pel, though in a small degree. It should ever be remembered, that christian light stands single and unmixed, and will not bear to be kneaded into the same mass with other systems, religious or philosophical. And we seem to have marked the beginning of the decay of the first spiritual out-pouring among the Gentiles, through false wisdom; as long before, from the first council of Jerusalem, we marked its decay in the Jewish church through self-righteousness. The same prejudice in favour of the instructor of his youth leads him to pay him an extraordinary compliment, as if he really knew the true God, and lost his life for attempting to draw men from idolatry. Whereas almost every line of the narrative left us by his disciples shews, that he was as much an idolater as the rest of his countrymen. And the last words he uttered, it is well known, were entirely idolatrous. Justin had not learnt so fully as St. Paul would have taught him, that "the world by wisdom knew not God." In the last page of his Trypho there is also a phraseology extremely suspicious. He speaks of a self-determining power in man,† and uses much the same kind of reasoning on the subject of free will as has been fashionable since the days of Arminius. He seems to have been the first of all sincere christians, who introduced this foreign plant into christian ground. I shall call it. foreign till any can prove its right to exist in the soil from scriptural evidence. That which renders it plain, that I do not mistake his meaning is, that he never explicitly owns the doctrine of election, though with happy inconsistency, like some other real christians, he involved it in his experience, and implies it in various parts of his works. But the stranger once admitted was not easily expelled. The language of the church was silently and gradually changed, in this respect, from that more simple and scriptural mode of speaking used by Clement and Ignatius, who knew the election of grace, but not the † αυτεξέσιον. * Socrates: self-determining power of the human will. We shall see hereafter the progress of the evil, and its arrival at full maturity under the fostering hand of Pelagius. CHAPTER IV. The Emperor Marcus Antoninus and his Persecution of the Christians. HE succeeded Pius in the year 161, and appears very soon after to have commenced the persecution against the christians, in which Justin and his friends were slain. It excites a curiosity, not foreign from the design of this history, to see what could be the cause of so much enmity against a people, confessedly harmless, in a prince so considerate, humane, and in general wellintentioned as Marcus is allowed to be, and this too contrary to the example of his predecessor, whose memory he doubtless much revered, from whose intelligent and investigating spirit he must have derived ample information concerning the christians, and whom in all other matters of government he imitated so exactly. The case is this; Marcus Antoninus was all his reign, which continued nineteen years, an implacable persecutor of christians, and this not from mere ignorance of their moral character. He knew them, yet hated them, and shewed them no mercy. He allowed and encouraged the most barbarous treatment of their persons, and was yet himself a person of great humanity of temper, just and beneficent to the rest of mankind; free from all reproach in his general conduct, and in several parts of it a model worthy the imitation of christians. I think it impossible to solve the phenomenon on any other principles than those by which the enmity of many philosophers of old, and of many devotees and exact moralists of modern times against the christian religion, is to be explained. The gospel is not only in its own nature distinct from careless and dissolute vice, but also from the whole religion of philosophers, I mean of those who form to themselves a religion from natural and self-devised sources, either in opposition to or with the neglect of the revealed word of God, and the influence of his Holy Spirit, applying that word to the heart of man. In all ages it will be found that the more strenuously men support such religion, the more vehemently do they hate christianity. Their religion is pride and self-importance, denies the fallen state of man, the provision and efficacy of grace, and the glory of God and the Redeemer. The enmity hence occasioned is obvious. It must be considered then that Marcus Antoninus was of the stoical sect, who carried self-sufficiency to the utmost pitch. He fancied that he carried God within him. Like most of the philosophers he held the doctrine of the Το εν, but he held it in all its detestable impiety and arrogance. With him to be good and virtuous was the easiest thing in the world; it was only to follow nature, and to obey the dictates of the deity, man's own soul, which was divine and self-sufficient. He