accusation, authority took the initiative in the
repressive measures. This doubtless
explains why Tertullian (Apologeticus) says that only the emperors Nero
and Domitian were the enemies of the Christians.[12] At this time there were put to death, as
guilty of atheism,[13]Flavius
Clemens, cousin of the Emperor, and the consul, M. Acilius Glabrio, and also on
this head, says Dio Cassius,[14]
there were condemned “many other citizens who had adopted Jewish customs.”
The
double accusation of atheism and of Jewish customs seems to us not very
coherent, but it is a fact that Christians were often treated as atheists,
either because they did not worship the gods of the Empire, or else because,
precisely as Jews, they did not render worship, at least at first, to material
representations of the Deity. The
sentences passed were death or the confiscation of goods. The wife of Flavius Clemens, niece herself of
Domitian, Flavia Domitilla, was, according to Dio Cassius, exiled to the island
of the Tyrrhenian sea, Pontia, the second Flavia Domitilla, niece to Flavius
Clemens, was apparently likewise exiled because of her Christian faith. But this second Flavia is known only by the
somewhat late testimonies of Eusebius,[15]
who, it is true, cites an unknown pagan of uncertain period, Bruttius, and of
St. Jerome.[16] The Acts of Saints Nereus and Achilleus, also
brought forward in favor of the historic reality of the second Flavia
Domitilla, do not deserve any credence.[17] It is thus possible that there may have been
a legendary doubling in the tradition, and that there was only one Flavia
Domitilla who was a victim of the persecution under Domitian, the wife of
Clemens, exiled in one of the islands in the Mediterranean assigned as
residence for the imperial personages condemned to deportation.[18]
The Persecution in the Provinces: Bithynia
The
persecution extended at least to some provinces: in Asia, Bithynia and the
province of Asia proper were affected.
The passage in Pliny the Younger which gives us information of the
persecution under Trajan in Bithynia speaks of apostasies which had followed
from threats some twenty years earlier: Christians were thus affected about the
year 95.
Asia Minor
In
Asia Minor the persecution made, according to tradition, if not a martyr, at
least the most glorious of confessors in the person of St. John. A story which we find for the first time in
Tertullian[19] says
that John was taken from Ephesus to Rome, that he was there plunged into a
vessel of boiling oil, and that he was then deported to the island of
Patmos. The legendary character of the
first part of this late narrative prevents us from discerning the exact
memories which it may retain, if it be not a complete invention.[20] The exile to Patmos, on the other hand, has
in the Apocalypse (1,9) a testimony the value of which is rendered less
unfavorable than many critics allow the previous discussion on the authenticity
of the Johannine writings. The Apocalypse
is also filled on every page with the memory of those who recently shed their
blood for Jesus, and it names two of the great cities of Asia, Pergamum and
Smyrna whose churches have suffered.[21]
Palestine
Lastly,
according to the historian Hegesippus, a converted Jew of the second century
particularly well informed on Judeo-Christian matters, whose account is
transmitted to us by Eusebius,[22]
the emperor concerned himself, for reasons other than those which had motived
the persecution, about Palestine, where descendants of the family of Jesus were
still living.
But
these attracted attention rather as descendants of David. Hegesippus asserts what may be an
exaggeration of a less cruel fact, that Domitian had given orders for the
destruction of all the survivors of a royal race which worried him. Some descendants of Jude, one of the
“brethren of the Lord,” were denounced as belonging to it. They were taken to the emperor, who after
finding by interrogation that they were of modest condition, and free from any
pretension to an earthly kingdom, dismissed them as inoffensive folk. The account adds that they were “respected as
martyrs, they governed churches when peace was re-established, and lived until
the time of Trajan.”[23]
Under
the peaceful and aged Nerva (96-98) peace came back for the Christians. He even prohibited, according to Dio Cassius
(68,2), the accusation of “lease maiestatis” and that of following the Jewish
customs.
Trajan’s Persecution
Nerva
was succeeded by the brave and great emperor Trajan (98-117), called Optimus
Princeps. Trajan was at once a
legislator and a conqueror. But he had a
lively sense of the prerogatives of the State, and no leaning towards
consideration for particular groups.
