At first, Christians suffered persecution from emperors. Here is what the Encyclopedia “Christianity” writes: “The Roman state at first acted in relation to Christianity as the guardian of law and order, demanding from citizens the obedience to the state traditions of Rome ... Subsequently, it was forced to become in a position of self-defense ... In the era of the empire, the formal side of the Roman religion was completed IN THE CULT OF THE EMPERORS. Non-recognition of the official cult entailed accusations of lèse-majesté… first of all, the emperor, and in his person of the entire Roman people… and accusations of atheism (… that is, the denial of the Roman religion). These crimes entailed the most severe punishments - beheading for the privileged classes, burning, crucifixion, baiting by wild beasts for the lower ones ... For the first time, Christians were persecuted under Nero (54 - 68) ... This persecution was local. Nero's issuance of a special law against Christians is not proved by anything. The persecution under Domitian (81 - 96) was caused ... a special role was played by the CULT of the EMPEROR. Domitian himself called himself deus et dominus [god and master]”, vol. 1, p. 425.

It is believed that just before the era of the adoption of Christianity, persecution flared up with renewed vigor. For example, “in 303-304… Diocletian successively issued four edicts against Christians, in which it was prescribed to destroy churches and burn the sacred books of Christians. The latter were deprived of all rights, and, finally, under the threat of torture and executions, all Christians were obliged to participate in the practice of a pagan cult ... In 311, with the entry into the imperial college of Constantine, a general decree on religious tolerance was issued, and in 313, the Milan Edict , equalized Christianity in rights with paganism, vol. 1, p. 426.

Usually the history of persecution is perceived as follows. Say, Christianity was a new and incomprehensible faith for the Roman emperors. They supposedly had no idea about Christ and were not interested in this issue. The only thing they wanted was for Christians to obey Roman laws and deify the personality of the emperor. The Christians refused because it was contrary to their beliefs. There were persecutions. However, if we turn to old sources, interesting details emerge from them that cast doubt on the correctness of the described picture. It is reported, for example, that "pagan" Roman emperors intervened in Christian disputes and even took part in Christian worship services. For example, Emperor Aurelian is known to have been involved in resolving disputes that arose in the Christian church. For example, the handwritten Pilot of 1620 contains news of the very first Christian council, which took place during the time of the "pagan" king Aurelian. Emperor Aurelian, however, PRESIDENT at this CHRISTIAN council and helped resolve the issue. We quote: “During the time of Aurelian, king of Rome, Paul of Samosata, the city of God, ep[i]s[ko]p, rekshe of Antioch, was the chief of heresy. Christ, for the true God of ours is simple ch[e]l[o] in[e]ka the verb ... king Aurelian (holy - Auth.) pray to the cathedral, and erect a hedgehog about Palov's vacillation to him. He, even if the Greeks beashe, condemn the one who opposes the court of the same faith from those who were cut off from the life of the cathedral. And so I was expelled from the church, sheet 5. See fig. 7.1.

Rice. 7.1. Extract from the old Pilot of 1620, sheet 5. Fund 256.238 of the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library (Moscow). The extract was made by G. V. Nosovsky in 1992.

Another example. The Greek and Roman Chronicler reports that the emperor Numerian, while in Antioch, tried to take communion in a Christian church. However, the Bishop of Antioch, Babyla, refused him, for which he was killed by the impious emperor. Here is the text: “And the kingdoms of Numirian. And for the holy Vavuda is a bishop in Antioch, and the king is coming from the soldiers to the front, to visit the Christian mysteries. Abiye met Saint Vabul and set and, saying: "Defile thou from the sacrifices of idols, and I will not let you see the secrets of God alive." And the king became angry and commanded that Vavupu and the three babies be killed, p. 265.

Translation: And Numerian reigned. And there was Saint Babyla, Bishop of Antioch. And when the king was marching with an army against the Persians, he entered to partake of the Christian mysteries. Immediately Saint Babyla met and stopped him, saying: "You are defiled by sacrifices to idols and I will not let you see the mysteries of the living God." And the king was angry and ordered to kill Babyla and three babies with him.

So, on the way to the war, the tsar enters the Christian church to take communion. But the bishop does not let him in and refuses to take communion because of the worship of "idols". But before us is an ordinary medieval picture. There is a church dispute going on in a Christian state. The king holds one opinion in a dispute, the bishop another. Between them there is a clash in the church. The bishop refuses to give communion to the king, pointing out his sins. The king executes the bishop. Dozens of such cases are known in medieval Christian Europe. It is important here that the king wants to take communion, and just before the battle, so that God would help to defeat the enemy. And the bishop's refusal infuriates him. Is it possible that a pagan "Hellene", who has no idea about Christ and is not interested in Christianity, will behave like this? Hardly. One gets the impression that here we are not talking about the persecution of Christians in general by an alien religion, but about a strife among Christian movements. Perhaps distant from each other, but still Christian. The struggle between them then subsided, then flared up again. As, in fact, it is said about the persecution of the first Christians. It faded, then flared up.

Let us take a closer look at the main reason for the persecution of Christians. The reason sounds bright enough - THE REFUSAL OF THE CHRISTIANS TO RECOGNIZE THE DIGITALITY OF THE EMPEROR. Indeed, the contemporary Christian church does not allow the idea that a king can equate himself with God. On the contrary, for the emperors who preceded Constantine the Great, as we know, such an idea seemed quite natural. And they were indignant if someone refused to recognize her.

