Christian Church and not merely Jewish Christians in the neighbourhood of Palestine), reminds them that the rich blaspheme the good name which Christians bear and drag them before courts of law, but he encourages his readers to endure manifold trials as a testing of their faith (Jas i. 2, 3), using the selfsame phrases which St Peter employs.

The writer to the Hebrews (x. 32) reminds them how in the early days of their Christianity they had been made a spectacle by sufferings, reproaches and afflictions; how they had sympathized with those in bonds and submitted patiently to the plundering of their goods. He urges them to imitate Christ in facing the dangers which are now in store for them. They must accept suffering as a loving chastisement from God, emulating the heroes of faith in the O.T. They have not yet resisted unto blood (xii. 4), but they are bidden to remember those who are in bonds and those who are suffering hardship because they themselves are "in the body" and may therefore ere long share the same fate. This may possibly refer to the Neronian persecution, and in that case is an indication of the way in which it spread into the provinces. In the Apocalypse, whether it refers to the period just after Nero's reign or to the reign of Domitian, we have evidence for a more organized persecution. Many have been slain for the word of God vi. 9, including Antipas at Pergamos ii. 13. Rome is drunken with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus xvii. 6, xviii. 24.

The Attitude of the State towards Christianity.

The policy of Rome towards the subject-nations of the Empire was to allow each of them to retain their own religion on the following conditions: (1) that it was a national religion and was content to take its place side by side with other national religions, without claiming to be absolute, (2) that it did not cause political or other disturbance, (3) that it managed its own religious disputes. Now Judaism did of course claim to be absolute, and repudiated all other Gods than Jehovah as dumb idols, but at the same time it was so intensely national that the Romans not only allowed it toleration but even granted special privileges and exemptions to the Jews.

At first therefore, when Christianity was regarded by Roman

officials, like Gallio, as "a question of words and names and Jewish Law," it shared the same protection as Judaism. On several occasions, as we have seen, the magistrates restrained the attacks made upon St Paul.

In 2 Thessalonians ii. 6, 7 St Paul regards the policy of the reigning Emperor apparently as a restraining influence which makes for toleration.

In Romans xiii. 1-4 he describes civil magistrates as God's delegates for avenging wrongdoing, whose praise may be obtained by doing what is good. Nevertheless there was from the very first an inevitable antagonism between the Empire and the Church. The bigotry of the Jews and their open hostility towards Christians would soon make it obvious that Christianity was no mere sect of Judaism. As an absolute religion which could admit of no compromise with idolatry, no worship of the Emperor side by side with that of Jehovah, it could not fit into the Roman system any more than Judaism. Besides this it was not even a national or hereditary religion but a new "superstition,” which soon came to be regarded as a "pestilent superstition" for various reasons. It claimed to provide a universal bond of brotherhood, higher and more paramount than that of the Empire, whereas under Nero Emperor-worship was steadily growing stronger as the necessary link to unite the many nationalities and many gods of the subject-nations. It also caused divisions in families and interfered with the religious rites which formed so large a part of social and municipal life. In many cases, as at Philippi and Ephesus and afterwards (as Pliny shews) in Bithynia, trades which were connected with idolatry were considerably affected by the spread of Christianity. Again no conscientious Christian could take part in the public games and religious festivals or acquiesce in the criminal profligacy of their neighbours. Consequently Christians came to be regarded as gloomy and morose, "enemies of the human race," or else as officious "busy bodies." Having thus incurred popular odium the Christians would often be compelled to hold their meetings in secret, and the foul imagination of malicious enemies ere long interpreted the Eucharist and Agape or Love Feast as involving cannibalism and incestuous lust. Even as early as St Paul's arrival in Rome the Jews there told him that their only

knowledge of Christianity was that it was everywhere spoken against (Acts xxviii. 22), and according to Tacitus it was because the Christians were already hated by the mob for their supposed crimes, and were regarded as guilty wretches deserving the extremest form of punishment, that Nero a few years later selected them as scapegoats on whom to vent the popular fury and divert suspicion from himself in connexion with the great conflagration in Rome.

