By the time of Domitian (81-96) it was becoming evident that the Christian religion was fraught with danger to the unity and solidarity of the Empire. We have already remarked on the inevit- able tendency of the gospel to produce dissension even within the .small circle of the family. Chris- tianity seemed to make for disruption, not for unity. Rome believed in national religions. This was one of the pillars on which the Empire rested. It was clear that Christianity undermined one of the main pillars of the Imperial fabric. It was an act of disloyalty for a citizen of the Empire to embrace a religion tliat ran counter to every otiier religion. Domitian took steps to prevent the spread of this disruptive religion by an edict which forbade aggres- sive missionary activity among Roman citizens.
During the 2nd cent, the Empire was governed by a succession of rulers as famous for their broad statesmanship as for their lofty character — e.g., Trajan (A.D. 98-117), Hadri.an (A.D. 117-138), Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161-180). They assumed their Imperial duties with a due sense of the responsibility of their position. They shared the view that the Christian religion was inimical to the intere.sts of the Empire. They were agreed that its adherents must be coerced into acceptance of the official religion — especially the cult of the Emperor. They were truly Roman in their assumption that the safety of the Empire was the supreme consideration. The individual must sink his personal interests or idio- syncrasies and devote himself to the service of the State ; that was the highest virtue. ' Civis Romanus sum' was less an assertion of rights than a re- cognition of duties. The individual possessed no rights except such as the State granted. ' Con- • Apol. 40.
science' had no existence, and 'conscicnlioua objection' had no meaning in the Roman Empire.
By the end of the century the Imperial authori- ties came to the conclusion that the time had arrived when the policy of the Empire in reference to Christianity must be delined. '1 he new religion was gathering strength, and it was sufficiently powerful to merit the serious attention of the throne. In connexion with the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117) reference must be made to thesignih- cant correspondence between the Em])cror and one of his provincial governors, viz. Pliny the Younger, who was propnetor of the province of l)ith}nia Pontus(A.D. 110). In his communication to Trajan, Pliny refers to the numerical strength of Christ ians in his province. The heathen temples were deserted. •It does not follow that this was the situation in other parts of the Empire. He acquitted Christians who were prepared to renounce Christ and sacrifice to the gods of the Empire. He condemned others, not on the ground of their Christianity, but of their refusal to recant and f.all in with the official religion of the Empire, i.e. on the ground of their obsllnanj. Such an attitude was impossible in a subject of the Roman Empire. It violated the fundamental idea of citizenship. Pliny commends Christians for their morality. They were under a jjledge to abstain from every crime. Trajan in his reply approves of the proproetor'saction,but lays down two conditions, viz. that Christians must not be sought out, and that anonymous accusations must be prohibited. Whereas Christians were entitled to a fair trial, yet in the light of this correspondence they were outlaws, for the condition of retaining their civic rights as subjects of the Empire, or even of their personal safety, was the denial of their religion. Their life depended on their ceasing to be Christians. Trajan made it plain that it was possible to take action against the adherents of Christianity without any special legislation, inasmuch as there were aspects of Christianity which contravened the existing laws. Popular outbreaks were still fre- quent, and their frequency arose from the fact that the authorities were not likely to interfere. Never- theless Hadrian issued an edict in which he de- manded for Christians the right of a fair and judicial investigation.
Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180) were men of outstanding virtues ; they admired and embodied the old Roman spirit, and they endeavoured to bring the Empire back to the old paths ; but they attempted the impossible, and Christianity was the most formidable obstacle to the carrying out of their policy of a united Empire. Christianity was anarchical in its emphasis on the individual. It encouraged individualism ; Marcus Aurelius looked upon it as ' sheer obstinacy.' The Empire was a vast machine, and any tendency to freedom of action or independence threw the whole machine out of gear. Roman subjects were simply parts of one stupendous whole, and the efficient working of the whole would be secured through the complete subordination of the individual parts. In their oificial capacity these Emperors would look with complete disfavour upon a religion which set tlie individual even above the State. Apart from this, the gos|iel would make no great impression on tlie typical Roman temperament; it lacked thestrength and robustness of Stoicism. Its adherents dis- played excessive zeal and enthusiasm, and nothing was more obnoxious to the Roman who had learnt complete self-mastery.
In the 3rd cent, the situation changed, and Cliristianity advanced by leaps and bounds. The stigma of being the religion of the lower classes had been removed, for it was no longer true that 'not many mighty, not many noble are called.' Christianity had very largely captured the intelli-