fer the fll ofthe Roman Empte in the West, there sll remained an adversary of immense strength the astern Empire and its absolute master, Justinian, who again wanted to unite Pyar and Inert iv 2 single person. The steuggle was 08 agian a sate Church, andthe Church’ fcedom had its up and downs, But the very violence of the states blows agaist the ‘Church raised up thinkers whose courage has yet wo be surpassed. ‘The Chuch cleaned during the vcisitudes of history the prime Principle of hee Master: she triumphs through suffering. Tels chapter is enided “Rome and Constantinople’ it shows the Church's freedom dying in the state prisons of Constantinople Nevertheless, the victor lay with he papacy, with the Wes, fom which the modern world stems. The ecclesasial polices of the suffering Church of this period resulted ina histori victory. Pope Gregory I looked tothe new Germanic states on their Way 104 facure of immense importance and le the Bast is own esc Pope Nicholas I at the dawn ofthe Middle Ages took up agsin the old struggle forthe Chucch's freedom which further strained the lender es between the Eastern and Western Churches, With his leer which i redolent of the spirit of Rome embed with Christianity, we bring our series of texts to an end. Ie isan epilogue by 2 Roman Pope to the history of Roman fcedom baptized Christian resounding withthe ideas of Pope Geass Teechoes the words of ene of those defenders of liberty during che aruggle with Emperor Justinian: Let us ten to the song oF Cristian Feedom, calling ts, ringing all about us fom times Hugo Rahner, SJ Innsbruck, Aurumn 1960 CHURCH AND STATE IN THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS Second and Third Centuries ‘HAs OFTEN HEE sD that the Church surrendered es [erie ie we nn proton afc by the sate at the moment in 31 hen the Emperor Constantine grated ber toleration and edo, Iris oo ta vasa ep, bevy wth comequenees turende ightheatdly che fiedom of thease the marys in Orde to become wth the wi poe of ew dca tony Gatch copied bythe ate Footing inthe pop opt the prea, he yraty ofthe le Roman Ente hidden under the doak of lig, Bur chaeopin: give mistaken vw ofthe ration betwen ste and Chutch aledy enabled in the ft thee entries of the Christian ea To character the changed condos unde “HL von Cameras, mbit Mail al Kichepiher Bin and Leipng, 1920), ps 33%, Ulta works in Enlsh forthe whole period Dake 196 (FX. Fok, Paes Apes Tabane, 190 Ferland mate #8 (PL 15700) Spe 10 (PL 2.43). > Annes 1.44 *Ongen, Cant Cebon 8 (GCS, Orgs 2.22228). a ‘THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS 3 In response these views its worthwhile to make quit clear with documentation that the problem ofthe relationship between (Church and state had already found a balanced Christian solution in the age of the marty.” Certainly, in this period the prob- leen had not yet been considered from every point of view, since the crucial dffculry appeared only ater, when the Church found bhrslf facing a state converted to Christianity and had to defend hrer fredom not agains violent persecution but aginst che inter- ference of an all-powerfal protector. But the postion of the ‘Church on ths question daring the age of the martyrs was aleady mature and clear, Only from these fst premises, rightly evaluated, can We understand the later development: the constant atizade of the Church, despite disappoinements with her protector, was a continual and unsparing strugele agsnst an omnipotent sat. ‘The basally Christin conception ofthe sate 25 we find itin the sources of the early Church from Tiberius to Constantine can be correctly defined only if one takes into account the variations in the Church's reply of yes and no to the state. The Church has never confronted the sate with a no of inflexible refusal dicated by an otherworldly mysticism or with a yes of unqualified aceptance ‘based on politcal indiference. The Church ofthe martyrs, with a sure politica instinct illumined by grace, knew how to finda balance ‘beewcen yes and no. Thus she could shout her no to the absolutist, state of imperial tyranny and yet whisper a yes formed by lips {quivering in death tothe same state ai persecuted the Christians: this marks 2 turning point inthe history ofthe human race. Let us begin with the no of Christians tothe state. It is based, for soit sems,on the very nature of Christianity 2 religion of “kingdom not of this world” Jn 18:36). This no is comprehensible inthe period that opened with the Hames of human torches lit by the persecution of Nero and ended withthe bloodshed ordered by Dioeetian The Church continually opposes any state that wishes ro build The sandard book in Englih onthe age of the matty it W. H.C: rend, Manprdom and Prston nh Eary Chach(Oxfor,1963).4 CHURCH AND STATE, ‘only in this work a kingdom of definitive happines or in absolut fashion secs to force religion into a legal system that alone has fll jurisdiction, The teaching and life of the God-Man constitute a ‘unique no, sealed by his redemptive