entertained regarding that, too, even by the cultivated, agreeably to preconceived notions.22 The Jews were still protected by their peculiar national character.23 But the Christians were looked upon merely as ignorant and wild fanatics, who wished to destroy all established order. The cultivated laughed contemptuously at them on account of the confidence and obstinacy of their religious faith; 24 the goetae (impostors) were inimical to them as opponents of their interest; 25 the people hated them as despisers of their gods (ἄθεοι, ἀσεβεῖς), and in the public misfortunes saw nothing but admonitions from heaven to exterminate them.2

26

22 Tertull. Apolog. c. 27: Quidam dementiam existimant, quod cum possimus et sacrificare in praesenti, et illaesi abire, manente apud animum proposito, obstinationem saluti praeferamus. C. 50: Propterea desperati et perditi existimamur. Arrianus Comm. de Epicteti disputationibus, iv. c. 7 : Εἶτα ὑπὸ μανίας μὲν δύναταί τις οὕτω διατεθῆναι πρὸς ταῦτα (θάνατον κ. τ. λ.) καὶ ὑπὸ ἔθους ὡς οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι, ὑπὸ λόγου δὲ καὶ ἀποδείξεως οὐδεὶς δύναται; Schweighäuser in his edition, Th. 2, S. 915, looks upon the words ὡς οἱ Γαλ. as a gloss. Marc. Aurel. εἰς ἑαυτόν, xi. c. 3 : Οἵα ἐστὶν ἡ ψυχὴ ἡ ἕτοιμος, ἐὰν ἤδη ἀπολυθῆναι δέῃ τοῦ σώματος, καὶ ἤτοι σβεσθῆναι σκεδασθῆναι, ἢ συμμεῖναι; τὸ δὲ ἕτοιμον τοῦτο, ἵνα ἀπὸ ἰδικῆς κρίσεως ἔρχηται, μὴ κατὰ ψιλὴν παράταξιν, ὡς οἱ Χριστιανοί, ἀλλὰ λελογισμένως, καὶ σεμνῶς, καὶ ὥστε καὶ ἄλλον πεῖσαι, ἀτραγώδως. Eichstadt (Exercit. Antoniniana, iii.) conjectures that the words ὡς οἱ Xp. were a later interpolation in this place.

"

23 Celsus ap. Origen. contra Celsum lib. v. p. 247, 259 : Εἰ μὲν δὴ κατὰ ταῦτα περιστέλ λοιεν 'Ιουδαῖοι τὸν ἴδιον νόμον, οὐ μεμππὰ αὐτῶν, ἐκείνων δὲ μᾶλλον, τῶν καταλιπόντων τὰ σφέτερα, καὶ τὰ Ἰουδαίων προσποιουμένων.

24 How the Jews and Christians had become a proverb on this account, see Galenus de Pulsuum differentiis, lib. ii. (ed. Kühn, viii. 579) : Κάλλιον δ' ἂν ἦν πολλῷ προσθεῖναι τινα —ἀπόδειξιν,—ἵνα μή τις εὐθὺς κατ' ἀρχὰς, ὡς εἰς Μωϋσοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ διατριβὴν ἀφιγ μένος, νόμων ἀναποδείκτων ἀκούῃ. Lib. iii. (p. 657) : Θᾶττον γὰρ ἄν τις τοὺς ἀπὸ Μωϋσοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ μεταδιδάξειεν, ἢ τοὺς ταῖς αἱρέσεσι προστετηκότας ιατρούς τε καὶ φιλοσόφους.

25 Thus spoke the false prophet Alexander of Abonoteichos (Luciani Alex. c. 25) to the inhabitants of Pontus, ἀθέων ἐμπεπλῆσθαι καὶ Χριστιανῶν τὸν Πόντον,οὺς ἐκέλευε λίθοις ἐλαύνειν, εἶχε ἐθέλουσιν ἵλεω ἔχειν τὸν θεόν. And he began his consecrationg with the formula (c. 37): Εἴ τις ἄθεος ἢ Χριστιανὸς ἢ Ἐπικούρειος ἥκει κατάσκοπος τῶν ὀργίων, φευγέτω.

