Ivan Reversov
Apologists
Defenders of Christianity
Reversov IP Defenders of Christianity (Apologists). - St. Petersburg, 1898
Reissues: St. Petersburg: Satis, 2002.; Russian pilgrim, 2007 (title from this edition)
.
Professor of the Kazan Theological Academy Ivan Petrovich Reversov was known at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries as a researcher of ancient church writing, however, in addition to purely academic works that reveal the significance of apologetics in the history of the Ancient Church (Essay on Western apologetic literature of the 2nd and 3rd centuries (Study from the field of ancient church writing) Kaz., 1892;), I.P. Reversov published books that played a significant role in Russian education. His "History Textbook" and "Notes on New History" went through many editions, which were used by several generations of high school students.
Table of contents
Conditions for the emergence of apologetics
Tasks and methods of ancient apologetics
The Significance of Ancient Apologetics
St. Justin the Philosopher
Tatian
Athenagoras
St. Meliton, Ep. Sardinian
St. Theophilus of Antioch
Book one
book two
Book Three
Ermiy
Tertullian
Mark Minucius Felix
Conditions for the emergence of apologetics
The oldest Christian apologetics, i.e. literary defense of Christianity, was caused by those unfavorable conditions in which the Church of Christ was in the first three centuries of its existence.
It was a difficult time for the Church, when Judaism, and after it Greco-Roman paganism, strained every effort to humiliate, weaken and, if possible, destroy Christianity, not embarrassed to achieve this goal by any means, even the most cruel and unjust. There were many reasons that created such a hostile and unparalleled attitude towards Christianity in the history of religions, but the most important of them was that special character of Christianity, by virtue of which it declared itself the only true and saving religion, the religion of the universal (universal), having to replace all other religions. . Naturally, such a claim to world significance should have caused the most bitter hostility towards it on the part of peoples who valued the existence of their religions and believed in their immutability and eternity,
The Jews were the first to pay attention to Christianity, since the first Christians came out of their midst and sent their sermon about Christ to them before other peoples, showing them the fulfillment in His person of promises and prophecies about the Messiah long and passionately awaited by the Jews. But the vast majority of the Jews rejected this sermon, because they, with their deeply sensitive nature and under the influence of the unfavorable conditions of their political life, distorted the true concept of the Messiah. According to them, He should appear in the form of a glorious, warlike king who will conquer the whole world under the rule of the Jews and thus reward them for many years of humiliation. Could the majority of Jews, therefore, recognize as the promised Messiah Jesus of Nazareth, who came from a poor family, lived under the most modest conditions, in appearance who did not have any signs of royal dignity and who ended his life on the cross along with two robbers? On the other hand, the recognition of the crucified Jesus as the Messiah would be tantamount to self-condemnation for the Jews, since it was only at their insistent desire, and not at the request of Roman law, that Pilate put Him to death on the cross. Consciousness, however, in its error, and even more so such a fatal one, is not easy for everyone, but for the self-conceited and stubborn Jews in every error, it was especially difficult. It was more comforting to think that they themselves did not commit a terrible crime, bringing their Messiah to death, but that the new religion preaches a completely false doctrine, which therefore needs to be destroyed in every possible way. Finally, The main reason for the Jewish hostility to Christianity was the Jewish and Christian point of view on the law of Moses, which was different to the point of opposition. The Jews greatly valued this law, considering it to have the same eternal existence as Judaism itself, and the only means of salvation. Adherence to it was so strong that even the Jews who converted to Christianity, people who, therefore, somewhat renounced the narrowness of Jewish concepts, very often insisted on the need to observe it not only for natural Jews, but also for converted pagans. [1] .
If the Jews who converted to Christianity looked at the law of Moses in this way, then those who remained in Judaism valued it even more, insisted even more fanatically on its eternal existence and significance. Meanwhile, Christianity declared that the law of Moses with the advent of the Savior had lost its significance, that, consequently, Judaism had ended its historical role and should give way to the Christian religion. This last circumstance most of all armed the Jews against Christianity, so that they became the very first and bitterest enemies of the Christians. Before others, their hatred was incurred by the apostles as zealous and fearless preachers of the word of God, who openly taught about the divinity of Jesus Christ and His resurrection from the dead, and by this preaching of theirs, as well as by numerous miracles, converted the people to Christianity, sometimes in droves. It is quite clear that both the sermon that directly or indirectly denounced the murderers of the Savior and the results of this sermon were hated by the fanatical Jews. Therefore, they resorted to various means to force the apostles not to divulge their doctrine. They repeatedly forbade them to preach about the crucified Jesus, and when simple prohibitions did not work, they put them in prison (Acts 4, 3; 5, 18), subjected them to corporal punishment (5, 40) and even planned to kill them several times (5, 33; 9, 23-24), but the apostles miraculously or accidentally each time got rid of the danger that threatened them. Like the apostles, other believers were persecuted. Once the persecution of them took on such a dangerous character that they, saving their lives, scattered from Jerusalem to "different places in Judea and Samaria" (8, 1). Future Apostle Paul then still Saul, “breathing with threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord” (9, 1); “He tormented the Church, entering houses and dragging men and women, he gave them to prison” (8, 3). In the history of the apostolic age there were even cases when the Jews, in a fit of fanatical hatred for Christians, martyred the followers of Christ. So, Archdeacon Stephen (7, 58-59) and the first Bishop of Jerusalem, Jacob the Righteous (Eusebius, "Church History", book II, ch. 23), were stoned. The hatred of the Jews for Christians was so obvious and well-known that King Herod, to please them, executed Jacob, the brother of the Lord (Acts 12:2). In the age of the apostolic men, according to the legend, the apostolic husband Barnabas, one of the main companions and collaborators of the Apostle Paul, was martyred by the Cypriot Jews. But God kept His Church. The Jews could not cause especially great harm to Christianity, because they themselves were dependent people, having fallen under the rule of the Romans even before R. X.. From A.D. 70, after the Jewish revolt, the rights of the Jews were even more limited by the Roman authorities and they became even more powerless. Killing Christians was against the law; for them the Jews could be liable, and therefore such murders were rare. Deprived of the opportunity to independently persecute and oppress Christians, the Jews in impotent rage resorted to a shameful means - to slander and incite the Roman authorities and people. According to St. Justin the Philosopher, the Jews “sent chosen people from Jerusalem to all the earth to divulge that a godless Christian heresy had appeared, and to spread slander against Christians, which are usually repeated by all those who do not know Christianity” (“Conversation with Trypho the Jew”, ch. 17, cf. ch. 108). Finally, the time came when this also proved useless, since paganism itself, and apart from Jewish incitement, turned its attention to Christianity and hated it.