death, to the politicized religion of late Judaism, with its hope fixed on the realization of an earthly kingdom. The postion of Christ before the de facto power of the Roman Empire is clear in his shrewd distinction between God and Caesar (Mt 2221) and in his reply to the imperial magistrate during his trial: "You would have no power ‘over me, unless it were given to you from above” (Jn t9:n). He had ‘warned his apostles that the Church would soon have to say her no to the “world” of judges and kings (Me ro:8), and he had bound her to reply no tothe tate, to which no power i granted from on high over and agains che Church, which Christ had willed to be recognized asthe sphere ofthe true worship of God. The apostles ‘repeat this no both tothe Jewish theocracy (Acts 4:19; $29) and t0 the Babylon ofthe Roman sate ruled by Nero and Domitian (Acts 17.6), Since then the Church has never forgotten this no, However, this denial of the state calls for farther analysis It has its roots, at does Jewish apocalyptic literature, in the lively conviction, drawn from divine revelation as presented in the Old Testament, of an invitation addresed to all mankind to join ina kingdom already on its way, where the Mesiah alone ‘would reign in peace and justice. Therefore, a person alert to revelation could never fll inder the total control ofthe despotic state such a6 the Hellenistic era had established, especially in the Eat, since for such a person the state and political life always remained something essentially temporary and secondary. Thus the Apocalypse of Baruch reveals the distust of an opponent cof any state aspiring to absolutism: "We see the vainglorious power of pagan king: as they deny the goodness of God from ‘whom comes their power, but they will disappear like a passing cloud” This rejection of the great states of the East is found * Apo Sag; ee HLL, Stack sad P,Bilbeck, Kemmemr zum Now ‘Tenmuem 3 (Munich, 1926), p. 90 ‘THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS. s too in the book of Daniel and in the age of the Maccabecs. Tris not by chance tht she pictures of the young men inthe fiery fumae, of Daniel in the ons den, and of the Macabee brother: were the favorites of the Church of the catacombs Inthe early Chureh there was a lively awarenes that Christians presated & common front with these figures in the stugale 2eaint rcligious despotism, which spread from the Hellenistic ast and conquered even the Roman Empire when the Caesars, came tobe die "Added wo this was the young Church’s experience of sporadic perceution and of threecenturieslong ate of egal uncertainty, ‘which naualy produced a general attitude of hoslity toward the state, One can easly understand how the Reman Empize Ircame for many the embodiment of everything opposed 10 Chrsianity, the fist inearnaion ofthe Antichrist The beast of Daniel’ vison represented fori ist Christian exegee, Hipplyts ‘of Rome, che image ofthe Roman Empire: “The fourth beast, at once terrible and wonderful, has ion teeth and bronze claws. ‘Wht ist but Rome? For ion isthe power ofthe presen ate” For Hippolytus the Roman state, with is impressive unity, was the exact stanic counterpart of Christian unity, of the “oyal ‘ace of Christians: The Lord was bor in the swlth year of Cae August ‘oom gtr om Rama ps ex fone brtrogh capone te Lorde sl people and $tongos sd formed the Chrian peopl royal ae, he peop mio bs now tame, Thre, he copie of th Would, which ls soording othe power of Stn, eto Tn wand stro el de ob ofall the nas, tric ams for tan ale Romans, orth exon Fis cn of Roman tes ook pr wnder August when the Lords born Bech othe people ths word mbt by an excl King could cll themes Romans alow who have Bh in heaven King wood ber te De Chane Ancien 25 (GCS, Hippel 1.2785-17.6 (CHURCH AND STATE name of Chris, crying on thee foreheads the sgn of victory cover death. Inthe documents of the Church ofthe martyrs, we rarely hear se stn 3 denial ofthe state and such a surprising awarenes of an autonomous Christian political order, but thes statements call for ‘comment and cannot be glossed over. Must one sce in this attitude only a delayed echo of the fervent expectations ofthe frst Chris- tians raised by the weakness of the Syrian line of emperors a the beginning ofthe third century, and consequently would we have here the first indication that the courage of the Christians 10 assume responsibility forthe civil government was evealed only ‘when the civil power weakened? Do we have hete the expression of an impotent longing or a weary denial of people who fixed their eyes on the hereafter and, seeing the state only a5 the “work of Satan’, accepted is existence patiently and humbly asa cross to bbe borne? To answer yes to these questions would certainly be 2 mistake; this can be proved by recounting the history of the ‘Christian yes tothe tate. But certainly these factors were presen, and they help explain why the Christianity of che first two ‘centuries made such a socially repellant impression on the Roman