1. The Church under Persecution
J. F. Hurst, Short History of the Christian Church (1893), part I, chapter V, “The Period of Universal Persecution”. Assigned excerpt. The interpretations are the author’s.
Christianity soon extended beyond Jewish bounds, and became a thing which might well arouse the fears of the whole Roman Empire. In Rome the Christians were regarded as simply a new Jewish sect. And when, in the middle of the first century, a disturbance arose among the Jews of Rome, both Jews and Christians were banished by the Emperor Claudius. Nero represented the popular hostility to Christianity. He was believed to have set fire to Rome, where the flames had full sway for nine days. He threw the blame, however, on the Christians, and resorted to the most barbarous methods to show his rage. He even had some Christians smeared with pitch and burned alive, while he caused others to be sewed in the skins of wild beasts and thrown out to the dogs. The persecution continued until his death. Under Domitian (A.D. 81-96) a milder policy of hostility was observed, the oppression of the Christians being chiefly confined to exile and the seizure of their property.
The Twelve Tables of the Roman law forbade the existence of foreign faiths within the dominions, but the habit had been to conciliate the conquered provinces by toleration of the existing religions. The appearance of the Christians, however, was the signal for revival of the old prohibition. The bonds uniting the Christians were close. Their separate services were declared an act of hostility to the country. They were accused of disobedience to the laws, and of a spirit ripe at any moment for insurrection. They were charged with immoral practices in their services. All popular calamities, such as earthquakes, inundations, pestilence, and defeat in war, were attributed to them. A popular proverb ran thus: “Deus non pluit — duc ad Christianos!” “It does not rain — lead us against the Christians!” Tertullian has left this record of the Roman habit of charging the disciples of Christ with all possible calamities: “If the Tiber overflow its banks, if the Nile do not water the fields, if the clouds refuse rain, if the earth shake, if famine or storms prevail, the cry always is, ‘Pitch the Christians to the lions!’”
Trajan (A.D. 98-117) continued the policy of his predecessors, but in milder form. He gave orders to the Proconsul Pliny, in Bithynia, not to seek out the Christians, but, when charges were brought against them, to give them opportunity to recant, and, in case of refusal, to sacrifice them to the gods. The persecution under Trajan extended to Palestine and Syria. Under Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) and Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161) the popular fury against the Christians increased to great violence. While these emperors granted the Church no favor, their attitude was less hostile than that of some of their predecessors. Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161-180) was thoughtful and calm. He was a Stoic by profession, and, while he had no warm reverence for the national religion, he showed no sympathy with the Christians. He was repelled by their devotion to Christ and their readiness to suffer. He tolerated violence, and under him the persecutions at Smyrna, where Polycarp suffered martyrdom, and at Lyons and Vienne, in Gaul, took place.
There was now a slight relaxation of violence, but under Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211) the Christians were treated with cruelty. The persecution was wide-spread, and the martyrdoms were numerous. Alexander Severus professed to be an Eclectic in faith, and regarded Jesus as one of the gods. He placed a bust of Christ beside those of Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius of Tyana. He instituted no active measures of hostility. Decius had but a short reign (A.D. 249-251), and yet he improved his time industriously by endeavoring to exterminate the Christians. His persecution was general, and as violent as that under Nero.
The reign of Decius was succeeded by a brief interval of peace, which was brought to a close by the hostile attitude of Valerian (A.D. 253-260). Under Aurelian, Diocletian, Galerius, and Maximinus, the persecution raged with varied fury. Great political complications arose. The changes in the imperial succession were frequent, and new methods of repression of the Christians were constantly adopted. During the whole time, however, the Christian Church grew in numbers and aggressive force. From A.D. 64 to 313, when Constantine granted an edict of toleration to the Christians, persecutions prevailed about seventy years. All forms of torture and violent death were adopted. There was no security at home. The exiles were numerous, but the Christians carried their faith and life with them to their new places of abode, where they built up societies, which in turn became centres for the wider dissemination of the gospel. Christianity had conquered in the realm of political life. It was now safe from the hand of any Roman ruler.
2. Arius, Athanasius, and the Council of Nicæa
J. F. Hurst, Short History of the Christian Church (1893), part I, chapter XVI, “Controversies on Christ”. Assigned excerpt. The interpretations are the author’s.
