had already set foot upon this way. His successors of the Julian and Claudian lines sought, with Cæsar-like madness, to possess themselves of this way by force. The energetic Trajan guided the ship of state into the same course with a surer hand, and the whole world submitted itself more readily to him and to his great successors. It was not, however, until the third century, at the time of the general dissolution, that the seal of reality was put upon the despotism of the emperors by the legislation of Diocletian; and it was only by Constantine and the Christian-Byzantine emperors that this despotism was carried out in due form.

In the first Christian centuries, a part of the Roman aristocracy sought to arouse opposition to this development of power. Vain struggle! These efforts soon grew weak, though in Rome indeed they never quite died out. In the provinces-above all, in the Eastern ones-the people were from the outset favorable to the empire. The imperial rule was there felt to be a release from the severe régime of the republic. The masses too, at the capital, and indeed in every place, hailed with shouts the Cæsars, who were obliged to keep their interests in mind.

These masses were not tied to the memories of the old aristocratic republic, nor did they trouble themselves about fine points of political legality. While the aristocracy of Rome were anxiously busying themselves over the relics of the past, and were testing and weighing names and titles,' the multitude proceeded upon the practical principle-"he that has the power is the master, and he who gives bread is the father of his country"-both, in truth, lay in the hands of the emperor.

From the legal side, this process of development led, by an inherent necessity, to the unlimited sovereign (“ dominus,” dɛσTóτηs); from the side of religion, under the existing relations, to the emperor as a god born in human form.'

The appellation "our lord and god" remained in vogue as an imperial title until after the middle of the third century, and at last, to the disgrace of ancient Rome, it even appeared upon coins, as if an official designation.'

1 Mommsen, ibid., p. 721 seq., 723 seq.

Mommsen, ibid., p. 716.

' Mommsen, ibid., p. 720, n. 3: "There are coins with the inscription Deo et domino nato Aureliano Aug.' (Eckhel, 7, 482; Cohen, Aurel. 170), and 'Deo

That, however, which this title expresses existed in the first century. Even Julius Cæsar had proclaimed himself as a living god; Augustus-with greater foresight as a son of the gods and as a future divinity. But the emperors did not merely continue to live after death as deified beings; even while they were still alive their statues stood among those of the gods in

64

et domino Caro Aug.' (Cohen, Car. 44)." Even before this time, Domitian had assumed similar titles. Rex: The Cæsars avoided using this title; it was, however, often assumed by the Greeks and Orientals (cf. N. T., the Greek Apologists, Justinian, Athenagoras, Melito, etc.; also Mommsen, ibid., p. 723 seq.). Also Minucius Felix calls the emperor simply “rex” (Octav. 29, 5). Dominus: It was only very gradually that this title won itself a place. "The inner development of the monarchy from primacy to supremacy can be traced and measured with the greatest certainty by means of the transition in terminology from princeps' to 'dominus.'" Cf. Mommsen, ibid., p. 721 seq., and the interesting excursus by Friedländer (Sittengeschichte, etc., vol. i. [4th edit., 1873]): "Ueber den Gebrauch der Anrede domine' im gemeinen Leben" (p. 428-435). Cf. also the very frequent use of kvpía (as an appellation?) in address in the Shepherd of Hermas; the expression кúgioí μov áðɛλøoí in Eusebius (Hist. eccl. vi. xi. 6); the address Kúpte in the letter of Julius Africanus to Origen (Routh, Reliq. Sacr., T. ii. [2d edit., 1846] p. 225). Tertullian, Apolog. 34: Augustus imperii formator ne dominum quidem dici se volebat: et hoc enim dei est cognomen. Dicam plane imperatorem dominum, sed more communi, sed quando non cogor, ut dominum dei vice dicam. Ceterum liber sum illi. Dominus enim meus unus est, deus omnipotens, æternus, idem qui et ipsius. Qui pater patriæ est, quomodo dominus est? Sed et gratius est nomen pietatis quam potestatis. Etiam familiæ magis patres quam domini vocantur." Deus : Mommsen, ibid., 716 seq., 763 seq.; Friedländer, ibid. vol. iii., p. 455 seq.; Boissier, La religion Romaine d'Auguste aux temps des Antonins (1874), T. i. pp. 122-208. The Christian Apologists offer the most violent opposition to the worship of the emperors. Cf. Justin. Apol. i. 21, 55; Tatian, Orat, ad Græc, 10; Minuc. Felix, Octav. 29, 5 : "Etiam principibus et regibus, non ut magnis et electis viris, sicut fas est, sed ut deis turpiter adulatio falsa blanditur, cum et præclaro viro honor verius et optimo amor dulcius præbeatur." Tertullian, Ad. nat., i. 10; Apolog. 28–40, . g., Cap. 33: Negat ille imperatorem, qui deum dicit, nisi homo sit, non est imperator." Cap. 34: "Tanto abest, ut imperator deus debeat dici, quod non potest credi non modo turpissima, sed et perniciosa adolatione. Sive