supporters ofthe state. One has only to readin Tertullian how the Christians defended themselves against the charge of being unfit for society: “You regard us as 2 human herd cut off from other ‘people."" "The pagan protagonist in the dialogue of Minutius Felix indicted the Chrisians as “a shadowy and cunning race, silent in public but chattering in lonely corners"? There is cleatlythetorical exaggeration her, and ths was certainly not the ‘ase forthe Church ofthe third century, but this much atleast is true: a sense of oppression weighed upon Christianity, and its cause was the omnipotent state. One must take this into careful consideration when reading the criticisms of a patriot lke Celsus, ‘who reproached Christians for being a mob of revolutionaries, "© Comment ix Daniel 49 GCS, Hips 11.206-8) ipa 3h (CSL 6.8.2. Can #(CSEL 3.191 ‘THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS 7 but this situation enables one to understand the strength of Christians, who despite everything sought to profer a friendly yesto the sate. Howeves, we can see the deeper reasons for the no of the ancient Church to the state if we consider the way in which the civil authority held the religious power in subjection. This ‘was in direct contrast to the fundamental concep ofthe Christian Tait, and the politcal no ofthe Chorch ofthe martyrs was directly based on is theology. "The first point to considers the conviction, taken for granted by the Roman state and buttresed by ideas drawn from the ancient Italic peoples and from Hellenism, that to the state in the person ofits hea, the emperor, belonged the right to regulate every aspect of religious life Inthe period of the ancient Italic people, the king as patriarch of the community was a the same tie the bearer of priestly powers and functions. Although his religious functions were soon taken over by a college of press, the Roman priests til late in history lived in the Repia, the dwelling ofthe ancient Roman kings, a symbol that they regarded themselves always and only 2 the spiritual servants ofthe state. I was a clever ploy of Augustus religious policy to restore the “primitive order” by joining the dignity of Pontifex Maximus to the princpate in 12 8.¢. From then on his imperial succesors always remained the “Supreme priests” of the official Roman religion and had authority over the functions reserved to the tate andthe politcal order, inclading the regulation of religious worship ‘The emperor was the supreme priest; Christians had to come to terms with this realty. Though one mast admit that chi office of supreme priest became in time a purely honorific il, the claim that to the state was confided the prerogative of regulating the religious life of subjects could expect nothing but a clear denial from Christians, who had but one supreme Priest whose functions lived om in theit bishops. ‘A second point is the fact that, already undes Julius Caesar, there existed a eligious curent, owing from the Hellenistic East of Alexander the Greats successors, of the cult ofthe emperos, the8 (CHURCH AND STATE worship of the Basileus asthe sacred savior of his subjects. The emperor was the power of God made visible, was God himself, ‘as the emanation of the "just and immortal thought” of the Divinity, at one can read in the classic monument of emperor worship erected by Antiochus IV Commagene. All these currents ‘of thought flowed, atthe time of Augustus and under his careful supervision, into the official religion of the Romans. The ancient Tlic representation of the genius (the guardian spiit) of the ‘emperor, of his good daimon, which epitomized his bility vo rule, ‘merged increasingly with the Eastern mysticism of the “immortal thought of God”, whose herald was the emperor himself. The dead emperor was “consecrated” and assumed among the gods ‘during solemn session ofthe Senate. From Septimius Severus on, even the living emperor was adored as God, and the sun worship of Aurelian, like the identification of Diocletian with Jupiter, was the las fearful corruption of a religion become merely political atthe end of the pagan empire. Certainly, it ean be shown that Some elements of Western Roman thought were opposed to this orientalizing, and this is one of the roots ofthe development of the freedom of the Western Church, (Opposed othe reterve of Tiberius, who consecrated his prede~ ‘exstor August but dd not wane divine honor fo himself while Alive, was the manifer folly of Gaius, whose pretentions ro be the incarnation of various gods were surpssed only by Com ‘modus. That thesck mind of Nero found something attractive in the extreme forms of the imperial cut i understandable. From Nerv onthe consecration ofthe dead emperor became the rule. Historians se inthe fat that Domitian bad himself ad- Adreued at Dominus in Rome and Ialy the expresion of ‘despotism hitherto unheard of. But Domitian as also the fist emperor tose competition inthe God-King ofthe Christians. In the pretence of this unhealthy amalgam of religion and politics, the