Part 54
introducing external cults; at other times oriental cults were expelled in the interests of public morality. Now in times of disaster Christians became the scapegoats. If famine, drought, pestilence, earthquake or any other public calamity threatened, the cry was raised "the Christians to the lions" (see Nero; Persecutions, 12). This view of Christianity as subversive of the empire survived the fall of Rome before Alaric. The heathen forgot—as the apologists showed—that Rome had been visited by the greatest calamities before the Christian era and that the Christians were the most self-sacrificing
(c) pagan priesthood, (d) heresies within the church.
IV, Relations between the Roman Empire and Christianity.—We have here to explain how the attitude of the Rom empire, at first friendly or indifferent, developed into one of fierce conflict, the different stages in the policy—if we can speak of any uniform policy—of the Rom government toward Christianity, the charges or mode of procedure on which Christians were condemned, and when and how the profession of Christianity {nomen ipsum) became a crime. We shall see the Rom empire progressively weakening and Christianity gaining ground. For the sake of clearness we shall divide the Rom empire into six periods, the first from the commencement of the Christian era till the last of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. At first the presence of the Christian faith was unknown to Rom authorities. It appeared first merely as a reformed and more spirit-
in periods of public distress, lending succor to pagan and Christian alike.
(A) Odium generis humani: All prejudices against Christianity were summed up in odium generis humani, "hatred for the human race" or society, which was reciprocated by "hatred of the human race toward them." The Christians were bitterly hated, not only by the populace, but by the upper educated classes. Most of the early adherents belonged to the slave, freedman and artisan classes, "not many wise, not many noble." Few were Rom citizens. We have mentioned the crimes which popular prejudice attributed to this hated
1. Beginual Judaism; its earliest preachers ning of and adherents alike never dreamed of Christianity severing from the synagogue. Chris-
sect. They were in mockery styled Christiani by the Antioohians (a name which they at^ first re-
till Death tians were only another of the Jewish of Nero, sects to which a Jew might belong 68 AD while adhering to Mosaism and Judaism. But soon this friendly relation became strained on account of the expanding views of some of the Christian preachers, and from the introduction of gentile proselytes. The first persecutions for the infant church came entirely from exclusive Judaism, and it was the Jews who first accused Christians before the Rom courts. Even
sented), and Nazarenes by the Jews. No nicknames were too vile to attach to them— Asinarii (the sect
that worshipped the ass's head), Sarmenlicii or Semaxii. Rom WTiters cannot find epithets strong enough. Tacitus reckons the Christian faith among the "atrocious and abominable things"
{atrocia aui -pudenda) which flooded Rome, and
further designates it superstitio exitiabilis ("bane-
ful superstition," Ann. xv.44), Suetonius {Ner. 16)
so, the Rom government not only refused to turn persecutor, but even protected the new faith both against Jewish accusations and against the violence
as novel and malefic {novae ac maleficae), and the
gentle Pliny {Ep. 97) as vile and indecent (prava
immodica). Well might Justus say the Christians were "hated and reviled by the whole human race." This opprobrium was accentuated by the attacks
of the populace (Acts 21 31 f). And the Christian missionaries—esp. Paul—soon recognized in the Rom empire an ally and a power for good. Writing
of philosophy upon Christianity. AVhen the atten-
Roman Empire THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2606
from them a large number [muUitudo ingens] were implicated [coiiiuncti is the iVIS reading, not conuicti], not so much on the charge of incendiarism as for hatred of manlcind [odio humani generis]. The victims perished amid mockery [text here uncertain]; some clothed in the slcins of wild beasts were torn to pieces by dogs; others impaled on crosses in order to be set on fire to afford light by night after daylight had died Whence [after these cruelties] commiseration began to be felt for them, though guilty and deserving the severest penalties ]quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos], for men felt their destruction was not from considerations of pubhc welfare but to gratify the cruelty of one person [Nero]."
to the Romans Paul counsels them to submit in obedience to the powers that be, as "ordained of God." His favorable impression must have been greatly enhanced by his mild captivity at Rome and his acquittal by Nero on the first trial. The Rom soldiers had come to his rescue in Jerus to save his
life from the fanaticism of his own coreligionists. Toward the accusations of the Jews against their rivals the Romans were either indifferent, as Gallio the proconsul of Achaia, who "cared for none of those things" (Acts 18 12 ff), or recognized the innocence of the accused, as did both Felix (Acts 24 Iff) and Porcius Festus (25 14 ff). Thus the Romans persisted in looking upon Christians as a sect of the Jews. But the Jews took another step in formulating a charge of disloyalty (begun before Pilate) against the new sect as acting "contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus" (Acts 17 7; cf 25 8). Christianity was disowned thus early by Judaism and cast upon its own resources. The increasing numbers of Christians would confirm to the Rom government the independence of Christianity. And the trial of a Rom citizen, Paul, at Rome would further enlighten the authorities.
This passage—the earliest classical account of the crucifi.xion and the only mention of Pilate in a heathen autlior—offers some difficulties which require to be glanced at. It is held by some that Tacitus contradicts himself by writing subdidit reos at the beginning and sontes at the end, but sontes does not mean guilty of incendiarism, but guilty from the point of view of the populace and deserving severe punishment for other supposed flagitia. not for arson. It is thus quite clear that Tacitus regards the Christians as innocent, though he had not the slightest kindly feeling toward them. Qui fniebantur means most naturally, "those who confessed
to being Cliristians." thougii Arnold argues that confiteri or profiteri would i)e the correct word for professing a religion. But this would contradict both the sense and the other evidences of the context; for it fatebantur could mean "confessed to arson," then the whole body of Christians should have been arrested, and, further, this woidd have diverted suspicion from Nero, which was not the case according to Tacitus. Some Christians boldly asserted their religion, others no doubt, as in Bitliynia, recanted before tribulation. By indicia eorum Ramsay (Christianity iti the Rom Empire. 233) understands "on the information elicited at their trial,"
The first heathen persecution of Christianity resulted from no definite policy, no apprehension of danger to the body politic, and no definite charges, but from an accidental spark which kindled the conflagration of Rome (July, 64 AD). Up to this time no emperor had taken much notice of Christianity. It was only in the middle of the reign of Augustus that Jesus was born. In the reign of Tiberius belong Jesus' public ministry, crucifixion and resurrection; but his reign closed too early (37 AD) to allow any prominence to the new faith, though this emperor was credited with proposing to the senate a decree to receive Christ into the Rom pantheon— legend of course. LTnder the brief principate of the mad Gaius (.37-41 AD) the "new way" was not yet divorced from the parent faith. Gaius caused a diversion in favor of the Christians by his persecution of the Jews and the command to set up his own statue in the temple. In the next reign (Claudius, 41-54 AD) the Jews were again harshly treated, and thousands were banished from Rome (Jiidaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuanles Roma expulit: Suet. Claud. 25). Some would see in this an action against the Christians by interpreting the words as meaning riots between Jews and Christians, in consequence of which some Christians were banished as Jews, but Dio Cassius (lx.6) implies that it was a police regulation to restrain the spread of Jewish worship. It was in the reign of Nero, after the fire of 64 AD, that the first hostile step was taken by the government against the Christians, earhest account of which is given by Tacitus (Ann. xv.44). Nero's reckless career had given rise to the rumor that he was the incendiary, that he wished to see the old city burned in order to rebuild it on more magnificent plans. See Nero. Though he did everything possible to arrest the flames, even exposing his own life, took every means of alleviating the destitution of the sufferers, and ordered such religious rites as might appease the wrath of the gods, the suspicion still clung to him.
