ceivable that they would allow a confusion so in jurious to themselves to continue. It was not neces.sary that a distinct edict against Christianity sliouhl have been put out, and it is quite possible that no such edict was i.ssued until Trajan's time ; the very fact that Christianity had never been recognized by the State made it unlawful. Nor is this argument weakened by the fact that there was not a continuous persecution of the Christians on the part of the Roman aulhorities in the 1st century. The law was tliinc!, though it was not always enforced. The same thing happened in the 2iid and 3rd centuries, and there is no disijute that Christianity was then regarded as an unlaw- ful religion. The Church benefited by more than one interregnum of jieace.
Light is thrown on the attitude of the law to Christianity by 1 P 2"-™ 4'''. Here St. Peter alludes to Christians being accused of crimes (2'-, a verse which reialls the infamous ollences imputed to them in later days, the 'Thyestean banquets' and ' Oidipodean intercour.se' — i.e. cannibalism and incest ; cf. the letter of the martyrs of Vienne and Lyons given in Eus. JIE v. 1, and Justin, Apol. i. 26, etc.), and also to their sullering when they do well (2-"), and ' for the name (iv oy6,uaTi) of Christ' (4"). Bigg (Com. on 2'-), who upliolds an early date for the Epistle, maintains that this does not show that the State had as yet systematically declared against the Church ; Ramsay (The Chnrrh in the Roman Empire, i)p. 245 11'., 290 fl'.) thinks that these passages show that the Epistle belongs to the latter part of the 1st century. In either case Christianity is represented as an unlawful religion, and Christians suH'er 'for tlie name' (i.e. for being Christians, without any moral crime being attributed to them). Thus at lea>t before the time of Domitian all confusion with Judaism must have ceased. The same thing may be gathered from the Apocalypse, which (at any rate in its present form) is probably of the time of that Emperor.
It is agreed by all that the law in the time of Trajan regarded Christianity per se as unlawful. In his letter to Pliny the Emperor .says that Chris- tians are not to be sought out, but that if tliey are accused and convicted they are to be punished, though not if they apostatize (.see the text in Lightfoot, 'Ignatius'-, i. 53 f.). But there is no trace whatever of a new policy having been insti- tuted by Trajan.
The law condemned secret societies, and this was perhaps the chief cause of Trajan's attitude to Christianity. He was energetic in suppressing clubs and gilds ; whether religious or not, and whether in themselves innocent or not, he con- sidered them dangerous as being liable to be used for political purposes (see the exam])les collected by Lightfoot, op. cit., p. 18 tl'.). The meetings of the Christians for Eucharist and Agape would at once rouse his antagonism. Pliny, in his letter to Trajan (Ep. 96), therefore rejiorts the assemblies of the Christians ' on a fixed day before light,' but emphasizes their innocent character : at the first meeting (i.e. the Eucharist) they bound them- selves by an oath (saeramento) not to do wrong ; at the second (i.e. the Agape, held later in the day) they met to take food, ' promiscuum tamen et innoxium'; but the latter assembly was discon- tinued after Pliny's edict, because he had forbidden gild meetings (heta:rias) according t<i Trajan's command. Pliny apparently considered that the Christians were iio longer a gild, because they gave up their common meal ; he probably did not under- stand the nature of the Kuiharist (there seems tu be some confusion about his use of tlie word sacra- ment tun), or at any rate he did not consider that it came under this head.
408 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
LiTBRATORR. — W. M. Ramsay, A Uiatorical Commentary on 'St. PnuVi EpistU to Ihf tiatiUiiim, London, 1S99, St. Paul lite fravfller and the Roman Citizen, do., 1895, 7'Af Church in the Rnman Empire before i n mi, do., 1893 ; E. Hicks, Traces of Uivck l'kilo.s,>ph!i and Roman Law in the ST, do., 1890 ; W. E. Ball, S(. I'aul and the Roman Lav, Edinburifh, 1901 ; R. B. Rackham, 7'he Acts of the Apostlen- (Weiitminster Comment- aries), London, UM11. On the iittitude of Uoman law to the Ul]ur> hsei- H. B. Swete.TheApocali/pseofSt. John'^.do., 191)7 ; C. BigK. The Epistles of St. Peter and St. .fude {ICC). Edin- hurnh, 19111 : J. B. Ligrhtfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, pt. ii., 'Ignatius'-, London, 1889, i. A. J. MACLEAN.
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE.— 1. Date and
destination. — The Ejiistle is u.siifilly .siii>i)<isc(l to have been written to Koine (!'• ") from Corinth during tlie visit of Ac 'iO'-'-, i.e. towards tlie clo.se of the third missionary journey. The year will depend upon the general scheme of chronology adopted for St. Paul's life ; c. A.D. 58 is the usual date. The grounds on whicli this view is based are :
(1) The reference to the collection for the .saints (j523ff.) This is prominent in 1 and 2 Cor. (1 Co 16', 2 Co 8^), which belong to the same period of St. Paul's life, .and is mentioned incidentally in Ac 24" as forming part of the purpose of the final visit to .Jerusalem. According to Ro 15 the collec- tion is nearing completion, .and St. Paul is about to start for Jerusalem ; this points precisely to the circumst.ances of Ac 20.