Christian no was summed up in two sentences repeated 23K, Premm, “Heracetksle und Neves Teement Bilin 9 (1928! ca ‘THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS: 9 with an almost monotonous regularity: We do not pray to che emperor as god, and we donot swear by the ges ofthe emperor. ‘Te reson for this was thatthe gods wece regarded as demons, the works ofa spirit contrary to God, against whom the empire of Christ was at war fom the very begining, and the genus of Caesar was 4 demon, a nonenity before the divine power of Christ, bat a dengerous nonentty. “What is wrong with saying the emperor is Ky and with ths statement saving your li™ theimperial magistrate asked Bishop Plycarp, but che martyr did not deig to reply. The humble Chrsian Speratus of Seilium in Ais answered the order ofthe judge to swear by the protec tive genius of Caesar “Tan never recognize deified emperor on this earth; [serve the God whom the human eye has never seen ror can ever." Bot the Christian no found is most wuching ‘xpresion i the words with which the martyr Lucius welcomed hisseneence to death: “For dhs hank you, for you fee me from the hands ofan earthly tyrant and allow me to return to the house of ny Fates, who i Emperor in heaven.” ‘Now we ae in positon to understand th documents of aly CChnianity that ae collected here and to laen abit more ofthe no addresed tothe state by the Church of the marys. Among. theists the apologist Justin, who from Rome about the year 30, addressed 2 defense of Christianity to the Emperor Antoninus Pius and his adopted son Marcus Aurelius. As Justin speaks ofthe loyalty of Christians tothe stat, he adds too courageous rc (Document 2) and forthe fest cme in extebibial lnerature reports those words of the Lord that have hada historic impor- tance lasting vo ove own day: "Give co Caesae whats Caesar's but 1 Gol wht i Gods” Though oat the sae, be ies with great laity: We pray ony to God. Justin goes onto reall 0 the ner depos th responsi befne God ad the ete: tal fs prepated for bad emperors. 8 Mary olpa 8(KopKroge, Angele Mane [Tokinge, 9 19. 1 a alana 6 (Kopp, pc. 29). any ela etc 9 opera op. 8)10 ‘CHURCH AND STATE Under the Emperor Commodus (180-02), who was strangled by 4 gladiator after amusing himself with his own defication, Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, published a new defense of (Christianity (Document 3), and the full weight of what he says of the imperial cut ean be understood only in the light of the caricature ofa head of state to whom itis addresed. However, ‘Theophilus speaks with dispassionate tact and with respect for the imperial dignity that even Commodus could not sully. In the year 197 there arose the first Latin voice to defend the freedom of the Christians. And what voice! I was tha of the lawyer Tertullian of Carthage, who hurled his strong defense of| CChristiniey, the Apology, full of blazing sarcasm, ata listening world, Init Tertllian countered the accusation of treason leveled against Christianson the basis of the lex Julia majestatis. In order to understand Terullia’s arguments, one must remember that in common with the philosophy of the time and with the oldest Christin theology he regarded the pagan gods only a historical heroes superstitious deified, indeed, as dead men without stength who could at the most fi about as evil spicits to harm others. Moreover, he regarded the emperor only human. In his defense, there is evident 2 certain Christian democracy, or, better, the residue ofthe ancient pride ofthe Roman citizen who dared to say te the emperor: You too ate only mortal. He would not call the emperor god because the unique greatness of che emperor in the social scale of the empire, of which no one was prouder than ‘Tertullian, rested on the fact that, though the emperor was less than the heavens, he was immediately under God. The Christian apologist took up again in a new and more profound fashion the ancient Roman cry—comember death—which as shouted at the emperor on the most important occasion of his political ie, his triumphal procession om his return from bat ‘Terulan's tough and slashing defense went unheeded. The per- secution launched by his fellow-counteyman the African Emperor Septimius Severus aimed a¢ rooting out Christianity completly. Baptism and conversion to Christianity were forbidden. As the persecution raged, many Christians thought the Antichrist present ‘THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS ” and the end ofthe world near, “to such an extent had the pers tion upset the minds of the masse", wrote Eusebius.” In this miliew should be included the sermon of the priest Hippolytus of Rome, which was preached during the Severan persecution and forms a parc of his commentary on the book of Daniel (Document 5). The Church had descended into the catacombs, and what Hippolytus says of Daniel in the lions den and ofthe three young men inthe fiery furnace seems 2 commen tary on the simple pictures with which the Christians decorated tombs