i.e. from information gathered by the inquisitors in the course of the proceedings. Tills incidental information implicated a large number of others, hence Ramsay prefers the MS reading coniuncti to the correction conu icti. This is in order to explain the difficulty seemingly raised, viz. tliat the noblest Christians who boldly confessed their Christianity woidd seek to implicate brethren. But it is not impossible that some of these bold spirits did condescend to give the names of their coreligionists to the Rom courts. Hence Hardy (Christianity and the Rom Government. 67) prefers the more usual rendering of indicia eorum as "on information received from them." This may have occurred either (1) through torture, or (2) for promised immunity, or (3) on account of local jealousies. The early Christian communities were not perfect; party strife often ran higli as at Corinth. And in a church like that of Rome composed of Je^vish and pagan elements and undoubtedly more cosmopolitan than Corinth, a bitter sectarian spirit is easy to understand. This as a probable explanation is much strengthened and rendered almost certain by the words of Clement of Rome, who, writing to the church at Corinth (ch vi) from Rome only a generation after the persecution, and thus
famihar with the internal history of the Rom ecclesia. twice asserts that a ttoAu n\rj6o<; (polu pUthos =Tac. multitudo ingens) of the Rom Christians suffered 5ta CiAo5 (did zHos). "through jealousy or strife." The most natural and obvious meaning is "mutual or sectarian jealousy." But those who do not like this fact explain it as "by the jealousy of the Jews." Nothing is more easily refuted, for had it been the jealousy of the Jews Clement would not have hesitated one moment to say so. Those who are familiar with the Christian literature of that age know that the Christians were none too sensitive toward Jewish feelings. But the very fact that it was not the Jews made Clement rather modestly omit details the memory of which was probably still bearing fruit, even in his day. Once more correpti, usually rendered "arrested," Is taken by Hardy as "put upon their trial." He argues that this is more in accord with Tacitean usage. A "huge multitude" need not cause us to distrust Tacitus. It is a relative term; it was a considerable number to be so inhumanly butchered. There is some hesitation as to whether odio humani generis is objective or subjective genitive: "hatred of the Christians toward the human race" or "hatred of the human race toward the Christians." Grammatically of course it may be either, but that it is the former there can be no doubt: it was of the nature of a charge against Cliristians (Ramsay). See Persecution.
Some have impugned the veracity of Tacitus in this very important passage, asserting that he had read bacl£ the feelings and state of affairs of his own day (half a centiu'y later) into this early Neronian period. This early appearance of Cliristianity as a distinct religion and its "huge multitude" seem impossible to some. Schiller has accordingly suggested that it was the Jews who as a body at Rome were persecuted, tliat the Christians being not yet distinct from .lews shared in the persecutions and suffered, not as Christians, but as Jews. But Tacitus is too trustworthy a historian to be guilty of such a confusion; besides, as' proconsul in Asia he must have been more or less familiar with the origin of the Ctiristian party. Also Poppaea was at this time mis-
"Accordingly in order to dissipate tlie rumor, lie put forward as guilty [subdidit reos] and inflicted the most cruel punishments on those who were hated for their abominations [flaoitia] and called Christians by the populace. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius, and the baneful superstition lexitiabilis superstitio] put down for the time being brolve out again, not only throughout Judaea, the home of this evil, but also in the City [Rome] where aU atrocious and shameful [atrocia aut pudenda] things converge and are welcomed. Those therefore who confessed [i.e. to being Ohristiansl were first arrested, and then by the information gained
2607 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Roman Empire
tress ol Nero's affections and sufficiently influential witli him to stay sucli a cruel persecution against tliose to wliom she had a leaning and who claimed her as a proselyte. Again, the Jewish faith was certe licita and a recognized worslilp of the empire.
the "baneful superstition" (Ramsay, op. cit., p. 230). But these two accounts are not contradictory, Tacitus giving the initial stage and Suetonius "a brief statement of the permanent administrative principle into which Nero's action ultimately resolved itself" (ib, 232). Nero's police administration, then, pursued as a permanent policy what was begun merely to avert suspicion from Nero. But as yet, according to Ramsay, Christians were not condemned as Christians, but on account of certain flagitia attaching to the profession and because the Rom police authorities had learned enough about the Christians to regard them as hostile to society. A trial still must be held and condemnation pronounced "in respect not of the name but of serious offences naturally connected with the name," viz. first incendiarism, which broke down, and secondly hostility to civihzed society and charges of magic. The others agree so far with Ramsay as describing the first stages, but assert that odium humani generis was not of the nature of a definite charge, but disaffection to the social and political arrangements of the empire. At the outset a trial was needed, but soon as a consequence the trial could be dispensed with, the Christians being "recognized as a society whose principle might be summarized as odium generis humani." A trial became unnecessary; the religion itself involved the crimes, and as a religion it was henceforth proscribed. The surveillance over them and their punishment was left to the police administration which could step in at any time with severe measures or remain remiss, according as exigencies demanded. Christianity was henceforth a religio
The next question is, Why were the Christians alone selected for persecution? That they were so singled out we know, but exactly for what reason is hard to say with certainty. A number of reasons no doubt contributed. (1) Farrar {Early Days, ch iv) sees "in the proselytism of Poppaea, guided by Jewish malice, the only adequate explanation of the first Christian persecution," and Lightfoot
is of the same opinion, but this by itself is inadequate, though the Jews would be glad of an opportunity of taking revenge on their aggressive opponents. (2) Christians had abeady become in the eyes of the Rom authorities a distinct sect, either from the reports of the eastern provincial governors, where Christianity was making most headwa}^ or from the attention attracted by Paul's first trial. They were thus the newest religious sect, and as such would serve as victims to appease deity and the populace. (3) Even if ingens multitudo be rhetorical, the Christians were no doubt considerably numerous in Rome. Their aggressiveness and active proseljrtism made their numbers even more formidable. (4) They were uncompromising in their expression of their beliefs; they looked for a consummation of the earth by fire and were also eagerly expecting the Parousia of their king to reconstitute society. These tenets together with their calm faith amid the despair of others would easily cast suspicion upon them. (5) For whatever reason, they had earned the opprobrium of the populace. "The hatred for the Jews passed over to hatred for the Christians" (Mommsen). A people whom the populace so detested must have fallen under the surveillance of the city police administration. (6) A large proportion of the Christian community at Rome would be non-Rom and so deserve no recognition of Rom privileges. These reasons together may or may not explain the singUng-out of the Christians. At any rate they were chosen as scapegoats to serve Nero and his minion Tigellinus. The origin of the first persecution was thus purely accidental—in order to remove suspicion from Nero. It was not owing to any already formulated policy, neither through apprehension of any danger to the state, nor because the Christians were gudty of any crimes, though it gave an opportunity of investigation and accumu-
illicita. The Rom government was never a systematic persecutor. The persecution or non-persecution of Christianity depended henceforth on the mood of the reigning emperor, the character of his administration, the activity of provincial governors, the state of popular feeling against the new faith, and other local circumstances. There is no early evidence that the Neronian persecution extended beyond Rome, though of course the "example set by the emperor necessarily guided the action of all Rom officials." The stormy close of Nero's reign and the tumultuous days till the accession of Vespasian created a diversion in favor of Christianity. Orosius {Hist, vii.7) is too late an authority for a general persecution {per omnes provincias pari persecutione excruciari imperavit; ipsum nomen exstirpare conaius . . . .). Besides, Paul after his acquittal seems to have prosecuted his missionary activity without any extraordinary hindrances, till he came to Rome the second time. This Neronian persecution is important for the history of Christianity: Nero commenced the principle of punishing Christians, and thus made a precedent for future rulers. Trouble first began in the world-capital; the next stage will be found in the East ; and another in Africa and the West. But as yet persecution was only local. Nero was the first of the Rom persecutors who, like Herod Agrippa, came to a miserable end—a fact much dwelt upon by Lactantius and other Christian writers.
