Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Destruction of the Churches. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter
II.—The Destruction of the
Churches.
1. All
these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the
houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine
and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the
market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and
there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their
enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word,
“Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to
wander in an untrodden and pathless way.”2500
2. But it is not our place to
describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not
think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural
conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided
to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can
vindicate the Divine judgment.
3. Hence we shall not mention
those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything
pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were
sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this
history in general only those events which may be usefull first to
ourselves and afterwards to posterity.2501
2501 Gibbon uses this passage as the basis for his severe attack upon
the honesty of Eusebius (Decline and Fall, chap. 16), but he has
certainly done our author injustice (cf. the remarks made on p. 49,
above). |
Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of
the witnesses of the Divine Word.
4. It was in the nineteenth year
of the reign of Diocletian,2502
2502 Diocletian began to reign Sept. 17, 284, and therefore his
nineteenth year extended from Sept. 17, 302, to Sept. 16, 303. Eusebius
is in agreement with all our authorities in assigning this year for the
beginning of the persecution, and is certainly correct. In regard to
the month, however, he is not so accurate. Lactantius, who was in
Nicomedia at the time of the beginning of the persecution, and
certainly much better informed than Eusebius in regard to the details,
states distinctly (in his De mort. pers. chap. 12) that the
festival of the god Terminus, the seventh day before the Kalends of
March (i.e. Feb. 23), was chosen by the emperors for the opening of the
persecution, and there is no reason for doubting his exact statement.
At the beginning of the Martyrs of Palestine (p. 342, below) the
month Xanthicus (April) is given as the date, but this is still further
out of the way. It was probably March or even April before the edicts
were published in many parts of the empire, and Eusebius may have been
misled by that fact, not knowing the exact date of their publication in
Nicomedia itself. We learn from Lactantius that on February 23d the
great church of Nicomedia, together with the copies of Scripture found
in it, was destroyed by order of the emperors, but that the edict of
which Eusebius speaks just below was not issued until the following
day. For a discussion of the causes which led to the persecution of
Diocletian see below, p. 397. | in the month
Dystrus,2503
2503 Δύστρος, the seventh month of the Macedonian year, corresponding to
our March. See the table on p. 403, below. | called March by the Romans, when the
feast of the Saviour’s passion was near at hand,2504
2504 Valesius (ad locum) states, on the authority of Scaliger
and Petavius, that Easter fell on April 18th in the year 303. I have
not attempted to verify the statement. | that royal edicts were published
everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and
the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held
places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they
persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom.2505
2505 This
is the famous First Edict of Diocletian, which is no longer extant, and
the terms of which therefore have to be gathered from the accounts of
Eusebius and Lactantius. The interpretation of the edict has caused a
vast deal of trouble. It is discussed very fully by Mason in his
important work, The Persecution of Diocletian, p. 105 sq. and p.
343 sq. As he remarks, Lactantius simply describes the edict in a
general way, while Eusebius gives an accurate statement of its
substance, even reproducing its language in part. The first provision
(that the churches be leveled to the ground) is simply a carrying out
of the old principle, that it was unlawful for the Christians to hold
assemblies, under a new form. The second provision, directed against
the sacred books, was entirely new, and was a very shrewd move,
revealing at the same time an appreciation on the part of the authors
of the persecution of the important part which the Scriptures occupied
in the Christian Church. The third provision, as Mason has pointed out,
is a substantial reproduction of a part of the edict of Valerian, and
was evidently consciously based upon that edict. (Upon the variations
from the earlier edict, see Mason, p. 115 sq.) It is noticeable that
not torture nor death is decreed, but only civil degradation. This
degradation, as can be seen from a comparison with the description of
Lactantius (ibid. chap. 13) and with the edict of Valerian
(given in Cyprian’s Epistle to Successus, Ep. No. 81, al.