On the other hand, as we now understand, the persecution of Christians must have unfolded after the twelfth century AD. But in the XIII century, the Trojan War takes place, when the Byzantine Empire (at that time still with its capital in Tsar-Grad on the Bosphorus) split, and its metropolis was attacked by the Horde crusaders as a punishment for the crucifixion of Christ, see chapter 2. And the XIV century - this is already the era of the great = "Mongolian" conquest and the first conquering kings of the Great Empire. She is the "ancient" Roman Empire. It turns out that it was the XIII-XIV centuries that were the centuries of persecution of the first Christians in the Roman Empire. But as we have repeatedly noted in our books on the basis of numerous testimonies, the kings of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire (aka “ancient Rome”) were already Christians.

A hypothesis arises that the Christianity of the first kings of the Empire and the Christianity persecuted by them (whose tradition eventually triumphed and survived to this day) were two essentially different branches of primitive Christianity.

The era of persecution of Christians and the establishment of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world under Constantine the Great Lebedev Alexey Petrovich

Introduction. On the causes of the persecution of Christians in the 2nd, 3rd and early 4th centuries

These reasons are of three kinds. 1) State: pagan ideas of the state; the state considered itself entitled to sovereignly dispose of the totality of the life of citizens; and religion, and everything relating to it was subject to state power; the open desire of Christians to get out of state control in their religious life and beliefs; statements in this sense by Christian writers (Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius); clash of this kind of views - pagan with Christian - and the persecution of Christians. 2) Religious, or religio-political: obstacles to the establishment of Christianity among the so-called. Roman citizens - the zealous protection by the Roman government of the exclusive rights of the native religion, - the impossibility for Christianity to establish itself among Roman citizens on the same terms as alien religions penetrated here; the "Cult of the Caesars" and its most dangerous consequences for Christians; Why couldn't Christianity take advantage of the tolerance enjoyed by the religions of foreign peoples? 3) Public: the dissatisfaction of the (Roman) emperor as the first member of society with Christians; hatred towards them by pagan philosophers and scientists, and administrative classes, hostility towards them by the same pagan masses; What was the expression of the aforementioned social dislike of pagans towards Christians? - Summary: about the reasons for the persecution of Christians. - Plan and objectives of the study of persecution of Christians

The attitude of the Roman government to the Christian society spreading among the Empire was expressed in the 2nd, 3rd and early 4th centuries, as is known, in the persecution of Christians. In order to properly understand the properties and nature of these persecutions, it is necessary to study their very causes more strictly in advance.

These reasons are of three kinds: 1) State. The government noticed the incompatibility of Christianity with the ideas of state power, which were the basis of the Roman state. Christianity, with its requirements, went against what constituted the essence of ideas about state power and its relationship to all aspects of the life of citizens. 2) The reasons are religious, although not in their pure form. It is the incompatibility of Christianity with the established relationship of the Roman government to its own religion and the cults of foreign peoples. Christianity could not expect tolerance from the Roman government, because it, Christianity, was hostile to the interests of the native Roman religion and, in its essence, stood outside the circle of peaceful actual relations in which the government placed itself with other religions - not Roman. 3) Public. The incompatibility of Christianity with the social demands of pagan Rome. The Christians did not want to be bound by any of the public demands of the government, and the government could not excuse such a deviation from the public demands on the part of the followers of the new religion.

I. Christianity, with its principles, was incompatible with the prevailing pagan ideas of state power. What does it mean? This means that the view of pagan state power established over the centuries regarding its unconditional domination in all spheres of human activity was opposed by Christianity, by virtue of which a whole area of ​​human activity was torn away from under the auspices of this power - the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe religious life of man. Pagan antiquity was alien to the ideas of freedom of belief in matters of religion and conscience, of freedom, in accordance with one's inclinations, to choose the type and image of religious worship. The pagan idea of ​​the state contained the right of absolute control over the totality of the life of citizens. Everything that did not closely associate itself with this idea, everything that wanted to live and develop without serving the goals of the state - all this was incomprehensible to antiquity, alien to its spirit. Hence, religion and everything religious were subordinated to the state interest. The greatest minds of antiquity knew nothing about religious independence, about religion and religiosity that were not subordinate to the state. Plato in his "Ideal State" decisively announced that in the state everyone gets the opportunity to fulfill his purpose and achieve the full measure of his happiness and well-being, and as a result, Plato gives the state such power over a person, in which there is no place for personal, nor for religious freedom. According to another great thinker of antiquity - Aristotle (in "Politics"), a person is an exclusively political being, and state life is everything for him. The most remarkable Roman thinker, Cicero, also says: “The state gave birth to us and raised us in order to use the best and highest forces of our soul, mind and reason for our own (state) benefit, and leave as much for our personal benefit as will be left for satisfying his own needs." The Roman state was only the realization of these ideas of antiquity. The state among the Romans was the center from which they left, around which they revolved and to which all the thoughts and feelings, beliefs and convictions, ideals and aspirations of the people again inevitably returned. It was the only highest ideal and guiding star, which, as the highest fate (Fata Romana, Dea Romana), gave direction to all the forces of national life and imparted a certain meaning and character to the inclinations and actions of an individual. It was, as it were, a deity, and everything that stood outside of relation to the state was useless, illegal. Therefore, the most sacred thing - religion - was one of the functions of state power. The authorities were in charge of religion as peace and war, as taxes and duties, as administration and police. In the Roman state, the conduct of religious affairs and the supervision of the religious situation of the people was first entrusted to the senate, and then joined the attributes of the imperial power. All the emperors of Rome, beginning with Augustus, were at the same time the supreme high priests; the emperor at the same time was also called Pontifex maximus. In a word, religion in the Roman Empire did not have the slightest independence, it was under the strict control of state power. Hence, the religious system was part of the state system, and religious law - sacrum jus - was only a subdivision of common law - publicum jus. Therefore, Varro distinguishes between theologia philosophica et vera, then theologia poetica et mythica, and finally theologia civilis**. Characteristically, the last expression defining the position of religion in the Roman state is theologia civilis. It must be translated into our language by the expression: state theology.