During his reign the Roman Empire spread its frontiers beyond the Danube
and to the Persian Gulf, the greatest extension ever attained by the Roman
Empire. During his time occurred a
terrible persecution connected with the prohibition of constituting dangerous
societies. The venerable bishop of
Jerusalem (Simeon), a man of almost 120 years old, and a relative of the Lord,
was crucified.
The
most famous of all martyrs after the apostles was bishop Ignatius of Antioch
(74-117). Ignatius is the chief figure
in the persecution of Trajan, and the one who left the most brilliant memory,
like Clement of Rome. He was very closely connected with the apostolic
generation of which Simeon was perhaps the last survivor, and his letters, like
that of Clement to the Church of Corinth, were regarded by the early Church as
almost canonical documents.
He was
arrested in circumstances unknown to us, perhaps in consequence of some popular
commotion, perhaps through a formal denunciation, and was condemned early in
107, evidently by the governor of the province.
He was sent to Rome with two companions, Rufus and Zosimus, to be thrown
to the beasts, probably on the occasion of the great feasts given by the
Emperor after his victories in Dacia, when a certain number of human victims
had to lose their lives.
The
bishop set out, full of supernatural joy, certain as he wrote to the Smyrnans
that “under the edge of the sword, as in the midst of wild beasts, he would be
always near to God”. On his journey to
Smyrna, where he made a fairly long stay and met Polycarp the bishop, to
Philippi in Macedonia he wrote seven letters for which he is forever famous, to
the Churches of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Smyrna, Philadelphia and
Polycarp.
The
Letter to the Romans is the best known of all. After giving praise on Roman Christianity,
which leads him to evoke the memory of Peter and Paul, he adjured the faithful
of Rome, whom he cannot, he says, command like those apostles, to do nothing to
oppose his martyrdom. Any such
opposition was not very likely, for its success would have been very doubtful,
as a pardon was almost out of question, and a withdrawal from torture in
extremis would not have been of much use.
But some protestations of devotion towards his person had probably
reached the bishop, and had led him to fear that he might be saved from death. And so he protests vehemently against any
such action. “Allow me,” he
writes, “to be immolated while the altar is ready…Let me be the prey of wild
beasts, by them I shall attain to God. I
am God’s grain: Let me be ground by the teeth of wild beats, so that I may
become the pure bread of Christ.” So
it came to pass, and Ignatius was “ground” by the wild beasts, perhaps in the
Colosseum, if this building, begun under Domitian, was then sufficiently
advanced.
We
have precise news for Asia Minor, not so much about the exact number of
Christians brought to death due to their religion, but about the persecution
and the life of the Christians. Pliny
the Younger (62-113), proconsul of Bithynia and Pontus says in his Letter to
Trajan (112)[24] that he
had put a number of Christians to death, but when more and more people, among
them women, old men and children, were brought before his tribunal, he became
alarmed at the prospect of sacrificing so many lives. We learn from the correspondence between
Pliny and Trajan that less than a hundred years after the death of Christ,
Christianity had made marvelous progress in the southern portion of Asia Minor,
and this not only in the towns, but also in the countryside.
From
Trajan’s answer, it is clear that the profession of Christianity was regarded
as a crime punishable with death. This
principle laid down by Nero: Christiani non sint (Let the Christians be
exterminated) is upheld. Anyone can
lodge an accusation against a Christian, and the accused has only the choice
between apostasy and death. Trajan
answers that Christians must not be looked for, but if they are denounced and
confessed that they are Christians, they must be condemned. The Christians he says, conquirendi non
sint: si deferantur et arguantur, puniendi sunt. Those who professed that they had been
Christians but renounced their faith were allowed to go free. Trajan, on the other hand, prohibited
anonymous denunciations. Taking
everything into account, the position of the Christians was quite precarious
and critical; their religion was declared unlawful and its profession
punishable with death penalty. Trajan’s
rescript, although contradictory in itself (Tert. Apol. II,8) and
without giving final decisions on the matter, served, for a long time, as a
rule and norm for Trajan’s successors in the fight between the Roman State and
Christianity.
The
two successors of Trajan, Hadrian (117-138) and Antoninus Pius (138-161) were a
little better disposed towards the Christians.
