the empire, its official religion, with which Christians came into fatal conflict almost by accident. This official religion had more of the rising eclecticism in it than of the old decaying poh'theism, but it was little concerned with moral or theological principles, its one prominent requirement being tho recognition of the emperor as an object of worship. The sacrifice of a few grains of in- cense to him was the test of religious obedience. To frequent the temples, to offer sacrifices to the gods, to take part in the mysteries, might be parts of religious practice, and every one was at liberty to adopt them as he pleased. But public piety, that which established a citizen as, qua religion, a good citizen, was the relig- ious veneration of the emperor, neither more nor less. Thus the religion of Christians when tried by this test was necessarily open to misconstruction. To burn in- cense to the emperor was idolatry; not to burn it seemed to be disloyalty and rebellion. They who would gladly have taken an oath of allegiance, if it had been offered to them simply as such, refused with an unyielding firmness to do so when it was presented to them under the form of an idolatrous rite. It seems strange that the astute statesmanship of the empire did not devise some means by which men so reallj' loyal to it as were the early Christians might be permitted to live in peace ; but perhaps the explanation is to be found in the fact that the kingship and kingdom of Christ were ideas which entered largely into their religious teaching, and formed a prominent idea in the popular theory of the multi- tude. Such an idea would look like rebellious rivalry to the mind of a Roman statesman — one who would never be able to appreciate the force of such words as " My kingdom is not of this world" — and thus his only anti- dote to that worship of Christ which recognised him as the king of the Christians, though an invisible one, would be a repudiation of him bj- adoption of the visible emperor as their numen. If the novel custom of deify- ing the living emperor had not been invented, the Chris- tians could have declared their allegiance to him with- out any hesitation, as is shown by the Apolof/ies ; and in such a case it is not improbable that they might, so far as public authority was concerned, have been tolerated in their religion, provided its proselyting principles had not caused any disturbance of public order.
III. Popular Payanism and Christianity. — At the same time that Christianity was thus opposed to the state religion of the empire, it was also in a position of stronglj' aggressive opposition to the popular relig- ion of every country within its boundaries, that of the Jews alone being, and that only for a short time, an exception. AVhether the popular religion was polj'the- ism or some of the many varieties of fetichism, it was certain to be denounced as false by Christian teachers, and as so entirely false that nothing would satisfy Christianity except the entire abolition of what was denounced. Thus Christians arrayed against them- selves a large class in those whose personal interest it was that the old religion should be maintained, and in the bulk of the ignorant among the people at large, whom stolid habits and unreasoning prejudice would enlist against innovators to whom no religion seemed sa- cred. Such a position of antagonism to the old relig- ions was as essential to Christianity as uncompromising opposition to Baal was essential to Elijah ; and even when Christians were not aggressive by positive oppo- sition, their negative opposition was necessarily con- spicuous. For the rites of polytheism were not con- fined to the temples; they pervaded all the customs of social and public life. Christians were prevented from attending the public games by the association of idola- trous rites with them — " the many images, the long line of statues, the chariots of all sorts, the thrones, the crowns, the dresses" — by the preceding sacrifices and the procession. " It may be grand or mean," says Tertul- lian ; " no matter, any circus performance is offensive to God. Though there be few images to grace it, there is idolatry in one ; though there be no more than a single
PAGANISM
529
PAGANISM
sacred car, it is a chariot of Jupiter; and anything whatever of idolatry, whether meanly arrayed or mod- estly rich and gorgeous, taints it in its origin" {De Spectac. c. vii). The theatres were equally forbid- den, for " its services of voice and song and lute and pipe belong to Apollos and IMuses, and Minervas and Mercuries, . . . and the arts are consecrated to the honor of the beings who dwell in the names of their founders" {ibid. c. x). Even in the intercourse of private life, the Lares and Penates of the hall, the libations of the din- ner-table, the very phraseology with which ordinan*' conversation was largely decorated, all partook of the nature of idolatry (Tertullian, JJe Idol. c. xv, xvii, xxi, xxii), and the necessities of their anti-idolatrous princi- ples thus secluded Christians from the social assemblies of their heathen acquaintance, and made them in many respects a separate community. Above all, Christianitj' was the deadly foe of a widespread immorality, the ex- tent of which is almost inconceivable. Polytheism was always a religion of mere ceremony, nnassociated, as a religion, with any moral law. Hence the most religious man in the sense of polytheism might be a shameless profligate, emulating the gods to whom he sacrificed in their reputed licentiousness, and guilty (as was Socra- tes) of crimes against which even nature revolts (id. Apol. c. xlvi). Vices of this class were terriblj^ com- mon among the Romans of early imperial times, and are exposed with scornful indignation bj' Tertullian in his Apology. Something of the extent to which profli- gacy was carried may also be seen by his denunciation of infanticide, in one bold sentence of which he saj's: " How many, think you, of those crowding around and gaping for Ciiristian blood; how many even of your rulers, notable for their justice to you and for their se- vere measures against us, may I charge in their own consciences with the sin of putting their offspring to death?" {ibid. c. ix). Against the class of crimes thus indicated, Christianity protested by word and example, Tertullian fearlessly declaring in respect to the latter that Christians were conspicuous for " a persevering and steadfast chastit3\" Popular habits and customs being thus so contrary to the spirit of Christianity, it could not fail that a very strong opposition must have been offered to its progress; and although vast mul- titudes were quickly gathered to the standard of the Cross, there was still a large and influential mass of the population in everv country of the empire who looked upon it as the sign of an institution which sought the abolition of their cherished customs and habits, which made its disciples bad citizens antl bad neigh- bors, and which was therefore to be hated and, if possi- ble, extinguished.