______________________

* De republ. I, 4.

**Augustin. De civitate Dei, VI, 5.

______________________

What is Christianity now?.. Christians openly declared their desire to get out of state control in their religious beliefs, in their religious life. They declared that a person subject to state authority in other respects is free from subjection to that authority in the religious sphere. This idea of ​​a significant difference between civil (pagan) and religious (Christian) activities, the idea of ​​their non-identity was the principle that guided the young church of Christ. The faith of Christians did not tear them away from their duties in relation to the state, but this was until then, as long as state laws, state authority did not dare to interfere in the affairs of their faith and confession. That is why Christians demanded freedom of conscience from the state, freedom to express their religiosity regardless of the state's prescriptions, both by their lives and by the voice of their apologists. They wanted to live in this respect without state control, but the state authorities did not recognize this and did not want to recognize it. The second-century apologist Tertullian declares before the Roman government that every person is a free being, "everyone can dispose of himself, just as a person is free to act in the matter of religion." Tertullian says: "The natural right, the universal human right, requires that everyone should be allowed to worship whomever he wants. The religion of one cannot be either harmful or beneficial to another." violence. What folly to want to force a man to pay honors to the Deity, which he would have to pay for his own benefit anyway! Isn’t he right to say: I don’t want Jupiter to favor me! Why are you interfering here? Let Janus be angry with me let him turn to me the face he pleases!" * The same Tertullian says: "What harm does my religion bring to another? It is contrary to religion to force a religion that is voluntarily accepted, and not by coercion, because every sacrifice requires the consent of the heart. And if you force us to make sacrifices, then this, however, does not achieve any honoring of your gods, because in forced sacrifices they cannot find any pleasure, that would mean that they love violence. Together with this, Tertullian combines the demand that the Roman authorities renounce those rights in the matter of religious beliefs that it has appropriated to itself hitherto: "So, let some worship the true God, and others Jupiter, some raise their hands to heaven, and others to the altar, some to sacrifice themselves to God, and others goats. Take care not to show some kind of wickedness when you take away the freedom to worship and the choice of a deity, when you do not allow me to worship the God I want, and begin to force me to worship a god I do not want. What God would demand for himself violent honors? And a man will not wish them." *** In these words, Tertullian clearly expresses the idea that Christianity resolutely does not recognize the right of sanction in matters of religion for the pagan state - an idea that went against all the traditions of Rome. With all the strength of steadfastness in convictions, he develops that the thought of another great apologist of antiquity, Origen, in the 3rd century He openly declares himself a champion of the new higher Christian principle, in contrast to the established principle, which the Roman state adhered to. "We are dealing," he says, "with two laws. One law of nature, the culprit of which is God, another written law, which is given from the state (cities). If they agree among themselves, one must equally observe them. But if the natural, divine law commands us that which is at odds with the legislation of the country, then this latter - the legislation of the country - must be ignored; and, disregarding the will of human legislators, to obey only the will of the divine, no matter what dangers and labors are connected with this, even if one had to suffer death and disgrace. We Christians, recognizing the natural law (or, what is the same, the law of conscience) as the highest divine law, we strive to observe it and reject the ungodly laws "****. The Christian apologist of the beginning of the 4th century, as if summing up those requirements, with which Christians acted in the era of persecution, said: "There is nothing freer than religion, and it is completely destroyed, as soon as the sacrificer is forced to do so"*****.

______________________

* Originis. Contra Celsum. V, 37.

