apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

HADRIAN, PIUS, AND MARCUS. 527
ably M. Aurelius was more logical from a Roman point of view than Hadrian. To be ' a
'
Roman was before all things his ideal [Alcd. and ii.
these Christians scorned the
5, iii. 5),
state-worship, wliich was the very core of Roman public life. Probably he held himself
to be acting out the character which Capitolinus [Ulairiis 24) assigns to him, 'contra
manifestos et gravium criminum reos inexorabilis permanebat', when he condemned
scores of men to death for no other cause than that they confessed the name of
Christ. If moreover he believed the foul aspersions of his 'darling master' ('jucundissime
magister') Fronto on the Christians, he would doubtless consider that he was
treating them with only too great leniency.
Doubtless we should have heard very much more about the persecutions during
this reign, if the emperor's exceptionally high character as a man and as ruler had not
stopped the mouths of the Christians. But they were restrained by every motive of
prudence and every instinct of self-preservation from saying too much against the
sovereign whom his subjects lovingly called 'father', 'brother', and 'son', according
to their time of life, who when he died was believed to have been taken back to the
gods that had lent him, and to whom after death divine honours were voluntarily
paid with such universal consent that it was held sacrilege not to set up his image in
a house (Capitol. Alanus 20). If the Christians ventured to brand such a man as a
persecutor, the retort would be obvious; 'You condemn yourselves by this charge.
He could only have treated you harshly, because you deserved harsh treatment. This
was not persecution;
it was just punishment.' It is indeed, from every point of
view, a 'tragic fact'— — a mournful satire on the one-sidedness of human nature even
in its higher types that M. Aurelius ranks among the sternest persecutors of the
Christians.
Tillemont {Manoires II. p. 315 sq) assign and actively espouse the cause of this
this persecution to the reign of M. Aurelius;
and among recent writers Renan the hatred of Csecilius and the Byzan-
also {Marc-Aurlle p. 279 sq) takes this tines; and that in consequence they were
rival sovereign; that they thus incurred
view. This Theodotus the leather- seller harassed and persecuted by them. This
is stated by Epiphanius to have fled to view harmonizes better with the incidents,
Rome and promulgated his heresy there and I am disposed on the whole to adopt
after denying his faith during the it.
persecution
at Byzantium; and we know from close proximity with the suffering; and
The vengeance
is thus brought into
an independent source (Hippo). [] in the saying of Caecilius gains in point.
Euseb. H. E. v. 28) that he was excommunicated
— by Victor Bishop of Rome a better illustration of the lesson which
Moreover the incident then becomes
(a.d. 189 198 or 199). But some Tertullian years
would enforce; for he is giving
would probably have elapsed before he examples of divine judgments overtaking
became sufficiently famous to call down the persecutors of the Christians (see
this censure on his head. This is an below, p. 538 sq). But if we were to place
argument (so far as it goes) in favour of the persecution under M. Aurelius, the
the reign of M. Aurelius. On the other retribution would be delayed 16 years at
hand Burton (TvVj/ Three Centuries 11. the
p.
least, and there would be no very
211 sq) gives a wholly different direct connexion between the offence and
explanation.
He supposes that Ca;cilius commanded
the garrison of Byzantium on On the whole therefoi'e we may hold
the punishment.
behalf of Pescennius Niger; that the the memory of M. Aurelius clear of this
Christians there refused to take up arms additional stain of blood.