Paganism, which had all the material means to inflict enormous harm on Christianity, was therefore a more dangerous enemy for it than Judaism, but due to the action of God's Providence, the pagans turned their attention to Christianity even when the number of Christians increased significantly, when Christianity was relatively strong for the struggle. with a terrible enemy.
Among the pagans, Christians were primarily noticed by people whose interests were directly affected by the spread of Christianity, such as all those to whom paganism gave their daily bread - idol makers, temple architects, sculptors, painters, suppliers of victims, fortune-tellers, and especially, of course, priests. With the spread of Christianity, the demand for their knowledge and works decreased, and at the same time their earnings also decreased, and therefore they naturally had to hate Christianity, which caused them material damage, thus affecting their most sensitive place. Feeding malice towards him, they, like the Jews, began to incite the people against Christians, resulting in frequent persecution of Christians. According to the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the first hostile uprising of the people against the Christians was initiated in Ephesus by a silversmith, Demetrius, who made small silver temples of Artemis (19, 24-40). The more time passed, the more noticeably the number of idolaters decreased, the more people interested in this hated Christians and looked for opportunities to avenge their losses on them.
Further, people began to notice Christianity, to whom, if it did not cause any losses or any other material harm, then, in any case, it seemed strange, sometimes worthy only of contempt, and in other cases - censure and hatred. From the outside, according to the social position of the members of the Christian church, it seemed contemptible. Indeed, Christianity, which promised comfort in the future for humiliation and calamity in the present life, taught about the equality before God of all people, regardless of their wealth or nobility of origin, preached that in the Kingdom of God there is no difference between a slave and a free, most likely it was inculcated among downtrodden and destitute people, for whom real life represented only hardship and torment and did not give any comfort. These were mostly small workers, barely earning a living, and especially slaves, people completely powerless, who were completely dependent on the arbitrariness and even the whim of their masters. A wealthy and noble pagan looked at such people with contempt, as miserable dregs of society, often not recognizing their human dignity. Their belonging to Christianity gave him reason to think that the very religion of their low dignity, if it is professed by such people. Caecilius in Minucius Felix's Octavius calls them people of "a miserable, despicable sect who recruit followers from the very dirt of the people into their impious society, from gullible women who are deluded by the frivolity of their sex" (ch. 8). Celsus scoffs at the fact that "various woolen workers, shoemakers, leather workers, the most uneducated,
In addition, the first preachers of Christianity came from Judea, they were even considered Jewish sectarians, and this also did not hinder Christianity, because the Jews did not enjoy respect among the pagans because they themselves, as God's chosen people, looked down on paganism and, if possible, they kept aloof from him: they did not buy bread, oil, wine and other items from the pagans, did not accept them as witnesses, etc.