From the first therefore Christianity had been an unlawful religion and one which was inevitably in conflict with the state. No official edict was really necessary to legalize the punishment of Christians, and it is quite possible that persecution may have been countenanced in the provinces by some magistrates before the outbreak of the Neronian persecution. Naturally however the policy of Nero in treating Christians as outlaws would be regarded as giving imperial sanction to persecution, and the Emperor's example would soon be widely followed in the provinces. In the Neronian persecution it is disputed whether Christians suffered merely for their religion "as Christians" or only for other crimes which were attributed to them. Some forty years later in the reign of Trajan Pliny, the governor of Bithynia, in his letter to the Emperor shews that he had himself put Christians to death for the name only, if they obstinately refused to recant, and the rescript of Trajan in reply gives imperial sanction to this procedure, implying that it was not necessary to prove any further crime beyond the fact of being a Christian. But Christians, he says, are not to be sought out, and anonymous accusations are not to be accepted. Ramsay however (Church in the Roman Empire, p. 256) argues that punishment for the name of Christian alone was not in vogue until about the time of Vespasian (70--79 A.D.), whereas previously some further crime was always alleged. But there is no sufficient evidence of any such change of policy, and the account of the Neronian persecution given by Tacitus seems most naturally to imply that as early as 64 a.d. Christians in Rome suffered for the name only. The object of Nero, he says, was to divert suspicion from himself of having caused the great fire in Rome. This he could most easily do by shifting the odium on to the Christians who were already generally hated and credited with all kinds of crimes, and as votaries of

an unlawful religion they could be tortured or executed to satisfy the popular thirst for vengeance. Several of those who were first arrested, says Tacitus, "confessed." What was the nature of this confession? Surely not that they were guilty of arson but that they were Christians. The number of victims was extremely large (ingens multitudo), including, according to Clement of Rome, matrons, girls and slaves. Now it is obviously impossible that all of these could have been legally proved guilty of arson, and Tacitus says that they were charged not so much with arson as with "hatred to the human race." This probably refers to their religious views, which made Christians run counter to all the religious ideas, the social festivities, and the moral standard of the times. So also Suetonius in his account of the Neronian persecution says that Christians were punished as votaries of a new and pestilent superstition.

In the light of this evidence for the persecution of Christians both before and during the reign of Nero, we must now consider whether the allusions to persecution in 1 Peter necessarily imply that the Neronian persecution was in progress or even demand a later date.

In i. 6, 7 St Peter describes his readers as having been put to grief for the time being, if so it must needs be, by manifold trials which are a testing of their faith. The keywords of this passage however ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς and δοκίμιον τῆς πίστεως are apparently borrowed from St James, who probably died in 62 A.D. and therefore wrote before the outbreak of the Neronian persecution. Therefore as borrowed by St Peter the words need not imply any persecution organized by the state.

Similarly in iv. 12 the phrase “fiery trial” (πúρwσus) is a metaphor from the refining of gold, like dokimov in i. 7, and does not necessarily refer to death by burning such as was inflicted by Nero.

In ii. 19 Christian slaves are described as suffering unjustly at the hands of capricious masters, but here "suffering" is defined as being "buffeted."

In iii. 14 the possible contingency (ei kaì wáσxoite) of suffering for righteousness' sake is regarded as a blessed thing—with an evident allusion to our Lord's words Mt. v. 10. But such suffering is regarded as by no means inevitable. It may be

I PETER

d

averted by a zealous devotion to what is good (iii. 13). If Christians only maintain a good conscience by persistent good conduct those who revile them will be shamed into silence (iii. 16). Suffering for righteousness' sake therefore is only an uncertain contingency, expressed by the optative which is very rare in the N.T., ei kaì máσɣOTE, "supposing that you should be called upon to suffer," "if God's will should require that of you” (ei déλoɩ iii. 17). In ii. 12 Christians are described as being spoken against as evil-doers or malefactors (κakoтolí), but the spectacle of their good deeds will cause their heathen neighbours to glorify God in "the day of visitation" (see note on ii. 12).

In iii. 9 They are not to requite evil for evil or reviling for reviling.

In iv. 4 Men revile Christians and regard them as fanatics for refusing to join in the profligate excesses of the day.

In iv. 14 It is a blessed thing to suffer reproach in the name of Christ.

In iv. 19 Any who suffer according to the will of God are bidden to commit their lives by doing good to the safe keeping of God as a faithful Creator who may be trusted to guard His own handiwork.

None of the above passages necessarily imply any organized persecution conducted by the state. They might be used of the insults, abuse, social boycotting, unjust accusations, and rough usage such as Christian converts in a heathen country have constantly had to endure. There are however other passages to which Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 280–281, 290-295) appeals as clearly pointing to organized official persecution.

(a) In iii. 15, in a passage dealing with suffering for righteousness' sake, Christians are bidden to be "always ready to give an answer (anoλoyía) to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you." This, says Ramsay, implies persecution after trial and question. Now it is quite true that ȧnoλoyía is used of a legal defence in Acts xxv. 16 and 2 Tim. iv. 16, and such legal defence might be included in St Peter's use of the word. But the words deí "at any time" and Tavri "to any person" imply that the reference is more general, and ảπoλoyía is used in a non-legal sense in Acts xxii. 1 and 1 Cor. ix. 3 and