With rescripts they even protected the Christians against the frequent
popular excesses and vulgar fanaticism in Greece and Asia Minor, where the
Christians were most numerous. The
policy of the Romans was generally based on the idea that although the
profession of Christianity is a capital offense, there should be no effort to
seek out and prosecute those who belonged to the ranks of the Christian
Church. It is left to the local
initiative to determine whether or not the Christians of a neighborhood should
be left in peace. Nothing changed
legally until the accession of Decius in 249, that is, juridically speaking
Christianity was a proscribed religion.
We
know that the popular fury increased from day to day against the Christians,
especially, as we have already mentioned, in Asia Minor, where the cult of the
Emperors was far more intense in Rome itself.
When the governors did not show sufficient alacrity in proceeding
against the Christians, the rabble took the law in their own hands. Tumults were raised in which the homes of Christians
were stormed and the inmates torn into pieces.
At the public festivals the cry would suddenly be heard: Death to the
Christians!!! And before the magistrates
could interfere some Christian youths or maidens had been tossed to the
lions. Crowds would assemble before the
tribunals of the governors and clamor for the punishment of the despisers of
the gods. Accusations against the
Christians were sometimes accompanied by veritable riots.
How
many Christians fell victims to the fury of the pagans, we have no means of
telling. There were magistrates who were
not always disposed to give way blindly to popular clamor. One governor, at least, had the courage to
put a stop to such violence. This was
Serenus Granianus, proconsul of Asia. He
thought it was unjust not only that Christians should be sacrificed to the
clamors of the mob, but that Christians should be punished at all simply for
being Christians. He wrote to this
effect to Emperor Hadrian (117-138).
Hadrian directed his answer to Granianus’ successor, Minucius Fundanus
about the year 124. All this shows the
terrible sufferings of the Christians and the popular persecution against them
carried on by the masses. Witnesses to
this persecution are the Christian apologists Quadratus, Aristides,
and the great Justinus. These
people, about this time, addressed their apologies (pleas for the
Christians) to the Emperor, and perhaps these noble and fearless writings were
responsible for the very favorable tone of the Imperial rescript. Hadrian (117-138) has this answer to Minucius
Fundanus:
…It is an affair well worthy
of your consideration to put a stop to vexation suits, and to give no hearing
to informers to carry on the trade of malice.
If then, the people under your government have anything to say against
the Christians and will prove it in public, so that Christians may answer for
themselves in open court, it is your duty to hear them in judicial way only,
and not to be overborne by the petitions and tumultuous clamors of the people;
for it is your place, and not the mobs, to judge the merits of the cause. If, therefore, the informers shall make it
appear that Christians have done anything contrary to law, punish them
according to the quality of crime; so verily on the other hand, if you find it
to be a malicious charge only, take care to condemn and punish as the malice
deserves.[25]
Antoninus
Pius (138-161) was even more favorable to the Christians than Hadrian
(117-138). He did not modify the
rigorous legislation under which the Christians still remained, but like
Hadrian and perhaps with greater willingness and desire to avoid the shedding
of blood, he forbade any giving way to popular commotions against them as is
shown by four rescripts addressed by him to the cities of Larissa, Thessalonica,
Athens and the province of Achaia (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., III, 26,
10). The principles of the legislation
itself were not changed. The imperial
orders were not always obeyed.
Antoninus’ reign will ever be memorable for the martyrdom of St. Polycarp,
the aged bishop of Smyrna (70-156). For
nearly thirty years Polycarp had been a disciple and companion of the apostle
St. John and a close friend of Ignatius of Antioch. But around the year 156 a cruel persecution
broke out against the Christians in which both the pagan and the Jewish people
took part. Polycarp died a martyr, then,
in Antoninus Pius’ reign after several Christians had been tortured and thrown
to the lions. These were Polycarp’s
words when the governor urged him to curse Christ: “Curse Christ? Eighty and
six years have I served him and he never did wrong and how can I now blaspheme
my king who has saved me?” He was
finally burned alive on a fire of wood made ready by the crowd consisting alike
of Jews and pagans. There were also under
Antoninus Pius other victims of pagan hatred: at Jerusalem, Mark the bishop, in
Rome, Popes Higginus and Pius I and about 160, a Christian priest or catechist
called Ptolemy and two laymen one of whom bore the name of Lucius. Their condemnation is narrated at the
beginning of the second Apology of Justin.