If the social position of Christian society evoked only a contemptuous attitude towards it in the pagans, then the life and teachings of Christians, misunderstood by the pagans, who did not penetrate into their innermost essence, but judged them only by hearsay, aroused unkind feelings in the pagans. So, for example, the pagans did not understand the meaning of the secret meetings of Christians somewhere in the catacombs or in general in any hidden places and, on the basis of the rumors spread by the ill-wishers of Christianity, interpreted them in a bad way. Unwilling to understand that the secrecy of Christians was forced in order to protect their prayer meetings from the crude intrusion of pagans into them, they thought that the secrecy of these meetings serves as a cover for the vices or crimes of Christians - debauchery, infanticide, etc. In the present case, the rumor had for itself, as it were, some probability, since the Christians themselves spoke about love suppers (agapas), about the slaughter of a lamb, about eating flesh and blood, and whole legends about the immorality and criminality of Christians were created from incomprehensible phrases. In addition, there were Christian sects, for example, the Nicolaitans, Carpocratians and others, in which depravity was legalized as one of the means of mortifying the flesh, and the pagans did not know how to distinguish good Christians from bad ones, and did not give themselves this trouble, accusing all Christians indiscriminately. On the other hand, as new evidence of the moral licentiousness of Christians, the pagans interpreted the love of Christians for each other, their calling each other brothers and sisters, their brotherly kisses. about eating flesh and blood, and from incomprehensible phrases whole legends about the immorality and criminality of Christians were created. In addition, there were Christian sects, for example, the Nicolaitans, Carpocratians and others, in which depravity was legalized as one of the means of mortifying the flesh, and the pagans did not know how to distinguish good Christians from bad ones, and did not give themselves this trouble, accusing all Christians indiscriminately. On the other hand, as new evidence of the moral licentiousness of Christians, the pagans interpreted the love of Christians for each other, their calling each other brothers and sisters, their brotherly kisses. about eating flesh and blood, and from incomprehensible phrases whole legends about the immorality and criminality of Christians were created. In addition, there were Christian sects, for example, the Nicolaitans, Carpocratians and others, in which depravity was legalized as one of the means of mortifying the flesh, and the pagans did not know how to distinguish good Christians from bad ones, and did not give themselves this trouble, accusing all Christians indiscriminately. On the other hand, as new evidence of the moral licentiousness of Christians, the pagans interpreted the love of Christians for each other, their calling each other brothers and sisters, their brotherly kisses. in which debauchery was legalized as one of the means of mortifying the flesh, and the pagans were not able to distinguish good Christians from bad ones, and they did not give themselves this trouble, accusing all Christians indiscriminately. On the other hand, as new evidence of the moral licentiousness of Christians, the pagans interpreted the love of Christians for each other, their calling each other brothers and sisters, their brotherly kisses. in which debauchery was legalized as one of the means of mortifying the flesh, and the pagans were not able to distinguish good Christians from bad ones, and they did not give themselves this trouble, accusing all Christians indiscriminately. On the other hand, as new evidence of the moral licentiousness of Christians, the pagans interpreted the love of Christians for each other, their calling each other brothers and sisters, their brotherly kisses.
As for the Christian doctrine, it seemed to the pagans either strange, or repulsive, or directly hated, as a deviation from the legal norms. It seemed strange to pagans that Christians consider God to be an exclusively spiritual being and, worshiping Him, have neither temples, nor images of a deity, nor victims, while Greco-Roman paganism imagined the gods as humanoid beings (anthropomorphism) and considered worshiping them possible only under visible images (under the guise of idols), she considered sacrifices a necessary accessory of worship, and supplied her piety in the construction of many and magnificent temples. The pagan Caecilius, for example, says: "Why do they (Christians) have no temples, no altars, no generally accepted images?" (Mark Minucius Felix, Octavius, ch. 10). The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ was even worse accepted by the pagans. The pagans reproached the Christians for what they considered to be God a man betrayed by a shameful, slavish execution on the cross. Not understanding the salvific significance of the sufferings on the cross and the death of Jesus Christ, the pagans saw in them only a punishment for some misdeeds. According to them, Christ was either a villain, or rather, a rebel, like many others who appeared in Judea after its conquest by the Romans, and the authorities punished Him with the most shameful execution to frighten others and to establish public peace. There are also legends about this. According to Hierocles, Jesus Christ, expelled from Judea, recruited a gang of 900 people and was engaged in robberies (Lactantius, "Divine Instructions", book 5, ch. 3). A repulsive impression on the pagans was also made by that Christians venerate the instrument of shameful execution - the cross. This convinced them that the cult of Christians fully corresponds to their reverence for God as a man-villain. “So,” says Cecilius, “they have altars, decent for villains and robbers, and honor what they themselves deserve” (“Octavius”, ch. 9). The cynical rumor added further that they worshiped both the head of an ass and even worse objects ...
No matter how strange and even repulsive the religion of Christians and their objects of worship seemed to the pagans, however, the pagans could still somehow reconcile with them, since there were many unsightly things in the pagan religions, but there was one circumstance that inevitably forced the pagans to be hostile to Christianity . Although the pagans themselves at this time did not all and not always sincerely believe in their gods and reverently honor them, nevertheless they at least officially considered it their duty to recognize the gods and observe external forms of worship. For the Roman pagans, in particular, this was very important, since their religion was closely connected with the state and the prosperity of the latter was directly dependent on the existence and steadfastness of the former. As a result, Christians, who denied pagan gods, as false, moving away from serving them and not taking part in solemn festivities in honor of them, by this they simultaneously offended both the religious and national feelings of the Romans: they seemed harmful atheists, since the pagans did not consider the Christian God to be God, they seemed enemies of the nation, if not included in her interests. In addition, the Romans had a superstitious belief, formed over the centuries, that disrespect for their gods entails divine punishment in the form of various state and social misfortunes. In the first centuries of Christianity, there were indeed many such misfortunes in the Roman Empire, and the pagans naturally considered the Christians responsible for them, insulting the gods with their disrespect for them. On this basis, especially stubborn and bitter hatred of Christians was mainly created. Therefore, sometimes it was enough for one skillful incitement, especially from clever priests, at the moment of some kind of excitement of passions, for a dull hostility towards Christians to break through in an effort to destroy them, to demand their execution. “Down with the atheists”, “down with the Christians”, “Christians to the lions, Christians to the fire!” - the frenzied crowd shouted during folk festivals, among circus performances, or about public misfortunes. There were times when the authorities yielded to the demands of the mob, and sometimes she personally dealt with the hated Christians. According to Tertullian, the crowd did not even spare the corpses of Christians, tearing them out and blaspheming them. However, before the 2nd century AD, there were few cases of execution of Christians at the request of the crowd. And common sense and respect for the law made Roman rulers more likely to deviate than to fulfill the desire of the people. But this continued only until the Roman government paid due attention to the Christians and until Christianity was brought under the influence of old and new laws that were hostile to it.
