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