There is abundant evidence to show that the party of enthusiasts, both those who offered themselves for martyrdom, and those who aided and abetted their more impulsive brethren, were a comparatively small body in the Church of Spain; and that their proceedings awakened little short of dismay in the minds of the more sensible portion of the Christian community, both in the Arab part of Spain, and perhaps in a less degree in the free North.[2] The chief leaders of the party of zealots--as far as we find mention of them--were Saul, bishop of Cordova (850-861), Eulogius, and Samson, abbot of the monastery of Pegnamellar; while Reccafredus, bishop of Seville, and Hostegesis of Malaga, were the prominent ecclesiastics on the other side.

[1] Ibn Khatib, apud Dozy, ii. 210.

[2] Yonge, p. 63.

Before relating what steps the latter took in conjunction with the Moslem authorities to put down the dangerous outbreak of fanaticism, it will be interesting to note what was the att.i.tude of the different sections of the Church towards the misguided men who gave themselves up to death, and their claims to the crown of martyrdom. Those who denied the validity of these claims, rested their contention on the grounds, that the so-called martyrs had compa.s.sed their own destruction, there being no persecution at the time; that they had worked no miracles in proof of their high claims; that they had been slain by men who believed in the true G.o.d; that they had suffered an easy and immediate death; and that their bodies had corrupted like those of other men.

It was an abuse of words, said the party of moderation, to call these suicides by the holy name of martyrs, when no violence in high places had forced them to deny their faith,[1] or interfered with their due observance of Christianity. It was merely an act of ostentatious pride--and pride was the root of all evil--to court danger. Such conduct had never been enjoined by Christ, and was quite alien from the meekness and humility of His character.[2]

They might have added that such voluntary martyrdoms had been expressly condemned,

(_a._) By the circular letter of the Church of Smyrna to the other churches, describing Polycarp's martyrdom, in the terms: "We commend not those who offer themselves of their own accord, for that is not what the gospel teacheth us:"[3]

(_b._) By St Cyprian,[4] who, when brought before the consul and questioned, said "our discipline forbiddeth that any should offer themselves of their own accord;" and in his last letter he says: "Let none of you offer himself to the pagans, it is sufficient if he speak when apprehended:"

(_c._) By Clement of Alexandria: "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:"[5]

(_d._) Implicitly by the synod of Elvira, or Illiberis (_circa_ 305), one of the canons of which forbade him to be ranked as a martyr, who was killed on the spot for breaking idols:

(_e._) By Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, who, when consulted on the question of reducing the immense lists of acknowledged martyrs, gave it as his opinion that those should be first excluded who had courted martyrdom.[6] One bishop alone, and he a late one, Benedict XIV. of Rome,[7] has ventured to approve what the Church has condemned. Nor is this the only instance in which the Roman Church has set aside the decisions of an earlier Christendom.

[1] Eul., "Mem. Sanct.," i., sec. 18, "Quos nulla praesidalis violentia fidem suam negare compulit, nec a cultu sanctae piaeque religionis amovit:" sec. 23, "Quos liberalitas regis suum incolere iusserat Christianismum."

[2] Quoting such texts as Matt. v. 44, "Bless them that curse you, and pray for them that despitefully use you:" Pet. ii. 23, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake."

[3] Eusebius iv. 15. See Neander, i. p. 150. (A.D. 167.)

[4] Martyred 258.

[5] See Long's "M. Aurelius Antoninus," Introd., p. 21.

[6] Burton's "History of the Christian Church," p. 336.

[7] 1740-1748: in his "De Servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione," Bk. iii. 16, sec. 7. Fleury, v. 541.

The charges against the zealots were twofold, that there had been no persecution worthy of the name, such as to justify their doings, and that those doings themselves were contrary to the teaching and spirit of Christianity. The latter part of the charge has already been dealt with, and may be considered sustained. As to the other part, the apologists, it must be confessed, answer with a very uncertain sound. Sometimes, indeed, they deny it point-blank:[1] "as if," says Eulogius, "the destruction of our churches,[2] the insults heaped upon our clergy, the monthly tax[3] which we pay, the perils of a hard life, lived on sufferance, are nothing." These insults and affronts are continually referred to. "No one," says the same author,[4] "can go out or come in amongst us in security, no one pa.s.s a knot of Moslems in the street without being treated with contumely. They mock at the marks[5] of our order. They hoot at us and call us fools and vain. The very children jeer at us, and even throw stones and potsherds at the priests. The sound of the church-going bell[6] never fails to evoke from Moslem hearers the foulest and most blasphemous language. They even deem it a pollution to touch a Christian's garment." Alvar adds that the Moslems would fall to cursing when they saw the cross;[7] and when they witnessed a burial according to Christian rites, would say aloud, "Shew them no mercy, O G.o.d," throwing stones withal at the Lord's people, and defiling their ears with the filthiest abuse.[8] "Yet," he indignantly exclaims, "you say that this is not a time of persecution; nor is it, I answer, a time of apostles. But I affirm that it is a deadly time[9] ...

are we not bowed beneath the yoke of slavery, burdened with intolerable taxes, spoiled of our goods, lashed with the scourges of their abuse, made a byword and a proverb, aye, a spectacle to all nations?"[10]

[1] Eul., "Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 21: Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec.

3.

[2] _Ibid._; and Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 7.

[3] Leovigild, "De habitu Clericorum." "Migne," 121, p. 565.

[4] Eul., l.l.

[5] Stigmata.

