** Евсев. V, 23–25.

*** Op. cit. S. 273–274.

**** Les Chretiens dans l'empire Romain. P. 80, 110.

______________________

Но прежде чем успокоиться на этом результате и объявить его церковно–исторической истиной, следует рассмотреть очень важное явление, характеризующее это царствование и доставившее печальную память правлению Севера в церковной истории. Говорим об одном указе, изданном Септимием в 202 году и считающемся обыкновенно в ряду мероприятий, весьма враждебных положению христианства в римском государстве. Закон, о котором мы говорим, не дошел до нас не только в его целом виде, но даже не сохранился хотя бы в несовершенном перифразе. Церковные историки не упоминают о нем ни одним словом. И однако же, такой закон действительно существовал. На него встречаем самое ясное указание у древнего биографа Септимия Севера — у Спартиана (писавшего во времена Диоклетиана). Этот писатель говорит:"Проезжая Палестиной, Север издал весьма многие законы. Под угрозой тяжких наказаний он запретил делаться иудеями (переходить в иудейство); то же постановил и касательно христиан"(in itinere Palaestinis plurima jura fundavit. ludaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit. Idem etiam de christianis sanxit)*. До последнего времени этот закон Септимия рассматривался в качестве враждебного шага римского правительства в отношении к христианам (Неандер, Гизелер), и, по–видимому, такое мнение правильно: без сомнения, закон опубликован не с тем, чтобы выразить милость и благоволение к христианам. Но тем не менее взгляды новейших ученых на закон Септимия и его характер существенно изменились. Закон этот стали рассматривать как более или менее благоприятствующий положению христиан в Империи. Так, один писатель (Геррес) замечает, что указ звучит"относительно милостиво", и находит в нем"тенденцию милости";** другой (Обэ) говорит, что"нельзя, не извращая характера закона, смотреть на него как на закон, провозглашавший гонение", в нем этот писатель видит выражение"утомления от гонений и сознание бесполезности строгостей";*** третий (Петере), принимая во внимание тот же указ, признает, что"со времен Септимия Севера начинается со стороны государства изменение воззрений в пользу христианства"****.

______________________

* Spart. Severus, cap. 17.

** Op. cit. S. 278, 304.

*** Les Chretiens dans l'empire Romain. P. 71, 73.

Peters (Catholic writer). Der heil. Cyprian. Regensb., 1877. S. 118. See also: Uhlhorn. Herz., Encykl. Bd. XIV (Art. Severus). Leipz., 1884. S. 172.

______________________

On what basis can such an interpretation be given to the decree of Septimius, and is it correct? The decree of Septimius Severus in question forbids Christians to acquire new followers. This is the meaning of the decree. But if so, it seems that in this case the government of that time was more likely to reconcile itself to Christianity than to express open hostility to it. This law, obviously, already recognized, at least for the established Christian society before the time of the decree, the right to citizenship, the right to an unrestricted existence. The emperor seems to say: "There is no need for new Christians," but he does not say: "There is no need for Christians." The government, one might think, weakened in the struggle against Christianity, no longer wanted to destroy, not to wipe out Christians from the face of the earth – this was no longer possible – it wanted, at least, not to allow it to grow more widely. Yes, in the decree of Septimius under consideration, the spirit, albeit involuntary, of peacefulness towards Christians is expressed. The intention was to put a limit to Christian propaganda without encroaching on the rights of existing Christians. The decree could in no way threaten Christianity and its historical existence. Christians had children whom the law did not forbid to be Christians, and thus the existence of the Christian Church remained inviolable. Christianity could not have proselytes, but this only retarded its further progress in the world, and in no way threatened the destruction of Christian society. As Aubé puts it, the government wanted to imprison the Christians as contagious patients in the "infirmary," but since the Christians were not real, but imaginary patients, there was nothing to prevent them from living and prospering. Christians were not deprived of what they had already achieved. They achieved a certain dissemination, organization, cohesion, assimilated in practice the most necessary religious and civil rights, and more could be desired in their position, but not demanded. The law of Septimius is also remarkable in that through it the Roman government for the first time said that existing Christians have every right to a legal existence. If previously they could on occasion disturb Christians by one and all, especially persons in authority, now Christians had the opportunity to point to the law of Septimius as a protection for themselves, as a guarantee against enmity and persecution. Despotic Rome in this decree uttered a word extremely important for the well-being of Christians. Subsequent time has indeed shown that the law of Septimius was not an empty phrase – the situation of Christians was greatly improved. In discussing the law of Septimius Severus, one should not overlook the following circumstance: it was issued in Palestine, during the emperor's passage through that country. Palestine, as is known, was a country inhabited mainly by the Jewish people. Therefore, it can be assumed that by issuing the decree, the emperor intended to limit and curtail the claims of only the Jews, who attracted his attention by their unpleasant and disgusting, in the opinion of the Romans, rite that accompanied Jewish proselytism - I mean circumcision. The emperor wanted to limit and intimidate the Jews. As for the Christians, it is possible that their name is placed in the decree along with the Jews, because of the imprudent confusion of the former with the latter: for Christians and Jews had much in common. It is very possible, on the other hand, that Septimius really had enmity towards the Jews, which is why they are placed in the foreground in the law, and that he could not have enmity towards Christians, since it is known that he was very merciful to Christians and proved this by many facts (as has already been said); And if, however, in the law the Christians are mingled with the Jews, and are equally limited in the matter of proselytism, this may have been due to the fear that the Jews, in spreading their faith, would hide behind the name of Christians, who were so akin to them in many opinions, or, what is still more likely, as a result of a concession to the conservative pagan parties, who hated the Christians as well as the Jews, and insisted before the emperor, that he should include Christians in the "law," in spite of the fact that the emperor's sympathies were inclined in favor of Christians—in short, the hostile tendency of the decree against Christians could in reality have only a secondary, and even less, significance.

______________________

* Aube. Op. cit. P. 112.