Marcus Aurelius’ Persecution
(161-180)
The
fourth great persecution is that of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), an excellent
Emperor and enthusiastic for the Stoic philosophy. There were grave and serious calamities at
the beginning of his reign: want of food, plagues and above all, barbaric
invasions. Given this situation and the
state of affairs, the Christians were, once more, accused of being responsible
for all these maladies which afflicted the Roman empire and were, once again,
the object of popular fury and wrath.
The Emperor himself, in his book of Meditations (XI, 3) did find
in Christianity nothing but a spirit of contradiction and doctrine for
visionaries and idiot people. He was
ignorant of the source whence these nameless heroes drew a strength superior to
his own. This contempt for the
Christians is also manifested in his decree “against the new and unknown
religions.” This Emperor
“philosopher on the throne”, does not even deign to mention the Christian
Religion by name, although the decree was directed against them in the first
place: “Whoever introduced new sects or religions whose true nature is unknown,
and thereby excites the people shall be banished if he be of noble birth, and killed
by the sword if he be of mean extraction.”[26]
This
decree was a signal for a violent persecution of the Christians throughout the
Empire, and there is not doubt that this was a cruel and grave persecution, as
we can see from the apologies of Athenagoras of Athens, Melito of Sardis,
Apollinarius and Milciades, all addressed to the Emperor philosopher. We must admit that this was not a new edict
against the Christians, but that proviso and decree against the
establishment of new religions was enough.
A
legal accusation made by the Cynic philosopher Crescens between 163 and 168
brought about the appearance before the prefect of Rome, Junius Rusticus
confidant of Marcus Aurelius, of our Christian philosopher and apologist
Justin. Justin was not alone, as he was
arrested with some other Christian faithful, probably his disciples, among them
being a woman, Charity, and a slave of Caesar’s household, Evelpistus. The essential question: “Are you a
Christian?” brought the reply: “yes, I am.”
Then followed the sentence: “Those who have refused to sacrifice to the
gods and obey the orders of the Emperor are to be scourged and taken away to
suffer the penalty of death in conformity with the laws.” The execution took place immediately.[27]
In
Lyons, where the persecution was ignited by the common masses, we have many
martyrs who, in the year 177, died for the faith. Eusebius, the great historian of the Church,
has left us a wonderful and remarkable document about the martyrdom of these
brothers of ours. (H.E. V, 1-2). It is a letter of the servants of Christ at
Vienne and Lyons, in Gaul, to the brothers in Asia and Phrygia, of those
brothers of the West, to the ones far away from them but all of them brothers
of Christ, having the same faith and hope of redemption.
The Church of
Lyons was indeed, as far as we can judge from the information in the letter,
partly of Asiatic origin and composition.
Its head, bishop Pothinus, over 90 years of age in 177, had been
a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and the names of several of its members
show them to be orientals, such as the Phrygian doctor Alexander, long
established nevertheless, “among the Gauls.”
The indigenous
element was also represented; and there were in this young Christian community
some notable Gallo-Romans such as Vettius Epegathus, a Roman citizen,
described in the letter as a Christian wholly filled with the Holy Spirit. There was also among the faithful at least
one representative of the Church at Vienne, the deacon Sanctus. The aged bishop Pothinus “who could scarcely
breathe because of the exhaustion of his body, but who was upheld by the ardor
of Spirit,” died in prison, and the apostates proclaimed once more their faith
in Christ. Sanctus, the deacon of Vienne,
Maternus the neophythe, the very young slave Blandina, and the Asiatic Attalus
of Pergamum, one of the most prominent members of the community in Lyons, were
condemned to the wild beasts. Alexander
perished in the same manner. The last to
suffer was the young boy Ponticus and Blandina. Almost 50 Christians of Lyons were thus
martyred during the persecution.
In the East we
have the martyrdom of bishop Publius of Athens and bishop Sagaris
(Eus, H.E. IV, 23, 2; 26, 3) and probably during this persecution,
bishop Carpus, the deacon Papilus and the Christian Agathonice
all suffered their martyrdom in Pergamum. Probably another martyr of this
persecution is St. Agatha who suffered in Catania, Sicily (Feast,
February 5).