From the beginning of the second century A.D. the situation of Christianity has changed for the worse, since a new and, at the same time, the most dangerous has joined its former enemies. Until that time, the Roman government paid no attention to Christianity as an insignificant Jewish sect, which, due to its insignificance, both quantitatively and qualitatively, could not arouse any attitude towards itself other than contempt, and in any case could not seem dangerous to such firmly established institutions like the Roman state and its state religion. In addition, fortunately for Christianity, in the first period of its spread in the Roman Empire, the throne was occupied by bad emperors, who, busy with their eternal affairs more than state affairs, could not pay due attention to Christianity and understand its significance. By the end of the first century, circumstances had changed. Christianity made too rapid progress, penetrating into all strata of society, not excluding the highest ones. The Christian society numbered thousands of its members even in Rome itself, not to mention other cities of the empire. Along with this, we see the best emperors on the Roman throne, who delved into all state needs, sought to strengthen the state both from the outside and from the inside and give it the brilliance of the flourishing period of the republic. Such emperors could not fail to notice the extraordinary success of Christian preaching and the multiplication of Christians. They had to make sure that Christianity is far from being a simple and safe Jewish sect for the state. From the numerous cases of clashes between pagans and Christians, little by little the universal character of Christianity became clear, who was supposed to convince the government that Christianity threatened to undermine the national religion and the state system closely connected with it. Having every reason to cherish both one and the other, and even making every effort to strengthen them, the government understood that now it was impossible, as before, to ignore Christianity and do without certain relations towards it, undoubtedly hostile. Therefore, the government either placed Christians under existing laws that were unfavorable to Christianity, or issued new ones specifically directed against it. that now it is impossible, as before, to leave Christianity unattended and to do without certain attitudes towards it, undoubtedly hostile. Therefore, the government either placed Christians under existing laws that were unfavorable to Christianity, or issued new ones specifically directed against it. that now it is impossible, as before, to leave Christianity unattended and to do without certain attitudes towards it, undoubtedly hostile. Therefore, the government either placed Christians under existing laws that were unfavorable to Christianity, or issued new ones specifically directed against it.
First of all, from the Roman point of view, Christianity, as not sanctioned by Roman law, was an unlawful religion (religio illicita), which, therefore, had no right to exist. True, Rome was notable for its wide religious tolerance towards all religions, allowing all the peoples subject to it to freely practice the cults established among them, no matter what character they differed in, even as wild and frantic as the worship of Bacchus and Cybele, and as gloomy as the cult of the Persian Mithras. It was allowed to send these cults in Rome itself. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, "people who belonged to a thousand nationalities come to the city (Rome) and worship their native gods here according to their foreign laws." Even Judaism was no exception among other religions. The Jews enjoyed the right to worship their God everywhere, including in Rome. The state only obligated strangers to respect the Roman cult, not to impose their religious beliefs on Roman citizens, to celebrate their rites modestly, without public proof, somewhere on the outskirts of Rome. Roman tolerance went even further. The state itself accepted foreign cults. The gods of all countries and peoples subordinate to Rome were gradually accepted into the Roman pantheon, one after another, and the native Romans were not forbidden to worship any of them, but only under the indispensable condition to keep at the same time the domestic state cult and give it preference over foreign ones. without public proof, somewhere on the outskirts of Rome. Roman tolerance went even further. The state itself accepted foreign cults. The gods of all countries and peoples subordinate to Rome were gradually accepted into the Roman pantheon, one after another, and the native Romans were not forbidden to worship any of them, but only under the indispensable condition to keep at the same time the domestic state cult and give it preference over foreign ones. without public proof, somewhere on the outskirts of Rome. Roman tolerance went even further. The state itself accepted foreign cults. The gods of all countries and peoples subordinate to Rome were gradually accepted into the Roman pantheon, one after another, and the native Romans were not forbidden to worship any of them, but only under the indispensable condition to keep at the same time the domestic state cult and give it preference over foreign ones.
For all that, Rome could not allow the existence of Christianity and had to persecute it as an unlawful religion. The exclusive attitude towards Christianity was explained by the exceptional position of Christianity itself, which differed too sharply from all ancient religions and, in the opinion of the government, could not be brought under a common scale with them. Allowing both foreigners and Romans to worship whatever gods they like, and even accepting them into their own pantheon, the state knew that it allowed the veneration of national gods, and this was very important from the Roman point of view. Respecting their gods for the fact that they allegedly contributed to the glory and power of Rome, the Romans also saw in foreign gods the patrons of those peoples who revered them. Therefore, with superstitious fear, they were afraid to offend these gods, so as not to incur their wrath. On this basis, even the Jewish religion, which is so different from all religions, was considered permissible among them. It can be further assumed that the Romans were inclined to think that the foreign pagan gods were essentially similar to their own, only they had different names and appeared in a different form. In relation to Christianity, they could not be guided by such considerations. The Christian religion was not national, since it was not tied to any particular people, like the pagan and Jewish religions. She did not even have behind her the authority of antiquity, which would in any way reconcile with her existence, since in the eyes of the Romans antiquity was honorable and worthy of respect. The Christian God has not declared himself in any way, his worshipers suffer a bitter fate. Therefore, there is nothing to fear from Him, and there is no need to stand on ceremony with Christians, since they can be exterminated without fear of incurring the wrath of their God. On the other hand, foreigners respectfully treated the Roman cult, did not attempt to humiliate and defame it, while the natural Romans, who professed a foreign cult, were obliged to honor the native gods and really honored them. Christians, no matter what nation they belong to, alone among all subjects did not comply with this requirement of the Roman law. They not only refused to worship the Roman gods, but also blasphemously (from the Roman point of view) spoke of them as false gods, sometimes going so far as to assert that all paganism is the work of demons. Under these conditions, one could not expect the government to treat Christianity with the usual tolerance; it would be quite surprising if it
Seeing the Christians' disrespect for the Roman gods, the government could also charge them with a public accusation that the state was suffering misfortunes through the fault of Christians. Stated by the government, this accusation could bring even greater persecution to Christians than the same accusation leveled against Christians by the people.
