Back to Chapter Listing
Previous Chapter
Continue Reading
Edicts Against the Christians and the Demolotion of Churches under Diocletian (303 - 304 AD) – The Burning of the Palace of Nicomedia by Chrisitan Fanatics – Persecution of Christians throughout the Empire (303 – 311 AD)
The pleasure of the emperors was at length signified to the
Christians, who, during the course of this melancholy winter, had
expected, with anxiety, the result of so many secret
consultations. The twenty-third of February, which coincided
with the Roman festival of the Terminalia, 149 was appointed
(whether from accident or design) to set bounds to the progress
of Christianity. At the earliest dawn of day, the Praetorian
praefect, 150 accompanied by several generals, tribunes, and
officers of the revenue, repaired to the principal church of
Nicomedia, which was situated on an eminence in the most populous
and beautiful part of the city. The doors were instantly broke
open; they rushed into the sanctuary; and as they searched in
vain for some visible object of worship, they were obliged to
content themselves with committing to the flames the volumes of
the holy Scripture. The ministers of Diocletian were followed by
a numerous body of guards and pioneers, who marched in order of
battle, and were provided with all the instruments used in the
destruction of fortified cities. By their incessant labor, a
sacred edifice, which towered above the Imperial palace, and had
long excited the indignation and envy of the Gentiles, was in a
few hours levelled with the ground. 151
Footnote 149: The worship and festival of the god Terminus are
elegantly illustrated by M. de Boze, Mem. de l'Academie des
Inscriptions, tom. i. p. 50.
Footnote 150: In our only MS. of Lactantius, we read profectus;
but reason, and the authority of all the critics, allow us,
instead of that word, which destroys the sense of the passage, to
substitute proefectus.
Footnote 151: Lactantius, de M. P. c. 12, gives a very lively
picture of the destruction of the church.
The next day the general edict of persecution was published;
152 and though Diocletian, still averse to the effusion of
blood, had moderated the fury of Galerius, who proposed, that
every one refusing to offer sacrifice should immediately be burnt
alive, the penalties inflicted on the obstinacy of the Christians
might be deemed sufficiently rigorous and effectual. It was
enacted, that their churches, in all the provinces of the empire,
should be demolished to their foundations; and the punishment of
death was denounced against all who should presume to hold any
secret assemblies for the purpose of religious worship. The
philosophers, who now assumed the unworthy office of directing
the blind zeal of persecution, had diligently studied the nature
and genius of the Christian religion; and as they were not
ignorant that the speculative doctrines of the faith were
supposed to be contained in the writings of the prophets, of the
evangelists, and of the apostles, they most probably suggested
the order, that the bishops and presbyters should deliver all
their sacred books into the hands of the magistrates; who were
commanded, under the severest penalties, to burn them in a public
and solemn manner. By the same edict, the property of the church
was at once confiscated; and the several parts of which it might
consist were either sold to the highest bidder, united to the
Imperial domain, bestowed on the cities and corporations, or
granted to the solicitations of rapacious courtiers. After
taking such effectual measures to abolish the worship, and to
dissolve the government of the Christians, it was thought
necessary to subject to the most intolerable hardships the
condition of those perverse individuals who should still reject
the religion of nature, of Rome, and of their ancestors. Persons
of a liberal birth were declared incapable of holding any honors
or employments; slaves were forever deprived of the hopes of
freedom, and the whole body of the people were put out of the
protection of the law. The judges were authorized to hear and to
determine every action that was brought against a Christian. But
the Christians were not permitted to complain of any injury which
they themselves had suffered; and thus those unfortunate
sectaries were exposed to the severity, while they were excluded
from the benefits, of public justice. This new species of
martyrdom, so painful and lingering, so obscure and ignominious,
was, perhaps, the most proper to weary the constancy of the
faithful: nor can it be doubted that the passions and interest of
mankind were disposed on this occasion to second the designs of
the emperors. But the policy of a well-ordered government must
sometimes have interposed in behalf of the oppressed Christians;
* nor was it possible for the Roman princes entirely to remove
the apprehension of punishment, or to connive at every act of
fraud and violence, without exposing their own authority and the
rest of their subjects to the most alarming dangers. 153
Footnote 152: Mosheim, (p. 922 - 926,) from man scattered
passages of Lactantius and Eusebius, has collected a very just
and accurate notion of this edict though he sometimes deviates
into conjecture and refinement.