26 Tertull. Apologet. c. 37, to the Romani imperii antitistes : Quoties in Christianos desaevitis, partim animis propriis, partim legibus obsequentes? Quotiens etiam praeteritis vobis suo jure nos inimicum vulgus invadit lapidibus et incendiis? Ipsis Bacchanalium furiis nec mortuis parcunt Christianis, quin illos de requie sepulturae, de asylo quodam mortis, jam alios, jam nec totos, avellant, dissecent, distrahant. C. 40: Existimant omnis publicae cladis, omnis popularis incommodi Christianos esse causam. Si Tiberis ascendit in moenia, si Nilus non ascendit in arva, si coelum stetit, si terra movit, si fames, si lues, statim : Christianos ad leonem.

$ 42.

PERSECUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY.

The laws against religiones peregrinae and collegia illicita still remained in force, even in reference to the Christians;1 but they were by no means universally and uniformly enforced. The persecutions of this period were rather the effects of the people's hatred, to which the magistrates gave way, and also of personal malevolence in those possessing official power. Hence all the persecutions of the period were confined merely to single cities or provinces. Under Hadrian (117-138) the people first began to clamor for the execution of some Christians at the public festivals. But at the representation of Serenius Granianus, proconsul of Asia Minor, Hadrian issued a rescript to the successor of the proconsul, interdicting such tumultuous proceedings.2 The tradition regarding this emperor, that he caused temples to be dedicated to Christ, is the more improbable, because he entertained very erroneous and unfavorable notions of the Christians.3 Under Antoninus Pius, the Christians were

1 Hence Caecilius apud Minuc. Fel. c. 8, calls them homines deploratae, inlicitae ac desperatae factionis. Tertulliani Apologetic. c. 38: Inter licitas factiones sectam istam deputari oportebat, a qua nihil tale committitur, quale de illicitis factionibus timeri solet, etc.

2 Originally preserved in Latin by Justin Martyr. Apol. i. e. 69: then translated into Greek by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 9). Rufinus (Hist. eccl. iv. 9) has probably preserved the Latin original (cf. Alexii Symmachi Mazochii disquisitio in Gallandii biblioth. vett. Patr. T. i. p. 728): Exemplum epistolae imperatoris Adriani ad Minucium Fundanum Proconsulem Asiae: Accepi literas ad me scriptas a decessore tuo Serenio Graniano clarissimo viro et non placet mihi relationem silentio praeterire, ne et innoxii perturbentur, et calumniatoribus latrocinandi tribuatur occasio. Itaque si evidenter provinciales huic petitioni suae adesse valent adversum Christianos, ut pro tribunali eos in aliquo arguant, hoc eis exsequi non prohibeo : precibus autem in hoc solis et acclamationibus uti, eis non permitto. Etenim multo aequius est, si quis volet accusare, te cognoscere de objectis. Si quis igitur accusat, et probat adversum leges quidquam agere memoratos homines, pro merito peccatorum etiam supplicia statues. Illud mehercle magnopere curabis, ut, si quis calumniae gratia quemquam horum postulaverit reum, in hune pro sui nequitia suppliciis severioribus vindices. Cf. F. Balduinus ad edicta vett. Princip. Rom. de Christianis, p. 72. 3 Lampridius in vita Sev. Alexandri, c. 43. Christo templum facere voluit, eumque inter deos recipere. Quod et Adrianus cogitasse fertur, qui templa in omnibus civitatibus sine simulacris jusserat fieri, quae ille ad hoc parasse dicebatur. On the other hand, Spartianus in vita Hadriani, c. 22: Sacra Romana diligentissime curavit, peregrina contempsit. Flav. Vopiscus in vita Saturnini, c. 8, from a work of Phlegon, a freedman of Hadrian: Hadrianus Augustus Serviano Cs. S. Aegyptum, quam mihi laudabas, Sorvi