Finally,
towards the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, between June 177 and March
180, a time suggested by a note in the martyrdom of Ado, there were new martyrs
in Rome: St. Cecilia (Feast, November 22), of the illustrious Roman
family of the Caecilii, and the three companions joined with her in the
earliest martyrological tradition, Valerian, Tiburtius, and Maximus. The Passion which represents Cecilia
as the virgin spouse of Valerian, brother of Tiburtius, is only a late romance;
but the account it gives of the death of Cecilia, condemned to be suffocated in
the bath of her own house, and finally decapitated, has been at least partially
confirmed by remarkable archaeological discoveries. Cecilia was buried near to the papal crypt in
the cemetery afterwards named after Pope Callistus, in a piece of land
belonging to her family. The latter
subsequently presented it to the Church, and this explains the proximity of the
saint’s burial place to that of the Popes of later times.
Marcus
Aurelius died fighting the Goths in the year 180 and was succeeded by his son
Commodus. Commodus (180-192) was
politically indifferent. The emperors
before him were conscientious rulers, deeply imbued with the Roman
tradition. Commodus was careless of his
duties as sovereign. The Roman Senate in
condemning his memory could call him more impure than Nero and more cruel than
Domitian (Saevior Domitiano impurior Nerone). But better times came to the Church with him.
However, in
the beginning of the reign of Commodus, we find the first Christian martyrs in
Africa whose memory has come down to us.
Twelve Christians in the little town of Scillium, in the part of
Numidia dependent on the proconsular province, were delated in 180 to the
proconsul Vigellius Saturninus, who resided at Carthage. They boldly professed their faith and refused
sacrifice to the gods or to swear by the genius of the Emperor, and accordingly
they were condemned to die by the sword, and were executed on the spot. It is quite likely that the martyrs of
Scillium were indeed the first martyrs in the African Church, for Tertullian asserts
that Vigellius Saturninus began the measures of bloody repression in the
province. We might infer from this that
their Church was then at least relatively young, which would not exclude the
possibility that there was a period in which a small number of faithful may
have lived obscurely without being disturbed.
Rome has an
illustrious martyr under Commodus in the person of the well-educated Senator Apollonius,
a new example of the penetration of Christianity into the highest ranks of the
Roman aristocracy. Denounced as a
Christtian by one of his slaves, whose reward was merely to be executed
himself, in accordance with the stipulations of an ancient law which forbade
slaves to delate their masters, Apollonius read before a full meeting of the
Senate an Apology for the Christian Faith, but he was nonetheless
finally beheaded, in virtue of the existing legislation, still in force, as is
shown by his Acts.
Nevertheless,
the political situation underwent a change.
Commodus had a favorite, Marcia, who had entered his palace as a slave
and finished by becoming his wife (morganatic wife) though without the title of
Augusta. Now Marcia was a Christian by
faith if not by baptism; her conduct had not perhaps been always in conformity
with the Gospel ideal, but she was doubtless well disposed, and in any case she
did what she could to ameliorate the lot of her brethren.
And so from
this moment, in spite of the evident paradox in such a situation, there were
Christians in the Imperial Court. One of them, the freedman Proxenes, even
became Commodus’ chamberlain. Marcia
obtained from Commodus the pardon of confessors condemned to forced labor,
juridically a capital punishment, in the mines of Sardinia. Pope Victor (189-198) gave a list of these
confessors, and the priest Hyacinth, foster-father and a friend of Marcia went
to free the miners, among whom was a future pope, Callistus. Commodus, doubtless without knowing it,
became more just than all his glorious predecessors by performing the first act
of benevolence towards the Church that she had as yet enjoyed.
Persecution of Septimius
Severus (193-211)
The
African Emperor Septimus Severus (193-211) observed at the beginning of his
reign a policy of tolerance, even he personally showed himself to be well
disposed towards the Christians. He
changed his policy, however, some time later, because of Jewish uprisings and
probably also because the great number of Christians in high places. He prohibited with grave penalties (201) to
pass to Judaism through circumcision and the very next year (202) a new decree
also prohibited the adoption of the Christian faith. Due to the nature of the edict this
persecution was felt more by catechumens and newly baptized among them Leonidas
of Alexandria, the father of Origen, and the noble Perpetua and her
slave Felicitas and companions at Carthage. (Feast, March 7)
During
the last years of Septimus’ reign there came a relative peace which lasted for
many years, although the last collection of imperial rescripts done by the
famous Roman jurist Domitius Ulpianus makes us think that there was constant
opposition against Christianity in the high spheres of the government.