80), consisted, in the case of those who held public office
(τιμῆς
ἐπειλημμένους), in the loss of rank and also of citizenship; that is,
they fell through two grades, as is pointed out by Mason. In the
interpretation of the fourth provision, however, Mason does not seem to
me to have been so successful. The last clause runs τοὺς δὲ ἐν
οἰκετίαις, εἰ
ἐπιμένοιεν
τῇ τοῦ
χριστιανισμοῦ
προθέσει
ἐλευθερίας
στερεῖσθαι. The difficult point is the interpretation of the
τοὺς ἐν
οἰκετίαις. The words usually mean “household slaves,” and
are commonly so translated in this passage. But, as Valesius remarks,
there is certainly no sense then in depriving them of freedom
(ἐλευθερία) which they do not possess. Valesius consequently
translates plebeii, “common people,” and Mason
argues at length for a similar interpretation (p. 344 sq.), looking
upon these persons as common people, or individuals in private life, as
contrasted with the officials mentioned in the previous clause. The
only objection, but in my opinion a fatal objection, to this attractive
interpretation is that it gives the phrase οἱ ἐν
οἰκετίαις a wider meaning than can legitimately be applied to it.
Mason remarks: “The word οἰκετία means, and is here a translation of, familia; οἱ ἐν
οἰκετίαις means ii qui in familiis sunt,—not graceful
Latin certainly, but plainly signifying ‘those who live in
private households.’ Now in private households there lived not
only slaves, thank goodness, but free men too, both as masters
and as servants; therefore in the phrase τοὺς ἐν
οἰκετίαις itself there is nothing which forbids the paraphrase
‘private persons.’” But I submit that to use so
clumsy a phrase, so unnecessary a circumlocution, to designate simply
private people in general—οἱ πολλοί—would be the height of absurdity. The interpretation
of Stroth (which is approved by Heinichen) seems to me much more
satisfactory. He remarks: “Das Edict war zunächst nur gegen
zwei Klassen von Leuten gerichtet, einmal gegen die, welche in
kaiserlichen Æmtern standen, und dann gegen die freien oder
freigelassenen Christen, welche bei den Kaisern oder ihren Hofleuten
und Statthaltern in Diensten standen, und zu ihrem Hausgesinde
gehörten.” This seems to me more satisfactory, both on
verbal and historical grounds. The words οἱ ἐν
οἰκετίαις certainly cannot, in the present case, mean “household
slaves,” but they can mean servants, attendants, or other persons
at court, or in the households of provincial officials, who did not
hold rank as officials, but at the same time were freemen born, or
freedmen, and thus in a different condition from slaves. Such persons
would naturally be reduced to slavery if degraded at all, and it is
easier to think of their reduction to slavery than of that of the
entire mass of Christians not in public office. Still further, this
proposition finds support in the edict of Valerian, in which this class
of people is especially mentioned. And finally, it is, in my opinion,
much more natural to suppose that this edict (whose purpose I shall
discuss on p. 399) was confined to persons who were in some way
connected with official life,—either as chiefs or assistants or
servants,—and therefore in a position peculiarly fitted for the
formation of plots against the government, than that it was directed
against Christians indiscriminately. The grouping together of the two
classes seems to me very natural; and the omission of any specific
reference to bishops and other church officers, who are mentioned in
the second edict, is thus fully explained, as it cannot be adequately
explained, in my opinion, on any other ground. |
5. Such was the first edict against us. But not long after, other
decrees were issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches in
every place be first thrown into prison,2506
2506 As
we learn from chap. 6, §8, the edict commanding the church
officers to be seized and thrown into prison followed popular uprisings
in Melitene and Syria, and if Eusebius is correct, was caused by those
outbreaks. Evidently the Christians were held in some way responsible
for those rebellious outbursts (possibly they were a direct consequence
of the first edict), and the natural result of them must have been to
make Diocletian realize, as he had not realized before, that the
existence of such a society as the Christian Church within the
empire—demanding as it did supreme allegiance from its
members—was a menace to the state. It was therefore not strange
that what began as a purely political thing, as an attempt to break up
a supposed treasonable plot formed by certain Christian officials,
should speedily develop into a religious persecution. The first step in
such a persecution would naturally be the seizure of all church
officers (see below, p. 397 sq.).