**Lactants. Deities, institutions, V, 20.

*** Tertullian. Apology, ch. 28.

**** He is. Epistle to the Scapula, ch. 2.

***** He is. Apology, ch. 24.

______________________

Could such a protest on the part of Christianity against the age-old rights of a pagan state be tolerated and calmly listened to by the despotic rulers of Rome? Could Rome allow the free circulation of such ideas which were a denial of her indigenous rights? Christianity, with its preaching about the Kingdom of God as the highest good, containing all other blessings, had to completely overthrow the ideals of antiquity, according to which, on the contrary, the state was the highest good, which determined the well-being and happiness of people. Whereas in ancient times state power reigned over everything, its authority rose above all other authorities, in Christianity and Christians this power meets an enemy who is ready to deprive it of its own rights, to dominate and rise above it. To leave such a phenomenon as Christianity unopposed would mean for Rome, in such a state of affairs, to openly renounce her age-old rights. But it wasn't natural. Every step in the development of the popular consciousness is achieved through a long struggle; therefore the Roman government, if it was well aware of the requirements and aspirations of Christianity, it was necessary to persecute Christians. The persecution was supposed to appear as a counteraction of the conservative beginning to a new beginning, completely alien to the human spirit until now. A remarkable fact: the systematic persecutors of Christianity were precisely those Roman sovereigns who were distinguished by the greatest prudence, the greatest understanding of the state of state affairs, who better than other emperors understood the needs of the time, what are Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Decius, Diocletian, while evil and vicious sovereigns, but those who were little involved in the essence of state affairs, like Nero, Caracalla, Commodus and many others, either did not persecute Christians at all, or if they did, they did not at all see in this some kind of state task, standing in connection with the faithful protection of the rights of power. This depended on nothing else, but precisely on the fact that more insightful sovereigns understood the greatness of the demands that Christianity made on the Roman government, understood that Christianity demanded nothing less than a complete radical change in the ideas that formed the basis of the world Empire*. Let us also not forget that the first edict (of Milan) of Constantine the Great, which legitimized the position of Christianity in the Roman Empire, fully met the requirements and aspirations that the apologists expressed in view of the persecution of Christians, the persecution by which the state wanted to force Christians to abandon their religious ideal and submit to the pagan state ideal. In this case, the state was making a concession to the demands put forward by Christianity, a sign that the state understood what was causing the age-old struggle between Christianity and the Roman government.

______________________

* In addition to Neander, this idea is found in Maassen's brochure: Uber die Griinde des Kampfes zwisch. dem heindnischrom. Staat und dem Christenthum. S. 7. Wien.

______________________

So, the discrepancy between the views declared by Christianity and the principles belonging to the Roman state - this discrepancy should have caused Rome to persecute the followers of Christianity. And so the blood of the martyrs is shed, but this blood is not shed for nothing: it buys the most precious of all human rights - the right of free Christian conviction.

II. The reasons are religious. Here we will consider, firstly, why the pagan Roman government could not allow the free circulation of Christianity among its own citizens, the so-called. Roman citizens. Secondly, why could it not give Christianity as much of its patronage as it gave its foreign cults, of which there were many in the world Empire?

Let us first say why Christianity could not freely spread and establish itself among the Roman citizens. From the above-mentioned relationship between state power and religion in the Roman Empire, the factual consequence that the Roman state takes upon itself religious guardianship in the life of its citizens came out by itself. It set itself the task of protecting the status quo of its native religion. It saw this as its most sacred duty. This desire can be found in all Roman emperors, both the best and the worst. Emperor Augustus was very concerned about maintaining the Roman religion. He tried to influence those around him both by exhortations and by his own example*. Like all the statesmen of his country, he attributed some miraculous effect to the ancient religion. He rebuilt temples, honored priests, and oversaw the strict execution of ceremonies. His successors, generally speaking, followed his example. Tiberius, a very indifferent person in his own right, was extremely concerned about religious things. He knew the ancient customs very well and did not allow the slightest abolition to be made in them. Emperor Claudius was pious. During one of his triumphs, he climbed on his knees up the steps of the Capitol, supported on both sides by his sons-in-law. Besides, he had a mania for antiquity; he took pleasure in restoring the sacrifices that went back to a distant time. Even under the most bad princes, who deliberately neglected the traditions of Augustus, Roman religion was never completely neglected, for example, under Nero. And as for the best sovereigns of later times, they showed full respect for the national religion. So did Vespasian and the emperors from the Antonin family. The later Roman sovereigns did the same. After this, it is clear whether Christians could find mercy for themselves from the Roman government, Christians who used all measures to tear the Roman citizens away from their ancient religion. Another new obstacle to the establishment of Christianity among the Roman citizens was the fact that falling away from the native religion was seen as falling away from the state itself, as a revolutionary, anti-state striving. In this regard, the words of the Maecenas are remarkable, with which he addresses Augustus: “Respect the gods yourself by all means according to domestic laws and force others to revere in the same way. Those who introduce something alien, persecute and punish not only because they are gods they despise, but also because, despising them, they despise everything else, because, introducing new deities, they tempt them to adopt new laws. From here come conspiracies and secret alliances, which are by no means tolerable in a monarchy. "*** Therefore, if Christianity appeared among Roman citizens, it had to be considered by the authorities not only as a religious crime, but also as a political crime.

______________________

* Boissier. Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines. Translation from fr. M., 1878. S. 60–61.

