|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 5
[A] Conyers Middleton, An Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers,
&c. p. 126. Middleton says that Eusebius omitted to mention the
dove, which flew out of Polycarp's body, and Dodwell and
Archbishop Wake have done the same. Wake says, "I am so little
a friend to such miracles that I thought it better with
Eusebius to omit that circumstance than to mention it from Bp.
Usher's Manuscript," which manuscript however, says Middleton,
he afterwards declares to be so well attested that we need not
any further assurance of the truth of it.
In order to form a proper notion of the condition of the Christians
under M. Antoninus we must go back to Trajan's time. When the younger
Pliny was governor of Bithynia, the Christians were numerous in those
parts, and the worshipers of the old religion were falling off. The
temples were deserted, the festivals neglected, and there were no
purchasers of victims for sacrifice. Those who were interested in the
maintenance of the old religion thus found that their profits were in
danger. Christians of both sexes and all ages were brought before the
governor who did not know what to do with them. He could come to no
other conclusion than this, that those who confessed to be Christians
and persevered in their religion ought to be punished; if for nothing
else, for their invincible obstinancy. He found no crimes proved against
the Christians, and he could only characterize their religion as a
depraved and extravagant superstition, which might be stopped if the
people were allowed the opportunity of recanting. Pliny wrote this in a
letter to Trajan (Plinius, Ep. x. 97). He asked for the emperor's
directions, because he did not know what to do. He remarks that he had
never been engaged in judicial inquiries about the Christians, and that
accordingly he did not know what to inquire about, or how far to inquire
and punish. This proves that it was not a new thing to examine into a
man's profession of Christianity and to punish him for it.[A]
[A] Orosius (vii. 12) speaks of Trajan's persecution of the
Christians, and of Pliny's application to him having led the
emperor to mitigate his severity. The punishment by the Mosaic
law for those who attempted to seduce the Jews to follow new
gods was death. If a man was secretly enticed to such new
worship, he must kill the seducer, even if the seducer were
brother, son, daughter, wife, or friend. (Deut. xiii.)
Trajan's rescript is extant. He approved of the governor's judgment in
the matter, but he said that no search must be made after the
Christians; if a man was charged with the new religion and convicted, he
must not be punished if he affirmed that he was not a Christian, and
confirmed his denial by showing his reverence to the heathen gods. He
added that no notice must be taken of anonymous informations, for such
things were of bad example. Trajan was a mild and sensible man; and both
motives of mercy and policy probably also induced him to take as little
notice of the Christians as he could, to let them live in quiet if it
were possible. Trajan's rescript is the first legislative act of the
head of the Roman state with reference to Christianity, which is known
to us. It does not appear that the Christians were further disturbed
under his reign. The martyrdom of Ignatius by the order of Trajan
himself is not universally admitted to be an historical fact.[A]
[A] The Martyrium Ignatii, first published in Latin by
Archbishop Usher, is the chief evidence for the circumstances
of Ignatius' death.
In the time of Hadrian it was no longer possible for the Roman
government to overlook the great increase of the Christians and the
hostility of the common sort to them. If the governors in the provinces
were willing to let them alone, they could not resist the fanaticism of
the heathen community, who looked on the Christians as atheists. The
Jews too, who were settled all over the Roman Empire, were as hostile to
the Christians as the Gentiles were.[A] With the time of Hadrian begin
the Christian Apologies, which show plainly what the popular feeling
towards the Christians then was. A rescript of Hadrian to Minucius
Fundanus, the Proconsul of Asia, which stands at the end of Justin's
first Apology,[B] instructs the governor that innocent people must not
be troubled, and false accusers must not be allowed to extort money from
them; the charges against the Christians must be made in due form, and
no attention must be paid to popular clamors; when Christians were
regularly prosecuted and convicted of illegal acts, they must be
punished according to their deserts; and false accusers also must be
punished. Antoninus Pius is said to have published rescripts to the same
effect. The terms of Hadrian's rescript seem very favorable to the
Christians; but if we understand it in this sense, that they were only
to be punished like other people for illegal acts, it would have had no
meaning, for that could have been done without asking the emperor's
advice. The real purpose of the rescript is that Christians must be
punished if they persisted in their belief, and would not prove their
renunciation of it by acknowledging the heathen religion. This was
Trajan's rule, and we have no reason for supposing that Hadrian granted
more to the Christians than Trajan did. There is also printed at the end
of Justin's first Apology a rescript of Antoninus Pius to the Commune of
([Greek: to koinon t�s Asias]), and it is also in Eusebius (E.H. iv.
13). The date of the rescript is the third consulship of Antoninus
Pius.[C] The rescript declares that the Christians--for they are meant,
though the name Christians does not occur in the rescript--were not to
be disturbed unless they were attempting something against the Roman
rule; and no man was to be punished simply for being a Christian. But
this rescript is spurious. Any man moderately acquainted with Roman
history will see by the style and tenor that it is a clumsy forgery.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|