of the martyrs, Again one hears the Lord's words: jive to Caesar what is Caesar's" and “No one can serve two masters.” Ina lively dialogue the preacher urges bis Cristians to oppote the unjust power ofthe state and exhorts them “not to follow indiscriminately the orders of mere men"; he recommends _aholy prudence, since “itis sweeter for us o di than to do what ‘men command”. His sermon concludes with a hymn of the other- worldly feeedom of Christians, whom God das from the lions den of political slavery to led into life eternal. Aer this storm, the Church enjoyed a period of peace under ‘the weak rule of the Syrian emperors. The Church entered an era of vigorous expansion, and some of her lesrned men, especially ‘Origen of Alexandeia, had some influence on the imperil court itself. For the frst time Christian thought dealt theoretically with the problem of Church and stat; the commentary on the Letter to the Romans written by Origen in 244 is 2 significant text (Document 6). I takes up again the ever relevant question: How can a state that persecutes the Church derive its authority from God? Throughout Origen’s reply one senses both his recognition of the state and his care a8 a pastor © reinforce clearly the Cristian no to the state, avoiding al other merely political impl- cations that could enter ino it ‘A few years later the whole empire celebrated the millennium ‘of Rome's foundation. Again clouds began to gather around the now increasingly powerful Church; there was growing desir to "Hie Bl 67(GCS, Eee 234128).2 (CHURCH AND STATE cement the empire’ politcal unity witha religious unity based on the revived worship ofthe gos. The terror ofthe Decian perceu- tion loomed on the horizon. Thea Origen wrote his book aginst the atacks leveled by the pagan philosopher Celus a decade before. One ofthe most serious charges was that ofthe Christians treason, of ther secret dream of an empie yet to come, oftheir refusal to swear by the genius of the emperor. Origen faced all his ina spirit of eautious speriorty (Document 7). We hea again the hymn eo Christian freedom in which he refuses any rcogniion of the emperor’ divinity. But we heae too the solute no agains the sate becoming a humble yes tothe eros of perscution through hich Christ had vietorotsly overcome the world. For the Church of the martyrs, therefore, the denial of the tte vas upheld—always with a wanguil smplcty-only when the core of the Fath demanded it and when there was a danger of undermining the loyaly toa heavenly kingdom, co the kingdom of the only Lord, whom a Christian of the period called the “otherworldly Emperor". Whatever ese the Church had to sy t0 che sae was summed up in an unconditioned yes. “The Christian yes to the state was based on the ides, forma- Ind clesey right from the beginning, chat the imperial power, 3, it was embodied inthe person ofthe emperor, descended dicey from the Creator of mankind. Proof ofthis are the case words ofthe two greatest apostles Peter and Paul—which afm this view so steongly that some have considered them a toublesome and forcign clement inteded ito the New Testament, otherwise so hostile tthe state. That this opinion s wrong is apparent rom Areview ofthe theology ofthe ltr portions ofthe Ol Testament, ‘wher, fr example, in the books of Dail (2:37) and of Wisdom (62), the power of rulers is derived from God: Pal’ comments an the sate do not dfer from these Old Testament views, which Origen, inthe period immedisely preceding the Deianpesceu tion includes in his commentary on the Letter to the Romans (Document 6). From the answers of Christians who feed the Roman court and refused to worship the emperor without ea of capital punishment, we can perceive che catechetial teaching of ‘THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS B the ancient Christians, to whom loyalty to the state was taught in ‘out Lord’s words—to give to Caesar what is Caesa’s—and in the statement of the Fist Leer of Peter—to honor the emperor but to fear God, This was true of the humble Christian Donata of Scilliam in Africa, who said during her trial, “Thonor the emperor ‘because he is emperor, but worship can be given only to God."® It is crue also of the senator Apollonius in Rome, who testified before the prefect Perennis in language redolent of Platonism: “The Logos Jesus Christ has taught us o fulfill the lw that he has given ono th emperor bu fe ony hin wh lone “The documents of the Church ofthe martyrs clearly indicate 2 theologically based acceptance ofthe state. Clement of Rome has left ws the oldest text—a prayer for the emperor and the state appended to his letter to the Church of Corinth. In these words the Church of Rome prayed for the Roman Empire during the cucharstie service. The circumstances surrounding the letter are as follows: Clement wrote around 96 during the last days of Domixans rule. Domitian was an emperor whose despotic charac- ter even Roman historians desribed with horror. According t0 Suetonius, “Any attitude or the slightest remark opposed 10 his imperial majexy provided the occasion for execution or exil."