In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

449 Chapter 1 Christianity and Politics at the Time of the Roman Empire Christianity’s fundamental theological stances in regard to history and temporal power, outlined in the introductory chapter to part 3, would translate into a number of specific political choices. Progressively the church fathers1 established a true political doctrine. It evolved between the time that the church was a persecuted, almost clandestine minority, and the period after the Edict of Milan (313 AD), when it became an official institution of the Empire. I. The Political Attitude of Christians under the Roman Empire A. Christianity and the Imperial Cult Christians, of course, could not accept the imperial cult; their refusal to venerate the emperor as a godputthematoddswiththerestofRomansociety.2 TheophilusofAntioch(d.ca.182or183AD), 1 The expression “church fathers” refers to the ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries of the Common Era responsible for establishing Christian doctrine. The timeframe for the Western “fathers” stretched from the early beginnings of Christianity until Gregory the Great (ca. 600 AD); in the East it extended until the ninth century. The church fathers wrote primarily in Greek and in Latin. They are not to be confused with the “doctors of the church,” fewer in number, who received their title by formal decision of the Magisterium. The doctors can belong to any period. 2 Material in this section is from H.-X. Arquillière, L’augustinisme politique: Essai sur la formation des théories politiques du Moyen Age [Political Augustinism: Essay on the development of political theories in the Middle Ages] (1933; repr., Paris: Vrin, 1972); Jean Sirinelli, “Rome et les débuts du christianisme” [Rome and the beginnings of Christianity], Part Three: The Christian West 450 a converted pagan and bishop of Antioch in 169 AD, categorically outlawed Caesar worship by Christians: Wherefore I will rather honor the king [than your gods], not, indeed, worshipping him, but praying for him. But God, the living and true God, I worship, knowing that the king is made by Him. You will say, then, to me, Why do you not worship the king? Because he is not made to be worshipped, but to be reverenced with lawful honor, for he is not a god, but a man appointed by God, not to be worshipped, but to judge justly. For in a kind of way his government is committed to him by God: as He will not have those called kings whom He has appointed under Himself; for king is his title, and it is not lawful for another to use it; so neither is it lawful for any to be worshipped but God only.... Accordingly, honor the king, but love him, obey him, and pray for him with loyal mind.3 The punishment for refusing to worship the emperor could go as far as martyrdom (see Saint Polycarpus, bishop of Smyrna, ca. 155 or 177 AD). The situation changed as members of the Roman elite converted to Christianity. For them it became necessary to clarify the relationship between loyalty to the church and participation in public life. B. Celsus: Opposition to the Christians Celsus was a second century, anti-Christian polemicist. He is known to us through Origen’s treatise Contra Celsus (248 AD), which quotes lengthy passages from his A True Discourse. Celsus criticized Christians who sought to enjoy the benefits of a Pax Romana, like other citizens , but refused to abide by the associated civil and military obligations. Christian abstention or withdrawal might have been defensible when it was only a tiny sect; but given the increasing number of Christians, and the growing threat from the barbarians, such an attitude was no longer admissible. Once again, the conflict sharpened around the Christians’ refusal to worship the cult of the emperor. In so doing, they isolated themselves from the other citizens and placed everyone at risk of incurring the wrath of the sacred powers. In the opinion of Celsus, their stance threatened the entire Roman community. Christians claimed religious truths known only to them, and foreign to those of the Empire. According to Celsus, the Christian’s loyalty was to these truths, not to the Empire. And this, in his opinion, was treachery. Later Eusebius of Caesarea would claim that a prosecuting magistrate was mistaken when he interrogated and accused a Christian as though he were a spy of some foreign power. In fact, Christian communities increasingly resembled states within a state. Throughout the Roman Empire, Christians were regarded as “barbarians of the interior.” C. Tertullian Tertullian...

Share