Nor could the government be indifferent to Christianity's claim to universal significance. Its desire to become a single all-encompassing religion was tantamount to the destruction of all paganism, including Roman. Without contradicting the primordial and dearest convictions of the entire Roman people, the government could not allow this. Religion was too important for the state. After all, according to the Romans, the state owed its power to her, since the Roman gods turned out to be stronger than other gods. She, therefore, served as a pledge and security for his further glorious existence. Therefore, the state side of religion was always highly valued by every patriotic Roman, and any inclinations to shake its authority were protected by law. By an unfortunate coincidence for Christians, the clash between Christianity and paganism took place at the most unfavorable moment for the first. If, in general, the law and the government patronized Roman paganism and protected it, then from the time of the empire deliberate efforts were made not only to preserve the state significance of the Roman religion, but also to present it all with a strong vital appearance. Government support for religion was the more intense, the more the internal weakness of the Roman religion was felt, which no longer satisfied the religious feelings of the pagan and did not resist the court of philosophical and historical criticism, as a result of which an almost universal disbelief in the Roman gods appeared. Trying to revive paganism and give it an external brilliance, the emperors aimed to mask or paralyze this unbelief. Thus, Augustine restored churches that had fallen into disrepair during civil wars, built several new ones, resumed religious holidays, giving them a magnificent and solemn appearance, and tried to revive ancient traditions. Even such emperors as Tiberius, Claudius and Nero, who did not particularly care for the welfare of the state, considered it necessary to support the Roman religion by laws and by their own example. As for the best emperors, like Vespasian and members of the Antonina family, they showed unconditional respect for the national religion in view of its importance for the state. Christians who did not appreciate this religion and spoke of its destruction were enemies of the state, who did not deserve any indulgence. He resumed religious holidays, giving them a magnificent and solemn look, and tried to revive ancient traditions. Even such emperors as Tiberius, Claudius and Nero, who did not particularly care for the welfare of the state, considered it necessary to support the Roman religion by laws and by their own example. As for the best emperors, like Vespasian and members of the Antonina family, they showed unconditional respect for the national religion in view of its importance for the state. Christians who did not appreciate this religion and spoke of its destruction were enemies of the state, who did not deserve any indulgence. He resumed religious holidays, giving them a magnificent and solemn look, and tried to revive ancient traditions. Even such emperors as Tiberius, Claudius and Nero, who did not particularly care for the welfare of the state, considered it necessary to support the Roman religion by laws and by their own example. As for the best emperors, like Vespasian and members of the Antonina family, they showed unconditional respect for the national religion in view of its importance for the state. Christians who did not appreciate this religion and spoke of its destruction were enemies of the state, who did not deserve any indulgence. they considered it necessary to support the Roman religion by laws and by their own example. As for the best emperors, like Vespasian and members of the Antonina family, they showed unconditional respect for the national religion in view of its importance for the state. Christians who did not appreciate this religion and spoke of its destruction were enemies of the state, who did not deserve any indulgence. they considered it necessary to support the Roman religion by laws and by their own example. As for the best emperors, like Vespasian and members of the Antonina family, they showed unconditional respect for the national religion in view of its importance for the state. Christians who did not appreciate this religion and spoke of its destruction were enemies of the state, who did not deserve any indulgence.