The principal scene of this important controversy was Alexandria, Palestine, and Constantinople. The question was concerning the divinity of Christ. Both Jews and pagans very early united in opposing this doctrine, believing that it was vital to the Christians. John’s Gospel, the inspired apology, proves how early our Lord’s divine character was assailed. Later, there came, as accessories towards a low Christological view, the vague teachings of the Antiochian school and the incongruities of the theology of Origen. The period during which the controversy lasted is divided into two parts — A.D. 318-361 and 361-381. Arius was a presbyter of Alexandria. He derived his theological ideas from the Antiochian school, which emphasized the unity of the divine nature, and looked with great alarm on any doctrine which would seem to destroy it.
The outbreak in Alexandria took place A.D. 318. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, advocated the eternal Sonship of Christ, and his equality with the Father. Arius opposed him, holding that there was a time when the Son did not exist; that, having a beginning, he cannot be of the same essence with the Father; that he was a creature, and not Creator; that he was divinely illumined, and therefore the Logos; that he is subordinate to the Father, and that the Holy Ghost is subordinate to the Son. The issue was clearly defined. For a time Alexandria was the sole scene of the controversy, and the participants were the bishop and his presbyter. Alexander called a synod in Alexandria, when Arius was deposed. But violent opposition arose to this summary dealing with a man of the pure life of Arius. The scene now widened. Constantine, the emperor, ordered the contestants to stop the quarrel. But no attention was paid to the command. The strife raged with increased bitterness. When the emperor was informed by Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, whom he had sent as a special messenger to Alexandria to inquire into the state of affairs, that the controversy was no trifling matter, and would not cease at a mere order, he convened a council.
The Council of Nicæa, A.D. 325, was the most important assembly of the Early Church. It was attended by representatives from every part of Christendom. Even India sent its bishop. There were about three hundred bishops, besides many of the inferior clergy. Constantine arrived during the session, and presided over the deliberations. Athanasius stood at the head of the orthodox party. The result of the council was the condemnation of Arius and the passing of the celebrated Nicene Creed. Arius now became an exile in Illyria. Constantine, influenced by the persuasions of certain bishops, but particularly by the entreaties of Constantia, widow of the Emperor Licinius, invited Arius to his court, ordered Athanasius to receive him back into the Church, and threatened deposition and banishment in case of refusal. Athanasius replied that he could not acknowledge as Christian those whom the whole Church had condemned. The emperor then ceased his importunities. But the Arians made Constantine believe that Athanasius was a political enemy, charging him with preventing the sailing of the Egyptian fleet with supplies for Constantinople. He was thereupon banished to Treves, in Gaul, A.D. 336.
The subsequent history of Arian opinions was checkered. Athanasius and Arius stood before the Christian world as the representatives of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. The changes in imperial sympathy were frequent, the Arians enjoying quite as much the sunshine of the palace as their orthodox adversaries. The General Council of Sardica, in Illyria, A.D. 343, renewed the conclusions of Nicæa. But Arian opinions still gained ground in the East, while in the West the opposition was only tacit and negative. When Julian gained the throne he recalled Athanasius from exile, but afterwards banished him again. That ruler was ready for any measure by which Christians could be pitted against each other. The Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, condemned the Arians once more, and two years later the Emperor Theodosius issued an edict against them. In the remoter parts of the empire they gained strength. Some of the ruder tribes adopted their view. Ulfilas was a Gothic bishop of Arian views. The celebrated Codex Argenteus, now preserved in the University of Upsala, Sweden, was his translation of the four Gospels into the Mæso-Gothic language of the end of the fourth century. The Vandals and Moors of North Africa became Arians, but were conquered, because of a rebellion during the reign of Justinian. Gradually the heresy disappeared alike from the centres and the outlying provinces. By the end of the sixth century the only Arian people left were the Lombards, of Italy.
The Arian controversy was remarkable for its wide extent, and the number and character of the men engaged in it. Some laughed at it as a fight over a Greek letter, but it involved the very heart of Christianity. It prevented Christianity from ever dwindling away into a mere religion of culture, a philosophy without saving power, by bringing it into the full consciousness of its divine origin. Many of the Arians were men in thorough sympathy with the Christian faith, but they did not, and probably could not, see the full logical result of their views.
3. Missions to Northern Europe: Anskar, Apostle of the North
J. F. Hurst, Short History of the Christian Church (1893), part II, chapter XIII, “New Missions”. Assigned excerpt. The interpretations are the author’s.
