TREATMENT OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS BY THE ROMANS.
THE following interesting remarks on this subject are an extract from Dr. Lardner. They cannot fail to interest every reader. 1. It must be owned, that according to the Roman laws, no man might introduce any new gods, or worship publicly or privately any strange or foreign gods not allowed of by public authority. 2. But yet the disciples of Jesus Christ were under the protection of the Roman laws, since the God whom they worshiped, and whose worship they recommended, was the God of the heavens and the earth, the same God whom the Jews worshiped, the worship of whom was allowed all over the Roman empire, and established by special edicts and decrees in most, perhaps in all the places in which we meet with St. Paul in his travels. It is evident that St. Paul makes his defense before Felix in Judea upon this foot. “They neither found me in the temple disputing with any man. But this I confess to thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers.” Acts xxiv, 14. They call this way a sect, a new sect; grant it to be so; but in this way I worship the God of my fathers, the same God which they do, and believe all things which are written in the law and the prophets, as firmly as any Jew whatever; nor do I say anything inconsistent with them, or which I cannot support by them; and therefore I am entitled to protection equally with them, since I have not attempted nor advised any disturbance or insurrection. This, therefore, was a very just and proper defense before Felix, a heathen magistrate, and it was completely valid. And the Roman magistrates out of Judea, and the heathen people everywhere, considered St. Paul and his companions as Jews. It was evidently so in Achaia. The Jews brought Paul before the judgment seat, “saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.” Acts xviii, 13. But Gallio supposed that Paul had as good a right to protection as themselves, and that the differences between Paul and them were no other than such as might happen between men of one and the same religion; and that the only reason why Paul was brought before him, was the envy, malice, and bigotry, of some of the leading men among the Jews of his province. “If it be a question of words and names,” says he, “and of your law, look ye to it, for I will be no judge of such matters.” Verse 15. From whence I think it appears, that Gallio was not so ignorant of the case brought before him as some may be ready to imagine. If, says he, the matter in dispute be a “word,” some particular opinion and doctrine, which you say Paul preaches; or of names, whether Jesus may be called the Christ (or perhaps he means of matters about which the difference is so small that it is rather a controversy about names than things); or “of your law,” whether it obliges all men to be circumcised, who go over to the worship of your God, I will be no judge between you concerning such matters. If the sense I here give of these words, and particularly “of your law,” be right, it is an evidence that Gallio knew very well that Paul had converted heathens to his sentiments, and yet he took no offense at it; only he was resolved not to pass any judicial sentence upon these matters. And, indeed, I think it plain from St. Luke’s account, that Gallio had heard the Jews tell their story out. But when they had done, he had more honor and good sense than to oblige Paul to make an apology for his principles in court, under the character of a criminal or accused person. Nor is it at all strange, that Gallio did not resent St. Paul’s converting men from heathenism to the worship of the true God; since the Jews had done the same thing in many parts of the Roman empire without offense, though not with so good success as St. Paul. But to proceed. It is apparent that the heathen people also considered the apostle and those with him as Jews. It is with this speech that the masters of the damsel at Philippi come before the magistrates, when they brought along with them Paul and Silas: “These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city.” Acts xvi, 20. And though the magistrates were so far heated and misled by these men, as to order Paul and Silas to be beaten and imprisoned; yet they had no sooner reflected upon what they had done, but they were sensible that they themselves had broken the laws, in punishing men that were Jews, for spreading their principles, and that they were liable to be reprimanded for it. The uproar at Ephesus affords a remarkable proof of the same thing. The silversmiths that made shrines for Diana began a popular speech there, Acts xix, 26–34. “Ye see,” say they, “and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying, that they be no Gods which are made with hands.” (All the Jews said the same thing.) “And the whole city was filled with confusion. And they rushed with one accord into the theatre. And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made his defense unto the people. But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” Alexander was put forward by the Jews, and undoubtedly intended to have declaimed against Paul; but so soon as the people knew that he was a Jew, instead of hearkening to him, they were thrown into a fresh ferment. I think I need not add that Festus so understood the matter likewise, his words having been already more than once produced, in which he tells Agrippa, that when Paul’s accusers stood up, they had only “certain questions against him of their own superstition.” Acts xxv, 18, 19. 