founded on his orders, which were abused, as he seems to mean.  He distinctly affirms “that the race of the godly is now persecuted and harassed by fresh imperial orders in Asia, a thing which had never happened before.”  But we know that all this is not true, and that Christians had been punished in Trajan’s time.

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