Indeed, the very Augustus who was the first, and remained the ideal. Emperor-god, was also the restorer to the ancient Roman religion of the dignity it had lost in the troublous times of the dying Republic.
But a further stage was reached, and first of all in Asia, at which the new religion became con- scious that it could maintain itself only by closely allying itself with other religions, by associating Caesar with the local divinities. How Caesarism came to need this buttress is intelligible enough. It was only one or two generations that could have adequate experience of the vast benefit that Caesar's rule brought with it. The previous state of social misery became more and more a dim memory as time passed, and the fervour with which Caesar was greeted as divine could not and did not last. Hence, while during the 1st cent, the State-religion Avas simply the worship of Rome and Caesar, in the 2nd cent, a modification was necessary ; and, as indicated, this consisted in associating Caesar Avith a local god who could call forth a genuine religious feeling. On coins we find Rome and Augustus associated with Diana, Persephone, etc. (see Ramsay, op. cit., p. 123 f.). Thus it is entirely erroneous to say that the new religion owed any of its strength to the decay of the old paganism ; it Avas only in close alliance with the old that Caesarism as a religion could continue in exist- ence.
3. Caesarism and Christianity. — It will be con- venient to treat of this under three heads : (a) the antagonism ; {b) the resemblances ; (c) Caesarism in the NT.
(a) The antagonism,. — This is the most obvious and familiar point in the relation of Caesarism to Christianity. It is knoAvn to all that Rome per- secuted Christianity. What needs to be noted is that persecution Avas not a spasmodic thing due to the Avhini and caprice of specially ' bad' Emperors, as has sometimes been represented. Persecution of Christianity Avas the deliberate and settled policy, not of this or that tyrant, but of the Roman State. From the time that Christianity attained any great dimensions to the day of Constantine's Edict of Toleration, there existed betAveen it and the Roman power a relation of antagonism ; and a condition of persecution resulted for the Church. The persecution might be wide-spread or local, feAv or many Christians might be involved : that de- pended entirely on the diligence and zeal of Roman officials. From Avhat has been said above, the reason for this state of matters is quite plain. Rome had no option but to persecute. Cajsar- Avorship Avas the bond of Empire, the test of loyalty, and Christians refused to Avorship Caesar. They Avere, therefore, a danger to the State. Other charges Avere preferred against them, but this came to be the one capital charge — treason to the State manifest in refusing to Avorship Caesar. The story of persecution, of course, is a varied one ; we cannot trace its development here. But Ave have indicated its rationale — the principle Avhich from the first underlay it, and gradually became explicit.
With Christianity as one religion among others Rome Avould not have concerned herself. Because Christianity threatened Avhat had been adopted as a political safeguard of the first importance for the coherence of the Empire, Rome, Avithout a reversal of her adopted policy, could do nothing else than attempt to extirpate this dangerous sect.
'The Christian who refused this sacrifice (to the image of Caesar) tell automatically under the charge of majestas, i.e. of mortal insult or treason to the Emperor, who represented in his own person the majesty, wisdom, and beneficent power of Rome' (Workman, Persecution in the Early Church, p. 101).
Thus the fact that the great and good Marcus Aurelius was a persecutor of Christians does not
332
EMPEROR- WOESHIP
ENLIGHTENMENT
require the Laboured explaining a^vay it has often received, e.g. from Farrar in Seekers after God, 1891, p. 257 ff. The fact may be fully accepted and easily explained. Just because of his good- ness as a ruler, he was a persecutor. His first duty was to suppress anarchy, and in the view of the Roman Government Christians were anarchists.
We do not need to expound here the inner, in- herent antagonism of the two religions. It was that of the material and the spiritual, the seen and the unseen, the temporal and the eternal, the glorification of success and the exaltation of ser- vice even when it meant renunciation, loss, and self-sacrifice ; the one boasted of a throne, the other of a Cross.
(b) Resemblances. — The opposition of Christian- ity and CfEsarism becomes more marked when we consider their resemblances, (a) Both were uni- versal religions ; we do not need to dwell on that. (/S) Each proclaimed and honoured a ' Messiah.' As noted above, Caesar's praise was celebrated in phrases closely parallel to the praises of Messiah in Isaiah or the Psalms. The prosperity and peace of Messiah's reign as pictured in Isaiah have been regarded by many as the basis of Vergil's Eclogue, though there is no probability in the view. Simi- lar ' Messianic ' passages are by no means rare in the Latin literature of the period. Throughout the world, indeed, there was an expectancy of some great deliverer. The Church proclaimed Jesus, the pagan world acclaimed Cfesar. (7) All the great designations by which Christians ex- pressed the dignity of Christ had already been used of Caesar. This is the most striking, as it is the least familiar, thing to be noted. ' Lord,' 'our Lord,' 'Saviour,' 'Son of God,' 'Image of God,' ' God manifest ' — precisely the greatest names applied to Christ in the NT — were all familiar, throughout the East at least, as usual terms in which to speak of the Emperor (for details see H. A. A. Kennedy, in Expositor, 7th ser., vii. [1909] 289 fF.). While some of the terms, e.g. 'Son of God,' certainly had a root quite independent of Csesarism, and all as applied to Christ and Chris- tians had a diflerent content from the same terms applied to Caesar by pagans, the parallelism is too complete to be pure coincidence. To seize as emi- nently suitable for their own purpose the whole vocabulary of Caesar-adoration was a bold and brilliant stroke of policy on the part of the preachers of Christianity. The humble missionaries, speaking of Jesus as the Emperor was spoken of, must have made a startling and very profound impression. On the one hand, keen hostility would be aroused, but on the other, in many cases an eager curiosity and interest would be awakened. Any religiously- minded pagan must have felt the difficulty of the real godhead of Caesar. Caesarism after all could not satisfy any religious instinct. To any deep reflexion it must appear in reality the negation of religion.