lation of evidence. But accidental as this persecution was in origin, its consequences were of farreaching importance. There are three principal views as to the date of the pohcy of proscription of the new faith by the Rom government: (1) the old view that persecution for the name, i.e. for the mere profession of Christianity, began under Trajan
in 112 AD—a view now almost universally abandoned; (2) that of Ramsay {Christianily in the Bom Empire, 242 ff, and three arts, in Expos, 189.3), who
holds that this development from punishment for
definite crimes (flagitia) to proscription "for the name" took place between 68 and 96 AD, and (3) that of Hardy {Christianity and the Rom Govern-
In the Flavian period no uniform imperial policy against Christianity can be discovered. According to Ramsay the Flavians developed the
ment, 77), Mommsen {Expos, 1893, 1-7) and Sanday (ib, 1894, 406 ff)—and adopted by the writer
2. The practice set by Nero from punishment Flavian of Christians for definite crimes to proPeriod, 68scription of the name. But, as we have 96 AD seen, the Neronian persecution settled the future attitude of the Rom state toward the new faith. The Flavians could not avoid following the precedent set by Nero. Christianity was spreading^esp. in the East and at Rome. We have no account of any persecution under Vespasian (though Hilary erroneously speaks
of this article—that the trial of the Christians under Nero resulted in the declaration of the mere pro-
fession of Christianity as a crime punishable by
death. Tacitus apparently represents the perse-
cution of the Christians as accidental and isolated and of brief duration (I.e.), while Suetonius {Ner. 16) mentions the punishment of Christians in a list of permanent police regulations for the maintenance
of good order, into which it would be inconsistent
to introduce an isolated case of procedure against
Roman Empire THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2608
general policy of asserting his own dominus et deus
of him as a persecutor along with Nero and Decius) and Titus, but it does not follow that none such took
title and emphasizing the imperial cult as a bond of
political union. The Apocalypse reflects the sufferings of the church in this reign.
place. As the whole matter was left to the police administration, severity would be spasmodic and called forth by local circumstances. The fall of Jerus must have had profound influence both on Judaism and on Christianity. For the former it did what the fall of Rome under Goths, Vandals, and Germans did for the old Rom religion—it weakened the idea of a national God bound up with a political religion. The cleft between Judaism and
(1) Nerva and Trajan.—On the death of Domitian peace was restored to the Christian church which lasted throughout the brief reign
3. The of Nerva (96-98) and the first 13 years Antonine of Traj an. It is a curious fact that some Period, of the best of the Rom emperors 96-192 AD (Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Decius and Diocletian) were harsh to the Christians, while some of the worst (as Commodus, Caracalla, Heliogabalus) left them in peace (see Pehsecution, 17). Christianity had been rapidly spreading in the interval of tranquillity. Pliny became governor of Bithynia in 111 AD and found, esp. in the eastern part of his province, the temples almost deserted. Some Christians were brought before him and on established precedents were ordered to be executed for their religion. But Pliny soon discovered that many of both sexes and all ages, provincials and Rom citizens, were involved. The Rom citizens he sent to Rome for trial; but being of a humane disposition he shrank from carrying out the wholesale execution required by a consistent policy.
its rival would now become greater. Christianity was reheved from the overpowering influence of a national center, and those Jews who now recognized the futihty of political dreams would more readily join the Christian faith. Not only the distinction but the opposition and hostility would now be more apparent to outsiders, though Vespasian imposed the poll-tax on Jewish Christians and Jews alike. No memory of harshness against Christianity under Vespasian has survived. Ramsay (op.
cit., 257) would interpret a mutilated passage of Suetonius {Vesp. 15) as implying Vespasian's reluctance to carry out justa supplicia against Christians.
Titus, "the darling of the human race," is not recorded as a persecutor, but his opinion of Judaism and Christianity as stated in the council of war before Jerus in 70 AD and recorded by Sulpicius Severus (Chron. ii..30, 6) is interesting as an approval of the policy adopted by Nero. Severus' authority is undoubtedly Tacitus (Bernays and Mommsen). The authenticity of the speech as contradicting the account of Jos has been impugned; at any rate it represents the point of view of Tacitus. Titus then advocates the destruction of the temple in order that the religion of the Jews and the Christians may be more thoroughly extirpated {quo plenius Judaeorum et Christianorum religio toUerelur), since these religions though opposed to each other were of the same origin, the Christians having sprung from the Jews. If the root was removed the stem would readily perish (rndice suhlata, stirpem facile perituram). We know, however, of no active measures of Titus against either party, his short reign perhaps allowing no time for such.
He wrote to Trajan teUing him what he had ah-eady done, rather covertly suggesting tolerant measures. Shouid no distinction be made between old and young ? Should pardon not be extended to those who recanted and worshipped the emperor's image and cursed Christ ?
Should mere profession (nomen ipsum) be a capital offence if no crimes could be proven, or should the crimes rather be punished that were associated with the faith
(an flagitia cohaerentia nomini) ? He then explains his procedure: he gave those who were accused an abundant opportunity of recanting; those who persisted in this faith were executed. He considered their "stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy" ipertinaciam certe et inflexihilem obsti nation em) as in itself deserving punishment. But the administration having once interfered found plenty to do. An anonymous hst of many names was handed in, most of whom, however, denied being Christians. Informers then put forward others who likewise denied belonging to the faith. PUny was convinced their meetings were harmless, and on examination of two deaconesses tmder torture discovered nothing but a perverse extravagant superstition (sup. pravam immodicam). Trajan rephed that no universal and definite rule could be laid down, apparently confirming the correctness of Pliny's action and perhaps disappointing Pliny in not yielding to his humane suggestions. Nevertheless, the emperor made three important concessions: (1) the Christians were not to tie sought out by the pohce authorities, hut if they were accused and con\'icted they must be punished; (2) anonymous information against them was not to be accepted; (3) even those suspected of flag ilia in the past were to be pardoned on proving they were not Christians or on renouncing Christianity. Some regard this rescript of Trajan as the first official and legal authorization to proscribe Christianity; but we have already seen that Christianity as such was proscribed as a result of the Neronian investigations. Besides, there is not the shghtest trace of any new principle of severity, either in the letters of PUny or in the rescript of Trajan. The persecution of Christianity had been "permanent" like that of highwaj'men, but not systematic or general. Neither was Trajan's rescript an edict of toleration, though on the whole it was favorable to the Christians in minimizing the dangers to which they were exposed. The question was as yet purely one of administration.
It is Domitian who stands out prominently as the persecutor of this period, as Nero of the first period. His procedure against Christians was not an isolated act, but part of a general policy under which others suffered. His reign was a return to ancient principles. He attempted to reform morals, suppress luxury and vice, banish immoral oriental
rites, actors, astrologers and philosophers. It was in his attempt to revive the national religion that he came in conflict with the universal religion. His own cousin, Flavius Clemens, was condemned apparently for Christianity (atheism), and his wife, Domitilla, was banished. The profession of Christianity was not sufficient for the condemnation of Rom citizens of high standing; hence the charges of atheism or majestas were put forward. Refusal to comply with the religion of the national gods could be brought under the latter. But for ordinary Rom citizens and for provincials the profession of Christianity merited death. No definite edict or general proscription was enacted ; only the principle instituted by Nero was allowed to be carried out. There was, as Mommsen remarks, a standing proscription of ChrLstians as of brigands, but harsh procedure against both was spasmodic and dependecl on the caprice or character of provincial governors. Domitian took one definite step against Christianity in establishing an easy test by which to detect those who were Christians and so facilitate inquiries. This test was the demand to worship the Genius of the emperor. This too was only part of Domitian's
Trajan initiated no procedure against Christians —in fact rather discouraged any, asking his lieutenant to close his eyes to offenders—and Pliny consulted him in the hope of obtaining milder treatment for the Christians by putting in question form what he really wished to be approved. Trajan's rescript "marks the end of the old system of uncompromising hostility" (see Persecution, 15).