® If this was the time that the book of Revelation was written, with its vision of the state drunk with blood, i ial the more remark- able that at Rome Clement's tiny persecuted Church prayed, “Make us obedient both to your almighty and glorious name and toll who rule and govern us on earth. For you, Master... have given them ¢heir sovereign authority...” (Document 1). This text rightfully takes frst place in our collection, fori isthe best, indication ofthe loylty of the eaely Church t the sate, even t02 persecuting state. All subsequent texts repeat this teaching in accordance with the belie that all political power that is truly Sas Siena 9 (Koop Knope op- ct 20 1 Aan Apolo 37 (KnopEKruger, op. i, P- 3 Yu Cae, 14 CHURCH AND STATE civil authority is willed by God. “We gladly serve you, ack- nnowledging you as emperors and sovereigns” (Document 2) “The emperor is appointed by (God]* (Documents). “We must respect him, since he has been chosen by God, such chat 1 can truly say that he is more our emperor than yours for our {God has appointed him” (Document 4). One recognizes Roman patriotism in the words of Origen when he admits that he ould not read without emotion St. Pauls phrase that the state is the “servant of God” (Document 6) and when, with an al together modern touch, he neatly distinguishes between nature fand grace, between state and Church, while speaking of the ‘moral duties of the state, which has received its authority from God, thus in many ways relieving the Church of the tsk of judging acts against natural morality. In this view is rooted the fact that even in the age of the martyrs the Church was always favorable to the state and its protection because state and Church were linked together by the one God, who is both, Creator tnd Redeemer "who makes kings and unmakes them” (Docu- ‘meat 7) “The eatly Church’ basically positive view of the state extended fom purely theological base social and even political collabo- ration with the sate. According to the pattioticatcitude of the ‘Christan martyrs, the Roman Empire had received its world- cencompasing power from Divine Providence in order to prepare the way for the saving teaching of the Redeemer. Peshaps the proudest words in the mouth of a Roman Christian are those of| (Origen in his book againse Cesus: In the days of Jesus Chris, justice and fllnes of peace came to be joined a is birth. God prepared the people fr his teaching and brought about tha all Were united under the cue of one Roman emperor. Ie would not have been right ro have had a mukiade of kings Because chen the nations would have remained Strangers to one another, and the command of Jesus to the “postes—go and tach all nations would have been dificult to accomplish. The birth of Jesus occurred, as is known, under the rule of Augustus, who united the immense number of ‘THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS 5 persons living on earth into one people by means of one Empire! ‘Augustus as emperor prepared the way for Chris; the state isan ido the Church; here are the beginnings of ideas that will have a ature of historic significance. What is even more surprising is that teen in the second century the early Church had the courage to fren these radical ideas tothe emperor hinvel. I his apology redo Marcus Aurelius, Melito of Sardis in Asia Minor wrote: Cur gon as ped rng the glorious rule of your 9 eno otering the mi of your peopl ESGSSeie tapes and suc sl who have gone before deere Est ine te Roman power rs Up i great Peo In pleaor Now you ae the oteamed emperors yOu 2 on ad you can ein, nthe hope tha Yo $a lipon, wh bs grown slong se mpe tego by Aopen Such ideas expressed during the ecigns of Marcus Aurelius, who despised Christianity, nd of his depraved son Commodus revel ‘oneansic longing rather than ceaitic political jadgment. But the fature belonged t tis pride of the Christians in Rome. ‘Morcover, for the theology of che early Church, the empire wwasa factor predetermined by God, vital not only forthe begin ting of Chestianity but also for the last days of humanity. Cer- tuly in the worst period of persecution under Septimus Severus i the beginning ofthe cird century, Hippolytus of Rome had thought that the reign of Antichrist would be the lat flourishing period of the empire founded by Augusts. His contemporary FFerellian thought more calmly, in Roman fashion, s0 to speak. He held the opposite opinion, that che Roman Empire, being the ‘vehicle of God's revelation of his Son, would lat till the end of the world, Not until the empie fell would the Antichrist appear. Here again faith was joined to Roman patriotism, and Christians 2 Conta Cm 230 (GCS, Ongenestysha~n) 22 Baggs Hit al. 426 (CCS, Exar 18)6 (CHURCH AND STATE accepted the stat, asisted is progres, treasured it in their moral life, im their prayers in their social ideals, because the tate kept at bay the fearful day of universal upheaval. Tertullian wrote in 212 to