4

disturbed afresh once and again (138-161). But the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180) was still more unfavorable to them, for in it the frequent misfortunes that befell the empire caused many outbursts of the popular fury against them; while the emperor himself endeavored right earnestly to maintain the ancient reputation of the state religion. Hence the Christians in Asia Minor suffered persecutions, to which even Polycarp

5

ane carissime, totam didici levem, pendulam et ad omnia famae momenta volitantem. Illi, qui Serapin colunt, Christiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi, qui se Christi episcopos dicunt. Nemo illic archisynagogus Judaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum presbyter, non mathematicus, non haruspex, non aliptes. Ipse ille patriarcha cum Aegyptum venerit, ab aliis Serapidem adorare, ab aliis cogitur Christum. Unus illis Deus nullus est. Hunc Christiani, hunc Judaei, hunc omnes venerantur et gentes, etc.

4 Dionysius Corinth. ap. Euseb. iv. p. 23, concerning a persecution in Athens, in which Bishop Publius, the predecessor of Quadratus, suffered. Melito in Apolog. ad Marc. Aurel. ap. Euseb. iv. c. 26, § 5 : Ὁ δὲ πατήρ σου—ταῖς πόλεσι περὶ τοῦ μηδὲν νεωτερίζειν περὶ ἡμῶν ἔγραψεν· ἐν οἷς καὶ πρὸς Λαρισσαίους, καὶ πρὸς Θεσσαλονικεῖς καὶ ̓Αθηναίους, καί πρὸς πάντας Έλληνας. This writing may have given rise to the opinion that the Edictum ad commune Asiae proceeded from Antoninus, although it is manifestly spurious. This edict has been appended by a later hand to Justini Apol. i. c. 70, and has been communicated in a different text by Eusebius, iv. c. 13, with a reference to Melito (probably to the above passage, which he misunderstood). All that can be said with plausibility in defense of that edict may be seen in T. G. Hegelmaier Comm. in edictum Imp. Ant. P. pro Christianis. Tubing. 1767. 4. The spuriousness of it, before asserted by J. J. Scaliger, Moyle, Thirlby, has been convincingly proved by Is. Haffner de edicto Antonini Pii pro Christianis ad commune Asiae. Argentor. 1781. 4. Cf. Eichstädt exercitatio Antoniniana v. in the Annales acad. Jen. i. 286. The edict contains that explanation of the edict issued by Hadrian, which had arisen among the Christians. They believed that the expression adversus leges quidquam agere should not be referred to the exercises of Christian worship, and accordingly this edict explains it as an ἐπὶ τὴν ἡγεμονίαν 'Ρωμαίων ἐγχειpɛīv. From this, therefore, it followed that whoever accused a Christian as such, without being able to prove against him such a crime, was liable to punishment as a false

accuser.

5 Modestinus (Dig. lib. xlviii. Tit. 19, 1. 30): Si quis aliquid fecerit, quo leves hominum animi superstitione numinis terrerentur, Divus Marcus hujusmodi homines in insulam relegari rescripsit. Julii Pauli Sententt. receptt. lib. v. Tit. 21, § 2: Qui novas, et usu vel ratione incognitas religiones inducunt, ex quibus animi hominum moveantur, honestiores deportantur, humiliores capite puniuntur. On the religious views of Marcus Aurelius and his sentiments toward the Christians, see Neander's K. G. i. i. 177.