(2) Hadrian.~The reign of Hadrian (117-38) was a period of toleration for the Christians. He was no bigot, but tolerant and eclective, inquiring into all religions and initiated into several mysteries and willing to leave religion an open question. In Asia, where Christianity was making most progress,
2609 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Roman Empire
between tlic new faith and tlie government in tlii.s period
a state of terrorism was imminent if delalores were encouraged against Christians making a profession of delatio (giving information). As we saw in the letter of Pliny, even non-Christians were accused, and any professing Christian could be threatened by these informers in order to secure a bribe for proceeding no farther. Licinius Silvanus Granianus, lUce Pliny, found himself involved in difficulties and wrote to Hadrian for advice. Hadrian's rescript in reply is addressed to Granianus' successor, Minucius Fundanus, the proconsul of Asia, about 124 AD. The genuineness of this important document, though impugned by Overbeck, Keim and Lipsius, is vouched for by Mommsen, Hardy, Lightfoot and Ramsay. Indeed, it is much easier accounted for as authentic than as a forgery, for who but the broad-minded Hadrian could have written such a rescript? Apparently the questions put by the proconsul must have been of a similar nature to those extant of Pliny. The answer of Hadrian is a decided step in favor of Christianity and goes beyond that of Trajan: (1) information
is somewhat differently estimated by Ramsay and by Hardy. The latter thinks (Christianity and Rom Government, 1.56 f) that Ramsay "has to some extent antedated the existence of anything like a policy of pro.scription," due to antedating tlie time when Christianity was regarded as a serious pohtical danger. Hardy thinks that the Christian organization was never suspected as more than an abstract danger during the first two centuries. Had Rome taken the view that Christianity In its organization was a real danger and an imperium in im-perio, she must have started a systematic exterminating policy during a period when Christianity could have least withstood it. When the empire did—as in the .'Jd cent.—apprehend the practical danger and took the severest general measures, Christianity was already too strong to be harmed, and we shall find the empire henceforth each time worsted and Anally offering terms.
In the next period the insecurity of the throne, when in less than 100 years about a score of candi-
dates wore the purple and almost
4. Changeach new emperor began a new dynasty, ing Dyenabled Christianity to spread pracnasties, 192 tically untroubled. Further diver- -284 At) sions in its favor were created by those
fierce barbarian wars and by the necessity of renewed vigilance at the frontier posts. The Christians' aloofness from political strife and their acquiescence in each new dynasty brought them generally into no collision with new rulers. Further, the fact that many of these emperors were non-Rom provincials, or foreigners who had no special attachment to the old Rom faith, and were eclectic in their religious views, was of much importance to the new eastern faith. Moreover, some of the emperors proved not only not hostile to Christianity, but positively friendly. In this period we find no severe (except perhaps that of Decius) and certainly no protracted persecution. The Christian church herself was organized on the principle of the imperial government, and made herself thus strong and united, so that when the storm did come she remained unshaken. In 202 Severus started a cruel persecution in Africa and Egypt, but peace was restored by the savage Caracalla {lacte Christiana educatus: Tert.). HeUogabalus assisted Christianity indirectly (1) by the degradation of Rom religion, and (2) by tolerance. According to one writer he proposed to fuse Christianity, Judaism and Samaritanism into one religion. Alexander Severus was equally tolerant and syncretic, setting up in his private chapel images of Orpheus, ApoUonius, Abraham, and Christ, and engraving iihe golden rule on his palace walls and public buildings. He was even credited with the intention of erecting a temple to Christ. Local persecution broke out under Maximin the Thra-
is not to be passed over (a) lest the innocent suffer
(as was the case under Pliny), and (b) lest informers should make a trade of lodging accusations; (2) provincials accusing Christians must give proof that the accused have committed something illegal;
(3) mere petitions and acclamations against the Christians are not to be admitted; (4) a prosecutor on failing to make good his case is to be punished. These terms would greatly increase the risk for informers and lessen the dangers for Christians. That the name is a crime is not admitted, neither
is this established principle rescinded. It is quite possible that Hadrian's rescript "gave a certain stimulus toward the employment of the more definite and regular legal procedure."
(3) Antoninus Pius (138-61).—The liberal policy of Trajan and Hadrian was continued by Antoninus, though persecution occurred in his reign
in which Ptolemaeus and Lucius were executed at Rome and Polycarp at Smyrna. But he decidedly confirmed Hadrian's policy of protecting the Christians uncondemned against mob violence in his
letters to Larissae, Athens, Thessalonica and to "all the Hellenes." As at Smyrna, his "rescript was in advance of public feeling," and so was disregarded. Anonjrmous delation was also repressed.
(4) Marcus Aurdius [16ISO) .—VnAar Aurelius a strong reaction set in afi'ecting the Christians, caused partly by the frontier disasters and devastat-
ing pestilence and partly by Aurelius' policy of
returning to ancient principles and reviving the Rom national religion. In this reign we find per-
cian. The first general persecution was that of Decius, in which two features deserve notice: (1) that death was not the immediate result of Christian profession, but every means was employed to induce Christians to recant; (2) Rom authorities already cognizant of the dangers of Christian organization directed their efforts esp. against the officers of the church. Gallus continued this policj^, and Valerian, after first stopping persecution, tried to check the spread of the worship by banishing bishops and closing churches, and later enacted the death pen-
secution extending to the West (Gaul) and to
Africa—a step toward the general persecutions of
the next century. Though no actual change was made by Aurelius, the leniency of the last three
reigns is absent. No general edict or definite
rescript of persecution was issued; the numerous martyrdoms recorded in this reign are partly due to
the fuller accounts and the rise of a Christian litera-
ture. Christianity in itself still constituted a crime, and the obstinacy (Tra/jdrafis, -parataxis) of Chris-
alty. Gallienus promulgated what was virtually the first edict of toleration, forbade persecution and restored the Christian endowments. Christianity now entered upon a period of 40 years' tranquillity: as outward dangers decreased, less desirable converts came within her gates and her adherents were overtaken in a flood of worldliness, stayed only by the persecution of Diocletian.
tians in itself deserved punishment. _ Aurelius seems to have actually rebuked the severity of the Rom governor at Lugdunum, and to have further
discouraged the trade of informers against Chris-
tians. Tertullian actually styles him as debellator Christianorum ("protector of Christians"). We
find as yet therefore no systematic or serious attempt
to extirpate the new faith. The central government "was all this time without a permanent or
LUie some other persecutors, Diocletian was one
of the ablest Rom rulers. He was not disposed
steady policy toward the Christians. It had not
to proceed against the Christians, but was finally driven to harsh measures by his son-in-law Galerius. The first edict, February 24, 303, was not intended
yet made up its mind" (Hardy).