Footnote *: This wants proof. The edict of Diocletian was
executed in all its right during the rest of his reign. Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. l viii. c. 13. - G.
Footnote 153: Many ages afterwards, Edward J. practised, with
great success, the same mode of persecution against the clergy of
England. See Hume's History of England, vol. ii. p. 300, last
4to edition.
This edict was scarcely exhibited to the public view, in the
most conspicuous place of Nicomedia, before it was torn down by
the hands of a Christian, who expressed at the same time, by the
bitterest invectives, his contempt as well as abhorrence for such
impious and tyrannical governors. His offence, according to the
mildest laws, amounted to treason, and deserved death. And if it
be true that he was a person of rank and education, those
circumstances could serve only to aggravate his guilt. He was
burnt, or rather roasted, by a slow fire; and his executioners,
zealous to revenge the personal insult which had been offered to
the emperors, exhausted every refinement of cruelty, without
being able to subdue his patience, or to alter the steady and
insulting smile which in his dying agonies he still preserved in
his countenance. The Christians, though they confessed that his
conduct had not been strictly conformable to the laws of
prudence, admired the divine fervor of his zeal; and the
excessive commendations which they lavished on the memory of
their hero and martyr, contributed to fix a deep impression of
terror and hatred in the mind of Diocletian. 154
Footnote 154: Lactantius only calls him quidam, et si non recte,
magno tamer animo, &c., c. 12. Eusebius (l. viii. c. 5) adorns
him with secular honora Neither have condescended to mention his
name; but the Greeks celebrate his memory under that of John.
See Tillemont, Memones Ecclesiastiques, tom. v. part ii. p. 320.
His fears were soon alarmed by the view of a danger from
which he very narrowly escaped. Within fifteen days the palace
of Nicomedia, and even the bed-chamber of Diocletian, were twice
in flames; and though both times they were extinguished without
any material damage, the singular repetition of the fire was
justly considered as an evident proof that it had not been the
effect of chance or negligence. The suspicion naturally fell on
the Christians; and it was suggested, with some degree of
probability, that those desperate fanatics, provoked by their
present sufferings, and apprehensive of impending calamities, had
entered into a conspiracy with their faithful brethren
, the eunuchs of the palace, against the lives of two emperors, whom
they detested as the irreconcilable enemies of the church of God.
Jealousy and resentment prevailed in every breast, but especially
in that of Diocletian. A great number of persons, distinguished
either by the offices which they had filled, or by the favor
which they had enjoyed, were thrown into prison. Every mode of
torture was put in practice, and the court, as well as city, was
polluted with many bloody executions. 155 But as it was found
impossible to extort any discovery of this mysterious
transaction, it seems incumbent on us either to presume the
innocence, or to admire the resolution, of the sufferers. A few
days afterwards Galerius hastily withdrew himself from Nicomedia,
declaring, that if he delayed his departure from that devoted
palace, he should fall a sacrifice to the rage of the Christians.
The ecclesiastical historians, from whom alone we derive a
partial and imperfect knowledge of this persecution, are at a
loss how to account for the fears and dangers of the emperors.
Two of these writers, a prince and a rhetorician, were eye-
witnesses of the fire of Nicomedia. The one ascribes it to
lightning, and the divine wrath; the other affirms, that it was
kindled by the malice of Galerius himself. 156
Footnote 155: Lactantius de M. P. c. 13, 14. Potentissimi
quondam Eunuchi necati, per quos Palatium et ipse constabat.
Eusebius (l. viii. c. 6) mentions the cruel executions of the
eunuchs, Gorgonius and Dorotheus, and of Anthimius, bishop of
Nicomedia; and both those writers describe, in a vague but
tragical manner, the horrid scenes which were acted even in the
Imperial presence.
Footnote 156: See Lactantius, Eusebius, and Constantine, ad
Coetum Sanctorum, c. xxv. Eusebius confesses his ignorance of
the cause of this fire.
Diocletian had no sooner published his edicts against the
Christians, than, as if he had been desirous of committing to
other hands the work of persecution, he divested himself of the
Imperial purple. The character and situation of his colleagues
and successors sometimes urged them to enforce and sometimes
inclined them to suspend, the execution of these rigorous laws;
nor can we acquire a just and distinct idea of this important
period of ecclesiastical history, unless we separately consider
the state of Christianity, in the different parts of the empire,
during the space of ten years, which elapsed between the first
edicts of Diocletian and the final peace of the church.