the brutal proconsul Scapula, who condemned Christians to burning or the beasts, ‘A Christan is an enemy to 90 one, much les othe emperors fhe knows the emperor was raied up by God) therelore, 2 Christian honors him, eevers him, favors him, and hopes for his preservation along with ll che empize 3 lng asthe world lass In fat, the world will ls only a long as the empire. We hhonor the emperor to the degree permitted tous and necessity for him, 262 man whois second only to God, who i protected bby God, and whois therefore inferior only to God." ‘These words cy wht Tellsn axgusin is“Apolgy” (Doe tnt a hat Chins estan the imminent alge Of he word bcs hey pray for Rome and enduring pepe. This wate at of he carly Church's concen hats as the most vigorous apport of the ste The east Chetan apologist, Arties of Athen, wrote the Emperor Han ave no doubt tit only he prayer of Christian ep the wot alve2™ Some two decade ater Juin caimed, “only i the humble race of Christin tat God finds the reason for allowing ntte to cotnac snd this dys the collapse of the world" "The serie tht the epic eneed the Cah by helping ec spread was arpy repeid by the service that te CCristans gave thei homlan “You, Site, hve no pan aly forthe prosetion ofthe empite more vase an we Chrsian."* The sme bows, proud though, hanble, was speed by Origen Doctmene 7 “The people of God. proere th order ofthe world This was done by mens of peer the Pe, power prayer of Chrisan, “We pray for the ono, Ad Seplam 2 (PL 1,703 2 Apel. 66 (Bh der Kishen t2[Musich, 91) 95) 2B ibid. 29 (Oto, Copa dplotonm 14216). 2th. (Oo, opt nt). THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS ” imperial mini, and ofc, forthe protein ofthe word, far peace among hans in oreo dey the en ofthe worl”, wero Terlan2” The prayer Pro Slat Inger 0g the oldest texts ofthe ly, The detent of Chiat centnvlly enphasied that the emperor, by percting the Grins ile he very persons whe payed no vou for the ste In 352 Dionysos of Alexandra woot of Emperor Gallas "Heventenced wo exe the ly pris ccsomed pray to God for pence and welling, Tho he rove ay athe Sine ine payers offered fx hake" The mordan mockery el alan ws inte dann only the eteme exes of the Christan? love for thar mterland: “Kind ale torture the sol fom the ody that prays forthe erpere” [Docent ‘Another pltcl conviction ofthe ely Church shold be incladed at his pon bese ese the extent #0 which Crs le at hex proper home was inthe Roman Empire tn understood er own expla oe within Ie pola ttlecton of Orgs that ar no ounterparin ancient Chan Ireatue He contas the imperial offical wt he Bishops and ede of the loa church, whom he sears a moc of rune goverment and pola wadon: Th heey God which rah by she sme Maser nd ‘Teacher, Christ, when compared withthe communities in which they live asin foreign lands are like sarin the night, And if you compare the coundl of the Church of God with the ‘council of any city, you will find among the councilors of the ‘Church mare tan one who deserves to gover a cty of God”, ‘while the councilors ofall other places do not show in their conduct any quality that would allow them w cim that preeminence tht their official duties would sem to demand. From such a statement it is clear that even from the third century the Church of the martyrs began to claim equality with P Bid. 392 (CSEL 6 946-8). Ebi Hi. Bet 1 (GCS, Baca 2,6,13-16) Cone Gam 329 (GCS, Orgs 13751)pee (CHURCH AND STATE the empire. The Roman authors on thie side ad exacly the same impresion; they began to ake stock of the Catholic Church aa great power. Consequently, we ean speak of the relations that bound Church and sate together inthe third century, since only in ths way can one understand exactly how it happened that only a few decades later the Church entrusted herself to the empire of | Constantine freely bur dangerously. She did not act withthe weakness ofa lepwalker but with a consciousness and clrity of Purp foered by principles found tobe jie nthe ge ‘The imperial ladies of the Syrian dynasty were pleased to invite th theologian Origen to their cour at Antioch Infact, Origen exchanged lees with Emperor Philip the Arab (244-49) Credence was even given to the try tht this emperor seriously asked wo be accepted among the catechumens and pethaps even © Patticipate in the Easteon Christian liturgy: "But this was not permitted by the Bishop [of Rome], until he confsed his sins and sxood among the sinners who were restricted to the places reserve for penitent, and Philip promptly obeyed and revealed in his actions the sincerity of his flings of devotion”! Even though this is ony a ater highly exaggerate legen, ic was significant gogo of caging tines he Roman enpo athedoos of the Church the tt amo tents. The Emperor Maximinus the Thracian had the seamen fo see ts whe he ned the perro of Crisis 25-38) the led of he Chuch the bishops. Cyprian of Carthage, contemporary of this perseeu: fon, in exc of 21, eerie the impesion that the Ronan ‘Church, united under her bishop, made on