** Ibid. pp. 258–260.

*** Neander. Allgemeint Geschichte der Christl. Religion und Kirche. Aufl. 3–te. Gotha, 1856. Band I, S. 48.

______________________

True, apparently, the Roman authorities no longer so strictly guarded the purity and preservation of their religion, as we indicated. There are facts from which it can be concluded that the Roman cult of that time underwent a significant change under the influence of extraneous religious trends, so that, apparently, it is possible to admit the concerns of the Roman government about the preservation and maintenance of the domestic cult only with great restrictions. In fact, it is known that the Roman cult of that time often accepted deities from foreign cults into its sphere. Thus, individual Greek and Asian gods, by definition of the Senate, were introduced into the Roman cult. We see that the Zeus of Hellas stands next to the Jupiter of Rome, and Hera next to Juno, that the Asia Minor goddess Cybele, by definition of the Senate, is counted among the gods of the Capitol*. Is it not possible to draw the conclusion from this that Christianity, in its spread, could not meet resistance from Rome, could find itself the same access to the environment of Roman citizens as the above-named foreign cults? But such a possibility did not take place in relation to the Christian God and the Christian cult. And this is for many reasons. Firstly, such admission of non-Roman deities to the veneration of their citizens was done only with the permission of the Roman Senate, as Cicero and Tertullian say about this **. And Christians waited in vain for such permission at first. Secondly, if a given cult of a given deity was allowed among citizens, then only with such or other modifications of it, which, of course, Christianity could not tolerate. Moreover, with such an assumption, it was a necessary condition that, along with the rites that were prescribed by the new cult for its followers, the ceremoniae Romanae, that is, the rites of the Roman cult, were strictly preserved and observed by the same followers. The worshipers of some new god were sometimes even prescribed that this honoring of the new god should take place according to the patterns that were given by the Roman cult ***. Obviously, with this kind of attitude towards foreign cults that penetrated the environment of Roman citizens, the government did not sanction the free choice and free honoring of any gods. And therefore Christianity, thanks to this kind of tolerance of the Roman government, could not penetrate with impunity among the Roman citizens. It is remarkable that during the persecution of the emperor Valerian, the Roman government offered the Christians, as can be seen from the interrogation made by the pagan proconsul Dionysius of Alexandria, offered to take advantage of this type of Roman tolerance, i. That is, it wanted to allow them to honor Christ, but under the condition that at the same time the usual Roman religious rites - ceremoniae Romanae **** be observed. But it goes without saying that Christianity could not and did not want to allow such a compromise, a deal with the Roman religion, knowing that it is impossible to serve two masters. And therefore, the kind of peacefulness of the Roman authorities in relation to foreign cults could not give Christians the slightest hope for their favorable position in the midst of the Roman world. Thirdly, such penetration of alien cults into the environment of Roman citizens by the stricter of the pagans was considered a corruption of ancient customs. Therefore, when this invasion of alien cults more or less threatened the Roman cult, then positive laws appeared against the strengthening of alien cults*****. So, the zealous striving of the Roman government to protect its native cult was an unfavorable condition for the success of Christianity in the Roman world. And although this indicated desire sometimes makes concessions and indulgence in favor of some other cults, but this could not have an application to the Christian cult, because Christianity could not agree to those concessions that were required from the cult, sometimes allowed for its practice by Roman citizens. ******. And consequently, from this point of view, Christianity could only expect for itself prohibitions and persecutions.

______________________

*Hausrath. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. Aufl. 2–te. Heidelderg, 1875 Theil 2. S. 12. 85.

** Ciceronis. De leg. II, 8 (No one should have gods separately for himself and should not worship in private new or foreign gods, if they are not recognized by the state); Tertullian. Apology, ch. 5.