The mild and humane temper of Constantius was averse to the
oppression of any part of his subjects. The principal offices of
his palace were exercised by Christians. He loved their persons,
esteemed their fidelity, and entertained not any dislike to their
religious principles. But as long as Constantius remained in the
subordinate station of Caesar, it was not in his power openly to
reject the edicts of Diocletian, or to disobey the commands of
Maximian. His authority contributed, however, to alleviate the
sufferings which he pitied and abhorred. He consented with
reluctance to the ruin of the churches; but he ventured to
protect the Christians themselves from the fury of the populace,
and from the rigor of the laws. The provinces of Gaul (under
which we may probably include those of Britain) were indebted for
the singular tranquillity which they enjoyed, to the gentle
interposition of their sovereign. 165 But Datianus, the
president or governor of Spain, actuated either by zeal or
policy, chose rather to execute the public edicts of the
emperors, than to understand the secret intentions of
Constantius; and it can scarcely be doubted, that his provincial
administration was stained with the blood of a few martyrs. 166
The elevation of Constantius to the supreme and independent
dignity of Augustus, gave a free scope to the exercise of his
virtues, and the shortness of his reign did not prevent him from
establishing a system of toleration, of which he left the precept
and the example to his son Constantine. His fortunate son, from
the first moment of his accession, declaring himself the
protector of the church, at length deserved the appellation of
the first emperor who publicly professed and established the
Christian religion. The motives of his conversion, as they may
variously be deduced from benevolence, from policy, from
conviction, or from remorse, and the progress of the revolution,
which, under his powerful influence and that of his sons,
rendered Christianity the reigning religion of the Roman empire,
will form a very interesting and important chapter in the present
volume of this history. At present it may be sufficient to
observe, that every victory of Constantine was productive of some
relief or benefit to the church.
Footnote 165: Eusebius, l. viii. c. 13. Lactantius de M. P. c.
15. Dodwell (Dissertat. Cyprian. xi. 75) represents them as
inconsistent with each other. But the former evidently speaks of
Constantius in the station of Caesar, and the latter of the same
prince in the rank of Augustus.
Footnote 166: Datianus is mentioned, in Gruter's Inscriptions,
as having determined the limits between the territories of Pax
Julia, and those of Ebora, both cities in the southern part of
Lusitania. If we recollect the neighborhood of those places to
Cape St. Vincent, we may suspect that the celebrated deacon and
martyr of that name had been inaccurately assigned by Prudentius,
&c., to Saragossa, or Valentia. See the pompous history of his
sufferings, in the Memoires de Tillemont, tom. v. part ii. p.
58-85. Some critics are of opinion, that the department of
Constantius, as Caesar, did not include Spain, which still
continued under the immediate jurisdiction of Maximian.
The provinces of Italy and Africa experienced a short but
violent persecution. The rigorous edicts of Diocletian were
strictly and cheerfully executed by his associate Maximian, who
had long hated the Christians, and who delighted in acts of blood
and violence. In the autumn of the first year of the
persecution, the two emperors met at Rome to celebrate their
triumph; several oppressive laws appear to have issued from their
secret consultations, and the diligence of the magistrates was
animated by the presence of their sovereigns., After Diocletian
had divested himself of the purple, Italy and Africa were
administered under the name of Severus, and were exposed, without
defence, to the implacable resentment of his master Galerius.
Among the martyrs of Rome, Adauctus deserves the notice of
posterity. He was of a noble family in Italy, and had raised
himself, through the successive honors of the palace, to the
important office of treasurer of the private Jemesnes. Adauctus
is the more remarkable for being the only person of rank and
distinction who appears to have suffered death, during the whole
course of this general persecution. 167
Footnote 167: Eusebius, l. viii. c. 11. Gruter, Inscrip. p.
1171, No. 18. Rufinus has mistaken the office of Adauctus, as
well as the place of his martyrdom.
Note: M. Guizot suggests the powerful cunuchs of the palace.
Dorotheus, Gorgonius, and Andrew, admitted by Gibbon himself to
have been put to death, p. 66.
