THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
251) a summary of the facts which are known may be reviewed before proceeding to the underlying principles which it is much more dif- 2. Legal ficult to grasp. Up to the middle of Status the third century the number of Chrisbefore tian martyrs was small, although there Decius; was no decade, perhaps no year, with- Trajan. out its victim. In all classes and vocations there were to be found Christians whose faith, though it was a matter of public knowledge, brought them no harm; but in single provinces and under particular emperors they were subjected to severe persecutions. Christians brought to trial were punished as Christians, that is, the " name " itself was punished by the magistrates, who, as a rule, did not seek to discover actual transgression (Eusebius, Hist, eccl., V., i. 44; Eng. transl., NPXF, 2 series, i. 216; Tertulhan, Apol., ii.; Eng. transl., ANF, iii. 18-20). To what extent the name represented what was regarded as worthy of punishment is not shown by the apologists; but Cekus has positively indicated in the introduction to his writings: " The Christians form secret associations among themselves outside of the legal order." Whenever the Christian apologists speak of laws that were invoked against the Christians, they always mean the general laws under which Christians presumed guilty of certain transgressions were punished, and not laws directed specially against the Christians. In addition, however, to the general regulations of the State, there were, after the time of Trajan, imperial rescripts relating to the new sect occasioned by varying conditions in different provinces, the different attitude of the emperors, and deficiencies of the existing penal law. These rescripts were collected by Domitius Ulpian in the time of Caracalla (211-217); they were not included in the body of the criminal law, but were inserted under the heading of De officio proconsulis, which dealt with extraordinary proceedings and police jurisdiction. A universal imperial law specifically prohibiting Christianity as such can not have existed before Decius, and before the time of that emperor the Christians in general were not hunted out.
The question how the Christians were brought to trial in the time of Decius is obscure: probably at the instance of private persons; yet private denunciations had become more and more 3. Persecu- restricted, being, for instance, espetions under cially forbidden to slaves and held Decius. in check by punishments. Christians brought to trial might obtain instant freedom by denying their faith (see Lapsed) unless the magistrates assumed that they had committed a penal offense. The methods of exculpation were negative, such as invoking maledictions on the name of Christ, or positive, such as sacrificing before the images of gods and especially before the image of the emperor, or the taking of an oath by the genius of the emperor. The last method was the common one, and it shows that what constituted the essence of criminality was the denial of the state deities, the withdrawal of devotion due to them and to the emperor, which was regarded as the motive of their obstinacy. The magistrates as
a general rule exerted themselves to persuade the accused by representations, admonitions, and even tortures, to undergo the test; and the very fact that the magistrates under certain circumstances during the process used torture bears proof that the Christians were regarded as charged with the crime of majestas. This is more clearly evidenced by the mode of punishment, which was decapitation for Roman citizens, exile for Roman matrons, and burning, crucifixion, or the amphitheater, for all others. It is certain, however, that the magistrate acting on his discretion might dismiss the accused Christian or sentence him to various terms of imprisonment.
From these facts Mommsen has drawn the conclusion that adherence to Christianity was not a defined and codified crime like high-
4. Political way robbery or murder, and, therefore, Character was not punished through the ordinary of Perse- process of criminal law, but fell rather
cutions. within the province of the general police power, which might be regarded as an extraordinary process of the law. The series of marks of procedure indicated above do not admit the ordinary process; besides the great multitude of Christians were not prosecuted and the religion continued to flourish. It is incorrect, therefore, to say that the Christians were directly touched by the laws against murder, incest, majestas, sacrilegium, or magic; but they formed an organization which, being religious, demanded toleration but could not be recognized, and as an unlawful society became subject to magisterial repression. Of all accusations brought against the Christians those of sacrilegium (" atheism ") and majestas (" treason '■') were the commonest. There was no Latin equivalent for " atheist," but the political loyalty of the people was involved in the Roman religion, typified especially in the cult of the emperor; and a test of loyalty to the state deities and in the main to the emperor-cult was a test of loyalty to the empire. Hence, sacrilegium and majestas became more and more to be merged in the latter.
This discussion explains (1) why the Christian
problem was seldom brought before the senate, the
authority of which extended to mat-
5. Results, ters of religion; (2) the relative scar-
city of Christian trials before the time of the Emperor Decius, for if the crime of the nomen christianum was a political one it was nevertheless a patent fact that the Christians were not enemies of the State, but quiet citizens; and (3) the uniform process pursued in the trials of the Christians. The accused were called upon to clear themselves of the suspicion of majestas through certain acts. If they complied they were free ipso facto; if they refused, their refusal was equal to a confession of apostasy from the state religion and of sedition against the emperor and State. It explains (4) why Christianity in the beginning was treated not as a new religion, but why stress was laid rather upon the seditious character of the Christians. The monotheistic principles of Christianity did not appear to the politicians and pagans of the time as a religion so much as a form of atheism and as a vicious and inordinate obsti-