READING HALLTHE DOORS OF WISDOM |
BOOK IFROM THE PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH BY NERO TO CONSTANTINE’S EDICT OF TOLERATION. A.D. 64-313.CHAPTER I.THE APOSTOLIC AGE
THE fullness of the time was come was proclaimed
on earth. The way had been prepared for it, not only by that long system of
manifest and special training which God had bestowed on his chosen people, but
by the works of Gentile thought, employing the highest powers in the search
after truth, yet unable to satisfy man’s natural cravings by revealing to him
with certainty his origin and destiny, or by offering relief from the burdens
of his soul. The Jews were looking eagerly for the speedy accomplishment of the
promises made to their fathers; even among the Gentiles, vague prophecies and
expectations of some great appearance in the East were widely current. The
affairs of the world had been ordered for the furtherance of the Gospel; it was
aided in its progress by the dispersion of the Jews, and by the vast extent of
the Roman dominion. From its birthplace, Jerusalem, it might be carried by
pilgrims to the widely scattered settlements in which their race had found a
home; and in these Jewish settlements its preachers found an audience to which
they might address their first announcements with the reasonable hope of being
understood. From Rome, where it early took root, it might be diffused by means
of the continual intercourse which all the provinces of the empire maintained
with the capital. It might accompany the course of merchandise and the
movements of the legions.
We learn from the books of the New Testament, that
within a few years from the day of Pentecost the knowledge of the faith was
spread, by the preaching, the miracles, and the life of the apostles and their
associates, through most of the countries which border on the Mediterranean
sea. At Rome, before the city had been visited by any apostle, the number of
Christians was already so great as to form several congregations in the
different quarters. Clement of Rome states that St. Paul himself, in the last
period of his life, visited “the extremity of the West”—an expression which may
be more probably interpreted of Spain (in accordance with the intention
expressed in the Epistle to the Romans) than of our own island, for which many
have wished to claim the honour of a visit from the great teacher of
the Gentiles. The early introduction of Christianity into Britain, however,
appears more certain than the agency by which it was effected; and the same
remark will apply in other cases.
While St. Paul was engaged in the works which are
related in the Acts of the Apostles, his brethren were doubtless active in
their several spheres, although no certain record of their exertions has been
preserved. St. Peter is said to have founded the church of Antioch, and, after
having presided over it for seven years, to have left Enodius as
his successor, while he himself penetrated into Parthia and other countries of
the East, and it would seem more reasonable to understand the date of Babylon
in his First Epistle (v. 13) as meaning the eastern city of that name than as a
mystical designation of pagan Rome. Yet notwithstanding this, and although we
need not scruple to reject the idea of his having held, as a settled bishop,
that see which claims universal supremacy as an inheritance from him, it is not
so much a spirit of sound criticism as a religious prejudice which has led some
Protestant writers to deny that the apostle was ever at Rome, where all ancient
testimony represents him to have suffered, together with St. Paul, in the reign
of Nero.
St. Bartholomew is said to have preached in India and
Arabia; St. Andrew in Scythia; St. Matthew and St. Matthias in Ethiopia. St.
Philip (whether the deacon or the apostle is uncertain) is supposed to have
settled at Hierapolis in Phrygia. The church of Alexandria traced itself to St.
Mark; that of Milan, but with less warrant, to St. Barnabas. The church of
Edessa is said to have been founded by St. Thaddeus; and this might perhaps be
more readily believed if the story were not connected with a manifestly
spurious correspondence between our Saviour and Abgarus, king of that
region. St. Thomas is reported to have preached in Parthia and in India; the
Persian church claimed him for its founder, and the native church of Malabar
advances a similar claim. But the name of India was so vaguely used that little
can be safely inferred from the ancient notices which connect it with the works
of St. Thomas; and the more probable opinion appears to be that the
Christianity of Malabar owes its origin to the Nestorian missionaries of the
fifth century, who, by carrying with them from Persia the name of the apostle
of that country, laid the foundation of the local tradition. The African
church, which afterwards became so prominent in history, has been fabulously
traced to St. Peter, and to St. Simon Zelotes; but nothing is known of it
with certainty until the last years of the second century, and the Christianity
of Africa was most probably derived from Rome by means of teachers whose memory
has perished.