3. It ought to be observed, that the first followers of Jesus did everywhere observe an admirable decorum in all their words and actions. It may, perhaps, be inconceivable by some, how they should be able thus to behave everywhere, animated as they were with a warm, as well as just, zeal for the truths of the Christian doctrine, and a thorough dislike of all the abominations and absurdities of the heathen worship; but yet it is certain they did so. We have uncontested evidence of it. St. Luke assures us, Acts xvii, 16, that when St. Paul was at Athens, “his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.” But when he comes to make his speech in the Areopagus, his temper and address are equal to his argument, which certainly can never be exceeded. According to our translation, indeed, there is harshness in the very introduction: “Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious;” whereas the original is peculiarly soft, if any censure was intended; but I apprehend that St. Paul tells them, he perceived they were “in all things very devout.” This would give no offense at Athens. It was their peculiar character, the encomium which they were fond of above any other. It is true, St. Luke says, that at the conclusion, ver. 32, “when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.” It is very possible, some might be surprised at the novelty of St. Paul’s principles, and be inclined to make themselves merry with them. But I do not perceive by St. Luke that they were; I think there could not be any exceptions made to the propriety or decency of any of his expressions. St. Luke has not recorded any of the discourses made by St. Paul, or those who were with him at Ephesus. But, however, we have authentic evidence of the innocence of their words and actions there also. “Ye have brought hither,” says the town-clerk to the people of Ephesus, Acts xix, 37, “these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.” He says this of Gaius and Aristarchus men of Macedonia, Paul’s companions in his travels.” So that this temper and prudence were not peculiar to St. Paul, but common to him with his companions. What the town-clerk says here may be relied on; he is speaking to the enraged multitude; if there had been any blasphemies uttered by these men, he had made them his own. The conduct or express declarations of Felix, Festus, Agrippa, are testimonies to the like unblamable and inoffensive behaviour of St. Paul at Jerusalem. I do not say, that according to laws since enacted in some states, the apostles would not have been judged offenders. But it ought to be remembered, that the Romans did, for a long time, as far surpass many modern governments in the justice and equity of their political maxims, as in the grandeur of their empire; nor had they yet renounced or departed from them. Had there been any affront offered by Paul to the Jewish religion, either Felix or Festus would have discovered and punished it. When such things were done by Romans, they could not escape. Undoubtedly therefore Paul had been as innocent in Judea as he had been out of it. Upon the whole then, from the several particulars here alleged, it must appear highly probable, that the chief officers of such a government as the Roman was at the rise of the Christian religion, should treat the first preachers of it just as they are represented by St. Luke to have done. They had no authority by virtue of any edicts or decrees then passed, to enter into the controversies then on foot between several cities in Egypt, who worshiped some one animal and some another, but none of them the gods of the Romans. These governors had not been wont to interpose between any of the sects of the Jews, of which there had been several for a long time, when no tumult or sedition arose among them. The Jews, it is likely, would have thought it the highest injustice, and would have made the loudest complaints if they had. The first Christians did not differ more from the Pharisees or Essenes, I do not say from the Sadducees, than these three sects differed one from another. How can it be thought, then, that these governors should undertake to suppress the first Christians, when they were obliged to protect all the rest; not this or that sect, but all the Jews in general? The Roman government protected the many rites of all their provinces. They protected Jews and heathens in one and the same city. The Jews had been now for some while, from time to time, making proselytes of Greeks and Syrians; converted them to the worship of the true God, the God whom the Christians preached; and brought them, some indeed to part only, others, to the observation of all the peculiar rites of their religion. This they had done, and the presidents gave them no interruption or molestation. Must not, then, these officers have esteemed it, as St. Luke represents them to have done, a new species of envy and malice in the Jews, to bring before them and desire justice against Paul and his companions, barely because they did not submit to them in every particular? And must not these officers have been prepared likewise to control their own people, when they would have abused Paul for what the Jews had been permitted to do; that is, for converting men to his peculiar sentiments when his principles were not at all more disagreeable to them, than those of the Jews; and his behaviour was far more peaceable and inoffensive than theirs had been? There is, however, one difficulty which I am aware may be started by some persons. If the Roman government, to which all the world was then subject, was so mild and gentle, and protected all men in the profession of their several religious tenets, and the practice of all their peculiar rites, whence comes it to pass, that there are in their epistles so many exhortations to the Christians to patience and constancy; and so many arguments of consolation suggested to them as a suffering body of men? Does not the Apostle Paul tell the Philippians, Phil. i, 29, that “to them it was given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake?” and the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. ii, 14, “that they had suffered like things of their own countrymen; even as they [the churches of Judea] have of the Jews?” Is not Timothy39directed, 2 Tim. ii, 3, to “endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ”? Are not the Hebrews reminded, Heb. x, 32, that they had “endured a great fight of affliction?” Does not St. Peter intimate, that they to whom he wrote, had “been in heaviness through manifold temptations?” 