** 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.

______________________

Thus, an analysis of the decree of Septimius Severus shows that the decree itself was not as hostile to Christians as it seems at first glance. The decree of Septimius appears in an even more favorable light if we consider it from a different point of view, from the point of view of comparing Christianity with Judaism. Septimius prescribes in the said decree not to acquire new followers, both for Christians and, note, for Jews." Under the threat of severe punishments, it was forbidden," says Spartian, "to become Jews (fieri Iudaeos), and the same was decreed with regard to Christians." What can be deduced from such a comparison of Christianity and Judaism in the law? Very much, and moreover, favorable for the position of Christians in the Empire. It should be remembered in what relations pagan governmental Rome stood towards Judaism as a cult — it should be remembered that Judaism was a religion permitted (religio licita), tolerated on Roman territory, only proselytism was forbidden to it. In Roman law, the Jewish cult was not singled out in relation to rights from a number of other numerous pagan cults that took place in the Empire, and enjoyed a significant degree of freedom: adherents of Judaism could freely practice the rites of their cults, wherever they were, even in Rome itself. The law of Septimius under consideration, placing Christianity and Judaism under the same legal category, already recognized the same religious and political rights for both of them. This law, in the essence of the matter, is the recognition of Christianity to a certain extent as a religion permitted in the Roman Empire. Christianity, like Judaism, acquired the rights of legality in the Empire. Just as in relation to the Jews the fundamental laws of the Empire did not require the renunciation of their faith, the adoption of the pagan-Roman cult, restrictions in the performance of their proper rites and observance of religious rules, the same situation, according to the law of Septimius, should henceforth have for Christians. And if it cannot be asserted that the position of the Jews, by virtue of the fundamental laws of the Empire, was religiously restrictive, so must it be with the Christians by virtue of the law of the year 202. Of course, the law was issued in order to limit the success of Christianity, to prevent the strong and rapid spread of Christian ideas, but in the form in which it was issued, it had to be very favorable to Christians. This is not enough: the law of Septimius regarding the Jews was not something too severe, any act of despotism on the part of the Roman authorities. He demanded one thing, namely, that the Jews should not spread their worship among persons of pagan origin, that they should not perform circumcision on them, which the Romans had always considered unworthy of a reasonable man and contemptible, but this was not any impudent encroachment on the rights of the Jews. Jews were never allowed to propagate their cult among persons of non-Jewish origin. Laws against Jewish proselytism were issued by emperors both before and after Septimius, for example, by Christian emperors, and often by emperors who were very tolerant of Judaism. Of the pagan emperors of the second century, such decrees were decreed by Antoninus Pius, in the third century by emperors from the family of Severus, and in Christian reigns by Constantine the Great, the son of his Constantius and Theodosius the Great. Thus, the decree of Septimius Severus concerning the Jews was not an act of tyranny, it was only a repetition of the decrees issued before him on the question of Judaism; And if so, then the application of the decree to Christians did not constitute any blatant evil. The law rather defends the status quo of the pagan religion, especially the Roman religion, than attacks religions contrary to the dominant cult. From the foregoing it is evident that the law of Septimius, although it had an unfavorable tendency for Christians, nevertheless, in the essence of the matter, there is a recognition of Christianity to some extent as a religion permitted in the Roman Empire; Although this confession is expressed without loud words, it is a silent confession.

______________________

*Cm. chapter "On the Causes of Persecution".

** The most important decrees on this subject are collected or indicated in Aibe: Les Chretiens dans l'empire Rom. P. 74-75.