6 Melito in Apolog. ad Marc. Aurel. ap. Euseb. iv. 26 : Tò yàp ovdè núnоte yevóμevov, νῦν διώκεται τὸ τῶν θεοσεβῶν γένος, καινοῖς ἐλαυνόμενον δόγμασι κατὰ τὴν ̓Ασίαν· οἱ oi γὰρ ἀναιδεῖς συκοφάνται καὶ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἐρασταὶ, τὴν ἐκ τῶν διαταγμάτων ἔχοντες ἀφορμὴν, φανερῶς λῃστεύουσι, νύκτωρ καὶ μεθημέραν διαρπάζοντες τοὺς μηδὲν ἀδικοῦντας.—εἰ δὲ καὶ παρὰ σοῦ μὴ εἴη ἡ βουλὴ αὕτη καὶ τὸ καινὸν τοῦτο διάταγμα, δεόμεθά σου, μὴ περιϊδεῖν ἡμᾶς ἐν τοιαύτῃ δημώδει λεηλασία. Neander K. G. i. i. 184, is of opinion that this duúrayua was certainly issued by the emperor, and is preserved in in the Acta Symphoniani apud Ruinart, p. 69. But the very inscription, Aurelius Imp. omnibus administratoribus suis atque rectoribus, throws suspicion on the law there given. The emperor could not open his proclamation with the name Aurelius. See Semisch, in the Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1835, iv. 934; administratores is not an official designation of the governors, and the emperor could not call them administratores suos. The emperor could have issued no edict against Christians before 177. See Semisch, 1. c. S. 935, ff.

(167) fell a sacrifice," while Justin (166) became a martyr at Rome.R But the recently formed churches at Lyons and Vienne (177)° suffered most. The supposed miracle of the legio Melitina (kepavvoẞóλos, fulminatrix) (174) could have had the less influence on the emperor in favor of the Christians, since so many parties ascribed the merit of it to themselves.10 Under the barbarous Commodus (180-192), the Christians lived in peace.11

7 Ecclesiae Smyrnensis de martyrio Polycarpi epistola encyclios ap. Euseb. iv. c. 15, first published by Ussher, 1647, in a form somewhat longer, then printed in Cotelerii Patr. apost. and in Ruinart. On the relation of the two recensions, see Danz de Eusebio, p. 130, ss.

8 Acta martyrii Justini Philos. apud Ruinart, nova interpretatione, annotationibus atque disquisitionibus illustrata ab A. S. Mazochio in Gallandii Bibl. vett. patr. T. i. p. 707, ss. Semisch on the year of Justin Martyr's death in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1835, iv. 907.

• Ecclesiarum Viennensis et Lugdunensis epistola ad ecclesias Asiae Phrygiaeque de passione martyrum suorum ap. Euseb. H. E. v. 1-3. To what a height the rage of the heathen proceeded, is proved, c. i. § 6, by the violation of the ancient law, de servo in dominum quaeri non licere, Cic. pro Dejot. c. 1. Tacit. Annal. ii. 30. Digest. lib. xlviii. Tit. 18, de quaestionibus.

10 The heathen writers ascribe the phenomenon partly to the conjurations of the Aegyptian Arnuphis (Dio Cassius in excerpt. Xiphilini, lxxi. 8. Suidas s. v. 'Iovλtavós), partly to the prayer of Marcus (Capitolinus in vita Marc. Aurel. c. 24. Themistius in Orat. xv. p. 191, ed. Harduini). The emperor himself expresses his opinion on a coin on which Jupiter is represented hurling his lightning against the barbarians lying on the ground (Eckhel Numism. iii. 61). Cf. Claudianus de sexto consulatu Honorii, v. 342. Similar occurrences are related of Alexander, Curt. iv. 7, 13; of Marius, Orosii Hist. v. 15; and Hosidius, Dio Cass. Ix. § 9. The Christians, in like manner, ascribed the merit to themselves, cf. Claudius Apollinaris ap. Euseb. v. 5. Tertulliani ad Scapul. c. 4, and especially Apologet. c. 5: At nos e contrario edimus protectorem, si litterae M. Aurelii-requirantur, quibus illam Germanicam sitim, Christianorum forte militum praecationibus impetrato imbri, discussam contestatur. Qui sicut non palam ab ejusmodi hominibus poenam dimovit, ita alio modo palam dispersit, adjecta etiam accusatoribus damnatione, et quidem tetriore. This writing, falsely ascribed to M. Aurelius, was afterward annexed to Justin Martyr's Apolog. i. In it all accusation of the Christians is forbidden under punishment of death by fire. The same thing is found in Edictum ad commune Asiae,

note 4.