1 Pet. i, 6. 1. That the account St. Luke has given in the Acts of the Apostles, of the behaviour of the Roman officers out of Judea and in it, is confirmed not only by the account I have given of the genius and nature of the Roman government, but also by the testimonies of the most ancient Christian writers. The Romans did afterwards depart from these moderate maxims; but it is certain that they were governed by them, as long as the history of the Acts of the Apostles reaches. Tertullian and divers others do affirm, that Nero was the first emperor that persecuted the Christians; nor did he begin to disturb them till after Paul had left Rome the first time he was there, (when he was sent thither by Festus,) and therefore not till he was become an enemy to all mankind. And I think, that according to the account which Tacitus has given of Nero’s inhuman treatment of the Christians at Rome, in the tenth year of his reign, what he did then was not owing to their having different principles in religion from the Romans, but proceeded from a desire he had to throw off from himself the odium of a vile action, namely, setting fire to the city, which he was generally charged with. And Sulpicius Severus, a Christian historian of the fourth century, says the same thing. 2dly, I answer, that if the reader will be at the pains of comparing the epistles of the New Testament with the history of the Acts of the Apostles, he will find a perfect harmony in all these particulars which are mentioned in both. Thus St. Paul writes to the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. ii, 14, “Ye became followers of the churches which in Judea are in Christ Jesus; for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews.” And St. Luke informs us, Acts xvii, 5, that at Thessalonica, the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason.” As according to St. Luke, they were the Jews who usually began, or aggravated the disturbances against Paul; so Paul himself ascribes his own sufferings, and those of others likewise, to the Jews. Thus it follows in the place just now cited from him: 1 Thess. ii, 15, 16, “Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak unto the Gentiles that they may be saved.” And to the Galatians he says, Gal. v, 11, “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense of the cross ceased.” From which words it is plain, that all the apostle’s sufferings came from the bigoted Jews; and that, if it had not been for them, he might have preached the gospel quietly enough. 3dly, Though the Romans were masters of the world, and were governed by these moderate maxims, as I have shown, yet the first Christians might be exposed to many hardships and sufferings, as they certainly were. The sources of them are very evident. There was a heavy persecution in Judea, which commenced not long after our Saviour’s ascension, and lasted, probably, several years. The Jews had a right to call men before the council, could excommunicate men out of their synagogues, scourge and beat them; they could bring men before the governor, and prosecute for capital crimes. Doubtless, they exerted all the power they had against the believers, and did other things they had no right to do; partly, through connivance, it is likely, of the governor, and partly, perhaps, because he could not hinder them. Then Herod Agrippa was king of Judea three years and more; and he, out of his own aversion to Christianity, and to please the Jews, was an inveterate enemy of the followers of Jesus. And after this, when Judea was again put under Roman procurators, beside the lesser punishments the Jews could inflict themselves, they could prosecute before the procurators, as they did Paul. And we find, that though Felix and Festus were both convinced of his innocence, yet they did neither of them dare to release him against the inclinations of the people of their province. And such was the Jewish influence in this cause, that by their means Paul was kept two years in prison in Judea, and as many afterwards at Rome. As for the sufferings which the Christians were liable to out of Judea, every one must be sensible, that wherever Paul or any other made any considerable number of converts among the heathens, many of the common people were provoked, and would be apt to insult them; and in some places, the inferior magistrates might be so weak as to concur with them, Acts xvi, 22. Besides, the Jews were numerous everywhere, throughout the Roman empire. When Paul was at Lystra, chap. xiv, 19, “there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people; and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.” How the Jews of Thessalonica behaved, we have seen just now, chap. xvii, 5. These very same Jews of Thessalonica followed Paul and Silas to Berea, “and stirred up the people,” verse 13. In Achaia, “the Jews made insurrection against Paul, and brought him before the judgment seat,” chap. xviii, 12. At Ephesus, they would have heightened the rage of the people, though “the whole city was,” before, “filled with confusion,” chap. xix, 29. When this “uproar was ceased, and Paul was about to sail into Syria, the Jews laid wait for him,” chap. xx, 1–3. Nor ought it to be supposed, that the Jews were inconsiderable enemies. The malicious, however unfurnished, will always find some weapons; rage makes men, for a time at least, strong and terrible. We see a great deal of enmity against the first followers of Jesus, in the Jewish speeches and proceedings in Judea and other parts. But perhaps it is not easy to form a complete idea of it. What vexation must it not have given to the generality of this people, who were now in full expectation of subduing the whole world to themselves, to see a number of men of their own nation traveling over the Roman empire, teaching that Jesus, who had been crucified, was the Messiah, the great king and deliverer that had been promised to the Jews; inviting Gentiles also to the participation of all the privileges of the people of God, without insisting on circumcision or other rites of their law!