The gravity of their guilt was aggravated by the fact that, along with the general rejection of the Roman religion, they did not recognize that essential appendage to it, in which it was enriched from the time of the empire - the cult of the Caesars, while it had all the data to become the most popular and revered. It also expressed Roman patriotism, since in the person of the deified representatives of the state, the state itself was essentially idolized, loyal feelings were also expressed, especially towards good sovereigns, who brought prosperity and glory to the empire. He flattered the vanity of the emperors and, consequently, by his diligent administration it was possible to win the favor of the omnipotent lords. He, finally, represented the charm of novelty, tempting for the Romans who had lost faith in the old gods. As a result, the Romans so willingly honored him, that soon after its origin he became the head of the state religion, and, like everything related to it, became strictly obligatory. All inhabitants were obliged to take part in it, since everyone enjoyed the Roman world and lived under the auspices of the empire. Each loyal subject had to have in his house an image of the emperor between his penates. If someone, through negligence or disrespect, did not want to express divine honor to the emperor, they treated him as the greatest criminal. After Augustus' death, several senators were punished on charges of disrespecting Augustus as a god. In the reign of Nero, Senator Frazeya Pet, according to contemporaries - the embodiment of virtue, was forced to open his veins, as he was accused that he had never made sacrifices for the well-being of the sovereign, or for his heavenly voice, did not believe in the divinity of Pompeii. The foreign subjects of Rome, wishing to curry favor with the world rulers, not only accepted this cult, but in expressions of true or imaginary reverence for the sacred person of the emperor sometimes even surpassed the Romans, especially the inhabitants of the East, where the apotheosis of kings existed before, and where flattery and servility were in great go. With a certain amount of servility, the cult of the Caesars, which in itself aroused reverence and devotion, assumed the harshest forms of servility. They began to deify not only the dead emperors, but also the living, not only the emperors themselves, but also members of their family, even their favorites and favorites. Feasts in their honor were celebrated with all sorts of solemnity and pomp, temples in their honor were built in abundance everywhere, both in Rome and in the provinces, - and they did not spare either private or public funds for their decoration. In the temples of other gods, images of emperors stood alongside them. And with such enthusiasm of all Roman subjects for the administration of the imperial cult, with such scrupulousness of the Roman authorities in cases of disrespect for him, the Christians refused to give divine honors to the emperors! One can therefore judge how hostile the Roman society and the Roman government, and especially the emperors themselves, must have been towards Christians, in view of the disdain of Christians for that which was made an indispensable duty for every subject and which many were sincerely fond of. Under this condition, it was easiest to bring the charge of lèse majesté with all its consequences against the Christians. If, as we have seen, even the senatorial title did not save from punishment for not recognizing the divine dignity of the emperor, then the Christians, generally hated, had nothing to expect mercy. History has noted that the two most severe persecutions of Christians in the second century took place in cities which, like Lyons and Smyrna, were centers of imperial cult, and both persecutions were evidently connected with festivities in honor of the emperors. All condemnations of Christians to execution, to exile were made after the Christians finally refused to make sacrifices in honor of the emperor, smoke incense in front of his statue and swear by his genius. On the contrary, notorious Christians who outwardly performed all this were often set free. that the two most cruel persecutions of Christians in the second century took place in cities which, like Lyon and Smyrna, were centers of imperial worship, and both persecutions were apparently connected with festivals in honor of the emperors. All condemnations of Christians to execution, to exile were made after the Christians finally refused to make sacrifices in honor of the emperor, smoke incense in front of his statue and swear by his genius. On the contrary, notorious Christians who outwardly performed all this were often set free. that the two most cruel persecutions of Christians in the second century took place in cities which, like Lyon and Smyrna, were centers of imperial worship, and both persecutions were apparently connected with festivals in honor of the emperors. All condemnations of Christians to execution, to exile were made after the Christians finally refused to make sacrifices in honor of the emperor, smoke incense in front of his statue and swear by his genius. On the contrary, notorious Christians who outwardly performed all this were often set free. how Christians finally refused to offer sacrifices in honor of the emperor, smoke incense in front of his statue and swear by his genius. On the contrary, notorious Christians who outwardly performed all this were often set free. how Christians finally refused to offer sacrifices in honor of the emperor, smoke incense in front of his statue and swear by his genius. On the contrary, notorious Christians who outwardly performed all this were often set free.
But Christians not only refused to honor the emperor as a god, they in some cases showed him disrespect and in general as a sovereign. Avoiding everything pagan for fear of being defiled by it, they abstained from common official festivities in honor of the emperors - on the days of their accession to the throne or on the occasion of victories. It even happened that Christians, in excess of rigorism, avoided even such innocent things as lighting up their houses or decorating them with greenery. If, according to their position, for example, Christian soldiers, they involuntarily had to participate in such festivities, then they tried to show, as far as possible, their little involvement in them. Not to mention the refusal to participate in the sacrifices, while the pagan soldiers had wreaths on their heads, they held them in their hands, considering the crowning of the head to be something pagan. All this was supposed to arm both society and the government against Christians. Seeing Christians absent from the feast, seeing their houses not illuminated or adorned with garlands, and their soldiers not crowned, the pagans might think that Christians do not sympathize with the joy of the people and the emperor, and on this basis consider them enemies of Caesar (hostes Caesarum). The emperor himself could be offended by this even more, and therefore all discovered cases of such disrespect for the emperor entailed the punishment of guilty Christians, which could then spread to all Christians in general, since all of them could be considered guilty by the pagans of disrespect for the person of Caesar. and their soldiers not crowned, the pagans could think that the Christians did not sympathize with the joy of the people and the emperor, and on this basis consider them enemies of Caesar (hostes Caesarum). The emperor himself could be offended by this even more, and therefore all discovered cases of such disrespect for the emperor entailed the punishment of guilty Christians, which could then spread to all Christians in general, since all of them could be considered guilty by the pagans of disrespect for the person of Caesar. and their soldiers not crowned, the pagans could think that the Christians did not sympathize with the joy of the people and the emperor, and on this basis consider them enemies of Caesar (hostes Caesarum). The emperor himself could be offended by this even more, and therefore all discovered cases of such disrespect for the emperor entailed the punishment of guilty Christians, which could then spread to all Christians in general, since all of them could be considered guilty by the pagans of disrespect for the person of Caesar.
