A Roman of Marcus Aurelius’s time and position could not well see the Christians except through the mist of these prejudices.  Seen through such a mist, the Christians appeared with a thousand faults not their own; but it has not been sufficiently remarked that faults really their own many of them assuredly appeared with besides, faults especially likely to strike such an observer as Marcus Aurelius, and to confirm him in the prejudices of his race, station, and rearing.  We look back upon Christianity after it has proved what a future it bore within it, and for us the sole representatives of its early struggles are the pure and devoted spirits through whom it proved this; Marcus Aurelius saw it with its future yet unshown, and with the tares among its professed progeny not less conspicuous than the wheat.  Who can doubt that among the professing Christians of the second century, as among the professing Christians of the nineteenth, there was plenty of folly, plenty of rabid nonsense, plenty of gross fanaticism? who will even venture to affirm that, separated in great measure from the intellect and civilization of the world for one or two centuries, Christianity, wonderful as have been its fruits, had the development perfectly worthy of its inestimable germ?  Who will venture to affirm that, by the alliance of Christianity with the virtue and intelligence of men like the Antonines,—­of the best product of Greek and Roman civilization, while Greek and Roman civilization had yet life and power,—­Christianity and the world, as well as the Antonines themselves, would not have been gainers?  That alliance was not to be.  The Antonines lived and died with an utter misconception of Christianity; Christianity grew up in the Catacombs, not on the Palatine.  And Marcus Aurelius incurs no moral reproach by having authorized the punishment of the Christians; he does not thereby become in the least what we mean by a persecutor.  One may concede that it was impossible for him to see Christianity as it really was;—­as impossible as for even the moderate and sensible Fleury[218] to see the Antonines as they really were;—­one may concede that the point of view from which Christianity appeared something anti-civil and anti-social, which the State had the faculty to judge and the duty to suppress, was inevitably his.  Still, however, it remains true that this sage, who made perfection his aim and reason his law, did Christianity an immense injustice and rested in an idea of State-attributes which was illusive.  And this is, in truth, characteristic of Marcus Aurelius, that he is blameless, yet, in a certain sense, unfortunate; in his character, beautiful as it is, there is something melancholy, circumscribed, and ineffectual.