could not with these views be humble, nor pray earnestly, nor feel his own internal wcikedness and misery, nor bear the idea of a Saviour and Mediator. Had he contented himself with Pius to be a vulgar person in religion, the humanity of his nature, especially if aided by an equally sound understanding, (but of that I have some doubt) would probably have led him, like Pius, to have respected the excellent character and virtues of christians, and he would have felt it his duty to have protected such peaceable and deserving subjects. But the pride of philosophy seems to have been hurt. Whoever has attended to the spirit of his Twelve books of Meditations, and duly compared them with the doctrine of the gospel, must see them to be totally opposite, and will not wonder that christians felt from a serious stoic what might have been expected from a flagitious Nero. Pride and licentiousness are equally condemned by the gospel, and equally seek revenge. If this be a true state of the case, the philosophic spirit, stated as above, howVOL. I. 26 ever differently modified in different ages, will always be inimical to the gospel, and the best of moralists will be found in union with the worst of villains on this subject. "Beware of philosophy," is a precept which as much calls for our attention now as ever. Yet so fascinating is the power of prejudice and education, that many would look on it as a grievous crime to attempt to tear the laurels of virtue from the brows of Marcus Antoninus. Certainly however, had his vir tue been genuine, or at all of a piece with that of the scriptures, he could never have treated christians, as we shall see he did. Yet this is he whom Mr. Pope celebrates in those lines, Who noble ends by noble means obtains, Providence seems however to have determined, that those who, in contradiction to the feelings of human nature, dark and indigent as it is, and needing a heav en-imparted virtue, will yet proudly exalt their own sufficiency, shall be frustrated and put to shame. The latter of these men, with his last breath, gave a sanction to the most absurd idolatry, and the former did such deeds as I almost shudder to relate. It is remarkable that Gataker, the editor of Antoninus' Meditations, represents himself as quite ashamed to behold the superior virtues of this prince, as described in his book, and speaks of himself in the most humiliating terms on this account. Not to insist on this obvious circumstance, that to say and to do are not the same things, and that there is no reason to apprehend that Marcus equalled in practice what he describes in theory, if a comparison were drawn between the author and his commentator with respect to humility, it would be much to the disadvantage of the former. I have not Some readers may perhaps need to be informed that Antoninus was lled Aurelius. studied Marcus Aurelius with so much anxious care as to be assured, from an inspection of the work, that there appear no traces of this virtue in the emperor; but the general turn of the whole book leads me to conclude, that its writer felt no abasing thoughts of himself. In truth, no philosopher (I have already defined in what sense I call men philosophers) ever made such a confession of himself as Gataker does. Such is the effect of some knowledge of christianity on the human mind! If we attend to the notices of history on the education and manners of Marcus, the account which has been given of his enmity against the gospel will be amply confirmed. Adrian had introduced him among the Salian priests when eight years old, and he became accurately versed in the rituals of his priesthood. At twelve he began to wear the philosopher's cloak; he practised austerities, lay on the bare ground, and was with difficulty persuaded by his mother to use a mattress and slight coverlet. He placed in his private chapel gold statues of his deceased masters, and visited their sepulchral monuments, and there offered sacrifices, and strewed flowers. So devoted was he to stoicism, that he attended the schools after he became emperor; and the faith which he put in dreams sufficiently proves his From a man so much lifted superstitious credulity. up by self-sufficiency, bigotry, and superstition, so illiberal a censure as this of the christians* is not matter of surprise. "This readiness (he is speaking of being "resigned to the prospect of death) ought to proceed "from a propriety of deliberate judgment, not from mere unintelligent obstinacy, as is the case of chris"tians, but should be founded on grounds of solid rea"son, and with calm composure, without any tragical raptures, and in such a way as may induce others to "admire and imitate." Had this emperor ever attended to the dying scenes of christians tortured to death by his orders, with any degree of candour and impartiality, he might have seen all these circumstances ex * 11th b. sect. 3d. |