|
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 7
If we had a true ecclesiastical history, we should know how the Roman
emperors attempted to check the new religion; how they enforced their
principle of finally punishing Christians, simply as Christians, which
Justin in his Apology affirms that they did, and I have no doubt that he
tells the truth; how far popular clamor and riots went in this matter,
and how far many fanatical and ignorant Christians--for there were many
such--contributed to excite the fanaticism on the other side and to
embitter the quarrel between the Roman government and the new religion.
Our extant ecclesiastical histories are manifestly falsified, and what
truth they contain is grossly exaggerated; but the fact is certain that
in the time of M. Antoninus the heathen populations were in open
hostility to the Christians, and that under Antoninus' rule men were put
to death because they were Christians. Eusebius, in the preface to his
fifth book, remarks that in the seventeenth year of Antoninus' reign, in
some parts of the world, the persecution of the Christians became more
violent, and that it proceeded from the populace in the cities; and he
adds, in his usual style of exaggeration, that we may infer from what
took place in a single nation that myriads of martyrs were made in the
habitable earth. The nation which he alludes to is Gallia; and he then
proceeds to give the letter of the churches of Vienna and Lugdunum. It
is probable that he has assiged the true cause of the persecutions, the
fanaticism of the populace, and that both governors and emperor had a
great deal of trouble with these disturbances. How far Marcus was
cognizant of these cruel proceedings we do not know, for the historical
records of his reign are very defective. He did not make the rule
against the Christians, for Trajan did that; and if we admit that he
would have been willing to let the Christians alone, we cannot affirm
that it was in his power, for it would be a great mistake to suppose
that Antoninus had the unlimited authority which some modern sovereigns
have had. His power was limited by certain constitutional forms, by the
Senate, and by the precedents of his predecessors. We cannot admit that
such a man was an active persecutor, for there is no evidence that he
was,[A] though it is certain that he had no good opinion of the
Christians, as appears from his own words.[B] But he knew nothing of
them except their hostility to the Roman religion, and he probably
thought that they were dangerous to the state, notwithstanding the
professions, false or true, of some of the Apologists. So much I have
said, because it would be unfair not to state all that can be urged
against a man whom his contemporaries and subsequent ages venerated as a
model of virtue and benevolence. If I admitted the genuineness of some
documents, he would be altogether clear from the charge of even allowing
any persecutions; but as I seek the truth and am sure that they are
false, I leave him to bear whatever blame is his due.[C] I add that it
is quite certain that Antoninus did not derive any of his ethical
principles from a religion of which he knew nothing.[D]
[A] Except that of Orosius (vii. 15), who says that during the
Parthian war there were grievous persecutions of the Christians
in Asia and Gallia under the orders of Marcus (praecepto ejus),
and "many were crowned with the martyrdom of saints."
[B] See xi. 3. The emperor probably speaks of such fanatics as
Clemens (quoted by Gataker on this passage) mentions. The
rational Christians admitted no fellowship with them. "Some of
these heretics," says Clemens, "show their impiety and
cowardice by loving their lives, saying that the knowledge of
the really existing God is true testimony (martyrdom), but that
a man is a self-murderer who bears witness by his death. We
also blame those who rush to death; for there are some, not of
us, but only bearing the same name, who give themselves up. We
say of them that they die without being martyrs, even if they
are publicly punished; and they give themselves up to a death
which avails nothing, as the Indian Gymnosophists give
themselves up foolishly to fire." Cave, in his primitive
Christianity (ii. c. 7), says of the Christians: "They did
flock to the place of torment faster than droves of beasts that
are driven to the shambles. They even longed to be in the arms
of suffering. Ignatius, though then in his journey to Rome in
order to his execution, yet by the way as he went could not but
vent his passionate desire of it 'Oh that I might come to those
wild beasts that are prepared for me; I heartily wish that I
may presently meet with them; I would invite and encourage them
speedily to devour me, and not be afraid to set upon me as they
have been to others; nay, should they refuse it, I would even
force them to it;'" and more to the same purpose from Eusebius.
Cave, an honest and good man, says all this in praise of the
Christians; but I think that he mistook the matter. We admire a
man who holds to his principles even to death; but these
fanatical Christians are the Gymnosophists whom Clemens treats
with disdain.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|