*** Boissier. UK. op. pp. 318–319.

**** Eusebius. Church history. VII, 11.

*****Tacit. Annal. lib. XI, 15; lib. II, 85.

****** Berdnikov. State position of religion in the Roman Empire // Rights, interview. 1881. T. I. S. 225-226.

______________________

At the time when Christianity appears and spreads, the Roman religion receives a very important increment in its cult. This increase has become the source of many troubles for Christians. We are talking about the so-called "cult of the Caesars". Perhaps for nothing else was so much Christian blood shed as for this kind of religious veneration among the Romans. The Roman pantheon very quickly enriched itself with a new kind of idolatry - worship before the genius of Caesar. Let us say a few words about the origin of this cult. From the very beginning, Roman religion was not a naturalistic religion: the religious veneration of the Romans saw in its gods the personification of all those forces on which the happiness and prosperity of the state depended. The service of Capitoline Jupiter here was not the service that was rendered in Greece to Zeus, who personified the bright sky; Jupiter in Rome was the personification of the highest state order, he seemed to be the invisible head of the state. And in general, all state functions among the Romans were certainly personified in some kind of deity, and the patronage of these deities in their respective functions was both desired by the Romans and recognized. Now, with the advent of monarchical power in Rome, the sequence of the religious development of the Romans demanded that this new state function be represented in some kind of deity, the patron of this power; this was considered a guarantee of happiness and state prosperity. An abstract concept became such a deity: the genius of the emperor. According to the Roman idea, each person had his own genius, therefore the emperor must have a genius who would protect him and lead him. In itself, this belief in the genius of the emperor did not lead to any superstitious worship of the emperors, but the vanity and vanity of the Roman Caesars and the low servility of the subjects from a simple veneration of the genius of the emperor made the personal deification of the monarchs. This cult of the Caesars began with Augustus and continued to exist throughout the pagan Roman Empire. They began to deify not only the dead Caesars, but even the living. This cult became in some respects at the head of Roman religion. It was compulsory for everyone. "All the inhabitants were obliged to take part in it, since everyone enjoyed the Roman world and lived under the auspices of the Empire" *. It was considered obligatory to have in one's house the image of the reigning emperor between his penates. So, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the Romans considered "an atheist anyone who did not have at least some of his image in his house" **. The observance of the cult of the Caesars in the Roman Empire was watched strictly, and who, through negligence or disrespect, did not want to honor the emperor, they treated him like the greatest criminal. After the death of Emperor Augustus, when he was counted among the gods, it was already clearly revealed how dangerous it was to treat the new god with carelessness. Several Roman horsemen were accused before the Senate of disrespecting Augustus as a god - and they were not slow in punishing ***. Any omission and freethinking regarding the cult of the Caesars was subject to inevitable punishment. Curious in this regard is the story of the execution under Nero of the famous senator Trazei Petus, who was considered the embodiment of virtue, who suffered for a lack of obsequiousness in relation to the emperor. Flatterers said the following about Thrasea: "Thracea avoided a solemn oath, was not present at prayer services, never made sacrifices for the health of the head of state or for the preservation of his heavenly voice. He did not swear in the name of Augustus, does not recognize the divinity of Poppea. He laughs at the rites, despises laws "I demand Trazea to the Senate," says his official accuser, "I call him to the oath as a citizen. I declare him a traitor and enemy of the fatherland" ****. We said that perhaps the greatest amount of Christian blood was shed because of this cult of the Caesars. So it was. Already in the 2nd century, the pagans noticed that the Christians put the cult of the Caesars in nothing, and for this they were very indignant at the Christians. The well-known Celsus says to Christians: "Is there anything bad in acquiring the favor of the lord of people; after all, it is not without divine favor that power over the world is obtained?" you do not have in life, you receive from the emperor "*****. But the Christians thought otherwise, and on every occasion openly declared their resolute disagreement with worshiping the emperor. Tertullian, arming himself against this worship, says to the Christian: “Give your money to Caesar, and yourself to God. But if you give everything to Caesar, what will be left for God? sense, if I am not compelled to put him in the place of God as lord"******. Scenes of resistance on the part of Christians to demands to deify the emperor, scenes such as the following, were a common occurrence. The proconsul of one province remarks to a Christian: "You must love the emperor as befits a man who lives under the protection of Roman laws." After hearing the Christian answer that he loves the emperor, the proconsul says: "To testify your obedience to the emperor, bring a sacrifice to the emperor with us." The Christian resolutely refuses to fulfill this demand. "I pray to God," he exclaims, "for the emperor, but sacrifices in honor of him can neither be demanded nor made, for is it possible to give divine honors to a person?" As a result of such statements by Christians against them the gravest accusation of insulting the royal majesty fell, the so-called crimen majestatis was erected.

______________________

* Boissier. UK. op. pp. 27, 125–127.

** Ibid. 144.

*** There. 140.

****Tacit. Annal. XVI, 28-35.

***** Orig. cont. Celsum. VII, 63 et 67.

****** Tertullian. Apology, ch. 45.

______________________

We continue to uncover the religious reasons that prompted the Roman government to persecute Christians, but let's look at this issue from a new angle. We have now considered how unfavorable the attitude of the Roman government was towards Christianity when we took into account the strict care of the government to observe both the ancient religious customs of the Romans and the new and popular cult of the Caesars, in a word, to observe and protect their native religion. In this case, Christianity could not expect mercy from the government. But this is still not enough. Christian society did not share those privileges of freedom and independence, which were enjoyed in the world Roman state by adherents and worshipers of various religions belonging to the peoples that were part of the Empire. The Romans were very tolerant of foreign religions, they did not disturb the religious conscience of foreigners. A foreigner, not a Roman citizen, could worship the god he wanted. Various foreign cults—Greek, Asia Minor, Egyptian, and most Jewish—were freely practiced throughout the vast Roman territory. Every person who belonged to one or another foreign religion could anywhere perform the rites prescribed for him by religion. This was allowed both in the provinces and in Rome itself. Rome was no exception. People belonging to all kinds of religions flocked here, and could practice their rites without restriction. Dionysius of Halicarnassus says: "People belonging to a thousand nationalities come to the City, i.e. Rome, and worship their native gods here, according to their foreign laws." These strangers were only obliged to behave respectfully towards the Roman state cult and to perform their rites privately, modestly, not imposing them on others, and especially not showing themselves with them in the public places of the city; these cults were allowed to stay on the outskirts of Rome. And as for cities and countries that were only subordinate to Roman power, then in them the administration of any kind of cults was completely allowed. The Romans did not interfere in this matter at all and won out the right to honor their gods according to their custom *. The question is, why couldn't Christianity enjoy, at least in part, the patronage of laws by the Roman authorities, which was used by all kinds of cults - Greek, Asia Minor, Egyptian and others? The matter will seem even more surprising to us if we take into account that the tolerance of Rome extended so far that the Romans did not bypass their patronage even the most strange and monstrous cults, which positively disgusted a serious and important Roman. They patiently endured these cults as well, without raising their formidable hand against them. And meanwhile, among these cults, what could not be found! No matter how little the Romans, by their serious and prudent nature, were disposed towards the strange and wild cult of the Egyptian goddess Isis, however, this goddess acquired a strong position even in Italy, penetrated into Rome itself **. Serving the Persian deity Mithra was also widespread in the Roman Empire, despite the fact that this cult was combined with rituals of the most eccentric nature ***. Along with the indicated pagan cults and Jews, the imperial edicts permitted the unrestricted performance of their religious rites, the unrestricted worship of God in all places of the Roman Empire. This seems all the more strange because there were fewer points of contact between Roman paganism and Judaism than between Roman and other pagan cults; it is all the more surprising that the Jews, as a result of their proud claim to exclusive holiness, became a hateful tribe for the Romans, when even the law of Moses itself in most cases seemed absurd and disgusting to the Romans. The Romans did not like the Jews very much, that even in ordinary everyday relations they tried to stay as far away from other fellow citizens as possible, did not buy bread, oil, wine and other everyday items from the Gentiles, did not speak their language, did not accept them as witnesses and etc. **** With all that, the Jews, however, enjoyed the inalienable right to serve their God everywhere, not excluding Rome itself, according to their rite. All these eccentric cults we have indicated, though unsympathetic to the Roman government, were nevertheless recognized as religions permitted within the borders of the Roman Empire, and for this reason they were called religiones licitae. This permissibility of all pagan and Jewish cults had, however, the limitation that proselytism between Roman citizens was not allowed for such cults. Only the original inhabitants of various countries had the right to perform cults belonging to these countries*****.