The spread of Christianity continued steadily. From the centres in Germany and France missionaries went out, and labored in the darker European countries. There was constant communication between Britain and the Continent. Missionaries from Ireland, the “Holy Isle,” and from England, crossed the Channel into France, and co-operated with Continental missionaries in founding missions among the heathen dwelling in the remoter parts of Europe. The monasteries kept up a close brotherhood. That there was great missionary fervor in them can be seen in the number of monks who went out from them, and threaded the forests and climbed the mountains of rude and barbarous peoples, and spent their lives amid all possible dangers, in endeavoring to extend Christianity. Many of them fell by violent hands. No people parted with their ancestral idols without regarding the first Christian preachers worthy of immediate death. Sometimes the rulers were the first to accept the gospel, but often it ascended from the poor and the lowly, step by step, until the throne was reached, and Christianity was publicly proclaimed as the faith of the State.
Harold, King of Jutland, was aided to the throne of his fathers, against his competitors, by the Carolingian emperor, Louis le Debonnaire. Harold and his queen were baptized in the cathedral of Mentz. There is no knowing how much conscience was in this proof of their espousal of Christianity. But it is a fact that the Danish king and queen ever afterwards befriended the gospel, and did their utmost to plant it throughout their dominions. Anskar, a monk of Corbey, accompanied them back to Denmark, with a view to organize the Christian Church in that country. The mission in Denmark was resisted by the people. A rebellion was excited against Harold, and he was obliged to flee from the country. Anskar was also compelled to leave, but, instead of giving up his missionary work, turned his eyes towards the still more savage Sweden, and determined to plant missions there.
In the year 831, Anskar, with Witmar, a brother monk, as companion, proceeded to Sweden with gifts for the king of the country. They were attacked by pirates while on their voyage, and lost all their possessions, such as the gifts for the king, their sacred books, and their priestly robes. They barely escaped with their lives. They reached Birka, on the Malar Lake, and were hospitably entertained. The king welcomed them, and in a short time his counsellor, Herigar, became a Christian convert. A few Christians were found already there, but there was no organization. Anskar remained a year and a half in Sweden, and then returned to Louis, to whom he brought friendly letters from the King of Sweden, and gave a full account of his experiences. Louis established an archiepiscopal see at Hamburg, with a view to operating directly upon Scandinavia. Anskar went to Rome, where he was consecrated to the archiepiscopal office and deputed to preach the gospel to the Northern nations. Hamburg was desolated by a Danish army, and the see was united with Bremen. Anskar removed to the latter place. He made a second visit to Sweden in 855. He died in 865, but before his death had the pleasure of seeing Christianity taking firm hold throughout Scandinavia. He was one of the most beautiful characters of the whole mediæval period. In charity, personal exposure, fearlessness of danger or death, and sublime devotion to his work, he was surpassed by no one of his times. He said: “One miracle I would, if worthy, ask the Lord to grant me, and that is, that by his grace he would make me a good man.”
4. Luther: From Erfurt to “The Just Shall Live by Faith”
J. F. Hurst, Short History of the Christian Church (1893), part III, chapter IV, “The German Reformation: Martin Luther, from His Birth to the Retirement in the Wartburg Castle — 1483-1520”. Assigned excerpt. The interpretations are the author’s.
In 1501 he went to the University of Erfurt, one of the centres of Humanistic learning in Northern Europe. He here came in contact with the advancing learning of the times, and was captivated by it. Neither mind nor heart had rest. With great nervous power, he went from one science to another, and mastered each with a thoroughness and despatch which amazed the professors. The department which he made his specialty was philosophy. On finishing his course, and taking his degree as master of arts, he bade the world farewell, and in 1505 entered the Augustinian cloister as a monk. The resolution seemed to be instantaneous, but his later confessions reveal the fact that he had been led gradually, by certain providential experiences, such as the death of a friend at his side by lightning, to take this step. He now subjected himself to severe discipline, denied himself all comforts, tortured his body, and fasted and prayed to a degree that almost proved fatal to his life. But he kept at his studies, in this respect differing from his brethren, who said: “If this brother studies, he will rule us.” The words were a prophecy which was literally fulfilled.
In 1508 Luther was called to Wittenberg as professor. While in Erfurt he had come to a knowledge of the Bible, and had seen the difference between the simple gospel and the life and practice of the Church of his times. His mind was in doubt. He continued his ascetic life, and waited for the light. The University of Wittenberg had been founded by Frederick the Wise in 1502, and, like Erfurt, was now alive with the new learning of the age. Here Luther had a field, the first in his life, for his remarkable powers. He carried with him the timidity of the monk, but the fire and magnetism of the master mind. He was so diffident that only the greatest persuasion could induce him to preach. “You will kill me,” he said to Staupitz, who had been the cause of his call to Wittenberg; “I shall not go on with it for a quarter of a year.”
