enemies. However the writings of many Gentile philofophers, who were enemies to Christianity, have been more or less transmitted. Such are those of Maximus Tyrius, Marcus Antoninus Philofophus, Celfus, Plotinus, Porphyry, Philostratus, Julian, Libanius, Hierocles, Jamblichus, Eunapius, Proclus. These collectively would amount to many volumes; and were all preserved by Christians.

Of the great Injustice and Inhumanity both of Pliny, and Trajan, farther confidered.

A very worthy perfon, and an elegant * writer, has mentioned, that, if we impartially examine the prefent inftance of the perfecution of the Chriftians, we shall find it to have been grounded on the ancient conftitution of the flate; and not to have proceeded from an arbitrary and intolerant Spirit in Trajan. And he says, that Livy mentions it as an eftablished principle of the earlier ages of the commonwealth, to guard against the introduc

* Mr. Melmoth, in his tranflation of Pliny's Epiftles. See Vol. ii. Letter 99. p. 306, 7.

tion of foreign ceremonies of religion. * For nothing could be more prejudicial to the religion of a country, than a foreign mode of facrificing. He adds-Upon the whole then it appears evident, that these primitive Chrif tians, deeply impressed with the evidence of the holy religion, they profeffed, nobly dared at all hazard to render themselves obnoxious, not particularly indeed to Trajan, but to the ancient, and intolerant laws of the ftate, by refufing to join in communion with the established worship; and by holding their meetings at a fufpicious hour of the night: which by Pliny, from whom he copies, is ftiled-ante lu

cem.

I am obliged to diffent from this learned perfon almost in every article.

1. In the first place, it was impoffible for thefe perfecutions to have been grounded upon the ancient conftitution of the Roman ftate; or any mode of acting peculiar to that city. For how could the police of Rome, and its ancient institutes, affect people of Bithy

nihil æque diffolvendæ religionis effe, quam cum non patrio, fed externo, ritu facrificaretur. L. xxxix. c. 16. P. 578. Var.

nia, or of Pontus: of Syria, Egypt, or Gaul? They all worshipped their particular deities and the Romans never in any one inftance interfered. The evidence from Livy is not in the least to the purpose.

2. These ancient Chriftians, fo far from nobly daring at all hazard to render themfelves obnoxious, did every thing in their power to prevent it. They met in fecret, and performed their worship in their (VTEρwa) highest rooms, to avoid giving offence.

3. For this very reason they rofe, as Pliny tells us (ante lucem) before day-light : which is very improperly rendered-a fufpicious hour of the night: Thousands must have arisen to their occupations at the fame season (tempore antelucano) and have been blameless.

4. Their behaviour was undoubtedly noble but they did not difplay it by any wilful oppofition to the law. They shewed it by patience, and refignation, and an implicit obedience in all things, that could be legally and reasonably demanded: and laftly

laftly by fuffering death, rather than give their religion, and deny their Saviour.

up

5. They were guilty of no breach of law in affembling together. For there was no law against them, when they were at first fo cruelly used by Pliny, and Trajan. The particular prohibitions quoted related, as I have before faid, to the immediate police of ancient Rome, and not to Pontus or Bithynia.

6. Their innocence in this refpect is farther apparent. For neither Pliny, nor Trajan, accused them of any crime against the state, nor breach of any law, nor of any crime whatever. Not one word to this purpose is intimated: but quite the contrary. Had there been the leaft grounds for complaint, we should have had the allegation at large.

7. It was forbidden, according to Livy, to introduce any foreign ceremonies or facrifices. But the Christians used no foreign facrifices, not even in Bithynia: nor did they facrifice at all. This ancient law could not in any degree affect them. All that is quoted to this purpose is incompetent.

8. Nor had they any ceremonies, of which they could juftly be accused. They were baptized, or in other words, dipped in water and they at ftated times partook of bread and wine: and at other times broke bread: all which were circumftances common to every Roman, and to people of every nation. What mental reverence they might entertain at fuch feafons was fecret, and could not therefore be an object of notice; much less of any law or edict.

9. Nor were they accused of introducing any new gods. On the contrary they were from their spiritual mode of worship esteemed in general atheists. Of this cruel imputation the fathers continually * complain.

10. When the author fays, that the Chriftians-rendered themfelves obnoxious by refufing to join in communion with the established worship, an unwary reader might be led to think, that the Romans had an uniform mode of worship; and a ritual, like thofe in the different Chriftian churches,

* Athenag. Legat. § iii. p. 282. Justin Martyr. Apolog. 1. § vi. p. 47.

to