Under the rule of Commodus (180-92) Christians again enjoyed a respite. The net result of the colhsions
Roman Empire Roman Law THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2610
ridicule upon its doctrines, rescinding the privileges of the clerg}', prohibiting the church from receiving many bequests, removing Christians from public positions and forbidding the teaching of classics
to exterminate Christianity, but to check its growth and weaken its political influence, and was directed
principally against Bibles, Christian
5. Diocleassemblies and churches. The second tian till was against church organization. A First Genthird granted freedom to those who eral Edict recanted, but sought to compel the of Tolerasubmission of recalcitrants by tortures tion, 284- —a partial confession of failure on 311 AD the part of the imperial government. Bloodshed was avoided and the death penalty omitted. But a fourth edict issued by Maximin prescribed the death penalty and required the act of sacrifice to the gods. In the same year (304) Diocletian, convinced of the uselessness of these measures, stayed the death penalty. The change of policy on the part of the emperor and his abdication next year were virtually a confession that the Galilean had conquered. After the persecution had raged 8 years (or 10, if we include local persecutions after 311), Galerius, overtaken by a loathsome disease, issued from Nicomedia with Constantine and Licinius the first general edict of toleration, April 30, 311. Christianity had thus in this period proved a state within a state; it was finally acknowledged as a religio licita, though not yet on equality with paganism.
in Christian schools lest Christian tongues should become better fitted to meet heathen arguments, and lastly by adding renewed splendor to pagan service as a counter-attraction. But the moral power of Christianity triumphed. Dying on a
battle-field, where he fought the Persians, he is said
(but not on good authority) to have exclaimed, "Thou hast conquered, O Galilean" {vevlKriKai Va\i-
'Koie, nenikekas Galilaie). For a brief period after his death there was religious neutrality. Gratian at the instigation of Ambrose—departed from this neutrality, removed the statue of Victory from the senate-house, refused the title and robes of pontifex maximus, prohibited bloody sacrifices, and dealt a severe blow to the old faith by withdrawing some of the treasury grants, thereby making it dependent on the voluntary system. Theodosius I, or the Great, adopted a strenuous religious policy against both heresy and paganism. His intolerance must be attributed to Ambrose—a bigot in whose eyes Jews, heretics and pagans alike had no rights. Systematic proscription of paganism began. In 381 Theodosius denied the right of making a will to apostates from Christianity, in 383 the right of inheritance, in 391 heathen public worship was interdicted, in 392 several acts of both private and pub-
In the next period the first religious wars began, and Christianity was first placed on an equal footing
with its rival, then above it, and
6. First finally it became the state religion of General both West and East. As soon as Edict of Christianity had gained tolerance it Toleration immediately became an intolerant,
lic heathen worship were forbidden, and greater penalties were attached to the performance of sac-
rifice. Christian vandalism became rampant; all kinds of violence and confiscation were resorted to, monks or priests often leading the populace. For the present the W^est did not suff'er so severely from fanatic iconoclasm. Under the sons of Theodosius the suppression of paganism was steadily pursued. Honorius in the West excluded (408 AD) pagans from civil and military offices; in a later edict (423) the very existence of paganism is doubted (paganos .... quamquam iam nullos esse credamus). That heathenism was still an attraction is proved by the repeated laws against apostasy. Under Valentinian III (423-55) and Theodosius II, laws were enacted for the destruction of temples or their conversion into Christian churches. In the western empire heathenism was persecuted till the end, and
till Fall of bitter persecutor, both of its old rival Western and of heresy. Constantine, having Empire, defeated Maxentius at the MUvian 311^76 AD Bridge (October 27, 312), became sole ruler of the West, and, in conjunction with his eastern colleague Licinius, i.ssued the famous edict of toleration from Milan, March 30, 313, by which all religions were granted equal tolerance, and Christianity was thus placed on an equal footing with heathenism. Constantine's favors toward the Christian faith were largely political; he wished simply to be on the winning side. With each fresh success he inclined more toward Christianity, though his whole life was a compromise. His dream was to weld pagan and Christian into one society under the same laws; he in no way prohibited paganism. With the founding of Constantinople Christianity became practically the state religion—an alliance with baneful consequences for Christianity. It now began to stifle the liberty of conscience for which it had suffered so much, and orthodoxy began its long reign of intolerance. The sons of Constantine inherited their father's cruel nature with his nominal Christianity. Constantine had left the old and the new religions on equal footing: his sons began the work of exterminating paganism by violence. Constantius when sole emperor, inheriting none of his father's compromise or caution, and prompted by women and bishops, published edicts demanding the closing of the temples and prohibiting sacrifices. Wise provincial administrators hesitated to carry out these premature measures. Christianity was now in the ascendancy and on the aggre.ssive. It not only persecuted paganism, but the dominant Christian party proscribed its rival—this time hcterodo.xy banishing orthodoxy. The violence and intolerance of the sons of Constantine justified the mild reaction under Julian the Apostate—the most humane member of the Constantine family. He made a "romantic" effort to ree.stablish the old religion, and while proclaiming tolerance for Christianity, he endeavored to weaken it by heaping
its final overthrow was hastened by the extinction of the western empire (476). In the East Justinian closed the heathen schools of philosophy at Athens (.529 AD), and in a despotic spirit prohibited even heathen worship in private under pain of death.
V, Victory of Christianity and Conversion of the Roman Empire,—Christianity was now acknowledged as the religion of both East and West. It had also grown strong enough to convert the barbarians who overran the West. It restrained and educated them under the lead of the papacy, so that
its conquests now e.xtended beyond the Rom empire.
Merivale (preface to Conversion of Rom Empire) attributes the conversion of ttie Rom empire to four causes: (1) tiie external evidence of apparent fulfliment of propiiecjr and the evidence of miracles, (2) internal evidence as satisfying the spiritual wants of the empire and offering a Redeemer, (3) the example of the pure lives and heroic deaths of the early Christians, ancf (4) the success which attended the Christian cause imder Constantine. Gibbon (ch xv of Decline and Fall) seeks to account for the phenomenal success of Christianity in the empire by (1) the zeal and enthusiasm of the early Christians, (2) the belief of Christianity in immortality with both future rewards and future retributions, (3) miracles, (4) the high ethical code and pure morals of professing Christians, and (5) strong ecclesiastical organization on imperial patterns. But neither of tliese lists of causes seems to account satisfactorily for the progress and success of the reUgion of Jesus.
This was due in the first place to negative causes
2611 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Roman Empire Roman Law
Milman, Hist of Christianity; Hist of Lai Christianity; Ramsay, The Church in the Rom Empire; Expos. IV, Viii, pp. 8ff, 110 ir, 282 ft; E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the Rom Government. 1894; D. Duff, The Early Church: a Hist of Christianity in the First Six Centuries. Edinburgh, 1891; J. J. Blunt, A Hist of the Christian Church during the First Three Centuries, 18(31; Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity. 1907; Mommsen, " Der Religionsfrevel nach rom. Recht," in Hist. Zeit. 1890, LXIV (important); Provinces of the Rom Empire; Expos,
—the moral and spiritual bankruptcy of the antique world, the internal rottenness and decay of heathen
systems. All ancient national religions
1. Negative had failed and were abandoned ahke Causes by philosophers and the masses, and no universal religion for humanity was offered except by Christianity. Worship had degenerated into pure formalism which brought no comfort to the heart. An imperious demand for revelation was felt which no philosophy or natural religion could satisfy.