______________________

The history of Christianity in the time of Septimius Severus can prove to a large extent that in practice the law of Septimius was marked by the consequences that could be expected from it according to its meaning. He protected Christians who had become Christians before the time of its publication, and raised a persecution against those who had just converted to Christianity. Let us consider first: were the proselytes of Christianity really subject to the decree of Septimius under consideration? We, however, cannot report such facts from the history of all the most important Christian Churches of that time; Only a few facts have come down to us, but they are not without significance, and even very significant. Let us look at the Alexandrian church of the time of Septimius Severus; What do we see here? The famous Origen opened here at this time a school for the preparation of pagans for the adoption of Christianity – a catechetical school. A multitude of pagans listen with obvious eagerness and spiritual disposition to the eloquent and sincere conviction of the teacher of the catechetical school. The harvest is plentiful, but this harvest is unseasonable. There is a decree prohibiting Christian proselytism. And so Origen's disciples, at least many of them, go straight from his school to the people's square to receive the crown of martyrdom there. Eusebius enumerates many of Origen's disciples who, precisely as catechumens, had to pay with their lives for their desire to convert to Christianity or for their recent accession to Christianity. The historian enumerates many, but no doubt not all; In all likelihood, there were in fact many more such suffered proselytes of Christianity. Among the disciples of Origen, who were preparing to accept Christianity or who had just accepted it and suffered death for it, Eusebius points to Plutarch, two persons who bore the same name: Serena, Iriclides, Iron; among such persons there were women, for example, a certain Geraisa, who, although she was taught the truths of the Christian faith, did not have time to be baptized and was, according to Origen, baptized in the fire of martyrdom*. All these persons suffered, very likely, because their conversion to Christianity contradicted the decree of Septimius. The same attention of the government to the newly converted Christians was apparently directed in the capital of Africa, Carthage. This is indicated quite clearly by the acts of martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicita, who suffered together with several other persons in the time of Septimius. The acts directly indicate that Perpetua, Felicita and their associates were arrested because they were catechumens who had been baptized only a few days earlier. Obviously, the decree did not remain without effect by the side of it that contained a repressive nature. The catechumens and the newly baptized became victims of the zeal of the pagan government, at least in some countries. But it can be argued that the other side of the decree, which contained a certain degree of tolerance, which ensured the right to exist for existing Christians, which equated the political rights of the Christian religion with the Jewish one, also did not remain without an influence on the position of Christians, and, of course, a beneficial influence. This can be proved by very strong facts. We have pointed out above that in the Church of Alexandria, according to the testimony of Eusebius, during the reign of Septimius there were many martyrs from among the catechumens and the newly baptized. But at the same time the historian notes a remarkable phenomenon in the history of this Church of this time, that very prominent persons in the Church of Alexandria, very influential in the affairs of Christianity, survive the entire reign of Septimius, if not quite calmly, then without any particular dangers. Let us look at Origen. He lived at that time in Alexandria, opened a school there, gathered around him a multitude of pagan listeners, aroused their attention to the new religion, made of them zealous proselytes of Christianity; moreover, he openly visits confessors in prisons; without the slightest concealment, he is present at pagan courts during the trial of accused Christians; not limiting himself to this, he follows the Christians condemned to death to the place of execution, bids them farewell with a fraternal farewell kiss — and, nevertheless, remains safe and sound. Eusebius, speaking of Origen's actions of this kind, adds more than once that he acted in each individual case "boldly," "courageously," "fearlessly." Why then did Origen, who was responsible for the conversion of many pagans to Christianity, who openly declared his Christianity on every convenient and inconvenient occasion, and who was undoubtedly well known to the pagan authorities in Alexandria, did not suffer death under Septimia? It is difficult to think of any other answer to this question than that Origen was saved from death under Septimius because he was protected by the law of that emperor of 202, which implicitly gave security to the present Christians. Septimius' law, therefore, had an effect where it could least be expected, in relation to persons like Origen, who had the closest relation to proselytism, to teachers in Christian catechetical schools. True, Eusebius makes it clear that Origen sometimes had to hide, hiding in the houses of his friends and acquaintances from persecution***** but in this case the Alexandrian teacher was hiding from the fury of the mob, and not from the search for governmental power behind him: it is inconceivable that the Alexandrian police would not have been able to detain Origen if the authorities themselves had demanded it. It is also very remarkable that, like Origen, Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria, who ruled this Church throughout the reign of Septimius, did not suffer torture and death. Without a doubt, Demetrius fulfilled all the functions that belonged to his office – he taught the new converts, baptized them, and, nevertheless, he, Demetrius, remained safe and sound. Why? Again, was it because he had been converted to Christianity long ago and could freely profess Christianity and satisfy the religious needs of the established Christian society? Even more than the Church of Alexandria attracts our attention is the Church of the capital of the time of Septimius, the church of Rome, which, so to speak, was before the eyes of the emperor. The third-century monument Philosopeumena, together with other historical sources, give us very detailed information about the situation of the Church in the capital during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (202-218). This bishop of Rome did not have to endure any trouble during the entire reign of Septimius on the part of the pagan government, despite the fact that at that time the Roman Christian community was living a full life. Zephyrinus himself founded extensive Christian tombs (kimitiria) in Rome, organized their administration, and conducted dogmatic disputes with heretics; Callistus, who later became bishop of Rome, being the most active person in the administration of the Church during the episcopate of Zephyrinus, who had glorified his name from the worst side by various financial speculations even under Commodus, also lived happily and happily. In general, all this society enjoyed comparative tranquillity under Septimius*****. Why did it happen that the representatives of the Christian community in Rome itself, the capital of the Empire, the residence of Septimius, lead a life without danger, peacefully and calmly? Again, is it not because the law of Septimius of 202 not only did not worsen the external situation of Christians, but even protected it from the enmity of the pagans, who had hitherto fanatically persecuted the despised gods? Is it not because Septimius, by his law, if in part did harm to the new members of the Christian community, gave to a certain extent a legal position to the existing and born adherents of Christianity? Usually, when a law hostile to Christians was issued by an emperor who lived in Rome, the persecution fell first of all, which was natural, on the Christians of the capital; but if now, in the time of Septimius, we do not see this, then should we not think that the law under consideration was alien to the intention of persecuting Christians and left in peace the largest part of Christian society, all present and born Christians?