Marcus
Aurelius Anthoninus, called Caracalla (211-217), one of the worst Roman
Emperors, had a particular clemency for the Christians, because of his youthful
days (Lactae Christianos educatos, Ter. Ad Scapulam). It was nevertheless, possible, given the
actual legislation, that more Christians could be sacrificed to the fury and
wrath of the populace.
With
Caracalla, we have the so-called period of Syrian Emperors, inaugurated by his
mother, the Aramean Julia Domna, wife of Septimus Severus, daughter of a high
priest of the sun at Emesa. This is one
of the most confused and terrible periods of Roman history characterized by the
predominant military caste and overpowering influence of women (Julia Domna,
her sister Julia Marcia and their daughters: the four Julias), by the internal
and external disorganization of the Roman Empire, by the gradual separation
between East and West, (Caracalla in 212, gave the Roman citizenship to all
free subjects of the Empire), by the irruption of the so-called
mystery-religions of the East which invaded the West and above all, the cult of
the Sun (Sol Invictus Mithras).
It is probable that Caracalla recognized by edict all the oriental
religions and wanted to fuse them with the Roman cult of State. It was at this time, too, that Neo-Platonism,
an idealistic religious philosophy, began to flourish at Alexandria.
The
youthful Heliogabalus (218-222), who disgraced the Roman throne by every manner
of vice and orgy, substituted for several years the Roman religion of State
with the cult of Baal from Emesa and called himself sacerdos amplissimus dei
invicti solis eliogabali. It is said
that he intended to fuse all religions, even Judaism and Christianity, with the
cult of the Sun.
His
cousin, Alexander Severus (222-235), of noble sentiments but of weak character,
dealt with the Christians with the utmost consideration and benevolence. He tolerated the Christian people in his
palace and commanded to write in his palace and public buildings the Golden
Rule expressed negatively about the love of neighbor: “So whatever you wish
that men would do to you, do so to them” (Mt. 7,12). And not only did he tolerate Christians in
his palace but he spoke amicably with enlightened Christians. According to his biographer Lampridias, he
erected a temple in honor of Christ and wanted to take and accept Him as God and
also, that he had in his house a bust of Christ together with another one of
Apollonius of Tyana, a pagan philosopher, of Abraham and Orpheus and many of
the best predecessors in the Empire.
This is not probable but it shows the fame he had of having been a
friend of the Christians.
His
mother, Julia Mamaea, was much closer to Christianity and was a friend of
Origen, whom she called to Antioch (232) to have a religious conference with
her. St. Hippolytus (ca. 170-235), a
Roman presbyter, dedicated to her a book about the Resurrection. Christian writers after the 4th
century like Rufinus, Orosius and others presented her as a Christian. This is not credible, but no doubt the Church
gained tremendous advantage for her spread and we can surely affirm that she
was never so close to an official recognition before Constantine as during this
time.
Nevertheless,
the laws against the Christians persisted and there were some martyrs here and
there. The assassination of Alexander
Severus and his mother Julia Mamaea in a camp (235) by the banks of the Rhine
brought a sudden change for the Church.
Persecution Under Maximinus
Thrax (235-238)
Maximinus
Thrax (235-238) “the first barbarian upon the throne of the Caesars”, obtained
the imperial purple after the assassination of Alexander Severus. He was imposed by the army. As he persecuted the supporters of Alexander
Severus, he, too, persecuted in a special manner, the Christians who had been
respected and loved by his predecessors.
His edict was mainly directed against the heads of the community, that
is, the higher clergy. Pope Pontianus
(230-235; Feast, August 13) and the antibishop Hippolytus [Feast, August 13]
(the first one in the history of the Church) were exiled to Sardinia where the
torrid climate soon brought them to death.
