stitions which prevailed in dillerent parts of tho Empire, the genuine Roman was steeped in superstition. Paul might justly have said of tho Empire what he said of Athens — ' I perceive that ve are somewhat religious ' (Ac 17--). The whole lioman world was ' unusually addicted to the wor- shi]) of divinities.'* It was inevitable that heathen worshippers should call Christians 'atheists,' for they refused to recognize their gods, and their refusal implied disbelief in their existence, or at any rate in their power. Not only did Christians refuse to take part, on the occasion of great public festivals, in the cult of the gods, but their religion .seemed to lack all the visible syniVmls of religion. The spiritual religion of the Christian was no re- ligion to the masses in Roman towns. How could religion without temples, altars, sacrifices, possess any value? It also happened that imprudent en- thu.siasts showed little respect for the altars and the temples of the gods. Their conduct was sacri- lege, and sacrilege and atheism were sj'nonymous terms. Polytheism prevailed throughout the Empire, and in such a world the uncompromising monotheism of Christians was atheism, for it denied the existence of the numerous gods which were worshipped in dillerent parts of the Empire. Paul had already said that ' the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacriEce to devils and not to God' (1 Co 10-"). The representative of paganism in the Apology of Minucius Felix states in regard to Christians : ' They despise the temples as dead houses ; they scorn the gods ; they mock sacred things.' t Their Christianity required that atti- tude, but it gave point to the charge of atheism, for the masses believed in gods, but not in God.
But the patriotic Roman accused Christians of atheism for another reason, and here atheism implied treason to the Empire, or Use-maje-iU. Rome tolerated the worship of various gods, but this tolerance was simply political expediency. The result was a vast heterogeneous Empire con- sisting of various races, with various religions held together as much by the universal dread of the Roman army as by the widespread respect for Roman justice. Another bond of union, religious in character, was necessary to secure the unity of the Empire. The 'genius of the Roman people' was an object of wor.ship as far back as the 3rd cent, in the history of Rome. It combined religion and patriotism. When the Roman Empire was established, and the powers of the State were centred in the Emperor, the cult of ' the genius of the Roman people ' became the worship of Ciesar. C?esar- worship became the Imperial religion ; ' " it was the spiritual symbol of the political union," 'J and as such it formed a test of loyalty. Antiochus Epiplianes ruled over a similar, but smaller Empire. He endeavoured to solve the problem by stamping out national customs and universalizing Greek culture. Rome allowed national cults to remain, hut demanded on the part of each conquered people the cult of the Emperor. The eastern part of the Empire welcomed this Imperial religion ; towns vied with each other in erecting temples to Ciesar, and in holding religious festivals in honour of the Imperial divinity. But the Jew was exempted ; the proposal of Caligula to place his statue in the Temple roused fierce opposition, and the Emperor was forced to abandon his plan. It was in con- nexion with these religious celebrations that out- Ijreaks of popular persecution occurred. It may be assumed that the authorities looked on with acquiescence, for the martyrs had refused to join in the worship of the Beast (Rev 2'' 13'- '^). Roma required an act of idolatry as evidence of loyalty
♦ Centurii Bible, 'Acts,' Edinburgli, 1901, p. 301.
t Octavi\i£, 8.
} Workman, Persecution in the Early Church, p. 89.
PERSECUTION
PERSECUTION
177
to the Empire. To that Imperiiil rule Christians would not conform. ' For the Christian thore was but one Lonl ami Master, to whom he owne<l su- premo allegiance ; this he was prepared to prove by the renunciation of all thing's, even life itself. For the Christian the unity of the race was sym- bolized not by a Tiberius or a Marcus Aurelius, but bj- the incarnation of Jesus Christ.'* To the Roman representative it seemed a simple matter, but to the Christian acquiescence would have been equivalent to the renunciation of his faith. Tiie watchword of the Zealots, 'no king but Jehovah,' was equiv.ilent to 'no alien ruler in Judah.' It was a ilirect challenge — and it was intended to be such— to Roman domination. Our Lord had stated in the presence of Pilate that His Kingsliip and His Kingdom were not 'of this world.' Yet tlie ideals and therefore the interests of the two kingdoms — the kingdom of Csesar and the Kingdom of Christ — often clashed, with the result that it was impossible to be a loyal subject of Csesar and a faithful follower of Christ, and Rome had in- geniously devised a way of compelling Christians to submit to their Emperor or to deny their Lord. To them ' Christ was Lord,' and they would not allow any mortal man to claim the ' Lordship' which their faith attributed to Christ.
Gatherings of Christians for prayer and wor- ship were looked upon as secret societies, and popular imagination ran riot in surmising what transpired. It is possible that Paul's counsel, 'greet one another with an holy kiss,' had been too literally and too lavishly interpreted. In any case the practice of the ' kiss of peace ' suggested diverse abominations to the vivid and impure mind of the masses. The celebration of the Lord's Supper and the holding of love-feasts were capable of various interpretations. The coarse mind of the age looked upon them as ' Thyestean feasts and Oedipodean incest.' But whilst popular imagination busied itself with the practices carried on at these gatherings of Christians, it was their secrecy that roused the suspicion of the authorities. Mutual benefit societies or clubs abounded in diB'erent parts of the Empire. But they were subject to rigid supervision, and they were per- mitted in accordance with laws which were rigidly enforced. They might easily degenerate into secret societies of a dangerous character. Cfecilius, who speaks in the name of paganism in the Apology of Minucius Feli.\, describes Christians as ' a people who skulk and shun the light of day.'t It was a common charge against them that they separated themselves and broke away from the rest of man- kind.? The Imperial authorities were suspicious of such clandestine gatherings, for they might be held with the sole object of fomenting political disaflection.