Avoiding participation in the imperial festivities, some Christians generally shied away from public life: they did not enter the military service, did not hold state and public positions, did not even enter into simple relations with pagans, since everywhere and everywhere it was possible to be defiled by paganism, which penetrated into everything. , even special occasions. With a small number of Christians at first, this was not particularly noticeable, but with the growth of Christian society, this was especially striking to the pagans. Not knowing the motives that prompted Christians to do this, but, having recognized, not attaching importance to them, the pagans, adhering to the state principle that every citizen should serve the state to the best of his ability, saw the removal of Christians from public service as a failure to fulfill civic duty. Alienation of Christians from common pagan life was interpreted as hostility to society, hostility to the fatherland. In both cases, the Christians were punished, because the state could not tolerate such members who did not comply with its laws or were hostile to it.
If the mere removal of Christians from general civil life led to suspicion of the hostile attitude of Christians towards the state, then the government should have looked even more suspiciously at the secrecy of Christians, at their secret meetings in remote places and mainly at night. It thought that Christians kept secrets because in silence and solitude it was more convenient for them to invent and carry out their criminal anti-state plans. This was reflected in the usual suspicion of the Roman government, which was intimidated by various conspiracies and was ready to see political goals even where there were none at all and could not be. Especially from the time of the empire, when conspiracies followed one after another, it made special efforts to destroy and prevent the emergence of all corporations, for whatever purpose they were drawn up. For example, in Nicomedia, which often suffered from fires, an artel of workers was established whose duties were to put out fires, but Trajan forbade such an artel, saying that such societies or colonies easily turn into malicious gatherings, under whatever name and for whatever purpose. they were not established. The same Trajan in the year 99 issued a decree against all kinds of geteria, which, in its severity, surpassed all the laws on secret societies that existed before him. The suspicion of the Romans also extended to religious societies not sanctioned by the government, because they feared that religious purposes were only an object, and behind them were hidden political designs. Naturally, the government could look at the Christian community with its secret meetings as a political corporation hostile to the state, especially since that the Christians themselves gave rise to this, imprudently speaking about the expectation of a new kingdom, which, obviously, is not identical with the Roman one, about the imminent violation of Rome, etc. Christianity, therefore, was brought under the category of heterias and, like any unlawful society, was subject to strict liability before the court of criminal laws.
Thus, all relationships between the Roman government and Christianity must have resulted in the persecution of Christians. From church history it is clear that the persecution of them in different parts of the empire did not stop until the issuance of the famous decree of Constantine the Great, but sometimes, on the basis of imperial edicts, they took on a nationwide character and therefore caused especially great harm to Christianity. The most systematic persecutions fall on the reign of the best emperors, while under the bad emperors, they either did not exist at all, or they were of an accidental nature, as, for example, under Nero, who began to persecute Christians in order to lay the blame for the Roman fire on them. Trajan (99-117) laid the foundation for systematic persecution. By nature, he was not a cruel despot in the spirit of Nero or Domitian. It was a just and kind sovereign; philanthropic ideas were not alien to him, but as an emperor who set it as his task to strengthen the state and religious foundations, and, moreover, extremely suspicious of all manifestations of separatism in the state, he could not favorably treat Christianity, which stood out from the general course of Roman life. Considering his attitude towards Christians, insofar as they were expressed in his decree, it must be assumed that for him the universal character of Christianity, which could even more restore him against Christians, has not yet become clear, but also that Christians in life and teaching did not fit under the general warehouse of Roman life, forced him to use restrictive measures against them. His very acquaintance with Christianity and the attitude towards him that arose from this happened quite by accident. In the year 99 Trajan issued an edict against secret societies, referring mainly to the region of Bithynia, where much unrest was noted. The ruler of this region, Pliny the Younger, was surprised when they brought before him a mass of people accused of violating the above decree and calling themselves Christians. The most conscientious interrogation with the use of even torture for some of the accused did not reveal their participation in any forbidden society, any of their criminality. It turned out only that they profess a special religion, not belonging to the number of permitted ones, which they adhere to with unshakable tenacity, and, on the basis of its instructions, refuse to burn incense and drink libations in front of the images of gods and emperors. As a zealous official, Pliny considered it necessary to punish them for this too, but in view, on the one hand, novelty of the case, and on the other hand, the multitude of the accused, he hesitated: did he do the right thing, and therefore, setting out in a letter to the emperor all the circumstances of the case, he asked for his guidance for a further attitude towards Christianity. Trajan answered him in the form of a decree that Christians were not to be found along with other criminals; likewise, anonymous denunciations of them should not be accepted, but if they are presented in court and caught, they should be punished. Trajan did not precisely define the measure of punishment, saying that for different cases there should be a different punishment, but the usual punishment in such cases was the death penalty. Thus appeared the first imperial edict specifically directed against Christians. Apparently, this decree was quite favorable to Christianity, because special searches and anonymous denunciations of them were still forbidden, but in essence he was cruel. According to its meaning, Christianity in itself, regardless of the quality of its followers, should be punished as an unlawful religion. He thus gave a formal right to persecute Christians. After this decree, even out of personal enmity or revenge, it was possible for everyone to represent Christians in court, and if the accusation of belonging to Christianity is proved, legal retribution for this will not slow down.
