Perhaps it would be instructive to read what follows your cut and paste:
Let us now read Trajan's reply:
You have adopted the proper course, my dear Secundus, in your examination of the cases of those who were accused before you as Christians, for indeed, nothing can be laid down as a general rule involving something like a set form of procedure. They are not to be sought out; but if they are accused and convicted, they must be punished - but on the condition that whoever denies that he is a Christian, and makes the fact plainly by his action, that is, by worshipping our gods, shall obtain pardon on his repentance, however suspicious his past conduct may be. Public accusations by anonymous persons have no place in criminal practice, since they are a bad example and unworthy of our time
.......................................
The tolerant tone of the emperor's reply must be made clear. Here we have a group of (for all purposes in the eyes of the Roman Empire) fanatics who refused to show loyalty to the empire, renounced life on earth (and hence in the Roman Empire) as transient and worthless, and who refused to bear arms in times of war. And Trajan, instead of displaying a furious indignation, which in this case, as emperor, he had every right to, suggested a humane way of handling the Christians. To those arrested and accused; they could not be pardoned unconditionally, as that would affect the stability of the empire; however, should they repent, they should be freed with no questions asked about their past! The whole point is that once they show allegiance to the empire by burning the incense to the gods and the emperor, they had thus proved their patriotism and should be freed; the Romans were not out for Christian blood. Trajan also advised against the use of anonymous testimonies, as surely the accused have a right to know who accused him of the crime. This humane suggestion puts Trajan leaps and bounds, in moral terms, above the medieval Christian inquisitors who, not only allowed anonymous accusations, but actively encouraged it.
In fact, more often than not, the Roman judges used every legal means at their disposal to avoid punishing the Christians. But the Christians, in the morbid need for the reward of martyrdom, more often than not insisted on being sentenced. As an example, take the incident in North Africa around the year 180 where twelve people (nine men and three women) were accused of being Christians. The proconsul Saturninus, who heard the case, pleaded with them to save their own lives:
If you return to your sense you can obtain pardon of our Lord the emperor ... We too are a religious people, and our religion is a simple one: We swear by the divine spirit of our lord the emperor and offer prayers to his health - as you ought to do.
The accused men were indignant and refused to do so. Saturninus, in a last ditch effort, gave them thirty days to think things over. After that time, they still refused to budge. The proconsul had no choice but to have them executed. Upon receiving the death sentence some of them yelled out: "We thank God!", "Today we are martyrs in heaven, thanks be to God!"
Not only do these Christians zealously demanded execution upon trail, some of them, hard put to find someone to accuse them, went to the tribunal of magistrates, declared themselves Christians and demanded the sentence of the law. We have testimony of earlier the church father Tertullian (c160-c225) of one such case in a small Asiatic town. The whole Christian population of that town, seeking death and martyrdom, went to the proconsul Antoninus to demand punishment. Unable to comprehend such an attitude, Antoninus told the Christians: "Unhappy men! Unhappy men! If you are thus weary of your lives, is it so difficult for you to find ropes and precipices?" Of course, suicide doesn't count for martyrdom, so the crowd insisted on punishment. Antoninus relented, put a few to death and dismissed the others. |
