In the light of these reflections, then, I say that after Christ, as before his day, the kingdom of heaven suffered violence and the violent took it by force.1 How far that violence, as manifested in the persecutions of the first three Christian centuries, was effectual as a factor in causing the destruction of the church is now to engage our attention.
At the outset, however, there is a difficulty I cannot pass without comment—the disagreement of eminent writers on the extent and severity of the persecutions endured by the Christians up to the accession of Constantine to the imperial throne of Rome. On the one hand infidel writers, such as Gibbon and Dodwell, have sought to minimize the suffering of the Christians under the persecutions, and on the other, Christian writers, such as Milner, Paley and Fox, have sought to magnify it. The motive on the part of both infidels and Christians is obvious. The more violent and extensive the persecutions, the more the martyrs, the more glorious the triumph for the church. While on the other hand, if the persecutions can be proven to be limited, the suffering made to appear trifling and the martyrs few in number, the church is robbed of so much of her glory. Doubtless both parties have gone to extremes in the contention. Unfortunately for the Christian side of the controversy, there is much reason for believing that the account of Christian suffering within the period named has been much exaggerated. Their chief authority—Eusebius—has thrown more or less suspicion upon the trustworthiness of all that he has written, by declaring in the opening chapter of his Ecclesiastical History and elsewhere that "Whatsoever, therefore, we deem likely to be advantageous to the proposed subject, we shall endeavor to reduce to a compact body by historical narration. For this purpose we have collected the materials that have been scattered by our predecessors, and culled, as from some intellectual meadows, the appropriate extracts from ancient authors."2
On these passages Gibbon remarks: "The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of religion. Such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history, has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other."3 Draper also refers to the same when, commenting upon the inaccuracies of early Christian writers, he says: "In historical compositions there was a want of fair dealing and truthfulness almost incredible to us; thus, Eusebius naively avows that in his history he shall omit whatever might tend to the discredit of the church, and magnify whatever might conduce to her glory."4
But while it must be conceded that there is much reason for believing that the Christian fathers exaggerated both the extent and severity of those early persecutions, it remains clear that both the extent and severity of them were greater and more baneful to the church than infidel writers allow; and the truth of it may be proven independent of the testimonies of the Christian fathers. The proofs I refer to are the edicts themselves, considered in the light of the well-known cruelty of the Roman people, intensified by the malice of religious zeal aroused to suppress an obnoxious society whose doctrines were held to be destructive of the ancient religion of Rome, and a menace to the existence of the state itself.
Passing by the persecutions inflicted upon the Christians by the Jews, an account of which is to be found in the New Testament, I call attention to the first great pagan persecution under the cruel edict of the Emperor Nero. For our information in respect to this persecution we are indebted not to any Christian writer, but to the judicious Tacitus, whom even "the most sceptical criticism is obliged to respect."5 Nero having set on fire the city of Rome, in order that he might witness a great conflagration, and wishing to divert suspicion from himself, first accused and then tried to compel the Christians to confess the great crime—and now Tacitus:
"With this view he inflicted the most exquisite tortures on those men who, under the vulgar appellation of Christians, were already branded with deserved infamy. They derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius had suffered death by the sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate. For awhile this dire superstition was checked; but it again burst forth; and not only spread itself over Judea, the first seat of this mischievous sect, but was even introduced into Rome, the common asylum which receives and protects whatever is impure, whatever is atrocious. The confessions of those that were seized discovered a great multitude of their accomplices, and they were all convicted, not so much for the crime of setting fire to the city, as for their hatred of human kind. They died in torments, and their torments were embittered by insults and derision. Some were nailed on crosses; others sewn up in the skins of wild beasts, and exposed to the fury of dogs; others, again, smeared over with combustible materials, were used as torches to illuminate the darkness of the night. The gardens of Nero were destined for the melancholy spectacle, which was accompanied with a horse-race, and honored with the presence of the emperor, who mingled with the populace in the dress and attitude of a charioteer. The guilt of the Christians deserved indeed the most exemplary punishments, but the public abhorrence was changed into commiseration, from the opinion that those unhappy wretches were sacrificed, not so much to the public welfare as to the cruelty of a jealous tyrant."6
Eminent scholars are divided in opinion as to whether this persecution under Nero extended to the provinces or was confined to the city of Rome. Gibbon assumes that it was both brief and confined to the city. According to Milman "M. Guizot, on the authority of Suplicious Severus and of Orosius inclines to the opinion of those who extend the persecution to the provinces. Mosheim rather leans to that side on this much disputed question. Neander takes the view of Gibbon, which is, in general, that of the most learned writers."7
This controversy need not detain us a moment. It matters not to my purpose whether the edicts of Nero extended to the provinces or were limited in their operations to the Christians within the capital. The testimony of Tacitus is sufficient to prove, first, that the persecution was general within the city; second its terrible cruelty; and third, the great abhorrence in which the Christians were held by the Romans.
I submit to the consideration of the reader that a people so greatly detested as the Christians, were not likely to meet with gentle treatment from the Romans; and when, as subsequently it came to pass, the people clamored for the sacrifice of the saints whom they abhorred as the enemies of mankind, instead of looking upon them with commiseration as the citizens of Rome did in their persecution under Nero—when the Roman people, I say, clamored for the sacrifice of the Christians and the emperors were cruel enough, and unjust enough to issue edicts for their destruction, the persecutions of those times were neither so limited nor so free from severity as Gibbon and others would have us believe. Even in this persecution under Nero, if no edicts were sent into the provinces commanding the execution of Christians, it is not unreasonable to believe that the despisers of the followers of Christ, finding warrant for their conduct by what was taking place at Rome, under the supervision of the emperor himself, would not hesitate to inflict hardships upon the saints without the formality of his proclamation.
It was this unofficial persecution which, without doubt, arose in the provinces as an indirect result of the persecution in the capital, that has led a number of prominent writers to believe that Nero's persecution extended throughout the empire. However that may be, a "great multitude" suffered in the city of Rome, and were subject to such tortures and cruel modes of death—described, mark you, by the unfriendly Tacitus—that little is left to be added even by the fervid imaginations of the Christian fathers. It is reasonable to believe that the subsequent persecutions were not freer from cruelty than this one under Nero; and therefore, though some allowance must be made for exaggeration in the writings of the Christian fathers, it may be safely concluded that those persecutions which preceded the reign of Constantine were both widespread and horribly cruel.
What is usually denominated the third persecution of the Christian Church occurred in the reign of Trajan, 98—117 A. D. Here, as in the persecution under Nero, we may determine something of the severity and manner of it from a Roman writer. Trajan intrusted the government of Bithynia and Pontius to his personal friend, the younger Pliny. The new governor, in his administration of the affairs of his provinces, found himself perplexed as to what course he should