[6] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 6, "Derisioni et contemptui inhiantes capita moventes infanda iterando congeminant." He adds: "Daily and nightly from their minarets they revile the Lord by their invocation of Allah and Mohammed!" Eul., "Lib.

Ap.," sec. 19, confesses that hearing their call to prayer always moved him to quote Psalm xcvi. 7: "Confounded be all they that worship carved images"--a very irrelevant malediction, as applied to the Moslems.

[7] Alvar, l.l., "Fidei signum opprobrioso elogio decolorant."

[8] "Spurcitiarum fimo."--_Ibid._

[9] "Mortiferum."--"Ind. Lum.," sec. 3.

[10] Alvar, "Ind. Lum.," sec. 31, gives us a very savage picture of the Moslem character: "Sunt in superbia tumidi, in tumore cordis elati, in delectatione carnalium operum fluidi, in comestione superflui ... sine misericordia crudeles, sine iust.i.tia invasores, sine honore absque veritate, benignitatis nescientes affectum ... humilitatem velut insaniam deridentes, cast.i.tatem velut spurcitiam respuentes."

That there was a certain amount of social ill-treatment, and that the lower cla.s.ses of Moslems did not take any pains to conceal their dislike and scorn of such Christian beliefs and rites as were at variance with their own creed, and moreover regarded priests and monks with especial aversion, there can be no doubt. But, on the other hand, there is no want of evidence to show that the condition of the Christians was by no means so bad as the apologists would have us suppose. Petty annoyances could not fail to exist anywhere under such circ.u.mstances, as were actually to be found in Spain at this time, and we may be sure that the Christian priests in particular did not bear themselves with that humility which might have ensured a mitigation of the annoyances.

Organised opposition to Christianity, unless the Moslem rule can itself be called such, there was none, till it was called into being by the action of the fanatics themselves. But apart from all the other facts which point to this conclusion, we can call the apologists themselves in evidence that there was no real persecution going on at the time of the first martyrdoms.

Eulogius[1] admits that the Christians were not let or hindered in the free exercise of their religion by saying that this state of things[2]

was not due to the forbearance (forsooth!) of the Moslems, but to the Divine mercy. Alvar, too, in a pa.s.sage which seems to contradict the whole position which he is trying to defend, says[3]:--"Though many were the victims of persecution, very many others--and you cannot deny it--offered themselves a voluntary sacrifice to the Lord. Is it not clear that it was not the Arabs who began persecuting, but we who began preaching? Read the story of the martyrs, and you will see that they rushed voluntarily on their fate, not waiting the bidding of persecutors, nor the snares of informers; aye, and--what is made so strong a charge against them--that they tired out the forbearance of their rulers and princes by insult upon insult."[4]

[1] "Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 29.

[2] Viz., "Quod inter ipsos sine molestia fidei degimus."

[3] "Ind. Lum.," sec. 3.

[4] "Fatiga.s.se praesides et principes multis contumeliis."--_Ibid._

As to the other part of the accusation, that voluntary martyrs were no martyrs, Eulogius could only declaim against the Scriptures quoted by his opponents,[1] and refer to the morally blind, who make evil their good, and take darkness to be their light;[2] while he brought forward a saying of certain wise men that "those martyrs will hold the first rank in the heavenly companies who have gone to their death unsummoned."[3]

He also sought to defend the practice of reviling Mohammed by the plea that exorcism was allowed against the devil, which is sufficiently ridiculous; but Alvar goes further, and calmly a.s.sures us that these insults and revilings of the prophet were merely a form of preaching[4]

to the poor benighted Moslems, navely remarking that the Scriptures affirm that the Gospel of Christ must be preached to all nations.

Whereas, then, the Moslems had not been preached to, these martyred saints had taken upon themselves the sacred duty of rendering them "debtors to the faith."

The second count[5] against the martyrs was that they had worked no miracles--a serious deficiency in an age when miracles were almost the test of sanct.i.ty. Eulogius[6] could only meet the charge by admitting the fact, but adding that miracles were frequent in the early ages, in order to establish Christianity on a firm basis; and that the constancy of the martyrs was in itself a miracle (which was true, but not to the point). Had he been content with this, he had done wisely; but he goes on: "Moreover, miracles are no sign of truth, as even the unbelievers can work them."[7] Now, by trying to show why these martyrs did not perform any miracles, he admits by implication that they were deficient in this particular;[8] and yet in other parts of his work he mentions miracles performed by these very martyrs, as, for instance, by Isaac, and by Flora, and Maria.[9] So that the worthy priest is placed in this dilemma: If miracles are really no sign of truth, why attribute them to the martyrs, when, as is allowed elsewhere, they were unable to work them? if, on the other hand, they did perform these miracles, why not adduce them in evidence against the detractors?

[1] Eul., "Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 19.

[2] Isaiah v. 20.

[3] Eul., "Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 24. Taken from some "Acts of the Saints," probably those of SS. Emetherius and Caledonius--a book obviously of no authority.

[4] "Ind. Lum.," sec. 10, "In hac Israelitica gente nullus hactenus exst.i.tit praedicator, per quod debitores fidei tenerentur. Isti enim (_i.e._, the martyrs) apostolatus vicem in eosdem et evangelicam praedicationem impleverunt, eosque fidei debitores reddiderunt."

[5] Eul., "Mem. Sanct.," i. 13.

[6] "Lib. Apol.," sec 7.

[7] "Lib. Apol.," sec. 10.

[8] Cp. "Mem. Sanct.," i. sec. 13.

[9] "Mem. Sanct.," Pref., sec. 4.