PEKSECUTION
PEKSECUTIUN
175
He had a profound reverence for the Torah. It was complete and linal. The orlhoiUjx Jew believed that the wovhl would be saved by beinj; Judaized, as the Christian preacher believed it would be saved bj' being evaiij;elized. J udaisni was not one religion among many — it was tlic religion. The Jew claimed for Judaism what the Christian ajiologist claimed for Christianity — finality and absoluteness. The Jew had to embrace Christianity or oppose it by every means at his disposal. ]!oth Judaism and Christianity were exclusive religions. The Jew who refused to be converted must have pos- sessed that ' intense faith ' in which Lccky lia.s discovered the origin of persecution. The Christian religion also produced a faith which counted it all joy to sull'er for righteousness' sake. It was this exclusiveness and sense of superiority which made .ludah tlie best hated nation in the ancient world ; but for the same reason the Christian Church won the bitter hatred of the Gneco-ltoman woildwitb its indolent syncretism and low ethical iileals. It has been maintained that persecution in the strict sense of the term originated within Judaism, and in this doctrine of exclusiveness, inasmuch as the Jew persecuted Christians solely for their religious views — i.e. for heresy, and for no other reason. But there was a close intermingling of religious and political motives, and in Judah especially national- ism and religiiin were closely associated.
6. The attitude of Rome to Christianity. — The represeQtatives of Rome paid little or no attention to the ' nS\v and magical superstition ' which had sprung up in Judah. To them Christianity was simply a Jewish movement. But they were alive to the possibilities of the movement and were always on the look-out for political developments in con- nexion with any religious agitation. Home was familiar with ' JNIessianic' risings in Palestine, and the Jew never missed an opportunity of laying be- fore the Emperor a charge of disloj'alty against Christians. It was the only way to overcome the apparent apathy of Rome. Throughout Acts, Rome is represented, in the person of her proconsuls, as indiiierent to the quarrels between Christian mis- sionaries and their Jewish adversaries (Ac 18"- " 25'*). The attitude of Pilate to Jesus was typical of the attitude of Roman go\'ernors to His followers. They were interested in religious doctrines in the light of tlieir influence on individuals as subjects of the Empire. Tliey were often guilty of gross indif- ference. The Jews relied on the apathy of Roman governors and frequently took matters into their own hands. It is admitted tliat the Empire pos- sessed a magnificent system of law. But it is easy to indulge in exaggerated language in regard to the administration of law, especi.ally in remote parts of the Empire. Roman governors frequently turned their blind eye to the sutl'erings inflicted on Chris- tians by their Jewish or pagan persecutors.
It is obvious that for some time Rome looked upon the followers of Christ as a Jewish sect. In so far as the representative of Rome had condemned Jesus on political grounds, it would follow that His disciples would experience similar treatment at tlie hands of Imperial governors. It is interesting in this connexion to consider the account which the Roman historian gives of the movement. Accord- ing to Tacitus, the founder of the sect, Chrextus by name, had lieen condenmed by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. His followers were vulgarly called 'Christians.' They were universally hated on account of the .abominable deeds of which they were guilty, and their hatred of the human race. The execution of their leader gave .a temporary check to the pestilent superstition. But it broke out afresh, and extended to liome, where every- thing that; is vile and scandalous accumulated.* * Tacitua, Ann. xv. 44.
The historian gives the ordinary Roman view. Christians were simply Christ'.s faction. The atti- tude of Pilate to the Founder of the sect should also be the attitude of Rome to His followers — an altitude of contempt mixed with hatred. In view of this fact the question .irises how it came about that Rome ultimatelj- became such an implacable enemy of the ' pestilent superstition,' which at first seemed to be l>ene<ath contcm|it.
In religion Rome practised ample tolerance. This does not mean that Ronum Emperors favoured religious liberty or freedom of conscience. Cen- turies must elapse before governments will be found to admit the rights of individuals in religion, or even of States which form parts of a larger Empire, althongli Jesus Christ did suggest a s])here within which Ca'sar could exerci.se no jurisdiction. But Roman Emperors would not admit that view, for the power of the State, in the jicrson of the ruler, was .-ilLsolute, and it covered all the activities of life. Nevertheless it was the policy of Rome to allow conquered St.ates to retain their gods and their religious customs, in .so far as the free exer- cise of their ancestral religion or their worship of their national deities did not interfere with hjyalty to the Empire, and especially with their willingness to pay homage to the Emperor by sacrificing in his n.anie. Rome's interest in religion was entirely political. It w.as the continuance and stability of the Empire that concerned Rome and her rulers. Religions were tolerated and encouraged in so far as they promoted tranquillity and good order. 'The various modes of worship which |)revailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true ; by the ]ihilosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful.'* The toleration of local or national religions was part of Rome's method of governing her extensive dominions. ' The Jews,' wrote Celsus, ' are not to be blamed, because each man ought to live accord- ing to the custom of his country ; but the Christians have forsaken their national rites for the doctrine of Christ.' t