an emperor who sought to bring about Roman national unity by coetcion of conscience and unifiaton of religions We oughe sly to acknowledge and heartily proclaim: Bishop Comets [of Rome] occupied his episcopal see at time when a hostile eyrant was making threats of punishments posible and imposible against God's priests Yee the emperor admitted thst Bebin, His Ea 634 (GCS, Babi 2.58), ‘THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS: 19 he would have recived moe clmly and tranuilly the news of rival emperor than the report ofthe recent election of another bishop of Rome, Comelas it defeated with a bishop's strength the eyrant who ister did in bare by force of arms." Historic words pope and emperor 3t war; victory of the Church through suffering ‘We know that immediately after the death of Decis, in the fist yeas of the reign of Valerian, the palace at Rome became a real “Church of God”, so fll was it ofthe fihful. A few years Tater we have evidence for the fist time of a letter sent by a Roman emperor directly to the bishops of the Catholic Church Emperor Gallienus (260-68) in a eseript abrogated the decrees by which Church property had been confiscated under Decis: have ordered that any kindly abrogation be published throughout the world. Consequently, your placrs of worship have recently ben restored t you. You may also ue my eescript to prevent any farther disturbances against you."® Ie was a foreshadowing of the future, the first edice of toleration of the Church by the Roman state, Again, under Emperor Aurelian (270-75), who attempted to rebuld the religious unity of the empire around the cult ofthe invincible sun seasoned with Platonic thought, che Church turned tothe state forthe first time requesting help om a purely eclsiastcl mater. Inthe reat Easter city of Antioch, Bishop Paul of Samosata, deposed for heresy, had refused to sursender the cathedral. “Then the Church eurmed to Emperor Aurelian, who justly decided the question and ordered that the house of God be turned overt the bishop, who was in commun- ion with the bishops of Rome and Italy. Ie was thus tht the above-mentioned Pau, to his intense shame, was expelled from the Church by the civil power” This was again an event ‘reynant with possibilities forthe Future: the state became helper ‘of the Chureh, the servant of God, as St.Paul sid. The Church 2% Bp. 5.9 (CSEL 3630). 2Eebiy Hi Be 7.5 (GCS, Eni 3,666,619). Ibi 730 (GCS, Easebis 2.7143-9).20 (CHURCH AND STATE and the state were drawing together, even the last great persecu- tions under Diocletian and Galerius could not prevent this union. ‘When Galerius lay dying, he issued the fst edit of toleration to the Eastern Church (April 31), 2 document grudgingly conceded by a sae defeated by the obstinacy of che Church. The emperor permitted them “to live again 25 Cl their meeting places on the condition chat they commit no act contrary 10 the established order”. This restriction was not necessary forthe Christian; they had learned during three centu- ries t recognize in the state a divine ordinance, even when it persecuted them, and o pray forthe emperor of Rome. Galerius acknowledged the victory of the Church ofthe marcyrs by end- ing his edict “In consequence of this and in accordance with the indulgence we show them, the Christians must intercede with thei God for our health and welface, for the empire, and for themselves so that the integrity of the state may be reestablished everywhere and that they may ead peaceful lives in their homes.” ‘Origen allowed himself briefly to dream of a Rome completely Christian (Document 7). But in the end he rejected the thought: “A-community like that is tually impossible among mankind 2s long at men are clothed in earthly bodies” There remained the obligation of the Church to answer either yes to the state, ‘without giving in completely, since the political fe of Christians is anchored in heaven, of no, which must never degenerate into a total denial of the state, since it too comes from the hands of the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ‘The Christian service to the state consists in preserving its greatness while considering it inferior to God: “Greats the emperor, ‘hough les than heaven." Origen gave expresion to this view at the end of his book aguinst Celsus in words that two centuries before Augustine evoked the vision ofthe City of God in heaven and on earth: "Christians are of greater benefit to their homeland than are other citizens. They 3te instructive models for other Lacatag, De Mo 345 (CSEL 2722) 9 Coa Coin 837 (GES, Origen 2.280 and to reconstruct” ‘THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS a céxizens inasmuch a8 they teach loyalty to God, who is above the tate. Thus they eacry ther fellow-citizens with them toward 3 fesvenly city divine and mysterious, provided that they live in thi cathy city morally good lives Ii sudo these Christians: ‘Come then, you have been faithful ina smal city, enter now into the great City." Det 874 (GCS, Orgs 2a