64

non de mendacio erubescit adulatio eiusmodi hominem deum appellans, timeat saltim de infausto. Maledictum est ante apotheosin deum Cæsarem nuncupari." Even as early as Pliny's time, we read in his famous letter to Trajan (Plin., Ep. xcvi.): “Qui negarent esse se Christianos aut fuisse, cum præeunte me deos appellarent et imagini tuae, quam propter hoc iusseram cum simulacris numinum adferri, ture ac vino supplicarent, præterea maledicerent Christo, quorum nihil posse cogi dicuntur qui sunt re vera Christiani, dimittendos esse pu tavi." Similar expressions occur from the second century onward in the majority of the Acts of the Martyrs.

the temples' and oratories, and, above all, near the standards in the camps; and in all these places honors had to be paid to them.

Oaths were taken by the names of the emperors and their predecessors in the same way as by the names of the gods. Here a false oath, and even any oath by the name of a private person, was regarded as treason.'

The yearly emperor days, especially the third of January (this New Year's day was also reckoned as an emperor-day), were religious festivals. Votive offerings, whether of thanksgiving or of supplication, were paid to the genius of the emperors.*

5

It was held to be an infringement of imperial rights to celebrate publicly the birthday of any private person, or to present votive offerings to him.

Still more sharply was it resented if any one in the empire dared to ascribe divine attributes or power to any other than the emperor. Not unfrequently the charges of treason and impiety toward the gods were united. Whoever fell under this charge could expect nothing else (at least after the end of

1 Mommsen, ibid., p. 719. See also the above letter of Pliny. Tiberius also, and Gaius, at the beginning of his reign, had forbidden this.

2 Mommsen, ibid., 766. Tertull., Apolog. 29: "Nam utique suas primo statuas et imagines et ædes tuerentur, quæ ut opinor, Cæsarem milites excubias salva præstant."

3 Mommsen, ibid., p. 763 seq. For this reason, it was required of Christians in lawsuits to revile Christ and to swear by the genius of the emperor (e.g., in the letters of Pliny and of the martyr Polycarp, 9, 2, 3, 10, 1, and often elsewhere). Tertull., Apolog. 32: "Sed et iuramus sicut non per genios Cæsarum, ita per salutem eorum, quæ est augustior omnibus geniis." He ridicules the punishment of a false oath upon the genius of the emperor, as follows: Apolog., cap. 28): "Citius denique apud vos per omnes deos quam per unum genium Cæsaris peieratur." Similarly in Minucius Felix, Octav. 29, 5: "Sic eorum numen vocant, ad imagines supplicant. . . . et est eis tutius per Jovis genium peierare, quam regis."

4 Mommsen, ibid., p. 764 seq. See also the exceedingly interesting description by Tertullian (Apolog. 35: Religio secundæ majestatis”).