The revolt of Maxentius immediately restored peace to the
churches of Italy and Africa; and the same tyrant who oppressed
every other class of his subjects, showed himself just, humane,
and even partial, towards the afflicted Christians. He depended
on their gratitude and affection, and very naturally presumed,
that the injuries which they had suffered, and the dangers which
they still apprehended from his most inveterate enemy, would
secure the fidelity of a party already considerable by their
numbers and opulence. 168 Even the conduct of Maxentius towards
the bishops of Rome and Carthage may be considered as the proof
of his toleration, since it is probable that the most orthodox
princes would adopt the same measures with regard to their
established clergy. Marcellus, the former of these prelates, had
thrown the capital into confusion, by the severe penance which he
imposed on a great number of Christians, who, during the late
persecution, had renounced or dissembled their religion. The
rage of faction broke out in frequent and violent seditions; the
blood of the faithful was shed by each other's hands, and the
exile of Marcellus, whose prudence seems to have been less
eminent than his zeal, was found to be the only measure capable
of restoring peace to the distracted church of Rome. 169 The
behavior of Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, appears to have been
still more reprehensible. A deacon of that city had published a
libel against the emperor. The offender took refuge in the
episcopal palace; and though it was somewhat early to advance any
claims of ecclesiastical immunities, the bishop refused to
deliver him up to the officers of justice. For this treasonable
resistance, Mensurius was summoned to court, and instead of
receiving a legal sentence of death or banishment, he was
permitted, after a short examination, to return to his diocese.
170 Such was the happy condition of the Christian subjects of
Maxentius, that whenever they were desirous of procuring for
their own use any bodies of martyrs, they were obliged to
purchase them from the most distant provinces of the East. A
story is related of Aglae, a Roman lady, descended from a
consular family, and possessed of so ample an estate, that it
required the management of seventy-three stewards. Among these
Boniface was the favorite of his mistress; and as Aglae mixed
love with devotion, it is reported that he was admitted to share
her bed. Her fortune enabled her to gratify the pious desire of
obtaining some sacred relics from the East. She intrusted
Boniface with a considerable sum of gold, and a large quantity of
aromatics; and her lover, attended by twelve horsemen and three
covered chariots, undertook a remote pilgrimage, as far as Tarsus
in Cilicia. 171
Footnote 168: Eusebius, l. viii. c. 14. But as Maxentius was
vanquished by Constantine, it suited the purpose of Lactantius to
place his death among those of the persecutors.
Footnote 169: The epitaph of Marcellus is to be found in Gruter,
Inscrip. p 1172, No. 3, and it contains all that we know of his
history. Marcellinus and Marcellus, whose names follow in the
list of popes, are supposed by many critics to be different
persons; but the learned Abbe de Longuerue was convinced that
they were one and the same.
Veridicus rector lapsis quia crimina flere /
Praedixit miseris, fuit omnibus hostis amarus. /
Hinc furor, hinc odium; sequitur discordia, lites, /
Seditio, caedes; solvuntur foedera pacis. /
Crimen ob alterius, Christum qui in pace negavit /
Finibus expulsus patriae est feritate Tyranni. /
Haec breviter Damasus voluit comperta referre: /
Marcelli populus meritum cognoscere posset. /
We may observe that Damasus was made Bishop of Rome, A. D. 366.
Footnote 170: Optatus contr. Donatist. l. i. c. 17, 18.
Note: The words of Optatus are, Profectus (Roman) causam
dixit; jussus con reverti Carthaginem; perhaps, in pleading his
cause, he exculpated himself, since he received an order to
return to Carthage. - G.
Footnote 171: The Acts of the Passion of St. Boniface, which
abound in miracles and declamation, are published by Ruinart, (p.
283 - 291,) both in Greek and Latin, from the authority of very
ancient manuscripts.
Note: We are ignorant whether Aglae and Boniface were
Christians at the time of their unlawful connection. See
Tillemont. Mem, Eccles. Note on the persecution of Domitian,
tom. v. note 82. M. de Tillemont proves also that the history is
doubtful. - G.
Sir D. Dalrymple (Lord Hailes) calls the story of Aglae and
Boniface as of equal authority with our popular histories of
Whittington and Hickathrift. Christian Antiquities, ii. 64. - M.
To cite original text:
Gibbon, Edward, 1737-1794. The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. (NY : Knopf, 1993), v. 2, pp. 60 – 71.
Back to Chapter Listing
Previous Chapter
Continue Reading