11 Marcia, concubine of Commodus, was favorable to the Christians (Dio Cassius, lxxii. 4). On the martyrdom of Apollonius, see Euseb. H. E. v. 21; Hieron. Catal. c. 42. According to Jerome, he was betrayed by a slave Severus; according to Eusebius, his accuser was immediately put to death, ὅτι μὴ ζῆν ἐξὸν ἦν κατὰ βασιλικὸν ὅρον τοὺς τῶν Tolívde μNVVTús. M. de Mandajors (Histoire de l'acad. des inscript. tom. 18, p. 226) thinks that the slave was put to death as the betrayer of his master, according to an old law renewed by Trajan; but that the occurrence had been misunderstood by the Christians, and had given rise to the tradition which is found in Tertullian and in the Edictum ad comm. Asiae (see above note 10), that an emperor at this period had decreed the punishment of death for denouncing a Christian. So also Neander K. G. i. i. 201. Certainly such a law against the denunciation of masters by slaves was passed under Nerva (Dio Cassius, lxviii. p. 769. Cf. Capitolinus in vita Pertinac, c. 9. Digest. lib. xlix. tit. 14, 1. 2, 6) on the contrary, it was also a law (Julius Paulus Sententt. receptt. tit. 16, § 4): servo, qui ultro aliquid de domino confitetur, fides non accommodatur (cf. Digest. lib. xlviii. tit. 18, 1. 1, § 5 u. § 16, 1. 9, § 1); and though the case of high treason (causa Majestatis) was

SECOND CHAPTER

HERETICS.

$ 43.

JEWISH CHRISTIANS.'
(COMP 32.)

Gieseler's Abhandl. v. d. Nazaräern u. Ebioniten, Stäudlin's u. Tzschirner's Archiv. Bd. 4. St. 2, S. 325, ff.

2

The Jewish Christians in Palestine were severely persecuted by Bar Cochab (§ 38), because they would not attach themselves to him;1 and they must afterward also undergo the same oppression as the Jews generaly, from whom they were not externally distinguished. These circumstances caused many of them, now that a church of heathen converts had been collected in Jerusalem, where they were forbidden to remain, to separate themselves entirely from Judaism, and to join the Christian community. Still, however, the different parties of Jewish Christians3 continued down to the fourth century, and even later. In what way the Nazarenes and the Gentile Christians still looked upon one another as orthodox, is evident from the explaexcepted, yet then the punishment of the slaves also was remitted, if they had made a well-grounded accusation (Cod. Justinian. lib. ix. tit. 2, 1. 20). Comp. on all these laws, Gothofredus in comm. ad Cod. Theodos. lib. x. tit. 10, c. 17. J. A. Bachii D. Trajanus, sive de legibus Trajani Imp. Lips. 1747. 8. p. 73, ss. According to these principles of law, therefore, either Apollonius only, or his slave only, could have been put to death, but in no case both. Jerome does not say either that Severus was the slave of Apollonius, or that he was executed; and since Eusebius grounds this execution expressly on a supposititious law, it may have belonged only to the oriental tradition, which may have adduced this instance in support of the alleged law.

1 Justin. Apol. i. c. 31. Euseb. in Chronico. Hieron. Catal. c. 21.

2 Euseb. iv. 5, enumerates down to this time fifteen bishops of Jerusalem belonging to the circumcision. Probably during the dispersion of the church several of them were contemporary. Ibid. c. 6. Cf. Sulpic. Sever. Hist. sacr. ii. 31. Militum cohortem (Hadrianus) custodias in perpetuum agitare jussit, quae Judaeos omnes Hierosolymae aditu arceret. Quod quidem christianae fidei proficiebat, quia tum paene omnes Christum Deum sub legis observatione credebant. Nimirum id Domino ordinante dispositum, ut legis servitus a libertate fidei atque ecclesiae tolleretur. Ita tum primum Marcus ex gentilibus apud Hierosolymam episcopus fuit.

See respecting them above, $32.