1893, pp. G ff; G. Boissier, La religion romaine d' Auguste aux Antonins; La fin du paganisme; Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus der Rtjmer; Gerb. Uhlhorn. Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism, ET by Smyth and Ropes, 1879; B. Aube, Histoire des persecutions de I'eglise jusqu'A la fin des Antonins. 187.5; Schaff, Hist of the Christian Church (with useful bibliographies of both ancient and modern authorities) ; Orr, Neglected Factors in Early Church Hist; Keim, Rom u. Christentum; Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East. ET, London, 1910; Wendland, Die hellenistischrOmische Kultur^. 1912; F. Overbeck, " Gesetzo der rom. Kaiser gegen die Christen," in his Studien. 187.5; C. F. Arnold, Die Neronische Christenverfolgung; Stud. zuT Gesch. der Plinianischen Christenverfolgung; Westcott, "The Two Empires," in comm. to Epp. of St. John, 2.50-82; Friedlander, Sittengeschichte Roms; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers; Lecky, Hist of European Morals, ch
But it was to positive causes chiefly that the success of the new religion was due, among which were
the zeal, enthusiasm, and moral ear2. Positive nestness of the Christian faith. Its Causes sterling qualities were best shown in persecution and the heroic deaths of
its adherents. Paganism, even with the alliance of the civil power and the prestige of its romantic past, could not withstand persecution. And when heathenism was thrown back on the voluntary system, it could not prosper as Christianity did with its ideals of self-sacrifice. The earnestness of early Christianity was raised to its highest power by its belief in a near second coming of the Lord and the end of the aeon. The means of propagation greatly helped the spread of Christianity, the principal means being the exemplary lives of its professors. It opposed moral and spiritual power to
ill, "The Conversion of Rome."
S. Angus ROMAN LAW:
I. Roman Private Law
1. The Twelve Tables 2. Civil Procedure
.3. Jus honorarium 4. The praetor peregrinus 5. Imperial Ordinances 6. Golden Age of Juristic Literature 7. Codification in the Later Empire II. Roman Criminal Law
political. Besides, Christianity when once studied by the thinkers of the ancient world was found to be in accord with the highest principles of reason and Nature. But "the chief cause of its success was the congruity of its teaching with the spiritual nature of mankind" (Lecky). There was a deepseated earnestness in a large section of the ancient world to whom Christianity offered the peace, com-
1. Jurisdiction in the Royal Period 2. The Right of Appeal (1) Penalties (2) The Porcian Law 3. Popular Jurisdiction Curtailed 4. Jurors 5. Disappearance of Criminal Courts 6. Right of Trial at Rome Literature
fort and strength desired. It was possessed also of an immense advantage over all competing religions of the Rom empire in being adapted to all
In the present art. we shall treat (I) Rom Private Law and (II) Criminal Law only, reserving a consideration of the development of the principles of constitutional law for the art. on Rome, since it is so closely interwoven with the political history of the state.
classes and conditions and to all changes. There was nothing local or national about it; it gave the grandest expression to the contemporary ideal of brotherhood. Its respect for woman and its attraction for this sex gained it many converts who brought honor to it; in this respect it was far superior to its greatest rival, Mithraism. In an age of vast social change and much social distress
It will be necessary to confine the discussion of private law to its external history, without attempting to deal with the substance of the law itself. In the treatment of criminal law attention will be directed chiefly to the constitutional guaranties which were intended to protect Rom citizens against arbitrary and unjust punishments, these being one of the most important privileges of Rom citizenship (see Citizenship). Rom law found its original source in the family as a corporation. The proprietary rights of the paler familias as representative of this primitive unit of organization are a fundamental element in private
it appealed to the suffering by its activeself-denial
for the happiness of others. As an ethical code
it was equal and superior to the noblest conternporary systems. One incalculable advantage it
could show above all religions and philosophies the charm and power of an ideal perfect life, in which
the highest manhood was held forth as an incentive
law, and the scope of the criminal jurisdiction of the
to nobler living. The person of Jesus was an ideal and moral dynamic for both philosopher and the common man, far above any abstract virtue. "It was because it was true to the moral sentiments of
state was limited by the power of life and death which was exercised by the head of the family over those who were under his authority, by virtue of which their transgressions were tried before the domestic tribunal.
the age, because it represented faithfully the supreme
type of excellence to which men were then tending,
It is likewise of fundamental importance to re-
because it corresponded with their religious wants, aims and emotions, because the whole spiritual
call the tact that before the earhest period in the
history of Rom law of which we have positive information, there must have been a time when a
being could then expand and expatiate under its
influence that it planted its roots so deeply in the
large number of different classes of crime were pun-
hearts of men" (Lecky, Hist of European Morals,
ished by the priests as sacrilege, in accordance with
ch iii). Add to all this the favorable circunista,nces mentioned under "Preparation for Christianity," above (II), and we can understand how the Rom
divine law {fan), by putting the offender to death
as a sacrifice to the offended deity, while restitution
for private violence or injustice was left to private
empire became the kingdom of Christ.
Literature.— Ancient sources include Tacitus, Sue-
initiative to seek. For a law of the Twelve Tables
that the person guilty of cutting another's grain by night should be hanged, as an offering to Ceres, is
tonius, Josepims, Pliny '.s Letters, x.97-98 (in Hardy s
ed), Dlo Cassius (in Xiphllin), the apologists, Ctiurcn
a survival of the older religious character of condemnation to death, and the right to kill the noc-
Fathers, Inscriptions, etc. • * ,i Modern sources are too numerous to mention in tun, but those most helpful to the student are: Gibbon
Decline and Fall of the Rom Empire; MerxxaXe Hist of
turnal thief and the adulterer caught in the act may be cited as survivals of primitive private ven-
the Romans under the Empire; The Fall of the Rom
Republic, 1856; Conversion of the Rom Empire. lSb5,
Roman Law THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2612
ally, of bills ratified by the people {leges), but usually of enactments of the senate (senatus con-
geance. The secular conception of crime as an offence against the welfare of the state gradually superseded the older conception, while private law arose when the community did away with the disorder incident to the exercise of self-help in attempting to secure justice, by insLstiug that the parties to a disagreement should submit their claims to an arbitrator.
sultd), or imperial ordinances. The
5. Imperial latter, which eventually prevailed to Ordinances the exclusion of all other types, may be classified as edicta, which were issued by the emperor on the analogy of the similar orders
of the republican magistrates, decreta, or decisions of the imperial tribunal, which had force as precedents, and rescripta, which were replies by the emperor
/. Roman Private Law.—Rom private law was
at first a body of unwritten usages handed down by
to requests for the interpretation of the law. All these acts of imperial legislation were known as
tradition in the patrician families.
1. The The demand of the plebeians for the Twelve publication of the law resulted in the Tables adoption of the famous Twelve Tables
constitutiones.
In the 2d cent. Salvius Julianus was commissioned to invest the praetorian edict with definite
(449 BC), which was looked upon by later authorities as the source of aU public and private law {quae nunc quoque in hoc immenso aliarum super alias acervatarum legum cumulo fans omnis publici privatique estiuris: Livyiii. 34, 6), although it was not a scientific or comprehensive code of all the legal institutions of the time. This primitive system of law was made to expand to meet the growing requirements of the republican community chiefly by means of interpretation and the jus honorarium, which corresponds to equity.
form. The Institutes of Gaius ap-
6. Golden pearing about the same time became a Age of model for subsequent textbooks on
Juristic jurisprudence {Gait institulionum comLiterature meiitarii quattuor, discovered by Niebuhrin 1816 at Verona in a palimpsest)
This was the Golden Age of juristic literature. A succession of able thinkers, among whom Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian, Modestinus, and Gaius hold foremost rank (cf Codex Theodosianus 1, 4, 3), applied to the incoherent mass of legal material the methods of scientific investigation, developing a system of Rom law and establishing a science of jurisprudence.
The function of interpretation may be defined by mentioning the principal elements in civil procedure.