There may be too much hardness in rejecting
traditions, as well as too great easiness in receiving them. Where it is found
that a church existed, and that it referred its origin to a certain person, the
mere fact that the person in question was as likely as any other to have been
the founder, or perhaps more likely than any other, can surely be no good
reason for denying the claim. We have before us, on the one hand, remarkable
works, and on the other, distinguished names; and although tradition may be wrong
in connecting the names with the works, it is an unreasonable skepticism to insist on separating them without
examination and without exception.
The persecution by Nero is one of the circumstances in
our early history which are attested by the independent evidence of heathen
writers. It has been supposed that Christianity had once before attracted the
notice of the imperial government; for it is inferred from a passage in
Suetonius that disturbances among the Roman Jews on the subject of Christ had
been the occasion of the edict by which Claudius banished them from Rome. But
the persecution under Nero was more distinctly directed against the Christians,
on whom the emperor affected to lay the guilt of having set fire to the city.
Some were sewn up in the skins of wild beasts, and exposed to be torn by dogs;
some were crucified; others were covered with a dress which had been smeared
with pitch, and was then set on fire, so that the victims served as torches to
illuminate the emperor’s gardens, while he regaled the populace with the
exhibition of chariot-races, in which he himself took part. Tacitus, in
relating these atrocities, states that, although the charge of incendiarism was
disbelieved, the Christians were unpopular as followers of an unsocial
superstition; but that the infliction of such tortures on them raised a general
feeling of pity. As to the extent of this persecution (which has been a subject
of dispute) the most probable opinion appears to be that it had no official
sanction beyond the immediate neighbourhood of the capital; but the
display of Nero’s enmity against the Christian name must doubtless have
affected the condition of the obnoxious community throughout the provinces of
the empire.
Until the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the
capital of God’s ancient people, the birthplace of the church, had naturally
been regarded by Christians as a religious centre. It was the scene of the
apostolic council, held under the presidency of its bishop, St. James “the
Just”. And, as the embracing of the Gospel was not considered to detach
converts of Hebrew race from the temple-worship and other Mosaic observances,
Jerusalem had continued to be a resort for such converts, including the
apostles themselves, at the seasons of the great Jewish festivals. But the
destruction of the temple and of the holy city put an end to this connection.
It was the final proof that God was no longer with the Israel after the flesh;
that the Mosaic system had fulfilled its work, and had passed away. At the
approach of the besieging army, the Christian community, seeing in this the
accomplishment of their Master’s warning, had withdrawn beyond the Jordan to
the mountain town of Pella. The main body of them returned after the siege, and
established themselves among the ruins, under Simeon, who had been raised to
the bishopric on the martyrdom of St. James, some years before; but the church
of Jerusalem no longer stood in its former relation of superiority to other
churches.
Christianity, as it was not the faith of any nation,
had not, in the eyes of Roman statesmen, a claim to admission among the
religions allowed by law (religiones licitae); it must, indeed, have refused such a
position, if it were required to exist contentedly and without aggression by
the side of systems which it denounced as false and ruinous; and thus its
professors were always exposed to the capricious enmity of rulers who might
think fit to proceed against them. Thirty years after the time of Nero, a new
persecution of the church, wider in its reach, although of less severity than
the former, was instituted by Domitian. The banishment of St. John to Patmos,
where he saw the visions recorded in the last book of Holy Scripture, has
generally been referred to this persecution. Nor does there appear to be any
good reason for disbelieving the story that the emperor, having been informed
that some descendants of the house of David were living in Judaea, ordered them
to be brought before him, as he apprehended a renewal of the attempts at
rebellion which had been so frequent among their nation. They were two
grandchildren of St. Jude —the “brother” of our Lord, as he is called. They
showed their hands, rough and horny from labour, and gave such answers as
proved them to be simple countrymen, not likely to engage in any plots against
the state; whereupon they were dismissed. The persecution did not last long.
Domitian, before his assassination, had given orders that it should cease, and
that the Christians who had been banished should be permitted to return to
their homes; and the reign of his successor, Nerva (A.D. 96-8), who restored
their confiscated property, was a season of rest for the church.
St. John alone of the apostles survived to the reign
of Trajan. Of his last years, which were spent in the superintendence of the
Ephesian church, some traditions have been preserved, which, if they cannot
absolutely demand our belief, have at least a sufficient air of credibility to
deserve a respectful consideration. One of these is a pleasing story of his
recovering to the way of righteousness a young man who, after having been
distinguished by the apostle’s notice and interest, had fallen into vicious courses,
and had become captain of a band of robbers. Another tradition relates that,
when too feeble to enter the church without assistance, or to utter many words,
he continually addressed his flock with the charge—“Little children, love
one another”; and that when some of them ventured to ask the reason of a
repetition which they found wearisome, he answered, “Because it is the Lord’s
commandment, and, if this only be performed, it is enough”. And it is surely a
very incomplete view of the apostle’s character which would reject as
inconsistent with it the story of his having rushed out of a public bath in
horror and indignation on finding it to be polluted by the presence of the
heretic Cerinthus.