St. Hippolytus was buried in the cemetery which bears his name in the
Via Tiburtina, and the epitaph of St. Pontianus was found in 1909 in the
catacomb of St. Callixtus. In the
provinces, the persecution was not so serious, except in the province of
Cappadocia and Pontus, where the fanaticism of the masses was excited by
destructive earthquakes.
This
hostility, however, did not last long.
Maximinus himself, it appears, took no active part in it. It seems that peace came back to the Church
even before Maximinus Thrax’s death and continued during the reign of Gordian
III (238-244) and under Philip the Arabian (244-249), son of a
sheik-Arabian chief – from Bosra, who was very favorable to the Christian
religion. The great Origen (185-254) was
in epistular correspondence with him and with his wife Severa. According to Eusebius (IV, 34; VII, 10,3) he
was Christian and “on the day of the last Easter Vigil he wished to share in
the prayers of the Church along with the people” but being accused of homicide
de did penance at Antioch and “gladly obeyed, showing by his actions the
genuine piety of his attitude towards the fear of God.” On the coins for the millennium of Rome’s
foundation (248) he appears as the Pontifex Maximus in the act of
sacrificing to the gods and in his public life he always appeared and acted as
a pagan. So Eusebius must be taken cum
mica salis (with a grain of salt).
[1]
Augustus Caesar (63 BC-14 AD), Tiberius Caesar (42 AD-37 AD), Caligula (37
AD-41 AD), Claudius (10 AD-54 AD).
[2]
E.g. Priscilla and Aquila
[3] Odium
generis humani
[4]
Tacitus, Annals, XXV,44.
[5]
Tacitus, Annals, XIII,32.
[6]
There are Christian inscriptions of a Pomponius Graecinus of the end of the
second or beginning of the third century, and of several Pomponii Bassi. Cf. de
Rossi, Roma Sotterranea, Vol. II, pp. 281, 362 et seq.
[7]
Cf. infra, p. 524.
[8]
According to the description of his character given by Tacitus, His.,
III,65 and 75.
[9]
The Christianity of Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia Domitilla is attested
by the accusation of atheism made against them by Domitian (Dio Cassius,
LXVIII,14; cf. Suetonius, Domitianus,15), and by the fact that the
Christian cemetery named after Domitilla, was developed in land belonging to
the latter.
[10]
Cf. infra, p. 386.
[11]
Suetonius, Domitianus, 12.
[12]
Similarly Melito of Sardis (about 172), in a passage of his Apology quoted by
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., IV, 26,7, says that only Nero and Domitian made
the Christian faith a matter of accusation.
[13]
Dio Cassius, LXVII, 13.
[14]
Ibid.
[15] Hist.
Eccles., III,18,4.
[16] Epist.,
108, ad Eustochium.
[17]
Cf. A. Dufourq, Etude sur les Gesta martyrum romains, Vol. Paris, 1900,
pp. 251-255.
[18]
Dio Cassius, LXVII, 13.
[19] De
praescriptione, 36.
[20]
The trial of John at Rome would be not at all unlikely in itself, seeing that
the emperor insisted on himself interrogating the representatives of the family
of Jesus: cf. infra.
[21]
II,9,10,13. On the legitimayte
attribution of the martyrs of Pergamum and Smyrna to the persecution under
Domitian, cf. E. B. Allo, Saint Jean, L’ Apocalypse, Paris, 1921, pp.
xci-ccx, 3rd Ed., 1933, pp. ccxxv-ccxxviii.
[22] Hist.
Eccles., III,19 and 20.
[23]
Cf. Bk. I, p. 307.
[24]
Doubts have sometimes been raised as to the authenticity of this correspondence
especially in view of the picture which Pliny gives of his province as already
so strongly affected by Christian propaganda and that temples was deserted, and
the sacrifices abandoned. We may reply
that Pliny, who manifestly desired not to pronounce too many condemnations, may
have been led to magnify the number of Christians in order to discourage
repression by the very perspective of its extent.
[25]
Quoted by John Laux, Church History, p. 54.
[26]
Quoted by John Laux, Church History, p. 57.
[27] Acta
Sancti Justini, in Otto, Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum Saeculi
Secundi, Vol. III, Jena, 1879, pp. 268-278.
English tr. In Owen, Some Authentic Acts of the Early Martyrs,
Oxford, 1927, pp. 47ff.