The decrees of which
Eusebius speaks in this paragraph are evidently to be identified with
the one mentioned in chap. 6, §8. This being so, it is clear that
Eusebius’ account can lay no claims to chronological order. This
must be remembered, or we shall fall into repeated difficulties in
reading this eighth book. We are obliged to arrange the order of events
for ourselves, for his account is quite desultory, and devoid both of
logical and chronological sequence. The decrees or writings
(γρ€μματα) mentioned in this paragraph constituted really but one
edict (cf. chap. 6, §8), which is known to us as the Second Edict
of Diocletian. Its date cannot be determined with exactness, for, as
Mason remarks, it may have been issued at any time between February and
November; but it was probably published not many months after the
first, inasmuch as it was a result of disturbances which arose in
consequence of the first. Mason is inclined to place it in March,
within a month after the issue of the first, but that seems to me a
little too early. In issuing the edict Diocletian followed the example
of Valerian in part, and yet only in part; for instead of commanding
that the church officers be slain, he commanded only that they be
seized. He evidently believed that he could accomplish his purpose best
by getting the leading men of the church into his hands and holding
them as hostages, while denying them the glory of martyrdom (cf. Mason,
p. 132 sq.). The persons affected by the edict, according to Eusebius,
were “all the rulers of the churches” (τοὺς τῶν
ἐκκλησιῶν
προέδρους
π€ντας; cf. also
Mart. Pal. Introd., §2). In chap. 6, §8, he
says τοὺς
πανταχόσε
τῶν
ἐκκλησιῶν
προεστῶτας. These words would seem to imply that only the bishops
were intended, but we learn from Lactantius (De mort. pers. 15)
that presbyters and other officers (presbyteri ac ministri) were
included, and this is confirmed, as Mason remarks (p. 133, note), by
the sequel. We must therefore take the words used by Eusebius in the
general sense of “church officers.” According to
Lactantius, their families suffered with them (cum omnibus suis
deducebantur), but Eusebius says nothing of that. |
and afterwards by every artifice be compelled to sacrifice.2507
2507 We
learn from Lactantius (l.c.) that the officers of the church,
under the terms of the second edict, were thrown into prison without
any option being given them in the matter of sacrificing. They were not
asked to sacrifice, but were imprisoned unconditionally. This was so
far in agreement with Valerian’s edict, which had decreed the
instant death of all church officers without the option of sacrificing.
But as Eusebius tells us here, they were afterwards called upon to
sacrifice, and as he tells us in the first paragraph of the next
chapter, multitudes yielded, and that of course meant their release, as
indeed we are directly told in chap. 6, §10. We may gather from
the present passage and from the other passages referred to, taken in
connection with the second chapter of the Martyrs of Palestine,
that this decree, ordaining their release on condition of sacrificing,
was issued on the occasion of Diocletian’s Vicennalia, which were
celebrated in December, 303, on the twentieth anniversary of the death
of Carus, which Diocletian reckoned as the beginning of his reign,
though he was not in reality emperor until the following September. A
considerable time, therefore, elapsed between the edict ordaining the
imprisonment of church officers and the edict commanding their release
upon condition of sacrificing. This latter is commonly known as
Diocletian’s Third Edict, and is usually spoken of as still
harsher than any that preceded it. It is true that it did result in the
torture of a great many,—for those who did not sacrifice readily
were to be compelled to do so, if possible,—but their death was
not aimed at. If they would not sacrifice, they were simply to remain
in prison, as before. Those who did die at this time seem to have died
under torture that was intended, not to kill them, but to bring about
their release. As Mason shows, then, this third edict was of the nature
of an amnesty; was rather a step toward toleration than a sharpening of
the persecution. The prisons were to be emptied, as was customary on
such great occasions, and the church officers were to be permitted to
return to their homes, on condition that they should sacrifice.
Inasmuch as they had not been allowed to leave prison on any condition
before, this was clearly a mark of favor (see Mason, p. 206 sq.). Many
were released even without sacrificing, and in their desire to empty
the prisons, the governors devised various expedients for freeing at
least a part of those who would not yield (cf. the instances mentioned
in the next chapter). At the same time, some governors got rid of their
prisoners by putting them to death, sometimes simply by increasing the
severity of the tortures intended to try them, sometimes as a penalty
for rash or daring words uttered by the prisoners, which were
interpreted as treasonable, and which, perhaps, the officials had
employed their ingenuity, when necessary, to elicit. Thus many might
suffer death, under various legal pretenses, although the terms of the
edict did not legally permit death to be inflicted as a punishment for
Christianity. The death penalty was not decreed until the issue of the
Fourth Edict (see below, Mart. Pal. chap.3, note 2). | E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|