Of the writings ascribed to this age, but which have
not been admitted into the canon of the New Testament, the First Epistle of St.
Clement is the only one which is generally received as genuine. The author, who
was anciently supposed to be the Clement mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle
to the Philippians (IV. 3), was bishop of Rome towards the end of the century.
His epistle, of which the chief object is to recommend humility and peace, was
written in consequence of some dissensions in the Corinthian church, of which
no other record is preserved, but which were probably later than Domitian’s
persecution. The Second Epistle ascribed to Clement, and two letters “To
Virgins”, which exist in a Syriac version, are rejected by most critics; and
the other writings with which Clement’s name is connected are
undoubtedly spurious. The Epistle which bears the name of St. Barnabas
(although it does not claim him for its author), and the “Shepherd” of Hermas,
are probably works of the earlier half of the second century.
Before leaving the apostolic age a few words must be
said on the subject of church-government, while some other matters of this time
may be better reserved for notice at such points of the later history as may
afford us a view of their bearings and consequences.
With respect, then, to the government of the earliest
church, the most important consideration appears to be, that the Christian
ministry was developed, not from below, but from above. We do not find that the
first members of it raised some from among their number to a position higher
than the equality on which they had all originally stood; but, on the contrary,
that the apostles, having been at first the sole depositaries of their Lord’s
commission, with all the powers which it conferred, afterwards delegated to
others, as their substitutes, assistants, or successors, such portions of their
powers as were capable of being transmitted, and as were necessary for the
continuance of the church. In this way were appointed, first, the order of
deacons, for the discharge of secular administrations and of the lower
spiritual functions; next, that of presbyters, elders, or bishops, for the
ordinary care of congregations; and, lastly, the highest powers of ordination
and government were in like manner imparted, as the apostles began to find that
their own body was, from its smallness, unequal to the local superintendence of
the growing church, and as the advance of age warned them to provide for the
coming times. An advocate of the episcopal theory of apostolic succession is
under no necessity of arguing that there must have been three orders in the
ministry, or that there need have been more than one. It is enough to say that
those to whom the apostles conveyed the full powers of the Christian ministry
were not the deacons, nor the presbyters, but (in the later meaning of the
word) the bishops; and the existence of the inferior orders, as subject to
these, is a simple matter of history.
Resting on the fact that the apostles were, during
their lives on Earth, the supreme regulating authorities of the church, we may
disregard a multitude of questions which have been made to tell against the
theories of an episcopal polity, of a triple ministry, or of any ministry
whatever as distinguished from the great body of Christians. We need not here
inquire at what time and by what steps the title of bishop, which had
originally been common to the highest and the second orders, came to be applied
exclusively to the former, nor whether functions originally open to all
Christian men were afterwards restricted to a particular class; nor in how far
the inferior orders of the clergy, or the whole body of the faithful, may have
at first shared in the administration of government and discipline; nor whether
the commissions given by St. Paul to Timothy and to Titus were permanent or
only occasional; nor at what time the system of fixed diocesan bishops was
introduced. We do not refuse to acknowledge that the organization of the church
was gradual; we are only concerned to maintain that it was directed by the
apostles (probably acting on instructions committed to them by their Master
during the interval between his resurrection and his ascension), and that in all
essential points it was completed before their departure.
It is evident that the ministers of the church,
beginning with St. Matthias, were usually chosen by the body of believers; but
it seems equally clear that it was the apostolical ordination which gave them
their commission—that commission being derived from the Head of the church, who
had bestowed it on the apostles, that they might become the channels for
conveying it to others.
Of the universal supremacy of the bishop of Rome it is
unnecessary here to speak. In this stage of church-history it is a matter not
for the narrator but for the controversialist; if, indeed, the theories as to
the “development” of Christianity, which have lately been devised in the
interest of the Papacy, may not be regarded as dispensing even the
controversial opponents of Rome from the necessity of proving that, in the
earliest times of the church, no such supremacy was known or imagined
|
|