______________________

* Berdnikov. UK. op. pp. 211–212.

**Hausrath. Op. cit. bd. II. S. 84.

*** Ibid. S. 86.

**** Berdnikov. UK. op. pp. 227–224.

*****Hausrath. Op. cit. bd. II. S. 119–122; Neander. Ibid. S. 43.

______________________

So, the general rule of the policy of the Roman government was that it was allowed to exist on the territory of the Roman Empire - both pagan cults in their various forms, and Judaism, even contrary to Roman sympathies. The Roman government scorned, abhorred the Egyptian cult of Isis, and yet allowed it; it could not sympathize with the spiritually alien cult of the Egyptian deity Mithra, and yet it did not persecute its admirers; he could not stand Judaism, proud and contemptuous of the pagan Romans, and yet it, the Roman government, guarded his interests. Why, then, were Christians alone, alien to all eccentricities in their cult, who did not share the proud contempt for the Romans, which distinguished the Jews, Christians, who did not allow themselves any noisy and seductive religious processions - why did Christians alone not enjoy the religious tolerance of Rome? Isn't it strange? Isn't this some kind of sad fate weighing on Christians? Was this not on the part of Rome some kind of inconsistency with its principles? Not at all. The main basis on which the religious tolerance of the Romans regarding cults alien to them was affirmed was that these were established cults, cults of certain nationalities, domestic cults of famous peoples. And the voice of the oracles, and the requirements of the philosophers, and the authority of the laws prescribed to respect and tolerate national cults, sanctified by antiquity. All the peoples conquered by Rome, and there were very many of them, were not forced in the least to accept the dominant Roman cult and were not forced to renounce their national religions. The Romans declared inviolable the worship of each of the pagan peoples they had conquered, hoping through this to partly win over the conquered peoples, and partly to win the protection of the gods of these peoples themselves. Some of the Romans, specifically religious people, attributed even the most universal dominance of their people to fellowship with the gods of all peoples. The Romans, as polytheists, were not fanatical about foreign gods. According to their concept, any honoring of the gods, based on the national custom of one or another people, had the right to exist and deserved respect. Giving, naturally, preference to their gods, the Romans kept themselves very attentive to foreign gods and their original honoring, fearing, as it were, disrespect for the gods, even if they were strangers, not to cause themselves disasters. Not enough of this. Due to the intensity of polytheism and the complete absence of firm religious dogmas, the Romans were inclined to think that foreigners in essence worship the same gods as they themselves, the Romans. The Roman, as a result, being, for example, in Greece, with a clear conscience, sacrificed to Hermes. For their part, the worshipers of foreign cults did not give the Romans a reason to be angry with them, did not place themselves in a hostile attitude towards the Roman cult. Foreign cults are wary of adopting a tone of contempt and pride before Roman religion. On the contrary, they showed the greatest respect for the Roman gods, and this respect was generally sincere: after all, these gods were very powerful if they could give the people who worshiped them dominion over the whole world. Consequently, it was impossible to talk about them lightly, it was even more useful to turn to them on occasion. So other pagan peoples respected the Roman cult. In this case, the Jews did not make a particularly sharp difference, although one would least expect this from them. The Jews themselves did their best to get along with the proud Romans. True, the Jews also firmly adhered to their religion, but by various services to their rulers, the Romans, they managed to acquire a tolerable religious position for themselves. At least somewhat, they nevertheless tried to adapt themselves to the laws of the ruling people; they expressed a very clear desire to live in peace and harmony with the Romans, for which the Romans condescended to their manners and customs. When it was reported to the Jews to the emperor Caligula that they did not sufficiently express reverence for the sacred person of the emperor, they sent a deputation from themselves to the emperor: “We bring you sacrifices,” these deputies said to Caligula, “for you, and not simple sacrifices, but hecatombs (i.e. hundreds). We have already done this three times - on the occasion of your accession to the throne, on the occasion of your illness for your recovery and for your victory "*. Of course, such statements were supposed to reconcile the Roman government with the Jews. After all, they tried to spare the religious scrupulousness of the Romans. So, we see on what grounds the Romans remained in a peaceful, tolerant attitude towards foreign cults. But could they get into the same relationship with the Christian cult? The pagan Roman authorities did not see in Christianity that which would make it possible to equate Christianity with other cults. Christians did not have any ancient domestic cult, as was the case in other religious societies. Rather, Christianity was a revolutionary falling away from a permitted, tolerant religion, a violation of the statutes of the ancient religion - the Jewish one. This is precisely what Celsus reproaches Christians with, expressing the prevailing mode of thought. “The Jews,” he says, “are a certain people, and they preserve, as they should, their native cult, in which they act like all other people. The ancient laws are observed with full right in every nation, and it is a crime to deviate from them "as Christians do," Celsus means. Hence the usual reproach of the pagans towards Christians: non licet esse vos, that is, you know that it is not allowed to be a Christian. Christians, in the opinion of the Roman government, were something strange, unnatural, degenerates among people, they were neither Jews nor pagans, neither one nor the other, they represented some kind of genus tertium ***. Certain cults of foreign pagan peoples were allowed, the cult of the Jews was allowed, but Christianity belonged neither here nor there, and therefore was included in the circle of forbidden religions; religio illicita was it. Christianity did not put itself in connection with any of the hitherto known cults and did not want to show any favor to the Roman cult. "What does it look like!" - could exclaim the Roman. Christianity, with its preaching of worship of God, not tied to any place, to any state, from the particularistic religious point of view of antiquity, appeared as something contrary to the nature of things, as a violation of any definite order. The very character of the Christian cult, as far as it was known, stood in contradiction with the ordinary habitual character of other religions, with which the pagan world, the Roman government, imagined religion. Christians had nothing of the kind that they found in every religious cult, nothing of all that even the Jewish cult had in common with paganism. They did not find - one can imagine - no altars, no images, no temples, no victims, which so amazes the pagans ****. "What kind of religion is this?" - the pagans could ask themselves. "Who would have thought," says Celsus, "that the Hellenes and barbarians in Asia, Europe and Libya would agree to the adoption of such a law, which is completely incomprehensible" *****, i.e. such , which is not tied to a specific nationality, is not similar to either the Jewish or pagan cult. And yet, what seemed quite impossible, more and more threatened to come true. We saw how Christianity, finding for itself not a few representatives among all classes, not excluding the Roman citizens themselves, threatened to overthrow the state religion, and with it, it seemed, the state itself, since it was closely connected with religion. Seeing this, there was nothing left for pagan Rome to do but, in a sense of self-preservation, counterpose at least an external force to the internal strength of Christianity - hence the persecution, a natural consequence.