New decrees against Christians came out 50 years after Trajan, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), and again from the sovereign, who was the decoration of the Roman throne both in the governmental and in the universal human sense. As a ruler, Marcus Aurelius won the love of his subjects, grateful to him for their prosperity, so that the warmest, as it were, kindred relations were established for him: young men called him father, adults called him brother, and old people called him son. As a person, both in himself and in his convictions, he was the personification of kindness and humanity. Once he exclaimed: “I desire nothing in the world so much as the resurrection of many dead, and not the condemnation of the living to death.” And yet, this humane and loving sovereign was the most cruel persecutor of Christians. And, as a person who deeply believes in pagan gods, and as a Stoic philosopher, whose convictions were diametrically opposed to many points of Christian doctrine, and as a sovereign who took the interests of the state close to his heart, Marcus Aurelius had to persecute Christians who denied paganism, established principles that were contrary to Stoic philosophy, and actively or passively resisted state laws. During his reign, the most severe decrees were issued against Christians, which the apologist Meliton calls barbaric in cruelty. According to these decrees, the government ordered not only to seize Christians who declared themselves as such, but also to look for them if they were hiding. Denunciations were not only allowed, but also encouraged, and informers, according to Meliton, received a reward from the confiscated property of the accused. To force Christians to renounce Christianity, severe torture was introduced. Even those who renounced Christianity were imprisoned and subjected to torment, guided by public rumor about the vices and crimes of Christians committed by them in their prayer meetings.
In the middle of the third century, an anti-Christian edict was issued by the emperor Decius (249-251). He tried to revive the policy of Trajan (in honor of the latter, he took the name of Trajan), and therefore the persecution of Christians was part of his political program. An excellent description of Decius' attitude to Christianity is given by St. Cyprian. According to him, Decius, with greater peace of mind, could endure the appearance of a rival in the imperial crown than the placement of a new bishop in Rome. Decius Trajan's plans included either converting Christians to paganism, or completely destroying them. Therefore, on the basis of his decree (250), Christians were found everywhere and forced to renounce Christianity, and they were not content with verbal renunciation, but demanded in confirmation of it to actually express their respect for the pagan religion - through the sacrifice. Those who refused this or declared themselves Christians were subjected to torture and made the laughingstock of the crowd, and when these forms of exhortation did not work, they were put to death. The destruction of the church was part of the political program of every sovereign who cared about the welfare of the empire and hoped to restore the former greatness of Rome.
It is hard to imagine what Christians had to endure during these difficult times of persecution. The torturers were inexhaustible in inventing torture and torment to force Christians to renounce their beliefs. According to Eusebius, the martyrs were cut with scourges to the deepest veins and arteries, so that even the insides were revealed; under them lay sea shells and sharp fragments; they stretched their legs on wooden decks; they were put on hot iron, or applied to the most delicate parts of the body; they put them in murderous dungeons, starved them, burned them at the stake, gave them to be eaten by wild animals, etc. Sometimes even the tormentors themselves got tired of tormenting, and through the death penalty put an end to the torment. Christians became almost an inevitable part of the circuses, where many wild animals were released on them, and the people were delighted to see how hungry beasts tormented the defenseless. Neither age, nor gender, nor rank, nor fortune saved from torment. The mere name of a Christian was enough for all sorts of cruelties to be applied to a person who called himself a Christian.
Hated by Jews and pagans, persecuted by the authorities, in both cases endangering the lives of its followers, Christianity at first only suffered passively from its enemies. The patience of the martyrs and the firm confession of Christianity were the only answers to all the tricks of the persecutors and tormentors. Christianity could not put up material force against its enemies. At first, there were very few Christians and, consequently, a material struggle with mighty Rome was unthinkable for them. But even then, when the number of Christians increased immeasurably, when it was possible to "measure one's strength", Christians abhorred this means of struggle, as inconsistent with their convictions. If material means were unsuitable, then it was possible to turn to the pagans a moral tool, the word of persuasion, expressed in the book for all to hear from the pagans and especially addressed to the emperors, who, by virtue of their enormous power, could be both the most dangerous enemies of Christianity and its patrons, if they were convinced of its correctness. The opportunity to wage this kind of struggle against paganism appeared only in the 2nd century, when educated people and scientists began to join the Christian society. The desire to provide all possible assistance to suffering brethren forced every educated Christian to take up his pen to defend the innocent Church from vain accusations and to justify its existence, and no one considered himself entitled to refuse this. “Everyone,” says Justin, “who can proclaim the truth and does not proclaim it, will be condemned by God” (“Conversation with Tryphon the Jew”, ch. 82). In particular, the defenders of persecuted Christianity were pagan philosophers and lawyers converted to Christianity. They possessed knowledge of literature and laws, eloquence and dialectics, the properties necessary for the fight against pagan enemies. Filled with holy zeal for faith and ardently conscious of their duty, they devoted all their strength and talents to their high service. They were not embarrassed that, speaking in defense of Christianity, they could incur the wrath of the government, and perhaps death itself. The spectacle of the suffering and insults of Christians and the desire to help the defenseless forced them to distract themselves from selfish calculations. The result of such a noble attitude was the appearance of a number of apologies (defensive speeches), in which their authors, the apologists, appealed either to the emperor and the authorities with a request to enter into the plight of persecuted Christians, to judge them fairly and not to deny them civil rights, or they tried to make clear to the whole pagan world the causelessness of his enmity towards Christians, teaching and life which not only do not justify the accusations raised against them, but incomparably surpass the teaching and life of the pagans themselves. The good mood of individuals then passed into a pious custom, so that until the third century there was not a single church writer who would not write apologies, and from the third century, converts were sometimes forced to write apologies to prove the sincerity of their conversion. So, for example, the bishop of Sikka then only received Arnobius into his communion, when he wrote the apologia "The Seven Books of Objections Against the Gentiles". Thus, the persecution of Christians and Christianity by pagans was the cause of the appearance of an extensive apologetic literature.