The praetor, or magistrate, listened to
2. Civil the claims of the litigants and prepared Procedure an outline of the disputed issues, called a formula, which was submitted to the judex, or arbitrator, a jury, as it were, consisting of
The period of the later empire was characterized by various attempts at codification which culminated in the final treatment of the body
one man, who decided the questions of fact involved in the case. Neither praetor nor judex had special legal training. The court had recourse, therefore, for legal enlightenment to those who had gained distinction as authorities on the law, and the opinions, or responsa, of these scholars (Jurisprudentes) formed a valuable commentary on the legal institutions of the time. In this way a body of rules was amassed by interpretative adaptation which the authors of the Twelve Tables would never have recognized.
7. Codifiof Rom law under Justinian. The cation in work of the board of eminent jurists the Later to whom this vast undertaking was Empire intrusted was published in three parts:
(1) the Code, which contains a selection of the imperial enactments since Hadrian in twelve books, (2) the Digest or Pandects, which is composed of extracts from the juristic literature in
fifty books, and (3) the Institutes, which is a textbook in four books. In this form mainly Rom private law has come down to modern times, and has become, in the words of an eminent authority
Jus honorarium derived its name from the circumstance that it rested upon the authority of magistrates (Aoreor = magistrac}')- In
(Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, Oxford, 1901), next to the Christian religion, the most plentiful source of the rules governing actual conduct throughout Western Europe.
3. Jus honthis respect and because it was comorariam posed of orders issued for the purpose of affording relief in cases for which the existing law did not make adequate provision, this second agency for legal expansion may be compared with English equity. These orders issued by the praetors had legal force during the tenure of their office only; but those the expediency of which had been established by this period of trial were generally reissued by succeeding magistrates from year to year, so that in time a large, but uniform body of rules, subject to annual renewal, formed the greater part of the edict which was issued by the praetors before entering upon their term of office. By these means Rom law maintained a proper balance between elasticity and rigidity.
//. Roman Criminal Law.—In the royal period criminal jurisdiction, in so far as it was a function
of secular administration, belonged by
1. Jurisright to the king. The titles quaesdiction in tores parricidii and duumviri perduelthe Royal lionis, belonging to officials to whom Period the royal authority in these matters was occasionally delegated, indicate the nature of the earliest crimes brought under secular jurisdiction. The royal prerogative passed to the republican magistrates, and embraced, besides the right to punish crimes, the power to compel obedience to their own decrees {coercitio) by means of various penalties.
After the institution of the praetor peregrinus (241 BC), who heard cases in which one or both of
But the right of the people to final jurisdiction in cases involving the life or civil status of citizens "was established by an enactment ilex Valeria) which 2 Right of '^ ^^*^ ^^ iia^'e been proposed by one of the .' ^, first consuls (.509 BC), and which granted Appeal the right of appeal to the assembly (provocatio) against the execution of a "capital or other serious penalty pronounced by a magistrate (Cicero De Re Publica ii.31, 54; Livy ii.8. 2: Dionysius V.19). This right of appeal was reinforced or extended by subsequent enactments {tegea Valeriae) in 449 and 299 BC. It was vahd against penalties imposed by virtue of the coercive power of tlie magistrates as well as those based upon a regular criminal charge. Generally the magistrates made no provisional sentence of their own, but brought their charges directly before the people.
the parties were foreigners, a series of 4. The similar edicts proceeded from those praetor who were chosen to this tribunal. The peregrinus annual edicts of the praetor peregrinus became an important means for broadening Rom law, for the strangers who appeared in the court of this magistrate were mostly Greeks from Southern Italy, so that the principles of law which were gradually formulated as a basis for proceedings were largely an embodiment of the spirit of Gr law.
(1) Penalties.—The death penalty was practically abrogated in republican times by allowing the accused
Direct legislation superseded the other sources of law under the empire, taking the form, occasion-
2613 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Roman Law
of 70 BC provided for the equal representation of all three classes of the people in the courts. There were then about 1,080 names on the list of available jurors, of whom 7.5 seem to iiave been chosen for each trial (Cicero In Piaonem 40). Caesar abolished the plebeian jurors (Suetonius Caesar 41). Augustus restored the representatives of the third class (Suetonius Aug. 32), but confined their action to civil cases of minor importance. He likewise excused the members of the senate from service as jurors.
the alternative of voluntary exile. Tlie Romans rarely employed imprisonment as a punishment. The imposition of fines above a certain amount was made subject to the right of appeal. At first the dictator possessed absolute power of lite and death over the citizens, but this authority was limited, probably about 300 BC (Livy xxyii.6 5), by being made subject to the right of appeal. (2) The Porciaii law.—The right of appeal to the people was valid within the city and as far as the first milestone: and although it was never extended beyond this hmit, yet its protection was virtually secured for all Rom citizens, wherever they might be, by the provision of the Porcian law (of unknown date), which established their right to trial at Rome. In consequence of this a distinction of great importance was created in criminal procedure in the provinces, since Rom citizens were sent to Rome for trial in all serious cases, while other persons were subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the municipalities, except when the governor summoned them before his own tribunal.
The system of criminal courts (quaesHones perpetuae) diminished in importance under the empire and finally disappeared toward the close of the 2d cent. Their place was taken by the senate under the presidency of a consul, the emperor, and eventually by imperial officials by delegated authority from the emperor. In the first case the
Roman Forum.
senate stood in somewhat the same relation to the presiding consul as the jurors in the permanent courts to the praetor. But the em-
The exercise of popular jurisdiction in criminal matters was gradually curtailed by the establishment of permanent courts (quaesHones
3. Popular perpetuae) by virtue of laws by which Jurisdiction the people delegated their authority Curtailed to judge certain classes of cases. The
5. Disapperor and imperial officials decided pearance of without the help of a jury, so that Criminal after the 3d cent., when the judicial Courts competence of the senate was gradually lost, trial by jury ceased to exist. An important innovation in the judicial system of the empire was the principle of appeal from the decision of lower courts to higher tribunals. For the emperors and eventually their delegates, chiefly the praefectus urbi and praefectus praetorio, heard appeals from Rom and ItaUan magistrates and provincial governors.
first of these courts was authorized in 149 BC for the trial of charges of extortion brought against provincial governors. Compensation was the main purpose of accusers in bringing charges before this and later permanent courts, and for this
reason, perhaps, the procedure was similar to that which was employed in civil cases. A praetor pre-
sided over the tribunal; a number of jiulices took the place of the single juror. The laws by which
Sulla reorganized the systems of criminal jurisdic-
Under the early empire, provincial governors were generally under obligation to grant the demand of Rom citizens for the privilege 6. Right of of trial at Rome {Digest xlviii.6, 7), Trial at although there appear to have been Rome some exceptions to this rule (Pliny, Episl. ii.ll; Digest xlviii.8, 16). Lysias, tribune of the cohort at Jerus, sent St. Paul as prisoner to Caesarea, the capital of the province.
tion provided for seven courts dealing individually with extortion, treason, peculation, corrupt elec-
tioneering practices, murder, fraud, and assault.
The indices, or jurors, were originally chosen from the senate. A law proposed by C. Gracchus transferred membership in all the juries to the eques-
A T ..„.c trian class. Sulla replenished the senate 4. jurors |3y admitting about 300 members of the equestrian class, and then restored to it the exclusive control of the juries. But a judicial law
Roman Religion Romans, Epistle to THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 2614
to say in general Rom "has been recognized in the Christian church as long as any collection of St. Paul's Epp. has been e.xtant" (A. Robertson, in HDB, S.V.). But above all other evidences it
so that Felix the procurator might determine what was to be done in his case, inasmuch as he was a Rom citizen (Acts 23 27), and two years later St. Paul asserted his privilege of being tried at Rome by the emperor for the same reason (25 11.21). Rom citizens who were sent to Rome might be brought either before the senate or emperor, but cognizance of these oases by the imperial tribunal was more usual, and finally supplanted entirely that of the senate, the formula of appeal becoming proverbial: cives Romantis sum, provoco ad Caesarem
testifies to itself. The fabrication of such a writing, with its close and complex thought, its power and marked originality of treatment, its noble morale, and its spiritual elevation and ardor, is nothing short of a moral impossibihty. A mighty mind and equally great heart live in every page, and a soul exquisitely sensitive and alwaj's intent upon truth and holiness. Literary personation is an art which has come to anything like maturity only in modern times, certainly not before the Renaissance. In a fully developed form it is hardly earlier than the 19th cent. And even now who can point to a consciously personated authorship going along with high moral principle and purpose?