______________________

* Berdnikov. UK. op. pp. 228–31, 234.

** Orig. C. Celsum. V, 25.

*** Genus tertium ("third kind" - lat.) means castrati, eunuchs, that is, neither man nor woman, but something in between, as the ancients imagined eunuchs.

**** Minucius Felix. Octavius, ch. ten.

***** Orig. C. Celsum. VIII, 72.

______________________

III. The reasons are public. The pagan Roman society was so set up that Christians could not expect peace and rest for themselves. Everyone, from the emperor himself to the last subject, was dissatisfied with Christians with something. The emperor, as the first member of society, considered them bad loyal subjects, the intelligent and administrative classes looked at them as enemies of civilization and worthless citizens, the people, the masses considered Christians the main cause of social misfortunes, believing that the gods were angry at the spread of such wickedness as Christianity.

Christians turned out to be personally dissatisfied, first of all, the emperor, as the first member of Roman society. The emperors could in no way excuse the Christians for their lack of reverence for the person of the ruler of the universe. The more the cult of the Caesars, of which we spoke above, succeeded in society, the more resolutely did the Christians refuse to take part in those superstitious badges of honor which pagan hypocrisy and servility had invented. Christians shied away from burning incense and offering sacrifices in front of the statues of emperors, they did not want to swear by their genius. Shouldn't this have greatly affected the pride and vanity of the emperors? The Roman emperor could not remain an indifferent spectator of such freethinking and stubbornness. And it must be said that Christians in their opposition to the superstitious veneration of emperors sometimes went very far. It cannot be denied that some of the Christians, not quite wisely, abstained from the general official festivities in honor of the emperors on the days of their accession to the throne or on the days of celebrations on the occasion of some victories. It was they who saw a connection with pagan religion and pagan customs even in such innocent things as decorating houses with laurels or as illumination *. It also happened that the emperors donated a certain amount of money for distribution to the soldiers as a token of their goodwill. In order to receive their share, everyone appeared, as was the custom, with wreaths on their heads, only a Christian soldier appeared with his wreath in his hand, because crowning his head with a wreath seemed to him something pagan **. Of course, such and similar actions could only belong to individuals, and the majority were far from approving such actions, but what individual individuals allowed themselves to do could easily be blamed on all Christians. From here, naturally, the accusation of insulting the royal dignity by Christians, of disrespecting the emperor could come. Therefore, the Christians were called irreligiosi in Caesares, hostes Caesarum.