5 Mommsen, ibid., p 766, note I.

6 Mommsen, ibid., p. 769, note 1, Tertull., Apolog. 34: "Tamquam si habens imperatorem alterum appelles, nonne maximam et inexorabilem offensam contrahes eius, quem habuisti, etiam ipsi timendam quem appellasti."

the second century) than to be treated before the law as a slave.'

The real sanctuary of Rome, the sanctuary of the world, was no longer on the Capitoline hill, but in the palace on the Palatine.

Religions, mysteries, and different forms of worship in almost endless variety had extended themselves over the mighty empire; the worship of the emperor had become the religion of the world. The Roman Empire possessed in reality one common religion—the worship of the Cæsars. Such a universal religion was a necessity to the empire. History presents no example of a despotism without the foundation of a common form of worship.

The arm of the most terrible inquisition is powerless unless it be strengthened by the benediction of an alleged and recognized God Only a universal religion can meet the requirements of a universal despotism. But such a religion must have its prominent characteristics as well as the state which it is to serve. We can clearly see to-day that the progress to monotheism, in its various manifestations in the Roman Empire since the beginning of the third century, was not only the result of a process of decomposition in the popular religion under oriental influences, but also a natural outgrowth of the political condition of the empire. This monotheism is therefore quite a different one from the Christian-indeed only a caricature of it. Its extension, however, was hostile to the mission of the church.

As early as the third century (perhaps even the second), Christianity was drawn into this movement, and then in the fourth was placed by an emperor upon the throne, because gave satisfactory answers to questions which the heathen had propounded, and because it furnished a means of power which

it

4

1 Mommsen, ibid., p. 715. Exceptional cases of this kind had already occurred. The Jewish and Christian eschatological hopes stood in opposition to the law (Paul., Sentent. recept. l. v., tit. 21, n. 3): ' Qui de salute principis vel de summa reipublicæ mathematicos, ariolos, aruspices, vaticinatores consulit, cum eo qui responderit, capite punitur." "Adduntur hæc non tantum divinatione quis, sed ipsa scientia eiusque libris melius fecerit abstinere." Cf. Justin., Apol. i. 44, and concerning the kingdom of Christ, cf. Euseb., Hist. eccl. iii. 20, 6.

they needed and sought. Supported by such a Christianity, the despotism of the world received its final seal. To be sure the emperor as deity was now obliged to give way. But "the God-favored imperial Lord" only shone with the greater glory.'

Emperor and god in one person-this seemed in the second and third centuries the best means for uniting church and state. The state was the world, the emperor's palace was the kingdom of heaven, the emperor was god. Such was the end and aim of this development. And yet this religious monstrosity, this most pitiable of all substitutes for religion, was the bond which for long centuries held the mighty empire together. Inside of this bond the state exercised an almost unlimited toleration of all religions and of all forms of worship; here, however, in the worship of the emperor, was the point where the state made no concessions. Here was the point where the new religion, the faith of the Christian Church, which was as old as the empire, made no concessions.

Jesus sent forth his disciples with the injunction, “Go ye into all the world." Christianity never forgot and could not forget the obligations of its mission to the world. The first followers of Christ had departed from Palestine preaching the doctrines of one God, the supernatural Ruler of the world, the Father of mankind; of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Saviour and King, who founded his kingdom through his life and sufferings, a kingdom which was to extend to the ends of the earth; of his resurrection and of the return of this King in glory for the consolation of his people and for the confounding of all the mighty ones of earth; bearing also the message of the resurrection of the dead and of a blessed immortality.

This preaching was not intended as a protest, much less as a declaration of war against the existing order of things in the

J It is only a surprising caricature of the above-mentioned ideas which has led Bruno Bauer (Christus und die Cæsaren. Der Ursprung des Christenthums aus dem römischen Griechenthum. Berlin, 1877) to the conclusion that Christianity in Rome and in connection with the rise of the empire was originated by Seneca and by kindred spirits at the court of Nero, and that by the reception of Jewish elements it gradually developed into a religion by itself. This truly throws an entirely new light upon "Christianity at the court of the emperors." It is not my purpose in the present essay to enter into any further discussion of this book.