( Kaisara epikaloiimai: Acts 25 11). As Rom citizenship became more and more widely extended throughout the empire its relative value diminished, and it is obvious that many of the special privileges, such as the right of trial at Rome, which were attached to it in the earlier period must have been gradually lost. It became customary for the emperors to delegate their power of final jurisdiction over the lives of citizens {ius gladii) to the provincial governors, and finally, after Rom citizenship had been conferred upon the inhabitants of the empire generally by Caracalla, the right of appeal to Rome remained the privilege of certain classes only, such as senators, municipal decurions {Digest
The question remains, however, whether, accepting the Ep. in block as Pauline, we have it, as to details, just as it left the author's 2. Integrity hands. Particularly, some phenomena of the text of the last two chapters invite the inquiry. We may—in our opinion we must—grant those chapters to be Pauline. They breathe St. Paul in every sentence. But do they read precisely hke part of a letter to Rome? For example, we have a series of names (16 1-15), representing a large circle of personally known and loved friends of the writer, a much longer list than any other in the Epp., and all presumably—-on the theory that the passage is integral to the Ep.—
xlviii.l9, 27), officers of equestrian rank in the army, and centurions (Dio Cassius lii.22, 33).
LlTER.\TURE.—Greenidge. The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time. 0-"tford, 1901; Kriiger. Geschichte der Quellen u. Litteratur des romischen Rechls, Leipzig, 1888; Mommsen. Romisches Strafrecht, Leipzig, 1899: Roby, Rom Private Law in the Times of Cicero and of the Anionines. Cambridge, 1902; Sohm, The Institutes of Rom Law, tr<i by J. C. Ledlie, Oxford, 1892.
residents at Rome. May not such a paragraph have somehow crept in, after date, from another writing ?
George H. Allen ROMAN RELIGION. See Roman Empire and Christianity, III; Rome, IV.
Might not a message to Philippian, Thessalonian or Ephesian friends, dwellers in places where St. Paul had already established many intimacies, have fallen out of its place and found lodgment by mistake at the close of this letter to Rome? It seems enough to reply by one brief statement of fact. We possess some 300 MSS of Rom, and not one of these, so far as it is uninjured, fails to give the Ep. complete, all the chapters as we have them, and in the present order (with one exception, that of the final doxology). It is observable meanwhile that the difficulty of supposing St. Paul to have had a large group of friends living at Rome, before his own arrival there, is not serious. To and from Rome, through the whole empire, there was a perpetual circulation of population. Suppose Aquila and Priscilla (e.g.) to have recently returned (Acts 18 2) to Rome from Ephesus, and suppose similar migrations from Greece or from Asia Minor to have taken place within recent years; we can then readily account for the greetings of Rom 16.
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE:
1. Genuineness 2. Integrity 3. Pro-ximate Date 4. Place of Writing 5. Destination 6. Language 7. Occasion 8. Some Characteristics 9. Main Teachings of the Epistle (1) Doctrine of Man
(2) Doctrine of God (3) Doctrine of Son of God—Redemption; Justification (4) Doctrine of the Spirit of God
(5) Doctrine of Duty (6) Doctrine of Israel Literature
This is the greatest, in every sense, of the apostolic
letters of St. Paul; in scale, in scope, and in its wonderful combination of doctrinal, ethical and administrative wisdom and power. In some respects the later Epp., Eph and Col, lead us to even higher and deeper arcana of revelation, and they,
Lightfoot has brought it out in an interesting way (see his Philippiatis, on 4 22) that many of the names (e.g. Amplias, Urbanus, Tryphena) in Rom 16 are found at Rome, in inscriptions of the early imperial age, in cemeteries where members of the widely scattered "household of Caesar" were interred. This at least suggests the abundant possibility that the converts and friends belonging to the "household" who, a very few years later, perhaps not more than three, were around him at Rome when he wrote to Philippi (Phil 4 22), and sent their special greeting ("chiefly they") to the Philippians, were formerly residents at Philippi, or elsewhere in Macedonia, and had moved thence to the capital not long before the apostle wrote to the Romans. A. Robertson (ut supra) comes to the conclusion, after a careful review of recent theories, "that the case for transferring this section .... from its actual connection to a lost Ep. to Ephesus
like Rom, combine with the exposition of truth a luminous doctrine of duty. But the range of Rom
is larger in both directions, and presents us also with noble and far-reaching discussions of Christian polit}^ instructions in spiritual utterance and the
like, to which those Epp. present no parallel, and which only the Corinthian Epp. rival.
No suspicion on the head of the genuineness of the Ep. exists which needs serious consideration. Signs of the influence of the Ep. can
1. Genuinebe traced, at least very probably, in ness the NT itself; in 1 Pet, and, as some think, in Jas. But in our opinion Jas was the earlier writing, and Lightfoot has given strong grounds for the belief that the paragraph on
faith and justification (Jas 2) has no reference to perversions of Pauline teaching, but deals with rabbinism. Clement of Rome repeatedly quotes Rom, and so do Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin. Marcion includes it in his list of Pauline Epp., and it is safe
is not made out."
Two points of detail in the criticism of the text of Rom may be noted. One is that the words "at
2615 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Roman Religion Romans, Epistle to
Rome" (1 7.15) are omitleil in a very few MSS, in a way to remind us of the interesting phenomenon of the omission of "at Ephesus" (Eph 1 1 m). But the evidence for this omission being original is entirely inadequate. The fact may perhaps be accounted for by a possible circulation of Rom among other mission churches as anEp. of universal interest. This would be much more likely if the MSS and other authorities in which the last two chapters are missing were identical with those which omit "at Rome," but this is not the case.
writing; and Cenchreae was the southern part of Corinth.
The first advent of Christianity to Rome is unrecorded, and we know very little of its early prog-
ress. Visiting Romans (^7ri5-))ftoCcTei,epi-
5. Destidcinounles), both Jews and proselytes, nation appear at Pentecost (Acts 2 10), and no doubt some of these returned home believers. In Acts 18 2 we have Aquila and Pris-
cilla, Jews, evidently Christians, "lately come from Italy," and probably from Rome. But we know practically nothing else of the story previous to this Ep., which is addressed to a mission church obviously important and already spiritually advanced. On the other hand (a curious paradox in view of the historical development of Rom Christianity), there
The other and larger detail is that the great final doxology (16 25-27) is placed by many cursives at the end of ch 14, and is omitted entirely by three MSS and by Marcion. The leading uncials and a large preponderance of ancient evidence place it where we have it. It is quite possible that St. Paul may have reissued Rom after a time, and may only then have added the doxology, which has a certain resemblance in manner to his later (cap-
is no allusion in the Ep. to church organization. The Christian ministry (apart from St. Paul's own apostleship) is not even mentioned. It may fairly be said to be incredible that if the legend of St. Peter's long episcopate were historical, no allusion whatever to his work, influence and authority should be made. It is at least extremely difficult to prove that he was even present in Rome till shortly before his martyrdom, and the very ancient beUef that Peler and Paul founded the Rom church