Luther had been in Wittenberg two years, when he started on a journey to Rome. To one of his thirsting mind and religious fervor such an opportunity was hailed with inexpressible delight. He had been doubting the practices of the Church, but no thought of keen criticism had arisen in his mind. He was still the devoted servant of his order, the Augustines, and a firm and full believer in the one Roman Catholic Church. When he caught his first view of the Eternal City he fell upon the earth, and, with uplifted hands, cried out: “I greet thee, Holy Rome, thrice holy from the blood of the martyrs which has been shed in thee!” The scenes which now passed before his eyes had but little influence in strengthening his love for the Church. He saw too much ostentation and pride to satisfy his self-denying nature. While ascending the Scala Santa, or Pilate’s Staircase, as a reverent and penitential pilgrim, the words came to him, “The just shall live by faith.” He descended the steps, left Rome, and betook himself back to Germany. But he did not repudiate the authority of the Roman Church at that time. Köstlin says: “The exhibition of ecclesiastical corruption which he saw did not at the time occasion any revolt in his mind.” Luther was still a devoted monk, but had felt the power of a new life. He did not dream of separation from the Church.
5. The Rise of Protestant Missions
J. F. Hurst, Short History of the Christian Church (1893), part IV, chapter XLIV, “The Protestant Mission Field”. Assigned excerpt. The interpretations are the author’s.
The first period of Protestant Christianity was largely occupied in controversy, and in adjustments to the new conditions of Europe. With the beginning of the seventeenth century we find the first movement towards carrying the gospel into heathen lands. Missions followed immediately in the line of Eastern trade. The Dutch vied with the Portuguese in sailing over the distant seas and discovering new lands. But while the Portuguese carried with them the Jesuit missionaries, the Dutch bore to the far-off lands the open Bible and the Protestant doctrines. A theological seminary for the training of missionaries was established in Leyden in 1612. In 1636 a mission was established in Ceylon, and subsequently in Java, Africa, and other countries. In England the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel was founded, in 1701, for the benefit of the Indians in the American colonies.
In 1706 the Danish king, Frederic IV., sent Ziegenbalg, with two helpers, to establish a mission in Southern India. Ziegenbalg and his successors, Plütschau, Kiernander, and Schwartz, who were touched with the beautiful spirit of Pietism, labored in Tranquebar, Madras, and Calcutta, and achieved wonders in the midst of great difficulties. “Send me the Christian; he will not deceive me,” said Hyder Ali of Schwartz, when he was negotiating with the English government. In 1721 the Danes sent missionaries to Greenland. This mission, started by the heroic Hans Egede and his equally heroic wife, resulted finally in the Christianization of the whole country. The Moravians founded missions in Africa, Ceylon, the West Indies, Pennsylvania, and other places. All these efforts were important in awakening a missionary zeal, but were, in this respect, only preparatory forces. The close of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth constituted the period when the great missionary societies of the Protestant churches took their rise. By 1830 there were about twenty of these societies in Europe and America.
India is the largest field. The work, begun in 1706, was slow during the whole of the eighteenth century. The great success began with the early part of the present century. The three greatest names in the history of Protestant missions in India are Schwartz, Carey, and Duff. Carey, whom Sydney Smith sneered at as the Baptist cobbler, landed at Calcutta in 1793. He threw all his energies into learning the languages of India; and before he died, in 1834, he had translated the Scriptures, in whole or in part, with or without the help of others, into twenty-four Indian languages. Duff, who was sent out by the Church of Scotland in 1830, was the pioneer of the English-language school system in missionary work, which was at that time an entirely new idea, but which has wrought wonders, and has abundantly justified the wisdom of the bold Scotchman. The year 1878 was distinguished above all others for accessions from the Hindu faith. As many as sixty thousand converts were added in that one year. There are approximately at present in India, exclusive of Burma and Ceylon, 791 ordained foreign missionaries, 137,504 communicants, and 449,755 native Christians.
The first missionary to China was Dr. Morrison, of England, who arrived there in 1807. After fourteen years of toil, Morrison had made a Chinese Dictionary and a translation of the Bible. It was not till 1844 that the five treaty ports were open to missionaries. Important missions have been established all along the vast coast and on the banks of the great rivers, while a chain of stations is being quietly extended to the westward, to meet a like line coming eastward from India. The Chinese missions, conducted by the Protestants of both Europe and America, now number 37, with a total foreign missionary force, men and women, of 889, and 134 native ordained ministers and 28,119 adult communicants. In 1891, owing to an outbreak of anti-foreign fanaticism, fomented by secret societies which desire, for political reasons, to embarrass the present dynasty, mobs have destroyed mission premises and driven missionaries away at the risk of life.